Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout017-06 Rutherford Crossing - 22.45 B3 to B2, 8.55 M1 to B2 - Stonewall - BackfileO o oCO N co a ¢ 0 _ � O Q O N = O Q Y 4 P N O Vl W ,� z U wkr) ATE t3 No. 9274 RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS �a3 (i c�.t c �i s oc, k1a-'it4-G Q -,;L?o Ld h �`&OLLARS $ 14 I �JU ❑FOR RENT s 5Q CG ❑ FOR J • • • AMT OF CASH ACCOUNT AMT. PAID 15 CHECK WZ BALANCE MONEY DUE ORDER BY bkEZONING TRACKING SA, T Chec:k'L�st ,,- Application received/file opened Reference manual updated/number assigned D-base updated Copy of adj oiner list given to staff member for verification Four sets of adjoiner labels ordered from data processing .-O.xe- 4� x-4-" ek-and-white location map ordered from Mapping File given to office manager to update Application Action Summary PC public hearing date ACTION: BOS public hearing date ACTION: Signe&copy-of resolutionfor-amendment-of-ordinance, with conditions proffered [if applicable], received from County Administrator's office and given to office manager for placement in the Proffers Notebook. (Note: If rezoning has no proffers, resolution goes in Amendments Without Proffers Notebook.) / p Action letter mailed to applicant 1/3'D 17 � Reference manual and D-base updated / d File given to office manager to update Application Action Summary (final action) 0 File given to Mapping/GIS to update zoning map Z ri U Zoning map amended U'\Carol\Common \tracki ng. rez Rcvised' 05/09/02 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: NV Retail 8230 Leesburg Pike, Suite 500 Vienna, VA 22102 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. PHR l 00 Ma insburff Avenue, Suite 54 - Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 T 304.264.2611 F 304.264.3671 September 7, 2006 NOV 13 ? I UVA-WRII_IK❖I Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this report to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Rutherford Crossing to be located along Route 11, northwest of the intersection of the Route 11/I-81 northbound on ramp, in Frederick County, Virginia. PHR+A has provided analysis for two alternative conditions: Scenario A assumes the build -out of the proposed development to include 215,000 square feet of industrial park, a 117,000 square foot home improvement store, a 127,000 square foot discount store, 187,147 square feet of specialty retail, 4,500 square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru, a 4,800 square foot high turn over restaurant, a 5,000 square foot high turn over restaurant, a 5,500 square foot high turn over restaurant, a 7,200 square foot high turn over restaurant and a 4,100 square foot bank. Scenario B assumes the build -out of the "approved" by -right development to include 325,000 square feet of industrial park, a 117,000 square foot home improvement store, a 127,000 square foot discount store, 245,842 square feet of office, a 4,500 square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru, a 4,800 square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru, four (4) 5,500 square foot high turn over restaurants, a 7,200 square foot high turn over restaurant, a 4,100 square foot bank and 4,500 square feet of convenience mart with pumps. Access is to be provided via three (3) site -driveways along the west side of Route 11, of which two secondary site -driveways will be right in/out. PHR+A has performed traffic analyses for existing, 2010 background (without development) and 2010 build -out (with development) conditions. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the Rutherford Crossing development with respect to the surrounding roadway network. METHODOLOGY The traffic impacts accompanying the proposed development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Calculation of trip generation for the Rutherford Crossing, • Distribution and assignment of Rutherford Crossing generated trips onto the completed road network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service with the latest version of the highway capacity software, HCS+, for existing and future conditions. PHR1� A Traf is Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crosse September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 1 No Scale V Figure I Vicinity Map - Rutherford Crossing in Frederick County, Virginia A TMCCic Inipact Analysis of the Rufhei:Lord Crossing September 7, 2006 R+A 26-1-0 PH Project Number: 146Page 2 11 EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersection of Route 11/Welltown Road, Route 11/I-81 souhbound ramps, Route 11/ I-81 northbound off ramp, Route 11/I-81 northbound on ramp/Redbud Road and Route 11/Old Charlestown Road. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) was established along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 10%. Figure 2 shows the ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 3 shows the existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS+ level of service worksheets are included'in the Appendix section of this report. PR+AH A Tra(rc Impact Analysis o%the Ruthet: ord Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 3 No Scale AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) AA Traffic Impact Analtsis ofthe Rutherford Crossing P006 H" September 7, -1-0 Project Number: 146Page 4 Page 4 No Scale Unsignalized Intersection � J C�GI 1 � lGl�iti �� Signalized Intersection LOS = C(C) Figure 3 Unsignalized 11 Intersection Q >C(C)� Id Charles To Signalized Intersection LOS = B(B) r Unsignalized Intersection 0000 11 b a Existing Lane Geometry and LOS A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing P006 H A September 7, -1-0l� Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 5 i� 11 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS In order to establish the 2010 base conditions, PHR+A increased the existing traffic volumes (shown in Figure 2) using a conservative growth rate of 5% per year (compounded annually). Additionally, PHR+A included specific firture developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 71" Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Note: Access is to be provided for FEMA and the Lumber Yard via the proposed site -driveways serving Rutherford Crossing. Figure 4 shows the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 5 shows the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. PHRn A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutheiford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 6 11 u 1 Table 1 2010 Background Developments Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Clearbrook Properties 120 GA Heavy Industrial 120,000 SF 54 7 61 3 20 23 180 932 H-T Restaurant 8,000 SF 48 44 92 53 34 87 1,017 Total 102 52 153 56 54 110 1,197 Other Developments 730 FEMA 350 employees 190 24 214 86 191 277 2,713 812 Building/Lumber Store 15,000 SF 26 13 39 33 37 70 639 Total 216 37 253 119 228 347 3,352 Stephenson Village ** 210 Single -Family Detached 429 units 77 232 310 255 144 399 4,290 220 Apartment 240 units 20 103 123 100 49 149 1,573 230 Townhouse/Condo 390 units 26 125 150 127 62 189 3,393 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 266 units 29 51 80 78 44 123 1,064 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 72 units 3 2 5 4 3 7 251 Total 155 513 667 564 302 866 10,570 Sempeles Property *** 130 Industrial Park 898,425 SF 459 101 559 154 580 734 5,204 820 Retail 73,500 SF 79 51 130 245 266 511 5,559 Total 538 152 689 399 846 1,245 10,763 * Access to be provided via the proposed Rutherford Crossing site -driveway ** Assumed Phase 1 build -out for Year 2010 *** Assumed 75% build -out for Year 2010 PHTtl� A Tra(LiC Impact Analysis of the Ruther/brcl Crossin September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 7 A TraTic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing P006 HP September 7, -1-0 Project Number: 146Page 8 Page 8 'Signalized Intersection co LOS = C(C) *100 r a Signalized 1 Intersection Unsignalized LOS = E(F) Intersection !✓ C, %o f�l�l J� t 3 s�0 Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS = E//EB - 2 Left `E) WB - I Left, 1 Right ,d NB - I Leff 3 3 * �9l �' 11 SITE "New Lrtcrsecfion" Signalized Intersection LOS = B(B) Signalized "Suggested Inter: Ctio11 Improvemenfs" LOS = C(C) I Signalization Unsignalized 11 Intersection New Intersection" >F(F)* No Scale $ Old C4ar/es To to D Its, >Zibi nt'ej Ro.,,� "New Intersection" Unsignalized t Intersection � •�1 a Signalized I "Suggested Improvements" Intersection Signalization LOS = C(C) NB - I Right Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=B(C) I Signalization AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) "Denotes Free -Flow Movement Figure 5 2010 Background Lane Geometry and LOS A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Ruther/mb r 7, 2006 P September 006 H Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 9 TRIP GENERATION PHR+A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 7"' Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 2a and Table 2b are provided below to summarize the trip generation associated with the proposed Rutherford Crossing for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Table 2c shows a comparison of the two (2) scenarios. Table 2a Proposed Development: Rutberford Crossing Scenario A: Trip Generation Summary (Pronosed Development) Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 130 Industrial Park 215,000 SF 152 33 186 44 164 208 1,814 862 Home Impr. Superstore 117,000 SF 76 65 140 135 152 287 3,581 815 Discount Store 127,000 SF 73 34 107 321 321 643 7,115 814 Specialty Retail 187,147 SF 139 89 228 207 264 471 8,044 932 H-T Restaurant 5,000 SF 30 28 58 33 21 55 636 934 Fast Food Nv/ DT 4,500 SF 122 117 239 81 75 156 2,233 932 H-T Restaurant 4,800 SF 29 27 55 32 20 52 610 932 H-T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H-T Restaurant 7,200 SF 43 40 83 48 31 79 915 912 Drive-in Bank 4,100 SF 28 22 51 94 94 188 1,004 Total Trips 725 485 1,210 1,031 1,165 2,197 26,652 Table 2b Proposed Development: Rutherford Crossing Scenario B: Trip Generation Summary ("Approved" By -right Development) Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 130 Industrial Park 325,000 SF 210 46 256 61 231 292 2,360 710 Office 245,842 SF 339 46 385 60 294 354 2,667 815 Discount Store 127,000 SF 73 34 107 321 321 643 7,115 862 Home Impr. Superstore 117,000 SF 76 65 140 135 152 287 3,581 934 Fast Food w/ DT 4,800 SF 130 125 255 86 80 166 2,381 934 Fast Food w/ DT 4,500 SF 122 117 239 81 75 156 2,233 932 H-T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H-T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H-T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H-T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H-T Restaurant 7,200 SF 43 40 83 48 31 79 915 912 Drive-in Bank 4,100 SF 28 22 51 94 94 188 1,004 853 Conven. Mart w\pumps 4,500 SF 103 103 205 136 136 273 3,805 Total Trips 1,255 719 1,974 1,170 1,507 2,677 28,859 Table 2c Trip Generation Comparison: Pronosed versus "ADDroved" By -Right Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour In Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Per Table 2a Total 725 485 1,210 1,031 1,165 2,197 26,652 Per Table 2b Total 1,255 719 1,974 1,170 1,507 2,677 28,859 Proposed versus "Approved" By -Right -530 -234 -764 -138 -342 -480 -2207 A Tra(%c Impact Analysis of the Ruther(mCrossing September 7, 2006 R+AProject Number: 14626-1-0 PH Page 10 n 2010 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENTS The distribution of trips, shown in Figure 6, was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed Rutherford Crossing site. Figures 7a and 7b show the respective development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assigmnents for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Rutherford Crossing assigned trips (Figures 7a and 7b) were then added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 8a and 8b show the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Figures 9a and 9b show the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. PHRn A Tra j/ic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 11 No Scale 20% 11 Old Charles To Road 10% iZb' tin���aY�! SITE s;,e 25% Sr,e'D - Righ orery �JniO aY,Yr3 ur OniY E m w M m O� �A 11 o y. ro � z a �A a 30% 15% ■ - T -,, + / Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentage A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Grossing September 7, 2006 R+A Project Number: 14626-1-0 PH Page 12 No Scale �,p5l�co, STI AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) IN= � M WrM J Figure 7a Scenario A: Development -Generated Trip Assignment (Proposed Development) A Tra(ic Impact Analysis of the Rutherrord Crossing September 7, 2006 R+A Project Number: 14626-1-0 PHPage 13 No Scale S a 1`I ti�6lA`'1.1 4,000 1 -+- [7 N� 1� Nh 12S(117) Id C4arl.S Town �� Road b O� M AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) i Figure 7b Scenario B: Development -Generated Trip Assignment (By -right Development) AA Traffic Impact Analysis Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing PH 006 R+ 1 September 7, -1-0 Project Number: 14626-]-0 Page 14 11 hq h~ 8.9026) No Scale IPAS Old Charts 2(3g8) ,S�Ah�a91 ro,,n j� S;te /toad Orrr pii/y ` bow l0A a 11 y '� ry 1 �p ja io r Sr/e.Dn ka z SITE? (S�)Ipy��� f `�ti y (3SS)132 r b aw,�, v y 11 Sit,� . : �. n I��litl"/Oeu a �p ���o O/p/y _ 0 Q1,rd� A (63)IS pa 11 0 C �gllti5titi6'Il c ww w g �� ,yti1,Al ,n C1 20 s s�r��9JJ �tio ti�� a19�� •`� J W gsl o N �s65lAlAl N o a �tig5 JL 00 l�bbg�lb5% 00.4 l� v, AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 8a Scenario A: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Proposed Development) A Traffic Ibnpact Analysis of the Ruthei:Lbr l Crossing PH R+A September 7, -1-0 Project Number:14626-1-0 Page 15 No Scale ca U) w w o 19�1A1i3�o1 w , �� tib9 ��N 3 1 � 20 srj� 9% s��r19J� 0.0 B i`�i o v � g30lAG5l JIL S�1oo s ("s �9' Pa. .co 1 1g9(126) Old 605(402 d Charles Town ) Road h N1 Nryti q� a� S/te use SITE : 3l ,� Sr�e 0 Ony � • tljnve�l �� (441)190� niOut Only nq (8p)37� 1� ?0 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) i Figure 8b Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (By -right Development) PH A Ti a�fc Impact Atra! s�o�the RutherCrossinSepteembmb er 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 16 Internalized Intersection 11 GG "New 4 No Sc, Signalized Intersection" Intersection � ,0, 'd p/tar/es LOS = C(D) _ `,iolb . RoaVn SITE d �L�/r �et�a � r 11 �,�� put p�ily ��l Signalized Impro,gcs cd O) cK b It Signnlization 14 "New LOS = C(C) WB - 1 Left Intersection" NB - 1 Right z Signalized Sire Intersection d�eejt• V LOS = C(C) vy `See, i I j �6�r2 per` ro a a y l CO A "New Signalized 11 Intersection" Intersection Unsignalized LOS = FM Intersection %010�> a V, �l Unsignalized f 3 � j► a Intersection s& b Signalized ."Suggested .P b J Iprovements" a Intersection Signalization J LOS = C(D) I l� Ib �(•t `)o Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=D EB-2Left F ( ) WB - I Left 1 Right d NB - I Left 0-000 Signalized Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS = D(E) Signalization AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) I�Denotes Free -Flow Movement Figure 9a Scenario A: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS (Proposed Development) PH 006 �� -t n September 7, -1-0 �1 1 Project Number:14626-1-0 Page 17 'Signalized Intersection ,0 glGl LOS = C(D) �oe r � � b Signalized 1 Intersection Unsignalized LOS = F(F) Intersection 0 OPP*# J Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=EB-2Left E NB - I Left, I Right ,d No - 1 Left �p 3 J Unsignalized Intersection 11 a 4 Q F(I No Scale Intersection" �1 /aliartes Tot HRona `Stye. Rigitr Oelf a , SITE lit "New j Intersection" Signalized dij� et Intersection -",2 LOS = C(C) s (C)C, r 1- 1 "New \ Intersection" 11 Signalized su Intersection InsPr� LOS = D(E) g �S JN t QV I- N Signalized "Suggested Improvements" Intersection Signalization LOS = C(D) wB - I Left NB - 1 Rieht AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) `Denotes Free -Flow Movement Figure 9b Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS (By -right Development) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford CrossillQ P006 HP September 7, -1-0 Project Number: 14Page 10 Page 18 CONCLUSION Assuming the roadway configurations shown in Figures 9a and 9b for Scenarios A and B, respectively, the proposed signalized intersection of Site -Driveway #2/Route 11 will maintain overall levels of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. Although some of the off -site intersections will operate with levels of service below "C"; the proposed "suggested improvements" of signalization/synchronization of the Route 11/I- 81 interchange intersections would significantly improve levels of service as well as traffic flow through this Route 11 corridor. PHR+A has provided Table 3 to summarize the benefits of the "suggested improvements" shown on Figures 9a and 9b, respectively. It is to be noted that the impacts of the proposed development (Scenario A) would be less than that of the "approved" by -right development (Scenario B) during 2010 build -out conditions. Table 3 Summary of Suggested Improvements Suggested Levels of Service Scenario A Scenario B No. Intersection Direction Improvements (Scenarios A & B) w/o Improvements w/ Improvements w/o Improvements w/ Improvements I Route 11/I-81 SB ramps Eastbound Westbound Signalization LOS F(F) LOS D(E) LOS F(F) LOS D(E) Northbound Southbound 2 Route 11/1-81 NB Off ramp Eastbound Westbound LOS C(D) LOS C(D) Northbound — Southbound 3 Route 1 I/Redbud Road/NB Eastbound On ramp Westbound Signalization LOS F(F) LOS C(D) LOS F(F) LOS C(D) Northbound Southbound 4 Route I I/Charlestown Roac Eastbound - N/A Westbound I left turn lane LOS F(F) LOS C(C) LOS F(F) LOS C(D) Northbound - I right turn lane Sonthbound Sigualization 5 Route I 1/Welltown Road Eastbound 2 left tarn lane Westbound I left, 1 right turn lane LOS F(F) LOS D(F) LOS F(F) LOS E(F) Northbound - I left turn Southbound LOS X(X) = LOS AM(PM) A TraTic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing PH 006 R+ 1 September7, -1-0 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 19 APPENDIX Ej 1 HCS+ Worksheets 11 Synchro 6.0 Worksheets I7 1 Traffic Counts 1 1� HCS+TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & 1-81 NB Off Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 Lane Group L R T T Volume, V (vph) 490 68 820 923 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 1 5 5 1 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 1 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 112.0 112.0 112.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 1 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 23.0 G= G= G= G= 50.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 516 72 863 972 Lane Group Capacity, c 903 416 2026 2026 v/c Ratio, X 0.57 0.17 0.43 0.48 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.27 0.27 0.59 0.59 Uniform Delay, di 26.7 23.7 9.6 10.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.2 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 Control Delay 27.6 23.9 9.8 10.2 Lane Group LOS C C A B Approach Delay 27.2 9.8 10.2 Approach LOS C A 8 Intersection Delay 14.2 XC = 0.51 Intersection LOS 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:37 AM HCS+" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & 1-81 NB Off Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 Lane Group L R T T Volume, V (vph) 665 141 968 822 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 1 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 1 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 1 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 23.0 G= G= G= I G= 50.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 700 148 1019 865 Lane Group Capacity, c 903 416 2026 2026 v/c Ratio, X 0.78 0.36 0.50 0.43 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.27 0.27 0.59 0.59 Uniform Delay, di 28.6 25.0 10.2 9.6 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.32 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 4.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 32.9 25.5 10.4 9.8 Lane Group LOS C C B A Approach Delay 31.6 10.4 9.8 Approach LOS C B A Intersection Delay 16.8 XC = 0.59 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:37 AM HCS+` DETAILED REPORT Information Site Information 'General Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group LT R LTR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 232 17 239 57 20 25 163 1091 75 101 1593 157 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 1 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A 'Pretimed Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Type, AT 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 'Arrival Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N 'Parking Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 7.0 G= 17.0 G= G= G= 5.0 G= 48.0 G= G= IY- Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= 6 Y= I Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 95.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination _77-1 EB WB NB SB TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 262 252 107 172 1148 79 106 1677 165 Lane Group Capacity, c 330 567 179 166 1741 777 233 1741 777 v/c Ratio, X 0.79 10.44 0.60 1.04 10.66 0.10 0.45 10.96 0.21 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.25 0.37 0.18 0.62 0.51 0.51 0.62 0.51 0.51 Uniform Delay, di 33.2 22.7 35.9 25.3 17.4 12.3 11.1 22.6 13.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.34 0.11 0.19 0.50 0.23 0.11 0.11 0.47 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 12.6 0.6 5.4 79.7 0.9 0.1 1.4 13.9 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1090 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 45.7 23.2 41.3 105.0 18.4 12.3 12.5 36.5 13.2 Lane Group LOS D C D F B B B D B Approach Delay 34.7 41.3 28.7 33.2 Approach LOS C D C C Intersection Delay 32.0 X C = 0.98 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:37 AM � I � I H 1 HCS+" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group LT R LTR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 274 25 274 48 29 28 223 1260 72 55 1425 210 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 1 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 7.0 G= 17.0 G= G= G= 8.0 G= 41.0 G= G= Y= 0 IY= 6 Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 314 288 111 235 1326 76 58 1500 221 Lane Group Capacity, c 358 688 207 247 1986 887 142 1662 742 v/c Ratio, X 0.88 10.42 0.54 0.95 10.67 0.09 0.41 0.90 0.30 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.28 0.45 0.20 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.48 0.48 0.48 Uniform Delay, d, 29.1 16.0 30.5 22.6 12.4 8.0 14.2 20.2 13.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.40 0.11 0.14 0.46 0.24 0.11 0.11 0.42 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 21.0 0.4 2.7 43.9 0.9 0.0 1.9 7.3 0.2 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 50.1 16.4 33.2 66.4 13.3 8.1 16.1 127.5 13.5 Lane Group LOS D B C E B A B C B Approach Delay 34.0 33.2 20.7 25.4 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Delay 25.0 XC = 0.98 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:37 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Copyright ©2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:37 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Charlestown Rd Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Condiitons Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: Charlestown Rd North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 452 139 14 312 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 475 146 14 328 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 5 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 93 17 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 0 97 0 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v (veh/h) 14 114 C (m) (veh/h) 945 320 V/c 0.01 0.36 95% queue length 0.05 1.57 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.9 22.3 LOS A C pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 22.3 pproach LOS -- -- C T Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:37 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Redbud Rd Jurisdiction nalvsis Year Existing Condiitons Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB On Ramp North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 292 590 6 5 902 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 307 621 6 5 949 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 5 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T U stream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 21 15 11 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 0 22 15 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR v (veh/h) 307 5 48 C (m) (veh/h) 701 931 0 v/c 0.44 0.01 95% queue length 2.24 0.02 Control Delay (s/veh) 14.1 8.9 LOS B A F Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- pproach LOS -- -- Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:38 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Redbud Rd Jurisdiction nalvsis Year Existing Condiitons Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB On Ramp North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 474 610 25 19 801 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 498 642 26 20 843 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 5 -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 21 22 12 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 0 22 23 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration I I LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level: of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR v (veh/h) 498 20 57 C (m) (veh/h) 770 898 0 v/C 0.65 0.02 95% queue length 4.81 0.07 Control Delay (s/veh) 17.8 9.1 LOS C A F Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- Approach LOS -- -- Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:38 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & 1-81 SB Ramps Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Condiitons Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: 1-81 SB Ramps North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 807 115 1298 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 849 0 121 1366 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 5 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T L T U stream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 13 0 553 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 13 0 582 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 0 Configuration LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R (veh/h) 121 13 582 C (m) (veh/h) 766 100 385 V/C 0.16 0.13 1.51 95% queue length 0.56 0.43 31.54 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.6 46.3 269.5 LOS B E F Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 264.7 pproach LOS -- -- F Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:38 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction nalvsis Year 11 & 1-81 SB Ra stina Condiitons Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: /-81 SB Ramps North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 955 131 1356 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 1005 0 137 1427 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 13 0 334 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 13 0 351 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 0 Configuration LT R Delay, Queue -Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R v (veh/h) 137 13 351 C (m) (veh/h) 667 83 367 v/c 0.21 0.16 0.96 95% queue length 0.77 0.53 10.52 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.8 56.3 70.7 LOS B F F pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 70.2 pproach LOS -- -- F Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:38 AM HCS+`M DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6130106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & 1-81 Off NB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 Lane Group L R T T Volume, V (vph) 596 138 1211 1346 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 1 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 1 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 38.0 G= G= G= I G= 60.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 627 145 1275 1417 Lane Group Capacity, c 1153 531 1879 1879 v/c Ratio, X 0.54 0.27 0.68 0.75 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.35 0.35 0.55 0.55 Uniform Delay, di 29.0 26.0 18.0 19.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.14 0.11 0.25 10.31 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 1 0.3 1.0 1.8 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 29.5 26.3 19.0 21.1 Lane Group LOS C C B C 1 11 I I I I 11 11 11 11 L Approach Delay 28.9 19.0 21.1 Approach LOS C 8 C Intersection Delay 22.1 X c = 0.67 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:44 AM 1 II 11 11 1 I HCS+" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6130106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & 1-81 Off NB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 Lane Group L R T T Volume, V (vph) 1 808 274 1482 1264 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 12.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 38.0 G= G= G= G= 60.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 851 131 1560 1331 Lane Group Capacity, c 1153 531 1879 1879 v/c Ratio, X 0.74 0.25 0.83 0.71 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.35 0.35 0.55 0.55 Uniform Delay, di 31.6 25.8 20.8 18.5 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.30 0.11 0.37 0.27 Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 0.2 3.3 1.3 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 34.2 26.0 24.1 19.8 Lane Group LOS C C C B Approach Delay 33.1 24.1 19.8 Approach LOS C C 8 Intersection Delay 24.9 XC = 0.79 Intersection LOS C 1 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:49 AM HCS+" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group LT R LTR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 282 21 291 57 20 25 198 1464 91 123 2078 191 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A)le A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, I1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qe 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 1 02 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 19.0 G= G= G= G= 5.0 G= 48.0 G= G= Y= 6 1 Y= Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 319 306 107 208 1541 96 129 2187 201 Lane Group Capacity, c 267 513 81 176 1837 820 176 1837 820 v/c Ratio, X 1.19 0.60 1.32 1.18 0.84 0.12 0.73 1.19 0.25 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.21 0.33 0.21 0.66 0.53 0.53 0.66 0.53 0.53 Uniform Delay, di 35.5 25.0 35.5 26.3 17.7 10.5 15.9 21.0 11.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.19 0.50 0.50 0.37 0.11 0.29 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 1118.3 1.9 208.0 125.2 3.6 0.1 14.6 91.5 1 0.2 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 153.8 26.9 243.5 151.5 21.4 10.5 30.5 112.5 11.4 Lane Group LOS F C F F C B C F B Approach Delay 91.6 243.5 35.5 100.2 Approach LOS F F D F Intersection Delay 78.7 X = 1.35 Intersection LOS E Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 1 HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:49 AM HCS+'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group LT R LTR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 333 30 333 48 29 28 271 1722 88 67 1918 255 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 1 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 1 02 03 04 1 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 27.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 65.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= 6 1Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacitty, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 383 245 111 285 1813 93 71 2019 268 Lane Group Capacity, c 270 551 87 203 1866 833 203 1866 833 v/c Ratio, X 1.42 0.44 1.28 1.40 0.97 0.11 0.35 1.08 0.32 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.22 0.36 0.22 0.67 0.54 0.54 0.67 0.54 0.54 Uniform Delay, di 46.5 29.4 46.5 41.3 26.6 13.4 24.1 27.5 15.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.48 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 208.7 0.6 187.5 208.6 14.7 0.1 1.0 46.9 0.2 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 255.2 30.0 234.0 249.9 41.3 13.5 25.1 74.4 15.5 Lane Group LOS F C F F D B C I E B Approach Delay 167.3 234.0 67.2 66.2 Approach LOS F F E E Intersection Delay 82.2 XC = 1.99 Intersection LOS F ICopyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:49 AM HCS+" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction 2010 Background Condiitons Analysis Year Project ID Rutherford Crossing - Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 282 21 291 57 20 25 198 1464 91 123 2078 191 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EB Only Thru & RT 04 Exc1. Left Thru & RT 07 08 Timing G= 4.3 IY= G= 4.0 G= 5.4 G= G= 9.4 G= 67.9 G= G= 6 Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= IY= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 115.0 Lane Grou Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 297 22 306 60 21 26 208 1541 96 129 2187 201 Lane Group Capacity, c 415 148 332 64 85 278 141 2034 1046 141 2034 1180 v/c Ratio, X 0.72 0.15 0.92 10.94 0.25 10.09 1.48 0.76 0.09 0.91 1.08 0.17 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.12 0.08 0.22 0.04 0.05 0.18 0.08 0.59 0.68 0.08 0.59 0.77 Uniform Delay, d, 48.4 49.1 44.1 55.2 52.8 39.2 52.8 17.5 6.3 52.4 23.5 3.6 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.28 0.11 0.44 0.45 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.31 0.11 0.43 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 5.8 0.5 30.2 90.4 1.5 0.1 248.0 1.7 0.0 51.0 43.7 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 54.2 49.5 74.3 145.E 54.4 39.4 300.8 19.1 6.3 103.4 67.2 3.7 Lane Group LOS D D E F D D F 8 A F E A Approach Delay 63.9 101.9 50.2 64.0 Approach LOS E F D E Intersection Delay 59.8 X� = 1.03 Intersection LOS E ICopyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:49 AM HCS+TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction 2010 Background Condiitons Analysis Year Project ID Rutherford Crossing - Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 333 30 333 48 29 28 271 1722 88 67 1918 255 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A I A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 1 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EB Only Thru & RT 04 Excl. Left Thru & RT 07 08 Timing G= 4.4 G= 6.2 G= 5.7 G= G= 10.5 G= 64.2 G= G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= IY= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 115.0 Lane Group Ca aci , Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 351 32 245 51 31 29 285 1813 93 71 2019 268 Lane Group Capacity, c 482 187 380 66 90 297 157 1923 998 157 1923 1161 v/c Ratio, X 0.73 0.17 0.64 0.77 0.34 10.10 1.82 0.94 0.09 0.45 1.05 0.23 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.14 0.10 0.25 0.04 0.05 0.19 0.09 0.56 0.65 0.09 0.56 0.75 Uniform Delay, di 47.0 47.0 38.8 54.8 52.8 38.2 52.3 23.7 7.6 49.5 25.4 4.2 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.29 0.11 0.22 0.32 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.46 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 5.5 0.4 3.7 42.3 2.3 1 0.1 390.8 10.1 0.0 2.1 35.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 52.6 47.5 42.5 97.1 55.1 38.3 443.1 33.8 7.6 51.6 60.5 4.3 Lane Group LOS D D D F E D F C A D E A Approach Delay 48.4 70.0 85.9 53.8 Approach LOS D E F D Intersection Delay 66.8 XC = 1.04 Intersection LOS E I Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:50 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Intersection AJurisdiction nalvsis Year Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour 11 & Charlestown Rd 10 Background Conditions Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: Charlestown Rd North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 322 150 65 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 338 157 68 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 5 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 479 189 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 0 504 0 198 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Confiauration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v (veh/h) 68 702 C (m) (veh/h) 1053 496 /c 0.06 1.42 95% queue length 0.21 33.59 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.7 221.3 LOS A F .Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 221.3 pproach LOS -- -- F Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:50 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Intersection AJurisdiction nalvsis Year Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing 11 & Charlestown Rd 10 Background Conditions East/West Street: Charlestown Rd North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 621 491 214 451 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 653 516 225 474 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- — 5 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 285 126 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 0 300 0 132 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (veh/h) 225 432 C (m) (veh/h) 587 69 /C 0.38 6.26 95% queue length 1.79 48.70 Control Delay (s/veh) 14.9 2485 LOS B F ,Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 2485 pproach LOS -- -- F Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:50 AM HCS+" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Old Charlestown Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing - Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 0 1 1 1 1 Lane Group LR T R L T Volume, V (vph) 479 189 322 150 65 449 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Na 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 54.0 G= 1Y= G= G= G= 5.0 G= 39.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 703 339 158 68 473 Lane Group Capacity, c 825 642 1384 284 724 v/c Ratio, X 0.85 0.53 0.11 0.24 0.65 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.49 0.35 0.90 0.40 0.40 Uniform Delay, di 24.5 28.2 0.6 21.9 26.8 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.38 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.23 Incremental Delay, d2 8.6 0.8 0.0 0.4 2.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 33.1 29.0 0.6 22.4 28.9 Lane Group LOS C C A C C Approach Delay 33.1 20.0 28.1 Approach LOS C B C Intersection Delay 27.8 X� = 0.76 Intersection LOS C I Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:50 AM HCS+' General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 &Old Charlestown Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing - Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 0 1 1 1 1 Lane Group LR T R L T Volume, V (vph) 285 126 621 491 214 451 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped /Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Na 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 34.5 G= G= G= G= 7.0 G= 46.5 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Con I Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 433 654 517 225 475 Lane Group Capacity, c 578 842 1338 240 968 v/c Ratio, X 0.75 0.78 0.39 0.94 0.49 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.34 0.47 0.87 0.54 0.54 Uniform Delay, di 28.9 22.4 1.3 29.5 14.7 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.30 0.33 0.11 0.45 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 5.4 4.6 0.2 41.2 0.4 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 34.3 27.0 1.5 70.7 15.1 Lane Group LOS C C A E 8 " DETAILED REPORT i i Approach Delay 34.3 15.7 32.9 Approach LOS C 8 C Intersection Delay 24.5 X = 0.83 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:50 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHRA TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Intersection AJurisdiction nalvsis Year Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour 11 & Redbud Rd f0 Backaround Conditions Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: Redbud Rd//-81 NB On Ramp North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 576 1149 30 23 1239 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 606 1209 31 24 1304 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 5 — — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 26 27 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 0 27 28 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR (veh/h) 606 24 70 C (m) (veh/h) 511 541 0 /c 1.19 0.04 95% queue length 22.14 0.14 Control Delay (s/veh) 128.1 12.0 LOS F B F Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- pproach LOS -- -- Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:53 AM HCS+" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Redbud Rd/NB on ramp Area Type , All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing - Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 Lane Group LTR L TR L T Volume, V (vph) 26 18 13 355 987 7 1 6 1321 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 1 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only =2 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 13.0 G= G= G= G= 20.0 G= 45.0 G= G= Y= 6 1Y= Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Grou Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 60 374 1046 6 1391 Lane Group Capacity, c 248 463 2486 248 1723 v/c Ratio, X 0.24 0.81 0.42 0.02 10.81 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.14 0.72 10.72 0.50 0.50 Uniform Delay, di 34.1 24.3 5.0 11.4 18.9 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.35 0.11 0.11 0.35 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 10.2 0.1 0.0 3.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 34.6 34.5 5.1 11.4 21.8 Lane Group LOS C C A B C Approach Delay Approach LOS Intersection Delay 17.6 :opyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 34.6 12.8 C B XC = 0.82 Intersection LOS HCS+TM Version 5.2 21.8 C B Generated: 9/5/2006 11:53 AM HCS+- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Redbud Rd/NB on ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing - Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 Lane Group LTR L TR L T Volume, V (vph) 26 27 15 576 1149 30 23 1239 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A I A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 13.0 G= G= G= G= 27.0 G= 38.0 G= G= Y= 6 1Y= Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 71 606 1241 24 1304 Lane Group Capacity, c 249 596 2479 173 1455 v/c Ratio, X 0.29 1.02 0.50 0.14 0.90 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.14 0.72 0.72 0.42 0.42 Uniform Delay, di 34.4 25.9 5.4 16.0 24.2 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.42 Incremental Delay, dz 0.6 141.1 0.2 0.4 7.7 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 35.0 67.1 5.6 16.3 31.9 Lane Group LOS C E A B C Approach Delay ' Approach LOS Intersection Delay 28.3 'Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 35.0 25.8 C C X� = 0.94 Intersection LOS HCS+Tm Version 5.2 31.6 C C Generated: 9/5/2006 11:53 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Intersection AJurisdiction /06 nalvsis Year Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07/20 Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: 1-81 SB Ramps Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 1118 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 1176 Percent Heavv Vehicles 5 -- Lanes 0 2 Configuration T Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Eastbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 93 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 97 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration L (veh/h) 233 C (m) (veh/h) 573 lc 0.41 95% queue length 1.97 Control Delay (s/veh) 15.5 LOS C Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- pproach LOS -- -- 11 & 1-81 SB Ramps 10 Background Conditions orth/South Street: US Route 11 tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 Southbound 3 4 5 6 R L T R 222 1719 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 233 1809 0 _ 5 Raised curb 0 0 0 1 2 0 L T 0 Westbound 9 10 11 12 R L T R 672 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 707 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 N 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 R Westbound Eastbound 7 8 9 10 11 12 LT R 97 707 30 274 3.23 2.58 11.53 58.65 1281 750.1 F F 814.2 F Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:53 AM A ' General Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Intersection AJurisdiction nalvsis Year Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Description Rutherford Crossing IlProject East/West Street: 1-81 SB Ramps Intersection Orientation: North -South Volumes and Adjustments 'Vehicle Major Street Northbound Movement 1 2 Volume (veh/h) L T 1352 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 '(veh/h) Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1423 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 Median Type 'RT Channelized Lanes 0 2 Configuration T Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Eastbound Movement 7 8 ' Volume (veh/h) L 130 T 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 136 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT ' Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound 1 4 'Movement Lane Configuration L (veh/h) 251 'C (m) (veh/h) 459 /c 0.55 ' 95% queue length Control Delay (s/veh) LOS 3.22 21.9 C 'pproach Delay (s/veh) pproach LOS 11 & 1-81 SB Ramps 10 Backaround Conditions orth/South Street: US Route 11 tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 Southbound 3 4 5 6 R L T R 239 1834 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 251 1930 0 — 5 — — Raised curb 0 0 0 1 2 0 L T 0 Westbound 9 10 11 12 R L T R 406 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 427 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 0 N 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 R Westbound Eastbound 7 8 9 10 11 12 LT R 136 427 0 249 1.71 27.97 372.7 F F Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:54 AM It HCS+T" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information ' Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6130106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & 1-81 SB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction 2010 Background Condiitons Analysis Year Project ID Rutherford Crossing - Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 2 1 2 Lane Group LT R T L T 'Volume, V (vph) 93 0 672 1118 222 1719 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 'Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 240 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 IN N 0 N I N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 ' Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 SB Only Thru Only 07 08 ' Timing G= 29.5 G= G= G= G= 14.5 G= 39.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 95.0 Lane Group Capacitty, Control Delay, and LOS Determination ' EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Flow Rate, v 98 455 1177 234 1809 'Adjusted Lane Group Capacity, c 535 478 1414 262 1940 ' v/c Ratio, X Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.18 0.31 0.95 0.31 0.83 0.41 0.89 0.15 0.93 0.56 Uniform Delay, di 23.9 32.1 25.1 39.5 19.1 ' Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.46 0.37 0.42 0.45 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 129.3 4.4 29.6 8.9 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 24.1 61.3 29.5 69.1 28.0 Lane Group LOS C E C E C i I0 Approach Delay 54.7 ' Approach LOS D Intersection Delay 34.9 'Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved I 29.5 C XC = 0.94 Intersection LOS HCS+TM Version 5.2 32.7 C C Generated: 9/5/2006 11:54 AM HCS+- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information ' ' Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6130106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & 1-81 SB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction 2010 Background Condiitons Analysis Year Project ID Rutherford Crossing - Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 2 1 2 Lane Group LT R T L T ' Volume, V (vph) 130 0 406 1 1352 239 1834 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 10m95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 135 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ' Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 'Buses Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 SB Only Thru Only 07 08 Timing G= 27.5 G= G= G= G= 14.3 G= 46.2 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination ' EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 137 285 1423 252 1931 Lane Group Capacity, c 474 423 1592 246 2084 v/c Ratio, X 0.29 0.67 0.89 1.02 0.93 ' Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.28 0.28 0.46 0.14 0.61 Uniform Delay, d� 28.6 32.3 24.7 42.8 17.8 ' Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 11.000 11.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.25 0.42 0.50 0.44 ' Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 4.2 6.9 63.8 7.8 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' Control Delay 128.9 36.5 31.6 106.7 25.6 Lane Group LOS C D C F C Approach Delay 34.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Delay 33.6 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 31.6 C X = 0.85 1 Intersection LOS HCS+TM Version 5.2 34.9 C C Generated: 9/5/2006 11:54 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Intersection AJurisdiction nalvsis Year Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour 11 & Site Drive #1 10 Background Conditions Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: Site Drive #1 North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 861 1590 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 906 0 0 1673 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 — — 5 -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 1 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (veh/h) 1 C (m) (veh/h) 304 /c 0.00 95% queue length 0.01 Control Delay (s/veh) 16.9 LOS C .Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 16.9 pproach LOS -- -- C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:12 PM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Intersection AJurisdiction nalvsis Year Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour 11 & Site Drive #1 10 Background Conditions Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: Site Drive #1 North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 1149 1299 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 1209 0 0 1367 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- — 5 -- - Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (veh/h) 5 C (m) (veh/h) 384 /c 0.01 95% queue length 0.04 Control Delay (s/veh) 14.5 LOS B pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 14.5 pproach LOS -- -- B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:12 PM I HCS+T" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Site Drive #2 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT I TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 3 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 11 15 151 849 1569 22 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only Thru & RT 07 08 Timing G= 18.0 IY= G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 50.0 G= G= ly= 6 Y= Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 12 16 159 894 1652 23 Lane Group Capacity, c 668 581 371 2297 2738 1265 v/c Ratio, X 0.02 0.03 0.43 0.39 0.60 0.02 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.20 0.38 0.11 0.67 0.56 0.82 Uniform Delay, d1 28.9 117.6 37.3 6.8 13.4 1.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 10.11 0.19 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 28.9 17.6 38.1 6.9 13.8 1.4 Lane Group LOS C B D A B A Approach Delay 22.5 11.6 13.6 Approach LOS C ' Intersection Delay 12.9 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 1 E X� = 0.45 I Intersection LOS HCS+TM Version 5.2 B Generated: 9/6/2006 4:13 PM t HCS+TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Intersection Route 11 & Site Drive #2 Agency or Co. PHR+A Area Type All other areas 'Date Performed 6130106 Jurisdiction 2010 Background Condiitons Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year Project ID Rutherford Crossing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N1 2 1 2 2 3 1 Lane Group L R L T T R V (vph) 68 91 83 1081 1291 12 'Volume, % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A 'Pretimed Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Type, AT 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 'Arrival Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 'Initial Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N 'Parking Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Na 0 0 0 0 0 0 'Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only Thru & RT 07 08 G= 16.0 IY= G= G= G= G= 20.0 G= 42.0 G= G= Timing 6 Y= Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacityy, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 72 96 87 1138 1359 13 Lane Group Capacity, c 593 718 742 2373 2300 1094 v/c Ratio, X 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.48 0.59 0.01 ' Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.18 0.47 0.22 0.69 0.47 0.71 Uniform Delay, di 31.1 13.7 28.0 6.5 17.7 3.8 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 10.11 0.18 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 31.2 13.7 28.0 6.7 18.1 3.8 Lane Group LOS C B C A B A Approach Delay 21.2 8.2 17.9 Approach LOS C ' Intersection Delay 13.8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved X� = 0.41 A Intersection LOS HCS+TM Version 5.2 8 8 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:13 PM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information A Intersection AJurisdiction nalvsis Year Analyst PHR Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: Site Drive #3 Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 1001 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 1053 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- Median Type RT Channelized Lanes 0 2 Configuration T Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Eastbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized Lanes 0 0 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration (veh/h) C (m) (veh/h) /c 95% queue length Control Delay (s/veh) LOS .Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- pproach LOS -- -- 11 & Site Drive #3 10 Background Conditions South Street: US Route 11 Period (hrs): 0.25 Southbound Raised curb 0 Westbound I I .. . .. • Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:13 PM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Intersection AJurisdiction nalvsis Year Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour 11 & Site Drive #3 10 Background Conditions Project Description Rutherford Crossing East/West Street: Site Drive #3 North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period (hrs). 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1164 1361 21 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 1225 0 0 1432 22 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 — — 5 — — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 64 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 67 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (veh/h) 67 C (m) (veh/h) 366 /c 0.18 95% queue length 0.66 Control Delay (s/veh) 17.0 LOS C .Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 17.0 pproach LOS -- -- C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:13 PM It HCS+" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information ' Route 11 & 1-81 Off NB Analyst PHRA Intersection Ramps Agency or Co. PHRA Area Type All other areas ' Date Performed 6130106 Jurisdiction Time Period AM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing - ' Scenario A Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 Lane Group L R T T ' Volume, V (vph) 596 247 1610 1564 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 1 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 ' Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' Arrival Type, AT 3 1 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ' Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ' Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 'Buses Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 38.0 G= G= G= G= 60.0 G= G= G= 'G= Timing Y= 6 IY= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= 1Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 'Adjusted Flow Rate, v 627 102 1695 1646 Lane Group Capacity, c 1153 531 1879 1879 ' v/c Ratio, X Green Ratio, 0.54 0.19 0.90 0.88 0.55 Total g/C 0.35 0.35 0.55 Uniform Delay, di 29.0 25.2 22.4 21.8 ' Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.14 0.11 0.42 0.40 ' Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.2 6.5 5.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 29.5 1 25.4 1 28.9 1 26.8 Lane Group LOS C C C C 0 Approach Delay 29.0 28.9 26.8 ' Approach LOS C C C Intersection Delay 28.0 XC = 0.76 Intersection LOS C ' Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved r L HCS+Tm Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:59 AM HCS+" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information ' Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6130106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & 1-81 Off NB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing - Scenario A Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 Lane Group L R T T Volume, V (vph) 808 429 2049 1789 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 1 5 5 1 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 ' Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 ' Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 1 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 1 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 32.0 G= G= G= G= 66.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 1Y= Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination ' EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 851 294 2157 1883 Lane Group Capacity, c 971 447 2067 2067 v/c Ratio, X 0.88 0.66 1.04 0.91 ' Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.29 0.29 0.60 0.60 Uniform Delay, d, 37.1 34.2 22.0 19.4 ' Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.40 0.23 0.50 0.43 ' Incremental Delay, d2 9.1 3.5 32.3 6.6 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' Control Delay 46.2 37.7 54.3 26.0 Lane Group LOS D D D C Approach Delay 44.0 54.3 26.0 Approach LOS D D C Intersection Delay 41.7 X = 0.99 Intersection LOS D Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+rM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:59 AM HCS+" General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & I-81 NB Off Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing - S#B Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 Lane Group L R T T Volume, V (vph) 596 326 1901 1670 Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A Start-up Lost Time, Ii 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped /Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Na 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 23.0 G= G= G= G= 55.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Con I Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 627 238 2001 1758 Lane Group Capacity, c 853 393 2105 2105 v/c Ratio, X 0.74 0.61 0.95 0.84 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.26 0.26 0.61 0.61 Uniform Delay, di 30.7 29.5 16.2 13.9 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.29 0.19 0.46 0.37 Incremental Delay, d2 3.3 2.7 10.4 3.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 34.0 32.2 26.6 17.0 Lane Group LOS C C C 8 Approach Delay 33.5 26.6 17.0 DETAILED REPORT t 'Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Approach LOS C C B Intersection Delay 24.2 X� = 0.89 Intersection LOS C HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:59 AM HCS+'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & 1-81 NB Off Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing - S # B Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 Lane Group L R T T Volume, V (vph) 808 449 2125 1942 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 1 1 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 12.0 12.0 1 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 1150 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 1 0 1 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 1 3.2 1 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 33.0 G= G= G= G= 75.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 ly= Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Grou Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 851 315 2237 2044 Lane Group Capacity, c 918 423 2153 2153 v/c Ratio, X 0.93 0.74 1.04 0.95 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.28 0.28 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay, d, 42.3 39.7 22.5 20.7 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.44 0.30 0.50 0.46 Incremental Delay, d2 15.1 7.0 30.4 10.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 Control Delay 57.4 46.7 52.9 30.8 Lane Group LOS E D D C Approach Delay 54.5 52.9 30.8 Approach LOS D D C Intersection Delay 45.0 X� = 1.00 Intersection LOS D Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 11:59 AM 11 HCS+'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing - Scenario A Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group LT R LTR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 282 21 291 57 20 25 198 1681 91 123 2224 191 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 10.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 13.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 11.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 'G= Timing 17.0 IY= G= G= G= G= 5.0 G= 60.0 G= G= 6 IY= Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT ' Adjusted Flow Rate, v 319 201 107 208 1769 96 129 2341 201 Lane Group Capacity, c 211 431 55 159 2067 923 159 2067 923 Ratio, X 1.51 0.47 1.95 11.31 0.86 0.10 0.81 1.13 0.22 'v/c Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.17 0.28 0.17 0.71 0.60 0.60 0.71 0.60 0.60 Uniform Delay, di 41.5 29.8 41.5 32.2 16.4 8.5 22.8 20.0 9.2 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.39 0.11 0.35 0.50 0.11 ' Incremental Delay, d2 253.2 0.8 484.6 176.4 1 3.8 0.0 26.2 66.3 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' Control Delay 294.7 30.6 1526.1 208.7 20.2 1 8.6 49.1 86.3 9.3 Lane Group LOS TF C F F C A D F A 11 Approach Delay 192.7 Approach LOS F Intersection Delay 83.2 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 526.1 38.6 78.7 F D E XC = 1.70 Intersection LOS F HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:08 PM w HCS+'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information ' Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing - Scenario A Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group LT R ILTR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 333 30 333 48 29 28 271 12032 88 67 2267 255 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 liPeak Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A I A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e Arrival Type, AT 2.0 3 12.0 1 3 2.0 3 2.0 3 2.0 3 2.0 3 12.0 1 3 2.0 3 2.0 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 ' Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 1 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left Thru & RT 07 08 ' Timing G= 20.0 G= G= G= G= 9.0 G= 73.0 G= G= Y= 6 1Y= Y= 1Y= IY= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination ' EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH I RT 'Adjusted Flow Rate, v 383 245 111 285 2139 93 71 2386 268 Lane Group Capacity, c 196 449 43 129 2096 936 129 2096 936 v/c Ratio, X 1.95 0.55 12.58 2.21 1.02 0.10 0.55 1.14 0.29 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.17 10.29 0.17 10.08 0.61 0.61 0.08 0.61 0.61 Uniform Delay, di 50.0 35.8 50.0 55.5 23.5 9.8 53.5 23.5 111.1 ' Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.15 10.50 0.50 10.50 0.11 0.15 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 447.4 1 1.4 774.4 568.E 25.0 0.0 1 5.0 68.7 0.2 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' Control Delay 497.4 37.2 824.4 624.1 48.5 9.8 58.5 92.2 11.3 Lane Group LOS F D F F D A E F B Approach Delay 317.9 Approach LOS F Intersection Delay 133.9 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 824.4 112.2 F F XC = 1.52 Intersection LOS HCS+TM Version 5.2 83.3 F F Generated: 9/5/2006 12:08 PM 11 HCS+T" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information ' ' Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing - Project ID Scenario A - Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input ' EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 282 21 291 57 20 25 198 1681 91 123 2224 191 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A I A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ' Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 1 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'Buses Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left I EB Only Thru & RT 04 Excl. Left SB Only Thru & RT 08 'G= Timing 5.5 G= 4.5 G= 4.0 G= G= 5.0 G= 6.5 G= 70.5 IY= G= Y= 6 IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= 1Y= 6 Y= 0 6 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination ' EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 1 Adjusted Flow Rate, v 297 22 201 60 21 26 208 1769 96 129 2341 201 Lane Group Capacity, c 445 128 250 79 60 352 139 2024 1051 251 2211 1269 Ratio, X 0.67 0.17 0.80 0.76 10.35 0.07 1.50 0.87 0.09 0.51 1.06 0.16 'v/c Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.13 0.07 0.16 0.05 0.03 0.23 0.04 0.59 0.68 0.15 0.64 0.82 Uniform Delay, di 49.5 52.4 48.4 56.6 56.7 36.3 157.5 21.0 16.4 47.3 21.5 2.1 ' Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.24 0.11 0.35 0.31 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.40 0.11 0.12 0.50 10.11 Incremental Delay, d2 3.8 0.6 117.2 34.2 1 3.5 0.1 257.3 4.6 0.0 1.8 37.0 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' Control Delay 53.3 53.1 65.6 90.8 60.2 36.4 314.8 25.6 6.5 49.1 58.5 2.2 Lane Group LOS D D E F E D F C A D E A i0 Approach Delay 58.0 ' Approach LOS E Intersection Delay 54.5 (Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 71.6 53.7 E D X� = 0.99 Intersection LOS HCS+TM Version 5.2 53.8 D D Generated: 9/5/2006 12:08 PM HCS+" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information 'Agency ' Analyst PHR+A or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing - Project ID Scenario A - Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input ' EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 ' Lane Group Volume, V (vph) L 333 T 30 R 333 L 48 T 29 R 28 L 271 T 12032 R 88 L 1 67 T 2267 R 255 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) 0.95 A 0.95 A 0.95 A 0.95 A 0.95 A 0.95 A 0.95 A 0.95 A 0.95 A 0.95 A 0.95 A 0.95 A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ' Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Lane Width Parking / Grade / Parking 12.0 N 12.0 0 12.0 N 12.0 N 12.0 0 12.0 N 12.0 N 12.0 0 12.0 N 12.0 N 12.0 0 12.0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 Excl. Left Thru & RT 07 08 Timing G= 9.5 G= 5.0 G= G= G= 9.0 G= 72.5 G= G= Y= 6 IY= 6 Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 351 32 245 51 31 29 285 2139 93 71 2386 268 Lane Group Capacity, c 264 75 256 136 75 256 250 2081 1128 129 2081 1128 v/c Ratio, X 1.33 10.43 0.96 0.38 0.41 0.11 1.14 1.03 0.08 0.55 1.15 0.24 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.08 0.04 0.17 0.08 0.04 0.17 0.08 0.60 0.73 0.08 10.60 0.73 Uniform Delay, d1 55.3 56.1 49.6 52.4 56.1 42.5 55.5 23.7 4.5 53.5 23.7 5.2 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.11 0.47 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.15 0.50 0.11 ' Incremental Delay, d2 172.0 3.9 44.4 1.7 3.7 0.2 100.0 27.2 0.0 5.0 72.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' Control Delay 227.3 60.0 193.9 54.2 159.7 42.7 155.5 51.0 1 4.6 58.5 95.9 5.3 Lane Group LOS F E F D I E D F D A E F A Approach Delay 166.7 ' Approach LOS F Intersection Delay 83.4 'Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 52.7 D X = 1.13 C 61.1 E Intersection LOS HCS+TM Version 5.2 86.0 F F Generated: 9/5/2006 12:08 PM Ii HCS+" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information ' Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing - Scenario B Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group LT R LTR L T R L T R ' Volume, V (vph) 282 21 291 57 20 1 25 198 1840 91 123 2294 191 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ' Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A I A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 ' Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 10.0 0.0 1 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ' Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'Buses Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left SB Only NS Perm 08 ' Timing G= 25.0 G= G= G= G= 5.0 G= 5.0 G= 57.0 G= Y= 6 1Y= Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination ' EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT ' Adjusted Flow Rate, v 319 206 107 208 1937 96 129 2415 201 Lane Group Capacity, c 279 503 108 144 1785 797 316 1942 867 Ratio, X 1.14 0.41 0.99 1.44 1.09 0.12 0.41 1.24 0.23 'v/c Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.23 0.33 0.23 0.56 0.52 0.52 0.66 0.56 0.56 Delay, d1 42.5 28.7 42.4 28.5 26.5 13.6 20.8 24.0 12.0 'Uniform Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.11 0.49 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 ' Incremental Delay, d2 98.3 10.5 83.5 234.6 48.5 0.1 0.9 114.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' Control Delay 140.8 29.3 125.9 263.1 75.0 13.7 21.7 138.1 12.2 Lane Group LOS F C F F E B C F B It Approach Delay 97.0 Approach LOS F Intersection Delay 107.6 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 125.9 89.8 123.4 F F F XC = 1.52 Intersection LOS F HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:09 PM It A HCS+T" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing - Scenario e Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group LT R LTR L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 333 30 333 48 29 28 271 2073 88 67 2370 255 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A I A A A A A I A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 1100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ' Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only NS Perm 08 Timing G= 21.0 G= G= G= G= 6.0 G= 5.0 G= 50.0 G= 1Y= Y= 6 1Y= Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= 0 Y= 6 Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination ' EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT tAdjusted Flow Rate, v 383 245 111 285 2182 93 71 2495 268 Lane Group Capacity, c 259 400 57 365 1895 846 176 1723 769 v/c Ratio, X 1.48 0.61 1.95 0.78 11.15 0.11 0.40 1.45 0.35 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.21 0.26 0.21 0.67 0.55 0.55 0.56 0.50 0.50 Uniform Delay, di 39.5 32.6 39.5 28.8 22.5 10.8 21.1 25.0 15.1 rProgression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.20 0.50 0.33 10.50 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 ' Incremental Delay, d2 235.1 2.8 483.5 10.5 74.7 0.1 1.5 204.9 0.3 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' Control Delay 274.6 35.3 523.0 39.3 97.2 10.8 22.6 229.9 15.4 Lane Group LOS F D F D F B C F B M Approach Delay 181.3 Approach LOS F Intersection Delay 159.1 (Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved I 523.0 87.6 204.5 F F F X = 1.59 Intersection LOS F HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:09 PM HCS+T" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing - Project ID Scenario B - Suggested Imp. Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume, V (vph) 282 21 291 57 20 25 198 1840 91 123 2294 191 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A I A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 Excl. Left SB Only Thru & RT 08 Timing G= 8.0 G= 4.0 G= G= ly= G= 5.0 G= 5.0 G= 59.0 G= Y= 6 IY= 6 Y= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 297 22 206 60 21 26 208 1937 96 129 2415 201 Lane Group Capacity, c 254 69 220 131 69 381 159 1936 1069 262 2100 1143 v/c Ratio, X 1.17 0.32 0.94 0.46 0.30 0.07 1.31 1.00 0.09 0.49 11.15 0.18 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.08 0.04 0.14 0.08 0.04 0.25 0.05 0.56 0.70 0.15 0.61 0.74 Uniform Delay, di 48.5 49.2 44.5 46.4 49.1 30.2 50.0 23.0 5.2 40.8 20.5 4.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.11 0.45 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 110.1 2.7 43.2 2.5 2.5 0.1 176.4 20.6 0.0 1.5 73.5 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 Control Delay 158.6 51.8 87.7 49.0 51.6 30.3 1226.4 143.6 5.2 42.2 94.0 4.1 Lane Group LOS F D F D D C I F I D A D F A I Approach Delay 126.3 44.9 58.9 ' Approach LOS F D E Intersection Delay 77.7 X� = 1.12 Intersection LOS Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 1 85.0 F E Generated: 9/5/2006 12:09 PM HCS+- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6/30/06 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Wellstown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing - Project ID Scenario B - Suggested Imp. Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T Volume, V (vph) 333 30 333 48 29 28 271 2073 88 67 2370 55 [2.0 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 1100 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1.0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru & RT 08 Timing G= 8.0 IY= G= 5.0 G= G= I G= 6.0 G= 4.0 G= 53.0 G= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Ca aci , Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 351 32 245 51 31 29 285 2182 93 71 2495 268 Lane Group Capacity, c 267 91 415 138 91 261 534 1964 1092 103 1826 1030 v/c Ratio, X 1.31 0.35 0.59 0.37 0.34 0.11 0.53 1.11 0.09 0.69 1.37 0.26 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.08 0.05 0.27 0.08 0.05 0.17 0.16 0.57 0.71 0.06 0.53 0.67 Uniform Delay, di 46.0 45.9 31.7 43.6 45.9 35.1 38.6 21.5 4.5 46.1 23.5 6.6 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.11 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.50 0.11 0.26 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 165.6 2.3 1 2.2 1.7 2.2 0.2 1.0 57.9 0.0 17.7 168.5 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 211.6 48.3 33.9 45.3 48.1 35.3 39.6 79.4 4.5 63.8 192.0 6.7 Lane Group LOS F D C D D D D E A E F A Approach Delay 134.0 43.5 72.2 171.2 Approach LOS F D E F Intersection Delay 123.8 XC = 1.12 Intersection LOS F 'Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:09 PM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ' General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Charlestown Rd Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project Description Rutherford Crossing - Scenario A East/West Street: Charlestown Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South North/South Street: IStudy Period (hrs): US Route 11 0.25 ' Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 419 198 65 594 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 '-- Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 441 208 68 625 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T 1 Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 552 189 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 0 581 0 198 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR tDelay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (veh/h) 68 779 (m) (veh/h) 923 196 'C /c 0.07 3.97 95% queue length 0.24 76.68 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.2 1386 LOS A F Delay (s/veh) 1386 'Approach pproach LOS _= F Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:10 PM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Charlestown Rd Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project Description Rutherford Crossing - Scenario A East/West Street: Charlestown Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South North/South Street: IStudy Period (hrs): US Route 11 0.25 ' Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 854 607 214 657 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 '(veh/h) Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 898 638 225 691 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 _ Y 5 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T IUpstream Signal 0 1 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 'L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 388 126 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 0 408 0 132 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Grade (%) 0 0 'Percent Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 'RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ' Lane Configuration L LR (veh/h) 225 540 (m) (veh/h) 424 23 'C /c 0.53 23.48 95% queue length 3.02 67.62 Control Delay (s/veh) 22.7 10438 LOS C F Delay (s/veh) 10438 'Approach pproach LOS -- _= F Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:10 PM HCS+- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Old Charlestown Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing - Project ID Scenario A - Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R T R L T Volume, V (vph) 552 189 419 198 65 594 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 42.0 IY= G= G= G= G= 46.0 G= G= G= 1Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 581 199 441 208 68 625 Lane Group Capacity, c 722 646 833 1538 316 833 v/c Ratio, X 0.80 0.31 0.53 0.14 0.22 0.75 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.42 1 0.42 0.46 1.00 0.46 0.46 Uniform Delay, di 25.4 19.3 119.3 0.0 16.2 22.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.35 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.31 Incremental Delay, dz 6.6 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.3 3.8 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 32.0 19.6 19.9 0.0 16.5 26.1 Lane Group LOS C B B A 8 C Approach Delay 28.9 13.5 25.2 ' Approach LOS C B C Intersection Delay 23.0 XC = 0.78 Intersection LOS C 'Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:11 PM HCS+- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Old Charlestown Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing - Project ID Scenario A - Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R T R L T Volume, V (vph) 388 126 854 607 214 657 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 112.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 28.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 50.0 G= G= Y= 6 IY= Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 408 133 899 639 225 692 Lane Group Capacity, c 481 677 905 1292 245 1086 v/c Ratio, X 0.85 0.20 0.99 0.49 0.92 0.64 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.28 0.44 0.50 0.84 0.60 0.60 Uniform Delay, di 34.0 17.2 24.8 2.2 19.8 13.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.38 0.11 0.49 0.11 0.44 0.22 Incremental Delay, d2 13.4 0.1 28.2 0.3 36.3 1.3 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 47.3 17.3 53.0 2.5 56.1 14.2 Lane Group LOS D B D A E B Approach Delay 40.0 32.0 ' Approach LOS D C Intersection Delay 31.2 XC = 1.02 Intersection LOS Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 24.5 C C Generated: 9/5/2006 12:11 PM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information A Intersection A Jurisdiction nalvsis Year Analyst PHR Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing - Scenario B East/West Street: Charlestown Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 465 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 489 Percent Heavv Vehicles 5 -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 a and Level of Service Northbound Southbound 1 4 L 68 866 0.08 0.25 9.5 A 11 & Charlestown Rd 10 Build -out Conditions orth/South Street: US Route 11 tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 Southbound 3 4 5 6 R L T R 222 65 699 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 233 68 735 0 -- 5 -- — Undivided 0 0 0 1 1 0 TR L T 0 Westbound 9 10 11 12 R L T R 605 189 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 636 0 198 5 5 5 5 0 N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 LR 12 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:11 PM eneral Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Intersection AJurisdiction nalvsis Year Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing - Scenario B IlEast/West Street: Charlestown Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 922 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 970 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 Median Type 'V T Channelized anes 0 1 Configuration Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Eastbound Movement 7 8 ' L T Volume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized Lanes 0 0 Configuration ' Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound 1 4 iMovement Lane Configuration L (veh/h) 225 C (m) (veh/h) 385 /c 0.58 95% queue length 3.58 ' Control Delay (s/veh) 26.7 LOS D pproach Delay (s/veh) -- pproach LOS -- Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 11 & Charlestown Rd 10 Build -out Conditions orth/South Street: US Route 11 tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 Southbound 3 4 5 6 R L T R 642 214 685 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 675 225 721 0 — 5 -- — Undivided 0 0 0 1 1 0 TR L T 0 Westbound 9 10 11 12 R L T R 402 126 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 423 0 132 5 5 5 5 0 N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 LR Westbound Eastbound 7 8 9 10 11 12 LR 555 17 32.65 70.21 14673 F 14673 F HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:11 PM HCS+- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Old Charlestown Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing - Project ID Scenario B - Suggested Imp. Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R T R L T Volume, V (vph) 605 189 465 222 65 699 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 42.0 G= G= G= G= 46.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 1Y= Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 637 199 489 234 68 736 Lane Group Capacity, c 722 646 833 1538 280 833 v/c Ratio, X 0.88 0.31 0.59 0.15 0.24 0.88 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.42 1 0.42 0.46 1.00 0.46 0.46 Uniform Delay, di 26.7 19.3 20.0 0.0 16.4 24.6 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.41 0.11 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.41 Incremental Delay, d2 12.4 0.3 1.1 0.0 0.5 11.