The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-18 Stonewall IV - PINs 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4 & 43-A-24 -RA to M1 with Proffers - BackfileDATE RECEIPT ACCOUNT HOW PAID BEGINNING GlSH BALANCE PAID AMOU 1 % CHECK ( a BALANCE 1 MONEY I BY DUE ORDER ©2001 REiFORMR e, 51657N-CL i REZONING TRACKING SHEET Check List: Application Form Proffer Statement Impact Analysis Adjoiner List Fee & Sign Deposit _ Deed _ Plat/Survey _ Taxes Paid Statement y (� File opened Reference manual updated/number assigned D-base updated Copy of adjoiner list given to staff member for verification Ll .. Z�� 1 Color location maps ordered from Mapping oZ Scan documents to Planning S: drive a� (9 Application Action Summary updated Scan additional items as needed (Project Planner to direct) PC�,��d y 5 Sys �!D r Planning Commission Meeting ACTION: 8 v y Board of Supervisors Meeting ACTION: Signed copy of Resolution received from County Administrator and placed in Proffers Notebook together with proffers 61aa m Sys ID # Approval (or denial) letter mailed to applicant/copy to file and cc's Reference manual updated D-base updated Scanning updated Application Action Summary updated File given to Mapping to update zoning map Zoning map amended United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240 IN REPLY REFER TO 13 February 2020 Robert J. Taylor, Jr. Dutton + Associates, LLC 1 1 15 Crowder Drive Midlothian, VA 23113 Dear Mr. Taylor, On behalf of the National Park Service's Heritage Documentation Programs (NABS/HAF.R/HALS), I acknowledge the receipt and acceptance of the Historic American Buildings Survey documentation of Glengary (HABS VA-1526). Thank you for donating this survey to the HABS Collection. The completed documentation will be transmitted to the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress. The records are in the public domain and will be accessible through the library. Sincerely, - wL�! —0 4 Mary McPartland Collections Manager Heritage Documentation Programs (HABS/HAER/HALS) 0 0 AuglISt 10, 2018 Mr. John Knott Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. 3843 West Chester Pike Newtown Square, PA 19073 RE: REZONING #01-18 Stonewall IV Dear Mr. Knott: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 PINS: 43-A-21, 43-A-2113, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24 This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting on August 8, 2018. The above -referenced application was approved to rezone 88.91+/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M 1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. The properties are located at the southern tcrnlinus of' Lenoir Drive (Route F-732) in the Stonewall Magisterial District and are identified by Properly Identification Numbers 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4 and 43-A- 24. The proffer statement, originally dated .tune 6, 2018 and revised on July 27, 2018 that was approved as a part of this rezoning application are unique to the above referenced properties and are binding regardless of' ownership. Enclosed is a copy of the adopted proffer statement for your records. Pursuant to §165.102.06E, the County Attorney will present the written proffer to the Frederick County Clerk of Circuit Court for recordation. Please CIO not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the approval of this rezoning application. Sincerely, Candice Pcrkins, AICP, CZA Assistant Director CEP/pd Attachments cc: Judith McCann -Slaughter, Supervisor Stonewall District Gary Oates and William Cline, Stonewall District Planning Commissioners Jane Anderson, Real Estate Ellen Murphy, COIllillkSIOIICr OI RCVCI1LIC Rod Williams, County Attorney w/Proffer and Resolution Cheryl G. Morris, P.O. Box 2802, Winchester, VA 22604 John Foote, Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh, 4310 Prince William Prkwy, Ste 300, Woodbridge, VA 22192 107 North KCnt Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Pam Deeter From: Candice Perkins Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2018 10:59 AM To: Pam Deeter Subject: email jfoote@theIandIawyers.com Candice Candice Perkins, AICP, CZA Assistant Director Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone: (540) 665-5651 Tax: (540) 665-6395 L-mail: werkins&cva.us www. fcva.us "We do make a difference - one way or the other. We are responsible for the impact of our lives. Whatever we do with whatever we have, we leave behind us a legacy for those who follow." - Stephen Covey r� U Pam Deeter 4 To: JKnott@bpgltd.com;jfoote@thelandlawyers.com Subject: Rezoning 401-18 Stonewall IV Attachments: Stonewall IV #01-18 Approval.doc Good morning, Please find attached an approval letter from Ms. Perkins for Rezoning 401-18 Stonewall IV. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Perkins. Pam Deeter Planning and Development 107 N. Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5651 • Pam Deeter From: postmaster@bpgltd.com To: JKnott@bpgltd.com Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 9:24 AM Subject: Delivered: Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV Your message has been delivered to the following recipients: JKnott bpgltd.com Q Knott@ bpgltd.com) Subject: Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV Pam Deeter From: postmaster@thelandlawyers.com To: jfoote@thelandlawyers.com Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 9:24 AM Subject: Delivered: Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV Your message has been delivered to the following recipients: ifoote(@thelandlawyers.com (jfoote(@thelandlawyers.com) Subject: Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV Pam Deeter To: Judy McCann -Slaughter; Gary Oates; wcline.fredcogovpc@icloud.com Subject: Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV Attachments: Stonewall IV #01-18 Approval.doc Good morning, Please find attached an approval letter from Ms. Perkins for the Rezoning 401-18 Stonewall IV which is in your magisterial district. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Perkins. Pam Deeter Planning and Development 107 N. Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5651 • 0 Pam Deeter From: Microsoft Outlook To: Judy McCann -Slaughter Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 9:21 AM Subject: Delivered: Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV Your message has been delivered to the following recipients: Judy McCann -Slaughter (islaughter fcva.us) Subject: Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV Pam Deeter From: Microsoft Outlook To: 'Gary Oates' Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 9:21 AM Subject: Relayed: Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV Delivery to these recipients or groups is complete, but no delivery notification was sent by the destination server: 'Gary Oates' (oatesgr(cbaol.com) Subject: Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV REZONING APPLICATION 901-18 4tiG� Poi STONEWALL IV Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: July 27, 2018 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director .,, John Bishop, AICP, Assistant Director —Transportation ma Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 06/06/18 Public Hearing I-Ield; Postponed 45 Days Planning Commission: 07/18/18 Public Hearing Held; Recommend Approval Board of Supervisors: 08/08/18 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 88.91+/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M I (Light Industrial) District with proffers. LOCATION: The subject properties are located at the southern terminus of Lenoir Drive (Route F-732). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 08/08/18 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: This is an application to rezone a total of 88.91-F/- acres of land to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. The site is located within the limits of the Northeast Land Use Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and depicts the subject properties with an industrial land use designation. The proposed M 1 Zoning is generally consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan as it relates to this area. The properties are also located within the limits of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Planning Commission recommended approval of this rezoning at their July 19, 2018 meeting. The proffers associated with this rezoning request are as follows: Proffer Statement — Dated June 6, 2018, revised July 27, 2018: 1. Development and use of the property: 1.1. Development of the property shall be limited to the construction of not more than 920,000 gross square feet and solely used for warehousing or high cube transload and short-term storage. 1.2. The development of the property shall be in general conformance with the GDP. 1.3. The maximum height of each building shall be 60'. 2. Transportation: 2.1. Within 90 calendar days of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall dedicate approximately 17.05 acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, as depicted on the GDP, for the future Route 37 bypass. 2.2. Access to the Property shall be as shown on the GDP. Provided that access to the buildable area of the Property is not impeded or eliminated, the Applicant shall not place above grade improvements on the southeast corner of the Property near the terminus of Lenoir Drive in such a way as to preclude the construction of proposed slip ramps that are currently depicted on the graphic entitled "Eastern Road Plan — Lenoir Drive Slip Ramp Clarification," created by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, 0 0 Rezoning 401-18 Stonewall IV July 27, 2018 Page 2 dated October 17, 2017, and attached hereto for reference. The southeast corner of the Property is subject to existing easements and/or covenants of record, as of June 6, 2018. 2.3. The Applicant shall contribute $250,000 to the County for the purpose of general transportation planning, right-of-way acquisition, or construction. It shall make such contribution upon issuance of an occupancy permit for any building. 3. Fire and Rescue: 3.1. The Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County $0.10 per gross square foot of construction as depicted on each site plan, to be used for fire and rescue purposes in the general area. 4. Cultural Resources: 4.1. The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional architectural historian to perform a Historic American Building Survey (NABS) — Standard Level III as defined by the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program on the residential building and its associated architectural buildings on the property. 4.2. The Applicant, working with a qualified professional architectural historian, shall inspect prior to demolition the non -heated areas of the residential building for the presence of partially hidden or obstructed historic artifacts or material. 5. Escalator: 5.1. In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the proffer statement are paid to Frederick County within 18 months after final approval of this rezoning, said contributions shall be in the amounts stated. Any monetary contributions which are paid after 18 months following final approval shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). FolloivM,- the required public heaMig, a decision regarding this rezotihig application by the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The Applicant should be prepared to adequately address all coircertis raised by the Board of Supervisors. 0 0 Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV July 27, 2018 Page 3 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist therm 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: 06/06/18 Public Hearing Held; Postponed 45 Days Planning Commission: 07/18/18 Public Hearing Held; Recommended Approval Board of Supervisors: 08/08/18 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 8891+/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. LOCATION: The subject properties are located at the southern terminus of Lenoir Drive (Route F-732). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District PRESENT USE: Residential and Agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: M 1 (Light Industrial) District RA (Rural Areas) District South: RA (Rural Areas) District East: M 1 (Light Industrial) District Use: Industrial Residential/Vacant Use: Residential/Route 37 Use: Industrial West: RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Residential/Vacant 0 0 Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV July 27, 2018 Page 4 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Vir1linia Dept. of Transportation: The Frederick County Transportation Chapter and Northeast Frederick Area Plan of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the extension of Lenoir Drive as an on -ramp to Route 37 west as a future transportation improvement. While the Generalized Development Plan has been revised to locate the future development entrance in a manner that is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan improvement, VDOT strongly recommends Frederick County request right-of-way dedication on the subject property to accommodate the future improvement and the rezoning documents updated accordingly. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: Capacity consideration deferred to Frederick Water. Frederick Water: Please see letter firon? Uric R. Lawrence, AICP, Executive Director dated F(,,brisafy 22, 2018. Frederick County Department of Public Works: A detailed review shall occur at the time of site plan submission. Frederick County Fire Marshall: Plan approved. Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation: The application appears to meet Parks and Recreation requirements. PlanninIZ & Zonin1j: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject properties as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General) District. The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. 2) Comprehensive Plan The 2035 Comprehensive Plan is the guide for the future growth of Frederick County. The 2035 Comprehensive 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. The Area Plans, Appendix I of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, are the primary implementation tool and will be instrumental to the future planning efforts of the County. 0 0 Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV July 27, 2018 Page 5 Land Use The Northeast Land Use Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan identifies these properties with all lI1dLIStl'lal land LISC CICSIgllation. The proposed M I "Zoning District is generally consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan as it relates to this area. The land use plan depicts fUtLll-C Route 37 on the western bounClary Of lhC properties and access to ROLIte 37 from Lenoir Drive via a slip ramp. 3) Potential Impacts Tran, La'lalion and S'ile Access Access to the site will be via Lenoir Drive. The Applicant has proffered to dedicate right-of- way for Route 37 and fight -Of -way fol'tile ROLlte 37 slip ramp. Tile Applicant has also proffered to Contribute $0.30 per gross square foot of building area f01' the planning Of tills access. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was conducted on the subject development. Studied intersections were as follows: Lenoir Drive at McGhce, 1lcGhee at Welltown Road, Welltown Road at ROutC 11, ROL11C I 1 at tile SOuthbOLllld Exit 317 Ramps, ROLItC 1 l at the Northbound Exit 317 exit ramp, and ROL11C I I at the Northbound Exit 317 entrance ramp and Redbud Road. According to the TIA, which has been accepted by VDOT, the build out level of service at the StIICIICCI IlltCl'SCCtIOIIS WaS IllallltalllCCI h'0111 the CLIITCllt level Of SCI'VICe with the ICR tL11.11 011tO the Exit 317 Northbound entrance ramp. This movement is degraded from a level of service C to level of service D. This is unable to be alleviated Clue to physical restrictions of the site. Environment The site is relatively Ilat, with the highest points Situated near the center of the site and near ROLItc 37. RedbIICI RLI11 COLII-SCS gCI1C1'ally along the northern/northeast property bOLII1CI Il-y. The site contains floodplain f01' RedbLld RLIII. Hislorical The Virginia Department of Historic Resources identifies one nlappeCI property located On the Subject property DI-IR 11034-1099 - Glcngary. This Structure is potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Frederick County I-Iist01'IC Resources Advisory Board (FIRAB) considered the rezoning application at lllell- meeting oil March 27, 2018. The FIRAB requested that the Applicant perform tl Historic American Building Snl'VCy (FIABS) — Standard Level III for the Glcngary site and Institute protocols for the demolishment Of Glcngary to ensure preservation and/or (1oCLllllentation Of historical fCatlll'CS. The Applicant has addresscd the I-IRAB's comments in their proffer statement. 4) Proffer Statement — Dated June 6, 2018, revised July 27, 2018: 1. Development and use of, tile property: I . l . Development of the property shall be limited t0 the C011StRICtiOlI Of IIOt 11101'C thall 820,000 gross square feet and Solely used for warehousing Or high cube transload and short-term storage. 1.2. The development of the property shall be in general conformance with the GDP. 0 • Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV July 27, 2018 Page 6 1.3. The maximum height of each building shall be 60'. 2. Transportation: 2.1. Within 90 calendar days of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall dedicate approximately 17.05 acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, as depicted on the GDP, for the future Route 37 bypass. 2.2. Access to the Property shall be as shown on the GDP. Provided that access to the buildable area of the Property is not impeded or eliminated, the Applicant shall not place above grade improvements on the southeast corner of the Property near the terminus of Lenoir Drive in such a way as to preclude the construction of proposed slip ramps that are currently depicted on the graphic entitled "Eastern Road Plan — Lenoir Drive Slip Ramp Clarification," created by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, dated October 17, 2017, and attached hereto for reference. The southeast corner of the Property is subject to existing easements and/or covenants of record, as of June 6, 2018. 2.3. Within 90 calendar days of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall further dedicate such right-of-way as it may own at the terminus of Lenoir Drive for the purpose of construction of access to existing Route 37 as described in Proffer 2.2 above. 2.4. The Applicant shall contribute $250,000 to the County for the purpose of general transportation planning, right-of-way acquisition, or construction. It shall make such contribution upon issuance of an occupancy permit for any building. 3. Fire and Rescue: 3.1. The Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County $0.10 per gross square foot of construction as depicted on each site plan, to be used for fire and rescue purposes in the general area. 4. Cultural Resources: 4.1. The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional architectural historian to perform a Historic American Building Survey (NABS) — Standard Level III as defined by the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program on the residential building and its associated architectural buildings on the property. 4.2. The Applicant, working with a qualified professional architectural historian, shall inspect prior to demolition the non -heated areas of the residential building for the presence of partially hidden or obstructed historic artifacts or material. 5. Escalator: 5.1. In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the proffer statement are paid to Frederick County within 18 months after final approval of this rezoning, said contributions shall be in the amounts stated. Any monetary contributions which are paid after 18 months following final approval shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV July 27, 2018 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION FROM THE 06/06/18 MEETING: Staff provided an overview of the request and noted that a revised proffer statement was provided prior to the meeting. Mr. John Foote of Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh PC, representing the Applicant provided an overview of their proposal. Mr. Foote presented diagrams that showed the slip ramp. Mr. Foote noted the entrance to the property was adjusted after discussion with Staff regarding the slip ramps. Mr. Foote provided an aerial map of the property and the surrounding area. He presented an overview of the property and its owners. Mr. Foote shared a summary of the proposed warehousing and the traffic this will generate. Mr. Foote presented the rarnp design and noted the right-of-way for this design for the Route 37 bypass will be dedicated to the County at no cost when written request from the County is received. Mr. Foote mentioned the Historic Resources review, that is consistent with a specific recommendation made by the I-IRAB with which the Applicant is in concurrence. He concluded, the Applicant is seeking a favorable recommendation to let Stonewall IV construct 820,000 SF of low impact warehouse in an industrial area planned for that purpose that is an extension of an industrial park in which it already has three buildings that have been constructed over the last several years and would like to do more. A Commission Member requested clarification, there is no access to Route 37 from this property. Mr. Foote noted that is correct. Two citizens spoke during the public hearing and expressed concerns over the access to the property and existing transportation concerns on Welltown Road and Martinsburg Pike. A Commission Member inquired regarding VDOT's comments, he did not read where VDOT has sensitivity to the traffic problems being brought forth, is there a study taking place that could alleviate the issue. Staff explained there is ongoing work; the traffic study was done and there was not a lot for VDOT to grasp, it was a TIA that was not required under Chapter 527 however, the County required it because of not being comfortable bringing this rezoning forward without even looking at the traffic. He continued, the slip rarnp has been on the Comprehensive Plan for some tirne; during the last round of SmartScale the Transportation Committee was reviewing this vigorously however, updates to the SmartScale requirements hindered this in the terms of a specific study that was now required; since that time this has been put into place through the MPO specifically an interchange justification report. A Commission Member asked is the SmartScale application a very lengthy process. Staff replied yes, for example; the applications being submitted August 1, 2018 have been in process since last summer; the next cycle of applications will start being prepared immediately after submission of these. A motion was made, seconded, and passed to recommend postponement for 45 days. Yes: Marston, Ambrogi, Cline, Kenney, Triplett, Wilmot No: Dawson, Thomas (Note: Commissioners Mohn, Manuel, Molden, and Unger were absent from the meeting.) 0 • Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV July 27, 2018 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION FROM THE 07/18/18 MEETING: Staff reported this is a request to rezone four parcels of land that total 88.91 +/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M 1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. Staff continued, this item was postponed at the June 6, 2018 Planning Commission meeting for 45 days to provide the Applicant additional time to address transportation concerns. Staff noted since the June 6, 2018 meeting, the Applicant has provided revised proffers that seek to address these concerns. Staff presented the updated proffers: • 2.2 — Access to the Property shall be as shown on the GDP. Provided that access to the buildable area of the Property is not impeded or eliminated, the Applicant shall not place above grade improvements on the southeast corner of the Property near the terminus of Lenoir Drive in such a way as to preclude the construction of proposed slip ramps that are currently depicted on the graphic entitled "Eastern Road Plan — Lenoir Drive Slip Ramp Clarification," created by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, dated October 17, 2017, and attached hereto for reference. The southeast corner of the Property is subject to existing easements and/or covenants of record, as of June 6, 2018. • 2.3 — Within 90 calendar days of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall further dedicate such right-of-way as it may own at the terminus of Lenoir Drive for the purpose of construction of access to existing Route 37 as described in Proffer 2.2. • 2.4 — The Applicant shall contribute up to $250,000 to the County for the purpose of planning additional access to Stonewall Industrial Park. It shall make such contribution at the rate of $0.30 per gross square foot of building ultimately constructed, to be paid upon issuance of an occupancy permit for any such building or buildings. A Commission Member asked for clarification on what a slip ramp is. Ms. Perkins presented mapping showing the slips ramps and explained using the visual. A Commission Member asked if the $250,000 being dedicated is just for Stonewall Industrial Park. Staff noted that is correct. Mr. John Foote of Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh PC, representing the Applicant reported after the June 6, 2018 meeting there was further discussions with Staff to address the transportation concerns. He explained to make the slip ramps more possible the dedication of the ROW land controlled by the Applicant will be dedicated; in addition, there is approximately 800,000 SF of planned development on this property and at $0.30 per square foot of building area comes to around $250,000. Mr. Foote noted, right now it is provided for Stonewall Industrial Park because that was what is being addressed and of little concern how the County chooses to use these funds. He continued, the TIA that was conducted demonstrates there is very little truck traffic that is coming out of this and does not affect the function of any intersection. Mr. Foote concluded this will also benefit the Inland Port. A Commission Member inquired what value is the acreage that is being dedicated. Mr. Foote explained the land would be valued at fair market value. A Commission Member asked for clarification of where the $250,000 can be used. Mr. Foote explained it would be used for the purpose of Stonewall Industrial Park and would be payable to the County. 0 9 Rezoning 401-18 Stonewall IV July 27, 2018 Page 9 A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to recommend approval of REZ #01-18 for Stonewall IV. (Note: Commissioner Mohn was absent from the meeting; Commissioner Oates abstained.) Following the required public hearing, a decision regarding this rezoning application by the Board of Supervisors ►vorrld be appropriate. The Applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Board of Supervisors. REZ v0l'18 # SPRINGtam -¢VALLEY 'fir 4 r <9•'' ® REZ #01- 18 Q Applications Sewer and Water Service Area Parcels Building Footprints Future Rt 37 Bypass 131 (Neighborhood Business District) B2 (General Business District) B3 (Industrial Transition District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) HE (Higher Education District) M1 (Light Industrial District) M2 (Industrial General District) MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) MS (Medical Support District) • OM (Office - Manufacturing Park) R4 (Residential Planned Community District) R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) RA (Rural Areas District) RP (Residential Performance District) Eastern Road Plan - ♦.o Ramp STONEWALL INDUSTRIALIPARK Subdivision a� I16I 1NARTINS URG PIKE Z #O 1.' 18 37 , d ` �r 8 \ 7 g r �CF4jf Z Q ff = ` 1 ` )522' Note: REZ # 01 - 18 Frederick County Dept of Stonewall IV Planning Developme^e 107 N Kent St PINS Suite 202 43 - A - 21, 43 - A - 21 B. 43 - A - 24, Winchester. VA 22601 43-19-4 540-665-5651 Rezoning from RA to MI Map Created: April 23. 2018 Zoning Map Staff: cperkins 0 335 670 1,340 Feet �,•_ Future Rt 37 Bypass Building Footprints ern Road Plan Ramp Floodplain 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD AE REZ;t01-18 Stonewall Iv PINS. 43-A-21.43-A-21B.43-A-24 43-19-4 Pezoning from RA to MI Location Map Note: Frederick County Dept of Develoom e 107 N Kent 107 Kenttng St Suite 202 Winchester. VA 226C 540 - 665 - 5651 Mop Created: April 23. 2018 Staff: cperkins 0 335 670 1.340 Feet En .._ Q Applications Sewer and Water Service Area Parcels Future Rt 37 Bypass Building Footprints tern Road Plan 0 Ramp Long Range Land Use Residential Neighborhood Village i,!� Urban Center • Mobile Home Community Business Highway Commercial Mixed -Use Mixed Use Commercial/Office 0 Mixed Use Industnal/Office • Industrial ® Warehouse 40 Heavy Industrial • Extractive Mining �.� Commercial Rec Rural Community Center Fire & Rescue • Sensitive Natural Areas ® Institutional • Planned Unit Development Park �7 Recreation School \L/ Employment Airport Support Area Q B2 / B3 O Residential. 4 u/a • 0 High -Density Residential. 6 u/a O High -Density Residential. 12-16 u/a ORural Area Interstate Buffer Landfill Support Area Natural Resources 8 Recreation ® Environmental 8 Recreational Resources �-19-4 r MCGNEE RD MCGNEE P. ..y " TYSON D' • ' 35 104 IYSON OR RIGGERS Y J96 TYSON R 260 LENOIROR i 710 LENOIR DR 701 3 218 1 i. 13 A 21 �t 7t9 LENOIRDI LE •1 � ., 1J I91 1 10J 12S t 1, 7,,,��2� LENCIR DR LENOIR OR /-�J� 37 v i v'522 �o Note: REZ # Ol - 18 Frederick County Dept of Stonewall IV Planning Developmee 107 Kent St 107 N PINS Suite 202 43 - A - 21 43 - A - 21 B. 43 - A - 24. Winchester. VA 226C 43-19-4 540-665-5651 Rezoning from RA to MI Map Created: April 23. 2018 Long Range Land Use Map Staff: cperkins 0 375 750 1.500 Feet PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres Rezoning: 401-18 Record Owner Cheryl Grimm Morris Applicant: Equus Capital Partners, LTD Property: Parcels 43 A 21, 43 A 2113, 43 19 4 and 43 A 24, comprising a total of approximately 88.91 acres, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan (hereinafter "the Property"). Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) to M-1 (Light Industrial) Project Name: Stonewall IV Date: June 6, 2018 Resubmittal Date: July 27, 2018 Pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2296, et sea., and § 165-102.06 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the undersigned hereby proffers that the development and use of the Property, consisting of 88.91 1 acres, located on the north side of Route 37 and west of its intersection with the Martinsburg Pike, shall be in substantial conformance with the following conditions. In the event this rezoning is granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall supersede and replace in their entirety all other proffers made prior hereto. In the event this rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning the current owner, all future owners and successors in interest. The term "Generalized Development Plan" or "GDP" as referenced herein shall refer to the plan entitled "Stonewall IV Generalized Development Plan," prepared by Dice Engineering, PLC, and dated April 5, 2018. DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE PROPERTY 1.1. Development on the Property shall be limited to the construction of not more than 820,000 gross square feet that shall be used solely for Warehousing, or High - Cube Transload and Short Term Storage, Land Use Codes 150 and 154, as those land uses are defined in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (l 0a' Ed). • PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres 1.2. The development of the Property shall be in general conformance with the GDP. However, upon the submission of final site or subdivision plans, minor modifications and adjustments may be made to the road alignments, entrances, parking, dimensions of the SWM/BMP facilities, the exact configuration and location of building footprints, and other similar features shown on the GDP. 1.3. The maximum height of the each building shall be sixty feet (60'). 2 TRANSPORTATION. 2.1 Within 90 calendar days of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall dedicate approximately 17.05 acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, as depicted on the GDP, for the Future Route 37 Bypass. 2.2 Access to the Property shall be as shown on the GDP. Provided that access to the buildable area of the Property is not impeded or eliminated, the Applicant shall not place above grade improvements on the southeast corner of the Property near the terminus of Lenoir Drive in such a way as to preclude the construction of proposed slip ramps that are currently depicted on the graphic entitled "Eastern Road Plan — Lenoir Drive Slip Ramp Clarification," created by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, dated October 17, 2017, and attached hereto for reference. The southeast corner of the Property is subject to existing easements and/or covenants of record, as of June 6, 201 S. 2.3 Within 90 calendar days of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall further dedicate such right-of-way as it may own at the terminus of Lenoir Drive for the purpose of construction of access to existing Route 37 as described in Proffer 2.2 above. 2.4 The Applicant shall contribute $250,000 to the County for the purpose of general transportation planning, right-of-way acquisition, or construction. It shall make such contribution upon issuance of an occupancy permit for any building. 3 FIRE AND RESCUE. 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County the sum of $0.10 per gross square foot of construction as depicted on each site plan, to be used for fire and rescue purposes in the general area. The contribution shall be made at the time of issuance of the occupancy permit for each structure. 2 PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES. 4.1 The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional architectural historian to perform a Historic American Building Survey (NABS) — standard level III, as defined by the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program on the residential building and its associated agricultural buildings located on the property. The HABS standard level III documentation shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later than with the submission of a preliminary subdivision or preliminary site plan for the Property. Following acceptance of the HABS standard level III documentation by the Planning Director, the documentation shall be submitted to the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program. 4.2 The applicant, working with a qualified professional architectural historian, shall inspect prior to demolition the non -heated areas of the residential building for the presence of partially hidden or obscured historical artifacts or material. The applicant shall notify the Planning Director of any historic artifacts or material that may be discovered during the inspection and subsequent demolition of the residential building. 5 ESCALATOR. 5.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in this Proffer Statement are paid to Frederick County within eighteen (18) months after final approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in this Proffer Statement which are paid to the County after eighteen (18) months following final approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U), published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI-U from that date eighteen (18) months after final approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI-U to the date the contributions are paid. [Signatures on following page.] PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres SIGNATURE PAGE APPLICANT: EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD By: " Name: Title: V IGF. �� 6,—r State of County of Subscribed and sworn to before me this-Va(day of LL4L 2018 in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed principa ? NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: My Notary Registration Number: 11 CP5 Y 3 3 CMM= at �varAn • Ww 5" MMK ftwx" Cw h+blk �CU11A111dM1 K Avd I0. 2ml GNndM0111Mun m 116MI 4 PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres Cheryl G Moms, sole survive g tenant by the entirety Commonwealth of Vir inia: County of Frederick: U;zj/ Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3-p-lay of , 2018 in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed principal. rw NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: �2UA.� `,,,aII,,,,,, ,.�`,� � G. Fq , My Notary Registration Number: 36631gi �``./ 36a..v\��`�. r • 0 0 • i ACTIVE ►� _ I I I INACTIVE - O, I I E]OSTING 4 l a- r_ GRADE W B 3;� �' i I a e' NIGH EARRiEN BERM w/ 3 PLANTS PER 10 LINEAR FEET (1/3 DECAMO3, 1/3 rr \ 0 /- / EVERGREEN, 1/3 SHRUBS) / �. \..•� TYPICAL CATEGORY C BUFFER DETAIL NOT TO SCALE APPROX. LIMITS OF 100-YR\ FLOODPLAIN (ZONE W) L"j / `\ FIRM ACHES • � � _� .mom . �� PROPOSEDACCESSTM 45-A-2f _ f 7& 06 ACRES ^ or. 20' rrciaEss Ess i I IA/ 4J 19-4 \ JE4SEA1ENr 7U PARCEL 200 ACRES � 25' ACTNE BUFFER I � aas 4cRE w � � 75' INACTIVE BUFFER - LL � w m(� U- m 16 _ w CATEGORY 'C'ZONING DISTRICT BUFFER i �• \ ;.�R� V W/ FULL-LATIbSCAPE SCREEN _ - / i \ Q 1 (SEE DETAIL) - FUTURE ROUTE 37 I l y1 RIGHT -OF, -WAY DEDICATION r BROWdW NOTES'. 1. BOUNDARY INFORMATION FOR SUBJECT PARCELS PROVIDED BY GREYWOLFE, INC. TOPOGRAPHIC AND ADJOINING PROPERTY INFORMATION OBTAINED VIA . ! FREDERICK COUNTY GIS RECORDS. 2. UTILITY CONNECTIONS WILL BE PROVIDED FROM EXISTING SERVICES AT LENOIR DRIVE, WITH FINAL LOCATIONS AS DETERMINED DURING THE SITE PLAN DESIGN — PROCESS. LOCATION MAP: SCALE 1" = 3000' ,raw r� `'• 4 PROJECT INFORMATION: APPLICANT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD. CURRENT OWNER' CHERYL & JOHN MORRIS REFERENCE TM 43-A-21, 43-A-218, 43-19-4, AND 43-A-24 STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT PROPOSED USE WAREHOUSE/DISTRIBUTION ACREAGE. 88,91 AC, CURRENT ZONING: RA PROPOSED ZONING. M-1 FLOODPLAIN. 10.14 ACRES (+/-) WITHIN FLOODPLAIN ZONE W PER FEMA FIRM 51069CO208D, 51069CO209D, AND 51069CO210D ADJOINING PROPERTIES LIST— STONEWALL IV -PARCEL D TAX AW ZONING OWNER NAME _ USE I 43-8-3-39 RA Marshall Mills, Inc. ResidentialNacant c/o Fred A. Drunage! 2 43_8.3-40 RA Marshall Mills, Inc. c/o Fred A- Drunagel Residemal/Vacant 3 43-8-3-41 RA Marshall Mills, Inc. c/o Fred A Druna el Residential/Vacant 4 43-8-3-42 RA Marshall Mills, Inc. c/o Fred A. Drum el Resldential/Vacant S 43-9-3-43 RA Marshall Mills, Inc. C/o Fred A. Orunagel Residential/Vaca,t 6 43-A-19 RA 1PD Properties LLC c/o Fred A. Druna el Residential 7 43-A-16 RA Kathryn & lames Parker Residential/Vav nt 8 43-19.64 M1 LenoirG(yCo. o(Virginia Industrial/Vacctt 9 43-19.43 M1 Muldowney-Tithes Assoc. l tdusmai 10 43-19-37 MI Muldowney-Tithes Assoc. Industrial 11 43-19-42 M1 Grafton School, Inc. Indusirial/Vacznt 12 43-19.7 M1 1818 Robert LC Industrial 13 43-A-26.8 ML Cambridge Financial Services, LC Industrial 14 43-A-26-A M1 Browning -Ferris Industries [/0 Republic Services Tax Dept. Industrial 15 43-A-21-A MI Browning -Ferns Industries c/o Republic Services tax Dept. Industrial 16 43-A•23 RA Oscar & Opal Jenkins Residential U J IL LL W W 0 z W W U 2 N O C) f` CD NrbZ I N (0 W clo U Q v W }>10; m p W n V W v p =F—it)v W U)toW InU =ZXU- �Z0LLO �a a W w tJj m J � Q W O 0 ZZ p o <� 0 J J w Z 0 U) Z Q J zCL 0 F- Z LLI Z LLJ 0 > 0 w 0 0 Y 0 0 LLJ Qf N_ W J ly w Li- Z W FREDERICK COUNTY RZ # -18 SHEET NUMBER. GDP • 9 Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: June 6, 2018 July 18, 2018 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: August 8, 2018 AMENDMENT Public I -fearing Held; Postponed for 45 days Recommended Approval AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING #01-18 STONEWALL IV WHEREAS, REZONING #01-18 submitted by Eduus Capital Partners, Ltd., to rezoning 88.91± acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to the M I (Light Industrial) District with proffers with a final revision date of 07/27/18 was considered. The subject properties are located at the southern terminus of Lenoir Drive (Route F-732), in the Stonewall Magisterial District and is identified by Property Identification Nos. 43-A- 21, 43-A-21 B, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on June 6, 2018 and postponed the application for 45 days; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on July 18, 2018 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on August 8, 2018; 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 amencled to amended to rezone 88.91± acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to the M I (Light Industrial) District with proffers with a final revision date of 07/27/18. The conclitions voluntarily profferecl in writing by the Applicant and the Property Owner is attached. PDRes #28-18 r This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 8th day of August 2018 by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman J. Douglas McCarthy Shannon G. Trout Blaine P. Dunn Gary A. Lofton Robert W. Wells Judith McCann -Slaughter A COPY ATTEST Kris C. Tierney, Frederick County Administrator PDRes #28-18 -2- . EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL IV IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT April 12, 2018 The Applicant for this rezoning, Equus Capital Partners, Ltd, seeks to change the classification of the subject property from RA (Rural Areas) to M-1 (Light Industrial) to construct not more than 820,000 square feet of motor freight transportation and warehouse facilities as permitted pursuant to § 165-606.02 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, on ±88 acres located at the end of Lenoir Drive, immediately adjacent to the Stonewall Industrial Park. Although the application is for motor freight transportation and warehouse, which are the specific terms employed in the Ordinance, as is detailed in the Comment Response Letter that is incorporated in this submission by reference, because warehouse uses differ in character, and can therefore have differing traffic impacts on the surrounding road network, the Applicant proposes to proffer to limit its use of the property to two sub -classifications of warehouse use as those uses are defined by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). It will construct only "Warehousing," or "High -Cube Transload and Short Term Storage," Land Use Codes 150 and 154, as they are defined in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10"' Ed), which is now the controlling edition of that Manual. These sub -classifications of warehouse use, under the new 10°i Edition, generate even less traffic than was modeled in the TIA that has been submitted and reviewed by the County .Department of Transportation, and VDOT, and will therefore have the same or lesser impact on the roads that service the site than was previously used to calculate traffic impact. A. THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. The Property is outside of the Urban Development Area, being just beyond its boundary at Route-37. The proposed development of industrial land is not required, however, to be inside the UDA. As noted below, the site is within the Sewer and Water Service Area ("SWSA"), which may, and in this case does, extend beyond the UDA to promote commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses in areas where residential land uses are not desirable. The Property is plarmed for industrial use.' • ' The County's GIS does not depict the entire site as being plaiuling for industrial use, but only because the Future Route 37 By-pass is generally depicted at the rear of the Property. Page 12 B. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE. The Property, particularly in the area to be developed, is relatively flat, with the highest points situated near the center of the site, and near Route 37. Redbud Run courses generally along the northern to the northeastern boundary of the site. The most severe terrain is located on the western edge of the Property where it falls off fairly steeply, but that area will be undisturbed by development. The site is accessed by Lenoir Drive. There is an existing stand of trees along the western boundary of the Property that will remain undisturbed by development, and will continue to serve as a buffer between the development and properties to the west. In the event that the Route 37 By-pass is constructed, those trees will likely be lost. C. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The properties to the north of the site are all either industrially developed or zoned and planned for industrial use, as part of the Stonewall Industrial Park, as are the small parcels directly to the east across Lenoir Drive. There is a single parcel that is sandwiched between the Property and Route 37, owned by Oscar Jenkins, which remains zoned RA, and the parcels to the west are zoned RA. GIS shows that there are subdivided lots on the land adjacent to the west that will be accessed by Glentawber Road, but those lots have not been developed. Existing Route 37 runs to the south of the site. Access to the Jenkins Parcel is shown on the General Development Plan. See below with respect to access to the Jenkins Parcel D. TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS A Traffic Impact Analysis has been prepared by Kittleson & Associates and has been reviewed. The conclusion of that analysis is that the traffic generated from the proposed development does not require additional mitigation, and that no off -site transportation improvements are recommended. All study intersections are projected to continue to operate acceptably assuming full build -out of the development of the Property. See, too, the Comment Response Letter that more fully explain the change in estimated trip generation from the proposed warehousing uses of the site. The Applicant proposes to dedicate right-of-way to the County for the future construction of the Proposed Route 37 By-pass. Moreover, the Applicant has re -designed the basic layout of the property so as not to preclude the construction by others, at some future date, of the slip ramps from Lenoir Drive to existing Route 37 shown on the County's Comprehensive Plan. This, too, is addressed in the Comment Response Letter. The re -design also permits the entrance into the site to be so located • Page 13 is the it does not interfere with, or impede, an existing easement that provides access to and from the Jenkins Property, Parcel 43-A-23. E. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The Property is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area and there is sufficient capacity in the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility to accommodate the limited effluent to be produced from these industrial structures. Frederick Water observes that the Application does not specify the user and its needs, but that is not uncommon, and the Applicant will address these issues at final site plan. F. WATER SUPPLY The Property will be serviced by public water provided by Frederick Water which observes that the Application does not specify the user and its needs, but that is not uncommon, and the Applicant will address these issues at final site plan. G. DRAINAGE There is some floodplain on the northern to northeastern boundary of the site along Redbud Run, but it will not be disturbed during development. The site generally drains to • Redbud Run, but the Applicant will comply with applicable Stormwater Management Regulations to protect that waterway. H. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The Applicant will contract with a suitable private hauler for the removal of trash. I.. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES A Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of Glengary (VDHR 4034-1099)2 has been prepared by Dutton & Associates (the "Study"). It concludes, in brief, that the home and building stock retain a moderate level of historic physical integrity and represent a good example of a Shenandoah Valley farm that retains a fairly complete complement of domestic and agricultural buildings, but that have evolved over tirne. As such, Glengary is still recommended as potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and C for significance at the local level. It also concludes that there is a single previously identified site that appears to be more discretely defined, and is focused in and around the former kitchen/servants quarter building (now demolished), which would have functioned as the immediate service space for the main dwelling. The potential for intact archaeological deposits is 2 The home site was named Glengary as long ago as 1762. The central core of the present home was built c. 1850. • Page 14 present in this area. Dutton & Associates also believes that changes in the farm that occurred before the Applicant entered into discussions with the owner have significantly affected the historical context of the site. The Study has been submitted to the Historic Resources Advisory Board and the Department of Planning and Development for review and comment. Following a meeting with the HRAB on March 27, 2018, the Applicant received substantial input and has modified its Proffers to reflect the recommendations from that Board. J. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES As with most industrial developments, there are few impacts on community facilities with the general exception of public safety services. To that end, and as other industrial developments have done, the Applicant proposes a contribution to fire and rescue purposes based on the number of gross square feet of structure built. K. OTHER IMPACTS The applicant is aware of no other impacts that have not been addressed in this Impact Analysis. 0 0 • COUNTY ol' FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Assistant Director - Transportation ' `-- RE: Stonewall IV — Agenda Addendum DATE: June 5, 2018 As requested, please see the attached excerpts from the Stonewall IV Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for your consideration as an addendum to the staff report for that rezoning item. Should you have any question on transportation for this project between • now and the meeting please contact John Bishop in the Planning and Development Department. • JAB/pd Attachments 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 n U 11 Transportation Impact Analysis Stonewall IV Frederick County, Virginia • December 2017 go E 0 0 Transportation Impact Analysis Stonewall IV Frederick County, Virginia Prepared For: Prepared By: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 1850 Centennial Park Drive, Suite 130 Reston, Virginia 20191 (703) 885-8970 Project Manager: Chris Tiesler, PE Project Principal: John Callow Project Analysts: Kylie Caviness Project No. 21652.00 December 2017 0 Christopher B Tiesler Y Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Traffic Engineer E • Stonewall IV December 2017 Executive Summary 0 A traffic operations analysis has been conducted to confirm that the transportation system can adequately support the proposed Stonewall IV development, in fulfillment of Frederick County and Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) requirements for traffic impact studies. The scope of the project analysis was developed in collaboration with County and VDOT staff. Specifically, this analysis includes: ■ Year 2016 existing land use and transportation system conditions within the site vicinity; ■ Forecast year 2020 background traffic conditions (without site development) during the weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak periods including in-process/approved developments and regional growth; ■ Trip generation and distribution estimates for the proposed development; ■ Forecast year 2020 total traffic conditions based on full build out of the development including queuing; ■ Design year 2026 total traffic conditions based on full build out of the development; and, ■ Conclusions and recommendations. Based on the results of the transportation impact analysis, the transportation system can adequately support the proposed development assuming provision of the recommended mitigations. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS FINDINGS The findings of this analysis and our recommendations are discussed below. Existing Conditions ■ As scoped, the existing conditions analysis reflects completion of the on -going Martinsburg Pike/Welltown Road Improvements (VDOT Project #J 0011-034-1167, C501; 0661-034-799, M501; UPC 100547 / 94847). ■ All study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during all time periods. 2020 Background Traffic Conditions ■ A one percent annual growth rate (compounded annually) was used to account for regional traffic growth. ■ Traffic associated with the following in -process developments within the study area was included as background traffic: o Rutherford Crossing o Graystone I.P. • o Amoco Lane Property Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2 0 • Stonewall IV December 2017 Executive Summary 46 o Snowden Bridge developments. ■ All study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at LOS D or better during all time periods. 2020 Total Traffic Conditions ■ Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. is applying for a rezoning to allow the development of two industrial warehouse buildings, totaling 820,000 square feet. The site is located southwest of Frontage Road 732 (Lenoir Drive), in the northwest quadrant of the interchange at Interstate 81 and Route 37/US 11 in Frederick County, Virginia. ■ Primary access to the site is proposed via a single full -access driveway along Lenoir Drive. ■ The development is estimated to generate approximately 1,378 net new weekday daily trips, 90 weekday a.m. (62 in, 28 out), and 98 weekday p.m. (30 in, 68 out) peak hour trips. ■ All study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during all study time periods under 2020 build out conditions. 2026 Design Year Conditions ■ All study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during all study time periods, with the exception of the US Route 11/1-81 Northbound Ramp Terminal/Redbud Road intersection during the weekday p.m, peak period. o The US Route 11/1-81 Northbound Ramp Terminal intersection is forecast to continue to operate at LOS E during the weekday p.m. peak hour. This drop is LOS is due exclusively to background growth. CONSLUSION Based on the results of the analysis, no off -site transportation improvements are recommended. All study intersections are projected to continue to operate acceptably assuming full build -out of the Stonewall IV development. Kittelson & Associates, Inc, 3 Stonewo///V • • Decembei2017 • F ruiure JwoY imersemions Site Vicinity Map Figure Frederick County, Virginia 1 swew fi tv Decembe, 7017 LL ` 3 I O ? - �' - I ��\ W W Vjprytll I ) V Z Vl tll -.nU W ..=wxu CVO<� f � I I / \ O m �. 100•YR FLOODPIAIN r \ I n 6 w I yC> / � L R�nwoo I f I p TRUCK COURT Z 0L COa O�J Ya a LL PROPOSED 369,000 SQ. w U 1 10UILDING 900') /� z Z O U <� a 1 ) PARKING \ Q LU a LU z -10 d \ J 2 � GRAPHIC SCALE I 0 'w xo am SHEET NUMBER: IINFEETI^-8 , „-,W� r Conceptual Site Plan I Figure Developed by Dice Engineering, PLC (07/20/2017) Z Frederick County, Virginia j 1\1 1 1 CLJVIV & ASSO lATES • S1DrKw" N GI f ✓we AT 37 SWSA Zoning Y1 lNegnOanma Bus.rrss Usrnc', � — 97 (hdLmrol TrensM^n DM'rc1 r W (EsfscTv. ManAPCL.*q Dst(GI ME (Row cdUcaw Dawn MI (Lgrr W MW DMnCO M7 (Ir4w l Wneml DYrrcr) — rW" N"e Harr Cwm r y DOM) — us (mecca 5'mw DWA01 _ OU(Off" ManOnLr"M.•rl 1 R. (R.re.nm R.-W C—w wty D.u•ct) A — AS rResavr., R.v sloNl ;p wv tft + l RA (RV* "m DWMI RP IR. 4—d P.Aa....n- Ci ,.dl Agrlcu(hlnl 3 ►oresW dstOcb AV" P.. RAp. ' ft All, 60.0 T—Ow Re¢ 'seuw r..,k u* Drra OPeM Orrd (1rrrP - Rir hr. SITE per r.nbn 2017 ( Zoning Map Figure I B Frederick County, Virginia i 3 • • 7ewo//7V December 1017 N 861 � 81 oP 863 cy� J SSICA LN �P �O1 F-732 862 F•732 TG OQ' 661 SITE O� 839 11 0 PACTIv CO<� 37 2 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 O © © DE ,4 ,4 �L C i E B C ~ C C % E Y 1t .. B A E O A ® © \ �jj��,jj1► {j��jj 0 Li! r A A ltf A (7. 1�J A L��Jf L�l l�f f A --t- - STOP SIGN 0 - TRAFFIC SIGNAL �D D Existing Lane Group Level of Service Figure Weekday AM Peak Hour 6 Frederick County, Virginia L-—m • is 40 Stonewott tV 0 December 1017 861 � 81 pP 863 cG JESSICA LN p QP 00N- F-732 862 F-732 TG O� 661 SITE ��O 839 �O G qy7 O PACTIV 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 O h r.- C.- 4, a :j O i Lr CGA f c 0 E } U t ip !— -STOP SIGN �r i TRAFFIC SIGNAL - • C . 51 A l�J —A DE E E \ E 1 C� • t C —C Cam► rE `E A ' 1•I C A- r C Y Existing Lane Group Level of Service Figure Weekday PM Peak Hour 7 Frederick County, Virginia 11 Stonewall IV Existing Conditions December 2017 Table 2 Existing Conditions - Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service, 951h Percentile Back of Queue, and Delay for Each Lane Group by Intersection fil IF,51Y:( a§)i7t ''e13iJi}: Illi�{it1100 'trirliS<7i17CJ1 fiTiitiil #lrt h(!)1�� 1 ® o it•� 0.0 "# 9Jyr,` Lenoir Drive & McGhee Road (p11 Unsignalized EB EBTR 0.0 EB Approach 0.0 _ 0.0 WE WBLT A <25 1.7 A <25 3.0 WS Approach ". 17 A 3.0 NB NBLR B <25 11.1 8 50 14.4 NBApproach B 11.1 8 14.4 McGhee Road & WelllownRoad& Amoco Lane (N2) Unsignalized EB EBL EBR C <25 122.5 8 <25 12.4 B 25 12.5 8 50 12.2 EB Approach 8 12.6 B 12.2 NB NSL A so 9.4 A <25 8.2 1 NET 0.0 0.0 NB Approach 7.2 15 58 1 SBLTR 0.0 0.0 SB Approach 0.0 0.0 Welltown Road & US-11(N3) Signalized EB E8L E 325 67.6 E 250 73.8 EBTR C 375 21.9 - C 500 24.2 EB Approach C 28,9 C 29.3 WE WBL E 75 76.3 E 75 60.7 WET C 375 26.7 C 325 22.5 WBR 8 50 15.6 C 50 20.4 WE Approach C 26.2 C 23.2 NB NBLTR E 100 63.8 E 150 67.9 NO Approach E 63.8 E 67.9 S8 SBL E 125 58.6 E 150 62.1 SBTR D 100 53.2 E 100 56.3 SB Approach E 55.5 E 59.0 Overall C 321 C 32.7 US-11 & 1-81 Soubound On/off Ramps(H4) Signalized EB EST EBR A 75 4.2 A 125 4.3 175 0.0 50 EB Approach .A 4.2 A. 4.3 VJE WBL WBT A <25 3A A 100 5.3 A <25 118 A <25 1.7 WBA proach A 2.1 A 2 '.SBLT SB F 75 81.7 F 75 85.9 SBR 0 0.0 <25 0.0 5B Approach F 81.7 F 85.9 overall A 44 A 4.3 U5-11 & 1-81 Northbound Off Ramps (#5) Signalized ES I EBT A 25 3.6 B 275 11.4 E8 Approach A 3.6 S 11.4 WE WET A <25 1.6 c 75 27.7 WE Approach A 1.6 C 27.7 N8 NBL D 2S0 54.3 D 275 51.7 NBR D 175 46.3 E 300 63.0 NBApproach D 51.7 D 558 Overall B 17.2 C 28.3 US-11 & 1-81 Northbound On bu Ramps & Redbud Road (NB) Signalized EB EBL A 100 2.0 A 325 6.3 EBT D 75 41.7 C 125 29.1 EBR C <25 28.1 B <25 35.0 EB Approach C 29.^ C 21,9 WE WBL 8 <25 12.8 C <2S 28.9 WET E 200 56.1 E 375 60.1 WBR D <25 37.5 D <25 42.4 WE Approach D 54.2 E 57 3 NB I NBLTR E <25 76.0 E 200 76.4 NB Approach E 76.0 E 76.4 overall D 40.6 D 36.6 *The V indicates 95rh percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer and the queue shown is the maximum after two cycles. The 'm' indicates the volume for the 95`h percentile queue is metered by the upstream signal. • Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 16 " newo// /V December 1017 a I� 861 �° 81 oP � z 863 Cy O �Q- ESSICA LN \QP\ F-732 862 F-732 TG O� l 661 SITE 839 O O��O G� qy7 O COI,y PACTIV y�Y 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS _ Z 11 ,wo///V DecemBer2017 861 � 81 oP 863 �cy JESSICA LN OZ QQ`4 �50 F-732 � 862 F-732 TG O� 661 SITE �� 839 � o�� O CO<ti PAC7TIV Wy 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS J 11 O© © E `E Bi Et k-C F c �► +T A B� Cy C �+ •— � F 21 :.' l I" �1 7 8 A E 9 T' OAE S F � = �j A� �A JJ �{�j C !{�} C Ay A B~. j�j �C a �L.ltr r �tls1r A ,� �tltr D i!t R b t u a S D E E -19 -STOP SIGN 2020 Background Lane Group Level of Service Figure i - TRAFFIC SIGNAL Weekday PM Peak Hour 11 Frederick County, Virginia L Cl is 0 40 Stonewall IV Transportation Impact Analysis December 2017 Table 3 2020 Background Traffic Conditions - Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service, 95th Percentile Back of Queue, and Delay for Each Lane Group by Intersection k '01 Lenoir Drive & McGhee Road Unsignalized EB---j EOTR 0.0 0.0 ES Aeproach 0.0 0.0 A <25 7.8 A <25 8.6 WDjtppioa-:h A 1.7 A 2.9 NO NOLR B <25 10.7 8 25 11.8 NBAppfoa,:h B 10.7 B 11.8 McGhee Road & Welitown Road & Amoco Lane (N2) Unsignalized EB I EBL C 19.4 B <25 12.4 B -<25 25 11.8 a - 50 12.2 EBAp roach B 11.9 B 12.2 NB NBL A 25 9.0 A <25 8.3 NOT - 0.0 0.0 NO Approach 6.8 1.5 SO F sBLTR 0.0 0.0 SO Approach 0.0 0.0 Welltown Road & US-11 (#3) Signalized EB 8L E 325 75.4 E 275 75.1 EBTR C -- 450 30.7 C >525 29.0 EB Approach 0 37A C _ 33.5 WB WBL E 150 55.3 F 125 92.0 WBT c 400 29.6 c 425 26.6 WBR C 50 24.3 c IDO 31.8 WO Approach c 30.2 1 C 29.9 NO N8LTR C ISO 63.6 E 200 73.4 NBAPPfOach E 63.6 f - 73.4 SO SOL 1! 125 59.9 E 175 63.3 SBTR D 100 53.8 E 300 56.5 SBA proach E 56.4 1 E 59.6 Overall D 375 0 37.4 US-11 & 1-81 Southbound On/Off Ramps (N4) Signalized EB I F EBT A 300 7.1 D 175 48.4 - EBR 150 0.0 50 0.0 EB Apgoach A 7.1 D 48.4 WBL WB WBT A 100 7.1 C 250 30.5 A 75 3.1 A 250 3.1 WBARproach A 3.8 A 8.1 SO SOLT E 125 69.1 E 125 74.4 S13R <25 0.0 <25 0.0 SOH roach E 69.1 E - 74.4 Overall A 7.7 C 28.5 us-11 & 1-81 Northbound Off Ramps INS) Signalized EB I EBT 8 so 11.5 8 225 17.1 EBApproach B 1115 13 )73 W8 T WBT A <25 0.1 A 75 0.1 WBAQproach A 0.1 A 0.1 I NO I NBL D 250 46.1 D 275 44.9 NOR E 275 58.1 E 400 63.8 NBA proach D SO.5 D 52.6 Overall 8 19.5 c 21.7 US-11 & 1-81 Northbound On Ramps & Redbud Road(96) I- Signalized EB 1 EOL A 125 7.3 a 450 17.2 EBT c 100 32.1 c 250 21.2 EBR B <25 18.2 A <25 8.4 EB Approach C 250 6 - 19.6 WB W8L c <25 20.1 D 50 37.8 WBT D 275 51.9 E Soo 57.9 WBR C <2S 34.4 D so 40.4 WBATroach D 48.3 D - 54.3 NB NBLTR E <25 72.3 F 300 88.4 NO Approach E 72.3 F 88.4 Overall D 1 36.31 D 1 36.3 *The W indicates 95 th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer and the queue shown is the maximum after two cycles. The 'm' indicates the volume for the 95'h percentile queue is metered by the upstream signal. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 25 0 Stonewall IV Transportation Impact Analysis December 2017 As shown in the figures and Table 3, all study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at LOS D or better during all time periods. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Applicant is applying for a rezoning from RA (Rural Agricultural) to M1 (Industrial) to allow the development of two industrial warehousing buildings, totaling 820,000 square feet. Access to the site is proposed to be provided via an extension of Lenoir Drive into the site. Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the proposed development were developed using the standard reference Trip Generation, 91h Edition (Reference 2) published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table 4 summarizes the trip generation estimates for the proposed development. Table 4 Estimated Trip Generation - —° — — - tJYIFi�°iOP3tit v 1,378 90 62 28 98 30 68 High -Cube Warehouse 152 820,000 Sq. Ft. It Distribution Center Net New Trips 1,378 90 62 28 98 30 68 As shown in Table 4, the development is estimated to generate approximately 1,378 net new weekday daily trips, 90 weekday a.m. (62 in, 28 out), and 98 weekday p.m. (30 in, 68 out) peak hour trips when fully built out in year 2020. Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment Trip distribution estimates for the proposed project were developed based on anticipated future travel patterns observed near the site and a major origin/destination patterns in the site vicinity. Figure 12 illustrates the estimated trip distribution pattern. Figure 13 and Figure 14 illustrate the assignment of site -generated trips to the surrounding roadway network during the weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak hours, respectively. • 0 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 26 StonewallIv• • DecemgZ017 • ewa// /V December 2017 N 861 863 �CCy JESSICq LN w 50 F-732 862 F-732 TG 661 SITE �9_ 839 0 O cO(,l, PACTIV Wy 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 r 62 27 4• n b yl N - r 4� e 13 --► •— 28 c 10� 13—► +— 6 13'—+ +-- 6 � 4 `c b F e S Site -Generated Trips Figure Weekday AM Peak Hour 13 c, Frederick County, Virginia v 0 r-m ,1Pwa///V December1017 a a i\ 861 a 81 pP 863 Cy ESSICA LN O QPQ f-732 S 862 F-732 TG OQ- �p�� 661 Q- SITE pya�O 839 0 p� qM 0 PACTIV y oo�ti 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 � o 3� 23 [ r 30 65.." L' n i V, In © O O _ O 31 —+ —13 2 24 31 --► �-- 3 7 7 --► +- 3 C a n L; 1T� L Q C L c t Site -Generated Trips Figure ` Weekday PM Peak Hour 14 Frederick County, Virginia December 2017 861 ° 81 oP z �Q- 863 �i�,cy�� JESSICA LN oQ- �QO w �C3 F-732 862 F-732 0 661 SITE 839 G� qM O PACTIV 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS \\ 11 O © © DE \ AA �t � C ,/ E %� C 7 " B� C� C Ir C .L► D � B A E OAE (A- B - STOP SIGN - TRAFFIC SIGNAL © O -► jj �� jj f--A A A-► r L!J A r A l 1 D D E 2020 Total Lane Group Level of Service Figure Weekday AM Peak Hour 17 Frederick County, Virginia w • • I 7ewo///V Decembel-2017 1\ 861 cr 81 OP 863 Zi�'Cy� JESSICq Uq O QP\ F -j GOB F-732 Al 862 F-732 TG QQ- rp�Q 661 SITE O��O 839 O PACTIV 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 O © © EE \ 4 4 LL DE Jt D 7 A D1' C i +—C C - q- E AL C D A E O AE \ (A-N y_ A r C -� - STOP SIGN - TRAFFIC SIGNAL C O / \ D1 (� C B I*I r D A L!! r D 'E 2020 Total lane Group level of Service Figure Weekday PM Peak Hour 18 Frederick County, Virginia i • Stonewall IV December 2017 Transportation Impact Analysis Table 5 2020 Total Traffic Conditions -Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service, 95'h Percentile Back of Queue, and Delay for • Each Lane Group by Intersection i"r113r9.`11 Sit 'fr,1i t?l t�d•)f t;tir'r15iF �lrt• ��,i�( ,.irk e�41�� T f� r (�- Lenoir Drive & McGhee Road (p1) Unsignalized EB E8TR 0.0 0.0 EB Approach 0.0 0.0 WB I WBLT A <2S 7.9 A <2S 8.7 WB Approach A 2.6 A 4.2 NB I NBLR B <2S 11.1 B s0 12.8 NB Approach 8 111 B 12.8 McGhee Road & WelltownRoad& Amoco Lane (42) Unsignalized EB EBL C <25 22.8 B <25 13.1 EBR B 2S 12.2 B 7S 13.3 EB Approach B 12.3 B 13.3 NB NBL A s0 9.3 A <25 8.3 NBT 0.0 0.0 NB Ap roach 7.3 2.0 s8 SBLTR 0.0 0.0 SB Approach 0.0 0.0 Welltown Road & US-11 (k3) Signalized EB EBL E 325 74.4 E 275 67.9 EBTR c 375 31.8 c >525 30.3 EB Approach 0 381 C 34.1 WB WBL D 75 54.4 E 100 69.2 WBT C 375 31.6 c 425 32.6 WBR C <25 28.4 D s0 35.7 WSApproach c 32.2 C 34.5 NB NBLTR 100 63.6 E 200 77.7 NB Approach 636 E 777 SB SBL125 60.5 E 200 66.9 SBTR100 UD 53.0 E 100 57.1 SB Approach 56.4 E 62.0 Overall 38.9 0 40.1 US•11 & 1.81 Southbound On/Off Ramps (k4) Signalized EB EBT EBR A 100 7.2 1 D 100 50.0 1s0 0.0 <2S 0.0 EBA pioach A 7.2 0 50.0 WB WBL WBT A 100 7.3 C 275 32.0 A 50 3.2 A 250 3.0 WB Approach A 3.9 A 8.3 58 SBLT E 125 69.1 E 150 77.0 SBR <2S 0.0 <25 0.0 SB Approach E 69.1 E 77.0 Overall A 7.7 C 29.5 US•11 & 1-81 Northbound Off Ramps (ss) Signalized EB EBT B 50 11.6 B 225 17.7 ES Approach B 11..6 B 17,7 WB I WBT A <25 2.7 A 7S 0.1 NB Approach A 2.7 A 0.1 NB NBL D 250 46.6 D 275 46.9 NBR E 275 57.9 E 425 66.3 NB Approach E 50.6 D 54.8 Overall c 20.5 C 22.S US-11&1-81 Northbound On Ramps & Redbud Road (p6) Signalized EB EBL A ISO 7.4 B 500 17.1 EBT C 100 31.9 C 250 21.4 EBR B <25 18.1 A <25 8.5 EB Approach C 24.8 B 197 WB WBL c <25 20.2 D so 38.6 WBT D 300 52.2 E 52S 60.3 WBR C <25 34.3 D so 41.9 WB Approach D 48.6 E S6.S NB NBLTR E <25 72.3 F 325 93.0 NBAppioach E 72.3 F 93.0 Overall D 36.2 D 37.3 *The W indicates 95"' percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer and the queue shown is the maximum after two cycles. The 'm' indicates the volume for the 95'h percentile queue is metered by the upstream signal. • • Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 35 • • • is C] Marian Harders, AICP, LEED AP Planner (703) 680-4664 Ext. 5121 mharders@tllelandlawyers.com WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEX & WALSH PC April l 2, 2018 Federal Express Frederick County Department of Planning & Development Attn: Candice Perkins 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5651 Re: Rezoning Application, Stonewall IV Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. (Applicant) Property Identification No.: 43 A 21, 43 A 21 B, 43 19 4 & 43 A 24 (the "Property") Dear Ms. Perkins: In connection with the above, please find the following items to be filed in connection with the above -referenced Rezoning application: 1. One (1) copy of the executed Rezoning application form signed by the property owners. The original application form was submitted to your office on February 14, 2018. 2. A check in the amount of $18,891.00, made payable to County of Frederick. 3. A copy of the death certificate for John S. Morris, Jr. 4. One (1) copy of the Property Location Map. 5. One (1) copy of the "Adjoining Property Owners" list. 6. One (1) copy of the real estate tax records for each property, showing no taxes due. 7. One (1) copy of the Impact Analysis Statement, dated April 12, 2018. 8. One (1) copy of the Proffer Statement, dated April 12, 2018. 9. One (1) copy of the General Development Plan entitled "Stonewall IV," prepared by Dice Engineering, PLC, dated April 5, 2018. 10. One (1) CD ROM containing digital copies all the submission material identified herein. ,ST.ui,`. = ) A7 I %% 703 680 4664 1 WWW.THPI.AI:DLAWYL•RS COM 4310 PRINCE WII.I.IAM hARKWAY I SUITE 306 1 WOODBRIDGE. VA 22192.5199 ARLINGTON 703 528 4700 1 LOUDOUN 701 737 3633 r- L_ 9 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 2 On February 14, 2018, the following documents were submitted to your office and are referenced here as part of our formal application: 1. A copy of the cultural resources report entitled "Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of Glengary (BDHR #034-1099), prepared by Dutton & Associates, dated October 2017. 2. A copy of the Transportation Impact Analysis entitled "Stonewall IV," prepared by Kittelson & Associates, dated December 2017. We offer the following in response to the agencies regarding the draft rezoning application, changes have been made to the Proffers submitted needed: several comments received from reviewing dated February 13, 2018. Where appropriate and the Impact Analysis has been revised as Planning and Development, March 19, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response 1. Northeast .Land U.-sr, Plan - 1,aUd jU5e. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Land Use Plan provide The Applicant concurs .that this application is guidance on the future development of consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the property. The property is located that it is accessible to public utilities, being within the SWSA. The 2035 located within the Sewer and Water Service Comprehensive Plan identifies these Area. properties with an industrial land use designation. The proposed M1 Zoning is Transportation issues are addressed in detail in generally consistent with the Northeast response to the comments from the Land Use Plan as it relates to this area. Transportation Department and VDOT, below. The land use plan depicts future Route 37 on the western boundary of the properties and access to Route 37 from Lenoir Drive. The application fully addresses future Route 37 through the property; however, the access to Route 37 is not acknowledged in the impact staternent or the proffers. 2. Qeneralired Develoninent._ The GDP . The GDP has been updated, as recommended should be revised to remove all by Staff. buildings, the GDP should be more a general and show the property, proffered, 41 • 0 �J • 0 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 3 improvements, access and buffers. The J GDP should also be reduced to 1 1 x 17 or 8 !/ x 11. Proffer 81 has been revised. Please see the 3� I'r(�i'tcr I - Wyclopmcnt and Use of fhc Property. Proffer 1.1 states that two detailed response to the Department of buildings will be constructed, given there Transportation comments below, based on is a gross square footage cap, it appears changes to the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the requirement for two structures may 101h Edition. not be necessary. Also, consider eliminating use limitation for 1 I warehousing and distribution. 4. 'r 'f r3Proffer 3.1 requires Comment noted. This Proffer has been deleted the use of public water and sewer and the per Staffs recommendation. These are matters construction of improvements to provide for final site plan and applicable ordinances such service. This proffer should be will be complied with. removed as it is already required. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in apro ffer statement. 5. J'rufthr A - Stnrnt►yatcr Comment noted. This Proffer has been deleted M:rn�►eerttent/1?11y11 t!T1111ent. Stormwater per Staffs recommendation. These are matters management is a site development for final site plan and applicable ordinances requirement. Existing County will be complied with. requirements should be removed. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided I in a profferstatement. 6. ,J'Caftr• ► --Lighting—Building mounted Comment noted. This Proffer has been deleted and pole mounted lighting and the use of per Staffs recommendation. These are matters downcast full cutoff fixtures are required for final site plan and applicable ordinances by the Zoning Ordinance. Only will be complied with. requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. 7. Access Easement._ The access easement Please see the conrunents below with respect to to parcel 43-A-23 does not align with the Transportation. proposed access to the subject properties off Lenoir Drive. Provide clarification on The Applicant is aware of the access easement LA Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 4 the location of these two entrance points. to the identified parcel, and has no intention of Staff recommends that the Applicant cutting off access to it, or of improperly work with the residential property to interfering with the easement. relocate the access easement to align with the new entrance proposed on Lenoir Drive. This is also the general location of the future connection to existing Route 37 identified in the Comprehensive Plan (see comment 1). 8. Tro-jnst2ol;l #ion Coinincnts._Please note Response to the Transportation and VDOT that the transportation comments on the comments are set out below. rezoning application from John Bishop, Assistant Director - Transportation, are being provided to you in a separate letter. Staff may also provide additional comments related to the proposed changes if warranted subject to adjustments requested by VDOT. 9. Agency Commetits. Please provide Responses to agency comments are provided appropriate agency comments from the below. following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshal, Frederick Water, Virginia Department of Health, the County Attorney, the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority. 10. . Based on the fees adopted by the A check in the amount of $18,891.00 is Board of Supervisors on April 23, 2008, included with this submission package. the rezoning fee for this application would be $18,891.00 based upon acreage of 88.91 acres County Attorney, March 20, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response 1. Title to one of the parcels (43-A-21B) is in A copy of the death certificate for Mr. John S. the name of Cheryl G. Morris and John S. Morris, Jr. is provided with this submission. Morris, Jr. husband and wife as tenants by 0 • 0 U • Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 • Page 5 • 0 the entireties, with common law right of survivorship. I understand from the signature line on proffer statement that Mr. Morris is deceased. We will need submission of sufficient evidence of that fact, such as the type of statement typically included under oath, in a deed conveying property so titled reciting the fact of the death of one of the tenants by the entireties. 2. In the heading section of the Proffer Statement Equus is identified as Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. and in the signature block it is identified as Equus Capital Partners, LP. I realize that Virginia corporate law may have certain naming requirements that conflict with those of the state law of entity formation, resulting in the use of a different suffix in Virginia but the use of the suffix should nonetheless be consistent throughout the Proffer Statement. The signature h..... III has been revised to Partners, Ltd. Ll Il A IVIIV1 IJ LU LV111V1lL reflect Equus Capital 3 In the first paragraph of the introduction, the These corrections have been made. action is twice referred to as a "proffer amendment". These references should instead be to a "rezoning" 4. In the second paragraph of the introduction, The second paragraph of the Proffer Statement the definition of the term "Applicant" should has been modified per Staffs recommendation. be expanded to include the current owner of the Subject Property as well. 5. The third paragraph of the introduction does not seem to fit where it has been placed. The provisions of the Proffer Statement are not limited merely to instances in which specific plans or exhibits reference them. The third paragraph has been deleted for clarity. 6. Proffer 2 - The area indicated to be dedicated The Applicant's engineer has compared the for Route 37 right of way does not GDP with the Board's action of December 12, necessarily appear to encompass a sufficient 2017, and has advised the Applicant that the 0 0 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 6 portion of the right of way area as shown by the Comprehensive Plan depiction on the County's GIS. Staff will want to confirm the extent of the proposed dedication area. 7. Proffers 3, 4, and 6 - Most of the provisions of these proffers simply restate ordinance requirements and, to that extent, are not appropriate for inclusion in the Proffer Statement. 8. Proffer 5 - The proffer should indicate payment simply to Frederick County and not the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. 9. Signature blocks - Because, among other things, we require that proffer statements, once a rezoning is approved, be recorded in the land records, any and all signatures will need to have notarizations. area shown for dedication on the GDP matches the area identified for the Proposed Route 37 interchange. As noted above, Proffers 3, 4 and 6 have been deleted. These are matters for final site plan and applicable ordinances will be complied with. Proffer 5 has been revised per Staff's comment. Comment noted. A notary block has been added to the signature page for both the Applicant and the Owner. Frederick County Department of Transportation, March 28, 2018 Agency Comment 1. Traffic Study - Y,anci Use. The traffic study uses 820,000 sq. ft. of high cube warehouse. This results in daily trips of 1,378. This trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse worst case scenario of uses that could potentially populate this property under the Ml Zoning District and your proffer statement as currently written. Specifically, the trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse distribution trip generation. While proffer 1.1 does limit the property use to warehouse and distribution, it does not make the distinction of high cube. This is a significant discrepancy impacting the veracity of the Traffic Impact Analysis. This is most easily addressed with a clarification within the Applicant Response After these comments were received, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) published, and the Virginia Department of Transportation adopted, the loth Edition of its Trip Generation Manual. The TIA was developed using the Ninth Edition. This has a direct bearing on the case, and on the proper drafting of the Proffers in response to the Department's understandable comment. A "Warehouse" (ITE Land Use Code 150), which was the initially proffered use, is defined as "a building primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but it may also include office and maintenance areas." The Department is corrcct that under the Ninth Edition of the ITE a pure warehouse 'would have been considered to generate far more trips per day than a "high - cube" warehouse — which is what the TIA had • • 0 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 • Page 7 proffer statement. • 0 modeled, and what the Applicant had intended. According to this new Edition, however, estimated trips generated by a "warehouse" have been reduced dramatically, and the proposed warehouse Mere would generate a weekday average of only 1,341 trips, slightly fewer than the 1,378 trips that were employed in the TIA — for a high -cube warehouse. It is unnecessary, therefore, to alter the proffer to eliminate warehousing as a use. The ITE Manual now recognizes that warehousing will not generate trips that exceed what was modeled in the TIA. This has been the Applicant's actual experience at its other facilities in Frederick County and elsewhere, and now the technical studies have, in effect, caught up with its practical experience. The category of land use formerly identified as High -Cube Warehousing (HCW), has now been broken into three separate categories with dramatically differing trip generation characteristics. There is no longer a Land Use Code 152. A High -Cube Transload and Short Term Storage Warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 154) is defined as "a building that typically has at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area, has a ceiling height of 24 feet or more, and is primarily used for the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. A typical HCW has a high level of on -site automation and logistics management. The automation and logistics enable highly efficient processing of goods through the HCW. The HCWs included in this land use include transload and short-term facilities. Transload facilities have a primary function of consolidation and distribution of pallet loads Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 8 2. Coin orcligilsive l?hln - 'Easterss. iA Plan, The Eastern Road Plan portion of the County Comprehensive plan calls for ramp access from Lenoir Drive to Route 37. The site layout and proffers, as currently submitted, does not allow for this future connection to take place. This is an important connection that, when constructed, offers significant positive traffic impacts to the surrounding area and this site. Participating in this for manufacturers, Wholesalers, or retailers." In this instance, such a high -cube facility would generate an estimated 1,148 average weekday trips. The Applicant specializes in High -Cube Transload and Short Term Storage Warehousing, but in order to provide itself market flexibility it wishes to retain the right to use any structures that may be permitted for the Property, and under the new ITE Manual that would include both Warehousing (LUC 150) and High -Cube (LUC 154). Therefore, the Applicant has edited Proffer 1.1 to clarify the uses on the property will be restricted to warehousing uses as those defined by Land Use Codes 150 and 154, as set out in the ITE Manual, 10' Edition. The Applicant respectfully observes that the Comprehensive Plan ' also calls for the construction of an interchange between Proposed Route 37 and existing Route 37 with northbound ramps commencing roughly 600 feet from the point that any "slip ramp" from Lenoir Drive could reasonably connect with existing Route 37. According to Kittelson & Associates, the construction of such a slip ramp would meet neither VDOT nor AAS14TO ' As noted, the ITE has abandoned Land Use Code 152 and now has four Codes for warehousing activities. LUC 150 remains "Warehouse," and LUC 154 is the High -Cube Transload and Short Term Storage Warehouse. In addition, there are two new subcategories. LUC 155 is a "High -Cube Fulfillment Center," a building that is defined as a High -Cube Transload Warehouse, but a fulfillment center warehouse includes structures "characterized by a significant storage function and direct distribution of ecommerce products to end -users. These facilities typically handle smaller packages and quantities than other types of HCWs and often contain multiple mezzanine levels." LUC 156 for a "High -Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse," is again defined as is a High -Cube Transload structure, but such a warehouse "typically serve[s] as regional and local freight -forwarder for time -sensitive shipments via air freight and ground carriers. These sites also often include truck maintenance, wash, or fueling facilities." Both LUC 155 and 156 generate as much as 5 to 6 times the traffic of LUCs 150 and 154. The Applicant does not intend to construct either such facility on the Subject Property. r� U • �J • Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 • Page 9 • • improvement is particularly important standards. due to the proposed development traffic that is being added to an already It is also the case that the Applicant neither overburdened network and particularly owns nor controls the right-of-way necessary intersections such as Route 1 1 and to complete any connection of Lenoir Drive to Welltown Road which the TIA clearly existing Route 37. demonstrates are/will be functioning below level of service C. Furthermore, this is an improvement the need for which is not generated by this project, but f which is more generally required by the public necessity and planning. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis submitted by Kittelson, the relevant intersections that were required to be studied are already functioning below LOS C, but at an acceptable level of service. I By 2020 Total Traffic Conditions, assuming the Applicant is permitted to industrial warehouse buildings totaling 820,000 square feet, with primary access via a single full - access driveway along Lenoir Drive are estimated to generate approximately 1,378 net new weekday daily trips, 90 weekday a.m. (62 in, 28 out), and 98 weekday p.m. (30 in, 68 out) peak hour trips. Under these conditions all study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during all study time periods under 2020 build out conditions. They are doing so at the present. By the 2026 Design Year all study intersections that currently operate at LOS D or better during all study time periods will continue to do so. This is with the exception of the US Route 11/I-81 Northbound Ramp Terminal/Redbud Road intersection during the weekday p.m. peak period. This connection is forecast to continue to operate at LOS E during the weekday p.m, peak hour. This drop in service, however, is due exclusively to background growth and not to this project. 0 0 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 10 Thus, based on the results of the analysis, with which VDOT agrees, no off -site transportation improvements are recommended. All study intersections are projected to continue to operate acceptably, assuming full build -out of the Stonewall IV development. Notwithstanding this, and in recognition of the County's continued insistence on the eventual viability of the slip ramps, the Applicant's engineer has relocated the entrance into the development off of Lenoir Drive so that it will not reclude the future construction of those ramps. by others, nor will it interfere with or impede or require the relocation of the easement that provides access to the Jenkins Parcel, 43A7.23. 3. ,route 37, Regarding the proffer for the The Applicant's engineer has compared the Route 37 right-of-way, I would suggest GDP with the Board's action of December 12, adding language in addition to being 2017, and has advised the Applicant that the consistent with the GDP that it is consistent area shown for dedication on the GDP matches with the Eastern Road Plan update adopted the area identified for the Proposed Route 37 by the Board of Supervisors on December interchange. 13, 2017. This way, if there is any unintentional disconnect between the GDP and what was adopted by the Board, the intent is clear. VDOT, March 9, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response VDOT Staunton District Planning performed a Acknowledged. review of the Stonewall IV Rezoning TIA completed by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. submitted on February 14, 2018. Overall, the methodology used for the analysis was found to be acceptable and no revisions are required. The comments below are offered as reference notes for minor issues we found. 0 0 9 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 • Page 11 • E ]. Typos were found on some of the lane Acknowledged. group level of service figures, where the LOS shown does not match the correctly reported LOS shown on the corresponding traffic conditions tables. 1 2. For future reference, please ensure Acknowledged. coordinated phases match the provided signal plans. For this corridor, all signals should be programmed with phases 2 and 6 as the coordinated phases. Only the Rt. H/Redbud Rd signal is currently programmed with only phase 2 as the coordinated phase. This does not appear to have a substantial impact for this TIA, so no revisions are required. 3 The Rt. I I/Redbud Rd eastbound left turn Acknowledged. was modeled with a 3 second lost time adjustment in both the AM and PM peak hours. VDOT requires that this setting be 0 for all movements. Since this setting degrades signal performance rather than improving it, no revisions arerequired. 4. The Rt. 11 /Redbud Rd eastbound and Acknowledged. westbound left turns are modeled with permissive- protected operation, but actually operate using flashing yellow arrows. The turn type for these movements should be programmed using the "Dallas permissive + protected" setting with the "Permitted Flashing Yellow" box checked. This does not appear to have a substantial impact for this TIA, so no revisions are required. 5. The TIA scoping form identifies ITE Land See the detailed and revised response to the Use Code 152, High -Cube Warehouse / Department of Transportation comments Distribution Center as the trip generation above. With the advent of the 10'h Edition of for the proposed rezoning development, the ITE Manual the situation has changed which was utilized in the technical analysis sufficiently that the Applicant's address of this of the study. However, Proffer 1.1, dated issue has changed so as to remove this as an 0 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 12 February 13, 2018 indicates the issue. development of the property will be limited to 820,000 square feet, used solely for warehousing and distribution. The High - Cube Warehouse / Distribution Land Use is much less intense in character than traditional warehouse / distribution uses, which have the potential to double the trip generation utilized in the traffic analysis of the study. VDOT District Planning recommends consideration of adjusting the proffer to identify the allowable use to be more in -line with the definition of Land Use Code 152 in the most current ITE Trip Generation Manual or limit the permitted daily trip generation of the site to 1,378 as specified in the TIA. 6. The 2035 Frederick County See the response to the Department of Comprehensive Plan Northeast Frederick Transportation comment above. Area Plan identifies a future transportation improvement of a ramp connection to Route 37 south from Lenoir Drive. The current layout of the site as illustrated on the GDP proposes the development entrance at the current termini of Lenoir Drive, which would be in conflict with the future improvement. VDOT District Planning would recommend adjustments to the layout of the site to be in conformance with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Department of Public Works, March 12, 2018 Agency Comment 1 Applicant Response A detailed review shall occur at the time of site Acknowledged. plan submission. • • 0 0 9 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 • Page 13 Department of Fire and Rescue, Office of the Fire Marshal, February 15, 261 • 0 Agency Commcnt Applicant Response Plan approval status = APPROVE Acknowledged. No comments. Frederick-Wincliester Service Autliority, February 19, 2018 Agency Comment -^ Applicant Response Capacity consideration deferred to Frederick Acknowledged, Water. Frederick Water, February 22, 2018 Agency Comment 1. The project parcels are located within the sewer and water service area (SWSA) and in an area presently served by Frederick Water. SWSA enables access to public water and sewer service by county policy. Location within the SWSA does not guarantee that sanitary sewer and water capacities are available to serve the property. 2. The rezoning application proffer states that the proposed use will be limited to a warehouse and distribution facility on no larger than 820,000 gross square feet. The impact analysis statement is silent of the proposed water and sewer demands. 3. Facilities for conveyance of water to, and sanitary sewer from, the subject properties do presently exist. Until the proposed uses' Applicant Response Acknowledged. These issues will be accommodated a final site plan. Comment noted. Proposed water and sewer demands are addressed in the revised Statement of Justification provided with this submission. It is impossible to project proposed demand for sewer and water usage until an end user is obtained but as noted below, warehousing facilities do not require much sewer or water service and the actual needs can be determined and accommodated at final site plan. Acknowledged. Warehousing facilities have minimal demand for sewer, and both sewer and water usage will be determined when an end 9 0 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 14 projected water and sewer demands are user is obtained. known, it is unknown if the existing conveyance network has the capacity to accommodate the projected demands. 4. The proffer statement is silent on Acknowledged. These are matters that will be improvements that would be constructed by determined at final site plan, as the Authority the Applicant to meet water and sanitary recognizes. sewer demands. Accordingly, the comments offered herein are general in nature. The ultimate decision regarding the ability to serve the property with adequate water and sanitary sewer will be determined at the time the site's use is determined, conveyance facilities are constructed, and water and sewer connection fees are paid to Frederick Water. Sanitary sewer system capacity is not reserved until the sewer connection fee is paid to Frederick Water, and physical connection to the system is made. 5. Water and sanitary sewers are to be Acknowledged, constructed in accordance with the FCSA standards specifications. Dedicated easements may be required and based on the layout vehicular access will need to be incorporated into the final design. 6. Please be aware that the FCSA is offering Acknowledged. these review comments without benefit of knowledge of the projected water and sewer demands of the site. Department of Parks and Recreation, February 16, 2018 Agency Comment I Applicant Response This application appears to meet Parks and Acknowledged, Recreation requirements. 0 �J 9 • • 0 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 15 Historic Resources Board, March 28, 2018 j Agency Comment — hlie Virginia Department of Historic Resources identifies one mapped property located on the subject property DHR 4034-1099 - Glengary. This structure is potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. After reviewing this information and (lie Applicant's materials and proposals, the Iistoric Resources Advisory Board (FIRAB) recommended approval of the Rezoning with the following: Applicant perform a (listoric Americpin Building Survey (I -TABS) - Standard III for the Glengary site. Institute protocols for the demolishment of Glengary to ensure preservation and/or documentation of historical .features. Applicant Response --- ----- The Applicant has proffered to preparal. NABS level III for the residential structure located on the subject property. This has been I addressed in the Proffer Statement. Once you have had an opportunity to review the application together with the supporting documents, please contact my office if you require additional information UT Enclosures: As stated Sincerely, WALSH, COLUCCI, LUBELEY & WALSH, P.C. Marian B. Harders, AICP, LEED AP FREDERICK WAFER 315 Tasker Road PH (540) 868-1061 Eric R. Lawrence Stephens City, Virginia 22655 Fax (540) 068.1429 Executive Director www.FrederickWater;com February 22, 2018 Marian B. Harders Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh PC 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Woodbridge, Virginia 22192 RE: Rezoning Application Comment Stonewall IV Rezoning Application • Tax Map Number: 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24 88.91 acres Dear Ms. Harders: Thank you for the opportunity to offer review comments on the Stonewall IV rezoning application package, with a draft proffer statement and Impact Analysis Statement dated February 13, 2018. Frederick Water offers comments limited to the anticipated impact/effect upon Frederick Water's public water and sanitary sewer system and the demands thereon. The project parcels are located within the sewer and water service area (SWSA) and in an area presently served by Frederick Water. SWSA enables access to public water and sewer service by county policy. Location within the SWSA does not guarantee that sanitary sewer and water capacities are available to serve the property. The rezoning application proffer states that the proposed use will be limited to a warehouse and distribution facility on no larger than 820,000 gross square feet, The impact analysis statement Is silent of the proposed water and sewer demands. Facilities for conveyance of water to, and sanitary sewer from, the subject properties do presently exist. Until the proposed uses' projected water and sewer demands are known, it is lh •5111111J, ANNIVERSARY Water At Your Service xp=mk Page 2 Stonewall IV rezoning application Marian Harders February 22, 2018 unknown if the existing conveyance network has the capacity to accommodate the projected demands. The proffer statement is silent on improvements that would be constructed by the applicant to meet water and sanitary sewer demands. Accordingly, the comments offered herein are general in nature. The ultimate decision regarding the ability to serve the property with adequate water and sanitary sewer will be determined at the time the site's use is determined, conveyance facilities are constructed, and water and sewer connection fees are paid to Frederick Water. Sanitary sewer system capacity is not reserved until the sewer connection fee is paid to Frederick Water, and physical connection to the system is made. Water and sanitary sewers are to be constructed in accordance with the FCSA standards specifications. Dedicated easements may be required and based on the layout vehicular access will need to be incorporated into the final design. Please be aware that the FCSA is offering these review comments without benefit of knowledge of the projected water and sewer demands of the site. Thank you for the opportunity to offer review comments. Sincerel sq r Eric R. Lawrence Executive Director Cc; Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, County Planning Department Dick Helm, Frederick -Winchester Service Authority • • C� COUNTY of'FREDERICK Department o1' Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 March 19, 2018 Ms. Marian Harders Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh, PC 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Woodbridge, Virginia 22192 RE: Proposed Rezoning for Stonewall IV Property Identification Numbers (PINs): 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4, 43-A-24 Dear Ms. Harders: I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Stonewall ]V site. This application seeks to rezone four properties totaling 88.91 from the RA (Rural • Areas) District to the M 1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. This review is generally based upon the proffer statement submitted on February 13, 2018. Prior to formal submission to the County, please ensure that these comments and all review agency comments are adequately addressed. At a minimum, a letter describing how each of the agencies and their- comments have been addressed should be included as part of the submission. Northeast Land Use Plan — Land Use. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Land Use Plan provide guidance on the future development of the property. The property is located within the SWSA. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan identifies these properties with an industrial land use designation. The proposed M1 "Zoning is generally consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan as it relates to this area. The land use plan depicts future Route 37 on the western boundary of the properties and access to Route 37 from Lenoir Drive. The application fully addresses future Route 37 through the property; however, the access to Route 37 is not acknowledged in the impact statement or the proffers. 2. Generalized Development. The GDP should be revised to remove all buildings, the GDP should be more general and show the property, proffered improvements, access and buffers. The GDP should also be reduced to 11 x17 or 8 'h x 11. 3. Proffer 1 — Development and Use of the Property. 0 Page 2 • Ms. Marian Harders RE: Stonewall IV March 19, 2018 a. Proffer 1.1 states that two buildings will be constructed, given there is a gross square footage cap, it appears the requirement for two structures may not be necessary. Also, consider eliminating use limitation for warehousing and distribution. 4. Proffer 3 - Utilities. Proffer 3.1 requires the use of public water and sewer and the construction of improvements to provide such service. This proffer should be removed as it is already required. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. 5. Proffer 4 — Stormwater Management/Environment. Stormwater management is a site development requirement. Existing County requirements should be removed. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. 6. Proffer 6 — Lighting. Building mounted and pole mounted lighting and the use of downcast full cutoff fixtures are required by the Zoning Ordinance. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. • 7. Access Easement. The access easement to parcel 43-A-23 does not align with the proposed access to the subject properties off Lenoir Drive. Provide clarification on the location of these two entrance points. Staff recommends that the applicant work with the residential property to relocate the access easement to align with the new entrance proposed on Lenoir Drive. This is also the general location of the future connection to existing Route 37 identified in the Comprehensive Plan (see comment 1). 8. Transportation Comments. Please note that the transportation comments on the rezoning application from John Bishop, Assistant Director - Transportation, are being provided to you in a separate letter. Staff may also provide additional comments related to the proposed changes if warranted subject to adjustments requested by VDOT. 9. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshal, Frederick Water, Virginia Department of Health, the County Attorney, the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority. 0 0 L� Page 3 Ms. Marian Handers RE: Stonewall 1V March 19, 2018 l0. Fees. Based on the fees adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 23, 2008, the rezoning fee for this application would be $18,891.00 based upon acreage of 88.91 acres. All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins, A1CP, CZAS Assistant Director CEP/pd • 0 COUNTY of hREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 l-ax: 540/ 665-6395 March 28, 2018 Ms. Marian Harders Walsh Colucei Lubeley & Walsh, PC 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Woodbridge, Virginia 22192 RE: Proposed Rezoning for Stonewall IV Property IdentiCcation Numbers (PINS): 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24 Dear Ms. Harders: Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Stonewall IV rezoning. This application seeks to rezone four properties totaling 88.91 from the RA • (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. This review is based upon the proffer statement submitted on February 13, 2018. Traffic Study — Land Use. The traffic study uses 820,000 sq. ft. of high cube warehouse. This results in daily trips of 1,378. This trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse worst case scenario of uses that could potentially populate this property under the MI Zoning District and your proffer statement as currently written. Specifically, the trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse distribution trip generation. While proffer 1.1 does limit the property use to warehouse and distribution, it does not make the distinction of high cube. This is a significant discrepancy impacting the veracity of the Traffic Impact Analysis. This is most easily addressed with a clarification within the proffer statement. 2. Comprehensive Plan- Eastern Road Plan. The Eastern Road Plan portion of the County Comprehensive plan calls for ramp access from Lenoir Drive to Route 37. The site layout and proffers, as currently submitted, does not allow for this future connection to take place. This is an important connection that, when constructed, offers significant positive traffic impacts to the surrounding area and this site. Participating in this improvement is particularly important due to the proposed development traffic that is being added to an already overburdened network and particularly intersections such as Route 1 I and Welltown Road which the TIA • clearly demonstrates are/will be functioning below level of service C. 0 Page 2 • Ms. Marian Harders RE: Stonewall IV March 28, 2018 3. Route 37. Regarding the proffer for the Route 37 right-of-way, I would suggest adding language in addition to being consistent with the GDP that it is consistent with the Eastern Road Plan update adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 13, 2017. This way, if there is any unintentional disconnect between the GDP and what was adopted by the Board, the intent is clear. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to review this application. Please feel free to contact me with questions or concerns. Sincerely / f John A. Bishop, Al Assistant Director — Transportation Frederick County Department of Planning and Development cc: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Director of Planning and Development Candice Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director of Planning and Development E • 0 • REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff.- Fee Amount Paid Zoning Amendment Number _ Date Received 19 PC Hearing Date BOS Hearing Date The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Corn missioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. Address: 3200 Center Square West, 1500 Market Street Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19102 Telephone: 215.575.2352 2. Property Owner (if different than above): Name: Cheryl G. Morris Telephone; Address: PO Box 2802 inc ester, A T26G4 3. Contact person if other than above: John Foote, Esq. Name: c/o Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh Telephone: 703.680.4664 4. Property Information: a. Property Identification Nurnber(s): 43 A 21, 43 A 21B, 43 19 4 and 43 A 24 b. Total acreage to be rezoned: _ 88.91 Acres C. Total acreage of the parcel(s) to be rezoned (if the entirety of the parcel(s) is not being rezoned): n/a d_ Current zoning designation(s) and acreage(s) in each designation: RA 88.91 Acres C. Proposed zoning designation(s) and acreage(s) in each designation: M-1 88.91 Acres f. Magisterial District(s): Stonewall Magisterial District 12 E 0 0 5. Checklist: Check the following items, that have been included with this application. Location map _ ®� Agency Comments _ Plat Fees Y Deed to property ®T Impact Analysis Statement ^' �� 0 Verification of taxes paid L�4,", Proffer Statement ®' Plat depicting exact meets and bounds for the proposed zoning district Digital copies (pdf's) of all submitted documents, maps and exhibits Concept Plan 6. The Code of Viryin o 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; Cheryl G. Morris 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING (See attached adjoining property owner list.) S. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): The property is located at the southern terminus of Lenoir Drive (Rt F-732). 13 0 0 0 9. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: 'Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi -Family: Non -Residential Lots:. Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Souttrc Pooutve of Proposed Uses Office: _ Set -vice Station: Retail: Manufacturing: _ Restaurant: Warehouse: 820,000 tiff Commercial: Other: 10. 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. 1 (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Lytuus Capital Partners, Ltd 2- I I� -� Applicant(s): R �j_ Date: N acr TictC:- ^1y •P Date: Owner(s): t^.c r. �. `��J �lr'w�.i`�J Date: Cheryl G:- orris, sole sur ,iving tenant by the entirety Date: 14 E 0 • • l 0- Z)- 16 0 n-P\L[ ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Property Identification Number Address Name JPD Properties LLC c/o Fred Druna el PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property # 43 A 19 Name Kathryn and James Parker 394 Paris Heights Lane Paris, VA 20130 Property # 43 A 16 Name Lenoir City Co of VA PO Box 1657 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 43 19 64 Name Muldowney-Tiches Associates 1 LTD LLP c/o Oldca. de 331 Newman Springs Rd, Ste 236 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Property # 43 19 43 NameMuldowney-Tiches Associates I LTD LLP c/o Oldcas le 331 Newman Springs Rd, Ste 236 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Property # 43 19 37 Name Grafton School, Inc. PO Box 2500 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 43 19 42 Name 1818 Robert LC 1816 Roberts St. Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43 19 7 Name Cambridge Financial Services LC 1816 Roberts St. Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43 A 26B NameBrowning-Ferris Industries c/o Republic Service 7'ax Dept PO Box 29246 Phoenix, AZ 85038 Property # 43 A 26A 15 0 0 Name and Property Identification Number Address Name Browning -Ferris Industries -c/o Republic Services T Dept PO Box 29246 Phoenix, AZ 85038 Property # 43 A. 21 A Name Oscar and Opal Jenkins 425 Lenoir Drive Winchester, VA 22603 Property #!_ 43 A 23 Name Marshall Mills, Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 201-88 Property 1/ 43 8 3 39 Name Marshall Mills, Inc- c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property 4 43 8 3 40 Name. Marshall Mills, Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton; VA 20188 Property 4 43 8 3 41 Name Marshall Mills, Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property # 43 8 3 42 Name Marshall Mills Inc,,.c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property 4 43 8 3 43 Name'_ Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. PO Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 43 A 25 Name— Cives Corporation PO Box 2778 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 43 A 55A Name Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. PO Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 i # 43 A 22 Name Property 4 Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # 16 0 0 1�1 0 • REZONING API'LICATION #01-18 4lCK ; COG STONEWALL IV Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: July 5, 2018 w Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director John Bishop, AICP, Assistant Director — Transportation ua Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 06/06/18 Public Hearing Held; Postponed 45 Days Planning Commission: 07/18/18 Pending Board of Supervisors: 07/25/ 18 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 88.91 +/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M 1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. LOCATION: The subject properties are located at the southern terminus of Lenoir Drive (Route F-732). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 07/18/18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This is an application to rezone a total of 88.91+/- acres of land to the MI (Light Industrial) District with proffers. The site is located within the limits of the Northeast Land Use Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and depicts the subject properties with an industrial land use designation. The proposed M l Zoning is generally consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan as it relates to this area. The properties are also located within the limits of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). This item was postponed by the Planning Commission for 45 days to provide the Applicant additional time to address transportation coiiCCI-IIS. Since the June 6, 2018 meeting, the Applicant has provided revised proffers that seeks to address these concerns. The proffers associated with this rezoning request are as follows; Staff has provided comments regarding concerns associated with this request: Proffer Statement — Dated April 25, 2018, revised June 6, 2018; June 28, 2018: 1. Development and use of the property: 1.1. Development of the property shall be limited to the construction of not more than 820,000 gross square feet and solely used for warehousing or high cube transload and short -tern) storage. 1.2. The development of the property shall be in general conformance with the GDP. 1.3. The maximum height of each building shall be 60'. 2. Transportation: 2.1. Within 90 calendar days of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall dedicate approximately 17.05 acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, as depicted on the GDP, for the future Route 37 bypass. 2.2. Access to the Property shall be as shown on the GDP. Provided that access to the buildable area of the Property is not impeded or eliminated, the Applicant shall not place above grade Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV July 5, 2018 Page 2 improvements on the southeast corner of the Property near the terminus of Lenoir Drive in such a way as to preclude the construction of proposed slip ramps that are currently depicted on the graphic entitled "Eastern Road Plan — Lenoir Drive Slip Ramp Clarification," created by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, dated October 17, 2017, and attached hereto for reference. The southeast conger of the Property is subject to existing easements and/or covenants of record, as of June 6, 2018. 2.3. Within 90 calendar days of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall further dedicate such right-of-way as it may own at the terminus of Lenoir Drive for the purpose of construction of access to existing Route 37 as described in Proffer 2.2 above. 2.4. The Applicant shall contribute up to $250,000 to the County for the purpose of planning additional access to Stonewall Industrial Park. It shall make such contribution at the rate of $0.30 per gross square foot of building ultimately constructed, to be paid upon issuance of an occupancy permit for any such building or buildings. 3. Fire and Rescue: 3.1. The Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County $0.10 per gross square foot of construction as depicted on each site plan, to be used for fire and rescue purposes in the general area. 4. Cultural Resources: 4.1. The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional architectural historian to perform a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) — Standard Level III as defined by the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Prograrn on the residential building and its associated architectural buildings on the property. 4.2. The Applicant, working with a qualified professional architectural historian, shall inspect prior to demolition the non -heated areas of the residential building for the presence of partially hidden or obstructed historic artifacts or material. 5. Escalator: 5.1. In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the proffer statement are paid to Frederick County within 18 months after final approval of this rezoning, said contributions shall be in the amounts stated. Any monetary contributions which are paid after 18 months following final approval shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). A recommendation re-arding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The Applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV July 5, 2018 Page 3 This report is prepared 1J1, the Frederick Comity Planning Staffto to provide fJOrniatlon t0 the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also he usef d to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are Noted hj� staff )vhei-e relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 06/06/18 Public Hearing Held; Postponed 45 Days PlanningT Commission: 07/18/18 Pending Board of Supervisors: 07/25/18 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 88.91 A-/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M I (Light Industrial) District with proffers. LOCATION: The subject properties are located at the southern terminus of Lenoir Drive (Route F-732). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43-A-21, 43-A-21 B, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District PRESENT USE: Residential and Agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY "ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: M 1 (Light huiustrial) District RA (Rural Areas) District South: RA (Rural Areas) District East: M 1 (Light Industrial) District West: RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Industrial Residential/Vacant Use: Residential/Route 37 Use: hndustrial Use: Residential/Vacant Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV July 5, 2018 Page 4 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The Frederick County Transportation Chapter and Northeast Frederick Area Plan of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the extension of Lenoir Drive as an on -ramp to Route 37 west as a future transportation improvement. While the Generalized Development Plan has been revised to locate the future development entrance in a manner that is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan improvement, VDOT strongly recommends Frederick County request right-of-way dedication on the subject property to accommodate the future improvement and the rezoning documents updated accordingly. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: Capacity consideration deferred to Frederick Water. Frederick Water : Please see letter firoin Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Executive Director dated Februaiy 22, 2018. Frederick County Department of Public Works: A detailed review shall occur at the time of site plan submission. Frederick County Fire Marshall: Plan approved. Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation: The application appears to meet Parks and Recreation requirements. Plannin14 & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject properties as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General) District. The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. 2) Comprehensive Plan The 2035 Comprehensive Plan is the guide for the future growth of Frederick County. The 2035 Comprehensive 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. The Area Plans, Appendix I of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, are the primary implementation tool and will be instrumental to the future planning efforts of the County. Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV July 5, 2018 Page 5 Land Use The Northeast Land Use Plan ofthc 2035 Comprehensive Plan identifies these properties Nvith an industrial land use designation. The proposed M 1 Zoning District is generally consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan as it relates to this area. The land use plan depicts future Route 37 on the western boundary of the properties and access to Route 37 fi-om Lenoir Drive via a slip ramp. 3) Potential Impacts Transportation and Stle Access Access to the site will be via Lenoir Drive. The Applicant has proffered to dedicate right-of- way for Route 37 and right -of way for the Route 37 slip ramp. The Applicant has also proffered to contribute $0.30 per gross square foot of building area for the planning of this access. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was conducted on the subject development. Studied intersections were as follows: Lenoir Drive at McGhee, McGhee at Welltown Road, Welltown Road at Route 11, Route I 1 at the Southbound Exit 317 Ramps, Route 1 1 at the Northbound Exit 317 exit ramp, and Route I I at the Northbound Exit 317 entrance ramp and Redbud Road. According to the TIA, which has been accepted by VDOT, the build out level of service at the studied intersections was maintained from the current level of service with the left turn onto the Exit 317 Northbound entrance ramp. This movement is degraded from a level of service C to level of service D. This is unable to be alleviated due to physical restrictions of the site. E'nyir0nmenl The site is relatively flat, with the highest points situated near the center of the site and near Route 37. Redbud Run courses generally along the northern/northeast property boundary. The site contains floodplain for Redbud Run. Historical The Virginia Department of Historic Resources identifies one mapped property located on the subject property DHR #034-1099 - Glengary. This structure is potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (I-IRAB) considered the rezoning application at their meeting on March 27, 2018. The HRAB requested that the Applicant perform a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) — Standard Level III for the Glengary site and Institute protocols for the demolishment of Glengary to ensure preservation and/or documentation of historical features. The Applicant has addressed the I-IRAB's comments in their proffer statement. 4) Proffer Statement — Dated April 25, 2018, revised June 6, 2018; June 28, 2018: 1. Development and use of the property: 1.1. Development of the property shall be Iimited to the construction of not more than 820,000 gross square feet and solely used for warehousing or high cube transload and short-term storage. 1.2. The development of the property shall be in general conformance with the GDP. Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV July 5, 2018 Page 6 1.3. The maximum height of each building shall be 60'. 2. Transportation: 2.1. Within 90 calendar days of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall dedicate approximately 17.05 acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, as depicted on the GDP, for the future Route 37 bypass. 2.2. Access to the Property shall be as shown on the GDP. Provided that access to the buildable area of the Property is not impeded or eliminated, the Applicant shall not place above grade improvements on the southeast corner of the Property near the terminus of Lenoir Drive in such a way as to preclude the construction of proposed slip ramps that are currently depicted on the graphic entitled "Eastern Road Plan — Lenoir Drive Slip Ramp Clarification," created by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, dated October 17, 2017, and attached hereto for reference. The southeast corner of the Property is subject to existing easements and/or covenants of record, as of June 6, 2018. 2.3. Within 90 calendar days of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall further dedicate such right-of-way as it may own at the terminus of Lenoir Drive for the purpose of construction of access to existing Route 37 as described in Proffer 2.2 above. 2.4. The Applicant shall contribute up to $250,000 to the County for the purpose of planning additional access to Stonewall Industrial Park. It shall make such contribution at the rate of $0.30 per gross square foot of building ultimately constructed, to be paid upon issuance of an occupancy permit for any such building or buildings. 3. Fire and Rescue: 3.1. The Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County $0.10 per gross square foot of construction as depicted on each site plan, to be used for fire and rescue purposes in the general area. 4. Cultural Resources: 4.1. The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional architectural historian to perform a Historic American Building Survey (NABS) — Standard Level III as defined by the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program on the residential building and its associated architectural buildings on the property. 4.2. The Applicant, working with a qualified professional architectural historian, shall inspect prior to demolition the non -heated areas of the residential building for the presence of partially hidden or obstructed historic artifacts or material. 5. Escalator: 5.1. In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the proffer statement are paid to Frederick County within 18 months after final approval of this rezoning, said contributions shall be in the amounts stated. Any monetary contributions which are paid after 18 months following final approval shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). 0 • Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV July 5, 2018 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION FROM THE 06/06/18 MEETING: Staff provided an overview of the request and noted that a revised proffer statement was provided prior to the meeting. Mr. John Foote of Walsh COIUCCI Lubeley & Walsh PC, representing the Applicant provided an overview of their proposal. Mr. Foote presented diagrams that showed the slip ramp. Mr. Foote noted the entrance to the property was adjusted after discussion with Staff regarding tile slip ramps. Mr. Foote provided an aerial map of the property and the surrounding area. He presented an overview of the property and its owners. Mr. Foote shared a Summary of the proposed warehousing and the traffic this will generate. Mr. Foote presented the ramp design and noted the right-of-way for this design for the Route 37 bypass will be dedicated to the County at no cost when written request from the County is received. Mr. Foote mentioned the Historic Resources review, that is consistent with a specific recommendation made by the I-IRAB with which the Applicant is in concurrence. He C0I1ClUded, the Applicant IS seeking a lavorabic reconimc 1Clatlon to let Stonewall IV C011Stl'llct 820,000 SF of low impact warehouse in an industrial area planned for that purpose that is an extension of an industrial park in which it already has three buildings that have been constructed over the last several years and would like to do more. A Commission Member requested clarification, there is no access to Route 37 from this property. Mr. Foote noted that is correct. Two citizens spoke during the public hearing and expressed concerns over the access to the property and existing transportation concerns on Welltown Road and Martinsburg Pike. A Commission Member inquired regarding VDOT's comments, lie did not read where VDOT has sensitivity to the traffic problems being brought forth, is there a study taking place that could alleviate the issue. Staff explained there is ongoing work; the traffic study was done and there was not a lot for VDOT to grasp, it was a TIA that was not required under Chapter 527 however, the County required it because of not being comfortable bringing this rezoning forward without even looking at the traffic. He continued, the slip ramp has been on the Comprehensive Plan for some time; during the last I.OUnd Of SmartScale the Transportation Committee was reviewing this vigorously however, updates to the SmartScale requirements hindered this in the terms of a specific study that was now required; since that time this has been put into place through the MPO specifically an interchange justification report. A Commission Member asked is the SmartScale application a very lengthy process. Staff replied yes, for example; the applications being submitted August 1, 2018 have been in process since last summer; the next cycle of applications will start being prepared immediately after submission of tliese. A motion was made, seconded, and passed to recommend postponement for 45 days. Yes: Marston, Ambrogi, Cline, Kenney, Triplett, Wilmot No: Dawson, Thomas (Note: Commissioners Mohn, Manuel, Molden, and Unger were absent from the meeting.) Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV July 5, 2018 Page 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 07/18/18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This is an application to rezone a total of 88.91+/- acres of land to the M 1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. The site is located within the limits of the Northeast Land Use Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and depicts the subject properties with an industrial land use designation. The proposed M 1 Zoning is generally consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan as it relates to this area. The properties are also located within the limits of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). This item was postponed by the Planning Commission for 45 days to provide the Applicant additional time to address transportation concerns. Since the June 6, 2018 meeting, the Applicant has provided revised proffers that seeks to address these concerns. A recommendation regarding this rezonin,- application to the Board ofSupernisors would be appropriate. The Applicant should be prepared to adequate& address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Transportation Frederick County, Virginia December 2017 • • Transportation Impact Analysis Stonewall IV Frederick County, Virginia Prepared For: Prepared By: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 1850 Centennial Park Drive, Suite 130 Reston, Virginia 20191 (703)885-8970 Project Manager: Chris Tiesler, PE Project Principal: John Callow Project Analysts: Kylie Caviness Project No. 21652.00 December 2017 TN OF Y RISTOPHER B. TIESLEF Lie. No. 47441 �ONA1, Christopher B Tiesler Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Traffic Engineer • • Stonewall IV Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUK/11VIARY December 2017 A traffic operations analysis has been conducted to confirm that the transportation system can adequately support the proposed Stonewall IV development, in fulfillment of Frederick County and Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) requirements for traffic impact studies. The scope of the project analysis was developed in collaboration with County and VDOT staff. Specifically, this analysis includes: ■ Year 2016 existing land use and transportation system conditions within the site vicinity; ■ Forecast year 2020 background traffic conditions (without site development) during the weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak periods including in-process/approved developments and regional growth; ■ Trip generation and distribution estimates for the proposed development; ■ Forecast year 2020 total traffic conditions based on full build out of the development including queuing; ■ Design year 2026 total traffic conditions based on full build out of the development; and, ■ Conclusions and recommendations. Based on the results of the transportation impact analysis, the transportation system can adequately support the proposed development assuming provision of the recommended mitigations. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS FINDINGS The findings of this analysis and our recommendations are discussed below. Existing Conditions ■ As scoped, the existing conditions analysis reflects completion of the on -going Martinsburg Pike/Welltown Road Improvements (VDOT Project # 0011-034-1167, C501; 0661-034-799, M501; UPC 100547 / 94847). ■ All study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during all time periods. 2020 Background Traffic Conditions ■ A one percent annual growth rate (compounded annually) was used to account for regional traffic growth. ■ Traffic associated with the following in -process developments within the study area was included as background traffic: o Rutherford Crossing o Graystone I.P. o Amoco Lane Property Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2 0 • Stonewall IV December 2017 Executive Summary o Snowden Bridge developments. ■ All study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at LOS D or better during all time periods. 2020 Total Traffic Conditions ■ Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. is applying for a rezoning to allow the development of two industrial warehouse buildings, totaling 820,000 square feet. The site is located southwest of Frontage Road 732 (Lenoir Drive), in the northwest quadrant of the interchange at Interstate 81 and Route 37/US 11 in Frederick County, Virginia. ■ Primary access to the site is proposed via a single full -access driveway along Lenoir Drive. ■ The development is estimated to generate approximately 1,378 net new weekday daily trips, 90 weekday a.m. (62 in, 28 out), and 98 weekday p.m. (30 in, 68 out) peak hour trips. ■ All study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during all study time periods under 2020 build out conditions. 2026 Design Year Conditions ■ All study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during all study time periods, with the exception of the US Route 11/1-81 Northbound Ramp Terminal/Redbud Road intersection during the weekday p.m. peak period. o The US Route 11/1-81 Northbound Ramp Terminal intersection is forecast to continue to operate at LOS E during the weekday p.m. peak hour. This drop is LOS is due exclusively to background growth. CONSi-US1ON Based on the results of the analysis, no off -site transportation improvements are recommended. All study intersections are projected to continue to operate acceptably assuming full build -out of the Stonewall IV development. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 3 C, J Sfnnewo///V • December 2017 �- Study Intersections v 0- Future Study Intersections Site Vicinity Map Figure Frederick County, Virginia 1 Sronewoll Iv I II ez r I I � / \ I 1 \ IDO-YR FLOODPLAIN \ N 1 \ i U' / \� /to\ 1 0 O / \� > j w 8 o CK COURT _LFT. �Oma LO LL ED 369,000 SQ.DING00') ARKING \ 11111-w - w w iXI I I =11-a N F.ti ASSO, % IATES C7 i Z U Ir mN O 02 w rev w w vc: ow Z m'arvv O L9 wWyO�I iiU Z u=in.. W �U04 w 3x LLt U i° e D � w 1 Ij ! �l ! GRAPHIC SCALE I IN FEET) 1 Wxh - 300II. U m 2 December 2017 1 N r Z g ww U O U LLJ Cr a 1n R Of 2 SHEET NUMBER: CP-8 Conceptual Site Plan Figure Developed by Dice Engineering, PLC (07/20/2017) 2 Frederick County, Virginia J i SIOMWOl lV Futile RT 37 I`..