Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07-01 Rutherford's Farm - Industrial Park - Stonewall - Backfile (2)
REZONING TRACKING SHEET Date `j- 7-0/ 2 - /0 1 Q Application received/file opened {/ Reference manual updated/number assigned D-base updated !. / /• 0/ given to office manager to update Application Action Summary Four sets of adjoiner labels ordered from data processing *'ne 61 iV'map ordered from Mapping & Graphics «-7--0( (1-7-01 �� PC public hearing date ACTION: Q i - M-o 2 �P /4nernva L f BOS public hearing date ACTION: A"RnitFn t 41 1Z , ZOO Z K Oigned copy of resolution for amendment of ordinance, with conditions proffered, received from County Administrator's office and placed in Proffers Notebook. (Note: If rezoning has no proffers, resolution goes in Amendments Without Proffers notebook.) a- -j 9 - Q Ji Action letter mailed to applicant ,/ Reference manual and D-base updated File given to office manager to update Application Action Summary (final action) (,-,�S- /C - r Z File given to Mapping & Graphics to update zoning map 6)S -!3— �!7-- Zoning map amended Other notes: U.C=1%C0raM0n\UaCkM8.= CASH RECEIPT Date` 032344 Received From i Address 1 iqu F--Pl _ Vt� p[ y! Wcr AMT OF ACCOUNT cAS1 - AMT PAID GHE LL BY BALANG DUE . MIXJE ORDER 0 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virgllna 22602 Foundalin 19:1 TRANS M I TTAL Project Name: Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park File No.: 2795 Date: November 7, 2001 To: VDOT Attn: Kelly Downs Sam Clem Copied: From: Mark Smith/ds GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Fax: 540-722-9528 Remarks: �'s Urgent For Your Review T-J, As You Requested l.W Please Comment Message: Kelly/Sam, Attached are the 12-hour counts that go with the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Traffic Study Appendix. Call with any concerns Engineers Surveyors Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 greenway@visua1Enk.com 12-hour Traffic Counts NB Off -Ramp & Route 11 Time 1-81 YI3 Off -Ramp Route 11 Route 11 GB Lefl IiB'I'hni GB Right \VB Lcfl WB'Ihnt W13 Right N13 Lefl N13'1'hni NB Right S13 Lcfl SB'I'lini SB Right 7:00 AM _ 162 0 18 0 121 0 0 75 0 7:15 AXI 170 0 18 _ 0 126 0 0 78 0 7:30 AN 177 0 21 0 129 0 0 80 0 7:45 AAI 174 0 20 0 139 0 0 86 0 8:00 ANI 169 0 17 0 133 0 0 82 0 8:15 AIM 150 0 15 0 0 0 77 0 8:30 A,\f 134 0 14_ 0 _123 0 0 72 0 8:45 XM 123 0 12 0 _117 IN 0 0 71 0 9:00 A I 105 0 10 0 97 0 0 60 0 9:15 ANI 89 0 9 0 82 0 0 51 0 9:30 AA 76 0 7 0 70 0 0 43 0 9:45 A I 64 0 6 0 59 0 0 37 0 10:00 AM 45 0 6 0 16 0 0 22 0 10:15 A,N1 61 0 8 0 62 0 0 29 0 10:30 AM 81 0 11 0 82 0 0 39 0 10:45 A.Ml 108 0 15 0 110 0 0 52 0 11:00 AM 144 0 20 0 1,16 0 0 69 0 11: 15 ANI 155 0 22 0 158 0 0 75 0 1 1:30 ANI 163 0 24 0 160 0 0 76 0 11:45 A,\4 163 0 25 0 155 0 0 74 0 12:00 PNI 107 0 26 0 144 0 0 68 0 12:15 Pivl 98 0 23 _ 0 1,11 0 0 67 0 12:30I'Jd 155 0 26 0 137 0 0 65 0 12:45 PNI 143 0 23 0 138 0 0 65 0 1:001,\m 122 0 20 0 117 0 0 56 0 1:15 P&I 103 0 17 0 100 0 0 47 0 1:30 P\1 _ 88 75 0 0 14 12 0 0 85 72 0 0 0 0 40 34 0 0 1:45 PJd 2:00 PNI 94 0 13 0 96 0 0 45 0 2:151'I4 99 0 13 0 101 0 0 48 0 2:30 PNI 104 0 14 0 106 0 0 50 0 2:45 P\1 110 0 15 0 112 0 0 53 0 3:00 PM 115 0 16 0 117 0 0 56 0 3:15 P\f 136 0 18 0 138 0 0 66 0 3:30 PNI 160 0 22 0 163 0 0 77 0 3:45I'NI 188 0 26 0 191 0 0 91 0 4:00 Pal 221 0 30 0 225 0 0 107 0 4:15 PNI 239 0 34 0 2,12 0 0 115 0 4:30 P&I 251 0 37 0 2,15 0 0 117 0 4:45 111M 250 0 39 0 238 0 0 113 0 5:00I'M 164 0 40 0 221 0 0 105 0 5:15 PINT 151 0 36 0 217 0 0 103 0 5:30 PM 238 0 40 0 210 0 0 100 0 5:45I'M 220 0 36 0 212 0 0 101 0 6:00 P.M 198 0 32 0 191 0 0 91 0 6:15 PM 178 0 29 0 172 0 0 82 0 6:30 P&I 160 0 26 0 155 0 0 73 0 6:45 PM 144 0 24 0 139 0 0 66 0 12-hour Traffic Counts SB RalnnS & Route I I Time I-81 S13 Off -Ramp I-81 SB On-RaniP Route 11 Route 11 L'B Left EB Tluv EB Right WB Ldl NVB'fhnt _ WB Right N13 Ufl N13 Thai NB Right SB Left Sl3'I'hni SB Right 7:00 A4I 5 0 97 _ 0 115 149 22 205 0 7:15 AM 6 0 111 0 119 154 26 212 0 7:30 ANI 8 0 110 0 121 178 30 216 0 7:45 AEU 7 0 116 0 125 199 32 223 0 8:00 ANI 6 0 99 0 127 201 34 226 0 8:15 AN 6 0 87 0 126 186 31 224 0 8:30 AM 8 0 72 _ 0 120 142 30 214 0 8:45 A,`I 6 0 61 0 116 115 28 206 0 9:00 ANI 5 0 52 0 99 98 24 175 0 9:15 AM 1 0 4.1 0 84 83 20 149 0 9:30 ANI 4 0 37 0 71 71 17 127 0 9:45 AN1 3 0 32 0 61 60 15 108 0 10:00 AM 2 0 18 0 42 37 6 58 0 10: 15 ANI 2 0 24 0 55 50 8 78 0 10:30 A,%I 3 0 32 0 74 66 11 103 0 10:45 AM 4 0 42 0 98 88 14 138 0 11:00 AM 5 0 57 0 131 118 19 184 0 11:15 AM 7 0 61 0 135 125 21 189 0 11:30 AM 5 0 60 0 1,12 127 24 202 0 11:45 AM 9 0 66 0 1,18 137 25 207 0 12:00I'M 10 0 79 0 1,17 140 27 205 0 12:15 PNd 10 0 70 146 126 23 205 0 12:301'ihi 7 0 59 _ _0 0 142 118 22 198 0 12:45I'M 8 0 56 _ 0 131 114 19 183 0 1:001'N1 7 0 0 111 97 16 155 0 1: 15 PM 6 0 _48 40 0 94 83 14 132 0 1:30 PM 5 0 3<4 0 80 70 12 112 0 1:45 PNI _ 4 0 29 _ 0 68 60 10 95 0 2:001141 3 0 37 0 86 _ 77 12 120 0 2:15 PM 1 0 39 0 90 81 13 127 0 2:301'NI 4 0 41 0 95 85 1'4 133 0 2:45 PNI 4 0 43 0 100 90 14 140 0 3:001'NI 4 0 45 0 105 94 15 148 0 3:15 PNI 5 0 53 _ 0 _ 124 11l 18 174 0 3:30 PNI 6 0 63 0 1,16 131 21 204 0 3:45 PN1 7 0 74 0 172 154 25 241 0 4:00 PN1 8 0 87 0 202 181 29 283 0 4:15I'M 10 0 94 0 208 192 33 291 0 4:30I'M 0 93 0 219 196 37 310 0 4:45 PNI _8 14 0 102 0 227 210 39 318 0 5:00I'N4 16 0 121 0 226 216 42 316 0 5:15 PN1 16 0 107 0 225 IN 36 315 0 5:3011&1 10 0 91 0 218 182 34 305 0 5:45I'NI 12 0 86 0 201 176 29 281 0 6:00I'M I 0 77 0 181 158 26 253 0 6:151'NI 6:30I'M 10 9 0 0 70 63 0 0 163 1,17 143 _128 23 21 228 205 0 0 6:451'Nf 8 0 56 _ 0 132 115 19 l84 0 12-hour Traffic Counts NB On-Ramp/Route 661 & Route 11 Time 1-81 NB o,i-Ramp Route 661 Route 11 Route 11 L'B Left L13'Ilinj GB Right WB Left I NNIB'I lim WB Right N13 Left NB'rhni NB Right SB Left SB'Ilini SB Right 7:00 AM 4 3 2 89 52 1 0 58 30 7:15 AA1 4 3 2 94 55 0 t 67 28 7:30 A\d --- 6 5 4 95 57 2 2 72 31 7:45 AN 7 4 3 92 60 3 2 80 28 8:00 AM 8 3 5 87 52 5 1 82 22 8:15 AAI 11 3 5 69 _ 51 5 4 66 16 8:30 AA[ 8 4 4 62 49 6 4 61 17 8:45 AM 10 1 5 5 60 45 8 5 51 17 9:00 AM 9 4 4 51 38 7 4 43 14 9:15 AM 7 4 4 _ 43 33 6 4 37 12 9:30 A,LI 6 3 3 37 28 5 3 31 10 9:45 AM 5 3 3 _ 31 23 I 3 27 9 10:00 AIM 0 1 1 16 28 1 1 15 3 10: 15 AM 1 1 2 22 37 1 1 19 4 10:30 AIM 1 1 2 29 49 1 1 26 5 10:45 AM 1 2 3 39 66 1 1 35 1 7 11:00 AAI 1 3 4 52 88 2 2 46 10 11:15 AAI 1 5 3 53 92 2 2 50 8 11:30 A&I 3 4 3 '19 103 3 1 59 8 11:45 AM 2 4 2 58 108 5 3 65 10 12:00 P\I 4 1 1 65 116 5 3 71 8 12:151'\I 5 3 _ 3 66 112 _ 4 3 77 8 12:301'1\1 3 3 2 59 109 3 3 67 6 12:45 P\I 3 3 1 53 105 3 2 60 7 1:00 PM 2 2 1 90 3 2 51 6 1: 15 PAI 2 2 0 _45 39 76 2 1 43 5 1:30 PA1 2 2 0 33 65 2 1 37 4 1:45 PlvI 1 1 0 28 55 2 1 31 3 2:0011&1 1 2 3 34 57 1 1 30 6 2:151'M 1 2 3 36 60 1 1 32 7 2:30 PAI 1 2 3 38 64 1 1 33 7 2:45 PNl _ 1 2 3 40 67 1 1 35 7 3:00 PNI 1 2 3 12 70 2 2 37 8 3:15 P\d 1 2 4 49 83 2 2 44 9 3:30 PAI 1 3 4 58 98 2 2 51 11 3:45 P\4 2 3 5 68 115 3 3 60 13 4:00I'M 2 1 6 80 135 3 3 71 15 4:15 PA1 2 7 4 82 1,11 3 3 77 12 4:301'\1 4 6 4 76 159 1 2 91 12 4:45 PAI 3 6 3 89 166 7 5 100 16 5:0011&1 6 6 2 100 178 7 4 109 13 5:15 PAI 7 5 4 102 173 6 5 119 12 5:30 PAI 5 5 3 91 167 5 5 103 9 5:45 PAI 4 4 1 82 162 5 3 92 10 6:00 PM I 4 1 74 1,16 5 3 83 9 6:15 P\4 3 3 1 66 131 4 2 75 8 6:30 PAI 3 3 1 60 118 4 2 67 7 6:45 PA1 3 3 1 54 106 3 2 60 7 s t�j COUNTY of FREDERI CIS Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 April 29, 2002 Mr. Mark D. Smith Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: REZONING APPLICATION #07-01 OF RUTI-IERFORD'S FARM; Property Identification Numbers 43-A-96; 43-A-97; 43-A-98; 43-A-99; 43-A-100; 43-A-I I I Dear Marl: This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting on April 22, 2002. The Board approved your request as follows: • To rezone 113 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and 3.7 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to M 1 (Light Industrial); • To rezone 21.8 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and 1.4 acres of RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General); • To rezone 14.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B3 (Industrial Transition); • To include the entire 154.4 tract in the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District. The proffers that were approved as a part of this rezoning application are unique to this property and are binding regardless of ownership. Enclosed is a copy of the adopted proffer statement for your records. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the approval of this rezoning application. Smc6rgly, Erib R. Lawrenc Deputy Director ERL/ch Attaclunent cc: Lynda Tyler, Stonewall District Supervisor Jane Anderson, Real Estate *Steven Melnikoff, VDOT (*cc's with copy of proffers) *Denny Linaburg, Fire Marshal John Light, Stonewall District Planning Commissioner em: Charles Dehaven, Jr., Stonewall District Planning Cormmissioner o UgcndasNApproval 11rs\R1Xs1tmhcrrords Pom, %vpd 107 North Dent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 rreenway Engineering a July 19, 2001 Ruther•'s Farm Industrial Park Revised January 7, 2002 RUTI-IERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARIK REZONING Tax Parcels 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 434-98, 434-99, 43-A-100 Stonewall Magisterial District Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 07-01 for the rezoning of 154.4 acres from the Rural Area (RA) zoning district to the following: Zoning districts • 116.7 acres Light Industrial (M1) • 23.2 acres Commercial (132) • 14.5 acres Commercial (B3) Overlay district • 154.4 acres Interstate Area Overlay (IA) Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the lands owned by Richard Ray Duncan, Janet D. Riddick, and Turner Enterprises, LLC being all or part of Tax Map Parcels 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, and 43-A-99, 43-A-100 and further described by zoning plat prepared by Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S., dated July 16, 2001 (Exhibit A). A.) Maximum Building Structure Square Feet The applicant hereby proffers to limit the total building structures to 1,400,000 square feet for the entire 154.4 acres. Greenway Engineeruig July 19, 2001 Glerford's Farm Industrial Park Revised January 7, 2002 B.) Prohibited Uses The following uses shall not be permitted on the proposed Industrial Park: Description Sic Truck Stop 5541 (Excluding Truck Stops, all other uses within SIC Code SS41 are hereby acceptable and included) C.) Transportation 1.) Traffic Signalization a.) A traffic signal will be installed by the applicant when warranted by the Virginia Department of Transportation at the intersection of the proposed Industrial Park entrance and the unnamed Comprehensive Plan collector road in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the first site plan approval of said Industrial Park. b.) A traffic signal will be installed by the applicant when warranted by VDOT at the southbound ramps of the 317 interchange and U.S. Route 11 in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the first site plan approval of said Industrial Park. 2.) Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements at the proposed two entrances will be installed and paid for by the applicant. The existing multi -lane system on U.S. Route 11 will be extended north to the intersection of the proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Road. All left and right turn lanes and pavement transitions north and south of proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Road on U.S. Route 11 will be installed and paid for by the applicant. The improvements shall be completed within one year of the first site plan approval and prior to the second site plan approval for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. If all or part of the intersection improvements are required for the first site plan of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, they shall be made part of and constructed with this first site plan. 3.) Right of Way Dedication a.) The applicant hereby agrees to dedicate right of way to the Commonwealth of Virginia along U.S. Route 11 adjacent to the property as determined by VDOT. This right of way dedication shall be recorded prior to the approval of 2 'Grecnway 1 nainccrina . July 19, 2001 Ruther•'s Farm hidustrial Park Revised January 7, 2002 the U.S. Route 11 construction plans prepared for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park as noted in Proffer C2 (Intersection Improvements) and Proffer C5 (Route 11 and Northbound I-81 Ramp Improvements). b.) The applicant hereby agrees to dedicate right of way to the Commonwealth of Virginia along Interstate 81 as shown on Interstate 81 Improvement Study VDOT Project No. 0081-968-F11, PE-100 MP 305 to West Virginia State Line Frederick County, dated November 1998 (specifically noted on Sheet 24 of said study). The right of way dedication shall be recorded prior to the master development plan approval for Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. 4.) Comprehensive Plan Road Construction The applicant hereby agrees to coordinate, set aside right of way, and construct the portion of the major collector road traversing on the land herein to be rezoned and developed and as outlined in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Northeast Land Use Study adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on September 27, 2000. Said collector road will be incorporated in and constructed with each site plan submission that is adjacent to or part of the site plan. 5.) Route 11 and Northbound I-81 Ramp Improvements The applicant will construct a third southbound lane on US Route 11 from the northern most entrance of the applicant's property to the northbound I-81 ramp of Exit 317. These improvements will include a 12' wide lane of approximately 600 linear feet in length to serve as a continuous right turn lane for the northbound entrance ramp of the Exit 317 interchange. Additionally, the applicant will construct turning radius improvements at the entrance ramp to ensure a smooth transition. The improvements shall be completed within one year of the first site plan approval and prior to the second site plan approval for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. If all or part of the intersection improvements are required for the first site plan of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, they shall be made part of and constructed with this first site plan. D.) Historic Resource 1.) Interpretative Signs The applicant hereby proffers to provide an interpretive area in the location of the old Rutherford's Farm House along U.S. Route 11 and more particularly at the location of the old concrete steps that now remain. An easement of sufficient size will be provided for a pull -off area and viewing. Three interpretative plaques will be provided. They are as follows: Greenway Engincerinio July 19, 2001 Oulerford's Farm Industrial Parfc Revised January 7, 2002 • The Second Battle of Winchester • The Battle of Rutherford's Farm • The Rutherford's Farm House The interpretative plaques will contain language and pictures acceptable to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. All work performed for the pull -off area will meet the minimum standards of Virginia Department of Transportation and Frederick County Ordinances in respect to Highway pull -off and safety. Ground maintenance of the interpretative area will be performed by the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Association under a separate continuous approved permit issued by VDOT. 2.) Landscaping A transitional landscape buffer will be provided along U.S. Route 11 from Interstate 81 traveling north to the Comprehensive Plan collector road and transmission power line easement. This landscape easement will be 15' in width and will consist of a low earthen mound of 2-3' in height with plantings of in ground covers, flowers, and grasses. Indigenous trees such as redbud, oaks, cedars, etc. will be incorporated along said landscape easement in a cluster mass fashion to provide a naturally planted look. The maintenance of said landscape buffer will be the responsibility of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Association and will be installed with the first commercial development adjacent to said easement. 3.) Industrial Park Name The applicant hereby proffers the naming of the Industrial Park to: "Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park" E.) Lighting Building mounted lights and pole -mounted lights will be of a downcast nature and shielded and directed away from adjacent properties surrounding the proposed project. Lighting plans will be submitted as a separate attachment for review and approval by the Frederick County Planning Department prior to installation. F.) Signage 1.) Within the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District, the applicant hereby proffers that all freestanding business signs shall be monument -style not to exceed 12' in height. 2.) Within the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District, the applicant hereby proffers to limit the total number of signs to three. 4 6,reenway Enguieeruig 0 July 19, 2001 Ruther*s Farm Industrial Park Rcvised January 7, 2002 G.) Recycling Proffer Recycling programs will be implemented with each Industrial Park user to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct material. This program will be reviewed and approved by the Frederick County Recycling Coordinator prior to final occupancy permit. H.) Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned owners of the above -described property hereby voluntarily proffer that in the event rezoning application # 07-01 is approved, and the property is subsequently developed within an B2, B3, and M1 zone, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia the following amount: $ 10.000 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue This payment is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services and will be paid at the time of the first site plan submission. I.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants thus rezoningand land rezoned iand accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the addition to other requirements set forth in t�Frq�erick County Code. Res ectfully S utted: By: Richard Ray Dunca nL Commonwealth of Virginia, 10 z' Date City/ ounty f I yf—a', To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this [G1�'day of 'Janc:a2- 2,y-)Z g69.1 by � I c6IQrd c ' �1ti�1Cru 061LZL�__ S�S�L Notary Public My Commission Expires FeVxug r�� z�, 2 D+ Greenway EngineerinG0 July 19, 2001 Oherford's Farm Industrial Park Revised January 7, 2002 By: - 8 (. a t D. Riddick Date Commonwealth of Virginia, cit3Gnty f rV�E'y-t C L, To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisday of JO�nwq 288-1-by JCne-f D- 12 t'ad CL Notary Pubdc My Commission Expires ��Uc 2t ZQ, Zak By: Ax- %C/1/ 2— T rner terprises, LLC Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City Counjpf Fi'Pcvac:lL To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this [,day of JCiV)UG Zc�Z ti by "Fume r oc re r _ Notary Pi}•b 'c My Commission Expires � br' a 2 2 )A-- 0 • • Action: AMENDI/IENT PLANNING COMMISSION: November 7, 2001 - Deferred February 6, 2002 - Recommended Approval BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: April 22, 2002 U APPROVED ❑ DENIED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING #07-01 OF RUTHERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK WHEREAS, Rezoning #07-01 of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park was submitted by Greenway Engineering requesting the following: 1. To rezone 113 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and 3.7 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to M 1 (Light Industrial); 2. To rezone 2 1. 8 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and 1.4 acres of RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General); 3. To rezone 14.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B3 (Industrial Transition); 4. To include the entire 154.4 tract in the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District; and WHEREAS, This property is located at the northeastern quadrant of Interstate 81, Exit 317. The tract is bounded by Interstate 81 on the west, and Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11 North) on the east and south and is identified with Property Identification Numbers: 43-A-96; 43-A-97; 43-A-98; 43-A-99; 43-A-100; 43-A-I I I in the Stonewall Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on February 6, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on April 22, 2002; 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; PDRes H05-02 • • NOW, TIIEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change 113 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and 3.7 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to M I (Light Industrial); 21.8 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and 1.4 acres of RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General); 14.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B3 (Industrial Transition); and to include the entire 154.4-acre tract in the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District as described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the attached conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owner. This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 22°d day of April, 2002 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye Sidney A. Reyes Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye Margaret B. Douglas Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Aye Robert M. Sager Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye A COPY ATTEST Jolu - . Riley, Jr. Frederick County Admin strator PDRes. 905-02 0 \,\gendu\COAINIGNTS\RLZONING\RGSOI.UTN\Rmherford's Fann wpd Greenway 1 nguicering is July 19, 2001 Ruther term 1-ndustrial Park, Revised January 7, 2002 RUTHE ORD'S FARIM INDUSTRIAL PARK REZONING Tax Parcels 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100 Stonewall Magisterial District Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 07-01 for the rezoning of 154.4 acres from the Rural Area (RA) zoning district to the following: Zoning districts • 116.7 acres Light Industrial (M1) • 23.2 acres Commercial (132) • 14.5 acres Commercial (B3) Overlay district • 154.4 acres Interstate Area Overlay (IA) Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the lands owned by Richard Ray Duncan, Janet D. Riddick, and Turner Enterprises, LLC being all or part of Tax Map Parcels 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, and 43-A-99, 43-A 100 and further described by zoning plat prepared by Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S., dated July 16, 2001 (Exhibit A). A.) Maximum Building Structure Square Feet The applicant hereby proffers to limit the total building structures to 1,400,000 square feet for the entire 154.4 acres. r�EPT OF PIANN�NGIDr��'-"•- • Greenway Engineer July 19, 2001 • lerford's Farm Industrial Park Revised January 7, 2002 B.) Prohibited Uses The following uses shall not be permitted on the proposed Industrial Park; Description Sic Truck Stop 5541 (Excluding Truck Stops, all other uses within SIC Code 5541 are hereby acceptable and included) C.) Transportation 1.) Traffic Signalization a.) A traffic signal will be installed by the applicant when warranted by the Virginia Department of Transportation at the intersection of the proposed Industrial Park entrance and the unnamed Comprehensive Plan collector road in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the first site plan approval of said Industrial Park. b.) A traffic signal will be installed by the applicant when warranted by VDOT at the southbound ramps of the 317 interchange and U.S. Route 11 in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the first site plan approval of said Industrial Park. 2.) Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements at the proposed two entrances will be installed and paid for by the applicant. The existing multi -lane system on U.S. Route 11 will be extended north to the intersection of the proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Road. All left and right turn lanes and pavement transitions north and south of proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Road on U.S. Route 11 will be installed and paid for by the applicant. The improvements shall be completed within one year of the first site plan approval and prior to the second site plan approval for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. If all or part of the intersection improvements are required for the first site plan of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, they shall be made part of and constructed with this first site plan. 3.) Right of Way Dedication a.) The applicant hereby agrees to dedicate right of way to the Commonwealth of Virginia along U.S. Route 11 adjacent to the property as determined by VDOT. This right of way dedication shall be recorded prior to the approval of Grecnway ) njincerin- . July 19, 2001 Ruther �rm Industrial Park Revised January 7, 2002 the U.S. Route 11 construction plans prepared for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park as noted in Proffer C2 (Intersection Improvements) and Proffer C5 (Route 11 and Northbound I-81 Ramp Improvements). b.) The applicant hereby agrees to dedicate right of way to the Commonwealth of Virginia along Interstate 81 as shown on Interstate 81 Improvement Study VDOT Project No. 0081-968-1311, PE-100 MP 305 to West Virginia State Line Frederick County, dated November 1998 (specifically noted on Sheet 24 of said study). The right of way dedication shall be recorded prior to the master development plan approval for Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. 4.) Comprehensive Plan Road Construction The applicant hereby agrees to coordinate, set aside right of way, and construct the portion of the major collector road traversing on the land herein to be rezoned and developed and as outlined in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Northeast Land Use Study adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on September 27, 2000. Said collector road will be incorporated in and constructed with each site plan submission that is adjacent to or part of the site plan. 5.) Route 11 and Northbound I-81 Ramp Improvements The applicant will construct a third southbound lane on US Route 11 from the northern most entrance of the applicant's property to the northbound I-81 ramp of Exit 317. These improvements will include a 12' wide lane of approximately 600 linear feet in length to serve as a continuous right turn lane for the northbound entrance ramp of the Exit 317 interchange. Additionally, the applicant will construct turning radius improvements at the entrance ramp to ensure a smooth transition. The improvements shall be completed within one year of the first site plan approval and prior to the second site plan approval for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. If all or part of the intersection improvements are required for the first site plan of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, they shall be made part of and constructed with this first site plan. D.) Historic Resource 1.) Interpretative Signs The applicant hereby proffers to provide an interpretive area in the location of the old Rutherford's Farm House along U.S. Route 11 and more particularly at the location of the old concrete steps that now remain. An easement of sufficient size will be provided for a pull -off area and viewing. Three interpretative plaques will be provided. They are as follows: 3 Greenway Engineer July 19, 2001 • ,dierford's Farm Industrial Park Revised January 7, 2002 + • The Second Battle of Winchester = • The Battle of Rutherford's Farm • The Rutherford's Farm House The interpretative plaques will contain language and pictures acceptable to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. All work performed for the pull -off area will meet the minimum standards of Virginia Department of Transportation and Frederick County Ordinances in respect to Highway pull -off and safety. Ground maintenance of the interpretative area will be performed by the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Association under a separate continuous approved permit issued by VDOT. 2.) Landscaping A transitional landscape buffer will be provided along U.S. Route 11 from Interstate 81 traveling north to the Comprehensive Plan collector road and transmission power line easement. This landscape easement will be 15' in width and will consist of a low earthen mound of 2-3' in height with plantings of ground covers, flowers, and grasses. Indigenous trees such as redbud, oaks, cedars, etc. will be incorporated along said landscape easement in a cluster mass fashion to provide a naturally planted look. The maintenance of said landscape buffer will be the responsibility of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Association and will be installed with the first commercial development adjacent to said easement. 3.) Industrial Park Name The applicant hereby proffers the naming of the Industrial Park to: "Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park" E.) Lighting Building mounted lights and pole -mounted lights will be of a downcast nature and shielded and directed away from adjacent properties surrounding the proposed project. Lighting plans will be submitted as a separate attachment for review and approval by the Frederick County Planning Department prior 'to installation. F.) Signage 1.) Within the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District, the applicant hereby proffers that all freestanding business signs shall be monument -style not to exceed 12' in height. 2.) Within the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District, the applicant hereby proffers to limit the total number of signs to three. 4 Greenway Lnouieerinb July 19, 2001 Rutlierf 'Orm Industrial Park Revised January 7, 2002 G.) Recycling Proffer Recycling programs will be implemented with each Industrial Park user to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct material. This program will be reviewed and approved by the Frederick County Recycling Coordinator prior to final occupancy permit. H.) Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned owners of the above -described property hereby voluntarily proffer that in the event rezoning application # 07-01 is approved, and the property is subsequently developed within an B2, B3, and M1 zone, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia the following amount: $ 10,000 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue This payment is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services and will be paid at the time of the first site plan submission. I.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in t�rgderick County Code. 02 Richard Ray Commonwealth of Virginia, Date City/ ounty f ��� To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ( _'day of JC nua 2MZ 2-6&1 by P-i C(1CLv-d kac t l-'t CcKU2 Notary Public My Commission Expires (jc Zq ' Z—eo+ Greenway Engineer July 19, 2001 therlord's Farm Industrial Park Revised January 7, 2002 + By:. Qa1vo I. a t D. Riddick Date Commonwealth of Virginia, cit3Gnty f r--y-erjeo cL, To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ]Aday of -JCnc)aru 0-,' W. - Notary Pubdc My Commission Expires rf-(9V-Oa'Lt ZQ ZOG - By: f U �-- T er terprises, LLC Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City Coun of To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I&day of JC uUac.� Zc]o2 '1 -20� by JZJ Turoe r -G r UT re c" _ Notary PUb 'c My Commission Expires �" P_%i�i af-z-P Z9 2CO-1 rv� 6 — COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of fla-m-daab and Development 5401665-565! FkX: i40/665-6395 March 22,2002 Mark Smith, P.F., L.S., President Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Rutherford's Farm Rezoning Application Dear Mr. Smith The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the referenced proposal during their meeting of March 19, 2002. Specifically, the HRAB reviewed additional battlefield historical information that was provided by Dr. Brandon Beck of the Civil War Institute at Shenandoah University. The HRAB determined that this additional information will not change their previous comments regarding the proposed rezoning, dated July 19, 2001. Based on the proffered conditions submitted with the rezoning application, the HRAB looks forward to the opportunity to review the proposed pull -off area and the historical markers as the Rutherford's Farm development proceeds, Please contact me with any questions concerning these continents fi-om the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory- Board. Sincerely, Rebecca Ragsdale - Planner I RAR/kac cc'. Dr. Richard R. Duncan, 6101 Edsall Road, Apt 1802, Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Mr_ R. J. Turner, Adams -Nelson & Assoc., 303 So. Loudoun St., Winchester, VA 22601 I:� C(3\l�fl'iiT:ES'3dEL�B'.31atnL79.w7x1 WINE - STILLWELL CORPORATION 720 N. LOUDOUN STREET, P.O. BOX 2035, WINCHESTER, VIIIGINIA 2260Z, OFFICE 540-662-«/11 FAX 540-722-3643 November 8, 2001 Mr. Evan Wyatt Director, Frederick County Planning Department Frederick County 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Rezoning, Rutherford's Industrial Park Dear Evan: This is a follow-up to the Planning Commission hearing on November 7, 2001. Because of the past year's battle over industrial development and the importance of approaching this rezoning correctly, I am suggesting the following be incorporated in the process: 1. Because of the high visibility of this site and the first view of Winchester from the north, special care needs to be incorporated in the planning and three dimensional planning. 2. The planning should include the 107 acre M2 Carroll property, Zuckerman's, and the former chemical facility along Ebert Rd., all in a coordinated traffic, utility, sewer, landscaping and architectural plan. 3. A one to two acre Rutherford Civil War Memorial Park should be incorporated in the plan near the Rutherford site as an asset to the development. 4. Because of the potential ugliness of industrial development when no standards are established at the start, I would recommend that design standards for materials, colors, building height, set backs, lay down areas, docks, signs, etc. be developed prior to start of construction. This site begs for a new approach - an INDUSTRIAL CAMPUS approach, not a Stonewall Industrial "Park" approach and should include the business type buildings in the standards. 5. Because of the serious traffic problems at the I-81 and Rt. 11 interchange, which we are all aware of, it may be possible during an up -front planning effort to move the whole entrance to the total 257 acre site north and avoid the whole problem at the 1-81 Interchange. Master Development planning, if done early, may resolve this critical issue and everyone wins. RECEIVED NOV X 9 Z001 `CDT, OF PLANNINGIDEVELOPMF"" ROOFING - GUTTER WORK - SHEET METAL FABRICATION Mr. Evan Wyatt - 2 - November 8, 2001 Finally, I support this Industrial rezoning, if done properly, because it is the right location, has rail access, already adjoins an M2 parcel and is located between I-81 and Rt. 11. Very truly yours, I -Jam es D. Stillwell President JDS/dd cc: Mr. Mark Smith Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Rezoning Continents %:':%'/':.::.iii;';.••r..:;'::';:{�,,.;:J::.:�;i�.r.iiii::.J/i', ::/-;•;.;::::: /!r!'"' �/ %%rJ, ///J / / !r//J/ //,J'%'�%";%�%/!;� % fi��i�/��J/;J�iriil/i: ,Ji /.`.;�.{.�J:..:fi: /;;;::':r':.: �.;:;.fi..>;:.:: �i.:'/'/'.r�%�,.//.:/:..���..:..;;//f. / // � fi J ! /f /:v4:/. i;%: .• .Jr�%:J /,, ;J J .irii/ i /%,n„iir�ii'%ri/r ;.;�.;,7JJ;;J,•J:`. ri,;;�/���.//.J%:/J�,J,/,%JJ�/%„% �,•JJ%/////,!/////J/%�/j%//r%%/J�J�:/.,.J.,% :�..%/���/.% ���/%//�/i Frederick County Attorney Mail to: Frederick County Attorney Co. Administration Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665-6383 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Attorney Co. Administration Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Fourth Floor Winchester, Virginia (540)665-5651 Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: Located on the natural boundary created by Interstate 81 on the western edge of the tract US Rt. 11 bisects this area in a North/South linear fashion. CSX and Winchester Railroad have lines paralleleing Rt. 11 North Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: MI, B3 Acreage: 154.4 Acres County Attorney's Conune s: / Assistant County Attorney's �^ Signature & Date: G� Notice to County Attorney — lease Return This Forin to the Applicant J �N 1 1 2002 9EpT OF pLA%N W01.DEVEt(, I�1 I-1 Rezoning Comments ii•:.i?�'{n;':/ " :/r:% �.: f`.;:•;• <•:?!j>: !::/ri�.`!iii i./r/1' v/// O/—M; I ffg1111g11111f1,7'/,:' /e//i, •j Frederick County Fire Marshal Mail to: Frederick County Fire Marshal Fire & Rescue Dept. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665-6350 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Attn: Fire Marshal County Administration Bldg., 1st Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant's Name: Greenwayngineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windt/ Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: Located on the natural boundary created by Interstate 81 on the western edge of the track. US Rt. 11 bisects this area in a North/South linear fashion. CSX and Winclester & Western Railroad have lines paralleling Rt. 11 North. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: M1,B2,B3 Acreage: 154.4 Acres Fire Marshal's Coiurnents: Fire Marshal's Signature & Date: a- aocs 3ce.ltirFt.ij�ii{ ',yl ci; "ir%rlirrt ;;t c�': tiffs iCfnt Ar-S Fieldl : COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No. RZO1-0003 Date Received 7/30/01 Date Reviewed 8/2/01 Applicant Greenway Engineering Address 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Va. 22602 Project Name Rutherford Farm Industrial Park Phone No. 540-662-4185 Type of Application Rezoning Current Zoning RA 1st Due Fire Co. 13 1st Due Rescue Co. 13 Election District Stonewall Tax I.D. No. ,43-A-111, 96,97,98,99,100 RECOMMENDATIONS Automatic Sprinkler SystemXX Residential Sprinkler System Automatic Fire Alarm SystenXX Other REQUIREMENTS Emergency Vehicle Access Adequate Inadequate Not IdentifiedXX Fire Lanes Required Yes XX No Comments Access identified during site plan process, along with waterline extension for fire protection services. Roadway/Aisleway Widths Adequate Inadequate Not IdentifiedXX Special Hazards Noted Yes No XX Comments Hydrant Locations Adequate Inadequate Not IdentifiedXX Siamese Location Adequate Inadequate Not Identified XX Additional Comments Attached? Yes No XX Plan Approval Recommended? Yes XX No Signature Rezoning Comments .:.:r..::..>:..::.:.:....:r.;::ro�.:>,.;:;..>.;:..;.::.:>:...:v.•.: :.: f�::,;:.:.;::::'.:;:;:..:� {ii•i••%ri rl••:'l�.•r.;.:�;i.i•��{rii.:::;iF�.i.:ii ii:;: i.;:; ;i MM; .::rii �:.:.......;.......::! f.:.......:>:i.::..:.:�i.�;r::.i:::.`•f,:..::r;;i:.::,:ir.:i../i�%�i/i �i�����ln�/i /::..!ri//,:� /.:%x•:.. n/.•.�:/i�.!!i %i ri. /�.... Frederick County Department of Inspections Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick County Dept. of Inspections 107 N. Kent Street Attn: Director of Inspections Fourth Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant: Please. fill out. the information as. accurate ly as:possibkjh order. eq:.assfst:Cte.> Planning Department with ttus:reyiew.. Attacli'a;copy.oit:your. appIieatiola fariri locatic.....:::: map, proffer statement,; impact analysis, and: any: .oft er per nent informati:ori : < . .:. Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: Located on the natural boundary created by Interstate 81 on the western edge of the track. US Rt. 11 bisects this area in a North/South linear fashion. CSX and Winchester & Western Railroad have lines paralleling Rt. 11 North. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: M1,B2,B3 Acreage: 154.4 Acres Department of Inspection's Comments: No comment required at this time . Shall con-nent at the time of site plan review. Superintendent's Signature & Date: V96 Notice to Dept. of Ins ectionI$lease. Return 'Phis Fora o flap A n >lcant . - Rezoning Comments :f.yi/r%�fJ!ir ... �. ,:1 ::�::r/:%:: •c:r f:;v.;rif: .:/v.<: '.ii: =:.. Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 868-1061 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: Located on the natural boundary created by Interstate 81 on the western edge of the track. US Rt. 11 bisects this area in a North/South linear fashion. CSX and Winchester & Western Railroad have lines paralleling Rt. 11 North. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: MLB2,B3 Acreage: 154.4 Acres Sanitation Authority Comments vo r,X ; Sanitation Authority Signature & Date:__,�s,%/ -, :•r��nr,.•�/fy,,..... �:.: �i f:"7!f ri 1f. n�•,-r:;<r urrr�i.?%irri r/+ /ice rin�i� r•f/�y �L■ !: ` i' rr •.j jj� rq•{:�/' /?:�..�• n•� •: % / r.. ii�i l%h0���1�Ny.�iy�•.. .��i . •:.•�•:.!.•..i�' ... ` . %.i7.��r�7��?,��.Y,��7JT rr� r/r . y �4E '//��j�� 7 0' • M Rezoning Comments %. v..v::'!/.�i: %�i, i i!%: 'iiii%! !!•%Fi' : /.:: ///%!'is%/i%/r:il;r/i.%:!fir••.%nil'/%:: %r!%r/// �/ !i'r / ::� v�/v%�-iii��! %/ %/%'..!ifi:�:iii'i::�:�::f ii%:% ii/.� 4:S%v%:i:�iiv.:.. x:: vri. v:.i:!vi�i:.:.. / vi������///������// rvl �. / /•i//i'fi: /%•%/ ��l%.vrv!//�:v//..�v/�v����/������%��f Frederick -Winchester Health Department Mail to: Frederick -Winchester IIealth Department Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 722-3480 Hand deliver to: Frederick -Winchester Health Department Attn: Sanitation Enginncer 107 North Kent Street Suite 201 Winchester, Virginia Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: Located on the natural boundary created by Interstate 81 on the western edge of the track. US Rt. 11 bisects this area in a North/South linear fashion. CSX and Wincliester & Western Railroad have lines paralleling Rt. 11 North. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: M1,B2,B3 Acreage: 156.6 Acres Frederick -Winchester Health Department's Continents: litl G T Health Dept. Signature & Date: ,7 La f;...::::•r.:;:;;::;!.:.;!!.:{�.r;,,.;.;•,.%:;r::>:'t::;�.�::$:jam{ji//%/iiii/r:'.!//�'....{i iii<�>%.::%:%,:..;.;..;vi��:'.�!%/'/Y�i�i//•/� ?. 2 1 r M 0 Rezoning Comments Frederick County Attorney Mail to: Frederick County Attorney Co. Administration Bldg, Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-6383 • Hand deliver to: Frederick Co Attorney 107 N. Kent Street Suite 202 Winchester, VA Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Planning Department with this review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: Located on the natural boundary created by Interstate 81 on the western edge of the track US Rt. CSX and Winchester & Western Railroad have lines paralleling Rt.11 North. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: M1,B2,B3 Acreage: 154.4 Acres Count/y�JAttorney's Comments: Cod %h 0, &/ e he- Superintendent's Signature & Date: Va,��'— �I/ Notice to County Attorney - Please Return This Form to the Applicant 0 Rezoning Comments ': r.% %{if'!%� `/.'r` :::;:..:r..;�.: ;oy;.r: �:i!'% �.!.;•.; �.,,:i!.''::!:�i:�':!%:�'%f:`/./i /�'y� "/i/ %%{i i ii{,' ui �:i J//F/`i::.:Jl.' / '9%v, vvviiii.'/." i J : ///� •• 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's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winclester, , VA 22602 Location of property: Located on the natural boundary created by Interstate 81 on the western edge of the track. US Rt. 11 bisects this area in a North/South linear fashion. CSX and Winchester & Western Railroad leave lines paralleling Rt. 11 North. Current zoning: RA Zoiung requested: M1,B2,B3 Acreage: 154.4 Acres Department of Parks & Recreation Comments: Pks. & Rec. Signature & Date: — p ..ii�iii'•..:r�;ni:;i;�F!:'%!:;'G` `v.�vr,,�:;:;.{!i:::;.�., ;. ;'F' ;�..�%;:r�.!:.v ii/�%J�;�•!Jair'v�/iJii i/;%'J%!%//l`�JJ%%///%' .!i//f �%. ic'ta,T t*'atP�:e�x��P1 Rezoning Conunents ��r �,+{ii i {� i ri,% rr//.����/y.•:Y, �4�i..�,�,,,,;� „/r,�,.��;,,;:c�ii:;>:v,:..:;. ,;.;,,.i:<. i/,!':.`::'% i i /'/.-'i/r.., ,/%:' : ii�<�' :�>: •�:; i{i1:.•'/.•:.i: %: /;{�;�i, f iii': /r.�,ri�,r�i�����i�rli:..nnr,. ��.;: n.r%//,.i.../i�f,.�'::i<��:v..,..%�:•r,:::i;ri�i,..�.: i rii ��i,/.�r���/.n�rrri'/.rn:.lin,,,:,,..�/i'::.,.�::,,lriiii//.! Superintendent of Frederick County Public Schools Mail to: Frederick County Public Schools Schools Attn: Superintendent P.O. Box 3508 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 662-3888 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Public Attn: Superintendent, • JU< < Q School Administration Building 1415 Amherst Street—-_ Winchester, Virginia ., Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester. VA 22602 Location of property: Located on [lie natural boundary created by Interstate 81 on the western edge of the traclt. US Rt. 11 bisects this area in a North/South linear fashion. CSX and Winchester & Western Railroad have lines paralleling Rt. 11 North. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: Ml,B2,B3 Acreage: 154.4 Acres Superintendent of Public Schools' Couuunents: Superintendent's Signature & Date: � .-s a w--Jl;" • A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Located in Frederick County, Virginia prepared for: Greenway Engineering, Inc. 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 prepared by: PMA. ,t Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 14532 Lee Road Chantilly, Virginia 20151-1679 October 26, 2001 � I � I OVERVIEW Report Summary This study considers the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park site located along US Route 11, northeast of the I-81 interchange, in Frederick County, Virginia. Access to the site will be provided via two (2) site -driveways situated along the north side of US Route 11. The proposed development is to include a 1,400,000 square foot Industrial Park GTE Code 130) to be completed in a single transportation phase by the year 2010. METHODOLOGY The traffic impacts accompanying the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Calculation of trip generation for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Distribution and assignment of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park generated trips onto the completed roadway network, • Analysis of capacity, level of service and queue using the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS-2000, for existing, future background and future build -out conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes and ADT (Average Daily Trips) were based upon 12-hour intersection counts, 24-hour roadway link counts and 24- hour roadway classification counts. The level of service is "A" at the existing median break for the divided road section and "D" at the 3-lane section. Figure 1 shows the existing ADT and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes along US Route 11. Figure 2 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM and PM peak hour levels of service. All 12-hour intersection counts, 24-hour roadway link counts and 24-hour roadway classification counts are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park October 26, 2001 Page 1 No Scale 3ti6<���1 11 1 �I;°�os�d b,�o Itt�1♦, bti t71.ok��y♦,, � ` SITE Atopos ,moo b� �O 11 M v � ,Lg9l J L t� P--,%F,v • •� , TlT TTl OJ Figure 1 Existing Traffic Conditions 111 M AM(PM) A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park October 26, 2001 Page 2 Signalized Intersection LOS = C(F) ��1 No Scale 0 ��)SITE rPp / �p"°�osod g�tr�a, ?y . �� 11 Unsignalized Intersection v� k*#4 0, A � Unsignalized Intersection -A I AM(PM) * Denotes unsignalized turning movement ' r'Tr\n 1 Figure 2 Existing Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park October 26, 2001 Page 3 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS 1 PHR&A applied a conservative growth rate of 5% per year to the existing traffic volumes (provided in Figure 1) in order to account for future projects that may impact the roadway network surrounding the site. Figure 3 provides the 2010 background ADT and 1 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes along US Route 11. Figure 4 shows the respective background lane geometry and AM and PM peak hour levels of service. 