The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About004-90 Twin Lakes - Loggia Develop. Corp. - Backfile (4)RECEIPT t%' 022692 • AMOUNT DUE $ 10,2,t,I, 2 AMOUNT PAID $ IU,2c,l,-7.!� BALANCE DUE $ PAID BY CASH 'CHECK ^� 1�� ,1 OTHER 'Y FREDRCK COUNTY DEPT. OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 601 • 9 COURT SQURRE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 2260i • (703) 665-5651 ADDRESS THE SUM OF /�� CF DOLLARS $ -An OA, TIMERS RE -ORDER No. 3221 — P,aad in USA (1-000/A MrVELOPAOW) ,TO & 59UL MAOJ (301) 98�- 7MO (-r6wfA DE'VELnp) (aoa) ago- ,4BoO REZONING CHECKLIST The application is not complete if the following are not present: Submission Package *qo 1. Comment sheets from the following agencies along with any marked copies of the plan: �f VDOT City of Winchester Co. San. Auth. Co. Hlth. Dept. Inspections Dept. Parks & Rec. Fire Marshall 24 q Airport Authority County Attorney y qon) 2. application form 6. taxes paid statement 3. location map 7. sign received 4. survey 8. fees paid 5. deed 9. impact analysis 10. proffer statement TRACKING UUD ,,A�}T 1 -` -qO Application Received NIL Rezoning forwarded to consulting engineer, if required. Consultation held with planning staff 14-12, Rezoning reviewed by Zoning Review Committee 4-113-70 Adjoiner notifications mailed for PC public hearing -� Tahlcd.. 4,o //G o Rezoning heard by PC .7 r4bie& to 9 5 0 Public hearing date set by BOS i ,Ordinance of amendment with conditions proffered prepared for BOS Adjoiner notifications mailed for BOS public hearing Rezoning heard by BOS Zoning map amended Rezoning records updated l7 PROFFER STATEMENT Re: Twin Lakes LOGGIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Date: August 30, 1990 (Revised) Pursuant to Section 15.1-491(a) of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended), and the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of Frederick County, Virginia, Loggia Development Corporation herein called "Applicant," owner of that certain parcel of land containing four hundred (400) acres and described in detail in the submissions filed herewith, hereby proffers that said parcel of land shall be developed in accordance with the following conditions, if the rezoning application is granted and the property is rezoned to RP and B-2 in accordance with the attached Generalized Development Plan. These proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect if rezoning is not granted. These proffers shall be binding upon the Applicant or its legal successor or assigns. 1. The development of the subject property shall be in general conformance with the Generalized Development Plan submitted herewith. 2. The Applicant agrees to conform generally ,to the landscape plan to be submitted prior to final Board action on the application. 3. The Applicant will provide on -site recreational amenities, including a lake, parks and open space as shown on the Generalized Development Plan. In addition to the recreation facilities required by the zoning ordiance the Applicant will proffer further on site recreational facilities to be illustrated on the Master Plan with a total proffer value of $1,171,000.00, or an additional $900.00 per lot, as follows: 1 Soccer Field 0 $246,000* ea. _ $246,00.00 2 Tennis Courts @ $48,000* ea. _ $96,000.00 1 Play & Picnic Area 0 $205,000* ea. _ $205,000.00 2 Softball Fields @ $312,000* ea. _ $624,000.00 Total $1,171,000.00 (Source: Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation) 4. All streets within the development shall be fully dedicated public streets. 5. The Applicant shall design and construct all streets and roads on the subject property consistently with the County's adopted thoroughfare plan for the area, and according to uniform standards established by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and as may be provided in these proffers. 6. The total number of dwelling units shall no: exceed one thousand three hundred (1,300). The unit mix shall consist of six hundred fifty (650) single family homes and six hundred fifty (650) townhouses. 7. A development phasing plan shall be submitted during the Master Development Plan process, in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Phasing as shown on the said Master Plan shall be accomplished such that no more than fifteen percent (15%) of the total permitted dwelling units, in any combination of single-family or townhouse units, may be constructed in later years. 8. The Applicant proffers that it shall dedicate, design and construct a two lane road connecting Route 7 to Senseny Road, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan with a sixty foot (60') right-of-way in the area designated in the Transportation Plan as a Major Collector, for inclusion in the State Highway System of Secondary Highways. 9. The Applicant shall provide a phasing plan for the construction of the road and a landscape plan for the entire length of the road which shall be submitted to and approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. The phasing plan shall provide for the completion of the connection from Senseny Road to Route 7 within one year of the transfer of the 180th lot accessed by Senseny Road. 10. The Applicant proffers to identify and use its best efforts to preserve significant woodland and mature trees on the subject property in the design, layout and construction of all development. 11. The Applicant agrees that it shall employ all reasonable Best Management Practices in connection with the development of the subject property. 12. The Applicant shall contribute One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for each townhouse lot and One Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($1,400.00) for each single family lot approved, as building permits are issued for the construction of each dwelling unit or as such lot is sold to a developer for construction, whichever is sooner. The Applicant shall pay the per unit contribution to the School Board or to a fund set or designated by Frederick County to receive said contribution. To ensure payment of this prorata contribution, the Applicant, at his cost through the County staff, shall record an instrument creating a lien against each lot upon approval of the zoning application. The lien against each lot shall be released upon the payment of the contribution for each lot. • 13. The Applicant shall dedicate as indicated in its Generalized Development Plan, a one hundred fifty foot (150') wide right-of-way for the future alignment of Route 37 called for in the Transportation Plan. 14. The Applicant shall make a contribution of Seventy -Five Dollars ($75.00) per lot to the County for regional parks and recreation. This contribution shall be guaranteed and paid in the same manner as provided for the School Board in paragraph 12 above. 15. The Applicant shall make a contribution of Seventy -Five Dollars ($75.00) per lot to the Greenwood Fire Station. In addition,applicant shall proffer $25,000.00 towards a new ambulance for Greenwood's Life Safety unit. Said proffer will be paid at the transfer of the first lot. This contribution shall be guaranteed and paid in the same manner as provided for the School Board in paragraph 12 above. 16. The Applicant shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 7 and the proposed collector road when warranted. 17. The Applicant will reserve for future dedication a ten (10) foot strip along its southern boundary line for future widening of Senseny Road when required. 18. The applicant shall construct on site a "regional" wastewater pumping station at an appropriate location on site as shown in the impact analysis. This pump station, force main and upstream gravity interceptor sewer system will have the capability to serve the attendant 1200 acre drainage area, all of which is within the urban development area of the county comprehensive plan. This system will serve the additional 800 acres by initially allowing the two aging existing sewage pump stations to be taken off line. The $415,000 cost of this system will be borne by the applicant, although 2/3 of the capacity will be unneeded for this development. 0 0 4800 l.f. interceptor ® $50/ft. 1-LS 100,000 3000' Force Main @ $25/ft. Total Cost of Facility Amount of Proffer $240,000 $100,000 75,000 $415,000 $278,000 19) The applicant shall construct watermains on site as necessary to link Va. Route 7 and the regional wastewater treatment plant with FCSA water supply and fire protection services, which exist now on Senseny Road. 20) The Applicant shall proffer to construct curb, gutter, and sidewalks to the extent the Planning Commission deems it necessary at Master Plan approval. The Applicant hereby proffers that the development of the subject property of this application shall be in strict accordance with the conditions set forth in this submission. The Applicant further represents that it is the owner of all the property included within this application and that the signatures below constitute all the necessary signatures of record owners of the property to subject and land within this application to these proffers. These proffers shall be binding upon the Applicant, its successors and assigns. GIVEN under my hand this 31 _day of ,1990. LOGGIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BY: 7 THE TOWER COMPANIES I.,i11 Ili i i ii B1 I III �n\. Al vi:) i vvI) 20895 TEL. 301.9,� 1.7()UU 1,.\z 301.984.6033 JOHN D. SHULMAN June 28, 1993 � UuNygq, . ; AND 0EVE10SENT fNr Mr. Kris Tierney Department of Planning and Development of Frederick County P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Kris: This is to confirm that we would like to withdraw our rezoning application for the property known as "Twin Lakes". We have no ownership position in any of the properties that comprised the Twin Lakes project at this time. ()Jo cere , n D. Shulman ector of Leasing and Development JDS/kel 0 /� ,e V - 90 ['38 July 1, 1993 Mr. John Shulman, Director of Leasing and Development The Tower Companies 11501 Huff Court Bethesda, Maryland 20895 RE: Twin Lakes Rezoning Application Dear John: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planninb and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 Thank you for your June 28th letter withdrawing your rezoning application for the Twin Lakes project. This will allow us to free up some room in our files. In response to your request during our phone conversation I am enclosing a copy of the rezoning application. Again, thank you for your prompt response. Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Planning Director KCT/slk enclosure 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 �Z i COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 July 1, 1993 Mr. Thomas B. Throckmorton Scully, Throckmorton & Glass Attorneys at Law 20 South Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Pending Twin Lakes Rezoning Application Dear Tom: I am writing to follow up on our phone conversation of June 29. As I mentioned, Frederick County still has a rezoning application pending for the Twin Lakes project which was submitted in April of 1990. Attached is a letter from John Shulman of the Tower Companies which states they wish to withdraw their application. This letter was sent at my request, following a phone conversation in which I inquired about the intentions of the Tower Companies concerning the still pending rezoning. Also in our file is a letter from you to Robert Watkins dated February 26, 1992 in which you state that the contract between the Haggertys and the Tower Companies has been terminated. You further request that any contacts between the County Planning and Development office concerning the Haggerty portion of the application be made through your office. For this reason, I would like to request that. you notify us of the Haggertys' desires concerning the application. If they do not intend to pursue the application, we would appreciate an official request to withdraw it so that we may close out our file. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Planning Director KCT/rsa Attachment 9 North Loudoun Street Winchester, VA 22601 P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22604 T THE T O W E R COMPANIES 11301 HUFF COURT NoRiH BETHESDA. \1 \ft\ I_\ND 20893 TEL. 301.984.7000 FAX 301.984.6033 JOHN D. SHULMAN June 28, 1993 n. h, Mr. Kris Tierney Department of Planning and Development of Frederick County P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Kris: This is to confirm that we would like to withdraw our rezoning application for the property known as "Twin Lakes". We have no ownership position in any of the properties that comprised the Twin Lakes project at this time. a ere , D. Shulman ctor of Leasing and Development JDS/kel T THE TOWER COMPANIES 11501 HUFF COURT NORTH BETI{ESDA. MARYLAND 20393 TEL. 301.984.7000 FAx 301.984.6033 JOHN D. SHULMAN April 9, 1991 Mr. Robert Watkins Director Frederick County Planning & Development 9-North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 22601 Winchester, Virginia Dear Bob: Regarding the proposed Twin Lakes rezoning that we filed last year, I respectfully request that we extend the table period indefinitely. As we discussed, there are numerous issues surrounding this project that need further study. I believe it would be in both our interests to delay any action on this zoning effort until the facts are more clear. JDS/kl c5[-�UvL9 APR 1 5 I Sincere John D. Shulman Abland IV General Partner Twin Lakes Associates SCULLY, THROCKMORTON & GLASS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 20 SOUTH KENT STREET WINCHES=R, VIRGINIA 22601 THOMAS G. SCULLY THOMAS B. THROCKMORTON GEORGE W. R. GLASS EDWIN B. YOST February 26, 1992 HARRIETTE CAMPBELL BROWN' 'ADMITTED IN D.C. & VA. Mr. Robert Watkins Director of Planning & Development for Frederick County 9 North Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Rezoning Application 004-90 Twin Lakes Development (Haggerty Land) Dear Bob: P.O. BOX 3038 (703) 667-6900 FAX (703) 722-3544 As I have told you previously, I represent the Haggerty family in connection with the sale of their land in Frederick County, which land is an integral part of the proposed Twin Lakes Development. The Haggertys previously entered into a Real Estate Sales Contract with Loggia Development Corporation for the sale of such property. Thereafter, Loggia submitted a development plan to rezone the Haggerty property and two other properties to RP and B-2. Loggia's interest in the contract with the Haggertys was subsequently assigned to The Tower Companies of Bethesda Maryland. The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the contract between the Haggertys and Loggia Development Corporation (and subsequently The Tower Companies) has been terminated in accord with the terms set forth therein. For that reason, the Loggia Development Corporation and The Tower Companies no longer represent the interests of the Haggertys in the rezoning application now pending in your office. We ask that in the future, all contacts from your office with respect to the Haggerty portion of the application be directed through me. Conversely, since Loggia and The Tower Companies no longer have an interest in the Haggerty land, please do not accept any further input from them on behalf of the Haggerty property with respect to either the Master Development Plan process, phasing, proffers, phasing, contributions, etc. until further notice. Any and all future input with respect to the rezoning of the Haggerty property will be initiated by the Haggerty family either directly with your office, or through this office. Mr. Robert Watkins February 26, 1992 Page Two If you have any questions concerning the import of this letter, I would appreciate it if you would contact me at your earliest convenience. I look forward to working with you in the future. Very truly yours, Thomas B. T ockmorton TBT/lml cc: Mr. John Haggerty Ms. Alice Haggerty Mr. Edward D. Haggerty The Tower Companies PC review 7/18/90 PC review 8/1/90 PC review 9/5/90 REZONING APPLICATION #004-90 TWIN LAKES Rezone 5.1 acres From RA (Rural Areas) to B-2 (Business General) and Rezone 391.35 Acres From RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) LOCATION: Eastern Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of the City of Winchester and bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek and to the south by Senseny Road MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee TAX MAP & PARCEL NUMBER: Tax map 55, parcels 209-0, 212-0, 211- 0, 213-0, Tax Map 65, parcels 40-0, 39-0, 36-0 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RA (Rural Areas) ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Vacant and residential uses zoned RP, Residential Performance and RA, Rural Areas PROPOSED USE: Single family -detached homes (650), townhouses (650), school site and commercial. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Health Dept.: No objections as long as central utilities - water and sewer - provided. Fire Marshal: No problem with project. eenwood Fire Co.: See attached letter. Va. Dept. of Transportation: No overall objections to the rezoning of this property. However, we are concerned with the traffic the proposed development could generate, especially on the western sections of Senseny Road (route 657). The Impact Statement and Traffic Analysis have been forwarded on to our District Office for review, therefore, additional comments may be forth coming. Inspections Dept.: This request for rezoning approval shall comply to Use Group "R" Residential Section 309.0 of the BOCA National Building Code 111987". Approval for school site shall comply to Use Group "E" Educational Section 304.0 of the BOCA National Building Code 111987". The approval for Commercial Site shall be determined at time of plans review for the proper Use Group of the BOCA National Building Code 111987". Sanitation Authority: See comments attached. Parks and Recreation: See comments attached. Regional Airport: See attached comments. Frederick Co. Schools: See attached comments. Planning & Zoning: The following issues should be considered: Location: The site is located in the urban development area designated by the Comprehensive Plan. Land zoned RP is located in the immediate vicinity to the northwest and southeast of the site. The site has frontage on Senseny Road. Site Suitability: Most of the site is gently rolling with steep slopes along Opequon Creek and the tributary steam that runs through the central portions of the site. Over a third of the site is wooded with areas of mature forest. No prime agricultural soils are located on the site. Sewer and water mains are available a various points adjoining the site. Impacts: The applicant has provided a detailed impact analysis and has proffered a general development plan. The applicant has proffered that there will be no more than 650 townhouses and 650 single family dwellings. The following potential impacts should be considered: Environmental: Concerns could be expressed for drainage impacts on Opequon Creek and its tributaries. Impacts on existing woodland are also of concern. The applicant proffers to use Best Management Practices to protect water quality. The applicant proffers to use "its best efforts" to preserve significant woodlands. Although that proffer is not well defined, there are requirements in the Zoning Ordinance that certain percentages of mature woodlands remain undisturbed. Traffic: A substantial traffic impact analysis has been provided. There will be three entrance to the proposed development site, one on Route 7 and two on Senseny Road. The analysis projects that at full build out, the site will generate 13,332 average daily trips. It projects that 60% of those trips will be to Route 7 and 20% will be to Senseny Road. The analysis suggests that with full build out a good level of service "A" will be maintained at the entrances on Senseny Road. It projects that a good level of service "B" will be provided at the 0 • entrance to Route 7 if that applicant has proffered to 7 when warranted. entrance is signalized. The construct the signal on Route The applicant has proffered to provide roads in conformance with the County's General Road Plan. The Major Collector connecting Senseny Road to Route 7 is proffered with a 60 foot right of way and to be constructed with two lanes. It is proffered that the Major Collector will be completed within one year of the transfer of the 260th lot accessed by Senseny Road. Design of the connection with Route 7 will be completed at the time of sale of the first 20% of the lots and construction of the connection shall be complete at the time of sale of 50% of the lots. The applicant also proffers to provide a 150 foot right of way for a future Route 37 extension as shown on the proffered development plan. The applicant has proffered to dedicate a ten foot strip for widening of Senseny Road. The current traffic count on Senseny Road in the vicinity of the site is 3,813 average daily trips. It is projected that without the rezoning the traffic on Senseny Road will be 5,720 in 1997. The analysis projects that the rezoning and full build out will result in over 8,500 average daily trips on Senseny Road by 1997, an increase of 2,780 average daily trips. Studies by the staff suggest that the capacity of a two lane road such as Senseny Road does not exceed 7,500 average daily trips and is probably less. According to the analysis provided, the signalization of the Senseny Road/Greenwood Road intersection will be warranted by 1997 without the proposed development. If it is signalized, the development traffic will result in a level of service "B" at that intersection. The segment of Senseny Road from Winchester to Greenwood Road is project number 18 on the major road improvement plan in the Six Year Secondary Road Plan. The segment from Greenwood Road to Clarke County is number 24. VDOT has not scheduled funding for this project within the next six years. The provision of a major collector connecting Senseny Road to Route 7 will greatly lessen potential impacts on Senseny Road. However, it is important to note that a major collector is something that is normally provided in a development of this size. It would probably not been necessary to proffer it but would have been required in any case. The provision of right of way for Route 37 should be considered to be beyond what is normal for this type of development. Concern should be expressed concerning the remaining impacts on Senseny Road. Means need to be found to accelerate an improvement program for that road. The proffers proposed would allow substantial impacts on Senseny Road to occur before the connection to Route 7 is made. It is our understanding of the proffers that 650 dwellings could be constructed before the connection to Route 7 is provided. This suggests that there could be significant adverse impacts on Senseny Road before the connection to Route 7 is made. It should be noted that the traffic analysis was based on fewer than the 1,300 dwellings proffered. This suggests that impacts will be somewhat greater than projected. Schools: The impact analysis projects that the full development will result in the following additional school students. Elementary 323 Middle School 146 High School 192 Total 661 The analysis projects the following gross costs for providing school facilities for the projected students: Townhouses $4,039 Single Family $6,968 The following proffers have been proposed to address the school impacts: Percent of Proffer Gross Costs Townhouses $ 800 19.8% Single Family $1,200 17.2% Preliminary studies by the staff suggest that the actual net impacts of new residences on school facilities after accounting for revenue generation and other factors is greater than 17-19% of the gross costs. The applicant justifies smaller net impacts by projecting that the per dwelling revenues produced by the project will be 35% greater than the County average. This is based on the projection that the price of the dwellings will be higher than the average for the County. Concern should be expressed that there are no guarantees that the units provided will be of above average price. The staff would contend that the County should be careful to insure that the impacts are adequately addressed. Concern should also be expressed for the provision of cash proffers in association with building permits. Parks and Recreation: The impact analysis projects that full build out of the site as proposed will result in an overall population increase of 2,784 people. To the extent that these people will use County supported recreational and athletic programs, there will be an impact on the County's regional parks. The Department of Parks and Recreation has projected gross cost impacts of $368 per person. The following describes the projected impact per housing unit: Gross Person per Unit Impact Townhouse 1.9 $699 Single Family 2.6 $956 The applicant has proffered to provide $50 per unit'for recreational impacts. This would represent 7% of the gross cost impact for townhouses and 5 % of the gross cost impact for single family dwellings. The staff would suggest that the net impacts, after considering revenues to be produced, have not been adequately addressed. Emergency Services: The applicant has not projected any specific impacts and the staff has not developed any measures for such impacts. However, the development will have some impact on the need for fire and rescue facilities and equipment. Sewer and Water: The Sanitation Authority disagrees with some of the sewage generation figures in the impact analysis. They suggest further discussion on such issues. Conclusions: The site is located in the urban development area and is adjacent to existing RP zoning. The staff has concerns that impacts on schools, parks, emergency services, and Senseny Road have not been adequately addressed at this time. NOTE (JUNE 28, 1990): The applicant has revised the proffers as follows: Previously proffered to provide connection from Senseny Road to Route 7 within one year of the transfer of the 260th lot. Now proffers to provide connection within one year of the 180th lot. Previously proffered $800 per townhouse and $1,000 per single family dwelling for schools. Now proffers $1,000 per townshouse and $1,400 per single family dwelling. The applicant has added a proffer to bear the current budgeted costs of the Frederick County Little League Baseball Uniforms for the 1991 season. The applicant has added a proffer of $50 per lot to the Greenwood Fire Station. An additional comment from the Fire Company has been received suggesting that the impacts will be greater. In the view of the staff, this does not substantially lessen the concerns about the potential impacts of the development. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MAY 2, 1990 P/C MTG. Denial PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR JULY 18, 1990: Tabled to 8/1/90. Mr. Robert W . Watkins P. 0. Box 601 Winchester, VA 226.01 Dear Mr. Watkins: ALlgust 27, 1990 RE: Twin Lakes Loggia Development This letter is in reference to the rezoning application for Twin Lakes on Senseny Road. The applicant, Loggia Development Corporaton has assigned its contract to purchase the assembled land to The Tower Companies of Bethesda, Maryland. Loggia Development Corporation will remain involved in the development of the property as a fee paid consultant. At the instruction of The Tower Companies, I am sending you the following brief introduction of the company to provide you with a overview of the strengths, qualities and e:>:perience that the new contract owner will provide to the proposed development. The Tower Companies, which began as Tower Construction Company over thirty-five years ago, is a leading real estate developer and management company in the Washington, D. C. Metropolitan area. Through various ventures, Tower developed, and now manages and operates approximately 3,50C> apartment units and two regional shopping centers, White Flint Mall and Landover Mall. In addition, the Company has developed more than 3,000,000 square feet of office space in the Washington, Maryland and Virginia areas. They have recently completed the largest privately owned structure in the District of Columbia, Washington Square, located at Connecticut Avenue and L Street. This project alone contains more than one million square feet of rentable space, comprising office, retail, restaurants and garage. The Tower Companies have also developed more than twenty-five retail shopping centers in the Washington, Richmond and Roanoke, Virginia areas. Tower is currently developing a 220 acre, 2,000,000 square foot mixed use office, hotel and retail project known as Tower Oaks Office Park". This is the largest private, undeveloped parcel of land in the City of Rockville, Montgomery County, Maryland. Bethesda Place, now under construction, is a one million gross square foot mixed use office, residential and retail project located in the heart of Bethesda, Maryland. August 27, 1990 Page 2 Among their newest, completed projects, is Enterprise Office Park: in Herndon, Virginia. Recently, the first of its proposed three office buildings was sold to the Northwestern Federal Credit Union. Another project, Beau Meade Office and Warehouse Park, located at Routes 625 and 28 in Loudoun County, has been more than half sold in a short time, with development scheduled to proceed immediately by some purchasers. Numerous other parcels in Arlington County, Prince William and Loudoun Counties, Virginia as well as Montgomery County, Maryland and Washington, U.C. are. in early stages of development, and will be proceeding in the next several years. The Tower Companies have had substantial e:>:perience in meeting the needs of federal, state and city government offices for the Commonwealth of Virginia. They developed and built One White Flint North, an IS story, 0JI0,(_)00 square foot office building that has been purchased by the United States Government, The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, located on Rockville Pike in Montgomery County, Maryland. The U. S. General Services Administration has agreed to lease the adjacent Two White Flint North, a 12 story building of 360,000 square feet to complete the planned consolidation of the NRC. Construction of Two White Flint North beaan in 1989. The Chairman of the Board of American Security Bank, Daniel J. Callahan, III stated that Mr. Abert Abramson and The Tower Construction Company have been highly reputable and valued customers of the bank- for appro>,imately 30 years, during which time the bank has financed several hundred million dollars. Mr. Callahan has stated that the bank would be very supportive of any financial requirements that the Company might encounter in future projects. The intent of this letter has been to provide the members of the FredericE% County Planning Commission with an introduction to The Tower Companies and the e>%perience and financial strengths that this company will provide to the proposed Twin Lakes development. If you should need any additional information, please feel free to telephone me at (703)54S-4737. The Tower Companies B v ;)ohn U. Shulman Director of Development HPM:ba Sincerely, Loggia Development Corporation By: �-Charles C. Whitley Vice President COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRCCINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RAY D. PETHTEL RESIDENT ENGINEER COMMISSIONER (703) 984-4133 August 28, 1990 Mr. Tom Price C/O G. W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Post Office Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Ref: Twin Lakes Development _ Routes 7 & 657 Frederick County Dear Tom: Enclosed you will find your recently submitted NEENNOW plan and county comment sheet to the above referenc development. We decline to offer any additional corments until all the items listed in our letter to your office dated May 3, 1990 have been addressed. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. RBC/rf Enclosures xc: Mr. F. E. Wymer Mr. R. W. Watkins Sincerely, William H. Bushman Transp. Resident Engineer 6�� "�. zu, By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTUR`� --I-K1 /n l / A _' %EENW00 j FIRE DEPARTMENT PCQICI�o G. W. Clifford & Sons Att: Chuck Maddox 20 S. Cameron St. Winchester, Va. 22601 Dear Mr. Maddox: 0 Greenwood Votuntk..r Fire Company P. O. Box 3023 Winchester, Virginia 22601 August 17, 1990 22 I am writing in regards to the proffers for Fire and Rescue Services being considered by the developers of the Twin Lakes Community proposal. As a result of our preliminary discussions, our company has undertaken a project to study fire and rescue proffers being received from developers in other jurisdictions in order to determine if our previous discussions were in line with the proffers being received by other volunteer fire and rescue companies. In light of this review, the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company would like to offer the following formal proposal for your consideration as a proffer to Fire and Rescue Services: * An "up front" one time contribution of $200.00 for each residential living unit constructed. This contribution would be conveyed at the time building permits are issued. * An "up front" one time contribution of $.05 per gross square foot of non-residential projects constructed. This contribution would be conveyed at the time building permits are issued. * An annual contribution of $60.00 per residential living unit and $.05 per gross square foot of non-residential units should be collected and disbursed through the Home Owners Association. Such contribution should be a part of the covenants of the Home Owners Association. Our company also has an immediate need to purchase a new ambulance. We are currently using a vehicle that is on loan to us from another company. We would ask your consideration of a direct contribution of $25,000.00 toward the purchase of this new unit. It is my hope that we could get together as soon as possible to discuss the proffer options we have suggested. I appreciate your willingness to consider our needs and look forward to discussing them with you in the near future. cc: Robert W. Watkins, Director Planning & Development Thomas W. Owens, Director Fire & Rescue Department John Riley County Administrator Sincerely, /7 WL_d� William (Bill) Schuller President 0 Sanitation Authority Comments: TWIN LAKES Water and sewer services are available at various points around this proposed project. Both water and sewer are located along SR 657 (Senseny Road) and at the back of the Apple Ridge Subdivision. Both utilities will also be available through connection to the Carlisle Heights Subdivision. Water is at the entrance to Mill Race Estates on SR 659. The Frederick - Winchester Service Authority's sewer trunk line follows SR 659 and connections can be made. I have reviewed the Sewage Conveyance (3.2.1) and Water Supply (3.2.2) section of the Impact Analysis Statement. I disagree with numerous items presented in the sewage section. I feel the capacities stated in paragraph three are incorrect. Also some of the figures given in paragraph four do not concur with those given in paragraph three. We use 275 gpm for single-family units and this figure would change the project build out flows given in paragraph five. I do not agree with the 16,000 gpm delivery rate given in paragraph nine. I feel some of the data in the last paragraph is incorrect. I would like to see the hydrologic analysis referred to in paragraph one of the water section. I would like to meet with the engineer to resolve the above noted items. COUNTY of FREDERICK Parks and Recreation Department James M. Doran, Director 703/665-5678 - FAX:703/667-0370 Parks and Recreation Department Comments: The impact analysis completed for Twin Lakes suggests that the proposed development would have a near net zero -impact on County parks and recreation facilities. It is the position of this department that this development will have a significant impact on our regional parks. Individuals from this development will undoubtedly participate in the numerous leagues, activities, and special events which take place at the County's regional parks. Twin Lakes residents will also utilize the existing and proposed park facilities at their leisure. This additional demand on our regional parks will contribute to the need for facility development. The stated report also exaggerates the scope of facilities provided at our neighborhood parks. I would recommend that this development contribute an appropriate amount to cover the impact that it will have on our park system. 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 AIRPORT COMMENTS The applicant shall comply with the provisions of the Frederick C unty Airport Zoning District (AP-1) and the. following Commodes of Virginia: Title i 5. 1 Code of Virginia, Section 489 (Purpose of Zoning Ordinances) and Section 451.02 (Airport Safety Zoning). Title 5.1 -- 25.1 Code of Virginia (Permits Required for Erection of Certain Structures. > Applicant must be aware that, as Winchester Regional Airport Expands services and operations, noise associated with such expansign may increase. Consideration should be given to insulating new and existing structures located within one half (1/E) mile of the end of the airport runway and 1,.000 feet either side of the imaginary extended center line of such runway. SUGGESTIONS: New Construction For new sound -insulated construction, design considerations often include: using brick or concrete masonry walls, staggering studs, insulation and fiberboard under- interior and exterior - finish materials; installing attic space insulation; properly baffling vents; avoiding single joint roof construction where interior and exterior materials are attached to the same rafters; avoiding exposed rafter ceilings; mortar should be free of pirl holes and all joints should be well sealed. Existing Construction For rehabilitation of existing buildings, soundproofing modifications include: replacement; of existing windows with windows of greater sound transmission, coefficient (STC) rating, ar-'adding a second layer of glass; upgrading doors and seals; 3r::onstic baffling of vents; adding insulation to walls and attic spaces; adding another layer of wall material to existing walls, :n effect creating a two --panel wall; eliminating windows and filling the space to match exterior walls. 1 Winchester Regional Airport ATTN: Kenneth F. Wiegand, Executive Director Route 1, Box 208-A, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 662-2422 The Winchester Regional Airport is located on Route 645, off of Route 522 South, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Loggia Development 1700 Diagonal Rd, Suite 200 Alexandria, Va 22304 (703)548-4737 �M Agent: G.W. Clifford & Assoc P.O. Box 2104 I"` Winchester, Va 22601 Attn Tom Price (703)667-2139 ,In Name of development and/or description of the request: TWIN LAKES Location: In eastern Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of City of Winchester. It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek and to the south by Senseny Road Winchester Regional Airport Comments: Airport Signature & Date: �O (NOTICE TO AIRPORT - PLEASE IRETURN THf S FGRIt TO THE AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, impact analysis, location map and all other pertinent information.0 3/7/90 Frederick County Public Schools 1415 Amherst Street Post Office Box 3508 Winchester, Virginia 22601-2708 Telephone: (703) 662-3888 — FAX (703) 722-2788 To: Al Mr. Tom Price, C.W. Clifford and Associates From: Mr. R. Thomas Malcolm, Superintendent of Schools Through: Mr. Thomas Sullivan, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent Subject: Twin Lakes Date: March 20, 1990 Our review of the impact analysis statement for the proposed Twin Lakes Subdivision has resulted in the following observations for your consideration: 1. In addition to the school site, we would require that all roads to the school, all utilities, and site improvements be acquired by proffer. 2. The proposed elementary school site of 11.6 acres is smaller than we deem suitable. We feel that 15 usable acres is required for a 650 pupil elementary school. 3. The projected enrollment increases at the middle school level and high school level can be handled by current capacity provided that we are assured the projected build out time of six years is maintained on an evenly distributed basis. Should this assurance not be given, the impact on middle and high school facilities will be significant. 4. Does the proposed elementary school site become the property of the Frederick County School Board? Can we use the land other than as an elementary school site? 5. What expectation is there concerning use of school facilities as part of a community recreation area? Addendum to response to Twin Lakes Development: Cash proffers to be determined appropriately following review of scope of development and impact on elementary, middle and high school enrollments. CROWELL FORESTRY AND LANDSCAPING SERVICES Mr. John Riley, 9 Court Square Winchester, VA Dear John: 710 S. Washington St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 January 30, 1990 County Administrator 22601 I have read with interest recent newspaper articles about development in Frederick County. and neighboring jurisdictions. A recent article about the proposed Loggia Development 1,300 house subdivision has spurred me to write with a suggestion concerning open space proffers which the county might seek in this subdivision or in future proposals for any type of land development. As a forester specializing in urban forestry, I have worked in all levels of government to aleviate tree -people conflicts. Current road, utility, and open space specifications are designed to accomplish their goals efficiently, but separately. I propose that an integrated approach during the planning stage would benefit the property owner, the developer, and the county in a cost effective manner. To use the Loggia subdivision as an example, the developer has proposed building a road to link Senseny Road and the proposed VA 37 Bypass and also to set aside 100 acres around a lake as community open space. I suggest that a more equal distribution of open space is to reduce the central core of open space around the lake to 50 acres and to place the remaining 50 acres along the subdivision's roads. A typical cross section of such a road could be described as 10 ft. tree zone, 20 ft. utility zone (preferably buried), 40 ft. roadbed, 20 ft. tree zone, 10 ft. bicycle path (tar), 10 ft. tree zone. By adding strips totaling 50 ft. wide to a suggested 60 ft. right-of-way, approximately 6 acres of open space per mile of road are achieved. With a central 100 acre area of open space, the people who benefit most are those whose property abuts the open area and those who have the time to drive to the lake to use whatever recreational equipment might be available. By elongating open space throughout the subdivision, the benefits to all are -continued- v� � .�"./ 0 0 Page 2 multiplied. To list a few: A. Property owners have greater setback and the trees planted between their houses and the road act as visual, sound, and pollution buffers. B. A substantially greater proportion of subdivision properties abut.open space. C. The installation of a bicycle trail/sidewalk between a double staggered row of trees would encourage walking and bicycling for health and fitness, and provide a pollution free alternative to driving. D. If utilities are planned to occupy a space all their own, buried utilities can be accessed without destroying sections of road (thereby reducing delays and inconvenience to travelers). Overhead utilities, if present in a separate zone, would minimize conflicts with trees and people. This would save utility companies time and money. E. County citizens would benefit from the scenic appeal of a county road planted with shade trees and appreciate their cooling effects in the summer. F. The developer benefits in two ways; an attractive tree lined space in front of a house can be an important selling tool and it would add value to each property without significant cost (a 1" to 12111 caliper tree can be planted for between $50 and $75 each). Although a bicycle path/sidewalk would slightly increase developer per unit costs, the overwhelming benefits to the citizens of this new community should weigh heavily in the final analysis. G. The county government benefits because it acquires an enlightened community plan, a large area of no maintenance passive recreation (require property owners to maintain the tree and utility areas in front of their property as is done in the city of Winchester), and reduced road maintenance costs. There are other values which come from planting trees, but you get my drift. I feel that the county and its people could benefit substantially by decentralizing part of its open space requirements and proffers and by segregating utility right-of-ways from roadside tree lanes. I hope you will consider my suggestion and pass it along to -continued- Page 3 appropriate county to speak with you have concerning my cic enclosure authorities. I would also enjoy an opportunity or your planning staff about questions you may proposal. Sincerely, Cheryl L. Crowell TWIN LAKES REZONING APPLICATION Shawnee Magisterial District County of Frederick, Virginia Prepared for Loggia Development Corporation 1700 Diagonal Road, Suite 200 Alexandria, Va 22304 (703) 548-4737 March 1990 by gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. FREDERICKSBURG - WINCHESTER REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff: Zoning Amendment Number Submittal Deadline PC Hearing Date Date Received Application Date:4/3/90 BOS Hearing Date The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel numbers, tax map numbers, deed book pages and numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, 9 Court Square, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Loggia Development Address: 1700 Diagonal Rd, Suite 200 Alexandria, Va 22314 Telephone: (703) 548-4737 2. Owner: Name: Alice S. & John S. & Edward D. Haggerty Address: Rt. 1,Box 1500 Winchester, Va 22601 Owner: Name: George L. Sheppard & Allan A. Futrall, Jr. Address: 405 Briarmont Drive Berryville, Va 22611 Owner: Name: George G. Giles, et al Address: c/o Wanda High Rt. 6, Box 681 Winchester, Va 22601 In addition, the Code of Virginia allows us to request full dis- closure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be re- zoned: Wanda D, High Jack C. Hiah Geora_e E. Giles Paul K. Giles Robert A. Giles Edward D. Haggerty John S. Haggerty Richard F. Giles Margaret C. Giles Janita G. Giles Alice L. Giles Diana L. Giles Alice S . Haggerty A. Ashley Futral, Jr. Betty T. Futral George L. Sheppard, Jr. Marguerite H. Sheppard 3. Zoning Change: It is requested that the zoning of the property be changed from RA to RP & B-2. 4. Location: The property is located at (give exact directions): 5. Parcel Identification: 21 Digit Tax Parcel Number: 55000-A00-0000-0000-0209-0 55000-A00-0000-0000-02120 55000-A00-0000-0000-02110 55000-A00-0000-0000-02130 65000-A00-0000-0000-00400 65000-A00-0000-0000-00390 65000-A00-0000-0000-00360 6. Magisterial District: Shawnee 7. Property Dimensions: The dimensions of the property to be rezoned. Total Area: 396.45 Acres The area of each portion to be rezoned to a different zoning district category should be noted: 5.1 ± Acres Rezoned to B-2 391.35 ± Acres Rezoned to RP Acres Rezoned to Acres Rezoned to 0 0 Depth: Because of Property's Irregular Shape, Depth varies from 3600 to 4200 Feet 8. Deed Reference: The ownership of the property is referenced by the following deed: Conveyed To: George W. Giles, et ux Conveyed From: George C. Braithwaite, et ux Deed Page: 181 Deed Book Number: 351 Conveyed To: George W. Giles, et ux Conveyed From: Mary Braithwaite, et ur Deed Page: 190 Deed Book Number: 529 Conveyed To: George L Sheppard, Jr., et als Conveyed From: Paul K. Giles, et ux Deed Page: 372 Deed Book Number: 610 Conveyed To: George L. Sheppard, Jr., et als Conveyed From: Virgil H. Eskridge, et al Deed Page: 372 Deed Book Number: 622 Conveyed To: George L. Sheppard, Jr., et als Conveyed From: Woodrow Artrip, et ux Deed Page: 566 Deed Book Number: 014 Conveyed To: George L. Sheppard, Jr., et als Conveyed From: George W. Giles, et ux Deed Page: 372 Deed Book Number: 625 Conveyed To: Linden Adams Conveyed From: M. Carl Strickler, et ux Deed Page: 230 Deed Book Number: 458 Conveyed To: John S. Haggerty, et als Conveyed From: Alice S. Haggerty Deed Page: 44 Deed Book Number: 131 9. Proposed Use: It is proposed that the property will be put to the following uses. Single Family - Detached, Townhouses, School Site & Commercial 0 10.Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map Survey or plat Deed to property Statement verifying taxes Sign receipt Agency Comments Fees Impact Analysis Statement Proffer Statement 11.Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby make application and petition the governing body to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia and do hereby certify that th application and accompanying materials are true and accu; tZo,,the_be,�,t of/my (Aur) knowledge. Applicant: Owners: M 12.Representation: If the application is being represented by someone other than the owner or application and if questions about the application and if questions about the application should be directed to that representative, please list the following. Representative's Name: Charles E. Maddox, Jr.- P.E. Representative's Phone Number: (703) 667-2139 Owners of the Property adjoining the land will be notified of the public hearing. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any prop- erty directly across the road from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the 21-digit tax parcel identification number which may be ob- tained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. Name: Lester A. & Fraces Elliot Property111 •11 1111 1111 11 11 Name: Fred H. & Lovella M. Parsons Address: Rt.• Box •:-A Winchester,Va 22601 Property6111 •11 1111 1111 11 •1 Name: George E. & Maraaret L. Giles Address.: Rt, 6, Box 682 Winchester,va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65000-A00-0000-0000=00360 12.Representation: If the application is being represented by someone other than the owner or application and. if questions about the application and if questions about the application should be directed to that representative, please list the following. Representatives Name: Charles E. Maddox, Jr.- P.E. Representative's Phone Number: 703) 667-2139 Owners of the Property adjoining the land will be notified of the public hearing. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any prop- erty directly across the road from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the 21-digit tax parcel identification number which may be ob- tained from the office of the commissioner of Revenue. Lester A & Fraces Elliot R.O. Box 110 Win Nester Va 22601 �• ••- 111 •11 1111 1111 11 11 Rt, 6, Box 68-A Win hester,Va 22601 Property. 111 •11 1111 1111 11 1 George E. & Margaret L. Giles Rt. 6, Box 682 Win h ster;Va 22601 Property. 1/1 •11 1111 1111 11 .1 0 0 Name: Richard F. & Diana L. Giles Address: Rt. 1,Box 103 Berryville, Va 22611 Property I.D.#: 65000-A00-0000-0000-00370 Name: Wanda Jean & Jack Hiah Address: Rt. 6, Box 681 Winchester,Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65000-A00-0000-0000-00380 Name: George E. Giles, et al, c/o Wanda High Address: Rt. 6, Box 681 Winchester,Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65000-A00-0000-0000-00390 Name: George L. Sheppard,Jr. & Allen A. Futral,Jr Address: 405 Briarmont Dr. Winchester,Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65000-A00-0000-0000-00400 Name: Mary V. Whipp Address: Rt. 6, Box 763 Winchester,Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65000-A00-0000-0000-00410 Name: Forest & Mildred L. Riggleman Address: Rt. 6, Box 754-A Winchester,Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65000-A00-0000-0000-01950 Name: Loggia Group, Inc. Address: 6000 Stevenson Ave. Alexandria, Va 22304 Property I.D.#: 65E00-001-0000-0000-00130 :IL�IIIIIIIILI191111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 14 1 611 11 1111 1111 11 •1 65EOO-001-0000-0000-00170 611 11 1111 1111 11 :1 611 11 1111 1111 11 •1 611 11 111/ 11/1 11 11 • 11 11 1111 1//1 11 / 611 11 1111 /111 /1 1 • 11 11 11/1 /111 1/ / • 11 11 Illt 1111 11 41 611 11 1111 1111 11 1 611 /1 1111 1111 11 •1 r7 LJ • Name: Address: Property I.D.#: Name: Melvin B. Johnson Gore, Va 22637 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00010 Melvin B. Johnson Address: Gore, Va 22637 Property I.D.#: 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00020 Name: David L. Adams Address: 1408 28th St. Niceville, FL 32578 Property I.D.#: 6.5B00-004-0000-OOOA-00030 Name: Benton A. & Constance L. Heironimus Address: 784 Dixie Belle Dr. Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00040 Name: Benton A. & Constance L. Heironimus Address: 784 Dixie Belle Dr. Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00050 Name: Frederick A. & Teresa J. Bowers, Jr Address: 2231 Senseny Rd. Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00060 Name: Rovert D. & Bessie E. See, Jr. Address: Rt. 1,Box 101-E Berryville, VA 22611 Property I.D.#: 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00070 Name: Rovert D. & Bessie E. See, Jr. Address: Rt. 1,Box 101-E Berryville, VA 22611 Property I.D.#: 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00080 Name: Rovert D. & Bessie E. See, Jr. Address: Rt. 1,Box 101-E Berryville, VA 22611 Property I.D.#: 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00090 0 0 Name: Robert & Wanda Gilmer Address: Rt. 6,Box 678 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00100 Name: Robert & Wanda Gilmer Address: Rt. 6,Box 678 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00110 Name: Delbert J. & Virginia M. McGee Address: P.O. Box 2306 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65BOO-004-0000-OOOA-00120 Name: Burris J. & Mary L. Hook Address: Rt. 1,Box 1385 Berryville, Va 22611 Property I.D.#: 65BOO-004-0000-OOOA-00130 Name: Burris J. & Mary L. Hook Address: Rt. 1,Box 1385 Berryville, Va 22611 Property I.D.#: 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00140 Name: Herbert S. & Lena Michael Address: 782 Sunset Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00150 Name: Irene N. Jenkins Address: Rt. 1,Box 95 Berryville, Va 22611 Property I.D.#: 65B00-005-0000-0000-00010 Name: John W. & Margaret J. Keeler Address: Rt, 6, Box 764 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65B00-005-0000-0000-00020 Name: Melvin H. & Mary E. KuMP Address: Rt. 1,Box 1350 Berryville, Va 22611 Property I.D.#: 65B00-005-0000-0000-00030 0 0 Name: Elliot Delivery Service Address: P.O. Box 110 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 55000-A00-0000-0000-02040 Property I.D.##: 55000-A00-0000-0000-02050 Property I.D.##: 55000-A00-0000-0000-02060 Property I.D.##: 55000-A00-0000-0000-02070 Name: Martin L. & Helen R. Bean Address: Rt. 1, Box 1395 Berryville, Va 22611 Property I.D.##: 55000-A00-0000-0000-02080 Name: George L h rd r & Allen A. Futral Jr Address: 405 Briarmont Dr. Winchester,Va 22601 Property I.D.##: 55000-A00-0000-0000-02090 Name: Linden D. & Goldie L. Adams Address: Rt. 1, Box 1510 Berryville, Va 22611 Property I.D.##: 55000-A00-0000-0000-02100 Name: George L. Sheppard,Jr. & Allen A. Futral,Jr Address: 405 Briarmont Dr. Winchester,Va 22601 Property I.D.##: 55000-A00-0000-0000-02110 Name: Georae L. Sheppard,Jr. & Allen A. Futral,Jr Address: 405 Briarmont Dr. Winchester,Va 22601 Property I.D.##: 55000-A00-0000-0000-02130 Name: Alice S. & John S. & Edward D. Haaaerty Address: Rt. 1, Box 1500 Berryville, Va 22611 Property I.D.##: 55000-A00-0000-0000-02120 Name: Alicia F. & Joe Allen Gray Lewis, et al Address: 428 Madison Ave.-#11-A Orange Park,FL 32073 Property I.D.##: 55000-004-0000-0000-0004A • Name: Address: Property I . D . # : Name: Address: Charles W. Nickleson Rt. 6, Box 621 Winchester, Va 22601 65800-005-0000-0000-00040 Edward L. & Leona Snyder Rt. 6, Box 664 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65B00-005-0000-0000-00050 Name: Edward L. & Leona Snyder Address: Rt. 6, Box 664 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.##: 65800-005-0000-0000-00060 Name: Zane 0. & Elanore M. Kerns Address: Siler Rt., Box 439 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65B00-005-0000-0000-00070 Name: Elizabeth R. & Thelma Ann Mason Address: Rt. 6, Box 799 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65B00-005-0000-0000-00080 Name: Shirley D. Lambert Address: P.O. Box 362, Berryvile,Va 22611 Property I.D.#: 65B00-005-0000-0000-00090 Name: Shirley D. Lambert Address: P.O. Box 362, Berryvile,Va 22611 Property I.D.##: 65800-005-0000-0000-00100 Name: Eastern Frederick Development Address: P.O. Box 2097 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 55000-A00-0000-0000-01810 0 Name: Address: Property I.D.#: Name: Frederick -Winchester Service Authority P.O. Box 43 Winchester, Va 22601 55000=004-0000-0000-00010 Melvin B. & Lillie M. McDonald Address: Rt. 1,Box 134 Berryvile, Va 22611 Property I.D.#: 55000-004-0000-0000-00020 Name: Michael Edward McKee Address: Rt, 1, Box 1490 Berryville, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 55000-004-0000-0000-00030 Name: Frederick -Winchester Service Authority Address: P.O. Box 43 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 55000-A00-0000-0000-00190 Name: Lewis W. & Pauline Z. Strother Address: 760 Rossum Lane Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65000-001-0000-0003-00220 CLARKE COUNTY ADJOINING OWNERS Name: Richard M. & Barbara Cockrill Address: P.O. Box 278 Philomont, Va 22131 Name: Phyllis Bradfield Holtkamp Address: 130 S. Liberty Keuter Rd. Lebanon, Ohio 45036 Name: Michael T. & Barbara Kambourelis Address: 506 S. River Oaks Drive Indiatlantic, FL 32903 Name: Wilbur M. & Helen B. Feltners Address: P.O. Box 2286 Winchester, Va 22601 0 65E00-001-0000-0000-00270 • IIIIIIII�IZI 1 1 616111116 IMMIRIMBUIREIIIII11 a I I is KI]1 •1 • yll II 1111 11/oil 11 I 11 • 11 11 1111 1111 11 1 11 11 1111 11/1 11 1 11 11 1111 1111 11 / • 11 11 1111 11/1 11 �1 • 11 11 1111 1111 11 1 11 11 1111 11/1 • 11 11 1111 1111 11 1 Name: Howard J. & Ruth P. Dunn Address: 375 Brook Ave. North Plainfield,N.J. 07062 Property I.D.#: 65E00-002-0000-0000-00100 Name: Robert E. & Patricia L. Schuette Address: 627 Bedford Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65E00-002-0000-0000-00110 Name: Glyn R. & Elizabeth Boone Address: 631 Bedford Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.##: 65E00-002-0000-0000-00120 Name: Dennis K. & Peggy S. Bucher Address: 635 Bedford Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65E00-002-0000-0000-00130 Name: James T. & Jane L. Vickers Address: 2023 Valley Ave. Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.##: 65E00-002-0000-0000-00140 Name: Alan Louis & linda Sue Block, Sr. Address: 643 Bedford Drive Winchester, Va 22601 ••- . 11 11 1111 1111 11 1 Name: Michael D. & Claudia K. Putt Address: 647 Bedford Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65E00-002-0000-0000-00160 0 • r -- G.'W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. -JUN20;1110 Mr. C. Robert Solenberger P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Bob, 2.00 North Cameron Street F'.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 Fax: 703-665-0493 June.19, 1990 Re: Proposed Route 37 Corridor/ Access to Route 7 I am the consulting engineer for the owners of the proposed Twin Lakes project now before the County Planning Commission for consideration for approval of rezoning. You may recall that at some point earlier, a discussion before your Authority of the potential for dedication of a road right of way across the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority property at the Opequon Regional Wastewater Plant to U.S. Route 7. This action will allow for the much needed connection of Senseny Road to Route 7 and implement an important item called for in the County's comprehensive plan. In short, if growth is going to continue to occur within planned urban development areas in Frederick County then important transportation improvements of this nature need be constructed in a timely fashion. Included in the proposal here is the opportunity for the local jurisdictions to obtain this needed highway improvement at developer cost. A close look at the Route 7 corridor and surrounding topography has indicated to the County planners that the appropriate place for a Senseny Road collector route connection must exist on Opequon Regional Plant property. There seems to be no other feasible route. In looking closer at the possible layout for these improvements we find two suggested alternatives. These alternatives are summarized by the attached map as Alternate 1, which provides a frontage road possibility and Alternate 2 which involved the construction of one lane of Route 37 at this time. Obviously considerable discussion and review need be provided by both the Planning Commission, and the Virginia Department of Transportation as well as your agency prior to firm decisions. However we believe one of these two alternatives would be the proper choice under present and near term future conditions. We believe either can be implemented without significant impact on the operations or expandibility of the Opequon Regional Facility. Both options will allow for a possible land "swap" which would include additional lands to the south of the Opequon Plant which may be needed for proper expansion of the "mirror image" increase in capacity of the facility. Some impact on the Authority's well system' -may be created, however planning for central water facilities to the site at the same time of road construction could prevent any inconvenience in this regard. We have discussed these matters with your staff and have received their permission to contact you directly in the interest of time. The Twin Lakes rezoning matter is before the County Planning Commission on July 18 and they have asked for your agency to comment on the road proposal situation prior to that time. If you agree that road improvements of the general type described here are in the best interest of current and future planning for Frederick County and for the service area concept we would appreciate and request your comment to that effect to the Planning Commission. It is understood that technical and legal agreement for right of way dedication is a matter of significant future discussion I believe what is needed now is simply your indication of intent to participate in such discussion, should the County agree to rezone the property involved. I would like to meet with each of you prior to your Monday meeting if you so desire. I am also available by telephone should you have any questions. I look forward to discussing this with you in more detail and look forward to any comments you may have. Sincerely rs, Maddox, Jr., , VP G.W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. cc: Mr. Kenny Carr Mr. Bob Watkins /I CaPy DF 77415 L Ei � HAS Mr. Charlie Whitley � Au. BOA121D M�+13�ZS aF � t1c�c- N,AJINCHIE5-jM Svc 4LL1)-1D)217Y CEM/klf PROFFER STATEMENT Re: Twin Lakes LOGGIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Date: August 231990 (Revised) Pursuant to Section 15.1-491(a) of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended), and the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of Frederick County, Virginia, Loggia Development Corporation herein called "Applicant," owner of that certain parcel of land containing four hundred (400) acres and described in detail in the submissions filed herewith, hereby proffers that said parcel of land shall be developed in accordance with the following conditions, if the rezoning application is granted and the property is rezoned to R-P and B-2 in accordance with the attached Generalized Development Plan. These proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect if rezoning is not granted. These proffers shall be binding upon the Applicant or its legal successor or assigns. 