•�2 Uqr De.efepnom wee CD NMA _ A}pweM TM P"m Ini.e e1 (NelrlI I I lb n MI-11 62 (Ganer.l Mma Dw.al � (IrAni�N T/entll^n DbPICI 4W E.M MMV.A" ManAsamvn DUial 4W HE (K hW Cd emb.- Dmn11 — u( (LVN YdNW Dnxncl) M7 Vr4u &,mI Gwwml D(aelct) _ MHt (Monte Home Canlnmer neee*1 ray (wo em s vw OIVIMI Ou (Office mamtackr" Ve'.) i1 Ra (g hMul PI.,*d C..—.WV N — RS (Refs Reoeefrmal ;pie I RA(RUM w..e OW&MI RP IResd—wl Cw ,Kll Agrlcunvnll 3 ►oresW Districts A 0" Pi. Rdg. ARm 40W SmM 7-.bm Range ♦_'% 6nun F,wmmo Drrla _ (k^aM (.a Ole.a — R.4fa �. rice^ SDnng • I eta l\rAw//I.n \alwa.l I wr.l * - SITE Dr—ter7017 Figure Zoning Map Fi s Frederick County, Virginia 3 LJ onewa//7V December 1017 861 81 oP z 863 ACC JESSICA LN � w 0� F-732 Al 862 F•732 C'�� TG OQ' C 661 �� SITE 839 o�� V� q� o� PAC71V O<ti Y 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 22 11 O © © DE cJ E> � '�B -V A B � C � �— C l�l C i' ii�� 1l r E AL a' B A E 3 t ® AE A _ _ B A A y ~ A ~ A A r Y 0 D D E t E e c h: -STOP SIGN Existing Lane Group Level of Service Figure -TRAFFIC SIGNAL Weekday AM Peak Hour 6 Frederick County, Virginia Y )newoll lV December 1017 1� 861 � 81 pP 2 863 �CCy�� Q- JESSICq LN i_ F•732 Al 862 F•732 Ceti TG O� 661 SITE 839 O��O 0 PAC! IV 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS' 11 0 v O © © E E 0 f E ,r C A C '_' _ �-- C C`E IYW AL `1 ? S; n © A E t �j. r� O © O AE :. A y A C�B A y A A y 1!f r-- G {!J A r C l� A LL!!11 r C tw Y D E E a n i -STOP SIGN Existing Lane Group Level of Service Figure - TRAFFIC SIGNAL Weekday PM Peak Hour 7 Frederick County, Virginia • Stonewall IV Existing Conditions December 2017 Table 2 Existing Conditions -Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service, 951h Percentile Back of Queue, and Delay for Each Lane Group by Intersection 3111�1.fa9'�Y.'il} irflJf.al{I.X!.j) �r5:-�f7'%ll} .. i}f-iit.aCJ.t!Irl } :}j fL;j�4 ? �.S#7,� tTrv4 14 -,_x {`li Wyk ,jy•. ,,. Lenoir Drive & McGhee Road (R1) Unsignalized E8 EBTR 0.0 0.0 EB Approach 0.0 0.0 ws WBLT A <25 1.7 A <25 3.0 WA Approach A1 7 A 3.0 NO I NBLR B <25 11.1 8 50 24.4 NO Approach A 11.1 B 14.4 McGhee Road & WelltownRoad& Amoco Lane (N2) Unsignalized EB EBL C <25 1 22.5 ir -81 <25 12.4 EBR B 25 12.5 8 50 12.2 EB Approach B 112.6 B 12.2 NO N8L A 50 9.4 A <25 8.2 NOT 0.0 0.0 NO Approach 7,2 15 SO F SBLTR 0.0 0.0 SB Approach 0.0 0.0 Welltown Road & US-11 (U) Signalized EB EBL E 325 67.6 E 250 73.8 EBTR c 375 21.9 c 500 24.2 EB Approach C 28.9 C 29:3 WB WBL E 75 76.3 E 75 60.7 WBT c 375 26.7 C 325 22.5 WBR B 50 15.6 c 50 20.4 WS Approach c . 26.2 C 23.2 NO NBLTR E 100 63.8 E 150 67.9 NO Approach E 63.8 E 67.9 SS SBL E 125 58.6 E 150 62.1 SBTR D 100 53.2 E 100 56.3 SO Approach E 55.5 E 59.0 Overall C 321 C 32 7 US-11 & 1-81 Southbound On/ON Ramps (q4) Signalized EB EBT A 75 4.2 A 225 4.3 EBR 175 0.0 50 EB Approach A 4.2 A 4.3 WB WBL w8T A <25 3.4 A 100 5.3 A <25 1.8 A <25 1.7 WA A proach A 2.1 A 2.2 SO SBLT F 75 81.7 F 75 85.9 SBR 0 0.0 <25 0.0 5B Approach F 81.7 F 85.9 Overall A 44 A 4.3 U5-11 & 1-81 Northbound Off Ramps (N5) Signalized EB I EBT A 25 3.6 B 275 11.4 EB Approach A 3,6 B 11.4 W B WBT A <25 1.6 C 75 27.7 WE Approach A 1.5 c 27.7 NO NBL D 250 54.3 D 275 51.7 NOR D 175 46.3 E 300 63.0 _NB proach D 51.7 D 55 8 Overall B 17.2 c 28.3 US-11 & 1.81 Northbound On Ramps & Redbud Road (#6) Signalized EB EBL A 100 1 2.0 IF A 325 6.3 EBT D 75 41.7 c 125 29.1 EBR C <25 28.1 B <25 15.0 EB Approach C 29.3 c 21.9 w8 W8L B <25 12.8 c <25 28.9 WBT E 200 56.1 E 375 60.1 WBR D <25 37.5 D <25 42.4 WBApproach D 54.2 E 573 NO NBLTR E <25 76.0 E 200 76.4 NO Approach E 76.0 E 76.4 Overall D 40.6 0 36.6 *The W indicates 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer and the queue shown is the maximum after two cycles. The'm' indicates the volume for the 95'h percentile queue is metered by the upstream signal. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 16 • nnewo///V December 1017 1\ 861 � 81 pP z 863 �CCS �Q- JESSICA L1v 'q_ Uj v F-732 862 F-732 TG O� 661 SITE py��,o 839 O PACTIV 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 0T' c �► © © E 11D 4 c1 E1 '`c r CN, r E 1 � o` B A E 4 V1 O O AE ---► j{{��jjjr 1!j �— BA A A (A E C re ti DOE E i' C e �- -STOP SIGN 2020 Background Lane Group Level of Service Figure Z -TRAFFIC SIGNAL Weekday AM Peak Hour 10 Frederick County, Virginia mewo///V December2017 861 a $1 OIQ P 863 �CCyF JESSICq LN O Q-PQ- �y0 F-732 862 F-732 TG 661 SITE O� 839 � D O�� O CO PACTIV Wy 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 O © © EE 8 E J� ~ C �+ +� A B: Cy C 4 B A E 9 V O AE A-► 1i1 A C C C A y iiF ~ A B y C c A 111!ll�� f o f w a 0 E E T 6 -STOP SIGN 2020 Background Lane Group Level of Service Figure 1; 1 i - TRAFFIC SIGNAL Weekday PM Peak Hour 11 Frederick County, Virginia 0 • Stonewall IV Transportation Impact Analysis December 2017 Table 3 2020 Background Traffic Conditions - Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service, 95th Percentile Back of Queue, and Delay for Each Lane Group by Intersection rn�-lif�i?t�f�)hlf•rr�fur•,�t -- :;,r��►��t�,r��r • iai;r»]f��f)gr �hlfar-l�slr.ht �t�tin•.+�,��hi)I ;.�,I�I�.rlai, it:hrkara�,} it��'; ,r}�;:��I: � ;re}, ,pt�;l�r Lenoir Drive & McGhee Road (N3) Unsignalized EB EBTR 0.0 0.0 Ee A proach 0.0 0.0 WS WOLT A <25 7.8 A <25 WBAp lox:n A 1.7 A NB NBLR B <25 30.7 B 25 NBApproarh B 10.7 B M12.4 McGhee Road & Welltown Road & Amoco Lane (N2) Unsignalized EBB E8L C <25 19.4 B <25 15 11.8 B 50 EB A proach B 11.9 8 NB NBL A 25 .0 A <25 NBT 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 NB Approach 6.8 1.5 58 1 SBLTR 0.0 0.0 56 Approach 0.0 0.0 Welhown Road & US-11(N3) Signalised EB EBL E 325 75.4 E 275 75.1 EBTR C 450 30.7 C >525 29.0 FBAp roach D 37.1 C 33.5 WB WBL E 150 55.3 F 125 92.0 WBT C 400 29.6 C 42S 26.6 WBR C 50 24.3 C 100 31.8 N'BApproach C 30.2 C 29.9 NB NBLTR E 1S0 63.6 E 2D0 73.4 NB Approach E 63.6 E 73.4 SB SBL E 125 59.9 E 175 63.3 SDTR D ]Do 53.8 E 100 56.5 SBApproach E 56.4 E 59.6 Overall D 37 S D 37.4 U5-11 & 1-81 Souhbound On/Off Ramps (N4) Signalized EB EBT A 200 7.1 D 175 48.4 EBR 150 0.0 50 0.0 EB A roach A 7.1 D 48.4 WBL WB WB7 A 100 7.1 C 250 30.5 A 75 3.1 A 250 3.1 WBAR2roach A 3.8 A 8.1 SB SBLT E 125 69.1 E 125 74.4 SBR <25 0.0 <25 0.0 5BApproach E 69.1 E 74.4 Overall A 7.7 a 28.5 US-11 & 1.81 Northbound Off Ramps (NS) Signalized EB I EB7 B 50 11.5 B 225 17.1 EB Approach B 11.5 B )7 1 ' WB I WBT A <25 0.1 A 75 0.1 W8 A proach A 0.1 A 0.1 NB NOL D 250 46.1 D 275 44.9 NBR E 275 58.1 E 400 63.8 NB Approach D 50.5 D 52.6 Overall 8 19.5 C 21.7 US-11 & 1-81 Northbound On Ramps & Redbud Road (N6) Signalized EB EBL A 125 7.3 8 450 17.2 E07 C 100 32.1 C 250 21.2 EBR B <25 18.2 A <25 8.4 E8 Approach C 25.0 B 19.6 WB WBL C <25 20.1 D 50 37.8 WBT D 275 51.9 E 500 57.9 W BR C <25 34.4 D 50 40.4 WBA roach D 48.3 D 54.3 NB NBLTR E <25 72.3 F 300 88.4 N8 Approach E 72.3 F 88.4 Overall D 36.3 D 36.3 *The'tf' indicates 951h percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer and the queue shown is the maximum after two cycles. The 'm' indicates the volume for the 95th percentile queue is metered by the upstream signal. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 25 • 0 Stonewall IV Transportation Impact Analysis December 2017 As shown in the figures and Table 3, all study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at LOS D or better during all time periods. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Applicant is applying for a rezoning from RA (Rural Agricultural) to M1 (Industrial) to allow the development of two industrial warehousing buildings, totaling 820,000 square feet. Access to the site is proposed to be provided via an extension of Lenoir Drive into the site. Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the proposed development were developed using the standard reference Trip Generation, 9rh Edition (Reference 2) published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table 4 summarizes the trip generation estimates for the proposed development. Table 4 Estimated Trip Generation 1,378 90 62 28 98 30- 68 High -Cube Warehouse 152 820,000 Sq. Ft. / Distribution Center Net New Trips 1,378 90 62 28 98 30 68 As shown in Table 4, the development is estimated to generate approximately 1,378 net new weekday daily trips, 90 weekday a.m. (62 in, 28 out), and 98 weekday p.m. (30 in, 68 out) peak hour trips when fully built out in year 2020. Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment Trip distribution estimates for the proposed project were developed based on anticipated future travel patterns observed near the site and a major origin/destination patterns in the site vicinity. Figure 12 illustrates the estimated trip distribution pattern. Figure 13 and Figure 14 illustrate the assignment of site -generated trips to the surrounding roadway network during the weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak hours, respectively. Kitte/son & Associates, Inc. 26 Stonewo///V U SITE 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS CIVES LN - Proposed Trip Distribution XX% i a � p raj �P w ��P JESSICALN 862 A661, oQ'o� 839 <ti December 26 61 11 Estimated Trip Distribution Figure Frederick County, Virginia 12 • 5tonewa111V i December 2017 861 a 81 OP 863 �CCy JESSI AN p2 �P� 0O F-732 3 Al 862 F-732 TG fir( o� 661 v� SITE 0 839 O cO(,y PACTIV Wy 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS Z 11 � V N 1 t 91 "-50 62 27 c 0 � N N� O _ r a 13--► +-28 10� 13--► s 6 13— -'-6 F e z G c� a' c Site -Generated Trips Figure Weekday AM Peak Hour 13 Frederick County, Virginia Stonewoll1 v December 2017 I\ 861 iz 81 pQ' 863 Cy ESSICA LN o QP LLJ �4Y CO, F-732 3 Al 862 F-732 C'�y TG aQ- �p�� 661 Q- SITE �O 839 O�O v� qM 0 PACTIV 37 _ WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 may, O o �1� M �23 [ r 30 65 �i Y i fl p 0 31 —� �— 13 24 24 -N 31 -+ +-- 3 7— +— 3 G u c S> t Q C C Site -Generated Trips Figure `Y Weekday PM Peak Hour 14 Frederick County, Virginia 7ewa///V December 2017 861 � 81 �P 863 2,ccy�F J E\— SS N xOQ- 0 F-732 3 862 F-732 0 TG O 661 �O SITE O� M � 839 d o� -1 0 PACTIV wy c04 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 © AA C E C 7 A ©7, c� i .—c c f D B A E 0 A \ (A- rA 6 DI A r A 11� /• D D O ` A f A \ 'E -STOP SIGN 2020 Total Lane Group Level of Service Figure Weekday AM Peak Hour -TRAFFIC SIGNAL Frederick County, Virginia 17 11 7newo///V December 2017 861 0 81 pP 863 Cyr( JESSICA LN yC� F-732 Al 862 F-732 TG OQ � cp�Q 661 SITE �O 839 p� O PACTIV 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 ro O © © E E r B E f D • '_ I: � 7 A ©� Cam. : �C r E Y „ t t, B A E "v ^I O O AE C tL�l11 t A L!!11 r C A r p i ti� r Y c L D E E H a -:- - STOP SIGN 2020 Total Lane Group Level of Service Figure - TRAFFIC SIGNAL Weekday PM Peak Hour 18 Frederick County, Virginia (irlttt4°vlir5r� rr5,n crT�i�x�� r ,tt �tas4 ti�rl_diid. o ir4'r u ( > y .r'x € 0 7�R " t'f:C , Lenoir Drive & McGhee Road (p1) unsignalized EB EBTR 0.0 0.0 EB Approach 0.0 0.0 WB WBLT A <25 7.9 A <25 8.7 WE Approach A 2.6 A 4.2 NB I NBLR B <25 11.1 B 50 12.8 NB Approach B 121 B 12.8 McGhee Road & Welltown Road & Amoco Lane (112) Unsignalized EB EBL C <2522.8 �Bj <=j 13.1 EBR B 25 12.2 B 75 - 13.3 EB Approach B 12.3 B 13.3 NB NBL A 50 9.3 A <25 8.3 NBT 0.0 0.0 N8.4p roach 7.3 2.0 SB SBLTR 0.0 0.0 SB Approach 0.0 0.0 Welltown Road & US•11(N3) Signalized EB EBL E 32S 74.4 E 275 67.9 EBTR C 375 31.8 C >52S 30.3 EB Approach 0 38 2 C 34.1 WB WBL 0 75 54.4 E 100 69.2 WBT C 375 31.6 C 425 32.6 W8R C <25 28.4 D 50 35.7 WBA roach C 32.2 C 34.5 NB NBLTR E 100 63.6 E 200 77.7 NB Approach E 63 6 E 77 7 SB SBL E 125 60.5 E 200 66.9 58TR D 100 53.0 E 100 57.1 56 Approach E 56.4 E 62,0 Overall D 38.9 D 4 ..1 U5.11 & 1.81 Southbound On/Off Ramps (k4) Signalized EB EBT A 1 100 7.2 D 100 50.0 EBR 150 0.0 <25 0.0 _ EBA proach A 7.2 D 50.0 WB WBL A 100 7.3 c 275 32.0 WBT A 50 3.2 A 250 3.0 wBA proarh A 3.9 A 8.3 SB SBLT E 125 69.1 E 150 77.0 SBR <25 0.0 <25 0.0 SB Approach E 69.1 E 77.0 Overall A 7.7 C 29.5 US-11&1-81 Northbound Off Ramps (HS) Signalized EB I EBT B 50 11.6 B 225 17.7 EB Approach B 11.6 B 17.7 WB I WBT A <25 2.7 A 75 0.1 NBApproach A 2.7 A 0.1 NB NBL D 250 46.6 D 275 46.9 NBR E 27S 57.9 E 425 66.3 NBApproach E 50.6 D 54.8 Overall C 20.5 C 22.5 US-11&1-81 Northbound On Ramps & Redbud Road (H6) Signalized EB EBL A 1S0 7.4 B 500 17.1 EBT C 100 31.9 C 250 21.4 ERR B <25 18.1 A <25 8.5 EB Approach C 24.8 8 197 WB WBL C <25 20.2 D SO 38.6 WBT D 300 52.2 E 52S 60.3 WBR C <25 34.3 D 50 41.9 WB Approach D 48.6 E 565 NB I NBLTR E <25 72.3 F 325 93.0 NBAppraach E 72.3 F 93.0 Overall D 36.2 D 37.3 *The V indicates 95"' percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer and the queue shown cycles. The'm' indicates the volume for the 95th percentile queue is metered by the upstream signal. SPRING .VALLEY Subdivision llftlus AACVHU RD REZ #01'18 s rjp� � �y Yt.�7 •. f . rr REZ #01-18 v Q Applications Sewer and Water Service Area Parcels Building Footprints •� Future Rt 37 Bypass B1 (Neighborhood Business District) B2 (General Business District) B3 (Industrial Transition District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) HE (Higher Education District) M1 (Light Industrial District) M2 (Industrial General District) 4: MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) « MS (Medical Support District) OM (Office - Manufacturing Park) R4 (Residential Planned Community District) R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) RA (Rural Areas District) RP (Residential Performance District) Eastern Road Plan STONEWALL INDUSTRIALtPARK Z #Ol MOD tit A1111M S�uRG TIRE LENGIR A 37 z- 41 o � � 7 r� r s = cr4? S . /52 Note: REZ # 01 - 18 Frederick County Dept of Stonewall IV Planning Developmee 107 Kent Si 107 N UINs: Suite 202 43 - A - 21. 43 - A - 21 B. 43 - A - 24. Winchester. VA 2260 43-19-4 540-665-5651 Rezoning from RA to MI Map Created: April 23 2018 Zoning Map Staff: cperkins 0 335 670 1.340 Feet Future Rt37 Bypass Building Footprints Eastern Road Plan ^� Ramp Floodplain 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD AE REZ#01-18 Stonewall IV PINS: 43-A-21,43-A-218. 43-A-24. 43-19-4 Rezoning from RA to MI Location Map Note: Frederick County Dept of Planning &Developme^e 107 N Kent St Suite 202 Winchester. VA 2260 540 - 665 - 5651 Map Created: April 23, 2018 Staff: cperkins 0 335 670 1.340 Feet i i i i I ` S 1NG�VALLE Y Subdivision •: Applications Sewer and Water Service Area OParcels �,•� Future Rt 37 Bypass Building Footprints Eastern Road Plan ON.# Ramp Long Range Land Use O Residential r�AS; Neighborhood Village Urban Center t- Mobile Home Community (310 Business 0 Highway Commercial Mixed -Use Mixed Use Commercial/Office Mixed Use Industrial/Office • Industrial ® Warehouse 40 Heavy Industrial t• Extractive Mining Commercial Rec C"j Rural Community Center ® Fire 8 Rescue ® Sensitive Natural Areas ® Institutional • Planned Unit Development ///,o Park Recreation School Employment Airport Support Area 0 62/B3 O Residential, 4 u/a © High -Density Residential. 6 u/a © High -Density Residential, 12-16 u/a O Rural Area Interstate Buffer Landfill Support Area Natural Resources 8 Recreation ® Environmental 8 Recreational Resources a I/J\� STONEWALL INDUSTRIAL PARK Subdivision 0 240 LENOIR OR. 260 LENOIRDR O 4JA2t �i o J09 IFN REZ 1 O • 1 IOJ ' ', �► LIJ�A 21� <FNOIROR 37 IJOJ MARTINSRURG ►IKE. � � v e 7 t - i v 152 .to cQ8 Note: REZ # 01 - 18 Frederick County Dept c' Stonewall IV PlnniDevelOpmee Planning o IN Kent Kentt St PINS Suite 202 43 - A - 21. 43 - A - 21 B. 43 - A - 24. Winchester. VA 226G 43-19-4 540-665-5651 Rezoning from RA to MI Map Created: April 23. 2018 Long Range Land Use Map Staff: cperkins 0 375 750 1.500 Feel E • PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 98.91+/- Acres Rezoning: #01-18 Record Owner Cheryl Grimm Morris Applicant: Equus Capital Partners, LTD Property: Parcels 43 A 21, 43 A 21B, 43 19 4 and 43 A 24, comprising a total of approximately 88.91 acres, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan (hereinafter "the Property"). Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) to M-1 (Light Industrial) Project Name: Stonewall IV Date: June 6, 2018 Resubmittal Date: June 28, 2018 Pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2296, et seq., and § 165-102.06 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the undersigned hereby proffers that the development and use of the Property, consisting of 88.91 ± acres, located on the north side of Route 37 and west of its intersection with the Martinsburg Pike, shall be in substantial conformance with the following conditions. In the event this rezoning is granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall supersede and replace in their entirety all other proffers made prior hereto. In the event this rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning the current owner, all fixture owners and successors in interest. The term "Generalized Development Plan" or "GDP" as referenced herein shall refer to the plan entitled "Stonewall IV Generalized Development Plan," prepared by Dice Engineering, PI,C, and dated April 5, 2018. DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE PROPERTY 1.1. Development on the Property shall be limited to the construction of not more than 820,000 gross square feet that shall be used solely for Warehousing, or High - Cube Transload and Short Term Storage, Land Use Codes 150 and 154, as those land uses are defined in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10`h Ed). PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/.. Acres 1.2. The development of the Property shall be in general conformance with the GDP. However, upon the submission of final site or subdivision plans, minor modifications and adjustments may be made to the road alignments, entrances, parking, dimensions of the SWM/BMP facilities, the exact configuration and location of building footprints, and other similar features shown on the GDP. 1.3. The maximum height of the each building shall be sixty feet (60'). 2 TRANSPORTATION. 2.1 Within 90 calendar days of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall dedicate approximately 17.05 acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, as depicted on the GDP, for the Future Route 37 Bypass. 2,2 Access to the Property shall be as shown on the GDP. Provided that access to the buildable area of the Property is not impeded or eliminated, the Applicant shall not place above grade improvements on the southeast corner of the Property near the tenninus of Lenoir Drive in such a way as to preclude the construction of proposed slip ramps that are currently depicted on the graphic entitled "Eastern Road Plan — Lenoir Drive Slip Ramp Clarification," created by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, dated October 17, 2017, and attached hereto for reference. The southeast corner of the Property is subject to existing easements and/or covenants of record, as of June 6, 2018, 2.3 Within 90 calendar days of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall further dedicate such right-of-way as it may own at the terminus of Lenoir Drive for the purpose of construction of access to existing Route 37 as described in Proffer 2.2 above. 2.4 The Applicant shall contribute up to $250,000 to the County for the purpose of planning additional access to Stonewall Industrial Park. It shall makq such contribution at the rate of $0.30 per gross square foot of building ultimately constructed, to be paid upon issuance of an occupancy permit for any such building or buildings. 3 FIRE AND RESCUE. 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County the sum of $0.10 per gross square foot of construction as depicted on each site plan, to be used for fire and rescue purposes in the general area. The contribution shall be made at the time of issuance of the occupancy permit for each structure. PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91-F/- Acres 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES. . 4.1 The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional architectural historian to perform a Historic American Building Survey (NABS) — standard level III, as defined by the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program on the residential building and its associated agricultural buildings located on the property. The NABS standard level III documentation shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later than with the submission of a preliminary subdivision or preliminary site plan for the Property. Following acceptance of the HABS standard level III documentation by the Planning Director, the documentation shall be submitted to the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program. 4.2 The applicant, working with a qualified professional architectural historian, shall inspect prior to demolition the non -heated areas of the residential building for the presence of partially hidden or obscured historical artifacts or material. The applicant shall notify the Planning Director of any historic artifacts or material that may be discovered during the inspection and subsequent demolition of the residential building. 5 ESCALATOR. 5.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in this Proffer Statement are paid to Frederick County within eighteen (18) months after final approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the' Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in this Proffer Statement which are paid to the County after eighteen (18) months following final approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U), published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI-U from that date eighteen (18) months after final approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI-U to the date the contributions are paid. [Signatures on following page.] PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres SIGNATURE PAGE APPLICANT: EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD M. Name: Title: State of A!4 County of cz.".4 Subscribed and sworn to before me this�`day of , 2018 in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed principalY NOTARY UBLIC My Commission Expires: caurAwww& CHOM M- W� f� A kSKt My Notary Registration Nu Commbow Nwter UISM 4 PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 8 8.9 1 /- Acres OWNER: Cheryl Grimm Morris, sole surviv ng tenant by the entirety Commonwealth of Virginia: County of Frederick: / Subscribed and sworn to before me this 0 A/day of_ , 20I8 in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed princip NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires:!/ My Notary Registration Number: UItJs1a.LCOlJEM M VA oftyukW� MY ummisdw � M�� 0 S • • \ / / I-- 25' - -:,ram 75' I ACTIVE I INACTIVE li 8 / \ / I I FJOSTINC 4• IJ I� GRADE fi, J.� 3• I a - r "A_._ 6' RICH EARIt1FN 6FFY MI 3 - \ \ i7 PLANES PER 10 L1l FEET (1/3 DECIDUOUS, 1/3 EVERGREm 1/3 s►1RUBS) TYPICAL CATEGORY'CBUFFER DETAIL 1 ` NOT TO SCALE \v/ APPROX. LIMITS OF 100-YR \ �\ 1 �'• ` �' . ,' •�� \ � � FLOODPLAIN (ZONE'A') ` L IN 4J-A-2119 4 f •. / v PROPOSED ACCESS /� C f i I 7M 4jT'-A-1/ 7&06 ACRES i EX ?w "IliIESSp /Eomw 4 1 -4 \ E4 ro ARM 1 25' ACTNE BUFFER ZOO ACRES f _ -- -- -- -- aas ACRES 75' INACTIVE BUFFER \ W LLJ IY u- _ -- 1 CIO, 16 - Q .•� \ \.>s ?� CATEGORY 'C'ZONINGDISTRICT BUFFER W/ FULL-LAVEDSCAPE SCREEN / - \ : Q ; (Sy,8 DETAIL) 1 FUTURE ROUTE 37 RIGHT -OF, -WAY DEDICATION (17.05 AC. t/-) 7. NOTES 6 [ v 1. BOUNDARY INFORMATION FOR SUBJECT PARCELS PROVIDED BY GREYWOLFE. INC. TOPOGRAPHIC AND ADJOINING PROPERTY INFORMATION OBTAINED VIA �`. FREDERICK COUNTY GIS RECORDS. 2. UTILITY CONNECTIONS WILL BE PROVIDED FROM EXISTING SERVICES AT LENOIR DRIVE, WITH FINAL LOCATIONS AS DETERMINED DURING THE SITE PLAN DESIGN — PROCESS LOCATION MAP: SCALE 1" = 3000' PROJECT INFORMATION APPLICANT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD. CURRENT OWNER' CHERYL & JOHN MORRIS REFERENCE' TM 43-A-21, 43-A-218, 43-19-4, AND 43-A-24 STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT PROPOSED USE: WAREHOUSE/DISTRIBUTION ACREAGE. 88.91 AC CURRENTZONING RA PROPOSED ZONING. M-1 FLOODPLAIN. 10 14 ACRES (-/-) WITHIN FLOODPLAIN ZONE 'A' PER FEMA FIRM 51069CO208D, 51069CO2090, AND 51069CO2100 ADJOINING PROPERTIES LIST— STONEWALL IV PARCEL ID TAX MAP ZONING OWNER NAME USE 1 43-8-3-39 RA Marshall Mills. Inc. c/o Fred A. Drunage! Residential/Vacant 2 43.8-3.40 RA Marshall Mills, Inc. c/o Fred A Drum el Residential/Vacant 3 43-8-3-41 RA Marshall Mills, Inc. C/o Fred A Oruna el ResldeMiaVVacant 4 43-8-3-42 RA Marshall Mills, Inc. c/o Fred A. Drana el ResldentlalNacant 5 43-9-3-43 RA Marshall Mills, Inc. c/o Fred A. Dr nagel Residential/Vaoa,t 6 43-A-19 RA 1PD Properties, LLC c/o Fred A. Or una el Residential 7 43-A-16 RA Kathryn & Iam:s Parker ResidentiaVVacant 8 43-19.64 M1 Lenoir City Co. of Virginia Industrlal/Vac.nt 9 43.19.43 MI Muldowney-Tirhes Assoc. Industrial 10 43-19-37 M1 Muldowney-Tirhes Assoc. Industrial 11 43.19-42 Ml Grafton School, Inc. Indust rial/Vamu 12 43-19-7 MI 1818 Robert LC Industrial 13 43-A-26-8 Ml Cambridge Financial Services, LC Industrial 14 43-A-26-A MI Browning -Ferris Industries C/o Republic Semcts tax Dept. Industrial 43-A-21-A Ml Browning. Ferric Industries c/o Republic Services Tax Dept. Industrial 71615 43-A-23 RA Oscar &Opal Jenkins Residential U J a (29 X W W Z M Z W W U IN O N r co Z N (0 W U CD Q v v W >>I-ML) CO CD.r- ESIIvodU I H X T W 1nN��L LLI= Z X ILL �Z0�O LL �a J c W m O Q Q M 3 0 U LU W � V LLI } m J OIl- LU O Z Wp CL co U 0 O Z Q J Z Z LU I— O Z J z W O LU U p LLI U � N 0 Q LU W LL Z LU (D FREDERICK COUNTY RZ #_-18 SHEET NUMBER GDP EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL IV IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT April 12, 2018 The Applicant for this rezoning, Equus Capital Partners, Ltd, seeks to change the classification of the subject property from RA (Rural Areas) to M-1 (Light Industrial) to construct not more than 820,000 square feet of motor freight transportation and warehouse facilities as permitted pursuant to § 165-606.02 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, on ±88 acres located at the end of Lenoir Drive, immediately adjacent to the Stonewall Industrial Park. Although the application is for motor freight transportation and warehouse, which are the specific terms employed in the Ordinance, as is detailed in the Comment Response Letter that is incorporated in this submission by reference, because warehouse uses differ in character, and can therefore have differing traffic impacts on the surrounding road network, the Applicant proposes to proffer to limit its use of the property to two sub -classifications of warehouse use as those uses are defined by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). It will construct only "Warehousing," or "High -Cube Transload and Short Term Storage," Land Use Codes 150 and 154, as they are defined in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10`}' Ed), which is now the controlling edition of that Manual. These sub -classifications of warehouse use, under the new 10"' Edition, generate even less traffic than was modeled in the TIA that has been submitted and reviewed by the County .Department of Transportation, and VDOT, and will therefore have the same or lesser impact on the roads that service the site than was previously used to calculate traffic impact. A. THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. The Property is outside of the Urban Development Area, being just beyond its boundary at Route37. The proposed development of industrial land is not required, however, to be inside the UDA. As noted below, the site is within the Sewer and Water Service Area ("SWSA"), which may, and in this case does, extend beyond the UDA to promote commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses in areas where residential land uses are not desirable. The Property is planned for industrial use.' ' The County's GIS does not depict the entire site as being plaiming for industrial use, but only because the Future Route 37 By-pass is generally depicted at the rear of the Property. Page 12 B. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE. The Property, particularly in the area to be developed, is relatively flat, with the highest points situated near the center of the site, and near Route 37. Redbud Run courses generally along the northern to the northeastern boundary of the site. The most severe terrain is located on the western edge of the Property where it falls off fairly steeply, but that area will be undisturbed by development. The site is accessed by Lenoir Drive. There is an existing stand of trees along the western boundary of the Property that will remain undisturbed by development, and will continue to serve as a buffer between the development and properties to the west. In the event that the Route 37 By-pass is constructed, those trees will likely be lost. C. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The properties to the north of the site are all either industrially developed or zoned and planned for industrial use, as part of the Stonewall Industrial Park, as are the small parcels directly to the east across Lenoir Drive. There is a single parcel that is sandwiched between the Property and Route 37, owned by Oscar Jenkins, which remains zoned RA, and the parcels to the west are zoned RA. GIS shows that there are subdivided lots on the land adjacent to the west that will be accessed by Glentawber Road, but those lots have not been developed. Existing Route 37 runs to the south of the site. Access to the Jenkins Parcel is shown on the General Development Plan. See below with respect to access to the Jenkins Parcel D. TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS A Traffic Impact Analysis has been prepared by Kittleson & Associates and has been reviewed. t The conclusion of that analysis is that the traffic generated from the proposed development does not require additional mitigation, and that no off -site transportation improvements are recommended. All study intersections are projected to continue to operate acceptably assuming full build -out of the development of the Property. See, too, the Comment Response Letter that more fully explain the change in estimated trip generation from the proposed warehousing uses of the site. The Applicant proposes to dedicate right-of-way to the County for the future construction of the Proposed Route 37 By-pass. Moreover, the Applicant has re -designed the basic layout of the property so as not to preclude the construction by others, at some future date, of the slip ramps from Lenoir Drive to existing Route 37 shown on the County's Comprehensive Plan. This, too, is addressed in the Comment Response Letter. The re -design also permits the entrance into the site to be so located • s Page 1 3 that it does not interfere with, or impede, an existing easement that provides access to and from the Jenkins Property, Parcel 43-A-23. E. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The Property is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area and there is sufficient capacity in the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility to accommodate the limited effluent to be produced from these industrial structures. Frederick Water observes that the Application does not specify the user and its needs, but that is not uncommon, and the Applicant will address these issues at final site plan. F. WATER SUPPLY The Property will be serviced by public water provided by Frederick Neater which observes that the Application does not specify the user and its needs, but that is not uncommon, and the Applicant will address these issues at final site plan. G. DRAINAGE There is some floodplain on the northern to northeastern boundary of the site along Redbud Run, but it will not be disturbed during development. The site generally drains to Redbud Run, but the Applicant will comply with applicable Stormwater Management Regulations to protect that waterway. H. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The Applicant will contract with a suitable private hauler for the removal of trash. I.. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES A Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of Glengary (VDHR 4034-1099)2 has been prepared by Dutton & Associates (the "Study"). It concludes, in brief, that the home and building stock retain a moderate level of historic physical integrity and represent a good example of a Shenandoah Valley farm that retains a fairly complete complement of domestic and agricultural buildings, but that have evolved over time. As such, Glengary is still recommended as potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and C for significance at the local level. It also concludes that there is a single previously identified site that appears to be more discretely defined, and is focused in and around the former kitchen/servants quarter building (now demolished), which would have functioned as the immediate service space for the main dwelling. The potential for intact archaeological deposits is Z The home site was named Glengary as long ago as 1762. The central core of the present home was built c. 1850. r� 0 Page 14 present in this area. Dutton & Associates also believes that changes in the farm that occurred before the Applicant entered into discussions with the owner have significantly affected the historical context of the site. The Study has been submitted to the Historic Resources Advisory Board and the Department of Planning and Development for review and comment. Following a meeting with the HRAB on March 27, 2018, the Applicant received substantial input and has modified its Proffers to reflect the recommendations from that Board. J. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES As with most industrial developments, there are few impacts on community facilities with the general exception of public safety services. To that end, and as other industrial developments have done, the Applicant proposes a contribution to fire and rescue purposes based on the number of gross square feet of structure built. K. OTHER IMPACTS The applicant is aware of no other impacts that have not been addressed in this Impact Analysis. • Marian Hardcrs, AICP, LEED AP Planner (703) 680.4664 Ext. 5121 mharders@thclandlawycrs.com ..Afi.�, WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEX & WALSH PC April 12, 2018 Federal Express Frederick County Department of Planning & Development Attn: Candice Perkins 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5651 Re: Rezoning Application, Stonewall IV Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. (Applicant) Property Identification No.: 43 A 21, 43 A 21 B, 43 19 4 & 43 A 24 (the "Property") Dear Ms. Perkins: In connection with the above, please find the following items to be filed in connection with the above -referenced Rezoning application: 1. One (1) copy of the executed Rezoning application form signed by the property owners. The original application form was submitted to your office on February 14, 2018. 2. A check in the amount of $18,891.00, made payable to County of Frederick. 3. A copy of the death certificate for John S. Morris, Jr. 4. One (1) copy of the Property Location Map. 5, One (1) copy of the "Adjoining Property Owners" list. 6. One (1) copy of the real estate tax records for each property, showing no taxes due. 7. One (1) copy of the Impact Analysis Statement, dated April 12, 2018. 8. One (1) copy of the Proffer Statement, dated April 12, 2018. 9. One (1) copy of the General Development Plan entitled "Stonewall IV," prepared by Dice Engineering, PLC, dated April 5, 2018. 10. One (1) CD ROM containing digital copies all the submission material identified herein. 703 680 4664 a WWW.11M ANDLAWYGRS COM 4310 PRINCE W11.I.IAM PARKWAY I SUITE .300 1 WOODIIRIDGF., VA 22192.5199 ARLINGTON 703 526 4700 1 LOUDOUN 703 737 3633 U Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 2 On February 14, 2018, the following documents were submitted to your office and are referenced here as part of our formal application: 1. A copy of the cultural resources report entitled "Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of Glengary (BDHR #034-1099), prepared by Dutton & Associates, dated October 2017. 2. A copy of the Transportation Impact Analysis entitled "Stonewall IV," prepared by Kittelson & Associates, dated December 2017. We offer the following in response to the several comments received from reviewing agencies regarding the draft rezoning application, dated February 13, 2018. Where appropriate changes have been made to the Proffers submitted and the Impact Analysis has been revised as needed: Planning and Development, March 19, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response 1. ]Northeast .Land 17.se Plan - Land Use, The 2035 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Land Use Plan provide The Applicant concurs .that this application is guidance on the future development of consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the property. The property is located that it is accessible to public utilities, being within the SWSA. The 2035 located within the Sewer and Water Service Comprehensive Plan identifies these Area. properties with an industrial land use designation. The proposed M1 Zoning is Transportation issues are addressed in detail in generally consistent with the Northeast response to the comments from the Land Use Plan as it relates to this area. Transportation Department and VDOT, below. The land use plan depicts future Route 37 on the western boundary of the properties and access to Route 37 from Lenoir Drive. The application fully addresses future Route 37 through the property; however, the access to Route 37 is not acknowledged in the impact statement or the proffers. 2. Gengr.al r ei 12evelgl2 ern nt• The GDP . The GDP has been updated, as recommended should be revised to remove all by Staff. buildings, the GDP should be more i general and show the property, proffered Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 3 improvements, access and buffers. The — GDP should also be reduced to l 1x17 or- 8!/xll. 3� I'rol'1cr 1 - I>Lv�lr��nunt 4nd Use of the Proffer 41 has been revised. Please see the Property. Proffer 1.1 states that two detailed response to the Department of buildings will be constructed, given there Transportation comments below, based on is a gross square footage cap, it appears changes to the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the requirement for two structures may 10"' Edition. not be necessary. Also, consider eliminating use limitation for warehousing and distribution. I 4. IlIrpHyr 3 Proffer 3.1 requires Comment noted. This Proffer has been deleted the use of public water and sewer and the per Staffs recommendation. These are matters construction of improvements to provide for final site plan and applicable ordinances such service. This proffer should be will be complied with. removed as it is already required. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. 5. Pi -offer 4 Slt►rm►+�atcj Comment noted. This Proffer has been deleted M;jnit gen,ell y1?nvi 'oh�7,li en1. Stormwater per Staffs recommendation. These are matters management is a site development for final site plan and applicable ordinances requirement. Existing County will be complied with. requirements should be removed. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided i in a profferstatement. I 6. ;11'rof14r b Lighting —Building mounted Comment noted. This Proffer has been deleted and pole mounted lighting and the use of per Staffs recommendation. These are matters downcast full cutoff fixtures are required for final site plan and applicable ordinances by the Zoning Ordinance. Only will be complied with. requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. 7. Atecss 11 Hsemenl, The access easement Please see the comments below with respect to to parcel 43-A-23 does not align with the Transportation. proposed access to the subject properties off Lenoir Drive. Provide clarification on The Applicant is aware of the access easement • 0 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 4 the location of these two entranc7points. the identified parcel, and has nointention of Staff recommends that the Atting off access to it, or of improperly work with the residential proterfering with the easement. relocate the access easement to althe new entrance proposed onenor Drive. This is also the general location of the future connection to existing Route 37 identified in the Comprehensive Plan (see comment 1). 8. T►•axns mp-ligign CRtn inents. Please note Response to the Transportation and VDOT that the transportation comments on the comments are set out below. rezoning application from John Bishop, Assistant Director - Transportation, are being provided to you in a separate letter. Staff may also provide additional comments related to the proposed changes if warranted subject to adjustments requested by VDOT. 9. Ai !gngY Comments, . Please provide Responses to agency comments are provided appropriate agency comments from the below, following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshal, Frederick Water, Virginia Department of Health, the County Attorney, the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) and the Fredeiick-Winchester Service Authority. 10. . Based on the fees adopted by the A check in the amount of $18,891.00 is Board of Supervisors on April 23, 2008, included with this submission package. the rezoning fee for this application would be $18,891.00 based upon acreage of 88.91 acres County Attorney, March 20, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response 1. Title to one of the parcels (43-A-21B) is in A copy of the death certificate for Mr. John S. the name of Cheryl G. Morris and John S. Morris, Jr. is provided with this submission. Morris, Jr. husband and wife as tenants by Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 5 the entireties, with common law right of survivorship. I understand from the signature line on proffer statement that Mr. Morris is deceased. We will need submission of sufficient evidence of that fact, such as the type of statement typically included under oath, in a deed conveying property so titled reciting the fact of the death of one of the tenants by the entireties. 2. In^ the heading section of the Proffer Statement Equus is identified as Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. and in the signature block it is identified as Equus Capital Partners, LP. I realize that Virginia corporate law may have certain naming requirements that conflict with those of the state law of entity formation, resulting in the use of a different suffix in Virginia but the use of the suffix should nonetheless be consistent throughout the Proffer Statement. The~signature blvvl. ,,, ,.,.. 1 ,vii— has been revised to reflect Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. 3. 1n the first paragraph of the introduction, the These corrections have been made. action is twice referred to as a "proffer amendment". These references should instead betoa"rezoning" 4. In the second paragraph of the introduction, The second paragraph of the Proffer Statement the definition of the term "Applicant", should has been modified per Staff's recommendation. be expanded to include the current owner of the Subject Property as well. 5. The third paragraph of the introduction does The third paragraph has been deleted for not seem to fit where it has been placed. The clarity. provisions of the Proffer Statement are not limited merely to instances in which specific plans or exhibits reference them. 6. Proffer 2 - The area indicated to be dedicated The Applicant's engineer has compared the for Route 37 right of way does not GDP with the Board's action of December 12, necessarily appear to encompass a sufficient 2017, and has advised the Applicant that the Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 6 portion of the right of way area as shown by the Comprehensive Plan depiction on the County's G1S. Staff will want to confirm the extent of the proposed dedication area. 7. Proffers 3, 4, and 6 - Most of the provisions of these proffers simply restate ordinance requirements and, to that extent, are not appropriate for inclusion in the Proffer Statement. Proffer 5 - The proffer should indicate payment simply to Frederick County and not the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. 9. Signature blocks - Because, among other things, we require that proffer statements, once a rezoning is approved, be recorded in the land records, any and all signatures will need to have notarizations. area shown for dedication on the GDP matches the area identified for the Proposed Route 37 interchange. As noted above, Proffers 3, 4 and 6 have been deleted. These are matters for final site plan and applicable ordinances will be complied with. Proffer 5 has been revised per Staffs comment. Comment noted. A notary block has been added to the signature page for both the Applicant and the Owner. Frederick County Department of Transportation, March 28, 2018 Agency Comment 1. Traffic .Study. - f.ancl Use. The traffic study uses 820,000 sq. ft. of high cube warehouse. This results in daily trips of 1,378. This trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse worst case scenario of uses that could potentially populate this property under the MI Zoning District and your proffer statement as currently written. Specifically, the trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse distribution trip generation. While proffer 1.1 does limit the property use to warehouse and distribution, it does not make the distinction of high cube. This is a significant discrepancy impacting the veracity of the Traffic Impact Analysis. This is most easily addressed with a clarification within the Applicant Response After these comments were received, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) published, and the Virginia Department of Transportation adopted, the I01h Edition of its Trip Generation Manual. The TIA was developed using the Ninth Edition. This has a direct bearing on the case, and on the proper drafting of the Proffers in response to the Department's understandable comment. A "Warehouse" (ITE Land Use Code 150), which was the initially proffered use, is defined as "a building primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but it may also include office and maintenance areas." The Department is corrcct that under the Ninth Edition of the ITE a pure warehouse would have been considered to generate far more trips per day than a "high - cube" warehouse — which is what the TIA had 9 P Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 7 proffer statement. modeled, and what the Applicant had intended. According to this new Edition, however, estimated trips generated by a "warehouse" have been reduced dramatically, and the proposed warehouse here would generate a weekday average of only 1,341 trips, slightly fewer than the 1,378 trips that were employed in the TIA — for a high -cube warehouse. It is unnecessary, therefore, to alter the proffer to eliminate warehousing as a use. The ITE Manual now recognizes that warehousing will not generate trips that exceed what was modeled in the TIA. This has been the Applicant's actual experience at its other facilities in Frederick County and elsewhere, and now the technical studies have, in effect, caught up with its practical experience. The category of land use formerly identified as High -Cube Warehousing (HCW), has now been broken into three separate categories with dramatically differing trip generation characteristics. There is no longer a Land Use Code 152. A High -Cube Transload and Short Term Storage Warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 154) is defined as "a building that typically has at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area, has a ceiling height of 24 feet or more, and is primarily used for the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. A typical HCW has a high level of on -site automation and logistics management. The automation and logistics enable highly efficient processing of goods through the HCW. The HCWs included in this land use include transload and short-term facilities. Transload facilities have a primary function of consolidation and distribution of pallet loads Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 8 2i13Li:�Z.Crlsivd I?'1:1,n- Ti astern li Ian The Eastern Road Plan portion of the County Comprehensive plan calls for ramp access from Lenoir Drive to Route 37. The site layout and proffers, as currently submitted, does not allow for this future connection to take place. This is an important connection that, when constructed, offers significant positive traffic impacts to the surrounding area and this site. Participating in this for manufacturers, wholesalers, or retailers." In this instance, such a high -cube facility would generate an estimated 1,148 average weekday trips. The Applicant specializes in High -Cube Transload and Short Term Storage Warehousing, but in order to provide itself market flexibility it wishes to retain the right to use any structures that may be permitted for the Property, and under the new ITE Manual that would include both Warehousing (LUC 150) and High -Cube (LUC 154). 'Therefore, the Applicant has edited Proffer 1.1 to clarify the uses on the property will be restricted to warehousing uses as those defined by Land Use Codes 150 and 154, as set out in the ITE Manual, lo' Edition. The Applicant respectfully observes that the Comprehensive Plan ' also calls for the construction of an interchange between Proposed Route 37 and existing Route 37 with northbound ramps commencing roughly 600 feet from the point that any "slip ramp" from Lenoir Drive could reasonably connect with existing Route 37. According to Kittelson & Associates, the construction of such a slip ramp would meet neither VDOT nor AASHTO ' As noted, the ITE has abandoned Land Use Code 152 and now has four Codes for warehousing activities. LUC 150 remains "Warehouse," and LUC 154 is the High -Cube Transload and Short Term Storage Warehouse, In addition, there are two new subcategories. LUC 155 is a "High -Cube Fulfillment Center," a building that is defined as a High -Cube Transload Warehouse, but a fulfillment center warehouse includes structures "characterized by a significant storage function and direct distribution of ecommerce products to end -users. These facilities typically handle smaller packages and quantities than other types of HCWs and often contain multiple mezzanine levels." LUC 156 for a "High -Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse," is again defined as is a High -Cube Transload structure, but such a warehouse "typically serve[s] as regional and local freight -forwarder for time -sensitive shipments via air freight and ground carriers. These sites also often include truck maintenance, wash, or fueling facilities." Both LUC 155 and 156 generate as much as 5 to 6 times the traffic of LUCs 150 and 154. The Applicant does not intend to construct either such facility on the Subject Property. Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 9 improvement is particularly important due to the proposed development traffic that is being added to an already overburdened network and particularly intersections such as Route 11 and Welltown Road which the TIA clearly demonstrates are/will be functioning below level of service C. standards. It is also the case that the Applicant neither owns nor controls the right-of-way necessary to complete any connection of Lenoir Drive to existing Route 37. Furthermore, this is an improvement the need for which is not generated by this project, but which is more generally required by the public necessity and planning. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis submitted by Kittelson, the relevant intersections that were required to be studied are already functioning below LOS C, but at an acceptable level of service. By 2020 Total Traffic Conditions, assuming the Applicant is permitted to industrial warehouse buildings totaling 820,000 square feet, with primary access via a single fiill- access driveway along Lenoir Drive are estimated to generate approximately 1,378 net new weekday daily trips, 90 weekday a.m. (62 in, 28 out), and 98 weekday p.m. (30 in, 68 out) peak hour trips. Under these conditions all study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during all study time periods under 2020 build out conditions. They are doing so at the present. By the 2026 Design Year all study intersections that currently operate at LOS D or better during all study time periods will continue to do so. This is with the exception of the US Route 11/I-81 Northbound Ramp Terminal/Redbud Road intersection during the weekday p.m. peak period. This connection is forecast to continue to operate at LOS E during the weekday p.m. peak hour. This drop in service, however, is due exclusively to background growth and not to this project. • Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 10 Thus, based on the results of the analysis, with which VDOT agrees, no off -site transportation improvements are recommended. All study intersections are projected to continue to operate acceptably, assuming full build -out of the Stonewall IV development. Notwithstanding this, acid in recognition of the Cbunly's continued insistence on the eventual viability of the slip ramps, the Applicant's engineer has relocated the entrance into the development otT bf Lenoir Drive so that it will not preclude the future construction of those ramps. by others, nor will it interfere with or impede or require the relocation of the easement that provides access to the Jenkins Parcel, 43A723. 3. Houte 371 Regarding the proffer for the The Applicant's engineer has compared the Route 37 right-of-way, I would suggest GDP with the Board's action of December 12, adding language in addition to being 2017, and has advised the Applicant that the consistent with the GDP that it is consistent area shown for dedication on the GDP matches with the Eastern Road Plan update adopted the area identified for the Proposed Route 37 by the Board of Supervisors on December interchange. 13, 2017. This way, if there is any unintentional disconnect between the GDP and what was adopted by the Board, the intent is clear. VDOT, March 9, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response VDOT Staunton District Planning performed a Acknowledged. review of the Stonewall IV Rezoning TIA completed by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. submitted on February 14, 2018. Overall, the methodology used for the analysis was found to be acceptable and no revisions are required. The comments below are offered as reference notes for minor issues we found. CJ Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 11 ] . Typos were found on some of the lane Acknowledged. group level of service figures, where the LOS shown does not match the correctly reported LOS shown on the corresponding traffic conditions tables. ! I 2. For firture reference, please ensure Acknowledged. coordinated phases match the provided signal plans. For this corridor, all signals should be programmed with phases 2 and 6 as the coordinated phases. Only the Rt. H/Redbud Rd signal is currently programmed with only phase 2 as the coordinated phase. This does not appear to have a substantial impact for this TIA, so no revisions are required. 3 The Rt. I1/Redbud Rd eastbound left turn Acknowledged. was modeled with a 3 second lost time adjustment in both the AM and PM peak hours. VDOT requires that this setting be 0 for all movements. Since this setting degrades signal performance rather than improving it, no revisions arerequired. 4. The Rt. 11/Redbud Rd eastbotmd and Acknowledged. westbound left turns are modeled with permissive- protected operation, but actually operate using flashing yellow arrows. The turn type for these movements should be programmed using the "Dallas permissive + protected" setting with the "Permitted Flashing Yellow" box checked. This does not appear to have a substantial impact for this 'TIA, so no revisions are required. 5. The TIA scoping form identifies ITE Land See the detailed and revised response to the Use Code 152, High -Cube Warehouse / Department of Transportation comments Distribution Center as the trip generation above. With the advent of the 10'" Edition of for the proposed rezoning development, the ITE Manual the situation has changed which was utilized in the technical analysis sufficiently that the Applicant's address of this of the study. However, Proffer 1.1, dated issue has changed so as to remove this as an • Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 12 February 13, 2018 indicates the issue. development of the property will be limited to 820,000 square feet, used solely for warehousing and distribution. The High - Cube Warehouse / Distribution Land Use is much less intense in character than traditional warehouse / distribution uses, which have the potential to double the trip generation utilized in the traffic analysis of the study. VDOT District Planning recommends consideration of adjusting the proffer to identify the allowable use to be more in -line with the definition of Land Use Code 152 in the most current ITE Trip Generation Manual or limit the permitted daily,trip generation of the site to 1,378 as specified in the TIA. 6. The 203S Frederick County See the response to the Department of Comprehensive Plan Northeast Frederick Transportation comment above. Area Plan identifies a future transportation improvement of a ramp connection to Route 37 south from Lenoir Drive. The current layout of the site as illustrated on the GDP proposes the development entrance at the current termini of Lenoir Drive, which would be in conflict with the future improvement. VDOT District Planning would recommend adjustments to the layout of the site to be in conformance with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Department of Public Works, March 12, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response A detailed review shall occur at the time of site Acknowledged. plan submission. Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 13 Department of Fire and Rescue, Office of the Fire Marshal, February 15, 20 Agency Comment Plan approval status = APPROVE No comments. Applicant Response Acknowledged. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority, February 19, 2018 Agency Comment Capacity consideration deferred to Water. Applicant Response Frederick Acknowledged. Frederick Water, February 22, 2018 Agency Comment The project parcels are located within the sewer and water service area (SWSA) and in an area presently served by Frederick Water. SWSA enables access to public water and sewer service by county policy. Location within the SWSA does not guarantee that sanitary sewer and water capacities are available to serve the property. 2 Toning application proffer states that he rez the proposed use will be limited to a warehouse and distribution facility on no larger than 820,000 gross square feet. The impact analysis statement is silent of the proposed water and sewerdemands. 3. Facilities for conveyance of water to, and sanitary sewer from, the subject properties — do presently exist. Until the proposed uses' Applicant Response Acknowledged. These issues will be accommodated a final site plan. Comment noted. Proposed water and sewer demands are addressed in the revised Statement of Justification provided with this submission. It is impossible to project proposed demand for sewer and water usage until an end user is obtained but as noted below, warehousing facilities do not require much sewer or water service and the actual needs can be determined and accommodated at final site plan. Acknowledged. Warehousing facilities have minimal demand for sewer, and both sewer and water usage will be detennined when an end • Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 14 projected water and sewer demands are user is obtained. known, it is unknown if the existing conveyance network has the capacity to accommodate the projected demands. 4. The proffer statement is silent on Acknowledged. These are matters that will be improvements that would be constructed by determined at final site plan, as the Authority the Applicant to meet water and sanitary recognizes. sewer demands. Accordingly, the comments offered herein are general in nature. The ultimate decision regarding the ability to serve the property with adequate water and sanitary sewer will be determined at the time the site's use is determined, conveyance facilities are constructed, and water and sewer connection fees are paid to Frederick Water. Sanitary sewer system capacity is not reserved until the sewer connection fee is paid to Frederick Water, and physical connection to the system is made. 5. Water and sanitary sewers are to be Acknowledged. constructed in accordance with the FCSA standards specifications. Dedicated easements may be required and based on the layout vehicular access will need to be incorporated into the final design. 6. Please be aware that the FCSA is offering Acknowledged. these review comments without benefit of knowledge of the projected water and sewer demands of the site. Department of Parks and Recreation, February 16, 2018 Agency Comment 1 Applicant Response This application appears to meet Parks and Acknowledged. Recreation requirements. Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 15 j Historic Resources Board, March 28, 20118 Agency Comment-_— iThe Virginia Department of Historic Resources identilies one mapped property located on the subject property DHR 4034-1099 - Glengary. This structure is potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. After reviewing this information and the Applicant's materials and proposals, the historic Resources Advisory Board (GRAB) recommended approval of the Rezoning with the following: Applicant perform a historic American Building Survey (1-TABS) - Standard III for the Glengary site. Institute protocols for the demolishment of Glengary to ensure preservation and/or documentation of historical features. Applicant Response The Applicant has proffered to prepare a] NABS level III for the residential structure I located on the subject property. This has been addressed in the Proffer Statement. Once you have had an opportunity to review the application together with the supporting documents, please contact my office if you require additional information Sincerely, WALSH, COLUCCI, LUBELEY & WALSH, P.C. Marian B. Harders, AICP, LEED AP huy"O. ffif Enclosures: As stated u • 315 Tasker Road Stephens Cltir, Virginia 22655 February 22, 2018 WATER PH (540) 868-1061 Fax (540) 868.1429 www.FroderickWater.com Marian B. Harders Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh PC 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Woodbridge, Virginia 22192 RE: Rezoning Application Comment Stonewall IV Rezoning Application Tax Map Number: 43-A-21, 43-A-218, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24 88.91 acres Dear Ms. Harders: Eric R. Lawrence Executive Director Thank you for the opportunity to offer review comments on the Stonewall IV rezoning application package, with a draft proffer statement and Impact Analysis Statement dated February 13, 2018. Frederick Water offers comments limited to the anticipated impact/effect upon Frederick Waters public water and sanitary sewer system and the demands thereon. The project parcels are located within the sewer and water service area (SWSA) and in an area presently served by Frederick Water. SWSA enables access to public water and sewer service by county policy. Location within the SWSA does not guarantee that sanitary sewer and water capacities are available to serve the property. The rezoning application proffer states that the proposed use will be limited to a warehouse and distribution facility on no larger than 820,000 gross square feet. The Impact analysis statement Is silent of the proposed water and sewer demands. Facilities for conveyance of water to, and sanitary sewer from, the subject properties do presently exist. Until the proposed uses' projected water and sewer demands are known, it is ANNIVERSARV Water At Your Service OMMEW Page 2 Stonewall IV rezoning application Marian Harders February 22, 2018 unknown if the existing conveyance network has the capacity to accommodate the projected demands. The proffer statement is silent on improvements that would be constructed by the applicant to meet water and sanitary sewer demands. Accordingly, the comments offered herein are general in nature. The ultimate decision regarding the ability to serve the property with adequate water and sanitary sewer will be determined at the time the site's use is determined, conveyance facilities are constructed, and water and sewer connection fees are paid to Frederick Water. Sanitary sewer system capacity is not reserved until the sewer connection fee is paid to Frederick Water, and physical connection to the system is made. Water and sanitary sewers are to be constructed in accordance with the FCSA standards specifications. Dedicated easements may be required and based on the layout vehicular access will need to be incorporated into the final design. Please be aware that the FCSA is offering these review comments without benefit of knowledge of the projected water and sewer demands of the site. Thank you for the opportunity to offer review comments. Sincerel sp Eric R. Lawrence Executive Director Cc; Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, County Planning Department Dick Helm, Frederick -Winchester Service Authority • C� March 19, 2018 Ms. Marian Harders Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh, PC 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Woodbridge, Virginia 22192 RE: Proposed Rezoning for Stonewall IV Property Identification Numbers (PINs) Dear Ms. Harders: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4, 43-A-24 I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Stonewall W site. This application seeks to rezone four properties totaling 88.91 from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. This review is generally based upon the proffer statement submitted on February 13, 2018. Prior to formal submission to the County, please ensure that these comments and all review agency comments are adequately addressed. At a minimum, a letter describing how each of the agencies and their comments have been addressed should be included as part of the submission. Northeast Land Use Plan — Land Use. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Land Use Plan provide guidance on the future development of the property. The property is located within the SWSA. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan identifies these properties with an industrial land use designation. The proposed MI Zoning is generally consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan as it relates to this area. The land use plan depicts future Route 37 on the western boundary of the properties and access to Route 37 from Lenoir Drive. The application fully addresses future Route 37 through the property; however, the access to Route 37 is not acknowledged in the impact statement or the proffers. 2. Generalized Development. The GDP should be revised to remove all buildings, the GDP should be more general and show the property, proffered improvements, access and buffers. The GDP should also be reduced to 11 x17 or 8 % x IL 3. Proffer 1 — Development and Use of the Property. CI • Page 2 Ms. Marian Harders RE: Stonewall IV March 19, 2018 a. Proffer 1.1 states that two buildings will be constructed, given there is a gross square footage cap, it appears the requirement for two structures may not be necessary. Also, consider eliminating use limitation for warehousing and distribution. 4. Proffer 3 - Utilities. Proffer 3.1 requires the use of public water and sewer and the construction of improvements to provide such service. This proffer should be removed as it is already required. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. 5. Proffer 4 — Stormwater Mana2ement/Environment. Stormwater management is a site development requirement. Existing County requirements should be removed. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. 6. Proffer 6 — Lighting. Building mounted and pole mounted lighting and the use of downcast full cutoff fixtures are required by the Zoning Ordinance. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. 7. Access Easement. The access easement to parcel 43-A-23 does not align with the proposed access to the subject properties off Lenoir Drive. Provide clarification on the location of these two entrance points. Staff recommends that the applicant work with the residential property to relocate the access easement to align with the new entrance proposed on Lenoir Drive. This is also the general location of the future connection to existing Route 37 identified in the Comprehensive Plan (see comment 1). 8. Transportation Comments. Please note that the transportation comments on the rezoning application from John Bishop, Assistant Director - Transportation, are being provided to you in a separate letter. Staff may also provide additional comments related to the proposed changes if warranted subject to adjustments requested by VDOT. 9. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshal, Frederick Water, Virginia Department of Health, the County Attorney, the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority. Page 3 Ms. Marian Harders RE: Stonewall IV March 19, 2018 10. Fees. Based on the fees adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 23, 20081, the rezoning fee for this application would be $18,891.00 based upon acreage of 88.91 acres. All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, i Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZAS Assistant Director CEP/pd C, J 0 March 28, 2018 Ms. Marian Harders Walsh Colucei Lubeley & Walsh, PC 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Woodbridge, Virginia 22192 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/665-6395 RE: Proposed Rezoning for Stonewall IV Property Identification Numbers (PINS): 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24 Dear Ms. Harders: Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Stonewall IV rezoning. This application seeks to rezone four properties totaling 88.91 from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the MI (Light Industrial) District with proffers. This review is based upon the proffer statement submitted on February 13, 2018. Traffic Study — Land Use. The traffic study uses 820,000 sq. ft. of high cube warehouse. This results in daily trips of 1,378. This trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse worst case scenario of uses that could potentially populate this property under the M1 Zoning District and your proffer statement as currently written. Specifically, the trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse distribution trip generation. While proffer 1.1 does limit the property use to warehouse and distribution, it does not make the distinction of high cube. This is a significant discrepancy impacting the veracity of the Traffic Impact Analysis. This is most easily addressed with a clarification within the proffer statement. 2. Comprehensive Plan- Eastern Road Plan. The Eastern Road Plan portion of the County Comprehensive plan calls for ramp access from Lenoir Drive to Route 37. The site layout and proffers, as currently submitted, does not allow for this future connection to take place. This is an important connection that, when constructed, offers significant positive traffic impacts to the surrounding area and this site. Participating in this improvement is particularly important due to the proposed development traffic that is being added to an already overburdened network and particularly intersections such as Route I and Welltown Road which the TIA clearly demonstrates are/will be functioning below level of service C. Page 2 Ms. Marian Harders RE: Stonewall IV March 28, 2018 3. Route 37. Regarding the proffer for the Route 37 right-of-way, I would suggest adding language in addition to being consistent with the GDP that it is consistent with the Eastern Road Plan update adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 13, 2017. This way, if there is any unintentional disconnect between the GDP and what was adopted by the Board, the intent is clear. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to review this application. Please feel free to contact me with questions or concerns. Sincerely / John A. Bishop, Al Assistant Director — Transportation Frederick County Department of Planning and Development cc: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Director of Planning and Development Candice Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director of Planning and Development • REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff.- Fee Amount Paid $ Ili 8U i Zoning Amendment Number- _ Date Received 23 (mil PC Hearing Date BOS Hearing Date The following information shall be provided by the applicant. - All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name. Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. Address: 3200 Center Square West, 1500 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 Telephone: 215,575.2352 2. Property Owner (if different than above): Name: Cheryl G. Morris Telephone; Address: PO Box 2802 ,nc ester, A Tf04 3. Contact person if other than above: John Foote, Esq. Name: c/o Walsh Colucci Lubelcy & Walsh Telephone: 703.680.4664 4. Property Information: a. Properly Identification Number(s): 43 A 21, 43 A 21B, 43 19 4 and 43 A 24 b. Total acreage to be rezoned: _ 88.91 Acres c. Total acreage of the pareel(s) to be rezoned (if the entirety of the parcel(s) is not being rezoned): n/a d. Current zoning designation(s) and acreage(s) in each designation: RA 88.91 Acres C. Proposed zoning designation(s) and acreage(s) in each designation: M-1 88.91 Acres f. Magisterial District(s): Stonewall Magisterial District 12 0 u 5. Checklist: Check the following items, that have been included with this application. Location map _ �� Agency Comments _ Plat FeesY _ Deed to property Impact Analysis Statement ^` Verification of taxes paid RL Proffer Statement Plat depicting exact meets and bounds for the proposed zoning district Digital copies (pdPs) of all submitted documents, maps and exhibits Concept Plan 6. The Code of V rg-ioio 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; Cheryl G. Morris 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE (See attached adjoining property owner list.) ZONING S. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): The properly is located at the southern terminus of Lenoir Drive (Rt F-732). 13 9. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Nuinber of Units Proposed Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi-Farnily: Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Foolae,c of Proposed l Ises Office: _ Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing: _ Restaurant: Warehouse: 820,000 sf Commercial: ✓ Other: 10. 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. 1(we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Equus Capital Partners, Ltd Applicant(s): R ; � ' /�1 �� Date: Z — / l N a j�e:l Sy Date: Owner(s): - r •` . c • �. '�� . Iri.q.r: �, Date: -i. Cheryl G orris, sole sur iving tenant by the entirety Date: 14 - Ut-tb Lt ADJOIN NG PROPERTY OWNERS Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Property Identification Number Address Name JPD Properties LLC c/o Fred Druna rel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property # 43 A 19 Name Kathryn and James Parker 394 Paris Heights Lane Paris, VA 20130 Property # 43 A 16 Name Lenoir City Co of VA PO Box 1657 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 43 19 64 Name Muldowney-Tiches Associates I LTD LLP c/o Oldca. de 331 Newman Springs Rd, Ste 236 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Property # 43 19 43 NameMuldowney-Tiches Associates I LTD LLP c/o Oldcas le 331 Newman Springs Rd, Ste 236 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Property # 43 19 37 Namc Grafton School, Inc. PO Box 2500 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 43 19 42 Name 1818 Robert LC 1816 Roberts St. Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43 19 7 Name Cambridge Financial Services LC 1816 Roberts St. Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43 A 26B NameBrowning-Ferris Industries c/o Republic Service Tax Dept PO Box 29246 Phoenix, AZ 85038 Property # 43 A 26A 15 0 0 Name and Property Identification Number Address Name Browning -Ferris Industries Vo Republic Services T4 Dept PO Box 29246 Phoenix, AZ 85038 'Property # 43-A.21A Name Oscar and Opal Jenkins 425 Lenoir Drive Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43 A 23 Name Marshall Mills, Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 201-88 Property -4 43 8 3 39 Name Marshall Mills, Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property 4 43 8 3 40 Name Marshall Mills, Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton; VA 20188 Property 4 43 8 3 41 Name Marshall Mills, Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property # 43 8 3 42 Name Marshall Mills Inc,.c/o Fred. Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property # 43 8 3 43 Name _ Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. PO Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 43 A 25 Name— Cives Corporation PO Box-2778 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 43 A 55A Name Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. PO Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 Property# 43 A 22 Name Property 4 Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # 16 C: COUNTY ofFREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Assistant Director - Transportation RE: Stonewall IV — Agenda Addendum DATE: June 5, 2018 As requested, please see the attached excerpts from the Stonewall IV Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for your consideration as an addendum to the staff report for that rezoning item. Should you have any question on transportation for this project between now and the meeting please contact John Bishop in the Planning and Development Department. JAB/pd Attachments 107 North lent Street, Suite 202 o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 • REZONING APPLICATION #01-18 41cK , Cod STONEWALL IV .�I Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: May 21, 2018 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director v, John Bishop, AICP, Assistant Director —Transportation », Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 06/06/18 Pending Board of Supervisors: 07/25/18 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 88.91 d-/- acres From the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M I (Light Industrial) District with proffers. LOCATION: The subject properties are locatecl at the southern terminus of Lenoir Drive (Route F-732). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 06/06/18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This is an application to rezone a total oi'88.91 acres of land to the M 1 (Light Industrial) District with Proffers. The site is located within the limits of' the Northeast Land Use Plan of' the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and depicts the Subject properties Nvith an industrial land use clesignation. The proposed M I Zoning is generally consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan as it relates to this area. The properties are also located within the limits of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The proffers associated with this rezoning request are as follows; StafT has provicled comments regarding concerns associated with this request: Proffer Statement — Dated April 25, 2018: Development and use of the property: I. I. Development of the property shall be limited to the construction of not more than 820,000 gross squal-C ICCt and Solely used I6r warehousing or high cube tranSload and short-term storage. 1.2. The development of the property shall be in general conformance with the GDP. 1.3. 111C MaXln111111 I1Clgllt of each building shall be 60'. 2. Transportation: 2.1. Within 90 calendar days of' a written request by the County, the Applicant shall dedicate approximately 17.05 acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, as depicted on the GDP, for the Future Route 37 bypass. StaffCom»rent: Tl:e Applic(mt has proffered to dedicate right-of-rvnh fnr• Rorrte 37; however, the slip ramp depicted in the Northeast Land Use Plan is not accounted for in this rezoning and the draft GDP shows site entrances that would be in conflict with the future slip ramp implementation. i 0 Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV May 25, 2018 Page 2 3. Fire and Rescue: 3.1. The Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County $0.10 per gross square foot of construction ad depicted on each site plan, to be used for fire and rescue purposes in the general area. 4. Cultural Resources: 4.1. The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional architectural historian to perform a Historic American Building Survey (NABS) — standard level III as defined by the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program on the residential building and its associated architectural buildings on the property. 4.2. The Applicant, working with a qualified professional architectural historian, shall inspect prior to demolition the non -heated areas of the residential building for the presence of partially hidden or obstructed historic artifacts or material. 5. Escalator: 5.1. In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the proffer statement are paid to Frederick County within 18 months after final approval of this rezoning, said contributions shall be in the amounts stated. Any monetary contributions which are paid after 18 months following final approval shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). A recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The Applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planninz Commission. 0 • Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV May 25, 2018 Page 3 This repot is prepared Gy the Frederick Count), Planiriir15 Staff to provide irr formation to the Planning Commission and the Board of'Supervisors to assist them in nrakiirg a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues coirccr'irrng thrS (il)phcation lrr•c iroted by Staff 1Vhcr•c r•cic'Vlrirt throrrghorrt thi.v st(rff r•CI)ort. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 06/06/18 Pending Board of Supervisors: 07/25/18 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 88.91+/- acres From the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M 1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. LOCATION: The subject properties are located at the southern terminus of Lenoir Drive (Route F-732). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District PRESENT USE: Residential and Agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: M I (Light Industrial) District RA (Rural Areas) District South: RA (Rural Areas) District East: M 1 (Light Industrial) District West: RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Industrial Residential/Vacant Use: Residential/Route 37 Use: Industrial Use: Residential/Vacant Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV May 25, 2018 Page 4 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The Frederick County Transportation Chapter and Northeast Frederick Area Plan of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the extension of Lenoir Drive as an on -ramp to Route 37 west as a future transportation improvement. While the Generalized Development Plan has been revised to locate the future development entrance in a manner that is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan improvement, VDOT strongly recommends Frederick County request right-of-way dedication on the subject property to accommodate the future improvement and the rezoning documents updated accordingly. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: Capacity consideration deferred to Frederick Water. Frederick Water : Please see letterfirom Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Executive Director dated February 22, 2018. Frederick County Department of Public Works: A detailed review shall occur at the time of site plan submission. Frederick County Fire Marshall: Plan approved. Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation: The application appears to meet Parks and Recreation requirements. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject properties as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General) District. The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. 2) Comprehensive Plan The 2035 Comprehensive Plan is the guide for the future growth of Frederick County. The 2035 Comprehensive 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. The Area Plans, Appendix I of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, are the primary implementation tool and will be instrumental to the future planning efforts of the County. Rezoning #0 1 - 18 Stonewall IV May 25, 2018 Page 5 Land Use The Northeast Land Use Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan identifies these properties with an industrial land use designation. The proposed M 1 Zoning District is generally consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan as it relates to this area. The land use plan depicts future Route 37 on the western boundary ol'the properties and access to Route 37 From Lenoir Drive via a slip ramp. 3) Potential Impacts Tr(msporlcrtion and Sireflccess Access to the site will be via Lenoir Drive. The Applicant has proffered to dedicate right-of- way for Route 37; however, the slip ramp depicted in the Northeast Land Use Plan is not accounted for in this rezoning and the draft GDP shows site entrances that would be in conflict With the future slip ramp implementation. The site is proposed to be accessed via Lenoir Drive. StafTwould note that there is an existing access easement that serves the residential property adjacent to Route 37 (PIN 43-A-23). The access easement to parcel 43-A-23 does not align witli the proposed access to the subject properties off Lenoir Drive. There is concern that the alignment of the easement and the proposed access on Lenoir Drive could create a conflict. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was conducted on the subject development. Studied intersections were as follows: Lenoir Drive at McGhec, McGlice at Welltown Road, Welltown Road at Route 11, Route I I at the SOLIthbound Exit 317 Ramps, Route 1 I at the Northbound Exit 317 exit ramp, and Route I I at the Northbound Exit 317 entrance ramp and Redbud Road. According to the TIA, which has been accepted by VDOT, the build out level of service at the studied intersections was maintained fi-onl the current level of'service with the left turn onto the Exit 317 Northbound entrance ramp. This movement is degraded from a level of service C to level of service D. This is unable to be alleviated clue to physical restrictions of the site. Environment The site is relatively flat, with the highest points situated near the center of the site and near Route 37. Redbud Run courses generally along the northern/northeast property boundary. The site contains floodplain Ior Redbud Run. 11;Vtm-;, •„I The Virginia Department of I-Iistoric Resources identifies one mapped property located on the subject property DHR #034-1099 - Glcngary. This structure is potentially eligible for the National Register of I-Iistoric Places. The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisoiy Board (HRAB) consiciered the rezoning application at their meeting on March 27, 2018. The HRAB requested that the Applicant perform a Historic American Building Survey (NABS) — Standard III for the Glcngary site and Institute protocols for the demolishment of Glcngary to ensure preservation and/or documentation of historical features. The Applicant has addressed the I-IRAB's comments in their proffer statement. 0 0 Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV May 25, 2018 Page 6 4) Proffer Statement — Dated April 25, 2018: 1. Development and use of the property: 1.1. Development of the property shall be limited to the construction of not more than 820,000 gross square feet and solely used for warehousing or high cube transload and short-term storage. 1.2. The development of the property shall be in general conformance with the GDP. 1.3. The maximum height of each building shall be 60'. 2. Transportation: 2.1. Within 90 calendar days of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall dedicate approximately 17.05 acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, as depicted on the GDP, for the future Route 37 bypass. Staff Comment: TlieApplicaitthasprofferedtorledicateriglzt-of-wayforRoute 37; however, the slip ramp depicted in the Northeast Laud Use Plan is not accounted for in this rezoning and the draft GDP shows site entrances that would be in conflict with the future slip ramp implementation. 3. Fire and Rescue: 3.1. The Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County $0.10 per gross square foot of construction ad depicted on each site plan, to be used for fire and rescue purposes in the general area. Cultural Resources: 4.1. The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional architectural historian to perform a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) — standard level III as defined by the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program on the residential building and its associated architectural buildings on the property. 4.2. The Applicant, working with a qualified professional architectural historian, shall inspect prior to demolition the non -heated areas of the residential building for the presence of partially hidden or obstructed historic artifacts or material. 5. Escalator: 5.1. In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the proffer statement are paid to Frederick County within 18 months after final approval of this rezoning, said contributions shall be in the amounts stated. Any monetary contributions which are paid after 18 months following final approval shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). A recommendation re,-ardinQ this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The Applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. CUM TT � I m -ED �m N s' REZ u01 18 SPRING 6VALLEY i �r't. Subdivision • \ a, Q Applications Sewer and Water Service Area Parcels Building Footprints �•� Future RI 37 Bypass B1 (Neighborhood Business District) B2 (General Business District) B3 (Industrial Transition District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) HE (Higher Education District) M1 (Light Industrial District) M2 (Industrial General District) 4' MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) i F MS (Medical Support District) OM (Office - Manufacturing Park) R4 (Residential Planned Community District) R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) RA (Rural Areas District) RP (Residential Performance District) Eastern Road Plan Ramp Z tSTONEWALL INDUSTRIAL PARK Subdivision #0 �Pp a b ii +i rg 7? Y y, i o CF 522' Note: REZ # 01 - 18 Frederick County Dept of Stonewall IV Plang Deve!^c^ ee 07 nf St 107 N Kent Suite 202 .. A - 21 , 43 - A - 21 B, 43 - A - 24, Winchester, VA 226C' 41 - 19 - 4 540 - 665 - 5651 Rezoning from RA to MI Map Created: April 23. 2018 Zoning Map Staff: cperkins 0 335 r��i� 670 1.340 Feet �•` Future Rt 37 Bypass Building Footprints Eastern Road Plan `10 Ramp Floodplain 02 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD AE REZ#01-18 Stonewall IV PINS: 43-A-21.43-A-218.43-A-24. 43-19-4 Rezoning from RA to M I Location Mop Note: Frederick County Dept of Planning Developme e 107Ne 107 Kentt St Suite 202 Winchester. VA 226C1' 540 - 665 - 5651 Mop Created: April 23. 2018 Staff: cperkins 0 335 670 1.340 Feel Q Applications Sewer and Water Service Area Parcels \•_ Future Rt 37 Bypass Building Footprints Eastern Road Plan e%/ Ramp Long Range Land Use Residential C: Neighborhood Village Urban Center • Mobile Home Community Q Business 0 Highway Commercial Mixed -Use Mixed Use Commercial/Office Mixed Use Industrial/Office - Industrial ® Warehouse Heavy Industrial - Extractive Mining Commercial Rec m Rural Community Center ® Fire 8 Rescue Sensitive Natural Areas ® Institutional 40 Planned Unit Development Park �i Recreation School tLJ Employment Airport Support Area Q B2/B3 Q Residential. 4 u/a O High -Density Residential, 6 u/a O High -Density Residential, 12-16 u/a 0 Rural Area Interstate Buffer Landfill Support Area Natural Resources 8 Recreation t® Environmental 8 Recreational Resources "� q 7 REZ ## 01 - 18 Stonewall IV PINS: 43 - A - 21, 43 - A - 218, 43 - A - 24 43-19-4 Rezoning from RA to MI Long Range Land Use Map Note: Frederick County Dept of Planning Developme: 'e 107 N Kent St Suite 202 Winchester. VA 226C 540 - 665 - 5651 Map Created: April 23. 2018 Staff: cperkins 0 375 750 1.500 Feet • PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres Rezoning: Record Owner Cheryl Grimm Morris Applicant: Equus Capital Partners, LTD Property: Parcels 43 A 21, 43 A 21B, 43 19 4 and 43 A 24, comprising a total of approximately 88.91 acres, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan (hereinafter "the Property"). Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) to M-1 (Light Industrial) Project Name: Stonewall IV Date: April 25, 2018 Pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2296, et seq., and § 165-102.06 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the undersigned hereby proffers that the development and use of the Property, consisting of 8891 + acres, located on the north side of Route 37 and west of its intersection with the Martinsburg Pike, shall be in substantial conformance with the following conditions. In the event this rezoning is granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall supersede and replace in their entirety all other proffers made prior hereto. In the event this rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning the current owner, all future owners and successors in interest. The term "Generalized Development Plan" or "GDP" as referenced herein shall refer to the plan entitled "Stonewall IV Generalized Development Plan," prepared by Dice Engineering, PLC, and dated April 5, 2018. DEVELOPMENT AND USE' OIL THE PROPERTY 1.1. Development on the Property shall be limited to the construction of not more than 820,000 gross square feet that shall be used solely for Warehousing, or High - Cube Transload and Short Tenn Storage, Land Use Codes 150 and 154, as those land uses are defined in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10"' Ed). 0 • PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALI, MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres 1.2. The development of the Property shall be in general conformance with the GDP. However, upon the submission of final site or subdivision plans, minor modifications and adjustments may be made to the road alignments, entrances, parking, dimensions of the SWM/BMP facilities, the exact configuration and location of building footprints, and other similar features shown on the GDP. 1.3. The maximum height of the each building shall be sixty feet (60'). 2 TRANSPORTATION. 2.1 Within 90 calendar days of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall dedicate approximately 17.05 acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, as depicted on the GDP, for the Future Route 37 Bypass. 3 FIRE AND RE, SCUE. 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County the sum of $0.10 per gross square foot of construction as depicted on each site plan, to be used for fire and rescue purposes in the general area. The contribution shall be made at the time of issuance of the occupancy permit for each structure. 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES. 4.1 The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional architectural historian to perform a Historic American Building Survey (NABS) — standard level I11, as defined by the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program on the residential building and its associated agricultural buildings located on the property. The HABS standard level III documentation shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later than with the submission of a preliminary subdivision or preliminary site plan for the Property. Following acceptance of the HABS standard level III documentation by the Planning Director, the documentation shall be submitted to the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program. 4.2 The applicant, working with a qualified professional architectural historian, shall inspect prior to demolition the non -heated areas of the residential building for the presence of partially hidden or obscured historical artifacts or material. The applicant shall notify the Planning Director of any historic artifacts or material that may be discovered during the inspection and subsequent demolition of the residential building. 2 • • PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91-1-/- Acres 5 ESCALATOR. 5.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in this Proffer Statement are paid to Frederick County within eighteen (18) months after final approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in this Proffer Statement which are paid to the County after eighteen (18) months following final approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U), published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI-U from that date eighteen (18) months after final approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI-U to the date the contributions are paid. [Signatures on following page.] 3 APPLICANT: PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres PARTNERS, LTD State of /w County of Subscribed and sworn to before me this d Z`day of County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed principal. My Notary Registration Number:�� 7�� PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91 +/- Acres OWNER: Cheryl Grimm Morris, sole surviving tenant by the entirety Commonwealth of Vir inia: G~ty-of eriek: a:�' Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9/* day of , 2018 in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed principal. NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: 01, �Z� `;.0"406 .11'.(" My Notary Registration Number: silo 0 310 1 OTAp EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL IV IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT April 12, 2018 The Applicant for this rezoning, Equus Capital Partners, Ltd, seeks to change the classification of the subject property from RA (Rural Areas) to M-1 (Light Industrial) to construct not more than 820,000 square feet of motor freight transportation and warehouse facilities as permitted pursuant to § 165-606.02 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, on ±88 acres located at the end of Lenoir Drive, immediately adjacent to the Stonewall Industrial Park. Although the application is for motor freight transportation and warehouse, which are the specific terms employed in the Ordinance, as is detailed in the Comment Response Letter that is incorporated in this submission by reference, because warehouse uses differ in character, and can therefore have differing traffic impacts on the surrounding road network, the Applicant proposes to proffer to limit its use of the property to two sub -classifications of warehouse use as those uses are defined by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). It will construct only "Warehousing," or "High -Cube Transload and Short Term Storage," Land Use Codes 150 and 154, as they are defined in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10`" Ed), which is now the controlling edition of that Manual. These sub -classifications of warehouse use, under the new 10"' Edition, generate even less traffic than was modeled in the TIA that has been submitted and reviewed by the County .Department of Transportation, and VDOT, and will therefore have the same or lesser impact on the roads that service the site than was previously used to calculate traffic impact. A. THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. The Property is outside of the Urban Development Area, being just beyond its boundary at Route 37. The proposed development of industrial land is not required, however, to be inside the UDA. As noted below, the site is within the Sewer and Water Service Area ("SWSA"), which may, and in this case does, extend beyond the UDA to promote commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses in areas where residential land uses are not desirable. The Property is planned for industrial user The County's GIS does not depict the entire site as being planning for industrial use, but only because the Future Route 37 By-pass is generally depicted at the rear of the Property. Page 12 B. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE. The Property, particularly in the area to be developed, is relatively flat, with the highest points situated near the center of the site, and near Route 37. Redbud Run courses generally along the northern to the northeastern boundary of the site. The most severe terrain is located on the western edge of the Property where it falls off fairly steeply, but that area will be undisturbed by development. The site is accessed by Lenoir Drive. There is an existing stand of trees along the western boundary of the Property that will remain undisturbed by development, and will continue to serve as a buffer between the development and properties to the west. In the event that the Route 37 By-pass is constructed, those trees will likely be lost. C. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The properties to the north of the site are all either industrially developed or zoned and planned for industrial use, as part of the Stonewall Industrial Park, as are the small parcels directly to the east across Lenoir Drive. There is a single parcel that is sandwiched between the Property and Route 37, owned by Oscar Jenkins, which remains zoned RA, and the parcels to the west are zoned RA. GIS shows that there are subdivided lots on the land adjacent to the west that will be accessed by Glentawber Road, but those lots have not been developed. Existing Route 37 runs to the south of the site. Access to the Jenkins Parcel is shown on the General Development Plan. See below with respect to access to the Jenkins Parcel D. TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS A Traffic Impact Analysis has been prepared by Kittleson & Associates and has been reviewed. i The conclusion of that analysis is that the traffic generated from the proposed development does not require additional mitigation, and that no off -site transportation improvements are recommended. All study intersections are projected to continue to operate acceptably assuming full build -out of the development of the Property. See, too, the Comment Response Letter that more fully explain the change in estimated trip generation from the proposed warehousing uses of the site. The Applicant proposes to dedicate right-of-way to the County for the fixture construction of the Proposed Route 37 By-pass. Moreover, the Applicant has re -designed the basic layout of the property so as not to preclude the construction by others, at some future date, of the slip ramps from Lenoir Drive to existing Route 37 shown on the County's Comprehensive Plan. This, too, is addressed in the Comment Response Letter. The re -design also permits the entrance into the site to be so located u 0 Page 13 that it does not interfere with, or impede, an existing easement that provides access to and from the Jenkins Property, Parcel 43-A-23. E. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The Property is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area and there is sufficient capacity in the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility to accommodate the limited effluent to be produced from these industrial structures. Frederick Water observes that the Application does not specify the user and its needs, but that is not uncommon, and the Applicant will address these issues at final site plan. F. WATER SUPPLY The Property will be serviced by public water provided by Frederick Water which observes that the Application does not specify the user and its needs, but that is not uncommon, and the Applicant will address these issues at final site plan. G. DRAINAGE There is some floodplain on the northern to northeastern boundary of the site along Redbud Run, but it will not be disturbed during development. The site generally drains to Redbud Run, but the Applicant will comply with applicable Stormwater Management Regulations to protect that waterway. H. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The Applicant will contract with a suitable private hauler for the removal of trash. I. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES A Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of Glengary (VDHR #034-1099)2 has been prepared by Dutton & Associates (the "Study"). It concludes, in brief, that the home and building stock retain a moderate level of historic physical integrity and represent a good example of a Shenandoah Valley farm that retains a fairly complete complement of domestic and agricultural buildings, but that have evolved over time. As such, Glengary is still recommended as potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and C for significance at the local level. It also concludes that there is a single previously identified site that appears to be more discretely defined, and is focused in and around the former kitchen/servants quarter building (now demolished), which would have functioned as the immediate service space for the main dwelling. The potential for intact archaeological deposits is 2 The home site was named Glengary as long ago as 1762. The central core of the present home was built c. 1850. �J 0 Page 14 present in this area. Dutton & Associates also believes that changes in the farm that occurred before the Applicant entered into discussions with the owner have significantly affected the historical context of the site. The Study has been submitted to the Historic Resources Advisory Board and the Department of Planning and Development for review and comment. Following a meeting with the H.RAB on March 27, 2018, the Applicant received substantial input and has modified its Proffers to reflect the recommendations from that Board. J. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES As with most industrial developments, there are few impacts on community facilities with the general exception of public safety services. To that end, and as other industrial developments have done, the Applicant proposes a contribution to fire and rescue purposes based on the number of gross square feet of structure built. K. OTHLR IMPACTS The applicant is aware of no other impacts that have not been addressed in this Impact Analysis. • 0 Marian Harclus, AICP, LEER AP Planner (703) 680.4664 Ext. 512) mharder.q@tticlandlawyers.com .." Fr h . -, WALSH CoLUCCi LuIRELEX & WALSH PC April 12, 2018 Federal Express Frederick County Department of Planning & Development Attn: Candice Perkins 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5651 Re: Rezoning Application, Stonewall IV Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. (Applicant) Property Identification No.: 43 A 21, 43 A 21 B, 43 19 4 & 43 A 24 (the "Property") Dear Ms. Perkins: In connection with the above, please find the following items to be filed in connection with the above -referenced Rezoning application: 1. One (1) copy of the executed Rezoning application form signed by the property owners. The original application form was submitted to your office on February 14, 2018. 2. A check in the amount of $18,891.00, made payable to County of Frederick. 3. A copy of the death certificate for John S. Morris, Jr. 4. One (1) copy of the Property Location Map, 5. One (1) copy of the "Adjoining Property Owners" list. 6. One (1) copy of the real estate tax records for each property, showing no taxes due. 7. One (1) copy of the Impact Analysis Statement, dated April 12, 2018, 8. One (1) copy of the Proffer Statement, dated April 12, 2018. 9. One (1) copy of the General Development Plan entitled "Stonewall IV," prepared by Dice Engineering, PLC, dated April 5, 2018. 10. One (1) CD ROM containing digital copies all the submission material identified herein. A'110,r.:-1> t.7 1AW 703 680 4664 a WWW.THPI.ANDLAWYERS COM 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY i SUITE .300 1 WOODBRIDGE. VA 22192.5199 ARLINGTON 703 528 4700 1 LOUDOUN 701 737 3613 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 2 On February 14, 2018, the following documents were submitted to your office and are referenced here as part of our formal application: 1. A copy of the cultural resources report entitled "Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of Glengary (BDHR #034-1099), prepared by Dutton & Associates, dated October 2017. 2. A copy of the Transportation Impact Analysis entitled "Stonewall IV," prepared by Kittelson & Associates, dated December 2017. We offer the following in response to the several comments received from reviewing agencies regarding the draft rezoning application, dated February 13, 2018. Where appropriate changes have been made to the Proffers submitted and the Impact Analysis has been revised as needed: Planning and Development, March 19, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response 1. ]Northeast Land Usc Plan - Land Use. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Land Use Plan provide The Applicant concurs .that this application is guidance on the future development of consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the property. The property is located that it is accessible to public utilities, being within the SWSA. The 2035 located within the Sewer and Water Service Comprehensive Plan identifies these Area. properties with an industrial land use designation. The proposed MI Zoning is Transportation issues are addressed in detail in generally consistent with the Northeast response to the comments from the Land Use Plan as it relates to this area. Transportation Department and VDOT, below. The land use plan depicts future Route 37 on the western boundary of the properties and access to Route 37 from Lenoir Drive. The application fully addresses future Route 37 through the property; however, the access to Route 37 is not acknowledged in the impact statement or the proffers. 2. Gengralized Develonn)cnt. The GDP: The GDP has been updated, as recommended should be revised to remove all by Staff. buildings, the GDP should be more general and show the property, proffered E Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 3 improvements, access and buffers. The GDP should also be reduced to 1 1 x 17 or 8.'!x11. Proffer #1 has been revised. Please see the 3. hroi'tcr 1 - Development and Use of the Proucrt . Proffer 1.1 states that two detailed response to the Department of buildings will be constructed, given there Transportation comments below, based on is a gross square footage cap, it appears changes to the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the requirement for two structures may 10"' Edition. not be necessary. Also, consider eliminating use limitation for I warehousing anddistribution. 4. )Proffer 3 - k! il' • & Proffer 3.1 requires Comment noted. This Proffer has been deleted the use of public water and sewer and the per Staffs recommendation. These are matters construction of improvements to provide for final site plan and applicable ordinances such service. This proffer should be will be complied with. removed as it is already required. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. 5.Pi-offer— 4 - Storntw� Comment noted. This Proffer has been deleted M;)n}tprnlell t/hnyit•u�. Stormwater per Staffs recommendation. These are matters management is a site development for final site plan and applicable ordinances requirement. Existing County will be complied with. requirements should be removed. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. 6. 'I"CoAkr 0 - Lighting, Building mounted Continent noted. This Proffer has been deleted and pole mounted lighting and the use of per Staffs recommendation. These are matters downcast full cutoff fixtures are required for final site plan and applicable ordinances by the Zoning Ordinance. Only will be complied with. requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. 7. Access F,asement. The access easement Please see the comments below with respect to to parcel 43-A-23 does not align with the Transportation. proposed access to the subject properties off Lenoir Drive. Provide clarification on The Applicant is aware of the access easement • 0 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 4 the location of these two entrance points. to the identified parcel, and has no intention of Staff recommends that the Applicant cutting off access to it, or of improperly work with the residential property to interfering with the easement. relocate the access easement to align with the new entrance proposed on Lenoir Drive. This is also the general location of the future con-nection to existing Route 37 identified in the Comprehensive Plan (see comment 1). 8. ,Trnn,,I)oj ►flop C ►minents,_1'lcase note Response to the Transportation and VDOT that the transportation comments on the comments are set out below. rezoning application from John Bishop, Assistant Director - Transportation, are being provided to you in a separate letter. Staff may also provide additional comments related to the proposed changes if warranted subject to adjustments requested by VDOT. 9. Atgney .omiitt!tats. Please provide Responses to agency comments are provided appropriate agency comments from the below. following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshal, Frederick Water, Vh-ginia Department of Health, the County Attorney, the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority. 10. EM�. Based on the fees adopted by the A check in the amount of $18,891.00 is Board of Supervisors on April 23, 2008, included with this submission package. the rezoning fee for this application would be $18,891.00 based upon acreage of 88.91 acres County Attorney, March 20, 2018 Agency Coimment Applicant Response 1. Title to one of the parcels (43-A-21B) is in A copy of the death certificate for Mr. John S. the name of Cheryl G. Morris and John S. Morris, Jr. is provided with this submission. Morris, Jr. husband and wife as tenants by • Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 5 the entireties, with common law right of survivorship. I understand from the signature line on proffer statement that Mr. Morris is deceased. We will need submission of sufficient evidence of that fact, such as the type of statement typically included under oath, in a deed conveying property so titled reciting the fact of the death of one of the tenants by the entireties. 2. !n the heading section of the Proffer Statement Equus is identified as Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. and in the signature block it is identified as Equus Capital Partners, LP. I realize that Virgi►ua corporate law may have certain naming requirements that conflict with those of the state law of entity formation, resulting in the use of a different suffix in Virginia but the use of the suffix should nonetheless be consistent throughout the Proffer Statement. The signature block in the Proffer Statement has been revised to reflect Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. 3. In the first paragraph of the introduction, the These corrections have been made. action is twice referred to as a "proffer amendment". These references should instead betoa"rezoning" 4. In the second paragraph of the introduction, The second paragraph of the Proffer Statement the definition of the term "Applicant", should has been modified per Staff s recommendation. be expanded to include the current owner of the Subject Property as well. 5. The third paragraph of the introduction does The third paragraph has been deleted for not seem to fit where it has been placed. The clarity. provisions of the Proffer Statement are not limited merely to instances in which specific plans or exhibits reference them. 6. Proffer 2 - The area indicated to be dedicated The Applicant's engineer has compared the for Route 37 right of way does not GDP with the Board's action of December 12, necessarily appear to encompass a sufficient 2017, and has advised the Applicant that the 9 • Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 6 portion of the right of way area as shown by the Comprehensive Plan depiction on the County's G1S. Staff will want to confirm the extent of the proposed dedication area. Proffers 3, 4, and 6 - Most of the provisions of these proffers simply restate ordinance requirements appropriate Statement. area shown for dedication on the GDP matches the area identified for the Proposed Route 37 interchange. As noted above, Proffers 3, 4 and 6 have been deleted. These are matters for final site plan and applicable ordinances will be complied for inclusion in the Proffer I with. and, to that extent, are not 8. Proffer 5 - Tile proffer should indicate payment simply to Frederick County and not the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. 9. Signature blocks - Because, among other things, we require that proffer statements, once a rezoning is approved, be recorded in the land records, any and all signatures will need to have notarizations. Proffer 5 has been revised per Staff's comment. Comment noted. A notary block has been added to the signature page for both the Applicant and the Owner. Frederick County Department of Transportation, March 28, 2018 Agency Comment 1. 'Traffic studv - nand Use. The traffic study uses 820,000 sq. ft. of high cube warehouse. This results in daily trips of 1,378. This trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse worst case scenario of uses that could potentially populate this property under the MI Zoning District and your proffer statement as currently written. Specifically, the trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse distribution trip generation. While proffer 1.1 does limit the property use to warehouse and distribution, it does not make the distinction of high cube. This is a significant discrepancy impacting the veracity of the Traffic Impact Analysis. This is most easily addressed with a clarification within the Applicant Response After these comments were received, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) published, and the Virginia Department of Transportation adopted, the 10`h Edition of its Trip Generation Manual. The TIA was developed using the Ninth Edition. This has a direct bearing on the case, and on the proper drafting of the Proffers in response to the Department's understandable comment. A "Warehouse" (ITE Land Use Code 150), which was the initially proffered use, is defined as "a building primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but it may also include office and maintenance areas." The Department is correct that under the Ninth Edition of the ITE a pure warehouse 'would have been considered to generate far more trips per day than a "high - cube" warehouse — which is what the TIA had r-I \J • Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 7 modeled, and what the Applicant had intended. According to this new Edition, however, estimated trips generated by a "warehouse" have been reduced dramatically, and the proposed warehouse here would generate a weekday average of only 1,341 trips, slightly fewer than the 1,378 trips that were employed in the TIA — for a high -cube warehouse. It is ' unnecessary, therefore, to alter the proffer to eliminate warehousing as a use. The ITE Manual now recognizes that warehousing will not generate trips that exceed what was modeled in the TIA. This has been the Applicant's actual experience at its other facilities in Frederick County and elsewhere, and now the technical studies have, in effect, caught up with its practical experience. The category of land use formerly identified as High -Cube Warehousing (HCW), has now been broken into three separate categories with dramatically differing trip generation characteristics. There is no longer a Land Use Code 152. A High -Cube Transload and Short Term Storage Warehouse (1TE Land Use Code 154) is defined as "a building that typically has at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area, has a ceiling height of 24 feet or more, and is primarily used for the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. A typical HCW has a high level of on -site automation and logistics management. The automation and logistics enable highly efficient processing of goods through the HCW. The HCWs included in this land use include transload and short-term facilities. Transload facilities have a primary function of consolidation and distribution of pallet loads Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 8 2. 111111- ENstc:r,i_ 11011 l Plan. The Eastern Road Plan portion of the County Comprehensive plan calls for ramp access from Lenoir Drive to Route 37. The site layout and proffers, as currently submitted, does not allow for this future connection to take place. This is an important connection that, when constructed, offers significant positive traffic impacts to the surrounding area and this site. Participating in this for manufacturers, wholesalers, or retailers." In this instance, such a high -cube facility would generate an estimated 1,148 average weekday trips. The Applicant specializes in High -Cube Transload and Short Terni Storage Warehousing, but in order to provide itself market flexibility it wishes to retain the right to use any structures that may be permitted for the Property, and under the new ITE Manual that would include both Warehousing (LUC 150) and High -Cube (LUC 154). 'therefore, the Applicant has edited Proffer 1.I to clarify the uses on the property will be restricted to warehousing uses as those defined by Land Use Codes 150 and 154, as set out in the ITE Manual, 10"' Edition. The Applicant respectfully observes that the Comprehensive Plan 'also calls for the construction of an interchange between Proposed Route 37 and existing Route 37 with northbound ramps commencing roughly 600 feet from the point that any "slip ramp" from Lenoir Drive could reasonably connect with existing Route 37. According to Kittelson & Associates, the construction of such a slip ramp would meet neither VDOT nor AASHTO ' As noted, the ITE has abandoned Land Use Code 152 and now has four Codes for warehousing activities. LUC 150 remains "Warehouse," and LUC 154 is the High -Cube Transload and Short Term Storage Warehouse, In addition, there are two new subcategories. LUC 155 is a "High -Cube Fulfillment Center," a building that is defined as a High -Cube Transload Warehouse, but a fulfillment center warehouse includes structures "characterized by a significant storage function and direct distribution of ecommerce products to end -users. These facilities typically handle smaller packages and quantities than other types of HCWs and often contain multiple mezzanine levels." LUC 156 for a "High -Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse," is again defined as is a High -Cube Transload structure, but such a warehouse "typically serve[s] as regional and local Height -forwarder for time -sensitive shipments via air freight and ground carriers. These sites also often include truck maintenance, wash, or fueling facilities." Both LUC 155 and 156 generate as much as 5 to 6 times the traffic of LUCs 150 and 154. The Applicant does not intend to construct either such facility on the Subject Property. • Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 9 improvement is particularly important due to the proposed development traffic that is being added to an already overburdened network and particularly intersections such as Welltown Road which demonstrates are/will below level of service C. Route 11 and the TIA clearly be functioning standards. It is also the case that the Applicant neither owns nor controls the right-of-way necessary to complete any connection of Lenoir Drive to existing Route 37. Furthermore, this is an improvement the need for which is not generated by this project, but which is more generally required by the public necessity and planning. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis submitted by Mttelson, the relevant intersections that were required to be studied are already functioning below LOS C, but at an acceptable level of service. By 2020 Total Traffic Conditions, assuming the Applicant is permitted to industrial warehouse buildings totaling 820,000 square feet, with primary access via a single full - access driveway along Lenoir Drive are estimated to generate approxunately 1,378 net new weekday daily trips, 90 weekday a.m. (62 in, 28 out), and 98 weekday p.m. (30 in, 68 out) peak hour trips. Under these conditions all study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during all study time periods under 2020 build out conditions. They are doing so at the present. By the 2026 Design Year all study intersections that currently operate at LOS D or better during all study time periods will continue to do so. This is with the exception of the US Route 11/I-81 Northbound Ramp Terminal/Redbud Road intersection during the weekday p.m. peak period. This connection is forecast to continue to operate at LOS E during the weekday p.m. peak hour. This drop in service, however, is due exclusively to background growth and not to this project. Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 10 3. u c 3'l Regarding the proffer for the Route 37 right -of --way, I would suggest adding language in addition to being consistent with the GDP that it is consistent with the Eastern Road Plan update adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 13, 2017. This way, if there is any unintentional disconnect between the GDP and what was adopted by the Board, the intent is clear. VDOT, march 9, 2018 Agency Comment VUO'f Staunton District Planning performed a review of the Stonewall IV Rezoning TIA completed by Kittelsort & Associates, Inc. submitted on February 14, 2018. Overall, the methodology used for the analysis was found to be acceptable and no revisions are required. The comments below are offered as reference notes for minor issues we found. o • Thus, based on the results of the analysis, with which VDOT agrees, no off -site transportation improvements are recommended. All study intersections are projected to continue to operate acceptably, assuming full build -out of the Stonewall IV development. Notwithstanding this and in recognition of the Cottnty's continued insistence on the eventual viability of the slip ramps the Applicant's engineer has relocated the entrance into the development offof Lenoir Drive so that it will not preclude the future construction of those ramps. b�oiliers nor will it interfere with or impede or require the relocation of the easement that provides access to the Jenkins Parcel, 43A-23. The Applicant's engineer has compared the GDP with the Board's action of December 12, 2017, and has advised the Applicant that the area shown for dedication on the GDP matches the area identified for the Proposed Route 37 interchange. Applicant Response Acknowledged. Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 11 I. Typos were found on some of the lane Acknowledged. group level of service figures, where the LOS shown does not match the correctly reported LOS shown on the corresponding traffic conditions tables. 2. For Riture reference, please ensure coordinated phases match the provided signal plans. For this corridor, all signals should be programmed with phases 2 and 6 as the coordinated phases. Only the Rt. ] 1/Redbud Rd signal is currently programmed with only phase 2 as the coordinated phase. This does not appear to have a substantial impact for this TIA, so no revisions are required. 3 The Rt. I 1 /Redbud Rd eastbound left turn was modeled with a 3 second lost time adjustment in both the AM and PM peak hours. VDOT requires that this setting be 0 for all movements. Since this setting degrades signal performance rather than improving it, no revisions arerequired. 4. The Rt. 11/Redbud Rd eastbound and westbound left turns are modeled with permissive- protected operation, but actually operate using flashing yellow arrows. The turn type for these movements should be programmed using the "Dallas permissive + protected" setting with the "Permitted Flashing Yellow" box checked. This does not appear to have a substantial impact for this TIA, so no revisions are required. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. 5. The TIA scoping form identifies ITE Land See the detailed and revised response to the Use Code 152, High -Cube Warehouse / Department of Transportation comments Distribution Center as the trip generation above. With the advent of the 10'h Edition of for the proposed rezoning development, the ITE Manual the situation has changed which was utilized in the technical analysis sufficiently that the Applicant's address of this of the study. However, Proffer 1.1, dated issue has changed so as to remove this as an u • Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 12 February 13, 2018 indicates the issue. development of the property will be ]united to 820,000 square feet, used solely for warehousing and distribution. The High - Cube Warehouse / Distribution Land Use is much less intense in character than traditional warehouse / distribution uses, which have the potential to double the trip generation utilized in the traffic analysis of the study. VDOT District Planning recommends consideration of adjusting the proffer to identify the allowable use to be more in -line with the definition of Land Use Code 152 in the most current ITD 'Trip Generation Manual or limit the permitted daily trip generation of the site to 1,378 as specified in the TIA. 6. The 2035 Frederick County See the response to the Department of Comprehensive Plan Northeast Frederick Transportation comment above. Area Plan identifies a future transportation improvement of a ramp connection to Route 37 south from Lenoir Drive. The current layout of the site as illustrated on the GDP proposes the development entrance at the current termini of Lenoir Drive, which would be in conflict with the future improvement. VDOT District Planning would recommend adjustments to the layout of the site to be in conformance with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Department of Public Works, March 12, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response A detailed review shall occur at the time of site Acknowledged. plan submission. 9 • Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 13 Department of Fire and Rescue, Office of the Fire Marshal, February 15, 2018 Agency Comment Plan approval status = APPROVE No comments. Applicant Response Acknowledged. Frederick-Wincliester Service Authority, February 19, 2018 Agency Comment _- Applicant Response Capacity consideration deferred to Frederick Acknowledged, Water. Frederick Water, February 22, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response — The project parcels are located within the sewer and water service area (SWSA) and in an area presently served by Frederick Water. SWSA enables access to public water and sewer service by county policy. Location within the SWSA does not guarantee that sanitary sewer and water capacities are available to serve the property. 2 The rezoning application proffer states that the proposed use will be limited to a warehouse and distribution facility on no larger than 820,000 gross square feet. The impact analysis statement is silent of the proposed water and sewer demands. 3. Facilities for conveyance of water to, and sanitary sewer from, the subject properties do presently exist. Until the proposed uses' Acknowledged. These issues will be accommodated a final site plan. Comment noted. Proposed water and sewer demands are addressed in the revised Statement of Justification provided with this submission. it is impossible to project proposed demand for sewer and water usage until an end user is obtained but as noted below, warehousing facilities do not require much sewer or water service and the actual needs can be determined and accommodated at final site plan. Acknowledged. Warehousing facilities have minimal demand for sewer, and both sewer and water usage will be determined when an end 0 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 14 projected water and sewer demands are user is obtained. known, it is unknown if the existing conveyance network has the capacity to accommodate the projected demands. 4. The proffer statement is silent on Acknowledged. These are matters that will be _W__....,......,...�.. #L-# ..,.. JA t— nn,—f-infAA ku AAfor ;nnrt nt finni cifP nlgn aQ t}1P. Ant} ority 9 0 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 15 r Historic Resources Board, March 28, 2018 ( Agency Comment — i:1'he Virginia Department of Historic Resources identities one mapped property located on the subject property DHR 1/034-1099 - Glengary. This structure is potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. After revie"!ing this in1lonnation and the Applicant's materials and proposals, the Flistoric Resources Advisory Board (FIRAB) recommended approval of the Rezoning with the following: Applicant perform a Flistoric Americ,^.n Building Survey (NABS) - Standard III for the Glengary site. Institute protocols for the demolishment of Glengary to ensure preservation and/or documentation ofhistorical :features. Applicant Response The Applicant has proffered to prepare a], HABS level III for the residential structure I located on the subject property. This has been I addressed in the Proffer Statement. Once you have had an opportunity to review the application together with the supporting documents, please contact my office if you require additional information Sincerely, WALSH, COLUCCI, LUBELEY & WALSH, P.C. Marian B. Harders, AICP, LEED AP MBH Enclosures: As stated • E L-1 • I \ ACTIVE I INACTR/E W I Q 4• O05TTNG I i GRADE 6. ` 6' NIGH EARTHEN BERM w/ 3 �—f \ \ PLANTS PER 10 LINEAR FEET 4L \ �� 7• (1/3 DECIDUOUS, 1/3 EVERMOEN. 1/3 SHRUBS) TYPICAL CATEGORY'C' BUFFER DETAIL NOT TO SCAIF APPROX. LIMITS OF 100-YR \ \ FLOODPLAIN (ZONE'A') ` \ TM 43—A-210 — _ 1a00 ACRES 'A PROPOSED ACCESS Or 7M 4.T-A-21 76,06 ACRES nv I3-10--4 \ a —A— PARCEL F3xExr ro 23 Z00 ACRES 25' ACTNE BUFFER I - - — _ — aaS ACa?ES w - _ 75' INACTIVE BUFFER LU 06 2 �.>s ? w CATEGORY'C'ZONI(JGDISTRICT BUFFER W/ FULL-LAI'DSCAPE SCREEN U 1 (S.