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 39.1 19.6 21.1 0.0 16.9 35.6 Lane Group LOS D B C A B D Approach Delay 34.4 14.3 34.1 Approach LOS C 8 C Intersection Delay 28.1 X� = 0.88 Intersection LOS C I Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:11 PM HCS+" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Old Charlestown Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing - Project ID Scenario B - Suggested Imp. Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R T R L T Volume, V (vph) 402 126 922 642 214 685 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 24.0 G= G= G= I G= 8.0 G= 46.0 G= G= Y= 6 1Y= Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacitty, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 423 133 971 676 225 721 Lane Group Capacity, c 458 649 925 1299 233 1086 v/c Ratio, X 0.92 0.20 1.05 0.52 0.97 0.66 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.27 0.42 0.51 0.84 0.60 0.60 Uniform Delay, di 32.1 16.4 22.0 1.9 25.9 12.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.44 0.11 0.50 0.13 0.47 0.24 Incremental Delay, d2 24.5 0.2 43.5 0.4 49.2 1.5 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 56.6 16.6 65.5 2.3 75.1 13.5 Lane Group LOS E B E A E B Approach Delay 47.0 39.6 28.1 Approach LOS D D C Intersection Delay 37.5 X� = 1.09 Intersection LOS D Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:11 PM iI ■ TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction nalvsis Year 11 & Redbud Rd 10 Build -out Conditions Project Description Rutherford Crossing - Scenario A East/West Street: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB On Ramp North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments tMajor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 Volume (veh/h) L 355 T 1495 R 7 L 6 T 1539 R Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 373 1 1573 7 6 1620 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 1 _ _ 5I Y Median Type Raised curb 'RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T 'Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 26 18 13 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 0 27 18 13 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Grade (%) 0 0 'Percent Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR ' Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ' Lane Configuration L L LTR v (veh/h) 373 6 58 C (m) (veh/h) 384 399 0 lc 0.97 0.02 95% queue length 11.16 0.05 Control Delay (s/veh) 72.3 14.2 LOS F B F pproach Delay (s/veh) pproach LOS _= Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:12 NM i eneral Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information A Intersection AJurisdiction nalvsis Year Analyst PHR Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing - Scenario A East/West Street: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB On Ramp Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 576 1871 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 606 1969 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 — Median Type RT Channelized Lanes 1 2 Configuration L T Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Eastbound Movement 7 8 olume (veh/h) eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 J[Hourly Flow Rate, HFR eh/h) 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized Lanes 0 0 Configuration Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration L L v (veh/h) 606 24 C (m) (veh/h) 310 272 /c 1.95 0.09 95% queue length 42.36 0.29 Control Delay (s/veh) 468.9 19.5 LOS F C Approach Delay (s/veh) Approach LOS Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 11 & Redbud Rd 10 Build -out Conditions South Street: US Route 11 Period (hrs): 0.25 Southbound 3 4 5 6 R L T R 30 23 1763 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 31 24 1855 0 — 5 -- — Raised curb 0 0 0 9 2 0 TR L T 0 Westbound 9 10 11 12 R L T R 26 27 15 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 27 28 15 5 5 5 5 0 N 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 LTR Westbound Eastbound 7 8 9 10 11 LTR 70 0 F 12 HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:12 PM HCS+- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Redbud Rd/NB on ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing - Project ID Scenario A - Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 Lane Group LTR L TR L T Volume, V (vph) 26 18 13 355 1495 7 6 1539 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A I A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 13.0 G= G= G= G= 20.0 G= 45.0 G= G= Y= 6 1Y= Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= ly= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Con Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 60 374 1581 6 1620 Lane Group Capacity, c 248 463 2487 145 1723 v/c Ratio, X 0.24 0.81 0.64 0.04 0.94 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.14 0.72 0.72 0.50 0.50 Uniform Delay, di 34.1 25.3 6.4 11.5 21.2 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 10.11 0.35 0.22 0.11 0.45 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 10.2 0.5 0.1 10.7 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 34.6 35.5 7.0 11.6 31.9 Lane Group LOS C D A B C = w m m m m m A Approach Delay Approach LOS Intersection Delay 21.5 loopyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 34.6 12.4 C 8 XC = 0.90 Intersection LOS HCS+Tan Version 5.2 31.8 C C Generated: 9/5/2006 12:12 PM HCS+" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Redbud Rd/NB on ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing - Project ID Scenario A - Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 Lane Group LTR L TR L T Volume, V (vph) 26 27 15 576 1871 30 23 1763 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 1 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 1 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 9.0 IY= G= G= G= G= 28.0 G= 56.0 G= G= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 71 606 2001 24 1856 Lane Group Capacity, c 148 527 2750 100 1837 v/c Ratio, X 0.48 1.15 0.73 0.24 1.01 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.09 0.80 0.80 0.53 0.53 Uniform Delay, di 45.8 33.7 5.0 13.1 24.5 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.50 0.29 0.11 10.50 Incremental Delay, d2 2.4 87.6 1.0 1.2 23.6 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 48.2 1121.3 6.0 14.4 48.1 Lane Group LOS D F A B D It Approach Delay 48.2 32.8 47.6 Approach LOS D C D Intersection Delay 39.2 X = 1.64 Intersection LOS D (Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:12 PM It 11 General Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Intersection A Jurisdiction nalvsis Year Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour 'roject Description Rutherford Crossing - Scenario B .ast/West Street: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB On Ramp itersection Orientation: North -South fehicle Volumes and Adjustments la'or Street Northbound lovement 1 2 L T olume (veh/h) 355 1866 'eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 lourly Flow Rate, HFR reh/h) 373 1964 ercent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- ledian Type '.T Channelized anes 1 2 :onfiguration L T Ipstream Signal 0 linor Street Eastbound lovement 7 8 L T olume (veh/h) eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 lourly Flow Rate, HFR (eh/h) 0 0 ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 ercent Grade (%) 0 lared Approach N Storage 0 ;T Channelized anes 0 0 :onfiguration lela , Queue Length, and Level of Service ,pproach Northbound Southbound lovement 1 4 ane Configuration L L (veh/h) 373 6 (m) (veh/h) 348 279 lc 1.07 0.02 5% queue length 13.49 0.07 :ontrol Delay (s/veh) 104.0 18.2 OS F C ,pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- ,pproach LOS -- -- Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 11 & Redbud Rd 10 Build -out Conditions South Street: US Route 11 Period (hrs): 0.25 Southbound 3 4 5 R L T 7 6 1644 0.95 0.95 0.95 7 6 1730 — 5 -- Raised curb 0 0 1 2 TR L T 0 Westbound 9 10 11 R L T 26 18 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 27 18 5 5 5 0 N 1 0 0 0 1 LTR Westbound Eastbound 7 8 9 10 11 LTR 58 0 12 R 13 0.95 13 5 0 0 12 HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:12 PM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection Rt 11 & Redbud Rd Agency/Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing - Scenario B East/West Street: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB On Ramp Intersection Orientation: North -South North/South Street: US Route 11 IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 olume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF L 576 0.95 T 1968 0.95 R 30 0.95 L 23 0.95 T 1917 0.95 R 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 606 2071 31 24 2017 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 — -- 5 — -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T Upstream Signal 0 1 1 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 'L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 26 27 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 0 27 28 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 1 RT Channelized Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ' Configuration Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound LTR Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ' Lane Configuration L L LTR (veh/h) 606 24 70 'C (m) (veh/h) 268 247 0 /c 2.26 0.10 95% queue length 47.08 0.32 ' Control Delay (s/veh) 609.1 21.1 LOS F C F Delay (s/veh) U,Approach pproach LOS Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM HCS+- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Redbud Rd/NB on ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing - Project ID Scenario B - Suggested Imp. Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 'Lane Group LTR L TR L T Volume, V (vph) 26 18 13 355 1866 7 6 1644 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 'Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A I A A I A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 12.0 12.0 2.0 'Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 'Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm ' Buses Stopping, Na 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Timing WB Only G= 13.0 02 G= 03 G= 04 G= NB Only G= 18.0 NS Perm G= 47.0 07 G= 08 G= Y= 6 1Y= Y= Iy= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT ' Adjusted Flow Rate, v 60 374 1971 6 1731 Lane Group Capacity, c 248 424 2487 80 1799 ' v/c Ratio, X 0.24 0.88 0.79 0.08 0.96 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.14 0.72 0.72 0.52 0.52 ' Uniform Delay, di 34.1 25.0 8.1 10.7 20.6 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 Delay Calibration, k 10.11 0.41 0.34 10.11 0.47 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 19.1 1.8 0.4 13.4 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' Control Delay 34.6 44.0 10.0 11.1 34.1 Lane Group LOS C D A B C Approach Delay ' Approach LOS Intersection Delay 23.5 ' Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 34.6 15.4 C 8 XC = 0.92 Intersection LOS HCS+TM Version 5.2 34.0 C C Generated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM HCS+'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Redbud Rd/NB on ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing - Project ID Scenario B - Suggested Imp. Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 Lane Group LTR L TR L T Volume, V (vph) 26 27 15 576 1968 30 23 1917 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 13.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 7.0 G= G= G= G= 20.0 G= 51.0 G= G= Y= 6 1Y= Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 1Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 71 606 2104 24 2018 Lane Group Capacity, c 134 462 2711 88 1952 v/c Ratio, X 0.53 1.31 0.78 0.27 1.03 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.08 0.79 0.79 0.57 0.57 Uniform Delay, di 39.9 29.6 5.2 10.0 19.5 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.13 0.50 0.33 0.11 0.50 Incremental Delay, d2 4.0 155.1 1.5 1.7 29.7 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 43.9 184.7 6.6 11.7 49.2 Lane Group LOS D F A B D Approach Delay 43.9 46.5 48.7 Approach LOS D D D Intersection Delay 47.4 X� = 2.12 Intersection LOS D 12:13 PM Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 It ■ TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ' General Information Site Information I Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing - Scenario A 'East/West Street: /-81 SB Ramps Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments ' Major Street Northbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 1336 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1406 '(veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 Median Type 'RT Channelized Lanes 0 2 Configuration T Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Eastbound Movement 7 8 ' L T Volume (veh/h) 274 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 288 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Grade (%) 0 'Percent Flared Approach N Storage 0 'RT Channelized Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT ' Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 ' Lane Configuration L (veh/h) 310 (m) (veh/h) 466 'C /c 0.67 95% queue length 4.79 tControl Delay (s/veh) 26.8 LOS D Delay (s/veh) 'Approach Approach LOS Intersection Jurisdiction nalvsis Year South Street: US Route 11 Period (hrs): 0.25 11 & 1-81 SB Ramps 10 Build -out Conditions Southbound 3 4 5 6 R L T R 295 1865 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 310 1963 0 — 5 — — Raised curb 0 0 0 1 2 0 L T 0 Westbound 9 10 11 12 R L T R 672 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 707 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 0 N 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 R Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Intersection A Jurisdiction nalvsis Year Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing - Scenario A East/West Street: 1-81 SB Ramps Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume (veh/h) 1661 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 1748 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- Median Type RT Channelized Lanes 0 2 Configuration T Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Eastbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 388 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 408 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration L (veh/h) 435 C (m) (veh/h) 342 /c 1.27 95% queue length 19.84 Control Delay (s/veh) 175.5 LOS F pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- pproach LOS -- -- Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved I 11 & 1-81 SB Ramps 10 Build -out Conditions orth/South Street: US Route 11 tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 Southbound 3 4 5 6 R L T R 414 2183 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 435 2297 0 — 5 — — Raised curb 0 0 0 1 2 0 L T 0 Westbound 9 10 11 12 R L T R 406 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 427 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 0 N 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 R Westbound •. • HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM II HCS+i" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information ' Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6130106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & 1-81 SB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing - Project ID Scenario A - Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 2 1 2 Lane Group LT R T L T Volume, V (vph) 274 0 672 1336 295 1865 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 'Arrival Type, AT 3 1 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 'Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 225 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ' Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 28.0 G= G= G JG= 13.0 G= 37.0 G= 1Y= G= Y= 6 IY= Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacitty, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 288 471 1406 311 1963 1 Lane Group Capacity, c 536 478 1416 329 1914 v/c Ratio, X 0.54 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.03 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.31 0.31 0.41 0.56 0.56 Uniform Delay, di 25.6 30.8 26.4 17.0 20.0 ' Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.14 0.49 0.49 0.46 0.50 ' Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 37.2 22.2 35.4 27.4 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 Control Delay 26.7 68.0 48.5 1 152.4 47.4 Lane Group LOS C E D D D ■ I■ Approach Delay 52.4 48.5 48.1 Approach LOS D D D Intersection Delay 48.9 X = 1.01 Intersection LOS D I Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:13 PM it HCS+` DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6130106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & 1-81 SB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing - Project ID Scenario A - Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input ' EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 2 1 2 Lane Group LT R T L T 'Volume, V (vph) 388 0 406 1661 414 2183 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 10.95 10.95 10.95 0.95 'Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A I A I A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 12.0 12.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 12.0 12.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 1 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qe 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 130 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 1 112.0 12.0 12.0 'Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0-1 0 0 0 ' Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 1 3.2 1 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 26.5 G= G= G= G= 20.8 G= 55.7 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 115.0 Lane Grou Capacit3tConfroI Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 408 291 1748 436 2298 Lane Group Capacity, c 397 354 1669 374 2292 v/c Ratio, X 1.03 0.82 11.05 1.17 1.00 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.23 0.23 0.48 0.67 0.67 Uniform Delay, d1 44.3 42.0 29.6 38.5 19.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.36 0.50 0.50 0.50 ' Incremental Delay, d2 52.4 14.4 35.6 99.9 19.4 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay 96.7 56.4 65.2 138.4 38.7 IControl Lane Group LOS F E E F D r )06 12:14 PM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Intersection qJurisdiction nalvsis Year Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing - Scenario B 11 & 1-81 SB Ramps 10 Build -out Conditions East/West Street: 1-81 SB Ramps North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1495 330 1935 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h ) 0 1573 0 347 2036 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 — — 5 -- - Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 407 0 672 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 428 0 707 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 0 Configuration LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R (veh/h) 347 428 707 C (m) (veh/h) 401 0 230 /c 0.87 3.07 95% queue length 8.52 63.78 Control Delay (s/veh) 50.1 976.6 LOS F F F pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- pproach LOS -- -- Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+' m Version 5.2 ueneratea: woi/uuo i c. - r-- TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information q Intersection AJurisdiction nalvsis Year Analyst PHR Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford Crossing - Scenario B 11 & 1-81 SB Ramps 10 Build -out Conditions East/West Street: 1-81 SB Ramps North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1703 465 2286 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 1792 0 489 2406 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- — 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 423 0 406 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 445 0 427 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 0 Configuration LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R (veh/h) 489 445 427 C (m) (veh/h) 329 0 172 vlc 1.49 2.48 95% queue length 26.83 36.29 Control Delay (s/veh) 264.3 726.5 LOS F F F Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- pproach LOS -- -- Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 1 HCS+TM Version 5.2 t;enerateo: wbizuuo -iz: iv r-ivw HCS+T" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6130106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & 1-81 SB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing - Project ID Scenario B - Suggested Imp. Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT ITH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 2 1 2 Lane Group LT R T L T Volume, V (vph) 407 0 672 1495 330 1935 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 225 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N I N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 30.0 G= 1Y= G= G= G= 15.0 G= 48.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 428 471 1574 347 2037 Lane Group Capacity, c 492 439 1575 315 2067 v/c Ratio, X 0.87 11.07 1.00 11.10 0.99 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.29 0.29 0.46 0.60 0.60 Uniform Delay, di 35.6 37.5 28.5 33.7 20.6 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.40 10.50 10.50 0.50 0.49 Incremental Delay, d2 15.4 63.8 22.5 180.8 16.4 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 51.1 101.3 51.0 114.5 37.0 Lane Group LOS D F D F D Approach Delay 77.4 51.0 48.3 Approach LOS E D D Intersection Delay 54.5 X� = 1.26 Intersection LOS D 1 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:14 PM HCS+" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. PHRA Date Performed 6130106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & /-81 SB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Rutherford Crossing - Project ID Scenario B - Suggested Imp. Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 1 1 2 1 2 Lane Group LT R T L T Volume, V (vph) 423 0 406 11703 465 2286 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 22.5 G= G= G= G= 23.5 G= 62.0 G= 1Y= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacitty, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 445 269 1793 489 2406 Lane Group Capacity, c 323 288 1780 397 2455 v/c Ratio, X 1.38 0.93 1.01 1.23 0.98 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.19 0.19 10.52 0.71 0.71 Uniform Delay, d, 48.8 48.0 29.0 40.9 16.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.50 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.48 Incremental Delay, d2 188.3 35.9 123.1 124.5 13.8 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 237.1 83.9 52.1 165.4 30.2 Lane Group LOS F F D F C 1 Approach Delay 179.4 52.1 53.0 Approach LOS F D D Intersection Delay 69.4 C = 1•95 Intersection LOS E I Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/5/2006 12:14 PM ■ TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Intersection AJurisdiction /06Analysis Year Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07/20 Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour 11 & Site Drive #1 10 Build -out Conditions Project Description Rutherford Crossing - Scenario A East/West Street: Site Drive #1 North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1006 1771 41 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 1058 0 0 1864 43 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 25 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 26 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh/h) 26 C (m) (veh/h) 262 /c 0.10 95% queue length 0.33 Control Delay (s/veh) 20.2 LOS C pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 20.2 pproach LOS -- -- C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved I HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:24 PM ■ TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information A Intersection AJurisdiction 06 nalvsis Year Analyst PHR Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 071201 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour 11 & Site Drive #1 10 Build -out Conditions Project Description Rutherford Crossing - Scenario A East/West Street: Site Drive #1 North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1499 1556 54 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 1577 0 0 1637 56 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 63 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 6.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 66 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (veh/h) 66 C (m) (veh/h) 313 /c 0.21 95% queue length 0.78 Control Delay (s/veh) 19.5 1 nc C pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 19.5 pproach LOS -- -- C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:24 I'M TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Intersection AJurisdiction nalvsis Year Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour 11 & Site Drive #1 10 Build -out Conditions Project Description Rutherford Crossing - Scenario B East/West Street: Site Drive #1 North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1076 1903 67 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 1132 0 0 2003 70 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- — 5 -- _ Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 37 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 38 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Dela , Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (veh/h) 38 C (m) (veh/h) 235 /c 0.16 95% queue length 0.57 Control Delay (s/veh) 23.3 LOS C .Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 23.3 pproach LOS -- -- C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:24 PM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Intersection A Jurisdiction nalvsis Year Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour 11 & Site Drive #1 10 Build -out Conditions Project Description Rutherford Crossing - Scenario B East/West Street: Site Drive #1 North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1601 1591 61 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 1685 0 0 1674 64 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- — 5 — — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 80 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 84 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (veh/h) 84 C (m) (veh/h) 304 /c 0.28 95% queue length 1.10 Control Delay (s/veh) 21.3 LOS C Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 21.3 Approach LOS -- -- C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved I HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2UU6 4:L4 F'm HCS+" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Site Drive #2 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing - Scenario A Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 3 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 157 209 659 849 1702 94 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.9 10.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A I A I A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 12.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only Thru & RT 07 08 Timing G= 11.0 IY= G= G= G= 1Y= G= 35.0 G= 42.0 G= G= 6 Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Grou Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 165 220 694 894 1792 99 Lane Group Capacity, c 367 800 1168 2653 2070 907 v/c Ratio, X 0.45 0.28 0.59 0.34 0.87 0.11 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.11 0.52 0.35 0.77 0.42 0.59 Uniform Delay, di 41.7 113.4 26.7 3.6 26.4 9.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.18 0.11 0.40 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.2 0.8 0.1 4.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 42.5 13.6 27.5 3.6 30.6 9.0 Lane Group LOS D B C A C A Approach Delay 26.0 14.1 29.4 Approach LOS C 8 C Intersection Delay 22.8 C = 0.71 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:24 HM HCS+" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Site Drive #2 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing - Scenario A Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 3 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 418 557 805 1081 1504 115 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A I A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 Phasing I EB Only 1 02 03 04 NB Only Thru & RT 07 08 Timing G= 26.0 JG= G= G= G= 33.5 G= 43.5 G= 1Y= G= Y= 6 1Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 115.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 440 586 847 12307 1138 1583 121 Lane Group Capacity, c 755 876 972 1864 1010 v/c Ratio, X 0.58 10.67 0.87 0.49 10.85 0.12 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.23 0.57 10.29 0.67 0.38 0.66 Uniform Delay, di 39.7 17.2 38.7 9.4 32.7 7.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.17 0.24 0.40 0.11 0.38 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 2.0 8.7 0.2 3.9 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 40.8 19.2 47.4 9.5 36.7 7.4 Lane Group LOS D B D A D A Approach Delay 28.5 25.7 34.6 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Delay 29.5 X� = 0.79 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:24 PM HCS+" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Site Drive #2 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing - Scenario B Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 3 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 227 302 1030 849 1793 147 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only Thru & RT 07 08 Timing G= 11.0 G= G= G= G= 35.0 G= 42.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Grou Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 239 318 1084 894 1887 155 Lane Group Capacity, c 367 800 1168 2653 2070 907 v/c Ratio, X 0.65 0.40 0.93 0.34 0.91 0.17 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.11 0.52 0.35 0.77 0.42 0.59 Uniform Delay, d, 42.7 114.5 31.3 3.6 27.3 9.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.23 0.11 0.44 10.11 0.43 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 4.1 0.3 12.7 0.1 6.6 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 46.7 14.8 44.0 3.6 133.9 1 9.4 Lane Group LOS D B D A C A Approach Delay 28.5 25.7 32.0 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Delay 28.9 X� = 0.89 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:25 HM HCS+" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 6130106 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Site Drive #2 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID Rutherford Crossing - Scenario B Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 2 1 2 2 3 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 521 694 902 11081 1542 129 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, h 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only Thru & RT 07 08 Timing G= 22.5 IY= G= G= G= G= 31.5 G= 39.0 G= G= 6 Y= Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 548 520 949 1138 1623 136 Lane Group Capacity, c 715 879 1001 2313 1831 989 v/c Ratio, X 0.77 0.59 0.95 0.49 0.89 0.14 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.21 0.57 0.30 0.67 0.37 0.64 Uniform Delay, di 38.8 14.6 35.9 8.5 30.9 7.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.32 0.18 0.46 0.11 10.41 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 1.1 17.3 1 0.2 5.7 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 43.8 15.6 53.3 8.6 36.6 7.4 Lane Group LOS D B D A D A Approach Delay 30.1 28.9 34.3 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Delay 31.1 X� = 0.88 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:25 PM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Intersection AJurisdiction nalvsis Year Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour 11 & Site Drive #3 10 Build -out Conditions Project Description Rutherford Crossing - Scenario A East/West Street: Site Drive #3 North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1508 1763 148 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 1587 0 0 1855 155 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- — 5 — — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 132 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 138 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (veh/h) 138 C (m) (veh/h) 264 /c 0.52 95% queue length 2.79 Control Delay (s/veh) 32.7 LOS D Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 32.7 Approach LOS -- -- D Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:26 PM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Intersection AJurisdiction 06 nalvsis Year Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 071201 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour 11 & Site Drive #3 10 Buildout Conditions Project Description Rutherford Crossing - Scenario A East/West Street: Site Drive #3 North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1886 1885 176 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 1985 0 0 1984 185 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- — 5 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 355 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 373 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh/h) 373 C (m) (veh/h) 239 /c 1.56 95% queue length 22.87 Control Delay (s/veh) 309.0 1 n.q F pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 309.0 pproach LOS -- -- F i Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:26 PM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Intersection AJurisdiction /06 nalvsis Year Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07/20 Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour 11 & Site Drive #3 10 Buildout Conditions Project Description Rutherford Crossing - Scenario 8 East/West Street: Site Drive #3 N orth/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1879 1868 227 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 1977 0 0 1966 238 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 5 — — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 190 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 200 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh/h) 200 C (m) (veh/h) 243 /C 0.82 95% queue length 6.38 Control Delay (s/veh) 64.1 LOS F Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 64.1 pproach LOS -- -- F Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:26 PM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Intersection A Jurisdiction nalvsis Year Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 07120106 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour 11 & Site Drive #3 10 Buildout Conditions Project Description Rutherford Crossing - Scenario 8 East/West Street: Site Drive #3 North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1983 2039 197 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 2087 0 0 2146 207 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 5 -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 441 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 464 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 5 5 5 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (veh/h) 464 C (m) (veh/h) 211 V/c 2.20 95% queue length 36.40 Control Delay (s/veh) 591.3 LOS F Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 591.3 [Approach LOS -- -- F Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/6/2006 4:26 PM Synchro 6.0 Worksheets Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane Group -:.' EBL_ : �:'EBT ,rWBT :; WBR SWL::. Lane Configurations t t r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 1810 1810 .1538 1719 1538 Fit Permitted 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1810 1810 1810 1538 1719 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 194 133 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 30 Link Distance (ft) 1172 1862 1638 Travel Time (s) 17.8 :' 28.2 37.2 Volume (vph) 419 198 552 189 65 594 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95� 0.95 0.95 0.95. 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 441 208 581 199 68 625 Lane Group Flow (vph) 441 208 581 199 68 . 625 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4! 6 8! Permitted Phases 4! 6 8 Detector Phases 4 4 6 6 8 8- _ Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s). 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 , 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 66.0 66.0 44.0 44.0 66.0 66.0 Total Split (%) 60.0% 60.06/o' 40.0% 40 0% 60.0% Maximum Green (s) 60.0 60.0 38.0 38.0 60.0 60.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None C-Min C-Min None None Act Effct Green (s) 43.2 43.2 58.8 58.8 43.2 43.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.53 0.53 0.39 0.39 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.29 0.60 0.22 0.10 0.91 Control Delay 26.8 21.5 23.9 3.7 17.9 27.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.8 21.5 23.9 3.7 17.9 27.4 LOS C C C A B C Approach Delay 25.1 18.7 26.5 Approach LOS C B C 90th %ile Green (s) 56.0 56.0 42.0 42.0 56.0 56.0 90th %ile Term Code Hold Hold Coord Coord Gap Gap 70th %ile Green (s) 48.1 48.1 49.9 49.9 48.1 48.1 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 1 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane Group ." EBL EBT .,Vi/BT 1NBR ;;_ SWL ; SWR 70th %ile Term Code Hold Hold Coord Coord Gap Gap 50th %ile Green (s) 41.6 41.6 56.4 56.4 41.6 41.6 50th %ile Term Code Hold Hold Coord Coord Gap Gap 30th %ile Green (s) 34.4 34.4 63.6 63.6 34.4 34.4 30th %ile Term Code Hold Hold Coord Coord Gap Gap 10th %ile Green (s) 25.9 25.9 72.1 72.1 25.9 25.9 10th %ile Term Code Hold Hold Coord Coord Gap Gap Queue Length 50th (ft) 245 99 271 2 30 338 Queue Length 95th (ft) 269 120 #510 47 45 402 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1092 1782 1558 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1020 1020 967 913 969 925 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 01 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.43 0.20 0.60 0.22 0.07 0.68 )otersection�Surnmary� Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 110 Actuated Cycle Length: 110 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Green . Natural Cycle: 55 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.91 Intersection Signal Delay: 23.2 Intersection LOS C Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown i. ;,. 's maximum after two cycles. , ! Phase conflict between lane groups. Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 & 06 o4 66a. * 08 44 sI 066,s,,' AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 2 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions Scenario A 9/6/2006 IF- EBL` WBR'„NBL2� NBL:; `.NBR . SEL SER . SER2 Lane Configurations M tt r tt r if r r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 15 9 15 9 9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Safd. Flow (prot) 3335 3438 1538 1719 3438 1538 1719 1719 1538 3335 1538 1538 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 8atd. Flow (perm) 3335 3438 1538 1719 3438 1538 1719 1719 1538 3335 1538 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 96 201 22 182 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 842 833 882 1668 Travel Time (s) 12.8 12.6 20.0 31.9 V0Iume (vph) 198 1681 91 123 2224 191 57 20 25 282 21 291 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.06 '0.95 ' 0.95' 0.95 0.95 0.06 0.95' ' 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 208 1769 96 129 2341 201 60 21 26 297 22 306 Group Flow (vph) 208 1760 96 129 2341 201 60 21 '26 297 22 306 .Lane Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Split pm+ov Prot Over Protected Phases 7 4. .. 2' 3 8 6 2 2 3' 6 7 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phases 7 4 2 3 8 6 2 2, 3' 6 6 7 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 1­0.0 10.0 10.0. 10.0 10.0 101.01. 10.0_ 10.0 Total Split (s) 16.0 79.0 11.0 16.0 79.0 14.0 11.0 11.0 16.0 14.0 14.0 16.0 Total Split (%) " 13.3% 65.86/6 9.2% 13.3% 65.8% 11.7% 9.2% 9.2% 13.3% 11.7% 11 `7%0 13.3% Maximum Green (s) 10.0 73.0 5.0 10.0 73.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None C-Min None None Min C-Min C-Min None Min Min None Act Effct Green (s) 12.0 75.1 86.1 11.9 75.0 89.0 7.0 7.0 18.9 10.0 10.0 12.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.63 0.72 0.10 0.62 0.74 0.06 0.06 0.16 0.08 0.08 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.82 0.08 0.76 1.09 0.17 0.60 0.21 0.10 1.07 0.17 1.12 Control Delay 60.7 21.5 1.2 78.9 72.2 0.9 79.7 59.1 14.6 125.2 54.6 119.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 60.7 21.5 1.2 78.9 95.3 0.9 79.7 59.1 14.6 125.2 54.6 119.1 LOS E C A E F A E E B F D F Approach Delay 24.5 87.4 59.8 119.7 Approach LOS C F E F 90th %ile Green (s) 10.0 73.0 5.0 10.0 73.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 90th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Max Max Max Coord Coord Max Max Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 10.0 73.0 5.0 10.0 73.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 3 m m m m m m m i m m m m m m i m m m m Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane:Group �;:.� �EBL, EBT....;EBR '-WBL.s.WBT`,:WBR: _NBL2` NBL, NBR. .SEL. SER SERZ 70th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Max Max Max Coord Coord Max Max Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 10.0 73.0 5.0 10.0 73.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 50th %ile Term Code Max Hold Coord Max Max Max Coord Coord Max Max Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 10.0 73.0 5.0 10.0 73.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 30th %ile Term Code Max Hold Coord Max Max Max Coord Coord Max Max Max Max 10th %ile Green (s) 10.0 73.6 5.0 9.4 73.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 9.4 8.0 8.0 10.0 10th %ile Term Code Max Hold Coord Gap Max Max Coord Coord Gap Max Max Max Queue Length 50th (ft) 80 519 0 99 -1074 0 46 16 2 --131 16 -176 Queue Length 95th (ft) 122 630 14 #197 #1208 18 #108 43 24 #222 44 #359 Internal Link Dist (ft) 762 753 802 1588 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity(vph) 334 2152 1131 172 2149 1193 100 100 262 278 128 273 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62 0.82 0.08 0.75 1.14 0.17 0.60 0.21 0.10 1.07 0.17 1.12 IntersectionSummary77 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset:,0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 120 Control, Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.12 Intersection Signal Delay: 66.7 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 8: Route 11 & Welltown Rd 02*-F► o6 ©3 o4 08 o7 79 s'..' AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 4 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane�Grou� EBU ,.EBT: ;1NBT „WBR SEL -� SER Lane Configurations t tt r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.865 Fit Protected ' Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1810 3438 1538 0 1565 Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1810 3438 1538 0 1565 Headway Factor 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 1.00 45 1.00 45 1.00 1.00 35 1.00 Link Distance (ft) 166 1172 1136 Travel Time (s) Volume (vph) 0 2.5 1006 17.8 1771 41 22.1 0 25 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0' 1059 1864 43 0 26 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1059 1864 43 0 26 Sign Control" Free Free Stop Intersection Summary.7-77 Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.0% ICU Level of Service B ' Analysis Period (min) 15 I AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 5 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 =anP�C�rnnn':> FR1 EBT .��:EBR..�,:1LVBL �.WBT:1NBR�=�NBL2� NBLSELSER Lane Configurations tT+ tt if Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.999 0.850 0.968 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.963 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3435 0 1719 3438 1538 0 1687 0 0 0 Fit Permitted 0.078 0.160 0.963 Satd. Flow (perm) 141 3435 0 290 3438 1538 0 1687 0 0 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 2 190 14 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 259 1619 995 417 Travel Time (s) 3.91 124.5 22.6 9.5 Volume (vph) 355 1495 7 6 1539 350 26 18 13 0 0 Peak Hour Factor, 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95. 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.05 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 374 1574 7 6 1620 368 27 19 14 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 374 1581 0 6' 1'620 368 0' 60 0 0 0 Turn Type pm+pt Perm Free Prot Protec, ted. Phases 7 4_ 8 5, 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 Free Detector Phases 7 4 8 8 5 2 Minimum Initial (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) '10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total'Split (s) 25.0 76.0 0.0 51.0 51.0 0.0 14.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Split (%) 27.8% 84.4% 0.0% 56:7% 56,7% 0.0% 15.6% 15.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% - Maximum Green (s) 19.0 70.0 45.0 45.0 8.0 8.0 Yellow -Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Max Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 72.5 72.5 48.8 48.8 90.0 9.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.81 0.81 0.54 0.54 1.00 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.57 0.04 0.87 0.24 0.31 Control Delay 36.0 3.6 2.0 9.5 0.2 34.7 Queue Delay 20.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 56.5 4.2 2.0 9.5 0.2 34.7 LOS E A A A A C Approach Delay 14.2 7.8 34.7 Approach LOS B A C 90th %ile Green (s) 19.0 70.0 45.0 45.0 8.0 8.0 90th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Hold Max 70th %ile Green (s) 19.0 70.0 45.0 45.0 8.0 8.0 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 6 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane Group .` EBL. ._ EBT, : EBR ,WBL "-WBT. ', WBR . NBL2:a NBL. ',NBR. SEL 70th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Hold Max 50th %ile Green (s) 19.0 70.0 45.0 45.0 8.0 8.0 50th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Hold Max 30th %ile Green (s) 18.3 70.0 45.7 45.7 8.0 8.0 30th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Coord Coord Hold Max 10th %ile Green (s) 13.1 72.5 53.4 53.4 5.5 5.5 10th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Coord Coord Gap Gap Queue Length 50th (ft) 184 96 0 56 0 24 Queue Length 95th (ft) m#269 150 m1 #121 m0 62 Internal Link Dist (ft) 179 1539 915 337 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 482 2767 157 1865 1538 191 Starvation Cap Reductn 106 691 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0, Reduced v/c Ratio 0.99 0.76 0.04 0.87 0.24 0.31 fntec ersbon°Summary , ... . . Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 31 (34%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.87 Intersection Signal Delay: 11.3 Intersection LOS: B . Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 14: Route 11 & Redbud Rd o2 o4 14s1 N76"s=` 05 P' 07 -- 08 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 7 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 _ . LarieG_roup .,.. .-EBL...EBT_ ;EBR..=WBL .";WBT.:_NBR "SBL.. 'SBT ::<.SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3438 1538 1719 3438 0 0 0 0 0 1719 1538 Fit Permitted 0.095 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3438 1538 172 3438 0 0 0 0 0 1719 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes ' Satd. Flow (RTOR) 412 11 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 45 45: 35 30 Link Distance (ft) 833 620 487 346 1 Travel Time (s) 12.6 9.4 9.5 7.9 Volume (vph) 0 1336 658 295 1865 0 0 0 0 274 0 672 Peak Hour Factor. 0.95 " 0.95 " 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 i Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1406 693 311 1963 0 0 0 0 288 0 707 Lane Group Flow "(vph) 0 1406 693 311 1963 0 0 0 0 0" 288 707 Turn Type Free pm+pt Prot Perm Protected Phases 1 .4 3 8 1 6 Permitted Phases Free 8 6 Detector Phases 4 3 8 1 6 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 0.0 42.0 0.0 15.0 57.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Total Split (%) 0.0% 46.7% 0.0% 16.7% 63.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%- 0.0% 36.7% 36.7% 36.7% Maximum Green (s) 1 36.0 9.0 51.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0" 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag" Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode C-Max None C-Max Min Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 38.0 90.0 53.0 53.0 29.0 29.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 1.00 0.59 0.59 0.32 0.32 v/c Ratio 0.97 0.45 1.07 0.97 0.52 1.41 Control Delay 43.7 1.0 93.4 26.4 28.9 221.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.9 0.0 57.3 Total Delay 43.7 1.0 93.4 50.3 28.9 278.9 LOS D A F D C F Approach Delay 29.6 56.2 206.5 Approach LOS C E F 90th %ile Green (s) 36.0 9.0 51.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 ' 90th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 36.0 9.0 51.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 1 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 8 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane:Group . ,: -.EBL .EBT EBR` � W.B " �WBT ,WBR,...NBL; .NBTry NBR ..-iSBL .::SBT , 'S,BR 70th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 36.0 9.0 51.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 50th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 36.0 9.0 51.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 30th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max 10th %ile Green (s) 36.0 9.0 51.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 10th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max Queue Length 50th (ft) 400 0 --154 325 132 --545 Queue Length 95th (ft) #560 0 m#294 #730 212 #164 Internal Link Dist (ft) 753 540 407 266 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1452 1538 290 2025 554 503 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 48 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 166 0 42 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.97 0.45 1.07 1.06 0.52 1.53 I'ntersection,.Summary-777'77777777TTUK77 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 36 (40%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.41 Intersection Signal Delay: 73.7 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 -- Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 15: Route 11 & SB ramp 01 'Or' 03 04 33 s .. 15 1 E42,s',-,"�"',"',: 05 08 57 s I AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 9 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane Group EBT EBR: :WBL. WBT `NBL ' NBR Lane Configurations tt tt M r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frt 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 3438 0 0 3438 3335 1538 Flt Permitted 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3438 0 0 3438 3335 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 29 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 Link Distance (ft) 620 259 672 Travel Time (s) 9.4 3.9 13.1 Volume (vph) 1610 0 0 1564 596 247 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 1695 0 0 1646 627 260 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1695 0 01 1646. 627 260 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phases 4 8' 2 2 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum, Split (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 61.0 0.0 0.0 61.0 29.0 29.0 Total Split (%) 67.8%, 0.0% 0.0% 67.8% 32.2% 32.2% Maximum Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode C-Max C-Max Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 59.0 59.0 23.0 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.66 0.66 0.26 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.75 0.73 0.74 0.63 Control Delay 6.7 1.8 34.5 31.6 Queue Delay 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.5 Total Delay 7.0 2.2 34.5 32.1 LOS A A C C Approach Delay 7.0 2.2 33.8 Approach LOS A A C 90th %ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 90th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 10 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Eane.Group`'` EBT:`'EBR:` 1NBL „,INBT ' NBL: NBR 70th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 50th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 58.0 58.0 20.0 20.0 30th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Gap Gap 10th %ile Green (s) 61.9 61.9 16.1 16.1 10th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Gap Gap Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 4 162 113 Queue Length 95th (ft) m0 11 221 193 Internal Link Dist (ft) 540 179 592 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 2253 2253 926 448 Starvation Cap Reductn 139 190 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 7 90 0 35 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.80 0.80 0.68 0.63 Intersectiori`Summary —777777 Area Type: Other Cycle Length. 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 30 (33%),,Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 50 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.75 Intersection Signal Delay: 10.7 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 17: Route 11 & ' o2 o4 ----------------- 29,s 08 61 s AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 11 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane�Group ,' .EBL:, :EBR _NEL,,:'.NET ' Lane Configurations M tt ttt r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 3335 1538 3335 3438 4940 1538 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3335 1638 3335 3438 4940 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 61 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 30 45 45 1 Link Distance (ft) 1445 1679 827 Travel Time (s) 32.8' 25.4 12.5 Volume (vph) 157 209 659 849 1702 94 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95' 0.05 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 165 220 694 894 1792 99 Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 220 694 894 1102 99 Turn Type custom Prot ._ pm+ov Protected Phases 7 5 5.' 2. 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phases 7 5 5 2 8 7 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 10 0 10.0 10.0 . 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 23.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 34.0 23.0 57.0 Total Split (%) 25.6% 306/6 36.7% 36 7% 37.80% 25.6% 63% Maximum Green (s) 17.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 28.0 17.0 51.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Min None None None Act Effct Green (s) 11.6 90.0 29.0 29.0 37.4 53.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 1.00 0.32 0.32 0.42 0.59 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.14 0.65 0.81 0.87 0.11 Control Delay 36.3 0.2 27.0 31.9 30.7 4.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.3 0.2 27.0 31.9 30.7 4.0 LOS D A C C C A Approach Delay 15.7 29.7 29.3 Approach LOS B C C 90th %ile Green (s) 12.3 27.0 27.0 27.0 32.7 12.3 51.0 1 90th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Coord Coord Max Gap Hold 70th %ile Green (s) 10.7 27.0 27.0 27.0 34.3 10.7 51.0 I AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 12 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane. Group EBR .. NEL ;:;NET ,SWT' 70th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Coord Coord Max Gap Hold 50th %ile Green (s) 9.6 27.0 27.0 27.0 35.4 9.6 51.0 50th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Coord Coord Max Gap Hold 30th %ile Green (s) 8.5 27.0 27.0 27.0 36.5 8.5 51.0 30th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Coord Coord Max Gap Hold 10th %ile Green (s) 7.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 38.0 7.0 51.0 10th %ile Term Code Gap Coord Coord Coord Max Gap Hold Queue Length 50th (ft) 44 0 162 214 333 8 Queue Length 95th (ft) 73 0 193 265 #462 29 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1365 1599 747 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 704 1538 1075 1108 2052 931 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0, 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 0.14 0.65 0.81 0.87 0.11 Intersection. Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 j Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 80 (89%),, Referenced to phase 2:NET and 5:NEL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 60 Control.Type; Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.87 Intersection Signal Delay: 28.1 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.2% ICU_ Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. ISplits and Phases: 19: Site Drive #2 & Route 11 o2 o4 33s;- 57s;`. „.: � �J o5 o7 08 I33 s , : 23's I AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 13 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane Group EBL EBR ., NEG NET,;-'_SVtIT- $1NR Lane Configurations r tt ' tT+ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.91 Frt 0.865 0.988 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1565 0 3438 4881 0 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1565 0 3438 4881 0 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 30 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 1342 2411 1679 Travel Time (s) 30.5 36.5 25.4 Volume (vph) ' 0 132 0 ` 1608 1768 148 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 139 0 1587 1856 156 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 139 0 1587 2012 0 Sign Control , Stop Free Free Intersection_°Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 14 Rutherford Crossing Scenario 2010Build-out Conditions 0/6/2008 - '- - LanoConfiguratione t 4 r if Ideal Flow kxphp|> 1900 1900 1980 1000 1000 1000 Total Lost Time (e) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detootor(ft) 0 0 U 0 U U Turning Speed (nnph) 15 0 15 Q Lane Uti|.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 Sotd.Flow (prot) 1719 1810 1810 1538 1719 1538 Fit Permitted 0.950 Sotd.Flow (pemn) 1810 1810 1810 1538 1710 1538 Right Turn onRed Yes Yee Satd. Flow (RTOR) 133. 253 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1�OO Link �a ph) 45 45 �.` _ 30 ` Link Distance (fD 1172 1802 1638 Tra"'va|7lrna(a) 17.8 28.9 37.2 ` Volume (v'ph) 854 807 388 128 214 657 Peak Hour O�Q5 O.Q5 0�05 [[Q5 O�Q5 O.95 ' ` _ Adj. Flow (vph) 890 830 408 133 225 892 Group Flow | \ 899 G30 _408 133._`225' 'G02 TurnPerm Perm'" Perm Phaeea -4l G .- �� � O!' ' Permitted Phases 4! � ' � ' S 8 Detector Phases 4 4 S ` 6 '8- 8 ' - Minimum Initial 4.0 ' 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimu��8p|it-() 1O.0 1O.6' 1o.0' 101)' 10..o 10.0 Tutal Split (a) 68.0 66.0 44.0 44]3 88.0 66.0 Total Split 80.096 GU}Y0M.,40.696 4blY% 66{)% SOlY%` Maximum Green kd 80.0 60.0 38.0 38.0 60.0 60.0 \edlow'Thne (s') 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' 4.o 4.o ' All -Red Time (e) 2]0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2]3 2.0 Lead/Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (e) 3.0 34 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None C-Min C-Min None None Act EfhctGreen (a) 61.0 81.0 41.0 41.0 61.8 81.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.37 0.37 0.55 0.55 v/o'RaUo 0.00 0.64 0.80 020 0.24 0.72 Control Delay 38.7 19.4 33.3 5.1 12.6 14.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 30.7 19.4 33.3 5.1 12.8 14.5 LOS C 8 C A B B Approach Delay 26.0 26.3 14.1 Approach LOS C C B 90th Y6i|aGreen (n) 60.0 80.0 38.0 38.0 80.0 60.0 Q0thY6i/eTerm Code Max Max Coord Coord Max Max 7UthY6i|eGreen (s) 85.3 65.3 32.7 32.7 65.3 85.3 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust &Associates Page ' Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 m, . _ G, ...,. Lane roup ,.E_ ... .. BL . :EBT> WBT WBR SWL SWR` 70th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Coord Hold Hold 50th %ile Green (s) 65.2 65.2 32.8 32.8 65.2 65.2 50th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Coord Coord Hold Hold 1 30th %ile Green (s) 56.8 56.8 41.2 41.2 56.8 56.8 30th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Coord Coord Hold Hold 10th %ile Green (s) 47.7 47.7 50.3 50.3 47.7 47.7 10th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Coord Coord Hold Hold Queue Length 50th (ft) 457 253 253 0 66 186 Queue Length 95th (ft) #814 408 341 40 119 361 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1092 1782 1558 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1055 1055 709 684 1002 1002 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.85 0.61 0.58 0.19 0.22 0.69 n Inteisection�Summary t , Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 110 Actuated Cycle Length: 110 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.90 Intersection -Signal Delay: 22.4 " Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles: I Phase conflict between lane groups. Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 & -- o6 —�' o4 66's 08 44 s PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 2 ' Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane..Group " EBL .:.EBT. ;: EBR ; WBL WBT WBR :NBL2 NBL< : NBR SEL. SER: SER Z Lane Configurations Vi) tt if tt if Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector (ft) 4.0 50 4.0 50 4.0 50 4.0 50 4.0 50 4.0 50 4.0 50 4.0 50 4.0 50 4.0 50 4.0 50 4.0 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Turning Speed (mph) Lane Util. Factor 15 0.97 0.95 9 1.00 15 1.00 0.95 9 1.00 15 1.00 15 1.00 9 1.00 15 0.97 9 1.00 9 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 1 Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted 3335 0.950 3438 1538 1719 0.950 3438 1538 1719 0.950 1719 0.950 1538 3335 0.950 1538 1538 Satd. Flow (perm) 3335 3438 1538 1719 3438 1538 1719 1719 1538 3335 1538 1538 Right Turn on Red Safd. Flow (RTOR) Yes 93 Yes 228 Yes 12 Yes 148 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph), 45 45 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 842 833 882 1668 Tavel Time (s) 12.8 12.6 20.0 37.9 Volume (vph) 271 2032 88 67 2267 255 48 29 28 333 30 333 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.06 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ' Adj. Flow (vph) 285 2139 93 71 2386 268 51 31 29 351 32 351 Lane Group Flow (vph) 285 2139 93 - 71 ''2386 268 51 31 29 351 32 351 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Split pm+ov Prot Over Protected Phases 7 4` 2' 3 8 6 2 2 3_ 6, 7 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phases 7 4 '2 3 8' 6 2. 2 3; 6 6, 7 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 10.0 . 10.0 10 0 - 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 17.0 83.0 12.0 10.0 76.0 15.0 12.0 12.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 17.0 Total Split (%) 14.2% 69.2% Maximum Green (s) 11.0 77.0 10.0% 6.0 8.3% 4.0 63.3% 70.0 12.5% 9.0 10.0% 6.0 10.0% 6.0 8.3% 4.0 12.5% 9.0 12.5% 9.0 14.2% 11.0 Yellow'Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.6 4.0 4.0' ' 4.0'' 4.0- ' 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2:0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead. Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None C-Min None None Min C-Min C-Min None Min Min None ' Act Effct Green (s) 13.0 79.0 ' 90.9 6.0 72.0 83.1 7.9 7.9 13.9 11.1 11.1 13.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.66 0.76 0.05 0.60 0.69 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.11 ' v/c Ratio Control Delay 0.79 68.5 0.95 29.0 0.08 0.9 0.83 114.4 1.16 101.4 0.24 1.2 0.46 66.5 0.27 59.5 0.15 25.1 1.14 142.0 0.23 54.9 1.17 135.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 68.5 29.0 0.9 114.4 119.9 1.2 66.5 59.5 25.1 142.0 54.9 135.1 LOS E C A F F A E E C F D F ' Approach Delay 32.5 108.1 53.7 134.9 Approach LOS C F D F 90th %ile Green (s) 11.0 77.0 6.0 4.0 70.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 9.0 9.0 11.0 90th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Max Max Max Coord Coord Max Max Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 11.0 77.0 6.0 4.0 70.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 9.0 9.0 11.0 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 3 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 ... Lane Group.; EBT,, 70th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Max Max Max Coord Coord Max Max Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 11.0 77.0 6.0 4.0 70.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 9.0 9.0 11.0 50th %ile Term Code 30th %ile Green (s) Max 11.0 Max 77.0 Coord 6.0 Max 4.0 Max 70.0 Max 9.0 Coord 6.0 Coord 6.0 Max 4.0 Max 9.0 Max 9.0 Max 11.0 30th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Max Max Max Coord Coord Max Max Max Max 10th %ile Green (s) 11.0 77.0 5.5 4.0 70.0 9.5 5.5 5.5 4.0 9.5 9.5 11.0 ' 10th %ile Term Code Max Hold Coord Max Max Max Coord Coord Max Max Max Max Queue Length 50th (ft) 112 725 0 56 -1148 4 39 23 10 -164 23 -217 Queue Length 95th (ft) #176 #933 12 #144 #1282 17 82 56 34 #261 56 #408 1 Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) 762 753 802 1588 Base Capacity(vph) 361 2263 1189 86 2063 1135 115 115 189 309 142 299 Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.79 0.95 0.08 0.83 1.20 0.24 0.44 0.27 0.15 1.14 0.23 1.17 1 _._ JntersectionSurrimary'' Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (00/6), Referenced to phase 2:NBL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.17 Intersection; Signal Delay: 79.1 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 8: Route 11 & Welltown Rd It o2 " 06 1 03 ­10. o4 1:2' sj 015s° = . 10 83"s - ,­, rx __ o7 08 17 s 1111111176 s� PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 4 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane Group ' EBL EBT WBT:: WBR SEL.'" SER Lane Configurations t tt r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.865 Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1810 3438 1538 0 1565 Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1810 3438 1538 0 1565 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 Link Distance (ft) 166 1172 1075. Travel Time (s) 2.5 17.8 20.9 Volume (vph) 0 1499 1556 54 0' 63 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Ai. Flow (vph) 0' 1578 1638 67 '- 0 66 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1578 1638 57 0 66 Sign Control Free Free Stop 1nte�section Summary �� Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.2% ICU Level of Service E.' , Analysis Period (min) 15 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 5 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 *\* Larie Grou `� p EBL , EBT EBR ' ' BL ".WBT " .Vi%BR' NBL2 " NBL" NBR.: SEL SER Lane Configurations tt r * ' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.998 0.850 0.970 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.963 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3431 0 1719 3438 1538 0 1690 0 0 0 Fit Permitted 0.078 0.104 0.963 Satd. Flow (perm) 141 3431 0 188 3438 1538 0 1690 0 0 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 8 215 12 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link'Speed (mph) 45 45 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 259 1619 995 417 Travel Time (s) 3.9' , 24.5 22.6 9.5 Volume (vph) 576 1871 30 23 1763 454 26 27 15 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.98 0.05 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 606 1969 32 24 1856 478 27 28 16 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 606 . 2001 0 24 1856 478 0 71 0 0 0 Turn Type pm+pt Perm Free Prot Protected Phases _... 7 4 8 5. 2 Permitted_ Phases 4 8 Free Detector Phases 7 4 8' 8 5 2 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 29.0 80.0 0.0 51.0 51.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Split (0/6) 32.2% 88.9% ' 0.0% 56.7% 56.7% 0.0% 11.1 %` 11.1 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 23.0 74.0 45.0 45.0 4.0 4.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag, Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Max Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 76.0 76.0 47.0 47.0 90.0 6.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.84 0.84 0.52 0.52 1.00 0.07 v/c Ratio 1.09 0.60 0.24 1.03 0.31 0.57 Control Delay 76.6 3.0 8.5 37.8 0.4 53.9 Queue Delay 195.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 271.6 11.1 8.5 37.8 0.4 53.9 LOS F B A D A D Approach Delay 71.6 29.9 53.9 Approach LOS E C D 90th %ile Green (s) 23.0 74.0 45.0 45.0 4.0 4.0 90th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 23.0 74.0 45.0 45.0 4.0 4.0 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 6 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane;,Group. :4TEBL EBT EBR . '1NBL. _._. _ .. =WB.T. `,..- NBL2: � _._a ,...._, NBL`�- - NBR ` -SEL, SER 70th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 23.0 74.0 45.0 45.0 4.0 4.0 50th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 23.0 74.0 45.0 45.0 4.0 4.0 30th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Max Max 10th %ile Green (s) 23.0 74.0 45.0 45.0 4.0 4.0 10th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Max Max Queue Length 50th (ft) --349 132 2 --619 0 33 Queue Length 95th (ft) m#350 m130 m4 m#708 m0 #90 Internal Link Dist (ft) 179 1539 915 337 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 557 2899 98 1795 1538 124 Starvation Cap Reductn 162 873 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0` 0 0" 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.53 0.99 0.24 1.03 0.31 0.57 7. ,Ihtersecti n'Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 31, (34%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated . Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.09 Intersection Signal Delay: 51.8 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 14: Route 11 & Redbud Rd I o2" 04 10s 80'S - 05 � 07 -- 08 1 M29s PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 7 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 EBL . EBT :;"EBR.:` WBL �W13T,,.;,WBR :. NBL: ,.NBT::. NBR . SBL SBT_�:: SBR Lane Configurations tt if tt Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3438 1538 1719 3438 0 0 0 0 0 1719 1538 Flt Permitted 0.091 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3438 1538 165 3438 0 01 0 0 0 1719 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 372 10 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LinkSpeed (mph)- 45 45 35 30 Link Distance (ft) 833 620 487 346 Travel Time (s) 12.6 9.4' 9.5 7.9 Volume (vph) 0 1661 738 414 2183 0 0 0 0 388 0 406 _ Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.06 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 ' '0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1748 777 436 2298 0 0 0 0 408 0 427 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1748 777 436 2298 0 0,11 ` 0 0 0 . 408 427 Turn Type Free pm+pt Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 1, 6 Permitted Phases Free 8 6 Detector Phases 4 3 8 1 6 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum S lit s �_ P O 10.0 10.0 10.0 . 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 0.0 44.0 0.0 21.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Total Split (%) 0.0% 48.9% 0.0% 23.3% 72.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 27.8% 27.8% 27.8% Maximum Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode C-Max None C-Max Min Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 40.0 90.0 61.0 61.0 21.0 21.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 1.00 0.68 0.68 0.23 0.23 v/c Ratio 1.14 0.51 1.08 0.99 1.02 1.16 Control Delay 99.0 1.2 79.2 23.7 85.7 132.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.1 0.0 59.7 Total Delay 99.0 1.2 79.2 46.9 85.7 192.0 LOS F A E D F F Approach Delay 68.9 52.0 140.1 Approach LOS E D F 90th %ile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 90th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 ' PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 8 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 19/6/2006 Lane, roue ,.°' , .. ,; EBL EBT..'EBR '<1NBL. :WBT:WINBR �NBL:=.1'..NBT NBR SBL. , SBT .;:'SBR 70th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 50th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 30th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max 10th %ile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 ' 10th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max Queue Length 50th (ft) —618 0 —227 420 —240 —288 Queue Length 95th (ft) #755 0 m#299 m#845 #425 #473 Internal Link Dist (ft) 753 Turn Bay Length (ft) 540 407 266 Base Capacity (vph) 1528 1538 405 2330 401 367 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 105 0 161 0 0 0 39 Storage Cap Reductn, 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.14 0.51 1.08 1.06 1.02 1.30 lntersecbonSumri�ary � " Area Type: Other Cycle Length :90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 36 (401/o),Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 110 bonirol ypRatio:t1 d-6 oordinated Maximum/c ..._ Intersection Signal Delay: 71.1 Intersection LOS: E _.. Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.3% ICU Level of Service G I Analysis Period (min) 15 -- Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. ' Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 15: Route 11 & SB ramp 01 7 03 o4 • 06 08 ' PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 9 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane'.Group EBR -VVBL . VbT., `NBL NBR Lane Configurations tt tt M r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frt 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 3438 0 0 3438 3335 1538 Fit Permitted 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3438 " 0 _0 3438 3335 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 10, Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 " 35 Link Distance (ft) 620 259 672 Travel Time (s) 9.4 3.0' 13.1 Volume (vph) 2049 0 0 1789 808 429 Peak Hour Factor 0.95" 0.95 " 0.95' 0.95 " 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 2157 0 0 1883 851 452 Lane Group Flow (vph)" 2157 0 0" " 1883 851 452 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 " Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phases 4 8 " 2 2 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 61.0 0.0 0.0 61.0 29.0 29.0 Total Split (%o) 67.8% 0.0% 0.0% 67.8% 32.2% 32.2% Maximum Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode C-Max C-Max Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 57.0 57.0 25.0 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.28 0.28 v/c Ratio 0.99 " 0.86 0.92 1.04 Control Delay 15.4 3.6 48.0 87.7 Queue Delay 15.0 2.6 0.0 15.1 Total Delay 30.4 6.1 48.0 102.8 LOS C A D F Approach Delay 30.4 6.1 67.0 Approach LOS C A E 90th %ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 90th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 10 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 -- 4\ Lane Grou p : EBT EBR m WBL WgT NBL NBR ; m 70th %ile Term Code Coord 1 Coord Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 50th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 30th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Max 10th %ile Green (s) 55.0 55.0 23.0 23.0 10th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Max Queue Length 50th (ft) 186 20 241 --277 Queue Length 95th (ft) m120 m6 #355 #465 Internal Link Dist (ft) 540 179 592 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 2177 2177 926 434 Starvation Cap Reductn 64 188 0 0 ' Spillback Cap Reductn 105 37 0 17 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.04 0.95 0.92 1.08 Intersection" -:Summary Area Type. Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 30 (330/), Referenced to phase'4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.04 Intersection Signal Delay: 30.8 Intersection LOS C Intersection Capacity. Utilization 100.3% ICU Level of Service G ' Analysis Period (min) 15 - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. ' ' # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 17: Route 11 & o2 o4 o8 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 11 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions Scenario A 9/6/2006 Ear e.:Group. EBL..r:EBR. NEL.,'NET. S.WT_ 'SWR:._ Lane Configurations tt ttt if Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 3335 1538 3335 3438 4940 1538 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3335 1538 3335 3438 4940 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 586 121 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 30 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 1447 1679 827 Travel Time (s) 32.9 _ 25.4 12.5 Volume (vph) 418 557 805 1081 1504 115 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 440 586 847 1138 1583 121 Lane Group; Flow (vph) 440 .586 847 1138 1583 121 Turn Type custom Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 5 2 8 Permitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phases 7 4 5 2 8 8 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 10,0 10.0 ' 10.0 '10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 19.0 53.0 37.0 37.0 34.0 34.0 Total Split (%) 21.1 % 58.9% 41.1 % 41.1 % 37.8% 37.8% Maximum Green (s) 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None C-Max C-Min None None Act Effct Green (s) 15.0 49.0 33.0 33.0 30.0 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.54 0.37 0.37 0.33 0.33 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.53 0.69 0.90 0.96 0.20 Control Delay 47.8 2.9 26.8 35.9 44.8 5.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 47.8 2.9 26.8 35.9 44.8 5.2 LOS D A C D D A Approach Delay 22.1 32.0 41.9 Approach LOS C C D 90th %ile Green (s) 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 90th %ile Term Code Max Hold Coord Coord Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 12 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane Group= :. EBL ,. EBR... NEL, ;*NET.;'SWY 70th %ile Term Code Max Hold Coord Coord Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 50th %ile Term Code Max Hold Coord Coord Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 30th %ile Term Code Max Hold Coord Coord Max Max 10th %ile Green (s) 12.8 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.2 28.2 10th %ile Term Code Gap Hold Coord Coord . Max Max Queue Length 50th (ft) 125 0 189 337 319 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #193 46 263 #455 #426 36 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1367 1599 747 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 556 1104 1223 1261 1649 594 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0" 0' 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.79 0.53 0.69 0.90 0.96 0.20 ..-..----_.a--m-r-^.__...-. Intersection: Summary ....-. ...-_-.+..-......+ ,a.-._ -- _...._ ._......-tea, - 777 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 '. Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 80 (89%), Referenced to phase 2:NET and 5:NEL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.96 Intersection Signal belay: 33.4 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown ismaximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 19: Site Drive #2 & Route 11 / 02 o4 o5 o7 08 19s ..':: 34s �- PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 13 Rutherford Crossing Scenario A 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane Group .: EBL EBR . NEL '; NET SWl , S1NR Lane Configurations tt ttT Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.91 Frt 0.865 0.987 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1565 0 3438 4876 0 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1565 0 3438 4876 0 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 30 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 1359 2411 1679 Travel Time (s) 30.9 36.5 25.4 Volume (vph) 0 355 0 1886 1835 176 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 374 0 1985 1932 185 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 374 0 1985 2117 0 Sign Control Stop Free Free , -r, e- moo. m" - r—y,-- Iiteisection,Summary� Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.0% ICU. Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 14 Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 __* .4-- Lane�_Gr-oup.WBT Lane Configurations t t Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 1810 1810 1'538 1719 1538 Flt Permitted 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1810 1810 1810 1538 1719 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 199 166 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 46 45 36' Link Distance (ft) 1174 1862 1638 Travel Time (s) 17.8 28.2 37.2 Volume (vph) 465 222 605 189 65 699 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 489 234 637 199 68 736 Lane_ Group Flow-(vph) 489 234 637 199 68 736 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected_ Phases_ 4! '6 8! Permitted Phases 4! 6 8 - Detector Phases 4 4 6 6 8 8 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 10.0 16.0 10A 10.0 10.0 Total ( Split s) p 46.0 46.0 44.0 44.0 46.0 46.0 Total Split (%) 51.1 % 51.1'% . 48.9% 51-.1 % 48.96/. 51.1 % Maximum Green (s) 40.0 40.0 38.0 38.0 40.0 40.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None C-Min C-Min None None Act Effct Green (s) 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.28 0.77 0.25 0.09 0.93 Control Delay 8.0 3.4 28.8 3.1 13.6 34.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 8.0 3.4 28.8 3.1 13.6 34.8 LOS A A C A B C Approach Delay 6.5 22.7 33.0 Approach LOS A C C 90th %ile Green (s) 40.0 40.0 38.0 38.0 40.0 40.0 90th %ile Term Code Hold Hold Coord Coord Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 40.0 40.0 38.0 38.0 40.0 40.0 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 1 Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions Scenario B 9/6/2006 lane:Group ; , EBL.'T EBT -WBT :WBR =SWL SWR 70th %ile Term Code Hold Hold Coord Coord Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 41.2 41.2 36.8 36.8 41.2 41.2 50th %ile Term Code Hold Hold Coord Coord Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 40.4 40.4 37.6 37.6 40.4 40.4 30th %ile Term Code Hold Hold Coord Coord Gap Gap 10th %ile Green (s) 33.3 33.3 44.7 44.7 33.3 33.3 10th %ile Term Code Gap Gap Coord Coord Hold Hold ' Queue Length 50th (ft) 207 33 309 0 20 296 Queue Length 95th (ft) m296 m46,. #454 37 44 #561 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1094 1782 1558 j Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 851 851 831 814 808 811 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.57 0.27 0.77 0.24 0.08 0.91 I � r Intersection .Summary "'. Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 80 (89%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.93 Intersection Signal Delay: 21.2 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. ' m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. I Phase conflict between lane groups. Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 & 1 i ,-- 06 = 04 � 08 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 2 ' Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane Group `,f.. .�EBL "; EBT :�`,EBR; :1lVBL.WBR� TNBL2` . NBL`== . NBR �SEL , .SER; SER2 Lane Configurations tt r tt r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 15 9 15 9 9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 3335 3438 1538 1719 3438 1538 1719 1719 1538 3335 1538 1538 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3335 3438 1538 1719 3438 1538 1719 1719 . 