Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02-16 I - 81 West Business Park PINS 33-A-113, 33-A-114B 33-A-124 - Stonewall - Backfile
NOTES RECEIPT DATE —{ ! IUr) NO. 983393 d��(L'IrL �1'r�lX'r i' CS (�Y ViY RECEIVED FROM nn I n , n' a ADDRESS S RcL++ l�t�[tC� 1 � I F r. (I Y 1LI Lna 3 d �I �(Frn 1-houJand one hQrdrrd 1vn;nad $__(S 149_ ii FOR on', no# Qa ness Imo- ar-� ACCOUNT HOW PAID •3 — -A AMT. OF ACCOUNT cnsH I�f"), G �PGh�L p� [ L AMT. L PAID I'" Iy_I L]] CNCCK BALANCE (02001 +, BL818 NOTES j RECEIPT DATE �—���—I-�-t' NO. 98 33095 RECEIVED FROM H L? l ADDRESS C 1-iCl'X- �1)F' I ," �IECLY �YC�C>�C II o�c�(pa�� 1� -i hOe�Sc'a t,Cl �n l i )Kerl f-ITlrnf FOR l�f Z Y l�1 Comes l �t-,-s i r) c—,5 CI ✓ IL ACCOUNT HOW PAID ANT. OF ACCOUNT CASH Anti. rnlu '�C� I aS CD -� CHECK c-btOo�l a � { �7 BY C f 6ALANCE stor.ev r.t REgFQtM i�Lii1i3 DUE ORDER 0 REZONING TRACKING SHEET Check List: Application Form Proffer Statement Impact Analysis Adjoiner List Fee & Sign Deposit Deed Plat/Survey Taxes Paid Statement File opened Reference manual updated/number assigned D-base updated Copy of adjoiner list given to staff member for verification Color location maps ordered from Mapping bIq Application Action Summary updated "4 / Planning Commission Meeting -/ ACTION: 4141 I V Act I(Y) ' ,c 4 Board of Supervisors Meeting g121► j q ACTION: Signed copy of Resolution received from County Administrator and placed in Proffers Notebook together with proffers �r Approval (or denial) letter mailed to applicant/copy to file and cc's S (c �l Reference manual updated (� 1 D-base updated djo u Application Action Summar- updated 51911U, File given to Mapping to update zoning map (p Zoning map amended U - I Proffers recorded 1 c c k--2 v Sys ID # r/ii.Sfl�l CA. 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 May 6, 2016 GreyWolfe, Inc. Gary Oates, LS-B, PE 1073 Reclbucl Road Winchester, VA 22603 RE: REZONING #02-16 I-81 WEST BUSINESS PARK PIN 33-A-113, 33-A-124 and 33-A-11413 Dear Gary: This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Frederick COLrnty Board OI SLipervisors at their meeting on April 27, 2016. The above-refcrencecl application was approved to rezone 36.676 acres the from RA (Rural Areas) District to the 132 (Business General) District, 45.453 acres from the Ra (Rural Areas) District to the 133 (fiICILlstl-ial Transition) District and 73.360 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M l (Light Industrial) District with proffers. The properties are located on the west side of' Interstate 81 between Cedar Hill Road (Rt. 671) and Hopewell Road (Rt. 672) in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and is idcntifiecl by Property Identification Number 44-A-7513. The proffer statement, Originally dated October 1, 2015, with final revision elate Of April 27, 2016, that was approved as a part of' this rezoning application is unique to the above referenced properties and is bincling 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 ofllce if' you have any questions regarding the approval Of this rezoning application. Sincerely, Candice Perkins, AICP, CZA Senior Planner CEP/pd Attachment 107 North Kent StrCet, Suite 202 9 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 0 cc: Judith MCC£11111-Slaughter, Supervisor Stonewall District Stan Crockett and Gary Oates, Stoncwall District Planning Commissioners Jane Anderson, Rcal Estatc Ellen Murphy, Commissioner of' Rcvenl1C Rod Williams, County Attorncy w/Proflcr and Resolution HMC, LP, LLP, & Blain Properties of VA LLC, 1073 Reclbud Rcl, Wineliester, VA 22603 4�LK �Oo� REZONING APPLICATION #02-16 c 1-81 WEST BUSINESS PARK m Staff Report for the Planning Commission ..,., Prepared: March 28, 2016 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director John Bishop, AICP, Assistant Director — Transportation Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 03/16/16 Public Hearing Held; Tabled 30 Days Planning Commission: 04/06/16 Pending Board of Supervisors: 04/27/16 Pending PROPOSAL: Rezoning #02-16 for 1-81 WEST BUSINESS PARK submitted by GreyWolfe. Inc., to rezone 36.676 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B-2 (Business General) District, 45.453 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B-3 (Industrial Transition) District and 73.360 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M-1(Light Industrial) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The properties are located on the west side of Interstate 81 between Cedar Hill Road (Rt. 671) and Hopewell Road (Rt. 672). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 04/06/16 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This is an application to rezone a total of 155.489 acres of land from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2, B3 and MI Districts with proffers, to accommodate commercial and industrial uses. The property is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). In general, the proposed land use designations for these properties is consistent with the current land uses supported by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. With this rezoning, the Applicant has proffered that this project will contribute to transportation improvements in the vicinity of the property. Per previous comments, the Applicant has proffered right- of-way sufficient for a major collector roadway, access roads to the existing and proposed future I-81 ramps, and has allowed for the signalization proffers to be used as cash toward transportation improvements if the need arises. Confirmation of the transportation issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to a recommendation by the Planning Commission. Following the public meeting, 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 Planning Commission. • -G rz--� pc. -4pr )'1 6, aL (,t Rezoning 1102-16 1-81 West Business Park March 28, 2016 Page 2 This report is prepared by the Frederick Comaji Planning Staff to provide infornratioll to the Planning Commission and the Boau•d of Supervisors to assist them to 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: 03/16/16 Public hearing Held; "Fabled 30 Days Planning Commission: 04/06/16 Pending Board of Supervisors: 04/27/16 Pending PROPOSAL: Rezoning 902-16 for I-81 West Business Park submitted by GrcyWolfc, Inc., to rezone 36.676 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B-2 (Business General) District, 45.453 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B-3 (industrial Transition) District and 73.360 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to M- I(Light Industrial) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The properties are located on the west side of Interstate 81 between Cedar I-Iill Road (Rt. 671) and Hopewell Road (Rt. 672). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 33-A-1 13, 33-A-124, and 33-A-114B PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District PRESENT USE: Agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) District South: RA (Rural Areas) District Bast: RA (Rural Areas) District West: RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Residential and Agricultural Use: Residential and Agricultural Use: Residential and Agricultural Use: Residential, Church, I-81 Rezoning 1102-16 1-81 March 28, 2016 Page 3 West Business Park REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: Please see the attached VDOT comment letter dated jVarch 29, 2016. Fire Marshal: Plans Approved. Public Works Department: Recommend approval. Fi-cdel'ick County Sanitation Authoi-ity: Please see attached letter' from Erick Lawrence, E.vecrrtive Directordated.Amucriy 19, 2016. Frederick County Attorney: Please see crttached letterfrom Roderick B. 14"illiams, County f411orney, dated December' 18, 2015. Frederick County Planning Department: See crttachecl comments,fi'om Hichael 7: Ruddy, Depirly Director cicited January 19, 2016. Frederick County Transportation Comments: Comments incorporated into general Planning DepaiYment Comments above. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) depicts the zoning for the subject parcel as A-2 (AgriCUltUral General) District. The County's agricultural zoning districts were combined to form the RA (RUral Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick C01111ty Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A -I and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The 2030 Comprehensive Plan is the guide for the fiiture growth of Frederick County. Land Use. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan provide guidance on the fUture development of the property. The property is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies this property with a combination of commercial and inclUstrial land use designations. In general, the proposed indLlstrial and commercial zoIling is C011S1S1Cnt With the CLII'1'ellt land L1SC SLlpportcd by the Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning 1102-16 1-81 West Business Park March 28, 2016 Page 4 This rezoning is based On all amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive PlaIl, Appendix I - Area Plans, The Northeast Frcdcrick Land Use Plan. CPPA #01-14, Blain Properties Sewer and Water Scrvice Area (SWSA) Inclusion; Parcels 33-A-1 13 and 33-A-124. LaJ?gturge included it? the update: The crrecr of'lcn?cl use norlhivesl of &vil 321, Interstate 81, Hopewell Road, and south of Cedar Hill Roacl is commercial and industrial in character. In general, the north —south major collector road that has been tilenllfietl and is neces's'ar), to s!lppor•t this area Oland use serves as a boar?c/cry betiveer the clJiJ1111L'1'Clcrl Lri?d industrial land uses. F/exibilityshould be(?ffered in the final balance and location of land uses. Future applications fbr rezoning in this crrecr shall aclequalely address any potential imj)acLs to publlcfacllltles•, it? particular transportation, ar?Cl Shall in?plement cmy necessary lransj)orlalion improvemenls. Transj)ortation in the career Ivoulcl be a big consicleration ir? tture lan(I use clecisions. Site Access and T ransLorlation. The Eastern Road Plan and the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan call for a new north-SOLIth major collector roadway (UD4) that runs li•orll I-Iopcwcll Road to Ccdar Hill Road; this proposed roadway IIInS thl'011gh the limits of this pro.icct. The Comprehensive Plan also calls for improvements at Exit 321 on Interstate 81 such as the I-Iopewell-I3111cetown Road re- alignment and the relocation of the northern Interstate 81 ramps from Hopewell Road to Cedar Hill Road. Finally, the Eastcrn Road Plan calls for intcrchange improvements that impact this property clue to the need for frontage roads. History. The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County, Virginia, identifies one potentially significant historic structure located within the vicinity of the proposed rezoning (Robinson - Cline House (1134-1056)). The I-IRAB dlSCLISSed this rezoning application at their meeting on October 20, 2015; the I-IRAB had no comments for the application. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site is not located within a 100 year floodplain. However, this area is known for karst topography and special attention should be paid during development for potential sinkholes and related impacts. The majority of the stormwater I•unolTdrains to the east towards Interstate 81. The Applicant will be required to implement BMP's and Other devices to meet the Commonwealth of Virginia's regUirements as required by DEQ. Soils: The soils types determined From the USDA's "Soils Survey of Frederick County, VA" shows Frederick-Poplimento loams (I 4B & 14C), Frederick-Poplimento outcrop complex (17C), and Oaklct silt loams (3213 & 32C). These soils have medilull crodibility and runoff. These soil types are clay with an abundance of limestone rock. Rezoning 1102-I6 1-81 West Business Park March 28, 2016 Page 5 Wafer/Seiler: There is a pump station designed on the Open Door Baptist Church Site Which will receive sewage via an existing 50' sewer casement. This enters a force that reaches the VDOT rest area, then RedbLld Pump Station, and eventually flows into the OpeC uon TreatmeIlt Plant. There Is an existing 12" Waterline stubbed onto the Open Door Baptist Church that is available. 4) Potential Impacts Trcinsporlalion: With this rezoning application, the Applicant has proffered to construct a collector road between Hopewell Road and Cedar Hill Road. It should be noted that this new major collector roadway IS shown in the Eastern Road Plan as all Urban fOL11- lane divided highway, which WOuld have an Ultimate right-of-way width oi'80'. The Applicant has proffered a two lane roadway with an 80' right -of way, COI1StrUCtcd With ShOUICICI-S. The Applicant has also proffered to enter into signalization agreements at the new roadway (Alfalfa Lanc) and Hopewell Road and the new roadway and both interchange ramps. Traffic generation has also been limited to 6,330 average daily trips based upon the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The Applicant has not addressed the need for frontage roads as shown iIl the Eastern Road Plan, however the Applicant has proposed providing right-of-way for access roads to the 1-81 and proposed I-81 ramps. VDOT's review of the Applicant's TIA rmllted in significant Comment Which is ilICILlded in your package. The Applicant has revised the TIA and issued a response but an updated VDOT comment has not been received. The'FIA does indicate that the expected trip distribution places the majority Of trips I-81 (80%) so the heaviest traffic impact projected is at the intersections with the interchange ramps. With just 6% allocated to Route 11 this does result in a relatively small additional impact on the intersection of Hopewell and Brucetown Roads with Route 11. I-Iowever, It 111L1st be Voted that the Hopewell and Brucetown Road intellections, while operating better from a safety perspective since VDOT's signalization Of thC111, C011tlllUe to deal with capacity issues. According to the TIA the operatioIls at the site entrance and the I-81 ramps reIllain acceptable with the exception Of the 1-81 NB exit ramp which has a level Of service D in the 2025 build out year. 5) Proffer Statement: 1. Transportation - Vehicle 'Trips per Day to be determined at Site Plan Submission utilizing the current ITE Trip Generation Manual. The owners hereby proffer that the Average Daily "Trips shall not exceed 6,330. Rezoning; #02-16 1-81 West Business Park March 28, 2016 Page 6 a. The owners hereby proffer to construct a road to connect Cedar Hill Road (Route 671) to Hopewell Road (Route 672) as shown on the GDP within a 80' right-of-way. This road and any turn lanes required for the road connections will be built to VDOT standards and dedicated to the COLInty of Frederick. The road shall be two laIles with shoulders and a 10' paved trail. This will be completed prior to the issuance of any Occupancy permits. StaffNote: The Eastern Road Plan calls for this road►vay to be a new major collector road, constructer) as an urban form -lane divided highway. b. The owners hereby proffer to dedicate an additional 5' strip of land to the County Of' Frederick along Cedar Hill Road (Route 671) west ol'Alfalfa Lane and 35' cast of Alfalfa Lane for the future widening as shown on the GDP. This dedication will be prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits. c. The owners hereby proffer three signalization agreements with VDOT at the intersections of Alfalfa Lane, the northbound ramps, and the southbound ramps of Interstate 81 with Hopewell Road (Route 672). These agreements shall be for a pro rata share of only the signal lights, when warranted by VDOT; and not foi- ramps, roads, or other improvements 'unless proffered herein. The monetary value Of this proffer may be delivered in cash instead, to the County of Frederick, for road improvements in the area when signals are warranted. d. The owners hereby proffers no commercial entrances shall be built Onto Cedar Hill Road (Route 671). e. The owners herby proffer to dedicate 1.21 acres as shown on the GDP to the County of Frederick. Said dedication will be within 90 days of written request Ii•Onl the County of Frederick Or at any time by the owners during development. f. The owners hereby proffer a 60' right-of-way to the County of Frederick for limited access road connections aligned with interstate ramps to Alfalfa Lane as shown on the GDP. The final alignments to be determined by others. All road construction by others. The right-of- way shall be dedicated within 60 days when requested by the County of Frederick. This proffer shall be decided cXtinguishcd Il a modiflcatioIl Of the Frederik COLInty Comprehensive Plan removes these connections. Staff Note: The Applicant has not addressed ritrht-of way needs for the futrn-e ramp conri,.ruration and frontage math as shown in the Eastern Road Plan but has proposed this as an alternative. 2. Fire & Rescue — Monetary Contributions: a. The owners hereby proffer a cash contribution to Frederick County for Fire and Rescue purposes, of $0.05 per building square foot to be disbursed to the Frederick County Fire and 0 0 Rezoning //02-I6 1-81 West Business Park March 28, 2016 Page 7 Rescue Department, to be paid prior to the issuance Of occupancy permits The term "building square fool" shall be the combined floor area for each story. 3) Frederick County Sanitation Authority: a. The owners hereby proffer to grant a temporary Cascnlellt to the Frederick COLInty Salutation Authority, as shown on sheet 2 of the GDP, on tax parcel 33-A-39 for a ground level water tank. The casement shall begin upon approval of the rezoning and extinguished on December 31, 2021. If'the I,reclerick COLlllty Sallitatioll ALItilOI'ity llas started C011Stl-LICt1011 during that time, then the 1.33 acre of land within the case111ent shall be dedicated to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority in fce simple on December 31, 2021. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION FROM THE 03/16/16 MEETING: Staff reported this application is to rezone a total of 155.489 acres of land from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2, B3, and M I Districts with proffcrs, to accommodate commercial and industrial uses. Staff continued the property is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and in geIleral, the proposed II1dUstrial and commercial 'golfing is consistent with the CLlrrCllt land use supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Staff noted with this rezoning application the Applicant is requesting an allowance for coniniercial and industrial uses. Staff continued within the proffer statement there is a condition that limits the daily trips to 6,330 per day. The Applicant has also proffered a monetary contribution to Fire and Rescue Of $0.05 per building square foot and have proffered to Frederick COLInty Sanitation Authority to C011strllCt a ground level water tank On the property. Staff presented mapping Of the site with the Eastern Road Plan overlay. Staff explained the Applicant has proffered a two-lane road on a 60' right-ol-way; however within the Comprehensive Plan there is a Illajor collector road which would require an 80'right-of-way. Staff continued the Applicant has proffered to enter into signalization agreements; the rlA (Traffic Impact Analysis) has not gllltC triggered the need for signals at this time, howcvcr It Is close ellOugh to be Of a concern to VDO T and Staff. Staff has requested flexibility to this proffer; spccif ically Should something else develop at the intersection of I-Iopcwell Road, BRICCtown Road, and Martinsburg Pike. Staff reported the Eastern Road Plait does Include potential plans IOr a Split interchange that was done wl1Ci1 the Rollie I I Study was completed and it was modeled using MPO resources, basically the point was the lack of area on Route I I North for a ma]or interchange howcvcr, the Land Use Plan calls for significant additional development. Staff continued this was proposed as a way to help spread out the demand On that interchange; it takes the ramps On the north side of Hopewell Road and brings them to the north side of Ccdar Hill Road and connects via frontage roads along I-81. Staff noted the Applicant does not control all Of that property. Staff regLICStCd the Applicant to look at the situation and give consideration on how they may be able to handle that as It is Unaddressed in the proffcrs. Staff Voted this IS sorricthing continuously being studied through the MPO and is being called the 317 Area Study. Mr. Tim Stowe representing the Applicant came forward and presented a brief overview of this project. He reported the project has been scaled back in order to manage the traffic and the concerns. Mr. Stowe continued the proffer that addresses the traffic was developed in consideration of the interchange at I-81 as well as the intersection of Hopewell Road, Martinsburg Pike, and Brucetown Road. Mr. Stowe 0 Rezoning 1102-16 1-81 West Business Park March 28, 2016 Page 8 explained on Friday March 11, 2016 the Applicant received comments from VDOT that deal primarily with the proffers; they have communicated with Staff since that time and have updated the proffers. In SLIll Mary Mr. Stowe noted the adjUStincrits made by the Applicant; the 1101-th SOLIth road (Alfalla Lane) will include a multi -use trail; right-of-way increased to 80'; adding additional right-of-way on Cedar Hill Road to widen to 80'; reconfigured ramps and proffered all alignment and right-of-way; adjusted the signal proffer. Mr. Stowe concluded the water tank proffer has a time limit and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority is completing a Study on this. A Commission Member asked does VDOT seem satisfied with the proffer adjustments. Mr. Stowe responded the adjustments were sent to them today. A Commission Member inquired what is the level of service in the TIA at the intersection. Mr. Stowe explained it was looked at two ways and the Applicant proposed an all way stop which put the level at a C and VDOT was satisfied with that. A Commission Member asked to what extent Staff has reviewed the updated information. Staff reported the information has been addressed With the exception of a VDOT rcgLICSt for greater analysis of the interchange. A Commission Member asked legal counsel for the County are the members within purview to reference the revised proffers that have not been seen by the Planning Commission. The County's legal counsel responded it is the Planning Commission's discretion on how to proceed. I-Ie noted Ile has briefly reviewed the updates. The Public Hearing was Opened t0 citizen comments. A citizen came forward and expressed her concern With the traffic this project will generate in the area. There were no additional comments and the Public Hearing was closed. A Commission Member conlnlented he is comfortable with this rezoning. He is concerned with moviIlg forward W1th0LIt haVing Seen the updated materials and he WOUld prefer to table this rezoning. A motion was made, Seconded, and passed Unan1111OLISly to recommend this rezoning be tabled for 30 days. Abstain: Oates Absent: Crockett 0 9 Rezoning /102-16 1-81 West BLISIIleSS Perk March 28, 2016 Page 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 04/06/16 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This is an application to rezone a total of 155.489 acres of land from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2, B3 and MI Districts with proffers, to accommodate commercial and industrial Uses. The property is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). In general, the proposed land use designations for these properties is consistent with the current land uses supported by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. With this rezoning, the Applicant has proffered that this project will contribute to transportation improvements In the vicinity Of the pl'OpCi'ty. Per pI'CVIOLIS COI11111CntS, the Applicant has proffered right- of-way SLlfficient for a major collector roadway, access roads to the existing and proposed future I-81 ramps, and has allowed for the signalization proffers to be Liscd as cash toward transportation improvements if the need arises. Confirmation of the tIansportation ISSUes identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to a recommendation by the Planning Commission. Follmvinf,r the pl/blic ineeting-, a 1'econmlenllation i'ef,lardnl,l,J this rezoning, application to the Board of Supervisors ivould be appropHate. The Applicant should be prepared to adequatell, address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. :ES LN � 11�RNDO� 71MBERLAKES LN inls7l.R� 6 '" FFrDR oKN�o F �F 106 oRNDOFFDR 353 THISriE LN Oness Park ES �. ORNDOFF.DR 1827 A-114B,33-A- 124� '?� CEDAR HILL RD — to B2, B3, and M1 100 MARiIh ' RNDOFF DR 1787 ~ CED R pll _ r U767 "LILLj R ; �1807 A CEDAR HIU RD r t_ 1 33Ai13 202 CEDAI HICL�RC 9 33 A 124 2042 H1 v •2000 L90 APPLE VIEW DR &division "a Applications Parcels Sewer and Water Service Area Building Footprints B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) B2 (Business, General Distrist) B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) HE (Higher Education District) M1 (industrial, Light 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 Area District) RP (Residential Performance District) �—MIJEREM INSINSBIKEIAH F 81 i, MARTwIN PIK ar 333 3647 JEREMIAH LN MARTINSBURG PIKE 3656 115 MAR JEFFS PIKE 3599 MARi1NSBURG 3 MAR71N58L 3522 F 181 REZ # 02 - 16 Note: Frederick County Dept of 81 West Business Park Planning & Development PINS: 107 N Kent St e 33 - A - 113,33 - A - 11413, 33 - A - 124 Suite 202 Rezoning from RA to B2, B3, and MI Winchester, VA 22601 540 - 665 - 5651 Map Created: February 25, 2016 Staff: mruddy 0 435 870 1,740 Feet THISTLE LN -� Fe�o1 C006;.EDAR HILL ESTATES _ ,Subdivision 2r I Applications Parcels Sewer and Water Service Area Building Footprints Long Range Land Use Q Residential .' Neighborhood Village 600 Urban Center • Mobile Home Community • Business ® Highway Commercial ® Mixed -Use ® Mixed Use Commercial/Office Mixed Use Industrial/Office - Industrial ® Warehouse Heavy Industrial • Extractive Mining Commercial Rec Rural Community Center Fire & Rescue 40 Historic ® Institutional 40 Planned Unit Development Park Recreation School Employment Airport Support Area B2 / B3 O Residential, 4 We High -Density Residential, 6 u/a ® High -Density Residential, 12-16 We Q Rural Area Interstate Buffer Landfill Support Area Natural Resources & Recreation • Environmental & Recreational Resources REI #02-Ib W 281 JEREMIAH LN il(Il�'I o: W REZ #02-16 M IMI 2 �Q 1 v 672 m Cl W 666 '" r 011 CEDAR HILL RD 4P%4ILLtRD �LTEDAR C 3721 � 3683 MAR. MARTINSBURG pIKE, PIKE 3 MAC s E 365 115 MA JEFFS PIKE WAY 3599 MARTINSBURG PIKE , 3 REZ # 02 - 16 Note: Frederick County Dept of 81 West Business Park Planning & Development PINS: 107 N Kent St e 33 - A - 113, 33 - A - 11413, 33 - A - 124 Suite 202 Rezoning from RA to B2, B3, and M1 Winchester, VA 22601 540 - 665 - 5651 Map Created: February 25, 2016 Staff: mruddy 0 435 870 1,740 Feet • • Rezoning: RZ # 02-16 Property: Area: 155.488 acres Tax Parcels 33-(A)-113, 33-(A)-124, 33-(A)-114B Record Owners: Blain Properties of Virginia, LLC HMC, LP, LLP Project Name: 81-West Business Park Original Date of Proffers: October 1, 2015 Revisions: February 17, 2016 March 14, 2016 Magisterial District: Stonewall Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned owners hereby offer the following proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #02-16 for rezoning of 154.424-acres from the RA District to Business (B-2) (36.676 acres), to Industrial Transition (B-3) (45.453 acres) and Light Industrial (M-1) (73.360 acres), development of the subject properties shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the owners and such are approved by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the owners and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The "Properties" are more particularly described as the lands conveyed to Blain Properties of Virginia, LLC, (an entity registered in New York) from Bradley K. Blain by Deed per instrument 4120009054 dated August 22, 2012, and to HMC, LP, LLP, by Deed from Cline's Egg Farm LP, LLP, per instrument 010010026 dated July 12, 2001, as recorded in the Frederick County Circuit Court Clerk's Office. See also plats of record at instrument 150005321 for Tax Parcels 33-(A)-113 and 33-(A)-124. A Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated March 15, 2016, by GreyWolfe, Inc., is attached to and made part of this proffer document. 0 0 Proffers: Transportation — Vehicle Trips per Day to be determined at Site Plan submission utilizing the current ITL Trip Generation Manual. file owners hereby proffer that the Average Daily Trips shall not exceed 6,330. a. The owners hereby proffer to construct a road to connect Cedar 1-I111 Road (Route 671) to Hopewell Road (Route 672) as shown on the GDP within an 80' right of way. This road and any turn lanes required for the road connections will be built to VDO f standards and dedicated to the County of Frederick. The road shall be two lanes with shoulclus and a 1 0' paved trail. This will be compIctcd prior to the issuance Of ally OCCllpancy permits. b. The owners hereby proffer to dedicate an additional 5' strip of land to the County of Frederick along Cedar Hill Road (Route 671) west of Alfalfa Lane and 35' east of Alfalfa Lane for Future widening as shown on the GDP. This dedication will Occur prior to the issuance of any OCCLlpancy permits c. The Owners hereby proffer three slgnalization agreements with VDO I at the intersections Of Alfalfa Lanc, the northbOLIIICl ramps, and the SOuthbound ramps of Interstate 81 with Hopewell Road (Route 672). Thesc agreements shall be for a pro rata shale Of only the signal lights, when warrantcd by VDOT; and not for ramps, roads, or other improvements LIIIICSS pl'OffC1'CCI herein. The monetary value of this proffer may be delivered in cash instead, to the County of Frederick, for road Improvements In the area when signals are warrantccl. cl. The owners hereby proffer that no commercial entrances Shall be bUllt 011tO Ceclar Hill Road (ROLItc 671) or Hopewell Road (Route 672). The owners hereby proffer to dedicate 1.21 acres as shown on the GDP to the County of Frederick. Said dedication will be within 90 clays Of written request front the County Of FI'CCICI'lCl< of at any time by the owners during development. The owners hereby proffer a 60' right of way to the County of Frederick for limited access road connections aligned with interstate ramps to Alfalfa Lane as shown On the GDP. The Final alignments to be determined by Others. All road construction by others. The right of way shall be dedicated within 60 clays when requested by the County Of Frederick. This proffer shall be deemed Cxtinguishcd if a modification to the Frederick County COmprcllCnsive Plan removes these connections. 2 2. Fire & Rescue — Monetary Contributions a. "file owners hereby proffer a cash contribution to Frederick County for lire and RCSCLIC purposes, of $0.05 per building square foot to be disbursed to the Frederick County Firc and Rcscuc Department, to be paid prior to occupancy permit. "file term "building square foot" shall be the Combined floor area for each story. 3. Frederick County Sanitation Authority 'File owners hereby proffer to grant a temporary casement to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, as shown on sheet 2 of the attached GDP, on tax parcel 33-(A)-39 Ior a ground level water tank. "file easement shall begin upon approval of the rezoning and Cxt11lgL1iS11CCI O11 December 31, 2021. If the Frederick County Sanitation Authority has started COI1StRICt1011 ClLlrlllg that time, their the 1.33 acre Of land within the casement shall be dedicated to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority in fee simple on December 31, 2021. 'File Conditions proffered above shall bC binding upon heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in the Interest Of the Owners and Owners. In the event the l,rcdcrick County Board of'Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions Shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the I rederick County Codc and Ordinance. Respectfully Submitted: B ( :I /C /Q�� Blain Properties of'Virginia, ILLC Datc Bradley K. Blain, manager State of I/, ��; city/County of G/iit0Gvs�1B,— TO Wit: TIlC foregoing instrument Was aCkllOWledged before me this 1,*,iy of 4� 4 , 20(,, ot445000#060fa Notary I ublic �Q. .......... .Rti O;'O 6�'•,0 • e Ct MY 6 y' 7 My Commission I xplres 2 z&�COMh41SSION Registration NUlllbcr — O NUMBER Q o 7273447 �v°. �OZ s 0 • By: C, LP, LLP Commonwealth ol' Virginia, City/County of _ Lwl l'o Wit: ,-J- / 2- )� Date ocaoaaaaa000seoeo F RED y�, PIP rr o MY <�°: Z COMMI ON — a c� ; SSI o • NWjeER 7273447 �e II; ;; O0,,06��° The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 12fAay of ,, , 20,W By Notary Public My Commission Expires Registration Number 4 I Am GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN BLAIN PROPERTIES OF VIRGINIA, LLC AND HMC LP, LLP GreyWolfe, Inc. Land Surveying and Consu t ng )077 ftM Rao Ww.' sn., AllS607 (W) OIC �rerwWel�tOww eom (540) S s 1001 — 1s0 fg7t.l99 (O.f) C0971 IA "Ml=+uxnM ry 6upinsuoJ pue 6uiAanunS puel 077 'b7NI-981/1 J0 SI1?1�d0Yd NI d79 cc 'aul `ailombig J /U V7d 1 AGNG(O 79/130 O-9ZI7 b&3A13D a s O u r o � d CM °o G' ` ' CEDAR MILL ROAD , PT671 ' jo W `1 DIC�n� " � DE I 9NOS9coN c�Z PROFFER I.I i �w , kn CA IL�SNIHN3(P I I LT � 31 j i SNIJIN3( `^ g a E Q Y I NOSM3HJIN l.i �i W 25 W d Q O i U i ism o a i + SEE _ 0 PROMR 1 I o� o W ,Sf9 Q v a p d HopEW 671DAD 7508mm. o d a� 3 Q= oa J Su °ew ��YD DT of Transportation Staunton Blain & Cline Rezoning TIA, Frederick County, VA Summary of VDOT Review Comments March 29, 2016 Since the applicant has agreed to proffer a pro rata share of the cost for the installation of future traffic signals at the Hopewell Road / 1-81 ramps and Hopewell Road / site entrance, with flexibility of said cost being able to aid in the implementation of alternative transportation improvements in the vicinity of the 1-81, Exit 321 interchange, VDOT Staunton District Planning finds the current TIA to be acceptable in meeting the intent of Chapter 527 TIA requirements. Please note that with future TIA submissions, all transportation improvements recommended in a report will be based on modeling and analysis results of said improvement. 2. VDOT recommends that Proffer 1.d be updated to state that a signal warrant analysis that assumes full build out of the site (6,330 ADT as proffered) will be conducted for the three intersections (Hopewell Road and the site entrance and 1-81 ramps) and submitted with the initial site plan on the property to determine the owner's pro rata share of the signal installation. The monetary value of the pro rata share will be placed in escrow with Frederick County as a condition of site plan approval to be utilized in the installation of the three traffic signals (when warranted) or an alternative transportation improvement along Hopewell Road / 1-81, Exit 321 interchange. At the County's request, VDOT can provide review assistance on the signal warrant analysis at time of site plan review to ensure the correct pro rata share by the owner / developer. VDOT recommends that Proffer 1.a be updated to specify that the owner / developer will be responsible for all necessary turn lane improvements along Hopewell Road and Cedar Hill Road with the connections to the proposed Alfalfa Lane. Additionally, we recommend that this proffer state that the internal road improvement and required turn lanes along Hopewell Road and Cedar Hill Road will be completed prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit on the site (this trigger was included in the previous versions of this proffer). 4. Although Proffer 1.g and the GDP currently only provide for right-of-way dedication for future modifications to the 1-81, Exit 321 interchange, it is VDOT's opinion that the future ramp alignments based on the right-of-way dedication neither meets the intent of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan or would be acceptable by the Federal Highway Administration. The Frederick County Comprehensive Plan identifies the planned interchange improvements at Exit 321 being connected by collector distributor lanes. The current right-of-way dedication as shown on the GDP illustrates future interstate ramp modifications connecting directly to the development's internal roadway (Alfalfa Lane). Impact Statement For consideration of Rezoning the lands for 81-West Business Park Stonewall Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia October 1, 2015 Revised I-cbruary 4, 2016 "fax Map Numbers 33-(A)-I 13, 33-(A)-124, & 33-(A)-1 14B Total Arta: 155.488 acres Owners of Record: Blain Properties of Virginia, LLC 35 Flatt Road Rochester, New York, 14623 and I-IMC, IT, LLP. 920 I-lopcwcll Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Contact: Gary R. Oates, LS-B, PG GrcyWolfc, Inc. 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, VA 22603 (540) 667-2001 ofc (5,10) 5,15-4001 fax 81-West Business Pa1-lc Rezoning In f 1-nd I I CA ion The site is located On the western side of Interstate S 1 between Cedar Hill Road (ROLItc 671) to the north and Hopewell Road (Route 672) to the south. The applicants own the adjoining lands to the west. The parcels arc currently zoned RA and arc used for agriculture. The proposal for the site is to rezone 36.676 acres to B-2, 45.453 acres to B- 3, and 73.360 acres to M-1. The applicant is Seeking this Change In zolling t0 create viable llldUstrlal & commercial parcels Consistent With the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Existing Conditions The 1)1'01)Cl'ty 1S LISCCI for agriCUlturc. The stormwatcr drains generally to the east UlIdCr e\istlllg CL1lVCrtS UI1CICr Il1tcrstate 81 . There arc no known environmental impacts such as floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands, or woodlands. The limestone/clay ground has been cleared and used for pasture for generations. The land lends itself quite well to commercial and industrial development. Comprehensive Planning The 2030 Comprehensive Plan contains an a111clIC1111c11t adopted by the Board of SL1pC1'V1S01'S for this area. The key pOillt SpCIICCI OLIt in the amendment arc the COI1SU'LlCti011 of a north -south collector road (Proffered as Alfalfa Lane). Transportation is the greatest concern for the impacts of any rezoning in this area and the owners have proffered to not exceed 6,330 Average Daily Trips from the development. Proposed Development The site will be graded, landscaped, and the roads installed will meet current County and VDOT specifications. Physical Impacts The site is not located within any 100 year flood plains per FLMA Flood Maps. Surrounding Properties The site is b011nclecl by ROLItcs 671 and 672 t0 the 1101-th a11d S011th; Interstate 81, a parsonage, and Open Door Baptist Church to the cast, and the applicant's lands to the west. Traffic Impact and Analysis The 2014 amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan calls for a north -south collector road from Cedar Hill Road to Hopewell Road. This road known as "Alfalfa Lane" has been proffered. I he entire development Shall not exceed 6,330 average daily trips by proffer. This is clone so that Exit 321 would not fail. Also by tying limited development to the trips, it allows all potential uses within the zoning category to be explored provided their Cumulative traffic does not exceed the proffered amount. Also, the Northeast Land Use Plan proposes improvements at Exit 321 on Interstatc 81 such as the I-Iopcwcll-B1'LICCtOw11 Road Re -alignment, the possibility of 1101-th-SOLIth Collector roads that tie into the exit ramps, and the possible relocation of the northern ramps from Hopewell Road to Cedar Hill Road. Due to a lack of funding, the lillliteCI IILImbci- Of parcels that COLIId pay fOr SLICII improvements, the lack of interest from VDOT to come up with a traffic solution, and the high cost to actually accomplish these improvements, this application proffers to limit traffic from the development to a point that works with the existing conditions. Improvements reflected in the Comprehensive Plan will require Federal and State Involvement This application also iIIIl)ICIIICIItS, through proffers, the I-ccom mend at1oils Of the Traffic Impact Analysis and comments from VDOT. AS mentioned, a "trip cap" and the COI1StrLICt1011 Of Alfalfa Lallc arc proffered. Also a slgnall7_ation agreement for potential stoplights on Hopewell Road at the intersection Of Alfalfa Lane, the southbOLII1CI ramps, and the northbOL111d ramps of Interstate 81 are also proposed; as well as additional right Of way along Cedar Hill Road and Interstate 81. Finally a proffer to restrict any entrances onto Cedar Hill Road. Sewer Conveyance and Treatment An approved design for a pump station On the Open Door Baptist Church Site will receive sewage via an existing 50' sewer casement. This enters a forcemain that reaches the VDOT rest area, then RCdbLICl Pump Station, and eventually flows into the Opequon Treatment Plant. The Commercial development is expected to generate 5,000 gpd and industrial portion will generate 15,000 gpd; however, the approved I)Llllll) station design allows for over 180,000 gpd. 0 0 Water Supply There 1S all existing 12" waterline Stubbed onto the Open Door Baptist Church that is available. The water de111a11CIS f6r an ilICILIStrial gC11CraI 1'Llll 15%-20% higher than sewer demands for wash down, irrigation, ctc. It is expected that water usage at final buildout will approach 25,000 gpd. 'file owners have offered proffers to the Frederick County Sanitation AL1tIlOrity ill I-CCOgillti011 OI the C011llllllllltics water needs. The first is permission to explore two potential well sites determined by the FCSA as possible production wells, the other casement Is a tank site f01' SyStcm pressure oil a parcel owned by the applicants Of sul'ficicrlt elevation that was determined by the I�CSA. Drainage The majority of the stornlwater runoff drains to the Cast towards Interstate 81. The applicant will be required to implement 13MP's and other devices to meet the Commonwealth of Virginia's rcgllilcmentS as required by DEQ. Solid Waste Disposal The Civil I?nginccririg RCICI'CI1CC Manual, 4t11 Cdition, uses a rate of 5.4 cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of floor area. A 450,000 sf development will yield 2430 cubic yards per year. 'file Solid waste will be translerrcd to the Frederick County Landfill Facility by private licensed commercial carriers. Historical Impact There is a house, owned and occupied by the applicants, known as the Robinson - Cline House (VDI-I 34-1056). The house lies 570' south, across Hopewell Road, and will be physically impacted by the development. EC1LICatiO11a1 InlpaCt This development will not create additional students for the schools. Police, Fire and Rescue Impact The development will increase the burden On fire and rescue. Tic applicant is Offering a proffer Of $0.05 per COnStrUctcd b1111C1ing square foot to the County for file and 1'CSCLIC Sel'V1CCS. Parks & Recreation Impact This C1CVclol)lllcllt IS not expected to increase population; thcreforc, no meaSUrable impacts are predicted. n U u Soils The soils types cletcrnlincd from the USDA's "Soils Survey of Frederick County, VA" shows Frederick-Poplimento looms (1413 & 14C), Frederick-Poplimento outcrop complex (17C), and Oaklet silt looms (3213 & 32C). 'I 11CSC SollS 11aVC 111CCIM111 erodiblllty and runoff. These Soil types are clay with an abundance of limestone rock. The Characteristics of this Soil are managcablc Ior CICVelopment following the Virginia Erosion and Secliment Control practices. Geology This area 1S also known Im* karst topography. Care should be taken to explore for sinkholcs and caverns prior to any excavation or CIevelopincnt. 4 • • REZONING APPLICATION FORM o;r? 9 3 3 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning staff --'_ Fee Amount Paid S o?S a Zoning Amendment NumbeCQ- I Date Received PC Hearing Date _IIt, I I L..4 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: GreyWolfe, Inc. - Gary R. Oates, LS-B, PE Telephone: 540-667-2001 Address: 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, Virginia 22603 2. Property Owner (if different than .1ho%c) Name: HMC,LP,LLP, & Blain Properties of VA, LLC Telephone: (540) 667-2001 Address: 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, VA 22603 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Gary R. Oates Telephone: 667-2001 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map Agency Comments Plat Fees Deed to property Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid Proffer Statement 12 C� • 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of'ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Plcasc list below all owners Or parties in interest ofthe land to be 1'CLOI ed: HMC, LP, LLP - John D. Cilne, William H. Cline, Geraldine F. Cline, and Rebecca C. Price Blain Properties of Virginia, LLC - Bradley K. Blain G. A) Current Use of the Property: Agricultural - Land Use 13) Proposed Use of the Property: Commercial and Industrial 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL II) NUM13EIZ USE ZONING 33-((1))-(1)-3,4,5,6,7 Vacant RA 33-((1))-(3)-32,43,44 Vacant RA 33-(A)-77A,77B,78,78A,164A Agr-Residential RA 33-(A)-112,112(A-F) Residential RA 33-(A)-114A,123A,123B,125,125E Residential RA 33-(A)-123, 164G Vacant B-3 33-((11))-(2)-1,6,16,17 Residential RA 8. Location: The property is located at (give Caact location based on nearest road and distance fl'011l neal'CSt IlltUSCCti011, LISillf-II 1'0F1(I 11a111CS alld I'OULC numbers): West side of Interstate 81 between Cedar Hill Road (Rt 671) & Hopewell Road (Rt 672) 13 L�1 1 J 9. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: NLlmbcr of' Units Proposed Single Family homes: 0 TO\VI1110111c: 0 Multi-FaIllily: C Non -Residential Lots: 0 Mobile Home: o Flotcl Rooms: 0 Square FOOUIL;C Of ProposeCI Uses Office: Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing: RCStallrant: Warehouse: Other: 10. Signature: I (WC), the u11dC1'SIgIICd, d0 licreby 1'Csl)cctllllly make application and pctltion the Fredcrick County Board Of SLII)CI'VISOI'S to lIllcncl the "/ding ordinance and to change the zoning Illap Of FI'CCICI'ICk COLlllty, VII'glllla. I (we) aLItllOI-i/_C Frederick COLlilty OflIC1ais t0 enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (1VC) Understand that the sign ISSLICCI 1VI1C11 this £11)1)llCatl011 Is SLIbmitted must be placed at the fl'011t propCI'ty lisle at least SCVCII days pl'101' t0 tl1C PIa1111111(I COIl1miSSioll I)LIblic hearing and the Board OI SLII)CI'VISOI'S pliblic llcaring and maintained SO as t0 be Visible fl'om the road rigllt-Of-\Vay Until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and Its accompanying materials are true and aCCUrate t0 the best Of Illy (our) knowledge. f Owncr(s): / 14 Date: Date: Datc:�� Date: 0 a ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS Owners orproperty adjoining the land Nvill be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of SLlpCI-VISoI'S meetings. For the I)LII-I)OSC Of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or real' or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of=way, of a watercourse f'roni the requested property. The applicant Is regL111'Cd to obtain the folloNving information on each adI0111111� pI'OpCrty I►1Cllldlll� lI1C parcel ICICI1tIrlcation IlUnibcr which may be obtained rrom the Office or the Coil' IIIissi011el' Or RUCIRIC. The Commissioner ofthe Revenue is localeO on the 2n(% %Joor o, the Fre(lerick Courtly A(hninistrolive Buil(IhW, 107 North Kew ,SIreel. Name and Property Identification Number Name and Property Identification Number Address Namc HMC, LP, LLP 920 Hopewell Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property 11 33-(A)-164A,77A,77B,78,78A Na.»cHMC, LP, LLP 920 Hopewell Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property 11 33-((1))-(1)-3,4,5,6,7 NamcHMC, LP, LLP 920 Hopewell Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Pronu1,- I/ 33-((1))-(3)-32,43,44 Nal»c Fairfield Farms of Fred. Co., LLC 1827 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property 1143-(A)-112 Name Dennis Godlove 1639 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property a 33-(A)-112A Name Rickie Williams 1663 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Properl>- 113 3-(A)-112B Nay»eC. William Orndoff, Jr 1767 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Pro,,cr1>,,133-(A)-112C Nay»Christopher Maher 1787 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property a 33-(A)-112D Name Dennis Bagnell 1807 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property 11 33-(A)-112E 15 • Name and Property Identification Number Address NameCharles William Orndoff 2897 Martinsburg Pike Stephenson, VA 22656 Property // 33-(A)-112F NameMSD Investments, LLC 151 Harvest Ridge Drive Winchester, VA 22601 Property a 33-(A)-114A NameR&J Land Investments, LLC 1631 Redbud Road Winchester, VA 22603 Property lE 33-(A)-123 Name Kenneth Smith 281 Jeremiah Lane Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property 1E 33-(A)-123A NameOpen Door Baptist Church 281 Jeremiah Lane Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property // 33-(A)-123B Name Mohebatullah Vahidi 794 Center Street Herndon, VA 20170 Property 11 33-(A)-125 Name Daniel T. Schall 2042 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property It 33-(A)-125E Name Manjoh Raj Singh 2221 Naamans Road Wilmington, DE 19810 Property 1133-(A)-164G Name Deborah Godlove 1639 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property 11 33-((11))-(1)-1 Name Donna O. Williams 1663 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property 11 33-((11))-(2)-6 Name Stephen W. Rhinehardt 100 Orndoff Drive Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property ri 33-((11))-(2)-16 Name Denise O. Bagnell 1807 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property 1133-((11))-(2)-17 Name Proput), # Name Property 11 16 0 • `cx eoG Special Limited Power of Attorney a4 �� County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Website: www.co.frederick.va.us ,Giry Il% Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone (540) 665-5651 Facsimile (540) 665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That 1 (We) (Name) Blain Properties of Virginia, LLC - Bradley K. Blain (Address) 35 Flatt Road, Rochester, New York, 14623 (Phone) (585) 746-8402 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 120009054 on Page , and is described as Parcel: Lot: Block: Section do hereby make, constitute and appoint: Subdivision: 33-(A)-113 and 33-(A)-124 (Name) GreyWolfe, Inc. - Gary R. Oates, LS-B, PE, Tim Stowe, PE (Address) 1073 Redbud Road, Winchester, Virginia, 22603 (Phone) 540-667-2001 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: _Rezoning (including proffers) Conditional Use Permit Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) Subdivision Site Plan Variance or Appeal My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: N (/� This authorization shall expire one year Isom the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this �`��day of C>;� 20�, Signatures) State of Virginia-, City/County of To -wit: a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personallycared 'l\ before me and has m acknowledged the same before e in the jurisdiction aforesaid this 6��day of , 20��. Notary Public My Commission Expires: Alison Teddi-$lain Notary Public State of New Y( Qualified in Monroe County Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Website: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone (540) 665-5651 Facsimile (540) 665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) HMC, LP, LLP - John D. Cline (Phone) (540) 974-0200 (Address) 920 Hopewell Road, Clear Brook, VA 22624 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 010010026 on Page . and is described as Parcel: Lot: Block: Section: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: Subdivision: 33-(A)-1145 (Name) GreyWolfe, Inc. - Gary R. Oates, LS-B, PE, Tim Stowe, PE (Phone) 540-667-2001 (Address) 1073 Redbud Road, Winchester, Virginia, 22603 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: . _Rezoning (including proffers) Conditional Use Permit Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) K Subdivision Site Plan Variance or Appeal My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded ogrRQOjfig¢f,� In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this I day of ''' Signature(s) <~ c _ © g,�Veli7�y'• L State of Virginia, City/County To -wit: of"µfitG�1 C , p :'t'�tiijs79s� l trla5l R �i kt o a Notary Public in and for the jul-14C 0 . certify that the person(s) who signed` to the foregoing instrument appeared bejq acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this �f ¢' ,..day of '- il)t 20 i E � kilk) cc � �„�,� j;-1f� My Commission Expires: Notary Public 0 0 • Executive Suinnlary This Traffic Impact Study has been prepared to support a rezoning request for the Blain and Cline properties located west of Clear Brook in Frederick County, VA. The generalized proposed uses for the property are: Blain — Industrial Park (ITE land use 130) which will include a mix of manufacturing, service, and warehouse facilities with a diversified mix of small and large facilities. Cline - Industrial Park (ITE land use 130) which will include a mix of manufacturing, service, and warehouse facilities with a diversified mix of small and large facilities. - Gas/Service Station with Convenience Market (ITE land use 945) which will include up to 20 fueling positions. Both properties are currently used for agricultural purposes. Access to the properties will be through commercial entrances connecting to the developer- proposed north -south roadway named Alfalfa Lane. Alfalfa Lane will run from Hopewell Road to Cedar Hill Road. For the purposes of this study, it has been assumed that all new traffic will enter and exit the site from Hopewell Road. Interstate 81 exit 321 is approximately 870 ft. from where Alfalfa Lane will connect to Hopewell Road therefore, 80% of the new traffic associated with this site is forecasted to be coming from or going to 1-81. A minimal amount of new traffic will pass through the intersection of Route it with Hopewell and Brucetown Roads. The left turn movements from Hopewell and Brucetown Roads have a level of service of E and F respectively in the PM peak hour under existing conditions. Traffic volumes in these intersections will increase by 32 trips in the PM peak hour at full build- out of this project, raising the total trips in these intersections from 1014 to 1046. Fredrick County has prioritized a project to realign this intersection to improve traffic flow. It has been assumed that the projects proposed by the County for this intersection and Route 11 will be in place by the design year 2031. Some minimal degradation in the level of service at the 1-81 ramps was recognized in the traffic modeling for the full build -out and design years of the project. Interim measures are proposed to mitigate this impact by installing all -way stop controls when warranted at the following intersections: • Hopewell Road and Alfalfa Lane • Hopewell Road and 1-81 SB ramps • Hopewell Road and 1-81 NB ramps Longer term improvements include slgnalization of the ramp termini intersections when warranted. • At the intersection of Alfalfa Lane and Hopewell Road a WB left turn lane and a EB right turn lane are proposed to provide safe and efficient traffic operations. A SB left turn lane is also proposed. With the improvements proffered by this developer and the improvements planned by Frederick County for Route 11 and the Route 11/Hopewell Road/Brucetown Road intersection, it is the opinion of this engineer that the transportation impacts of this rezoning and its resulting development are both manageable and acceptable for this project setting. Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction..................................................................................................................................................1 Purpose.....................................................................................................................................................1 StudyObjectives.......................................................................................................................................1 BackgroundInformation...............................................................................................................................1 Transportation Improvements Assumed to be in Place...........................................................................1 Transportation Improvements Planned....................................................................................................1 DevelopmentDescription.............................................................................................................................1 SiteLocation..............................................................................................................................................1 Descriptionof the Parcel...........................................................................................................................2 Comprehensive Plan Recommendations..................................................................................................3 CurrentZoning..........................................................................................................................................3 StudyArea Description................................................................................................................................. 4 StudyArea.................................................................................................................................................4 Proposedand Existing Uses..........................................................................................................................5 ExistingUse............................................................................................................................................... 