( DETAIL) J N FUTURE ROUTE 37 RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION (17.05AC.L*/-) NOTES' a-•� EZ 1 BOUNDARY INFORMATION FOR SUBJECT PARCELS PROVIDED BY GREYWOLFE, �� INC. TOPOGRAPHIC AND ADJOINING PROPERTY INFORMATION OBTAINED VIA FREDERICK COUNTY GIS RECORDS. -� - 2. UTILITY CONNECTIONS WILL BE PROVIDED FROM EXISTING SERVICES AT LENOIR DRIVE, WITH FINAL LOCATIONS AS DETERMINED DURING THE SITE PLAN DESIGN - PROCESS LOCATION MAP: SCALE: 1" = 3000' Iran i ��•�� PROJECT INFORMATION APPLICANT EODUS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD. CURRENT OWNER CHERYL & JOHN MORRIS REFERENCE: TM 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4, AND 43-A-24 STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT PROPOSED USE WAREHOUSE/DISTRIBUTION ACREAGE: 88 91 AC CURRENT ZONING: RA PROPOSED ZONING. M-1 FLOODPLAIN: 10 14 ACRES (+/-) WITHIN FLOODPLAIN ZONE 'A' PER FEMA FIRM 51069CO208D, 51069CO2090, AND 51069CO210D ADJOINING PROPERTIES LIST— STONEWALL IV PARCEL 10 TAX MAP ZONING OWNER NAME USE 1 43.8.3-39 RA Marshall Mills, Inc c/o Fred A. Dri nagel Residential/Vacant 2 43-9-3.40 RA RA Marshall Mills, Inc. C/o Fred A Druna el Residential/Vacant 3 43-8-3-41 Marshall Mills, Inc. C/o Fred A. Drum el Residential/Vacant 4 43-8-3-42 RA Marshall Mills, Inc. C/o Fred A Drum el Res clential/Vacant S 43-9-3-43 RA Marshall Mills, Inc. c/o Fred A. Druna el Residential/Vacant 6 43-A. 19 RA J➢D Properties, LLC c/o Fred A. Drunagel Residential 7 43-A. 16 RA Kathryn &lames Parker Residential/Van.,( 8 43.19-64 MI Lenoir City Co. of Virginia Industrlal/Vac�at 9 43-19-43 M1 Muldowney-Tiches Assoc. Industrial 10 43-19-37 M1 Muldowney-Tiches Assoc. Industrial 11 43-19-42 M1 Grafton School, Int. Industnal/Vacaat 12 43-19-7 MI 1818 Robert LC Industrial 13 43-A-26-B I M1 Cambridge Financial Services, LC Industral 1 14 43-A-26-A Ml Browning -Ferri: industries c/o Republic Services Tax Dept. Industrial 15 43-A-21-A Ml Browning -Ferris Industries c/o Republic Services Tax Dept. Industrial 16 4 A-23 RA Oscar &Opal Jenkins Residential 0 J d Z It ILI w Z W w U N O N a0 Z I— N (n W UQvvuJ } > M U (30 ED LU 'r ';Tw cn LLJ � U = Z X W Z ° LL O d J Q w m n 0 a Q Ucn U w V) m U } (n 07 W LL O Z � o p 0 Z Q in a CO¢7 o O v C3 C(9 - o P. FREDERICK COUNTY RZ # -18 SHEET NUMBER. GDP • REDERICK WATER, 315 Tasker Road PH (540) 868-1061 Eric R. Lawrence Stephens City, Virginia 22655 Fax (540) 868-1429 Executive Director www.FroderickW2ter;com February 22, 2018 Marian B. Harders Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh PC 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Woodbridge, Virginia 22192 RE: Rezoning Application Comment Stonewall IV Rezoning Application Tax Map Number: 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24 88.91 acres Dear Ms. Harders: Thank you for the opportunity to offer review comments on the Stonewall IV rezoning application package, with a draft proffer statement and Impact Analysis Statement dated February 13, 2018. Frederick Water offers comments limited to the anticipated impact/effect upon Frederick Water's public water and sanitary sewer system and the demands thereon. The project parcels are located within the sewer and water service area (SWSA) and in an area presently served by Frederick Water. SWSA enables access to public water and sewer service by county policy. Location within the SWSA does not guarantee that sanitary sewer and water capacities are available to serve the property. The rezoning application proffer states that the proposed use will be limited to a warehouse and distribution facility on no larger than 820,000 gross square feet. The Impact analysis statement Is silent of the proposed water and sewer demands. Facilities for conveyance of water to, and sanitary sewer from, the subject properties do presently exist. Until the proposed uses' projected water and sewer demands are known, it is "I II %;� ANNIVERSARY Water At Your Service Page 2 Stonewall IV rezoning application Marian Harders February 22, 2018 unknown if the existing conveyance network has the capacity to accommodate the projected demands. The proffer statement is silent on improvements that would be constructed by the applicant to meet water and sanitary sewer demands. Accordingly, the comments offered herein are general in nature. The ultimate decision regarding the ability to serve the property with adequate water and sanitary sewer will be determined at the time the site's use is determined, conveyance facilities are constructed, and water and sewer connection fees are paid to Frederick Water. Sanitary sewer system capacity is not reserved until the sewer connection fee is paid to Frederick Water, and physical connection to the system is made. Water and sanitary sewers are to be constructed in accordance with the FCSA standards specifications. Dedicated easements may be required and based on the layout vehicular access will need to be incorporated into the final design. Please be aware that the FCSA is offering these review comments without benefit of knowledge of the projected water and sewer demands of the site. Thank you for the opportunity to offer review comments. Sincerel At t Eric R. Lawrence Executive Director Cc; Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, County Planning Department Dick Helm, Frederick -Winchester Service Authority r7 LJ • March 19, 2018 Ms. Marian Harders Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh, PC 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Woodbridge, Virginia 22192 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 RE: Proposed Rezoning for Stonewall IV Property Identification Numbers (PINS): 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4, 43-A-24 Dear Ms. Harders: I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Stonewall W site. This application seeks to rezone four properties totaling 88.91 from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the MI (Light Industrial) District with proffers. This review is generally based upon the proffer statement submitted on February 13, 2018. Prior to formal submission to the County, please ensure that these comments and all review agency comments are adequately addressed. At a minimum, a letter describing how each of the agencies and their comments have been addressed should be included as part of the submission. 1. Northeast Land Use Plan — Land Use. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Land Use Plan provide guidance on the future development of the property. The property is located within the SWSA. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan identifies these properties with an industrial land use designation. The proposed M1 Zoning is generally consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan as it relates to this area. The land use plan depicts future Route 37 on the western boundary of the properties and access to Route 37 from Lenoir Drive. The application fully addresses future Route 37 through the property; however, the access to Route 37 is not acknowledged in the impact statement or the proffers. 2. Generalized Development. The GDP should be revised to remove all buildings, the GDP should be more general and show the property, proffered improvements, access and buffers. The GDP should also be reduced to 11 x17 or 8 '/2 x I I. 3. Proffer 1 — Development and Use of the Property. Page 2 Ms. Marian Harders RE: Stonewall IV March 19, 2018 a. Proffer 1.1 states that two buildings will be constructed, given there is a gross square footage cap, it appears the requirement for two structures may not be necessary. Also, consider eliminating use limitation for warehousing and distribution. 4. Proffer 3 - Utilities. Proffer 3.1 requires the use of public water and sewer and the construction of improvements to provide such service. This proffer should be removed as it is already required. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. 5. Proffer 4 — Stormwater Management L, nvironment. Stormwater management is a site development requirement. Existing County requirements should be removed. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. 6. Proffer 6 — Lighting. Building mounted and pole mounted lighting and the use of downcast full cutoff fixtures are required by the Zoning Ordinance. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. 7. Access Easement. The access easement to parcel 43-A-23 does not align with the proposed access to the subject properties off Lenoir Drive. Provide clarification on the location of these two entrance points. Staff recommends that the applicant work with the residential property to relocate the access easement to align with the new entrance proposed on Lenoir Drive. This is also the general location of the future connection to existing Route 37 identified in the Comprehensive Plan (see comment 1). 8, Transportation Comments. Please note that the transportation comments on the rezoning application from John Bishop, Assistant Director - Transportation, are being provided to you in a separate letter. Staff may also provide additional comments related to the proposed changes if warranted subject to adjustments requested by VDOT. 9. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshal, Frederick Water, Virginia Department of Health, the County Attorney, the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority. Page 3 Ms. Marian Harders RE: Stonewall IV March 19, 2018 10. Fees. Based on the fees adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 23, 2008, the rezoning fee f'or this application would be M 8,891.00 based upon acreage of 88.91 acres. All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZAS Assistant Director CEP/pd E U March 28, 2018 Ms. Marian Harders Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh, PC 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Woodbridge, Virginia 22192 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Pax: 5401665-6395 RE: Proposed Rezoning for Stonewall IV Property Identification Numbers (PINs): 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24 Dear Ms. Harders: Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Stonewall IV rezoning. This application seeks to rezone four properties totaling 88.91 from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. This review is based upon the proffer statement submitted on February 13, 2018. 1. Traffic Study — Land Use. The traffic study uses 820,000 sq. ft. of high cube warehouse. This results in daily trips of 1,378. This trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse worst case scenario of uses that could potentially populate this property under the M1 Zoning District and your proffer statement as currently written. Specifically, the trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse distribution trip generation. While proffer 1.1 does limit the property use to warehouse and distribution, it does not make the distinction of high cube. This is a significant discrepancy impacting the veracity of the Traffic Impact Analysis. This is most easily addressed with a clarification within the proffer statement. 2. Comprehensive Plan- Eastern Road Plan. The Eastern Road Plan portion of the County Comprehensive plan calls for ramp access from Lenoir Drive to Route 37. The site layout and proffers, as currently submitted, does not allow for this future connection to take place. This is an important connection that, when constructed, offers significant positive traffic impacts to the surrounding area and this site. Participating in this improvement is particularly important due to the proposed development traffic that is being added to an already overburdened network and particularly intersections such as Route I 1 and Welltown Road which the TIA clearly demonstrates are/will be functioning below level of service C. 0 • Page 2 Ms. Marian IIarders RE: Stonewall IV March 28, 2018 3. Route 37. Regarding the proffer for the Route 37 right-of-way, I would suggest adding language in addition to being consistent with the GDP that it is consistent with the Eastern Road Plan update adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 13, 2017. This way, if there is any unintentional disconnect between the GDP and what was adopted by the Board, the intent is clear. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to review this application. Please feel free to contact me with questions or concerns. Sincerely ., Jolm A. Bishop, AI Assistant Director — Transportation Frederick County Department of Planning and Development cc: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Director of Planning and Development Candice Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director of Planning and Development REZONING APPLICATION FORM IeREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff., Fee Amount Paid Zoning Amendment Nttmber.�_ Date Received f PC Hearing Date BOS Hearing Date The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. Address: 3200 Center Square West, 1500 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 2. Property Owner (if different than above): Name: Cheryl G. Morris Address: PO Box 2802 inc Fester, A T2694 Telephone: 2 l 5.575.2352 Telephone; 3. Contact person if other than above: John Foote, Esq. Name: c/o Walsh Colucci Lubelcy & Walsh Telephone: 703.680.4664 4. Property Information: a. Property Identification Number(s): 43 A 21, 43 A 21B, 43 19 4 and 43 A 24 b. Total acreage to be rezoned: _ 88.91 Acres C. Total acreage of the parcel(s) to be rezoned (if the entirety of the parcel(s) is not being rezoned): n/a d. Current zoning designation(s) and acreage(s) in each designation: RA 88.91 Acres e. Proposed zoning designation(s) and acreage(s) in each designation: M-1 88.91 Acres f. Magisterial Distriet(s): Stonewall Magisterial District 12 • • 5. Cheeklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map _ .®_ Agency Comments _ rk Plat Fees Deed to property ®_ Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid C�9;� Proffer Statement _ ®_ Plat depicting exact meets and bounds for the proposed zoning district Digital copies (pdPs) of all submitted documents, maps and exhibits Concept Plan 0 G. The Code ofVirgiui:t 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: Cheryl G. Morris 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING (See attached adjoining property owner list.) 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): The property is located at the southern terminus of Lenoir Drive (Rt F-732). 13 0 • 9. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi -Family: Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Situare footage of Proposed 1ises Office: _ Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing: _ Restaurant: Warehouse: 820,000 sf Commercial: Other: 10. 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 best of my (our) knowledge. Equus Capital Partners, Ltd —[ Applicant(s): R : AA - Date: Z — / — / S) fi ^I Sy't' Date: ��`, , Owner(s): IL � � r.r, L % � ("t:.tDate: Cheryl G' orris, sole sur iving tenant by the entirety Date: 14 vYIInC, _ U,_ I • ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS } Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property .including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. N�andProperty Identification Number Address Name JPD Propertiess LLC do Fred Druna Tel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property # 43 A 19 Name (Cathryn and James Parker 394 Paris Heights Lane Paris, VA 20130 Property # 43 A 16 Name Lenoir City Co of VA PO Box 1657 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 43 19 64 Name Muldowncy-Tiches Associates 1 LTD LLP c/o Oldcas Ac 331 Newman Springs Rd, Ste 236 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Property # 43 19 43 NameMuldowney-Tiches Associates I LTD LLP c/o Oldcas le 331 Newman Springs Rd, Ste 236 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Property # 43 19 37 Name Grafton School, Inc. PO Box 2500 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 43 1942 Name 1818 Robert LC 1816 Roberts St. Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43 19 7 Name Cambridge Financial Services LC 1816 Roberts St. Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43 A 26B NameBrowning-Ferris Industries c/o Republic Service Tax Dept PO Box 29246 Phoenix, AZ 85038 Property # 43 A 26A 15 Name and Property Identification Number Address Name Browning -Ferris Industries c/o Republic Services Ta Dept PO Box 29246 Phoenix, AZ 85038 Property # 43. A 21A Name Oscar and Opal Jenkins 425 Lenoir Drive Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 4.3 A 23 Name Marshall Mills, Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Property it 43 8 3 39 Warrenton, VA 20188 Name Marshall Mills, Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Property # 43 8 3 40 Warrenton, VA 20188 Name Marshall Mills, Inc. c/o Fred Drtrttagel PO Box 3610 ' Property # 43 8 3 41 Warrenton, VA 20188 Name Marshall Mills , Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 36] 0 Property # 43 8 3 42 Warrenton, VA 20188 Name Marshall Mills ,-Inc:..c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property # 43 8 3 43 Name._ Fru_it Hill Orchard, Inc. PO Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 43 A 25 Name._ Cives Corporation PO Box 2778 Property # 43 A 55A Winchester, VA 22604 Name Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. PO Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 43 A 22 Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # 16 • Y < �...., W • Stonewall MC m � - Rezoning from RA to M1 Zoning • • M• STONEWALL • £il) INDUSTRIALtPARK <+ ; �}t ` .-`` t �r * & yh 3 Subdivision s 3 SPRING S • • `VALLEY �. s' ~ r;• Subdivision �.� ti ; �• • T,♦ REZ ail 8 f REZ D 1!'18 • ®= RE71#01-18 0 Applications Sewer and Water Service Area t. Parcels Building Footprints Z s� •`tt`' Future RI 37 Bypass B1 (Neighborhood Business District) B2 (General Business District) + B3 (Industrial Transition District) _ 7 EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) HE (Higher Education District) • � JV 41 11 � M1 (Light Industrial District) J a6►W °0 M2 (Industrial General District)' 522 3° 8 S MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) MS (Medical Support District) OM (Office - Manufacturing Park) R4 (Residential Planned Community District) R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) RA (Rural Areas District) RP (Residential Performance District) Eastern Road Plan _ `0 Ramp Note: REZ (; 01 - 18 Frederick County Dept of Stonewall IV Planning&De, 107 N Kent S' PINS: Suite 202 43 - A - 21. 43 - A - 21 B. 43 - A - 24. Winchester. VA 2260 43- 19 - 4 540 - 665 - 5651 Rezoning from RA to M1 Map Created: April 23. 2018 Zoning Map Staff: cperkins n o�c 9711 1 Un FeM a Ma Subdivision Q applications Sewer and Water Service Area Parcels Future Rt 37 Bypass Building Footprints Eastern Road Plan _ ♦/ Ramp Long Range Land Use O Residential �!S; Neighborhood Village Urban Center • Mobile Home Community QBusiness O Highway Commercial Mixed -Use Mixed Use Commercial/Office 0 Mixed Use Industrial/Office - Industrial ® Warehouse 40 Heavy Industrial 0 Extractive Mining fir Commercial Rec Rural Community Center ® Fire 8 Rescue Q Sensitive Natural Areas ® Institutional t- Planned Unit Development Park Recreation School TC—) \L J Employment Airport Support Area O B2/B3 C) Residential 4 u/a QHigh -Density Residential 6 u/a OHigh -Density Residential. 12-16 u!a O Rural Area Interstate Buffer Landfill Support Area Natural Resources 8 Recreation ® Environmental 8 Recreational Resources - 4 CGNEE RD 6S7 MCGNEf RD � J60 TYSON�`DR, • TYSON-DRY J� -1 , TYSON DR 260 LENOIR DR JIO LENOIRDR a ul R Z I JR1/ LENOI> ��ll IJ t94 EZ AM —3 LENOON-DR 31 522( Note: REZ # 01 - 18 Frederick County Dept of Stonewall IV Planning Development 107 N Kent St PINS: Suite 202 43 - A - 21, 43 - A - 21 B. 43 - A - 24, Winchester. VA 22601 43-19-4 540-665-5651 Rezoning from RA to MI Map Created: April 23. 2018 Long Range Land Use Map Staff: cperkins 0 375 750 1.500 Feet 0 0 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff} o� Fee Amount Paid $ I'6, Zoning Amendment Number(-6?Date Received L-I1 I� PC Hearing Date BOS Hearing Date r 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: Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. Address: 3200 Center Square West, 1500 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 2. Property Owner (if different than above): Name: Cheryl G. Morris Address: PO Box 2802 W Winchester, VA 2fiZl 3. Contact person if other than above: John Foote, Fsq. Name: C10 Walsh COIuCCi Lubelcy & Walsh Telephone: 215.575.2352 Telephone - Telephone: 703.680.4664 4. Property Information: a. Property Identification Number(s): 43 A 21, 43 A 2113, 43 19 4 and 43 A 24 b. Total acreage to be rezoned: 88.91 Acres C. Total acreage of the parcel(s) to be rezoned (if the entirety of the parcel(s) is not being rezoned): n/a d. Current zoning designation(s) and acreage(s) in each designation: RA 88.91 Acres C. Proposed zoning designation(s) and acreage(s) in each designation: M-1 88.91 Acres f. Magisterial District(s): Stonewall Magisterial District 12 5. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map _.._�._ Agency Comments Plat _ C�,_ Fees Deed to property t Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid N Proffer Statement ®. Plat depicting exact meets and bounds Ibr the proposed zoning district Digital copies (pdi's) ofall submitted documents, maps and exhibits Concept Plan G. The Code ol'Virtlhiia 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: Cheryl G. Morris 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING (See attached adjoining properly owner list.) 8, Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): The property is located at the southern terminus of Lenoir Drive (Rt F-732). 13 9. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Numbcr of Units Proposed Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi -Family: Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: 820,000 sf Commercial: Other: 10. 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 best of my (our) knowledge. Equus Capital Partners, Ltd Applicant(s): g AA Date: Z r J Nai Ti S P Date: Owner(s): L /� Q, c �;�1 i LPL' Date: Cheryl G. orris, sole su iving tenant by the entirety Date: 14 A-�u 110A'-D-t-61 ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS { Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2ndfloor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. IF Name and Property Identification Number Address Name JPD Properties LLC do Fred Druna el PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property # 43 A 19 Name Kathryn and James Parker 394 Paris Heights Lane Paris, VA 20130 Property # 43 A 16 Name Lenoir City Co of VA PO Box 1657 Winchester, VA 22604 Property ## 43 19 64 NameMuldowney-"fiches Associates I I fD LLP c/o Oldca. de 331 Newman Springs Rd, Ste 236 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Property # 43 19 43 NameMuldowney-Tiches Associates 1 LTD LLP c/o Oldcas lc 331 Newman Springs Rd, Ste 236 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Property # 43 19 37 Name Grafton School, Inc. PO Box 2500 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 43 19 42 Name 1818 Robert LC 1816 Roberts St. Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43 19 7 Name Cambridge Financial Services LC 1816 Roberts St. Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43 A 26B NameBrowning-Ferris Industries c/o Republic Service. Tax Dept PO Box 29246 Phoenix, AZ 85038 Property ## 43 A 26A ==1 15 Name and Property Identification Number Address Name Browning -Ferris Industries c/o Republic Services Ta c Dept PO Box 29246 Phoenix, AZ 85038 Property # 43 A 21A Name Oscar and Opal Jenkins 425 Lenoir Drive Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43 A 23 Name Marshall Mills, Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property 1/ 43 8 3 39 "Name Marshall Mills, Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property # 43 8 3 40 Name Marshall Mills , Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property 1/ 43 8 3 41 Name Marshall Mills , Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property # 43 8 3 42 Name Marshall Mills , Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property # 43 8 3 43 Name . Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. PO Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 43 A 25 Name_ Cives Corporation PO Box 2778 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 43 A 55A Name Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. PO Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 43 A 22 Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property It 16 Ir REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff: Zoning Amendment Number PC Hearing Date Fee Amount Paid $ Date Received _ BOS Hearing Date_ The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. Address: 3200 Center Square West, 1500 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 2. Property Owner (if different than above): Name: Cheryl G. Morris Address: PO Box 2802 Winchester, VA 22604 3. Contact person if other than above: John Foote, Esq. Name: c/o Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh Telephone: 215.575.2352 Telephone: Telephone: 703.680.4664 4. Property Information: a. Property Identification Number(s): 43 A 21, 43 A 21B, 43 19 4 and 43 A 24 b. Total acreage to be rezoned: 88.91 Acres C. Total acreage of the parcel(s) to be rezoned (if the entirety of the parce)(s) is not being rezoned): n/a d. Current zoning designation(s) and acreage(s) in each designation: RA 88.91 Acres e. Proposed zoning designation(s) and acreage(s) in each designation: M-1 88.91 Acres f. Magisterial District(s): Stonewall Magisterial District 12 nd 5. Checklist: Check the following item5_that have been included with this application. Location map _®_ Agency Comments ® _ Plat _ ®,_ Fees ® _ Deed to property ® Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid ®I� Proffer Statement ®_ Plat depicting exact meets and bounds for the proposed zoning district ®_ Digital copies (p(If's) of all submitted documents, maps and exhibits ! ®_ Concept Plan G. The Code o1' 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: Cheryl G. Morris 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL Ill NUMBER USE ZONING (See attached adjoining property owner list.) 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): The property is located at the southern terminus of Lenoir Drive (Rt F-732). 13 9. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi -Family: Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: 820,000 sf Commercial: Other: 10. 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 best of my (our) knowledge. Equus Capital Partners, Ltd Applicant(s): B : �'` Date: Z Na Tiy Date: Owner(s): L .l Q �.� ! G-vice z Date: Cheryl G. orris, sole surviving tenant by the entirety Date: 14 n _ .. i;l;,:,.,1 < gSlr+ Jt�r'1�.rl.nf tJ f-.+...f�Ul s lt� tt-1 f• lr•, '.•trll:.11 t �� 11 Sn. J , •1.• •� J!rSll II ••'1'.td•Jt . � 1P'11 ' �i\�IL_ / , - �'I.VV\nIVV\.'\h/V\M.'..![JVtllJliV'JVIICIVtJVVV.7CXVl,C7V� 1111. 0259947 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA - - DEPARTMENT-OF-HEAL-TH—DI4fSF6N-©f--VITAL RECORDS r •=s=' COA1hIONWEALTII OF VIRGINIA -CERTIFICATE OF DEATH DEPARTMENT OF IIEALTII- DIVISION OE VITAL RECORDS• RICHMOND Si l 15 DORY STAY1lY )IORlllz - jL • , • aK,aLL nax•an =Y.:-J--`•'-''r --ti(.-- ,' JL":.�--- ra... a `❑ ❑ as NARCH If. J•IS p Y , T-•-____ pA •unwrl prAo )UYSL INI � ' II - - - - - - - - - - air .wuratlxir afunua aw•onxau f a,uf n.nr. n.m.r...r.n afvuA N(wn .+li Te<+tl+irvurt ilea Yn Sa Y VIRLI.vIA IIf. Y.7JJ3 ❑ ❑ ❑ ` �_ arYJf iDU111lMWlu-'n w`O(>t M❑.Q.(A,(awl nlliY[a l:('/nt, rlll/1(1-�� nn[t mrOlwMtl�li• Ofz-' BY1 '"( a:•SL\aR DRJaz IYlYL71TSfLR nw r mulCx Cnf[YTY VM4,.pA f a aafl d d[t:,Lrl f1iTY w OIPa, p A.•rr,v [,ru,m u,rw ufmM �.,., p,[.,a�.,.,,..,,n,.. pra.,r, ❑r..f[, p.nr.r..,,rn,.,.,.r(.n ❑r.,.,., praw.rLL ❑van ,•mmn _ p... .. pm..... plv ❑v. ❑vfw.,nrarl roy„ ux.(n ❑x ,m ❑[Lvra,au v,mlAaRA,cAr ❑(WM ❑uury ❑.f•rturrAr ❑van lur(vn '�`�' 1rA.:taRAr •-•«axmw pwfrnA•rna[[rauarr•uf ❑teal Kfavltarttau pale (Btt,•lu leave p,uiHJadul) pa,(,aluaHtAA1 pwnvlNfulati.a(,[uAHAltlul[ plK +w 0. I1, ulAi[clLf,a u'[ Ilrrot, R.'R`lf[wtt nnr ,----a[nu[l[A_ al I_"q TSD TCATa OF ANu1G PXvULC-M1MAYALTx All ACiuRMc a 4YIAutfau of u•lu aAM.1/fniL srr.(fwwwf vufuiuuaa ORHfMa ❑aarrfa ❑ana(fn ❑uruAn)f Dlxa`MY c1KRYLNORRIf a�Y,ul t/H(f • RD rYA1. .f w[w -- la ,a,l .ii`1:TAW/.a>[, u:4L n JOILYSTAVLZY MONAli Sti AIAIA I.CL ffr(K m� :, a ww'vA•nw un, fra>SC v )t ua vr.uf•uru u.A•.1 CTI[RYL NORWS Y„w tlrrMral w CnIfMrsltltlAnl l•r•�...•.[ rt ar, •R Int I tlAnItlSlAalaH iwr1A1 fir❑ W AO WSiCii CiTCII YCDIC.ILCZ\TCR.IYG ❑ >rl'Ybu:xYu,wTti v��1-i7eriifii[.rAlarn u ' rw []lon(i la[lail ❑)a/YYlrafr ❑I[aGnW(ALLIAfRftY ptl(,n:mr,r. ❑(L11RVUL I,([IIfY t]an LitllflM �[ -r-- n AaiFuwfTwri'i1 k"E7/-[+wIN r U.. .M'-q'•.•. n•a.lr MLVCtiTSTSR INI ANMCRSTTT. '.. I7NI ® u p)x=w.•vr•R,uuxW pnlfAAivrlcu4�Atal1' 01u,Aa Arw pfnrAml pannlfrrfvn ..t(•. p.Nat,L rN++n,n � faw«(ruA•a AUa cxcY iP'.u.!�llwv uruno:ri!v+C=':•af1O'f''n r.vv rt.rc r.w ulwa ulfn+� R rfA( awmrl.w..�u(—Tif• u(urHa'ii..r � - . rwW'i+n Jqu'fi R[>tli/IYCVI[TUY ' . .tom— , 2Urt:4 vv.. Mwy tIT��l-.na[laia.�( SGST,frVJD rfui: .[ , ]M GSi p X_w" STREET WNCHISUR1 Y71IL4\lA k22"1 ' tsR M IL'ail1�Ki,Qj♦Y�K rtf �N(T 1✓.f[WI (I.rll HIJa.N Lw If.�1ur%.��r NSOYYA lD1tllAlY[)UY Y�t/1IJ17 NIYO it Mix .110NL'c. , L w,MWIL'ii 7�It�ilkS lfTIi11rI11N.) 1 ( a 4it 611 1/ _ AMU LORRAJ\YW\' I � fJ•Ff�'t1IlAG..Yr VALLSY ROAD WnCX ry=%I R ONZA 194 a tlA[f[i.•. r. nf-wa.Cc�..l. [I A11 '.� rl✓ 1— .❑ 1— A(TwJ" Nnnp wile -- 7 _IJ r far•. �4•r.•...�••�•+r.IMu •.m+ �+ w - , 11 '- PttaYLLNMn QflTA• _ R w •�....a..-w...N T�niw(ax f�s_�x_.faauan•cf.n• 'a' �.r[r......�....Y•---,ir1,-,�T75 Z;,17-i[T—.• • Kl _. --GlTiulCA ii..u.A . 1 \.a{Ri1raMAl laN•'a (UYfA[Trvf tw ANan .'a•Jll•,<`•%f AVNI,J(a lo[W(1n fuNd Wlln naM1 •f W(mfwnt au tlAnf ,-•.,, ❑m ❑nlP ❑w tta(vpw pmrf.[r pfxw.+ w . nau:t ❑I.aaan Ari.•atl,v ❑L'.x,.vuruuwrr fnnrfnnunYua pwrn)c(,.n u,ruca�n/af�navuwnvaud rnl¢Ylla,nlal ttN •tlaLL [GTI L7""Mn,C.c r•I.nl•nr �WnILv'n a'i:YH1•IT flu ❑I4f nllvUri WrnIcrAYl v un, of frnirtivn.R,nfu[v,.,< , hY�uan.arx A++ .. n.a--o[:n(ff[u, -- ' - Hx,iu Rf[uia,ru'(fwi xifrt._la>.�Y 1,rw�.0 ❑ruwr ❑[vnr.[.'mo Qtta nou(1,onfannf((,fa..l(Lf.(rfrY(nrnan•rwwln.arwf.r rf�y�Rl . a.rtm[.ui uluavfw. a[avn.•r,r+vrAl raga r ❑N ❑r11 ❑tta ❑w ❑[rrwr •'•" .vuf,rrHrrA,Y.vuvT p[vm a.nurw ❑nf A ❑HI•An1Ar ❑m[•alfntvn •ruv'-ifwlu6tnlocc(uw ra,fYCAa•RV(tAnl �- -j.y,)n1 nrAL[rrfaa pnmrur uvrtAn prn(raddnv,iu,Ooa ��—^• El n,A-nnr•, ❑unvan.• �YUI J •.+.Iv.: (. , ,Iv ()uAlir IH. _ _f(<•, f� �f•. I ^• �Ni� dG sRGv. ,IR�]1 [1 =:! oiimi -d'i I q5g ��L1`i C� fa WtU,A tlfLifl• .••�+��W'I MJlx Iu1 , 1t�. .�N ❑tv ❑f'° ym.; uTjy7� ma i a <7 1 Ibis a to certify that ma le n min and correct reproduollon or abstract of the offidal record fJed lath the Vtrplra Depanmenl 'J •: ',r _4XI144!UI. DATE ISSUED APR O 12015 ct<Tu( j Janet M. Bailey, Sato Dogistm Do not Ixcept unless on semnly paper Wilh Ifw seal of Vatvnn Deparlinam of Haaxtl, VJ:J Sint a ttlo lo-rAx lell turd arror C `- ..'.�' �, . Sci:flm 32.1.272. Codo of Vnpma, as umykd. VS 15C - �, • { try,-___.^.lv`J:^,✓�1�..^.'1'..•��ti^�•.v_��.n.'V:r�M^.!•,C.'✓.l^.A^r.:'1^_'_1.��a.�•\: .vl•�^.^r.�ti'1,^r�'vr�:�!'- .. 1`I j ^ r[Iq+i, 1, �1 a/Jw y r.Rut;Jr.�.- [ ' �Irng;r, J:••-;..,. ' � . •, tU71; la 1S;•.. Ji L11�Y. t;!!,:,f ,,•1•r1,YSJji�l- 'Ita,S�_ f.aJ�o';11: •J,1�, lu I"':"t'' -," �3 ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Property Identification Number Address Name JPD Properties LLC c/o Fred Druna el PO Box 3610 Property 11 43 A 19 Warrenton, VA 20188 Name Kathryn and James Parker 394 Paris Heights Lane Paris, VA 20130 Property 11 43 A 16 Name Lenoir City Co of VA PO Box 1657 Property 11 43 19 64 Winchester, VA 22604 Name Muldowncy- fiches Associates I LTD LLP c/o Mica. de 331 Newman Springs Rd, Ste 236 Property il 43 19 43 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Namelvtuldowney-fiches Associates 1 LTD LIT c/o Oldcas le 331 Newman Springs Rd, Ste 236 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Property 11 43 19 37 Name Grafton School, Inc. PO BON 2500 Property 11 43 19 42 Winchester, VA 22604 Name 1818 Robert LC 1816 Roberts St. Property 11 43 19 7 Whichester, VA 22601 Name Cambridge Financial Services LC 1816 Roberts St. \'��inchester, VA 22601 Properly # 43 A 26B NameBrowning-Perris Industries c/o Republic Service. Tax Dept PO Box 29246 Property 11 43 A 26A Phoenix, AZ 85038 15 Name and Property Identification Number Address Name Browning -Perris Industries c/o Republic Services Ta Dcpt PO Box 29246 Phoenix, AZ 85038 Property # 43 A 21 A Name Oscar and Opal Jenkins 425 Lenoir Drive Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43 A 23 Natne Marshall Mills , Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property # 43 8 3 39 Name Marshall Mills , Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property #t 43 8 3 40 Name Marshall Mills , Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property # 43 8 3 41 Name Marshall Mills , Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property 11 43 8 3 42 Name Marshall Mills , Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property /l 43 8 3 43 Name Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. PO Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 43 A 25 Name Cives Corporation PO Box 2778 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 43 A 55A Name Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. PO Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 Property If 43 A 22 Name Property # Name Property dJ Name Property # Name Property # 16 0 0 Location Map — Stonewall TV a !1 4�G C0 c% AMENDMENT ry o� \lGIA, 17M Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: June 6, 2018 Public Hearing Held; Postponed for 45 days July 18, 2018 Recommended Approval BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: August 8, 20l 8 Approved AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING #01-18 STONEWALL IV WHEREAS, REZONING #01-18 submitted by Equus Capital Partners, Ltd., to rezoning 88.91± acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to the M 1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers with a final revision date of 07/27/18 was considered. The subject properties are located at the southern terminus of Lenoir Drive (Route F-732), in the Stonewall Magisterial District and is identified by Property Identification Nos. 43-A- 21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on June 6, 2018 and postponed the application for 45 days; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on July 18, 2018 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on August 8, 2018; 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 confoi7nance 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 amended to rezone 88.91± acres fi-om RA (Rural Areas) District to the M 1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers with a final revision date of 07/27/18. The conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the Applicant and the Property Owner is attached. PDRes #28-18 -1- This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 8th day of August 2018 by the following recorded vote; Charles S. DeFlaven, Jr., Chairman Aye J. Douglas McCarthy Aye Shannon G. Trout Aye Blaine P. Dunn Aye PDRes #28- l 8 BOS Res. #008-18 -2- Gary A. Lof3on Aye Robert W. Wells Aye Judith McCann -Slaughter Aye A COPY ATTEST 5risf-Tiern' , Frederick County Administrator 'VIRGINIA: ,-DERICK COU TIC rtt�ment of 5� 1 iting was PrOduced to me on trtitic•atc ;rr:►;n,;,t tt•ctgcmenr tii�•� to " wits adnrittt'it c„ r�.cc,rd l as i►npoud b nncxed Y t'c. i1.I-(u)2 of and 58.1-801 have been Paid, if assessable. Clerk u L_J 18000810,31 PROFFER STATEMENT LQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91-F/- Acres Rezoning: 1/01-18 Record Owner Cheryl Grimm Morris Applicant: Equus Capital Partners, LTD Property: Parcels 43 A 21, 43 A 21B, 43 19 4 and 43 A 24, comprising a total of approximately 88.91 acres, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan (hereinafter "the Property"). Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) to M-1 (Light Industrial) Project Name: Stonewall IV Date: .tune 6, 2018 Resubmittal Date: July 27, 2018 Pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2296, et seq., and § 165-102.06 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the undersigned hereby pi-offer-s that the development and Ilse of the Property, consisting of 88.91 ± acres, located on the north side of ROulc 37 and west of its intersection with the Martinsburg Pike, shall be in substantial conformance with the following conditions. In the event this rezoning is granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall supersede and replace in their entirety all other proffers made prior hereto. In the event this rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning the current owner, all flrture owners and successors in interest. The term "Generalized Development Plan" or "GDP" as referenced herein shall refer to the plan entitled "Stonewall IV Generalized Development Plan," prepared by Dice Engineering, PLC, and dated April 5, 2018. DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE PROPERTY 1.1. Development on the Property shall be limited to the construction of not more than 820,000 gross square feet that shall be used solely for Warehousing, or I-Iigh- Cube Transload and Short Term Storage, Land Use Codes 150 and 154, as those land uses are defined in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10"' Ed). • 0 c� C PROFFER STATEMENT — EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS ry STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTIZICT c J 88.91 d-/- Acres 1.2. The development of the Property shall be in general conformance with the GDP. However, Upon the submission of final Site or subdiv1S1011 plans, m1nor modifications and adjustments may be made t0 the road alignments, entrances, parking, dimensions of the SWM/BMP facilities, the exact Configuration and location Of bLlllding footprints, and other similar features shown on the GDP. 1.3. The maximum height of the each building shall be sixty feet (60'). 2 TRANSPORTATION. 2.1 Within 90 calendar clays of a written request by the County, the Applicant Shall dedicate approximately 17.05 acres to the Frederick County Board of' Supervisors, as depicted on the GDP, for the FLlture Route 37 Bypass. 2.2 Access to the Property shall be as shown On the GDP. Provided that access to the buildable area of the Property is not impeded or eliminated, the Applicant shall not place above grade improvements on the southeast corner of the Property near the tel'1111nL1S of Lenoir Drive in such a way as to preclude the construction of proposed slip ramps that are currently depicted on the graphic entitled "Eastern Road Plan — Lenoir Drive Slip Ramp Clarification," created by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, dated October 17, 2017, and attached hereto for reference. The southeast corner of the Property is subject to existing easements and/or covenants of record, as of June 6, 2018. 2.3 Within 90 calendar clays Of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall further dedicate such right -Of -way as it may own at the terminus Of Lenoir Drive for the purpose of construction of access to existing IZOLIte 37 as described in Proffer 2.2 above. 2.4 The Applicant shall contribute $250,000 to the County for the purpose Of general transportation planning, right-of-way acquisition, 01' CO1lSt1'L1Ct1O1l. It shall make SL1CI7 contribution Upon 1SSL1a11Ce of an occupancy permit for any building. 3 FIRE AND RESCUE. 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County the sum Of $0.10 per gross square foot Of construction aS depicted on each site plan, to be used for fire and rescue purposes in the general area. The contribution shall be made at the time Of issuance of the occupancy permit for each structure. 2 0 c� PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS tv STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES. 4.1 The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional architectural historian to perform a Historic American Building Survey (I-IABS) — standard level III, as defined by the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program on the residential building and its associated agricultural buildings located on the property. "bile I -JABS standard level III documentation shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later than with the submission of a preliminary subdivision or preliminary site plan for the Property. Following acceptance of the NABS standard level III documentation by the Planning Director, the documentation shall be submitted to the National Park Scrvice Heritage Documentation Program. 4.2 The applicant, working with a qualified professional architectural historian, shall inspect prior to demolition the non -heated areas of the residential building for the presence of partially hidden or obscured historical artifacts or material. The applicant shall notify the Planning Director of any historic artifacts or material that may be discovered during the inspection and subsequent demolition of the residential building. 5 ESCALATOR. 5.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in this Proffcr Statement are paid to Frederick County within eighteen (18) months after final approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the a►nounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in this ProfTer Statement which are paid to the County after eighteen (18) months following final approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI-U from that date eighteen (18) months after final approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI-U to the date the contributions are paid. [Signatures on following page.] 3 • 11 PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT c, 88.91 +/- Acres SIGNATURE PAGE APPLICANT: EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD By: Name: -oltN Title: State of County of Subscribed and sworn to before me this �Aay of 2018 in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed principa NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: My Notary Registration Number: taummuwt C T A,psod ,r tANNiE on C*6'n April )k Ml t.I I 'a IMndw 116"37 N N • C� a PROFFER STATEMENT �' EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS C-' STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres OWNER: Cheryl Gri4nm Morris, sole surviving tenant by the entirety Commonwealth of Vir inia: County of Frederick: S.k/G��c,cO (.thJ Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2D ay of 2018 in my County and State aforesaid. by the aforenamed principal. NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: .3/. U�,�.. .•p G. rj My Notary Registration Number: 0663/o/ �-� AUBLIG VG 0 • • 1 I r Ia aRna a •// � r-Arn Ral 10 INM FYIT (1/] �1A1R In oolamE 1n soisl f \ Fl000RNAPPRQX NN TS OF IZONE AOOYR NM /YQ PROPOSEO ACCESS IF 1 I 1 ' �41.4-0 / I II I am AIIIIIIIS {/ / 1 F—.4E-Fr-( \ Y�Yf 10 RYES Awl ------- — — — Rif(E..,.F y _ - 2 GTEGORv C20NHG DISTRICT"FER \4 � W FL&I LANOSGPE SCREEN l 1 FUTWEROUTEll _ �. F FRIGHT DF-MMY DEDMATNON �. I BOUNDARYI.IORMATIONIDRSUBJECIPARCELSPROVIDEDBv GREvMOLFE IHC TOPOGRAPHIC ANO ADJONHG PROPER•v ,Nf ORMATQM O•TAIf4D VN FREDEMCR COUNTY GS RECORDS a U TILITY CONNEC T IONS MILL BE PROVIDED FROM EUSTUNG SERVICES AT LENOIR DRIVE. W TH FWAL LOCATIONS AS DETERMINED DURING THE SITE PLAN DESNGN PROCESS LOCATION MAP 5CN E 1 • SOOP PROJECT INFORMATION APPLICAN' EOWS CAPITAL PARTNERS LTD CURRENTOMHER CHERYL S JOHN MONRIS RCIERENCE 1M AMZ' (S MZ13. A11H AAx)-N STONEYMLL-MDISTERML DISTRICT PROPOSED USE ~EHDUSEAXSTRI•UT*N ACREAGE M 61 AC CURRENT ZONIG RA PROPOSED ZONING MI ILDOOPLAW 1014 ACRES(•N) WTHIN FLODOPLAIN ZONE PER FEW FIRM S10MCOMW SIOM0020@0. AND S1o"=IoO 3 O u i mWo�o NNN'10 �.0 H Q Z LLJ > }>> �j w Z w O Y C c� C w N W K u- Z w a FREDERICK COUNT, RZ r_•te SHEET NUMBER GDP • • I r+� i,, ; r snfce' 7j Proposed Future Rt 37 Bypass Existing Future Rt 37 Bypass Eastem Road Plan Improved Major Arterial %..v- New Minor Collector ,-\-/ Ramp • ►Urban Development Area (OlSewer and Water Service Area *I/ wo <rewc• er r•cx•xi co,.rr. uco, "p � o oats oars ��o��r�r PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91 A-/- Acres 1.2. The development of the Property shall be in general conformance with the GDP. However, upon the submission of final site or subdivision plans, minor modifications and adjustments may be made to the road alignments, entrances, parking, dimensions of the SWM/BMP facilities, the exact configuration and location of building footprints, and other similar features shown on the GDP. 1.3. The maximum height of the each building shall be sixty feet (60'). 2 TRANSPORTATION. 2.1 Within 90 calendar days of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall dedicate approximately 17.05 acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, as depicted on the GDP, for the Future Route 37 Bypass. 2.2 Access to the Property shall be as shown on the GDP. Provided that access to the buildable area of the Property is not impeded or eliminated the Applicant shall not place above trade improvements on the southeast corner of the Property near the terminus of Lenoir Drive in such a wayas s to preclude the construction of proposed slip ramps that are currently depicted on the graphic entitled "Eastern Road Plan — Lenoir Drive Slip Ramp Clarification," created by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. dated October 17 2017 and attached hereto for reference. The southeast corner of the Propertyis subject to existing casements and/or covenants of record as of June 6. 2018, 3 FIRC AND RESCUE. 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County the sum of $0.10 per gross square foot of construction as depicted on each site plan, to be used for fire and rescue purposes in the general area. The contribution shall be made at the time of issuance of the occupancy permit for each structure. 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES. 4.1 The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional architectural historian to perform a Historic American Building Survey (NABS) — standard level III, as defined by the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program on the residential building and its associated agricultural buildings located on the property. The HABS standard level III documentation shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later than with the submission of a preliminary subdivision or preliminary site plan for the Property. Following acceptance of the NABS standard level III documentation by the Planning 2 LJ PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres Rezoning: 1101-18 Record Ownei- Cheryl Grimm Morris Applicant: Equus Capital Partners, LTD Property: Parcels 43 A 21, 43 A 2113, 43 19 4 and 43 A 24, comprising a total of approximately 88.91 acres, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan (hereinafter "the Property"). Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) to M-1 (Light Industrial) Project Name: Stonewall IV Date: June 6, 2018 Pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2296, et seq., and § 165-102.06 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the undersigned hereby proffers that the development and use of the Property, consisting of 88.91 ± acres, located on the north side of Route 37 and west of Its Intersection with the Martinsburg Pike, shall be in substantial conformance with the following conditions. In the event this rezoning Is granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall supersede and replace in their entirety all other proffers made prior hereto. In the event this rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning the current owner, all future owners and successors in interest. The term "Generalized Development Plan" or "GDP" as referenced herein shall refer to the plan entitled "Stonewall IV Generalized Development Plan," prepared by Dice Engineering, PLC, and dated April 5, 2018. 1. DEVELOPMENT AND USE Oh' THE PROPERTY 1.1. Development on the Property shall be limited to the construction of not more than 820,000 gross square feet that shall be used solely for Warehousing, or I-Iigh- Cube Transload and Short Term Storage, Land Use Codes 150 and 154, as those land uses are defined in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10°i Ed). PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres 1.2. The development of the Property shall be in general conformance with the GDP. However, upon the submission Of final Site Or subdivision plans, minor modifications and adjustments may be made to the road alignments, entrances, parking, dimensions of the SWM/BMI' facilities, the exact configuration and location Of building footprints, and other similar features shown on the GDP. 1.3. The maximum height Of the each building shall be sixty feet (60'). 2 TRANSPORTATION. 2.1 Within 90 calendar days Of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall dedicate approximately 17.05 acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, as depicted on the GDP, for the Future Route 37 Bypass. 2.2 Access to the Property shall be as shown on the GDP. Provided that access to the buildable area Of the Property Is not Impeded or eliIllinated, the Applicant shall not place above grade improvements on the southeast corner of the Property hear the terminus of Lenoir Drive in such a way as to preclude the construction Of proposed slip ramps that are currently depicted on the graphic entitled "Eastern Road Plan — Lenoir Drive Slip Ramp Clarification," created by the Frederick County Department Of Planning and DevelopIllent, dated October 17, 2017, and attached hereto for refereIlce. The southeast corner Of the Property Is subject to existiIlg casemeIlts and/Or covenaIlts of record, as of June 6, 2018. 3 FIRE AND RESCUE. 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County the sure Of $0.10 per gross Square foot Of Construction as depicted on each site plaIl, to be used for fire and rescue purposes in the general area. The contribution shall be Inade at the time of issuance of the occupancy permit for each structure. 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES. 4.1 The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional architectural historian to perform a Historic American Building Survey (I-IABS) — standard level III, as defined by the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program on the residential building and its associated agricultural buildings located on the property. The FIABS standard level III documentation shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later than with the submission of a preliminary SubdivisioIl Or preliminary Site plan for the Property. Following acceptance of the I-IABS standard level III documentation by the Planning 2 PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres Director, the documentation shall be submitted to the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program. 4.2 The applicant, working with a qualified professional architectural historian, shall inspect prior to demolition the non -heated areas of the residential building for the presence of partially hidden or obscured historical artifacts or material. The applicant shall notify the Planning Director of any historic artifacts or material that may be discovered during the inspection and subsequent demolition of the residential building. 5 ESCALATOR. 5.1 In the eveIlt the monetary contributions set forth In this Proffer Statement are paid to Frederick County within eighteen (18) months after final approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in this Proffer Statement which are a paid t0 the County aaftereighteen (18) months following final approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U), published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI-U from that date eighteen (18) months after final approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI-U to the date the contributions are paid. [Signatures on following page.] 3 0 • PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres SIGNATURE PAGE APPLICANT: EQUUS CAFLTekL PARTNERS, LTD By: Name: bet-1,3. 4Z� Title: s V State of County of Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 2018 County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed principal NOTA Y PUBLIC My Commission Expires: v A G. PST My Notary Registration Number: 06036,1 N Tq,9 4 C� • PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres OWNER: Cheryl Grimm Morris, sole surviving tenant by the entirety Commonwealth of Vir )inia: County of Frederick: ' � k y o � W �c�c Sic Subscribed and sworn to before me this Ca th day of , 2018 in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed principal. y--� / NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: ///,.4(' FA w My Notary Registration Number: ,.36 D 3 6 % � OTA ' P0817765.DOCX ; -TH '� � PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91 +/- Acres 1.2. The development of the Property shall be in general conformance with the GDP. However, upon the submission of final site or subdivision plans, minor modifications and adjustments may be made to the road alignments, entrances, parking, dimensions of the SWM/BMP facilities, the exact configuration and location of building footprints, and other similar features shown on the GDP. 1.3. The maximum height of the each building shall be sixty feet (60'). 2 TRANSPORTATION. 2.1 Within 90 calendar days of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall dedicate approximately 17.05 acres to the Frederick County Board of'Supeivisors, as depicted on the GDP, for the Future Route 37 Bypass. 2.2 Access to the Property shall be as shown on the GDP. Provided that access to the buildable area of the Property is not impeded or eliminated the Applicant shall not place above grade improvements on the southeast corner of the Property near the terminus of Lenoir Drive in such a way as to preclude the construction of proposed slip ramps that are currently depicted on the graphic entitled "Eastern Road Plan — Lenoir Drive Slip Ramp Clarification," created by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. dated October 17 2017 and attached hereto for reference. The southeast corner of the Property is subject to existing casements and/or covenants of record, as of June 6, 2018. 3 FIRE AND RESCUE. 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County the sum of $0.10 per gross square foot of construction as depicted on each site plan, to be used for fire and rescue purposes in the general area. The contribution shall be made at the time of issuance of the occupancy permit for each structure. 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES. 4.1 The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional architectural historian to perform a Historic American Building Survey (NABS) — standard level III, as defined by the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program on the residential building and its associated agricultural buildings located on the property. The HABS standard level III documentation shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later than with the submission of a preliminary subdivision or preliminary site plan for the Property. Following acceptance of the NABS standard level III documentation by the Planning 2 PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91 +/- Acres 1.2. The development of the Property shall be in general conformance with the GDP. However, upon the submission of final site or subdivision plans, minor modifications and adjustments may be made to the road alignments, entrances, parking, dimensions of the SWM/BMP facilities, the exact configuration and location of building footprints, and other similar features shown on the GDP. 1.3. The maximum height of the each building shall be sixty feet (60'). 2 TRANSPORTATION. 2.1 Within 90 calendar days of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall dedicate approximately 17.05 acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, as depicted on the GDP, for the Future Route 37 Bypass. 2.2 Access to the Property shall be as shown on the GDP. Provided that access to the buildable area of the Property is not impeded or eliminated the Applicant shall not place above grade improvements on the southeast corner of the Property near- the terminus of Lenoir Drive in such a wayas to 1)J'CCIUde the Construction of proposed slip ramps that are currently depicted on the graphic entitled "Eastern Road Plan — Lenoir Drive Slip Ramp Clarification," created by the F!-ederick County Department of Planning and Development. dated October 17 2017 and attached hereto for reference. The southeast corner of the Propertyis subicet to existing easements and/or covenants of record, as of June 6, 2018. 3 FIRE AND RESCUE. 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County the sum of $0.10 per gross square foot of construction as depicted on each site plan, to be used for fire and rescue purposes in the general area. The contribution shall be made at the time of issuance of the occupancy permit for each structure. 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES. 4.1 The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional architectural historian to perform a Historic American Building Survey (NABS) — standard level I11, as defined by the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program on the residential building and its associated agricultural buildings located on the property. The HABS standard level III documentation shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later than with the submission of a preliminary subdivision or preliminary site plan for the Property. Following acceptance of the HABS standard level III documentation by the Planning 2 PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres 1.2. The development of the Property shall be in general conformance Xvith the GDP. However, upon the submission of final site or subdivision plans, minor modifications and adjustments may be made to the road alignments, entrances, parking, dimensions of the SWM/BMP facilities, the exact configuration and location of building footprints, and other similar features shown on the GDP. 1.3. The maximum height of the each building shall be sixty feet (60'). 2 TRANSPORTATION. 2.1 Within 90 calendar days of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall dedicate approximately 17.05 acres to the Frederick County Board of Supewisors, as depicted on the GDP, for the Future Route 37 Bypass. 2.2 Access to the Property shall be as shown on the GDP. Provided that access to the buildable area of the Property is not impeded or eliminated the Applicant shall not place above grade improvements on the southeast corner of the Property near the terminus of Lenoir Drive in such a way as to preclude the construction of proposed slip ramps that are currently depicted on the graphic entitled "Eastern Road Plan — Lenoir Drive Slip Ramp Clarification," created by the I' rederick County Department of Planning and Development, dated October 17 2017 and attached hereto for reference. The southeast cornea- of the Property is subject to existing easements and/or covenants of record as of June 6, 2018. 3 FIRE AND RESCUE. 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County the sum of $0.10 per gross square foot of construction as depicted on each site plan, to be used for fire and rescue purposes in the general area. The contribution shall be made at the time of issuance of the occupancy permit for each structLu-e. 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES. 4.1 The Applicant sliall retain a qualified professional architectural historian to perform a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) — standard level III, as defined by the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program on the residential building and its associated agricultural buildings located on the property. The HABS standard level III documentation shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later than with the submission of a preliminary subdivision or preliminary site plan for the Property. Following acceptance of the HABS standard level III documentation by the Planning I U WALSH COLUCCI LUl3EL1 Y & WALSH PC LETTER OF ;TRANSMITTAL TO: Michael T. Ruddy - I1reda•ick County, Director of Planning and Development, Frederick County 107 North Kent Street Suite 202, Winchester, Virginia 22601 FROM: Marian B. I -larders, AICP, LEED AP, Planner DATE: July 11, 2018 REGARDING: Equus Capital Partners We transmit the attached: ® Originals ❑ Copies ❑ Plans ❑ Documents ❑ Other (described below) Description: Prollcr Statement Transmitted via: ❑ mail ❑ courier / pickup ❑ scheduled express ® federal express Remarks: Enclosed Is the Original executed prolfcl' statclllent. A'(701U EYS AT LAW 703 680 4664 a WWW.I'IiELANDLAWYEIIS.CONl 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PAItKWAY c SUITE 300 a WOODBRIDGE, VA 22192.5199 ARLINGTON 703 528 4700 1 LOUDOUN 703 737 3633 0 9 r73 IJ) JUL 2 2018 F V' L D E �1'6'1< 'co L) �JTv- /VID DFVF!,'�PPAPOT PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91-1-/- Acres Rezoning: 1/01-18 Record Owner Cheryl Grimm Morris Applicant: ECILILIS Capital Partnci-s, L I D P►•operty: Parcels 43 A 21, 43 A 21 I3, 43 19 4 and 43 A 24, comprising a total of approximately 88.91 acres, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan (hereinafter "the Property"). Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) to M-1 (Light h1CILIStl'lal) Project Name: Stonewall IV Date: .Iunc 6, 2018 Resubmittal Date: JUnc 28, 2018 Pursuant to Va. Code Ann. ti 15.2-2296, e se „ and § 165-102.06 ofthe Frederick C011llty Zoning O1'dI11a11CC, the Llllderslgllcd hereby proffers that the development and Use of the Property, consisting of 88.91 J_ acres, located on the I101'th side Of ROL1tC 37 and \vcst of its intersection with the Martinsburg Pike, Shall be In substantial conformance with the following conditions. In the event this rezoning is granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall Supersede and replace in their entirety all other proffers made prior hereto. In the event this rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall be cleemed withdrawn and shall be 111111 and void. The term "Applicant" as I'CIuenced 11c1'clll Shall InClllCIC \vithlll Its I11Ca1111110� the current Owner, all future Owners and SuccessorS in interest. "fhe term "Generalized Development Plan" or "GDP" as referenced herein shall refer to the plan entitled "Stonewall IV Generalized Development Plan," prepared by Dice Engineering, PLC, and dated April 5, 2018. DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE PROPERTY 1.1. Development on the Property shall be limited to the COIIStl'LICtiO11 Of not more than 820,000 gl'OSS SCILIaI'C fcct that Shall be Used Solely for Wal'ChOUSing, OI' Ihgh- CUbe fransload and Short Term Storage, Land Use Codes 150 and 154, as those land Uses are cicf-ined in the ITE Trip Generation Mallllal (1 0i1' Ed). PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres 1.2. The development of the Property shall be in general conformance with the GDP. However, Up011 the SL1bmiss1on Of final site or SUbdivision plans, minor moclif�catlons and adJLIStl11Cl1tS may be made to the road alignments, entrances, parking, dI111cI1sions of the SWM/BMP facilities, the exact configuration and location of building footprints, and other similar features Shown on the GDP. 1.3. The maximum height Of the each building Shall be sixty feet (60'). 2 TRANSPORTATION. 2.1 Within 90 calenclar clays of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall dedicate approximately 17.05 acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, as depicted on the GDP, for the Future Route 37 Bypass. 2.2 Access to the Property shall be as Shown On the GDP. Provided that access to the buildable area Of the Property is not impeded or eliminated, the Applicant shall not place above grade improvements on the SOUthcast corner Of the Property near the terminus of Lenoir Drive in such a way as to preclude the construction of proposed slip ramps that are currently depicted on the graphic entitled "Eastern Road Plan — Lenoir Drive Slip Ramp Clarification," creatccl by the: Frederick CouIlty Dcpartlllcllt of Planning and Development, dated October 17, 2017, and attached hereto for reference. The southeast corner of the Property 1S SLIbjcct to existing case111C:I1ts and/or covenants of record, as of June 6, 2018. 2.3 Within 90 calendar days of a wrlttell rcgLlcst by the County, the Applicant shall further dedicate such right-of-way as it may own at the terminus of Lenoir Drive for the purpose of construction of access to existing Route 37 as described in Proffer 2.2 above. 2.4 The Applicant shall contribute Up to $250,000 to the County for the purpose of planning additional access to Stonewall Industrial Park. It shall make Sucll contribution at the rate Of $0.30 per gross sgLlal'c foot Of bLlllCllllg Ultimately constrLlCted, to be paid upon issuance of all OCCLlpancy permit for any Rich building Or bLI11d111gS. 3 FIRE AND RESCUE. 3.1 The Applicant Shall contribute to FI'ederlck C011llty the SLIM Of $0.10 per gross square foot of construction as depicted on each site plan, to be used for fire and rescue purposes in the general area. The contribution shall be made at the time of issuance of the occupancy permit for cacti structure. PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES. 4.1 The Applicant shall retain a Clllallfied professional archltCCtUral historian t0 perform a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) — standard level III, as defined by the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program on the residential building and its associated agricultural buildings located on the property. The HABS standard level III documentation shall be SUbmlttcd to the Planning Director no later than with the SUbmission Of a preliminary SUbdlvlslon Or preliminary Site plan for the Property. Following acceptance of the HABS standard level III documentation by the Planning Director, the dOCLlmentation shall be submitted to the National Park Service Heritage DOCLIMcntation Program. 4.2 The applicant, working with a gUalifiCCl professional archltCCtUral historian, shall inspcet prior to C1Clllolition the non -heated areas Of the resicicntlal building for the presence of partially hidden or obscured historical artifacts or material. The applicant shall notify the Planning Director of any historic artifacts or material that may be discovered during the inspection and SLIbscgLICnt Clen-iolltion Of the reslClcntial building. 5 ESCALATOR. 5.1 In the event the monetary contribUt1O11S Set f017th ill this Proffer Statelllcilt are paid to Frederick County within eighteen (18) months after final approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, Said contrlbUti0I1S shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions Set forth in this Proffer Statement which are paid to the County after eighteen (18) months following final approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urball C011SLllller PrICC IIICICX (CPI-U), published by the United States Department Of Labor, SLIch that at the time contributions are paid they shall be adjusted by the percentage Change in the CPI-U from that date eightccn (18) months after final approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI-U to the date the contributions are paid. [Signatures On following page.] 3 0 PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres SIGNATURE PAGE APPLICANT: EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD r By: Name: Vl�').6-tj • �� \A--�- 0 Title: - Ul State of 44 County of ,t Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21!7 day of , 2018 in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed principal NOTARY UBLIC _�6 My Commission Expires: mmoawaaltb of PeAnWWanla. Notary Seat CHERYL M. WALMSLEY, Notary Publk My Notary Registration N be Delaware County ComeftW Number 1215798 4 PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres OWNER: Cheryl Grimm Morris, Sole SLIT-Viv ng tenant by the entirety Commonwealth of Virginia: County of Frederick: // Subscribed and sworn to befoi-c me this Alclay of a44 2018 in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforcnamed princip . NOTARY PUBLIC' My Commission Expires: /A/cwdoZ- My Notary Registration Number: My Cm OWN E*4 Away 31. W T M` U IR LCMBMN VA Canna IMO i r-3 LJ PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGIS'T'ERIAL DISTRICT 88.91-1-/- Acres Rezoning: 1101-18 Record Owner Cheryl Grimm Morris Applicant: Equus Capital Partners, LTD Property: Parcels 43 A 21, 43 A 21B, 43 19 4 and 43 A 24, comprising a total of approximately 88.91 acres, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan (hereinafter "the Property"). Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) to M-1 (Light Industrial) Project Name: Stonewall IV Date: June 6, 2018 Resubmittal Date: June 28, 2018 Pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2296, et seq., and § 165-102.06 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the undersigned hereby proffers that the development and use of the Property, consisting of 88.91 ± acres, located on the north side of Route 37 and west of its intersection with the Martinsburg Pike, shall be in substantial conformance with the following conditions. In the event this rezoning is granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall supersede and replace in their entirety all other proffers made prior hereto. In the event this rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning the current owner, all future owners and successors in interest. The term Generalized Development Plan" or "GDP" as referenced herein shall refer to the plan entitled "Stonewall IV Generalized Development Plan," prepared by Dice Engineering, I'I,C, and dated April 5, 2018. 1. DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE PROPERTY 1.1. Development on the Property shall be limited to the Construction oI ]lot more than 820,000 gross square feet that shall be used solely for Warehousing, or High - Cube Transload and Short Term Storage, Land Use Codes 150 and 154, as those land uses are defined in the ITE 'trip Generation Manual (10"' Ed). PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAP[TAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91-1-/- Acres 1.2. The development of the Property shall be in general conformance with the GDP. However, upon the submission of final site or subdivision plans, minor modifications and adjustments may be made to the road alignments, entrances, parking, dimensions of the SWM/BMP facilities, the exact configuration and location of building footprints, and other similar features shown on the GDP. 1.3. The maximum height of the each building shall be sixty feet (60'). 2 TRANSPORTATION. 2.1 Within 90 calendar days of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall dedicate approximately 17.05 acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, as depicted on the GDP, for the Future Route 37 Bypass. 2.2 Access to the Property shall be as shown on the GDP. Provided that access to the buildable area of the Property is not impeded or eliminated, the Applicant shall not place above grade improvements on the southeast confer of the Property near the terminus of Lenoir Drive in such a way as to preclude the construction of proposed slip ramps that are currently depicted on the graphic entitled "Eastern Road Plan — Lenoir Drive Slip Ramp Clarification," created by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, dated October 17, 2017, and attached hereto for reference. The southeast corner of the Property is subject to existing easements and/or covenants of record, as of June 6, 2018. 2.3 Within 90 calendar days of a written request by the County, the Applicant shall further dedicate such right-of-way as it may own at the terminus of Lenoir Drive for the purpose of construction of access to existing Route 37 as described in Proffer 2.2 above. 2.4 The Applicant shall contribute up to $250,000 to the County for the purpose of planning additional access to Stonewall Industrial Park. It shall make such contribution at the rate of $0.30 per gross square foot of building ultimately constructed, to be paid upon issuance of an occupancy permit for any such building or buildings. 3 FIRE AND RESCUE. 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County the sum of $0.10 per gross square foot of construction as depicted on each site plan, to be used for fire and rescue purposes in the general area. The contribution shall be made at the time of issuance of the occupancy permit for each structure. El PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRiCI' 88,91-1-/- Acres 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES. 4.1 The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional architectural historian to perfonn a Historic American Building Survey (I-IABS) — standard level 111, as defined by the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program on the residential building and its associated agricultural buildings located on the property. The NABS standard level iII documentation shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later than with the submission of a preliminary subdivision or preliminary site plan for the Property. Following acceptance of the NABS standard level III documentation by the Planning Director, the documentation shall be submitted to the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program. 4.2 The applicant, working with a qualified professional architectural historian, shall inspect prior to demolition the non -heated areas of the residential building for the presence of partially hidden or obscured historical artifacts or material. The applicant shall notify the Planning Director of any historic artifacts or material that may be discovered during the inspection and subsequent demolition of the residential building. 5 ESCALATOR. 5.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in this Proffer Statement are paid to Frederick County within eighteen (18) months after final approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in this Proffer Statement which are paid to the County after eighteen (19) months following final approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U), published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI-U from that date eighteen (18) months after final approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI-U to the date the contributions are paid. [Signatures on following page.] PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL, MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres SIGNATURE PAGE APPLICANT: EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD By: Title: t State of AV - County of Subscribed and, sworn to before me this = day of 2018 in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed principal. NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: ,,,,"jtj,.6taz,,,Wy ,u,.Nocsryseal CHERYL M. WAUASLEY, htuary l ubile My Notaiy Registration N111 beDetawtre Camty iwarrfxplrsju<�t_is, Baal. Cormissfw Humber 1215798 S PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres OWNER: Cheryl Grimm Morns, sole survi% ng tenant by the entirety Commonwealth of Virginia: County of Frederick: // Subscribed and sworn to before me this o A day of_. , 2018 in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed princip; NOI ARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires:!/l My Notary Registration Number: l "-a LCOltr m um wAll, w p`u= • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 August 10, 2018 Mr. John Knott Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. 3843 West Chester Pike Newtown Square, PA 19073 RE: REZONING #01-18 Stonewall IV PINS: 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24 Dear Mr. Knott: This letter serves to conflrlll action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting on August 8, 2018. "file above -referenced application was approved to rezone 88.91+/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the MI (Light Industrial) District with proffers. The properties are located at the southern terminus of' Lenoir Drive (Route F-732) in the Stonewall Magisterial District and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4 and 43-A- 24. The proffer statement, originally dated .tune 6, 2018 and revised on July 27, 2018 that was approved as a part of this rezoning application are unique to the above referenced properties and are binding regardless of ownership. Enclosed is a copy of' the adopted proffer statement for your records. Pursuant to §165.102.06E, the County Attorney will present the written proffer to the Frederick County Clerk of Circuit Court for recordation. Please do not hesitate to contact this office II you have any glleS6011S regarding the approval of this rezoning application. Sincerely, Candice Perkins, AICP, CZA Assistant Director CEP/pd Attachments cc: Judith McCann -Slaughter, Supervisor Stonewall District Gary Oates and William Cline, Stonewall District Planning Commissioners Jane Anderson, Real Estate Ellen Murphy, Commissioner of Revenue Rod Williams, County Attorney w/Proffer and Resolution Cheryl G. Morris, P.O. Box 2802, Winchester, VA 22604 John Foote, Walsh Colucci Lubelcy & Walsh, 4310 Prince William Prkwy, Ste 300, Woodbridge, VA 22192 107 North I(cnt Stl-CCt, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 Pam Deeter From: Knott, III John <JKnott@bpgltd.com> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 9:25 AM To: Pam Deeter; jfoote@thelandlawyers.com Subject: RE: Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV Pam, Thanks! Can you update our mailing address to: 3843 West Chester Pike Newtown Square, PA 19073 John John Knott jknott@bpgltd.com Office: 215-575-2436 Mobile: 215-200-5729 From: Pam Deeter <pdeeter@fcva.us> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 9:24 AM To: Knott, III John <JKnott@bpgltd.com>; jfoote@thelandlawyers.com Subject: Rezoning 401-18 Stonewall IV Good morning, Please find attached an approval letter from Ms. Perkins for Rezoning #01-18 Stonewall IV. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Perkins. Pam Deeter Planning and Development 107 N. Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5651 i� • PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91 +/- Acres Rezoning: # Record Owner Cheryl Grimm Morris Applicant: Equus Capital Partners, LTD Property: Parcels 43 A 21, 43 A 21B, 43 19 4 and 43 A 24. comprising a total of approximately 88.91 acres, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan (hereinafter "the Property"). Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) to M-1 (Light Industrial) Project Name: Stonewall IV Date: April 25, 2018 Pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2296, et seq., and § 165-102.06 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the undersigned hereby proffers that the development and use of the Property, consisting of 88.91 f acres, located on the north side of Route 37 and west of its intersection with the Martinsburg Pike, shall be in substantial conformance with the following conditions. In the event this rezoning is granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall supersede and replace in their entirety all other proffers made prior hereto. In the event this rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning the current owner, all future owners and successors in interest. The term "Generalized Development Plan" or "GDP" as referenced herein shall refer to the plan entitled "Stonewall IV Generalized Development Plan," prepared by Dice Engineering, PLC, and dated April 5, 2018. DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE PROPERTV 1.1. Development on the Property shall be limited to the construction of not more than 820,000 gross square feet that shall be used solely for Warehousing, or High - Cube Transload and Short Term Storage, Land Use Codes 150 and 154, as those land uses are defined in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (101h Ed). m9; M AY 1 0 2018 FREDERICKE6 NITY !��N A 0 0 9 • I'RO1� I� ER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91-1-/- Acres 1.2. The development of the Property shall be in general confol'lllallce \vlth the GDP. I-IOWCVCI', Upon the SLlbmission of final site 01' SL1bdiv1S1011 plans, minor modifications alld adILIStIllClltS May be made t0 the road alignments, entrances, parking, dimensions of the SWM/I3MP facilities, the exact configuration and location OI building footprints, and other similar fCatlll'CS shown On the GDP. 1.3. The nlaxill1Un1 height Of tllC Cach bLlilCllllg shall be sixty feet (60'). 2 TRANSPORTATION. 2.1 Within 90 calenclar clays Of a written 1'Cgllcst by the C01,111ty, the Applicant shall dedicate approximately 17.05 acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, as depicted On the GDP, for the future Route 37 Bypass. 3 FIRE AND RESCUE. 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to frcderick County the SunI of $0.10 per gross square foot Of' Construction as depicted on each Site plan, to be used for lire and 1'CSCLIC I)LI1'pOSCS in the general area. The contribution Shall be made at the time Of ISSLIance Of the OCCLlpancy permit Im- Cach St1'L1CtL11'C. 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES. 4.1 The Applicant shall retain a gUahf ed prof ssio lal architectural historian to perform a Historic American 1uilding Survey (I-IABS) — standard level III, as defined by the National Park Service Heritage DOCL11IIC1ltatiO11 Program on the residential building and its associated agricultural buildings located on the property. The IIABS standard level III documentation Shall be SLIbmittccl t0 the Planning Director no later thall with the submission Of a preliminary SLlbdivlslon or preliminary Site plan f01' the Property. Following acceptance of the I-IAI3S standard level III documentation by the Planning Director, the CIOCLlnlentation shall be submitted to the National Park Service Heritage DOCLmcntation Program. 4.2 The applicant, working with a qualified professional architectural historian, Shall inspect prior t0 demolition the non -heated areas OI the residential building For the presence of partially hidden or obscured historical artifacts or material. The applicant shall notify the Planning Director oI ally historic artifacts Or material that may be discovered during the inspection and subSCCILICIlt CICIII01lt1011 OI the residential blllldlllg. 2 PROI 11?R STATLMENT EQUUS CAPffAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91-1-/- Acres 5 ESCALATOR. 5.1 In the cvcnt the monetary contributions set forth in this Proffer Statement are paid to FI-CCICI'1Ck COLI11ty Within eighteen (18) 111011thS after final approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in this Proffer Statement Which are paid to the COLmty after Cightecn (18) months following final approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban ConsLuncr Price Index (CPI-U), published by the United States Department of Labor, SLICK that at the time contributions are paid they Shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI-U from that date eighteen (18) months after final approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI-U to the date the contributions arc paid. [Signatures On following page.] 3 0 • PRO1, I- ER 5 I A I LIvILNT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91 +/- Acres SIGNATURE PAGE APPLICANT: EQUUS CAP PARTNERS, LTD By: II Name: . e ^ -.J , Title: s UP State of County of Subscribed and sworn to before me this �2�ay of : ' , 2018 in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed principal. COMMONWEALTH OF F3'ENNMVAPM/ Lt NOTARli.. NOTAR PUBLIC CHERYLM. WALMS !a(y"Ic. City of Philadel?r.:,�tuJd- County My CommisL lon Ex�&Ne _Jw +4. z021 My Notary Registration Number: /„? / �-J- 7 Y y 4 • PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres OWNER: Cheryl Grimm Morris, sole surviving tenant by the entirety Commonwealth of Vir inia: riek: U;Z�, A Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9 1* day of , 2018 in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed principal. �.� d. 0 NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: My Notary Registration Number: 0& 0 3(9 1 5 FAw/' B USG PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91 +/- Acres Rezoning: # Record Ois ncr Cheryl Grimm Morris :applicant: Equus Capital Partners, LTD Property.- Parcels 43 A 21, 43 A 21 B, 43 19 4 and 43 A 24, comprising a total of approximately 88.91 acres, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan (hereinafter "the Property"). Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) to M-1 (Light Industrial) Project Name: Stonewall IV Date: April 12, 2018 Pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2296, et seg., and § 165-102.06 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the undersigned hereby proffers that the development and use of the Property, consisting of 88.91 f acres, located on the north side of Route 37 and west of its intersection with the Martinsburg Pike, shall be in substantial conformance with the following conditions. In the event this rezoning is granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall supersede and replace in their entirety all other proffers made prior hereto. In the event this rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning the current owner, all future owners and successors in interest. The term "Generalized Development Plan" or "GDP" as referenced herein shall refer to the plan entitled "Stonewall IV Generalized Development Plan," prepared by Dice Engineering, PLC, and dated April 5, 2018. DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE PROPERTY 1.1. Development on the Property shall be limited to the construction of not more than 820,000 gross square feet that shall be used solely for Warehousing, or High - Cube Transload and Short Term Storage, Land Use Codes 150 and 154, as those land uses are defined in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (101h Ed). PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres 1.2. The development of the Property shall be in general conformance with the GDP. However, upon the submission Of filial Site or subdivision plans, minor modifications and adjustments may be made to the road alignments, entrances, parking, dimensions Of the SWM/BMP facilities, the exact configuration and location of building footprints, and other similar features shown on the GDP. 1.3. The maximum height of the each building shall be sixty feet (60'). 2 TRANSPORTATION. 2.1 Prior to the approval of the first final site plan fOl- COl1Stl-LICtI011 011 the Property the Applicant shall dedicate approximately 17.05 acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, as depicted on the GDP, for the FLltlll'e Route 37 Bypass. 3 FIRE AND RESCUE. 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County the sunl Of $0.10 per gross square foot of construction as depicted On each site plan, to be used for fire and rescue pUrposes in the general area. The contribution shall be made at the time Of issuance Of the occupancy permit for each structure. 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES. 4.1 The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional architectural historian to perform a Historic American Building Survey (I-IABS) — standard level III, as defined by the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program on the residential building and its associated agricultural buildings located on the property. The HABS standard level III dOCLlmentation shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later than with the submission of a preliminary subdivision or preliminary site plan for the Property. Following acceptance of the HABS standard level III documentation by the Planning Director, the documentation shall be submittccl to the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program. 4.2 The applicant, working with a qualified professional architectural historian, shall inspect prior to demolition the non -heated areas of the residential building for the presence of partially hidden or obscured historical artifacts or material. The applicant shall Notify the Planning Director of any historic artifacts or material that may be discovered during the inspection and subsequent demolition of the residential building. 2 PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres 5 ESCALATOR. 5.1 In the event the monetary contributions Set forth in this Proffer Statement are paid to Frederick County within eighteen (18) months after final approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contribUtiO11S Set 1`01-th in this Proffer Statement which are paid to the County after eighteen (18) months following final approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U), published by the United States Department Of Labor, Such that at the time contributions are paid they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI-U from that date eighteen (18) months after final approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI-U to the date the contributions are paid. [SlgnatUrCS 011 following page.] 3 PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres SIGNATURE PAGE A PPT ,TCANT- EQUUS .AKA,kThATNERS, LTD By:--�}�r f L Name: Title: S� State of 1.1114 County of `i-121 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1�,f day of , 2018 in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed principal. COMMOWMALTH OF RENNSYLVAW NOTARIAL SEAL CHERYLM. WALMSLEY, Notary PWk NOTAR PUBLIC City of Philadelphia, PMIa. County My Commission Eires July 18, 2021 My commisbiull My Notary Registration Number: /02 / �- Z !Z 4 PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres OWNER: Cheryl Grimm Moms, sole surviving tenant by the entirety Commonwealth of Virginia: County of Frederick: Subscribed and sworn to before me thisffday of Ada 2018 in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed principal. NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: 0-3 dg O My Notary Registration Number: U W LCOtao VA .—Wary Fft 5 PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres Rezoning: It Record Owner Cheryl Grimm Morris Applicant: Equus Capital Partners, LTD Property: Parcels 43 A 21, 43 A 21 B, 43 19 4 and 43 A 24, comprising a total of approximately 88.91 acres, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan (hereinafter "tile Property"). Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) to M-1 (Light Industrial) Project Name: Stonewall IV Date: April 12, 2018 Pursuant to Va. Code Ann. 5 15.2-2296, et seg., and 5 165-102.06 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the undersigned hereby proffers that the clevelopmcnt and use of the Property, consisting of 88.91 f acres, located on the north side of Route 37 and west of its intersection with the Martinsburg Pike, shall be 111 substantial conformance with the following conditions. In the event this rezoning is granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall supersede and replace in their entirety all other proffers made prior hereto. In the event this rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced licrein shall include within its meaning the current owner, all future owners alld successors in interest. The term "Generalized Development Plan" or "GDP" as referenced herein shall refer to the plan entitled "Stonewall IV Generalized Development Plan," prepared by Dicc Engineering, PLC, and dated February 12, 2018, revised April \, 2018. DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE PROPERTY 1.1. Development on the Property shall be limited to the construction of not more than 820,000 gross square feet that shall be used solely for Warehousing, or I-Iigh- Cube Transload and Short Term Storage, Land Use Codes 150 and 154, as those land uses are defined in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10"' Ed). PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres 1.2. The development of the Property shall be in general conformance with the GDP. However, upon the submission Of final Site Or SUbdivision plans, minor modifications and adjustments may be made to the road alignments, entrances, parking, dimensions Of the SWM/BMP facilities, the exact configuration and location Of building footprints, and other similar features shown on the GDP. 1.3. The i11aX1111L1111 height Of the each bUildillg Shall be Sixty feet (60'). 2 TRANSPORTATION. 2.1 Prior to the approval of the first final site plan for construction on the Property the Applicant shall dedicate approximately 17.05 acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, as depicted On the GDP, for the future Route 37 Bypass. 3 FIRE AND RESCUE. 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to Frederick County the sum of $0.10 per gross square foot Of construction as depicted On each site plan, to be used for fire and rescue purposes in the general area. The contribution shall be made at the time Of 1SSLlance Of the occupancy permit for each Structure. 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES. 4.1 The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional architectural historian to perform a Historic American Building Survey (I-IABS) — standard level III, as defined by the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program on the residential building and its associated agricultural buildings located on the property. The I-IABS standard level III CIOCUillentation shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later than with the Submission of a preliminary subdivision or preliminary site plan for the Property. Following acceptance of the I-IABS standard level III documentation by the Planning Director, the documentation shall be submitted to the National Park Service Heritage Documentation Program. 4.2 The applicant, working with a qualified professional architectLral historian, shall inspect prior to demolition the non -heated areas of the residential building for the presence of partially hidden Or obscured historical artifacts or material. The applicant Shall notify the Planning Director of any historic artifacts Or material that may be discovered during the inspection and subsequent demolition of the residential building. 2 PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres 5 ESCALATOR. 5.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in this Proffer Statement are paid to Frederick County within eighteen (18) months alter final approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in this Proffer Statement which are paid to the County after eighteen (18) months following final approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U), published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI-U from that elate eighteen (18) months after final approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI-U to the elate the contributions are paid. [Signatures on following page.] 3 0 G APPLICANT: PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres SIGNATURE PAGE EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD By: Name: Title: State of _ County of Subscribed and sworn to before me this clay of , 2018 in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed principal. My Commission Expires: My Notary Registration Number: 4 NOTARY PUBLIC PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91+/- Acres OWNER: Cheryl Grimm Morris, sole surviving tenant by the entirety Commonwealth of Virginia: County of Frederick: Subscribed and sworn to before me this clay of 2018 in my County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed principal. NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: My Notary Registration Number: • • FIITIN WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY & WALSH PC LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: Candice Perkins FROM: Marian Harders DATE: April 17, 2018 REGARDING: Equus Capital Partners Remarks: Cheryl Grimm Morris' signature page will be transmitted separately. U) rV APR 1 8 2018 ;7�raiCK. C�C! .,.,-TY, ATTORNEYS AT 1.AW 703 690 4664 1 WWW.THELANDLAWYERS.COM 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY i SUITE 300 a WOODBRIDGE, VA 22192•SI99 ARUNGTON 703 528 4700 1 LOUDOUN 703 737 3633 PROFFCR STATCMCNT CQUUS CAPITAL PARTNCRS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91-1-/- Acres Rezoning: ## Record Owner Cheryl Grimm Morris Applicant: Equus Capital Partners, L"fD Property: Parcels 43 A 21, 43 A 21 I3, 43 19 4 and 43 A 24, comprising a total of approximately 88.91 acres, as shown on the Gcncralizccl Development Plan (hereinafter "the Property"). Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) to M-1 (Light Industrial) Project Name: Stonewall IV Date: April 12, 2018 Pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2296, ct seq„ and § 165-102.06 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the Undersigned hereby proffers that the dcvclopmcnt and use of the Property, consisting of 88.91 1 acres, located on the north side of Route 37 and west of its intersection with the Martinsburg Pilcc, shall be in Substantial conformance with the following conclitions. In the event this rezoning is granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall supersede and replace in their entirety all other proffers made prior hereto. Ill the event this rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant, then these proffers shall be dcemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning the current owner, all future owners and successors in interest. 'file terns "Gcncralizccl Dcvelopmcnt Plan" or "GDP" as referenced hcrcin shall refer to the plan entitled "Stonewall IV Generalized Development Plan," prepared by Dice Engineering, PLC, and dated February 12, 2018, revised April \, 2018. DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE PROPERTY 1.1. Development on the Property shall be limited to the constrUct1011 Of not more than 820,000 gross square 1CCt that shall be used Solely for Warehousing, or I-Iigh- Cube rfl'ansload and Short Tcrnl Storage, Land Use Codes 150 and 154, as those land uses are defined in the ITC Trip Generation Manual (I O°i I d). 0 0 I I R 0 FI"ER STATI"Ml?NT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91-1-/- Acres 1.2. The development ol' the Property shall be in general conformance with the GDP. I-IOwCVCI', upon the submission of final Site or Subdivision plans, minor mochflcations and adjustments may be made t0 the road alignments, entrances, parking, dimensions of the SWM/BMP facilities, the exact C011flgUration and location OF bLllldlllg footprints, and other similar features shown On the GDP. 1.3. The maximum height of the Cach bllllCllllg Shall be sixty FCct (60'). 2 TRANSPORTATION. 2.1 Prior to the approval of the 111'st F►nal Site plan f01' C011StrL1Ct1011 on the Property the Applicant Shall dedicate approximately 17.05 acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, as depicted on the GDP, for the Future Route 37 Bypass. 3 FIRE AND RESCUE. 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to llrcderiCk COLlllty the SLIM Of $0.10 pCl- gross square foot Of COI1S11'L1Ction as depicted on Cach Site plan, t0 be LISCCI for f ll'c and rescue purposes In the general area. me contribUtlOn Shall be made at the time OI 1SSLlancc Of the occupancy permit 101' CaCll Stl-LlCtLll'C. 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES. 4.1 The Applicant shall retain a gllallficcl prolIcsSIOIIal al'CIIItCCtLlI'al historian to perform a Historic American Building Survey (1-IABS) — Standard level III, as clefincd by the National Palk Service I-Ieritagc DOCLImCI1tati011 Program On the residential building and its associated agricultUral bLllldingS located on the property. The I-IABS standard level III documentation shall be Submitted to the Planning Director no later than lvlth the SL1bmission of a preliminary Subdivision Or preliminary Site plan For the Property. Following acceptance of the I-IABS stancard level III documentation by the Planning Director. the documentation shall be submitted to the National Palk Service Heritage Documentation Program. 4.2 The applicant, working with a qualificcl professional architectural historian, shall inspect prior t0 demolition the non -heated areas O1 the residential bLllldlllg for the presence of partially hidden or ObSCLII'Cd historical artifacts or material. The applicant Shall notify the Planning Director Of ally historic artifacts or material that may be discovered during the inspection and SLIbSCCILICIlt CIC11101it1011 OF the residential bL1llCllllg. 2 0 0 1'R0I FE,R STATI MLNT LQUUS CAPITAL PARI'NEM STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 8 8.9 1 d-/- Acres 5 ESCALATOR. 5.1 I11 the event the monetary contributions Set Forth ill this Proffer Statement are paid to Frederick County within eighteen (18) months after final approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contrlbUtlOIIS Set forth in this Proflcr Statement which are paid to the County after eighteen (18) months following final approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance Nvith the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U), publishecl by the United States Department Of Labor, SUCII that at the time contrlbUtlonS are paid they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI-U from that date eighteen (18) months after final approval of' this rezoning to the most recently available CPI-U to the date the contr1bUtlons are paid. [Signatures on following page.] 3 PROFFER STATEMENT EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 8 8.91 +/- Acres SIGNATURE PAGE APPLICANT- EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD By: Name: Title: State of _ County of Subscribed and sworn to before me this clay of , 2018 111 Illy County and State aforesaid, by the aforcnamed principal. My Commission Expires: My Notary Registration Number: m NOTARY PUBLIC a 9 PROFFTLR STATI?MI?NT LQUUS CAPITAL PAR'I-NLRS STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 88.91-I-/- Acres OWNI7R: Cheryl Grimm Morris, sole surviving tenant by the entirety CommonWcalth of Virginia: County of frcderick: Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of' 2018 in my County and State aforesaid, by the alorenamccl principal. NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: My Notary Registration Number: a FREDERICK WATER. 315 Tasker Road PH (540) 868-1061 Stephens City, Virginia 22655 Fax (540) 868-1429 www.FrederickWater.com February 22, 2018 Marian B. Harders Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh PC 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Woodbridge, Virginia 22192 RE: Rezoning Application Comment Stonewall IV Rezoning Application Tax Map Number: 43-A-21, 43-A-2113, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24 88.91 acres Dear Ms. Harders: Eric R. Lawrence Executive Director Thank you for the opportunity to offer review comments on the Stonewall IV rezoning application package, with a draft proffer statement and Impact Analysis Statement dated February 13, 2018. Frederick Water offers comments limited to the anticipated impact/effect upon Frederick Water's public water and sanitary sewer system and the demands thereon. The project parcels are located within the sewer and water service area (SWSA) and in an area presently served by Frederick Water. SWSA enables access to public water and sewer service by county policy. Location within the SWSA does not guarantee that sanitary sewer and water capacities are available to serve the property. The rezoning application proffer states that the proposed use will be limited to a warehouse and distribution facility on no larger than 820,000 gross square feet. The impact analysis statement is silent of the proposed water and sewer demands. Facilities for conveyance of water to, and sanitary sewer from, the subject properties do presently exist. Until the proposed uses' projected water and sewer demands are known, it is w 5 II ANNIVERSARY Water At Your Service x-r�� • Page 2 Stonewall IV rezoning application Marian Harders February 22, 2018 unknown if the existing conveyance network has the capacity to accommodate the projected demands. The proffer statement is silent on improvements that would be constructed by the applicant to meet water and sanitary sewer demands. Accordingly, the comments offered herein are general in nature. The ultimate decision regarding the ability to serve the property with adequate water and sanitary sewer will be determined at the time the site's use is determined, conveyance facilities are constructed, and water and sewer connection fees are paid to Frederick Water. Sanitary sewer system capacity is not reserved until the sewer connection fee is paid to Frederick Water, and physical connection to the system is made. Water and sanitary sewers are to be constructed in accordance with the FCSA standards specifications. Dedicated easements may be required and based on the layout vehicular access will need to be incorporated into the final design. Please be aware that the FCSA is offering these review comments without benefit of knowledge of the projected water and sewer demands of the site. Thank you for the opportunity to offer review comments. Sincere) • Eric R. Lawrence Executive Director Cc; Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, County Planning Department Dick Helm, Frederick -Winchester Service Authority f� Page 2 Stonewall IV rezoning application Marian Harders February 22, 2018 unknown if the existing conveyance network has the capacity to accommodate the projected demands. The proffer statement is silent on improvements that would be constructed by the applicant to meet water and sanitary sewer demands. Accordingly, the comments offered herein are general in nature. The ultimate decision regarding the ability to serve the property with adequate water and sanitary sewer will be determined at the time the site's use is determined, conveyance facilities are constructed, and water and sewer connection fees are paid to Frederick Water. Sanitary sewer system capacity is not reserved until the sewer connection fee is paid to Frederick Water, and physical connection to the system is made. Water and sanitary sewers are to be constructed in accordance with the FCSA standards specifications. Dedicated easements may be required and based on the layout vehicular access will need to be incorporated into the final design. Please be aware that the FCSA is offering these review comments without benefit of knowledge of the projected water and sewer demands of the site. Thank you for the opportunity to offer review comments. Sincerel K Eric R. Lawrence Executive Director Cc; Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, County Planning Department Dick Helm, Frederick -Winchester Service Authority • 1J ', COUNTY of FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney March 20, 2018 VIA E-MAIL AND REGULAR MAIL Ms. Marian Harders Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh PC 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Woodbridge, VA 22192-5199 1-F- EAR r�D 2 2018 nil► WCLW 540/722-8383 Fax 540/667-0370 E-mail: C,co.frederick.va.us Re: Rezoning Application — Stonewall IV — Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. ("Equus") — Tax Parcel Numbers 43-A-21, 43-A-21 B, 43-A-24, and 43-19-4 (the "Subject Property") — Proffer Statement dated February 13, 2018 (the "Proffer Statement") Dear Ms. Harders: You have submitted to Frederick County for review the Proffer Statement, for the proposed rezoning of the Subject Property, 88.91f acres in the Stonewall Magisterial District, from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M I (Light Industrial) District, with proffers. I have now reviewed the Proffer Statement and it is my opinion that the Proffer Statement would be in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and would be legally sufficient as a proffer statement, subject to the following comments: Title to one of the parcels (43-A-21 B) is in the name of Cheryl G. Morris and John S. Morris, Jr., husband and wife, as tenants by the entireties, with common law right of survivorship. I understand from the signature line on proffer statement that Mr. Morris is deceased. We will need submission of sufficient evidence of that fact, such as the type of statement typically included, under oath, in a deed conveying property so titled, reciting the fact of the death of one of the tenants by the entireties. In the heading section of the Proffer Statement, Equus is identified as Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. and in the signature block, it is identified as Equus Capital Partners, LP. I realize that Virginia corporate law may have certain naming requirements that conflict with those of the state law of entity formation, resulting in the use of a different suffix in Virginia, but the use of the suffix should nonetheless be consistent throughout the Proffer Statement. 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601 Ms. Marian Harders March 20, 2018 Page 2 • In the first paragraph of the introduction, the action is twice referred to as a "proffer amendment". These references:should instead be to a "rezoning". • In the second paragraph of the introduction, the definition of the term "Applicant" should be expanded to include the current owner of the Subject Property as well. • The tlurd paragraph,of the introduction does not seem to fit where it has been placed. The provisions of the Proffer Statement are not limited merely to instances in which specific plans or exhibits reference them. • Proffer 2 — The area indicated to be dedicated for Route 37 right of way does not necessarily appear to encompass a sufficient portion of the right' of way area as shown by the Comprehensive Plan depiction on the County's GIS. Staff will want to confirm the extent of the proposed dedication area. • Proffers 3, 4, and 6 — Most of the provisions of these proffers simply restate ordinance requirements and, to. that extent, are not appropriate for inclusion in the Proffer Statement. • Proffer 5 — Tli'e proffer should indicate. payment simply to Frederick County and not the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. • Signature blocks — Because, among other things, we require that proffer statements, once a rezoning is approved, be recorded in the land records, any and all signatures will need to have notarizations. I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers. as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate.for this specific development, as my. understanding is that review will be done by staff and the Planning Commission. Since el ; r R erB. Williams County Attorney cc: Candice E. Perkins, Assistant Director, Department of Planning & Development (via e- mail) John Bishop, Assistant Director, Transportation, Department of Planning & Development (via e-mail) From: Matthew Smith <Matthew.Smith(cDvdot.virginia.gov> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 11:28 AM To: John Bishop <ibishop fcva.us> Cc: Rhonda Funkhouser<rhonda.funkhouse r(cDvdot.virginia.gov> Subject: RE: Rezoning Application, Stonewall IV No, VDOT finds the applicant's response related to allowable uses of ITE Land Use Code 150 and 154 acceptable. Matthew I3. Smith, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer VDOT - Land Development Clarke, Frederick, Shenandoah & Warren Counties 14031 Old Valley Pile Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone it (540) 984-5615 Fax # (540) 984-5607 From: John Bishop [mailto:jbishop(@fcva.us] Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 10:55 AM To: 'Matthew Smith' <Matthew.Smitli vdot.virginia.gov> Cc: Rhonda Funkhouser<rlionda.funkhouser(cDvdot.virginia.gov> Subject: RE: Rezoning Application, Stonewall IV From: Matthew Smith <Matthew.Smith(cDvdot.virginia.gov> Cc: Rhonda Funkhouser <rhonda.funl<houser vdot.virginia.gov> Subject: RE: Rezoning Application, Stonewall IV Below please find VDOT's review comments for the Stonewall IV Rezoning Application (attached) dated April 12, 2018. The Frederick County Transportation Chapter and Northeast Frederick Area Plan of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the extension of Lenoir Drive as an on -ramp to Route 37 west as a future transportation improvement. While the Generalized Development Plan has been revised to locate the future development entrance in a manner that is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan improvement, VDOT strongly recommends Frederick County request right-of-way dedication on the subject property to accommodate the future improvement and the rezoning documents updated accordingly. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact us. Matthew 13. Smith, Y.E. Area Land Use Engineer VDOT - Land Development Clarke, Frederick, Shenandoah & Warren Counties 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone # (540) 984-5615 Fax # (540) 984-5607 0 IkVD0TofTrVirgiis DC41f101Bf1C of Transportauan Staunton Stonewall IV Rezoning TIA, Frederick County, VA Summary of VDOT Review Comments March 9, 2018 VDOT Staunton District Planning performed a review of the Stonewall IV Rezoning TIA completed by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. submitted on February 14, 2018. Overall, the methodology used for the analysis was found to be acceptable and no revisions are required. The comments below are offered as reference notes for minor issues we found. Please let us know if we can help answer any questions related to these comments. 1. Typos were found on some of the lane group level of service figures, where the LOS shown does not match the correctly reported LOS shown on the corresponding traffic conditions tables. For future reference, please ensure coordinated phases match the provided signal plans. For this corridor, all signals should be programmed with phases 2 and 6 as the coordinated phases. Only the Rt. 11/Redbud Rd signal is currently programmed with only phase 2 as the coordinated phase. This does not appear to have a substantial impact for this TIA, so no revisions are required. 3. The Rt. 11/Redbud Rd eastbound left turn was modeled with a 3 second lost time adjustment in both the AM and PM peak hours. VDOT requires that this setting be 0 for all movements. Since this setting degrades signal performance rather than improving it, no revisions are required. 4. The Rt. 11/Redbud Rd eastbound and westbound left turns are modeled with permissive - protected operation, but actually operate using flashing yellow arrows. The turn type for these movements should be programmed using the "Dallas permissive + protected" setting with the "Permitted Flashing Yellow" box checked. This does not appear to have a substantial impact for this TIA, so no revisions are required. Outside of the TIA review, Staunton District Planning offers the additional following comments for the rezoning applicant's and county staff's consideration. 5. The TIA scoping form identifies ITE Land Use Code 152, High -Cube Warehouse / Distribution Center as the trip generation for the proposed rezoning development, which was utilized in the technical analysis of the study. However, Proffer 1.1, dated February 13, 2018 indicates the development of the property will be limited to 820,000 square feet, used solely for warehousing and distribution. The High -Cube Warehouse / Distribution Land Use is much less intense in character than traditional warehouse / distribution uses, which have the potential to double the trip generation utilized in the traffic analysis of the study. VDOT District Planning recommends r L.� IJ nf'Ir.uispaft;rttI)n Staunton consideration of adjusting the proffer to identify the allowable use to be more in -line with the definition of Land Use Code 152 in the most current ITE Trip Generation Manual or limit the permitted daily trip generation of the site to 1,378 as specified in the T1A. 6. The 2035 Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Northeast Frederick Area Plan identifies a future transportation improvement of a ramp connection to Route 37 south from Lenoir Drive. The current layout of the site as illustrated on the GDP proposes the development entrance at the current termini of Lenoir Drive, which would be in conflict with the future improvement. VDOT District Planning would recommend adjustments to the layout of the site to be in conformance with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. E Marian Hardcrs, AICP, LEED AP Planner (703) 680-4664 Ext. 5121 mharders@thelandlawyers.com WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY & WALSH PC April 12, 2018 Federal Express Frederick County Department of Planning & Development Attn: Candice Perkins 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5651 Re: Rezoning Application, Stonewall IV Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. (Applicant) Property Identification No.: 43 A 21, 43 A 2113, 43 19 4 & 43 A 24 (the "Property") Dear Ms. Perkins: In connection with the above, please find the following items to be filed in connection with the above -referenced Rezoning application: 1. One (1) copy of the executed Rezoning application form signed by the property owners. The original application form was submitted to your office on February 14, 2018. 2. A check in the amount of $18,891.00, made payable to County of Frederick. 3. A copy of the death certificate for John S. Morris, Jr. 4. One (1) copy of the Property Location Map. 5. One (1) copy of the "Adjoining Property Owners" list. 6. One (1) copy of the real estate tax records for each property, showing no taxes due. 7. One (1) copy of the Impact Analysis Statement, dated April 12, 2018. 8. One (1) copy of the Proffer Statement, dated April 12, 2018. 9. One (1) copy of the General Development Plan entitled "Stonewall IV," prepared by Dice Engineering, PLC, dated April 5, 2018. 10. One (1) CD ROM containing digital copies all the submission material identified herein. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 703 680 4664 1 WWW.TI-IPI,ANDI.AWYERS.COM 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY I SUITE 300 1 WOODBRIDGE, VA 22192.5199 ARLINGTON 703 528 4700 1 LOUDOUN 703 737 3633 0 • Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 2 On February 14, 2018, the following documents were submitted to your office and are referenced here as part of our formal application: A copy of the cultural resources report entitled "Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of Glengary (BDHR 9034-1099), prepared by Dutton & Associates, dated October 2017. 2. A copy of the Transportation Impact Analysis entitled "Stonewall IV," prepared by Kittelson & Associates, dated December 2017. We offer the following in response to the several comments received from reviewing agencies regarding the draft rezoning application, dated February 13, 2018. Where appropriate changes have been made to the Proffers submitted and the Impact Analysis has been revised as needed: Planning and Development, March 19, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response I. Northeast Land Use Plan - Land U1 e. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Land Use Plan provide The Applicant concurs that this application is guidance on the future development of consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the property. The property is located that it is accessible to public utilities, being within the SWSA. The 2035 located within the Sewer and Water Service Comprehensive Plan identifies these Area. properties with an industrial land use designation. The proposed M1 Zoning is Transportation issues are addressed in detail in generally consistent with the Northeast response to the comments from the Land Use Plan as it relates to this area. Transportation Department and VDOT, below. The land use plan depicts future .Route 37 on the western boundary of the properties and access to Route 37 from Lenoir Drive. The application fully addresses future Route 37 through the property; however, the access 'to Route 37 is not acknowledged in the impact statement or the proffers. 2. CencriAlized .0evelLmnicut, The GDP I The GDP has been updated, as recommended should be revised to remove all by Staff. buildings, the GDP should be more general and show the property, proffered Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 2 On February 14, 2018, the following documents were submitted to your office and are referenced here as part of our formal application: 1. A copy of the cultural resources report entitled "Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of Glengary (BDHR 11034-1099), prepared by Dutton & Associates, dated October 2017. 2. A copy of the Transportation Impact Analysis entitled "Stonewall IV," prepared by Kittelson & Associates, dated December 2017. We offer the following in response to the several comments received from reviewing agencies regarding the draft rezoning application, dated February 13, 2018. Where appropriate changes have been made to the Proffers submitted and the Impact Analysis has been revised as needed: Planning and Development, March 19, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response 1. Northeast land CJse Plan - Land Use, The 2035 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Land Use Plan provide The Applicant concurs .that this application is guidance on the future development of consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the property. The property is located that it is accessible to public utilities, being within the SWSA. The 2035 located within the Sewer and Water Service Comprehensive Plan identifies these Area. properties with an industrial land use Transportation issues are addressed in detail in designation. The proposed MI Zoning is to the comments from the generally consistent with the Northeast response Transportation Department and VDOT, below. Land Use Plan as it relates to this area. The land use plan depicts future Route 37 on the western boundary of the properties and access to Route 37 from Lenoir Drive. The application fully addresses future Route 37 through the property; however, the access 'to Route 37 is not acknowledged in the impact statement or the proffers. 2. Generalized I)cvel ►ument. The GDP, The GDP has been updated, as recommended should be revised to remove all by Staff. buildings, the GDP should be more general and show the property, proffered 0 0 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 3 3 4. 5. M 7. improvements, access and buffers. The GDP should also be reduced to l 1x17 or 8!` xII. I'r011Cr 1 - Devel(J)n)ent and Use of the Pro erty. Proffer 1.1 states that two buildings will be constructed, given there is a gross square footage cap, it appears the requirement f or two structures may not be necessary. Also, consider eliminating use limitation for warehousing and distribution. Proffer- 3 - Utilities, Proffer 3.1 requires the use of public water and sewer and the construction of improvements to provide such service. This proffer should be removed as it is already required. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. Proffer 4 St(irmw ater jVlilnsl$Cllleflt/I<rrV11 <illrrlerit. Stormwater management is a site development requirement. Existing County requirements should be removed. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a profferstatement. 11'roff'er G I,iLhfing. Building mounted and pole mounted lighting and the use of downcast full cutoff fixtures are required by the Zoning Ordinance. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. Access Lasement. The access easement to parcel 43-A-23 does not align with the proposed access to the subject properties off Lenoir Drive. Provide clarification on Proffer #1 has been revised. Please see the detailed response to the Department of Transportation comments below, based on changes to the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10°i Edition. Comment noted. This Proffer has been deleted per Staffs recommendation. These are matters for final site plan and applicable ordinances will be complied with. Comment noted. This Proffer has been deleted per Staffs recommendation. These are matters for final site plan and applicable ordinances will be complied with. Comment noted. This Proffer has been deleted per Staff's recommendation. These are matters for final site plan and applicable ordinances will be complied with. Please see the comments below with respect to Transportation. The Applicant is aware of the access easement Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 4 I the location of these two entrance points. to the identified parcel, and has no intention of Staff recommends that the Applicant cutting off access to it, or of improperly work with the residential property to interfering with the easement. relocate the access easement to align with the new enhance proposed on Lenoir Drive. This is also the general location of the future connection to existing Route 37 identified in the Comprehensive Plan (see comment 1). 8. 'I'ranslnorlation C(1n1n1Cllts. (lease note Response to the Transportation and VDOT that the transportation comments on the comments are set out below. rezoning application from John Bishop, Assistant Director -Transportation, are being provided to you in a separate letter. Staff may also provide additional comments related to the proposed changes if warranted subject to adjustments requested by VDOT. ' 9. Agency Comments, .Please provide Responses to agency comments are provided appropriate agency comments from the below. following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshal, Frederick Water, Virginia Department of Health, the County Attorney, the Historic Resources Advisory Board (1.1RAB) and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority. 10. Fees. Based on the fees adopted by the A check in the amount of $18,891.00 is Board of Supervisors on April 23, 2008, included with this submission package. the rezoning fee for this application would be $18,891.00 based upon acreage of 88.91 acres County Attorney, -March 20, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response 1. Title to one of the parcels (43-A-21B) is in A copy of the death certificate for Mr. John S. the name of Cheryl G. Morris and John S. Morris, Jr. is provided with this submission. Morris, Jr, husband and wife as tenants by • Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 4 the location of these two entrance points. to the identified parcel, and has no intention of Staff recommends that the Applicant cutting off access to it, or of improperly work with the residential property to interfering with the easement relocate the access easement to align with the new enhance proposed on Lenoir Drive. This is also the general location of the future connection to existing Route 37 identified in the Coin prchensive Plan (see comment 1). 8. Transilor(Aition C ommelits, Please note Response to the Transportation and VDOT that the transportation comments on the corments are set out below. rezoning application from John Bishop, Assistant Director - "Transportation, are being provided to you in a separate letter. Staff may also provide additional comments related to the proposed changes if warranted subject to adjustments requested by VDO`I'. 9. Agency Coniments. Please provide Responses to agency comments are provided appropriate agency comments from the below. following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshal, Frederick Water, Virginia Department of Health, the County Attorney, the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority. 10. = . Based on the fees adopted by the A check in the amount of $18,891.00 is Board of Supervisors on April 23, 2008, included with this submission package. the rezoning fee for this application would be $18,991.00 based upon acreage of 88.91 acres County Attorney, March.20, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response 1. Title to one of the parcels (43-A-21 B) is in A copy of the death certificate for Mr. John S. the name of Cheryl G. Morris and John S. Morris, Jr. is provided with this submission. Morris, Jr. husband and wife as tenants by • 1J Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 5 the entireties, with common law right of survivorship. I understand from the signature line on proffer statement that Mr. Morris is deceased. We will need submission of sufficient evidence of that fact, such as the type of statement typically included under oath, in a deed conveying property so titled reciting the fact of the death of one of the tenants by the entireties. 2. In the heading section of the Proffer The signature block in the Proffer Statement Statement Equus is identified as Equus has been revised to reflect Equus Capital Capital Partners, Ltd. and in the signature Partners, Ltd. block it is identified as Equus Capital Partners, LP. I realize that Virginia corporate law may have certain naming requirements that conflict with those of the state law of entity formation, resulting in the use of a different suffix in Virginia but the use of the suffix should nonetheless be consistent throughout the Proffer Statement. 3. In the first paragraph ofthe introduction, the These corrections have been made. action is twice referred to as a "proffer amendment". These references should instead be to a "rezoning" 4. In the second paragraph of the introduction, The second paragraph of the Proffer Statement the definition of the term "Applicant". should has been modified per Staffs recommendation. be expanded to include the current owner of the Subject Property as well. 5. The third paragraph of the introduction does The third paragraph has been deleted for not seem to fit where it has been placed. The clarity. provisions of the Proffer Statement are not limited merely to instances in which specific plans or exhibits reference them. 6. Proffer 2 - The area indicated to be dedicated The Applicant's engineer has compared the for Route 37 right of way does not GDP with the Board's action of December 12, necessarily appear to encompass a sufficient 2017, and has advised the Applicant that the • Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 6 portion of the right of way area as shown by the Comprehensive Plan depiction on the County's GIS. Staff will want to confirm the extent of the proposed dedication area. area shown for dedication on the GDP matches the area identified for the Proposed Route 37 interchange. 7. Proffers 3, 4, and 6 - Most of the provisions As noted above, Proffers 3, 4 and 6 have been of these proffers simply restate ordinance deleted. These are matters for final site plan requirements and, to that extent, are not 'and applicable ordinances will be complied appropriate for inclusion in the Proffer with. Statement. 8. Proffer 5 - The proffer should indicate Proffer 5 has been revised per Staffs payment simply to Frederick County and not comment. the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. 9. Signature blocks - Because, among other things, we require that proffer statements, once a rezoning is approved, be recorded in the land records, any and all signatures will need to have notarizations. Comment noted. A notary block has been added to the signature page for both the Applicant and the Owner. Frederick County Department of Transportation, March 28, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response 1. Traffic Study - T,and Use. The traffic study uses 820,000 sq. ft. of high cube warehouse. This results in daily trips of 1,378. This trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse worst case scenario of uses that could potentially populate this property under the MI Zoning District and your proffer statement as currently written. Specifically, the trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse distribution trip generation. While proffer 1.1 does limit the property use to warehouse and distribution, it does not make the distinction of high cube. This is a significant discrepancy impacting the veracity of the Traffic Impact Analysis. This is most easily addressed with a clarification within the After these comments were received, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) published, and the Virginia Department of Transportation adopted, the 101h Edition of its Trip Generation Manual. The TIA was developed using the Ninth Edition. This has a direct bearing on the case, and on the proper drafting of the Proffers in response to the Department's understandable comment. A "Warehouse" (ITE Land Use Code 150), which was the initially proffered use, is defined as "a building primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but it may also include office and maintenance areas." The Department is correct that under the Ninth Edition of the ITE a pure warehouse would have been considered to generate far more trips per day than a "high - cube" warehouse — which is what the TIA had 0 • Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 6 7 8. 