1. The development of the subject property shall be in general conformance with the Generalized Development Plan submitted herewith. 2. The Applicant agrees to conform generally to the landscape plan to be submitted prior to final Board action on the application. 3. The Applicant will provide on -site recreational amenities, including a lake, parks and open space as shown on the Generalized Development Plan. 4. All streets within the development shall be fully dedicated public streets. 5. The Applicant shall design and construct all streets and roads on the subject property consistently with the County's adopted thoroughfare plan for the area, and according to uniform standards established by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and as may be provided in these proffers. AW 2 3 6. The total number of dwelling units shall not exceed one thousand three hundred (1,300). The unit mix shall consist of six hundred fifty (650) single family homes and six hundred fifty (650) townhouses. 7. A development phasing plan shall be submitted during the Master Development Plan process, in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Phasing as shown on the said Master Plan shall be accomplished such that no more than fifteen percent (15%) of the total permitted dwelling units, in any combination of single-family or townhouse units, may be constructed in later years. 8. The Applicant proffers that it shall dedicate, design and construct a two lane road connecting Route 7 to Senseny Road, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan with a sixty foot (60') right-of-way in the area designated in the Transportation Plan as a Major Collector, for inclusion in the State Highway System of Secondary Highways. 9. The Applicant shall provide a phasing plan for the construction of the road and a landscape plan for the entire length of the road which shall be submitted to and approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. The phasing plan shall provide for the completion of the connection from Senseny Road to Route 7 within one year of the transfer of the 180th lot accessed by Senseny Road. 10. The Applicant proffers to identify and use its best efforts to preserve significant woodland and mature trees on the subject property in the design, layout and construction of all development. 11. The Applicant agrees that it shall employ all reasonable Best Management Practices in connection with the development of the subject property. 12. The Applicant shall contribute One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for each townhouse lot and One Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($1,400.00) for each single family lot approved. As building permits are issued for the construction of each dwelling unit or as such lot is sold to a developer for construction, whichever is sooner, the Applicant shall pay the per unit contribution to the School Board or to a fund set or designated by Frederick County to receive said contribution. To ensure payment of this prorata contribution, the Applicant, at his cost through the County staff, shall record an instrument creating a lien against each lot upon approval of the zoning application. The lien against each lot shall be released upon the payment of the contribution for each lot. 13. The Applicant shall provide in its Generalized Development Plan a one hundred fifty foot (150') wide right-of-way for the future alignment of Route 37 called for in the Transportation Plan. 14. The Applicant shall make a contribution of Seventy -Five Dollars ($75.00) per lot to the County for regional parks and recreation. This contribution shall be guaranteed and paid in the same manner as provided for the School Board in paragraph 12 above. In addition, the Applicant shall solely bear the current budgeted costs of the Frederick County Little League Baseball Uniforms for the 1991 season. In addition, Applicant will proffer further on site recreational facilities as illustrated on the Master Plan. 15. The Applicant shall make a contribution of Seventy -Five Dollars ($75.00) per lot to the Greenwood Fire Station. This contribution shall be guaranteed and paid in the same manner as provided for the School Board in paragraph 12 above. 16. The Applicant shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 7 and the proposed collector road when warranted. 17. The Applicant will reserve for future dedication a ten (10) foot strip along its southern boundary line for future widening of Senseny Road when required. 18) The applicant shall construct on site a "regional" wastewater pumping station at an appropriate location on site as shown in the impact analysis. This pump station, force main and upstream gravity interceptor sewer system will have the capability to serve the attendant 1200 acre drainage area, all of which is within the urban development area of the county comprehensive plan. This system will serve the additional 800 acres by initially allowing the two aging existing sewage pump stations to be taken off line. The $415,000 cost of this system will be borne by the applicant, although 2/3 of the capacity will be unneeded for this development. Cost Estimate 4800 l.f. interceptor Q $50/ft. 240,000 1-LS 100,000 3000' Force Main (& $25/ft. 75,000 415,000 Amount of Proffer $275,000 19) The applicant shall construct watermains on site as necessary to link Va. Route 7 and the regional wastewater treatment plant with FCSA water supply and fire protection services, which exist now on Senseny Road. 20) The Applicant shall proffer to construct curb, gutter, and sidewalks to the extent the Planning Commission deems it necessary at Master Plan approval. The Applicant hereby proffers that the development of the subject property of this application shall be in strict accordance with the conditions set forth in this submission. The Applicant further represents that it is the owner of all the property included within this application and that the signatures below constitute all the necessary signatures of record owners of the property to subject and land within this application to these proffers. These proffers shall be binding upon the Applicant, its successors and assigns. GIVEN under my hand this day of ,1990. LOGGIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AUG 2 0 6 PROFFER SUMMARY The Applicant has submitted a revised Proffer Statement dated April 16, 1990. The proffers are summarized as follows: plan. 1. Generalized Development Plan. 2. Landscape Plan for Board approval. 3. Recreational amenities provided. 4. Fully dedicated public streets. 5. All streets and roads consistent with thoroughfare 6. Dwelling units limited to 1,300 units - 650 townhouses 650 single family detached units 7. Development phasing plan 15% of units per year cumulative. 8. Connector road to be constructed from Senseny Road to Route 7. Two lanes, 60 foot right-of-way where designated by Transportation Plan. Value of proffer is $3,200,000.00. 9. Phasing plan for road construction to be provided. Completion of a connector from Senseny Road to Route 7 within one year of 260th lot sale accessed by Senseny. Landscape plan for collector road to be provided Value of proffer is $100,000.00. 10. Tree and woodland preservation plan. 11. Best Management Practices for storm water management. • a 12. Educational proffer - $800 per townhouse $1,200 per single family house Value of proffer is $1,300,000.00. Or a combination of cash and an elementary school site with streets and utilities can be substituted for the cash proffer with the consent of the Board and the developer. 13. 150 foot right-of-way for Route 37. Value of proffer is $400,000.00. 14. Parks and Recreation contribution of $50.00 per unit. Value of proffer is $65,000.00. 15. Traffic signal at Route 7 when needed. Value of proffer is $85,000.00. 16. 10 feet additional right-of-way reserved for widening Senseny Road when needed. Value of proffer is $50,000.00. h AR;; 1 81990 Twin Lakes Impact Analysis Statement April 1990 Revised Paragraph 3.2. 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 Water Reclamation 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 the FCSA system has been an adequate P route for sewage delivery over the past 12 years, its capability to handle substantial increases in sewage delivery is limited and can not be assumed to be the favored alternative for handling the long term sewage collection needs of the service area. Using data collected by the FCSA on daily run times of the existing Greenwood Pump Station, it has been determined that the average flow to that station is 35 gpm. The station is a Smith and Loveless wet well mounted type. It currently is outfitted with the largest pumps of this design. The existing pumps are rated at 380 gpm at design TDH. For best pump and motor life a daily run time of 10 hrs per day should not be exceeded. If we assume that at times of peak flow both pumps would be operating and would continue to run until passage of the peak, then return to alternate one pump operation to :handle average flow, we can disregard peak flows in determining capacity of the existing station. If at full capacity the pump run time is ten hours per day, at 380 gpm, the daily flow from the station'would be 228,000 gals. The FCSA assumes sewage flow from any single family dwelling at 275 gallons per day. The Virginia Department of Health assumes commercial sewage flow at 200 gallons per day per one thousand square feet of leasable area. To determine the capacity available to the Twin Lakes project at the Greenwood Pump Station, we must subtract out the present and known future flows from the full capacity of 228,000 gpd. • 0 Current flows to the station are 35 gpm or 50,400 gpd. Known future flows include: Apple Ridge Subdivision Q 135 units x 275 = 37,125 gpd Glenmont Village (Last Phase) Q 20 units x 275 = 5,500 gpd Whipp/Rossignol Q 170 units x 275 = 46,750 gpd Taking into account these flows indicate that approximately 88,225 gpd of capacity would remain. Additionally, the possible flow from other land in the urban development area, which is presently undeveloped, would need to be accounted for. Within the planning period such flows may account for an additional 40,000 gpd. Subtracting this additional amount of flow would leave 48,225 gpd available to Twin Lakes. Or an initial phase of 175 units could utilize the Greenwood Pump Station. Any additional phases would require an upgrade of the Greenwood Pump Station. The proposed project has a mixed use sewage flow generation of: 1) Single family use - 720 units at 275 gal/day = 198,000 gpd 2) Townhouse use -480 units at 275 gal/day=132,000 gpd 3) Commercial Use - 35,000 sf at 200 gpd/1000 sf = 7,000 gpd Total flow at project buildout = 337,000 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 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 1.0 mgd (at 3 units per acre) at build out. The pump station should be designed to reflect an ultimate peak loading of 1800 gpm. Utilizing a peak factor of 2.5, an initial 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 at least a 8680 gpm delivery rate to the plant. Plans for sewage collection and pumping must be approved by the Virginia Department of Health -Bureau of Sanitation Engineering as well as the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. 0 • At present the County of Frederick has 900,000 gpd established for use at the regional facility by the County. Present flows leave approximately 400,000 gpd available for capacity. If development continues, and the future flows predicted earlier are accounted for, this project will not over stress the existing available capacity of the regional facility at 100% development. It will provide a substantially improved sewage delivery system meeting the requirements of the entire gravity service area. At full build out of the gravity service area, of which Twin Lakes is part, and which the proposed sewer system will serve, the flows from FCSA to the Regional Facility will exceed the 900,000 gpd limit by an estimated 66,375 gpd. At present sewage and water availability charges, the development of 1200 S. F. Units would yield a total income to FCSA of $2,436,000., which would be available for planning and construction of additional facilities to serve this project. x o �O 0 m � w — A SET STONE PT. BEG. 'A' lJ' D N N 54° 32 04' W - 1076.89 - N r 0 D o a m N Z Ws 09 D 0 N N N o N O O P. N O W 1 S 62a p pN o rn Fo pm o m �v r N O k'O Op S /OS T 0NF o `/Se s,. S9 S 80 0 {y / 0/ 1 S SSo 9c % 3o. �` T9 \ 26 61, .2 •� S /90 S!69 S 220 06' 06" W - 138.09'- 1 - 349.23'- l� \S, p9o3 9596 2 �I �S 331y 2T 9020' 2•/T, S 2p •, 49„41 6 ' 3, 6 eS' 18R E1E '� 38 P Mid 0RF oe 0 3g 6,ggoF/ \ 403F<D i—S 570 20' 16" E - 132.63' S E - Zg61.Uv 55 13 VIRGIESKR10GE I. p.6. 436 - 5?0 000� EENW0�it �DEPAE FR\R/C cc Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company P. O. Box 3023 Winchester, Virginia 22601 July 31, 1990 The Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company is all volunteer. One third of our operating budget comes from a Fredrick County donation, the other two thirds must be raised through fund raisers and donations. Training and emergency calls must take first priorty. The main objective of a fire and rescue dept. is to save life and property in that order. What time is left can be devot- ed to fund raising. Vast development has increased our calls at such a rate our time is scarce. It is impossible to project just how many calls 1,300 homes would generate. All I can give you are facts from the first 6 months of 1989 compared to the first 6 months of 1990. From January 1, 1989 to July 1, 1989 we answered 285 emergency calls during the same time span in 1990 we answered 467 calls for an increase of 182 calls. Not only did these extra calls cut into our spare time, it also raised our cost by $40,586.00. Up keep and replace- ment of equipment such as turnout gear, breathing apparatus, communication equipment, as well as fire trucks and ambulances bring the average cost of each response to $223.00. Equipment regulations are set by OSHA as well as NFPA. Therefore you don't just replace gear as you wish, you must protect your volunteers with equipment approved by these standards. We do not have available the number of new residents which produced the ex- tra 182 calls the first 6 months of 1990. However a close estimate would be 500 to 600 new homes which is roughly one half of the proposed Twin Lake Project when it is completed and in place. This would, according to our fig- ures, create a cost impact of $81,172.00 per year for Greenwood to provide Fire and Rescue Service to a subdivision of this size. The Board of Directors Greenwood Vol. Fire & Rescue Co. �� G�EENWpp� FIRE DEPARTMENT Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company P. O. Box 3023 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Jul%- 31, 1990 The Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company is all volunteer. One third of our operating budget comes from a Fredrick County donation, the other two thirds must be raised through fund raisers and donations. Training and emergency calls must take first priorty. The main objective of a fire and rescue dept. is to save life and property in that order. What time is left can be devot- ed to fund raising. Vast development has increased our calls at such a rate our time is scarce. It is impossible to project just how many calls 1,300 homes would generate. All I can give you are facts from the first 6 months of 1989 compared to the first 6 months of 1990. From January 1, 1989 to July 1, 1989 we answered 285 emergency calls during the same time span in 1990 we answered 467 calls for an increase of 182 calls. Not only did these extra calls cut into our spare time, it also raised our cost by $40,586.00. Up keep and replace- ment of equipment such as turnout gear, breathing apparatus, communication equipment, as well as fire trucks and ambulances bring the average cost of each response to $223.00. Equipment regulations are set by OSHA as well as NFPA. Therefore you don't just replace gear as you wish, you must protect your volunteers with equipment approved by these standards. We do not have available the number of new residents which produced the ex- tra 182 calls the first 6 months of 1990. However a close estimate would be 500 to 600 new homes which is roughly one half of the proposed Twin Lake Project when it is completed and in place. This would, according to our fig- ures, create a cost impact of $81,172.00 per year for Greenwood to provide Fire and Rescue Service to a subdivision of this size. The Board of Directors Greenwood Vol. Fire & Rescue Co. LC G = J H TjE!?ELOFIdEPdT TE60. J 03-5a8-0967 - 4 CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC. Tro, (.,q k u iarion Viannhtg & Design Consultants MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Charles Wheatley, Loggia Development nee FROM: �/b� n Callow/Mike Harris, Callow Associates RE: Twin Lakes Transportation Comments 31a0f f 90 11 : 45 Ido . 001 F, . 02 DATE: July 25, 1990 Ref. 5378 On March 6, 1990, Callow Associates completed the final traffic impact analysis for the proposed 'twin Lakes development, located in Frederick County, Virginia. At the request of Frederick County, an addendum report, further studying the impact of the development on Senseny Road, was completed on April 4, 1990. Both of these studies assumed certain roadway improvements which would accommodate both Twin Lakes and the region as a whole. Perhaps the largest of such improvements is the proposed roadway ('Road A' in the study) which connects with Route 7 to the north and travels southwest through the site. Two access points to the site on Senseny Road will connect with 'Road A', effectively providing a north -south roadway from Senseny Road to Route 7. This roadway, and the benefits of it, are the focus of this memorandum. To be sure, the benefits to Twin Lakes are unmistakable. Access to Route 7 for the potential residents of Twin Lakes will enhance the opportunity that these residents will have to travel to and from work and other residential -related linkages (schools, retail, public vices, etc.) in and around the City of Winchester. To assume, however, that this roadway will operate as a self-serving roadway for only the Twin Lakes development would be a mistake. t r � *dents in this region of the County have for years lived with what might be (k: rAI a, the inconvenience of the current roadway network, or lack thereof. Residential pockets along Senseny Road have had no other choice but to travel this road for some distance either to reach the City of Winchester or to use Pleasant Valley Road for the purpose of connecting with Route 7 or Route 50 to travel east toward Washington, D.C.. With the construction of the roadway through the 'Twin Lakes development, residents along Senseny Road will be provided safe, direct, r, d conve-ient access to Route 7. of, , ^mice Valley Drive • Suite 160 • Restor n91 (703) 47b-000! • (703) b4R•0427 • FAX# (7v3) 269-0.?5R LO11,G I H DFIELOPMENT TELW . 703-348-rJ96 3 Ju O7 .90 11 :45 No . 001 P.03 Mc. Charles Wheatley -2- July 25, 1990 The distribution which Callow Associates used in the traffic impact study seems to reflect this point. Along Route 7, the distribution of traffic, based on existing traffic movements, flows heavier to the east (36 percent as opposed to 24 percent toward Winchester). By providing the vehicles originating from Senseny Road an access to Route 7 east of I-81, the number of vehicles near the City will be reduced. There is no reason that vehicles which commute from south of Route 7 to the Washington, D.C. metropolitan region should first approach the borders of Winchester on their way to and from their commute. In effect, the result of this road will be to distribute the traffic needing to access Route 7 more equitably along the arterial. The discussion above is based on the construction of 'Road A' before the planned Route 37 Bypass is built. The bypass is planned to pass through the eastern portion of the Twin Lakes development. It is proposed that 'Road A' will intersect with the bypass, thereby allowing traffic generated from the Twin Lakes development to access the bypass from within the site. 'Phis, again, would have the effect of allowing traffic with no intention of entering Winchester to reach their destination without having to approach the City first. In conclusion, while it is certainly tnie that the development of 'Road A' has many beneficial impacts for the future residents of Twin Lakes, it can also be shown that many other residents of Frederick, County will be benefitted as well. In a region of impending growth, a more established north -south roadway representation than currently exists is definitely an advantage. DRG:cit LOi-313IH 1TVELOPMD-IT TEWo .703-548-0963 ` 0 11 :45 hJo .001 P .01 btv[IO�MIMi WOO Diepor►el Road, Wit 200,Abx&n4rlA, Vlrpinl• 22314 TEI•ECOPIER TRANSMISBION TOt FROM: DATE TOTAL PAGES SENDINat- (INCLUDING THIS PAGE) WGOIXIS TAX-- WC)GIAlf; (703)548--4737 ****************************************************************** * * * AO 2 668013 2960 8tg 20l tt:TT 13-'lOf * * * * 31O1.1 S13 6 ]Wll 83 GN]S l8HlS 311� 9 * * * a6-��-�O� * * 1.�O63 d NOIl311SNV8l * * l0^6 ° * ************m*'****+ 0 I - - CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation Planning& IX -sign Consultants MEMORANDUM DATE: July 25, 1990 Ref, 5378 TO: Mr. Charles Wheatley, Loggia Development FROM: oin Callow/Mike Harris, Callow Associates RE: Twin Lakes Transportation Comments On March 6, 1990, Callow Associates completed the final traffic impact analysis for the proposed 'Twin Lakes development, located in Frederick County, Virginia, At the request of Frederick County, an addendum report, further studying the impact of the development on Senseny Road, was completed on April 4, 1990. Both of these studies assumed certain roadway improvements which would accommodate both Twin Lakes and the region as a whole. Perhaps the largest of such improvements is the proposed roadway ('Road A' in the study) which connects with Route 7 to the north and travels southwest through the site. Two access points to the site on Senseny Road will connect with 'Road A', effectively providing a north -south roadway from Senseny Road to Route 7, This roadway, and the benefits of it, are the focus of this memorandum. To be sure, the benefits to Twin Lakes are unmistakable. Access to Route 7 for the potential residents of Twin Lakes will enhance the opportunity that these residents will have to travel to and from work and other residential -related linkages (schools, retail, public services, etc.) in and around the City of Winchester. To assume, however, that this roadway will operate as a self-serving roadway for only the Twin Lakes development would be a mistake, Current residents in this region of the County have for years lived with what might be described as the inconvenience of the current roadway network, or lack thereof, Residential pockets along Senseny Road have had no other choice but to travel this road for some distance either to reach the City of Winchester or to use Pleasant Valley Road for the purpose of connecting with Route 7 or Route 50 to travel east toward Washington, D.C.. With the construction of the roadway through the Twin Lakes development, residents along Senseny Road will be provided safe, direct, and convenient access to Route 7. 12007 Sunrise Valley Drive • Suite 160 • Reston, Virginia 22091 • (703) 476-0001 • (703) 641i-9427 • FAX# (703) 269.035g 6 • Mr. Charles Wheatley -2- July 25, 1990 The distribution which Callow Associates used in the traffic impact study seems to reflect this point. Along Route 7, the distribution of traffic, based on existing traffic movements, flows heavier to the east (36 percent as opposed to 24 percent toward Winchester). By providing the vehicles originating from Senseny Road an access to Route 7 east of I-81, the number of vehicles near the City will be reduced. There is no reason that vehicles which will commute from south of Route 7 to the Washington, U.C. metropolitan region should first approach the borders of Winchester on their way to and from their commute. In effect, the result of this road will be to distribute the traffic needing to access Route 7 more equitably along the arterial. The discussion above is based on the construction of 'Road A' before the planned Route 37 Bypass is built, 'I'1ie bypass is planned to pass through the eastern portion of the Twin Lakes development. It is proposed that 'Road A' will intersect with the bypass, thereby allowing traffic generated from the Twin Lakes development to access the bypass from within the site. This, again, would have the effect of allowing traffic with no intention of entering Winchester to reach their destination without having to approach the City first. In conclusion, while it is certainly true that the development of 'Road A' has many beneficial impacts for the future residents of Twin Lakes, it can also be shown that many other residents of Frederick County will be benefitted as well. In a region of impending growth, a more established north -south roadway representation than currently exists is definitely an advantage. DRG:clt • r =- CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation Planning& IXsfgn Ccxnsultants MEMORANDUM DATE; July 25, 1990 Ref, 5378 TO: ,Mr.In Charles Wheaty, Loggia Development FROM: Callow/Mike Harris, Callow Associates RE: Twin Lakes Transportation Comments On March 6, 1990, Callow Associates completed the final traffic impact analysis for the proposed 'Twin Lakes development, located in Frederick County, Virginia, At the request of Frederick County, an addendum report, further studying the impact of the development on Senseny Road, was completed on April 4, 1990. Both of these studies assumed certain roadway improvements which would accommodate both Twin Lakes and the region as a whole. Perhaps the largest of such improvements is the proposed roadway ('Road A' in the study) which connects with Route 7 to the north and travels southwest through the site. Two access points to the site on Senseny Road will connect with 'Road A', effectively providing a north -south roadway from Senseny Road to Route 7. This roadway, and the benefits of it, are the focus of this memorandum. To be sure, the benefits to Twin Lakes are unmistakable. Access to Route 7 for the potential residents of Twin Lakes will enhance the opportunity that these residents will have to travel to and from work and other residential -related linkages (schools, retail, public services, etc.) in and around the City of Winchester. To assume, however, that this roadway will operate as a self-serving roadway for only the Twin bakes development would be a mistake, Current residents in this region of the County have for years lived with what might be described as the inconvenience of the current roadway network, or lack thereof, Residential pockets along Senseny Road have had no other choice but to travel this road for somo distance either to reach the City of Winchester or to use Pleasant Valley Road for the purpose of connecting with Route 7 or Route 50 to travel east toward Washington, D.C.. With the construction of the roadway through the Twin Lakes development, residents along Senseny Road will be provided safe, direct, and convenient access to Route 7. 12007 Sunrise Valley Drive • Suite 160 • Restnn, Virginia 22091 • (70a) 476-0001 • (703) 648-0427 • VAX# (703) 269.03,58 6 Mr. Charles Wheatley -2- July 25, 1990 The distribution which Callow Associates used in the traffic impact study seems to reflect this point.. Along Route 7, the distribution of traffic, based on existing traffic movements, flows heavier to the east (36 percent as opposed to 24 percent toward Winchester). By providing the vehicles originating from Senseny Road an access to Route 7 east of I-81, the number of vehicles near the City will be reduced. There is no reason that vehicles which will commute from south of Route 7 to the Washington, D.C, metropolitan region should first approach the borders of Winchester on their way to and from their conunute, In effect, the result of this road will be. to distribute the traffic needing to access Route 7 more equitably along the arterial. The discussion above is based on the construction of '.Road A' before the planned Route 37 Bypass is built. 17he bypass is planned to pass through the eastern portion of the Twin Lakes development. It is proposed that 'Road A' will intersect with the bypass, thereby allowing traffic generated from the Twin Lakes development to access the bypass from within the site. This, again, would have the effect of allowing traffic with no intention of entering Winchester to reach their destination without having to approach the City first. In conclusion, while_ it is certainly true that the development of 'Road A' has many beneficial impacts for the future residents of Twin Likes, it can also be shown that many other residents of Frederick County will be benefitted as well. In a region of impending growth, a more established north -south roadway representation than currently exists is definitely an advantage, DRC:clt G. W. CLIFFORD ASSOCIATES, INC. 200 North Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 Fax: 703-665-0493 July 13, 1990 Mr. Ken Carr, Executive Director Frederick -Winchester Service Authority PO Box 43 Winchester, Va. 22601 Re: Twin Lakes Project, Route 37 Dear Ken, In continuation of our request for a letter of intent regarding the right-of- way of Route 37, we hereby respectfully request to be placed on your next agenda which we understand to be July 23 at 7:30 pm. We hope to have the issues resolved that caused the tabling of this issue at the last meeting and be able to move ahead with this important public improvement. If you require anything else from us please call. We appreciate you help in this matter. z , r., P.E., G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. cc: Mr. Charles Whitley Mr. John Shullman Mr. Bob Watkins CEM/ckd it V4 • • CITY OF WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA MEMORANDUM TO: Tim Youmans, Planning Director FROM: Jesse Moffett, Utilities Director DATE: March 13, 1990 Rouss City Hall 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 703-667-1815 SUBJ : COMMENTS ENTSS Please find attached my continents regarding Twin Lakes Development. Please advise is any questions. 'Pc M . Ke wed "THE APPLE CAPITAL" Cc fflVT=S Twin Lakes Development In review of the plan for utility services, it would be our preference to see a gravity sewer to service this sewer area rather than the pumping scenario initially given. It does seem feasible looking at the contour maps that a sewer could be laid to drain, by gravity, to the Opequon Creek and then follow the Opequon Creek to the wastewater treatment facility. Also with regards to the wastewater system, on page 15 of the Impact Analysis Statement, there is a statement made in paragraph 3 with regards to capacity at the regional facility. It is true that Frederick County Sanitation Authority has 900,000 gallons a day capacity. The next statement states that the present flow leaves approximately-4 1/2 iregd available for capacity is incorrect. This should be corrected to reflect actual available capacity out of the 900,000 which is reserved for Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Addressing the water supply and distribution system. It is noted in the Impact Analysis Statement that adequate water is not available for fire protection as it presently stands. Considering that this system will be tied on to the same system, plan to serve other development along Senseny Road, it would be obvious that not only would there need to be upgrading of the distribution system within the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, but also substantial upgrading within the distribution system owned and operated by the City in order to deliver adequate supply to this County facility. f MAR 1990 ; REQUEST FOR REZONING COMMENTS Rat � Superintendent Frederick County Schools P.O. Box 3508, 1415 Amherst Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 667-5770 The School Board Offices are located at 1415 Amherst Street in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Loggia Development 1700 Diagonal Rd Suite 200 Alexandria, Va 22304 (703)548-4737 Agent: G W Clifford & Assoc P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:Tom Price (703)667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: TWIN LAKES Location: In eastern Frederick County aQproximately 2 miles east of City of Winchester It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek and to the south by Senseny Road. School Comments: See attachment. School Signature and Date: (NOTICE TO SCHOOLS - PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO THE AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, impact analysis, location map and all other pertinent information. 3/7/90 171 REQUEST F R REZ NIN COMMENTS City of Winchester, Virginia ATTN: Tim Youmans, Planning Director Rouss City Hall 15 N. Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 667-1815 The City of Winchester offices are located in Rouss City Hall at 15 North Cameron Street in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Loggia Development 1700 Diagonal Rd Suite 200 Alexandria, Va 22304 (703)548-4737 Agent: G W Clifford & Assoc P 0 Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn•Tom Price (703)667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: TWIN LAKES Location: In eastern Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of City of Winchester It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek and to the south by Senseny Road., / Fla., A; : 1s s 1' % /City / of Winchester Commment: Va - �,� 7e.y or, / a s &15 ,� `14 5/� 4,1 �CerIla bi S�400f �d paf'�c �c/ 0%v�d � /rkt4,�. s�✓� w �(c�I �� f t7'e �c�e✓elo s��o / / L `f e/ o� C�i'T.rl �'cr r/ [✓e!o % `�� Ci° . �►ticL r5 , ne �b !, � / elks o troy Veld %-Z {n✓�anhv�ses Gy sc1i�o� s�� t- / // /� /��/+ec�/ C01,44 lcuc ),� �c.tv/'�1 /^to '��L ct�nd-feSC�../ /•n le[� S�vd/eS ? //ltiTTiG �iludy �C`P��rs /!�o►*r`ll/e�� i�j��uv. d2�✓r�..T/o/� �l/�/ �o/� 70r' co/,np ,o./t 4o Ale -7 i-s un/c%r/; 64r 4k /sc!►�p/Co51 Pr l� Pr CPDmatWee: Ctie ✓!o7` t>0 Heal. S✓rr 0nc�` /,.y �!/ roJed 51,-eeJ nei,-. ,L d. !a^�vses c"C i� tg gure a"��P..«zn �J/c✓�, i 90 i i n ure .-�..� 3 z �y(NOTICE TO CITY - PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM T T E GENT.) 5 fro / 5 / ` Dr/ 7 P r�aaSA . / / NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, Please attach a copy of your application form, impact analysis, location map and all other pertinent information. /U1,411, 3 / 7 / 90 3 �3. ko G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 200 North Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 Fax: 703-665-0493 July 13,1990 Mr. Bob Watkins, Planning Director Frederick Count Planning Department 9 Court Square Winchester, Va. 226501 Re: Twin Lakes Dear Bob, Please be advised that we are continuing the attempt to obtain and secure a letter of intent from the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority relating to the Route 37 right-of-way issue. The issue was tabled at their June meeting for further study and we fully expect to be before the FWSA for their action on July 30,1990. Since the Planning Commission asked us at our last meeting to secure such an understanding prior to action on our rezoning request, we feel it advisable to request a tabling of this item at your July 18 meeting. We would respectfully request this issue be heard at your August 1 meeting, which will allow us to meet with the FWSA one more time. Thank you for this assistance and your help in this matter. Sincerely yours, t "C E. Maddox, Jr." P.E., V.P. G. W. Clifford (&-- Associates, Inc. cc: Mr. Charles Whitley Mr. John Shullman CEM/ckd COMMONWEALTH of V1RCINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 278 EDINBURG, 22824 RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER (703) 984-4133 August 28, 1990 Mr. Tom Price C/O G. W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Post Office Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 t- WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT ENGINEER Ref: Twin Lakes Development _ Routes 7 & 657 Frederick County Dear Tom: Enclosed you will find your recently submitted plan and county comment sheet to the above referenc development. We decline to offer any additional corments until all the items listed in our letter to your office dated May 3, 1990 have been addressed. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. RBC/rf Enclosures xc: Mr. F. E. Wymer Mr. R. W. Watkins Sincerely, William H. Bushman Transp. Resident Engineer Bv: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY LOi�GIH IiE'..)EL1-1FP9EhJT TONu.703-548-0963 J10 7,90 14 : 58 No . 002 P.01 RE: Twin Lakes LOGGIA bEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DATE: June 7, 1990 (Revised) Pur$Uant to Section 15.1-491(a) of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended), and the provisions of the ;Zoning Ordinance of Frederick County, Virginia, Loggia Development Corporation herein called "Applicant,' owner of that certain parcel of land containing tour hundred (400) acrea and described in detail in the submissions filed herewith, hereby proffers that said parcel of land shall be developed in accordance with the following conditions, if the rezoning application is granted and the property is rezoned to R-P and a-Z in accordance with the attached Generalized Development Plan. These proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect if rezoning is not granted. These proffers shall be binding upon the Applicant or its legal successor or assigns. 1. The development of the subjeot property shall be in general conformance With the Generalized Developmont Plan submitted herewith. LOGGIA DEVELOP11EINIT TLIOIdr .703-548-0963 .JLQ 7 , 90 14 : 58 No . 002 P . 02 2. 2 The Applicant agrees to conform ganerally to they laindeoape plan to ba submitted prior to final Beard action on the application. 3. The Applicant will provide on -site recreational amenitiee, inaluding a lake, parks and open space as shown on the Generalized Development Plan. 4, All streets within the development shall be fully dedicated publio streote. 5, The Applicant ahal.l. $esi.gn and aonstruot all streets and roads on the subject property consistently with the r; Aunty ' s adopted thoroughfare plan for the area, and according to uniform standards establishad by the Virginia Departmont of Transportation (VAOT), and an may be provided in these proffers. 6. The total number of dwelling units sh4l,i not exosed one thousand three hundred (1,300). The unit mist shall cOnsist of six hundred fifty (650) single family homes and sic hundred fifty (650) townhouses, 7. A deVelopn6 t phasing plan shall be submitted during the Master Development. Plain process, in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning ordinance. Phasing as shown can the said Master Plan shall be acoomplished such that no more than fifteen LOGGIA DEVELOPMENT TIONo . 703-54 8-0963 3* 7 , 90 14 :58 No . 002 P . 0366 3 percent (1.5k) of the total, permitted dwelling units, in any combination of single-family or townhouse units, may be oonetructed in any one year] provided, however, that this figure shall be cumulative, and any number of such units not constructed in any given year, may be constructed in later years. S. The Applicant proffers that it shall, dedicate, design and construct a two lane road connecting Route, 7 to senseny Road, as shown on the Generalized Development plan with a sixty foot (SO') right-of-way in the area designated in the Tranaportati.on Plan as a Major collector, for inclusion in the State Highway System of Secondary Hiqhways. 4. The Applicant skull provide a phasing plan for the construction of the road and a landsoaps plan for the entire length of the road which shall, be submitted to and ,approved by the Frederick County Board of Suparvisors. The phasing plan shall provide for the completion of the connection From Senssny Road to Routs 7 within one year of the traneter of the 180th lot accessed by Senseny Road, 10. The Applicant proffers to identify and use its best efforts to preserve significant woodland and mature trees on the LOGGI R DEVELOPPIENT TWo . ?03-548-0063 J1* 7,90 14 : 5 8 No . 002 P.04 4 sub5*Qt property in the design, layout and ocnatruotion of all development. 11, The Applicant agrees that it shal.l, employ all reasonable Bast Matagsment Practioas in connection with the development of the subject property. 12. The Applicant shall contribute One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for each townhouas lot and One Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($1,400.00) for each single family lot approved.. As building permits are issued for the construction of eadh LIW"l I In _-t uAt asp, &s sash 1e4 is sold to a davalopor fav aonstruotion, whichever is soo ar, the Applicant shall pay the or designated by Frederick County to reoaive said contribution. To ensure payment of this proratal contribution, the applicant shall record an instrument creating a lien against each lot upon approval of the zoning application. Th+a lion against each link shall be released upon the payment of the contribution for each I. lot. 13. The Applicant shall provide in its Generalized Development. Platt a one hundred fifty foot (1501) wider right-of- LOGGIA UEVELON-1ENT T#No . 703-548-0963 MET- - 5 Ju• 7,90 14 58 No.002 F.05 r i way for the future ali g*nn*nt of Route 37 called for in the Transportation Flan. 14. The Applioant shall make a contribution of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per lot to the County for regional par%* and r*areation. This contribution shall, be guaranteed and paid in the same manner as provided for the school site in paragraph 12 above. In addition, the Applicant shall solely bear the current budgeter! Ghats of the FrederioX County Little League Baseball Uniforms for the 1991 season. 15. The Applioant shall make a contribution. of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per lot to th* Greenwood Fire station. This contribution ahal.l be quarantsed and paid in the same mannor as provided for the school site its paragraph 12 above. 16. The Applioant shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 7 end the proposed colleotor road when warranted. 1.7. The Applicant will reserve for future dedication a ten (10) foot strip along its southern boundary line for future widening of senseny Road whop required. The APPli.Qant hereby proffers that the development of the subjCOt property of this application shall be in strict LOGGIA DEVELOPMEPJT TONo.703-545-09(53 Ju 1 7 , 90 14 58 No . 002 P . 06 L aoaordance with the conditions not forth in this submission. The Applioant further represents that it, is the owner of all the property included within this applioa.tion and that the signatures below constitute all the necessary signatures of record owners of the property to subject the lend within this application to these proffers, These proffers shall be binding upon the Applicant, its successors and assigns, GIVEN under roy hand this day of , 19904 LOGGIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LOGGIA DEVELOPMENT TLOPIo . 703-548-0963 jo 7,190 14 : 58 Plo . 002 P.07 7 STATE Or VTRGINIA COUNTY OF , to -Witt T, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do certify that , whose num* as of Logg a Development Corporation is a gr ad to the foregoing and horounto annexe4 Proffer Statement, bearing date on the day of 1990, has this day aoknowledged the same before ma in the Fe and County aforesaid as the act and deed of said corporation, and has made oath that the gaze was executed on behalf of said corporation by due authority of said oorporation. oIV£N under my hand this day of , 19900 Notary FT1116 My Gommi.asion Expires: LOGGIA DEVELOPPIENT T*lo .703-548-0963 JAD 7,90 14 : 5 8 I•,l o. 0 0 2 P.08 a i, , hereby pyroEf'er that the development of the subj;ot property of this application shall, be in strict accordanoo with the conditions sot forth on this concept plan subdivision dated , for an proffered davelopment or Data COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF LOUDOUN, to -wit: Subscribed and Sworn to before xne in my Stag and county aforesaid the day of 1 1990. Notary pu o My C=i$BiOn Expires: 0 • Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company Route 656 & 657 Greenwood Road P. O. Box 3023 Winchester, Virginia 22601 June 7, 1990 Mr. Bob Watkins Planning Director Frederick County Planning Committee Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Bob: The Board of Directors of the Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company would like to offer a proposed proffer for Twin Lake subdivision planned for eastern Frederick County in the Shawnee District. $50,000.00 in the beginning to be used for payment on an Ambulance. Then we request $500..00 per bulding lot to -be paid to Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company, due at the final approval of each section of the Development. This money will be used for a new pumper to update our fleet of apparatus and maintain a Class A Department. Thank you, �d anda M. Cunningham, Secretary Board of Directors Greenwood Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company E • G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mr. Bob Watkins, Planning Director Frederick Count Planning Department 9 Court Square Winchester, Va. 226501 Dear Bob, 200 North Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 Fax: 703-665-0493 July 13, 1990 Re: Twin Lakes Please be advised that we are continuing the attempt to obtain and secure a letter of intent from the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority relating to the Route 37 right-of-way issue. The issue was tabled at their June meeting for further study and we fully expect to be before the FWSA for their action on July 30,1990. Since the Planning Commission asked us at our last meeting to secure such an understanding prior to action on our rezoning request, we feel it advisable to request a tabling of this item at your July 18 meeting. We would respectfully request this issue be heard at your August 1 meeting, which will allow us to meet with the FWSA one more time. Thank you for this assistance and your help in this matter. Sincerely yours, / E. Maddox,.E., V.P. Jr.,. G. W. Clifford 'Associates, Inc. cc: Mr. Charles Whitley Mr. John Shullman CEM / ckd G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 200 North Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 Fax: 703-665-0493 July 13, 1990 Mr. Ken Carr, Executive Director Frederick -Winchester Service Authority PO Box 43 Winchester, Va. 22601 Re: Twin Lakes Project, Route 37 Dear Ken, In continuation of our request for a letter of intent regarding the right-of- way of Route 37, we hereby respectfully request to be placed on your next agenda which we understand to be July 23 at 7:30 pm. We hope to have the issues resolved that caused the tabling of this issue at the last meeting and be able to move ahead with this important public improvement. If you require anything else from us please call. We appreciate you help in this matter. Z ., P.E., G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. cc: Mr. Charles Whitley Mr. John Shullman CEM/ckd 0 G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 200 North Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 Fax: 703-665-0493 June 6, 1990 Mr. Bob Watkins Frederick County Planner 9 Court Square Winchester, Va. 22601 Re: Twin Lakes Project Rezoning Senseny Road Dear Bob, As you will recall, the Twin Lakes project was tabled indefinitely by the owners for the purpose of revising their proffers and to negotiate for a right-of- way to Route 7 across the Opequon Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant facility. The idea was to structure the proffers and the phasing for this project to provide the Route 7 connection very early in the development process. Attached are the revised proffers and we would request that you place this project again on the July 3 Planning Commission agenda. If we can provide any additional information in this regard please do not hesitate to call. cc: Mr. Charlie Whitley Mr. John Shullman CEM/ckd Sincerely o rs, ad ox, Jr., P.E., V.P. G. W. Clifford & Associates, nc. i)' JON- 71990 PROFFER STATEMENT RE: Twin Lakes LOGGIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DATE: April 16, 1990 (Revised) Pursuant to Section 15.1-491(a) of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended), and the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of Frederick County, Virginia, Loggia Development Corporation herein called "Applicant," owner of that certain parcel of land containing four hundred (400) acres and described in detail in the submissions filed herewith, hereby proffers that said parcel of land shall be developed in accordance with the following conditions, if the rezoning application is granted and the property is rezoned to R-P and B-2 in accordance with the attached Generalized Development Plan. These proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect if rezoning is not granted. These proffers shall be binding upon the Applicant or its legal successor or assigns. 1. The development of the subject property shall be in general conformance with the Generalized Development Plan submitted herewith. I 2 2. The Applicant agrees to conform generally to the landscape plan to be submitted prior to final Board action on the application. 3. The Applicant will provide on -site recreational amenities, including a lake, parks and open space as shown on the Generalized Development Plan. 4. All streets within the development shall be fully dedicated public streets. 5. The Applicant shall design and construct all streets and roads on the subject property consistently with the County's adopted thoroughfare plan for the area, and according to uniform standards established by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and as may be provided in these proffers. 6. The total number of dwelling units shall not exceed one thousand three hundred (1,300). The unit mix shall consist of six hundred fifty (650) single family homes and six hundred fifty (650) townhouses. 7. A development phasing plan shall be submitted during the Master Development Plan process, in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Phasing as shown on the said Master Plan shall be accomplished such that no more than fifteen 3 percent (15%) of the total permitted dwelling units, in any combination of single-family or townhouse units, may be constructed in any one year; provided, however, that this figure shall be cumulative, and any number of such units not constructed in any given year, may be constructed in later years. 8. The Applicant proffers that it shall dedicate, design and construct a two lane road connecting Route 7 to Senseny Road, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan with a sixty foot (601) right-of-way in the area designated in the Transportation Plan as a Major Collector, for inclusion in the State Highway System of Secondary Highways. 9. The Applicant shall provide a phasing plan for the construction of the road and a landscape plan for the entire length of the road which shall be submitted to and approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. The phasing plan shall provide for the completion of the connection from Senseny Road to Route 7 within one year of the transfer of the 260th lot accessed by Senseny Road. Design of the connection to Route 7 shall be completed at the time of sale of the first twenty percent (20%) of the lots and construction of the connection ' 1 • • 4 shall be complete at the time of sale fifty percent (50%) of the lots. 10. The Applicant proffers to identify and use its best efforts to preserve significant woodland and mature trees on the subject property in the design, layout and construction of all development. 11. The Applicant agrees that it shall employ all reasonable Best Management Practices in connection with the development of the subject property. 12. The Applicant shall contribute Eight Hundred Dollars ($800.00) for each townhouse lot and One Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($1,200.00) for each single family lot approved. As building permits are issued for the construction of each dwelling unit or, as each lot is sold to a developer for construction, whichever is sooner, the Applicant shall pay the per unit contribution to the School Board or to a fund created or designated by Frederick County to receive said contribution. To ensure payment of this prorata contribution, the applicant shall record an instrument creating a lien against each lot upon approval of the zoning application. The lien against each lot shall be released upon the payment of the contribution for each 9 lot. The Applicant may, at its option, dedicate to the County upon request a site suitable for an elementary school site consisting of a minimum of fifteen (15) acres with public streets, sewer and water provided to the site as shown on the Generalized Development Plan. If a school site is contributed, the agreed upon value of the school site will go to reduce the cash contribution per lot on a prorata basis. 13. The Applicant shall provide in its Generalized Development Plan a one hundred fifty foot (1501) wide right-of- way for the future alignment of Route 37 called for in the Transportation Plan. 14. The Applicant shall make a contribution of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) to the County for regional parks and recreation. This contribution shall be guaranteed and paid in the same manner as provided for the school site in paragraph 12 above. 15. The Applicant shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 7 and the proposed collector road when warranted. 0 16. The Applicant will reserve for future dedication a ten (10) foot strip along its southern boundary line for future widening of Senseny Road when required. The Applicant hereby proffers that the development of the subject property of this application shall be in strict accordance with the conditions set forth in this submission. The Applicant further represents that it is the owner of all the property included within this application and that the signatures below constitute all the necessary signatures of record owners of the property to subject the land within this application to these proffers. These proffers shall be binding upon the Applicant, its successors and assigns. 1990. GIVEN under my hand this day of LOGGIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION By: i 7 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF , to -wit: I, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do certify that , whose name as of Loggia Development Corporation is signed to the foregoing and hereunto annexed Proffer Statement, bearing date on the day of , 1990, has this day acknowledged the same before me in the State and County aforesaid as the act and deed of said corporation, and has made oath that the same was executed on behalf of said corporation by due authority of said corporation. GIVEN under my hand this day of 1990. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 8 I, , hereby proffer that the development of the subject property of this application shall be in strict accordance with the conditions set forth on this concept plan subdivision dated , for an proffered development for Date COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF LOUDOUN, to -wit: Subscribed and Sworn to before me in my State and County aforesaid the day of , 1990. Notary Public My Commission Expires: ZONING REVIEW COMMITTEE August 9, 1990 Wiseman/Shiho Rezoning #008-90: 53 acres from RA to B-2 20 acres from RA to B-3 On Route 642, southeast of I-81/Route 37 interchange. Connect with sewer and water through Lakeside. Potential Issues: Difficult terrain Fire and rescue impacts not discussed in impact statement Traffic Impacts - Will possible generate considerably over 20,000 adt. Concerns for immediate impacts on Route 642 and Route 37 intersection. Not adequately addressed in impact statement. Needs to be reviewed by HRAB. Before advertising? Proffers• $150,000 proffered to Route 642 improvements. Will dedicate and construct collector connection through property. Underground utilities. Dedicate and preserve up to one acre for historic fort site. • L ZONING REVIEW COMMITTEE August 9, 1990 Wiseman/Shiho Rezoning #008-90: 53 acres from RA to B-2 20 acres from RA to B-3 On Route 642, southeast of I-81/Route 37 interchange. Connect with sewer and water through Lakeside. Potential Issues: Difficult terrain Fire and rescue impacts not discussed in impact statement Traffic Impacts - Will possible generate considerably over 20,000 adt. Concerns for immediate impacts on Route 642 and Route 37 intersection. Not adequately addressed in impact statement. Needs to be reviewed by HRAB. Before advertising? Proffers• $150,000 proffered to Route 642 improvements. Will dedicate and construct collector connection through property. Underground utilities. Dedicate and preserve up to one acre for historic fort site. TWIN LAKES REZONING APPLICATION Shawnee Magisterial District County of Frederick, Virginia Prepared for Loggia Development Corporation 1700 Diagonal Road, Suite 200 Alexandria, Va 22304 (703) 548-4737 March 1990 by gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. FREDERICKSBURG - WINCHESTER Draft Letter August 7, 1990 Mr. James W. Golladay, Jr. - Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission P.O. Box 158 Stephens City, VA 22655 R Route 7 Connector Road Dear Mr. Golladay, The Authority is in concept, agreeable to the location of a road right-of- way across the Regional Plant site as long as this road has a minimal effect on our long term expansion, will not impact continued operations of our facility and is conditioned upon satisfactory negotiation for the value of rights -of -way conveyed. The Authority stands ready to continuing its study of this transportation corridor, as called for in the current to County planning. Sincerely, g. w. cl:fford & associates, Inc. F 200 North Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 Fax: 703-665-0493 August 7, 1990 Mr. Ken Carr, Executive Director Frederick -Winchester Service Authority PO Box 43 Winchester, VA 22601 Re. Route 7 Connector Roa Dear Ken, Thank you for our meeting on Tuesday with Mr. Chuck Gayle of Camp, Dresser, & Mckee, your Consulting Engineer. I am looking forward to working with Mr. Gayle and you in arriving at the most appropriate location for the roadway. We all understand that many factors must be considered prior to a final decision and to this end any information you or your consultant need, please feel free to call. Attached is a draft form of letter which I believe will satisfy the Planning Commission in their conditional review of our project. This or similar form of letter is what we hope to have prior to the September 5th Planning Commission meeting in Frederick County. I believe this draft summarizes what may be the Authority's position, assuming Mr. Gayle's report, determines no need for the western portion of your site for future expansion of your plant. I would appreciate your comments or ideas as to the availability of such a letter at this September hearing. We look forward to your reply. Sincerely yours, C. . Maddox, Jr., P.E., V G.W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. cc: Charlie Whitley, The Loggia Group John Shulman, Tower Construction CEM / ckd g. w. cifford & associates, inc. 200 North Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 Fax: 703-665-0493 August 1, 1990 Mr Jim Golladay, Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission PO Box 158 Stephens City, Va. 99655 Re: Twin Lakes Dear Jim, We hereby respectfully request that the Planning Commission table the Twin Lakes rezoning until your first meeting in September 1990. '€his we feel is necessary in order to gather additional information appropriate to your decision. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely yours, C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. CEM/ckd cc: Mr. Charles Whitley Mr. John Shulman TO: Tim Youmans, Planning FROM: Michael Weber, Engineering DATE: March 22, 1990 SUBJECT: Twin Lakes Rezoning (County) - Greenwood Road is functionally deficient now without the build -out of the already approved subdivisions and master plans in the Senseny Road corridor. It will need to be reconstructed even with a new collector road two miles east. - Does not address the loss of agricultural land use. - Statement about Opequon Treatment Plant operated by Service Authority and service to this part of the County is misleading. - Conflicting statements regarding the areas of steep slopes and the mature vegetation areas. The steep slopes are 170 of the total area concentrated at the Opequon and the vicinity of the central lake and drainageway. The mature vegetation is 47% and "corresponds to the steeper slopes and areas less suited for agricultural use." - Figure 1.3 is difficult to read and very generalized. Somewhat broad -brush. - Student analysis is low. School Board has developed figures which better reflect what has been recently occurring and the probable continuing trend. Personnally I have seen about one elementary school age child per single-family home (average). The analysis does not account for middle school students or what happens when the elementary students reach middle school. Senseny Road cannot handle any additional students based on what children already live in its district. Impact didn't address the continuing operational costs the new elementary school will have that this proposal will need to support it, even if you figure only half a school filled by. their analysis. - Sewage flaw calculations are low. Average daily flow is 100 gcpd with a peaking factor of.2.5. They used 200 instead of 260-for single-family, 150 instead of 190 for townhouse and calculated a population equivalent of 700 for the commercial (assuming retail) where it should be closer to 905 based on the VuSBC (I assumed 25% stock area). - Wetlands have not been identified. - Appendix for water system was not included. The conclusion is flawed because the permise is made that adequate transmission gets to the loop to begin with. This is not the case. Recent area tests have shown that the sysytem is inadequate to sustain a minimum fire flow of 1000 gpm without dropping below a 20 psi residual. There has been no address of what happens when the County goes onto its awn system. This area will result in a large capital expenditure for transmission mains to be extended. If the County stays with the City transmission system there is no address of the cost of necessary plant capacity expansion which will be driven solely by County development. - Page 20 states project is two miles east of Greenwood Fire Station, yet it was earlier described as two miles east of the city. It can't be both. Page 2 Twin Lakes March 22, 1990 - There cannot be reliance on a population increase providing additional volunteer firefighters. Despite recent County population increases there has been a decline in the number of volunteers. If one extends the premise that the income level in this development will be 33% greater than the County average the implication is that these residents will work in the DC area. They will therefore not be available as volunteers during the time of greatest need which is during the day. Volunteers do need a substantial amount of training and dedication. - Excessive reliance on the City facilities, in particular, Handley Library and Jim Barnett Park. - Personal Property Tax Revenue is out of line. They underestimated the number of vehicles but greatly overestimated the revenue per vehicle. - Table 3 assumes household income available from Day 1. In reality it will not start until about two years into the project. - Table.4 employment data assumes from Day 1 that 35,000 SF of commercial is in place and under full employment. Almost one year after opening the retail center at Greenwood Road and Senseny Road isn't even at 25% capacity.. - Table 5 assumes that no contractor does repeat work and that all work will not be done by existing contractors. If existing contractors are taken into account then the number of new jobs created is greatly in excess. The 88 commercial workers were added and the assumption is that they will be there from Day 1. - No consideration has been given to the impact of the 37 Bypass on the project. It could easily bi-sect the project resulting in a small residential island between 37 and the Opequon. - The traffic analysis does not look at the impact to Senseny Road west of Greenwood Road in to the City -where it is critical. It does not address what the additional impact will be on Greenwood Road. There will be sane considering the unknown factor of the collector road to VA 7 and a showm road west toward Greenwood Road north of Senseny Road. The assignment of percentage of traffic does not appear logical. Where are the 18% going east out Senseny? Balance that against 22% in toward the City which is the direct route into town or .the way to the mall or to Senseny Road school since the actuality of a school in -the development is an unknown. Level of service "D" is never acceptable when you have created the situation from scratch or can do improvements to increase the LOS. No consideration is given to the through traffic that a linking collector to VA 7 will bring. q n.: ' �. d.+1Nra COUNTY OF FREDE:RICK J COURT SQUARE P O Box 601 WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 • Alice, John & Edward Haggerty Rt. 1, Box 1500 Winchester, VA 22601- COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 July 18, 1990 TO THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) The Application of: TWIN LAKES Rezoning Application #004-90 of: Loggia Development Corporation to rezone 5.1 + acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B-2 (Business General) and 391.35 + acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for single family - detached dwellings, townhouses, school site and commercial use. This property is located in eastern Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of the City of Winchester in the Shawnee Magisterial District. It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek and to the south by Senseny Road. This rezoning application will be considered by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their meeting of July 18, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors meeting room, the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. Sincerely, -�o ;�a Robert W. Watkins Planning Director RWW/slk 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 PLANNING COUNTY OF FREDERICK 9 COURT SQUARE P. O. Box 601 WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 • & WANDO'-1 Vn. 22 6 e,1..... • July 18, 1990 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 TO THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) The Application of: TWIN LAKES Rezoning Application #004-90 of• Loggia Development Corporation to rezone 5.1 + acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B-2 (Business General) and 391.35 + acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for single family - detached dwellings, townhouses, school site and commercial use. This property is located in eastern Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of the City of Winchester in the Shawnee Magisterial District. It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek and to the south by Senseny Road. This rezoning application will be considered by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their meeting of July 18, 19901 at 7:30 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors meeting room, the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. Sincerely, G� Robert W. Watkins Planning Director RWW/slk 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia - 22601 COUNTY OF FREDERICK 9 COURT SQUARE P. 0 Box 601 L -;'h WINCHESTER VIRGINIA 22601 1 Alicia F. & , oe Allen Gray Lewis, et al T uf? 428 Madison AAve, 11-A To Orange, Fl.i 32073 SENDER VMWAr-I)ING ORDER EXPMM6't ___ _ QSENDEP LE141428 320ES1225 1N 07/29/30 RETURN TO SENDER NO RWM O80FR ON E UNAKFaE T ORWARgIL RETURN TO 5SMER r+ • July 18, 1990 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 TO THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) The Application of: TWII3 LAKES Rezoning Application #004-90 of: Loggia Development Corporation to rezone 5.1 + acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B-2 (Business General) and 391.35 + acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for single family - detached dwellings, townhouses, school site and commercial use. This property is located in eastern Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of the City of Winchester in the Shawnee Magisterial District. It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek and to the south by Senseny Road. This rezoning application will be considered by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their meeting of July 18, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors meeting room, the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. Sincerely, / I(�Ill�a Robert W. Watkins Planning Director RWW/slk 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK IDepartment of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 April 18, 1990 TO THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) The Application of: TWIN LAKES Rezoning Application #004-90 of: Loggia Development Corporation to rezone 5.1 + acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B-2 (Business General) and 391.35 + acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for single family - detached dwellings, townhouses, school site and commercial use. This property is located in eastern Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of the City of Winchester in the Shawnee Magisterial District. It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek and to the south by Senseny Road. This rezoning application will be considered by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their meeting of May 2, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors meeting room, the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. Sincerely, "/�/ e%A,- Robert W. Watkins Planning Director RWW/slk 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on April 18, 1990 fr*the Department of elanning and 0velopment, Frederick ?. County, Virginia: George r,. Sheppard, Jr. Ri_char_d. & Barbara Cockrill Allen A. Futral, Jr.. PO Box 278 405 Br.iarmont Dr, Philomont, VA 22131 J! Winchester, VA 22Ani Loggia Group, Inc. �( / Phyllis B. Holtkamp 6000 Stevenson Ave. 1.30 S. Liberty Keuter Rd. ✓, Alexandria, VA 22304 Lebanon, OH 45036 Michael & Barbara Kambourelis 506 S. River Oaks Dr. x Indiatlanti_c, FL 32903 Wilbur & Helen Feltners PO Box 2286 Winchester, VA 22601 Dennis K. & Peggy S. Bucher 635 Bedford Drive Winchester, VA 22601 James & Jane Vickers 2023 Valley Ave. Winchester, VA 22601 Alan & Linda Block J\ 643 Bedford Dr. Winchester, VA 22601 Robert W. Watkins, Director Frederick County Dept. of Planning STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK I, Renee' S. Arlotta , a Notary Public in and for the state and county aforesaid, do hereby certify that Robert W. Watkins, Director for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated April 18, 1990 , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my state and county foresaid. Given under my hand this 18th day of April 1 1990. My commission expires on March 23, 1991 11,50 000l,00000 00 0 '13 F-31 Melvin B. Johnson HICAA, WANDA JEAN & JACV Gore, VA 22637 RT . 6 1.'4(:)x 11581. NN : '12260 1 GILES, E. FIT Al S C/O WANDA H:I:C;I--1 Robert & Bessie See X RIT- Id ) BOX 681 WINCHUESTER, VA. Rte. 1, BOX 101-E 2260 5. Berryville, VA 22611 .'RY V - Lewis & Pauline Strother VA- 760 ROSSUM Tane Winchester, VA 22601 Delbert & Viramia mcuee - r--.r4AO • ..�' W4 A PO Box 2306 \Ij VZT, 0 1- * Winchester, VA 22601 W -X. 6!5F' Logqia Develoanent I)UNN, H)WAr<1) J- AVF.-.NtJE:' 1700 Diagonal Rd., Ste. 200 +1 Alexandria, VA 2231-4 Alice, John & Edward Haggerty RODER,,* jE::'T Rt. 1, Box 1500 Winchester, VA 22601- VA- Georqe G. Giles, et al c/o Wanda High 4r:TH- Rt. 6, Box 681 at.- N L �� 1 Winchester, VA 22601 DI:z WINCIAESTE.:R , Vn— E'. I L-101T, A. & F4C)X 1.10 VA. . yoo( ' r-:-r-'iF:S3C)NG LA M - RT - e..' 1.-.I(:)x --*.4 WINCHESTE::R, VA. 2260 Gj: i...1:::< MARGAF<E:T L- —g, RT. 6 FIOX WINCIIAE:I: . Y . C: 1:'. VA. 2260 1 — CI)t"()(>()AoO()()00011)(3000"-.%", C; 3: 1 - EK, G NICIh-11-',Rl) F. & DIAN(:-', I DOIX 1-*A E: R R Y VI I I.. E:: , VA 1.2 6 1 1. Mr. Michael A. Ahrnsbrak 2421 Wayfaring Drive Winchester, Va. 22601 0 4 L E:S1--*J-r-:' A"N N. VA. WINGAAFI:-)'".. 50 "out'S Sk. 21 301-1 00-a-I () 00 0 00 () 000 16, 647 1-.*4FI)F:'C)F-,*D DR. WINCI--II;::i'3TI:!:R, VA. 2260 1 v N 0 fe .. lz NORTHERN C,C)UNT:l.'ES I)E:VL::I...(:)F:'Mi:-;.-N-r CORP P.O. BOX 9"i, E, VA. �N 2.217-6— ADAMS, Di(Wll) L. t400 20TH EI)TREET NX CE VT I 65PIE400004000000()A0004 FIF::.'I'RC)N:rMLJS, 1-,ENTON Al -?E34 I)I:X3:E: PELA-E: DR. WENCHEKSTER, VA. 65W)0004000000OA0005, 1--IE:TRC.)NT.MLJG, A- -763 D1:XlF: DEKLAAE-. DR. VA I:zs, Fz:r.Cl< A. SENSPEENY RX). WENCHESTER, V")- 2 12 6 01. 6bl U00004000,0000A0007 S E U ROBER1 D. --;R- &, BESSIE:: 40x 0 WINC.1-4ESTER, VA- 1:22 6 0 t IL WANDt) RC.)PE r:-y- _ 4 , r..4C)X 676 WTN(:.1-4V.:S'Y'FR, VA. ;31.4 1 ANNY PI VA. 2,2601.— MARY I---- RT . i TIOX i -30t'� ve, 6 ]:RENE: VA- 22, ..-- " --iii 50000 ()()()()0002 ."_ t0000T If F- jC)HN W IVY -AOX 764 KIJMI', Ml:::I-.V:EN I-j, 25 MARY 1::-. )F,,C)X i3tlx) Nl(:.'I<L.ES(:)N, CHAFd E13 W. RT. 6 1..'IE)X 621. 141NCHESTUR, VO, E::I>WAK'I) L... & I EONA C,/E) REA,'.4A RANNE'l I S RT6 DOX 664 WlN,:,l-IEG;TE::R, VA- 2:;U . 150 1 KERNS, ZANr S T* I ., C) R'J'. FA:)X 439 WINCHEKSTF-R, VA- e,,5F4OooOT;000000000008-- MASON I GN T—AFM. , T . 11 R DOX WINCHEKSTER, VA- 21, ..? 6 C, I %-.4E:RRYV3:I VA 2. VA- 12 6 0 3. ,,C)()();Lo4 'm? 2 6 1. 1. vr--:Ry l3r-.�Rv :Ij C , ITT Imi ..A' 6. pox 11-0 E-.- -Z, M:I: 'T WIN AER 13 - SUNSE.'T DWEVE WENCHESTUR, VA- 0 F.WW4, MARI'IN R. RT i "'.51P5 EK, VA. 2 2 6 11 JR. SHEJ: I *: 1-1 x1r. wc � c., 1-*-I VA. 6 0 1 G HF: F:' 40t"J; R' 0�JR - *T' DR. w I Nt� VA GD1 1) 1 RTi BOX it":1.0 VA, 6 i�j 00000004 421i''MAD ISON AVE: ti F:'nF'-K, F1 PRU: 1)1:::FZXCK WINCHE:SIETZ P. 0 DOX 41,15 MCD(7WNLA), ME-:L-VTN 1.4. p*y, - J. SOX 1.34 DE:.:RRYVTL.LE.--, VA_ 226 1. 1 Mj:E:, _IAE-:1 DOX .14'?0 VA - CIE L-U- WAYNEI ;-<)X 400 G.W. Clifford & Associates Attn: Mr. Charles E. Maddox, P.E P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va. 22601 6 0 r '+ COUNTY OF �REDERICK 9 COURT SQUARE P. O. Box 601 WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 • SFW 8� ,14 �`•t r;_.� Robert & Bessie See Box 101-E Berryville, VA 22611 U.S.PCSiAGE APR 18190 �: ��! - COUNTY of FREDERICK IDepartment of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703 / 667-0370 April 18, 1990 TO THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) The Application of: TWIN LAKES Rezoning Application #004-90 of: Loggia Development Corporation to rezone 5.1 + acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B-2 (Business General) and 391.35 + acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for single family - detached dwellings, townhouses, school site and commercial use. This property is located in eastern Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of the City of Winchester in the Shawnee Magisterial District. It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek and to the south by Senseny Road. This rezoning application will be considered by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their meeting of May 2, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors meeting room, the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. Sincerely, Robert W. Watkins Planning Director RWW/slk 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 COUNTY OF FREDERICK 9 COURT SQUARE P 0 Box 601 WINCHESTER VIRGINIA 22601 0 420 MADIBON (-'IV; ('311RANGE'. PARK, F': oy .-06004000000000004 :: 1. 1. ..--A 'N i i U.S.P 0 S 1 AGE 0 .2 5 11 4 LEW142-0 IN C)4/24/90 RETURN TO SENDER Na FORWARD ORDER CM FILE LINAPLE TO FORWARD RETURN Ta SENDER p� CD ANA r.a i uL� t M. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703 / 667-0370 April 18, 1990 TO THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) The Application of: TWIN LAKES Rezoning Application #004-90 of: Loggia Development Corporation to rezone 5.1 + acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B-2 (Business General) and 391.35 + acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for single family - detached dwellings, townhouses, school site and commercial use. This property is located in eastern Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of the City of Winchester in the Shawnee Magisterial District. It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek and to the south by Senseny Road. This rezoning application will be considered by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their meeting of May 2, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors meeting room, the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. Sincerely, Robert W. Watkins Planning Director RWW/slk 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 COUNTY OF FREDERICK J COURT SQUARE P. O. Box 601 WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 �'A 4��v cpG A lilt, F-ONia Gr.Oup, Tnc. 5000 Stevenson Ave. Alexandria, �`I U.S.Di)SIAGE =j � APB 18'90 '"I%- % �i :1 .,k COUNTY of FREDERICK IDepartment of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 April 18, 1990 TO THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) The Application of: TWIN LAKES Rezoning Application #004-90 of: Loggia Development Corporation to rezone 5.1 + acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B-2 (Business General) and 391.35 + acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for single family - detached dwellings, townhouses, school site and commercial use. This property is located in eastern Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of the City of Winchester in the Shawnee Magisterial District. It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek and to the south by Senseny Road. This rezoning application will be considered by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their meeting of May 2, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors meeting room, the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. Sincerely, ell In Robert W. Watkins Planning Director RWW/slk 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 f �,-cl b t10 11d� REZONING APPLICATION #004-90 TWIN LAKES Rezone 5.1 acres From RA (Rural Areas) to B-2 (Business General) and Rezone 391.35 Acres From RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) LOCATION: Eastern Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of the City of Winchester and bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek and to the south by Senseny Road MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee TAX MAP & PARCEL NUMBER: Tax map 55, parcels 209-0, 212-0, 211-0, 213-0, Tax Map 65, parcels 40-0, 39-0, 36-0 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RA (Rural Areas) ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Vacant and residential uses zoned RP, Residential Performance and RA, Rural Areas PROPOSED USE: Single family -detached homes (650), townhouses (650), school site and commercial. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Health Dept.: No objections as long as central utilities - water and sewer - provided. Fire Marshal: No problem with project. Va. Dept. of Transportation: No overall objections to the rezoning of this property. However, we are concerned with the traffic the proposed development could generate, especially on the western sections of Senseny Road (route 657). The Impact Statement and Traffic Analysis have been forwarded on to our District Office for review, therefore, additional comments may be forth coming. Inspections Dept.: This request for rezoning approval shall comply to Use Group "R" Residential Section 309.0 of the BOCA National Building Code 111987". Approval for school site shall comply to Use Group "E" Educational Section 304.0 of the BOCA t National Building Code 111987". The approval for Commercial Site shall be determined at time of plans review for the proper Use Group of the BOCA National Building Code 111987". Sanitation Authority: See comments attached. Parks and Recreation: See comments attached. Regional Airport: See attached comments. Frederick Co. Schools: See attached comments. Planning & Zoning: The following issues should be considered: Location: The site is located in the urban development area designated by the Comprehensive Plan. Land zoned RP is located in the immediate vicinity to the northwest and southeast of the site. The site has frontage on Senseny Road. Site Suitability: Most of the site is gently rolling with steep slopes along Opequon Creek and the tributary steam that runs through the central portions of the site. Over a third of the site is wooded with areas of mature forest. No prime agricultural soils are located on the site. Sewer and water mains are available a various points adjoining the site. Impacts: The applicant has provided a detailed impact analysis and has proffered a general development plan. The applicant has proffered that there will be no more than 650 townhouses and 650 single family dwellings. The following potential impacts should be considered: Environmental: Concerns could be expressed for drainage impacts on Opequon Creek and its tributaries. Impacts on existing woodland are also of concern. The applicant proffers to use Best Management Practices to protect water quality. The applicant proffers to use "its best efforts" to preserve significant woodlands. Although that proffer is not well defined, there are requirements in the Zoning Ordinance that certain percentages of mature woodlands remain undisturbed. Traffic: A substantial traffic impact analysis has been provided. There will be three entrance to the proposed development site, one on Route 7 and two on Senseny Road. The analysis projects that at full build out, the site will generate 13,332 average daily trips. It projects that 60% of those trips will be to Route 7 and 20% will be to Senseny Road. The analysis suggests that with full build out a good level of service "A" will be maintained at the entrances on Senseny Road. It projects that a good level of service "B" will be provided at the entrance to Route 7 if that entrance is signalized. The applicant has proffered to construct the signal on Route 7 when warranted. The applicant has proffered to provide roads in conformance with the County's General Road Plan. The Major Collector connecting Senseny Road to Route 7 is proffered with a 60 foot right of way and to be constructed with two lanes. It is proffered that the Major Collector will be completed within one year of the transfer of the 260th lot accessed by Senseny Road. Design of the connection with Route 7 will be completed at the time of sale of the first 20% of the lots and construction of the connection shall be complete at the time of sale of 50% of the lots. The applicant also proffers to provide a 150 foot right of way for a future Route 37 extension as shown on the proffered development plan. The applicant has proffered to dedicate a ten foot strip for widening of Senseny Road. The current traffic count on Senseny Road in the vicinity of the site is 3,813 average daily trips. It is projected that without the rezoning the traffic on Senseny Road will be 5,720 in 1997. The analysis projects that the rezoning and full build out will result in over 8,500 average daily trips on Senseny Road by 1997, an increase of 2,780 average daily trips. Studies by the staff suggest that the capacity of a two lane road such as Senseny Road does not exceed 7,500 average daily trips and is probably less. According to the analysis provided, the signalization of the Senseny Road/Greenwood Road intersection will be warranted by 1997 without the proposed development. If it is signalized, the development traffic will result in a level of service "B" at that intersection. The segment of Senseny Road from Winchester to Greenwood Road is project number 18 on the major road improvement plan in the Six Year Secondary Road Plan. The segment from Greenwood Road to Clarke County is number 24. VDOT has not scheduled funding for this project within the next six years. The provision of a major collector connecting Senseny Road to Route 7 will greatly lessen potential impacts on Senseny Road. However, it is important to note that a major collector is something that is normally provided in a development of this size. It would probably not been necessary to proffer it but would have been required in any case. The provision of right of way for Route 37 should be considered to be beyond what is normal for this type of development. Concern should be expressed concerning the remaining impacts on Senseny Road. Means need to be found to accelerate an improvement program for that road. The proffers proposed would allow substantial impacts on Senseny Road to occur before the connection to Route 7 is made. It is our understanding of the proffers that 650 dwellings could be constructed before the connection to Route 7 is provided. This suggests that there could be significant adverse impacts on Senseny Road before the connection to Route 7 is made. It should be noted that the traffic analysis was based on fewer than the 1,300 dwellings proffered. This suggests that impacts will be somewhat greater than projected. Schools: The impact analysis projects that the full development will result in the following additional school students. Elementary 323 Middle School 146 High School 192 Total 661 The analysis projects the following gross costs for providing school facilities for the projected students: Townhouses $4,039 Single Family $6,968 The following proffers have been proposed to address the school impacts: Percent of Proffer Gross Costs Townhouses $ 800 19.8% Single Family $11200 17.2% Preliminary studies by the staff suggest that the actual net impacts of new residences on school facilities after accounting for revenue generation and other factors is greater than 17-19% of the gross costs. The applicant justifies smaller net impacts by projecting that the per dwelling revenues produced by the project will be 35% greater than the County average. This is based on the projection that the price of the dwellings will be higher than the average for the County. Concern should be expressed that there are no guarantees that the units provided will be of above average price. The staff would contend that the County should be careful to insure that the impacts are adequately addressed. Concern should also be expressed for the provision of cash proffers in association with building permits. Parks and Recreation: The impact analysis projects that full build out of the site as proposed will result in an overall population increase of 2,784 people. To the extent that these people will use County supported recreational and athletic programs, there will be an impact on the County's regional parks. The Department of Parks and Recreation has projected gross cost impacts of $368 per person. The following describes the projected impact per housing unit: Gross Person per Unit Impact Townhouse 1.9 $699 Single Family 2.6 $956 The applicant has proffered to provide $50 per unit for recreational impacts. This would represent 7% of the gross cost impact for townhouses and 5 % of the gross cost impact for single family dwellings. The staff would suggest that the net impacts, after considering revenues to be produced, have not been adequately addressed. Emergency Services: The applicant has not projected any specific impacts and the staff has not developed any measures for such impacts. However, the development will have some impact on the need for fire and rescue facilities and equipment. Sewer and Water: The Sanitation Authority disagrees with some of the sewage generation figures in the impact analysis. They suggest further discussion on such issues. Conclusions: The site is located in the urban development area and is adjacent to existing RP zoning. The staff has concerns that impacts on schools, parks, emergency services, and Senseny Road have not been adequately addressed at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MAY 2, 1990 P/C MTG. Denial f G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2 0 Mr. C. Robert Solenberger P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Bob, 200 North Cameron Street 1'.0. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 7*03-667-2139 Fax: 703-665-0493 June J 9, 1990 Re: Proposed Route 37 Corridor/ Access to Route 7 I am the consulting engineer for the owners of the proposed Twin Lakes project now before the County Planning Commission for consideration for approval of rezoning. You may recall that at some point earlier, a discussion before your Authority of the potential for dedication of a road right of way across the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority property at the Opequon Regional Wastewater Plant to U.S. Route 7. This action will allow for the much needed connection of Senseny Road to Route 7 and implement an important item called for in the County's comprehensive plan. In short, if growth is going to continue to occur within planned urban development areas in Frederick County then important transportation improvements of this nature need be constructed in a timely fashion. Included in the proposal here is the opportunity for the local jurisdictions to obtain this needed highway improvement at developer cost. A close look at the Route 7 corridor and surrounding topography has indicated to the County planners that the appropriate place for a Senseny Road collector route connection must exist on Opequon Regional Plant property. There seems to be no other feasible route. In looking closer at the possible layout for these improvements we find two suggested alternatives. These alternatives are summarized by the attached map as Alternate 1, which provides a frontage road possibility and Alternate 2 which involved the construction of one lane of Route 37 at this time. Obviously considerable discussion and review need be provided by both the Planning Commission, and the Virginia Department of Transportation as well as your agency prior to firm decisions. However we believe one of these two alternatives would be the proper choice under present and near term future conditions. We believe either can be implemented without significant impact on the operations or expandibility of the Opequon Regional Facility. Both options will allow for a possible land "swap" which would include additional lands to the south of the Opequon Plant which may be needed for proper expansion of the "mirror image" increase in capacity of the facility. Some impact on the Authority's well system may be created, however t. planning for central water facilities to the site at the same time of road construction could prevent any inconvenience in this regard. We have discussed these matters with your staff and have received their permission to contact you directly in the interest of time. The Twin Lakes rezoning matter is before the County Planning Commission on July 18 and they have asked for your agency to comment on the road proposal situation prior to that time. If you agree that road improvements of the general type described here are in the best interest of current and future planning for Frederick County and for the service area concept we would appreciate and request your comment to that effect to the Planning Commission. It is understood that technical and legal agreement for right of way dedication is a matter of significant future discussion I believe what is needed now is simply your indication of intent to participate in such discussion, should the County agree to rezone the property involved. I would like to meet with each of you prior to your Monday meeting if you so desire. I am also available by telephone should you have any questions. I look forward to discussing this with you in more detail and look forward to any comments you may have. Sincerely rs, Maddox, Jr., , VP G.W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. cc: Mr. Kenny Carr Mr. Bob Watkins A copy DF 77-115 LETT�TL /-�15 �� SIi Mr. Charlie Whitley � Acc 130AR17 t-104 L - 2.5 ar- �Z 2�cic— \,c.liniCHIES-jM SVC_ j4LL7fioj21 iy CEM/klf 7 7— ;:7111111 •� Vie, �__"��.• Z , ` ~(FRONTAGE ROAD POSSIBILITY —�op ta9a 77C Twi laoo dIOFNIY- / ss0.0' 97•a7Y' {9{.la' 310.{S {7 il' Ns7•YYY7-E 2 a/0.0' 37Y 7'Ys- al Y.s{' MAW Y99.{O• Ns7•l O-"-E 7 50.0' s0.00'00' 7s S•' SO.0' J0.71• N11'a3'09'w • 50.0' 90.00'00• fs Sa' SO 0' 70.71' S79•Y•'Ss'w S 390.01 57.97•Ys a93 37' 215_YS 776.90' si:2 s'af'w { 7{O.0' 97•3rY• sa1.N' aaS.aS' sla.sY' Ss7Yav7'w 0' \ 80' R/W a POSSIBLE FUTURE 1 I � /J ROUTE 37 -1-Tf 1 OPOSED17, J I ! Po ADDITIONAL LAND AVAILABLE TO FWSA 1 7� q%7 0Dk E�� ;! Rte. 7 to Senseny Road Collector ', Scale: 1 "=300' June 1990 i G.W.CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 200 N.CAMERON ST. PO BOX 2104 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 703-667-2139 TO: Frederick County Planning Dept. Winchester. VA 22601 1 • LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL PRESENT DATE JOB NO. 4/19/90 ATTENTION Bob Watkins RE: Twin I akPc WE ARE SENDING YOU X� ATTACHED F7UNDER SEPARATE VIA THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ❑ HAND DELIVERED CHANGE ORDER SAMPLES SPECIFICATIONS SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ PRINTS ❑ PLANS X❑ OTHER COPY OF LETTER COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION 1 Aril 90 Impact Analysis Statement 7 ARE TRANSMITTED APPROVED/SUBMITTED ❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED;'AS NOTED a FOR YOUR USE ❑ RETURN/CORRECTIONS ❑ AS REQUESTED ❑ FOR REVIEW or COMMENT ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 REMARKS RESUBMITFOR APPROVAL SUBMITFOR DISTRIBUTION RETURNEDCORRECTED PRINTS ❑ LOAN PRINT/RETURN ❑ RETURN/WITH SIGNATURES COPY TO: Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority SIGNED Ron Mislowsky EDAW - Diane Dale Loggia Devel. - Charlie Whitley REV. 2.0 a COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 MEMORANDUM To: Kenneth Stiles James Golladay, Jr. Harrington Smith Blaine Wilson George Romine From: Robert W. Watkins, Director Subject: Zoning Review Committee Date: April 5, 1990 There will be a Zoning Review Committee meeting on April 12 at 1:30 PM in the conference room of the Old County Courthouse. We will discuss the Twin Lakes Rezoning Application. Materials are attached. • .The purpose of the Zoning Review meeting is to advise the applicant on the completeness and appropriateness of the application package, impact analysis, and proffers statement. C] Please let me know if you have any questions or cannot attend. cc Planning Commission Board of Supervisors 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 Is • TWIN LAKES SUMMARY 391.35 acres from RA to RP 5.1 acres from RA to B2 Proffers: General Development Plan, w/ landscaping, recreation Phasing: 15% per year. cumulative Major Collector provided from Senseny to Route 7; 2 lane, 60 ft. r-o-w Best efforts (?) to preserve woodlands and mature trees BMPIs Site suitable for elementary school proffered or cash equivalent 150 foot r-o-w for Route 37 Impacts: Substantial mature woodlands Opequon Creek and tributaries Potential population - 2,784 - no recreational impacts? - no impacts on regional parks? Schools: Elementary - 323 students Middle - 146 students High - 192 students Total - 661 students Gross capital impact per unit on schools: single family - 6,968 townhouse - 41039 $6,956,000 total less site 672,000 $6,283,000 No net impact is projected because expect revenues to be 35 % higher than the average County households Based on that assumption, $450,000 would be available annually to over and above normal operation budget needs. This roughly equals the annualized impacts on the school based on a 20 year period. Traffic Impact: Existing traffic growth projected at 6% per year without project. Full buildout of project assumed. Level of service A will result at entrance to Senseny Road. Level of service D at Route 7 if no signal. Level of service A with signal. Level of service D acceptable for Fairfax, but not for Frederick County. Need level of service "C". In terms, of impacts further down Senseny Road, analysis justifies no impact by saying that improvements will be needed even without the development. Signal at Greenwood Road. Lane improvements at Pleasant Valley. Twin Lakes traffic will be approximately 20-25% of peak hour traffic at Greenwood Road intersection. Concerns: Are the number of dwellings proffered? What is the size of the school site proffered? What are best efforts to preserve woodlands? What guarantees are there that there will be no impacts on regional parks? How do you guarantee that development will be of a type to generate higher than normal revenues to the extent projected? Impacts over the life and phases of the project are not addressed. How do you guarantee that the revenue generation will correspond in time with the needs created? Is the school site a location that is needed? What is the quality of the school site? How will it be improved and when? What provisions are proposed for signal at Route 7? Do we want signal on Route 7? General ability of two lane rural road (Senseny Road) to handle traffic is not addressed. There are no plans in the immediate future to signalize Greenwood Road. What will the impacts be on the unsignalized intersection? I ] G.W.CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 20 S.CAMERON ST. PO BOX 2104 WINCHRSTRR, VIRGINIA 22601 703-667-2139 TO Winchester. Va 22601 1 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL PRESENT DATE JOB NO. 4 April 1990 ATTENTION Bob Watkins RE: Twin I akPc WE ARE SENDING YOU n ATTACHED UNDER SEPARATE VIA ❑ HAND DELIVERED ❑ CHANGE ORDER SAMPLES SHOP DRAWINGS Fx-1 PRINTS ❑ PLANS COPY OF LETTER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SPECIFICATIONS X❑ OTHER COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION 1 Aril 90 Rezoninq Application 1 Tax Receipt Letter 1 Deed of Properties 15 Rezoning Plans 15 Impact Statements 15 Traffic Analysis 1 Check(Rezoning Fee for $ 10,261.25 1 n ARE TRANSMITTED F� APPROVED/SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL APPROVED/AS NOTED FOR YOUR USE RETURN/CORRECTIONS AS REQUESTED FOR REVIEW or COMMENT El FOR BIDS DUE ------------ 19___ REMARKS RESUBMITFOR APPROVAL SUBMITFOR DISTRIBUTION RETURNED_ CORRECTED PRINTS ED LOAN PRINT/RETURN RETURN/WITH SIGNATURES COPY TO: Charlie Whitley - Loggia Development NGNED Tom Price Diane Dale - EDAW Bob Sevilla REV. 2.0 s EDAW March 20, 1990 vir. Robert Watkins, Director Frederick County Planning Commission 9 Court Square Winchester, VA Re: win Lakes OW0765-02 Dear Bob: I apologize that you did not receive an impact Statement in a timely mamier. It was due to an assumption on my part that I should have checked up on. When EDAW sent Clifford Assoc. 15 copies for distribution on March 7, I assumed that would include you. They, on the other hand, were following normal procedure, intending to send you a complete package on March 2; ;with agency comments. I should have checked on its arrival and order with you sooner. I apologize for the delay. Thank you for your time a -lad assistance in the review of the Imapct Analysis. As it is a new format for both the County and EDAW, there are still a few areas left to smooth out. EDAW stands committed to the quality and completeness of our work, I am certain we can meet the requirements of Frederick County and move forward in the review and confirmation of this project. Please contact me if there are any additional comments or concerns regarding Our submittal. Sincerely, Di ne Dale Project Manager 0 `'r 076(LoUiaCorrespondeuce Landscape Architecture Planning Urban Design Environmental Analysis Site Engineering Graphic. Design MAW, Inc. 601 Princc Strcct Alexandria, VA 22314 703 836.1414 F-�% 703 549-5869 T p Y H I F F 17, A. T R E x San Francisco iilekandria Atlanta Fort Collins Irvine Seattle. Phoenix San Bernardino Sydney, Australia c 0 EDAV-1, Inc. 60a P-Cinct Street Ale: a p ia, �T! 22314 N` INI )RA)titDT_ M To: Bob Watkins Fronrr Diane Dale 1� Date: March 20, 1990 Project: Loggia Development - Twin Lakes OW076.02 have foY aided your comments concerrLin9 the Twin Lakes Impact Analysis Statement to Loggia Dwvaloprnent and the design team. We will contact you regarding these comments as decisions or revisions are Fnade. I want to confirm my understanding of the submittal schedule over the next several weeks. We intended to file tht, Twiri Lakes application by March 23 to meet the deadline for the _''Vlay 2 .Public Hearing. Since you have already begun review of the Statement, you have advised that we can submit the completed application by April 4. The Engineering Review 1LTeeting will be on April 12 and advertising for the May 2 Public Hearing will begin April 13. Please contact me if there are any omissions or corrections to our understanding of the process. cc: Charlie Wh i aev Tom Price OW076;IOggiaCarr ,rondcnce I C. 6 0 41 7 S'" - e o WILLIAM B. HANES ROBERT E. SEVILA RICHARD R. SAUNDERS, JR. BURKE F. McCAHILL DOUGLAS L. FLEMING, JR, JON D. HUDDLESTON CRAIG E. WHITE LAW OFFICES HANES, SEVILA, SAUNDERS 8 MCCAHILL A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION POST OFFICE BOX 678 LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 22075 April 4, 1990 Mr. Robert W. Watkins Director of Planning County of Frederick P.O. Box 601 9 Courthouse Square Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Watkins: 30 NORTH KING STREET (703)777-5700 METRO 471-9800 FAX (703) 771-4161 RE: Twin Lakes Loggia Development Corporation Enclosed is a draft set of proffers relating to the above application. We are certain that as the review of this application proceeds through your staff, the Planning Commission and Board, it will be necessary to modify, amend and enhance these proffers. The enclosed draft is submitted for the purpose of complying with the Zoning Ordinance and giving us a starting point for continued discussions. I look forward to working with you and your staff on the review of this application. Sincerely yours, HA N SEVILA, SAUNDERS & McCAHILL, P.C. Robert E. Sevila RES/ess enclosure cc: Mr. Charles C. Whitley 0 I I PROFFER STATEMENT RE: Twin Lakes LOGGIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DATE: April 4, 1990 Pursuant to Section 15.1-491(a) of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended), and the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of Frederick County, Virginia, Loggia Development Corporation herein called "Applicant," owner of that certain parcel of land containing four hundred (400) acres and described in detail in the submissions filed herewith, hereby proffers that said parcel of land shall be developed in accordance with the following conditions, if the rezoning application is granted and the property is rezoned to R-P and B-2 in accordance with the attached Generalized Development Plan. These proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect if rezoning is not granted. These proffers shall be binding upon the Applicant or its legal successor or assigns. 1. The development of the subject property shall be in general conformance with the Generalized Development Plan submitted herewith. 2 2. The Applicant agrees to conform generally to the landscape plan to be submitted prior to final Board action on the application. 3. The Applicant will provide on -site recreational amenities, including a lake, parks and open space as shown on the Generalized Development Plan. 4. All streets within the development shall be fully dedicated public streets. 5. A development phasing plan shall be submitted during the Master Development Plan process, in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Phasing as shown on the said Master Plan shall be accomplished such that no more than fifteen percent (15%) of the total permitted dwelling units, in any combination of single-family or townhouse units, may be constructed in any one year; provided, however, that this figure shall be cumulative, and any number of such units not constructed in any given year, may be constructed in later years, plus in any year an additional five percent (5%) of such units in years after December 31, 1991. 6. The Applicant shall design and construct all roads on the subject property consistently with the County's adopted 1] 3 thoroughfare plan for the area, and according to uniform standards established by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and as may be provided in these proffers. 7. The Applicant proffers that it shall dedicate, design and construct a two lane road connecting Route 7 to Senseny Road, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan with a sixty foot (601) right-of-way in the area designated in the Transportation Plan as a Major Collector, for inclusion in the State Highway System of Secondary Highways. 8. The Applicant shall provide a phasing plan for the construction of the road and a landscape plan for the entire length of the road which shall be submitted to and approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. 9. The Applicant proffers to use its best efforts to preserve significant woodland and mature trees on the subject property in the design and layout of all development. 10. The Applicant agrees that it shall employ all reasonable Best Management Practices in connection with the development of the subject property. 11. The Applicant shall dedicate to the County upon request a site suitable for an elementary school site as shown on the 0 4 Generalized Development Plan. In the alternative, in lieu of dedication of the aforesaid site, the Applicant may, at its option contribute the value of the proposed elementary school site to the County. For purposes of this proffer, the value shall be determined as of April 1, 1990. Said value shall be divided by the total number of approved dwelling units within the development. Thereafter, as building permits are issued for the construction of each dwelling unit, the Applicant shall contribute a prorata per unit portion of the value to the School Board or a fund created or designated by Frederick County to receive said contribution. 12. The Applicant shall provide in its Generalized Development Plan a one hundred fifty foot (1501) wide right-of- way for the future alignment of Route 37 called for in the Transportation Plan. The Applicant hereby proffers that the development of the subject property of this application shall be in strict accordance with the conditions set forth in this submission. The Applicant further represents that it is the owner of all the property included within this application and that the signatures below constitute all the necessary signatures of 0 5 record owners of the property to subject the land within this application to these proffers. These proffers shall be binding upon the Applicant, its successors and assigns. GIVEN under my hand this day of , 1990. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF , to -wit: LOGGIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION By: I, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do certify that , whose name as of Loggia Development Corporation is signed to the foregoing and hereunto annexed Proffer Statement, bearing date on the day of 1990, has this day acknowledged the same before me in the State and County aforesaid as the act and deed of said corporation, and has made oath that the same was executed on behalf of said corporation by due authority of said corporation. GIVEN under my hand this day of 1990. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 0 0 C. I, , hereby proffer that the development of the subject property of this application shall be in strict accordance with the conditions set forth on this concept plan subdivision dated , for an proffered development for Date COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF LOUDOUN, to -wit: Subscribed and Sworn to before me in my State and County aforesaid the day of , 1990. My Commission Expires: Notary Public REQUEST FOR REZONING COMMENTS Frederick -Winchester Health Department ATTN: Herbert L. Sluder, Sanitation Engineer P.O. Box 2056, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 667-9747 The Frederick -Winchester Health Department is located at the intersection of Smithfield Avenue and Brick Kiln Road, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Loggia Development 1700 Diagonal Rd, Suite 200 Alexandria, Va 22304 (703)548-4737 Acrent: G.W. Clifford & Assoc P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:Tom Price (703)667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: TWIN LAKES Location: In eastern Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of City of Winchester. It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek and to the south by Senseny Road Health Department Comments: Health Signature and Date: *�9�n,S-%- (NOTICE TO HEALTH DEPT. - PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO AGENT.) NOTICE TO TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, impact analysis, location map and all other pertinent information. 3/7/90 • ^.. REQUEST FOR REZONING COMMENTS Paul Stinnett, Frederick County Fire Marshall P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5651 The Frederick County Fire Marshall is located at 21 Court Square in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Loggia Development 1700 Diagonal Rd, Suite 200 Alexandria, Va 22304 (703) 548-4737 Agent: G W Clifford & Assoc, P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn•Tom Price (703)667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: TWIN LAKES Location: In eastern Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of City of Winchester It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek and to the south by Senseny Road Fie Marshall Comments: Ale, Ar'/f-i "// i�o •f� c'i�- Fire Marshall Signature & Dale: (NOTICE TO FIRE MARSHALL - PLEASE RETURN THIS FROM TO AGENT. NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, impact analysis, location map and all other pertinent information.. 3/7/90 REQUEST FOR REZONING COMMENTS Virginia Department of Transportation ATTN: William H. Bushman, Resident Engineer P.O. Box 278, Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0278 (703) 984-4133 The local office of the Transportation Department is located at 1550 Commerce Street, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Loggia Development 1700 Diagonal Rd Suite 200 Alexandria, Va 22304 (703)548-4737 Agent: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn•Tom Price (703)667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: TWIN LAKES Location: In eastern Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of City of Winchester It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek and to the south by Senseny Road Transportation Department Comments: No overall objections to the rezon4nb of this property. However we are concerned with the traffic the proposed development could generate, especially on the western sections of Senseny Road (Route 657). The Impact Statement and Traffic Analysis have been forwarded on to our District Office for review, therefore, additional comments may be forthcoming. VDOT Signature and Date: GV_ ;W re. 3 4c) (NOTICE TO VDOT - PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO THE AGE T. NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, impact analysis, location map and all other pertinent information. 3/7/90 • REQUEST FOR REZONING COMMENTS Frederick County Inspections Department ATTN: Kenneth L. Coffelt, Director P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5651 The Frederick County Inspections Department is located at 9 Court Square in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Loggia Development 1700 Diagonal Rd, Suite 200 Alexandria, Va 22304 (703)548-4737 Agent: G.W. Clifford & Assoc P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:Tom Price (703)667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: TWIN LAKES Location: In eastern Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of City of Winchester. It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek and to the south by Senseny Road 3/7/90 r Inspections Department Comments: % �i%S pe-p=-'f )qr /�1�� Lf ,3 � G'rd of /� " p�s : aLeh7/a I °�' e �f i h 3 O r Tk c S 6 I, A✓,,-/, 90;/41h9 C`e4�t`187'At�ic�//�as�r��Y ioyla�oF�c�,o� 30� n /a�'Ti/�e G e haeJ- 03T �t spec Signature & ate . , �1 � ,G� c� ,3- i� -Qo (NOTICE TO INSPECTIONS - PL9,tSE RETURN TH FORM TO AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, impact analysis, location map and all other pertinent information. 3/7/90 0 REQUEST FOR REZONING COMMENTS Frederick County Sanitation Authority ATTN: Wellington Jones, Engineer/Director P.O. Box 618, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5690 The Frederick County Sanitation Authority is located on the second floor of the Old Frederick County Courthouse in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Logaia Development 1700 Diagonal Rd, Suite 200 Alexandria, Va 22304 (703)548-4737 Agent: G.W. Clifford & Assoc P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn•Tom Price (703)667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: Location: In east-ei�i� Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of City of Winchester. It is bo�inded to the east by the Opeguon Creek and to -the south by Senseny Road, Sanitation Authority Comments: See comments attached. Sanit-. Signature & Date: (NOTICE TO SANITATION EASE RETURN THIS FORM TO AGENT.) It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, impact analysis, location map and all other pertinent information. 3/7/-90 REQUEST FOR REZONING COMMENTS Frederick County Parks & Recreation Department ATTN: James Doran, Director P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5678 The Frederick County Parks & Recreation Department is located on the second floor of the Frederick County Administration Building, 9 Court Square, Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Loggia Development 1700 Diagonal Rd, Suite 200 Alexandria, Va 22304 (703)548-4737 Agent: G.W. Clifford & Assoc P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn•Tom Price (703)667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: TWIN LAKES Location: In eastern Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of City of Winchester. It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek and to the south by Senseny Road Parks & Recreation Department Comments: Parks Signature and Date: (NOTICE TO PARKS - P RETURN THIS FORM TO 3 90 THE AGENT.) It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, impact analysis, location map and all other pertinent information. 3/7/90 FIRST HALF FREDERICK COUNTY• VA, 1989 REAL ESTATE - TICKET NO. 10482 DISTRICT - 4 CODE- O - - - 0-02 -O VALUE RATE TAX •421p655 ,66 281.53 EAEA!GE - 111.60 _ 1169600 - 40�700 - 719990.- 859310 �HAGGERTY, ALICE S, E JOHN S. E�`_' E EDWARD 0. HAGGERTY PENALTY R T, 1 BOX 1500 INTEREST BERRYVILLE, VA, 22611 TOTAL DUE _J DATE DUE JUNE St 1989 TREASURER, FREDERICK COUNTY • C ' T A X k E C E I P T - -7 E A R COUNTY OF FREDERICK C. WILLIAM ORN, Treasure,,- P.O. BOX 225 0INCHESTER VA 22601 ncH0 cW*IV IVuV Prpv�"..= p,i",i"1= '�-'---- ''p^^ 550-00A0000000-0000212 Balance $ 281.52 OWENS HAGGERTY, ALICE S. & JOHN S. RT. 1 BOX 1500 BERRYVILLE, VA. 1 9 8 9 Ticket #: 1048202 Date : 11/10/89 Register: COS/** Trans. #: 00450 Dept # : RE89 Penalty $ .00 Interest $ .00 Amount Paid $ 281.52 *Balance Due $ .00 22611 CK#106 * Balance Due does not include Penalty & Interest. (DUPLICATE) 6 0� FREDERICK COUNTY, VA- . D! TRIET — 4 jOL)E- c r 1989 REAL ESTATE • FIRST HALF TICKET NU. - VALUE RATE -- - R TAX 1MPROV.— 0. "- =R . — —6� _0 �,57n TAX VAL.— 79 ------ -' , g — — -- 5 7 v 5 3 0 �GILES• GEORGE E- ET ALS — ----- C/O MANDA HIGH t., TOTAL TAX DUE -- RT- 6 BOX 681 -r �..� ,..PENAl1'Y ---� NINCHE ial �----- STERv VA.��REST —1 f_ TOTAL DUE DAr DUE ---., kfTREASURER, FREDERICK COUNTY FREDERICK COUNTY9 VA. 1989 REAL ESTATE — FIRST HALF DISTRICT — 4 V CODE— 65 —A — 00—0000-00 6—Q VALUE TICKET NO. 09216 i RATE TAX ACREAGE — 1.00 261500 174.90 LAND — 89000 IMPROV 45,000 DEFER, — -- — - - -I TAX VAL 53 9 0000 ----- ---- --- F- ------ GILES# GEORGE E. E MARGARET L. TOTAL TAX DUE �G1 RT- 6 BOX 682--------- - MINCHESTERt VA, 1 QEr�a+.rY --"— IN ratEST 22601 TOTAL DUE I DATE DUE _. JUN_E_59 1989J. _ TREASURER, FREDER'CK COUNTY • . . TAX RECEIPT - YEAR COUNTY OF FREDERICK C. WILLIAM ORN, Treasurer 111"O. BOX 225 WINCHESTER VA 22601 -- ---'-- --- ��*� ��|o|� l�� Previous Princiole � � .-- 650-00A0000000-0000036 Balance $ 174.90 SENSENY ROAD GILES, GEORGE E. & MARGARET L. RT. 6 BOX 682 WINCHESTER, VA. 1 9 8 9 Ticket #: 0921602 Date : 11/16/89 Register: /** Trans. #: 00112 Dept # : RE89 Penalty $ .00 Interest $ .00 Amount Paid $ 174.90 *Balance Due $ .00 22601 CK#6129 * Balance Due does not include Penalty & Interest. (DUPLICATE) TAX RECEIPT - YEAR COUNTY OF FREDERICK C. WILLIAM ORN, Treasurer P.O. BOX 225 WINCHESTER VA 22601 �'� ��'�� 1 9 8 9 Ticket #: 0921702 Date : 12/04/89 Register: CJO/** Trans. #: 01609 Dept # : RE89 ��*� ��|*|� zvuv Previous Principle ��p 650-00A0000000-0000039 Balance $ 189.85 SENSENY ROAD Penalty $ Interest $ GILES, GEORGE E. ET ALS Amount Paid $ C/O WANDA HIGH *Balance Due $ RT. 6 BOX 681 WINCHESTER, VA. 22601 CK#(5) * Balance Due does not include Penalty & Interest. .00 .00 189.85 .00 (DUPLICATE) BE yFREDERICK COUNTY, VA. • n1tTR1CT - 4 1989 REAL ESTATE - AT HALF TICKET NO. 2498T li CODE- 5500-A00-0000-0000-0 3-0 VALUE RATE TAX 19000 .66 .60 _ ACREAGE - 1.63 - 29000 -LAND IMPROV.- DEFER. - TAX VAL.- 2000 �—SHEPPARD• GEORGE L. JR. E ALLEN A. FUTRAL JR. 405 BRIARMONT OR, MINCHESTER, VA. FREDERICK COUNTY, VA. niCTRirT - 4 22601 J DATE DUE JUNE 5. 1989 TREASURER, FREDERICK COUNTY 1989 REAL ESTATE - FIRST HALF TlrWPT Kin Est co of TOTAL DUE CODE- 5 ' -A - O -OO 0-O 9- VALUE RATE TAX 45 440 .66 _ 299.91 ACREAGE - 121.11 LAND - 1269100 IMPROV.- 441p500 _ DEFER. - 799720 TAX VAL.- 909880 I-SHEPPARD• GEORGE L. JR. & ALLEN A. FUTRAL JR. 405 BRIARMONT DR. WINCHESTERr VA. 1s TOTAL DUE TOTAL TAX PENALTY'• INTEREST 22601 DATE DUE JUNE 59 1989 TREASURER, FREDERICK COUNTY I-SHEPPARD• GEORGE L. JR. & ALLEN A. FUTRAL JR. 405 BRIARMONT DR. WINCHESTERr VA. 1s TOTAL DUE TOTAL TAX PENALTY'• INTEREST 22601 DATE DUE JUNE 59 1989 TREASURER, FREDERICK COUNTY 22601 DATE DUE JUNE 59 1989 TREASURER, FREDERICK COUNTY FREDERICK COUNTY* VA.` DISTRICT - 4 1989 REAL ESTATE - F*T HALF b ICKET NO. 24988 w l CODE- 65000-A00-0000-0000- 040-0 VALUE RATE TAX 19000 .66 6.60 ACREAGE - 3.94 LAND - 29000 I MP ROV.- DEFER. - TAX VAL.- 29000 �_SHEPPARD• GEORGE L. JR. E ALLEN A. FUTRAL JR. 405 BRIARMONT D. WINCHESTER, VA. L FREDERICK COUNTY, VA. DISTRICT - 4 22601 DATE DUE JUNE 59 1989 TREASURER, FREDERICK COUNTY TOTAL DUE TOTAL TAX DUE PENALTY INTEREST 1989 REAL ESTATE - FIRST HALF �. TIr WF:T IJl1 7LQAQ CODE- 55000-AOO-0000-0000-0211-0 VALUE RATE TAX _ 3r650 .66 24.09 ACREAGE - 6.04 LAND - 7 000 I_M_PROV.- It " . DEFER. TAX VAL.- 79300 F—SHEPPARD9 GEORGE L. JR. E ALLEN A. FUTRAL9 JR. 405 BRIARMONT DR. WINCHESTER• VA. 22601 DATE DUE JUNE 59 1989 TREASURER, FREDERICK COUNTY TOTAL TAX gYE.' PENALTY INTEREST TOTAL DUE 1989 REAL ESTATE - FIRST HALF �. TIr WF:T IJl1 7LQAQ CODE- 55000-AOO-0000-0000-0211-0 VALUE RATE TAX _ 3r650 .66 24.09 ACREAGE - 6.04 LAND - 7 000 I_M_PROV.- It " . DEFER. TAX VAL.- 79300 F—SHEPPARD9 GEORGE L. JR. E ALLEN A. FUTRAL9 JR. 405 BRIARMONT DR. WINCHESTER• VA. 22601 DATE DUE JUNE 59 1989 TREASURER, FREDERICK COUNTY TOTAL TAX gYE.' PENALTY INTEREST TOTAL DUE F—SHEPPARD9 GEORGE L. JR. E ALLEN A. FUTRAL9 JR. 405 BRIARMONT DR. WINCHESTER• VA. 22601 DATE DUE JUNE 59 1989 TREASURER, FREDERICK COUNTY TOTAL TAX gYE.' PENALTY INTEREST TOTAL DUE =•=� ��G'4 0 ~ T'AX HECEIPT EAR COUNTY OF FREDERICK C. WILLIAM ORN, Treasurer | P.O. BOX 225 � INCHESTER VA 22601 / =m� 1 9 8 9 Ticket #: 2498602 Date : 11/03/89 Register: 00268 Dept # : RE89 REAL ESTATE 1989 Previous Principle | 550-00A0000000-0000209 Balance $ 299.90 ABRAMS CREEK SHEPPARD, GEORGE L. JR. 405 BRIARMONT DR. WINCHESTER, VA. Penalty $ Interest $ Amount Paid $ *Balance Due $ ~''^~~� PP�o� �x��/ _____ * Ba]ance Due does not include Penalty & Interest. TAX RECEIPT - YEAR COUNTY OF FREDERICK C. WILLIAM ORN, Treasurer P.O. BOX 225 WINCHESTER VA 22601 (DUPLICATE) 1 9 8 9 Ticket #: 2498702 Date : 11/03/89 Register: COS/** Trans. #: 00268 Dept # : RE89 ^ REAL ESTATE 1989 Previous Principle 550-00A0000000-0000213 Balance $ 6.60 *ENS)'ENY ROAD SHEPPARD, GEORGE L. JR. 405 BRIARMONT DR. WINCHESTER, VA. Penaltv $ Interest $ Amount Paid $ *Balance Due $ �'',__� PP�o1 �x��/ �� * Balance Due does not include Penalty & Interest. TAX RECEIPT - YEAR COUNTY OF FREDERICK C. WILLIAM ORN, Treasurer P.O. BOX 225 WINCHESTER VA 22601 .00 .00 6.60 .00 (DUPLICATE) 1 9 8 9 Ticket #: 2498802 Date : 11/03/89 Register: COS/** Trans. #: 00268 Dept # : RE89 REAL ESTATE 1989 Previous Principle 650-00A0000000-0000040 Balance $ 6.60 SENSENY ROAD Penalty $ .00 Interest $ .u0 ��HEPPARD, GEORGE L. JR. Amount Paid $ 6.60 -~ 05 BRIARMONT D. *Balance Due $ .00 WINCHESTER, VA - "I CK#227 * Balance Due does not include Penalty & Interest. (DUPLICATE) TAX RECEIPT - YEAR COUNTY OF FREDERICK C.I. WILLIAM ORN, Treasurer P.O. BOX 225 WINCHESTER VA 22601 1 9 8 9 Ticket #: 2498902 Date : 11/03/89 Register: Trans. #: 00268 Dept # : RE89 lW- EA ESTATE 1989 Previous [::"I- 5 50-00A0000000-0000211 Balance $ 24.09 CARVER SHEPPARD, GEORGE L. JR. & 405 BRIARMONT DR. WINCHESTER, VA. 22601 Penalty $ Interest $ Amount Paid $ *Balance Due $ CK#227 .00 .00 24.09 00 @@| @@| PLANNING COUNTY OF FREDERICK 9 COURT SQUARE P O Box 601 WINCHESTER VIRGINIA 22601 Delbert & Virginia McGee P.O. Box 2306 Winchester, Va. 22601 J FORWARDING T14"IE EXPIRE-0 ,9M -GEE 1.4 s..4fr•JNY OR WINCHESTER VA 22bOl-301.2 ,q RETURN Ta SE:NOER COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703 / 667-0370 August 22, 1990 TO THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) The Application of: TWIN LAKES Rezoning Application #004-90 of: Loggia Development Corporation to rezone 5.1 + acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B-2 (Business General) and 391.35 + acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for single family - detached dwellings, townhouses, school site and commercial use. This property is located in eastern Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of the City of Winchester in the Shawnee Magisterial District. It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek and to the south by Senseny Road. This rezoning application will be considered by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their meeting of September 5, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors meeting room, the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. Sincerely, 44�� Robert W. Watkins Planning Director RWW/slk 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff: Zoning Amendment Number Date Received Submittal Deadline Application Date:4/3/90 PC Hearing Date BOS Hearing Date The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel numbers, tax map numbers, deed book pages and numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, 9 Court Square, Winchester. 1. Applicant: (/Name: Loggia Development Address: 1700 Diagonal Rd. Suite 200 Alexandria, Va 22314 Telephone: (703) 548-4737 2. Owner: Name: Alice S. & John S. & Edward D. Haggerty Address: Rt. 1.Box 1500 Winchester. Va 22601 Owner: Name: George L. Sheppard & Allan A. Futrall, Jr. Address: 405 Briarmont Drive Berryville. Va 22611 Owner: `/ Name: George G. Giles, et al Address: c/o Wanda High Rt. 6. Box 681 Winchester, Va 22601 In addition, the Code of Virginia allows us to request full dis- closure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be re- zoned: Wanda D, High Jack C. High George E. Giles Paul K. Giles Robert A. Giles Edward D. Haggerty John S. Haggerty Richard F. Giles Margaret C. Giles Janita G. Giles Alice L. Giles Diana L. Giles Alice S. Haggerty A. Ashley Futral, Jr. Betty T. Futral George L. Sheppard, Jr. Marguerite H. Sheppard 3. Zoning Change: It is requested that the zoning of the property be changed from RA to RP & B-2. 4. Location: The property is located at (give exact directions): 5. Parcel Identification: 21 Digit Tax Parcel Number: 111 •11 1111 1111 1 1.1 111 •11 1111 1111 1 1 111 •11 1111 1111 1 1 111 •1/ 1/11 1111 1 1 i's 117.1111111 •11 1111 1111 11�11 . 111 •11 1111 1111 11 •1 . 