1 TRIP GENERATION The number of trips produced by and attracted to this Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park site were established using ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition rates. Table 1 represents the maximum number of trips for all uses allowed by Frederick County in the ' requested rezoning of this property. I Table I Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park 130 Industrial Park 1,400,000 SF 1,022 224 1,246 270 1,018 1,288 9,744 Total 1,022 224 1,246 270 1,018 1,288 9,744 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed site. Figure 5 represents the trip distribution percentages for vehicles entering and exiting the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park development. Figure 6 shows the respective development -generated AM and PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments along the study area roadway network. I -ad 08111ilikiffli A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park October 26, 2001 Page 4 1 No Scale �pb�,�p11 11 a 00 �,4-,000010 -O o � 1953 � v 13��� 39l i L 000�1/ �,N 11�5 �1ti6� SITE 661 11 L p61`39116 661 AM(PM) TT TTl OJ Figure 3 2010 Background Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park October 26, 2001 Page 5 Signalized Intersection LOS = F(F) �1 11 rOPos�� No Scale SITE 0 OP POSOC1r 00 eqt f� CV Unsignalized as Intersection k 661 Unsignalized 661 Intersection AM(PM) * Denotes unsignalized turning movement -nr rneA Figure 4 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park October 26, 2001 Page 6 PrO�OS� �I? • ct' No Scale ay SITE ArOpOS°� tl� O O� 11 M Cld o� 661 I rrm%n ,k Figure 5 Trip Distribution Percentages A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park October 26, 2001 Page 7 �3�1 11�` 1 11 Pro Posed a�1 D • ,yo No Scale1'@yl,� � )r ►� rzs4)s SITE A6oo 1ti'Ll o bb p A1o'o o^rNry � trt (IS4)S y b � � 1 ^� � p CA N 10000 L 1611ti3 �' p�,� 1 �3 66 00,40 661 <'L 661 AM(PM) TIT TT)R,A - rrMn A., Figure 6 Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rudierford's Farm Industrial Yarx October 26, 2001 Page 8 L C F E I Li C L E I 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS In coordination with the build -out of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, the existing four -lane divided section of US Route 11, which tapers to three (3) lanes just east of I-81, will be extended through to the northeasternmost boundary of the property. All site - driveways will include left and right turn lanes where applicable (the northern driveway will have two inbound left -turn lanes). Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park assigned trips (Figure 6) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 3) to obtain the 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 7 shows the 2010 build -out ADT and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at key roadways/intersections within the study area. Figure 8 shows the respective build -out lane geometry and AM and PM peak hour levels of service. All level of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park development are acceptable and manageable. All project intersections will maintain acceptable levels of service `C' or better for 2010 build -out conditions. Also, based upon the HCS-2000 back of queue results, the northbound left turn movement, at the northern site -driveway, will maintain an average queue length of 340 feet (assuming 25-foot vehicles) during the worst -case AM peak hour condition. A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial nark October 26, 2001 Page 9 1\ ��11ti3� 11 No Scale �6 N 6 ON pOqItt Z .9 0 M CIAen p�30�ti \D N 000 A, Li J L r/ VW, *&,o_ s� 11ti6 G,, A 61 @yva 6(S�S6 ITE 49�II2 v' ryooco ro��� (IS4�S� ^b 1 11 M AM(PM) n - rru-V-n ,k Figure 7 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park October 26, 2001 Page 10 Signalized Intersection LOS = F(F) �G� 11 �rOPosoo, GC' a�D No Scale � 17Ve� av G �►Cd SITE Signalized Intersection G LOS = C(C) A r�C Zlycw ,�� a90 Unsignalized Intersection � �O O ��� 11 Unsignalized c _ Intersection Unsignalized Intersection 61 I AM(PM) I * Denotes unsignalized turning movement - I-IM" . A, Figure 8 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park October 26, 2001 Page 11 � APPENDIX Axle Classification/Volume Report Generated by MSC3000 Version 2.01 Copyright 1990-1992 Mitron Systems Corporati Location Code 11 Recorder Set ...... Recording Start ... 10/25/01 10/25/01 07:15 08:00 Recording End ..... 10/26/01 08:30 Sample Time ....... 30 Minutes Operator Number .. Machine Number .... 11 8 Channel ........... 1 Thursday 10/25/01 Channel: 1 Direction: W Scheme: +F '08:30 ' '14:00 +F1 1 09:00 1 09:30 2 10:00 0 10:30 0 11:00 1 11:30 0 12:00 0 12:30 1 13:00 0 13;30 0 1 +F2 116 111 87 99 79 73 74 104 89 90 85 79 +F3 42 48 39 36 31 35 25 32 26 43 25 31 +F4 1 5 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 +F5 13 14 9 5 7 6 8 8 11 9 16 5 +F6 2 5 8 3 3 4 8 4 3 2 5 3 +97 0 3 2 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 2 2 +F8 6 7 3 1 3 3 6 6 3 5 1 1 14:30 0 105 44 6 14 2 0 2 15:00 0 89 32 2 11 0 1 9 '16:00 15:30 0 2 16:30 2 89 132 130 37 40 35 4 2 2 12 8 8 3 7 2 3 2 1 4 4 10 17:00 2 181 61 1 7 4 4 7 1 'U: '?3:00 ')0:30 '12:30 '4:00 '6:00 17:30 2 18:00 0 L8:30 0 19:00 0 19:30 1 ? 0 : 0 0 0 ?0:30 0 00 0 ?1:30 0 ? 2 : 0 0 0 ?2:30 0 1 '.3:30 1 )0:00 0 0 11:00 0 11:30 0 12:00 1 1 13:00 0 3:30 0 0 4:30 0 5:00 0 5 : 3 0 1 2 6 : 3 0 0 150 110 214 130 86 62 51 46 35 33 38 21 13 22 10 5 6 8 7 8 9 7 12 25 49 49 86 49 34 46 33 17 13 14 10 14 9 7 5 1 3 1 2 1 0 2 2 2 1 6 6 13 19 38 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 10 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 2 0 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 4 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 3 14 3 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 � I )7:00 )7:30 1 1 99 102 46 40 2 3 10 11 6 8 18:00 Daily Totals 0 25 138 3443 60 1156 0 40 10 253 2 107 0.5%- 64.0%- 21.5%- 0.7g 4.7b 2.0%- 'Percentage V Peak Hour dM Peak Hour IM Peak Hour >M Peak Hour .................... Factor ............. .................... Factor 07:30 0,0W 16:30 90.3% to 08:30 to 17:30 (416 (500 vehicles) vehicles) '+F1 -riday 10/26/01 Channel: +F2 1 Direction: W +F3 +F4 Scheme: +F +F5 +F6 ' )8:30 Daily Totals Percentage N Peak Hour 0 0 0.0%- .................... 115 115 63.5%� 41 41 22.7!k 08:00 0 0 0.0% to 08:30 13 13 7.20 (181 3 3 1.7% vehicles) ')M ►M Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor .................... 0.2% Unavailable >M Peak Hour Factor . Unavailable '+F1 Grand Totals Percentage 25 0.4% +F2 3558 64.0% +F3 1197 21.5b +F4 40 0.7b +F5 266 4.811b- +F6 110 2.0!� � I I I � I � I � I IH � I � I � I � I 1 1 1 43 0.8-W +F7 44 0. St t 6 4 6 132 2.53� +F8 4 4 2.2% +F8 136 2.4%- Il V O L U M13 COUNTING PROGRAM KITRON SYSTEMS CORPORATION - NSC3000 Channel Number J. Location Code 11EB Date 10/25/01 Real Time 0733 Start Time 0800 Sample 'Time 15 Divide 2 Summation NO 2-Way NO Operator Number 11 Machine Number 7 PACE 1 10/25/01 0100 0200 0300 0100 0500 0600 07U0 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 140U 1500 1600 1100 1000. 1900 2000 2100 '1200 2300 2400 1263 1046 110G 1146 1126 1045 1300 1594 1713 1559 1121 799 629 548 385 352 343 264 273 270 302 250 313 401 430 3�95. 282 219 171 166 101 77 298 256 231 288 283 211 300 371 373 420 269 219 160 151 100 107 320 269 308 278 268 252 339 43S 465 351 322 197 168 116 84 95 302 259 294 310 273 272 348 383 437 293 248 164 130 115 100 73 10/26/01 0500 0100 0200 0300 U400 ..— 0600 07U0 U800 0900 1000 1100 l?00 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 lBUU 1900 2000 2100 2'l00 2300 2400 180 177 163 169 29S 617 1046 1259 825 73 37 62 38 66 117 198 273 276 44 42 37 46 71 144 280 308 308 35 57 32 32 69 163 272 314 241 28 41 32 53 89 193 296 364 MOVING 24 HOUR TOTAL SAMPLE - CHANNEL Nl 0900- 20640 1000- 20202 1100- 0 1200- 0 .1300- U 1400• 0 1500- 0 1600- 0 1100- 0 0200- 0 0300- 0 0400- 0 0500- 0 0600- 0 0100- 0 0800 U 0100- Channel I Traffic. Check -sum O.K. r. TOTALS 16734 TOTALS 1731 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS and LEVEL OF SERVICE The most current analysis methodologies used for evaluating the capacity of intersections were developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other members of the transportation profession. This methodology is represented in TRB Special Report Number 209, The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Computerized methods for conducting these analyses were developed by FHWA; and are the methods used in this report. The following brief explanations of the methodologies are adapted from the HCM. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - TWSC At an unsignalized two-way stop -controlled (TWSC) intersection, the major street has continuous right of way while the side street is controlled by a stop sign or yield sign. In operation, vehicles exiting the side street and crossing or turning into the main street flow must wait for `acceptable gaps" in the main street flow. The same is true of left -turning traffic from the main street that must cross the opposing flow. The analysis takes into account the probability of a gap in the main street traffic. The probability and number of acceptable gaps is lower in higher volume flows. The acceptability of a gap is modified by physical factors (sight distance, turning radius, etc.) and by characteristics of the traffic flow (percentage trucks, buses, etc.). In the analysis in these reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks (single unit and tractor -trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of service for TWSC intersections is determined only for individual movements - not for the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue position to the first -in -queue position. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The operation (and therefore the capacity) of a signalized intersection is complicated by the fact that the signal is allocating time between conflicting traffic movements - movements that must use the same physical space. The analysis, therefore, must not only look at the physical geometry of the intersection, but the signal timing aspects as well. In the analysis of signalized intersections, two terms are important: volume to capacity ratio (v/c) and; average stopped delay (seconds per vehicle). The theoretical capacity is based on the physical geometry, the available green time (often expressed as G/C), and the traffic mitt (e.g. trucks use more capacity than cars). The average stopped delay may be calculated from the We ratio, cycle length, quality of progression on the arterial and available green time on each approach. in this report all the default values recommended by the HCM are used unless other specific information is available (percentage of trucks, pedestrians, etc.). Existing signal timings are observed and used whenever possible. When fixture signals are being evaluated, an "optional' signal timing is calculated based on projected volumes. The level of service is based on the calculated average delay per vehicle for each approach and for the intersection as a whole. Based on extensive research studies, the maximum delay acceptable by the average driver is sixty seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection. This is defined as the upper limit on the possible range of delay/level of service criteria. The following criteria describe the fiill range of level of service: I fl LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Description A Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, up to 10 sec per velucle. This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Level of Service B describes operations with delay greater than 10 and up to 20 sec per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C Level Of Service C describes operations with delay greater than 20 and up to 35 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass though the intersection without stopping. D Level of Service D describes operations with delay greater than 35 and up to 55 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, longer cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Level of Service E describes operations with delay greater than 55 and up to 80 sec per vehicle. This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high We ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 80 sec per vehicle. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers; often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. Full Report Page 1 of J FULL REPORT 'General Information Site Information US Route 11 & NB Off - Analyst PHRA Intersection Ramp or Co. rea Type All other areas 'Agency Date Performed 10126101 urisdiction rnalysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Year Existing Conditions ' Intersection Geometry Grade = 0 0 2 D Grade = 0 0 0 0 0 r ' 0 ' Grade = ' fi Grade = 0 0 2 0 i Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT volume (vph) 690 76 526 326 % Heavy veh 9 9 9 1 9 P H F 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1 Actuated P/A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 'Arrival type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 1 0 25 ' Lane Width 1 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking/hr ' Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Ped timing 3.2 3.2 WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 ' G= 60.0 G= G= G= 1Y= G= 45.0 IY= G= G= G= Timing Y= 2.0 JY= Y= 2.0 Y= Y= Y= ' Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 ycle Length C = 115.0 10/26/2001 file://C:\temp\s2k3217.TMP Full Report Yage L or 3 L � I F7 L VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Volume Adjustment EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 690 76 526 326 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow Rate 726 54 554 343 Lane Group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 726 54 554 343 Prop. LT or RT - 0.000 - 1.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 Saturation Flow Rate Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 fW 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 V 0.917 0.917 0.917 0.917 9 1.000 1.000 1.000 fp 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 b 1.000 1.000 -T,000 1.000 a 1.00 1.00 1.00 fLU 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 fl-T - .950 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - Secondary fLT - - - - T - - 10.850 - 1.000 - 1.000 pb - 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - pb - - 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 Adj. satflow 1656 1482 3312 3312 ec. adj. satflow - - - - Ifile://C:\temp\s2k3217.TMP 10/26/2001 Full Report ay'c CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Capacity Anal sis EB WB NB SB Lane group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 726 54 554 343 atflow rate 11656 1482 3312 3312 Lost time 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.52 0.52 0.39 0.39 Lane group cap. 864 773 1296 1296 /c ratio 0.84 0.07 0.43 0.26 Flow ratio 0.44 0.04 1 0.17 10.10 rit. lane group Y N Y N Sum flow ratios 0.61 Lost time/cycle 10.00 Critical v/c ratio 0.66 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, nd LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Lane group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 726 54 554 343 Lane group cap. 1864 773 1296 1296 /c ratio 10.84 0.07 10.43 0.26 Green ratio 0.52 0.52 0.39 0.39 Unif. delay dl 23.4 13.6 25.6 23.8 Delay factor k 0.38 0.11 0.11 0.11 Increm. delay d2 7.5 0.0 0.2 0.1 PF factor 1.000 1.000 113.7 1.000 1.000 Control delay 30.9 25.8 23.9 Lane group LOS C B C C pprch. delay 29.7 25.8 23.9 pproach LOS C C C Intersec. delay 27.2 Intersection LOS C HCS2000T '�I file:HC:\temp\s2k3217.TMP Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Keservea 10/26/2001 Full Report rage t or 3 FULL REPORT General Information Site Information US Route 11 & NB Off - Analyst PHRA Intersection Ramp Agency or Co. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 10126101 Jurisdiction ime Period PM Peak Hour nalysis Year Existing Conditions Intersection Geometry Grade = 0 0 2 0 Grade = 0 0 0 0 /'— 0 r 0 Grade = Grade = 0 0 2 0 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT I LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 961 1140 1951 452 % Heavy veh 9 1 9 1 9 9 PHF 0.95 10.95 10.95 0.95 Actuated P/A A I A I A A Startup lost time 12.0 2.0 1 1 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 1 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 6 0 25 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Ped timing 3.2 3.2 WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 G= 60.0 IG= G= I G I G= 60.0 G= G= G= I iming Y= 2.0 JY= 1Y= JY= 2.0 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 CVClia Len th C = 130.0 file://C:\temp\s2k4159.TMP 10/26/2001 Full Report VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Volume Adjustment EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 961 140 951 452 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow Rate 1012 121 1001 476 Lane Group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 1012 121 1001 476 Prop. LT or RT - 0.000 - 1.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 Saturation Flow Rate Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 rvvV 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.917 0.917 0.917 0.917 9 1.000 1.000 1.000 p 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 b 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 a 1.00 1.00 1.00 fLU 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 fl-T- .950 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - Secondary fLT - - _ l- _ - 0.850 - 1.000 - 1.000 pb - 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - pb _ - 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 Adj. satflow 1656 1482 3312 3312 Sec. adj. satflow file://C:\temp\s2k4159.TMP 10/26/2001 Full Report agu CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Ruiherford's Industrial Park Capacity Analysis EB WB NB SB Lane group L LR T T Adj. flow rate atflow rate 1012 1656 121 1482 1001 3312 476 3312 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 Lane group cap. 764 684 1529 1529 /c ratio 1.32 0.18 0.65 0.31 Flow ratio 0.61 0.08 0.30 0.14 rit. lane group Y N Y N Sum flow ratios 0.91 Lost time/cycle 10.00 Critical We ratio 0.99 Lane Group Capacity, ontrol Delay,and LOS Determination EB WB NB SIB Lane group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 1012 121 1001 476 Lane group cap. 764 684 1529 1529 /c ratio 1.32 18 0.65 0.31 Green ratio 0.46 46 0.46 0.46 Unif. delay d1 35.0 .5 27.0 22.0 Delay factor k 0.50 11 [20.6 0.23 0.11 Increm. delay d2 155.1 1 1.0 0.1 PF factor 1.000 000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 190.1 26.0 22.1 Lane group LOS F C C C pprch. delay 172.0 28.0 22.1 Approach LOS F C C Intersec. delay 89.5 Intersection LOS F Version 4_1v 11CS2000TM Copyright U 2uuv university of rionua, %n .. t; ". file:HC:\temp\s2k4159.TNW 10/26/2001 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. Date Performed 10126101 Analysis Time Period AM Peak US Route 11 & NB On - Intersection ramp Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park East/West Street: NB On -ram North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South tud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 368 224 10 6 301 109 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 387 235 10 6 316 114 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 — — 9 — — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 1 1 onfi uration L T TR L T R U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 25 15 14 39 23 22 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 26 15 14 0 0 i0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 9 9 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration LTR Dellay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SIB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR (vph) 387 6 55 (m)(vph) 1078 1269 161 /c 0.36 0.00 0.34 5% queue length 1.65 0.01 1.41 Control Delay 10.2 7.9 38.5 LOS B A E Approach Delay — — 38.5 [Approach LOS — — E 11 file://C:\temp\u2k5025 .TMP 10/26/2001 1'wo-Way Stop Control rage 1 or z TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. Date Performed 10126101 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Intersection US Route 11 & NB On - ramp Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park EastMlest Street: NB On -ram North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 382 684 25 19 431 50 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 402 720 26 20 453 52 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 — — 9 — — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 1 1 Configuration L T TR L T R upstream Signal 10 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 21 22 12 39 23 22 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 22 23 12 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 9 9 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR (vph) 402 20 57 (m)(vph) 1008 813 71 /c 0.40 0.02 0.80 5% queue length 1.94 0.08 3.83 Control Delay 10.9 9.5 153.8 LOS B A F Approach Delay — — 153.8 pproach LOS — — F fi1e://C:\temp\u2k51 F 1.TMP 10/26/2001 Two -Way Stop Control rage i of TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection US Route 11 & SB Ramps Agency/Co. Date Performed 10/26101 Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park East/West Street: SB Rams North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 T R L T R L Volume 127 499 764 127 889 109 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 525 804 133 1 935 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 — — 9 — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T U stream Si nal 0 0 inor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 25 499 764 27 0 412 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 28 1 0 1 433 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 9 9 9 9 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N torage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R (vph) 133 28 433 (m) (vph) 480 143 523 /c 0.28 0.20 0.83 5% queue length 1.12 0.70 8.30 Control Delay 15.3 36.2 36.9 LOS C E E 36.9 pproach Delay — — E pproach LOS — — 0 file://C:\temp\u2k53 81.TMP Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1a 10/26/2001 Two -Way Stop Control rage i or TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection US Route 11 & SB Ramps Agency/Co. Date Performed 10/26/01 Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park East/West Street: SB Rams North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 T R L T R L Volume 127 897 816 154 1259 109 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 944 858 162 1325 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 — — 9 — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T U stream Si nal 0 0 inor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 25 499 764 54 0 423 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 56 0 445 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 9 9 9 9 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 R Configuration LT Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R (vph) 162 56 445 (m) (vph) 310 0 388 lc 0.52 1.15 2.85 16.96 5% queue length ontrol Delay 28.6 124.0 LOS p F F pproach Delay — — — — pproach LOS Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1a file://C:\temp\u2k6292-TW 10/26/2001 Full Report rage i or S FULL REPORT General Information Site Information US Route 11� NB Off - st Analyst PHRA Intersection Ram Agency or Co. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 10126101 Jurisdiction Time Period AM Peak Hour nalysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Intersection Geometry Grade = 0 0 2 0 T Grade = 0 0 0 0 r— 0 r 0 1 Grade = Grade = 0 0 2 0 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 1070 118 616 506 % Heavy veh 9 9 9 9 PHF 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Actuated P/A A A I A A �startup lost time 12.0 2.0 1 12.0 12.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 25 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Ped timing 3.2 3.2 WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 G= 55.0 G= G= G= G= 50.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 2.0 IY= Y= IY= IY= 2.0 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Len th C = 115.0 file://C:\temp\s2k92F8.TMP 10/26/2001 Full Report VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Volume Adjustment EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 1070 118 816 506 P H F 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow Rate 1126 98 859 533 Lane Group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 1126 98 859 533 Prop. LT or RT - 0.000 - 1.