6 portion of the right of way area as shown by the Comprehensive Plan depiction on the County's GIS. Staff will want to confirm the extent of the proposed dedication area. Proffers 3, 4, and 6 - Most of the provisions of these proffers simply restate ordinance requirements and, to that extent, are not appropriate for inclusion in the Proffer Statement. Proffer 5 - The proffer should indicate payment simply to Frederick County and not the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. Signature blocks - Because, among other things, we require that proffer statements, once a rezoning is approved, be recorded in the land records, any and all signatures will need to have notarizations. area shown for dedication on the GDP matches the area identified for the Proposed Route 37 interchange. As noted above, Proffers 3, 4 and 6 have been deleted. These are matters for final site plan and applicable ordinances will be complied with. Proffer 5 has been revised per Staff's comment. Comment noted. A notary block has been added to the signature page for both the Applicant and the Owner. Frederick County Department of Transportation, March 28, 2018 Agency Comment Traffic Study - 1—and Use. The traffic study uses 820,000 sq. ft. of high cube warehouse. This results in daily trips of 1,378. This trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse worst case scenario of uses that could potentially populate this property under the M1 Zoning District and your proffer statement as currently written. Specifically, the trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse distribution trip generation. While proffer 1.1 does limit the property use to warehouse and distribution, it does not make the distinction of high cube. This is a significant discrepancy impacting the veracity of the Traffic Impact Analysis. This is most easily addressed with a clarification within the Applicant Response After these comments were received, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) published, and the Virginia Department of Transportation adopted, the 10`' Edition of its Trip Generation Manual. The TIA was developed using the Ninth Edition. This has a direct bearing on the case, and on the proper drafting of the Proffers in response to the Department's understandable comment. A "Warehouse" (ITE Land Use Code 150), which was the initially proffered use, is defined as "a building primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but it may also include office and maintenance areas." The Department is correct that under the Ninth Edition of the ITE a pure warehouse 'would have been considered to generate far more trips per day than a "high - cube" warehouse — which is what the TIA had • • Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 7 proffer statement. I modeled, and what the Applicant had intended. According to this new Edition, however, estimated trips generated by a "warehouse" have been reduced dramatically, and the proposed warehouse here would generate a weekday average of only 1,341 trips, slightly fewer than the 1,378 trips that were employed in the TIA — for a high -cube warehouse. It is unnecessary, therefore, to alter the proffer to eliminate warehousing as a use. The ITE Manual now recognizes that warehousing will not generate trips that exceed what was modeled in the TIA. This has been the Applicant's actual experience at its other facilities in Frederick County and elsewhere, and now the technical studies have, in effect, caught up with its practical experience. The category of land use formerly identified as High -Cube Warehousing (HCW), has now been broken into three separate categories with dramatically differing trip generation characteristics. There is no longer a Land Use Code 152. A High -Cube Transload and Short Term Storage Warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 154) is defined as "a building that typically has at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area, has a ceiling height of 24 feet or more, and is primarily used for the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. A typical HCW has a high level of on -site automation and logistics management. The automation and logistics enable highly efficient processing of goods through the HCW. The HCWs included in this land use include transload and short-term facilities. Transload facilities have a primary function of consolidation and distribution of pallet loads C� 0 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 8 2. C"raannrehensive Plan- eastern Itosad Plan. The Eastern Road Plan portion of the County Comprehensive plan calls for ramp access from Lenoir Drive to Route 37. The site layout and proffers, as currently submitted, does not allow for this future connection to take place. This is an important connection that, when constructed, offers significant positive traffic impacts to the surrounding area and this site. Participating in this for manufacturers, wholesalers, or retailers." In this instance, such a high -cube facility would generate an estimated 1,148 average weekday trips. The Applicant specializes in High -Cube Transload and Short Term Storage Warehousing, but in order to provide itself market flexibility it wishes to retain the right to use any structures that may be permitted for the Property, and under the new ITE Manual that would include both Warehousing (LUC 150) and High -Cube (LUC 154). "Therefore, the Applicant has edited Proffer 1.1 to clarify the uses on the property will be restricted to warehousing uses as those defined by Land Use Codes 150 and 154, as set out in the ITE Manual, 10'h Edition. The Applicant respectfully observes that the Comprehensive Plan also calls for the construction of an interchange between Proposed Route 37 and existing Route 37 with northbound ramps commencing roughly 600 feet from the point that any "slip ramp" from Lenoir Drive could reasonably connect with existing Route 37. According to Kittelson & Associates, the construction of such a slip ramp would meet neither VDOT nor AASHTO As noted, the ITE has abandoned Land Use Code 152 and now has four Codes for warehousing activities. LUC 150 remains "Warehouse," and LUC 154 is the High -Cube Transload and Short Term Storage Warehouse, In addition, there are two new subcategories. LUC 155 is a "High -Cube Fulfillment Center," a building that is defined as a High -Cube Transload Warehouse, but a fulfillment center warehouse includes structures "characterized by a significant storage function and direct distribution of ecommerce products to end -users. These facilities typically handle smaller packages and quantities than other types of HCWs and often contain multiple mezzanine levels." LUC 156 for a "High -Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse," is again defined as is a High -Cube Transload structure, but such a warehouse "typically servels] as regional and local freight -forwarder for time -sensitive shipments via air freight and ground carriers. These sites also often include truck maintenance, wash, or fueling facilities." Both LUC 155 and 156 generate as much as 5 to 6 times the traffic of LUCs 150 and 154. The Applicant does not intend to construct either such facility on the Subject Property. 9 • Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 8 2. (�o► mi-clicosiye flan- Fastt.rn Road P an The Eastern Road Plan portion of the County Comprehensive plan calls for ramp access from Lenoir Drive to Route 37. The site layout and proffers, as currently submitted, does not allow for this future connection to take place. This is an important connection that, when constructed, offers significant positive traffic impacts to the surrounding area and this site. Participating in this for manufacturers, wholesalers, or retailers." In this instance, such a high -cube facility would generate an estimated 1,148 average weekday trips. The Applicant specializes in High -Cube Transload and Short Term Storage Warehousing, but in order to provide itself market flexibility it wishes to retain the right to use any structures that may be permitted for the Property, and under the new ITE Manual that would include both Warehousing (LUC 150) and High -Cube (LUC 154). "Therefore, the Applicant has edited Proffer 1.1 to clarify the uses on the property will be restricted to warehousing uses as those defined by Land Use Codes 150 and 154, as set out in the ITE Manual, 10°i Edition. The Applicant respectfully observes that the Comprehensive Plan also calls for the construction of an interchange between Proposed Route 37 and existing Route 37 with northbound ramps commencing roughly 600 feet from the point that any "slip ramp" from Lenoir Drive could reasonably connect with existing Route 37. According to Kittelson & Associates, the construction of such a slip ramp would meet neither VDOT nor AASHTO ' As noted, the ITE has abandoned Land Use Code 152 and now has four Codes for warehousing activities. LUC 150 remains "Warehouse," and LUC 154 is the High -Cube Transload and Short Term Storage Warehouse. In addition, there are two new subcategories. LUC 155 is a "High -Cube Fulfillment Center," a building that is defined as a High -Cube Transload Warehouse, but a fulfillment center warehouse includes structures "characterized by a significant storage function and direct distribution of ecommerce products to end -users. These facilities typically handle smaller packages and quantities than other types of HCWs and often contain multiple mezzanine levels." LUC 156 for a "High -Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse," is again defined as is a High -Cube Transload structure, but such a warehouse "typically servef s] as regional and local freight -forwarder for time -sensitive shipments via air freight and ground carriers. These sites also often include truck maintenance, wash, or fueling facilities." Both LUC 155 and 156 generate as much as 5 to 6 times the traffic of LUCs 150 and 154. The Applicant does not intend to construct either such facility on the Subject Property. E I � U Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 9 improvement is particularly important due to the proposed development traffic that is being added to an already overburdened network and particularly intersections such as Route 11 and Welltown Road which the TIA clearly demonstrates are/will be functioning below level of service C. standards. It is also the case that the Applicant neither owns nor controls the right-of-way necessary to complete any connection of Lenoir Drive to existing Route 37. Furthermore, this is an improvement the need for which is not generated by this project, but which is more generally required by the public necessity and planning. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis submitted by Kittelson, the relevant intersections that were required to be studied are already functioning below LOS C, but at an acceptable level of service. I3y 2020 Total Traffic Conditions, assuming the Applicant is permitted to industrial warehouse buildings totaling 820,000 square feet, with primary access via a single full - access driveway along Lenoir Drive are estimated to generate approximately 1,378 net new weekday daily trips, 90 weekday a.m. (62 in, 28 out), and 98 weekday p.m. (30 in, 68 out) peak hour trips. Under these conditions all study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during all study time periods under 2020 build out conditions. They are doing so at the present. By the 2026 Design Year all study intersections that currently operate at LOS D or better during all study time periods will continue to do so. This is with the exception of the US Route 11/I-81 Northbound Ramp Terminal/Redbud Road intersection during the weekday p.m. peak period. This connection is forecast to continue to operate at LOS E during the weekday p.m. peak hour. This drop in service, however, is due exclusively to background growth and not to this project. 0 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 10 Thus, based on the results of the analysis, with which VDOT agrees, no off -site transportation 1 improvements are recommended. All study intersections are projected to continue to operate acceptably, assuming full build -out of the Stonewall IV development. Notwithstanding this, and in recognition of the County's continued insistence on the eventual viability of the slip ramps, the Applicant's enineer has relocated the entrance into the development off of Lenoir Drive so that it will not preclude the future construction of those ramps by others, Dior will it interfere with or impede or require the relocation of the easement that provides access to the Jenkins Parcel, 43A-23. 3. lZoute 37. Regarding the proffer for the The Applicant's engineer has compared the Route 37 right-of-way, I would suggest GDP with the Board's action of December 12, adding language in addition to being 2017, and has advised the Applicant that the consistent with the GDP that it is consistent area shown for dedication on the GDP matches with the Eastern Road Plan update adopted the area identified for the Proposed Route 37 by the Board of Supervisors on December interchange. 13, 2017. This way, if there is any unintentional disconnect between the GDP and what was adopted by the Board, the intent is clear. VDOT, March 9, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response VDOT Staunton District Planning performed a Acknowledged. review of the Stonewall IV Rezoning TIA completed by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. submitted on February 14, 2018. Overall, the methodology used for the analysis was found to be acceptable and no revisions are required. The comments below are offered as reference notes for minor issues we found. 0 • Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 10 Thus, based on the results of the analysis, with which VDOT agrees, no off -site transportation improvements are recommended. All study intersections are projected to continue to operate acceptably, assuming full build -out of the Stonewall IV development. Notwithstanding this, and in recognition of the County's continued insistence on the eventual viability of the slip ramps, the Applicant's enPineer has relocated the entrance into the development off of Lenoir Drive so that it will not preclude the ftrture construction of those ramps by others nor will it interfere with or impede or require the relocation of the easement that provides access to the Jenkins Parcel, 43A-23. 3. Routr 37, Regarding the proffer for the The Applicant's engineer has compared the Route 37 right-of-way, I would suggest GDP with the Board's action of December 12, adding language in addition to being consistent with the GDP that it is consistent 2017, and has advised the Applicant that the area shown for dedication on the GDP matches with the Eastern Road Plan update adopted the area identified for the Proposed Route 37 by the Board of Supervisors on December interchange. 13, 2017. This way, if there is any unintentional disconnect between the GDP and what was adopted by the Board, the intent is clear. VDOT, March 9, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response VDOT Staunton District Planning performed a Acknowledged. review of the Stonewall IV Rezoning TIA completed by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. submitted on February 14, 2018. Overall, the methodology used for the analysis was found to be acceptable and no revisions are required. The comments below are offered as reference notes for minor issues we found. r-I L-A Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 11 1. Typos were found on some of the lane Acknowledged. group level of service figures, where the LOS shown does not match the correctly reported LOS shown on the corresponding traffic conditions tables. 2. For future reference, please ensure Acknowledged. coordinated phases match the provided signal plans. For this corridor, all signals should be programmed with phases 2 and 6 as the coordinated phases. Only the Rt. 11 /Redbud Rd signal is currently programmed with only phase 2 as the coordinated phase. 'Phis does not appear to have a substantial impact for this TIA, so no revisions are required. 3. The Rt. II/Redbud Rd eastbound left turn Acknowledged. was modeled with a 3 second lost time adjustment in both the AM and PM peak hours. VDOT requires that this setting be 0 for all movements. Since this setting degrades signal performance rather than improving it, no revisions arcrequired. 4. The Rt. 11/Redbud Rd eastbound and Acknowledged. westbound left turns are modeled with permissive- protected operation, but actually operate using flashing yellow arrows. The turn type for these movements should be programmed using the "Dallas permissive + protected" setting with the "Pennitted Flashing Yellow" box checked. This does not appear to have a substantial impact for this TIA, so no revisions are required. 5. The TIA scoping form identifies ITE Land See the detailed and revised response to the Use Code 152, High -Cube Warehouse / Department of Transportation comments Distribution Center as the trip generation above. With the advent of the 101" Edition of for the proposed rezoning development, the ITE Manual the situation has changed which was utilized in the technical analysis sufficiently that the Applicant's address of this of the study. However, Proffer 1.1, dated issue has changed so as to remove this as an L] 0 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 12 February 13, 2018 indicates the issue. development of the property will be limited to 820,000 square feet, used solely for warehousing and distribution. The High - Cube Warehouse / Distribution Land Use is much less intense in character than traditional warehouse / distribution uses, which have the potential to double the trip generation utilized in the traffic analysis of the study. VDOT District Planning recommends consideration of adjusting the proffer to identify the allowable use to be more in -line with the definition of Land Use Code 152 in the most current ITE Trip Generation Manual or limit the permitted daily trip generation of the site to 1,378 as specified in the TIA. 6. The 2035 Frederick County See the response to the Department of Comprehensive Plan Northeast Frederick Transportation comment above. Area Plan identifies a future transportation improvement of a ramp connection to Route 37 south from Lenoir Drive. The current layout of the site as illustrated on the GDP proposes the development entrance at the current termini of Lenoir Drive, which would be in conflict with the future improvement. VDOT District Planning would recommend adjustments to the layout of the site to be in conformance with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Department of Public Works, March 12, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response A detailed review shall occur at the time of site Acknowledged. plan submission. 0 • Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 12 February 13, 2018 indicates the issue. development of the property will be limited to 820,000 square feet, used solely for warehousing and distribution. The High - Cube Warehouse / Distribution Land Use is much less intense in character than traditional warehouse / distribution uses, which have the potential to double the trip generation utilized in the traffic analysis of the study. VDOT District Planning recommends consideration of adjusting the proffer to identify the allowable use to be more in -line with the definition of Land Use Code 152 in the most current ITL Trip Generation Manual or limit the permitted daily trip generation of the site to 1,378 as specified in the TIA. 6. The 2035 Frederick County See the response to the Department of Comprehensive Plan Northeast Frederick Transportation comment above. Area Plan identifies a future transportation improvement of a ramp connection to Route 37 south from Lenoir Drive. The current layout of the site as illustrated on the GDP proposes the development entrance at the current termini of Lenoir Drive, which would be in conflict with the future improvement. VDOT District Planning would recommend adjustments to the layout of the site to be in conformance with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Department of Public Works, March 12, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response A detailed review shall occur at the time of site Acknowledged. plan submission. 40 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 13 Department of Fire and Rescue, Office of the Fire Marshal, February 15, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response Plan approval status = APPROVE Acknowledged. No comments. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority, February 19, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response Capacity consideration deferred to Frederick Acknowledged. Water. Frederick Water, February 22, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response 1. The project parcels are located within the Acknowledged. These issues will be sewer and water service area (SWSA) and accommodated a final site plan. in an area presently served by Frederick Water. SWSA enables access to public water and sewer service by county policy. Location within the SWSA does not guarantee that sanitary sewer and water capacities are available to serve the property. 2. The rezoning application proffer states that Comment noted. Proposed water and sewer the proposed use will be limited to a demands are addressed in the revised warehouse and distribution facility on no Statement of Justification provided with this larger than 820,000 gross square feet. The submission. impact analysis statement is silent of the proposed water and sewer demands. It is impossible to project proposed demand for sewer and water usage until an end user is obtained but as noted below, warehousing facilities do not require much sewer or water service and the actual needs can be determined and accommodated at final site plan. 3. Facilities for conveyance of water to, and Acknowledged. Warehousing facilities have sanitary sewer from, the subject properties minimal demand for sewer, and both sewer and do presently exist. Until the proposed uses' water usage will be determined when an end Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 14 projected water and sewer demands are user is obtained. known, it is unknown if the existing conveyance network has the capacity to accommodate the projected demands. 4. The proffer statement is silent on Acknowledged. These are matters that will be improvements that would be constructed by determined at final site plan, as the Authority the Applicant to meet water and sanitary recognizes. sewer demands. Accordingly, the comments offered herein are general in nature. The ultimate decision regarding the ability to serve the property with adequate water and sanitary sewer will be determined at the time the site's use is determined, conveyance facilities are constructed, and water and sewer connection fees are paid to Frederick Water. Sanitary sewer system capacity is not reserved until the sewer connection fee is paid to Frederick Water, and physical connection to the system is made. 5. Water and sanitary sewers are to be Acknowledged. constructed in accordance with the FCSA standards specifications. Dedicated easements may be required and based on the layout vehicular access will need to be incorporated into the final design. 6. Please be aware that the FCSA is offering Acknowledged. these review comments without benefit of knowledge of the projected water and sewer demands of the site. Department of Parks and Recreation, February 16, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response This application appears to meet Parks and Acknowledged. Recreation requirements. 11 s Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 14 projected water and sewer demands are user is obtained. known, it is unknown if the existing conveyance network has the capacity to accommodate the projected demands. 4. The proffer statement is silent on Acknowledged. These are matters that will be improvements that would be constructed by determined at final site plan, as the Authority the Applicant to meet water and sanitary recognizes. sewer demands. Accordingly, the comments offered herein are general in nature. The ultimate decision regarding the ability to serve they property with adequate water and sanitary sewer will be determined at the time the site's use is determined, conveyance facilities are constructed, and water and sewer connection fees are paid to Frederick Water. Sanitary sewer system capacity is not reserved until the sewer connection fee is paid to Frederick Water, and physical connection to the system is made. 5. Water and sanitary sewers are to be Acknowledged. constructed in accordance with the FCSA standards specifications. Dedicated easements may be required and based on the layout vehicular access will need to be incorporated into the final design. 6. Please be aware that the FCSA is offering Acknowledged. these review comments without benefit of knowledge of the projected water and sewer demands of the site. Department of Parks and Recreation, February 16, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response This application appears to meet Parks and Acknowledged. Recreation requirements. Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 15 Historic Resources Board, March 28, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response The Virginia Department of Historic Resources The Applicant has proffered to prepare a identifies one. ,napped property located on the HABS level III for the residential structure subject property DHIZ 11034-1099 - Glengary. located on the subject property. This has been This structure is potentially eligible for the addressed in the Proffer Statement. National Register off Iistoric Places. After reviewing this intornlatlon and the Applicant's materials and proposals. the [Iistoric Resources Advisory Hoard (HRAB) recommended approval of the Rezoning with the following: • Applicant perlornl a I Iistoric American Building Survey (HABS) - Standard III for the Glengary site. • tilstitutc protocols IOn• the demolishment of Glengary to ensure preservation and/or documentation of historical (eatures. Once you have had an opportunity to review the application together with the supporting documents, please contact my office if you require additional information Sincerely, WALSH, COLUCCI, LUBELEY & WALSH, P.C. Z-- / Marian B. Harders, AICP, LEED AP MBIJ Enclosures: As stated Harders, Marian From: Funkhouser, Rhonda (VDOT) <Rhonda.Funkhouser@VDOT.Virginia.gov> on behalf of Smith, Matthew, P.E. (VDOT) <Matthew.Smith@vdot.virginia.gov> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 11:37 AM To: Harders, Marian;jcallow@kittelson.com Cc: 'John Bishop'; tklein@fcva.us; Mark Cheran; Smith, Matthew, P.E. (VDOT) Subject: Stonewall IV - VDOT Comments to Rezoning/TIA/Proffers Attachments: Stonewall IV TIA 2018-02 Submittal - VDOT Comments.pdf, Scanned from EDNXerox.pdf Please find attached VDOT comments for the Stonewall IV Rezoning TIA/proffer submittal. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact us. Matthew-B. Smith, P.E. I Area Land Use Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Clarke, Frederick, Shenandoah & Warren Counties 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 voice: 540/984-5615 fax: 540/984-5607 e-mail: Matthew.Smlth@vdot.virg1nia.gov Rezoning Comments Virginia Department of Transportation Mail to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14051 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (540)984.5600 }fund del_iv_tr to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 2275 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Virginia Department of Transportation with their review. Attach three copies of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name; _ Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. Telephony „ ZA3_�lit? 4fiti __ Mailing Address. Attn: Marian Harders c/o Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh 4310 Prince William Parkway. Suite 300 Location of property;88.91 acres located at the southern terminus of Gen )r nirT7r ve 1t1 m Ir 732� i� m_cc�infely idjacent to the Stonewall Industrial Park. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: M-1 Acreage: 88.91 acres Virginia Department of Transportation Comments: See attached email from VDOT to Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley & Walsh dated March 12, 2018.',�, VDOT Signature & Date: Notice to IVDOT - Please Return 20 to Applicant • 0 March 19, 2018 Ms. Marian Harders Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh, PC 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Woodbridge, Virginia 22192 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 RE: Proposed Rezoning for Stonewall IV Property Identification Numbers (PINs): 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-194, 43-A-24 Dear Ms. Harders: Fax: 540/ 665-6395 MAR 2 2 2018 WC LW I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Stonewall IV site. This application seeks to rezone four properties totaling 88.91 from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. This review is generally based upon the proffer statement submitted on February 13, 2018. Prior to formal submission to the County, please ensure that these comments and all review agency comments are adequately addressed. At a minimum, a letter describing how each of the agencies and their comments have been addressed should be included as part of the submission. 1. Northeast Land Use Plan — Land Use. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Land Use Plan provide guidance on the future development of the property. The property is located within the SWSA. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan identifies these properties with an industrial land use designation. The proposed M 1 Zoning is generally consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan as it relates to this area. The land use plan depicts future Route 37 on the western boundary of the properties and access to Route 37 from Lenoir Drive. The application fully addresses future Route 37 through the property; however, the access to Route 37 is not acknowledged in the impact statement or the proffers. 2. Generalized Development. The GDP should be revised to remove all buildings, the GDP should be more general and show the property, proffered improvements, access and buffers. The GDP should also be reduced to 1 l x 17 or 8 '/2 x 11. 3. Proffer 1 — Development and Use of the Property. 0 • Page 2 Ms. Marian Harders RE: Stonewall W March 19, 2018 a. Proffer 1.1 states that two buildings will be constructed, given there is a gross square footage cap, it appears the requirement for two structures may not be necessary. Also, consider eliminating use limitation for warehousing and distribution. 4. Proffer 3 - Utilities. Proffer 3.1 requires the use of public water and sewer and the construction of improvements to provide such service. This proffer should be removed as it is already required. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. Proffer 4 - Stormwater Management/Environment. Stormwater management is a site development requirement. Existing County requirements should be removed. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. 6. Proffer 6 - Lighting. Building mounted and pole mounted lighting and the use of downcast full cutoff fixtures are required by the Zoning Ordinance. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. 7. Access Easement. The access easement to parcel 43-A-23 does not align with the proposed access to the subject properties off Lenoir Drive. Provide clarification on the location of these two entrance points. Staff recommends that the applicant work with the residential property to relocate the access easement to align with the new entrance proposed on Lenoir Drive. This is also the general location of the future connection to existing Route 37 identified in the Comprehensive Plan (see comment 1). 8. Transportation Comments. Please note that the transportation comments on the rezoning application from John Bishop, Assistant Director - Transportation, are being provided to you in a separate letter. Staff may also provide additional comments related to the proposed changes if warranted subject to adjustments requested by VDOT. 9. Aeeney Comments. P.lease provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation; Frederick County VII Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marsh t}hFrederick Water, Virginia Department of Health, the County Attorney, A)c Historic Resources-, Advisory Board (HRAB) and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority.' 0 Page 3 Ms. Marian Harders RE: Stonewall IV March 19, 2018 10. Fees. Based on the fees adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 23, 2008, the rezoning fee for this application would be $18,891.00 based upon acreage of 88.91 acres. All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZAS Assistant Director CEP/pd 0 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney (1� '�� n 540/722-8383 Pax 540/667-0370 FMAR 2 2 2018 E-mail: r.� ill A@cofrederick.va.us March 20, 2018 VIA E-MAIL-AND REGULAR MAIL Ms. Marian Harders Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh PC 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Woodbridge, VA 22192-5199 Re: Rezotiing.Application—:Stoiiewi 111V — rcluus Capital Partners, Ltd., (" gtYus") — Tax Parcel Nunibers;43-A-�21, 43-A-2l% 43--A-*24, and,43-19=44 (the "Subject Property"),— Prbffcr'StAtenicnt dated l;ebrtiary 1>3,.20:18 (the"Prgf.fer.Statenient") Dear Ms. Harders: You have subnii'tted to Frederick County for review the Proffer Statement, for the proposed rezoning of the'Subject Property; K9`1ff acres iri th6 St0ii6vall .Magisterial District, from the RA (Rural Areas) District-to,the MI (Light hidust�•ial) District, with proffers. 1 have aiow reviewed the Proffer $tafe►iient and it is nay opinion that the Proffer Statement would be in a form to-'nleet,the reguirendents of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and would be legally sufficient as a proffer statement, subject to the following comments: Title to one:o# the:parcels,(43-A-2113) is in the name of Cheryl G. Morris and John S. Morris, Jr., liasband,arid wife, as fenanis by the entireties, with common law right of sar.v V66liip. I uixderstand from the signature line on pa•,6#6r=statement.ihat Nfr.-Morris is deceased, We will neb&submission of sufficient evidenceloftliat'faot, such asp-the4ype'of statement typically._iticluded., under datli.,in a,.deed`conveying property so titl'Ecl; reciting; the fact of the death of ;one pf tl e: tenallm1 by the entiretiesi —' �. In the liea ling sectiort.of the:' Statement; Egous is identified 6s,Equus.Ca�ital Partners,. Ltd. and in the signature:b ock,, it:is identified as Equus Capital 1?artpers, C,P--: . 'realizellidt-viiginia corporate law may iiave.certai i n- liing:r..equirements that con'tlict with those of the state law of':entity., formation, resultiiig.,iii the use o;f'*a differe»t suffix in Virginia, but.the<we.of tie suffix �shbiild.notietl►dless lie consistent throughout the.Ploffer Statement. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 0 0 Ms. Marian IIarders March 20, 2018 Page 2 • In the first paragraph of the, introduction, the action is twice referred to as a "proffer amendment". These references should instead be to a "rezoning". • In the second paragraph of the introduction, the definition of the term "Applicant" should be expanded to include the current owner of the Subject Property as well. • Tile third paragraph of tile introduction does not seem to fit where it has been placed. Tile provisions of the Proffer Statement are not limited merely to instances in which specific plans or exhibits reference them. • Proffer 2 — The area indicated to be dedicated for Route 37 right of way does not necessarily appear to encompass a sufficient portion of the right of way area as sho«•n by the Comprehensive Plan depiction on the County's GIS. Staff will want to confirm the extent of the proposed dedication area. • Proffers 3, 4, and 6 -- Most of the provisions of these proffers simply restate ordinance requirements and, tothat extent, are not appropriate for inclusion -in the Proffer Statement. • Proffer 5 — The proffer should indicate payment simply to Frederick County and not the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. • Signature blocks — Because, among other things, we require that proffer statements, once a rezoning is approved, be recorded in the land records, any and all signatures will need to have notarizations. Ihave not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as my understanding is that review will be done by staff staand Mlle Planning Commission. Siil�•ely; 4ROzelir.B. Williams County Attorney cc: Candice E. Perkins, Assistant Director, Department of Planning & Development (via e- mail) John Bishop, Assistant Director, Transportation, Department of Planning & Development (via e-mail) 9 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 March 28, 2018 MAR 3 0 2018 Ms. Marian Hardes Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh PC =LW 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 EM Woodbridge, Virginia 22192 RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comments — Stonewall IV Rezoning Property Identification Numbers (PINS): 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24 Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) District Dear Ms. Hardes:. The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning application during their meeting on March 27, 2018. The HRAB reviewed information from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) and the Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of Glengary provided by the Applicant. This site is identified by Property Identification Numbers 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The Stonewall IV rezoning seeks to rezone 88.91 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. Mistoric Resources Advisory Board Comments: The Virginia Department of Historic Resources identifies one mapped property located on the subject property DHR #034-1099 - Glengary. This structure is potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. After reviewing this information and the Applicant's materials and proposals, the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) recommended approval of the Rezoning with the following: • Applicant perform a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) — Standard III for the Glengary site. • Institute protocols for the demolishment of Glengary to ensure preservation and/or documentation of historical features. Thank you for the chance to comment on this application. Please call if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director CEP/pd cc: Chris Oldman, HRBA Chairman 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 0 Rezoning Comments ` iJ FEB 2 0 2018 WC LW Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Mail to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665-5678 11:xnd deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation County Administration Bldg., 2nd Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the infornation as accurately as possible in order to assist the Department of Parks & Recreation with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. Telephone: 703.680.4664 Mailing Address: Attn: Marian Harders c/o Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Woodbridge, VA 22192 Location of property: 88.91 acres located at the southern terminus of Lenoir Drive (RT F-732) immediately adjacent to the Stonewall Tndusiriai Palk Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: M-1 Acreage: 88.91 acres Department of Parks & Recreation Comments: Pks. & Rec, Signature & Date: —Latt�L Notice to Department of Pa � Recreation - Please Return This Form to the Applicant 23 0 CEow ED FIB 24 M8 WCL Rezoning Comments Frederick -Winchester Service Authority Mail to: Hand deliver to: Fred -Wine Service Authority Fred -Wine Service Authority Attn: Jesse-W—Moffbtt, Executive Director Attn: Jcsse-N►�-Mof ett 14,0-JM P.O. Box 43 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22604 Winchester, Virginia (540) 722-3579 Applicant: Please fill out the infonnation as accurately as possible in order to assist the Fred -Wine Service Authority with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name; Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. Telephone: 703.680.4664 Mailing Address: Attn: Marian Harders c/o Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh 431rmce William Parkway, Suite 300 Woodbridge, ge, VA 22192 Location of property: 88.91 acres located at the southern terminus of Lenoir Drive (RT F-732) immediately adjacentadjaicent to the Stonewall Industrial Park. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: M 1 Acreage: 88.91 acres Fred -Wine Service Authority's Comments: Fred -Wine Service Authority's � q Signature &Date:�' ,F,aZi " 11 csz7b_sC__^ Notice to Fred -Wine Service Authority - Please Return Form to Applicant 33 0 0 Rezoning Comments Frederick County Fire Marshal Mailxa_- Hand Icldu-r to — Frederick County Fire Marshal Frederick County Fire & Rescue Dept 1800 Coverstone Drive Attn: Fire Marshal Winchester, Virginia 22602 Public Safety Building (540) 665-6350 1800 Coverstone Drive Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick County 1 Fire Marshal with his review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement,,impact analysis,,and.any other pertinent information. u Applicant's Name ' L-quus.Capital Parmers,'I.Id. Telephone: 703.680.4664 Mailing Address: AIIii: Marian l�r le►_ s c/itj(;olucci Lub�� Walsh t13 LLl� i��t�llilli�m_Pa� ke�cy, Snile 100 Location of property : U-91 acres locatcd_at,the southern..terminus of Lenoir Drive (RT F-732) irjimediately djacent to,the Ct ,� ura l.. jjdj.l.tri�] park Current zoning: RA Zoning requested M-1 Acreage : 88.91 acres Fire Marshal's Comments: S...Qc.A ffac4-� Fire Marshal's Signature &Date: ,� Notice to Fire Marshal - Please Return This Form to the Applicant 22 0 0 Frederick County Department of Fire and Rescue Office of the Fire Marshal 1680 Coverstone Drive Winchester, VA 22602 (540) 665-6350 Fax: (540) 678-4739 Email: finoC?fcva.us Plan Review & Comments Date Received 2/15/2018 Plan/Permit Type Rezoning Application 02-15-18 Name Equus Capital Partners/Stonewall IV Address Lenoir DR Winchester Project Name Rezoning 02-15.18 Applicant Name & Number Equus Capital Partners 703-680-4664 RE# Permit Number Emergency Vehicle Access: Adequate Inadequate I A/'� Hydrant Location: Adequate Inadequate t�iA Siamese Location: Adequate Inadequate N/ AI - Fire Lanes Required: Yes No N/fj� Plan Approval Status Approve Comments Signature: Reviewed By: Kenneth Scott, Jr. Tille Date Reviewed 2/16/2018 VA 22603 0 0 Rezoning Comments Frederick County Department of Public Works Alai, to., Frederick County Dept. nt' Public Works Attn: Director of Engineenng 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540)665-5643 11gog deliver to:, Frederick County Dept. of Public Works Attn: Director of Engineering County Administration Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the infomiation as accurately as possible in order to assist the Department of Public Works with their review. Attach a copy of your applicatlon form, location n1ap, proffer s1>,temant,,tmpart arnt<tvsis, qua AY, At: "p; tinpnt ril`trrrn>Rlioia:: Applicant's Name: Lquus Capital Partners, Ltd, 'Telephone: 703.680.4664 Mailing Address: Attn: Marian Harder& c/o Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh 4310 }prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Woodbridge, VA 22192 Location of property:88-91_acres located at the southern terminus of Lenoir Drive (RT 1=-732) immediately adjacent to the, Stonei+A-L "strial.Park. � Current zoning: RA Zoning reques(e& _ A1-1 Acreage: 88.91 acres Department of Public Work's Comments: A de4*; td rril1, s) .5 A. !f © a .t-tl 44e e o f S i' -k- Public Works Signature & Date: 3- IZ- Notice to Dept. of Ptitblic Works - Please Return This Form to the Applicant M E March 28, 2018 Ms. Marian Harders Walsh Colucei Lubeley & Walsh, PC 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Woodbridge, Virginia 22192 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 Fax: 540/665-6395 EC IE OWE I EMAR 2018 WCLW RE: Proposed Rezoning for Stonewall IV Property Identification Numbers (PINs): 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24 Dear Ms. Harders: Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Stonewall IV rezoning. This application seeks to rezone four properties totaling 88.91 from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. This review is based upon the proffer statement submitted on February 13, 2018. Traffic Study — Land Use. The traffic study uses 820,000 sq. ft. of high cube warehouse. This results in daily trips of 1,378. This trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse worst case scenario of uses that could potentially populate this property under the MI Zoning District and your proffer statement as currently written. Specifically, the trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse distribution trip generation. While proffer 1.1 does limit the property use to warehouse and distribution, it does not make the distinction of high cube. This is a significant discrepancy impacting the veracity of the Traffic Impact Analysis. This is most easily addressed with a clarification within the proffer statement. 2. Comprehensive Plan- Eastern Road Plan. The Eastern Road Plan portion of the County Comprehensive plan calls for ramp access fi-om Lenoir Drive to Route 37. The site layout and proffers, as currently submitted, does not allow for this fiiture connection to take place. This is an important connection that, when constructed, offers significant positive traffic impacts to the surrounding area and this site. Participating in this improvement is particularly important due to the proposed development traffic that is being added to an already overburdened network and particularly intersections such as Route 11 and Welltown Road which the TIA clearly demonstrates are/will be functioning below level of service C. 0 0 Page 2 Ms. Marian Harders RE: Stonewall IV March 28, 2018 3. Route 37, Regarding the proffer for the Route 37 right-of-way, I would suggest adding language in addition to being consistent with the GDP that it is consistent with the Eastern Road Plan update adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 13, 2017. This way, if there is any unintentional disconnect between the GDP and what was adopted by the Board, the intent is clear. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to review this application. Please feel free to contact me with questions or concerns. Sincerely John A. Bishop, Al Assistant Director — Transportation Frederick County Department of Planning and Development cc: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Director of Planning and Development Candice Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director of Planning and Development COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 March 28, 2018 Ms. Marian Harders Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh, PC 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Woodbridge, Virginia 22192 RE: Proposed Rezoning for Stonewall IV Property Identification Numbers (PINS): 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24 Dear Ms. Harders: Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Stonewall IV rezoning. This application seeks to rezone four properties totaling 88.91 from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M 1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. This review is based upon the proffer statement submitted on February 13, 2018. 1. Traffic Study — Land Use. The traffic study uses 820,000 sq. ft. of high cube warehouse. This results in daily trips of 1,378. This trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse worst case scenario of uses that could potentially populate this property under the M 1 Zoning District and your proffer- statement as currently written. Specifically, the trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse distribution trip generation. While proffer 1.1 does limit the property use to warehouse and distribution, it does not make the distinction of high cube. This is a significant discrepancy impacting the veracity of the Traffic Impact Analysis. This is most easily addressed with a clarification within the proffer statement. 2. Comprehensive Plan- Eastern Road Plan. The Eastern Road Plan portion of the County Comprehensive plan calls for ramp access from Lenoir Drive to Route 37. The site layout and proffers, as currently submitted, does not allow for this future connection to take place. This is an important connection that, when constructed, offers significant positive traffic impacts to the surrounding area and this site. Participating in this improvement is particularly important due to the proposed development traffic that is being added to an already overburdened network and particularly intersections such as Route 11 and Welltown Road which the TIA clearly demonstrates arc/will be functioning below level of service C. Page 2 Ms. Marian I-Iarders RE: Stonewall IV March 28, 2018 3. Route 37. Regarding the proffer for the Route 37 right-of-way, I would suggest adding language in addition to being consistent with the GDP that it is consistent with the Eastern Road Plan update adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 13, 2017. This way, if there is any unintentional disconnect between the GDP and what was adopted by the Board, the intent is clear. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to review this application. Please feel free to contact me with questions or concerns. Sincerely r John A. Bishop, Al Assistant Director — Transportation Frederick County Department of Planning and Development cc: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Director of Planning and Development Candice Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director of Planning and Development 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 March 19, 2018 Ms. Marian I -larders Walsh COIUCCi Lubeley & Walsh, PC 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Woodbridge, Virginia 22192 RE: Proposed Rezoning for Stonewall IV Property Identification Numbers (PINS): 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4, 43-A-24 Dear Ms. I -larders: I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Stonewall IV site. This application seeks to rezone four properties totaling 88.91 from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the MI (Light Industrial) District with proffers. This review is generally based upon the proffer statement submitted on February 13, 2018. Prior to formal Submission to the County, please ensure that these comments and all review agency comments are adequately addressed. At a minimum, a letter describing how each of the agencies and their comments have been addressed should be included as part of the submission. Northeast Land Use Plan — Land Use. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Land Use Plan provide guidance on the fixture development of the property. The property is located within the SWSA. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan identifies these properties with an Industrial land use designation. The proposed M I Zoning is generally consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan as it relates to this area. The land use plan depicts future Route 37 on the western boundary of the properties and access to Route 37 from Lenoir Drive. The application fully addresses future Route 37 through the property; however, the access to Route 37 is not acknowledged in the impact statement or the proffers. 2. Generalized Development. The GDP should be revised to remove all buildings, the GDP should be more general and show the property, proffered improvements, access and buffers. The GDP should also be reduced to I Ix17 or 8 %2 x 11. 3. Proffer 1 — Development and Use of the Property. 0 E Page 2 Ms. Marian I -larders RE: Stonewall IV March 19, 2018 a. Proffer 1.1 states that two buildings will be constructed, given there is a gross square footage cap, it appears the requirement for two structures may not be necessary. Also, consider eliminating use limitation for warehousing and distribution. 4. Proffer 3 - Utilities. Proffer 3.1 requires the use of' public water and sewer and the construction of improvements to provide such service. This proffer should be removed as it is already required. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. 5. Proffer 4 — Stornnvater Mallaiyelllellt/EI1Vi1'oIlnlellt. Slormwatcr managcment is a site development requirement. Existing County requlrelllcnts should be removed. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. 6. Proffer 6 — Lighting. Building moulted and pole mounted lighting and the use of downcast full cutoff fixtures are required by the Zoning Ordinance. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proffer statement. 7. Access Easement. The access easement to parcel 43-A-23 does not align with the proposed access to the subject properties off Lenoir Drive. Provide clarification on the location of these two entrance points. Staff recommends that the applicant work with the residential property to relocate the access easement to align with the new entrance proposed on Lenoir Drive. This is also the general location of the future connection to existing Route 37 identified in the Comprehensive Plan (see comment 1). 8. Transportation Comments. Please note that the transportation comments on the rezoning application from John Bishop, Assistant Director - Transportation, are being provided to you in a separate letter. Staff may also provide additional comments related to the proposed changes if warranted subject to adjustments requested by VDOT. 9. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments fi-om the following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshal, Frederick Water, Virginia Department of Health, the County Attorney, the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority. • Page 3 Ms. Marian I-Iarclers RE: Stonewall IV March 19, 2018 10. Fees. Based on the fees adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 23, 2008, the rezoning fee for this application would be $ 18,891.00 based upon acreage of 88.91 acres. All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZAS Assistant Director CEP/pcl 0 9 March 28, 2018 Ms. Marian Hardes Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh PC 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Woodbridge, Virginia 22192 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Developinent 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comments — Stonewall IV Rezoning Property Identification Numbers (PINS): 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24 Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) District Dear Ms. Hardes: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning application during their meeting on March 27, 2018. The HRAB reviewed information from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) and the Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of Glengary provided by the Applicant. This site is identified by Property Identification Numbers 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The Stonewall IV rezoning seeks to rezone 88.91 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. Historic Resources Advisory Board Comments: The Virginia Department of Historic Resources identifies one mapped property located on the subject property DHR #034-1099 - Glengary. This structure is potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. After reviewing this information and the Applicant's materials and proposals, the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) recommended approval of the Rezoning with the following: • Applicant perform a Historic American Building Survey (NABS) — Standard III for the Glengary site. • Institute protocols for the demolishment of Glengary to ensure preservation and/or documentation of historical features. Thank you for the chance to comment on this application. Please call if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director CEP/pd cc: Chris Oldman, HRBA Chairman 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS STONEWALL IV IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT April 12, 2018 The Applicant for this rezoning, Equus Capital Partners, Ltd, seeks to change the classification of the Subject property from RA (Rural Areas) to M-1 (Light Industrial) to construct not more than 820,000 square feet of motor freight transportation and warelouse facilities as permitted pursuant to 5165-606.02 of the Frederick COL111ty Zoning Ordinance, on ±88 acres located at the end of Lenoir Drive, immediately adjacent to the Stonewall IlldUstrlal Park. Although the application is for motor freight transportation and warehouse, which are the specific terms employed in the Ordinance, as is detailed in the Comment Response Letter that is incorporated ill this submission by reference, beCaLlse warellOUSC L1SCS differ ill character, and call therefore have differing traffic impacts on the Surrounding road network, the Applicant proposes to proffer to limit its Lise of the property to two sub -classifications of warehOL1SC Use as those uses are defined by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). It will construct only "Warehousing," or "I-Iigh-Cube Transload and Short Term Storage," Land Use Codes 150 and 154, as they are defined in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10`1i Ed), wlliell is now the controlling edition of that Manual. These sub -classifications of warehouse use, under the new 10t11 Edition, generate even less traffic than was modeled in the TIA that has been Submitted and reviewed by the County Department of Transportation, and VDO"f, and will therefore have the same or lesser impact on the roads that service the site than was previously used to calculate traffic impact. A. THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. The Property is outside of the Urban Development Area, being just beyond its boundary at Route 37. The proposed development of industrial land is not required, however, to be inside the UDA. As noted below, the site is within the Sewer and Water Service Area ("SWSA"), which may, and ill this case does, extend beyond the UDA to promote commercial, illdLlstrlal, and institutional land uses in areas where residential land uses are not desirable. The Property is planned for industrial use.1 1 The Co nity's GIS does not depict the entire site as being planning for 111CILlstrial Use, bUt only because the Future Route 37 By-pass is generally depicted at the rear of the Property. Page 1 2 B. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE. The Property, particularly in the area to be developed, is relatively flat, with the highest points situated near the center of the site, and near Route 37. Redbud Run courses generally along the northern to the northeastern boundary of the site. The most severe terrain is located on the western edge of the Property where it falls off fairly steeply, but that area will be 1_111d1StUrbed by development. The site is accessed by Lenoir Drive. There is an existing stand of trees along the western boundary of the Property that will remain undisturbed by development, and will continue to serve as a buffer between the development and properties to the west. In the event that the Route 37 By-pass is constructed, those trees will likely be lost. C. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The properties to the north of'the site are all either industrially developed or zoned and planned for industrial use, as part of the Stonewall Industrial Park, as are the small parcels directly to the east across Lenoir Drive. Thcre is a single parcel that is sandwiched between the Property and Route 37, owned by Oscar .Ienkins, which remains zoned RA, and the parcels to the west are zoned RA. GIS shows that there arc subdivided lots on the land adjacent to the west that will be accessed by Glentawber Road, but those lots have not been developed. Existing Route 37 runs to the south of the site. Access to the Jenkins Parcel is shown on the General Development Plan. See below with respect to access to the Jenkins Parcel D. TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS A Traffic Impact Analysis has been prepared by Kittleson & Associates and has been reviewed. The conclusion of that analysis is that the traffic generated from the proposed development does not require additional mitigation, and that no off -site transportation improvements are recommended. All study intersections arc projected to continue to operate acceptably assuming full build -out of the development of the Property. See, too, the Comment Response Letter that more fully explain the change in estimated trip generation from the proposed warehousing uses of the site. The Applicant proposes to dedicate right-of-way to the County for the future construction of the Proposed Route 37 By-pass. Moreover, the Applicant has re -designed the basic layout of the property so as not to preclude the construction by others, at some future date, of the slip ramps from Lenoir Drive to existing Route 37 shown on the County's Conlprelicnsive Plan. "Phis, too, is addressed in the Comment Response Letter. The re -design also permits the entrance into the site to be so located Page 13 that it does not interfere with, or impede, an existing casement that provides access to and from the Jenkins Property, Parcel 43-A-23. E. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The Property is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area and there is sufficient capacity in the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility to accommodate the limited effluent to be produced from these industrial structures. Frederick Water observes that the Application does not specify the user and its needs, bUt that Is not uncommon, and the Applicant will address these issues at final site plan. F. WATER SUPPLY The Property will be serviced by public water provided by Frederick Water which observes that the Application does not specify the user and its needs, but that Is not uncommon, and the Applicant will address these issues at final site plan. G. DRAINAGE There is some floodplain on the northern to northeastern boundary of the site along Redbud Run, but it will not be disturbed during development. The site generally drains to Redbud Run, bUt the Applicant will comply with applicable Stormwater ManageIllent Regulations to protect that waterway. H. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The Applicant will contract with a suitable private hauler For the removal of trash. I. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES A Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment ol'Glengary (VDI-IR #034-1099)2 has been prepared by Dutton & Associates (the "Study"). It concludes, in brief, that the home and building stock retain a moderate level of historic physical integrity and represent a good example of a Shenandoah Valley farm that retains a fairly Complete coillpleincnt ofdomestic and agricultural buildings, but that have evolved over time. As such, Glengary is still recommended as potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and C for i significance at the local level. It also concludes that there is a single previously identified site that appears to be more discretely defined, and Is focused in and around the former kitchen/servants quarter building (now demolished), which would have functioned as the immediate service space for the main dwelling. The potential for intact archaeological deposits is '- The home site was named Glengary as long ago as 1762. The central core of the present home was built c. 1850. 4 • ' Page 14 present in this area. Dutton & Associates also believes that changes in the farm that occurred before the Applicant entered into discussions with the owner have significantly affected the historical context of the site. The Study has been SUbm►tted to the Historic Resources Advisory Board and the Department of Planning and Development for review and comment. Following a meeting with the I-IRAB on March 27, 2018, the Applicant received substantial input and has modified its Proffers to reflect the recommendations from that Board. J. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES As \v►th most industrial developments, there are few impacts on community facilities with the general exception of public safety services. To that end, and as other industrial developments have done, the Applicant proposes a contribution to fire and rescue purposes based on the number of gross square feet of structure built. K. OTHER IMPACTS The applicant is aware of no other impacts that have not been addressed in this Impact Analysis. Transportation Impact Analysis Stonewall IV Frederick County, Virginia December 2017 Transportation Impact Analysis Stonewall IV Frederick County, Virginia Prepared For: Prepared By: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 1850 Centennial Park Drive, Suite 130 Reston, Virginia 20191 (703) 885-8970 Project Manager: Chris Tiesler, PE Project Principal: John Callow Project Analysts: Kylie Caviness Project No. 21652.00 December 2017 LTN O O��pF GrrP Cr O Y CHRISTOPHER B. TIESLER Lic. No. 47441 G �SIONAL E� Christopher B Tiesler Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Traffic Engineer Stonewall IV Table of Contents Tableof Contents.................................................................... Executive Summary................................................................. Introduction........................................................................ Existing Conditions.................................................................. Transportation Impact Analysis .............................................. Conclusions an d Recommendations ...................................... References........................................................................ APPENDICIES Appendix A Scoping Letter Appendix B Traffic Counts Appendix C Level of Service Description Appendix D Existing Conditions Level of Service Worksheets Appendix E In -Process Development Trip Assignment Appendix F 2020 Background Traffic Conditions Level of Service Worksheets Appendix G 2020 Total Traffic Conditions Level of Service Worksheets Appendix H 2O26 Total Traffic Conditions Level of Service Worksheet December 2017 2 5 ..10 ..19 .. 44 .. 47 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Stonewall IV Table of Contents December 2017 UST OF HE RES, Figure1 Site Vicinity Map...........................................................................................................6 Figure2 Conceptual Site Plan.....................................................................................................7 Figure3 Zoning Map...................................................................................................................8 Figure 4 Existing Traffic Conditions — Weekday AM Peak Hour................................................12 Figure 5 Existing Traffic Conditions — Weekday PM Peak Hour................................................13 Figure 6 Existing Lane Group Level of Service — Weekday AM Peak Hour...............................14 Figure 7 Existing Lane Group Level of Service — Weekday PM Peak Hour................................15 Figure 8 2020 Background Traffic Conditions — Weekday AM Peak Hour................................21 Figure 9 2020 Background Traffic Conditions — Weekday PM Peak Hour................................22 Figure 10 2020 Background Lane Group Level of Service — Weekday AM Peak Hour ...............23 Figure 11 2020 Background Lane Group Level of Service — Weekday PM Peak Hour................24 Figure 12 Estimated Trip Distribution Pattern............................................................................27 Figure 13 Site -Generated Trips — Weekday AM Peak Hour........................................................28 Figure 14 Site -Generated Trips — Weekday PM Peak Hour........................................................29 Figure 15 Year 2020 Total Traffic Conditions — Weekday AM Peak Hour...................................31 Figure 16 Year 2020 Total Traffic Conditions — Weekday PM Peak Hour...................................32 Figure 17 2020 Total Lane Group Level of Service — Weekday AM Peak Hour ..........................33 Figure 18 2020 Total Lane Group Level of Service —Weekday PM Peak Hour ...........................34 Figure 19 Year 2026 Total Traffic Conditions — Weekday AM Peak Hour...................................37 Figure 20 Year 2026 Total Traffic Conditions — Weekday PM Peak Hour...................................38 Figure 21 Year 2026 Lane Group Level of Service — Weekday AM Peak Hour ...........................39 Figure 22 Year 2026 Lane Group Level of Service — Weekday PM Peak Hour ............................40 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. iii Stonewall IV Table of Contents LIST TABLES December 2017 Table 1 Existing Transportation Facilities and Roadway Designations....................................10 Table 2 Existing Conditions — Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service, 95th Percentile Back of Queue, and Delay for Each Lane Group by Intersection................................16 Table 3 2020 Background Traffic Conditions — Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service, 95th Percentile Back of Queue, and Delay for Each Lane Group by Intersection ........ 25 Table 4 Estimated Trip Generation..........................................................................................26 Table 5 2020 Total Traffic Conditions —Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service, 95th Percentile Back of Queue, and Delay for Each Lane Group by Intersection ........ 35 Table 6 2026 Total Traffic Conditions —Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service, 95th Percentile Back of Queue, and Delay for Each Lane Group by Intersection ........ 41 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. iv Section 1 Executive Summary Stonewall IV Executive Summary December 2017 EX'E1`e.0 C 6 tl A traffic operations analysis has been conducted to confirm that the transportation system can adequately support the proposed Stonewall IV development, in fulfillment of Frederick County and Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) requirements for traffic impact studies. The scope of the project analysis was developed in collaboration with County and VDOT staff. Specifically, this analysis includes: ■ Year 2016 existing land use and transportation system conditions within the site vicinity; ■ Forecast year 2020 background traffic conditions (without site development) during the weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak periods including in-process/approved developments and regional growth; ■ Trip generation and distribution estimates for the proposed development; ■ Forecast year 2020 total traffic conditions based on full build out of the development including queuing; ■ Design year 2026 total traffic conditions based on full build out of the development; and, ■ Conclusions and recommendations. Based on the results of the transportation impact analysis, the transportation system can adequately support the proposed development assuming provision of the recommended mitigations. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS FINDINGS The findings of this analysis and our recommendations are discussed below. Existing Conditions ■ As scoped, the existing conditions analysis reflects cornpletion of the on -going Martinsburg Pike/Welltown Road Improvements (VDOT Project # 0011-034-R67, C501; 0661-034-799, M501; UPC 100547 / 94847). ■ All study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during all time periods. 2020 Background Traffic Conditions ■ A one percent annual growth rate (compounded annually) was used to account for regional traffic growth. ■ Traffic associated with the following in -process developments within the study area was included as background traffic: o Rutherford Crossing o Graystone I.P. o Amoco Lane Property Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2 Stonewall IV Executive Summary o Snowden Bridge developments. December 2017 ■ All study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at LOS D or better during all time periods. 2020 Total Traffic Conditions ■ Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. is applying for a rezoning to allow the development of two industrial warehouse buildings, totaling 820,000 square feet. The site is located southwest of Frontage Road 732 (Lenoir Drive), in the northwest quadrant of the interchange at Interstate 81 and Route 37/US 11 in Frederick County, Virginia. ■ Primary access to the site is proposed via a single full -access driveway along Lenoir Drive. ■ The development is estimated to generate approximately 1,378 net new weekday daily trips, 90 weekday a.m. (62 in, 28 out), and 98 weekday p.m. (30 in, 68 out) peak hour trips. ■ All study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during all study time periods under 2020 build out conditions. 2026 Design Year Conditions ■ All study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during all study time periods, with the exception of the US Route 11/1-81 Northbound Ramp Terminal/Redbud Road intersection during the weekday p.m. peak period. o The US Route 11/1-81 Northbound Ramp Terminal intersection is forecast to continue to operate at LOS E during the weekday p.m. peak hour. This drop is LOS is due exclusively to background growth. CONSLUSION Based on the results of the analysis, no off -site transportation improvements are recommended. All study intersections are projected to continue to operate acceptably assuming full build -out of the Stonewall IV development. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 3 Section 2 Introduction • Stonewall IV December 2017 Introduction INTRODUCTION Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. is applying for a rezoning from RA (Rural Agricultural) to M1 (Industrial) to allow the development of two industrial warehouse buildings, totaling 820,000 square feet. The site is located southwest of Frontage Road 732 (Lenoir Drive), in the northwest quadrant of the interchange r at Interstate 81 and Route 37/US 11 in Frederick County, Virginia. Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. proposes a single full -access driveway along Lenoir Drive. A site vicinity map is provided in Figure 1. • The area surrounding the site is generally rural with industrial development in the immediate vicinity • of the site. Commercial development lines Route 37/US 11. A preliminary site plan of the development is shown in Figure 2. The development is expected to be fully built out in the year 2020. Figure 3 shows the existing zoning of the subject site. • This analysis determines the transportation related impacts associated with the proposed development and was prepared in accordance with Frederick County and Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requirements for traffic impact studies. The study intersections, time periods for analysis, and scope of this project were selected after County and VDOT staff were consulted. A scoping letter provided by VDOT for this project is provided in Appendix A. A traffic operations analysis has been conducted to confirm that the transportation system can • adequately support the proposed development. Specifically, this analysis includes: r ■ Year 2017 existing land use and transportation system conditions within the site vicinity; ■ Forecast year 2020 background traffic conditions (without site development) during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak periods including in-process/approved developments and regional growth; ■ Trip generation and distribution estimates for the proposed development; i ■ Forecast year 2020 total traffic conditions based on full build out of the development S including queuing and turn lane analyses; ■ Design year 2026 background and total traffic conditions based on full build out of the development; and, ,a ■ Conclusions and recommendations. • Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 5 i • StonewellIV December 1017 • Stonewa0IV Oz • � J r— I f • I ( I • i } • � m I i Q • W (n wi =O o • / ca l=i. • i I who i� • H a • • h 0 • 9p 3 . s o' F 8 0 • �V • • IZI! KITTELSON • � & ASSOCIATES 100-YR FLOODPLAIN —/ 1 � U f 1 l I 1 I f . GRAPHIC SCALE 0 150 mo 6m "0!!"" ( IN FEET t inch = 300 ft. December 1017 U J IL C7 2 Z o H V _ N Ir o �. 0 N m Z W F N W W VQ♦ow Z > > m V_ 0 � =�NvLLA Z �ww�V W o U O < " �zMLLO UJ 0 � w } m 0 W Y 0 U N W 2 � U 7r m Z 0 0 �0 m0 < u O o z 0 g wQ U zz Q? o a0 J H ? W EL a- Uw cA Z a DO CO iY LU w L SHEET NUMBER C P-8 Conceptual Site Plan Figure Developed by Dice Engineering, PLC (07/20/2017) 2 Frederick County, Virginia • Stonewall IV lik � O 61.EN� _ Future RT 37 Urban Development Area SWSA Approved TDR Properties Zoning tW B1 (Neighborhood Business Distncti B2 (General Business District) 83 (Industrial Transition District) r 4W EM (Extractive Manufactunng District) HE (Higher Education Distnct) Mt (Light Industnal District) M2 (Industrial General Distnct) 4W MH1 (Mobile Home Community Distnct) - MS (Medical Support District) A 4M OM (Off,ce Manufacturing Park) 1 _ R4 (Residential Planned Community District) - R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) RA (Rural Areas District) RP (Residential Performance District) Agricultural & Forestal Districts Apple Pie Ridge Albin - South Timber Ridge South Fredenck District - Double Church District Red Bud - Green Spring Gwxgc Washington Nnnimal Kxc%t * - SITE �3 RT37,N' T C" se w a r � December 2017 Zoning Map Figure Frederick County, Virginia 3 174AKITTELSON NIL &ASSOCIATES Section 3 Existing Conditions Stonewall IV Existing Conditions EXISIANG CONDITIONS The following section discusses transportation facilities in immediate vicinity to the site. Transportation Facilities Table 1 summarizes the primary transportation facilities in the site vicinity. Table 1 Existing Transportation Facilities and Roadway Designations December 2017 ��`t�liith3'r ��;t33i1 t'o1iT Lenoir Drive Local 2 No No No No Paved McGhee Road Local 2 No No No No Paved Welltown Road Minor Collector 2 45 No No No No Paved Redbud Road Local 2 40 No No No No Paved Us-11 Principal Arterial' 6 40 Yes No No No Paved `Classifications based on VDOT's 2014 Functional Classification Map. Z US-11 becomes a Major Collector east of 1-81 Existing Traffic Volumes and Peak Hour Operations Turning -movement counts were obtained in May 2016 at all existing study intersections except McGhee Road and Lenoir Drive, which were collected in September 2017. The counts were conducted on a typical weekday morning (6:30am to 9:30AM) and weekday evening (4:00pm to 7:00pm) during peak time periods when school was in session. Appendix 8 contains all turning movement count data sheets. Consistent with scoping requirements, operational analyses were performed at the following intersections: ■ Lenoir Drive/McGhee Road ■ McGhee Road/Welltown Road ■ Welltown Road/US-11/Amoco Lane ■ US-11/1-81 Southbound On/Off Ramps ■ US-11/1-81 Northbound Off -Ramp ■ US-11/1-81 Northbound On-Ramp/Redbud Road Current Levels of Service and Volume -to -Capacity Ratios All level of service (LOS) analyses described in this report was performed in accordance with the procedures stated in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM - Reference 1) and report HCM 2010 outputs. A description of level of service and the criteria by which they are determined is presented in Appendix C. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 10 Stonewall IV December 2017 Existing Conditions This analysis is based on the system hourly peak during each of the study periods to evaluate of all intersection levels -of -service. The weekday a.m. peak hour was found to be 7:15 a.m. to 8:15 a.m., while the weekday p.m. peak hour was found to be 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Existing signal timing data was obtained from VDOT. Because the traffic signals operate an adaptive control system, cycle lengths and splits were optimized for each scenario within the current operational parameters of the coordinated system. This information was provided by VDOT. Traffic operations were evaluated using Synchro 9. Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the overall intersection operational results of the existing traffic operations analysis for the weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak hours, respectively. Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the lane group LOS. Table 2 summarizes the Synchro 9 peak hour levels of service, 95ch percentile back of queue, and delay for each lane group by intersection. Appendix D contains the existing conditions level of service worksheets. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 11 �� Stonewall/V Dece7nber2017 • N 861 81 863 C'Cy,(�,(� ESSI A LN oPo �-j F-732 �C:j0 862 • F-732 TG� � 661 i SITE 839 O��Q� 0 PACTIV • 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 • A- 8 a • 5 0 © © o a • a CM=NB LOS=B 119—► Del=11.1 ~81 V/C=0.12 J� LOS =B 220 1 � LOS=C 217 LOSB 14B Dot=12.6 1159--"4 Del=32.1 r1117 ~ 35 r • / VAC=0.26 it itr ry • -� af0 NN • O 3 a • b © © O • a NOS • b • E LOSM 585-� Del=4.4 "-198 LOS=B 306-11 LOS=D *,-30 003--► Del=19.4 f-720 6�9� DKc1=40.6 �2908 • O p 0(J)C') N� •tN v' S e n • CM = CRITICAL MOVEMENT Existing Traffic Conditions Figure • LOS=CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE Weekday A M Peak Hour Del = CRITICAL MOVEMENT CONTROL DELAY V/C = CRITICAL CRITICAL VOLUME -TO -CAPACITY RATIO Frederick County, Virginia 4 • • Stonewa///V December 2017 N Z86V 4 � 81 oP •L� z �Q- 863 C'Cy(c ESSICq LN O QP F-732 3 862 F-732 TG i 661 i SITE �O 839 O�O o� qM 0 PACTIV wy cC(,y 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 O CM=NB f LOS=B CM=EB C1543� LOS=C 264--► Dal=14.4 ~3� 333 DolS12 Del=32.7 r1194 V/C=0.38 f ~ V/C=0}.42 I I `°Q raN mc�n O © O \ N C^JO� LOS=A LOS=C (4614--.," LOS=D 1L8P 1281� Del=4.3 '2214 1320--► Del=28.3 f-857 Del=36.6 r734 r 31 NN nm - CM = CRITICAL MOVEMENT LOS = CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE Del = CRITICAL MOVEMENT CONTROL DELAY V/C = CRITICAL CRITICAL VOLUME -TO -CAPACITY RATIO Existing Traffic Conditions Figure Weekday PM Peak Hour 5 Frederick County, Virginia • Stonewo// /V December 1017 • • • N 861 81 OP 2 �Q- 863 �CCyF ESSI A LN p 22�QQ C:50 F-732 V 862 • F•732 • TG • O� i 661 • SITE �QQ 839 O�O 0 PAcrly • 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS . 11 • • O © © D E A �.�. i• C 1 E A '� • �-- i l� B1 C� : rC n f • � I � E t • B A E 0 • b' © O � O AE •o -► �-- �1 j� D� —�A AA � 1!J �A A� l�f � o j!j A L��11 r A •j D D E a • n 0 - STOP SIGN Existing Lane Group Level of Service Figure • - TRAFFIC SIGNAL Weekday AM Peak Hour 6 • _, Frederick County, Virginia •X • • Stonewo// /V December 1017 N 861 �° 81 oPa 863 OC SSI ALN �CjO F-732 862 F-732 Ceti TG O� i 661 SITE O��O 839 0 G� -q O PACTIV CO<,y 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 VAAAk O © © EE \ B%� E� • C r -5►1 7 A B C • r C C Sj ~ E B A� E O /AE \ ( • r A 1 • r A A C E A 1.1 `- A �D E E6 %} A� �C A� l�l �C -0- - STOP SIGN Existing Lane Group Level of Service Figure - TRAFFIC SIGNAL Weekday PM Peak Hour 7 Frederick County, Virginia • Stonewall IV December2017 Existing Conditions • Table 2 Existing Conditions - Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service, 95`h Percentile Back of Queue, and Delay for Each Lane . Group by Intersection I R>?� ��-itaif+Itif•)��t�t>rrn 7-L'� Ba41;a ka�r i�hbT37;�; l]! r� ICii4�j3sit)rt rriln� +47�ifril �3 a)�rl��zLalt +�:faa(Clfn�a�a;, l uox-, roi�r��.r-, f(f4431 I) El'l iE3�t�)) Iro}� ro>rr��h I{ix3�) r74 {047) ) • Lenoir Drive & McGhee Road (fill Unsignalized EB EBTR 0.0 0.0 EB Approach 0.0 0.0 WB WBLT A <25 1.7 A <25 3.0 WB Approach A 1.7 A 3.0 NB I NBLR B <25 11.1 B 50 14.4 NB Approach B 11.1 B 14.4 • • • McGhee Road & Welltown Road & Amoco Lane (112) Unsignalized EB EBL C <25 22.5 B <25 12.4 MRB 25 12.5 B 50 12.2 EB Approach B 12.6 8 12.2 NB NBL A 50 9.4 A <25 N8T 0.0 N8 Approach .. 7.2 1.5 58 1 SBLTR 0.0 0.0 SO Approach 1 0.0 0.0 • • • • • Welltown Road & US-11 (113) Signalized EB EBL E 325 67.6 E 250 73.8 EBTR C 375 21.9 C 500 24.2 EB Approach C 28.9 C 29.3 WB WBL E 75 76.3 E 75 60.7 WBT C 375 26.7 C 325 22.5 WBR B 50 15.6 C 50 20.4 WB Approach C 26.2 C 23.2 NB NBLTR E 100 63.8 E 150 67.9 NBApproach E 63.8 67.9 SB SBL E 125 58.6 EE 150 62.1 SBTR D 100 53.2 100 56.3 SB Approach E 55.5 59.0 Overall C 32.1 C 32.7 • • • • • • US-11 & 1-81 Southbound On Of Ramps (tt4) Signalized EB EBT A 75 4.2 A 125 4.3 EBR 175 0.0 50 EB Approach A 4.2 A 4.3 WB WBL A <25 3.4 A 100 5.3 WBT A <25 1.8 A <25 1.7 WB Approach A A 2. SB SBLT F 75 81.1.7 F 75 85.9 SBR 0 0.0 <25 0.0 S8 Approach F 81.7 F 85.9 Overall A 4.4 A 4.3 • • • • US-11 & 1-81 Northbound Off Ramps (115) Signalized EB I EBT A 25 3.6 B 275 11.4 EB Approach A 3.6 B 11.4 WB WBT A <25 1.6 C 75 27.7 WB A proach A 1.6 C 27.7 NB NBL D 250 54.3 D 275 51.7 NBR D 175 46.3 E 300 63.0 NO Approach D 51.7 D 55.8 Overall 8 17.2 C 1 28.3 • • • US-11 & 1-81 Northbound On Ramps & Redbud Road (t16) Signalized EB EOL A 100 2.0 A 325 6.3 EBT D 75 41.7 C 125 29.1 EBR C <25 28.1 B <25 15.0 EB Approach C 29.3 C 21.9 WB WBL B <25 12.8 C <25 28.9 WBT E 200 56.1 E 375 60.1 WBR D <25 37.5 D <25 42.4 WBA proach D 54.2 E 1 57.3 NB NBLTR E <25 76.0 E 200 76.4 NB Approach E 76.0 E 76.4 Overall D 40.6 D 36.6 • *The T' indicates 95`h percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer and the queue shown is the maximum after two • cycles. The indicates the volume for the 95`h percentile queue is metered by the upstream signal. • Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 16 • Stonewall IV Existing Conditions December 2017 As shown in the figures and Table 2, all study intersections operate at LOS D or better during all time periods. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 17 l .. Section 4 Transportation Impact Analysis Stonewall IV December 2017 Transportation Impact Analysis TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS The transportation impact analysis identifies how the study area's transportation system will operate through total build out of the project. The proposed development is anticipated to be constructed and built out by year 2020. Traffic impacts of the proposed Stonewall IV development during the typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours were examined as follows: • Background traffic conditions were developed by applying a one percent compound annual growth rate to account for growth in the site vicinity between years 2017 and 2020. • Traffic from identified in -process developments were included in the background 2020 projected volumes. • Year 2020 background weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic conditions were analyzed at each of the study intersections. • Site -generated trips were estimated for the proposed site plan. • Site trip distribution patterns identified and confirmed through the scoping process were derived from existing traffic patterns and major trip origins and destinations in the study area. • Year 2020 total traffic conditions were analyzed at each of the study intersections during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. • Design year 2026 total traffic conditions were analyzed at each of the study intersections. YEAR 2020 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS In the 2020 background analysis, traffic operations prior to full build -out of the proposed development are analyzed for the purposes of establishing a baseline against which to measure the specific impacts of the proposed development. Background growth in traffic volumes is attributed to regional growth in the area as well as any specific development within the study area. These two components of growth are discussed below. Regional Growth A one -percent annual growth rate was identified and confirmed through the scoping process to account for near -term regional traffic growth. This growth rate was compounded annually to forecast year 2020 background traffic volumes. In -Process Development Consistent with the scoping document, four in -process developments were included in the background traffic: ■ Rutherford Crossing (high -turnover restaurant, clinic, grocery store) ■ Graystone I.P. (office, manufacturing/warehouse) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 19 Stonewall IV Transportation Impact Analysis ■ Amoco Lane Property (hotel, retail, fast-food with drive -through) ■ Snowden Bridge (single-family homes) December 2017 All developments except Amoco Lane Property are located to the east of the study intersections. Appendix E contains detailed trip assignments of each in -process development. 2020 Background Traffic Conditions Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the overall intersection operational results of the year 2020 background traffic operations analysis for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. Figure 10 and Figure 11 show the 2020 background lane group level of service. Table 3 summarizes the peak hour levels of service, 95th percentile back of queue, and delay for each lane group by intersection. Appendix F contains the 2020 background traffic operational analysis worksheets. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 20 �� Stonewo///V December 2017 N 861 a t821863 CCESSICA L� CO) F-732 s 862 F-732 TG O� i 661 SITE ��O 839 0 �0 � �Mo PACTIV Y C0</y 3700. WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 k O CM=NB LOS=B r 285 119— ► Do1=10.7 C148—.,� 81V/C=0.11 r O �.-N O tp O NOm 1 — ► LOS=A 971 ' 1070 619 � Del=7.7 r 245 LOS=B 1045--► Dol=19.5 ---822 11 ?N E3 n m omw N�-�- 11t 227-'f LOS=D �224 1276- Del=37.5 —18185 r --�t� NI C N 3151 LOS=D k- 77 904--0- Del=36.3 f 845 114� r70 mo N tp CM= CRITICAL MOVEMENT 2020 Background Traffic Conditions Figure LOS = CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE g Weekday PM Peak Hour Del = CRITICAL MOVEMENT CONTROL DELAY 8 V/C = CRITICAL CRITICAL VOLUME -TO -CAPACITY RATIO Frederick County, Virginia Stonewa///V December 2017 N 861 � 81 oP 863 �C'O'S ESSI A LN O QP O� p� w CON- F-732 862 F-732 0 TG O� i 661 i SITE 0��0� 839 O (J� �M 0 PACTIV CO<,y 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 0 CM=NB LOS=B 267--► Del=11.8 ~67 C3V/C=0.06 4� V/C=0.25 i34 m� O f7O 0> 1 1404 --► LOS=C ♦— 1290 611 � Dot=28.5 -290 LOS=C 1495--0- Dolel=21.7 f 1027 uS chi , C 0 0 Cl'-N 191 %1 LOS=O "-173 1652— Del=37.4 -4--1314 94 - K f } 65 1 I rn�rn � o 490--'4 LOS=D "1— 160 1304--► Dc1=36.3 4-900 82--,,4 ,,62 11 11 nm �21 CM= CRITICAL MOVEMENT 2020 Background Traffic Conditions Figure LOS = CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE g Del = CRITICAL MOVEMENT CONTROL DELAY Weekday P M Peak Hour 9 VIC = CRITICAL CRITICAL VOLUME -TO -CAPACITY RATIO Frederick County, Virginia Stonewo///V December 2017 861 863 O� o0 WINCHESTER B ii 862 LTG 661 O� 839 O © © DE \ C A E C - 8�1 C� S .-C C • ~ E B �^ t / O A \ A 1 • A C f B DI C ~ A jij B A �11 r A E -A- -STOP SIGN 2020 Background Lane Group Level of Service Figure - TRAFFIC SIGNAL Weekday AM Peak Hour 10 Frederick County, Virginia • Stonewo///V December2017 • N 861 81 0 . 863 C,y ESSI A LN O \\QP\ 0� F-732 x • 862 . F-732 TG • QQ- 661 i . SITE 839 O 0�� 0 PACTIV 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS • 11 O © © E E • 'n l Itr A B E C B CS rC F �I 0 a 4 • b � O © O AEAA 0 A:::: ii1 �~- C A 1`r ~ A B --► ~ C —► tiit��J r - + illtJ/ f- K M� U D E E e a -�- - STOP SIGN 2020 Background Lane Group Level of Service Figure - TRAFFIC SIGNAL Weekday PM Peak Hour 11 Frederick County, Virginia Y • Stonewall IV Transportation Impact Analysis December 2017 Table 3 2020 Background Traffic Conditions - Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service, 951h Percentile Back of Queue, and Delay for Each Lane Group by Intersection fGC?9ii��liNtltlriif?f•)i7 /:1i5UZsd.�:6DIr ��i�1+7�]:a➢II!r+ q�i�3di�v3tli1 �H:ii1L!Sc7iiirr7l /:)�)�Ir18�i1 14]Pt�(5Y7.1�1') �9%� itlTi4oSr tolB*(b 4440 (d}� f�sCa;i,:ji ilrx �) �f14h.17 61gj) Lenoir Drive & McGhee Road (Ill) Unsignalized E8 EBTR 0.0 0.0 EB Approach 0.0 0.0 WB WBLT A <25 7.8 A <25 8.6 WB Approach A 1.7 A 2.9 NB NBLR B <25 10.7 8 25 11.8 NB Approach B 10.7 B 11.8 McGhee Road & Welltown Road & Amoco Lane (112) Unsignalized EB EBL C <25 19.4 B <25 1 12.4 E8R B 25 11.8 B 50 12.2 EB Approach B 11.9 B 12.2 NB NBL A 25 9.0 A <25 8.3 NOT 0.0 0.0 NB Approach 6.8 1.5 SB I SBLTR 0.0 0.0 SB Approach 0.0 11 1 0.0 Welltown Road & US-11(#3) Signalized EB EBL E 325 75.4 E 275 75.1 EBTR C 450 30.7 C >525 29.0 EB Approach D 37.1 c 33.5 WB W8L E 150 55.3 F 125 92.0 W8T C 400 29.6 C 425 26.6 WEIR C 50 24.3 C 100 31.8 W8 Approach C 30.2 C 29.9 NB NBLTR E 150 63.6 E 200 73.4 NB Approach E 63.6 E 73.4 SB S8L E 125 59.9 E 175 63.3 SHTR D 100 53.8 E 100 56.5 SB Approach E 56.4 E1 59.6 Overall D 37.5 D 37.4 US-11 & I-81 Southbound Onff Ramps (IM) Signalized E8 EBT E8R A 100 7.1 D 175 48A 150 0.0 50 0.0 EB Approach A 7.1 D 48.4 WBL WB WBT A 100 7.1 C 250 30.5 A 75 3.1 A 250 3.1 WB Approach A 3.8 A 8.1 SB SBLT E 125 69.1 E 125 74.4 SBR <25 0.0 <25 0.0 SB Approach E 69.1 E 1 74.4 Overall A 7.7 C 28.5 US-11 & 1-81 Northbound Off Ramps f15) P ( Signalized EB I EBT B 50 11.5 B 225 17.1 EB Approach B 11.5 B 17.1 WB I WBT A <25 0.1 A 75 0.1 WB Approach A 0.1 A 0.1 NB N8L D 250 46.1 D 275 44.9 NOR E 275 58.1 E 400 63.8 NB Approach D 50.5 D 52.6 Overall�j D 1 19.5 C 21.7 US-11 & 1-81 Northbound On Ramps & Redbud Road (116) Signalized EB EBL A 125 7.3 B 450 17.2 EBT C 100 32.1 C 250 21.2 EBR B <25 18.2 A <25 8.4 EB Approach c 25.0 B 19.6 WB W8L C <25 20.1 D 50 37.8 WBT D 275 51.9 E 500 57.9 WBR C <25 34.4 D 50 40.4 WB Approach I D 1 48.3 11 D 54.3 NB I NBLTR E <25 72.3 F 300 88.4 NBApproach E 72.3 F 88.4 Overall D 36.3 D 36.3 *The'#' indicates 95`h percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer and the queue shown is the maximum after two cycles. The indicates the volume for the 95th percentile queue is metered by the upstream signal. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 25 �� Stonewall IV December 2017 Transportation Impact Analysis As shown in the figures and Table 3, all study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at LOS D or better during all time periods. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Applicant is applying for a rezoning from RA (Rural Agricultural) to M1 (Industrial) to allow the development of two industrial warehousing buildings, totaling 820,000 square feet. Access to the site is proposed to be provided via an extension of Lenoir Drive into the site. Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the proposed development were developed using the standard reference Trip Generation, 9t" Edition (Reference 2) published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table 4 summarizes the trip generation estimates for the proposed development. Table 4 Estimated Trip Generation Ck7trll t? I�� t��rka iJ;i(3 ,i' 1Ji )Yifly �iiJ�li' i;tJTG' 7c-lo1 HO Cu7!tg 7rA- 0I irl Utt? High -Cube warehouse / Distribution Center 152 820,000 Sq. Ft. 1,378 90 62 28 98 30 68 Net New Trips 1,378 90 62 28 98 30 68 As shown in Table 4, the development is estimated to generate approximately 1,378 net new weekday daily trips, 90 weekday a.m. (62 in, 28 out), and 98 weekday p.m. (30 in, 68 out) peak hour trips when fully built out in year 2020. Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment Trip distribution estimates for the proposed project were developed based on anticipated future travel patterns observed near the site and a major origin/destination patterns in the site vicinity. Figure 12 illustrates the estimated trip distribution pattern. Figure 13 and Figure 14 illustrate the assignment of site -generated trips to the surrounding roadway network during the weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak hours, respectively. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 26 f I I•see.��i�s�l�•I N �o /CTO 861 0 863 CCyF 81 JESSICA LN �5� F-732 11 862 CO) A� O �O� V 661 SITE/ oI 839 GAG 'Z` 1 \rx PACTIV Wy Cp<,y 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 15% Z2�' 11 CIVES LN cFNT 1� - Proposed Trip Distribution XX% Estimated Trip Distribution Figure Frederick County, Virginia 12 . 8: ASSOCIATES Stonewall lV December 2017 N 861 a 81 0Pa z ��- 863 �C'C'S ESSICA LN ti O� �� u; F-732 862 F-732 TG O� i 661 SITE o��0� 839 �o G� Iq O PACTIV Y c04 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 0 � a N ,,-62 27� � 1 N � © N © O N 13- ► f 28 16 161 � 13 --► K �6 3 --► �--- 6 1 Site -Generated Trips Figure Weekday AM Peak Hour 13 Frederick County, Virginia • Stonewall1v December2017 • • N 861 81 0P0 z • ��- 863 Cy( ESSICA LN O QP\ • ( �0 F-732 r 862 • F-732 TG • • 661 SITE 839 O��O G� HMO c04 • PACTIV Y • • 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 • • I•y 0 0 3� 51 �23 a - 30 65 • ~ � N O a . U �l b N O h a O J • O n 31—► f-13 31—► -4--• 3 24� • O C • U • P t • C • Site -Generated Trips Figure g • Weekday PM Peak Hour 14 • _ Frederick County, Virginia •X • • Stonewall IV Transportation Impact Analysis 2020 Total Traffic Conditions December 2017 The 2020 total traffic conditions analysis forecasts how the transportation system in the study area will operate after full build out of proposed development. Site -generated trips shown in Figure 15 and Figure 16 were added to year 2020 background volumes shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10 to arrive at the 2021 total traffic volumes shown in Figure 15 and Figure 16, respectively. Figure 17 and Figure 18 show the lane group level of service. Table 5 summarizes the Synchro 9 peak hour levels of service, 95th percentile back of queue, and delay for each lane group by intersection. Appendix G contains the year 2020 total traffic conditions operational worksheets. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 30 is • Stonewa///V December 2017 N 861 81 OP 863 C�(( ESSI A LN O QP\ F-732 862 F•732 TG O i 661 SITE o��0� 839 0 G� qy O PACTIV 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 0 CM=NB K M r CM=EB C236� LOS=D LDS=B 274 112—► Del=11.1 ~285 2 LOS=B ► Del=38.9 ♦-1185 9� V/C=0.15 �143 175� Del=12.3 r81 V/C=0.28 �p1t(� In .p © © O m o �nom _ LOS=A LOW (325—"4 LOS=DW-77 984: Del=7.7 1098 1058—► Dol=20.5 82 + Del=36.2 .-701 1 �2 W cpp� N� ll�N CM = CRITICAL MOVEMENT LOS = CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE Del = CRITICAL MOVEMENT CONTROL DELAY V/C = CRITICAL CRITICAL VOLUME -TO -CAPACITY RATIO 2020 Total Traffic Conditions Figure Weekday AM Peak Hour 15 Frederick County, Virginia Stonewoll lV December 2017 • • N 861 81 z ?'�'Cy\ oP �- i 863 ESSI A LN O FP J F 732 �C:j0 • 862 F-732 TG • 661 • SITE 839 O • O��O HMO / G� • PACTIV 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS • 11 • b 1� • 5 O © © �.-N n v Jl d1L • n CM=NB 267 --► LOS=B �,67 4 Del=12.8 �64 CM=EB 16� LOS=B 196� LOS=D �196 398� Dot=13.3 1694—► Del=40.1-1�314 ~ i • N VIC=0.35 VIC=0.50 r I • .{ c�io �� O • U N k bl N © © O • N 00� • $ _ LOS=C 1635� Dc1=29.5 f2983 LOS=C 514 1 LOS=D �160 1526--► Do1=22.5 --1030 1382� Del=37.3 �66203 0 0 K K 1 � 1 • Nr �� rm b C C. O • CM=CRITICAL MOVEMENT 2020 Total Traffic Conditions Figure g LOS = CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE Weekday PM Peak Hour •_ Del = CRITICAL MOVEMENT CONTROL DELAY RATIO Frederick County, Virginia 16 VIC= CRITICAL CRITICAL VOLUME -TO -CAPACITY • Stonewa///V December2017 • • N 861 a � 2 81 OP i 863 OCy� ESSI A LN O �Q- QP C:j0 F-732 3 • 862 . F-732 TG • • O� 661 • SITE 839 O� �� qM • 0 PACTIV CO<,�, Y • 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS • 11 • •� • O © © D E • 'p u 7 A C E - C B -.)4� C ► C n r D o • B 1 t ti A E 0 •Q • a 0e © © O ry 0 c a AE •` Cam-► = r~-A B� 'LA Ay �A Ay .~ B L!1 • a A A • '� U D D E tai t • C • 2020 Total Lane Group Level of Service Figure r -�- -STOP SIGN SIGNAL Weekday AM Peak Hour 17 • _, • - TRAFFIC Frederick County, Virginia •X Stonewo///V December 2017 N 861 � oP 863 81°CESSI A LN O QP\ �C6 F-732 862 F•732 TG O� 661 SITE O��p 839 UQ' qM 0 ►'ACTIV CC<37 ,y WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 k O © © EE \ 14 B -1X (E-4 7 A BC r E B A E © AE \ J -► r A --► r A A C E A '� 1♦1 r A D E DI - r B D A L�1 D E � - STOP SIGN 2020 Total Lane Group Level of Service Figure - TRAFFIC SIGNAL Weekday PM Peak Hour 1p Frederick County, Virginia o Stonewall IV Transportation Impact Analysis December 2017 Table 5 2020 Total Traffic Conditions - Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service, 95`h Percentile Back of Queue, and Delay for Each Lane Group by Intersection Ifil',TU4 1-01IiltTtidd(C3il #11;aEia��iai� ,rlAit,��x�altal %claEfrrx�lr t�rt�fatag;a I��xa f:jaa!uii t4T!1a�15' ��. t aa�ar i�?�.� (�FT:;v�r CeUx!t? tilaF1'/ 0.0 Lenoir Drive & McGhee Road (III) Unsignalized EB TEBTR 0.0 EB Approach 0.0 0.0 WB I WBLT A <25 7.9 A <25 8.7 WB Approach A 2.6 A 4.2 NB I NBLR B <25 11.1 B 50 12.8 NB Approach B 11.1 B 12.8 McGhee Road & Welltown Road & Amoco Lane (112) Unsignalized EB EBL C <25 22.8 B <25 13.1 F77TER B 25 12.2 B 75 13.3 EB Approach B 12.3 B 13.3 NB NBL A 50 9.3 A <25 8.3 NBT 0.0 0.0 NB Approach 7.3 2.0 SB I SBLTR 0.0 0.0 SB Approach I I 1 0.0 11 1 1 0.0 Welltown Road & US-11(U) Signalized EB EBL E 325 74.4 E 275 67.9 EBTR C 375 31.8 C >525 30.3 EB Approach D 38.2 C 34.1 WB WBL D 75 54.4 E 100 69.2 WBT C 375 31.6 C 425 32.6 WEIR C <25 28.4 D 50 35.7 WBApproach C 32.2 C 34.5 NB NBLTR E 100 63.6 E 200 77.7 NB Approach E 63.6 E 77.7 SB SBL E 125 60.5 E 200 66.9 SBTR D 100 53.0 E 100 57.1 SB Approach E 56.4 E 62.0 Overall D 38.9 D 40.1 US-11 & 1-81 Southbound On/Off Ramps (II4) Signalized EBT EB EBR A 100 7.2 D 100 50.0 150 0.0 <25 0.0 EB Approach A 7.2 D 50.0 WBL W© WBT A 100 7.3 C 275 32.0 A 50 3.2 A 250 3.0 WB Approach A 3.9 A 8.3 SB SBLT E 125 69.1 E 150 77.0 SBR <25 0.0 <25 0.0 SBA proach E 69.1 E 77.0 Overall A 7.7 C 29.5 US-11 & 1-81 Northbound Off Ramps (IIS) Signalized EB I EBT B 50 11.6 B 225 17.7 EB A proach B 11.6 B 17.7 WB I WBT A <25 2.7 A 75 0.1 WB Approach A 2.7 A 0.1 NB NBL D 250 46.6 D 275 46.9 NBR E 275 57.9 E 425 66.3 NB Approach E 50.6 D 54.8 Overall C 20.5 C 22.5 US-11 & 1-81 Northbound On Ramps & Redbud Road (Il6) Signalized EB EBL A 150 7.4 B 500 17.1 EBT C 100 31.9 C 250 21.4 EBR B <25 18.1 A <25 8.5 EB Approach C 24.8 B 19.7 WB WBL C <25 20.2 D 50 38.6 WBT D 300 52.2 E 525 60.3 WEIR C <25 34.3 D 50 41.9 WB Approach D 1 1 48.6 1 E 56.5 N13 I NBLTR E <25 72.3 F 325 93.0 NBApproach E 72.3 F 93.0 Overall D 36.2 D 37.3 *The 'It' indicates 95"' percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer and the queue shown Is the maximum after two cycles. The 'm' indicates the volume for the 95`h percentile queue is metered by the upstream signal. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 35 �/ • • Stonewall IV December2017 Transportation Impact Analysis • As shown in the figures and Table 5, all study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at • LOS D or better during all time periods. • • YEAR 2026 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Per the scoping requirements of this project, an analysis of future design year 2026 total traffic conditions was performed for planning purposes. The 2026 analysis is provided to support long-term • planning efforts. Six additional years of background growth were applied to year 2026 total traffic conditions (compound at two percent annually) to forecast year 2026 traffic conditions. Figure 19 and Figure 20 show the design year 2026 traffic operational results for the weekday a.m. • and weekday p.m. peak hours, respectively. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show the lane group level of service. Table 10 summarizes the peak hour levels of service, 95t" percentile back of queue, and delay for each lane group by intersection. Appendix H contains the year 2026 total traffic conditions • operational worksheets. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 36 • • Stonewo///V December 1017 N 861 � oP 2 �Q- 863 (,�y ESSICA LN 81�P ti �0'q. FQQ w �4r CO F-732 3 862 F-732 TG O� 661 SITE �O 839 O�G G� qyr O PACTIV Y CO<,y 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 O © ©6250-,," �m NI NmN CA1=NB C i 1 LOS=B LOS=B LOS=DEB 119--► Del=11.1 ~143 175� DeOIs 6 -► Del=43.2 � 1313 V/C=0.15 V/C=0.35 } f92 "\ / t I C Sr �Nm '-'n o.- O ?1 © O \ K LOS=C LOS=C (1227---b. LOS=C *-164 1670 ~ Dol=34.9 ~ 324212 (1316► Dol=22.1 ♦)1014 De1=32.4 �990 f Q� N^ CM= CRITICAL MOVEMENT 2026 Total Traffic Conditions LOS = CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE Figure Weekday AM Peak Hour Del=CRITICAL MOVEMENT CONTROL DELAY 19 V/C = CRITICAL CRITICAL VOLUME -TO -CAPACITY RATIO Frederick County, Virginia Stonewa///V Dece7nber2017 • N 861 81 0 863 �CCyF ESSICA LN O >2QP\ • F 732 �Cj0 . 862 • F-732 TG O� i 661 • �0�� /., • SITE �O 839 O� 0 • PACTIV • • 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 . 5 O n � Nm 1 �` ' CM=NB LOS=B 267--► t-67 CM=EB 207 i LOS=D k-207 16 LOS=B 1820—► Del=38.3 .4-1491 $ 4 VD/C=1 .8 398—x Del=13.5 101 � r 77 V/C=0.51 RR` � � }} f �ppI •N N rnr ON m H O 3 • b 4 •b ry O © O a �O mt • E1675 LOS=D � Del=49.0 r 3952 LOS=C 547-� LOS=E 1" 271 1780---► DRe1=26.8 �-- 1276 168 DKc1=59.7 1423 1p � 1 le0 e �20 . U C i • CM= CRITICAL MOVEMENT 2026 Total Traffic Conditions Figure • = LOS = CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE Weekday PM Peak Hour 0 _ Del = CRITICAL MOVEMENT CONTROL DELAY V/C = CRITICAL CRITICAL VOLUME -TO -CAPACITY RATIO Frederick County, Virginia 20 •x 0 • Stonewo//tV December 2017 861 863 O� O0 WINCHESTE 111 862 661 O © © DE \ D __A F D �► � A B C S : D C -L► E B A E © AE \ (A— D U A —' t�J ~ A �D E 101 A '-- B A C eE 51 -�- -STOP SIGN 2026 Total Lane Group Level of Service Figure i - TRAFFIC SIGNAL Weekday AM Peak Hour 21 Frederick County, Virginia 0 Stonewat/tV December 2017 N 861 � 81 oP 863 �C'CS ESSI A LN O QP F-732 862 F-732 C, TG O� 661 SITE �OQ 839 o� �� qM 0 PACTIV 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 O © © EE \ B -14 F 1 A r A B�1 D� rC D 4 t— E © AE \ . s �} A � A A r F U A ► I�f ~ A �D E 161 —► ~ C E A� ill rD --t- - STOP SIGN 2026 Total Lane Group Level of Service Figure - TRAFFIC SIGNAL Weekday PM Peak Hour 22 Frederick County, Virginia Stonewall IV Transportation Impact Analysis December 2017 Table 6 2026 Total Traffic Conditions - Summary of Peak Hour Levels of Service, 951h Percentile Back of Queue, and Delay for Each Lane Group by Intersection th�Ir9ti4a�I]ilI I i1 �i17i iE11r•7➢ Icf i �ha?7 al f IJ lrr � ��d� a, t�;tl) C� i 1[j1W :.10Wil 10)1 0 ; 14;hTo141-1l1)) I iWX) (ral3) (!ta F1Y iF ) tW40 i �X4 t] Lenoir Drive & McGhee Road (Nl) Unsignalized EB I EBTR 0.0 0.0 EB Approach 0.0 0.0 WB WBLT A <25 7.9 A <25 8.7 WB Approach A 2.6 A 4.2 N8 NBLR B <25 11.1 B 50 12.8 NBApproach B 11.1 B 12.8 McGhee Road & Welltown Road & Amoco Lane (1t2) Unsignalized EB EBL C <25 23.2 B <25 13.4 EBR B 25 12.5 B 75 13.5 EB Approach B 12.6 B 13.5 NB NBL A 50 A <25. NDT 0.4 0.3 . NB Approach 7.3 1.9 58 SBLTR 0.0 0.0 SB Approach 0.0 0.0 Welltown Road & US-11 (0) Signalized EB EBL F 400 90.4 F 325 83.2 EBTR C 525 34.7 D >525 35.1 EB Approach D 42.5 D WB WBL E 175 57.6 E 150 57.9 WBT D 500 36.8 c 450 23.2 WBR D 100 38.0 A <25 7.4 WB Approach D 38.1 C 39.8 NB NBLTR E 150 65.4 225 78.6 NB Approach E 65.4 78.6 SB SBL E 150 61.0 tE 225 69.9 SBTR D 100 52.7 100 55.9 SB Approach E 56.4 62.9 Overall D 43.2 D 38.3 US-11 & 1-81 Southbound On Of Ramps (1t4) Signalized EB EBT EBR E 125 62.1 F 200 88.5 100 0.0 SO 0.0 EB Approach E 62.1 F 88.5 W© WBL C 375 33.6 D >525 40.7 WBT A 225 5.8 A 300 6.2 WBApproach B 11.9 B 13.5 SB SBLT E 225 63.7 E 250 68.3 SBR <25 0.0 <25 0.0 SBA proach E 63.7 E 68.3 Overall C 34.9 -D--T 49.0 US-11 & 1-81 Northbound Off Ramps (115) Signalized EB EBT c 100 20.7 C 150 29.7 EB A proach C 20.7 C 29.7 WB I WBT A <25 0.3 A 50 0.1 WB Approach A 0.3 A 0.1 NB NDL D 250 37.6 D 300 37.8 NBR E 425 61.1 E >525 71.6 N8 Approach D 47.5 D 53.1 Overall C 22.1 C 26.8 US-11 & 1-81 Northbound On Ramps & Redbud Road (116) Signalized EB EBL B 225 16.4 F >525 108.2 EBT C 275 20.2--�j A >525 1 6.9 EBR A <25 7.9 A <25 0.5 EB Approach B 18.5 c 31.0 WB WBL c 75 33.5 D 150 52.6 WBT D 400 50.1 F >525 73.2 WEIR c 25 33.5 C 125 34.9 WBApproach D 45.8 11 E 65.5 NB NBLTR E <25 76.3 F >525 220.6 NBA roach E 76.3 F 220.6 Overall c 32.4 E 59.7 *The 'it' indicates 95"' percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer and the queue shown 1s the maximum after two cycles. The 'm' indicates the volume for the 95`h percentile queue is metered by the upstream signal. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 41 �� Stonewall IV Transportation Impact Analysis December 2017 As shown in the figures and Table 6, all study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at LOS D or better during all time periods except the US Route 11/1-81 Northbound On-Ramp/Redbud Lane intersection. This intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 42 i, Section 5 Conclusions and Recommendations Stonewall IV December 2017 Conclusions and Recommendations CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of the transportation impact analysis, the transportation system can accommodate full build -out of the proposed development and assuming provision of the recommended mitigations. The findings of this analysis are discussed below. Existing Conditions ■ As scoped, the existing conditions analysis reflects completion of the on -going Martinsburg Pike/Welltown Road Improvements (VDOT Project # 0011-034-R67, C501; 0661-034-799, M501; UPC 100547 / 94847). ■ All study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during all time periods. 2020 Background Traffic Conditions ■ A one percent annual growth rate (compounded annually) was used to account for regional traffic growth. ■ Traffic associated with the following in -process developments within the study area was included as background traffic: o Rutherford Crossing o Graystone I.P. o Amoco Lane Property o Snowden Bridge ■ All study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at LOS D or better during all tirne periods. 2020 Total Traffic Conditions ■ Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. is applying for a rezoning to allow the development of two industrial warehouse buildings, totaling 820,000 square feet. The site is located southwest of Frontage Road 732 (Lenoir Drive), in the northwest quadrant of the interchange at Interstate 81 and Route 37/US 11 in Frederick County, Virginia. ■ Primary access to the site is proposed via a single full -access driveway along Lenoir Drive. ■ The development is estimated to generate approximately 1,378 net new weekday daily trips, 90 weekday a.m. (62 in, 28 out), and 98 weekday p.m. (30 in, 68 out) peak hour trips. ■ All study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during all study time periods under 2020 build out conditions. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 44 Stonewall IV Conclusions and Recommendations December 2017 2026 Design Year Conditions ■ All study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during all study time periods, with the exception of the US Route 11/1-81 Northbound Rarnp Term inal/Redbud Road intersection during the weekday p.m. peak period. o The US Route 11/1-81 Northbound Ramp Terminal intersection is forecast to continue to operate at LOS E during the weekday p.m. peak hour. This drop is LOS is due exclusively to background growth. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 45 I Section 6 References • Stonewall IV December2017 • References • REFERENCES 1. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual. 2010. 2. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, 9t" Edition. 2012. • Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 47 • Appendix A Scoping Letter • • �VDOT Virginia Department PRE -SCOPE OF WORK MEETING FORM of Transportation • - Information on the Project • Traffic Impact Analysis Base Assumptions • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • The applicant is responsible for entering the relevant information and submitting the form to VDOT and the locality no less than three (3) business days prior to the meeting. If a form is not received by this deadline, the scope of work meeting may be postponed. Contact Information Consultant Name: Chris Tiesler, PE & John Callow - Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Tele: (703) 885-8970 E-mail: ctiesler@,kittelson.com Developer/Owner Name: Dan DiLella - Equtis Capital Partners, Ltd. Tele: (215) 575-2352 E-mail: dmdilella�equuspartners.com Project Information Project Name: Morris. Property Industrial Development Locality/County: Frederick County Project Location: (Attach regional and site See Figure 1 - attached specific location ma Submission Type Comp Plan ❑ Rezoning ❑X Site Plan ❑ Subd Plat ❑ Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. is applying for a rezoning to allow the development of Project Description: a two industrial warehousing buildings, totalling 820,000 square feet. The site is (Including details on the land located southwest of Frontage Road 732 (Lenoir Drive) [located in the northwest use, acreage, phasing, access quadrant of the I-81/Route 37 interchange] in Frederick County, Virginia. Equus location, etc. Attach additional sheet if necessary) Capital Partners, Ltd. proposes a single, ftill-access driveway along Lenoir Drive. A conceptual site plan is shown in Figure 2. Proposed Use(s): (Check all that apply; attach Residential ❑ Commercial © Mixed Use ❑ Other ❑ additional pages as necessary) Residential Uses(s) Number of Units: ITE LU Code(s): Other Use(s) ITE LU Code(s): Commercial Use(s) ITE LU Code(s): 152 Independent Variable(s): (see attached Trip Gen Table) Square Ft or Other Variable: • • • It is important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding • geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting. Total Peak Hour Trip Less than 100 ® 100 — 499 ❑ 500 — 999 ❑ 1,000 or more ❑ Projection: Traffic Impact Analysis Assumptions Study Period Existing Year: 2017 Build -out Year: 2020 Design Year: 2026 North: McGhee Road South: Route 37 (Winchester Bypass) Study Area Boundaries East: Lenoir Drive West: Route 661 (Redbud Road) (Attach map) In -process developments include Rutherford Crossing, Graystone I.P., Amoco Lane External Factors That Property, and Snowden Bridge developments. Could Affect Project Martinsburg Pike/Welltown Road Improvements (Planned road improvements, other nearby developments) VDOT Pro ect # 0011-034-R67, C501; 0661-034-799, M501; UPC 100547 / 94847 J Future development of Route 37 Bypass to the west of the site Consistency With Comprehensive Plan Yes (Land use, transportation plan) 2016 AADT Volumes from VDOT I-81 NB Exit Ramp, Exit 317 - 10,000 (to US 11) I-81 SB Exit Ramp, Exit 317 - 5,200 (to US 11) US 11 (Martinsburg Pike) - 39,000 (from Route 37 to I-81) Available Traffic Data US 11 (Martingsburg Pike) - 12,000 (from I-81 to Old Charles Town Road) (Historical, forecasts) Route 661 (Redbud Road) - 2,000 (from US 11 to Milburn Road) Route 661 (Welltown Road) - 4,700 (from US 11 to Fair Lane) Route 861 (McGhee Road) - 3,500 (from Tyson Drive to Lenoir Drive) Frontage Road 732 (McGhee Road) - 6,700 (from Lenoir Drive to Welltown Road) Frontage Road 732 (Lenoir Drive) - 6,700 (from McGhee Road to Dead End) Road Name: 15% Route 37 (Winchester Bypass) [West] (See Road Name: 35% 1-81 SB [South] Trip Distribution Figure 3) Road Name: 35% I-81 NB (Attach sketch) [North]; 5% Route 662 (Welltown Road Name: 10% Martinsburg Pike [East] Road) [North] Annual Vehicle Trip Peak Period for Study ® AM ® PM ❑ SAT 1% (check all that apply) Peak Hour of the Generator 6-9 am 4-7 pm Growth Rate: 1.Route 861 (McGhee Road)/ 6. I-81 NB On-ramp/US 11 (Martinsburg Study Intersections Frontage Road 732 (Lenoir Drive) Pike)/Route 661 (Redbud Road) 2.Route 661 (Welltown Road)/ �' and/or Road Segments (Attach additional sheets as Route 861 (McGhee Road) 3.US 11 (Martinsburg Pike)/ 8' necessary) Route 661 (Welltown Road)/Route It is important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting. • • • 839 (Amoco Lane) 4.I-81 SB Ramps/ 9' US I I (Martinsburg Pike) 5.I-81 NB Oft -ramp/ 10. US 11 (Martinsburg Pike) Trip Adjustment Factors Internal allowance: ❑ Yes [Z No Pass -by allowance: ElYes ❑ No /o Reduction: trips Reduction: /o trips Software Methodology M Synchro ❑ HCS (v.2000/+) ❑ aaSIDRA ❑ CORSIM ❑ Other Traffic Signal Proposed or Affected Analysis Soilware: Synchro v9, SimTraffic (if oversaturated) (Analysis software to be used, Results: I-ICM Methodology progression speed, cycle length) Improvement(s) Martinsburg Pike/Welltown Road Improvements Assumed or to be VDOT Project # 0011-034-R67, C501; 0661-034-799, M501; UPC 100547 / 94847 Considered This project is currently under construction and will be in place for all background/total traffic conditions. Traffic studies to be considered under year 2020 Build Year include: Rutherford Crossing (5,000 S.F. high turnover restaurant; 5,000 S.F. clinic; 30,000 S.F. grocery store), Graystone I.P. (525,000 S.F. office; 171,000 S.F. manufaturing/warehouse), Background Traffic Amoco Lane Property (80 room hotel; 5,600 S.F. retail; 3,500 S.F. fast-food with Studies Considered drive through), and Snowden Bridge (300 single-family homes). Traffic studies to be considered under year 2026 Design Year include those in year 2020 Build Year with the following additions: Graystone I.P. (787,000 S.F. office; 257,000 S.F. manufacturing/warehouse) and Snowden Bridge (600 single-family homes). ❑ Master Development Plan (MDP) © Generalized Development Plan (GDP) Plan Submission ❑ Preliminary/Sketch Plan ❑ Other Plan type (Final Site, Subd. Plan) H Queuing analysis ❑ Actuation/Coordination ❑ Weaving analysis Additional Issues to be ❑ Merge analysis ❑ Bike/Ped Accommodations ❑X Intersection(s) Addressed ❑ TDM Measures ❑ Other 0 NOTES on ASSUMPTIONS: Non-ITE trip generation rates will be used to estimate the Greystone I.P. trip generation, as directed by VDOT staff. r It is important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding • geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting. r� Morris Tt r p"t SCOPE OF WORK MEETING ADDITIONS TO THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS, CHANGES TO THE METHODOLOGY OR STANDARD ASSUMPTIONS, AND SIGNATURE PAGE Any additions to the Required Elements or changes to the Methodology or Standard Assumptions due to special circumstances that are approved by VDOT: AGREED: pplicant or Consu t PRINT NAME: Applic, SIGNED: VDOT or Consultant PRINT NAME: /q k %T �m I rt f VDOT Representative SIGNED: Local Government Representative PRINT NAME: Local Government Representative DATE: 10 / 3 17 DATE: t I DATE: • Morris Property Industrial Development October 2017 • N 861 81 oe- � z � 'L!�'Cy� • 863 ESSICq LN O Q-P 0 • F-732 i 862 . F-732 TG 661 0 SITE ��O o 839 O O • / PACTIV • • 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS • 11 • o I 5 9 ' n� • e •ry b Cio.: Juixtcn • O / pp V c E Lrn 8 • �, bSha n SITE relnnd / '�Z\ a 1 vr��n�ar•. / en Frederick County, Virginia •E n 1.'.o�ntalnf n'I. o e •y Ctnr iennrr SrphrnsC:;/ • b e �- Study Intersections °1 • t Q- Future Study Intersections Site Vicinity Map Figure M .a a Frederick County, Virginia 1 2' y • i �7- MLu � l' L44'' rri�ppS O VV ``flfl ' & ASSOCIATES December 2017 I � J 0- � I 0 Z N V ryry— Q LO C� LL COZ I\ W - C,4 L 1 I W U < LU 0 ' Q I =-Lw cnJ)uiL0U Lll UOQ`L \ W M U- O I � I00-YR FLOODPLAIN w ■ co C0 1 QUj f m I ��` w O U , Cl)rl- ` W w U n CD I uni W I Z) O d Z O o w o V Ln O O o m m ° Q o 0 Y Ll-V 0 Z o z ' 1$ TRUCK COURT 1 �� I D Uj p - _ Uj _� Of < a4 I amxoY z o ' 00 O J Q 0- , I r a_ U PROPOSED 369,000 Sa, �; CL FT. BUILDING w ¢ U (410' x 900') - z E ZO 1 ` \ i Q� U -- I a o y PARKING z w (..—. — — J' d Q a -- -- --�-- w I 1 _ Z � 1 \ = O co \ Clf —__ a - --" GRAPHIC SCALE 0 150 30o 600 SHEET NUMBER ( IN FEET) C P—Q 1 inch = 30Q ft_ Q Conceptual Site Plan Figure Developed by Dice Engineering, PLC (07/20/2017) 2 Frederick County, Virginia • y t • N •a • ja KITTELSON a • � &ASSOCIATES SITE 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 15% CIVES LN - Proposed Trip Distribution XX% aElUT-E-[LUM & ASSOOATES 861 Ss3 ec\ 11 NA�R� O� oQ'o� J Uj 81 JESSICA LN 11 661 Proposed Trip Distribution Figure Frederick County, Virginia 3 Morris Property Industrial Development - Trip Generation ITE Trip Gen 9t" Ed J� l: High -Cube Warehouse/Distribution 152 820,000 Square Feet 1,378 62 28 90 30 68 98 Center Net New Trips 1,378 62 28 90 30 68 98 Appendix B Traffic Counts • Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Lenoir Dr -- McGhee Rd QC JOB #: 14512801 CITY/STATE: Winchester VA DATE: Tue, Sep 19 2017 0 o Peak -Hour: 6:30 AM -- 7:30 AM 0.0 0.0 a t . o 0 o Peak 15-Min: 6:45 AM -- 7:00 AM a t L 0.0 00 0.0 .) i 4 .) i 4 . 285 ~ 0 _t 0 ~ 417 J L f' 10 5 0.0 0.0 9.4 • 96 i 0.83 ~ 280 41 7 ~ 107 . 110414 Z+1 t �� 137*170 - --^ 373.071h t �� 66~382 5 74 vQuality Counts . 00 00 338 i *F . 151 79 66 316 0 L r i 4 L ` o � L o 0 0 0 ► 0 10 0 OF -1 Fda 7 r • © ° h t (' ° • i tI • .) i 4 L� T� NA NA —1.� i 4 L i NA 4'NA NA • ~ NA + z .► r r' . + NA t F NA 15-Min Countl Lenoir Dr Lenoir Dr McGhee Rd McGhee Rd Total Hourly erlocBePinninl AtI Left (ThruhbRi'I t) U Left (Thr 1 __BIc ha) U I Left Thastb ru Right U Left ThrutbRight U Totals 6:00 AM 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 I 18 32 0 0 I 76 6:15 AM 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 29 41 0 0 92 6:30 AM 0 0 13 _ 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 25 2_ 0 41 72 0 0 153 • �451j 9 19_-0__ 0_ 0 0._-0_ __4-21 8 99 0_� E5581 7:00 AM 1 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 3 0 36 56 0 0 1537:15 AM 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 1 0 17 63 0 0 117 7:30 AM 5 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 2 0 23 80 0 0 148 601 • 7:45 AM 2 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 3 0 16 85 0 0 155 573 8:00 AM 2 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 3 0 25 57 0 0 136 556 8:15 AM 2 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 6 0 13 55 0 0 120 559 8:30 AM 4 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 2 0 24 65 0 0 143 554 0 8:45 AM 5 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 2 0 19 64 0 0 130 529 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southboi Eastbound I Westbound 40 Flowrates Left Thru Right U I Left Thru RI ht U Left Thru RI 11t U Left Thru Ri ht U Total All Vehicles 12 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 32 0 172 356 0 0 732 Heavy Trucks 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 32 4 0 16 0 72 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad . Stopped Buses Comments: Report generated on 9/25/2017 1:04 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 I ype oT peak nour Deing reportea: Intersection Heak ivietnorl tor determining peak hour: I otal Entering volume LOCATION: Lenoir Dr -- McGhee Rd QC JOB #: 1451280 CITYISTATE: Winchester, VA DATE: Tue, Sep 19 20 77 0 0 Peak -Hour: 4:00 PM -- 5:00 PM + t 0 0 Peak 15-Min: 4:30 PM -- 4:45 PM a t 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i 4 41 i 4 122 F 0 J t 0 ~ 154 27.9 ~ 0.0 J ``�.,,. �' 0.0 ~ 33.8 276 0.69 ~ 109 9.8 ~ m ~ 28.4 286 10 Z h & 4'45 416 y "" 10.8 40.0 + t f 46.7 10.1 13 0 140 �,,r (�' i tIJ(ij 23.1 0.0 10.7 55 153 'ktih"I°.p`.)F�ta(It-}l1 a;t'�t, �'� t rr'S;.�1':�u,v s[it.'�r�5 455 118 o L 0 J yp� t- o r -1 o h t �' o 0 0 0 O F NA L L NA 4. J t J t NA ~ NA NA w ~ NA t t � h t (* I NA NA 15-Min Count Lenoir Dr Lenoir Dr McGhee Rd McGhee Rd Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right ULeft Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM' 3 0 .' '26.; 0_ 0 0. 0 0 - 0 .: 65 -5 — 0 13. 34 0 "< 0', 146 I. 4:15 PM 2 0' 14 0 0 ` 0': -0 0 0 - 62' "' /2. 0-` 12 , 31. ..._: 0 0 ':. _123,:. . '>,:; ri. .^✓.. ✓,0 .;�,.y, 6d`r,1 �.%,:Fv„„ t3rl .., X,f•Q. ,',,.� t,�r.F ,.£,r�:-�.ka,:. F'�Y... :.,,.,�', r�% r ,?ls�?,''A�' "' 4:45 PM 3 0 . - '24, 0 0 0 . 0 ': p . p `47 ., 3 .0 7 ., 24.`.. 0. 0'�.�108... •59''r/": 5:00 PM 5 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 1 0 6 9 0 0 115 562 5:15 PM 3 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 8 14 0 0 92 531 5:30 PM 1 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 0 0 6 20 0 0 149 464 5:45 PM 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 9 11 0 0 52 408 6:00 PM 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 1 0 7 12 0 0 47 340 6:15 PM 2 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 12 11 0 0 57 305 6:30 PM 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 19 7 0 0 50 206 6:45 PM 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 19 14 0 0 71 225 Peak15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Ri ht U Total All Vehicles 20 0 304 0 0 0 0 0 0 408 0 0 52 80 0 0 864 Heavy Trucks 4 0 36 0 0 0 0 36 0 24 20 0 120 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Comments: Report generated on 9/25/2017 1:04 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 VEHICLES TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Intersection of: Rio 661 (Wclltown Road) and: Rte 861 (McGhee Road) Location: Frederick County, Virginia Thursday Star Rating: 6 TRAFFIC FROM NORTH TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH TRAFFIC FROM WEST TOTAL on: Rte 661 (Wclltown Road) on: Rte 661 (Welltown Road) on: Rte 861 (McGhee Road) N S TIME RIGHT THRU LEFT U•TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL E + W AM 6:00 - 6:15 3 26 0 29 10 42 0 52 21 0 0 21 102 6.15-6:30 1 44 0 45 24 68 0 92 17 0 0 17 154 6'30.6:45 7 63 0 70 39 126 0 165 22 0 0 22 257 6:45 - 7:00 7 61 0 68 31 179 0 210 27 0 0 27 305 7:00 - 715 2 50 0 52 19 77 0 96 53 0 0 53 201 7:15 -7:30 5 51 0 56 27 81 1 109 34 1 0 35 200 7:30 - 7 45 1 72 0 73 31 73 0 104 32 0 0 32 209 7:45 - 8.00 3 52 0 55 32 122 0 154 45 0 0 45 254 8 00 - 8.15 0 36 0 36 26 65 0 91 37 0 0 37 164 8:15 - 8:30 5 55 0 60 20 60 0 80 45 6 0 51 191 830 - 8.45 2 61 0 63 15 50 0 65 37 1 0 38 165 8:45-9.00 1 44 0 45 19 43 0 62 40 1 0 41 148 9.00.9:15 1 30 0 31 25 24 0 49 33 1 0 34 114 9:15 - 9.30 0 30 0 30 9 29 0 38 31 2 0 33 101 9.30 - 9.45 3 34 0 37 21 45 0 66 20 0 0 20 123 9.45. 10.00 1 26 0 27 12 36 0 48 51 1 0 52 127 10.00-1015 0 31 0 31 19 36 0 55 32 0 0 32 118 10.15 - 10:30 1 23 0 24 17 42 0 59 42 2 0 44 127 1030.10:45 1 36 0 37 23 44 0 67 41 0 0 41 145 10:45 - 11:00 1 24 0 25 21 35 0 56 40 0 0 40 121 11:00-11:15 1 28 0 29 30 50 0 80 45 4 0 49 158 11:15 - 11:30 3 24 0 27 26 50 0 76 56 4 0 60 163 11:30 - 11:45 1 36 0 37 23 63 0 86 73 1 0 74 197 11:45 - 12.00 1 32 0 33 24 66 0 90 61 1 0 62 185 12:00 - 12:15 0 37 0 37 42 38 0 80 67 1 0 68 185 12:15 - 12.30 2 30 0 32 23 54 0 77 56 2 0 58 167 12:30 - 12:45 1 30 0 31 28 54 1 83 65 2 0 67 181 12:45 - 1:00 1 30 0 31 27 59 0 86 47 0 0 47 164 1:00 - 1.15 2 24 0 26 35 71 0 106 59 1 0 60 192 1:15 - 1:30 2 33 0 35 40 56 0 96 48 1 0 49 180 1 30 - 1:45 0 30 0 30 31 59 0 90 45 3 0 48 168 1:45 - 2:00 4 32 0 36 27 56 0 83 41 0 0 41 160 2:00-2:15 2 27 0 29 29 52 0 81 48 0 0 48 158 2:15 - 2:30 2 32 0 34 36 41 0 77 52 3 0 55 166 2:30-2:45 1 28 0 29 32 33 0 65 85 4 0 89 183 2:45-3:00 1 34 0 35 37 50 0 87 47 2 0 49 171 3:00-3:15 1 26 0 27 44 52 0 96 69 7 0 76 199 3:15 -3.30 3 28 0 31 32 44 1 77 64 6 0 70 178 3:30 - 3:45 0 56 0 56 43 34 0 77 85 4 0 89 222 3:45 - 4:00 1 32 0 33 67 36 0 103 57 2 0 59 195 4:00-4:15 2 28 0 30 57 28 0 85 105 6 0 111 226 4:15-4:30 1 36 0 37 52 32 1 85 64 4 0 68 190 4:30 - 4:45 3 35 0 38 57 26 0 83 104 7 0 111 232 4:45. 5:00 1 37 0 38 78 17 0 95 78 0 0 78 211 5'00 - 5:15 0 40 0 40 71 15 0 86 101 5 0 106 232 5:15 - 5:30 1 29 0 30 84 7 0 91 50 1 0 51 172 5:30 - 5:45 0 43 0 43 77 17 0 94 106 3 0 109 246 5:45.6:00 1 42 0 43 73 20 0 93 44 3 0 47 183 12 HrTotals 63 1768 0 0 1851 0 1665 2457 4 4126 2522 0 92 0 2614 8591 I Hr Totals 6:00 - 7 00 18 194 0 0 212 0 104 415 0 519 87 0 0 0 87 818 615-715 17 218 0 0 235 0 113 450 0 563 119 0 0 0 119 917 6.30-7:30 21 225 0 0 246 0 116 463 1 580 136 0 1 0 137 963 6:45-7 45 15 234 0 0 249 0 108 410 1 519 146 0 1 0 147 915 7 00-8 00 11 225 0 0 236 0 109 353 1 463 164 0 1 0 165 864 715-8:15 9 211 0 0 220 0 116 341 1 458 148 0 1 0 149 827 7:30-8:30 9 215 0 0 224 0 109 320 0 429 159 0 6 0 165 818 7:45-8:45 10 204 0 0 214 0 93 297 0 390 164 0 7 0 171 775 8:00 - 9:00 8 196 0 0 204 0 80 218 0 298 159 0 8 0 167 669 8:15 - 9:15 9 190 0 0 199 0 79 177 0 256 155 0 9 0 164 619 8 30 - 9:30 4 165 0 0 169 0 68 146 0 214 141 0 5 0 146 529 8 45 - 945 5 138 0 0 143 0 74 141 0 215 124 0 4 0 128 486 9:00-10.00 5 120 0 0 125 0 67 134 0 201 135 0 4 0 139 465 9:15-1015 4 121 0 0 125 0 61 146 0 207 134 0 3 0 137 469 9:30-10 30 5 114 0 0 119 0 69 159 0 228 145 0 3 0 148 495 9:45-10:45 3 116 0 0 119 0 71 158 0 229 166 0 3 0 169 517 10:00-11:00 3 114 0 0 117 0 80 157 0 237 155 0 2 0 157 511 10'15 - 11:15 4 111 0 0 115 0 91 171 0 262 168 0 6 0 174 551 10:30-11:30 6 112 0 0 118 0 100 179 0 279 182 0 8 0 190 587 10'45-11:45 6 112 0 0 118 0 100 198 0 298 214 0 9 0 223 639 11:00-12:00 6 120 0 0 126 0 103 229 0 332 235 0 10 0 245 703 11:15-12:15 5 129 0 0 134 0 115 217 0 332 257 0 7 0 264 730 11:30-12:30 4 135 0 0 139 0 112 221 0 333 257 0 5 0 262 734 1145-12:45 4 129 0 0 133 0 117 212 1 330 249 0 6 0 255 718 12:00-1:00 4 127 0 0 131 0 120 205 1 326 235 0 5 0 240 697 12:15-1:15 6 114 0 0 120 0 113 238 1 352 227 0 5 0 232 704 12:30-1:30 6 117 0 0 123 0 130 240 1 371 219 0 4 0 223 717 12:45-1 45 5 117 0 0 122 0 133 245 0 378 199 0 5 0 204 704 1:00-2:00 8 119 0 0 127 0 133 242 0 375 193 0 5 0 198 700 1:15-2:15 8 122 0 0 130 0 127 223 0 350 182 0 4 0 186 666 1:30 - 2:30 8 121 0 0 129 0 123 208 0 331 186 0 6 0 192 652 1:45-2:45 9 119 0 0 128 0 124 182 0 306 226 0 7 0 233 667 2:00-3:00 6 121 0 0 127 0 134 176 0 310 232 0 9 0 241 678 2:15-3:15 5 120 0 0 125 0 149 176 0 325 253 0 16 0 269 719 2:30-3:30 6 116 0 0 122 0 145 179 1 325 265 0 19 0 284 731 2:45-3:45 5 144 0 0 149 0 156 180 1 337 265 0 19 0 284 770 3:00-4:00 5 142 0 0 147 0 186 166 1 353 275 0 19 0 294 794 3:15 - 4:15 6 144 0 0 150 0 199 142 1 342 311 0 18 0 329 821 3:30-4:30 4 152 0 0 156 0 219 130 1 350 311 0 16 0 327 833 3:45-4:45 7 131 0 0 138 0 233 122 1 356 330 0 19 0 349 843 4:00-5:00 7 136 0 0 143 0 244 103 1 348 351 0 17 0 368 859 4'15-5:15 5 148 0 0 153 0 258 90 1 349 347 0 16 0 363 865 4:30-5:30 5 141 0 0 146 0 290 65 0 355 333 0 13 0 346 847 4:45 - 5:45 2 149 0 0 151 0 310 56 0 366 335 0 9 0 344 861 5:00-6:00 2 154 0 0 156 0 305 59 0 364 301 0 12 0 313 833 PEAK HOUR TOTALS TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Intersection of: Welllown Road - Amoco Lane and: US 11 Location: Winchester, Virginia Counted by: VCU Date: May 17, 2016 Weather: Light Rain, Cool Entered by: ARG �Il l Tuesday ��g*- (I/i///p Star Rating: 4 TRAFFIC FROM NORTH TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH TRAFFIC FROM EAST TRAFFIC FROM WEST TOTAL on: Welltown Road on: Amoco Lane on: US 11 on: US 11 N + S TIME RIGIIT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGIIT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT T14RU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL + E + W AM 7:00 - 7:15 66 7 66 0 139 3 8 5 0 16 47 226 7 3 283 15 208 41 0 264 702 7:15-7.30 53 5 45 0 103 6 2 6 0 14 53 277 7 2 339 13 286 51 0 350 8DG 7:30-7:45 72 1 51 0 124 2 2 7 1 12 57 281 5 3 346 15 291 65 0 371 853 7:45 - 8.00 63 4 44 0 ill 6 9 3 1 19 76 314 13 0 403 16 340 58 0 414 947 8:00 - 8.15 52 7 47 0 106 6 13 6 0 25 31 245 10 2 288 15 244 46 0 305 724 8:15 - 8:30 52 0 41 0 93 3 7 3 0 13 37 242 3 0 282 18 242 49 0 309 697 8:30-8:45 42 2 55 0 99 4 0 2 0 6 32 249 11 4 296 4 222 46 1 273 674 8:45-9.00 35 2 39 0 76 1 1 7 0 9 32 251 7 5 295 8 219 50 0 277 657 9:00-9:15 31 3 42 0 76 5 3 6 0 14 39 252 8 3 302 10 192 36 1 239 631 9:15 - 9.30 33 3 56 0 92 7 1 7 0 15 39 179 5 6 229 8 190 35 1 234 570 9:30-9:45 32 3 48 0 83 8 5 6 0 19 36 220 5 6 267 14 191 42 0 247 6% 9:45-10:00 45 4 67 0 116 14 2 2 0 18 34 199 7 7 247 9 198 34 0 241 622 10.00-10.15 36 4 32 0 72 7 5 6 0 18 33 218 7 4 262 10 179 22 0 211 563 10:15 - 10.30 44 3 35 0 82 7 1 5 0 13 25 191 4 4 224 10 197 37 0 244 563 10.30-10.45 32 2 39 0 73 4 4 4 0 12 24 191 10 0 225 14 198 21 0 233 543 10:45-11:00 34 1 41 0 76 5 4 4 0 13 25 174 7 2 208 16 200 37 0 253 550 11:00 - 11:15 29 6 42 0 77 4 2 6 0 12 43 231 7 4 285 19 201 27 1 248 622 11:15 - 11.30 42 5 57 0 104 8 6 3 0 17 30 215 5 2 252 8 224 43 2 277 650 11:30 - 11:45 51 5 28 0 84 5 7 3 0 15 46 219 6 1 272 20 233 45 2 300 671 11:45 - 12:00 39 3 55 0 97 8 2 4 0 14 38 216 14 5 273 8 230 40 6 284 668 12:00-12:15 45 3 43 0 91 14 6 12 0 32 42 218 8 3 271 18 236 37 1 292 686 12:15-12:30 53 5 52 0 110 19 3 11 0 33 44 231 11 7 293 23 250 36 4 313 749 12:30-12:45 52 1 57 0 110 19 7 6 0 32 42 263 5 9 319 16 234 42 1 293 754 12:45-1:00 57 0 50 0 107 13 6 9 0 28 53 237 11 3 304 22 212 48 3 285 724 1:00 - 1:15 29 5 43 0 77 17 4 8 0 29 50 211 9 1 271 11 233 43 4 291 668 1:15-1:30 58 3 57 0 118 21 2 6 0 29 38 235 5 3 281 14 235 45 1 295 723 1:30-1:45 35 4 40 0 79 14 5 8 0 27 43 226 7 2 278 18 216 49 0 283 667 1:45 - 2:00 41 3 50 0 94 10 2 5 0 17 41 230 6 3 280 13 203 39 1 256 647 2,00-2:15 40 2 44 0 86 17 3 10 0 30 39 248 3 6 296 20 230 38 1 289 701 2:15-2:30 46 4 38 0 88 18 5 6 0 29 44 255 7 5 311 14 241 37 0 292 720 2:30 - 2:45 86 1 52 0 139 17 1 6 0 24 46 300 8 4 358 19 257 41 1 318 839 2:45-3:00 53 2 60 0 115 14 4 11 0 29 35 258 7 3 303 19 234 50 0 303 750 3:00-3 15 43 1 55 0 99 17 6 7 0 30 47 273 6 3 329 30 317 47 0 394 852 3:15-3:30 48 1 47 0 96 18 8 7 0 33 44 252 12 2 310 15 281 40 1 337 776 3:30-345 88 5 68 0 161 23 3 7 0 33 57 306 9 2 374 19 341 44 0 404 972 3:45-4:00 67 4 61 0 132 29 4 8 0 41 51 322 9 4 386 19 282 38 1 340 899 4:00 - 4,15 65 0 68 0 133 21 4 6 1 32 40 309 7 1 357 15 334 31 2 382 904 4:15-4:30 48 1 53 0 102 20 3 7 0 30 38 278 13 1 330 17 310 36 0 363 825 4:30-4:45 95 0 74 0 169 12 9 6 1 28 45 298 10 2 355 19 383 48 2 452 1004 4:45 - 5:00 63 2 52 0 117 18 2 12 0 32 65 298 9 3 375 20 359 46 0 425 949 5:00-5:15 83 5 80 0 168 23 4 5 0 32 30 304 9 0 343 26 380 43 0 449 992 5:15 - 5:30 50 4 56 0 110 26 6 8 0 40 28 294 6 4 332 18 421 48 2 489 971 5:30-5:45 71 7 63 0 141 17 3 11 0 31 45 258 13 0 316 21 319 30 0 370 858 5:45-6:00 39 6 53 0 98 9 6 6 0 21 47 290 5 0 342 11 224 36 0 271 732 6:00-6:15 40 1 40 0 81 4 1 3 0 8 28 272 10 4 314 14 222 36 0 272 675 6:15-6:30 31 1 41 0 73 3 3 6 0 12 40 275 5 4 324 15 203 29 0 247 656 6:30-6:45 33 3 30 0 66 8 5 4 0 17 30 201 16 5 252 14 154 33 1 202 537 6:45-7:00 23 1 35 0 59 3 6 4 0 13 26 191 1 2 220 11 168 36 2 217 509 12 HrTotals 2365 145 2392 0 4902 557 205 300 4 10% 1955 11923 375 149 14402 741 11964 1951 42 14698 35D68 1 Hr Totals 7:00-8:00 254 17 206 0 477 17 21 21 2 61 233 1098 32 8 1371 59 1125 215 0 1399 3308 7:15-8:15 240 17 187 0 444 20 26 22 2 70 217 1117 35 7 1376 59 1161 220 0 1440 3330 7:30-8:30 239 12 183 0 434 17 31 19 2 69 201 1082 31 5 1319 64 1117 218 0 1399 3221 7,45-8:45 209 13 187 0 409 19 29 14 1 63 176 1050 37 6 1269 53 1048 199 1 1301 3042 8:00-9:00 181 11 182 0 374 14 21 18 0 53 132 987 31 11 1161 45 927 191 1 1164 2752 8:15-9:15 160 7 177 0 344 13 11 18 0 42 140 994 29 12 1175 40 875 181 2 1098 2659 8:30-9:30 141 10 192 0 343 17 5 22 0 44 142 931 31 18 1122 30 823 167 3 1023 2532 8:45-9:45 131 11 185 0 327 21 10 26 0 57 146 902 25 20 1093 40 792 163 2 997 2474 9:00-10:00 141 13 213 0 367 34 11 21 0 66 148 850 25 22 1045 41 771 147 2 961 2439 9:15-10:15 146 14 203 0 363 36 13 21 0 70 142 816 24 23 1005 41 758 133 1 933 2371 9:30-10:30 157 14 182 0 353 36 13 19 0 68 128 828 23 21 1000 43 765 135 0 943 2364 9:45-10:45 157 13 173 0 343 32 12 17 0 61 116 799 28 15 958 43 772 114 0 929 2291 10:00-11:00 146 10 147 0 303 23 14 19 0 56 107 774 28 10 919 50 774 117 0 941 2219 10:15-11:15 139 12 157 0 308 20 11 19 0 50 117 787 28 10 942 59 796 122 1 978 2278 10:30-11:30 137 14 179 0 330 21 16 17 0 54 122 811 29 8 970 57 823 128 3 1011 2365 10:45-11:45 156 17 168 0 341 22 19 16 0 57 144 839 25 9 1017 63 858 152 5 1078 2493 11:00-12:00 161 19 182 0 362 25 17 16 0 58 157 881 32 12 1082 55 888 155 11 1109 2611 11:15-12:15 177 16 183 0 376 35 21 22 0 78 156 868 33 11 1068 54 923 165 11 1153 2675 11:30-12:30 188 16 178 0 382 46 18 30 0 94 170 884 39 16 1109 69 949 158 13 1189 2774 11:45-12:45 189 12 207 0 408 60 18 33 0 111 166 928 38 24 1156 65 950 155 12 1182 2857 12:00-1:00 207 9 202 0 418 65 22 38 0 125 181 949 35 22 1187 79 932 163 9 1183 2913 12:15-1:15 191 11 202 0 404 68 20 34 0 122 189 942 36 20 1187 72 929 169 12 1182 2895 12:30-1:30 196 9 207 0 412 70 19 29 0 118 183 946 30 16 1175 63 914 178 9 1164 2869 12:45-1:45 179 12 190 0 381 65 17 31 0 113 184 909 32 9 1134 65 896 185 8 1154 2782 1:00-2:00 163 15 190 0 368 62 13 27 0 102 172 902 27 9 1110 56 887 176 6 1125 2705 1:15-2:15 174 12 191 0 377 62 12 29 0 103 161 939 21 14 1135 65 884 171 3 1123 2738 1:30-2:30 162 13 172 0 347 59 15 29 0 103 167 959 23 16 1165 65 890 163 2 1120 2735 1:45-2:45 213 10 184 0 407 62 11 27 0 100 170 1033 24 18 1245 66 931 155 3 1155 2907 2:00-3:00 225 9 194 0 428 66 13 33 0 112 164 1061 25 18 1268 72 962 166 2 1202 3010 2:15-3:15 228 8 205 0 441 66 16 30 0 112 172 1086 28 15 1301 82 1049 175 1 1307 3161 2:30-3:30 230 5 214 0 449 66 19 31 0 116 172 1083 33 12 1300 83 1089 178 2 1352 3217 2:45-3:45 232 9 230 0 471 72 21 32 0 125 183 1089 34 10 1316 83 1173 181 1 1438 3350 3:00-4:00 246 11 231 0 488 87 21 29 0 137 199 1153 36 11 1399 83 1221 169 2 1475 3499 3:15-4:15 268 10 244 0 522 91 19 28 1 139 192 1189 37 9 1427 68 1238 153 4 1463 3551 3:30-4:30 268 10 250 0 528 93 14 28 1 136 186 1215 38 8 1447 70 1267 149 3 1489 3600 3:45-4:45 275 5 256 0 536 82 20 27 2 131 174 1207 39 8 1428 70 1309 153 5 1537 3632 4:00-5:00 271 3 247 0 521 71 18 31 2 122 188 1183 39 7 1417 71 1386 161 4 1622 3682 4:15-5:15 289 8 259 0 556 73 18 30 1 122 178 1178 41 6 1403 82 1432 173 2 1689 3770 4:30-5:30 291 11 262 0 564 79 21 31 1 132 168 1194 34 9 1405 83 1543 185 4 1815 3916 4:45-5:45 267 18 251 0 536 84 15 36 0 135 168 1154 37 7 1366 85 1479 167 2 1733 3770 5:00-6:00 243 22 252 0 517 75 19 30 0 124 150 1146 33 4 1333 76 1344 157 2 1579 3553 5:15-6:15 200 18 212 0 430 56 16 28 0 100 148 1114 34 8 1304 64 1186 150 2 1402 3236 5:30-6:30 181 15 197 0 393 33 13 26 0 72 160 1095 33 8 1296 61 968 131 0 1160 2921 5,45-6:45 143 11 164 0 318 24 15 19 0 58 145 1038 36 13 1232 54 803 134 1 992 2600 6:00-7:00 PEAK "MIP 127 6 146 0 279 18 15 17 0 50 124 939 32 15 1110 54 747 134 3 938 2377 TOTALS TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Intersection of: 1.81 SB Ramps (Exit 317) and: Martinsburg Pike Location: Wlnchester,Virginla Counted by: VCU Dale: May 17, 2016 Weather: Rainy/Cool Entered by: AW I/(' Tuesday / l f/ill/�) Star Rating: 2 TRAFFIC FROM NORTH TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH TRAFFIC FROM EAST TRAFFIC FROM WEST TOTAL on: 1-81 SB Off Ramp on: 1.81 SB On Ramp on: Martinsburg Pike on: Martinsburg Pike N a S TIME RIGHT THRU LEFT U•TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL + E - W AM 7:00-7:15 111 0 10 0 121 0 192 27 0 219 124 151 0 275 615 7:15. 