111 •11 1111 1111 11 .1 6. Magisterial District: Shawnee 7. Property Dimensions: The dimensions of the property to be rezoned. Total Area: 396.45 Acres The area of each portion to be rezoned to a different zoning district category should be noted: 5.1 ± Acres Rezoned to B-2 391.35 + Acres Rezoned to RP Acres Rezoned to Acres Rezoned to Depth: Because of Property's Irregular Shape, Depth varies from 3600 to 4200 Feet 8. Deed Reference: The ownership of the property is referenced by the following deed: Conveyed To: George W Giles, et ux Conveyed From: George C. Braithwaite, et ux Deed Page: 181 Deed Book Number: 35 Conveyed To: George W. Giles, et ux Conveyed From: Mary Braithwaite, et ur Deed Page: 190 Deed Book Number: 529 Conveyed To: George L Sheppard, Jr., et als Conveyed From: Paul K. Giles, et ux Deed Page: 372 Deed Book Number: 610 Conveyed To: George L Sheppard Jr et als Conveyed From: Virgil H. Eskridge, et al Deed Page: 372 Deed Book Number: 622 Conveyed To: George L. Sheppard, Jr et als Conveyed From: Woodrow Artrip, et ux Deed Page: 566 Deed Book Number: 014 Conveyed To: George L. Sheppard, Jr et als Conveyed From: George W. Giles, et ux Deed Page: 372 Deed Book Number: 625 Conveyed To: Linden Adams Conveyed From: M. Carl Strickler, et ux Deed Page: 230 Deed Book Number: 458 Conveyed To: John S. Haggerty, et als Conveyed From: Alice S. Haggerty Deed Page: 448 Deed Book Number: .131 9. Proposed Use: It is proposed that the property will be put to the following uses. Single Family - Detached, Townhouses, School Site & Commercial 0 10.checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map Survey or plat Deed to property Statement verifying taxes Sign receipt Agency Comments Fees Impact Analysis Statement Proffer Statement ll.Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby make application and petition the governing body to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia and do hereby certify that th application and accompanying materials are true and accu �4t o�jhe befit of/ y _ (fur) knowledge. Applicant: Owners: ,zr, e Y 1 12.Representation: If the application is being represented by someone other than the owner or application and if questions about the application and if questions about the application should be directed to c that representative, please list the following. a� Representative's Name: Charles E. Maddox, Jr.- P.L. �i Representative's Phone Number: (703) 667-2139 \� Owners of the Property adjoining the land will be notified of the public hearing. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any prop- erty directly across the road from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the 21-digit tax parcel identification number which may be ob- tained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. ✓.-Name: Lester A & F aces Elliot Address: P.O. Box 110 W'n hester.Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65000-A00-0000-0000-00 00 Name: Fred H. & Lovella M. Parsons Address: Rt. 6, Box 68-A Win hester,Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65000-A00-0000-0000-0034.0 Name: G o cre E & Margaret L. Giles Address: Rt. 6, Box 68 Win h ster Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65000-A0070000-0000-0036-0 1 0 0 Name: Richard F. & Diana L. Giles Address: Rt, 1,Box 103 Berryville, Va 22611 Property I.D.#: 65000-A00-0000-0000-00370 Name: Wanda Jean & Jack High Address: Rt, 6, Box 681 Winchester,Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65000-A00-0000-0000-00380 Name: George E. Giles, et al, c/o Wanda High Address: Rt, 6, Box 681 Winchester,Va 22601 • .•- � . 111 �11 1111 /111 11 •1 Name: George L. Sheppard,Jr. & Allen A. Futral,Jr Address: 405 Briarmont Dr. Winchester,Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65000-A00-0000-0000-00400 Name: Mary V. Whipp Address: Rt, 6, Box 763 Winchester,Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65000-A00-0000-0000-00410 Name: Forest & Mildred L. Riggleman Address: Rt. 6, Box 754-A Winchester,Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65000-A00-0000-0000-01950 y ame: Loggia Group, Inc. Address: 6000 Stevenson Ave. Alexandria, Va 22304 • .•- 11 11 1111 100 1 1 65EOO-001-0000-0000-00140 611 11 11/1 1111 1/ .1 65EOO-001-0000-0000-00170 611 11 1111 1100 /1 80 611 0 1111 1111 11 •1 65EOO-001-0000-0000-00200 65EOO-001-0000-0000-00210 611 00 000 100 11 1 611 00 0000 1000 0 1 65EOO-001-0000-0000-00240 65EOO-001-0000-0000-00250 65EOO-001-0000-0000-00260 Y /1 11 1111 111/ 11 1 11 11 /111 1111 11 SI . �11 11 11/1 /111 11 •1 11 11 1111 1111 11 11 • 11 1/ 1111 /11/ 11 1 11 11 1111 111/ 11 1 11 1/ 11/1 /111 11 1 11 11 1111 1111 11 �1 11 11 1111 1111 1/ 1 11 11 111/ 1/11 1/ •1 • 11 11 1111 1111 11 1 Name: Howard J. & Ruth P. Dunn Address: 375 Brook Ave. North Plainfield N.J. 07062 Property I.D.#: 65E00-002-0000-0000-00100 Name: Robert E. & Patricia L. Schuette Address: 627 Bedford Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65E00-002-0000-0000-00110 Name: Glyn R. & Elizabeth Boone Address: 631 Bedford Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65E00-002-0000-0000-00120 J. Name: Dennis K. & Peggy i S. Bucher Address: 635 Bedford Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65E00-002-0000-0000-00130 .. ame: James T. & Jane L. Vickers Address: 2023 Valley Ave. Winchester. Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65E00-002-0000-0000-00140 j Name: Alan Louis & linda Sue Block, Sr. L. Address: 643 Bedford Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65E00-002--0000-0000-00150 Name: Michael D. & Claudia K. P Address: 647 Bedford Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65E00-002-0000-0000-00160 �;. N ame: Melvin B. Johnson Address: Gore, Va 22637 Property I.D.#: 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00010 Name: Melvin B. Johnson Address: Gore, Va 22637 Property I.D.#: 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00020 ✓ _� Name: David L. Adams Address: 1408 28th St. Niceville, FL 32578 Property I.D.#: 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00030 Name: Benton A. & Constance L. Heironimiis Address: 784 Dixie Belle Dr. Winchester Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00040 Name: Benton A. & Constance L. Heironim ,mac � �� Address: 784 Dixie Belle Dr. Winchester, Va 22601 a' Property I.D.#: 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00050 J Name: Frederick A. & Teresa J. Bowers, Jr. Address: 2231 Senseny Rd. Winchester, Va 22601 ye� � Property I.D.#: Name . Address: Property I.D.# --� Name: Address: . :11 11. 1111 111. 111.1 Cps Rovert D. & Bessie E. See, Jr. t�,(),156f a351 R 1 B 1-E Berryville, VA 22611 B - - -0 A- 7 Rovert D. & Bessie E. See Jr Rt, 1,Box 101-E Berryville, VA 22611 Property I.D.#: 6 B - 4-0 00- A- 0 80 Name: jRv Zr D. & Bessie E. See, jr. Address: Rt. 1,Box 101-E Berryville, VA 22611 Property I.D.#: 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00090 n 0 Name: Address: Property I.D.#: ✓v Name: Address: Property I . D . # ame: Address Property I.D.#: .XName: Address: Property I.D.#: Name: Robert & Wanda Gilmer Rt, 6,Box 678 Winchester Va 22601 65BOO-004-0000-OOOA-00100 Robert & Wanda Gilmer Rt. 6,Box 678 Winchester Va 22601 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00110 Delbert J. & Virginia M. McGee L are P.O. Box 2306 Winchester Va 22601 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00120 Burris J. & Mary L. Hook Rt. 1,Box 1385 Berryville, Va 22611 65BOO-004-0000-OOOA-00130 Burris J. & Mary L. Hook Address: Rt. 1,Box 1385 Berryville Va 22611 / Property I.D.#: 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00140 / Name: Herbert S. & Lena Michael Address: 782 Sunset Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65B00-004-0000-OOOA-00150 I Name: Irene N. Jenkins Address: Rt. 1,Box 95 Berryville Va 22611 Property I.D.#: 65B00-005-0000-0000-00010 i / Name: John W. & Margaret J. Keeler Address: Rt. 6 Box 764 Winchester. Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65B00-005-0000-0000-00020 Name: Melvin H. & Mary E. Kump Address: Rt. 1,Box 1350 Berryville Va 22611 Property I.D.#: 65B00-005-0000-0000-00030 Name: Charles W. Nickleson Address: Rt, 6, Box 621 Winchester Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65800-005-0000-0000-00040 Name: Edward L. & Leona Snyder Address: Rt. 6, Box 664 Winchester Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65B00-005-0000-0000-00050 Name: Edward L. & Leona Snyder Address: Rt, 6, Box 664 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65800-005-0000-0000-00060 Name: Zane 0. & Elanore M. Kerns Address: Siler Rt., Box 439 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65B00-005-0000-0000-00070 t% Name: Elizabeth R. & Thelma Ann Mason Address: Rt, 6, Box 799 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 65B00-005-0000-0000-00080 Name: Shirley D. Lambert V Address: P.O. Box 362, Berryvile Va 22611 Property I.D.#: 65B00-005-0000-0000-00090 Name: Shirley D. Lambert Address: P.O. Box 362, Berryvile,Va 22611 Property I.D.#: 65B00-005-0000-0000-00100 / Name: Eastern Frederick Development Address: P.O. Box 2097 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 55000-A00-0000-0000-01810 0 Name: Address: Property I.D.#: Property I.D.#: Property I.D.#: Property I.D.#: Name: Address: Property I.D.#: Name: Address: Property I.D.#: Name: Address: Property Z.D.#: Name: Address: Property I.D.#: Name: Address: Property I.D.#: Name: dress: C u�! Property I.D.#: ✓Name Address: Property I.D.#: Elliot Delivery Service P.O. Box 110 Winchester, Va 22601 55000-A00-0000-0000-02040 55000-A00-0000-0000-02050 55000-A00-0000-0000-02060 55000-A00-0000-0000-02070 Martin L. & Helen R. Bean Rt, 1, Box 1395 Berryville, Va 22611 55000-A00-0000-0000-02080 George L Sheppard Jr & Allen A Futral,jr 405 Briarmont Dr. Winchester Va 22601 55000-A00-0000-0000-02090 Linden D. & Goldie L. Adam Rt. 1, Box 1510 Berryville, Va 22611 111 �11 11/1 1111 1 11 George L Sheppard,Jr. & Allen A Futral Jr 405 Briarmont Dr. Winchester Va 22601 55000-A00-0000-0000-02110 George L. Sheppard,Jr. & Allen A Futral r 405 Briarmont Dr. Winchester Va 22601 55000-A00-0000-0000-02130 Alice S. & John S. & Edward D. Haggerty Rt. 1, Box 1500 Berryville Va 22611 55000-A00-0000-0000-02120 i Name: dress Property I. D . # : Name: Address: JProperty I.D.# Name: Address Property I.D.#: Name: Frederick -Winchester Service Authority P.O. Box 43 Winchester Va 22601 55000-004-0000-0000-00010 Melvin B. & Lillie M McDonald Rt, 1,Box 134 Berryvile Va 22611 55000-004-0000-0000-00020 Michael Edward McKee Rt, 1, Box 1490 Berryville Va 22601 55000-004-0000-0000-00030 Frederick -Winchester Service Authority Address: P.O. Box 43 Winchester Va 22601 ,Property I.D.#: 55000-A00-0000-0000-00190 ame: Lewis W. & Pauline Z. Strother Address: 760 Rossum Lane Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#:<5000-001-0000-0003-00220 4 CLARKE COUNTY ADJOINING OWNERS Name: Richard M. & Barbara Co krill Address: P.O. Box 278 Philomont, Va 22131 Name: Phyllis Bradfield Holtkamp Address: 150 S. Liberty Keuter Rd Lebanon, Ohio 45036 Name: Michael T. & Barbara Kambourelis Address: 506 S. River Oaks Drive Indiatlantic, FL 32903 Name: Wilbur M. & Helen B. Feltners Address: P.O. Box 2286 Winchester, Va 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 August 22, 1990 TO THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) The Application of: TWIN LAKES Rezoning Application #004-90 of: Loggia Development Corporation to rezone 5.1 + acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B-2 (Business General) and 391.35 + .acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for single family - detached dwellings, townhouses, school site and commercial use. This property is located in eastern Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of the City of Winchester in the Shawnee Magisterial District. It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek and to the south by Senseny Road. This rezoning application will be considered by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their meeting of September 5, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors meeting room, the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. Sincerely, ;� Robert W. Watkins Planning Director RWW/slk 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 This is to certify tr the attached correspondence w mailed to the following on August 22, 1990 fro he Department of Planning and *elopment, Frederick County, Virginia: Richard M. & Barbara Cockrill P.O. BOx 278 Philomont, pia.. 22131 Phyllis Bradfield Holtkamp 130 S. Liberty Keuter Rd. Lebanon, Ohio 45036 Michael T. & Barbara Kambourelis 506 S. River Oaks Dr. Indiatlantic, F1. 32903 Wilbur M. Helen B. Feltner P.O. Box 2286 Winchester, Va. 22601 Alan & Lin0a. Block 643 Bedford Dr. Winchester, Va. 22601 George L. Sheppard, Jr. Allen A. Futral, Jr. 405 Briarmond Dr. Winchester, Va. 22601 George G. Giles, et al C/O Wanda Nigh Route 6, Box 681 Winchester, Va. 22601 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK Dennis K. & Peggy S. Bucher 635 Bedford Dr. Winchester, Va. 22601 James & Jane Vickers 2023 Valley Ave. Winchester, Va. 22601 Melvin B. Johnson Gore, Va. 22637 Lewis & Pauline Strother 760 Rossum Lane Winchester, Va. 22601 Delbert & Virginia McGee P.O. Box 2306 Winchester, Va. 22601 Alice, John & Edward Haggerty Route 1, Box 1500 Berryville, Va. 22611 Robert W. Watkins, Director Frederick County Dept. of Planning I , Debi S. Swimley a Notary Public in and for the state and county aforesaid, do hereby certify that Robert W. Watkins, Director for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated August 22, 1990 has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my state and county foresaid. Given under my hand this 22nd day of August 1990. My commission expires on September 30, 1990 NOTARY PUBLIC A& Ahrnsorak, Michael A. & Jeanlip Shea .2421 Wayfaring Dr. Winchester, Va. 22601 Irene N. Jenkins 2279 Senseny Rd. Winchester, Va. 22601 6500OA00000000000010 ELLIOTT, LESTER A. a FRANCES P. 0. BOX %I0 WINCHESTER, VA.. 22601 PARSONS, FRED Hr & LOUELLA Mz RT. 6 BOX 68.A WINCHESTER, VA,. 22601 65000A00000000000036, GILES, GEORGE E� & MARGARET L� 2244 SENSENY RD., WINCHESTER, VA, 22601 65000A000000o000003j MILES, RICHARD F- & DIANA RT. I BOX 103 BERRYVILLE. VA., 22611.... WANDA 6500OA0000000000003, MEAN 2170 SENSENY RU WINCHESTER. VA., 22601 WHIPP, MARY V. 6S000A00000000000041, WTNCHESYER, VA. 22601 6500OA00000000000jqB RIGGLEMAN, FOREST & MILDRED L. 2660 SENSENY RD WINCHESTERi VA, 22601 65E0000j,, oo0000000,, WASHINGTON HOMES, INC. OF VA.. 1802 BRIGHTSEAT RD, LANDOVER, MD 20785-1.- Dunn, Howard J. 375 Brook Ave. North Plainfield, N.J. 7062 6BE00002000000000010, DUNN, 62Z OQUPORP WINCHESTER, VA 22601 6SE000020000000000is SCHUETTE, ROBERT 9, 627 BEDFORD PLACE WINCHESTER, VA 22601 65E00002000000000012. BOONE, GLYN R. & ELIZARETI-I 631 BEDFORD DRIVE WINCHESTER, VA,. 1ME00003000000o0o0j:.-j, AHRNSDRAK, M 1AEL A & &EAN C. SHE- 635 BEDFORD DR, WINCHESTER, VA 22601 6SE00002000000000014, LESLIE ANN 639 BEDFORD DR, WINCHESTER, VA 22601-1- 6SE0000200000000001<,). F"UTT, MICHAEL 1), 647 BEDFORD DR. WINCHESTER, VA, 22601 650000040000000A0000 NORTIIE:Rl�! COUNTIES DEVELOPMENT CORP, P.01 BOX 9"? UPPERVILLE, VA,. 22176 ADAMS. DAVID L 1408 28TH STREET NICEVILLE, FU. 6=00004000000=004, BENTON A., 784 D3XIE BELLE DR, WINCHITOBTER, VA 22601 6"000040000000A000,.�;, HEIRONIMUs, DENTON A., 781 DIXIE BELLE DR, WINCHESTER, VA.. 22e') ().1. e)lvl.,*;X(i<)<)<><).,l<)00000OA0006� BOWERS, FREDERICK A. JR. 22Zi SENSENY RD, WINCHESTER, VA., 22601 .... SEE. ROBERT D. JR- & DEBBIGE: E WINCHESTER, VA., 22601 GILMER, ROBERT & WANDA 2271 SENBENY RD- WINCHESTER. VA. 22601 MCGEE, DELBERT J- 3j4 OANNY DR WINCHESTER, VA- 2260 1.... HOOK, BURRIS J. & MARY L 2141 SENSENY RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22601 &5B000040000000A00i1,*,-;� MICHAEL, HERBERT S. & LENA 782 SUN,13E:T DRIVIEi: W:I:N(:.'I--IESTER, VA. 22600 6SO00000000000000002, KEELER, JOHN (-%I R T e (') BOX 76-14 WINCHESTER, VA. 22601 X.." 00 W) 00 0 0 1:::Nli3 EK N1 Y RX). VA NTC1KI cf'-In.ru in:o W. vn C:1T 0 Ej Awmo:.: pq 0 X 4 ..:R' VA 6 ".'.5 X-1 0 o o':'.-'; o o o () c z () X-*.1 r VA. ..lops..... IS FITRI !:.:y X) Ei 0 X, 6 2 V r.) 0U, TNC, 2 2601..... TN WX 1\1 (:11 1.-1 Y I..: I VA 22601 f 1X)6V'5'3) , I T NY.) 1;:: I\, D, RT :f. R Y V.,I: I I F, :' Vn. Melvin B. McDonald Route 1, Box 134 Berryville, Va. 22611 M C X) 0 N i-', 1 1) 1 ME3 V *T IN X`' .3 ..:X)Dyll:i I 1'' 141%, VA 1:i DWnRX) R I X-30X 1490 .X--Q::I:1.1RYVT I I I:K J VA G. W. Clifford & Associates Attn: C.E. Maddox P.O. Box 2104 -Tq.nchester, Va. 22601 Loggia Development Corp. 1700 Diagonal Rd., Suite 200 Alexandria, Va, 22314 Alicia F. & Joe Allen Gray Lewis et al 428 Madison Ave,. 11-A Orange Park, Fl* 32073 1 301N 1-'.4R0(:)KFIAVE:H1 AT 1 1: X1N('WY'(X'I DRANDEKT'3) "'.544 1 1.01.0 WAI...TFIAM 6 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK IDepartment of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 July 3A, 1990 TO THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) The Application of: TWIN LAKES Rezoning Application #004-90 of: Loggia Development Corporation to rezone 5.1 + acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B-2 (Business General) and 391.35 + acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for single family - detached dwellings, townhouses, school site and commercial use. This property is located in eastern Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of the City of Winchester in the Shawnee Magisterial District. It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek and to the south by Senseny Road. This rezoning application will be considered by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their meeting of July 18, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors meeting room, the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. Sincerely, Robert W. Watkins Planning Director RWW/slk 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 This is to certify thrt the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on July 3, 1990 fro* a Department of Planning and felopment, Frederick ` 7 County, Virginia: Richard & Barbara Cockri.11 PO Box 278 Phi_l.omont, VA 22131 Phyllis B. Holt] -,amp 130 S. Liberty Keuter Rd. Lebanon, OH 45036 Michael & Barbara Kambourel.is 506 S. River Oaks Dr. Indiatlantic, FL 32903 Wilbur & Helen Feltners PO Box 2286 Winchester, VA 22601 Alan & Linda 'Block 643 Bedford Dr. Winchester_, VA 22601 George L. Sheppard, Jr. Allen A. Ftitral, Jr. 405 Briar_mont Dr. Winchester, VA 22601 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK Dennis K. & Peggy S. Bucher 635 Bedford Dr. Winchester, VA 22601 James & Jane Vickers 2023 Valley Ave. Winchester, VA 2.2601 Melvin B. Johnson Gore, VA 22637 Lewis & Pauline Strothe_r 760 Rossum mane Winchester., VA 22601 Delbert & Virginia McGee PO Box 2306 Winchester_, VA 22601 Alice, John & Edward Haggerty Rt. 1, Box 1500 ` W_rjdaas-tve� VA 22601 Robert W. Watkins, Director Frederick County Dept. of Planning I, Renee' S. Arlotta a Notary Public in and for the state and county aforesaid, do hereby certify that Robert W. Watkins, Director for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated July 3, 1990 , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my state and county foresaid. Given under my hand this 3rd day of July , 1990. My commission expires on March 23, 1991 1 IF, / / 0.1m, G;�Orqe G. Giles, et al c/o -Wanda High Rt. 6, Box 681 Winchester, VA 22601 6t'; 00 0 0,00 0 0 0 0 Q 10 00 0',*?; 0+ X C)T'T" WIN 22,d-0 J. 1:KS, & C.A: I F::G' .1):CANA X`3 U:! 1:1,11 RY VT I 6 DOX 6,23. VA, C;-T I RT 6 X.AOX 6 V.'; 0 0 0 1) 0 0 0 0 0 () 0 0 0 4) W1.11FIF" MARY V VA. 2 6 01 . .... 0 0 0 0: iA.`5 RT C.'.- C� I IEMN--J, & 1"ITLA)RE-EX) I.... Rd RT.' tf> X.3C.)X 71:5"(" A 5,_,:5iPj wTNC1'I_'II;::C)TI:::R' VA. 22601 0 0 0 0 (11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. 0, X )UNN, IACAJARD J NORTI-1 P1 AT i"! F-A.- F: 1 0.. N J ROX-AH:RT 62�' DEDF'ORX) P'l V z5f:::00 0 0 2000100 0 0000.1_2; it IAT V A. 2 c.01. Ahrnsbrak, Michael A. & Jean C. Shea 2421 Wayfaring Drive Winchester, VA 22601 6*3'9 tAj :I: J~j 1::: 1:e , Vn 2'260A.- F:'U"Y"T" MTC;I.*..)I;::I 64"P V('%" C"O(.1NT"CE;:C1 X)I:::Vi:::l OP11ENIT CIORF, 1::: , Vn., a "2j'.'�' - P. X) A (-I : j, , X) (.) V 1.4M 1 INT C; I..: VT I I F:: P, ON A- 784 1:� V ym:L 7 6,; x):I:x V.A_ wT Ill CA..If::: STF:'. R VA., Q 1. X:1.0>11' 000 0 4 00000 00 PIC'01. C., C.T I ...2 6 o -1, J IVY", 0 < 0 o o o o o IMT & ,..2601..... 'MENKTNS, QQ-79 --s F_ 1'j S EN V R D W INC. QPC 000000 0 0 0 0 0'. MARY RT - CO 2 j. NX Cl K I E:SCM-1 w WA: I"IC1.1E voi., Vn, WX NCI I. -IN: 113 T N: R Vn., 1-1 13 C) N 1::: 1 TZC..". W)� LAHOERT, SHIRLEY D P'0. box 362 BERRYVIOuE, VA., 6 11155000A000000000001an FREDERICK P-0Box 209-� WINCHESTER. VA.. 22600". ELLIOTT DELIVERY SERVICE, INC.. WINCHESTER, VA, 22601 SSOOOAOOOOOOO000020M MEAN. MARTIM L. & HELEN 1:ti RT. i BOX 1395 BERRYVILLE. VA., 22611-- ADAMS, LINDEN D. & MOLDIE L., RTI BOX i5lo PERRYVILLE, VA., 226il 55000004000000000001 FREDERICK-WINCHESTER. WINCHySTER, VA 22601 MCDONALD. MELVIN B., RT. I BOX i34 BERRYVILLE. VA.. 22611 MCKEE. MICHAEL EDWARD RT. I BOX 1490 BERRYVILLE, VA. 22611 GEIPEQ, WAYNE D. RT. M BOX 400 WINCHESTER, VA G.W. Clifford & Associates Attn: Mr. Chalres E. Maddox, P.E. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, VA 22601 Loggia Development Corp. 1700 Diagonal Rd., Suite 200 Alexandria, Va..22314 Alicia F. & Joe Allen Gray Lewis, et al 428 Madison Ave,. 11-A Orange Park, Fl. 32G73 Frederick County Parks & Recreation Department ATTN: James Doran, Director P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5678 The Frederick County Parks &•Recreation Department is located on the second floor of the Frederick County Administration Building, 9 Court Square, Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. phoneApplicant's name, address and ABLAND IV 11501Court Bethesda,N. ti: 1 • •: • 111 AGENT: G.W. Clifford & Assoc, 200 N. Cameron St. ! !- 601 Att! •a - 1 •• • Name of development and/or description of the request: TWIN LAKES Location: CEO - Parks & Recreation Department Comments: Parks Signature a d Date: is r 7 ' % (NOTICE TO P — PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO THE AGENT.) (� NOTICE .TQ APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. ►i Parks & Recreation Director's Comments Twin Lakes, PMDP Although the July 1990 Twin Lakes toaster Development Plan provides for the required recreational units, this development will also have a significant impact on the County's regional park facilities and the recreation amenities currently included in the County's Capital Improvement Program. The recreation areas outlined in the above referenced plan offer the subdivision a balance of leisure opportunities, and I would recommend approval pending review of the park area specifications. The recreation facilities listed in the August 30, 1990 revised proffer statement would not appear to offer the diversity of the July 1990 Plan. Therefore, I would recommend that the July Plan be implemented. I would also note that the actual cost of the recreation facilities listed in the August 30, 1990 revised proffer statement are greatly inflated by the fact that these cost estimates include support facilities that would not be appropriate within the Twin Lakes Subdivision. A more realistic proffer value for these facilities, if developed as individual recreation units, would be approximately $280,000. Because of the impact that the Twin Lakes development will undoubtedly have on our park system, I believe that the proposed proffer of $75 per lot may be less than adequate. Based on current minimum requirements and the increased service demand created by this development, I would suggest that a lot proffer of $559.00 may be more appropriate. Please reference the attached information for the basis of this recommendation. As you may have noticed, I am suggesting that the proffer for several facilities be reduced. I have based th-s recommended credit on the fact that the additLon of these amenities within the subdivision should reduce the potential impact of this development on the proposed facilities at our regional parks. The recommended reduction is representative of the fact that, although these amenities are provided within the development, the residents of this subdivision will still have a significant impact on like facilities master planned for the County's regional parks. If you should have any questions regarding this recommendation, please give me a call. F.REULRICh COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PROFFER SUMMARY FOR A 1300 UNIT DEVELOPMENT t a 1 I 1 [ yA Sc,Lcer Fields Tennis Courts L's_:ket mall Courts Sullt7,,ll Fields Playt,round, Open Play and Picnic Areas bisebsll Field Renovation Stige Areas Nature Center 1-1,, int enance Area and Of Tice S;cpi,or t Facilities r.,rk Land -West FC S�r,ple Information S,,;:,;, 1 e Cot;,l,ut at ion Frederick county Standards 1/5000 Pop. 1/2000 Pop. 1/2000 Pop. 1/4000 Pop. 1/2000 Pop. 1/6000 Pop. Current Current Need Need Supply 8 2 20 2 20 1 10 4 20 7 7 4 current Facility Need Unit Gap Cost 6 246,000 18 48,000 19 82,000 6 312,000 13 205,000 3 47,000 Request Currently CIP on the Facility CIP List Cost 5 1,229,000 17 808,000 4 327,000 4 1,248,000 4 821,000 4 187,000 Proffer Per Housing Proffer Unit Credit 123 ** 62 60 ** 30 103 ** 52 195 **98 256 ***192 s 20 1/20,000 Pop. 2 0 2 313,000 1 313,000 39 1/County Pop. 1 0 1 35,000 1 35,000 2 1/20,000 Pop. 2 1 1 139,000 1 139,000 17 1/20,000 Pop. 1 0 1 172,000 1/County Pop. 1 0 1 400,000 172,000 22 400,000 25 GROSS COST IMPACT 5_ a Soccer Field - 1/5000 population costing $246,000 Development - 1300 units x 2.5 per unit = 3250 population 65% is the potential impact that a 1300 unit development, or 3250 people, will have on a facility that has a standard of 1/5000 population. 3250 is equal to 65% of 5000. $2116,000 facility cost x 65%, which is equivalent to the percentage of potential impact = $159,000 cost for the development divided by 1300 housing units = $123 cost per unit. 1 Proffer per housing unit remains the same irregardless of the size of the development. E'.,cilit7 clevelul,mer,t to include all support facilities. —plo ffer credit represents a 50% reduction for facilities included within the subdivision. Proffer credit is contingent c,n approval of facility specifications. . ..,,:. ...'f" 751 reduction for faci1iI ien included within subdivision. Soccer Fields (5) Access Road Parking 0 CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT DETAIL SHEETS 1990 SOCCER. COMPLU - SHERANDO 3 60 x 120 yard fields plus goals 2 55/110 yard fields plus goals TOTAL 1990-91 CAPITAL COST 100 LF. @ $121; 24' Wide, Asphalt paved 247 Spaces @ $880; Security Lights (12 @ $2,750) Access Paths 3000 LF. @ $27.50; 10' wide; Asphalt paved. TOTAL 1991-92 CAPITAL COST Restroom/Concession 820 SF; Masonry with concrete roof deck; full concession hookups. Plaza 22,000 SF. @ $3.30; 50% Paved/50% Planted; Kiosk @ $2,200. Picnic Shelters (2) 24' x 24'; (6) picnic tables each; concrete pad; wood frame structure; asphalt shingles; $20,000 each 28 sets of bleachers at $750 each TOTAL 1992-93 CAPITAL COSTS Lig1ltill l; 5 fields C, $60,000 per field Landscaping, 90 ;;Bade Trees 01 $300 Site Dev.$150,000 Site Dev.$100,000 TOTAL $250,000 TOTAL $12,100 Site Dev.$217,360 Lights 33,000 TOTAL $250,360 $82,500 $332,860 TOTAL $154,000 TOTAL $74,800 TOTAL $40,000 TOTAL $21,000 $289,800 TOTAL, '300 , 000 TOTAL. $27,000 0 Peripheral Work General Turf Renovation- 18 acres C. $1,500; misc. signage $1,500. TOTAL 1993-94 CAPTTAL REQUESTS TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST TOTAL $ 28,500 $ 355,500 $1,228,160 TENNIS COMPLIIX - CLI;ARRI:OOK Tennis Courts (8)(2) sets of (3) courts each; Site Dev. 46,200 (1) set of (2) courts fully Lights 33,000 fenced, chain link vinyl clad, Subtotal 79,200 lighted 30 FC. ir' Facility x 2.67 TOTAL $211,464 Racquetball Court (2) 3 Walled concrete structure. Site Dev. 11,000 Lights 5,500 Subtotal 16,500 i Facility x 2 TOTAL $33,000 Shelter Deck (1) 30' x 30' Octagonal shelter concrete pad, wood frame, cedar shingles, 6 picnic tables. TOTAL $11,550 Parking 59 Spaces @ $880; asphalt paved with curbed islands and concrete wheel stops; line markings and security lights (2 @ $2,750). TOTAL $28,710 Landscaping 39 Shade trees @ $300 TOTAL $ 5,850 Peripheral Work General turf - 8 acres @ $2,750; miscellaneous signage - $550. TOTAL $ 1,650 Access Paths 1000 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide, asphalt paved. TOTAL $13,750 11 • TENNIS COMPLEX-- SIIEIN'ANDO Tennis Courts (9) (3) sets of (3) courts ea.; Asphalt, color coated; fully fenced, vinyl clad chain link; lighted 30 FC. Racquetball (8) 3 walled concrete structure Restroom/Concession 625 SF. Masonry and wood with asphalt shingles; Limited concession hookups; 1500 SF. plaza. Site Dev. 49,500 Lights 33,000 Subtotal 82,500 i� facility x 3 TOTAL $247,500 Site Dev. 11,000 Lights 5,500 Subtotal 16,500 # Facility x 8 TOTAL $132,000 TOTAL $ 51,975 Access Paths 1000 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide; Asphalt paved. TOTAL $ 13,750 Access Road 50 LF. @ $121; 24' Wide. TOTAL $ 3,025 Parking 94 Spaces @ $880; Asphalt paved with curbed islands and concrete wheel stops; line markings and security lights (4 @ $2,750). TOTAL $ 46,860 Landscaping 15 Shade trees @ $300 TOTAL $ 2,250 Peripheral Work General Turf - 3 acres @ $2750; Misc. signage - $1100. TOTAL $ 4,675 0 0 BASKETi;ALL COMPLRX - CLEARRROOK Basketball Courts (2) (2) 85'x 65' asphalt with color coating; (2) back- boards each court; player benches, lighted, concrete poles - 30 FC. Shelter Deck (1) 30' x 30' Octagonal shelter concrete pad, wood frame, cedar shingles, 6 picnic tables. Site Dev. 22,000 Lights 14,300 Subtotal 36,300 V Facility x 2 TOTAL $72,600 TOTAL $11,550 Parking 59 Spaces @ $880; asphalt paved with curbed islands and concrete wheel stops; line markings and security lights (2 @ $2,750). TOTAL $28,710 Landscaping 39 Shade trees @ $300 TOTAL $ 5,850 Peripheral Work General turf - 8 acres @ $2,750; miscellaneous signage - $550. TOTAL $ 1,650 Access Paths 1000 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide, asphalt paved. TOTAL $13,750 0 0 BASKETBALL COMI'LI:Y - S111"RANDO Magnum Basketball 94' x 80'; Asphalt with Site Dev. 27,500 color coating; (6) back- Lights 17,600 boards each court; player Subtotal 45,100 benches; lighted, concrete if Facility x 2 poles - 30 FC; each court TOTAL $90,200 provides (1) regulation, (2) short regulation, and (6) half court games. Parking (Expand Total Spaces = 183; add Site Dev. 73,920 Existing) 51 spaces @ $880; resur- Lights 16,500 face 132 spaces C $220; TOTAL $90,420 Asphalt paved, curbed island and drop-off; 6 security lights @ $2750 each. Landscaping 40 Shade Trees @ $300. TOTAL $12,000 0 SOFTBALL CONPLLX - S}IFRANDO Softball Fields (4) 300' Radius, Fully Fenced, backstop, concrete bleacher pads with (2) 50 person bleachers per field; light- ed concrete poles 30/40 FC. Restroom/Concession 820 SF. Masonry with con- crete roof deck; full con- cession hookups. Access Road 70 LF. @ $121; 24' Wide, Asphalt paved. Plaza/Access Paths 65,500 SF. @ $2.20; (2) kiosks @ $2200. Parking Landscaping Peripheral Work 268 Spaces @ $880; Asphalt paved with curbed islands and drop off; line markings and security lights (8 @ $2750). 100 Shade Trees @ $300; Pine Screen @ $2500. General seeding - 7 acres @ $2750; Miscellaneous signage - $1650. Site Dev. 68,926 Lights 88,000 Subtotal 156,926 # Facility x 4 TOTAL $627,704 TOTAL $154,000 TOTAL $8,470 TOTAL $146,300 Site Dev. 235,840 Lights 22,000 TOTAL $257,840 TOTAL $32,500 TOTAL $20,900 0 E 1'LAYCROUND, OPEN PLAY AND PICNIC AREAS Picnic Shelter (4) 24' x 24'; (6) picnic tab- Site Dev. 19,800 With Plaza les each; concrete pad, # Facility >' 4 wood frame structure; cedar TOTAL $79,200 shingles, skylights, stain electric and water outlets. Restroom/Concession 625 SF. Masonry and wood with asphalt shingles; Limited concession hookups; 1500 SF. plaza. TOTAL $ 51,975 Access Paths 1000 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide; Asphalt paved. TOTAL $ 13,750 Access Road 50 LF. @ $121; 24' Wide. TOTAL $ 3,025 Parking 94 Spaces @ $880; Asphalt paved with curbed islands and concrete wheel stops; line markings and security lights (4 @ $2,750). TOTAL $ 46,860 Landscaping 15 Shade trees @ $300 TOTAL S 2,250 Peripheral Work General Turf - 3 acres $2750; disc. signage - $1100. TOTAL S 4,675 OPEN PLAY - CLEARI3ROOK Parking 64 Spaces @ $880; asphalt Site Dev. 56,300 paved with curbed islands Lights 11,000 and concrete wheel stops; TOTAL $67,320 line markings and security lights (4 @ $2750). Picnic Shelter (1) 24' x 48'; 12 tables, wood deck floor; wood frame, asphalt shingles. TOTAL $22,500 Existing Shelters (5) Repair, cleaning„ painting, and Restroom Rehab (1) signage, refurbish, (5) pic- nic shelters 0 $2750 each; (1) restroom (-; $5500 each. TO'I 11,I, "SU Access Paths i00(1 i,l'. ;27.�U; 10' 'elide, nsl�ha l t )saved . ':'OT"I'l. Landscaping 11 Shade trees @ $300; 8 Evergreens @ $100 'TOTAL $4,100 Peripheral Work General turf - 2 acres @ $2750; miscellaneous sign - age - $1100. TOTAL $6,600 OPEN PLAY AREA - CLEARBROOK WATER TM-JER Parking 73 Spaces e $880; asphalt Site Dev. 64,240 paved; with curbed islands and Lights 16,500 concrete wheel stops, line TOTAL $80,740 markings and security lights (6 @ $2,750). Picnic Shelter 30' x 55'; 18 tables, wood deck floor; wood frame and asphalt shingles. TOTAL $28,600 Horseshoe Pits (6) Sand base; 12 steel bars; Site Dev. 1,100 8" x 8" timber edge. Ii Facility x 6 TOTAL $6,600 Croquet Turf surface. TOTAL $2,200 Shuffleboard Concrete base, regulation Site Dev. 2,063 court, tournament style. # Facility x 4 TOTAL. $8,252 Volleyball Court (1) 50' x 80' sand court. TOTAL $6,600 Existing Concession Cleaning, repair, refurbish, Rehab paint. TOTAL $22,000 Landscaping 14 Shade trees @ $300. TOTAL $4,200 Peripheral Work General turf - 1.4 acre @ $2750; miscellaneous sign - age - $1100. TOTAI, $4,950 C� E EXERCISE, OPEN PLAY/PICNIC C0111'LF,X - (AXARBIM01: Exercise Area Multi -functional fitness stations, sand base. TOTAL $22,000 Volleyball Court (2) 50' x 80' sand court. Site Dev. 6,600 Facility x 2 TOTAL $13,200 Picnic Shelters (4) 24' x 48'; 12 Picnic Site Dev. 22,550 tables each, wood deck 1.` Facility x 4 floor; wood frame asphalt TOTAL $90,200 shingles. Shelter Deck 30' x 30' Octagonal shelter, concrete pad, wood frame, cedar shingles, 6 tables. TOTAL $23,100 Mega Playground Multi -functional apparatus Materials 27,500 groups by age user, wood, Labor 8,800 vinyl clad steel with cush- TOTAL $36,300 ioned surface, benches and edging. Caboose Rehab. Cleaning, painting, signage refurbish. TOTAL $2,200 Access Paths 1900 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide asphalt paved. TOTAL $52,250 Peripheral Work General Turf - 4.5 acres @ $2750; miscellaneous sign - age - $1100. TOTAL $13,475 0 is BASEBALL F]F,LD RENOVATION Renovate Existing Grading, seeding, & in- Site Dev. 33,000 Ballfields (4) field renovation; partial }_ 4 fencing and new backstops; TOTAL $132,000 furnishing and lighting adjustments. Existing Restroom Cleaning and painting; (Renovation) repair and refurbish. TOTAL $5,500 Access Walks/Plaza 12,000 SF. @ $3.30 TOTAL $39,600 Access Road 80 LF. @ $121; Asphalt paved; 24' Wide. TOTAL $9,680 0 STAGE. AREAS Existing Restrooms Clean, repair, paint and refurbish, signage. TOTAL $5,500 Park Office 800 SF. @ $60.50 TOTAL $48,400 Access Paths 1000 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide; asphalt paved. TOTAL $27,500 Shelter/Stage Sound stage $27,500; Sound system $16,500; Lighting $16,500; 6300 SF. @ $22; wood decking, stairs and mis- cellaneous site develop- ment. TOTAL $199,100 Peripheral Work General turf - 1 acre @ $2750; miscellaneous signage @ $1100. TOTAL $3,850 Lake Renovation TOTAL $28,600 0 NATURE, CENTER Field Archery Site development and field F.ange (1) targets. TOTAL $13 , 200 Access Paths 800 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide. TOTAL $22,000 i • MAINTENANCE AREA - SIIERANDO Office 1200 SF. TOTAL. S73,000 Storage Sheds (4000 sq. ft.) TOTAL $66,000 • Landscaping Renovate Existing Entrance Road At Ballfield Complex New Entrance Road At maintenance Complex SUPPORT FACILITIES 134 Evergreen trees @ $100 Regrade and asphalt pave 1300 LF. x 24' Wide @ $93.50 300 LF. New, Asphalt paved; 24' Wide C $121. TOTAL n13,400 TOTAL $121,550 TOTAL $36,300 STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC PARK FACILITIES (by Population) 1989 Frederick County, VA, Standards, 1989 Soccer Fields 1/5000 Tennis Courts 1/2000 Basketball Courts 1/2000 Softball Fields 1/4000 playground, Open Play & Picnic Areas 1/2000 Baseball Field Renovation 1/6000 Stage Areas 1/20,000 Nature Center 1/County Maintenance Area & Office 1/20,000 Support Facilities 1/20,000 park Land -West FC 1/County Kansas City, MO, 1980 Football/Soccer Field (Double Use) 1/4000 Picnic Shelters 1/2000 Picnic Tables 1/125 Baseball Diamond 1/3000 Softball Diamond 1/1500 Tennis 1/1500 Basketball 1/1000 Handball/Rasketball 1/5000 Playgrounds 1/1000 Colf Course (9-hole) 1/20,000 Swimming Pool 1/5000 Outdoor Ice Rink 1/2500 Trails (Hiking) 1/4000 (Nature) 1/2500 (Equestrian) 1/6250 (Bicycle/Jogging) 1/2000 (Exercise) 1/7500 Campsites 1/300 Shuffleboard 1/2000 Horseshoe 1/2000 Boat Ramps 1/5 miles/1/10 miles Volleyball Court 1/3000 Jackson, TN Gross Acreage 1/1000 Softball Diamonds 1/3000 Baseball Diamonds 1/6000 Tennis Courts 1/2000 Swimming Pools 1/20,000 Soccer/Football Field 1/10,000 Community Recreation Center Buildings 1/15,000 Little League Ball Field 1/5000 Public Golf Course 18 holes/25,000 Basketball (outdoor courts) 1/2000 Dallas, TX Trails 1/2-1 mile/10,000 Family Play 1/1000 Picnicking 1/300 Court Games 1/3000-6000/l/100,000 Swimming 15 sq. ft./3% pop. Racket Games 1/2000-4000; 1/200,000 Diamond Sports 1/4000-6000 Field Sports 1/4000-6000 Indoor Activities 1/20,000-30,000 Golf 18 holes/125,000 NRPA Suggested Facility Standards Badminton 1/5000 Basketball 1/5000 Handball 1/20,000 Tennis 1/2000 Baseball (Official) 1/5000 (Little League, lighted) 1/30,000 Football 1/20,000 Soccer 1/10,000 Golf (driving range) 1/50,000 Softball 1/5000 Trails 1/system per region Golf (par 3) 0 (9-hole) 1/25,000 (18-hole) 1/50,000 Swimming Pools 1/20,000 17J • Greensboro, NC Urban Parks District Parks Community Parks Neighborhood Parks Vest -Pocket Parks Recreation Centers Tennis Cotirts Swimming Pool Athletic Fields Combination Community/Neighborhood Parks 5/1000 2 1/2 acres/1000 2 1/2 acres/1000 1 1/2 acres/1000 1 1/2 acres/1000 1/2 sq. ft./person 1/2000 1 sq. ft./person 1 field/4000 2 1/2 acres/1000 The Frederick County facility standards, per thousand of population, were based on the results of a demand study completed by Resource Planners of Richmond, Virginia, in 1987. The demand study was completed as a portion of the Clearbrook and Sherando Parks master planning process. The ex48-ti-ag standards listed with the Frederick County standards were also taken into consideration. PROFFER STATEMENT ' Re: Twin Lakes LOGGIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Date: August 30, 1990 (Revised) Pursuant to Section 15.1-491(a) of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended), and the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of Frederick County, Virginia, Loggia Development Corporation herein called "Applicant," owner of that certain parcel of land containing four hundred (400) acres and described in detail in the submissions filed herewith, hereby proffers that said parcel of land shall be developed in accordance with the following conditions, if the rezoning application is granted and the property is rezoned to RP and B-2 in accordance with the attached Generalized Development Plan. These proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect if rezoning is not granted. These proffers shall be binding upon the Applicant or its legal successor or assigns. 1. The development of the subject property shall be in general conformance with the Generalized Development Plan submitted herewith. 2. The Applicant agrees to conform generally to the landscape plan to be submitted prior to final Board action on the application. 3. The Applicant will provide on -site recreational amenities, including a lake, parks and open space as shown on the Generalized Development Plan. In addition to the recreation facilities required by the zoning ordiance the Applicant will proffer further on site recreational facilities to be illustrated on the Master • Plan with a total proffer value of $1,171,000.00, or an additional $900.00 per lot, as follows: 1 Soccer Field Q $246,000* ea. _ 2 Tennis Courts Q $48,000* ea. _ 1 Play & Picnic Area Q $205,000* ea. _ 2 Softball Fields Q $312,000* ea. _ {�o �✓ Total Ina ",4 $246,00.00 $96,000.00 $205,000.00 $624,000.00 $1,171,000.00 (Source: Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation) 4. All streets within the development shall be fully dedicated public streets. 5. The Applicant shall design and construct all streets and roads on the subject property consistently with the County's adopted thoroughfare plan for the area, and according to uniform standards established by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and as may be provided in these proffers. 6. The total number of dwelling units shall not exceed one thousand three hundred (1,300). The unit mix shall consist of six hundred fifty (650) single family homes and six hundred fifty (650) townhouses. 7. A development phasing plan shall be submitted during the Master Development Plan process, in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Phasing as shown on the said Master Plan shall be accomplished such that no more than fifteen percent (15%) of the total permitted dwelling units, in any combination of single-family or townhouse units, may be constructed in later years. 0 Y 9oa s ? 8. The Applicant proffers that it shall dedicate, design and construct a two lane road connecting Route 7 to Senseny Road, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan with a sixty foot (60') right-of-way in the area designated in • the Transportation Plan as a Major Collector, for inclusion in the State Highway System of Secondary Highways. 9. The Applicant shall provide a phasing plan for the construction of the road and a landscape plan for the entire length of the road which shall be submitted to and approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. The phasing plan shall provide for the completion of the connection from Senseny Road to Route 7 within one year of the transfer of the 180th lot accessed by Senseny Road. 10. The Applicant proffers to identify and use its best efforts to preserve significant woodland and mature trees on the subject property in the design, layout and construction of all development. 11. The Applicant agrees that it shall employ all reasonable Best ndh-PdJ"J/ Sou.« o//H f✓., '-.9—/—"/' Management Practices in connection with the development of the subject property. 12. The Applicant shall contribute One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for each townhouse lot and One Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($1,400.00) for each single family lot approved, as building permits are issued for the construction of each dwelling unit or as such lot is sold to a developer for construction, whichever is sooner. The Applicant shall pay the per unit contribution to the School Board or to a fund set or designated by Frederick County to receive said contribution. To ensure payment of this prorata contribution, the Applicant, at his cost through the County staff, shall record an instrument creating a lien against each lot upon approval of the zoning application. The lien against each lot shall be released upon the payment of the contribution for each lot. 13. The Applicant shall dedicate as indicated in its Generalized Development Plan, a one hundred fifty foot (150') wide right-of-way for the future alignment of Route 37 called for in the Transportation Plan. 14. The Applicant shall make a contribution of Seventy -Five Dollars ($75.00) per lot to the County for regional parks and 'recreation. This contribution shall be guaranteed and paid in the same manner as provided for the School Board in paragraph 12 above. ' 15. The Applicant shall make a contribution of Seventy -Five Dollars ($75.00) per lot to the Greenwood Fire Station. In addition,applicant shall proffer $25,000.00 towards a new ambulance for Greenwood's Life Safety unit. Said proffer will be paid at the transfer of the first lot. This contribution shall be guaranteed and paid in the same manner as provided for the School Board in paragraph 12 above. 16. The Applicant shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 7 and the proposed collector road when warranted. 17. The Applicant will reserve for future dedication a ten (10) foot strip along its southern boundary line for future widening of Senseny Road when required. 18. The applicant shall construct on site a "regional" wastewater pumping station at an appropriate location on site as shown in the impact analysis. This pump station, force main and upstream gravity interceptor sewer system will have the capability to serve the attendant 1200 acre drainage area, all of which is within the urban development area of the county comprehensive plan. This system will serve the additional 800 acres by initially allowing the two aging existing sewage pump stations to be taken off line. The $415,000 cost of this system will be borne by the applicant, although 2/3 of the capacity will be unneeded for this development. 0 Cost Estimate 4800 11 interceptor (0 $50/ft. 1-LS 100,000 3000' Force Main @ $25/ft. Total Cost of Facility Amount of Proffer $240,000 $100,000 75,000 $415,000 $278,000 19) The applicant shall construct watermains on site as necessary to link Va. Route 7 and the regional wastewater treatme�it plant with FCSA water supply and fire protection services, which exist now on Senseny Road. 20) The Applicant shall proffer to construct curb, gutter, and sidewalks to the extent the Planning Commission deems it necessary at Master Plan approval. The Applicant hereby proffers that the development of the subject property of this application shall be in strict accordance with the conditions set forth in this submission. The Applicant further represents that it is the owner of all the property included within this application and that the signatures below constitute all the necessary signatures of record owners of the property to subject and land within this application to these proffers. These proffers shall be binding upon the Applicant, its successors and assigns. GIVEN under my hand this 51 day of ,1990. LOGGIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BY: Lxz aSi_.Cat N, , t=a?_.i-'o14 LOUIS -9R.. 6 5 O{)0020000C'i000001.5, r,L..CJt:;K , fif_AN! ItiC3i.. IS ;3R 6 43 r'E D C?FW XDR a bJ:i:NCFI .S•i'lER- V(-'5.. 22<501. I* I* 0 0 a5200o04000oo00A0o0a< NOR' lERw COUNTIES QEVELOF'MENT CORP. Po2ox 97 UPPERVILLE. vA 22�76- � � 63�>000400o00o0Ao0oa NORTHERN COUNTIES »EVELOPMENIT coRR* P.o� »ox 97 uPPERVIELE, VA. 22±76- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � � RC)BE:F'ZT D,. JR., VA. 65B000040000000A 0009-' SEEK, Ro2E 1). ;& SESSIE El. P. C". :Fic)x 2315 22 6 ols. -- 65B000040000000A 0009', Si'--*!-::, F,OBERT Fl. Cll- Eiclx Wl NC'HESTER, VA - 22-601— G.TL.MEr-z, RoeERT -j. & 1,jn--NDr-i 227J. SI-ENSE-ENY RD- 2.26 0:'-. - 613 B 0 C, 0 0 .4 0 0 0 0 0 4) 0 A 0 0 1 ROBERT J� Z, WANDA 2',27J. SE-N.SIENY RD. 2260 j. 65200 >40 x>oo0Ao0i4 2±41 SENSENY Rp QINCHEs�tER, Vn- 22601.- � � 6;2000040000000A00im HOOK, sURRIG U. & MARY I 2i41. SENSENY Ro QINCHESTER, VA: 2260±- � � 63300�>s0o00000o0ooiA /ENKINS, IRENE N: 2279 SENSEwY Ro� QINCHESTER, VA� 2260±- � � 65300O>So0000000000». /ENKINS, IRENE N. 2279 SENSENY Ro- QIwcHESTER. vA: � � 6 -5BO000500040 000 0 00 0-6, SNYDER, j-::,)Wnr-ZD I.— & UEEONIA M« 0 C/17) RET-&n RANNELA S RT6 BOX 664 WINCIP-M.-STE-R, VA. SNYD.;:--R' lx.DwAl-iD J.— it M., C/0' RE!3i'-) 'RA:NHNE)-LS RZT « 6 BOX 664 vn- 2260J.- I-nrix-3ERT, C3HTRLC-"Y wF<)X -,562 226 1 ft. LAMEMRT, -SHIRLEY -0, P.O., TSOX 362 2261..1. 1- JR� -40!5 DR,. SHEPP"All--�X), GEOFI�Gl= I-- JR- -E.1Rlit-iRMONT DR WINCHEESTEE'R, VA- lz5 0 0 0 43f.70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 GHEi--'FARD, C-E-ORC;E L. )R� 40.1.5 IMIAR)Oil T DR- W:11'NICHESTE-ER, VA- 5 GEORGE L. JR 403 PRIARMONT DR- 2260t- ss 00000000002J.:B, SHEF:IPARX), GEORGE, L, JR� 40=5 2RIARMONT illrl!- WINICHEISTIE-R, VnI 22601.-- I.js000A0O0000000002-lZI. JR- 403 BRIARMON'T' r-r-Z, WINCHEESTER, VA, 428 MADISCAN ^-iVE ORANGE PARK. Eu- . 320�3- 55000004000000000004', LEWIS, 4-ILICIA F� 0 .428 AVE ORANGE*: PARK, FL- hti c7t)�r'�Cf? �C>t}tirCSCstii'}C�:3S�� C;IE0RGiHE £:.. 1 E T '..... J RT , 6 %+f?i: 681. :•:ii••it=i�'1=11F"�:x`7, L':l:(:Iiwf:Yi•.� i.... ,.3i�i.. S 40,15 TH31-iTIT-1I iaviOIN➢ D- L: I NCt• I aY'nER , vn . E�!-ice i F'F?iiX3 , iYr CII+:Yt.. i_.. JR• ihiT.itiiCI-Ii::S7'iER, Vi=i:. 226- 0 1 W-1 t� C? i G e: G Gff G ('i i G G G C. 'E G i- G t? G NO xfi ;.: 0> lei?� Y r? ifJ . Ci itS if 3 - T 0 t _t y N -v (^` ,• • �:.`-:iia�;ii:3i;:-S:-;'rli3;-;'r;<-lii:•3',-:ii'r: �� i � ii-:F -;bii'Ji — #742 J GEORGE C. BRAITH AITE ET UX � % TO DEED GEORGE Vd. GILDS ET LOC :i-W, i:i I d I r-� TIiIS DEED made and dated this 2nd, day of November, 19 0, by and between, George C. Braithwaite and Mary Braithwaite, his wife, parties of they " first part, and George V1. Giles and Maude Giles, his wife, parties of the second part./A' WITNESSETIi: That for and in consideration of, the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged, the said parties of the first part i do hereby grant, sell and convey, with general warranty of title, unto the parties of i I the second part, jointly and in equal proportions, a certain tract or parcel of land, I containing 88.8 acres, together with all improvements and appurtenances thereto be- longing, lying and being situate about four miles Last of Ifinchester on the North iside of the Senseney load in Shavmee District, Frederick County, Virginia, and being all i part of that certain larger tract or parcel of land, which was conveyed to the said i George C. Braithwaite by the Federal Land Bank; of Baltimore, by deed dated Setpember 7, 1940, and w'ai.ch is to be recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, prior to the recordation of this deed. A plat and survey of the within conveyed land made by Walker McG. Bond, Civil Engineer, is attached to, and by this reference made a part of this deed. It is agreed by the parties of the first part that in the event the spring on the property herein conveyed to Giles should fail, the said parties of the second part shall have the right to use the over flow from another spring near the northwest corner of said tract on Braithwaite'.s land for the purpose of watering live stock, the said parties of the second part to construct and maintain any necessary trough or troughs. And the said parties of the second part shall have the right to use the private roadway of Braithwaite's along the western side of the within conveyed land in order to gain access to said spring: Witness the following signatures and seals. ii3i 53 i3Y.i3:�S ;i 3: YFla REVENUE, STAMPS 3i $1.65 3i CANCELLED STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK, to -wit: GEO. C. BRAITENAITE (SEAL) NIBS VARY BRAITI WAITE (SEAL) I, Virginia Hitter, a notary public in and for the County of Frederick, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that George C. Braithwaite and Mary Braithwaite, vrhose names are signed to the foregoing and annexed writing bearing date of November 2, 1940, have this day personally appeared before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid and acknowledged the same., Given under my hand this 2nd, day of November, 19400 My cotwiii:)olon oxpiroo Marcli 23,"194.10' VIRG.ITTIA RTTTER Notary Public. c Q P/,,,f b y A;9�" i 7' b / 4� C SwtC ^ _r A I { 9 � � �Dauble �✓h�te Oak i I The following is a survey of a portion of the George C. i Braithwaite farm land fronting on the north side of the Senseney Woad about 4 miles east of Winchester, Frederick County, Virginia and is more particulnsly described as follows: Beginning at a white oak on the north side of the said road running with the north property line of the Senseney road S 68°20' E 2625 ft. to a double white oak a corner to the Holmes Carper land in said highway boundary line; thence with a line of said Carper N 27�55' E 1535 ft. to a,riple white oak a corner to Braithwaite's other land in the said Carper'.s line; thence by two division lines through the other lands of Braithwaite N 60'W 1957 ft. to a stare corner to the other land of the said Braithwaite near the east side of the private road leading from Braithwaite's mansion house to the Senseney road; thence S 47' W 2000 ft. to the point of beginning containing 8a.8 acres. Survey made August 20, 19400 I WALKER McC.BOND. I C. E. 1{�ti iTe VIRGINIA I FREDERICK COUNTY SCT: I This Instrument of writing was produced to me on the 4th I � day of Nov. 1940 at 2:15Pand with certificate of acknowledgment thereto annexed was admitted to record. ,CLERK. n tj— beeA hook. 19 0 --- FREDLRICK COUI'ITY, (SCT. is This instrument of w riting was produced to me on the J,5 so -r Oth day of Dec. I9^.4 at II:25 A. 19. and with certificate of ac!:norledrment thereto ann was admitted to record. ,. ?:-?}?Si:•i:•i: s?b?::^.c?:?... ?. is?f?:-?: is is :bi:?: ?:'i: ?: :: �f894 '•F TEA Ti ?3RtrITIRVAITE, ET VIR TO DELT) GLR\.,RGE IN. GILES i'ri:•isia:?:?:?:?&#iii}?:?:#?:?b?:iA?:i:i.°ii?:?:i:- ?: THIS DEED made and dated this 22 day of November, I'43, by and between Mary Braithwaite and George U. jiraithwaite, her husband, parties of the first part, and George VV. Giles, party of the second part. R'ITNESSMI'.: That for and in consideration of the stun o' Ten Dollars ($10.00) cash in hand raid, and other f-ood and valuable consideration, the receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged, the said r-artics of Lhc first part do ereb�r *rant, sell and convey, with general crarrantv of title, unto the party of the second part, his heirs and assirns forever, all of that certain tractor parcel of land, containing 74 acres, 2 roods and I2 square roles, lying and being situate a short distance North of the Senseneir Road about four miles Last of ';Winchester in Shawnee District, Frederick County, Virginia, and being a rortion of that certain larger tract or rarcel of land, which was conveyed to the said Mary Braithwaite by Gcorhe C. Braithwaite, by deed dated November 2, I940, and of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book Tio. IBI, pare 3153. h plat and survey of the within conveyed land made by ,`talker YcC. bond, Surveyor of kredcrick County, is attached to, and by this reference incorporuted in this deed. `he aforesaid rrantors covenant that they have the riI*ht to convey the said land to the aforesaid I°raiitec; that the said grantee shall have quiet possession of the said land, free from all encumbrances; that the, have done no act to encumber the said land; and that they will execute such further assurances of said land as may be requisite. Vitness the following signatures and seals. 11AR] B1Z4ITNI!0TE UVEMIE SVduIPS i, $i. I0 i. Ci,l;CELLED ?:':: ?:,.:: is ?b,..::}i:•?: ?: ?; ?:•?:• .... ?f?, State of Virginia County of Frederick, to -wit:: ( S I'!AL ) £;1,L) I, Virginia Ritter, a notary public in and for the County of rredcrick, in the :Mate of 'Virginia, do hereby certify that t.!ary Braithwaite and George C. Braithwaite, her husband, whose names are signed to the fore�-oing vrriting jbearing date of November 22, I943, have rersonally aPro-r(vi hafore me in my iurisdicl:ion 5e-e �At 6y W, f/a.,/4,t, IF -A FIN Given under imp hand this 22 day of November, I943. 1,1y commission ex;•ires Yarch 28, 1044. VT 1d;11(11. 1JTTI,.R Notary Pub.Lic FSr ~art /d hQ'S 741-A-2 R- /.? SE. Po. �y D Y k� �h �AC hdJ e The following is a survey of a portion of the Nary L. Braithwaite lands, situate and lying in Shawnee 11aFisterial District, Frederick County, State of Virginia, about four miles south east of the City of `vNinchester bounded on the 10 north by a line of the Tom•ny Brown Estate lands, on the east by a line of the Carter estate lands, on the south by a line of George W. Giles former Purchase of a portion of the Mary E. Braithwaite lands, on the west by lines of the said Braitlinaite's other lands and is more particularly described by a survey viz. - Beginning at a post corner to the Giles former purchase running through the Braithwaites lands by the two following courses and distances 11' 65 I/2 'E 24.24 rods to a post corner; thence 14' 58 F I00.24 rods to a vialnut tree a corner to the said Braithwaito's other lands in the Broym Lstate line;nthence with the last mentioned line S. 67 E 82.0 rods to a set stone a corner to "lie Brown estate lands I and also a corner to the Carter estate lands; thence with a line of the latter S 25 I/2 *xx$®.93xx. 'h I30.03 rods to tripple oaks a corner to the Giles former ,:urchase in Holmes Carper's line; thence rrith a line of the Giles former purchase 1+ 50 I/2 ,%' I20 rods to the mint of beginning containing 74 Acres - 2 Roods - I2 Sq. Po. Surveyed II-2-43 By 7.'hL1:LR I`CC. BOND VIRGINIA eRE'DILRIC$ COUYP', (SCT. This instrument of writing was iroduced to me on the 9th day of Dec. 1044 at I:00 P. 1,'.. and with certificate of acknoraedgment thereto annexed was admitted to record. %� r 4 HARRISON A JOKN$71 A t.o..l., .7 1A• F I.C.t,ft.. #86 PAUL K. GILL•;:1, LT UX TO: DEED GEORGE L. :;IIEPPARD, JR . , LT AL * i! iF iF i. iF iF ii it iF i11h M M * M k M * iF iF df M- 372 il+ 610 J!j 1971, between 1 THIS D'.SED, made this day of 7 " � "—/ - Paul K. Giles and Janita G. Gilcs, his wife, of the one part, hereinafter called the Grantors and George L. Sheppard, Jr. and Allen A. F'utral, Jr., I of th.• other part, hereinafter called the Grantees. I That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), cash in hand paid and other valuable consideration, receipt whereof is hereby acknaaledGeli, t!re Grantors do grant and convey, with General unto Gcor1e L. Sheppard, Jr. a one-half ('4) undivided Warranty of Title, interest, in fee sirPle, and unto Allen A. Futral, Jr. a one-half (%,) und'_v'_de(I interest, in fee simple, together with all rights, privileges and I appurtenances thereto bclonging, all that certain tract of land containing 122 Acres, more or less, situated about five miles Enst of Winchester in Shawnee b:ag'_sterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, more particularly described by a plat and survey made by Richard U. Goode, Certified Land Surveyor, attached hereto and by this reference mnde a part hereof, and being tho same property conveyed to the Grantors herein by Clyde E:. Demron, 19G0 and of record in the Office of the et v , by deed dated October 1, redericY. County, Virginia, in Deed gook 266, Clerk of the Circuit Court of F at Page 3R8• ubject to all legally enforceable restrictive This conveyance is mnde s covenants and cases:ents of record, if any, affecting the aforesaid realty. Except as noted above, the Grantors covenant that they have the right to convey said realty to the Grantees; that the Grantees shall have quiet all encumbrances; that they have done no act possession thereof, free from hst they will execute such further assurances to encumber said realty and t thereof as may be requisite. WrrjjSS the following signatures and sr Ls: /• ;� (SEAL) Pa 1 K. G 1ds 7 � HARRISON A JOHNSTON .ITI..l11 .T 1.• •I.C•1Ii[1. Y1.11•iA !Cr'- 3TA2 I.,,: 611 Janita G. G:len STATE OF VIRGINIA, .� OF To -wit; r�l i1 �;�� L,C a ; otary 11ub1ic of and for the Rtutc and aforesaid, do certify that caul K. Giles and Janita G. � I Giles, his wife, whose na.nes are signed to the foregoing instru.ent, bearin,-.I date on the ! ' day of , 1y71, have acknowledged the ca;;c before coo in my State and ��, ,. G� aforesaid. Given under my han . this ! % ,� day of ,,• ,• , 1�71. My commission expires r-: • 7 � I Votury Public 1WM III scar 372 ou 612 ' 91 400' zoo, t 0 400' Soo GN SCALE /N FEET ' �P GEORG£ W. GILES ( BROWN 75'R-0-14' N29020'0zAll, 136o.el' 1 4 I N30,101181 5 2 47Z.41 �<'e �.00 Se b h O ' � N A a PAUL GILZS to o b H Dct. FUT.WL & Dci. SHEPPA4 D W N 121.11 AC.i.:S W e � e z o h e � Q 3 ZJ AC.-t : DEED 000K-/Oz to '� PACE - 151 ~ 96 AC. d e O b 2 � BLpO• ROM 9� - OLD�3� 01 W = IP U� _lie -� - gRTR \ BARN .i AC.= 1 3 ; W 2J. �i 7 SZ6 /7 ZS W /J/O.SO'1 11 ti � ESKRIDGE 1 e PATTON d 1 0 2 4S7.9S'h. 9 S 2I ' 16'15"W 10 HAGGERTY LAND OF PA UL G /L ES _ /2 /. 11 A CRES LOCATED ABOUT 3 MILES £AST OF WINCHESTER. IN SHAWNEE DISTRICT. FREDERIC K COUNTY, V/RGINIA . SUh'VI ED4( ✓AZra . 1971 RICHARD U. GOOD£ CERTIFIED SURVEYOR BERRYVILLE, VIRGINIA N." 372 Ttu GO ?AUL GILES to DR. FUT.,UL ac D,t. 121.11 AC&;S The tract of land, shown on the r.tt..c:::d drawin,,, located zAbcut 2300 feet north of the 3enseney ;load and uuouL 3 miles Last :;f ,iinchester, and situate in Shawnee ,ia...-I-sterial bistrict, Fr,:derick County, dirtinia, is bounded as follov.s: be}rmiri. at (1) a set stone at a fence corner at thte Northeast, corn:r of the land of ;:rs. Dchn,ven; thence with the DeHavan ljin 14 uO del;. 48 min. 43 scc. W 2030.99 feet to (2) a set stone a corner to 1:rs. Deaven; t!.ence t•riLh the lard of George W. Gils:, for the follo•.:inh 2 courses 14 20 de,--,* 33 min. 25 sec. S 75.00 feet to (3) a point 75.0 feet Northeast of a set stone; thence N 29 deg. 20 min. 02 sec. E 1360.81 feet to (4) a set Stcn s it corner b,;twucn George .i. f;iic:; r,rr, Brown; Lir:nce k Lh Brown N 3u deg. lU min. 18 ssc. !•; 472.44 feet to ( 5) an 'iron peg in a fanco corner a ccrnor to Adams; thonce with Adams i4 th,:t, with Artrip S 63 deg. L` min. 58 sec. d 205u.71 f•:et to (o) an iron peg on the East side of an old road, this old road is used «s an entrance to this farm from State i:idiway i1o. 7, Ve rice witn Artrip S 77 deg. Ow ruin. 11 sec. Z 427.ul feet to (7) Part iron peg in Haggerty's line; thence witrr r.a,,gert; for the following 3 courses S 23 deg. 42••min. 51 sec. ;•! 355.1y feet to (8) an iron peg by a set stone; thence S 61 del;. 19 ,nin. 22 sec. . 47U.51 feet to (9) an iron peg in a fence corner; thence S 22 des. to min. 25 sec. W 457.95 feet to (10) an iron pug by a set stone; thence with a 1.633 acre tract beint; convoyod by Patton t'c asxriage to Lr. Futral and Dr. Sheppard N 60 del;. 59 min. 38 sec. W 47ti.85 feet to (11) an iron peg; thence S 20 der,. 17 :.,in. 25 sac. ;V 1310.50 feet to the point of bef,inning, containing 121.11 Acres pore or less. #C;C�u,�� .tichard U. Gooue, Certified :;urvcyor, tl.%t,u:,ry >,y 1971. 4. t....l...t kIjti...i....j »..s piolu/-aj to me o-i the and w,ta c;:ri, i.; , ul ack-i ,•.Q ..cg no it Ciar3to anaa :a vvis .. .... - -. uil..lf.•:,l tJ r_.:,,:�1. •1'.�:.,..1,,�;�j �/ .i.�. �.f•�;.1 �t nd , and 5--C,,t •: ;.va been p.id, if a;sea..ble. Clerk. i d HARRISON A JOHNSTON .1t0..1., .f l.• #89 VIRGTL H. ESKRIDGE, ET -AL TO: TRUST GEORGE L. SHEPPARD, JR., ET AL ^c 372 ; .E 6/22 ^' THIS DEED, made thin >� dny of , ,-1 , 1971, between Virgil H. Eskridge and mernic A. Enkridp--, his wife, and G. Raymond Patton and Hilda P. Patton, his wife, of the one part, hereinafter called the Grantors, and George L. Sheppard, Jr. and Allen A. Futral, Jr., of the other part, hereinafter called th,� Grantees. WITNESSIMi : That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), cash in hard paid and other valuable consideration, receipt whereot t Is hereby acknow L•dged, the Grantors do grant and convey, with General Warranty of Title, unto George L. Sheppard, Jr. a one-half (%,) undivided interest, in fee simple, and unto Allen A. Futral, Jr. a one-half (;S) undivided interest, in fee simple, together with all rights, privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging, all that certain parcel of land containing 1.63 Acres, morn or less, Located about 3,000 feet north of Senseny Road (Road No. 657) about 1', miles East of Winchester in Shawnee Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, being, the Northwest corner of the + _ Grantors' property, more particularly describ^d by a plat and survey made January 11, 1971 by Richard U. Goode, Certified Land Surveyor, attached here. to and by this reference made a part hereof, and being, a portion of the property conveyed to the Grantors herein by the heirs. of Ernest Clem by deed dated August 22, 1966 and of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court o^ Frederick. County, Virglnin, in Deed Book 325, at Page Lkb. I This conveyance is made subject to all Legally enforceable restrictive i covenants and casements of record, if any, affecting the aforesaid realty. Except as noted above, the Grantors covenant that they have the right to convey said realty to thr Grantees; that the Grantees shall have quiet ponscenion thereof, free from all encumbrances; that they have don-, no act to encumber said realty and that they will execute such fu:•ther assurances thereof as may be requisite. WITNESS the follcuirg signatures and seals: (SEAL) Virgil }�. 