5 ProposedUses & Access........................................................................................................................... 5 NearbyUses..............................................................................................................................................5 ExistingRoadways.....................................................................................................................................5 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions.................................................................................................................. 6 DataCollection........................................................................................................................................6 Analysis...................................................................................................................................................7 2025 Background Traffic Conditions...........................................................................................................15 Analysis.......................................................................................................................................................16 TripGeneration & Distribution...................................................................................................................18 TripGeneration.......................................................................................................................................18 TripDistribution......................................................................................................................................18 2025 Build -out Conditions..........................................................................................................................22 Analysis...................................................................................................................................................22 Recommended Roadway Improvements....................................................................................................25 • 0 DesignYear(2031) ......................................................................................................................................27 Analysis...................................................................................................................................................27 QueueAnalysis............................................................................................................................................30 Pedestrianand Bicycle Traffic.....................................................................................................................32 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................................32 Appendices Appendix A Traffic Count Data Appendix B Synchro LOS and Queue Reports Appendix C Traffic Volume Computations Appendix D Pre -Scope of Work Meeting Form Appendix E Cost Estimate Appendix F Generalized Development Plan Appendix G Traffic Signal Timing Plan 0 111troductioil Purpose This Traffic Impact Study has been prepared to support a rezoning request for the lands owned by the Blain and Cline families located in Clear Brook, Frederick County, VA. The rezoning, if approved, will lead to development that will create 50,000 GSF of industrial development and a gas market with 20 fueling positions on the Cline property, and 400,000 GSF of industrial development on the Blain property. The total area of the proposed project area is 149.9 acres. Study Objectives The objectives of this study are to identify: 1. Impacts on traffic operations that may result from the project. 2. Future connectivity to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Background Information Transportation Improvements Assumed to be in Place For the purposes of this study there are no transportation infrastructure improvements assumed to be in place prior to the completion of this development in 2025. Transportation Improvements Planned A review of the VDOT Six Year Improvement Plan shows that VDOT has no planned construction projects in the vicinity of this proposed rezoning. According to the Frederick County 2015/16-2020/21 Secondary Road Improvement Plan and the 2015/16-2020/21 Primary Road Improvement Plan, two planned roadway improvement projects are near the Blain and Cline properties. These are: Widening Martinsburg Pike to a six -lane divided highway from the NCL of Winchester to Cedar Hill Road (Primary Road priority 3B). It is assumed that this improvement will not be in place before the build -out year of 2025. Realignment of Brucetown Road at its intersection with Route 11 (Secondary Road priority 3). It is assumed that this improvement will not be in place before the build -out year of 2025. Development Description Site Location The subject property is located west of the unincorporated area of Clear Brook in Frederick County, VA. More specifically the site is west of 1-81, south of Cedar Hill Road, and north of Hopewell Road. Figure 1 shows the location of the property. Access to the site will occur via a developer -proposed new north - south road that will connect Cedar Hill Road and Hopewell Road. This north -south roadway will connect to Hopewell Road 870 feet west of the 1-81 southbound ramps and 658 feet from the end of the limited access line. Figure 1 Project Location Map (n.t.s.) Description of the Parcel The Blain and Cline properties for which this rezoning is requested encompass 149.9 acres with frontage along Hopewell Road and Cedar Hill Road. The land also adjoins the 1-81 right-of-way. The terrain is gently rolling and the land is currently farmed. The properties lie within the Frederick County Sewer and Water Service Area. General Terrain Features The site and surrounding areas are gently rolling with slopes that drain to the east. Interstate 81 runs north -south on the east side of the property, Cedar Hill Road runs east -west along the northern side, and Hopewell Road east -west along the south side. Location within Jurisdiction and Region The subject property is located in the Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, VA. C • Comprehensive Plan Recomtnendations The 2030 Frederick County Comprehensive Plan identifies the future land use on the site to be a mixture of business and industrial. Surrounding properties are designated as industrial to the north, business to the east and south, and rural/agricultural to the west. Figure 2 shows the Northeast Frederick County Land Use Plan in the vicinity of the rezoning area. Figure 2 Future Land Use map (n.t.s.) Current Zoning The current zoning on the property is RA (Rural Agriculture) and the property is being used for agricultural purposes. The current land uses and zoning for the surrounding properties to the north, south and west is Rural/Agricultural. To the east is 1-81 with multiple businesses beyond 1-81. The existing zoning is shown on the map in figure 3. 0 • Figure 3 Existing Zoning Map (n.t.s.) Study Area Description Study Area For the purposes of this Traffic Impact Study, the study extends from Cedar Hill road on the north to Hopewell Road on the south, and from Martinsburg Pike on the east to Welftown Pike on the west. There are no additional major intersections within 2000 feet of the site. Figure 4 shows the locations of the intersections being studied and the existing roadways near the site. Figure 4 Location of Study Intersections • s Proposed incd Existing Uses Existing Use The property is currently used for agricultural purposes. Proposed Uses & Access The generalized proposed uses for the property are: Blain — Industrial Park (ITE land use 130) which will include a mix of manufacturing, service, and warehouse facilities with a diversified mix of small and large facilities. Cline - Industrial Park (ITE land use 130) which will include a mix of manufacturing, service, and warehouse facilities with a diversified mix of small and large facilities. Gas/Service Station with Convenience Market (ITE land use 945) which will include up to 20 fueling positions. A plan of the proposed development at an engineering scale is included in Appendix F of this report. Access to the properties will be through commercial entrances connecting to the developer -proposed north -south roadway. This north -south roadway will connect to Hopewell Road and Cedar Hill Road. Since 1-81 exit 321 is a short distance from where the north -south roadway will connect to Hopewell Road, it has been assumed that all traffic will access the site from Hopewell Road, Nearby Uses The existing land uses near the proposed site are: • North —agricultural land that is zoned Rural/Agricultural. • West — agricultural land that is zoned Rural/Agricultural. • South —agricultural land that is zoned Rural/Agricultural. • East - 1-81 and commercial entities beyond 1-81. Existing Roadways Figures 1 and 4 show the locations of the existing roadways near the subject property. The typical sections for these roadways are as follows: Table 1 Existing Roadway Attributes Number of Lane Width 1 0 ,= Welltown Pike 2 12 Gravel, variable width Minor Collector Hopewell Road 2 12 in interchange Gravel, variable width Minor Collector area; 11 elsewhere Route 11 Martinsburg 2 thru lanes w/ 12 Gravel, variable width Major Collector Pike left turn lanes at Hopewell & Brucetown Brucetown Road 2 11 Gravel, variable width Minor Collector Cedar Hill Road 2 11 Gravel, variable width Minor Collector 5 Future Transportation hnprovements The subject property is located in the Virginia Department of Transportation's Staunton District, and Edinburg Residency area of responsibility. A review of the VDOT Six -Year Improvement Plan showed there are no roadway improvement projects planned in the vicinity of this rezoning. According to the Frederick County's 2015/16-2020/21 Secondary Road Improvement Plan and the 2015/16-2020/21 Primary Road Improvement Plan, two planned roadway improvement projects are near the Blain + Cline properties. These are: • Widening Martinsburg Pike to a six -lane divided highway from the NCL of Winchester to Cedar Hill Road (Primary Road priority 3B). It is assumed that this improvement will not be in place before the build -out year of 2025. • Realignment of Brucetown Road at its Intersection with Route 11 (Secondary Road priority 3). It is assumed that this improvement will not be in place before the build -out year of 2025. 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Data Collection To analyze the existing traffic conditions, peak hour turning movement counts were performed in April and May, 2015 at the following intersections: • 1-81 SB ramps and Hopewell Road • 1-81 NB ramps and Hopewell Road • Martinsburg Pike and Hopewell Road • Martinsburg Pike and Brucetown Road • Martinsburg Pike and Cedar Hill Road. Stonewall Elementary School is just over 1 mile from the access to the proposed development. Care was taken to collect traffic data while school was in session to achieve an accurate representation of traffic operations. A count at the intersection of Welltown Pike and Hopewell Road was requested by VDOT during the project scoping meeting. This count data was collected in July, 2015. Since this intersection 2.6 miles from the Stonewall Elementary School and the impact of school traffic at this intersection is not anticipated, it was agreed that the count could proceed without school in session. During subsequent observations of traffic operations, the percentage of trucks in the traffic flow was recognized as being high in some intersection movements. To quantify this condition, classified peak hour traffic counts were collected at the following intersections where large volumes of trucks were observed: • 1-81 SB ramps and Hopewell Road • 1-81 NB ramps and Hopewell Road • Martinsburg Pike and Hopewell Road • Martinsburg Pike and Brucetown Road 6 0 The resulting truck percentages are presented in table 2. Count data are included in Appendix A of this report. Intersection Rte 11/Hopewell Rd %T Rte 11/Brucetown Rd %T 81 NB ramps/Hopewell Rd %T 81 SB ramps/Hopewell Rd %T Rte 11/Hopewell Rd %T Rte 11/Brucelown Rd %T 81 NB ramps/Hopewell Rd %T 81 SB ramps/Hopewell Rd %T Table 2 Truck Percentages from Count Data AM Peak Hour SB SB SB WB WB WB NB NB NB EB EB EB Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lett Thru Right 3 8 11 9 13 5 3 11 9 20 10 22 22 33 13 8 7 13 5 13 1 8 PM Peak Hour 5 5 11 2 7 2 4 5 8 6 2 7 4 12 13 10 . 8 3 2 2 3 9 1 4 A 24-hour count was conducted at the intersection of Hopewell Road and the 1-81 NB ramps. This data is also included in Appendix A. A `k' factor was applied to the PM peak hour volumes to obtain the average annual daily traffic (AADT). The following W factors were obtained from the VDOT Daily Traffic Volume Estimates for 2014. Table 3 V Factors E Martinsburg Pike 0.090 i _ _ _ Welltow_Pike __ _ _ 0.156 I Hopewell Road (Welltown Pike to 1-81)--- ;_ 0,126 Hopewell Road (1-81 to Route 11)M _------- _—_ __ I — 0.099 I Brucetown Road !_ 0.089 _ LI _81 N i I-815 j 0.093 j A V factor was not reported for Cedar Hill Road in the VDOT Daily Traffic Volume Estimates for 2014. Analysis The existing AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro 9.1 traffic modeling software. The locations of the study intersections are shown in figure 4, the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in figure 5, the existing lane geometry and levels of service are shown in figure 6, and the modeling results (levels of service and delays) are shown in tabular form in Tables 4 through 10. 7 Due to the configuration of the traffic signal at Route 11/Hopewell Road/Brucetown Road and the limitations of the Synchro model software, the HCS 2000 signalized routine was used.to evaluate this intersection. The left turn movements from Hopewell Road and Brucetown Road operate at a level of service E and F respectively in the PM peak hour. This is due to the intersection being offset with no turn lanes and the signalization operating in a split phase, thereby increasing the delays and resulting in the poor levels of service. Intersection improvements at this intersection are planned by Frederick County as mentioned in the Future Transportation Improvements section of this report. 8 0 0 :F $ L— 7(R1) 1 I L. 3 i + 4315(') I ... _ NW H Rd �r #1 e 0 .— 29 (a2) �J I I j I I 86 (93) NoptwtRRe (� NopewHlRd 531921 28(25) Eno J L L 0 (0) 210l �6(I) ae.. xw Re 7(6)� I I r N g 40122)—1 s" 2 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 3� a S0197) NORrwNlRtl NOX Ot Rd (217191 S L 42 (91) 105 (151) Hopewell Rd 96(91) Figure 5 2015 Existing Year Peak Hour Volumes 9 3 8(B) NopewNl Rd ?i 3 IMPewell Rd i I e A (A) 4 Hopewell Rd Hopewell Rd HpprweN Rd _ Rd �e I E A (A) 2 P o; m 2 a +1 I I «� e(el Qdns Hid Rd •71_. I0 .......... I Woodside Rd B(B)—+ .p e 1I a g� t f AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) _ _ V C 1 L FDIF) r+ S a a a Figure 6 2015 Existing Year Level of Service and Lane Configuration In • • Table 4 Level of Service and Delays - Welltown Pike and Hopewell Road 1. Welltown Plke and Hopewell Road - level of Stnke Pn nl bvem,nl EY Algr mch Srenaa l05 Fanbnund wnrbounI Northbound Sotnhhovnd LT 111 Ri LT TIi 0.T lT TH AT LT TII fll AM Peck Hour B !01!' (10 21 li.il [mmg a (10 7) A R.31 2025 0 Auk gtound(no (10.31 r21 buddl B (10 3) !.(2 0- B A 102S nn 71 I 12 31 bvdd ovl 1)(10.7) '.i1 3) 7.925 0 Bd dd out n/ jbl.7) (2 3? IMPROVEMENTS 1.00.71 A fl 2631 Design (,09) I (i.3? Year 0 (109) I v(2.11 PM Peak Hour 0 v 101S (1051 1251 En+tml r 0I1051 202F• I e Background (no (10.41 build) 6(104) _ n(2 '•) 2025 I (2hS1 OuJd out 8111./! I nla !•! 2025• ❑ L-L W."out v/ p1.1) I (2A.5) IMPP.Ou[MENTS BI11.21 .,(I SI --- D A 2G31Onign 111.41 (2 5) Yes1 B j 11.1) A (2.51 Table 5 Level of Service and Delays -Alfalfa Drive and Hopewell Road 2. Alfalfa Lane and Hopewell Road l evel or Suvke D er IAovemen, by A PP, a,Ih Sa.erag Wfavina /"hl 5rmann I.vS FklhounA Wnthound I:n,hFonnd Soarhrinlrnd LT TM RT LT TA I RI LT TH RT lT 7H ftT AM Peak Hour '.915 E"Hurg 3035 0aderovnd(no OuiN) 202S D A BUdd our (erTl (]03) (t 6) aptl A(99) 2025 n A 11 Eb 0 A 6ul9Uo al (e a) IMPROYEI.IFN15 A(91j Bpi F) .(9.9) (A1 !D.5) 8 6) (eA d20310nign 0(1051 (9.3) (9AI) B 2,1(10 Yet, O(115) l r.(97) DM Da ak Ilour lots Ea46,g 2015 Ba:Sg,oun6(no Budd) p t A 2015 17 g (le.l) le el BwN out A(1.6) C(16 g) 2025 B 0 A B 0 Oulid out a/ I i(19.2) 110.41 11.5) _ (9.81 (Il b) (1t.6) (Lai IM!•ROVFMEIIT) A(11.2) 0(, 1.3) 0(_S 6) 0 20310r+lgn C(I,.S) p011 (1 3 Ye(A S) B pl sl 0(11.3) o he +) 11 ►I • Table 6 Level of Service and Delays —1-81 SB Lanes and Hopewell Road 3.1-815B ramps and Hopewell Road lnd 9: sf rnc, elr Mo..onenl �f ,;ro/e,.h a.m,N° Ln5 olleo,nn wr,.twmd r:waeo„a __ se"n.r„; Tn I RT I LT hn Rt LT T,i PT LT 11. AT tT T AM 1111Ilw, 2015 I. B A(L .'.j 811151 1025 B a,ft:—M(no (5 11 (11.61 A (a 1) B (I t61 B7• 1•,dl) 20 is WJ (..A') (1 .U7 31 a uA 3) B wI :ols W Ud d��l'A/ P(1091 I 19 ,) B (119) B 110'1 IMRROI, B(1031 ?O7Te,1 Onyx C1110) : ,. (951 A I1 i.21 �_ 3 IIU S) Ale 51 o112.t1 8110.61 PM NO Itw/ 20)5 II1E f ndt A IL OI I025I�_ oar. T I T Bouq I_ Ap7) C115.e) zots 19.71 _ _�I c 171 )1 — d A (..71 C12731 2025 W iY wlnj B(I3.d1 I15 !) I� 0 111.91 C I103) morn"EMCK15 C (15 e) I L (11 91 8110 31 2071 Detgn Y"I B,)9 1) C (16 61 0 112.31 I B (,J 51 CI]E 61 — e11I 11 I Table 7 Level of Service and Delays —1-81 NB Lanes and Hopewell Road 4. 1-81 NB ramps and Hopewell Road I'll or ,.rvu ,n n. M•'vartvs Lr.,,,l I�Tur n to<Nehl Li,li�owtd Nn 60N1d AnmOoix.J S—hb—.d Sc,n„u LOS LI i11 Ol lT TH AT LT TH AT I lT M 01 AM R„k Ho•+, e 2015 11 11 (10 7) I-- >h 7) aUoU lots A A �) 6,;L(r�,oa lot p.Jt 19.91 A(991 A C I :ots (2 71 6tn'd L :. (1.•I cUs sl 201-e A 1(100) ] Gild Sul w/ .(IOU, 19.71 11 5) Ap 71 F (9.51 I MDPt7vLMW75 A n B :0!10„%n d 10.1 A 19 i) AIS?) d(107) n B F-nby A (0.9) 8111 01 072 A I 0 6+36,0e.td l- (]7) Ill tl n(3.31 B(11 tl W/d) A D O dd Jut A (6.7) 0127.91 102! e b B bi,N uv�w/ Bil i::) 119.61 (11.3; 111.) 311361 6(11.3) njun) IA1PPi'�E,+IFNTS B 3 R 2031 Oc,ip� ar 1 (I1.71 (le t) III B) 111 )) 12 • i Table 8 Level of Service and Delays - Route 11 and Hopewell Road S. Routo 11 and Hopewell Road la'•.1 nl3.rck. fw, Inrvrnn�.'K A?y. ,.<I. O�er19 _ r:14Yn,if.�•r1.! $«n,rN 1 (rt EnlAnn�J I Wrf•hcuT1 Ik.:..A.1M y n•�hrv.urw ___.. LT TH l RT IT Tn Ri lT TN Ri I LT TM RT AM P..S It.., b B C I A `015 tits bl 11661 1191) 1:311 '71 Lnu 4 :or D 8•Jv'na (IB (C 61 (A3) Law) Crr771 Af0.1! 1025 8(1751 1575! Ili r1 na) 111 l' 7C out 1025 0 --�--- b 11191) C 5.sl"w/ B(173) (S75) I (=1) 111 I1.iDPGI'[NL11T5 0(57.51 I CIt151 Ar07) 0 C C B b tl O A .. 1J71 Dn�In t('adi (3711 i2091 (21.51 (•B 5) (T7!I (7531 (11. 1671 16.1! C 17Y 71 CI]]BI -- t110 d1 A(A 3! PIA P.A Hwr 1015 D(409) E - ' I I p 11651 11791 ;. (7) EJfun( (71.1) CI`5.7) A(0I) --70'e5 b C I. a,cs(roundlne C129)) (601 I15)1 1:941 111 hwld! F(6001 C(IC :) r.(03) ( B C - I n 7075 (l33 31 (67 71 Il r. Ir IJO I dI 171 BuNnV, E;6111 C1: 55i A 10 31 1025 [ t C A B,nU o.l .•/ '. (77 31 (Fl tl (16 �) I70 BI 111 IMPAG'.Tr,EMS E(A Z.11 C(l.`.51 A 10 31 C i C B r C C 70f10tl•6n ;(75.31 176 s) 17151 (708) 1513) (796) I7: 11 i7E ]) 171 a) I15:1 145.1 11E 5) (771) Y111' - C177B) Cni.1; C(7111 C(1631 ' nellen Yl results are based on the ultimate des(8n Improvements as planned by Frederick County , Table 9 Level of Service and Delays -Route 11 and Brucetown Road 6, Route 11 and Brucetown Road ler4 nl s.. u Pe: Nurn en. }r AFgrn In O-...4 (414Y n I.r/7eA1 5«tarp lJ5 En... -I a rih wr.4 I.a ha<•r4 $n•Nh4unA lr T:1 PT IT 111 PT IT TH PT lT TM PT AM /.A Now 0 A [ .015 C(211) (40 ]) (7) (71) v C.l1ur� 0(4001 A1r, 5) I C(1B 3) 1n75 0 I c C 0„Jtrcun.'Ino Cf. 25) 1.6BI (71 (2L61 (50.1) Lu 10 0(r66) C C 1075 I 08, (`5) (71 IT')I (308) r w - DNBa) cl7o.) 1025 ° ! c Buel. r•v, w/ ! (]3.51 116!) (30A1 IMPRO:•EMEIf15 D(rR.1 A107) 1177.31 IOII Onyn I -�41 PM P..k If- r A - t c :0'_a 0 (37.9) 1127. t1 ( /1 1761 13l r) U-'s I(.716) nro C I 31 B ' r 2025 _ F A I 7D 314a1r01rn40. C1: 3.6) (0141 141 (2R51 (3)7) o.,el F(614) A(O 41 D156 d) E 0 ]01!• C113,51 (79.51 141 119.71 (59.7) Be n ou E 1795) AIC •) L(Sd 81 2026 w turd M1+rj L1) 179`139:1 IMPAOVEM lid 9) Yrlr • see table 8 for ultimate de118n results ' 13 0 Table 10 Level of Service and Delays —Route 11 and Cedar Hill Road/Woodside Road 7. Route 11 and Cedar hllll Road/Woodside Road lC•t 5a CP A pr, It 5grrrb Ova 11 �: fatlMUAd Y.rtlbovrvl I.a lntq„nl I hulniaenc 11 1 T)1 I RT l] T11 PT _ lT I Trl AT I IT Di AT AM Peak 11— :Ol! B 0 11La1 IIT b) (: Y) Ll BIf081 '1(1'5) (1 I l Olp70]5 7F%rwnd(o I hwei C(10.7) GJ']nl I tll.11 A(7:') d B (1T. 91 0 A A I B no 7l I B()18TI All )) bi1025 ovl 1075 G��kI MA w/ lenPkOvlla[rR5 I (1091 B(109) IIr 9) 12.11 I.11 5(A I.9) A(1.31 A(01) 03It, Yra. PM Peak llow_ ]ol! _ B IW 71 B (131) IJ Gn ^'7 01107) 7075 0 I B ^ ba.4ptovnd (rn 111.11 (12 51 1 `- bved) 6n1.11 0(12.51 All 0) A(03) B 0 a A 1015 (72.61 (%. 91 _131 GvdA non B(11.11 e1,76) A1191 to `) ]075 B B A 0vAd bit 1.11 0"1 b) All 1; n(0.31 IMrPoll7A1r115 10v nn.6., Yer. ' — oue to the number of Ihrouph lanes on Route 11, Synchro cannot Gva luale the desf2n yr conditions 14 • • 2025 Background (No -Build) Traffic Conditions Background traffic conditions are those that are expected to occur without the proposed rezoning. These traffic conditions were established by increasing the existing 2015 traffic volume by 1.0% per year to the build -out year of 2025. The growth factor of 1.0% was determined by VDOT Staunton District Planning staff and is based on the historical and anticipated growth in traffic volumes in the project area. The 2025 Background AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro 9.1 traffic modeling software. The AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 7 and the lane geometry and level of service are shown in Figure 8. Tile modeling results (levels of service and delay) are tabulated in Tables 4 through 10. Analysis As in the existing year analysis, the left turn movements from Hopewell Road and Brucetown Road operate at a level of service E and F respectively in the PM peak hour. This is due to the intersection being offset with no turn lanes and the signalization operating in a split phase, thereby increasing the delays and resulting in the poor levels of service. Intersection improvements at this location are planned by Frederick County as mentioned In the Future Transportation Improvements section of this report. 15 t8 (45) 1 L� I j— 47 (62) i rNopewRU Rd q S r I L r 95(103) Mop�wlY Rd __ NopeweNRd 591102) —� 31(2a) —i i FN I I L s Is, �1 1 4 � •--. 515) r 7151 Cedw HIM Rd I 441241-1 9 � m 31 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) H.w—R Rd 891129) —+ I 12(59) _t r 106(101)— S � w t..- 2 (32) 1 L 1271128) Figure 7 2025 Background Year Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1e 9 Trip Generation 8L Distribution Trii) Generation Trip generation for the project uses was developed using Trip Gen 2014 software based on the 9`h edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The peak traffic volumes on the adjacent streets for the AM and PM periods were used for forecasting the new traffic. Land uses and trips generated are summarized In the table on the following page. Eight percent of the new traffic associated with the Industrial Park land use is assumed to be trucks based on the ITE Trip Generation Handbook data. Pass -by trip reductions account for site trips drawn from the existing traffic stream on an adjacent street, recognizing that trips drawn to the site would otherwise already be on the adjacent street regardless of the development's existence. Pass -by trip reduction allows a percentage reduction in the trips associated with retail uses. Pass -by rates were obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Manual in accordance with the VDOT Administrative Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations, Nov. 2014. The trips generated and the pass -by trip reduction computations are shown in the Trip Generation report on the following page. Trii) Disti-ibution Trips generated by the development were assigned to the roadway network based on proximity to logical transportation corridors, access to 1-81, and commuter patterns. The proximity of 1-81 to the site's southern connection to Hopewell Road, and the understanding that a majority of new trips will be associated with 1-81, lead to the assignment of all trips to the Hopewell Road access point. The trip distribution percentages are shown in figure 9 and the assignment of the new AM and PM peak hour and pass -by trips are shown in figures 10 and 11. 18 Trip Generation Summary Altemative: Blain + Cline Combined Rezoning Phase: Project: Blain + Cline Rezoning Open Date: 8/23/2015 Analysis Date: 8/23/2015 Weekday Average Daily Trips Weekday AM Peak Hour of Weekday PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Adjacent Street Traffic ITE Land Use Enter Exit Total * Enter Exit Total * Enter Exit Total 130 Blain Industrial land 1366 1366 2732 231 51 282 72 270 342 400 Gross Floor Area 1000 SF 130 Cline Indiustrial lands 171 171 342 45 10 55 14 55 69 50 Gross Floor Area 1000 SF 945 Cline Gas Market land 1628 1628 3256 102 101 203 135 135 270 20 Vehicle Fueling Positions Unadjusted Volume 3165 3165 6330 378 162 540 221 460 681 Internal Capture Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -By Trips 0 0 0 63 63 126 76 76 152 Volume Added to Adjacent Streets 3165 3165 6330 315 99 414 145 384 529 Total Weekday Average Daily Trips Internal Capture = 0 Percent Total Weekday AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Internal Capture = 0 Percent Total Weekday PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Internal Capture = 0 Percent * - Custom rate used for selected time period. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition, 2012 TRIP GENERATION 2014, TRAFFICWARE, LLC 19 P. 1 !I 46 • 0 t-2(9) I 4 I 3� 12 (46) �----NaW�wtll Rd r r T 7 0 m 145167) ..I l L. N 11 Rd ® Nopewetl Rd 461177) 40 (3S4) e N T s .1lL. �- cedor wR Re Nbadfid[Rd `err L 2711125) j 4 ~ !Wp—*Rd au1 m —1 ^m L NaRr W Rd _ ® .. NUReweR REI 40(154) I r r 6 (23) a 2 b �I wKSNnvnRd rr Figure 10 New Trip Assignment AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 21 • ;w �42, Ln t— +54 (+65) f r— -54 (-65) Hopewell Rd Hopewell Rd Figure 11 Bypass Trips AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 2025 Build -out Conditions The 2025 build -out conditions combine the background traffic for the year 2025, and the new traffic that is forecasted to result from the development of this property. This is commonly referred to as the "Build Condition" which is forecasted to occur in the year 2025. dim lysis The 2025 Build Condition AM and PM peak hour turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro 9.1 traffic modeling software. The AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 12, and the lane geometry and level of service are shown in Figure 13. The modeling results (levels of service and delay) are tabulated in Tables 4 through 10. As with the no-build/background year analysis, the left turn movements from Hopewell Road and Brucetown Road continue to operate at a failing level of service in the PM peak hour. This is due to the intersection being offset with no turn lanes and the signalization operating in a split phase thereby increasing the delays and resulting in the poor levels of service. Intersection improvements at this location are planned by Frederick County as mentioned in the Future Transportation Improvements section of this report. The impact from the new traffic generated by the proposed development has a negligible effect on the left turn delay from Hopewell Road to Route 11 NB, which remains at a LOS of F. The impact from the new traffic generated by the proposed development increases the left turn delay by about 20 seconds for the Brucetown Road left turns onto Route 11 SB, which remains at a LOS of F. 22 • • �n r 10(s3) iggt a 6 3` IC n R, $ 177 (257) i I I L� 95(103) �I Rd ` ' XopeweR Rd 101(na1 —. I 711191) --� r a jI In iIt 1 + Rn� 92 (123) 70 (94) � e c n t— 5 IS) S(S) j— 7(s) Cadpr HIM Rd Woad i* Rd 44 (22)--; g N AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) t•-- 325(190) .-- 1 (42) rwra Rd •J ly Nop. L- 46 (101) �- 235(17S) Moaewep ad I 52 (212) r r 112 (124)— gf � e t--- 2 1321 l 127 (129) MRelownRd e � Figure 12 2025 Build out Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 23 �1 9 3 Hopewell Rd 3 3 �e �J o Ip •�A(A) .I 4 SI a g HoprwNl Rd b I I D (E) Ilki m u u a d a Cedar HRI Rd 0 Woodvde Rd fL �al B lel—� y g a AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) � a o 7 � Ia .J L Hopewell Rd Hopewell Rd (A)A x HopeweRRd HopeweRRd A (A) cl u Figure 13 2025 Build Out Lane Configurations and Level of Service 24 0 • Recornme>nded Roadway Improvements Due to the relatively light traffic volumes on Hopewell Road, the impacts resulting from new traffic this project generates can be mitigated efficiently and effectively. Special attention has been given to the delay and queue on the 1-81 ramps at Hopewell Road to see that traffic continues to operate safely and efficiently in these locations. To mitigate impacts, traffic signals were initially considered at the 1-81 ramp intersections. However, the signal warrant analysis revealed that none of the warrants were met for the NB ramps, which is where the highest traffic volume is. Therefore, alternatives to traffic signals were introduced for consideration. A 3-way stop control was found to provide efficient traffic operations with a high level of service at the intersection of Hopewell Road and the 1-81 ramps, as well as at the intersection of Alfalfa Lane and Hopewell Road. Even though the all -way stop controls provide a high level of service and do not generate a lengthy queue on the 1-81 ramps, they should be considered a temporary measure and should not be installed until warranted. The Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices, criteria for multi -way stop signs, should be consulted to determine when the signs are warranted. At the intersection of Route 11/Hopewell Road/Brucetown Road and on Route 11 improvements are being planned by Frederick County. No additional improvements are being proposed with this project. It is recommended that participation in the County's intersection improvement project be considered by Blain and Cline. At the intersection of Alfalfa Lane and Hopewell Road a WB left turn lane and a EB right turn lane are proposed to provide safe and efficient traffic operations. A SB left turn lane is also proposed. The lengths of proposed turn lanes are shown in Table 11. With the Improvements being proffered by this developer, and the improvements planned by the County, it is the opinion of this engineer that the transportation impacts of this rezoning and its resulting development are both manageable and acceptable for this project setting. The levels of service resulting with these improvements in place are shown in figure 14. 25 .J 4 ~ A (A) M*..fNAd (6) A —r (a) A --� a � •� Biel soAOPArTN Ad 0 HOP-0 Ad (D) A 8 o u u Iu 4 J D (E) �V srMKRww Ad T I� 4 It3 'gegr� 7- �— B(B) c dW #0 Rd 0 MOW* ad Figure 24 LOS and Lane Configuration with Improvements proffered by Blain and Cline AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 26 • Design Year (2031) The design year for the project is six years beyond the Build Conditions of the project, which in this case is the year 2031. It is assumed that the improvements documented in Frederick County's 2015/16- 2020/21 Secondary Road Improvement Plan and the 2015/16-2020/21 Primary Road Improvement Plan listed earlier in this report, will be in place by the design year. These improvements include widening Route 11 to 3-lanes in each direction, and realignment of Brucetown Road to Hopewell Road with the necessary turn lanes. Analysis The 2031 Design Year AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro 9.1 traffic modeling software. AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 15, and the lane geometry and level of service are shown in Figure 16. The modeling results (levels of service and delay) are tabulated in Tables 4 through 10. For the purposes of this study and to present a worst case scenario per VDOT, protected phase left turn lanes are shown for all approaches at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and Hopewell/Brucetown Road. At the time the engineering design of the improvements is undertaken, the designer should reevaluate the turning movements to see If protected left turn lanes are needed for all approaches. 27 a • �r 10(54) 1 L r 62 (107) H4RrweMRd tr . 4 s H T O 179(1S9) I I r 101(124) 108(282) —+ 72 (277) --� L 325(190) I I •J ly 4(40) HopeWfN ad (85) 53 --T (64) 86 I 2 ml L 49 (98) �--- 142 090) HopewrRRd Hop—W Rd 59(198) , t r 119 (134)—� m S i m �-N fig^ L2(341 67(75) 68 (54) NWwRRd Brvntown Rd 26 (76)y t r 62 (77) — S T n 74(91)--1 e N B L sfs) + 1. •— sfs) �7(5) CttlM Ilia Rtl 8(9)—j 1 r 5 (5) ---. 4 47 (26)--1 w Figure 15 Design Year Z031 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 28 • 0 E E I� m �m m p •� B(e) Npa»rdad i . I Npprw<R Rd A (L) �• e b� AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) a 4 G q m L 8I8) NoptrYll Rd �; ® A (A) —•-- 0 Nap—fi Rd IB)A (8) A Z A (B) I NppewellRd__ _ __ ® � 1 A(B) —S. t �I S. • Queue Analysis At a signalized intersection a queue forms while vehicles wait to advance. An analysis was performed to evaluate the back of the queue for the 95th percentile of the queue. The 95th percentile maximum queue is the maximum back of queue with 95th percentile traffic volumes when traffic does not move for two signal cycles. The queues associated with the 951h percentile maximum queue are shown in Table 11. As traffic volumes increase over time, the queue associated with left turning movements will increase as will the queue associated with the thru- movement that opposes the left turn movement. This is reflected in the Design Year analysis. Table 11 95th Percentile Queues 1. Welltown Pike and Hopewell Road I 9Sth Pareendia Quew Length (R) Movemem Storage Length Available or E.I1 ing Conditions (2015) Pr Died M1 No Build (2025) Build.. Imp—rnenll (2025) Design Year 120311 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM WO LT AT 10 (14) 7 (13) 9 (25) 10 (25) NBRTTH taper 0 0 SB LT TH 3 (1) 2 (1) 3 (11 3 (21 2. Alfalfa Lana and Hopewell Road ES LT 200 S (5) a is) EBTH 13 (25) 13 (28) WORT 250 65 1361 65 (40) WB TH 0 (8) 0 (a) SO LT 300 18 r (188) 1O • (190) SB RT 10 r (a) 10 (8) 3. "l SO Lanes and Hopewell Road CB AT TH RT IaP, 0 () 0 I) 25 (123) 26 (133) WS LT TH 6 (6) 6 (7) 55 (53) 58 (58) SO LT TH AT 0.T leper 18 16) 13 (19) 35 23 39 (25) 4. 1-81 NB Lanes and Hopewell Road CB LT TH ] (4) 1 (A) 25 (701 35 1B5) Wit AT TH RT taper 0 0 0 Q 2a • (53) 1 2B (58) No IT TH RT RT taper 8 (25) 7 (361 33 (33 30 (35 S. Route 31 and Hopewell Road EB LT AT 1.a9 I1a71 181 (203) 195 1224) NO LT ]00 27 (771 31 197) 36 (1011 NSTH 114 (3Aa) 326 14e51 126 1494) SBRTTH 0 I 0 0 566 Route 11 and No well/Brucetown Rd Uldroate Design EB LT 250200 32 (76) ES TH 56 (62) ES AT 250 0 1) We LT 250 65 (64) WS TH 61 (80) WORT 250 0 () I NB LT 250 43 (120) NO TH 21 (3361 NO AT 250 0 () 56 LT 25o I 23 021 SB TH :so 30 (1321 SO AT 0 () 6. Route 11 and Brucetown Road WO AT LT —[—]al (1A21 156 (136) 156 (i!1) No TH AT 1 () 3 139) 0 fail SO LT 1. la (11) 17 d51 17 Its) SBTH 222 (1941 217 222 256 7. Route 11 and Cedar Hill Road/Woilddde Road NB LT TH 1 (a) 1 (3) 1 13) ' NB AT TH 0 Q 0 () 0 Q SO LT TH AT 0 Q 0 () 0 () Ea LT TN AT 8 (6) B (5) B 151 weLT THAT 3 (11 3 (31 3 (31 • Due to the number of lanes on Route 11 Synchro cannot evaluate the dnlgn yar candKI ns. 200 M1.LT and AT lanes have been modeled on NO and 58 Route 11 Note: AWSC queue is based on 25' vehicle and gap spacing. 30 Pedestrian and Bicycle 'Traffic To identify any previously planned pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities in the project area, the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan was reviewed. The plan does not show any planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities near the project area. However, the developer is proposing to construct a 10' multi -use trail parallel to the new north -south connector road. All trails will be planned to accommodate future extensions beyond the boundaries of the development. Conclusions and Recommendatioi►Is This Traffic Impact Study has been prepared to support a rezoning request for the Blain and Cline properties located west of Clear Brook in Frederick County, VA. The generalized proposed uses for the property are: Blain — Industrial Park (ITE land use 130) which will include a mix of manufacturing, service, and warehouse facilities with a diversified mix of small and large facilities. Cline - Industrial Park (ITE land use 130) which will include a mix of manufacturing, service, and warehouse facilities with a diversified mix of small and large facilities. Gas/Service Station with Convenience Market (ITE land use 945) which will include up to 20 fueling positions. Both properties are currently used for agricultural purposes. Access to the properties will be through commercial entrances connecting to the developer -proposed north -south roadway named Alfalfa Lane. Alfalfa Lane will run from Hopewell Road to Cedar Hill Road. For the purposes of this study, it has been assumed that all new traffic will enter and exit the site from Hopewell Road. Interstate-81 exit 321 is approximately 870 ft. from where Alfalfa Lane will connect to Hopewell Road. Therefore, 80% of the new traffic associated with this site is assumed to be coming from or going to 1-81. A minimal amount of new traffic will pass through the intersection of Route 11 with Hopewell and Brucetown Roads. The left turn movements from Hopewell and Brucetown Roads have a level of service of E and F respectively in the PM peak hour under existing conditions. Traffic volumes In these intersections will Increase by 32 trips in the PM peak hour at full build -out of this project, raising the total trips in these intersections from 1014 to 1046. Fredrick County has prioritized a project to realign this intersection to improve traffic flow. It has been assumed that the projects proposed by the County for this intersection and Route 11 will be in place by the design year 2031. 31 i i Some minimal degradation in the level of service at the 1-81 ramps was recognized in the traffic modeling for the full build -out and design years of the project. Interim measures are proposed to mitigate this impact by installing all -way stop controls when warranted at the following intersections: • Hopewell Road and Alfalfa Lane • Hopewell Road and 1-81 SB ramps • Hopewell Road and 1-81 NB ramps Longer term improvements include signalization of the ramp termini intersections when warranted. At the intersection of Alfalfa Lane and Hopewell Road a WB left turn lane and a EB right turn lane are proposed to provide safe and efficient traffic operations. A SB left turn lane is also proposed. With the improvements proffered by this developer and the improvements planned by Frederick County for Route 3.1 and the Route II/Hopewell Road/Brucetown Road intersection, it is the opinion of this engineer that the transportation impacts of this rezoning and its resulting development are both manageable and acceptable for this project setting. 32 s • 0 0 REZONING APPLICATION #02-16 I-81 WEST BUSINESS PARK Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: March 2, 2016 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director John Bishop, AICP, Assistant Director — Transportation Reviewed Action PlanIIing Commission: 03/16/16 Pending Board of Supervisors: 04/13/16 Pending PROPOSAL: Rezoning #02-16 for I-81 WEST BUSINESS PARK submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 36.676 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B-2 (Business General District), 45.453 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B-3 (Industrial Transition) District and 73.360 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to M-1(Light Industrial) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The properties are located on the west side of Interstate 81 between Cedar Hill Road (Rt. 671) and Hopewell Road (Rt. 672). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 03/16/16 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This is an application to rezone a total of 155.489 acres of land from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the 132, B3 and M 1 Districts with proffers, to accommodate commercial and industrial uses. The property is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). In general, the proposed land use designations for these properties is consistent with the current land uses supported by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. With this rezoning, the Applicant has proffered that this project will contribute to transportation improvements in the vicinity of the property. However, it should be noted that the proffered collector roadway does not accommodate the ultimate goals of the Comprehensive Plan regarding right-of-way width or road design. Items such as turn lanes at the intersections will also need to be addressed. In addition, the Applicant has not proffered right -of' -way for the future frontage road to accommodate the split interchange that is part of the Eastern Road Plan. Staff would also suggest that increased flexibility be built into the signalization profilers to allow for potential conversion to a cash proffer. VDOT had significant comments on the applicant's TIA and the applicant has submitted a response and revisions. However, updated comments from VDOT have not been submitted by the Applicant so staff is unable to determine if their concerns have been satisfied at this time. Confirmation of file transportation issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to a recommendation by the Planning Commission. Folloiving the required public hearing, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of'Supervisors would he appropriate. The applicant should he prepared to adequately mhlress all concerns raised Gy the Planning commission. 0 0 Rezoning #02-16 I-81 West Business Park March 2, 2016 Page 2 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff'report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 03/16/16 Pending Board of Supervisors: 04/13/16 Pending PROPOSAL: Rezoning #02-16 for I-81 West Business Park submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 36.676 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B-2 (Business General District), 45.453 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B-3 (Industrial Transition) District and 73.360 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to M-1(Light Industrial) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The properties are located on the west side of Interstate 81 between Cedar Hill Road (Rt. 671) and Hopewell Road (Rt. 672). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 33-A-113, 33-A-124, and 33-A-114B PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District PRESENT USE: Agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Residential and Agricultural South: RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Residential and Agricultural East: RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Residential and Agricultural West: RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Residential, Church, I-81 0 • Rezoning 1/02-16 1-81 West Business Park March 2, 2016 Page 3 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: Please see the attached letter from Matthew B. Smith, P.E. Fire Marshal: Plans Approved. Public Works Department: Recommend approval Frederick Comity Sanitation Authority: Please see attached letterfi•om Eric R. L(m,rence, Executive Director dated January 19, 2016. Frederick County Attorney: Please sec attached letterfirom Roderick B. 1,11illiams, CountyAttornel', dated December 18, 2015. Frederick County Planning Department: Sec attached comments from tllichael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director dated January 19, 2016 Frederick County Transportation Comments: Comments in corpol *cited into general Planning Department Comments above. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) depicts the zoning for the subject parcel as A-2 (Agricultural General) District. The County's agricultural zoning districts were combined to Iorm the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The 2030 Comprehensive Plan is the guide for the future growth of Frederick County. Land Use. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan provide guidance on the future development of the property. The property is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies this property with a eombimition o1 commercial and industrial land use designations. In general, the proposed industrial and commercial zoning is consistent with the current land use supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 9 Rezoning #02-16 I-81 West Business Park March 2, 2016 Page 4 This rezoning is based on an amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix I - Area Plans, The Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan. CPPA #01-14, Blain Properties Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) Inclusion; Parcels 33-A-113 and 33-A-124. Language included in the update: The area of land use northwest of Exit 321, Interstate 81, Hopewell Road, and south of Cedar Hill Road is commercial and industrial in character. In general, the north —south major collector road that has been identified and is necessary to support this area of land use series as a boundary between the commercial and industrial land uses. Flexibility should be offer°ed in the final balance and location of land uses. Future applications for rezoning in this area shall adequately address any potential impacts to public./acilities, in particular transportation, and shall implement any necessary transportation improvements. Transportation in the area would be a big consideration in fixture land use decisions. Site Access and Transportation. The Eastern Road Plan and the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan call for a new north -south major collector roadway (UD4) that runs from Hopewell Road to Cedar Hill Road; this proposed roadway runs through the limits of this project. The Comprehensive Plan also calls for improvements at Exit 321 on Interstate 81 such as the Hopewell -Brucetown Road re- alignment and the relocation of the northern Interstate 81 ramps from Hopewell Road to Cedar Hill Road. Finally, the Eastern Road Plan calls for interchange improvements that impact this property due to the need for frontage roads. History. The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County, Virginia, identifies one potentially significant historic structure located within the vicinity of the proposed rezoning (Robinson - Cline House (#34-1056)). The HRAB discussed this rezoning application at their meeting on October 20, 2015; the HRAB had no comments for the application. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site is not located within a 100 year floodplain. However, this area is known for karst topography and special attention should be paid during development for potential sinkholes and related impacts. The majority of the storrnwater runoff drains to the east towards Interstate 81. The Applicant will be required to implement BMP's and other devices to meet the Commonwealth of Virginia's requirements as required by DEQ. Soils: The soils types determined from the USDA's "Soils Survey of Frederick County, VA" shows Frederick-Poplimento loams (14B & 14C), Frederick-Poplimento outcrop complex (17C), and Oaklet silt loams (3213 & 32C). These soils have medium erodibility and runoff. These soil types are clay with an abundance of limestone rock. Rezoning 1102-16 I-81 West Business Park March 2, 2016 Page 5 Id"ater /Selver: There is a pump station clCsigncd on the Open Door Baptist Church site which will receive sewage via an existing 50' sewer casement.This enters a force that reaches the VDOT rest area, then Redblld PLIII1IJ StatlOtl, alld CVCIItLlally flows into the Opeclllon Treatment Plant. There is all existing 12"' waterline stubbed onto the Open Door Baptist Church that is available. 4) Potential Impacts Trylisportcrtion: With this rezoning application, the Applicant has proffered to construct a collector road between Hopewell Road and Cedar Hill Road. It should be noted that this new major collector roadway is shown in the Eastern Road Plan as an urban four lane divided highway, which would have an ultimate right-ol=way width ol'80'. `file Applicant has proffered a two lane roadway with a 60' right -of way, constructed with shoulders. This construction and right-of-way width does not conform to the goals of' the Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant has also proffered to enter into signalization agreements at the new roadway (Alfalfa Lane) and Hopewell Road and the new roadway and both interchange ramps. Traffic generation has also been limited to 6,330 average daily trips based upon the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The Applicant has not addressed the need for frontage roads as shown in the Eastern Road Plan. VDOT's review of the Applicant's TIA resulted in significant comment which Is 111CIUded ill your package. The Applicant has revised the TIA and issued a response but has not submitted all Updated VDOT comment that would indicate they have been satisfied. The TIA does indicate that the expected trip distribution places the majority of trips 1-81 (80%) so the heaviest traflic impact projected is at the intersections with the interchange ramps. With just 6% allocated to Route I I this does result in a relatively small additional impact on the intersection of Hopewell and BI-LICetown Roads with Route 11. However, it must be noted that the Hopewell and Brucetown Road intersections, while operating better from a safety perspective since VDOT's slgnallzation of them, continue to deal with capacity issues. According to the TIA the operations at the site entrance and the 1-81 ramps remain acceptable with the exception ofthe I-81 NB exit ramp which has a level of service D in the 2025 build out year. 5) Proffer Statement: I . Transportation - Vehicle Trips per Day to be determined at Site Plan submission utilizing the current ITE Trip Generation Manual. The owners hereby proffer that the Average Daily Trips shall not exceed 6,330. a. The owners hereby proffer to construct a road to connect Cedar Hill Road (Route 671) to Hopewell Road (Route 672) as shown on the GDP within a 60' right-of-way. This road will Rezoning #02-16 I-81 West Business Park March 2, 2016 Page 6 be built to VDOT standards and dedicated to the County of Frederick. The road shall be two lanes with shoulders. This will be completed prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits. Staff Note: The Eastern Road Plan calls for this roadway to be a new tnaior collector road, constructed as an urban four -lane divided highway. This roadway would have an ultimate right-ofwav width of b. The owners hereby proffer to dedicate an additional 5' strip of land to the County of Frederick along Cedar Hill Road (Route 671) for future widening as shown on the GDP. This dedication will be prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits. c. The owners hereby proffer three signalization agreements with VDOT at the intersections of Alfalfa Lane, the northbound ramps, and the southbound ramps of Interstate 81 with Hopewell Road (Route 672). These agreements shall be for the signal lights only, and not for ramps, roads, or other improvements unless proffered herein. Staff Note: Additional flexibility in this proffer to allow for a cash payment in lieu ofsi,-nal installation would allow the County to capitalize on other improvement opportunities that may arise in this area such as the intersection ofHopewell and Brucetown Roads with Route IL d. The owners hereby proffers no commercial entrances shall be built onto Cedar Hill Road (Route 671). e. The owners herby proffer to dedicate 1.21 acres as shown on the GDP to the County of Frederick. Said dedication will be within 90 days of written request from the County of Frederick or at any time by the owners during development. Staff Note: The Applicant has not addressed right-of-way needs for the future ramp conriguration and ft ontage roads as shown in the Eastern Road Plan. 2. Fire & Rescue — Monetary Contributions: a. The owners hereby proffer a cash contribution to Frederick County for Fire and Rescue purposes, of $0.05 per building square foot to be disbursed to the Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department, to be paid prior to the issuance of occupancy permit. The term "building square foot" shall be the combined floor area for each story. 3) Frederick County Sanitation Authority: a. The owners hereby proffer to grant a temporary easement to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, as shown on sheet 2 of the GDP, on tax parcel 33-A-39 for a ground level water tank. The easement shall begin upon approval of the rezoning and extinguished on December 31, 2021. If the Frederick County Sanitation Authority has started construction Rezoning 1102-16 I-81 West Business Park March 2, 2016 Page 7 during that time, then the 1.33 acre of land within the easement shall be dedicated to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority in Fee simple on December 31, 2021. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 03/16/16 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This is an application to rezone a total of' 155.489 acres ol'land from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2, B3 and M 1 Districts with proffers, to accommodate commercial and industrial uses. The property is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). In general, the proposed land use designations for these properties is consistent with the current land uses supported by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. With this rezoning, the Applicant has proffered that this project will contribute to transportation improvements in the vicinity of,the property. However, it should be noted that the proffered collector roadway does not accommodate the Ultimate goals of the Comprehensive Plan regarding right-of-way Width or road design. Items such as turn lanes at the intersections will also need to be addressed. In addition, the Applicant has not profTcred right-of-way for the f Itlii'c frontage road to accommodate the split interchange that is part of' the Eastern Road Plan. Staff would also suggest that increased flexibility be built into the signalization proffers to allow for potential conversion to a cash proffer. VDOT had significant comments oil the applicant's TIA and the applicant has submitted a response and revisions. However, updated continents from VDOT have not been submitted by the Applicant so staff is unable to determine if'their concerns have been satisfied at this time. Confirmation of' the transportation issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to a recommendation by the Planning Commission. Following the required public hearing, a recommendation regarding this rezont.n application to the Board of'Superyisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. E s Rezoning: RZ # 02-16 Property: Area: 155.483 acres Tax Parcels 33-(A)-113, 33-(A)-124, 33-(A)-114B Record Owners: Blain Properties of Virginia, LLC I-IMC, LP, LLP Project Name: 81-NVest Business Park Original Date of Proffers: October 1, 2015 Revisions: February 17, 2016 Magisterial District: Stonewall Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Secl. of' the Code of Virginia, 1950, as a111e11CICCI, and the provisions Of the Frederick COLlllty ZOIl1ila, OfCllllallCC with I'CSpCCI l0 conC110011al zoning, the Undersigned owners hereby offer the following proffers that in the event the Board Of Supervisors Of Frederick County, VII-gillia, shall approve Rezoning Application #02-16 for rezoning of 154.424-acres from the RA District to Business (13-2) (36.676 acres), to Industrial Transition (13-3) (45.453 acres) and Light IIICIUSU1al (M-I) (73.360 acres), development of the SUbject properties shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth IICI'elll, eXCCI)t to the CxtCllt that SUCII tCI'Il1S and Conditions may be SUbSCCILiently amended of revised by the owners and such are approval by the Board OI* Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event tll2lt SLICII rezoning Is not granted, then these proffers shall be clee led withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These prof ers shall be bindin(I LIPOII the owners and their legal successors, heirs, Or assigns. The "Properties" are more particularly described as the lands conveyed to Blain Properties of Virginia, LLC, (an entity registered in New York) from Bradley K. Blain by Deed per instrument It120009054 dated August 22, 2012, and to I-IMC, LP, LLP, by Deed l'ronl Cline's Egg Farm LP, LLP, per instrument 0 100 10026 ClateCI July 12, 2001, as recorded in the Frederick County Circuit Court Clerk's Office. See also plats of' record at instrument 150005321 for Tax Parcels 33-(A)-1 13 and 33-(A)-124. A Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated February 4, 2016, by GreyWolfe, Inc., is attached to and made part Of this profTer CIOCLII11Cilt. • Proffers: Transportation — Vehicle "Trips per Day to be determined at Site Plan submission LItiliZlIIg the CLIH-Cllt ITL Trip Generation Manual The owners hereby proffer that the Average Daily Trips shall not excced 6,330. a. The owners hcrcby proff*cr to construct a 1'OICI to Connect Cedar 14111 Road (Route 671) to 1-lopewcll ROICI (Route 672) as shown on the GDP within a 60' right of'way. This road will be built to VDOT standards and dedicated to the County of Frederick. The road shall be two lanes with shoulders. This will be completcd 1)1'101' 10 the ISSLIance OI a11y OCCLIpL111Cy permits. b. The owners hereby prof lei' t0 dedlcatc all additional 5' strip Ol land to the County of Frederick along Cedar Hill Road (Route 671) IOr l'uture widening as shown on the GDP. This dCCllcatloll will OCCLII' 1)1"101' to the ISSLIa11CC Of any OCCLIpa11Cy 1)e1'1111tS The owners hereby proffer three signalization agreements with VDOT at the intersections o1 Alfalfa Lane, the IlOrthbOLI11Cl ra1111)S, and the SOuthbOLlnd I'aI11pS OI llltcl'State 81 with Hopewell Road (Route 672). Thcsc agreements shall be for the signal lights only, and not for ramps, roads, Or other inlprovcnlcntS LrllleSS prOlTCrcd hCl'C111. d. The owners hereby pl'Of er that no commercial Clltrances Shall be bLlllt 011tO Cedar I-1111 Road (Route 671). The owners hereby proffer to dedicate 1.21 acres as shown on the GDP to the County of Frederick. Said dedication will be within 90 Clays of written request I'ronl the County of I"reClerick or at any time by the OwnerS during (level 01)ment. 2. hire & RCSCLIC — Monetary Contributions The owners hereby proffer a cash contribution to Frederick County Im Fire and RCSCLIC purposeS, of $0.05 per building square i*OOt to be ClisbLIl'sed to the Frederick County Fire and RCSCne Dcpartllent, to be paid prior to Occupancy pernnit. The term "building SCluarc Foot" Shall be the combined Floor area IOr each story. I`rcdcrick County Sanitation :\utllorit�' ,t. The owners hcrchv proffer to -runt it tcnlporary casenicni to the I rcdcrick County Sanitation Allthorily. ,Is shown on Shea ? of IhC a1WClICd (_TDP. on tax 1rurcl 33+\)-.;9 fora rc,und level whir (:Ink. The cicxinent shall hcgin ul)0II approval of the reiunin 1 and rxtint Iishud un Oeccmhcr 31. 