7:30 140 0 12 0 152 0 218 36 0 254 135 189 0 324 730 7 30-7:45 155 0 9 0 164 0 260 51 0 311 168 179 0 347 822 7:45-6.00 127 0 6 0 133 0 281 61 0 342 149 239 0 388 863 8:00-8.15 103 0 11 0 114 0 222 50 0 272 133 204 0 337 723 8:15-8.30 102 0 5 0 107 0 235 28 0 263 120 177 0 297 667 8 30-8:45 108 0 8 0 116 0 194 42 0 236 133 146 0 279 631 8 45 - 9.00 98 0 6 0 104 0 209 36 0 245 123 167 0 290 639 9.00 - 9:15 74 0 7 0 81 0 206 33 0 239 87 139 0 226 546 9:15 - 9.30 67 0 7 0 74 0 202 37 0 239 106 161 0 267 580 9.30 - 9.45 85 0 4 0 89 0 165 32 0 197 112 164 0 276 562 9:45 - 10.00 79 0 6 0 85 0 187 29 0 216 123 164 0 287 588 10.00 - 10.15 94 0 5 0 99 0 164 34 0 198 100 131 0 231 528 10:15-10.30 69 0 6 0 75 0 188 44 0 232 78 153 0 231 538 10:30 - 10:45 71 0 2 0 73 0 169 39 0 208 91 176 0 267 548 10:45-11:00 55 0 13 0 68 0 181 42 0 223 91 156 0 247 538 11:00 - 11.15 72 1 2 0 75 0 211 49 0 260 101 178 0 279 614 11:15 - 11:30 63 0 8 0 71 0 214 45 1 260 94 194 1 289 620 11:30 - 11:45 62 0 4 0 66 0 223 52 1 276 99 196 0 295 637 11:45-12 00 72 0 2 0 74 0 236 44 0 280 99 186 0 285 639 12:00 - 12:15 46 0 7 0 53 0 225 47 0 272 103 211 0 314 639 12:15.12:30 75 0 6 0 81 0 244 49 0 293 79 200 0 279 653 12:30-1245 68 0 11 0 79 0 273 63 0 336 95 223 0 318 733 12:45-1.00 66 0 7 0 73 0 263 59 1 323 88 175 0 263 659 1 00 - 1:15 72 0 8 0 80 0 206 60 0 266 93 201 0 294 640 1:15 - 1:30 71 0 5 0 76 0 259 50 1 310 94 202 0 296 682 1:30-1:45 71 0 12 0 83 0 229 47 0 276 97 197 0 294 653 1:45 - 2:00 79 0 8 0 87 0 239 56 0 295 86 156 0 242 624 2'00-2:15 70 0 8 0 78 0 218 30 0 248 120 189 0 309 635 2:15-2:30 71 1 7 0 79 0 248 41 0 289 105 177 0 282 650 2.30-2:45 84 0 4 0 88 0 270 48 0 318 102 216 0 318 724 2:45 - 3:00 83 0 5 0 88 0 264 38 0 302 93 214 0 307 697 3:00 - 3:15 85 0 6 0 91 0 265 46 0 311 131 270 0 401 803 3:15 - 3:30 80 0 7 0 87 0 240 50 0 290 106 226 0 332 709 3:30-3 45 99 0 6 0 105 0 299 62 1 362 148 284 0 432 899 3:45-4:00 78 0 9 0 87 0 303 62 1 366 132 237 0 369 822 4:00-4:15 86 0 9 0 95 0 299 76 0 375 111 276 1 388 858 4:15-4:30 65 0 9 0 74 0 300 39 0 339 125 251 0 376 789 4:30-4:45 74 1 3 0 78 0 307 70 0 377 152 285 0 437 892 4:45-6:00 94 0 8 0 102 0 326 49 0 375 144 281 0 425 902 5:00 - 5:15 111 0 10 0 121 0 270 62 0 332 150 291 0 441 894 5:15-5:30 93 0 12 0 105 0 252 46 0 298 135 378 4 517 920 5:30 - 5:45 60 1 7 0 68 0 283 61 1 345 125 305 0 430 843 5:45-6:00 88 0 6 0 94 0 293 45 1 339 104 204 0 308 741 6:00-6:15 58 0 9 0 67 0 262 37 0 299 117 183 0 300 666 6:15 - 6:30 67 0 13 0 80 0 260 53 1 314 79 183 0 262 656 6:30-6:45 54 0 4 0 58 0 199 38 0 237 68 129 0 197 492 6:45 - 7:00 33 0 3 0 36 0 208 55 0 263 59 153 0 212 511 12 HrTotals 3888 4 342 0 4234 0 0 0 0 0 0 11461 2250 9 13720 5307 9747 0 6 15060 33014 1 Hr Totals 7:00-8:00 533 0 37 0 570 0 0 0 0 0 0 951 175 0 1126 576 758 0 0 1334 3030 7.15-8:15 525 0 38 0 563 0 0 0 0 0 0 981 198 0 1179 585 811 0 0 1396 3138 7 30-8:30 487 0 31 0 518 0 0 0 0 0 0 998 190 0 1188 570 799 0 0 1369 3075 7:45-8:45 440 0 30 0 470 0 0 0 0 0 0 932 181 0 1113 535 766 0 0 1301 2884 8:00-9:00 411 0 30 0 441 0 0 0 0 0 0 860 156 0 1016 509 694 0 0 1203 2660 815-9:15 382 0 26 0 408 0 0 0 0 0 0 844 139 0 983 463 629 0 0 1092 2483 8:30-9:30 347 0 28 0 375 0 0 0 0 0 0 811 148 0 959 449 613 0 0 1062 2396 8 45-9:45 324 0 24 0 348 0 0 0 0 0 0 782 138 0 920 428 631 0 0 1059 2327 9:00-10:00 305 0 24 0 329 0 0 0 0 0 0 760 131 0 891 428 628 0 0 1056 2276 9:15-10:15 325 0 22 0 347 0 0 0 0 0 0 718 132 0 850 441 620 0 0 1061 2258 9:30-10:30 327 0 21 0 348 0 0 0 0 0 0 704 139 0 843 413 612 0 0 1025 2216 9:45-10:45 313 0 19 0 332 0 0 0 0 0 0 708 146 0 854 392 624 0 0 1016 2202 10:00-11:00 289 0 26 0 315 0 0 0 0 0 0 702 159 0 861 360 616 0 0 976 2152 10:15-11:15 267 1 23 0 291 0 0 0 0 0 0 749 174 0 923 361 663 0 0 1024 2238 10:30-11:30 261 1 25 0 287 0 0 0 0 0 0 775 175 1 951 377 704 0 1 1082 2320 10 45-1145 252 1 27 0 280 0 0 0 0 0 0 829 188 2 1019 385 724 0 1 1110 2409 11:00-12 00 269 1 16 0 286 0 0 0 0 0 0 884 190 2 1076 393 754 0 1 1148 2510 11:15-1215 243 0 21 0 264 0 0 0 0 0 0 898 188 2 1088 395 787 0 1 1183 2535 11:30-12:30 255 0 19 0 274 0 0 0 0 0 0 928 192 1 1121 380 793 0 0 1173 2568 11:45-12:45 261 0 26 0 287 0 0 0 0 0 0 978 203 0 1181 376 820 0 0 1196 2664 12:00-1:00 255 0 31 0 286 0 0 0 0 0 0 1005 218 1 1224 365 809 0 0 1174 2884 12:15-1:15 281 0 32 0 313 0 0 0 0 0 0 986 231 1 1218 355 799 0 0 1154 2685 12:30-1:30 277 0 31 0 308 0 0 0 0 0 0 1001 232 2 1235 370 801 0 0 1171 2714 12:45-1.45 280 0 32 0 312 0 0 0 0 0 0 957 216 2 1175 372 775 0 0 1147 2634 1.00-2:00 293 0 33 0 326 0 0 0 0 0 0 933 213 1 1147 370 756 0 0 1126 2599 1:15-2:15 291 0 33 0 324 0 0 0 0 0 0 945 183 1 1129 397 744 0 0 1141 2594 1 :30-230 291 1 35 0 327 0 0 0 0 0 0 934 174 0 1108 408 719 0 0 1127 2562 1:45-2 45 304 1 27 0 332 0 0 0 0 0 0 975 175 0 1150 413 738 0 0 1151 2633 2:00-3:00 308 1 24 0 333 0 0 0 0 0 0 1000 157 0 1157 420 796 0 0 1216 2706 2:15-3 15 323 1 22 0 346 0 0 0 0 0 0 1047 173 0 1220 431 877 0 0 1308 2874 2:30-3:30 332 0 22 0 354 0 0 0 0 0 0 1039 182 0 1221 432 926 0 0 1358 2933 2'45-3:45 347 0 24 0 371 0 0 0 0 0 0 1068 196 1 1265 478 994 0 0 1472 3108 3:00-4:00 342 0 28 0 370 0 0 0 0 0 0 1107 220 2 1329 517 1017 0 0 1534 3233 3:15-4:15 343 0 31 0 374 0 0 0 0 0 0 1141 250 2 1393 497 1023 0 1 1521 3288 3:30-4:30 328 0 33 0 361 0 0 0 0 0 0 1201 239 2 1442 516 1048 0 1 1565 3368 3:45-4'45 303 1 30 0 334 0 0 0 0 0 0 1209 247 1 1457 520 1049 0 1 1570 3361 400-5 00 319 1 29 0 349 0 0 0 0 0 0 1232 234 0 1466 532 1093 0 1 1626 3441 4:15-5:15 344 1 30 0 375 0 0 0 0 0 0 1203 220 0 1423 571 1108 0 0 1679 3477 4:30-5:30 372 1 33 0 406 0 0 0 0 0 0 1155 227 0 1382 581 1235 0 4 1820 3608 4:45-5:45 358 1 37 0 396 0 0 0 0 0 0 1131 218 1 1350 554 1255 0 4 1813 3559 5 00-6:00 352 1 35 0 388 0 0 0 0 0 0 1098 214 2 1314 514 1178 0 4 1696 3398 5.15-6:15 299 1 34 0 334 0 0 0 0 0 0 1090 189 2 1281 481 1070 0 4 1555 3170 5:30-6:30 273 1 35 0 309 0 0 0 0 0 0 1098 196 3 1297 425 875 0 0 1300 2906 5:45-6:45 267 0 32 0 299 0 0 0 0 0 0 1014 173 2 1189 368 699 0 0 1067 2555 600-7.00 212 0 29 0 241 0 0 0 0 0 0 929 183 1 1113 323 648 0 0 971 2325 PEAK HOUR CARS TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Intersection of: 1-81 NEI Off Ramp (Exit 317) and: Martinsburg Pike Location: Wlnchester,Vlrginia Counted by: VCU Dale: May 17, 2016 Weather: Rainy/Cool Entered by: AW Tuesday iTlllllp Star Rating: 5 TRAFFIC FROM NORTH TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH TRAFFIC FROM EAST TRAFFIC FROM WEST TOTAL on: on: 1-81 ND Off Ramp on: Martinsburg Pike on: Martinsburg Pike N + S TIME + RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT TIIRU LEFT U•TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL E+W AM 7:00 - 7:15 0 43 78 0 121 113 0 0 113 0 168 0 168 402 7.15.7.30 0 47 93 0 140 153 0 0 153 0 181 0 181 474 7:30 - 7:45 0 42 118 0 160 178 0 0 178 0 208 0 208 546 7:45-8:00 0 65 106 0 171 199 0 0 199 0 199 0 199 569 8:00-8:15 0 38 81 0 119 138 0 0 138 0 202 1 203 460 8:15-8 30 0 46 82 0 128 153 0 0 153 0 162 0 162 443 8.30-8'45 0 50 75 0 125 145 0 0 145 0 126 1 127 397 8:45 - 9.00 0 32 75 0 107 142 0 0 142 0 169 0 169 418 9.00 - 9.15 0 33 76 0 109 156 0 0 156 0 128 0 128 393 9.15 - 9.30 0 35 66 0 101 126 0 0 126 0 158 0 158 385 9:30-9.45 0 37 54 0 91 125 0 0 125 0 144 0 144 360 9.45 - 10.00 0 37 61 0 98 110 0 0 110 0 158 0 158 365 10.00-10:15 0 42 62 0 104 134 0 0 134 0 114 1 115 353 10.15-10:30 0 44 64 0 108 128 0 0 128 0 152 2 154 390 10:30-10.45 0 44 65 0 109 124 0 0 124 0 159 2 161 394 10:45 - 11:00 0 44 69 0 113 135 0 0 135 0 163 1 164 412 11.00. 11.15 0 37 67 0 104 163 0 0 163 1 155 0 156 423 11:15 - 11'30 0 38 59 0 97 169 0 0 169 0 198 0 198 464 11:30 - 11:45 0 43 63 0 106 165 0 0 165 0 174 1 175 446 11:45-12:00 0 58 72 0 130 158 0 0 158 0 178 0 178 466 12:00-1215 0 66 77 0 143 169 0 0 169 1 203 1 205 517 12:15 - 12:30 0 65 73 0 138 174 0 0 174 0 230 0 230 542 12.30 - 1245 0 66 87 0 153 216 0 0 216 0 209 0 209 578 12:45-1:00 0 63 72 0 135 200 0 0 200 0 176 0 176 511 1:00-1:15 0 55 78 0 133 173 0 0 173 0 195 2 197 503 1:15 - 1:30 0 49 82 0 131 185 0 0 185 0 200 2 202 518 1:30-1:45 0 67 84 0 151 155 0 0 155 0 179 0 179 485 1:45-2.00 0 49 84 0 133 167 0 0 167 0 165 0 165 465 2:00-2:15 0 46 101 0 147 142 0 0 142 0 164 1 165 454 2:15.2:30 0 54 96 0 150 157 0 0 157 0 191 0 191 498 2:30-2:45 0 55 127 0 182 191 0 0 191 0 209 0 209 582 2:45 - 3:00 0 54 ill 0 165 140 0 0 140 0 231 1 232 537 3:00 - 3:15 0 49 99 0 148 176 0 0 176 0 260 0 260 584 3:15.3:30 0 54 118 0 172 156 0 0 156 0 220 0 220 548 3 30 - 3:45 0 70 138 0 208 225 0 0 225 0 270 0 270 703 3:45-4:00 0 67 132 0 199 190 0 0 190 0 242 2 244 633 4:00-4:15 0 65 118 0 183 228 0 0 226 0 274 1 275 686 4:15-4:30 0 68 149 0 217 178 0 0 178 0 252 0 252 647 4:30.4:45 0 74 115 0 189 230 0 0 230 0 293 2 295 714 4:45 - 5:00 0 59 152 0 211 205 0 0 205 0 287 0 287 703 5.00 - 5:15 0 68 115 0 163 201 0 0 201 0 330 0 330 714 5:15 - 5:30 0 92 102 0 194 181 0 0 181 0 368 2 370 745 5:30 - 5.45 0 72 112 0 184 206 0 0 206 0 304 0 304 694 5:45 - 6:00 0 79 124 0 203 199 0 0 199 0 204 0 204 606 6:00-6.15 0 56 110 0 166 196 0 0 196 0 192 0 192 554 6:15-6:30 0 71 113 0 184 179 0 0 179 0 181 0 181 544 6:30 - 6:45 0 52 94 0 146 160 0 0 160 0 132 0 132 438 6:45.7:00 0 63 69 0 132 162 0 0 162 0 159 0 159 453 12 HrTotals 0 0 0 0 0 2603 0 4418 0 7021 0 8055 0 0 8055 2 9616 0 23 9641 24717 1 Hr Totals 7:00-8:00 0 0 0 0 0 197 0 395 0 592 0 643 0 0 643 0 756 0 0 756 1991 7:15-8:15 0 0 0 0 0 192 0 398 0 590 0 668 0 0 668 0 790 0 1 791 2049 7:30 - 8:30 0 0 0 0 0 191 0 387 0 578 0 668 0 0 668 0 771 0 1 772 2018 7:45-8:45 0 0 0 0 0 199 0 344 0 543 0 635 0 0 635 0 689 0 2 691 1869 8.00-900 0 0 0 0 0 166 0 313 0 479 0 578 0 0 578 0 659 0 2 661 1718 8:15 - 9:15 0 0 0 0 0 161 0 308 0 469 0 596 0 0 596 0 585 0 1 586 1651 8:30-9:30 0 0 0 0 0 150 0 292 0 442 0 569 0 0 569 0 581 0 1 582 1593 8 45-9:45 0 0 0 0 0 137 0 271 0 408 0 549 0 0 549 0 599 0 0 599 1556 9:00 - 10:00 0 0 0 0 0 142 0 257 0 399 0 517 0 0 517 0 588 0 0 588 1504 915-1015 0 0 0 0 0 151 0 243 0 394 0 495 0 0 495 0 574 0 1 575 1464 9:30-10:30 0 0 0 0 0 160 0 241 0 401 0 497 0 0 497 0 568 0 3 571 1469 9'45-10:45 0 0 0 0 0 167 0 252 0 419 0 496 0 0 496 0 583 0 5 588 1503 10:00-11:00 0 0 0 0 0 174 0 260 0 434 0 521 0 0 521 0 588 0 6 594 1549 1015-1115 0 0 0 0 0 169 0 265 0 434 0 550 0 0 550 1 629 0 5 635 1619 10'30-11:30 0 0 0 0 0 163 0 260 0 423 0 591 0 0 591 1 675 0 3 679 1693 10.45-11:45 0 0 0 0 0 162 0 258 0 420 0 632 0 0 632 1 690 0 2 693 1745 11 00-12:00 0 0 0 0 0 176 0 261 0 437 0 655 0 0 655 1 705 0 1 707 1799 1115-1215 0 0 0 0 0 205 0 271 0 476 0 661 0 0 661 1 753 0 2 756 1893 11:30-12.30 0 0 0 0 0 232 0 285 0 517 0 666 0 0 666 1 785 0 2 788 1971 11:45-12 45 0 0 0 0 0 255 0 309 0 564 0 717 0 0 717 1 820 0 1 822 2103 12:00-1:00 0 0 0 0 0 260 0 309 0 569 0 759 0 0 759 1 818 0 1 820 2148 12:15 - 1:15 0 0 0 0 0 249 0 310 0 559 0 763 0 0 763 0 810 0 2 812 2134 12:30-1:30 0 0 0 0 0 233 0 319 0 552 0 774 0 0 774 0 780 0 4 784 2110 12.45-1'45 0 0 0 0 0 234 0 316 0 550 0 713 0 0 713 0 750 0 4 754 2017 1:00-2:00 0 0 0 0 0 220 0 328 0 548 0 680 0 0 680 0 739 0 4 743 1971 1:15-2.15 0 0 0 0 0 211 0 351 0 562 0 649 0 0 649 0 708 0 3 711 1922 1:30-2:30 0 0 0 0 0 216 0 365 0 581 0 621 0 0 621 0 699 0 1 700 1902 1:45-2:45 0 0 0 0 0 204 0 408 0 612 0 657 0 0 657 0 729 0 1 730 1999 2 00-300 0 0 0 0 0 209 0 435 0 644 0 630 0 0 630 0 795 0 2 797 2071 215-315 0 0 0 0 0 212 0 433 0 645 0 664 0 0 664 0 891 0 1 892 2201 2:30 - 3:30 0 0 0 0 0 212 0 455 0 667 0 663 0 0 663 0 920 0 1 921 2251 2 45-345 0 0 0 0 0 227 0 466 0 693 0 697 0 0 697 0 981 0 1 982 2372 3:00-4:00 0 0 0 0 0 240 0 487 0 727 0 747 0 0 747 0 992 0 2 994 2468 3:15-415 0 0 0 0 0 256 0 505 0 762 0 799 0 0 799 0 1006 0 3 1009 2570 3:30-4:30 0 0 0 0 0 270 0 537 0 807 0 821 0 0 821 0 1038 0 3 1041 2669 3:45-4:45 0 0 0 0 0 274 0 514 0 788 0 826 0 0 826 0 1061 0 5 1066 2680 4:00 - 5:00 0 0 0 0 0 266 0 534 0 800 0 841 0 0 841 0 1106 0 3 1109 2750 4:15-5:15 0 0 0 0 0 269 0 531 0 800 0 814 0 0 814 0 1162 0 2 1164 2778 4 30-5 30 0 0 0 0 0 293 0 484 0 777 0 817 0 0 817 0 1278 0 4 1282 2876 4:45-5:45 0 0 0 0 0 291 0 481 0 772 0 793 0 0 793 0 1289 0 2 1291 2856 5:00-6:00 0 0 0 0 0 311 0 453 0 764 0 787 0 0 787 0 1206 0 2 1208 2759 5:15-6:15 0 0 0 0 0 299 0 448 0 747 0 782 0 0 782 0 1068 0 2 1070 2.599 5:30-6:30 0 0 0 0 0 278 0 459 0 737 0 780 0 0 780 0 881 0 0 881 2398 5:45-6:45 0 0 0 0 0 258 0 441 0 699 0 734 0 0 734 0 709 0 0 709 2142 6:00-7:00 0 0 0 0 0 242 0 386 0 628 0 697 0 0 697 0 664 0 0 664 1989 PEAK HOUR TOTALS TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Intersection of: Red Bud Road/1-81 NB On Ramp and: Martinsburg Pike Location: Wlncliester,Vlrginia Counted by: VCU Dale: May 17, 2018 Weather: Rainy/Cool Entered by: AW Tuesday Star Rating: 5 TRAFFIC FROM NORTH TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH TRAFFIC FROM EAST TRAFFIC FROM {VEST TOTAL on: 1-81 NR On Ramp on: Red Bud Road on: Martinsburg Pike on: Martinsburg Pike N + S i TIME RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U•TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT UaTN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL E .1V AM 7.00 - 7:15 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 8 0 13 11 110 3 0 124 19 121 63 0 203 340 7:15.7:30 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 6 0 10 7 165 6 0 178 25 165 82 0 272 460 7:30 - 7.45 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 13 0 20 8 199 4 0 211 27 141 77 0 245 476 7:45 - 8.00 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 12 0 19 6 164 2 0 172 34 194 68 5 301 492 8.00 - 8.15 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 0 12 9 170 8 0 187 25 179 79 1 2B4 483 8.15 - 8:30 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 11 0 21 11 135 2 0 148 17 135 72 0 224 393 8 30 - 8:45 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 10 0 18 6 142 5 0 153 11 141 65 0 217 388 8:45 - 9 00 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 15 0 20 10 150 4 0 164 11 123 68 0 202 386 9.00 - 9 15 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 10 0 13 6 132 6 0 144 8 128 55 2 193 350 9.15 - 9 30 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 11 0 15 5 138 5 0 148 8 156 42 1 207 370 9:30 - 9.45 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 14 9 110 5 0 124 11 130 68 1 210 348 9:45 - 10.00 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 7 0 11 9 130 2 0 141 10 145 56 0 211 363 10:00 - 10 15 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 5 0 11 9 125 3 0 137 5 125 55 0 185 333 10:15 - 10.30 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 0 8 10 142 5 0 157 5 133 74 0 212 377 10:30-10.45 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 0 10 10 120 2 1 133 10 154 71 0 235 378 10:45 - 11:00 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 9 0 13 5 135 2 0 142 10 146 49 2 207 362 11:00-11:15 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 9 0 11 11 160 5 0 176 6 155 63 0 224 411 11:15 - 11:30 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 6 0 15 6 179 5 0 190 8 152 77 3 240 445 11 30 - 11:45 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 10 0 12 7 162 1 0 170 8 202 49 0 259 441 11:45-12:00 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 9 0 15 17 167 5 0 189 8 186 53 1 248 452 12:00-12:15 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 0 9 13 161 2 1 177 11 226 61 1 299 485 12:15.12:30 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 11 0 16 14 191 10 1 216 7 216 54 0 277 509 12:30 - 12.45 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 9 0 16 10 201 3 1 215 4 245 63 1 313 544 12:45 - 1:00 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 9 0 13 10 223 4 2 239 9 182 61 1 253 505 1:00 - 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 10 0 16 12 163 6 0 181 5 207 67 0 279 476 1:15 - 1:30 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 14 0 20 12 196 2 0 210 8 166 75 1 250 480 1:30 - 1:45 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 10 0 16 14 153 7 0 174 9 224 67 0 300 490 1:45 - 2:00 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 10 0 20 11 169 3 1 184 10 162 47 0 219 423 2:00-2 15 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 10 12 135 5 0 152 5 161 69 2 237 399 2:15 - 2:30 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 9 0 12 15 165 6 1 187 9 180 71 1 261 460 2:30-2:45 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 18 0 23 13 167 3 0 183 12 179 94 1 286 492 2:45 - 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 18 0 23 8 153 7 0 168 12 189 83 1 285 476 3:00 - 3:15 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 21 0 23 18 166 4 0 188 12 194 105 0 311 522 3:15 - 3:30 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 24 0 30 12 140 6 1 159 16 195 83 2 296 485 3:30 - 3:45 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 29 0 38 16 200 8 0 224 9 247 107 1 364 626 3:45-4:00 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 18 0 27 23 186 6 1 216 13 231 80 1 325 568 4:00.4,15 0 0 0 0 0 13 2 35 0 50 25 203 5 0 233 13 238 115 1 367 650 4:15-4:30 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 27 0 34 15 155 7 0 177 17 245 94 0 356 567 4:30-4:45 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 27 0 40 23 218 13 0 254 24 240 117 0 381 675 4:45 - 5:00 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 39 0 49 19 172 8 0 199 17 246 114 0 377 625 5:00 -5'15 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 27 0 32 28 184 6 0 218 17 265 112 1 395 645 5:15-5:30 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 30 0 37 12 160 4 0 176 22 326 121 0 469 682 5:30.5:45 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 43 0 50 16 174 11 0 201 13 282 111 0 406 657 5:45 - 6.00 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 41 0 50 14 160 4 1 179 10 209 80 0 299 528 6:00.6:15 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 26 0 33 13 162 9 0 184 9 176 73 1 259 476 6:15-6:30 0 0 0 0 0 12 5 20 0 37 16 177 4 0 197 7 191 79 0 277 511 6:30-6:45 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 22 0 24 14 118 6 1 139 8 149 40 2 199 362 6:45 - 7:00 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 12 0 17 6 172 4 0 182 5 160 44 0 209 408 12 HrTotals 0 0 0 0 0 256 38 752 0 1046 586 7759 243 12 8600 579 8942 3573 34 13128 22774 I HrTotals 7:00 - 8:00 0 0 0 0 0 22 1 39 0 62 32 638 15 0 685 105 621 290 5 1021 1768 715-8,15 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 39 0 61 30 698 20 0 748 111 679 306 6 1102 1911 7:30-8:30 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 44 0 72 34 668 16 0 718 103 649 296 6 1054 1844 7:45-8:45 0 0 0 0 0 28 1 41 0 70 32 611 17 0 660 87 649 284 6 1026 1756 8:00-9:00 0 0 0 0 0 25 2 44 0 71 36 597 19 0 652 64 578 284 1 927 1650 8'15-9:15 0 0 0 0 0 24 2 46 0 72 33 559 17 0 609 47 527 260 2 836 1517 8:30-9:30 0 0 0 0 0 17 3 46 0 66 27 562 20 0 609 38 548 230 3 819 1494 8:45 - 9:45 0 0 0 0 0 14 2 46 0 62 30 530 20 0 580 38 537 233 4 812 1454 9:00-10:00 0 0 0 0 0 14 1 38 0 53 29 510 18 0 557 37 559 221 4 821 1431 9:15-10:15 0 0 0 0 0 17 1 33 0 51 32 503 15 0 550 34 556 221 2 813 1414 9:30-10:30 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 27 0 44 37 507 15 0 559 31 533 253 1 818 1421 9:45-10:45 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 24 0 40 38 517 12 1 568 30 557 256 0 843 1451 10:00-11:00 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 26 0 42 34 522 12 1 569 30 558 249 2 839 1450 10:15-11:15 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 30 0 42 36 557 14 1 608 31 588 257 2 878 1528 10:30-11:30 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 31 0 49 32 594 14 1 641 34 607 260 5 906 1596 10:45 - 11:45 0 0 0 0 0 15 2 34 0 51 29 636 13 0 678 32 655 238 5 930 1659 11:00-12:00 0 0 0 0 0 15 4 34 0 53 41 668 16 0 725 30 695 242 4 971 1749 11:15 - 12:15 0 0 0 0 0 14 5 32 0 51 43 669 13 1 726 35 766 240 5 1046 1823 11:30-12:30 0 0 0 0 0 12 3 37 0 52 51 681 18 2 752 34 830 217 2 1083 1887 11:45-12:45 0 0 0 0 0 17 3 36 0 56 54 720 20 3 797 30 873 231 3 1137 1990 12:00-1:00 0 0 0 0 0 17 1 36 0 54 47 776 19 5 847 31 869 239 3 1142 2043 12:15-1:15 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 39 0 61 46 778 23 4 851 25 850 245 2 1122 2034 12:30-1:30 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 42 0 65 44 783 15 3 845 26 800 266 3 1095 2005 12:45-1:45 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 43 0 65 48 735 19 2 804 31 779 270 2 1082 1951 1:00 - 2:00 0 0 0 0 0 27 1 44 0 72 49 681 18 1 749 32 759 256 1 1048 1869 1:15-2:15 0 0 0 0 0 26 1 39 0 66 49 653 17 1 720 32 713 258 3 1006 1792 1:30-2:30 0 0 0 0 0 23 1 34 0 58 52 622 21 2 697 33 727 254 3 1017 1772 1:45 - 2:45 0 0 0 0 0 22 1 42 0 65 51 636 17 2 706 36 682 281 4 1003 1774 2:00 - 3:00 0 0 0 0 0 17 1 50 0 68 48 620 21 1 690 38 709 317 5 1069 1827 2:15 - 3.15 0 0 0 0 0 14 1 66 0 81 54 651 20 1 726 45 742 353 3 1143 1950 2:30 - 3:30 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 81 0 99 51 626 20 1 698 52 757 365 4 1178 1975 2:45 - 3:45 0 0 0 0 0 16 6 92 0 114 54 659 25 1 739 49 825 378 4 1256 2109 3:00-4:00 0 0 0 0 0 21 5 92 0 118 69 692 24 2 787 50 867 375 4 1296 2201 3:15-4:15 0 0 0 0 0 32 7 106 0 145 76 729 25 2 832 51 911 385 5 1352 2329 3:30-4:30 0 0 0 0 0 31 9 109 0 149 79 744 26 1 850 52 961 396 3 1412 2411 3:45-4:45 0 0 0 0 0 35 9 107 0 151 86 762 31 1 880 67 954 406 2 1429 2460 4:00-5:00 0 0 0 0 0 36 9 128 0 173 82 748 33 0 863 71 969 440 1 1481 2517 4:15-5:15 D 0 0 0 0 27 8 120 0 155 85 729 34 0 848 75 996 437 1 1509 2512 4:30-5:30 0 0 0 0 0 28 7 123 0 158 82 734 31 0 847 80 1077 464 1 1622 2627 4:45-5:45 0 0 0 0 0 25 4 139 0 168 75 690 29 0 794 69 1119 458 1 1647 2609 5:00-6:00 0 0 0 0 0 23 5 141 0 169 70 678 25 1 774 62 1082 424 1 1569 2512 5:15-6:15 0 0 0 0 0 24 6 140 0 170 55 656 28 1 740 54 993 385 1 1433 2343 5:30 - 6:30 0 0 0 0 0 31 9 130 0 170 59 673 28 1 761 39 858 343 1 1241 2172 5:45-6:45 0 0 0 0 0 27 8 109 0 144 57 617 23 2 699 34 725 272 3 1034 1877 6:00 - 7:00 0 0 0 0 0 23 8 80 0 111 49 629 23 1 702 29 676 236 3 944 1757 PEAK HOUR Appendix C Level of Service Description Stonewall IV December 2017 Appendix C APPENDIX C LEVEL -OF -SERVICE CONCEPT Level of service (LOS) is a concept developed to quantify the degree of comfort (including such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles) afforded to drivers as they travel through an intersection or roadway segment. Six grades are used to denote the various level of service from "A" to "F".1 Signalized Intellections The six level -of -service grades are described qualitatively for signalized intersections in Table C1. Additionally, Table C2 identifies the relationship between level of service and average control delay per vehicle. Control delay is defined to include initial deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Using this definition, Level of Service "D" is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard. Table C1 Level -of -Service Definitions (Signalized Intersections) Very low average control delay, less than 10 seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, A and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. Average control delay is greater than 10 seconds per vehicle and less than or equal to 20 seconds per vehicle. This a generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for a level of service A, causing higher levels of average delay. Average control delay is greater than 20 seconds per vehicle and less than or equal to 35 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear C at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Average control delay is greater than 35 seconds per vehicle and less than or equal to 55 seconds per vehicle. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable 0 progression, long cycle length, or high volume/capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Average control delay is greater than 55 seconds per vehicle and less than or equal to 80 seconds per vehicle. This is usually considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally (but not always) indicate poor E progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume/capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Average control delay is in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation. It may also occur at high volume/capacity ratios below 1.0 with many F individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute to such high delay values. Most of the material in this Appendix is adapted from the Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, (2000). 1 Most of the material in this Appendix is adapted from the Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, (2010). Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Cl i Stonewall IV Appendix C December 2017 Table C2 Level -of -Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections A <10.0 B >10 and (20 C >20 and (35 D >35 and (55 E >55 and (80 F >80 Unsignalized Intersections Unsignalized intersections include two-way stop -controlled (TWSC) and all -way stop -controlled (AWSC) intersections. The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) provides models for estimating control delay at both TWSC and AWSC intersections. A qualitative description of the various service levels associated with an unsignalized intersection is presented in Table C3. A quantitative definition of level of service for unsignalized intersections is presented in Table C4. Using this definition, Level of Service "E" is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard. Table C3 Level -of -Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections i '>� ^•¢S.. qa)7 :I`/%' 1 J 1 {, i(y`R�"..-. ryb a+." �b,F.,{g�f"'�'*+¢ S%' r ;'T �},.f .�x",F� ! • Nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. A • Very seldom is there more than one vehicle in queue. • Some drivers begin to consider the delay an inconvenience. B • Occasionally there is more than one vehicle in queue. • Many times there is more than one vehicle in queue. C • Most drivers feel restricted, but not objectionably so. • Often there is more than one vehicle in queue. D • Drivers feel quite restricted. • Represents a condition in which the demand is near or equal to the probable maximum number of vehicles that can be accommodated by the movement. E • There is almost always more than one vehicle in queue. • Drivers find the delays approaching intolerable levels. • Forced flow. F . Represents an intersection failure condition that is caused by geometric and/or operational constraints external to the intersection. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. C2 Stonewall IV December 2017 Appendix C Table C4 Level -of -Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections fg-t'�Ii;��,3A�J�3� !;,\�r�rx:��a:7;t3�•�li��tly�ir��Yt�(it�k�1E3��YB1 A <10.0 B >10.0 and 115.0 c >15.0 and ( 25.0 D >25.0 and ( 35.0 E >35.0 and ( 50.0 F >50.0 It should be noted that the level -of -service criteria for unsignalized intersections are somewhat different than the criteria used for signalized intersections. The primary reason for this difference is that drivers expect different levels of performance from different kinds of transportation facilities. The expectation is that a signalized intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes than an unsignalized intersection. Additionally, there are a number of driver behavior considerations that combine to make delays at signalized intersections less galling than at unsignalized intersections. For example, drivers at signalized intersections are able to relax during the red interval, while drivers on the minor street approaches to TWSC intersections must remain attentive to the task of identifying acceptable gaps and vehicle conflicts. Also, there is often much more variability in the amount of delay experienced by individual drivers at unsignalized intersections than signalized intersections. For these reasons, it is considered that the control delay threshold for any given level of service is less for an unsignalized intersection than for a signalized intersection. While overall intersection level of service is calculated for AWSC intersections, level of service is only calculated for the minor approaches and the major street left turn movements at TWSC intersections. No delay is assumed to the major street through movements. For TWSC intersections, the overall intersection level of service remains undefined: level of service is only calculated for each minor street lane. In the performance evaluation of TWSC intersections, it is important to consider other measures of effectiveness (MOEs) in addition to delay, such as v/c ratios for individual movements, average queue lengths, and 95th-percentile queue lengths. By focusing on a single MOE for the worst movement only, such as delay for the minor -street left turn, users may make inappropriate traffic control decisions. The potential for making such inappropriate decisions is likely to be particularly pronounced when the HCM level -of -service thresholds are adopted as legal standards, as is the case in many public agencies. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. C3 (� Appendix D Existing Conditions Level of Service Worksheets HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Lenoir Dr & McGhee Rd 10/13/2017 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.5 Movement EBT EBR WBL MT NBL NBR Lane Configurations '+ +T Y Traffic Vol, veh/h 112 9 81 285 10 59 Future Vol, veh/h 112 9 81 285 10 59 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83 Heavy Vehicles, % 52 33 12 13 30 44 Mvmt Flow 135 11 98 343 12 71 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 146 0 679 140 Stage 1 - - - - 140 - Stage 2 - - - 539 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.22 - 6.7 6.64 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 5.7 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - 5.7 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.308 3.77 3.696 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1377 377 808 Stage 1 - - - 823 - Stage 2 - - - - 532 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1377 - 344 808 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 344 - Stage 1 - - - - 823 - Stage 2 - - 485 Approach- _ EB WB . _ . NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.7 11.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 676 - 1377 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.123 0.071 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.1 - - 7.8 0 HCM Lane LOS B - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 0.2 - AM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Welltown Rd & McGhee Rd 10/13/2017 �7 l.,r'.. �M�,� 1 Pl,'d"�� °x�F,^.;,n• �� Int Delay, s/veh 6.2 Movement:..., .Mv HaEBL" r� , BRz�,�� . Lane Configurations t Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 148 341 106 211 9 Future Vol, veh/h 1 148 341 106 211 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 0 275 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 81 81 81 81 81 81 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 53 11 13 0 0 Mvmt Flow 1 183 421 131 260 11 Conflicting Flow All 1239 266 272 0 0 Stage 1 266 - - - - - Stage 2 973 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.73 4.21 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.777 2.299 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 196 664 1241 - - - Stage 1 783 - - - - Stage 2 370 - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 130 664 1241 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 207 - - - Stage 1 783 - - - - - Of 2 244 HCM Control Delay, s 12.6 7.2 0 _ HCM LOS B m�. � inor.Lane/Maior.°Mvmts.F`,< NBL, .NBTEBLn1 EBLn2s SBT ;SBR f t Capacity (veh/h) 1241 207 664 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.339 0.006 0.275 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0.4 - 22.5' HCM Lane LOS A - C B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.5 - 0 1.1 - AM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Queues 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 10/13/2017 �'* -.0. r *-- 4,- t Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 250 1386 40 1269 247 78 213 292 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.54 0.39 0.64 0.34 0.52 0.64 0.70 Control Delay 73.0 22.8 81.8 28.9 3.9 59.5 63.0 17.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 73.0 22.8 81.8 28.9 3.9 59.5 63.0 17.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 201 291 33 357 33 53 89 15 Queue Length 95th (ft) #313 381 74 369 55 101 123 95 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1706 480 928 1388 Turn Bay Length (ft) 525 325 385 Base Capacity (vph) 329 2563 108 1978 726 242 401 446 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.76 0.54 0.37 0.64 0.34 0.32 0.53 0.65 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. AM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 10/13/2017 4-- 4% t tement � � EBL � EBT EBR WBL .WBT �WBR NBL NBT�NBR �SBL SBT SIB Lane Configurations ) ttT ) ttt r* 44 T Traffic Volume (vph) 220 1161 59 35 1117 217 22 26 20 187 17 240 Future Volume (vph) 220 1161 59 35 1117 217 22 26 20 187 17 240 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 7.1 5.9 7.7 5.8 5.8 9.6 7.4 7.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 0.86 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1656 4647 1752 4803 1417 1670 2824 1494 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1656 4647 1752 4803 1417 1670 2824 1494 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 250 1319 67 40 1269 247 25 30 23 212 19 273 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 146 0 12 0 0 241 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 250 1383 0 40 1269 101 0 66 0 213 51 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 9% 11 % 7% 3% 8% 14% 0% 8% 15% 24% 29% 8% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA custom Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 1 3 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.8 68.1 6.6 51.6 51.6 9.3 15.4 15.4 Effective Green, g (s) 23.8 68.1 6.6 51.6 51.6 9.3 15.4 15.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.52 0.05 0.40 0.40 0.07 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 7.1 5.9 7.7 5.8 5.8 9.6 7.4 7.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 303 2434 88 1906 562 119 334 176 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.02 c0.04 c0.08 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.30 c0.26 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.57 0.45 0.67 0.18 0.55 0.64 0.29 Uniform Delay, dl 51.1 21.0 60.0 32.1 25.5 58.3 54.6 52.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.21 0.81 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 16.5 1.0 3.5 0.8 0.1 5.5 4.0 0.9 Delay (s) 67.6 21.9 76.3 26.7 15.6 63.8 58.6 53.2 Level of Service E C E C B E E D Approach Delay (s) 28.9 26.2 63.8 55.5 Approach LOS C C E E )ntersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 30.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group AM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 HCM 2010 analysis does not support custom phasing. 10/13/2017 AM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 5 Queues 4: 1-81 SB Ramps & US 11 10/13/2017 Lane Gr.`ouP ' r77,7, r f EBT ,f< , Lane Group Flow (vph) 929 643 218 1078 42 586 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.53 0.46 0.37 0.37 0.39 Control Delay 3.2 5.4 5.1 1.5 66.4 0.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 3.2 5.8 5.1 1.6 66.4 0.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 67 87 15 43 35 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 72 180 21 28 72 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 103 460 1133 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 75 Base Capacity (vph) 2438 1217 560 2902 502 1509 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 201 0 776 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.38 0.63 0.39 0.51 0.08 0.39 %"T^ )ntersection,Summar�i �, �2 � r 113,7 . , .,... ..' AM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 1-81 SB Ramps & US 11 10/13/2017 • Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Tt r '� tt +T r Traffic Volume (vph) 0 845 585 198 981 0 0 0 0 38 0 533 . Future Volume (vph) 0 845 585 198 981 0 0 0 0 38 0 533 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 • Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3282 1417 1612 3343 1719 1509 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3282 1417 455 3343 1719 1509 • Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 929 643 218 1078 0 0 0 0 42 0 586 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 171 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 929 472 218 1078 0 0 0 0 0 42 586 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 10% 14% 12% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 7% Turn Type NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm NA Free Protected Phases 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 95.4 95.4 110.5 110.5 7.5 130.0 • Effective Green, g (s) 95.4 95.4 110.5 110.5 7.5 130.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.73 0.73 0.85 0.85 0.06 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 • Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2408 1039 467 2841 99 1509 • v/s Ratio Prot 0.28 0.03 0.32 • v/s Ratio Perm 0.33 c0,36 0.02 c0.39 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.45 0.47 0.38 0.42 0.39 i Uniform Delay, dl 6.4 6.9 2.8 2.2 59.2 0.0 • Progression Factor 0.40 6.26 1.06 0.49 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.4 2.9 0.8 Delay (s) 2.6 43.5 3.7 1.4 62.1 0.8 • Level of Service A D A A E A Approach Delay (s) 19.4 1.8 0.0 4.9 Approach LOS B A A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B • HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 i Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.4% ICU Level of Service C • Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group i • i AM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: 1-81 SIB Ramps & US 11 10/13/2017 --` --1. fir- - Lane Configurations tt r tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 845 585 198 981 0 0 0 0 38 0 533 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 845 585 198 981 0 0 0 0 38 0 533 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1727 1667 1696 1759 0 1900 1810 1776 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 929 0 218 1078 0 42 0 0 Adj No. of Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 10 14 12 8 0 7 0 7 Cap, veh/h 0 2580 1114 509 2927 0 55 0 48 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.04 0.88 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3368 1417 1616 3431 0 1723 0 1509 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 929 0 218 1078 0 42 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1641 1417 1616 1671 0 1723 0 1509 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 11.0 0.0 3.1 7.7 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 11.0 0.0 3.1 7.7 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2580 1114 509 2927 0 55 0 48 WC Ratio(X) 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.43 0.37 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2580 1114 675 2927 0 504 0 441 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 4.1 0.0 2.9 1.5 0.0 62.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 19.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 4.9 0.0 1.4 3.6 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 4.2 0.0 3.4 1.8 0.0 81.7 0.10 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A F Approach ..Vol, veh/h 929 1296 42 Approach Delay, s/veh 4.2 2.1 81.7 Approach LOS A A _. _ _. F Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 119.8 10.2 11.6 108.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s : 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 _..:. Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 80.0 38.0 19.0 55.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 9.7 5.1 5.1 13.0 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 25.4 0.2 0.5 21.1 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 4.4 HCM 2010 LOS A 77 AM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 8 Queues 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 --* -4-- 41 /' Lame Group EBT WBT NBL NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 981 800 510 237 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.33 0.78 0.60 Control Delay 3.8 2.0 56.7 29.4 Queue Delay 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 3.9 2.2 56.7 29.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 88 10 210 93 Queue Length 95th (ft) 25 13 256 172 Internal Link Dist (ft) 460 138 842 Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 450 Base Capacity (vph) 2293 2402 1070 576 Starvation Cap Reductn 272 763 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 2 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.41 Intersection Summary AM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 Movement _ E EBR WBL . WBT1-1 ' NBL ; NBR Lane Configurations tt tt' r Traffic Volume (vph) 883 0 0 720 459 213 Future Volume (vph) 883 0 0 720 459 213 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3252 3406 3127 1468 Fit Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3252 3406 3127 1468 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 981 0 0 800 510 237 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 89 Lane Group Flow (vph) 981 0 0 800 510 148 Heavy Vehicles (%) 11 % 0% 0% 6% 12% 10% Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 91.7 91.7 27.3 27.3 Effective Green, g (s) 91.7 91.7 27.3 27.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.71 0.71 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2293 2402 656 308 v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 0.23 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.33 0.78 0.48 Uniform Delay, dl 8.1 7.4 48.5 45.1 Progression Factor 0.38 0.20 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.1 5.8 1.2 Delay (s) 3.6 1.6 54.3 46.3 Level of Service A A D D Approach Delay (s) 3.6 1.6 51.7 Approach LOS A A D _. _._ __...__ �; Intersection Summary �- HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 11.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group AM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tt tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 883 0 0 720 459 213 Future Volume (veh/h) 883 0 0 720 459 213 Number 2 12 1 6 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1712 0 0 1792 1696 1727 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 981 0 0 800 510 237 Adj No. of Lanes 2 0 0 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 11 0 0 6 12 10 Cap, veh/h 2349 0 0 2460 605 284 Arrive On Green 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow. veh/h 3423 0 0 3585 3134 1468 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 981 0 0 800 510 237 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1626 0 0 1703 1567 1468 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.6 0.0 0.0 1.8 20.4 20.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.6 0.0 0.0 1.8 20.4 20.2 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2349 0 0 2460 605 284 V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.84 0.84 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2349 0 0 2460 1073 503 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 50.5 50.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.3 6.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 9.1 8.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.8 53.8 56.9 LnGrp LOS A A D E Approach Vol, veh/h 981 800 747 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.7 0.8 54.8 Approach LOS A A D �imer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 99.4 30.6 99.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.5 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 74.5 44.5 74.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s 17.6 22.4 3.8 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 19.4 2.7 20.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 19.4 HCM 2010 LOS B AM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 11 Queues 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 -0.-- t Lane Group Flow (vph) 315 700 114 21 720 31 63 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.28 0.09 0.03 0.30 0.03 0.25 Control Delay 12.5 3.3 0.3 2.8 9.0 0.0 2.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 12.5 3.4 0.6 2.8 9.0 0.0 2.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 32 55 1 3 104 0 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 99 64 3 7 194 0 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 138 1843 1091 Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 75 150 275 Base Capacity (vph) 809 2507 1240 757 2368 1089 420 Starvation Cap Reductn 18 898 729 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 74 0 4 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.44 0.22 0.03 0.31 0.03 0.15 AM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 * Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations '� tT r '� tt r +14 Traffic Volume (vph) 306 679 111 20 698 30 22 0 39 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 306 679 111 20 698 30 22 0 39 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 11.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 9.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.91 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1556 3312 1599 1805 3374 1468 1688 At Permitted 0.36 1.00 1.00 0.38 1.00 1.00 0.98 Said Flow (perm) 597 3312 1599 721 3374 1468 1688 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 315 700 114 21 720 31 23 0 40 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 34 0 0 10 0 61 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 315 700 80 21 720 21 0 2 0 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 16% 9% 1 % 0% 7% 10% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 104.7 91.4 91.4 93.9 86.0 86.0 4.4 Effective Green, g (s) 98.7 91.4 91.4 93.9 86.0 86.0 4.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 0.70 0.70 0.72 0.66 0.66 0.03 Clearance Time (s) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 9.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 529 2328 1124 586 2232 971 57 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.21 0.00 0.21 v/s Ratio Perm c0.40 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.30 0.07 0.04 0.32 0.02 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 9.3 7.3 6.0 5.5 9.5 7.6 60.8 Progression Factor 0.97 0.40 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 Delay (s) 10.7 3.2 0.9 5.6 9.8 7.6 61.0 Level of Service B A A A A A E Approach Delay (s) 5.1 9.6 61.0 0.0 Approach LOS A A E A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 29.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.1 % ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group AM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 � � # Wvement t, f .' EBL" `�EBT�, WBL WBT,t INBR <r NBL � NBT ,, ,EBR,,,,,, . Lane Configurations tt r '� tt r , Traffic Volume (veh/h) 306 679 111 20 698 30 22 0 39 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 306 679 111 20 698 30 22 0 39 0 0 0 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1638 1743 1881' 1900 1776 1727 1900 1879 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 315 700 114 21 720 31 23 0 40 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 16 9 1 0 7 10 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 810 812 392 1007 853 371 29 0 51 Arrive On Green 0.95 0.49 0,49 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.00 0.05 Sat Flow, veh/h 1560 3312 1599 1810 3374 1468 607 0 1056 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 315 700 114 21 720 ' 31 63 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1560 1656 1599 1810 1687 1468 1663 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 24.3 5.5 0.0 26.3 2.1 4.9 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 24.3 5.5 0.0 26.3 2.1 4.9 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37 0.63 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 810 812 392 1007 853 371 81 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.39 0.86 0.29 0.02 0.84 0.08 0.78 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 810 1666 804 1007 1204 524 255 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.89 0.89 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 1.7 31.2 26.4 12.8 46.1 37.1 61.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 10.5 1.7 0.0 10.0 0.4 14.8 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.7 12.1 2.6 0.3 13.5 0.9 2.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 2.0 41.7 28.1 12.8 56.1 37.5 76.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A D C B E D E Approach Vol, veh/h 1129 772 63 Approach Delay, s/veh 29.3 54.2 76.0 Approach LOS C D E Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 73.1 41.5 15.4 74.1 40.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.6 * 8.6 * 9.1 * 8.6: * 8.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 37 * 46 * 20 * 18 * 65 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll ), s 3.0 28.3 6.9 2.0 26.3 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 1.0 4.5 0.2 0.9 5.6 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 40.6 HCM 2010 LOS D AM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. AM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 15 HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Lenoir Dr & McGhee Rd 10/13/2017 ,- r � � �, ,s� {., �� t : f fs ��s f... r �' "�';�' tY! ?✓. f? r f-.:.,f��i f,r Int Delay, s/veh 4.9 EBT>; EBR f ,�' . , Lane Configurations i +T Traffic Vol, veh/h 267 4 34 67 16 143 Future Vol, veh/h 267 4 34 67 16 143 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 69 69 69 69 69 69 Heavy Vehicles, % 11 0 47 31 13 9 Mvmt Flow 387 6 49 97 23 207 Ff ,;Mat&2 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 393 0 586 390 Stage 1 - - - - 390 - Stage 2 - - - 196 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.57 - 6.53 6.29 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.623 - 3.617 3.381 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 958 - 455 643 Stage 1 - - - 661 - Stage 2 - - - 811 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver, - - 958 - 430 643 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 430 - Stage 1 - - - - 661 - Stage 2 - - - 767 - f � `.0 ?; �..l'.,, ••".,rlt, .�.5 .%� i:,f i .,:NB' �f. �.+s Er,?J'✓,'', d'',b,,.; .ir i<..� ��S f., f�f%.'4f HCM Control Delay, s 0 3 14.4 HCM LOS B Capacity (veh/h) 612 - - 958 - HCM Lane WC Ratio 0.377 - - 0.051 - HCM Control Delay (s) 14.4 - - 9 0 HCM Lane LOS B - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.7 - - 0.2 PM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Welltown Rd & McGhee Rd 10/13/2017 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations '� r '� t T Traffic Vol, veh/h 13 333 65 290 141 5 Future Vol, veh/h 13 333 65 290 141 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 0 275 - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 11 43 5 0 0 Mvmt Flow 14 366 71 319 155 5 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 620 158 160 0 0 Stage 1 158 - - - - Stage 2 462 - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.31 4.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.399 2.587 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 455 864 1204 - - Stage 1 875 - - - Stage 2 638 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 428 864 1204 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 504 - - - Stage 1 875 - - - - Stage 2 600 - Approach .... EB NB -SB - HCM Control Delay, s 12.2 1.5 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1204 - 504 864 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.059 - 0.028 0.424 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 - 12.4 12.2 - - HCM Lane LOS A - B B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.1 2.1 - - PM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Queues 3:WBlltOVVO Rd/Amoco LO&[1S 11 18M3/2017 �� -- * ~^ �� ~~ ��SBC Lane Group Flow (voh) 189 1850 35 1218 171 134 287 308 wtRatio 0.79 0.60 0.35 0.58 0.24 0.60 0.65 0.89 Control Delay 70.0 247 81.0 24.0 5.3 582 85.0 152 Queue Delay 0.0 D.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 70.8 247 61.9 24.9 5.3 58.2 85.9 15.2 Queue Length 5Oth0d 187 408 32 382 22 79 121 9 Queue Length S5th (ft) 240 511 87 334 41 148 182 101 Internal Link Dist 0A 1706 508 828 1388 Turn Bay Length (00 525 550 385 Base Capacity (vph) 289 2763 105 2105 703 256 543 499 Starvation Cap Roduotn 0 O O O O U O U Spi||baohCap Roduotn 0 O O U U O 0 O Storage Cap Raduotn O O O O O O U U Reduced NtRatio 0.85 0.80 0.33 0.58 0.24 0.52 049 0.82 PNExisUngTmffioCondibono Svnohm8Report HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 10/13/2017 ' Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *i W) ) ttt r 4+ Traffic Volume (vph) 185 1543 83 34 1194 168 31 21 79 262 11 291 • Future Volume (vph) 185 1543 83 34 1194 168 31 21 79 262 11 291 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 7.1 5.9 7.7 5.8 5.8 9.6 7.4 7.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.92 1.00 0.86 40 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1626 5002 1805 4940 1429 1694 3367 1550 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1626 5002 1805 4940 1429 1694 3367 1550 . Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 189 1574 85 35 1218 171 32 21 81 267 11 297 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 94 0 41 0 0 261 0 . Lane Group Flow (vph) 189 1656 0 35 1218 77 0 93 0 267 47 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 11 % 3% 1 % 0% 5% 13% 0% 0% 3% 4% 0% 5% S Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA custom Split NA Split NA i Protected Phases 5 1 3 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.6 74.2 5.4 59.7 59.7 12.7 17.1 17.1 Effective Green, g (s) 20.6 74.2 5.4 59.7 59.7 12.7 17.1 17.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.53 0.04 0.43 0.43 0.09 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 7.1 5.9 7.7 5.8 5.8 9.6 7.4 7.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 239 2651 69 2106 609 153 411 189 • v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.02 c0.05 c0.08 0.03 • v/s Ratio Perm c0.33 c0.25 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.62 0.51 0.58 0.13 0.61 0.65 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 57.6 23.1 66.0 30.6 24.3 61.3 58.6 55.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.72 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 16.2 1.1 5.5 0.4 0.1 6.7 3.5 0.7 Delay (s) 73.8 24.2 60.7 22.5 20.4 67.9 62.1 56.3 • Level of Service E C E C C E E E Approach Delay (s) 29.3 23.2 67.9 59.0 Approach LOS C C E E Intersection Summary . HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C • HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 30.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.6% ICU Level of Service E . Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group • • • 0 PM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 4 0 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 10/13/2017 HCM 2010 analysis does not support custom phasing. PM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 5 Queues 4: 1-81 SB Ramps & US 11 10/13/2017 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 1313 593 232 1178 34 380 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.47 0.53 0.38 0.33 0.25 Control Delay 2.7 1.5 15.4 0.3 70.8 0.4 Queue Delay 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 2.8 1.7 15.4 0.5 70.8 0.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 22 0 43 0 30 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 130 40 98 0 67 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 73 460 1133 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 75 Base Capacity (vph) 2582 1260 499 3122 489 1495 Starvation Cap Reductn 236 184 0 828 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 54 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.56 0.55 0.46 0.51 0.07 0.25 Intersection Summary PM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 1-81 SIB Ramps & US 11 # 10/13/2017 Lane Configurations tt if '� tt 4 r Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1287 581 227 1154 0 0 0 0 33 0 372 Future Volume (vph) 0 1287 581 227 1154 0 0 0 0 33 0 372 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1553 1787 3438 1805 1495 Fit Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1553 304 3438 1805 1495 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1313 593 232 1178 0 0 0 0 34 0 380 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1313 469 232 1178 0 0 0 0 0 34 380 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 3% 40/6 1 % 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% Turn Type NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm NA Free Protected Phases 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 100.7 100.7 122.3 122.3 5.7 140.0 Effective Green, g (s) 100.7 100.7 122.3 122.3 5.7 140.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.72 0.72 0.87 0.87 0.04 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2521 1117 430 3003 73 1495 v/s Ratio Prot 0.37 c0.06 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.30 c0.41 0.02 c0.25 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.42 0.54 0.39 0.47 0.25 Uniform Delay, dl 8.8 7.9 6.5 1.7 65.7 0.0 Progression Factor 0.21 0.18 4.14 0.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.2 1.2 0.4 4.6 0.4 Delay (s) 2.0 1.6 28.1 0.4 70.3 0.4 Level of Service A A C A E A Approach Delay (s) 1.9 4.9 0.0 6.1 Approach LOS A A A A HCM 2000 Control Delay 3.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.7% ICU Level, of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group . PM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: 1-81 SB Ramps & US 11 10/13/2017 "# --1 --t it 4`- "*1 t /,. 1 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt +T r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1287 581 227 1154 0 0 0 0 33 0 372 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1287 581 227 1154 0 0 0 0 33 0 372 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1845 1827 1881 1810 0 1900 1900 1759 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1313 0 232 1178 0 34 0 0 Adj No. of Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 3 4 1 5 0 8 0 8 Cap, veh/h 0 2825 1252 412 3053 0 47 0 39 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.04 0.89 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3597 1553 1792 3529 0 1810 0 1495 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1313 0 232 1178 0 34 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1752 1553 1792 1719 0 1810 0 1495 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 16.3 0.0 2.9 8.2 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 16.3 0.0 2.9 8.2 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2825 1252 412 3053 0 47 0 39 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.56 0.39 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2825 1252 611 3053 0 491 0 406 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.86 0.86 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 4.2 0.0 4.2 1.3 0.0 67.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 7.7 0.0 2.6 3.9 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 4.3 0.0 5.3 1.7 0.0 85.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A F Approach Vol, veh/h 1313 1410 34 Approach Delay, s/veh 4.3 2.2 85.9 Approach LOS A A F rimer 1 2 .._ . .3 4 5 6 7_..... 8. Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 130.3 9.7 11.5 118.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 90.0 38.0 21.0 63.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s 10.2 4.6 4.9 18.3 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 40.1 0.1 0.6 29.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 4.3 HCM 2010 LOS A PM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 8 Queues 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 1361 884 540 310 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.35 0.75 0.80 Control Delay 4.9 7.0 56.8 58.0 Queue Delay 0.1 0.3 0.0 1.8 Total Delay 5.0 7.3 56.8 59.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 19 63 240 231 Queue Length 95th (ft) 266 73 275 313 Internal Link Dist (ft) 460 138 842 Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 450 Base Capacity (vph) 2447 2495 1076 553 Starvation Cap Reductn 137 940 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 208 0 0 118 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.61 0.57 0.50 0.71 Intersection Summary ° �: PM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 �-- 4� /11* Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tT tt M r Traffic Volume (vph) 1320 0 0 857 524 301 . Future Volume (vph) 1320 0 0 857 524 301 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 3574 3242 1568 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd Flow (perm) 3505 3574 3242 1568 • Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 1361 0 0 884 540 310 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 38 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1361 0 0 884 540 272 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 0% 0% 1 % 8% 3% Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm • Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 97.8 97.8 31.2 31.2 Effective Green, g (s) 97.8 97.8 31.2 31.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.70 0.70 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 i Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2448 2496 722 349 • v/s Ratio Prot c0.39 0.25 0.17 . v/s Ratio Perm c0.17 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.35 0.75 0.78 r Uniform Delay, dl 10.4 8.5 50.7 51.2 Progression Factor 0.36 0.72 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.1 4.2 10.5 Delay (s) 4.5 6.1 55.0 61.7 • Level of Service A A D E Approach Delay (s) 4.5 6.1 57.4 Approach LOS A A E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B . HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 11.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.7% ICU Level of Service C . Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group PM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 10 r HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 -4. - Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tt tt M r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1320 0 0 857 524 301 Future Volume (veh/h) 1320 0 0 857 524 301 Number 2 12 1 6 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1845 0 0 1881 1759 1845 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1361 0 0 884 540 310 Adj No. of Lanes 2 0 0 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 0 0 1 8 3 Cap, veh/h 2436 0 0 2484 736 355 Arrive On Green 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 3689 0 0 3762 3250 1568 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1361 0 0 884 540 310 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1752 0 0 1787 1625 1568 Q Serve(g_s), s 27.1 0.0 0.0 29.1 21.6 26.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 27.1 0.0 0.0 29.1 21.6 26.7 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2436 0 0 2484 736 355 V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.73 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2436 0 0 2484 1080 521 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.6 0.0 0.0 27.6 50.2 52.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4 10.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 13.3 0.0 0.0 14.4 9.8 12.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.4 0.0 0.0 27.7 51.7 63.0 LnGrp LOS B C D E Approach Vol, veh/h 1361 884 850 Approach Delay, s/veh 11.4 27.7 55.8 Approach LOS B C E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ; Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 102.8 37.2 102.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.5 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 82.5 46.5 82.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll ), s 29.1 28.7 31.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 28.0 3.0 27.5 _�_._______ Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 28.3 HCM 2010 LOS C PM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 11 Queues 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 + I bane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 483 1122 83 32 765 85 164 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.49 0.08 0.10 0.41 0.09 0.72 Control Delay 30.0 6.5 0.1 9.3 24.4 0.2 72.9 Queue Delay 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 30.6 6.8 0.5 9.3 24.4 0.2 72.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 142 134 0 7 219 0 139 Queue Length 95th (ft) 332 134 0 18 367 0 210 • Internal Link Dist (ft) 138 1843 1091 Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 75 150 275 Base Capacity (vph) 882 2314 1075 407 1850 931 296 Starvation Cap Reductn 145 591 695 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 110 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.66 0.65 0.22 0.08 0.44 0.09 0.55 M lnfersection Summary r • PM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report • Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 - --+w - ',- t '. , Lane Configurations tt r tt r 44 Traffic Volume (vph) 464 1077 80 31 734 82 123 7 28 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 464 1077 80 31 734 82 123 7 28 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 11.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 9.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3574 1599 1703 3539 1615 1758 Fit Permitted 0.31 1.00 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 585 3574 1599 341 3539 1615 1758 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 483 1122 83 32 765 85 128 7 29 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 32 0 0 43 0 6 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 483 1122 51 32 765 42 0 158 0 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1 % 1 % 6% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 104.5 86.5 86.5 79.1 69.7 69.7 17.8 Effective Green, g (s) 101.5 86.5 86.5 79.1 69.7 69.7 17.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.72 0.62 0.62 0.56 0.50 0.50 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 9.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 626 2208 987 284 1761 804 223 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.31 0.01 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm c0.43 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.51 0.05 0.11 0.43 0.05 0.71 Uniform Delay, d1 21.8 14.9 10.6 23.6 22.5 18.1 58.6 Progression Factor 0.87 0.36 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.1 9.8 Delay (s) 24.0 6.1 0.1 23.8 23.3 18.2 68.4 Level of Service C A A C C B E Approach Delay (s) 10.9 22.8 68.4 0.0 Approach LOS B C E A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 29.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group PM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 13 91 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tT r '� tt r 4 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 464 1077 80 31 734 82 123 7 28 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 464 1077 80 31 734 82 123 7 28 0 0 0 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1900 1881 1881 1792 1863 1900 1900 1871 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 483 1122 83 32 765 85 128 7 29 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 1 6 2 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 848 1233 552 662 895 408 149 8 34 Arrive On Green 0.86 0.69 0.69 0.36 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.11 Sat Flow. veh/h 1810 3574 1599 1707 3539 1615 1364 75 309 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 483 1122 83 32 765 85 164 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1787 1599 1707 1770 1615 1748 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 36.6 2.5 0.0 28.8 5.8 12.9 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 36.6 2.5 0.0 28.8 5.8 12.9 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.18 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 848 1233 552 662 895 408 191 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.57 0.91 0.15 0.05 0.85 0.21 0.86 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 848 1848 827 662 1148 524 286 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.77 0.77 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.6 19.9 14.6 28.9 49.9 41.2 61.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 9.2 0.4 0.0 10.2 1.2 15.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.9 19.0 1.2 0.8 15.4 2.7 7.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.3 29.1 15.0 28.9 60.1 42.4 76.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A C B C E D E Approach Vol, veh/h 1688 882 164 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.9 57.3 76.4 Approach LOS C E E (Timer. _ .. _ -. _ . 1. ... 2 - - 3..- - 4 -- 5 -6 -7 .__... 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 71.6 44.0 24.4 58.7 56.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.6 * 8.6 * 9.1 * 8.6 * 8.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 45 * 45 * 23 * 18 * 72 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll ), s 3.0 30.8 14.9 2.0 38.6 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 1.6 4.6 0.4 1.5 9.7 jntersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 36.6 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes PM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. PM Existing Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 15 Appendix E In -Process Development Trip Assignment Stonewo///V December 2017 • N 861 � 81 OP • 863 CCy ESSI A LN O QP� F _j �0 F-732 3 x 862 . F-732 TG ` O� 661 M SITE ��O 839 � O 0 C0<4' PACTIV 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 • a 'n .NO n TRIPS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS INTERSECTION NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED 2P _� _ 13 WITH THIS INTERSECTION • N o ti 0 3 • u i ry © © O a n 22 --- 0- f— 13 r6 33 --- 0- f— 19 51 ---► f-- 19 0� °c m • d • 1 2020 Rutherford Crossing In -Process Trips Figure r Weekday AM Peak Hour E1 a, Frederick County, Virginia X 0 Stonewo///V December2017 0 N 861 � oP0 863 �'Cy JESSICA LN 81O �P� C F-732 862 F-732 Ceti TG O 661 SITE O� 839 O O PACTIV 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED 39 —► 35 WITH THIS INTERSECTION WITH THIS INTERSECTION ©Ilk N © O 29 39 —► 1-- 35 59 —► f— 52 92 —► 4— 52 �17 chi 2020 Rutherford Crossing In -Process Trips Figure Weekday PM Peak Hour E2 Frederick County, Virginia StonewolllV December2017 s • N 861 81 z �Q- 863 C'S ESSI A LN O QP t` F-732 862 F-732 TG pQ- � 661 • SITE ��p 839 O G� qM O . PACTIV 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 m al -9 O 'n n NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS INTERSECTION NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED 4 —► f— 2i WITH THIS INTERSECTION • �l ti O • N HU U b • a i% N� • ry O n © O a a � 35 c n 4 —► 4 21 � 35 11 —► f— 56 18 —► - 56 c 0 o' r � n a •'ta2020 Snowden Bridge In -Process Trips Figure • Weekday AM Peak Hour E3 Frederick County, Virginia •Y Stonewa///V December2017 0 N 861 � 81 z QPO Q- 863 OCR JESSICq LN �P s�W GG� F-732 862 F-732 O 661 O� SITE 839 O PACTIV 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 0 NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED 21 —► -0— 9 WITH THIS INTERSECTION WITH THIS INTERSECTION O (7 © O Ilk �15 21 —► -4— 9 56 —► f— 24 89 —► 4 24 or15 0(-48 N 2020 Snowden Bridge In -Process Trips Figure Weekday PM Peak Hour E4 Frederick County, Virginia Stonewo///V December2017 N 861 81 OP . z 863 °Cyr ESSICA LN � . Cj0 F 732 862 • F•732 TG 661 . SITE ��O 839 p O 0 PACTiv 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS • 11 • a� 5 O n NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS INTERSECTION NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS INTERSECTION 11 45 ry • 4 .'-fy m coi O v 4 i ry © N © O • rn a 16� • a 20 —I F— 25 16� 20 --- 0- f— 5 4 —io- f— 5 0° 1 j v o N e n E f 2020 Amoco Lane In -Process Trips Figure Weekday AM Peak Hour E5 a 7 =� Frederick County, Virginia Stonewa///V December2017 N 861 81 oP0 863 ��'GJESSICA LN J F-732 862 F-732 Ceti �G 661 SITE O� 839 O PACT -IV C0z Y� 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 O NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS INTERSECTION WITH THIS INTERSECTION 81, 30 i n m N © J�2 © O i 12� 16-0-17 16-110- f-4 4 --- ► 4-4 12 <2 2020 Amoco Lane In -Process Trips Figure Weekday PM Peak Hour E6 Frederick County, Virginia Wonewo///V December 2017 N 861 81O � OP z �Q- 863 Cy ESSICA LN QP 3 F-732 862 F-732 cl, TG O� 661 SITE ��O 839 O O c0zt, PACTIV 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 O NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED 54 _ll� WITH THIS INTERSECTION WITH THIS INTERSECTION O © O R 54 -0 87 -► 131 -► 2020 Greystone I.P. In -Process Trips Figure Weekday AM Peak Hour E7 Frederick County, Virginia Stonewa///V December2017 N 861 81 � z �C'C'S oP� Q- 863 JESSICq LN �P F-732 3 50� 862 F-732 TG 661 O� SITE 839 O CO<ti PACTIV 37 WINCHESTE BBYPASS 11 NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED 2 --- 0- f— 40 WITH THIS INTERSECTION WITH THIS INTERSECTION © N © O 32 2 40 4 —► f— 64 9 --- 0- -4-- 64 �24 �1 a� M m 2020 Greystone I.P. In -Process Trips Figure Weekday PM Peak Hour E8 Frederick County, Virginia ,tonewa///V December 2017 N 861 81 oP z � � 863°Cyr ESSICA LN F-732 3 862 F•732 TG O� i 661 O� SITE �� 839 �O PACTIV 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 O NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS INTERSECTION WITH THIS INTERSECTION 13 R 54 o O N © O 20 25 —► f— 30 5 —► F- 6 5 --- 0- f— 6 20 i 1 v N 2026 Amoco Lane In -Process Trips Figure Weekday AM Peak Hour E9 Frederick County, Virginia Stonewa///V December2017 • N 861 81O 2 863 �ICCy JESSICA LN oP0 Q- QP� F-732 862 F-732 Ceti TG O 661 O� SITE 839 O PACTIV 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 0 0 NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS INTERSECTION WITH THIS INTERSECTION 10 -" 40 or R 1 o cn� 0 �2 © t� J '4 16� 21 —► 4 22 21 —► f— 4 5 ---► -0— 4 16� 2026 Amoco Lane In -Process Trips Figure Weekday PM Peak Hour E10 Frederick County, Virginia Stonewa///V December 2017 N 861 � 81 oP 863 �C'Cy ESSICq LN 03 �P� F-732 862 F-732 TG O� 661 SITE o��OQ 839 O �� qM 0 PACTIV 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 O NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED 144 --- ► f- 9 WITH THIS INTERSECTION WITH THIS INTERSECTION 0 m © O �7 144 -0 f- 9 231 -► f- 14 347 -► 4- 14 �5 �2 � N 2026 Greystone I.P. In -Process Trips Figure Weekday AM Peak Hour Ell Frederick County, Virginia Stonewa///V December2017 N 861 OPO 2 Q- 863 �'Cy JESSICq LN 81O QP 50� F-732 3 862 F-732 CAN TG O� l 661 SITE O� 839 O PACTIV Y COIN 37 WINCHESTER BYPASS 11 NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED NO TRIPS ASSOCIATED 19 —� 4 112 WITH THIS INTERSECTION WITH THIS INTERSECTION O © 0 89 19 4 112 30 —► 4— 179 45 —► —179 67 0(- 22 to �r 2026 Greystone I.P. In -Process Trips Figure Weekday PM Peak Hour E12 Frederick County, Virginia Appendix F 2020 Background Traffic Conditions Level of Service Worksheets HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Lenoir Dr & McGhee Rd 10/13/2017 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations '+ +T Y Traffic Vol, veh/h 112 9 81 285 10 59 Future Vol, veh/h 112 9 81 285 10 59 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 52 33 12 13 30 44 Mvmt Flow 122 10 88 310 11 64 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 132 0 613 127 Stage 1 - - - - 127 - Stage 2 - - 486 - Critical Hdwy - 4.22 6.7 6.64 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.7 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.7 - Follow-up Hdwy - 2.308 3.77 3.696 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1394 - 413 822 Stage 1 - - 834 - Stage 2 - - - - 564 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1394 - 382 822 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - 382 - Stage 1 - - - 834 - Stage 2 - - 521 APProach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.7 10.7 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt N61-n1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 704 - - 1394 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.107 - - 0.063 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.7 - - 7.8 0 HCM Lane LOS B - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 0.2 - AM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Welltown Rd & McGhee Rd 10/13/2017 I»- ,Intersection <, � ,: f. �=i ,« � �.: ,�f �r � f1.. rf ,'rs i X �. +,,,f� ..., ��;r !a of �, ,�c , ..{ ,. ,,:f , F„�f„, �Y f�, `: v�Yf` �' :, x' � `/,r�,'iF a�.r .c�./>x ✓ r%,r , Int Delay, s/veh 5.9 Lane Configurations r t T Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 148 341 109 217 9 Future Vol, veh/h 1 148 341 109 217 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 0 275 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 53 11 13 0 0 Mvmt Flow 1 161 371 118 236 10 ' f 3 75 ,.'. F , Conflicting Flow All 1101 241 246 0 0 Stage 1 241 - - - - - Stage 2 860 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.73 4.21 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.777 2,299 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 237 687 1269 - - - Stage 1 804 - - - - Stage 2 418 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 168 687 1269 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 251 - - - Stage 1 804 - - - Stage 2 296 - �,,,.� �"3T. J 4 �„ T '> nJ' T T " s "-av'S' 77 r' p'l"�."..�„ ;9".m^fir%""" ?'. rrz*�p ^'�`',yT ':1'�T'ai""'i[ ✓ !.'"' ll"'fi! if .' `� HCM Control Delay, s 11.9 6.8 0 HCM LOS B ,- f � 6 , . Mor.Lane/Major Mvmt 9 � N �, ,,NBTEBLn12EBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 1269 - 251 687 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.292 - 0.004 0.234 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9 - 19.4 11.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A - C B - HCM 95th %otile Q(veh) 1.2 0 0.9 - AM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 2 w • Queues 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 10/13/2017 II Lune Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 247 1465 88 1288 243 126 210 288 v/c Ratio 0.87 0.70 0.49 0.70 0.35 0.68 0.65 0.71 • Control Delay 80.1 31.6 63.5 32.3 5.8 59.5 64.6 18.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 • Total Delay 80.1 31.6 63.5 32.3 5.8 59.5 64.6 18.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 201 371 72 362 36 78 88 15 Queue Length 95th (ft) #333 442 #151 397 58 142 128 109 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1706 480 928 1388 . Turn Bay Length (ft) 525 325 385 Base Capacity (vph) 309 2093 178 1845 687 248 391 437 • Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Reduced v/c Ratio 0.80 0.70 0.49 0.70 0.35 0.51 0.54 0.66 Intersection Summary • # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • AM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report • Page 3 • • • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 10/13/2017 Lane Configurations ) ttT ) ttt r T Traffic Volume (vph) 227 1276 72 81 1185 224 32 27 57 193 18 247 Future Volume (vph) 227 1276 72 81 1185 224 32 27 57 193 18 247 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 7.1 5.9 7.7 5.8 5.8 9.6 7.4 7.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1656 4645 1752 4803 1417 1602 2824 1494 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1656 4645 1752 4803 1417 1602 2824 1494 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 247 1387 78 88 1288 243 35 29 62 210 20 268 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 0 143 0 28 0 0 237 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 247 1461 0 88 1288 100 0 98 0 210 51 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 9% 11 % 7% 3% 8% 14% 0% 8% 15% 24% 29% 8% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA custom Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 1 3 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.4 58.5 13.2 50.0 50.0 12.9 14.8 14.8 Effective Green, g (s) 22.4 58.5 13.2 50.0 50.0 12.9 14.8 14.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.45 0.10 0.38 0.38 0.10 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 7.1 5.9 7.7 5.8 5.8 9.6 7.4 7.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 285 2090 177 1847 545 158 321 170 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.05 c0.06 c0.07 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm c0.31 0.27 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.87 0.70 0.50 0.70 0.18 0.62 0.65 0.30 Uniform Delay, dl 52.3 28.7 55.3 33.6 26.5 56.2 55.1 52.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.85 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 23.0 2.0 2.0 1.1 0.2 7.4 4.7 1.0 Delay (s) 75.4 30.7 55.3 29.6 24.3 63.6 59.9 53.8 Level of Service E C E C C E E D Approach Delay (s) 37.1 30.2 63.6 56.4 Approach LOS D C E E HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 30.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.3%° ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group AM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 10/13/2017 HCM 2010 analysis does not support custom phasing. AM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 5 Queues 4: 1-81 SB Ramps & US 11 10/13/2017 `.EBR WBL WBT �;SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 1055 673 266 1163 98 618 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.60 0.60 0.43 0.58 0.41 Control Delay 2.6 5.6 13.3 3.5 69.0 0.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 2.6 6.3 13.3 3.7 69.0 0.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 22 92 27 171 80 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 101 157 92 76 135 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 103 460 1133 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 75 Base Capacity (vph) 2084 1124 505 2705 502 1509 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 184 0 598 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.51 0.72 0.53 0.55 0.20 0.41 Intersection.Summary � �.. AM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 1-81 SIB Ramps & US 11 1I10/13/2017 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tT r tt +T r Traffic Volume (vph) 0 971 619 245 1070 0 0 0 0 90 0 569 Future Volume (vph) 0 971 619 245 1070 0 0 0 0 90 0 569 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3282 1417 1612 3343 1719 1509 Fit Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd Flow (perm) 3282 1417 350 3343 1719 1509 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1055 673 266 1163 0 0 0 0 98 0 618 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1055 448 266 1163 0 0 0 0 0 98 618 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 10% 14% 12% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 7% Turn Type NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm NA Free Protected Phases 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 82.6 82.6 105.2 105.2 12.8 130.0 Effective Green, g (s) 82.6 82.6 105.2 105.2 12.8 130.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.81 0.81 0.10 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2085 900 444 2705 169 1509 v/s Ratio Prot 0.32 c0.08 0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.32 c0.41 0.06 c0.41 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.50 0.60 0.43 0.58 0.41 Uniform Delay, d1 12.7 12.6 6.9 3.6 56.0 0.0 Progression Factor 0.13 1.81 1.98 0.77 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.3 2.0 0.5 4.8 0.8 Delay (s) 1.8 23.2 15.7 3.3 60.8 0.8 Level of Service A C B A E A Approach Delay (s) 10.2 5.6 0.0 9.0 Approach LOS B A A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group AM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: 1-81 SB Ramps & US 11 10/13/2017 Movement „ EBL - EBT EBR _ WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt if tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 971 619 245 1070 0 0 0 0 90 0 569 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 971 619 245 1070 0 0 0 0 90 0 569 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1727 1667 1696 1759 0 1900 1810 1776 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1055 0 266 1163 0 98 0 0 Adj No. of Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 10 14 12 8 0 7 0 7 Cap, veh/h 0 2394 1033 443 2790 0 126 0 110 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.06 0.83 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3368 1417 1616 3431 0 1723 0 1509 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1055 0 266 1163 0 98 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1641 1417 1616 1671 0 1723 0 1509 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 16.7 0.0 5.0 11.5 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 16.7 0.0 5.0 11.5 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2394 1033 443 2790 0 126 0 110 WC Ratio(X) 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.60 0.42 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2394 1033 621 2790 0 504 0 441 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.84 0.84 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 7.0 0.0 6.0 2.7 0.0 59.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 7.5 0.0 3.1 5.3 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 7.1 0.0 7.1 3.1 0.0 69.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A E Approach Vol, veh/h 1055 1429 98 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.1 3.8 69.1 Approach LOS A A E jfimer .: 1 2 3 4 �, -..5 ., 6 - /0 7 8;:: � 197 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 114.5 15.5 13.7 100.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 80.0 38.0 22.0 52.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll ), s 13.5 9.3 7.0 18.7 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 30.1 0.5 0.7 21.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.7 HCM 2010 LOS A AM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 8 i Queues 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 1136 893 536 313 • v/c Ratio 0.51 0.38 0.74 0.79 Control Delay 4.1 0.8 52.2 50.0 • Queue Delay 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 . Total Delay 4.1 0.9 52.2 50.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 64 4 220 198 Queue Length 95th (ft) 52 4 251 278 • Internal Link Dist (ft) 460 138 842 Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 450 Base Capacity (vph) 2223 2328 1118 571 . Starvation Cap Reductn 24 385 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 41 0 0 0 • Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.52 0.46 0.48 0.55 • Intersection Summary • • • • i AM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report • Page 9 • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 /01 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT .NBL NBR Lane Configurations tt tt Traffic Volume (vph) 1045 0 0 822 493 288 Future Volume (vph) 1045 0 0 822 493 288 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3252 3406 3127 1468 Flt Permitted 1,00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3252 3406 3127 1468 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1136 0 0 893 536 313 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 55 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1136 0 0 893 536 258 Heavy Vehicles (%) 11 % 0% 0% 6% 12% 10% Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 88.9 88.9 30.1 30.1 Effective Green, g (s) 88.9 88.9 30.1 30.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.68 0,68 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2223 2329 724 339 v/s Ratio Prot c0.35 0.26 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm c0.18 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.38 0.74 0.76 Uniform Delay, d1 10.0 8.8 46.3 46.6 Progression Factor 0.30 0.04 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.1 4.1 9.6 Delay (s) 3.8 0.4 50.4 56.2 Level of Service A A D E Approach Delay (s) 3.8 0.4 52.6 Approach LOS A A D ,Intersection Summary 77 HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 11.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group AM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 10 w HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 40 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 .�- 4\ • Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR i '�'� Lane Configurations tt tt i# Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1045 0 0 822 493 288 • Future Volume (veh/h) 1045 0 0 822 493 288 Number 2 12 1 6 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1712 0 0 1792 1696 1727 . Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1136 0 0 893 536 313 Adj No. of Lanes 2 0 0 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 • Percent Heavy Veh, % 11 0 0 6 12 10 Cap, veh/h 2185 0 0 2288 763 358 . Arrive On Green 0.67 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 3423 0 0 3585 3134 1468 • Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1136 0 0 893 536 313 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1626 0 0 1703 1567 1468 Q Serve(g_s), s 22.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.3 26.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 22.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.3 26.6 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 . Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2185 0 0 2288 763 358 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.70 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2185 0 0 2288 1121 525 • HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.9 47.3 • Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 10.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 11.9 • LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 46.1 58.1 LnGrp LOS B A D E w Approach Vol, veh/h 1136 893 849 Approach Delay, s/veh 11.5 0.1 50.5 Approach LOS B A D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 w Assigned Phs 2 4 6 • Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 92.8 37.2 92.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.5 5.5 w Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 72.5 46.5 72.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 24.9 28.6 2.0 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 22.7 3.0 26.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 19.5 . HCM 2010 LOS B 0 AM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report w Page 11 w w 0 Queues 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL „=.WBT ,WBR NBT f Lane Group Flow (vph) 325 932 118 72 871 79 86 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.41 0.10 0.15 0.40 0.08 0.34 Control Delay 17.8 5.5 0.3 3.9 12.9 0.2 3.6 Queue Delay 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.9 5.8 0.8 3.9 12.9 0.2 3.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 37 86 0 9 167 0 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 121 102 3 17 276 0 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 138 1843 1091 Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 75 150 275 Base Capacity (vph) 696 2292 1145 603 2169 1013 407 Starvation Cap Reductn 37 664 746 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 0.57 0.30 0.12 0.40 0.08 0.21 _.__.. Sum___ -... a m._.._.-.. Intersection ry AM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 __* --*- '- '1,_ 4\ t -1, Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 315 904 114 70 845 77 23 0 60 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 315 904 114 70 845 77 23 0 60 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 11.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 9.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1556 3312 1599 1805 3374 1468 1677 At Permitted 0.30 1.00 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd Flow (perm) 484 3312 1599 533 3374 1468 1677 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 325 932 118 72 871 79 24 0 62 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 38 0 0 29 0 82 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 325 932 80 72 871 50 0 4 0 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 16% 9% 1 % 0% 7% 10% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 104.6 88.3 88.3 91.8 81.9 81.9 5.5 Effective Green, g (s) 98.6 88.3 88.3 91.8 81.9 81.9 5.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 0.68 0.68 0.71 0.63 0.63 0.04 Clearance Time (s) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 9.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 476 2249 1086 473 2125 924 70 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.28 0.01 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm c0.45 0.05 0.10 0.03 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.41 0.07 0.15 0.41 0.05 0.05 Uniform Delay, dl 15.2 9.3 7.0 9.0 12.0 9.2 59.7 Progression Factor 0.92 0.51 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.5 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.3 Delay (s) 17.5 5.2 0.9 9.1 12.6 9.3 60.1 Level of Service B A A A B A E Approach Delay (s) 7.7 12.1 60.1 0.0 Approach LOS A B E A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 29.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group AM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 x-* --0. - *- I fir` "t -_.-- _-_-.-_ - _.- _ ..-.__- .._.__..-____ _-____-________-.__..- Movement EBL EBT EBR - WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r '� tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 315 904 114 70 845 77 23 0 60 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 315 904 114 70 845 77 23 0 60 0 0 0 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1638 1743 1881 1900 1776 1727 1900 1884 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 325 932 118 72 871 79 24 0 62 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 16 9 1 0 7 10 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 714 1041 503 846 1018 443 30 0 78 Arrive On Green 0.82 0.63 0.63 0.42 0.30 0.30 0.07 0.00 0.07 Sat Flow, veh/h 1560 3312 1599 1810 3374 1468 461 0 1190 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 325 932 118 72 871 79 86 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1560 1656 1599 1810 1687 1468 1651 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 31.1 4.2 0.0 31.6 5.2 6.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 31.1 4.2 0.0 31.6 5.2 6.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28 0.72 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 714 1041 503 846 1018 443 108 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.46 - 0.90 0.23 0.09 0.86 0.18 0.80 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 714 1692 817 846 1308 569 240 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.80 0.80 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.9 22.3 17.3 20.1 42.7 33.5 59.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 9.7 0.9 0.0 9.2 0.9 12.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.2 15.4 2.0 1.5 16.1 2.2 3.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 7.3 32.1 18.2 20.1 51.9 34.4 72.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A C B C D C E Approach Vol, veh/h 1375 1022 86 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.0 48.3 72.3 Approach LOS C D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5'- -.6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 64.6 47.8 17.6 62.9 49.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.6 * 8.6 * 9.1 * 8.6 * 8.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 34 * 50 * 19 * 18 * 66 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 3.0 33.6 8.7 2.0 33.1 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 1.2 5.6 0.2 1.1 7.8 , Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 36.3 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes AM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 14 91 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. AM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 15 HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Lenoir Dr & McGhee Rd 10/13/2017 �x'a' a ...^" T.' .-' py '.�^ ;' , T . �--,. 7 s �: � �R" 1l� F' y' 1"r' ,� s",,,;,.�. x ✓m. , ^�"" r '� �� r�,`+ f �'�, �„,„,� . f, C Int Delay, s/veh 4.1 Lane Configurations '+ +T Y Traffic Vol, veh/h 267 4 34 67 16 143 Future Vol, veh/h 267 4 34 67 16 143 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 11 0 47 31 13 9 Mvmt Flow 290 4 37 73 17 155 7 r"r°..r 1 " ;' ^^,�J Tf" m{^. t',' ' 'irr,J'>•r � Mmor1�:� � Conflicting Flow All 0 0 295 0 439 292 Stage 1 - - - - 292 - Stage 2 - - - - 147 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.57 - 6.53 6.29 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.53 Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.623 - 3.617 3.381 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1049 - 555 731 Stage 1 - - - - 733 - Stage 2 - - - - 854 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 1049 - 534 731 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 534 - Stage 1 - - - 733 - Stage 2 - - - 822 - (^:� -m`,^ .�'.�„r-'-fvm"��' m^ ;y, � �^°-,�"�^ imm� f s��?r• x .: r�^r .. s �"',"'�-li 'xT.,�,'�' � ."€*•.'" � . HCM Control Delay, s 0 2.9 11.8 HCM LOS B 3'?"= .,,-;-.,-,f,�-#.,,n �: sr` f.,. .,r.--...�^� ,/ f a. `n,`�, n"-r'T"a ,7l.'. f'�a,G ,� ✓ "T`'"� g, �,g•' +� Capacity (veh/h) 705 - 1049 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.245 - - 0.035 - HCM Control Delay(s) 11.$ - - 8.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 - - 0.1 - PM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Welltown Rd & McGhee Rd 10/13/2017 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r t T Traffic Vol, veh/h 13 333 65 299 145 5 Future Vol, veh/h 13 333 65 299 145 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None None Storage Length 0 0 275 - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 11 43 5 0 0 Mvmt Flow 14 362 71 325 158 5 Major/Minor Minor-2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 626 160 163 0 0 Stage 1 160 - - - - - Stage 2 466 - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.31 4.53 - - - Critical Hdwy Sig 1 5.4 - - - Critical Hdwy Sig 2 5.4 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.399 2.587 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 451 862 1201 - - Stage 1 874 - - - Stage 2 636 - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 424 862 1201 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 502 - - - Stage 1 874 - Stage 2 598 - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.2 1.5 0 HCM LOS B Minor lane/Maior Mvmt NBL . NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1201 - 502 862 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.059 - 0.028 0.42 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 - 12.4 12.2 - - HCM Lane LOS A - B B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.1 2.1 - - PM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Queues 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 10/13/2017 --1p. ,-- LaneGrou � , pr EBL,.., fl.EBT r WBL. WBT.. WBR '%'NBT'SBL SBT f . , ,>.f�� Lane Group Flow (vph) 195 1782 66 1341 177 173 276 317 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.70 0.56 0.66 0.25 0.78 0.68 0.70 Control Delay 81.2 30.0 93.6 29.0 2.5 64.3 67.2 15.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 81.2 30.0 93.6 29.0 2.5 64.3 67.2 15.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 172 478 63 321 10 107 125 9 Queue Length 95th (ft) #261 576 #116 392 24 189 171 105 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1706 509 928 1388 Turn Bay Length (ft) 525 550 385 Base Capacity (vph) 280 2558 125 2031 719 267 495 489 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.70 0.70 0.53 0.66 0.25 0.65 0.56 0.65 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. PM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 10/13/2017 .* -+ �r f- 4- � 4� t 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) fitT ) ttt r 44 T Traffic Volume (vph) 191 1652 94 65 1314 173 39 22 109 270 11 300 Future Volume (vph) 191 1652 94 65 1314 173 39 22 109 270 11 300 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 7.1 5.9 7.7 5.8 5.8 9.6 7.4 7.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.91 1.00 0.86 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1626 5000 1805 4940 1429 1683 3367 1550 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd Flow (perm) 1626 5000 1805 4940 1429 1683 3367 1550 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj, Flow (vph) 195 1686 96 66 1341 177 40 22 111 276 11 306 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 0 104 0 47 0 0 269 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 195 1778 0 66 1341 73 0 126 0 276 48 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 11 % 3% 1 % 0% 5% 13% 0% 0% 3% 4% 0% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA custom Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 1 3 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.9 69.9 7.8 57.5 57.5 14.7 17.0 17.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.9 69.9 7.8 57.5 57.5 14.7 17.0 17.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.50 0.06 0.41 0.41 0.10 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 7.1 5.9 7.7 5.8 5.8 9.6 7.4 7.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 242 2496 100 2028 586 176 408 188 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.04 c0.07 c0.08 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm c0.36 0.27 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.71 0.66 0.66 0.12 0.71 0.68 0.26 Uniform Delay, dl 57.6 27.2 64.8 33.4 25.6 60.6 58.9 55.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.20 0.77 1.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 17.5 1.8 14.1 0.8 0.1 12.8 4.4 0.7 Delay (s) 75.1 29.0 92.0 26.6 31.8 73.4 63.3 56.5 Level of Service E C F C C E E E Approach Delay (s) 33.5 29.9 73.4 59.6 Approach LOS C C E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 30.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group PM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 HCM 2010 analysis does not support custom phasing. 10/13/2017 PM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 5 Queues 4: 1-81 SB Ramps & US 11 10/13/2017 bane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT S T SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 1433 623 296 1316 93 404 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.55 0.68 0.46 0.57 0.27 Control Delay 7.3 2.4 35.8 3.7 74.3 0.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 7.4 2.5 35.8 3.8 74.3 0.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 148 34 89 28 83 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 168 43 258 240 138 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 73 460 1133 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 75 Base Capacity (vph) 2176 1125 437 2833 489 1495 Starvation Cap Reductn 47 75 0 469 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 16 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.67 0.59 0.68 0.56 0.19 0.27 )ntersection Summary PM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 1-81 SB Ramps & US 11 10/13/2017 Lane Configurations tt r �S tt 4 r Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1404 611 290 1290 0 0 0 0 91 0 396 Future Volume (vph) 0 1404 611 290 1290 0 0 0 0 91 0 396 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1553 1787 3438 1805 1495 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1553 228 3438 1805 1495 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1433 623 296 1316 0 0 0 0 93 0 404 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 161 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1433 462 296 1316 0 0 0 0 0 93 404 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 3% 4% 1 % 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% Turn Type NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm NA Free Protected Phases 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 86.9 86.9 115.4 115.4 12.6 140.0 Effective Green, g (s) 86.9 86.9 115.4 115.4 12.6 140.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.62 0.82 0.82 0.09 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2175 963 438 2833 162 1495 v/s Ratio Prot 0.41 c0,11 0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.30 c0.45 0.05 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.48 0.68 0.46 0.57 0.27 Uniform Delay, dl 17.0 14.3 25.6 3.5 61.1 0.0 Progression Factor 0.35 0.21 1.01 0.85 1.00 1.06 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.3 3.7 0.5 4.8 0.4 Delay (s) 6.5 3.2 29.4 3.5 66.0 0.4 Level of Service A A C A E A Approach Delay (s) 5.5 8.2 0.0 12.7 Approach LOS A A A B HCM 2000 Control Delay 7.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group _. PM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: 1-81 SB Ramps & US 11 10/13/2017 . * - A-_ 4� t r ',. 1 -*I -- 4-- Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r *i tT +T if Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1404 611 290 1290 0 0 0 0 91 0 396 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1404 611 290 1290 0 0 0 0 91 0 396 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1845 1827 1881 1810 0 1900 1900 1759 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1433 0 296 1316 0 93 0 0 Adj No. of Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 3 4 1 5 0 8 0 8 Cap, veh/h 0 1530 678 724 2915 0 120 0 99 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.37 0.85 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3597 1553 1792 3529 0 1810 0 1495 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 0 1433 0 296 1316 0 93 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1752 1553 1792 1719 0 1810 0 1495 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 54.6 0.0 11.5 13.2 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 54.6 0.0 11.5 13.2 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1530 678 724 2915 0 120 0 99 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.41 0.45 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1577 699 724 2915 0 491 0 406 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.84 0.84 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 37.6 0.0 30.2 2.6 0.0 64.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 28.6 0.0 8.2 6.2 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 48.4 0.0 30.5 3.1 0.0 74.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C A E Approach Vol, veh/h 1433 1612 93 Approach Delay, s/veh 48.4 8.1 74.4 Approach LOS D A E (Timer 1 2 _3 4- 5 - 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 124.7 15.3 57.6 67.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 90.0 38.0 21.0 63.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s 15.2 9.1 13.5 56.6 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 15.7 0.5 5.2 4.5 jntersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 28.5 HCM 2010 LOS C PM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 8 Queues 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 Lane Group fBT WBT NBL NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 1541 1059 570 393 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.46 0.63 0.85 Control Delay 6.0 1.9 46.3 61.4 Queue Delay 1.4 0.4 0.0 17.3 Total Delay 7.5 2.3 46.3 78.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 87 16 232 317 Queue Length 95th (ft) 224 72 265 408 Internal Link Dist (ft) 460 138 842 Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 450 Base Capacity (vph) 2246 2290 1146 572 Starvation Cap Reductn 61 635 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 473 0 0 169 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.87 0.64 0.50 0.98 Intersection Summary PM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR �S Lane Configurations Tt tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 1495 0 0 1027 553 381 • Future Volume (vph) 1495 0 0 1027 553 381 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.97 .1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 ! Satd, Flow (prot) 3505 3574 3242 1568 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd Flow (perm) 3505 3574 3242 1568 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 1541 0 0 1059 570 393 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 20 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1541 0 0 1059 570 373 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 0% 0% 1 % 8% 3% Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm • Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 89.7 89.7 39.3 39.3 Effective Green, g (s) 89.7 89.7 39.3 39.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.28 0.28 . Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 . Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2245 2289 910 440 v/s Ratio Prot c0.44 0.30 0.18 • v/s Ratio Perm c0.24 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.46 0.63 0.85 Uniform Delay, dl 16.1 12.8 43.9 47.5 . Progression Factor 0.26 0.10 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.1 1.4 14.0 Delay (s) 5.6 1.4 45.3 61.6 Level of Service A A D E Approach Delay (s) 5.6 1.4 51.9 Approach LOS A A D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 11.0 . Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group • PM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 10 r HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 Lane Configurations tt tt M r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1495 0 0 1027 553 381 Future Volume (veh/h) 1495 0 0 1027 553 381 Number 2 12 1 6 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1845 0 0 1881 1759 1845 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1541 0 0 1059 570 393 Adj No. of Lanes 2 0 0 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 0 0 1 8 3 Cap, veh/h 2254 0 0 2298 905 437 Arrive On Green 0.64 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 3689 0 0 3762 3250 1568 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1541 0 0 1059 570 393 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1752 0 0 1787 1625 1568 Q Serve(g_s), s 39.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.5 33.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 39.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.5 33.8 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2254 0 0 2298 905 437 V/C Ratio(X) 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.63 0.90 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2254 0 0 2298 1149 554 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1,00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(]) 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.2 48.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh ' 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 15.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 19.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 16.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 44.9 63.8 LnGrp LOS B A D E Approach Vol, veh/h 1541 1059 963 Approach Delay, s/veh 17.1 0.1 52.6 Approach LOS B A D „ Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 95.5 44.5 95.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.5 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 79.5 49.5 79.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s 41.2 35.8 2.0 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 27.7 3.2 43.1 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 21.7 HCM 2010 LOS C PM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 11 Queues 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 510 1358 85 65 938 167 220 v/c Ratio 0.88 0.65 0.09 0.26 0.62 0.21 0.81 Control Delay 43.6 12.7 0.3 20.2 36.1 4.0 75.8 Queue Delay 54.4 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 98.0 14.2 0.8 20.2 36.1 4.0 75.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 276 338 1 16 360 0 179 Queue Length 95th (ft) 440 250 ml 42 493 42 #301 Internal Link Dist (ft) 138 1843 1091 Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 75 150 275 Base Capacity (vph) 735 2095 985 293 1511 793 295 Starvation Cap Reductn 304 511 659 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.18 0.86 0.26 0.22 0.63 0.21 0.75 Intersection Summary # 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. PM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL, WBT WBR NBL NBT ; ,;NBR . SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r ' tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 490 1304 82 62 900 160 127 7 78 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 490 1304 82 62 900 160 127 7 78 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 11.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 9.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3574 1599 1703 3539 1615 1732 Fit Permitted 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow (perm) 385 3574 1599 166 3539 1615 1732 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 510 1358 85 65 938 167 132 7 81 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 37 0 0 98 0 15 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 510 1358 48 65 938 69 0 205 0 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1 % 1 % 6% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 101.7 79.6 79.6 71.6 58.1 58.1 20.6 Effective Green, g (s) 98.7 79.6 79.6 71.6 58.1 58.1 20.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.71 0.57 0.57 0.51 0.42 0.42 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 9.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 595 2032 909 233 1468 670 254 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.38 0.03 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm c0.41 0.03 0.12 0.04 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.67 0.05 0.28 0.64 0.10 0.81 Uniform Delay, dl 29.4 21.0 13.4 43.2 32.6 25.0 57.8 Progression Factor 0.89 0.51 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.8 1.3 0.1 0.7 2.1 0.3 16.8 Delay (s) 34.9 12.0 1.9 43.9 34.7 25.3 74.5 Level of Service C B A D C C E Approach Delay (s) 17.6 33.9 74.5 0.0 Approach LOS B C E A Intersection Summary77 HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 29.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group PM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 t, f--*--- 4,, 4� t r `► 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT' NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r '� tt r +T+ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 490 1304 82 62 900 160 127 7 78 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 490 1304 82 62 900 160 127 7 78 0 0 0 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1900 1881 1881 1792 1863 1900 1900 1877 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 510 1358 85 65 938 167 132 7 81 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 1 6 2 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 701 1444 646 505 1057 482 146 8 90 Arrive On Green 0.70 0.81 0.81 0.27 0.30 0.30 0.14 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3574 1599 1707 3539 1615 1029 55 631 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 510 1358 85 65 938 167 220 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1787 1599 1707 1770 1615 1715 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.1 42.5 1.6 0.0 35.4 11.3 17.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.1 42.5 1.6 0.0 35.4 11.3 17.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.37 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 701 1444 646 505 1057 482 244 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.94 0.13 0.13 0.89 0.35 0.90 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 701 1882 842 505 1173 535 268 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.62 0.62 0.62 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.9 12.1 8.2 37.7 46.9 38.4 59.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.4 9.1 0.3 0.1 11.1 2.0 29.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 10.1 21.4 0.7 1.9 18.9 5.3 10.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.2 21.2 8.4 37.8 57.9 40.4 88.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B C A D E D F Approach Vol, veh/h 1953 1170 220 Approach Delay, s/veh 19.6 54.3 88.4 Approach LOS B D F timer 1' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 60.6 50.4 29.0 45.8 65.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.6 * 8.6 * 9.1 * 8.6 * 8.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 45 * 46 * 22 * 18 * 74 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s 18.1 37.4 19.7 2.0 44.5 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 1.8 4.4 0.2 1.7 12.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 36.3 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes i PM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. PM 2020 No -Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 15 Appendix G 2020 Total Traffic Conditions Level of Service Worksheets HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Lenoir Dr & McGhee Rd 10/13/2017 • Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations T4 +T Y Traffic Vol, vehlh 112 9 143 285 10 87 Future Vol, veh/h 112 9 143 285 10 87 . Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None None Storage Length - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 52 33 12 13 30 44 Mvmt Flow 122 10 155 310 11 95 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minors Conflicting Flow All 0 0 132 0 748 127 Stage 1 127 Stage 2 - - - 621 - • Critical Hdwy _ _ 4.22 6.7 6.64 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.7 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - 5.7 - • Follow-up Hdwy _ _ 2.308 3.77 3.696 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1394 342 822 Stage 1 - - - 834 - Stage 2 - - - 486 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1394 296 822 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 296 - Stage 1 - - 834 - Stage 2 - - 421 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 2.6 11.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane—ft-or Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT • Capacity (vehlh) 695 - 1394 A HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.152 0.112 - • HCM Control Delay (s) 11.1 - 7.9 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - - 0.4 - r i AM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Welltown Rd & McGhee Rd 10/13/2017 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.4 M.ov_ -._ ......._____ r_...._ _.._.._.. oementEBL"' EBRNBL�'NBTaSBT'� Lane Configurations r t T+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 175 400 109 217 12 Future Vol, veh/h 2 175 400 109 217 12 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 0 275 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 53 11 13 0 0 Mvmt Flow 2 190 435 118 236 13 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1230 242 249 0 - 0 Stage 1 242 - - - - - Stage 2 988 - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.73 4.21 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.777 2,299 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 198 687 1266 - - Stage 1 803 - - - - - Stage 2 364 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 130 687 1266 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 204 - - - - - Stage 1 803 - - - - - Stage 2 239 - - - - HCM Control Delay, s 12.3 7.3 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1266 - 204 687 - - HCM Lane WC Ratio 0.343 - 0.011 0.277 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.3 - 22.8 12.2 - - HCM Lane LOS A - C B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.5 - 0 1.1 - - AM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 2 • • Queues 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 10/13/2017 I Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 257 1465 88 1288 298 126 235 293 v/c Ratio 0.87 0.71 0.49 0.72 0.43 0.68 0.69 0.70 • Control Delay 79.7 32.6 62.5 34.2 7.1 59.5 65.5 17.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 !, Total Delay 79.7 32.6 62.5 34.2 7.1 59.5 65.5 17.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 209 374 72 359 48 78 98 15 Queue Length 95th (ft) #343 442 #151 419 92 142 142 109 • Internal Link Dist (ft) 1706 480 928 1388 • Turn Bay Length (ft) 525 325 385 Base Capacity (vph) 319 2053 181 1785 699 248 394 443 • Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.81 0.71 0.49 0.72 0.43 0.51 0.60 0.66 • 'Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • AM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report • Page 3 • i • !I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 10/13/2017 ` � 4-- ,. # _ . . _-_ ........__- Movement EBL `EBT EBR INBL� WBT WBR NBL NBT NB - SBL - BR BR,--. SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ttT+ ttt r T Traffic Volume (vph) 236 1276 72 81 1185 274 32 27 57 216 18 251 Future Volume (vph) 236 1276 72 81 1185 274 32 27 57 216 18 251 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 7.1 5.9 7.7 5.8 5.8 9.6 7.4 7.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1656 4645 1752 4803 1417 1602 2824 1494 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1656 4645 1752 4803 1417 1602 2824 1494 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj, Flow (vph) 257 1387 78 88 1288 298 35 29 62 235 20 273 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 0 173 0 28 0 0 240 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 257 1461 0 88 1288 125 0 98 0 235 53 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 9% 11 % 7% 3% 8% 14% 0% 8% 15% 24% 29% 8% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA custom Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 1 3 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.3 57.3 13.5 48.2 48.2 12.9 15.7 15.7 Effective Green, g (s) 23.3 57.3 13.5 48.2 48.2 12.9 15.7 15.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.44 0.10 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 7.1 5.9 7.7 5.8 5.8 9.6 7.4 7.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 296 2047 181 1780 525 158 341 180 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.05 c0.06 c0.08 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm c0.31 0.27 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.87 0.71 0.49 0.72 0.24 0.62 0.69 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 51.9 29.7 55.0 35.2 28.2 56.2 54.8 52.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 22.5 2.2 1.9 1.4 0.2 7.4 5.7 0.9 Delay (s) 74.4 31.8 54.4 31.6 28.4 63.6 60.5 53.0 Level of Service E C D C C E E D Approach Delay (s) 38.2 32.2 63.6 56.4 Approach LOS D C E E Intersection Summary„ f�f =„r_„- -. HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 30.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group AM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 4 *I !I HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 HCM 2010 analysis does not support custom phasing. 10/13/2017 AM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 5 Queues 4: 1-81 SIB Ramps & US 11 10/13/2017 Lane Group ,-,, �: EBT EBR WBL WBT °SBT , SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 1070 684 266 1193 98 642 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.61 0.60 0.44 0.58 0.43 Control Delay 2.7 5.7 13.4 2.8 69.0 0.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 2.7 6.5 13.4 2.9 69.0 0.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 22 94 24 57 80 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 109 157 84 43 135 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 103 460 1133 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 75 Base Capacity (vph) 2076 1126 492 2705 502 1509 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 190 0 592 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.52 0.73 0.54 0.56 0.20 0.43 __ __..__n . Summa_ ....__..___,_._..,_.,a_ Intersectiory ._.._____ ...._ .,. _ .... _ .____._...._._._ _...._...._--- AM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 1-81 SIB Ramps & US 11 10/13/2017 --� �`1► � art-- �`` � � /* �'' -'�` Movement EBL ' EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt +T r Traffic Volume (vph) 0 984 629 245 1098 0 0 0 0 90 0 591 Future Volume (vph) 0 984 629 245 1098 0 0 0 0 90 0 591 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3282 1417 1612 3343 1719 1509 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3282 1417 342 3343 1719 1509 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1070 684 266 1193 0 0 0 0 98 0 642 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 229 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1070 455 266 1193 0 0 0 0 0 98 642 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 10% 14% 12% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 7% Turn Type NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm NA Free Protected Phases 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 82.3 82.3 105.2 105.2 12.8 130.0 Effective Green, g (s) 82.3 82.3 105.2 105.2 12.8 130.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.81 0.81 0.10 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2077 897 441 2705 169 1509 v/s Ratio Prot 0.33 c0.08 0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.32 c0.41 0.06 c0.43 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.51 0.60 0.44 0.58 0.43 Uniform Delay, dl 13.0 12.9 7.2 3.7 56.0 0.0 Progression Factor 0.14 1.81 1.84 0.57 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.3 2.1 0.5 4.8 0.9 Delay (s) 2.0 23.7 15.4 2.6 60.8 0.9 Level of Service A C B A E A Approach Delay (s) 10.4 4.9 0.0 8.8 Approach LOS B A A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group AM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: 1-81 SB Ramps & US 11 10/13/2017 Movement �:, <<v;EBL. EBT . fBR WBL .,,;;WBT. WBR NBL NBT�r.n,,NBR:, .SBL Lane Configurations tt r Vi tt +T r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 984 629 245 1098 0 0 0 0 90 0 591 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 984 629 245 1098 0 0 0 0 90 0 591 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1727 1667 1696 1759 0 1900 1810 1776 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1070 0 266 1193 0 98 0 0 Adj No. of Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 10 14 12 8 0 7 0 7 Cap, veh/h 0 2395 1034 437 2790 0 126 0 110 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.06 0.83 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3368 1417 1616 3431 0 1723 0 1509 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1070 0 266 1193 0 98 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1641 1417 1616 1671 0 1723 0 1509 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 17.0 0.0 5.0 11.9 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 17.0 0.0 5.0 11.9 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2395 1034 437 2790 0 126 0 110 WC Ratio(X) 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.61 0.43 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2395 1034 603 2790 0 504 0 441 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(]) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 7.0 0.0 6.1 2.8 0.0 59.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %i]e BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 7.6 0.0 3.2 5.5 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 7.2 0.0 7.3 3.2 0.0 69.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A E Approach Vol, veh/h 1070 1459 98 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.2 3.9 69.1 Approach LOS A A E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 114.5 15.5 13.7 100.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 80.0 38.0 21.0 53.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll ), s 13.9 9.3 7.0 19.0 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 31.2 0.5 0.6 21.9 Intersection Summary j HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.7 HCM 2010 LOS A AM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 8 Queues 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 bane Group EBT WBT NBL NBR • Lane Group Flow (vph) 1150 900 560 313 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.39 0.76 0.78 • Control Delay 4.0 0.8 52.7 49.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 4.0 0.9 52.7 49.2 • Queue Length 50th (ft) 53 3 229 198 Queue Length 95th (ft) 52 4 263 279 Internal Link Dist (ft) 460 138 842 • Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 450 Base Capacity (vph) 2208 2313 1118 570 Starvation Cap Reductn 49 390 0 0 • Spillback Cap Reductn 96 0 0 2 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.54 0.47 0.50 0.55 )ntersec-tio- n Summary • AM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 --r- OP / Lane Configurations tt tt �S Traffic Volume (vph) 1058 0 0 828 515 288 Future Volume (vph) 1058 0 0 828 515 288 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 , Satd. Flow (prot) 3252 3406 3127 1468 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3252 3406 3127 1468 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1150 0 0 900 560 313 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 53 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1150 0 0 900 560 260 Heavy Vehicles (%) 11 % 0% 0% 6% 12% 10% Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 88.3 88.3 30.7 30.7 Effective Green, g (s) 88.3 88.3 30.7 30.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.68 0.68 0.24 0'.24 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2208 2313 738 346 v/s Ratio Prot c0.35 0.26 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.39 0.76 0.75 Uniform Delay, d1 10.3 9.1 46.2 46.1 Progression Factor 0.28 0.03 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.1 4.5 8.8 Delay (s) 3.7 0.4 50.7 54.0 Level of Service A A D D Approach Delay (s) 3.7 0.4 52.2 Approach LOS A A D HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 11.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.5% ICU Level of Service - C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group AM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT ' NBL NBR Lane Configurations tt tT '�'� r Traffic Volume (vehlh) 1058 0 0 828 515 288 Future Volume (veh/h) 1058 0 0 828 515 288 Number 2 12 1 6 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1712 0 0 1792 1696 1727 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1150 0 0 900 560 313 Adj No. of Lanes 2 0 0 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 11 0 0 6 12 10 Cap, veh/h 2183 0 0 2286 765 359 Arrive On Green 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 3423 0 0 3585 3134 1468 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1150 0 0 900 560 313 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1626 0 0 1703 1567 1468 Q Serve(g_s), s 23.4 0.0 0.0 5.7 21.4 26.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 23.4 0.0 0.0 5.7 21.4 26.6 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2183 0 0 2286 765 359 V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.73 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2183 0 0 2286 1121 525 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.9 0.0 0.0 2.6 45.2 47.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4 10.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 10.6 0.0 0.0 2.5 9.4 11.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.6 0.0 0.0 2.7 46.6 57.9 LnGrp LOS B A D E Approach Vol, veh/h 1150 900 873 Approach Delay, s/veh 11.6 2.7 50.6 Approach LOS B A D [rimer 2 3 4 5 6 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 92.8 37.2 92.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.5 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 72.5 46.5 72.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll ), s 25.4 28.6 7.7 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 22.9 3.1 25.9 jntersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 20.5 HCM 2010 LOS C AM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 11 6RedhUd Rd/ 81 NB Ramp &[1S11 10/13/2017 4 Lane Group Flow (vph) 335 935 118 72 877 78 86 We Ratio 0.72 0.41 0.10 014 0.41 0.08 0.34 Control Delay 19.5 5.8 0.3 3.0 137 0.2 3.6 Queue Delay 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.0 &O 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 19.7 5.0 0.8 3.0 13.7 0.2 3.6 Queue Length 5Oth (ft) 42 94 O O 176 O O Queue Length 0Sth(ft) 148 100 3 17 288 O O Internal Link Dist (ft) 138 1843 1001 Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 75 150 275 Base Capacity (vph) 698 2264 1132 598 2137 1001 407 Starvation Cap Rnduntn 47 657 730 O O U O SpiUbookCap Raduotn O O O O 6 O O Storage Cap Raduotn O O U O O O O Reduced v/tRatio 0.51 0.58 0.28 0.12 0.41 0.08 0.21 AN2O20Build Traffic Conditions Svnohm0Report Pago12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6• Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10113/2017 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vi tt r '� tt r +T+ Traffic Volume (vph) 325 907 114 70 851 77 23 0 60 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 325 907 114 70 851 77 23 0 60 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 11.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 9.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1556 3312 1599 1805 3374 1468 1677 At Permitted 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd Flow (perm) 477 3312 1599 527 3374 1468 1677 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 335 935 118 72 877 79 24 0 62 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 39 0 0 30 0 82 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 335 935 79 72 877 49 0 4 0 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 16% 9% 1 % 0% 7% 10% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 104.7 87.2 87.2 91.7 80.7 80.7 5.5 Effective Green, g (s) 98.7 87.2 87.2 91.7 80.7 80.7 5.