1;skridge i —7 62 {rr 1 37ti 1'•'.E 623 I Kernie A. Eskridg^ ' i (SSAL G. Hoysor.d IPntton • / �.� (Si;AL� Hilda. P. Patton STATE OF VIRGIIIIA, OF-+_;,�,• /,: , To -wit: a Rotary Public or and for the JLQtP and 1;,.�.,.L�, aforesaid, do certif, that Virgil It. E..krieg; and Mern;e A. Eskridge, his wife, whose names are siGncd to the foregoing inctrum^rt, t bearing date 'on the / / day of -;�,•,1/.�.' , 1971, have acknculolged the same before me in my State and i,'_�,r.�l aforesaid. j Givenunder my hanl this /clay of 1971. Ay commission expires -� 7�., , , ...f� . r 7 Rotary Public STATE OF VIRGIIIIA, OF 1 •/t,.�� , To -wit: I, `�' ; ��•' -.4,-�, / *.- �, a Notary Public of anr' for the State and aforesaid, do certify that G. ;;aymond Patton and Hildu I . Patton, his wife, whose names are signed to the foregoing, invtrtLment, bearin> date on the ��day of r•• , �,� ��/ , 1971., have acknowl^dged the 61. same before me in m/ State and /� aforesaid. Given under cry hand this / :� rh day of ��.�t , 1971. bV commission expires 7��; •l,•%,-� '� 7 %/e :,_��l Notary Public t C� CJ 372 624 /00' 50' 0 /00' 00' 2 SCALE /N ricr MAONET/CS 1971 rt PA 614 4 G/L ES W t3 .. I s60•59' to e STREAM 4 70.es q 1 PU:iTa... C:' ihivL OF ti PATTO:: & a3n.t:LGE � o0 lv ^ o ed 4r .` 1.633 v b Z 2 2 O 402.06 3 - N72'41 35 W ~ v J Q � IR E5 KRIDGE PA TON d e� h� .W The above tract of land, located about 3,000 feet North of the Senseney rto,,d, ai,out 31 iAlus r'a:it of ?Jinchester, and situate in Shawnee I•.agister_al Listrict, FrCdericK County, Virginia, is bounded as follows: '. Beginning at (1) an iron ;x g by a set :.tone at a fence corner, acorner between Paul Giles and narXerty; thence wit h 2 new division lines through the land of Patton & %s/ridge S 23 deg. 00 min. UO sec. W 101.53 feet to (2) an iron per; thence Il 72 der. 41 z:in. 35 sec. W 482.06 feet to (3) an iron peg in the Sast line of the land of Paul Giles; thence with the land of Paul Giles for the fb llowi ng 2 courses N 20 deG. 17 min. 25 sec. it 198.94 feet to (4) a point in the center of a sprint; a snort diztance North of a stream; thence S 00 deg. 59 min. 38 sec. - 470.85 feet to the point of beginning, co nt ainine, 1.633 Acres more or less. ,tichar•u U. Goo'le, certified Surveyor, January 11, 1y71. V.R3LV.A F2-"J--3lCX CJU.II'Y, SCr. TI�r4rzer4rvziting was prodto mo on the d .y of at and with cvrl..i of sCA I'D JU.naat thcrato anne cal .vas .Admitted to r,;cord. 1'a4 .,;r.j._1 )/ J.J. J.S•J4. 1 of $ a ', and S •S 4 L•avo boon p,,id, if a.so.s.,ble• Clerk. 1, i� 14 I *********************************** t #3122 WOODROW ARTRIP, L;f UX TO: .. DEED GEORGE L. SHEPPARD,,JR., ET AL ***************************************** MA1111ON i JOHNSTON AtT01Y1T1 AT U• •IICNCIT91. Y1111111A Btc566Pc01 4 THIS DEED, made this 11V day of - x, , 1983, between Woodrow Artrip and Olive K. Artrip, his wife, of the one part, hereinafter called the Grantors, and George L. Sheppard, Jr. and Allen A. Futral, Jr., of the other part, hereinafter called the Grantees. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), cash in hand paid and other valuable consid- eration, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do grant and convey, with General Warranty and with English Covenants of Title, unto the Grantees, as tenants,�n common, in fee simple, together with all rights, rights of way, privileges and appurten- ances thereto belonging, including a right of way for ingress and egress to State Route 802 as shown on the attached plat, all of that certain tract of land, containing 6.0413 Acres, situated about five miles East of Winchester; between Route 7 and Senseny Road, and just South of State Route 802 in Shawnee Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia, more particularly describe by plat of survey by Elliott Ritchie, Jr., Land Surveyor, dated August 26, 1983 attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof; and being the same property conveyed to the Grantors herein by Raymond Carter, and wife by deed dated June 1, 1966 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Dbok 322, at Page 586. This conveyance is made subject to all legally enforceable restrictive covenants and easements of record affecting the aforesaid realty. 1 ' T•1ITNESS the following signatures 'and' seals: ` SEAL) oo row rip . (SEAL) ive rtr p i • ' 15 1 OX566PG0 (5 STATE OF VIRGINIA, <Ifye— OF To -wit: I, /JAi,aA-) a Notary Public of ani for the State and aforesaid, do certify that Woodrow Artrip and Olive K. Artrip, his wife, whose names are signed to the foregoing writing, bearing date on the �'�� day of 1983, have acknowledged the same before me in my State and-- aforesaid. _n under my hand this 112.E day of 19 My commission expires /Uu U0,•� 6 vre. Ze' Notary u i i i II HARRISON { �ONNITOM AMAn(11 At LAr rrrlr LNtA, Truuu r I "4 1 `- I on Pi t Linden D. A Iron Pipe Set in a Hollow Lindaps ` , 0-6-230. P9,4158 j�oL _L7�E Iron Pipe Set on Right of way 80� S' N 35o the east side of a _ y for Ingress and Ea,,, r--__ 55' 40* E White Oaks 40 4 806.00' — — — — _ _ _ State Route 802 m — 6, 8.65' - 40� Hide 3 ►• \ ` \ 3e, i o `--- \ \ \ o ' � N 35 55' 40' E : - 803.48 � r Right of Ma for In ress and E ress / cD Cl 9 y g g 9 ., /- t7 m ... t • CO \ o \ \ �SB 13� Existing 6' Gravel Road o 1 /9tj •ri. / ��b osq N3400636'E i 91 97.421— a 6:0413 ACRES 0 116.15' ca S 210 14. ]G Alice S- Na9931 ' COOp.B.g58. P9.1 Found Iron Pin PLAT Boundary Survey of the Property of Woodrow Artrip Shawnee District Frederick County, Virginia ScaIe:l�=100' August 26, 1383 Ritchie Surveys Stephens City, Virginia V7- Linden D. ' Adams D.B.230, P9.45d s 0 m CO b Cl. - _ NoTES _ (D O --I.,The property shown on this plat is that same 'U 0) property conveyed by Raymond Carter to Woodrow �. — Artr i p by, a deed dated June 1. 116 and U n ►.El� a - recorded at Deed Book 372. Page 586. m IQ U .A 2. The property shown on this -plat is that same 3 3 m '� .property sham on Frederick County Tax o, o o ro cn - Found Stone Assessment Yap No. 6r--A- Parcel 211. /) U to O` Elliott Ritchie, Jr �G LICENSE - No 1318 i �Ho Ru AN1�4O -3. No Title Report Furnished. {• Meridian used on this plat was taken from a U o O m survey recorded at D.8.R58. P9.131. _ -0 S. Metes and Bounds of original tract from -hich o O U Ov the property shown on this plat was taken is � � w ►O. recorded at D.B.82. PG. 24% and was knob as c" !� � U o N the 'North Bulger' Tract. [ V -f 14VtMT CIXTIfy THAT THM t'1160iN4iy XuRvEy. TA TM BEST CM try KNOVA-ED99 Aoqt)r OEUEF, 11 CORRECT AND MIAMICS WFTX rW A03 MAUW MO. CMURES AXD STANDARDS LCiAbLXQ.Mq OT THr V1%C7N{A STATE WARD OF ARC7Ad'CCT3, f'ROFEs- faOML ENGtNEE11t3, LAND sURVETo,t. AM4 ootTI. .LED L MOSCAM ARCMFTLCTLI F F _ * #90 GEORGE W. GILES, ET UX TO: :: :: DEED GEORGE L. SHEPPARD, JR., ET AL, TRS. •, 37 1625 THIS DEED, made th!s day of 1.971, between George W. Giler and 1!nudc Giles, his wife, of the one part, hera'.nn^ter called the Grantors, and George L. Sheppard, Jr. and Allen A. Futral, Jr., of the other part, hereinafter called the Grantees. WITNESGETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), cash in hand paid and other valuable consideration, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the Grnntorr, do grant an,1 convey, with General Warranty o. Title, unto George L. Sheppnrd, Jr. a one-half ('S) undivided j I interest, in fee simple, and unto Allen A. fl:trnl, Jr. a one-hnlf (';) I undivided interest, in fee r!mple, together with all rights, pr!vil^r!^s ar.d • appurtenances thereto beloraing, all that certain strip of land, 75 feet in i I width, containing 3.9143 Acres, more or less, located on the North aide of I Genseny Road (iio. 657) about three (3) miles Enst of Winchester in Shawnee Mnpisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, more particularly descr'.to - by plat and survey made. January 11, 1971 by Richard U. Conde, Certified Land Surveyor, attached hereto and by thin refcronce made a part harPnf, and being a portion of two (2) parcels or land, one having been cnnveyPd to the Grantors herein by George C. Braithwaite, ct ux, by deed dated *November 2, 1940 and of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Coirt of I Frederick Co%inty, Virginia, in Deed Rook lnl, at Pnve 151 and the other having been conveyed to the male Grantor h^rein by Mary Braithwaite, Pt vir,� by deed dated November 22, 19143 and of record in the afnressld Clerk's Office in Deed Book 190, at Pace 529, This conveyance is made subject to all legnlly enforcenble restrictive covenants and easements of record, if any, affecting the aforPsaid realty. Except as noted above, the Grantors covenant that the:; hf.ve the rivht � • i to convey said realty to the Grantees; that the Grantees shall have quiet possession thereof, free from all Pnciunbranccs: that the;; hT,•:e dnre no a•7: MAAAIi0M{JOMM�TOM to encumber said realty nnI that they will execute such further assu�arces i . .A.,,TI.. r..i.. thereof as may be requisite. I A 1 1911 372 ;,t-; 627 t4c,JC5 rj roell40LO' ZOO' 0 400' 800, 0Ai I -- SCALE /H rier 4'd- .oc'I P N #4 GEORGE W. GILES of -4 0 .4 00't' 0 Z,? 9 73' 4 56115 * 00 0000W 7 O-W -7- .2 N64 030 —5281jilz 2288.37 — — 75,00 4,93.75 Cl 12 MRS. DE HA VEN 5 PA U L GILES P0!iT1.',,. OF L,,'.I) UF 3 y43 A !"' - e --: 3 r A 01- ',-;AY F-i y b AU A' L) 010 TO 'JiiL L,,: b i F PAUL Gi1.-.3 Thu alluve tract, of la;,d, locat"!(I On thf., :or-th siu(4 of :(oi,u I.o. 657 about 3 mile3 of I.iincil'.-LiLov, itrid in jhaW.-,(.'0 DioLrict, Frcderick '.'ounzy, lirLlniu, is uounuea. a- foll0l-+3: Bat;inning at, (1) the point, of intersection 01Lh,i :,IorLh line'of toad No. 657 with the West line a: tii,; Etna of 1.'.rz. Ijc.-.':ivc-,n; thence with the North line of to.,u No. 657 for the Pujjo-e-i,,, 6 2 N 64 dot!,. N :Yiin. OU sac. W 10.75 feet, to "t CWncr-.,t,4! iiij;h-ovay Narlwr; thonco r; 63 dui;. C11 rJ n. OG sec. W f reL to (3) a point on the of ;(oj,(i 057; thence witJ; 2 nova division li ne, s through Ll:c land of Georj-"? (tiles r; 28 dei:- 33 min. 25 sec.E ul dig. 26 min. 35 sac. S 75-CC feet 2291.73 feet to (4) thence to (5) a. point 75.6 f.,,!t ::orlLheast of it Set : LO--10 rat it fence sorrier, siLid stone biiut-, L-hu it, Cl):-rV r of Li:o with Paul Giles u-nd than with Dct:aviin 3 28 dcC. 33 rani. 25 sec. 'd 2288..37 feet to the point, of contidnini; 3..943 Acres %.ore or loss. i;�Ij !tic!"rd U. Guo,.c, c r L.; fie ci Surveyor, Janu%ry 11, 1971. of W:111.iq was produc,-: to M, 0 on flag y 2Txaq1—. at j of and witli aaat thvrato anno C31 was Ud,Ytp,)d to r�z;o:d. &"I:,. Jc. jj .I of 1,,;.va br--ca p.J4, if zt-so.sablo. Cloi k. • #191 # M. CARL STRICKLER, ET UX # TO DEED # LINDEN D. ADAY3, ET UX # #iNHt i7####iiiNt#ii#aF##i►###iru#ir####iF+s## THIS DEED made and dated this 25th day of February, 1954, by and between M. Carl Strickler and Sylvia Strickler, his wife, parties of the first part, ani Linden D. Adams and Goldie L. Adams, his wife, parties of the second part. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the race of all of which is hereby acknowledged, the said parties of the first part do hereby grant, sell, and convey, with general warranty of title, unto the parties of the second part, jointly, with common law right of survivorship, all of that certain tract or parce of land containing 711 acres, more or less, together with all improvements and appur- tenances thereto belonging, lying and being situate about five,miles East of Winchester, in Shawnee District, Frederick County, Virginia, and being the aggregate of two adjacent tracts of land, one containing 68J acres, more or less, and the other containing 3 acre: more or less, that were conveyed to the said M. Carl Strickler by C. J. Carver at al, by deed dated January 16, 1946, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book No. 195, page 270. A reference to said record, and to the references therein contained, is here made f a further and more particular description of said land. B — 2 1 3 —;?- A-) It is expressly stipulated that the above mentioned three acre lot is subject to a right of way to what is known as the Carter Eleven Acre Tract, as 140/40� set forth in the aforesaid deed from Carver to Strickler. f The aforesaid grantors covenant that they have the right to conve said land to the aforesaid grantees; that the said grantees shall have quiet possession of said land, free from all encumbrances; that they have done no act to encumber said I land; and that they will execute such further assurances of said land as may be requisit J ZO l Witness the following signatures and seals. T REVENUE STAMPS # M. CARL STRICKLER (SW) 1 CANCELLED # SYLVIA STRICKLER _(SEAL) CANCELLED State of Virginia County of Frederick, to -wit: I, Bertha V. Kline, a Notary Public in and for the County of Frederick, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that M. Carl Strickler and Sylvia Strickler, his wife, whose names are signed to the foregoing writing bearing date of February 25th, 1954, have personally appeared before me in my county aforesaid, and acknowledged the same. Given under my hand this 26 day of February, 1954. My commission expires May 16, 1956. (SEAL) BERTHA V. KLINE VIRGINIA Notary u o FREDERICK COUNTY, (SCT. This instrument of writing was produced to me on the 26th day of February 1954 at 10:15 A. M. and with certificate of acknowledgment thereto annexed was admitted to record. �e � %�4 ,67 She C � S 7-- 40' R/W ROBERT MCKEE hm D.B. 292 - 675 D.B. 222 - 142 a a� S 540 32 04 E — 8 5.8 3' 40.52' ..A.. 4 5.31 31� sQ FT S 440 40 08' W c 11.58 ` 8.. 1813 SQ. FT. T9' 90 '�S 40 41S • W v Q N f Cd m o >, nUi � p � m ca z x m U !o < w 0 0 +3 I_ b Cd .rad fl, O The above plat is a survey of a portion of the land conveyed to Linden Adams, February 25, 1954 in Deed Book 230 - Page 458. The said Land fronts the Southern end of Route 820 and lies in Sha'kmee District, Frederick County, Virginia. Parcel "A": Beginning at a post corner to Adams's other land and Route 820. Thence with Route 820 S 540 32' 04" E - 40.52' to a corner to Robert McKee and Parcel "B"; Thence with Parcel "B" S;440 40' 08" W - 17.58' to a point in the line of the other land of Adams; Thence with Adams N 230 42' 22" W - 18.36' to a stone recently set by Linden Adams; Thence N 340 J6' 57" W - 23.34' to the point of beginning. Containing - 311 Sq. Ft. Parcel "B" by this survey is to join with and become a part of the Western most portion of the land of Alice S. Haggerty and others as conveyed in Deed Book 448 - Page 131 and more particularly described as the 111.505 Acre parcel of land lying West of Opequon Creek in that recent survey made by me dated, October 20, 1978. Beginning at a set stone corner to Robert McKee and Alice S. Haggerty; Thence with Haggerty S 210 26. 23" W - 55.80' to a corner to the other land of Adams; Thence with Adams N 230 42' 22" W - 1.85,' to a stone (cont Id) ' O `l2 #2426 ALICE S. HAGGERTY TO: .. DEED OF GIFT JOHN S. HAGGERTY, ET AL ********************************** tooK 448 inn 131 T1{IS DEED OF GIFT made and dated this 1gC day of a--&- .1975, by and between Alice S. Haggerty, widow, party of the first part, and John S. Haggerty and Edward D. lia;;gorty, parties of the second part. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of love and affection, the party of the first part does hereby grant, bargain, :iell and convey with general warranty of title, unto the parties of the second part, as tennnt3 in common, a one-fourth '(1/4)• undivided interest each in and to the following described property and appurtenances ther'eunto belonging: MI All of that certain tract or parcel of land containing 179 Acre:., 3 rood3'and 31 pole,, more cr less, together with all rt;,trts, rights of way, improvements and appurtenances thereto be- lon;;lnr,, lyln_; and belnr, situate about one-half mile South of opfnluon Bridr;e'bn the Winchester and Berryville Turnpike, on both ,-Ide;; of Opc�yuon Creek., about 145 Acre, thereof bein►; situated in Shawriec DS^tract, Frederick County, Virginia, and the remainder hrinr; attuated 1.n Chapel District, Clarke County, Virginia, and hoini; the same land thatwas conveyed to John Orr Young and said 1r.'i111nm J. Lockhart, by the Federal Land Bank of.Baltimore, by .1o(l 1ate(1 July 24,. 1941, and of record In the Clerk's Office of tale Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virr,inla, in Deed Book No. 03, Pate ?,9, and In the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of .C1r►r11ic'Count.y, Virginia, in Deed Book No. 38, Page 483, the said John Orr Young,, et tax, having subsequently conveyed all of their right, title and interest in said land to said William J. Lockhart by de(d dated August 7, 1941, of record in said Frederick County Clerk's Office in Deed Book 183, Page 261, and in said Clarke County Clerk'3 Office in Dt!ed Book No. 38, Par;e 465. This convey- ance also includes that certain right of way conveyed to said 41111am J. Lockhart by R. C. Carter, et ux, by deed dated November 1, 1950, of r«_cord.in said Frederick County Clerk's Office in Deed Book No. 217, Page 154. This conveyance is made subject to utility rights of way of record and to reservation for coal, oil, gas, minerals, etc. in the deed from the Federal Land Bank of Baltimore to William J. Lockhart and John Orr Young dated July 24, 1941, recorded in Deed - book No. 183, Page 259, of the land records of Frederick County, Virginia, and in Deed Book No. 38, Page 483, of the land records of Clarke County, Virginia. IIThis being the same id6ntical.property conveyed unto John J. Haggerty and Alice S. Haggerty as tenants by the entirety with the right of.survivorship, the said John J. Haggerty having died vesting the ownership in Alice S. Haggerty. BOOK �1 �3 �,�� .3:� • , Reference is here made to the aforesaid instruments and the attachments and the references therein contained ,fora further and more particular description of the property hereby conveyed. This conveyance is made' subject to all duly recorded and enforeceable restrictions,, easements and rights of way. The parties of the second part herein assume and agree to pay one-fourth (1/.4) each of the balance due upon the existing deed of trust dated November 19, 1965, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia,. in Deed Book 316 at page 514 and in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Clarke County, Virginia, in Deed Book 94 at page 251, securing a note payable to Herndon Federal Savings 6 Loan Association. Except as notod above, the grantor covenants that she has.. a right to convey said property to the grantees; that she has done no other act to encumber said property; that she will execute such further assurances of title to said property Its "Ay be requisite; that she in seized in ree simp-Le u, t, — conveyed; andthat the granteesshall have quiet possession of said property free from all encumbrances. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: (� 4Lc (SEAL) Alice 5, 71 ut.'.c;erty 17 f•i ')• �(� (SFAL) y ' 1lllt�'L �L:•' � , SEAL ) and STATE OF VIROINIA a Notary Public in and fur tt;r State and ,: �.•. afore said, hereby certify that Alice �,.NIfMw„t,w John ag�enty and Edward D.. }iaggerty, whole nuc, � v ,,rs�!•, to the foregoing deed dated t}ie �C day of<<• r;�":�•!'�`�; .'�y� �.. ' , i this day personally, appeared' befoire me and aekt:c. 1t !!<l : ��;rr ; Given under my hand and seal this %�,; off, __, =T•-�.t 1975. '4 , My Commissipn expires �i<;`�;?� 'J r� Notary. Public VIRGN'A FREDERICK COUNTY, $CT. Th.% Instrumint of wrl:Ing %as produced to me on II» 1, ��•„ day of C• y J1, et........ J..:.1?.(.2.e1_.?__.»+ and with cartlflcate of acknowledgment Uvralo annexed w admitted to record. W' CLQJ``-.CIerK. r: 7.1 U • Frederick County Public Schools 1415 Amherst Street Post Office Box 3508 Winchester, Virginia 22601-2708 Telephone: (703) 662-3888 — FAX (703) 722-2788 To: Mr. Tom Price, C.W. Clifford and Associates From: Mr. R. Thomas Malcolm, Superintendent of Schools Through: Mr. Thomas Sullivan, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent Subject: Twin Lakes Date: March 20, 1990 Our review of the impact analysis statement for the proposed Twin Lakes Subdivision has resulted in the following observations for your consideration. 1. In addition to the school site, we would require that all roads to the school, all utilities, and site improvements be acquired by proffer. 2. The proposed elementary school site of 11.6 acres is smaller than we deem suitable. We feel that 15 usable acres is required for a 650 pupil elementary school. 3. The projected enrollment increases at the middle school level and high school level can be handled by current capacity provided that we are assured the projected build out time of six years is maintained on an evenly distributed basis. Should this assurance not be given, the impact on middle and high school facilities will be significant. 4. Does the proposed elementary school site become the property of the Frederick County School Board? Can we use the land other than as an elementary school site? 5. What expectation is there concerning use of school facilities as part of a community recreation area? r It ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS April 25, 1990 Mr. Bob Watkins Director of Planning Frederick County Planning Departme 9 Court Square P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Traffic Impact Analysis Twin Lakes Development 17555.077 Dear Mr. Watkins: C_ 3 We have reviewed the subject study prepared by Callow Associates, Inc. and offer the following: Basis of Review - Traffic Impact Analysis of Twin Lakes, dated March 6, 1990 - Addendum to Traffic Impact Analysis for Twin Lakes, dated April 4, 1990 - Impact Analysis Statement for Twin Lakes dated March 6, 1990 and revised March 27, 1990 - Preliminary Traffic Study - Eastern Winchester Area, 1990, prepared by Donohue & Associates, Inc. - Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan, 1990 Findings of Review - We find the subject traffic study to be acceptable based upon the available information reviewed. However, since no apparent written county policy exists concerning the methodology for preparations of these studies, we must concur with the approach and assumptions utilized by the consultant. It is unclear, however, if adjacent approved or ongoing new developments should be considered in the background traffic. The consultant used an escalation factor for arriving at background traffic ■ 11240 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030 703.385.3566 Telefax 703.385.8319 volumes. The County required the consultant to investigate two additional critical intersections along Senseny Road. This was accomplished in the Addendum to the original study. The County may wish that additional existing intersections along Route 7 also be evaluated. The proposed Street A connection from the site to Route 7, in conjunction with its alignment and the Road D intersection with Senseny Road, should be evaluated 6-Rol--ndolN ENGINEERS concerning the recommendations for a new - ARCHITECTS north/south connector between Routes 50 and 7, as shown in Figure 8 of the Donohue SCIENTISTS Report. Future Recommendations Donohue would propose that Frederick County consider preparing a directive or criteria that will be followed in the preparation, review, and evaluation of Traffic Impact studies. In addition, policy issues concerning developer proffered improvements should be addressed. Similar policies and directives exist both in Virginia counties and Maryland counties and these could be used to model a policy for Frederick County. If you have any questions or if you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ONO E & ASSOCIATES, INC. Paul A. Bernard, P.E. Project Manager April 25, 1990 Mr. Bob Watkins � NAYDirector of Planning me Frederick County Planning Department RECEIVED 9 Court Square P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 1 ENGINEERS Re: Traffic Impact Analysis ARCHITECTS Twin Lakes Development 17555.077 SCIENTISTS Dear Mr. Watkins: We have reviewed the subject study prepared by Callow Associates, Inc. and offer the following: Basis of Review Traffic Impact Analysis of Twin Lakes, dated March 6, 1990 - Addendum to Traffic Impact Analysis for Twin Lakes, dated April 4, 1990 - Impact Analysis Statement for Twin Lakes dated March 6, 1990 and revised March 27, 1990 - Preliminary Traffic Study - Eastern Winchester Area, 1990, prepared by Donohue & Associates, Inc. - Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan, 1990 Findings of Review - We find the subject traffic study to be acceptable based upon the available information reviewed. However, since no apparent written county policy exists concerning the methodology for preparations of these studies, we must concur with the approach and assumptions utilized by the consultant. It is unclear, however, if adjacent approved or ongoing new developments should be considered in the background traffic. The consultant used an escalation factor for arriving at background traffic ■ 11240 Waples Mill Road Fairfar, Krginia 22030 703.385.3566 Telefar 703.385.8319 ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS volumes. The County required the consultant to investigate two additional critical intersections along Senseny Road. This was accomplished in the Addendum to the original study. The County may wish that additional existing intersections along Route 7 also be evaluated. The proposed Street A connection from the site to Route 7, in conjunction with its alignment and the Road D intersection with Senseny Road, should be evaluated concerning the recommendations for a new north/south connector between Routes 50 and 7, as shown in Figure 8 of the Donohue Report. Future Recommendations - Donohue would propose that Frederick County consider preparing a directive or criteria that will be followed in the preparation, review, and evaluation of Traffic Impact studies. In addition, policy issues concerning developer proffered improvements should be addressed. Similar policies and directives exist both in Virginia counties and Maryland counties and these could be used to model a policy for Frederick County. If you have any questions or if you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ONO E & ASSOCIATES, INC. Paul A. Bernard, P.E. Project Manager PAB:CRR:mb ENGINt:i RS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS 0240 Waples Mill Road Suite 100 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 703.385.3566 Robert Watkins, Director Frederick County Planning Dept. 9 Court Square, P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Va. 22601 Your Authorization: Signed Agreement Traffic Impact Analysis Review Twin Lakes Development Principal .5 hrs Project Manager 1.5 hrs Senior Engineer 3.0 hrs Admin. Assist. .5 hrs Date: April 27, 1990 Please Reference: Project No. 17555.077 Invoice No. 9003710 Client No. 07534 @ 48.00 24.00 @ 33.25 66.50 @ 33.25 166.25 @ 14.50 7.25 Total Direct Total Indirect TOTAL DUE THIS INVOICE 264.00 396.00 $ 660.00 .44' J RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER y P'r n � 1 COMMONWEALTH of VIRQ1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 EDINBURG,22824 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. C/O G. TAI. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Post Office Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Chuck: (703) 984-4133 May 3, 1990 3USHMAN VGINEER Ref: Twin Lakes Development Routes 7 & 657 Frederick County We have reviewed the above referenced development's traffic impact analysis and listed below are our comments: 1. The actual P.M. Peak hour count shown on Figure 2 is equal to 4% of the ADT shown. This is significantly less than a normal peak hour percentage for roadways of this type. 2. The build condition analysis assumes access to Route 7 will be obtained, however, the report does not discuss the traffic impacts if such access is not provided. 3. The existing secondary Route 820 is not addressed in the report. If no impacts are expected, the report should so state. 4. The report does not address the possibility of landlocked parcels if proposed Route 37 is constructed as a controlled access facility through the site location. 5. The designated commercial area (Parcel 15) is relatively isolated within the site; and may present traffic circulation problems if the Twin Lake development cannot support the amount and type of economic activity included. 6. Traffic distribution shown on Figure 4 indicates 54% of the site generated traffic are destined to the east (Clarke County and beyond). The report, however, contains no supporting documentation for this distribution pattern. 7. There is no traffic included for the proposed elementary school in the analysis. 8. The terminus of Road "A" (west of the western property line) is not stated; and no Road "B" is included. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY 6 1P Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. May 3, 1990 Page #2 9. Access Road "C" (Morning Glory Road) currently serves as access to two (2) developments underway (Apple Ridge & Bedford Village). The report does not assess the impact of Twin Lakes "cut -through" traffic on these developments. It is also noted the larger traffic volume to Route 657 is assigned to Road "C". 10. Figure 8 depicts a shared left -turn and through traffic geometry. A separate turn lanes for each approach should be considered. 11. Where do Roads "A" and "C" intersect with Route 657 in relation to Routes 812, 792, 791, 831 and 736 on the south side of Route 657 (Burning Knolls and Glenmont Village Subdivisions)? 12. The acceptable Level of Service criteria is based on state and federal (FHWA) guidelines. The Federal Transportation Research Board is not a policy establishing organization as inferred by the report (see Page 11). 13. The report acknowledges the rural nature of the site location, however, it does not contain rural road segment capacity analysis. Based on the traffic information provided in the report, the net impact of this development may require a four -lane facility from Route 656 to the Clarke County Line. A detailed assessment, however, should be provided in the traffic impact report. 14. Please note a lot layout is not included in the reports, therefore, internal traffic circulation.is not addressed. Before additional recommendations can be analyzed we will need the above listed items addressed. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, W. H. Bushman Resident Engineer /&l �a� 0-3. ��Z By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior RBC / rf xc: Mr. R. L. Moore Mr. J. B. Diamond Mr. F. E. Wymer Mr. R. W. Watkins muxl Gr:�t =& ,fir✓i �r.�� rru�&ua-��':� G. W. CLIFFORD 8: ASSOCIATES, INC. 200 North Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 Fax: 703-665-0493 October 10,1990 Mr. Bob Watkins Frederick County Planning Department P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Twin Lakes Dear Bob, In order to obtain and present additional information in addressing staff comments and concerns, the applicant has asked that the Twin Lakes Rezoning be tabled from scheduled regulatory consideration. We hereby request that the Board of Supervisors return our request for rezoning back to the Planning Commission due to our proposed modifications to the Proffer Statement and revised submission for rezoning. I suggest that before this project is scheduled for further action by the Planning Commission that we have the chance to agree on issues involving staff comments. We want your approval, then Planning Commission, then Board with no deserving questions unanswered. We look forward to your reply. cc: Ken Stiles Jim Golladay CEM/kf Sincerely, iddox, Jr., PT I VP Y -. ■ w • SCULLY, THROCKMORTON & GLASS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 20 SOUTH KENT STREET WINCHES STER, VIRGINIA 22601 THOMAS G. SCULLY THOMAS B. THROCKMORTON GEORGE W. R. GLASS EDWIN B. YOST HARRIETTE CAMPBELL BROWN' •ADMITTED IN D.C. & VA. Mr. John Riley County Administrator, Frederick C--unty, Virginia 9 Court Square Winchester, Virginia 22601 September 18, 1990 Re: Twin Lakes Development Plan Haggerty family portion Dear John: FREDE�IGK f.`OL'NTY -f FAX (703) 72 n ,�� ., �.. � fir'.✓ This firm represents the Haggerty family, the record owners of the 145 acre parcel constituting the northern portion of the proposed Twin Lakes Development. Loggia Development Company and others are the contract buyers of the 145 acre parcel, with sale being contingent upon certain approvals, etc. A portion of the agreement between the contract sellers and contract buyers states that no rezoning will take place unless a concurrent approval of the preliminary master development plan is obtained from the Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, as record owner of the aforesaid parcel and contract seller, my clients request that no rezoning of their property take place unless the preliminary master development plan for Twin Lakes is simultaneously approved along with such rezoning. As stated above, this requirement is part of the Contract for Sale of the property, however, my client's have asked me to make the Board of Supervisors aware of the existence of such provision. r[�OUG� 1 0 `1-cvin l-.GkeS Mr. John Riley September 18, 1990 Page Two Please call me if you have any questions concerning this letter. Very truly yours, Thomas B. Throckmorton TBT/lml cc: Mr. John Haggerty Mr. Ed Haggerty Ms. Alice Haggerty Loggia Development Co. • g. w. clifford & associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 Fax: 703-665-0493 September 5, 1990 Mr. Jim Golladay, Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission 9 Court Square Winchester, Va. 22601 Re: Shiho Rezoning Request 72 Acres - Commercial Dear Jim, In view of the fact that the HARB did not have quorum when fashioning a recommendation to the Planning Commission this month and in light of the Planning Commission request for more information on transportation, we hereby request a tabling of this issue at your September 5 meeting. We would appreciate scheduling this hearing for the October 3 meeting. Sincerely yours, C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. cc: Mr. John Hodnet CEM/ckd 4p ri September 4, 1990 Dear Fellow Planning Commissioners: I am unable to attend this Planning Commission Meeting as a result of a sales training meeting in Fargo, North Dakota. Hopefully, in my absence, this letter will serve as my opinion regarding rezoning application # 004-90 of the Loggia Corporation. While I grant that this particular property is within the bounds of the Urban Development Area, it should be noted: 1. Reasonable expectation to rezone is only when the governing body has rationale to rezone. We do not have the infrastructure to justify this rezoning application. The local elementary school is already transferring students from this area because of overcrowding. 2. While this property may eventually be rezoned, we are the controlling interest as to when we as planners think the best timing should be. 3. If we justify rezonings based upon offers of roads then we have missed out on the reasons behind rezoning land for the good of the public. Is this rezoning in the time frame to help meet our comprehensive plan goals? 4. While some would say it is only "a matter of time until we rezone this" we are the accelerator and/or brake mechanism for the process . . . At this time, we as a Planning Commission have little justification for rezoning this property in an area without the schools and related residential services necessary for the standard of living we expect in Frederick County. If present, I would without reservation, vote against this rezoning application at this particular time. Sincerely, •lloug Rinker /I P -'Tllv / Ai �, A A s x ,.• L asap.® s L .4 ek I big W'ln AP'lp • 0 Mr. Robert W. Watkins P. 0. Pox 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Watkins: This letter is in reference on Senseny Road. The applicant, assigned its contract to purchase of Bethesda, Maryland. August 27, 1990 RE: Twin Lakes Loggia DaLvelopment to the rezoning application for Twin Lakes Loggia Development Corporaton has the assembled land to The Tower Companies Loggia Development -Corporation will remain involved in the development of the property as a fee paid consultant. At the instruction of The Tower Companies, I am sending you the following brief introduction of the company to provide you with a overview of the strengths, qualities and experience that the new contract owner will provide to the proposed development. The Tower Companies, which began as Tower Construction Company over thirty-five years ago,.is a leading real estate developer and management company in the Washington, D. C. Metropolitan area. Through various ventures, Tower developed, and now manages and operates approximately 3,500 apartment units and two regional shopping centers, White Flint Mall and Landover Mall. In addition, the Company has developed more than 3,000,000 square feet of office space in the Washington, Maryland and Virginia areas. They have recently completed the largest privately owned' structure in the District of Columbia, Washington Square, located at Connecticut Avenue and L Street. This project alone contains more than one million square feet of rentable space, comprising office, retail, restaurants and garage. The Tower Companies have also developed more than twenty-five retail shopping centers in the Washington, Richmond and Roanoke, Virginia areas. Tower is currently developing a 220 acre, 2,000,000 square foot mitred use office, hotel and retail project known as "Tower Oaks Office Park". This is the largest private, undeveloped parcel of land in the City of Rockville, Montgomery County, Maryland. Bethesda Place, now under construction, is a one million gross square foot mixed use office, residential and retail project located in the heart of Bethesda, Maryland. August 27, 1990 Page 2 Among their newest, completed projects, is Enterprise Office Park in Herndon, Virginia. Recently, the first of its proposed three office buildings was sold to the Northwestern Federal Credit Union. Another project, Beau Meade Office and Warehouse Park, located at Routes 625 and 23 in Loudoun County, has been more than half sold in a short time, with development scheduled to proceed immediately by some purchasers. Numerous other parcels in Arlington County, Prince William _and Loudoun Counties, Virginia as well as Montgomery County, Maryland and Washington, L.C. are, in early stages of development, and will be proceeding in the next several years. The Tower Companies have had substantial experience in meeting the needs of federal, state and city government offices for the Commonwealth of Virginia. They developed and built One White Flint North, an 13 story, 310,000 square foot office building that has been purchased by the United States Government, The Nuclear- Regulatory Commission, located on Rockville Pike in Montgomery County, Maryland. The U. S. General Services Administration has agreed to lease the adjacent Two White Flint North, a 12 story building of 360,000 square feet to complete the planned consolidation of the NRC. Construction of Two White Flint North began in 1939. The Chairman of the Board of American Security Bank, Daniel j. Callahan, III stated that Mr. Abert Abramson and The Tower Construction Company have been highly reputable and valued customers of the band:: for approximately 30 years, during which time the bank has financed several hundred million dollars. Mr. Callahan has stated that the bank would be very supportive of any financial requirements that the Company might encounter in future projects. The intent of this letter- has been to provide the members of the Frederick County Planning Commission with an introduction to The Tower - Companies and the experience and financial strengths that this company will provide to the proposed Twin Lakes development. If you should need any additional information, please feel free to telephone me at (703)543-47E7. The Tower Companies F jV John D. Shulman Director of Development HFM:bo Sincerely, Loggia Development Corporation Charles C. Whitlev Vice President PROFFER STATEMENT Re: Twin Lakes LOGGIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Date: August 30, 1990 (Revised) Pursuant to Section 15.1-491(a) of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended), and the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of Frederick County, Virginia, Loggia Development Corporation herein called "Applicant," owner of that certain parcel of land containing four hundred (400) acres and described in detail in the submissions filed herewith, hereby proffers that: said parcel of land shall be developed in accordance with the following conditions, if the rezoning application is granted and the property is rezoned to RP and B-2 in accordance with the attached Generalized Development Plan. These proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect if rezoning is not granted. These proffers shall be binding upon the Applicant or its legal successor or assigns. 1. The development of the subject property shall be in general conformance with the Generalized Development Plan submitted herewith. 2. The Applicant agrees to conform generally to the landscape plan to be submitted prior to final Board action on the application. 3. The Applicant will provide on -site recreational amenities, including a lake, parks and open space as shown on the Generalized Development Plan. In addition to the recreation facilities required by the zoning ordiance the Applicant will proffer further on site recreational facilities to be illustrated on the Master Plan with a total proffer value of $1,171,000.00, or an additional $900.00 per lot, as follows: 1 Soccer Field Q $246,000* ea. _ $246,00.00 2 Tennis Courts C& $48,000* ea. _ $96,000.00 1 Play & Picnic Area Q $205,000* ea. _ $205,000.00 2 Softball Fields Q $312,000* ea. _ $624,000.00 Total $1,171,000.00 (Source: Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation) 4. All streets within the development shall be fully dedicated public streets. 5. The Applicant shall design and construct all streets and roads on the subject property consistently with the County's adopted thoroughfare plan for the area, and according to uniform standards established by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and as may be provided in these proffers. 6. The total number of dwelling units shall not- exceed one thousand three hundred (1,300). The unit mix shall consist of siv hundred fifty (650) single family homes and six hundred fifty (650) townhouses. 7. A development phasing plan shall be submitted during the Master Development Plan process, in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Phasing as shown on the said Master Plan shall be accomplished such that no more than fifteen percent (15%) of the total permitted dwelling units, in any combination of single-family or townhouse units, may be constructed in later years. 8. The Applicant proffers that it shall dedicate, design and construct a two lane road connecting Route 7 to Senseny Road, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan with a sixty foot (60') right-of-way in the area designated in the Transportation Plan as a Major Collector, for inclusion in the State Highway System of Secondary Highways. 9. The Applicant shall provide a phasing plan for the construction of the road and a landscape plan for the entire length of the road which shall be submitted to and approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. The phasing plan shall provide for the completion of the connection from Senseny Road to Route 7 within one year of the transfer of the 180th lot accessed by Senseny Road. 10. The Applicant proffers to identify and use its best efforts to preserve significant woodland and mature trees on the subject property in the design, layout and construction of all development. 11. The Applicant agrees that it shall erlploy all reasonable Best Management Practices in connection with the development of the subject property. 12. The Applicant shall contribute One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for each townhouse lot and One Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($1,400.00) for each single family lot approved, as building permits are issued for the construction of each dwelling unit or as such lot is sold to a developer for construction, whichever is sooner. The Applicant shall pay the per unit contribution to the School Board or to a fund set or designated by Frederick County to receive said contribution. To ensure payment of this prorata contribution, the Applicant, at his cost through the County staff, shall record an instrument creating a lien against each lot upon approval of the zoning application. The lien against each lot shall be released upon the payment of the contribution for each lot. 0 13. The Applicant shall dedicate as indicated in its Generalized Development Plan, a one hundred fifty foot (150') wide right-of-way for the future alignment of Route 37 called for in the Transportation Plan. 14. The Applicant shall make a contribution of Seventy -Five Dollars ($75.00) per lot to the County for regional parks and recreation. This contribution shall be guaranteed and paid in the same manner ;-Is provided for the School Board in paragraph 12 above. 15. The Applicant shall make a contribution of Seventy -Five Dollars ($75.00) per lot to the Greenwood Fire Station. In addition,applicant shall proffer $25,000.00 towards a new ambulance for Greenwood's Life Safety unit. Said proffer will be paid at the transfer of the first lot. This contribution shall be guaranteed and paid in the same manner as provided for the School Board in paragraph 12 above. 16. The Applicant shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 7 and the proposed collector road when warranted. 17. The Applicant will reserve for future dea:ication a ten (10) foot strip along its southern boundary line for future widening of Senseny Road when required. 18. The applicant shall construct on site a "regional" wastewater pumping station at an appropriate location on site as shown in the impact analysis. This pump station, force main and upstream gravity interceptor sewer system will have the capability to serve the attendant 1200 acre drainage area, all of which is within the urban development area of the county comprehensive plan. This system will serve the additional 800 acres by initially allowing the two aging existing sewage pump stations to be taken off line. The $415,000 cost of this system will be borne by the applicant, although 2'./3 of the capacity will be unneeded for this development. • Cost Estimate 48001.f. interceptor Q $50/ft. 1-LS 100,000 3000' Force Main Q $25/ft. Total Cost of Facility Amount of Proffer $240,000 $100,000 75,000 $415,000 $278,000 19) The applicant shall construct watermains on site as necessary to link Va. Route 7 and the regional wastewater treatme�it plant with FCSA water supply and fire protection services, which exist now can Senseny Road. 20) The Applicant shall proffer to construct curb, gutter, and sidewalks to the extent the Planning Commission deems it necessary at Master Plan approval. The Applicant hereby proffers that the development of the subject property of this application shall be in strict accordance with the conditions set forth in this submission. The Applicant further represents that it is the owner of all the property included within this application and that the signatures below constitute all the necessary signatures of record owners of the property to subject and land within this application to these proffers. These proffers shall be binding upon the Applicant, its successors and assigns. GIVEN under my hand this 31 day of ,1990. LOGGIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BY: I 1"at-7 Z11< AMENDMENT FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE Approvals: Planning commission_ Board of Supervisors ' ilk Q:V_\1�/1� THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP #004-90 OF TWIN LAKES WHEREAS, Rezoning application #004-90 of Twin Lakes to rezone 5.1 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B-2 (Business General) and 391.35 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) , located in Eastern Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of the City of Winchester and designated as Parcels 209-0, 212-0, 211- 0, and 213-0 on Tax Map 55 and Parcels 40-0, 39-0 and 36-0 on Tax Map 65 in the Shawnee Magisterial District, was referred to the Planning Commission on July 18, 1990 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on July 18, 1990; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a draft statement of conditions proffered prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this application on (public hearing date) ; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors received a signed statement of conditions proffered prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, convenience and good zoning practice; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: That Chapter 21 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change 5.1 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B-2 (Business General) and 391.35 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance), located in Eastern Frederick County approximately 2 miles east of the City of Winchester and designated as Parcels 209-0, 212-0, 211-0, and 213- 0 on Tax Map 55 and Parcels 40-0, 39-0 and 36-0 on Tax Map 65 in the Shawnee Magisterial District, as described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the following conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and property owner as follows: • 0 This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. Passed this (date) day of (Month), (Year). A Copy Teste John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator FREDAK-WINCH ESTER SERVICE AUTHAY P. 0. Box 43 Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 722-3579 August 28, 1990 Mr. James W. Goladay, Jr. — Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission P.O. Box 158 Stephens City, VA 22655 RE: Twin Lakes Project Route 7 Connector Road Dear Mr. Golladay, The Authority is in concept, agreeable to the location of a road right—of—way across the Regional Plant site as long as this road has a minimal effect on our long term expansion, will not impact continued operations of our facilit-, and is conditioned upon satisfactory negotiation for the value of rights —of —way conveyed. The road is to be no closer than 600 feet to the plant's existing processing units or no closer than 300 feet to potential expansion of its processing units. There is to be proper screening of the plant from the right—of—way with evergreen trees; and, an access road to reach Authority property on the West side of the right—of—way. The Authority stands ready to work with the County in its continuing study of this transporation corridor as called for in current County planning. Sincerely, C. Robert Sol enberger Chairman cc: Chuck Maddox, &13 "TK/A4� 0 10ROMMIN Frederick County Parks & Recreation Department ATTN: James Doran, Director P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia 2�2601 (703) 665-5678 The Frederick County Parks &•Recreation Department is located on the second floor of the Frederick County Administration Building, 9 Court Square, Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address -number: Bethesda.ABLAND IV 11501. Huff Court N. It 14•S4111 AGENT: G.W. Clifford & Assoc, 200 N. CamerQn St Winchester, .1 .n - 1 .. • Name of development and/o., de5 cription of the request: TWIN LAKES r Location: Subdivision and west of Bedford Village & Ap-ple Ridge Subdivi- sions, Also, southwest of Rte. 7, adjacent to the Opequon Waste - Parks & Recreation Department Comments: Parks Signature (NOTICE TO P a d Date: PLEASE RETUR �D TO THE AGENT.) U NOTICE IQ APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as -.accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. Parks & Recreation Director's Comments Twin Lakes, PMDP Although the July 1990 Twin Lakes Piaster Development Plan provides for the required recreational units, this development will also have a significant impact on the County's regional park facilities and the recreation amenities currently included in the County's Capital Improvement Program. The recreation areas outlined in the above referenced plan offer the subdivision a balance of leisure opportunities, and I would recommend approval pending review of the park area specifications. The recreation facilities listed in the August 30, 1990 revised proffer statement would not appear to offer the diversity of the July 1990 Plan. Therefore, I would recommend that the July Plan be implemented. I would also note that the actual cost of the recreation facilities listed in the August 30, 1990 revised proffer statement are greatly inflated by the fact that these cost estimates include support facilities that would not be appropriate within the Twin Lakes Subdivision. A more realistic proffer value for these facilities, if developed as individual recreation units, would be approximately $280,000. Because of the impact that the Twin Lakes development will undoubtedly have on our park system, I believe that the proposed proffer of $75 per lot may be less than adequate. Based on current minimum requirements and the increased service demand created by this development, I would suggest that a lot proffer of $559.00 may be more appropriate. Please reference the attached information for the basis of this recommendation. As you may have noticed, I am suggesting that the proffer for several facilities be reduced. I have based this recommended credit on the fact that the addition of these amenities within the subdivision should reduce the potential impact of this development on the proposed facilities at our regional parks. The recommended reduction is representative of the fact that, although these amenities are provided within the development, the residents of this subdivision will still have a significant impact on like facilities master planned for the County's regional parks. If you should have any questions regarding this recommendation, please give me a call. F.REDERICK COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PROFFER SUMMARY FOR A 1300 UNIT DEVELOPMENT Request Proffer Frederick Current Current Facility Currently CIP Per County Current Need Need Unit on the CIP List Facility Cost Housing Unit Proffer Credit Standards Need Supply Galp Cost Facility* 8 2 6 246,000 5 1,229,000 123 **62 Soccer Fields 1/5000 Pop. Tennis Courts 1/2000 Pop. 20 2 18 48,000 17 808,000 60 **30 Basketball Courts 1/2000 Pop. 20 1 19 82,000 4 327,000 103 **52 Softball Fields 1/4000 Pop. 10 4 6 312,000 4 1,248,000 195 **98 Playground, Open Play 1/2000 Pop. 20 7 13 205,000 4 821,000 256 ***192* and Picnic Areas Baseball Field 1/6000 Pop. 7 4 3 47,000 4 187,000 20 Renovation Stage Areas 1/20,000 Pop. 2 0 2 313,000 1 313,000 39 Nature Center 1/County Pop. 1 0 1 35,000 1 35,000 2 Maintenance Area 1/20,000 Pop. 2 1 1 139,000 1 139,000 17 and Office Support Facilities 1/20,000 Pop. 1 0 1 172,000 172,000 22 Park Land -West FC 1/County Pop. 1 0 1 400,000 1 400,000 2 GROSS COST IMPACT 554 0 Sample Information Sample Computation: Soccer Field - 1/5000 population costing $246,000 Development - 1300 units x 2.5 per unit = 3250 population 65% is the potential impact that a 1300 unit development, or 3250 people, will have on a facility that has a standard of 1/5000 population. 3250 is equal to 65% of 5000. $246,000 facility cost x 65%, which is equivalent to the percentage of potential impact = $159,000 cost for the development divided by 1300 housing units = $123 cost per unit. Proffer per housing unit remains the same irregardless of the size of the development. Note: *Facility development to include all support facilities. **Proffer credit represents a 50% reduction for facilities included within the subdivision. Proffer credit is contingent on approval of facility specifications. ***Prnffer credit represents a 25% reduction for facilities included within subdivision. Soccer Fields (5) 0 CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT DETAIL SHEETS 1990 SOCCER COMPLEX - SHERANDO 3 60 x 120 yard fields plus goals 2 55/110 yard fields plus goals TOTAL 1990-91 CAPITAL COST Access Road 100 LF. @ $121; 24' Wide, Asphalt paved Parking 247 Spaces @ $880; Security Lights (12 @ $2,750) Access Paths 3000 LF. @ $27.50; 10' wide; Asphalt paved. TOTAL 1991-92 CAPITAL COST Restroom/Concession 820 SF; Masonry with concrete roof deck; full concession hookups. Plaza 22,000 SF. @ $3.30; 50% Paved/50% Planted; Kiosk @ $2,200. Picnic Shelters (2) 24' x 24'; (6) picnic tables each; concrete pad; wood frame structure; asphalt shingles; $20,000 each 28 sets of bleachers at $750 each TOTAL 1992-93 CAPITAL COSTS Lighting 5 fields @ $60,000 per field Landscaping 90 Shade Trees @ $300 0 Site Dev.$150,000 Site Dev.$100,000 TOTAL $250,000 TOTAL $12,100 Site Dev.$217,360 Lights 33,000 TOTAL $250,360 $82,500 $332,860 TOTAL $154,000 TOTAL $74,800 TOTAL $40,000 TOTAL $21,000 $289,800 TOTAL $300,000 TOTAL $27,000 0 U Peripheral work General Turf Renovation- 18 acres @ $1,500; misc. signage $1,500. TOTAL $ 28,500 TOTAL 1993-94 CAPITAL REQUESTS $ 355,500 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST $1,228,160 0 0 TLNNIS COMPLEX - CLEAR111:OOK Tennis Courts (8)(2) sets of (3) courts each; Site Dev. 46,200 (1) set of (2) courts fully Lights 33,000 fenced, chain link vinyl clad, Subtotal 79,200 lighted 30 FC. it' Facility x 2.67 TOTAL $211,464 Racquetball Court (2) 3 Walled concrete structure. Site Dev. 11,000 Lights 5,500 Subtotal 16,500 i" Facility x 2 TOTAL $33,000 Shelter Deck (1) 30' x 30' Octagonal shelter concrete pad, wood frame, cedar shingles, 6 picnic tables. TOTAL $11,550 Parking 59 Spaces @ $880; asphalt paved with curbed islands and concrete wheel stops; line markings and security lights (2 @ $2,750). TOTAL $28,710 Landscaping 39 Shade trees @ $300 TOTAL $ 5,850 Peripheral Work General turf - 8 acres @ $2,750; miscellaneous signage - $550. TOTAL $ 1,650 Access Paths 1000 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide, asphalt paved. TOTAL $13,750 • TENNIS COMPLEX - SHERANDO Tennis Courts (9) (3) sets of (3) courts ea.; Site Dev. 4.9,500 Asphalt, color coated; Lights 33,000 fully fenced, vinyl clad Subtotal 82,500 chain link; lighted 30 FC. It' Facility x 3 TOTAL $247,500 Racquetball (8) 3 walled concrete structure Site Dev. 11,000 Lights 5,500 Subtotal 16,500 Y,' Facility x 8 TOTAL $132,000 Restroom/Concession 625 SF. Masonry and wood with asphalt shingles; Limited concession hookups; 1500 SF. plaza. TOTAL $ 51,975 Access Paths 1000 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide; Asphalt paved. TOTAL $ 13,750 Access Road 50 LF. @ $121; 24' Wide. TOTAL $ 3,025 Parking 94 Spaces @ $880; Asphalt paved with curbed islands and concrete wheel stops; line markings and security lights (4 @ $2,750). TOTAL $ 46,860 Landscaping 15 Shade trees @ $300 TOTAL $ 2,250 Peripheral Work General Turf - 3 acres @ $2750; Misc. signage - $1100. TOTAL $ 4,675 i • BASKETBALL COMPLEX - CLEARBROOK Basketball Courts (2) (2) 85'x 65' asphalt with Site Dev. 22,000 color coating; (2) back- Lights 14,300 boards each court; player Subtotal 36,300 benches, lighted, concrete ; Facility x 2 poles - 30 FC. TOTAL $72,600 Shelter Deck (1) 30' x 30' Octagonal shelter concrete pad, wood frame, cedar shingles, 6 picnic tables. TOTAL $11,550 Parking 59 Spaces @ $880; asphalt paved with curbed islands and concrete wheel stops; line markings and security lights (2 @ $2,750). TOTAL $28,710 Landscaping 39 Shade trees @ $300 TOTAL $ 5,850 Peripheral Work General turf - 8 acres @ $2,750; miscellaneous signage - $550. TOTAL - $ 1,650 Access Paths 1000 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide, asphalt paved. TOTAL $13,750 0 BASKETBALL COMPLEX - Si1ERANDO Magnum Basketball 94' x 80'; Asphalt with Site Dev. 27,500 color coating; (6) back- Lights 17,600 boards each court; player Subtotal 45,100 benches; lighted, concrete # Facility x 2 poles - 30 FC; each court TOTAL $90,200 provides (1) regulation, (2) short regulation, and (6) half court games. Parking (Expand Total Spaces = 183; add Site Dev. 73,920 Existing) 51 spaces @ $880; resur- Lights 16,500 face 132 spaces C $220; TOTAL $90,420 Asphalt paved, curbed island and drop-off; 6 security lights @ $2750 each. Landscaping 40 Shade Trees @ $300. TOTAL $12,000 0 SOFTBALL CONPLLX - SIIEKAMDO Softball Fields (4) 300' Radius, Fully Fenced, backstop, concrete bleacher pads with (2) 50 person bleachers per field; light- ed concrete poles 30/40 FC. Restroom/Concession 820 SF. Masonry with con- crete roof deck; full con- cession hookups. Access Road 70 LF. @ $121; 24' Wide, Asphalt paved. Plaza/Access Paths 65,500 SF. @ $2.20; (2) kiosks @ $2200. Parking Landscaping Peripheral Work 268 Spaces @ $880; Asphalt paved with curbed islands and drop off; line markings and security lights (8 @ $2750). 100 Shade Trees @ $300; Pine Screen @ $2500. General seeding - 7 acres @ $2750; Miscellaneous signage - $1650. Site Dev. 68,926 Lights 88,000 Subtotal 156,926 ;{ Facility x 4 TOTAL $627,704 TOTAL $154,000 TOTAL $8,470 TOTAL $146,300 Site Dev. 235,840 Lights 22,000 TOTAL $257,840 TOTAL $32,500 TOTAL $20,900 �q �J 0 PLAYGROUND. OPEN PLAY AND PICNIC AREAS Picnic Shelter (4) 24' x 24'; (6) picnic tab - With Plaza les each; concrete pad, wood frame structure; cedar shingles, skylights, stain electric and water outlets. Restroom/Concession 625 SF. Masonry and wood with asphalt shingles; Limited concession hookups; 1500 SF. plaza. Site Dev. 19,800 Yr' Facility x 4 TOTAL $79,200 TOTAL $ 51,975 Access Paths 1000 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide; Asphalt paved. TOTAL $ 13,750 Access Road 50 LF. @ $121; 24' Wide. TOTAL $ 3,025 Parking 94 Spaces @ $880; Asphalt paved with curbed islands and concrete wheel stops; line markings and security lights (4 @ $2,750). TOTAL $ 46,860 Landscaping 15 Shade trees @ $300 TOTAL $ 2,250 Peripheral Work General Turf - 3 acres @ $2750; Misc. signage - $1100. TOTAL $ 4,675 OPEN PLAY - CLEAR -BROOK Parking 64 Spaces @ $880; asphalt Site Dev. 56,300 paved with curbed islands Lights 11,000 and concrete wheel stops; TOTAL $67,320 line markings and security lights (4 @ $2750). Picnic Shelter (1) 24' x 48'; 12 tables, wood deck floor; wood frame, asphalt shingles. TOTAL $22,500 Existing Shelters (5) Repair, cleaning, painting, and Restroom Rehab (1) signage, refurbish, (5) pic- nic shelters C@ $2750 each; (1) restroom @ $5500 each. TOTAL $19,250 Access Paths 3000 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide, asphalt paved. TOTAL $82,500 0 Landscaping Peripheral Work Parking Picnic Shelter Horseshoe Pits (6) 11 Shade trees @ $300; 8 Evergreens @ $100 General turf - 2 acres @ $2750; miscellaneous sign - age - $1100. OPEN PLAY AREA - CLEARBROOK WATER TOWER TOTAL $4,100 TOTAL $6,600 73 Spaces @ $880; asphalt Site Dev. 64,240 paved; with curbed islands and Lights 16,500 concrete wheel stops, line TOTAL $80,740 markings and security lights (6 @ $2,750). 