2021. If the Frederick COMM' Sanit,ition AlIthority has stcuted Construction durin , th,u tittle. Ihcn the 1.33 acre of land within the casement .hall he dedicated to the Ficdcrick County S:IIIII;IIIOIl :\uthority in fee ,implc on Deccinher 11. 2021. The Conditions 1)1-01'I'CICd ahovC shall he hIIIdlll1 t11)011 heirs, executors. adttlinistrators, assigns, and suCCCssors in the interest of IhC owners and owners. hl the event the Frederick COMM; Bo,u'(1 of Su1)Crvisors rants this rei0111112 and aCCCllts the Conditions, the proffered Conditions shall a1ply to the land re/celled III addition to other requirements set forth In the I'-rc(Icriek County Code alld Ordinance. kCSl)CCl("ull)' SuhnlittCcl: Blain PI-opertics of \Virginia. 1.1.C• D,tie Bradley K. Blain, nrurlf-1cr Slate of.''_� Zn� Lf--m-/Cotuuy of To \\,it: 'IThc forc'oIn" i[IS tr'untell t WN" ackIIowIed-cd hefore IIle this day of _�=`"i`^____-• _'U�� Owner KC<-istr'alion Nuniher._- Notary Public `Iy C-'ottiniission I;xpires_ Alison le"' Blain notary public Si;1td of Nevi York (luai;fict; in ivtentoe, County Coirllis5ion G nir,; NoWnber 30, 20 i�� 1I' IC, LP, Lf,P Date GLEVc'': NO Commonwcalth ol*Virginia, o. t�,�.'l9. • cl City/Co«nty Of Y_e���cx. I'o V1�lt. 'i �JO���•.... �,FA The foregoing instrument Vas acknowledged before n]c this lL kclay of �_ebtgQrL201 By _ !ohn J}_�t :- —C-exc � � �� c�-�•-ei �r Ia(aQd Notary Public Registration Number NIy Commission Ilxpires --dlAju30,_Or q w > 0 IyVA/ V 0 7: - ) i VDH 34-1056 HMC, LP, LLP w V "I I_n HMC, LP, LLP CEDAR HILL ES TA TES HMC, LP, LLP BLA IA PR OPER TIES OF VIR GINIA, L L C Q) HMCI LP, LLP 57.865 acres PROPOSED M-1 ZONING HMC, LP, LLP 15.495 acres PROPOSED M-1 ZONIA16-1 J4 HMC, LP, LLP ALFALFA LANE Z-1 OPEN DOOR CHURCH R- HMC, LP, LLP BLAIN PROPERTIES OF VIRGINIA, LLC 36.676 acres 45.453 acres PROPOSED B-2 ZONING PROPOSED B-3 ZONING i SMITH 1.213 -R.0 w for W EXIT 321 - - -- - -- - -- - - - -- ED 1 SCHALL Oo JENKINS JENKINS f VA HIDI e- L REGAN BROWN ----------- M,16TIN U) U) . LL4 BELLAFJORE Lui C-? Q�ml S V Stronko ilverWolfe CD No ORNDOFF ORNDOFF a -------- ORNDOFF D N Ln 0 Co Cz (a O or) �Rj cn O -0 Cz N .0i DATE: 2-17-2016 SCALE: 1"=500' DRAWN BY: GRO SHEET 1 OF 2 NEW o C o 0 PROPOSED TANK SITE _ 73 N L" Qo '� c n O o 0 U CD SRO L U N / ca D ^O C J ti / f• t V ca- _ Q� ti J = O � N � _ � • a � 0 — — — _ — • `' LQ ( ^ OLij � O J Q cr- W EXIT 321 -� r ^ Q V Rt 77 RAJ�QOq� I DATE: 2-17-2016 SCALE: 1"=800' ROUTE 11 DRAWN BY: GRO SHEET 2 OF 2 9 • `�YDOT of 11a department of Transs portation Staunton Blain & Cline Rezoning TIA, Frederick County, VA Summary of VDOT Review Comments March 11, 2016 1. The report and proffers have been updated to include a long term improvement recommendation of signalizing the site entrance and 1-81 ramp intersections with Hopewell Road. However, the study and synchro files do not include an analysis of this recommendation. Given the tight -diamond design and two-lane bridge of the existing Exit 321 interchange, signalization of the ramps may be problematic. The study needs to include the modeling of this recommendation, potentially with the proposed signals running in coordination with the existing signal at US 11. VDOT guidelines for left -turn control will also need to be considered as part of the modeling of the signalization recommendation. 2. Given the time restrictions associated with VDOT signal agreements, we recommend that Proffer 1.c be updated to state that at the time when signals are warranted at the site development entrance and the 1-81 ramp intersections along Hopewell Road (Route 672), the owner/developer will be responsible for a pro rata share of the signal installation at the three intersections. Additionally, the proffer should be expanded to state that the development's pro rata share of the signals at the 1-81 ramps may be utilized by the County / VDOT towards an alternative future design improvement (roundabouts for example) at the interchange ramps. Not including this provision as an integral part of the proffer could result in the applicant using nearly all of the available capacity at the subject intersections and require a smaller subsequent development having the burden to fully fund necessary future mitigation measures along Hopewell Road and the 1-81 interchange. Per the 2030 Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, Eastern Frederick County Road Plan Cross Sections Map, both the internal development roadway (Alfalfa Lane) and Cedar Hill Road (Route 671), east of Alfalfa Lane are designated to be future 4-lane, divided roadways. With the Blain Properties Comprehensive Plan Amendment, approved in February 2015, the above cross section designations were removed. However, both roadways are still designated as "New Major Collector" facilities. Proffer 1.a states that the internal development roadway (Alfalfa Lane) will be constructed to VDOT standards within a 60' right-of-way. VDOT recommends that an additional proffer be considered to upgrade a half section of Cedar Hill Road to the same "collector" standards along the property frontage, east of Alfalfa Lane. Proffer 1.b proposes a 5' dedication of right-of-way along Cedar Hill Road. However, per Frederick County GIS Mapping the existing right-of-way width does not appear to be sufficient where the roadway could be improved to "collector" standards with the additional 5' of dedication. We would advise the County to fully consider this issue prior to taking action on the application. 4. VDOT recommends the addition of a proffer that states the owner / developer shall be responsible for the installation of the site entrance turn lanes along Hopewell Road (Route 672) as recommended by the TIA, as well as the dedication of the necessary right-of-way to accommodate the turn lanes. The design and VDOT review and approval of the turn lanes will be part of the Site Plan process. We would advise the County to fully consider this issue prior to taking action on the application. 5. The Generalized Development Plan included in Appendix F of the TIA indicates right-of-way dedication along the property's 1-81 southbound off -ramp frontage. However, this right-of-way dedication is not included in the proffers. We would advise the County to fully consider this issue prior to taking action on the application. `kkYDOT`'fryans oftott n of Transportatioew i Staunton 6. While the proffer that allowed for a potential additional right-in/right-out entrance on Hopewell Road to serve the development was removed with this submission, VDOT recommends that Proffer 1.d be revised to include Hopewell Road (Route 672) in addition to Cedar Hill Road. We would advise the County to fully consider this issue prior to taking action on the application. VDOT recommends proffering the proposed 10' multi -use trail along the internal development road (Alfalfa Lane) as discussed in the report. We would advise the County to fully consider this issue prior to taking action on the application. The signalized intersection at US 11/Hopewell Road/Brucetown Road is still incorrectly modeled with lagging left turns on US 11 in the Existing PM synchro file. This signal phasing is shown correctly (as leading lefts) in the Existing AM synchro file. Additionally, all future year PM synchro files show lagging left turn movements on US 11. Safety concerns (yellow trap condition) require that, when 5-section protected/permissive left turn signal heads are used, the yellow change intervals must be displayed simultaneously on both sides of US-11, both northbound and southbound. This is a MUTCD requirement. This typically requires that the left -turn movements be operated as dual leading when 5-section heads are used. However, dual lagging lefts can be used in a 5-section head, but this requires an additional barrier in the ring/barrier structure (or single -ring operation) to ensure that the two through movements are always terminated together. The use of lagging left turns under any other circumstance requires the conversion of the 5-section heads to flashing yellow arrow (FYA) operation, which is to be modeled as Dallas Protected/Permissive phasing in synchro. Please correct the signal phasing and update the report accordingly. 9. This comment is for informational purposes only -For future TIA submissions to support other developments, please expand the Pass -By trip figure (Figure 12) to illustrate Pass -By reductions to the entire study area. 10. This comment is for informational purposes only — VDOT's Traffic Operations and Safety Analysis Manual (TOSAM) was recently adopted as a guidance document in the Fall of 2015. The regulations of this manual will be required in the preparation and presentation of analysis results for future TIA studies. Under the TOSAM, Level of Service is not a measure of effectiveness and can only be used to supplement the reported delay in seconds. For example, Figures 6, 8, 13, 14 and 16 in this report would need to be revised in future submissions to illustrative the delay in seconds in addition to Level of Service. 9 • Diane Walsh From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: See if this one makes more sense John Bishop Tuesday, March 29, 2016 2:44 PM Diane Walsh FW: Blain Cline Rezoning / TIA Review Comments Blain_TIA_VDOT_2nd_Submission_Comments-031116.pdf From: Campbell, Adam (VDOT)[mailto: Adam F.CampbelI(@vdot.virginia.govI Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 3:57 PM To: Tim Stowe; John Bishop Cc: Smith, Matthew, P.E. (VDOT); Short, Terry (VDOT); Funkhouser, Rhonda (VDOT); Ingram, Lloyd (VDOT); Gary Oates; Lineberry, Jeff, PE (VDOT) Subject: Blain Cline Rezoning / -HA Review Comments Tim / John District Planning and Traffic Engineering Staff have completed our review of the resubmission of the Blain Cline Rezoning/TIA as received on February 19, 2016. We offer the attached comments for your consideration. Please let us ]chow if you have any questions. Thanks, Adam Adam F. Campbell, PLA Assistant District Planner Staunton District Virginia Department of Transportation 540-332-9067 adamf.campbell@vdot.virginia.gov E John Bishop From: Tim Stowe <timstowe@stowecompanies.com> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:29 PM To: Matthew P. E. Smith Cc: John Bishop; 'Campbell, Adam (VDOT)'; 'Short, Terry (VDOT)'; 'Lineberry, Jeff, PE (VDOT)'; Tunkhouser, Rhonda (VDOT)'; Gary Oates Subject: Blain -Cline Traffic Impact Study for 81 West Business Park rezoning Attachments: Blain -Cline Proffers2.pdf; 1117 Blain + Cline TIS 2-12-16-signed.pdf; 1117 Blain Industrial TISPM 2-18-16.zip; 1117 Blain + Cline TIS AM 2-18-16.zip Matt, The review comments provided in your email dated 12/18/15 have been addressed as indicated in the responses below. Attached for your review are the following documents: • Updated Traffic Impact Study report • Updated Synchro files • Updated proffer statement 1. Comment - Please update the executive summary to include a conclusion of the analysis and the recommended transportation improvements. Response — The Executive Summary has been updated as requested. 2. Comment - On Page 5 of the report, update the reference of the development concept plan under "Proposed Uses & Access" to Appendix F. Response — This update has been made as requested. 3. Comment- Please add a functional classification column to Table 1, Existing Roadway Attributes. Response — The functional classification has been added to table 1 as requested. 4. Comment- Does Table 2, Truck Percentages from Count Data represent the AM Peak, PM Peak, or a highest percentage mix of the peaks? There are discrepancies on the truck percentages between Table 2, the count data in Appendix A, and what is reported in the Synchro files. Please correct and update the report accordingly. Response — Table 2 has been updated to show AM and PM peak hour truck percentages separately. The analyses have been updated where needed. 5. Comment - Based on the count data in Appendix A, counts at the study intersection were conducted over several months in 2015 (April, May, June, July, and August). Many of the counts were conducted while public schools were not in session for the summer. Stonewall Elementary School is located on US 11, approximately 0.5 miles from the study intersection of Hopewell Road and US 11. The existing year Synchro files do not reflect the count data from Appendix A, but rather the Traffic Volume Computations from Appendix C, which include a "balanced" existing count column. Please advise. Response —All traffic volume counts were conducted in late April/early May of 2015 while school was in session at Stonewall Elementary School with the exception of the Welltown Pk./Hopewell Rd intersection which was counted in late June, 2015. Based on direction from VDOT the Welltown Pk./Hopewell Rd intersection was added during the project scoping meeting and due to its distance from the Stonewall Elementary School it was determined by VDOT that this intersection is negligibly impacted by traffic from the school and therefore the June 2015 count was acceptable. The traffic models for the project have been reviewed and where needed the data has been updated to reflect the aforementioned count data. 6. Comment - Page 7 of the report states that a 24 hour count was conducted at the intersection of Hopewell Road and the 1-81 northbound ramps and is included in Appendix A. However, this data does not appear to be in Appendix A. Response — The 24-hour count was inadvertently left out of the previous submittal. It has been added to Appendix A of the report. 7. Comment - There are minor errors on some of the figures throughout the report, including incorrect lane geometry for intersection 2 in Figure 6, missing line work for intersection 3 in Figure 6, missing legends on Figures 10 and 11, and reversed site exit trips on Figure 11. Please review and correct all figures as necessary. Response — The figures have been reviewed and edited where needed. 8. Comment - Tables 4 —10 do not include analysis results for the 2025 build out with improvements scenarios. Please update the tables as necessary. Response — The 2025 build out with improvements scenario has been added to the tables as requested. 9. Comment - The second paragraph under the Design Year (2031) Analysis on Page 26 of the report is incorrect based on the assumed future improvements. Please update the text to accurately reflect the condition of the Hopewell Road / US 11 / Brucetown Road intersection with the planned improvements in place. Response — The text has been updated as requested. 10. Comment - On Page 29 of the report, update the reference to the 95t" Percentile Queues from Table 9 to Table 11. Response — The reference has been updated as requested. 11. Comment - The turn lane improvements on Hopewell Road at the proposed site entrance as included in the Synchro analysis and cost estimate are not included in the conclusion or recommendations in the report. VDOT recommends that these improvements be included with proposed storage and taper lengths. VDOT also recommends that the turn lane improvements be included in the proffers. Response — It is understood and acknowledged that the VDOT Road Design Manual requires turn lanes at the aforementioned intersection, as well as the intersection of Alfalfa Lane and Cedar Hill Rd. While the storage provided in this analysis is sufficient to accommodate the queue generated by the modeled traffic, further analysis will be conducted during the design phase to substantiate the proposed engineering design of the turn lanes as presented on the plans. It is further understood that until the VDOT design criteria is satisfied a VDOT Land Use Permit will be withheld. 12. Comment - The recommendation of providing the all -way stop control at the Hopewell Road intersections with the site entrance and 1-81 ramps provides for adequate traffic operations with the proposed development given the relatively low existing road volumes as stated in the report. However, as little as a third of the proposed rezoning's trip generation is required from additional future developments before these all -way stop control intersections begin to experience unacceptable Levels of Service. VDOT recommends that the applicant consider a proffer that provides a pro rata share responsibility to the owner / developer for the installation of traffic signals at the three intersections at such time that they are warranted. Response — Proffer 1.c. has-been added which. includes_a signalization agreement for three intersections along Hopewell Road. These are: 1. Alfalfa Lane; 2. 1-81 SB ramps; and 3. 1-81 NB ramps. 0 project scoping meeting and due to its distance from the Stonewall Elementary School it was determined by VDOT that this intersection is negligibly impacted by traffic from the school and therefore the June 2015 count was acceptable. The traffic models for the project have been reviewed and where needed the data has been updated to reflect the aforementioned count data. 6. Comment - Page 7 of the report states that a 24 hour count was conducted at the intersection of Hopewell Road and the 1-81 northbound ramps and is included in Appendix A. However, this data does not appear to be in Appendix A. Response — The 24-hour count was inadvertently left out of the previous submittal. It has been added to Appendix A of the report. 7. Comment - There are minor errors on some of the figures throughout the report, including incorrect lane geometry for intersection 2 in Figure 6, missing line work for intersection 3 in Figure 6, missing legends on Figures 10 and 11, and reversed site exit trips on Figure 11. Please review and correct all figures as necessary. Response — The figures have been reviewed and edited where needed. B. Comment - Tables 4 —10 do not include analysis results for the 2025 build out with improvements scenarios. Please update the tables as necessary. Response — The 2025 build out with improvements scenario has been added to the tables as requested. 9. Comment- The second paragraph under the Design Year (2031) Analysis on Page 26 of the report is incorrect based on the assumed future improvements. Please update the text to accurately reflect the condition of the Hopewell Road / US 11 / Brucetown Road intersection with the planned improvements in place. Response — The text has been updated as requested. 10. Comment- On Page 29 of the report, update the reference to the 951h Percentile Queues from Table 9 to Table 11. Response — The reference has been updated as requested. 11. Comment- The turn lane improvements on Hopewell Road at the proposed site entrance as included in the Synchro analysis and cost estimate are not included in the conclusion or recommendations in the report. VDOT recommends that these improvements be included with proposed storage and taper lengths. VDOT also recommends that the turn lane improvements be included in the proffers. Response — It is understood and acknowledged that the VDOT Road Design Manual requires turn lanes at the aforementioned intersection, as well as the intersection of Alfalfa Lane and Cedar Hill Rd. While the storage provided in this analysis is sufficient to accommodate the queue generated by the modeled traffic, further analysis will be conducted during the design phase to substantiate the proposed engineering design of the turn lanes as presented on the plans. It is further understood that until the VDOT design criteria is satisfied a VDOT Land Use Permit will be withheld. 12. Comment - The recommendation of providing the all -way stop control at the Hopewell Road intersections with the site entrance and 1-81 ramps provides for adequate traffic operations with the proposed development given the relatively low existing road volumes as stated in the report. However, as little as a third of the proposed rezoning's trip generation is required from additional future developments before these all -way stop control intersections begin to experience unacceptable Levels of Service. VDOT recommends that the applicant consider a proffer that provides a pro rata share responsibility to the owner / developer for the installation of traffic signals at the three intersections at such time that they are warranted. Response — Proffer 1.c. has been.added which includes_a.signalization.agreement f_or—threeintersecticns along Hopewell Road. These are: 1. Alfalfa Lane; 2. 1-81 SB ramps; and 3. 1-81 NB ramps. 13. Comment - Per Appendix F of the VDOT Road Design Manual, 750' is the minimum spacing for any commercial entrance / intersection from a limited access facility ramp. Therefore, VDOT recommends removal of Proffer Le as a right -in / right -out commercial entrance between the interstate ramp and the proposed development access road will not meet the necessary spacing requirement. Response — This proffer has been removed. 14. Comment - In the existing AM model, Phase 3 has improper programming for the yellow change and all -red clearance intervals. The model had used the Synchro defaults of 3.5 seconds for the yellow change interval and 0.5 seconds for the all -red clearance interval. But this should have been programmed as a 4-second yellow and a 6- second all -red like the other movements. Response — The signal timing has been updated. 15. Comment - The proposed all -way stop signs at the freeway ramps will require further analysis. In the AM peak period, they seem to be running fine. However, the MUTCD criteria for multi -way stop signs (Section 213.07, paragraphs 4 and 5) should be considered. The volume criteria appear to be met in the 2025 AM period and afterwards. Crash data should also be considered with this recommendation. Response — In the Recommended Roadway Improvements section of the report (pg 25) text was added to clarify that the proposed all -way stop intersection control is a temporary measure and must comply with the requirements set forth in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 16. Comment - For the 2031 Ultimate scenario, where the intersection of US-11 and Route 672 is shown as having been re -aligned to be a typical 4-way intersection, the VDOT left -turn selection criteria should be consulted to determine the appropriate left -turn move given the low volumes of left -turns. It's showing all four left turns as being protected - only whereas NB and SB US-11 are protected / permissive currently. Response — Verbal direction received from VDOT staff differed from this comment. To evaluate the worst case scenario, left turns were modeled in a protected phase. However, we agree that the protected/permissive phase will move traffic more efficiently and better represents current day traffic operations. 17. Comment - In several of the PM models, the left turns from NB and SB US-11 are incorrectly depicted as being lagging left turns (whereas they are leading left turns). Response — The signal timings were unlocked in all models except the existing year, and allowed to optimize operations based on the forecasted traffic flows with the understanding that VDOT may change the signal timing operations at a future date as a result of factors unrelated to this project. 18. Comment - Proffer 1 c. Hopewell Road is Route 672 not Route 671 as listed, revise accordingly. Response — The proffer has been revised. We look forward to your prompt review and concurrence. Tim Stowe Stowe Engineering V 540.686.7373 i f 540.301.1100 I c 540.336.0656 3 VDOT has completed the review of' the SLlbjcct TIA/Rezoning; OL11- COI11111CIltS are I'OLInd below. We I-CCILICSI a meeting, be SC11cCILIICCI l0 review the comments / concerns ill person t0 make SLII'C CVCryoiIC Is Oil the Same page prior t0 any revision efforts. Tills meeting call be SCIIC(ILIICCI for our next regular engineering reVICW Oil "fuesday January 12, 2016. Please let me know if this (late works. • Please update the CXCCLItIVC SL1111111ai'y t0 II1CILICIC it C011CIUS1011 OI the analysis and the recommended ded transportation improvements. • On Page 5 of the report, upClalC the reference ol' the development concept plan under "Proposed Uses & Access" to Appendix F. • PlCasc add a functional classification column to Table 1, Existing Roadway Attributes. • Does Table 2, 'I'l-Lick Percentages from Count Data represent the AM Peak, PM Peak, or a highest percentage mix of the peaks? There are discrepancies on the tl-uck percentages bctwecil Table 2, the C011llt Clata ill Appendix A, and what IS reported ill the Synchr0 files. Please correct and update the report accorClingly. • Based on the count data in Appendix A, COLlnts at the Study intersection were COIlClucted over several months in 2015 (April, May, .lone, July, and August). Many Of' the counts were COnducte(I while public schools were not in session for the summer. Stonewall Elementary School is located on US 11, approximately 0.5 miles from the study intersection of Hopewell Road and US 11. The existing year Synchro files do not reflect the COLlllt data Irom Appendix A, bUt father the Traffic VOILIIIIC COI11P1.1lati011S fr0111 Appendix C, which II1CILICIC a "ba1£IIICCCI" CX1Slillb COl111t C01L111111. PICasc advise. • Page 7 of the report states that a 24 hour COLlllt Was COIICIUCICCI at the intersection Of Hopewell Road and the 1-81 northbound ramps and is incluclCCI in Appendix A. However, this clata does not appeal' to be Ill Appendix A. • There are minor errors Oil some OI the I IgUI-CS tlll'OUghOUt the report, including incorrect lane geometry for intersection 2 in Figure 6, missing line Work Ior intersection 3 in Figure 6, missing legends on l"igures 10 and I I , and reversed site exit trips on FigurC 11. I'Ie ISC review and COrrect all figures as necessary. • Tables 4 — 10 CIO 110t IIICILICIC allalySls results For the 2025 bUild OLIt With improvements scenarios. Please upClalC the tables as necessary. • The second paragraph under the Design Year (2031) Analysis on Page 26 ol' the report is InCOI-I-CCt baSCCI Oil the aSSLImed ILItUre improvements. Please update the text t0 aCCUrately reflect the condition of the Hopewell Road / US I I / 131-ucetoWn Road intersection with the planned improvements ill place. • Oil Page 29 of*the I'CpOrt, Llp(latc the reference to the 95t1i Percentile QLICues from Table 9 to Table 11. • The turn lane inlprovcnlCntS On Hopewell Road it the proposcCl site entrance as inclucled ill the Synchro analysis and Cost estimate are not IIICILICICCI Ill the COIICILISIOII 01' recommendations Ill the report. VDOT recommends that these improvements be inC1LICICCI with proposcCl storage and taper lengths. VDOT also recommends that the tlll'll lane improvements be inClUcled in the proffers. • The recommendation OI provicling the all -way stop control at the Hopewell Road ill tC1'scctloils with the site entrance and 1-81 ramps provides for adequate traffic operations with the proposed development given the relatively low existing rOaCl VOILIIl1CS as stated in the report. However, as little as a third of the proposed rezoning's trip generation is 1'CClllll'Cd ll'0111 1ICI(IitiOl1a1 ILIIUre developments bclOfe these all -way stop Control intersections begin t0 CxpC1'ICIICC Unacceptable Levels of' Service. VDOT recommends that the applicant consider a profTer that provides a pro rota Shale responsibility to the owner / clevcloper for the installation of traffic Signals at the three intersections at SLICK tilllC that they 11-C warranted. • Per Appendix h of the VDOT Road Design Manual, 750' Is the minimum spaclilg for any commercial entrance / intel-sectioll fi'olll �l lilllitcd access facility ramp. Therefore, VDOT recommends removal OI I'I'oi ICI' I .c as a right -ill / right -out commercial entrance between the interstate ramp and the proposed development access road will not meet the necessary spacing requirement. • Ill the existing AM model, PllaSc 3 Ilas improper programming Ior the yellow change and all -reel clearance intervals. The IIIOCICI had Used the SynchrO dCfa(lllS ol' 3.5 seconds for the yellow Change interval and 0.5 seconds for the all-1'Cd Clearance interval. BLII this S11OLIlCl have been programmed is a 4-second yellow and a 6-second all -red like the other movements. • The proposed all -way stop signs at the freeway ramps will require further analysis. In the AM peak period, they seem to be running fine. However, the MUTCD Criteria fOr nlLllti- way stop signs (Section 2I3.07, paragraphs 4 and 5) Shoulcl be considered. The VOILInIe criteria appear to be met in the 2025 AM period and afterwards. Crash Clata Should also be considered with this recommendation. • For the 203 I Ultimate Scenario, where the interscctlon of US- I I and Route 672 is shown as having bCCil I'C-allgllCCl l0 bC a typical 4-way intersection, the VDOT 1Cft-tw-n SCICCtion Criteria SIIOL[Icl be Consulted to CleternlilIC the appropriate left -turn nlOve given the low VOILIIIICS OI ICft-tLll'11S. It's SI1OWIllg all fOLll' lCll Wills as being protected -Only whereas NB and SB US -I I arc protected / permissive Currently. • In several of the I'M moclels, the left turns I'l-om N13 and SB US -I I are incorrectly depicted as being Iagging left Wills (whereas they are leading left turns). • Proffer 1 C. Hopewell Road is Route 672 not Route 671 as listecl, revise accordingly. Please Iet me Know il' you have any questions. Matthew B. Smith, P.E. Area mind 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 Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: March 16, 2016 April 6, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: April 27, 2016 c-� O AMENDMENT cr; Public Hearing Held; Tabled 30 Days Recommended Approval nx APPROVED ❑ DENIED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING #02-16 I-81 WEST BUSINESS PARK WHEREAS, Rezoning #02-16, of I-81 West Business Palk submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 36.676 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (General Business) District, 45.453 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District and 73.360 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers to accommodate commercial and industrial tises, final revision dated April 27, 2016 was considered. The properties are located on the west side of Interstate 81 between Cedar Hill Road (Rt. 671) and Hopewell Road (Rt. 672). The properties are further identified with PIN(s) 33-A-113, 33-A-124 and 33-A-114B in the Stonewall Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on March 16, 2016 and tabled the application for up to 30 days to allow for revised proffers to be submitted; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on this rezoning on April 6, 2016 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on This rezoning on April 27, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to revise the Zoning District Iv1ap to rezone 36.676 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (General Business) District, 45.453 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District and 73.360 acres from the PDRes#11-16 c� Cal RA (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers to accommodate commercial and industrial uses, final revision dated April 27, 2016. The conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the Applicant and the Property owner is attached. This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 27th day of April, 2016 by the following recorded vote: Charles S. Del-Iaven, Jr., Chairman Ave Gary A. Lofton Aye Robert A. I -less Aye Robert W. Wells Ayc Gene F. Fisher Aye Judith McCann -Slaughter Aye Blaine P. Dunn Aye A COPY ATTEST ZL& RAL� - renda G. Garton Frederick County Administrator -2- PDRes# 11-16 BOS Res 4065-16 1600?4055 Rezoning: Property: Record Owners: Project Name: Original Date of Proffers: Revisions: Magisterial District: • RZ # 02-16 Area: 155.488 acres Tax Parcels 33-(A)-113, 33-(A)-124, 33-(A)-114B Blain Properties of Virginia, LLC HMC, LP, LLP 81-West Business Park October 1, 2015 February 17, 2016 March 14, 2016 April 7, 2016 April 27, 2016 Stonewall Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq, of the Code of' Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional Zoning, tile undersigned owners hereby offer the following proffers that III the event the Board of Supervisors of fredericl< Count),, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #02-16 for rezoning of 154.424-acres from the RA District to Business (B-2) (36.676 acres), to Industrial Transition (B-3) (45.453 acres) and Light InduStilal (M-1) (73.360 acres), development of the subject properties shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions Set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the owners and such are approved by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. III the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the owners and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The "Properties" are more particularly described as the lands conveyed to Blain Properties of Virginia, LLC, (an entity registered in New York) from Bradley K. Blain by Deed per inStrUnlent # 120009054 dated August 22, 2012, and to HMC, LP, LLP, by Deed from Cline's Egg Farm LP, LLP, per instrument 0 100 10026 dated July 12, 2001, as recorded in the Frederick County Circuit Court Clerk's Office. See also plats of record at instrument 150005321 for Tax Parcels 33-(A)-113 and 33-(A)-124. A Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated March 15, 2016, by GreyWolfe, Inc., is attached to and made part of this proffer document. z r- • Proffers: 1J 1. Transportation — Vehicle Trips per Day to be determined at Site Plan submission utilizing the current ITE Trip Generation Manual. The owners hereby proffer that the Average Daily Trips shall not exceed 6,330. a. The owners hereby proffer to construct a road to connect Cedar Hill Road (Route 671) to Hopewell Road (Route 672) as shown on the GDP within an 80' right of way. This road and any turn lanes required for the road connections will be built to VDOT standards and dedicated to the County of Frederick. The road shall be two lanes with shoulders and a 10' paved trail. This will be completed prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits. The owners hereby proffer to dedicate an additional 5' strip of land to the County of Frederick along Cedar Hill Road (Route 671) west of Alfalfa Lane and 35' cast of Alfalfa Lane for futin-C Widening as shown on the GDP. This dedication will occur prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits The owners hereby proffer three signalization agreements with VDOT at the intersections of Alfalfa Lane, the northbound ramps, and the southbound ramps of Interstate 81 with Hopewell Road (Route 672). These agreements shall be for a pro rata share of only the signal lights, when warranted by VDOT; and not for ramps, roads, or other inlprovenlcnts unless proffered herein. Tile monetary value Of tlliS proffer illay be dclivercd In cash instead, to the County of Frederick, for road improvements in the area when signals are warranted. d. The owners hereby proffer that no commercial entrances shall be built onto Cedar Hill Road (Route 671) or Hopewell Road (Route 672). The owners hereby proffer to dedicate 1.21 acres as shown on the GDP to the County of Frederick. Said dedication will be within 90 days of written request from the Count), of Frederick or at any tin1C by the owners during development. The owners hereby proffer a 60' right of way to the County of Frederick for limited access road connections aligned with interstate ramps to Alfalfa Lane as shown on the GDP. The final alignments to be determined by others. All road construction by others. The right of way shall be dedicated within 60 days when requested by the County of Frederick. This proffer shall be deenled extinguished if a modification to the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan removes these connections. 2 2. Fire & Rescue — Monetary Contributions .r- a. The owners hereby proffer a cash contribution to Frederick County for Fire and Rescue purposes, of $0.10 per building square foot to be disbursed to the Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department, to be paid prior to occupancy permit. The term "building square foot" shall be the combined floor area for each story. 3. Frederick County Sanitation Authority a. The owners hereby proffer to grant a temporary casement to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, as shown on sheet 2 of the attached GDP, on tax parcel 33-(A)-39 fora ground level water tank. The casement shall begin upon approval of the rezoning and extinguished on December 31, 2021. If the Frederick County Sanitation Authority has started Construction during that time, then the 1.33 acre of land within the easement shall be dedicated to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority in fee simple on December 31, 2021. The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in the interest of the owners and owners. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code and Ordinance. Respectfully Submitted: Blain Properties of Virginia, LLC Date Bradley K. Blain, manager State of ` `' `'�'`�J.t'� -Gity/County of \\\l��i��. To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of '�^C 20 Owner Notary Public My Commission Expires �� Registration Number Alison Teddi Blain Notary Public State of New York Qualified in Monroe County �Q Corr,mission Expires November 30, 20_ c: By- HMC, LP. LLP Date Commonw •• Ith of' Virginia, Cit County f To Wit: The or instrument was acknowledged before me this `l'day of 201�0 ByW,dfa�/hIdle, ary Pu lic Registration Number-.., My Commission Expires KELLI J. RICHARD NOTARY PUBLIC Md REGISTRATION M 7021 14 !t COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA e 4 n GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN j,. GreyWolfe, Inc. BLAIN PROPERTIES OF VIRGINIA, LLC i Land Surveying and Consulting AND HMC LP LLP w Redbu RaaJ A o o G Winchester, VA 22603 (540) 545-4001 OFC FAX � � � GreyWol(efnc@aol. com (540) 595-4001 FAX I 3 r 0 unu,0Sz ,OLB� a 33S c 0,,, C°•oQ'in O a _ v n o o° Z + h 0 o if \ N V�9O3M3d0 D Pa o 0 NICKERSON 2 O rnZFH ^ � � II a o'�^°5 t• � o IENKINS I'^ = i A 4 O y I ~ JENKINS m I I 04GEE ? J'T N3jd0aE I a s � I y�A I QqT \ a "cmn I C, HODGSONC I C $ I NOI1g31030 S � IL91a Q , OV08171H OV033 Q / o C:3 P a o Qa f f t f 4 E TO, CL t f k E t t 4 f k f E (� 11�� E f t f G ^ n' O V(] E f f t t f t tD m � � m GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN z m A�. GreyWolfe, Inc. BLAIN PROPERTIES OF VIRGINIA, LLC i Land Surveying and Consulting AND HMC LP LLP Winchester, ester,RdbRoaOOFC O c GmyWs[er, VA o1.w (540) 545-4001 FAX GreyWollelnc@aol.mm (540) 545-400I FAX VfRGIMA: FREDERICK COUNTY.SC1. This instrument of writing was produced to me on S cp- av< <f) at PM and with ceLrtifiuite acknowledgement thereto annexed was admitted to record. Tax imposed by Sec. 58.1-802 of $ and 58.1-801 have been paid, if assessable Clerk Rezoning: Property: Record Owners: Project Name: Original Date of Proffers: Revisions: Magisterial District: RZ # 02-16 Area: 155.488 acres Tax Parcels 33-(A)-113, 33-(A)-124, 33-(A)-114B Blain Properties of Virginia, LLC HMC, LP, LLP 81-West Business Park October 1, 2015 February 17, 2016 March 14, 2016 April 7, 2016 Stonewall Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950. as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned owners hereby offer the following proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #02-16 for rezoning of 154.424-acres from the RA District to Business (B-2) (36.676 acres), to Industrial Transition (B-3) (45.453 acres) and Light Industrial (M-1) (73.360 acres), development of the subject properties shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the owners and such are approved by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the owners and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The "Properties" are more particularly described as the lands conveyed to Blain Properties of Virginia, LLC, (an entity registered in New York) from Bradley K. Blain by Deed per instrument # 120009054 dated August 22, 2012, and to HMC, LP, LLP, by Deed from Cline's Egg Farm LP, LLP, per instrument 010010026 dated July 12, 2001, as recorded in the Frederick County Circuit Court Clerk's Office. See also plats of record at instrument 150005321 for Tax Parcels 33-(A)-113 and 33-(A)-124. A Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated March 15, 2016, by GreyWolfe, Inc., is attached to and made part of this proffer document. E • Proffers: 1. Transportation — Vehicle Trips per Day to be determined at Site Plan submission utilizing the current ITE Trip Generation Manual. The owners hereby proffer that the Average Daily Trips shall not exceed 6,330. The owners hereby proffer to construct a road to connect Cedar Hill Road (Route 671) to Hopewell Road (Route 672) as shown on the GDP within an 80' right of way. This road and any turn lanes required for the road connections will be built to VDOT standards and dedicated to the County of Frederick. The road shall be two lanes with shoulders and a 10' paved trail. This will be completed prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits. b. The owners hereby proffer to dedicate an additional 5' strip of land to the County of Frederick along Cedar Hill Road (Route 671) west of Alfalfa Lane and 35' east of Alfalfa Lane for future widening as shown on the GDP. This dedication will occur prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits c. The owners hereby proffer three signalization agreements with VDOT at the intersections of Alfalfa Lane, the northbound ramps, and the southbound ramps of Interstate 81 with Hopewell Road (Route 672). These agreements shall be for a pro rata share of only the signal lights, when warranted by VDOT; and not for ramps, roads, or other improvements unless proffered herein. The monetary value of this proffer may be delivered in cash instead, to the County of Frederick, for road improvements in the area when signals are warranted. d. The owners hereby proffer that no commercial entrances shall be built onto Cedar Hill Road (Route 671) or Hopewell Road (Route 672). The owners hereby proffer to dedicate 1.21 acres as shown on the GDP to the County of Frederick. Said dedication will be within 90 days of written request from the County of Frederick or at any time by the owners during development. The owners hereby proffer a 60' right of way to the County of Frederick for limited access road connections aligned with interstate ramps to Alfalfa Lane as shown on the GDP. The final alignments to be determined by others. All road construction by others. The right of way shall be dedicated within 60 days when requested by the County of Frederick. This proffer shall be deemed extinguished if a modification to the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan removes these connections. 2. Fire & Rescue — Monetary Contributions The owners hereby proffer a cash contribution to Frederick County for Fire and Rescue purposes, of $0.05 per building square foot to be disbursed to the Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department, to be paid prior to occupancy permit. The term "building square foot" shall be the combined floor area for each story. 3. Frederick County Sanitation Authority The owners hereby proffer to grant a temporary easement to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, as shown on sheet 2 of the attached GDP, on tax parcel 33-(A)-39 for a ground level water tank. The easement shall begin upon approval of the rezoning and extinguished on December 31, 2021. If the Frederick County Sanitation Authority has started construction during that time, then the 1.33 acre of land within the easement shall be dedicated to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority in fee simple on December 31, 2021. The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in the interest of the owners and owners. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code and Ordinance. Respectfully Submitted: Blain Prop rties of Virginia, LLC Bradley K. Blain, manager State of 41-19' 16 Date City/County of ��— To Wit: ` `^ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of Owner Registration Number Notary Public My Commission Expires Alison Teddi Blain Notary Public State of New York puali`ied in Monroe County 3 Commission Expires November 30.20_0 1J By: L (TAt�7a U- MC, LP, LLP Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of 4"hF[AAA e- To Wit: Date The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 14kaay of 201(o sy john D CI In e o�Notary Public My Commission Expires %. - bU ' by S i I ►9&qA� Registration Number FREDERICK COUNTY N SANITATION AUTHORITY Post Oft ice Box 1877 Winchester Virginia 2260-1-8377 January 19, 2016 1-11 (5.40) 868-1061 Fax (5.10) 868-I429 i%ww.fcso-wmer.com Gary R. Oates, VIKGINIA FkcDERICK COUNTY.SC-1. GreyWol Ic IndNs instrument of writing was produced to me on 1071 Rcdbud RlolIadlnt Q Winchester, Vk4ii �4ci2�{.ti� at and with certificate acknowledgement thereto annexed was admitted to record. Tax imposed by See. 58,1.802 of RE: Rezoii�" µli'GtUtliERV-04)lk1&11(Q',Llttl)aid,ifassessable. 81- Wcs 3usinc, s Par1 Tax �4 - k-113, 33-A-124, 33-A-114B 155.488 acres"`' Clerk Dear Mr. Oates: Eric R. Lawrence F:acculice Director Thank you fOr the O1)hOftLIllity t0 Of1Cr review comments oil t1C 81-West BLISIIICSS Park rezoning application package, dated October I, 2015. The Frcdcrick COLillty Sanitation AL10101'lty (FCSA) offers comments limited to the anticipated impact/effect upon the Authority's public water and sanitary scwcr system and the demands thereon. The project parcels are in tile SC1ver and hater Service area (SWSA) and are served by FCSA. Based on the project's location both water and sanitary sewer services are available within a reasonable distance from the site. Sanitary SC1vCr treatment capacity at the wastewater treatillent plant is also presently available. Salutary sewer convcyance capacity Gild layout will be contingent oil the applicant performing a technical analysis Ol the existing sanitary sewer system within the area t0 be Served and the ability of'the existing conveyance system to accept additional load. Please keel) in mind that this area 1V0111d I-CCILIIrC 1111111C1.OLIS sanitary p111111) station reviews and will be of ectcd by varIO11S projects already contemplated within this area. The sanitary scwcr flows from the project would contribute to an existing scwcr force Illalil that is heavily utilized, and is CILIC for a study of alternatives for conveyance. Accordingly, improvements t0 the force Illalil and its alternatives may be necessary. WATt:12's \\wolz,I.11 1'1 0 • Page 2 RB: 81-\Vest Business Park Mr. Gaut' R. Oates, IS-13, P1; January 19, 2016 Likewise, water distriblltl011 capacity will rcgllll'C the applicant t0 perf01'ill a technical analysis OI the existing system within the arca t0 be served t0 determine available Capacity 01 both the potable water system and the ability to provide fire protection. It is reasonable to expect that production well sites, and water Storage facilitics with all OvullOw elevation of about 780' above mean sea level be pursued to support water storage, capacities, and pressures. Attached is a map that depicts potential well sites on the properties within the 81- West BLlSillCSS Park rezoning application. The two well sites are identified as 1-16 and 1-17 on the FCSA's 2000 Comprehensive Hydro-cologic all(] Well SIIIIIg Study. The wells scored a 17 of 24 points, not high scores but still are potential production well opportunitieS that FCSA would \VCICOnIC tile Opportunity to pin'Suc. We would encourage your rezoning application to include provisions for well exploration in the vicinity of these two well sites, as well as a desirable water storage tank location. Water and sanitary sewers are to be COnstl'ucted in accordance with the FCSA Standards specifications. Dedicated casements 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 Ol'fcring these rcvic\v COI11111CI1tS \VitIIOIIt bcilefit Of knowledge of the Use Of the Site. We \VOIIId \VCIC011ic all O1)l)Ol'tllllity t0 I'CVICW ally proffers which may serve t0 mitigate ally water and sewer dcficiencicS Ill the as prescnted rezoning proposal. Thallk YOU f01' the 01)1)01'tlllllty t0 OfICI' review COI11111ciltS. Sincerely, Eric R. Lawrence, AICP ExCCIItlVC Director Cc: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, C011nty P1allillllg Department ` l -� .. / " r; .�' uvy' ,' ;;, � /"� i' /:i - dam•.--� , f �xi� r Ate/ %. ;�'?! �j-� Xr } —3 �• �.i.�`,r � � 7,fj� K.. .�2�; ,� h'3T.;lt n.'"i�^'—�- �� i '• rl ,��yp.�jy. � �� _\ � � ':' .'��1i _ xis` y: % �,,1�Q0 �,tsie{' r. 5 a � • !t 7 i', :,,:.. .,%ir-. i�G /. �fiYy. ��'-r•'t'�'1 _;''�'•. •.�� `} ii r.1�',.�'' /..,r. ' t � '` - • t`/ �r� J � �'�" ii�� � C `c to t i. r,} ♦ �r c - ,�� j .# jc i 1 _ r. 't7'0�,� !,•�� � __ ♦ r",.`,lit `'•�..'*, v..' �. rty'��f=�� �1i .i� �'��' � J' �`Y', Y•.iA l)` t �. %i:: *���T.ri •.P e+tti't`• ��' r/ r ',�di 'b nya. � �'�(� A .i �I � "�1.: .1 ^` •� ,r S #1 .Y, 1} �, —� r NF 'fir'` r itr' � / �^1 /. I .}�,��\\ '�r r -•, �!� t�`s rz �.{, 9 ,rti� `i J�' ���. � _ r 31 b.r i4 QQ,/!. ' ''.7k 0 • COUNTY of FREDERI C Roderick B.'Williams County Attorney 540/722-8383 Fax 540/667-0370 E-mail: rNvillia@co.fredcrick.va.us December 18, 2015 VIA E-MAIL AND REGULAR MAIL Mr. Gary Oates GreyWolfc, Inc. 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, VA 22603 Re: Rezoning Application — 81-West. Business Park Rezoning Proffer Statement dated October 1, 2015 Dear Gary: You have submitted to Frederick County for review the above -referenced proffer statement (the "Proffer Statement") for the proposed rezoning of'rax Parcel Numbers 33-A-113, 33-A-11413, and 33-A-124 (the "Property"), 155.488= acres in the Stonewall Magisterial District, from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (General Business), B3 (Industrial Transition), and M I (Light Industrial) Districts, 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: Parcels —The parcels and the acreages that you have indicated for the rezoning do not correspond with existing GIS or eked records. o The Generalized Development Plan (GDP) shows a parcel of 15.495 acres, owned by I-IMC L.P., L.L.C. (I-IMC), to be zoned MI. '.['his appears to be part of Tax Parcel Number 33-A-114C, which is not identified on the Proffer Statement as part of the rezoning. The parcel is listed as 20.13 acres on GIS, but measures as approximately 43 acres on GIS, and is what appears to be part of Parcel B on the plat with the deeds recorded in Deed Book 577, at Page 224 and in Deed Book 577, at Page 463, the deeds referenced in Instrument Number 010010026, which is in turn referenced in the Proffer Statement (tile deeds show a total acreage at the time of 36.401 acres) (copies enclosed). 1',urther clarification appears to be necessary. Also, as the parcel would apparently be split zoned, the application materials would need to show metes and bounds for the zoning line. 107 North Ken[ Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601 0 • Mr. Clary Oates December 18, 2015 Page 2 o Likewise, the GDP shows a parcel of 36.676 acres, owned by HMC, to be zoned B2. This appears to be Tax Parcel Number 33-A-114B. The parcel is listed as 52.17 acres on GIS, but measures as approximately 29 acres on GIS, and is what appears to be Parcel A on the plat with the deeds recorded in Deed Book 577, at Page 224 and in Deed Boole 577, at Page 463, the deeds referenced in Instrument Number 010010026, which is in turn relbrcnced in the Proffer Statement (the deeds show a total acreage at the time of 29.631 acres). Further clarification appears to be necessary. Corporate status — With respect to applicant Blain Properties of Virginia, LLC (Blain), while the acquisition deed for its two parcels, recorded as Instrument Number 120009054, identifies Blain as a Virginia limited liability company, I have been unable to locate an entity registration for Blain with the State Corporation Commission. In fact, New York corporate records identify the entity as a \Tew York limited liability company. While a Virginia entity registration is not required for mere property ownership; this issue should be clarified before the rezoning matter proceeds. Proffers la (dedication and construction of north -south road) and lb (dedication of additional 5' right-of-way along Cedar Hill Road) — These proffers do not indicate a triggering event for their performarnce. Also, it appears that Proffer I a should indicate the north -south road as what is identified as Alfalfa Lane on the GDP. o Proffer le —The proffer would read more clearly were it to state that the owners proffer to construct one and no more than one "right -in only" entrance and no other entrances between the indicated points. o Proffer 2 — The Impact Statement accompanying the Proffer Statement indicates that the cash proffer would be $0.10 per square foot, yet the Proffer Statement indicates $0.05 per square foot. 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}rely, j7 � Roderick B. NVilliams County Attorney Enclosures (via e-mail only) cc: Michael "I'. Ruddy, Deputy Director of Planning & Development, Frederick County (via e-mail) 0 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 TO: Gary Oates GreyWol fe, Inc. FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: Rezoning Comments: I-81 West Rezoning. Cedar Hill Road and Hopewell Road PIN's 44-A-25B and 44-A-40 DATE: January 19, 2016 The following comments are offered regarding the 1-81 West Rezoning Application. 'I'his is a request to rezone 155.48 acres 1i-om RA (Rural Areas) to a combination of B2 (General Business) 36.67 acres, B3 (Industrial Transition) 45.45 acres, and Nll (Light Industrial) 73.36 acres with Proffers. The review is generally based upon the proffer statement dated October 1, 2015, and the Impact Analysis Statement dated October 1, 2015. Prior to formal Subinisslon to the County, please ensure that these comments and all review agency comments are adequately addressed. At a IIIiIIIllllml, a letter describing how each of the agencies and their comments have been addressed and should be included as part of the submission. General 1) The submission fee for this application would total $25,274.00, based upon acreage of 155.48 acres. Land Use 1) The 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan provide guidance on the future development of the property. The property is located within the SWSA. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies this property with a combination of cominci-cial and industrial land use designations. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • �Nlinchester, Virginia 22601-5000 I-81 West Rezoning. January 19, 2016 Page 2 In general, the proposed industrial and commercial zoning is consistent with the current land use supported by the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the items that are described in the amendment to the Northeast Land Use Plan, Blain Properties Amendment (CPPA 401-14) in support of the land use designations appear to be appropriately addressed, subject to the following comments. Impact Analysis and Proffer Statements. Please address the following items from the impact Analysis and Proffer Statements prepared for this application. 1) The application's in)pact analysis should include more detail with regards to the suitability of the site. it is customary to prepare exhibits that show the location of the various site constraints or FeatU1*CS SUCK as the floodplalns and wetlands, if any exist. This information is important to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors review of the application. 2) As noted during the Comprehensive Plan revision, transportation in the area would be a big consideration in future land use decisions. The discussion of the transportation approach and the potential impacts should be clearer in the impact analysis by bridging the gap between the TIA and impact analysis, especially how this project may impact the interstate interchange and adjacent intersections. 3) The application has addressed the potential impacts of this rezoning request by linking improvements to the vehicle trip count (6,330 ADT), therefore, the majority of the impacts addressed deal with transportation. In the Impact Analysis, please describe how this relates to the potential physical development of the site. It should be noted that, beyond the above described trip cap, this application provides no limitation on the potential industrial and commercial land uses that may be developed on the site. 4) 'file Impact Analysis should include more detail regarding the proposed approach to the transportation and access component of the request and should describe how the TIA relates to the Proffer Statement. At this time there is no description as to how the Impact Analysis is and where you could describe those components of the Proffer Statement that you have proffered to address the potential transportation impacts. 5) Cool"dlnatlon of any comments from Mr. Bishop, County Transportation Planncr, and VDOT will be important to ensure the transportation impacts and solutions are adequately addressed. Staff may also provide additional comments related to the proposed changes il'warranted subject to adjustments requested by VDOT. 6) Please refer to the GDP by date in the proffer statement. 