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 0.67 0.67 0.71 0.62 0.62 0.04 Clearance Time (s) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 9.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 482 2221 1072 479 2094 911 70 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.28 0.01 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm c0.45 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.42 0.07 0.15 0.42 0.05 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 16.5 9.8 7.4 9.2 12.6 9.7 59.7 Progression Factor 0.97 0.48 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.7 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.3 Delay (s) 19.7 5.3 0.7 9.4 13.3 9.8 60.1 Level of Service B A A A B A E Approach Delay (s) 8.4 12.7 60.1 0.0 Approach LOS A B E A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 29.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 o Critical Lane Group AM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT. NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ' tt r tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 325 907 114 70 851 77 23 0 60 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 325 907 114 70 851 77 23 0 60 0 0 0 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1638 1743 1881 1900 1776 1727 1900 1884 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 335 935 118 72 877 79 24 0 62 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 16 9 1 0 7 10 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 712 1044 504 844 1020 444 30 0 78 Arrive On Green 0.81 0.63 0.63 0.42 0.30 0.30 0.07 0.00 0.07 Sat Flow, veh/h 1560 3312 1599 1810 3374 1468 461 0 1190 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 335 935 118 72 877 79 86 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1560 1656 1599 1810 1687 1468 1651 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 31.1 4.2 0.0 31.9 5.2 6.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 31.1 4.2 0.0 31.9 5.2 6.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28 0.72 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 712 1044 504 844 1020 444 108 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.90 0.23 0.09 0.86 0.18 0.80 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 712 1692 817 844 1282 558 240 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.79 0.79 0.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.0 22.2 17.2 20.2 42.8 33.4 59.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 9.7 0.9 0.0 9.4 0.9 12.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °/vile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.3 15.2 2.0 1.5 16.2 2.2 3.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 7.4 31.9 18.1 20.2 52.2 34.3 72.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A C B C D C E Approach Vol, veh/h 1388 1028 86 Approach Delay, s/veh 24.8 48.6 72.3 Approach LOS C D E (fimee � _7 1 - _ ___.-_.____________ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 64.5 47.9 17.6 62.8 49.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.6 * 8.6 * 9.1 * 8.6 * 8.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 35 * 49 * 19 * 18 * 66 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll ), s 3.0 33.9 8.7 2.0 33.1 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 1.2 5.4 0.2 1.1 7.8 )ntersectioh Summary � ~ 77i : �� ``` HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 36.2 HCM 2010 LOS D AM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. AM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 15 HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Lenoir Dr & McGhee Rd 10/13/2017 Int Delay, s/veh 5.5 Lane Configurations 'r +1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 267 4 64 67 16 211 Future Vol, veh/h 267 4 64 67 16 211 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 11 0 47 31 13 9 Mvmt Flow 290 4 70 73 17 229 .,-:"„--• 4 :� F7 f A" � �,- �i� � £ r i- Pr'Sy _5T. ` � k ) ajo`rlMiiior 1. ,'.'r."i� u "�' %'^''tY A ..'ff+ �� t;' �s' ,�, �',t'�f ,j f f ?"4,, ,Y Conflicting Flow All 0 0 295 0 504 292 Stage 1 - - - - 292 - Stage 2 - - - 212 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.57 - 6.53 6.29 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.623 3.617 3.381 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1049 508 731 Stage 1 - - - - 733 - Stage 2 - - - - 798 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1049 - 472 731 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 472 - Stage 1 - - - - 733 - Stage 2 742 HCM Control Delay, s 0 4.2 12.8 HCM LOS B .�P"..-.,:fi„•""' ..r..,.nr..... y., ."9fi .r ., .,-,n, T!-.,,— " J - .. ,' ,.? /I 'i%' 1. ^'�,•".' / T �r-�`�f.��.��%%f „ Capacity (veh/h) 704 = 1049 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.35 - 0.066 - HCM Control Delay (s) , 12.8' 8.7 0 HCM Lane Los B - A A HCM 95th %otile' Q(veh) 1.6 - = 0.2 PM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Welltown Rd & McGhee Rd 10/13/2017 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations r '� t 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 398 93 299 145 7 Future Vol, veh/h 16 398 93 299 145 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None None Storage Length 0 0 275 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 11 43 5 0 0 Mvmt Flow 17 433 101 325 158 8 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major 2 Conflicting Flow All 688 161 165 0 0 Stage 1 161 - - - - - Stage 2 527 - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.31 4.53 - - Critical Hdwy Sig 1 5.4 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.399 2.587 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 415 861 1199 - Stage 1 873 - - Stage 2 596 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 380 861 1199 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 460 - - Stage 1 873 - - Stage 2 546 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.3 2 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1199 460 861 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.084 0.038 0.502 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 - 13.1 13.3 - HCM Lane LOS A B B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - 0.1 2.9 - - PM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 2 OU8U8S 3: WelltOwO Rd/Amoco LO& US 11 10M3/2017 -�,---�--r-- Lane Group Flow (vph) 200 1782 86 1341 200 173 332 327 wtRuUo 070 0.70 0.56 0.08 0.29 0.78 0.74 0.68 Control Delay 807 312 71.2 33.8 5.8 88.6 70.8 14.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 807 312 71.2 33.8 5.6 88.8 70.8 14.5 Queue Length 5UthUD 181 503 64 284 18 114 150 8 Queue Length A5thUD 270 588 110 418 54 187 208 108 Internal Link Dist (0 1706 508 928 1388 Turn Bay Length (f0 525 550 385 Base Capacity (vph) 280 2542 129 1085 698 258 501 490 Starvation Cap Reduotn O O O O O O O O SpiUbaokCap Roduntn O U O O 0 O O O Storage Cap Roduotn O O O O O O O O Reduced wtRatio 0.89 OJO 0.51 0.88 0.20 0.67 0.86 0.86 PM2O2OBuild Traffic Conditions Synuhm9Report Page HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 10/13/2017 Movement EBL EBT EBR' WBL WBT MR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) W4 ) ttt r 44 T Traffic Volume (vph) 196 1652 94 65 1314 196 39 22 109 325 11 310 Future Volume (vph) 196 1652 94 65 1314 196 39 22 109 325 11 310 Ideal Flow.(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 7.1 5.9 7.7 5.8 5.8 9.6 7.4 7.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.91 1.00 0.86 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1626 5000 1805 4940 1429 1683 3367 1550 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd Flow (perm) 1626 5000 1805 4940 1429 1683 3367 1550 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0,98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 200 1686 96 66 1341 200 40 22 111 332 11 316 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 0 122 0 46 0 0 274 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 200 1778 0 66 1341 78 0 127 0 332 53 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 11 % 3% 1 % 0% 5% 13% 0% 0% 3% 4% 0% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA custom Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 1 3 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.1 72.0 8.1 56.7 56.7 15.0 19.3 19.3 Effective Green, g (s) 24.1 72.0 8.1 56.7 56.7 15.0 19.3 19.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.50 0.06 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.13 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 7.1 5.9 7.7 5.8 5.8 9.6 7.4 7.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 270 2482 100 1931 558 174 448 206 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.04 c0.08 c0.10 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm c0.36 0.27 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.72 0.66 0.69 0.14 0.73 0.74 0.26 Uniform Delay, dl 57.5 28.5 67.1 36.9 28.4 63.0 60.4 56.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.85 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.4 1.8 14.1 1.0 0.1 14.6 6.5 0.7 Delay (s) 67.9 30.3 69.2 32.6 35.7 77.7 66.9 57.1 Level of Service E C E C D E E E Approach Delay (s) 34.1 34.5 77.7 62.0 Approach LOS C C E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 40.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 145.0 Sum of lost time (s) 30.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group PM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 HCM 2010 analysis does not support custom phasing. 10/13/2017 PM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 5 Queues 4: 1-81 SB Ramps & US 11 10/13/2017 --,, --* Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 1464 648 296 1330 93 414 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.57 0.68 0.47 0.58 0.28 Control Delay 4.3 1.9 38.4 3.8 77.4 0.5 Queue Delay 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 4.4 2.2 38.4 4.0 77.4 0.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 49 0 99 50 86 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 91 0 277 261 143 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 73 460 1133 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 75 Base Capacity (vph) 2192 1129 436 2849 473 1495 Starvation Cap Reductn 55 123 0 495 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 34 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.69 0.64 0.68 0.56 0.20 0.28 Intersection Summary PM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 1-81 SB Ramps & US 11 10/13/2017 Lane Configurations tt r ' tt +T r Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1435 635 290 1303 0 0 0 0 91 0 406 Future Volume (vph) 0 1435 635 290 1303 0 0 0 0 91 0 406 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1553 1787 3438 1805 1495 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1553 217 3438 1805 1495 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1464 648 296 1330 0 0 0 0 93 0 414 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 158 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1464 490 296 1330 0 0 0 0 0 93 414 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 3% 4% 1 % 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% Turn Type NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm NA Free Protected Phases 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 90.7 90.7 120.2 120.2 12.8 145.0 Effective Green, g (s) 90.7 90.7 120.2 120.2 12.8 145.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.83 0.83 0.09 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2192 971 434 2849 159 1495 v/s Ratio Prot 0.42 c0.11 0.39 v/s Ratio Perm 0.32 c0.45 0.05 0.28 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.50 0.68 0.47 0.58 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 17.5 14.9 26.9 3.5 63.5 0.0 Progression Factor 0.17 6.08 1.02 0.89 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.3 3.9 0.5 5.4 0.5 Delay (s) 3.6 1.4 31.4 3.6 68.9 0.5 Level of Service A A C A E A Approach Delay (s) 2.9 8.6 0.0 13.0 Approach LOS A A A B jnter.'f,.,,-.r-.' ,.: .,:.5�^� ,.,,...; ..: ,* ��`��: 5I i' �,� % �. � ; �'" » F'� �f� `/� ".� J .... �,''�, �"�l.✓,�m''"f�"tr�'" r�.,r'a7�'�,J,.� �v'-?�,: .SeCtIOn..SUCllmar�/s..,h.:✓xt�w , �."„i. � , . a ,�;, ,�. N...a "..,. � ,,. _ ,.. Y r., , � �,/y,V.r�.�✓.� �.,�J.>s�.,� ��J�c�;�r�J��JJ�� HCM 2000 Control Delay 6.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 145.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group PM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: 1-81 SB Ramps & US 11 10/13/2017 _-* __* --V 4,- -+- A 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r '� tt +T r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1435 635 290 1303 0 0 0 0 91 0 406 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1435 635 290 1303 0 0 0 0 91 0 406 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1845 1827 1881 1810 0 1900 1900 1759 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 0 1464 0 296 1330 0 93 0 0 Adj No. of Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 3 4 1 5 0 8 0 8 Cap, veh/h 0 1554 689 717 2926 0 120 0 99 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.37 0.85 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3597 1553 1792 3529 0 1810 0 1495 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1464 0 296 1330 0 93 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln 0 1752 1553 1792 1719 0 1810 0 1495 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 57.9 0.0 12.3 13.6 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 57.9 0.0 12.3 13.6 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1554 689 717 2926 0 120 0 99 WC Ratio(X) 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.41 0.45 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1595 707 717 2926 0 474 0 392 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.84 0.84 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 38.6 0.0 31.7 2.6 0.0 66.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 11.4 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 30.3 0.0 8.6 6.5 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 50.0 0.0 32.0 3.0 0.0 77.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C A E Approach Vol, veh/h 1464 1626 93 Approach Delay, slveh 50.0 8.3 77.0 Approach LOS D A E r,mer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 129.4 15.6 59.1 70.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 95.0 38.0 23.0 66.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll ), s 15.6 9.3 14.3 59.9 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 16.0 0.5 5.9 4.4 Jntersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 29.5 HCM 2010 LOS C PM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 8 Queues 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1573 1062 580 393 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.46 0.64 0.86 Control Delay 6.3 1.8 48.6 64.2 Queue Delay 1.7 0.4 0.0 33.2 Total Delay 8.0 2.3 48.6 97.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 93 13 247 331 Queue Length 95th (ft) 238 75 282 425 Internal Link Dist (ft) 460 138 842 Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 450 Base Capacity (vph) 2262 2307 1129 563 Starvation Cap Reductn 50 691 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 482 0 0 184 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.88 0.66 0.51 1.04 PM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 9 ! HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10I13/2017 __* ',* f 4\ / 0, ` Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Tt tt M r ! Traffic Volume (vph) 1526 0 0 1030 563 381 Future Volume (vph) 1526 0 0 1030 563 381 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 . Total Lost time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 . Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd, Flow (prot) 3505 3574 3242 1568 ! Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 • Satd Flow (perm) 3505 3574 3242 1568 • Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 1573 0 0 1062 580 393 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 19 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1573 0 0 1062 580 374 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 0% 0% 1 % 8% 3% Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm i Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 93.6 93.6 40.4 40.4 Effective Green, g (s) 93.6 93.6 40.4 40.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.65 0.65 0.28 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 ! Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2262 2307 903 436 ! v/s Ratio Prot c0.45 0.30 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm c0.24 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.46 0.64 0.86 Uniform Delay, dl 16.5 13.0 46.0 49.6 • Progression Factor 0.27 0.09 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.1 1.6 15.2 ! Delay (s) 5.9 1.3 47.5 64.7 . Level of Service A A D E Approach Delay (s) 5.9 1.3 54.5 Approach LOS A A D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 145.0 Sum of lost time (s) 11.0 • Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group PM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 10 !1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 *I � A-- Movement___ _- _ _.-._EBT -.- - -- _..EB. _ R . _ - W.BL._ WBT NBL NBR.._ _ _� _...__.. Lane Configurations tt tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1526 0 0 1030 563 381 Future Volume (veh/h) 1526 0 0 1030 563 381 Number 2 12 1 6 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1845 0 0 1881 1759 1845 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 1573 0 0 1062 580 393 Adj No. of Lanes 2 0 0 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 0 0 1 8 3 Cap, veh/h 2266 0 0 2311 902 435 Arrive On Green 0.65 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 3689 0 0 3762 3250 1568 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1573 0 0 1062 580 393 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1752 0 0 1787 1625 1568 Q Serve(g_s), s 41.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.8 35.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 41.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.8 35.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2266 0 0 2311 902 435 V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.64 0.90 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2266 0 0 2311 1132 546 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.1 50.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 15.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 20.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 17.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 46.9 66.3 LnGrp LOS B A D E Approach Vol, veh/h 1573 1062 973 Approach Delay, s/veh 17.7 0.1 54.8 Approach LOS B A D I_._.-.___ ___._..-------------___._ Timer __ 1 _.------..--------.---_ 2 3 - 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 99.3 45.7 99.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.5 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 83.5 50.5 83.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s 43.7 37.0 2.0 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 29.0 3.2 45.4 ,.___ n_,._.,- Intersection_Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 22.5 HCM 2010 LOS C PM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 11 Queues 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 -A , --" j- .*-- 'k, t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 535 1366 85 65 941 167 220 v/c Ratio 0.89 0.66 0.09 0.26 0.64 0.22 0.82 Control Delay 46.6 13.0 0.3 22.1 38.8 4.8 78.5 Queue Delay 54.2 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 100.8 14.5 0.8 22.1 38.8 4.8 78.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 323 350 1 16 384 0 186 Queue Length 95th (ft) 488 245 m0 47 515 47 #319 Internal Link Dist (ft) 138 1843 1091 Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 75 150 275 Base Capacity (vph) 752 2124 995 285 1471 773 289 Starvation Cap Reductn 317 528 666 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.23 0.86 0.26 0.23 0.65 0.22 0.76 jntersection Summary # 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. PM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 *` !'*" ,-41 Lane Configurations Vi tt r '� tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 514 1311 82 62 903 160 127 7 78 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 514 1311 82 62 903 160 127 7 78 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 11.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 9.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 . Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3574 1599 1703 3539 1615 1732 Flt Permitted 0.19 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow (perm) 369 3574 1599 157 3539 1615 1732 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 535 1366 85 65 941 167 132 7 81 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 37 0 0 100 0 15 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 535 1366 48 65 941 67 0 205 0 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1 % 1 % 6% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 06/. 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 106.0 82.7 82.7 73.3 58.6 58.6 21.3 Effective Green, g (s) 103.0 82.7 82.7 73.3 58.6 58.6 21.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.71 0.57 0.57 0.51 0.40 0.40 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 9.1 Vehicle Extensiori (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 616 2038 911 236 1430 652 254 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.38 0.03 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm c0.40 0.03 0.11 0.04 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.87 0.67 0.05 0.28 0.66 0.10 0.81 Uniform Delay, dl 30.8 21.7 13.8 46.1 35.1 26.9 59.9 Progression Factor 0.91 0.51 0.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.3 1.3 0.1 0.6 2.4 0.3 17.0 Delay (s) 37.3 12.4 2.1 46.7 37.5 27.2 76.9 Level of Service D B A D D C E Approach Delay (s) 18.6 36.5 76.9 0.0 Approach LOS B D E A HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 145.0 Sum of lost time (s) 29.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group . . PM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r '� tt r +T+ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 514 1311 82 62 903 160 127 7 78 0 0 0 • Future Volume (veh/h) 514 1311 82 62 903 160 127 7 78 0 0 0 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1900 1881 1881 1792 1863 1900 1900 1877 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 535 1366 85 65 941 167 132 7 81 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 • Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 1 6 2 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 715 1450 649 513 1053 480 145 8 89 +� Arrive On Green 0.72 0.81 0.81 0.27 0.30 0.30 0.14 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3574 1599 1707 3539 1615 1029 55 631 . Grp Volume(v), veh/h 535 1366 85 65 941 167 220 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1787 1599 1707 1770 1615 1715 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.9 44.4 1.6 0.0 36.9 11.7 18.3 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.9 44.4 1.6 0.0 36.9 11.7 18.3 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.37 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 715 1450 649 513 1053 480 242 0 0 WC Ratio(X) 0.75 0.94 0.13 0.13 0.89 0.35 0.91 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 715 1940 868 513 1157 528 259 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.61 0.61 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.4 12.3 8.3 38.5 48.7 39.9 61.3 0.0 0.0 i Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.7 9.1 0.3 0.1 11.6 2.0 31.7 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 11.1 22.5 0.7 1.9 19.7 5.5 10.8 0.0 0.0 • LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.1 21.4 8.5 38.6 60.3 41.9 93.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B C A D E D F Approach Vol, veh/h 1986 1173 220 Approach Delay, s/veh 19.7 56.5 93.0 Approach LOS B E F . - - - - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7... 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 • Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 63.7 51.7 29.6 47.9 67.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.6 * 8.6 * 9.1 * 8.6 * 8.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 49 * 47 * 22 * 18 * 79 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll ), s 19.9 38.9 20.3 2.0 46.4 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 1.9 4.2 0.2 1.8 12.7 Intersection Summary M HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 37.3 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes PM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. PM 2020 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 15 Appendix H 2026 Total Traffic Conditions Level of Service Worksheet HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Lenoir Dr & McGhee Rd 10/13/2017 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations T� +1 Y Traffic Vol, veh/h 112 9 143 285 10 87 Future Vol, veh/h 112 9 143 285 10 87 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 52 33 12 13 30 44 Mvmt Flow 122 10 155 310 11 95 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 132 0 748 127 Stage 1 - - - - 127 - Stage 2 - - - 621 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.22 6.7 6.64 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 5.7 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.7 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.308 3.77 3.696 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1394 - 342 822 Stage 1 - - - 834 - Stage 2 - - - 486 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1394 296 822 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - 296 - Stage 1 - - 834 - Stage 2 - - 421 - Approach EB WB.. NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 2.6 11.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 695 - - 1394 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.152 - - 0.112 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.1 - - 7.9 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - - 0.4 - AM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Welltown Rd & McGhee Rd 10/13/2017 __.... _ ,. R . ..m.r... _._. _... ._ . m_.., Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.4 ovement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Conflicting Peds, #/hr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow r t T 2 175 400 116 231 12 2 175 400 116 231 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stop Stop Free Free Free Free - None - None - None 0 0 275 - 0 - - 0 0 - 0 - - 0 0 92 92 92 92 92 92 0 53 11 13 0 0 2 190 435 126 251 13 Major/Minor . Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1254 258 264 0 - 0 Stage 1 258 - - - - - Stage 2 996 - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.73 4.21 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.777 2.299 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 150 672 1250 - - Stage 1 751 - - - - - Stage 2 297 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 109 672 1250 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 163 - - - - - Stage 1 490 - - - - - Stage 2 194 - - - - Approach EB NB ." SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.7 7.3 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt `'� �tNBL � NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT�..`SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1250 - 163 672 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.348 - 0,013 0,283 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.4 - 27.4 12.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A - D B - HCM 95th °/stile Q(veh) 1.6 - 0 1.2 - - AM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Queues 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 10/13/2017 .-1' -1' ,,-- -*-- j1- Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 272 1667 100 1427 312 141 248 310 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.81 0.63 0.81 0.45 0.72 0.70 0.71 Control Delay 93.6 35.3 68.9 39.2 10.5 61.3 65.5 17.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 93.6 35.3 68.9 39.2 10.5 61.3 65.5 17.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 228 428 86 286 25 87 103 16 Queue Length 95th (ft) #399 526 #188 #513 103 156 149 113 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1706 480 928 1388 Turn Bay Length (ft) 525 325 385 Base Capacity (vph) 291 2069 158 1759 687 250 396 457 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.93 0.81 0.63 0.81 0.45 0.56 0.63 0.68 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. AM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 10/13/2017 ---` --0. --i 4--- 1," 41 I 7'* `vM -W' Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL ,,?WBT..�WBR NBL NBT.:,FNBRF,..-SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ttt r' Traffic Volume (vph) 250 1455 78 92 1313 287 35 28 67 228 19 266 Future Volume (vph) 250 1455 78 92 1313 287 35 28 67 228 19 266 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 190P 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 7.1 5.9 7.7 5.8 5.8 9.6 7.4 7.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 0.86 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Said, Flow (prot) 1656 4646 1752 4803 1417 1593 2824 1494 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1656 4646 1752 4803 1417 1593 2824 1494 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 272 1582 85 100 1427 312 38 30 73 248 21 289 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 0 169 0 31 0 0 253 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 272 1663 0 100 1427 143 0 110 0 248 57 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 9% 11 % 7% 3% 8% 14% 0% 8% 15% 24% 29% 8% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA custom Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 1 3 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.7 57.8 11.8 47.6 47.6 13.6 16.2 16.2 Effective Green, g (s) 22.7 57.8 11.8 47.6 47.6 13.6 16.2 16.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.44 0.09 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 7.1 5.9 7.7 5.8 5.8 9.6 7.4 7.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 289 2065 159 1758 518 166 351 186 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.06 c0.07 c0.09 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm c0.36 0.30 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.81 0.63 0.81 0.28 0.66 0.71 0.31 Uniform Delay, dl 53.0 31.2 57.0 37.2 29.1 56.0 54.6 51.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.92 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 37.4 3.5 6.7 2.6 0.3 9.5 6.4 0.9 Delay (s) 90.4 34.7 57.6 36.8 38.0 65.4 61.0 52.7 Level of Service F C E D D E E D Approach Delay (s) 42.5 38.1 65.4 56.4 Approach LOS D D E E _.__..r..---- ------ 770,�,. HCM 2000 Control Delay 43.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 30.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group AM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 10/13/2017 HCM 2010 analysis does not support custom phasing. AM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 5 Queues 4: 1-81 SB Ramps & US 11 10/13/2017 --p. f --- Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 1247 728 371 1328 184 684 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.72 0.86 0.52 0.72 0.45 Control Delay 6.5 7.5 52.5 6.9 68.2 1.0 Queue Delay 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 6.5 9.5 52.5 7.1 68.2 1.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 105 73 126 44 150 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 121 110 #369 218 218 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 103 460 1133 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 75 Base Capacity (vph) 1730 1006 432 2538 502 1509 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 152 0 445 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 9 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.72 0.85 0.86 0.63 0.37 0.45 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. AM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 1-81 SB Ramps & US 11 10/13I2017 -.-* .- - \ T 4 1 ---* -- f-- Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r '� tt +1 r Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1147 670 341 1222 0 0 0 0 169 0 629 Future Volume (vph) 0 1147 670 341 1222 0 0 0 0 169 0 629 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3282 1417 1612 3343 1719 1509 Fit Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd Flow (perm) 3282 1417 230 3343 1719 1509 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1247 728 371 1328 0 0 0 0 184 0 684 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1247 468 371 1328 0 0 0 0 0 184 684 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 10% 14% 12% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 7% Turn Type NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm NA Free Protected Phases 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 68.5 68.5 98.7 98.7 19.3 130.0 Effective Green, g (s) 68.5 68.5 98.7 98.7 19.3 130.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.53 0.53 0.76 0.76 0.15 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1729 746 431 2538 255, 1509 v/s Ratio Prot 0.38 c0.16 0.40 v/s Ratio Perm 0.33 c0.49 0.11 0.45 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.63 0.86 0.52 0.72 0.45 Uniform Delay, d1 23.5 21.7 28.9 6.3 52.8 0.0 Progression Factor 0.19 0.76 1.02 0.91 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 1.1 14.0 0.7 9.6 1.0 Delay (s) 5.5 17.5 43.5 6.3 62.4 1.0 Level of Service A B D A E A Approach Delay (s) 10.0 14.4 0.0 14.0 Approach LOS A B A B )ntersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group AM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: 1-81 SIB Ramps & US 11 10/13/2017 jVlovement x ; ,!, , EBL. ,>;. EBT , EB,R,xF,,WBf7,,4.WBR, ,rNBL r =, NBT {„NBR �F BLN,,,` SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt' Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1147 670 341 1222 0 0 0 0 169 0 629 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1147 670 341 1222 0 0 0 0 169 0 629 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1'.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 0 1727 1667 1696 1759 0 1900 1810 1776 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1247 0 371 1328 0 184 0 0 Adj No. of Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %. 0 10 14 12 8 0 7 0 7 Cap, veh/h 0 1262 545 620 2609 0 219 0 192 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.35 0.78 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3368 1417 1616 3431 0 1723 0 1509 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1247 0 371 1328 0 184 .0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1641 1417 1616 1671 0 1723 0 1509 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 49.0 0.0 19.4 18.8 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 49.0 0.0 19.4 18.8 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1262 545 620 2609 0 219 0 192 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.60 0.51 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1262 545 620 2609 0 504 0 441 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 39.7 0.0 32.4 5.2 0.0 55.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 22.4 0.0 1.3 0.6 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0' Initial Q Delay(0),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 26.1 0.0 10.8 8.7 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 62.1 0.0 33.6 5.8 0.0 63.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS E C A E Approach Vol, veh/h 1247 1699 184 Approach Delay, s/veh 62.1 11.9 63.7 Approach LOS E t3 E ri mer, Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 107.5 22.5 51.5 56.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 .. Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 80.0 38.0 24.0 50.0 _. , . Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s 20.8 15.6 21.4 51.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 16.3 1.0 2.1 0.0 Interseetion;S,ummary Fr f,f f sr #'{ f,p,5 fr x..va j t .SFr F., 3 ,fv'F%"_.J �.�✓., .. ,'., t .,G. +7 t:..... fF I,ftGt..Afl,. HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 34.9 HCM 2010 LOS C AM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 8 •I Queues 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 -- 4\ bane Group EBT WBT NBL NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 1430 1102 596 432 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.54 0.60 0.89 Control Delay 5.7 4.0 39.2 58.6 Queue Delay 0.4 0.0 0.0 7.2 Total Delay 6.1 4,0 39.2 65.9 • Queue Length 50th (ft) 88 14 212 316 Queue Length 95th (ft) 96 19 255 435 Internal Link Dist (ft) 460 138 842 • Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 450 Base Capacity (vph) 1940 2032 1166 567 Starvation Cap Reductn 11 54 0 0 • Spillback Cap Reductn 138 0 0 97 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.79 0.56 0.51 0.92 Intersection Summary AM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 f � 41 A,* 4ovement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR^ Lane Configurations tt tt ' if Traffic Volume (vph) 1316 0 0 1014 548 397 Future Volume (vph) 1316 0 0 1014 548 397 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3252 3406 3127 1468 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3252 3406 3127 1468 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1430 0 0 1102 596 432 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 21 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1430 0 0 1102 596 411 Heavy Vehicles (%) 11 % 0% 0% 6% 12% 10% Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 77.6 77.6 41.4 41.4 Effective Green, g (s) 77.6 77.6 41.4 41.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.60 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1941 2033 995 467 v/s Ratio Prot c0.44 0.32 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm c0.28 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.54 0.60 0.88 Uniform Delay, d1 18.9 15.6 37.3 41.9 Progression Factor 0.19 0.18 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 0.3 1.0 17.0 Delay (s) 5.4 3.1 38.3 58.9 Level of Service A A D E Approach Delay (s) 5.4 3.1 47.0 Approach LOS A A D Intersection Summary . ,.�, 3 HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 11.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group AM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 Movement --r EBT �} EBR WBL ■-- WBT 4\ NBL 1,* NBR Lane Configurations tt tT '� r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1316 0 0 1014 548 397 Future Volume (veh/h) 1316 0 0 1014 548 397 Number 2 12 1 6 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1712 0 0 1792 1696 1727 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1430 0 0 1102 596 432 Adj No. of Lanes 2 0 0 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 11 0 0 6 12 10 Cap, veh/h 1932 0 0 2024 1007 472 Arrive On Green 0.59 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 3423 0 0 3585 3134 1468 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1430 0 0 1102 596 432 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1626 0 0 1703 1567 1468 Q Serve(g_s), s 41.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.7 36.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 41.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.7 36.8 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1932 0 0 2024 1007 472 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.59 0.92 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1932 0 0 2024 1169 548 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.0 42.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 18.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 18.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 9.0 17.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 37.6 61.1 LnGrp LOS C A D E Approach Vol, veh/h 1430 1102 1028 Approach Delay, s/veh 20.7 0.3 47.5 Approach LOS C A D f Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 82.7 47.3 82.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.5 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 70.5 48.5 70.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s 43.4 38.8 2.0 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 20.9 3.0 38.8 )ntersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 22.1 HCM 2010 LOS C AM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 11 Queues 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 -p- - - t Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio 376 1265 125 188 1021 169 139 0.78 0.61 0.12 0.48 0.54 0.19 0.54 27.2 9.2 0.1 14.8 20.6 2.0 10.2 4.8 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.9 10.7 1.1 14.8 20.6 2.0 10.2 107 135 0 25 265 0 0 231 288 m0 66 413 27 21 138 1843 1091 130 75 150 275 610 2086 1052 440 1894 910 395 166 588 728 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.85 0.84 0.39 0.43 0.55 0.19 0.35 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. AM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/1312017 -'`* #1 t --* -+ f- Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 365 1227 121 182 990 164 24 0 111 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 365 1227 121 182 990 164 24 0 111 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 11.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 9.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.89 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1556 3312 1599 1805 3374 1468 1666 Flt Permitted 0.22 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd Flow (perm) 368 3312 1599 305 3374 1468 1666 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj, Flow (vph) 376 1265 125 188 1021 169 25 0 114 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 46 0 0 74 0 133 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 376 1265 79 188 1021 95 0 6 0 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 16% 9% 1% 0% 7% 10% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 106.3 81.9 81.9 88.8 73.0 73.0 6.0 Effective Green, g (s) 100.6 81.9 81.9 88.8 73.0 73.0 6.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.77 0.63 0.63 0.68 0.56 0.56 0.05 Clearance Time (s) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 9.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 483 2086 1007 390 1894 824 76 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.38 0.06 0.30 v/s Ratio Perm c0.47 0.05 0.27 0.06 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.61 0.08 0.48 0.54 0.12 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 20.2 14.4 9.4 25.9 17.9 13.4 59.4 Progression Factor 0.92 0.54 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.2 0.9 0.1 0.9 1.1 0.3 0.5 Delay (s) 23.7 8.6 0.1 26.8 19.0 13.6 59.8 Level of Service C A A C B B E Approach Delay (s) 11.2 19.4 59.8 0.0 Approach LOS B B E A 'Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 29.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group AM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 EBL A} EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations tt r tt if Traffic Volume (veh/h) 365 1227 121 182 990 164 24 0 111 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 365 1227 121 182 990 164 24 0 111 0 0 0 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1638 1743 1881 1900 1776 1727 1900 1890 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 376 1265 125 188 1021 169 25 0 114 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 16 9 1 0 7 10 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 590 1341 647 599 1157 504 30 0 135 Arrive On Green 0.66 0.81 0.81 0.29 0.34 0.34 0.10 0.00 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 1560 3312 1599 1810 3374 1468 295 0 1343 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 376 1265 125 188 1021 169 139 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1560 1656 1599 1810 1687 1468 1638 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.7 40.0 2.3 5.1 37.1 11.1 10.8 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.7 40.0 2.3 5.1 37.1 11.1 10.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 0.82 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 590 1341 647 599 1157 504 164 0 0 WC Ratio(X) 0.64 0.94 0.19 0.31 0.88 0.34 0.85 0,00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 590 1715 828 599 1305 568 227 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(]) 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.1 11.2 7.6 33.2 40.2 31.7 57.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 9.0 0.4 0.3 9.8 1.8 18.8 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.2 18.9 1.0 5.1 18.9 4.8 5.8 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.4 20.2 7.9 33.5 50.1 33.5 76.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B C A C D C E Approach Vol, veh/h 1766 1378 139 Approach Delay, s/veh 18.5 45.8 76.3 Approach LOS B D E Timer Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 54.7 53.2 22.1 46.6 61.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.6 * 8.6 * 9.1 * 8.6 * 8.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 35 * 50 * 18 * 18 * 67 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll ), s 11.7 39.1 12.8 7.1 42.0 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 1.7 5.5 0.3 1.4 10.6 Intersection Summary 7 �£�'; _.___.__, ,z ...___._____,..___ W ..... �.f. HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 32.4 HCM 2010 LOS C AM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. AM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 15 HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Lenoir Dr & McGhee Rd 10/13/2017 Int Delay, s/veh Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Conflicting Peds, #/hr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow 5.5 T +T 267 4 64 67 16 211 267 4 64 67 16 211 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free Free Stop Stop - None - None - None - 0 - 0 - - 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 92 92 92 92 92 92 11 0 47 31 13 9 290 4 70 73 17 229 n m Conflicting Flow All 0 0 295 0 504 292 Stage 1 - - - - 292 - Stage 2 - - - - 212 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.57 - 6.53 6.29 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.623 - 3.617 3.381 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1049 - 508 731 Stage 1 - - - - 733 - Stage 2 - - - - 798 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1049 - 472 731 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 472 - Stage 1 - - - - 733 - Stage 2 - - - - 742 - HCM Control Delay, s 0 4.2 12.8 HCM LOS B Capacity (veh/h) 704 - - 1049 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.35 - - 0.066 - HCM Control Delay (s) 12.8 - - 8.7 0 HCM Lane LOS B - A A HCM 956 %otile Q(veh) 1.6 - 0.2 PM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Welltown Rd & McGhee Rd 10/13/2017 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.5 tvlovement ... EBL EBR NBL NBT - SBT SBR Lane Configurations r '� t T Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 398 93 317 154 7 Future Vol, veh/h 16 398 93 317 154 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None None Storage Length 0 0 275 - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 11 43 5 0 0 Mvmt Flow 17 433 101 345 167 8 �lator/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 718 171 175 0 0 Stage 1 171 - - - - Stage 2 547 - - ' Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.31 4.53 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.399 2.587 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 399 850 1188 - - Stage 1 864 - - Stage 2 584 - - ' Platoon blocked, % ' Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 365 850 1188 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 448 - - Stage 1 864 Stage 2 534 - ' Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.5 1.9 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1188 - 448 850 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.085 - 0.039 0.509 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 - 13.4 13.5 - HCM Lane LOS A - B B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - 0.1 2.9 - - PM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Queues 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 10/13/2017 LaneGroup Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio EBL 211 0.86 88.4 0.0 88.4 187 #314 EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT 1960 79 1521 211 194 0.82 0.66 0.78 0.32 0.82 35.9 69.9 25.0 3.1 69.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.1 69.9 25.0 3.1 69.4 576 69 398 14 124 644 #146 448 27 #232 1706 509 928 SBL SBT 349 347 0.81 0.71 74.2 15.2 0.0 0.0 74.2 15.2 160 10 #225 113 1388 525 550 385 265 2378 119 1952 666 264 450 497 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.80 0.84 0.66 0.78 0.32 0.73 0.78 0.70 ____ ------ Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. PM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 10/13/2017 . * +- ',,,. 4* t A' \' : ./ _0, 4r- Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) TtT ) ttt iN 44 T Traffic Volume (vph) 207 1820 101 77 1491 207 44 23 123 342 12 328 Future Volume (vph) 207 1820 101 77 1491 207 44 23 123 342 12 328 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 7.1 5.9 7.7 5.8 5.8 9.6 7.4 7.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.91 1.00 0.86 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1626 5001 1805 4940 1429 1681 3367 1550 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 Satd Flow (perm) 1626 5001 1805 4940 1429 1681 3367 1550 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 211 1857 103 79 1521 211 45 23 126 349 12 335 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 0 102 0 49 0 0 292 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 211 1956 0 79 1521 109 0 145 0 349 55 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 11 % 3% 1 % 0% 5% 13% 0% 0% 3% 4% 0% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA custom Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 1 3 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.1 66.5 9.3 55.4 55.4 15.6 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 21.1 66.5 9.3 55.4 55.4 15.6 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.48 0.07 0.40 0.40 0.11 0.13 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 7.1 5.9 7.7 5.8 5.8 9.6 7.4 7.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 245 2375 119 1954 565 187 432 199 v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 0.04 c0.09 c0.10 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm c0.39 c0.31 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.82 0.66 0.78 0.19 0.78 0.81 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 58.0 31.7 63.8 36.9 27.7 60.5 59.3 55.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.58 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 25.2 3.4 11.5 1.8 0.1 18.1 10.6 0.8 Delay (s) 83.2 35.1 57.9 23.2 7.4 78.6 69.9 55.9 Level of Service F D E C A E E E Approach Delay (s) 39.8 22.9 78.6 62.9 Approach LOS D C E E intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 30.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group PM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Welltown Rd/Amoco Ln & US 11 HCM 2010 analysis does not support custom phasing. 10/13/2017 PM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 5 Queues 4: 1-81 SB Ramps & US 11 10/13/2017 --I,. i- Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 1624 689 403 1512 192 444 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.66 1.07 0.57 0.74 0.30 Control Delay 9.6 2.8 107.8 6.6 73.3 0.5 Queue Delay 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 9.8 3.4 107.8 6.9 73.3 0.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 173 29 —315 154 170 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 199 61 #566 302 243 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 73 460 1133 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 75 Base Capacity (vph) 1945 1039 375 2645 489 1495 Starvation Cap Reductn 26 113 0 448 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 29 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.85 0.74 1.07 0.69 0.39 0.30 Intersection Summary 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. PM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 1-81 SB Ramps & US 11 10/13/2017 --p-- Lane Configurations tt r tt Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1592 675 395 1482 0 0 0 0 188 0 435 Future Volume (vph) 0 1592 675 395 1482 0 0 0 0 188 0 435 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1553 1787 3438 1805 1495 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1553 115 3438 1805 1495 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1624 689 403 1512 0 0 0 0 192 0 444 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 178 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1624 511 403 1512 0 0 0 0 0 192 444 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 3% 4% 1 % 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% Turn Type NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm NA Free Protected Phases 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 77.7 77.7 107.7 107.7 20.3 140.0 Effective Green, g (s) 77.7 77.7 107.7 107.7 20.3 140.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.77 0.77 0.15 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1945 861 375 2644 261 1495 v/s Ratio Prot 0.46 c0.18 0.44 v/s Ratio Perm 0.33 c0.64 0.11 0.30 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.59 1.07 0.57 0.74 0.30 Uniform Delay, dl 25.8 20.7 42.1 6.7 57.3 0.0 Progression Factor 0.24 0.10 0.98 0.80 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 0.6 63.0 0.7 10.3 0.5 Delay (s) 8.0 2.7 104.3 6.1 67.6 0.5 Level of Service A A F A E A Approach Delay (s) 6.4 26.7 0.0 20.8 Approach LOS A C A C - } , f .� ? Ine,rsecton,Summyy �.F51 HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group PM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 4: 1-81 SB Ramps & US 11 10/13/2017 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r '� tt +T r Traffic Volume (vehlh) 0 1592 675 395 1482 0 0 0 0 188 0 435 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1592 675 395 1482 0 0 0 0 188 0 435 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 0 1845 1827 1881 1810 0 1900 1900 1759 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 0 1624 0 403 1512 0 192 0 0 Adj No. of Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 3 4 1 5 0 8 0 8 Cap, veh/h 0 1502 666 620 2712 0 227 0 188 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.32 0.79 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3597 1553 1792 3529 0 1810 0 1495 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1624 0 403 1512 0 192 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 1752 1553 1792 1719 0 1810 0 1495 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 60.0 0.0 22.5 23.2 0.0 14.5 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 60.0 0.0 22.5 23.2 0.0 14.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1502 666 620 2712 0 227 0 188 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 1.08 0.00 0.65 0.56 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1502 666 620 2712 0 491 0 406 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 40.0 0.0 38.9 5.6 0.0 59.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 48.5 0.0 1.8 0.6 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 39.1 0.0 13.4 11.2 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 88.5 0.0 40.7 6.2 0.0 68.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS F D A E Approach Vol, veh/h 1624 1915 192 Approach Delay, s/veh 88.5 13.5 68.3 Approach LOS F B E Timer 1 .2 3 4 5 -6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 116.4 23.6 50.4 66.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 90.0 38.0 24.0 60.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 25.2 16.5 24.5 62.0 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 20.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 _._._-.----- ------ __ -- HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 49.0 HCM 2010 LOS D PM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 8 Queues 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 1835 1315 620 514 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.63 0.56 0.95 Control Delay 9.7 1.7 39.6 71.4 Queue Delay 46.6 5.4 0.0 55.2 Total Delay 56.3 7.1 39.6 126.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 120 57 231 437 Queue Length 95th (ft) 157 m55 292 #658 Internal Link Dist (ft) 460 138 842 Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 450 Base Capacity (vph) 2035 2075 1146 562 Starvation Cap Reductn 1 690 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 648 39 0 337 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.32 0.95 0.54 2.28 Intersection Summary # 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. PM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/1312017 • Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Tt tt Traffic Volume (vph) 1780 0 0 1276 601 499 Future Volume (vph) 1780 0 0 1276 601 499 . Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 3574 3242 1568 • Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd Flow (perm) 3505 3574 3242 1568 • Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj, Flow (vph) 1835 0 0 1315 620 514 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 9 • Lane Group Flow (vph) 1835 0 0 1315 620 505 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 0% 0% 1 % 8% 3% Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm • Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 81.3 81.3 47.7 47.7 • Effective Green, g (s) 81.3 81.3 47.7 47.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.58 0.58 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 • Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2035 2075 1104 534 • v/s Ratio Prot c0.52 0.37 0.19 • v/s Ratio Perm c0.32 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.63 0.56 0.95 • Uniform Delay, d1 25.8 19.5 37.6 44.9 . Progression Factor 0.17 0.08 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 0.1 0.7 25.9 Delay (s) 8.8 1.6 38.3 70.9 • Level of Service A A D E Approach Delay (s) 8.8 1.6 53.0 Approach LOS A A D • Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 11.0 • Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group • i • • PM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 10 • HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: 1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 Lane Configurations tt tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1780 0 0 1276 601 499 Future Volume (veh/h) 1780 0 0 1276 601 499 Number 2 12 1 6 7 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1845 0 0 1881 1759 1845 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1835 0 0 1315 620 514 Adj No. of Lanes 2 0 0 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 0 0 1 8 3 Cap, veh/h 2025 0 0 2065 1117 539 Arrive On Green 0.58 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 3689 0 0 3762 3250 1568 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1835 0 0 1315 620 514 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1752 0 0 1787 1625 1568 Q Serve(g_s), s 65.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.7 44.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 65.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.7 44.8 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2025 0 0 2065 1117 539 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.55 0.95 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2025 0 0 2065 1149 554 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.3 44.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 26.7 Initial Q Delay(d3);s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 32.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 23.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 37.8 71.6 LnGrp LOS C A D E Approach Vol, veh/h 1835 1315 1134 Approach Delay, s/veh 29.7 0.1 53.1 Approach LOS C A D n r�.. Amer s �r 1 23 y 4r 5 g °� 7� Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 86.4 53.6 86.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.51 ....... 5.5 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 79.5 49.5 79.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 67.0 46.8 . ` 2.0 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 11.8 1.3 58.1 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 26.8 HCM 2010 LOS C PM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 11 Queues 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 570 1713 91 148 1378 282 359 v/c Ratio 1.14 0.93 0.10 0.53 1.02 0.38 1.14 Control Delay 115.4 24.6 0.2 44.2 72.6 11.3 140.4 Queue Delay 10.5 45.7 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 125.9 70.4 1.7 44.2 72.6 11.3 140.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) --561 527 0 76 -699 52 -348 Queue Length 95th (ft) m#677 746 m0 151 #839 126 #551 Internal Link Dist (ft) 138 1843 1091 Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 75 150 275 Base Capacity (vph) 498 1858 886 278 1349 736 314 Starvation Cap Reductn 296 454 658 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 2.82 1.22 0.40 0.53 1.02 0.38 1.14 Intersection Summary 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. PM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 ` --IN. .4- '1- Lane Configurations tt r ' tt r Traffic Volume (vph) 547 1644 87 142 1323 271 135 8 202 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 547 1644 87 142 1323 271 135 8 202 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 11.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 9.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.92 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3574 1599 1703 3539 1615 1703 Flt Permitted 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (perm) 123 3574 1599 134 3539 1615 1703 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 570 1712 91 148 1378 282 141 8 210 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 44 0 0 120 0 36 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 570 1713 47 148 1378 162 0 323 0 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1 % 1 % 6% 2% 0% 2% 06% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 2 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 99.4 72.2 72.2 72.0 53.4 53.4 22.9 Effective Green, g (s) 96.4 72.2 72.2 72.0 53.4 53.4 22.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.69 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.38 0.38 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 9.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 497 1843 824 277 1349 616 278 v/s Ratio Prot c0.28 0.48 0.07 0.39 v/s Ratio Perm c0.51 0.03 0.20 0.10 0.19 v/c Ratio 1.15 0.93 0.06 0.53 1.02 0.26 1.16 Uniform Delay, dl 46.4 31.5 16.9 52.7 43.3 29.8 58.5 Progression Factor 0.92 0.61 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 76.4 4.7 0.1 2.0 30.1 1.0 105.1 Delay (s) 119.1 24.1 1.6 54.7 73.4 30.8 163.7 Level of Service F C A D E C F Approach Delay (s) 46.0 65.2 163.7 0.0 Approach LOS D E F A HCM 2000 Control Delay 63.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.21 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 29.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 111.6% ICU "Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group PM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary r 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR • Lane Configurations tt if tt r +11� Traffic Volume (veh/h) 547 1644 87 142 1323 271 135 8 202 0 0 0 . Future Volume (veh/h) 547 1644 87 142 1323 271 135 8 202 0 0 0 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1900 1881 1881 1792 1863 1900 1900 1885 1900 • Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 570 1712 91 148 1378 282 141 8 210 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 1 6 2 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 496 1766 790 319 1350 616 108 6 161 Arrive On Green 0.49 0.99 0.99 0.15 0.38 0.38 0.16 0.16 0.16 . Sat Flow, vehlh 1810 3574 1599 1707 3539 1615 659 37 982 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 570 1712 91 148 1378 282 359 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1810 1787 1599 1707 1770 1615 1679 0 0 . Q Serve(g_s), s 34.4 18.5 0.1 6.3 53.4 18.3 22.9 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 34.4 18.5 0.1 6.3 53.4 18.3 22.9 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 0.58 • Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 496 1766 790 319 1350 616 275 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 1.15 0.97 0.12 0.46 1.02 0.46 1.31 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 496 1859 831 319 1350 616 275 0 0 • HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.29 0.29 0.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.8 0.5 0.4 51.5 43.3 32.5 58.6 0.0 0.0 • Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 74.4 6.4 0.1 1.1 29.9 2.4 162.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 29.0 2.0 0.1 5.2 31.7 8.6 23.0 0.0 0.0 • LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 108.2 6.9 0.5 52.6 73.2 34.9 220.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS F A A D F C F . Approach Vol, veh/h 2373 1808 359 (♦ Approach Delay, s/veh 31.0 65.5 220.6 • Approach LOS C E F --8 Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 • Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 46.0 62.0 32.0 43.7 64.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.6 * * 8.6 * * 9.1 * * 8.6 * * 8.6 * Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 37 53 23 18 73 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 37.4 55.4 24.9 8.3 20.5 • Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 21.6 Intersection Summary • HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 59.7 HCM 2010 LOS E jJotes • PM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Redbud Rd/1-81 NB Ramp & US 11 10/13/2017 * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. PM 2026 Build Traffic Conditions Synchro 9 Report Page 15 REPORT Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of Glengary (VDHR #034-1099) LOCATION > Frederick County, Virginia DATE OCTOBER 2017 PREPARED FOR John L. Knott, III Equus Capital Partners, Ltd PREPARED BY Dutton + Associates, LLC CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT Or GLENGARY (VDHR# 034-1099) tFREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA t ' PREPARED FOR: EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD ' John Knott, III Vice President Development ' PREPARED BY: DUTTON + ASSOCIATES, LLC ' 111S Crowder Drive Midlothian, Virginia 23113 804.897.1960 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS: ' ROBERT J. TAYLOR, JR. M.A. DAVID H. DUTTON, M.A. OCTOBER 2017 7 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I E C ABSTRACT ABSTRACT Under contract to Equus Capital Partners, Ltd., Dutton + Associates, LLC (D+A) conducted a cultural resource survey and assessment of the Glengary house and property in Frederick County, Virginia. Investigation of the properly Was requested to assess the historical significance of the property with regards to its eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRIIP) in Order to guide management and treatment of the property. As part of background research, it was revealed that Glengay has been subject to previous cultural resource surveys on several occasions and has been investigated for both architectural and archaeological resources. Architecturally, the home and Outbuildings were last evaluated in 1997 at which time it was noted that the home retained a moderate degree Of integrity, but also ' retained an excellent example of domestic and agricultural support buildings and thus was recommended potentially eligible.for listing in the NRIIP as a good representation of a mid - nineteenth century farm that has evolved over time. Since that time, the home itself has remained ' relatively unaltered and continues to reflect the same level of integrity as previously documented. However, two Of the oldest outbuildings on the property, the circa 1850 kitchen/servant's quarters and circa 1850 hay barn, have both been razed. Still, Glengary reflects a fine Antebellum plantation that has grown and evolved as a farm into the present day. The original block Of the home was built in 1850 and retains mirth of its Greek Revival detailing, but was substantially enlarged and remodeled on several occasions throughout the twentieth centny, lending the building a Colonial Revival character. Some Of the addiliOrrs and modi%icationns were dome so as to blend in and be compatible with the original building and materials while others are clearly modern. The sane is true inside the home where the Original block retains many Greek Revival details and mid -nineteenth century materials while the additions n•eflect renovations from throughout the twentieth centnuy to accommodate changing needs. The fnrnr complex also reflects ongoing use Of the property and changing needs. All of the extant outbuildings and barns date from the late -nineteenth to early -twentieth century and reflect agricultural practices fn•om that period. The complex previously included a detached kitchen/servant's quarters and a hay barn that were believed to be contemporary to the original block of the house, however, these have been demolished in recent yeas. Still, the home and building stock retain a moderate level of historic physical integrity and represent a good example of a Shenandoah Valley farm that retains a fairly complete complement of domestic and agricultural buildings that have evolved Over time. As such, Glengmy is still recommended potentially eligible.for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and C for significance at the local level. Archaeologically, two sites have been previously identified on the property, including one immediately around and inclusive Of the domestic and agricultural complex (44FK0481), and a second site fun•ther to the rear in the pasture (44FK0480). Visual inspection of the project area did not repeal any surface evidence of cultural material or activity on the property. At the time of the survey, cattle here loose in the pastures and visual inspection Was limited in these areas; however, no visible evidence Of cultural material was identified. Interviews with the current ABSTRACT ' property owner indicated that the property (the house precinct and fields) had been subjected to metal detection in the past but that no material associated with early use of the property or its potential occupation during the Civil War were recovered or noted. Inspection of the field north of the main dwelling and adjacent to Redbud Run, where oral tradition suggested the possible presence of a stone foundation only revealed naturally occurring exposed bedrock. No evidence of building foundations or use of the exposed bedrock as a foundation material was observed. Given the low lying situation of the landform and its likely potential to flood when Redbud Run exceeded its banks would have made this particular area an unlikely location for settlement and construction of a dwelling. Excavation of judgmental shovel tests in areas associated with Site 44FK0481 resulted in the recovery of cultural material associated with the former kitchen/servants quarter structure, which was removed in the recent past. Recovered materials date from the first half of the nineteenth century and are representative of domestic wares popular at the time. Only two additional judgmental tests were positive for cultural material and these were located along a fence line north the main dwelling and likely represent discard of building debris associated with remodeling of the main dwelling in the twentieth century and possible fence repair. Given the architectural history of the property, it appears that the domestic and agricultural landscape of Glengary has not changed substantially since its construction ca. 1850. While the main dwelling has expanded, and additional agricultural buildings have been constructed, the basic organization of domestic and agricultural space including fields and woodlands appears to have changed little. As such, additional archaeological resources associated with the domestic and agricultural component of Glengary are not expected beyond what is currently present. Although testing around the domestic precinct was not intensive, the presence of intact archaeological deposits associated with the former kitchen/servants quarter building are present, and it is likely that a small number archaeological deposits associated with the main dwelling house are present close to the building foundation. Based upon the results of the archaeological assessment, no evidence of Site 44FK0480 was observed and it is likely that this site was a thin scatter of domestic debris spread in the field with no subsurface archaeological signature. Site 44FK0481 appears to be a more discretely defined site and is focused in and around the kitchen/servants quarter building, which would have function as the immediate service space for the main dwelling. The potential for intact archaeological deposits is present in this area. The potential for the remainder of the property to contain intact significant archaeological deposits appears to be low given the topography, rocky soils, and lack of documented use during the historic period beyond what is already known about the property. While Civil War use of the property for encampment purposes is possible, the lack of reported results from local metal detecting along with the documented confusion of encampments at the Lewis property further to the south versus the Glengary (Harmon) property suggests the potential is likely not high. ii CIS C 1] L TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1-1 ProjectLocation..................................................................................................................... 1-1 2. RESEARCH DESIGN...................................................................................................2-1 ArchivalResearch.................................................................................................................. 2-1 ContextDevelopment............................................................................................................ 2-1 ArchitecturalSurvey.............................................................................................................. 2-1 ArchaeologicalAssessment................................................................................................... 2-2 Report and Record Preparation..............................................................................................2-2 3. ARCHIVES SEARCH...................................................................................................3-1 Previous Surveys Relevant to the Project Area..................................................................... 3-1 Previously Identified Archaeological Sites Within One Mile ............................................... 3-2 Previously Identified Architectural Resources Within One Mile..........................................3-3 4. HISTORIC CONTEXT.................................................................................................4-1 Paleoindian Period (Prior to 8000 B.C.)................................................................................4-1 Archaic Period (8000 — 1200 B.C.)....................................................................................... 4-2 Woodland Period (1200 B.C. — 1600 A.D.)...........................................................................4-4 Settlement to Society (1607 — 1750)......................................................................................4-5 Colonyto Nation (1750 — 1789)............................................................................................ 4-8 Early National Period (1789 — 1830)..................................................................................... 4-9 Antebellum Period (1830 — 1860)........................................................................................ 4-11 CivilWar (1861 — 1865)......................................................................................................4-12 Reconstruction and Growth (1865 — 1917)..........................................................................4-21 World War I to World War II (1917 — 1945).......................................................................4-23 New Dominion (1945 — Present).........................................................................................4-24 5. FIELD RESULTS.......................................................................................................... 5-1 ArchitecturalSurvey..............................................................................................................5-1 Interior.............................................................................................................................. 5-5 Site................................................................................................................................. 5-12 ArchaeologicalAssessment................................................................................................. 5-20 DesktopAnalysis........................................................................................................... 5-20 PedestrianSurvey........................................................................................................... 5-21 Judgmental Shovel Testing............................................................................................5-24 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................6-1 7. REFERENCES .................................................. LIST Or FIGURES Figure 1-1: Glengaiy general location - ......................................................................................... Figure 1-2: Aerial photograph of the Glengary property. Source: Google Earth ........................ 1-3 Figure 3-1: Previous surveys (gray) conducted within 1.0 mile (dotted blue) of the project area (green). Source: V-CRIS..................................................................................................3-1 Figure 3-2: Mal) detailing all archaeological resources (red) within 1.0 mile (dotted blue) of the project area (green). Source: V-CRIS.............................................................................. 3-2 om n TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 3-3: Map detailing all previously recorded architectural resources (blue) within 1.0 mile (dotted blue) of the project area (green). Source: VCRIS............................................... 3-4 Figure 4-1: Detail of A survey of the northern neck of Virginia, by Warner c.1747, depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress.......................................................................4-7 Figure 4-2: Detail of A new map of Virginia from the best authorities, by Kitchin c.1761, depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress .................................................. 4-9 Figure 4-3: Detail of Map of Frederick, Berkeley, & Jefferson counties in the state of Virginia, by Varle and Jones in 1809, depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress..4-10 Figure 4-4: Detail of Battlefield of Winchester, Va. (Opequon) [September 19, 1864], 1873 by Gillespie, depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress ............................... 4-13 Figure 4-5: Winchester I (VA104) depicting the project area in relation to the battlefield. Source: ABPP.............................................................................................................................. 4-15 Figure 4-6: Sketch of the Second Battle of Winchester, by Hotchkiss, depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress.......................................................................................... 4-17 Figure 4-7: Winchester II (VA107) depicting the project area in relation to the battlefield. Source: ABPP.............................................................................................................................. 4-18 Figure 4-8: Battlefield of Winchester, Va. (Opequon) depicting the project area. Source: Library ofCongress.................................................................................................................... 4-20 Figure 4-9: Opequon/Third Winchester (V4119) depicting the project area in relation to the battlefield. Source: ABPP.............................................................................................. 4-21 Figure 4-10: Detail of An Atlas: Frederick County, 1885, depicting the project area. Source: HistoricMap Works.......................................................................................................4-23 Figure 4-11: Detail of the 1942 topographic map, Winchester, VA, depicting the project area. Source: USGS................................................................................................................ 4-24 Figure 4-12: Detail of the 1966 topographic map, Winchester, VA, depicting the project area. Source: USGS................................................................................................................ 4-25 Figure 4-13: Detail of a 1997 aerial depicting the project area. Source: Google Earth.............4-25 Figure 5-1: Glengary front fagade, facing west........................................................................... 5-2 Figure 5-2: Detail of front portico, facing southwest.................................................................. 5-2 Figure 5-3: Circa 1970 side wing, facing west............................................................................ 5-3 Figure 5-4: Front and north side oblique, facing southwest........................................................ 5-3 Figure 5-5: Rear ell north side, facing southeast......................................................................... 5-4 Figure 5-6: Rear ell south side with garage extension, facing northeast ..................................... 5-5 Figure 5-7: Original block central passage from entry, facing west ............................................ 5-6 Figure 5-8: First floor door architrave, south room, facing north ................................................ 5-7 Figure 5-9: Fireplace and mantel in north room, facing northwest ............................................. 5-8 Figure 5-10: North room with later doorways, facing northwest ................................................ 5-8 Figure 5-11: Room in side wing, facing northeast....................................................................... 5-9 Figure 5-12: Hallway and stairwell in side wing, facing east ...................................................... 5-9 Figure 5-13: Kitchen in rear ell, facing south............................................................................ 5-10 Figure 5-14: Enclosed stairwell and doorway in rear ell, facing west ....................................... 5-11 Figure 5-15: Back room in rear ell with built-in cabinet, facing east ........................................ 5-11 Figure 5-16: Sunroom interior, facing northeast........................................................................ 5-12 Figure 5-17: Glengary Building complex. Source: Google Earth ............................................. 5-13 Figure 5-18: Root cellar, facing east.......................................................................................... 5-13 Figure 5-19: Meathouse, facing west......................................................................................... 5-14 1v I � I r� I TABLE OF CONTENTS ' Figure 5-20: Pump house, facing southwest..............................................................................5-15 Figure 5-21: Granary, facing southwest..................................................................................... 5-16 Figure 5-22: Bank Barn downhill side, facing southwest.......................................................... 5-17 Figure 5-23: Bank barn uphill side, facing northeast................................................................. Figure 5-24: Bank barn lower level interior, facing southwest ................................................. 5-17 5-18 Figure 5-25: Bank barn main level interior, facing northeast .................................................... 5-18 Figure 5-26: Animal barn, facing southwest ................................ Figure 5-27: Animal barn interior, facing southeast.................................................................. 5-19 Figure 5-28: Location of Sites 44FK0480 and 44FK0481 recorded during the 1992 JMU survey. ' 5-21 Figure 5-29: View of domestic landscape surrounding the main dwelling at Glengary facing north............................................................................................................................... 5 -22 ' Figure 5-30: General view of landscape surrounding agricultural buildings facing east.......... Figure 5-31: General view of landscape around agricultural buildings and pastures west of 5-23 the domestic complex, facing northwest.............................................................................. 5-24 Figure 5-32: Plan view of judgmental shovel test locations. Positive shovel tests are marked yellow negative shovel tests are red............................................................................... 5-25 Figure 5-33: Soil profile fi•om Judgmental Test J-5.................................................................. 5-26 ' Figure 5-34: Soil profile from Judgmental Test J-9................................................................... Figure 5-35: Representative artifacts recovered from Judgmental Test J-4 at area of former 5-26 kitchen building located in the domestic complex of the Glengary property ................ 5-27 ' Figure 5-36: Representative artifacts recovered from Judgmental Tests J-11 and J-13............ Figure 5-37: Soil profile from Judgmental Test J-3................................................................... 5-27 5-28 ' LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1. Previously conducted cultural resource studies that have included the project area.. 3-1 Table 3-2: Previously identified archaeological sites located within 1.0 mile of the project area... ' ...... 3-2 Table 3-3: Previously recorded architectural resources located within 1.0 mile of the project area. Bold font denotes resources is listed in or considered eligible for listing in the NRHP. ' Glengary in the project area is highlighted in orange ...................................................... 3-4 v TABLE OF CONTENTS I I Ll THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK vi INTRODUCTION ' 1. INTRODUCTION Under contract to Equus Capital Partners, Ltd., Dutton + Associates, LLC (D+A) conducted a ' cultural resource survey and assessment of the Glengary house and property in Frederick County, Virginia. Investigation of the property was requested to assess the historical significance of the property with regards to its eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in order to guide management and treatment of property. As such, this document is intended to serve as a planning tool, and is not intended to serve as ' compliance with any state or federal regulations. However, principal investigators meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards (48 FR 44716) for archaeology, history, architecture, architectural history, or historic architecture and all work carried out in conformity with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 190, 1983) and the VDHR's Guidelines for Conducting Cultural Resources Survey in Virginia (Revised October 2011). Architectural ' resource investigations were conducted by Senior Architectural Historian Robert J. Taylor, Jr. M.A. Archaeological investigations were overseen by David H. Dutton, M.A. ' The D+A effort was conducted in September 2017, and included research into the history of to property, documentation of existing conditions for all above -ground buildings and structures, archaeological assessment, consideration of historical integrity, and evaluation of historical significance with regards to NRHP-eligibility. PROJECT LOCATION tGlengary is located at 420 Lenoir Drive in Winchester, Frederick County, Virginia. The property is roughly 80 acres consisting of a 10-acre homesite parcel (#43 A 21 B) and a 76.6-acre farm parcel (#43 A 21) surrounding it. The property is located at the south end of Lenoir Drive, ' situated between an industrial park to the east and north, and U.S. Highway 37 to the south. Residential development borders the property to the west (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). 1 INTRODUCTION Winchester Frederick County Ow l.nelo. 0 awr«i • q e wti. r/ /Y.rr.R4 Project Location �., oft, Glengary re, 1 l iA 7E7 `- Q� 4 C 1'J!ncno�ar, (j Figure 1-1: Glengary general location 1-2 INTRODUCTION Figure 1-2: Aerial photograph of the Glengarp property. Source: Google Earth THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I RESEARCH DESIGN 2. RESEARCH DESIGN ARCHIVAL RESEARCH ' A comprehensive literature review and background search was performed to gain an understanding of existing survey data pertaining to the property. The focus of the background ' search was to identify whether the property or any resources in the vicinity have been subject to previous cultural resource survey and what the previous recommendation of eligibility was for each. To this end, the VDHR archives and the VCRIS database were searched to identify ' previously conducted cultural resource studies and known architectural or archaeological resources in the vicinity of the property. In further preparation for the fieldwork, D+A conducted additional review of the following documents and sources for information relative to previously recorded and unrecorded historic property locations within and adjacent to the project area: ➢ Frederick County Tax Assessors records; ➢ USDA Historic Aerial Imagery; ➢ U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Maps; ➢ Local historical society/ library archives; and ➢ Consultation with local informants and other professionals with intimate knowledge of the region CONTEXT DEVELOPMENT Information from the literature review and background search was used in conjunction with additional historical data from research to develop a comprehensive historic context in which to place the property for evaluations of significance as defined by the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the VDHR's How to Use Historic Contexts in Virginia: A Guide for Sru•vey, Registration, Protection, and Treatment Projects (VDHR 1992). The overview was developed through review of previous cultural resource studies, published and unpublished manuscripts, historic maps, aerial photographs, local histories, county land records, and a variety of internet sources. Research was conducted at and through local repositories including the Library of Congress, United States Geological Service, Library of Virginia, Frederick County Property Assessor's office, local historical societies, and any other repositories identified during preliminary research. The historic context includes local and regional history, with a focus on the development, use, and significance of Glengary from its earliest documented occupation through the present-day. ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY Using information derived from the archive searches and additional background research, a field survey was undertaken to document the physical condition of the property and the resources located there. Construction and alterations dates for the buildings and structures were established through a combination of archival search, property records data, map analysis, field inspection, and owner interview. a RESEARCH DESIGN A field forin was completed for each standing resource with information from site observations including a physical description with information such as relationship to adjacent buildings and structures, general condition, surrounding setting, description of exterior materials, identifiable architectural or structural treatments, and retention of historic physical integrity. Both the exterior and interior of the resources were subject to inspection. A sketch of the overall property and setting was prepared, and photographs of the site and setting, exterior, and interior were taken with a high resolution digital camera to document the property's existing conditions. All architectural fieldwork was carried out in accordance with VDHR's standards and guidelines and evaluated to determine potential significance in accordance with NRHP criteria. ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT An archaeological assessment of the property was also conducted to document the potential for intact archaeological sites or deposits to be present. The effort entailed a "desktop analysis" coupled with field investigation to note existing soil conditions, confirm the presence or absence of archaeological resources, and make recornmendations for further study. Field investigations included a limited pedestrian survey of the project area to document existing conditions and to note surface evidence of cultural activity or material and identify areas with the potential for intact subsurface archaeological resource. For any archaeological resources identified during the reconnaissance, photographs were taken of the general vicinity and of any visible features. A field map was prepared showing feature locations, permanent landmarks, topographic and vegetation variation, as well as sources of disturbance. Sufficient information was included on the map to permit easy relocation of the resources. Targeted shovel testing was then conducted in high probability areas or areas of previously documented archaeological discovery. The soil excavated from all shovel tests was passed through 1/4-inch (0.63-cm) mesh screen and all shovel tests were approximately 0.30-meters (I - foot) in diameter and excavated to sterile subsoil or the practical limits of excavation. Shovel test placement was avoided in areas of documented or visible significant ground disturbance, slopes in excess of 15 percent, and areas in statutory wetlands or water saturated soils. REPORT AND RECORD PREPARATION Following the field survey, information from background research and context development was used in conjunction with field investigations to assess the historical significance and integrity of the property to evaluate it for potential NRHP eligibility. The evaluation of significance was built on an analysis of the historic context for associations used in conjunction with an assessment of integrity from the field inspection. Historical integrity was determined from site observations, field data, and photographic documentation according to NPS guidance. A summary report containing the results of the evaluation along with the associated documentation was prepared. Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (VCRIS) site forms were prepared or updated for the home and building complex as well as any identified archaeological sites. 2-2 ARCHIVES SEARCH 3. ARCHIVES SEARCH This section includes a summary of all the cultural resource management events that have taken place within the project area registered at VDHR through September 2017. It also lists all previously identified architectural resources and archaeological sites located within the project area, as well as within one mile of the project area. PREVIOUS SURVEYS RELEVANT TO THE PROJECT AREA Research at the VDHR reveals that four surveys have been previously conducted within one mile of the project area. Of these, none have taken place within the project area (Figure 3-1). It is however known that several additional unmapped studies that have included the property have been conducted. These studies are listed in Table 3-1. Figure 3-1: Previous surveys (gray) conducted within 1.0 mile (dotted blue) of the project area (green). Source: V-CRIS T-161- 1.1. D.. cl. ...I.—tnd m.6—al — ct,Minc that ha— inchidp i the nrnirrt Hrt-sl VDHR Title Author Date Report# nia Phase I Architectural Resource Survey Report of the Proposed Maral S. Kalbian I9L)2 Route 37 Corridor Study of Frederick County, Virginia n/a n/a JMU Department of 1992 Anthropology FK-55 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Investigations of Route 37, Gray & Pape 1997 Frederick County, Virginia 3-1 ARCHIVES SEARCH PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN ONE MILE Review of VCRIS reveals fifteen previously identified archaeological sites located within one mile of the project area, two of which are located within the project area (Figure 3-2, Table 3-2). ' These sites include a nineteenth century farmstead and an indeterminate site of the same century. These sites include one prehistoric camp site, two historic trash scatter sites, and nineteenth century earthworks, a farmstead, church, military camp and battlefield. VDHR has determined ' three of the sites not eligible for the NRHP (44FK0477, 44FK0584, 44FK0585) and the remaining sites, including the two within the project area, have not been formally evaluated. Figure 3-2: Map detailing all archaeological resources (red) within 1.0 mile (dotted blue) of the project area (green). Source: V-CRIS Table 3-2: Previously identified archaeological sites located within 1.0 mile of the aroiect area VDHR ID# Site Types Cultural Designation Temporal Association NRHP Status Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 44FK0013 Camp, Other Native American 1606 A.D.), 19th Century: 3rd Not Evaluated quarter 1850 - 1874 44FK0014 Camp, Trash Native American Historic/Unknown, Woodland Not Evaluated scatter 1200 B.C.-1606 A.D. Camp, Trash Historic/Unknown, 44FK0015 Native American Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - Not Evaluated scatter 1606 A.D. 44FK0049 Camp Native American Woodland (1200 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) Not Evaluated 44FK0477 Trash scatter Euro-American 19th Century: 2nd half (1850 - DHR Staff: 1899), 20th Century 1900 - 1999 Not Eligible 44FK0479 Earthworks Euro-American 19th Century: 2nd/3rd quarter Not Evaluated 1825 - 1874 44FK0480 Null I Euro-American I 19th Century (1800 - 1899) 1 Not Evaluated 3-2 11 1 J ARCHIVES SEARCH VDIJR ID# Site Types Cultural Designation Temporal Association NRIIP Status 44FK0481 Farmstead EUro-Ainerlcan 19th Century: 1st half (1800 Not Evaluated 1849 44FK0561 Military Camp Euro-American 1901 Century: 2nd half (1850 - Not Evaluated 1899) 19th Century (1800 - 1899), 20th DHR Staff - 44FK0584 Trash Scatter EUro-American Century: 1st quarter (1900 - 1924) Not Eli ible DFIR Staff: 44FK0585 Trash Scatter Euro-American 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Not Eligible Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Battlefield, Civil War (1861 - 1865), 44FK0624 Dwelling, Euro-American Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - Not Evaluated single, Military 1916), World War I to World War field hospital II (1917 - 1945), The New Dominion 1946 - 1988 44FK0732/034- Earthworks Euro-American Civil War (1861 - 1865) Not Evaluated 0322 44FK0733/034- Earthworks Euro-American Civil War (1861 - 1865) Not Evaluated 0165/034-0456 Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916), World War I to World War 44FK0805 Church Euro-American II (1917 - 1945), The New Not Evaluated Dominion (1946 - 1991), Post Cold War (1992 - Present IPREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN ONE MILE Review of VDHR records identifies 39 previously recorded standing resources located within one mile of the project area (Figure 3-3, Table 3-3). These include 29 dwellings, two churches, one bridge, one fort, one store, one school, and three battlefields. The resources range in date from the late eighteenth century to the early twentieth century with most resources constructed between c.1800 and c.1900. VDHR has found three of the resources to be potentially eligible, five eligible, and seven not eligible for listing in the NRHP. One resource was found to be already listed on the NRHP. The remaining resources have not been formally evaluated. The Glengary property itself has been previously recorded and subject to two architectural resource studies (VDI-IR# 034-1099). The property was initially documented in 1992 and revisited in 1997. These efforts included Phase I and Phase II documentation and evaluation of the property resulting in the determination by the VDHR that Glengary was eligible for listing in the NRHP at that time. 3-3 H ARCHIVES SEARCH Figure 3-3: Map detailing all previously recorded architectural resources (blue) within 1.0 mule (dotted blue) of the project area (green). Source: VCRIS Table 3-3: Previously recorded architectural resources located within 1.0 mile of the project area. Bold font denotes resources is listed in or considered eligible for listing in the NRHP. Glengary in the project area is hi hli hted in orange. VDHR Resource Name Type Year Evaluation ID# Status 034-0010 House near Stine's Chapel (Demolished) N/A N/A Not Evaluated unction/Location 034-0067 House, Route 739 (Function/Location) Single Dwelling c.1930 Not Evaluated 034-0068 Lewis House (Current) Single Dwelling c.1850 Not Evaluated 034-0070 Bond, Allen, House (Historic/Current) Single Dwelling c.1930 Not Evaluated DHR Staff: 034-0135 Sempeles House (Current) Single Dwelling c.1820 Potentially Eligible 034-0147 Glendale (Historic), Stine House (Current), Single Dwelling c.1859 Not Evaluated Stine, Henry, House Historic 034-0148 Woodville (Historic/Current) Single Dwelling c.1770 Not Evaluated 034-0165 Fort Collier (Current), Stine, Isaac, House Single Dwelling 1865 NRHP Listing, VLR (Historic) Listin 034-0322 Fort Alabama (Historic), Star Fort (H' ), (Historic) Fort/Military c.1861 DHR Board Base Det. Eligible 034-0456 Opequon Battlefield (Historic), Third Battle Battlefield 1864 DHR Staff: of Winchester Site Current Eligible 034-0520 Sunnyside Grocery (Historic) Store c.1900 Not Evaluated 034-0521 Brown House (Historic) Single Dwelling c.1920 Not Evaluated 034-0523 House, 1048 North Frederick Pike Function/Location Single Dwelling c.1910 Not Evaluated 034-0524 Captain John Glaize House (Historic), Liberty Single Dwelling c.1871 Not Evaluated 34 C I ARCHIVES SEARCI-I VD11R Resource Name Type Year Evaluation Status ID# Hall (Historic) 034-0525 McDonald I-Iouse (Current) Single Dwelling c.1890 Not Evaluated 034-0526 Carper House (Current) Single Dwelling c.1890 Not Evaluated 034-0527 Martin House (Current) Single Dwelling c.1820 Not Evaluated 034-0528 Clark House, 1418 N Frederick Pike Single Dwelling c.1800 Not Evaluated (Historic/Location) 034-0529 Stine's Chapel (Historic/Current) Church c.1870 Not Evaluated 034-0583 Martin House (Current) Single Dwelling c.1800 Not Evaluated 034-0953 Beirer-Robinson House (Current), Clevenger Single Dwelling c.1880 DHR Staff: house Historic Not Eligible DHR Staff: 034-0954 House, off Route I 1 North (Function/Location) Single Dwelling c.1915 Not Eligible 034-0955 School #1 - Frederick County (Historic), Valley School c.1900 DHR Staff: School (Current) Not Eligible DHR Staff: 034-0956 Valley Union Chapel (Current) Church c.1880 Not Eligible DHR Staff: 034-0957 House, 1113 Martinsburg Road Single Dwelling c.1930 Potentially (Function/Location) Eli iblc 034-0958 House, 105 Lee Avenue (Function/Location) Single Dwelling N/A Not Evaluated 034-0959 House, 101 Lee Avenue (Function/Location) Single Dwelling N/A Not Evaluated 034-0960 House, 20 Lee Avenue (Function/Location) Single Dwelling N/A Not Evaluated 034-0961 House, 913 N. Loudoun Street Single Dwelling N/A Not Evaluated Function/Location 034-0962 House, 909 N. Loudoun Street Single Dwelling c.1865 Not Evaluated Function/Location DHR Staff: 034-1067 Seven Oaks (historic/Ciu-rent) Single Dwelling c.1850 Potentially Eli ible DI1R Staff: 034-1099 Glenn y (historic) Single Dwelling c.1850 Eligible 034-1447 Fann, Welltown Rd (Rt 661) Single Dwelling c.1870 DHR Staff: Function/Location , Mertz House Current Not Eligible 034-1448 Clevenger, Louie, IIousc (Iistoric), Single Dwelling c.1890 DHR Staff: Clever er-McKown IIousc Current Eligible DHR Staff: 034-1455 House, Welltown Pike (Function/Location) Single Dwelling c.1910 Not Eligible 034-1568 046 Frederick Pike (Historic), House, 1046 Single Dwelling c.1920 Not Evaluated Frederick Pike Function/Location Apple Pic Ridge/West Fort Parcel DHR Board 034-5023 (Descriptive), Second Winchester Battlefield Battlefield 1863 Det. Eligible Historic 034-5087 Battle of Rutherford's Farm (1-Iistoric/Location) Battlefield 1864 Not Evaluated Bowers Hill Battlefield (Historic), First DHR Staff: 138-5005 Winchester Battlefield (I-Iistoric/Current), Battlefield 1865 Not Eligible Winchester I Battlefield Historic 3-5 r THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3-6 ARCHIVES SEARCH I F1 F HISTORIC CONTEXT ' 4. HISTORIC CONTEXT The following section provides a brief summary of the general overarching regional prehistoric ' and historic themes relevant to Virginia and Frederick County. The primary emphasis of this context focuses on the anthropological and material culture trends in prehistory and history, and describes how people throughout time could have left their archaeological mark on the landscape ' of the project area specifically. Prehistoric and historic occupation statistics and trends were analyzed, as were historic maps and available first-hand accounts which aided in establishing the appropriate cultural context for the project area as defined by the Secretary of the Interior's Standards aml Guidelines for Archaeology artd historic Preservation and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources' I -low to use historic Contexts in Virginia: A Guide for Sin-vey, Registration, Protection, and Treatment Projects (VDHR 2011). Descriptions of F1 C F settlement patterns, cultural characteristics, and a general description of relevant material culture of the time periods are presented below. PALEOINDIAN PERIOD (PRIOR ,ro 8000 B.C.) Recent archaeological findings in Virginia have found the first paleoindians are projected to have arrived in the southeast of North America between 15,000 and 11,000 years ago (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997). Two of the earliest archaeological sites associated with Paleoindian occupation in Virginia are the Thunderbird Site (VDHR #44WR0011) near Fort Royal and the Cactus Hill site (VDHR #44SX0202) located along the Nottoway River. These early populations coincided with the late glacial era when sea levels were approximately 230 feet below their present-day level (Anderson et al. 1996:3). The Laurentide Ice Sheet covered much of northern North American, lowering temperatures in the region and creating all ideal environment for a boreal forest (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). Paleoindians apparently survived in this environment through opportunistic hunting and gathering of smaller maininals, fish, and wild plants (Fiedel 2001). Seasonably mobile, these paleoindians utilized different food sources at different times of the year, an extensive subsistence pattern that required a large territory. Accordingly, the Paleoindians may have maintained a central base camp located either in a diverse ecotone where flora and fauna were easily procured or near lithic sources that contained cryptocrystalline stone. Wider ranging satellite camps would have then have been seasonally occupied to exploit other natural resources, be they lithic material, flora, or fauna (Anderson et al 1996; Daniel 1996; Binford 1980). Most Paleoindian sites are small and scattered, suggesting that the groups lived in small familial bands distributed across the landscape. The lack of status items among their archaeological remains suggests that these groups recognized little differentiation in status, and probably employed an egalitarian social structure. Ethnographic analogies suggest that Paleoindians might have maintained this rough equality by shunning aspiring leaders, and methods of property redistribution. The Paleoindians relied upon durable and easily -shaped cryptocrystalline materials such as chert and jasper for their tools. They fashioned these rocks into a variety of instruments, among which were scrapers, gravers, and adzes. Paleoindian projectile points tended to be fluted and bifacially sharpened. Due to time and rising sea levels, many Paleoindian material culture finds are limited to isolated projectile points. GPI 1 HISTORIC CONTEXT Researchers differentiate the Paleoindian Period into tlu•ee smaller periods reflecting changes in the morphology of projectile points. These periods include the Early Paleoindian (9500 — 9000 B.C.), the Middle Paleoindian (9000 — 8500 B.C.), and the Late Paleoindian (8500 — 8000 B.C.). During the Early Paleoindian, Paleoindians produced large fluted Clovis points, a style widespread throughout North America, which could be affixed to a spear shaft. Sites from this period are found throughout the eastern seaboard in very low densities. Regions depicting greater concentrations of these sites are in Tennessee, the Cumberland and Ohio River Valley, western South Carolina, the northern Piedmont of North Carolina, and southern Virginia (Anderson 1990:164-71; Daniel 1996; Ward and Davis 1999). One of the earliest archaeological sites associated with Paleoindian occupation in Virginia is the Thunderbird Site (VDHR #44WR0011) near Fort Royal. The Middle Paleoindian saw a modification of Clovis points, such as the disappearance of the fluting in some cases and the addition of "ears" at the base of the point. The appearance of these new types, such as the Cumberland, Simpson, Clovis variants, and Suwanee points, might reflect changes in subsistence patterns as the result of rising global temperatures. During this time, it is theorized that American Indians began to radiate out from their previous range of occupation to exploit resources from more distant environments (Anderson 1990; Anderson et al. 1996; Ward and Davis 1999:31). Changes to the projectile points intensified during the final centuries of the Paleoindian Period resulting in an increased number of changes in projectile point morphology. The Dalton and Hardaway types and other variants allowed late Paleoindian peoples to hunt new species. The Paleoindian's scattered settlement pattern and simple culture contribute to the limited number of associated sites in the region, fewer than 75 sites have been identified in present-day Virginia and only 25 have been positively identified in the entire Chesapeake (Turner 1989; Dent 1995). Those Paleoindian sites that have been located tend to be quarry sites, which groups frequently visited and areas where several bands gathered (Meltzer 1988; McAvoy 1992). Many sites were likely destroyed when warming global temperatures melted the glaciers and inundated the low-lying Paleoindian settlements. ARCHAIC PERIOD (8000 —1200 B.C.) Dramatic climatic changes beginning about 10,000 years ago prompted a reconfiguration of prehistoric people's subsistence strategies and social organization. Specifically, global temperatures began rising with the dawn of the Holocene geological period, simultaneously shrinking the glaciers and raising sea levels. In North America, the Laurentide Ice Sheet gradually receded northward, making the southeastern portion of the modern-day United States warmer and drier. The boreal forest of the Pleistocene era slowly gave way to a mixed conifer and northern hardwood forest. The area began to assume its modern-day climate and floral and faunal species. This warming also resulted in dramatic hydrological changes for coastal Virginia. As the sea level gradually climbed, the land was flooded; as a result, the lower reaches of the Susquehanna River flooded to form the Chesapeake Bay. 4-2 i L] Ij HISTORIC CONTEXT These climatic changes created new food sources for prehistoric people. The warmer, drier climate led to a greater biodiversity, especially floral, allowing humans to rely more heavily on gathering wild plants, nuts, and berries. Indeed, archaeologists have discovered tools, such as nutting stones and pestles, for processing vegetable materials. The creation of the Chesapeake Bay, furthermore allowed Archaic people to exploit seafood, such as anadrolnous fish and shellfish. The appearance of shell middens during the period testifies to the importance of mollusks to the Archaic diet (Dent 1995). To exploit theses new resources, Archaic people likely intensified their seasonal movement, splitting their time between a semi -permanent base camp and smaller, dispersed hunting and gathering camps. Bands of as many as 30 people may have gathered in the base camp for part of the year, and then dispersed into "microbands," composed of a single family or two, in other seasons (Griffin 1952; Anderson and Hanson 1998; Ward and Davis 1999). The range of band movement would have occurred over relatively large regions. These larger base camps are theorized to have been located along rich environmental areas near the Fall Line or along main rivers. New subsistence patterns also required new technologies. For example, Archaic people began using ground stone technology, in addition to flaking, to shape tools. Such methods produced mortars, pestles, and soapstone vessels which allowed them to process plant materials more effectively. The resulting products of these technologies differentiate the Archaic Period into three smaller periods. The period also saw innovations in project point manufacturing. In a further divergence with the paleoindians who relied heavily on cryptocrystalline lithics, Archaic people utilized more materials, such as quartzite and quartz. The Early Archaic (8000 — 6500 B.C.) is characterized by projectile points with corner and side - notches, rather than hafting the points to a wood shaft by fluting as the Paleoindians did. The resulting points, such as the Kirk Stemmed and Notched, Palmer Corner -Notched, Fort Nottoway, Kessell, Charleston, and Amos, are thus readily distinguishable from Paleoindian points (Custer 1990). Some evidence also points to the use of grinding technology to make atlatl weights in this period. Additionally, there appears to be an increase in population at this time. The Middle Archaic (6500 — 3000 B.C.) is defined primarily by the appearance of stenuned projectile points which were fitted into a hold in the spear shaft. Therefore, points such as the LeCroy, Stanly, Morrow Mountain, and Guilford are diagnostic of middle Archaic assemblages. Researchers have also pointed out that contexts from this period contain a larger amount of "expedient" stone tools, owing in part to the rapid environmental changes of the Climatic Optimum, which dates from 6000 to 2000 B.C. (Wendland and Bryson 1974; Claggett and Cable 1982; Ward and Davis 1999). These tools were makeshift and less formal, allowing their owners to use them for a wider variety of activities than tools designed for specific uses. The greater density and disbursement of archaeological sites from this period indicates a consistent rise in American Indian populations. By the Late Archaic (3000 — 1200 B.C.), a more congenial climate and more abundant food sources led to dramatic population increases. To be certain, this apparent increase might be exaggerated because late Archaic people had a richer material culture than previous peoples and ' 4-3 HISTORIC CONTEXT hence left more archaeological evidence of their existence (Klein and Klatka 1991). Nonetheless, the greater number of late Archaic sites relative to earlier periods suggests that the human population did in fact expand over the course of the Archaic Period; according to Barber et al. (1992), late Archaic sites were more than twice as numerous as middle Archaic sites. As humans occupied the land more densely, they also became more sedentary and less mobile, perhaps owing to the greater reliance on plant -based food resources compared to hunting and fishing. American Indians from this region may also have begun to domesticate plants such as goosefoot, squash, and gourds (Yarnell 1976:268; Chapman and Shea 1981:70). The projectile point technology of the Late Archaic Period is dominated by stemmed and notched point forms, many with broad blades, likely used as projectiles or knives. These points diminish in size towards the latter portion of this period (Dent 1995; Justice 1995). It should be noted that prehistoric sites that consist of lithic debitage, no diagnostic artifacts, and an absence of ceramic artifacts likely date to the Archaic Period. These sites are described in the records as "Prehistoric/Unknown," however they are most likely to date to this period despite not having a specific temporal designation. WOODLAND PERIOD (1200 B.C. —1600 A.D.) The American Indians of the Woodland Period began to maintain a greater reliance on horticulture and agriculture based on the cultivation of maize, imported from Mesoamerica via the Mississippi Valley, as well as squash, beans, and other crops. This increased sedentism and the nucleating of societies (Klein and Klatka 1991; Mouer 1991). Populations during this time began to consolidate into villages near rivers and floodplains with fertile soil, favorable terrain, and access to fauna. Satellite procurement camps are far less frequent than in the Archaic Period. The Woodland Period is defined foremost by the development of a ceramic technology. Although Archaic people had carved out vessels from soft soapstone, prehistoric Americans did not begin shaping ceramic vessels until around 1200 B.C. The earliest pottery produced on the coastal plain, the Marcey Creek Plain, and other types, in fact resembled those soapstone vessels, suggesting that they were used for similar purposes. Woodland peoples, however, modified the square- or oval -shape soapstone inspired vessels. They began decorating the pieces with cord and tempering them with soapstone and other types of grit to make them stronger. Examples include Selden Island ceramics (tempered with soapstone) and Accokeek pieces (which used sand and grit for tempering). Anthropologists divide the period up into smaller periods based on changing projectile points and ceramics, as well as settlement patterns. The beginning of the Early Woodland (1200 — 500 B.C.) is defined by the appearance of ceramics from prehistoric archaeological context. Ceremonialism associated with the burial of the dead also appears at about 500 B.C. with stone and earth burial cairns and cairn clusters in the Shenandoah Valley (McLearen 1992; Stewart 1992). Early Woodland settlements in the Piedmont region of Virginia are located along rivers as well as in interior areas and there is evidence to suggest the Piedmont areas developed a more sedentary lifestyle during this time (Klein and Klatka 1991; Mouer 1991). Many Early Woodland sites in the Piedmont are J L 1 HISTORIC CONTEXT permanent or semi -permanent villages that are large and intensively occupied. This corresponds with the domestication of weedy plants such as the goosefoot and sunflower along intentionally cleared riverine areas. ' During the Middle Woodland (500 B.C. — 900 A.D.), there is an increase in sites along major trunk streams and estuaries as people move away from smaller tributary areas and begin to ' organize into larger groups (Hantman and Klein 1992). The Middle Woodland diet becomes more complex as people begin to exploit nuts, amaranth, and chenopod seeds in addition to fish, deer, waterfowl, and turkey. Evidence of rank societies emerges more clearly with the spreading ' of religious and ritual behavior including symbols and regional styles apparent in ceramic styles and other sociotechnic and ideotechnic artifacts. Variance in ceramic manufacture is a hallmark of the Middle Woodland Period. Pope's Creek ceramics are associated with the beginning of this period, and Mockely ceramics with the later. Pope's Creek ceramics are tempered with medium to coarse sand, with occasional quartz ' inclusions, and interior scoring has also been recorded (Stephenson 1963:94; McLearen and Mouer 1989). The majority of Pope's Creek ceramics have net -impressed surfaces (Egloff and Potter 1982:99; McLearen and Mouer 1989:5). Shell -tempered Mockley ceramics first appeared around 200 A.D. in Virginia to southern Delaware. There was a variation in surface treatments ' for Mockley that included plain, cord -marked, and net -impressed (Egloff and Potter 1982:103; Potter 1993:62). ' By the Late Woodland Period (900 — 1600 A.D.), the use of domesticated plants had assumed a role of major importance in the prehistoric subsistence system. The adoption of agriculture represented a major change in the prehistoric subsistence economy and settlement patterns. 1 Expanses of arable land became a dominant settlement factor, and sites were located on fertile floodplain soils or, in many cases, on higher terraces or ridges adjacent to them. American Indians began to organize into villages and small hamlets that were highly nucleated and ' occasionally fortified with palisades. The fortifications demonstrate inter -group conflict. By the seventeenth century, the largest village sites within the northern Virginia region were along the Potomac River including Namassingakent, near present-day Mount Vernon, Assaolneck, on the south side of Hunting Creek, and Nainoraughquend, near present-day Roosevelt Island. The Manahoacs occupied the region of northern Virginia east of the Blue 1 Ridge Mountains. When Captain John Smith explored the region in the early seventeenth century, he stated that the "valley beyond the mountains was densely populated by agricultural peoples, but did not provide detailed descriptions of the inhabitants" ("Eyewitness Accounts" ' 2012). Dominant American Indian tribes in the Shenandoah Valley included the Delaware, Catawba, Iroquois, Cherokee, SusgUehannock, and Shawnee (Lehman c.1989). ' SETTLEMENT TO SOCIETY (1607 —1750) The first English settlement in what is now the United States began at Jamestown on the James River. They then slowly explored and settled the colony, following its navigable waterways. The remoteness of the project area delayed its exploration and settlement though Jesuit missionaries may have entered the wilderness of the Shenandoah Valley as early as 1632. Though European ' 4-5 d HISTORIC CONTEXT ownership of land encompassing Frederick County was originally by the Virginia Company, the Crown took it in 1624 and in 1649 King Charles II granted nearly 5,282,000 acres of land to a wealthy group of English investors ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). This consisted of all land between the Potomac and Rappahannock Rivers and from there extended westward into much of northern Virginia, over the Alleghenies into present-day West Virginia (Parsons and Ravenhorst 2002:2). By 1681, Thomas, the Second Lord Culpeper, owned most of this original land grant; after his death, his land would pass to his daughter's husband Thomas, the Fifth Lord Fairfax ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). Explorers, traders, and trappers slowly pushed west into the Shenandoah Valley from the north and east. In an attempt to speed up settlement, thereby forming a buffer between American Indians and more established English settlements to the east, in 1716, Lieutenant Governor Alexander Spotswood and his survey party crossed the Shenandoah River and surveyed the Blue Ridge (G&P 1997:24). The colony of Virginia began to argue that Fairfax's land did not extend west of the Blue Ridge Mountains and began issuing grants of up to 1,000 acres to encourage settlements. Each parcel would revert to Virginia unless settled with a house and orchard within two years ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). For additional enticement, the colonial governor allowed Quakers, Lutherans, and other Protestants to practice their faiths without joining the Church of England (Parker 2006:7). In 1722, governors of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York undertook treaty negotiations with the Iroquois. The result of the 1722 Treaty of Albany in Virginia was that the American Indians would not occupy settlements east of the Blue Ridge. The colony later interpreted the treaty to mean that the Iroquois had ceded claims to the Shenandoah Valley (Grymes n.d.a). Settlement of the future Frederick County began in 1729 ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). The 1730s saw the arrival of several groups traveling south from Pennsylvania along an established American Indian path in the valley that became known as the Great Wagon Road (G&P 1997:24; "History of Frederick County" n.d.). This included Germans, such as Jost Hite and those that accompanied him, who settled along the Opequon Creek in the vicinity of the present-day community of Bartonville, approximately eight miles south of the project area. Given its location, it became known as Opequon. Another early settler that also came south from Pennsylvania was Alexander Ross, an Irish Quaker. Ross received a grant of approximately 10,000 acres in northern Frederick County and by 1735, about 70 families were living on the land. This community came to be known as Hopewell (G&P 1997:24). In addition to these northern settlers, Englishmen on the Piedmont pushed west through the passes of the Blue Ridge. All settlers were attracted to the fertile soils, abundant forest, and water resources in an area of Virginia that was sheltered by the Alleghany ranges on the west and the Blue Ridge on the east ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). The settlement patterns of the region were influenced by the land policies of the colonial government, which encouraged settlers to disperse across the landscape and establish small farmsteads. These policies resulted in dispersed, rural communities and few nucleated centers; one nucleated center would grow at present-day Winchester (G&P 1997:25). r� C 1 HISTORIC CONTEXT ' In 1738, the colony's House of Burgesses created Frederick County from western Orange County and named it after the Prince of Wales ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). Because of its sparse settlement, however, the county's government was not organized until 1743 (G&P 1997:24). Multiple counties would be formed from Frederick County between 1753 and 1836. James Wood, County Surveyor for Orange County, platted the county seat midway between the ' early settlements of Opeyuon and Hopewell (G&P 1997:24). The land that he chose was 1,300 acres of wilderness that he believed to be owned by Virginia. Wood planned 26 half -acre lots and named the county seat Winchester after his birthplace, though it was known as ' Fredericktown before that ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). A c.1747 map illustrates Winchester in the Shenandoah Valley with a number of early paths extending out from the settlement (Figure 4-1). This map also depicts Fort Loudoun in the vicinity; this fort is believed to have been constructed during the French and Indian War. A traveler visiting the town in the 1740s would have encountered only a scattering of stone and log buildings, the public structures on public lots, streets obstructed by stumps, and many uncleared private lots (Hofstra 2006:193). Also in 1747 the new county court admitted that the land did belong to Lord Fairfax and in 1749 Fairfax moved to Frederick County and built his home, Greenway Court, at White Post, in present-day Clarke County, approximately 11 miles south of the project area ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). F igure 4-1: Detail of A survey of the northern neck of Virginia, b} Warner c.1747. depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress 4-7 HISTORIC CONTEXT COLONY TO NATION (1750 — 1789) The western frontier of the colonies witnessed the French and Indian War between 1754 and 1763. As the French and British struggled for control of territory in North America, the northern Shenandoah Valley region became an important foothold for the English and multiple forts and stockades were constructed in Frederick County (G&P 1997:25; Parker 2006:7). The largest of these forts was the previously mentioned Fort Loudoun in Winchester; the only remains of the fort are located at 419 Loudoun Street, approximately two miles south of the project area. This fort was designed and built under the guidance of George Washington who would come to serve as Commander in Chief of the colonial forces with his headquarters in Winchester. Following the war, Washington was elected to his first public office representing Frederick County in the House of Burgesses in 1758 and 1861 ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). The construction of forts led to an increase in population in Frederick and in the vicinity of Winchester with the presence of soldiers and families seeking protection. This created an increase in the demand for food and supplies and led to an expansion of wheat production in the area. Frederick County's economy was based on agriculture and by 1760 the primary focus was the commercial production of wheat. This was in stark contrast to Piedmont and Tidewater Virginia where the early agricultural economy was based on tobacco. Wheat grew well in eastern Frederick where there were fertile limestone soils and land was cleared to create additional farmland. In the western portion of the county, where the soil was underlain by shale, and grains did not grow as well, mills and pastures were more common. Besides grist mills, ironworks were another industry present in the county by the last quarter of the eighteenth century. Such ironworks included Marlboro Iron Works on Cedar Creek and Taylor Furnace Farm at the foot of Great North Mountain (G&P 1997:25-26). The large number of goods produced in the region also led to an increased number of roads and improvement of existing roads leading to Winchester (Figure 4-2). Winchester became the primary market town in the region and in the 1750s the town began to change; it was incorporated in 1779 (Norris 1890:147). With his proximity to the town, Lord Fairfax began to influence its development and sought to create five -acre lots to the north and east of town. The importance of Winchester was also evident in rise value of land near the town (Hofstra 2004:193, 313). In 1757, Lord Fairfax granted land, including the project area, to John McMachon. 1 McMachon sold the land to Bryah and Elizabeth Bruin in 1762, though they sold it within a year to Col. Angus McDonald, a veteran of the French and Indian War. It has been written that the McDonald's constructed a house on the land around 1762 and named it Glengary after his family home near the Garry River in Scotland (Ebert and Lazazzera 1988:33). Eventually, the parcel was purchased by Dr. Robert Macky; upon his death his wife left the property to their son, John Macky (G&P 1997:189). Following the French and Indian War in the mid -eighteenth century, England passed laws and instilled taxes upon the colonists in order to pay its war debts. The result was increased tension between England and the colonies. In response, the 1774 Virginia Convention adopted resolves ' For more in-depth history of Glengary's evolution please read Gray & Pape's 1997 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Investigations Route 37, Frederick County, Virginia on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 4-8 11 1 1 �11 HISTORIC CONTEXT against the importation of British goods and the importation of slaves. The Convention also required each county to form a volunteer company of cavalry or infantry. From eastern Frederick County (now Clarke County) came Gen. Daniel Morgan and his "Long Rifles". Additionally, citizens furnished the troops with food and supplies, including Isaac Zane who supplied the army with ammunition made at his ironworks in Marlboro, near the Frederick - Shenandoah border. While no military engagements took place in Frederick County, many ' prisoners of war were held in the county. Originally, prisoners were placed in Fort Loudoun, however their numbers grew to the point that new facilities were necessary. A barracks was built four miles west of Winchester; by 1781 there were 1,600 prisoners ("History of Frederick I County" n.d.). Figure 4-2: Detail of Anew map of Virginia from the best authorities, by Kitchin c.1761, depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD (1789— 1830) ' Following the American Revolution, Frederick County's strong agricultural economy based on grains and livestock continued to grow and insulated farmers from the economic depression ' experienced by tobacco farmers. While tobacco was raised in some eastern portions of the county where Tidewater planters had relocated, it was not a driving force in the economy. In addition to tobacco, Tidewater planters brought with them a plantation system operated by forced slave labor. Despite the presence of these plantations, there were fewer slaves and more free blacks in the Shenandoah Valley compared with other areas of Virginia. Farmsteads were often run by family members or temporarily hired help (G&P 1997:26). ' With sustained peace in the new nation, Winchester flourished and by 1810 had about 2,000 residents (Norris 1890:170). 4-9 HISTORIC CONTEXT ...it became the mart for the production of several useful products on such a scale as would now, even, be deemed extensive. The manufacture of saddle -trees was carried on to a large extent, and were shipped northward and eastward, even entering the markets almost controlled by Carlisle, Penn., which at that time was the great rival in trade of Winchester. The hats of Winchester were famous far and wide, whilst the gloves of buckskin, made by three or four manufacturers were sought by all eastern dealers, and doubtless was the starting point of the celebrity of valley -made gloves that retain their reputation to this day. One of the largest tanneries was located here even before the Revolution and its leather was shipped as far north as Boston (Norris 1890:148). Other industries embraced by county residents included a variety of mills (grist, saw, oil, paper, and fulling), leather tanneries, breweries and liquor distilleries, blacksmiths and coopers (G&P 1997:26). In 1820, there were 54 mills in Frederick County along with numerous sawmills, tanneries, and other business activities ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). Many of these mills were south and east of Winchester; for example somewhere on Redbud Run was the large flour mill of Daniel T. Wood (Cartmell 1909:48). An 1809 map illustrates the network of roads extending out from Winchester (Figure 4-3). One such road that has been on maps throughout the eighteenth century was the Great Wagon Road. This began to be known as the Valley Turnpike and generally follows the modern alignment of U.S. Route 11, east of the project area; it connected Pennsylvania with North Carolina. As early as 1797 stagecoaches were running on the Valley Pike (Lehman c.1989). Beginning in 1824, macadam was used to pave many of the major roadways in Virginia, including the Valley Turnpike (G&P 1997:27). L %W Torn r .� 11"nwN/w4/. t f R. r, Project Area (/ nl/�L� r�^ /BMW LS • J ayl . t��i� LIl n,,,�,. �•,/YHi..