30' x 55'; 18 tables, wood deck floor; wood frame and asphalt shingles. TOTAL $28,600 Sand base; 12 steel bars; Site Dev. 1,100 8" x 8" timber edge. # Facility x 6 TOTAL $6,600 Croquet Turf surface. TOTAL $2,200 Shuffleboard Concrete base, regulation Site Dev. 2,063 court, tournament style. fir` Facility x 4 TOTAL $8,252 Volleyball Court (1) 50' x 80' sand court. TOTAL $6,600 Existing Concession Cleaning, repair, refurbish, Rehab paint. TOTAL $22,000 Landscaping 14 Shade trees @ $300. TOTAL $4,200 Peripheral Work General turf - 1.4 acre @ $2750; miscellaneous sign - age - $1100. TOTAL $4,950 • 0 EXERCISE, OPEN PLAY/PICNIC COMPLEX - CLEARL'ROOK Exercise Area Multi -functional fitness stations, sand base. TOTAL $22,000 Volleyball Court (2) 50' x 80' sand court. Site Dev. 6,600 ir' Facility x 2 TOTAL $13,200 Picnic Shelters (4) 24' x 48'; 12 Picnic Site Dev. 22,550 tables each, wood deck t Facility x 4 floor; wood frame asphalt TOTAL $90,200 shingles. Shelter Deck 30' x 30' Octagonal shelter, concrete pad, wood frame, cedar shingles, 6 tables. TOTAL $23,100 Mega Playground Multi -functional apparatus Materials 27,500 groups by age user, wood, Labor 8,800 vinyl clad steel with cush- TOTAL $36,300 ioned surface, benches and edging. Caboose Rehab. Cleaning, painting, signage refurbish. TOTAL $2,200 Access Paths 1900 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide asphalt paved. TOTAL $52,250 Peripheral Work General Turf - 4.5 acres @ $2750; miscellaneous sign - age - $1100. TOTAL $13,475 • • Renovate Existing Ballfields (4) Existing Restroom (Renovation) Access Walks/Plaza Access Road BASEBALL FIELD RLNOVAT MN Grading, seeding, & in- field renovation; partial fencing and new backstops; furnishing and lighting adjustments. Cleaning and painting; repair and refurbish. 12,000 SF. @ $3.30 80 LF. @ $121; Asphalt paved; 24' Wide. Site Dev. $33,000 x_ 4 TOTAL $132,000 TOTAL $5,500 TOTAL $39,600 TOTAL $9,680 • STAGE ARRAS Existing Restr.00ms Clean, repair, paint and refurbish, signage. TOTAL $5,500 Park Office 800 SF. @ $60.50 TOTAL $48,400 Access Paths 1000 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide; asphalt paved.. TOTAL $27,500 Shelter/Stage Sound stage $27,500; Sound system $16,500; Lighting $16,500; 6300 SF. @ $22; wood decking, stairs and mis- cellaneous site develop- ment. TOTAL $199,100 Peripheral Work General turf - 1 acre @ $2750; miscellaneous signage @ $1100. TOTAL $3,850 Lake Renovation TOTAL $28,600 • 0 NATURE CENTER Field Archery Site development and field Range (1) targets. TOTAL. $13,200 Access Paths 800 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide. TOTAL $22,000 0 • MAINTENANCE AREA - SIIERANDO Office 1200 SF. TOTAL $73,000 Storage Sheds (4000 sq. ft.) TOTAL $66,000 • • SUPPORT FACILTTIES Landscaping 134 Evergreen trees @ $100 TOTAL $13,400 Renovate Existing Regrade and asphalt pave Entrance Road At 1300 LF. x 24' Wide @ $93.50 Ballfield Complex TOTAL $121.,550 New Entrance Road At 300 LF. New, Asphalt paved; Maintenance Complex 24' Wide @ $121. TOTAL $36,300 • STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC PARK FACILITIES (by Population) 1989 Frederick County, VA, Standards, 1989 Soccer Fields 1/5000 Tennis Courts 1/2000 Basketball Courts 1/2000 Softball Fields 1/4000 Playground, Open Play & Picnic Areas 1/2000 Baseball Field Renovation 1/6000 Stage Areas 1/20,000 Nature Center 1/County Maintenance Area & Office 1/20,000 Support Facilities 1/20,000 Park Land -West FC 1/County Kansas City, MO, 1980 Football/Soccer Field (Double Use) 1/4000 Picnic Shelters 1/2000 Picnic Tables 1/125 Baseball Diamond 1/3000 Softball Diamond 1/1500 Tennis 1/1500 Basketball 1/1000 Handball/Racketball 1/5000 Playgrounds 1/1000 Golf Course (9-hole) 1/20,000 Swimming Pool 1/5000 Outdoor Ice Rink 1/2500 Trails (Hiking) 1/4000 (Nature) 1/2500 (Equestrian) 1/6250 (Bicycle/Jogging) 1/2000 (Exercise) 1/7500 Campsites 1/300 Shuffleboard 1/2000 Horseshoe 1/2000 Boat Ramps 1/5 miles/l/10 miles Volleyball Court 1/3000 E r� Jackson, TN Gross Acreage Softball Diamonds Baseball Diamonds Tennis Courts Swimming Pools Soccer/Football Field Community Recreation Center Little League Ball Field Public Golf Course Basketball (outdoor courts) Dallas, TX Trails Family Play Picnicking Court Games Swimming Racket Games Diamond Sports Field Sports Indoor Activities Golf Buildings NRPA Suggested Facility Standards Badminton Basketball Handball Tennis Baseball (Official) (Little League, lighted) Football Soccer Golf (driving range) Softball Trails Golf (par 3) (9-hole) (18-hole) Swimming Pools 1/1000 1/3000 1/6000 1/2000 1/20,000 1/10,000 1/15,000 1/5000 18 holes/25,000 1/2000 1/2-1 mile/10,000 1/1000 1/300 1/3000-6000/1/100,000 15 sq. ft./3% pop. 1/2000-4000; 1/200,000 1/4000-6000 1/4000-6000 1/20,000-30,000 18 holes/125,000 1/5000 1/5000 1/20,000 1/2000 1/5000 1/30,000 1/20,000 1/10,000 1/50,000 1/5000 1/system per region 0 1/25,000 1/50,000 1/20,000 0 • Greensboro, NC Urban Parks District Parks Community Parks Neighborhood Parks Vest -Pocket Parks Recreation Centers Tennis Courts Swimming Pool Athletic Fields Combination Community/Neighborhood Parks 5/1000 2 1/2 acres/1000 2 1/2 acres/1000 1 1/2 acres/1000 1 1/2 acres/1000 1/2 sq. ft./person 1/2000 1 sq. ft./person 1 field/4000 2 1/2 acres/1000 The Frederick County facility standards, per thousand of population, were based on the results of a demand study completed by Resource Planners of Richmond, Virginia, in 1987. The demand study was completed as a portion of the Clearbrook and Sherando Parks master planning process. The standards listed with the Frederick County standards were also taken into consideration. Frederick County Parks & Recreation Department ATTN: James Doran, Director P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5678 The Frederick County Parks &•Recreation Department is located on the second floor of the Frederick County Administration Building, 9 Court Square, Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: ABLAND IV 11501Huff Court Bethesda,N. It 14•S• 111 Clifford • 11 N. Cameron Winchester, V.1 •m - 1 .. • Name of development and/or description of the request: TWIN LAKES Location: & North of Senseny Road across from the Burning Knolls Subdivision and west of Bedford Village & AT)3ple Ridcre Subdivi- sions, Also, southwest of Rte, 7, adlacent to the OiDegiion Waste-. waterAdj=Rcent - I - Parks & Recreation Department Comments: Parks Signature I (NOTICE TO PARS - Date : LEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO THE AGENT.) (� NOTICE IQ APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. Parks & Recreation Director's Comments Twin Lakes, PMDP Although the July 1990 Twin Lakes Piaster Development Plan provides for the required recreational units, this development will also have a significant impact on the County's regional park facilities and the recreation amenities currently included in the County's Capital Improvement Program. The recreation areas outlined in the above referenced plan offer the subdivision a balance of leisure opportunities, and I would recommend approval pending review of the park area specifications. The recreation facilities listed in the August 30, 1990 revised proffer statement would not appear to offer the diversity of the July 1990 Plan. Therefore, I would recommend that the July Plan be implemented. I would also note that the actual cost of the recreation facilities listed in the August 30, 1990 revised proffer statement are greatly inflated by the fact that these cost estimates include support facilities that would not be appropriate within the Twin Lakes Subdivision. A more realistic proffer value for these facilities, if developed as individual recreation units, would be approximately $280,000. Because of the impact that the Twin Lakes development will undoubtedly have on our park system, I believe that the proposed proffer of $75 per lot nay be less than adequate. Based on current minimum requirements and the increased service demand created by this development, I would suggest that a lot proffer of $559.00 may be more appropriate. Please reference the attached information for the basis of this recommendation. As you may have noticed, I am suggesting that the proffer for several facilities be reduced. I have based th4s recommended credit on the fact that the addition of these amenities within the subdivision should reduce the potential impact of this development on the proposed facilities at our regional parks. The recommended reduction is representative of the fact that, although these amenities are provided within the development, the residents of this subdivision will still have a significant impact on like facilities master planned for the County's.regional parks. If you should have any questions regarding this recommendation, please give me a call. F.REDERICH COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PROFFER SUMMARY FOR A 1300 UNIT DEVELOPMENT Request Proffer Facility* Frederick County Standards Current Need Current Need Supply Current Need Gap Facility Unit Cost Currently on the CIP List CIP Facility Cost Per Housing Unit Proffer Credit Soccer Fields 1/5000 Pop. 8 2 6 246,000 5 1,229,000 123 **62 Tennis Courts 1/2000 Pop. 20 2 18 48,000 17 808,000 60 **30 Basketball Courts 1/2000 Pop. 20 1 19 82,000 4 327,000 103 **52 Softball Fields 1/4000 Pop. 10 4 6 312,000 4 1,248,000 195 **98 Plaveround. Open Play 1/2000 Pop. 20 7 13 205,000 4 821,000 256 ***19� and Picnic Areas Baseball Field Renovation Stage Areas Nature Center Maintenance Area and Office Support Facilities Park Land -West FC Sample Information: Sample Computation: 1/6000 Pop. 1/20,000 Pop. 1/County Pop. 1/20,000 Pop. 1/20,000 Pop. 1/County Pop. 7 4 3 47,000 4 2 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 2 313,000 1 1 35,000 1 1 139,000 1 1 172,000 1 400,O00 1 187,000 20 313,000 39 35,000 2 139,000 17 172,000 22 400,000 25 GROSS COST IMPACT 55 Soccer Field - 1/5000 population costing $246,000 Development - 1300 units x 2.5 per unit = 3250 population 65% is the potential impact that a 1300 unit development, or 3250 people, will have on a facility that has a standard of 1/5000 population. 3250 is equal to 65% of 5000. $246,000 facility cost x 65%, which is equivalent to the percentage of potential impact _ $159,000 cost for the development divided by 1300 housing units = $123 cost per unit. Proffer per housing unit remains the same irregardless of the size of the development. Note: "Facility development to include all support facilities. Proffer credit represents a 50% reduction for facilities included within the subdivision. Proffer credit is contingent `'` on approval of facility specifications. n_, Ff -r �r�,��r rPnrr .Pnr.Q a 25% reduction for facilities included within subdivision. Soccer Fields (5) 0 CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT DETAIL SHEETS 1990 SOCCER COMPLEX - SNERANDO 3 60 x 120 yard fields plus goals 2 55/110 yard fields plus goals TOTAL 1990-91 CAPITAL COST Access Road 100 LF. @ $121; 24' Wide, Asphalt paved Parking 247 Spaces @ $880; Security Lights (12 @ $2,750) Access Paths 3000 LF. @ $27.50; 10' wide; Asphalt paved. TOTAL 1991-92 CAPITAL COST Restroom/Concession 820 SF; Masonry with concrete roof deck; full concession hookups. Plaza 22,000 SF. @ $3.30; 50% Paved/50% Planted; Kiosk @ $2,200. Picnic Shelters (2) 24' x 24'; (6) picnic tables each; concrete pad; wood frame structure; asphalt shingles; $20,000 each 28 sets of bleachers at $750 each TOTAL 1992-93 CAPITAL COSTS Lighting 5 fields @ $60,000 per field Landscaping 90 Shade Trees Cl $300 Site Dev.$150,000 Site Dev.$100,000 TOTAL $250,000 TOTAL $12,100 Site Dev.$217,360 Lights 33,000 TOTAL $250,360 $82,500 $332,860 TOTAL $154,000 TOTAL $74,800 TOTAL $40,000 TOTAL $21,000 $289,800 TOTAL $300,000 TOTAL $27,000 • Peripheral Work General Turf RenovaLion- 18 acres @ $1,500; misc. si8nabe $1,500. TOTAL 1993-94 CAPITAL REQUESTS TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST TOTAL $ 28,500 $ 355,500 $1,228,160 TLNNIS COMPLF,X - CLLARBIZOOR Tennis Courts (8)(2) sets of (3) courts each; (1) set of (2) courts fully fenced, chain link vinyl clad, lighted 30 FC. Racquetball Court (2) 3 Walled concrete structure Site Dev. 46,200 Lights 33,000 Subtotal 79,200 # Facility x 2.67 TOTAL $211,464 Site Dev. 11,000 Lights 5,500 Subtotal 16,500 i' Facility x 2 TOTAL $33,000 Shelter Deck (1) 30' x 30' Octagonal shelter concrete pad, wood frame, cedar shingles, 6 picnic tables. TOTAL $11,550 Parking 59 Spaces @ $880; asphalt paved with curbed islands and concrete wheel stops; line markings and security lights (2 @ $2,750). TOTAL $28,710 Landscaping 39 Shade trees @ $300 TOTAL $ 5,850 Peripheral Work General turf - 8 acres @ $2,750; miscellaneous signage - $550. TOTAL $ 1,650 Access Paths 1000 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide, asphalt paved. TOTAL $13,750 0 • TENNIS COHPLEX - SHERANDO Tennis Courts (9) (3) sets of (3) courts ea.; Site Dev. 49,500 Asphalt, color coated; Lights 33,000 fully fenced, vinyl clad Subtotal 82,500 chain link; lighted 30 FC. # Facility x 3 TOTAL $247,500 Racquetball (8) 3 walled concrete structure Site Dev. 11,000 Lights 5,500 Subtotal 16,500 Yr' Facility x 8 TOTAL $132,000 Restroom/Concession 625 SF. Masonry and wood with asphalt shingles; Limited concession hookups; 1500 SF. plaza. TOTAL $ 51,975 Access Paths 1000 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide; Asphalt paved. TOTAL $ 13,750 Access Road 50 LF. @ $121; 24' Wide. TOTAL $ 3,025 Parking 94 Spaces @ $880; Asphalt paved with curbed islands and concrete wheel stops; line markings and security lights (4 @ $2,750). TOTAL $ 46,860 Landscaping 15 Shade trees @ $300 TOTAL $ 2,250 Peripheral Work General Turf - 3 acres @ $2750; Misc. signage - $1100. TOTAL $ 4,675 r1 U BASKETBALL COMPLEX - CLEARBROOK Basketball Courts (2) (2) 85'x 65' asphalt with color coating; (2) back- boards each court; player benches, lighted, concrete poles - 30 FC. Shelter Deck (1) 30' x 30' Octagonal shelter concrete pad, wood frame, cedar shingles, 6 picnic tables. Parking 59 Spaces @ $880; asphalt paved with curbed islands and concrete wheel stops; line markings and security lights (2 @ $2,750). Landscaping 39 Shade trees @ $300 Peripheral Work General turf - 8 acres @ $2,750; miscellaneous signage - $550. Access Paths 1000 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide, asphalt paved. Site Dev. 22,000 Lights 14,300 Subtotal 36,300 ,',' Facility x 2 TOTAL $72,600 TOTAL $11,550 TOTAL $28,710 TOTAL $ 5,850 TOTAL $ 1,650 TOTAL $13,750 0 0 BASKETBAL,L.. COMPLEY - SIIERANDO Magnum Basketball 94' x 80'; Asphalt with Site Dev. 27,500 color coating; (6) back- Lights 17,600 boards each court; player Subtotal 45,100 benches; lighted, concrete # Facility x 2 poles - 30 FC; each court TOTAL. $90,200 provides (1) regulation, (2) short regulation, and (6) half court games. Parking (Expand Total Spaces = 183; add Site Dev. 73,920 Existing) 51 spaces @ $880; resur- Lights 16,500 face 132 spaces C $220; TOTAL $90,420 Asphalt paved, curbed island and drop-off; 6 security lights @ $2750 each. Landscaping 40 Shade Trees @ $300. TOTAL $12,000 M SOFTBAJA, CONPLLX - SHERANDO Softball Fields (4) 300' Radius, Fully Fenced, backstop, concrete bleacher pads with (2) 50 person bleachers per field; light- ed concrete poles 30/40 FC. Restroom/Concession 820 SF. Masonry with con- crete roof deck; full con- cession hookups. Access Road 70 LF. @ $121; 24' Wide, Asphalt paved. Plaza/Access Paths 65,500 SF. @ $2.20; (2) kiosks @ $2200. Parking Landscaping Peripheral Work 268 Spaces @ $880; Asphalt paved with curbed islands and drop off; line markings and security lights (8 @ $2750). 100 Shade Trees @ $300; Pine Screen @ $2500. General seeding - 7 acres @ $2750; Miscellaneous signage - $1650. • Site Dev. 68,926 Lights 88,000 Subtotal 156,926 if Facility x 4 TOTAL $627,704 TOTAL $154,000 TOTAL $8,470 TOTAL $146,300 Site Dev. 235,840 Lights 22,000 TOTAL $257,840 TOTAL $32,500 TOTAL $20,900 PLAYGROUND, OPEN PLAY AND PICNIC AREAS Picnic Shelter (4) 24' x 24'; (6) picnic tab- Site Dev. 19,800 With Plaza les each; concrete pad, Y" Facility x 4 wood frame structure; cedar TOTAL $79,200 shingles, skylights, stain electric and water outlets. Restroom/Concession 625 SF. masonry and wood with asphalt shingles; Limited concession hookups; 1500 SF. plaza. TOTAL $ 51,975 Access Paths 1000 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide; Asphalt paved. TOTAL $ 13,750 Access Road 50 LF. @ $121; 24' Wide. TOTAL $ 3,025 Parking 94 Spaces @ $880; Asphalt paved with curbed islands and concrete wheel stops; line markings and security lights (4 @ $2,750). TOTAL $ 46,860 Landscaping 15 Shade trees @ $300 TOTAL $ 2,250 Peripheral Work General Turf - 3 acres @ $2750; Misc. signage - $1100. TOTAL $ 4,675 OPEN PLAY - CLEARB ROOK Parking 64 Spaces @ $880; asphalt Site Dev. 56,300 paved with curbed islands Lights 11,000 and concrete wheel stops; TOTAL $67,320 line markings and security lights (4 @ $2750). Picnic Shelter (1) 24' x 48'; 12 tables, wood deck floor; wood frame, asphalt shingles. TOTAL $22,500 Existing Shelters (5) Repair, cleaning, painting, and Restroom Rehab (1) signage, refurbish, (5) pic- nic shelters @ $2750 each; (1) restroom @ $5500 each. TOTAL S19,250 Access Paths 3000 I,P. 0 $27.50; 10' Wide, asphalt paved. "TOTAL $8"2,50U 0 Landscaping 11 Shade trees @ $300; 8 Evergreens @ $100 Peripheral Work General turf - 2 acres @ $2750; miscellaneous sign - age - $1100. OPEN PLAY AREA - CLEARBROOK WATER TOWER Parking 73 Spaces @ $880; asphalt paved; with curbed islands and concrete wheel stops, line markings and security lights (6 @ $2,750). Picnic Shelter 30' x 55'; 18 tables, wood deck floor; wood frame and asphalt shingles. Horseshoe Pits (6) Sand base; 12 steel bars; 8" x 8" timber edge. Croquet Turf surface. Shuffleboard Concrete base, regulation court, tournament style. Volleyball Court (1) 50' x 80' sand court. Existing Concession Cleaning, repair, refurbish, Rehab paint. Landscaping 14 Shade trees @ $300. Peripheral Work General turf - 1.4 acre @ $2750; miscellaneous sign - age - $1100. '1-'0'1'AL $4 , 100 TOTAL $6,600 Site Dev. 64,240 Lights 16,500 TOTAL $80,740 TOTAL $28,600 Site Dev. 1,100 # Facility x 6 TOTAL $6,600 TOTAL $2,200 Site Dev. 2,063 # Facility x 4 TOTAL $8,252 TOTAL $6,600 TOTAL $22,000 TOTAL $4,200 TOTAL $4,950 E 0 EXERCISE, OPEN PLAY/PICNIC C:OHPLF,X_ - CLEARPROOK Exercise Area Multi -functional fitness stations, sand base. TOTAL $22,000 Volleyball Court (2) 50' x 80' sand court. Site Dev. 6,600 # Facility x 2 TOTAL $13,200 Picnic Shelters (4) 24' x 48'; 12 Picnic Site Dev. 22,550 tables each, wood deck t Facility x 4 floor; wood frame asphalt TOTAL $90,200 shingles. Shelter Deck 30' x 30' Octagonal shelter, concrete pad, wood frame, cedar shingles, 6 tables. TOTAL $23,100 Mega Playground Multi -functional apparatus Materials 27,500 groups by age user, wood, Labor 8,800 vinyl clad steel with cush- TOTAL $36,300 ioned surface, benches and edging. Caboose Rehab. Cleaning, painting, signage refurbish. TOTAL $2,200 Access Paths 1900 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide asphalt paved. TOTAL $52,250 ' Peripheral Work General Turf - 4.5 acres @ $2750; miscellaneous sign - age - $1100. TOTAL $13,475 0 • BASEBALL 11L;Lll RENOVATION Renovate Existing Grading, seeding, & in- Site Dev. $33,000 Ballfields (4) field renovation; partial y 4 fencing and new backstops; TOTAL $132,000 furnishing and lighting adjustments. Existing Restroom Cleaning and painting; (Renovation) repair and refurbish. TOTAL $5,500 Access Walks/Plaza 12,000 SF. @ $3.30 TOTAL $39,600 Access Road 80 LF. @ $121; Asphalt paved; 24' Wide. TOTAL $9,680 0 STAGE. AREAS Existing Restrooms Clean, repair, paint and refurbish, signage. TOTAL $5,500 Park Office 800 SF. @ $60.50 TOTAL $48,400 Access Paths 1000 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide; asphalt paved. TOTAL $27,500 Shelter/Stage Sound stage $27,500; Sound system $16,500; Lighting $16,500; 6300 SF. @ $22; wood decking, stairs and mis- cellaneous site develop- ment. TOTAL $199,100 Peripheral Work General turf - 1 acre @ $2750; miscellaneous signage @ $1100. TOTAL $3,850 Lake Renovation TOTAL $28,600 0 0 NATURE CENTER Field Archery Site development and field Range (1) targets. TOTAL $13,200 Access Paths 800 LF. @ $27.50; 10' Wide. TOTAL $22,000 0 0 Office MAINTENANCE AREA - SIIERANDO 1200 SF. TOTAL. $73,000 Storage Sheds (4000 sq. ft.) TOTAL $66,000 0 0 SUPPORT FACILITIES Landscaping 134 Evergreen trees @ $100 TOTAL 013,400 Renovate Existing Regrade and asphalt pave Entrance Road At 1300 LF. x 24' Wide @ $93.50 Ballfield Complex TOTAL $121.,550 New Entrance Road At 300 LF. New, Asphalt paved; Maintenance Complex 24' Wide @ $121. TOTAL $36,300 STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC PARK FACILITIES (by Population) 1989 Frederick County, VA, Standards, 1989 Soccer Fields 1/5000 Tennis Courts 1/2000 Basketball Courts 1/2000 Softball Fields 1/4000 Playground, Open Play & Picnic Areas 1/2000 Baseball Field Renovation 1/6000 Stage Areas 1/20,000 Nature Center I/County Maintenance Area & Office 1/20,000 Support Facilities 1/20,000 Park Land -West FC 1/County Kansas City, MO, 1980 Football/Soccer Field (Double Use) 1/4000 Picnic Shelters 1/2000 Picnic Tables 1/125 Baseball Diamond 1/3000 Softball Diamond 1/1500 Tennis 1/1500 Basketball 1/1000 Handball/Racketball 1/5000 Playgrounds 1/1000 Golf Course (9-hole) 1/20,000 Swimming Pool 1/5000 Outdoor Ice Rink 1/2500 Trails (Hiking) 1/4000 (Nature) 1/2500 (Equestrian) 1/6250 (Bicycle/Jogging) 1/2000 (Exercise) 1/7500 Campsites 1/300 Shuffleboard 1/2000 Horseshoe 1/2000 Boat Ramps 1/5 miles/1/10 miles Volleyball Court 1/3000 Jackson, TN Gross Acreage 1/1000 Softball Diamonds 1/3000 Baseball Diamonds 1/6000 Tennis Courts 1/2000 Swimming Pools 1/20,000 Soccer/Football Field 1/10,000 Community Recreation Center Buildings 1/15,000 Little League Ball Field 1/5000 Public Golf Course 18 holes/25,000 Basketball (outdoor courts) 1/2000 Dallas, TX Trails 1/2-1 mile/10,000 Family Play 1/1000 Picnicking 1/300 Court Games 1/3000-6000/l/100,000 Swimming 15 sq. ft./3% pop. Racket Games 1/2000-4000; 1/200,000 Diamond Sports 1/4000-6000 Field Sports 1/4000-6000 Indoor Activities 1/20,000-30,000 Golf 18 holes/125,000 NRPA Suggested Facility Standards Badminton 1/5000 Basketball 1/5000 Handball 1/20,000 Tennis 1/2000 Baseball (Official) 1/5000 (Little League, lighted) 1/30,000 Football 1/20,000 Soccer 1/10,000 Golf (driving range) 1/50,000 Softball 1/5000 Trails 1/system per region Golf (par 3) 0 (9-hole) 1/25,000 (18-hole) 1/50,000 Swimming Pools 1/20,000 11 Greensboro, NC Urban Parks District Parks Community Parks Neighborhood Parks Vest -Pocket Parks Recreation Centers Tennis Courts Swimming Pool Athletic Fields Combination Community/Neighborhood Parks 5/1000 2 1/2 acres/1000 2 1/2 acres/1000 1 1/2 acres/1000 1 1/2 acres/1000 1/2 sq. ft./person 1/2000 1 sq. ft./person 1 field/4000 2 1/2 acres/1000 The Frederick County facility standards, per thousand of population, were based on the results of a demand study completed by Resource Planners of Richmond, Virginia, in 1987. The demand study was completed as a portion of the Clearbrook and Sherando Parks master planning process. The eis�iLrg standards listed with the Frederick County standards were also taken into consideration. 11, CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation Planning & Design Consultants 11 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 CONTENT'S 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 ii 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. N m SPnZ en 0,4 J lxxx) - ADT AM(P)") - PPa k No, r � J o 14) ,1)33 Z Jos �w un-sl5ncx I: -?ecA A 63) J1#1.*-rA(A) A (a) r A (6) 'SITE or' (vo rr C3,813j CALLOW F �� f� I �x �s-T I -j6, C ond,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. This lane geometry improvement is warranted for the future 1997 background 4 m 0 s,5na,►;-?eA J, f CXXx) - ADT lmpcovemtA4 — see +ex4 Am(pm) - ,PC,,< �lov2 !� CALLOW Fi�uf� � 'Bet cv--yo.w\c\ Icl (o��•4 onS ASSOCIATES INC. 5 ►TE Of\ �J 140T To SCALE 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 I 0 II 11 (C) D SITE Y w � ., o (Lo at SPnn Se N y ` ti Z-OS(131) R (Zs) o(14 )5- h i r 3,a�� (z36) --y /5 59�-rr 1 CX x x) - AZT WPM) - PPQ k No"r / N CALLOW V ;go(c 3 ASSOCIATES INC. NOT To SCALE 1Bo Id I `lc1 -i ,5r ING 70y,�',V-N-) plu3 6ck�COvnc� 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. m S�qra1 1 R cA Los = C(c) AIL r UC)- ZZ \ o .00 c n Bianca I,:ted 47 -1�(q) Se 33(Yi) ohs �95 L SITE CA x x) - AD i Sce ser+lo� NOT TO SCALE N CALLOW F,\j -c 14 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 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 Receive Level of Expected Delay Capacity Service to Minor .Street: Traffic >_ 400: vph< . A :: Little or no delay: 300-399 vph. B ShortAraffic.delays. 200-299 vph :. C ..: Aver age::traffic delays. 100-199 vph ' .. D : I:oag traffic delays. 0- :99 vph E Very .long traffic delays. negative F Demand exceeds capacity, extremely long delay. p 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 (sect 5 5.0 5.1 to 15.0 15.1 to 25.0 25.1 to 40.0 40.1 to 60.0: > 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 We 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. IoL Nutber: `..773 Cate 4/',9' v weans• A"-T -----+-------_._----------------------..---`---------------------------------------------_------------+-------+----------- '.kr rt. "s S:+J?H N:R' TRAFFIC FROM WE-T T"nr;=FIC F;lr. EAST k:--E 6`= _ .._ _ ROTE 057 0-. ?iU7 5`7 ; TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------- N.S. ; 'iee lt. TA '-------C-----------`------------ -----------`---`-----`----i---—Ri------------`---------F----T---- E---- ;---------- 4` 4 36 76 ; �5:+` -. 15 73 4 6 4 4 9 13 14 6 !8 25 ' 73 ; 7:00-7:15 :30 7 6 2 15 : 55 8 2188 :45 10 3 1 _4 4 ! '� 1 i 34 8 42 1i3 1:30-7:45 8 - ? 1G i7 1= h 1! E 78 54 1Zc 7:45-8:C.,0 :15 9 0 1 16 9 :6 15 8 9 32 5 29 9 4;. ; 107 ; 8:00-8:15 �3G 9 9., 15 1 11 34 4 :1 8 43 ; 114 8:15-8:30 -------------------- ----- ------- ------ --------------------------------------------------------------+-------+----------- :4 7 14 :41 4 :6 !t, -97 44 23 i4 4C 4` 46 �44 115 4 5 2 5 119 324 6:45-7:45 .)o 29 C 4 9 " :1 45 29 128 ; ilo 31 150 ' 386 7:UC'-E:0 lk8 42. i 5- '` 41 44C r 400 ----------------------- ' 26 68 41 ;6 '3 37 35 181 446 :30-8:30 F r; •c - :5 .:. 45 4-7 16 --=------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------- ;: :_ 64 :4E: 5_ _.! 574 4::.-`:.� - - - - 45 147 6c �'6r !4 84 :9 1!7 `.9 4:45-5:4 ls:{ e 14 t_ �.: _. 6,6 . 46 IN57 .. .,2 9 11 s 588 5:ifi-6.ZO _4 6_- 5;-- _... I II 11 C��Jw A55CCIA'ES. ;NC. 1 le Naae :rk lot N,,nber: te•se:tior: F,EA-'A' d;_._ t Lcratio^ 9Y Date q; _. C Jcy: ..t `_v JJWeatler w b ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------f-------+----------- ' -grlr-:C `-_+CkTI tkAFFf: FRL" E ;FtI =kC!'+ EAP or,: GCEAS+h'T 'ALLEY -�- c,l o- "� i T T ,4 ' ,5, .:se i��T--THk-_kIv"H_-TD?A�--��---ra�-. y---------�F---�4F--- i*---ry----Er•--THku-kI+iH?-?3TAl E-4!-M-Pe-iod--- T lac . --- --- :i-b:4`. b :. .. `, '? 44 9 11 4 24 K 12 7 3i17c::45 _-! :b 4U t Le i q 6 4 ,15 00-1. , ' 4' ? 61 q ba 6 11 20 12 IV 4 26 ; 173 7:0-7:15 :15-7:30 7) 13 98 5 63 1U 7'? 9 lb 5 3ti _3 4 11 67 263 7:15-7:30 -7:4: ; :U 49 14 7' b: 14 c' 17 22 E 4' 2 36 ? 18 281 7:30-7:45 45-?:UU lE 42 8 6' 7J 68 i_ lbi ; 4: 7:45-8:00 E:15 4lE »! _ b: 6E E{� 1: 16' 44% �;1L 8:00-, :5-3:30 i 54 51 9 97. ------------------------------------------------ - --------------------------------------------- 7:3G 2E - - .1 Sri - p Z 2 199 5 bi �a, 1 cb 899 6:45-7:45 { -8:U0 4l ., 26b �. 4,- 9i :r 24 160 •_4 4: .:.[ 1139 7:00-E:00 5' :2E i?u ._ 5. 46T 1415 7:15-8:15 6S 21! : '4 298 785 5E 140 28 22ti 214 "f 50 499 1473 7:3U-E:30 '1 M. 'EAK HOUR __=-:'`�_==140 ,===.,5===={_===499=1 ¢73 ====__°__,___ CM _ Ph 4( i� b _ :4 ti: 'S4 4:c. _.-4:4` 1 4 14- -------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -::.:Q. _ _ i1 �.. ._� 1c° "t ±i' 71 ±C'S ,iU2 194 4:i!'S::0, :4 E 43 89 `-5118 158 i:t E4 1•t2 308 ; 1932 , 5:45 -�:OU 69 552 »` _. 1:15 5.88 :26 162 {' 84 3 15 2U{'9 , 5:06-5:00 a 141 qc :i. 9' E5 286 ; 188E ' 5:15-5:15 -o:.. 63 4Ea _�` 5. _. _ Ll'. la9 St' _,; 5 ?5 73 270 ., . a 5:3V'-c:.j(+ PEF 'v-6:JU i b9 552 14: 4:. ±�!5 5Eu `L----------5�---_4----..`---- _ -y- :-�---7-,------ _ 1 1b2 :u_ 8 a:.. 0'9 :00-6:00 FHF = .9: �_ _ ?5 FHF = GHF-=--('.y2--------------------- 11 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Rage-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAY. 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-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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- X 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 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 ; 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 PEAK 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 % 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 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 Rage-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- ROTEN- 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 PEAK. OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING CONDITIONS 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION.. CORK STREET/PLEASANT VALLEY AREA TYF'E..... 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 P,KG BUSES PHF F'EDS F'ED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (9) 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 F'H-1 F'H-2 F'H-3 F'H-4 F'H-1 F'H-2 F'H-3 F'H-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 F'D F'D 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 GRF'. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY ARP. 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 0.335 0.400 14.3 B 14.3 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.9 (sec/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 EB WB NB SB : EB WB NH SR 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 0.00 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 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 APR. 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 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 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 PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 6 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 ARP. 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 = 0.21E LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..ROUTE 657/ROUTE 656 AREA TYPE..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/9O 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 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 14.8 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 0.384 0.490 6.4 B 6.1 B R 0.147 0.490 5.4 B WB 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 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 SB 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 PK.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 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 ARP. DELAY APP. LOS EB 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 0.506 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 STREEF/PLEASANT VALLEY 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 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 F'HF FIEDS PIED. 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 FIH-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 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 APFI. DELAY APFI. 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 ND 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 �IME.......... AM PEAK OMMENT.., ..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 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APR. DELAY ARP. 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 APR. 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 REF,ORT INTERSECTION- CORK STREET/F,LEASANT VALLEY AREA TYPE..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... AM FIEAK COMMENT....... BUILD 1997 - EXISTING ZONING -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NA SB : ER 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 PY.G BUSES F,HF PEDS PIED. BUT. ARR. TYFIE (%) (%) 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 F,H-2 FIH-3 FIH-4 F,H-1 FIH-2 PH-3 F,H-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 FID 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 AFIFI. DELAY APP. 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..CORK STREET/PLEASANT VALLEY AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... PM PEAK COMMENT....... BUILD - 1997 EXISTING ZONING -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EH WB NB SB : ER WB NB SB 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 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 15.2 C TR 0.613 0.325 18.1 C WB L 0.065 0.41E 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 ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... AM PEAK COMMENT....... BUILD - 1997 PROPOSED ZONING -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EH 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 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 ED 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 ARP. DELAY APP. LOS EB 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 D 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 ER 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 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 ARP. DELAY APP. 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 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 1965 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 NH 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 0.438 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 : EB WB NH 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 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 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 16.9 C TR 0.710 0.325 20.2 C 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 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.651 LOS = C 1 J _ - CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation Planning & Design Consultants 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 ............................................. ill 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 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 iunsignalized. 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. Se S R Pn o,� J zj [xxx, — ADT AM(PM) - Rpa k �Aor t 0 3n cca J sc�yi 1 L r 5 2) �i,633 -Z Jcs Un-I5rNn I- -?rcA A 65) )t# I &-rA(A) A (a) r A (4) 5I-rE or' V Oe`A/� J �� o C - C3,813j 'J / N CALLOW CX 'f,"i Ord, sons 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. This lane geometry improvement is warranted for the future 1997 background 4 L9 cXXx) - ADT AM(PM) - QQoaiC V`ov2 U CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. �� i Sens Q Pn d' 3, ! 43) S� )Y\Ck ; eeJ r' W S3(%) rlg8(jzb) 14 z3(m) ha )qo-�, `'T r (zz�)0� 7 VA9 * 1mpco\jrmtq%4 — see +ex4 F;lic f- a ; 'Back�fo-)rd 190I-)C,,\J • 4 ,or.s 5 iTE op t Q of V Oe O L 140T To SCALE 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 2 i C) rya l 2 e (A L oS I= S (C� AIL -- ) 1r 0= c O , d d pis Cijq) y7 J �(�qy10 (zg7)21Z (78 )4Z o w N N - � N C3,a�(�1 (3� )S(�31) (zs)r,.J +5-, � ; - nd, I., -? e CA Los=SC( ) F., � J o CXxx3 - ADT * 1 1 -7� �S<< NOT To SCALE N CALLOW 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. 12 m = m m m m m m Los = C(c) -�1 l L r Sighck I t e d Los = (3 (t3) D /100 TE o L< °-� `-z 7(t G) P 33(y/)1,71,119, w, C,,A1)i A�n(Pml hPAk NOvr 'NOT To SCALE N CALLOW F, v,r- 4 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 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 :ho delay. 300-399 vph p B Short_ :traffic. delays. 200-299 vph . C. Average: traffic delays. . 10.0-199 vph D Lang 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 Il evel 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. ]o� Nunber: ` 73 w:N"-HE37.ER Gate 4av: N:N ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-------+----------- ' TRaFF1C FROM NEE' ROVE o57 0 q,!;._ =7 TOTAL ------------------------------------------------------------------ S H. 0. ' -- --------4---------- -- - - - - ---------------------Ri'----?---------,--------:------ -- E & -----io6--- MM 6 4 36 76 6:30-6:4{ 1 - ; 6 7 7 6 ±9 4 23 60 6:45 9 1 14 6 ±9 25 73 , 7:00-'15 7 6 2 ;` 5 5 is i' 9 29 99 ;45 110 1 :4 4 o i 34 9 42 ; 1C3 7:7)-7:45 17 1: 6 :' v3 r 1 54 11K ; 7:45-9:GG :15 9 1 ±c 9 _6 15 9 9 32 5 29 9 43 ; 101 ; 8:00-9:15 9 2 4 1 17 15 7 1: 34 4 '± 9 43 ; 114 9:15-9:30 1 -- -I--- ---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ' ----- '---------- 1S 0 7 14 y41 4: ±c' - 9 11 :4 i Gi i 1. 1:26.0 4_ 46 :4 :;5 4 5J 5 i19 ' : 6:45-7:45 0 29 :(! 4 4 ,^ °a 45 :4 1E 110 31 150 ' :96 7:;'-5:u: 35 5 5c is 35. 1:9 ; 42`; 7:1s T ? 4± 33 37 .'0 `. ±:: , i9 44t ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 77 ;0 ----77 ---`a----c----cl----------�5—--41-----J----------,~----------'----=t=====-----35---18 -----44.-----'[,_b:30- F k, 4 -- 5 15 56 c 9 7 ;9 14 49 12 4 4:44 00 _•________________________________________________________________________________________________----------------------- _ _ 44 14- :L :.si- 24,v 1+1 :y _ 4'4. `. _ 42 142 = ' r ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _ - - 11 11 h1:_E IUFV:h; OC vE.*ENT COUN1 K '4SSICIATES. INC. CrL�J ie Nawe :,r► '^G N .r,t•er: `- c io•ce:t;��. G..,:�w� = •e: .^Y JLF Date .t tv lip' Weather WE' ---------f------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------f-------+----------- ' -- TRAFFIC FRCM WE: .I` 79109 EA:' ar: ,:�1' )ALLEY �` G,, - J' e- ,r TJIKI r Alt______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ , LErT TNR' ptoN' TIT'_ 7: ,h,.°..- _ -cF' To'n .c �.. ',_ .IrFIui'•T7TNE 6 W , PeriodTHR P, 0 c ---__--+___________________________________________________----_------------------------------_ '6 `+' 46 ' "' 7 !� » :: 1' 6 45 1,C 6:4`_'-7:00 0-7::: 4' - 61 4 5: 5 :. b 11 :C 1 !v 4 26 113 ; 1:C0-7:15 :15-7:30 70 1: ?9 5 6 l; 9 ib ? 30,__ 4: 11 67 263 1:15-1:30 '-7:4; 49 14 7? ? 6: 14 c 17 2 a ;; ? 6 78 2, 81 ; 7:30-7:45 4`-o:,i.j 'Q `'u 4 q: 55 1J 17S 42 8 6 1' b8 in 15: 4': 1:45-8:00 -c:.`. °` :d i'. q 9', !: »i .. 6F �!' - r -- - - - - ------------------_----`-----"---_---------_---------------------_-----------_---------------------+-- '- - - - - - - - ,j_ 1:4 4 6:4� :45 66 4r. 45 91 `.' : 1:9 , 7:.t(:-8:00 .. u5 2 4: !tv !90 5 2 4?; 1415 7:15-8:15 ' _:7 c; :.: c+�' 56 8; 5� 140 ^9 .: — c" 5h 4cq ':'�,-':'a • 141J r o... r , =yA. HOUR ------------------------------- -115 cK F.N -4:4.5 i': �� :` : 14 :4 �5 4. 11 i !4 -_ 454 4:=.-4:45 44 19 ---------------------------------+-------+----------- - , r p :. !la 15 8, is 84 308 1932 4:45-5:45 69 C 1 .. 24 .15 20C9 5 0"-6:00, ',l !41 4 9 ^5 4 LL r 'q R 2 �n6 . i.e_ ., -_, 6: 481 Sr. 2 7 1!'5 95 1 3, 4,73 a;: "J ;c 2:i:.)9 7:0:-6:006:00 69 552 14:7.1 4 1r1c 528 1:6 15y 412; 4 11 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 ................. 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 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 ; AM REAP. 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 PEAK 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- X 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 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 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. 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 PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X TH X RT 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 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 0.335 0.400 14.3 B 14.3 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.9 (sec/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 ER WB NB SB : ER WB NB SR 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 0.00 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 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 APR. 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 0.289 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 (see/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 PEAT. 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 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 APR. 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 PEAT. 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 14.8 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 0.384 0.490 6.4 B 6.1 B R 0.147 0.490 5.4 B WB 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 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 PEAT. COMMENT....... BACKGROUND VOLUMES - 1997 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WE NB SB : EH WE 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 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 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 APR. LOS EB L 0.070 0.416 10.3 B 14.7 B TR 0.470 0.325 16.2 C WE 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 0.506 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 SB : 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 FAD FAD ' 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 ND L 0.051 0.506 7.3 B 17.9 C t TR 0.819 0.390 18.9 C SB L 0.051 0.506 7.3 B 13.9 B TR 0.605 0390 148 ---------------------------------8--- 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 ' �IME.......... AM PEAK OMMENT.., ..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 (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb PED. BUT. ARR. Y/N min T TYPE EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 ' WB 0,00 2,00 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0,95 0 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 N 14.8 3 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 RT X TH RT X X PD PD WB LT X SB LT X ' TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD ' GREEN 25.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 20.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 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 SB LT 0.061 0.392 7.2 B 0.392 7.3 B 7.4 B R 0.110 0.392 7.5 B INTERSECTION: Deli 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 (9) (%) 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 ER 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 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 0.41E 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..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 : ER WB NB SB 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 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 ARR. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.070 0.416 10.3 B 15.2 C TR 0.613 0.325 18.1 C WB 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 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 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 0.322 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 1965 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 ED WB NB SB : ED WB NH 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 ED 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 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 ED WB NB SB : ED 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 (%) (%) YIN 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 = 80.0 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 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 APR. LOS ED L 0.073 0.438 9.9 B 14.4 B TR 0.470 0.350 15.8 C WB 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 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 78 150 269 158 : 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 PK.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 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 ARP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.070 0.416 10.3 B 16.9 C TR 0.710 0.325 20.2 C 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 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.651 LOS = C 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 6 IFINAL �1 'L r� Lm� 1 TRAFFIC HvIPACT 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 ............................................. in 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 III LIST OF TABLES Table No. 1. Twin Lakes Trip Generation - Existing Zoning 2. Twin Lakes Trip Generation - Proposed Zoning IV Page No. W 13 I I.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. 1 The purpose of this report is to document these analytical steps and to present conclusions and recommendations. EXISTING 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 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) 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. 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 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 CI J I 1 LEGEND: Route 7 (15,326 _— - Site - Road River AM(PM) - Peak Hour Volumes (XXXK) - ADT 1 `� • 1 , i 1 1 I 1 II1 � i, I I I � / 1 I � I, #. 1 c Q 1 c� 1 " Y A(A) (A)A J) Unsignalized L------------.~ N 13(10) 32(57) Senseny Road (3,813) (4)12 (78)55 �>• CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. Figure 2. E)dsting Conditions RTE. 657 I The followingis a summary of the existing capacity analysis results: The intersection of �' g P 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. IBACKGROUND 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. Access 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 1 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. tThe 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: 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. 11 1 k 1 D P� LEGEND : Route 7 - Site (6$6)1,Og3 �� 570(1,240) - Road River AM(PM) - peak Hour Volumes (XXXX) - ADT _ • • I` 1 �� I `�♦ 1 ``•�� I 1 I / 1 / 1 I. 1 �10040 j I 1 ,% ♦\ / A / 1.I / 1 lob aft Mso No on am � 1 0 / 1 0 < A(A) 1 �✓ Unsignalized 1 N ........... . % 20(15) 48(86) Senseny Road (5,720) (6)18.�� RTF-.657 (117)83 N CALLOW Figure 3. Background 1997 Conditions ASSOCIATES INC. Fi JI I 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. F LLGLND . R��ulc 7 .2 0� � 3' ' -- Site � Road —.— - River I 1 � 1 1 1 00 ' 00 00 1 �J 1 1 ' / p 1 / b U Senseny Road R g. 657 - 22 % 18% / 1 N �', Figure 4. Trip Distribution CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. 1 1 1 1 I LEGEND : 1�0u1e 7 (23,236) �-.'� 6�20(1,240) Silc (686)1,093 Road (13)4 �1 7 (23,332) - River N r` � AM(PM) - Peak Hour Volumes N ADT (XXXX) - Development Only +� `♦ ```♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ : r ♦ ♦ ♦ VLO 1 I 1 � . 1 /I 1 1 1 � 1 I 1 • 'I / / / / I I / O / v IL.... (5,896) (].� (126)101101 'N U CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. 1 ')A P 1 _ 1 0 � 1 1 U c • 1 � .. b a x � 21(21) 1` 1(4) J ` 50(90) Senseny Road t-- 67(101) Y k (5,816) (8)19 ,-y (5,864) RT'F-. 657 (120)87 --*.- Figure 5. Build 1997 Volumes - Existing Zoning 10 C it [1 I� i� 71 1 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 11 F 11 I I LEGEND : Route7 Site (A)A - Road River (� AM(PM) - Level of Service 1 I I 1 � 1 / NOTE: All Intersections Unsignaked 1 I 1 I• 1 / 1 — Road I 1 I I I' I I I I / 1 101 ti 1 0 M 1 �� 0 1 A(A) ,l A(A) (A)A 4 (A)A 4 /N CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. Senseny Road p,TE. Figure 6. Level of Service & Lane Geometry - Existing Zoning. 12 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 SF DETACHED 28 DU 7 18 21 12 52 DU 12 32 37 22 280 520 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 I 'I 11 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 F� [i n n 1 J fl I.F:(;P.NT) : Route 7 �— - Site (26108 ) �91(29 ' 240) (297) (686)1, 093 - Road (200)68 T (27,840) —•— - River `^ N AM(PM) - Peak Hour Volumes M a - ADT y% r�� * - oft Development Only 1 ♦ � �j 1 � l � l 1I1 1 1 � vLoo, �\ / I ` \ I 1. I I (149)45 .,>/ (156)111 '-0-- L! �� CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. 1 N 1 1 P 1 1 0 1 � 5 r v� G O ------••— NV1 1`,25(121 J` �.40(81) �— 90(121) Y y �_73068) (7,585) (39)28 w-�Y (8,118) (172) l 45 ---b— Senseny Road �TE. 657 Figure 7. Build 1997 Volumes - Proposed Zoning 15 1 L� a I I LEGEND: 110u(c 7 Signalized LOS = �� Site B(B) A((3) (B)B - Road - River q AM(PM) - Level of Service i t40 j r I I � / 1.I I � I I A(A)---.� ¢ —*SOA(A) (A)A 4 (A)A 4 /N\ CALLOW Senseny Road RTE. 657 Figure 8. Level of Service & Lane Geometry - Proposed Zoning 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 I 1 1 17 fl 1 11 I: ' ' ►1i7►:1 pi 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS and LEVEL OF SERVICE The most current analysis methodologies used for evaluating the capacity of intersections were developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other members of the transportation profession. This methodology is 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. IUNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 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. MIn 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: ............. I evel" of Service Criterialor igna h * — tersechons . v Sto 'ed D 61ay :P err:Vehicle: sec ..:.15,1to:: 25:0:::::::.>' .. I E LEVEL Or 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 Iof 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 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 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 cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. F Intersection: RITE 657 8 0 SIK GLORY DR Location-,: YINLFESIER Cwted ay Pf Date : 2-13-90 Day: TUES Lout by .IG -----------�---'k�='iC Weather . DRY +-------+----------- FRG'-._-,------ 'kA F:,. FRO!! NOr,' 'RAFfIC FR%r BEc--------TReFFIC FRS?! EA:' on: or: MORN:4G GLORY on: ROUTE 657 on: ROUTE 657 1 TOTAL 1 ---------------------- -------------- ------ --------- ---- ------- ------------ ---------- I ! Tire Prico LEFTTrr, k:54 TL'AL L:=? TW R: i+T TGTA LrI TAR, k, KTOTA. LEFT THW RIGHT TOTAL i 'H,S, : 8 Y Perioe -------- ------------------- ------------_w--- --------------- ---------------------------------- ----*----+- — ' AM 6:38-6I : :45 , a B 8 8 B 8 2 2 8 12 a 12 a 6 1 I 7 1 I 21 16:38-6:45 AM 6:45-7:N 1 a a a B 8 a 4 4 2 13 a 15 B 7 2 9 1 28 1 6:45-7:N Me-7:15 ! 7:15-7:38 1 8 e a a a a a B 1 a a a 3 2 4 2 3 G 14 12 a e :7 16 a a 6 18 4 3 12 1 13 1 33 1 31 17:15-7:36 7:N-7:15 7:38-7:45 1 8 8 8 8 e a 2 2 3 16 9 13 8 6 4 18 ! 31 1 7:38-7:45 7:45-8:88 I 8 B 8 8 1 8 4 5 2 13 8 15 8 8 2 18 1 38 1 7:45-8:88 8:8e-8:15 1 8 8 e 8 8 e 8 8 a :i: 8 :2 0 ' 8 7! ;9 18:a8-a:15 a:15-8:32 1 I 8 a @ a a 8 4 4 1 3 a le 8 8 4 12 1 1 26 ! 8:15-8:38 ----------*------------------ 6:3@-7:38: e 8 --------- e B -------------------------------------------------------------------+----+---------- 1 a 11 12 3 51 a H 8 31 18 411 11316:38-7:38 8 e 8 1 8 11 12 12 55 a 67 8 31 13 44 1 123 1 6:45-7:45 7:ei-c:ea e + e2 2 t. 8 32 13 45 ' 125 1:82-8:8? 8 a B 8 1 8 8 9 9 53 8 62 8 31 9 40 i 111 ! 7:1.5-8:1.5 7:3a-6:321 a 8 a a 1 a 18 11 6 Se a 56 8 23 18 391 186 1 7:36-8:38 I A.M. PEAK "CUR hee-am i 8 8 8 6 2 8 11 13 12 55 6 67 8 32 13 I 45 1 ! 125 1 7:88-8:88 I c-f = NA P"s = 8.65 PHF = 8.88 PHF : 8.87 4:38-4:45 ! 8 B 8 B 8 a 2 2 8 16 8 16 8 12 2 14 1 32 1 4:38-04; 1 4:45-5.881 8 a 8 a e 4 1 11. 8 29 a 15 1 161 481 4:45-5:a2 5:22-::i5 1 8 a a a a B 4 4 2 21 6 23 8 16 3 19 1 46 ! 5:N-5:15 3a i 8 a a 8 a a 8 a 1 22 a 23 8 14 4 18 ! 41 15::5-5:3e ' 5:38-5:+5 i 8 8 8 8 a 1 2 8 14 B 14 8 11 1 12 i 28 1 5:36-5:45 5:45-6:U , e 2 8 a a a 2 2 8 16 2 8 12 1 13 1 31 1 5.45-6:88 6:e8-6:i5I 8 8 8 e 8 e 1 1. 1 :a 8 ii 8 18 2 12 3216:88-6:15 1 D:iS-v:38 i a e e a 8 e 1 1 4 14 a .4 8 8 1 9 1 ! 24 ! 6:i5-8:38 1 ------ ----------------------- -- -------------------------- ----- ------------------------------------- -----4-------+--- -- ' 4:38-5:3a i 4:45-5:45 i a 8 8 8 8 8 8 a 1 2 e ? 9 8 18 18 4 4 78 76 a a a: 80 8 8 57 56 1e 1 S7 1 65 1 153 155 1 4:38-5:38 1 4:45-5:45 5:88-6:N I a e 8 a 1 B 7 8 3 73 8 76 8 53 9 62 1 146 1 5:88-6:88 5:15-6:i5 I 8 8 8 8 1 a 4 5 2 78 8 72 8 47 8 55 1 112 1 5:15-6:15 ' 5:38-6:361 a 8 8 a 1 a 5 6 1 62 a 63 B 41 5 461 I 11515:38-6:38 I ! P.M. PEAK 40JR I I 4:38-5:38 1 8 e a 8 i 8 9 18 4 78 6 82 8 57 18 67 i 159 1 4:38-5:38 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P4 = NA PNf = 6.63 P-F = 3.89 PHF = 8.88 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Pone -- IDENTIFYING INFORMATION N __________-____________________________________---------------------- N AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION..,................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... 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 SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES U ------- ____________________________________________________'__-_____ � EB WB NB SE, ____ ____ ____ ----- LEFT 12 0 -- 2 THRU 55 32 -- 0 RIGHT 0 13 -- 11 NUMBER OF LANES | ------ __________________________________________________________-___ � EB WB NB 5B _______ _______ _______ LANES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENT RIGHT TU�� i 1V� GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGH� TU�NS FOR RISHT T�P�� EASTBOUND 0.00 9O 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 VI) 20 N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- - SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 �0 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ... ..... _ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTCRCvCL�S EAqTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TA8ULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D�ST. FIAA- (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 �}.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 �.0o MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6,50 IDE1, 1TIFYING 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 OT|�ER INFORMATlfill. ... existing 1990 | CAPAClY A�D -------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL -OF -SERVICE POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY C�PACITY MOVEME�T v(pcph) c (pcph) p M SH R SH ------------- _...................... MINOR STREET SB LEFT 2 815 > 963 ) 949 A RIGHT 12 998 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 13 1000 1000 1000 987 � IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAMTH E OF E EAST/WEST STREET...... Route 6�7 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREE�.'.. Mor:inq G�ory D/ DATE AND TIME OF THE A1\1ALYSIS..... 2/14/90 ; am peak hour �THER INFORMATION.... s:isting 19?0 � 19S5 HCM: UNSIS�AL�ZE� I�TERSECTICNS y�qe � IDENTIFYING lNFORMATION N AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREETI,. 30 N PEAK HOUR �ACT�R..................... l AREA POPULAT�ON..........,.........,. 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/NEST STREET......... Route 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET'...... Mornirg Glory Drive NANE OF THE ANALYST.................. mjh DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 2/14/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED..........'...... pm peak �our O`HER INFORMATION.... existing 1990 INTERSECTION 7YPE AND CONTROL �NTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN U TRAFFIC VOL]MES U EB WB NB SB LEFT �HRU RIGHT NUMBER OF LANES | EB WB NB SB ..... .... .... ...... ....._ LANES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTME�T FACTORS �ag�-� N _.... ..... .... .... ___________-_--..... -_______-__-_______-_-_-______-_ � PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) �CCELERA�IO� LA�� GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TUR�S FOR R[�HT EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 �20 N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- - SOUTHBOU�D 0.00 90 20 N VEll-!ICLE COMPOSlTION U _............... ___________________________________-___.__-____-__..... - � % SU TRUCKS % COMBlNATION AND RV'S VEHICL�S % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 ________ 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 N�RTHBOLND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED (Table VALUE ADJUSTMENT MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION .... ..... .... �..... �� NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... Route 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUT|1 STREET.... Morning Glory Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/14/90 ; pm peak hour OTHER INFORMATION.... existing 1990 | CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ------------------------------------------------------------------'— POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACIY CAPACI�? MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph} c (pcph) p M MINCR STREE� 3G LEFT 1 776 774 RIGHT 10 997 997 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 4 1000 1000 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _..... .... _' NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... Route 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... Morning 8lory �rive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS....' 2/14/90 ; pm peak hour J�HER INFORn:\j 199� U 1yy?L85 Hy CyyI.y`y1 UWWNSIGyiyydAyLyIZyyEWWDyy 7:hyyJTERySECy.y.iy-JWIrOyNSyy y yy J Wy yy y yy Wy dd{ y yy yy L �LL yypayycyye-1 +I' .A .T ..T` :� 'I` T „t � i� +'i\ /f� � /f. T „� ?• .'T +� � .+PT � T fi +�. � .� .`F iA .'i' ?• +1� I� i. � 'P !(. +�j. � .�..T +i+ +1't •� ^� T i� +r •T +1� +i� .'r• � T T i(� .i :�:.� ±\ iA •+i� ?• .i� /r 'X :� .j. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED„ MAJOR STREET.. 30 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 / :.'y) ...... 2/ 15/?0 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM PEAK. OTHER INFORMATION .... TWIN LAKES - 1997 •- Ef I ST I NCB ZONING INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- E B WE., NB SD LEFT S b 12 -- RIGHT 4 1S 17 -- NUMBER OF LANES ------------------------------- EB WB NE; SLR LAI`'.IES 2 2 1 -- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS . Rage-2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACEELERATICN 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 M SOUTHSOUND ----- --- --- - VEHICLE COMPOSITION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Q SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV`S VEHICLES & MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SORTHBOUND --- _-_ CRITICAL BARS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAR MINOR RIGHTS NE 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS WS 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..... 2Z15Z90 ; 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 > � 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 2S7 C 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. g(:) PEAK:: HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... RT NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET— ..... ROAD A NAME O1= THE ANALYST .................. HARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd:yy)...... /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: EASST / WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT B 20 8 -- THRU 686 1240 0 -- RIGHT 13 18 .12 -- NUMBER OF LANES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EB W.B I'aB SB LANES 2 21 - - 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 DIST. 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 MINOR LEFTS NB 7.00 7.00 0.00 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 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING 5.50 7.00 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 [DENTIFYING 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 1985 HCM, UNS:IGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Pa';1'=-1 T*�•**:�:f*��K�k��%�*�*�%X��k�:�%K%•K�.:��K�K'��%K�k%K:'K�*;K:�C:�,'K��:��:.{c�:�:qc:#:�lt:�mk:�;�::kk:i;Y:�:� v IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED j MANOR 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)...... 2/15/90, 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 _ 123 -- 4 THRU 101 67 -- U R I GHT 1 -- 9 NUMBER OF LANES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EB LAlB NB SB LANES ADJUSTMENT FACTORS page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- i 'ERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 9Ca 2(-' N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- — SOUTHBOUND 0.00 9(') 2Cj N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S `JEHICLES MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND is {? 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS SB 5. 50 5.50 0. 0(i 5. 50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 i s „ 0.) 5. 0(-*) MINOR LEFTS SB 6 . 5i a 6.50 0 . 0.) 6 . 5[ 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 .... , 2i 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 H� ;M : UNS I `NAL I ZED INTERSECTIONS Rag:&. - IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 0 PEAK. HOUR FACTOR ..................... i AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... rt 657 NAME O1= 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 - EXI'STING 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 -- - THRU 126 101 -- G RIGHT 74 4 -- 6 NUMBER OF LANES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FACTORS, Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) 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 EASTBOL IND 0 WESTBOUND i ) i ) NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND c i 0 c i CRITICAL GAPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALE -}ES ADJUSTED SIGHT D I ST . FINAL_ ( Table 10--2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL i_ %::' MINOR RIGHTS SB 5. 50 5.50 0 . t C'i 5. 50 MAJOR LEFTS MINOR LEFTS SB 6. 5i) 6.50 0. 00 6. 5C 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 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 > A > 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: 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 (mm/dd/yy) ...... 2!15/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1497 - EYISTINHS 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 1? 128 -- 8 THRU 87 50 RIGHT 74 21 -- 18 NUMBER OF LANES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NL' I B LANES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS page-2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LANE. GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND � i. c ii a 90 Ci a N WESTBOUND 0.00 ac i 90 2c a N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- — SOUTHBOUND 0.00 ai a 9c:a 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS l COMBIFIATION AND RV ' S VEHICLES :: MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND c a c_a 0 WESTBOUND i � NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) 'VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GX:: MINOR RIGHTS SB 5. 