7) The GDP may be used to a greater extent to link the road development to the site development. 8) The locations of the intersections of the proposed road, Alfalfa Lane, to the existing roads should be located to meet spacing standards with existing roads and current and future interstate interchange ramp improvements. I-81 West Rezoning. January 19, 2016 Page 3 9) The proposed road is identified as a future major collector. Therefore the right-of- way should meet ininilllum expectations for such a road. In addition, partial COI1StI-L1CtiOI1 of the appropriate section should be addressed. Two lanes, at this time, may be sufficient but the application should evaluate and address this item. 10) Consideration should be given to the alignment of' a future southern extension of the proposed road south ofHopewell Road. 11)Consideration should be given to additional right-of-way needs adjacent to interstate 81 to accommoclatc future anticipated improvements to the Interstate. 12) Plcasc provide a separate plat showing the meets and bounds of the rezoning. 1 3) Consider corridor appearance improvements, such as a split rail fence of landscaping acljaccnt to the existing and proposed roads. Special attention should be paid to enhanced buffering and spacing adjacent to existing residential land uses. 14) The value of the Fire and Rescue Proffer should be evaluated to make sink it is SuffiClCilt. COOrdillati011 with the local fire and rescuC company would be desirable. Background. This rezoning is based on an anienchnent to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix I - Area Plans, The Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan. CPPA #01-14 Blain Properties Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) Inclusion: Parcels 33-A-1 13 and 33-A-124. A change to the SWSA bounclary to include approximately 140 additional acres in the vicinity of the Blain properties to the SWSA. The additional properties include parcels; 33-A-78A, 33-A-11413, 33-A-1 14C, 33-A-77B, 33-A-123A, and 33-A-12313. Language included in the update: The axed of land use noi•lhwest of Exit 321, Interstate 81, Hopewell Road, and south of Cedar Hill Road is commercial and industrial in character. In general, the north --south major• collector road that has been identified and is necessary to siq)po-t this area of land Use serves as a holulclary between the commel•cial and industrial land rises. Fletibility should be offel'ed in the final balance and location of land uses. Future applications Jbi- re7ollilig ill this area shall adequately address any potential impacts to public fricilitie.s', in particular tran.sl)ol•tation, and shall implement any necessary ti•ansy)oilation impl'ovemeilts. 7ransy)ortalion in the area would he a big consideration in flitrire land use decisions. 1 J • ci°4OJ Y GAN/T4r�oy 4� 47 vo,s FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY Post Office Btrx 1877 I'll (5•10) 863-1061 Eric K. him-ence Winchester Virginia 22604-8377 Pns (5,10) 868-1-121) Iaeculke Uireclnr w« NI.fcsa-Sl ater.com January 18, 2016 Gary R. Oates, LS-B, PE GreyWol('e, Inc. 1071 Redbud Road Winchester, Virginia 22603 RE: Rezoning Application Comment 81- West Business Park Tax Map Numbers: 33-A-113, 33-A-124, 33-A-114B 1S5.488 acres Dear Mr. Oates: Thank you 161' the OppOI-tlllllty to of Ier review comments Oil the 81 -West Business Park rezo ling application package, dated October I, 2015. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) offers comments limited to the anticipated impact/effect upon the Authority's public water and sanitary sewer system and the demands thereon. The project parcels are in the sewer and water service area (SWSA) and are served by FCSA. Based on the project's location both water and sanitary sewer services are available within a reasonable distance from the site. Sanitary sewer treatment capacity at the wastewater treatment plant is also presently available. Sanitary sewer conveyance capacity and layout will be contingent Oil the applicant performing a technical analysis of the existing sanitary sewer system within the area to be served and the ability of the existing conveyance system to accept additional load. Please keep in mind that this area would require numerous sanitary pump station reviews and will be atTected by various projects already contemplated within this area. The sanitary sewer flows h'011l the prOJCCt lvollld contribute to an existing sewer force main that is heavily utilized, and is duC for a study Of alternatives I'or conveyance. Accordingly, improvements to the force main and its alternatives may be necessary. Likewise, water dlstribIIJOII capacity will regllll'C the applicant to perform a technical analysis 01 the existing system within the area to be served to determine available capacity Of both the NVATI-AZIS N1'OILT11 IT Page 2 RE: 81-West t3usiness Park Mr. Gary R. Oates, LS-13, PE January 18, 2016 potable water system and the ability to provide fire protection. It is reasonable to expect that well sites, and water storage faculties with an Overflow Clcvation Of about 780' above mean sea level be pursued to support water storage, capacities, and preSSUres. Water and sanitary sewers are to be constructed in accordance with the FCSA standards specifications. Dedicated easements may be required and based on the IayOUt VCI11Cl1lar access will need to be incorporated into the final design. Please be aware that the FCSA is offering these rcvicw COnlnlents without benefit of knowledge of the use of' the site. We would welcome an opportunity to review any proffers which may serve to mitigate any water and sewer deficiencies in the as presented rezoning proposal. Thank you for the Opportunity to offer review comments. Sincerely, Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Executive Director Cc: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, County Planning Department Rezoning Comments Frederick County Department of Public Works Mail to: Frederick County Dept. of Public Works Attn: Director of Engineering 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540)665-5643 Hand 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 information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Department of Public Works with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. _..w _ ..__...._._....._... .. _..... ............. .._..,.......:.............._,......................_ Applicant's Name: GreyWoffe, Inc. - Gary R. Oates, LS-B, PE Mailing Address: Telephone: 540-667-2001 1073 Redbud Road, Winchester, Virginia, 22603 81 West Business Park Location of property: West side of Interstate 81 between Cedar Hill Road (Rt 671) & Hopewell Road (Rt 672) Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: B-2, B-3, & M-1 Acreage: 155.488 ac. Department of Public Work's Comments: e e ino (-o t Y 1 lA c� r c92 I ug1 ncg5 &L Public Works Signature & Date: J Notice to Dept. of Public Works lease Return This Form to the Applicant 21 o f 150005329. o 1, Gary R. Oates, on this the 8"' day of May, 2015, do hereby certify that the plat entitled "Final Plat of a Boundary Survey of Tax Parcels 33-(A)-113 S 124" and description attached hereto is it true copy of a survey made by me on April 27, 2015, of 57.86S acres of land for tax parcel 33-(A)-113 and 45AS3 acres of land for tax parcel 33-(A)-124 being all of the lands conveyed to Blain Properties of Virginia, LLC., from Bradley K. Blain on August 22, 2012, as instrument 120009054. Tile said land lies in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia. :iH of GAI R.OATES Lic. No 1 18-B STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK, TO WIT: �r� le, 0"t'- I, Kelli Richard, a Notary Public in and for the State of Virginia and County of Frederick, do hereby certify that this day personally appeared before me Gary R. Oates, whose name is signed to the forgoing instrument. Given under my hand this 1211' day of June, 2015. My commission expires �% — My registration number is l 63 1 KELLI 1, RICHARD NOTARY PUBLIC REGISTRATION • 7021142 TCOMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA r. V o CEDAR HILL RD, - RT. 6�1 SITE h HOPEWELL RD, RT Q 6J1 � EXIT 321 VICINITY MAP 1 " = 2000' FINAL PLAT OF BOUNDARY SURVEY OF TAX PARCELS 33-(A)-113 & 124 STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA MAY 8, 2015 TAX PARCELS OWNER REFERENCE AREA ZONED USE 33-(A)-113 BLAIN PROPERTIES #120009054 57.865ACRES RA AGRICULTURAL OF VIRGINIA, LLC. 33-(A)-124 BLAIN PROPERTIES #120009054 45,453 ACRES RA AGRICULTURAL OF VIRGINIA, LLC. NOTES 1. A FIELD SURVEY WAS PERFORMED BY GREYWOLFE, INC. IN APRIL, 2015. 2. BASIS OF MERIDIAN IS GRID NORTH OF VIRGINIA STATE PLANE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (1983). 3. A TITLE REPORT HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED; THEREFORE, OTHER EASEMENTS OR ENCUMBRANCES MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAT 4. THIS PARCEL IS LOCATED ON FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP No, 51069CO150D AND MAP No. 51069CO209D IN FLOOD ZONE 'X', AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN, DATED SEPTEMBER 2, 2009. 5. THERE WAS NO READILYAPPARENT EVIDENCE OFA CEMETERY WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE BOUNDARY LINES. ABBREVIATIONS LEGEND AGR. = AGRICULTURE DB = DEED BOOK O = PROPERTY CORNER FOUND EX. = EXISTING O = PROPERTY CORNER SET PG = PAGE 518" REBAR WITH CAP RES. = RESIDENTIAL E— = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES R.O. W = RIGHT OF WAY IRF = IRON ROD FOUND CONC. MON. = CONCRETE MONUMENT FOUND SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THE PARCELS 33-(A)-113 AND 33-(A)-124 CONTAINED IN THIS FINAL PLAT FOR BOUNDARY IS THE LAND CONVEYED TO BLAIN PROPERTIES OF VIRGINIA, LLC. BY DEED DATED AUGUST 22, 2012, OF RECORD IN THE FREDERICK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE AS INSTRUMENT #120009054, �1& ��PCTH 0, GAR R. OATES, LAND SURVEYOR 1013 Redbud Road Greyftlfe, Inc. Winchester, VA22603 U Land Surveying and Consulting GreyWo/felnc9aol.com 540-667-2001OFC 540-545-4001 FAX DRAWN BY: CBC FILE NO: 0405 SHEET 1 OF 4 0 zl C1 1 IjI 1 Yoryo % "" IRF NSW/CAP i gl� QI 1 i � CEDAR HILL ROAD RT. 671 1 of - 40'R.0.W --�--- 9 -� C1 S 76034 56" E - 42Z43' S 7604155" E 5 75038'50' E - 866.49' \ 118.90' \ / W EX. SIGHT DISTANCE & GRADING EASEMENT 33•(A)-114 #120009055 BLAIN PROPERTIES OF VIRGINIA, LLC. #120009054 ZONED: RA USE.- AGR. 45.453ACRES % .P C) } /p a \ �"" 33-(A)-113 w I� I �o # o / BLAIN PROPERTIES OF VIRGINIA, LLC. 5 Q o \ W #120009054 z Iw o w / ZONED: RA w 3 C> W USE.• AGR. 865 ACRES ^ w57. Iw co n �o ..Q �W 0 a� oo� A � / o / II 15' ACCESS EASMENT #090005638 FENCE POST 33-(A)-78A HMCL.P., L.L.P. / #080004296 / ZONED: RA USE: AGR. f39 ACRES 33-(A)-113A KENNETH H. & BONNIE LOU SMITH #130003086 FENCE POST ZONED: RA z� USE: RES I o -- 15.0 ACRES ^ `" M N o N er °05'54' W 996.32 N 81 S1a „" IRF 33-(A)-114C W/CAP i HMCL.P., L.L.P. #010010026 I 33-(A)-1238 #080004296 OPEN DOOR ZONED; RA BAPTIST CHURCH USE: AGR. #060013501 f42 ACRES ZONED. RA USE: CHURCH 300' 0' 300' sLJ'J HLttCJ i GRAPHIC SCALE CURVE RADIUSI ARC LENGTH JDELTAANGLEJ CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING CI 2045.17' 1 263.33' 1 7022 38" 1 263,15' S 80°16'15" E FINAL PLAT OFA BOUNDARYSURVEY gpj H OF LIB OF TAX PARCELS �� 33-(A)-113 & 124 �o GAR R. OATES STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA N.1 1 -B S f' I T _4� 1073 Redbud Road GreyWolfe, Inc. Winchester, VA22603 `ENO SUAO� Land Surveying and Consulting G540-66 l n Oi OFCm 540-545-4001 FAX FILE NO: 0405 DATE: MAY 8, 2015 7CALE: 1 " = 300' 1 SHEET 2 OF 4 • . C:) ti CEDAR HILL ROAD RT. 671 - - - S 75038'50" E - 40' R.,D. W i —47 9�9 —9 i 115,37' S 73°2973" E - 368.14' � G`cp9p eat QC�' 1 SEE DETAIL A oeB�F�y�9p v �'� r0 / EX. SIGHT DISTANCE & SHEET 4 9AC7,��T6'r ts OCONC. �`� GRADING EASEMENT cS 9r . p #120009055 MON. S 33-(A)-113 I CONC. ir9oS�s9� AI d m PPnPF.PTTFS M AI F _ 33-(A)-124 BLAIN PROPERTIES OF VIRGINIA, LLC. #120009054 ZONED: RA USE: AGR. 45.453 ACRES h71 °3-1272.00' 33-(AJ-123B OPEN DOOR BAPTIST CHURCH #060013501 ZONED: RA USE: CHURCH I 113.3 ACRES i I 250' 0' 250' rmmmmpmm GRAPHIC SCALE CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH DELTA ANGLE CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING C7 430.00' 229.08' 3003127" 226.38' S 58013'40" E C3 1949.85' 378.13' 11 °06'40" 377.53' S 46633'18" E FINAL PLAT OF A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF TAX PARCELS 33-(A)-113 & 124 STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1073 Redbud Road GreyWolfe, Inc. Winchester, VA22603 Land Surveying and Consulting GreyWo/felnc@aoLcom 540-667-2001 OFC 540-545.4001 FAX m DETAIL A' CONC. O�ON, � I ,r CONC. I \ f Fps MON. Ts- �S6e F CONC. o S 49 00002" W 33-(A)-124 MON. e 16.61' \ BLAIN PROPERTIES OF VIRGINIA, s C LLC. Aosfl- Go9p 4120009054 ZONED: RA USE.• AGR. 45.453 ACRES F 50' 0' 50' GRAPHIC SCALE \ F DETAIL F N 71 °3428° W - 1272.00' � I ! ! + 112 ° IRF I 33-(A)-123A I ! ! I I KENNETH H. & BONNIE LOU SMITH #130003086 ! ZONED: RA ! ,� I USE.- RES z 15.0 ACRES I 0 lJvtil O O I o 0 33-(A)-123B ! OPEN DOOR BAPTIST CHURCH i I #060013501 ZONED: RA ! I USE: CHURCH ! f23.3 ACRES j I 100, 0' 100, GRAPHIC SCALE FINAL PLAT OF A BOUNDARY SURVEY TH OF L OF TAX PARCELS 33-(A)-113 & 124 U GAR R. OA�STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA No.. 1 I -B 1073 Redbud Road —'4'—GreyWolfe, Inc. Winchester, VA22603 qND SUR��yO Land Surveying and Consulting GreyWo1fe1ncc8aoLcom 540-667-2001 OFC 540-545-4001 FAX FILE NO: 0405 DATE: MAY 8, 2015 1 SCALE: N/A SHEET 4 OF 4 vII<GJNIA:F1,,,?DL-RICKC(Uuiv'1"i. (". This instrument of writing was produced to me ui -! 2-/`5 at -), -, -1 and with certilit:;ur',cl;noIcdgerncnt thereto annO•.cd was admitted to r,�curd.'I'ax imposed by See. 58.1-802 of and 58.1-8U1 have been paid, if assessable j� I) J1eT-- , Clerk 150010838 Rt• 67 CPdd�Hi//ROdd J, y°pP QUARRY VICINITY MAP �6j�°ad " R EXIT i = 2000' 321 QUARRY FINAL PLATOFA BOUNDARYLINE ADJUSTMENT ON THE LANDS OF HMC, LP, LLP STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA OCTOBER 5, 2015 OWNERS CERTIFICATE THIS BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT SURVEY ON THE LANDS OF HMC, LP, LLP, AS APPEARS ON THE ACCOMPANYING PLAT IS WITH THE CONSENT OFANO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS, AND TRUSTEES, IFANY. GNATURE - JOHN DAVID CLINE, MANAGER COMMONWEAL Tfl OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF EjldAick, TO WIT. -THE FOREGOING OWNERS CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE METHISLi_NOAYOF /'r:P)bgr 2015, 8Y: JoHrJ >). GL„NK PRINTED MANAGER G�EVEIyG'�,� PRINTED NOTARYPUBLIC SIGNATURE NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEAL SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PARCELS CONTAINED IN THIS BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT SURVEY ARE THE LANDS CONVEYED TO HMC, LP, L L P 8Y DEED FROM CLINE'S FARM LP, LLP, OF RECORD IN THE FREDERICK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE AT INSTRUMENT 010010026 DATED JULY I 2001. le GARY R. OATES, LAND SURVEYOR �,t TH Op p I APi�GV f �=sy� G DG �yyJ ,Q Cf FREDERICK COUNTY SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR DATE 1073 RedbOd Road j;. GreyWolfe, Inc. Winchester, VA22603 u 4 R• OATES v No. 1518-B Land Surveying and Consulting GreyWolfelnc[@aol.com 540-545-7823 OFC 540-545-4001 FAX DRAWN BY: GRO FILE NO: 0154 SHEET 1 OF 3 NOTES 1. A FIELD SURVEY WAS PERFORMED BY GREYWOLFE, INC. IN OCTOBER OF2015. 2. THE BASIS OF MERIDIAN IS GRID NORTH OF THE VIRGINIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM. 3. A TITLE REPORT HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED; THEREFORE, OTHER EASEMENTS OR ENCUMBRANCES MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. 400' 0' 400' 33-(A)-113 GRAPHIC SCALE BLAIN PROPERTIES _ OF VIRGINIA, LLC r #120009054 CEDAR HILL ESTATES ZONED: RA LOT 44 FENCE POST USE: AGR. #070017420 57,865ACRES /-� S81 °0539"996. �7RF %/, 33-(A)-78A HMC L. P., ,,, • BRL • — L. L.P. #080004296 w 33-(A)-123B ZONED: RA . E, / o ti OPEN DOOR BAPTIST USE. RURAL RRES, 39, 048 ACRES a, v I CHURCH, INC. #060013501 -f - o / ' ti ZONED: RA rn 20p USE., CHURCH. 23.339 AC. 33 A)-77A HMC LP, LLP 5/a IRF ti ZONED: RA USE: 6jg61' RES. 5.0505 AC. �+ S S) ° 76°�I' S pS' 1] E SEFDEr4z _ - �- - - o O� ZO , S 6-? pp, 33-(A)-778 p BRA =i � r sus°p H .� 619^F HMC, LP LLP 10j67 ZONED. RA � a i I S_19°z4, 1/1"IRF USE: RES. 5.0505AC. '' l� yj 270.80 5 " 1 i r l 1001.RG �9 LY 149, O — 16' 5/e"IR ONB�OE /e IRf o / h i I VDH CONC. MON, O / I l 33-(A)-114C h i/ � HMC, LP, LLP r, 33 (A) 114E / #010010026 �p LLP 33 (A)78A HMC L.P., L.L.P. ti ZONED. RA o ` USE; ORCHARD ' #0HMC100Pf1026 / ti ZONED: RA / #080004296 w 20.130ACRES a - ti Q m /i USE: ORCHARD / 52.170 ACRES ZONED: RA o o /f m USE: RURAL RRES, o m 1 '�/ 39.048 ACRES 7g 09, I � N>q°pB I VDH CONC. �y - - i - L C--> O.o pp" a, MON. / c / VDH CONC. MON. N 83°3139" W HOp�cH, (!\O`O�� 129,49' 1/2"IRf ROUT R-' p - , Gy ° BpR04, N8�4539"W-1511,33' 1-65/8"IRF # RADIUS LENGTH DELTA TANGENT BEARING CHORD C-1 1 1185,92' 1 194,44' 09°13'39" 9744' N7804950'W 194,22' C-21 2859.42' 1 678.72' 13° 36' DO" 340.96' 5 26013 53" W 677.13' PATH ()F f�A �2 u G� R. No. 1518-B /o - s-is Su pN&)9 FINAL PLAT OF A MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION FOR ON THE LANDS OF HMC, LP, LLP STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA GreyWolfe, Inc. \� Land Surveying and Consulting w 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, VA 22603 GreyWolfelncL@aol.com 540.545-7823 OFC 540-545-4001 FAX I FILE NO: 0154 J DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2015 I SCALE: 1 " = 400' I SHEET 2 OF 3 11 • 0 AREA TABULATIONS PARCEL TAX NUMBERS ORIGINAL AREA ADJUSTED AREA 33-(A)-114B 29.649 ACRES 52.170 ACRES 33-(A)-114C 42.651 ACRES 20.130 ACRES 71.300 ACRES 72.300 ACRES ABBREVIATIONS LEGEND AGR = AGRICULTURE O = PROPERTYCORNER FOUND BRL = BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE p = PROPERTY CORNER SET DB = DEED BOOK 518"X 24" REBAR WITH EX. = EXISTING YELLOW PLASTIC CAP INST = INSTRUMENT IRF = IRON ROD FOUND PG = PAGE P.L. = PROPERTY LINE RES. = RESIDENTIAL R.O. W. = RIGHT OF WAY 40' 0' 40' GRAPHIC SCALE 33-(A)-123B 1112"IW OPEN DOOR BAPTIST CHURCH, INC. 4060013501 ZONED: RA U23.339 AC.H S,So0S1I 33 (A) 114C HMC, LP, LLP i� "E.6-''00, O 1' IPF 33 (A) 1148 ZONED. R4 ' LLP J #010010026 j S7S�0619" F 11076S, USE: ORCHARD ti ZONED: RA 20.130 ACRES USE: ORCHARD 52.170 ACRES h v I FINAL PLAT OF �P_TH OF A MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION FOR t�C ON THE LANDS OF O HMC, LP, LLP (�� ? U Sj� D STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT GAR R. ES FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA No, 1518-B Ivj - 7S r 1073 Redbud Road ji GreyWolfe, Inc. Winchester, VA22603 q�Vp 4wW SUR���O Land Surveying and Consulting GreyWoifelncCalaoLcom 540-545-7823 OFC 540-545-4001 FAX FILE NO: 0154 DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2015 SCALE: 1 " = 40' SHEET 3 OF 3 N w V1RUINIA: Pk. DERICK COUNTY.SCL 77tis instrument of writing was produced to me on -11 -0Z-ZQIS—at /'0(0 Pg . and with certificate acknowledgement thereto annexed was admitted to record. Tax imposed by Sec. 58.1-802 of S , and 58.1-801 have been paid, if assessable C I c r k • 0 Executive Summary This Traffic Impact Study has been prepared to support a rezoning request for the Blain and Cline properties located west of Clear Brook in Frederick County, VA. The generalized proposed uses for the property are: Blain — Industrial Park (ITE land use 130) which will include a mix of manufacturing, service, and warehouse facilities with a diversified mix of small and large facilities. Cline - Industrial Park (ITE land use 130) which will include a mix of manufacturing, service, and warehouse facilities with a diversified mix of small and large facilities. - Gas/Service Station with Convenience Market (ITE land use 945) which will include up to 20 fueling positions. Both properties are currently used for agricultural purposes. Access to the properties will be through commercial entrances connecting to the developer- proposed north -south roadway named Alfalfa Lane. Alfalfa Lane will run from Hopewell Road to Cedar Hill Road. For the purposes of this study, it has been assumed that all new traffic will enter and exit the site from Hopewell Road. Interstate 81 exit 321 is approximately 870 ft. from where Alfalfa Lane will connect to Hopewell Road therefore, 80% of the new traffic associated with this site is forecasted to be coming from or going to 1-81. A minimal amount of new traffic will pass through the intersection of Route 11 with Hopewell and Brucetown Roads. The left turn movements from Hopewell and Brucetown Roads have a level of service of E and F respectively in the PM peak hour under existing conditions. Traffic volumes in these intersections will increase by 32 trips in the PM peak hour at full build- out of this project, raising the total trips in these intersections from 1014 to 1046. Fredrick County has prioritized a project to realign this intersection to improve traffic flow. It has been assumed that the projects proposed by the County for this intersection and Route 11 will be in place by the design year 2031. Some minimal degradation in the level of service at the 1-81 ramps was recognized in the traffic modeling for the full build -out and design years of the project. Interim measures are proposed to mitigate this impact by installing all -way stop controls when warranted at the following intersections: • Hopewell Road and Alfalfa Lane • Hopewell Road and 1-81 SB ramps • Hopewell Road and 1-81 NB ramps Longer term improvements include signalization of the ramp termini intersections when warranted. At the intersection of Alfalfa Lane and Hopewell Road a WB left turn lane and a EB right turn lane are proposed to provide safe and efficient traffic operations. A SB left turn lane is also proposed. With the improvements proffered by this developer and the improvements planned by Frederick County for Route 11 and the Route 11/Hopewell Road/Brucetown Road intersection, it is the opinion of this engineer that the transportation impacts of this rezoning and its resulting development are both manageable and acceptable for this project setting. 0 9 Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction..................................................................................................................................................1 Purpose.....................................................................................................................................................1 StudyObjectives.......................................................................................................................................1 BackgroundInformation...............................................................................................................................1 Transportation Improvements Assumed to be in Place...........................................................................1 Transportation Improvements Planned....................................................................................................1 DevelopmentDescription.............................................................................................................................1 SiteLocation..............................................................................................................................................1 Descriptionof the Parcel...........................................................................................................................2 Comprehensive Plan Recommendations..................................................................................................3 CurrentZoning.......................................................................................................................................... 3 StudyArea Description................................................................................................................................. 4 StudyArea.................................................................................................................................................4 Proposedand Existing Uses.......................................................................................................................... 5 ExistingUse............................................................................................................................................... 5 ProposedUses & Access........................................................................................................................... 5 NearbyUses..............................................................................................................................................5 ExistingRoadways.....................................................................................................................................5 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions..................................................................................................................6 DataCollection........................................................................................................................................6 Analysis...................................................................................................................................................7 2025 Background Traffic Conditions...........................................................................................................15 Analysis.......................................................................................................................................................16 Trip Generation & Distribution...................................................................................................................18 TripGeneration.......................................................................................................................................18 TripDistribution......................................................................................................................................18 2025 Build -out Conditions..........................................................................................................................22 Analysis...................................................................................................................................................22 Recommended Roadway Improvements....................................................................................................25 • DesignYear(2031)......................................................................................................................................27 Analysis...................................................................................................................................................27 QueueAnalysis............................................................................................................................................30 Pedestrianand Bicycle Traffic.....................................................................................................................32 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................................32 Appendices Appendix A Traffic Count Data Appendix B Synchro LOS and Queue Reports Appendix C Traffic Volume Computations Appendix D Pre -Scope of Work Meeting Form Appendix E Cost Estimate Appendix F Generalized Development Plan Appendix G Traffic Signal Timing Plan L� 0 Introduction Purpose This Traffic Impact Study has been prepared to support a rezoning request fort he lands owned by the Blain and Cline families located in Clear Brook, Frederick County, VA. The rezoning, if approved, will lead to development that will create 50,000 GSF of industrial development and a gas market with 20 fueling positions on the Cline property, and 400,000 GSF of industrial development on the Blain property. The total area of the proposed project area is 149.9 acres. Study Objectives The objectives of this study are to identify: 1. Impacts on traffic operations that may result from the project. 2. Future connectivity to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Background Information Transportation improvements Assumed to be in Place For the purposes of this study there are no transportation infrastructure improvements assumed to be in place prior to the completion of this development in 2025. Transportation Improvements Planned A review of the VDOT Six Year Improvement Plan shows that VDOT has no planned construction projects in the vicinity of this proposed rezoning. According to the Frederick County 2015/16-2020/21 Secondary Road Improvement Plan and the 2015/16-2020/21 Primary Road Improvement Plan, two planned roadway improvement projects are near the Blain and Cline properties. These are: • Widening Martinsburg Pike to a six -lane divided highway from the NCL of Winchester to Cedar Hill Road (Primary Road priority 313). It is assumed that this improvement will not be in place before the build -out year of 2025. • Realignment of Brucetown Road at its intersection with Route 11 (Secondary Road priority 3). It is assumed that this improvement will not be in place before the build -out year of 2025. Development Description Site Location The subject property is located west of the unincorporated area of Clear Brook in Frederick County, VA. More specifically the site is west of 1-81, south of Cedar Hill Road, and north of Hopewell Road. Figure 1 shows the location of the property. Access to the site will occur via a developer -proposed new north - south road that will connect Cedar Hill Road and Hopewell Road. This north -south roadway will connect to Hopewell Road 870 feet west of the 1-81 southbound ramps and 658 feet from the end of the limited access line. Figure 1 Project Location Map (n.t.s.) Description of the Parcel The Blain and Cline properties for which this rezoning is requested encompass 149.9 acres with frontage along Hopewell Road and Cedar Hill Road. The land also adjoins the 1-81 right-of-way. The terrain is gently rolling and the land is currently farmed. The properties lie within the Frederick County Sewer and Water Service Area. General Terrain Features The site and surrounding areas are gently rolling with slopes that drain to the east. Interstate 81 runs north -south on the east side of the property, Cedar Hill Road runs east -west along the northern side, and Hopewell Road east -west along the south side. Location within Jurisdiction and Region The subject property is located in the Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, VA. Comprehensive Plan Recommendations The 2030 Frederick County Comprehensive Plan identifies the future land use on the site to be a mixture of business and industrial. Surrounding properties are designated as industrial to the north, business to the east and south, and rural/agricultural to the west. Figure 2 shows the Northeast Frederick County Land Use Plan in the vicinity of the rezoning area. Figure 2 Future Land Use map (n.t.s.) Current Zoning The current zoning on the property is RA (Rural Agriculture) and the property is being used for agricultural purposes. The current land uses and zoning for the surrounding properties to the north, south and west is Rural/Agricultural. To the east is 1-81 with multiple businesses beyond 1-81. The existing zoning is shown on the map in figure 3. PROJECT LOCATION Figure 3 Existing Zoning Map (n.t.s.) Study Area Description Zoning - E4 iEW.ow Y—Nuu.q Ds . _ K:HW- Ed,.~ D..d. — 4t yy�Y1 LqN D Y - lu �tiawrw G—W De l _ —I'164 E 1— Cumvw 0w .' - 1A11MMty 5.{pm D i—l' _ Y IC'Iri YrWf1/Ig PMi C� N� i WfEw'MI Pi—i Co n.u+ti Dw _ u• P-011 l RKIMPYI C011.1— r C— .:..Ru♦ .. I RMOe.Yi FMOmIO DnYu Study Area For the purposes of this Traffic Impact Study, the study extends from Cedar Hill road on the north to Hopewell Road on the south, and from Martinsburg Pike on the east to Welltown Pike on the west. There are no additional major intersections within 2000 feet of the site. Figure 4 shows the locations of the intersections being studied and the existing roadways near the site. Figure 4 Location of Study Intersections Proposed and Existing Uses Existing Use The property is currently used for agricultural purposes. Proposed Uses & Access The generalized proposed uses for the property are: Blain — Industrial Park (ITE land use 130) which will include a mix of manufacturing, service, and warehouse facilities with a diversified mix of small and large facilities. Cline - Industrial Park (ITE land use 130) which will include a mix of manufacturing, service, and warehouse facilities with a diversified mix of small and large facilities. Gas/Service Station with Convenience Market (ITE land use 945) which will include up to 20 fueling positions. A plan of the proposed development at an engineering scale is included in Appendix F of this report. Access to the properties will be through commercial entrances connecting to the developer -proposed north -south roadway. This north -south roadway will connect to Hopewell Road and Cedar Hill Road. Since 1-81 exit 321 is a short distance from where the north -south roadway will connect to Hopewell Road, it has been assumed that all traffic will access the site from Hopewell Road. Nearby Uses The existing land uses near the proposed site are: • North —agricultural land that is zoned Rural/Agricultural. • West — agricultural land that is zoned Rural/Agricultural. • South — agricultural land that is zoned Rural/Agricultural. • East - 1-81 and commercial entities beyond 1-81. Existing Roadways Figures 1 and 4 show the locations of the existing roadways near the subject property. The typical sections for these roadways are as follows: Table 1 Existing Roadway Attributes Welltown Pike 2 12 Gravel, variable width Minor Collector Hopewell Road 2 12 in interchange Gravel, variable width Minor Collector area; 11 elsewhere Route 11 Martinsburg 2 thru lanes w/ 12 Gravel, variable width Major Collector Pike left turn lanes at Hopewell & Brucetown Brucetown Road 2 11 Gravel, variable width Minor Collector Cedar Hill Road 2 11 Gravel, variable width Minor Collector 5 Future Transportation Improvements The subject property is located in the Virginia Department of Transportation's Staunton District, and Edinburg Residency area of responsibility. A review of the VDOT Six -Year Improvement Plan showed there are no roadway improvement projects planned in the vicinity of this rezoning. According to the Frederick County's 2015/16-2020/21 Secondary Road Improvement Plan and the 2015/16-2020/21 Primary Road Improvement Plan, two planned roadway improvement projects are near the Blain + Cline properties. These are: Widening Martinsburg Pike to a six -lane divided highway from the NCL of Winchester to Cedar Hill Road (Primary Road priority 36). It is assumed that this improvement will not be in place before the build -out year of 2025. Realignment of Brucetown Road at its intersection with Route 11 (Secondary Road priority 3). It is assumed that this improvement will not be in place before the build -out year of 2025. 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Data Collection To analyze the existing traffic conditions, peak hour turning movement counts were performed in April and May, 2015 at the following intersections: • 1-81 SB ramps and Hopewell Road • 1-81 NB ramps and Hopewell Road • Martinsburg Pike and Hopewell Road • Martinsburg Pike and Brucetown Road • Martinsburg Pike and Cedar Hill Road. Stonewall Elementary School is just over 1 mile from the access to the proposed development. Care was taken to collect traffic data while school was in session to achieve an accurate representation of traffic operations. A count at the intersection of Welltown Pike and Hopewell Road was requested by VDOT during the project scoping meeting. This count data was collected in July, 2015. Since this intersection 2.6 miles from the Stonewall Elementary School and the impact of school traffic at this intersection is not anticipated, it was agreed that the count could proceed without school in session. During subsequent observations of traffic operations, the percentage of trucks in the traffic flow was recognized as being high in some intersection movements. To quantify this condition, classified peak hour traffic counts were collected at the following intersections where large volumes of trucks were observed: • 1-81 SB ramps and Hopewell Road • 1-81 NB ramps and Hopewell Road • Martinsburg Pike and Hopewell Road 0 Martinsburg Pike and Brucetown Road • 0 The resulting truck percentages are presented in table 2. Count data are included in Appendix A of this report. Intersection Rte 11/Hopewell Rd Rte 11/13rucetown Rd 81 NB ramps/Hopewell Rd 81 SB ramps/Hopewell Rd Rte 11/Hopewell Rd Rte 11/Brucetown Rd 81 NB ramps/Hopewell Rd 81 SIB ramps/Hopewell Rd Table 2 Truck Percentages from Count Data AM Peak Hour SB SB SB W WB IB WB NB I NB NB I EB EB I EB Left Thru Right Left i Thru j Right Left Thru Right Left Thru : Right %T 3 8 I 11 9 13 5 %T 3 11 9 20 %T 10 22 ! 22 33 13 8 7 %T 13 5 13 1 8 PM Peak Hour %T 5 5 11 2 7 2 %T 4 5 8 i i 6 2 7 %T 4 12 13 10 8 3 2 %T 2 3 9 I 1 4 A 24-hour count was conducted at the intersection of Hopewell Road and the 1-81 NB ramps. This data is also included in Appendix A. A W factor was applied to the PM peak hour volumes to obtain the average annual daily traffic (AADT). The following `k' factors were obtained from the VDOT Daily Traffic Volume Estimates for 2014. Table 3 W Factors Roadway Martinsburg Pike 0.090 Welltown Pike 0.156 Hopewell Road (Welltown Pike to 1-81) 0.126 Hopewell Road (1-81 to Route 11) 0.099 Brucetown Road 0.089 1-81 N 0.103 1-81 S 0.093 A `k' factor was not reported for Cedar Hill Road in the VDOT Daily Traffic Volume Estimates for 2014. Analysis The existing AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro 9.1 traffic modeling software. The locations of the study intersections are shown in figure 4, the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in figure 5, the existing lane geometry and levels of service are shown in figure 6, and the modeling results (levels of service and delays) are shown in tabular form in Tables 4 through 10. 7 Due to the configuration of the traffic signal at Route 11/Hopewell Road/Brucetown Road and the limitations of the Synchro model software, the HCS 2000 signalized routine was used to evaluate this intersection. The left turn movements from Hopewell Road and Brucetown Road operate at a level of service E and F respectively in the PM peak hour. This is due to the intersection being offset with no turn lanes and the signalization operating in a split phase, thereby increasing the delays and resulting in the poor levels of service. Intersection improvements at this intersection are planned by Frederick County as mentioned in the Future Transportation Improvements section of this report. • • 7.i l I c L 7(41) ! I 3 43 (56) Hopewell Rd rr ca -g 3 n b O 29 (82) I I L• + i— 86 (93) HopewrR Rd Hopewell Rd 53 (92) —+ 28 (25) E e S m F «1 i Hopewell Rd 81 (101� "7 r 61 (66� 0— _ o n Er 77- L2(a) 4 �( � 6 (1) ) Cedar Hill Rd Woodside Rd 7(8)� r r 1(1) — > a — _ N 40 (22)--; t � ^ i AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 50197) Hop�'v��ll Rd Hopl,10 Rd 11 (117) 81 � E e 2 m L 42 (91) �- 105 (151) Hopewell Rd ® Hopewell 11(53) r r 96(91)— e m — N o..o a t 2 (29) 115 (116) Ora..to— Rd rr s <� � m f Figure 5 2015 Existing Year Peak Hour Volumes 9 • Hopewell Rd E V 0 N ~�A(A) Hopewell Rd Hopewell Rd a E s 8 B(B) Cerli�r Hill Rd ® Woodside Rd i t a 0 F AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) © g g E� a Hopewell Rd E c z m ~� Hopewell Rd Hopewell Rd A (A) n oa' 2 ro v v t U IZ 4 I �D(F) (� Rr—t—Rd n o Figure 6 2015 Existing Year Level of Service and Lane Configuration 10 Table 4 Level of Service and Delays - Welltown Pike and Hopewell Road 1. Welltown Pike and Hopewell Road Level of Service per Movement by Approach Scenario Overall LOS (delay inset/veh) Eastbound Westbound Northbound Goulhhound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT AM Peak Hour B A 2015 Existing (10.7) B (30.7) A (2.3) 2025 B A Background (no (1).3) (2.) B (30.3) A (2.0) build) B A 2026 Build out (30.7) (2.3) B (30.7) A (2.3) 2025 B A Build out w/ (30.7) (2.3) B (10.7) A (2.3) IMPROVEMENTS B A 2031 Design Year (10.9) (2.3) B (30.9) A(2.3) PM Peak Hour B A 2015 Existing (10.5) B(10.5) A(2.5) 2026 B A Background (no (2.2) 8 (10.4) A (2.2) build) B A 2021 Build out (2.G) B (11.2) A (2.6) 2025 B A Build out w/ (11.2) (2.5) B(11.2) A(2.6) IMPROVEMENTS B A 2031 Design Year (11.4) (2.5) B (11.3) A (2.5) Table 5 Level of Service and Delays - Alfalfa Drive and Hopewell Road 2. Alfalfa Lane and Hopewell Road Level of Service per Movement by Approach Scenario Overall LOS (delay in sec/veh) Eastbound Westbound Northbound 6outhbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT AM Peak Hour 2015Eig 2025 Background (no build) A A 202G Build out 8.2 (8.6) q (3.2) (9.9) 2025 A A A B ;(1) A Build ou[w/ B (30.6) (8.) (11.5) OB. (8.4) A(9.1) B(11.6) (9.9) IMPROVEMENTS A A A B A 2031 Design Year B(30.5) (9.3) (9.1) (8.2) (115) (8.4) A(9.2) A(9.7) PM Peak Hour 2015 Existing 2025 Background (no build) A 0 • Table 6 Level of Service and Delays -1-81 SB Lanes and Hopewell Road 3.1-81 SB ramps and Hopewell Road lrvclol Srrvlcrprrl,tcr rrr�l Cy:•ppraa<h Ovrrad (delay in wh'h) Scenario l05 Eatlbound Westbound I florinbound 5outhbound LT T11 RT LT TI{ RT lT TI1 PT IT TI1 RT AM Peak Ilour B 101, Ical Ulsl E.uting A(6.2) B(11.5) 2025 A B 0a C-ndlno I5.1) (11.6) build) A(5.1) B 2025 13.31 (1.1.3) OuilA out A (3.3) B (14.3) 2025 A BB Build out vr/ B(10.8) (9.11 (11.9) (10.3) IMPROVEPAUITS A(9.I) 8111.91 0110.31 A B B 2031 Design B(11.0) (9.5) (12.2) (106) Year A (9.5) B(12.21 8110.6) PIA Peak It.., A B 2015 EnQ n 16.01 a (1a.71 2025 A C Bactgroundlno ('151 (I5.8) bu ld) A (4.5) C (15 8) A C 2025 IJ.3) (23.3) e0d out A (4.3) C (23.3) 2025 C B B Budd out w/ B(13.8) (I5.8) (11.9) (10.3) IMPROVEIAEIITS C(15.8) B(11.9) B(10.3) f B B 20310es �gn It(. 3) 116.6) (12,31 (10.5) Year C (]L.G) 0(12.3) Table 7 Level of Service and Delays -1-81 NB Lanes and Hopewell Road 4. 1-81 NB ramps and Hopewell Road 1-1 of Service per Mor .rnt Ly A PP•oach er Ovall (dr1aY to wbrh) Scenario LOS Eatlbound Wc'.Ibound liprt'.Covnd 5outhbound ll T11 117 LT T11 Pi l7 ill RT LT I TH I RT AM Paak It.., A B 2015 11.31 11021 E.ng AIt.3) BI102) 1025 Bac l gr ound(no bu.ld) A (9.9) 2025 Buee out n(2.7) c(1ss) 2025 A A(10.0) B BUJ' out vl/ A n0 0) 19.7) (9.5) (10.6) IMPROVEMEMS A(9.7) A(9.5) A A B 2031 Design Year B(10.1) 19.81 17.71 170.71 A(9.8) A(9.7) 6(1071 PIA Peak Itour 2015 1101.1 Ea Ming A (0,9) B I 11.0) 2025 A B Bacl gr o u nd(no (3.3) (11.1) build) A(3.3I 6I11.1) n D 2025 Bu Id out A (6.I) D 127.9) 2025 B B B Ou�ld out vr/ B(12.2) (13.G) IMPROVEMINTS B(13.6) B(11.3) B(11.0) B 0 B 2031 Drtlgn Year B112 71 (IA.21 111.8) (11.3) 0 (1.1,2) 0 n1.8) B(11 3) 12 Table 8 Level of Service and Delays - Route 11 and Hopewell Road 5. Route 11 and Hopewell Road Level of Servire per Movement by Approach overall (delay in sec/veh) Scenario LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L7 TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT AM Peak Hour B B C A 2015 B(15.6) (1E.6) (19.1) (23.6) (.3) Exlsbng D(50.1) C(22.6) A(0.3) 2025 D B C A Background(no B(15.2) (48.1) (18.8) (23.6) (.3) D(48.1) C(22.7) A(03) build) D B C A 2 Build ld o i B (17.3) (52.5) (19.4 ) (24.) (.3) D(52.5) C(22.9) A(0.3) 2025 D B C A Build out w/ B(173) (52.5) (19.4) (24.) (.3) IMPROVEMENTS D(52.5) C(22.9) A(0.3) D C C D C C B B B D A A 20310esign Vear• B 186) ( (37.1 ) (28.9) (26.9 ) (48.5) (27.4 ) 253 ( ) 11.4 ( ) (30.6) (10.7) (46.1) (62) (6.2) C(29.3) D(37.6) B(30.8) A(8.3) PM Peak Hour E B C A 2015 D (40.9) (71.1) (I6.6) (29.) (.2) Existing E(71.1) C(25.7) A(0.2) 2025 E B C A Background(no C(29.1) (60,) (15.7) (29.4) (.3) build) E (60.0) C (26,3) A (0.3) E 0 C A B7025 o ldout C(33.3) (62.2) (16.4) (30.8) (.3) 1uild E(62.2) C(27.5) A(0.3) 2025 E B C A Build out,,/ C(333) (62.2) (16.4) (30.8) (.3) IMPROVEMENTS E(62.2) C(27.5) A(0.3) C(29.3) C C E C C C C B 0 C C 2031 Design year C(25.3) (26.5) (21.5) (208) (55.3) (29.6) (27.1) (28.3) (21.6) (15.2) (45.) (26.5) (23.2) C(37.2) C(22.4) C(26.3) *Design Yr results are based on the ultimate design improvements as planned by Frederick County Table 9 Level of Service and Delays -Route 11 and Brucetown Road b. Koute 11 ana t3rucetown noaa Level of Service per Movement by Approach Overall (delay in sec/veh) Scenario L. Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT I TM I RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT AM Peak Hour D A C C 201 5 C(21.2) (48.7) (.3) (21.) (29J Existing D (40.0) A(0.3) C(28.3) 2025 D A C C Background(no C(22.5) (46.8) (.2) (20.6) (30.1) build) D(46.8) A(0.2) C(29.7) D A C C 2125 C(23.5) (48.4) (,2) (21.3) (30.8) Build out D (484) A(0,2) C(30.4) 2025 D A C C Build out w/ C(23.5) (48.4) (.2) (21.3) (30.8) IMPROVEMENTS D(48.4) A(0.2) C(30.4) 2031 Design Year' PM Peak Hour F A C C 2i. D(37.9) (122.8) (.4) (26.) (34.4) Existing F(122.8) A(0.4) C(33.8) 2025 F A C D Background (no C(23.6) (81A) build) F(81.4) A(0.4) D(368) E A C D 2025 C(23.5) (79.5) (.4) (29.7) (39.2) Build out E(79.5) A(0.4) D(38.8) 2025 E A C D Build out v/ C(23.5) (79.5) (.4) (29.7) (39.2) IMPROVEMENTS E(79.5) A(0.4) D(38.8) 2031 Design P Year . I see table 8 for ultimate design results 13 • • Table 10 Level of Service and Delays -Route 11 and Cedar Hill Road/Woodside Road 7. Route 11 and Cedar Hill Road/Woodside Road I "d Of Servke Per 1.1 o,errer.l Li AP Gr oa;A Ovtrall _1d:13Y.a'•t!t_h1 _ Cattbound VlesiLound I;erlhLcund 5outhGound Stenarlo LOS IT 1 711 1 R7 I ET I Tit I AT ET Tit FT ET 711 RT AM Peak If.., n o .• 2015 I10.81 (12.G) (2.9) F.istmE U(10.F) Ot12.0) %•11.71 2075 0 0 h A cad Eroand loo (10.71 6(10.7) 0(12A) A(1.11 A17..1 Lu'A) C R :• A. 7075 110.9) I_ II LnI 12.31 1.21 Cu Id oul 011071 n111.8) -- At131 A(02) 2o l- Cu,. (A 1) 0110.9) Dims) A(13) A(0.1) "MOVEMENTS 2031 Des �En Year' PIA Peak Hour n 6 0. 1015 (10.71 1132) 12.21 ( .itlinE n 11 o.71 U113.2) %�1221 2o2s � A Oa[Efround lno 1 (ll.l) hx `I (1.91 131 nh1.11 n(1ts) At1.0) Ato 3) Lund) n 2025 112.61 11.9) 1 31 Cu doul 2025 C D %• Cu7d Outv,/ pl.11 P2.c1 11.91 131 n(11.1) EI(12.6) A119) A(0.3) IMPROVEMENTS 2031 D,,En Year' 1 Ou0 to the number of through lanes on Houte 11, Synchro cannot evaluate the design yr conditions. 14 • 2025 Background (No -Build) Traffic Conditions Background traffic conditions are those that are expected to occur without the proposed rezoning. These traffic conditions were established by increasing the existing 2015 traffic volume by 1.0% per year to the build -out year of 2025. The growth factor of 1.0% was determined by VDOT Staunton District Planning staff and is based on the historical and anticipated growth in traffic volumes in the project area. The 2025 Background AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro 9.1 traffic modeling software. The AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 7 and the lane geometry and level of service are shown in Figure 8. The modeling results (levels of service and delay) are tabulated in Tables 4 through 10. Analysis As in the existing year analysis, the left turn movements from Hopewell Road and Brucetown Road operate at a level of service E and F respectively in the PM peak hour. This is due to the intersection being offset with no turn lanes and the signalization operating in a split phase, thereby increasing the delays and resulting in the poor levels of service. Intersection improvements at this location are planned by Frederick County as mentioned in the Future Transportation Improvements section of this report. 15 N 01 8(45) 1 4 I 3 47 (62) Hopewell Rd it 0 3 E -� °p �---- 32 (91) 1 4 195(103) NopewellRd � Hopewell Rd 59 (102) --� 31 (28) —� E N ro J1 Hopewell Rd 89(112)� 111 1 67 (73) m N t i 6 o F� L 5(5) .J 1 1. 5 (s) 7 (5 ) Cedar Hal Rd Woodside Rd 8(9)� 1 r s a4 (za)—1 �I AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) g 9 55 (107) Hopewell Rd 89(129)— E 2 2 L 46 (101) 116 (167) Hopewell Rd Hopewell Rd r 12(59) 306(101)— m a C 2 V 1 1127(128) Figure 7 2025 Background Year Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Rr—w— R d im • 11 b S 3 Q Blel Hopewell Rd 3 E a -T—A(A) Hopem,11 Rd 11 well Rd n m R a a ----z �1 1 D (B)� m a a «� BIB) c-o, H,u xn ® Woodside Rd- B(B)+ u s S a r f AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) �W HopeweRRd _ Hopewell Rd E is 2 � •L HopewellRd Hopewell Rd i AIA) �� n o 21 m o IC I L 1 4 u i D(F) V Brurerown Rd _ a a Figure 8 2025 Background Year Level of Service and Lane Configuration Trip Generation & Distribution Trip Generation Trip generation for the project uses was developed using Trip Gen 2014 software based on the 9"' edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The peak traffic volumes on the adjacent streets for the AM and PM periods were used for forecasting the new traffic. Land uses and trips generated are summarized in the table on the following page. Eight percent of the new traffic associated with the Industrial Park land use is assumed to be trucks based on the ITE Trip Generation Handbook data. Pass -by trip reductions account for site trips drawn from the existing traffic stream on an adjacent street, recognizing that trips drawn to the site would otherwise already be on the adjacent street regardless of the development's existence. Pass -by trip reduction allows a percentage reduction in the trips associated with retail uses. Pass -by rates were obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Manual in accordance with the VDOT Administrative Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations, Nov. 2014. The trips generated and the pass -by trip reduction computations are shown in the Trip Generation report on the following page. Trip Distribution Trips generated by the development were assigned to the roadway network based on proximity to logical transportation corridors, access to 1-81, and commuter patterns. The proximity of 1-81 to the site's southern connection to Hopewell Road, and the understanding that a majority of new trips will be associated with 1-81, lead to the assignment of all trips to the Hopewell Road access point. The trip distribution percentages are shown in figure 9 and the assignment of the new AM and PM peak hour and pass -by trips are shown in figures 10 and 11. 18 Trip Generation Summary Alternative: Blain + Cline Combined Rezoning Phase: Project: Blain + Cline Rezoning Open Date: 8/23/2015 Analysis Date: 8/23/2015 Weekday Average Daily Trips Weekday AM Peak Hour of Weekday PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Adjacent Street Traffic ITE Land Use * Enter Exit Total * Enter Exit Total * Enter Exit Total 130 Blain Industrial land 1366 1366 2732 400 Gross Floor Area 1000 SF 130 Cline Indiustrial lands 171 171 342 50 Gross Floor Area 1000 SF 945 Cline Gas Market land 1628 1628 3256 20 Vehicle Fueling Positions Unadjusted Volume 3165 3165 6330 Internal Capture Trips 0 0 0 Pass -By Trips 0 0 0 Volume Added to Adjacent Streets 3165 3165 6330 Total Weekday Average Daily Trips Internal Capture = 0 Percent Total Weekday AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Internal Capture = 0 Percent Total Weekday PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Internal Capture = 0 Percent * - Custom rate used for selected time period. 231 51 282 72 270 342 45 10 55 14 55 69 102 101 203 135 135 270 378 162 540 221 460 681 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 63 126 76 76 152 315 99 414 145 384 529 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition, 2012 TRIP GENERATION 2014, TRAFFICWARE, LLC 19 P. 1 LIN Pla ITE Ull, i Alla JC I y l lJ\/}may. I i Alf �r 't • !.� , \ H luawuOissV dui maN pt ajn2i j Py Ww0liin/g P O� Z� 6 a33 b �--- (Ez) 9 J1 L (65S)09 PO it—OOH PH If—.dOH 16) 65 —� � e bb (Oz) PH IlamadPH 7 r (Szs) uz o 6 � (JnOH lead Wd) moH dead WV L a L vH aPfsP-M PH Af/H IaP.0 sir 3 L (VSS)04 �-- WT)9b Pll 11-4-H PN H H (C9) sV2 b m — a 0 f 8 vH uamadoH (901 zt —t f i s 0 is 0 U o J r l., + Ln t— +54 (+65) .— -54 (-65) Hopewell Rd L� Hopewell Rd (+11) +9 —r (-11) -9 —► Figure 11 Bypass Trips AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 2025 Build -out Conditions The 2025 build -out conditions combine the background traffic for the year 2025, and the new traffic that is forecasted to result from the development of this property. This is commonly referred to as the "Build Condition" which is forecasted to occur in the year 2025. Analysis The 2025 Build Condition AM and PM peak hour turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro 9.1 traffic modeling software. The AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 12, and the lane geometry and level of service are shown in Figure 13. The modeling results (levels of service and delay) are tabulated in Tables 4 through 10. As with the no-build/background year analysis, the left turn movements from Hopewell Road and Brucetown Road continue to operate at a failing level of service in the PM peak hour. This is due to the intersection being offset with no turn lanes and the signalization operating in a split phase thereby increasing the delays and resulting in the poor levels of service. Intersection improvements at this location are planned by Frederick County as mentioned in the Future Transportation Improvements section of this report. The impact from the new traffic generated by the proposed development has a negligible effect on the left turn delay from Hopewell Road to Route 11 NB, which remains at a LOS of F. The impact from the new traffic generated by the proposed development increases the left turn delay by about 20 seconds for the Brucetown Road left turns onto Route 11 SB, which remains at a LOS of F. 22 0 0 o_ I 30(53) 1 L 3 59(108) r Hopewell Rd I r s 0 3 E .�. $ 177 (157) I I 195(303) Hopewell Rd �J + L� ® Hopewrll Rd 104 (278) —+ 71(1e1) —1 E 92(123)-1 70 (94) — — E, a E i s 1 L 5 (5) — 5 (5) �. Cedar Hdl Re 7(5) Woodside ad 8(9)� i r 5(5)-- x N g 44(22)--1 0 s AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) © W^ m N a 325(190) I I �-- 1 (42) HopfwCll Rd •,J L• 1 1 Hapewf!!Rd (31)53 (119)81 z L 45(101) 135(175) Hopewell Rd . 1 1 Rapewy R 52 (212) r 112 (124)— E _ z c ry o N E t— 2 (32) 1 Iy 1127 (128) Brucerown Rd rr e � o n Figure 12 2025 Build out Peak Hour Traffic Volumes E 3 a 3 B(BI 0 Hopewell Rd 4 3 3 AM Pe _I c a a j j L i L Hopewell Rd ® j Hopewell Rd (A)A i `o 2 1 .L HopewellRd Hopewell Rd A (A) �� c o o m 2 Z Recommended Roadway Improvements Due to the relatively light traffic volumes on Hopewell Road, the impacts resulting from new traffic this project generates can be mitigated efficiently and effectively. Special attention has been given to the delay and queue on the 1-81 ramps at Hopewell Road to see that traffic continues to operate safely and efficiently in these locations. To mitigate impacts, traffic signals were initially considered at the 1-81 ramp intersections. However, the signal warrant analysis revealed that none of the warrants were met for the NB ramps, which is where the highest traffic volume is. Therefore, alternatives to traffic signals were introduced for consideration. A 3-way stop control was found to provide efficient traffic operations with a high level of service at the intersection of Hopewell Road and the 1-81 ramps, as well as at the intersection of Alfalfa Lane and Hopewell Road. Even though the all -way stop controls provide a high level of service and do not generate a lengthy queue on the 1-81 ramps, they should be considered a temporary measure and should not be installed until warranted. The Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices, criteria for multi -way stop signs, should be consulted to determine when the signs are warranted. At the intersection of Route 11/Hopewell Road/Brucetown Road and on Route 11 improvements are being planned by Frederick County. No additional improvements are being proposed with this project. It is recommended that participation in the County's intersection improvement project be considered by Blain and Cline. At the intersection of Alfalfa Lane and Hopewell Road a WB left turn lane and a EB right turn lane are proposed to provide safe and efficient traffic operations. A SB left turn lane is also proposed. The lengths of proposed turn lanes are shown in Table 11. With the improvements being proffered by this developer, and the improvements planned by the County, it is the opinion of this engineer that the transportation impacts of this rezoning and its resulting development are both manageable and acceptable for this project setting. The levels of service resulting with these improvements in place are shown in figure 14. 25 • Y s a 3 B (B) 0 Hopewell Rd s 3 0 N _ m � •� BIB) HopewN/Rd 00 NopeWell Rtl (D) A m N 7.4 'O Q yl� a � Hopewell Rd D (E)—i mcr m v ie a •.ii.• �— B(a) Crdo, Mill Rd 0 . Woodside Rtl IZ B(B) to ,51 a i 9 :e Q G Q m L B(B) NopewNl Rd Mofrrwc�li H,i (B)A (B)A 5 i R •� A(B) Hopewell Rd ® HopeweR Rd I' t A (B) _ia n m o m T. a0 O ell u v L� 1 I � D(E P �i, -rro wn FA F s a a i Figure 14 LOS and Lane Configuration with Improvements proffered by Blain and Cline AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 26 0 Design Year (2031) The design year for the project is six years beyond the Build Conditions of the project, which in this case is the year 2031. It is assumed that the improvements documented in Frederick County's 2015/16- 2020/21 Secondary Road Improvement Plan and the 2015/16-2020/21 Primary Road Improvement Plan listed earlier in this report, will be in place by the design year. These improvements include widening Route 11 to 3-lanes in each direction, and realignment of Brucetown Road to Hopewell Road with the necessary turn lanes. Analysis The 2031 Design Year AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro 9.1 traffic modeling software. AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 15, and the lane geometry and level of service are shown in Figure 16. The modeling results (levels of service and delay) are tabulated in Tables 4 through 10. For the purposes of this study and to present a worst case scenario per VDOT, protected phase left turn lanes are shown for all approaches at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and Hopewell/Brucetown Road. At the time the engineering design of the improvements is undertaken, the designer should reevaluate the turning movements to see if protected left turn lanes are needed for all approaches. 