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 Saturation Flow Rate Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 V 0.91710.917 0.917 0.917 9 1.000 1.000 1.000 fP 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 b 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 a 1.00 1.00 1.00 fLUT 1.00 11.00 0.95 0.95 - .950 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - Secondary fLT - - T _ - 0.850 - 1.000 - 1.000 pb - 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - pb _ - 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 Adj. satflow 1656 1482 3312 312 - _ Sec. adj. satflow file:HC:\temp\s2k92F8.TMP 10/26/2001 Full Report agu CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Capacity Analysis EB WB NB SB Lane group Adj. flow rate atflow rate L 1126 1656 LR 98 1482 T 859 3312 T 533 3312 Lost time 2.0 A2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.48 0.48 0.43 0.43 Lane group cap. 792 709 1440 11440 /c ratio 1.42 0.14 0.60 0.37 Flow ratio 0.68 0.07 0.26 0.16 rit. lane group Y N Y N Sum flow ratios 0.94 Lost time/cycle 10.00 Critical v/c ratio 1.03 Lane Group Capacity, ontrol Delay, nd LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Lane group L LR T T Adj. flow rate Lane group cap. 1126 792 98 709 859 1440 533 1440 /c ratio 11.42 0.14 1 10.60 0.37 Green ratio 10.48 0.48 0.43 0.43 Unif. delay dl 30.0 16.8 24.8 21.9 Delay factor k 0.50 0.11 0.19 0.11 Increm. delay d2 197.1 0.1 0.7 0.2 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 227.1 16.8 25.5 22.1 Lane group LOS F B C C pprch. delay 210.3 25.5 22.1 Approach LOS Intersec. delay 111.3 I F C Intersection LOS C F Vcrsinn 4.1a 11CS2000T" file:HC:\temp\s2k92F8.TMP copyngm v zvvu umvciany m ..�"..."- 5......---..-- 10/26/2001 Full Report � I FULL REPORT General Information Site Information US Route 11 & NB Off - Analyst PHRA Intersection Ramp Agency or Co. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 10126101 urisdiction 2010 Background Time Period AM Peak Hour Analysis Year Conditions Intersection Geometry Grade = 0 0 2 0 Y Grade = 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade = fi Grade = 0 0 2 0 Volume and Timing Input WB NB SB LT EB TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 1070 1118 1616 506 % Heavy veh 0.95 9 9 0.95 9 0.95 9 0.95 PHF A A A A Actuated P/A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Startuplost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 3 3 3 3 Arrival e 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Unit Extension Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume Lane Width 0 0 12.0 12.0 25 12.0 12.0 N N N N N N N N Parking (Y or N) Parking/hr 0 1 0 Bus stops/hr 0 0 Ped timing 3.2 3.2 WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 G= 55.0 G= G= G= G= 50.0 G= G= G= iming Y= Y= Y= 2.0 IY= ly= ly= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 lCycle Length C = 115.0 10/26/2001 file://C:\temp\s2k92F8.TMP Full Report ur,- � I u � I VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET FIE FIE FIE FIE mm Adj. Flow Rate MOWN Lane Group FIE FIE Adj. flow rate !Prop. LT or RT Base safflow FIEaFIE mm FIE E Not "Ime FIE FIE FIE conclary IT ENE FIE FIE��IEN i��i� Adj. satflow file://C:\temp\s2k92F8.TMP 10/26/2001 Full Report ar'c. CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Capacity Analysis EB ane group dj. flow rate atflow rate ost time ireen ratio ane group cap. Ic ratio low ratio ;rit. lane group ;um flow ratios .ost time/cycle 'dtical v/c raflo _ane Group _ane group adj. flow rate _ane group cap. //c ratio 3reen ratio Unif. delay dl Delay factor k Increm. delay d2 PF factor Control delay Lane group LOS pprch. delay Approach LOS Intersec. delay HCS2000T''t OM MMMMM ==owes 0.94 10.00 1.03 Control Dela ,and LOS Determination EB WB NB L LR T 1126 98 859 792 709 1440 1.42 0.14 0.60 0.48 0.48 10.43 30.0 16.8 24.8 0.50 0.11 0.19 197.1 0.1 0.7 1.000 1.000 27.1 E6.8 25.5 F C 210.3 25.5 F C 111.3 Intersection LOS Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved file:HC:\temp\s2k92F8.TMP SB T 533 3312 2.0 0.43 1440 0.37 0.16 N SB T 533 1440 0.37 0.43 21.9 0.11 0.2 1.000 22.1 C 22.1 C F Version 4.1a 10/26/2001 � I Long Report L7 � I ji J J � I LONG REPORT General Information Site Information US Route 11 & NB Off - Analyst PHRA Intersection Ramp Agency or Co. rea Type All other areas Date Performed 10126101 Jurisdiction 2010 Background Time Period PM Peak Hour nalysis Year Conditions Intersection Geometry Grade = 0 0 2 0 f Grade = 0 0 0 0 0 y� 0 Grade = Grade = 0 0 2 0 Volume and Timing Input NB SB EB WB LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT I LT TH RT Volume (vph) 1491 217 1475 701 % Heavy veh 9 9 9 9 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Actuated P/A A 2.0 2.0 A A 2.0 A 2.0 Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.6 Ext. eff. green 3 3 3 3 Arrival e Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 25 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) Parking/hr N N N N N N N N Bus stops/hr Ped timing 3.2 0 0 3.2 0 0 WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 G= 50.0 G= G= G IG= 80.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= Y= Y= 2.0 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 cle Len th C = 140.0 fi1e://C:\temp\s2kA266.TMP 10/26/2001 � I Long Report VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Volume Adjustment EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 1491 217 1475 701 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow Rate 1569 F202 1553 738 Lane Group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 1569 202 1553 738 Prop. LT or RT - 0.000 - 1.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 Saturation Flow Rate Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 fW 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 V 0.917 0.917 0.917 0.917 9 1.000 1.000 1.000 p 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 b 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 a 1.00 1.00 1.00 fLU 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 T - .950 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - Secondary IT T _ - 10.850 - 1.000 - 1.000 pb - 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - pb _ - 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 satflow 1656 1482 3312 312 . adj. satflow F - - file:HC:\temp\s2kA266.TMP 10/26/2001 Long Report CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Capacity Analysis EB WB NB SB Lane group Adj. flow rate atfiow rate L 1569 1656 LR 202 1482 T 1553 3312 T 738 3312 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.36 0.36 0.57 0.57 Lane group cap. 591 529 1893 1893 /c ratio 2.65 0.38 0.82 0.39 Flow ratio 1 0.95 0.14 0.47 0.22 rit. lane group Y N Y N Sum flow ratios 1.42 Lost time/cycle 10.00 Critical We ratio 1.53 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, nd LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Lane group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 1569 202 1553 738 Lane group cap. 591 529 1893 1893 /c ratio 2.65 0.38 0.82 0.39 Green ratio 0.36 0.36 0.57 0.57 Unif. delay d1 45.0 33.5 24.2 16.5 Delay factor k 0.50 0.11 0.36 0.11 Increm. delay d2 749.5 0.5 3.0 0.1 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 794.5 34.0 27.2 16.7 Lane group LOS F C C B pprch. delay 707.8 27.2 1 6.7 Approach LOS F C 8 B Intersec. delay 322.0 Intersection LOS F fi1e://C:\temp\s21 A266.TMP 10/26/2001 Long Report dg' G SUPPLEMENTAL UNIFORM DELAY WORKSHEET FOR LEFT TURNS FROM EXCLUSIVE LANES WITH PROTECTED AND PERMITTED PHASES General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park /c Ratio Computation EB WB NB SB Cycle length, C (s) 140.0 Prot. phase eff. green intvl, g (s) Opposed queue eff. green intvl, gq (s) Unopposed green intvl, gu (s) Red time, r(s) Arrival rate, qa (veh/s) Prot. phase departure rate, sp (veh/s) Perm. phase departure rate, ss (veh/s) Perm Prot (N/A for lagging left -turns) Uniform Queue Size and Delay Computations Queue at start of green arrow, Qa Queue at start of unsaturated green, Qu Residual queue, Qr Uniform delay, di Uniform Queue Size and Delay Equations Case Qa Qu Qr di If Xperm <= 1.0 & Xprot <= 1.0 1 qar ga9g 0 0.5/(gaC)][rQa + Qav(sp qg) +g gQu + Quv(Ss a) 2 qar Qr+ gagq Qa - g(sp - qa) 0. v/Sgaq )][rQa + g(Qa + Qr) +gq (Qr+ Qu) + u If Xperm <= 1.0 & Xprot > 1.0 3 Qr +gar gagg Qu - gu(Ss - qa) 0.5/(gaC)][ggQu + gu(Qa + Qr) + f(Qr + Qa) + av(Sp - qa) If Xperm > 1.0 & Xprot <= 1.0 4 5 0 u - gu(Ss - a) qa(r + gq) qa(rJ+g 0 0 0.5/(gaC)][r + gq)Qu + Qu2/(s9 - qa) 0.5/(gaC)][r + gq)Qu + gu(Qu + Qa) + Qav(SP a) If Xperm <= 1.0 efts If Xperm > 1.0 (lagging lefts) f11e://C:\temp\s2kA266.TNW 10/26/2001 Long Report rage:) of:) BACK -OF -QUEUE WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Average Back of Queue EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Lane group L LR T T Init. queue/lane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Flow rate/lane 1569 202 1553 738 atflow per lane 1656 1482 1656 1656 Capacity/lane 591 529 1893 1893 Flow ratio 0.95 0.14 0.47 0.22 /c ratio 2.65 0.38 0.82 0.39 I factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 Platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 61.0 5.8 24.3 7.9 kB 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.9 2 123.3 0.4 3.4 0.6 avg. 184.3 6.2 27.8 8.5 Percentile Back of Queue (95th percentile) °�° 1.5 1.9 1.6 1.9 BOQ, Q% EE 1 76.5 12.0 45.2 1 1 115.9 Queue Storage Ratio spacing 24.9 24.9 24.9 storage 0 0 0 vg. RQ 5% Ra NCS2000TM f11e://CAtemp\s2kA266.TMP Copyright 0 2000 University of Floridn, All Kignts Keservca 10/26/2001 Two -Way Stop Control dr'' G TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information US Route 11 & NB On - Analyst PHRA Intersection ramp Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 10126101 nalysis Year 2010 Background Analysis Time Period AM Peak Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park East/West Street: NB On -ram North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Ptudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 T R L T R L Volume 571 347 16 9 467 169 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 601 365 1 16 9 491 177 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 — — 9 — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 1 Lanes 1 2 0 1 1 L T R A0 Configuration L T TR U stream Si nal 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 39 23 22 39 23 22 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 41 24 23 01 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 9 9 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR (vph) 601 872 0.69 9 1125 0.01 86 71 1.24 (m) (vph) /c 5.70 17.8 0.02 8.2 6.90 286.2 5% queue length control Delay LOS C A F — — — — 286.2 F Lpproach Delay pproach LOS file://C:\temp\u2kB 173.TMP 10/26/2001 Two -Way Stop Control i a6v i Vi TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information US Route 11 & NB On - Analyst PHRA Intersection ramp Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 10/26/01 nalysis Year 2010 Background Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park US Route 11 East/West Street: NB On-rampNorth/South Street: Intersection Orientation: North-South[Study Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 L 2 T 3 R 4 L j 5 T 6 R olume 593 1061 39 29 669 78 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 .95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 624 1116 41 704 82 Percent HeavyVehicles 9 9 9 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 1 Lanes 1 2 0 1 1 1 onfi uration L T TR L T R U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 33 34 19 39 23 22 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 34 35 20 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 9 9 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 1 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 ' Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Eastbound Approach NB SB Westbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR 1 (vph) 624 30 89 (m) (vph) 785 561 13 /c 0.79 0.05 6.85 5% queue length 8.25 0.17 12.23 Control Delay 24.8 11.8 LOS C B F Approach Delay — — ' Approach LOS — — F > 10/26/2001 fi1e://C:\temp\u2kB295.TMP l'wo-Way Stop Control rage 1 or z TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. Date Performed 10126101 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Intersection US Route 11 & SB Ramps Jurisdiction 2010 Background Analysis Year Conditions Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park East/West Street: SB Rams North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South tud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R volume 127 774 1185 197 1379 109 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 814 1247 207 1451 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 — — 9 — — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 onfi uration T R L T U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 25 499 764 42 0 639 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 1 0 44 1 0 1672 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 1 9 9 9 9 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 Configurationn LT R Delay, Queue Len th and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R (vph) 207 1 44 672 (m) (vph) 243 13 352 /c 0.85 3.38 1.91 5% queue length 6.84 6.44 45.53 Control Delay 68.9 444.8 LOS F F F Approach Delay — — 51 pproach LOS — — F F file ://C : \temp\u2kC2D 5 . TMP 10/26/2001 Two -Way Stop Control a G TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Intersection US Route 11 & SB Ramps Analyst PHRA Jurisdiction Agency/Co. 2010 Background Date Performed 10126101 Analysis Year Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park East/West Street: SB Rams North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South tud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 R L T R L T Volume 127 1392 1266 239 1953 109 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1465 1332 251 2055 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 — — 9 — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 onfi uration T R L T U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 25 499 764 84 0 656 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 88 0 690 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 9 9 9 9 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 onfiuration LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R (vph) 251 88 690 (m) (vph) 121 0 220 /c 2.07 3.14 20.78 570.1 62.87 5% queue length Control Delay F F F LOS — — — — Approach Delay pproach LOS file://C:\temp\u2kD0C5.TMP 10/26/2001 Short Report ragc 1 ui SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. Date Performed 10126101 Time Period AM Peak Hour US Route 11 & NB Off - Intersection Ramp Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction nalysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT I TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 0 0 2 0 Lane group olume v h % Heavy veh PHF Actuated P/A Startup lost time Ext. eff. green Arrival type L 1070 9 0.95 A 2.0 12.0 1 3 LR 2.0 2.0 3 424 1 9 0.95 A I T 1276 9 10.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 T 623 9 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 Unit Extension 13.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 1 0 50 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 rNj 112.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N N N 0 N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing Timing WB Only G= 50.0 Y= 02 G= I Y= 03 G= Y= 1Y= 04 G= IY= Thru Only G= 50.0 5 06 G= Y= 07 G= ly= 08 G= 1Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 vcle Length C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacip,, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 1126 394 1343 656 Lane group cap. 753 674 1505 1505 /c ratio 1.50 0.58 0.89 0.44 Green ratio 0.45 0.45 10.45 10.45 Unif. delay d1 30.0 22.3 27.5 20.4 Delay factor k 0.50 0.18 0.42 0.11 Increm. delay d2 29.9L23.6 7.2 0.2 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 59.9 34.720.6 Lane group LOS F C C pprch. delay 198.7 34.7 20.6 Approach LOS F C C Intersec. delay 102.9 Intersection LOS F Verzinn 4.1a HCS2000T`1 copyngni v iuuu umvcisuy V. fi1e:HC:\temp\s2kD2CC.TNV 10/26/2001 Full Report Page 1 of 3 FULL REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. Date Performed 10126101 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction nalysis Year US Route 11 & NB Off - Ramp All other areas 2010 Build -out Condiitons Intersection Geometry Grade = 0 0 0 0 Grade = 0 2 0 2 0 0 Grade = 0 0 r-- 0 r Grade = 0 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 1491 1298 1597 1235 % Heavy veh 1 9 9 9 9 PHF 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Actuated P/A A A A A Startup lost time 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 1 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 13.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 1 0 50 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N I N N N N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Ped timing 3.2 3.2 WB Only 02 03 1 Thru Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 50.0 IG= G= G I G= 80.0 G= G= G= Y= 2.0 IY= Y IY= IY= 2.0 Y= 1Y= IY= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 140.0 fi1e://C:\temp\s2kE0C6.TMP 10/26/2001 cull xeport VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Volume Adjustment EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT RT LT TH RT Volume 1491 298 q157 1235 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow Rate 1569 261 1681 11300 Lane Group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 1569 261 1681 1300 Prop. LT or RT - 0.000 - 1.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 1 - 0.000 Saturation Flow Rate Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 HV 0.917 10.917 io. 917 !0.917 9 1.000 1.000 1.000 p 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 b 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 a 1.00 1.00 1.00 fLU 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 fl-T 0.950 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - Secondary fLT - - - - T - - 0.850 - 1.000 - 1.000 pb - 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - pb - - 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 Adj. satflow 1656 1482 3312 3312 Sec. adj. satflow - - - - fi1e:HC:\temp\s2kE0C6.TMP 10/26/2001 Full Report "b" CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Capacity Analysis EB V116 NB SB Lane group L LR T T Adj. flow rate atflow rate 1569 1656 261 1482 1681 3312 1300 3312 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.36 0.36 0.57 0.57 Lane group cap. 591 529 1893 1893 /c ratio 12.65 0.49 0.89 0.69 Flow ratio 0.95 0.18 0.51 0.39 rit. lane group Y N Y N Sum flow ratios 1.46 Lost time/cycle 10.00 Critical v/c ratio 1.57 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, nd LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Lane group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 1569 261 11681 1300 Lane group cap. 591 529 1693 1893 /c ratio 2.65 0.49 0.89 0.69 Green ratio 0.36 0.36 0.57 0.57 Unif, delay d1 45.0 35.1 26.1 21.2 Delay factor k 0.50 0.11 10.41 0.26 Increm. delay d2 749.5 0.7 15.6 1 1.1 PF factor 1.000 0 1.000 1.000 control delay 794.5 [35.8 31.7 22.2 Lane group LOS F C C perch. delay 686.3 31.7 22.2 Approach LOS r278.1 F C C Intersec. delay Intersection LOS _. .. ... �. .. .. _._., F Version 4.1a HCS2000T"{ Copyngni a tuuu umve1a1ty of 1-11", 1--1.5...., -- fi1e://C:\temp\s2kE0C6.TMP 10/26/2001 Full Report FULL REPORT General Information Site Information US Route 11 & NB Off - Analyst PHRA Intersection Ramp Agency or Co. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 10126101 unsdiction Time Period AM Peak Hour [Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Intersection Geometry Grade = 0 0 2 0 ■ Grade = 0 0 0 0 �� 0 0 Grade = Grade = 0 0 2 0 Volume and Timing Input NB SB EB WB LT TH RT LT TH___l RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 1070 1424 1276 62�3 HeavyOYO veh 9 9 9 0.95 0:95 0.95 0.95 PHF A A A A Actuated P/A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Startuplost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 3 3 3 3 Arrival type 3.0 3.0 3.0 Unit Extension 1 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 t3.0 50 12.0 Lane Width 12.0.0 112.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking/hr 0 Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 Ped timing 3.2 3.2 WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 G= 50.0 G= G= G= G= 50.0 G= G= G= iming Y= 2.0 Y= Y= Y= Y= 2.0 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Anal sis hrs = 0.25 cle Length C = 110.0 10/26/2001 file://C:\temp\s2kE2D8.TMP Full Report ubv VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET eneral Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Volume Adjustment EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 1070 424 1276 623 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF 1126 394 1343 656 dj. Flow Rate Lane Group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 1126 394 1343 656 Prop. LT or RT - 0.000 - 1.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 Saturation Flow Rate Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 0 0 0 1 0 F 0 2 0fvv 0 2 0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.917 0.917 0.917 0.917 V--T 9 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 b 1.00 1.00 1.00 a 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 fLU - 950 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - T Secondary fLT _ - 0.850 - 1.000 - 1.000 T - 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - P b _ - 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 pb 1656 1482 312 3312 dj. satflow sec. adj. satflow file:HC:\temp\s2kE2D8.TMP 10/26/2001 -t:,- CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Capacity Analysis EB lne group ij. flow rate Aflow rate )st time reen ratio ane group cap. c ratio low ratio rit. lane group um flow ratios ost time/cycle ritical We ratio .ane Group _ane group \dj. flow rate _ane group cap. i/c ratio 3reen ratio Jnif. delay d1 Delay factor k Increm. delay d2 PF factor Control delay Lane group LOS pprch. delay Approach LOS Intersec. delay HCs2000TXl ® ®-- --M ®' Mr �MM O -- E 1.09 10.00 1.19 Control Delay, nd LOS Determination EB WB NB L LR T 1126 394 1343 753 674 1505 1.50 0.58 10.89 0.45 0.45 0.45 30.0 122.3 27.5 0.50 0.18 0.42 229.9 1.3 7.2 1.000 1.000 1.000 59.9 23.6 34.7 F C C 198.7 34.7 F C 102.9 Intersection LOS Copyright 9 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved ii1e:HC:\temp\s2kE2D 8.TMP SB T 656 3312 2.0 0.45 1505 0.44 0.20 N SB T 656 1505 0.44 0.45 20.4 0.11 0.2 1.000 20.6 C 20.6 C F Version 4.1a 10/26/2001 Full Report rage 1 Ul o II' FULL REPORT General Information Site Information US Route 11 & Site - Analyst PHRA Intersection Driveway or Co. rea Type All other areas 'Agency Date Performed 10126101 urisdiction Time Period AM Peak Hour nalysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Intersection Geometry Grade = 0 1 2 0 f Grade = 1 1 � 0 0 0 1 0 ' Grade = 0 Grade = 0 2 1 0 ' Volume and Timing Input SB EB WB NB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 'Volume (vph) 56 112 766 369 748 9 153 8 % Heavy veh 8 8 8 9 1 P H F 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Actuated P/A A A A A LA 2.0 A 2.0 Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 3 'Ext. Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3.0 3.0 Unit Extension 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking/hr 0 0 ' Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Ped timing 3.2 3.2 3.2 EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only Thru & RT 07 08 ' G= 20.0 IY= G= IY= G= ly= G= G= 40.0 G= 45.0 G= IY= 1 G= Timing 2.0 Y= 2.0 Y= 2.0 Y 1Y= ' Duration of Anal sis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Lenrith C = 120.0 10/26/2001 file://C:\temp\s2kF 126.TMP �� I mull � I � I � I � I � I � I � I VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Volume Adjustment EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 56 1112 766 369 748 153 Volume 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF 59 118 806 388 787 161 Adj. Flow Rate Lane Group L R L T T R Adj. flow rate 59 118 806 388 787 161 Prop. LT or RT - - 0.000 - 0.000 .000 - 0.000 Saturation Flow Rate Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Fvv 0.926 0.926 0.926 0.917 0.917 0.926 V 1.000 1.000 9 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 P 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 b 1.00 1.00 a 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 fLU 0.950 _ - 0.950 1.000 - 1.000 - fl-T econdary fLT - 0.850 - - 1.000 - 1.000 0.850 T 1.000 - - 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 - pb - 1.000 - - 1.000 - 1.000 1.000 P b 1671 1495 242 1743 312 1495 dj. satflow ec. adj. satflow file:HC:\temp\s2kF 126.TMP 10/26/2001 P'u.11 Report �1 CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Capacity Analysis EB WB Lane group L R L NB T SB T R 59 118 806 388 787 161 Adj. flow rate 1671 1495 3242 1743 3312 1495 atflow rate 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost time 0.17 0.54 0.33 0.75 0.38 0.58 Green ratio 279 810 1081 1307 1242 872 Lane group cap. 0.21 0.15 0.75 0.30 0.63 0.18 /c ratio FO.O4 0.08 0.25 0.22 0.24 0.11rit. Flow ratio N Y N Y N lane group 0.52 um flow ratios file://C:\temp\s2kF 126.TNW 10/26/2001 Full Report FULL REPORT General Information Site Information US Route 11 & Site - Analyst PHRA Intersection Driveway Agency or Co. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 10/25/01 urisdiction Time Period PM Peak Hour [Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Intersection Geometry Grade = 0 1 2 0 Grade = 1 � 0 0 0 1 � 0 Grade = 0 Grade = 0 2 1 0 Volume and Timing Input NB SB EB WB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 254 609 203 1080 803 41 % Heavyveh PHF 8 0.95 8 0.95 8 0.95 9 0.95 9 0.95 8 0.95 Actuated P/A A A A A A 2.0 A 2.0 Startuplost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 3 3 3 3 Arrival e Unit Extension 3 3.0 3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 100 0 0 12.0 0 12.0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking/hr 0 3.2 0 3.2 0 0 0 3.2 0 Bus stops/hr Ped timing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only Thru & RT 07 08 G= 25.0 G= G= G= G= 35.0 G= 45.0 G= G= Timing Y= 2.0 IY= 1Y= Y= Y= 2.0 Y= 2.0 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 1 Cvcle Length C = 120.0 file://C:\temp\s2kF2CB.TMP 10/26/2001 Full Report 1 ap, ` v, ` VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Volume Adjustment 1 EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 41 Volume 254 609 203 1080 803 0.95 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1Adj. 43 845 Flow Rate 267 536 214 1137 1 R T Lane Group L R L T I Adj. flow rate 267 536 214 1137 845 43 — 0.000 — 0.000 0.000 — 0.000 Prop. LT or RT — 1 Saturation Flow Rate 1 Base satflow 1900 10/26/2001 file:HC:\temp\s2kF2CB.TMP Two -Way Stop Control TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY 'General Information Site Information Analyst PHR&A Intersection Right in/out & US Route 11 IAgency/Co. Date Performed 10/25/01 Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park East/West Street: Right in/out Site-DrivewayNorth/South Street: US Route 11 Orientation: North -South otudy Period hrs : 0.25 Intersection ehicle Volumes and Adjustments ' Northbound Southbound aior Street 1 2 3 4 L 5 T 6 R ovement L T R ' olume 0 1136 0.95 0 0 0.95 0.95 757 0.95 102 0.95 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0 796 107 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1195 0 0 — — 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles Raised curb 0 Median Type 0 2 1 RT Channelized 0 2 0 0 Lanes T R Configuration T 0 U stream Signal 0 inor Street Westbound Eastbound 12 Movement 7 8 9 10 11 T R L T R L olume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0 0 0.95 0.95 0 0 0.95 0.95 0 0.95 56 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 58 8 I Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 1 Lanes 0 0 0 0 R Configuration Belay, Queue Len th and Level of Service Eastbound Approach NB SB Westbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 R Lane Configuration 58 (vph) 585 (m) (vph) 0.10 We 0.33 5%queue length 11.8 Control Delay 8 B LOS 1 1.8 pproach Delay - - B B pproach LOS — — ' % Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1a 10/26/2001 file: //C:\temp\u2kl 35.TMP � I Two -Way Stop Control abc TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR&A Intersection Right in/out & US Route 11 Agency/Co. Date Performed 10/25/01 Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park East/West Street: Right in/out Site -Driveway North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South — I§tudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments a'or Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 0 1283 0 0 1384 27 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1350 0 1 0 1456 28 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — edian Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Si nal 0 0 nor Street Westbound Eastbound vement 7 8 9 10 11 12 rolume L T R L T R 0 0 0 0 0 154 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 1 0 0 0 162 Percent HeavyVehicles 0 0 0 0 0 8 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 R Configuration Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 R Lane Configuration 162 (vph) 353 (m) (vph) 0.46 [ontrol 2.32 5% queue length 23.6 Delay C LOS 2 Approach Delay — — C Approach LOS — — Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1a file://C:\temp\u2k2F4.TMP 10/26/2001 Two -Way Stop Control ar TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. Date Performed 10/26/01 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Site Information US Route 11 & NB On - Intersection ramp Jurisdiction nalysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park East/West Street: NB On -ram North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Ptudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments a'or Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles 571 0.95 1 601 1 9 1114 0.95 1172 — 16 0.95 16 — 9 0.95 9 9 585 0.95 615 220 0.95 231 Median Type Raised curb 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 L T TR L T R 0 0 RT Channelized Lanes onfiuration U stream Si nal inor Street Westbound 7 8 9 L T R Eastbound 10 11 12 L T R ovement 39 23 22 39 23 22 Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0.95 0.95 0.95 41 24 23 9 9 9 0 0.95 0.95 0.05 0 0 9 0 0 0 Flared Approach N 1 N 0 Storage 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 RT Channelized Lanes LTR Configuration Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Movement L 601 L 9 LTR 88 Lane Configuration (vph) 744 546 13 (m) (vph) 0.81 0.02 6.77 /c 8.53 26.8 D 0.05 11.7 B 12.10 F 5% queue length Control Delay LOS - — - — F pproach Delay I pproach LOS 10/26/2001 le://C:\temp\u2k1121.TMP fi Two -Way Stop Control A "r"� A %J. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ' eneral Information Site Information US Route 11 & NB On - Analyst PHRA Intersection ramp 'Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 10/26/01 nalysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park US Route 11 East/West Street: NB On -ram North/South Street: Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a'or Street Northbound Southbound 'Movement 1 L 2 T 3 R 4 L 5 T 6 R volume 593 1264 39 29 1203 307 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 624 1330 41 30 1266 323 Percent HeavyVehicles 9 9 Median Type Raised curb 1 RT Channelized 0 0 1 Lanes 1 2 0 1 L 1 T R Configuration L T TR 1 U stream Signal 0 0 Eastbound Minor Street Westbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 33 34 19 39 23 22 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 34 35 20 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 9 9 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 ' Flared Approach N N 0 Storage 1 0 ' RT Channelized 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes onfi uration LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Eastbound ' pproach NB SB Westbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR (vph) 624 30 89 (m) (vph) 378 462 0 ' /c 1.65 0.06 5% queue length 37.06 0.21 Control Delay 329.8 13.3 LOS F B F Approach Delay — — ' pproach LOS — — 10/26/2001 fi1e://C:\temp\u2k1295.TMP two-way stop Lontroi rage i or TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. Date Performed 1 &26/01 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Intersection US Route 11 & SB Ramps Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park East/West Street: SB Rams North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South tud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 127 1004 1185 264 1430 109 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1056 1 1247 277 1 1505 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 — — 9 — — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 onfiguration T R L T upstream Signal 0 0 inor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 25 499 764 272 0 639 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 1 0 286 1 0 1 672 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 9 9 1 9 9 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 onfiguration ILT R Delay, Queue Lenat and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R (vph) 277 286 672 (m) (vph) 194 0 338 /c 1.43 1.99 5% queue length 16.62 47.10 Control Delay 265.4 480.8 LOS F F F pproach Delay — — [Approach LOS — -- a Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved fi1e://C:\temp\u2k21 A0.TMP Version 4.1a 10/26/2001 I wo- Way Ntop Control rage 1 or z TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information 'Agency/Co. Analyst PHRA Date Performed 10126101 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Intersection US Route 11 & SB Ramps Jurisdiction nalysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park East/West Street: SB Rams North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Volumes and Adjustments 'Vehicle Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R 'Volume 127 1004 1185 264 1430 109 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 1056 1247 277 1505 1 0 ' Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 — — 9 — Median Type T pe Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 onfiguration T R L T us" stream Signal 0 0 ' Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 25 499 764 272 0 639 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 286 0 1 672 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 9 9 9 9 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N 'Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 Configuration I LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service NB SB Westbound Eastbound 'Approach Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R 'v (vph) 277 286 672 (m) (vph) 194 0 338 /c 1.43 1.99 ' 5% queue length 16.62 47.10 Control Delay 265.4 480.8 LOS F F F Approach Delay — Approach LOS — — Copyright 02000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1a file://C:\temp\u2k21 AO.TMP 10/26/2001 iwo-way stop Uontrol rage 1 ui TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. Date Performed 10126101 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Intersection US Route 11 & SB Ramps Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park East/West Street: SB Rams North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 127 1452 1266 544 2182 109 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1528 1332 572 1 2296 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 — — 9 - I - edian Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 inor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 25 499 764 145 0 656 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 152 0 690 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 t 9 9 9 9 9 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R (vph) 572 152 690 (m) (vph) 114 0 182 /c 5.02 3.79 5% queue length 60.78 67.34 ontrol Delay LOS F F F pproach Delay — — pproach LOS — — Copyright o 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1a fi1e://C:\temp\u2k2376.TMP 10/26/2001 <:::--, t-l-\ Cam_ �DO' _ S TgwT�1 S`-to - 33Z- 91 &(-{ A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Located in Frederick County, Virginia prepared for: Greenway Engineering, Inc. 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 prepared by: AMA , ,, Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 14532 Lee Road Chantilly, Virginia 20151-1679 September 28, 2001 OVERVIEW Report Summary This study considers the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park site located along US Route 11, northeast of the I-81 interchange, in Frederick County, Virginia. Access to the site will be provided via two (2) site -driveways situated along the north side of US Route 11. The proposed development is to include a 1,400,000 square foot Industrial Park (ITE Code 130) and other uses allowed by the rezoning to be completed in a single transportation phase by the year 2010. METHODOLOGY The traffic impacts accompanying the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Calculation of trip generation for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Distribution and assignment of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park generated trips onto the completed roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS-2000, for existing, future background and future build -out conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were based upon Year 2000 AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic) counts provided by the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) along US Route 11 in Frederick County, Virginia. The level of service is "A" at the existing median break for the divided road section and "C" at the 3-lane section. Figure 1 shows the existing ADT (Average Daily Trips) and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes along US Route 11. All traffic count data are included in the Appendix section of this report. 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS PHR&A applied a conservative growth rate of 5% per year to the existing traffic volumes (provided in Figure 1) in order to account for future projects that may impact the roadway network surrounding the site. Figure 2 provides the 2010 background ADT and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes along US Route 11. A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park PHRA,�. September 28, 2001 Page 1 11 �'PO SITE 00;D. TlT TTl O� rA - rnn'-Y1 A, Figure 1 Existing Traffic Conditions No Scale am AM(PM) A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park PHRA,�. September 28, 2001 Page 2 11 AI- ' �OPOSC 7-1 SITE TT YT 1Q,A - rru1 A, Figure 2 2010 Background Traffic Conditions No Scale MM AM(PM) A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park PfM8AA+. September 28, 2001 Page 3 TRIP GENERATION The number of trips produced by and attracted to this Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park site were established using ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition rates. Other uses allowed by the rezoning may also be built; however, the trips shown in Table 1 represents the maximum number of trips for all uses allowed by Frederick County in the requested rezoning of this property. This limit of trips will be proffered to by the applicant. Table 1 Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park 130 Industrial Park 1,400,000 SF 1,022 224 1,246 270 1,018 1,288 9,744 Total 1,022 224 1,246 270 1,018 1,288 9,744 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed site. Figure 3 represents the trip distribution percentages for vehicles entering and exiting the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park development. Figure 4 shows the respective development -generated AM and PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments along the study area roadway network. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS In coordination with the build -out of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, the existing four -lane divided section of US Route 11, which tapers to three (3) lanes just east of I-81, will be extended through to the northeasternmost boundary of the property. All site - driveways will include left and right turn lanes where applicable (the northern driveway will have two inbound left -turn lanes). Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park assigned trips (Figure 4) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 2) to obtain the 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 5 shows the 2010 build -out ADT and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at key roadways/intersections within the study area. Figures 6 shows the respective build -out lane geometry and AM and PM peak hour levels of service. All level of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park PHRA,�. September 28, 2001 Page 4 Figure 3 Trip Distribution Percentages A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park PHRA.t September 28, 2001 Page 5 11 No Scale AP. rV SITE l ot ?S4)S '2S4) �► bb n q, o^� Arop0S�d oNNN.0 60 N (Sp9) , Y b�O n n� titig� 0 � o `61�Z3� AM(PM) TT T -bQ,A Figure 4 Rutherford's Industrial Park Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park PfMA.t September 28, 2001 Page 6 No Scale Y SITE ras4�s QS4�S 6v► bb � bq •� No ti� rO�OS�d Cb II��fIL roZ (S09)1 ,moo Mi AM(P W T1T TTl O_� ,, Figure 5 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park PHRA,t September 28, 2001 Page 7 No Scale SITE 11 ro os�d C) Signalized way lit�rl �/ c L�w�y Z� Intersection LOS = C(C) �j G Unsignalized Intersection AM(PM) TT TT)Q A - rt k A, Figure 6 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park PBRA.t September 28, 2001 Page 8 1 CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park development are acceptable and manageable. All intersections/roadways maintain acceptable levels of service `C' or better for 2010 build -out conditions. Also, based upon Ithe HCS-2000 queue results, the AM peak hour (worst -case) average queue length will equal 350 feet (assuming 25-foot vehicles). I I I A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park PBR8A,k September 28, 2001 Page 9 APPENDIX INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS and LEVEL OF SERVICE The most current analysis methodologies used for evaluating the capacity of intersections were developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other members of the transportation profession. This methodology is represented in TRB Special Report Number 209, The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Computerized methods for conducting these analyses were developed by FHWA; and are the methods used in this report. The following brief explanations of the methodologies are adapted from the HCM. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - TWSC At an unsignalized two-way stop -controlled (TWSC) intersection, the major street has continuous right of way while the side street is controlled by a stop sign or yield sign. In operation, vehicles exiting the side street and crossing or turning into the main street flow must wait for "acceptable gaps" in the main street flow. The same is true of left -turning traffic from the main street that must cross the opposing flow. The analysis takes into account the probability of a gap in the main street traffic. The probability and number of acceptable gaps is lower in higher volume flows. The acceptability of a gap is modified by physical factors (sight distance, turning radius, etc.) and by characteristics of the traffic flow (percentage trucks, buses, etc.). In the analysis in these reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks (single unit and tractor -trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of service for TWSC intersections is determined only for individual movements - not for the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue position to the first -in -queue position. I SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The operation (and therefore the capacity) of a signalized intersection is complicated by the fact that the signal is allocating time between conflicting traffic movements - movements that must use the same physical space. The analysis, therefore, must not only look at the physical geometry of the intersection, but the signal timing aspects as well. ' In the analysis of signalized intersections, two terms are important: volume to capacity ratio (v/c) and; average stopped delay (seconds per vehicle). The theoretical capacity is based on the physical geometry, the available green time (often expressed as G/C), and the traffic mix (e.g. trucks use more capacity than cars). The average stopped delay may be calculated from the v/c ratio, cycle length, quality of progression on the arterial and available green time on each approach. ' In this report all the default values recommended by the HCM are used unless other specific information is available (percentage of tricks, pedestrians, etc.). Existing signal timings are observed and used whenever possible. When future signals are being evaluated, an "optional' signal timing is calculated based on projected volumes. ' The level of service is based on the calculated average delay per vehicle for each approach and for the intersection as a whole. Based on extensive research studies, the maximum delay acceptable by the average driver is sixty seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection. This is defined as the ' upper limit on the possible range of delay/level of service criteria. The following criteria describe the frill range of level of service: ILEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS J El I Level of Service Description A Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, up to 10 sec per vehicle. This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Level of Service B describes operations with delay greater than 10 and up to 20 sec per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C Level Of Service C describes operations with delay greater than 20 and up to 35 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass though the intersection without stopping. D Level of Service D describes operations with delay greater than 35 and up to 55 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, longer cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Level of Service E describes operations with delay greater than 55 and up to 80 sec per vehicle. This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 80 sec per vehicle. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. ge Indu Exusllam.ruo 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS �c �c �c**�c*:F ��c*�c �c �c***�c �c �c*fit*�c �c �c*�c �c �c �c**�c �c �;�c*:F �c �c•k �c �c �c �: �: �c �c �r �c �c �c �c �c �c �c �c �c �c FACILITY LOCATION.... US Route 11 north of I-81 interchan ANALYST .............. PHR&A TIME OF ANALYSIS..... AM Peak Hour DATE OF ANALYSIS..... 09-21-2001 OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Conditions @ Rutherford's strial Park A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS --------------------------------------------------------- PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES......... 2 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 60 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................ 1 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN).......... 50 / 50 LANE WIDTH(FT)............................. 12 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 6 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 0 B) CORRECTION FACTORS ------------------ LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV --- A ----- 2 ----- 1.8 ----- 2.2 ----- 1 ----- 1 ----- .94 B 2.2 2 2.5 1 1 .93 C 2.2 2 2.5 1 1 .93 Page 1 Exusllam.ruo D 2 1.6 1.6 1 1 .96 E 2 1.6 1.6 1 1 .96 C) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS --------------------------------------------------------- INPUT VOLUME(vph): 1050 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 1050 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C ----- --- A --------- 396 .15 B 704 .27 C 1121 .43 D 1716 .64 E 2 682 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: C Page 2 ge Indu Exusllpm.ruo 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION.... US Route 11 north of I-81 interchan ANALYST .............. PHR&A TIME OF ANALYSIS..... PM Peak Hour DATE OF ANALYSIS..... 