•rt 7y,t Figure 4-3: Detail of Map of Frederick, Berkeley, &c Jefferson counties in the state of Virginia, by Varle and Jones in 1809, depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress 4-10 I HISTORIC CONTEXT ANTEBELLUM PERIOD (1830 — 1860) Frederick County continued to prosper during this period with an economy based on agriculture and life was centered in Winchester and other smaller towns where there were craftsmen and merchants (G&P 1997:27; "History of Frederick County" n.d.). The transportation corridors leading to these towns, especially Valley Turnpike, were a major driver in their growth. Activity ' associated with this road made Winchester one of the largest towns in western Virginia ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). Additional roads and modes of transportation came to Frederick during this period further increasing growth in the county. Like many places in the country and state, the region received a major boon with the coming of the railroad. In 1826, the Virginia legislature authorized the 1 Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (B&O RR) to operate in Virginia (G&P 1997:27). This led to the creation of the Winchester & Potomac Railroad (W&P RR) linking Winchester and the port of Baltimore through Harper's Ferry. Connection to this large port and Baltimore merchants improved the farming economy of the valley (Grymes n.d.b). The year 1836 saw the first railway train into Winchester from Harpers Ferry (Hanson 1969). Furthermore, two major roadways added to the transportation network in the region (G&P 1997:27). In 1850, the Winchester & Berryville and the Front Royal Turnpike companies were authorized to construct roads (Norris 1890:188). The Winchester & Berryville Turnpike connected Winchester and the county seat of Clarke County (Berryville); eventually it was connected to Alexandria and today is the general alignment of State Route 7. The Front Royal Turnpike (U.S. Route 522) connected the county seats of Frederick and Warren County. Improved transportation routes were needed for the reliable movement of goods and produce to ' market, and homesteads continued to form around the network of interior roads. The wealth of the region was reflected in the size of the farms in the county, which were generally larger than farms in other parts of the Valley and were valued at almost twice the state average per acre (G&P 1997:27). It was around 1831 that John R. Cooke built his house at Glengary having purchased approximately 623 acres in 1825 (Kalbian 1991; Quarles 1990:78). Jolul Rogers Cooke was born in Bermuda in 1788 and educated at the College of William and Mary and Princeton University (Quarles 1990:78). Cooke practice law in all the courts of the Lower Valley, lie was an officer in ' the War of 1812, and served in the Virginia legislature (Cartinell 1909:297; Quarles 1990:78). Cooke married Maria Pendleton, daughter of Philip Pendleton of Berkeley County (G&P 1997:189). Together they had thirteen children and believed in the importance of their sons ' learning "the arts of the husbandman during vacation days, and roam daily over the fields and through the woods" (quoted in Cartnell 1909:297). Artistic pursuits were followed by their best known sons of which were Philip Pendleton Cooke the poet, Edward Cooke the artist, and Jolui ' Ester Cooker the novelist (Quarles 1990:78). Their house was valued at $3,000.00, a significant amount compared to their neighbors (G&P 1997:189). ' Soon after however, in 1839, the house burned amplifying the Cooke's existing financial problems (Quarles 1990:78). His parcel was divided and sold (G&P 1997:190). In 1848, James Lewis purchased the "eastern section or division of Glengary" however it is believed that this 4-11 HISTORIC CONTEXT was an adjacent tract to the current Glengary and the buildings are no longer standing. (quoted in G&P 1997:190). The 210-acre portion of the Cooke property with the current Glengary, the project area, was purchased by John Harmon in 1850 for $6,398.63 and he rebuilt the house (G&P 1997:190). The quiet, peaceful life experienced by the Harmon's and residents of Frederick County soon began to change. The first tastes of violence regarding the institution of slavery occurred in 1859. On October 16, John Brown conducted a raid on Harpers Ferry to liberate and arm area slaves and form an autonomous realm for them in the mountains of Maryland and western Virginia, where there were few slaveholders. Frederick County had about 2,300 slaves out of a population of about 16,000, or 14-percent of the population (Holsworth 2011). While any number of enslaved people is too many, by comparison, counties continuing to heavily cultivate tobacco had a much higher proportion; for example Mecklenburg County had a total population of 20,096, 62-percent of which was made up of enslaved people (USCB). As the initial public response to the raid ran its course in Frederick, the sentiment grew more cautious given the strong economic ties that the county had to the northeastern markets (Duncan 2007:4). When Virginia held its secessionist convention in 1861, the four lower Valley counties (Frederick, Clarke, Berkeley, and Jefferson) sent a strongly anti -secessionist delegation. Strong Union sympathies would lead to the two northern most counties (Berkeley and Jefferson) to join the new state of West Virginia (G&P 1997:28). Frederick County was given the option of joining West Virginia and voting was conducted in 1863, however no votes were reported (Grymes n.d.c). CIVIL WAR (1861-1865) There were military campaigns throughout the Civil War to gain control of the strategically important Shenandoah Valley. The valley supplied food, livestock, horses, and soldiers to the southern cause and it was also important because of its strategic location in relation to Washington, D.C. ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). The gently rolling hills provided cover for advancing troops and the roadways provided access into the interior; Winchester in particular was surrounded on all sides by low hills that hid the approach of armies (G&P 1997:29; Fordney 1996). While railroad lines were important during the war throughout the south, the W&P RR was not as important as others. In early 1861, the W&P RR supported the Virginia move to capture Harper's Ferry and removed Confederate supplies when that position was evacuated. However, the line's weak construction, its orientation to Union territory, and proximity to the Potomac River made it of little use to the Confederacy after early 1862 ("Winchester & Potomac" n.d.). The line was damaged and repaired multiple times throughout the war (Lehman c.1989). Winchester was a strategic prize during the Civil War. With its excellent roads north and east, in Confederate hands it was a serious threat to the supply lines of the Union armies trying to reach Richmond. In the hands of the Union army, Winchester made Confederate raids and invasion of the north risky and opened a protected avenue for Union troop movements south through a valley from which they could attack on the flanks and rear of Lee's main armies ("History" n.d.). 4-12 n I 11 I HISTORIC CONTEXT Because of this it is believed that the town of Winchester changed hands between the two sides during the war about 70 times, though it was probably closer to 14 ("History of Frederick County" n.d.; Fordney 1996). Occupiers of the town found it almost impossible to mount a defense, so they usually had to flee quickly, sparing the town from prolonged, destructive sieges (Fordney 1996). During the Civil War, multiple forts were built in the vicinity of Winchester including: Star Fort, just east of Sunnyside; Flag Fort or Fort Milroy, which was built on the site of Fort Garibaldi, west of the Fairmont Avenue National Fruit plant; and Fort Russell, near Stonebrook. Lesser fortifications built were West "Fort" which was really a Lunette (near the intersection of today's Routes 37 and 522), the Collier Redoubt (just east of Route 11 north), and the Parkin's Mill Battery (Lehman c.1989). Mapping shows that fortifications were generally along the hills northwest of Winchester. Star Fort was south of the project area and there was a series of earthworks and fortifications along Apple Pie Ridge just west of the project area. A period map depicts a house within the project area with orchards to its south and east (Figure ' 44). The drive to the dwelling at this time paralleled Redbud Run, extending west from Valley Pike passing the property of James Lewis. The current owner of Glengary has documentation of the house and property at times being used by military occupants "Sometimes the parlor was a ' `headquarters, and the frontyard, orchard and meadow land full of tents and a sutler's store close to the house"' (quoted in Glengary Farm n.d.). Given later confusion of the ownership of Glengary between John Harmon and James Lewis, however, it is unclear if this description is ' referring to the Harmon house or Lewis house. Figure 4-4: Detail of Battlefield of Winchester, Va. (Opequon) /September 19, 1864/, 1873 by Gillespie. depicting the project area. Source: library of Congress 4-13 HISTORIC CONTEXT In addition to occupation of Winchester, during the Civil War six major battles were fought on Frederick County's land. These include: the First, Second, and Third Battles of Winchester, the First and Second Battles of Kernstown, and Cedar Creek. The first major battles in the vicinity of the project area was the First Battle of Kernstown and First Battle of Winchester. In the spring of 1862, Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was carrying out his campaign in the Shenandoah Valley to relieve pressure on Confederate troops near Richmond who were facing McClellan on the Peninsula. In March 1862, Jackson wrongly believed his army to be larger than the Union forces in Winchester and he moved to strike which led to the Battle of First Kernstown. On March 23`d there was skirmishing in Kernstown, the opening conflict of the Valley Campaign. Though the Confederates lost the battle, concerned by the potential threat to Washington, D.C. from the Valley, President Lincoln had more than 35,000 forces redirected to the Valley depriving Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan of reinforcements (NPS 1992). The core of this battle took place more than four miles south of the project area. On May 24, 1862, Jackson and Maj. Gen. Richard S. Ewell captured the Union garrison at Front Royal and began to close in on Winchester. Union Maj. Gen. Nathaniel P. Banks retreated down the Valley Pike towards Winchester where Jackson found him on May 25 ("First Battle of Winchester" n.d.). The Federals were able to initially repulse the Rebels, however when they were struck on each flank the line broke. The Federals then went in a confused retreat through the town of Winchester and into Maryland ("1862" n.d). Banks lost 2,000 men and all of his supplies to Jackson. The core of this battle took place in Winchester and south, more than two miles south of the project area though its study area follows the alignment of Valley Pike, approximately one -quarter mile east of the project area (Figure 4-5). 4-14 1 1 1 1 11 HISTORIC CONTEXT I'ru�ect :�rc•�1 .V.11%40, �. sww.. •. � `j}1 •i i, � "�. --tea- _ _ _ •-, • .6 % -,i: •. J 41 . •� jam.. : �tY ',.�; pF u:�, 7 ha. ► ji/ JG �iGix i Z t y 4- Jr, `� • `�` §yam•*, t~' �� + kz� '3 vt tic _Y M • �•y. � ` •x! a Figure 4-5: Winchester I (VAI04) depicting the project area in relation to the battlefield. Source: ABPP In June 1863, Gen. Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia began their invasion of the north using the Blue Ridge Mountains to screen their movements. At this time, Winchester was occupied by the Union army ("1863" n.d.). Though Robert Milroy, commander of the Federals in 4-15 HISTORIC CONTEXT Winchester, was aware that Lee's army was heading north he stayed in place in Wincheser. The ridge west of town was heavily fortified with trenches connecting forts. On June 13t', Divisions under Maj. Gen. Jubal A. Early and Maj. Gen. Edward Johnson took the Valley Pike and Front Royal Road north converging upon Winchester, pushing back Union forces as they progressed. Eventually, the Union force retreated north of Abrams Creek and after dark Milroy concentrated his forces inside a triangle defined by Fort Milroy, Star Fort, and West Fort (Figure 4-6) (NPS 1992). At dawn of June 14t', one of Early's brigades swept forward to capture Bower's Hill with little resistance. Johnson extended his line to the right against very light opposition resulting in fitful skirmishing in the streets of Winchester. Early and Ewell decided on a flanking strategy and Gordon's brigade and two batteries were left on Bower's Hill, while Early led his three other brigades back to Cedar Creek Grade, west beyond Applie Pie Ridge where it was out of view of U.S. fortifications, then north over Cloverdale Plantation to Walnut Grove. While Early made this march, Johnson advanced a line of skirmishers on the right to occupy the Federal's attention. The Confederates on Bower's Hill opened up, toughing off a duel with the Union guns in Fort Milroy. By mid -afternoon, Early's force had gained a position opposite West Fort on the Apple Pie Ridge. Guns were positioned on the Brierly Farm northwest of the fort and in an orchard southwest of the fort. By this time the field had quieted, and the Union forces believed that the Confederates had been repulsed from Winchester (NPS 1992). Early's artillery opened fire on West Fort and Brig. Gen. Harry T. Hays advanced his Louisiana brigade through the corn and wheat fields at the base of Apple Pie Ridge. On command, the brigade rushed forward across 300 yards of open fields and swept upward into the works. After a brief hand-to-hand, Union defenders abandoned the works, retreating to Fort Milroy. Early consolidated his line on West Fort Ridge, but darkness prevented further gains although an artillery duel continued until long after dark (NPS 1992). During the night, Milroy retreated on the old Charles Town Road towards Harpers Ferry. The column massed in the low ground between Star Fort and Fort Milroy, then moved down the railroad and the Valley Pike toward the Charles Town crossroad, just south of Stephenson's Depot. Near dawn, the retreating Federals were confronted by Confederates near the intersection of the Valley Pike and old Charles Town Road. As it grew light, Federals made several uncoordinated attacks against the bridge and railroad embankment, however, the Confederates were being steadily reinforce and repulsed each attempt. When a Confederate brigade joined the battle from the north, the Federals surrendered and 2,500 to 3,000 soliders were captured. During the battle, Confederate Lt. Gen. Richard Ewell's troops numbered 19,000 men against Milroy's 6,900. However, according to the NPS, "US casualty figures for Second Winchester vary widely. This is explained by the fact that about two thousand Union soliders not belonging to Milroy's command were in field hospitals in the city and were often added to the number of captured or missing" (NPS 1992). The core of fighting during the Battle of Second Winchester occurred at five locations: Pritchard's Hill; the intersection of Millwood and Front Royal pikes (interchange 82 of I-81); Abrams Creek and Bower's Hill; Apple Pie Ridge and West Fort; and Stephenson's Depot (NPS 4-16 HISTORIC CONTEXT 1992). According to the NPS, three of these areas retain high levels of integrity. The project area is adjacent to one just area (Figure 4-7). �. Project Area - •'�AG7'lll �.. ,«.,.,r... ►.sue+ .r y� r / I/R'll 47/ it . I /r It'll Figure 4-6: Sketch of the Second Battle of Winchester, by Hotchkiss, depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress HISTORIC CONTEXT Project Area ,. 3 g1 ,� ti f• i 1�'E 4 ti 4. - � s .•tom ' ' i. c- ,A ��.�: - •. C' ^r ♦ y - �i tbAff AMA r LMIM.tI r w All, �1 `4 Mtn lla NXlvna'p«gi h. Hmntl�y Figure 4-7: Winchester 11(VA107) depicting the project area in relation to the battlefield. Source: ABPP While Gen. Lee had Union forces embroiled in combat in Petersburg in 1864, he sent Lt. Gen. Jubal A. Early and his Army of the Valley on a campaign through Shenandoah Valley hoping to 4-18 HISTORIC CONTEXT ' force Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant to divide his army (Adelman n.d.). Following the Battle at Cool Spring on July 17-18, 1864, Early's army withdrew south. Believing him to be no longer a threat, Union Maj. Gen. Horatio Wright abandoned his pursuit and sent the bulk of his forces ' back to Washington, D.C. leaving Winchester with a diminished capacity. Gen. Lee ordered Early to prevent those Federal reinforcements from going to Washington from where they would be sent to Petersburg. On July 20, Early marched north again and faced Brig. Gen. George ' Crook at Pritchard's Hill near Kernstown (CWT n.d.a). Early won a decisive victory as Crook retreated across the Potomac River (NPS 1992). Buoyed by the victory, Early's army continued north and burned Chambersburg, Pennsylvania at the end of July (CWT n.d.a). The core of the Battle of Second Kernstown took place nearly four miles south of the project area, though its study area followed the Valley Pike. In response to these Confederate movements, Grant made Philip Sheridan commander of the new Army of the Shenandoah and set him on the task of rendering the Valley useless to Confederates. On September 19, 1864, Early's 14,000 soldiers and Sheridan's 39,000 clashed at the Third Battle of Winchester, also called the Battle of Opequon (Figure 4-8) (Adelman n.d.). ' Believing that Sheridan would act like other cautious Union commanders, Early spread his smaller army over a wide front north from Winchester. Sheridan moved to bring his army against ' that portion at Winchester and Early hurried to concentrate his men at the city. Sheridan's force, advancing on the Berryville Pike through a narrow canyon encountered Confederate's, slowing their passage and creating a choke point for Sheridan's advance; this delayed the advance enough ' to allow Early's men time to get into Winchester (Adelman n.d.). As Union forces emerged from the canyon, lines were established straddling Berryville Pike and ' extending to Abrams Creek on the south and Redbud Run on the north (NPS 1992). At 11:40 a.m., two corps of Union forces advanced from a woodlot now known as the First Woods across a field. The two corps got separated all the while under fierce fire by Confederates. One ' Confederate remembered, "Our cannoneers made their battery roar, sending their death -dealing messengers with a precision and constancy that made the earth around them seem to tremble ... A more murderous fire I never witnessed than was plunged into this heterogeneous mass" (quoted ' in Adelman n.d.). Despite the difficulty, the Federal line did not stop until it had penetrated the Confederate position. ' The Rebels counterattacked and drove the Federals back across the field and reaching a stalemate as the two sides exchanged long range fire. Sheridan, therefore, called for his reserves to advance alongside of the soldiers already on the field and from the northern back of Redbud Run. The ' combined thrust was too much for the outnumbered Southerners. Additionally, Union cavalry forces fought their way south up the Valley Pike. By nightfall, the city of Winchester was in Union hands (Adelman n.d.). The Third Battle of Winchester was the bloodiest battle fought in the Shenandoah Valley, producing more casualties than the entire 1862 Valley Campaign with 5,018 Union casualties ' and 3,611 Confederate casualties (Adelman n.d.; NPS 1992). The majority of fighting took place in Winchester and to its east. The NPS has identified four battlefield core areas, one of which lies south of the project area (Figure 4-9). ' 4-19 HISTORIC CONTEXT BATTLE FELDE Y.- cV �'. ry VIR681IA. .. Project Area r� a- __ „ � ,fit •� e�- P •iTt,{. IIf�LI� � �" Figure 4-8: Battlefield of Winchester, Va. (Opequon) depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress 4-20 HISTORIC CONTEXT Figure 4-9: Opeyuon/Third If'inche.cter (I'A//9) depicting; the project area in relation to the battlefield Source: ABPP Sheridan's Shenandoah Valley Campaign also included the systematic destruction of Valley farms, mills, crops, and livestock and anything else that might have aided the Confederate army (G&P 1997:28). For three weeks in 1864 from late September to early October, they burned 2,000 barns, 120 mills, and a half a million bushels of grain and confiscated 50,000 head of livestock in the Valley. Virginia's richest valley was left desolate ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). ' By mid -October, Gen. Early was determined to strike Sheridan. In the early morning of October 19'", Early and his men struck Sheridan's men camped along the east bank of Cedar Creek only to be repulsed by a crushing counterattack. Sheridan's victory at Cedar Creek extinguished any ' hope of further Confederate offensives in the Shenandoah Valley (CWT n.d.b). This battle took place in southern Frederick County. RECONSTRUCTION AND GROWTH (1865— 1917) The Civil War affected Virginia severely resulting in a heavy loss of life, devastated economy, and destruction of farms. With the long occupation of Winchester by both armies, the town and its surroundings were impacted. Additionally, during Reconstruction Federal soldiers continued to be stationed in Winchester until 1870. With the destruction witnessed throughout Virginia, the region slipped into a depression (G&P 1997:29). As with much of the rest of Virginia, economic 4-21 HISTORIC CONTEXT realities following the end of the Civil War resulted in slow redevelopment of the area's agricultural and industrial capabilities. Road and railway infrastructure was slowly rebuilt as industry and agriculture struggled to gain a foothold in the post -Civil War south and towns attempted to re-establish themselves. Transportation, which had previously helped the valley to flourish, also aided in its recovery. During Reconstruction the W&P RR was operated by the B&O RR; afterwards, W&P stockholders regained control and leased the line to the B&O RR which became the Harpers Ferry Valley Branch of the B&O RR (G&P 1997:27). The Cumberland Valley Railroad (CVRR) would also come to the region. Chartered in Pennsylvania in 1831, the railroad extended south to the Potomac River about 1873; it reached Winchester in 1889. Frederick County's grain and livestock production recovered and they were back to pre-war levels by the 1880s. Unfortunately, the region had a new competitor in the Great Plains where massive amounts of grain were cultivated. This competition would lead the county to diversify its economy into fruit production. Farmers began to plant orchards, specifically apple orchards, in the fertile limestone soils and by the turn of the century, apples would become the major growth industry in the region with the largest percentage increase in production occurring between 1910 (351,490 bushels) and 1920 (1,019,546 bushels) (G&P 1997:29). By 1909, an estimated 2,000 acres were planted with apples (Cartmell 1909:510). Other early twentieth century crops included corn, potatoes, oats, hay, buckwheat, rye, and peaches and livestock such as cattle, hogs, sheep, and chickens. Additionally, the quarrying of limestone emerged in the early twentieth century with several kilns opening along the B&O RR. The poorer shale soils of the county were largely abandoned for agricultural pursuits during this time and many reverted back to forest land. Winchester, incorporated as a city in 1874, would remain the commercial center of the region throughout the twentieth century (G&P 1997:29-30). John Harmon owned Glengary until his death in 1886, though an 1885 map depicts James Lewis as the owner (Figure 4-10). His daughter, Elizabeth A. Harmon Stine, received 140 acres of Glengary, including the house. By 1901, Glengary was in the hands of Elizabeth's daughter Edmonia Stine Baker (G&P 1997:190-191). 4-22 1 HISTORIC CONTEXT • i`rw � �' v i a" Project Area ��° +` �" r• f f� r - .%4n 1..And ./�rr••(.h .tin.. ftt �,rn( 1•�•r' ti i ]b. r.... • ♦F fro 1� it �l� /• ... d!• 'G... ��'• s �0_111 t» y t �' !' - f (7v.s.SIM•rgl•rt .h••T(1w�r+e9•a' .',rf• re' �l f -yr ♦ •.t rrr OOD I••u • + �• O,A•to, r.•iuw• � o�'�....o..� � � old. • • yo/ 50 t`• j*,,' , fie'' ^ °_� • 1,`:• C_v.q. Yti�Tl)H'r ��• r �rOr. IO.1� • • �Ai� 49 js ILL Figure 4-10: Detail of An Adas: Frederick County, 1885, depicting the project area. source: Hislom Map Works WORLD WAR I TO WORLD WAR 11(1917 — 1945) The production of apples began in the late nineteenth century with the first large scale orchard planted in 1871 (Hanson 1969). Frederick began the Apple Blossom Festival, in Winchester, in 1924 and the area became known as one of the leading apple producing areas of the state, earning it the moniker of "Apple Capital". Businesses related to the production, storage, packing, and shipping of apples have developed throughout the area, including the Winchester Cold Storage Company (1917), the Virginia Barrel Company (1910), and the Southern Chemical Company (1925) (G&P 1997:30). The ease of transportation of this product was facilitated by the road network around Winchester and the B&O RR and CVRR which, by 1919, was the Pennsylvania Railroad (Figure 4-11). In 1918, Virginia's General Assembly established the first state highway system, a network of 4,002 miles of roadway. Among the roads to be included was the old Valley Turnpike between Winchester and Staunton, which still was being operated as a toll road in 1918. As late as 1926, it remained the only hard -surfaced road of much distance (VDOT 2006:27). During World War II, Winchester housed German prisoners at a detention camp; in 1944 there were 350 prisoners (G&P 1997:30). While there, prisoners worked in the local industries and apple orchards ("WWII Prisoner of War Camp existed years ago in Winchester" 2016). 4-23 HISTORIC CONTEXT Typically in rural counties of Virginia, where agriculture is the primary driver of the economy, population fell during the Great Depression and World War II as residents relocated to urban centers in search of work. In Frederick County, however, population increased by nearly 41- percent as it grew from 12,461 residents in 1920 to 17,537 in 1950 (USCB). Figure 4-11: Detail of the 1942 topographic map, Winchester, VA, depicting the project area. Source: USGS NEW DOMINION (1945 — PRESENT) In the second half of the twentieth century, much of northern Virginia changed quickly as it developed into a metropolitan suburb. While much of Frederick County remains fairly rural, Winchester and its surroundings have achieved a more suburban atmosphere in the last decades of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century. Between 1950 and 2000 the population of Frederick more than tripled from 17,537 residents to 59,209 (USCB). The apple industry continues to be a large part of the local economy however, there is growing employment among manufacturing, retail, and service jobs (G&P 1997:30). Other industries, including limestone quarries, manufacturing corporations, construction and light industrial parks, are thriving in the county (G&P 1997:30; Parker 2006:7). As growth continues in the county, many apple orchards are being replaced by new roads, homes, shopping centers, and institutions (Parker 2006:7). These changes in the rural landscape is evident in the area surrounding the project area as industrial development increased in the 1970s through 2000s (Figures 4-12 and 4-13). Though alterations were made to Glengary in this period, it remained a farm. In 1948, Charles B. and Mary S. Baker, heirs of Edmonia Baker, conveyed the land to Roy R. and Pearl V. Boyce who 4-24 HISTORIC CONTEXT ' planted an apple orchard. They sold the land not containing the orchard to Douglas O. and Helen B. Grimm in 1956 (G&P 1997:191). Figure 4-12: Detail of the 1966 topographic map, Winchester, 6 4, depicting the project area. Source: USGS Figure 4-13: Detail of a 1997 aerial depicting the project area. Source: Google Earth 4-? i n HISTORIC CONTEXT I THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1 4-26 1 FIELD RESULTS ' 5. FIELD RESULTS Field investigation of Glengary was conducted in September 2017 and included both ' architectural and archaeological survey of the property. The following sections provide the results of the field survey. The architectural survey results include a narrative of the existing conditions with detailed architectural description, a developmental history of the property, and an assessment of historical integrity. The archaeological results includes a detailed methodology of the testing strategy along with a summary of findings. ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY Glengary is a Greek Revival plantation home originally constructed in 1850 but substantially enlarged and renovated on several occasions throughout the twentieth century. The original block of the building is a two-story, five -bay, I -house (Figure 5-1). The brick walls are laid in a Flemish Bond on the front facade and five -course American Bond on the sides and rest on a low stone foundation. It is topped by side -gable roof covered with composition shingles. The roofline is embellished by stepped brick cornices which wrap around the sides as short gable returns. Semi -engaged end chimneys extend up each side and pierce the roof at the ridge. The 1 chimney is flanked by half -lunette louvered vents in the gable. The main entrance is set within the central bay on the first floor and consists of a paneled wood door flanked by three -light sidelights and topped by a linear six -light transom. The frame is molded with Greek Revival influences. Fenestration is symmetrical on the front fagade and consists of double -hung sash wood windows with six -over -six light configurations. The windows rest on stone sills and are topped by wooden lintels with plain corner blocks. There are no windows on the side wall. The ' front fagade was redesigned in the mid -twentieth century through the construction of a two-story, three -bay Neoclassical -inspired portico (Figure 5-2). The portico rests on a raised brick stoop and features four square columns supporting a pedimented gable roof with a boxed cornice. The 1 pediment is clad with clapboard and features a single fanlight. Contemporary to the portico, a Juliet balcony was also appended to the front fagade below the central second floor window, just above the entry. �J I Ll 5-1 FIELD RESULTS Figure 5-1: Glengary front facade, facing west Figure 5-2: Detail of front portico, facing southwest 5-2 11 FIELD RESULTS The symmetrical fagade of the original block is also interrupted by a later wing attached to the north side of the building. This wing was constructed in 1970, but generally matches the character and scale of the original block (Figure 5-3). It is three -bays wide and two -stories, although slightly shorter and slightly set back. It too rests on a continuous stone foundation and is clad with brick walls laid in a Flemish Bond on the front and American Bond on the side and rear. The brickwork of the cornice and gable returns matches the original block, as does the chimney, half -lunette vents, and window sills and lintels (Figure 5-4). A rear entry is located on the back of this wing, in the bay adjacent to an earlier rear ell. Figure 5-3: Circa 1970 side wing, facing west Figure 5 4: Front and north side oblique, facing southNest 5-3 FIELD RESULTS In the early -twentieth century, an offset, two-story rear ell was appended to the original block (Figure 5-5). This ell has a wood frame structural system and is now clad with Masonite siding. The gable roof is set just below the primary roofline and partially abuts the rear brick wall. A one-story, shed -roof porch with central gable embellishment extends along the south side of this ell. It is set on a raised stone foundation and is supported by turned wood posts. A secondary entry is sheltered by this porch. Other fenestration consists of wood double -hung sash windows with six -over -six light configurations. Figure 5-5: Rear ell north side, facing southeast At an unknown date later in the twentieth century, the early -twentieth century rear ell was extended further to the rear with an integral two -car garage on the lower level and additional living space above (Figure 5-6). It conforms to the same roofline, fenestration pattern, and overall character of the rear ell and has been further integrated by the later addition of a long one-story enclosed addition that extends the length of the first period rear ell and extension. The forward portion of this area serves as a sunroom and is enclosed with several bands of casement windows and is covered by a cross -gabled roof. The rear portion is a storage area for the garage and has two small windows. The overall mass is clad with Masonite to match the rest of the rear block. 5-4 FIELD RESULTS Figure 5-6: Rear ell south side Nith garage extension, facing northeast In general, the exterior of the home reflects its evolution from the mid -nineteenth century through the latter -twentieth century. The original block retains some of its Greek Revival design, materials, and character as designed; however is cloaked by a large twentieth century portico that lends a more Colonial Revival appearance to the home. The original design is also obscured by the 1970 side wing that was designed and built to match the features of the original block and thus appears also as an original or early wing, despite its much later date of construction. The early -twentieth century rear ell can still be discerned; however it too is largely cloaked by the later extension and side porch, all of which have been clad with continuous modern siding and updated with replacement doors and windows. Interior The interior of the home also conveys the various periods of time and styles in which it was built. The original block retains much of its Greek Revival -style detailing while the side wing and rear ell are similar and compatible, but with a stronger Colonial Revival influence. The original block of the home has a single -pile center passage plan with two rooms on each floor. The front entry leads into the central hallway which features an open -well, two -run stair with decorative brackets and a graceful ramped handrail with tapered balusters, two per stair, and turned newels (Figure 5-7). The stringer is embellished with a scrollwork relief below each tread. The wall below the stringer is paneled in vertical sections with a two -panel door to the basement at the end of the wall. At the bottom of the stair, on each side of the hallway are doorways into the flanking rooms. These doorways exhibit a Greek Revival architrave with a compound raised molding that steps out at the top before being crowned with a corbelled hood. The doors are six - panel with box locks (Figure 5-8). 5-5 FIELD RESULTS I 11 I 11 Figure 5-7: Original block central passage from entry, facing west I �I 1 1 5-6 fl fl FIELD RESULTS Figure 5-8: First floor door architrave, south room, facing north Each of the rooms flanking the central passage is adorned by fireplace on the outside wall. The mantels are simple with plain pilasters and frieze and Greek Revival -style molding at the cornice. The firebox is lined with brick that matches the hearth set flush with the floors (Figure 5-9). Flooring throughout the first floor is wide plank pine. The rooms have deep baseboards with molded cornices. Set above the baseboards is paneled wainscoting that was added in the twentieth century. Crown molding around the ceilings was also later added. The second floor rooms are similar in finish; however a closet has been constructed along the interior wall in each ' room. i] 1 ri 5-7 FIELD RESULTS I 1 Figure 5-9: Fireplace and mantel in north room, facing northwest Two new doorways have been added in the first floor north room to provide access to the side ' wing and rear ell respectively. Both of these doorways are surrounded by simple architraves with plain boards and corner blocks. The door to the rear ell is six -paneled while that into the side , wing is a pair of three -paneled French doors (Figure 5-10). Figure 5-10: North room with later doorways, facing northwest Through the door to the side wing is a narrow corridor at the end of which is a single room , (Figure 5-11). This room is clade with knotty pine vertical board paneling and has a brick fireplace with plain mantel on the outside wall. Baseboards, crown molding, and window surrounds are all simply molded. Also off the side wing corridor is a small bathroom and a cross- 5-8 FIELD RESULTS passage that leads to a two -run, dog -legged stairwell along the front wall (Figure 5-12). Both this hallway and the main corridor feature wainscoting and chair rails similar to those in the main house. Figure 5-11: Room in side Ning, facing northeast Figure 5-12: IIaIIAaN and stairwell in side wing, facing east Through the door in the north room to the rear ell is the kitchen area (Figure 5-13). Reportedly this room served as a dining room when first constructed in the early -twentieth century with the 5-9 1 FIELD RESULTS kitchen in a second room further to the rear, but the kitchen was moved to this space in the mid - twentieth century. This room is down one step from the original block and exhibits a third- quarter twentieth century character. The floors are covered with a faux -brick vinyl tile and the plaster walls are papered. Faux wood beams stretch across the ceiling. Cabinetry and hardware reflect a 1970s date. The door and window surrounds reflect an earlier date and are plain board with corner blocks. Figure 5-13: Kitchen in rear ell, facing south i.1 1 1 1 To the side of the kitchen is a door that leads into the sunroom along the north side of the rear ell. At the rear of the kitchen is a door that leads into a small room also within the older portion of the rear ell that reportedly originally functioned as the kitchen. This room has a door that leads on to the open porch along the south side of the ell as well as a door that leads into the sunroom , along the north side. Along the rear of the room is an enclosed dog -leg stairwell that leads to the second floor of the ell. The enclosed stairwell is finished with vertically -laid tongue -and -groove board while the rest of the walls plastered with a chair rail (Figure 5-14). A built-in cabinet adorns the wall between this room and the kitchen (Figure 5-15). 5-10 I I 1 FIELD RESULTS Figure 5-14: Enclosed stairwell and doorway in rear ell, facing west Figure 5-15: Back room in rear ell with built-in cabinet, facing east 5-11 FIELD RESULTS The sunroom extending along the north side of the rear ell reflects a late -twentieth century character (Figure 5-16). This space has wood floors with papered sheetrock walls. All door and window trim appear to be commercially -produced. Figure 5-16: Sunroom interior, facing northeast Site Glengary is situated at the middle of a large agricultural property that is now surrounded on three sides by modern development and infrastructure. The gravel driveway begins at the end of Lenoir Drive, the primary corridor through a twentieth century industrial park. The long driveway extends through open grassy fields at the front of the property and leads to the central homesite and building complex (Figure 5-17). The home is set on a slight knoll that is shaded by a variety of mature trees and faces east across the open grassy fields. The driveway leads to the south side of the house where it makes a small loop with an extension leading to the attached garage as well as an extension to the farm complex behind the home. The driveway in the vicinity of the home is lined by mature boxwoods. A brick walkway leads from the loop to the front of the home. Additional boxwoods and vegetation adorn the walkway and front portico, as well as around the foundation of the building. The backyard is delineated by a treeline and a small garden patch near the location of the original kitchen/servant's quarters that was recently demolished. To the northeast rear corner of the home is a late -nineteenth century root cellar and meathouse. Extending along the back and sides of the homesite are fences separating the pastureland beyond. Adjacent to the gate from the driveway into the pasture and farm complex is a small late -nineteenth or early -twentieth century pump house. Through the gate is a complex of farm buildings including a late -nineteenth century granary, an early -twentieth century bank barn and silo, and an early -twentieth century animal barn. The ruins of mid -nineteenth century hay barn are also present. Surrounding the farm complex are open pasture fields which are interrupted by treelines as well as a historic uncoursed stone wall. 5-12 1� 1 1 1 fl FIELD RESULTS Figure 5-17: Glengary Building complex. Source: Google Earth Root Cellar - Set to north side of the home is a subterranean root cellar (Figure 5-18). This structure likely dates to the late -nineteenth century. It is topped by a grassy, earthen covered barrel roof and is accessed by a set of hinged doors metal doors. The entry bulkhead is set against an arched stacked stone end wall. Figure 5-18: Root cellar, facing east 5-13 L FIELD RESULTS Meathouse - Set just to the northwest of the home, behind the rear addition, is a small meathouse building (Figure 5-19). The building appears to date to the late -nineteenth or early -twentieth century. It has a wood frame structural system clad with vertical board and rests on a continuous stone foundation that has been partially parged with concrete. It is topped by a front -gable roof covered with asphalt shingles. There is a paneled wood door set centrally on the front end of the building and no other fenestration. Figure 5-19: Meathouse, facing west Pump House - Set just inside the domestic yard area, near the gate into the farm complex is a late -nineteenth century well pump house (Figure 5-20). This small building is clad with clapboard and rests on a poured concrete foundation. It is topped by a side -sloping shed roof covered with corrugated metal. A single board and batten door is set on the north side with a poured concrete stoop. A wood post extends up the rear wall and is attached to an overhead electric line. 5-14 1 u I Fl L F11 1 fl fl 1 Figure 5-20: Pump house, facing south"est FIELD RESULTS ' Gran a - Set centrally within the farm complex is a late -nineteenth century granary/corn crib building (Figure 5-21). The wood frame building is clad with vertical board siding and rests on four wide stone pier foundations that stretch the full -width of the structure. It is topped by a gable roof covered with slate shingles. At each end of the building are open bays sealed by suspended board and batten doors on a sliding track. Originally, the north side of the building was nearly completely open to allow for internal air circulation; however this bay has been infilled with narrow vertical slats. The south side of the building has a full-length shed addition covered by a corrugated metal roof. The structure is now mostly open, but appears to originally have been enclosed with board siding and each end accessible by a garage bay sealed by a sliding track door. The inside of the building was not accessible for inspection, but according to previous investigations, the interior layout consists of a full-length central corridor with a ' granary storage on one side and corn crib on the other. 1 H 5-15 FIELD RESULTS Figure 5-21: Granary, facing southwest Bank Barn - Set in the farm complex to the southwest of the home and just southeast of the , granary is a large bank barn (Figure 5-22). This bank barn was reportedly constructed during World War I by German prisoners of war, but with materials from an older barn originally located elsewhere in the Shenandoah Valley. This is plausible as inspection of the barn reveals a variety of large, older beams, with previously used mortises indicative of a nineteenth century structure; although the construction techniques and other materials reflect a twentieth century date. The wood frame structural system rests on a continuous concrete block foundation that steps down with the topography of the landscape. The concrete blocks along the upper portion of the building are rusticated for a decorative appearance while those along the sides and lower area are typical blocks. The exterior of the barn is clad with vertical board siding and topped by a gable roof covered in standing seam metal. The main level of the building overhangs the lower level by one bay. This lower level has two larger openings with sliding track doors as well as two smaller stall doors each flanked by a six -light casement window. There are similar casement windows illuminating the lower level on each side of the building. The main level of the building has large double -bay r central openings sealed by sets of sliding track doors. The uphill side of the building is accessed by an earthen ramp with poured concrete retaining walls. Each end of the barn has two louvered vents with pedimented hoods. Similar vents are set above in each gable. At the northwest corner ' of the building is a concrete stave silo. Its base is set adjacent to the earthen ramp and connects to the lower level of the barn with a small enclosure (Figure 5-23). 5-16 FIELD RESULTS Figure 5-22: Flank Barn doAnhill side, facing southwest Figure 5-23: Bank barn uphill aide, facing northeast The interior of the lower level of the barn is divided into separate feeding areas and stalls complete with built in feed troughs (Figure 5-24). A ladder near the back wall provides internal access to the main level. The main level consists of a single open primary space with a small workroom enclosure in one corner (Figure 5-25). The lower level ladder is bulkhead and is enclosed in a small closet near the front wall. The heavy timber framing is exposed throughout and reveals earlier mortises and non -original sistered beams. 5-17 II FIELD RESULTS I Figure 5-24: Bank barn lower level interior, facing southwest Figure 5-25: Bank barn main level interior, facing northeast Animal Barn - Set near the back of the farm complex, to the west of the granary is an early - twentieth century animal barn (Figure 5-26). This wood frame building is clad with vertical board siding and rests on a continuous concrete block foundation. It is topped by a gable roof covered with corrugated metal. Each side of the building has a large central bay sealed by a pair of sliding track doors. A small livestock entry is located in the corner of the east end. The interior is open with a mid -height shelf on the east end to serve as a pen for livestock beneath with storage above (Figure 5-27). The timber framing is exposed and reveals earlier mortises. 5-18 FIELD RESULTS Figure 5-26: Animal barn, facing southwest Figure 5-27: Animal barn interior, facing southeast 5-19 FIELD RESULTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Archaeological investigations of the Glengary property included a desktop analysis, limited pedestrian survey, and judgmental shovel testing of targeted areas within previously recorded archaeological sites. Desktop Analysis Two previously recorded archaeological sites are located within the boundaries of the Glengary property. Sites 44FK0480 and 44FK0481 were identified by students with James Madison University (JMU) in 1992 (Figure 5-28). According to the VCRIS inventory record, Site 44FK0480 was identified through visual inspection only and consisted of early nineteenth century cultural material widely scattered over field terraces. The material was considered likely associated with the Glengary domestic and agricultural complex located approximately 30-meters (100-feet) to the north. No shovel tests were excavated and no materials collected as part of the survey. Observed materials included ceramics (stonewares and earthenwares), bottle glass, brick and nails. An unknown portion of the site was considered destroyed. Similarly, the VCRIS inventory record for Site 44FK0481 indicates that the site was identified through a combination of visual inspection and shovel testing. The site is associated with the Glengary domestic and agricultural complex and consisted of ceramics (earthenwares) and a variety of nineteenth and twentieth century container glass. The survey resulted in the identification of surface and subsurface deposits with some level of integrity. 5-20 T FIELD RESULTS 0 'ice } •'�'I,t { �' Figure 5-28: Location of Sites 44FK0480 and 44FK0481 recorded during the 1992 .1Ntt sure}'. Source: VCRIS 2017. Pedestrian Survey Following completion of the desktop analysis, D+A staff completed a limited pedestrian survey of the Glengary property. Visual inspection of the property revealed a well maintained domestic complex with a manicured lawn, mature trees and shrubbery present around the house (Figure 5- 29). No evidence of cultural material was observed on the ground surface surrounding the domestic complex. In addition, with the exception of small variations in surfaces likely associated with removal of vegetation over time, there was no observed evidence of landscape features or depressions suggesting the presence of subsurface cultural deposits. 5-21 FIELD RESULTS I 1 I I 1 u 11 Figure 5-29: View of domestic landscape surrounding the main dwelling at Glengary facing north. Areas comprising the agricultural complex (barns, sheds, and surround pastures and fields), were , visually inspected; however, pastures with cattle were only casually inspected as the cattle did not accommodate an extended presence of surveyors in their pasture. Areas around the barns and sheds revealed well worn and exposed soils consistent with their location and use (Figures 5-30 ' and 5-31). Agricultural materials of various forms (barrels, farm equipment, etc.) were scattered adjacent to farm buildings and along fence lines. Fields to the south and west of the domestic and agricultural buildings were in active use as pasture for cattle and exhibited hard packed soils with ' a light covering field grasses. Natural rock outcrops were also observed in fields and the property rises slightly in elevation to the southwest. Cursory visual inspection of these fields did not result in any observed cultural material greater than 50 years of age. Specifically the area of previously ' recorded Site 44FK0480 did not exhibit any evidence of surface scatter or previous cultural activity. 5-22 FIELD RESULTS Figure 5-30: General view of landscape surrounding agricultural buildings facing east. 5-23 FIELD RESULTS I �I 1 Figure 5-31: General view of landscape around agricultural buildings and pastures west of the domestic complex, facing northwest. At the time of the study, fields located to the north and east of the domestic and agricultural , buildings were fallow and covered with field grasses. Surface visibility in these areas was limited due to the thick covering of grasses and no evidence of cultural material or activity was observed. According to the current property owner, oral history suggests that the stone ' foundations of an earlier dwelling are believed to be in the lower field adjacent to Redbud Run. Visual inspection of this area revealed natural bedrock outcrops located in the lower fields; however, the bedrock did not exhibit any evidence of being worked or used as a structural , foundation and appeared to be natural in all respects. Judgmental Shovel Testing 1 Following completion of visual inspection of the property, judgmental shovel tests were excavated in areas of the property identified as having the highest potential for intact , archaeological deposits to be present. Placement of judgmental shovel tests was guided by the results of the desktop analysis, pedestrian survey, historic context, and landowner interview. A total of 14 judgmental shovel tests were excavated in and around the domestic and agricultural ' complex of the Glengary property. Tests were placed in areas of the two previously identified 5-24 1 1 FIELD RESULTS 1 sites, as well as along a ridge north of the existing dwelling overlooking a lower lying field and Redbud Run (Figure 5-32). Figure 5-32: Plan view of judgmental shovel test locations. Positi-e shovel tests are marked yellow negative shovel tests are red. Judgmental shovel tests located south and west of the main dwelling (J-4, J-7, J-8, and J-9) revealed a consistent soil profile of a brown silty loam topsoil overlying a sterile silty clay subsoil with rock inclusions (Figures 5-33 and 5-34). Judgmental shovel tests J-4, J-7, and J-9 were positive for cultural material. These shovel tests were located in the area of the former ' kitchen/servants quarter, which had been removed at some point in the recent past. According to the landowner the kitchen structure also had a basement and servants lived in the structure. Artifacts recovered from judgmental tests in the area of the kitchen included ceramics (blue shell ' edge pearlware, blue transferprint pearlware, stoneware) window glass, mortar, oyster shell, a cut nail, slate fragments, and an animal bone fragment (Figure 5-35). I 5-25 I FIELD RESULTS 7.5YR7/3 silty loam 15cmbs 10YR7/6 silty clay Figure 5-33: Soil profile from Judgmental Test .1-5. 10YR6/3 silty loam 12cmbs 1 OYR7/6 silty clay Figure 5-34: Soil profile from Judgmental Test J-9. 5-26 1 1 11 1 11 1 FIELD RESULTS Figure 5-35: Representative artifacts recovered from Judgmental Test 3-4 at area of former kitchen building located in the domestic complex of the Glengary property. Four (4) judgmental shovel tests (J-10, J-11, J-12, and J-13) were excavated north of the main dwelling on an elevated landform above a fallow agricultural field adjacent to Redbud Run. Two shovel tests, J-11 and J-13 were positive for cultural material and contained wire nails, a cut nail shank, slate fragments, clear window glass, and a brick fragment (Figure 5-36). Both shovel tests were separated by a modern fence and the presence of material in this area is consistent with construction and demolition debris associated with remodeling of the main dwelling, as well as likely repairs to the adjacent fence. Figure 5-36: Representative artifacts recovered from Judgmental Tests J-11 and J-13. 5-27 FIELD RESULTS All shovel tests in the pastures (J-1, J-2, J-3, J-6, and J-14) were negative for cultural material and exhibited extremely compact shallow topsoil overlying sterile subsoil (Figure 5-37). 10YR8/4 silty loam 6 cmbs 10YR7/6 silty clay Figure 5-37: Soil profile from Judgmental Test J-3. 5-28 I CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ' 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In September 2017, D+A conducted a cultural resource survey and assessment of the Glengary 1 property in Frederick County, Virginia. The effort included both an intensive architectural documentation and study of the home and building complex and an archaeological assessment. As part of background research, it was revealed that Glengary has been subject to previous cultural resource surveys on several occasions and has been investigated for both architectural and archaeological resources. Architecturally, the home and outbuildings were last evaluated in ' 1997 at which time it was noted the home retained a moderate degree of integrity, but also retained an excellent example of domestic and agricultural support buildings and thus was recommended potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP as a good representation of a mid - nineteenth century farm that has evolved over time. Since that time, the home itself has remained relatively unaltered and continues to reflect the same level of integrity as previously. However, two of the oldest outbuildings on the property, the circa 1850 kitchen/servant's quarters and circa 1850 hay barn have both been razed. Still, Glengary reflects a fine Antebellum plantation that has grown and evolved as a farm into ' the present day. The original block of the home was built in 1850 and retains much of its Greek Revival detailing, but was substantially enlarged and remodeled on several occasions throughout the twentieth century, lending the building a Colonial Revival character. Some of the additions I I 1 and modifications were done so as to blend in and be compatible with the original building and materials while others are clearly modern. The same is true inside the home where the original block retains many Greek Revival details and mid -nineteenth century materials while the additions reflect renovations from throughout the twentieth century to accommodate changing needs. The farm complex also reflects ongoing use of the property and changing needs. All of the extant outbuildings and barns date from the late -nineteenth to early -twentieth century and reflect agricultural practices from that period. The complex previously included a detached kitchen/servant's quarters and a hay barn that were believed to be contemporary to the original block of the house; however, these have been demolished in recent years. Still, the home and building stock retain a moderate level of historic physical integrity and represent a good example of a Shenandoah Valley farm that retains a fairly complete complement of domestic and agricultural buildings that have evolved over time. As such, Glengary is still recommended potentially eligible for listing in the NRIJP under Criteria A and C for significance at the local level. Archaeologically, two sites have been previously identified on the property, including one immediately around and inclusive of the domestic and agricultural complex (44FK0481), and a second site further to the rear in the pasture (44FK0480). Visual inspection of the project area did not reveal any surface evidence of cultural material or activity on the property. At the time of the survey, cattle were loose in the pastures and visual inspection was limited in these areas; however, no visible evidence of cultural material was identified. Interviews with the current property owner indicated that the property (the house precinct and fields) had been subjected to metal detection in the past but that no material associated with early use of the property or its 6-1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS potential occupation during the Civil War were recovered or noted. Inspection of the field north of the main dwelling and adjacent to Redbud Run, where oral tradition suggested the possible presence of a stone foundation only revealed naturally occurring exposed bedrock. No evidence of building foundations or use of the exposed bedrock as a foundation material was observed. Given the low lying situation of the landform and its likely potential to flood when Redbud Run exceeded its banks would have made this particular area an unlikely location for settlement and construction of a dwelling. Excavation of judgmental shovel tests in areas associated with Site 44FK0481 resulted in the recovery of cultural material associated with the former kitchen/servants quarter structure, which was removed in the recent past. Recovered materials date from the first half of the nineteenth century and are representative of domestic wares popular at the time. Only two additional judgmental tests were positive for cultural material and these were located along a fence line north the main dwelling and likely represent discard of building debris associated with remodeling of the main dwelling in the twentieth century and possible fence repair. Given the architectural history of the property, it appears that the domestic and agricultural landscape of Glengary has not changed substantially since its construction ca. 1850. While the main dwelling has expanded, and additional agricultural buildings have been constructed, the basic organization of domestic and agricultural space including fields and woodlands appears to have changed little. As such, additional archaeological resources associated with the domestic and agricultural component of Glengary are not expected beyond what is currently present. Although testing around the domestic precinct was not intensive, the presence of intact archaeological deposits associated with the former kitchen/servants quarter building are present, and it is likely that a small number archaeological deposits associated with the main dwelling house are present close to the building foundation. Based upon the results of the archaeological assessment, no evidence of Site 44FK0480 was observed and it is likely that this site was a thin scatter of domestic debris spread in the field with no subsurface archaeological signature. Site 44FK0481 appears to be a more discretely defined site and is focused in and around the kitchen/servants quarter building, which would have function as the immediate service space for the main dwelling. The potential for intact archaeological deposits is present in this area. The potential for the remainder of the property to contain intact significant archaeological deposits appears to be low given the topography, rocky soils, and lack of documented use during the historic period beyond what is already known about the property. While Civil War use of the property for encampment purposes is possible, the lack of reported results from local metal detecting along with the documented confusion of encampments at the Lewis property further to the south versus the Glengary (Harmon) property suggests the potential is likely not high. 6-2 I I I 1 I REFERENCES 7. REFERENCES n.d. "1862: Confederates score a victory at First Battle of Winchester," History. Available online at www History com/this-clay-in-history/confederates-score-a-victory-at-first- battle-of winchester. n.d. "1863: Union defeated at the Second Battle of Winchester," History. Available online at Iittp•//www history com/this-ciay-in-History/union-defeated-at-tlie-second-battle-of- winchester. 2012 "Eyewitness Accounts to Early Indian Settlements in Shenandoah Valley," Access Genealogy. Available online at https://www.accesst;enealogy.com/native/eyewitness- accounts-to-early-indian-settlements-in-shenandoali-valIcy.Htm. n.d. "First Battle of Winchester," Thomas Legion. Available online at http:Htliomaslet;ion.net/frrstbatticofwinchester.litnil. n.d. Gleugwy Farm. Information provided by current owner of the property. n.d. "History," ON Tovin ffl'inehester. Available online at littp•//oldtownwinchcsterva.com/about-old-town/history/. n.d. "History of Frederick County," Frederick County, Virginia: Life At The Top. Available online at littp://www.1eva.us/visit/history-oi=frc(lerick-comity. n.d. "Winchester & Potomac" CSA Railroads. Available online at littp://www.csa- railroads.com/Winchester and Potomac.htm. 2016 "WWII Prisoner of War Camp existed years ago in Wincheser," Local DVAII. Available ' online at http•//www localdvni.com/news/virt;ini i/wwii-prisoner-ol-war-camp-existccl- years-ago-in-winchester/607220286. ' Adelman, Garry n.d. "The Third Battle of Winchester," Civil War 'Trust. Available online at Https://www.eivilwal .or g/lcar n/articles/tliird-battle-Nvincliester. ' American Battlefield Protection Program 2009 Winchester 1(VA 104). National Park Service. 2009 Winchester 11(VA107). National Park Service. ' Anderson, David G. 1990 "The Palcoindian Colonization of the Eastern North America: A View from the ' Southeastern United States," Early Paleoindian Economics of Eastern North America. ed. K.B. Tankersley and B.L. Isaac. Research in Economic Anthropology, supplement 5. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 7-1 REFERENCES ' Anderson, D.G. and G.T. Hanson 1998 "Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah River," American Antiquity. 53. Anderson, David G., Lisa D. O'Steen, and Kenneth Sassaman 1996 "Environmental and Chronological Considerations," The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast. eds. David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press. Barber, Michael B., J. Mark Wittkofski, and Michael F. Barber 1992 An Archaeological Overview of Stafford County, Virginia. Preservation Technologies, Roanoke, VA. Binford, Lewis R. 1980 "Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter -Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation," American Antiquity, 45. Cartmell, T.K. 1909 Shenandoah Valley Pioneers and Their Descendants: A History of Frederick County, Virginia. T.K. Carmell. Available online at https://archive.org/details/shenandoahvalleOOcartgoog. Chapman, Jefferson and Andrea Brewer Shea 1981 "The Achaeobotanical Record: Early Archaic Period to Contact in the Lower Tennessee River Valley," Tennessee Anthropoligist. 6. Civil War Trust (CWT) n.d.a "Second Battle of Kernstown," Civil War Trust. Available online at https://www. civilwar. org/learn/eivil-war/battles/second-battle-kemstown. n.d.b "Cedar Creek Belle Grove," Civil War Trust. Available online at https://www.civilwar.oi-g/learn/eivil-war/battles/cedar-creek. Claggett, Stephen R. and John S. Cable 1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North Carolina Piedmont. Report R-2386. Jackson, MI: Commonwealth Associates, Inc. Custer, Jay F. 1990 "Early and Middle Archaic Cultures of Virginia: Cultural Change and Continuity," Early and Middle Archaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. eds. Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of Virginia. Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press. D. J. Lake & Co. 1885 An Atlas Frederick County, Virginia. Philadelphia, PA: D.J. Lake & Co. Digital image on file at Historic Map Works. 7-2 I I 1 REFERENCES Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr. 1996 "Raw Material Availability and Carly Archaic Settlement in the Southeast," The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast. ed. David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. ' Sassaman. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Delcourt, H. and P. Delcourt ' 1981 "Vegetation Maps for Eastern North American: 40,000 Years B.P. to Present," Geobotany: an Integrating Ea1)erience, ed. R. Romans. New York: Plenum Press. ' Dent, Richard J., Jr. 1995 Chesapeake Prehistory Old Traditions, New Directions. New York: Plenum Press. ' Duncan, Richard R. 2007 Beleaguered Jfinchester: A Virginia Community at War, 1861-1865. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press. ' Ebert, Rebecca A. and Teresa Lazazzera 1988 Frederick County, Virginia: From the Frontier to the Future. Norfolk, VA: The Donning Company. Egloff, Keith T. and Stephen R. Potter ' 1982 "Indian Ceramics from Coastal Plan Virginia," Arch(eology of Eastern No/'th Anlel'Ica 10. ' Fiedel, Stuart J. 2001 "What Happened in the Early Woodland?" Archaeology of Eastern North America. 29. Fordney, Chris ' 1996 "Winchester, Virginia: A Town Embattled During America's Civil War," Civil Ifhar Times. February 1996. Available online at littp://www.liistorynet.coni/winchestcr- Vll'f_T,lllla-a-towrl-elllbattled-dill'ill(?-f1111C1'1CaS-C1Vll-wa1-.11tlll. ' Gillespie, G.L. 1873 Battlefield o[Winchester, Va. Opeguon) [September 19, 1864]. Digital image on file in ' the Geography and Map Division of the Library of Congress. Google Earth ' 1997 USGS aerial. Gray & Pape Inc. (G&P) ' 1997 Phase 1 and 11 Cultural Resource Investigations Route 37 Frederick County, Virginia. March 1997. Prepared for Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Manuscript on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 7-3 REFERENCES ' Griffin, James B. 1952 "Culture Periods in Eastern United States Archaeology," Archeology of Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Grymes, Charlie n.d.a "Key Treaties Defining the Boundaries Separating English and Native American Territories in Virginia," Virginia Places. Available online at http://www.virginiaplaces.org/settleland/treaties.html. n.d.b "Railroad Across the Blue Ridge, In the Shenandoah Valley — and Why Isn't Harrisonburg on the Main Line?" Virginia Places. Available online at htlp://www.virginiaplaces.org/rail/valle3gail.html. n.d.c "Virginia -West Virginia Boundary," Virginia Places. Available online at http://www.virginiaplaces.org/boundaries/wvboundary.html. Hanson, Raus McDill 1969 Virginia Place Names: Derivation Historical Uses. Verona, VA: McClure Press. Hantman, Jeffrey L., and Michael J. Klein 1992 "Middle and Late Woodland Archaeology in Piedmont Virginia," Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: a Synthesis. eds. Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges. Special Publication No. 29 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Hofstra, Warren R. 2004 The Planting of New Virginia: Settlement and Landscape in the Shenandoah Valley. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Holsworth, Jerry W. 2011 Civil War Winchester. Charleston, SC: The History Press. Hotchkiss, Jedediah 1863 Sketch of the Second Battle of Winchester, June 13`h, 141h, and 15rh 1863. Digital image on file in the Geography and Maps Division of the Library of Congress. Justice, Noel D. 1995 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental Eastern United States. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Kalbian, Maral S. 1991 "John R. Cooke House," Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission. February 1991. Manuscript on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Kitchin, Thomas [1761] A new map of Virginia from the best authorities. [London: London Magazine]. Digital image on file in the Geography and Map Division of the Library of Congress. 7-4 I REFERENCES Klein, Michael J., and Thomas Klatka 1991 "Late Archaic and Carly Woodland Demography and Settlement Patterns," Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Illyginia: a Synthesis. eds. Theodore R. Reindiart and ' Mary Ellen N. Hodges. Special Publication No. 23 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Lel -ian, Sam c.1989 The Story of Frederick County. Winchester, VA. ' McAvoy, J.M. 1992 Nottoway River Survey, Part 1. Clovis Settlement Patterns: The 30-Year Study of a Late Ice Age I-Iunting Culture on the Southern Interior' Coastal Plain of Virginia. Special ' Publication No. 28 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press. ' McAvoy, J.M and L.D. McAvoy 1997 Archaeological Investigations of the Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. VDHR Research Report Series No. 8, VDHR, Richmond. McLearen, Douglas C. 1992 "Virginia's Middle Woodland Period: A Regional Perspective," Middle and Late Woodland Resem•ch in Virginia: A Synthesis, eds. Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen ' N. Hodges. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of Virginia. Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press. McLearen, Douglas C. and L. Daniel Mouer 1989 "Middle Woodland II Typology and Chronology in the Lower James River Valley of Virginia." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Middle Atlantic Archaeological ' Conference, Rehoboth Beach, DE. Meltzer, David J. ' 1988 "Late Pleistocene 1-1uman Adaptation in Eastern North America," Journal of YVorld Pi-ehistoty. Vol.2. Meserve, Stevan F. 2008 The Civil Wa% in Loudoun County Virginia: A history of I-Ia%d Times. Charleston, SC: d The History Press. Mouer, L. Daniel 1991 "Tlie Formative Transition in Virginia," Late Archaic and Ern-ly Jfoodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. eds. Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of Virginia. Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press. 7-5 REFERENCES ' National Park Service (NPS) 1992 Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. September 1992. Available online at https://www.nDS.iaov/abi)p/shenandoal-dsysO-I.html. Norris, J.E., editor 1890 History of the Lower Shenandoah Valley Counties of Frederick, Berkeley, Jefferson and Clarke. Chicago, IL: A. Warner & Co. Parker, Kathryn 2006 Images ofAmeriea: Winchester. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing. Parsons, Mia T. and John W. Ravenhorst, eds. 2002 Archeological Resource Study and Clearance for the Discovery Center Project at the Henry House, Manassas National Battlefield Park, Manassas, Virginia. Report prepared for the Archeology Program, Harpers Ferry National Historical Park for Manassas National Battlefield Park. Potter, Stephen 1993 Commoners, Tribute, and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture in the Potomac Valley. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press. Quarles, Garland R. 1990 Some Old Homes in Frederick County, Virginia. Winchester, VA: Winchester -Frederick County Historical Society. Stephenson, Robert L. 1963 The Accokeek Creek Site: A Middle Atlantic Seaboard Culture Sequence. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 20, Ann Arbor. Stewart, R. Michael 1992 "Observations on the Middle Woodland Period of Virginia: A Middle Atlantic Region Perspective," Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, eds. Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of Virginia. Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press. Turner, E. Randolph, III 1989 "Paleoindian Settlement Patterns and Population Distribution in Virginia," Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. eds. J.M. Wittkofski and T.R. Reinhart. Special Publication No. 19 of the Archaeology Society of Virginia. Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press. United States Census Bureau Various years Federal Census 7-6 I REFERENCES ' United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1966 Winchester-, VA. Varle, Charles and Benjamin Jones 1809 Map of Frederick, Berkeley, & Jefferson counties in the state of Virginia. Philadelphia, PA. Digital image on file in the Geography and Map Division of the Library of Congress. ' Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) 2011 "How to use Historic Contexts in Virginia: A Guide for Survey, Registration, Protection, ' and Treatment Projects," in Guidelines.for Conducting Historic Resources Survey ill Virginia. Richmond, VA: VDHR. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 2006 A I-Iistory of Roads in Virginia: "The Most Convenient ff"ayes ". Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Transportation. Available online at ' littp://www.virginiadot.orWabout/rCSOUi•CCS/historyofi•ds.pdf. Ward, H. Trawick and R.P. Stephen Davis Jr. 1999 Time Before Ilistor y• The Archaeology of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC: University ' of North Carolina Press. Warner, John [ 1747] A survey of the northern neck of Virginia, being the land belonging to the Rt. Honourable Thomas Lord Fairfax Baron Cameron, bounded by & within the Bay of Chesapoyocke and between the rivers Rappahannock and Potowmack: 11"ith the courses of the rivers ' Rappahannock and Potowmack, ill Virginia, as surveyed according to order in the years 1736 & 1737. Digital image on file in the Geography and Map Division of the Library of Congress. Wendland, Wayne M. and Reid A. Bryson 1974 Dating Climalic Episodes of the Holocene. Quaternary Research 4 Yarnell, Richard A. 1976 "Carly Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America," Culture Change and Continuity. ed. C. Cleland. Orlando, FL: Elsevier Science & Technology Books. 7-7 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 7-8 1 ' 8. ARTIFACT INVENTORY 1 1 1 1 1 1 ARTIFACT INVENTORY Provenience Stratum Total # Artifact(s) Phase I Artifacts J4 A 4 Pearlware, body sherd, transfer print, floral design " " 4 Pearlware, body sherd, undecorated " " 2 Pearlware, rim, shell -edge " " 2 Aqua glass, light patina " " 1 Colorless glass, clear " 1 Nail, corroded, machine cut? " I Iron ring or loop " 1 Brick fragment " 2 Mortar fragment " 2 Bone fragment " 1 Slate " 1 Oyster Shell P A 2 Aqua glass " " 3 Colorless glass, clear " " 1 Frosted glass " " 4 Mortar fragment " " 1 Nail, Machine cut " 1 Stoneware, body sherd, brown glaze " 1 Coal " 1 Tooth J9 A I Redware, body sherd, unglazed " I Glass, lightly solarized " 1 Coal ill A l Iron fragment, flat " I Nail shank, machine cut " 2 Colorless glass fragment, clear " 1 Aqua glass " ] Brick fragment J13 A 2 Wire nails, whole " 1 Bone fragment " I Redware, body sherd, unglazed m ARTIFACT INVENTORY (THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) 8-2 1 1 1 1 1 1 REPORT Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of Glengary (VDHR #034-1099) LOCATION > Frederick County, Virginia DATE OCTOBER 2017 PREPARED FOR John L. Knott, III Equus Capital Partners, Ltd PREPARED BY Dutton + Associates, LLC CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT OF GLENGARY (VDHR# 034-1099) FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA PREPARED FOR: EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD John Knott, III Vice President Development PREPARED BY: DUTTON + ASSOCIATES, LLC 1115 Crowder Drive Midlothian, Virginia 23113 804.897.1960 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS: ROBERT J. TAYLOR, JR. M.A. DAVID H. DUTTON, M.A. OCTOUR 2017 �J THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 1 G ABSTRACT ABSTRACT Under contract to Fquus Capital Partners, Ltd., Dutton + Associates, LLC (D+A) conducted a cultural resource surrey and assessment of the Glengary house and property in Frederick County, Virginia. Investigation of the property was requested to assess the historical significance of the properly with regards to its eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRIIP) in order to guide management and treatment of the property. As part of background research, it was revealed that Glengmy has been subject to previous 1 cultural resource surveys on several occasions and has been investigated for both architectural and archaeological resources. Architecturally, the hone and outbuildings were last evaluated in 1997 at which time it was noted that the home retained a moderate degree of integrity, but also retained an excellent example of domestic and agricultural support buildings and thus was recommended potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP as a good representation of a mid - nineteenth centny farm that has evolved over line. Since that time, the home itself has remained ' relatively unaltered and continues to reflect the sane level of integrity as previously documented. However, two of the oldest outbuildings on the property, the circa 1850 kitchen/servant's quarters and circa 1850 hay barn, have both been razed. I Still, Glengmy reflects a fine Antebellum plantation that has grown and evolved as a farm into the present day. The original block of the home was built ill 1850 and retains much of its Greek Revival detailing, but was substantially enlarged and remodeled on several occasions throughout the twentieth celltl(ry, lending the building a Colonial Revival character. Some of the additions and modifications were done so cis to blend in and be compatible with the original building and materials while others are clearly modern. The sane is true inside the home where the original block retains many Greek Revival details and mid -nineteenth century materials while the additions reflect renovations fr•oln throughout the twentieth centay to accommodate changing needs. The farm complex also reflects ongoing use of the property and changing needs. All of the extant outbuildings and barns date from the late -nineteenth to early -twentieth centuly and reflecl agricultural practices from that period. The complex previously included a detached kitchen/servanl's quarters and a hay barn that were believed to be contemporary to the original block of the house, however, these have been demolished in recent years. Still, the home and building Stock retain a moderate level of historic physical integrity and represent a good example of a Shenandoah Valley farm that retains a fairly complete complement of domestic and agricultural buildings that have evolved over time. As such, Glengaly is still recommended potentially eligible for listing ill the NRIIP under Criteria A and C for• significance at the local level. Archaeologically, two sites have been previously identified oil the property, including one immediately around and inclusive of the domestic and agricultural complex (44FK0481), and a second site frtrther to the rear in the pasture (44FK0480). Visual inspection of the project area did not reveal any sulfate evidence of cultural material or activity oil the property. At the tlmle of the survey, cattle ivere loose ill the pastures and visual inspection was limited ill these areas; however, no visible evidence of cultural material was identified. Interviews with the current ABSTRACT ' property owner indicated that the property (the house precinct and fields) had been subjected to metal detection in the past but that no material associated with early use of the property or its potential occupation during the Civil War were recovered or noted. Inspection of the field north of the main dwelling and adjacent to Redbud Run, where oral tradition suggested the possible presence of a stone foundation only revealed naturally occurring exposed bedrock. No evidence of building foundations or use of the exposed bedrock as a foundation material was observed. Given the low lying situation of the landform and its likely potential to flood when Redbud Run exceeded its banks would have made this particular area an unlikely location for settlement and construction of a dwelling. Excavation of judgmental shovel tests in areas associated with Site 44FK0481 resulted in the recovery of cultural material associated with the former kitchen/servants quarter structure, which was removed in the recent past. Recovered materials date from the first half of the nineteenth century and are representative of domestic wares popular at the time. Only two additional judgmental tests were positive for cultural material and these were located along a fence line north the main dwelling and likely represent discard of building debris associated with remodeling of the main dwelling in the twentieth century and possible fence repair. Given the architectural history of the property, it appears that the domestic and agricultural landscape of Glengary has not changed substantially since its construction ca. 1850. While the main dwelling has expanded, and additional agricultural buildings have been constructed, the basic organization of domestic and agricultural space including fields and woodlands appears to have changed little. As such, additional archaeological resources associated with the domestic and agricultural component of Glengary are not expected beyond what is currently present. Although testing around the domestic precinct was not intensive, the presence of intact archaeological deposits associated with the former kitchen/servants quarter building are present, and it is likely that a small number archaeological deposits associated with the main dwelling house are present close to the building foundation. Based upon the results of the archaeological assessment, no evidence of Site 44FK0480 was observed and it is likely that this site was a thin scatter of domestic debris spread in the field with no subsurface archaeological signature. Site 44FK0481 appears to be a more discretely defined site and is focused in and around the kitchen/servants quarter building, which would have function as the immediate service space for the main dwelling. The potential for intact archaeological deposits is present in this area. The potential for the remainder of the property to contain intact significant archaeological deposits appears to be low given the topography, rocky soils, and lack of documented use during the historic period beyond what is already known about the property. While Civil War use of the property for encampment purposes is possible, the lack of reported results from local metal detecting along with the documented confusion of encampments at the Lewis property further to the south versus the Glengary (Harmon) property suggests the potential is likely not high. r ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ITABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1-1 ProjectLocation..................................................................................................................... 1-1 2. RESEARCH DESIGN . • 2-1 ArchivalResearch..................................................................................................................2-1 ContextDevelopment............................................................................................................ ArchitecturalSurvey.............................................................................................................. 2-1 2-1 ArchaeologicalAssessment................................................................................................... Report and Record Preparation..............................................................................................2-2 3. ARCHIVES SEARCH...................................................................................................3-1 2-2 Previous Surveys Relevant to the Project Area..................................................................... 3-1 Previously Identified Archaeological Sites Within One Mile ............................................... Previously Identified Architectural Resources Within One Mile .......................................... 3-2 3-3 4. HISTORIC CONTEXT.................................................................................................4-1 Paleoindian Period (Prior to 8000 B.C.)................................................................................ Archaic Period (8000 — 1200 B.C.)....................................................................................... Woodland Period (1200 B.C. — 1600 A.D.)...........................................................................4-4 4-1 4-2 Settlement to Society (1607 — 1750)......................................................................................4-5 Colony to Nation (1750 — 1789)............................................................................................ 4-8 Early National Period (1789 — 1830)..................................................................................... 4-9 ' Antebellum Period (1830 — 1860)........................................................................................4-11 CivilWar (1861 — 1865)......................................................................................................4-12 Reconstruction and Growth (1865 — 1917)..........................................................................4-21 ' World Wai• I to World War II (1917 —1945).......................................................................4-23 New Dominion (1945 — Present).........................................................................................4-24 5. FIELD RESULTS.......................................................................................................... 5-1 ' ArchitecturalSurvey..............................................................................................................5-1 Interior.............................................................................................................................. 5-5 Site................................................................................................................................. 5-12 ' Archaeological Assessment................................................................................................. Desktop Analysis........................................................................................................... 5-20 5-20 PedestrianSurvey........................................................................................................... 5-21 Judgmental Shovel Testing............................................................................................5-24 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................6-1 7. REFERENCES...............................................................................................................7-1 LIST OF FIGURES ' Figure 1-1: Glengary general location Figure 1-2: Aerial photograph of the Glengary property. Source: Google Earth ........................ - 1-3 Figure 3-1: Previous surveys (gray) conducted within 1.0 mile (dotted blue) of the project area (green). Source: V-CRIS..................................................................................................3-1 Figure 3-2: Map detailing all archaeological resources (red) within 1.0 mile (dotted blue) of the project area (green). Source: V-CRIS.............................................................................. 3-2 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 3-3: Map detailing all previously recorded architectural resources (blue) within 1.0 mile (dotted blue) of the project area (green). Source: VCRIS............................................... 3-4 Figure 4-1: Detail ofA survey of the northern neck of Virginia, by Warner c.1747, depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress.......................................................................4-7 Figure 4-2: Detail of A new map of Virginia from the best authorities, by Kitchin c.1761, depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress .................................................. 4-9 Figure 4-3: Detail of Map of Frederick, Berkeley, & Jefferson counties in the state of Virginia, by Varle and Jones in 1809, depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress..4-10 Figure 4-4: Detail of Battlefield of Winchester, Va. (Opequon) [September 19, 1864], 1873 by Gillespie, depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress ............................... 4-13 Figure 4-5: Winchester I (V4104) depicting the project area in relation to the battlefield. Source: ABPP.............................................................................................................................. 4-15 Figure 4-6: Sketch of the Second Battle of Winchester, by Hotchkiss, depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress.......................................................................................... 4-17 Figure 4-7: Winchester II (VA107) depicting the project area in relation to the battlefield. Source: ABPP.............................................................................................................................. 4-18 Figure 4-8: Battlefield of Winchester, Va. (Opequon) depicting the project area. Source: Library ofCongress.................................................................................................................... 4-20 Figure 4-9: Opequon/Third Winchester (VA119) depicting the project area in relation to the battlefield. Source: ABPP.............................................................................................. 4-21 Figure 4-10: Detail of An Atlas: Frederick County, 1885, depicting the project area. Source: HistoricMap Works....................................................................................................... 4-23 Figure 4-11: Detail of the 1942 topographic map, Winchester, VA, depicting the project area. Source: USGS................................................................................................................ 4-24 Figure 4-12: Detail of the 1966 topographic map, Winchester, VA, depicting the project area. Source: USGS................................................................................................................ 4-25 Figure 4-13: Detail of a 1997 aerial depicting the project area. Source: Google Earth ............. 4-25 Figure 5-1: Glengary front fagade, facing west........................................................................... 5-2 Figure 5-2: Detail of front portico, facing southwest.................................................................. 5-2 Figure 5-3: Circa 1970 side wing, facing west............................................................................ 5-3 Figure 5-4: Front and north side oblique, facing southwest........................................................ 5-3 Figure 5-5: Rear ell north side, facing southeast......................................................................... 5-4 Figure 5-6: Rear ell south side with garage extension, facing northeast ..................................... 5-5 Figure 5-7: Original block central passage from entry, facing west ............................................ 5-6 Figure 5-8: First floor door architrave, south room, facing north ................................................ 5-7 Figure 5-9: Fireplace and mantel in north room, facing northwest ............................................. 5-8 Figure 5-10: North room with later doorways, facing northwest ................................................ 5-8 Figure 5-11: Room in side wing, facing northeast....................................................................... 5-9 Figure 5-12: Hallway and stairwell in side wing, facing east ...................................................... 5-9 Figure 5-13: Kitchen in rear ell, facing south............................................................................ 5-10 Figure 5-14: Enclosed stairwell and doorway in rear ell, facing west ....................................... 5-11 Figure 5-15: Back room in rear ell with built-in cabinet, facing east ........................................ 5-11 Figure 5-16: Sunroom interior, facing northeast........................................................................ 5-12 Figure 5-17: Glengary Building complex. Source: Google Earth ............................................. 5-13 Figure 5-18: Root cellar, facing east.......................................................................................... 5-13 Figure 5-19: Meathouse, facing west......................................................................................... 5-14 iv � I � I I � I 1 F1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 5-20: Pump house, facing southwest.............................................................................. 5-15 Figure 5-21: Granary, facing southwest..................................................................................... 5-16 Figure 5-22: Bank Barn downhill side, facing southwest..........................................................5-17 Figure 5-23: Bank barn uphill side, facing northeast................................................................. 5-17 Figure 5-24: Bank barn lower level interior, facing southwest ................................................. 5-18 Figure 5-25: Bank barn main level interior, facing northeast .................................................... 5-18 Figure 5-26: Animal barn, facing southwest.............................................................................. 5-19 Figure 5-27: Animal barn interior, facing southeast.................................................................. 5-19 Figure 5-28: Location of Sites 44FK0480 and 44FK0481 recorded during the 1992 JMU survey. ............................................... 5-21 Figure 5-29: View of domestic landscape surrounding the main dwelling at Glengary facing north............................................................................................................................... 5-22 Figure 5-30: General view of landscape surrounding agricultural buildings facing east.......... 5-23 Figure 5-31: General view of landscape around agricultural buildings and pastures west of the domestic complex, facing northwest.............................................................................. 5-24 Figure 5-32: Plan view of judgmental shovel test locations. Positive shovel tests are marked yellow negative shovel tests are red............................................................................... 5-25 Figure 5-33: Soil profile from Judgmental Test J-5................................................................... 5-26 Figure 5-34: Soil profile from Judgmental Test J-9................................................................... 5-26 Figure 5-35: Representative artifacts recovered from Judgmental Test J-4 at area of former kitchen building located in the domestic complex of the Glengary property ................ 5-27 Figure 5-36: Representative artifacts recovered from Judgmental Tests J-11 and J-13............ 5-27 Figure 5-37: Soil profile from Judgmental Test J-3................................................................... 5-28 LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1: Previously conducted cultural resource studies that have included the project area.. 3-1 Table 3-2: Previously identified archaeological sites located within 1.0 mile of the project area... 3-2 Table 3-3: Previously recorded architectural resources located within 1.0 mile of the project area. Bold font denotes resources is listed in or considered eligible for listing in the NRHP. Glengary in the project area is highlighted in orange ...................................................... 3-4 v TABLE OF CONTENTS THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK vi r� 1, INTRODUCTION ' 1. INTRODUCTION Under contract to Equus Capital Partners, Ltd., Dutton + Associates, LLC (D+A) conducted a ' cultural resource survey and assessment of the Glengary house and property in Frederick County, Virginia. Investigation of the property was requested to assess the historical significance of the property with regards to its eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places I(NRHP) in order to guide management and treatment of property. As such, this document is intended to serve as a planning tool, and is not intended to serve as ' compliance with any state or federal regulations. However, principal investigators meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards (48 FR 44716) for archaeology, history, architecture, architectural history, or historic architecture and all work carried out in ' conformity with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 190, 1983) and the VDHR's Guidelines for Conducting Cultural Resources Survey in Virginia (Revised October 2011). Architectural ' resource investigations were conducted by Senior Architectural Historian Robert J. Taylor, Jr. M.A. Archaeological investigations were overseen by David H. Dutton, M.A. ' The D+A effort was conducted in September 2017, and included research into the history of to property, documentation of existing conditions for all above -ground buildings and structures, archaeological assessment, consideration of historical integrity, and evaluation of historical significance with regards to NRHP-eligibility. PROJECT LOCATION tGlengary is located at 420 Lenoir Drive in Winchester, Frederick County, Virginia. The property is roughly 80 acres consisting of a 10-acre homesite parcel (#43 A 21 B) and a 76.6-acre farm ' parcel (#43 A 21) surrounding it. The property is located at the south end of Lenoir Drive, situated between an industrial park to the east and north, and U.S. Highway 37 to the south. Residential development borders the property to the west (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). 11 INTRODUC I ]OA Winchester Frederick County ur i.nnw 0 c... o . 4r MON s M.b 1 re.wai. r.rt, f v � N10�6w j Project Location (rNt) let'1 Glengary m J67 ' �O C O 7 L 2 wiricnester Figure 1-1: Glengary general location 1-2 INTRODUCTION Figure 1-2: Acrial photograph of the GlengarN properth. Source: Google Earth THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1-4 �7� RESEARCH DESIGN 2. RESEARCH DESIGN ARCHIVAL RESEAIZCII A comprehensive literature review and background search was performed to gain an understanding of existing survey data pertaining to the property. The focus of the background search was to identify whether the property or any resources in the vicinity have been subject to previous cultural resource survey and what the previous recommendation of eligibility was for each. To this end, the VDHR archives and the VCRIS database were searched to identify previously conducted cultural resource studies and known architectural or archaeological resources in the vicinity of the property. N In further preparation for- the fieldwork, D+A conducted additional review of the following documents and sources for information relative to previously recorded and unrecorded historic property locations within and adjacent to the project area: ➢ Frederick County Tax Assessors records; ➢ USDA Historic Aerial Imagery; ➢ U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Maps; ➢ Local historical society/ library archives; and ➢ Consultation with local informants and other professionals with intimate knowledge of the region CONTEXT DEVELOPMENT Information from the literature review and background search was used in conjunction with additional historical data from research to develop a comprehensive historic context in which to place the property for evaluations of significance as defined by the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Gitidelines.for Archaeologj) and Historic Preservation and the VDHR's How to Use Historic Contexts in Virginia: A Guide for Survey, Registration, Protection, and Treatment Projects (VDHR 1992). The overview was developed through review of previous cultural resource studies, published and unpublished manuscripts, historic maps, aerial photographs, local histories, county land records, and a variety of internet sources. Research was conducted at and through local repositories including the Library of Congress, United States Geological Service, Library of Virginia, Frederick County Property Assessor's office, local historical societies, and any other repositories identified during preliminary research. The historic context includes local and regional history, with a focus on the development, use, and significance of Glengary from its earliest documented occupation through the present-day. ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY Using information derived from the archive searches and additional background research, a field survey was undertaken to document the physical condition of the property and the resources located there. Construction and alterations dates for the buildings and structures were established through a combination of archival search, property records data, map analysis, field inspection, and owner interview. 2-1 RESEARCH DESIGN A field form was completed for each standing resource with information from site observations including a physical description with information such as relationship to adjacent buildings and structures, general condition, surrounding setting, description of exterior materials, identifiable architectural or structural treatments, and retention of historic physical integrity. Both the exterior and interior of the resources were subject to inspection. A sketch of the overall property and setting was prepared, and photographs of the site and setting, exterior, and interior were taken with a high resolution digital camera to document the property's existing conditions. All architectural fieldwork was carried out in accordance with VDHR's standards and guidelines and evaluated to determine potential significance in accordance with NRHP criteria. ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT An archaeological assessment of the property was also conducted to document the potential for intact archaeological sites or deposits to be present. The effort entailed a "desktop analysis" coupled with field investigation to note existing soil conditions, confirm the presence or absence of archaeological resources, and make recommendations for further study. Field investigations included a limited pedestrian survey of the project area to document existing conditions and to note surface evidence of cultural activity or material and identify areas with the potential for intact subsurface archaeological resource. For any archaeological resources identified during the reconnaissance, photographs were taken of the general vicinity and of any visible features. A field map was prepared showing feature locations, permanent landmarks, topographic and vegetation variation, as well as sources of disturbance. Sufficient information was included on the map to permit easy relocation of the resources. Targeted shovel testing was then conducted in high probability areas or areas of previously documented archaeological discovery. The soil excavated from all shovel tests was passed through 1/4-inch (0.63-cm) mesh screen and all shovel tests were approximately 0.30-meters (I - foot) in diameter and excavated to sterile subsoil or the practical limits of excavation. Shovel test placement was avoided in areas of documented or visible significant ground disturbance, slopes in excess of 15 percent, and areas in statutory wetlands or water saturated soils. REPORT AND RECORD PREPARATION Following the field survey, information from background research and context development was used in conjunction with field investigations to assess the historical significance and integrity of the property to evaluate it for potential NRHP eligibility. The evaluation of significance was built on an analysis of the historic context for associations used in conjunction with an assessment of integrity from the field inspection. Historical integrity was determined from site observations, field data, and photographic documentation according to NPS guidance. A summary report containing the results of the evaluation along with the associated documentation was prepared. Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (VCRIS) site forms were prepared or updated for the home and building complex as well as any identified archaeological sites. 2-2 L� f' 1 I ARCHIVES SEARCH 3. ARCHIVES SEARCH This section includes a summary of all the cultural resource management events that have taken place within the project area registered at VDHR through September 2017. It also lists all previously identified architectural resources and archaeological sites located within the project area, as well as within one mile of the project area. PREVIOUS SURVEYS RELEVANT TO THE PROJECT AREA Research at the VDHR reveals that four surveys have been previously conducted within one mile of the project area. Of these, none have taken place within the project area (Figure 3-1). It is however known that several additional unmapped studies that have included the property have been conducted. These studies are listed in Table 3-1. Figure 3-1: Previous surveys (gray) conducted Nithin 1.0 mile (dotted blue) of the project area (green). Source: V-CRIS Ta61s 1_1• —A—fad—It.'ruI rncnu rrr ctiidif•c that hm%p ine Itlfteft the nrnlert area VDHR Title Author Date Report # n a Phase I Architectural Resource Survey Report of the Proposed Maral S. Kalbian 1992 Route 37 Corridor Study of Frederick County, Virginia n/a n/a JNW Department of 1992 Anthropology FK-55 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Investigations of Route 37, Gray & Pape 1997 Frederick County,Virginia 3-1 ARCHIVES SEARCH PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN ONE MILE Review of VCRIS reveals fifteen previously identified archaeological sites located within one mile of the project area, two of which are located within the project area (Figure 3-2, Table 3-2). These sites include a nineteenth century farmstead and an indeterminate site of the same century. These sites include one prehistoric camp site, two historic trash scatter sites, and nineteenth century earthworks, a farmstead, church, military camp and battlefield. VDHR has determined three of the sites not eligible for the NRHP (44FK0477, 44FK0584, 44FK0585) and the remaining sites, including the two within the project area, have not been formally evaluated. Figure 3-2: Map detailing all archaeological resources (red) within 1.0 mile (dotted blue) of the project area (green). Source: V-CRIS Table 3-2: Previously identified archaeoloeical sites located within 1.0 mile of the nroiect area VDHR ID# Site Types Cultural Designation Temporal Association NRHP Status Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 44FK0013 Camp, Other Native American 1606 A.D.), 19th Century: 3rd Not Evaluated quarter 1850 - 1874 44FK0014 Camp, Trash Native American Historic/Unknown, Woodland Not Evaluated scatter 1200 B.C.-1606 A.D. Camp, Trash Historic/Unknown, 44FK0015 scatter Native American Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - Not Evaluated 1606 A.D. 44FK0049 Camp Native American Woodland (1200 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) Not Evaluated 44FK0477 Trash scatter Euro-American 19th Century: 2nd half (1850 - DHR Staff. 1899), 20th Century 1900 - 1999 Not Eligible 44FK0479 Earthworks Euro-American 19th Century: 2nd/3rd quarter Not Evaluated 1825 - 1874 44FK0480 Null Euro-American 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Not Evaluated 3-2 ARCHIVES SEARCH VDHR ID# Site Types Cultural Designation Temporal Association NRHP Status 44FK0481 Farmstead Euro-American 19th Century: 1st half (1800 Not Evaluated 1849 44FK0561 Military Camp Euro-American 19th Century: 2nd half (1850 - Not Evaluated 1899) 19th Century (1800 - 1899), 20th DHR Staff. 44FK0584 Trash Scatter Euro-American Century: Ist quarter 1900 - 1924 Not Eligible DHR Staff: 44FK0585 Trash Scatter Euro-American 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Not Eligible Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Battlefield, Civil War (1861 - 1865), 44FK0624 Dwelling, Euro-American Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - Not Evaluated single, Military 1916), World War I to World War field hospital II (1917 - 1945), The New Dominion 1946 - 1988 44FK0732/034- Earthworks Euro-American Civil War (1861 - 1865) Not Evaluated 0322 44FK0733/034- Earthworks Euro-American Civil War (1861 - 1865) Not Evaluated 0165/ 034-0456 Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916), World War I to World War 44FK0805 Church Euro-American II (1917 - 1945), The New Not Evaluated Dominion (1946 - 1991), Post Cold War 1992 - Present IPREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN ONE MILE Review of VDHR records identifies 39 previously recorded standing resources located within one mile of the project area (Figure 3-3, Table 3-3). These include 29 dwellings, two churches, one bridge, one fort, one store, one school, and three battlefields. The resources range in date from the late eighteenth century to the early twentieth century with most resources constructed between c.1800 and c.1900. VDHR has found three of the resources to be potentially eligible, five eligible, and seven not eligible for listing in the NRHP. One resource was found to be already listed on the NRHP. The remaining resources have not been formally evaluated. The Glengary property itself has been previously recorded and subject to two architectural resource studies (VDHR# 034-1099). The property was initially documented in 1992 and revisited in 1997. These efforts included Phase I and Phase II documentation and evaluation of the property resulting in the determination by the VDHR that Glengary was eligible for listing in the NRHP at that time. 3-3 ARCHIVES SEARCH I Figure 3-3: Map detailing all previously recorded architectural resources (blue) within 1.0 mile (dotted blue) of the project area (green). Source: VCRIS Table 3-3: Previously recorded architectural resources located within 1.0 mile of the project area. Bold font denotes resources is listed in or considered eligible for listing in the NRHP. Glengary in the project area is highlighted in orange. VDHR Resource Name Type Year Evaluation ID# Status 034-0010 House near Stine's Chapel (Demolished) N/A N/A Not Evaluated Function/Location 034-0067 House, Route 739 (Function/Location) Single Dwelling c.1930 Not Evaluated 034-0068 Lewis House (Current) Single Dwelling c.1850 Not Evaluated 034-0070 Bond, Allen, House (Historic/Current) Single Dwelling c.1930 Not Evaluated DHR Staff: 034-0135 Sempeles House (Current) Single Dwelling c.1820 Potentially Eligible 034-0147 Glendale (Historic), Stine House (Current), Single Dwelling c.1859 Not Evaluated Stine, Henry, House (Historic) 034-0148 Woodville (Historic/Current) Single Dwelling c.1770 Not Evaluated 034-0165 Fort Collier (Current), Stine, Isaac, House Single Dwelling 1865 NRHP Listing, VLR (Historic) Listing 034-0322 Fort Alabama (Historic), Star Fort (Historic) Fort/Military c.1861 DHR Board Base Det. Eligible 034-0456 Opequon Battlefield (Historic), Third Battle Battlefield 1864 DHR Staff: of Winchester Site Current Eligible 034-0520 Sunnyside Grocery (Historic) Store c.1900 Not Evaluated 034-0521 Brown House (Historic) Single Dwelling c.1920 Not Evaluated 034-0523 House, 1048 North Frederick Pike Single Dwelling c.1910 Not Evaluated Function/Location 034-0524 1 Captain John Glaize House (Historic), Liberty Single Dwelling c.1871 Not Evaluated 3-4 ARCHIVES SEARCI-1 VDIIR Resource Name Type Year Evaluation ID# all (Historic) Hall 034-0525 McDonald House (Current) Single Dwelling c.1890 Not Evaluated 034-0526 Carper House (Current) Single Dwelling c.1890 Not Evaluated 034-0527 Martin House (Current) Single Dwelling c.1820 Not Evaluated 034-0528 Clark House, 1418 N Frederick Pike Single Dwelling c.1800 Not Evaluated I-Iistoric/Location ' 034-0529 Stine's Chapel (I-Iistoric/Current) Church c.1870 Not Evaluated 034-0583 Martin I -louse (Current) Single Dwelling c.1800 Not Evaluated 034-0953 Beirer-Robinson House (Current), Clevenger Single Dwelling c.1880 DHR Staff: House Historic Not Eligible DHR Staff: 034-0954 House, off Route 11 North (Function/Location) Single Dwelling c.1915 Not Eligible 034-0955 School #1 - Frederick County (Historic), Valley School c.1900 DHR Staff: ' School (Current) Not Eligible DHR Staff. 034-0956 Valley Union Chapel (Current) Church c.1880 Not Eligible DHR Staff: ' 034-0957 House, 1113 Martinsburg Road Single Dwelling c.1930 Potentially (Function/Location) Eligible 034-0958 House, 105 Lee Avenue (Function/Location) Single Dwelling N/A Not Evaluated 034-0959 House, 101 Lee Avenue (Function/Location) Single Dwelling N/A Not Evaluated 034-0960 House, 20 Lee Avenue (Function/Location) Single Dwelling N/A Not Evaluated 034-0961 House 913 N. Loudoun Street Single Dwelling N/A Not Evaluated Function/Location 034-0962 House, 909 N. Loudoun Street Single Dwelling c.1865 Not Evaluated Function/Location 034-1067 Seven Oaks (IIistoric/Current) Single Dwelling c.1850 DIM Staff: Potentially Eligible DIIR Staff: 034-1099 Clengary (IIistoric) Single Dwelling c.1850 Eligible 034-1447 Farm, Welltown Rd (Rt 661) Single Dwelling c.1870 DI-IR Staff: Functiol Location),Mertz House Current Not Eligible 034-1448 Clevenger, Louie, House (IIistoric), Single Dwelling c.1890 DIM Staff: Cleven er-McKown House (Current) Eligible DI-IR Staff: 034-1455 House, Welltown Pike (Function/Location) Single Dwelling o,1910 Not Eligible 034-1568 046 Frederick Pike (Historic) I-Iouse 1046 Single Dwelling c.1920 Not Evaluated ' Frederick Pike Function/Location Apple Pic Ridge/West Fort Parcel DIIR Board 034-5023 (Descriptive), Second Winchester Battlefield Battlefield 1863 Det. Eligible IIistoric ' 034-5087 Battle of Rutherford's Farm (I-Iistoric/Location) Battlefield 1864 Not Evaluated Bowers Hill Battlefield (Historic), First DIIR Staff: 138-5005 Winchester Battlefield (I-Iistoric/Current), Battlefield 1865 Not Eligible ' Winchester I Battlefield IIistoric ' 3-5 11 ARCHIVES SEARCH THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3-6 F-1 I I 1 11 HISTORIC CONTEXT 4. HISTORIC CONTEXT The following section provides a brief summary of the general overarching regional prehistoric and historic themes relevant to Virginia and Frederick County. The primary emphasis of this context focuses on the anthropological and material culture trends in prehistory and history, and describes how people throughout time could have left their archaeological mark on the landscape ' of the project area specifically. Prehistoric and historic occupation statistics and trends were analyzed, as were historic maps and available first-hand accounts which aided in establishing the appropriate cultural context for the project area as defined by the Secretary of the Interior's ' Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources' Horn to use I-Iistoric Contexts in Virginia: A Guide for Sta-vey, Registration, Protection, and 'Treatment Projects (VDHR 2011). Descriptions of ' settlement patterns, cultural characteristics, and a general description of relevant material culture of the time periods are presented below. n PALEOINDIAN PERIOD (PRIOR TO 8000 B.C.) Recent archaeological findings in Virginia have found the first paleoindians are projected to have arrived in the southeast of North America between 15,000 and 11,000 years ago (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997). Two of the earliest archaeological sites associated with Paleoindian occupation in Virginia are the Thunderbird Site (VDHR #44WR0011) near Fort Royal and the Cactus Hill site (VDHR #44SX0202) located along the Nottoway River. These early populations coincided with the late glacial era when sea levels were approximately 230 feet below their present-day level (Anderson et al. 1996:3). The Laurentide Ice Sheet covered much of northern North American, lowering temperatures in the region and creating an ideal environment for a boreal forest (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). Paleoindians apparently survived in this environment through opportunistic hunting and gathering oi' smaller mammals, fish, and wild plants (Fiedel 2001). Seasonably mobile, these paleoindians utilized different food sources at different times of the year, an extensive subsistence pattern that required a large territory. Accordingly, the Palcolndlans may have maintained a central base camp located either in a diverse ecozone where flora and fauna were easily procured or near lithic sources that contained cryptocrystalline stone. Wider ranging satellite camps would have then have been seasonally occupied to exploit other natural resources, be they lithic material, flora, or fauna (Anderson et al 1996; Daniel 1996; Binford 1980). Most Paleoindian sites are small and scattered, suggesting that the groups lived in small familial hands distributed across the landscape. The lack of status items among their archaeological remains suggests that these groups recognized little differentiation in status, and probably employed an egalitarian social structure. Ethnographic analogies suggest that Paleoindians might have maintained this rough equality by shunning aspiring leaders, and methods of property redistribution. The Paleoindians relied upon durable and easily -shaped cryptocrystalline materials such as chert and jasper for their tools. They fashioned these rocks into a variety of instruments, among which were scrapers, gravers, and adzes. Paleoindian projectile points tended to be fluted and bifacially sharpened. Due to time and rising sea levels, many Paleoindian material culture finds are limited to isolated projectile points. 4-1 HISTORIC CONTEXT Researchers differentiate the Paleoindian Period into three smaller periods reflecting changes in the morphology of projectile points. These periods include the Early Paleoindian (9500 — 9000 B.C.), the Middle Paleoindian (9000 — 8500 B.C.), and the Late Paleoindian (8500 — 8000 B.C.). During the Early Paleoindian, Paleoindians produced large fluted Clovis points, a style widespread throughout North America, which could be affixed to a spear shaft. Sites from this period are found throughout the eastern seaboard in very low densities. Regions depicting greater concentrations of these sites are in Tennessee, the Cumberland and Ohio River Valley, western South Carolina, the northern Piedmont of North Carolina, and southern Virginia (Anderson 1990:164-71; Daniel 1996; Ward and Davis 1999). One of the earliest archaeological sites associated with Paleoindian occupation in Virginia is the Thunderbird Site (VDHR #44WR0011) near Fort Royal. The Middle Paleoindian saw a modification of Clovis points, such as the disappearance of the fluting in some cases and the addition of "ears" at the base of the point. The appearance of these new types, such as the Cumberland, Simpson, Clovis variants, and Suwanee points, might reflect changes in subsistence patterns as the result of rising global temperatures. During this time, it is theorized that American Indians began to radiate out from their previous range of occupation to exploit resources from more distant environments (Anderson 1990; Anderson et al. 1996; Ward and Davis 1999:31). Changes to the projectile points intensified during the final centuries of the Paleoindian Period resulting in an increased number of changes in projectile point morphology. The Dalton and Hardaway types and other variants allowed late Paleoindian peoples to hunt new species. The Paleoindian's scattered settlement pattern and simple culture contribute to the limited number of associated sites in the region, fewer than 75 sites have been identified in present-day Virginia and only 25 have been positively identified in the entire Chesapeake (Turner 1989; Dent 1995). Those Paleoindian sites that have been located tend to be quarry sites, which groups frequently visited and areas where several bands gathered (Meltzer 1988; McAvoy 1992). Many sites were likely destroyed when warming global temperatures melted the glaciers and inundated the low-lying Paleoindian settlements. ARCHAIC PERIOD (8000 —1200 B.C.) Dramatic climatic changes beginning about 10,000 years ago prompted a reconfiguration of prehistoric people's subsistence strategies and social organization. Specifically, global temperatures began rising with the dawn of the Holocene geological period, simultaneously shrinking the glaciers and raising sea levels. In North America, the Laurentide Ice Sheet gradually receded northward, making the southeastern portion of the modern-day United States warmer and drier. The boreal forest of the Pleistocene era slowly gave way to a mixed conifer and northern hardwood forest. The area began to assume its modern-day climate and floral and faunal species. This warming also resulted in dramatic hydrological changes for coastal Virginia. As the sea level gradually climbed, the land was flooded; as a result, the lower reaches of the Susquehanna River flooded to form the Chesapeake Bay. 4-2 k I I I r� L LI HISTORIC CONTEXT These climatic changes created new food sources for prehistoric people. The warmer, drier climate led to a greater biodiversity, especially floral, allowing humans to rely more heavily on gathering wild plants, nuts, and berries. Indeed, archaeologists have discovered tools, such as nutting stories and pestles, for processing vegetable materials. The creation of the Chesapeake Bay, furthermore allowed Archaic people to exploit seafood, such as anadrornous fish and shellfish. The appearance of shell middens during the period testifies to the importance of mollusks to the Archaic diet (Dent 1995). To exploit theses new resources, Archaic people likely intensified their seasonal movement, splitting their time between a semi -permanent base camp and smaller, dispersed hunting and gathering camps. Bands of as many as 30 people may have gathered in the base camp for part of the year, and then dispersed into "mlcrobands," composed of a single family or two, in other seasons (Griffin 1952; Anderson and Hanson 1998; Ward and Davis 1999). The range of band movement would have occurred over relatively large regions. These larger base camps are theorized to have been located along rich environmental areas near the Fall Line or along main rivers. New subsistence patterns also required new technologies. For example, Archaic people began using ground stone technology, rr1 addition to flaking, to shape tools. Such methods produced mortars, pestles, and soapstone vessels which allowed there to process plant materials more effectively. The resulting products of these technologies differentiate the Archaic Period into three smaller periods. Tile period also saw innovations in project point manufacturing. In a further divergence with the paleoindians who relied heavily on cryptocrystalline lithics, Archaic people utilized more materials, such as quartzite and quartz. Tile Early Archaic (8000 — 6500 B.C.) is characterized by projectile points with corner and side - notches, rather than hafting the points to a wood shaft by fluting as the Paleoindians did. The resulting points, such as the Kirk Stemmed and Notched, Palmer Corner -Notched, Fort Nottoway, Kessell, Charleston, and Amos, are thus readily distinguishable from Paleoindian points (Custer 1990). Some evidence also points to the use of grinding technology to make atlatl weights in this period. Additionally, there appears to be an increase in population at this time. The Middle Archaic (6500 — 3000 B.C.) is defined primarily by the appearance of stemmed projectile points which were fitted into a hold in the spear shaft. Therefore, points such as the LeCroy, Stanly, Morrow Mountain, and Guilford are diagnostic of middle Archaic assemblages. Researchers have also pointed out that contexts from this period contain a larger amount of "expedient" stone tools, owing in part to the rapid environmental changes of the Climatic Optimum, which dates from 6000 to 2000 B.C. (Wendland and Bryson 1974; Claggett and Cable 1982; Ward and Davis 1999). These tools were makeshift and less formal, allowing their owners to use there for a wider variety of activities than tools designed for specific uses. The greater density and disbursement of archaeological sites from this period indicates a consistent rise in American hldian populations. By the Late Archaic (3000 — 1200 B.C.), a more congenial climate and more abundant food sources led to dramatic population increases. To be certain, this apparent increase might be exaggerated because late Archaic people had a richer material culture than previous peoples and 4-3 P HISTORIC CONTEXT hence left more archaeological evidence of their existence (Klein and Klatka 1991). Nonetheless, the greater number of late Archaic sites relative to earlier periods suggests that the human population did in fact expand over the course of the Archaic Period; according to Barber et al. (1992), late Archaic sites were more than twice as numerous as middle Archaic sites. As humans occupied the land more densely, they also became more sedentary and less mobile, perhaps owing to the greater reliance on plant -based food resources compared to hunting and fishing. American Indians from this region may also have begun to domesticate plants such as goosefoot, squash, and gourds (Yarnell 1976:268; Chapman and Shea 1981:70). The projectile point technology of the Late Archaic Period is dominated by stemmed and notched point forms, many with broad blades, likely used as projectiles or knives. These points diminish in size towards the latter portion of this period (Dent 1995; Justice 1995). It should be noted that prehistoric sites that consist of lithic debitage, no diagnostic artifacts, and an absence of ceramic artifacts likely date to the Archaic Period. These sites are described in the records as "Prehistoric/Unknown," however they are most likely to date to this period despite not having a specific temporal designation. WOODLAND PERIOD (1200 B.C. —1600 A.D.) The American Indians of the Woodland Period began to maintain a greater reliance on horticulture and agriculture based on the cultivation of maize, imported from Mesoamerica via the Mississippi Valley, as well as squash, beans, and other crops. This increased sedentism and the nucleating of societies (Klein and Klatka 1991; Mouer 1991). Populations during this time began to consolidate into villages near rivers and floodplains with fertile soil, favorable terrain, and access to fauna. Satellite procurement camps are far less frequent than in the Archaic Period. The Woodland Period is defined foremost by the development of a ceramic technology. Although Archaic people had carved out vessels from soft soapstone, prehistoric Americans did not begin shaping ceramic vessels until around 1200 B.C. The earliest pottery produced on the coastal plain, the Marcey Creek Plain, and other types, in fact resembled those soapstone vessels, suggesting that they were used for similar purposes. Woodland peoples, however, modified the square- or oval -shape soapstone inspired vessels. They began decorating the pieces with cord and tempering them with soapstone and other types of grit to make them stronger. Examples include Selden Island ceramics (tempered with soapstone) and Accokeek pieces (which used sand and grit for tempering). Anthropologists divide the period up into smaller periods based on changing projectile points and ceramics, as well as settlement patterns. The beginning of the Early Woodland (1200 — 500 B.C.) is defined by the appearance of ceramics from prehistoric archaeological context. Ceremonialism associated with the burial of the dead also appears at about 500 B.C. with stone and earth burial cairns and cairn clusters in the Shenandoah Valley (McLearen 1992; Stewart 1992). Early Woodland settlements in the Piedmont region of Virginia are located along rivers as well as in interior areas and there is evidence to suggest the Piedmont areas developed a more sedentary lifestyle during this time (Klein and Klatka 1991; Mouer 1991). Many Early Woodland sites in the Piedmont are .m I I I I HISTORIC CONTEXT permanent or semi -permanent villages that are large and intensively occupied. This corresponds with the domestication of weedy plants such as the goosefoot and sunflower along intentionally cleared riverine areas. During the Middle Woodland (500 B.C. — 900 A.D.), there is an increase in sites along major trunk streams and estuaries as people move away from smaller tributary areas and begin to organize into larger groups (Hantnlan and Klein 1992). The Middle Woodland diet becomes more complex as people begin to exploit nuts, amaranth, and chenopod seeds in addition to fish, deer, waterfowl, and turkey. Evidence of rank societies emerges more clearly with the spreading of religious and ritual behavior including symbols and regional styles apparent in ceramic styles and other sociotechnic and ideotechnic artifacts. Variance in ceramic InallllfaCturC is a hallmark of the Middle Woodland Period. Pope's Creek ceramics are associated with the beginning of this period, and Mockely ceramics Nvith the later. Pope's Creek ceramics are tempered with medium to coarse sand, with occasional quartz inclusions, and Interior scoring has also been recorded (Stephenson 1963:94; McLearen and Mouer 1989). The majority of Pope's Creek ceramics have net -impressed surfaces (Egloff and Potter 1982:99; McLearen and Mouer 1989:5). Shell -tempered Mockley ceramics first appeared around 200 A.D. in Virginia to southern Delaware. There was a variation in surface treatments for Mockley that included plain, cord -marked, and net-iipressed (Egloff and Potter 1982:103; Potter 1993:62). By the Late Woodland Period (900 — 1600 A.D.), the use of domesticated plants had assumed a role of major importance in the prehistoric subsistence system. The adoption of agriculture represented a major change in the prehistoric subsistence economy and settlement patterns. Expanses of arable land became a dominant settlement factor, and sites were located on fertile floodplain soils or, in many cases, on higher terraces or ridges adjacent to them. American Indians began to organize into villages and small hamlets that were highly nucleated and occasionally fortified with palisades. The fortifications demonstrate inter -group conflict. By the seventeenth century, the largest village sites within the northern Virginia region were along the Potomac River including Namassingakent, near present-day Mount Vernon, Assaomeck, on the south side of Hunting Creek, and Nainoraughquend, near present-day Roosevelt Island. The Manahoacs occupied the region of northern Virginia east of the Blue Ridge Mountains. When Captain John Smith explored the region in the early seventeenth century, he stated that the "valley beyond the mountains was densely populated by agricultural peoples, but did not provide detailed descriptions of the inhabitants" ("Eyewitness Accounts" 2012). Dominant American Indian tribes in the Shenandoah Valley included the Delaware, Catawba, Iroquois, Cherokee, Susquehannock, and Shawnee (Lehman c.1989). SETTLEMENT TO SOCIETY (1607— 1750) The first English settlement in what is now the United States began at Jamestown on the James River. They then slowly explored and settled the colony, following its navigable waterways. The remoteness of the project area delayed its exploration and settlement though Jesuit missionaries may have entered the wilderness of the Shenandoah Valley as early as 1632. Though European 4-5 I I HISTORIC CONTEXT ownership of land encompassing Frederick County was originally by the Virginia Company, the Crown took it in 1624 and in 1649 King Charles II granted nearly 5,282,000 acres of land to a wealthy group of English investors ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). This consisted of all land between the Potomac and Rappahannock Rivers and from there extended westward into much of northern Virginia, over the Alleghenies into present-day West Virginia (Parsons and Ravenhorst 2002:2). By 1681, Thomas, the Second Lord Culpeper, owned most of this original land grant; after his death, his land would pass to his daughter's husband Thomas, the Fifth Lord Fairfax ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). Explorers, traders, and trappers slowly pushed west into the Shenandoah Valley from the north and east. In an attempt to speed up settlement, thereby forming a buffer between American Indians and more established English settlements to the east, in 1716, Lieutenant Governor Alexander Spotswood and his survey party crossed the Shenandoah River and surveyed the Blue Ridge (G&P 1997:24). The colony of Virginia began to argue that Fairfax's land did not extend west of the Blue Ridge Mountains and began issuing grants of up to 1,000 acres to encourage settlements. Each parcel would revert to Virginia unless settled with a house and orchard within two years ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). For additional enticement, the colonial governor allowed Quakers, Lutherans, and other Protestants to practice their faiths without joining the Church of England (Parker 2006:7). In 1722, governors of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York undertook treaty negotiations with the Iroquois. The result of the 1722 Treaty of Albany in Virginia was that the American Indians would not occupy settlements east of the Blue Ridge. The colony later interpreted the treaty to mean that the Iroquois had ceded claims to the Shenandoah Valley (Gryrnes n.d.a). Settlement of the future Frederick County began in 1729 ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). The 1730s saw the arrival of several groups traveling south from Pennsylvania along an established American Indian path in the valley that became known as the Great Wagon Road (G&P 1997:24; "History of Frederick County" n.d.). This included Germans, such as Jost Hite and those that accompanied him, who settled along the Opequon Creek in the vicinity of the present-day community of Bartonville, approximately eight miles south of the project area. Given its location, it became known as Opequon. Another early settler that also came south from Pennsylvania was Alexander Ross, an Irish Quaker. Ross received a grant of approximately 10,000 acres in northern Frederick County and by 1735, about 70 families were living on the land. This community came to be known as Hopewell (G&P 1997:24). In addition to these northern settlers, Englishmen on the Piedmont pushed west through the passes of the Blue Ridge. All settlers were attracted to the fertile soils, abundant forest, and water resources in an area of Virginia that was sheltered by the Alleghany ranges on the west and the Blue Ridge on the east ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). The settlement patterns of the region were influenced by the land policies of the colonial government, which encouraged settlers to disperse across the landscape and establish small farmsteads. These policies resulted in dispersed, rural communities and few nucleated centers; one nucleated center would grow at present-day Winchester (G&P 1997:25). 