5(-') 5.50 0.00 5150 MAJOR LEFTS r B 5.00 5.00 0 00 5 . _a_) 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 ST'REET.... ROAD C DATE AND TIME O1= THE ANAL_YSIS..... 2/15/?0 q AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... TWIN LAKES — 1997 — EXISTING 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 LOS 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 > 903 > 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 INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING 979 A 1yy9yy8yy5yy��yyi�-yiCyyM:yyy.. UyyNyS.wIyGyyN.AyLIZED,y.INTERSECTIONS ,yy��yyF'age—! TT T'i'M TT�T TT��nT�TT�/`i�'FTmT.T�TaKT•'T.�T�%i��T*•�.''��t`%1�%X%'!�*,yak aK.�'��Y�TK�*+T`'f�T'r �M1*�%i*r 'P �P�`,k. 'C �� h IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE_ RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. ?_? 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 — EXISTING ZONING INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ INTERSECTION TYPE: T—INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHDOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ES WEB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 8 128 -- 5 THRU 120 90 RIGHT 74 21 -- 15 NUMBER OF LANES ------------------ EB WB NB SB LANES 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 % MOTORCYCLES _____________ EASTBOUND ___________ 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL BAPS _____________________________________________________________________ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) ______________ VALUE ________ ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP ___________ ^ MINOR RIGHTS MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 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 C DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; PM 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 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 1985yyHyyCM.:: �yy UyrW�aSyy lyyGyNyAyL' I Z.ED INTERSECTIONS y yw y yy W�y W yy yy y y yy �yy yy Wy �{y yy yy .yy .yy Page-! •7` .'P +� .� .k +P +� li\ .T` T .r. T +1'. lr .M1 � +T .P /�\ A� ?• � !% :� ,r � �I+ � +I' :#. +T •T• F �. T .'� � �I` :�. � .71 .y� ?� � T ,r .'X +� +T. +� T +f` ih ^` � +1� +i� .ry. � .T .T �. T T T +f* +� %i� 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 (mm/dd/yy)...... 2/15/9(-' 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 W8 NB SB LEFT 28 128 -- 5� . RIGHT 74 40 -- 27 NUMBER OF LANES ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELF WB NEB S! LANES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS page-.'----------------------------------------------------------------------- - PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LAI'`•aE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 9C) 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 2O N NORTHBOUND ----- --- ---- — SOUTHBOUND 0.00 9Ci CC) N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS COMBINATION AND RV ' S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND C) c) '? WESTBOUND C) NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 ci G CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D I ST . F I NA'_ ( Tab I e 10-- ') VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL ---------- GAI'' MINOR RIGHTS SB 5. 50 5.50 0. 0() 5. O MAJOR LEFTS EB 5. 0Ci 5.00 0. 00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS TSB 6. 50 6.50 0 . C)Ci 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ;`DAME 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 PEAS.. OTHER INFORMATION .... TWIN LAKES -• 1997 — PROPOSED CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE pa;. e -7_,; ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- 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 LOS p t•1 SH R SH MINOR STREET SB LEFT 58 664 652 > 652 > 590 738 650 1-, RIGHT 30 995 995 > 995 > 966 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT =1 998 998 993 967 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION (`NAME OF THE EAST/WEST" STREET...., .. rt 65:' 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 1985 HCI" I: UNS I GNAL I Z ED INTERSECTIONS :9��'�*��?K�:1�.k%K�;�;��c;;c;,c�;,�;;;*;;t�*:�C:��C;�:jc�C:�i�:K`��K�'*�:;c>;C:�C;�:ti:?��C?;t�'.�<��k�k%x;�X�� K•M1�rii•�)i .�K>x�.?k:r.�y IDENTIFYING INFORMATION; -------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 10 PEAK: HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 1500rc_; 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 INTERSECTIONd TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T--INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: LAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND : STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ----------------------------------------- EB Wig NB SB LEFT 739 128 — — 45 THRU 172 16S — ii RIGHT 74 31 -- 47 NUMBER OF LANES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EL WB Ni SE, LANES 1 1 "—'—' 1 ADJUSTMENT F'AC.1ORS ,... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PEf CENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS ( t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURN`; FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 9() 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 i i N NORTHBOUND -----• --- •--- SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 ?i i N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV ' S VEHICLES MOTORCYCLES, EASTBOUND WESTBOUND { f 0 - NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND Q �? CRITICAL GAPS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D I S7 . FINAL Tab 1 e 1� i-2 ) ---------------- VALUE ADJUSTMENT CR 17I CAL (:SAP MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 `t..`i:? MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0. 00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 6. 50 6.5� a 0.00 6.5� 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 9 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 PM 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 OFTHE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD C DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED 896 A 1995 HCM : UNS I GNAL I ZED INTERSECTIONS Page -- IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. •(-) PEAK HOUR FAC.TOR............,......... 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 SCUTHBOUND : STOP SIGN TRAFFIC ----------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES EB WB NB <SB LEFT S 128 -- 62 THRU i 1 i 90 -- 0 RIGHT 74 25 -- 112 NUMBER OF LAMES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Fes'B WB NB S LANES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FAc-r,ORs q e-27' PERCENT RIGHT T!_ RIN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERAT I Oh•! Li -)NE GRADE f=)IUGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT GHT TURN( 3 EASTBOUND t) , vi ) 90U N WESTBOUND t ) . i iC) 9i) yc i N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- - SOUTHBOUh.ID (:) . ( - )( -) 9i i VEHICLE COMPOSITION % SU TRUCKS % COMB I NA ION AND RV`S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- -------------- EASTBOUND 0 c) c ) WESTBOUND C) C) C) NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND C) c_) C) CRITICAL GAPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. 1=INAL ( Table 1()—�) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL MINOR RIGHTS MAJOR LEFTS EB 5,ci(i 5.00 0.uu 5,i) ) MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 c i , 00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EA`S;T/WEST STTREET...... rt 657 NAME 01'= Ti-IE racr::'TH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD D DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... '/i5/9(--) ; 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) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M BH R SH _______ ________ _________ ____________ ____________ ------- MINOR STREET SB LEFT 68 670 650 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 : UNS I GNAT— I ZED INTERSECTIONS I•= age 1 *;.v�K*:K:��*•`�c�K.;K�*:>X*%K��:�X��:k�*:k�K�K��K�K�KaK7KyF�K7K�c%K��:"d:*aK�K:kx:*��:��:K�:�� K�1;*�w�.;k%�.K n 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 SOUTHDOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ED WB NEB SB LEFT 149 128 -- 55 TI-IRU 156 121 — — i RIGHT 74 83 -- fah' NUMBER OF LANES ------------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WE NB SB LANES ADJUSTMENT FACTORS _____________________________________________________________________ Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS ________________ FOR ------------------ RIGHT TURNS _______ __________ EASTBOUND 0.00 9O 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 O 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 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 ; 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 N� 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT *********************** It, ******************* elf, **********�************�*****� N� -~ INTERSECTION..RT 7/ROAD A AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST.......HARTLAND DATE..........2/15/90 TIIll E .......... AM PEAK COMMENT ....... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED ___________________ ___________________________________________________ VOLUMES _ : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB N� LT TH 0 1 153 1093 570 0 0 : T 1. 0: T 12.0 T . 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.09 12.0 N� 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 �2.0 12.0 GRADE HV AD ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PKG BUSES PHF PES PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T N� EB WB 0.00 2.00 N 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 C. 0 0.90 0 0 N N 11.3 11.3 3 3 ~� NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 25.8 3 N� 0� _____________________________________________ SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTF, = 69.0 PH PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 11 EB LT NB LT X TH X TH ' RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SO LT TH X X TH RT RT PD PD GREEN 10.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.O YELLOW 3.0 3.0 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. LDS EB T 0.784 0.435 14.6 B 14.1 B R 0.049 0.725 2.1 A WB L 0.031 0.623 3.8 A 4.4 A T 0.285 0.623 4.5 A NB L 0.387 0.290 15.2 C 12.3 B R 0.259 0.435 9.5 B INTERSECTION: Delay = 10.8 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.503 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ********************************************************* "Ail **************** INTERSECTION-1-IT 7/ROAD A AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... HARTLAND DATE ........... 2/15/90 TIME .......... PM PEAK COMMENT .......TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED __________________________________________________________________________ VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 297 136 0 : T 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 12.0 TH 686 1240 0 0 : T 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 RT 200 0 198 0 : R 12.0 T 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 12.012.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV A D J PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE 'YIN Nm Nb YIN min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 11.3 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 11.3 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 00.90 0 N 25.8 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-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH X TH RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT TH X X TH RT RT ' PD PD GREEN 15.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 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 T 0.528 0.405 12.9 B 11.3 B R 0.152 0.676 3.3 A WB L 0.173 0.649 3.9 A 5.6 B 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 INTERSECTION: Delay = 8.1 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.531 LOS = B I L� I ASSOCIATES, INC. ' Transportation Plannin & Design Consultants 1� g I ADDENDUM TO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR TWIN LADS 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..................................................... 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 Los = B(c) ZZ Cx x x) - A.t>-r Aln(pm) - Pea k No, r L)5VN x 1: izeA CALLOW jv ca I x C o.,d"-1,o�s ASSOCIATES INC. 140T 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 4 0= c — O a >Q� pj�, r N r (7 g) q -Z -) 04 z cxxx) - ADT flM�pM7� - 1�4ak }�ov2 / CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. sIyNa I,-7 eA LoS - [3 (c) Sens R Pn 4'3� 1y3� its N � „ N w 53 No) .-!g8(Iw) 1, b z3(2y) * Imp(ove-ryeA4 -- sec +ex4 F;It-)« lz : B«ckc\,ro,,rd, j9°I-'+- 5 iTE O� �J c 0 o , 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 Gi `J 1c)1x�1� Lo l = 1B(C) 0 a � v P C� � L � r N w s `SS (3-7) Z-OS(�31) zy (is) (z3b> � (10<%) � t Los = S(3� CX u x) AZT ( 1 NOT To SC-AL-E N CALLOW �,90(e 3 13v1d 19 )Npr,r� P�vS �ack�Covno� 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. eA Sic�r\ fed LOS = C(C) Lo - = r3 (r3) AIL'47 —o �vb 3n 4r JUTE Q J° to s f 33(Y1) 51 C)C x x) - qD i - �C ec k�rov SPA �'Orl �Fc�v�e 1 AM(Pm) NOT 7o SCALE N CALLOW F �`� Q.,.1d 199-4 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. 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. 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 Capacity Service >_ 400 vph A. 300-399 vph . B 200-299 vph G 100-199 vph D 0- 99 vph E negative F Expected Delay to Minor .Street Traffic Little or no: delay. Short :traffic: delays. Average: traffic delays. Long traffic delays. Very to g-' traffic 'delays. 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: 40.1to60.0 F > 60.0 I 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. JOL N,,nee►: ---}--------------------------- ----- ------- --------------------------- ------ ------------------------}----------------- -- -��: TFMFf1C fkOK kEc' ':c-: RIFE o57 G- - TOTS,! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ti,S, 'lee PEr '- --•--------------------- - - - - ------------------.----------- --------- ?-----------------c---------- E-4-- - - - - - - - - - AMI A` 5 1 8 - - 6 B ? '9 4 36 15 S 60 .5 i! 4 a 9 13 !a 6 !E 25 7' ; 1:0:-7:115 ' :45 !: 1 :4 •8 42 1(17:3}-pp7:45 it 3 I� 1'J 1. 5 is �! ) ) 54 , 11. , 7:45—C:6'i' :15 9 1 lb 4 9 _6 15 8 9 32 5 29 9 43 107 8:00-8:15 '- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - `-----------------4----------------------------1------------4---------- 8----- ----;-8-15-8---- i� 13 ; !» __ 4: 41 4,} !':. - ` i4 »(' !. 'b 5G »` 46 :4 4 45 :5 i1S ; 34 ; 6:45 ' 4` 29 :0 » 4 `_� 45 �4 18 i!u 31 150 ' 326 7: E... IL 6-- 39 12 is 3,5:8 4': ir -c: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- '--1-----_7 ---��----J----��----=4----:c,---41----V:-----;---------------__-----;�---__�----j5---ig----- 44;----.3U-ii:)v ' LM r ;.i .— c 14 48 iN 4 4:4° L ,: 4 _ 47 _-_________________-_______-_________--___-______-_________-_-_______--___________________-------_--_.__-________ IL !_. 4. 11, 84 .-4 117 f92 4-_:4. ?E _. 4c 14 IS 8 2, H. Uk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- , r � ]: it .` ;:? i :; .i 5• FF, _ _ _ _ ..JE = yc n II 11 __• "t'�� IHIu.� _ �vMHL, rNL�J�:?:�;��C:. X. ,e Naae r! N tt. r• ,o•ee:t:;�. _ =!�, .-_.: { _:��: ratio^ 'eJ CV 2�F' Date 4:'_• Jig: JJ= weat,,er W,- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------f-------+----------- ` TRNFFI: FRGM E: CPC'" Eki- _ ______________________ ______________________ _-_________________-__ __-___________---_____ er- !-E`T --rHF- - G`-'`- �- �c raf,.-,--------------F'--------- ?-----crT--THFU Rion=_?7THL E_d!-W Period--- -+- % i »,. -7::� 4'1 4 ._ 6 li 3 (; 11 2v 4 lb 27 3 1:C(!-1:15 ?9 6: 16 5 3 4: 11 67 1b-� 7:15-7:34 4Q _a 77.• ? 6: 14 F 47 ? 6 1: 78 :21 ; ':30-1:45 19 50 :4 G: 8 i:j 1;!5 42 8 63 7' 68 -E'::5 :4 bE 8(! c. 1------------.-----------------------..--------------------------------------------------------------+---------- - - - - -- :QQ _ _ Y 8 Y J a'-7:45 166 4i 45 51 4 i,4 :`,- 4: .3� 1:39 7.00-8:40 -- _.a5 , -- -- -•� �' -�- 55 1�U L7 1� i r 2415 7:15-8:15 5E :85 ': 140 28 :16 114 135 50 4F5 1473 0 1:3u- :, =?===:v====?`____°:__140, _.`r?===49 9 =,==1 4 7 i===_?____,___ 1 , , -1:45 ': 7_ :`. 14 :4 :; 4( 2: 'b :' i4 ._ a3 454 4::.-4;45 c 4 t cJ r'i 44 _ _ +----- �. i=j Tit -� 7QQ `� cry -.I !1c 4c, - - �r c - ,r+ t)�5: :' -. _ -- iL_ i'1J 19 4 _ 4:.. 21 44 + 45 ,'8 158 47 t.. 84 3i3a J. ! 45 a,, _ b? t »� ,' a 1'?5 `?3, 1.16 162 5: ?46 i ?4 715 i((9 -- ?: '.y4 4 _ r?i :'1 142 4-, .:( >:5 97 85 286 2EE _.._ 63 ��_ _1._ b.' S: L.'{ 1�}: liq 5U .:, :� 1i'` 95 73 17� Ir� t 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 ................. 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- X 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 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 ; AM 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 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 18 615 576 > 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 PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING CONDITIONS 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Rage-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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- X 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 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 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 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 REAP. OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING CONDITIONS 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..CORK STREET/PLEASANT VALLEY AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE. I — ._...04/03/90 TIME.......... AM PEAK COMMENT....... EXISTING CONDITIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : ER 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 PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X TH X RT 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 ARR. 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 0.335 0.400 14.3 B 14.3 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.9 (sec/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 ER WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 126 128 69 73 : L 10.6 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 PK.G BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 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 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 ARP. DELAY APR. 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 0.289 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 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 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 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 0.228 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 : ER 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 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 14.8 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 0.384 0.490 6.4 B 6.1 B R 0.147 0.490 5.4 B WB 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 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..C'ORK 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 SB 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 EB 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 0.506 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 SB : ED WB NB SB LT 169 192 104 110 : 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 ED 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 0.50E 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 JIME.......... AM PEAK OMMENT... ..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 0.0 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 0.235 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 ND 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 PEAT. COMMENT....... BUILD - 1997 EXISTING ZONING -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY ED WB NB SB : ED 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 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 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 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 0.396 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..CORY. STREET/PLEASANT VALLEY AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... AM PEAK COMMENT....... BUILD 1997 - EXISTING ZONING -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WE NB SB : EB WE 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 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 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 14.7 B TR 0.474 0.325 16.3 C WE 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 ED WB NB SB : ED WB NB SB 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 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 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 15.2 C TR 0.613 0.325 18.1 C WB 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 ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... AM PEAK COMMENT....... BUILD - 1997 PROPOSED ZONING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY ER 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 ER 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.6 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 14.6 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 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 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 TYRE..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... PM PEAK COMMENT....... BUILD - 1997 PROPOSED ZONIs-z --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 V 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 P"K PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.4 0 N 14.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.5 0 N 14.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.55 0 N 14.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.15 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 NE 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 SE;VICE 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 8.0 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/ve^) V/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 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 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 = 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 APR. LOS EB L 0.073 0.438 9.9 B 14.4 B TR 0.470 0.350 15.8 C WB 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 6.2 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 EB WB NH 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 78 150 269 158 : 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. 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 API. LOS EB L 0.070 0.416 10.3 B 16.9 C TR 0.710 0.325 20.2 C 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 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.651 LOS = C ADDENDUM TO TRAFFIC ff"ACT 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 i INTRODUCI'ION 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 �I(it la), qt'4 Ur)SI�)v\C, B(c) A(A) a - o 1 a n S I T E �, � �, Q �° o ma V v v Q(�� '� � n Sin Cx x x) - Rt) i Am(m) - PQa k No., c l \ CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. 140T 1'o 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 1 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 Ln CXxX� - ADT �m(pn1) - 1,�a k 1yov2 U CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. N—� r' W <-11190zo y y ,c 23(zq) (zZ��56 y (/0q �j'll oast ��'�}�c��PMe�1� — see +ex4 5 iiE or' 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 '13' 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 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 3go SITE P o`�a V ` 09 �- 4 4 �. s r AWN !"sSi:�l� Z0,7031) sen ,� L 1� C Zy (z5-3 .$) Cl 3,a�� (236>� cs,g9C� c�Oy) s� �' Cxxx) - ADT WPM) - Pink 0o-jr U CALLOW �7*%qu(e 3 ASSOCIATES INC. NOT To SCALE i 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. CIgno I',:te LOS = CCc) Lai = r,(n�� -+- g r90 N l O D 0 3 �iTE ,39 c3u0uJ, (7,A )qZ A- —287 (zi&) 33(y/) vim' �O'4 J 013) 40 a h 1 r ADT_C2 Ln IrovY,rh AnOml NOT To SCALE A 1 CALLOW F,�,�r c- 414 1`t�� oposeol ?o.:,n,-,,hack��ojnd ASSOCIATES INC. I 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 I 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. I 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 ner 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:: . 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. 7 ' •t - Job Nuaber; 5373 -IE Ica• W:NCHES'Ek Cate 411y;rav: N=h ----------------------------------------------------eat-a►-----�--------------------------------- --------------- 'Rar fM1IN KjTH : 4 TRAFFIC FROM WEFT TRA:FIC FROM EAST ' ktE ---4---E--c--------- --- ------_--- --- -------------- -F------?TOTAL - — �,S, 'iae THRj kiSh T1,L ..=' '�F: R:uhT T;'A� b N Fer;oc --- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+----------- 6 8 23 4 36 76 ; 6:30M6:45 0 ? 7 18 4 23 60 ' 6:45-7::;0 c _ 4 4 7 17 :4 6 18 25 ' 73 7:00-7:15 ? 6 2 15 5 5 1' is i' 1 h ^9 99 ; 7:15-7:'0 34 9 42 1 C 3. 7:10-7:45 1: 5 _- r 39 54 1�� 7:45-8:v"O 15 9 0 1 16 3 4 9 _6 15 8 9 3? 5 24 9 41 107 ; 8:00-8:15 4 11 1, 16 7 11 34 4 31 8 43 114 8:15-8:30 ' i----`-.------+----:.-- �- -73�ja411:,-;---i�----`----- ----------l4----`----4=----�---------`�---j;'-----'----�,----il-- - ;a a, -t 4- 46 E4 4 5i� 5 ll5 ' 37a 6:45-7:45 ' (' ;1 4` 1 ui 31 150 C6 1: m. E V. .v)7 44t '-==�ccceeeeneeeeeceec=cece===cececeeeeeee=eeeeeeex==eeeeccee=eeceeeeeeeceeecc=e=ccccccccecc=e=ee=e=_ee»eee❑eeeee==Hence 77 [b 5 65 :.` 41 .. ., ., / i 35 181 446 7:30-8:30 56 e ? 14 48 a 2, ;4 17 45 14 6o E 4 84 ;'a ;`1_ 4 4? `,a= cc�� q� ai _�ram 4P 174 - _ a__ _ _i'__cc----_�__________'i----y-----__----J.---i.`---------ic=----v----O7`----,v-----y----`j---._»=====5y-==5:`li'_----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' 0.3; - 9c II 11 1 -- E T!'�:tir M':vEMENT COUNT - S.,MMrc CALLOW ASSOCIATES. INC. Naae V �� - Joo Number: , c=: Lccation :e: �"r P Date 4<<;a,: Div: ------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-------+----------- '4`aF=:t :" --- - —._ -I tiORTd TRAFFIC FROM WE:' T';F=1Y FROM EAz. �r;: PLE�S��T VALLE+ c -_:\- ;'ALLEY c�. c� :' e. -,►. 5` TOTAL 1;me --`.--- ---- EFT --'---- ----------------------------------------- ' N.S, ' r.,cj LEFT THRJ RIuH +T„ A. :E- T--L r T _ c':. EFr THku kIjo.T TO' E 6 N Period ---------*------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------•-------+----------- 4' b1 4 b b i1 :' 4 26 17:; ; 7:ti!-7:15 70 13 99 5 63 10 '? 9 16 5 ++ 4.; 11 67 2,b3 7:15-7:30 -7:4` :0 49 :4 13 ? 6: 14 c 17 22 E 4' 2 36 1L` 78 281 ; 7:30-7:45 18 50 24 4: 95 i,) 106 42 8 c 77 68 1. 16: 4L 7:45-8:00 ' 4 59 :4 ,. 9 9. »J bE 3t! :5 it' 449 8:00-9:15 ' ------+--------;------------------i------------=-------------------------------------- 21 15 5 :8 :A) 85 5: 140 29 _.t _14 ------------------------+----------- =-- 5." 6:4:-1:45 4 1 ,q ; 7:00-9:00 14!5 7:15-8:15 15 4cc 1473 1::0-S:?t+ .. a`ti 1473 14 4 ::- _. 41- a°44 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- c C ?v iv sy '97a i -- 19 15: ;' _ i. 94 1• .. .,: --. . i?.� »,4. ` 4= _L ,il;• C'9 c. G•; -. leL c. -. _ 14.- 1. 8 •07 ... ?� �15 l _ „}i� L -�• '24 ,.. '11 141 4•: cv '_ ^4 2nb + -6:15 C. L _ 1?: i C 5.' „' 16 95 /3 2K t .Boa ; 711 5.?+— :1 69 55: 14; -:: 41: 1,, 593 26 IK 52 4:; .., iUs 84 :`_ 2 5:0+-6:00 c^= _ .95 PH; _ ..,. PHF = t=.92 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 ................. 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 0.60 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- X 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 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 ; AM 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 45 509 456 > 506 456 > 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 PEAK 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 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 SORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- X SU TRUCKS % 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 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 REAP. OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING CONDITIONS CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Rage-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- ROTEN- 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 ------------------------------------------------ --- il1;U11=312:441 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 PEAK 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 PEAK COMMENT....... EXISTING CONDITIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY ED 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 RUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYRE (%) (%) 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 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 ED 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 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 APP. LOS ED 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 0.335 0.400 14.3 B 14.3 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.9 (sec/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 EH WB NB SB : EB 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 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 6 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 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 ARP. DELAY APP. 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 0.289 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSEC'TION: 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 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 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 ER 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 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 1965 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 ER WB NB SB : ER WB NB SR 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 ED 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 ND 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 ED 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 0.384 0.490 6.4 B 6.1 B R 0.147 0.490 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 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 SB 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 EB 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 0.506 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 SB : ER 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 0.851 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 JIME.......... AM PEAK MMENT.... ..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 RED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.6 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 YELLOW3.0 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 0.235 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 PIED. 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 FIH-2 PIH-3 F'H-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD F'D WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X FID 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 I: 0.163 0.392 7.7 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 6.6 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.327 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 - EXISTING ZONING -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : ER 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 PK 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 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 APR. 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..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 : EA 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 PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (N) (%) 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 APR. LOS EB L 0.070 0.416 10.3 B 15.2 C TR 0.613 0.325 18.1 C WB 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 I 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 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 14.8 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 APR. DELAY ARP. LOS EB 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 PY.G RUSES 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 0.575 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 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 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 EH WB NB SR : 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. 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 = 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 ARP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.073 0.436 9.9 B 14.4 B TR 0.470 0.350 15.8 C WB L 0.068 0.438 9.9 B 18.4 C TR 0.630 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 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 78 150 269 158 : 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. 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 0.5 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 16.9 C TR 0.710 0.325 20.2 C WB L 0.065 0.416 10.3 B 15.4 C TR 0.653 0.325 16.9 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 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.651 LOS = C 11, 11 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 11 FINAL TRAFFIC U"ACT ANALYSIS FOR TWIN LADS 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 TripAssignment .......................................... 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 iii Table No. 1 2. LIST OF TABLES Twin Lakes Trip Generation - Existing Zoning Twin Lakes Trip Generation - Proposed Zoning iv Page No. w 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. 1 EXISTING 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 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) 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. 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 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. r r LEGEND: Route 7 mom - Site (456)727 379(825) Road River AM(PM) - Peak Hour Volumes (3,813) CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. 32(57) Senseny Road (4)12 (78)55 Figure 2. E)cisting Conditions RTB. 657 The 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. Access 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. 5 ' 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. 11 11 11 11 n 11 11 611 I 11 LEGEND: Route -- - Site (G86)1,�3 _� 570(1,240) Road River AM(PM) - Peak Hour Volumes 1 I 1 � ' 1 �I1 � 1 1 iji 1 Ii�. � 1 ca � 1 P I 1 , 1 0 ---- a (A)A 4 Unsignalized ir... N 20(15) 48(86) Senseny Road (5,720) (6)18.,i?' RTF-.657 (117)83 N Figure 3. Background 1997 Conditions CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. 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. LEGEND: R('utc 7 24% -- - Site 3� - Road River + r. t ♦/t � t � t I, 1 i 00 / 1 / 1 I I / 1 I 1 / 1 I 1 I t / / U / 0 1 b Senseny Road RTE.657 _ 22 % 18 % n / N CALLOW Figure 4. Trip Distribution ASSOCIATES INC. LEGEND: Rollie 7 Sic (23, 236) /`-� 6(20)1.240) (�6)1,093 _ Road (13)4 � � T (23,332) River � N AM(PM) - Peak Hour Volumes (XXXX) - ADT * - Development Only y% I � 1 , I 1 � 1 � I � I 1 �rrrrrrrrrr rrrrr ' 1 1 1 `% kX , • rrrrr, r r r � 1 � 1 � 1 P 1 j 1 0 o U S 't o n G C ��`� rrrrrrrr� oo V-.,21(21) 5 896 1(4) yl �— 50(90) Senseny Road ( )-67(l01) (]26)l) y (5,816) ( (8j19 4 (5,864) RTE. 65'1 120 87 N Figure 5. Build 1997 Volumes - Existing Zoning CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. 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. 11 LEGEND: Route 7 tr' Site (A)A - Road �1 4 River AM(PM) - Level of Service • ♦ •� 1 ` •t � j 1 � NOTE: All Intersections Unsignalized 1 1 ♦. 1 1 1 '1 , , I , I I I , 1 1 A 1 0 ; a 1 1 A(A)--- J G 1t y A(A) (A)A 4 (A)A 4 LN CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. Senseny Road Mwip Figure 6. Level of Service & Lane Geometry - Existing Zoning 1 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 131322 13 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 I.rC END : Rollie - Ske � - Road River AM(PM) - Peak Hour Volumes (26,10") (686)1,093 (200)68 • (XXXX) - ADT 1 c -*, 57p(12 A'91(29�Pftm- 40) I >� (2 h � ^ N a •% r . * - Development Only ; 1 / . 1 / 1 1 I40�� 1 1 (149)45 (156)111�� N CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. N 1 � P 1 0 U do ��--(83) ••_ �.40(81) 9002 �--73(168) (7,585) (39)28(8,118) (172)145 Senseny Road Figure 7. Build 1997 Volumes - Proposed Zoning LEGEND: floulc 7 Sigflahzed Los = 13 .� A(g) -- - Site /�'�' �- - Road ia)B y River AM(PM) - Level of Service aftaft 1 1I 1 I 1 1 , DLO I � I %I I 1. I I 1 p i o � 0 1 `Fi 1 � 1 v IS A(A) �l �A(A) (A)A 4 (A)A 4 N CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. Senseny Road Rom. 657 Figure 8. Level of Service & Lane Geometry - Proposed Zoning ' 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 an ' d 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. F 1 17 I APPENDIX J 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS and LEVEL OF SERVICE The most current analysis methodologies used for evaluating the capacity of intersections were developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other members of the transportation profession. This methodology is presented in TRB Special Report Number 209, The 1985 Hi2liway 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: I;eveLof Service:;Criteria:::for.:Unsignalized Intersections;<::..:::.: ....: ; >:.:;::Le ei,:of:; :;:.::, :... : ;;:.....Ex .:.:.,..::.. D:.:.. Y ...Capacity <:> :::>:::>::>::Service : _;: ;» : to'1Vhnor`::Street Traffic:.:.`::: :::.::Liftle'ar> no... 1:.:::.;.:..:::.::::.:::...:.::...:.:....:. .::::.. -3007399:P::>:::<:::::>::::>:::::<:::::>::;:::>::>;:::«;:<:. ...::.::: :...:..:.:::::::: ::>>::> > «<:;<;:::>>::::::>::;::>:Short:.>traffte 20.0=29.9 v h::.::.:::.:::..::.:::.:.....:::::::. .P..:::.::.::.....:.............::.;>......:.......:..;:..::.::.;> C era r. ffi 1 <:::::Av..:....::<g:.;:.;:.,.:::.;::.:..:..:.:: Y _..:.::.:;...:.::::.:::.:: . v h::.;::: ; :::;:; ...... J<' ``>:' :: .....::.>:;::::Lon ..::..... :>traffic: clela s ... .:. P..:..:::.:.:...:...::........ .............::.:...::::::::::;::;:::>:>::::>Ve.:.. .......... :.::................. ...:..: aoii ''araffic Bela s :; :::: rY g ......::. . :....:::...:...:......:.:.: : ne attve; ..:.:::<:;.::: ;::::::::.; .. g ......... <::;.::;:::::::F:::;::::<:::: . ;:::;;:<:><:::Demarid:exce:eds:. ca aei ;:;..;::>.:::::;:::::>::::.>::>;::>::;:::.;:.:>..........:>:; :.::...:.::.:...:.:.:...:..::::.:::.::.........::::........::. ...........::::::::::.::::;:.::.:......:.:..:....:.::...:. ::::::>:::.::::.;:::>.>:.;:;::extremel.:: ... :::..:.::.:..:.:.::::. . ort : dela:::::::.;.:::::::....;:.;:::::::;:.: 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: . ....... . ................. i' 1� 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. I Intersection: RM E 657 r< MOFNING GLORY DR location : WINLK51LR Cac,,ted Dr PFr, Date : 2-13-90 Day: TOES Ir.cut Dr ::� Yeat.".er : DRY --------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- —------------- 4------- 4--------- — I TRIM'--=:C FRG' TRAFF:S -ROM NOR'-, 'RAFFIC FROM 6E:' TR�FFI', FRSM EP-. ! on: on: MORN:46 GLORY on: ROUTE 657 on: ROUTE 657 1 TOTAL 1 --------------------------------------------------- ------------- --------------------- I N S Time di? TH'; R:54 TL'ML L- T ThnJ R:SrT %T�, L:=T T'mh, R:GeT TCiA� LEFT T9U RIGHT i0TNI 1 E 6 Y , Period -----------4----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4----------- AM I I I AM 6:30-6:45 : 8 8 8 8 8 8 2 2 8 12 8 12 8 6 1 7 1 21 1 6:38-6:45 6:45-7:N I 8 8 a 8 9 8 4 4 2 13 8 15 8 7 2 9 1 28 1 6:45-7:88 7:8e-7:15 ! 8 8 8 8 1 8 3 4 3 14 8 17 a 6 4 12 1 33 1 7:88-7:15 7:15-7:381 8 8 8 8 8 8 2 2 4 12 8 16 8 18 3 131 3. 1 7:15-7:36 7:3e-7:451 8 8 8 8 a 6 2 2 3 16 8 19 8 6 4 181 311 7:38-7:45 7:45-8:881 6 8 8 8 1 8 4 5 2 13 8 15 8 8 2 101 3817:45-8:88 8:8e-8:15 I 8 8 e 8 8 e 8 8 8 12 8 :2 8 7 8 7! 19 1 8:88-8:15 3:1t-6:321 8 8 e 8 a 8 4 4 1 9 8 18 e 8 4 121 2618:15-8:38 I I ----------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- -------------4-------4----------- 6:3e-7:38 : 2 8 8 a 1 8 11 12 9 51 a 68 8 31 18 41 1 113 i 6:38-7:38 i:45-7:45 I d 8 e 8 1 8 11 12 1255 a 61 8 31 13 44 ! 123 1 6:45-7:45 7:K--E:26 . - e 8 e 2 2 :: 13 1: 5`. 2 Li e 32 13 45 125 ! 7:8e-8:8e 6 8 9 9 S3 8 62 8 31 9 46 1 Ill ! 7:15-8:15 7:30-6:32 I 8 8 8 8 1 8 :8 11 6 58 6 56 8 29 18 39 1 186 ! 7:38-8:36 I I A. M. PEAK `.OUR 7:ee-e:ae 1 8 8 8 8 2 8 11 13 12 55 8 67 8 32 13 45 1 125 1 7M-818 ---------------------------------- 1 F,F = NA 8.65 IMF = 8.88 Pf =8.87 1 I I I 4:38-4:45 1 a 8 8 6 6 8 2 2 8 16 8 16 8 12 2 14 1 32 1 4:38-4:4: 4:45-5:e0 1 8 a a 8 i 8 4 1 15 8 28 8 15 1 16 I 48 1 4:45-5:82 5:a19-5:1' I a 8 a 8 8 8 4 4 2 21 8 23 8 16 3 19 1 4e 5:88-5:15 ::15-5:3a i 8 a 8 8 8 8 8 a 1 22 a 6-118 14 4 18 ! 41 1 5::5-5:3e 5:s8-5:451 8 a a 8 8 1 2 8 14 8 14 8 11 1 121 2815:38-5:45 5: 45-6: e8 ; e a a a a a 2 2 8 16 a 8 12 1 13 i 31 15:45-6: a8 6:e6-�:i5 I a 8 8 8 8 e 1 1 18 8 li 8 19 2 12 32 1 6:88-6:15 6 e e 8 8 e 1 1 e 14 a .4 8 8 9 1 24 i 6.15-6:38 ' 1 i ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------- ---- ----- --------4-------4----------- 4:38-5:3a i 8 8 8 8 1 e 9 18 4 78 8 82 8 57 18 67 1 159 1 4:3e-5:38 4:45-5:451 8 8 8 8 2 e 8 18 4 76 8 88 8 56 9 651 15514:45-505 5:88-6:88 1 8 8 a 8 1 8 7 8 3 73 8 76 8 53 9 62 1 146 i 5:88-6:aa 5:15-6:15: 8 8 8 8 1 8 4 5 2 78 8 72 8 47 8 551 13215:15-6:15 5:38-6:38 1 8 8 8 8 1 8 5 6 1 62 8 Q 8 41 5 46 1 Ili 1 5:38-6:38 ! I I P.G. PEAK HOJC I I --------------------------------------------------= 4:31-5:38 1 8 8 8 8 1 8 9 18 4 78 8 82 8 57 18 67 i 159 1 4:38-5:38 - ------------------------------- PHF = NA PNf = 8.63 PrF = a.89 ?HF = 8.88 T -- T T S3NN-1 _______ _______ _______ ------- es ON RM 8--I | ------'--------- ---------------------------------------------------- � S3NII AO Ho8mN TT -- 21 0 lH9I8 0 -- 22 99 O8H� 3T LW-i 8�3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- SAWMOp 3ISAVAi NSIS W1S :ONnO8HlOOS MAl 108iNOJ lSEWlSt? :NGIMMIG WEALS MOMN %0I133SWlN]-1 MAl N0I133SAMNI _____________________________________________________________________ 1OWNO3 GNU Mxl NOIlJ3SWlWI 0661 buTIsT:e ^'^^NOIMW8OANJ WHIO jno4 lead we ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^`^^O3ZAIUNV OOIUM YWIl 06/tT/3 ^^`^`^(AA/PP/mm) SISAIUNU Wl AO 310C 4Fm ^^^^^`^^^^^^'~^^^^lSAMN5 THl 30 AWN axiwa AjoI8 5uTujoW ~^^^^^^l3D8lS HlnOS/HI8ON 3% JD 3WVN Zgq e4noU ^^^^^^^`^1338lS lMM/lSUT AHI AO 3WVN 0000GT `^^^`^^^^^^^'^`^^^^^^^N0IiVIR6O6 V38V T ^^^`^^^^^`^^^^^^^^^^`8Oi3m 8OOH XH]6 02 ^^lnWlS 8OMW '0336S SNINNO8 3SUUMU NOIlMHOANI 9NIAMINAOI T-a�� SNOI133S8BlNI OAZIMNSISNO :WJH q8W ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Palo-- --------------------------------------------------------------------- FERCENT NIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION Lj�E GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURni EASTBOUMD ------- 0.00 ---------- 90 ---------------- 20 ----------------- N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUNL ----- --- --- - SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ____________________________________________________________________ % SU 1RUCKS % COMBINA7ION AND RV'l VEHICLES t MOTORC«CLES ____ _____________ EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TA8ULPP VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FIN4' (Tablv 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL G+.� ______________ ________ ___________ ------------- MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 0.00 5.5O MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.:0 0.00 5.0C 411NL`! LEFTS SB 6.50 1DENTIFYING lNFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... Route 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/gA!rH qURFFT Mnv:i"n Rl"n" DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/14/90 ; am peak hour OTHER lNFORMATlON.... existing 1990 [APAC[TY AMD LEVEL -OF -SERVICE P110-3 -... -..... ... —... ..... ... -------------------------------------------------------- _ _ I MOVEMENT MIVOR STREET �2 LEFT RIGHT MAJOR STREET EB LEFT POTEN- ACTUAL �LOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPAC:TY CAPACITY v(pcph) c (pcph; c ;1cpK) c (pcph) c = c - v _.... ..... ..... ..... _ _--____ _ __ ..... SH R SH U ... _____----- ____________ _._ U 2 815 808 12 Y98 998 13 1000 1000 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION > BOB ) > 963 ) 949 > 998 > NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET....,. Route 657 NAME OF !HE NJRTH/SOUTH STREET..,' Morning Glory Driv= DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIE..... 2/14/90 ; am peak hour OTHER !NFORMATION.... wistimg 19?0 806 A U U 986 987 � 1965 HEM: UNSISNAL:IED IXTERSECTIONE I0EKTIFYlKG !NFDRMA'.'lO�,.i ----------------------------------- AVERACE RUNNING SP[EO. MAJOR STREET'' 3C PEAK �OUR �ACTSR,'..'.....'.'...'..'' 1 AREA pOPULATION.........,'`......'.,. 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET........' Route 657 mAME DP THE NORTH/SDUTH STREET'.....' Mornirg Glory Drive NAPE OF THE ANALYS"........'.......'' mjh DATE OF THE ANALYSTS (mm/dd/yy)...... 2/14/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED.......'..'...... pm peak mour OTHER lNFORMATION.... existing 1990 INTERSECTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- TYPE AND CONTROL !NTERSEIrION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAET/WE37 CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUMD: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLjMES ________________________________ ___________________________________ EB WE NB SL LEFT 4 rHRU RIGHT 0 10 -- 9 NUMBER OF LANES ___________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB _______ _______ _______ ------- LANES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 ------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERA7ION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOP RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 ________________ 9� 20 _________________ N WESTBOUND 0.00 9(.: 20 N |vOKl!!BOUND ----- --- --- - 9()Uli�BOUND 0.00 �0 20 N �EKICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------- ----------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ___________ _____________ _____________ EASTBOUND 0 0 0 ESTBOUND 0 0 0 SOU-THBOUND 0 0 0 GRITICAL GAPS _____________________________________________________________________ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DlST. 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 1INOR 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 Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS...., 2/14/90 ; pm peak hour OTHER INFORMATION.... existing 1990 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-5E9V= Pe-s-� � - ____________________________________________________________________ POTEN ACTUAL FLOW- llAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACI7Y CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v � M SH R SH MINOR STREE SG LEFT 1 776 774 > 774 > 773 A > 96? > 958 � RIGHT 10 997 997 > 997 > 987 � MAJOR STREET ES LEFT 4 1000 1000 1000 996 A 2DENTIFYING 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 ; pm peak hour 2�HER INFORMAT:ON.... existing 199 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 70 PEAR:: HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 NAME: OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... RT 7 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREE:T....... ROAD A NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. HARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 2i15/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM PEAR:: 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 TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SE' LEF T 8 6 1 -- TFRU 1ii9=; 7i) i -- RIGH1- 18 17 -- NUMBER OF LANES EB WB NB SB LANES 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS ------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES ___________ _____________ 0 0 0 0 0 0 % MOTORCYCLES _____________ 0 0 0 ______________________________________________________ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. 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-.' --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 1= 75 74 > 74 > 61 > E 152 > 120 >D RIGHT 19 592 592 > 592 > 574 > A MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 7 294 294 294 237 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 : UNS I CANAL- 17_ED I NTERSECT I ON', Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. i! 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 ................. FM 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 SIBI LEFT 3 20 g THRU 6B6 1240 0 - - RIGHT 13 i8 .12 -- NUMBER OF LANES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES 2 2 1 -- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Faqr --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCE:_NT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT- TURNS EAST BOUND 0.00 9C.) 2i) N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 i 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND ------•- --- -_..- _ VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES MOTORCYCLES EASTBOI iND 0 WESTBOUND Q cl i NORTHBOUND � � � � C ) SOUTHBOUND ---- - -- -- CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINA!_ ( Tab 1 e 10-2) --------------- VALUE -------- ADJUSTMENT ----------- CRITICAL GAF' ------------ 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 0.0(-') 7.0(-) IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... RT NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD A DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; PM PEAK. OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES -- 1997 - EX.ISTING ZONING CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- 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 LOS p M SH R SH --- MINOR STREET NEB L-EF -( 9 75 77, 73 > 64 ;> E 159 > 1=7 : D RIGHT 13 745 745 A 745 > 732 := A MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 22 491 491 491 469 A 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 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 -ATIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK: HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 1.50� i� i 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 - 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 _ 128 -- 4 THRU 101 67 -- 0 RIGHT 74 1 -- 9 NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SD LANES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page--------------------------------------------------------------------- - PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 9() 2() N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 2(_) N NORTHBOUND BOUND ----- --- ---- - SOUTHBOUND 0.00 9U 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- X SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV S VEHICLES MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND i Q WESTBOUND C? ii NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND � � CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.5 5.50 0.00 5.5i; MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5 , 0(-- ) MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.0(_) 6. 50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 65; 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 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 > 747 > 743 > A > 904 > 889 >A RIGHT 10 997 997 > 997 > 987 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 3 1000 1000 1000 997 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 ; AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. =(:) 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 - EXI`1TING ZONING INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ED WN NB SB LEFT 10 128 - - THR'U 126 101. -- 0 RIGHT 74 4 -- 6 NUMBER OF LANES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EF WEB NB SD LANES ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 9i? 20N WESTBOUND 0.00 9i? 20 N NORTHBOUND ----- --- •- -- - SOUTL.. BOUND 0.00 9p 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES ": MOTORCYCLES EASTBOL IND 0 � � 0 WESTBOUND i? i=; 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND (_? i? CRITICAL GAPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D:ST. FINAL_ (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL CAP MINOR RIGHTS S B 5. 50 5.50 0.010 5. 50 MAJOR L...E.F....rS MINOR LEFTS SB 6. 50 6.50 0. 00 6. 5(-: IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... r-t 657 NAME OF THE: NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD D DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; FM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page--' --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE _ CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v (pc ph) c (pc ph) c (pc ph) r_. (pc ph) c = c - v LOB p M SH R SH MINOR STREET SB LEFT = 687 6B2 RIGHT 7 992 992 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 11. 999 999 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 682 > 679 > A 862 > 652 >A 992 > 985 > A 4'YL�I 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 98B A 1985 HCM: UNSIGNAL_IZED INTERSECTIONS Page-! IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 150� is i0 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 — EXISTING ZONING INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T—INTERSF_CTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 19 128 -- 8 THRU 87 50 -- C RIGHT 74 21 -- 18 NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB 3Ell LANES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERC.:ENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 ^Cj N NORTHBOUND -.__.-- --- _-.- - SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND --- --- SOUTHBOUND i 0 c_; CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL_ (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS SB 5. 5() 5.50 0. 00 5. 50 MAJOR LEFTS, EB 5.00 5.00 0. 0(:> 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SEA 6. 50 6.50 ( .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 - EXISTING ZONING CAPACITY AND L...EVEL.-OF--SERVICE Page-_: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL. FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE HATE 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 9 754 744 RIGHT 20 997 997 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 21 1000 1000 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 744 903 > 874 997 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 INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING 735 > rl :A 977 > A 979 A 1985 HCM : UNS I GNAL.. I ZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. Tr PEAK HOUR FACTOR ... 1 AREA POPULATION ....... „ „ ............. 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... r-t 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROAD C !`DAME OF. THE ANALYST .................. HARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 2/15/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... TWIN LAKES - 19?7 - EXISTING ZONING INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T--INTE.RSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NEB S E; LEFT 8 128 -- THRU 120 90 RIGHT 74 21 -- 15 NUMBER OF LANES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SE1 LANES 1 1 - 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) OCC:ELEROTION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR FIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0. op 9c_) 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 9() 20 N NORTHBOUND -----•- _.._..._ .--- _ SOUT'HBOUND 0.00 i ii i 9(:) 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND i> 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 NORTHBOUND -- - --- ---- SOUTHBOUND 0 i 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 i .0C-) 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..... 2/15/50 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES — 1997 — EXISTING, ZONING CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE PagF- POTI::N-- ACTUAL FLOW-- IIAL. MOVEMENT SHAFTED 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 LEF= -f 6 696 692 > 692 > 687 > A 897 > 875 >A. RIGHT 17 994 994 > 994 > 978 > A MAJOR STREET EIS LEFT 9 998 998 998 990 A 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 ; FM PEAK OTHER INFORMATIC=N.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING 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................. 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 NB SE ____ LEFT 28 ____ ____ ---- 128 -- 53 THRU 145 73 -- 0 RIGHT 74 40 -- 27 NUMBER OF LANES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB _______ _______ _______ ------- LANES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGI"IT 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 % COMBINATIOrd AND RV'S VEHICLES % MJTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 o WESTBOUND i_) c i i a NORTHBOUND --- --- SOUTHBOUND i a i CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR; VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAR' 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 I DENT I FY I NG 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 Page-T --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- T I AL MOVEMENT SHAFTED 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 SEA LEFT 58 664 652 RIGHT =0 995 995 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 31 99B 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 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 SE LEFT 39 ____ ____ ---- 128 -- Q5 THRU 172 168 -- 0 RIGHT 74 81 -- 47 NUMBER OF LANES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB _______ _______ _______ -------- LANES 1 1 -- 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 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND •------ - --- --- SOU THBOUND 0.00 ii i 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV' S VEHICLES EASTBOUND 0 0 WESTBOUND i ) i NORTHBOUND --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS ------------------------------------------ MOTORCYCLES -------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) -------------- VALUE -------- ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL_ GAF' 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. Q-) 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATIO►`J 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 > 532 > 482 > A > 667 > 566 >A RIGHT 52 882 882 > 882 > 830 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 43 938 938 938 896 A 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 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE FUNNING 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 ................. AM PEAK. OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1?57 - 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 45 128 62 THRU 111 90 -- 0 RIGHT 74 25 -- 11 NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NE. SB LANE 1 1 - - 1. ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR FLIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- — ` OUTHBOUND 0.00 i a0 9� i 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SO !THrOUND 0 ci 0 CRITICAL GAPS, --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS SD 5. 50 5.50 0 . 0() 5. 50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.0(--) 5.00 M I N3R 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 ; 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) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET SB LEFT 68 670 650 > 650 > 582 > A > 836 > 644 >A RIGHT 123 992 992 > 992 > 869 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 50 998 998 998 948 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 ; AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED 1985 HCM : UNS I GNAL I ZE:D INTERSECTIONS Page--1 IDENTIFYING %NFORMAT-ION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 WIC NB SB LEFT 149 1.28 -- THRU 156 121 _ _, RIGHT 74 83 -- 99 NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS page---------------------------------------------------------------------- - PERCENT 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 N NORTHBOUND HBOUND --- --- ----- -- - - - SOUTi- BOUND 0.00 9(_) 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS ;'. COMBINATION ION AND RV'S VEHICLES MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND Q CJ WESTBOUND i i 0 i i NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOI IND 0 C) i i 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 ; NM PEAK. OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 -- PROPOSED CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-7 _____________________________________________________________________ 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 61 514 456 > 456 > 395 > E > 678 > 509 >A RIGHT 109 929 929 > 929 > 820 > � MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 164 981 981 981 817 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 - PROPOSED 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..RT 7/ROAD A AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST.......HARTLAND DATE ..........2/15/90 TIME .......... AM PEAK COMMENT ....... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 91 153 0 : T 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 12.0 TH 1093 570 0 0 : T 12.0 T 12.0 R 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 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 _______________________________________________________________________ ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV A D J 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 11.3 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 11.3 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 25.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 25.8 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH X TH RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT TH X X TH RT RT PD PD GREEN 10.0 30.0 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 0.0 0,0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS AFP. DELAY APP. LOE-6 EB T 0.784 0.435 14.6 B 14.1 B R 0.049 0.725 2.1 A WB L 0.031 0.623 3.8 A 4.4 A T 0.285 0.623 4.5 A NB L 0.387 0.290 15.2 C 12.3 B R 0.259 0.435 9.5 B INTERSECTION: Delay = 10.8 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.503 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..RT 7/ROAD A AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... HARTLAND DATE .......... 2/15/90 TIME .......... PM PEAK COMMENT ....... __________________________________________________________________________ TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB W8 NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 297 136 0 : T 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 12.0 TH 686 1240 0 0 : T 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 RT 200 0 198 0 : R 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12n RR 60 0 60 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12,(: : 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 11.3 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 11.3 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 25.8 3 SB 0.00 __________________________________________________________________________ 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 25.8 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 74.