27 N c n m ,^. v 10(54) 1 L� I 3 j— 62 (107) HopeweuRe it 3 n N �— 179(159) I J 1 101 (124) 108(282) —+ 72 (177) AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) W� mI 325(190) 4 J 4(40) Hop-,fl Rd (85) 53 (64) 86 z y t— 49 (981 142 (190) Hopewell Rd r Hopewell Rd 59(198) r 119(134)— Eo 0 E _ o'^ m 2 J 1 ly 2(34) 67 (75) 68 (54) Hopewell Rd 26(76) f Brve0— Rd r r 62 (77) — m M n 74(91)--jCz � a � f Fao F�_ i L 5(5) J 1 5(5) 7 (5) Cedw Hill Rd Woodside Rd 8 (9) I I r 5(51� el 47 (26)--1 m F Figure 15 Design Year 2031 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 28 0 r -� HOpCwell Hrl a as Q Im L s(e) 4 AJA) Hopewell Rd ®; © Hopewell Rd • • Queue Analysis At a signalized intersection a queue forms while vehicles wait to advance. An analysis was performed to evaluate the back of the queue for the 95th percentile of the queue. The 95th percentile maximum queue is the maximum back of queue with 95th percentile traffic volumes when traffic does not move for two signal cycles. The queues associated with the 95th percentile maximum queue are shown in Table 11. As traffic volumes increase over time, the queue associated with left turning movements will increase as will the queue associated with the thru- movement that opposes the left turn movement. This is reflected in the Design Year analysis. Table 11 95th Percentile Queues 1. Welltown Pike and Hopewell Road 95th Percentile Queue Length (ft) Movement Storage Length Available or Proosed ft Existing Conditions(2015) No Build(2025) Build w/Improvements (2025) Design Year (2031) AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM WB LT AT 10 (14) 7 (13) 9 (25) 10 (25) NB AT TH taper 0 () SS LT TH 3 (I) 2 it) 3 (1) 3 (2) 2. Alfalfa Lane and Hopewell Road EB LT 200 8 (5) 8 (5) EB TH 13 (25) 13 (28) WBRT 250 65 (38) 65 (40) WBTH 0 (8) 0 (8) SB LT 300 18 (188) 18 (190) SS AT 10 (8) 10 (8) 3. 1-81 SB Lanes and Hopewell Road ES AT TH RTtaper 0 () 0 () 25 (123) 28 (133) WB LT TH 6 (6) 6 (7) 55 (53) 58 (58) SB LTTH AT AT Per 18 (16) 13 (19) 35 (23 38 (,5) 4. 1-81 NB Lanes and Hopewell Road EB LTTH 1 (4) 1 (4) 25 (78) 35 (85) WB AT TH RTtaper 0 () 0 () 28 a (53) 28 (58) INS LTTH AT RTtaper 8 (15) 7 (16) 33 (33) 30 (35) 5. Route 11 and Hopewell Road EB LT AT 149 (187) I81 (203) 224) 195]494) NS LT 100 27 (77) 31 (97) 38101J NB TH 114 (344) 126 (485) 126 SS RT TH 0 () 0 0() 5&6 Route 11 and Hopewell/Brucetown Rd Ultimate Design EB LT 250200 32 (76) EB TH 56 (62) ES AT 250 0 () WB LT 250 65 (64) WBTH 61 (80) WB AT 250 0 () NB LT 250 43 (120) NB TH 21 (336) NB AT 250 0 () SB LT 250 23 (22) SBTH 30 (132) SB AT 1 250 1 1 1 0 () 6. Route 11 and Brucetown Road W8 AT LT 141 (142) 156 (236) 116 NB TH AT 1 () 3 (39) 0 SB LT 300 14 (11) 17 (15) 17 �(22() SB TH 222 184) 247 (222) 258 7. Route 11 and Cedar Hill Road/Woodside Road NB LTTH 1 (4) 1 (3) 1 (3) NB RTTH 0 Q 0 Q 0 () SB LTTH AT 0 0 0 11 0 0 EB LTTH AT 8 (6) 8 (5) 8 (5) WB LT TH RT 3 (1) 3 (3) 3 pI . Due to the number of lanes on Route 11 Synchro cannot evaluate the design year conditions. 200 ft.LT and RT lanes have been modeled on NB and SB Route 11 Note: AWSC queue is based on 25' vehicle and gap spacing. • 0 Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic To identify any previously planned pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities in the project area, the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan was reviewed. The plan does not show any planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities near the project area. However, the developer is proposing to construct a 10' multi -use trail parallel to the new north -south connector road. All trails will be planned to accommodate future extensions beyond the boundaries of the development. Conclusions and Recommendations This Traffic Impact Study has been prepared to support a rezoning request fort he Blain and Cline properties located west of Clear Brook in Frederick County, VA. The generalized proposed uses for the property are: Blain — Industrial Park (ITE land use 130) which will include a mix of manufacturing, service, and warehouse facilities with a diversified mix of small and large facilities. Cline - Industrial Park (ITE land use 130) which will include a mix of manufacturing, service, and warehouse facilities with a diversified mix of small and large facilities. - Gas/Service Station with Convenience Market (ITE land use 945) which will include up to 20 fueling positions. Both properties are currently used for agricultural purposes. Access to the properties will be through commercial entrances connecting to the developer -proposed north -south roadway named Alfalfa Lane. Alfalfa Lane will run from Hopewell Road to Cedar Hill Road. For the purposes of this study, it has been assumed that all new traffic will enter and exit the site from Hopewell Road. Interstate-81 exit 321 is approximately 870 ft. from where Alfalfa Lane will connect to Hopewell Road. Therefore, 80% of the new traffic associated with this site is assumed to be coming from or going to 1-81. A minimal amount of new traffic will pass through the intersection of Route 11 with Hopewell and Brucetown Roads. The left turn movements from Hopewell and Brucetown Roads have a level of service of E and F respectively in the PM peak hour under existing conditions. Traffic volumes in these intersections will increase by 32 trips in the PM peak hour at full build -out of this project, raising the total trips in these intersections from 1014 to 1046. Fredrick County has prioritized a project to realign this intersection to improve traffic flow. It has been assumed that the projects proposed by the County for this intersection and Route 11 will be in place by the design year 2031. 31 0 9 Some minimal degradation in the level of service at the 1-81 ramps was recognized in the traffic modeling for the full build -out and design years of the project. Interim measures are proposed to mitigate this impact by installing all -way stop controls when warranted at the following intersections: • Hopewell Road and Alfalfa Lane • Hopewell Road and 1-81 SB ramps • Hopewell Road and 1-81 NB ramps Longer term improvements include signalization of the ramp termini intersections when warranted. At the intersection of Alfalfa Lane and Hopewell Road a WB left turn lane and a EB right turn lane are proposed to provide safe and efficient traffic operations. A SB left turn lane is also proposed. With the improvements proffered by this developer and the improvements planned by Frederick County for Route 11 and the Route 11/Hopewell Road/Brucetown Road intersection, it is the opinion of this engineer that the transportation impacts of this rezoning and its resulting development are both manageable and acceptable for this project setting. 32 9 0 Appendix A Traffic Count Data Stocue ectgateeway, .l.ee 103 Heath Court Winchester, VA 22602 Blain Industrial Rezoning File Name : Hopewell Rd and Welltown Pk AM Frederick County, VA Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 6/30/2015 Page No : 1 Grnl— Printorl_ FYlCtlnn RnaAc From North From East From South From West Start Time phi Thru Left Peds n p Taal Right Thru Left l Peds I npp rm 1 0 4 0 5 Right Thru Left Peds A Tol.,i Right Thru Left Peds :.: Ta trn rm.,i 06:15 AM 0 20 5 0 25 5 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 37 06:30 AM 0 24 5 0 29 0 0 8 0 8 7 6 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 50 06:45 AM 0 23 6 0 29 0 0 11 0 11 7 5 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 52 Total 0 67 16 0 83 1 0 23 0 24 19 13 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 139 07:00 AM 0 17 6 07:15 AM 0 31 6 07:30 AM 0 22 12 07:45 AM 0 25 9 Total 0 95 33 08:00 AM 0 23 5 08:15 AM 0 17 5 08:30 AM 0 19 6 Grand Total 0 221 65 Apprch % 0 77.3 22.7 Total % 0 44.2 13 0 23 0 0 3 0 3 7 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 37 3 0 3 0 6 5 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 34 2 0 20 0 22 12 4 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 34 2 0 19 0 21 17 5 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 128 7 0 45 0 52 41 12 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 28 2 0 6 0 8 9 4 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 22 1 0 7 0 8 5 3 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 25 1 0 4 0 5 7 4 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 286 12 0 85 0 97 81 36 0 0 117 0 0 0 0 0 12.4 0 87.6 0 69.2 30.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57.2 2.4 0 17 0 19.4 16.2 7.2 0 0 23.4 0 0 0 0 East Peak Hour Analysis From 06:15 AM to 08:00 AM - Peak 1 of 1 —1, U,... f— �..,;.,, ❑,,,.;... # m•Ir Ann West 0 34 0 50 0 72 0 77 0 1 233 0 49 0 38 0 41 0 500 0 07:15 AM 0 31 6 0 37 3 0 3 0 6 5 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 50 07:30 AM 0 22 12 0 34 2 0 20 0 22 12 4 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 72 07:45 AM 0 25 9 0 34 2 0 19 0 21 17 5 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 77 08:00 AM 0 23 5 0 28 2 0 6 0 8 9 4 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 49 Total Volume 0 101 32 0 133 9 0 48 0 57 43 15 0 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 248 App Total ___ PHF .000 .815 .667 .000 .899 .750 .000 .600 .000 .648 .632 .750 .000 .000 .659 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .805 • . S to cue E g g, in e e tutt gc, Yee 103 Heath Court Winchester, VA 22602 Blain Industrial Rezoning File Name : Hopewell Rd and Welltown Pk AM Frederick County, VA Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 6/30/2015 Page No : 2 _ Out In Total FQ � Right TIN Left Peds c� O Stowe Eagcisee!uagc, JM 103 Heath Court Winchester, VA 22602 Blain Industrial Rezoning File Name : hopewell rd and welltown pk pm Frederick County, VA Site Code : 00000555 Start Date : 6/29/2015 Page No : 1 Start Time 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM Total From North Right Thru Left npp Total 0 7 3 10 0 12 5 17 0 11 3 14 0 30 11 41 From East Right Thru Left ,pp. Toni 9 0 10 19 9 0 7 16 12 0 10 22 30 0 27 57 From South Right Thru Left App Total 6 22 0 28 25 18 0 43 17 20 0 37 48 60 0 108 From West Right Thru Left App Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inl. Total 57 76 73 206 05:00 PM 0 11 6 17 9 0 11 20 22 29 0 51 0 0 0 0 88 05:15 PM 0 12 2 14 7 0 14 21 24 31 0 55 0 0 0 0 90 05:30 PM 0 9 5 14 8 0 11 19 10 28 0 38 0 0 0 0 71 05:45 PM 0 13 7 20 13 0 10 23 15 22 0 37 0 0 0 0 80 Total 0 45 20 65 37 0 46 83 71 110 0 181 0 0 0 0 329 06:00 PM 0 7 3 10 8 0 4 12 16 27 0 43 0 0 0 0 65 G—Taa' 0 02 N — 19 0 77 152 3 1W 0 ))] 0 0 0 0 G:0 A,,,c % 0 707 20) 10) 0 501 <�] 5i) 0 0 0 0 Totalk 0 1)] 57 10) 125 0 120 253 21 3." 0 553 0 0 0 0 From North From East From South From West Start Time Right _ Thru Left __ Right Thru Lek App.Right Thru Left App. Right Thru Left App. l Total Total Total Total I Peak Hour Analysis from 04:1b PM to Ub:UU PM - F'eaK 1 oT I n c.— —A Int. Total 05:00 PM 0 11 6 17 9 0 11 20 22 29 0 51 0 0 0 0 88 05:15 PM 0 12 2 14 7 0 14 21 24 31 0 55 0 0 0 0 90 05:30 PM 0 9 5 14 8 0 11 19 10 28 0 38 0 0 0 0 71 05:45 PM 0 13 7 20 13_ 0 10 23 15 22 0 37 0 0 0 0 80 Total Volume 0 45 20 65 _ 37 0 46 83 71 110 0 181 0 0 0 0 329 % App. Total 0 69.2 30.8 44.6 0 55.4 39.2 60.8 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .865 .714 .813 .712 .000 .821 .902 .740 .887 .000 .823 .000 .000 .000 .000 .914 Statue g E1�iueevitt g, Yee Heath Court Winchester, VA 22602 Blain Industrial Rezoning File Name : hopewell rd and welltown pk pm Frederick County, VA Site Code : 00000555 Start Date : 6/29/2015 Page No : 2 Out In Total 147 85 212 01 451 20 , fight Thru L ft Peak Hour Data North w O C 2 —I F—/ Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 P /-2 o w o L° Existing oads m a J N A Left Thru Ri ht 01 1101 71 31:1 181 F 272 Out In Total i 9 Sisuae Eagi tteeviag, Yee 103 Heath Court Winchester, VA 22602 Blain Industrial Rezoning File Name : 81 SB ramps at Hopewell Rd AM Frederick County, VA Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/5/2015 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Unshifted From North _ From East From South From West Start Time Righl Thru Left App Tole Right Thru] qfl Apr. To., Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App Total Int. Total 06:30 AM 1 0 6 7 0 4 18 22 0 0 0 0 5 12 0 17 46 06:45 AM 1 1 12 14 0 6 _ 22 28 0 0 0 0 4 13 0 17 59 Total 2 1 18 21 0 10 40 50 0 0 0 0 9 25 0 34 105 07:00 AM 3 0 17 20 0 9 28 37 0 0 0 0 7 18 0 25 82 07:15 AM 1 0 8 9 0 9 17 26 0 0 0 0 11 11 0 22 57 07:30 AM 13 0 19 32 0 9 19 28 0 0 0 0 7 15 0 22 82 07:45 AM 6 0 5 11 0 7 20 27 0 0 0 0 5 15 0 20 58 Total 23 0 49 72 0 34 84 118 0 0 0 0 30 59 0 891 279 08:00 AM 2 0 6 8 0 5 12 17 0 0 0 0 9 12 0 21 L66 08:15 AM 3 1 7 11 0 6 27 33 0 0 0 0 7 10 0 17 08:30 AM 3 1 9 13 0 6 17 23 0 0 0 0 9 19 0 28 08:45 AM 3 0 8 11 0 9 23 32 0 0 0 0 7 16 0 23 Total 11 2 30 43 0 26 79 105 0 0 0 0 32 57 0 89 1 237 GA,P,oh-4 I 2G 2? „" 1Yi 0 2 50 711 ??] I 0 0 0 O I 3 35 C/35 0 C:1 ToW% 50 05 156 210 0 111 l?l ll 0 0 0 0 11l 227 0 Nt From North From East From South From West Start Time Appl Right Thru Left App' Right Thru Left Total App.Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left App. Int Total Total Total Peak Hour Analysis From 06:30 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 06:45 AM 06:45 AM 1 1 12 14 0 6 22 28 0 0 0 0 4 13 0 17 59 07:00 AM 3 0 17 20 0 9 28 37 0 0 0 0 7 18 0 25 82 07:15 AM 1 0 8 9 0 9 17 26 0 0 0 0 11 11 0 22 57 07:30 AM 13 0 19 32 0 9 19 28 0 0 0 0 7 15 0 22 82 Total Volume 18 1 56 75 0 33 86 119 0 0 0 0 29 57 0 86 280 % App. Total 24 1.3 74.7 0 27.7 72.3 0 0 0 33.7 66.3 0 PHF .346 .250 .737 .586 .000 .917 .768 .804 .000 .000 .000 .000 .659 .792 .000 .860 .854 Statue E1 ��Ci�ee�cia�, J.f� 03 Heath Court Winchester, VA 22602 Blain Industrial Rezoning File Name : 81 SB ramps at Hopewell Rd AM Frederick County, VA Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/5/2015 Page No : 2 Out In Total 0 75 F 75 18 1 56 Ri ht Thru Left /� 1 4 Peak Hour Data �M North u 0 -• o c/ Peak Hour Begins at 06:45 A /-2 w i w o N .tom Unshifted wm N - 4-1 T F► Left Thru Ri hl 01 01 0 116 0 116 Out In Total 0 • Stowe €agineetiagc, J.e 103 Heath Court Winchester, VA 22602 Blain Industrial Rezoning File Name : 81 SB ramps at Hopewell Rd PM Frederick County, VA Site Code : 00000665 Start Date : 5/5/2015 Page No : 1 From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Alp Total Right Thru Left [ App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 1 2 7 10 0 22 34 56 0 0 0 0 3 13 0 16 62 04:15 PM 2 0 9 11 0 11 19 30 0 0 0 0 2 16 0 18 59 04:30 PM 2 0 10 12 0 16 18 34 0 0 0 0 2 17 0 19 65 04:45 PM 5 0 12 17 0 17 16 33 0 0 0 0 5 25 0 30 80 Total 10 2 38 50 _ _ 0 66 87 153 0 0 0 0 1 12 71 0 83 286 05:00 PM 6 0 14 20 0 22 25 47 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 22 89 05:15 PM 4 0 14 18 0 22 27 49 0 0 0 0 3 21 0 24 91 05:30 PM 3 0 16 19 0 22 25 47 0 0 0 0 5 18 0 23 89 05:45 PM 5 0 10 15 0 12 12 24 0 0 0 0 4 12 0 16 55 Total 18 0 54 72 GAr- % I a0 OJ 7' 28 ']0 I 0 0 78 230 89 :B'D 167 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 12 IJO 73 E'J6 0 0 85 1 :IcS I 324 00 From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Ap Total Right I Thru [ Left Total Right Thru Left PP Total Right Thru Left Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to UbAb PM - F'eaK l of l Int. Total 04:45 PM 5 0 12 17 0 17 16 33 0 0 0 0 5 25 0 30 80 05:00 PM 6 0 14 20 0 22 25 47 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 22 89 05:15 PM 4 0 14 18 0 22 27 49 0 0 0 0 3 21 0 24 91 05:30 PM 3 0 16 19 0 22 25 47 0 0 0 0 5 18 0 23 89 Total Volume 18 0 56 74 0 83 93 176 0 0 0 0 13 86 0 99 349 % App. Total 24.3 0 75.7 0 47.2 52.8 0 0 0 13.1 86.9 0 PHF .750 .000 .875 .925 .000 .943 _861.898 .000 .000 .000 .000 .650 .860 .000 .825 .959 • 0 S to cue c a g itt e e tilt gc, Yee 103 Heath Court Winchester, VA 22602 Blain Industrial Rezoning File Name : 81 SB ramps at Hopewell Rd PM Frederick County, VA Site Code : 00000665 Start Date : 5/5/2015 Page No : 2 Out In Total 74 74 181 01 56 fight Thru Left ' Peak Hour Data �o O N O �O .� North � m -• o c m 2-1 Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM 2 S w m M Unshifted r Oo w 00 °� 41 T F' Left Thru Ri ht 01 01 0 106 0 F 106 Out In Total 0 • 103 Heath Court Winchester, VA 22602 Blain Industrial Rezoning File Name : 81 NB ramps at Hopewell Rd AM Frederick County, VA Site Code : 00000081 Start Date : 5/6/2015 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Unshifted From North Fromr East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left App Total Right _ Thru 1___ Left I_App. Tolal Right LThru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App Total Inl. Total 06:30 AM 0 0 0 0 7 17 0 24 9 0 0 9 0 15 0 15 1 48 06:45 AM 0 0 0 0 8 21 0_ 29 11 0 1 12 0 16 1 17 58 Total 0 0 0 0 15 _ 38 0 53 _ 20 0 1 21 0 31 1 32 i 106 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 14 26 0 40 13 0 0 13 0 25 2 27 80 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 13 30 0 43 10 0 1 11 0 22 1 23 77 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 8 39 0 47 14 1 3 18 0 28 4 32 97 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 7 21 0 28 11 0 2 13 0 21 2 23 64 Total 0 0 0 0 42 116 0 156 48 1 6 55 0 96 9 105 318 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 15 0 17 15 0 1 16 0 14 1 15 48 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 4 21 0 25 13 1 1 15 0 18 1 19 59 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 9 18 0 27 2. 19 0 0 0 19 Ili 0 0 29 1 W 0 'G 29 W 75 G'.. Taal 0 0 0 AT,,r X 0 0 0 T-11 0 o 0 D 0 72 :GJ 110 ]M "1 JI1 0 0 0 101 .11G ID 71 01 15 208 0 o t1 11 11 From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left App. Right Thru Left App. Right Thru Left Right Thru Left App. Int Total Total Total Total Total Peak Hour Analysis From 06:30 AM to 07:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 14 26 0 40 13 0 0 13 0 25 2 27 80 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 13 30 0 43 10 0 1 11 0 22 1 23 77 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 8 39 0 47 14 1 3 18 0 28 4 32 97 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 7 21 _ 0 28 11 0 2 13 0 21 2 23 64 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 42 116 0 158 48 1 6 55 0 96 9 105 318 % Anp. Total 0 0 0 26.6 73.4 0 87.3 1.8 10.9 0 91.4 8.6 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .750 .744 .000 .840 .857 .250 .500 .764 .000 .857 .563 .820 .820 • i Stage g c1�iaeetiagc, Yee Heath Court Winchester, VA 22602 Blain Industrial Rezoning File Name : 81 NB ramps at Hopewell Rd AM Frederick County, VA Site Code : 00000081 Start Date : 5/6/2015 Page No : 2 Out In Total 521 0 F 52 0 0 0 Ri ht Thru Left /7 1 L► Peak Hour Data N O N �O ;p C North a ~ ^� N N C 2 F / Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 A /2 ' 3 m ao N o tF: Unshifted r- 0 tY i six o �o om N — 41 I FO Left Thru Ri ht 61 1 48 F C 61 55 F 55 Out In Total 0 • Stouse Eagiseeyingc, J.eG 103 Heath Court Winchester, VA 22602 Blain Industrial Rezoning File Name : 81 NB ramps at Hopewell Rd PM Frederick County, VA Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/6/2015 Page No : 1 f'—...... D.L. 4-4 I I.... L.iN...J From North _ From East _ From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left App Total Right Thru LeftI App. Total Right I Thru I Left I App Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 15 45 0 60 14 1 6 21 0 17 6 23 104 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 16 37 0 53 12 2 5 19 0 31 2 33 105 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 18 44 0 62 17 0 5 22 0 26 10 36 120 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 21 40 0 61 18 1 6 25 0 19 9 28 114 Total 0 0 0 0 70 166 0 236 61 4 22 87 0 93 27 120 443 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 26 35 0 61 20 0 8 28 0 23 16 39 128 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 33 34 0 67 16 1 8 25 0 18 13 31 123 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 18 35 0 53 17 0 6 23 0 25 4 29 105 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 10 29 0 39 11 4 2 17 0 10 0 10 66 Total G4�Toi11% I 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 B I 87 1B1 133 JAB 0 o 220 52I I 64 111 5 t 24 53 93 :OB I 0 0 76 '1D5 33 9 1091 :55 I 422 fif. From North From East From South From West Start Time Ri ht 9 Thru Left App' Total Right Thru Left g I CI _ App' Total _ Right Thru g Left App. Total Right]Total Thru Left APP' Peak Hour Analysis From U4:0U PM to 11bAb t'M - F-eaK 1 of I �]h DBA Int. Total 26 10 36 120 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 18 44 0 62 17 0 5 22 0 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 21 40 0 61 18 1 6 25 0 19 9 28 114 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 26 35 0 61 20 0 8 28 0 23 16 39 128 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 33 34 0 67 16 1 8 25 0 18 13 31 123 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 98 153 0 251 71 2 27 100 0 86 48 134 485 % App. Total 0 0 0 39 61 0 71 2 27 0 64.2 35.8 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .742 .869 .000 .937 .888 .500 .844 .893 .000 .827 .750 .859 .947 • 0 Stacae g e1�itt gc.Yeeee�, ,�Heath Court Winchester, VA 22602 Blain Industrial Rezoning File Name : 81 NB ramps at Hopewell Rd PM Frederick County, VA Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/6/2015 Page No : 2 Out In Total 1 4-81 0 148 0 0 0 ,fight TIu Left Peak Hour Data O M 4 � North � co v .• w c F—/ Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 P 12 N 5 w Otrn-� Unshifted 0 om ao - 41 T F+ Left Thru Ri ht 27 2 71 100 100 Out In Total Sto, ate EagineeWitq., J,eG 103 Heath Court Winchester, VA 22602 Blain Industrial Rezoning File Name : Rte 11 Hopewell Rd Brucetown Rd AM Frederick County, VA Site Code : 00000321 Start Date : 5/7/2015 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Unshifted From North From East _ From South From West Staff Tlme Right Thru LeftApp Total Rightl Thru � Left App.Tolal Right Thru Left App Total Right Thru Left App Total Int. Total 06:15 AM 5 34 3 42 0 9 8 17 6 6 3 15 8 7 2 17 91 06:30 AM 9 50 4 63 0 13 12 25 14 13 5 32 12 16 5 33 153 06:45 AM 12 41 3 56 0 _ 10 14 24 _ 20 16 11 47 14 16 2 32 159 Total 26 125 10 161 0 32 34 66 40 35 19 94 34 39 9 82 I 403 07:00 AM 17 46 0 63 1 13 14 28 3 19 7 29 12 8 4 24 144 07:15 AM 12 37 6 55 1 21 18 40 11 21 13 45 17 13 9 39 179 07:30 AM 16 35 3 54 1 17 13 31 6 22 7 35 19 4 6 29 149 07:45 AM 7 50 5 62 2 17 14 33 6 22 11 39 7 3 8 18 152 Total 52 168 14 234 5 68 59 132 26 84 38 148 55 28 27 110 624 08:00 AM 5 31 1 37 2 8 13 23 8 22 6 36 12 3 6 21 117 08:15 AM 9 40 7 56 1 6 7 14 11 26 5 42 16 4 4 24 136 08:30 AM 7 40 4 51 3 11 15 29 9 30 8 47 18 4 3 25 152 G—Taal n +a v, Sr n 12s ra 2u + u7 IV Y]7 1n 78 +6 FppttnX 19+ 75 c7 +: +]a +95 25G 'J] 17 515 296 107 Total% 60 262 25 376 oa 67 a0 16+ GG tI6 53 .16 D+ 5+ a+ 16J From North From East From South From West App App. IApp. Int Start Time Right Thru Left Total Right [ Thru, Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Total Peak Hour Analysis From 06:15 AM to 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 06:30 AM 06:30 AM 9 50 4 63 0 13 12 25 14 13 5 32 12 16 5 33 153 06:45 AM 12 41 3 56 0 10 14 24 20 16 11 47 14 16 2 32 159 07:00 AM 17 46 0 63 1 13 14 28 3 19 7 29 12 8 4 24 144 07:15 AM 12 37 6 55 1 21 18 40 11 21 13 45 17 13 9 39 179 Total Volume 50 174 13 237 2 57 58 117 48 69 36 153 55 53 20 128 635 %App. Total 21.1 73.4 5.5 1.7 48.7 49.6 31.4 45.1 23.5 43 41.4 15.6 PHF .735 .870 .542 .940 .500 .679 .806 .731 .600 .821 .692 .814 .809 .828 .556 .821 .887 statue g Efftiaeetin g, J,eG 1Heath Court Winchester, VA 22602 Blain Industrial Rezoning File Name : Rte 11 Hopewell Rd Brucetown Rd AM Frederick County, VA Site Code : 00000321 Start Date : 5/7/2015 Page No : 2 Out In Total 91F 2371 F 328 450 174 13 Right Tju Left Peak Hour Data N �� 1 oo O ~ N North P µ c N/ Peak Hour Begins at 06:30 AM /2 0 3 J J m umi Lrn-� Unshifted wm 4� T F+ Left Thru Ri ht 361 69 48 E2871 153 440 Out In Total 0 • Statue Eagiseetiagc, JM 103 Heath Court Winchester, VA 22602 Blain Industrial Rezoning File Name : Rte 11 Hopewell Rd Brucetown Rd PM Frederick County, VA Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/7/2015 Page No : 1 From North _ From East _ From South From West Start Time Right Thru J Left Inpp Told Right I Thru I_ Left I App. Total Right [Thru Left App Total Riglit t Thru I Left I App Total Int Total 04:00 PM 10 35 3 48 13 18 12 43 19 91 18 128 8 12 10 30 249 04:15 PM 14 36 2 52 5 21 8 34 13 81 36 130 18 13 17 48 264 04:30 PM 17 35 1 53 5 11 9 25 9 83 25 117 17 12 11 40 235 04:45 PM 18 31 2 51 9 5 8 22 13 75 24 112 16 18 11 45 230 Total 59 137 8 204 32 55 37 124 54 330 103 487 59 55 49 163i 978 05:00 PM 16 29 4 49 10 33 21 64 21 80 24 125 17 14 16 47 285 05:15 PM 15 31 9 55 4 13 8 25 17 72 22 111 13 13 21 47 238 05:30 PM 14 32 2 48 6 15 18 39 15 81 19 115 15 19 8 42 244 05:45 PM 12 39 2 53 8 10 15 33 10 70 25 105 21 14 9 44 235 Total 57 131 17 205 28 71 62 161 63 303 90 456 66 60 54 180 1002 GApp- I 2. J5 tJ 01 I lG] JIGJ J� 1JGJ I �v'4 67 9033 ] J)JG I GJ J'8 5�' tNJ From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left App' Total Right Thru Left App' Total Right Thru Left App' Total Right Thru Left App- Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 O—L, L4-.., f-, Cnfi— Inl--firm Roni— of r1A•1r, MA Int. Total 04:15 PM 14 36 2J 52 5 21 8 34 13 81 36 130 18 13 17 48 264 04:30 PM 17 35 1 53 5 11 9 25 9 83 25 117 17 12 11 40 235 04:45 PM 18 31 2 51 9 5 8 22 13 75 24 112 16 18 11 45 230 05:00 PM 16 29 4 49 10 33 21 64 21 80 24 125 17 14 16 47 285 Total Volume 65 131 9 205 29 70 46 145 56 319 109 484 68 57 55 180 1014 % App. Total 31.7 63.9 4.4 20 48.3 31.7 11.6 65.9 22.5 37.8 31.7 30.6 PHF .903 .910 .563 .967 .725 .530 .548 .566 .667 .961 .757 .931 .944 .792 .809 .938 .889 Staute Efsffiftee�ciagc, Heath Court Winchester, VA 22602 Blain Industrial Rezoning File Name : Rte 11 Hopewell Rd Brucetown Rd PM Frederick County, VA Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 5/7/2015 Page No : 2 Out In Total 4031 F 205 608 65 131 9 Ri ht Thru Left Peak Hour Data N O N �Q ~ N T North N Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 P O N �rn Unshifted r mm V - +i T r Left Thru Ri ht 1091 319 56 245 484 729 Out In Total 0 • Sto, uue e a g, ia e evia q, Yee 103 Heath Court Winchester, VA 22602 Blain Industrial Rezoning File Name : Rte 11 and Cedar Hill AM Frederick County, VA Site Code : 00000671 Start Date : 4/30/2015 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Unshifted From North From East _ From South _ From West Start Time Right Thru Lefl_� App Total _Right 1 Thru Lefi App. Total _Right _Thru Left I App Total Right Thru Left App Total Inl. Total 06:30 AM 2 44 1 47 0 11 1 12 1 7 1 9 9 2 0 11 79 06:45 AM 1 50 1 52 0 0 1 1 1 15 3 19 8 0 1 9 81 Total 3 94 2 99 0 11 2 13 2 22 4 28 17 2 1 20 160 07:00 AM 2 46 0 48 0 0 0 0 1 13 4 18 5 0 0 5 71 07:15 AM 1 47 0 48 0 0 1 1 1 22 6 29 10 0 3 13 91 07:30 AM 1 66 0 67 0 2 2 4 0 25 3 28 9 0 2 11 110 07:45 AM 0 50 0 50 0 0 1 1 0 21 4 25 13 1 2 16 92 Total 4 209 0 213 0 2 4 6 2 81 17 100 37 1 7 45 364 08:00 AM 0 47 0 47 0 0 2 2 1 19 2 22 8 0 0 8 79 08:15 AM 1 35 0 36 0 0 1 1 0 25 4 29 7 0 1 8 74 08:30 AM 0 67 0 67 0 0 1 1 0 24 6 30 14 0 1 15 113 G,.. Taal eIs 2 +,r• o I] 10 2J ITt 13 20J 13 ftDic— IT 070 0+ 0 EA5 +J5 2+ EIE 15C E;S Jt IDa Toll% 1 522 OJ 595 0 10 11 2D 06 21G +. .65 1011 Di tJ 1.. From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left AppRight Thru Left App' Right Thru Left App' Right Thru Left App. Ina. Totall Total Total Total Total Peak Hour Analysis From 06:30 AM to 08:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 1 47 0 48 0 0 1 1 1 22 6 29 10 0 3 13 91 07:30 AM 1 66 0 67 0 2 2 4 0 25 3 28 9 0 2 11 110 07:45 AM 0 50 0 50 0 0 1 1 0 21 4 25 13 1 2 16 92 08:00 AM 0 47 0 47 0 0 2 2 1 19 2 22 8 0 0 8 79 Total Volume 2 210 0 212 0 2 6 8 2 87 15 104 40 1 7 48 372 %G App. Total 0.9 99.1 0 0 25 75 1.9 83.7 14.4 83.3 2.1 14.6 PHF .500 .795 .000 .791 .000 .250 .750 .500 .500 .870 .625 .897 .769 .250 .583 .750 .845 Stau�e ���Ci�ee�ci�gc, Yee 103 Heath Court Winchester, VA 22602 Blain Industrial Rezoning File Name Frederick County, VA Site Code Start Date Page No Rte 11 and Cedar Hill AM 00000671 4/30/2015 2 Out In Total 94 212 306 21 210 0 Right Theft Left 1 1 L+ Peak Hour Data North -• o c 2 L — / Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 A f � E ~ 2 N Co a v Unshifted 00 a 4� T r Left Thru Ri ht 151 871 2 2 5�631 104 F 360 Out In Total Blain Industrial Rezoning Frederick County, VA • • Stla.cue Lagiaeewag, 9,.ee 103 Heath Court Winchester, VA 22602 File Name : Rte 11 and Cedar Hill PM Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 4/30/2015 Page No : 1 From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left App Total Right_ Thru I Left App. Total Right Thru Left App Total Right Thru Left App Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 2 41 0 43 1 0 1 2 0 81 11 92 11 0 2 13 150 04:15 PM 2 29 0 31 1 0 0 1 0 79 12 91 7 0 4 11 134 04:30 PM 6 40 0 46 2 1 2 5 1 84 6 91 3 1 1 5 147 04:45 PM 2 31 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 87 7 94 3 0 2 5 132 Total 12 141 0 153 4 1 3 8 1 331 36 368 24 1 9 34 563 05:00 PM 2 37 0 39 0 0 1 1 0 92 12 104 4 0 2 6 150 05:15 PM 2 43 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 95 15 110 7 1 1 9 164 05:30 PM 0 47 0 47 0 0 0 0 1 87 11 99 6 0 3 9 155 05:45 PM 0 32 0 32 0 0 0 0 1 80 8 89 5 0 1 6 127 Total GRrrTAo',d% 4 1� 159 '..0 0 0 163 1J 0 I ,O] 0 '0' 1 40] 1 OB I 2 01 354 ' 46 'O1 402 va 22 I '+ 1 0? 7 a 30 596 From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Right 1 Thru I Left Right Thru LeftI App Right Thru Left Total Total Total Total PeaK Hour Analysts t-rom U4:11U NM to 11bAb t'M - F eaK "t of "t .......�:-- n....:.... — / A.AC MKA Int. Total 5 132 04:45 PM 2 31 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 87 7 94 3 0 2 05:00 PM 2 37 0 39 0 0 1 1 0 92 12 104 4 0 2 6 150 05:15 PM 2 43 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 95 15 110 7 1 1 9 164 05:30 PM 0 47 0 47 0 0 0 0 1 87 11 99 6 0 3 9 155 Total Volume 6 158 0 164 0 0 1 1 1 361 45 407 20 1 8 29 601 % App. Total 3.7 96.3 0 0 0 100 0.2 88.7 11.1 69 3.4 27.6 PHF .750 .840 .000 .872 .000 .000 .250 .250 .250 .950 .750 .925 .714 .250 .667 .806 1 .916 • Sta,cue E1 g iaeevittgc, Yee Heath Court Winchester, VA 22602 Blain Industrial Rezoning File Name Frederick County, VA Site Code Start Date Page No Rte 11 and Cedar Hill PM 00000000 4/30/2015 2 Out In Total 369 164 F 533 6 158 0 Right Thu Left Peak Hour Data o �O ~ J� North s + o 2 —i F—/ Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 P /2 3 0 N s Unshifted 0�o wm fi T r Left Thru Ri ht 451 3611 1 1 -,E9:1 407 F 586 Out In Total 24 Hour Traffic Volumes Hopewell Road over 1-81 Frederick County, VA Count Date: August 17 & 18, 2015 Blain - Cline Rezoning Date Time Westbound Eastbound 8/17/2015 20:15 14 13 8/17/2015 20:30 18 3 8/17/2015 20:45 7 10 8/17/2015 21:00 6 6 8/17/2015 21:15 11 4 8/17/2015 21:30 9 6 8/17/2015 21:45 12 3 8/17/2015 22:00 8 1 8/17/2015 22:15 6 5 8/17/2015 22:30 5 11 8/17/2015 22:45 5 1 8/17/2015 23:00 7 3 8/17/2015 23:15 4 1 8/17/2015 23:30 3 1 8/17/2015 23:45 5 0 8/18/2015 00:00 5 1 8/18/2015 00:15 1 0 8/18/2015 00:30 3 2 8/18/2015 00:45 5 1 8/18/2015 01:00 4 2 8/18/2015 01:15 1 1 8/18/2015 01:30 1 1 8/18/2015 01:45 1 3 8/18/2015 02:00 1 1 8/18/2015 02:15 3 1 8/18/2015 02:30 1 0 8/18/2015 02:45 0 2 8/18/2015 03:00 0 1 8/18/2015 03:15 5 3 8/18/2015 03:30 2 1 8/18/2015 03:45 1 1 8/18/2015 04:00 2 0 8/18/2015 04:15 4 1 8/18/2015 04:30 5 7 0 0 Date Time Westbound Eastbound 8/18/2015 04:45 6 4 8/18/2015 05:00 4 10 8/18/2015 05:15 8 7 8/18/2015 05:30 7 19 8/18/2015 05:45 14 18 8/18/2015 06:00 13 20 8/18/2015 06:15 21 10 8/18/2015 06:30 23 24 8/18/2015 06:45 28 24 8/18/2015 07:00 32 30 8/18/2015 07:15 25 28 8/18/2015 07:30 42 24 8/18/2015 07:45 34 20 8/18/2015 08:00 24 17 8/18/2015 08:15 23 23 8/18/2015 08:30 24 27 8/18/2015 08:45 20 17 8/18/2015 09:00 22 27 8/18/2015 09:15 26 16 8/18/2015 09:30 27 20 8/18/2015 09:45 22 11 8/18/2015 10:00 23 22 8/18/2015 10:15 25 12 8/18/2015 10:30 29 19 8/18/2015 10:45 19 14 8/18/2015 11:00 18 20 8/18/2015 11:15 20 16 8/18/2015 11:30 40 21 8/18/2015 11:45 26 19 8/18/2015 12:00 21 19 8/18/2015 12:15 25 23 8/18/2015 12:30 27 21 8/18/2015 12:45 23 23 8/18/2015 13:00 20 19 8/18/2015 13:15 23 22 8/18/2015 13:30 34 10 8/18/2015 13:45 17 19 8/18/2015 14:00 22 20 8/18/2015 14:15 29 23 8/18/2015 14:30 25 19 8/18/2015 14:45 20 32 8/18/2015 15:00 29 26 Date Time Westbound Eastbound 8/18/2015 15:15 32 21 8/18/2015 15:30 38 23 8/18/2015 15:45 46 27 8/18/2015 16:00 39 27 8/18/2015 16:15 41 19 8/18/2015 16:30 50 34 8/18/2015 16:45 48 24 8/18/2015 17:00 73 25 8/18/2015 17:15 41 28 8/18/2015 17:30 34 31 8/18/2015 17:45 41 28 8/18/2015 18:00 39 30 8/18/2015 18:15 26 11 8/18/2015 18:30 34 26 8/18/2015 18:45 30 12 8/18/2015 19:00 20 18 8/18/2015 19:15 21 6 8/18/2015 19:30 24 13 8/18/2015 19:45 12 6 8/19/2015 20:00 14 7 8/20/2015 20:15 11 5 Total 1839 1333 AM Peak 07:45 Volume 133 PM Peak 17:15 Volume 111 Appendix B Synchro LOS Reports HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Welltown Pike & Hopewell Road 2/6/2016 * I Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y 'l� +T Traffic Volume (veh/h) 43 7 15 47 34 101 Future Volume (Veh/h) 43 7 15 47 34 101 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.60 0.75 0.75 0.63 0.67 0.82 Hourly flow rate (vph) 72 9 20 75 51 123 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 282 58 95 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 282 58 95 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 89 99 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 686 1011 1505 pirection, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 81 95 174 Volume Left 72 0 51 Volume Right 9 75 0 cSH 711 1700 1505 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.06 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 0 3 Control Delay (s) 10.7 0.0 2.4 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 10.7 0.0 2.4 Approach LOS B intersection Summary Average Delay 3.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2015 Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Pagel HCM []OSigD8lized IDtenG8[tiOD Capacity Analysis 3:181SB(}ORamp & Hopewell Rd &|81SIB Off Ramp 2/6/2818 _X ~- r *_ t ~4 r � � 41 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vah/h) 0 53 28 86 29 O 0 0 54 1 21 Future Volume (Veh/h) O 53 28 86 29 O 0 O 54 1 21 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop 8mdo 2% O% 0% 2% Peak Hour Factor 026 079 0.66 0J7 0.92 0.25 0.88 0.88 0.74 025 0.35 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 67 42 112 32 U 0 U 73 4 GO Pedoohiouo Lane Width (h) Walking Speed (ftVs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (voh) Median type None None Median storage voh) Upstream signal UU pX,platoon unblocked vC.conflicting volume 32 109 408 344 344 365 32 vC1.stage 1ounfvol vC2.stage 2oon vol vCu. unblocked vol 32 100 406 344 344 386 32 tC.single (s) 41 42 7] 8.5 7.2 6.5 8.3 KC,2stage (s) tF(s) 22 2.3 3.5 4.0 3.6 4.0 3.3 p0queue free % 100 92 100 100 87 09 94 oMcapacity (vmh/h) 1593 1415 402 536 554 521 1033 Volume Total 109 144 137 Volume Left O 112 73 Volume Right 42 O 00 oSH 1700 1415 604 Volume huCapacity 0.06 0.08 028 Queue Length 05th(ft) 0 6 18 Control Delay (s) 0.0 02 11.5 LunoLOS A B Approach Delay (u) 0.0 6.2 113 AppmaohLOS B Average Delay 6.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.0% ICU Level ofService A Analysis Period (min) 15 2O15Existing Conditions ANPeak Hour Synohm0Light Report • 0 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 1-81 NB Off Ramp & Hopewell Road & 1-81 NB On Ramp 2/6/2016 t --* x- +- A, `,. 1 /* Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBR NEL2 NEL NER Lane Configurations *' T aY Traffic Volume (vehlh) 11 96 0 0 105 42 0 0 10 1 46 Future Volume (Veh/h) 11 96 0 0 105 42 0 0 10 1 46 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 5% 0% 2% Peak Hour Factor 0.56 0.86 0.25 0.25 0.74 0.75 0.88 0.88 0.50 0.25 0.86 Hourly flow rate (vph) 20 112 0 0 142 56 0 0 20 4 53 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1052 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 198 112 377 322 322 350 112 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 198 112 377 322 322 350 112 tC, single (s) 4.2 4.1 7.1 6.5 7.3 6.8 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.3 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.7 4.3 3.4 p0 queue free % 99 100 100 100 97 99 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 1339 1490 541 590 587 520 912 birection, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NE 1 Volume Total 132 198 77 Volume Left 20 0 20 Volume Right 0 56 53 cSH 1339 1700 771 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.12 0.10 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 8 Control Delay (s) 1.3 0.0 10.2 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 1.3 0.0 10.2 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2015 Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 3 0 u Queues 5: Martinsburg Pike & Hopewell Road 2/6/2016 t ane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 173 43 143 425 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.06 0.23 0.25 Control Delay 49.9 15.8 25.8 0.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 49.9 15.8 25.8 0.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 90 15 58 7 Queue Length 95th (ft) 149 27 114 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 972 1126 62 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 Base Capacity (vph) 280 695 610 1721 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62 0.06 0.23 0.25 ntersection Summary 2015 Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Martinsburg Pike & Hopewell Road �` �► T Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations Y Vi t Traffic Volume (vph) 81 61 30 117 Future Volume (vph) 81 61 30 117 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fa 0.94 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1588 1626 1743 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.95 1.00 Satd Flow (perm) 1588 1626 1743 1 SBT T 232 232 1900 4.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1721 1.00 1721 2/6/2016 SBR 117 117 1900 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.81 0.69 0.82 0.87 0.74 Adj. Flow (vph) 98 75 43 143 267 158 RTOR Reduction (vph) 27 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 146 0 43 143 425 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 13% 5% 11 % 9% 3% 8% Turn Type Prot pm+pt NA NA Protected Phases 4! 5! 2 Free! Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.1 37.9 33.3 98.3 Effective Green, g (s) 13.1 37.9 33.3 98.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.39 0.34 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 211 626 590 1721 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.00 0.08 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.07 0.24 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 40.7 19.1 23.4 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.4 0.0 0.2 0.3 Delay (s) 50.1 19.1 23.6 0.3 Level of Service D B C A Approach Delay (s) 50.1 22.6 0.3 Approach LOS D C A intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 98.3 Sum of lost time (s) 36.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 2015 Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 5 9 C>UeUSs 0' Martinsburg Pike & Brucetown Road 2/6/2016 Lane Group Flow (vph) 146 291 24 269 wtRaUo 0.65 020 0.03 0.45 Control Delay 55.0 0.8 15.5 312 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 55.0 0.6 15.5 312 Queue Length SOth(ft) 02 O 8 148 Queue Length 08h(ft) 141 i 14 222 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1076 62 214 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 Base Capacity (vph) 262 1437 770 502 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 O U O SpiUbuokCap Rodudn 0 0 U O Storage Cap Roductn 0 0 0 O 2O15Existing Conditions ANPeak Hour Synohm0Light Report HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Martinsburg Pike & Brucetown Road 2/6/2016 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y T+ t Traffic Volume (vph) 115 2 89 109 13 234 Future Volume (vph) 115 2 89 109 13 234 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 10.0 4.0 6.0 10.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1631 1436 1805 1845 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd Flow (perm) 1631 1436 1805 1845 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.81 0.50 0.82 0.60 0.54 0.87 Adj. Flow (vph) 142 4 109 182 24 269 RTOR Reduction (vph) 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 145 0 291 0 24 269 Confl. Peds. (Nhr) 101 Heavy Vehicles (%) 11 % 0% 9% 20% 0% 3% Turn Type Prot NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 3! Free! 1! 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.0 98.3 34.5 31.6 Effective Green, g (s) 13.0 98.3 34.5 31.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 1.00 0.35 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 215 1436 633 593 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.20 0.00 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.20 0.04 0.45 Uniform Delay, dl 40.6 0.0 21.0 26.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.1 0.3 0.0 2.5 Delay (s) 48.7 0.3 21.0 29.0 Level of Service D A C C Approach Delay (s) 48.7 0.3 28.3 Approach LOS D A C Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 98.3 Sum of lost time (s) 36.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 2015 Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 7 0 HCK8 Unei0no|ized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Martinsburg Pike & Woodside Road/Cedar Hill Road 2/6/2018 � �� | �� � � J ru | / Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh&) 15 74 2 O 201 2 7 1 40 6 2 O Future Volume (/eh/h) 15 74 2 O 201 2 7 1 40 6 2 O Sign Control Frew Free Stop Stop Grade O% 096 O% O% Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.87 0.50 025 0.80 0.50 0.58 025 0J7 OJS 025 025 Hourly flow rate (vph) 24 85 4 O 251 4 12 4 52 8 8 O Padoohiono Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (voh) Median type None None Median stnmgovoh) Upstream signal UU pX,platoon unblocked vC.conflicting volume 255 89 348 390 253 442 300 44 vC1.stage 1 oonfvo| vC2' stage 2 oonfvo| vCu' unblocked vol 255 80 348 390 253 442 390 44 tC.single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.6 6.6 7.0 7.6 8.6 7.0 tC.2stage (s) tF(o) 22 22 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 pOqueue free % 88 100 98 OO 93 98 98 100 oMcapacity (vmh/h) 1307 1504 585 532 743 453 532 1013 Volume Total 68 46 255 68 16 Volume Left 24 O O 12 8 Volume Right O 4 4 52 0 oSH 1307 1700 1504 080 480 Volume hoCapacity 0.02 0.03 0.00 010 0.03 Queue Length Q5thUU 1 O O 8 3 Control Delay (s) 2.9 0.0 0.0 10.8 12.6 LamoLOS A B 8 Approach Do|ay(o) 17 0.0 10.8 12.6 Approach LOS B 8 Average Delay 2.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 227% ICU Level ofService A Analysis Period (min) 15 2O1SExisting Conditions AWPeak Hour SynohmULight Report 0 • HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Welltown Pike & Hopewell Road 2/9/2016 �- t r �► 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y T� +T Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 8 17 52 38 112 Future Volume (Veh/h) 47 8 17 52 38 112 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 53 9 19 59 43 127 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 262 48 78 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 262 48 78 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 93 99 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 709 1023 1527 pirection, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 62 78 170 Volume Left 53 0 43 Volume Right 9 59 0 cSH 742 1700 1527 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.05 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 0 2 Control Delay (s) 10.3 0.0 2.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 10.3 0.0 2.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025 No -Build AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Pagel 0 0 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 1-81 SIB On Ramp & Hopewell Road & 1-81 SB Off Ramp 2/9/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SWL2 SWL SWR Lane Configurations '+ 4 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 59 31 95 32 0 0 0 60 1 23 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 59 31 95 32 0 0 0 60 1 23 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 2% 0% 0% 2% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 67 35 108 36 0 0 0 68 1 26 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 36 102 363 336 336 354 36 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 36 102 363 336 336 354 36 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.1 6.5 7.2 6.5 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.3 3.5 4.0 3.6 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 92 100 100 88 100 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 1588 1424 547 543 562 531 1028 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SW 1 i Volume Total 102 144 95 Volume Left 0 108 68 Volume Right 35 0 26 cSH 1700 1424 641 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.08 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 6 13 Control Delay (s) 0.0 6.0 11.6 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 6.0 11.6 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.1 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025 No -Build AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 2 0 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 1-81 NB Off Ramp & Hopewell Road & 1-81 NB On Ramp 2/9/2016 #, ,} Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBL SBR NEL2 NEL NER Lane Configurations *' T Y Traffic Volume (veh/h) 12 106 0 0 116 46 0 0 11 1 51 Future Volume (Veh/h) 12 106 0 0 116 46 0 0 11 1 51 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 5% 0% 2% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 14 120 0 0 132 52 0 0 13 1 58 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1052 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 184 120 364 306 306 332 120 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 184 120 364 306 306 332 120 tC, single (s) 4.2 4.1 7.1 6.5 7.3 6.8 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.3 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.7 4.3 3.4 p0 queue free % 99 100 100 100 98 100 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 1355 1480 552 605 604 535 903 pirection, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NE 1 Volume Total 134 184 72 Volume Left 14 0 13 Volume Right 0 52 58 cSH 1355 1700 821 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.11 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 7 Control Delay (s) 0.9 0.0 9.8 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.9 0.0 9.8 Approach LOS A intersection Summary Average Delay 2.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025 No -Build AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 3 0 Queues 5: Martinsburg Pike & Hopewell R d 2/9/2016 �� ^� � | � \ Lane Group Flow (vph) 177 38 10 438 wtRahn 0.72 0.05 0.24 0.25 Control Delay 51.4 15.7 25.0 0.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 51.4 157 25.0 0.5 Queue Length SNh(ft) 94 13 80 7 Queue Length 05th(ft) #181 31 126 O Internal Link Dist (ft) 072 1126 02 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 Base Capacity (vph) 270 694 600 1733 Starvation Cap Rodudn 8 0 0 O GpiUbuokCap Reductn O O 0 O Storage Cap Roduotn O O 0 O Reduced wtRatio 0.63 0.05 024 0.25 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum -after two cycles. 2025No-Build AM Peak Hour SynchmOLight Report 0 • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Martinsburg Pike & Hopewell Road 2l9/2016 t 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y t T Traffic Volume (vph) 89 67 33 129 256 129 Future Volume (vph) 89 67 33 129 256 129 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.95 At Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1588 1626 1743 1733 At Permitted 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1588 1626 1743 1733 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 101 76 38 147 291 147 RTOR Reduction (vph) 26 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 151 0 38 147 438 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 13% 5% 11% 9% 3% 8% Turn Type Prot pm+pt NA NA Protected Phases 4! 5! 2 Free! Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.2 37.8 33.2 98.3 Effective Green, g (s) 13.2 37.8 33.2 98.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.38 0.34 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 213 625 588 1733 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.00 0.08 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.06 0.25 0.25 Uniform Delay, dl 40.7 19.1 23.5 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 Delay (s) 51.0 19.1 23.8 0.3 Level of Service D B C A Approach Delay (s) 51.0 22.8 0.3 Approach LOS D C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 98.3 Sum of lost time (s) 36.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 2025 No -Build AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 5 �� ~— Queues 6: Martinsburg Pike &B cetovv Road 20/2010 Lane Group Flow (vph) 146 247 16 203 wtRoUo 0.86 017 0.02 0.60 Control Delay 55.0 0.5 15.4 32.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 55.0 0.5 16.4 32.0 Queue Length 50th(ft) 92 0 6 183 Queue Length O5th(ft) 156 3 17 247 Internal Link DistUA 1078 62 214 Turn Bay Length (f8 100 Base Capacity (vph) 262 1471 770 501 Starvation Cap Radudm O O O 0 SpiUbaokCap Roducm O O O O Storage Cap Reducm O 8 O O Reduced wtRatio 0.56 0.17 0.02 0.50 _ 2025No-Build AM Peak Hour SynchmOLight Report 9 • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Martinsburg Pike & Brucetown Road 2/9/2016 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y T� I t Traffic Volume (vph) 127 2 98 120 14 258 Future Volume (vph) 127 2 98 120 14 258 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 10.0 4.0 6.0 10.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 1470 1805 1845 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd Flow (perm) 1630 1470 1805 1845 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 144 2 111 136 16 293 RTOR Reduction (vph) 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 145 0 247 0 16 293 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 101 Heavv Vehicles (%) 11 % 0% 9% 20% 0% 3% Turn Type Prot NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 3! Free! 1! 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.0 98.3 34.4 31.5 Effective Green, g (s) 13.0 98.3 34.4 31.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 1.00 0.35 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 215 1470 631 591 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.17 0.00 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.17 0.03 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 40.6 0.0 21.0 27.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.1 0.2 0.0 3.0 Delay (s) 48.7 0.2 21.0 29.9 Level of Service D A C C Approach Delay (s) 48.7 0.2 29.5 Approach LOS D A C Wersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 98.3 Sum of lost time (s) 36.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 2025 No -Build AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 7 HCM UDSiQO8|izoedIntersection Capacity Analysis 7: Martinsburg Pike & Woodside Road/Cedar Hill Road 2/9/2016 �* | U � �* ^ y� � �' �� ��~* `�* f-v ��� 4 \ Traffic Volume (vh/h) 17 82 5 5 222 5 8 S 44 7 S 5 Future Volume (Veh/h) 17 82 S 5 222 S 8 5 44 7 5 5 Sign Control Free Raa Stop Stop Smda 0% O% O% O% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 10 93 G 6 252 8 0 6 50 8 6 8 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed Ut/n Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Nona Median storage vah) Upstream signal (ft) pX.platoon unblocked vC.conflicting volume 258 98 360 404 255 454 404 SO vC1.stage 1oonfvol vC2.stage 2mmfvol vCu.unblocked vol 258 90 380 404 255 454 404 50 1C.single (u) 4.1 41 7.6 6.6 7.0 7.6 8.6 7.0 tC.2stage (s) tF(s) 22 22 3.6 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 pOqueue free Y6 09 100 98 90 93 08 00 00 oMoapacity (vah/h) 1304 1482 552 522 741 444 522 1005 Volume Total 06 52 284 65 20 Volume Left 10 0 G Q 8 Volume Right O G 6 SO 8 oSH 1304 1700 1492 882 564 Volume hoCapacity 0.01 0.03 0.00 010 0.04 Queue Length O5th(ft) i O U 8 3 Control Delay (s) 2.3 0.0 02 10.8 11.6 LonoL0S A A 8 B Approach Delay (u) 1.3 02 10.8 11.6 Approach LOS B B -Summary- Average [elay 2.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.396 ICU Level ofService A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025No-Build AMPeak Hour SynomOLight Report 0 • HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Welltown Pike & Hopewell Road 2/9/2016 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y '+ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 59 10 17 89 44 112 Future Volume (Veh/h) 59 10 17 89 44 112 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 67 11 19 101 50 127 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 296 70 120 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 296 70 120 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 90 99 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 673 996 1474 pirection, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 78 120 177 Volume Left 67 0 50 Volume Right 11 101 0 cSH 705 1700 1474 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.07 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 0 3 Control Delay (s) 10.7 0.0 2.3 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 10.7 0.0 2.3 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025 Build AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 1 HC&4UnsigDa|izedIntersection Capacity Analysis 2: Hopewell Rd & Alfalfa Lane 2/9/2016 vement Traffic Volume (veWh) 53 81 1 325 94 68 Future Volume (Veh/h) 53 81 1 326 04 88 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade O% O% O% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 60 02 1 369 107 77 Pedestrians Lane Width (h) Walking Speed (ftVu) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (voh) Median type None None Median storage wah) Upstream signal (ft) pX.platoon unblocked vC. conflicting volume 370 213 1 vC1.stage 1 oonfvo| vC2.stage 2mmfvol vCu.unblocked vol 370 213 1 tC.single (o) 4.1 0.5 62 tC.2stage (s) tF(o) 22 3.6 3.3 pOqueue free % 85 85 03 oMcapacity (vmh/h) 1180 724 1084 Volume Total 60 92 1 389 107 77 Volume Left 60 O O O 107 U Volume Right O O O 360 O 77 oSH 1189 1700 1700 1700 724 1084 Volume hoCapacity 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.22 0.15 0.07 Queue Length 9Sth(ft) 4 0 U 0 13 6 Control Do|oy(u) 82 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 8.6 LanaLOS A B A Approach De|ay(s) 32 0.0 0.0 Approach L0S A AvonugoDa|ay 3.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.1% ICU Level ofService A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025Build AMPeak Hour Synom0Light Report HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 1-81 SB On Ramp & Hopewell Road & 1-81 SB Off Ramp 2/9/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SWL2 SWL SWR Lane Configurations '+ 4 Y Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 104 71 95 177 0 0 0 60 1 149 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 104 71 95 177 0 0 0 60 1 149 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 2% 0% 0% 2% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 118 81 108 201 0 0 0 68 1 169 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 201 199 745 576 576 616 201 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 201 199 745 576 576 616 201 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.1 6.5 7.2 6.5 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.3 3.5 4.0 3.6 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 92 100 100 82 100 80 cM capacity (veh/h) 1383 1310 248 395 386 375 832 pirection, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SW 1 Volume Total 199 309 238 Volume Left 0 108 68 Volume Right 81 0 169 cSH 1700 1310 623 Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.08 0.38 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 7 45 Control Delay (s) 0.0 3.3 14.3 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 3.3 14.3 Approach LOS B jntersection Summary Average Delay 5.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025 Build AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 3 0 HCMUDSigD8|bsadIntersection Capacity Analysis 4:181N8Off Ramp & Hopewell R d & 1-81 N13 On Ramp 2/9/2016 * �- *-- 4& \- �� ~~ ~- 1 � � Traffic Volume (vah/h) 52 112 0 0 135 46 O O 137 1 51 Future Volume (Veh/h) 52 112 O O 135 46 O O 137 1 51 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Soda 0Y6 SY& 0% 2% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 50 127 O O 163 52 O O 158 1 58 Pedestrians Lane Width (M) Walking Speed (8/o) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (voh) Median type None Nona Median storage voh) Upstream signal (ft) 1052 pX,platoon unblocked vC.conflicting volume 205 127 482 424 424 450 127 vCi.stage 1 oonfvo| vC2.stage 2oonfvol vCu.unblocked vol 205 127 482 424 424 450 127 (C.single (s) 42 41 7.1 6.5 7.3 0.8 0.3 tC.2stage (s) UF(s) 2.3 22 3.5 4.0 37 4.3 3.4 pOqueue free % 96 100 100 100 68 100 94 oMcapacity (mh/h) 1331 1472 449 502 490 440 884 Volume Total 18; 205 215 Volume Left 59 O 158 Volume Right U 52 58 oSH 1331 1700 557 Volume hoCapacity 0.04 0]2 0.39 Queue Length 05thUU 3 O 45 Control Delay (x) 2.7 0.0 15.5 LamoL0S A C Approach Do|ay(s) 2.7 0.0 15.5 AppmachL0S C Average Delay 6.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.4% ICU Level ofService A Analysis Period (min) 15 205Build AMPeak Hour SynomQLight Report 0 • Queues 5: Martinsburg Pike & Hopewell Road 2/9/2016 t T 1 i.ane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 185 49 147 449 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.07 0.24 0.26 Control Delay 53.0 16.0 26.0 0.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 53.0 16.0 26.0 0.