1538 3335 1538 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 96 196 12 147 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 842 833 882 1668 Travel Time (s) 12.8 12.6 20.0 37.9 Volume (vph) 198 1840 91 123 2294 191 57 20 25 282 21 291 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95'' 0.95 0.95 '0.95' 0.05 '0.95 0.06' 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 208 1937 96 129 2415 201 60 21 26 297 22 306 LaneGroup Flow (vph) 208 1937 96 129 2415 201 60 21 26 297 22 306 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Split pm+ov Prot Over Protected Phases 7 4 2 3 8 6 2 2 3 6 7 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector'Phases 7 4 2 3 8 6 2 2 3 6' 6 7 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.10 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0- 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 13.0 57.0 11.0 10.0 54.0 12.0 11.0 11.0 10.0 12.0 12.0 13.0 Total Split-(6/6) 14.4% 63.30/6 1'2.2% 11.1 % ' 60.0%' 13.3% 12.2% 12.2% 11.1 % 18.3% 13.3%0 14.4% Maximum Green (s) 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None C-Min None None Min C-Min C-Min None Min Min None Act Effct Green (s) 9.0 53.0 64.0 6.0 50.0 58.0 7.0 7.0 13.0 8.0 8.0 9.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.59 0.71 0.07 0.56 0.64 0.08 0.08 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.96 0.09 1.12 1.26 0.19 0.45 0.16 0.11 1.00 0.16 1.07 Control Delay 47.7 30.6 1.1 109.3 137.9 0.2 50.8 41.7 16.6 96.2 41.0 95.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 47.7 30.6 1.1 109.3 137.9 0.2 50.8 41.7 16.6 96.2 41.0 95.6 LOS D C A F F A D D B F D F Approach Delay 30.9 126.5 40.7 94.0 Approach LOS C F D F 90th %ile Green (s) 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 90th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Max Max Max Coord Coord Max Max Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 3 Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane��Group,. ,. _ ',. EBL _EBT .,:EBR �VVBL WBT.;,WBR>,�.NBL2 �1BL' . NBR , ' SEL .sSER_ SER2 70th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Max Max Max Coord Coord Max Max Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 50th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Max Max Max Coord Coord Max Max Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 30th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Max Max Max Coord Coord Max Max Max Max 10th %ile Green (s) 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 10th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Max Max Max Coord Coord Max Max Max Max Queue Length 50th (ft) 59 503 0 -88 -923 0 33 11 5 --89 12 -113 Queue Length 95th (ft) 95 #719 12 m#76 m#807 m1 73. 34 23 #172 35 #275 Internal Link Dist (ft) 762 753 802 1588 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity(vph) 334 2025 1121 115 1910 1061 134 134 232 296 137 286 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap. Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62 0.96 0.09 1.12 1.26' 0.19 0.45 0.16 0.11 1.00 0.16 1.07 Intersection :Summary. Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 0 (06/6), Referenced to phase 2:NBL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.26 intersection Signal Delay: 83.9 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 -- Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Oueue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 8: Route 11 & Welltown Rd o2 06 o3" o4 1T s': 12's- 10s 57s .. , o7 08 13 s 54' AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 4 ' Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 1t _1, 4-- '1,— \_1, W Lane`�Group_; Lane Configurations t tt r r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.865 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1810 3438 1538 0 1565 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1810 3438 1538 0 1565 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 , 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 Link Distance (ft) 165 1174 1334 Travel Time (s) 2.5 17.8 26.0 Volume (vph) 0 1076 1903 67 0 37 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1133 2003 71 0 39 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1133 2003 71 0 39 Sign Control' Free Free' Stop �IritersectionSummary.. Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 I AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 5 Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Larie`Group, : -' EBL.EBT'.,EBR �':,WBL ";_WBT`;WBR . NBC2;NBL _�NBR SE L , ,SER; Lane Configurations tT+ '� tt r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.999 0.850 0.968 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.963 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3435 0 1719 3438 1538 0 1687 0 0 0 Fit Permitted 0.068 0.100 0.963 Satd. Flow (perm) 123 3435 0 181 ' 3438 1538 0 1687 0 0 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 1 207 14 " Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 w 30 Link Distance (ft) 259 1619 995 417 Travel Time (s) 3.9 24.5 22.6 9.5 Volume (vph) 355 1866 7 6 1644 408 26 18 13 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.05 0.05 0.96 0.95 0.95` .. 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 _ 0.95- Adj. Flow (vph) 374 1964 7 61-1 1731 429 27 19 14 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 374 1971 .0 6;? 1731 429 0 60 . 0 0 0 Turn Type pm+pt Perm Free Prot Protected Phases T 4 8 57 2' Permitted Phases 4 8 Free Detector Phases 7 4 8.. . 8._. 5 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split s p 1 0.0 10.0 10.0 ` 10.0 10.0- 10.0 Total Split (s) 17.0 76.0 0.0 59.0 59.0 0.0 14.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Split (%) 18.9% 84.4% 0.0% 65.6%° 65.6% 0.0% 15.6% 15.6%° 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 11.0 70.0 53.0 53.0 8.0 8.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag- Lead, Lag Lags Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Max Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 72.5 72.5 55.0 55.0 90.0 9.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.81 0.81 0.61 0.61 1.00 0.11 v/c Ratio 1.10 0.71 0.05 0.82 0.28 0.31 Control Delay 97.5 2.0 2.2 9.5 0.3 34.7 Queue Delay 6.5 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 104.0 2.9 2.2 9.6 0.3 34.7 L08 F A A A A C Approach Delay 19.0 7.8 34.7 Approach LOS B A C 90th %ile Green (s) 11.0 70.0 53.0 53.0 8.0 8.0 90th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Hold Max 70th %ile Green (s) 11.0 70.0 53.0 53.0 8.0 8.0 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 6 ' Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 70th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Hold Max 50th %ile Green (s) 11.0 70.0 53.0 53.0 8.0 8.0 50th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Hold Max 30th %ile Green (s) 11.0 70.0 53.0 53.0 8.0 8.0 30th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Hold Max 10th %ile Green (s) 13.5 72.5 53.0 53.0 5.5 5.5 10th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Gap Gap Queue Length 50th (ft) --210 69 0 498 0 24 Queue Length 95th (ft) m#265 m50 m1 622 m0 62 Internal Link Dist (ft) 179 1539 915 337 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 339 2767 111 2101 1538 191 Starvation Cap Reductn 5 475 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 25 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0, 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.12 0.86 0.05 0.83 0.28 0.31 ;Intersection :Summary. - Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 31 (34%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.10 Intersection Signal Delay: 13.9 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 14: Route 11 & Redbud Rd I o2 o4 14s- ` ': 76s 05 � 07 4— 08 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 7 Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane.;Group.; :EBL �EBI :EBR.�1NBL._.WBT.::WBR: NBL ,NBT. ,.'.NBR...;SBL..SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fri 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3438 1538 1719 3438 0 0 0 0 0 1719 1538 Fit Permitted 0.095 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 0 3438 1538 172 3438 0 0 0 0- 0 1719 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 368 10 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 45- 45 35 30 Link Distance (ft) 833 620 487 346 Travel Time (s) 12.6 9.4 9.5 7.9. Volume (vph) 0 1495 658 330 1935 0 0 0 0 407 0 672 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.05 '0.95 0.05'' 0.95 0.95 . 0.05 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1574 693 347 2037 0 0 0 0 428 0 707 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1574 693 347 2037 0 0 0 0 0 428 707 Turn Type Free pm+pt Prot Perm Protected Phases'' 4 3 $ 1 6 Permitted Phases Free 8 6 Detector Phases 4 3 8 1 6 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 10.0- 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 0.0 42.0 0.0 16.0 58.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 Total Split (%). 0.0% 46.7% 0.0% 17.8% 64.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% . 0.0% 35.6% 35.6% 35.6% Maximum Green (s) 36.0 10.0 52.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode C-Max None C-Max Min Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 38.0 90.0 54.0 54.0 28.0 28.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 1.00 0.60 0.60 0.31 0.31 v/c Ratio 1.08 0.45 1.12 0.99 0.80 1.46 Control Delay 66.9 0.3 108.6 29.9 41.6 244.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 66.9 0.3 108.6 36.7 41.6 244.4 LOS E A F D D F Approach Delay 46.5 47.1 167.9 Approach LOS D D F 90th %ile Green (s) 36.0 10.0 52.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 90th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 36.0 10.0 52.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 8 Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 EBL -EBT:.:EBR. WBL , WBT : WBR. NBL': - NBT, NBR ,;:SBL- :SBT - SBR 70th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 36.0 10.0 52.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 50th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 36.0 10.0 52.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 30th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max 10th %ile Green (s) 36.0 10.0 52.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 10th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max Queue Length 50th (ft) —523 0 --188 350 222 —557 Queue Length 95th (ft) m#566 m0 m#307 #764 #372 #776 Internal Link Dist (ft) 753 540 407 266 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1452 1538 309 2063 535 485 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 57 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0" 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.08 0.45 1.12 1.02 0.80 1.46 Intersection-7Summary 7> m Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 36 (40%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT'and 8:WBTL, Startof Green Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.46 Intersection Signal Delay: 70.6 Intersection LOS:' E Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.8% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. '95th # percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 15: Route 11 & SB ramp 01 T o3 o4 06 m8 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 9 1 Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane..Group. :. ...... . .: . "EBT =EBR : "�INBL.,,;.1NBT , ; NBL .;:. NBR Lane Configurations tt tt if Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ' Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 ' Frt 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) Fit Permitted 3438 0 0 3438 3335 0.950 1538 Satd. Flow (perm) 3438 0 " 0 3438 3335 1538 Right Turn on Red Satd.'Flow (RTOR) Yes Yes 10 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) 620 9.4 259 3.9 672 13.1 Volume (vph) 1901 0 0 1670 596 326 Peak Hour Factor 0,95 0.95 0,95 0,95 0.95 0,95 Adj. Flow (vph) 2001 0 0 1758 627 343 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2001 0 0 1768 627_ 343 Turn Type Perm ProtectedPhases" 4 8- 2 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phases 4 8 2 2 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 1 0,0 10.0 10.0 10.0 _ Total Split (s) 57.0 0.0 0.0 57.0 33.0 33.0 Total Split (%) 63.36% 0.0% 0'.0% 63.36/. 36.70/6 36.7% Maximum Green (s) 51.0 51.0 27.0 27.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag," Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode C-Max C-Max Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 56.6 56.6 25.4 25.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.28 0.28 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.81 0.67 0.78 ' Control Delay 11.6 4.3 30.4 35.9 Queue Delay 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 12.7 4.3 30.4 35.9 LOS B A C D Approach Delay 12.7 4.3 32.4 Approach LOS B A C 90th %ile Green (s) 51.0 51.0 27.0 27.0 90th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 51.0 51.0 27.0 27.0 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 10 Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 - 70th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 52.3 52.3 25.7 25.7 50th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Gap Gap 30th %ile Green (s) 56.7 56.7 21.3 21.3 30th %ile Term Code Coord. Coord Gap Gap 10th %ile Green (s) 62.1 62.1 15.9 15.9 10th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Gap Gap 1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 185 17 155 167 Queue Length 95th (ft) m161 80 206 262 Internal Link Dist (ft) 540 179 592 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 2163 2163 1075 502 Starvation Cap Reductn 2 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 50 15 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.95 0.82 0.58 0.68 Area es ction`Summa"ry,..�; Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 30-(33%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type. Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.93 Intersection Signal Delay: 13.6 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.8% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 I' m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 17: Route 11 & 02 04 33 s 5},s,_ ✓ 08 57s ' AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 11 Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane Group EBL ": EBR :... NEL. NET", Lane Configurations tt ttt Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 3335 1538 3335 3438 4940 1538 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3335 1538 '3335 3438 4940 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) - 9 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 30 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 1446 1679 827 Travel Time (s) 32.9 25.4 12.5 Volume (vph) 227 302 1030 849 1793 147 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.96' 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 239 318 1084 894 1887 155 Lane Group Flow (vph) 239 318 1084 894 1887 155 Turn Type custom Prot pm+ov Protected Phases 7 5. 5 2 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phases 7 5 5 2 8 7 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 10.0, 10.0 10.0 1,0.0, 10.0 10.0' Total Split (s) 13.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 45.0 13.0 58.0 Total Split (%o) 14.4% 35.6% 35.60/6' 35.60/6 60.0% 14.4% 64% Maximum Green (s) 7.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 39.0 7.0 52.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 '4 * o 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Min None None None Act Effct Green (s) 9.0 90.0 28.2 28.2 40.8 53.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 1.00 0.31 0.31 0.45 0.60 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.21 1.04 0.83 0.84 0.17 Control Delay 52.4 0.3 65.7 35.6 25.5 7.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 52.4 0.3 65.7 35.6 25.5 7.9 LOS D A E D C A Approach Delay 22.7 52.1 24.2 Approach LOS C D C 90th %ile Green (s) 7.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 39.0 7.0 52.0 90th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Max Max Hold 70th %ile Green (s) 7.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 39.0 7.0 52.0 ' AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 12 ' Rutherford Crossing 2010 Build -out Conditions Scenario B 9/6/2006 Lane Grou EBL `EBR `'NEL p . . 70th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Max Max Hold 50th %ile Green (s) 7.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 39.0 7.0 52.0 50th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Max Max Hold ' 30th %ile Green (s) 7.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 39.0 7.0 52.0 30th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Max Max Hold 10th %ile Green (s) 7.0 27.1 27.1 27.1 37.9 7.0 50.9 10th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Gap Max Hold ' Queue Length 50th (ft) 69 0 —338 251 354 32 Queue Length 95th (ft) #119 0 #469 #320 m417 m48 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1366 1599 747 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 334 1538 1046 1078 2250 922 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.72 0.21 1.04 0.83 0.84 0.17 Wtersection.Summary" Area Type: Other Cycle Length:'90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 80 (89%), Referenced to- phase2:NET and 5:NEL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type:'Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.04 Intersection Signal Delay: 36.1 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. ' # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 19: Site Drive #2 & Route 11 02 o4 s 58 s` •32 J o5 o7 F:o:O 32s AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 13 ' Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 __W --;t I '* / .-1 p .. Lane Configurations tt ttT* Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.91 Frt 0.865 0.984 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1565 0 3438 4861 0 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1565 0 3438 4861 0 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 30 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 1385 2411 1679 Travel Time (s) 31.5 36.5 25.4 Volume (vph)' 0 190 0 1879 1868 227 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 200 0 1978 1966 239 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 200 0 1978 2205 0 Sign Control Stop Free Free ., Intersection Summary - - -- 7.7 r Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 AM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 14 ' Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane;Group '.�= ------- ....._. �:EBL:-.�-EBT _ _._ Lane Configurations t t r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 Saud. Flow (prot) 1719 1810 1810 1538 1719 1538 Fit Permitted 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1810 1810 181'0 1538 1710 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 68 317 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link'Speed (mph) 45 ; 45 30 Link Distance (ft) 1194 1862 1638 Travel Time (s) 18.1 28.2 372 Volume (vph) 922 642 402 126 214 685 Peak Hour Factor 0.95'" 0.95 0.96 0.95' 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 971 676 423 133 225 721 Lane Group Flow (vph) 971 676 423' 133 225 721 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4! 6- 8! Permitted Phases 4! 6 8 Detector Phases 4 4 6 6 8 8 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split'(s) 16.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 . 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 46.0 46.0 44.0 44.0 46.6 46.0 Total Split (%) 51.1 % 51.1 % 48.9% 48.9% 51.1 % 51.1 % Maximum Green (s) 40.0 40.0 38.0 38.0 40.0 40.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 '4.0 4.0 4.0 Ail -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None C-Min C-Min None None Act, Effct Green (s) 55.0 55.0 27.0 27.0 55.0 55.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 0.61 0.30 0.30 0.61 0.61 v16 Ratio 0.88 0.61 0.78 0.26 0.21 0.68 Control Delay 39.5 30.1 30.4 11.4 9.9 11.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 39.5 30.1 30.4 11.4 9.9 11.2 LOS D C C B A B Approach Delay 35.6 25.8 10.9 Approach LOS D C B 90th %ile Green (s) 43.9 43.9 34.1 34.1 43.9 43.9 90th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Coord Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 49.1 49.1 28.9 28.9 49.1 49.1 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 1 � I Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane. Group. :. EBL EBT . _ WBT : WBR. SWL SWR 70th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Coord Hold Hold 50th %ile Green (s) 53.5 53.5 24.5 24.5 53.5 53.5 50th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Coord Hold Hold 30th %ile Green (s) 56.9 56.9 21.1 21.1 56.9 56.9 30th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Coord Hold Hold 10th %ile Green (s) 61.6 61.6 16.4 16.4 61.6 61.6 10th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Coord Hold Hold Queue Length 50th (ft) 604 420 221 27 51 126 Queue Length 95th (ft) m#727 m454 279 59 113 341 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1114 1782 1558 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1106 1106 804 721 1051 1063 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0' 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.88 0.61 0.53 0.18 0.21 0.68 m _ ._- .,.,_.._,�,._r _, ;Intersection,Summary _ Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 80 (89%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated _ Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.88 Intersection Si nin Delay: 26.5 g y Intersection- ,. LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.1 % ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 - # 95th percentile_ volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Cueue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Phase conflict between lane groups. . Splits and Phases: 5: Route 11 & 06 —► 04 46 s 08 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 2 � I ' Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane Group .:.. EBL, TMEBT EBR .; WBL. WBT'',WBR - NBL2 r _NBL NBR., "SER `SER2 Lane Configurations tt r tt r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50. 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 15 9 15 9 9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 3335 3438 1538 1719 3438 1538 1719 1719 1538 3335. 1538 1538 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3335 3438 1538 1719 3438 1538 1719 1719 1538 3335 1538 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 93 253 6 152 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 842 833 882 1668 Travel Time (s) 12.8 12.6 20.0 31.9.. Volume (vph) 271 2073 88 67 2370 255 48 29 28 333 30 333 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 . 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 285 2182 93 71 2495 268 51 31 29 351 32 351 Lane Group Flow (vph) 285 2182 93 71 ' 2495 268 51 ' 31 ' 29 '. - 851 ' 32 351 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Split pm+ov Prot Over Protected s Phaes_ 7 4 2 3, 8 6 2_ . .2 3.. 6 7 Permitted_ Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phases 7 4 2 3 8 6 2 2 3 6 6. 7 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 - 10.0 10.0. 10.0 Total Split (s) 13.0 57.0 11.0 10.0 54.0 12.0 11.0 11.0 10.0 12.0 12.0 13.0 Total Split (%) 14.4% 63.3%" 12.2% 11.1 % '60.0% 13.3% 12.2%. 12.2% 11.1 % .18.3% 13.3% 14.4% Maximum Green (s) 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0. 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 . 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None C-Min None None Min C-Min C-Min None Min Min None Act Effct Green (s) 9.0 55.0 66.0 6.0 50.0 58.0 7.0 7.0 13.0 8.0 8.0 9.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.61 0.73 0.07 0.56 0.64 0.08 0.08 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.85 1.04 0.08 0.62 1.31 0.25 0.38 0.23 0.13 1.19 0.23 1.21 Control Delay 64.4 50.3 1.1 51.9 156.7 0.2 48.1 43.5 20.5 150.3 42.7 143.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 64.4 50.3 1.1 51.9 156.7 0.2 48.1 43.5 20.5 150.3 42.7 143.2 LOS E D A D F A D D C F D F Approach Delay 50.1 139.3 39.6 142.2 Approach LOS D F D F 90th %ile Green (s) 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 90th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Max Max Max Coord Coord Max Max Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 3 Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 2P ■- Lane Group.:'l - y EBL 'M EBT. .ryEBR :,WBL `'WBT = WBR.:NBLZ,: NBL'.. NBR, >SEL "SER SEf22 70th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Max Max Max Coord Coord Max Max Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 50th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Max Max Max Coord Coord Max Max Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 7.0 51.0 5.0 4.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 30th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Max Max Max Coord Coord Max Max Max Max 10th %ile Green (s) 7.0 61.0 5.0 0.0 48.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 10th %ile Term Code Max Max Coord Skip Max Max Coord Coord Skip Max Max Max ' Queue Length 50th (ft) 83 -735 0 42 -967 2 28 17 9 -124 17 --162 Queue Length 95th (ft) #153 #873 12 m40 m#891 m1 65 45 28 #211 46 #333 Internal Link Dist (ft) 762 753 802 1588 ' Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 334 2101 1153 115 1910 1081 134 134 227 296 137 291 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.85 1.04 0.08 0.62 1.31 0.25 0.38 0.23 0.13 1.19 0.23 1.21 Intersection Summary i Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 1 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 120 Control:Type: Actuated -Coordinated =x> Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.31 Intersection Signal Delay: 101.3 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.. . # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. ' Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 8: Route 11 & Welltown Rd p' o2 o6 o3 04 10's 1 o7 wf= o8 13s 54s ' PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 4 Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane;Gi-oup.�."":EBL..'":EBT-�,,WBT;.;WBR Lane Configurations t tt r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.865 Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1810 3438 1538 0 1565 Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1810 3438 1538 0 1565 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 Link Distance (ft) 145 1194 1132 Travel Time (s) 2.2 18.1 22.1 Volume (vph) 0 1601 1591 61 0 80 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 6.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)" 0 1685 1675 64 0 84 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1685 1675 64 0 84 Sign Control " Free - Free Stop Int6rsection, ummary Area Type: "" Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection" Capacity Utilization 87.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 5 Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions `9/6/2006 Lane Group EBL EBT ,~�EBR ,WBL :" WBT:". WBR "NBL2 " . NBL .,NBR- . SEL SER. Lane Configurations tT+ ►`j tt r ` Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' Frt 0.998 0.850 0.970 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.963 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3431 0 1719 3438 1538 0 1690 0 0 0 Rt Permitted 0.068 0.093 0.963 Satd. Flow (perm) 123 3431 0 168 3438 1538 0 1690 0 0 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 8 235 12 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 259 1619 995 417 Travel Time (s) 3.9 24.5 22.6 9.5 Volume (vph) 576 1968 30 23 1917 540 26 27 15 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 " 0.95 0.95 0 95 0. 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 606 2072 32 24 2095 18 568 27 28 16 0 0 Lane Group'Flow (vph) '606 2104 0 24 2018 568 0' 71 " 0 0 0 Turn Type pm+pt Perm Free Prot ' Protected Phases 7 4 8 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 Free Detector Phases 7 4 8 8" 5 2' Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Min, imum"Spliit (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 21.0 80.0 0.0 59.0 59.0 0.0 16.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Split (%°) 23.3% 88.9%, 0.0% 65.6% 65.6% 0.0% 11.1 % 11.1 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 15.0 74.0 53.0 53.0 4.0 4.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Max Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 76.0 76.0 55.0 55.0 90.0 6.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.84 0.84 0.61 0.61 1.00 0.07 v/c Ratio 1.50 0.73 0.23 0.96 0.37 0.57 ' Control Delay 251.5 1.4 20.5 38.3 0.6 53.9 Queue Delay 75.6 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 327.0 6.1 20.5 38.3 0.6 53.9 LOS F A C D A D Approach Delay 77.9 29.9 53.9 Approach LOS E C D 90th %ile Green (s) 15.0 74.0 53.0 53.0 4.0 4.0 ' 90th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 15.0 74.0 53.0 53.0 4.0 4.0 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 6 Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane_Group: EBR! 'WBL�sWBT.:.;:WBR` NBR SEL. 'USER 70th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 15.0 74.0 53.0 53.0 4.0 4.0 50th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 15.0 74.0 53.0 53.0 4.0 4.0 30th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Max Max 10th %ile Green (s) 15.0 74.0 53.0 53.0 4.0 4.0 10th %ile Term Code Max Coord Coord Coord Max Max Queue Length 50th (ft) -444 16 11 628 0 33 Queue Length 95th (ft) m#411 m11 m17 m#691 m0 #90 Internal Link Dist (ft) 179 1539 915 337 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 405 2899 103 2101 1538 124 Starvation Cap Reductn 41 720 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.66 0.97 0.23 0.96 0.37 0.57 Intersection Summary, Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 31 (349/.), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBTL, Startof Green, Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.50 intersection Signal Delay: 54.3 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue Shown is maximum after two cycles., # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 14: Route 11 & Redbud Rd I o2 o4 Os' 80 s 05 '� 07 #— 0$ 10 s 1, M21 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 7 Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 EBL. EBT ,EBR ;V1IBL t-_WBT: 1NBR=.^,NBL4., NBT NBR SBL' Lane Configurations tt if tt *T r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3438 1538 1719 3438 0 0 0 0 0 1719 1538 Fit Permitted 0.091 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3438 1538 165 3438 0 0 0 0 0 1719 . 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 362 8 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 30 Link Distance (ft) 833 620 487 346 Travel Time (s)" 12.6 9.4 9.5 7.9 Volume (vph) 0 1703 738 465 2286 0 0 0 0 423 0 406 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0:96 .. 095 0 95 0.95 ­ 0.95 0.9505 .....90 . 0.95 . 0:95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1793 777 489 2406 0 0 0 0 445 0 427 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1793 777 489 2406 0 0 -" 0 0. 0 445 427 Turn Type Free pm+pt Prot Perm Proteed hs ctPase".. 4 ... 3. 8 _. 1 6 Permitted Phases Free 8 6 Detector Phases 4 3 8 1 6 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0" 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 0.0 44.0 0.0 21.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Total Split (%) 0.0% 48.9% 0.0% 23.3% 72.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 27.8% 27.8% 27.8% Maximum Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 "4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead" Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0, 3.0 Recall Mode C-Max None C-Max Min Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 40.0 90.0 61.0 61.0 21.0 21.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 1.00 0.68 0.68 0.23 0.23 v/c Ratio 1.17 0.51 1.21 1.03 1.11 1.17 Control Delay 102.7 0.1 127.9 35.9 112.6 134.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.8 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 102.7 0.1 127.9 56.6 112.6 134.8 LOS F A F E F F Approach Delay 71.7 68.7 123.5 Approach LOS E E F 90th %ile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 90th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 8 Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane,"Group, :,.. :. EBL :.,,EBT,.::EBR R`1NBL, WBT"WBR , NBL.' ,NBT NBR 4 :SBL SBT, SBR 70th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 50th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 30th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max 10th %ile Green (s) 38.0 15.0 59.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 10th %ile Term Code Coord Max Coord Hold Max Max Queue Length 50th (ft) —638 0 --294 —775 —292 —290 Queue Length 95th (ft) m#581 m0 m#337 m#868 #475 #475 Internal Link Dist (ft) 753 540 407 266 Turn, Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1528 1538 405 2330 401 365 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 111 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.17 0.51 1.21 1.08 1.11 1.17 �_ -._ ;Inter"section:Summ"ary, �- Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 36 (40%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBTL, Start of Green , Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.21 Intersection Signal Delay: 77.4 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.3% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 15: Route 11 & SB ramp 01 '1('03 04 25s 21 s. �F 06 08 25s PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 9 Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 --w _, *_ "`\ l*' EBT,-� EBR,;VI/BL. �'WBT..� NBL,"-NBR`.. Lane Configurations tt tt M r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frt 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 3438 0 0 3438 3335 1538 Flt Permitted 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 3438 0 0 3438 3335 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 8 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 Link Distance (ft) 620 259 672 Travel Time (s) 9.4 ' 3.9 13.1 Volume (vph) 2125 0 0 1942 808 449 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 . 0.95 0.95 0.95' 0.95 0.95f Adj. Flow (vph) 2237 0 0 2044 851 473 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2237 0 0 2044, 851 473 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 2 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phases 4 8 2 2 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 60.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 66 7%0� 33.3%�.. 33.3% Maximum Green (s) 1.54.0 54.-0 24.0 24.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode C-Max C-Max Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 56.0 56.0 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.62 0.29 0.29 v/c Ratio 1.05 0.06 0.88 1.05 Control Delay 34.8 8.4 43.0 89.3 Queue Delay 43.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 78.1 8.4 43.0 89.3 LOS E A D F Approach Delay 78.1 8.4 59.6 Approach LOS E A E 90th %ile Green (s) 54.0 54.0 24.0 24.0 90th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 54.0 54.0 24.0 24.0 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 10 I Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane Group -` - EBT.' EBR :1NBL, ':.V1/BT, '==': NBL `, NBR 70th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 54.0 54.0 24.0 24.0 50th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 54.0 54.0 24.0 24.0 30th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Max 10th %ile Green (s) 54.0 54.0 24.0 24.0 10th %ile Term Code Coord Coord Max Max Queue Length 50th (ft) —257 30 237 —294 Queue Length 95th (ft) m125 m58 #343 #484 Internal Link Dist (ft) 540 179 592 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 2139 2139 963 450 Starvation Cap Reductn 25 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 190 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.15 0.96 0.88 1.05 lntersectionSummary Area Type: Other Cycle Length`90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 30 (33%), Referenced to phase 4:EBT and 8:WBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 110 Control,Type Actuated -Coordinated ' Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.05 Intersection Signal Delay: 48.3 ' Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.3% ICU Level of Service G. Analysis Period (min) 15 - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. ' # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 17: Route 11 & o2 o4 �0 sGn 08 60 s ' PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 11 Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane Grou EBL EBR: ` :NEL: NET: `mSV1/T ' SWR Lane Configurations M tt ttt Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 3335 1538 3335 3438 4940 1538 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3335 1538 3335 3438 4940 1538 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 781 136 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 30 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 1439 1679 827 Travel Time (s) 32.7 25.4 12.5 Volume (vph) 521 694 902 1081 1542 129 Peak Hour Factor' 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.05 0.05 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 548 731 949 1138 1623 136 Larie-Group Flow (vph) 548 731 - 949 1138 1623 136 _ Turn Type custom Prot Per _ ed Protect . Phases 7 5 2 , 8 Permitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phases 7 4 5 2 8 8- Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 19.0 53.0 37.0 37.0 34.0 34.0 Total Split (%} 21.1 % 58.0% 41:1 % ,41.1 % 37.8% 37.86% Maximum Green (s) 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag, Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None C-Max C-Min None None Act Effct Green (s) 15.0 49.0 33.0 33.0 30.0 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.54 0.37 0.37 0.33 0.33 v/c Ratio 0.99 0.62 0.78 0.90 0.99 0.23 Control Delay 73.8 3.5 22.4 28.8 46.5 4.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 73.8 3.5 22.4 28.8 46.5 4.9 LOS E A C C D A Approach Delay 33.7 25.9 43.3 Approach LOS C C D 90th %ile Green (s) 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 90th %ile Term Code Max Hold Coord Coord Max Max 70th %ile Green (s) 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 12 Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 ane,Group -EBL .i,EBR,.;;NEL ;NET 70th %ile Term Code Max Hold Coord Coord Max Max 50th %ile Green (s) 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 50th %ile Term Code Max Hold Coord Coord Max Max 30th %ile Green (s) 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 30th %ile Term Code Max Hold Coord Coord Max Max 10th %ile Green (s) 13.0 47.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 28.0 10th %ile Term Code Max Hold Coord Coord Max Max Queue Length 50th (ft) 161 0 209 284 289 2 Queue Length 95th (ft) #268 50 288 #441 #442 m28 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1359 1599 747 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 556 1170 1223 1261 1647 603 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 '" " 0. 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.99 0.62 0.78 0.90 0.99 0.23 Intersection Summary" 77-77, Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90' Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 43 (48%), Referenced to phase 2:NET and 5:NEL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.99 Intersection "Signal Delay: 33.8 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shownis'maximum after two cycles.` m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 19: Site Drive #2 & Route 11 02 o4 o5 o7 08 37s-- - 19s- 34s. PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 13 Rutherford Crossing Scenario B 2010 Build -out Conditions 9/6/2006 Lane, Group ^..,EBL : EBR. ''NEL :. :.... ;. ' Lane Configurations r ft ttT+ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.91 Frt 0.865 0.987 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1565 0 3438 4876 0 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1565 0 3438 4876 0 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' Link Speed (mph) 30 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 1287 2411 1679 Travel Time (s) 29.3 36.5 25.4 ' Volume (vph) 0 441 0 1983 2039 197 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj.,Flow (vph) 0 464 0 2087' 2146 207 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 464 0 2087 2353 0 Sign Control Stop Free"" Free jntersection _Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 7T86/6 ICU Level of Service D ' Analysis Period (min) 15 PM PEAK Patton Harris Rust & Associates Page 14 Traffic Counts Intersection: E-W: I ROUTE 11 Weather Dry File Name N-S: 1-81NB RAMP Count By JJP Input By JJP Location WINCHESTER,VA Count Date 6/14/2006 15 Minute EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTEII NB: I-81NB RAMP SB: 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 0 51 0 51 0 101 0 101 123 0 9 132 0 0 0 0 284 7:00 7:15 0 68 0 68 0 123 0 123 97 0 20 117 0 0 0 0 308 7:15 7:30 0 82 0 82 0 127 0 127 127 0 12 139 0 0 0 0 348 7:30 7:45 0 70 0 70 0 133 0 133 143 0 27 170 0 0 0 0 373 7:45 8:00 0 53 0 53 0 96 0 96 119 0 15 134 0 0 0 0 283 8:00 8:15 0 40 0 40 0 104 0 104 99 0 16 115 0 0 0 0 259 8:15 8:30 0 53 0 53 0 91 0 91 96 0 16 112 0 0 0 0 256 8:30 8:45 0 64 0 64 0 83 0 83 120 0 19 139 0 0 0 0 286 8:45 A.M. Total IF 0 481 0 481 0 858 0 858 924 0 134 1058 0 0 0 0 2397 A.M. Total 16:00 0 144 0 144 0 128 0 128 159 0 33 192 0 0 0 0 464 16:00 16:15 0 109 0 109 0 132 0 132 169 0 34 203 0 0 0 0 444 16:15 16:30 0 127 0 127 0 141 0 141 162 0 32 194 0 0 0 0 462 16:30 16:45 0 126 0 126 0 118 0 118 175 0 42 217 0 0 0 0 461 16:45 17:00 0 120 0 120 0 104 0 104 175 0 33 208 0 0 0 0 432 17:00 17:15 0 153 0 153 0 107 0 107 161 0 42 203 0 0 0 0 463 17:15 17:30 0 109 0 109 0 124 0 124 180 0 35 215 0 0 0 0 448 17:30 17:45 0 104 0 104 0 104 0 104 147 0 28 175 0 0 0 0 383 17:45 P.M. Total JF70 992 0 992 0 958 0 958 1328 0 279 1607 0 0 0 0 1 3557 P.M. Total I Hour EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: I-81NB RAMP SB: I Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 0 271 0 271 0 484 0 484 490 0 68 558 0 0 0 0 1313 7:00 7:15 0 273 0 273 0 479 0 479 486 0 74 560 0 0 0 0 1312 7:15 7:30 0 245 0 245 0 460 0 460 488 0 70 558 0 0 0 0 1263 7:30 7:45 0 216 0 216 0 424 0 424 457 0 74 531 0 0 0 0 1171 7:45 8:00 0 210 0 210 0 374 0 374 434 0 66 500 0 0 0 0 1084 1 8:00 16:00 0 506 0 506 0 519 0 519 665 0 141 806 0 0 0 0 1831 16:00 16:15 0 482 0 482 0 495 0 495 681 0 141 822 0 0 0 0 1799 16:15 16:30 0 526 0 526 0 470 0 470 673 0 149 822 0 0 0 0 1818 16:30 16:45 0 508 0 508 0 453 0 453 691 0 152 843 0 0 0 0 1804 16:45 17:00 0 486 0 486 1 0 439 0 439 663 0 138 801 0 0 0 0 1726 17:00 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTEII NB: 1-81NB RAMP SB: 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 0 271 0 271 0 484 0 484 490 0 68 558 0 0 0 0 1313 7:00 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.83 PHF = 0.91 PHF = 0.82 PHF = 0.88 A.M. Peak 16:00 0 506 0 506 0 519 0 519 665 0 141 806 0 0 0 0 1831 16:00 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.88 PHF = 0.92 PHF = 0.93 PHF = 1 0.99 P.M. Peak im Intersection: E-W: IROUTE I 1 Weather Dry File Name N-S: I-81 SB RAMP Count By ljjp Input By JJP Location WINCHESTER,VA Count Date 6/6/2006 15 Minute EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 1 I NB: SB: I-81 SB RAMP 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining ' 7:00 0 208 112 320 24 195 0 219 0 0 0 0 2 0 134 136 675 7:00 7:15 0 199 132 331 33 212 0 245 0 0 0 0 4 0 138 142 718 7:15 7:30 0 174 127 301 38 367 0 405 0 0 0 0 3 0 135 138 844 7:30 7:45 0 201 133 334 24 365 0 389 0 0 0 0 2 0 131 133 856 7:45 ' 8:00 0 233 149 382 20 354 0 374 0 0 0 0 4 0 149 153 909 8:00 8:15 0 175 129 304 26 270 0 296 0 0 0 0 2 0 116 118 718 8:15 8:30 0 168 114 282 20 190 0 210 0 0 0 0 3 0 86 89 581 8:30 8:45 0 154 134 288 1 40 211 0 251 0 0 0 0 2 0 96 98 637 11 8:45 ' A.M. Total 0 1512 1030 2542 225 2164 0 2389 0 0 0 0 22 0 985 1007 5938 A.M. Total 16:00 0 237 160 397 29 326 0 355 0 0 0 0 1 0 90 91 843 16:00 16:15 0 221 108 329 32 381 0 413 0 0 0 0 3 0 107 110 852 16:15 ' 16:30 0 235 155 390 36 350 0 386 0 0 0 0 4 0 70 74 850 16:30 16:45 0 229 154 383 29 321 0 350 0 0 0 0 2 0 89 91 824 16:45 17:00 0 270 190 460 34 304 0 338 0 0 0 0 4 0 68 72 870 17:00 17:15 17:30 0 0 254 189 182 165 436 354 21 29 252 260 0 0 273 289 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 67 61 70 62 779 705 17:15 17:30 17:45 0 170 124 294 31 241 0 272 0 0 0 0 3 0 79 82 648 17:45 P.M. Total 0 1805 1238 3043 241 2435 0 2676 0 0 0 0 21 0 631 652 6371 P.M. Total ' 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 1 I NB: SB: I-81 SB RAMP I Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 0 782 504 1286 119 1139 0 1258 0 0 0 0 11 0 538 549 3093 7:00 7:15 0 807 541 1348 115 1298 0 1413 0 0 0 0 13 0 553 566 3327 7:15 7:30 0 783 538 1321 108 1356 0 1464 0 0 0 0 11 0 531 542 3327 7:30 7:45 0 777 525 1302 90 1179 0 1269 0 0 0 0 11 0 482 493 3064 7:45 8:00 0 730 526 1256 106 1025 0 1131 0 0 0 0 11 0 447 458 2845 8:00 ' 16:00 0 922 577 1499 126 1378 0 1504 0 0 0 0 10 0 356 366 3369 16:00 16:15 0 955 607 1562 131 1356 0 1487 0 0 0 0 13 0 334 347 3396 16:15 16:30 0 988 681 1669 120 1227 0 1347 0 0 0 0 13 0 294 307 3323 16:30 ' 16:45 0 942 691 1633 113 1137 0 1250 0 0 0 0 10 0 285 295 3178 16:45 17:00 0 883 661 1544 115 1057 0 1172 0 0 0 0 11 0 275 286 3002 17:00 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 1 I NB: SB: I-81 SB RAMP 1 Hour ' Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:15 0 807 541 1348 115 1298 0 1413 0 0 0 0 13 0 553 566 3327 7:15 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.88 PHF = 0.87 PHF = PHF = 0.92 0.92 A.M. Peak ' 16:15 0 955 607 1562 131 1356 0 1487 0 0 0 0 13 0 334 347 3396 r 16:15 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.85 1 PHF = 0.90 1 PHF = PHF = 0.79 1 0.98 ILR.M. Peak Intersection: E-W: CHARLESTOWN PK Weather Dry File Name N-& ROUTE I 1 Count By JJP Input By JJP Location CLEAR BROOK VA Count Date 6/l/2006 15 Minute EB: WB: CHARLESTOWN PK NB: ROUTE 1 1 SB: ROUTE 11 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 0 0 0 0 27 0 1 28 0 48 12 60 2 63 0 65 153 7:00 7:15 0 0 0 0 38 0 2 40 0 58 11 69 4 69 0 73 182 7:15 7:30 0 0 0 0 57 0 4 61 0 65 13 78 1 99 0 100 239 7:30 7:45 0 0 0 0 32 0 1 33 0 60 14 74 1 85 0 86 193 7:45 8:00 0 0 0 0 26 0 1 27 0 45 15 60 3 70 0 73 160 8:00 8:15 0 0 0 0 34 0 3 37 0 48 15 63 2 63 0 65 165 8:15 8:30 0 0 0 0 26 0 5 31 0 40 8 48 0 70 0 70 149 8:30 &45 0 0 0 0 35 0 3 38 0 68 14 82 2 99 0 101 221 8:45 A.M. Total 0 0 0 0 275 0 20 295 0 432 102 534 15 618 0 633 1462 A.M. Tota] 16:00 0 0 0 0 31 0 6 37 0 131 29 160 3 62 0 65 262 16:00 16:15 0 0 0 0 18 0 3 21 0 128 33 161 4 79 0 83 265 16:15 16:30 0 0 0 0 23 0 5 28 0 104 28 132 3 82 0 85 245 16:30 16:45 0 0 0 0 24 0 5 29 0 111 44 155 1 69 0 70 254 16:45 17:00 0 0 0 0 16 0 3 19 0 122 31 153 6 76 0 82 254 17:00 17:15 0 0 0 0 30 0 4 34 0 115 36 151 4 85 0 89 274 17:15 17:30 0 0 0 0 20 0 2 22 0 116 19 135 3 55 0 58 215 17:30 17:45 --0-0 0 0 21 0 1 22 0 130 26 156 4 64 0 68 246 17:45 P.M. Total 0 0 0 0 183 0 29 212 0 957 246 1203 28 572 0 600 2015 P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: WB: CHARLESTOWN PK NB: ROUTE 11 SB: ROUTE 11 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 0 0 0 0 154 0 8 162 0 231 50 281 8 316 0 324 767 7:00 7:15 0 0 0 0 153 0 8 161 0 228 53 281 9 323 0 332 774 7:15 7:30 0 0 0 0 149 0 9 158 0 218 57 275 7 317 0 324 757 7:30 7:45 0 0 0 0 118 0 10 129 0 193 52 245 6 288 0 294 667 7:45 8:00 0 0 0 0 121 0 12 133 0 201 52 253 7 302 0 309 695 8:00 16:00 0 0 0 0 96 0 19 115 0 474 134 608 11 292 0 303 1026 16:00 16:15 0 0 0 0 81 0 16 97 0 465 136 601 14 306 0 320 1018 16:15 16:30 0 0 0 0 93 0 17 110 0 452 139 591 14 312 0 326 1027 16:30 16:45 0 0 0 0 90 0 14 104 0 464 130 594 14 285 0 299 997 16:45 17:00 0 0 0 0 87 0 10 97 0 483 112 595 17 280 0 297 989 17:00 1 Hour EB: WB: CHARLESTOWN PK NB: ROUTE 11 SB: ROUTE I 1 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:15 0 0 0 0 153 0 8 161 0 228 53 281 9 323 0 332 774 7:15 A.M. Peak PHF = PHF = 0.66 PHF = 0.90 PHF = 0.83 0.81 A.M. Peak 16:30 0 0 0 0 93 0 17 110 0 452 139 591 14 312 0 326 1027 16:30 P.M. Peak PHF = I PHF = 0.81 1 PHF = 0.95 1 PHF = 0.92 1 0.94 1P.M. Peak Intersection: E-W: I ROUTE 11 Weather Dry File Name N-S: REDBUD Count By JJP Input By JJP Location WINCHESTERNA Count Date 6/15/2006 15 Minute EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: REDBUD SB: 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 77 0 1 78 0 0 30 30 4 3 2 9 0 0 0 0 117 7:00 7:15 69 0 0 69 1 0 28 29 4 3 2 9 0 0 0 0 107 7:15 7:30 81 0 2 83 2 0 31 33 6 5 4 15 0 0 0 0 131 7:30 7:45 65 0 3 68 2 0 28 30 7 4 3 14 0 0 0 0 112 7:45 8:00 56 0 5 61 1 0 22 23 8 3 5 16 0 0 0 0 100 8:00 8:15 56 0 5 61 4 0 16 20 11 3 5 19 0 0 0 0 100 8:15 8:30 58 0 6 64 4 0 17 21 8 4 4 16 0 0 0 0 101 8:30 8:45 52 0 8 60 5 0 17 22 10 5 5 20 0 0 0 0 102 8:45 A.M. Total 514 0 30 544 19 0 189 208 58 30 30 118 0 0 0 0 870 A.M. Total 16:00 101 0 3 104 3 0 15 18 2 4 6 12 0 0 0 0 134 16:00 16:15 121 0 3 124 3 0 12 15 2 7 4 13 0 0 0 0 152 16:15 16:30 91 0 4 95 2 0 12 14 4 6 4 14 0 0 0 0 123 16:30 16:45 113 0 7 120 5 0 16 21 3 6 3 12 0 0 0 0 153 16:45 17:00 121 0 7 128 4 0 13 17 6 6 2 14 0 0 0 0 159 17:00 17:15 133 0 6 139 5 0 12 17 7 5 4 16 0 0 0 0 172 17:15 17:30 107 0 5 112 5 0 9 14 5 5 3 13 0 0 0 0 139 17:30 17:45 83 0 5 88 3 0 10 13 4 4 1 9 0 0 0 0 110 17:45 P.M. Total 870 0 40 910 30 0 99 129 33 43 27 103 0 0 0 0 1142 P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: ROUTE I 1 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: REDBUD SB: 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 292 0 6 298 5 0 117 122 21 15 11 47 0 0 0 0 467 7:00 7:15 271 0 10 281 6 0 109 115 25 15 14 54 0 0 0 0 450 7:15 7:30 258 0 15 273 9 0 97 106 32 15 17 64 0 0 0 0 443 7:30 7:45 235 0 19 254 11 0 83 94 34 14 17 65 0 0 0 0 413 7:45 8:00 222 0 24 246 14 0 72 86 37 15 19 71 0 0 0 0 403 8:00 16:00 426 0 17 443 13 0 55 68 11 23 17 51 0 0 0 0 562 16:00 16:15 446 0 21 467 14 0 53 67 15 25 13 53 0 0 0 0 587 16:15 16:30 458 0 24 482 16 0 53 69 20 23 13 56 0 0 0 0 607 16:30 16:45 474 0 25 499 19 0 50 69 21 22 12 55 0 0 0 0 623 16:45 17:00 444 0 23 467 17 0 44 61 22 20 10 52 1 0 0 0 0 580 17:00 1 Hour EB: ROUTE I 1 WB: ROUTE I 1 NB: REDBUD SB: 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 292 0 6 298 5 0 117 122 21 15 11 47 0 0 0 0 467 7:00 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.90 PHF = 0.92 PHF = 0.78 PHF = 0.89 A.M. Peak 16:45 474 0 25 499 19 0 50 69 21 22 12 55 0 0 0 0 623 16:45 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.90 1 PHF = 0.82 1 PHF = 0.86 PHF 1 0.91 P.M. Peak im Intersection: E-W: ROUTE I I Weather DRY File Name N-S: ROUTE 839 Count By JIP Input By JJP Location lWinchester,VA Count Date 5/11/2006 ' 15 Minute EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 1 1 NB: ROUTE 839 SB: ROUTE661 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining ' 7:00 33 259 16 308 21 304 44 369 13 4 4 21 56 4 54 114 812 7:00 7:15 34 271 18 323 25 316 34 375 18 5 7 30 61 3 60 124 852 7:15 7:30 47 266 22 335 26 322 39 387 14 6 8 28 60 4 66 130 880 7:30 7:45 49 243 19 311 29 305 40 374 12 5 6 23 55 6 59 120 828 7:45 ' 8:00 52 226 20 298 19 299 36 354 14 6 6 26 46 6 55 107 785 8:00 8:15 46 189 16 251 14 259 37 310 15 5 4 24 41 8 45 94 679 8:15 8:30 40 144 12 196 17 235 34 286 20 7 3 30 47 9 46 102 614 8:30 42 159 13 214 12 212 31 255 14 6 4 24 52 11 40 103 1 596 11 8:45 '8:45 A.M. Total 343 1757 136 2236 163 2252 295 2710 120 44 42 206 418 51 425 894 6046 A.M. Total 16:00 44 266 16 326 12 261 49 322 12 6 7 25 52 7 56 115 788 16:00 16:15 46 279 20 345 15 278 51 344 13 7 8 28 66 7 65 138 855 16:15 ' 16:30 51 286 19 356 13 286 53 352 14 6 5 25 70 4 74 148 881 16:30 16:45 60 294 16 370 15 298 50 363 10 7 8 25 70 6 76 152 910 16:45 17:00 66 307 17 390 12 289 56 357 11 9 7 27 68 8 59 135 909 17:00 ' 17:15 17:30 64 50 288 271 14 12 366 333 15 11 280 270 48 40 343 321 7 4 7 4 9 7 23 15 51 39 5 2 54 49 110 90 842 759 17:15 17:30 17:45 45 259 9 313 12 259 34 305 5 4 8 17 35 3 40 78 713 17:45 P.M. Total 426 2250 123 2799 105 2221 381 2707 76 50 59 185 451 42 473 966 6657 P.M. Total ' I Hour EB: ROUTE I I WB: ROUTE 11 NB: ROUTE 839 SB: ROUTE661 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining ' 7:00 163 1039 75 1277 101 1247 157 1505 57 20 25 102 232 17 239 488 3372 7:00 7:15 182 1006 79 1267 99 1242 149 1490 58 22 27 107 222 19 240 481 3345 7:15 7:30 194 924 77 1195 88 1185 152 1425 55 22 24 101 202 24 225 451 3172 7:30 7:45 187 802 67 1056 79 1098 147 1324 61 23 19 103 189 29 205 423 2906 7:45 8:00 180 718 61 959 62 1005 138 1205 63 24 17 104 186 34 186 406 2674 8:00 ' 16:00 201 1125 71 1397 55 1123 203 1381 49 26 28 103 258 24 271 553 3434 16:00 16:15 223 1166 72 1461 55 1151 210 1416 48 29 28 105 274 25 274 573 3555 16:15 16:30 241 1175 66 1482 55 1153 207 1415 42 29 29 100 259 23 263 545 3542 16:30 ' 16:45 240 1160 59 1459 53 1137 194 1384 32 27 31 90 228 21 238 487 3420 16:45 17:00 225 1125 52 1402 50 1098 178 1326 27 24 31 82 193 18 202 413 3223 17:00 1 Hour EB: ROUTE I WB: ROUTE I I NB: ROUTE 839 SB: ROUTE661 I Hour ' Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 163 1039 75 1277 101 1247 157 1505 57 20 25 102 232 17 239 488 3372 7:00 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.95 PHF = 0.97 PHF = 0.85 PHF = 0.94 0.96 A.M. Peak ' 16:15 223 1166 72 1461 55 1151 210 1416 48 29 28 105 274 25 274 573 3555 1 16:15 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.94 1 PHF = 0.98 1 PHF = 0.94 PHF = 0.94 1 0.98 ILP.M. Peak L COUNTY 13 n1 Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 30, 2007 Mr. Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: REZONING #17-06, RUTHERFORD CROSSING Dear Evan: of This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Fredericka Board to rezone 22 45 acres Supervisors at their meeting of January 24, 2007. The above -reference application was approved MI from B3 (Industrial Transition) District to B2 (General Busi�eiri District and fodr a retail center8.55 acres . he (Light Industrial) District to B2 District, totaling 31 proffers, properties are located at the northeast quadrantvla isterial District, andthe intersection of lareridentified81 Ewith Property Martinsburg Pike (Route 11), in the Stonewallb Identification Numbers 43-A-99 and 43- ton Numberl43 Ae98.rty to be This proJect toperty P located east of offers, but not to be rezoned, is identified by Property Ident fica Interstate 81, approximately 1,500 feet north of the intersection of Interstate 81 and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) in the Stonewall Magisterial District. is d is The proffer that was approved as a part of this rezoningapplication e dopted proffer spat property for your binding regardless of ownership. Enclosed is a copy records. s office if you have any questions regarding the approval of this Please do not hesitate to contact thi rezoning application. Sincerely, ly. 441� Susan K. Eddy Senior Planner SKE/bad Attachment cc: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Stonewall District Supervisor John H. Light and Gary Oates, Stonewall District Planning Commissioners Jane Anderson, Real Estate Commissioner of Revenue Storage, C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, Rutherford Farm, LLC, Virginia Apple IV, and John B. Schroth 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 REZONING APPLICATION 417-06 RUTHERFORD CROSSING Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: January 16, 2007 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: December 6, 2006 Recommen;�deed�Denial Board of Supervisors: January 24, 2007 fiend - ( U_ PROPOSAL: To rezone 22.45 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) District to B2 (General Business) District and 8.55 acres from M 1 (Light Industrial) District to B2 District, totaling 31 acres, with proffers and to add proffers to one adjoining parcel. (The three parcels, including the portions not being rezoned, total 138.68 acres.) LOCATION: The properties to be rezoned are located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 81 (Exit 317) and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11). An additional property to be subject to proffers, but not to be rezoned, is located east of Interstate 81, approximately 1,500 feet north of the intersection of Interstate 81 and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43-A-99, 43-A-100 43-A-98 (subject to proffers) PROPERTY ZONING: B2 (Business General) District, 133 (Industrial Transition) District & M1 (Light Industrial) District; all properties are in the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) District. PRESENT USE: Vacant & Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: M2 (Industrial General) RA (Rural Areas) Use: Warehouse & Commercial Vacant 0 0 Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 2 M1 (Light Industrial) plus FEMA Office IA (Interstate Area Overlay) South: M1 (Light Industrial) Use: Trucking & Residential RP (Residential Performance) Residential East: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential RA (Rural Areas) Residential, Agriculture & Commercial Nursery West: N/A Use: Interstate 81 B2 (Business General) Commercial B3 (Industrial Transition) Commercial RP (Residential Performance) Vacant & Residential RA (Rural Areas) Residential & Church PROPOSED USES: The proposed rezoning would create a retail center. The balance of the site would be used for industrial and office uses. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Vir,ginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 11 and I-81. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Rutherford Crossing rezoning application dated October 26, 2006 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Under Section C of the Transportation Enhancements, Item 42, Site Access Improvements, the verbiage notes the construction of two full entrances and two right-in/right-out entrances. While it addresses the spacing of the entrances, the documents that were submitted with this rezoning request do not identify the approximate locations. Under Item 3, Right-of-way Reservation: This appears to be a considerable change from the original rezoning which was titled "Right -of -Way Dedication". VDOT is requesting a reason for the change from dedication to reservation by the applicant. We have concerns with the way the current document is worded. Under Item 6, the Route 11 and Interstate 81 Northbound Off -Ramp Improvements: While we appreciate the applicant agreeing to prepare and process a Limited Access Break Study meeting FHWA and VDOT standards for the relocation of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound off -ramp as well as preparing and processing of the Public Improvement Plan, we feel the proposed $125,000.00 to help construction of this facility falls far short of the monies needed to construct this key component of the transportation improvements in this area. During our meeting with the applicant, the Route 37 and Interstate 81 interchange were identified as a critical part of the County's transportation plan. The identified footprint of this roadway, a portion of which crosses the Rutherford Crossing property, needed to be preserved/dedicated as part of the proffer documents. This request has not been included in the current proffer document. The TIA prepared for this rezoning request did not take into consideration the Omps Property which was rezoned on the east side of Route 11 and will have considerable impact on the level of service at the main entrance to the Rutherford Crossing properties. There were several other anomalies within the study that gives VDOT cause for concern about some of the conclusions that were derived from this study. Before development, this office will require a 0 0 Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 3 complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip General Manual, Sixth Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. VDOT has not provided comments on the proffer statement dated December 21, 2006. Fire Marshal: Plans approved as submitted. Public Works Department: Besides eliminating B3 zoned areas from the project, the impact analysis has changed the stormwater management philosophy from onsite detention ponds to discharge to an adequate channel. Consequently, we focused our review on the drainage analysis prepared by Randy Kepler and dated May 22, 2006. Based on our review of the Hiatt Run drainage analysis, we offer the following comments: 1. Verify that the cross-section referenced in the report is representative of the channel cross-section between the Rutherford discharge point and Route 11. 2. Hydrograph No. 9 indicates that the storm flows derived from the Rutherford project are relatively insignificant compared to the total drainage from Hiatt Run. Also, this hydrograph indicates that the peak flows from Rutherford occur long before the peak arrives from the total discharge area. This fact should be highlighted in the report summary and serve as the main justification for allowing discharge directly to the receiving stream without onsite detention. This latter conclusion assumes that the receiving channel has an adequate cross-section. 3. Provide a map indicating the location of the channel section used to derive the total time of concentration. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: This rezoning will reduce wastewater demand by 50,000+ gal/day compared to prior approved rezoning. No comments. Sanitation Authority: We have sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve this site. Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed development plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. While the proposed site lies within the airport's airspace, it does fall outside of the airport's Part 77 close in surfaces. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The HRAB reviewed rezoning application #07-01 and a new review with this proposed rezoning was not warranted. Please see attached letter from the HRAB, dated July 19, 2001. Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letters frrom Robert T. Mitchell, Esquire, dated December 4, 2006 and January 16, 2007. Planning Department: Please see attached letter dated October 20, 2006from Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner. 9 • Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 4 Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History On April 22, 2002 the County rezoned 113 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District and 3.7 acres from the RP (Residential Performance) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District, rezoned 21.8 acres from the RA District and 1.4 acres from the RP District to the B2 (Business General) District, rezoned 14.5 acres from the RA District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District and rezoned all of those 154.4 acres to the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District (REZ #07-01). Parcel 43-A-1 I I (the FEMA site) was part of that rezoning, but is not part of this proposed rezoning. On July 14, 2004 the County rezoned 13.4 acres from the RA (Rural Area) District, the B2 (Business General) District, the B3 (Industrial Transition) District and the M1 (Light Industrial) District to the B2 and B3 Districts (REZ #06-04). This was a reconfiguration of 12.65 acres that was part of Rezoning 407-01, plus the rezoning of .75 adjoining additional acres. All proffers associated with Rezoning #07-01 were carried forward to Rezoning 906-04. Parcel 43-A-1 I I (the FEMA site) was part of that rezoning, but is not part of this proposed rezoning. Staff Note: Throughout this report are many staff notes comparing the proposed rezoning to Rezoning 906-04, which is the by -right scenario. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 14] Land Use The subject properties are located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The subject properties are within the area covered by the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP). The mix and location of proposed commercial and industrial uses are generally in conformance with the plan. While the NELUP shows more of the site for industrial use as opposed to commercial use, that plan shows general land bays. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 provided a greater amount of industrial and industrial transition land and thus was more in keeping with the land use proposed in the NELUP. The applicant is seeking this rezoning to allow for more retail uses, although they are able to accommodate considerable retail uses by -right in the existing B2 and B3 Districts. The NELUP identifies the frontage of this property along Route 11 as developmentally sensitive and worthy of a higher standard of development. The landscape proffer (Proffer D-2) addresses 0 0 Rezoning 417-06 — Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 5 some of this issue, but is vague. It would be clearer, if, for example, the applicant stated the landscape specifications such as the number of trees per linear feet. The NELUP calls for industrial land to be adequately screened from adjoining land to mitigate visual and noise impacts. Further, business and commercial land uses which adjoin existing residential uses and significant historic resources should be adequately screened to mitigate impacts. The applicant should consider extra screening against existing residences. The NELUP discourages individual lot access on the Martinsburg Pike corridor, encourages inter -parcel connections, and recommends adequate screening from adjoining land uses and recommends greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike. Screening should be addressed and future inter -parcel connectors to adjacent sites considered. Consideration should also be given to screening along Interstate 81. The Comprehensive Policy Plan recommends a number of design features for properties along business corridors. These include landscaping and screening (noted above) and controlling the size and number of signs. Proffer F-1 only addresses signs at the entrances on Route 11. Signage for the entire site should be addressed. The proposed three Interstate Overlay (IA) signs may also be excessive. The Zoning Ordinance allows these signs to be up to 500 square feet in area. Given three such signs, 1,500 square feet of IA signage could be located on this site. A limit on the total IA sign square footage should be considered. Transportation The County's Eastern Road Plan, which is a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, identifies the Route 37 Corridor and a future Route 37/Route 81 interchange on aportion of this property. The NELUP calls for accommodating these road improvements. Some land dedication and some land preservation for Route 37 has been proffered for parcel 443-A-99. No land has been reserved or dedicated for Route 37 on parcel #43-A-98. Therefore, this application is not fully compliant with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Staff Note: Rezoning #06-04 proffers did not dedicate or reserve land for Route 37. The County's Eastern Road Plan and the NELUP identify a collector road through this property. The road was planned to be a free -flowing, major collector between industrial sites. The applicant is proffering an internal road, with two 90 degree turns, that is not in the location shown on the NELUP. (The new road location is also not in the same location as the access easement for parcel #43-A-98.) The applicant is expected to construct this road on their property to established standards. The County standard for a major collector road (four -lane, divided median with landscaping) has not been proffered. From the signalized main entrance on Route 11 to the FEMA property, this road should be a four -lane section with a landscaped median. Beyond that point it may not be necessary to provide a four lane road as the adjacent road master planned for the Carroll Industrial Park (MDP 408-05) will only have two lanes. Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 6 Staff Note: A major collector road in a location compliant with the NELUP, was proffered with REZ #06-04. This road location is also included on the approved Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Master Development Plan (MDP 904-02). This free flowing road would better facilitate industrial and office traffic than the proposed rezoning which provides a road through a shopping center with two 90 degree turns. Drawings prepared for the applicant showing a by - right development with the road in an alternate location would not be compliant with the proffers associated with REZ #06-04 and thus would not allow by -right. The County's Eastern Road Plan identifies Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) from the main entrance of this project south to the 1-81 northbound on -ramp as a six -lane divided road section and from the main entrance north as a four -lane divided section. The applicant will be reserving right-of- way without financial compensation and providing land dedication along Route 11 and will be constructing a third southbound lane of Route 11 from the main entrance to the Interstate 81 northbound on -ramp. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 dedicated the right-of-way for Route 11 and proffered the same road construction. The NELUP requires road capacity Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better on surrounding roads with proposed commercial or industrial development. LOS C will not be maintained with this proposal; therefore, the proposal is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. (See details under transportation impacts.) Staff Note: REZ 906-04 did not provide Level of Service C. Martinsburg Pike is identified on the Frederick County Bicycle Plan as a short-term destination. A 10 foot wide sidewalk is being provided in this location. Staff would also strongly suggest that the applicant consider a commitment to sidewalks throughout the development. It is very likely that the FEMA employees, and other future employees on the site, will walk to the retail/restaurant facilities. 3) Site Suitability/Environment Hiatt Run is located in the northern portion of this site. Approximately 28.3 acres in the northern portion of the site, in the vicinity of Hiatt Run, is within the floodplain. The applicant will need to comply with all state and local permitting requirements in this area. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued Jurisdictional Determination Letter 02-B0133 on March 5, 2003 verifying that no regulated waters and/or wetlands exist on the subject property. There are no steep slopes on the site. The site contains mature woodlands that might be usable as natural buffers. The site contains prime agricultural soils. Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 7 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Two alternative scenarios were modeled. Scenario A modeled the proposed development and Scenario B modeled the by -right development allowed with REZ #06-04. Scenario A modeled industrial floor space, a home improvement store, a discount store, retail floorspace, five restaurants and a bank, for a total of 26,652 vehicle trips per day. Scenario B (by -right) modeled industrial floorspace, considerable office space, a discount store, a home improvements store, seven restaurants, a bank and a convenience mart with gas station, for a total of 28,859 vehicle trips per day. Through selective data input, the applicant has set up a comparison in which the by -right development appears to generate more traffic than the more heavily commercial proposed development. The two scenarios and associated uses are so contrived that both the County and VDOT question their validity. It is also important to remember that the TIA associated with Rezoning #07-01 projected only 9,744 vehicle trips per day. The County approved rezoning 407-01, with its proffered transportation improvements, based on this projected traffic volume. The applicant is now telling the County that in fact, the by -right development will ZD generate 28,859 vehicle trips per day. The County's rezoning application requires applicants to model the worst case traffic. The worst case traffic was not modeled in either scenario. Neither scenario modeled the maximum floorspace of 1.245 million square feet. The precise mix of retail, office and industrial uses and the floorspace modeled are not proffered. It is entirely possible that a large amount of office space and very little industrial space will develop on this property (in either scenario), given the proximity to the FEMA site. Office space is a much higher traffic generator than industrial space. (It should also be noted that if the non -retail portion of the site develops with more office uses than industrial uses, the free -flowing NELUP collector road would be more beneficial than the collector road proposed with this rezoning.) Scenarios A and B both used incomplete background data. Neither modeled the North Stephenson, Inc. development, which is directly across Route 11. This industrial development (REZ #03-05) is projected to generate 5,874 vehicle trips per day. The Adams Development (REZ #11-04 and 402-05) further north on Route 11 was also not modeled as background. It is projected to generate 4,603 vehicle trips per day. The TIA shows that post -development, for both Scenarios A and B, roads will function at a Level of Service less than C. This is contrary to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The intersections with LOS less than C will include: Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 8 • Route 11 and Old Charles Town Road; • Route 111-81 northbound on-ramp/Redbud Road (although the traffic signal proffered with this rezoning provides a benefit); • Route 11 and the I-81 northbound off -ramp; • Route 11 and the 1-81 southbound ramps (although the traffic signal proffered with this rezoning and Rezoning 406-04 provides a benefit); • Route 11 and Welltown Road (This intersection shows failure even with additional turn lanes that no developer has proffered). B. Sewer and Water The site is projected to add 68,435 gallons per day to the public sewage conveyance system and the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant. There is a newly constructed eight inch sanitary sewer force main adjacent to the Winchester and Western Railroad line on the site. A regional pump station has been designed for this development by the applicant and will be installed by the applicant and dedicated to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. The site is projected to utilize 136,870 gallons of water per day. There is an existing ten inch water main located on the east side of Martinsburg Pike and a newly constructed 20" water main adjacent to the Winchester and Western Railroad line on the site. The Sanitation Authority commented that they have sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve this site. C. Community Facilities The current application does not address capital facilities. Staff Note: REZ # 06-04 provided a $10,000 monetary contribution for fire and rescue services, to be paid at the submission of the first site plan (the FEMA site). The monetary contribution was made on July 20, 2006. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated April 5, 2004 with latest revision dated December 21, 2006 This proffer statement was written in an unconventional format. Not all proffers relate to all owners. A) Cover Sheet Property owners and associated parcels are incorrectly identified on the cover sheet. 0 • Rezoning 917-06 — Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 9 B) Preliminary Matters This proffer statement terminates the proffer statement associated with REZ 406-04. As stated in the recitals "all other proffers contained in the 2004 Proffer Statement have agreed to be provided by the Applicant and Record Owner of each parcel as set forth in this, the 2006 proffer Statement, without further obligation to Tax Parcel #43-((A))-11 L" Staff Note: The applicant has taken responsibility for the transportation proffers associated with REZ #06-04. However, this new proffer removes all existing proffers from parcel #43-A-111, the FEMA site. The FEMA site therefore would be left as a pure M-1 site with no proffers associated with it. This includes the REZ #06-04 proffers limiting its floorspace, uses, lighting, signage and recycling. (Mr. Mitchell's comments concerning the Route 11 improvements north to the FEMA site entrance were not interpreted in the past in that manner. Route 11 road improvements were only planned to the main site entrance and remain that way.) C) Maximum Building Structures All owners proffer to limit the total building structures to 1,245,000 square feet for the entire property. D) Land Use All owners proffer to exclude truck stops, but all other uses within SIC Code 5541 (Gasoline Service Stations) are allowed. Staff Note: This proffer is identical to one associated with REZ #06-04. Staff would point out that it in effect allows gasoline service stations, excluding truck stops, in the M 1 district where they are normally not allowed. E) Transportation 1. Signalization: A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Route 11 and the main entrance when warranted by VDOT. A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Route 11 and the southbound ramps of Interstate 81 (Exit 317) when warranted by VDOT. A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Route 11/the northbound on -ramp of Interstate 81 (Exit 317)/Redbud Road, when warranted by VDOT. Prior to the installation of the above three signals, a signalization timing analysis for lights on Martinsburg Pike from the main site entrance to Crown Lane will occur and the costs for any adjustments borne by the applicant if warranted by VDOT. Staff Note: REZ 406-04 included two of these three traffic signals. Only the signal at Route 11/I-81 northbound on-ramp/Redbud Road is new. REZ #06-04 proffered two signalization agreements prior to the first site plan approval. The two signalization agreements have been signed, but the bonds have yet to be posted. Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 10 2. Site Access: The total number of entrances along Route 11 will be limited to one full entrance and two right-in/right-out entrances. Travel lane and turn lane improvements at those intersections will be in conformance with the MDP dated December 21, 2006 and will be completed by December 31, 2007. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 did not limit the number of entrances. REZ 406-04 proffered the entrance improvements within one year of the first site plan approval. The FEMA site plan was approved on October 10, 2006. Therefore, these improvements should be completed by October 10, 2007. However, the new proffer statement would void the old proffers. 3. Right of Way Reservation: Rutherford Farm, LLC has proffered to reserve right-of-way without financial compensation for the planned Route 11 improvements, and to dedicate the land within 90 days of request by VDOT. Rutherford Farm, LLC and Virginia Apple Storage, Inc. have proffered to reserve right-of-way without financial compensation for the planned Interstate 81 improvements, and to dedicate the land within 90 days of request by VDOT. C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV and John B. Schroth have agreed to dedicate land for the 350 foot wide Route 37 corridor on Parcel # 43-A-99 and to reserve land with future financial compensation for the Route 37/Route 81 ramp on parcel #43-A-99. (The meaning of "reserve" is unclear to staff.) (No land reservation or dedication for Route 37 has been made on parcel #43-A-98, Virginia Apple Storage.) Staff Note: REZ #06-04 required Route 11 land dedication prior to approval of the construction plans for these improvements. VDOT has verified that this land dedication has not taken place. REZ #06-04 required Route 81 land dedication prior to approval of the Master Development Plan (MDP) for the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park. The Rutherford Farm MDP (MDP 904- 02) was approved on December 3, 2002, yet there is no evidence that this dedication has taken place. REZ #06-04 did not address Route 37 on this property. 4. Comprehensive Plan Road Construction: Rutherford Farm, LLC agrees to construct a portion of a major collector road, to base pavement and available for public access, from the main entrance on Route 11 to parcel 43-A-I I I (the FEMA site). Rutherford Farm, LLC will use reasonable commercial effort and diligently pursue this construction no later than December 31, 2007. This text does not guarantee a firm completion date. (The proffer does not include a description of the road section. The County's major collector road standard is a four -lane section with a landscaped median.) The remainder of the major collector road and internal roads will be constructed with each site plan submission. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 proffered a major collector road in the location shown in the NELUP and proffered road construction with each site plan submission. If the by -right development is pursued, the collector road location is fixed as per the rezoning. Approved MDP #04-02 also includes the road network to the FEMA site. The NELUP road network efficiently accommodates commercial and industrial traffic in a free -flowing manner. Rezoning 417-06 — Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 11 5. Route 11 and I-81 Northbound Ramp Improvements: Rutherford Farm, LLC agrees to construct a third southbound lane on Route 11 from the main entrance to the I-81 northbound on -ramp. This improvement shall be completed within one year of the approval of the first site plan for the B-2 portion of the site, and in any event prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit on the property. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 required this road construction to be completed within 12 months of the first site plan approval. The FEMA site plan was approved on October 10, 2006. Therefore, these improvements should be completed by October 10, 2007. However, the new proffer statement would void the old proffers. 6. Monetary Contribution for Route 11 Corridor: Rutherford Farm, LLC agrees to provide Frederick County with $250,000 for transportation studies or physical improvements within the Martinsburg Pike corridor. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 did not provide a cash contribution for road improvements. F) Historic Resources 1. Interpretive Signs: An interpretive area for public use with plaques, picnic tables and landscaping will be provided (by Rutherford Farm, LLC) along Route 11, in a location specified on the proposed MDP. It will be constructed in conjunction with the adjacent site plan. Staff Note: REZ 406-04 proffered a similar interpretive area. 2. Landscaping: Rutherford Farm, LLC will provide a landscape buffer along Route 11, during the construction of the first B2 structure. It will be a 15' strip with low earthen mounds and landscaping as depicted on the proposed MDP. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 proffered similar landscaping. G) Lighting Rutherford Farm, LLC (the B2 property has proffered for all building mounted and pole mounted lights to be of a downcast nature, hooded and directed away from adjacent properties. (Lighting proffers are not associated with the M1 portion of the site, so these properties could have a greater lighting impact on adjacent properties.) A lighting plan will be submitted to the County for approval, prior to the installation of these lights. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 proffered a similar lighting package for all portions of the site, not just the B2 portion. Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 12 H) Signage 1. Rutherford Farm, LLC has proffered that all freestanding business signs located at the entrances on Martinsburg Pike will be monument style, not to exceed 12' in height. Staff Note: REZ 906-04 proffered freestanding business signs to be monument style, not to exceed 12' in height only on the M1 portion of the site. (It would be more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan if this sign limitation covered all of the site.) 2. All owners agree to limit the IA (Interstate Overlay Area) District signs to a total of three. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 had the same IA sign total of three. I) Recycling Proffer Virginia apple Storage, Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV and John B. Schroth agree to implement recycling programs with each industrial use. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 had a similar recycling proffer. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 12/06/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The fundamental decision to be made with this application is whether Frederick County is better off with the existing by -right development or with the proposed rezoning. The by -right development provides a collector road as planned in NELUP and provides two traffic signals. The proposed rezoning provides a road akin to driving through a shopping center instead of a free flowing collector road. The proposed rezoning provides a total of three traffic signals and $250,000 towards road improvements. Neither scenario truly provides land for Route 37. Greater B2 use, as proposed in this rezoning, typically generates more traffic, despite what is modeled in the TIA. The County accepted rezonings #07-01 and #06-04 with their associated road improvements, based on the very low traffic projections they were provided by the applicant. Given the new traffic projections, it would be appropriate for the applicant and the County to be discussing road improvements commensurate with the vastly increased traffic to be generated from this development. Finally, the proffers associated with REZ 907-01 and REZ 906-04 include road improvements linked to the already approved FEMA site plan. These should be retained with this proposed rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION FOR THE 12/06/06 MEETING: During the conclusion of the staff s presentation, staff noted that a new proffer statement was received after the agenda packet was mailed, dated November 29, 2006; and, in addition, another revised proffer, dated December 5, 2006, was received the morning of December 6, 2006. Commission members stated that it may be appropriate to table the application since neither the staff, the Commission, or the County attorney had the opportunity to review the latest proffers. Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 13 The applicant anticipated Lowes and Target as anchor stores with support retail and restaurants; they wanted to develop more of a retail -type road system to present a commercial presence. The applicant offered to create a dedication plat for the right-of-way along I-81 and Route 11 without financial compensation. A 14-acre area was reserved for proposed Route 37 and had a ten-year, no -build clause. The applicant requested that the Commission not table their application, but asked the Commission to consider the November 29, 2006 proffers with the revisions offered and to act on their request this evening. The applicant's transportation engineer said that during their initial scoping for the TIA, the vehicle tpd were inflated, which is why they believed their modeling was appropriate for the proposed B2 uses. He noted that the Red Bud intersection fails under existing conditions and the signal they have proffered here will bring the LOS up to acceptable levels. In addition, the applicant's transportation engineer responded to a question about traffic congestion on Route 11. He said evaluation of the problem centered on inadequate synchronization of signals near the Crown, Cork & Seal; he said the applicant will conduct an analysis of the signalization and pay for retiming. The County's transportation planner, John Bishop, stated that the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) endorsed a recommendation by VDOT to drop the Star Solutions proposal for the I-81 widening; however, widening of I-81 has not been abandoned. The CTB recognized the widening will probably not be uniform and the study is ongoing. Mr. Bishop also noted that the Route 37 centerline was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in April of 2006. Commissioners asked Mr. Bishop to comment on how the LOS for the site would be affected when the original proposal called for less than 10,000 tpd and the new proposal will result in almost 30,000 tpd. Mr. Bishop replied that it would result in significant traffic degradation and functionality in the entire area would virtually be zero during peak hours. VDOT's representative, Mr. Lloyd Ingram, said that VDOT was not satisfied with what is being presented. Mr. Ingram said the previous by -right plan was approved approximately three years ago and since that time, a considerable amount of development has occurred. He commented that the traffic from the Omps development was not included in the applicant's TIA. Commission members expressed concern that land for Route 37 was not dedicated with this application, but merely reserved for a ten-year period and afterward, any taking of property would require compensation at fair market value. They noted that all of the other properties in the path of Route 37 had dedicated land. Another concern was that the major collector road shown on the County's Eastern Road Plan was obliterated by this new proposal and the two 90-degree turns introduced will impede the flow of traffic. Commission members had concerns that the road improvements offered would not accommodate the increased traffic that would be generated with greater retail uses. There were no public comments. A motion for a recommendation of denial was made, seconded, and passed by the following majority vote: 0 0 Rezoning 417-06 — Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 14 YES (TO DENY): Unger, Manuel, Oates, Thomas, Kriz, Mohn, Wilmot NO: Watt, Triplett, Kerr (Note: Commissioners Morris, Light, and Ours were absent from the meeting.) Since the Planning Commission meeting on December 6, 2006, the applicant has revised the proffer statement to address some of the concerns raised by the Commissioners. The proffer statement is dated December 21, 2006 and has been thoroughly analyzed in this staff report. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 01/24/07 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: The fundamental decision to be made with this application is whether Frederick County is better off with the existing by -right development or with the proposed rezoning. The by -right development provides a collector road as planned in NELUP and provides two traffic signals. The proposed rezoning provides a road akin to driving through a shopping center instead of a free flowing collector road. The proposed rezoning provides one additional traffic signal and $250,000 towards road improvements. For Route 37, the proposed rezoning provides some land dedication and some land reservation, although in the future, financial compensation would need to be paid for the reserved land. The by -right development does not provide any land for Route 37. Greater 132 use, as proposed in this rezoning, typically generates more traffic, despite what is modeled in the TIA. The County accepted rezoninZD gs #07-01 and #06-04 with their associated road improvements, based on the very low traffic projections that were provided by the applicant. Given the new traffic projections, it would be appropriate for the applicant and the County to be discussing road improvements commensurate with the vastly increased traffic to be generated from this development. Finally, the proffers associated with REZ 906-04 would no longer apply to the FEMA site, and it would become an unfettered MI property. Following the required public hearing, a decision regarding this rezoning application by the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Board of Supervisors. v M I �-- -.. 2006 Frederick County, VA Location in the County Map Features o Application UDA Urban Development Area Lakes/Ponds Streams SWSA C3 Flooplain Streets ^► Primary Secondary Terciary N7mchester City �. Future Rt37 Bypass "y Railroads Rezoning # 17 - 06 Application Rutherford Crossing Parcel ID: 43-A-98 43-A-99 43-A-100 y: v. Winchester Virgi1. nia Location in Surrounding Area KFZa17-U[t��M �F '1 Frederick County, VA Location in the County Map Features Rezoning # 17 - 06 Application Rutherford Crossing Parcel ID: 43•A•98 43•A•99 43•A•100 Q Application Zoning UDA 'lb� Bt (Business, Neighborhood District) Urban Development Area �" B2 (Business, General District) D Lakes/Ponds 40 B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) ^^ Streams 4W EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) SWSA 4W HE (Higher Education District) C3 Flooplain 4M M1 (Industrial, Light District) Streets M2 (Industrial, General District) ^► Primary 40 MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) Secondary 4W MS (Medical Support District) Tertiary 41" R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) Winchester City 4D R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) '�. Future Rt37 Bypass RAZ (Rural Area Zone) 'y Railroads RP (Residential Performance District) Location in Surrounding Area P REZ # 17.06 ^'� � flellitAkliTI IL =2006 Frederick County, VA Location in the County Map Features Q Application UDA Urban Development Area a Lakes/Ponds Streams dft SVVSA Flooplain Streets ^► Primary Secondary Tertiary Winchester City '�. Future Rt37 Bypass 4 Railroads Rezoning # 17 - 06 Application Rutherford Crossing Parcel ID: 43-A-98 43-A-99 43-A-100 Long Range Land Use Rural Community Center Residential Business •- Industrial Z�' Institutional Recreation 4W Historic ® Mixed -Use 40� Planned Unit Development ,r I .. / Wmdrn'sltr Ir��'1.�♦. Vrrr�inra Location in Surrounding Area 0 Nq 0 L REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff.' Fee Amount Paid Zoning Amendment Number ()q`07 Date Receive l� %� �G BOS Hearing Date PC Hearing Date The following information shall be provided by the applicant. All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1, Applicant: Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 2. Property Owner (if different from above) • Please refer to attached Property Owner Information List Name: Telephone: Address: 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Evan Wyatt AICP Telephone: (540) 662-4185 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map ® Agency Comments Plat ® Fees Impact Analysis Statement Deed to Property Verification of taxes paid ® Proffer Statement 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Rutherford Farm, LLC Virginia Apple Storage C. Robert Solenberger John S. Scully, IV John B. Schroth 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: Residential & Unimproved Retail Center, Office & Industrial * Please refer to attached Adjoining Property Owner Table 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact located based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number): Northeast Quadrant of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike intersection • 40 Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9, Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 43-((A))-98, 43- ((A))-99 & 43-((A))-100 Districts Magisterial: Stonewall Fire Service: Clear Brook Rescue Service: Clear Brook 10. 11. High School: Middle School: Elementary School: James Wood James Wood Stonewall Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current 22.45± B3 District 8.55± M1 District 31.0± Total nested B2 District B2 District to be rezoned The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Single Family homes: Non -Residential Lots: Office: Retail: Restaurant: Number of Units Proposed Townhome: Multi -Family Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station: Manufacturing: Warehouse: Other * Note: The Applicants Proffer Statement limits structural development to 1,400,000 square feet for the 136.87± acre site • Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the bet of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s):1 (91 Date: i • 0 Property Owner Information List Rutherford Farm, LLC William Lauer and Jack Waghorn 8230 Leesburg Pike Suite 500 Vienna, VA 22182 (703)448-4307 Virginia Apple Storage C. Robert Solenberger P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 667-3390 C. Robert Solenberger P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 667-3390 John S. Scully, IV 112 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 662-0323 John B. Schroth 112 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 662-0323 Rutherford Crossing Adjoining Properly Owners TAX MAP NUMBER NAME NAME 2 ADDRESS CITY-STATE ZIP ACREAGE ZONING LAND USE DEED BOOK DEED BK.PAGE INST. YEAR INST. NUMBER 43 A 85 C CLAN, LLC 283 EBERT RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603 59.48 M2 4 0 2005 28600 43 A 84 C CLAN, LLC 283 EVERT RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603 11.58 M2 4 0 2005 28600 43 A 90C LEDFORD, W ILLIAM M & ALICE C 149 PARSON CT W INCHESTER, VA 22603 3.00 RA 2 0 2001 11990 43 A 112B DEHAVEN NURSERY, INC 2077 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603 8.64 RA 2 855 1583 0 0 43 A 94 MOULDEN, HOWARD K. 490 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603 0.45 RA 2 442 347 0 0 43 A 111 SOLENBERGER, C ROBERT ETALS 112 N CAMERON ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601 21.00 Ml 5 0 2004 17164 43 A 95 WEBBER, BEVERLEY L WEBBER, JOYCE A TRUSTEES 484 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603 1.64 RA 2 0 2005 1016 43 A 112A DEHAVEN, CHARLES STUART 2073 MARTINSBURG PIKE W INCHESTER, VA 22603 3.77 RP 2 514 784 0 0 43B 8 11A FLOWERS, MARY A 456 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603 0.14 RP 2 659 410 0 0 43B 8 9 BLYE, MICHAEL A. 337 N LOUDOUN ST APT 3 W INCHESTER, VA 22601 0.40 RP 2 663 293 0 0 43B 8 8 MORGAN. RONALD F & ROSEMARIE A 438 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 0.50 RP 2 830 1798 0 0 43 A 110 RIDDICK, THOMAS E. JR. & JANET 2045 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 2.91 RP 2 345 604 0 0 43B 8 18 PARSONS, JAMES WARREN 390 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603 0.00 RP 2 0 0 0 43B 8 22 ELLIOTT, BARBARA E 6115 E PEABODY ST LONG BEACH, CA 90808 0.81 RP 2 274 473 0 0 43 A 56 K & J INVESTMENTS 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603 11.25 Mt 4 778 645 0 0 43 A 133 HART, ROBERT A. & ALICE C. 2024 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603 0.50 RP 2 373 661 0 0 43 A 109 MERRYMAN, SCOTT E & LINDA M 1995 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 1.10 RP 2 0 2003 16388 43 A 134 WILLIAMSON, LINWOOD R. 2014 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 1.33 RP 2 519 485 0 0 43 A 98 VIRGINIA APPLE STORAGE, INC 1955 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22601 28.38 B3 2 0 2004 11262 43 A 108 NETHERS, PATRICIA S 915 WELLTOWN PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 1.50 RP 2 0 2001 120 43 A 134E PIFER, W ILLIAM PO BOX 725 W INCHESTER, VA 22604 0.00 RP 2 919 635 0 0 43 A 107 MCQUAIN, CLIFFORD D & ETALS 1957 MARTINSBURG PIKE W INCHESTER, VA 22603 1.75 RP 2 896 708 0 0 43 A 106 LEE, RONALD A & MARY C 1947 MARTINSBURG PIKE W INCHESTER, VA 22603 0.87 RP 2 535 294 0 0 43 A 105 RISSLER, THOMAS W. & MARY L. 1937 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 1.00 RP 2 0 0 0 43C 1 D MOORE, MICHAEL A 1927 MARTINSBURG PIKE W INCHESTER, VA 22603 0.19 RP 2 668 112 0 0 43C 1 C 0 1 0.00 0 0 0 43 A 140 WEBER, MICHAEL S. 937 MARTINSBURG PIKE W INCHESTER, VA 22601 34.50 RA 5 673 623 0 0 43C 1 B BML, LC 112 LAUNCHRIS DR WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 0.20 RP 2 970 359 0 7005 43C 1 A MESSICK, ROY R. & NANCY L. 1897 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER. VA. 22603 0.87 RP 2 0 0 0 43C 2 3 FITZWATER, COURTNEY L. SR. 1876 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 0.66 RP 2 460 644 0 0 43 A 52B W ILSON, DIEHL F JR & DEBORAH L 121 MERCEDES CT W INCHESTER, VA 22603 2.40 B3 4 849 499 0 0 43C 2 2 CURTIS, ELIZABETH DAWN 1864 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603 0.34 RP 2 907 1791 0 0 43C 2 1 BAKER, R. WAYNE & IMOGENE A. 1854 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 0.65 RP 2 0 0 0 43 A 147 NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 8.83 RP 2 668 229 0 0 43 A 149 DEHAVEN, THOMAS H 1840 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603 0.60 RP 2 553 113 0 0 43 A 100 RUTHERFORD FARM, LLC C/O TETRA PARTNERSHIP 11450 DARON CAMERON AVE RESTON, VA 201901 51.12 B2 2 0 2005 6702 43 A 52 I-81 MINI STORAGE, LLC 127 MERCEDES CT W INCHESTER, VA 226031 3.57 MI 4 0 2004 5383 43 A 151A NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 226031 7.44 Ml 4 621 601 0 0 43C 3 2 NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 226031 0.57 M1 2 704 806 0 0 43C 3 3 K & J INVESTMENTS, LC 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE W INCHESTER, VA 226031 0.57 M7 2 863 1319 0 0 43C 3 4 NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 226031 0.06 ml 2 701 9 0 0 43C 3 5 NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603 0.57 Ml 2 701 9 0 0 43 A 52C WINCHESTER NORTH, INC 1323 JAMESTOW N RD, STE 101 W ILLIAMSBURG, VA 23185 2.18 B2 4 0 2001 12048 43C 3 6 SANDY, WILLIAM E. 1744 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 0.71 RP 2 305 59 0 0 43C 3 7 0 0.00 0 0 0 43C 3 7A NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 0.71 Ml 2 688 832 0 0 43C 3 8 0 0.00 0 0 0 43C 3 BA LYONS, CAROL R & RONALD S 1550 TIFFANY RANCH RD ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420 0.00 RP 2 0 2004 632 43C 3 9 LYONS, CAROL R & RONALD S 1550 TIFFANY RANCH RD ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420 0.00 RP 2 0 2004 632 43 A 50A BRENTW OOD INVESTMENT COMPANY 1323 JAMESTOW N RD STE 101 W ILLIAMSBURG, VA 23185 3.38 B2 4 909 1506 0 0 43 A 99 SOLENBERGER, C ROBERT ETALS 112 N CAMERON ST W INCHESTER, VA 22601 56.87 MlB2 6 0 2004 17164 43 A 151 K & J INVESTMENTS, LC 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 28.07 Ml 5 0 2005 9792 43 A 150 K & J INVESTMENTS, LC 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE W INCHESTER, VA 22603 2.34 M7 2 807 1551 0 Cl 43 A 90 TRUSTEES OF THE APOSTOLIC UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH 189 PARSON CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603 7.48 RA 74 950 1372 0 0 Land Use codes: 2 Single Family Residential Suburban 4 Commercial & Industrial 5 Agricultural/Undeveloped 100+Acres 6 Agricultural/Undevelo ed 20-100 Acres 74 Religious 0 �J Adjoining Property Owners.xls 11/8/2006 1 all Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department 2006 data Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) Virginia Apple Storage. Inc (Phone) (540) 667-4273 (Address) PO Box 3103, Winchester. VA 22604 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 040011262 on Page . and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot: 98 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Property, including: ® Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. AA'' In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day oi;V=�uIlkr, 200l_ Signature(s) State of Virginia, City/ ount ofi �eflcko-wit: I PSSi Ctc 6 - �")ld , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, pers nally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this -r day of % 20C,,--. My Commission Expires -COZ n 2 1 � Notary Publ Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) C. Robert Solenberger (Phone) (540) 667-3390 (Address) PO Box 2368. Winchester. VA 22604 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 040017164 on Page . and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot: 99 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester. VA 22602 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Property, including: ® Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. �1 In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this I day ofk200-L,2 Signature(s) `//1-�4-a State of Virginia, City/ out of Cr�o-wit: I,Ja Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before mein the jurisdiction aforesaid this 9 day oW,—, r, 200-b—. 1 X Ccnmiffiorcz�' )PSSl ca d`' W� l My Commission Expires: Notary Publi Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) John S. Scully IV (Phone) (540) 662-0323 (Address) H 2 North Cameron Street, Winchester, VA 22601 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 040017164 on Page , and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot: 99 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Property, including: ® Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thejf_�&f I( ­we) ho�e_hereto sqt my/i ur)� nd seal this ;?+h day of �/Qj, 200 Signature(s) State of Virginia, wit: I, Doti 1 (.• PL-((5pa Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this &i day ofLr 200 (0 My Commission Expires: r2 bi*lku u 2-P 2aZB Notary Public ' P Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) John B. Schroth (Phone) (540) 662-0323 (Address) 112 North Cameron Street, Winchester. VA 22601 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 040017164 on Page . and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot: 99 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane. Winchester. VA 22602 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Property. including: ® Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto Signature(s) (our) hand and seal this _&— day of�-200 6 . State of Virginia, Cit Count ofG23i_ ao-wit: I, I% �L•1�Ie�ISo , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this �\4_k day of6btA1W_00 My Commission Expires: FebLL Zq Notary Public Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) Rutherford Farm. LLC (Phone) (703) 448-4307 (Address) 8230 Leesburg Pike. Suite 500. Vienna. VA 22182 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 050006702 on Page , and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot: 100 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Property, including: ® Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have Signature(s) set my (our) hand and seal this day oft'Ql , 200 J State of Virginia, Cit Count f�4,ft ,Y,1 To -wit: I, Tbyt , L- Me(�JD, a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has ac owledged thhe same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this � day of cMk1200 (r, ti Ol Ir� 'J My Commission Expires: F6 vwwq ZSi 2cob Notary Public • - • REZONING APPLICATION #17-06 RUTHERFORD CROSSING Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: November 20, 2006 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: December 6, 2006 Pending Board of Supervisors: January 10, 2007 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 22.45 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) District to B2 (General Business) District and 8.55 acres from MI (Light Industrial) District to B2 District, totaling 31 acres, with proffers and to add proffers to one adjoining parcel. (The three parcels, including the portions not being rezoned, total 138.68 acres.) LOCATION: The properties to be rezoned are located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 81 (Exit 317) and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11). An additional property to be subject to proffers, but not to be rezoned, is located east of Interstate 81, approximately 1,500 feet north of the intersection of Interstate 81 and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43-A-99, 43-A-100 43-A-98 (subject to proffers) PROPERTY ZONING: B2 (Business General) District, B3 (Industrial Transition) District & M1 (Light Industrial) District; all properties are in the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) District. PRESENT USE: Vacant & Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: M2 (Industrial General) RA (Rural Areas) Use: Warehouse & Commercial Vacant Rezoning 917-06 — Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 2 M1 (Light Industrial) plus FEMA Office IA (Interstate Area Overlay) South: M1 (Light Industrial) Use: Trucking & Residential RP (Residential Performance) Residential East: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential RA (Rural Areas) Residential, Agriculture & Commercial Nursery West: N/A Use: Interstate 81 B2 (Business General) Commercial B3 (Industrial Transition) Commercial RP (Residential Performance) Vacant & Residential RA (Rural Areas) Residential & Church PROPOSED USES: The proposed rezoning would create a retail center. The balance of the site would be used for industrial and office uses. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 11 and I-81. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Rutherford Crossing rezoning application dated October 26, 2006 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Under Section C of the Transportation Enhancements, Item #2, Site Access Improvements, the verbiage notes the construction of two fill entrances and two right-irdright-out entrances. While it addresses the spacing of the entrances, the documents that were submitted with this rezoning request do not identify the approximate locations. Under Item 3, Right-of-way Reservation: This appears to be a considerable change from the original rezoning which was titled "Right -of -Way Dedication". VDOT is requesting a reason for the change from dedication to reservation by the applicant. We have concerns with the way the current document is worded. Under Item 6, the Route 11 and Interstate 81 Northbound Off -Ramp Improvements: While we appreciate the applicant agreeing to prepare and process a Limited Access Break Study meeting FHWA and VDOT standards for the relocation of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound off -ramp as well as preparing and processing of the Public Improvement Plan, we feel the proposed $125,000.00 to help construction of this facility falls far short of the monies needed to construct this key component of the transportation improvements in this area. During our meeting with the applicant, the Route 37 and Interstate 81 interchange were identified as a critical part of the County's transportation plan. The identified footprint of this roadway, a portion of which crosses the Rutherford Crossing property, needed to be preserved/dedicated as part of the proffer documents. This request has not been included in the current proffer document. The TIA prepared for this rezoning request did not take into consideration the Omps Property which was rezoned on the east side of Route 11 and will have considerable impact on the level of service at the main entrance to the Rutherford Crossing properties. There were several other anomalies within the study that gives VDOT cause for concern about some of the conclusions that were derived from this study. Before development, this office will require a • 0 Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 3 complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip General Manual, Sixth Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. VDOT has not yet provided comments on the proffer statement dated November 7, 2006. Fire Marshal: Plans approved as submitted. Public Works Department: Besides eliminating B3 zoned areas from the project, the impact analysis has changed the stormwater management philosophy from onsite detention ponds to discharge to an adequate channel. Consequently, we focused our review on the drainage analysis prepared by Randy Kepler and dated May 22, 2006. Based on our review of the Hiatt Run drainage analysis, we offer the following comments: 1. Verify that the cross-section referenced in the report is representative of the chamiel cross-section between the Rutherford discharge point and Route 11. 2. Hydrograph No. 9 indicates that the storm flows derived from the Rutherford project are relatively insignificant compared to the total drainage from Hiatt Rim. Also, this hydrograph indicates that the peak flows from Rutherford occur long before the peak arrives from the total discharge area. This fact should be highlighted in the report summary and serve as the main justification for allowing discharge directly to the receiving stream without onsite detention. This latter conclusion assumes that the receiving channel has an adequate cross-section. 3. Provide a map indicating the location of the charnel section used to derive the total time of concentration. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: This rezoning will reduce wastewater demand by 50,000+ gal/day compared to prior approved rezoning. No comments. Sanitation Authority: We have sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve this site. Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed development plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. While the proposed site lies within the airport's airspace, it does fall outside of the airport's Part 77 close in surfaces. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The HRAB reviewed rezoning application #07-01 and a new review with this proposed rezoning was not warranted. Please see attached letter° from the HRAB, dated July 19, 2001. Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter from Robert T. Mitchell, Esquire, dated October 23, 2006 The County Attorney has not yet reviewed the proffer statement dated November 7, 2006. PlanninIZ Department: Please see attached letter dated October 20, 2006fr°om Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner. Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 4 Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History On April 22, 2002 the County rezoned 113 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District and 3.7 acres from the RP (Residential Performance) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District, rezoned 21.8 acres from the RA District and 1.4 acres from the RP District to the B2 (Business General) District, rezoned 14.5 acres from the RA District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District and rezoned all of those 154.4 acres to the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District (REZ #07-01). Parcel 43-A-1 I I (the FEMA site) was part of that rezoning, but is not part of this proposed rezoning. On July 14, 2004 the County rezoned 13.4 acres from the RA (Rural Area) District, the B2 (Business General) District, the B3 (Industrial Transition) District and the M 1 (Light Industrial) District to the B2 and B3 Districts (REZ #06-04). This was a reconfiguration of 12.65 acres that was part of Rezoning #07-01, plus the rezoning of .75 adjoining additional acres. All proffers associated with Rezoning #07-01 were carried forward to Rezoning #06-04. Since parcel 43-A- 111 (the FEMA site) is not part of the proposed rezoning, all proffers associated with Rezoning #06-04 remain with parcel 43-A-111. Staff Note: Throughout this report are many staff notes comparing the proposed rezoning to Rezoning #06-04, which is the by -right scenario. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. I -1] T.nvirl T TQn The subject properties are located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The subject properties are within the area covered by the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP). The mix and location of proposed commercial and industrial uses are generally in conformance with the plan. While the NELUP shows more of the site for industrial use as opposed to commercial use, that plan shows general land bays. Staff Note: REZ 406-04 provided a greater amount of industrial and industrial transition land and thus was more in keeping with the land use proposed in the NELUP. The applicant is seeking this rezoning to allow for more retail uses, although they are able to accommodate considerable retail uses by -right in the existing B2 and B3 Districts. Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 5 The NELUP identifies the frontage of this property along Route 11 as developmentally sensitive and worthy of a higher standard of development. The landscape proffer (Proffer D-2) addresses some of this issue, but is vague. It would be clearer, if, for example, the applicant stated the landscape specifications such as the number of trees per linear feet. The NELUP calls for industrial land to be adequately screened from adjoining land to mitigate visual and noise impacts. Further, business and commercial land uses which adjoin existing residential uses and significant historic resources should be adequately screened to mitigate impacts. The applicant should consider extra screening against existing residences. The NELUP discourages individual lot access on the Martinsburg Pike corridor, encourages inter -parcel connections, and recommends adequate screening from adjoining land uses and recommends greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike. Screening should be addressed and future inter -parcel connectors to adjacent sites considered. Consideration should also be given to screening along Interstate 81. The Comprehensive Policy Plan recommends a number of design features for properties along business corridors. These include landscaping and screening (noted above) and controlling the size and number of signs. Proffer F-1 only addresses signs at the entrances on Route 11. Signage all along Route 11 should be addressed. The proposed three hnterstate Overlay (IA) signs may also be excessive. The Zoning Ordinance allows these signs to be up to 500 square feet in area. Given three such signs, 1,500 square feet of IA signage could be located on this site. A limit on the total IA sign square footage should be considered. Transportation The County's Eastern Road Plan, which is a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, identifies the Route 37 Corridor and a future Route 37/Route 81 interchange on a portion of this property. The NELUP calls for accommodating these road improvements. The applicant has proffered to not build on the land needed for Route 37 for a period of only five years. This is neither a land reservation nor a land dedication. Therefore, this application is not frilly compliant with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Staff Note: Rezoning #06-04 did not proffer to dedicate or reserve land for Route 37. The County's Eastern Road Plan and the NELUP identify a collector road through this property. The road was planned to be a free -flowing, major collector between industrial sites. The applicant is proffering an internal road, with two 90 degree turns, that is not in the location shown on the NELUP. (The new road location is also not in the same location as the access easement for parcel #43-A-98.) The applicant is expected to construct this road on their property to established standards. The County standard for a major collector road (four -lane, divided median with landscaping) has not been proffered. From the signalized main entrance on Route 11 to the FEMA property, this road should be a four -lane section with a landscaped median. Beyond that point it may not be necessary to provide a four lane road as the adjacent Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 6 road master planned for the Carroll Industrial Park (MDP #08-05) will only have two lanes. Staff Note: A road location, in compliance with the NELUP, was proffered with REZ #06-04. This road location is also included on the approved Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Master Development Plan (MDP #04-02). This free flowing road would better facilitate industrial and office traffic than the proposed rezoning which provides a road through a shopping center with two 90 degree turns. The County's Eastern Road Plan identifies Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) from the main entrance of this project south to the I-81 northbound on -ramp as a six -lane divided road section and from the main entrance north as a four -lane divided section. The applicant will be reserving right-of- way without financial compensation along Route 11 and will be constructing a third southbound lane of Route 11 from the main entrance to the Interstate 81 northbound on -ramp. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 dedicated the right-of-way for Route 11 and proffered the same road construction. The NELUP requires road capacity Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better on surrounding roads with proposed commercial or industrial development. LOS C will not be maintained with this proposal; therefore, the proposal is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. (See details under transportation impacts.) Staff Note: REZ #06-04 did not provide Level of Service C. Martinsburg Pike is identified on the Frederick County Bicycle Plan as a short-term destination. A bike trail, in lieu of the required sidewalk, should be provided in this location. The bike trail should be outside of the public right-of-way to allow for future road widening. Staff would also strongly suggest that the applicant consider a commitment to sidewalks throughout the development. It is very likely that the FEMA employees, and other fixture employees on the site, will walk to the retail/restaurant facilities. 3) Site Suitability/Environment Hiatt Run is located in the northern portion of this site. Approximately 28.3 acres in the northern portion of the site, in the vicinity of Hiatt Run, is within the floodplain. The applicant will need to comply with all state and local permitting requirements in this area. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued Jurisdictional Determination Letter 02-B0133 on March 5, 2003 verifying that no regulated waters and/or wetlands exist on the subject property. There are no steep slopes on the site. The site contains mature woodlands that might be usable as natural buffers. The site contains prime agricultural soils. 0 Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 7 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Two alternative scenarios were modeled. Scenario A modeled the proposed development and Scenario B modeled the by -right development allowed with REZ 406-04. Scenario A modeled industrial floor space, a home improvement store, a discount store, retail floorspace, five restaurants and a bank, for a total of 26,652 vehicle trips per day. Scenario B (by -right) modeled industrial floorspace, considerable office space, a discount store, a home improvements store, seven restaurants, a bank and a convenience mart with gas station, for a total of 28,859 vehicle trips per day. Through selective data input, the applicant has set up a comparison in which the by -right development appears to generate more traffic than the more heavily commercial proposed development. The two scenarios and associated uses are so contrived that both the County and VDOT question their validity. It is also important to remember that the TIA associated with Rezoning #07-01 projected only 9,744 vehicle trips per day. The County approved rezoning #07-01, with its proffered transportation improvements, based on this projected traffic volume. The applicant is now telling the County that in fact, the by -right development will generate 28,859 vehicle trips per day. The County's rezoning application requires applicants to model the worst case traffic. The worst case traffic was not modeled in either scenario. Neither scenario modeled the maximum floorspace of 1.4 million square feet. The precise mix of retail, office and industrial uses and the floorspace modeled are not proffered. It is entirely possible that a large amount of office space and very little industrial space will develop on this property (in either scenario), given the proximity to the FEMA site. Office space is a much higher traffic generator than industrial space. (It should also be noted that if the non -retail portion of the site develops with more office uses than industrial uses, the free -flowing NELUP collector road would be more beneficial than the collector road proposed with this rezoning.) Scenarios A and B both used incomplete background data. Neither modeled the North Stephenson, Inc. development, which is directly across Route 11. This industrial development (REZ #03-05) is projected to generate 5,874 vehicle trips per day. The Adams Development (REZ #11-04 and #02-05) further north on Route 11 was also not modeled as background. It is projected to generate 4,603 vehicle trips per day. The TIA shows that post -development, for both Scenarios A and B, roads will function at a Level of Service less than C. This is contrary to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The intersections with LOS less than C will include: Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 8 • Route 11 and Old Charles Town Road; • Route 11 /I-81 northbound on-ramp/Redbud Road (although the traffic signal proffered with this rezoning provides a benefit); • Route 11 and the I-81 northbound off -ramp; • Route 11 and the I-81 southbound ramps (although the traffic signal proffered with this rezoning and Rezoning #06-04 provides a benefit); • Route 11 and Welltown Road (This intersection shows failure even with additional turn lanes that no developer has proffered). B. Sewer and Water The site is projected to add 68,435 gallons per day to the public sewage conveyance system and the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant. There is a newly constructed eight inch sanitary sewer force main adjacent to the Winchester and Western Railroad line on the site. A regional pump station has been designed for this development by the applicant and will be installed by the applicant and dedicated to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. The site is projected to utilize 136,870 gallons of water per day. There is an existing ten inch water main located on the east side of Martinsburg Pike and a newly constructed 20" water main adjacent to the Winchester and Western Railroad line on the site. The Sanitation Authority commented that they have sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve this site. C. Community Facilities The current application does not address capital facilities. Staff Note: REZ # 06-04 provided a $10,000 monetary contribution for fire and rescue services, to be paid at the submission of the first site plan (the FEMA site). The monetary contribution was made on July 20, 2006. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated April 5, 2004 with latest revision dated November 7, 2006 This proffer statement was written in an unconventional format. Not all proffers relate to all owners. The County Attorney has not yet provided comments on this aspect of the rezoning. A) Maximum Building Structures All owners proffer to limit the total building structures to 1,400,000 square feet for the entire property. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 proffered to limit building structures to 1,400,000 square feet, but that rezoning included parcel 43-A-111, the FEMA site with its 160,000 square feet of office space. Rezoning # 17-06 — Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 9 This proffer does not include parcel 43-A-111, therefore the floorspace should be scaled down appropriately. The County would have more confidence in the TIA if the proffer statement included more specific floor space limits tied to uses. B) Land Use All owners proffer to exclude truck stops. C) Transportation Staff Note: The proffer statement states that the transportation proffers are associated with Rutherford Farm, LLC. This is incorrect as proffer C3 is associated with multiple owners. 1. Signalization: A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Route 11 and the main entrance when warranted by VDOT. A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Route 11 and the southbound ramps of Interstate 81 (Exit 317) when warranted by VDOT. A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Route I I/ the northbound on -ramp of Interstate 81 (Exit 317)/Redbud Road, when warranted by VDOT. Prior to the installation of the above three signals, a signalization timing analysis for lights on Martinsburg Pike from the main site entrance to Crown Lane will occur and the costs for any adjustments borne by the applicant if warranted by VDOT. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 included two of these three traffic signals. Only the signal at Route 11/I-81 northbound on-ramp/Redbud Road is new. REZ 406-04 proffered two signalization agreements prior to the first site plan approval. The FEMA site plan (SP #32-06) was approved on October 10, 2006. The proffer statement should therefore not time the agreements to the first occupancy permits in the B-2 acreage. 2. Site Access: The total number of entrances along Route 11 will be limited to one fill entrance and two right-in/right-out entrances. Travel lane and turn lane improvements at those intersections will be in conformance with the MDP dated October 24, 2006 and will be completed by December 31, 2007. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 did not limit the number of entrances. REZ 406-04 required road improvements at two Route 11 entrances to be completed within 12 months of the first site plan approval. The FEMA site plan was approved on October 10, 2006. Therefore, these improvements must be completed by October 10, 2007. Failure to complete these improvements by October 10, 2007, which could happen under the proposed rezoning, could delay FEMA's certificate of occupancy. 3. Right of Way Reservation: Rutherford Farm, LLC has proffered to reserve right- of-way without financial compensation for the planned Route 11 improvements, within 90 days of VDOT permit approvals for these improvements. Virginia Apple Storage, Inc. has proffered to reserve right-of-way without financial compensation for the Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 10 planned Interstate 81 improvements, within 90 days of written request by VDOT. C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV and John B. Schroth have agreed that for a period of five ,years, they will not build upon the tract of land proposed to be used as part of the Route 37 bypass. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 required Route 11 land dedication prior to approval of the construction plans for these improvements. VDOT has verified that this land dedication has not taken place. REZ 406-04 required Route 81 land dedication prior to approval of the Master Development Plan (MDP) for the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park. The Rutherford Farm MDP (MDP #04-02) was approved on December 3, 2002, yet there is no evidence that this dedication has taken place. REZ #06-04 did not address Route 37 on this property. 4. Comprehensive Plan Road Construction: Rutherford Farm, LLC agrees to construct a portion of a major collector road, to base pavement and available for public access, from the main entrance on Route 11 to the cul-de-sac adjacent to parcel 43-A- III (the FEMA site), in the location depicted on the proffered zoning exhibit. Rutherford Farm, LLC will use reasonable commercial effort and diligently pursue this construction no later than December 31, 2007. This text does not guarantee a firm completion date. (The proffer does not include a description of the road section. The County's major collector road standard is a four -lane section with a landscaped median.) The remainder of the major collector road and internal roads will be constructed with each site plan submission. Staff Note: REZ 406-04 proffered a major collector road in the location shown in the NELUP and proffered road construction with each site plan submission. Approved MDP #04-02 also includes the road network to the FEMA site. The NELUP road network efficiently accommodates commercial and industrial traffic in a free -flowing 5. Route 11 and I-81 Northbound Ramp Improvements: Rutherford Farm, LLC agrees to construct a third southbound lane on Route 11 from the main entrance to the I- 81 northbound on -ramp. This improvement shall be completed within one year of the approval of the first site plan for the B-2 portion of the site. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 required this road construction to be completed within 12 months of the first site plan approval. The FEMA site plan was approved on October 10, 2006. Therefore, these improvements must be completed by October 10, 2007. Failure to complete these road improvements will impact FEMA's ability to secure a certificate of occupancy. 6. Monetary Contribution for Route 11 Corridor: Rutherford Farm, LLC agrees to provide Frederick County with $250,000 for transportation studies or physical improvements within the Martinsburg Pike corridor. Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 11 D) Staff Note: REZ #06-04 did not provide a cash contribution for road improvements. Historic Resources 1. Interpretive Signs: 1s: An interpretive area for public use with plaques, picnic tables and landscaping will be provided (by Rutherford Farm, LLC) along Route 11, in a location specified on the proposed MDP. It will be constructed in conjunction with the adjacent site plan. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 proffered a similar interpretive area. 2. Landscaping: Rutherford Farm, LLC will provide a landscape buffer along Route 11, during the construction of the first B2 structure. It will be a 15' strip with low earthen mounds and landscaping as depicted on the proposed MDP. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 proffered similar landscaping. E) Ling Rutherford Farm, LLC (the B2 property) has proffered for all building mounted and pole mounted lights to be of a downcast nature, hooded and directed away from adjacent properties. (Lighting proffers are not associated with the M1 portion of the site, so these properties could have a greater lighting impact on adjacent properties.) A lighting plan will be submitted to the County for approval, prior to the installation of these lights. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 proffered a similar lighting package for all portions of the site, not just the B2 portion. F) Si_gnage 1. Rutherford Farm, LLC has proffered that all freestanding business signs located at the entrances on Martinsburg Pike will be monument style, not to exceed 12' in height. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 proffered freestanding business signs to be monument style, not to exceed 12' in height only on the M1 portion of the site. (It would be more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan if this sign limitation covered all of the site.) 2. All owners agree to limit the IA (Interstate Overlay Area) District signs to a total of three. Staff Note: REZ #06-04 had the same IA sign total of three. 0 i Rezoning #17-06 — Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 12 G) Recycling Proffer C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV and John B. Schroth agree to implement recycling programs with each industrial use. Staff Nole: REZ #06-04 had a similar recycling proffer. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 12/06/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MELTING: The fundamental decision to be made with this application is whether Frederick County is better off with the existing by -right development or with the proposed rezoning. The by -right development provides a collector road as planned in NELUP and provides two traffic signals. The proposed rezoning provides a road akin to driving through a shopping center instead of a free flowing collector road. The proposed rezoning provides a total of three traffic signals and $250,000 towards road improvements. Neither scenario truly provides land for Route 37. Greater B2 use, as proposed in this rezoning, typically generates more traffic, despite what is modeled in the TIA. The County accepted rezonings 407-01 and 406-04 with their associated road improvements, based on the very low traffic projections they were provided by the applicant. Given the new traffic projections, it would be appropriate for the applicant and the County to be discussing road improvements commensurate with the vastly increased traffic to be generated from this development. Finally, the proffers associated with REZ #07-01 and REZ #06-04 include road improvements linked to the already approved FEMA site plan. These should be retained with this proposed rezoning. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concernin- this rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adeguatelV address all concerns raised bV the Planning Commission. RUTHERFORD CROSSING REZONING APPLICATION Frederick County, Virginia Tax Parcels #43-((A))-98; 43-((A))-99 & 43-((A))-100 November 9, 2006 Current Owner: RUTHERFORD FARM, LLC; VIRGINIA APPLE STORAGE, INC; C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER; JOHN S. SCULLY, IV; JOHN B. SCHROTH; Contact Person: Evan Wyatt, AICP 151 Windy Hill Lane Founded in 1971 WinchesLer, Virginia 22602 Telephone 540-662-4185 Engineers FAX 540-722-9526 Surveyors www.greenw, ng.com FREDERICK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPOSIT REPORT F OR Finance Code Description Proffer Fee Total Price Treasurers Code 3-010-019110-0043 Proffers - Merrimans Chase $3,910.03 (10DP) 3-010-019110-0042 Proffers - Sovereign Village $3,658.73 (10DM) 3-010-019110-0033 Proffers - Valley Mill Estates $4,193.00 3-010-019110-0037 Proffers - Briarwood Estates $4,148.00 (10CN) 3-010-019110-0055 Proffers - Southern Hills $4,910.00 (10EV) 3-010-019110-0056 - Snowden Bridge to LO Zz s9a3.So �0 � S�a3.�io (10EY) 3-010-019110-0045 Proffers - Lynnehaven Section I $3,378.31 (10DY) 3-010-019110-0057 Proffers - Meadows Edge $10,072.00 (10FA) 3-010-019110-0046 Proffers - Red Fox Run U $5,645.00 (10EB) 3-010-019110-0038 r m (2o,-Fv+1' or) Va 11 Profferrs- Other 11440' d CNssi (7 et,(10CQ) 3-010-019110-0050 Proffers - Canter Estates,Section 5 $4,087.97 (10EJ) 3-010-019110-0051 Proffers - Twin Lakes Overlook Phase 9, Section 1 $4,305.14 a (10EM) 3-010-019110-0052 Proffers - Steeplechase $10,206.00 (10EQ) 3-010-019110-0048 o ers- i a e Rvest i e Proffers - Red Bud Run $6,454.00 (10EF) Proffer Total c��c 1a3.1 U:\Pam\Common\DEPOSITR\Proffer Deposit Sheet.xls 5/13/2008 1DATE (� U RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS 0 45U %'I I ❑FOR REN .� FOR l•� AMT OF CASH ACCOUNT AMT. PAID O OW • CHECK CJ U BALANCE MONEY DUE ORDER H No. 1105 VIA 2 o `4w lb DOLLARS $ 2 rJL• ���' V "� lM� kcZ-#1-1—Ufr BY �C v NVReta,;'A April 15, 2009 Mr. Charles S. DeHaven Jr. County of Frederick 2075 Martinsburg Pike Winchester VA 22603-4715 Mr. Mark R. Cheran Zoning Administrator County of Frederick Department of Planning and Zoning 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601-500 RE: Rutherford Farm Rt. 11 Monetary Contribution / Bond Termination Dear Mr.'s Dehaven and Cheran: Consistent with the proffers for the project referenced above, we are hereby making the required $250,000.00 contribution to Frederick County to be used for transportation improvements within the Martinsburg Pike corridor. This payment represents the satisfaction of all Proffers placed on the property. The road and signalization improvements already completed as part of Rutherford Crossing have accommodated the traffic generated by the development and have improved traffic flow in that area. This monetary contribution, in addition to the improvements already made, should further help ease pre-existing conditions on that corridor and allow the County to plan for future improvements to accommodate economic growth. The businesses at the shopping center are providing goods, services and employment to the area, while generating additional fiscal revenue for the county. We are proud to be making this contribution to the County of Frederick and to be a member of the community and look forward to a continued mutually beneficial relationship. Sincerely, Jack Waghorn Rutherford Farm, LLC Enc. $250,000.00 check APR 1 6 2009 8230 LEESBURG PIKE • SUITE 500 • VIENNA, VIRGINIA 22182 (703) 734-9839 • fax: (703) 734-0410 a Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 Revised January 17, 2007 5.) Route 11 and Interstate 81 Northbound On -Ramp Improvements The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby agrees to construct a third suthbound lane on U.S. Route 11 from the primary entrance to the Property located on Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100 to the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on -ramp. These improvements will include a 12' wide lane of approximately 600 linear feet in length to serve as a continuous right turn lane for the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on -ramp. Additionally, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, will construct turning radius improvements at the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on -ramp to ensure a smooth transition. The improvements shall be completed within one year following approval of the first site plan submitted within the B-2, Business General portion of the Property, and in any event, prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit on the Property. 6.) Monetary Contributions for Route 11 Corridor The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby agrees to provide $250,000.00 to Frederick County within 18 months of final site plan approval for the first site plan submitted within the B-2, Business General portion of the Property to be utilized unconditionally for transportation studies or physical improvements within the Martinsburg Pike corridor. Additionally, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, agrees to allow Frederick County to utilize this monetary contribution as matching funds for federal or state transportation improvement grants that will apply to the Martinsburg Pike corridor. D.) Historic Resource 1.) Interpretative Signs The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby proffers to provide an interpretive area in the location of the old Rutherford's Farm House along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) as identified on the Master Development Plan dated December 21, 2006 prepared by Bury+Partners. A public access easement will be provided for the interpretative sign viewing area, which shall be enhanced with picnic tables and landscaping. The public access easement will be prepared and the proposed improvements will be constructed in conjunction with the site plan that is approved adjacent to this area. Three interpretative plaques will be provided. They are as follows: 7 . ......... RUTHERFORD FARM LLC 07/07 1002 NVRETAIL INC 68-426/514 11460 BARON CAMERON AVE BS. 703-796-1800 13005 RESTON, VA 20190-3637 DATE A2 PAY ORDER ORDER OF s oz. Llw—o hvndre-6( ,-4v DOLLARS BIEWT BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY 1-800-BANK BEIT BBT.com FOR Tmihef6 r 4.1 II50000&ob2iiI i:05l404260i:000523 ? t. G F3 . ........... ........ ................ . ............... — . ............... .. . ................. ................ 9 • AMENDMENT Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: December 6, 2006 - Recommended Denial BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: January 24, 2007 APPROVED ❑ DENIED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING 417-06 OF RUTHERFORD CROSSING WHEREAS, Rezoning #17-06 of Rutherford Crossing, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 22.45 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) District to B2 (General Business) District and 8.55 acres from M1 (Light Industrial) District to B2 District, totaling 31 acres, with proffers, for a retail center, was considered. The properties are located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 81 (Exit 317) and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 43-A-99 and 43-A-100. An additional property to be subject to proffers, but not to be rezoned, is identified by Property Identification Number 43-A-98. This property is located east of Interstate 81, approximately 1,500 feet north of the intersection of Interstate 81 and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) in the Stonewall Magisterial District. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on December 6, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on January 24, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change 22.45 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) District to B2 (General Business) District and 8.55 acres from M1 (Light Industrial) District to B2 District, totaling 31 acres, with proffers, for a retail center, as described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the attached conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owners. PDRes. #09-07 • S This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 24th day of January, 2007 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Gary Dove Gene E. Fisher Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye N�a '-- A COPY ATTEST Johii"W. ki'ley, ff ` Frederick County Administrator PDRes. #09-07 Greenway Engineering • April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 Revised January 17, 2007 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED PROFFER STATEMENT MADE AS TO THE RUTHERFORD CROSSING PROJECT (formerly Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park) J A N 2 2 REZONING: RZ# 17-06 B-3, Industrial Transition District (22.45± acres) and M-1, Light Industrial District (8.55± acres) to B-2, Business General District (31.0± acres) PROPERTY: 138.68± acres; Tax Parcels #43-((A))-98, 43-((A))-99, 43-((A))-100, (here -in after the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Rutherford Farm, LLC; Virginia Apple Storage, Inc.; C. Robert Solenberger; John S. Scully, IV; John B. Schroth APPLICANT: Rutherford Farm, LLC (Owner of 22.45± acres, being a portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-100 and Contract Purchaser for 8.55± acres, being a portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-99 (here -in after the "Applicant") PROJECT NAME: Rutherford Crossing ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: April 5, 2004 ("the 2004 Proffer Statement") REVISION DATE: January 17, 2007 ("the 2006 Proffer Statement") Recitals WHEREAS, C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth are the successors in interest to Rutherford, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company which originally made the Proffer Statement for Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park dated April 5, 2004 (the 2004 Proffer Statement); and, WHEREAS, the Monetary Contribution To Offset Impact Of Development in the amount of $10,000.00 has heretofore been paid pursuant to the 2004 Proffer Statement; and, 1 Greenway Engineering • April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 Revised January 17, 2007 WHEREAS, all other proffers contained in the 2004 Proffer Statement have agreed to be provided by the Applicant and the Record Owner of each tax parcel as set forth in this, the 2006 Proffer Statement, without further obligation to Tax Parcel #43-((A))-111. Preliminary Matters A.) The 2004 Proffer Statement is hereby terminated and in lieu of the same, this 2006 Proffer Statement is made. B.) Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned Applicant and Record Owners hereby proffer that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 17-06 for the rezoning of a 22.45±-acre portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-100 from B-3, Industrial Transition District to B-2, Business General District and a 8.55±-acre portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-99 from M-1, Light Industrial District to B-2 Business General District, and to reconfigure the M-1, Light Industrial District, and B-2, Business General District zoning boundaries for the remainder of the acreage to establish the following: Zoning Districts ➢ 79.03±-acres of M-1, Light Industrial District ➢ 59.65±-acres of B-2, Business General District Overlay District ➢ 138.68± acres of IA, Interstate Area Overlay District Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the Applicant and Record Owners and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject Property more particularly described as the lands owned by Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., being all of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-98; C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth being all of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-99; and Rutherford Farm, LLC, being all of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-100; and further described by Zoning Exhibit `B" prepared by Bury+Partners, dated January 2007 (see attached Zoning Exhibit `B"). 2 Greemvay Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 Revised January 17, 2007 PROFFER STATEMENT A.) Maximum Building Structure Square Feet The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), and the Record Owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98); C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), hereby proffer to limit the total building structures to 1,245,000 square feet for the entire Property. B.) Prohibited Land Uses The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby proffer that the following land uses shall not be permitted on the B-2, Business General District portion of the Property: Description SIC Truck Stop 5541 (Excluding Truck Stops, all other uses within SIC Code 5541 are hereby acceptable and included on the B-2, Business General District portion of the Property) C.) Transportation Enhancements The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby agrees to the following transportation enhancements: 1.) Traffic Signalization a.) A traffic signal will be installed by the Applicant when warranted by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) and the proposed primary entrance to the Property in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The Applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit within the B-2, Business General District acreage on the Property. 3 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 Revised January 17, 2007 b.) A traffic signal will be installed by the Applicant when warranted by VDOT at the southbound on and off ramps of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 interchange and Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The Applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit within the B-2, Business General District acreage on the Property. c.) A traffic signal will be installed by the Applicant when warranted by VDOT at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike with the northbound on -ramp of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 interchange and Redbud Road (Route 661) in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. This traffic signal shall be designed to accommodate the relocation of the Interstate 81 northbound off - ramp at a cross intersection with the existing Interstate 81 northbound on - ramp. The Applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit within the B-2, Business General District acreage on the Property. d.) Prior to the installation of the traffic signals provided for in this section, the Applicant hereby agree to prepare a signalization timing analysis for all existing and proposed traffic signals located along Martinsburg Pike between the proposed primary entrance to the Property and Crown Lane. The Applicant will provide this analysis to VDOT and will incur the cost required to reconfigure the signalization timing for each traffic signal identified in the section if warranted by VDOT. 2.) Site Access Improvements The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100) hereby agrees to limit the total number of entrances for site access along Martinsburg Pike to one full entrance and two right-in/right-out entrances. The spacing between the centerline of all proposed entrances along Martinsburg Pike shall be a minimum of 500 feet. Additionally, the Applicant agrees to fully fund and construct travel lane and turn lane improvements along northbound and southbound Martinsburg Pike in substantial conformity to the transportation improvement exhibit identified on the Master Development Plan dated December 21, 2006 prepared by Bury+Partners no later than December 31, 2007. 4 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 Revised January 17, 2007 3.) Right of Way Dedication and Reservation a.) The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100) hereby agrees to reserve right of way without financial compensation for the benefit of the Commonwealth of Virginia along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) to implement the Rutherford's Farm Route 11 Public Improvements Plan approved by VDOT on February 17, 2004. In the event the Commonwealth of Virginia requests the reservation to be dedicated, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, shall prepare and execute a deed of dedication and a right-of-way dedication plat to be provided to VDOT for signature within 90 days of said request. b.) The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100, and the Record Owner, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98) hereby agree to reserve right of way without financial compensation for the benefit of the Commonwealth of Virginia along Interstate 81 as shown on Interstate 81 Improvement Study VDOT Project No. 0081-968-Fll, PE-100 MP 305 to West Virginia State Line Frederick County, dated November 1998 (specifically noted on Sheet 24 of said study). In the event the Commonwealth of Virginia requests the reservation to be dedicated, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC and the Record Owner, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., shall prepare and execute a deed of dedication and a right-of- way dedication plat to be provided to VDOT for signature within 90 days of said request. c.) The Record Owners, C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), hereby agree to prepare and execute a deed of dedication and a right-of-way dedication plat for the benefit of Frederick County within 90 days of request by the County for the land located within the 350-foot wide Route 37 corridor on Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99 as demonstrated on the Frederick County Route 37 R.O.W. Map and further identified on Zoning Exhibit `B" prepared by Bury+Partners, dated January 2007. Additionally, the Record Owners, C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), hereby agree to prepare and execute a deed of dedication and a right-of-way dedication plat for the benefit of Frederick County within 90 days of request by the County for the land located outside of the 350-foot wide Route 37 corridor on Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99 as demonstrated on the Frederick County Route 37 R.O.W. Map and further identified on Zoning Exhibit `B" prepared by Bury+Partners, dated January 2007. Should the final location of the Route 37 corridor result in any portion of the land on Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99 proposed for dedication not being needed, then the land not needed shall be released in writing by the County from the dedication specified above. 5 P Greenway Engineering April 5,2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 Revised January 17, 2007 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning d.) The Record Owner, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98), hereby agrees to prepare and execute a deed of dedication and a right-of-way dedication plat for the benefit of Frederick County within 90 days of request by the County for the land located outside of the 350-foot wide Route 37 corridor on Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98 as demonstrated on the Frederick County Route 37 R.O.W. Map as an Interstate 81 northbound off -ramp to Route 37 and further identified on Zoning Exhibit "B" prepared by Bury+Partners, dated January 2007. Should the final location of the Route 37 corridor result in any portion of the land on Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98 proposed for dedication not being needed, then the land not needed shall be released in writing by the County from the dedication specified above. 4.) Comprehensive Plan Road Construction The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby agrees to coordinate, dedicate, and construct the major collector road between the primary entrance to the Property and the first intersection on Tax Parcel 43-((A))- 99; as well as coordinate, dedicate, and construct the road section from this intersection to Tax Map Parcel 43-((A))-111 that will be located in substantial conformity with the internal road network identified on the Zoning Exhibit "B" prepared by Bury+Partners dated January 2007 and attached as a proffered exhibit. The location of the major collector road and the internal road network identified on Zoning Exhibit "B" prepared by Bury+Partners dated January 2007 shall replace the major collector road and the internal road network identified on the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Master Development Plan approved by Frederick County on November 22, 2002. The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, further agrees that it will use reasonable commercial effort and diligently pursue the construction of the road sections described in this paragraph to base pavement and made available for public access no later than December 31, 2007. The remaining portion of the major collector road system which intersects the major collector road system described in the above paragraph and proceeds in a west to northwest direction through the Property, as well as the internal street located to the south of the major collector road described in the -above paragraph will be incorporated in and constructed with each site plan submission that is adjacent to or is part of the site plan. The location of these internal road systems will be located in substantial conformity with the internal road network identified on the Zoning Exhibit `B" prepared by Bury+Partners dated January 2007 and attached as a proffered exhibit. 6 0 0 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 Revised January 17, 2007 5.) Route 11 and Interstate 81 Northbound On -Ramp Improvements Rutherford Crossing Rezoning The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby agrees to construct a third southbound lane on U.S. Route 11 from the primary entrance to the Property located on Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100 to the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on -ramp. These improvements will include a 12' wide lane of approximately 600 linear feet in length to serve as a continuous right turn lane for the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on -ramp. Additionally, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, will construct turning radius improvements at the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on -ramp to ensure a smooth transition. The improvements shall be completed within one year following approval of the first site plan submitted within the B-2, Business General portion of the Property, and in any event, prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit on the Property. 6.) Monetary Contributions for Route 11 Corridor The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby agrees to provide $250,000.00 to Frederick County within 18 months of final site plan approval for the first site plan submitted within the B-2, Business General portion of the Property to be utilized unconditionally for transportation studies or physical improvements within the Martinsburg Pike corridor. Additionally, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, agrees to allow Frederick County to utilize this monetary contribution as matching funds for federal or state transportation improvement grants that will apply to the Martinsburg Pike corridor. D.) Historic Resource 1.) Interpretative Signs The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby proffers to provide an interpretive area in the location of the old Rutherford's Farm House along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) as identified on the Master Development Plan dated December 21, 2006 prepared by Bury+Partners. A public access easement will be provided for the interpretative sign viewing area, which shall be enhanced with picnic tables and landscaping. The public access easement will be prepared and the proposed improvements will be constructed in conjunction with the site plan that is approved adjacent to this area. Three interpretative plaques will be provided. They are as follows: 11 • Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 Revised January 17, 2007 ➢ The Second Battle of Winchester ➢ The Battle of Rutherford's Farm ➢ The Rutherford's Farm House Rutherford Crossing Rezoning The interpretative signs will contain language and pictures acceptable to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. The maintenance of the interpretative signs, picnic tables, landscaping and public parking for the interpretative sign viewing area shall be the responsibility of the Rutherford Crossing Association, Inc., a non -stock corporation to be established by the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, within 60 days of final rezoning approval. 2.) Landscaping The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby agrees to provide a transitional landscape buffer that will be provided along Martinsburg. Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) as identified on the Master Development Plan dated December 21, 2006 prepared by Bury+Partners. This landscape easement will be 15' in width and will consist of a low earthen mound of 2-3' in height with plantings of ground covers, flowers, grasses, shrubs and trees in general conformity with the landscape buffer typical section provided on the Master Development Plan. The landscape buffer will be installed during the construction of the first structure within the B-2 District portion of the Property, and will be maintained by the Rutherford Crossing Association. 3.) Property Name The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), and the Record Owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98); C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth (Tax Parcel #43- ((A))-99), hereby proffer the naming of the Property to: "Rutherford Crossing" E:3 w • Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 Revised January 17, 2007 E.) Lighting The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby agrees that all building mounted lights and pole -mounted lights will be of a downcast nature, hooded and directed away from adjacent properties surrounding the proposed project. The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, will submit lighting plans as a separate attachment for review and approval by the Frederick County Plam-ling Department prior to the installation of these lighting features. F.) Signage 1.) The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby proffers that all freestanding business signs located at the entrances to the Property along Martinsburg Pike shall be monument -style signs not to exceed 12' in height. 