09-21-2001 OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Conditions @ Rutherford's strial Park A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS --------------------------------------------------------- PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES......... 2 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 60 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................ 1 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN).......... 50 / 50 LANE WIDTH(FT)............................. 12 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 6 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 0 B) CORRECTION FACTORS ------------------ LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d ----- HV ----- --- A ----- 2 ----- 1.8 ----- 2.2 ----- 1 1 .94 B 2.2 2 2.5 1 1 .93 C 2.2 2 2.5 1 1 .93 Page 1 Exusllpm.ruo D 2 1.6 1.6 1 1 .96 E 2 1.6 1.6 1 1 .96 C) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS --------------------------------------------------------- INPUT VOLUME(vph): 1050 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 1050 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C --- A --------- 396 ----- .15 B 704 .27 C 1121 .43 D 1716 .64 E 2682 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: C Page 2 � I HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1 1[nalyst: PHRA Inter.: US Route 11 & Site -Driveway Agency: Area Type: All other areas �ate: 9/27/01 Jurisd: eriod: AM Peak Hour Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Project ID: Rutherford's Industrial Park (1W St: Proposed Main Site -Driveway N/S St: US Route 11 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Eastbound Westbound Northbound L T R ` L T R ' L T R No. Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 GConf ig L R L T olume 56 56 766 814 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 ITOR Vol I 0 Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations_ base Combination 1 2 3 4 EB Left A NB Left Thru Thru ' Right A Right Peds Peds B Left SB Left Thru Thru Right Right Peds Peds Right EB Right B Right A I WB Right Green 20.0 �ellow 2.0 11 pi-ri 'i n on Southbound L T R 0 2 1 T R 917 153 12.0 12.0 0 5 6 7 8 A A A A A rA 40.0 45.0 2.0 2.0 -A n - n 0 Intersection Performance Summary ppr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate rp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS astbound 262 1570 0.23 0.17 43.7 D 28.5 C 761 1404 0.08 0.54 13.2 B �estbound northbound 1015 3045 0.79 0.33 40.7 D T 1397 1863 0.61 0.75 7.8 A 23.7 C louthbound 1327 3539 0.73 0.38 34.3 C 31.1 C 819 1404 0.20 0.58 11.9 B Intersection Delay = 26.8 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1 Phone: Fax: '-Mail: OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Ignalyst: PHRA ency/Co.: Date Performed: 9/27/01 Inalysis Time Period: AM Peak Hour ntersection: US Route 11 & Site -Driveway Area Type: All other areas Cr risdiction: alysis Year: 2010 Build -out Condiitons oject ID: Rutherford's Industrial Park East/West Street North/South Street ' Proposed Main Site -Driveway US Route 11 VOLUME DATA Eastbound Westbound kolume L T R I L T R 15G 5 6 Heavy Vehl15 15 kHF 0.95 0.95 K 15 Vol '15 15 ' i Ln Vol Grade 0 deal Sat 1900 1900 ParkExist umPark o. Lanes 1 0 1 I 0 0 0 LGConfig L R ane Width I12.0 12.0 TOR Vol I 0 Adj Flow 59 I59 fInSharedLn rop LTs Prop RTs eds Bikes 0 0 Northbound L T R 766 814 15 2 0.95 0.95 202 214 0 1900 1900 2 1 0 L T 12.0 12.0 806 857 0.000 uses 10 0 1 I0 0 aInProtPhase I i �uration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas t Southbound L T R 917 153 2 15 0.95 0.95 241 40 0 1900 1900 0 2 1 T R 12.0 12.0 0 965 161 0.000 1.000 0 0 0 OPERATING PARAMETERS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R 'knit Unmet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 rriv. Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 nit Ext. 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 xt of g I2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ed Min g 1 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 . PHASE DATA Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 1B Left A I NB Left A Thru Thru A A Right A Right ' Peds Peds Left I SB Left �B Thru i Thru A Right Right A Peds kBPeds Right EB Right A B Right A ' WB Right 20.0 I 40.0 45.0 freen ellow 2.0 2.0 2.0 All Red 3.0 3.0 3.0 ' Cycle Length: 120.0 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW WORKSHEET olume Adjustment Eastbound I Westbound Northbound I Southbound I T. T R L T R I L T R L T R lolume, V HF dj flow o. Lanes Lane group Idj flow rop LTs Prop RTs 56 0.95 59 1 L 59 N 56 0.95 59 1 R 59 0 0 0 766 814 0.95 0.95 806 857 2 1 L T 806 857 I secs 917 153 0.95 0.95 965 161 0 2 1 T R 965 161 0.000 1.000 � I I saturation Flow Rate (see Exhibit 16-7 Eastbound Westbound LG L R 0 1900 1900 anes 1 0 1 fW 1.000 1.000 HV 0.870 0.870 G 1.000 1.000 P 1.000 1.000 fBB 1.000 1.000 A 1.00 1.00 LU 1.00 1.00 fRT 0.850 tLT 0.950 ec. fLpb 1.000 Rpb 1.000 1570 1404 Sec. u I 0 0 0 to determine the adjustment factors) Northbound Southbound L T T R 1900 1900 1900 1900 2 1 0 0 2 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.870 0.980 0.980 0.870 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.000 1.000 0.850 0.950 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 3045 1863 3539 1404 �� I CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET Irapacity Analysis and Lane Group Capacity Adj Adj Sat Flow Green --Lane Group-- ' Appr/ Lane Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Ratio Capacity v/c Mvmt Group (v) (s) (v/s) (g/C) (c) Ratio eastbound Prot Perm Left L 59 1570 ## 0.04 ' Prot Perm Thru Right R 59 1404 0.04 estbound Prot Perm ' Left Prot Perm Thru Right northbound Prot Perm Left L 806 3045 # 0.26 Prot Perm Thru T 857 1863 0.46 Right outhbound Prot Perm ' Left Prot Perm ' Thru T 965 3539 # 0.27 Right R 161 1404 0.11 m of flow ratios kutal for critical lane groups, Yc = lost time per cycle, L = 15.00 sec ritical flow rate to capacity ratio, Xc = � I 11 0.17 262 0.23 0.54 761 0.08 0.33 1015 0.79 0.75 1397 0.61 0.38 1327 0.73 0.58 819 0.20 Sum (v/s) = 0.57 iv..\ /n\ / tr+ r \ n cc Delay and LOS Determination Iontrol ppr/ Ratios Unf Prog Lane Incremental Res Lane Del Adj Grp Factor Del Del Irp v/c g/C di Fact Cap k d2 d3 Eastbound 0.23 0.17 43.3 1.000 262 0.11 0.4 0.0 0.08 0.54 13.2 1.000 761 0.11 0.0 0.0 estbound northbound 0.79 0.33 36.3 1.000 1015 0.34 4.4 0.0 T 0.61 0.75 6.9 1.000 1397 0.20 0.8 0.0 fouthbound Lane Group Delay LOS Approach Delay LOS 43.7 D 28.5 C 13.2 B 40.7 D 7.8 A 23.7 C 0 73 0 38 32.2 1.000 1327 0.29 2.0 0.0 34.3 C 31.1 C 0.20 0.58 11.8 1.000 819 0.11 0.1 0.0 11.9 B ' Intersection delay = 26.8 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C _ SUPPLEMENTAL for Input PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET exclusive lefts EB WB NB SB kycle length, C 120.0 sec otal actual green time for LT lane group, G (s) ffective permitted green time for LT lane group, g(s) pposing effective green time, go (s) umber of lanes in LT lane group, N Number of lanes in opposing approach, No tdjusted LT flow rate, VLT (veh/h) roportion of LT in LT lane group, PLT Proportion of LT in opposing flow, PLTo tdjusted opposing flow rate, Vo (veh/h) ost time for LT lane group, tL Computation UT volume per cycle, LTC=VLTC/3600 posing lane util. factor, fLUo 0.95 1.00 Opposing flow, Volc=VoC/[3600(No)fLUo] (veh/ln/cyc) Uf=G[exp(- a * (LTC ** b))]-tl, gf<=g posing platoon ratio, Rpo (refer Exhibit 16-11) Opposing Queue Ratio, qro=Max[1-Rpo(go/C),0] q, (see Exhibit C16-4,5,6,7,8) u=g-gq if gq>=gf, or = g-gf if gq<gf n=Max(gq-gf)/2,0) (THo=1-PLTo L*=PLT[1+(N-1)g/(gf+gu/EL1+4.24)] L1 (refer to Exhibit C16-3) EL2=Max((1-Ptho**n)/Plto, 1.0) min=2 (1+PL) /g or fmin=2 (1+P1) /g diff=max(gq-gf,0) fm= [gf/g] + [gu/g] [1+PL (EL1-1) ] , (fmin=fmin;max=1.00) IIt=fm= [gf/g] + [gu/g] / [1+PL (EL1-1) ] + [gdiff/g] / [l+PL (EL2-1) ] , (fmin<=fm<=1.00) r flt= [fm+0 . 91 (N-1) ] /N** Left -turn adjustment, fLT for special case of single -lane approach opposed by multilane approach, see text. If Pl>=1 for shared left -turn lanes with N>1, then assume de -facto left -turn lane and redo calculations. * For permitted left -turns with multiple exclusive left -turn lanes, flt=fm. or special case of multilane approach opposed by single -lane approach r when gf>gq, see text. SUPPLEMENTAL PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET for shared lefts Input EB WB NB SB lycle length, C 120.0 sec Total actual green time for LT lane group, G (s) ffective permitted green time for LT lane group, g(s) pposing effective green time, go (s) umber of lanes in LT lane group, N umber of lanes in opposing approach, No djusted LT flow rate, VLT (veh/h) roportion of LT in LT lane group, PLT Proportion of LT in opposing flow, PLTo ldjusted opposing flow rate, Vo (veh/h) ost time for LT lane group, tL Computation IT volume per cycle, LTC=VLTC/3600 pposing lane util. factor, fLUo 0.95 1.00 Opposing flow, Volc=VoC/[3600(No)fLUo] (veh/ln/cyc) If=G [exp (- a * (LTC ** b)) ] -tl, gf<=g pposing platoon ratio, Rpo (refer Exhibit 16-11) Opposing Queue Ratio, qro=Max[l-Rpo(go/C),0] �q, (see Exhibit C16-4,5,6,7,8) u=g-gq if gq>=gf, or = g-gf if gq<gf n=Max (gq-gf) /2, 0) (THo=1-PLTo L*=PLT[1+(N-1)g/(gf+gu/EL1+4.24)] Li (refer to Exhibit C16-3) L2=Max((1-Ptho**n)/Plto, 1.0) min=2 (1+PL) /g or fmin=2 (1+P1) /g diff=max(gq-gf,0) fm= [gf/g] + [gu/g] [l+PL (EL1-1) ] , (fmin=fmin;max=1 . 00) IIt=fm= [gf/g] + [gu/g] / [1+PL (EL1-1) ] + [gdiff/g] / [1+PL (EL2-1) ] , (fmin<=fm<=1 . 00) r flt= [fm+0 . 91 (N-1) ] /N** Left -turn adjustment, fLT for special case of single -lane approach opposed by multilane approach, see text. If P1>=1 for shared left -turn lanes with N>1, then assume de -facto left -turn lane and redo calculations. ** For permitted left -turns with multiple exclusive left -turn lanes, flt=fm. �or special case of multilane approach opposed by single -lane approach r when gf>gq, see text. � I �m SUPPLEMENTAL PEDESTRIAN -BICYCLE EFFECTS WORKSHEET ermitted Left Turns ffective pedestrian green time, gp (s) onflicting pedestrian volume, Vped (p/h) edestrian flow rate, Vpedg (p/h) CCpedg pposing queue clearing green, gq (s) ff. ped. green consumed by opp. veh. queue, CCpedu pposing flow rate, Vo (veh/h) (CCr Number of cross -street receiving lanes, Nrec tumber of turning lanes, Nturn pbT Proportion of left turns, PLT roportion of left turns using protected phase, PLTA ILeft-turn adjustment, fLpb Permitted Right Turns Iffective pedestrian green time, gp (s) onflicting pedestrian volume, Vped (p/h) Conflicting bicycle volume, Vbic (bicycles/h) pedg CCpedg ffective green, g (s) icg (CcCr Cbicg Number of cross -street receiving lanes, Nrec umber of turning lanes, Nturn tpbT Proportion right -turns, PRT lroportion right -turns using protected phase, ight turn adjustment, fRpb 11 PRTA �:1 I SUPPLEMENTAL UNIFORM DELAY WORKSHEET EBLT WBLT NBLT SBLT Cycle length, C 120.0 sec dj. LT vol from Vol Adjustment Worksheet, v v/c ratio from Capacity Worksheet, X rotected phase effective green interval, g (s) pposing queue effective green interval, gq opposed green interval, gu (ed time r=(C-g-gq-gu) rrival rate, qa=v/(3600(max[X,1.0])) rotected ph. departure rate, Sp=s/3600 Permitted ph. departure rate, Ss=s(gq+gu)/(gu*3600) Perm Prot Case lueue at beginning of green arrow, Qa ueue at beginning of unsaturated green, Qu Residual queue, Qr Iniform, Delay, dl � I � I � I � I � I � I DELAY/LOS WORKSHEET WITH INITIAL QUEUE Initial Dur. ppr/ Unmet Unmet ane Demand Demand Group Q veh t hrs. astbound Westbound torthbound (outhbound Uniform Delay Initial Final Queue Unmet Unadj. Adj. Param. Demand ds d1 sec u Q veh Initial Lane Queue Group Delay Delay d3 sec d sec Intersection Delay 26.8 sec/veh Intersection LOS C taneGroup nit Queue Flow Rate 0 o.Lanes SL nCapacity low Ratio v/c Ratio rn Ratio Factor T or PVG ltn Ratio F2 1 kB 2 Average Q Spacing Storage S Ratio 70th Percent I B 0- 0 Eastbound L R 0.0 0.0 59 59 1900 1900 1 0 1 1570 1404 262 761 0.04 0.04 0.23 0.08 0.17 0.54 1.000 3 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.7 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.1 1.8 1.0 24.9 24.9 0 0 .ile Output: 1.2 1.2 BACK OF QUEUE WO] 4 Westbound I I 10 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 I 11.00 1.00 1.00 I I ZKSHEET Northbound L T 0.0 0.0 403 857 1900 1900 2 1 0 1522 1863 507 1397 0.26 0.46 0.79 0.61 0.33 0.75 1.000 3 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.2 13.2 0.5 1.0 1.9 1.6 14.0 14.8 24.9 24.9 0 0 1.2 1.2 Southbound T R 0.0 0.0 482 161 1900 1900 0 2 1 1769 1404 663 819 0.27 0.11 0.73 0.20 0.38 0.58 1.000 3 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 13.8 2.5 0.6 0.7 1.6 0.2 15.4 2.7 24.9 24.9 0 0 1.2 1.2 ■ OQ 12.2 1.2 I �SRatio 5th Percentile Output: fB. 1.6 1.6 OQ 12.9 1.6 SRatio I 90th Percentile Output: Bo 11.8 1.8 OQ 3.2 I 1.8 SRatio Percentile Output: (5th Ba I2.0 2.1 OQ 13.7 2.1 SRatio I 8th Percentile Output: Bo 2.6 2.6 BOQ 14.6 2.6 1SRatio I 116.4 17.3 18.0 3.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 20.9 21.9 22.8 4.3 I 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 22.4 23.5 24.4 4.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.0 24.9 26.1 27.0 5.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 28.6 29.9 30.9 6.8 ERROR MESSAGES No errors to report. ■ ■ ■ ■ � I HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1 tnalyst: PHRA Inter.: US Route 11 & Site -Driveway Agency: Area Type: All other areas ate: 9/27/01 Jurisd: eriod: PM Peak Hour Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons roject ID: Rutherford's Industrial Park /W St: Proposed Main Site -Driveway N/S St: US Route 11 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound I L T R L T R L T R I L T R No. Lanes tGConf ig olume Lane Width INKTOR Vol 1 L 254 12.0 0 1 R 254 12.0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 L T 203 814 12.0 12.0 0 2 1 T R 841 41 12.0 12.0 0 Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations base Combination 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8 EB Left A NB Left A ' Thru Right A Thru Right A A Peds Peds B Left I SB Left Thru Thru A Right Right A Peds Peds MM Right EB Right A B Right A WB Right Green 30.0 30.0 45.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 _ellow 11 Red 3.0 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 120.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary_ ,Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Lane Group Flow Rate 'Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Eastbound L 393 1570 0.68 0.25 45.4 D IR 761 1404 0.35 0.54 15.8 B Westbound orthbound r 761 T 1242 11southbound 3045 0.28 0.25 36.5 D 1863 0.69 0.67 14.0 B Approach Delay LOS 30.6 C T 1327 3539 0.67 0.38 32.5 C 31.4 C IF936 1404 0.05 0.67 6.9 A Intersection Delay = 25.8 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C I1HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1 I Phone: Fax: Mail: OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS alyst: PHRA gency/Co.: ate Performed: 9/27/01 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Intersection: US Route 11 & Site -Driveway rea Type: All other areas Jurisdiction: Iralysis Year: 2010 Build -out Condiitons roject ID: Rutherford's Industrial Park East/West Street North/South Street Proposed Main Site -Driveway US Route 11 t ■ VOLUME DATA Eastbound Westbound kolume L T R L T R 1254 254 Heavy Vehl15 15 kHF 0.95 0.95 K 15 Vol 167 67 Hi Ln Vol Grade I 0 deal Sat I1900 1900 ParkExist umPark t o. Lanes I 1 0 1 I 0 0 0 LGConfig L R ne Width 112.0 12.0 UaORVol 0 Adj Flow 1267 267 IInSharedLnl rop LTs i Prop RTs eds Bikesl 0 0 Northbound L T R 203 814 15 2 0.95 0.95 53 214 0 1900 1900 2 1 0 L T 12.0 12.0 214 857 0.000 uses IO 0 1 �0 0 oInProtPhase �uration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas ■ ■ ■ Southbound L T R 841 41 2 15 0.95 0.95 221 11 0 1900 1900 0 2 1 T R 12.0 12.0 0 885 43 0.000 1.000 0 0 0 I OPERATING PARAMETERS Eastbound Westbound Northbound ' i L T R L T R L T R Init Unmet 10.0 0.0 rriv. Type 3 3 nit Ext. 3.0 3.0 I Factor 1 1.000 0 ost Time 12.0 2.0 1 xt of g 12.0 2.0 1 ed Min g 1 3.2 1 3.2 PHASE DATA Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 0.0 0.0 3 3 3.0 3.0 1.000 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Southbound L T R 0.0 0.0 3 3 3.0 3.0 1.000 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.2 5 6 7 8 �B Left A I NB Left A Thru i Thru A Right A I Right ' Peds I Peds Left I SB Left �B Thru Thru Right I Right Peds I Peds EB Right A Right g ! �B Right A II WB Right LAI 11 reen 30.0 30.0 45.0 ellow 2.0 2.0 2.0 All Red 3.0 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 120.0 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW WORKSHEET olume Adjustment secs Volume, V Eastbound L T R ( Westbound L T R Northbound I L T R Southbound I L T R 1254 254 1203 814 841 41 HF 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 dj flow 1267 267 214 857 885 43 o. Lanes 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 ane group I L R I I L T T R dj flow 1267 267 214 857 885 43 rop LTs Pro RTs 1 I 0.000 0.000 1.000 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LG L R L T T R 0 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 anes 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 fW 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 HV 0.870 0.870 0.870 0.980 0.980 0.870 G 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 P 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 BB 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LLU 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 fRT 0.850 1.000 1.000 0.850 LT 0.950 0.950 1.000 1.000 laturation Flow Rate (see Exhibit 16-7 to determine the adjustment factors) fLpb 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Rpb 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1570 1404 3045 1863 3539 1404 Sec. lec. � I CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET apacity Analysis and Lane Group Capacity Adj Adj Sat Flow Green --Lane Group-- , Appr/ Lane Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Ratio Capacity v/c Mvmt Group (v) (s) (v/s) (g/C) (c) Ratio eastbound Prot Perm Left L 267 1570 # 0.17 0.25 393 ' Prot Perm Thru Right R 267 1404 0.19 0.54 761 estbound Prot ' Perm Left Prot ' Perm Thru Right northbound Prot Perm 'Left L 214 3045 0.07 0.25 761 Prot Perm 0.35 Thru T 857 1863 # 0.46 0.67 1242 0.69 Right outhbound Prot ' Perm Left Prot Perm Thru T 885 3539 0.25 0.38 Right R 43 1404 0.03 0.67 1327 0.67 936 0.05 um of flow ratios for critical lane groups, Yc = Sum (v/s) = 0.63 otal lost time per cycle, L = 10.00 sec �ritical flow rate to capacity ratio, Xc = (Yc)(C)/(C-L) = 0.69 Delay and LOS Determination 'Control Appr/ Ratios Unf Prog Lane Incremental Res Lane Del Adj Grp Factor Del Del ,Grp v/c g/C d1 Fact Cap k d2 d3 Eastbound 0.68 0.25 40.7 1.000 393 0.25 4.7 0.0 IL R 0.35 0.54 15.6 1.000 761 0.11 0.3 0.0 Westbound orthbound IL 0.28 0.25 36.3 1.000 761 0.11 0.2 0.0 T 0.69 0.67 12.3 1.000 1242 0.26 1.6 0.0 ISouthbound Lane Group Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS 45.4 D 30.6 C 15.8 B 36.5 D 14.0 B 18.5 B 0.67 0.38 31.3 1.000 1327 0.24 1.3 0.0 32.5 C 31.4 C 0.05 0.67 6.9 1.000 936 0.11 0.0 0.0 6.9 A ' Intersection delay = 25.8 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C 1 n SUPPLEMENTAL for Input PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET exclusive lefts EB [ycle length, C 120.0 sec Total actual green time for LT lane group, G (s) ffective permitted green time for LT lane group, g(s) pposing effective green time, go (s) umber of lanes in LT lane group, N umber of lanes in opposing approach, No djusted LT flow rate, VLT (veh/h) roportion of LT in LT lane group, PLT Proportion of LT in opposing flow, PLTo tdjusted opposing flow rate, Vo (veh/h) ost time for LT lane group, tL Computation IT volume per cycle, LTC=VLTC/3600 pposing lane util. factor, fLUo Opposing flow, Volc=VoC/[3600(No)fLUo] (veh/ln/cyc) =G [exp (- a * (LTC ** b)) ] -tl, gf<=g Ufposing platoon ratio, Rpo (refer Exhibit 16-11) Opposing Queue Ratio, qro=Max[l-Rpo(go/C),0] , (see Exhibit C16-4,5,6,7,8) =g-gq if gq>=gf, or = g-gf if gq<gf ir n=Max(gq-gf)/2,0) (THo=1-PLTo L*=PLT[1+(N-1)g/(gf+gu/EL1+4.24)] L1 (refer to Exhibit C16-3) EL2=Max((1-Ptho**n)/Plto, 1.0) min=2 (1+PL) /g or fmin=2 (1+P1) /g diff=max(gq-gf,0) fm= [gf/g] + [gu/g] [1+PL (EL1-1) ] , (fmin=fmin;max=1 .00) Ilt=fm=[gf/g]+[gu/g]/[I+PL(EL1-1)1+[gdiff/gl/[I+PL(EL2-1)] r flt= [fm+0 .91 (N-1) ] /N** Left -turn adjustment, fLT 0.95 1.00 , ( fmin<=fm<=1 . 00 ) for special case of single -lane approach opposed by multilane approach, see text. If Pl>=1 for shared left -turn lanes with N>1, then assume de -facto left -turn lane ** For permitted Por special case and redo calculations. left -turns with multiple exclusive left -turn lanes, flt=fm. of multilane approach opposed by single -lane approach 1r when gf>gq, see text. � I SUPPLEMENTAL for Input PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET shared lefts EB WB NB SB ,Cycle length, C 120.0 sec Total actual green time for LT lane group, G (s) ffective permitted green time for LT lane group, g(s) pposing effective green time, go (s) umber of lanes in LT lane group, N umber of lanes in opposing approach, No djusted LT flow rate, VLT (veh/h) roportion of LT in LT lane group, PLT Proportion of LT in opposing flow, PLTo Ildjusted opposing flow rate, Vo (veh/h) ost time for LT lane group, tL Computation lET volume per cycle, LTC=VLTC/3600 pposing lane util. factor, fLUo 0.95 1.00 Opposing flow, Volc=VoC/[3600(No)fLUo] (veh/ln/cyc) a * (LTC ** b)) ] -tl, gf<=g 1uf=G[exp(- pposing platoon ratio, Rpo (refer Exhibit 16-11) Opposing Queue Ratio, qro=Max[l-Rpo(go/C),0] q, (see Exhibit C16-4,5,6,7,8) u=g-gq if gq>=gf, or = g-gf if gq<gf n=Max(gq-gf)/2,0) (THo=1-PLTo L*=PLT[1+(N-1)g/(gf+gu/EL1+4.24)] L1 (refer to Exhibit C16-3) EL2=Max((1-Ptho**n)/Plto, 1.0) min=2 (1+PL) /g or fmin=2 (1+P1) /g diff=max(gq-gf,0) fm= [gf/g] + [gu/g] [1+PL (EL1-1) ] , (fmin=fmin;max=1. 00) tIt=fm= [gf/g] + [gu/g] / [1+PL (EL1-1) ] + [gdiff/g] / [l+PL (EL2-1) ] , (fmin<=fm<=1 . 00) r flt= [fm+0 .91 (N-1) ] /N** Left -turn adjustment, fLT for special case of single -lane approach opposed by multilane approach, see text. If Pl>=1 for shared left -turn lanes with N>1, then assume de -facto left -turn lane and redo calculations. ** For permitted left -turns with multiple exclusive left -turn lanes, flt=fm. or special case of multilane approach opposed by single -lane approach r when gf>gq, see text. SUPPLEMENTAL PEDESTRIAN -BICYCLE EFFECTS WORKSHEET ermitted Left Turns i Iffective pedestrian green time, gp (s) onflicting pedestrian volume, Vped (p/h) Pedestrian flow rate, Vpedg (p/h) CCpedg pposing queue clearing green, gq (s) ff. ped. green consumed by opp. veh. queue, CCpedu pposing flow rate, Vo (veh/h) CCr Number of cross -street receiving lanes, Nrec umber of turning lanes, Nturn tpbT Proportion of left turns, PLT Wroportion of left turns using protected phase, PLTA eft -turn adjustment, fLpb Permitted Right Turns ffective pedestrian green time, gp (s) onflicting pedestrian volume, Vped (p/h) Conflicting bicycle volume, Vbic (bicycles/h) [pedg CCpedg Effective green, g (s) icg (CcCr Cbicg umber of cross -street receiving lanes, Nrec umber of turning lanes, Nturn (pbT Proportion right -turns, PRT lroportion right -turns using protected phase, ight turn adjustment, fRpb PRTA SUPPLEMENTAL UNIFORM DELAY WORKSHEET EBLT WBLT NBLT SBLT ycle length, C 120.0 sec dj. LT vol from Vol Adjustment Worksheet, v v/c ratio from Capacity Worksheet, X rotected phase effective green interval, g (s) pposing queue effective green interval, gq nopposed green interval, gu ed time r=(C-g-gq-gu) rrival rate, qa=v/ (3600 (max [X, 1 . 