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 99 17 60 8 Queue Length 95th (ft) #195 38 126 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 972 1126 62 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 Base Capacity (vph) 277 691 607 1727 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.67 0.07 0.24 0.26 intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2025 Build AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Martinsburg Pike & Hopewell Road 2/9/2016 --I' --t 41 t )Movement E13L EBR NBL 'N bf SbT SB R' Lane Configurations Y + T+ Traffic Volume (vph) 92 70 43 129 256 139 Future Volume (vph) 92 70 43 129 256 139 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.95 Fit Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1588 1626 1743 1728 Fit Permitted 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1588 1626 1743 1728 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 105 80 49 147 291 158 RTOR Reduction (vph) 26 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 159 0 49 147 449 0 Heavy Vehicles 13% 5% 11% 9% 3% 8% Turn Type Prot pm+pt NA NA Protected Phases 4! 5! 2 Free! Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.6 38.0 33.3 99.0 Effective Green, g (s) 13.6 38.0 33.3 99.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.38 0.34 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 218 624 586 1728 v/s Ratio Prot C0.10 0.00 0.08 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.08 0.25 0.26 Uniform Delay, dl 40.9 19.4 23.8 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.6 0.1 0.2 0.3 Delay (s) 52.5 19.4 24.0 0.3 Level of Service D B C A Approach Delay (s) 52.5 22.9 0.3 Approach LOS D C A Intersection -S'um--'m-'ar--y--'-- HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 99.0 Sum of lost time (s) 36.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 2025 Build AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 6 0 • Queues 6: Martinsburg Pike & Bruceto♦wn Road f- I �ane Group WBL NBT SBL 2/9/2016 SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 146 251 16 305 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.17 0.02 0.52 Control Delay 54.7 0.5 15.5 32.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 54.7 0.5 15.5 32.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 92 0 6 172 Queue Length 95th (ft) 156 3 17 258 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1076 62 214 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 Base Capacity (vph) 259 1474 764 586 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.56 0.17 0.02 0.52 Intersection Summary 2025 Build AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Martinsburg Pike & Brucetown Road 2/9/2016 f- . ovement �� '� WBL" ' WBR NBT � �NBR � .-�$BL . .._...._...._._ _ _. _. SBT.. _._...._ Lane Configurations t Traffic Volume (vph) 127 2 101 120 14 268 Future Volume (vph) 127 2 101 120 14 268 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 10.0 4.0 6.0 10.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 1474 1805 1845 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 1474 1805 1845 Peak -hour factor, PH 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 144 2 115 136 16 305 RTOR Reduction (vph) 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 145 0 251 0 16 305 Confl. Peds. (#Ihr) 101 Heavy Vehicles (%) 11 % 0% 9% 20% 0% 3% Turn Type Prot NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 3! Free! 11 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.2 99.0 34.4 31.5 Effective Green, g (s) 13.2 99.0 34.4 31.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 1.00 0.35 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 217 1474 627 587 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.17 0.00 c0.17 vls Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.17 0.03 0.52 Uniform Delay, dl 40.8 0.0 21.3 27.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.6 0.2 0.0 3.3 Delay (s) 48.4 0.2 21.3 30.8 Level of Service D A C C Approach Delay (s) 48.4 0.2 30.4 Approach LOS D A C Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 99.0 Sum of lost time (s) 36.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.1 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 2025 Build AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Martinsburg Pike & Woodside Road/Cedar Hill Road 2/9/2016 t r k 1*j Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations +T + 4 41T+ +T+ Traffic Volume (vehlh) 17 85 5 5 231 5 8 5 44 7 5 5 Future Volume (Vehlh) 17 85 5 5 231 5 8 5 44 7 5 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 19 97 6 6 263 6 9 6 50 8 6 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 269 103 374 419 266 469 419 52 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 269 103 374 419 266 469 419 52 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.6 6.6 7.0 7.6 6.6 7.0 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 98 99 93 98 99 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 1292 1487 540 512 729 432 512 1002 pirection, Lane # NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SE 1 NW 1 Volume Total 68 54 275 65 20 Volume Left 19 0 6 9 8 Volume Right 0 6 6 50 6 cSH 1292 1700 1487 670 552 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 8 3 Control Delay (s) 2.3 0.0 0.2 10.9 11.8 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 1.3 0.2 10.9 11.8 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025 Build AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 9 • 0 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Welltown Pike & Hopewell Road 2/9/2016 Movement WBL INBR - KB,T - " NBR , — SIB" L..... Lane Configurations Y 'fir 4 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 59 10 17 89 44 112 Future Volume (Veh/h) 59 10 17 89 44 112 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 67 11 19 101 50 127 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 296 70 120 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 296 70 120 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 90 99 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 673 996 1474 ,__ ..__. __..,_.,_ ._,--,. Direction, Lane # . , WB 1 _._,.. ._ NB 1 .. _ ... ,,_...... ..... .--- .__-.. . ,_ ...... .._.... _._ ...._ __.. SB 1 Volume Total 78 120 177 Volume Left 67 0 50 Volume Right 11 101 0 cSH 705 1700 1474 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.07 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 0 3 Control Delay (s) 10.7 0.0 2.3 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 10.7 0.0 2.3 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary l Average Delay 3.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025 Build with IMPROVEMENTS AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 1 0 • HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Hopewell Road & Alfalfa Lane 2/9/2016 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations t t r Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume (vph) 53 81 1 325 94 68 Future Volume (vph) 53 81 1 325 94 68 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 60 92 1 369 107 77 pirection, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total (vph) 60 92 1 369 107 77 Volume Left (vph) 60 0 0 0 107 0 Volume Right (vph) 0 0 0 369 0 77 Hadj (s) 0.53 0.03 0.03 -0.56 0.64 -0.67 Departure Headway (s) 5.9 5.4 5.2 4.6 6.3 5.0 Degree Utilization, x 0.10 0.14 0.00 0.48 0.19 0.11 Capacity (veh/h) 577 635 655 753 532 657 Control Delay (s) 8.4 8.1 7.1 10.6 9.6 7.4 Approach Delay (s) 8.2 10.6 8.7 Approach LOS A B A Intersection Summa Delay 9.6 Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025 Build with IMPROVEMENTS AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 2 0 HCK82O1OAVVSC 2: Hopewell Rd&/\KnKaLG 2/9/2016 Intersection Delay, o/vah 10.5 Intersection LOS B Traffic Vol, vuh/h O 53 81 0 1 325 O 04 68 Future Vol, voh/h 0 53 81 O 1 325 O 04 88 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, Y6 2 2 2 2 2 8 2 8 2 MvmtF|mm O 60 92 O 1 369 O 107 77 Number ofLanes O 1 1 O 1 1 O 1 1 OppouingAppmaoh WB EB Opposing Lanes 2 2 O Conflicting Approach Left SB VVB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 O 2 Conflicting Approach Right SB EB Conflicting Lanes Right U 2 2 HCMControl Delay 01 11.5 OJ MCMLOS A 8 A Vol Left, % 100% O% O% O% 100% O% Vol Thm.% 0% 100% 100% O% O% O% Vol Right, % 0% O% O% 100% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol byLane 53 81 1 325 94 68 LT Vol B O O O 94 O Through Vol 0 81 1 O O O RTVo| O O 0 325 O 68 Lane Flow Rate 80 92 i 380 107 77 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree ofUU|00 0.098 0.138 0.002 0.474 0.188 0.108 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.886 5.382 5224 4.622 6.343 5,033 Convorgonoo.Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 606 604 684 776 563 708 Service Time 3.643 3.138 2.887 2.385 4.118 2.805 HCMLane V/CRatio 0.099 0.139 0.001 0.476 0.10 0.109 HCMControl Delay 0.3 O 8 11.5 10.0 8.4 HCMLane LOS A A A B B A HCM05th4i|oU 0.3 0.5 O 2.8 0.7 0.4 202SBuild with IMPROVEMENTS ANPeak Hour Synohm0Light Report StowoEnginouing Page HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 1-81 SB On Ramp & Hopewell Road & 1-81 SB Off Ramp 2/9/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL ' NBR SWL2 SWL SWR Lane Configurations '+ 4 Y Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume (vph) 0 104 71 95 177 0 0 0 60 1 149 Future Volume (vph) 0 104 71 95 177 0 0 0 60 1 149 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 118 81 108 201 0 0 0 68 1 169 Nrection, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SW 1 Volume Total (vph) 199 309 238 Volume Left (vph) 0 108 68 Volume Right (vph) 81 0 169 Hadj (s) -0.18 0.15 -0.25 Departure Headway (s) 4.7 4.9 4.9 Degree Utilization, x 0.26 0.42 0.32 Capacity (veh/h) 708 697 684 Control Delay (s) 9.4 11.5 10.2 Approach Delay (s) 9.4 11.5 10.2 Approach LOS A B B Intersection Summary Delay 10.5 Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025 Build with IMPROVEMENTS AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 4 • 0 HCM 2010 AWSC 3: 1-81 SB On Ramp & Hopewell Road & 1-81 SB Off Ramp 2/9/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.8 Intersection LOS B Movement Ebb EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 104 71 0 95 177 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 104 71 0 95 177 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 0 1 8 2 13 0 0 2 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 0 118 81 0 108 201 0 0 0 0 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Approach EB WB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SW Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right SW Conflicting Lanes Right 0 1 HCM Control Delay 9.4 11.9 HCM LOS A B ,Lane EBLn1 WBLin 1 SWA' n1 Vol Left, % 0% 35% 29% Vol Thru, % 59% 65% 0% Vol Right, % 41 % 0% 71 % Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 175 272 210 LT Vol 0 95 61 Through Vol 104 177 0 RT Vol 71 0 149 Lane Flow Rate 199 309 239 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.258 0.432 0.328 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.667 5.026 4.954 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 764 711 721 Service Time 2.738 3.091 3.023 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.26 0.435 0.331 HCM Control Delay 9.4 11.9 10.5 HCM Lane LOS A B B HCM 95th-tile Q 1 2.2 1.4 2025 Build with IMPROVEMENTS AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 5 • 0 HCM 2010 AWSC 3: 1-81 SB On Ramp & Hopewell Road & 1-81 SB Off Ramp 2/9/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh Intersection LOS Movement SWU SWL SWR Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 149 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 149 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 0 5 Mvmt Flow 0 1 169 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS Lane 2025 Build with IMPROVEMENTS AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 6 0 HCK4 UDSi O@lizeyd Intersection Capacity Analysis 4:|81NBOff Ramp & Hopewell R d & 1-81 NB On Ramp 2/9/2018 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volumo(vph) 52 112 O O 135 46 U O 137 1 Si Future Volume (vph) 52 112 O O 135 46 O O 137 1 51 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 59 127 O O 153 52 O O 168 1 58 Volume Total (vph) 186 205 216 Volume Left (vph) 59 0 158 Volume Right (vph) O 52 58 Hadj (s) 019 0.07 0.32 Departure Headway (s) 5.0 4.8 52 Degree Utilization, x 026 027 0.31 Copecity(vmh/h) 686 708 055 Control Delay (s) 9.6 0.6 10.5 Approach Delay (s) 9.6 0.8 10.5 AppmaohLOS A A B Delay 9.9 Level ofService A Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.4% ICU Level ofService A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025Build with IMPROVEMENTS AMPeak Hour SynomOLight Report StoweEnginooing Page 0 0 HCM 2010 AWSC 4: 1-81 NB Off Ramp & Hopewell Road & 1-81 NB On Ramp 2/9/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 10 Intersection LOS A Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR SBU SBL SBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 52 112 0 0 0 135 46 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 52 112 0 0 0 135 46 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 8 7 0 2 0 10 22 2 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 59 127 0 0 0 153 52 0 0 0 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Approach EB WB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left NE Conflicting Lanes Left 0 1 Conflicting Approach Right NE Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 HCM Control Delay 9.7 9.5 HCM LOS A A bane NELn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 Vol Left, % 73% 32% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 68% 75% Vol Right, % 27% 0% 25% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 189 164 181 LT Vol 138 52 0 Through Vol 0 112 135 RT Vol 51 0 46 Lane Flow Rate 215 186 206 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.309 0,255 0.27 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.184 4.924 4.727 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 689 727 757 Service Time 3.239 2.971 2.773 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.312 0.256 0.272 HCM Control Delay 10.6 9.7 9.5 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th-tile Q 1.3 1 1.1 2025 Build with IMPROVEMENTS AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 8 0 0 HCM 2010 AWSC 4:1-81 NB Off Ramp & Hopewell Road & 1-81 NB On Ramp 2/9/2016 jrlt6r se-c-d6n, ------- Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Move, me-n't—N -E U-, -- --- ---------- N NER Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 51 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 51 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 33 13 Mvmt Flow 0 1 58 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 4" prba-c h' ..... ...... . Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS Lane- 2025 Build with IMPROVEMENTS AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 9 • 0 Queues 5: Martinsburg Pike & Hopewell Road 2/9/2016 Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 185 49 147 449 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.07 0.24 0.26 Control Delay 53.0 16.0 26.0 0.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 53.0 16.0 26.0 0.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 99 17 60 8 Queue Length 95th (ft) ##195 38 126 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 972 1126 62 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 Base Capacity (vph) 277 691 607 1727 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.67 0.07 0.24 0.26 Wersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2025 Build with IMPROVEMENTS AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 10 HCMSignalized |nte[seCU0nCapanitvAQalysiS 5: Martinsburg Pike /& Hopewell Fl d 2N/2016 --- �� I' = \ Traffic Volume (vph) 92 0 43 129 256 139 Future Wolume(vph) 92 70 43 129 256 139 Ideal Flow(vphp0 1900 1000 1900 1900 1900 1000 Total Lost Vmo(s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 4.0 Lane UUiFactor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 h1 0.94 1%0 ilN 0.95 FKPmteoted 0.97 0.05 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (pmt) 1588 1826 1743 1728 FkPannittad 0.07 0.95 1.00 1.00 Flow Adj. Flow (vph) 105 80 40 147 291 158 RT0RReduction (vph) 20 O O 0 O O Lane Group Flow (vph) 159 0 40 147 448 0 Heavy Vehicles Turn Type Prot pm+pt NA NA Protected Phases 4| 5! 2 Free! Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G(n) 13.8 38.0 33.3 90.0 Effective Green, g(s) 13.6 38.0 33.3 09.0 Actuated g/CRatio 0.14 0.38 0.34 1.00 Clearance Time (o) 10.0 6.0 10.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 ' Lane Grp Cap (vph) 218 624 506 1728 w/sRatio Prot o010 0.00 0.08 0.28 w/sRatio Perm 0.03 wcRaUu 073 0.08 025 0.28 Uniform Delay, di 40.0 19.4 23.8 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.08 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.6 01 02 0.3 Do|ay(s) 52.5 10.4 24.0 0.3 Level of Service D B C A Approach Delay (s) 52.5 22.8 0.3 HCM2000Control Delay 17.3 HCM2O0ULevel of Service B HCM2UOOVolume bnCapacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 99.0 Sum o[lost time (s) 36.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54J% ICU Level ofService A Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. o Critical Lane Group 2025Build with IMPROVEMENTS AMPeak Hour Smohm0Light Report Queues 6: Martinsburg Pike & Brucetown Road 2/9/2016 t 1 bane Group WBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 146 251 16 305 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.17 0.02 0.52 Control Delay 54.7 0.5 15.5 32.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 54.7 0.5 15.5 32.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 92 0 6 172 Queue Length 95th (ft) 156 3 17 258 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1076 62 214 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 Base Capacity (vph) 259 1474 764 586 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.56 0.17 0.02 0.52 intersection Summary 2025 Build with IMPROVEMENTS AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 12 HCK8Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Martinsburg Pike &B cetovx Road 2/9D016 ^4� � � � | �� � � / � Traffic Volume (vph) 127 2 101 120 14 268 Future Volume (vph) 127 2 101 120 14 268 Ideal Flow(vphp0 iQOO 1900 1900 1000 1900 1000 Total Lost time (s) 10.0 4.0 6.0 10.0 Lane UUiFactor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb pod/bikes 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 FIpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fh 1I0 0.93 1.00 1.00 FkPmteoted 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 8atd.Flow (pmt) 1630 1474 1805 1845 FKPonnitted 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 O]@ Adj. Flow (vph) 144 2 115 136 18 305 RTORReduction (vph) 1 O O O O O Lane Group Flow (vph) 145 O 251 0 18 305 ConO.Pedx.(Nhr) 101 Heavy Vehicles Turn Type Prot NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 3! Free! 1| 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G(o) 13.2 99.0 34.4 31.5 Effective Seen..g(o) 132 99.0 34.4 31.5 Actuated g/CRatio 0.13 1.00 0.35 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 10.0 0.0 10.0 Vehicle Extension Lane Grp Cap (vph) 217 1474 627 587 w/sRatio Prot u0.08 0.17 0.08 oO.17 w/sRatio Perm 0.01 wtRatio 0.67 017 0.03 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 40.8 0.0 21.3 27.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.8 02 0.0 3.3 Delay(s) 48.4 02 21.3 30.8 Level ofService D A C C Approach Delay (s) 48.4 02 30.4 Approach LOS D A C __ HCM2OOOControl Delay 23.5 HCM2OOO Level ofService C HCM2OOOVolume hoCapacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (o) 09.0 Sum oflost time (o) 36.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.1% ICU Level ofService A Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. o Critical Lane Group 2025Euild with IMPROVEMENTS AM Peak Hour SynchmOLight Report HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Martinsburg Pike & Woodside Road/Cedar Hill Road 2/9/2016 ` Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations +T + 4 +T+ 4 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 85 5 5 231 5 8 5 44 7 5 5 Future Volume (Veh/h) 17 85 5 5 231 5 8 5 44 7 5 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 19 97 6 6 263 6 9 6 50 8 6 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 269 103 374 419 266 469 419 52 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 269 103 374 419 266 469 419 52 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.6 6.6 7.0 7.6 6.6 7.0 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 98 99 93 98 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1292 1487 540 512 729 432 512 1002 birection, Lane # NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SE 1 NW 1 Volume Total 68 54 275 65 20 Volume Left 19 0 6 9 8 Volume Right 0 6 6 50 6 cSH 1292 1700 1487 670 552 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 8 3 Control Delay (s) 2.3 0.0 0.2 10.9 11.8 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 1.3 0.2 10.9 11.8 Approach LOS B B Wersection Summary Average Delay 2.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025 Build with IMPROVEMENTS AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 14 HCK8UnsigDa|izedIntersection Capacity Analysis 1:VVe|ltom/O Pike 8^Hopewell Rd 2/9/2016 4� � �� U ^� � � �� � � / � Traffic Volume (vah/h) 62 10 18 03 46 118 Future Volume (Veh/h) 02 10 18 03 46 118 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% O% O% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 70 11 20 106 62 134 Pedestrians Lane Width (h) Walking Speed (fYs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (vh) Median type None None Median storage voh) Upstream signal (U0 pX.platoon unblocked vC.conflicting volume 311 73 128 vC1.stage 1 oonfvo| vC2.stage 2oonfvol vCu.unblocked vol 311 73 126 tC.single (s) 6.4 62 41 tC.2stage (s) tF(o) 33 3.3 22 pOqueue free % 89 99 86 dNcapad (veh/h) 659 992 1467 Vn|umoTota| 81 126 186 Volume Left 70 O 52 Volume Right 11 108 O oSH 691 1700 1467 Volume toCapacity 012 0.07 0.04 Queue Length O5th(ft) 10 O 3 Control Delay (s) 10.9 0.0 2.3 LanaLOS B A Approach Do|oy(o) 10.0 0.0 2.3 AppmoohLOS B -- Average Delay 3.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.1% ICU Level ofService A Analysis Period (min) 15 2OS1Ultimate Design ANPeak Hour Synohm0Light Report HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Hopewell Road & Alfalfa Lane 2/9/2016 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations VS t t r I if Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume (vph) 53 86 4 325 94 68 Future Volume (vph) 53 86 4 325 94 68 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 60 98 5 369 107 77 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total (vph) 60 98 5 369 107 77 Volume Left (vph) 60 0 0 0 107 0 Volume Right (vph) 0 0 0 369 0 77 Hadj (s) 0.53 0.03 0.03 -0.56 0.64 -0.67 Departure Headway (s) 5.9 5.4 5.3 4.7 6.4 5.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.10 0.15 0.01 0.48 0.19 0.11 Capacity (veh/h) 576 634 654 751 530 654 Control Delay (s) 8.4 8.2 7.1 10.6 9.6 7.5 Approach Delay (s) 8.2 10.6 8.7 Approach LOS A B A tersection Summa Delay 9.6 Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2031 Ultimate Design AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 2 HCM 2010 AWSC 2: Hopewell Road & Alfalfa Lane 2/9/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.5 Intersection LOS B Movement EBU EBL EBT WBU WBT 1NBR 'SBU SBL _ SBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 53 86 0 4 325 0 94 68 Future Vol, veh/h 0 53 86 0 4 325 0 94 68 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 8 2 8 2 Mvmt Flow 0 60 98 0 5 369 0 107 77 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 NDProach _ EB .... WB._. -._. SB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 2 2 0 Conflicting Approach Left SB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 2 Conflicting Approach Right SB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 0 2 2 HCM Control Delay 9.2 11.5 9.7 HCM LOS A B A Lane EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 53 86 4 325 94 68 LT Vol 53 0 0 0 94 0 Through Vol 0 86 4 0 0 0 RT Vol 0 0 0 325 0 68 Lane Flow Rate 60 98 5 369 107 77 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.099 0.146 0.007 0.475 0.189 0.108 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.89 5.385 5.23 4.628 6.36 5.05 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 606 663 682 776 561 703 Service Time 3.65 3.145 2.976 2.374 4.137 2.826 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.099 0.148 0.007 0.476 0.191 0.11 HCM Control Delay 9.3 9.1 8 11.5 10.6 8.4 HCM Lane LOS A A A B B A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 0.5 0 2.6 0.7 0.4 2031 Ultimate Design AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 1-81 SB On Ramp & Hopewell Road & 1-81 SB Off Ramp 2/9/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SWL2 SWL SWR Lane Configurations T� 4 Y Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume (vph) 0 108 72 101 179 0 0 0 63 1 151 Future Volume (vph) 0 108 72 101 179 0 0 0 63 1 151 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 123 82 115 203 0 0 0 72 1 172 direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SW 1 Volume Total (vph) 205 318 245 Volume Left (vph) 0 115 72 Volume Right (vph) 82 0 172 Hadj (s) -0.18 0.15 -0.24 Departure Headway (s) 4.8 5.0 4.9 Degree Utilization, x 0.27 0.44 0.34 Capacity (veh/h) 702 692 677 Control Delay (s) 9.6 11.8 10.4 Approach Delay (s) 9.6 11.8 10.4 Approach LOS A B B intersection Summary Delay 10.8 Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2031 Ultimate Design AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 4 Ll 0 HCK82O1OAVV8C 3: |-D1 GB On Ramp & Hopewell Road & | 81 8B Off Ramp 2/9/2016 Intersection Delay, o/voh 11 Traffic Vol, voh/h O 0 108 72 O 101 179 0 0 0 O Future Vol, voWh O O 108 72 O 101 179 O 0 0 O Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 O 1 8 2 13 O O 2 O 8 MvmtF|mw O O 123 82 O 115 203 O O O O Number o[Lanes O O 1 O U O 1 O O 0 O Opposing Approach YVB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SW Conflicting Lanes Left 1 O Conflicting Approach Right SW Conflicting Lanes Right 0 1 HCMControl Delay 0.5 122 HCMLOS A B Vol Left, % O% 36Y6 30% Vol Thm.% 00% 64% O% Vol Right, % 40% 096 7096 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol byLane 180 280 215 LT Vol O 101 64 Through Vol 108 179 O RTVo| 72 8 151 Lane Flow Rate 205 318 244 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree ofUU|00 0267 0.447 0J30 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.703 5.055 4.996 Cunvorgonoo.Y/N Yes Yes You Cap 757 706 713 Service Time 2.78 3.126 3.07 HCM Lane V/CRatio 0.271 0.45 0,342 HCMControl Delay 0.5 122 10.6 HCMLane LOS A B B 2O3iUltimate Design ANPeak Hour Synohm9Light Report i HCM 2010 AWSC 3: 1-81 SB On Ramp & Hopewell Road & 1-81 SB Off Ramp 2/9/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SWU SWL SWR Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 151 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 151 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 0 5 Mvmt Flow 0 1 172 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS Lane 2031 Ultimate Design AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 6 r 0 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 1-81 NB Off Ramp & Hopewell Road & 1-81 NB On Ramp 2/9/2016 Movement __ ............ ..EBL , .. EBT-,._EBR ..WBL_..._rWBT __.WBR _...__.SBL. _...SBR....NEL2.... -NEL^..,.. NER i Lane Configurations *' T Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume (vph) 53 119 0 0 142 49 0 0 138 1 54 Future Volume (vph) 53 119 0 0 142 49 0 0 138 1 54 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 60 135 0 0 161 56 0 0 157 1 61 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NE 1 ...... .... . 1 Volume Total (vph) 195 217 219 Volume Left (vph) 60 0 157 Volume Right (vph) 0 56 61 Hadj (s) 0.19 0.07 0.31 Departure Headway (s) 5.0 4.8 5.2 Degree Utilization, x 0.27 0.29 0.32 Capacity (veh/h) 681 704 648 Control Delay (s) 9.8 9.8 10.7 Approach Delay (s) 9.8 9.8 10.7 Approach LOS A A B Intersection Summary Delay 10.1 Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2031 Ultimate Design AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 7 HCM 2010 AWSC 4: 1-81 NB Off Ramp & Hopewell Road & 1-81 NB On Ramp 2/9/2016 )ntersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.1 Intersection LOS B Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR SBU SBL SBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 53 119 0 0 0 142 49 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 53 119 0 0 0 142 49 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 8 7 0 2 0 10 22 2 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 60 135 0 0 0 161 56 0 0 0 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Approach EB WB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left NE Conflicting Lanes Left 0 1 Conflicting Approach Right NE Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 HCM Control Delay 9.8 9.7 HCM LOS A A Lane NEW EBLn1 WBLn1 Vol Left, % 72% 31% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 69% 74% Vol Right, % 28% 0% 26% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 193 172 191 LT Vol 139 53 0 Through Vol 0 119 142 RT Vol 54 0 49 Lane Flow Rate 219 195 217 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.318 0.269 0.287 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.226 4.951 4.753 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 684 723 753 Service Time 3.286 3.004 2.804 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.32 0.27 0.288 HCM Control Delay 10.7 9.8 9.7 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th-tile Q 1.4 1.1 1.2 2031 Ultimate Design AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 8 0 0 HCM 2010 AWSC 4: 1-81 NB Off Ramp & Hopewell Road & 1-81 NB On Ramp 2/9/2016 intersection i Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement NEU NEL NER ; Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 54 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 54 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 33 13 Mvmt Flow 0 1 61 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS Lane 2031 Ultimate Design AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 9 11 10 Queues 5: Martinsburg Pike & Hopewell Road 2/9/2016 --* -. f- k-- \ t 1* ` 1 41 bane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 70 84 77 76 2 51 92 64 17 232 77 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.30 0.21 0.35 0.25 0.00 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.08 Control Delay 27.9 27.5 1.2 30.4 24.2 0.0 15.4 13.4 0.2 27.7 8.0 0.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 27.9 27.5 1.2 30.4 24.2 0.0 15.4 13.4 0.2 27.7 8.0 0.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 11 25 0 27 19 0 10 6 0 . 6 16 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 32 56 0 65 61 0 43 21 0 23 30 6 Internal Link Dist (ft) 972 185 1126 357 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 250 250 250 250 250 Base Capacity(vph) 390 587 679 247 449 562 566 2620 839 278 3110 973 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.31 0.17 0.00 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.08 intersection Summary 2031 Ultimate Design AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Martinsburg Pike & Hopewell Road 2/9/2016 -.* --,. ---t ' 4- t 1 -4/ Movement EBL EBT ' EBR INBL ' 1NBT UVBR NBL NBT . NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r '� + r ) ttt r I ttt r Traffic Volume (vph) 26 62 74 68 67 2 45 81 56 15 204 68 Future Volume (vph) 26 62 74 68 67 2 45 81 56 15 204 68 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 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1597 1681 1538 1770 1667 1495 1626 4759 1346 1770 5036 1495 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1597 1681 1538 1770 1667 1495 1029 4759 1346 1770 5036 1495 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) 30 70 84 77 76 2 51 92 64 17 232 77 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 74 0 0 2 0 0 35 0 0 32 Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 70 10 77 76 0 51 92 29 17 232 45 Heavy Vehicles 13% 13% 5% 2% 14% 8% 11% 9% 20% 2% 3% 8% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 2.8 8.0 8.0 4.3 9.5 9.5 30.7 30.7 30.7 1.3 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s) 2.8 8.0 8.0 4.3 9.5 9.5 30.7 30.7 30.7 1.3 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.06 0.14 0.14 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.02 0.59 0.59 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 65 196 180 111 231 207 462 2139 605 33 2949 875 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.04 c0.04 c0.05 0.02 c0.01 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 c0.05 0.02 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.36 0.05 0.69 0.33 0.00 0.11 0.04 0.05 0.52 0.08 0.05 Uniform Delay, dl 32.0 27.8 26.8 31.4 26.5 25.3 10.9 10.6 10.6 33.2 6.1 6.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.1 1.1 0.1 17.1 0.8 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 12.9 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 37.1 28.9 26.9 48.5 27.4 25.3 11.4 10.6 10.7 46.1 6.2 6.2 Level of Service D C C D C C B B B D A A Approach Delay (s) 29.3 37.8 10.8 8.3 Approach LOS C D B A intersection Summary i HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.23 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.3 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2031 Ultimate Design AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 11 E HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Martinsburg Pike & Woodside Road/Cedar Hill Road 2/9/2016 Intersection has too many lanes per leg HCM All -Way analysis is limited to two lanes per leg. Channelized right turn lanes are not counted. 2031 Ultimate Design AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 12 HCMUD8iQO8lizedIntersection Capacity Analysis 4& �, � ^� � � | x � Traffic Volume (veh/h) 58 41 71 100 17 45 Future Volume (/eh/h) 50 41 71 100 17 45 Sign Control Stop Fee Free Grade O% O% O% Peak Hour Factor 0J1 0.87 0J4 0.80 071 0.87 Hourly flow rate (vph) 70 47 96 112 24 52 Pedestrians Lane Width UU Walking Speed (ftb) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (vmh) Median type None None Median storage weh) Upstream signal (8) pX.platoon unblocked vC. conflicting volume 262 152 208 vC1.stage 1 000fvo| vC2, stage 2nonfvol vCu.unblocked vol 252 152 208 iC.single (o) 8.4 6.2 4.1 tC.2stage (s) dF(s) 3.5 3.3 22 pOqueue free % 80 95 98 oMmopuoity (vah/h) 726 807 1389 Volume Total 120 208 76 Volume Left 78 O 24 Volume Right 47 112 O oSH 781 1700 1309 Volume iuCapacity 0.16 0.12 0.02 Queue Length 0Sth(8) 14 O 1 Control Do|ay(o) 10.5 0.0 2.5 LamoLO8 B A Approach Delay (a) 10.5 0.0 2.5 AppmaohL08 8 Average Delay 3.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.8% ICU Level ofService A Analysis Period (min) 15 20M5Existing Conditions PMPeak Hour SynuhmOLight Report HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 1-81 SB On Ramp & Hopewell Road 2/11/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T+ 4 4,. Traffic Volume (vehlh) 0 92 25 93 82 0 0 0 0 52 0 15 Future Volume (Vehlh) 0 92 25 93 82 0 0 0 0 52 0 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 2% 0% 0% 2% Peak Hour Factor 0.25 0.86 0.65 0.86 0.94 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.88 0.25 0.75 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 107 38 108 87 0 0 0 0 59 0 20 Pedestrians 83 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 Percent Blockage 7 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 170 145 449 512 126 512 531 170 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 170 145 449 512 126 512 531 170 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 92 100 100 100 85 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1321 1395 455 402 930 392 392 818 birection, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 145 195 79 Volume Left 0 108 59 Volume Right 38 0 20 cSH 1700 1395 451 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.08 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 6 16 Control Delay (s) 0.0 4.6 14.7 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 4.6 14.7 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2015 Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 2 HCM UO8' D@lizoed Intersection Capacity Analysis 4|G1NBOff R � * —,, � �� � �r �— 4.- * \ Traffic Volume (voh/h) 53 91 O O 151 91 24 2 78 0 0 O Future Volume (Veh/h) 53 01 O U 151 91 24 2 76 O 0 O Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade O% 5% 0Y6 2% Peak Hour Factor OJS 0.83 025 0.25 0.87 074 0.84 0.50 0.80 0.25 0.25 025 Hourly flow rate (vph) 71 110 O 0 174 123 29 4 85 U O 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (h) Walking Speed (fYh) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage voh) Upstream signal UU 1091 pX.platoon unblocked vC.conflicting volume 207 110 488 549 110 674 488 236 vC1.stage 1 uonfvo| vC2.stage 2ounfvol vCu.unblocked vol 297 110 488 540 110 574 488 238 tC.single (s) 41 41 7.2 6.6 6.3 71 6.5 02 tC.2stage (s) tF(s) 22 22 3.0 4.1 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 pO queue free % 04 100 04 99 01 100 100 100 dNoopaoity (voh/h) 1250 1483 453 408 927 373 456 808 Volume Total 181 297 118 Volume Left 71 O 29 Volume Right O 123 85 oSH 1259 1700 713 Volume hoCapacity 0.06 017 017 Queue Length 05N(ft) 4 O 15 Control Delay (x) 3.4 0.0 11.0 LunoLOS A B Approach Delay (s) 3.4 0.0 11.0 AppmuohLOS B Average Delay 32 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.3% ICU Level ofService A Analysis Period (min) 15 2015Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour Synchm0Light Report Queues 5: Martinsburg Pike & Hopewell Road 2/11/2016 -� 4\ T 1 �ane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 209 141 391 345 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.19 0.56 0.20 Control Delay 66.1 17.3 31.7 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 66.1 17.3 31.7 0.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 120 54 186 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #187 77 344 m0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1011 1122 98 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 Base Capacity (vph) 263 772 694 1703 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.79 0.18 0.56 0.20 Wersection 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. 2015 Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Martinsburg Pike & Hopewell Road 2/11/2016 -,* t 1 41 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 101 66 107 375 177 135 Future Volume (vph) 101 66 107 375 177 135 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.94 Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1663 1626 1863 1703 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1663 1626 1863 1703 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.79 0.81 0.76 0.96 0.91 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 128 81 141 391 195 150 RTOR Reduction (vph) 22 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 187 0 141 391 345 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 2% 11 % 2% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot pm+pt NA NA Protected Phases 4! 5! 2 Free! Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.2 50.2 38.5 106.9 Effective Green, g (s) 14.2 50.2 38.5 106.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.47 0.36 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 220 763 670 1703 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.02 c0.21 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.18 0.58 0.20 Uniform Delay, dl 45.3 16.5 27.7 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 25.7 0.1 1.3 0.2 Delay (s) 71.1 16.6 29.0 0.2 Level of Service E B C A Approach Delay (s) 71.1 25.7 0.2 Approach LOS E C A Intersection_ Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.9 Sum of lost time (s) 36.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 2015 Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 5 Queues 6: Martinsburg Pike & Brucetown Road � t `► bane Group WBL NBT SBL 2/11/2016 1 SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 251 542 16 215 v/c Ratio 1.02 0.31 0.02 0.41 Control Delay 105.4 0.9 16.4 32.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 105.4 0.9 16.4 32.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) —173 13 7 115 Queue Length 95th (ft) 142 m6 11 184 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1076 98 511 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 Base Capacity (vph) 247 1733 709 526 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.02 0.31 0.02 0.41 intersection Summary Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2015 Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 6 i HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Martinsburg Pike & Brucetown Road 2/11/2016 ,or, 4- t ovement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y T+ '� Traffic Volume (vph) 116 29 374 102 9 196 Future Volume (vph) 116 29 374 102 9 196 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 10.0 4.0 6.0 10.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fri: 0.98 0.96 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1657 1733 1736 1810 Fit Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1657 1733 1736 1810 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.55 0.73 0.96 0.67 0.56 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 211 40 390 152 16 215 RTOR Reduction (vph) 7 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 244 0 542 0 16 215 Confl. Peds. (#Ihr) 101 Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 6% 2% 7% 4% 5% Turn Type Prot NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 3! Free! 1! 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 106.9 33.2 30.0 Effective Green, g (s) 15.0 106.9 33.2 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 1.00 0.31 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 232 1733 539 507 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.31 0.00 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.05 0.31 0.03 0.42 Uniform Delay, dl 46.0 0.0 25.6 31.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 73.5 0.4 0.0 2.6 Delay (s) 119.4 0.4 25.7 34.0 Level of Service F A C C Approach Delay (s) 119.4 0.4 33.4 Approach LOS F A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.9 Sum of lost time (s) 36.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 I Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 2015 Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 7 0 0 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Martinsburg Pike & Woodside Road/Cedar Hill Road 2/11/2016 t 1 *J Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations +T + 4 +14 4 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 357 1 0 182 6 8 1 22 1 0 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 45 357 1 0 182 6 8 1 22 1 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.95 0.25 0.25 0.84 0.75 0.67 0.25 0.71 0.25 0.25 0.25 Hourly flow rate (vph) 60 376 4 0 217 8 12 4 31 4 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 225 380 529 721 221 752 723 190 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 221 221 498 498 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 308 500 254 225 vCu, unblocked vol 225 380 529 721 221 752 723 190 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.6 6.6 7.0 7.6 6.6 7.0 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.6 5.6 6.6 5.6 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 96 100 98 99 96 99 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1341 1154 582 479 780 443 473 816 pirection, Lane # NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SE 1 NW 1 Volume Total 248 192 225 47 4 Volume Left 60 0 0 12 4 Volume Right 0 4 8 31 0 cSH 1341 1700 1154 684 443 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.11 0.00 0.07 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 0 0 6 1 Control Delay (s) 2.2 0.0 0.0 10.7 13.2 Lane LOS A B B Approach Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 10.7 13.2 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2015 Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 8 HCM UDSigna|ized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1:VVelltOvVO Pike & Hopewell ROGd 2U1/2016 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 62 45 0 110 18 0 Future Volume(Veh/h) 62 45 78 110 19 50 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade U% O% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 . Hourly flow rate (vph) 70 51 80 125 22 57 Pedestrians Lane Width U0 Walking Speed U/o Percent Blockage Right turn flare (voh) Median type Nona None Median storage voh) Upstream signal (ft) pX.platoon unblocked vC.conflicting volume 252 152 214 vC1.stage 1 oonfvo| vC2.stage 2mmfvol vCu.unblocked vol 252 152 214 tC.single (s) 6.4 62 41 tC.2stage (s) IF 3.5 3.3 22 pOqueue free % 8O 94 88 uMcapacity (vmh/h) 726 897 1302 Volume Total 121 214 70 Volume Left 70 O 22 Volume Right 51 125 U oSH 790 1700 1382 Volume hoCapacity 015 013 0.02 Queue Length 05tbU0 13 O 1 Control Do|ay(u) 10.4 0.0 22 LanoLOS B A Approach Delay (o) 10.4 0.0 22 AppmaohLOS B Average Delay 3.5 |ohomeoUon Capacity Utilization 30.7% ICU Level ofService A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025No-Build FM Peak Hour Synchm0Light Report 0 0 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 1-81 SB On Ramp & Hopewell Road 2/11/2016 * Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT' NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T+ 4 4)- Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 102 28 103 91 0 0 0 0 57 0 17 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 102 28 103 91 0 0 0 0 57 0 17 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 2% 0% 0% 2% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 116 32 117 103 0 0 0 0 65 0 19 Pedestrians 83 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 Percent Blockage 7 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 186 148 488 552 132 552 568 186 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 186 148 488 552 132 552 568 186 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 2.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 92 100 100 100 82 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1304 1392 427 379 923 367 371 802 pirection, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 148 220 84 Volume Left 0 117 65 Volume Right 32 0 19 cSH 1700 1392 418 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.08 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 7 19 Control Delay (s) 0.0 4.5 15.8 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 4.5 15.8 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025 No -Build PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 2 HCK8Unei na|ized|nte[eeCtioOCopacitvAnolysis 4 | 1NBOff - 11 -1,. � � �� �� *-- *.- * \ Lane Configurations T+ + Traffic Volume (veh/h) 59 101 O 0 167 101 27 2 84 O U 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 59 101 O 0 167 101 27 2 84 U O O Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade O% S% 0% 2% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 67 115 O O 190 115 31 2 05 O O O Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed UKo Percent Blockage Right turn flare (voh) Median type None None Median storage voh) Upstream signal (ft) 1070 pX.platoon unblocked vC.conflicting volume 305 116 498 554 115 502 490 248 vC1.stage i oonfvo| vC2.stage 2oonfvol vCu.unblocked vol 305 116 400 554 115 592 496 248 tC.single (s) 41 41 72 6.6 6.3 71 8.5 62 0.2stage (s) dF(s) 22 2.2 3.6 4] 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 pO queue free % 95 100 93 100 90 100 100 100 dWoupand (voh/h) 1250 1487 447 407 921 360 452 706 VolumoTota| 182 305 128 Volume Left 67 O 31 Volume Right O 115 05 oSH 1250 1700 722 Volume hoCapacity 0.05 018 018 Queue Length 05th (ft) 4 U 16 Control Delay (o) 3.3 0.0 111 LamaLOS A B Approach Delay (x) 3.3 0.0 11.1 AppmachLOS 8 intersec,ti,on- Summary Average Delay 3.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.3% ICU Level ofService A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025No-Build PM Peak Hour SynchmOLight Report 0 i Queues 5: Martinsburg Pike & Hopewell bane Group EBL Road NBL NBT 2/11/2016 SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 210 134 470 392 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.17 0.61 0.23 Control Delay 56.4 18.2 31.6 0.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 56.4 18.2 31.6 0.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 127 53 247 5 Queue Length 95th (ft) 203 97 11485 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 990 1126 90 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 Base Capacity (vph) 355 790 774 1705 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 0.17 0.61 0.23 intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2025 No -Build PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Martinsburg Pike & Hopewell Road 2/11/2016 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y '� t T Traffic Volume (vph) 112 73 118 414 196 149 Future Volume (vph) 112 73 118 414 196 149 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.94 Fit Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1662 1626 1863 1704 Fit Permitted 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1662 1626 1863 1704 Peak -hour factor, PH 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 127 83 134 470 223 169 RTOR Reduction (vph) 21 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 189 0 134 470 392 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 2% 11% 2% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot pm+pt NA NA Protected Phases 4! 5! 2 Free! Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.9 57.0 45.5 114.1 Effective Green, g (s) 16.9 57.0 45.5 114.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.50 0.40 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 246 812 742 1704 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.02 c0.25 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.17 0.63 0.23 Uniform Delay, dl 46.7 15.6 27.6 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.3 0.1 1.8 0.3 Delay (s) 60.0 15.7 29.4 0.3 Level of Service E B C A Approach Delay (s) 60.0 26.3 0.3 Approach LOS E C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 114.1 Sum of lost time (s) 36.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups c Critical Lane Group 2025 No -Build PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 5 r 6 Queues 6: Martinsburg Pike & Bruceto4wn Road 2/11/2016 4�- I I i bane Group WBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 181 597 11 247 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.34 0.02 0.44 Control Delay 72.6 1.3 17.6 34.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 72.6 1.3 17.6 34.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 120 13 4 140 Queue Length 95th (ft) #236 38 15 222 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1076 90 211 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 Base Capacity (vph) 234 1763 742 564 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.77 0.34 0.01 0.44 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2025 No -Build PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Martinsburg Pike & Brucetown Road 2/11/2016 Movement _WBL WBR .. ...-NBT ..... NBR .......SBL---... _". _... SBT _... .._........_....._.__ _..__..._. _ -- , i Lane Configurations Y T I + Traffic Volume (vph) 128 32 413 113 10 217 Future Volume (vph) 128 32 413 113 10 217 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 10.0 4.0 6.0 10.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1652 1763 1736 1810 Fit Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1652 1763 1736 1810 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 145 36 469 128 11 247 RTOR Reduction (vph) 8 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 173 0 597 0 11 247 Confl. Peds. (Nhr) 101 Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 6% 2% 7% 4% 5% Turn Type Prot NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 3! Free! 1! 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.2 114.1 35.6 34.1 Effective Green, g (s) 14.2 114.1 35.6 34.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 1.00 0.31 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 205 1763 541 540 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.34 0.00 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.34 0.02 0.46 Uniform Delay, dl 48.9 0.0 27.2 32.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 25.9 0.4 0.0 2.8 Delay (s) 74.8 0.4 27.2 35.3 Level of Service E A C D Approach Delay (s) 74.8 0.4 34.9 Approach LOS E A C intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 114.1 Sum of lost time (s) 36.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 2025 No -Build PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Martinsburg Pike & Woodside Road/Cedar Hill Road I f* *j Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SEL �l SET SER f-1 NWL 2/11/2016 NWT NWR Lane Configurations +T"T+ 4�1 +T+ *T+ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 50 394 5 5 201 7 9 5 24 5 5 5 Future Volume (Veh/h) 50 394 5 5 201 7 9 5 24 5 5 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 57 448 6 6 228 8 10 6 27 6 6 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 236 454 591 812 232 839 813 227 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 244 244 565 565 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 347 568 274 248 vCu, unblocked vol 236 454 591 812 232 839 813 227 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.6 6.6 7.0 7.6 6.6 7.0 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.6 5.6 6.6 5.6 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 96 99 98 99 96 99 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1328 1082 537 442 767 406 441 773 pirection, Lane # NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SE 1 NW 1 Volume Total 281 230 242 43 18 Volume Left 57 0 6 10 6 Volume Right 0 6 8 27 6 cSH 1328 1700 1082 638 498 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.14 0.01 0.07 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 0 5 3 Control Delay (s) 1.9 0.0 0.3 11.1 12.5 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 1.0 0.3 11.1 12.5 Approach LOS B B Wersection Summary Average Delay 1.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025 No -Build PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 8 HCK8UOGi8D@liz8dIntersection Capacity Analysis 1:\8/elltOVvO Pike &Hopewell Road 2M1/2016 46 �� � ^� � � | / � Traffic Volume (veh/h) 108 B 0 128 22 50 Future Volume Neh/N 108 53 0 128 22 50 Sign Control Stop Free Free Smdo O% O% O% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 123 60 89 145 25 57 Pedestrians Lane Width (h) Walking Speed (fVs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (vh) Median type None None Median storage voh) Upstream signal (t) pX'platoon unblocked vC.conflicting volume 208 162 234 vC1.stage 1 oonfvo| vC2.stage 2nonfvol vCu.unblocked vol 268 162 234 tC.single (o) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC.2stage (s) tF(o) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pOqueue free Y6 83 93 98 oMcapacity (mh/h) 709 886 1339 Volume Total 183 234 82 Volume Left 123 O 25 Volume Right 60 146 O oSH 759 1700 1339 Volume tuCapacity 0.24 014 0.02 Queue Length 05th(ft) 24 O 1 Control Delay (n) 112 0.8 2.5 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.2 0.0 2.6 AppmachLOS B Average Delay 4.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.0% ICU Level ofService A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025Build PM Peak Hour SynomOLight Report HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Hopewell Road & Alfalfa Lane 2/11/2016 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations T T r if Traffic Volume (veh/h) 31 119 42 190 396 64 Future Volume (Veh/h) 31 119 42 190 396 64 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 35 135 48 216 450 73 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fYs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 264 253 48 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 264 253 48 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 37 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 1300 716 1021 pirection, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 35 135 48 216 450 73 Volume Left 35 0 0 0 450 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 216 0 73 cSH 1300 1700 1700 1700 716 1021 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.13 0.63 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 112 6 Control Delay (s) 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.1 8.8 Lane LOS A C A Approach Delay (s) 1.6 0.0 16.8 Approach LOS C Wersection Summary Average Delay 9.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025 Build PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 2 HCKU UD8igO8lized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3' 1-81 SB On Ramp & Hopewell Road 2M1C016 -- * --0- �� �- *- 4� ~� � � \ Traffic Volume (vah/h) O 278 181 103 157 O O O O 57 O 75 Future Volume (Veh/h) U 278 181 103 157 O O O O 57 0 75 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 2% O% O% 2% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) O 316 208 117 178 O O O 0 65 O 85 Pedestrians 83 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (Vx) 4.0 Percent Blockage 7 Right turn flare (vmh) Median type None None Median storage voh) Upstream signal (ft) pX,platoon unblocked VC, conflicting volume 201 522 818 014 410 914 1017 261 vC1.stage 1 oonfvo| vC2.stage 2mmfvol vCu.unblocked vol 261 522 916 014 410 014 1017 281 tC.single (s) 41 42 71 8.5 82 71 6.5 62 tC,2stage (s) iF(s) 22 2.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 33 4.0 3.3 p0queue free % iOO 88 100 100 100 60 100 88 oMoapaoKy (veh/h) 1224 1010 185 226 638 204 107 728 Volume Total 522 205 150 Volume Left O 117 65 Volume Right 208 O 85 oSH 1700 1010 344 Volume hoCapacity 0.31 012 0.44 Queue Length 00hUU O 10 53 Control Do|ay(o) 0.0 4.3 23.3 LanoLOS A C Approach Do|ay(o) 0.0 4.3 23.3 Approach LOS C Average Delay 4.