2.) Within the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) District located throughout the limits of the Property, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), and the Record Owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98), C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth, (Tax Parcel #43- ((A))-99), hereby proffer to limit the total number of signs to three. G.) Recycling Proffer The Record Owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98), C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))- 99), hereby agree to implement recycling programs with each industrial user to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct material. The program for each industrial user will be reviewed and subject to approval by the Frederick County Recycling Coordinator prior to the issuance of a final occupancy permit for each industrial user. 9 0 Greenway Engineering April5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised Decc caber 21, 20M Revised January 17, 2007 Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicant and Record Owner, In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: Rutherford Farm, LLC Date Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100 Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of `/`���G ,' _ To Wit: v The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this (Eday of v 20*y=y2- Notary Public My Commission Expires /)1G..A/1 ,,/,, ZL 6 10 Greenway Engineering Signatures April 5, 20D4 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 Revised January 17, 2007 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the Record Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: Byua�<</l9 Virginia Apple Storage, Inc. Date Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98 Commonwealth of Virginia, 1 �y City/County of . V \! t rC� PS 1 �Y , V T� _ To Wit: �h The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this —0 day of a Y1 U Gt r 2006 by 'D I Oe 11 � )Z `Q v r S V\r�\ Z/ v Notary Public My Commission Expires `" 1- 2J 0 " P O W ID Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revisal September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revisal November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 Revised January 17, 2007 Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the Record Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By; C. Robert Solenberger Date Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99 Commonwealth of Virginia, City/eouPA-y-of ) ; )I c 2 G e Y To Wit: jk The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ] day of 0. Y` 2006 by ` ' 1� o� e c 0� P Yl cc 'e Y otary Public My Commission Expires `1 - 3 ()- a 0 1 12 ! Crcenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 RevL ed October 26, 2006 Rcvised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 Re&cd January 17, 2007 Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the Record Owner, In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By:- John,K Scully, IV Date j dxParcel #43-((A))-99 Commonwealth of Virginia, 11 Cityc--t3� & of W � n �� Te e ft \ VIA To Wit: tk The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me` , this day of 2006 by 0 n s S c to 1 t IV ryV n Cci X Q �ey Notary Public My Commission Expires 9^ 3 0_ a D 13 0 Greenway Fnginecring Signatures April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 Revised January 17, 2007 0 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the Record Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: ohn B. Schroth Date Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99 Commonwealth of Virginia, City otm of \N) \ Y1 r `\ PS 1 t' rT T� To Wit: Th �-- The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this j1day of `n (Aft V I 2006 by tJ Yl V\ voi h N"' � &a" zf'�' J Notary Public My Commission Expires C� - 30 '-a 0) 0 14 AREA TABULATIONS ZONING AREA M-1 85.26 AC. B-2 28.66 AC. B-3 22.46 AC. / PO% TOTAL AREA = 136.38 AC. 5 S41'32'25'E 194.39' C7 N44'08'18"E j/ 1211.21' ,L476'38'50"W 87.67 M-1 56.46 AC. r A / I TAX MAP # 43 A 99 U // TAX MAP p 43 A 98 / C. ROBERT c.,OLENBERGER, // C6 VIRGINIA APPLE STORAGE, INC. JOHN B. SCHROTH AND // m'w / S75'36'08"E / / 58.19' / 542' 1€ 189_ N105 .31 1 os73' i TAX MAP M 43 A 100 2 RUTHEREORC FARM, LLC B-3 22.60 AC. / r / N6'12"W / �� ��45. '-�`?SB04',30f'` /236.59' N35'45'51"W 22.2;- IVY �\ / N47'55'3628.66 AC. r / /S6, ZS.a �96z.99. k i IN29'45'52"W JOHN S. SCULLY, IV m ),lY S27'54'00"W S42 Z8B g 47.83' �W 60' R-O-W N42' 18'30" E 1957,08' S27 5 I I 10l 8 � — L _ 5 P� —'��'' �A1------- LO� � Pp10MA� Epj50N _ � TAX MAP N 43 A 99 TAX MAP k 43 A III C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHN B. SCHROTH AND m C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER. U JOHN B. SCHROTH AND JOHN S. SCULLY, IV at N JOHN S. SCULLY, IV 14 M-1 29.81 AC. 79.86' I� p CURVF TABLE C1 J NUMBERI DELTA RADIUS ARC LENGTH TANGENT CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING Cl 1 20'57'23' 2252.00' 823.69 416.50' 619.11, N 50'20'03' E C2 29'18'43' 1321.72' 676.18 345,66' 668.83' S 15'56'51' E C3 1'28'32' 5629.58' 144.97 72.49' 144.97' S 00'33'13' E C4 §4'51'02' 380.00' 629.07 413.61' 559.66' S 11'39'40' W C5 17'36'23' 1000.00, 307.29 154.87' 306,08' N 50'17'00' E C6 6-15'12' 1 5629.58' 614,43 1 307.52' 614.12' 1 S 04'13'45' W C7 12'53'54' 1 5629.58' 1267.32 1 6 3 6.3 5'1 1264.65' 1 S 18-33'51- W 1 1 JAM 2 2 2007 CC Y < cr t LL Q m a CC Q W 0 a Z Er cl) W � Z jZN Q w N LIJ T- V) LL- O AREA TABULATIONS ZONING AREA M-1 79.03 AC. B-2 59.65 AC. TOTAL AREA = 138.68 AC its 0 2 2 2001 58.19' RT. 37 R-O-W R-0 - i DEDICATION / DED11 A N4 N RIGHT-OF-WAY ' ` RESERVATIONN76'38'SO'WTAXMAP43A98M-1 NA��99\ VIRGINIA APPLE STORAGE TAX MAP / 4 INSTRUMENT 200411262 55A5 AC. C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, VDOT JOHN B. SCHROTH AND r-OF-WAY S42'18'30-W JOHN S. SCULLY, IV ERVATION 1895.36' 1 A INSTRUMENT 040017164 542' 18'; / 1285.15 60130W I � I M-1 _ p N42'18'30 E o 123.58 AC. Note-3c'� N30'35 /" 1057.31, TAX MAP M 43 A 100 JIU I i957.58'� o �527'54 0`W �- • RUTHERFORD FARM, LLC N42 1 — — — o 290.28 6.5 INSTRUMENT 050006702 4 � 2 'J]��' B-2 _ 4 74 — I C6 I 59.65 AC. N ED; N47'55'3t�\ - -•��_ = - _ _ _ J I —�i7 z 70.92 2N42' I B'30"E m L 38171 TAX MAP x 43 A 99 m C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHN B. SCHROTH AND �+ $ JOHNS. SCULLY, IV INSTRUMENT MENT 04001 )164 S67. 1 rn S38'01'07"W 96?9931y I i 96347' a N J _C3 o 79.86' ('I IRVF TARI F NUMBER DELTA RADIUS ARC LENGTH TANGENT CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING Cl 1'28'32" 5629.58' 144.97 72.49' 144.97' S 00*33'13" E C2 29'18'43" 1321.72' 676.18 345.66' 668.83' S 15'56'51" E C3 20'57'23" 2252.00' 823.69 416.50' 819.11' N 50'20'03" E C4 6'15'12" 5629.58' 614.43 307.52' 614.12' S 04'13'45" W C5 12'53'54" 1 5629.58' 1267.32 636.35' 1264.65' S 18'33*51" W C6 43'58'47" 1 500.00' 383.80 201.9 I'l 374.44' 1 N 49'07'26" E 20225-NVRetai1o01-WinchesteroExhoPROPOSED ZONING EXHIBIT.dwq Jan 22. 2007 71'06'49"E / I FEMA I 1194.41' N27'08'0?"E PROPERT 69.59 LINE I I �1 ��J I 1 a i 'L O � o 0 � N ao 7� RT. 37 F. MAINLINE �C%. O CORRIDOR R-O-W r� �DEDICATION Q _ a= + m o� t W ❑ I C A\ Z yc°� j�a (' o A 'z Ue)CAJ F M W S27'54'00"W 47.83' Z '^ ~ U RT. 37 ALIGNMENT � m V Q Z AS PROVIDED BY FREDERICK Z G 0 COUNTY PLANNING Q _ _ S DEPARTMENT CC m O 5 >}}r cr Lx QOD W U O Lr) co Z Occ IL cYi OCC z cc O W W N a 0 LL c W 400 200 0 400 800 1200 GRAPHICAL SCALE: 1" = 400' o p O O u� N O N N H 0N II Q a z = u a 3 u ri N LLJ = N N Lj- O 0 0 0 AREA TABULATIONS ZONING AREA M-1 85.26 AC. B-2 28.66 AC. B-3 22.46 AC. S41'32'25"E 194.39' / j / //�� C7 N44'08'18"E // '211.21' �- '10 N76'38'50"W TOTAL AREA = 136.38 AC.- / /j / �,�p'��/� �� �o 87.67' M-1 i 55.45 AC. 0 y TAX MAP # 43 A 99 p 41 TAX MAP # 43 A 98 C. ROBERT SOL..ENBE_RGER, v C6 VIRGINIA APPLE STORAGE, INC. JOHN B. SCHROTH AND �w S75'36'08"E JOHN S. SCULLIV _Y, m 58.19' S42' 18'30'w S27'54'00"W 1895.36' 47.83' _�_� _� S42' 5.29"W - 1285.15' 3 N42'18'30"E 1057.31' W R-O-W 1 N42'18'30"E 1 1957.08' 0� \N TAX MAP # 43 A 100 I X,S27 54 g3 ' 2 RUTHERECRC FARM, L LC n 1 �� 1077 / u _ B-3 rn L _ - - LPG �4 / 22.66 AC. �— m MA-EpISpN �� C4 N59b / /236.59' �49 S82 2 56 ' i C5 N35'45'51 "W C. ROBE- TAX MAP 43 A 99 111 i? TAX MAP # 43 A � CT SOLENBERGER, C. ROBERT SOL ENBERGER, I 22.02'- JOHN B. SCHROTH AND iii U JOHN B. SCHRGTH AND JOHN S. SCULLY, IV am U' \ �y� � m JOHN S. SCULL Y, V N47'55'36' �� n _�70.92' �� n / % o B-2 Ln 29.81 AC. 28.66 AC. m j / \ 962 993 w lee1 i S3963 407 W N29 \ I I'45'52"W / / I 79.86' co N CURVE TABLE NUMBER DELTA RADIUS ARC LENGTH TANGENT CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING Cl 20°5723' 2252,00' 823.69 416.50' 819,1l' N 50°20'03' E C2 29°18'43' 1321,72' 676.18 345,66' 668.83' S 15°56'51' E C3 1°28'32' 5629.58' 144.97 72.49' 144.97' S 00033'13' E C4 94°51'02' 380,00' 629.07 413,61' 559.66' S 11°39'40' W C5 17°36'23' 1000.00, 307.29 154,87' 306,08' N 50°17'00' E C6 6°15'12' 5629,58' 614.43 307.52' 614,12' S 04013'45' W C7 12°53'54' 5629,58' 1267.32 636.35'1 1264,65' S 18033'51' W Q o j o r�o o ef• en cu co CIO M W � a rn on cvd'Z!D 1 y m UE- - GC Q U L LL LL WIZ < Q m LJJ z Q Z Z O 0 f'- Q o Q cc�- U) ('3 � �E Q cc > Z Y X w Z F- LL O � I O O ON CV O NO a_ a- a- II Q = ZT 6 Z Q O L 0 (n 0 0 0 U 0- w N LIJ = r Ll O 0 0 . 0 AREA TABULATIONS ZONING AREA M -1 79.03 AC. S7' / B-2 59.65 AC. / / TOTAL AREA = 138.68 AC / / / / N30'36�i1'`2 C G 4 I / \\\ 59.65 AC. jt4 8 .I I N71.06I49"E \ \ IN, PpT'pMAC E� 5'I194.41' rN47'55'3" kV i 270.92' = 9� ���� _ N42'18'30"E 00 ? L ' ' 381.71 0 cLn TAX MAP # 43 A 99 / 0 o\ �+ C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, rnI N JOHN B. SCHROTH AND \ o JOHN S. SCULLY, IV INSTRUMENT 040017164 �\ S67251 \ ) m S38'01'07"W 962 9� 3'"lV i 963 47' coo c, ,C3 w N J � N29 '52"W _ m = 79.86' CURVE TABLE RT. 37 R-O-W f 37 R-0-1 DEDICATION 'I DEDICAI G5 N44'08'18"E 8'OS E \ \ \ \ 194.39' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 58.19' _✓� JA RIGHT-OF-WAY \ RESERVATION N76*38'50"W 87 67 \ \ TAX MAP # 43 A 98 M-1 VIRGINIA APPLE STORAGE INSTRUMENT 200411262 55.45 AC. VDOT S42'18'30"W RIGHT-OF-WAY 895.36' _RESERVATION 1\ ( 1 N 42' 18' 30"E' 1057.31 ' B-2 TAX MAP # 43 A 100 RUTHERFORD FARM, LLC INSTRUMENT 050006702 60' R-O-W , I oI � 0 1 . " I 74� NUMBER DELTA RADIUS ARC LENGTH TANGENT CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING Cl 1'28'32" 5629.58' 144.97 72.49' 144.97' S 00*33'13" E C2 29' 18'43" 1321.72' 676.18 345.66' 668.83' S 15'56'51 " E C3 20'57'23" 2252.00' 823.69 416.50' 819.11' N 50'20'03" E C4 6' 15' 12" 5629.58' 614.43 307.52' 614.12' S 04' 13'45" W C5 12'53'54" 5629.58' 1267.32 636.35' 1264.65' S 18'33'51 " W C6 43'58'47" 500.00' 383.80 201.91' 374.44' N 49'07'26" E \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \\ \\ I \\\\\\\\\ \\ \\ \\ \ TAX MAP # 43 A 99 \\ \\ \\ \ \\ \\ C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHN B. SCHROTH AND JOHN S. SCULLY, IV \\ \ \\ \\ INSTRUMENT 040017164 S42'18'29W \ \\ \ 1285.15' M-1 _ i < 123.58 AC. N42' 15=3t 'r I I\� �957.58'� o-527'54 0"W N42 18' 0�E' ' o , 290.28 2.27 -----rn cn 0 FEMA N27'08'07"E PROPER 69.59 LINE RT. 37 MAINLINE CORRIDOR \ R-O-W \ �\ \\ DEDICATION S27'54'00"W 47.83' RT. 37 ALIGNMENT I AS PROVIDED BY FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT "14 400 200 0 400 800 1200 GRAPHICAL SCALE: 1 " = 400' ti 0 G�i o � o ado � N 0 'A CQ ^. 7E c = m a 0o c ; o UclDUE_= Z ~ U V/ O CC m Q m o Z p Q L o0 < �QRR V > U 2 N Q cc O LL w �-- Q X W O Z Z 0 Q W Occ O U) Q W ZO z U Y W cc cc W O � I O � O (D N C:)Y N N a_ O a_ of II Q - Z o z Q c U N O O N C,L p 0 0 o 0 U d w N Lit = N L. O I I2022S-NIVRPM111101-WlnChPsternFXhI1 wn ,Jnn Greenway Engineering 0 April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED PROFFER STATEMENT MADE AS TO THE RUTHERFORD CROSSING PROJECT (formerly Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park) REZONING: RZ# 17-06 B-3, Industrial Transition District (22.45± acres) and M-1, Light Industrial District (8.55± acres) to B-2, Business General District (31.0± acres) PROPERTY: 138.68± acres; Tax Parcels #43-((A))-98, 43-((A))-99, 43-((A))-100, (here -in after the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Rutherford Farm, LLC; Virginia Apple Storage, Inc.; C. Robert Solenberger; John S. Scully, IV; John B. Schroth APPLICANT: Rutherford Farm, LLC (Owner of 22.45± acres, being a portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-99 and Contract Purchaser for 8.55± acres, being a portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-100 (here -in after the "Applicant") PROJECT NAME: Rutherford Crossing ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: April 5, 2004 ("the 2004 Proffer Statement") REVISION DATE: December 21, 2006 ("the 2006 Proffer Statement") Recitals WHEREAS, C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth are the successors in interest to Rutherford, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company which originally made the Proffer Statement for Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park dated April 5, 2004 (the 2004 Proffer Statement); and, WHEREAS, the Monetary Contribution To Offset Impact Of Development in the amount of $10,000.00 has heretofore been paid pursuant to the 2004 Proffer Statement; and, 0 0 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 WHEREAS, all other proffers contained in the 2004 Proffer Statement have agreed to be provided by the Applicant and the Record Owner of each tax parcel as set forth in this, the 2006 Proffer Statement, without further obligation to Tax Parcel #43-((A))-111. Preliminary Matters A.) The 2004 Proffer Statement is hereby terminated and in lieu of the same, this 2006 Proffer Statement is made. B.) Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned Applicant and Record Owners hereby proffer that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 17-06 for the rezoning of a 22.45±-acre portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-100 from B-3, Industrial Transition District to B-2, Business General District and a 8.55±-acre portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-99 from M-1, Light Industrial District to B-2 Business General District, and to reconfigure the M-1, Light Industrial District, and B-2, Business General District zoning boundaries for the remainder of the acreage to establish the following: Zoning Districts ➢ 79.03±-acres of M-1, Light Industrial District ➢ 59.65±-acres of B-2, Business General District Overlay District ➢ 138.68± acres of IA, Interstate Area Overlay District Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the Applicant and Record Owners and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject Property more particularly described as the lands owned by Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., being all of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-98; C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth being all of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-99; and Rutherford Farm, LLC, being all of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-100; and further described by Zoning Exhibit `B" prepared by Bury+Partners, dated December 2006 (see attached Zoning Exhibit `B"). Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 PROFFER STATEMENT A.) Maximum Building Structure Square Feet The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), and the Record Owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98); C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), hereby proffer to limit the total building structures to 1,245,000 square feet for the entire Property. B.) Prohibited Land Uses The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), and the Record Owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98); C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth (Tax Parcel #43- ((A))-99), hereby proffer that the following land uses shall not be permitted on the Property: Description SIC Truck Stop 5541 (Excluding Truck Stops, all other uses within SIC Code 5541 are hereby acceptable and included) C.) Transportation Enhancements The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby agrees to the following transportation enhancements: 1.) Traffic Signalization a.) A traffic signal will be installed by the Applicant when warranted by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) and the proposed primary entrance to the Property in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The Applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit within the B-2, Business General District acreage on the Property. 3 • Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 b.) A traffic signal will be installed by the Applicant when warranted by VDOT at the southbound on and off ramps of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 interchange and Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The Applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit within the B-2, Business General District acreage on the Property. c.) A traffic signal will be installed by the Applicant when warranted by VDOT at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike with the northbound on -ramp of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 interchange and Redbud Road (Route 661) in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. This traffic signal shall be designed to accommodate the relocation of the Interstate 81 northbound off - ramp at a cross intersection with the existing Interstate 81 northbound on - ramp. The Applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit within the B-2, Business General District acreage on the Property. d.) Prior to the installation of the traffic signals provided for in this section, the Applicant hereby agree to prepare a signalization timing analysis for all existing and proposed traffic signals located along Martinsburg Pike between the proposed primary entrance to the Property and Crown Lane. The Applicant will provide this analysis to VDOT and will incur the cost required to reconfigure the signalization timing for each traffic signal identified in the section if warranted by VDOT. 2.) Site Access Improvements The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100) hereby agrees to limit the total number of entrances for site access along Martinsburg Pike to one full entrance and two right-in/right-out entrances. The spacing between the centerline of all proposed entrances along Martinsburg Pike shall be a minimum of 500 feet. Additionally, the Applicant agrees to fully fund and construct travel lane and turn lane improvements along northbound and southbound Martinsburg Pike in substantial conformity to the transportation improvement exhibit identified on the Master Development Plan dated December 21, 2006 prepared by Bury+Partners no later than December 31, 2007. 4 April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 3.) Right of Way Reservation Rutherford Crossing Rezoning The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100) hereby agrees to reserve right of way without financial compensation for the benefit of the Commonwealth of Virginia along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) to implement the Rutherford's Farm Route 11 Public Improvements Plan approved by VDOT on February 17, 2004. In the event the Commonwealth of Virginia requests the reservation to be dedicated, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, shall prepare a right-of-way dedication plat to be provided to VDOT for signature within 90 days of said request. b.) The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100, and the Record Owner, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98) hereby agree to reserve right of way without financial compensation for the benefit of the Commonwealth of Virginia along Interstate 81 as shown on Interstate 81 Improvement Study VDOT Project No. 0081-968-1711, PE-100 MP 305 to West Virginia State Line Frederick County, dated November 1998 (specifically noted on Sheet 24 of said study). In the event the Commonwealth of Virginia requests the reservation to be dedicated, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC and the Record Owner, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., shall prepare a right-of-way dedication plat to be provided to VDOT for signature within 90 days of said request. c.) The Record Owners, C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), hereby agree to dedicate for the benefit of Frederick County the land located within the 350-foot wide Route 37 corridor on Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99 as demonstrated on the Frederick County Route 37 R.O.W. Map and further identified on Zoning Exhibit `B" prepared by Bury+Partners, dated December 2006. Additionally, the Record Owners, C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth (Tax Parcel #43- ((A))-99), hereby agree to reserve for the benefit of Frederick County the land located outside of the 350-foot wide Route 37 corridor on Tax Parcel #43- ((A))-99 as demonstrated on the Frederick County Route 37 R.O.W. Map and further identified on Zoning Exhibit `B" prepared by Bury+Partners, dated December 2006 for future financial compensation. Should the final location of the Route 37 corridor result in any portion of the land on Tax Parcel #43- ((A))-99 proposed for dedication and/or reservation not being needed, then the land not needed shall be released from the dedication and/or reservation specified above. NT` ds Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 4.) Comprehensive Plan Road Construction The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby agrees to coordinate, dedicate, and construct the major collector road between the primary entrance to the Property and the first intersection on Tax Parcel 43-((A))- 99; as well as coordinate, dedicate, and construct the road section from this intersection to Tax Map Parcel 43-((A))-111 that will be located in substantial conformity with the internal road network identified on the Zoning Exhibit `B" prepared by Bury+Partners dated December 2006 and attached as a proffered exhibit. The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, further agrees that it will use reasonable commercial effort and diligently pursue the construction of the road sections described in this paragraph to base pavement and made available for public access no later than December 31, 2007. The remaining portion of the major collector road system which intersects the major collector road system described in the above paragraph and proceeds in a west to northwest direction through the Property, as well as the internal street located to the south of the major collector road described in the above paragraph will be incorporated in and constructed with each site plan submission that is adjacent to or is part of the site plan. The location of these internal road systems will be located in substantial conformity with the internal road network identified on the Zoning Exhibit "B" prepared by Bury+Partners dated December 2006 and attached as a proffered exhibit. 5.) Route 11 and Interstate 81 Northbound On -Ramp Improvements The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby agrees to construct a third southbound lane on U.S. Route 11 from the primary entrance to the Property to the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on -ramp. These improvements will include a 12' wide lane of approximately 600 linear feet in length to serve as a continuous right turn lane for the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on -ramp. Additionally, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, will construct turning radius improvements at the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on -ramp to ensure a smooth transition. The improvements shall be completed within one year following approval of the first site plan submitted within the B-2, Business General portion of the Property, and in any event, prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit on the Property. 6 • Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 6.) Monetary Contributions for Route 11 Corridor The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby agrees to provide $250,000.00 to Frederick County within 18 months of final site plan approval for the first site plan submitted within the B-2, Business General portion of the Property to be utilized unconditionally for transportation studies or physical improvements within the Martinsburg Pike corridor. Additionally, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, agrees to allow Frederick County to utilize this monetary contribution as matching funds for federal or state transportation improvement grants that will apply to the Martinsburg Pike corridor. D.) Historic Resource 1.) Interpretative Signs The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby proffers to provide an interpretive area in the location of the old Rutherford's Farm House along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) as identified on the Master Development Plan dated December 21, 2006 prepared by Bury+Partners. A public access easement will be provided for the interpretative sign viewing area, which shall be enhanced with picnic tables and landscaping. The public access easement will be prepared and the proposed improvements will be constructed in conjunction with the site plan that is approved adjacent to this area. Three interpretative plaques will be provided. They are as follows: ➢ The Second Battle of Winchester ➢ The Battle of Rutherford's Farm ➢ The Rutherford's Farm House The interpretative signs will contain language and pictures acceptable to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. The maintenance of the interpretative signs, picnic tables, landscaping and public parking for the interpretative sign viewing area shall be the responsibility of the Rutherford Crossing Association, Inc., a non -stock corporation to be established by the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, within 60 days of final rezoning approval. 7 Greenway Engineering 0 2.) Landscaping April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 0 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby agrees to provide a transitional landscape buffer that will be provided along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) as identified on the Master Development Plan dated December 21, 2006 prepared by Bury+Partners. This landscape easement will be 15' in width and will consist of a low earthen mound of 2-3' in height with plantings of ground covers, flowers, grasses, shrubs and trees in general conformity with the landscape buffer typical section provided on the Master Development Plan. The landscape buffer will be installed during the construction of the first structure within the B-2 District portion of the Property, and will be maintained by the Rutherford Crossing Association. 3.) Property Name The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), and the Record Owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98); C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth (Tax Parcel #43- ((A))-99), hereby proffer the naming of the Property to: "Rutherford Crossing" E.) Ling The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby agrees that all building mounted lights and pole -mounted lights will be of a downcast nature, hooded and directed away from adjacent properties surrounding the proposed project. The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, will submit lighting plans as a separate attachment for review and approval by the Frederick County Planning Department prior to the installation of these lighting features. F.) Siege 1.) The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby proffers that all freestanding business signs located at the entrances to the Property along Martinsburg Pike shall be monument -style signs not to exceed 12' in height. 8 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 2.) Within the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) District located throughout the limits of the Property, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), and the Record Owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98), C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth, (Tax Parcel #43- ((A))-99), hereby proffer to limit the total number of signs to three. G.) Recycling Proffer The Record Owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98), C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))- 99), hereby agree to implement recycling programs with each industrial user to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct material. The program for each industrial user will be reviewed and subject to approval by the Frederick County Recycling Coordinator prior to the issuance of a final occupancy permit for each industrial user. �T 1 9 Greenway l nginecring April 5, 2004 10 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Remised December 21, 2006 Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicant and Record Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: ax Varcel #43-((A))'100 wealth of Virginia, Cit Coun ofTo Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this-6r� day of �S?Mv & N 2GKby Notary Public My Commission Expires lS'+�LQ -tD . �x� mi Greenway Engineering Signatures April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the Record 01pner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By:c2Y0y�„ s Virginia Apple Storage, Inc. Date Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98 Commonwealth of Virginia, Ei#y{County of To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this�day of o -� 2006 by My Commission Expires - 3/-OF Q GYP Notary Public 11 Greenway Engineering 0 Signatures April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the Record Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: C. Robert Solenberger Tax Parcel 443-((A))-99 Commonwealth of Virginia, i.a/a 9126 Date City/Gourriy of To Wit: n The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this/ day of !� 61 2006 by D2YG Notary Public My Commission Expires 3 - 3 / M i'g 12 Greemvay Engineering • April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the Recor(I Ojpner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: \ Jo S. Scully, IV Date Tax Parcel 943-((A))-99 Commonwealth of Virginia, 9 `,f City/Cowity of C� (mac-c �P /r!� To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this -W day of c_o L 2006 by Notary Public My Commission Expires 3, 3 /- off NOT 13 11 Greenway Engineering Signatures April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revise October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Reviser! December 21, 2006 • Rutherford Crossing Rezoning The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the Record Olt ner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: 13. - fILZ �hn B. Schroth Date ax Parcel #43-((A))-99 Commonwealth of Virginia, City/Gatmty of w �� To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisc-) %day of -� 2006 by My Commission Expires 2( 72�-1 e� Notary Public 14 AREA TABULATIONS ZONING AREA M-1 85.26 AC. B-2 28.66 AC. B-3 22.46 AC. / jo TOTAL AREA = 136.38 ACPy�P��_/N��z C6 3 •\ / / X. /Z2 B-3 22.66 AC. S75'36'08"E 5B.19' CC,Z >. m S41'32'25"E o < Leo .00 194.39' C7 N44'08'18"E 1211.21' y �� e _ m 76'38'50"W i. 87.67' M-1 55A5 AC. + e >,A y I TAX MAP 43 A 99 A ? TAX MAP N 43 A 98 C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, VIRGINIA APPLE STORAGE, INC. JOHN B. SCHROTH AND c I 9 g 3o JOHN S. SCULLY, IV Z 1 _ 47.83' � TAX MAP a 43 A 100 C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER. JOHN B. SCHROTH AND JOHN S. SCULLY, IV /236.59' N35'45'51 "W N47'55'36" \ C--���—� 270.92 B-2 �^ \ 1-25" \6 1v I IN29'45'52"W 6U' I I I I L� POT�� EDISON G0. '. TAX MAP a 43 A 99 C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHN B. SCHROTH AND JOHN S. SCULLY, IV M-1 29.81 AC - VO rsgp0"W -- �4 TAX MAP 111 43 A 111 II ,C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHN B. SCHROTH AND JOHN S. SCULLY, IV /% / / l� 79.86' m ci I I I 1 CURVE TABLE ER DELTA RADIUS ARC LENGTH TANGENT C1 20'5723' 2252.00' 823.69 416,50' C2 29'18'43' 1321.72' 676.18 345.66' C3 1'28'32' 5629.58' 144.97 72.49' C4 94.51'02' 380.00' 629.07 413,61' C5 17'36'23' 1000-00' 307.29 1 154.87' C6 6:15'12' S§29.58' 614.43 307.52' C7 12S3'S4' 5629.58' 1 1267.32 1 636.35' J 0 C1 J RD LENGTH CHORD BEARING 819.11, N 50'20'03' E 668,83' S 15'56'51' E 144.97' S 00'33'13' E ` 1 559,66' S 11'39'40' W 1 \ \ \ 614,1230&08' N 5013'45' E 614.12' S 04'13'45' W \ 1264.65' S 18'33'51' W 2 � Y Q H LL Q m p J X Q LU O oC Z 2 In O F- Z N cc U (7 Z Z Q Z a > Q N Z < O Z iL) Y QU 3 0 X w w W pcc LL H- Tn t0 O O O Nin N O o LjaD-a N O 07 F Y N II � w > z O a z 0 0 w N Ld 2 T C AREA TABULATIONS ZONING AREA M-1 79.03 AC. B-2 59.65 AC. • Cl C2 C3 E4 C5 C6 TOTAL AREA = 138.68 AC " Z" DELTA 1'28'32" 29'18'43" 20'57'23" 6'15'12" 12*53'54" 43'58'47" j� RT. R-O-W RESERVATION /� N S4 "E 194.39' 4,08 E 58.19,wor RIGHT-OF-WAY � — — RESERVATIO �0 1� N76'38'50-W / I 87.67' / TAX MAP 111 43 A 98 M-1 I VIRGINIA APPLE STORAGE TAX MAP 43 A 99 INSTRUMENT 200411262 55.45 AC. C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, S42'1B'30"W' JOHN B. SCHROTH AND JOHN S. SCULLY, IV RIGHT -OF - WAY _ RESERVATION 1895.36v INSTRUMENT 040017164 / 80 R-O-W N42'18'30 E I I o 123.513 AC. N42:18a30"� N30*3VA 1057.3V TAX MAP N 43 A 100 I I i957.58'� o /j36.5 RUTHERFORD FARM, LLC e1 N4218' O=E—' 4' INSTRUMENT 050006702 _ a n _ 2.2,I RADIUS 5629.5E 1321.72 \ 59.65 AC. _ Via: D.e. \�� \ _ �ppTOM�C EO�SON I N7I1'06.41' N27'08'0�"E FEMA 194.41' PROPERT 1 \ i — — ' 69.59 LINE N4T55'3611(I \ —� �� z I 270.92 \"q _ _ N42.18'30"E a 381.71 tO. TAX MAP N 43 A 99 m o \ \ u C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHN B. SCHROTH AND \ J A JOHN S. SCULLY, IV INSTRUMENT 040017164 / S61• \ l m S38-01.07"W / 96, j-W I 963 47' 99' I \ V I -C3 J AO N29 '52"W- 79.86' CURVE TABLE ARC LENGTH TANGENT CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING 144.97 72 49' 144.97' S 00'33'13" E y m L = o o mN MAINLINE E 0 CORRIDOR y m o R-O-W y r DEDICATION p a> o W 40 c Z93 p c�0 = Uc�i Ev i Fm M W 52T54'00'W 47.83' Z RT. 37 ALIGNMENT Cj) m a Q i AS PROVIDED BY Z FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING O DEPARTMENT cr= N C) 0 � p a:W W O O Cry cn � � LL Z O Q W Z O W W ( z cc I F- N a o LL D ~ N 676.18 345.66' 668.83' S 15'56'51" E 400 200 0 400 800 1200 823.69 416.50' 819.11' N 50'20'03" E 614.43 307.52' 614.12' S 04'13'45" W GRAPHICAL SCALE: 1" = 400' 126732 6361 12646 18'33'51" W 383.8 20.91' 345 '07'26N49 E0 AREA TABULATIONS ZONING AREA M-1 85.26 AC. B-2 28.66 AC. B-3 22.46 AC. S41'32'25"E /� 194.39' / - //�� C7 ! N44'08'18"E 121 1.21 ' �`G�O�� F N70"W TOTAL AREA = 136.38 AC. / // 5�P / 2` 10 87.67'M-1 i N 61' 55A5 AC.00 TAX MAP # 43 A 99 (D TAX MAP # 43 A 98 C. ROBERT SOI._ENBERGER, v C6 VIRGINIA APPLE STORAGE, INC. JOHN B. SCHROTH AN c'w S75'36'08"E JOHN S. SCULLY, IV m 58.19' S42' 18'30''W / /--�� - 1895.36S422'88'25;'W S2 47 8-3' — — �� 3 N4218'30 E 1057.31' 60' R-O-W I N42'18'30"E TAX MAP # 43 A 100 I 1957.08' 4 p0"\N C. ROBER T SOLENBERGER, I 52�'S JOHN B. SCHROTH AND cn 1077 83 JOHN S. SCULLY, IV B-3 N _ P�,—� �— /� / 22.66 AC. D�,— ------ C4 ...� N r*i �—'ppTOMA� ED150N CO ' _ -� ss•° N�6' 12"w / s `2.5 30 E I /236.59' �R9 8� 6� C5 — TAX MAP # 43 A 99 TAX MAP # 43 A 111 N35'45'51 "W — C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, cn C. ROBERT SOL ENBERGER, I 22.02� JOHN B. SCHROTH AND ) JC;yN B. SCNROTH AND JOHN S. SCULLY, IV a' c.n JOHN S. SCULLY, 'V Ln --' \ram\ W w M-1 B-2 �_ Ln 29.81 AC. 28.66 AC. S61- 99 J3963 47 W IN29'45'52"W C,, c�,n 79.86 w41 CURVE TABLE NUMBER DELTA RADIUS ARC LENGTH TANGENT CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING C1 20°57'23" 2252.00' 823,69 416.50' 819,11' N 50°20'03" E C2 29°18'43" 1321,72' 676.18 345,66' 668.83' S 15°56'51" E C3 1°28'32" 5629,58' 144.97 72.49' 144.97' S 00°33'13" E C4 94°51'02" 380.00' 629.07 413.61' 559,66' S 11°39'40" W C5 17°36'23' 1000,00, 307.29 154.87' 306.08' N 50°17'00" E C6 6°15'12" 5629.58' 614.43 307,52' 614,12' S 04°13'45" W C7 12°53'54" 5629.58' 1267.32 636.35' 1264.65' S 18°33'51" W VJ h z �I 0 -SO Lv 0 4 Z ad W W z z Z 2 CCY�- LL CCQ _ m Z Q W O = Z cc W Z F- Z_ r-4 o �. o ono to � o d• en cc a 0 \ C� � c1l �a w o i a rn m �d poi _ to o + w U M U E-- H U Q Q U z oa Q J � Q Q (1) z C7 � Q O � U Y U w w O LL H U (.0 O O 0 N U) O N O NO W a- 0_ a- m I.- Y N II � w - > -0 � 6 p -0T z NKi N O 3 u U O y O t O U)0 0 0 U d w N W = r U) LL- O AREA TABULATIONS ZONING AREA M -1 79.03 AC. S7 08 E / 58.19' B-2 59.65 AC. TOTAL AREA = 138.68 AC RIGI / RE / / -ate / / 1 RT. 37 R-O-W RESERVATION / N44'08' 18 "E S41' "E /�� 2� 194.39' RIGHT-OF-WAY / RESERVATION 2N 10 N76'38'50"W / / 87.67' TAX MAP # 43 A 98 M-1 VIRGINIA APPLE STORAGE INSTRUMENT 200411262 55.45 AC. VDOT ' 18'30"W S42 1T-OF-WAY 36' SERVATION 1895.\ m TAX MAP #43A99 C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHN B. SCHROTH AND JOHN S. SCULLY, IV INSTRUMENT 040017164 S42'18'29 1285.15' / 60' R-O-ih' I �►��/ 1 M-1 N 30' 3 f�it"2 % \ \ \ \ \ r N4T55.36 V\ \ 270.92' \9 CURVE TABLE I 1 N42'18'30"E 123.58 AC. 1057.31' TAX MAP # 43 A 100 I 1-957.58o 290.28 � RUTHERFORD FARM, LLC N42 18' 0{—' o o, 290.28 INSTRUMENT 050006702 2 2 — — — — — u B-2 L4 C6 PG. 74 , — D.B. 59.65 AC. , . N �� N71'06'49"E FEMA PpTOMA 15� �C ' 7'�� I194.41' N208'0�"E PROPERT` 69.59 LINE IN42'18'30"E / ? 381.71 � cNn TAX MAP # 43 A 99CD C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, rnl N JOHN B. SCHROTH AND \ o JOHN S. SCULLY, IV = INSTRUMENT 040017164 \ 1 m S38'01'07"W 6 2S 33 lq ( 963 47' 2.99, CA F 1 00 W 1 ,C 3 W N ` J O m NUMBER DELTA RADIUS ARC LENGTH TANGENT CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING Cl 1'28'32" 5629.58' 144.97 72.49' 144.97' S 00*33'13" E C2 29' 18'43" 1321.72' 676.18 345.66' 668.83' S 15'56'51 " E C3 20'57'23" 2252.00' 823.69 416.50' 819.11' N 50'20'03" E C4 6' 15' 12" 5629.58' 614.43 307.52' 614.12' S 04' 13'45" W C5 12'53'54" 5629.58' 1267.32 636.35' 1264.65' S 18'33'51 " W C6 43'58'47" 500.00' 383.80 201.91' 374.44' N 49'07'26" E y m Fr VJ Z O o 0 o 1 /10,0", — �o to to co �i RT. 37 „ a MAINLINE 0 cb 4 at, o CORRIDOR h cn o OO \ R-O-W -� \\ \\ \\ DEDICATION c ►� q b��r.~ \ \ r \ \ \ Z OA \ — — — as W - .a ( v� \\ \ \\ \\ W p 7E \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ cn W co) cn Z \ \ V N M Z UmuE— GRAPHICAL SCALE: 1 " = 400' I tS27'54'00"W 47.83' RT. 37 ALIGNMENT AS PROVIDED BY FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Z c/) O CC m ! m Z 0 E S2 0¢ a Q - Q X N � z cc O CC Lu f-- cc W (} Z O Lu f!J O a W O W U W LLi cD O O p o N U) N W m d Y 0_ iY H O N II w _ U 6 Qz ; U N w O O p U d Li- N Ld = N U) L L- O Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 Revised January 17, 2007 3.) Right of Way Dedication and Reservation a.) The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100) hereby agrees to reserve right of way without financial compensation for the benefit of the Commonwealth of Virginia along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) to implement the Rutherford's Farm Route 11 Public Improvements Plan approved by VDOT on February 17, 2004. In the event the Commonwealth of Virginia requests the reservation to be dedicated, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, shall prepare and execute a deed of dedication and a right-of-way dedication plat to be provided to VDOT for signature within 90 days of said request. b.) The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100, and the Record Owner, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98) hereby agree to reserve right of way without financial compensation for the benefit of the Commonwealth of Virginia along Interstate 81 as shown on Interstate 81 Improvement Study VDOT Project No. 0081-968-Fll, PE-100 MP 305 to West Virginia State Line Frederick County, dated November 1998 (specifically noted on Sheet 24 of said study). In the event the Commonwealth of Virginia requests the reservation to be dedicated, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC and the Record Owner, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., shall prepare and execute a deed of dedication and a right-of- way dedication plat to be provided to VDOT for signature within 90 days of said request. c.) The Record Owners, C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), hereby agree to dedicate for the benefit of Frederick County within 90 days of request by the County the land located within the 350-foot wide Route 37 corridor on Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99 as demonstrated on the Frederick County Route 37 R.O.W. Map and further identified on Zoning Exhibit "B" prepared by Bury+Partners, dated January 2007. Additionally, the Record Owners, C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), hereby agree to dedicate for the benefit of Frederick County within 90 days of request by the County the land located outside of the 350-foot wide Route 37 corridor on Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99 as demonstrated on the Frederick County Route 37 R.O.W. Map and further identified on Zoning Exhibit "B" prepared by Bury+Partners, dated January 2007. Should the final location of the Route 37 corridor result in any portion of the land on Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99 proposed for dedication not being needed, then the land not needed shall be released in writing by the County from the dedication specified above. 5 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 • Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Revised December 21, 2006 Revised January 17, 2007 d.) The Record Owner, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98), hereby agrees to dedicate for the benefit of Frederick County within 90 days of request by the County the land located outside of the 350-foot wide Route 37 corridor on Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98 as demonstrated on the Frederick County Route 37 R.O.W. Map as an Interstate 81 northbound off -ramp to Route 37 and further identified on Zoning Exhibit "B" prepared by Bury+Partners, dated January 2007. Should the final location of the Route 37 corridor result in any portion of the land on Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98 proposed for dedication not being needed, then the land not needed shall be released in writing by the County from the dedication specified above. 4.) Comprehensive Plan Road Construction The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby agrees to coordinate, dedicate, and construct the major collector road between the primary entrance to the Property and the first intersection on Tax Parcel 43-((A))- 99; as well as coordinate, dedicate, and construct the road section from this intersection to Tax Map Parcel 43-((A))-111 that will be located in substantial conformity with the internal road network identified on the Zoning Exhibit "B" prepared by Bury+Partners dated January 2007 and attached as a proffered exhibit. The location of the major collector road and the internal road network identified on Zoning Exhibit `B" prepared by Bury+Partners dated January 2007 shall replace the major collector road and the internal road network identified on the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Master Development Plan approved by Frederick County on November 22, 2002. The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, further agrees that it will use reasonable commercial effort and diligently pursue the construction of the road sections described in this paragraph to base pavement and made available for public access no later than December 31, 2007. The remaining portion of the major collector road system which intersects the major collector road system described in the above paragraph and proceeds in a west to northwest direction through the Property, as well as the internal street located to the south of the major collector road described in the above paragraph will be incorporated in and constructed with each site plan submission that is adjacent to or is part of the site plan. The location of these internal road systems will be located in substantial conformity with the internal road network identified on the Zoning Exhibit "B" prepared by Bury+Partners dated January 2007 and attached as a proffered exhibit. 0 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 • Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 NOT , Revised November 29, 2006 THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED PROFFER STATEMENT MADE AS TO THE RUTHERFORD CROSSING PROJECT (formerly Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park) REZONING: RZ# 17-06 B-3, Industrial Transition District (22.45± acres) and M-1, Light Industrial District (8.55± acres) to B-2, Business General District (31.0± acres) PROPERTY: 138.68± acres; Tax Parcels #43-((A))-98, 43-((A))-99, 43-((A))-100, (here -in after the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Rutherford Farm, LLC; Virginia Apple Storage, Inc.; C. Robert Solenberger; John S. Scully, IV; John B. Schroth APPLICANT: Rutherford Farm, LLC (Owner of 22.45± acres, being a portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-99 and Contract Purchaser for 8.55± acres, being a portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-100 (here -in after the "Applicant") PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE Recitals Rutherford Crossing April 5, 2004 November 29, 2006 WHEREAS, C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth are the successors in interest to Rutherford, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company which originally made the Proffer Statement for Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park dated April 5, 2004 (the "Proffer Statement"); and, WHEREAS, the Monetary Contribution To Offset Impact Of Development in the amount of $10,000.00 has heretofore been paid pursuant to the Proffer Statement, the Applicant and Record Owner and the applicant herein desire to change the name of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park to "Rutherford Crossing" and the Applicant and Record Owner have agreed to reduce the Maximum Building Structure Square Feet for the Property as hereinafter set forth. Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 is"' Oi'� G .. Revised November 29, 2006 WHEREAS, all other proffers contained in the Proffer Statement have agreed to be provided by the Applicant and the Record Owner of each tax parcel as set forth hereinafter. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to accrue thereby, it is agreed as follows: Preliminary Matters A.) The Proffer Statement dated April 5, 2004 is hereby terminated and in lieu of the same, this Proffer Statement is made. B.) Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned Applicant and Record Owners hereby proffer that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 17-06 for the rezoning of a 22.45±-acre portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-99 and a 8.55±-acre portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-100, and to reconfigure the M-1, Light Industrial District, and B-2, Business General District zoning boundaries for the remainder of the acreage to establish the following: Zoning Districts ➢ 79.03±-acres of M-1, Light Industrial District ➢ 59.65±-acres of B-2, Business General District Overlay District ➢ 138.68± acres of IA, Interstate Area Overlay District Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terns and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the Applicant and Record Owners and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject Property more particularly described as the lands owned by Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., being all of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-98; C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth being all of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-99; and Rutherford Farm, LLC, being all of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-100; and further described by Rezoning Plat Exhibit prepared by Bury+Partners, dated November 2006 (see attached Rezoning Exhibit Plat). 2 Greenway Engineering • April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 0. Rutherford Crossing Rezoning 1'TY PROFFER STATEMENT A.) Maximum Building Structure Square Feet The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), and the Record Owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98); C. Robert Solenberger (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), John S. Scully, IV (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), and John B. Schroth (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), hereby proffer to limit the total building structures to 1,245,000 square feet for the entire Property. B.) Prohibited Land Uses The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), and the Record Owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98); C. Robert Solenberger (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), John S. Scully, IV (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), and John B. Schroth (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), hereby proffer that the following land uses shall not be permitted on the Property: Description SIC Truck Stop 5541 (Excluding Truck Stops, all other uses within SIC Code 5541 are hereby acceptable and included) C.) Transportation Enhancements The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby agrees to the following transportation enhancements: 1.) Traffic Signalization a.) A traffic signal will be installed by the Applicant when warranted by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) and the proposed primary entrance to the Property in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The Applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit within the B-2, Business General District acreage on the Property. 3 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 fl-40. � CIh.J f`U M-T,";, b.) A traffic signal will be installed by the Applicant when warranted by VDOT at the southbound ramps of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 interchange and Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The Applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit within the B-2, Business General District acreage on the Property. c.) A traffic signal will be installed by the Applicant when warranted by VDOT at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike with the northbound on -ramp of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 interchange and Redbud Road (Route 661) in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. This traffic signal shall be designed to accommodate the relocation of the Interstate 81 northbound off - ramp at a cross intersection with the existing Interstate 81 northbound on - ramp. The Applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit within the B-2, Business General District acreage on the Property. d.) Prior to the installation of the traffic signals provided for in this section, the Applicant hereby agree to prepare a signalization timing analysis for all existing and proposed traffic signals located along Martinsburg Pike between the proposed primary entrance to the Property and Crown Lane. The Applicant will provide this analysis to VDOT and will incur the cost required to reconfigure the signalization timing for each traffic signal identified in the section if warranted by VDOT. 2.) Site Access Improvements The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100) hereby agrees to limit the total number of entrances for site access along Martinsburg Pike to one full entrance and two right-irdright-out entrances. The spacing between the centerline of all proposed entrances along Martinsburg Pike shall be a minimum of 500 feet. Additionally, the Applicant agrees to fully fund and construct travel lane and turn lane improvements along northbound and southbound Martinsburg Pike in substantial conformity to the transportation improvement exhibit identified on the Master Development Plan prepared by Bury+Partners no later than December 31, 2007. 4 Greenway Engineering • April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 �s r Revised November 29, 2006 �r°°'�0 �'�' 3.) Right of Way Reservation a.) The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100) hereby agrees to reserve right of way without financial compensation for the benefit of the Commonwealth of Virginia along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) to implement the Rutherford's Farm Route 11 Public Improvements Plan approved by VDOT on February 17, 2004. This right of way reservation plat shall be prepared by the Applicant and provided to VDOT for signature within 90 days of VDOT permit approval for this improvement. b.) The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100, and the Record Owner, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98) hereby agree to reserve right of way without financial compensation for the benefit of the Commonwealth of Virginia along Interstate 81 as shown on Interstate 81 Improvement Study VDOT Project No. 0081-968-Fll, PE-100 MP 305 to West Virginia State Line Frederick County, dated November 1998 (specifically noted on Sheet 24 of said study). The right of way reservation plat shall be prepared by the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, and by the Record Owner, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., and provided to VDOT for signature within 90 days of written request by VDOT for said right of way reservation. c.) The Record Owners, C. Robert Solenberger (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), John S. Scully, IV (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), and John B. Schroth (Tax Parcel #43- ((A))-99), hereby agree that for a period of ten (10) years from the date of the approval of the rezoning, that they will not build upon the tract of land containing 14 acres, more or less, and proposed to be used as part of the construction of the Route 37 bypass in Frederick County; however, any taking of the property will be compensated at fair market value. 4.) Comprehensive Plan Road Construction The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby agrees to coordinate, dedicate, and construct the portion of the major collector road between the primary entrance to the property and the cul-de-sac adjacent to Tax Map Parcel 43-((A))-111 that will be located in substantial conformity with the internal road network identified on the Rutherford Crossing Zoning Exhibit prepared by Bury+Partners dated November 2006 and attached as a proffered exhibit. The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, further agrees that it will use reasonable commercial effort and diligently pursue the construction to base pavement and made available for public access no later than December 31, 2007. 5 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Grossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November7, 2006�a! T��� Revised November 29, 2006 The remaining portion of the major collector road system which intersects the major collector road system described in the above paragraph and proceeds in a west to northwest direction through the Property, as well as the internal street located to the south of the major collector road described in the above paragraph will be incorporated in and constructed with each site plan submission that is adjacent to or is part of the site plan. The location of these internal road systems will be located in substantial conformity with the internal road network identified on the Rutherford Crossing Zoning Exhibit prepared by Bury+Partners dated November 7, 2006 and attached as a proffered exhibit. 5.) Route 11 and Interstate 81 Northbound On -Ramp Improvements The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby agrees to construct a third southbound lane on U.S. Route 11 from the primary entrance to the Property to the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on -ramp. These improvements will include a 12' wide lane of approximately 600 linear feet in length to serve as a continuous right turn lane for the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on -ramp. Additionally, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, will construct turning radius improvements at the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on -ramp to ensure a smooth transition. The improvements shall be completed within one year following approval of the first site plan submitted within the B-2, Business General portion of the Property. 6.) Monetary Contributions for Route 11 Corridor The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby agrees to provide $250,000.00 to Frederick County within 18 months of final site plan approval for the first site plan submitted within the B-2, Business General portion of the Property to be utilized unconditionally for transportation studies or physical improvements within the Martinsburg Pike corridor. Additionally, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, agrees to allow Frederick County to utilize this monetary contribution as matching funds for federal or state transportation improvement grants that will apply to the Martinsburg Pike corridor. D.) Historic Resource 1.) Interpretative Signs The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby proffers to provide an interpretive area in the location of the old Rutherford's Farm House along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) as identified on the 3 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 j°•,I'�f� Revised November 29, 2006 Master Development Plan prepared by Bury+Partners. A public access easement will be provided for the interpretative sign viewing area , which shall be enhanced with picnic tables and landscaping. The public access easement will be prepared and the proposed improvements will be constructed in conjunction with the site plan that is approved adjacent to this area. Three interpretative plaques will be provided. They are as follows: ➢ The Second Battle of Winchester ➢ The Battle of Rutherford's Farm ➢ The Rutherford's Farm House The interpretative signs will contain language and pictures acceptable to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. The maintenance of the interpretative signs, picnic tables, landscaping and public parking for the interpretative sign viewing area shall be the responsibility of the Rutherford Crossing Association. 2.) Landscaping The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby agrees to provide a transitional landscape buffer that will be provided along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) as identified on the Master Development Plan prepared by Bury+Partners. This landscape easement will be 15' in width and will consist of a low earthen mound of 2-3' in height with plantings of ground covers, flowers, grasses, shrubs and trees in general conformity with the landscape buffer typical section provided on the Master Development Plan. The landscape buffer will be installed during the construction of the first structure within the B-2 District portion of the Property, and will be maintained by the Rutherford Crossing Association. 3.) Property Name The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), and the Record Owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98); C. Robert Solenberger (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), John S. Scully, IV (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), and John B. Schroth (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), hereby proffer the naming of the Property to: "Rutherford Crossing" 7 Greenway Engineering 0 April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 E.) Lighting 10 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby agrees that all building mounted lights and pole -mounted lights will be of a downcast nature, hooded and directed away from adjacent properties surrounding the proposed project. The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, will submit lighting plans as a separate attachment for review and approval by the Frederick County Planning Department prior to the installation of these lighting features. F.) Si na e 1.) The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), hereby proffers that all freestanding business signs located at the entrances to the Property along Martinsburg Pike shall be monument -style signs not to exceed 12' in height. 2.) Within the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) District located throughout the limits of the Property, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100), and the Record Owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98), C. Robert Solenberger, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), John S. Scully, IV (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), and John B. Schroth, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), hereby proffer to limit the total number of signs to three. G.) Recycling Proffer The Record Owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-98), C. Robert Solenberger, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), John S. Scully, IV (Tax Parcel #43- ((A))-99), and John B. Schroth, (Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99), hereby agree to implement recycling programs with each industrial user to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct material. The program for each industrial user will be reviewed and subject to approval by the Frederick County Recycling Coordinator prior to the issuance of a final occupancy permit for each industrial user. 8 Greenway Engineering 0 April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 200E NOT GOBX IL" !S Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: Rutherford Farm, LLC Date Tax Parcel #43-((A))-100 Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County ofTo Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this �'Lday of d�-m &AI' te'r- ������ /,L)i 'L �`t� ' Notary Public My Commission Expires 0t,-/_ i, Z 00 E� Greenway Engineering Signatures April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 • Rutherford Crossing Rezoning -CM 1 "' The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: Y Virginia Apple Storage, Inc. Date Tax Parcel 943-((A))-98 Commonwealth of Virginia, Gk-yXounty ofTo Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _Cd y of 2006 by 0. - i� j ke.Lf '3✓'-- 6-t Uii' Notary Public My Commission Expires 3 .3 L 6= F/ 10 Greenway Engineering • April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Si nag tures • Rutherford Crossing Rezoning The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By. C. Robert Solenberger Date Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99 Commonwealth of Virginia, City/Gcauff--�-of Y� . h 25� r , V A To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I s� day of & C Pvn6 e C 2006 by 3 e r`- sc)� e -Y) �p e r C\ CA — Notary Public My Commission Expires %0 - ���, Oq 0 t 0 11 Greenway Engineering • April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Revised November 29, 2006 Signatures • Rutherford Crossing Rezoning The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: J S. Scully, IV Date Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99 Commonwealth of Virginia, City/e5uffi;" of W i tit �) le s � t r To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 15nday of Dec. e Ym 2006 by - u'n ��'& ' Notary Public My Commission Expires ee q�. 8 D, a o1(� 12 Greenway Engineering • April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Reviser! November 29, 2006 Signatures • Rutherford Crossing Rezoning The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: LV By. .1L4 - - o co ohn B. Schroth Date Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99 Commonwealth of Virginia, City/G44r#Y of W1 V\C�1�c ) VA To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 15'day of Dee em bey- 2006 by T ©h v-� 3 ' S A Y0,0\ v 11 Notary Public My Commission Expires S'w)� • ed, a mo 13 AREA TABULATIONS ZONING AREA M-1 85.26 AC. B-2 28.66 AC. B-3 22.46 AC. i� N76'38'50"W TOTAL AREA = 136.38 AC . / /j // / 10 F 87.67' M-1 55.45 AC. TAX MAP Ef43AJ8 C6 VIRGINIFa APPLE STORAGE, INC. S75'36'08"E 58.19' S42' 18'30"W 1895.36' !! C3 N42'18'30"E i 1057.31' An' ism - -vv Io N4-sm / / / TAX MAP # 43 A 100 I 1957.08' S4'00„w C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, I S2 , _ �— JOHN B. `SCHROTH AND U) wo® 10� �2 JOHN S. SCULLY, IV � �' I �_ ' I I 22.66 AC. rn P L� 0� / -�------- // — OMAI = ISON C4 vow _ -� NS _ —POT - C EO-- � 0 ��� %236'S9' W \\ NjQs�. 3�2.560 E C5 �� ' I "I"AX iv1AP ;/ 43 A 99 I \R9 2 cD cn TAX AP 3 A 411 \G / / \S 6 • N35'45'51 "W ti � Pri, _ _ ROBER; S:�LENB RGER, C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, I 22.02�_ JOHN B. SCHROTH AND bi v? JOHN B. SCHROTH AND JOHN S. SCULLY, IV 6? m JOIN S. SCULLY, IV % N47'55'36' _ \ \o\\ B-2 � Ul C. 29.81 A�F Q \ -,COI'-, 28.66 AC. m \ /i �� 962s33•w \, l S38'01'07"W 2 991 I I N 963 47' I N29?„W 79.86 0 c 1' I �C 1 m • / /� it `--_— _ — — — � � � _ ���" — — .�L— CURVE TABLE V \� \ 5"E NUMBER DELTA RADIUS ARC LENGTH TANGENT CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING Cl 20°57'23" 2252,00' 823,69 416.50' 819.11, N 50°20'03" E C2 29018'43" 1321.72' 676,18 345,66' 668.83' S 15056'51" E C3 1028'32" 5629,58' 144,97 72,49' 144,97' S 00033'13" E C4 94°51'02" 380.00' 629,07 413.61' 559.66' S 11039'40" W C5 17°3623" 1000.00, 307,29 154.87' 306.08' N 50017'00" E C6 6015'12" 5629.58' 614,43 307,52' 614,12' S 04013'45" W C7 12053'54" 5629.58' 1267.32 636,35' 1264.65' S 18033'51" W N44'08'1811E i Now .21 1211 co 41 TAX MAP # 43 A 99 03 y C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, lc JOHN B. SCHROTH AND w�-N JOHN S. SCULI...Y. IV m S27'54'00"W S42'18'29"W 47.83' m.- m.5.1__� m N Q 40 O Z oe W W Z Z 2 �Y U- Q m a = CC Q W O Z W Z F- Z r-4 cc T I � eo o to o c b �r tto Cz 'y M U tico ,uo OO P�c c �bOi w cd rn 0 N0 U ' b �cd L)r- p o A C i M U E-- F M Z_ Z 0 Z W U Q Z cr Do co z Q O 20 Y Q U z cc O O O I N O N O N w w O m ~ II w Z > 6 p z z ni c: u rn 3 C) ai 0 0 o s o (n o 0 0 U O_ w N Ld cn 0 AREA TABULATIONS ZONING AREA M-1 79.03 AC. B-2 59.65 AC. TOTAL AREA = 138.68 AC z N30'35 XX' 2" �3 5 / (\ N47'55'.3 \ 270.92' \9� CURVE TABLE i S41'32'25"E 194.39' N44'08' 18" 36'0 / / / 121 7 6' 38' 50"W 7.67' ik TAX MAP # 43 A 98 VIRGINIA APPLE STORAGE INSTRUMENT 200411262 VDOT S IGHT-OF-WAY 42' 18'30"W RESERVATION 1895.36 N 42' 18' 30"E ' 1057.31' TAX MAP # 43 A 100 RUTHERFORD FARM, LLC INSTRUMENT 050006702 M-1 55.45 AC. TAX MAP # 43 A 99 coo C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, U' JOHN B. SCHROTH AND W JOHN S. SCULLY, IV i INSTRUMENT 040017164 m S42'18'29"W 1285.15' fz FEMA M-1 — o y PROPERTY Q3.58 AC. N42'18�38"� cn. LINE ___�'�957.58'- oo , N42 18'30-"-E -3 2.21 — -. - - rn fn B-2 �Pc - _ , 59.65 AC. _ oN _: p.A 4 1 �_ 'Pp7oMAG ED�S� CO N7I194'49;'E l / / z _ __j N42' 18'30 'E / NP I C. 381.71 TAX MAP # 43 A 99 w C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, 7A�\moo \ �I N JOHN B. SCHROTH AND o JOHN S. SCULLY, IV o INSTRUMENT 040017164 S38'01'07"W 6299 3 W I i 963 47' � I i' 52 "W 79.86' no N27'08'02"E I 69.59' S27'54'00"W 290.28' w, f�- 00 W 1 J ,C3 CAN 1 I I - ri NUMBER DELTA RADIUS ARC LENGTH TANGENT CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING Cl 1'28'32" 5629.58' 144.97 72.49' 144.97' S 00*33'13" E C2 29'18'43" 1321.72' 676.18 345.66' 668.83' S 15'56'51" E C3 20'57'23" 2252.00' 823.69 416.50' 819.11' N 50'20'03" E C4 6° 15' 12" 5629.58' 614.43 1 307.52' 614.12' 1 S 04' 13'45" W C5 12'53'54" 5629.58' 1267.32 636.35'1 1264.65' 1 S 18'33'51" W C6 43'58'47" 500.00' 383.80 201.9 1'1 374.44' 1 N 49'07'26" E S27'54'00"W 47.83' �L 0 C URR,.r,, 1T 400 200 0 400 800 1200 GRAPHICAL SCALE: 1 " = 400' o C=) 0 CD CD`do�a .5 A bZ d 8 b � c0 CDCO UMUE- W Z cr) O II _ Z 0 cr- � Q z 0 O LL c W F_ LU z Z O W 0 O (L � �� a W O z W LL W O O O N O N O N m II � W > - > n o O U T Z ui rn 3 CCi O N O N o (n 0 0 0 U d w N W = N (n W O G:\20225—NVRetail\01—Winchester\Exh\PROFIOSED ZONING EXHIBIT.dwg Nov 30, 2006 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 0 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning RUTHERFORD CROSSING PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ# B-3, Industrial Transition District (22.45± acres) and M-1, Light Industrial District (8.55± acres) to B-2, Business General District (31.0± acres) PROPERTY: 138.68± acres; Tax Parcels 43-((A))-98, 43-((A))-99, 43-((A))-100, (here -in after the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Rutherford Farm, LLC; Virginia Apple Storage, Inc.; C. Robert Solenberger; John S. Scully, IV; John B. Schroth APPLICANT: Rutherford Farm, LLC (Owner of 22.45± acres, being a portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-99 and Contract Purchaser for 8.55± acres, being a portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-100 (here -in after the "Applicant") PROJECT NAME: Rutherford Crossing ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE: Preliminary Matters April 5, 2004 November 7, 2006 Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # for the rezoning of a 22.45±-acre portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-99 and a 8.55±-acre portion of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-100, and to reconfigure the M-1, Light Industrial District, and B-2, Business General District zoning boundaries for the remainder of the acreage to establish the following: Zoning Districts ➢ 79.03±-acres of M-1, Light Industrial District ➢ 59.65±-acres of B-2, Business General District Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Overlay District ➢ 138.68± acres of IA, Interstate Area Overlay District Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject Property more particularly described as the lands owned by Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., being all of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-98; C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth being all of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-99; and Rutherford Farm, LLC, being all of Tax Parcel 43-((A))-100; and further described by Rezoning Plat Exhibit prepared by Bury+Partners, dated November 2006 (see attached Rezoning Exhibit Plat). PROFFER STATEMENT A.) Maximum Building Structure Square Feet The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC and the record owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc; C. Robert Solenberger: John S. Scully, IV: and John B. Schroth, hereby proffer to limit the total building structures to 1,400,000 square feet for the entire Property. B.) Prohibited Land Uses WTY � .r �l iv The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC and the Record Owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc; C. Robert Solenberger: John S. Scully, IV: and John B. Schroth, hereby proffer that the following land uses shall not be permitted on the Property: Description SIC Truck Stop 5541 (Excluding Truck Stops, all other uses within SIC Code 5541 are hereby acceptable and included) 2 Oreenway Engineering • April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 C.) Transportation Enhancements The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby agrees to the following transportation enhancements: 1.) Traffic Signalization a.) A traffic signal will be installed by the Applicant when warranted by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) and the proposed primary entrance to the Property in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The Applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit within the B-2, Business General District acreage on the Property. b.) A traffic signal will be installed by the Applicant when warranted by VDOT at the southbound ramps of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 interchange and Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The Applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit within the B-2, Business General District acreage on the Property. c.) A traffic signal will be installed by the Applicant when warranted by VDOT at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike with the northbound on -ramp of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 interchange and Redbud Road (Route 661) in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. This traffic signal shall be designed to accommodate the relocation of the Interstate 81 northbound off - ramp at a cross intersection with the existing Interstate 81 northbound on - ramp. The Applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit within the B-2, Business General District acreage on the Property. d.) Prior to the installation of the traffic signals provided for in this section, the Applicant hereby agrees to prepare a signalization timing analysis for all existing and proposed traffic signals located along Martinsburg Pike between the proposed primary entrance to the Property and Crown Lane. The Applicant will provide this analysis to VDOT and will incur the cost required to reconfigure the signalization timing for each traffic signal identified in the section if warranted by VDOT. 3 Greenway Engineering • April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 2.) Site Access Improvements 0 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby agrees to limit the total number of entrances for site access along Martinsburg Pike to one full entrance and two right-in/right-out entrances. The spacing between the centerline of all proposed entrances along Martinsburg Pike shall be a minimum of 500 feet. Additionally, the Applicant agrees to fully fund and construct travel lane and turn lane improvements along northbound and southbound Martinsburg Pike in substantial conformity to the transportation improvement exhibit identified on the Master Development Plan prepared by Bury+Partners dated October 24, 2006 no later than December 31, 2007. 3.) Right of Way Reservation a.) The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC hereby agrees to reserve right of way without financial compensation for the benefit of the Commonwealth of Virginia along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) to implement the Rutherford's Farm Route 11 Public Improvements Plan approved by VDOT on February 17, 2004. This right of way reservation plat shall be prepared by the Applicant and provided to VDOT for signature within 90 days of VDOT permit approval for this improvement. b.) The record owner, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., hereby agrees to reserve right of way without financial compensation for the benefit of the Commonwealth of Virginia along Interstate 81 as shown on Interstate 81 Improvement Study VDOT Project No. 0081-968-Fll, PE-100 MP 305 to West Virginia State Line Frederick County, dated November 1998 (specifically noted on Sheet 24 of said study). The right of way reservation plat shall be prepared by the record owner, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., and provided to VDOT for signature within 90 days of written request by VDOT for said right of way reservation. c.) The record owners, C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV and John B. Schroth hereby agree that for a period of five (5) years from the date of the approval of the rezoning, that they will not build upon the tract of land containing 14 acres, more or less, and proposed to be used as part of the construction of the Route 37 bypass in Frederick County; however, any taking of the property will be compensated at fair market value. 4 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 10 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 4.) Comprehensive Plan Road Construction�'.� The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby agrees to coordinate, dedicate, and construct the portion of the major collector road between the primary entrance to the property and the cul-de-sac adjacent to Tax Map Parcel 43-((A))-111 that will be located in substantial conformity with the internal road network identified on the Rutherford Crossing Zoning Exhibit prepared by Bury+Partners dated November 2006 and attached as a proffered exhibit. The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, agrees that it will use reasonable commercial effort and diligently pursue the construction to base pavement and made available for public access no later than December 31, 2007. The remaining portion of the major collector road system which intersects the major collector road system described in the above paragraph and proceeds in a west to northwest direction through the Property, as well as the internal street located to the south of the major collector road described in the above paragraph will be incorporated in and constructed with each site plan submission that is adjacent to or is part of the site plan. The location of these internal road systems will be located in substantial conformity with the internal road network identified on the Rutherford Crossing Zoning Exhibit prepared by Bury+Partners dated November 2006 and attached as a proffered exhibit. 5.) Route 11 and Interstate 81 Northbound On -Ramp Improvements The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby agrees to construct a third southbound lane on U.S. Route 11 from the primary entrance to the Property to the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on -ramp. These improvements will include a 12' wide lane of approximately 600 linear feet in length to serve as a continuous right turn lane for the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on -ramp. Additionally, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, will construct turning radius improvements at the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on -ramp to ensure a smooth transition. The improvements shall be completed within one year following approval of the first site plan submitted within the B-2, Business General portion of the Property. 6.) Monetary Contributions for Route 11 Corridor The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby agrees to provide $250,000.00 to Frederick County within 18 months of final site plan approval for the first site plan submitted within the B-2, Business General portion of the Property to be utilized unconditionally for transportation studies or physical improvements within the Martinsburg Pike corridor. Additionally, the Applicant, Rutherford farm, LLC, agrees to allow Frederick County to utilize this monetary contribution as matching funds for federal or state transportation improvement grants that will apply to the Martinsburg Pike corridor. 5 Greenway Engineering • April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 D.) Historic Resource 1.) Interpretative Signs • Rutherford Crossing Rezoning The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby proffers to provide an interpretive area in the location of the old Rutherford's Farm House along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) as identified on the Master Development Plan prepared by Bury+Partners. A public access easement will be provided for the interpretative sign viewing area , which shall be enhanced with picnic tables and landscaping. The public access easement will be prepared and the proposed improvements will be constructed in conjunction with the site plan that is approved adjacent to this area. Three interpretative plaques will be provided. They are as follows: ➢ The Second Battle of Winchester ➢ The Battle of Rutherford's Farm ➢ The Rutherford's Farm House The interpretative signs will contain language and pictures acceptable to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. The maintenance of the interpretative signs, picnic tables, landscaping and public parking for the interpretative sign viewing area shall be the responsibility of the Rutherford Crossing Association. 2.) Landscaping The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby agrees to provide a transitional landscape buffer will be provided along Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) as identified on the Master Development Plan prepared by Bury+Partners. This landscape easement will be 15' in width and will consist of a low earthen mound of 2-3' in height with plantings of ground covers, flowers, grasses, shrubs and trees in general conformity with the landscape buffer typical section provided on the Master Development Plan. The landscape buffer will be installed during the construction of the first structure within the B-2 District portion of the Property, and will be maintained by the Rutherford Crossing Association. 3.) Property Name The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby proffer the naming of their property to: "Rutherford Crossing" 0 Grecnway Engineering • April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 E.) Lighting • Rutherford Crossing Rezoning The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby agrees that all building mounted lights and pole -mounted lights will be of a downcast nature, hooded and directed away from adjacent properties surrounding the proposed project. The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, will submit lighting plans as a separate attachment for review and approval by the Frederick County Planning Department prior to the installation of these lighting features. F.) Si na e 1.) The Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, hereby proffers that all freestanding business signs located at the entrances to the Property along Martinsburg Pike shall be monument -style signs not to exceed 12' in height. 2.) Within the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) District located throughout the limits of the Property, the Applicant, Rutherford Farm, LLC, and the record owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV and John B. Schroth, hereby proffer to limit the total number of signs to three. G.) Recycling Proffer The record owners, Virginia Apple Storage, Inc., C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV and John B. Schroth, hereby agree to implement recycling programs with each industrial user to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct material. The program for each industrial user will be reviewed and will be subject to approval by the Frederick County Recycling Coordinator prior to the issuance of a final occupancy permit for each industrial user. 7 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 NOT Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: Rutherfor arm, LLC Date Commonwealth of Virginia, CA County f Ff-ea if C'l- To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this alb day of NpVe-m LY-K 2006 by _ Vy 1 l GcyVt �QUetr', r-e-50& i- Notary Public My Commission Expires Flo ryo-L-t 1 ZQ, 2-W8 8 Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 • Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 ttLL 11 ~ Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. hi the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: Virginia Apple torage, Inc. Date Commonwealth of Virginia, Cit County f r(r )er l c k To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of Nc)P 2006 by c i PSSrcct ri.�✓t11 �Notar�yublic My Commission Expires Greenway Engineering April 5, 2004 • Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: C. Robert Solenberger Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/ ount of Ef(C�eCt(A' To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this q day of r 2006 by SS1cell_ Notary P blic My Commission Expires'Jens r L H • Greenway Engineering 0 Signatures April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning 390TCtTR ti ,N3, The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: � �l S /&I John . Scully, IV Date Commonwealth of Virginia, Cit} Count of rv-edcyic(- To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this U 11 day of N6ye m k ✓ 2006 by Jo lnvl S • SCO l ly )-ErL Notary Public My Commission Expires f-f onXa j14 Zvi, 2-008 Greenway Engineering 0 Signatures April 5, 2004 Revised September 5, 2006 Revised October 26, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 • Rutherlbrd Crossing Rezoning The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: J n B. Schroth Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/(Zit f Fy-edet-r"c,( To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of fJove.rnloe,V 2006 by J 6 ho U • SGhCb+k Notary Public My Commission Expires (-Pjoruai-L(21i, 2608 12 AREA TABULATIONS ZONING AREA H M-1 85.26 AC. B-2 28.66 AC. B 3 22.46 AC. [—t P "p, 7ei6i ( TOTAL AREA = 136.38 AC. © �° / �%C6 S758 6'908"E S 2'Ig'j6'W 3 N42' 18 30"E 0 o N S41'32'25"E c v m 194.39' c 114406�'18"Eo 1211.21' z ef: r+ a mo a M_1 I + W nn o 55A5 AC. m > z = o TAJ; MAF r# 43 A 99 m a h = p a C. ROBERT nOLENBERGER, m tl o m ^ JOHN B. SCHROTH AND m i'. _ JnHN S. SCULL". IV M W 52 S4T1g•29-'W 47.83'\ ^� 47.83' 10 7.31, 60' R-O-W —='r / / TAX MAP jl 43 P. 100 C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHr1 6. SCHROTH AND N / 2/ B-3 JOHN S. SCULLY, IV _ L 22.88 AC. �0� . PpTOMAC EQ1S�N / l\ C4 N59 33���//'' N'236,59' W \ \ p,4'SB� .J's J,. f, / N35'45'S11 3j256o �, CS _ �' -� I TAX MAP 43 A 99 C. Ri�E EF.T SOLENBERGER. 9 22.�'— �� B-2 28.88 AC. W �\ 79.86- o Cl m I 11— CURVE TABLE MWF DELTA RADIUS ARC LENGTH TANGENT CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING Cl 20'57'23' 2252.00' 823.69 416.50' 819,11, N 50'20'03' E C2 29'18'43' 1321.72' 676.18 345.66' 668.83' S 15'56'51' E C3 1'28'32' 5629.58' 144.97 72.49' 144.97' S 00'33'13' E C4 94'51'02' 380.00' 629.07 413,61' 559.66' S 11'39'40' W C5 17'36'23' 1 1000.00' 1 307.29 154.87' 306.08'1 N 50'17'00' E C6 6'15'12' 5629.58' 614.43 307.52' 614.12' S 04.13'45' W C7 12'53'54- 5629,58' 1267.32 636.35' 1264.65' S 18'33'51- W JOHN B. SCHROTH AND JOHN S. SC'ULL1', 11 M-1 29.81 AC. S38'01 961 0 52T 54'00'W 4�%� TAX MA.F M 43 A 111 I 11 R.OBERT SOLENBER.GER. I JOHN B. SCHROTH AND JOHN S. SCULLY. IV c U Q LQia: Z o¢ (L= O N ¢� aiz �QW 0�C7 Z LL Z fo CC i/) w=z P U H Z 2 W o¢ N � O �1 Ifs o o N wawa o _— �- m 1- fY `L N II Li w > .. a Z C \ '- O o n a s 0 2 n o a U a` 1 w N LiJ O AREA TABULATIONS ZONING AREA M-1 79.03 AC. B-2 59.65 AC. d F TOTAL AREA = 138.68 AC O S41'32'25"E 194.39' Q o m m c � 0 + W g1 'I ?