0]) ) rotected ph. departure rate, Sp=s/3600 Permitted ph. departure rate, Ss=s(gq+gu)/(gu*3600) Perm Prot Case tueue at beginning of green arrow, Qa ueue at beginning of unsaturated green, Qu Residual queue, Qr rniform Delay, dl IPPr/ ,ane Group u DELAY/LOS WORKSHEET WITH INITIAL QUEUE Initial Dur. Uniform Delay Initial Final Initial Lane Unmet Unmet Queue Unmet Queue Group Demand Demand Unadj. Adj. Param. Demand Delay Delay Q veh t hrs. ds d1 sec u Q veh d3 sec d sec astbound Westbound northbound Iouthbound Intersection Delay 25.8 sec/veh Intersection LOS C Eastbound aneGroup L R nit Queue 0.0 0.0 Flow Rate 1267 267 11900 1900 1c.Lanes 11 0 1 SL 11570 1404 1393 761 InCapacity low Ratio 10.17 0.19 v/c Ratio 10.68 0.35 rn Ratio 10.25 0.54 Factor 1 1.000 T or PVG 13 3 Ratio 11.00 1.00 1.00 0ltn F2 11.00 1.00 1 18.0 5.0 kB 10.5 0.7 2 10.9 0.4 Average 19.0 5.4 Q Spacing 124.9 24.9 Storage 10 0 S Ratio 70th Percentile Output: 'Bo 11.2 1.2 BACK OF QUEUE WO] Westbound 10 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11.00 1.00 1.00 I ZKSHEET Northbound L T 0.0 0.0 107 857 1900 1900 2 1 0 1522 1863 380 1242 0.07 0.46 0.28 0.69 0.25 0.67 1.000 3 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.9 17.6 0.5 0.9 0.2 2.0 3.1 19.6 24.9 24.9 0 0 1.2 1.2 Southbound T R 0.0 0.0 442 43 1900 1900 0 2 1 1769 1404 663 936 0.25 0.03 0.67 0.05 0.38 0.67 1.000 3 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.2 0.0 13.5 0.5 24.9 24.9 0 0 1.2 1.2 OQ I10.6 6.4 I SRatio I I 5th Percentile Output: fB. 11.5 1.6 I OQ 13.7 8.4 SRatio I Oth Percentile Output: 11.7 1.7 I (Bo OQ 114.9 9.2 SRatio I Percentile Output: i5th Bo 11.9 1.9 I 0Q 116.7 10.5 I QSRatio I I 8th Percentile Output: Bo 12.2 2.4 BOQ 119.8 12.8 KSRatio No errors to report. 3.6 22.8 1.6 1.5 4.8 28.6 1.7 1.5 5.3 30.4 2.0 1.7 6.1 33.4 2.5 1.9 7.6 37.7 ERROR MESSAGES 1 :, 1.5 1.6 20.1 0.8 1.6 1.8 21.7 0.9 1.8 2.1 24.1 1.1 2.1 2.7 f 27.7 1.4 I' ' A Traffic Impact Analysis of ' Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Located in Frederick County, Virginia prepared for: Greenway Engineering, Inc. ' 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 prepared by: PMA ' Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 14532 Lee Road Chantilly, Virginia ' 20151-1679 October 26, 2001 � I � I Report Summary This study considers the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park site located along US Route 11, northeast of the I-81 interchange, in Frederick County, Virginia. Access to the site will be provided via two (2) site -driveways situated along the north side of US Route 11. The proposed development is to include a 1,400,000 square foot Industrial Park (ITE Code 130) to be completed in a single transportation phase by the year 2010. METHODOLOGY The traffic impacts accompanying the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Calculation of trip generation for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Distribution and assignment of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park generated trips onto the completed roadway network, • Analysis of capacity, level of service and queue using the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS-2000, for existing, future background and future build -out conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes and ADT (Average Daily Trips) were based upon 12-hour intersection counts, 24-hour roadway link counts and 24- hour roadway classification counts. The level of service is "A" at the existing median break for the divided road section and "D" at the 3-lane section. Figure 1 shows the existing ADT and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes along US Route 11. Figure 2 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM and PM peak hour levels of service. All 12-hour intersection counts, 24-hour roadway link counts and 24-hour roadway classification counts are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park October 26, 2001 Page 1 1 0 40 No scale 6�► aI rSITE 1 �9cll o Ajo�os� �o i �e � .� 1 CV 0 b w � 0 11 M Nini L 1ti591 1p9��'� 1l UA� O 661 A 6��1 10 z L lti5l 661 AM(PM) PIMA 1 Figure 1 Existing Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park ' October 26, 2001 AMA,& Page 2 1 r i No Scale 0 PQ Signalized Intersection LOS = C(F) c�Gl 000 J O co) Unsignalized Intersection TlT TTIQ� ��)SITE .�y�> °�'%0S (' / �oPos g�t'r,(/ rtlj > rl�ow�y'♦. 11 61 Unsignalized Intersection 'N I * Denotes Unsignalized turning movement Figure 2 Existing Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park October 26, 2001 Page 3 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS PHIZ&A applied a conservative growth rate of 5% per year to the existing traffic volumes (provided in Figure 1) in order to account for future projects that may impact the roadway network surrounding the site. Figure 3 provides the 2010 background ADT and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes along US Route 11. Figure 4 shows the respective background lane geometry and AM and PM peak hour levels of service. TRIP GENERATION The number of trips produced by and attracted to this Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park site were established using ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition rates. Table 1 represents the maximum number of trips for all uses allowed by Frederick County in the requested rezoning of this property. Table 1 Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour ' PM Peak hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park 130 Industrial Park 1,400,000 SF 1,022 224 1,246 270 1,018 1,288 9,744 Total 1,022 224 1,246- 270 1,018 1,288 9,744 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed site. Figure 5 represents the trip distribution percentages for vehicles entering and exiting the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park development. Figure 6 shows the respective development -generated AM and PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments along the study area roadway network. A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park October 26, 2001 Page 4 l\ �p6��p11 11 No Scale ono 6M r7IjNQo? 11ti6� , SITE � � G:Z� oposo nn �rgllt�riO,,, b� ti -O H. 11 M AM(PM) -"w TT1Q A - rrm"A 'k Figure 3 2010 Background Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park October 26, 2001 PIMA Page 5 Signalized Intersection LOS = F(F) �-1 No Scale 0 Cq 11 ♦ %Pose(/ d���♦♦ ♦ SITE / i�°pNY 1tD� v�w� �`♦ .Y C Cd4-1 O 0 Unsignalized 11 Intersection 61 Unsignalized Intersection 'N I AM(PM) * Denotes unsignalized turning movement TT TiIQ.� Figure 4 2010 Background Lane Geomet>ty and Level of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutlierford's Farm Industrial Park October 26, 2001 AMA Page 6 �rOposo� a� No Scale �17Ile ay SITE �qj AjO�oSoa, g� L0W cry� ay O O s� cn o� e�a 661 TlT Ti'1Q,.� —1 111un. & Figure 5 Trip Distribution Percentages A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park October 26, 2001 PfMA t Page 7 No Scale A ri a pOs��' N0 076�`ri°71 �► s �0�, a 61 T'1T TTl O_1 roPose (s�s ITE �609>II2 4%%,► ),I*ftvbb n q (lsy�s6- ^bb 1 No 11 - rt1t� A, Figure 6 Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Trip Assignments I I MI, L9 M, AM(PM) A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park October 26, 2001 Page 8 n 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS 1 In coordination with the build -out of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, the existing four -lane divided section of US Route 11, which tapers to three (3) lanes just east of I-81, twill be extended through to the northeasternmost boundary of the property. All site - driveways will include left and right turn lanes where applicable (the northern driveway 1 will have two inbound left -turn lanes). Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park assigned trips (Figure 6) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 3) to obtain the 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 7 shows the 2010 build -out ADT and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at key roadways/intersections within the study area. Figure 8 shows the respective build -out lane geometry and AM and PM peak hour levels of service. All level of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. ICONCLUSION ' The traffic impacts associated with the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park development are acceptable and manageable. All project intersections will maintain acceptable levels of service `C' or better for 2010 build -out conditions. Also, based upon the HCS-2000 back of queue results, the northbound left turn movement, at the northern site -driveway, will maintain an average queue length of 340 feet (assuming 25-foot vehicles) during the worst -case AM peak hour condition. I I A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park 1 October 26, 2001 Page 9 1 1 1ti3� 11 �r0�os°� h���o No Scale W� Y a (6(9S4)S6� SITE >�I2 j 17V°� �ro (IS4)S� �% ILi, as sCKJ 40 ` 4 91 11 AM(PM) TT TT1Q,A Figure 7 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutlierford's Farm Industrial Park October 26, 2001 PHRA.+. Page 10 Signalized Intersection LOS = F(F) G� 11 Aro�o G1 No Scale ke way �� �►� SITE Signalized Intersection po LOS = C(C) qj ^o�6�0 cryr Unsignalized Intersection u� O Off, 11 Unsignalized Intersection 0 �O 661 Unsignalized 661 Intersection AM(PM) * Denotes unsignalized turning movement TlT TTI�P„ � Figure 8 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park October 26, 2001 PMA Page 11 1 1 t � APPENDIX i Axle Classification/Volume Report Generated by MSC3000 Version 2.01 Copyright 1990-1992 Mitron Systems Corporati Location Code 11 Recorder Set ...... 10/25/01 07:15 Recording Start ... 10/25/01 08:00 Recording End ..... 10/26/01 08:30 Sample Time ....... 30 Minutes Operator Number ... 11 Machine Number .... 8 Channel ........... 1 Thursday 10/25/01 Channel: 1 Direction: W Scheme: +F +F1 +F2 +F3 +F4 +F5 +F6 +F7 +F8 08:30 1 116 42 1 13 2 0 6 09:00 1 ill 48 5 14 5 3 7 09:30 2 87 39 0 9 8 2 3 10:00 0 99 36 2 5 3 1 1 10:30 0 79 31 0 7 3 0 3 11:00 1 73 35 0 6 4 2 3 11:30 0 74 25 0 8 8 1 6 12:00 0 104 32 2 8 4 1 6 12:30 1 89 26 0 11 3 0 3 13:00 0 90 43 2 9 2 2 5 13;30 0 85 25 0 16 5 2 1 14:00 1 79 31 0 5 3 2 1 14:30 0 105 44 6 14 2 0 2 15:00 0 89 32 2 11 0 1 9 15:30 0 89 37 4 12 3 3 4 16:00 2 132 40 2 8 7 2 4 16:30 2 130 35 2 8 2 1 10 17:00 2 181 61 1 7 4 4 7 17:30 2 150 49 0 10 2 2 4 18:00 0 110 34 0 5 0 1 3 L 8 : 3 0 0 214 46 2 10 9 4 14 19:00 0 130 33 0 3 3 1 3 19:30 1 86 17 1 2 0 0 2 ?0:00 0 62 13 0 3 0 0 2 ?0:30 0 51 14 0 1 0 2 1 ?1:00 0 46 10 0 2 0 1 1 ?1:30 0 35 14 0 2 0 0 1 ?2:00 0 33 9 1 2 0 0 0 ?2:30 0 38 7 1 2 0 0 0 ?3:00 1 21 5 0 0 1 0 1 ?3:30 1 13 1 0 0 2 0 0 )0:00 0 22 3 0 0 0 0 0 ►0:30 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 11:30 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 1 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 12:30 1 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 13:00 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 0 9 2 1 1 0 0 0 4:00 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 0 '12 6 0 3 0 0 0 5:00 0 25 6 0 0 0 0 0 5 : 3 0 1 49 13 0 0 1 0 1 6:00 2 49 19 0 1 2 1 0 6:30 0 86 38 0 4 2 1 2 )7:00 1 99 46 2 10 6 1 6 ')7:30 '>M 1 18:00 0 Daily Totals 25 Percentage 0.5� ,M Peak Hour .................... V Peak Hour Factor ............. Peak Hour .................... )M Peak Hour Factor 102 138 3443 64.0� 40 60 1156 21.5� 07:30 0,0W 16:30 90.3% 3 0 40 0.7g to 08:30 to 17:30 11 10 253 4.70 (416 (500 8 2 107 2.0$ vehicles) vehicles) 1 1 43 0.8� 4 6 132 2.5� riday 10/26/01 +F1 Channel: +F2 1 Direction: W +F3 +F4 Scheme: +F +F5 +F6 +F7 +F8 18:30 0 115 41 0 13 3 1 4 Daily Totals 0 Percentage 0.0% 115 63.5!k 41 22.7�k 0 0.0% 13 7.20 3 1.7%- 1 0.6% 4 2.2% 44 Peak Hour .. ................ 08:00 to 08:30 (181 vehicles) LM Peak Hour Factor ............. 0.2% )M Peak Hour .................. Unavailable >M Peak Hour Factor ... Unavailable +F1 Grand Totals 25 Percentage 0.4� +F2 3558 64.0% +F3 1197 21.5%- +F4 40 0.7%; +F5 266 4.8% +F6 110 2.0-%� +F7 44 0.8� +F8 136 2.4%- 1 ' 'r i VOLUME COUNTING PROGRAM K1TR08 SYSTEMS CORPORATION - NSC3000 PACE 1 Channel Number J. Location Code 11ED Date 10/25/01 Real Time 0733 Start Time 0800 Sample 'Time J.5 Divide 2 Summation NO 2-way No I Operator Number 11 Machine Number 7 ' 1001 00 0200 0300 0�00 0500 0600 07U0 0840 0900 lODU 1-100 1200 1300 14UD 1500 1600 0100 1700 1800, 1900 2000 2lOD '1,200 2300 2400 TO 1263 1048 1106 1146 1126 1045 1300 1594 1713 1559 1121 799 629 548. 385 352 16734 ' 341 264 273 270 302 250 313 401 438 .95. 282 219 171 166 101 77 151 100 101 298 256 231 288 283 271 300 371 313 420 269 219 160 �t0 269 308 278 268 252 339 439 465 351 322 197 168 116 84 9S 1 302 259 'l94 310 213 212 348 383 931 293 248 164 130 115 100 73 10/2G/01 0100 0200 0300 U400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 IBOU 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 TOTALS 4731 180 177 163 t69 295 617 1046 1259 825 1 73 37 62 36 66 117 198 280 273 276 308 308 44 0 31 46 71 144 35 51 32 32 69 163 272 314 241 28 41 32 53 89 193 296 364 MOVING 24 HOUR TOTAL SAMPLE - CHANNEL 11 0900 20640 1000- 20202 1100- 0 1200- 0 .1300- 0 1400- 2100- 0 2200- 0 1500- 0 0 2300- 0 1600- 0 2400- 0 ' 1700- 0 1800- 0 1900- 0100- 0 0200- 0 0300- 0 2000- 0 0 0400- 0 0500- 0 0600- 0 0700- 0 0800- 0 Channel 1 Traffic Check suit O.K. r INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS and LEVEL OF SERVICE The most current analysis methodologies used for evaluating the capacity of intersections were developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in conjunction with the Federal I-lighway Administration (FHWA) and other members of the transportation profession. This methodology is represented in TRB Special Report Number 209, The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Computerized methods for conducting these analyses were developed by FHWA; and are the 1 methods used in this report. The following brief explanations of the methodologies are adapted from the HCM. IUNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - TWSC At an unsignalized t-,vo-way stop -controlled (TWSC) intersection, the major street has continuous ' right of way while the side street is controlled by a stop sign or yield sign. In operation, vehicles exiting the side street and crossing or turning into the main street flow must wait for "acceptable gaps" in the main street flow. The same is true of left -turning traffic from the main street that ' must cross the opposing flow. The analysis takes into account the probability of a gap in the main street traffic. The probability ' and number of acceptable gaps is lower in higher volume flows. The acceptability of a gap is modified by physical factors (sight distance, turning radius, etc.) and by characteristics of the traffic flow (percentage trucks, buses, etc.). rIn the analysis in these reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks (single unit and tractor -trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of service for TWSC intersections is determined only for individual movements - not for the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue position to the first -in -queue position. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The operation (and therefore the capacity) of a signalized intersection is complicated by the fact that the signal is allocating time between conflicting traffic movements - movements that must use the same physical space. The analysis, therefore, must not only look at the physical geometry of the intersection, but the signal timing aspects as well. hi the analysis of signalized intersections, two terns are important: volume to capacity ratio (v/c) and; average stopped delay (seconds per vehicle). The theoretical capacity is based on the physical geometry, the available green time (often expressed as G/C), and the traffic mix (e.g. trucks use more capacity than cars). The average stopped delay may be calculated from the v/c ratio, cycle length, quality of progression on the arterial and available green time oil each approach. In this report all the default values recommended by the I-ICM are used unless other specific information is available (percentage of trucks, pedestrians, etc.). Existing signal timings are observed and used whenever possible. When future signals are being evaluated, an "optional" signal timing is calculated based on projected volumes. The level of service is based on the calculated average delay per vehicle for each approach and for the intersection as a whole. Based on extensive research studies, the maximum delay acceptable by the average driver is sixty seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection. This is defined as the upper limit on the possible range of delay/level of service criteria. The following criteria describe the full range of level of service: .f LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Description A Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, up to 10 sec per vehicle. This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Level of Service B describes operations with delay greater than 10 and up to 20 see per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths; or both. More vehicles stop than for LOS A. causing higher levels of average delay. C Level Of Service C describes operations with delay greater than 20 and up to 35 see per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass though the intersection without stopping. D Level of Service D describes. operations with delay greater than 35 and up to 55 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, longer cycle lengths, or high We ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Level of Service E describes operations with delay greater than 55 and up to 80 sec per vehicle. This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high We ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 80 sec per vehicle. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers; often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many. individual cycle failures. Poor progression and cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. l Puri Keporl 1 arQ 1 VL J FULL REPORT General Information Site Information US Route 11 & NB Off - Analyst PHRA Intersection Ramp Agency or Co. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 10126101 unsdiction Time Period AM Peak Hour nalysis Year Existing Conditions Intersection Geometry Grade = 0 0 2 0 Grade = 0 0 0 0 0 Y 0 i Grade = Grade = 0 0 2 0 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 690 76 526 326 % Heavy veh 9 9 9 9 HF 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Actuated P/A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 1 12.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 K22.O ed/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 25 ane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 1 0 Ped timing 3.2 3.2 WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 G= 60.0 IG= G= G= G= 45.0 IY= G= G= 1Y= G= 1Y= Timing Y= 2.0 JY= Y= Y= 2.0 Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 cle Len th C = 115.0 file://C:\temp\s2k3217.TMP 10/26/2001 mull Keport rage L of ' VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET ' eneral Information roject Description Rutherford's Industrial Park olume Adjustment ' EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 326 Volume 690 76 526 HF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ' Adj. Flow Rate 726 54 554 343 'Lane Group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 726 54 554 343 ' Prop. LT or RT - 0.000 - 1.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 Saturation Flow Rate 'Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 ' 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 V 0.917 0.917 0.917 0.917 1.000 1.000 1.000 ' 9 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ' b 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fa 1.00 1.00 1.00 'fLU 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 fl-T - .950 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - 'Secondary fLT T _ - 0.850 - 1.000 - 1.000 'fLpb - 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - 'fRpb _ - 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 Adj. satflow 1656 1482 ::r312 3312 tec. adj. satflow 10/26/2001 f11e:HC:\temp\s2k3217.TMP r Uti CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Capacity Analysis EB WB NB SB Lane group L LR T T dj. flow rate 726 54 1554 343 atflow rate 1656 1482 3312 3312 ost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 reen ratio 0.52 0.52 0.39 0.39 ane group cap. 864 773 1296 1296 I ratio 0.84 0.07 0.43 0.26 low ratio 0.44 0.04 0.17 0.10 rit. lane group Y N Y N um flow ratios 0.61 Lost time/cycle 10.00 Critical We ratio 0.66 Lane Group Capacity, ontrol Delay,and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Lane group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 726 54 554 343 Lane group cap. 864 773 1296 1296 /c ratio 0.84 0.07 0.43 10.26 Green ratio 0.52 0.52 0.39 0.39 nif. delay d1 23.4 13.6 25.6 23.8 Delay factor k 0.38 0.11 0.11 0.11 Increm. delay d2 7.5 0.0 0.2 0.1 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ontrol delay 30.9 13.7 25.8 fEE ane group LOS C B C pprch. delay 29.7 25.8 23.9 Approach LOS C C C Intersec. delay 27.2 Intersection LOS C 11-:- A 1n IICS2000T M file://C:\temp\s2k3217.TMP Copyright V 2000 University of rtonoa, 1%11 n181ia ,IGJGI 10/26/2001 ruii tcepori FULL REPORT 'General Information Site Information US Route 1 & NB Off - Analyst PHRA Intersection j P Agency or Co. Area Type All other areas ' ate Performed 10126101 Jurisdiction Time Period PM Peak Hour nalysis Year Existing Conditions Geometry 'Intersection Grade = 0 0 2 0 ■ Grade = 0 0 0 0 — 0 r ' 0 ' Grade = Grade = 0 0 2 0 ' Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 'Volume (vph) 961 140 951 452 % Heavy veh 9 9 9 9 HF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 'Actuated P/A A A A A Startup lost time 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 rrival type 3 3 3 3 ' Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 1 25 ' ane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 arking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N arking/hr ' us stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Ped timing 3.2 3.2 WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 ' G= 60.0 IG= G= G= G= 60.0 IY= G= G= IT= G= iming Y= 2.0 Y= Y= Y= 2.0 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 vcle Length C = 130.0 ' fi1e://C:\temp\s2k4159.TMP 10/26/2001 1 r uii IWPUR VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Volume Adjustment EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 961 140 951 452 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow Rate 1012 121 1001 476 Lane Group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 1012 121 1001 476 Prop. LT or RT - 0.000 1 - 1.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 Saturation Flow Rate Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 fW 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 V 0.917 0.917 0.917 0.917 9 1.000 1.000 1.000 fp 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 b 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fa 1.00 1.00 1.00 fLU 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 T 0.950 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 IT- Secondary IT T _ - 0.850 - 1.000 - 1.000 fl-pb - 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - pb _ - 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 Adj. satflow 1482 3312 312 ec. adj. satflow '1656 fi1e://C:\temp\s2k4159.TMP 10/26/2001 rUlt t-cpurt. ' CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information ' roject Description Rutherford's Industrial Park apacity Analysis EB WB NB SB Lane group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 1012 121 1001 1476 atflow rate 1656 1482 3312 3312 ost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 reen ratio 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 ane group cap. 764 684 1529 1529 /c ratio 1.32 0.18 0.65 0.31 Flow ratio 0.61 0.08 0.30 0.14 ' rit. lane group y N y N um flow ratios 0.91 ost time/cycle 10.00 ritical We ratio 0.99 ane Group Capacity, Control Delay,and LOS Determination ' EB WB NB SB Lane group L LR T T 'Adj. flow rate 1012 121 11001 476 Lane group cap. 764 684 1529 1529 /c ratio 1.32 0.18 0.65 0.31 ' Green ratio 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 nif. delay dl 35.0 20.5 27.0 22.0 ' elay factor k 0.50 0.11 0.23 0.11 ncrem. delay d2 155.