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH X TH RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT TH X X TH RT RT PD PD GREEN 15.0 30.0 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 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C 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 3.3 A WB L 0.173 0.649 3.9 A 5.6 B 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 __________________________________________________________________________ INTERSECTION: Delay = 8.1 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.531 LOS = B A Traffic Impact Analysis of TWIN LAKES A Proposed Residential Development In Fredrick County, Virginia Prepared for: Loggia Development Company Callow Assoclate5, Inc. Transportation Planning R Design Consultants 1 i 1 L TRAFFIC Il\,IPACT 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 11 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 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 ..................................................... 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 IINTRODUCTION 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. 1 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. 11 I EXISTING 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 ta 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. I The appendix contains the traffic count summary sheets for the existing conditions. 1 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 11 �.l I i] J LEGEND: Route 7 (15,326) -Site (456)727 379(82S) Road ~� River AM(PM) - Peak Hour Volumes (3,813) CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. (4)12 (78)55 Figure 2. Existing 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 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. IThe 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. � I � I � I � I V I I I 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. no 1 11 1 17 u 11 LEGEND: Route 7 (23 04q - Site •� - Road - River AM(PM) - Peak Hour Volumes (XXXX) - ADT `� • • ` I` 1 I / 1 � 1 / 1 I• 1 �00 j 1 I � I \ I 1 0 < 1 °CL 90 Y A(A) / 1 Unsignalized 1 .. �N 20(15) 48(86) Senseny Road (5,720) (6)18 �%� RTE. 657 (117)83 CALLOW Figure 3. Background 1997 Conditions ASSOCIATES INC. 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. I LEGEND: 1Z��ulc 7 240� 0 r� 1 -- - Site - Road - River _� 1 � •i Ij 1 � I 1 � 1 1 I I 1 / / �♦ %X 1 - 1 I 1 I 1 f I I 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 - / Q / 1 / U 0 ��1• 22 CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. Senseny Road R'I-E. 657 18% Figure 4. Trip Distribution F1 1 I.EC;ENl7: Route 7 (23,236) A.— 520(1,24 -- 6(20 ) Sic (686)1,093 ) —� - Road (13)4 (73.332) River N o ^ AM(PM) - Peak Hour Volumes "�^N (XXX1) - ADT x r. * - Development Only 1 I 1 � . 1 II 1 / 1 � 1 ' 1 00� 1 I � � 1 `\ � 1 � 1 i � � P � 1 0 Q 0 1 o 1 E C4,r. —° --- —••� co 1`, 21(21) (5,896) -. 67�101) Y 14 --.*- 50(90) Senseny Road (126) 01 y (5,816) (120)8�� (5,864) RTE 657 A Figure 5. Build 1997 Volumes - Existing Zoning CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. 10 1i 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 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. 1 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. �I 11 I 1� fl 1 LEGEND: Route7 /f' Site R (A)A � V �■ - Road Q River AM(PM) - bevel of Service 1 I /1 I 1 � 1 ► NOTE: All Intersections Unsignalized 1 1 I 1 I• 00 1 1 I �• 1 Road % 1. ♦ 1 I 1) I ► I' I I I I I I I I / IL---- 1 0 1i Q A(A) A(A) (A)A 4 (A)A 4 Senseny Road RTE. 657 U CALLOW Figure 6. Level of Service & Lane Geometry - Existing Zoning ASSOCIATES INC. 11 12 ' 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) tPeak 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 1 RETAIL 35,000 SF 65 28 177 184 3,755 TOTAL 252 622 826 549 13,322 fl ' 13 r I ILI n a �l 1 II 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 1 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 1 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: 1 14 11 Ii LEGEND : Rollie 7 (26,108) 17p0,240) - Site ) (29 (686)1,093 7) Road (200)68 1� i (27,840) River N AM(PM) - Peak Hour Volumes a ADT y, * - Development Only 1 � 1 /I1 1 1 , 1 , 1 � 1 6 P / / / I A I (149)45 ,,Y (156)111 --N— N\ CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. 1 1 i p r: 1 0 1 � v � r c o 25(40(81) 90(121) Y �"-73(168) �— 121 (7,585) (39)28 (8,118) (172)145 Senseny Road Figure 7. Build 1997 Volumes - Proposed Zoning 15 Lam' 11 [j 1 LEGEND: Route -- - Site - Road - River AM(PM) - Level of Service Signalized LOS _ _ B(B) 4-- A(13) (B)B y 1 I 1 I . �I 1 � 1 � 1 1 `.' / �LoT �\ / / 1 /I 1 j �o 1 � ---A(A)---��%Q� l�C t (A)A 4 (A)A 4 N� \ CALLOW Senseny Road RTE. 657 Figure 8. Level of Service & Lane Geometry - Proposed Zoning 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. 1 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. r 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 7 P� L F] ' 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 Hh!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. 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 ofService .Criteria:for:Unsignalized:Iiitersections .:.: ;::ReserveS...::::::;::::::::>:::;.><::::::>::: Level:::of::>::;:<::.>...:..... . eeted` ela ">;::. ..Capactt ::.: :;:Service::.::::>::>:;:;>:.;;;:'to;:lVhnor. v t. S reet:Traffic.. _.::.. . :: :..:. �: ..... ... �. ::.. ::: � :::�: i::::iii'�i: ii: iiiiii::::vil::•: i::�:':::�i:�:::�i: i::':::�:�iiiii::i'.ii!i':::':i: :.::..:.::. :. Li i:: is is ii:�:'�.-:::�::�::::�::....... : ::�i �.:::'::::: Shor.t::>tr.affic: ela s::`:.>:::::::: '.: :::..::.::.:.:.:..:.;:.::.::.::::'.:::::.;:.;:.;:.;:.:'::.::. 20.0-29.9 v .....;'.::::::;:: ';'> :`>'>:`<:>:..C:;::;:.;:.::::::::.:.:;:::::::::::>:::;Aver........ P. ';:::::.::.:;:::::.::.:..: ;6 de ffiays 100=199 ..v h.: ;:........::>:::'::>:TD:::::.>:>::';:::<:::;:.:::.....:>:: n.:.- tra is .. e a s..:.::::::::..:: ..:........ <Ioag traffic.delays:: Demand: exceeds ca aci ex reme y ong e ay::.: . .. it 1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The operation (and therefore the capacity) of a signalized intersection is complicated by the fact that the signal is allocating time between conflicting traffic movements - movements that 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: 5.0°< 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. rIntersection: RCr TE 657 S 04 MG GLORY DR location : Y1MLhBIER Co4nted ay PF Date : 2-13-90 Day: TUES i^out by .;F -----------i--''k;+*=iC Yeat!:er DRf FRG" ;y,-------�-------=-------'�-----+-------+---------- kAFF. ,. -FROM MOi;- RAFF:C FR%" rcV- NFFIC FP.O?! EP.E on: on: !IORKIG GLORY on: ROUTE 657 on: ROUTE 651 1 TOTAL i me --------------- ------ ------- -----y-------- -------- --- -------- --- — ------- --------- I M,S, ! Time re-:ca LEFT lki, .�:GHT T,'AL 1 Lr T TW R:,]al TGTA�. L :T T-F� :GrT TCiA_ LEFT THW RIGHT TBiAL 1 8 Y ` Period -------- ------------------- -------------- ----- — ----------------------------------------------------- -----*----_-+_------ AA I 6:3a-6:45 : 9 e a a e a 2 z a': a 12 a 6 1 I 7 1 I 21 16:3e-6: AA 45 6:45-7:991 a a a 8 8 a 4 4 2 13 8 15 8 7 2 9 1 2816:45-7:88 7:8e-7:15 ! 7:15-7:38 1 8 8 a a a 8 8 8 8 8 8 3 2 4 2 3 + 14 12 8 a :7 16 8 8 8 18 4 3 12 1 13 1 33 1 3. i 7:99-7:15 7:15-7:36 7:36-7:45 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 2 2 3 16 8 13 8 6 4 19 1 31 17:58-7:45 7:45-8:861 8 8 a 8 1 8 4 5 2 13 8 15 8 8 2 101 381 7:45-8:88 Me-8:15 1 8 a a 8 8 8 a 8 a :L 8 :2 a 7 8 i! 19 1 8:89-8:15 ' 8::5-8:38 ! I a a 8 a a 8 4 4 1 9 a 12 8 8 2 i ! 26 1 8:15-8:38 --___------t-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------f-------+--------- 6:3e-1:38 2 a 8 8 1 8 11 1E 9 SI a 68 8 3I 18 41 1 113 i 6:38-7:38 5:45-7:45 ! 8 8 8 8 1 8 1: 12 12 55 8 67 8 31 13 4- ! 123 1 6:45-7:45 7:r- -c:ee . e e a 2 :: 1:; 1c 55 c7 8 32 1, 45 125 , 7:0e-8:a9 8 8 8 8 1 8 8 9 9 53 8 52 9 3! 9 46 i 111 ! 7:15-8:15 7:38-6:32 ; e a a a 1 8 i8 11 6 Se a 56 8 29 18 39 1 196 ! 7:38-8:38 ! A.M. PEAK SOUR.====_______________________________ Me-SM 1 9 8 e 8 2 9 11 13 12 55 8 67 8 32 13 I 45 1 125 1 7:98-6:88 ----------------------------------------------------------------=----------------------------------------------------------- ! F-F = MA P!'. = 8.6, PHF = 8.88 PHF 8.87 1 1 P� i ! ! I ►r. 4:38-4:45 I 9 8 a 8 8 8 2 2 8 16 9 16 8 12 2 14 1 32 1 4:38-4:4: ' 4:45-5:ea 1 9 a a 8 I 8 4 1 15 8 28 8 15 1 16 1 40 1 4:45-5:82 5:aE-S:iS i 8 a a a a 8 4 4 2 21 8 23 8 16 3 19 1 46 ' 5-:88-5:15 :15-5:i3 i a a a 8 a a a 1 a 2 1 8 22 14 8 8 23 14 8 8 :4 11 4 1 18 ! 12 i 41 ! 26 1 5:.5-5:38 5:38-5:45 5:45-6:a8 , e a 8 a a a 2 2 8 16 2 ., 8 IE 1 13 I 31 1 5:45-6:88 ' 6:a6-6:15 I 6:15-6:38 8 8 6 e 8 a 8 e 8 a a r 1I 1 1 1 2 12 i4 8 a Ii .4 8 8 18 8 2 11 3 I ! 32 1 24 ! i 6:88-6:15 6:15-6:38 ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- —--- —--- ------+-------+--- -- 4:31-5:3d i 4:45-5:45 i 8 a 8 8 8 8 8 a 1 2 a 2 9 8 18 10 4 4 78 76 8 8 82 88 8 8 51 56 18 9 57 ! 65 1 159 1 155 1 4:3e-5:38 4:45-5:45 5:88-6:89 1 8 8 a a 1 8 7 8 3 73 8 76 8 53 9 62 1 146 i 5:80-6:88 5:15-6:15 1 5:38-6:381 ! 8 a 8 8 a 8 8 a 1 1 8 8 4 5 6 2 1 78 62 8 a 72 63 8 8 47 41 8 5 55 1 461 I 132 I 11515:38-6:31 I 5:15-6:15 P.'. PEAK 401jt 1 1 Wa-5:38 1 8 8 8 6 1 8 9 18 4 78 8 82 a 57 18 67 i 159 1 4:38-5:36 PHF -- NA F'H.F = 6.63 P-F = 8.81 PHF -- 8.88 L985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION..,......^............ 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... 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 O7HER lNFORMATION.... existing 1990. INTERSECTION TYPE AND ___________________________ CONTROL ------------------------------------------- U INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN ' TRAFFIC VOLUMES U ------- ____________________________________________________-'_-_____ U EB WE NB SB ____ ____ ____ LEFT 12 � 0 -- 2 THRU 55 32 -- 0 RIGHT 0 13 -- 11 NUMBER OF LANES ___________________________________________ EB WE NO 29 _______ _______ _______ LANES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Pag- ------------------------------------------------------------'---- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATI- GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT 7&P _______ __________ ________________ ________________ EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- - SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION U ___________________________________________'________________- _--_-_ � % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORC»CLES ___________ _____________ -------------- EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 � CRITICAL GAPS U -_______________________________________________________-____________ � TABULAR VALUES (Table 10-2) ______________ MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 MINOR LEFTS ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FIA- VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRTTICA -------- ----------- ------- 5.50 0.00 5'5�' 5.00 0.00 5.0o SB 6.50 6.50 010(J' 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 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESE70E RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY Cxn� MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcpn) c (pcph) c = - M R SH p _____ _________ ____________ ------------ MINOR STREET SB LEFT 2 815 808 > 6 > 963 RIGHT 12 998 998 > 998 > `- MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 13 1000 1000 1000 93�' IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ...... Route 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREE7.... Mor:ing Glory Driv� DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/14/90 ; am peak now - OTHER INFORMATION.... e:isting 1790 I 1985 HCM: UNSISNALIZED lNTERSECTICNS Pogo . IDENTIFYING INFORMATIO ---------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION..........,.,.......,. 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... 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..........'...... pm peak nour O`HER lNFORMATION.... existing 1990 lNTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL � --------------------------------------------------------------------� � !NTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN ' TRAFFIC VOL]MES ______________________________________ EB WE NB SB LEFT 4 0 -- 1 -HRU 78 RIGHT 0 10 -- 9 NUMBER OF LANES | ------ ________________________________-_______________________-_-___ � EB WB NB S8 _____ _______ LANES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ------------------------------------------------------------------ PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) AC - GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS F. - ---------------- _______ __________ ________________ EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 � NORTHBOUND ----- --- ---` - SGUTHBOUND 0.00 04 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 ___________________________________________________________________ . TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DlST. F^NAt- (Table 10-2) VALUE ______________ ________ ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL 3A' ___________ -------------- MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.�0 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5 MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 1.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... Route 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... Morning GIory Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/14/90 ; pm peak hour OT|iER INFORMATION.... existing 1990 | W Ld w a Ili F-4 LLJ J fr 0 M.M'IM m m m m mm m mm MIM m w an = � 1yy`1�'E5Y 44HYYCyyMg UNSIGyyi�L.1A!_IZYYE11Dy .Ll!N1"ERSECy,TIAONS L yy y yy yy y .kk yy�r yy JJ Wl �yy �:-L�aLyc)Ye- �n � � .� %I� .'h :P � T � "�: �i< �'� � +� TT %K %P � +fm T T �P � %,�' :'C .y. ).k :f?m M �1'� T � � � T T :� T � nk T .;< iX •T. � T .:t (P T i+ %T� :� m ?f• :r � �� +I� :r .� .:i• .� IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK. HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 15000 i NAME OF THE EASTAWEST STREET......... R:T 7 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROAD A NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. HARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) ...... 2- .15/9i*� 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 ---------------------------- ELF WB NB LEFT 8 b 12 Tf- RU 1093 570 r i RIGHT 4 .is 17 SB NUMBER OF LANES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EB WB 1\JB :.13B ------- LANES, 2 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- , -g PL• RCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERA..I.. I GN LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS L•• ASTBOUND 0.00 ii i 9i i 2i i 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 WESTBOUND <i i :j 0 NORTHBOUND U 0 SOUTHBOUND --- --- CRITICAL CAPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D I ST . FINAL_ (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAr' MINOR RIGHTS NB 5. 50 5.50 0 . 0(- ; 5. 50 MAJOR LEFTS WB 5. 50 5.50 0.00 5. 50 MINOR LEFTS NB 7. 00 7.00 0.00 7 , t;; j 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 INTERtSECTIONS Page-! IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------.----.---- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. (:) PEAK. HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 15� i0r i0 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 ................. 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 LEFT 8 20 8 THRU 666 1240 0 RIGHT 13 18 12 NUMBER OF LANES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES 2 21 - ADJUSTMENT FACTORS, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Faga- 2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (fit) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURN:. EASTBOUND 0.00 qc'? 2(7 i`J WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND ------ --- --- VEHICLE COMPOSITION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND c 0 l WESTBOUND 0 NORTHBOUND 0 o i SOUTHBOUND --- --- --- CR I T I CAL GAPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D I ST . F I NQ- ( Table 10-2) 'VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL 3AF' MINOR RIGHTS NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.5 MAJOR LEFTS MINOR LEFTS NB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... RT 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 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-7 ____________________________________________________________________ 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 / � > 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��*��•%dc*:z>�.�.:�%'n*��%i�:k`K��;k��'�:�*�;i+%K:�,��:a�:�:`K"��;k;�;�'Kix: �;�:; _ATIFYING INFORMATION -------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 70 PEAK !-TOUR 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 .................. HAR•TLAND 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 SOUTHBOI AND : STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB aB LEFT _ 128 -- 4 THRU 101 67 R I GHT 74 1 -- 9 NUMBER OF LANES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EB lAjB NB SB LANES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS P age --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 is i 9r i 2 i N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 2() N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- - SOUTHBOUND 0.00 9c i 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 t t Cj WESTBOUND 0 c' 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TAB!JLAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 1 0-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS SB 5. 50 5.50 � i . 0 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0. 0) MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 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 1 5i 9 =? ; i`-aM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... TWIN LAKES — 1997 — EXISTING ZONING 5. 0 (-') 6.50 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE r age-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) a (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v L&S p M S I- R S H MINOR STREET SB LEFT 4 749 747 RIGHT 10 997 997 MAJOR STREET" EB LEF1' _ 1000 loo(? IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 747 > 743 > A 904 > B89 ;> A 997 > 997 > A 1000 0 0 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 a AM PEAK: CTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING 997 i 1985 HCM : UNS I GNAL I Z ED INTERSECTIONS Page-! IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. =C! 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 - E;ISTING ZONING INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ' INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHDOUND: ;STOP SIGN ' TRAFFIC VOLUMES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- LEFT 10 .128 -- _ ' TI--IRU 126 101 RIGHT 74 4 -- 6 �J NUMBER OF LANES ' Er WB ND SLR LANES ADJUSTMENT FACTORS `age ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS S FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 9i) 20 N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- - SOUTHBOUND 0.00 9i � 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES ": MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND WESTBOUND C) t i r._r NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 i, 0 CRITICAL GAPS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D' ST . FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAS"' MINOR RIGHTS Sig 5. 50 5.50 0. 00 5. 50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0 .00 5.0C.) MINOR LEFTS SB 6.5(') 6.50 0. .0 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 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 SD LEFT 3 687 682 RIGHT 7 992 992 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 11 999 999 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION > 682 > 679 > A > 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 HC:M : UNS I GNAL_ I ZED INTERSECTIONS Page—! �?Kok'k�*:X��K�K:k:kX��:�*:X;'�;K%I;:��K��X�K�%k�K;�:k��:�:�:K*�K�*�K�%k%Kk�%k:k:��;k�:;k�:�i:;�::k;;��C�:;kk:k�::k'�'�:�:• IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 3(: 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) ...... 2/15/9( TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES — 1997 — E.Y.ISTING ZONING INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T—INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND : STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELF W8 NB SEA LEFT 19 128 -- 8 THRU 87 5C.) RIGHT 74 21 -- 18 NUMBER OF LANES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EL; WB NB SB LANES 1 1 — - 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (fit) ACCELERATION L..Ai` !i--- GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 �i i 9C) 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 9i) ?i, N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- ` SOUTHBOUND 0.00 9C) 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- '! SU TRUCKS COMBINATION AND RV' S VEHICLES• MOTORCYCLES ------------ ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 i ci WESTBOUND c,� i i 0 NORTHBOUND — --- --- SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D I ST . FINAL_ (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL iGAI MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.5 i 5.50 0.00 5. 50 MAJOR. LEFTS 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 q AM f='L=AK OTHER INFORMATION .... TWIN LAKES — 1997 -- EXISTING 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 LOS 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 > 903 > 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 INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING 979 A 1985 HCM : UNS I iGNAL.. I ZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------------------------------------------•------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED. MAJOR STREET.. TO 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 - 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 8 128 -- 5 THRU 120 90 -- 0 RIGHT 74 21 -- 15 NUMBER OF LANES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SEE LANES ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (fit) ACCELERATION LANE.` - GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TUI;:!',' EASTBOUND 0.00 94 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 9i i 2Q N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- — SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION -------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS COMBINATION AND RV ' S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 { WESTBOUND 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND c i c? 0 CRITICAL GAPS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10--2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL G�! ------------- MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0. 00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.0) 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 — 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 HCM : UNS I GNAL I ZED INTERSECTIONS Page--'- IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 10 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 1500 (:) NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET"......... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ....... ROAD C NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. I-lARTLAND 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/!JEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EB WE? NIB SE? LEFT 28 128 -- 5= THRU 145 73 - (_; RIGHT 74 4� i 27 NUMBER OF LANES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EB WD NB LANE'; ADJUSTMENT. FACTORS Page-'.'.'-' ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS : f t , ACCELERATION LANE: GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS S FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 'LCi N WESTBOUND 0.00 9(i 2Ci lu NORTHBOUND ------ --- ---- - SOUTHBOUND 0.00 00 qC i 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV ' S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND WESTBOUND C> c r NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND i; C C% CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D I'ST . FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT C:RITIC:AL GAP MINOR RIGHTS S _i 5.50 5.50 0. 00 5. 5i' MAJOR; LEFTS EB 5. 0i i 5.00 0.0) 5. 0C i MINOR LEFTS tSB 6. 50 6.50 0. C) 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/ SOUTH STREET .... ROAD C: DATE AND TIME O1= THE ANALYSIS ...... C/ 15/'90 ; AM PEAR:: 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 58 664 652 RIGHT 30 995 995 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 31 998 998 > 652 > 593 > A > 738 > 650 >A > 995 > 966 > A 998 967 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION . _____________________________________________________________________ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH BTREET.... ROAD C DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; AM PEAK ' OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED 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 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 _____________________________________________________________________ TABULAR 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 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 ; 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 p M SH R SH MINOR STREET SB LEFT 50 547 532 RIGHT 52 882 B82 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: 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................. 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 NB SB ____ ____ ____ ---- LEFT 45 128 -- 62 THRU 111 90 -- 0 RIGHT 74 25 -- 112 NUMBER OF LANES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB _______ _______ _______ ------- LANES 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 _____________ % MOTORCYCLES _____________ ___________ EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 1O-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 ; 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) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS 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 > 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 1955 HCyM: LUNS4y.IyyGNYALLLIYyZEDY INTEYFy;SEyyCyyTILyON.S � W yyyW yWW lL y ,YA. L 11 Pagz.1_1 %f•.�**%1�%F�* %K� T* %7M T��1'• T �%i %M1 �*T�*%1%"hTMTMTi+,lTTM MTh ky r r* ��` M%i ih��. h,L`.r * %;: T }ii � �ry:� �..T �. ii�.T Y� 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 INT•ERSE:CTION TYPE AND CONTROL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I NTERSECT I ON TYPE: T—INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST./WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND : STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 149 128 -- 55 THI;;U 156 121 -- 0 RIGHT 74 8:71 -- 99 NUMBER OF LANES ------------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SEs LANES 1 1 -- 1 AD,:IU'STMEN1` FACTORS --------------------------------------------------------------------- Page--2, PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 9c ? 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 Chi N NORTHBOUND ----•-- --- --- — SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- % S.0 TRUCKS '!. COMBINATION AND RV ' S VEHICLES : MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBCUND c_? 0 i? 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.cis? 5„5i? 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 /9� � p PM PEA!,'. 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 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 ************************************************** INTERSECTION'.RT 7/ROAD A AREA TYPE ..... OTHER N� ANALYST ... .... HARTLAND DATE ..........2/15/90 TIME .......... AM PEAK COMMENT ....... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED 8� __________________________________________________________________________ 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 12.0 12.0 1271 12.0 12.0 U� -------------------------------------------------------------------------- GRADE HV A D J 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 2'0O N 0 0 0.90 0 0 0.90 0 0 N 11.3 N 11.3 3 3 n� NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 25.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 25.8 3 N� SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGT1 = 69.0^ PH PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 P1-i-2 PH-3 PH-4 U� EB LT TH X NB LT TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT @� TH X X TH RT RT U� PD GREEN 10.0 30.0 PD 0.0 0.0 GREEN 2C.0 0.0 O.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW LEVEL OF SERVICE ~~ 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 0.049 C. 2.1 A D� WB L 0.031 0.623 3.8 A 4.4 A T 0.285 0.623 4.5 A 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 l985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS m� SUMMARY REPORT *********************************************** lip ************************** INTERSECTION..RT 7/ROAD A N� ~� AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... HARTLAND 0� DATE..........2/15/90 TIME .......... PM PEAK N� COMMENT.......TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED __________________________________________________________________________ VOLUMES : GEOMETRY 0� EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 297 136 0 : T 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 12.0 0� TH 686 1240 0 RT 200 0 198 0 : T 12.0 T 12.0 0 : R 12.0 T 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 12.0 w� -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE 'YIN Nm Nb Y/N min T 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 0 0.90 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 CYCI E LENGTH PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 P11-4 EB LT NB LT X TH X TH RT X RT X PD PD Q� 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 0.0 @� YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LANE GRP. V/C LEVEL OF SERVICE G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS N� EB T 0.52G 0.405 12.9 B 11.3 B R 0.152 WB L 0.173 0.676 3.3 A 0.649 3.9 A 5.6 B N� T 0.596 0.649 6. B NB L 0.369 0.270 16.9 C 12.8 B R 0.214 0.473 8.7 B N� - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- lNTERSECTION. Delay = 8.1 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.531 LOS = B 11 A .Traffic Impact Analysis of rwiv LAKES A Proposed Residential Development In Fredrick County, Virginia Prepared for: Loggia Development Company Ca 11-o w A ss o cla tes, Inc. Transportation Planning R Design Consultants 1 1 FINAL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR TWIN LA Fm prepared for LOGGIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 1700 Diagonal Road Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 1 prepared by CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC. 12007 Sunrise Valley Drive Suite 160 Reston, Virginia 22091 March 6, 1990 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. LIST OF FIGURES ............................................. iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................. iv INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS..........................................2 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ............ . ....................... S 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 ..................................................... 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. D 13 IINTRODUCTION ' 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. MThe 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. LThe purpose of this report is to document these analytical steps and to present conclusions and recommendations. I EXISTING 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 Route 50 in the eastern part of the county. The existing road network is also shown on Figure 1. 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. 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 rgeometries. 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. �J 3 I I L I LEGEND: Route 7 i 15.326) -- - Site (4S6)727 379�g�5) � - Road y, River AM(PM) - Peak Hour Volumes (3,813) CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. (4)12 (78)55 Figure 2. Existing Conditions Senseny Road RTB. 657 The 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. IThe 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 tbetween 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. ' Figure 3 shows the expected background traffic, for stud year 1997, on the access g P g Y ' locations as shown in the existing conditions analysis. Peak hour and ADT volumes are shown. 1 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. 0 I it I LEGEND: Route 7 -- - Site (6s6) t �3 y s7o�l,2ao) ■� - Road River AM(PM) - peak Hour Volumes (XX- ADT r `fto /`♦ fte 1 I 1 � 1 II 1 / 1 . / I ` I II I 1 P 1 o E 1 o Y A(A) Unsignalized 1 .. .------------ ^ c*1 20(15) 48(86) Senseny Road (5,720) (6)18 RTF-.657 (117)83 j N Figure 3. Back round 1997 Conditions CALLOW g ASSOCIATES INC. 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 Sin g Y le 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 1 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. F, I LEGEND: R�u[c 7 Z400 -- - Site 3�� - Road River � 1 II1 � 1 I. 1 i �. ! 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 I 1 / 1 - . I Ca 1 / b wo I.---- o G 1----— — — — — — — — - Senseny Road pZTE. 657 _22% 18% CALLOW Figure 4. Trip Distribution ' 'ASSOCIATES INC. 1 LEGEND: t 7 (23,236) /r-■ S70(1.240 Sire (6$6)l,(XI3 6(20) ) - Road (13)4 T (23,332) River N o N AM(PM) - Peak Hour Volumes (X3CKX) - ADT y ` oftc * - Development Only %� � I 1 / 1 'I1 , 1 ----- 1 I ' 1 ci O 1 C7 1 G r O ^ OC �, 21(21) Road �\ (5,896) �--67(101) -.*-50(90) Senseny (10)3 ,�/ (5,816) (8)19 r'1 (5,864) R"TF-. 657 (126)101 (120)87 —� LN Figure 5. Build 1997 Volumes - Existing Zoning CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. 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. i 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. 11 11 fl 11 LEGEND: Route 7 (A) A:` A:` — — - Site (A)A y - Road 4 River AM(PM) - Level of Service • 1 � 1 I . 1 / NOTE: All Intersections Unsignalized ; 1 I 1 woad / 1 I I I 1 / / IL---- ...memo. 1 � L o 1 o c O 0 1 ¢_� 1 < (A)A 4 (A)A 4 I LN CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. Senseny Road Figure 6. Level of Service & Lane Geometry - Existing Zoning 12 r�' 11 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 l� 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 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I.FC;F.Nn : R0111e 7 Sipe (26,108 ) L....9�7p(1.240) (686)1,a13 (297) - Road (200)68 T (27,840) —•— - River AM(PM) - Peak Hour Volumes v^ x A 7-Vr * - Development Only 1 4 j 4%fto 1 � 1 I ' II 1 / 1 1 ,I 1 00 40 I I � I 1. / I I I J I Q I (149)45 (156)111 A \ iN�. U CALLOW 1 1 r- 1 p 1 1 0 c Er. 25(83) �. 40(81) —.90(121)-73(168) Senseny Road (7,585) (39)28..�* (8,118) IM.657 (172)145 ---*— Figure 7. Build 1997 Volumes - Proposed Zoning I I ASSOCIATES INC. l LEGEND: Iloulc 7 Sibnalized Los -- - Site - Road (B)B River p AM(PM) - Level of Service • %1 1 �l 1 � i 00 •00 1 , ------� d `.' Y-0 �\ % II 1 1 � A(A) �A(A) (A)A 4 (A)A 4 \' CALLOW Senseny Road RTE. 657 Figure 8. Level of Service & Lane Geometry - Proposed Zoning I ASSOCIATES INC. 16 1 1 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. 1 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 Rotite 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 1 17 INTFRSFCTION 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 Iiiehwav 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 INTFRSFCTIONS At an unsignalized intersection the major street has continuous right of way while the side street is 1 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. it 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: L e ve S ' aizedI n trsections:l.o- rvie:era:forUnsi n r::iio delay:; af£ic: delays:::.::;: traffic `delays:: affi.q delays..... <:... . E:: > ...6i i:: ;traffic: delays :'::::::>:::Demand:exceeds capactty,.. X. ..; _........... ;extremely:: Tong delay:.:. 1 I 1 i 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: wa T evel..of Service Criteria6n:.Signalized Intersections ervt V, e' sec.:<:;>:;:>:: P er ehi.k 1 LEVEL Or 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 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. 11 ' Intersection: RC, TE 651 1 MONK GLDRI Dk location : YIHLFESIER Ca�;,ted cr PF: Date : 2-13-98 Day: TUES :':cut by ;: -----------i---'k�="i% ieat^er . DPI'( FnC- S:y--------�kA'F:,..=kOA HOr--------:k!iFFiC fkCC `EV--------.iNFFIC-FF'Jy �------+-------+----------- on: or: AORM:4O GLORY on: ROUTE 657 on: ROU'E 657 I TOTAL I -------------------- ---------------------- ------- —---- ------- ---------------------- I H,S, Time EF Tnr; R'5mT TC'ML ` T'nk„ ;.or; TOi�- LEFT THRU k:GHT �O7NL I 3 Y ` F'erioC ---------------------------- -- ------ - ----- - ----------------------------------------------------------- *--- ------- ---- AA I 6:3a-6:45 a 8 8 8 8 8 2 2 8 12 8 12 a 6 1 I 71 I 21 16:38-b:45 AA 6:45-7:88 I a a a a 8 8 4 4 2 13 8 15 8 7 2 9 1 28 1 6:45-7:88 7:0e-7:15 ! 8 8 8 8 1 8 3 4 3 14 8 17 8 8 4 12 1 33 1 7:88-7:15 7:15-7:38 ! a 8 8 8 a 8 2 2 4 12 a 16 8 18 3 13 1 3. ; 7:15-7:38 ' 7:38-7:45 1 8 8 8 8 e 8 2 2 3 16 8 13 8 6 4 18 I 31 1 7:38-7:45 7:45-8:88 1 6 8 8 8 1 8 4 5 2 13 8 15 8 8 2 18 1 38 1 7:45-8:a8 8:0e-8:15 1 8 8 e 8 a e 8 8 a lE 8 1: 8 7 8 7! :9 1 8:08-8:15 ' d:1:-s:32 8 8 a a a 8 4 4 1 9 8 18 8 8 4 121 2618:15-8:a ' ----------*------------------- 6:3e-7:38 2 a B ------- 8 —----------------------- 1 B 11 1; —------------------------- `.i 2 6e --------------+-------+---------- 8 31 18 41 ! lis i 6:38-7:38 5:45-7:45 ! tl 8 8 8 1 a 11. i2 12 15 e 67 8 3i 13 4 ! 123 1 0:45-7:45 2 e 7::5-C::S 8 a B 8 1 8 8 9 9 53 8 52 8 3! 9 46 i ili 7:15-8:1: 7 U-6:32 ; E a a 8 1 8 is 11 6 Sa 8 56 8 29 18 39 1 186 17:38-8:38 I A.A. PEAK �UR______________________________________________________=______________-_______=___=_____=__=____=__°_=___=____ 7c88-8:881 8 8 8 a 2 8 11 13 12 55 8 67 8 32 13 I 451 12517:88-8:88 ' --------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------ I ----- - c -.F --- = -- HA ---- P 8. E,. ------------------------------------------------------------- PHF 238 PHF - 8.87 1 1 ------ ! 4:3a-4:45 ! 8 8 8 8 8 8 2 2 8 16 8 16 8 12 2 14 I 32 1 4:38-4:4: 4:45-5:80 I 8 a a 8 i 8 4 1 19 8 28 a 15 1 16 1 48 14:45-5::H 4 4 2 21 8 23 8 16 3 191 4t 5:88-5:15 8 a 8 8 1 2 1 8 22 14 A 8 23 14 8 8 14 11 4 1 18 I 12 i 41 1 28 1 5::5-5:3e 5:38-5:45 8 a a a a 8 2 2 8 16 2 .E, 8 1E 1 13 i 3, 1 5:45-6:88 6:e8-a:15 i 8 8 8 8 8 8 1 1 1 18 8 1'3 8 18 2 12 32 1 6:88-6:15 8 e 8 2 a is 1 1 a i4 a .4 8 8 9 1 I 24 ! i ti:i5-S:3a ------------------------------ —-------------------------- ------------------------- —--- —------- ------ r------------- ---- 4:38-5:3a 4:45-5:45 i a 8 8 8 0 a 8 8 1 2 8 2 9 6 18 18 4 4 78 76 8 8 82 88 8 8 :7 56 18 9 67 ! 65 1 159 1 155 1 4:R-5:38 4:45-5:55 5-.H-6:88 I a 8 8 8 1 8 7 8 3 73 8 76 8 53 9 62 1 146 1 5:88-6:3a ' 5:15-6:i5 1 5:38-6:38 1 8 a 8 8 8 8 8 8 1 1 8 8 4 5 5 6 2 1 78 62 8 8 12 63 8 8 47 Al 8 5 55 I 46 1 132 I 115 1 I 5:15-6:15 5:38-6:3a ! ?. M. PEAK HOJR I I I 4:30-5:38 1 ------------------------ 8 a --- 8 ------------------- 8 i 8 -------------------- 9 18 4 78 -------------------------------------------------------------- a 82 a 57 18 67 i 159 1 4:38-5:38 ' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PHF = HA -'.wF = 8.63 F'=f -- a.89 PHF = 8.88 C! P P 1-� 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION N ----------- ____________________________________-__________________-_' � AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR............'........ 1 AREA POPULATION.,.................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... Route 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... Morning Glory �rive NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. mJh DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 2/14/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. am peak hour OTHER lNFORMATION.... existing 1990 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ________________________-________________________________ INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES U ------- ___________-________________________________________'________ � EB WE NB SB ____ ____ ____ LEFT 12 0 -- 2 . THRU 55 RIGHT 0 13 -- 11 NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB 5B ------- ------- ------- -------- LANES 1 1 -- 1 | ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERAILOm GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TO2Q= _______ EASTBOUND __________ 0.00 90 ________________ 20 ------------------ N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND ----- --- ' --- - 5OUTHBOUND 0.00 90 10 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ____________________________________________________________________ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINA7I0N AND RV'S VEHICLES ___________ _____________ % MOTCRC«CLES ____________ EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND --- ' --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DEBT, FINA.' (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CR!TICAL 50-: ______________ ________ ___________ MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5 5{' MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.0u 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 Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/14/90 ; am peak hour OTHER INFORMATION.... existing 1990 � CAPAC17Y AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE __________________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RE_.]� RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CA' MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) a _______ p ________ M _________ ____________ SH R SH ------------- MINOR STREET SB LEFT 2 815 808 > 808 > 963 ) 149 RIGHT 12 998 998 > 998 > - MAJOR STREET ED LEFT 13 1000 1000 1000 937 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... Route 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREE7.... Morning Glory Driv.- DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/14/90 ; am peak nour OTHER INFORMATION.... existing 1990 � 1965 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ' IDENTIFYING INFORMATION __________________________________________________________________ AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 0:.- PEAK HOUR FACTOR............'........ 1 AREA POPULATION.........,..........,. 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... 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.............'... pm peak nour O_HER INFORMATION.... existing 1990 INTERSECTION _________________________________________________________ TYPE AND CONTROL TNTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOL]MES U ------- ________________________________________-______________--___ EB WB NB SB LEFT 4 0 -- 1 THRU 78 57 -- 0 RIGHT 0 10 -- 9 NUMBER OF LANES | ------ ________________________________-_________________________-___- � EB WB NB SB LANES ADJUSTMENT FACTORS "VgE-c N N-------------------------------------------------------------------'- ~ PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LAQ7 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 U ____________________________________________________-___-__-________- � % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ___________ _____________ _____________ EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 ' NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS U ____________________________________________________________-______' � TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DlST. Fim-, (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICA ______________ ________ ___________ MINOR RIGHTS SD 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.�0 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.0C MINOR LEFTS ' SBI 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.5� 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 ; pm peak hour OTHER INFORMATION.... existing 1990 | CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF ____---- _____________________________________________ -SERVICE Pa�e ... ..... .... .... ..... ________ _ P�TEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESE�VE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACI�`' MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) M SH R SH N p MINOR STREE� �B LEFT RIGHT 10 997 997 > 99� MAJOR STREET E� LEFT 4 1000 1000 1000 996 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF _..... THE ... .... __________________________________________________ EAST/WE3T STREET...... .... ..... __ Route 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... Morning Glory Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/14/90 ; pm peak hour O�HER I�FORMAT�ON.... 1990 U existing 1985 Hy Cy Myy: �,_��NSIyGyNALIZyyEyyDyy IINTyEyyF`:S�Ett,CTyyIOyNS page-1 :� � T q� +P .i` :jk •1� :7� i� it +1� �� iry T :K T �r •� � :p. T T � M � T M /(` � p. 'T` T � /!'• T � � 1'. �'� .y..T :fi iry JX :iY T .� /P T m !(.:f '.�..7� ;•r � �1 :t%..y..n � .� � �'(.:� .`� !..'j. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE FUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. TO 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 .................. HARTL; AND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... /.15/9G 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 TRAF!"IC VOLUMES EB WD NB SB LEFT S 6 12 -- T HRU 1093 193 570 � i -- RIGHT 4 .1S 17 -- NUMBER OF LANES -------------------------------------------------- LANE 2 2 1 - ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t ) ACCELERATION LAI`•':E GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS NS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 2() N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 R SOUTHBOUND —•---- --- --- — VEHICLE COMPOSITION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS r COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND () c i (� WESTBOUND 0 ( 0 NORTHBOUND 0 _? SOUTHBOUND --- --- CRITICAL GAPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D I S7 . FINAL_ (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL sAr::, MINOR RIGHTS NB 5.50 5.50 0. 0(:*" 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS WB 5. 50 5.50 0. 00 5. 50 MINOR LEFTS NB 7.00 7.00 7. 0.-.*:) [DENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST S"TREET...... 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 ZONIr`G CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page _-> POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v (pc ph) c (pc ph) c (p=ph) c: (pcph) c = c -v LOB 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 l 152 > 120 ::) 592 > 574 > 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 297 C 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 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................. 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 -- THRU 686 1240 0 -- RIGHT 13 18 12 -- NUMBER OF LANES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB 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 U 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 O SOUTHB06AD --- . --- --- CRITICAL GARS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAS (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAR MINOR RIGHTS NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.40 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 ; PM 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 9 75 73 RIGHT 13 745 745 MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 22 491 491 [DENTIFYING 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 Al UNS I (ANAL I ZED INTERSECTIONS i-'ctge-1 ��3n;�s:�K �:�%X%K:X�,�,:�"•��?9�1F%X:X�;X:Xi ;Xk�;k�.%XiX:X:��;K :�:�:K:k�X.:K%KiX'K%X;�:�X:X i�X#%X:X��:3c�;X _AT I FY I NG INFORMATION -------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. TO PEAK. HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 ii 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 — 199; — EXISTING ZONING INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ----------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T—INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- DEB WB NB SB LEFT _ 123 -- 4 THRU 101 67 -- !? RIGHT 7-1 1 -- 9 NUMBER OF LANES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ei WB NB SB LANES 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 _____________________________________________________________________ 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 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 ; AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING CAPAC.I TY. AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE pa a-' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- 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 LC',S p M SH; R SOH MINOR STREET SEA LEFT 4 749 747 RIGHT 10 997 997 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT _ 1000 1000 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 747 > 743 ;> A 904 > B89 >A 997 > 98 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 a AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING 997 1985 HC.M : UNS I GNAL I Z ED INTERSECTIONS Page—! �X��%r��%�%}c%7c%-0��%X7K�'y:K%K%ic�C%X>¢•�C%9c;��K��#��>k��?K�:K%X�M.�m�:K�K�K�-K�::.�;�;��:�;tic;��K;k;'K:v;i�yx,X�k;�•';•''.�.>� IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 10 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... i_ AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 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)...... 2/15/90 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 WS NS SD LEFT 10 128 -- _ THRU 126 101 -- V RIGHT 74 4 -- 6 NUMBER OF LANES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ELF WS NB Sig LANES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-.'--. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURL-; RADIUS (f ) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT T1_JI'\1'.1S FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 9Cr 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 i 0 9Cr 20 N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- — SOUTHBOUND 0.00 Cry i 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES ": MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 � i =r NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND r c r CRITICAL GAPS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL_ (Table 10--2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CP I T I CAl_ 3 : MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 5. 50 MAJOR LEFTS E B 5. 0 (j 5.00 0 r,"r . 0 (--) 5„ 0 C.) MINOR LEFTS SB 6. 50 6.50 0. 00 `- . 5C: 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 i 90 ; PI" l PEAT: OTHER INFORMATION .... TWIN LAKES — 1997 — EXISTING 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 LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET SEA LEFT = 6B7 682 RIGHT 7 992 992 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 11 999 999 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION bS? > 679 > A 992 > 985 >i 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 ,:) 1985 HCMe UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. TO 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..... .......... AM PEAK. OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES — 1997 — EXISTING ZONING INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ----------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE; T—INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTH80UND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC ----------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES ED WB NB SLR ---- ---- LEFT 19 ---- 123 -- 8 THRU 87 50 -- ' i RIGHT 74 21 -- 18 NUMBER OF LANES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ED WB NB SL- LANES ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS F O R RIGHT TURP'a{= EASTBOUND 0.00 9(:) 20 N WESTSOUND 0.00 r 90 0 N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- - SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 2' ? NN VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- '! SU TRUCKS % COMBINATI'ON AND RV ' S VEHICLES '! MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 1 0-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAFF MINOR RIGHTS SB 5. 50 5.50 0. r, C) 5. 5(:.' 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 O1= THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD C DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ..... / 15/90 ; AM PEAK. OTHER INFORMATION .... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING CAPACITY AND LEVEL —OF —SERVICE page—:-_,: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN— ACTUAL FLOW— TIAL MOVEMENT STARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v (pc ph) c (pc ph) c (pc ph) c (pc ph) 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 903 > 874 > A 997 > 977 > A 100( ) 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 — EXISTING Z ON I tea(_ 979 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page—! IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. = r;a PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 a0 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROAD C !`DAME 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 S 128 -- 5 THRU 120 90 RIGHT 74 21 -- 15 NUMBER OF LANES ---------------------- EB WB NB S13 LAMES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORSg e'_. , PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t ) Ai :CELERA AT :[ ON LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR R I CHT TURNS FOR R I GH TUF:1"3(: EASTBOUND c7 . i )c) 9t) I'd WESTBOUND i) , r )i) 90 CC) N NORTHBOUND ----- --- SOUT'HBOUND �) . i ic;) 9C) ') N VEHICLE COMPOSITION SU TRUC I<:S COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES i. MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND i) 0 i ) WESTBOUND c_) c i i NORTHBOUND --- --- — -- SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D I ST . FINAL ( Table 10---2 ) '..VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS SB b. Gi) ij. C)C) 5. Cc) MAJOR LEFTS EB 5. )) i),.c)c_) bic_) MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 c). )c) 6.5C) IDENTIFYING INFORMPjTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST./WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD C DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... '?/15/'9() ; PM PEAK. OTHER 1NFOf;MATION .... TWIN LAKES — 19r'•� — EXISTIP•aG 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 > 692 > 687 > A > 897 > 875 >A RIGHT 17 994 994 > 994 > 978 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 9 998 998 998 990 A 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 - EXISTING ZONING 1985 HCM : UNS I GNAL I ZED INTERSECTIONS Page-! '�%x*?K;IC*k�:;C*aK�C*;�`X%9c�*gym%%**%X;X��:��K��%KKK:Kyf•�;��'�:�::�::��:�:�!F.'X;k�Kr��;X%�%k�-'�:k%XKK�K�K��:v`�;$ IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED. MAJOR STREET.. i PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 15000(; 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 NE' SB LEFT 28 123 --53 THRU 145 73 _ (: RIGHT 74 40 -- 27 NUMBER OF LANES ----------------------------------- LANI:_S 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS =e...._ r='!—.r:CEN'l- R I GI-1 !- TURN CURB RADIUS :.: 1; t) ACC ,�t_LERA'T I ON _AI`JE. GRADE ANGLE F 0 R R I GFIT TUr,:NS For; R I GI-,T TURNIS ASTLcOUIJD c=).cii) ?�,ii N WESTBOUND i i, i )<) 90i i N NORTHBOUND ----- --- — -- — SOUTHBOUND VEH I CI.-.E COMPOSITION SU 'TRUC!':S COMB I NAT I CN AND RV ' S VEH I CLES % MJ-rORCYCLEc EASTBOUND i ) i i i WESTBOUND i ci C NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND ) CRITICAL GAPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D I'ST . F I NH ( Tab 1 e 1� i-- 1 VALUE A D J U S' T MIE NT CRITICAL GAI=: MINOR RIGHTS Spa 5.50 5.5() MAJOR LEFTS MINOR LEFT` EB 5.0C) u 5.,_iii SB b. 5 b. Sig _i i IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...,.. rt 657 NAME OF-rl--IE NOR'Tf-!/SOUTH STF'EET.... ROAD C DATE AND TIME 017 THE Ar•IALYSIS..... 1/15/9C AM PEAK' OTHER INFORMATION.... TI.J I N LAK.ES -• 1997 -- I 'RO!'-'OSELi 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 LOS p M SH R SH _______ ________ _________ ____________ ____________ ----- MINOR STREET SB LEFT 58 664 652 > 652 > 593 > A > 738 > 650 >A RIGHT 30 995 995 > 995 > 966 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 31 998 998 998 967 A 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 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 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 _____________________________________________________________________ � TABULAR 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 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 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 . = > 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 ZED INTERSECTIONS page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. _ 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 SCUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 45 128 -- 62 THRU 111 90 -- C? R I GHT 74 25 -- 112 NUMBER OF LANES ---------------------------------------------------------------- LANES EB WB 1 1 NB SB -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (T t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHTTURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --_ — SOUTHBOUND 0.00 aC , 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 c ) 0 WESTBOUND Q 0 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND c i c i 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJ USTEb SIGHT D I ST . FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAF' MINOR RIGHTS SD 5. 50 5.50 0.00 5. 0j MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 6. 50 6.50 0.00 6 . 5i ) IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 65:' . NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD D DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... /15!90 : AM PEAK. OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES — 1997 — PROPOSED CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE page- -7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACI.fY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - LOB:; p M SH R SH MINOR STREET SB LEFT 68 670 650 RIGHT 123 992 992 MAJOR STREET EEC LEFT 50 998 998 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 650 > 582 . i B 6 > 644 > 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..... 2/15i90 ; AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED 94`_; 1995 HCM: yl.4JhyyI`uyy=IGyNALIyyZyEyDy..yy.IyrrTE.FLL:S.EyC�yTIONS pagt..._ .T. %4 M %K ry. T T )ii :iC %K .� it T %7� T T � � %'it T %r .p. %(rt� * T %� � m T T •n T A� T /r * * T � � W �"4 '�( %�( .�, `j� :�::'K i�: ih :'�. �k � :i �� %�: � h %� :n T ,ii n Tr ii� r ''�i� IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. j () 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)...... 2/15/9i? TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. PM PEAS:: 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ELF WB NB SD LEFT 149 1.28 -- 55 THRU 155 121 -- 0 RIGHT 74 63 -- 99 NUMBER OF LANES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EB WB ND SB LANES 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 V o 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 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 ; 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 61 514 456 RIGHT 109 929 929 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 164 981 981 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION > 456 > 395 > B > 678 > 509 >A > 929 > 820 > P, 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 ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION-RT 7/ROAD A AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... HARTLAND DATE ..........2/15/90 TIME ........... AM PEAK COMMENT ....... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 91 153 0 : T 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 12.0 TH 1093 570 0 0 : T 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 RT 68 0 224 Cl : 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 2.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PE . 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 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 11.3 3 NB 0.00 .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 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGT+. PH PH-2 P11-3 PH-4 PH PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH X TH RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT TH X X TH RT RT PD PD GREEN 10.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS AP P. DELAY APP. LOS EB T 0.784 0.435 14.6 B 14.1 B R 0.049 0.725 WB L 0.031 0.623 3.8 A 4.4 A T 0.285 0.623 4.5 A NB L 0.387 0.290 15.2 C 12.3 B R 0.259 0.435 9.5 B INTERSECTION: Delay = 10.8 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.503 LOS = B 1 {:Yt135 HCNI : S I GNAL I 7ED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT Ilk' INTERSECTION..RT 7/RDAD A INTERSECTION. AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... HARTLAND DATE..........^./15/9C; TIME.......... PM F'EAK COMMENT ....... TWIN LAk::ES — 1997 —• PROPOSED ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V`OLUMES . GEOMETRY EB WB NB S0 EB WB NB SB LT C? 297 1:=6 �i . -f 1� L 12.�; L 1 .�� 1:.?:; 686 1240 T 1 1'.=T'H I,"; ?CiC; C; 1'78 C; : h 1? . ,? T 12 . c=; 1.2 . c? 1. 2 . i ? RR 60 c_; 6Ci C; 1.2.c? lr'.C; 1'�'ac_, 12.0 12.Ci 1�'.0 1.2.i; • 11,71 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE [AV A.DJ PK—Q BUSES F'HF 1='EDS F'ED . L UT . ARf;:. T `{F'E Y/N Nin NL Y / N min T EB C? • QC; 2' . C iCi N cj Ci 0.90 Ci N 11 . 3 _ WB Ci.C;ci ^,c_;f IV C? C! {i.9C; 0 N 11.3 _ NB C;,C;C; 2,CiC; N 0 Ci C;,9C; C; N 25.8 — S B C;. C? c i 2. c"; C? N C? Ci c i. 90 C; i �a 5.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 74:,C? F'91-1 PH-2 f 'H--' F'H-- 4 PH-1 F'H-2 PH— F'h1--4 EB LT NB LT THH x TH RT x RT x F' D F' D WB LT x x SB LT TH x x TH RT R7 PD F'D GEEN 15.0 _;C i . C i C; . G C; a C? GREEN 2C? . 0 C; . Ci fEL LO}J .Ci ,ci Ci.C; C?.C; YELLOW. C; Ci.i� C;. _ O.C? LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP . V/C G ' C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY EB T C; . 528 4C; 5 12 . 9 F o.15'i c?ab;6 WB L c"; . 17' C; .649 = . 9 A 5.6 B T U . 596 C).649 6 . C., B r.JL; I_ Ci.T69 C).27C> 16.9 R C?.21.4 0.47=' 6.7 B I NTERSECT I ON: Delay = 8.1 (=_.ec :'ve h) `,- /C = C; . 5 3 1 LOS = B