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.4% ICU Level ofService B Analysis Period (min) 15 2025Build PNPeak Hour Synohm9Light Report HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 1-81 NB Off Ramp/1-81 NB On Ramp & Hopewell Road 2/11/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *T T *T+ Traffic Volume (vehlh) 212 124 0 0 175 101 85 2 84 0 0 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 212 124 0 0 175 101 85 2 84 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 5% 0% 2% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 241 141 0 0 199 115 97 2 95 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fYs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1074 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 314 141 880 937 141 976 880 256 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 314 141 880 937 141 976 880 256 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.2 6.6 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.6 4.1 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 81 100 56 99 89 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1241 1455 218 207 891 175 232 787 pirection, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 Volume Total 382 314 194 Volume Left 241 0 97 Volume Right 0 115 95 cSH 1241 1700 346 Volume to Capacity 0.19 0.18 0.56 Queue Length 95th (ft) 18 0 82 Control Delay (s) 6.1 0.0 27.9 Lane LOS A D Approach Delay (s) 6.1 0.0 27.9 Approach LOS D intersection Summary Average Delay 8.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025 Build PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 4 Queues 5: Martinsburg Pike & Hopewell Road 2/11/2018 ~~ � � �� | 4 \ ] � Lane Group Flow (vph) 235 140 470 307 wtRaUo 0.70 019 0.83 023 Control Delay 57.8 18.0 33.0 0.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 57.8 19.0 33.0 0.5 Queue Length 50th(ft) 142 0 254 6 Queue Length 05thUU 224 101 #494 O Internal Link Dist (ft) 994 1126 82 Turn Bay Length U8 100 Base Capacity (v9h) 360 788 748 1703 Starvation Cap Radudm 0 O O O Spi||backCap Redudm O O O 8 Storage Cap Rodudtn U O O O Reduced wtRatio 0.85 0.18 0.83 023 Intersection- Su-m'mar'y' #95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2025Build PNPeak Hour Synohm8Light Report HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Martinsburg Pike & Hopewell Road 2/11/2016 t 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y Vi t T Traffic Volume (vph) 123 84 123 414 196 153 Future Volume (vph) 123 84 123 414 196 153 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 4.0 Lane Util, Factor 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.94 Fit Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1662 1626 1863 1702 Fit Permitted 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1662 1626 1863 1702 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 140 95 140 470 223 174 RTOR Reduction (vph) 23 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 212 0 140 470 397 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 2% 11% 2% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot pm+pt NA NA Protected Phases 4! 5! 2 Free! Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.9 54.9 43.4 112.9 Effective Green, g (s) 17.9 54.9 43.4 112.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.49 0.38 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 263 790 716 1702 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.02 c0.25 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.18 0.66 0.23 Uniform Delay, dl 45.8 16.3 28.6 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 16.4 0.1 2.2 0.3 Delay (s) 62.2 16.4 30.8 0.3 Level of Service E B C A Approach Delay (s) 62.2 27.5 0.3 Approach LOS E C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 112.9 Sum of lost time (s) 36.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.1 % ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 2025 Build PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 6 L] S' Martinsburg Pike &B oe1ovvD Road 2M1/20O Lane Group Flow (vph) 181 611 11 251 wcRaUo 0.81 0.35 0.02 0.47 Control Delay 717 1.5 17.8 35.0 Queue Delay 0.0 &O &O 0.0 Total Delay 717 1.5 17.8 35.8 Queue Length SOth(ft) 119 14 4 146 Queue Length QSth(ft) #231 55 16 228 Internal Link Dist UU 1076 82 183 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 Base Capacity (vph) 237 1768 737 536 Starvation Cap Raduotn O U O 0 SpiUbuokCap Roductn O O O O Storage Cap Raductn O O O O Reduced wtRatio 0J6 0.35 0.01 0.47 i�erse-ctiion'2umma' '- '' -- -- - - '-''-' -------'— --- ' '---'' ----1 # 05thpercentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may bolonger. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2025 Build PM Peak Hour Synohro0Light Report StoweEngineoing Page 0 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Martinsburg Pike & Brucetown Road 2/11/2016 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y T I t Traffic Volume (vph) 128 32 425 113 10 221 Future Volume (vph) 128 32 425 113 10 221 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 10.0 4.0 6.0 10.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1652 1766 1736 1810 Fit Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd Flow (perm) 1652 1766 1736 1810 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 145 36 483 128 11 251 RTOR Reduction (vph) 8 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 173 0 611 0 11 251 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 101 Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 6% 2% 7% 4% 5% Turn Type Prot NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 3! Free! 1! 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.1 112.9 33.6 32.1 Effective Green, g (s) 14.1 112.9 33.6 32.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 1.00 0.30 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 206 1766 516 514 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.35 0.00 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.35 0.02 0.49 Uniform Delay, dl 48.3 0.0 28.0 33.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 25.3 0.4 0.0 3.3 Delay (s) 73.6 0.4 28.0 36.9 Level of Service E A C . D Approach Delay (s) 73.6 0.4 36.5 Approach LOS E A D intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 112.9 Sum of lost time (s) 36.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 2025 Build PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 8 HCW1Unsigna|izedIntersection Capacity Analysis 7: Martinsburg Pike & Woodside Road/CedarRoad/Cedar Hill Road 2/11/2016 �* | � � � ^ � | �� | �� � �� ^_� \�°* �^ � ��' �� X. # \ Lane Configurations 4T+ 4+ Traffic Volume (vmWh) 50 400 S S 205 7 A S 24 5 S S Future Volume (Vah/h) SO 406 5 5 205 7 8 5 24 5 S S Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade O% U% O% O% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 8.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 57 461 6 6 233 8 10 6 27 6 6 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (h/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (voh) Median type TVVLTL TNLTL Median storage voh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX.platoon unblocked vC.conflicting volume 241 467 602 830 237 857 831 234 vC1.stage 1oonfvol 240 249 578 578 vC2.stage 2oonfvol 364 581 270 253 vCu.unblocked vol 241 467 602 830 237 857 831 234 tC.single (o) 4.1 42 7.6 6.6 7.0 7.6 6.0 7.0 tC.2stage (s) 0.6 5.8 8.8 5.0 tF(s) 2.2 22 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 pOqueue free % 90 OO 98 80 98 08 00 90 oMcapacity (mh/h) 1323 1070 531 436 761 399 435 765 VolumoTota| 288 236 247 43 18 Volume Left 57 0 8 10 8 Volume Right O 8 8 27 8 o8H 1323 1700 1070 832 491 Volume hoCapacity 0.04 014 0.01 0.07 0.04 Queue Length 05th(ft) 3 0 0 5 3 Control Delay (s) 1.0 0.0 0.3 111 12.8 bmoL0S A A B B Approach Delay (s) 1.0 0.3 111 12.0 Approach L0S B B Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 377% ICU Level ofService A Analysis Period (min) 15 202SBuild PMPeak Hour SynomOLight Report HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Welltown Pike & Hopewell Road 2/11/2016 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y '+ +T Traffic Volume (vehlh) 108 53 78 128 22 50 Future Volume (Veh/h) 108 53 78 128 22 50 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 123 60 89 145 25 57 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 268 162 234 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 268 162 234 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 83 93 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 709 886 1339 pirection, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 183 234 82 Volume Left 123 0 25 Volume Right 60 145 0 cSH 759 1700 1339 Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.14 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 24 0 1 Control Delay (s) 11.2 0.0 2.5 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.2 0.0 2.5 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025 Build with IMPROVEMENTS PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Hopewell Road & Alfalfa Lane 2/11/2016 .A --10- 4-4.11 4/ Mo _vement EBL EBT ---WBT... ,_. _ ... WBRSBL _.--- ... . __._... . .............._ .. SBR Lane Configurations t t r Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume (vph) 31 119 42 190 396 64 Future Volume (vph) 31 119 42 190 396 64 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 35 135 48 216 450 73 Direction, Lane -# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1..- 1NB 2_ .. SB.1.._.. SB.2 .. _ . -..... _. ..._ _ .____.._......._..-... ., ...... Volume Total (vph) 35 135 48 216 450 73 Volume Left (vph) 35 0 0 0 450 0 Volume Right (vph) 0 0 0 216 0 73 Hadj (s) 0.53 0.03 0.03 -0.67 0.53 -0.67 Departure Headway (s) 7.1 6.6 6.5 5.8 6.3 5.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.07 0.25 0.09 0.35 0.78 0.10 Capacity (veh/h) 470 509 517 586 563 682 Control Delay (s) 9.4 10.6 8.9 10.6 26.9 7.4 Approach Delay (s) 10.3 10.3 24.2 Approach LOS B B C __ ti..on ,_.S. . ..m......._._. _ ....._. Intersec uma..ry .___-_.. -- _ ........ _.... . Delay 17.9 Level of Service C Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025 Build with IMPROVEMENTS PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 2 0 • HCM 2010 AWSC 2: Hopewell Road & Alfalfa Lane 2/11/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 19.2 Intersection LOS C Movement EBU EBL HT WBU WBT WBR SBU SBL SBR Traffic Vol, vehlh 0 31 119 0 42 190 0 396 64 Future Vol, veh/h 0 31 119 0 42 190 0 396 64 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 35 135 0 48 216 0 450 73 Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 Approach EB WB SB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 2 2 0 Conflicting Approach Left SB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 2 Conflicting Approach Right SB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 0 2 2 HCM Control Delay 11.3 11.3 25.8 HCM LOS B B D bane EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 31 119 42 190 396 64 LT Vol 31 0 0 0 396 0 Through Vol 0 119 42 0 0 0 RT Vol 0 0 0 190 0 64 Lane Flow Rate 35 135 48 216 450 73 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.07 0.248 0.086 0.346 0.788 0.103 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.109 6.598 6.484 5.77 6.304 5.096 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 503 544 552 622 576 703 Service Time 4,863 4.352 4.234 3.521 4.035 2.827 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.07 0.248 0.087 0.347 0.781 0.104 HCM Control Delay 10.4 11.5 9.8 11.6 28.6 8.4 HCM Lane LOS B B A B D A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 1 0.3 1.5 7.5 0.3 2025 Build with IMPROVEMENTS PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 3 r HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 1-81 SB On Ramp & Hopewell Road 2/11/2016 Movement EBL EBT ....._EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT- NBR ' SBL '.., SBT---- SBA Lane Configurations '+ 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume (vph) 0 278 181 103 157 0 0 0 0 57 0 75 Future Volume (vph) 0 278 181 103 157 0 0 0 0 57 0 75 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 316 206 117 178 0 0 0 0 65 0 85 Direction, lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 522 295 150 Volume Left (vph) 0 117 65 Volume Right (vph) 206 0 85 Hadj (s) -0.20 0.15 -0.24 Departure Headway (s) 4.5 5.1 5.6 Degree Utilization, x 0.66 0.42 0.23 Capacity (veh/h) 769 676 573 Control Delay (s) 15.9 11.8 10.2 Approach Delay (s) 15.9 11.8 10.2 Approach LOS C B B ntersection Summary Delay 13.7 Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 2025 Build with IMPROVEMENTS PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 4 HCM 2010 AWSC 3: 1-81 SB On Ramp & Hopewell Road 2/11/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.8 Intersection LOS B Movement ' EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 278 181 0 103 157 0 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 278 181 0 103 157 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 0 4 0 2 9 1 0 2 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 0 316 206 0 117 178 0 0 0 0 0 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Approach EB WB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right SB Conflicting Lanes Right 0 1 HCM Control Delay 15.8 11.9 HCM LOS C B bane EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 0% 40% 43% Vol Thru, % 61% 60% 0% Vol Right, % 39% 0% 57% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 459 260 132 LT Vol 0 103 57 Through Vol 278 157 0 RT Vol 181 0 75 Lane Flow Rate 522 295 150 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.653 0.419 0.233 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.506 5.111 5.582 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 793 697 647 Service Time 2.58 3.203 3,582 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.658 0.423 0.232 HCM Control Delay 15.8 11.9 10.3 HCM Lane LOS C B B HCM 95th-tile Q 4.9 2.1 0.9 2025 Build with IMPROVEMENTS PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 5 0 HCK82O1OAWSC 3: |-01 8B On Ramp & Hopewell Road 281C016 Intersection Delay, s/veh |utemooUnoLOS Traffic Vol, veh/h O 57 O 75 Future Vol, voh/h O 57 O 75 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 O O MvmtF|mw O 65 0 85 Number ofLanes O O 1 O OppomingAppmaoh Opposing Lanes O Conflicting Approach Left VVB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCMControl Delay 10.3 HCML0S B 2025Build with IMPROVEMENTS PMPeak Hour Smohm0Light Report HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 1-81 NB Off Ramp/1-81 NB On Ramp & Hopewell Road 2/11/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' T 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume (vph) 212 124 0 0 175 101 85 2 84 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 212 124 0 0 175 101 85 2 84 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 241 141 0 0 199 115 97 2 95 0 0 0 birection, Lane # Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summa EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 382 314 194 241 0 97 0 115 95 0.17 -0.10 -0.01 5.1 4.9 5.6 0.54 0.43 0.30 683 703 581 13.8 11.5 11.0 13.8 11.5 11.0 B B B Delay 12.4 Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2025 Build with IMPROVEMENTS PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 7 0 0 HCM 2010 AWSC 4: 1-81 NB Off Ramp/1-81 NB On Ramp & Hopewell Road 2/11/2016 ntersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.2 Intersection LOS B Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 212 124 0 0 0 175 101 0 85 2 84 Future Vol, veh/h 0 212 124 0 0 0 175 101 0 85 2 84 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 3 2 0 2 0 4 12 2 13 10 8 Mvmt Flow 0 241 141 0 0 0 199 115 0 97 2 95 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 13.6 11.3 11 HCM LOS B B B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 Vol Left, % 50% 63% 0% Vol Thru, % 1 % 37% 63% Vol Right, % 49% 0% 37% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 171 336 276 LT Vol 85 212 0 Through Vol 2 124 175 RT Vol 84 0 101 Lane Flow Rate 194 382 314 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.303 0.529 0.415 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.62 4.983 4.758 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 643 714 746 Service Time 3.62 3.076 2.853 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.302 0.535 0.421 HCM Control Delay 11 13.6 11.3 HCM Lane LOS B B B HCM 95th-tile Q 1.3 3.1 2.1 2025 Build with IMPROVEMENTS PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 8 HCM 2010 AWSC 4: 1-81 NB Off Ramp/1-81 NB On Ramp & Hopewell Road 2/11/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 0 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 (approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS Lane 2025 Build with IMPROVEMENTS PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 9 5: Martinsburg Pike & Hopewell F< d 2M1/2016 --I ' � Y ,� � wtRaUo OJO 0.19 0.62 023 Control Delay 67.8 19.0 33.0 0.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 57.8 19.0 33.0 8.5 Queue Length 60th(ft) 142 58 254 G Queue Length 05th(ft) 224 101 #404 O Internal Link Dist UU 984 1126 82 Turn Bay Length (h) 100 Base Capacity (vph) 360 768 748 1703 Starvation Cap Rodudn U O 8 O SpiUbaokCap Roductn O U 0 O Storage Cap Roductn O O 0 O Reduced wtRatio 0.85 0.18 0.83 023 # 05thpercentile wdumeaxoeedxoapaoity queue may bolonger. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 205Build with IMPROVEMENTS PMPeak Hour SynchmULight Report HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Martinsburg Pike & Hopewell Road 2/11/2016 _--* ---* -4\ f 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y T T Traffic Volume (vph) 123 84 123 414 196 153 Future Volume (vph) 123 84 123 414 196 153 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.94 At Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1662 1626 1863 1702 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1662 1626 1863 1702 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 140 95 140 470 223 174 RTOR Reduction (vph) 23 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 212 0 140 470 397 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 7% 2% 11% 2% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot pm+pt NA NA Protected Phases 4! 5! 2 Free! Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.9 54.9 43.4 112.9 Effective Green, g (s) 17.9 54.9 43.4 112.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.49 0.38 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 263 790 716 1702 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.02 c0,25 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.18 0.66 0.23 Uniform Delay, dl 45.8 16.3 28.6 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 16.4 0.1 2.2 0.3 Delay (s) 62.2 16.4 30.8 0.3 Level of Service E B C A Approach Delay (s) 62.2 27.5 0.3 Approach LOS E C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 112.9 Sum of lost time (s) 36.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 I Phase conflict between lane groups, c Critical Lane Group 2025 Build with IMPROVEMENTS PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 11 0 0 Queues 6: Martinsburg Pike & Brucetown Road 2/11/2016 f" 1 ane Group WBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 181 611 11 251 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.35 0.02 0.47 Control Delay 71.7 1.5 17.8 35.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 71.7 1.5 17.8 35.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 119 14 4 146 Queue Length 95th (ft) #231 55 15 226 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1076 82 183 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 Base Capacity (vph) 237 1766 737 536 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.76 0.35 0.01 0.47 Intersection Summary I # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2025 Build with IMPROVEMENTS PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Martinsburg Pike & Brucetown Road 2/11/2016 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y T+ '� t Traffic Volume (vph) 128 32 425 113 10 221 Future Volume (vph) 128 32 425 113 10 221 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 10.0 4.0 6.0 10.0 Lane Util, Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1652 1766 1736 1810 At Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd Flow (perm) 1652 1766 1736 1810 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 145 36 483 128 11 251 RTOR Reduction (vph) 8 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 173 0 611 0 11 251 Confl. Peds. (Nhr) 101 Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 6% 2% 7% 4% 5% Turn Type Prot NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 3! Free! 1! 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.1 112.9 33.6 32.1 Effective Green, g (s) 14.1 112.9 33.6 32.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 1.00 0.30 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 10.0 6.0 10.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 206 1766 516 514 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.35 0.00 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.35 0.02 0.49 Uniform Delay, dl 48.3 0.0 28.0 33.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 25.3 0.4 0.0 3.3 Delay (s) 73.6 0.4 28.0 36.9 Level of Service E A C D Approach Delay (s) 73.6 0.4 36.5 Approach LOS E A D Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 112.9 Sum of lost time (s) 36.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 I Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 2025 Build with IMPROVEMENTS PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 13 HCM [1D8igO@lized !Ohe[Ge[tiOD Capacity Analysis 7: Martinsburg Pike & Woodside Road/Cedar Hill Road 2/11/2016 | | � �� ^ U x� | � �� p� Lane Configurations 4+ Traffic Volume (voh/h) SO 406 5 5 205 7 0 5 24 S 5 5 Future Volume (Veh/h) 50 406 5 S 205 7 0 5 24 5 5 S Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade O% 0% O% O% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 088 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 57 461 6 G 233 8 10 6 27 6 6 O Pedestrians Lane Width (h) Walking Speed (fYh) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (voh) Median type TVVLTL TVVLTL Median storage voh) 2 2 Upstream signal 80 pX.platoon unblocked vC.conflicting volume 241 487 802 830 237 857 831 234 vC1.stage 1 oonfvo| 240 240 578 578 vC2.stage 2onnfvol 354 581 279 253 vCu.unblocked vol 241 467 602 830 237 857 831 234 tC.single (o) 4.1 4.2 7.8 6.6 7.0 7.6 6.6 7.0 tC.2stage (s) 6.8 5.6 8.6 5.8 UF(s) 22 22 3.5 4.0 2.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 pOqueue free % OG 00 88 OO 06 88 90 OO oMcapacity (veh/h) 1323 1070 531 436 761 309 435 765 Volume Total 288 236 247 43 18 Volume Left 57 O 6 10 8 Volume Right 0 8 8 27 6 oSH 1323 1700 1070 632 491 Volume hoCapacity 0.04 014 0.01 0.07 0.04 Queue Length O5th(ft) 3 O O S 3 Control Delay (s) 1.9 0.0 0.3 111 12.6 LamoL0S A A B 8 Approach Delay (o) 1.0 0.3 111 12.6 Approach LOS B 8 Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 377% ICU Level ofService A Analysis Period (min) 15 20258uild with IMPROVEMENTS PMPeak Hour Symohm0Light Report StowoEnginooing Pugo14 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Welltown Pike & Hopewell Road 2/7/2016 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y % Traffic Volume (veh/h) 111 56 83 135 23 53 Future Volume (Veh/h) 111 56 83 135 23 53 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 126 64 94 153 26 60 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 282 170 247 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 282 170 247 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 82 93 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 696 876 1325 pirection, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 190 247 86 Volume Left 126 0 26 Volume Right 64 153 0 cSH 748 1700 1325 Volume to Capacity 0.25 0.15 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 25 0 2 Control Delay (s) 11.4 0.0 2.5 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.4 0.0 2.5 Approach LOS B intersection Summary Average Delay 4.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2031 Ultimate Design PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 1 0 HCK8 Unsi O@lized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2 Hopewell Rd & Alfalfa Lane 2/7/2016 \^ 'A _* 4_ 4 � N. -�/ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume (vph) 31 127 48 190 396 64 Future Volume (vph) 31 127 48 100 306 84 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 35 144 55 218 450 73 Volume Total (vph) 35 144 55 216 460 73 Volume Left (vph) 35 O O O 450 O Volume Right (vph) 0 O O 216 O 73 Hmdj (s) 0.53 0.03 0.03 '0.67 0.53 '0.67 Departure Headway (o) 7.1 6.6 6.5 6.8 6.3 5.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.07 026 010 0.35 OJO 010 Capanity(vmWh) 469 508 515 584 558 878 Control Do|ay(s) 9.5 10.8 9.0 107 27.6 7.5 Approach Delay (s) 10.5 10.3 24.8 AppmaohLOS B B C Delay 181 Level of Service C Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.0% ICU Level ofService A Analysis Period (min) 15 2031 Ultimate Design PNPeak Hour SynohmOLight Report HCM 2010 AWSC 2: Hopewell Road & Alfalfa Lane intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 19.5 Intersection LOS C Movement EBU EBL Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 31 Future Vol, veh/h 0 31 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 35 Number of Lanes 0 1 4proach EB EBT 127 127 0.88 2 144 1 WBU 0 0 0.88 2 0 0 WBT 48 48 0.88 2 55 1 WB WBR SBU 190 0 190 0 0.88 0.88 2 2 216 0 1 0 SBL 396 396 0.88 2 450 1 SB 2/7/2016 SBR 64 64 0.88 2 73 1 Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 2 2 0 Conflicting Approach Left SB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 2 Conflicting Approach Right SB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 0 2 2 HCM Control Delay 11.5 11.3 26.4 HCM LOS B B D Lane EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 31 127 48 190 396 64 LT Vol 31 0 0 0 396 0 Through Vol 0 127 48 0 0 0 RT Vol 0 0 0 190 0 64 Lane Flow Rate 35 144 55 216 450 73 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.07 0.265 0.099 0.348 0.794 0.104 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.132 6.621 6.513 5.799 6.349 5.141 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 501 541 549 618 572 697 Service Time 4.89 4.379 4.265 3.551 4.083 2.874 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.07 0.266 0.1 0.35 0.787 0.105 HCM Control Delay 10.4 11.8 10 11.6 29.3 8.5 HCM Lane LOS B B A B D A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 1.1 0.3 1.6 7.6 0.3 2031 Ultimate Design PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 1-81 SB On Ramp & Hopewell Road 21712016 } I ovement EBL EBT EBR W B L WBT - WBR' NBL .. NBT NBR SBL-- - SBR Lane Configurations T+ 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume (vph) 0 285 183 109 163 0 0 0 0 61 0 76 Future Volume (vph) 0 285 183 109 163 0 0 0 0 61 0 76 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 324 208 124 185 0 0 0 0 69 0 86 erection, Lane # EB 1 W6 1 v S6 1 Volume Total (vph) 532 309 155 Volume Left (vph) 0 124 69 Volume Right (vph) 208 0 86 Hadj (s) -0.19 0.15 -0.23 Departure Headway (s) 4.6 5.2 5.6 Degree Utilization, x 0.68 0.44 0.24 Capacity (vehlh) 762 671 565 Control Delay (s) 16.7 12.2 10.4 Approach Delay (s) 16.7 12.2 10.4 Approach LOS C B B _._ma nterseSum ction ry .......... _.......-.... . Delay 14.3 Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 2031 Ultimate Design PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 4 HCM 2010 AWSC 3: 1-81 SB On Ramp & Hopewell Road 2/7/2016 jntersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 14.3 Intersection LOS B Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBN Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 285 183 0 109 163 0 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 285 183 0 109 163 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 0 4 0 2 9 1 0 2 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 0 324 208 0 124 185 0 0 0 0 0 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Approach EB WB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right SB Conflicting Lanes Right 0 1 HCM Control Delay 16.6 12.3 HCM LOS C B Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 0% 40% 45% Vol Thru, % 61 % 60% 0% Vol Right, % 39% 0% 55% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 468 272 137 LT Vol 0 109 61 Through Vol 285 163 0 RT Vol 183 0 76 Lane Flow Rate 532 309 156 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0,672 0.442 0,245 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.548 5.149 5.659 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 787 689 638 Service Time 2.629 3.249 3.659 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.676 0.448 0.245 HCM Control Delay 16.6 12.3 10.5 HCM Lane LOS C B B HCM 95th-tile Q 5.3 2.3 1 2031 Ultimate Design PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 5 HCM2O1OAVVSC 3: 1-81 @BOn Ramp & Hopewell Road 2/7/2 18 |ntemooUonDelay, o/voh Intersection LOS ..... ........ '--------�B* �—.... ���--S,�f--��R" Traffic Vol, voh/h O 01 U 76 Future Vol, voh/h 0 81 O 78 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 O O MvmtF|ow O 89 U 86 Number o[Lanes O U 1 O Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes O Conflicting Approach Left VV8 Conflicting Lanes Left 1 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCMControl Delay 10.5 HCML0S 8 2B1Ultimate Design PMPeak Hour Synom0Light Report HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 1-81 NB Off Ramp/1-81 NB On Ramp & Hopewell Road 2/7/2016 t --* �, ,or .— *-- t r� `► 1 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +' T *T+ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume (vph) 216 130 0 0 186 107 86 2 89 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 216 130 0 0 186 107 86 2 89 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 245 148 0 0 211 122 98 2 101 0 0 0 pirection, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 Volume Total (vph) 393 333 201 Volume Left (vph) 245 0 98 Volume Right (vph) 0 122 101 Hadj (s) 0.17 -0.10 -0.03 Departure Headway (s) 5.1 5.0 5.7 Degree Utilization, x 0.56 0.46 0.32 Capacity (veh/h) 676 697 574 Control Delay (s) 14.5 12.1 11.3 Approach Delay (s) 14.5 12.1 11.3 Approach LOS B B B ntersection Summa Delay 12.9 Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.4% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 2031 Ultimate Design PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 7 HCM2O1OAVVSC 4 |-01NBOff Ra |ntemnoUonDelay,o/voh 127 Traffic Vol, veh/h O 218 130 O O O 186 107 8 88 2 88 Future Vol, voh/h 0 216 130 O O O 186 107 U 86 2 89 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 8.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 3 2 O 2 O 4 12 2 13 10 8 MvmtF|mw O 245 148 0 O O 211 122 O 98 2 101 Number ofLanes O U 1 0 O O 1 O 0 O 1 O Opposing Approach N0 EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 O Conflicting Approach Loh N8 EB Conflicting Lanes Left 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB VVB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 O 1 HCMControl Delay 142 11.8 11.3 HCMLOS B B B Vol Left, 96 48% 82% 096 Vo|Thm. % 1% 38% 83% Vol Right, % 50% O% 37% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol byLane 177 346 203 LT Vol 80 210 0 Through Vol 2 130 186 RTVo| 88 O 107 Lane Flow Rate 201 393 333 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree ofUU|00 0,318 0.549 0.444 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.89 5.135 4.906 Conwurgonuo.Y/N You Yes Yes Cup 638 708 739 Service Time 3.60 3.135 2.008 HCM LanaV/C Ratio 0.316 0.656 0.451 HCMControl Delay 11.3 142 11.8 HCM Lane LOS 8 B B HCM05th-ti|oO 1.4 3.4 2.3 2031 Ultimate Design PNPeak Hour Synohm0Light Report HCM 2010 AWSC 4: 1-81 NB Off Ramp/1-81 NB On Ramp & Hopewell Road 2/7/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 0 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS Lane 2031 Ultimate Design PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 9 {}UeUeS 5: Martinsburg Pike & Hopewell Road 2/7/2016 -. * -� �r �- 4 -� � � `- _ Lane Group Flow (vph) 86 76 101 61 93 39 148 425 75 13 175 92 whRoUo 0.37 018 018 0.34 0.37 010 0.65 0.68 0.89 0.88 0.46 017 Control Delay 311 23.8 UJ 381 31.8 0.5 35.1 22.4 82 31.7 29.8 0.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 32] 23.8 07 361 31.8 0.5 351 22.4 02 317 20.6 0.8 Queue Length SOth(ft) 31 26 O 23 34 0 53 113 O 5 63 0 Queue Length O5th(ft) 76 62 U 64 80 O 120 #336 O 22 132 U Internal Link Dist UV 994 188 1128 345 Turn Bay Length UA 100 Base Capacity (vph) 387 812 680 192 412 508 346 754 811 256 452 598 Starvation Cap Rododm O O 0 O 0 0 O O O 0 0 O SpiUbaokCap Roduotn O 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 O Storage Cap Roduotn O 0 O O O O O O O 0 U O Reduced wtRatio 022 0.12 0.16 0.32 0.23 0.08 0.43 0.56 0.00 0.05 0.39 0.15 # OSthpercentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may balonger. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2031 Ultimate Design PMPeak Hour SynohmOLight Report HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Martinsburg Pike & Hopewell Road Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT 2/7/2016 SBR Lane Configurations T r + r T r I t r Traffic Volume (vph) 76 67 89 54 82 34 130 374 66 11 154 81 Future Volume (vph) 76 67 89 54 82 34 130 374 66 11 154 81 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 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1687 1776 1583 1671 1792 1524 1626 1863 1583 1736 1810 1538 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd Flow (perm) 1687 1776 1583 1671 1792 1524 1626 1863 1583 1736 1810 1538 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) 86 76 101 61 93 39 148 425 75 12 175 92 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 77 0 0 34 0 0 49 0 0 74 Lane Group Flow (vph) 86 76 24 61 93 5 148 425 26 13 175 18 Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% 2% 8% 6% 6% 11% 2% 2% 4% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.7 16.9 16.9 3.7 8.9 8.9 12.2 24.7 24.7 1.2 13.7 13.7 Effective Green, g (s) 11.7 16.9 16.9 3.7 8.9 8.9 12.2 24.7 24.7 1.2 13.7 13.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.24 0.24 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.35 0.35 0.02 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 279 425 379 87 226 192 281 652 554 29 351 298 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.04 0.04 c0.05 0.09 c0.23 0.01 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.18 0.06 0.70 0.41 0.03 0.53 0.65 0.05 0.45 0.50 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 25.8 21.3 20.7 32.9 28.4 27.0 26.5 19.3 15.1 34.3 25.3 23.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.2 0.1 22.5 1.2 0.1 1.8 2.3 0.0 10.6 1.1 0.1 Delay (s) 26.5 21.5 20.8 55.3 29.6 27.1 28.3 21.6 15.2 45.0 26.5 23.2 Level of Service C C C E C C C C B D C C Approach Delay (s) 22.8 37.2 22.4 26.3 Approach LOS C D C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.5 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2031 Ultimate Design PM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Light Report Stowe Engineeing Page 11 HCK8Unsi O@|ized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Martinsburg Pike & Woodside Road/Cedar Hill Road 2/7/2016 FA | | *J %-* %* N� X � Tra#icVolume (voh/h) 50 430 S 5 218 7 8 5 26 5 6 5 Future Volume (/oh/h) SO 430 S S 218 7 0 5 26 5 5 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade O% 0% O% O% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 57 489 8 6 248 8 10 O 30 6 6 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (h) Walking Speed (fYh) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (voh) Median type TVVLTL TVVLTL Median storage wnh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX.platoon unblocked vC.conflicting volume 256 495 632 873 252 903 874 248 vC1.stage 1 oonfvn| 264 204 008 606 vC2.stage 2oonfvol 308 609 207 268 vCu.unblocked vol 256 486 832 873 252 903 874 248 tC. uing|o(o) 4.1 42 7.6 8.6 7.0 7.6 6.6 7.0 tC.2stage (s) 6.8 5.6 6.8 5.8 tF(s) 22 22 3.6 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 pOqueue free % 06 99 98 90 96 98 OO 99 dNoapaoK (voh/h) 1306 1044 618 422 745 382 421 750 Vo|umoTota| 302 250 262 46 18 Volume Left 57 O O iO 8 Volume Right O 6 8 30 8 oSH 1308 1700 1044 623 474 Volume toCapacity 0.04 015 0.01 0.07 0.04 Queue Length U5th(ft) 3 O O 6 3 Control Delay (s) 1.8 0.0 02 112 12.9 LamoLOS A A 8 B Approach Delay (o) 1.0 02 112 12.9 AppmoohLO8 B 8 intersection Summary Average Delay 1.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.0% ICU Level ofService A Analysis Period (miu) 15 2031 Ultimate Design PNPeak Hour Synohm9Light Report 0 Appendix C Traffic Volume Computations AM TRIPS 2025 Background 2025 Build -Out 2031 Design Year BALANCED Organic Growth RAW Organic Growth@ Background Bypass Organic Growth Bypass 2015 Existing AM 1.0%/yr to 2025 Traffic New Trips @ 1.0%tyr to Trips TOTAL New Trips @ 1.0% in 2031 Trips TOTAL Count 2015 2025 NS RT 43 47 52 52 37 52 89 37 55 93 NB Thru 15 15 17 17 17 17 18 18 North -South: Welhown Pike SB LT 32 34 38 38 7 38 44 7 40 46 East: Hopewell Road SB Thru 101 101 112 112 112 112 118 118 WB LT 48 43 47 47 12 47 59 12 50 62 WB RT 9 7 8 8 2 8 10 2 8 10 SB RT 14 54 68 14 54 68 SB LT 85 9 94 85 9 94 North -South: Alfalfa Lane EB LT 44 9 53 44 9 53 East - West: Hopewell Road EB Thru 86 81 89 89 89 -9 81 95 -9 86 WB RT 271 54 325 271 54 325 WB Thru 51 50 55 55 55 -54 1 59 -54 4 EB Thru 57 53 59 59 46 59 104 46 62 108 EB RT 29 28 31 31 40 31 71 40 33 72 North -South: I-81 SB Ramps WB LT 86 86 95 95 95 95 101 101 East-West: Hopewell Road WB Thru 33 29 32 32 145 32 177 145 34 179 SB LT 56 54 60 60 60 60 63 63 SB Thru 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 SB RT 18 21 23 23 126 23 149 126 25 151 NB LT 6 10 11 11 126 11 137 126 12 138 NB Thru 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 NB RT 48 46 51 51 51 51 54 54 North -South: I-81 NB Ramps WB Thru 116 105 116 116 19 116 135 19 123 142 East-West Bound: Hopewell Road V11B RT 42 42 46 46 46 46 49 49 EB LT 9 11 12 12 40 12 52 40 13 52 EB Thru 96 96 106 106 6 106 112 6 113 119 NB LT 36 30 33 33 9 33 43 NB Thru 117 117 129 129 129 129 North -South: Martinsburg Pike (US 11) SB Thru 232 232 256 256 256 256 East Bound: Hopewell Road SB RT 107 117 129 129 9 129 139 EB LT 73 61 89 89 3 89 92 EB RT 55 61 87 67 3 67 70 NB Thru 89 89 98 98 3 98 101 NB RT 101 109 120 120 120 120 North -South: Martinsburg Pike (US 11) WB LT 115 115 127 127 127 127 East - West: Brucetown Road WB RT 2 2 2 2 2 2 SB LT 13 13 14 14 14 14 SB Thru 224 234 258 258 9 258 268 NB LT 15 15 17 17 17 17 18 18 NB Thru 87 74 82 82 3 82 85 3 87 90 NB RT 2 2 2 5 2 2 5 5 North -South: Martinsburg Pike SB SB LT Thru 0 210 0 201 0 222 5 222 9 0 222 5 231 9 5 236 5 245 East-West: Cedar Hill/Woodside Rd SB RT 2 2 2 5 2 2 5 5 EB LT 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 EB Thru 1 1 1 5 1 1 5 5 EB RT 40 40 44 44 44 44 47 47 WB LT 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 WB Thru 2 2 2 5 2 2 5 5 WB RT 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 5 NB LT 36 30 9 35 45 NB Thru 69 69 81 81 NB RT 48 48 56 58 SB LT 13 13 15 15 SB Thru 174 174 204 204 Ultimate Design SB RT 50 50 9 59 66 North -South: martinsburg Pike (Rte 11) EB LT 20 20 3 23 26 East-West: Hopewell/Brucetown Rd EB Thru 53 53 62 62 EB RT 55 61 3 72 74 WB LT 58 58 68 68 WB Thru 57 57 67 67 WB RT 2 2 2 2 Cl AM TRIP 2025 Background RAW BALANCED Organic Growth@ Background 2015 Existing AM 1.0%/yr to 2025 Traffic Count 2015 43 47 52 52 NB Thru 15 15 17 17 North -South: WelBown Pike SB LT 32 34 38 38 East: Hopewell Road SB Thru 101 101 112 112 WB LT 48 43 47 47 WB RT 9 7 8 8 SB RT SB LT North -South: Alfalfa Lane EB LT East - West: Hopewell Road EB Thru 86 81 89 89 WB RT WB Thru 51 50 55 55 EB Thru 57 53 59 59 EB RT 29 28 31 31 North -South: 1-81 SB Ramps WB LT 86 86 95 95 East-West: Hopewell Road WB Thru 33 29 32 32 SB LT 56 54 60 60 SB Thru 1 1 1 5 SB RT 18 21 23 23 NB LT 6 10 11 11 NB Thru 1 1 1 5 North -South: 1-81 NB Ramps NB RT 48 46 51 51 East-West Bound: Hopewell RoadNIB Thru 116 105 116 116 WB RT 42 42 46 48 EB LT 9 11 12 12 ES Thru 96 96 106 106 NB LT 36 30 33 33 NB Thru 117 117 129 129 North -South: Martinsburg Pike (US 11) SS Thru 232 232 256 256 East Bound: Hopewell Road SB RT 107 117 129 129 EB LT 73 81 89 89 EB RT 55 61 67 67 NB Thru 89 89 98 98 NS RT 101 109 120 120 North -South: Martinsburg Pike (US 11) WB LT 115 115 127 127 East - West: Bmcetown Road WB RT 2 2 2 2 SB LT 13 13 14 14 SB Thru 224 234 258 258 NB LT 15 15 17 17 NB Thru 87 74 82 82 NS RT 2 2 2 5 North -South: Martinsburg Pike SB LT 0 0 0 5 East-West: Cedar Hi1VWoodside Rd SB Thru 210 201 222 222 SB RT 2 2 2 5 EB LT 7 7 8 8 EB Thru 1 1 1 5 EB RT 40 40 44 44 WB LT 6 6 7 7 WB Thru 2 2 2 5 WB RT 0 0 0 5 NB LT 36 NB Thru 69 NB RT 48 SB LT 13 SB Thru hr. 174 Ultimate Design SB 50 North -South: martinsburg Pike (Rte 11) East-West: HopewellBrucetown Rd EB LT 20 EB Thru 53 EB RT 55 WB LT 58 WB Thru 57 WB RT 2 30 69 48 13 174 50 20 53 61 58 57 2 2025 Build -Out Organic Growth Bypass New Trips (H1 1.0%tyr to 2025 Trips TOTAL 37 52 89 17 17 7 38 44 112 112 12 47 59 2 8 10 14 54 68 85 9 94 44 9 53 89 -9 81 271 54 325 55 -54 1 46 59 104 40 31 71 95 95 145 32 177 60 60 1 1 126 23 149 126 11 137 1 1 51 51 19 116 135 46 46 40 12 52 6 106 112 9 33 43 129 129 256 256 9 129 139 3 89 92 3 67 70 3 98 101 120 120 127 127 2 2 14 14 9 258 268 17 17 3 82 85 2 2 0 5 9 222 231 2 2 8 8 1 1 44 44 7 7 2 2 0 5 New Trips Organic Growth Bypass TOTAL 1.0% in 2031 Trips 37 55 93 18 18 7 40 46 118 118 12 50 62 2 8 10 14 54 68 85 9 94 44 9 53 95 -9 86 271 54 325 59 -54 4 46 62 108 40 33 72 101 101 145 34 179 63 63 1 1 126 25 151 126 12 138 1 1 54 54 19 123 142 49 49 40 13 52 6 113 119 3 9 9 9 3 3 18 87 5 5 236 5 8 5 47 7 5 5 35 81 56 15 204 59 23 62 72 68 67 2 18 90 5 5 245 5 8 5 47 7 5 5 45 81 56 15 204 68 26 62 74 68 67 2 •I i 0 Appendix D Pre -Scope of Work Meeting Form ll 1] ��� /DO� Virginia Department ��/ of Transportation PRE -SCOPE OF WORK MEETING FORM Information on the Project Traffic Impact Analysis Base Assumptions 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: Stowe Engineering, PLC Tele: 540.686.7373 E-mail: timstowe@stowecompanies.com Developer/Owner Name: Blain Industrial Tele: 540.667.2001 E-mail: none Project Information Project Name: Blain + Cline Properties Locality/County: Frederick Project Location: west of and adjacent to I-81; south of and adjacent to Cedar Hill Road; north of and (Attach regional and site adjacent to Hopewell Road. specific location ma Submission Type Comp Plan ❑ Rezoning ® Site Plan ❑ Subd Plat ❑ Project Description: (Including details on the land use, acreage, phasing, access development of 149.9 acres foe light industrial and commercial uses. location, etc. Attach additional sheet if necessary) 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): see attached Commercial Use(s) Trip Generation Report ITE LU Code(s): Independent Variable(s): Square Ft or Other Variable: Total Peak Hour Trip Less than 100 1-1100 — 499 ❑ 500 — 999 ® 1,000 or more ❑ Projection: 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. 0 10 Traffic Impact Analysis Assumptions Study Period Existing Year: 2015 Build -out Year: 2025 Design Year: 2031 North: Ccdar Hill Road South: Hopewell Road Study Area Boundaries East: Martinsburg Pike West: New connector rd - Cedar Hill Rd to (Attach map) Hopewell Rd External Factors That Could Affect Project hone per VDOT direction at scopcing meeting (Planned road improvements, other nearby developments) Consistency With Comprehensive Plan yes (Land use, transportation plan) Available Traffic Data From VDOT and TIA reports (Historical, forecasts) Trip Distribution Road Name: sec attached Road Name: see attached Road Name: Road Name: (Attach sketch) Peak Period for Study ® AM ® PM ❑ SAT Annual Vehicle Trip p 1 0% (check all that apply) Peak Hour of the Generator weekday AM Growth Rate: 1.Hopewell Road and Welltown 6' Pike 2.New conector and Hopewell 7' Study Intersections Road 3.I-81 ramps at exit 321 8. and/or Road Segments (Attach additional sheets as 4.Rte I 1/Hopewell Rd/Brucetown 9 necessary) Rd 5.Rte I I and Cedar Hill Rd 10. Internal allowance: ❑ Yes M No ss -by alowance: ® Yes ❑ No Trip Adjustment Factors Reduction: trips io/on: per ITE /o trips yRedu' Software Methodology ® Synchro ❑ HCS (v.2000/+) ❑ aaSIDRA ❑ CORSIM ❑ Other Traffic Signal Proposed or Affected Existing Signal at Route I I/Hopewell Rd/Brucetown Rd will be affected (Analysis software to be used, Potential for a new signal at Hopewell Rd and Connector Rd (Alfalfa Lane) progression speed, cycle length) 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. 0 Improvement(s) 1. The new 2 lane roadway between Cedar Hill Rd and Hopewell Rd west of I-81 is Assumed or to be proposed by the developer and is assumed to be in place before the 2025 build out Considered year. 2. Design Yr - intersection capacity improvements by others at the intersection of Rte 11/Hopewell Rd/Brucetown Rd are assumed to be in place. Background Traffic Studies Considered none Plan Submission ❑ Master Development Plan (MDP) ® Generalized Development Plan (GDP) ❑ Preliminary/Sketch Plan ❑ Other Plan type (Final Site, Subd. Plan) Additional Issues to be ® Queuing analysis ❑ Actuation/Coordination ❑ Weaving analysis Addressed ❑ Merge analysis ® Bike/Ped Accommodations ® Intersection(s) ❑ TDM Measures ❑ Other NOTES on ASSUMPTIONS: Capacity improvments by others the intersection of Rte 11/Hopewell Rd/Brucetown Rd are assumed to be in place prior to the design year. SIGNED: �N___4 M�:' Applicant or Consultant PRINT NAME: _Tim Stowe Applicant or Consultant DATE: _8/25/15, 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. unmesrvrimes r Q Prn9,Ra Cedar Hill Cedar HIII _ • CI SITE V l•1 r ^\D11 • op� r - c°�aen -�-.: /' L� •. U ' yT�Bruc.Ctown kd lo �t ' d1)',� `` Clear B,rook`Clear Brook `Welltown r PROJECT MAP Blain + Cline Rezoning Frederick County, VA 1 not to scale urimes crimes �� •, gf _1 I 3 Cedar Hill C6.dar Hill - -' SITE _ Oey, ! rBrueetown-Rd O( le Oard-Di. i_ _ C�`Iear..B roo n�� �e� a ; _ Clear Brook i �SWeI (town a^+ TRIP DISTRIBUTION MAP Rezoning a f 1 ' Frederick County, .`_ _ not • scale Alternative: Blain + Cline Combined Rezoning Phase Project: Blain + Cline Rezoning ITE Land Use 130 Blain Industrial land 400 Gross Floor Area 1000 SF 130 Cline Indiustrial lands 50 Gross Floor Area 1000 SF 945 Cline Gas Market land 20 Vehicle Fueling Positions Trip Generation Summary Weekday Average Daily Trips * Enter Exit Total 1366 1366 2732 171 171 342 1628 1628 3256 Unadjusted Volume 3165 3165 6330 Internal Capture Trips 0 0 0 Pass -By Trips 0 0 0 Volume Added to Adjacent Streets 3165 3165 6330 Total Weekday Average Daily Trips Internal Capture = 0 Percent Total Weekday AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Internal Capture = 0 Percent Total Weekday PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Internal Capture = 0 Percent * - Custom rate used for selected time period. Weekday AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic * Enter Exit Total 231 51 282 45 10 55 102 101 203 Open Date: 8/23/2015 Analysis Date 8/23/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic * Enter Exit Total 72 270 342 14 55 69 135 135 270 378 162 540 221 460 681 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 63 126 76 76 152 315 99 414 145 384 529 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition, 2012 TRIP GENERATION 2014, TRAFFICWARE, LLC P. 1 Is • BROWN e �f`PQ4p SU6 rtdtipn BROWN M fir--- c E DRI t)ENKINSNS BROWN Q o S6onko i VAHIDI U REGAN MAAT7N W BEUUAFIORE O 71verWo1fe ORNDOFF °' ORNOOFF O o° Z ROUTE 11 BPG z �Z zo oQc zo U � 00 J O DATE: 4-17.2015 SCALE: 1"=500' DRAWN BY: GRO 30B NO. #0171 Appendix E Cost Estimate Cost Estimate for Blain and Cline Developments Clear Brook, Frederick County, VA Sept. 16, 2015 No. Item 1 4200 ft of 2-lane roadway, Alfalfa Lane 2 Interstion improvements/turn lanes at Hopewell Road and Alfalfa Lane 3 Three All Way Stop Control intersections Cost $2,100,000 $300,000 $66,000 . TOTAL $2,466,000 Appendix F Generalized development Plan V[OO9(O65) ,V J, i9 D�O(OOZ_Z99 (Oh9) C097,'VA 'J�sWUIM d77 d7 DWH ON o rzol 6uialnsuoD pup 6uj anjnSapuel u -au `a o 1(aa 10;1 377 'VINID81A 30 S311?J3dOdd NIV79 � � m Z M NV7d 1N3WdO73A30 03ZI7VY3N3J o o N uQ u a i a a a a a i i a a i i i i a a i i a m n n GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN z m ; GreyWolfe, Inc. { BLAIN PROPERTIES OF VIRGINIA, LLC bii Land Surveying and Consulting ' 1073 Redbod Road AND HMC LP LLP WlnchreAl 1, VA 22603 (540) 667-2001 OFC 0 0 GmyWol/elnc@1ao1— (540) 545-4001 FAX Appendix G Signal Timing Report • 0 SCPAC CCOM All Data Intersection Name: I I/Hopewell IW Winchester Intersection Alias: 34681 Access Data l :1200 Band Access Code: 9999 Channel: 1 Revision: 3.34 IP Address: 3 :1200 Baud Phase Initialization Data 5/5/2015 5:04:02PM Address: 0 Phase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1() 11 12 13 14 15 16 Initial 1-Inact 4-Grn 1-Inact I-Inact 1-Inact 4-Grn 0-None 0-None 0-None 0-None 0-None 0-None 0-None 0-None 0-None 0-None PHASE DATA yehical Basic Timings Misc Timink's Walk Pedestrian Timines Actuated Min All Green Yellow Walk Offset Bike Ped Flash Ext Rest in Phase Green Passage Masl Max2 Yellow Red Delay Delay Off Time Mode Green Walk Clr Walk PedClr Walk 1 8 4.0 15 15 4.0 2.0 0 0-Advance 0 0 0 No 0 No 2 10 4.0 40 40 4.0 6.0 0 0-Advance 0 0 0 No 0 No 3 10 4.0 25 25 4.0 6.0 0 0-Advance 0 0 0 No 0 No 4 10 4.0 25 25 4.0 6.0 0 0-Advance 0 0 0 No 0 No 5 8 4.0 15 15 4.0 2.0 0 0-Advance 0 0 0 No 0 No 6 10 4.0 40 40 4.0 6.0 0 0-Advance 0 0 0 No 0 No 7 0 0.0 0 0 4.0 6.0 0 0-Advance 0 0 0 No 0 No 8 0 0.0 0 0 4.0 0.0 0 0-Advance 0 0 0 No 0 No 9 0 0.0 0 0 3.0 0.0 0 0-Advance 0 0 0 No 0 No 10 0 0.0 0 0 3.0 0.0 0 0-Advance 0 0 0 No 0 No I 0 0.0 0 0 3.0 0.0 0 0-Advance 0 0 0 No 0 No 12 0 0.0 0 0 3.0 0.0 0 0-Advance 0 0 0 No 0 No 13 0 0.0 0 0 3.0 0.0 0 0-Advance 0 0 0 No 0 No 14 0 0.0 0 0 3.0 0.0 0 0-Advance 0 0 0 No 0 No 15 0 0.0 0 0 3.0 0.0 0 0-Advance 0 0 0 No 0 No 16 0 0.0 0 0 3.0 0.0 0 0-Advance 0 0 0 No 0 No Page 1 of 9 0 Vehicle Density Timings General Control miscellaneous No Special Sequence Time Car Time Last Sinni Added Max B4 B4 To Min Non -Act Veh Ped Recall Non Dual Car Condit Gap Minus Omit Ph. Initial Initial Redu Redu Redu Gap Response Recall Recall Delay Lock Entry Pass Service Out Omit Yel Call 1 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 None None None 0 Yes No No No No 0 0 0 2 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 NonActl Min None 0 Yes No No No No 0 0 0 3 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 None None None 0 Yes No No No No 0 0 0 4 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 NonActll None None 0 Yes No No No No 0 0 0 5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 None None None 0 Yes No No No No 0 0 0 6 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 NonActl Min None 0 Yes No No No No 0 0 0 7 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 None None None 0 Yes No No No No 7 0 0 8 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 None None None 0 Yes No No No No 8 0 0 9 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 None None None 0 No No No No No 0 0 0 10 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 None None None 0 No No No No No 0 0 0 11 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 None None None 0 No No No No No 0 0 0 12 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 None None None 0 No No No No No 0 0 0 13 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 None None None 0 No No No No No 0 0 0 14 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 None None None 0 No No No No No 0 0 0 15 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 None None None 0 No No No No No 0 0 0 16 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 None None None 0 No No No No No 1 0 0 0 Vehicll Detector Phase Assignment Pedestrian Detector Special Detector Phase Assignment Assign Switch Default Data Assign Switch Phase Mode Phase Extend Delay Phase Mode Phase Extend Delay Veh Det:I 1 Veh 0 0.0 5 Veh Det:2 2 Veh 0 0.0 0 Default Data Veh Det:3 3 Veh 0 0.0 0 Veh Det:4 4 Veh 0 0.0 0 Veh Det:5 5 Veh 0 0.0 5 Veh Det:6 6 Veh 0 0.0 0 Veh Det:7 7 Veh 0 0.0 0 Veh Det:8 8 Veh 0 0.0 0 Page 2 of 9 0 I lnit Mita r General Control Remote Flash Startup Time: Osec Input Output 'lest 1%= Plash Plash Plash Startup State: Plash Ring Respons Selection Phase I:ntn. Bit Channel Color Alternat Red Revert: 40sec I Ring I Ring I Auto Ped Clr: No 2 Ring 2 Ring 2 Default Data - No Fla Default Data - No Flash Slop T Reset: No 3 None None Alt Sequence: 0 4 None None Mat'I Seq: Tim ABC connector Input Modes: 0 1) connector Input Modes: 2 ABC connector Output Modes: 0 D connector Output Modes: 2 Overlaps Overlaps A 13 C D G P G 1-1 1 J K L M N O P Phase(s) Start Green Overlaps A B C D L P G 1-1 1 J K L M N O P Phase(s) A l3 C D I- I- G 1-1 1 J K L M N O P "frail Green o 0 0 0 (1 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1 0 0 0 0 Trail Yellow 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Trail Red 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.o 2.0 2.0 TG Preempt (l 0 (l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stop Grn/Yel Phase 0 0 0 0 (> (1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ring Phasc(s) Ncxt 1 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 IG Phase Ring I'hasc I 2 3 4 1 1 3 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 IG I 1 2 c t v 5 5 7 7 2 2 4 4 2 1 3 0 u G G 8 8 5 G 7 8 3 1 4 4 1 1 5 2 6 G 2 7 Alternate Sequences Port I Data Alternate Sequences 131U PortAddr Status Phase Default Data Pair(s) No Alternate Sequences Programmed Basic Message IM 40 Page 3 of 9 Coordination Data Dial/Split Cycle General Coordination Data Operation Mode: O=Free Coordination Mode: O=Permissive Maximun Mode: 2=Max 2 Correction Mode: O=Dwell Offset Mode: O=Beg Grn Force Mode: O=Plan Max Dwell Time: 0 Yield Period: 0 Manual Dial: I Manual Split: I Manual Offset: I Split Times and Phase Mod Dial / Split Ph. Splits Ph. Mode Ph. Splits Ph. Mode Ph. Splits Ph. Mode Ph. Splits Ph. Mode Traffic Plan Data Plan: // Offset Time: Alternat Sequence: Rg 2 Lag Time: Rg 3 Lag Time: Rg 4 Lag Time: Mode: Special Function: Correction Mode: Local TBC Data source Equate Days Start of Daylight Saving Month: 0 Week: 0 Cycle Zero Reference Hours: 0 Min: 0 Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 End of Daylight Saving Month: 0 Week: 0 Traffic Data PHASE FUNCTION Event Day Time D/S/O flash 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 // ❑ ❑ ❑ El El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ AUX. Events Det. Det. Det. Program Aux Ouputs Diag. Rpt. Mult100 Special Function Outputs Event Day Hour Min. 1 2 3 DI D2 D3 Dimming 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Page 4 of 9 Ll Dclhult Data - No Special Day(s) or \Vicek(s) Programmed I Special l' UI1CtiOt1S Function Special Function I Special Function 2 Special Function 3 Special Function 4 Special Function 5 Special Function 6 Special Function 7 Special Function 8 SII ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ SF2 SF3 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SF4 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SF5 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SP6 ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑E] ❑❑ ❑❑ SF7 SF8 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SI9 ❑❑ ❑ ❑ FI ❑❑ 1-11-1 ❑❑ ❑❑ SIIIO ❑ ❑ ❑ SIII I SIII2 SI113 SI114 SI:15 SF16 ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ El ❑❑ ❑ El El El ❑ ❑❑❑ ❑ I ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Phase fUtleti011 Phase I Maa2 PH PF2 PF3 PP4 PI:5 Pr6 P1:7 PF8 PP9 E ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PFI0 ❑ PPII ❑ 1)1:12 ❑ 1)1:13 ❑ PF14 ❑ PFI5 ❑ PFI 6 ❑ Phase 2 Ma.2 ❑ M ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Phase 3 Max2 ❑ ❑ M❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Plisse 4 Ivlax2 ❑ ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Phase 5 Ma.2 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Phase 6 Maz2 El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El El ❑ El ❑ Phase 7 Maa2 El ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ Fx I ❑ ❑ ❑ El 1:1 El ❑ ❑ ❑ Phase 8 Maa2 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Phase I Phase Omit PPI PF2 I'F3 PP4 PI'S 1)I'6 PF7 PI'8 PP9 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ F Tl PPIO ❑ PPII ❑ 11I'12 ❑ PF13 ❑ PFI 4 ❑ PFI5 ❑ 1)1:16 ❑ Phase 2 Phasc Omit ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Phase 3 Phase Omit ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ F-xl ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Phase 4 Phase Omit ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Phase 5 Phase Omit ❑ ❑ El El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ Phasc 6 Phase Omit ❑ ❑ El El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Phase 7 Phase Omit ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Phasc 8 Phasc Omit ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E] PFI PP2 PP3 PP4 PF5 PP6 PF7 PF8 IT-9 ❑❑❑❑❑ El El ❑ ❑ PFI0 ❑ PFII ❑ PF12 ❑ PFI 3 ❑ PFI 4 ❑ PFI 5 ❑ PF16 ❑ PFI IP2 PP3 PF4 PF5 11I'6 PF7 I8 111:9 ❑ ❑❑❑❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ PFI0 ❑ PPII ❑ PFI 2 ❑ PFI 3 ❑ 1)1:14 ❑ PFIS ❑ 111:16 ❑ FUlleti011 Phase Recall PFI PF2 PF3 111:4 PP5 PPG PF7 PF8 PP9 PFI0 PFII PFI 2 PFI 3 PFI 4 1F15 1)1:16 ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ Page 5 of 9 0 • PF1 PF2 PF3 11I'4 11F5 PF6 PF7 11178 11I'9 PFIO I'F11 1IF12 PF13 PF14 PF15 PFIC ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PF1 PF2 PF3 11174 11F5 PF6 PF7 PF8 PF9 ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ PF10 PFII PF12 PF13 PF14 13F15 PFI( PF1 PF2 11173 111-4 11175 PF6 13177 PF8 PF9 11I'10 PFII PF12 PF13 PF14 PF15 PF1 ❑❑❑❑❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PH PF2 PF3 11174 111-,5 PF6 PF7 PF8 PF9 ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑C PI'l0 PF11 PF12 PF13 PF14 PH PFII PH PF2 111-,3 PF4 111'5 111'6 PF7 PF8 PF9 PFIO PFII PF12 PF13 Pl'14 PF15 PF16 ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ PH PF2 PF3 11I'4 PF5 PF6 PF7 PF8 PI'9 PF10 PFII PF12 PF13 PF14 1IF15 PH ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Dimming Data Channel Red Yellow Green Alternate ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Default Data - No Dinning Programmed Preemption Data General Preemption Data Ring Min Grn/Walk Time 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 Flash > Preepmt 1 Preepmt 2 = Preempt 3 Preepmt 4 = Preempt 5 Preepmt I > Preempt 2 Preepmt 3 = Preempt 4 Preepmt 5 = Preempt 6 Page 6 of 9 AIL a Preempt Timers Select � Return 'I'rack y Non- Link to Pcd DwellF cd Locking Preempt Delay Extend Duration MaxCall Lock -Out Clear lc.l Red Grit I'ed Ycl Red Grcenear Yel Red 1 No 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 40 20 10 8 40 20 10 8 40 20 2 Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 20 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 3 Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 20 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 4 Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 20 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 20 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 G No 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 40 20 10 8 40 20 10 8 40 20 Preempt I Preempt 2 Preempt 3 Preempt 4 Preempt a Preempt G Exit licit I"xil Bit FxiI Bit Exit licit Exit Exit I?xit Exit Phase Phase Calls Phase Phase Calls Phase Phase Calls Phase Phase Calls Phase Phase Calls Phase Phase Calls I No Ye 2 No Yes 3 No Yes 4 No Yes 5 No Yes G No Yes 7 No Yes 8 No Yes Priority Timers Priority Non -Locking Delay Extend Duration I No 0 0 0 2 No 0 0 0 3 No 0 0 0 4 No 0 0 0 5 No 0 0 0 G No 0 0 0 Dwell Max Call Lock -Out Skip Phases 0 0 0 0=1)o not Skip Phases 0 0 0 0=1)o not Skip Phases 0 0 0 0=1)o not Skip Phases 0 0 0 0=1)o not Skip Phases 0 0 0 0=1)o not Skip Phases 0 0 0 0=1)o not Skip Phases Priority I Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Exit Exit Exit I?xit Exit licit Exit Exit Phase Phase Calls Phase Phase Calls Phase Phase Calls Phase Phase Calls Priority 5 Priority G Iixil Exit Exit Exit Preempt I Vehical Phases Pedestrian Phases Overlaps Ph. ']'rack Dwell Cycle Ph 'Track Dwell Cycle Ovlp 'Track Dwell Cycle Default Data Preempt 2 Default Data Default Data Vehical Phases Pedestrian Phases Overlaps Ph. Track Dwell Cycle Ph. 