� N76'38'50 W 87.67' / A A6 m y M-1 TAX MAP 8 43 A 98 VIRGINIA APPLE STORAGE m > 55A5 AC. INSTRUMENT 200411262 O q o ca L U ea u m VDOT T-OF-WAY _ERVATION S42' 18'30"W ri 1895.36' 28' 15'15' W / 12B5. Z t= W FEMA I M-1=_�-�-- • N42'18'30'E o PROPERTY 23.58 AC. = N43,1a.3o"� N30'3fAI /" 1057.31' TAX MAP p 43 A 100 36.5 RUTHERFORD FARM, LLC LINE IN42 18' 0-E' ' i95�.58'� o w 290.28'00"W INSTRUMENT 050006702 2 _ _ _ _ _ _ - U 290.28' B-2 {—G j4' C6 d —`49 P / 315� 270.92' 'Z/ NUMBER C1 DELTA 1'28'32" RADIUS 5629.58' ARC LENGTH 144.97 C2 29'18'43" 1321.72' 676.18 C3 20'57'23" 2252.00' 823.69 C4 6' 15' 12" 5629.58' 614.43 C5 12'53'54' 5629.58' 1267.32 C6 43'S8'47" 500.00' 383.80 0 CURVE TABLE n20225—NVRetai1001—WinchesterOExh❑ ROPOSED ZI 59.66 AC. _ p N7 e TOMAC —EISO I194.aiFE N27'08'0Z"E PO � 69.59 N42'18'30"E u. I 381.71 O TAX MAP N 43 A 99 "Co C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHN B. SCHROTH AND `p a JOHN S. SCULLY. IV u o INSTRUMENT 040017164 \ 1 m S38'01'07'W 963 4T �s• I u, —C 3 m P �I 0 w ��-a-�, m � l I 1 :NT CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING 2 49' 144 97' S 00'33' 13" E 527'54'00'W 47.83' (� Z U ~ Z 0 ZO i U X Lu y c W U O z fn U.Z O x �o w O w CC 0- p U. y 5.66' 668.83' S 15'56'51" E 400 200 0 400 800 1200 6.50' 819.11' N 50'20'03" E 7.52' 614.12' S 04'13'45" W GRAPHICAL SCALE: 1" = 400' �6.35' 1264.65' S 18'33'51" W I1.91' 374.44' N 49'07'26" E EXHIBIT.dwg Nov 09, 2006 NOT AREA TABULATIONS ZONING AREA M-1 85.26 AC. B-2 28.66 AC. B-3 22.46 AC. TOTAL AREA = 136.38 AC i S41'32'25"E 194.39' N44'08' 18 "E '211.21' N76'38'50"W 87.67' M4 N co 55.45 AC. -� TAX MAP f 43 4 99 � y / C. ROB t T SOLENBP_RGER, XC6 JOHN B. SCHROTt l ANC. w w / S75'36'08"E JOHN S. SCULLY, IV / 58.19' S42'18'30"W S27'54'00"W —ate_ mm� C1895.36' _ S42'18'29"W 47.83' 3 N 80.E- 1285�� 1057.3 60`R-0-4218n0�E 19F-7 _ / / �/ /�/X2 B-3 22.66 AC. TAX MAP is 43 A. 100 C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHN B. SCHROTH AND cn JOHN S. SCULLY, !V E m N / C4 '0000 iVg9, / N 36'12'W \\ ���A. ' 3j0430" - N35'45'51 "W �� ■ 22.02, N47'55'36" B-2 28.66 AC. S6�2g33 \�Q \ \ 62' 99 W I N29W 79.86'cl �� II CURVE TABLE � I C. -� --� � W w J I POTOMA� ED SON=O , TAX MAP -1 43 A 99 ROBER" SOLENBER11 c`�n JOHN B. SCHROTH AN JOHN SCUL!�', iV rn NUMBER DELTA RADIUS ARC LENGTH TANGENT CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING Cl 20°57'23" 2252,00' 823.69 416.50' 819.11' N 50°20'03" E C2 29°18'43" 1321,72' 676,18 345.66' 668.83' S 15°56'51" E C3 1°28'32" 5629,58' 144.97 72.49' 144,97' S 00033'13" E C4 94°51'02" 380.00' 629.07 413.61' 559.66' S 11039'40" W C5 17°36'23" 1000,00, 307,29 154,87' 306.08' N 50°17'00" E C6 6°15'12" 5629,58' 614.43 307,52' 614.12' S 04013'45" W C7 12°53'54" 5629.58' 1267.32 636.35' 1264,65' S 18033'51" W M-1 29.81 AC. 1'07 57747 10�''i�" DB9% PG. - i TAX MA. u. 43 A 111 s {;, ROB ^RT SOLENBERGER, JOHN SCHROTH HF� ; AND U U' JOHN S. SCULLY, IV Ci o � o t o m� o N \ U rJ3 Co @O CM A a u rn w cu a o �co c� �.,.oa C� CID U E-H GLI � � Y � � Z U � z � Q m a = Z o -J Q cr. W N co) z O C'3 Z o cc WIZ F" �cYi a H0 Z N %< W w z w or O o O O O d N m D_ 0 Y ui N N O N w > O � .Q -0 o o z ai O (n 0 0 rn N 0 3 O 0 u L 0 O d w N Ld = r U) LL- O AREA TABULATIONS ZONING AREA M-1 79.03 AC. B-2 59.65 AC. TOTAL AREA = i S41'32'25"E 194.39' N44'08' 18" 36'0/ / 121�' / 138.68 AC / / / ' z- zz-- Oo N30-35 1'2" 6.5 ' / N47'55'3�b�(J \ 270.92' \9� 7 [fill LIMAara 00111 gyp' / N76'38'50"W / �6I 87.67' M-1 S42'18'30"W 55.45 AC. VDOT 1895.36' ,HT -OF -WAY \ ESERVATION N 42' 18' 30"E' 1057.31' TAX MAP # 43 A 100 RUTHERFORD FARM, LLC INSTRUMENT 050006702 1 TAX MAP # 43 A 98 VIRGINIA APPLE STORAGE INSTRUMENT 200411262 — — — — ------_._ -- — —_i of - PROPERTY R3. 81AC. N42'18=38"C cn. LINE 0� ' o ' i957.58'— N42 18' o W . 22 ---0) — °' cn S42' 18'29"W 1285.15' S27'54'00"W 290.28' B-2 G.ZE 49 �p74 C 6 59.65 AC. —' ° B '� rpOtOM?C EpIS5N �0 N71'06'49"E - I194.41' N27'08'02"E 69.59' _ l _ N42' 18'301, , a ? I 381.71 J TAX MAP # 43 A 99 A C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, �s`�\Ao/y\ oODil N JOHN B. SCHROTH AND o JOHN S. SCULLY, IV o INSTRUMENT 040017164 67. S38'01'07"W 96 [T 99 963 47' Ln r�-- �C 3 w N 1 J _ J C if i' 52 "W m1 VA % _ - - — — '---�. 79.86' NUMBER DELTA RADIUS ARC LENGTH TANGENT CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING C i 1'28'32" 5629.58' 144.97 72.49' 144.97' S 00*33'13" E C2 29' 18'43" 1321.72' 676.18 345.66' 668.83' S 15'56'51 " E C3 20'57'23" 2252.00' 823.69 416.50' 819.11' N 50'20'03" E C4 6' 15' 12" 5629.58' 614.43 307.52' 614.12' S 04' 13'45" W C5 12'53'54" 5629.58' 1267.32 636.35' 1264.65' S 18-33'51" W C6 43'58'47" 500.00' 383.80 201.91' 374.44' 1 N 49'07'26" E S27'54'00"W 47.83' 400 200 0 400 800 1200 GRAPHICAL SCALE: 1 " = 400' r cu o o C/Do co4 "al�ho O CQ CQ �� �J co cn UMUE-- = z cl)z O m = ON S2 �a: g Z U 0 cc O u- cc Lu = X W 0 z Z O N W O 0 cc a.O Q Nz �� a LLI z .� ¢ Q Co 0 O O N O N O N d- Lj a_ a a_ O II � w > 6 O v T N U 0 0 � o o cn 0 0 0 C) a w N = N U) LL. O G:❑20225-NVRetail❑01 -Winchester❑Exh❑ dwa Nov 09 Page 1 of 1 Eric Lawrence From: Alexander, Scott [Scott.Alexander@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:52 AM To: Michael C. Glickman Cc: Bishop, John A.; Copp, Jerry; Funkhouser, Rhonda; Ingram, Lloyd; Eric Lawrence Subject: Rutherford Signalization Study like: 'his is confirm our discussion regarding the Rutherford Farm signalization timing analysis. We appreciate your client's consideration f including the FEMA entrance and Park Center Drive intersections in the study in order to provide a more complete picture of the orridor. Because this work does go above -and -beyond the original scope, we would certainly be willing help by assuming the asponsibility of applying the suggested/agreed-upon signal timing changes. 3ecause the proffers refer to your client bearing the cost of the timing changes "if warranted by VDOT", I believe we are well within )oth the letter and spirit of the statement. appreciate you and your client working on this with us so that we maximize the efficiency of the corridor. If you have any comments >r questions, please don't hesitate to give me a call. Scott Scott Alexander Assistant Residency Administrator %DOT - Edinburg Residency 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg; VA 22824 Phone: 540-984-5605 Fax: 540-984-560 I • s July 19, 2001 Mark Smith, P.E., L.S., President Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Rutherford's Farm Rezoning Proposal Dear Mr. Smith: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the referenced proposal during their meeting of July 17, 2001. This proposal involves the rezoning of approximately 144 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General), B3 (Industrial Transition), and Ml (Light Industrial) Zoning Districts. The subject properties are partially located within the limits of the Second. Winchester studyarea, and, are also within the Battle of Rutherford's Farm study area. Therefore, the HRAB has expressed concern for the loss. of historic battlefields and the aesthetic qualities of the rural community in which these parcels are located. In response to the HRAB's concerns, you presented a number of proffered condition concepts and indicated your willingness to incorporate- the conditions with the formal rezoning application submittal. Specifically, you offered the following concepts: To establish a pull -off location for historical interpretation of the Second Battle of Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and the Rutherford Farm. The interpretation area would contain historical markers and be maintained by the Industrial Park Association. It was also stated that the marker design and textual content would be returned to the BRAB for review and approval. Maintain the visual rural community elements existing along Martinsburg Pike by providing linear landscaping. This landscaping along Martinsburg Pike would include combinations of three-foot high evergreen hedges and berms, and mass clustering of tree and shrub plantings. The landscaping is intended to retain the natural feel of the rural community and utilize native vegetation including red buds, oaks, and cedars: A combination of hedges; berms, and tree clusters would.be implemented to lessen the visual. impact of the proposed development. Me _•1 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • • Page 2 Mark Smith, P.E., L.S., President, Greenway Engineering Re: Rutherford's Farm July 19, 2001 • Establish a link to the property's history by naming the development after the Rutherford's Farm. The HRAB f6h the rezoning proposal would be more palatable for the historic preservation community, if the above identified concepts were included in the rezoning application's proffer statement. Please contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the Frederick County Historic Resources Asdvisory Board. Eric/R. Lawrence, AICP Deputy Director ERL/kac cc: Dr. Richard R. Duncan, 6101 Edsall Road, Apt 1802, Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Mr. StephenL. Pettler, Jr., Harrison & Johnston, 21 So. Loudoun St., Winchester, VA 22601 Mr. R. J. Turner, Adams -Nelson & Assoc., 303 So. Loudoun St., Winchester, VA 22601 U.Txic\Common\IRUB\Rutherford Farm IHZAB.Recommcndation.wpd 0 46 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS & MITCHELL ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) 7 s 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG. VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA O. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-I050 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAx 540-662-4304 NAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL lawyers®hallmonahan.com STEVEN F. JACKSON DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. January 23, 2007 HAND -DELIVERED Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 J A N 2 3 2007 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. 0. Box 648 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 Re: Rutherford Crossing Amended and Restated Proffer Statement (Revised January 17, 2007) Dear Susan: This is in response to your fax memo received today. I have reviewed the January 17, 2007 revised proffer statement with respect to the comments in my letter dated January 16, 2007, in which I reviewed the December 21, 2006 proffer statement. I find that the changes which were recommended in paragraphs, 1, 6, 7, and the last sentence of paragraph 9 of my January 16 letter have been made. The general comments in my January 16 letter pointing out areas for staff review (see paragraphs 2, 4, and 5) would still apply. Please let me know if there are any questions concerning the foregoing. It 0 0 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy, AICP January 23, 2007 Page 2 With kind regards, I am RTM/lfw Very truly yours, Robert T. Mitchell, Jr. . 0 0 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) 7 5 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA O. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE S40-662-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAX S40-662-4304 NAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.com STEVEN F. JACKSON January 16, 2007 DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. HAND -DELIVERED Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 JAN 1 6 2001 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. 0. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0846 Re: Rutherford Crossing Amended and Restated Proffer Statement (Revised December 21, 2006) Dear Susan: I have reviewed the above -referenced Amended and Restated Proffer Statement, revised as of December 21, 2006. The previous revision of this Proffer Statement, revised as of November 29, 2006, was reviewed by me in my letter to you of December 4, 2006. in this letter I am referencing the paragraph numbers in my December 4 letter, with references as to whether or not the respective comment in my December 4 letter still applies or has been addressed. 1. The comments in Paragraph 1, subparagraphs a, b, and c of my December 4 letter have been addressed, except that Zoning Exhibit "A" (Existing Zoning) needs to be labeled on the plat as "A". HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy, AICP January 16, 2007 Page 2 2. With respect to my continent in Paragraph 2.a. of my December 4 letter, and the staff should carefiilly review the 2004 proffer to be sure that these current proffers have included all provisions from the 2004 proffers which the County wishes to have included. The first four sentences of Paragraph 2.b. of nhy December 4 letter have been addressed, to the extent that this Proffer Statement is replacing the 2004 Proffer Statement, and that this Proffer Statement will not apply to Parcel 111. The remainder of nhy Paragraph 2.b. still applies as to the length of the third southbound lane to be constructed. 3. Paragraph 3 of my December 4 letter has been addressed. 4. The comment in Paragraph 4 of my December 4 letter still applies. 5. The comment in Paragraph 5 of my December 4 letter still applies. 6. The continents in Paragraph 6 of my December 4 letter have been addressed. However, in Proffers 3.(a) and (b), in the last sentence, after the words "shall prepare", the following words should be added: "and execute a deed of dedication and". 7. The continents in Paragraph 7 of my December 4 letter have been addressed. However, I would reconunend the following revisions to Paragraph 3.(c) of the Proffer Statement: (1) In the first sentence, after the words "benefit of Frederick County", the following words should be added, set off by commas: "within ninety (90) days of request by the County,"; and (2) In the last sentence, after the word "released", add the following words: "in writing by the County." 8. Paragraph 8 of my December 4 letter still applies. 9. With respect to the first sentence of Paragraph 9 of my December 4 letter, see my comments with respect to Paragraph 2 (b), above, regarding the third southbound lane. The second sentence of Paragraph 9 of my December 4 letter has been addressed. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN be MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy, AICP January 16, 2007 Page 2 10. The continents in Paragraph 10 of my December 4 letter have been addressed. 11. The comments in Paragraph 11 of my December 4 letter have been addressed. 12. The continents in Paragraph 12 of my December 4 letter have been addressed. As noted in previous reviews of the proffers in this rezoning, I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Plamling Commission. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing continents, please contact me. y yours, Robert T. Mitchell Ir. RTM/ks CC: Benjamin M. Butler, Esquire HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) 7 s 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 0. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAx 540-662-4304 JAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.com STEVEN F. JACKSON December 4, 2006 DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. HAND -DELIVERED Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 DEC 4 2006 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. 0. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0648 Re: Rutherford Crossing Amended and Restated Proffer Statement Dear Susan: I have reviewed the above -referenced Amended and Restated Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. As a general matter, I would recommend that the following changes in labeling be made and implemented throughout the Proffer Statement: a. The previous Proffer Statement, dated April 5, 2004, should be referenced by the label "2004 Proffer Statement". b. There are two exhibits attached to the Proffer Statement. One is an exhibit showing "Existing Zoning", and one is an exhibit showing "Proposed 0 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy December 4, 2006 Page 2 Zoning". The Proposed Zoning exhibit appears to have roads shown on it which are referenced in the Proffer Statement. Present references in the Proffer Statement are to a "Rezoning Plat Exhibit", without identifying which is the exhibit to which reference is being made. I would reconunend that the Existing Zoning plat be identified as "Exhibit A", and that the Proposed Zoning plat be identified as "Exhibit B". References in the Proffer Statement would then be to Exhibit A or Exhibit B to make clear which plat is being referenced. c. The Proffer Statement makes reference in various places to "Master Development Plan prepared by Bury+Partners". The date of that Master Development Plan should be included in each reference to the Master Development Plan, so that the precise Master Development Plan can be identified in the future, as the Master Development Plan is not an attachment to the Proffer Statement. 2. This Amended and Restated Proffer Statement proposes to terminate and replace the 2004 Proffer Statement. In this regard the following should be noted. a. The third WHEREAS paragraph is not precisely correct. While this Proffer Statement substantially covers, and in some instances expands, the 2004 Proffer Statement, the wording of this Proffer Statement in some places is different from the wording of the parallel proffer in the 2004 Proffer Statement. b. The 2004 Proffer Statement covered the properties included in this Proffer Statement, and also Tax Parcel No. 43-(A)-I I I ("Parcel I I V). The owner of Parcel I I I is not a party to this Proffer Statement. The question is then presented as to whether this Proffer Statement also replaces the Proffer Statement on Parcel 111, in which event Parcel I I I would be obligated for none of the proffers, or whether the 2004 Proffer Statement continues to apply to Parcel 111. The staff should review this matter to deterinine whether there is any need to continue to have any proffers apply to Parcel 111. In this regard, I would draw the staff s attention to Proffer C(5)(Route 11 and Interstate 81 Northbound On -Ramp Improvements) and the parallel proffer C (5) of the 2004 Proffer Statement. The 2004 Proffer Statement provides for a third southbound lane on U.S. Route 11 from the northernmost HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy December 4, 2006 Page 3 entrance to the "applicant's property". That would appear to require a third southbound lane from the Route 11 entrance to Parcel 111. The current proffer provides for the construction of a third southbound lane from the "primary entrance to the Property". It would appear that the primary entrance to "the Property", which does not include Parcel 111, would be substantially closer to the northbound 1 81 ramp. In any event, the status of the 2004 Proffer Statement as to Parcel 111 needs to be discussed and addressed. 3. The "NOW THEREFORE clause, following the third WHEREAS paragraph, should be deleted. 4. Section C of the Proffer Statement addresses Transportation Enhancements. My legal review of this section of the Proffer Statement does not address the details or the appropriateness of the proffers set forth therein, and it is my assumption that the County's staff and engineers will review the substances of these transportation proffers. 5. In Section C (1)(Traffic Signalization) it is proffered that the signalization agreements provided for in subsections (a), (b), and (c) will be entered into prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit within the B-2 acreage on the Property. This would seem to presume that the B-2 property will be developed prior to development of the M-1 portion of the Property. The staff should review this aspect of the proffers to determine if the timing is satisfactory, and should also review the proffer in subsection (d) of Section C (1) to determine if the time by which the signalization timing analysis would be done is sufficiently clear. 6. The proffers set forth in subparagraph (a) and (b) of Section C (3)(Right of Way Reservation) provide for reservation (but not dedication) of right of way along U. S. Route 11 and Interstate 81. These appear to be the same rights of way referenced in Section C (3) of the 2004 Proffer Statement. However, in the 2004 Proffer Statement the rights of way were to be dedicated, not just reserved. Since the current Proposed Proffer Statement would replace the previous Proffer Statement, the Applicant and Record Owners would appear to be trying to eliminate the dedication HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy December 4, 2006 Page 4 of the rights of way which they are currently obligated to do under the 2004 Proffer Statement. I would reconunend that the County not permit the amendment of the 2004 Proffer Statement in this regard. 7. In subparagraph (c) of Section C (3), the Record Owners of Parcel 99 agree to not build upon a certain tract of land. The 14-acre tract of land referred to is not located on the Proposed Zoning exhibit. I would reconunend that the area referenced be located on the exhibit (which I have recommended be labeled as Exhibit B). Further, I would reconunend that the initial clause of this subparagraph be reworded as follows: "The Record Owners of Tax Parcel #43-((A))-99, C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and Jolu1 B. Schroth, ..." 8. As to Section C (4) (Comprehensive Plan Road Constriction), the staff should determine whether it is comfortable with the tinning conunitment for the construction of the Collector Road. 9. In Section C (5) (Route 11 and Interstate 81 North On-Ran1p Improvements) see my continents in Paragraph 2(b) above, regarding the commitment for the construction of a third southbound lane in this proffer as compared to the previously approved 2004 Proffer Statement. .Also, I would reconunend adding the following language to end of this proffer: "... and, in any event, prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit on the Property." 10. It should be noted that Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section D provide that the maintenance of the interpretive signs and landscaping will be the responsibility of "Rutherford Crossing Association." There does not appear to be any other reference in the Proffer Statement regarding Rutherford Crossing Association, and Rutherford Crossing Association is not an applicant who is bound by these proffers. Therefore, there would not appear to be any basis on which the County could enforce the maintenance provisions in these two proffers. 11 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy December 4, 2006 Page 5 11. With respect to Section D (3) (Property Name), see my comments in Paragraph 2 (b) above, regarding the status of Parcel I I I upon adoption of this Proffer Statement. While it may not be a significant issue, it should be noted that if the 2004 Proffer Statement is to continue to apply to Parcel 111, pursuant to Section D (3) of the 2004 Proffer Statement, the name which would apply to Parcel I I I is "Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park", and the name "Rutherford Crossing" would apply to the Property included in the proposed Proffer Statement. 12. In the last paragraph, titled "Signatures", the words "applicant and owner" at the end of the first sentence should be restated as "Applicant and Record Owners". As previously noted I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing continents, please contact me. ly yours, Robert T. Mitchell, NJr. RTM/ks CC: Benjamin M. Butter, Esquire • I � � � r,,] W lip, V COUNTY ' of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 October 20, 2006 Mr. Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Rutherford Crossing Dear Evan: I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Rutherford Crossing Development. The application seeks to rezone 22.45 acres from the 133 (Industrial Transition) District to the B2 (Business General) District and 8.55 acres from the M1 (Light Industrial) District to the B2 (Business General) District. Overall the proposed land use conforms to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. However, the applicant needs to ftuther address transportation issues and design elements as outlined below. Comments on the Master Development Plan are being provided in a separate letter. 1. Northeast Land Use Plan(NELUP). The subject properties are within the area covered by the Northeast Land Use Plan. This plan is a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The mix and location of commercial and industrial uses are generally in conformance with the plan. While the NELUP shows more of the site for industrial use as opposed to commercial use, that plan shows general land bays. 2. NELUP. The NELUP identifies the frontage of this property along Route 11 as developmentally sensitive. The landscape proffer (D-2) addresses. this issue, but is too vague. Rewrite the proffer to clearly identify, at minimum, trees per linear feet. 3. NELUP. The NELUP calls for industrial land to be adequately screened from adjoining land to mitigate visual and noise impacts. Further, business and coirnnercial land uses which adjoin existing residential uses and significant historic resources should be adequately screened to mitigate impacts. Consider extra screening against existing residences. 4. NELUP. The Northeast Land Use Plan discourages individual lot access on the Martinsburg Pike corridor, encourages inter -parcel connections, and recommends adequate screening from adjoining land uses and recommends greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike. Screening should be addressed and future inter -parcel comiectors to adjacent sites considered. Consideration should also be given to screening along Interstate 81. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Rutherford Crossing October 20, 2006 5. NELUP. The NELUP states that "Proposed industrial, commercial and plarmed unit development should only occur if impacted road systems function at Level of Service (LOS) Category C or Better". With this proposed development, Level of Service C is clearly not achieved. 6. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Policy Plan recommends a number of design features for properties along business corridors. These include landscaping and screening (noted above) and controlling the size and number of signs. Serious consideration should be given to signage, with a recommendation for reduced signage, monument style signs and a coordinated sign package. 7. Eastern Road Plan. The County's Eastern Road Plan identifies the Route 37 Corridor and a fixture Route 37/Route 81 interchange on a portion of this property. The NELUP calls for the accommodating these road improvements. It is expected that the applicant will accommodate these road improvements, otherwise the application will not be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 8. Eastern Road Plan. The County's Eastern Road Plan and NELUP identify a collector road through this property. The applicant is expected to construct this road on their property to established standards. From the signalized main entrance on Route 11 to the FEMA property, this road should be a four -lane section with a landscaped median. 9. Comprehensive Policy Plan. Martinsburg Pike is identified on the Frederick County Bicycle Plan as a short-term destination. Provide a bike trail, in lieu of the required sidewalk, in this location. The bike trail should be outside of the public right-of-way to allow for future road widening. I would strongly suggest that the applicant consider a commitment to sidewalks throughout the development. It is very likely that the FEMA employees, and other fixture employees on the site, will walls to the retail facilities. 10. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). The TIA does not meet county standards. A few examples of shortcomings include: the exclusion of the nearby North Stephenson rezoning and the Adams rezoning, the modeling of less than the proffered maximum development (1.4 million square feet), the modeling of only a small percentage of the total FEMA employees, the lack of modeling for the FEMA entrance on Route 11 and the illogical comparison of the by -right development (which was modeled for the 2001 rezoning as purely industrial) to the proposed development (which is heavily commercial). I would also point out that some of the modeled improvements (including the Welltown Road/Route 11 intersection) have not been proffered by anyone. Page 3 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Rutherford Crossing October 20, 2006 11. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). It is not clear if the northerinnost secondary site driveway is the service road behind the small shopping area, as shown on the draft site plan. If so, this driveway can only be allowed with an inter -parcel connection to the north, in order to meet entrance standards. 12. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Given the impact of this large development on an already failing transportation corridor, it is suggested that the applicant consider making a significant improvement to the corridor. As previously discussed, one of the obvious improvements would be to relocate the I-81 northbound off ramp. (This would require abandoning a section of Red Bud Road, which will eventually be rerouted through the North Stephenson development.) This improvement has been sought by the County and VDOT for years. This would eliminate one intersection and the need for another traffic signal. It would greatly improve the functioning of this corridor and directly benefit this project. 13. Proffer Statement — Transportation Proffers C-1(a-c). All of these proposed improvements are proffered before the issuance of the first building permit for the property. Please provide confirmation that these have been satisfied. 14. Proffer Statement — Transportation Proffer C-1(d). It seems illogical to study only tluce intersections. I suggest studying all intersections beginning with the intersection of Route 11 and the northbound on-ramp/Redbud Road and ending with and including the intersection of Route 11 and Crown Lane. This would be more beneficial to the County and VDOT. 15. Proffer Statement — Transportation Proffer C-2. The TIA modeled two right- in/right-out entrances on Route 11. Clarify which of these entrances this proffer covers. I strongly suggest specifically limiting the number of entrances on Route 11. This will clarify that the pad sites will not have future entrances on Route 11. 16. Proffer Statement — Transportation Proffer C-2. It is unclear what "multi -lane system" means. Detail the road specifications being provided. 17. Proffer Statement — Transportation Proffer C-4. This proffer obliges to applicant to build the collector road as envisioned in the Northeast Land Use Plan. That road, as per NELUP, is a sweeping are with no 90 degree turns, to allow for free flowing traffic. The road as shown on the applicant's draft: Master Development Plan (MDP) does not match the road called for in NELUP. Thus the MDP will not be in compliance with this proffer as written. It might be helpful to proffer a simple Generalized Development Plan (GDP) with the road layout. (Also note the current Northeast Land Use Plan is the 2002 NELUP. The collector road did not change from one version of the plan to another, but please reference the current plan.) 0 0 Page 4 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Rutherford Crossing October 20, 2006 18. Proffer Statement — Transportation Proffer C-4. Please revise this proffer to insure that the vital road connection between the collector road and the entrance to the FEMA site takes place immediately. 19. Proffer Statement — Transportation Proffer C-5. This proffer requires the applicant to construct an additional Route 11 southbound lane from the FEMA entrance to the northbound I-81 ramp. This is a distance of approximately 3,000 linear feet. Also, note that the first site plan for Rutherford Crossing, the FEMA site plan, has already been approved. (As stated in Proffer D3 all four parcels make up Rutherford Crossing.) 20. Proffer Statement — Transportation Proffer C-6. The scope of this study is unclear. Further details are requested. 21.. Proffer Statement — Historic Resources Proffer D-1. This proffer needs a timing element. 22. Proffer Statement — Landscaping Proffer D-2. As stated in comment #2, this proffer requires greater clarity as to plant materials and spacing. Adequate street trees, plus other plant materials, are recommended. 23. Proffer Statement — Lighting Proffer E. This proffer is less than the County's adopted lighting standard. Consider a revision that provides a lighting plan. 24. Proffer Statement — Signage Proffer F-1. As stated in comment #6, reduced signage is sought. Consideration should be given to monument signs throughout the development with a limited sign area and height. 25. Proffer Statement — Signage Proffer F-2. As stated in continent #6, reduced signage is sought. Consider further limiting the number of interstate overlay signs. 26. Parcel 943-A-111. Only the M-1 portion of parcel #43-A-1 I I appears to be part of this rezoning. This must be clearly stated in the application and the proffer statement, and should be correctly referenced in the area tabulation on the Zoning Exhibit (dated June 2006) prepared by Bury + Partners. Also, all maps included in the impact analysis statement show the RA portion of parcel #43-A-111 as part of the rezoning. This application will not be accepted until a consistent treatment for the RA portion of this parcel is included tlu•oughout the application and proffer statement. 27. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency continents from the following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County 0 • Page 5 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Rutherford Crossing October 20, 2006 Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Public Schools, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick -Winchester Health Department, Winchester Regional Airport, Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Company, the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Attorney. Historic Resources Advisory Board comments from the previous rezoning application will be used by staff. The proffer statement has been sent to the Frederick County Attorney by the Plamling Department. 28. Other. Please provide a deed to the property verifying current ownership. Please have all property owners sign the application and complete the special limited power of attorney form which authorizes you to represent them during the application process. Please provide a receipt from the Treasurer's office which verifies that real estate taxes for the properties have been paid. All of the comments in this letter and any agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can formally accept this rezoning application. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, -,J,., rK, &,,, Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner SKE/dlw cc: Rutherford Farm, LLC, 8230 Leesburg Pike, Suite 500, Viemia, VA 22182 Virginia Apple Storage Inc., PO Box 3103, Winchester, VA 22604 C. Robert Solenberger, PO Box 2368, Winchester, VA, 22604 Jol-m S. Scully, 112 North Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 Jolm B. Schroth, 112 North Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 Cowperwood FEMA, LLC, 375 Park Avenue, Suite 3701, New York, NY, 10152 0 0 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) THGMAS V. MONAHAN (1924 1999) 7 S 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 0. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAX 540-662-4304 JAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.com STEVEN F. JACKSON October 23, 2006 DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. 1, .,✓ ,�. HAND -DELIVERED Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Rutherford Crossing Proffer Statement Dear Susan: OU 2 3 2006 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. 0. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 I have reviewed the above -referenced Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinal -ice and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. Section C of the Proffer Statement addresses Transportation Enhancements. My legal review of this section of the Proffer Statement does not address the details or the appropriateness of the proffers set forth therein, and it is my assumption that the County's staff and engineers will review the substances of these transportation proffers. 2. Paragraph 1 of Section C addresses traffic signalization. Subparagraphs a-c provide for traffic signals at three separate intersections. Subparagraph d provides for a signalization timing analysis to be done prior to the installation of the traffic signals referenced in subparagraphs a-c. Assuming that the HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN be MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy October 23, 2006 Page 2 traffic signals in subparagraph a-c will not all be installed at the same time, the timing of the signalization timing analysis provided for subparagraph d is not clear. Is it to be done prior to installation of any of the three traffic signals, or is it to be done prior to the installation of the last of the three traffic signals? This should be clarified. 3. In paragraphs 2 (Intersection Improvements) and 5 (Rotate 11 and northbound I-81 Ramp Improvements) of Section C, the timing of certain proffered road improvements is that the improvements would be completed within one year of a site plan approval. In paragraph 2 the work would be completed within one year of the date of the first site plan approval within the B-2 District portion of the Property. Section 2 further provides that if all or part of the intersection improvements are "required" for the first site plan within the M-1 District, the work shall be constructed with the first site plan. My assumption is that the proffer is permitting the County to require the intersection improvements if the first site plan is within the M-1 District. If that is the case, I would suggest that the words "in the discretion of the County" be inserted within conunas after the word "required" in paragraph 2. In addition, in the event those intersection improvements are required with the first site plan in the M-1 District, the proffer should set forth that the improvements will be completed within one year of the first site approval, if that timing is satisfactory to the County. The foregoing continents, with respect to Paragraph 2, would also apply to Paragraph 5. 4. Paragraph 3 of Section C is titled "Right of Way Dedication". However, subparagraphs a and b state an agreement to "reserve" the rights of way, and to provide VDOT with a "right of way reservation plat". The proffer should state that the Applicant will reserve the right of way until it is dedicated to VDOT, and to dedicate it to VDOT with a dedication plat. 5. In Paragraph 4 (Comprehensive Road Plan Construction) of Section C, it would appear that the proffer should be to coordinate, dedicate, and construct the major collector road referenced. Also, staff should determine whether the location of that road in the referenced Northeast Land Use Study is sufficiently definite to precisely locate the road, or whether there should be some qualifying language in the HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy October 23, 2006 Page 3 proffer to locate the road in accordance with any amendment of the Northeast Land Use Study adopted prior to approval of a site plan on any portion of the property on which the road would be located. 6. As to Paragraph 7 (Monetary Contribution) of Section C, staff should determine whether the timing of the monetary contribution (building permit for the first structure in the B-2 portion of the property) is satisfactory, or whether it should be at the issuance of a building permit for the first structure on the property. 7. It should be noted that a Master Development Plan is referenced in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section D, but there is no proffer that the property generally will be developed in accordance with the referenced Master Development Plan. I assume that the County has a copy of the referenced Master Development Plan in order to enforce the interpretive signs and landscaping proffers contained in Section D. 8. It should be noted that Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section D provide that the maintenance and the interpretive signs and landscaping will be the responsibility of "Rutherford Crossing Association." There does not appear to be any other reference in the proffer statement regarding Rutherford Crossing Association, and Rutherford Crossing Association is not an applicant who is bound by these proffers. Therefore, there would not appear to be any basis on which the County could enforce the maintenance provisions in these two proffers. 9. In Section E (Lighting), reference is made to lighting plans which will be submitted as a "separate attachment" for review and approval by the Frederick County Planning Department. I am not clear as to what the lighting plan would be attached. Does it mean to say that the lighting plans would be submitted as a separate attachment to all site plans? If so, that should be set forth in the proffer. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy October 23, 2006 Page 4 10. I am unclear about the wording of Paragraph 2 of Section F (Signage). It proffer states "Within the IA (Interstate Overlay) District, the Applicants hereby proffer to limit the total number of signs to three." That proffer seems to suggest that the Interstate Overlay District is only located on a portion of the property. However, in the Preliminary Matters section of the proffer statement, it is indicated that the Overlay District would apply to the entire 155 acres. 11. In Section G (Recycling Proffer) I would reconunend that the last sentence be reworded to read: "The program for each industrial user will be reviewed and subject to approval by the Frederick County Recycling Coordinator prior to the issuance of a final occupancy permit for each industrial user." As previously noted I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Connnission. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing continents, please contact me. truly yours, Robert T. Mitchell, Ar. RTM/ks Rutherford Crossing Proffer Statement - VDOT Comments to Rezoning DP Page 1 of 2 Evan Wyatt From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [Rhonda.Funkhouser@VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd [Lloyd. Ingram @ VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:20 AM To: Evan Wyatt Cc: Ingram, Lloyd; 'Eric Lawrence'; 'Susan Eddy' Subject: Rutherford Crossing Proffer Statement - VDOT Comments to Rezoning & MDP The following comments reflect VDOT comments on both the rezoning and the master development plan submittals: The documentation within the applications appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 11 and 1-81. These routes are the VDOT roadways which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Application dated October 26, 2006 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Under Section C of the Transportation Enhancements, Item #2, Site Access Improvements, the verbiage notes the construction of two full entrances and two right-in/right-out entrances. While it addresses the spacing of the entrances, the documents that were submitted with this rezoning request do not identify the approximate locations. Under Item 3, Right -of -Way Reservation: This appears to be a considerable change from the original rezoning which was titled "Right -of -Way Dedication". VDOT is requesting a reason for the change from dedication to reservation by the applicant. We have concerns with the way the current document is worded. Under Item 6, the Route 11 and Interstate 81 Northbound Off -Ramp Improvements: While we appreciate the applicant agreeing to prepare and process a Limited Access Break Study meeting FHWA and VDOT standards for the relocation of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound off -ramp as well as preparing and processing of the Public Improvement Plan, we feel the proposed $125,000.00 to help construction this facility falls far short of the monies needed to construct this key component of the transportation improvements in this area. During our meeting with the applicant, the Route 37 and Interstate 81 interchange were identified as a critical part of the County's transportation plan. The identified footprint of this roadway, a portion of which crosses the Rutherford Crossing property, needed to be preserved/dedicated as part of the proffer documents. This request has not been included in the current proffer document. The TIA prepared for this rezoning request did not take into consideration the Omps Property which was rezoned on the east side of Route 11 and will have considerable impact on the level of service at the main entrance to the Rutherford Crossing properties. There 11/8/2006 Rutherford Crossing Proffer State ent - VDOT Comments to RezoningDP Page 2 of 2 were several other anomalies within the study that gives VDOT cause for concern about some of the conclusions that were derived from this study. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer VDOT N Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540)984-5611 (540) 984-5607 (fax) 11/8/2006 0 G Control number RZ06-0015 Project Name Rutherford Crossing Address 151 Windy Hill Ln. Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning B2,B3,M1 Automatic Sprinkler System No Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle Access Not Identified Siamese Location Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Additional Comments Mans approved as submitted. Plan Approval Recommended Yes Date received 9/8/2006 City Winchester Tax ID Number 43-A-98, etc. Date reviewed 9/12/2006 Applicant Greenway Engineering State Zip VA 22602 Fire District 13 Recommendations Automatic Fire Alarm System No Requirements Hydrant Location Not Identified Roadway/Aisleway Width Not Identified Reviewed By J. Neal Date Revised Applicant Phone 540-662-4185 Rescue District Election District Stonewall Residential Sprinkler System No Fire Lane Required No Special Hazards No i SEP 1 3 2006 ' 1?795T 4 - - l Signature Title 0 October 20, 2006 Mr. Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 RE: Revised Rezoning and Master Development Plan (MDP) for Rutherford Crossing Frederick County, Virginia Dear Evan: We have completed our review of the revised rezoning and master development plan. for the Rutherford Crossing project. Besides eliminating B3 zoned areas from the project, the impact analysis has changed the stormwater management philosophy from onsite detention ponds to discharge to an adequate channel. Consequently, we focused our review on the drainage analysis prepared by Randy Kepler and dated May 22, 2006. Based on our review of the Hiatt Run drainage analysis, we offer the following comments: 1. Verify that the cross-section referenced in the report is representative of the chamlel cross-section between the Rutherford discharge point and Route 11. 2. Hydrograph No. 9 indicates that the storm flows derived from the Rutherford project are relatively insignificant compared to the total drainage form Hiatt Run. Also, this hydrograph indicates that the peak flows from Rutherford occur long before the peak arrives from the total discharge area. This fact should be highlighted in the report summary and serve as the main justification for allowing discharge directly to the receiving stream without onsite detention. This latter conclusion assumes that the receiving chamiel has an adequate cross-section. Provide a map indicating the location of the channel sections used to derive the total time of concentration. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 L j OCT 2, 3 200G 7C5rF Review Comments Revised Rutherford Rezoning and MDP Page 2 October 20, 2006 I can be reached at 722-8214 if you should have any questions regarding the above comments. Our final approval of the rezoning and MDP will be contingent on receipt of a revised drainage analysis incorporating the above comments. Sincerely, -tl . 11 r Harvey E. Oawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Planning and Development file CAProgram RilesMordPerfect Office X3\Rhonda\TPMPCOMMENTS\rutherfoi-derossingrevrez&mdpeom.wpd Rezoning Comments • 7-7_T_ _ ._T Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665-1061 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia Applicant:, Please fill, out, the information as accurately as possible in order to: assist the Sanitation Authority with their review,; Attach a'' opy, of your`applicat [on :form,' location inap, proffer statement, impact analysis; ,and any other pertinent information: Applicant's Name: Greenway En ineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: Northeast Quadrant of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike intersection in Stonewall Magisterial District Current zoning: B2, B3 & M1 Zoning requested: B2 & M1 Acreage: 31.0± Sanitation Authority Comments: Wlz- 50/F7/c/XA71r' W.4 71-1=/e Z� 7 SF� vF Sanatation Authority Signature & Date:c Z IIIIIX- Notice to Sanitation Authority — Please Return This Form to the Applicant ------- - -- - .. - — SEP 2 2006 Rezoning Comments s , Frederick —Winchester Service Authority Mail to: Fred-Winc Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director P.O. Box 43 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 722-3579 Hand deliver to: Fred-Winc Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant Please fill out the infoz'mation as; accurately as possible ih order `to assist the Frederick Winchester Service Authouty with there review Attach a copy of yogi~ application form location ma►y pr®f£er statement, aid any ­tlfer pertiHenE itfora'cion ' Applicant's Name: Greenway En ineerinR Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: Northeast Quadrant of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike intersection in Stonewall Magisterial District Current zoning: B2, B3 & M1 Zoning requested: B2 & M1 Acreage: 31.0± rred-Winc Service Authority's Comments: ��,� Ado Fred- Winc Service Authority's Signature & Date: Notice to Fred-Winc Service Authority — Please Return This Form to the Applicant fj' SEP .� 2006 .Rezon-ing Comments Winchester Regional Airport Mail to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 (540) 662-2422 Hand deliver to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road (Rt. 645, off of Rt. 522 South) Winchester, Virginia Applicant Pleasefill outthe information as accurately as possible iri: order, to assist the Wincfiester Regi6 ial Airport with their review ,_Attach a copy of your application form, location map; proffer -statement, impact.analysis, and any,pther..:pertirient information Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: Northeast Quadrant of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike intersection in Stonewall Magisterial District Current zoning: B2, B3 & M1 Zoning requested: B2 & M1 Acreage: 31.0± Winchester Regional Airport's Comments: r, Winchester Regional Airport's Signature & Date: C=�s R L\ I R\ ono LM t Notice to Winchester Regional Airport — Please Return This Form to the Applicant OCT t 7 2006 D WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT SERVING THE TOP OF VIRGINIA / October 12, 2006 Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662-2422 Re: Rezoning Comment Rutherford Crossing — B2 & M1 Stonewall Magisterial District Dear Mr. Wyatt: We have reviewed the proposed Rezoning application and determined that the proposed development plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. While the proposed site lies within the airport's airspace, it does fall outside of the airport's Part 77 close in surfaces. Thank you for your continued cooperation and consideration in the continuing safe operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Sincerely, �Z ffvm�� Serena R. Manuel Executive Director Page 1 of 1 Evan Wyatt From: Susan Eddy [seddy@co.frederick.va.usj Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 11:26 AM To: Evan Wyatt Subject: Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Evan, On Monday, September 11 th I forwarded the Rutherford Crossing rezoning application and proffer statement to Bob Mitchell's office for comment. Also, as regards the HRAB, you will not need to obtain new comments. Regards, Susan Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Planning Department 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-665-5651 11 /8/2006 • 0 October 23, 2006 Mr. Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Rutherford Crossing Dear Evan: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 Attached you will find a copy of the review comments from the County Attorney's office concerning the proposed proffer statement for the rezoning of Rutherford Crossing. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, 4UA6jV--) /Y. &t Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner SKE/bad Attachment OCT 2, 4 2006 By �1-SLIDAY, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 9 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 N IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RUTHERFORD CROSSING Stonewall District Frederick County, Virginia Tax Map Parcels 43-((A))-98, 43-((A))-99 & 43-((A))-100 136.87± Acres September 5, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 Current Owners: Rutherford Farm, LLC Virginia Apple Storage C. Robert Solenberger John S. Scully, IV John B. Schroth Contact Person: Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 (540) 662-4185 Greenway Engineering September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 RUTHERFORD CROSSING REZONING INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezoning of a 136.87± acre subject site owned by Rutherford Farm, LLC, Virginia Apple Storage, C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth. The subject site is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11). Norfolk Southern and Winchester and Western Railroads have rail lines paralleling Martinsburg Pike, which traverse the subject site. The Applicants propose to reconfigure the existing zoning boundaries of the B-2 Business General District, the B-3 Industrial Transition District and the M-1 Light Industrial District within the Rutherford Crossing site to create an additional 31.0± acres of B-2 Business General District, while reducing the existing M-1 Light Industrial District acreage by 8.55± acres and eliminating the 22.45± acres of B-3 Industrial Transition District. The proposed revisions to the existing zoning district boundaries are intended to create a major retail center within the B-2 Business General District portion of the subject site that is envisioned to include a home improvement superstore, a major retail discount store, specialty retail stores, sit-down and fast food restaurants, drive-in banking and office land use. Basic information Location: Northeast Quadrant of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike intersection Magisterial District: Stonewall Property ID Numbers: 43-((A))-98, 43-((A))-99 & 43-((A))-100 Current Zoning: B2 District — 28.64± acres B3 District — 22.45± acres M1 District — 85.78± acres 136.87± acres Current Use: Unimproved and Residential Proposed Use: Major Retail Center, Office and Light Industrial Proposed Zoning: B2 District — 59.64± acres M1 District — 77.23± acres 136.87± acres Proposed Build Out 1.4 million square feet maximum pil Greenway Engineering so September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The commercial and industrial land uses proposed for this rezoning application are in conformance with the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan 2003 Northeast Land Use Plan. This plan recommends commercial and industrial development as future land use within the Northeast Quadrant of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike. 1. Urban Development Area Expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. 2. Sewer and Water Service Area Expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Access The 136.87± acre subject site is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11). The subject site has approximately 2,000 feet of road frontage along Martinsburg Pike and the proximity of the subject site to Interstate 81Exit 317 enables vehicular traffic to quickly access the interstate for northbound and southbound travel. The location of the Norfolk Southern and Winchester and Western Railroads within the subject site increases opportunities for rail service for the northern portion of the site. A Public Improvement Plan has been prepared to reflect the proffered road improvements planned during the original rezoning for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park (Rezoning Application #07-01). This Public Improvements Plan has been reviewed and approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Applicants are currently working with VDOT to obtain the necessary land use permits to construct these planned improvements. Floodplains The subject site is located on the FEMA NFIP Map #510063-0105B. The majority of the site is located as "Zone C", area outside the 100-year floodplain. Approximately 28.3 acres located in the northern portion of the site is identified as floodplain. The proposed Master Development Plan for Rutherford Crossing limits development within the floodplain area to stormwater management, utilities and future road construction. Disturbance within the floodplain area will comply with all applicable state and local permitting requirements following Master Development Plan approval. Q Greenway Engineering September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 Wetlands A wetlands delineation study was prepared for the 136.87± acre site by Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. on July 30, 2002 with revisions dated November 15, 2002. The results of this study indicated that no wetlands exist on the subject site. The soil types on the property are well drained with predominantly moderately sloping terrain that do not retain wetland characteristics. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineering issued Jurisdictional Determination Letter 02-B0133 on March 5, 2003 verifying that no regulated waters and/or wetlands exist on the subject site. Steep Slopes There are no areas of steep slopes within the 136.87± acre site. All slopes within the subject site are gradual ranging from 2-7% slopes with well -drained soils into Hiatt Run. Soil Types The 136.87± acre subject site contains eight soil types as evident from the Soil Survey of Fredrick County, sheet number 24, published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service and the Frederick County GIS Database. These soil types are as follows: 5B-Carbo Silt Loam 2 — 7% slope 6C-Carbo Oaklet Silt Loam, very rocky 2 — 15% slope 7C-Carbo Oaklet, rock outcrop complex 2 —15% slope 1413-Fredrick Poplimento Loams 2 —7% slope 16B-Fredrick Poplimento Loams, very rocky 2 —7% slope 16C-Fredrick Poplimento Loams, very rocky 7 —15% slope 17C-Fredrick Poplimento, rock outcrop complex 2 —15% slope 32B-Oaklet Silt Loam, 2 —7% slope Table 5 on page 123 of the Soil Survey of Fredrick County identifies soil types 5B-Carbo Silt Loam, 14B-Fredrick Poplimento — Loam, and 3213-Oaklet Silt Loam as prime agricultural soils. All of the aforementioned soils do not support crops without fertilization, liming, and soil management. Portions of the property contain rock out crops however; all of the soils are suitable for agricultural use such as hay, pastures, and orchards. 0 Greenway Engineering September 5, 2006 Revised November 7, 2006 B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining property zoning and present use: North: Zoned M2, General Industrial District Zoned Ml, Light Industrial District Zoned RP, Residential Performance District Zoned RA, Rural Areas District South: Zoned RP, Residential Performance District M1, Light Industrial District East: Zoned RP, Residential Performance District RA, Rural Area District 0 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Use: Heavy Commercial & Warehouse Use: FEMA Office Use: Residential Use: Commercial Nursery & Residential Use: Residential Use: Trucking & Residential Use: Residential Use:Residential& Agriculture West: Zoned B2, Business General District Use: Commercial B3, Industrial Transition District Use: Commercial M1, Light Industrial District Use: Commercial & Rail RP, Residential Performance District Use: Residential RA, Rural Areas District Use: Residential & Church C. TRANSPORTATION The subject site was originally zoned M1, light Industrial District B3, Industrial Transition District and B2, Business General District as a component of Rezoning Application #07-01. A detailed traffic impact analysis (TIA) was submitted and approved with the original rezoning application. The original TIA recommended improvements to the Martinsburg Pike (Rte 11 North) corridor and recommended traffic signalization at the Interstate 81 southbound on and off ramps. Subsequent to the approval of the original rezoning application, Greenway Engineering prepared a Public Improvement Plan for the proffered improvements to the Martinsburg Pike corridor, which has been approved by VDOT. The Applicants are currently working with VDOT to obtain the permits necessary to begin construction of these improvements. The proposed rezoning application calls for a modification to the existing zoning districts that will convert 22.45± acres of B3, Industrial Transition District and 8.55± acres of M1, Light Industrial District to B2, Business General District. A new traffic impact analysis (TIA) has been prepared to reflect this conversion, which is included with this rezoning application. 5 Greenway Engineering September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 A detailed traffic impact analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the rezoning application by PHR&A dated September 7, 2006. The TIA models the 136.87± acre subject site at three site driveway intersection points on Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11) and at the intersections of Old Charles Town Road (Route 761), Red Bud Road (Route 661) and Welltown Road (Route 661) with Martinsburg Pike, as well as the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound and southbound on and off ramps. The TIA provides analysis for two alternative conditions associated with the development of this site. The first condition assumes this development of a major retail center and industrial land use within the proposed M1, Light Industrial District and B2, Business General District acreages. The second condition assumes the development of a major retail center, office and industrial land uses, within the existing M1, Light Industrial District, B3, Industrial Transition District and B2, General Business District acreages. The TIA provides information for both alternative conditions including existing lane geometry and levels of service at the identified intersections for AM and PM peak hour traffic, background traffic impacts associated with the FEMA Office site, the phase one buildout of Stephenson Village, the phase one buildout of the Semples Property, and the buildout of the Clearbrook Properties, as well as a traffic growth rate of 5% per year compounded annually for all identified street systems. The TIA demonstrates a reduction in average daily traffic volume of approximately 2,200 vehicle trips for the proposed Rutherford Crossing development. The current by -right zoning is projected to generate 28,859 ADT, while the proposed zoning is projected to generate 26;652 ADT. The background lane geometry and levels of service demonstrate failing levels of service at the Martinsburg Pike/Redbud Run/hiterstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on ramp intersection, at the Martinsburg Pike/Old Charles Town Road intersection, at the Martinsburg Pike/Welltown Road intersection, and at the Martinsburg Pike/Interstate 81 Exit 317 southbound on and off ramps intersection. The TIA provides for suggested improvements that bring the identified intersections to acceptable levels of service or improve the levels of service experienced by background traffic impacts. The Applicants have utilized the information in the TIA to develop the Transportation Enhancements Section of the proposed Proffer Statement. The following improvements to the regional transportation system are proffered for the Rutherford Crossing development: ➢ Widening of Martinsburg Pike to establish dual northbound and southbound travel lanes ➢ Construction of dual left turn lanes on Martinsburg Pike into the primary site entrance (Site Driveway #2 in the TIA) ➢ Construction of a third southbound lane on Martinsburg Pike from the primary site entrance to the existing Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound turn lane ➢ Construction of dual left turn lanes and a separate right turn lane for the primary site entrance (Site Driveway #2 in the TIA) ➢ Construction of a two entrances that provide for right-in/right-out movement only ➢ Fully funded traffic signalization at the primary site entrance (Site Driveway #2 in the TIA) 0 Greenway Engineering September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 ➢ Fully funded traffic signalization at the Martinsburg Pike/Interstate 81 Exit 317 southbound on and off ramp intersection ➢ Fully funded traffic signalization at the Martinsburg Pike/Redbud Run/Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound on ramp intersection ➢ Provision of a signalization timing analysis for all existing and proposed traffic signals along Martinsburg Pike between the primary site entrance and Crown Lane ➢ Provision of right of way along Martinsburg Pike ➢ Provision of right of way along Interstate 81 ➢ Construction of the internal major collector road to provide connectivity and access to the FEMA Office site. ➢ Monetary contribution of $250,000.00 towards off -site regional transportation improvements within the Martinsburg Pike corridor that can be utilized as matching funds for federal or state grants. The transportation enhancements proffered by the Applicants provides for entrances into Rutherford Crossing from Martinsburg Pike that function at acceptable levels of service, and provides for improvements to the regional transportation system that significantly improve failing levels of service from background traffic impacts to acceptable levels of service and improved levels of service. Therefore, the Rutherford Crossing development mitigates transportation impacts associated with the proposed on -site development and provides solutions to assist in the mitigation of background traffic impacts to the regional transportation system. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The 136.87±-acre subject property is located within the Route 11 North Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). There is a newly constructed 8" sanitary sewer force main adjacent to the Winchester and Western Railroad that traverses the subject property. A regional pump station has been designed for the Rutherford Crossing development with a design capacity of 120,000 gpd that will serve the entire project. The design and installation of the regional pump station is paid for by the Applicants and will be dedicated to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority for ownership and maintenance. Based on comparable discharge patterns, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has determined that 500 gallons/day per acre is a reasonable projection for estimating the sewer impact for commercial and industrial development. The following information projects the impact for public sewer on the subject site: Q = 500 gallons/day/acre Q = 500 gpd x 136.87± acres Q = 68,435 gpd 7 Greenway Engineering September 5, 2006 is Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 The proposed commercial center is projected to add 68,435 gallons per day to the public sewage conveyance system and the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant (OWTP). This projection is conservative, as approximately 28 acres of the subject site is located within floodplain area, which will not have structural development. The design capacity of the treatment plant is 8.4 million gallons per day, of which approximately 6.4 is currently being utilized. The total build -out of the proffered commercial land uses would require approximately 3.4% of the available capacity at the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant; therefore, adequate capacity is available for this development. E. WATER SUPPLY The 136.87± acre subject property is located within the Route 11 North Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). There is an existing 10" water main located on the east side of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and a newly constructed 20" water main adjacent to the Winchester and Western Railroad that traverses the subject site. All land uses located within the Rutherford Crossing development will be connected to the public water system. The design and installation of the water system infrastructure will meet FCSA standards, will be paid for by the Applicants and will be dedicated to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority for ownership and maintenance. Based on existing water consumption patterns, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has determined that a 1,000 gallons/day per acre quantity is reasonable to consider for the water impact projection for commercial and industrial development. The following information projects the impact for public water consumption on the subject s ite: Q = 1,000 gallons/day /acre Q = 1,OOOgpd X 136.87± acres Q = 136,870 gpd The Rutherford Crossing development will utilize an estimated 136,870 gallons of water per day. This projection is conservative, as approximately 28 acres of the subject site is located within floodplain area, which will not have structural development. The Northern Water Treatment Plant currently provides 2.0 MGD of potable water from the Global Chemstone Quarry as one of the water sources contributing to the new 20-inch water main. The projected water usage for the build -out of the proffered commercial land uses would require approximately 6.8% percent of the available water source; therefore, adequate capacity is available for this development. N. Greenway Engineering September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 F. DRAINAGE The 136.87± subject site gently slopes to the northeast, which directs stormwater into Hiatt Run that flows from the northern boundary to the east and off site. Greenway Engineering prepared a peak flow quantity drainage analysis dated May 22, 2006 that is included as information with the Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Application. The peak flow quantity analysis evaluated the entire project site assuming an 80% impervious condition for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year storm events. The results of this study indicate that the increase in drainage based on post development build out conditions can be accommodated by the Hiatt Run channel. Additionally, the study results indicate that downstream flows will not be significantly impacted for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100- year storm events, as the increased runoff does not raise the elevation in the channel for all storm events. Stormwater will be directed to the adequate channel through storm pipes and lined open channels to protect groundwater due to the karst geology within this area of the County. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual commercial consumption of 5.4 cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of structural area (Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4th edition). The following figures show the increase in average annual volume based on a maximum development of 1,400,000 square -feet of land use that has been proffered by the Applicants: AAV = 5.4 cu. yd. per 1,000 sq. ft. commercial AAV = 5.4 cu. yd. X 1,400 (1,000 sq. ft.) AAV = 7,560 cu. yd. at build -out, or 5,292 tons/yr at build -out The Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill has a current remaining capacity of 13,100,000 cubic yards of air space. The maximum development of Rutherford Crossing will generate approximately 5,292 tons of solid waste annually on average. This represents a 2.6% increase in the annual solid waste received by the Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill, which currently averages 200,000 tons per year. Solid waste produced by Rutherford Crossing will be routed to the Regional Landfill by a commercial waste hauler; therefore, the County will receive tipping fees associated with this land use to mitigate this impact. Additionally, the Applicants' proffer statement provides for a coordinated recycling program with the County for all industrial projects within Rutherford Crossing to reduce the projected solid waste impacts to the Regional Landfill. The Regional Landfill has adequate capacity to accommodate the solid waste impacts associated with this proposal, and the Rutherford Crossing development will generate revenue for the landfill to further mitigate these impacts. 0 Greenway Engineering • September 5, 2006 Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Revised November 7, 2006 H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES 1. Virginia Historic Landmark Commission Rutherford's Farm #34-727 is identified in the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey as a potentially significant property. All that remains of the former house is a set of concrete steps that lead from Martinsburg Pike up to the site of the former house. There is a historical marker south of the site on Martinsburg Pike. Landmark records can be found on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 2. Virginia Department of Historic Resources and Archeological Sites One archeological site is noted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. It is a raised berm allowing access to opposite side of rail lines. However, it is abandoned and no loner in use. This site does not exhibit features that suggest eligibility for National Register consideration. Records can be found on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 3. Civil War Battlefields The National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley identifies the entire subject site as being with the Second Winchester Battlefield area; however, the study does not identify the subject site as being located within core battlefield area, while the Frederick County GIS database identifies the subject site within the defined area of Stephenson's Depot. The National Park Service Study identifies the subject site as having both retained integrity and lost integrity. The portion of the site identified as retained integrity is currently zoned for both commercial and industrial development. The Historic Resource Advisory Board (HRAB) reviewed Rezoning Application #07-01 on July 17, 2001. The Applicants incorporated a Historic Resource section into the original proffer statement to provide for three interpretative signs. The proposed proffer statement provides for the three interpretative signs and also provides for landscaping and picnic tables to enhance the interpretative sign viewing area. I. COMMUNITY SERVICES IMPACTS The Rutherford Crossing development provides a net positive fiscal impact in revenue to the County. Impacts to emergency services were recognized during the consideration of Rezoning Application #07-01 and the Applicants provided a $10,000.00 monetary contribution for fire and rescue services in the original proffer statement. A $10,000.00 payment was made to the Frederick County Planning Department on July 20, 2006 to satisfy the proffered condition. Therefore, the monetary contribution section has been eliminated from the proposed proffer statement as this condition has been satisfied. No additional impacts to community services are anticipated for this rezoning proposal. 10 eleQ gppz 'juawpedaQ Sjg eA 'Alunoo �auapajA aninog ele D -- o-. m o CA 00t" L OOL 0 C 0 o m m C3 C� fTl D D J C� � m �aC V�+y'• �• P� oc CD m 1 O G) r o o z � m � cCOi -: < 0 m� 0 C Z Vol m - 'l. ✓ram �> I =I i ..•Ow —4ft D ` `• _ O l y r < � •�: � ,�; � � fix` _ � � . +t. T. 3 �•a � � Sb14, �4 ., �� `�' f r" •�� i .y�• A/�id v • Y, a �f Ol i ' x - @.,. - .._ -4 � s �>iJ co Z - ' L y' slaoaed joafgnS sauepuno8 laoied PUG elea 9ooZ 'luawUeda(i SIJ eA '14unoo Mouapaa_A:aojnog eled deo o� 2 O m Z M DO Z v v O m Z o — O G) � DZ +O v OOV' l OOL 0 OS£ OOL In O D r m m No U) °1 71 O S�7DZ cD m COD m � r o O n r T m BOG) � Z m c n < D 53 r m G) LD �'—cn z m v n < --A v m r 0 n O s O v 0 Q. Q N 0 n 0 N to T. v den buiuoZ pue uoileoo-1 AVM AIlOVd ti>o (loulsl4 aouewaolaad lelluaplsaH) dH J�' �y (lolalsla seaay IeanH) t1d � (lolalsla Apnwwoo pauueld 'IelluaplsaH) bH (loulsl4 Allunwwoo auaoH allgoW) LHW - \ (lolalsla lejaua!D 'Ieulsnpul) ZW (lolalsl(i lubl-1 `leulsnpul) LW (louls14 uoll!sueal leulsnpul 'ssaulsng) Cg 00 (lolalsla leaaua!D 'ssaulsng) Zg 6uluoz msauepunog laoaed p slaoaed loafgnS I — c pua� �o a° �6 J� NI voISS3r s \ Fi illvi • E N 9 F A \ 6 m Legend Parcel Boundaries Subject Parcels 5 ft. Contours Rivers and Streams I� Lakes and Ponds Wetlands Floodplain CROW LN' .� ._ LVA PAYNE RD Environmental Features Map C 10N e S yN Z I P � a -'JESSICA LN PACTIV "Ay t If P .X\O vow 4 t / n Feet 700 350 0 700 1,4( z W W F � W �. % o a s z o v W �C s lz ar � Y C Y U CL to C � N N rr 0 (C rSRO� U Ui L � � l' C Qi C p W W 0 � m Q- U o W U Cn Cn U) z CZ7 z w (7 0 C!% Ir J LL U =) g > IQ W m U N J Un D (_] CC Q 0Ot- O z Q ULL W u W J U o z Q � d N O w Fz cr CO w �w > z a: z O w F- b CO o W J � U to Source Frederick County, Va. GIs Department, 2006 Data ?. on ri 9k JJEESSICA LN S"4_ 1 0 �Cr z 3 0 w Feet 700 350 0 700 1,400 OCO 1 I ..\. PACTIV WAY n J O 4r Soils Map r 14B 32 B 6C ♦ ♦ \ 7C G<roN�ti Legend Parcel Boundaries L _ 1 Subject Parcels Soils 14B, FREDERICK-POPLIMENTO LOAMS, 2 TO 7 PERCENT SLOPES - 16B, FREDERICK-POPLIMENTO LOAMS, VERY ROCKY, 2 TO 7 PERCENT SLOPES 16C, FREDERICK-POPLIMENTO LOAMS, VERY ROCKY, 7 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES 17C, FREDERICK-POPLIMENTO-ROCK OUTCROP COMPLEX, 2 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES 32B, OAKLET SILT LOAM, 2 TO 7 PERCENT SLCPES 5B, CARBO SILT LOAM, 2 TO 7 PERCENT SLOPES 6C, CARBO-OAKLET SILT LOAMS, VERY ROCKY, 2 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES 7C, CARBO-OAKLET-ROCK OUTCROP COMPLEX, 2 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES t9 z OC W W z a z U1 h m �J 3 `j off= Z - W IM M it i d u Ex x `s b y �P. C .y o a L- M U o 7 w 0 F- m U o Q z Z En 'Z p0Lu r� �qo Q > " m Q W F- rter' U 5 N o p TO O FD Q U W u- c Y p o = J Q a �' Lij cr w o iWA O Er� cD c � N W Q Q U � lap Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2006 Data ele0 900Z 'luawved9(] SIJ eA 'Hunoo MouepaJ j :aojnog elea dei n D o r m m o (n ��� °' T O `° v m m a: 07 M � m m r O = v 0 o c� r 3o m m n -n 0 G) m M o Z M (� r- 3:) K o Yo U) m G) Z S2 m D 33 o (j 0 m 56,VC 009` L 008 0 00v 009 Z L L-bS jai • ZO L-Ve .0 M dew sainjeaj aiaoIsiH 10 NOsytld NI a� • Ltib L-tiE i(Jelawao ,g ladego uJngl!W '096-b£ waej s,pjopa41nH `LZL-V£ AvadaJd uutDOVY-wlaH 'COL-b£ asnoH umoWjN-J96u9nalO '9tt L-V£ asnoH ZIJ9" 'L441-4£ asnoHAjsapxH-JalJEO'ZLL 7C sNeO uanag 'L90L-b£ wngpooM 'ZO L-b£ 3WVN `al s)IJewpue-I iodad suosuaydalg 'I aweN 0Ilie8 splallalAe9 JeM IIA13 slaoied ioafgng I i sauepunog laoJed pub c. J \ A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: NV Retail 8230 Leesburg Pike, Suite 500 Vienna, VA 22102 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 00 Ma insburff Avenue, Suite 54 PHR+AF Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 T 304.264.2711 304.264.3671 September 7, 2006 0 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this report to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Rutherford Crossing to be located along Route 11, northwest of the intersection of the Route 11/I-81 northbound on ramp, in Frederick County, Virginia. PHR+A has provided analysis for two alternative conditions: Scenario A assumes the build -out of the proposed development to include 215,000 square feet of industrial park, a 117,000 square foot home improvement store, a 127,000 square foot discount store, 187,147 square feet of specialty retail, 4,500 square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru, a 4,800 square foot high turn over restaurant, a 5,000 square foot high turn over restaurant, a 5,500 square foot high turn over restaurant, a 7,200 square foot high turn over restaurant and a 4,100 square foot bank. Scenario B assumes the build -out of the "approved" by -right development to include 325,000 square feet of industrial park, a 117,000 square foot home improvement store, a 127,000 square foot discount store, 245,842 square feet of office, a 4,500 square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru, a 4,800 square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru, four (4) 5,500 square foot high turn over restaurants, a 7,200 square foot high turn over restaurant, a 4,100 square foot bank and 4,500 square feet of convenience mart with pumps. Access is to be provided via three (3) site -driveways along the west side of Route 11, of which two secondary site -driveways will be right iri/out. PHR+A has performed traffic analyses for existing, 2010 background (without development) and 2010 build -out (with development) conditions. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the Rutherford Crossing development with respect to the surrounding roadway network. METHODOLOGY The traffic impacts accompanying the proposed development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Calculation of trip generation for the Rutherford Crossing, • Distribution and assignment of Rutherford Crossing generated trips onto the completed road network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service with the latest version of the highway capacity software, HCS+, for existing and future conditions. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossinz P006 H" September 7, -1-0 Project Number: 146Page I Page I No Scale Figure I Vicinity Map - Rutherford Crossing in Frederick County, Virginia A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford G•ossi�:g September 7, 2006 R+A Project Number: 14626-1-0 PH Page 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersection of Route 11/Welltown Road, Route 11/I-81 southbound ramps, Route 11/ I-81 northbound off ramp, Route 11/I-81 northbound on ramp/Redbud Road and Route 11/Old Charlestown Road. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) was established along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 10%. Figure 2 shows the ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 3 shows the existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS+ level of service worksheets are included'in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Ruther{orrl Crossing PH R+A September 7, -1-0 Project Number: 146Page 3 Page 3 No Scale r� 153(93) — O/d Charles To — Road gti5lati'Ll yNM�r7 bala�p�00 0 z o� 5 �i �11158oti1 _ 0 11 jai N 1 5�`tilp�'L51 _ a 11 IA�Ao 5qp � N N O a 1 7. � rv8 J J o�w„ 1tig5 �9�� 11 wow �11 `gg51a54 � `bp'1l AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) A Figure 2 Existing Traffic Conditions P A Traffic Impact Analysis Rutherford r 7, 20 6 September 7, 2006 H Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 4 No Scale Unsignalized 11 Intersection C(C). Road f� Signalized Intersection LOS = B(B) $lPl 11 a 0 w O M Unsignalized N.I Unsignalized Intersection Intersection *� pp w Y ,.00 11 *moo 00 n 9 o a b a Signalized Intersection LOS = C(C) Py TR+/ Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and LOS A Tiaffc Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing R+ASeptember 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626-1-0 PH Page 5 • 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS In order to establish the 2010 base conditions, PHR+A increased the existing traffic volumes (shown in Figure 2) using a conservative growth rate of 5% per year (compounded annually). Additionally, PHR+A included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Note: Access is to be provided for FEMA and the Lumber Yard via the proposed site -driveways serving Rutherford Crossing. Figure 4 shows the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 5 shows the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Tra(ic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing PASeptember7, -1-0 H Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 6 • • Table 1 2010 Background Developments Trio Generation Snmmary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Clearbrook Properties 120 GA Heavy Industrial 120,000 SF 54 7 61 3 20 23 180 932 H-T Restaurant 8,000 SF 48 44 92 53 34 87 1,017 Total 102 52 153 56 54 110 1,197 Other Developments * 730 FEMA 350 employees 190 24 214 86 191 277 2,713 812 Building/Lumber Store 15,000 SF 26 13 39 33 37 70 639 Total 216 37 253 119 228 347 3,352 Stephenson Village ** 210 Single -Family Detached 429 units 77 232 310 255 144 399 4,290 220 Apartment 240 units 20 103 123 100 49 149 1,573 230 Townhouse/Condo 390 units 26 125 150 127 62 189 3,393 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 266 units 29 51 80 78 44 123 1,064 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 72 units 3 2 5 4 3 7 251 Total 155 513 667 564 302 866 10,570 Sempeles Property *** 130 ,Industrial Park 898,425 SF 459 101 559 154 580 734 5,204 820 Retail 73,500 SF 79 51 130 245 266 511 5,559 Total 538 152 689 399 846 1,245 1 10,763 T Access to be provided via the proposed Rutherford Crossing site -driveway ** Assumed Phase 1 build -out for Year 2010 *** Assumed 75% build -out for Year 2010 PHR� A TraTfc Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 7 PHR1� A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 8 'Signalized Intersection (YO LOS = C(C) - Signalized Intersection Unsignalized LOS = E(F) Intersection d Goa o VIP J� t Signalized I "Suggested IntCY5Ceti0R Improvements" LOS=E EB-2LeR �) WB - I Left, 1 Right ,fl NB- I Left Fopp 3 o *00 E�9� Unsignalized 11 Intersection "Nets P Intersection" >r(r)* No Scale S/re otd Charles Tot SITE Ncw Intersection" Signalized Intersection LOS = B(B) S`e� Qh� J Lit, \� jl Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS = C(C) Signalization "New Intersection". Unsignalized t Intersection H 11 *iF�� Signalized qi Intersection LOS = C(C) r� �1 Signalized "snggestea Intersection, Improvements" LOS = B(C) Signalization lG�$ AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) i�­Denotes Free -Flow Movement Figure 5 2010 Background Lane Geometry and LOS A Tra(%c Impact Analysis of the RutherfmCrossing R+ASeptembb er 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626-1-0 PH Page 9 L� TRIP GENERATION PHR+A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 7"' Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 2a and Table 2b are provided below to summarize the trip generation associated with the proposed Rutherford Crossing for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Table 2c shows a comparison of the two (2) scenarios. Table 2a Proposed Development: Rutherford Crossing Scenario A: Trip Generation Summary (Proposed Development) Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 130 Industrial Park 215,000 SF 152 33 186 44 164 208 1,814 862 Home Impr. Superstore 117,000 SF 76 65 140 135 152 287 3,581 815 Discount Store 127,000 SF 73 34 107 321 321 643 7,115 814 Specialty Retail 187,147 SF 139 89 228 207 264 471 8,044 932 H-T Restaurant 5,000 SF 30 28 58 33 21 55 636 934 Fast Food w/ DT 4,500 SF 122 117 239 81 75 156 2,233 932 H-T Restaurant 4,800 SF 29 27 55 32 20 52 610 932 H-T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H-T Restaurant 7,200 SF 43 40 83 48 31 79 915 912 Drive-in Bank 4,100 SF 28 22 51 94 94 188 1,004 Total Trips 725 485 1,210 1,031 1,165 2,197 26,652 Table 2b Proposed Development: Rutherford Crossing Scenario B: Trip Generation Summary ("Approved" By -right Development) Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ART 130 Industrial Park 325,000 SF 210 46 256 61 231 292 2,360 710 Office 245,842 SF 339 46 385 60 294 354 2,667 815 Discount Store 127,000 SF 73 34 107 321 321 643 7,115 862 Home Impr. Superstore 117,000 SF 76 65 140 135 152 287 3,581 934 Fast Food w/ DT 4,800 SF 130 125 255 86 80 166 2,381 934 Fast Food w/ DT 4,500 SF 122 117 239 81 75 156 2,233 932 H-T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H-T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H-T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H-T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H-T Restaurant 7,200 SF 43 40 83 48 31 79 915 912 Drive-in Bank 4,100 SF 28 22 51 94 94 188 1,004 853 Conven. Mart w\pumps 4,500 SF 103 103 205 136 136 273 3,805 Total Trips 1,255 719 1,974 1,170 1,507 2,677 28,859 Table 2c Trip Generation Comparison: Proposed versus "Approved" By -Right Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Per Table 2a Total 725 485 1,210 1,031 1,165 2,197 26,652 Per Table 2b Total 1,255 719 1,974 1,170 1,507 2,677 28,859 Proposed versus "Approved" By-Rigtrt -530 -234 -764 -138 -342 -480 -2207 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing PH R+A September 7, -1-0 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 10 2010 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENTS The distribution of trips, shown in Figure 6, was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed Rutherford Crossing site. Figures 7a and 7b show the respective development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Rutherford Crossing assigned trips (Figures 7a and 7b) were then added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 8a and 8b show the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Figures 9a and 9b show the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing PH R+A September 7, -1-0 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 11 Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentage PHR�n A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 12 • 11 1 No y` l ,tiP i No Scale ,alStiAlp�d� 72(103) CS 2o,d S/fie D �gh��v pu Only n ry,�` 11 156�1,599 y SITE (g6-�I9yS�� (291)121` �8htln/p� O �on poly a O M ti 0 x 9 *.00 10.110'11) a = O o #4000tiy �1� 1 ,p51�51 11 l�titil5�� �11 b b s Epp. a �go9lti�� �� AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) LT -rP+A Figure 7a Scenario A: Development -Generated Trip Assignment (Proposed Development) A Traffic hnpact Analysis of the Ruthei:Lord , 2006 R+ASeptemmberr 72006 Project Number: 14626-1-0 PH Page 13 • 11 1 NN 1� Ny No Scale�Izsp» �3tiAl �Id Char/es Tot `S!t Road re d Oe opb nN 11 16A9169 a o`oo 2 �n SIT (9Sa rho , z s'( 3J1 y� �► !� Oa! ` aN 1 (377 80�lte.b71. b ^gib ` B/1(/yQ� Q 4,Y �r b "0 �Ln CL 4 s *.00 `� 3 t a 0000 1~ t J N 61A5�1 11 1��91$�� �'► AL a 00y 'Pam AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 7b Scenario B: Development -Generated Trip Assignment (By -right Development) A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford Crossing Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing PH R+A September 7, -1-0 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 14 yqa hry '0 No Scale Ch eS Town �bhrlry oe.# / 4/ 1 1p 9h6,� O7J p^1 0 w v e SITE 1 rss��2o9���1 l (3SSJI31 b a tih ,1 ti a olit w A ti O 11 i Ob O 1 q a b 1 w N `� 3 �ti316 0 0 `a N ao rz�, Qa a 1 63 CPO, 91� �� �qs �► si ra9 J ,��ll 6g1 rv8 J �_611 r �55I oo 11 la1 11A 0 �1►�'�..rN..�'"• 6 o J 1a SIAlAI NOA 40000, �ti9 1, � l� a J1� `r a sag, � 1�6611$;65 P AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) -f- Figure 8a Scenario A: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Proposed Development) PHA Traffic rc Impact Analysis of the Ruther ford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 15 11 1 qq hN b i No Scale i r` 60S(4p 6) Old Charles 2) 6�ollgALl ✓1 Sire Town r� Road N ZOurOW 51�9p1� 11 y1ti a � '� M 1 a � ryglhyN SITE Sire °n1brq oey b L N 1 4 �i q (44])190 avow rt�OUr OnIy (8p)3>� r Gq OEn A 11 b � a 55l N a N d ✓ �,'jl6 a Etj T� v J o� NO S�rv�29JJ a �'A,o519�'I `� 6lti�l ltio�3laal9� .� J o A ,9�p1A6511 �/'S3 11 11 19661�ao1 N Nam'"• i� Nov i3 v a b 6SO0), l��0�181913 l�� a0A AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) PT TR+/ /� \ . Figure 8b Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (By -right Development) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the RutherfordA Traffic Impact Analysis Rutherford Crossinn PH R+A September 7, -1-0 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 16 • • 'Signalized Intersection f 4,lGl LOS = C(D) f f 1 11 �O�C�� ❑ ^tf a.. Signalized 1 Intersection Unsignalized LOS = F(F) Intersection 0 At Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS =D F ( ) EB-2LeR R'B - 1 LeR, 1 Right ANB - 1 Left J 1colD SITE Unsignalized Intersection 11 ■ G� Q New �f �r(1)No Scale Inlcrsccllon" Old Charles S!� 7, edn• �� 2oaa ��h ! veil,a niO4r Oily �l "New Intersection" Signalized eljn'vel Intersection pa LOS = C(C) Cl� / a J- r �A 11 "New _ Intersection". $lGlx 118 IntersectionUnsignalized t �+ a 11 ��F1F � '�y/• Signalized Snggested Intersection Improvements" LOS = D(E) Signalization Signalized "Snggested Improvements" Intersection Signalization LOS = C(C) wB - I Left NB - I RIRht Signalized S 'gesled Intersection Improvements" LOS = C(D) I Signalization AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) `Denotes Free -Flow Movement Figure 9a Scenario A: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS (Proposed Development) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing PR+A September 7, -1-0H Project Number:14626-]-0 Page 17 'Signalized Intersection f qlG� LOS = C(D) �r r 11 l�lG Signalized 1 Intersection Unsignalized LOS = F(F) Intersection f✓ JN t Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS = E EB eZ Left WB - 1 Len, I Right 'Al NB - I Len Unsignalized Intersection 11 s 4 Q' F(17 No Scale "New Old Intersection" � �/t'S Toµn Roaa S're•D . SITE gh h� °ny' ill "New l Interseetion" 1 Signalized SItoDn �!G` Intersection LOS = C(C) s, C%_�, /3 `, .Y l .New \ 11 Intersection" z 000 G�G1 a Unsignalized r o Intersection 17 *iF�F 1 ri�' a Signalized Snggested Intersection Improvements" LOS = D(E) Signalization Signalized Imp"Suggested rovements" Intersection Signalization LOS = C(D) wB -I Len NB - I Right Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS = C(D) Signalization AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) l�­Denotes Free -Flow Movement Figure 9b Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS (By -right Development) A Tra(rc Impact Analysis of the Rztther Crossing R+ASeptember 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626-1-0 PH Page 18 • i CONCLUSION Assuming the roadway configurations shown in Figures 9a and 9b for Scenarios A and B, respectively, the proposed signalized intersection of Site -Driveway #2/Route 11 will maintain overall levels of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. Although some of the off -site intersections will operate with levels of service below "C"; the proposed "suggested improvements" of signalization/synchronization of the Route 11/I- 81 interchange intersections would significantly improve levels of service as well as traffic flow through this Route 11 corridor. PHR+A has provided Table 3 to summarize the benefits of the "suggested improvements" shown on Figures 9a and 9b, respectively. It is to be noted that the impacts of the proposed development (Scenario A) would be less than that of the "approved" by -right development (Scenario B) during 2010 build -out conditions. Table 3 Summary of Suggested imnrnvpmpntc Suggested Levels of Service No. Intersection Direction Improvements Scenario A Scenario B (Scenarios A & B) w/o Improvements w/ Improvements w/o Improvements w/ Improvements 1 Route 11/1-81 SB ramps Eastbound Westbound Northbound Signalization LOS F(F) LOS D(E) LOS F(F) LOS D(E) Southbound 2 Route 11/1-81 NB Offramp Eastbound Westbound Northbound — LOS C(D) LOS C(D) Southbound 3 Route 1 I/Redbud Road/NB Eastbound On ramp Westbound Northbound Signalization LOS F(F) LOS C(D) LOS F(F) LOS C(D) Southbound 4 Route 1I/Charlestown Roac Eastbound N/A Westbounda Northbound 1 left turn lane - 1 rightto turn lane LOS F(F) LOS C(C) LOS F(F) LOS C(D) Southbound Signalization 5 Route 1 I/Welhown Road Eastbound 2 left turn lane Westbound Northbound 1 left, I right tum lane - I left turn LOS F(F) LOS D(F) LOS F(F) LOS E(F) Southbound PHR1` LOS X(X) = LOS AM(PM) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Rutherford Crossing September 7, 2006 Project Number: 14626-1-0 Page 19 060018810 �poD ZONE f .1 ZDNE A fL00o QW��Q �Qmo4; �Nt�h4i T.M. 43—A-112B DEHAVEN NURSERY, INC. I DB 855 PG 158J I ZONE: RA I ; USE.- RESIDENTIAL 100' MINIMUM L1 CATEGORY C [ZONING DISTRICT BUFFER REQUIRED roc / 9 IRS ]1---L3* \ 1° IRS I I TRACT LINE HEREBY 1 VACATED10, I �� NOTE.- COURSES WITH ASTERISK (") DENOTE NEW TRACT LINES HEREBY ESTABLISHED. SEE SHEETS 5 k 6 FOR CURVE DATA, LINE DATA, EASEMENT DATA, AREA TABULATION, LEGEND, NOTES AND KEY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. WIRE FENCE ZONE: RA _ ZONE M1 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENT SEE SHEET 3 FOR DETAIL V ADJUSTED TAX PARCEL 43—A-111 SEE SHEET 3 I 0 0 �yL97i I 1 I \1 h /#IRS 30' DRAINAGE RUN \ 7 EASEMENT SEE SHEET 3 FOR DETAIL F\00p ZONE i '' f` IRS PROXIMATE LIMITS OF Oj �000 ZONE G O FLOOD ZONE A PER F.LR.M. -- � k L5* No. 510063 0105 8 I a' N\\\ � TRACT LINE HERBY VACATED I \ \ /Rs S 54' 19'46" E — 881.28'* r� I 20' SANITARY " cb I SEWER EASEMENT 1 ^ SEE SHEET 3 ADJUSTED FOR DETAIL m TAX1181 ACRES PARCEL 43-A-99 ' I 30' WATER 6c SEWER J2. m EASEMENT ' S 38'01 '07" W _ r I INST. No. 020014907 I 828.47' I OVERHEAD UTILITY WIRES 100' MINIMUM POTOMAC EDISON CO. R/W �/1 CATEGORY C DB 495 PG 74 ZONING DISTRICT (NO WIDTH SPECIFIED) " BUFFER REQUIRED I 15 BRL 25' BRL ZONE M1 25, BRL F I N 51'3245" W 1,290.26' ZONE.- B3�ZONE. B2 I 60'INGRESS/EGRESS H IRS IRF I I EASEMENT TO MARTINSBURG PIKE 250 0 250 INST. No. 050006701 I ;' T.M. 43—A-1GRAPHIC SCALE RUTHERFORD FARM,A LLC INST No. 050006702 (IN FEET) ZONE: B2 do B3 USE. VACANT REVISED: AUGUST 31. 2006 FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET ALS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGIN14 SCALE: 1" = 250' 1 DATE: JUNE 13, 2006 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchesler, Virginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com I, �. NLTH OF t RICHARD A. EDENS y No.002550 2795J SHEET 2 OF 6 CD C., I J NOTE. COURSES WITH ASTERISK (*) DENOTE NEW SE CT LINES HEREBY ESTABLISHED. SHEETS 5& 6 FOR CURVE DATA, LINE DATA, pl EASEMENT DATA, AREA TABULATION, LEGEND, NOTES jo WINCH, ¢ w� AND KEY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. 5 TERN /��� WA TER ¢ \� - -��601 R� - SEE DB 633 PC 772 JO EAS£M£NT SEWER DOT -SHADED AREA y G / �_ INST. No. 020014907 DENOTES A 20' E5 f/pi�� P - ` _ - - ~ - ~"-�- SANITARY SEWER'S �/ E ADJUSTED TAX PARCEL 43-A-99 - - ' EASEMENT HEREBY j j �p / 10� SEE SHEET 2 ESTABLISHED TO r BENEFIT ADJUSTED / nc CP TRACT CT —LINE TAX PARCEL \ ! nc E2 � z 43-A-111. t. E4 # EC 1 "' WATT e l E N 2 W ♦ L5 El ����•.. RUN i� co1 o IRS SIRS JO,S S E 0'F 25'9), f�OENClf I..1 ^' 2 h J 61.65' ♦ p f�T A� USy� f'y E3 * o Cfl 4JUShcO T,q rD—�'l::I L3* m L4 IRS A�TA7 IRS t I - - o w x OVERHEAD UTILITY - SIRS ?S N WIRES - POTOMAC lI N� EDISON CO. R/W BRL Y rn I DB 495 PG 74 Cl* W - e N I (NO WIDTH APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF 2 o nSPECIFIED) FLOOD ZONE A PER F.LR.M. No. 510063 0105 Bzo Gj o �- ADJUSTED TAX W lZ'�01C �f• � p W BARN PARCEL 43—A-111 03 Izg� 18.J45J ACRES '* � o 2 I 100' MINIMUM (r) zg E2 di p W ti 100' MINIMUM CATEGORY C '� Q m . CATEGORY C ZONING DISTRICT � i � w Z 2 ZONING DISTRICT C7 BUFFER REQUIRED i • • W o BUFFER REQUIRED BARN 2 * ti N ZONE MI 11RF ZONE. RA ZONE. RP IRS L l ZONE. RP IRF L6 ZONE.- Ml L 11 IPF ZONE....... p .. ; WIRE aN E IRS NAIL FD. L 10 IN TREE SEE SHEET 4 , a a; o a OFOR DETAIL ga a r.,: ni a G O lO a OF THIS v i i �:i W; W O m� AREA p o J z z 2 2 N N IRF L8 o__C,_o ' MON C2 IRF 200 0 200 0.65 UILEf TO MARTINSBURG PIKE INTERSTATE 81 EXIT 317 U.S. ROUTE 11 GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) 80' R/W REVISED: AUGUST 31. 2006 FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF Lr�f'C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET AL��STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDER/CK COUNTY, V/RG/N1A 'NSSCALE: e 1" = 200' DATE: JUNE 13, 2006GREENWAY ENGINEERING4151 Windy Hill Lane��Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 2795J SHEET 3 OF 6 Ihrmded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com a pi p0`T ADJUSTED TAX PARCEL 43-A-111 SEE SHEET J 100' MINIMUM CATEGORY C ZONING DISTRICT BUFFER REQUIRED L 10 IPF ZONE.- M1 ZONE.:RP ---.RP ..x.................... y............... x.............. z.......... x�............ x....... o R 1 LRP 6 ZONE: RA WIRE FENCE ZONE.• RA ZO E.• o i I VARIABLE WIDTH I SEPTIC EASEMENT W ; SHED : SERVING TAX z I PARCEL 4J-A-111 N N I I i INST.No. 02002287J I J DWELLING w+ j 12015 Q):e I I� J I�j 1 I II oa�ry� �Qo3 h I m Iwl I �� � mow �o LOW � I I I vL� 2 3 �� I I I o:o vow �2� � ADJUSTED I Iwl� ""��z� ' �z� TAX PARCEL II ''�'mz� �o y`N z 43-A-111 h III 118.3453 ACRES 1 wI H 0 11 w III OVERHEAD IUTLITY WIRES � 60' BRL i w 10' UTILITY w W I 1 EASEMENT N N w 1 1 SERVING TAX PARCEL 4J-A-111 I w 1 INST. No. I I 02002287J IRF S J748'44" W - 133.86' MON C2 0 __ lRF 0.J2 MILE± TO MARTINSBURG PIKE ROUTE 838 U.S. ROUTE 11 MCCANNS RD, NOTE: 80' R/W 60 0 60 COURSES WITH ASTERISK (s) DENOTE NEW TRACT LINES HEREBY ESTABLISHED. SEE SHEETS 5 k 6 FOR CURVE DATA, LINE DATA, EASEMENT GRAPHIC SCALE DATA, AREA TABULATION, LEGEND, N07ES AND KEY TO (IN FEET) ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. REVISED: AUGUST 31 2006 FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT ALTH OF BETWEEN THE LANDS OF (LBRICHARD , pC. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET ALSSTONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGIN14 A. EDENS a INNEmm win N 1" = 60' I DATE: JUNE 13, 2006 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Cngineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 www.greenwayeng.coin No.002550 �.b SURvpY 2795J SHEET 4 OF 6 CA �11avc nerA CURVE DELTA ANGLE I RADIUS I ARC LENGTH TANGENT CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH C1 43'S8'47" 500.00' 1 383.80' 1 201.91' S 49'0726" W 374.44' C2 00'28'11 " 1114.99.20T 94,97'— 1 47.13' S 38'02'50" W 94.27' IlNF nATA LINE BEARING DISTANCE L 1 S 2754'00" W 289.78' L2 S 54' 18'45" E TOO .46' L3 S 27'08'02" W 69.59' L4 S 71'06'49" W 194.41' L5 S 42'18'30" W 302.27' L6 S 38118'33" W 373.93' L7 S 54'1326" E 337.48' L8 S 37'48'44" W 133.86' L9 N 55'45 55" W 339.60' L I O S 38' 18 33 " W 145.00' L 11 N 55'4555" W 41.52' L 12 S 38'01 '07" W 135.00' TA FASFA.4FAIT (FNTFRI lNF DATA LINE BEARING DISTANCE El N 24'38'08" W 64.68' E2 N 03'03 26" E 21.89' E3 N 54'24'04" W 249.16' E4 N 72'0 127" W 109.89' E5 I N 06'21 '49' W 292.79' EGEND BRL = BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE PER ZONING ORDINANCE IPF = 2" IRON PIPE FOUND IRF = X" IRON REBAR FOUND IRS = X " IRON REBAR & CAP SET MON = CONCRETE HIGHWAY MONUMENT FOUND R/W = RIGHT OF WAY — e — = OVERHEAD UTILITY WIRES A r- = FENCE LINE ............. I..... • = ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET ALS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: N/A I DATE: JUNE 13, 2008 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 "eyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.•(540) 722-9528 hounded m 1971 www.greenwayeng.com t,LTH O% WAR A. EDENS a No.002550 0 2795J SHEET 5 OF 6 0 cn Co n KEY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS -LAC TAX PARCEL No. CURRENT OWNER REFERENCE ZO E USf T. U. 4JC-1—A ROY R. MESSICK, ET UX OB 259 PG 568 RP/RESID. © T. M. 43C-1—B BR4DFORD VILLAGE APARTMENTS, L.C. DB 970 PG 359 RP/RESID. © T.M. 43C-1—C NANBODAN PROPERTIES, L.L.C. INST No. 0500 I3767 RP/RESID. OD T.M. 43C-1—D MICHAEL A. MOORE, ET UX OB 668 PG 112 RP/RESID. EO T.M. 43—A-105 THOMAS W. RISSLER, ET UX DB 286 PG 267 RP/RESIO. OF T.M, 43—A-106 RONALD A. LEE, ET UX DB 535 PG 294 RP/RESID. © T.M. 43—A-107 CLIFFORD D. MCQUAIN, ET ALS OB 896 PG 708 RP/RESID, 0 T.M. 43—A-108 PATRICIA S. NETHERS WILL No. 010000120 RP/RESID. lO T.M. 43—A-109 SCOTT E. MERRYMAN, ET UX INST. No. 030016388 RP/RESID. JO T.M. 43—A-110 THOMAS E. RIDDICK, ✓R., ET UX INST No. 02002287J R4&RP/RESID, KO T.M. 43—A-113 CHARLES S. DEHAVEN, ET UX, TRUSTEES INST. No. 060006327 RP/RESID. AREA TABULATION T.M. 43—A— I I l EXISTING AREA OF T.M. 43—A-111 = 20.6565 ACRES PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43—A-99 ADDED = t 2.4942 ACRES LESS PORTION ADDED TO T.M. 43—A-99 = — 4,8054 ACRES ADJUSTED AREA = 18.3453 ACRES T.M. 43—A-99 EXISTING AREA OF T M. 43—A-99 = 29.8069 ACRES LESS PORTION ADDED TO T.M. 43—A-111 = — 2.4942 ACRES PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43—A-111 ADDED = + 4.8054 ACRES ADJUSTED AREA (EAST OF RAILROAD) = 32.1161 ACRES PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43—A-99 (WEST OF RAILROAD) = + 2ZO693 ACRES ADJUSTED AREA (TOTAL) = 59.1874 ACRES NOTES 1. THE BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY BY THIS FIRM. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. EASEMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN MAY EXIST 2. THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON LIES WITHIN ZONE C, AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING, AND ZONE A, AREAS OF 100—YEAR FLOOD; BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS AND FLOOD HAZARD FACTORS NOT DETERMINED, PER N.FLP. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP No. 510063 0105 8, DATED JULY 17, 1978. THE APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SAID ZONE A ARE SHOWN HEREON AS DETERMINED BY GRAPHIC PLOTTING UPON SAID MAP, REVISED: AUGUST 31, 2006 FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF O��p,LTH OFLr� C, ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET ALSO STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGIN14 RICHARD A. EDENS SCALE: N/A I DATE: JUNE 13, 2006 No.002550 GREENWAY ENGINEERING a-3t-ot, 4 () 151 Windy Hill Lane SUR`� Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com 2795J SHEET 6 OF 6 0 U-1 OD C, U'I CO rJ VIRGIMA: FREDERICK COUNTY.SCr. This instrument of writing was produced to me on \ b 13 I aAQ6-- at y ' 3 11 and with certificate acknowledgement thereto annexed was admitted to record. Tax imposed by See. 58.1.802 of $ N PIr , and 58.1-801 have bcen paid, if assessable. 4"'a /)j ,Clak FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARTFLINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF cn RUTHERFORD, LL C STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA JUNE 2, 2004 LINE DATA LINE 8bIR/NG DISTANCE L 1 S 75'36 08 E 56.19' L2 N 7638" W 87.67 L3 S 41J225 E 194.39' CURVE DATA 0 lESrF.dI� n IRF = 1/2" IRON REBAR FOUND Co IRS — 1/2" IRON RE84R & CAP SET CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTHf:�OEL:TA ANGLE TANGENT CHORD EAR/NC CHORD LENGTH C 1 5629.58 614 42' 15 12J07,51 ' N 04' 1J 46 £ 614.11 C2 5629.58' l2673J 11'53 54 636:35 N 18 33 51 f 1264.65 i ORIGINAL AREA OF T.M. 43—A-98 = 2.9452 ACRE PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 4J—A-96 ADDED = +7.3675 ACRES PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43—A-97 ADDED = +8.9260 ACRES PLUS POR77ON OF T.M. 43—A-99 ADDED = +9.14J7 ACRES ADJUSTED AREA = 28.3824 ACRES ORIGINAL AREA PART 2 OF T.M. 43—A-99 = 36.2129 ACRES LESS POR77ON TO T.M. 43—A-99—9.14J7 ACRES ADJUSTED AREA (BY SUBTR4C7I0N) = 27.0693 ACRES NOTES 1. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. EASEMEN75 OMER THAN SHOWN MAY EXIST. 2. THE BOUNDARY INFORM477ON SHOWN HEREON HAS BEEN PREPARED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND IS NOT PURPORTED TO BE A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE TRACT OR ANY PORT70N OF THE BOUNDARY LINES. 3. THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON LIES WITHIN ZONE C, AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING, AND ZONE A, AREAS OF 100—YEAR FLOOD; BASE FLOOD E2.EVA77ONS AND FLOOD HAZARD FACTORS NOT DETERMINED, PER N.F.LP. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE A64P No. 51006J 0105 B, DATED JULY 17, 1978. THE APPROXIMATE UMfrS OF SAID ZONE A ARE SHOWN HEREON AS DETERMINED BY GRAPHIC PLOTTING UPON SAID MAP. InaresgZEgress Easement Note; The proposed private driveway/road shown hereon is not built according to street specifications of and will not be maintained by, the Virginio Deportment of Transportation or Frederick County. The improvement and maintenance of said driveway/rood shall be the sole responsibility of the owners of lots which are provided with access via the driveway/road. Said driveway/roods will not be considered for inclusion into the state secondary system until they meet the applicable construction standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation. The cost of bringing said driveway/rood to acceptable standards shall not be bome by the Virginia Department of Transportation nor by Frederick County. FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF RUTHERFORA LL C STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: N/A I DATE: JUNE 2, 2004 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 SX eyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 7;2-9528 Founded in 1971 www,greenway�ng.com f V ARK D. S TH N0.002009 G,?'CA a � 2795J SHEET 2 OF 4 NOTE: r SEE SHEET 3 FOR NOTES, LEGEND, LINE DATA, CURVE WA AND AREA TABULATTON.- SEE SHEET 4 FOR s CD INGRESS/EGRESS LINE DATA l W N ca AND CURVE DATA %Q j Asia j m � 0 P/ -z, ADJUSTED TRACT B T.M. 43-A-99 27.0693 ACRES TRACT LINE 100 YR FLOOD PLAIN HEREBY b ` VA�J2 ZONE A • . 0 S ZONE C QO� 5 E 2seRL ADJUSTED \ T.M. 43-A-98 \ T.M. 43-A-96 28.3624 ACRES lit, F� iJ1 \1�4 Tf Tk \ A 43-A-97 \ i T.M. 4J-A-96 N N/F ELLIOTT ZONE.- M2 USE: VACANT 300 . 0 300 GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) 0 CJ1 cn to x O 60.0' Z I T.'. 3—A-9 bIEI E 70 FIVO. MON. ONLINE 3.28' S. • DENOTES NEW PROPERTY UNE HEREBY ESTABLISHED, RNAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF RUTHERFORD, LL C STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1" = 300' 1 DATE: JUNE 2. 2004 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 1 SI Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Yrgfnla 22602 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com P MARK D SMITH � No.002009 2795J SHEET 3 OF 4 obi .9i Jn J00 0 J00 GRAPHIC SCALE M (IN FEET) TM4CT A T.M. 4J—A-99 INST. 44C20012086 LINE DATA LINE BEARING DISTANCE El N 4T41 i0 W 165.41 N 1612 W 782.98 EJ N 51'?514' W 524.61 ' �' '• 50- INGRESS/EGRESS ESMT �� : ' ' '• HEREBY ESTABLISHED EA SFk4FIVT (Y 1RVF ne re Q J ; • m y Z Q a IE OTEEE SHEET J FOR N07M GEND, LINE L34TA, CURVETA AND AREA TABULAT74N. CURVE CJ I RADIUS J08.00 ARC LENGTH 9J. 65' • DELTA_ ANGLE 1 T25' 18" TA ENT 47.19 C D BEARING S 38 58 51 f CHORD LEIVCIH 9J.19' C4 308.00 11J.71 21'09 12 57.51 N 4050 48W 11J.07 AD.RJISTW TRACT B --_ �-- M 41-A-00 27,00J AOV& �\ I \ AD"TT � T 2CW4 ACW .✓1 10 INDEX MAP SCALE.• I— 1000' FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF RUTHERFORD, LL C STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDER/CK COUNTY, V/RGINIA SCALE: 1" = 300' DATE: JUKE 2, 2004 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone." (540) 662-4185 FAX: (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.grLenwayeng.com ARK D �S1`IITH ,,No.002009 lX�tD�4�� 2795J SHEET 4 OF 4 0 0 cJ� V1ROINIA: FREDERICK COUNTY, SCT. TNs instrument of writi ng was produced to me on at and with certificate of acknowledgement thereto annexed was admitted to record, T imposed by Sec. 58.1-802 of S !40 ' , and 58.1-801 have been paid, if acussable 4ew 4, O r Qert FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET AL STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, WRGINA MARCH 18, 2005 ,t z Exit r 317 vice mp 1 2000' OWNER'S CERTIFICATE THE ABOVE AND FOREW MG BOUNDARY LwE AwusmovT BETWEEN THE LANDS of c. R09D?T SOLENBDW, JOHN 8. SCHROM AND JOWN S. SaUY, A, AS APPEARS ON THE A000WPANYMMG PLAT$, IS WITH THE FREE Ca%SW AND IN AccoRomm omf THE DE'SWES OF THE UNDERSK,NED OWNERS; PROPRKTOn SAW t� �Flo 7H OF !VN CIOMWWNFA N OF KRGNi4 CITY OF frc ri a ri t j , TO wrr. CITY/cOuN1Y OF TO TNT.• THE FOREGam OWNEIP S comFrATE WAS THE FOREGOING OWNERS CERTIFICATE WAS KEDGED BEFORE AIE NStS DAY OF ACKA00KEDCED BEFORE ME THIS_ DAY OF BY S 2Q_,_- BY NOTARYPUBW NOTARY PUBLIC 2 MY COM/MLLSxOW EXPIRE'S , S ` CERTIFICATE l HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE LAND CONT41N D IN THIS BOUNINRY LINE AU/USMENT SURVEY IS A PORTION OF THE LAND CONY£YED TO E ROMRT SOLENBMD? JaW 8. SCHROTH AND JOHN S. SCULLY, IV BY DEED D 47M AUGUST 24, 2004 OF RECORD IN THE FROMM COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CLERKS WX,E AS ffi6l JAIDVT nb 0400I7164. RICHARD A. EDENS. L.S. NOTE.- PARENT W PARCEL IDEN77f7t:ATION TRACT A - T.M. 43-A-99 78.8873 ACRES ZONE: 92/B3/MI USE. VACANT T.M. 4J-A-100 1.3002 ACRES ZONE. B2 USE: VACANT T.M. 43-A-101 0.7370 ACRE ZONE: 82 USE- RESIDENTLIL APPROVALS. � ZF�-, L�.LTH FREDERICK COU—&y7Y SU80MSION ADMIN157PATOR 0ArE Rl HARD A EDENS N0.002550 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Wincheste, Vt�lirinio 22602 sty„ 3-i8ro5 SUR einrs Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX (540) 722-9528 4(? -4 -/ o 0 2795J SIMT 1 OF 4 Founded in 1971 www.gwnwd)ww com os000&70( S££ SHEET 4 fOR LEGEND, LINE LYI rA, AREA TABULATION, AND KEY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. FLOOD ZONE G i 00�--r , ZONE A /RF. FLOOp � I jh� 11$ 300 0 .i00 GRAPHIC SCALE 4h (IN FEET) ti "NTT. I I TM. 4J-A-111 C. ROBERT sOLENBERGER, ET AL l INST. NO. 040017164 ZONE. M1 USE VACANT I RUN a ` _ ► 8�1 -% I I �— --rl IRF o 0' 1 % ° 1 f- — 15, BRL n1 I ` % . EXISTING POTOW y - W I \ ED�SON CO. R/W , f DB 495 PG 74 o y (NO WIDTH SPECIFIED) tv I ADJUSTED v c r lw I \ _ _ 1;� 2 � o T.Ifr� ,><3 A 9 F 8 29.8069 ACRES �o I DOr-SHADED AREA DENOTES# OE A 60'INGRESS/ EGRESS `l 0 £ASEVEM HEREBY RESERVED I �--1 70 80EM ADJUSTED C TM 43-A-99 (SEE SHEET 3) ZONE A/ 1 \ ' BRL 25 • BRL B 5 BRL — !RF • N 51'3Z 45 W t290.26 ZONE 92 ZONE 173 ADJUSTED I T.M. 4•j-A-100 NOTES I J - SEE SHEET 3 1. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. EASEMENTS OTHER THAN SHOWN MAY EXIST. 2. THE BOUNDARY INFORMA77ON SHOWN HEREON IS RASED ON A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY BY THIS FIRM. 3. THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON LIES WITHIN ZONE C, AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING, AND ZONE A, AREAS OF 100-YEAR FLOOD; RASE FLOOD ELEVA77ONS AND FLOOD HAZARD FACTORS NOT DETERMINED, PER NF.I.P. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP No. 510063 0105 B, DATED JULY 17, 1978, THE APPROXIMATE UM/TS OF SAID ZONE A ARE SHOWN HEREON, AS DETERMINED BY GRAPHIC PLOTTING UPON SAID MAP. 4. COURSE WITH ASTERISK (•) DENOTES NEW TRACT LINE HEREBY ESTABLISHED. FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF G. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET AL O % STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, V7RGINIA U RI HARD A. EDENS SCALE: 1" a 300' DATE: MARCH 18, 2005 N0.002550 GREENWAY ENGINEERING t 3 151 Windy Hill Lane E r �0 8Ufall Winchester, Virginia 22602 Survngineers eyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX: (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com 2796J SHEET 2 OF 4 6)6,0 06 in 7o l DOT —SHADED AREA DENOTES AN ADORTONAL 15' INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT HEREBY ESTABLISHED TO TOTAL 80' 300 0 300 GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) DOT —SHADED AREA DENOTES A 60' INGRESS/ EGRESS EASEMMENT HEREBY RESERVED TO BENEFIT ADJUSTED TM 43—A-99 T. ADJUS7FD99 N4 SEE• SHEET 2 O B ZONE M1 907.45' 1.96' , rZONE 82 25BRL ' FORWrR TRACT LINES HEREBY VACATED 00". NOTE COURSE WITH ASTERISK (�) DENOTES NEW PROPERTY UN£ HEREBY ESTABUSHED. CURVE DATA c i L 1 MOB. N NOTE SEE SHEET 4 FOR CURVE DATA, LEGEND, UNE W TA, AAFA TABULATION, AND KEY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. CURVE RADIUS ARC awGTH DELTA ANGLE TANGENT CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH CI 1 J21.72 76.18' 2918 4J J45.66 15'S6 51 W 6 C2 5629. 144.98' Ol' 8J2 72.49 N 1 W 144.9 CJ 252.00 82J.69 20'57'2J 416.50 S 50'20 OJ W 819.11 FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF �S�'1'TH RFD C. ROBERT SOLEMBERGER ET AL f�0 STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, ORGINIA E3 RICHARO A. EDENS y SCALE: 300' DATE: MARCH 18, 2006 N0.002550 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Egineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 d SURV�' Sjwyo s Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.gmenwaYeng.com 2795J SHEET 3 OF 4 05000&76 ( AREA TMILAnoN TM. 43 A-100 ORIGINAL AREA OF TM, 4J-A-100 = PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43-A-99 ADDED = PLUS ALL OF T.M. 43A-101 ADDED = ADJUSTED AREA = TM, 43 A-99 ORIGIJWL AREA TRACT 'A' OF T.M. 43-A-99 LESS POR77ON ADDED 70 T.M. 4J A-100 ADJUSTED AREA PLUS 'TRACT 8' OF TM. 43-A-99 TOTAL AREA OF TM. 43A-99 (T IM PARTS) EASEMENT CEMERLINE DATA Nf I WA MW DISTANCE f 1 I S NMI W ?79.61 LINE DATA UNE BEARING A0S—TA NCE L 1 N 4755 36 W 270.92 1-2 N 30'36 12 W 1 236.5 LJ N 29.45 5? W I 79.86' 1.3002 ACRES +49.0804 ACRES 1 X~ +0.7370 ACRE 51.1176 ACRES b = 78.8673 ACRES -49.0804 ACRES u' = 29.8069 ACRES +27.0693 ACRES = 56.8762 ACRES DATA /F AM.. -CONCRETE HIGHWAY MONUMENT 0 - 112' IRON REa4R & CAP SET UNLESS OTHERKSE NOTED IRF - 112' IRON RE84R FOUND SRL - BUILDNNG RES1RlCTION UNE PER ZONING ORDIMACE - CDVZRUN£ R/W - RICHT OF WAY KEY TAX AO TO AQ/0/N/NG PROPERTY OWNERS CLORENT ONNEIt G Room SQLOeow, E7 AL WT. 1040017164 lzawl1LSE Gi2/RESAD 197MMAWN NO, T. m. 43 A- t 01 © T.M. 4JC-1 A ROY R. ME.MEMM ET UX D8 259 PC 568 RP/R£5J0 C� T.AL 4J-A-102 6i1 L LC OCT. 10OW07005 RP/REW T M. 4J A-103 ROSO U a ,X7FpVS0k ET UX DB 424 PG 534 mo/It w EO T.M. 43-A-104 MChWE1 A MOOR& ET UX DB 668 PC 112 AP/RMD OF TM. 4J-A-105 THOWS W. RLS.SLER ET UX DB 286 PG 267 RP/RE51D © T.M. 4J-A-106 R&MLD A UE& ET UX DB 5J5 PG 294 RP/Wr/D T.M. 43A-107 C ffM D. AW.14W,, ET AL D8 896 PG 708 Rp/RES1l! !� T.AL 43-A-108 PlATMA S. MEP RS MILL 10100000120 RP/REW JO T.M. 43A-109 SCOTT E A/E MMU, ET UX MT. /wool &w RP/mw �f TJL 4JA-1129 DE44MV NURSER); lND W. 1020016M RVRE510 © TM. 43A-100 C. R9MW SOLDNERGER, ET AL AST. 1040017164 84NACW f7N4L PLAT FOR BOUNDARY UNE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET AL s STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY. WRGINIA RlaA9 A. EDENS � SCALE: N/A DATE: LURCH 18, 2006 No.002550 It\ GREENWAY ENGINEERING 3-N$-0 4 151 windy HlU Lane lk,.VEngineers Winchester, YWgtnw 22602 SUR`� - Swwyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX (540) 722-9528 Founded In 1971 www.grrenwdyeng.tom 279W SMUT 4 OF 4 O-`�DDr>6/0/ C W CD C)" VIRUINIA FREDERICK COUNTY, SCT. This instrument of writinywas produced to the on at -/Ozj. ant with cert ifi,xlz of ackntwvledgcment thereto annexed was admi ed to record. T imposed by Sec. 58.1-802 of S and 58.1-801 have been paid, if asseaabk 4L 44— Cleck �P 650006701 • M 040011262 cri a Cn vrt- THIS DEED made and dated this day of June, 2004, by and between RUTHERFORD. LLC. a Virginia limited liability company, party of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantor, and )gR(;INIA APPLE STORAGE_ INC., a Virginia corporation, party of the second part, hereinafter called the Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00) Dollars, cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby grant and convey with General Warranty and English Covenants of Title unto the Grantee, in fee simple absolute, all that certain tract or parcel of land, lying and being situate in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 28.3824 acres, together with a 50-foot wide ingress and. egress easement to and from U.S. Route It, all of which is shown on that certain plat of survey drawn by Mark D. Smith, Land Surveyor, dated June 2, 2004, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof as if set out in full; ANb BEING a portion of the same land conveyed to Rutherford, LLC by deed dated July 10, 2002 of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County as Instrument No. 020011418 and all the land conveyed to Rutherford, LLC by deed dated July 10, 2002 of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 020011420. (Tax Map Parcel 43-A-98) This conveyance is trade subject to all rights of way and restrictions of record affecting the subject property. Page t of 2 • C) C-n ON WITNESS the following signatures and seals: s� RUTHERFORD, LLC BY:„fi (SEAL) C. Robert Solenbe'rger, Member/Manager 7 By: (SEAL) JaVn S. Scu lly, IV, M ber/Manager By'(SEAL) hu B. Schroth, Member/Manager ST*Tf, OF VIRGINIA, OP TO -WIT: I, Notary Public in and for the State and jurisdiction oresaid do here certify that C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV and John B. Schroth, Member/Managers of Rutherford, LLC, whose names are signed to the foregoing Deed, dated June /gam 2004, have personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same 'irwAy State and jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand this aday o 2004. 5 � My Commission expires DS . NOURY P99LIC 1496Rud=fbrd1119971virginia Apple SMgM:\DEED RutheMrd to VA Apple Storage.wpd L G Page 2 of 2 Y�7 r�riiited un 06/152006 By GREPNWAY EM31NEERING INC 040017164 U, w THIS DEED IN DISTRIBUTION made and dated this 24* day of August, 2004, by and between R H ORD. ] LC, a Virginia limited liability company, party of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantor, and C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHN B.S. CHROTH and JOHN S. SCULLY, IV parties of the second p part, hereinafter called the Grantees. 0 WHEREAS, Rutherford Farm, LLC is a Virginia limited liability company, and the sole members of said limited liability company are: C. Robert Solenberger, John B. Schroth and John S. Scully, IV; WHEREAS, it is the desire of the members to distribute the following real estate to each of the members in their percentage interest of the limited liability company. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived therefrom, the Grantor does hereby grant and convey with Special Warranty of Title unto C. Robert Solenberger an undivided one-third (1/3) interest, unto John B. Schroth an undivided one-third (1/3) interest and unto John S. Scully, IV an undivided one-third (1/3) interest in the following real estate: All that certain real estate lying and being situate in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia and more particularly on Schedules A-1, A-2, A-3 and A4 attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof as if set out in full. u a ai F.RUTHERFORD,LLC qm C4 By: P C C. Robert Solenberger, Member/Manager Y• J o hn B. Schroth, Member/Manag.r 3 3 z BY� - Jo . Scully, IV, Member/Manager Page 1 of 2 ' 3.3-A q? 6)40 0111/6'� PYlnled On 06/15,2006 ey GREQNWAV EIPGINEERING INC 0 M STATE OF VIRGINIA cr1 CITY OF WINCI ESTER, TO T: a Notary Public in and for the State and jurisdicti afores�i do here certify that C. RobertSolenberger, John H. Schroth, John S. Scully, IV, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the foregoing instrument, all in their capacity as its Members/Managers in and in the name and for and on behalf of Rutherford, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company, organized under the laws of the State of Virginia Witness my hand and official seal, this the ,25 4b day of 12004 My Commission expires:_ NOT Y P IC h�• Ji, •.t H �tA. 3 t'7 rr C J\J I I"60.n AWk A NEEDnONbutnn wpl �,0 Page 2 of 2 'P1 nfed On 06/152006 By GREgNWAy ENGINEERING INC 0 • TRACT ONE: All that certain tract of land containing 23 acres, more or less, in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia and being all the remainder tract of land conveyed to Ray H. Duncan and Emma Duncan, his wife, as tenants by the entirety with common law right of survivorship from William B. Casilear, et ux. dated February 1, 1945 of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 191 at Page 278. Ray ]4, Duncan diet: Jury 9, 973 survives ' y:-3mma Duncan. Tax Map No. 43-A-111 �OTW6---D All ofthose contiguous tracts of lan6lying and. being situate in Stonewal1 *-Magisterial:3istrict of Frederick County Virginia, originally containing 124.8 acres and 17.8 acres, according to the survey of Walker Mc C. Bond, C.E. dated May 1952 of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 224 at Page 292, Less And axr&ptwg certain conveyance therefrom, leaving a balance of 115.30 acres, more or less, according to the Tax Books of Frederick County and being the remainder land conveyed to Ray H. Duncan and Emma Duncan, his wife, as tenants by the entirety with common law right of survivorship, by Deed dated June 7, 1952 from Camilla R. Bardshar, wicow eras, ofrecord in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 224 at Page 292. Ray H. Duncan Deed as aforesaid. Tax Map N . 43-A� TRACT THREE: All that certain tract of land in Stonewall Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia, bounded on the Western side by 1-81 for a distance of approximately 760 feet, on the South side by land formerly Burton Hoover for a distance of approximately 536 feet, on the Eastern side by the lands of Ray H. Duncan, et ux., for approximately 350 feet, and on the Northern side by the lands of Ray H. Duncan, et al. , for approximately 612 feet, said lot or parcel of land containing approximately 5'/: acres, more or less; AND BECNG the same property conveyed to Ray H. Duncan and Emma Duncan, jointly with remainder to the survivor by Deed dated October 1,1963 from J.S. Hoover, widower of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 293 at Page 359. Ray H. Duncan died as aforesaid. Tax Map No. 43-A-96 Page 1 of 2 O'l CA Cl PY111W Oh 0611WO06 Ay GREENWAY ENGINEERING INC 0 0 TRACT FOUR: All that certain tract of land in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 2.66 acres, more or less, and described in the Deed hereinafter mentioned; AND BEING the same property conveyed to Ray H. Duncan and Emma Duncan, jointly with the remainder to the survivor by Deed dated November 15, 1963 from A. N. Fampton, e.ivorcee., of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 294 at Page 656. Ray H. Duncan died as aforesaid. Tax Map No. 43-A-98 Emma S. Duncan (being one and the same as Emma Duncan) died testate on July 26, 1996 and by her Last will and Testament dated June 9, 1983, probated August 2, 1996, devised her property in equd.. s'aares, to 'ier bile ren, :.Richard 'lay :-)uncan and Janet D. Riddick. AND BEING the same real estate conveyed to Rutherford, LLC by deed dated July 10, 2002 from Richard R. Duncan and Janet D. Riddick, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court ofFrederick County as InstrumentNo. 020011418, LESS AND EXCEPTING thatportion conveyed to Virginia Apple Storage, Inc. by deed dated June 16, 2004 from Rutherford, LLC, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 04001; 262. 114 W MU.d.1d \ A 1Jd,Wuk A•1 M d Page 2 of 2 p-�(00l7/64 Printed On 061152006 By GREENWAY ENGINEERING INC • S HEM A_2 All that certain lot or parcel of land, together with all rights, rights -of -way and appurtenances thereunto belonging to, lying and being situate on the Martinsburg Pike, U.S. Route 11, about two (2) miles Northeast of the City of Winchester, in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 1.310 acres, more or less, and more particularly eescribed by plat and survey of Lee A. Ebert, C.L.S., dated April 11,1983 of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 563 at Pages 340 and 341 and by this reference made a part hereof as if set out in full; ANi) BEING the same land conveyed to Rutherford, LLC by deed dated July 10, 2002 from Richard R. Duncan, of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia as Instrument No. 020011419. Tax Map No 43-A-100) 11486R.1hedoW \ A kid W.1, A•] rpd 17 .._j A -Anted On'06/15v2006 By GREEN WA Y ENGINEERING INC 0 C� qr� U 1 SCHEDULE A-3 CJ All that certain :.ot or parce of .anc, togefier wits tie improvements thereon, located about three (3) miles North of the City of Winchester, in the County of Frederick, Virginia, along Welltown Pike, containing 8.92600 acres, more or less, as more fully set forth on that certain plat and survey prepared by David M. Furstenau, L.S., dated the 13' day of March, 2001 attached to the Deed dated August 7, 2001 and recorded as Instrument No, 01-0010398 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia; AND BEING the same property conveyed to Rutherford, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, by Deed from Turner Enterprises, L.L.C., a Virginia :.united liability company, July 10, 2002, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 020011420. Tax Map No. 43-A-97 I I ItdRmkrford 1 A %S,6duk AJ xpd o -/6 0 /-7 � ` Printed On 06/152006 BY GREENWAY ENGINEERING INC SCHEDULE A-4 All of that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being situate in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, along the Western boundary of U.S. Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike) containing 32,064 square feet, more or less, as shown by survey drawn by Richard U. Good, Certified Land Surveyor, dated November 13, 1964, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virgitua, in Deed Book 307 at Page 496; AND BEING the same land conveyed to Rutherford, LLC, by Deed dated October 6, 2003 from Mary M. Taylor, widow, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 030023107. Tax Map No. 43-A-101 VIRUINIA: FREDERICK COUNTY, SC . This Instrument of KTiting Was produced to me on 0 at :5 and with a,rlcli,atc of acknowledgement there o annexed waass admrtied tto record. T irupl>,�d by Sec. 58. t-R0, of 3 — ft( and 58.1-ROl have heen paid, if assessable, 4f.0 , Clerk I148bR.1hw ,d%A\ScWA Aa wpd 0 a 050006702 0 THIS DEED made and dated this 3 day of 2005, by and between C. ROBERT SOLENBERGE& JOHN B. SCHRQTH and JOHN S. J SCULLY. IV, parties of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantors, and n RUTHERFORD FARM. LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, party of the second v part, hereinafter called the Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00) bollars, cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor's do hereby grant and convey with special warranty and English Covenants of title unto the Grantee, in fee simple absolute, all of the following described tract or parcel of land: All that certain tract or parcel of land, lying and being situate in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing a 51.1176 acres, as shown on the plat of survey drawn by Mark D. 0. Smith, L.S., dated March 18, 2005, and by this reference made a part a hereof as if set out in full; AND BEING a portion of the same land conveyed to C. Robert Solenberger, John B. Schroth and John S. Scully, IV by Deed dated August 24, 2004 from Rutherford, LLC, a log R 3 Virginia limited liability company, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, as Instrument No. 04-0017164. Page 1 of 2 /L b Sv v(0 �o • 0 W co to This conveyance is made subject to all easements, rights of way and restrictions of record affecting the subject property, and particularly those certain 50-foot-wide non- exclusive, ingress/egress easements as set forth in Instrument No. 04-0011262 in the aforesaid Clerk's Office and shown on the aforesaid attached survey. WITNESS the following signatures and seals. (SEAL) Rnhref QnlPnhnronr STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF WINCHESTER, TO -WIT 1, _�Rbll� bOLM _U) a Notary Public in and for the Stets and jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certify that C. Robert Solenberger, John B. Schroth and John S. Scully, IV, whose names are signed to the foregoing DEED dated the Q 3 day of MGLt 01 2005 have personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my risdiction aforesaid. State and ju Given under my hand this � day of . 2005. i.� I.......... I ........... My Commission expires outr]1 D 0.�`; . �N TARY PUBtle SC r. GIN1A. FREDERICK COUNTY. instrument of w7111a was produood to me oo "! v • 'r, at 1 r #�diylrkQgl�t�srletheretu annexed adm�itteed; to record 1-invposed by Sec. 58.1-802 of Jf58.1-801 b�e2 !v , andhave been paid, if also of 2 :dl1e.L , Clerk ` O5_0C)06 76 2 • U a w a a� �"3•e 40 mzQ� o 13 < 0 U z� 3 060020794 O a M THIS DEED made and dated this 31' day of October, 2006, by and between JOHN B. SCHROTH. C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER and JOHN S. SCULLY. IVY parties of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantors, and COWPERWOOD FEMA. LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, party of the second part, hereinafter called the Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00) Dollars, cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby grant and convey to the Grantee in fee simple absolute, with GENERAL WARRANTY of title, all of that certain tract or parcel of land, lying and being situate in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 18.3453 acres, and more particularly described on that certain Final Plat for Boundary Line Adjustment drawn by Richard A. Edens, L.S., dated June 13, 2006, revised August 31, 2006, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, as Instrument No. 06-0018810, and by this reference made a part hereof as if set out in full and described by metes and bounds attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof as if set out in full; AND BEING a portion of the same land conveyed to C. Robert Solenberger, John B. Schroth and John S. Scully, IV, by Deed dated August 24, 2004, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 04-0017164. (Tax Map No. 33-A-111) The Grantors hereby reserve an Easement of Possession for a time period beginning November 1, 2006 and ending the earlier of (i) the 50 year period ending October 31, 2056, or (ii) the date Grantor obtains a waiver from the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance relating to the 1.2499 acre tract, a copy of the metes and bounds of which is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof as if set out in full (the "Easement of Possession"), and further reserve an easement of ingress and egress to access the said 1.2499 acre tract from the driveway extending westward from Martinsburg Pike over the easternmost portion of the 17.0954 acre tract, as described by metes and bounds, likewise attached hereto. Both the Easement of Possession over the 1.2499 acre tract and the easement of ingress and egress to the 1.2499 acre tract set forth herein Page 1 of 3 o o are subject to the conditions and agreements set forth in that certain Second Amendment to Real Estate Contract dated October 25, 2006, which provides for earlier termination than that term set forth herein above and which Second Amendment and all provisions thereof, shall survive the conveyance of the 18.3453 acres described in this Deed. The aforesaid Easement of Possession is shown on the Easement Plat dated October 27, 2006 drawn by Richard A. Edens, Land Surveyor, (the "Easement Plat") and which is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof as if set out in full. Further, the Grantor reserves a certain 20-foot-wide sanitary sewer easement over the southeastern portion of the 17.0954 acre tract for the benefit of the 1.2499 acre tract, as shown on the Easement Plat. Within the 1.2499 acre tract, there is set aside along the southern boundary of the aforesaid Easement of Possession a variable width drainage and storm water management easement for the benefit of the land lying within the 17.0954 acre tract, which easement is shown as "Drainage and Stormwater Management Easement" on the Easement Plat attached hereto. Further, the Grantors do hereby grant and convey unto the Grantee those two (2) certain 30-foot-wide non-exclusive drainage easements lying to the west of the 18.3453 acre tract and which easements are for the benefit of the 17.0954 acre tract. Said 30 foot drainage easements appear of record in the aforesaid plat drawn by Richard A. Edens, L.S., dated June 13, 2006, revised August 31, 2006 (sheet 3 of 6) attached as a part of Instrument No. 06-0018810. The Grantors do further grant unto the Grantee, a non-exclusive appurtenant easement, 20 feet in width, for sanitary sewer over the adjacent tract of land containing 32.1181 acres (designated Tax Parcel No. 43-A-99 on the tax records of Frederick County), and which easement runs -generally from the southwestern corner of the property conveyed herein to the existing sewer main which lies west of the land herein conveyed to the Grantee, and which 20 foot sanitary easement is shown on the plat drawn by Richard A. Edens, L.S., dated June 13, 2006, revised August 21, 2006 (sheet 3 of 6), attached as a part of Instrument No. 06-0018810. Page 2 of 3 � o co CD WITNESS the following signatures and seals. 2(SEAL) OHN B. SCHROTH /ii� Ir/ (SEAL) C. ROBERTSO ED ERGER JO)AN S. SCULLY, IV STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF WINCHESTER, TO -WIT (SEAL) 1, �Q�rJP�T� C . Zdye. a6 h/ , a Notary Public in and for the State and jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certify that John B. Schroth, C. Robert Solenberger and John S Scully, IV, whose names are signed to the foregoing DEED dated the 3I Lday of rz_. , 2006, have personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand this -J / sh day of 2006. My Commission expires / — 3 / — '_�d i0 1 1486-A Rulkiford, LL.0 \ A:1Deed to Cowpawood F� LLC - A.wpd NOTAR LIC kal Page 3 of 3 o Co �c METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTIONS "Final Plat for Boundary Line Adjustment between the lands of C. Robert Solenberger, et als" dated June 13, 2006 and revised August 31, 2006 of record in the office of the Clerk of the Frederick County Circuit Court as Instrument No. 060018810, being a portion of the land conveyed to C. Robert Solenberger, John B. Schroth and John S. ScuIly, IV by deed dated August 4, 2004 of record in said Clerk's office as Instrument No. 040017164. The said land fronts the northwestern boundary of Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11) about 0.65 mile northeast of the intersection with Interstate 81 at Exit 317 in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia and is more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: Proposed New Tax Parcel 43-A-111A Beginning at a %" iron rebar found on curve in the northwestern boundary of Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11), corner to Thomas E. Riddick, Jr., et ux; thence with said road boundary for the following two courses: 94.27' along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 11,499.20' and a chord bearing S 38102150" W for a distance of 94.27', to a concrete highway monument found at the point of tangency; thence S 37048144" W - 25.56' to a '/2" iron rebar & cap set, a new corner to the Residue of Tax Parcel 43-A-I I I described below; thence along new division lines through the land of C. Robert Solenberger, et als and with said Residue of Tax Parcel 43-A-I 11 for the following five courses: S 85027'55" W - 36.38' to a 1/Z" iron rebar & cap set; thence N 59026'50" W - 77.64' to a''/z" iron rebar & cap set; thence N 64002'55" W-141.11' to a''/s" iron rebar & cap set; thence N 55045'55" W - 100.30' to a %z" iron rebar & cap set; thence N 39029'50" E - 177.49' to a''/z" iron rebar found, corner to Thomas E. Riddick, Jr., et ux; thence with Riddick, et ux S 54013'26" E - 337.48' to the beginning. Containing.......................................................................... 1.2499 Acres. Proposed Residue of Tax Parcel 43-A-111 Beginning at a ''/2" iron rebar found in the northwestern boundary of Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11), corner to Scott E. Merryman, et ux; thence with Merryman, et ux for the following two courses: N 55045'55" W - 339.60' to a 2" iron pipe found; thence S 38018'33" W-145.00' to a nail found in the base of a tree, in a line of Patricia S. Nethers; thence with Nethers for the following two courses: N 55045'55" W - 41.52' to a %" iron rebar found; thence S 38001'07" W-135.00' to a %2" iron rebar found, corner to other land of C. Robert Solenberger, et als (Tax Parcel 43-A-99); thence with said other land of Soleberger, et als for the following five courses: File 2795J Sheet 1 of 2 N 54019'46" W - 881.28' to a %" iron rebar found; thence N 42018'30" E - 302.27' to a''/z" iron rebar found; thence N 71006'49" E - 194.41' to a %" iron rebar found at the point of curvature of a curve to the left; thence 383.80' along the arc of said curve, having a radius of 500.00' and a chord bearing N 49107'26" E for a distance of 374.44', to a %" iron rebar found at the point of tangency; thence N 27008'02" E - 69.59' to a %s" iron rebar found in a line of Dehaven Nursery, Inc.; thence with Dehaven Nursery, Inc. and then Charles S. Dehaven, et al, Trustees S 54018'45" E - 738.67' to a'/2" iron rebar found, corner to Thomas E. Riddick, Jr., et ux; thence with Riddick, et ux S 38018'33" W - 373.93' to a %" iron rebar found, corner to New Tax Parcel 43-A-111A described above; thence along new division lines through the land of C. Robert Solenberger, et als and with said New Tax Parcel 43-A-111A for the following five courses: S 39029'50" W-177.49' to a''/2" iron rebar & cap set; thence S 55045155" E - 100.30' to a `Yz" iron rebar & cap set; thence S 64002'55" E-141.11' to a %2" iron rebar & cap set; thence S 59026'50" E - 77.64' to a''/z" iron rebar & cap set; thence N 85027155" E - 36.38' to a'/2" iron rebar & cap set in the northwestem boundary of Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11); thence with said road boundary S 37048144" W-108.31' to the beginning. Containing.......................................................................... 17.0954 Acres. Surveyed........................................................................ September 7, 2006. File 2795J Sheet 2 of 2 JS i0 ?„ TY. 43 A-99 -`� o" OTHER LAND OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET ALS WST. No. 040017164 SEE /NST. No. 060018610 �20' SANITARY SEWER FASEMEWT C i / MIST No. 060018610 a o � �S �A y ]' 51.29 s o`// ,gyp• I I O ITY HE4D UTILp Grp — r'I wl ES — POTOMAC I I SON CO. R,1W C� DB 495 PG 74 (NO WIDTH SPECITZED) TAX PARCEL 43 A -111 18.3453 ACRES "�- El L10 _ L9 L8 0.65 MILa TO INTERSTATE 81 EXIT 317 NOTE SEE SHEET 3 FOR UNE LKTA, AND EASEMENT LINE L147A. DOT —SHADED AREA DENOTES A 20' SANITARY SEWER Ekc"ENT HEREBY SEE SHEET 2 FOR DETAIL OF EASEMENT OF POSSESSION AND DRAINAGE AND SWAT Ekc"ENT. 1 l� 1� L6 C2 i MARTINSBURG P/KE US ROUTE 11 80' R/W CURVE DATA j . W p e 200 0 200 GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) WEM MT PLAT SfKJNM A PROPOSED 20' SNVIT SEWER EASE Dff, AN EASE 6VT OF A'1 AND A Pl�gR'1SED AID SW FASE�OVT OW? lid LAhO OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET ALS SMEWAU U4G/STEW D15MT, FREDERICK COUNTY, WRGIN14 SCALE: 1" = 200' DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2006 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Yuginia 22602 Sun'e1'o s Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com A I NLTH O l� . ' .,� f�Q,....- � RICHARD A. EDENS No.002550 t to-z-7-oG'Zo �. O SUR�' 2795J SHEET 1 OF 3 0 o [v TAX PARCEL 43 A-111 goo, 18..3453 ACRES 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEYENT SEE SHEET 2 FOR DETAIL DOT -SHADED AREA DENOTES A VARNBLE WIDTH DRA AWW AND S70RUWA7ER /4 94GEWNT EASQIEM' HEREBY ESTABLISHED ` ? E14 I•� L4 1�1 � W I:� i f-1 ❑SHED E8 t _1 DWELLING Z e i E4 t'• �'`--E9 i - �' WOLME WIDTH EAS"ENT OF W 1:: POS&M.% Vv HEREBY lammm ~ uJ t ...i E10 4: L6 E13 C2 MARTINSBURG PIKE U.S ROUTE 11 80' R/W leg' SEE SHEET 3 FOR IJNE DATA, CURVE DATA AND EASEWDVT LINE LHTA. 60 0 60 GRAPHIC SCALE (1N FEET) EaSEMW PLAT &ljNW A PROPOSED 20' SWARY SEW EASEW&T, AN FiLSEaM OF Fa5SMM AMP A PROPM MM"AAV SWM EASWff OW? PE " OF 0. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET ALS STONEWALL WaGMD tAl. D/SnWT, FRIDE iXX COUNTY, MGM SCALE: 1" = 60' 1 DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2006 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Wendy Hdl Lane Engineers Winchester, Y 22602 S ►'� s Telephone: (54�2-4185 FAX. (540) 722-9528 Fowided in 1971 www.gmenwayeng.com eF-] TI CFI CN� RICH4 A. EDENS y N0.002550 r� SURF 2705J SHEET 2 OF 3 • CURVF nATA CURVE DELTA ANGLE RADIUS I ARC LENGTH TANGENT I CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH Cl 43'5847' 500.00' 383.80' 201.91 N 49'0726" E 374.44 C2 00'28111 " 11499.20 94.27 47.13' I S 38'02'50' W 94.27' I INF nATA LINE BEARING DISTANCE L 1 N 42' 18'30" E 302.27' L2 N 71'06'49' E 194.4 1' L3 N 2706'02" E 69.59 L4 S 38'18'33" W 373.93' L5 S 54' 13'26' E 337.48' L6 S 37'48440 W 133.86' L7 N 554555" W 339.60' L8 S 38' 18'33" W 145.00' L9 N 55'4555" W 41.52 L 10 S 38-0 1'07 W 135.00' 20' SANITARY SEWER FA_SFAIFNT CFAITFRIINF nATA LINE BEARING DISTANCE El N 54'15'47' E 359.81 pi I EASEMENT OF POSSESSION AND VARIABLE WIDTH DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FASFd,MFNT L INF !)ATA LINE BEARING DISTANCE E2 S 852755" W 36.38' E3 N 5926'50" W 77.64' E4 N 64'0255" W 141.11 ' E5 N 55'4555" W 100.30 E6 N 39'29'50" E 5.00 E7 S 55'4555" E 76.00' E8 S 63'17'44" E 68.77' E9 S 73'4449" E 42.92' E10 S 59'26'50" E 65.93 Ell N 78'5231 " E 66.77' E12 S 52' 11 16 E 49.44' E13 S 37'4844" W 25.56' E14 N 39'29'50 E 172.49' ® T.M. 43-A-108 PAIRIC14 S. NETHERS WILL No. 010000120 BU T M. 43 A-109 SCOTT E: MERRYMAN, ET UX INST. No. 030016388 © T M. 43 A-110 THOMAS E: RIDDICK, JR., ET UX /NST. No. 02002287J OD T.M. 43 A-113 CHARLES S DEHAVEN, ET UX, 7RUS7EES INST. No. 060006327 NOTES CURRENT OWNER OF RECORD. C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHN B. SCHR07H AND JOHN S. SCULLY, N - INST. No. 040017164 (SEE INST. No. 060018810). THE BOUNDARY 1NFORMA770N SHOWN HEREON HAS BEEN PREPARED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND IS NOT PURPORTED TO BE A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE TRACT OR ANY POR77ON OF THE BOUNDARY LINES. EASEMENT PLAT SHbi W A Wa9OSED 20' SWARY SE*U EAS& M, AN EASWff OF POZESSM AVD A PRaP+GS0 M" AND SW EAM M OVER 77E LMI? OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET ALS SMNEW'ALL A44GISTERkL DVSWrr,, PRED&W COUNTY, V1RGlNIA SCALE: N/A I DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2006 let*4� GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Vvgfnw 22602 SuFve'ors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 PAX. (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com �p,LTH 0 y l FRI'CHARD A. ED�ENS No.002550 -WAIL _SUR ' 2795J SHEET 3 OV 8 • O �O VIRGINIA: FREDERICK COLiMy.SC1: This instrument of writing was produced to me on JyoJ, AN oIZ0O f at v� :��, and with certificate acknowledgement theretb annexed was admitted to record. Tax imposed by Sec. 58.1-802 of S 13 d¢ , and 58.1-801 have been aid if P asseeattb4 41�a , Clerk • C 06001800 ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLEMBERGER, ET ALS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, t/IRGINIA JUNE 13, 2006 REVISED: AUGUST 31, 2006 / \ GQ� Hiatt r CD i i i FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE Or Zy 11 4 dgyLTH ff • i T.M. 43—A-112B DEHAVEN NURSERY, INC. FL00� A j DB 855 PG 158J FOOD ZONE jhRF ° 1 USE: RESIDENTIAL 1 L1 Q �It l IRF! r ^ ! o o--*t �Q 1 W 100' MINIMUM CATEGORY C ZONING DISTRICT BUFFER REQUIRED 1 / 1 1 IRS \ ►� IRS o'er TRACT LINE o = o HEREBY 1 V R I ' VACATED. /oIRS RUN 9Op ZONE �' ! ' IRS O FAO ZONE 0 O 1 h K \ \ I L5* \� ! m \ IRS V NOTE COURSES WITH ASTERISK (*) DENOTE NEW TRACT LINES HEREBY ESTABLISHED. SEE SHEETS 5 & 6 FOR CURVE DATA, LINE DATA, EASEMENT DATA, AREA TABULATION, LEGEND, NOTES AND KEY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. WIRE FENCE ZONE.•_ ZONE: M 1 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENT SEE SHEET 3 FOR DETAIL ADJUSTED TAX PARCEL 43 A-111 SEE SHEET 3 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENT SEE SHEET 3 FOR DETAIL APPROXIMATE L/M/TS OF FLOOD ZONE A PER F.LR.M. No. 510063 0105 B TRACT LINE HEREBY VACATED S 54'1946" E - 881.281* 25' BRL H IRS U z O) op 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT G Lu N FSEE OR HEET 3 ADJUSTED Zt Q.� TAX PARCEL 43-A 99 4 o j m 32.1181 ACRES o t o 0 z _ 30' WATER do SEWER F--- EASEMENT '07" t INST. No. 020014907 $ .38'D 1 W 828.47' O roo. o J j m OVERHEAD UTILITY WIRES 100' M/N/MUM 2 OC 2 POTOMAC EDISON CO. R/W DB 495 PG 74 (NO WIDTH SPECIFIED) CATEGORY C ZONING DISTRICT m BUFFER REQUIRED L 3 O 15' BRL 25' BRL ZONE: M 1 25' BRL O N 51'32'45" W T 1,290.26' IRF ZONE.- B3 ZONE • 82 60'INGRESS/EGRESS I EASEMENT TO MARTINSBURG PIKE �� i �• 250 0 250 INST. No. 050006701 I :' T.M. 43 A-100 GRAPHIC SCALE RUTHERFORD FARM, LLC INST. No. 050006702 (IN FEET) ZONE. 82 & B3 USE. VAC4 -� RFVISFn- Af1(;IIST .31 9noR FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET ALS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGIN4 SCALE: 1" = 250' 1 DATE: JUNE 13, 2006 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 I-omidcd in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com LTH pF � RICHARD A. EDENS N0.002550 2795J SHEET 2 OF 6 0 C'n J NOTE: COURSES WITH ASTERISK (*) DENOTE NEW TRACT LINES HEREBY ESTABLISHED. SEE SHEETS 5 do 6 FOR CURVE DATA, LINE DATA, pi EASEMENT DATA, AREA TABULATION, LEGEND, NOTES WIXHEs'J�ER AND KEY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. _SEE B 6 3 RV R� 30' K'ATER & EASEMENT SE%t'ER No. 020014907 DOT -SHADED AREA G� ``-----_ DENOTES A 20' ES 110�i P _ L - - ` SANITARY SEWER 'S Z•� ADJUSTED TAX PARCEL 43-A-9.9 _ - EASEMENT HEREBY / p 20a SEE SHEET 2 EST48LISHED TOTED� BENEFIT ADJUSTED cn'� O� TRACT LINE HER E TAX PARCEL �' E2 h,�� s _ __ o e ,, 43-A-111. Y E4 ` L5* EC1��s co? "� C-) El :� �-E RUN � IRS e SIRS�; e U 25' BRL 6.8161.65' �� ePNEAT4 C/SyE�E� E3 `rz� L4 IRS >>� t. _ j L.3 _ o * OVERHEAD UTILITY _ IRS oIRS o co WIRES - POTOMAC ?S `�' CN ED/SON CO R/W J BRL 100' MINIMUM CATEGORY C ZONING DISTRICT BUFFER REQUIRED IRS L 1le" L11 NAIL FD. IN TREE 0 ti DB 495 PG 74 WIDTH C LIMITS OF Q, z c� (NO APPROXIMATE N Q SPECIFIED) FLOOD ZONE A PER1� F.1.R.M. No. 510063 0105 B 1 1 1 ADJUSTED TAX BMN PARCEL 43-A-111 18. J45J ACRES 100' MINIMUM CATEGORY C ZONING DISTRICT A :z ;� C-1 BUFFER REQUIRED W 1 W BARN z * z rizzl IRFCD L10 --o .x.............XX.� f IRF L6 ZONE Ml 1PF ZONE.• KA �y"-"•*-��--o IRS WIRE U � FENCE SEE SHEET 4 a z 2 41 FOR DETAIL CEzt- R i 0 OF THIS AREA J o 10 N N IRF LB MON C2 -IRF 0.65 MILE± TO MARTINSBURG PIKE INTERSTATE 81 EXIT 317 U.S ROUTE 11 80' R/W O � � 'A: 2v�Z�0 o� �W zoo eOL,-jooVj -4�oz�� Lu ¢� N Im 0 200 0 200 GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET AL S STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1" = 200' 1 DATE: JUNE 13, 2006 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 :00.7 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX: (540) 722-9528 Fowidecl hi 1971 www.greenwayeng.com REVISED: AUGUST 31. 2006 t o � RICHARD A. EDENS No.002550 2795J SHEET 3 OF 6 • E L 10 IPF ZONE- RP zz N N d ~�k.: Q:: a'z z z ON N ADJUSTED TAX PARCEL 4J—A-111 SEE SHEET J 100' MINIMUM CATEGORY C ZONING DISTRICT BUFFER REQUIRED ZONE - ZONE.• M1 RA WIRE FENCE SHED DWELLING J w ,2015 m m LO L o ADJUSTED TAX PARCEL 43—A-111 18.3453 ACRES 0 W 60' BRL W IKr S J2"4844 " W - 133.86' MON r2 MARTINSBURG PIKE U.S. ROUTE 11 NOTE: 80' R/W COURSES WITH ASTERISK (*) DENOTE NEW TRACT LINES HEREBY ESTABLISHED. SEE SHEETS 5 do 6 FOR CURVE DATA, LINE DATA, EASEMENT DATA, AREA TABULATION, LEGEND, NOTES AND KEY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. x....... DIRE — ZONE: Ml L 6 ZONE. --►--x ""''` ZONE.• RP Y VAR64BLE WIDTH { ; SEPTIC EASEMENT SERl9NG TAX I ;PARCEL 4J A--111 } i INST. No. 02002287J } s +-r 61 Lw co r ; oW ia,LZCL N V U}W�,;� I } OVERHEAD } }�UTLITY WIRES 10' UTILITY }1 EASEMENT } SERVING TAX PARCEL 4J—A— I I I INST. No. } { 02002287J IRF O.J2 MILE_& TO ROUTE 8J8 MCCANNS RD. 60 IN 0 60 GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET ALS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINL4 SCALE: 1 , = 60' 1 DATE: JUNE 13, 2006 GREENWAY ENGINEERING /0"090 711\151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 :,007 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 —IQ F FAX: (540) 722-9528 I'mtided in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com ra:NLTH pF � r ,off �•�: fdl.._ RICHARD A. EDENS y No.002550 QP SURN�y 2795J SHEET 4 OF 6 CA J Uo L_J 0 rllRl/r nATA CURVE DELTA ANGLE RADIUS ARC LENGTH TANGENT CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH C 1 43'5847" 500.00' 383.80' 201.9 1' S 49'07'26" W 374.44' C2 00'28' 11 " 11499.20 94.27' 47.13' S 38'02'50 0 W 94.27' cAcriic'AIT rrA1Trpi IAIT- r i11?VF nATA CURVE DELTA ANGLE I RADIUS I ARC LENGTH TANGENT CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH EC 1 2741 '34" 200.00 96.67I 49.30' N 10'47'21 " W 1 95.73' IlNF nATA LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S 2754'00" W 289.78' L2 S 54'18'45" E 400.46' L3 S 2708'02" W 69.59' L4 S 71'06'49" W 194.4 1' L5 S 42'18'30" W 302.27' L 6 S 38' 18 33" W 373.93' L7 S 54'13'26" E 337.48' L8 S 37'48'44" W 133.86' L9 N 55'4555" W 339.60, L 10 S 38118'33" W 145.00' L 11 N 55'4555" W 41.52' L 12 S 38'01 '07" W 135. DO' FA.SFiUFNT (.FNTFRLINF DATA LINE BEARING DISTANCE El N 24'38'08" W 64.68' E2 N 03'03'26" E 21.89' E3 N 5424'04 " W 249.16' E4 N 72'01 '27" W 109.89' E5 I N 06'21 '49" W 1 292.79' EGEND BRL = BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE PER ZONING ORDINANCE IPF = 2" IRON PIPE FOUND IRF = 'iz " IRON REBAR FOUND IRS = " IRON REBAR & CAP SET MON = CONCRETE HIGHWAY MONUMENT FOUND R/W = RIGHT OF WAY E = OVERHEAD UTILITY WIRES x -ar = FENCE LINE • • • ............. • . • • = ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY REVISED: AUGUST 31 2006 FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF TH p�, f� C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET AL S° STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGIN/A o ' � RICH -AM A. EDENS � SCALE: N/A I DATE: JUNE 13, 2006 No.002550 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane L'ngiizeers Winchester, Virginia 22602 suv4 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 I'Mmdul in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com 2795J SHEET 5 OF 6 CD vn Ca (77) KEY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER TAG TAX PARCEL No, CURRENT OWN zoNE USE T.M. 43C-1 A ROY R. MESSICK, ET UX DB 259 PG 568 RP/RESID. © T.M. 43C-1-8 BRADFORD VILLAGE APARTMENTS, L.C. DB 970 PG 359 RP/RESID. © T.M. 43C-1—C NANBODAN PROPERTIES, L.L.C. INST. No. 050013767 RP/RESID. O T.M. 43C-1—D MICHAEL A. MOORE, ET UX DB 668 PG 112 RP/RESID. O T.M. 43—A-105 THOMAS W. RISSLER, ET UX DB 286 PG 267 RP/RESID. OF T.M, 43—A-106 RONALD A. LEE, ET UX DB 535 PG 294 RP/RESID. © T M. 43—A-107 CLIFFORD D. MCQUAIN, ET ALS DB 896 PG 708 RP/RESID. OH T M. 43—A-108 PATRICIA S. NETHERS WILL No. 010000 120 RP/RESID. ID T. M. 43—A-109 SCOTT E. MERRYMAN, ET UX INSTT, No. 030016388 RP/RESID. O T.M. 43—A-110 THOMAS E. RIDDICK, JR., ET UX INST. No. 02002287J RA&RP/RESID. KO T M. 43—A-113 CHARLES S. DEHAVEN, ET UX, TRUSTEES INST. No. 060006327 RP/RESID. AREA TABULATION T.M. 43—A-111 EXISTING AREA OF T M. 43—A-111 PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43—A-99 ADDED LESS PORTION ADDED TO T.M. 43—A-99 ADJUSTED AREA 20.6565 ACRES + 2.4942 ACRES — 4.80.54 ACRES = 18.3453 ACRES TM, 43—A-99 EXISTING AREA OF T M. 43—A-99 = 29.8069 ACRES LESS PORTION ADDED TO T.M. 43—A-111 = — 2.4942 ACRES PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43—A-111 ADDED = + 4.8054 ACRES ADJUSTED AREA (EAST OF RAILROAD) = 32.1181 ACRES PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43—A-99 (WEST OF RAILROAD) _ + 2ZO69J ACRES ADJUSTED AREA (TOTAL) = 59.1874 ACRES NOTES 1. THE BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY BY THIS FIRM. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. EASEMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN MAY EXIST. 2. THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON LIES WITHIN ZONE C, AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING, AND ZONE A, AREAS OF 100—YEAR FLOOD, BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS AND FLOOD HAZARD FACTORS NOT DETERMINED, PER N.F.I.P. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP No. 510063 0105 8, DATED JULY 17, 1978. THE APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SAID ZONE A ARE SHOWN HEREON AS DETERMINED BY GRAPHIC PLOTTING UPON S41D MAP. FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET ALS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINU SCALE: N/A DATE: JUNE 13, 2006 I GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX: (540) 722-9528 Founded bi 1971 www.greenwayeng.com REVISED: AUGUST 31, 2006 ,NLTH aF � t o � RICHARD A. EDENS a No.002550 2 SUR4��e 2795J SHEET 6 OF 6 0 C�J G 01 CO ro VIRGINIA. FREDERICK COUNTY.SCT. This instrument of writing was produced to me On D % 31 �- at _____y . L—ty. and with certificate acknowledgement thereto annexed was admitted to record. Tax imposed by Sec. 58.1-802 of $ N N , and 58.1-801 have been paid, if assessabi& 46e.4 t-d S.", , aeA 0 • • 0 U 6. C� d� d�w$� C (zjW,�C °� �o01 m � P x 04001.1262 CD Cn Cn THIS DEED made and dated this day of June, 2004, by and between RUTHERFORD, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, party of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantor, and VIRGINIA APPLE STORAGE. INC., a Virginia corporation, party of the second part, hereinafter called the Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00) Dollars, cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby grant and convey with General Warranty and English Covenants of Title unto the Grantee, in fee simple absolute, all that certain tract or parcel of land, lying and being situate in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 28.3824 acres, together with a 50-foot wide ingress and egress easement to and from U.S. Route 11, all of which is shown on that certain plat of survey drawn by Mark D. Smith, Land Surveyor, dated June 2, 2004, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof as if set out in full; AND BEING a portion of the same land conveyed to Rutherford, LLC by deed dated July 10, 2002 of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County as Instrument No. 020011418 and all the land conveyed to Rutherford, LLC by deed dated July 10, 2002 of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 020011420. (Tax Map Parcel 43-A-98) This conveyance is made subject to all rights of way and restrictions of record affecting the subject property. Pagel of 2 • 0 CO Cn C1 M WITNESS the following signatures and seals: RUTHERFORD,LLC By: �/ - (SEAL) C. Robert Solenberger, Member/Manager 7 By; (SEAL) Fn S. Scully, IV, M ber/Manager By: A. (SEAL) hu B. Schroth, Member/Manager S TE OF VIRGINIA, OF TO -WIT: I, Notary Public in and for the State and jurisdiction jWoresaidtAdo here certify that C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV and John B. Schroth, Member/Managers of Rutherford, LLC, whose names are signed to the foregoing Deed, dated June /� 62004, have personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same i EyState andjurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand this � day o2004. 5 � My Commission expires dS NOiYP LIC 11486Rutherford\l 1997Virginia Apple StorageW:\DEED Rutherford to VA Apple Stotage.wpd t� } U- Page 2 of 2 LINE DATA LINE BEARING DISTANCE L 1 S 75'36'08' E 58.19' L2 N 75'3850 W 87.67' L3 S 41'3225' E 194.39' CURVE DATA 0 Cn LEGEND: Crl IRF = 112' IRON REBAR FOUND 00 IRS = 112" IRON REBAR k CAP SET CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH DELTA ANGLE TANGENT I CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH C 1 5629.58' 614.42' 06' 15' 12 " 307.51 ' N 04' 13'46' E 614.11 ' C2 5629.58' 1267.33 12'53'54 636.35 N l e'3351 ' E 1264. 65' AE2 TMULAllON ORIGINAL AREA OF T.M. 43—A-98 = 2.9452 ACRE PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43—A-96 ADDED = +7.3675 ACRES PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43 A-97 ADDED = +8.9260 ACRES PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43—A-99 ADDED = +9.1437 ACRES ADJUSTED AREA = 28.3824 ACRES ORIGINAL AREA PART 2 OF T M. 43 A-99 = 36.2129 ACRES LESS PORTION TO T M 43 A-99 =—9.1437 ACRES ADJUSTED AREA (BY SUBTRACRON) = 27.0693 ACRES NOTES 1. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. EASEMENTS OTHER THAN SHOWN MAY EXIST. 2. THE BOUNDARY INFORMA77ON SHOWN HEREON HAS BEEN PREPARED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND IS NOT PURPORTED TO BE A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE TRACT OR ANY PORTION OF THE BOUNDARY LINES. 3. THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON LIES WITHIN ZONE C, AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING, AND ZONE A, AREAS OF 100—YEAR FLOOD; BASE FLOOD ELEVA77ONS AND FLOOD HAZARD FACTORS NOT DETERMINED, PER N.F.LP. FLOOD INSURANCE R4TE MAP No. 510063 0105 B, DATED JULY 17, 1978. THE APPROXIMATE LIMIT' OF SAID ZONE A ARE SHOWN HEREON AS DETERMINED BY GRAPHIC PLOTTING UPON SAID MAP. ingless Egress Easement Note: The proposed private driveway/road shown hereon is not built according to street specifications of and will not be maintained by, the Virginia Department of Transportation or Frederick County. The improvement and maintenance of said driveway/road shall be the sole responsibility of the owners of lots which are provided with access via the driveway/road. Said driveway/roods will not be considered for inclusion into the state secondary system until they meet the applicable construction standards of the Virginia Deportment of Transportation. The cost of bringing said driveway/road to acceptable standards shall not be borne by the Virginia Department of Transportation nor by Frederick County. FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF T I; RUTHERFORD, LL C r STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ARK D. S TH SCALE: N A DATE: NNE 2, 2004 No.002009 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 21GLA �. 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX- (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com 2795J SHEET 2 OF 4 NOTE• SEE SHEET 3 FOR NOTES, LEGEND, LINE DATA, CURVE - DATA AND AREA TABULATION. z J SEE SHEET 4 FOR h g INGRESS EGRESS LINE DATA 1 T W N AND CURVE DATA j za o� j m � 10 ADJUSTED TRACT B T.M. 43 A-99 2ZO69J ACRES y� �j RUN FORME TRACT LINE 100 YR FLOOD PLAIN HEREBY VACATED' ,r ` ZONEiA00 �'oftft rQao7*S _ _ ZONE C' '�` '��25 E 53 78 28--�--- S� ' BR ADJUSTED \T.M. 43 A-98 1 T.M. 43-A-96 28.3824 ACRES z ti fOHR� �cn \M. 43-A-97 T.M. 43-A-96 N/F ELLIOTT ZONE. • M2 ' \ /'— USE- VACANT 'knti \,F 0, ° \pF T.M. 43-A-98 FND. MON. N ONLINE J.28' S. 300 0 300 GRAPHIC SCALE * DENOTES NEW PROPERTY (IN FEET) LINE HEREBY ESTABLISHED. FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF RUTHERFORD, LL C STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1" = 300' 1 DATE: JUNE 2, 2004 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 Fowzdcd in 1971 www.8reenwayeng.com m FORMER TRACT LINE HEREBY VACATED L MARK D. +SMITH No.002009 0 suRv� 2795J SHEET 3 OF 4 300 0 300 Ca ►°j ,� GRAPHIC SCALE .21 ,ri' 0� (IN FEET) " TRACT A 3 T M. 43-A-99 INST. P20012086 o EASEMENT LINE DATA LINE BEARING DISTANCE El N 47*41 JO' W 165.4 1' E2 N 30' 16' 12" W 782.98' E3 N 512524" W 524.61 ' 50' INGRESSIEGRESS ESUT HEREBY ESTABLISHED o �F f� j EASEMENT CURIE DATA k I IZN 07E.-EE SHEET 3 FOR NOTES, GEND, LINE DATA, CURVE TA AND AREA TABULATION. CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH DELTA ANGLE TANGENT I CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH C3 308.00' 93.65' 1 T25' 18" 47.19' S J8'58 51 " E 9J.29' C4 308.00' 11 J. 71 21 '09' 12 57.51 ' N 40'50'48" W 11 J. 07' AD"TED TRACT B :AL 48A-" 27.0653 ACRES ADJUSTED 28.3824 ACRES INDEX MAP SCALE.' 1 '- 1000' FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF RUTHERFORD, LL C STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, UIRGINIA SCALE: 1" = 300' 1 DATE: JUNE 2, 2004 -• IoJ7%o� GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone.• (540) 662-4185 FAX- (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com F�ARK D SMITH No.002009 � f 2795J SHEET 4 OF 4 • V1RUINIA: FREDERICK COUNTY, SCT. This instrument of writing was produced to me on " P :'�gl — 0 5� ,, �4 .-.c 6 and with certificate of acknowledgement thereto annexed was admitted to record. T imposed by Sec. 58.1-802 of $ Oland 58.1-801 have been paid, if assessable 4'e-4 441r'v . perk 0 0 040017164 THIS DEED IN DISTRIBUTION made and dated this 241 day of August, 2004, by and between RUTHERFORD, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, party of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantor, and C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHN B. SCHROTH and JOHN S. SCULLY, IV, parties of the second part, hereinafter called the Grantees. WHEREAS, Rutherford Farm, LLC is a Virginia limited liability company, and the sole members of said limited liability company are: C. Robert Solenberger, John B. Schroth and John S. Scully, IV; WHEREAS, it is the desire of the members to distribute the following real estate to each of the members in their percentage interest of the limited liability company. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived therefrom, the Grantor does hereby grant and convey with Special Warranty of Title unto C. Robert Solenberger an undivided one-third (1/3) interest, unto John B. Schroth an undivided one-third (113) interest and unto Sohn S. Scully, IV an undivided one-third (1/3) interest in the following real estate: All that certain real estate lying and being situate in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia and more particularly on Schedules A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof as if set out in full. RUTHERFORD,LLC By: C. Robert Solenberger, Member/Manager By: /L 2 �--- J Schroth, Member/Manager._ Y Jo . Scully, IV, Member/Manager Page 1 of 2 o-, STATE OF VIRGINIA :— CITY OF WINCHESTER, TO T: a Notary Public in and for the State and jurisdicti afores d, do here certify that C. Robert Solenberger, John B. Schroth , John S. Scully, IV, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the foregoing instrument, all in their capacity as its Members/Managers in and in the name and for and on behalf of Rutherford, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company, organized under the laws of the State of Virginia Witness my hand and official seal, this the �5 tb day of , 2004 My Commission expires: eo D—lo�h— NOT Y PU IC 11 d86Rutherford 1 A \DEED m Dumbuuon wpd Page 2 of 2 CD M SCHEDULE A-1 Cfl C.J7 TRACT ONE: All that certain tract of land containing 23 acres, more or less, in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia and being all the remainder tract of land conveyed to Ray H. Duncan and Emma Duncan, his wife, as tenants by the entirety with common law right of survivorship from William B. Casilear, et ux. dated February 1, 1945 of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 191 at Page 278. Ray H. Duncan died July 9, 1973 survived by Emma Duncan. Tax Map No. 43-A-111. TRACT TWO: All of those contiguous tracts of land lying and being situate in Stonewall Magisterial District of Frederick County Virginia, originally containing 124.8 acres and 17.8 acres, according to the survey of Walker Mc C. Bond, C.E. dated May 1952 of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 224 at Page 292, Less And Excepting certain conveyance therefrom, leaving a balance of 115.30 acres, more or less, according to the Tax Books of Frederick County and being the remainder land conveyed to Ray H. Duncan and Emma Duncan, his wife, as tenants by the entirety with common law right of survivorship, by Deed dated June 7, 1952 from Camilla R. Bardshar, widow et at, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 224 at Page 292. Ray H. Duncan Deed as aforesaid. Tax Map No. 43-A-99 I'RACT THREE: All that certain tract of land in Stonewall Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia, bounded on the Western side by I-81 for a distance of approximately 760 feet, on the South side by land formerly Burton Hoover for a distance of approximately 536 feet, on the Eastern side by the lands of Ray H. Duncan, et ux., for approximately 350 feet, and on the Northern side by the lands of Ray H. Duncan, et al. , for approximately 612 feet, said lot or parcel of land containing approximately 5 %z acres, more or less; AND BEING the same property conveyed to Ray H. Duncan and Emma Duncan, jointly with remainder to the survivor by Deed dated October 1, 1963 from J.S. Hoover, widower of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 293 at Page 359. Ray H. Duncan died as aforesaid. Tax Map No. 43-A-96 Page 1 of 2 TRACT FOUR: All that certain tract of land in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 2.66 acres, more or less, and described in the Deed hereinafter mentioned; AND BEING the same property conveyed to Ray H. Duncan and Emma Duncan, jointly with the remainder to the survivor by Deed dated November 15, 1963 from A. N. Hampton, divorced, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 294 at Page 656. Ray H. Duncan died as aforesaid. Tax Map No. 43-A-98 Emma S. Duncan (being one and the same as Emma Duncan) died testate on July 26, 1996 and by her Last will and Testament dated June 9, 1983, probated August 2, 1996, devised her property in equal shares, to her children, Richard Ray Duncan and Janet D. Riddick. AND BEING the same real estate conveyed to Rutherford, LLC by deed dated July 10, 2002 from Richard R. Duncan and Janet D. Riddick, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County as Instrument No. 020011418, LESS AND EXCEPTING that portion conveyed to Virginia Apple Storage, Inc. by deed dated June 16, 2004 from Rutherford, LLC, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 040011262. 11486Ru11kdoid \ A 1SchcduIt A-1 wpd Page 2 of 2 • 0 SCHEDULE A-2 All that certain lot or parcel of land, together with all rights, rights -of -way and appurtenances thereunto belonging to, lying and being situate on the Martinsburg Pike, U.S. Route 11, about two (2) miles Northeast of the City of Winchester, in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 1.310 acres, more or less, and more particularly described by plat and survey of Lee A. Ebert, C.L.S., dated April 11, 1983 of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 563 at Pages 340 and 341 and by this reference made a part hereof as if set out in full; AND BEING the same land conveyed to Rutherford, LLC by deed dated July 10, 2002 from Richard R. Duncan, of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia as Instrument No. 020011419. 'rax Map No. 43-A-100 11 486Ruthcrford 1 A \Schedule A-2 wpd • L-J n cy-) C-j ! CID SCHEDULE A-3 All that certain lot or parcel of land, together with the improvements thereon, located about three (3) miles North of the City of Winchester, in the County of Frederick, Virginia, along Welltown Pike, containing 8.92600 acres, more or less, as more fully set forth on that certain plat and survey prepared by David M. Furstenau, L.S., dated the 13`h day of March, 2001 attached to the Deed dated August 7, 2001 and recorded as Instrument No. 01-0010398 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia; AND BEING the same property conveyed to Rutherford, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, by Deed from Turner Enterprises, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, July 10, 2002, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 020011420. Tax Map No. 43-A-97 i 1 a.SOR.the o ,d l A %Schedule AJ wpd SCHEDULE A-4 All of that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being situate in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, along the Western boundary of U.S. Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike) containing 32,064 square feet, more or less, as shown by survey drawn by Richard U. Good, Certified Land Surveyor, dated November 13, 1964, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 307 at Page 496; AND BEING the same land conveyed to Rutherford, LLC, by Deed dated October 6, 2003 from Mary M. Taylor, widow, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument No. 030023107. Tax Map No. 43-A-101 VIRGINIA: FREDERICK COUNTY, SCT. 1`11 11iis instrument of writing was produced to me on P- '? (,' 0 y :)t� and with C, rtlti,atc of ackno,%ledgement there o anf nexed was admitted to record. T intpns,;d by Sec, 53.I-XO.1of S tand 58.1-801 have heen paid, if assessuble L X��C—v , Clerk 11 ObRaWfo,d \ A \Sc)-J-k A•4 wpd CD C-) C..�S 0600486.0 FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. . ROBERT SOLEMBERGER, ET ALS C" STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA JUNE 13, 2006 REVISED: AUGUST 31, 2005 �QO Hioff �^r ° t�• .. o, ° n 8 STONEWALL INDUSTRIALe �Ct, o \� :. / PARK Oc� Qr bo o _ '' `..., J ! TE Road �\�` �• c EXIT 317 G.. \ VICINITY MAP 1" = 2000' OWNER'S CERTIFICATE THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHN B. SCHROTH AND JOHN S. SCULLY, IV, AS APPEARS ON THE ACCOMPANYING PLATS, IS WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANqT WIT E DESIRES OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS, A E IF11 NY )R, S COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA C1Ty1q&dft7Y OF ��� TO WIT• THE FOREGOING OWNER'S CERTIFICATE WAS �,CKNDW EDG D BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF x 2006 BY S COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA C1TY/GeUhTr OF Al TO.1 T. THE FOREGOING OWNER'S CERTIF(Q�T 1,1�,a1S,,, ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS. 2006 BY ct NOTARY PUBLIC NO TA = PU ' C{ , ''� ". •fit? ..'.U`�. �i,,��I.. '+ C�Jd.IrS�1� V' EXPIRES O-A� 3/ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES , `a SUR YOR'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE LAND CONTAINED IN THIS BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT SURVEY IS A PORTION OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO C. ROBERT SOLENSERGER, JOHN B. SCHROTH AND JOHN S. SCULLY, IV BY DEED DATED AUGUST 24, 2004 OF RECORD IN THE FREDERICK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE AS INSTRUMENT No. 040017164. RICHARD A. EDENS, L.S. NOTE: PARENT TAX PARCEL IDENTIFICATION T.M. 4J—A-99 56.8762 ACRES ZONE. • M 1 USE. VACANT T.M. 4J—A-111 20.6565 ACRES ZONE. M 1 & RA USE.- VACANT/RESIDENTIAL APPROVALS: �pjjH pF� F ERICK COUNTY SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR . DATE x RICHARD A. EDENS a GREENWAY ENGINEERING No.002550 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 ?Vb Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 SUR FAX.• (540) 722-9528 l:umided bi 1971 www.greenwayeng.com 2795J SHEET 1 OF 6 C 000 ZONE fLOOp ZONE T.M. 43—A-112B DEHAVEN NURSERY, INC. I DB 855 PG 158J IR C'I ZONE- RA f USE, RESIDENTIAL L1 f IRF t f o--- ;1' 100' MINIMUM CATEGORY C ZONING DISTRICT BUFFER REQUIRED l L2 ,IRS \ 1° IRS J m � � f TRACT LINE � I HEREBY 1 f ' VACATED. 1 1 � I �o IRS �... h 90,0 ZONE i IRS F�000— ZONE O V NOTE. - COURSES WITH ASTERISK (*) DENOTE NEW TRACT LINES HEREBY ESTABLISHED. SEE SHEETS 5 & 6 FOR CURVE DATA, LINE DATA, EASEMENT DATA, AREA TABULATION, LEGEND, NOTES AND KEY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. WIRE FENCE ZONE. RA _ ZONE. M 1 30' DRAINAGE EASEMENT SEE SHEET 3 FOR DETAIL ADJUSTED TAX PARCEL 43—A-111 SEE SHEET 3 JO' DRAINAGE EASEMENT SEE SHEET 3 FOR DETAIL APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF FLOOD ZONE A PER F.I.R.M. No. 51006J 0105 B NER BY VACATED 0 \ TRACT LINE \ H IRS S 54' 19'46" E — 881.28'* -_o IRS O r J � 25 BRL � raj f 20' .SANITARY "' O op SEWER EASEMENT w G J SEE SHEET 3 ADJUSTED FOR DETAIL m TAX PARCEL Z Q O fl 43-A -99 Q J m 32.1181 ACRES o r o O JO' WATER & SEWER Nv EASEMENT r j INST. No. 020014907 S J8�01 '07" 828.47' OD ' J ' J m OVERHEAD UTILITY WIRES 100' MINIMUM z OC I POTOMAC EDISON CO. R/W _ J/ CATEGORY C DB 495 PG 74 ZONING DISTRICT B (NO WIDTH (zPECIFIED) in BUFFER REQUIRED 3 O a IRF J 1 �f �f I -1 5' BRL 25' BRL ZONE.- M 1 25' BRL O N 51'3245" W m — 1,290.26' IRF ZONE: B3 ZONE.- 82 60' INGRESS/EGRESS 1 EASEMENT TO MARTINSBURG PIKE —"� 250 0 250 INST. No. 050006701 I T.M. 43—A-100 GRAPHIC SCALE RUTHERFORD FARM, LLC ( /N FEET) INST. No. 050006702 ZONE. 82 & B3 USE. VACANT RFvtsFn• auricsT .3l 2nns FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET ALS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1" = 250' 1 DATE: JUNE 13, 2006 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Srerveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 www.greenwayeng. corn --NLTH ()F t- 1 0 RICHARD A. EDENS y No.002550 %ZD SURv�.Y 2795J SHEET 2 OF 6 • • NOTE COURSES WITH ASTERISK (*) DENOTE NEW Q\f�490 TRACT LINES HEREBY ESTABLISHED. �F 4p1 SEE SHEETS 5 do 6 FOR CURVE DATA, LINE DATA, `l EASEMENT DATA, AREA TABULATION, LEGEND, NOTES AND KEY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. W/NCHESiER do WES7�-RN \�5 _ 60' R/W -SEE OB 633 �LR� 30' K'ATER & SEWER E4SEMENT - -lot- - _ _ ' - - INSr No. 020014907 DOT -SHADED AREA DENOTES A 20' E5 �>ONi P-' --�-- SANlTARY SEWER'S 2/ E ADJUSTED TAX PARCEL 43 A-99 EASEMENT HEREBY / j p TO SEE SHEET 2 ESTABLISHED TO�yr/ pp /0 VACATED_--- BENEFIT ADJUSTED �vl00 TRACT L1� Nr HEREBY E J TAX PARCEL I �' E2 - H1ATT £ f o s 4J-A-111. �. E4 * EC t _L5 W E1r_ �-��•. RUN m��o CL IRS i�; m `� / �R4i Eqs ti � c, 25' BRL � e�?E9Y �T E4,SEME'vOTf- I:•:� � Z � E 6.81 ' P Eft ,q ���SyE ENTS I: kE3 `� Z 61.65' o` RCE-fUST�CD T TC`�f: I ,r m j L4* IRS >> IRS t:'.I L,3 _~ o * OVERHEAD UTILITY IRS zo Bpi WIRES - POTOMAC ?S `" N q EDISON CO. R/W C 1 # BRL rn DB 495 PG 74 i�,' (NO WIDTH APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF Z o I SPECIFIED) FLOOD ZONE A PER `1' F.I.R.M. No. 510063 0105 BUj o g JW� m W �W� �a � x ADJUSTED TAX LO V- � �z�c &IRN PARCEL 43-A -111 A a Ll-jj Q 18. J45J ACRES ^ h ° o 2 100' MINIMUM to p W 100' MINIMUM CATEGORY C CATEGORY C ZONING DISTRICT � z Z ZONING DISTRICT BUFFER REQUIRED BUFFER REQUIRED � Q.4RIV o �F NZONE.• M1 IRFONE.• RAo ZONE- RP ZONE. RP IRS L 1 L l l .............X...... oIY- L6 NE' 1 ZONE., M IPF ZONE.• RA WIRE "*'----'r--o IRS NAIL FD. L 10 FENCE IN TREE SEE SHEET 4 2 2 LQ FOR DETAIL `: H Ol OF THIS � AREA o; o J z Z N N H Y IRF L8 MON C2 IRF 200 0 200 0.65 MILEi TO MARTINSBURG PIKE INTERSTATE 81 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET � EXIT 317 U.S. ROUTE 11 80' R/W pnitccn• eticcrcT 3l 9n09 FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OFyLTH OFL'r� C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER ET AL S STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA o � RICHARD A. EDENS � SCALE: 1" = 200' DATE: JUNE 13, 2006 No.002550 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 8-31-oc, Q. 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 SURN :..,7 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 I•utimled itt 1971 www.greenwayeng.com 2795J SHEET 3 OF 6 v oo, 0 • -•- ADJUSTED TAX PARCEL 43-A-111 SEE SHEET 3 cJl -J '-'0 L 10 IPF ZONE- RP �z N N >c -_ of oZ °L4 0 t z 0 ZONE, M 1 y.........,y...... I ........ X............. z...... ZONE- RA WIRE FENCE 100' MINIMUM CATEGORY C ZONING DISTRICT BUFFER REQUIRED x 1RF ZONE. Ml ZONE- RA ; ZONE- RP L VARIABLE WIDTH SEPTIC EASEMENT SHED : SERVING TAX } :PARCEL 43—A-111 } : INST. No. 02002287J } J DWELLING Z `2015 } o w } I N o�� m } wl I LO oco w oo� ADJUSTED } �, TAX PARCEL NWm�� 0 w w RFo S .3T48— W� 43-A-111 18. 345J ACRES i w } } OVERHEAD } } UTLITY WIRES 60' BRL f } f }w } 10' UTILITY } EASEMENT } SERVING TAX PARCEL 43-A-111 INST. No. I } 02002287J 13 8S MON C2 ZIRF -- 0.32 MILEf TO MARTINSBURG PIKE ROUTE 838 U.S. ROUTE 11 MCCANNS RD. NOTE: 80' R/W 60 0 60 COURSES WITH ASTERISK (-) DENOTE NEW TRACT LINES HEREBY ESTABLISHED. SEE SHEETS 5 & 6 FOR CURVE DATA, LINE DATA, EASEMENT GRAPHIC SCALE DATA, AREA TABULATION, LEGEND, NOTES AND KEY TO (IN FEET) ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, REVISED: AUGUST 31, 2006 FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET AL S STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGIN14 _ SCALE: 1" = 60' DATE: JUNE 13, 2006 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.coin 1�11!?vr, nATA CURVE DELTA ANGLE RADIUS ARC LENGTH TANGENT CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH C 1 43'58'47" 500.00' 383.80' 201.9 1' S 49'0726" W 374.44' C2 00'28' 11 " 1149.9.20'1 94.27 47.13' S 38'02'50 " W 94.27' CA CC{ /CA17 OrA/TrPt IAIr r l /RVF n.4 TES CURVE DELTA ANGLE RADIUS ARC LENGTH TANGENT CHORD BEARING I CHORD LENGTH EC1 2T41 '34" 200.00' 96.67' 49.30' N 10'47'21 " W 95.73' IINF nATA LINE BEARING DISTANCE L 1 S 27'54'00" W 289.78' L2 S 54'1845" E 400.46' L3 S 27'08'02" W 69.59' L4 I S 71'06'49" W 194.4 1' L5 S 42' 18'30 " W 302.27' L 6 S 38' 18 :33" W 373.93' L7 S 54'1326" E 337.48' L8 S 374844" W 133.86' L9 N 55'4555" W 339.60' L10 S 38'18'33" W 145.00' L 11 N 55'4555 " W 41.52' L 12 S 38'01 '07" W 135.00' F-A gF',UFAIT rFNTFRI INF nATA LINE BEARING DISTANCE El N 24'38'08" W 64.68' E2 N 03'03'26" E 21.89' E3 N 5424'04 " W 249.16' E4 N 72'01 '27" W 109.89' E5 N 06-21'49" W 292.79' LEGEND BRL = BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE PER ZONING ORDINANCE IPF = 2" IRON PIPE FOUND IRF = '%1 " IRON REBAR FOUND IRS = X" IRON REBAR & CAP SET MON = CONCRETE HIGHWAY MONUMENT FOUND R/W = RIGHT OF WAY E = OVERHEAD UTILITY WIRES -ar = FENCE LINE • •.......•.••.••••• • = ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY REVISED: AUGUST 31 2005 FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF ��p�LTH C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET AL S STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA __ uo RICRARb A. EDENS � _ SCALE: N/A DATE: JUNE 13, 2006 No.002550 GREENWAY ENGINEERING100." 74\ 151 Windy Hill Lane EnSURv gineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 � Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 hi;itmicd r,t 1971 www.greenwayeng.cons 2795J SHEET 5 OF 6 0 • KEY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER TAG TAX PARCEL No. CURRENT OWNER REFERENCE ZONE USE 0 T. M. 43C-1—A ROY R. MESSICK, ET UX DB 259 PG 568 RP/RESID. O T. M. 43C-1—B BRADFORD VILLAGE APARTMENTS, L.C. DB 970 PG J59 RP/RESID. T.M. 43C-1—C NANBODAN PROPERTIES, L.L.C. INST. No. 0500 I J767 RP/RESID. O T.M. 43C-1—D MICHAEL A. MOORE, ET UX DB 668 PG 112 RP/RESID. O T.M. 43—A-105 THOMAS W. RISSLER, ET UX DB 286 PG 267 RP/RESID. (✓ T. M. 43—A-106 RONALD A. LEE, ET UX DB 535 PG 294 RP/RESID. G T M. 43—A-107 CLIFFORD D. MCQUAIN, ET ALS DB 896 PG 708 RP/RESID. f ' T M. 43—A-108 PATRICIA S. NETHERS WILL No. 010000120 RP/RESID. O T. M. 43—A-109 SCOTT E. MERRYMAN, ET UX INST. No. 030016388 RP/RESID. (,l T. M. 43—A-110 THOMAS E. RIDDICK, JR., ET UX INST. No. 02002287J R4&RP/1?ESID. KO T M. 43—A-113 CHARLES S. DEHAVEN, ET UX, TRUSTEES INST. No. 060006327 RP/RESID. AREA TABULATION T.M. 43—A-111 EXISTING AREA OF T M. 43—A-111 PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43-A-99 ADDED LESS PORTION ADDED TO T.M. 43-A-99 ADJUSTED AREA 20.6565 ACRES + 2.4942 ACRES — 4. Rt7.54 ACRES = 18.3453 ACRES TM, 43-A-99 EXISTING AREA OF T.M. 43-A-99 = 29.8069 ACRES LESS PORTION ADDED TO T.M. 43-A-111 = - 2.4942 ACRES PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43-A-111 ADDED = + 4.8054 ACRES ADJUSTED AREA (EAST OF RAILROAD) = 32.1181 ACRES PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43-A-99 (WEST OF RAILROAD) _ + 27.0593 ACRES ADJUSTED AREA (TOTAL) = 59.1874 ACRES NOTES 1. THE BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY BY THIS FIRM. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. EASEMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN MAY EXIST 2. THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON LIES WITHIN ZONE C, AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING, AND ZONE A, AREAS OF 100—YEAR FLOOD; BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS AND FLOOD HAZARD FACTORS NOT DETERMINED, PER N.F.I.P. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP No. 510063 0105 B, DATED JULY 17, 1978. THE APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SAID ZONE A ARE SHOWN HEREON AS DETERMINED BY GRAPHIC PLOTTING UPON SAID MAP. FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET ALS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: N/A DATE: JUNE 13, 2006 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Su,vevors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 Foundcd in 1971 www.greenwayeng.corn REVISED: AUGUST 31, 2006 p,LTH OF � o r RICHARD A. EDENS No.002550 ' 0&.- SURN�Y 2795J SHEET 6 OF 6 0 b-1 CO • • VIRGINIA- FREDERICK COUNTY.SCT. This instrument of writing was produced to me On _at. 4/ 30 , and with certificate acknowledgement thereto annexed was admitted to record. Tax imposed by Sec, 58.1-802 Of $ N lf�r , and 58.1-801 have been paid, if assessabi& 46e4 I Ckjk • E E • R, 050006'702 C7 W o - THIS DEED made and dated this j3 day of tY1.�� , 2005, by and between C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHN B. SCHROTH and JOHN S. SCULLY, IV, parties of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantors, and RUTHERFORD FARM. LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, party of the second part, hereinafter called the Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00) Dollars, cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which I is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby grant and convey with special warranty and English Covenants of title unto the Grantee, in fee simple absolute, all of the following described tract or parcel of land: All that certain tract or parcel of land, lying and being situate in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 51.1176 acres, as shown on the plat of survey drawn by Mark D. Smith, L.S., dated March 18, 2005, and by this reference made a part hereof as if set out in full; AND BEING a portion of the same land conveyed to C. Robert Solenberger, John B. Schroth and John S. Scully, IV by Deed dated August 24, 2004 from Rutherford, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, as Instrument No. 04-0017164. Page 1 of 2 0, O W O co This conveyance is made subject to all easements, rights of way and restrictions of record affecting the subject property, and particularly those certain 50-foot-wide non- exclusive, ingress/egress easements as set forth in Instrument No. 04-0011262 in the aforesaid Clerk's Office and shown on the aforesaid attached survey. WITNESS the following signatures and seals. STATE OF VIRGINiA CITY OF WINCI-IESTER, TO -WIT (SEAL) C. Robert Solenberger a Notary Public in and for the State and jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certify that C. Robert Solenberger, John B. Schroth and John S. Scully, IV, whose names are signed to the foregoing DEED dated the Q 3 day of ryio-t C'.,�i , 2005 have personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand this -�Cl day of 2005. My Commission expires 0uLMb-1 0 t >01. NPTARY PUB s:; 2 , c IRUINIA: FREDERICK COUNTY, SCT. •' `` his instrument of writin was prodtxed to me on at 1 if{i�i�1 3�#t�ettiMthereto annexed /as/ad�miittteed; to record 'T i*upc�ed by Sec. 58.1-802 of V � /u_ ; and 58.1-801 have been paid, if asseR�h of 2 Cleric 050006701. FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET AL STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINb4 MARCH 18, 2005 a oG� o \coo CD eo 0 O leb co Exit 317 / VICIDIITYCOMAP 0YfWER'S CERTIFICATE THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING BOUNLIARY UNE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN 7HE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHN B. SCHROTH AND JOHN a SCULLY, N, AS APPEARS ON THE ACCOMPANYING PLATS, IS WITH TH£ FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNER PROPRIETORS, 2WD_7R , I ANY /� . z 2 � CO�P� :�1N OF ORGINW CITY U OF TO WIT: THE FOREGOING OWNER'S CERTIFICATE WAS CKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 2QLQ ,- BY �4L 4F NOTARY UBUC `7Y'01�• PyEs :5 vF k'Y' CERTIFICATE COMAIONW£ALTN OF WRG1NlA CITY/COUNTY OF , TO WIT: THE FOREGOING OWNER'S CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS— DAY OF . 20 BY NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES , I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE LAND CONTAINED IN THIS BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT SURVEY IS A PORTION OF THE LAND CONVEYED 70 C ROBERT SOLENBERGER, JOHN B. SCHR07H AND JOHN S. SCULLY, IV' BY DEED DlA70 AUGUST 24, 2004 OF RECORD IN THE FRIDERICK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE AS INSTRUMENT W. 040017164. RICMRD A EDENS, L.S. NOTE.' PARENT TAX EARCa IDEN77RCATIQN TACT A — T.M. 43—A-99 78.8873 ACRES ZONE.-B21B3/M1 USE,• VACANT T.M. 43—A-100 1.3002 ACRES ZONE: 82 USE. VACANT T.M. 4J—A-101 0.7370 ACRE ZONE.B2 USE. RESIDENTIAL APPROVALS. FREDERICK COU SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR DATE / GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Vuginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone. (540) 662-4185 FAX.- (540) 722-9528 Fuunded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com Tp�LTH OF � 1 O g RIV A. EDENS N0.002550 .t 3-i8-o5 4, 2795J SHEET 1 OF 4 a SEE SHEET 4 FOR LEGEND, LINE DATA, AREA TABULATION, AND KEY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS 300 0 300 GRAPHIC SCALE D ZONE C tis��o (IN FEET) 100, 'LOO 'FLOOD ZONE A IRFO Q�W N f I Wc�r\a � N~ I o ff= T.M. 4J A-111 2 C. j �,, j >° ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET AL �7 a ca Z ti I U` o o j o INST. No. 040017164 y ZONE. M1 USE. VACANT Cx RUN ► � C • � 1 � G g56.56' o - IRF O • 0*0 1 EXISTING POTOMAC 1 cn 3 W � N I ` EDISON CO. R/W � _ '� 1� D9 495 PG 74 o Q' o -"� I •� (NO WIDTH SPECIFIED) ca `f) �� Ig ` ADJUSTED c T.M. 43-A-99 00l F s�z �29.8069 ACRES E o ? o ' , DOT —SHADED AREA DENOTES :+. C3 N I A 60' INGRESS/ EGRESS 14 D EASEMENT HEREBY RESERVED TD BENEFIT ADJU57ED C I TM 4J--A-99 (SEE SHEET J) I ZONE M1\ 8RL O 25# BRL 25' BRL_�_ - RF . • • 1290.26 N 51.32 45 W ZONE B2 f j ZONE 83 ADJUSTED TM. 4J—A-100 I : • SEE SHEET J NO 1. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. EASEMENTS OTHER THAN SHOWN MAY EXIST. 2. THE BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS hASED ON A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY BY THIS FIRM. J. THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON LIES WITHIN ZONE C, AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING, AND ZONE A, AREAS OF 100—YEAR FLOOD; BASE FLOOD ELEVA77ONS AND FLOOD HAZARD FACTORS NOT DETERMINED, PER N.F.I.P. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP No. 51006J 0105 B, DATED JULY 17, 1978, 7HE APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SAID ZONE A ARE SHOWN HEREON, AS DETERMINED BY GRAPHIC PLOTTING UPON SAID MAP. 4. COURSE WITH ASTERISK (*) DENOTES NEW TRACT LINE HEREBY ESTABLISHED. FINAL. PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET AL TONE -WALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1" = 300' DATE: MARCH 18, 2005 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX- (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com 0 c iA 1�,LTH of RICHARD A. EDENS 5 No.002550 3-t8-0� 4, a �� SuVis 2795J SHEET 2 OF 4 C c c. 0 E o DOT -SHADED AREA DENOTES A 60' INGRESS/ EGRESS EASEMENT DOT -SHADED HEREBY RESERVED TO BENEf7T AREA DENOTES AN ADJUSTED TXI 43-A-99 ADDITIONAL 15' ADJUSTED INGRESS/EGRESS Ty. 43-A-99 EASEMENT HEREBY SEE SHEET 2 0� Gtio ESTABLISHED m 1 ZONE O /y z i TO TOTAL 80' g07,46' 9 �;N I ► 1673.96' S 51'32'45' E 25 RL ZONE - 82 ; ZONE 63 25 BRL X. EX. 50' 1 W q o I INGRESS EGRESS m FORMER TRACT LINES HEREBY VACATED INST. 1040011262 ^ EXIS77NG POTOMAC A j � N Z � \ 7,5' BR �• ••:' • EDlSON CO. R/i'V r A c� DB 495 PG 74 (NO' WIDTH SPECIFIED) 75 f EXISTING I '••�"'BRL DW I o ems' e\ oN �o�O� 0 � � I ►� � � FORMER 77•Z75 g l 4CT LINES / � c.� HEREBY VACATED 15.0�/ ADJUSTED 43-A-100 1� o�/ / m 00 o { 51,1176 ACRES M� 1.2b N `X Otis ��s • �� � r '� � -i � {� '` � 4 � — o �2 0� , L 1 �. 00 NOTE.' NOTE,' 300 0 300 COURSE WITH ASTERISK SEE SHEET 4 FOR CURVE DATA, DENOTES NEW PROPERTY UNE LEGEND, LINE DATA, AREA HEREBY ESTABLISHED. TABULATION, AND KEY TO GRAPHIC SCALE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. (IN FEET) CURVE DATA CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH DELTA ANGLE TANGENT CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH C 1 1321.72 676.18 29' 18'43' 34, 5. 66' N 15'56'51 ' W 668.83' C2 5629.58' 144.98 012 72.49 N 00'13 W 338'32' 144.97 C3 2252.00' 823.69' 20'57'23" 416.50' S 50TOW W 819.11' FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LANDS OF C. ROBERT SOLENBEROER, ET AL STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1" = 300' 1 DATE: MARCH 18, 2005 GREEN'WAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane u Ct Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 ,,�:007 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX. • (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.corn I o � RICHARD A. EDENS � No.002550 0 �iD SURv�� 2795J SHEET 3 OF 4 � E EA TABULAWN 1M 43 A-1X ORIGINAL AREA OF T.M. 43A-100 = 1.3002 ACRES PLUS PORTION OF T.M. 43 A-99 ADDED = +49.0804 ACRES PLUS ALL OF T.M. 4,3 A-101 ADDED - +0.7370 ACRE ADJUSTED AREA = 51.1176 ACRES T M. 4J--A-99 ORIGINAL. AREA TRACT "A" OF T.M. 43 A-99 LESS POR77ON ADDED TO T.M. 43 A-10D ADJUSTED AREA PLUS 7RACT B" OF T Y. 43-A-99 TOTAL AREA OF T.M. 43 A-99 (7WO PARTS) 78.8873 ACRES -49.0804 ACRES 29.8069 ACRES +27.0693 ACRES 56.8762 ACRES CURVE DATA F EC 1 1000 00' 307.29 17 J6 23 154.86 S 50'f 7'00" W 306.0�8" F,4SFii1FNT CFNTFRIINE I)ATA LINE BEARING I DISTANCE El S 59'05 11 W 279.61' LINE DATA LINE BEARING DISTANCE L 1 N 4755 36' W 270.92' L2 N 30"36'12" W 236.59 L3 N 29'4552 0 W 79.86' CD c-0 co uI LENGTH LEGENDi MON. =CONCRETE HIGHWAY MONUMENT p = 112" IRON REBAR & CAP SET UNLESS OTHERWISE NOW IRF = 1/2" IRON REL AR FOUND BRL = BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE PER ZONING ORDINANCE = CENTERLINE RIW = RIGHT OF WAY Ka TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS TAX Q MENRF7CA77ON NC T.A. 43 A-101 CUFRa T O C. Ro6ERT SOLENBERGER, Er AL INST. 1040017164 70etEL11sE 821RESID © T.M. 43C-1 A ROY R. MESS&X ET UX DB 259 PG 568 RP/RES/D © T.N. 43 A-102 BML, LC INST. 1000007005 RP/RES1D OD T.At, 43 A-103 ROBERT a JOHNSON, ET UX DB 424 PG 534 RP/RE5/D i OE T.Al. 43 A-104 MICFNEL A. MOORE, ET UX DB 668 PG 112 RP/RESID OF T.AI. 4J-A-105 1NOAas W. RSSIFR, ET UX DB 286 PG 267 RPIRE51D a © T M 43A-106 ROMLD A. LEE; ET UX DB 535 PG 294 RP/RESID �H T.M. 43A-107 CLIFFORD D. MCAWIN, ET AL DB 896 PG 708 RP/RESID 0l T.M. 4J-A-108 PATRIC41 S: NETHERS WILL /'0100000120 RP/RE3'ID O T.M. 4J A-109 SCOTT E. MERRMW, ET UX INST. /03001086 RP/RESID h' TA 43A-112B DEMWV NURSERY, INC, 1NST. 1020016,608 R4/RESID O i T. M. 43-A-100 C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET AL lNST 1040017164 B2/VACANT FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT �LTH p�, BETWEEN THE LANDS OF o��►�' C. ROBERT SOLENBERGER, ET AL �r STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINM RICHARD A. EDENS y No.002550 l` - SCALE: N/A DATE: MARCH 18, 2005 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane L Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 SUR,�' Surveyors Telephone. (540) 662-4185 FAX (540) 722-9528 f Founded in 1971 www.green wayengcom 2795J SHEET 4 OF 4 C W CD p,, VIRCANIA: FREDERICK COUNTY, SCT. This instrument of writinwas produced to me on at Ind with certiG ;atc. of acknowledgcment thereto annexed was adim cld to record. T imposed by Sec. 58.1-802 of S and 58.1-801 have been paid, if assessable Clerk ti ViewDetail 17J Pa,2e l of 1 Real Estate Public Inquiry Ticket Detail 2006 REAL ESTATE TAXES Department# : RE2006 Ticket #: 374280001 hlZf�: 1 — Sup#: =0 �a►ne: VIRGINIA APPLE STORAGE, INC AccoulFt#;8619 ---------- - - - - - - Name 2. Alapg: 43 A 98 Address:: Description: 28.38 ACRES _..___.-.-___.__-_._.__ 1955 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER, VA 122601 Bill Date: 06/05/2006 ---- 1)ue Date: 06/05/2006 T Land:: $851,400 Improve: Use: (. 110 inal Bill: — - $2,234.93 payments: $2,234.93- Acres: ; 28.38 P en a Ity paid :----- - — lilt Paid: ,------`— Discount: �-------------- _.__ Amount C)rved —_- — Other: Last Date:i 06/06/2006 Total O)\ ed: Penally: II1teI'e5t: \;nr th t if i „� meat iia been rccci�ed �� ithin the Iasi 10 business dads. anv returned items may not be posted ai this ime. Pkast: erect, the \-\ebsite main. !':its' ,..'?'lt i;tl3,• .. ..: _,, . ... _ 6%5!2006 Char_e 0 52.234.9 3 $ 6 6 2006 Pa\•ment 1 1 156 (52.234.93) 50.00 ! I Use the print key for your browser to print a copy of taxes paid for this year. New Search: Previous -ederIck.va.us/applications,'iZEJ'ubliclasp-x I I ' 3 _MO Vltt \\Detail Page 1 of I Real Estate Public Inquiry Ticket Detail 2006 REAL ESTATE TAXES i}c li:trttuet�t# : RE2006 Ticket 4: ; 338-20001 FRQ:I1 Supk: 0 Name: 'SOLENBERGER, C ROBERT ETALS Accoun(4:18620 ------- - - Nanlc 2: \raIA: 143 A 99 Address: Description: 156.87 ACRES 1112 N CAMERON ST f— -------------- -----•----- -- ---- ----...--- WINCHESTER, VA 122601 Bill Date: 06/05/2006 1)ue 1)ate: 06/05/2006 Lund: i $1,706,100 Original Bilk! $4,478.52 Penalty Paid:; Amount ONved: `I'otul Owed: Improve: Use: Pavments: $4,478.52- Acres: Int Paid: Discount: Other: �--------- Last Date: Penalty: i----__— Interest: } 56.87 1 05/22/2006 ���I\ ulelll leas 1?cell 1"eCcJbl'Cl within the last 10 business t1a\'s, mi\ returned items IIIR_\' no! be posted at tll,s "...i itleck the webslte avaln. 6 5.'2006 Charge 01 S4.478.52 �4.;"8.52 22) 2006 Payment 89171 (54AA78.52) S0.00 1 Use the print lie), for your browser to print a copy of taxes paid for this yea New Search Previous ;.1�, �\\\\\.ro.I•r��iericl<.\�a.use,:i}�plicatio;r�;l�iuPublicl,nctt�.)•�,�-'`%ie\\�I�c�tai.l.�tsh?; icvNDetaii � � Pale I of 1 Real Estate Public Jnqui�y Ticket Detail 2006 REAL LSTAT E 1 r' XES ,. ------____..._------..____. ..._.._.. _--- t.trtt� ent# : RE2006 Tici:ct 4: 310910001 FRQ:i1 Sup#: 0 R UTH E R F O R D FARM , L L C Account#: atne; , _-.-_—.--------------_-___.._.._...._..__-- ___-_—_____._----...__------------------------....__.._ 43--- - - --_-_-__-------- A100Name 2: _...... .... _._........ ---- ..... _... .-------- .-__--...................................... .............. :cicft•css:C/O TETRA PARTNERSHIP Description: 51.12 ACRES .--------------_----..- - -_ _ ..__.._.. -------._.._._......-.._......................._.... 111450 DARON CAMERON AVE ------ ------- ---- ------ — --- _ - -- --- - ; ----- -- -- ------ --- - -- - RESTON, VA 20190 Bill I)ate: 06/0512006^--- 1)uc 1)ate: 06/05I2006 -- Land: $256,500 Improve: $173,500 Use: I Uri�inal Bill:' -- $1,128 75 Payments: $1,128.75- Acres:------51.12 Penalty Paid:-----^-------�-__ I n t Paid: —_�-- Discount: intount Owed: ------- Other: ------- -- Last Date: { 06/02/2006 Toud ONNed: -- penalty: Interest: lh-'il il'pm11iem has been rCcci\'cci within the last 10 business ciaNs. am returned items nimnisi be hosted at this chock the \.-ebsite a iin. 0 -� 2006 CharL)c 0 S1.128.7 S1.12)8.7� 6:'2.'2006 Payment S7 (S1.128.75) S0.00 I 1 Use the print l:ey 1'or your bro��ser to print a copy of taxes paid 1'or this �ear. New Search; Previous .� ,>: �,',���',�,.co.i��tc'Brick.��a.us/applications/REPubliclny�,.tir•��!ViewDetail.asp:�: � � 1 i"��='i)(.tb 46 0 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Founded in 1971 Winchester, Virginia 22602 TRANSMITTAL Project Name: Rutherford Crossing File No: 2795RF Date: November 20, 2996 To: FC Planning Attn: Copied Susan Eddy From: Evan Wyatt/dlm GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Fax: 540-722-9528 Delivery: r- Fed Ex ❑ U.S. Mail 0 Courier ❑ Pick Up ❑ Other ❑ Urgent [F For Your Review [F As You Requested ❑ Please Comment Message Susan, Per your request, attached is a copy of the new plat for parcel 43-A-111. Also attached are the plats for 43-A-98, 43-A-99, and 43-A-100. Call with any questions. Hand Delivery and Pick Ups Only: Received by: Date: Please Print Name: January 16, 2007 Mr. Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Rutherford Crossing Dear Evan: C®IJ o f+It�I�EII�IlICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 0. Attached you will find a copy of the third review comments from the County Attorney's office concerning the proposed proffer statement for the rezoning of Rutherford Crossing. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, IV &M4 Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planrier SKE/bad Attachment 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 e Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Finance Department FROM: Pam Deeter, Office Assistant II SUBJECT: Return Of Sign Deposit DATE: January 29, 2007 The amount of $50.00 was deposited in line item #3-010-019110-0008 for the company named below had a deposit .for one sign for Rezoning #17-06 for Rutherford Crossing. The company has returned the sign and is therefore entitled to the return of the deposit. You may pay this through the regular bill cycle. Please send a check in the amount of $50.00 to: Rutherford Farm 8230 Leesburg Park Suite 500 Vienna, VA 22182 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • No. 927 4 Al : RECEIVED OM W� 6,a,, a J J 1'$ ADDRESS ,_x,-4-0-1D LOLLARS 1 M1[]FOR RENT ' y 3V)) 3(4R))" ` 7 _9 8 DFOR v �-3 0O a CASH AMT. OF • �� �'; y . ACCOUNT 17 v', - CHECK AMT. PAID CL MONEY BY o _ Potomac Bank Rutherford Crossing Rezoning p�PPlication Fee Checkmo 100 Payment 6,150.00 6,150.00 6,15C • ' S 1v�S •O� Q� �05�tot,, 0 Cb Qea� • ' — T A X R E C E I P T .••SQRA��ecc `' )ERICK COUNTY EGA e�eo� 'WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR v`cSb bc�`� 0. BOX 225 a WINCHESTER VA 22604-0225 / SIGN DEPOSITS PLANNING Ticket #:00005580001 Date : 11/14/2006 Register: BCC/BC Trans. #: 62739 Dept # 1095 Acct# Previous Balance $ 100.00 Principal Being Paid $ 100.00 Penalty $ .00 Interest $ .00 Amount Paid $ 100.00 *Balance Due $ .00 Pd by PLANNING Check 27825.50 # VARIOUS BALANCE DUE INCLUDES PENALTY/INTEREST THRU THE MONTH 11/2006 ft\ GREENWAY ENGINEERING %47 151 Windy Hill Lane Sounded in 2971 Winchester, Virginia 22602 T R A N S M I T T A L Project Name: Rutherford Crossing Final Proffer Statement File No: 2795RF Date January 29, 2006 To: FC Planning From: Evan Wyatt/ Attn: Susan Eddy GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Copied Fax: 540-722-9528 Delivery: ❑ Fed Ex ❑ U.S. Mail ❑ Other ❑ Urgent ❑ For Your Review Message: Hi Susan, ® Courier ® As You Requested ❑ Pick Up ❑ Please Comment Please find attached slip sheets for page 5 and page 6 of the Rutherford Crossing Proffer Statement that reflect the language that we discussed. Please use this information for the final proffer statement for Rutherford Crossing and provide me with your approval letter at your earliest possible convenience. Thank you, Evan Hand Delivery and Pick Ups Only: Received By: Date: , f;w Stationery • 0 Page 1 of 2 Susan Eddy From: Evan Wyatt [ewyatt@greenwayeng.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1:55 PM To: Susan K. Eddy (E-mail) Cc: Edward J. Sussi (E-mail) Subject: FW: Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Proffer Statement Hi Susan, Please note Mr. Sussi's response below. Hopefully, this will address the concern raised by the County Attorney. Thank you, Evan -----Original Message ----- From: Ed Sussi [mailto:esussi@cowperwood.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1:26 PM To: Evan Wyatt Subject: RE: Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Proffer Statement I concur with Greenway Engineering's statement below. Edward J. Sussi Executive Vice President THE COWPERWOOD COMPANY 375 Park Avenue, Suite 3701 New York, NY 10152 212 953 0007 212 953 1535 fax www.cowperwood.com From: Evan Wyatt [mailto:ewyatt@greenwayeng.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:24 PM To: Edward J. Sussi (E-mail) Subject: ***SPAM*** Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Proffer Statement Hi Ed, As we discussed, I have been contacted by the Frederick County Planning Department regarding the proposed 2006 Proffer Statement for Rutherford Crossing replacing the 2004 Proffer Statement for the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park. Specifically, the County wants assurance that Cowperwood FEMA, LLC agrees to the termination of the 2004 Proffer Statement and acknowledges that the 2006 Proffer Statement is being offered by the owners of Tax Parcels 43-A-98, 43-A-99 and 43-A-100 without any obligation to Tax Parcel 43-A-111 owned by Cowperwood FEMA, LLC whatsoever. Please reply to this message of your concurrence and I will forward this to this County and copy you on that message. Thank you, Evan Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 1 /24/2007 I.W. Stationery 0 0 Page 2 of 2 Phone: 540-662-4185 Fax: 540-722-9528 Visit us on the web at www.greenwayeng.com Greenway Engine I ome �ornpanyhisfoary Fwaardea1 hr 19?1 .services Po ffallo Company directory CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer. Thank you. 1 /24/2007 en ouk by+gyp t►coon--(5F- T05, \e ePnj o A �z4 �o 7 Rutherford Crossing Transportation Proffer Summary & Schedule Proffer C(1)(a) New Traffic Signal at Primary Entrance on Route 11 ➢ VDOT signalization agreement and bonding executed Proffer C(1)(b) New Traffic Signal at I-81 Exit 317 Southbound Ramps and Route 11 ➢ VDOT signalization agreement and bonding executed Proffer C(1)(c) New Traffic Signal at I-81 Exit 317 Northbound Ramp and Route 11/Route 661 ➢ VDOT signalization agreement prepared and bond amount has been determined ➢ VDOT signalization agreement to be executed immediately following rezoning approval Proffer C(1)(d) Route 11 Corridor Traffic Signalization Analysis ➢ Traffic consultant hired; Work to begin following rezoning approval once requested by VDOT Proffer C(2) Rutherford Crossing Route 11 Entrance Limitations ➢ VDOT Permit and bonding for Route 11 improvements in place ➢ VDOT Permit issuance anticipated in February 2007 Proffer C(2) Route 11 Additional Travel Lane and Turn Lane Improvements ➢ VDOT Permit and bonding for Route 11 improvements in place ➢ VDOT Permit issuance anticipated in February 2007 Greenway Engineering Proffer C(3)(a) Route 11 Right -of -Way Reservation to be Dedicated Dedication Plat has been executed and provided to VDOT Proffer C(3)(b) Interstate 81 Right -of -Way Reservation to be Dedicated Dedication Plat and Deed of Dedication will be prepared by owners within 90 days following VDOT request Proffer C(3)(c) Route 37 Right -of -Way Dedication — Tax Parcel 43-A-99 Dedication Plat and Deed of Dedication will be prepared by owners within 90 days following County request Proffer C(3)(d) Route 37 Right -of -Way Dedication — Tax Parcel 43-A-98 Dedication Plats and Deed of Dedication will be prepared by owners within 90 days following County request Proffer C(4) Internal Major Collector Road to FEMA Internal road to FEMA completed by December 31, 2007 FEMA occupancy permit anticipated February 2008 Proffer C(5) Route 11 Continuous Turn Lane from Primary Entrance to I-81 Exit 317 Northbound On Ramp VDOT Permit and bonding for Route 11 improvements in place VDOT Permit issuance anticipated in February 2007 $250,000.00 Monetary Contribution for Route 11 Improvements B-2 Site Plan approval anticipated in April 2007 $250,000.00 monetary contribution in October 2008 (18 months after first site plan approval) Greenway Engineering Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2006 Data ft\ GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 T R A N S M I T T A L Project Name: Rutherford Crossing Rezonin File No: 2795RF Date January 12, 2007 To: FC Planning From: Evan Wyatt/ Attn: Susan Eddy GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Copied Fax: 540-722-9528 Delivery: ❑ Fed Ex ❑ U.S. Mail ❑ Other ❑ Urgent ® For Your Review Message: Hi Susan, ® Courier ® As You Requested ❑ Pick Up ❑ Please Comment Please find attached 26 color 11 x 17 copies of the various colored maps and exhibits for the Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Application to be used for the January 24, 2007 Board of Supervisors meeting. Please contact me if you need any additional copies of these maps and exhibits. thank you, Evan Hand Delivery and Pick Ups Only: Received By: Date: 1 i 0 GREENWAY ENGINEERING, me. 151 Windy Hill lane 1 Winchester, Virginia 22602 Founded in 1971 December 29, 2006 Frederick County Planning Department 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Attn: Susan Eddy, Senior Planner Re: Rutherford Crossing — Rezoning and Master Development Plan Board of Supervisors Public Hearing Change Request Dear Ms. Eddy: On behalf of our clients, we are requesting the Board of Supervisors Public Hearing for the rezoning and master development plan for the Rutherford Crossing project originally scheduled for January 10, 2007 be changed to January 24, 2007. Thank you for your assistance with this project. Contact us with any questions or need for additional information. Sincerely, Greenway Engineering ) Donna Meliso Planning Department Administrator Cc: Rod Brana — Rutherford Farm, LLC Tom Pickering, PE — Bury+Partners John B. Schroth John S. Scully, IV C. Robert Solenberger— Virginia Apple Storage Jack Waghorn — NV Retail Ben Butler, attorney — Kuykendall, Johnston, McKee, and Butler Evan Wyatt, AICP — Greenway Engineering D EC 2 9 2006 ' I Engineers Sur,Ieyors File #2795RF Telephone 5,10-662-4185 1'v\a 5,10-722-9528 1 www.greenwayeng.com U/ COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 December 5, 2006 Mr. Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Rutherford Crossing Dear Evan: Attached you will find a copy of the second review comments from the County Attorney's office concerning the proposed proffer statement for the rezoning of Rutherford Crossing. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner SKE/bad Attachment 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 6 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Founded in 1971 MEMORANDUM oT CURRENT TO: Frederick County Planning Commissioners Susan Eddy, Senior Planner FROM: Evan Wyatt (74) RE: Rutherford Crossing Proffer Statement DATE: December 4, 2006 Please find attached the revised November 29, 2006 Proffer Statement for the Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Application that is scheduled for consideration on December 6, 2006. The purpose for this revision is a result of recent meetings between Mr. Ben Butler, legal counsel for the Rutherford Crossing development, and Mr. Robert Mitchell, County Attorney. Specifically, Mr. Mitchell has advised that the format of this document should be as an amended and restated Proffer Statement for the development, which terminates the current proffer statement and identifies specific responsibilities by the Applicant and/or Record Owner with specific property references for the proffered improvements. To assist in your review of these revisions, a copy of the Rutherford Crossing Proffer Statement has been included that identifies all revisions with bold and italic text. These revisions include the following: A Recitals Section has been incorporated to include information recommended by the County Attorney. All Sections of the Proffer Statement provide specific reference to the improvements required of the Applicant and/or Record Owner and identify the tax parcel in which said improvements will occur. ➢ Section A — Maximum Building Structure Square Feet has been revised to reduce the maximum square feet of development within the project from 1,400,000 square feet to 1,245,000 square feet. ➢ Section C(3)(c) — Right of Way Reservation has been revised to increase the amount of time for the "no -build" on the 14f acre reservation of Route 37 right- of-way from 5 years to 10 years. Please review this information prior to the December 6, 2006 meeting and do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this information. Thank you. Engineers Surveyors Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 www.greenwayeng.com • .J � - ]j � COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 'A FAX: 4 FAX: 540/665-6395 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Robert T. Mitchell, Esquire FROM: Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner 51F� RE: Rezoning Application Proffer Statement DATE: November 13, 2006 Please find attached to this memorandum a revised proffer statement for the Rutherford Crossing rezoning. On October 23, 2006, you provided comments on an earlier version of the proffer statement. The revised statement varies considerably from the one you reviewed, so an additional review is warranted. I want to point out two staff concerns. Firstly, the revised proffer statement divides up the obligations amongst the different property owners in a way that staff has not seen before. Secondly, parcel 443-A-111 is not a part of this rezoning, although it was part of the original Rutherford Farm Industrial Park Rezoning (REZ #07-01) and associated proffer statement. You will also note that the boundaries of parcel #43-A-I I I have been adjusted, since the 2001 rezoning. Please comment directly on the implications of these proffer changes, plus any others you uncover. The application is scheduled for the Planning Commission on December 6, so an expedited review is requested. Also scheduled for the December 6t1' meeting is the Seefried Property rezoning. I have not received comments from you on that proffer statement. Please expedite Seefried as well. Thank you for your continued assistance. cc: Jolm R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator Attachment SKE/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 0 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Founder! in 197I Winchester, Virginia 22602 T R A N S M I T T Project Name: Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Application Vim File No: 2795RF Date November 9, 2006 To: FC Planning From: Evan Wyatt/ Attn: Susan Eddv GREENWAY ENGINEERING Copied Delivery: ❑ Fed Ex ❑ U.S. Mail ❑ Other Phone: 540-662-4185 Fax: 540-722-9528 ® Courier ❑ Urgent ® For Your Review ❑ As You Requested ❑ Pick Up ® Please Comment Message: 1-11 Susan, Please find attached a master copy of the Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Application with all original owner signatures and notaries, as well as two booklets of the same information for your review. Please schedule this application for the December 6, 2006 Planning Commission agenda. Please contact me if you have any questions or if you need any additional information. Thank you, Evan Hand Delivery and Pick Ups Only: Received By: Date: Rutherford Farm, LLC Tel. 703-448-4300 8230 Leesburg Pike, Suite 500 Vienna, VA 22182 POTOMAC BANK OF VIRGINIA VIENNA, VA 22180 10024 68-887/560 9/8/2006 PAY TO THE ORDER OF Frederick County $ **6,150.00 Six Thousand One Hundred Fifty and 00/100*s.sssssss.ssss.ss:sssssssssssssssss.sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss Frederick County 107 North Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 MEMO Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Application Fee 0 100 2 411' 1:0 5 60088 781: 300 L 4 2 9 A eeni ory ee nri ioee inri i inen nerwii a n.i ewry A Rutherford Farm, LLC Frederick County Date Type Reference 09/01/2006 Bill Rezoning Appl fee DOLLARS 1 CHEKO.LB1' 9/8/2006 10024 Original Amt. Balance Due Discount Payment 6,150.00 6,150.00 6,150.00 Check Amount 6,150.00 Checking - Potomac Bank Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Application Fee 6,150.00 J Document Approval Form PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. IF THIS DOCUMENT MEETS YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE INITIAL AND PROVIDE THE DATE AND TIME OF YOUR APPROVAL. IF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT MEET YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS AS TO WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HA VE COMPLETED. INITIALS DATE & TIME Candice Bernie Mark Susan Q 6 Eric Mike Kevin John Lauren COMMENTS: c ) Received by Clerical Staff (Date & Time): PSD 1 1 3 0 to w U:\Pam\Common\Document Approval Form.wpd C 4tdf ) RICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 October 23, 2006 Mr. Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Rutherford Crossing Dear Evan: Attached you will find a copy of the review comments from the County Attorney's office concerning the proposed proffer statement for the rezoning of Rutherford Crossing. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner SKE/bad Attachment 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 9 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 M J'L'-] COU D CK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 t ;w,., 4 g£,,d, !,4x;7,. FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Robert T. Mitchell, Esquire FROM: Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner SKE RE: Rezoning Application Proffer Statement DATE: September 11, 2006 Please find attached to this memorandum the proffer statement and application for the Rutherford Crossing rezoning that has been submitted to the Department of Planning & Development. The rezoning application appears to be relatively close to being complete. Therefore, it is appropriate at this time for your office to provide a formal comment on the form and content of the proffer statement. Thank you for your continued assistance. cc: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator Attachment SKE/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING January 10, 2007 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #17-06 AND MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #14-06 FOR RUTHERFORD CROSSING On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing and a public meeting being held on Wednesday, January 24, 2007, at 7:15 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following public hearing rezoning application and the public meeting master development plan application: Rezoning 417-06 of Rutherford Crossing, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 22.45 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) District to B2 (General Business) District and 8.55 acres from M1 (Light Industrial) District to B2 District, totaling 31 acres, with proffers, for a retail center. The properties are located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 81 (Exit 317) and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 43-A-99 and 43-A-100. An additional property to be subject to proffers, but not to be rezoned, is identified by Property Identification Number 43-A-98. This property is located east of Interstate 81, approximately 1,500 feet north of the intersection of Interstate 81 and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Master Development Plan #14-06 for Rutherford Crossing, submitted by Bury+Partners, to develop 59.65 acres of B2 (Business General) District and 95.57 acres of M1 (Light Industrial) District for commercial and industrial uses. The properties are located at the northeast quadrant of Interstate 81, Exit 317, and Martinsburg Pike intersection in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100 and 43-A-111. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 46 Public Hearing and Public Meeting Notification January 10, 2007 Page 2 Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may do so at the public hearing. A copy of the applications will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, r 6�t Susan K. Eddy Senior Plarmer Candice E. Perkins Planner II SKE/CEP/bad This is to certify, thgt the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on o D7 from the Department of Planning and Development, Fr derick County, Virginia: 43 - A- • 85- 43 - A- - 98- C CLAN, LLC VIRGINIA APPLE STORAGE, INC 283 EBERT RD 1955VALLEY AVE ( WINCHESTER, VA 22603 WINCHESTER, VA 22601-6305 43 - A- - 90-C 43 - A- - 99- LEDFORD, WILLIAM M & ALICE C SOLENBERGER, C ROBERT ETALS 112 N CAMERON ST 149 PARSON CT WINCHESTER, VA 22601 WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4517 1 43 - A- - 112-B 43 • A- - 100- DEHAVEN NURSERY, INC RUTHERFORD FARM, LLC 2077 MARTINSBURG PIKE L, 14 TETRA PARTNERSHIP WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4715 111, ' ;n DARON CAMERON AVE RESTL+ VA 20190 Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Bury+Partners )810 Concord Parkway, Ste. 1000 Chantilly, VA 20151 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK C_ Susan K. Eddy, Senior Plarule Frederick County Plaiuiing Dept. 1 i`4'�l 1 � •`1 `✓ Candice E. rYJns, Planner II Frederick County Plarming Dept. I, a Notary Public in and for the State and County afor aid, do hereby cer fy that Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner and Candice E. Perkins, Planner II, for the Departmen, of Plamling and Development, whose names are signed to the foregoing, dated p have personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State -end County aforesaid. Given under my hand this JV �YJZ, day of My commission expires on A,600 ARY PUBLIC 0 V(r2 43 - A- - 94- 16 43 10134- MOULDEN, HOWARD K. WILLIAMSON, LINWOOD R. 2014 MARTINSBURG PIKE 490 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4709 WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 43 - A- - 108- 43 - A- - 95- NETHERS, PATRICIA S WEBBER, BEVERLEY L NETHERS, THOMAS L WEBBER, JOYCE A TRUSTEES 1985 MARTINSBURG PIKE 484 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 43 - A- - 112-A 43 - A- - 134-B DEHAVEN, CHARLES S PIFER, WILLIAM DEHAVEN, JANE M TRUSTEES PO BOX 725 2073 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22604.0725 WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4715 43 - A- - 107- 43B - 8- - 11-A MCOUAIN, CLIFFORD D & ETALS FLOWERS, MARY A 456 WELLTOWN RD 1957 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4714 43B - 8- - 9- 43 - A- - 106- BLYE, MICHAEL A. LEE, RONALD A & MARY C 1947 MARTINSBURG PIKE 415 PUMA TRL WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4714 WINCHESTER, VA 22602.3636 43 - A- - 105- 43B - 8- - 8- RISSLER, THOMAS W. & MARY L. LUCAS, MATTHEW LUCAS, RENEE E 1937 MARTINSBURG PIKE 438 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4714 WINCHESTER, VA. 22603-4543 43C - 1- - D- 43 - A- - 110- MOORE, MICHAEL A RIDDICK, THOMAS E. JR. & JANET 1927 MARTINSBURG PIKE 2045 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4714 WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4715 43 - A- - 103- NANBODAN PROPERTIES, LLC 43B - 8- - 18- PARSONS, JAMES WARREN 2054 NORTHWESTERN PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.3947 390 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4624 43 - A- - 140- WEBER, MICHAEL S. 8 22 937 MARTINSBURG PIKE ELLIOT43B A E WINCHESTER, VA 22601.4306 6115E P ABODYBARBA 6115 E PEABODY ST LONG BEACH, CA 90808.2824 43C - 1- • B- BML, LC 43 - A- - 56- K & J INVESTMENTS 112 LAUNCHRIS DR WINCHESTER, VA. 22602.6677 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4707 43C - 1- - A- MESSICK, ROY R. & NANCY L. 43 A 133 1897 MARTINSBURG PIKE HART, ROBERT A. & ALICE C. WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4768 2024 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4709 43C - 2- - 3- 43 - A- - 109- FITZWATER, COURTNEY L. SR. MERRYMAN, SCOTT E & LINDA M 1876 MARTINSBURG PIKE 1995 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 WINCHESTER, VA. 22603-4714 171 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 43C - 2- - 2- CURTIS, ELIZABETH DAWN 1864 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.07 43 - A- - 52-B WILSON, DIEHL F JR & DEBORAH L 121 MERCEDES CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4638 43C - 2- - 1- BAKER, R. WAYNE & IMOGENE A. 1854 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 43 - A- - 147- NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 43 - A- - 149- DEHAVEN, THOMAS H 1840 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4707 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK 43 - A- - 52- 1.81 MINI STORAGE, LLC 127 MERCEDES CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4638 43 - A- - 52-C WINCHESTER NORTH, INC 1323 JAMESTOWN RD STE 101 WILLIAMSBURG, VA 23185-3367 43C - 3- - 6- SANDY, WILLIAM E. 1744 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4706 Susan K. Eddy, Senior Plainer Frederick County Planning Dept. Candice E. Perkins, Planner II Frederick County Planning Dept. I, , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner and Candice E. Perkins, Plainer II, for the Department of Planning and Development, whose names are signed to the foregoing, dated , have personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given Linder my hand this _ day of My commission expires on NOTARY PUBLIC 6 Uff /�- 43C - 3- - 8-A LYONS, CAROL R & RONALD S 1550 TIFFANY RANCH RD ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420.4971 43 - A- - 50-A BRENTWOOD INVESTMENT COMPANY 1323 JAMESTOWN RD STE 101 WILLIAMSBURG, VA 23185.3373 43 - A- - 90- TRUSTEES OF THE APOSTOLIC UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH 189 PARSON CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4517 Cowperwood FEMA, LLC 375 Park Ave., Ste. 3701 New York, NY 10152 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING December 27, 2006 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #17-06 AND MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #14-06 FOR RUTHERFORD CROSSING On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing and a public meeting being held on Wednesday, January 10, 2007, at 7:15 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following public hearing rezoning application and the public meeting master development plan application: Rezoning #17-06 of Rutherford Crossing, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 22.45 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) District to B2 (General Business) District and 8.55 acres from M1 (Light Industrial) District to B2 District, totaling 31 acres, with proffers, for a retail center. The properties are located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 81 (Exit 317) and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 43-A-99 and 43-A-100. An additional property to be subject to proffers, but not to be rezoned, is identified by Property Identification Number 43-A-98. This property is located east of Interstate 81, approximately 1,500 feet north of the intersection of Interstate 81 and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Master Development Plan 914-06 for Rutherford Crossing, submitted by Bury+Partners, to develop 59.65 acres of B2 (Business General) District and 95.57 acres of M 1 (Light Industrial) District for commercial and industrial uses. The properties are located at the northeast quadrant of Interstate 81, Exit 317, and Martinsburg Pike intersection in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100 and 43-A-111. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 nOk S-e(\ -c �a5 �- Po f\ec)\ Public Hearing and Public Meeting Notification December 27, 2006 Page 2 Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may do so at the public hearing. A copy of the applications will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, T. Susan K. Eddy Senior Planner Candice E. Perkins Planner II SKE/CEP/bad This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 43 - A- - 85- C CLAN, LLC 43 - A- - 98- 283 EBERT RD VIRGINIA APPLE STORAGE, INC WINCHESTER, VA 22603 1955 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22601.6305 1 / 43 - A- - 99- SOLENBERGER, C ROBERT ETALS 112 N CAMERON ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601 43 - A- - 100- RUTHERFORD FARM, LLC CIO TETRA PARTNERSHIP 11450 DARON CAMERON AVE RESTON,VA 20190 Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Bury+Partners t� 3810 Concord Parkway, Ste. 1000 Chantilly, VA 20151 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK 43 - A- - 90-C LEDFORD, WILLIAM M & ALICE C 149 PARSON CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4517 43 - A- - 112-B DEHAVEN NURSERY, INC 2077 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4715 43 - A- - 94- MOULDEN, HOWARD K. 490 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner Candice E. Perkins, Planner II Frederick County Planning Dept. I, , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner and Candice E. Perkins, Planner II for the Department of Planning and Development, whose names are signed to the foregoing, dated , have personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this day of My commission expires on NOTARY PUBLIC 43 - A- - 95- WEBBER, BEVERLEY L WEBBER, JOYCE A TRUSTEES 484 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 43 - A- - 112-A DEHAVEN, CHARLES S DEHAVEN,JANE M TRUSTEES 2073 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4715 43B - 8- - 11-A FLOWERS, MARY A 456 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 43B - 8- - 9- BLYE, MICHAEL A. 415 PUMA TRL WINCHESTER, VA 22602.3636 43B - 8- - 8- LUCAS, MATTHEW LUCAS, RENEE E 438 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4543 43 -A- - 110- RIDDICK, THOMAS E. JR. & JANET 2045 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4715 43B - 8- - 18- PARSONS, JAMES WARREN 390 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4624 43B - 8- - 22. ELLIOTT, BARBARA E 6115 E PEABODY ST LONG BEACH, CA 90808.2824 43 - A- - 56. K & J INVESTMENTS 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4707 43 - A- - 133- HART, ROBERT A. & ALICE C. 2024 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4709 43 - A- - 109- MERRYMAN, SCOTT E & LINDA M 1995 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4714 43 - A- - 134- WILLIAMSON, LINWOOD R. 2014 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4709 43 NETH#08- PATRICIA S NETHERS, THOMAS L 1985 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER,VA. 22603 43 - A- - 134-B PIFER, WILLIAM PO BOX 725 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.0725 43 - A- - 107- M000AIN, CLIFFORD D & ETALS 1957 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4714 43 - A- - 106- LEE, RONALD A & MARY C 1947 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603-4714 43 - A- - 105- RISSLER, THOMAS W. & MARY L. 1937 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4714 43C - 1- - D. MOORE, MICHAEL A 1927 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4714 43 - A- - 103- NANBODAN PROPERTIES, LLC 2054 NORTHWESTERN PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.3947 43 - A- - 140. WEBER, MICHAEL S. 937 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22601.4306 43C - 1- - B- BML, LC 112 LAUNCHRIS DR WINCHESTER, VA. 22602.6677 43C - 1- - A- MESSICK, ROY R. & NANCY L. 1897 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4768 43C - 2- - 3- FITZWATER, COURTNEY L. SR. 1876 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 43 - A- - 52-B WILSON, DIEHL F JR & DEBORAH L 121 MERCEDES CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4638 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 43C - 3- - 8-A 43 - A- - 147- NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 43 - A- - 149- DEHAVEN, THOMAS H 1840 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 43 - A- - 52- 1.81 MINI STORAGE, LLC 127 MERCEDES CT WINCHESTER, VA LYONS, CAROL R & RONALD S 1550 TIFFANY RANCH RD ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420.4971 43 - A- - 50-A BRENTWOOD INVESTMENT COMPANY 1323 JAMESTOWN RD STE 101 WILLIAMSBURG, VA 23105.3373 22603.4707 43 - A- - go. TRUSTEES OF THE APOSTOLIC UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH 189 PARSON CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4517 22603.4638 43 - A- - 52-C WINCHESTER NORTH, INC 1323 JAMESTOWN RD STE 101 WILLIAMSBURG, VA 23185.3367 43C - 3- - 6- SANDY, WILLIAM E. 1744 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4706 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK Cowperwood FEMA, LLC 375 Park Ave., Ste. 3701 New York, NY 10152 Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner Candice E. Perkins, Planner II Frederick County Planning Dept. I, , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner and Candice E. Perkins, Planner Il for the Department of Planning and Development, whose names are signed to the foregoing, dated , have personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this day of My commission expires on NOTARY PUBLIC COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING November 22, 2006 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #17-06 AND MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #14-06 FOR RUTHERFORD CROSSING On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing and a public meeting being held on Wednesday, December 6, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following public hearing rezoning application and the public meeting master development plan application: Rezoning #17-06 of Rutherford Crossing, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 22.45 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) District to B2 (General Business) District and 8.55 acres from M1 (Light Industrial) District to B2 District, totaling 31 acres, with proffers, for a retail center. The properties are located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 81 (Exit 317) and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 43-A-99 and 43-A-100. An additional property to be subject to proffers, but not to be rezoned, is identified by Property Identification Number 43-A-98. This property is located east of Interstate 81, approximately 1,500 feet north of the intersection of Interstate 81 and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Master Development Plan 414-06 for Rutherford Crossing, submitted by Bury+Partners, to develop 59.65 acres of B2 (Business General) District and 95.57 acres of M1 (Light Industrial) District for commercial and industrial uses. The properties are located at the northeast quadrant of Interstate 81, Exit 317, and Martinsburg Pike intersection in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100 and 43-A-111. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Public Hearing and Public Meeting Notification November 22, 2006 Page 2 Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may do so at the public hearing. A copy of the applications will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, dc�� fl�. &W3 Susan K. Eddy Senior Plainer (yYrcO,Gu Candice E. Perkins Planner II SKE/CEP/bad 0 0 0 This is to certify that the attached correspondence p 6 from the Development, Fre Brick County, Virginia: 43 - A- - 98- VIRGINIA APPLE STORAGE, INC 1955 VALLEY AVE (� WINCHESTER, VA 22601.6305 43 - A- - 99- SOLENBERGER, C ROBERT ETALS W 112 N CAMERON ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601 43 - A- - 100- RUTHERFORD FARM, LLC CIO TETRA PARTNERSHIP 11450 DARON CAMERON AVE RESTON,VA 20190 Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 PAL 1 43 - A- - 85- C CLAN, LLC 283 EBERT RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603 43 - A- - 90-C LEDFORD, WILLIAM M & ALICE C 149 PARSON CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4517 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK was mailed to the following on Department of Planning and 43 - A- - 112-B DEHAVEN NURSERY, INC 2077 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4715 43 - A- - 94- MOULDEN, HOWARD K. 490 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 43 - A- - 95. WEBBER, BEVERLEY L WEBBER, JOYCE A TRUSTEES 484 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 43 - A- - 112-A DEHAVEN, CHARLES S DEHAVEN, JANE M TRUSTEES 2073 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4715 x. Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner �j Candice E. Perkins, Planner II Frederick County Planning Dept. I, �� Oi(�1i 1 • oc)d�� , a Notary Public in and for the State and County afore 4id, do hereby certif that Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner and Candice E. Perkins, Planner 11 for the Department of Planning and Development, whose names are signed to the foregoing, dated / / _� 0 , have personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this -2.1)xd day of c2n- My commission expires on Bury+Partners 3810 Concord Parkway, Ste. 1000 Chantilly, VA 20151 d V46C 43B - 8- - 11-A FLOWERS, MARY A 456 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 43B - 8- - 9- BLYE, MICHAEL A. 415 PUMA TRL WINCHESTER, VA 22602.3636 43B - 8- - 8- LUCAS, MATTHEW LUCAS, RENEE E 438 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4543 43 - A- - 110- RIDDICK, THOMAS E. JR. & JANET 2045 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4715 43B - 8- - 18- PARSONS, JAMES WARREN 390 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4624 43B - 8- - 22- ELLIOTT, BARBARA E 6115 E PEABODY ST LONG BEACH, CA 90808.2824 43 - A- - 56- K & J INVESTMENTS 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4707 43 - A- - 133- HART, ROBERT A. & ALICE C. 2024 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4709 43 - A- - 109- MERRYMAN, SCOTT E & LINDA M 1995 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4714 43 - A- - 134- WILLIAMSON, LINWOOD R. 2014 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4709 43 - A- - 108- NETHERS, PATRICIA S NETHERS, THOMAS L 1985 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 43 - A- - 134-B PIFER, WILLIAM PO BOX 725 WINCHESTER,VA 22604-0725 43 -10107- MCQUAIN, CLIFFORD D & ETALS 1957 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4714 43 - A- - 106- LEE, RONALD A & MARY C 1947 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4714 43 - A- - 105- RISSLER, THOMAS W. & MARY L. 1937 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4714 43C - 1- - D- MOORE, MICHAEL A 1927 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4714 43 - A- - 103- NANBODAN PROPERTIES, LLC 2054 NORTHWESTERN PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.3947 43 - A- - 140- WEBER, MICHAEL S. 937 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22601.4306 43C - 1- - B- BML, LC 112 LAUNCHRIS DR WINCHESTER, VA. 22602.6677 43C - 1- - A- MESSICK, ROY R. & NANCY L. 1897 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4768 43C - 2- - 3- FITZWATER, COURTNEY L. SR. 1876 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 43 - A- - 52-B WILSON, DIEHL F JR & DEBORAH L 121 MERCEDES CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4638 43C - 2- - 2. CURTIS, ELIZABETH DAWN 1864 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4707 43C - 2- - 1- BAKER, R. WAYNE & IMOGENE A. 1854 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 43C - 2- - 2- CURTIS, ELIZABETH DAWN 1864 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4707 43C - 2- - 1- BAKER, R. WAYNE & IMOGENE A. 1854 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 43 - A- - 147- NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 43 - A- - 149- DEHAVEN, THOMAS H 1840 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4707 43 - A- - 52- 1-81 MINI STORAGE, LLC 127 MERCEDES CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4638 43 - A- - 52-C WINCHESTER NORTH, INC 1323 JAMESTOWN RD STE 101 WILLIAMSBURG, VA 23185.3367 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK 43C - 3- - 6- SANDY, WILLIAM E. 1744 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603-4706 43C - 3- - 8-A LYONS, CAROL R & RONALD S 1550 TIFFANY RANCH RD ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420.4971 43 - A- - 90- TRUSTEES OF THE APOSTOLIC UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH 189 PARSON CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4517 Cowperwood FEMA, LLC 375 Park Ave., Ste. 3701 New York, NY 10152 Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner Candice E. Perkins, Planner II Frederick County Plarming Dept. I, , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner and Candice E. Perkins, Planner II for the Department of Planning and Development, whose names are signed to the foregoing, dated , have personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this day of My commission expires on NOTARY PUBLIC �/N WAPBARA-DATA PROCESSING .BEV - PI Wing Dept gpa rossing A( Please print sets of Ia y ////� /E)L, UAAIV�1I TAX MAP NUMBER NAME NAME 2 -- ---- 283 EBERT RD CITY WINC 43 A 85 C CLAN, LLC ckC PO-C-Ck 283 EVERT RD WINC 43 A 90C LEDFORD, WILLIAM M & ALICE C 149 PARSON CT WINC 43 A 112B DEHAVEN NURSERY, INC 2077 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43 A 94 MOULDEN, HOWARD K. 490 WELLTOWN RD WINC 43 A 111 SOLENBERGER, C ROBERT ETALS 112 N CAMERON ST WINC 43 A 95 WEBBER, BEVERLEY L WEBBER, JOYCE A TRUSTEES 484 WELLTOWN RD WINC 43 A 112A DEHAVEN, CHARLES STUART 2073 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43B 8 11A FLOWERS, MARY A 456 WELLTOWN RD WINC 43B 8 9 BLYE, MICHAEL A. 337 N LOUDOUN ST APT 3 WINC 43B 8 8 MORGAN, RONALD F & ROSEMARIE A 438 WELLTOWN RD WINC 43 A 110 RIDDICK, THOMAS E. JR. & JANET 2045 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43B 8 18 PARSONS, JAMES WARREN 390 WELLTOWN RD WINC 43B 8 22 ELLIOTT, BARBARA E 6115 E PEABODY ST LONC 43 A 56 K & J INVESTMENTS 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43 A 133 HART, ROBERT A. & ALICE C. 2024 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43 A 109 MERRYMAN, SCOTT E & LINDA M 1995 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43 A 134 WILLIAMSON, LINWOOD R. 2014 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC V Cl 1; -aN } 1955 VALLEY AVE WINC 43 A 108 NETHERS, PATRICIA S 915 WELLTOWN PIKE WINC 43 A 134B PIFER, WILLIAM PO BOX 725 WINC 43 A 107 MCQUAIN, CLIFFORD D & ETALS 1957 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43 A 106 LEE, RONALD A & MARY C 1947 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43 A 105 RISSLER, THOMAS W. & MARY L. 1937 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43C 1 D MOORE, MICHAEL A 1927 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43C 1 C J7 Lkbk L{ -6 43 A 140 WEBER, MICHAEL S. 937 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43C 1 B BML, LC 112 LAUNCHRIS DR WINC 43C 1 A MESSICK, ROY R. & NANCY L. 1897 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43C 2 3 FITZWATER, COURTNEY L. SR. 1876 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43 A 52B WILSON, DIEHL F JR & DEBORAH L 121 MERCEDES CT WINC 43C 2 2 CURTIS, ELIZABETH DAWN 1864 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43C 2 1 BAKER, R. WAYNE & IMOGENE A. 1854 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43 A 147 NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43 A 149 DEHAVEN, THOMAS H 1840 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC Q 1 {. C/O TETRA PARTNERSHIP 11450 DARON CAMERON AVE REST 43 A 52 1-81 MINI STORAGE, LLC 127 MERCEDES CT WINC 43 A 151A NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43C 3 2 NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43C 3 3 K & J INVESTMENTS, LC 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43C 3 4 NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43C 3 5 NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43 A 52C WINCHESTER NORTH, INC 1323 JAMESTOWN RD, STE 101 WILLI 43C 3 6 SANDY, WILLIAM E. 1744 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43C 3 7 - ti L.iZ 43C 3 7A NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC � a wa 43C 3 8A LYONS, CAROL R & RONALD S 1550 TIFFANY RANCH RD ARRC 43C 3 9 LYONS, CAROL R & RONALD S 1550 TIFFANY RANCH RD ARRC 43 A 50A BRENTWOOD INVESTMENT COMPANY 1323 JAMESTOWN RD STE 101 WILLI ckw V r-CA 0 4 112 N CAMERON ST WINC 43 A 151 K & J INVESTMENTS, LC 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43 A 150 K & J INVESTMENTS, LC 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINC 43 A 90 TRUSTEES OF THE APOSTOLIC UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH 189 PARSON CT WINC m Adjoining Property Owners.xls 11/8/2006 l % COW 1 C' fiko o a IM t- L P 4V2 Cj\jjj ,Sew -vc)r or) co,c\r-c5s . ei a ut sldlar(offhe icc dill Prir Ling Co pa y 1 ■ 2 . Pi c dill St eeil Wi ch st r, VA 2 601 54 /6 2- 80 a �% — r" a— e �1411� f —� — eOLL3 PCY- , o o c! o„ L e w Yur �e I Z -,61- / �-o C IL l ft �fc>cD C 1pD ow c /tis3-�-95�99� 0 BARBARA-DATA PROCESSING OM:BEV - PI ning Dept. rossingi /DO Please print sets of Iab by i]/io /tin TAX MAP NUMBER NAME NAME 2 �... 283 EBERT RD CIT WIN 43 A 85 C CLAN, LLC cle PC,rce- 283 EVERT RD WIN 43 A 90C LEDFORD, WILLIAM M & ALICE C 149 PARSON CT WIN 43 A 112B DEHAVEN NURSERY, INC 2077 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN 43 A 94 MOULDEN, HOWARD K. 490 WELLTOWN RD WIN 43 A 111 SOLENBERGER, C ROBERT ETALS 112 N CAMERON ST WIN 43 A 95 WEBBER, BEVERLEY L WEBBER, JOYCE A TRUSTEES 484 WELLTOWN RD WIN 43 A 112A DEHAVEN, CHARLES STUART 2073 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN 43B 8 11 A FLOWERS, MARY A 456 WELLTOWN RD WIN 43B 8 9 BLYE, MICHAEL A. 337 N LOUDOUN ST APT 3 WIN 43B 8 8 MORGAN, RONALD F & ROSEMARIE A 438 WELLTOWN RD WIN 43 A 110 RIDDICK, THOMAS E. JR. & JANET 2045 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN 43B 8 18 PARSONS, JAMES WARREN 390 WELLTOWN RD WIN 43B 8 22 ELLIOTT, BARBARA E 6115 E PEABODY ST LON 43 A 56 K & J INVESTMENTS 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN 43 A 133 HART, ROBERT A. & ALICE C. 2024 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN 43 A 109 MERRYMAN, SCOTT E & LINDA M 1995 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN 43 A 134 WILLIAMSON, LINWOOD R. 2014 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN V44 ;IN4A- PPi F STnanrc WG q Pip l; c.an } 1955 VALLEY AVE WIN 43 A 108 NETHERS, PATRICIA S 915 WELLTOWN PIKE WIN 43 A 134B PIFER, WILLIAM PO BOX 725 WIN 43 A 107 MCQUAIN, CLIFFORD D & ETALS 1957 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN 43 A 106 LEE, RONALD A & MARY C 1947 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN 43 A 105 RISSLER, THOMAS W. & MARY L. 1937 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN 43C 1 D MOORE, MICHAEL A 1927 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN 43C 1 C --'0i 43 A 140 WEBER, MICHAELS. 937 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN 43C 1 B BML, LC 112 LAUNCHRIS DR WIN 43C 1 A MESSICK, ROY R. & NANCY L. 1897 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN 43C 2 3 FITZWATER, COURTNEY L. SR. 1876 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN 43 A 52B WILSON, DIEHL F JR & DEBORAH L 121 MERCEDES CT WiN 43C 2 2 CURTIS, ELIZABETH DAWN 1864 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN 43C 2 1 BAKER, R. WAYNE & IMOGENE A. 1854 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN 43 A 147 NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN 43 A 149 DEHAVEN, THOMAS H 1840 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN- 4 C/O TETRA PARTNERSHIP 11450 DARON CAMERON AVE RES 43 A 52 1-81 MINI STORAGE, LLC 127 MERCEDES CT WIN, 43 A 151A NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN, 43C 3 2 NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN, 43C 3 3 K & J INVESTMENTS, LC 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN, 43C 3 4 NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINi 43C 3 5 NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN, 43 A 52C WINCHESTER NORTH, INC 1323 JAMESTOWN RD, STE 101 WILL 43C 3 6 SANDY, WILLIAM E. 1744 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN, 43C 3 7 43C 3 7A NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN, 8 awa 43C 3 8A LYONS, CAROL R & RONALD S 1550 TIFFANY RANCH RD ARR 43C 3 9 LYONS, CAROL R & RONALD S 1550 TIFFANY RANCH RD ARR 43 A 50A BRENTWOOD INVESTMENT COMPANY 1323 JAMESTOWN RD STE 101 WILL C'm V C.on 4 112 N CAMERON ST WIN( 43 A 151 K & J INVESTMENTS, LC 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN( 43 A 150 K & J INVESTMENTS, LC 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WIN( 43 A 90 TRUSTEES OF THE APOSTOLIC UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH 189 PARSON CT WIN( Adjoining Property Owners.xls 11/8/2006 1 0 DEPT. OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS FREDE COUNTY, VIRGUUA " 7' GIS, MAPPING, GRAPHICS WORD. REQUEST DATE RECEIVED: // L13.. O & REQUESTED COMPLETION DATE: I / � f� /0 REQUESTING AGENT: Department, Agency, or Company: - Mailing and/or Billing Address: Telephone: E-mail Address: ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: (Write additior C0L0,2 [)An eS p IN ' S 3 - �i -% �; l2'�', fob DIGITAL: PAPER FAX: SIZES: COLOR: BLACK) 7=: STAFF MEMBER -- COMPLETION DATE: MATERIALS: DATE OF PICK-UP/DELIVERY: AMOUNT DUE: AMOUNT BILLED: METHOD OF PAYMENT: FAX: om�atiomc�n back-c��regnesff�_. NUNMER OF COPIES: HOURS REQUIRED: AMOUNT PAID: CHECK NO.# Frederick County GIS, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601, (540)665-5651)