4-6 I � I � I � I � I I HISTORIC CONTEXT In 1738, the colony's House of Burgesses created Frederick County from western Orange County and named it after the Prince of Wales ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). Because of its sparse settlement, however, the county's government was not organized until 1743 (G&P 1997:24). Multiple counties would be formed from Frederick County between 1753 and 1836. James Wood, County Surveyor for Orange County, platted the county seat midway between the early settlements of Opequon and Hopewell (G&P 1997:24). The land that he chose was 1,300 acres of wilderness that he believed to be owned by Virginia. Wood planned 26 half -acre lots and named the county seat Winchester after his birthplace, though it was known as Fredericktown before that (`History of Frederick County" n.d.). A c.1747 map illustrates Winchester in the Shenandoah Valley with a number of early paths extending out from the settlement (Figure 4-1). This map also depicts Fort Loudoun in the vicinity; this fort is believed to have been constructed during the French and Indian War. A traveler visiting the town in the 1740s would have encountered only a scattering of stone and log buildings, the public structures on public lots, streets obstructed by stumps, and many uncleared private lots (Hofstra 2006:193). ' Also in 1747 the new county court admitted that the land did belong to Lord Fairfax and in 1749 Fairfax moved to Frederick County and built his home, Greenway Court, at White Post, in present-day Clarke County, approximately 11 miles south of the project area ("History of tFrederick County" n.d.). Figure 4-1: Detail of A survey of the northern neck of Virginia, by Warner c.1747, depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress 4-7 HISTORIC CONTEXT COLONY TO NATION (1750 —1789) The western frontier of the colonies witnessed the French and Indian War between 1754 and 1763. As the French and British struggled for control of territory in North America, the northern Shenandoah Valley region became an important foothold for the English and multiple forts and stockades were constructed in Frederick County (G&P 1997:25; Parker 2006:7). The largest of these forts was the previously mentioned Fort Loudoun in Winchester; the only remains of the fort are located at 419 Loudoun Street, approximately two miles south of the project area. This fort was designed and built under the guidance of George Washington who would come to serve as Commander in Chief of the colonial forces with his headquarters in Winchester. Following the war, Washington was elected to his first public office representing Frederick County in the House of Burgesses in 1758 and 1861 ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). The construction of forts led to an increase in population in Frederick and in the vicinity of Winchester with the presence of soldiers and families seeking protection. This created an increase in the demand for food and supplies and led to an expansion of wheat production in the area. Frederick County's economy was based on agriculture and by 1760 the primary focus was the commercial production of wheat. This was in stark contrast to Piedmont and Tidewater Virginia where the early agricultural economy was based on tobacco. Wheat grew well in eastern Frederick where there were fertile limestone soils and land was cleared to create additional farmland. In the western portion of the county, where the soil was underlain by shale, and grains did not grow as well, mills and pastures were more common. Besides grist mills, ironworks were another industry present in the county by the last quarter of the eighteenth century. Such ironworks included Marlboro Iron Works on Cedar Creek and Taylor Furnace Farm at the foot of Great North Mountain (G&P 1997:25-26). The large number of goods produced in the region also led to an increased number of roads and improvement of existing roads leading to Winchester (Figure 4-2). Winchester became the primary market town in the region and in the 1750s the town began to change; it was incorporated in 1779 (Norris 1890:147). With his proximity to the town, Lord Fairfax began to influence its development and sought to create five -acre lots to the north and east of town. The importance of Winchester was also evident in rise value of land near the town (Hofstra 2004:193, 313). In 1757, Lord Fairfax granted land, including the project area, to John McMachon. 1 McMachon sold the land to Bryah and Elizabeth Bruin in 1762, though they sold it within a year to Col. Angus McDonald, a veteran of the French and Indian War. It has been written that the McDonald's constructed a house on the land around 1762 and named it Glengary after his family home near the Garry River in Scotland (Ebert and Lazazzera 1988:33). Eventually, the parcel was purchased by Dr. Robert Macky; upon his death his wife left the property to their son, John Macky (G&P 1997:189). Following the French and Indian War in the mid -eighteenth century, England passed laws and instilled taxes upon the colonists in order to pay its war debts. The result was increased tension between England and the colonies. In response, the 1774 Virginia Convention adopted resolves ' For more in-depth history of Glengary's evolution please read Gray & Pape's 1997 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Investigations Route 37, Frederick County, Virginia on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 4-8 r HISTORIC CONTEXT against the importation of British goods and the importation of slaves. The Convention also required each county to form a volunteer company of cavalry or infantry. From eastern Frederick County (now Clarke County) came Gen. Daniel Morgan and his "Long Rifles". Additionally, citizens furnished the troops with food and supplies, including Isaac Zane who supplied the army with ammunition made at his ironworks in Marlboro, near the Frederick - Shenandoah border. While no military engagements took place in Frederick County, many prisoners of war were held in the county. Originally, prisoners were placed in Fort Loudoun, however their numbers grew to the point that new facilities were necessary. A barracks was built four miles west of Winchester; by 1781 there were 1,600 prisoners ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). Figure 4-l: Detail of Anew map of Virginia from the best authorities, by Kitchin c.1761. depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD (1789 — 1830) ' Following the American Revolution, Frederick County's strong agricultural economy based on grains and livestock continued to grow and insulated farmers from the economic depression t experienced by tobacco farmers. While tobacco was raised in some eastern portions of the county where Tidewater planters had relocated, it was not a driving force in the economy. In addition to tobacco, Tidewater planters brought with them a plantation system operated by forced ' slave labor. Despite the presence of these plantations, there were fewer slaves and more free blacks in the Shenandoah Valley compared with other areas of Virginia. Farmsteads were often run by family members or temporarily hired help (G&P 1997:26). With sustained peace in the new nation, Winchester flourished and by 1810 had about 2,000 residents (Norris 1890:170). 4-9 HISTORIC CONTEXT ... it became the mart for the production of several useful products on such a scale as would now, even, be deemed extensive. The manufacture of saddle -trees was carried on to a large extent, and were shipped northward and eastward, even entering the markets almost controlled by Carlisle, Penn., which at that time was the great rival in trade of Winchester. The hats of Winchester were famous far and wide, whilst the gloves of buckskin, made by three or four manufacturers were sought by all eastern dealers, and doubtless was the starting point of the celebrity of valley -made gloves that retain their reputation to this day. One of the largest tanneries was located here even before the Revolution and its leather was shipped as far north as Boston (Norris 1890:148). Other industries embraced by county residents included a variety of mills (grist, saw, oil, paper, and fulling), leather tanneries, breweries and liquor distilleries, blacksmiths and coopers (G&P 1997:26). In 1820, there were 54 mills in Frederick County along with numerous sawmills, tanneries, and other business activities ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). Many of these mills were south and east of Winchester; for example somewhere on Redbud Run was the large flour mill of Daniel T. Wood (Cartmell 1909:48). An 1809 map illustrates the network of roads extending out from Winchester (Figure 4-3). One such road that has been on maps throughout the eighteenth century was the Great Wagon Road. This began to be known as the Valley Turnpike and generally follows the modern alignment of U.S. Route 11, east of the project area; it connected Pennsylvania with North Carolina. As early as 1797 stagecoaches were running on the Valley Pike (Lehman c.1989). Beginning in 1824, macadam was used to pave many of the major roadways in Virginia, including the Valley Turnpike (G&P 1997:27). l t� Q J ewer, . +� r rr�»• �♦ n� r t kyo own a \\ ; 1; c IMF "La" IN Project Area Al" t Figure 4-3: Detail of Map of Frederick, Berkeley, & Jefferson counties in the state of Virginia, by Varle and Jones in 1809, depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress 4-10 11 HISTORIC CONTEXT ANTEBELLUM PERIOD (1830 — 1860) Frederick County continued to prosper during this period with an economy based on agriculture and life was centered in Winchester and other smaller towns where there were craftsmen and merchants (G&P 1997:27; "History of Frederick County" n.d.). The transportation corridors leading to these towns, especially Valley Turnpike, were a major driver in their growth. Activity associated with this road made Winchester one of the largest towns in western Virginia ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). Additional roads and modes of transportation carve to Frederick during this period further increasing growth in the county. Like many places in the country and state, the region received a major boon with the coming of the railroad. In 1826, the Virginia legislature authorized the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (B&O RR) to operate in Virginia (G&P 1997:27). This led to the creation of the Winchester & Potornac Railroad (W&P RR) linking Winchester and the port of Baltimore through Harper's Ferry. Connection to this large port and Baltimore merchants improved the farming economy of the valley (Gryines n.d.b). The year 1836 saw the first railway ' train into Winchester from Harpers Ferry (Hanson 1969). ' Furthermore, two major roadways added to the transportation network in the region (G&P 1997:27). In 1850, the Winchester & Berryville and the Front Royal Turnpike companies were authorized to construct roads (Norris 1890:188). The Winchester & Berryville Turnpike connected Winchester and the county seat of Clarke County (Berryville); eventually it was ' connected to Alexandria and today is the general alignment of State Route 7. The Front Royal Turnpike (U.S. Route 522) connected the county seats of Frederick and Warren County. Improved transportation routes were needed for the reliable movement of goods and produce to market, and homesteads continued to form around the network of interior roads. The wealth of the region was reflected in the size of the farms in the county, which were generally larger than farms in other parts of the Valley and were valued at almost twice the state average per acre (G&P 1997:27). It was around 1831 that John R. Cooke built his house at Glengary having purchased approximately 623 acres in 1825 (Kalbian 1991; Quarles 1990:78). John Rogers Cooke was born in Bermuda in 1788 and educated at the College of William and Mary and Princeton University (Quarles 1990:78). Cooke practice law in all the courts of the Lower Valley, he was an officer in the War of 1812, and served in the Virginia legislature (Cartmell 1909:297; Quarles 1990:78). Cooke married Maria Pendleton, daughter of Philip Pendleton of Berkeley County (G&P 1997:189). Together they had thirteen children and believed in the importance of their sons ' learning "the arts of the husbandman during vacation days, and roam daily over the fields and through the woods" (quoted in Cartmell 1909:297). Artistic pursuits were followed by their best known sons of which were Philip Pendleton Cooke the poet, Edward Cooke the artist, and John ' Ester Cooker the novelist (Quarles 1990:78). Their house was valued at $3,000.00, a significant amount compared to their neighbors (G&P 1997:189). Soon after however, in 1839, the house burned amplifying the Cooke's existing financial problems (Quarles 1990:78). His parcel was divided and sold (G&P 1997:190). In 1848, James Lewis purchased the "eastern section or division of Glengary" however it is believed that this 4-1 1 HISTORIC CONTEXT was an adjacent tract to the current Glengary and the buildings are no longer standing. (quoted in G&P 1997:190). The 210-acre portion of the Cooke property with the current Glengary, the project area, was purchased by John Harmon in 1850 for $6,398.63 and he rebuilt the house (G&P 1997:190). The quiet, peaceful life experienced by the Harmon's and residents of Frederick County soon began to change. The first tastes of violence regarding the institution of slavery occurred in 1859. On October 16, John Brown conducted a raid on Harpers Ferry to liberate and arm area slaves and form an autonomous realm for them in the mountains of Maryland and western Virginia, where there were few slaveholders. Frederick County had about 2,300 slaves out of a population of about 16,000, or 14-percent of the population (Holsworth 2011). While any number of enslaved people is too many, by comparison, counties continuing to heavily cultivate tobacco had a much higher proportion; for example Mecklenburg County had a total population of 20,096, 62-percent of which was made up of enslaved people (USCB). As the initial public response to the raid ran its course in Frederick, the sentiment grew more cautious given the strong economic ties that the county had to the northeastern markets (Duncan 2007:4). When Virginia held its secessionist convention in 1861, the four lower Valley counties (Frederick, Clarke, Berkeley, and Jefferson) sent a strongly anti -secessionist delegation. Strong Union sympathies would lead to the two northern most counties (Berkeley and Jefferson) to join the new state of West Virginia (G&P 1997:28). Frederick County was given the option of joining West Virginia and voting was conducted in 1863, however no votes were reported (Gryines n.d.c). CIVIL WAR (1861 — 1865) There were military campaigns throughout the Civil War to gain control of the strategically important Shenandoah Valley. The valley supplied food, livestock, horses, and soldiers to the southern cause and it was also important because of its strategic location in relation to Washington, D.C. ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). The gently rolling hills provided cover for advancing troops and the roadways provided access into the interior; Winchester in particular was surrounded on all sides by low hills that hid the approach of armies (G&P 1997:29; Fordney 1996). While railroad lines were important during the war throughout the south, the W&P RR was not as important as others. In early 1861, the W&P RR supported the Virginia move to capture Harper's Ferry and removed Confederate supplies when that position was evacuated. However, the line's weak construction, its orientation to Union territory, and proximity to the Potomac River made it of little use to the Confederacy after early 1862 ("Winchester & Potomac" n.d.). The line was damaged and repaired multiple times throughout the war (Lehman c.1989). Winchester was a strategic prize during the Civil War. With its excellent roads north and east, in Confederate hands it was a serious threat to the supply lines of the Union armies trying to reach Richmond. In the hands of the Union army, Winchester made Confederate raids and invasion of the north risky and opened a protected avenue for Union troop movements south through a valley from which they could attack on the flanks and rear of Lee's main armies ("History" n.d.). 4-12 I i� 11 1 HISTORIC CONTEXT Because of this it is believed that the town of Winchester changed hands between the two sides during the war about 70 times, though it was probably closer to 14 ("History of Frederick County" n.d.; Fordney 1996). Occupiers of the town found it almost impossible to mount a defense, so they usually had to flee quickly, sparing the town from prolonged, destructive sieges (Fordney 1996). During the Civil War, multiple forts were built in the vicinity of Winchester including: Star Fort, just east of Sunnyside; Flag Fort or Fort Milroy, which was built on the site of Fort Garibaldi, west of the Fairmont Avenue National Fruit plant; and Fort Russell, near Stonebrook. Lesser fortifications built were West "Fort" which was really a Lunette (near the intersection of today's Routes 37 and 522), the Collier Redoubt (just east of Route 11 north), and the Parkin's Mill Battery (Lehman c.1989). Mapping shows that fortifications were generally along the hills northwest of Winchester. Star Fort was south of the project area and there was a series of earthworks and fortifications along Apple Pie Ridge just west of the project area. A period map depicts a house within the project area with orchards to its south and east (Figure 4-4). The drive to the dwelling at this time paralleled Redbud Run, extending west from Valley Pike passing the property of James Lewis. The current owner of Glengary has documentation of the house and property at times being used by military occupants "Sometimes the parlor was a `headquarters, and the frontyard, orchard and meadow land full of tents and a sutler's store close to the house"' (quoted in Glengary Farm n.d.). Given later confusion of the ownership of Glengary between John Harmon and James Lewis, however, it is unclear if this description is referring to the Harmon house or Lewis house. Figure 4-4: Detail of Battlefield of Winchester, Va. (Opequon) /September 19, 1864/, 1873 b- Gillespie, depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress 4-13 HISTORIC CONTEXT I In addition to occupation of Winchester, during the Civil War six major battles were fought on Frederick County's land. These include: the First, Second, and Third Battles of Winchester, the First and Second Battles of Kernstown, and Cedar Creek. The first major battles in the vicinity of the project area was the First Battle of Kernstown and ' First Battle of Winchester. In the spring of 1862, Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was carrying out his campaign in the Shenandoah Valley to relieve pressure on Confederate troops near Richmond who were facing McClellan on the Peninsula. In March 1862, Jackson wrongly believed his army to be larger than the Union forces in Winchester and he moved to strike which led to the Battle of First Kernstown. On March 23rd there was skirmishing in Kernstown, the opening conflict of the Valley Campaign. Though the Confederates lost the battle, concerned by the potential threat to Washington, D.C. from the Valley, President Lincoln had more than 35,000 forces redirected to the Valley depriving Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan of reinforcements (NPS 1992). The core of this battle took place more than four miles south of the project area. On May 24, 1862, Jackson and Maj. Gen. Richard S. Ewell captured the Union garrison at Front Royal and began to close in on Winchester. Union Maj. Gen. Nathaniel P. Banks retreated down the Valley Pike towards Winchester where Jackson found him on May 25 ("First Battle of Winchester" n.d.). The Federals were able to initially repulse the Rebels, however when they were struck on each flank the line broke. The Federals then went in a confused retreat through the town of Winchester and into Maryland ("1862" n.d). Banks lost 2,000 men and all of his supplies to Jackson. The core of this battle took place in Winchester and south, more than two miles south of the project area though its study area follows the alignment of Valley Pike, approximately one -quarter mile east of the project area (Figure 4-5). 1 4-14 HISTORIC CONTEXT i 1'mjrrt :1rr; f) �t •,.,r,Q MjILLV Av ► y 1` Y{ / -1 ray,; ..�, _ `, � • : S �, � ' � •tom •� ., r• ; �. 1. � ')��Y. Figure 4-5: Winchester 1("104) depicting the project area in relation to the+ battlefield. Source: ABPP In June 1863, Gen. Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia began their invasion of the north using the Blue Ridge Mountains to screen their movements. At this time, Winchester was occupied by the Union army ("1863" n.d.). Though Robert Milroy, commander of the Federals in 4-15 HISTORIC CONTEXT Winchester, was aware that Lee's army was heading north he stayed in place in Wincheser. The ridge west of town was heavily fortified with trenches connecting forts. On June 13t', Divisions under Maj. Gen. Jubal A. Early and Maj. Gen. Edward Johnson took the Valley Pike and Front Royal Road north converging upon Winchester, pushing back Union forces as they progressed. Eventually, the Union force retreated north of Abrams Creek and after dark Milroy concentrated his forces inside a triangle defined by Fort Milroy, Star Fort, and West Fort (Figure 4-6) (NPS 1992). At dawn of June 14t', one of Early's brigades swept forward to capture Bower's Hill with little resistance. Johnson extended his line to the right against very light opposition resulting in fitful skirmishing in the streets of Winchester. Early and Ewell decided on a flanking strategy and Gordon's brigade and two batteries were left on Bower's Hill, while Early led his three other brigades back to Cedar Creek Grade, west beyond Applie Pie Ridge where it was out of view of U.S. fortifications, then north over Cloverdale Plantation to Walnut Grove. While Early made this march, Johnson advanced a line of skirmishers on the right to occupy the Federal's attention. The Confederates on Bower's Hill opened up, toughing off a duel with the Union guns in Fort Milroy. By mid -afternoon, Early's force had gained a position opposite West Fort on the Apple Pie Ridge. Guns were positioned on the Brierly Farm northwest of the fort and in an orchard southwest of the fort. By this time the field had quieted, and the Union forces believed that the Confederates had been repulsed from Winchester (NPS 1992). Early's artillery opened fire on West Fort and Brig. Gen. Harry T. Hays advanced his Louisiana brigade through the corn and wheat fields at the base of Apple Pie Ridge. On command, the brigade rushed forward across 300 yards of open fields and swept upward into the works. After a brief hand-to-hand, Union defenders abandoned the works, retreating to Fort Milroy. Early consolidated his line on West Fort Ridge, but darkness prevented further gains although an artillery duel continued until long after dark (NPS 1992). During the night, Milroy retreated on the old Charles Town Road towards Harpers Ferry. The column massed in the low ground between Star Fort and Fort Milroy, then moved down the railroad and the Valley Pike toward the Charles Town crossroad, just south of Stephenson's Depot. Near dawn, the retreating Federals were confronted by Confederates near the intersection of the Valley Pike and old Charles Town Road. As it grew light, Federals made several uncoordinated attacks against the bridge and railroad embankment, however, the Confederates were being steadily reinforce and repulsed each attempt. When a Confederate brigade joined the battle from the north, the Federals surrendered and 2,500 to 3,000 soliders were captured. During the battle, Confederate Lt. Gen. Richard Ewell's troops numbered 19,000 men against Milroy's 6,900. However, according to the NPS, "US casualty figures for Second Winchester vary widely. This is explained by the fact that about two thousand Union soliders not belonging to Milroy's command were in field hospitals in the city and were often added to the number of captured or missing" (NPS 1992). The core of fighting during the Battle of Second Winchester occurred at five locations: Pritchard's Hill; the intersection of Millwood and Front Royal pikes (interchange 82 of I-81); Abrams Creek and Bower's Hill; Apple Pie Ridge and West Fort; and Stephenson's Depot (NPS 4-16 F1 1 HISTORIC CONTEXT 1992). According to the NPS, three of these areas retain high levels of integrity. The project area is adjacent to one just area (Figure 4-7). Library of Congress Project Area ZEW400 4-17 ! KEM _ ':x�otiT �iatt�C ��at%w"�tcr # HISTORIC CONTEXT a • Project Area 11 r f� e '- .. -:•�,� 'cis � `.? �:l• �: , . J a4rCv .�� 4 w y ��J .. I• �• � e 1 � try 11,.. .. �-• �j `..1 ,. � rl)iLn1YNIr pY'.4'• - '.,ry�,,. .. ;-�• 1 ' Oil— C:3 anal ullnna PryrM HmY��I .; �1 � ��ww►�N.r•i�YN...• ' �Jy j ' � Nw<J.•INMMMI,�.Ir.►nl�,Jn.. Figure 4-7: Winchester H "107) depicting the project area in relation to the battlefield. Source: ABPP While Gen. Lee had Union forces embroiled in combat in Petersburg in 1864, he sent Lt. Gen. Jubal A. Early and his Army of the Valley on a campaign through Shenandoah Valley hoping to 4-18 HISTORIC CONTEXT ' force Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant to divide his army (Adelman n.d.). Following the Battle at Cool Spring on July 17-18, 1864, Early's army withdrew south. Believing him to be no longer a threat, Union Maj. Gen. Horatio Wright abandoned his pursuit and sent the bulk of his forces back to Washington, D.C. leaving Winchester with a diminished capacity. Gen. Lee ordered Early to prevent those Federal reinforcements from going to Washington from where they would be sent to Petersburg. On July 24a', Early marched north again and faced Brig. Gen. George Crook at Pritchard's Hill near Kemstown (CWT n.d.a). Early won a decisive victory as Crook retreated across the Potomac River (NPS 1992). Buoyed by the victory, Early's army continued north and burned Chambersburg, Pennsylvania at the end of July (CWT n.d.a). The core of the ' Battle of Second Kemstown took place nearly four miles south of the project area, though its study area followed the Valley Pike. In response to these Confederate movements, Grant made Philip Sheridan commander of the new Army of the Shenandoah and set him on the task of rendering the Valley useless to Confederates. On September 19, 1864, Early's 14,000 soldiers and Sheridan's 39,000 clashed at the Third Battle of Winchester, also called the Battle of Opequon (Figure 4-8) (Adelman n.d.). Believing that Sheridan would act like other cautious Union commanders, Early spread his smaller army over a wide front north from Winchester. Sheridan moved to bring his army against ' that portion at Winchester and Early hurried to concentrate his men at the city. Sheridan's force, advancing on the Berryville Pike through a narrow canyon encountered Confederate's, slowing their passage and creating a choke point for Sheridan's advance; this delayed the advance enough ' to allow Early's men time to get into Winchester (Adelman n.d.). As Union forces emerged from the canyon, lines were established straddling Berryville Pike and extending to Abrams Creek on the south and Redbud Run on the north (NPS 1992). At 11:40 a.m., two corps of Union forces advanced from a woodlot now known as the First Woods across a field. The two corps got separated all the while under fierce fire by Confederates. One ' Confederate remembered, "Our cannoneers made their battery roar, sending their death -dealing messengers with a precision and constancy that made the earth around them seem to tremble ... A more murderous fire I never witnessed than was plunged into this heterogeneous mass" (quoted ' in Adelman n.d.). Despite the difficulty, the Federal line did not stop until it had penetrated the Confederate position. Ll I The Rebels counterattacked and drove the Federals back across the field and reaching a stalemate as the two sides exchanged long range fire. Sheridan, therefore, called for his reserves to advance alongside of the soldiers already on the field and from the northern back of Redbud Run. The combined thrust was too much for the outnumbered Southerners. Additionally, Union cavalry forces fought their way south up the Valley Pike. By nightfall, the city of Winchester was in Union hands (Adelman n.d.). The Third Battle of Winchester was the bloodiest battle fought in the Shenandoah Valley, producing more casualties than the entire 1862 Valley Campaign with 5,018 Union casualties and 3,611 Confederate casualties (Adelman n.d.; NPS 1992). The majority of fighting took place in Winchester and to its east. The NPS has identified four battlefield core areas, one of which lies south of the project area (Figure 4-9). 4-19 HISTORIC CONTEXT viaoMu Project Area _ r \` J , 'A. PnF16LU H'IVCHESHEST'ER, VA. Figure 4-8: Battle field of'Winchester, Va. (Opequon) depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress 4-20 HISTORIC CONTEXT Nr�� Project Area . 4 •� '1 ♦ tz;� h4 tC3 Figure 4-9: OpeyuonlThird Winchester (VA119) depicting the project area in relation to the battlefield Source: ABPP Sheridan's Shenandoah Valley Campaign also included the systematic destruction of Valley ' farms, mills, crops, and livestock and anything else that might have aided the Confederate army (G&P 1997:28). For three weeks in 1864 from late September to early October, they burned 2,000 barns, 120 mills, and a half a million bushels of grain and confiscated 50,000 head of ' livestock in the Valley. Virginia's richest valley was left desolate ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). By mid -October, Gen. Early was determined to strike Sheridan. In the early morning of October 19'', Early and his men struck Sheridan's men camped along the east bank of Cedar Creek only to be repulsed by a crushing counterattack. Sheridan's victory at Cedar Creek extinguished any hope of further Confederate offensives in the Shenandoah Valley (CWT n.d.b). This battle took place in southern Frederick County. ' RECONSTRUCTION AND GROWTH (1865 — 1917) The Civil War affected Virginia severely resulting in a heavy loss of life, devastated economy, and destruction of farms. With the long occupation of Winchester by both armies, the town and its surroundings were impacted. Additionally, during Reconstruction Federal soldiers continued to be stationed in Winchester until 1870. With the destruction witnessed throughout Virginia, the ' region slipped into a depression (G&P 1997:29). As with much of the rest of Virginia, economic 4-21 HISTORIC CONTEXT realities following the end of the Civil War resulted in slow redevelopment of the area's agricultural and industrial capabilities. Road and railway infrastructure was slowly rebuilt as industry and agriculture struggled to gain a foothold in the post -Civil War south and towns attempted to re-establish themselves. Transportation, which had previously helped the valley to flourish, also aided in its recovery. During Reconstruction the W&P RR was operated by the B&O RR; afterwards, W&P stockholders regained control and leased the line to the B&O RR which became the Harpers Ferry Valley Branch of the B&O RR (G&P 1997:27). The Cumberland Valley Railroad (CVRR) would also come to the region. Chartered in Pennsylvania in 1831, the railroad extended south to the Potomac River about 1873; it reached Winchester in 1889. Frederick County's grain and livestock production recovered and they were back to pre-war levels by the 1880s. Unfortunately, the region had a new competitor in the Great Plains where massive amounts of grain were cultivated. This competition would lead the county to diversify its economy into fruit production. Farmers began to plant orchards, specifically apple orchards, in the fertile limestone soils and by the turn of the century, apples would become the major growth industry in the region with the largest percentage increase in production occurring between 1910 (351,490 bushels) and 1920 (1,019,546 bushels) (G&P 1997:29). By 1909, an estimated 2,000 acres were planted with apples (Cartmell 1909:510). Other early twentieth century crops included corn, potatoes, oats, hay, buckwheat, rye, and peaches and livestock such as cattle, hogs, sheep, and chickens. Additionally, the quarrying of limestone emerged in the early twentieth century with several kilns opening along the B&O RR. The poorer shale soils of the county were largely abandoned for agricultural pursuits during this time and many reverted back to forest land. Winchester, incorporated as a city in 1874, would remain the commercial center of the region throughout the twentieth century (G&P 1997:29-30). John Harmon owned Glengary until his death in 1886, though an 1885 map depicts James Lewis as the owner (Figure 4-10). His daughter, Elizabeth A. Harmon Stine, received 140 acres of Glengary, including the house. By 1901, Glengary was in the hands of Elizabeth's daughter Edmonia Stine Baker (G&P 1997:190-191). 4-22 • iti•w _ E J•wwS� • 1. I< e•►a Project Area •Min L /mod ` R.. • 1 Mid 1 ■.gm•nr � .Iw■ L• ■ • � oil •%■war "� �'�•' ■t� � P•� 1 /wllrr SrAer�1 r�•r *3- JKLark r i • �5 , 0�.!; Coe O� [■war •M• 'IlkNew- '�.. J HISTORIC CONTEXT -A„ Jr. a J01.•. l�""�\ llb+ � • d • l7u...,�ngbrt .J..•TlY.wn�r +.cKreoo •..• ,lrh yob • � 4?e • �.r.r�■ o w- Y.Ir�.-- 0 Y t 1■1 W • d r�r w/ Figure 4-10: Detail of An Atlas: Frederick County, 1885• depicting the project area. Source: Historic Map Works WORLD WAR I TO WORLD WAR 11 (1917 — 1945) The production of apples began in the late nineteenth century with the first large scale orchard planted in 1871 (Hanson 1969). Frederick began the Apple Blossom Festival, in Winchester, in 1924 and the area became known as one of the leading apple producing areas of the state, earning it the moniker of "Apple Capital". Businesses related to the production, storage, packing, and shipping of apples have developed throughout the area, including the Winchester Cold Storage Company (1917), the Virginia Barrel Company (1910), and the Southern Chemical Company (1925) (G&P 1997:30). The ease of transportation of this product was facilitated by the road network around Winchester and the B&O RR and CVRR which, by 1919, was the Pennsylvania Railroad (Figure 4-11). In 1918, Virginia's General Assembly established the first state highway system, a network of 4,002 miles of roadway. Among the roads to be included was the old Valley Turnpike between Winchester and Staunton, which still was being operated as a toll road in 1918. As late as 1926, it remained the only hard -surfaced road of much distance (VDOT 2006:27). During World War II, Winchester housed German prisoners at a detention camp; in 1944 there were 350 prisoners (G&P 1997:30). While there, prisoners worked in the local industries and apple orchards ("WWII Prisoner of War Camp existed years ago in Winchester" 2016). 4-23 HISTORIC CONTEXT Typically in rural counties of Virginia, where agriculture is the primary driver of the economy, population fell during the Great Depression and World War II as residents relocated to urban centers in search of work. In Frederick County, however, population increased by nearly 41- percent as it grew from 12,461 residents in 1920 to 17,537 in 1950 (USCB). Figure 4-11: Detail of the 1942 topographic map, Winchester, VA, depicting the project area. Source: USGS NEW DOMINION (1945 — PRESENT) 1� i P In the second half of the twentieth century, much of northern Virginia changed quickly as it developed into a metropolitan suburb. While much of Frederick County remains fairly rural, Winchester and its surroundings have achieved a more suburban atmosphere in the last decades of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century. Between 1950 and 2000 the population of Frederick more than tripled from 17,537 residents to 59,209 (USCB). The apple industry t continues to be a large part of the local economy however, there is growing employment among manufacturing, retail, and service jobs (G&P 1997:30). Other industries, including limestone quarries, manufacturing corporations, construction and light industrial parks, are thriving in the , county (G&P 1997:30; Parker 2006:7). As growth continues in the county, many apple orchards are being replaced by new roads, homes, shopping centers, and institutions (Parker 2006:7). These changes in the rural landscape is evident in the area surrounding the project area as industrial development increased in the 1970s through 2000s (Figures 4-12 and 4-13). Though alterations were made to Glengary in this period, it remained a farm. In 1948, Charles B. and Mary S. Baker, heirs of Edmonia Baker, conveyed the land to Roy R. and Pearl V. Boyce who 4-24 1 HISTORIC CONTEXT planted an apple orchard. They sold the land not containing the orchard to Douglas O. and Helen B. Grimm in 1956 (G&P 1997:191). �f �� •' Project Aica it ~ I 4P V 7 ..A- 1 Figure 4-12: Detail of the 1966 topographic map, Winchester, VA, depicting the project area. Source: USGS Figure 4-13: Detail of a 1997 aerial depicting, the project area. Source: I arch 4-25 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 4-26 HISTORIC CONTEXT I f� I[] 1 FIELD RESULTS ' 5. FIELD RESULTS Field investigation of Glengary was conducted in September 2017 and included both 1 architectural and archaeological survey of the property. The following sections provide the results of the field survey. The architectural survey results include a narrative of the existing conditions with detailed architectural description, a developmental history of the property, and an assessment of historical integrity. The archaeological results includes a detailed methodology of the testing strategy along with a summary of findings. IARCHITECTURAL SURVEY Glengary is a Greek Revival plantation home originally constructed in 1850 but substantially ' enlarged and renovated on several occasions throughout the twentieth century. The original block of the building is a two-story, five -bay, I -house (Figure 5-1). The brick walls are laid in a Flemish Bond on the front fagade and five -course American Bond on the sides and rest on a low 1 stone foundation. It is topped by side -gable roof covered with composition shingles. The roofline is embellished by stepped brick cornices which wrap around the sides as short gable returns. Semi -engaged end chimneys extend up each side and pierce the roof at the ridge. The ' chimney is flanked by half -lunette louvered vents in the gable. The main entrance is set within the central bay on the first floor and consists of a paneled wood door flanked by three -light sidelights and topped by a linear six -light transom. The frame is molded with Greek Revival ' influences. Fenestration is symmetrical on the front fagade and consists of double -hung sash wood windows with six -over -six light configurations. The windows rest on stone sills and are topped by wooden lintels with plain corner blocks. There are no windows on the side wall. The front fagade was redesigned in the mid -twentieth century through the construction of a two-story, three -bay Neoclassical -inspired portico (Figure 5-2). The portico rests on a raised brick stoop and features four square columns supporting a pedimented gable roof with a boxed cornice. The pediment is clad with clapboard and features a single fanlight. Contemporary to the portico, a ' Juliet balcony was also appended to the front fagade below the central second floor window, just above the entry. 1 1 5-1 FIELD RESULTS Figure 5-1: Glengary front facade, facing west Figure 5-2: Detail of front portico, facing southwest 5-2 FIELD RESULTS The symmetrical facade of the original block is also interrupted by a later wing attached to the north side of the building. This wing was constructed in 1970, but generally matches the character and scale of the original block (Figure 5-3). It is three -bays wide and two -stories, although slightly shorter and slightly set back. It too rests on a continuous stone foundation and is clad with brick walls laid in a Flemish Bond on the front and American Bond on the side and rear. The brickwork of the cornice and gable returns matches the original block, as does the chimney, half -lunette vents, and window sills and lintels (Figure 5-4). A rear entry is located on the back of this wing, in the bay adjacent to an earlier rear ell. Figure 5-3: Circa 1970 side wing;, facing; west Figure 5-4: Front and north side oblique, facing; south"est 5-Z FIELD RESULTS In the early -twentieth century, an offset, two-story rear ell was appended to the original block (Figure 5-5). This ell has a wood frame structural system and is now clad with Masonite siding. The gable roof is set just below the primary roofline and partially abuts the rear brick wall. A one-story, shed -roof porch with central gable embellishment extends along the south side of this ell. It is set on a raised stone foundation and is supported by turned wood posts. A secondary entry is sheltered by this porch. Other fenestration consists of wood double -hung sash windows with six -over -six light configurations. Figure 5-5: Rear ell north side, facing southeast I At an unknown date later in the twentieth century, the early -twentieth century rear ell was extended further to the rear with an integral two -car garage on the lower level and additional living space above (Figure 5-6). It conforms to the same roofline, fenestration pattern, and overall character of the rear ell and has been further integrated by the later addition of a long ' one-story enclosed addition that extends the length of the first period rear ell and extension. The forward portion of this area serves as a sunroom and is enclosed with several bands of casement windows and is covered by a cross -gabled roof. The rear portion is a storage area for the garage ' and has two small windows. The overall mass is clad with Masonite to match the rest of the rear block. 5-4 fl 1 I I I 1 FIELD RESULTS F igti re 5-6: Rear ell south side with garage extension, facing northeast In general, the exterior of the home reflects its evolution from the mid -nineteenth century through the latter -twentieth century. The original block retains some of its Greek Revival design, materials, and character as designed; however is cloaked by a large twentieth century portico that lends a more Colonial Revival appearance to the home. The original design is also obscured by the 1970 side wing that was designed and built to match the features of the original block and thus appears also as an original or early wing, despite its much later date of construction. The early -twentieth century rear ell can still be discerned; however it too is largely cloaked by the later extension and side porch, all of which have been clad with continuous modem siding and updated with replacement doors and windows. Interior The interior of the home also conveys the various periods of time and styles in which it was built. The original block retains much of its Greek Revival -style detailing while the side wing and rear ell are similar and compatible, but with a stronger Colonial Revival influence. The original block of the home has a single -pile center passage plan with two rooms on each floor. The front entry leads into the central hallway which features an open -well, two -run stair with decorative brackets and a graceful ramped handrail with tapered balusters, two per stair, and turned newels (Figure 5-7). The stringer is embellished with a scrollwork relief below each tread. The wall below the stringer is paneled in vertical sections with a two -panel door to the basement at the end of the wall. At the bottom of the stair, on each side of the hallway are doorways into the flanking rooms. These doorways exhibit a Greek Revival architrave with a compound raised molding that steps out at the top before being crowned with a corbelled hood. The doors are six - panel with box locks (Figure 5-8). 5-5 FIELD RESULTS Figure 5-7: Original block central passage from entry, facing west I I � I � I � I � 5-6 FIELD RESULTS Figure 5-8: First floor door architrave, south room, facing north ' Each of the rooms flanking the central passage is adorned by fireplace on the outside wall. The mantels are simple with plain pilasters and frieze and Greek Revival -style molding at the cornice. The firebox is lined with brick that matches the hearth set flush with the floors (Figure ' 5-9). Flooring throughout the first floor is wide plank pine. The rooms have deep baseboards with molded cornices. Set above the baseboards is paneled wainscoting that was added in the twentieth century. Crown molding around the ceilings was also later added. The second floor ' rooms are similar in finish; however a closet has been constructed along the interior wall in each room. 5-7 I FIELD RESULTS Two new ( wing and ri plain boar( wing is a p Through tf (Figure 5-: fireplace v surrounds I 1 FIELD RESULTS passage that leads to a two -run, dog -legged stairwell along the front wall (Figure 5-12). Both this hallway and the main corridor feature wainscoting and chair rails similar to those in the main house. Figure 5-I1: Room in side wing;, facing; northeast Figure 5-12: flail%a} and stairwell in side wing;, facing; east Through the door in the north room to the rear ell is the kitchen area (Figure 5-13). Reportedly this room served as a dining room when first constructed in the early -twentieth century with the 5-9 FIELD RESULTS kitchen in a second room further to the rear, but the kitchen was moved to this space in the mid- , twentieth century. This room is down one step from the original block and exhibits a third- quarter twentieth century character. The floors are covered with a faux -brick vinyl tile and the plaster walls are papered. Faux wood beams stretch across the ceiling. Cabinetry and hardware ' reflect a 1970s date. The door and window surrounds reflect an earlier date and are plain board with corner blocks. n Figure 5-13: Kitchen in rear ell, facing south To the side of the kitchen is a door that leads into the sunroom along the north side of the rear ell. , At the rear of the kitchen is a door that leads into a small room also within the older portion of the rear ell that reportedly originally functioned as the kitchen. This room has a door that leads on to the open porch along the south side of the ell as well as a door that leads into the sunroom , along the north side. Along the rear of the room is an enclosed dog -leg stairwell that leads to the second floor of the ell. The enclosed stairwell is finished with vertically -laid tongue -and -groove board while the rest of the walls plastered with a chair rail (Figure 5-14). A built-in cabinet ' adorns the wall between this room and the kitchen (Figure 5-15). 5-10 FIELD RESULTS Figure 5-14: Enclosed stairwell and doorway in rear ell, facing Nest Figure 5-1 S: Rack room in rear ell with built-in cabinet, facing east FIELD RESULTS I The sunroom extending along the north side of the rear ell reflects a late -twentieth century ' character (Figure 5-16). This space has wood floors with papered sheetrock walls. All door and window trim appear to be commercially -produced. Figure 5-16: Sunroom interior, facing northeast Site I I I Glengary is situated at the middle of a large agricultural property that is now surrounded on three , sides by modern development and infrastructure. The gravel driveway begins at the end of Lenoir Drive, the primary corridor through a twentieth century industrial park. The long , driveway extends through open grassy fields at the front of the property and leads to the central homesite and building complex (Figure 5-17). The home is set on a slight knoll that is shaded by a variety of mature trees and faces east across the open grassy fields. The driveway leads to the , south side of the house where it makes a small loop with an extension leading to the attached garage as well as an extension to the farm complex behind the home. The driveway in the vicinity of the home is lined by mature boxwoods. A brick walkway leads from the loop to the ' front of the home. Additional boxwoods and vegetation adorn the walkway and front portico, as well as around the foundation of the building. The backyard is delineated by a treeline and a small garden patch near the location of the original kitchen/servant's quarters that was recently ' demolished. To the northeast rear corner of the home is a late -nineteenth century root cellar and meathouse. Extending along the back and sides of the homesite are fences separating the pastureland beyond. Adjacent to the gate from the driveway into the pasture and farm complex is ' a small late -nineteenth or early -twentieth century pump house. Through the gate is a complex of farm buildings including a late -nineteenth century granary, an early -twentieth century bank barn and silo, and an early -twentieth century animal barn. The ruins ' of mid -nineteenth century hay barn are also present. Surrounding the farm complex are open pasture fields which are interrupted by treelines as well as a historic uncoursed stone wall. 5-12 ' FIELD RESULTS Figure 5-17: Glengary Building complex. Source: Google Earth Root Cellar - Set to north side of the home is a subterranean root cellar (Figure 5-18). This structure likely dates to the late -nineteenth century. It is topped by a grassy, earthen covered barrel roof and is accessed by a set of hinged doors metal doors. The entry bulkhead is set against an arched stacked stone end wall. Figure 5-18: Root cellar, facing east 5-13 1 FIELD RESULTS Meathouse - Set just to the northwest of the home, behind the rear addition, is a small meathouse , building (Figure 5-19). The building appears to date to the late -nineteenth or early -twentieth century. It has a wood frame structural system clad with vertical board and rests on a continuous stone foundation that has been partially parged with concrete. It is topped by a front -gable roof ' covered with asphalt shingles. There is a paneled wood door set centrally on the front end of the building and no other fenestration. Figure 5-19: Meathouse, facing west Pump House - Set just inside the domestic yard area, near the gate into the farm complex is a late -nineteenth century well pump house (Figure 5-20). This small building is clad with clapboard and rests on a poured concrete foundation. It is topped by a side -sloping shed roof covered with corrugated metal. A single board and batten door is set on the north side with a poured concrete stoop. A wood post extends up the rear wall and is attached to an overhead electric line. I I; 5-14 1 Figure 5-20: Pump house, facing southwest FIELD RESULTS ' Gran ar - Set centrally within the farm complex is a late -nineteenth century granary/corn crib building (Figure 5-21). The wood frame building is clad with vertical board siding and rests on ' four wide stone pier foundations that stretch the full -width of the structure. It is topped by a gable roof covered with slate shingles. At each end of the building are open bays sealed by suspended board and batten doors on a sliding track. Originally, the north side of the building was nearly completely open to allow for internal air circulation; however this bay has been infilled with narrow vertical slats. The south side of the building has a full-length shed addition covered by a corrugated metal roof. The structure is now mostly open, but appears to originally ' have been enclosed with board siding and each end accessible by a garage bay sealed by a sliding track door. The inside of the building was not accessible for inspection, but according to previous investigations, the interior layout consists of a full-length central corridor with a granary storage on one side and corn crib on the other. 1 5-15 FIELD RESULTS Figure 5-21: Granary, facing southwest Bank Barn - Set in the farm complex to the southwest of the home and just southeast of the , granary is a large bank barn (Figure 5-22). This bank barn was reportedly constructed during World War I by German prisoners of war, but with materials from an older barn originally located elsewhere in the Shenandoah Valley. This is plausible as inspection of the barn reveals a ' variety of large, older beams, with previously used mortises indicative of a nineteenth century structure; although the construction techniques and other materials reflect a twentieth century date. The wood frame structural system rests on a continuous concrete block foundation that ' steps down with the topography of the landscape. The concrete blocks along the upper portion of the building are rusticated for a decorative appearance while those along the sides and lower area are typical blocks. ' The exterior of the barn is clad with vertical board siding and topped by a gable roof covered in standing seam metal. The main level of the building overhangs the lower level by one bay. This ' lower level has two larger openings with sliding track doors as well as two smaller stall doors each flanked by a six -light casement window. There are similar casement windows illuminating the lower level on each side of the building. The main level of the building has large double -bay ' central openings sealed by sets of sliding track doors. The uphill side of the building is accessed by an earthen ramp with poured concrete retaining walls. Each end of the barn has two louvered vents with pedimented hoods. Similar vents are set above in each gable. At the northwest corner ' of the building is a concrete stave silo. Its base is set adjacent to the earthen ramp and connects to the lower level of the barn with a small enclosure (Figure 5-23). 1 5-16 1� J FIELD RESULTS Figure 5-22: Bank Barn doHnhill side, facing south"est Figure 5-23: Bank barn uphill side, facing northeast The interior of the lower level of the barn is divided into separate feeding areas and stalls ' complete with built in feed troughs (Figure 5-24). A ladder near the back wall provides internal access to the main level. The main level consists of a single open primary space with a small workroom enclosure in one corner (Figure 5-25). The lower level ladder is bulkhead and is ' enclosed in a small closet near the front wall. The heavy timber framing is exposed throughout and reveals earlier mortises and non -original sistered beams. 5-17 I FIELD RESULTS I Figure 5-24: Bank barn lower level interior, facing southwest Figure 5-25: Bank barn main level interior, facing northeast Animal Barn - Set near the back of the farm complex, to the west of the granary is an early - twentieth century animal barn (Figure 5-26). This wood frame building is clad with vertical ' board siding and rests on a continuous concrete block foundation. It is topped by a gable roof covered with corrugated metal. Each side of the building has a large central bay sealed by a pair of sliding track doors. A small livestock entry is located in the corner of the east end. The interior ' is open with a mid -height shelf on the east end to serve as a pen for livestock beneath with storage above (Figure 5-27). The timber framing is exposed and reveals earlier mortises. 5-18 1 ' FIELD RESULTS 1 1 Y _ Figure 5-26::1knitnal barn, facing soudvAest 1 ' Figure 5-27: Animal barn interior, facing, southeast 5-19 1 FIELD RESULTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Archaeological investigations of the Glengary property included a desktop analysis, limited pedestrian survey, and judgmental shovel testing of targeted areas within previously recorded archaeological sites. Desktop Analysis Two previously recorded archaeological sites are located within the boundaries of the Glengary property. Sites 44FK0480 and 44FK0481 were identified by students with James Madison University (JMU) in 1992 (Figure 5-28). According to the VCRIS inventory record, Site 44FK0480 was identified through visual inspection only and consisted of early nineteenth century cultural material widely scattered over field terraces. The material was considered likely associated with the Glengary domestic and agricultural complex located approximately 30-meters (100-feet) to the north. No shovel tests were excavated and no materials collected as part of the survey. Observed materials included ceramics (stonewares and earthenwares), bottle glass, brick and nails. An unknown portion of the site was considered destroyed. Similarly, the VCRIS inventory record for Site 44FK0481 indicates that the site was identified through a combination of visual inspection and shovel testing. The site is associated with the Glengary domestic and agricultural complex and consisted of ceramics (earthenwares) and a variety of nineteenth and twentieth century container glass. The survey resulted in the identification of surface and subsurface deposits with some level of integrity. 5-20 7-1' �47 FIELD RESI'LTS Ir 16 Figure 5-28: Location of Sites 44FK0480 and 44FK0481 recorded during the 1992 .1N11 sur.e\. Source: VCRIS 2017. Pedestrian Survey Following completion of the desktop analysis, D+A staff completed a limited pedestrian survey of the Glengary property. Visual inspection of the property revealed a well maintained domestic complex with a manicured lawn, mature trees and shrubbery present around the house (Figure 5- 29). No evidence of cultural material was observed on the ground surface surrounding the domestic complex. In addition, with the exception of small variations in surfaces likely associated with removal of vegetation over time, there was no observed evidence of landscape features or depressions suggesting the presence of subsurface cultural deposits. 5-21 Figure 5-29: View of domestic landscape surrounding the main dwelling at Glengary facing north. Areas comprising the agricultural complex (barns, sheds, and surround pastures and fields), were ' visually inspected; however, pastures with cattle were only casually inspected as the cattle did not accommodate an extended presence of surveyors in their pasture. Areas around the barns and sheds revealed well worn and exposed soils consistent with their location and use (Figures 5-30 ' and 5-31). Agricultural materials of various forms (barrels, farm equipment, etc.) were scattered adjacent to farm buildings and along fence lines. Fields to the south and west of the domestic and agricultural buildings were in active use as pasture for cattle and exhibited hard packed soils with ' a light covering field grasses. Natural rock outcrops were also observed in fields and the property rises slightly in elevation to the southwest. Cursory visual inspection of these fields did not result in any observed cultural material greater than 50 years of age. Specifically the area of previously ' recorded Site 44FK0480 did not exhibit any evidence of surface scatter or previous cultural activity. 5-22 FIELD RESULTS FIELD RESULTS I Figure 5-31: General view of landscape around agricultural buildings and pastures west of the domestic complex, facing northwest. At the time of the study, fields located to the north and east of the domestic and agricultural ' buildings were fallow and covered with field grasses. Surface visibility in these areas was limited due to the thick covering of grasses and no evidence of cultural material or activity was observed. According to the current property owner, oral history suggests that the stone ' foundations of an earlier dwelling are believed to be in the lower field adjacent to Redbud Run. Visual inspection of this area revealed natural bedrock outcrops located in the lower fields; however, the bedrock did not exhibit any evidence of being worked or used as a structural foundation and appeared to be natural in all respects. Judgmental Shovel Testing Following completion of visual inspection of the property, judgmental shovel tests were excavated in areas of the property identified as having the highest potential for intact ' archaeological deposits to be present. Placement of judgmental shovel tests was guided by the results of the desktop analysis, pedestrian survey, historic context, and landowner interview. A total of 14 judgmental shovel tests were excavated in and around the domestic and agricultural , complex of the Glengary property. Tests were placed in areas of the two previously identified 5-24 FIELD RESULTS ' sites, as well as along a ridge north of the existing dwelling overlooking a lower lying field and Redbud Run (Figure 5-32). Figure 5-32: Plan view of judgmental shovel test locations. Positive shovel tests are marked %ello.% negati%e shovel tests are red. Judgmental shovel tests located south and west of the main dwelling (J4, J-7, J-8, and J-9) ' revealed a consistent soil profile of a brown silty loam topsoil overlying a sterile silty clay subsoil with rock inclusions (Figures 5-33 and 5-34). Judgmental shovel tests J4, J-7, and J-9 were positive for cultural material. These shovel tests were located in the area of the former ' kitchen/servants quarter, which had been removed at some point in the recent past. According to the landowner the kitchen structure also had a basement and servants lived in the structure. Artifacts recovered from judgmental tests in the area of the kitchen included ceramics (blue shell ' edge pearlware, blue transferprint pearlware, stoneware) window glass, mortar, oyster shell, a cut nail, slate fragments, and an animal bone fragment (Figure 5-35). 7 L 5-25 FIELD RESULTS 7.5YR7/3 silty loam 15cmbs 10YR7/6 silty clay Figure 5-33: Soil profile from Judgmental Test J-5. 10YR6/3 silty loam 12cmbs I OYR7/6 silty clay Figure 5-34: Soil profile from Judgmental Test J-9. 5-26 FIELD RESULTS Figure 5-35: Representative artifacts recovered from Judgmental Test J-4 at area of former kitchen building located in the domestic complex of the Glengary property. Four (4) judgmental shovel tests (J-10, J-11, J-12, and J-13) were excavated north of the main dwelling on an elevated landform above a fallow agricultural field adjacent to Redbud Run. Two shovel tests, J-11 and J-13 were positive for cultural material and contained wire nails, a cut nail shank, slate fragments, clear window glass, and a brick fragment (Figure 5-36). Both shovel tests were separated by a modern fence and the presence of material in this area is consistent with construction and demolition debris associated with remodeling of the main dwelling, as well as likely repairs to the adjacent fence. Figure 5-36: Representative artifacts recovered from Judgmental Tests J-11 and J-13. 5-27 FIELD RESULTS All shovel tests in the pastures (J-1, J-2, J-3, J-6, and J-14) were negative for cultural material and exhibited extremely compact shallow topsoil overlying sterile subsoil (Figure 5-37). 10YR8/4 silty loam 6 cmbs 10YR7/6 silty clay Figure 5-37: Soil profile from Judgmental Test J-3. 5-28 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ' 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In September 2017, D+A conducted a cultural resource survey and assessment of the Glengary ' property in Frederick County, Virginia. The effort included both an intensive architectural documentation and study of the home and building complex and all archaeological assessment. ' As part of background research, it was revealed that Glengary has been subject to previous cultural resource surveys on several occasions and has been investigated for both architectural and archaeological resources. Architecturally, the home and outbuildings were last evaluated in 1997 at which time it was noted the home retained a moderate degree of integrity, but also retained an excellent example of domestic and agricultural support buildings and thus was recommended potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP as a good representation of a mid - nineteenth century farm that has evolved over time. Since that time, the home itself has remained relatively unaltered and continues to reflect the same level of integrity as previously. However, two of the oldest outbuildings on the property, the circa 1850 kitchen/servant's quarters and circa ' 1850 hay barn have both been razed. Still, Glengary reflects a fine Antebellum plantation that has grown and evolved as a farm into ' the present day. Tile original block of the home was built in 1850 and retains much of its Greek Revival detailing, but was substantially enlarged and remodeled on several occasions throughout the twentieth century, lending the building a Colonial Revival character. Some of the additions ' and modifications were done so as to blend in and be compatible with the original building and materials while others are clearly modern. The same is true inside the home where the original block retains many Greek Revival details and mid -nineteenth century materials while the additions reflect renovations from throughout the twentieth century to accommodate changing needs. The farm complex also reflects ongoing use of the property and changing needs. All of the extant outbuildings and barns date from the late -nineteenth to early -twentieth century and reflect agricultural practices froIll that period. The complex previously included a detached kitchen/servant's quarters and a hay barn that were believed to be contemporary to the original block of the house; however, these have been demolished in recent years. Still, the home and building stock retain a moderate level of historic physical integrity and represent a good example of a Shenandoah Valley farm that retains a fairly complete complement of domestic and agricultural buildiIgs that have evolved over time. As such, Glengary Is still recommeIded potentially eligible for listing in the NRI-IP under Criteria A and C for significance at the local level. Archaeologically, two sites have been previously identified on the property, including one immediately around and inclusive of the domestic and agricultural complex (44FK0481), and a second site further to the rear in the pasture (44FK0480). Visual inspection of the project area did Ilot reveal any surface evidence of cultural material or activity oil the property. At the time of the survey, cattle were loose in the pastures and visual inspection was limited in these areas; however, no visible evidence of cultural material was identified. Interviews with the current property owner indicated that the property (the house precinct and fields) had been subjected to metal detection in the past but that no material associated with early use of the property or its 6-1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS potential occupation during the Civil War were recovered or noted. Inspection of the field north of the main dwelling and adjacent to Redbud Run, where oral tradition suggested the possible presence of a stone foundation only revealed naturally occurring exposed bedrock. No evidence of building foundations or use of the exposed bedrock as a foundation material was observed. Given the low lying situation of the landform and its likely potential to flood when Redbud Run exceeded its banks would have made this particular area an unlikely location for settlement and construction of a dwelling. Excavation of judgmental shovel tests in areas associated with Site 44FK0481 resulted in the recovery of cultural material associated with the former kitchen/servants quarter structure, which was removed in the recent past. Recovered materials date from the first half of the nineteenth century and are representative of domestic wares popular at the time. Only two additional judgmental tests were positive for cultural material and these were located along a fence line north the main dwelling and likely represent discard of building debris associated with remodeling of the main dwelling in the twentieth century and possible fence repair. Given the architectural history of the property, it appears that the domestic and agricultural landscape of Glengary has not changed substantially since its construction ca. 1850. While the main dwelling has expanded, and additional agricultural buildings have been constructed, the basic organization of domestic and agricultural space including fields and woodlands appears to have changed little. As such, additional archaeological resources associated with the domestic and agricultural component of Glengary are not expected beyond what is currently present. Although testing around the domestic precinct was not intensive, the presence of intact archaeological deposits associated with the former kitchen/servants quarter building are present, and it is likely that a small number archaeological deposits associated with the main dwelling house are present close to the building foundation. Based upon the results of the archaeological assessment, no evidence of Site 44FK0480 was observed and it is likely that this site was a thin scatter of domestic debris spread in the field with no subsurface archaeological signature. Site 44FK0481 appears to be a more discretely defined site and is focused in and around the kitchen/servants quarter building, which would have function as the immediate service space for the main dwelling. The potential for intact archaeological deposits is present in this area. The potential for the remainder of the property to contain intact significant archaeological deposits appears to be low given the topography, rocky soils, and lack of documented use during the historic period beyond what is already known about the property. While Civil War use of the property for encampment purposes is possible, the lack of reported results from local metal detecting along with the documented confusion of encampments at the Lewis property further to the south versus the Glengary (Harmon) property suggests the potential is likely not high. M 1 REFERENCES ' 7. REFERENCES n.d. "1862: Confederates score a victory at First Battle of Winchester," History. Available online at www History com/this-clay-in-History/confederates-score-a-victory-at-rrst- battic-oi-winchcster. n.d. "1863: Union defeated at the Second Battle of Winchester," History. Available online at litti)://www.liisIoi-y.coiii/tliis-(i,iy-iii-liistoi-/union-defeatedl-at-tlie-second-battle-of- ' Winchester. 2012 "Eyewitness Accounts to Early Indian Settlements in Shenandoah Valley," Access Genealogy. Available online at littl)s://www.access�,,ciie iiogy.COnl/native/cyewitness- aCCOLlnts-to-Carly-indlan-settlements-in-shenandoah-val Icy.11011. n.d. "First Battle of Winchester," Thomas Legion. Available online at ' llttl):Uthoillasle�?1o11.Ilet/Iii-stbiittleof W 1nChestci-.Iltilll. n.d. Glei7gmy F(1rm. Information provided by current owner of the property. n.d. "History," Old TOW77 Winchester. Available online at littl)://ol(itowIiwiiiclicstei-vi.coin/aboLit-oIcl-town/iiistoi-y/. n.d. "History of Frederick County," Frederick County, ili7ginia: Life At The Top. Available online at littp://www.i'cva.LIS/visit/bistory-of-f-c(lei-ick-County. n.d. "Winchester &G Potomac" CSA Railroads. Available online at http://www.esa- tI'ails-oa(Is.coill/Wiiiellestci- and Potomac.11t111. 2016 "WWII Prisoner of War Camp existed years ago in Wincheser," Local DVM. Available ' online at litti):HwwA,Iocil(tyiii.coi11/hews/ylr�.Tiiii i/Nywii-pi-isoiiei--Ol-wai--ciiiii)-existecl- cars-ago-in-Winchester/607220286. ' Adelman, n.d. Garry "The Third Battle of Winchester," Civil Par Trust. Available online at littl)s://www.eivilwai.ol t;/Icaui/aI ticles/tilircl-battle-wiiicliestei-. L L American Battlefield Protection Program 2009 YVinchester 1(VA104). National Park Service. 2009 Wincheste7' H (VA107). National Park Service. Anderson, David G. 1990 "The Paleoindian Colonization of the Eastern North America: A View from the Southeastern United States," Early Paleoindian Economics of Eastern North America. ed. K.B. Tankersley and B.L. Isaac. Research in Economic Anthropology, supplement 5. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 7-1 REFERENCES ' Anderson, D.G. and G.T. Hanson 1998 `Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah River," American Antiquity. 53. Anderson, David G., Lisa D. O'Steen, and Kenneth Sassaman 1996 "Environmental and Chronological Considerations," The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast. eds. David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press. Barber, Michael B., J. Mark Wittkofski, and Michael F. Barber 1992 An Archaeological Overview of Stafford County, Virginia. Preservation Technologies, Roanoke, VA. Binford, Lewis R. 1980 "Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter -Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation," American Antiquity, 45. Cartmell, T.K. 1909 Shenandoah Valley Pioneers and Their Descendants: A History of Frederick County, Virginia. T.K. Carmell. Available online at hllps:Harchive.org/details/shenandoahvalleOOcai-tgoog. Chapman, Jefferson and Andrea Brewer Shea 1981 "The Achaeobotanical Record: Early Archaic Period to Contact in the Lower Tennessee River Valley," Tennessee Anthropoligist. 6. Civil War Trust (CWT) n.d.a "Second Battle of Kernstown," Civil War Trust. Available online at https://www.eivilwar. org/learn/eivil-war/battles/second-battle-kemstown. n.d.b "Cedar Creek Belle Grove," Civil War Trust. Available online at htll2s://www.eivilwar.org/learn/eivil-war/battles/cedar-creek. Claggett, Stephen R. and John S. Cable 1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North Carolina Piedmont. ReportR-2386. Jackson, MI: Commonwealth Associates, Inc. Custer, Jay F. 1990 "Early and Middle Archaic Cultures of Virginia: Cultural Change and Continuity," Early and Middle Archaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. eds. Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of Virginia. Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press. D. J. Lake & Co. 1885 An Atlas Frederick County, Virginia. Philadelphia, PA: D.J. Lake & Co. Digital image on file at Historic Map Works. 7-2 F J I I I REFERENCES ' Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr. 1996 "Raw Material Availability and Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast," The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast. ed. David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. ' Sassaman. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Delcourt, H. and P. Delcourt ' 1981 "Vegetation Maps for Eastern North American: 40,000 Years B.P. to Present," Geobotany: an Integrating Ex1)erience, ed. R. Romans. New York: Plenum Press. ' Dent, Richard J., Jr. 1995 Chesapeake Pi-ehistoty Old Traditions, New Directions. New York: Plenum Press. Duncan, Richard R. 2007 Beleaguered Winchester: A Viigina Community cat II'ar, 1861-1865. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press. ' Ebert, Rebecca A. and Teresa Lazazzera 1988 Frederick County, Virginia: From the Frontier to the Futiwe. Norfolk, VA: The Donning ' Company. Egloff, Keith T. and Stephen R. Potter 1982 "Indian Ceramics front Coastal Plan Virginia," Archaeology of Eastern North America 10. Fiedel, Stuart J. 2001 "What Happened in the Early Woodland?" Archaeology of Eastern North America. 29. ' Fordney, Chris 1996 "Winchester, Virginia: A Town Embattled During America's Civil War," Civil Wm - Times. February 1996. Available online at littp://www.iiistoi-yiiet.coiii/wiiicliestei- yii'glllia-a-towil-eillbattle(I-dlii-iilg-aillei-icas-Civil-wal-.Iltill. ' Gillespie, G.L. 1873 Battlefield of Ynchester, Va. Opequon) [September 19, 1864]. Digital image on file in ' the Geography and Map Division of the Library of Congress. Google Earth ' 1997 USGS aerial. Gray & Pape Inc. (G&P) 1997 Phase I and 11 Cultural Resource Investigations Route 37 Frederick County, Vngtnia. March 1997. Prepared for Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Manuscript on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. 7-3 REFERENCES I Griffin, James B. 1952 "Culture Periods in Eastern United States Archaeology," Archeology of Eastern United States, edited by Jaynes B. Griffin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Grymes, Charlie ' n.d.a "Key Treaties Defining the Boundaries Separating English and Native American Territories in Virginia," Virginia Places. Available online at http://www.virginiaplaces.org/settleland/treaties.html. n.d.b "Railroad Across the Blue Ridge, In the Shenandoah Valley — and Why Isn't Harrisonburg on the Main Line?" Virginia Places. Available online at ht!p://www.virginiaplaces.org/rail/valleAail.html. ' n.d.c "Virginia -West Virginia Boundary," Virginia Places. Available online at http://www.virginiaplaces.org/boundaries/wvboundary.html. , Hanson, Raus McDill 1969 Virginia Place Names: Derivation Historical Uses. Verona, VA: McClure Press. ' Hantman, Jeffrey L., and Michael J. Klein 1992 "Middle and Late Woodland Archaeology in Piedmont Virginia," Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: a Synthesis. eds. Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen ' N. Hodges. Special Publication No. 29 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Hofstra, Warren R. , 2004 The Planting of New Virginia: Settlement and Landscape in the Shenandoah Valley, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Holsworth, Jerry W. 2011 Civil War Winchester. Charleston, SC: The History Press. Hotchkiss, Jedediah ' 1863 Sketch of the Second Battle of Winchester, June 131h, 141h, and 1 S'" 1863. Digital image on file in the Geography and Maps Division of the Library of Congress. , Justice, Noel D. 1995 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental Eastern United States. ' Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Kalbian, Maral S. 1991 "John R. Cooke House," Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission. February 1991. Manuscript on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Kitchin, Thomas [1761] A new map of Virginia from the best authorities. [London: London Magazine]. Digital image on file in the Geography and Map Division of the Library of Congress. I REFERENCES ' Klein, Michael J., and Thomas Klatka 1991 "Late Archaic and Early Woodland Demography and Settlement Patterns," Late Archaic and Early Ii'oodland Research in Virginia: a Synthesis. eds. Theodore R. Reinhart and ' Mary Ellen N. Hodges. Special Publication No. 23 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. ' Lehman, Sam c.1989 The Stay or Frederick County. Winchester, VA. ' McAvoy, J.M. 1992 Nottoway River Snm•vey, Part I. Clovis Settlement Patterns: The 30-Year Shrdy of a Late Ice Age Ilmiting Culture on the Southern Interior Coastal Plain of Virginia. Special Publication No. 28 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Richmond, VA: Tile Dietz ' Press. ' McAvoy, J.M and L.D. McAvoy 1997 Archaeological Investigations of the Site 44SX202, Cachrs Hill, Sussex County, I'irginia. VDHR Research Report Series No. 8, VDHR, Richmond. ' McLearen, Douglas C. 1992 "Virginia's Middle Woodland Period: A Regional Perspective," Middle and Late ff'oodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, eds. Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of Virginia. Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press. ' McLearen, Douglas C. and L. Daniel Mouer 1989 "Middle Woodland 11 Typology and Chronology in the Lower James River Valley of Virginia." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Middle Atlantic Archaeological ' Conference, Rehoboth Beach, DE. ' Meltzer, David J. 1988 "Late Pleistocene Human Adaptation in Eastern North America," Journal of ifVorld Prehistory. Vol.2. ' Meserve, Stevan F. 2008 The Civil ff'ar in Loudoun County Virginia: A history of Hard Times. Charleston, SC: The History Press. ' Mouer, L. Daniel 1991 "The Formative Transition in Virginia," Late Archaic and Early Ifoodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. eds. Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of Virginia. Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press. 7-5 REFERENCES National Park Service (NPS) 1992 Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. September 1992. Available online at his://www.nps.gov/abpp/shenandoah/sysO-l.html. Norris, J.E., editor 1890 History of the Lower Shenandoah Valley Counties of Frederick, Berkeley, Jefferson and Clarke. Chicago, IL: A. Warner & Co. Parker, Kathryn 2006 Images ofAmerica: Winchester. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing. Parsons, Mia T. and John W. Ravenhorst, eds. 2002 Archeological Resource Study and Clearance for the Discovery Center Project at the Henry House, Manassas National Battlefield Park, Manassas, Virginia. Report prepared for the Archeology Program, Harpers Ferry National Historical Park for Manassas National Battlefield Park. Potter, Stephen 1993 Commoners, Tribute, and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture in the Potomac Valley. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press. Quarles, Garland R. 1990 Some Old Homes in Frederick County, Virginia. Winchester, VA: Winchester -Frederick County Historical Society. Stephenson, Robert L. 1963 The Accokeek Creek Site: A Middle Atlantic Seaboard Culture Sequence. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 20, Ann Arbor. Stewart, R. Michael 1992 "Observations on the Middle Woodland Period of Virginia: A Middle Atlantic Region Perspective," Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, eds. Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of Virginia. Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press. Turner, E. Randolph, IIl 1989 "Paleoindian Settlement Patterns and Population Distribution in Virginia," Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. eds. J.M. Wittkofski and T.R. Reinhart. Special Publication No. 19 of the Archaeology Society of Virginia. Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press. United States Census Bureau Various years Federal Census 7-6 F �I LII ' United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1966 Winchester-, VA. REFERENCES ' Varle, Charles and Benjamin Jones 1809 Map of Frederick, Berkeley, &Jefferson counties in the state of Virginia. Philadelphia, PA. Digital image on file in the Geography and Map Division of the Library of Congress. ' Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) 2011 "How to use Historic Contexts in Virginia: A Guide for Survey, Registration, Protection, ' and Treatment Projects," in Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia. Richmond, VA: VDIJR. ' Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 2006 A History of Roads in Virginia: "The Most Convenient YVayes ". Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Transportation. Available online at tlittp•//www.virt;iniaclot.or�/about/resources/iliStoryoli•ds.pdf. Ward, H. Trawick and R.P. Stephen Davis Jr. 1999 Time Before I-Iistay: The Archaeology of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC: University ' of North Carolina Press. Warner, John [ 1747] A survey of the northern neck of Virginia, being the land belonging to the Rt. Honourable Thomas Lord 1{ahjax Baron Cameron, bounded by & within the Bay of Chesapoyocke and between the rivers Rappahannock and Potowmack: With the coruses of the rivers ' Rappahannock and Potowmack, in Virginia, as surveyed according to order in the years 1736 & 1737. Digital image on file in the Geography and Map Division of the Library of Congress. Wendland, Wayne M. and Reid A. Bryson 1974 Dating Climatic Episodes oft/re Ilolocene. Quaternary Research 4 Yarnell, Richard A. 1976 "Early Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America," Culture Change and Continuity. ed. C. Cleland. Orlando, FL: Elsevier Science & Technology Books. 7-7 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK WE ' ARTIFACT INVENTORY ' 8. ARTIFACT INVENTORY Provenience Stratum Total # Artifact(s) Phase I Artifacts J4 A 4 Pearlware, body sherd, transfer print, floral design 'cc 444 Pearlware, body sherd, undecorated " 2 Pearlware, rim, shell -edge " 2 Aqua glass, light patina '4C1 Colorless glass, clear cc " 1 Nail, corroded, machine cut? cc " 1 Iron ring or loop ' 1 Brick fragment " 2 Mortar fragment " 2 Bone fragment ' 1 Slate " 1 Oyster Shell J7 A 2 Aqua glass cc 44 3 Colorless glass, clear << cc 1 Frosted glass " 4 Mortar fragment '4C1 Nail, Machine cut cc " 1 Stoneware, body sherd, brown glaze cc " 1 Coal '44 cc1 Tooth J9 A 1 Redware, body sherd, unglazed cc " 1 Glass, lightly solarized ' cc ca 1 Coal J11 A 1 Iron fragment, flat "441 Nail shank, machine cut "cc2 Colorless glass fragment, clear " 1 Aqua glass "cc1 Brick fragment ' J 13 A 2 Wire nails, whole " " 1 Bone fragment " 1 Redwarc, body sherd, unglazed 1 1 8-1 ARTIFACT INVENTORY (THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) FIN 1 /25/2018 I . Fiydvrirk I tomuo 9 Untitled Page 0 it HIM Pay/Lookup T,,ixes Payment Home Personal Property Real Estate Dog Tags Pay Parking Violation Other Payments ShoppingCart(0) Pin Options Change Email Inquiry of Real Estate Map Number: 43 A 21 View Map Name: MORRIS CHERYL GRIMM \rruuntr ]hlil' Iirl.rir `,�ilr: 11ur i);,I� [�rLiilwl lnl�rnia�iui tt licl, [it ImN i iniuuni 0ilk - View Back of 8008519 RE2016 26861 1 6/6/2016 2016 REAL ESTATE $0.00 Bill View Back of 8008519 RE2016 26861 2 12/5/2016 2016 REAL ESTATE $0.00 Bill View Back of 8008519 RE2017 27079 1 6/5/2017 2017 REAL ESTATE $0.00 Bill View Back of 8008519 RE2017 27079 2 12/5/2017 2017 REAL ESTATE $0.00 Bill O Show Prior Year Tax Bills Total Due: $0.00 Return to Search https://taxes.co.fre d erick.va. us/appli ca tion srrR_PayTa xesMckets ByM ap.as px 911 1/25/2018 0 Frederick County Taxes Paid COUNTY Or FREDERICK / P.O. BOX 225 \ J WINCHESTER, VA 22604-0225 —'' C. WILLIAM ORNDOFI', JR • Real Estate Taxes Paid for Tax Year 2017 Map Number: 43 A 21 Name: MORRIS CHERYL GRIMM 2 RE2017 27079 2 8008519 4/28/2017 76.06 ACRES $286.48 Total Paid: $572.97 This amount represents payments applied during calendar year 2017 and does not include Penalty, Interest or Credit Card Fees. Close this Window_ I Print This Page https://taxes.co.frederick.va.uslapplications/TR_payTaxesIPrintYearlyTaxes.aspx 1/1 1/25/2018 Frcdcrick I lome Payment Home ShoppingCart(0) • Untitled Page • Wrgjjai.,, 111'ay/Lookup Taxes Personal Property Real Estate Dog Tags Pay Parking Violation Other Payments Pin Options Change Email Inquiry of Real Estate Map Number: 43 19 4 View Man Name: MORRIS CHERYL GRIMM VicwBill View Back of Account# 8008562 8008562 8008562 8008562 Dept/1 RE2016 RE2016 RE2017 RE2017 '1'ickct# 26863 26863 27081 27081 `,wlit 1 2 1 0 2 Due Date 6/6/2016 12/5/2016 6/5/2017 12/5/2017 1)rtsiled Intornm(inn (( lirl, 1iclwq 2016 REAL ESTATE Amount Due $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Viewo1 ViewBill 2016 REAL ESTATE 2017 REAL ESTATE Back View Back of iewBill 2017 REAL ESTATE O Show Prior Year Tax Bills Total Due: $0.00 Return to Search https://taxes.co.frederick.va.us/applicationsfTR_payTaxesMcketsByMap.aspx 1/1 1/25/2018 Frederick County Taxes Paid • COUNTY OF FREDERICK P.O. BOX 225 �\ �l WINCHESTER, VA 22604-0225 C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, IR Real Estate Taxes Paid for Tax Year 2017 Map Number: 43 19 4 Name: MORRIS CHERYL GRIMM 1. . RE2017 27081 1 8008562 4/28/2017 2.00 ACRES $681.30 RE2017 27081 2 8008562 4/28/2017 2.00 ACRES $681.30 Total Paid: $1,362.60 This amount represents payments applied during calendar year 2017 and does not include Penalty, Interest or Credit Card Pees. l Close this Window Print This Page h►tps://taxes.co.irederick.va.us/applications/TR_payTaxes/PrintYearlyTaxes.aspx 1/1 1 1/25/2018 Untitled Page I?t�tici•icl< I lourr ' Pay/Lookup Taxes Payment Home Personal Property Real Estate Dog Tags Pay Parking Violation Other Payments ShoppingCart(0) Pin Options Change Email Inquiry of Real Estate Map Number: 43 A 24 View Map Name: MORRIS CHERYL GRIMM �ccuunl' Dcwii l ll'kl't� Sl'l l:; ttnl' D�lt l' Ult.iil((i Inlurnwtiun .lunlunt (( lick 11(-IoNO I)uc ie Bill View Back of 8008522 RE2016 26862 1 6/6/2016 2016 REAL ESTATE $0.00 i ill ck of View BaBWck 8008522 RE2016 26862 2 12/5/2016 E 2016 RAI. ESTATE $0.00 i B'1 View Back of 8008522 RE-2017 27080 ] 6/5/2017 2017 REAL ESTATE $0.00 B.1 ViewBill View Back of 8008522 RE2017 27080 2 12/5/2017 2017 REAL ESTATE $0.00 Bill EJ Show Prior Year Tax Bills Total Due: $0.00 Return to Search https:Htaxes.co.frederick.va.us/applicationsITR_PayTaxesRcketsByMap.aspx 1/1 1 /25/2018 Frederick County Taxes Paid COUNTY OF FREDERICK �) P.U. BOX 225 % W INCHESTER, VA 22604-0225 C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR 0 Real Estate Taxes Paid for Tax Year 2017 Map Number: 43 A 24 Name: MORRIS CIIERYL GRIMM I icket/( seq/1 RE2017 27080 1 8008522 4/28/2017 .85 ACRES $320.70 RE2017 27080 2 8008522 4/28/2017 .85 ACRES $320.70 Total Paid: $641.40 This amount represents payments applied during calendar year 2017 and does not include Penalty, Interest or Credit Card Fees. Close this Window Print This Page https:Htaxes.co.frederick.va.uslapplicationslTR_payTaxesIPrintYoarlyTaxes.aspx 1/1 1/25/2018 9 Untitled Page • i:rc(Icrirl< I It>mc l,' I . C." 1�, �, G ? 1. „ 1 i ��I -g i �� j a 1 Pay/Lookup Taxes Payment Home Personal Property Real Estate Dog Tags Pay Parking Violation Other Payments ShoppingCart(0) Pin Options Change Email Inquiry of Real Estate Map Number: 43 A 21 B View Map Name: MORRIS CHERYL G ViewBill View Back of . t'l'Ull 111%t 8048117 8048117 8048117 I)CIII �% RB2016 RE2016 RE2017 RE2017 I Il it't ' 26860 26860 27078 27078 �l Ir. 1 2 1 2 i)tl t' I),t11 6/6/2016 12/5/2016 6/5/2017 12/5/2017 I)('17lilcd ilillil'i11,11i l I( licl, H('I wN I 2016 REAL ESTATE \lllf)Il111 011t $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Bill View Back of ViewBill 2016 REAL, ESTATE, View Back of ViewBill 2017 REAL ESTATE Bill8048117 View Back of ViewBill 2017 REAL ESTATE Bill 0 Show Prior Year Tax Bills Total Due: $0.00 Return to Search i https://taxes.co.froderick.va.us/applications/TR_payTaxesMckotsByMap.aspx 1/1 1 /25/2018 0 Frederick County Taxes Paid 0 COUNTY OF FREDERICK P.U. BOX 225 WINCHESTER, VA 22604-0225 C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR Real Estate Taxes Paid for Tax Year 2017 Map Number: 43 A 2 1 B Name: MORRIS CHERYL G ;.. 1 RE2017 27078 2 8048117 4/28/2017 10.00 ACRES $1,380.90 Total Paid:: $2,761.80 This amount represents payments applied during calendar year 2017 and does not include Penalty, Interest or Credit Card Fees. Close this Window I Print This Page https://taxes.co.frederick.va.uslapplications/TR_payTaxesIPrintYeadyTaxes.aspx EM Marian Harders, AICP, LEED AP Planner (703) 680-4664 Ext. 5121 mharders a thelandlawyers.com Federal Express WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY & WALSH PC i February 13, 2018 r Frederick County Department of Planning & Development Attn: Candice Perkins 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5651 Re: Rezoning Application, Stonewall IV Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. (Applicant) Property Identification No.: 43 A 21, 43 A 2113, 43 19 4 & 43 A 24 (the "Property') Dear Ms. Perkins: Enclosed please find a package containing the following items to be filed in connection with the above -referenced Rezoning application: 1. One (1) copy of the executed Rezoning application form signed by the property owners. 2. One (1) CD ROM containing digital copies all the submission material identified herein. 3. One (1) copy of the Property Location Map. 4. One (1) copy of the "Adjoining Property Owners" list. 5. One (1) copy of the real estate tax records for each property, showing no taxes due. 6. One (1) copy of the Impact Analysis Statement, dated February 13, 2018. 7. One (1) copy of the draft Proffer Statement, dated February 13, 2018. 8. One (1) copy of the cultural resources report entitled "Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of Glengary (BDHR #034-1099), prepared by Dutton & Associates, dated October 2017. 9. One (1) copy of the Transportation Impact Analysis entitled "Stonewall IV," prepared by Kittelson & Associates, dated December 2017. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 703 690 4664 1 WWW.THELANDLAWYERS.COM 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY a SUITE 300 a WOODBRIDGE. VA 22192-5199 ARLINGTON 703 528 4700 1 LOUDOUN 703 737 3633 Planning and Development February 13, 2018 Page 2 10. One (1) copy of the General Development Plan entitled "Stonewall IV," prepared by Dice Engineering, PLC, dated February 12, 2018. Once you have had an opportunity to review the application together with the supporting documents, please contact my office if you require additional information Kindly return your review comments to my attention, Marian I-Iarders c/o Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley & Walsh, 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300, Woodbridge, VA 22192. Sincerely, WALSI-I, COLUCCI, LUBELEY & WALSI-I, P.C. Marian B. I-Iarders, AICP, LEED AP MBH Enclosures: As stated cc: Dan DiLella (email only) John Knott (email only) Dennie Dunlap (email only) 110788664.DOC • Marian Harders. AICP. LEED AP Planner (703) 6804664 Ext. 5121 mhardersru thelandlawyersxom WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY & WALSH PC April 12, 2018 Federal L:vpress Frederick County Department of Planning & Development Attn: Candice Perkins 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5651 APR 1 3 L J18 Re: Rezoning Application, Stonewall IV Equus Capital Partners, Ltd. (Applicant) Property Identification No.: 43 A 21, 43 A 2113, 43 19 4 & 43 A 24 (the "Property") Dear Ms. Perkins: In connection with the above, please find the following items to be filed in connection with the above -referenced Rezoning application: 1. One (1) copy of the executed Rezoning application form signed by the property owners. The original application form was submitted to your office on February 14. 2018. 2. A check in the amount of $18,891.00, made payable to County of Frederick. 3. A copy of the death certificate for John S. Morns, Jr. 4. One (1) cop}, of the Property Location Map. 5. One (1) copy of the "Adjoining Property Owners" list. 6. One (1) copy of the real estate tax records for each property, showing no taxes due. 7. One (1) copy of the Impact Analysis Statement, dated April 12, 2018. 8. One (1) copy of the Proffer Statement, dated April 12, 2018. 9. One (1) copy of the General Development Plan entitled "Stonewall IV." prepared by Dice Engineering, PLC, dated April 5, 2018. 10. One (1) CD ROM containing digital copies all the submission material identified herein. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 703 680 4664 s WWW.THELAN DLAWYERS.COM 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY I SUITE 300 1 WOODBRIDGE, VA 22192.5199 ARLINGTON 703 528 4700 1 LOUDOUN 703 737 3633 0 10 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 2 On February 14, 2018, the following documents were submitted to your office and are referenced here as part of our formal application: 1. A copy of the cultural resources report entitled "Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of Glengary (BDHR #034-1099), prepared by Dutton & Associates, dated October 2017. 2. A copy of the Transportation Impact Analysis entitled "Stonewall IV," prepared by Kittelson & Associates, dated December 2017. We offer the following in response to the several comments received from reviewing agencies regarding the draft rezoning application, dated February 13, 2018. Where appropriate changes have been made to the Proffers submitted and the Impact Analysis has been revised as needed: Planning and Development, March 19, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response 1. Northeast Land Use Plan - Land i1se. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Land Use Plan provide The Applicant concurs that this application is guidance on the future develop1ne1lt of consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the property. The property is located that it is accessible to public utilities, being within the SWSA. The 2035 located within the Sewer and Water Service Comprehensive Plan Identllles these Area. properties with an industrial land use Transportation issues are addressed in detail in designation. The proposed MI toning is to the comments from the generally consistent with the Northeast response Transportation Department and VDOT, below. Land Use Plan as it relates to this area. The land use plan depicts future Route 37 on the Nvestern boundary Of the properties and access to Route 37 from Lenoir Drive. The application fully addresses future Route 37 through the property; however, the access to Route 37 is not acknowledged In the impact statement Or the proffers. 2. Generalized Develoninent, The GDP The GDP has been updated, as recommended should be revised to remove all by Staff'. buildings, the GDP should be more general and show the pro crty, proffered • • Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 3 3 4 5. 6. 7 iIII provenlents, access and buffers. The GDP should also be reduced to 1 I x 17 or 8!AxII. Proffer I - Develomilent and Use of the Property. Proffer 1.1 states that two buildings will be constructed, given there is a gross square footage cap, it appears the requirement for two structures may not be necessary. Also, consider eliminating use limitation for warehousing anddistribution. Proffer 3 - Utilities. Proffer 3.1 rcquires the use of public water and sewer and the COnStl*LlCtI011 Of llllhl'OVCIlICIltS to provide such service. This proffer should be removed as It Is already required. Only requirements above and beyond all County requirements should be provided ill a prol Tel' statement. 11'roffcr 4 - Stornlwater Management/Enyironinell I. Storlllwatcl' rllanagement is a site development requirement. Existing County requirements should be removed. Only requirements above and beyond all County rcgllll'C111CIltS should be provided ill a prolTCrstatement. Proffer 6 - Lighting. Building mounted and pole mounted lighting and the use Of' downeast full cutoff fixtures are rctluircd by the Zoning Ordinance. Only rcgUlrcments above and beyond all County requirements should be provided in a proflerstatenlerit. Access Easenient. The access casement to parcel 43-A-23 does not align with the proposed access to the subject properties off Lenoir Drivc. Provide clarification oil Proffer #1 has been revised. Please see the detailed response to the Department of Transportation comments below, based on changes to the ITC Trip Generation Manual, 10t1i Edition. Comment noted. This Proffer has been deleted per Staffs recommendation. These are matters for final site plan and applicable ordinances will be complicd with. Comment noted. This Proffer has been deleted per Staffs recommendation. These are matters for final site plan and applicable ordinances will be complied with. Conlnlent noted. "This Proffer has been deleted per Staffs recommendation. These are matters for final site plan and applicable ordinances will be complied with. Please sec the comments below with respect to Transportation. The Applicant is aware of the access easement Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 4 the location of these two entrance points. to the identified parcel, and has no intention of Staff recommends that the Applicant cutting off access to it, or of improperly work Nvith the residential property to interfering with the easement. relocate the access easement to align with the new entrance proposed on Lenoir Drive. This is also the general location of the ILiture connection to C\iStnlg ROutC 37 identified in the Comprehensive Plan (See comment I ). 8. Transportation Comments. Please note Response to the Transportation and VDOT that tllc transportation comments oil the comments are set out below. rezoning application Irom John Bishop, Assistant Director - Transportation, are being provided to you in a separate letter. Staff may also provide additional comments related to the proposed changes if warranted Subject to adjustments requested by VDOT. 9. Agency Continents. Please provide Responses to agency comments are provided appropriate agency comments from the below. folloNving agencies: Virginia Department of "Transportation, Frederick County Department ol' Public Works, Frederick County Dire Marshal, Frederick Water, Virginia Department of Health, the County Attorney, the Historic Resources Advisory Board (FIRAB) and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority. 10. Fees. Based on the fees adopted by the A check in the amount of $18,891.00 is Board of'Supervisors on April 23, 2008, included with this submission package. the rezoning fee for this application would be $18.891.00 based upon acreage of 88.91 acres County Attorney, March 20, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response 1. Title to one of the parcels (43-A-21 B) is in A copy of the death certificate for Mr. John S. the naive of Cheryl G. Morris and John S. Morris, Jr. is provided with this submission. Morris, Jr. husband and wife as tenants by E Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 5 the entireties, with C0111mon law right of survivorship. I understand from the signature line oil proffer statcment that Mr. Morris is deceased. We will need submission of sufficient evidence of that Ent, such as the type of statement typically included under oath, in a deed coIlveying property so titled reciting the fact of the death of' one of the tenants by the entireties. 2. In the heading section of' the Proffer The signature block in the ProfTer Statement Statement Equus is identified as Equus has been revised to reflect Equus Capital Capital Partners, Ltd. and iIl the signature Partners, Ltd. block it is identified as Equus Capital Partners, LP. I realize that Virginia corporate law may have certain naming requirements that conflict with those of the State law of eIltity formation, reStlltlllg ill the use of a different suffix in Virginia bllt the use of' the suffix should nonetheless be Consistent throughout the Proffer Statement. 3. In the first paragraph Ofthe introduction, the These corrections have been made. action Is twice referred to as a "proffer alllellcllllellt". T heSC I'CfCI'CIICCS SIIOUId Instead be to a "rezoning" 4. In the second paragraph of the introduction, the definition of the term "Appllcallt" Sl1011ld be expanded to include the current owner of the Subject Property as well. The second paragraph of the Proffer Statement has been modified per Staff S recommendation. 5. The third paragraph Of the introduction does ,lot seem to fit where it has been placed. The provisions of the Prof id Statement are not limited merely to instances Ill which SpCCifIC plaits of exhibits reference them. The third paragraph has been deleted for clarity. 6. Proffer 2 - The area Indicated to be dedicated for Route 37 right of way does not necessarily appeal' to CIICOMINISS a SIIf f icicnt The Applicant's engineer has compared the GDP with the Boat-ci's action of December 12, 2017, and has advised the Applicant that the Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 6 7 9 portion of the right of way area as shown by the Comprehensive Plan depiction on the County's GIS. Staff will want to coif Irm the extent of the proposecl cleclieation area. Proffers 3, 4, and 6 - Most of the provisions of these proffers simply restate ordinance requirements and, to that extent, are not appropriate for inclusion in the Proffer Statement. Proffer 5 - The proffer should indicate payment simply to Frederick County and not the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. Signature blocks - Because, among other things, we require that proffer statements, once a rezoning is approved, be recorded in the land records, any and all signatures will need to have notarizations. area shown for dedication on the GDP matches the area identified for the Proposed Route 37 Interchange. As noted above, Proffers 3, 4 and 6 have been deleted. These are matters for final site plan and applicable ordinances will be complied with. Proffer 5 has been revised per Staff's comment. Comment noted. A notary block has been added to the signature page for both the Applicant and the Owner. Frederick County Department of Transportation, March 28, 2018 Agency Comment 1. Traffic Study -Land Use. The traffic study uses 820,000 sq. ft. of high cube warehouse. This results in daily trips of 1,378. This trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse worst case scenario of uses that could potentially populate this property under the M1 Zoning District and your proffer statement as currently written. Specifically, the trip generation is significantly lower than the standard warehouse distribution trip generation. While proffer 1.1 does limit the property use to warehouse and distribution, it does not make the distinction of' high cube. This is a significant discrepancy impacting the veracity of the Traffic Impact Analysis. This is most easily addressed with a clarification within the Applicant Response After these comments were received, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) published, and the Virginia Department of Transportation adopted, the 10°i Edition of its Trip Generation Manual. The TIA was developed using the Ninth Edition. This has a direct bearing on the case, and on the proper drafting of the Proffers in response to the Department's understandable comment. A "Warehouse" (ITE Land Use Code 150), which was the initially proffered use, is defined as "a building primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but it may also include office and maintenance areas." The Department is correct that under the Ninth Edition of the ITE a pure warehouse would have been considered to generate far more trips per clay than a "high - cube" warehouse — which is what the TIA had L1 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 7 proffer statement. I modeled, and what the Applicant had Intended. According to this new Edition, however, estimated trips generated by a "warehouse" have been I-CCIUCed dramatically, and the proposed warehouse here would generate a weekday average of only 1,341 trips, slightly Icwcr than the 1,378 trips that were employed in the TIA — for a high -cube warehouse. It is unnecessary, therefore, to alter the proffer to eliminate wal-ChOUSIng as a use. The ITE Manual now recognizes that warehousing will not generate trips that exceed what was modeled in the TIA. This has been the Applicant's actual experience at its other facilities in Frederick County and elsewhere, and now the technical studies have, in effect, caught up with its practical experience. The category of land use formerly identified as High -Cube Warehousing (I-ICW), has now been broken into three separate categories with dramatically differing trip generation characterlsties. There is no longer a Land Use Code 152. A High -Cube Transload and Short Term Storage Warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 154) is defined as "a building that typically has at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area, has a ceding height of' 24 feet or more, and is primarily used for the storage and/or consolication of' manufactured goods prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. A typical I-ICW has a high level of on -site automation and logistics management. The automation and logistics enable highly efficient processing of' goods through the I-ICW. Tlie I-ICWs included in this land use include transload and Short-term facilities. Transload facilities have a primary function Of consolidation and distribution of pallet loads Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 8 2. C'oninrehensive Plan- Eastern 12oad Plan. The Eastern Road Plan portion of the County Comprehensive plan calls for ramp access fi-oln Lenoir Drive to Route 37. The site layout and proffers, as currently submitted, does not allow for this future connection to take place. This is all important connection that, when constructed, offers significant positive traffic impacts to the surrounding area and this site. Participating in this for manufacturers, wholesalers, or retailers." In this instance, such a high -cube facility would generate an estimated 1,148 average weekday trips. The Applicant specializes in High -Cube Transload and Short Term Storage Warehousing, but in order to provide itself market flexibility it wishes to retain the right to use any structures that may be permitted for the Property, and under the new ITE Manual that would include both Warehousing (LUC 150) and High -Cube (LUC 154). Therefore, the Applicant has edited Proffer 1.1 to clarify the uses on the property will be restricted to warehousing uses as those defined by Land Use Codes 150 and 154, as set out in the ITE Manual, 101i, Edition. The Applicant respectfully observes that the Comprehensive Plan also calls for the construction of an interchange between Proposed Route 37 and existing Route 37 with northbound ramps commencing roughly 600 feet from the point that any "slip ramp" from Lenoir Drive could reasonably connect with existing Route 37. According to Kittelson & Associates, the construction of such a slip ramp would meet neither VDOT nor AASI-ITO As noted, the ITE has abandoned Land Use Code 152 and now has four Codes for warehousing activities. LUC 150 remains "Warehouse," and LUC 154 is the Fligh-Cube Transload and Short Term Storage Warehouse. In addition, there are two new subcategories. LUC 155 is a "Fligh-Cube Fulfillment Center," a building that is defined as a Fligh-Cube Transload Warehouse, but a rulfillment center warehouse includes structures "characterized by a significant storage function and direct distribution of ecomlrlerce products to end -users. These facilities typically handle smaller packages and quantities than other types of FICWs and often contain multiple mezzallili levels." LUC 156 for a "Fligh-Cube Parcel Flub Warehouse," is again defined as is a Fligh-Cube Transload structure, but such a warehouse "typically serve[s] as regional and local freight -forwarder For time -sensitive shipments via air freight and ground carriers. These sites also often include truck maintenance, wash, or fueling facilities." Both LUC 155 and 156 generate as much as 5 to 6 times the traffic of LUCs 150 and 154. The Applicant does not intend to construct either such facility on the Subject Property. 0 Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 9 improveIllent is particularly important due to the proposed development traffic that is being added to an already overburdened network and particularly intersections such as Route 11 and Welltown Road which the TIA clearly demonstrates are/will be functioning below level of service C. standards. It is also the case that the Applicant neither owns nor controls the right-of-way necessary to complete any connection of Lenoir Drive to existing Route 37. Furthermore, this is an improvement the need for which is not generated by this project, but which is more generally required by the public necessity and planning. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis submitted by Kittelson, the relevant intersections that were required to be studied are already functioning below LOS C, but at an acceptable level of service. By 2020 Total "traffic Conditions, assuming the Applicant is permitted to industrial warehouse buildings totaling 820,000 square feet, with primary access via a single full - access driveway along Lenoir Drive are estimated to generate approximately 1,378 net new weekday daily trips, 90 weekday a.m. (62 in, 28 out), and 98 weekday p.m. (30 in, 68 out) peak hour trips. Under these conditions all study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during all study time periods under 2020 build out conditions. They are doing so at the present. By the 2026 Design Year all study intersections that currently operate at LOS D or better during all study time periods will COI1ti11Lle to do so. this is with the exception of the US Route 1 1 /1-81 Northbound Ramp Terminal/Redbud Road intersection during the weekday p.m. peak period. This connection is forecast to continue to operate at LOS C during the weekday p.m. peak hour. "this drop in service, however, is due exclusively to background growth and not to this project. Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 10 Thus, based On the results of the analysis, with which VDOT agrees, no off -site transportation improvements are recommended. All study intersections are projected t0 continue to operate acceptably, aSSL1111111g full build -out of the Stonewall IV development. Notwithstanding this and in recognition of the County's continued insisteIlce On the eventual viability of the slip ramps the Applicant's engineer has relocated the entrance into the development off of Lenoir Drive so that it will not preclude the future COI1St1'L1Cti0I1 Of those ramps by others nor will It interfere with of impede Or require the relocation of the easement that provides access to the Jenkins Parcel, 43A-23. 3. Route 37. Regarding the proffer for the Route 37 right-of-way, I would suggest adding language in addition to being consistent with the GDP that it is consistent with the Eastern Road Plan update adopted The Applicant's engineer has compared the GDP with the Board's action of December 12, 2017, and has advised the Applicant that the area shown for dedication On the GDP matches the area identified (or the Proposed Route 37 by the Board of SL1pC1'V1S01'S on December interchange. 13, 2017. This way, if there is any UninteIltional disconnect between the GDP and what was adopted by the Board, the intent is clear. VDOT, Mai•ch 9, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response VDOT StauIlton District Planning performed a Acknowledged. review of the Stonewall IV Rezoning TIA completed by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. submitted on February 14, 2018. Overall, the methodology used for the analysis was found to be acceptable and no revisions are required. The comments below are offered as reference IIOteS for 1111I1Or issues We found. Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 1 I 1. Typos were found on some of' the lane Acknowledged. group level of service figures, where the LOS shown does not match the correctly reported LOS shown on the corresponding traffic conditions tables. 2. For future reference, please ensure Acknowledged. coordinated phases match the provided signal plans. For this corridor, all signals should be programmed with phases 2 and 6 as the coordinated phases. Only the Rt. 11/Redbud Rd signal is Currently programmed with only phase 2 as the coordinated phase. This does not appeal' to have a substantial impact for this TIA, so no revisions are regUll'ed. 3. The Rt. 11/Redbud Rd eastbound left turn Acknowledged. was modeled with a 3 second lost time adjustment in both the AM and PM peak hours. VDOT requires that this setting be 0 for all movements. Since this Setting degrades Signal performance rather than improving it, no revisions arcregUll'Cd. 4. The Rt. I I /Redbud Rd eastbound and Acknowledged. Westbound left turns are modeled with permissive- protected operation, but actually operate using flashing yellow arrows. The turn type for these movements should be programmed using the "Dallas permissive + protected" setting with the "Permitted Flashing Yellow" boa checked. This does not appear to have a substantial impact for this TIA, so no revisions are rcgUir'ed. 5. The TIA scoping form identifies ITC Land See the detailed and revised response to the Use Code 152, High -Cube Warehouse / Department of Transportation comments Distribution Center as the trip generation above. With the advent of the 10°i Edition of For the proposed rezoning development, the ITC Manual the S1tUation has changed which was utilized in the technical analysis sufficiently that the Applicant's address of this Of the study. However, Proffer 1.1, dated issue has Changed so as to remove this as an Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 12 February 13, 2018 indicates the issue. development of the property will be limited to 820,000 square feet, used solely for warehousing and distributioIl. The High - Cube Warehouse / Distribution Land Use Is much less intense ill character than traditional warehouse / distribution uses, which have the potential to double the trip generation utilized in the traffic analysis of the study. VDOT District Planning recommends consideration of adjusting the proffer to identify the allowable use to be more in -line with the definition of' Land Use Code 152 in the most current ITC Trip Generation Manual or limit the permitted daily trip generation of the site to 1,378 as specified in the TIA. 6. The 2035 Frederick County See the response to the Department of Comprehensive Plan Northeast Frederick Transportation comment above. Area Plan identifies a future transportation improvement of' a ramp connection to Route 37 south from Lenoir Drive. The current layout of' the site as Illustrated oil the GDP proposes the development entrance at the current termini of Lenoir Drive, which would be IIl conflict with the future improvement. VDOT District Planning would recommend adjustments to the layout of the site to be ill conformance with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Department of Public Works, March 12, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response A detailed review shall occur at the time of site Acknowledged. plan submission. 0 • Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 13 Department of Fii-c and Rescue, Office of the Fire Marshal, February 15, 2018 Agency Conlnlent Applicant Response Plan approval status = APPROVE Acknowledged. No comments. Frederick -Winchester Sei-vice Authority, February 19, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response Capacity consideration deferred to Frederick Acknowledged. Water. Frederick Water, February 22, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response I. The project parcels arc located within the Acknowledged. These issues will be sewer and water service area (SWSA) and accommodated a filial site plan. in an area presently served by Frederick Water. SWSA enables access to public water and sewer service by county policy. Location within the SWSA does not guarantee that sanitary sewer and water capacities are available to serve the property. 2. The rezoning application proffer states that Comment noted. Proposed water and sewer the proposed Use will be limited to a demands arc addressed ill the revised warehouse and distribution facility oil no Statement of Justification provided with this larger than 820,000 gross square feet. The submission. impact ! nalj�SIS statement IS silent of the pi-oposed ivatel' and Se1Uet-de hands. It is Impossible to project proposed demand for sewer and water Usage until an end User is obtained but as noted below, warehousing facilities do not require much sewer or water service and the actual needs can be determined and accommodated at filial site plan. 3. Facilities for conveyance of' water to, and Acknowledged. Warehousing facilities have sanitary sewer from, the subject properties minimal demand for sewer, and both sewer and do presently exist. Until the proposed uses' water usage will be determined when all end Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 14 projected water and sewer demands are user is obtained. known, it is unknown if the existing conveyance network has the capacity to accommodate the projected demands. 4. The proffer statement is silent on improvements that would be constructed by Acknowledged. These are matters that will be determined at final site plan, as the Authority the Applicant to meet water and sanitary recognizes. sewer demands. Accordingly, the comments offered herein are general in nature. The ultimate decision regarding the ability to serve the property with adequate water and sanitary sewer will be determined at the time the Site's use IS determined, conveyance facilities are constructed, and water and sewer connection fees are paid to Frederick Water. Sanitary sewer system capacity is not reserved until the sewer connection fee is paid to Frederick Water, and physical connection to the system is made. 5. Water and sanitary sewers are to be Acknowledged. constructed in accordance with the FCSA standards specifications. Dedicated easements may be required and based on the layout vehicular access will need to be Incorporated into the final design. 6. Please be aware that the FCSA is offering Acknowledged. these review comments without benefit of knowledge of the projected water and sewer demands of the site. Department of Parks and Recreation, February 16, 2018 Agency Comment Appl►cant Response This application appears to meet Parks and Acknowledged. Recreation requirements. Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 15 Historic Resources Board, March 28, 2018 Agency Comment Applicant Response The Virginia Department of•I listoric Resources The Applicant has proffered to prepare a identifies one mapped property located on the I-IABS level III for the residential structure subject property DI IR 1/034-1099 - Glcngary, located on the subject property. This has been 'I•his structure is potentially eligible for the addressed in the Proffer Statement. National Registerof'Flistoric Places. After revieNving this Illformatlon and the Applicant's materials and proposals, the I listol•ic RCSOL11-CCS Advisory Board (I IRAB) recommended approval ol'the Rezoning v-vith the lollowing: • Applicant perforrll a I listonc American Building Survey (I LABS) - Standard lit for the Glcngary site. • Institute protocols for the demolishment ofGlengary to C11S111•C I)1•CSCI•v£1tloll and/or documentation ofhistorical Icatures. Once you have had an opportunity to review the application together with the supporting documents, please contact my office if you require additional information Sincerely, WALSH, COLUCCI, LUBELEY & WALSI-I, P.C. I /Z-- Marian B. I-Iarders, AICP, LEED AP M B I -I Enclosures: As stated Candice Perkins April 12, 2018 Page 16 cc: Dan DiLella (email only) John Knott (email only) Dennie Dunlap (email only) 130799579.DOC r� U COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING July 25, 2018 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #01-18 FOR STONEWALL IV On bchalf'of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, August 8, 2018, at 7:00 pm in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning #01-18 for Stonewall IV, submitted by Walsh Colucci Lubeley &, Walsh, to rezone 88.91-+-/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the MI (Light Industrial) District with proffers. The properties are located at the southern terminus of Lenior Drive (Route F-732) and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 43-A-21, 43-A-21 B, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may do so at the public hearing. A digital copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.fcva.us. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA Assistant Director CEP/pd 107 North Kent Stl'CCt, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is 1o50 certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on b( from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, irgima: 43 -19- - 43. 43 - A- - 21- MULDOWNEY-TICHES ASSOCIATES I MORRIS CHERYL GRIMM LTD LLP CIO OLDCASTLE PO BOX 2802 331 NEWMAN SPRINGS RD STE 236 WINCHESTER VA RED BANK NJ 07701.6769 22604.2002 43 • A- - 21-B MORRIS CHERYL G MORRIS JOHN S JR PO BOX 2802 WINCHESTER VA 226042002 43 -19- - 4- MORRIS CHERYL GRIMM PO BOX 2802 WINCHESTER VA 226042002 43 - A- - 24- MORRIS CHERYL GRIMM PO BOX 2802 WINCHESTER VA 22604 2002 43 - A- - 19- JPD PROPERTIES LLC CIO FRED A DRUNAGEL PO BOX 3610 WARRENTON VA 20188-8210 43 - A- - 16- PARKER KATHRYN L PARKER JAMES W 394 PARIS HEIGHTS LN PARIS VA 20130.1750 43 -19- - 64- LENOIR CITY CO OF VA PO BOX 1657 WINCHESTER VA 226048157 43 19. - 37- MULDOWNEY-TICHES ASSOCIATES I LTD LLP CIO OLDCASTLE 331 NEWMAN SPRINGS RD STE 236 RED BANK NJ 07701.6769 43 -19- - 42- GRAFTON SCHOOL INC PO BOX 2500 WINCHESTER VA 226041700 43 -19- - 7. RBD INC 74 FARMHOUSE LN I OST RIVER WV 26910 4500 43 - A- - 26 B CAMBRIDGE FINANCIAL SERVICES LC 1816 ROBERTS ST WINCHESTER VA 22601-6312 c c� Candice L. Perkins, AIC 11, C;LA Assistant Director Frederick County Planning Dept. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK I, ki)LcJ(k �_� , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Candice E. Perkins, Assistant Director for the Department of Pl ing and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this � 5 day of o My commission expires on �ti> Le U� -4a 4 1 r+wiNLH uEETER NOTARY U B L I NOTARY PUBLIC REGISTRATION M3544? COMMONWEALTH Or VIRGINIA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 2ECEM8ER 31, 2021 43 - A- - 26-A • BROWNING-FERRIS INDUST* CIO REPUBLIC SERVICES TAX DEPT PO BOX 29246 PHOENIX AZ 85038.9246 43 - A- - 21-A BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES CIO REPUBLIC SERVICES TAX DEPT PO BOX 29246 PHOENIX AZ R503R-g94R 43 - A- - 23- JENKINS OSCAR JUNIOR JENKINS OPAL K 425 LENOIR DR WINCHESTER VA 22603.4605 43 - 8- 3- 39- MARSHALL MILLS INC CIO FRED A DRUNAGEL PO BOX 3610 WARRENTON VA 20188-8210 43 - 8. 3. 40- MARSHALL MILLS INC CIO FRED A DRUNAGEL PO BOX 3610 WARRENTON VA 20188.8210 43 - 8- 3. 41- MARSHALL MILLS INC C/O FRED A DRUNAGEL PO BOX 3610 WARRENTON VA 20188-8210 43 - A- - 25- FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC PO BOX 2368 WINCHESTER VA 22604.1568 43 - A- - 55-A CIVES CORPORATION PO BOX 2778 WINCHESTER VA 22604.1978 43 - A- - LL- FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC PO BOX 2368 WINCHESTER VA 22604.1568 • • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING May 23, 2018 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION 901-18 FOR STONEWALL IV On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, June 6, 2018, at 7:00 pin in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning #01-18 for Stonewall IV, submitted by Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh, to rezone 88.911-/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the MI (Light Industrial) District with proffers. The properties are located at the southern terminus of Lenior Drive (Route F-732) and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 43-A-21, 43-A-21 B, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may do so at the public hearing. A digital copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.fcva.us. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA Assistant Director CEP/pd 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • This is to certify teat tl e attached correspondence was mailed to the following on S ' from the the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 43 -19- - 43- 43 - A• • 21. MORRIS CHERYL GRIMM PO BOX 2802 WINCHESTER VA 22604.2002 43 -A- - 21-B MORRIS CHERYL G MORRIS JOHN S JR PO BOX 2802 WINCHESTER VA 22604.2002 43 -19. - 4- MORRIS CHERYL GRIMM PO BOX 2802 WINCHESTER VA 43 - A- - 24- MORRIS CHERYL GRIMM PO BOX 2802 WINCHESTER VA 43 - A- - 19- JPD PROPERTIES LLC CIO FRED A DRUNAGEL PO BOX 3610 WARRENTON VA 43 - A- - 16- PARKER KATHRYN L PARKER JAMES W 394 PARIS HEIGHTS LN PARIS VA 43 -19- - 64- LENOIR CITY CO OF VA PO BOX 1657 WINCHESTER VA 22604.2002 22604.2002 20188.8210 20130.1750 22604.0157 MULDOWNEY-TICHES ASSOCIATES I LTD LLP CIO OLDCASTLE 331 NEWMAN SPRINGS RD STE 236 RED BANK NJ 07701.6769 43 -19. - 37- MULDOWNEY-TICHES ASSOCIATES I LTD LLP CIO OLDCASTLE 331 NEWMAN SPRINGS RD STE 236 RED BANK NJ 07701.6769 43 -19- • 42. GRAFTON SCHOOL INC PO BOX 2500 WINCHESTER VA 22604.1700 43 -19. - 7- RBD INC 74 FARMHOUSE LN LOST RIVER WV 26810.4500 43 • A- - 26-B CAMBRIDGE FINANCIAL SERVICES LC 1816ROBERTS ST WINCHESTER VA 22601.6312 Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA Assistant Director Frederick County Planning Dept. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK c1 I, y Ol-',") ��--�sz�L �. , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Candice L. Perkins, Assistant Director for the Department of Plannl ig aid Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated S Z , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this :2 day of My commission expires on ate- x NOTARY.' DIs TION r, 35447n " C MONWEALTH OF VIRGIiNI/A ' MY COMMISSION EXPIRES I I.r� DECEN18ER31,2021 43 - A- - 26-A • BROWNING-FERRIS INDUIOES CIO REPUBLIC SERVICES TAX DEPT PO BOX 29246 PHOENIX AZ 85038.9246 43 - A- - 21-A BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES CIO REPUBLIC SERVICES TAX DEPT PO BOX 29246 PHOENIX AZ 85038.9246 43 - A- - 23- JENKINS OSCAR JUNIOR JENKINS OPAL K 425 LENOIR OR 22603.4605 WINCHESTER VA 43 -8- 3. 39- MARSHALL MILLS INC CIO FRED A DRUNAGEL p0 BOX 3610 20188.8210 WARRENTON VA 43 -8- 3. 40- MARSHALL MILLS INC CIO FRED A DRUNAGEL PO BOX 3610 WARRENTON VA 20188.8210 43 -8- 3. 41- MARSHALL MILLS INC CIO FRED A DRUNAGEL PO BOX 3610 WARRENTON VA 20188.8210 43 -8- 3. 42- MARSHALL MILLS INC CIO FRED A DRUNAGEL PO BOX 3610 WARRENTON VA 20188.8210 43 - 8. 3. 43- MARSHALL MILLS INC CIO FRED A DRUNAGEL PO BOX 3610 WARRENTON VA 20188.8210 43 - A- - 25- FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC PO BOX 2368 WINCHESTER VA 22604.1568 43 - A- - 55-A LIVES CORPORATION PO BOX 2778 WINCHESTER VA 22604.1978 43 - A- - 22- FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC PO BOX 2368 WINCHESTER VA 22604.1568 / `rtit Ulu �{ O - �• TO: LANCE-DATOROCESSING '-- Jn FROM: PAM - Planning Dept. v j715�' wok' T1 1 Plea pri t `4 sets of labels by q 3 A' Z l , Ll 3{{ -A __a l (� �' / 8 I � THANKS! H `3 - l 1 ` H JOIl LC PRQPERTY OWNERS] 43-,A,-aq u 2 Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property direcdy across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Property Identification Number Address PD Properties LLC c/o Fred Druna el PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property # 43 A 19 Name Kathryn and James Parker 394 Paris Heights Lane Paris, VA 20130 PAY # 43 A 16 Name Lenoir City Co of VA PO Box 1657 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 43 19 64 Name Muldowney-Tiches Associates I LTD LLP c/o Oldc a 331 Newman Springs Rd, Ste 236 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Property # 43 19 43 W=Muldowney-Tiches Associates I LTD LLP c/o Oldcas le 331 Newman Springs Rd, Ste 236 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Property # 43 19 37 ame Grafton School, Inc. PO Box 2500 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 43 19 42 Name 1818 Robert LC 1816 Roberts St. Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43 19 7 Name Cambridge Financial Services LC 1816 Roberts St. Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43 A 26B NwwBrowning-Ferris Industries c/o Republic Service Tax Dept PO Box 29246 Phoenix, AZ 85038 Property # 43 A 26A 15 • L� tz V t/ Dame and Property Identification Number Address Name Browning -Ferns Industries c/o Republic Services TA Dept PO Box 29246 Phoenix, AZ 85038 Property # 43 A 21 A Name Oscar and Opal Jenkins 425 Lenoir Drive Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43 A 23 Name Marshall Mills , Inc, c o Fred Drunagel p0 Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property .; R ,4 Name Marshall Mills , Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property # 43 8 3 40 Name Marshall Mills, Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property # 43 8 3 41 Name Marshall Mills , Inc. c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property �, 4; 8 3 42 Name Marshall Mills, Inc, c/o Fred Drunagel PO Box 3610 Warrenton, VA 20188 Property # 43 8 3 43 Name Fruit Ifill Orchard, Inc. PO Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 43 A 25 Name Civcs Corporation PO Box 2778 Winchester, VA 22604 Pmpertq 43 A 55A Name Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. PO Box 2368 Winchester VA 22604 ' Property # 43 A 22 name Property # Name Property Name Property Name Property, 16 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING May 23, 2018 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #01-18 FOR STONEWALL IV On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, June 6, 2018, at 7:00 pm in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning #01-18 for Stonewall IV, submitted by Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh, to ,Ptzone 88.91+/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) , isjdaLmth proffers. Ae properties are located at the southern terminus of Lenior Drive (Rout %an 2 d ar i ntified by Property Identification Numbers 43-A-21, 43-A-21B, - - 43-A-24. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may do so at the public hearing. A digital copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) /! 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.fcva.us. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA Assistant Director CEP/pd 107 North Ken Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 FREDERICK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MAP REQUEST DATE RECEIVED: 04/20/18 REQUESTED COMPLETION DATE: 05/15/18 REQUESTING AGENT: PAM STAFF MEMBER: Candice TYPE OF MAP: Comp Plan Transportation Locator ✓ TDR Ag & Forest District CIP Other PIN: 43-A-21, 21B, 24, 43-19-4 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Rezoning 1101-18 Stonewall IV RA to M1 (4) Pin It Submit COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ^. 5 July. 2018 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #01-18 FOR STONEWALL IV On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, July 2018, at 7:00 pm M the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: 16 c,6 t1�0J U Rezoning #01-18 for Stonewall IV, submitted by Walsh Colucci Lubeley & Walsh, to rezone 88.91+/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. The properties are located at the southern terminus of Lenior Drive (Route F-732) and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 43-A-21, 43-A-21 B, 43-19-4 and 43-A-24. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may do so at the public hearing. A digital copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.fcva.us. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA Assistant Director CEP/pd 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Bend along line to expose Pop-up EdgeTM irRYG)5161'9 j 43 • 8. 3- 42• MARSHALL MILLS INC CIO FRED—ADRUNAGEL PO BOX 3610, WARRENTON VA 20188.8210 43 • 8.3• 42- MARSHALL MILLS IN CIO FRED A DRUNAGEL PO BOX 3610 WARRENTON VA 20108-8210 43 • 8- 3. 43- MARSHALL ILLS INC CIO FRED A DR NAGEL PO BOX 3610 WARRENTON VA 20188.8210 43 • 8- 3. 43- MARSHALL MILLS INC CIO FRED A DRUNAGEL PO BOX 3610 WARRENTON VA 20188.8210 Repliez a la hachure afin de www.averj.com r6v6ler le rebord Pop-up"A` 1-800-GO-AVERY