'Track Dwell Cycle Ovlp. 'Track Dwell Cycle 2 Red Green No 5 Red Green No Default Data Default Data Preempt 3 Vehical Phases Pedestrian Phases Overlaps Ph. Track Dwell Cycle Ph. 'Track Dwell Cycle Ovlp. Track Dwell Cycle 3 Red Green No Default Data Default Data Page 7 of 9 Preempt 4 Vehical Phases Pedestrian Phases Overlaps Ph. Track Dwell Cycle Ph. Track Dwell Cycle Ovlp. Track Dwell Cycle 4 Red Green No Default Data Default Data Preempt 5 Vehical Phases Pedestrian Phases Overlaps Ph. Track Dwell Cycle Ph. Track Dwell Cycle Ovtp. Track Dwell Cycle I Red Green No 6 Red Green No Default Data Default Data Preempt 6 Vehical Phases Pedestrian Phases Overlaps Ph. Track Dwell Cycle Ph. Track Dwell Cycle Ovlp. Track Dwell Cycle Default Data Default Data Default Data System/Detectors Data Local Critical Alarms Revert to Backup: 15 1 st Phone: Local Free: No Cycle Failure: No Coord Failure: No Conflict Flash: No Remote Flash: No 2nd Phone: Local Fash: No Cycle Fault: No Coord Fault: No Premption: No Voltage Monitor: No Special Status 1: No Special Status 2: No Special Status 3: No Special Status 4: No Special Status 5: No Special Status 6: No Traffic Responsive System Detector Average Occupancy Min Queue I System Weight Queue 2 System Weight Detector Channel Veh/1-Ir Time(mins) Correction/10 Volume % Detectors Detectors Factor Detectors Detectors Factor Default Data Default Data Default Data Sample Interval: Queue: 1 hnput Selection: O=Average Queue: Detector Failed Level : 0 Level Enter Leave Dial / Split / Offset Queue: 2 Input Selection: O=Average Detector Failed Level : 0 Default Data Vehical Detector Vehical Detector Special Detector Diagnostic Value 0 Diagnostic Value 1 Diagnostic Value 0 Max No Erratic Max No Erratic Max No Erratic Detector Presence Activity Count Detector Presence Activity Count Detector Presence Activity Count Default Data - Diag 0 Values Default Data - No Diag I Values Default Data - No Diag 0 Valu Pedestrian Detector Pedestrian Detector Special Detector Diagnostic Value 0 Diagnostic Value I Diagnostic Value 1 Max No Erratic Max No Erratic Max No Erratic Detector Presence Activity Count Detector Presence Activity Count Detector Presence Activity Count Default Data - No Diag 0 Values Speed Trap Data Speed Trap: Measurement: Detector 1 Detector—2 Distance Default Data Default Data - No Diag I Values Dial/Split/Offset Default Data Default Data - No Diag I Values Speed Trap Speed Trap Low Treshold High Treshold Page 8 of 9 i r Volume Detector Data Report Interval Volume Controller Detector Detector Number Channel Default Data C.9Q.3 Page 9 of 9 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING April 13, 2016 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION 1102-16 FOR I-81 WEST BUSINESS PARK On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning #02-16 for 1-81 West Business Park submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 36.676 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B-2 (Business General District), 45.453 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B-3 (Industrial Transition) District and 73.360 acres fi-om the RA (Rural Areas) District to M- I(Light Industrial) District, with proffers. The properties are located on the west side of Interstate 81 between Cedar Hill Road (Rt. 671) and Hopewell Road (Rt. 672) in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 33-A-1 13, 33-A-124, and 33-A-1 14B. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.feva.us. Sincerely, 0ancE. Perkins, AICP, CZA Assistant Director CEP/pd 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 9 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 33 -A- - 114-B HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1784 33 - A- - 124- BLAIN PROPERTIES OF VIRGINIA LLC 35 FLATT RD ROCHESTER NY 14623.2511 33 - A- - 164-A HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 33 - 1. 1. 5- HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 33 - A- - 112-A GODLOVE DENNIS M GODLOVE DEBORAH 0 1639 CEDAR HILL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 33 - A- - 112-B WILLIAMS RICKIE ALLEN 1663 CEDAR HILL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 33 - A- - 112-C ORNDOFF C WILLIAM JR SHIFFLER CHERYL 1767 CEDAR HILL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624-1601 22624.1601 22624.1557 33 - A- - 112-D 22624.1784 MAHER CHRISTOPHER 1787 CEDAR HILL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1557 43 - A- - 112- MP2077 LLC 2077 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER VA 33 - A- - 112-E BAGNELL DENNIS R 22624-1784 BAGNELL DENISE ORNDOFF 1807 CEDAR HILL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624-1554 22603.4715 33 - A- - 113- BLAIN PROPERTIES OF VIRGINIA LLC 35 FLATT RD ROCHESTER NY 14623.2511 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA Assistant Director Frederick County Planning Dept. I, , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this day of My commission expires on NOTARY PUBLIC 33 - A- - 112-F ORNDOFF CHARLES WILLIAM SR JOLINESHEPARD 2897 MARTINSBURG PIKE STEPHENSON VA 22656.1721 33 - A- - 123- R & J LAND DEVELOPMENT LLC 1631 REDBUD RD WINCHESTER VA 22603.4763 33 - A- - 123-A SMITH KENNETH H SR SMITH BONNIE LOU 281 JEREMIAH LN CLEAR BROOK VA 22624-1566 33 - A- - 123-B OPEN DOOR BAPTIST CHURCH INC 281 JEREMIAH LN CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1566 33 - A- - 125- VAHIDI MOHEBATULLAH 794 CENTER ST HERNDON VA 20170.4664 33 - A- - 125-E SCHALL DANIEL T SCHALL RITA D 2042 CEDAR HILL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1552 33 - A- - 164-G SINGH MANJOTH RAJ SINGH SUNIT 2221 NAAMANS RD WILMINGTON DE 19810.1328 33 -11. 1- 1- GODLOVE DEBORAH 0 GODLOVE DENNIS M 1639 CEDAR HILL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1601 33 -11. 2- 6- WILLIAMS DONNA ORNDOFF WILLIAMS RICKIE A 1663 CEDAR HILL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1601 33 -11- 2. 16- RHINEHARDT STEPHEN W RHINEHARDT TAMMY L 100 ORNDOFF DR CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1669 33 -11.2- 17- BAGNELL DENISE 0 BAGNELL DENNIS 0 1807 CEDAR HILL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624-1554 33-A-114A MSD Investments LLC 151 Harvest Ridge Drive Winchester, VA 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING April 13, 2016 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION 1102-16 FOR I-81 WEST BUSINESS PARK On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning #02-16 for I-81 West Business Park submitted by GreyWolfe, I11C., to rezone 36.676 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B-2 (Business General District), 45.453 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B-3 (Industrial Transition) District and 73.360 acres fi-om the RA (Rural Areas) District to M-I (Light Industrial) District, with proffers. The properties are located on the west side of Interstate 81 between Cedar Hill Road (Rt. 671) and Hopewell Road (Rt. 672) in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 33-A-1 13, 33-A-124, and 33-A-114B. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.feva.us. Sincerely, an ice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA Assistant Director CEP/pd 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Easy Peel® Labels ♦ I Use Avery© Template 51610 Feed Paper 33 • 1. 1• 6- H�C LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624-1784 33 - 1. 1• 6• 'MC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1784 33 - 1. 1. 7- MC LP LLP �J2Q HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1784 33 • 1. 1• 7- HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1784 33 • 1. 3. 32- HMC LP LLP 920 HO� WELL RD CLEAR BR \RD 22624.1784 33 • 1.3• 3 HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1784 33 • 1. 3. 43- HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEM1(ELL RD CLEAR BROaO VA 22624.1784 33 • 1.3• 43- HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 8624 1784 33 • 1.3• 44- HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWkLL RD CLEAR BROOKK VA 22624.1784 33 • 1. 3. 44- HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 2 624.1784 ttiquettes faciles A peter Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51610 Sens de chargernent Bend along line to expose Pop-up EdgeTM 33 • 1. 1• 6- HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 33 • 1. 1. 7- HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 33 • 1. 3. 32- HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 33 - 1.3- 43- HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 33 • 1. 3. 44- HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA Repliez A la hachure afin de r6v6ler le rebord Pop-up`c AVERY051610 22624.1784 22624-1784 22624.1704 22624-1784 22624.1784 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy PeelO Labels A irk I Bend along line to S AVERY051610 � Use Avery© Template 51610 Feed Paper ''j expose Pop-up EdgeTM 33 - A- - 78- HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR ROOK VA 22624.1784 33 -A- - 78- 33 - A- - 78- HMC LP LLP HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELX\22624-1784 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1784 33 - A- - 78-A HMC LP L L 920 HOPE FALL RD CLEAR BR00 VA 22624.1784 33 - A- - 78-A 33 - A- - 78-A HMC LP LLP HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK2624.1784 CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1784 33 `1�1. 3. HMG LPL P 920 HOPE EL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1784 33 - 1. 1. 1 33 - 1. 1. 3- HMC LP LLP HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1784 CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1784 33 - 1. 1. 4- HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1784 33 -) 1 4- 33 - 1. 1• 4- HMC LP LP HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEV�ELL RD 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROO 17 22624.1784 CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1784 ttiquettes faciles A peler AL Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51610 Sens de chargement Repliez A la hachure afin de www.avery.com i i rMler le rebord Pop-up"Ic 1-800-GO-AVERY i Easy Peel® Labels A ® I Bend along line to ARY®5161© i Use Avery® Template 51610 Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM ��'J 33 V A- - 77-A HMG LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1784 33 - A- - 77-A 33 - A- - 77-A HMC Ll LLP HMG LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RO 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1784 CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1784 33 - A- - 77-B HMC LP L P 920 HOPE ELL RD CLEAR BR00 VA 22624.1784 33 - A- - 77-B 33 - A- - 77-B HMC LP LLP HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1784 CLEAR BROOK VA 22624.1704 ttiquettes faciles A peter A = Repliez,) la hachure afin de www.avevycom { Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51610 Sens de chargement 1 reveler le rebord Pop-up" c 1-800-GO-AVERY COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING March 2, 2016 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION 02-16 FOR 1-81 WEST BUSINESS PARK On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning #02-16 for I-81 West Business Park submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 36.676 acres fi•om the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B-2 (Business General District), 45.453 acres fi•om the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B-3 (Industrial Transition) District and 73.360 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to M-](Light Industrial) District, Nvith proffers. The properties are located on the west side of Interstate 81 between Cedar Hill Road (Rt. 671) and Hopewell Road (Rt. 672) in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 33-A-1 13, 33-A-124, and 33-A-1 14B. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.feva.us. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA Assistant Director CEP/ks 107 North Kent Stl•CCt, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that a County. ir'lnia: the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick 33 A 113 BLAIN PROPERTIES OF VIRGINIA LLC 35 FLATT RD ROCHESTER NY 146232511 33 A 1148 HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624 1784 33 A 124 BLAIN PROPERTIES OF VIRGINIA LLC 35 FLATT RD ROCHESTER NY 146232511 33 -A 164A HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 33 l 1 5 HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 43 A 112 MP2077 LLC 2077 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER VA 33 -A- -112A i GODLOVE DENNIS M GODLOVE DEBORAH 0 1639 CEDAR HILL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624 1601 33 A 112 B WILLIAMS RICKIE ALLEN 1663 CEDAR HILL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624 1601 33 A--112C ORNDOFF C WILLIAM JR SNIFFLER CHERYL 1767 CEDAR HILL RD r I FAR Rpnni( VA 22624-1557 33 A 112 D MAHER CHRISTOPHER 1787 CEDAR HILL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624-1557 226241784 33 A 112 E BAGNELL DENNIS R BAGNELL DENISE ORNOOFF 22624 1784 1807 CEDAR HILL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624-1554 22603-4715 Candice E. Perkins, for Planner Frederick County Planning Dept. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF F REDERICK 1, V C-- , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do h6reby certify that Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner for the Pepartment of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated 3 ? , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. i Given under my hand this �r�C day of Lik a Ca My commission expires on 0 ��T e✓l )I ✓ �� , o� (Q PUBLICRV KATHRYN G SMITH NOTARY PUBLIC REGISTRATION N 7660563 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 30. 2019 33 - A- - 112-F ORNDOFF CHARLES WILLIAM SR JOLINESHEPARD 2897 MARTINSBURG PIKE STEPHENSON VA 22656-1721 33 - A- - 114-A MSD INVESTMENTS LLC 151 HARVEST RIDGE DR WINCHESTER VA 22601-2883 33 -A- - 114-A MSD INVESTMENTS LLC 151 HARVEST RIDGE DR WINCHESTER VA 22601-2883 33 - A- - 123-A SMITH KENNETH H SR SMITH BONNIE LOU 281 JEREMIAH LN CLEAR BROOK VA 22624-1566 33 - A- - 123-B OPEN DOOR BAPTIST CHURCH INC 281 JEREMIAH LN CLEAR BROOK VA 22624-1566 33 - A- - 125- ,/ VAHIDI MOHEBATULLAH 794 CENTER ST HERNDON VA 20170-4664 33 - A- - 125-E SCHALL DANIEL T SCHALL RITA D 2042 CEDAR HILL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624-1552 33 - A- - 164-G SINGH MANJOTH RAJ SINGH SUNIT 2221 NAAMANS RD WILMINGTON DE 19810-1328 33 AI- 1- 1- GODLOVE DEBORAH 0 GODLOVE DENNIS M 1639 CEDAR HILL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624-1601 33 -11- 2- 6 WILLIAMS DONNA ORNDOFF WILLIAMS RICKIE A 1663 CEDAR HILL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624-1601 33 -11- 2. 16- RHINEHARDT STEPHEN W RHINEHARDT TAMMY L 100 ORNDOFF DR CLEAR BROOK VA 22624-1669 33 -11- 2- 17- BAGNELL DENISE 0 BAGNELL DENNIS 0 1807 CEDAR HILL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624-1554 33 - A- - 123-`/ R & J LAND DEVELOPMENT LLC 1631 REDBUD RD WINCHESTER VA 22603-4763 1 a This is to certify County, Virginia: 33 1 1 6- HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 33 1 1 7 HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 33 1 3 32 HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 33 1 3 43 HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 33 1 3 44 HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 33 A 78 HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick 33 - A- - 78•A HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624 1784 22624.1784 33 1 1- 3 HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624 1784 22624 1784 33 - 1. 1 4- HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD --- oocon naA 33 A- - 77 A 22624-1784 HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD ri [AR RRnnK VA 22624 1784 33 - A- - 77 B HMC LP LLP 22624 1784 920 HOPEWELL RD CLEAR BROOK VA 22624 1784 33 1. 1 5 22624 1784 HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RD EAR BROOK VA 22624.1784 22624.1784 Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner Frederick County Planning Dept. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK I, , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this day of My commission expires on II to k0 C -I-) �a 33 _H i y (3 H n)C L-P LLP 4 d, 0 N4R4 —W- /' 2 d NOTARY PUBLIC 33 - A- - 164-A HMC LP LLP 920 HOPEWELL RO CLEAR BROOK VA 22624-17t- PcL ► IL Ip►"O(Xe -i i ES II 1 Lk` E SS Am-.RIR-r1 1 �l' 3�L,, ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS To: Barbara -Data Processing From: Pam -Planning Dept. Please print sets of labels by alcWtIlIt Thanks! 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-iNay, 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. ame and Properth Identification Number Address NameHMC, LP, LLP 920 Hopewell Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Proper:3-(A)-164A,77A,778,7V, 8A oo NameHMC. LP, LLP 920 Hopewell Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Proper% - 33-((1))-(1)-3,4, ,6,7 NameHMC, LP, LLP 920 Hopewell Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Propen\ :: 33-((1))-(3)-32A3A4 NamrFairfield Farms of Fred. Co.. LLC 1827 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Proper, „43-(A)-112 Namr Dennis Godlove 1639 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 33-(A)-112A \arll. Rickie Williams 1663 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Proper, ..33-(A)-112B NameC. William Orndoff, Jr 1767 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Proper, : 33-(A)-112C Name Christopher Maher 1787 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Propern �33-(A)-112D Name Dennis Bagnell 1807 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property*33-(A)-112E 15 Name and Properh Identification lumber Address anicCharles William Orndoff 2897 Martinsburg Pike Stephenson, VA 22656 Propert, ..33-(A)-112F" Mine MSD Investments, LLC 151 Harvest Ridge Drive Winchester, VA 22601 Property * 33-(A)-114A l \ante R&J Land Investments, LLC 1631 Redbud Road Winchester, VA 22603 Prorcrt,=33-(A)-123 Name Kenneth Smith 281 Jeremiah Lane Clear Brook, VA 22624 Pr„pert, ::33-(A)-123A Namcopen Door Baptist Church 281 Jeremiah Lane Clear Brook, VA 22624 794 Center Street Herndon, VA 20170 Propert, --.33-(A)-123B Namc Mohebatullah Vahidi Propert, 4!33-(A)-125' Namc Daniel T. Schall 2042 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Propert} ;:33-(A)-125E Name Manjoh Raj Sing_ h .33-(A)-164G' 2221 Naamans Road Wilmington, DE 19810 \dmeDeborah Godlove 1639 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Propert. - 33-((11))-(1)-1 l �amcDonna O. Williams 1663 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Proper\ ,. 33-((11))-(2)-6 NamcStephen W. Rhinehardt 100 Orndoff Drive Clear Brook, VA 22624 33-((11))-(2)-16 N;�ntc Denise O. Bagnell 1807 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Pnopert, ::33-((11))-(2)-17 Namc Property # Name Property # a Document Approval Form PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. IF THIS DOCUMENT MEETS YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE INITIAL AND PROVIDE THE DATE AND TIME OF YOUR APPROVAL. IF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT MEET YOUR APPRO VAL, PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS AS TO WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE COMPLETED. Initials Candice Mark Dave Eric Mike John COMMENTS: l `1 / C 1 C L � Received by Clerical Staff (Date & Time): /1Ck-V— Y (S:Office on BlackboxTormslDocument Approval Form - 12/27/13) Date & Time ---zl/ I S(� I I �. Frederick County "haxes Paid Page I of I COUNTY OF FREDERICK P.O. 130x 225 \\,INC[IFSTER, VA 2260,I-0225 C. WILIAAM ORNI)OI:P, JR Real Estate Taxes Paid for Tax Year 2015 ,A—, ,.I,,,,,kol ;'I n 11411 Name: I-IMC L,P LLP lic�,rri ttiutt 'fn� N:tit U.Itt l irkcU? Sc�l!: Accotmt ; bill 13,it I $36.5, Z1 01015 17195 I 8028192 4/114/2015 29.63 ACRES $36.5, tE 2 115 17195 2 8028192 1/1,1/2015 29.63 ACRFS I OLRI 1-UM. J.V7 I,his Amount rchrc"cnts h�lvmcnts aIpplicd durinw Calendar \ car �O I and does nut include I'cnalt\ . Illlt:l'CSl or Credit Card I�ccs. - — Close this Wind-ow Print Thls Page l,ttl)s://t,lxes.co.frectei-ick.\,a.Lis/al)1)1' R_pay I aXes/PrI1ltYearly�l axes.aS])x 2/ 17/2016 Fredcrick County Taxes Paid Page I of I COUNTY OF FREDERICK P.O. 130X 225 %\IJNC:l IHSTER, VA 22604-0225 C. WILIJAM ()jZND01:F..1R Real Estate Taxes Paid for Tax Year 2015 N - - ICI A I \1 1)Q0 1) FIRTIF'S OF VIRGINIA LLC 1VUlp 1NL1111U1-1- Ticketli '%eW,; J_j Account.4) IV Jjjj D:OL' — Descript ioll 42 .55 ACRES $47.66 $47.65 RI-2015 -- 3027 1 8006508 _ 4/14/20 15 F2015 T — — 3027 2 F006508 4/14/2015 LI2.55 ACRI�__--� I vial I LU L 1,111" amount rup-csents payfflClItS aj)J)hCd (ILHIMU' CaICIICIM- \'C111 1111CI-CSt 01'ClVdit ('111-d I"CCS------- Close - , - this - s - Window - P - rint This - - -Page--- a.us/app11cat1oj,s/,j,j� ly,l,,Ixc s/1, ri n t Yea rl yTaxcs -aspx 2/17/2016 https://taxes.CO.II'CC{CC1C1<.Va.us/app11cat1olls/'I'R Frederick County Taxes Paid Pagc I of I COUNTY OF FREDERICK 11.0. nox 225 WINCI IFSTER, VA 22604-0225 C. WILLIAM ORNI)OFF IR Real Estate Taxes Paid for Tax Year 2015 Map Number: 33 A 113 Name: BLAIN PROPI RTIE'S OF VIRGINIA LLC Uopr: l ickct;'ticq" Account:: 11ill li t Ih•u•riplit,u f;n I'aitt R1:2015 3026 1 8006,196 4/14/2015 57.00 ACRFS $63.84 IZ1:2015 3026 2 8006496 4/14/201 57.00 i\CRI:S $63.84 Total Paid: $127.68 I llis amount represents pnN nlcnts Il�l�liecl durin—, Calendar rar ?01 and cl0cs Welt include I'cnalt� - I illel-cst or 0-cdit Card bees. Close this Window Print This Page -----I I ------ - _ littl)s://taxcs-co-frc(ici-ick.va.us/applications/'I'IZ_ pay'faxes/l'rintYearly"faxcs.aspx 2/ 17/2016 ►A 769 REQUESTING AGENT: DEPT. OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA GIS, MAPPING, GRAPHICS WORK REQUEST DATE RECEIVED: a REQUESTED COMPLETION DATE: 3 111 L Department, Agency, or Company: - Mailing and/or Billing Address: Telephony: E-mail Address: ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT: FAX: — I k0 20 - CG n � me additional information on back of request) `" u DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: (W ' �\��- k � (1� � C �G � ►'>'1 a�� — PU cy-) I roc, -� C) -� - I h � op SA- ��lti S l n SS I C� Y' D V� �� �t P > �,,Ic�\Inc hrc>Pe .i ') C 5 33-Ail4U Trii4 33-n-1-• 11 3 -� DIGITAL: PAPER: FA E-MAIL: SIZES: COLOR: BLACKIWHITE: NUMBER OF COPIES: STAFF MEMBER: COMPLETION DATE: MATERIALS: DATE OF PICK-UP/DELIVERY: AMOUNT DUE: AMOUNT BILLED: METHOD OF PAYMENT: HOURS REQUIRED: AMOUNT PAID: CHECK NO.# Frederick County GIS, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601, (540)665-5651) A4 1- I C.O . J2-�,.L S(- r � E S-5 Pet- K I(-- JICtIr��rC�(r�IF.S ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS v J v 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. Property Identification Number Address , LP, LLP 920 Hopewell Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 -(A)-I64A,77A,77B,78,78A F , LP, LLP 920 Hopewell Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 -((1))-(1)-3,4,5,6,7 LP, LLP 920 Hopewell Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 EN,,eHMC, t3-((1))-(3)-32,43)44 1W Name Fairfield Farms of Fred. Co., LLC 1827 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property 1143-(A)-112 Name Dennis Godlove 1639 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property 11;33-(A)-112A NameRickie Williams 1663 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property p33-(A)-112B NameC. William Orndoff, Jr 1767 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property'u`33-(A)-I12C NameChristopher Maher 1787 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Properly ii 33- (A)-112D Name Dennis Bagnell 1807 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property4.33-(A)�112E -,p Lt, cu&—, M, U LQ-0 h cl-yti1(,0 15 u Property Idcntificatiou Number Address rles William Orndoff 2897 Martinsburg Pike Stephenson, VA 22656 3-(A)-112F r Investments, LLC151 Harvest Ridge Drive Winchester, VA 22601 -(A)-114A NamcR&J Land Investments, LLC 1631 Redbud Road Winchester, VA 22603 Property%, 33-(A)-123 Name Kenneth Smith 281 Jeremiah Lane Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property #83-(A)-123A Name Open Door Baptist Church 281 Jeremiah Lane Clear Brook, VA 22624 Propertyh33—(A)-123B Name Mohebatullah Vahidi 794 Center Street Herndon, VA 20170 Property #33-(A)-125 Name Daniel T. Schall j2042 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Propertyt133—(A)-125E NameManjoh Raj Singh 2221 Naamans Road Wilmington, DE 19810 Property #33-(A)-164G NameDeborah Godlove 1639 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property 1133-((11))-(1)-1 flame Donna O. Williams 1663 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Propert/d33-((11))-(2)-6 NameStephen W. Rhinehardt 100 Orndoff Drive Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property // 33-((11))-(2)-16, Namc Denise O. Bagnell 1807 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Property �E 33-=((-1-1-))�(2)-17 Name Property I/ Name Property II 16 Rezoning Continents Winchester Regional Airport Mail to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road 491 Winchester, Virginia 22602 (540) 662-2422 W Hand deliver to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director Airport Road (Rt. 645, off of Rt. 522 South) inchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Winchester Regional Airport with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicants Nall -le: GreyWolfe, Inc- Gary R Oates, LS-B, PE Mailing Address: 1073 Redbud Road Te l ep 110 ne: 540-667-2001 Winchester, Virginia 22603 McCann Office Park Location Of property: West side of Interstate 81 between Cedar Hill Road (Rt 671) & Hopewell Road (Rt 672) Cilrrellt Zolllllg: RA 1011iI1g reCIIICStCd: B-2, B-3, & M-1 Acreage: 155.488 ac Winchester Regional Airport's Comments: —Rezoning_requested_is-compatible_with-airpor_t_operations Winchester Regional Airport's «r o signature Date: Serena Manuel „y Notice to Winchester Regional Airport - Please Return Form to Applicant 30 rederick Co,,/Ill. nepartulelit of -fire alld Rescue Office of the I ire :llarslial RIM (ovenlune Drive H inc•hewer, I A 2 602 (540) 665-6350 Fax: (540) 6-S-4734 F.'illui/: finr><afcr,I.us Plan Review & Comments Date Received 11 /3/2015 Plan/Permit Type Proffer Statement Name 81-West Business Park Address Cedar Hill Rd. and Hopewell Rd Project Name Applicant Name & Number RE# Permit Number Clear Brook Proffer Statement GreyWolfe, Inc. 540-667-2001 Emergency Vehicle Access Adequate Inadequate NIA Hydrant Location: Adequate Inadequate NiA Siamese Location. Adequate Inadequate 'N/A Fire Lanes Required Yes No / N/A Plan Approval Status Comments Signature' Reviewed By: Kenneth Scott, Jr. Title Firn InsnPrtnr Approve Date Reviewed 11/13/2015 VA 22624 Rezoning Comments Frederick County Fire Marshal Mail to: Frederick I irc Marshal 1800 ( (r%craonc Ihi�C \\ inchcster. Vffuinio »hu? (540) 06'�-o.)-;O \\ inchc,,tcr. \- ir�,inia Hand deli% cr tu: Frcdcrick C u nt� hre & Rescue Dept. ,\lltt: Fire Marshal Public satcl\ 1311ildin_ 1800 ('o\ ell I )rik e \Ill►IIC�1►11: PICaNc fill out the I11101'lMItioll JS ;ICCllralel\as ro-ilsle in order to ;hslst the I redcrll'k ('t�lllll� I irC \lar.hal 1\ ith Ilk I-C\ ie,� \11ach a cut» ul)mIr application form, Iucaliun nwp, l►rofTer state'lle"t, intl)act :rl►ilk'o". and any Meer l►crlill information. ,\pjjIieartl', \,tiller GreyWolfe Inc Gary R ni+ec L5 B PE 1 elehlt tle: 54'0.6r,7-217�) tilailin� \ddre»: 1073 Reduud Road, `-d'tncl,ester. Virginia. 22603 ' inchester. Virginia 22603 McCann Office Park Location cal West side of Interstate 81 between Cedar Hill Rcad ;R: n?1; & Hopewell Road (Rt 672) Current zunino: RA /unins ret.lueStcd: B-2. 6_3.8 M-1 creagc: •":=bar Rezoning Comments Frederick -Winchester Service Authority Mail to: Hand deliver to: Fred-Winc Service Authority Fred -Wine Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director Attn: Jesse W. Moffett P.O. Box 43 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22604 Winchester, Virginia (540) 722-3579 Applicant: Please till out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Fred-Winc 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 Nante.: GreyWolfe, Inc. - Gary R. Oates, LS-B, PE Telephone: 540-667-2001 Mailing Address: 1073 Redbud Road, Winchester, Virginia, 22603 Winchester, Virginia 22603 McCann Office Park Location of property: West side of Interstate 81 between Cedar Hill Road (Rt 671) & Hopewell Road (Rt 672) Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: B-2, B-3, & M-1 Acreage: 155.488 ac Fred-Winc Service Authoritv's Comments: Fred-Winc Service Authority's--�---~► Signature & .Date: Notice to Fred-Winc Service Authority - Please Return Form to Applicant �a COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 1--ax: 540/ 665-6395 November 2, 2015 Mr. Gary Oates, LS-B, PE GreyWolfe, Inc 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, Virginia 22603 RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comments 81-West Business Park Property Rezoning Property Identification Numbers (PINs): 33-(A)-113, 33-(A)-124, and 33-(A)-114B Current Zoning District: RA (Rural Area) Dear Mr. Oates: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting on October 20, 2015. The HRAB reviewed information associated with Rural Landmarks Survey Report, information from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and information provided by the applicant's representative. This application seeks to rezone 36.676 acres to B2 (General Business) District, 45.453 to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District and 73.360 acres to M-1 (Light Industrial) District. The site is located on the western side of Interstate 81 between Cedar Hill Road (Route 671) to the north and Hopewell Road (Route 672) to the south. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, published by the National Park Service, does not identify the proposed tower site or the surrounding areas as being part of a battlefield. The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County, Virginia, identifies one potentially significant historic structure located within the vicinity of the proposed rezoning: ® Robinson -Cline House (1134-1056). (The Glebe) After reviewing this information and the applicant's materials, the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) recommended the rezoning be sent forward to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for review. The HRAB had no recommendations to forward. Mr. Gary Oates, LS-B, PE Re: Rezoning of the 81-West Business Park Property Rezoning November 2, 2015 Page 2 Please contact me with any questions concerning these cornments from the HRAB. Sincerely, Candice Perkins, AICP Senior Planner CEP/pd cc: Lauren Murphy, HRAB Chair Rezoning Comments Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Mail to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665-5678 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation County Administration Bldg., 2nd Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Department of Parks & Recreation with their review. Attach a copy of your application form,. location neap, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: GreyWolfe, Inc. - Gary R. Oates, LS-B, PE Telephone: 540-667-2001 Mailing Address: 1073 Redbud Road, Winchester, Virginia, 22603 Winchester, Virginia 22603 McCann Office Park Location of property: West side of Interstate 81 between Cedar Hill Road (Rt 671) & Hopewell Road (Rt 672) Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: B-2, B-3, & M-1 Acreage: 155.488 ac. Department of Parks & Recreation Comments: fi a-V L, &Ant l�C? t�i^F e� tl 3 .— VIA Pks. & Rec. Signature & Date:„ i' Notice to Department of Part. & Recreation - Please Return This Form to the Applicant 23 P:i,e I of, 1 Subj: 81-West Business Park Date: 11/23/2015 2:59.27 P M Eastern Standard Time From. leew(a)fcpsk 12. net To greywolfeincCcDaol.com CC Sovined(a)fcpskl2.net, orndorfa aOfcpskl2 net, Grubbs i(o)fcpskl2.net Gary, Good afternoon. Frederick County Public Schools has reviewed the 81-West Business Park rezoning application submitted to us on November 2, 2015. We see no impact to the school system, so we offer no comments. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Wayne Kenneth Wayne Lee, Jr. LEED AP Coordinator of Planning and Development Frederick County Public Schools 1415 Amherst Street P. 0. Box 3508 Winchester, VA 22604-2546 teewCJ�4cpsk12.nEt (office) 540-662-3889 x88249 (cell) 540-333-2941 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited and may be a violation of law. It you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. All communications may also be subject to Virginia's Freedom of Information Act CM Mond: � . Ao"' tuber 23. 201 � .AO1.: (Irc"- 'oI felnc Rezoning: RZ # = 16 Property• Area: 155.488 acres Tax Parcels 33-(A)-113, 33-(A)-124, 33-(A)-114I3 Record Owners: Blain Properties of Virginia, LLC I-IMC, LP, LLP Project Name: 81-West Business Park Original Date of Proffers: October 1, 2015 Revisions: February 4, 2016 Magisterial District: Stonewall Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Lt. Seq. of the Cocle of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to Conditional Zoning, the undersigned owners hereby offer the following proffers that In the event the Board of'Supervisors of'Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application 9_-16 for rezoning of 154.424-acres from the RA District to Business (B-2) (36.676 acres), to Industrial Transition (B-3) (45.453 acres) and Light Industrial (Iv1-1) (73.360 acres), development of tlic subject properties shall be clone in conformity with the terms and Conclltlons set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amencled or revised by the owners and such arc approved by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. h, the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the owners and their legal SUCCCSSOPS, heirs, or assigns. The "Properties" arc more partlCUlarly described as the lands conveyed to Blain Properties of Virginia, LLC, (an entity registered in New York) fi•om Bradley K. Blain by Deed per instrument 9120009054 dated August 22, 2012, and to I-IMC, LP, LLP, by Deed from Cline's Fgg Farm LP, LLI', per instrument 0 100 10026 dated July 12, 2001, as recorded in the Frederica: County Circuit Court Clerk's Officc. See also plats of record at instrument 150005321 for Tax Parcels 33-(A)-1 13 and 33-(A)-124. A Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated February 4, 2016, by GreyWolfc, Inc., is attached to and made part of this proffer document. Proffers: Transportation — Vehicle Trips per Day t0 be determined at Site Plan SUbmission utilizing the current ITE Trip Generation Manual. The owners hereby proffer that the Average Daily "Trips shall not exceed 6,330. a. The owners hereby proffer to construct a road to connect Cedar Hill Road (Route 671) to Hopewell Road (Route 672) as shown on the GDP within a 60' right of way. This road will be built to VDOT standards and dedicated to the County of Frederick. The road shall be two lanes with shoulders. This will be completed prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits. b. The owners hereby proffer to dedicate an additional 5' strip of land to the County 01' Frederick along Cedar I-1111 Road (Route 671) for future widening as shown on the GDP. This dedication Will OCCU1' 1)601- to the ISSUance of any occupancy permits The owners hereby proffer three signalization agreements with VDOT at the intersections of Alfalfa Lane, the northbound ramps, and the southbound ramps of Interstate 81 with Hopewell Road (Route 672). Thesc agreements shall be for the signal lights only, and not for ramps, roads, or other improvements unless proffered herein. cl. The owners hereby proffer that no commercial entrances shall be built onto Cedar Hill Road (Route 671). The owners hereby proffer to dedicate 1.21 acres as shown on the GDP to the County of Frederick- Said dedication will be within 90 clays of written request from the County of I i-ccicrick or at any time by the owners during development. 2. Fire & RCSclle — Monetary Contributions a. The owners hereby prof fcr a cash contribution to Frederick County for Fire and Rescue purposes, of $0.05 per building square foot to be disbursed to the Frederick County Firc and Rcscuc Department, to be paid prior t0 Occupancy permit. The tern] "building square foot" shall be the combined floor area for each story. 7 3. Frederick County Sanitation Authority The owners hereby reserve two well sites with access as noted on the GDP for exploration by the Frederick County Sanitation ALthority until DCCelllbcr 31, 2019. Should either Site result in a production well of 250,000 gallons per day, then a 100' circular cascnlCrlt around each well Shall be dedicated to the Frecicrick County Sanitation Authority with access by December 31, 2019. If the wells c10 not produce or the Frederick County Sanitation AL1thO1'Ity does not Finish the testing by December 31, 2019, then this proffer shall be decnled extinguished. b. The owners hereby proffer to grant a temporary casement to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, as shown on sheet 2 of the attached GDP, on tax parcel 33-(A)-39 IOr a ground level water tank. The easement Shall begin upon approval of tlic rezoning and CxtillguiShCCI oil DCCelllbcr 31, 2021. If the Frederick County Sanitation Authority has started C011SIRICtlOn C1116110 that time, then the 1.33 acre of land within the casement shall be dedicated to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority in fee simple on December 31, 2021. 'file conditions proffered above shall be bincling upon heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in the interest Of the owners and owners. In the event the Frcdcrick County Board Of SLIpCI-V1SO1'S grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the profferccl conditions Shall apply to the land rc-r_oned in addition to other reduirenlentS Set IOrth in the l l-CCIC ick County Code and Ordinance. Respectfully Submitted: By: Blain Properties of Virginia, LLC Bradley K. Blain, manager State of' City/County 01' RMATM Date The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this clay of' , 20_ Owner Registration Number Notary Public My Commission [expires By: I-IMC, LP, LLP Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of To Wit: Date The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this clay of 20_ By Notary Public My Commission Expires Registration Number 4 F-L-i CEDAR HILL ES TA TES HMC, LP, LLP n) BLAIN PROPERTIES OF VIRGINIA, LLC C) HMC, LP, LLP = 57.865 acres PROPOSED M-1 ZONING HMC, LP, LLP 15.495 acres PROPOSED M-1 ZONING C3 CL13 HMC, LP, LLP __---------_ l VDH 34-1056 ALFALFA LANE HMC, LP, LLP 0 WELL SITE �"�1-15 C) OPEN DOOR CHURCH HMC, LP, LLP i BLA IN PR OPER TIES OF VIR GINIA, L L C 45.453 acres (z 36.676 acres PROPOSED 8-3 ZONING - jj-! co! HMC, PROPOSED B-2 ZONING LP, LLP i SMITH WELL SITE #1-16 ----------- 21 acres fol. R. 0, Interstate 81 EXIT321 C-3 SCHALL Cj JENKINS VA HIDI JENKINS WES K EGAN BROWN DI CD �• � r � Ili Z I g MARTIN RE .41A CD cz:l 0 Stronko SilverWolfe it -no ORNOOFF ORNDOFF ORNDOFF Do Q) O ROUTE 1 DATE: 2-4-2016 SCALE: 1"=500' DRAWN BY: GRO SHEET 1 OF 2 � � Q C p o PROPOSED TANK SITE N Ln ri h 1 h n � U Q �� ���" 0 @ N 1" N L b v m o c� m cm J 3 J cl� Q o J o 1, rn rr- rn J WLLJ O o ��Q ----' L EXIT 321 �Jr n Q Re. 040 I DATE: 2-4-2016 SCALE: 1"=800, ROUTE 11 DRAWN BY: GRO SHEET 2 OF 2 0 14 co 00 0 IT NU N N U a � d �0 3 O O 0 N C N U O a� ai o Ca c� 10 +� P. N C N N � xQ) mj 9 01001002E THIS DEED, made and dated this 12th clay of July, 2001, by and between CLINE'S FARM L.P., L.L.P„ a Virginia limited liability partnership, (being one and the same and formerly known as CLINE'S EGG FARM, L.P. a Virginia limited partnership), hereinafter referred to as "Grantor," and HMC L.P., L.L.P., a Virginia limited liability partnership, formed pursuant to the provisions of the Virginia Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act under Chapter 2.1 of Title 50 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee." WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of partnership interests from Grantee, over fifty percent (50%) of whose profits and surplus is owned by Grantor with respect to this transfer, the Grantor does hereby grant and convey with general warranty of title unto the Grantee, in fee simple and as specific partnership property, all of its real property in Frederick County, Virginia including, without limitation, the following described property and appurtenances thercunto belonging: PARCEL ONE -TAX MAP ID# 32-A-27: All of that certain tract of land, with improvements thereon, containing one hundred and seventeen acres (117) acres, more or less, lying and being situate in Stonewall Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia, on the south side of the Hiett Road and the east side of Baker Road, between the Welltown Road and the Apple Pic Ridge Road, LESS AND EXCEPT 5.7347 acres, more or less, conveyed from the Grantor to Amy Lane Cline Bucklew, et vir, by deed dated June 3, 1996, and recorded among the land records in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia. PARCEL TWO: The following described tracts or parcels of land: Tract 1 - TAX MAP ID# 33-A-78: That certain tract or parcel of land, containing approximately 100 acres, more or less, situate in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, about 7 miles north of Winchester, near the Martinsburg Pike, adjoining the lands of Lee O. Dick, and others, with all buildings and improvements thereon, and rights and appurtenances thereunto belonging. Tract 2 - TAX MAP ID# - 33 A 39: That certain parcel of land situate in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 39 Acres, 3 Roods and 3 Poles. PARCEL THREE - TAX MAP ID# 33-A-77: All of that certain tract or parcel of land containing 125 acres, more or less, together with all improvements and appurtenances thereto belonging, commonly known as the Scott Grant Farm, lying and being situate about six miles North of Winchester near Clearbrook, in Stonewall District, Frederick County, Virginia. PARCEL FOUR - TAX MAP ID# 33-A-72. All that certain tract or parcel of land containing 26 acres, more or less, together with the improvements thereon and all appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being situate along the southern side of Virginia State Highway No. 672, hear Hopewell Meeting House, in Stonewall District, Frederick County, Virginia, LESS AND EXCEPT a conveyance by Howard Hunter Haymaker to George H. Haymaker of 4.72 acres by deed recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 368, page 611, a plat of the said 4.72 acres being recorded in Deed Book 368, page 613. PARCEL FIVE - TAX MAP ID# 33A-164A: All that certain tract or parcel of land, together with all rights, rights of way and appurtenances thereinto belonging, lying and being situate in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, on the south side of Virginia State Highway No. 672 and the West side of Virginia State Highway No. 665, containing 15.6054 Acres, and more particularly described by that certain plat and survey of J. R. Nicely, C.L.S., dated October 30, 1971, recorded with that certain deed dated November 17, 1971, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 385, page 547, which description is herein incorporated by reference. PARCEL SIX - TAX MAP ID# 33A - 114C: All that certain tract or parcel of land containing 36.401 Acres, designated as Parcel "B" on that certain plat and survey of Lee A. Ebert, Certified Land Surveyor, dated April 20, 1984, attached to and made a part of that certain deed of partition from William A. Johnston, et al, Special Commissioners, to Virginia Lee Gooden, dated June 7, 1984, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 577, page 224. PARCEL SEVEN -TAX MAP ID# 33-A-114I3: All that certain tract or parcel of land in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, fronting on the Northern Boundary Lines of Virginia Route 672, containing 29.631 Acres, more particularly described as "Parcel A" on that certain plat and survey of Lee A. Ebert, Certified Land Surveyor, dated April 20, 1984, duly recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 577, pages 466 and 467. AND BEING a part of the same property conveyed to the Grantor herein by deed from Henry M. Cline and Geraldine F. Cline by deed dated December 31, 1988, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 702, at Page 464. Reference is here made to the aforesaid instruments and the attachments and the references therein contained for a further and more particular description of the property hereby conveyed. This conveyance is made subject to all duly recorded and enforceable restrictions, easements and rights of way. The Grantor covenants that it has the right to convey said property to the Grantee; that it has done no act to encumber said property; that it will execute such further assurances of title to said property as may be requisite; that it is seised in fee n simple of the property conveyed; and that the Grantee shall have quiet possession of said property free from all encumbrances. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: ; , _ V T CLINE'S FARM L.P., L.L.P., a Virginia Limitcd-%, ` ability Partnership a ine F. e, Gener r r = ,� tan H te, eneral Partn�Y :.� (tAL) Jolm D. Clln , at Partner Rebecca . Price, eneral Partner 1: i OMMONWEA TH OF U�IiRGINIA AT LARGE , I`t3`-WIT: O The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this �� day of 2001, by Geraldine F. Cline, General Partner, William Henry Cli , Gen ral Partner, John D. Cline, General Partner, and Rebecca C. Price, General Partner, N o sign on behalf of Cline's Farm L.P., L.L.P., a Virginia limited liability partnership, and who acknowledged the same to be the act and deed of said partnership. David A. Fennuaw,,,. My Commission expiresys Notary. Public VIRGINIA: FREDERICK COUNTY, SCr This instrument of writing was produced tome oil d at _1� •�G ��✓I . and µitt certificate of acknowledgement thereto annexed was admitted to record. Ta imposed by Sec. 58.1--802 of SCX4002 t , and 58.1-801 have been paid, if assessable 4'ez,.t A A 9�, , Clerk 3 E ` 120009054 CD 00 Grantee's Address: 35 Flan Road Z_ Rochester, NY 14623 Tax Map Nos: 33-A-124 (Parcel One) 33-A-1 13 (Parcel T'wo) This deed is exempt from recordation taxes pursuant to Va. Code Ann. §58.1-811.A.10 THIS DEED, made and dated this ✓`*"- day of 2012, by and between BRADLEY K. BLAIN, party of'the first part, hereinafter called the Grantor; and BLAIN PROPERTIES OF VIRGINIA, LLC,. a Virginia limited liability company, party of the second part, hereinafer called the Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of One Dollar (S 1.00), and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantor does hereby grant and convey, with General Warranty and English Covenants of Title, unto the Grantee, in lee simple the following described parcels of'real estate, to -wit: PARCEL ONE: Insert property description (42.55 acre -tract) PARCEL TWO: Insert property description (57.00 acre -tract) Said Parcels are more particularly described in attached Schedule "A". Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid instruments, the attachments thereto and the references therein contained for a further and more particular description of' the properties hereby conveyed. ]'his conveyance is made subject to any and all casements, rights of way, restrictions, and reservations contained in duly recorded deeds, plats, and other instruments constituting constructive notice in the chain of title, which have not expired by a time limitation contained therein or have otherwise become ineffective, and to matters visible upon inspection. WITNESS the following signature and seal: R6t-t_(SEAL) BRA LEY K. BLAIN STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF MONROE) ss: On the � day ofin the year 2012, before me, the undersigned, a Notary public in and for said State, personally appeared BRADLEY K. BLAIN, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose names) is (arc) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s) or the person on behalf of which the individual(s) acted, executed the instrument. Alison Teddi Blain NOTARY PUBLIC Notary Public State of New York Qualified in Monroe County Cor (mission Expires November 30, 20 t3 This deed prepared without benefit of title examination. pAi�CD� : ALL Or, THAT certain tract or parcel of land lying C. and being situate in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, at the_ southwest corner of the intersection of State Route 671 and Q,, ^v; •... , , Interstate 81, containing 42'/2 acres, more or less,, being the remainder of that certain larger tract of land described as containing 104 acres, more or less, that was conveyed to H. W. Grant by Deed from M. M. Lynch, Trustee, dated September 27, 1938, of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Prcdcrick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 177, at Page 10. H. W. Grant died testate, seized and possessed of the said property, on August 25, 1945, and by his Will dated January 1, 1935, devised said property to Viola V. Grant, his wife, and Frances L. Grant Stipe and Lucille L. Grant Anne], his daughters, upon certain terms and conditions more fully set forth therein, which Will is of record in the said Clerk's Office in Will Book 56, at Page 287. By that certain Agreement dated October 1, 1947; of record in the said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 202, at Page.499, the aforesaid devisees of E. W. Grant did agree to a construction and interpretation of the aforesaid Will of E. W. Grant whereby a life estate in the, real estate of B. W. Grant was created in Viola V. Grant, widow of said decedent, with a remainder over in fee to Frances Grant Stipe and Lucille Grant Armel, The said Viola V. Grant died on February 24, 1976, thercby�vestingfee. simple title to said real estate in the said Frances L.. Grant Stipe and Lucille L. Grant Armel. Lucille L. Grant Armol died testate in 1988, seized ano possessed of a one-half undivided interest in said -property, and by her Will, a certified copy of which is of record in said Clerk's Office in Will Book 98, at Page 355, she devised her estate to her daughter, Sharron 11. Armcl, absolutely. Frances Grant Stipe died testate, seized and possessed of the other one-half undivided interest in said property, in 1994, and by her Will, a certified copy of which is .;.of record in said Clerk's Office in Will Book 106, at Paq 1447, she devised her interest in said property to her niece, Sharron Hall Armel. TAX MAP I NO.33-A-124. PARCEL TWO: All of that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being situate in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, on Vic south side of State Route 671, containing 57 acres, more or less, and being the same property that was conveyed to E. W. Grant and Viola Grant, his wife, jointly and in equal proportions, by deed from Bertie Hubbard, et al, dated June 30, 1945, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 193, Page 593. E. W. Grant died testate, seized and possessed of a one-half undivided interest in said property, on August 25, 1945, and by his Will dated January 1, 1935, devised said property to Viola V. Grant, his wife, and Frances L. Grant Stipe and Lucille L. Grant Armel, his daughters, upon certain terms and conditions more fully set forth therein, which Will is of record in the said Clerk's Office in Will Book 56, at Pago 287. By that certain Agreement dated October 1, 1947, of record in the said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 202, at Page 499, the aforesaid devisees of E. W. Grant did agree to a construction and interpretation of the aforesaid Will of E. W. Grant whereby a life estate in the real estate of E. W. Grant was created in Viola V. Grant, widow of said decedent, with a remainder over in fee to Frances Grant Stipe and Lucille Grant Armel. The said Viola V. Grant died testate, seized and possessed of a one-half undivided interest in said property, on February 24, 1976, and by her Will, a certified copy of which is of record in said Clerk's Office in Will Book 98, at Page 351, devised the remainder of her estate, including the property conveyed herein, to her daughters, Frances Stipe and Lucille Armel, share and share alike, to be theirs absolutely. Lucille L. Grant Armel died testate in 1988, seized and possessed of a one-half undivided interest in said property, and by her Will, a certified copy of which is of record in said Clerk's Office in Will Book 98, at Page 355, she devised her estate to her daughter, Sharron H. Armel, absolutely. Frances Grant Stipe died testate in 1994, seized and possessed of the other one-half undivided interest in said property, and by her Will, a certified copy of which is of record in said Clerk's Office in Will Book 106, at Page 1447, she devised her interest in said property to her niece, Sharron Hall Armel. TAX MAP NO.33-A-113. A reference to the aforesaid deeds, wills and agreement and to the references contained therein is here made for a further and more particular description of the realty herehv eonvevv.d. Tr� VIRGINIA: FREDERICKCOUMI-f SCT- This instrument of writing was produced to me, on SIN-2o12 at 12 �{q o•m• and with certificate aclmowledgemenl thereto annexed was admitted to record, Tar imposed by Sec. 58,1.802 of Ste_ . and 58.1-801 have been paid, if assessable. 4e toj , Clerk COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING April 13, 2016 1'0: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #02-16 FOR I-81 WEST BUSINESS PARK On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning #02-16 for 1-81 West Business Park submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 36.676 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B-2 (Business General District), 45.453 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B-3 (Industrial Transition) District and 73.360 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to M-1(Light Industrial) District, with proffers. The properties are located on the west side of Interstate 81 between Cedar Hill Road (Rt. 671) and Hopewell Road (Rt. 672) in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 33-A-113, 33-A-124, and 33-A-114B. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.fcva.us. Sincerely, an ice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA Assistant Director CEP/pd 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 PM 5 L 33 A 164 G SINGH MANJOTH RAJ SINGHSl1N�T 2221 NAAMANS RD WILMINGTON DE Hasler 04!1312016 $00: 6" �.� 'ir 22601 Z. - 01ID11646815 19810 1328 176 3E 1 8084/13ji6 RET'.IRN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED _ NOT kNOWN r +•n inn, •nn 11'11i'�111iiId, ',I,III III! IIII- Ill:!l1t11:'i'il'iliiill"i1"" COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING March 2, 2016 TO: THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #02-16 FOR 1-81 WEST BUSINESS PARK On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning #02-16 for I-81 West Business Park submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 36.676 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B-2 (Business General District), 45.453 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B-3 (Industrial Transition) District and 73.360 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to M-1(Light Industrial) District, with proffers. The properties are located on the west side of Interstate 81 between Cedar Hill Road (Rt. 671) and Hopewell Road (Rt. 672) in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 33-A-113, 33-A-124, and 33-A-114B. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.fcva.us. Sincerely, Candice �Perkins,CP,CZA Assistant Director CEP/ks 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street. Suite 202 Winchester. Virginia 22601 tiH 2 ; CJ1G 33 A - 164 G Hasler 03102 /2016 F 226n 011D11646015 StNGH MANJOTH RAJ SIKH SUNIT 2221 *"MANS RD WILMINGTON DE 19810 1328 1.76 5c 1 3,3G4/1S/16 RFTjR►y TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN t"011,11 IOU- �� 6.e.�..�aa !I!!II!I��II�i'llll!,!,III�iI„ill:,IIIIII!illlllll!IIl,l,lll!'!I