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 ' F factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ontrol delay 190.1 20.6 28.0 22.1 ane group LOS F C C C pprch. delay 172.0 28.0 22.1 pproach LOS F C C ' Intersec. delay HCS2000TM f11e://C:\temp\s2k4159.TMP 89.5 Intersection LOS Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved F Version 4.1a 10/26/2001 iwo-way atop Lontroi rage 1 UI G TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. Date Performed 10/26/01 nalysis Time Period AM Peak Intersection US Route 11 & NB On- p Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park East/West Street: NB On -ram North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North-South[Study Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a'or Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 368 224 10 6 301 109 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 387 235 1 10 6 1 316 1 114 ercent Heavy Vehicles 9 — — 9 — — edian Type Raised curb T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 1 1 onfi uration L T TR L T R stream Signal 0 0 minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 25 15 14 39 23 22 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 26 15 14 0 0 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 .9 9 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 onfiguraflon-----F LTR lelay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach NB SIB Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR (vph) 387 6 55 (m)(vph) 1078 1269 161 /c 0.36 0.00 0.34 5% queue length 1.65 0.01 1.41 Control Delay 10.2 7.9 38.5 LOS B A E Approach Delay — — 38.5 Approach LOS — — E file:HC:\t i wo-way atop t-ontroi r abc i ui 2- TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. Date Performed 10126101 nalysis Time Period PM Peak Intersection US Route 11 & NB On- ramp Jurisdiction Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park EastMest Street NB On -ram North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 elicle Volumes and Adjustments .or Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 382 684 25 19 431 50 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 402 720 26 20 453 52 ercent Hea Vehicles 9 — — 9 — — edian Type Raised curb T Channelized 0 0 anes 1 2 0 1 1 1 onfi uration L T TR L T R stream Signal 0 0 Inor Street Westbound Eastbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 21 22 12 39 23 22 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 22 1 23 1 12 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 9 9 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N torage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration LTR -- Delay, Queue Len th and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR (vph) 402 20 57 (m)(vph) 1006 813 71 lc 0.40 0.02 0.80 5% queue length 1.94 0.08 3.83 Control Delay 10.9 9.5 153.8 LOS B A F Delay — — 153.8 Vpproach pproach L IS — — F P file:HC:\temp\u2 Two -Way Stop Control rake 1 u TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst 'Agency/Co. Date Performed PHRA 10/26/01 Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year US Route 11 & SB Ramps Existing Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park East/West Street: SB Rams North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South tud Period hrs : 0.25 Pehicle Volumes and Adjustments 'or Street Northbound vement 1 2 L T Volume 127 499 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 525 ' Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 — 3 4 R L 764 127 0.95 0.95 804 133 — 9 Southbound 5 6 T R 889 109 0.95 0.95 935 0 — Median Type Type • Raised curb 'Lanes RT Channelized 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T Kjpstrearn Signal 0 1. 0 inor Street Westbound Eastbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 'Volume 25 499 764 27 0 412 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 1 0 28 0 1 433 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 1 9 9 9 9 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N 'Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 onfiguration J LT R elay, Queue Len th and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R ' (vph) 133 28 433 (m) (vph) 480 143 523 /c 0.28 0.20 0.83 ' 5% queue length 1.12 0.70 8.30 Control Delay 15.3 36.2 36.9 LOS C E E Approach Delay — 36.9 Approach LOS — — E Copyright 02000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1a file://C:\temp\u2k5381.TMP 10/26/2001 1 wo-way 6iop t-oniroi .—b— . -- TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection US Route 11 & SB Ramps gency/Co. Jurisdiction ate Performed 10126101 Analysis Year Existing Conditions nal sis Time Period PM Peak ro'ect Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park ast/West Street: SB Rams North/South Street: US Route 11 ntersection Orientation: North -South tud Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments or Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 127 897 816 154 1259 109 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 944 858 162 1325 0 ercent Heavy Vehicles 9 — — 9 — edian Type Raised curb T Channelized 0 0 anes 0 2 1 1 2 0 onfiuration T R L T stream Signal 0 0 inor Street Westbound Eastbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 25 499 764 54 0 423 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 56 0 445 ercent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 9 9 9 9 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 onfiguration I LT L R elay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R (vph) 162 56 445 (m) (vph) 310 0 388 /c 0.52 1.15 5% queue length 2.85 16.96 ontrol Delay 28.6 124.0 LOS D F F pproach Delay — — pproach LOS I- - Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved file://C:\temp\u2k6292.TMP Version 4.1a 10/26/2001 r uri IWPUR 1 CZ6l 1 V1 J I L 1 FULL REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. Date Performed 10126101 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction nalysis Year US Route 11 & NB Off - Ramp All other areas 2010 Background Conditions Intersection Geometry Grade = 0 0 0 0 Grade = 0 2 r 0 2 0 0 Grade = 0 0 0 Y Grade = 0 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 1070 118 816 506 % Heavy veh 9 9 9 9 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Actuated P/A A A A A Startup lost time 1 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Ext eff. green 12.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 rrival type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 ed/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 25 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 11 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N arking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Ped timing 3.2 3.2 WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 55.0 G= G= G= ly= G= 50.0 IY= G= G= G= Y= 2.0 JY= Y= 2.0 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 115.0 fi1e://C:\temp\s2k92F 8.TMP 10/26/2001 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET eneral Information ' roject Description Rufherford's Industrial Park olume Adjustment EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 1070 118 816 506 HF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 'Adj. Flow Rate 1126 98 859 533 Lane Group L LR T T 'Adj. flow rate 1126 98 859 533 Prop. LT or RT - 0.000 - 1.000 0.000 -- 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 'Saturation Flow Rate Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 fvv 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 'fliv 0.917 0.917 0.917 0.917 9 1.000 1.000 1.000 ' fl)1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 b 1.000 1-1.-0-00 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 tfLu 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 T 0.950 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - Secondary fLT - _ - T _ - 0.850 - 1.000 - 1.000 tpb - 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - pb _ - 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 Adj. satflow 1656 1482 3312 3312 adj. satflow - - - 'Sec. file://C:\te1-np\s2k92F8.TMP 10/26/2001 run - --a- _ -- - CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Capacity Analysis EB WB NB SB Lane group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 1126 98 859 533 atflow rate 1656 1482 3312 3312 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.48 0.48 10.43 0.43 Lane group cap. 792 709 1440 1440 /c ratio 1.42. 0.14 F1 0.60 0.37 Flow ratio 0.68 0.07 0.26 0.16 rit. lane group y N y N Sum flow ratios 0.94 Lost time/cycle 10.00 Critical v/c ratio 1.03 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, nd LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Lane group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 1126 98 859 533 Lane group cap. 792 709 1440 1440 /c ratio 1.42 0.14 0.60 0.37 Green ratio 0.48 0.48 10.43 0.43 Unif. delay d1 30.0 16.8 124.8 21.9 Delay factor k 0.50 0.11 0.19 0.11 ncrem. delay d2 197.1 0.1 0.7 0.2 F factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 227.1 16.8 125.5 22.1 Lane group LOS lidF B I C C pprch. delay 210.3 25.5 22.1 Approach LOS F C C Intersec. delay 111.3 Intersection LOS F 1ICS2000Tt,t Copyright 0 2000 University of -Honda, All Rights Reservea fi1e://C:\temp\s2k92F8.TMP 10/26/2001 r uu MePUR I � I 7 � I I I roc[. eu. Yluell mval type L 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 ed/Bike/RTOR Volume r 0 25 ane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N arking/hr Bus stops/hr 1 0 0 0 0 ed timing 3.2 3.2 WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 G= 55.0 G= iming Y= 2.0 IY= uration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 G= I G= G= 50.0 IY= G= G= G= Y= Y= 2.0 Y= Y= Y= cle Len th C = 115.0 file://C:\temp\s2k92F8.TMP 10/26/2001 1' Ull VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET �3eneral Information P-1,roject Description Rutherford's Industrial Park IMOMME -MMOMMM11M Urs M 0 NEE MIMMIM AIM ane Group L I __MEMI1MI1MI1MI1M mom flow rate :Adj. Saturation Flow Rate :Base satflow i ---ME MINIM __:EMMI1MI1MI1M ME== =11MMI EMEMMMINIM MMM==I1M =I1MI1M AIM AIM AIM AIM OEM 11011M 11M M MOM MAIN �econdary fLT MEM AIM 11M so IIMMIIM AIM Now = =110 MIM MAIN MAIN _I1MI1M__ MAIN fi1e://C:\temp\s2k92F8.TMP 10/26/2001 r uii IWPUI t. CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Capacity Analysis EB VVB NB SB Lane group L LR T T dj. flow rate 1126 98 859 1533 atflow rate 1656 1482 3312 3312 ost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 reen ratio 0.48 0.48 0.43 0.43 ane group cap. 792 709 1440 1440 /c ratio 1.42 0.14 0.60 0.37 low ratio 0.68 0.07 0.26 0.16 ' fit. lane group Y N Y N um flow ratios 0.94 ' ost time/cycle 10.00 ritical We ratio 1.03 ane Group Capacity, ontroll Delay, nd LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Lane group L LR T T 'Adj. flow rate 1126 98 859 533 Lane group cap. 792 709 1440 1440 /c ratio 1.42 10.14 0.60 0.37 ' Green ratio 0.48 0.48 0.43 0.43 nif. delay d1 30.0 16.8 24.8 21.9 Delay factor k 1 0.50 0.11 0.19 0.11 ncrem. delay d2 197.1 0.1 0.7 0.2 ' PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 27.1 16.8 25.5 22.1 Lane group LOS F 8 C C ' pprch. delay 210.3 25.5 22.1 Approach LOS F C C Intersec. delay HCS2000""f file://C:\temp\s2k92F8.TMP 111.3 Intersection LOS Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved F Version 4.1a 10/26/2001 � I Long � I LONG REPORT General Information Site Information US Route 11 NB Off - st PHRA Analyst Intersection Ram � Agency or Co. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 10/26/01 Jurisdiction Time Period PM Peak Hour nalysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Intersection Geometry Grade = 0 0 2 0 T Grade = 0 0 0 0 r� 0 0 1 Grade = Grade = 0 0 2 0 Volume and Timing Input NB SB EB WB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 1491 1217 11475 701 % Heavy veh 9 9 9 9 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Actuated P/A A A A A Startup lost time 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival e 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 ed/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 25 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N arking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 ed timing 3.2 3.2 WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 G= 50.0 G= G= G= G= 60.0 G= G= G= 1I1uration Y= 2.0 Y= Y= of Analysis hrs = 0.25 cle Len th C = 140.0 10/26/2001 fi1e://C:\temp\s2kA266.TNW Long KePOrt 1 Clr:,l, L VA J VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Volume Adjustment EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 1491 217 1475 701 HF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow Rate 1569 202 1553 738 Lane Group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 1569 202 1553 738 Prop. LT or RT - 0.000 - 1.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 Saturation Flow Rate Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 fvlv 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 V 0.917 0.917 0.917 0.917 9 1.000 1.000 1.000 fp 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 b 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 a 1.00 1.00 1.00 fLU 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 fl-T 0.950 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - Secondary fLT T _ - 10.850 - 1.000 - 1.000 pb - 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - pb _ - 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 Adj. satflow 1656 1482 3312 3312 ec. adj. satflow - - - f11e:HC:\temp\s2kA266.TMP 10/26/2001 Long lceport 1 a6c, ' "i j II� CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information ' roject Description Rutherford's Industrial Park apacity Analysis EB WB NB SB ane group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 1569 1202 1553 738 ' atflow rate 1656 1482 3312 3312 ost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 reen ratio 0.36 0.36 0.57 0.57 ane group cap. 591 529 1893 11893 /c ratio 2.65 0.38 0.82 0.39 low ratio 0.95 0.14 0.47 0.22 rit. lane group Y N Y N um flow ratios 1.42 ost time/cycle 10.00 ritical v/c ratio 1.53 ane Group Capacity,Control Delay, nd LOS Determination ' EB WB NB SB Lane group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 1569 202 1553 10.39 738 Lane group cap. 591 529 1893 1893 /c ratio 2.65 10.38 0.82 Green ratio 0.36 0.36 0.57 0.57 nif. delay d1 45.0 33.5 24.2 16.5 ' elay factor k 0.50 0.11 0.36 0.11 ncrem. delay d2 749.5 0.5 3.0 0.1 ' F factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 794.5 34.0 27.2 16.7 ane group LOS F C C B pprch. delay 707.8 27.2 16.7 Approach LOS F C B Intersec. delay 322.0 Intersection LOS F fi1e://C:\temp\s2kA266.TMP 10/26/2001 Long Report ragc ,+ vi j SUPPLEMENTAL UNIFORM DELAY WORKSHEET FOR LEFT TURNS FROM EXCLUSIVE LANES WITH PROTECTED AND PERMITTED PHASES General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park /c Ratio Computation EB WB NB SB Cycle length, C (s) 140.0 Prot. phase eff. green intvl, g (s) Opposed queue eff. green intvl, gq (s) Unopposed green intvl, gu (s) Red time, r(s) Arrival rate, qa (veh/s) Prot. phase departure rate, sp (veh/s) Perm. phase departure rate, ss (veh/s) Xperm Xprot (N/A for lagging left -turns) Uniform Queue Size and Delay Computations Queue at start of green arrow, Qa Queue at start of unsaturated green, Qu Residual queue, Qr Uniform delay, di Uniform Queue Size and Delay Equations Case Qa Qu Qr di If Xperm <= 1.0 & Xprot = 1.0 1 qar gagq 0 0.5/(gaC)][rQa + Qay(Sp qs) +ggQu + Qu2 (Sa- a) If Xperm <= 1.0 & Xprot 1.0 2 qar Qr+ gagq Qa - g(Sp - qa) [0.5/(gaC)][rQa + g(Qa + Qr) +gq (Qr+ Qu) + u2l(Ss-qa) If Xperm > 1.0 & Xprot = 1.0 3 Qr+qar qagq Qu - gu(Ss - qa) [0.5/(gaC)][ggQu + gu(Qa + Qr) + r(Qr + Qa) + av(sP-qa) If Xperm <= 1.0 eftsf 4 0 qa(r + gq) 0 /(gaC)][r + gq)Qu + Quy(s3- qa) Xperm > 1.0 (lagging efts) 5 u-gu(Ss- a) ga(r + gq) 0 /(gaC)][r + gq)Qu + gu(Qu + Qa) + Qav(sP [a) file://C:\temp\s2kA266.TMP 10/26/2001 Long Report rage :) or � BACK -OF -QUEUE WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Average Back of Queue EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT I TH RT LT I TH RT Lane group L LR T T Init. queue/lane 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Flow rate/lane 1569 202 1553 738 atflow per lane 1656 1482 1656 1656 Capacity/lane 591 529 1893 1893 Flow ratio 0,95 0.14 0.47 0.22 /c ratio 2.65 0.38 0.82 0.39 factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1,000 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 Platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 F factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 01 61.0 5.8 24.3 7.9 ks 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.9 2 123.3 0.4 3.4 0.6 avg. 1 184.3 6.2 j 27.8 8.5 Percentile Back of Queue (95th percentile) f13Rio 1.5 1.9 IE 1.6 1.9 BOQ, Q% 276.5 12.0 45.2 1 115.9 ueue Storage Ratio spacing 24.9 24.9 24.9 storage 0 0 0 Avg. RQ 5% RQ% IICS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Flonaa, All xigms icescrveu file://C:\temp\s2kA266.TMP 10/26/2001 Two -Way Stop Control rage 1 Ul G TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information nalyst PHRA Agency/Co. Date Performed 10/26/01 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Site Information US Route 11 & NB On- Intersection ramp Jurisdiction nalysis Year 2010 Background Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park t Street: NB On -ram North/South Street: US Route 11 on Orientation: North -South tud Period hrs : 0.25 Volumes and Adjustments reet Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF ,HourlyFlow Rate, HFR 571 0.95 601 347 0.95 365 16 0.95 16 9 0.95 9 467 0.95 491 169 0.95 177 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9. — — 9 — edian Type T Channelized Raised curb 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 1 1 onfi uration L T TR L T R U stream Signal 0 0 inor Street ovement Westbound. 7 8 9 Eastbound 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles 39 0.95 41 9 23 0.95 24 9 22 0.95 23 9 39 0.95 0 9 23 0.95 1 0 0 22 0.95 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage T Channelized 1 0 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 onfi uration L LTR lelay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach ovement NB 1 SB 4 Westbound 7 8 9 Eastbound 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR (vph) 601 9 88 (m) (vph) 872 1125 71 /c 0.69 0.01 1.24 5% queue length 5.70 0.02 6.90 Control Delay 17.8 8.2 266.2 LOS C A F pproach Delay — — 286.2 pproach LOS — — F iile://C:\temp\u2kB 173.TMP 10/26/2001 Two -Way Stop Control rage i of L TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. Date Performed 10126101 Analysis Time Period PM Peak US Route 11 & NB On - Intersection ramp Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Background Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Est/West Street: NB On -ram ahicle North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South tud Period hrs : 0.25 e Volumes and Adjustments sa'or Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 593 1061 39 29 669 76 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ouriy Flow Rate, HFR 624 1 1116 41 30 704 1 82 ercent Heavy Vehicles 9 — — 9 — — edian Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 anes 1 2 0 1 1 1 onfi uration L T TR L T R stream Signal 0 1 0 inor Street Westbound Eastbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 33 34 19 39 23 22 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 34 35 20 0 0 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 9 9 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 onfiuration LTR lelay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR (vph) 624 30 89 (m) (vph) 785 561 13 /c 0.79 0.05 6.85 5% queue length 8.25 0.17 12.23 Control Delay 24.8 11.8 LOS C B F Approach Delay — — Approach LOS — — F file://C:\temp\u2kB295.TMP 10/26/2001 Two -Way Stop Control Page I or L TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. Date Performed 10/26/01 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Intersection US Route 11 & SB Ramps Jurisdiction 2010 Background Analysis Year Conditions Project Description Rutherford`s Farm Industrial Park East/West Street: SB Rams North/South Street: US Route 11 ntersection Orientation: North -South tud Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a'or Street ovement Northbound 1 2 3 Southbound 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume eak-Hour Factor, PHF 127 0.95 774 0.95 1185 0.95 197 0.95 1379 0.95 109 0.95 ourl Flow Rate, HFR 0 814 1247 207 1451 0 Percent HeavyVehicles 9 — — 9 — — edian Type T Channelized Raised curb 0 0 nes 0 2 1 1 2 0 nfi uration T R L T boustream Signal 0 0 inor Street Movement Westbound 7 8 9 Eastbound 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 25 499 764 42 0 639 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 0 44 0 672 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 9 9 9 9 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 onfiuration LT R elay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R (vph) (m)(vph) 207 243 44 13 672 352 /c 0.85 3.38 1.91 5% queue length 6.84 6.44 45.53 ontrol Delay 68.9 444.8 LOS F F F pproach Delay — — 519.5 pproach LOS — — F file://C:\temp\u2kC2D5.TMP 10/26/2001 Two -Way Stop Control rage i or z TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Intersection US Route 11 & SB Ramps Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 10/26/01 nalysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak iProject Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park East/West Street: SB Rams North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 ' ' ' ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a'or Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R clume 127 1392 1266 239 1953 109 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 1465 1332 251 2055 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 Median Type Raised curb ' RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T ' stream Signal 1 0 0 Inor Street Westbound Eastbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 L T R L T R Volume 25 499 764 84 0 656 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ' Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 1 0 88 0 690 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 9 9 9 9 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 ' Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 ' Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 onfiguration I R elay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ' Lane Configuration L LT R (vph) 251 88 690 (m) (vph) 121 0 220 ' /c 2.07 3.14 5% queue length 20.78 62.87 Control Delay 570.1 LOS F F F pproach Delay — — pproach LOS — — ' file://C:\temp\u2kD0C5.TMP 10/26/2001 Short Report rage i of i SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency or Co. Date Performed 10126101 Time Period AM Peak Hour US Route 11 & NB Off - Intersection Ramp Area Type All other areas urisdiction nalysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 1 um. of Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Lane group L LR T T Volume v h 1070 424 1276 623 % Heavy veh 9 9 9 9 HF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ctuated P/A A A A A tartu p lost time 2.0 2.0 t 2.0 2.0 xt eff. green 1 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 rrival type 3 3 1 3 3 nit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 ed/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 50 ane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 arking/Grade/Parking N N N ro N N 0 N N 0 N arking/hr us stops/hr 0 0 0 nit Extension 3.0 3.0 j 3.0 3.0 Phasing WB Onl 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 G= 50.0 G= G= G= G= 50.0 G= G 1Y= GTiming 1Y= Y= Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= uration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Len th C = 110.0 Lane Group Ca aci , Control Delay, and LOS Determination 1 EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 1126 394 1343 656 iLane group cap. 753 674 1505 1505 /c ratio 1.50 0.58 0.89 0.44 Green ratio 1 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 Unif. delay dl 30.0 22.3 27.5 20.4 Delay factor k 0.50 0.18 0.42 0.11 IIncrem. delay d2 229.9 1.3 7.2 0.2 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 IControl delay 259.9 23.6 34.7 20.6 Lane group LOS F C C C pprch. delay 198.7 34.7 20.6 1 Approach LOS F C C Intersec. delay 102.9 Intersection LOS F ' HCS1000Tt't Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, NI Rights Reserved Version 4.1a file://C:\temp\s2kD2CC.TMP 10/26/2001 Full Report Page 1 of 3 FULL REPORT 1 General Information Site Information US Route 11 & NB Off - Analyst PHRA Intersection Ramp Agency or Co. Area Type All other areas ate Performed 10126101 urisdiction Time Period PM Peak Hour [Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Intersection Geometry Grade = 0 0 2 0 Grade = 0 0 0 0 — 0 1 r 0 1 ' Grade = Grade = 0 0 2 0 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 1491 1298 11597 1235 % Heavy veh 9 9 9 9 PHF 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Actuated P/A A A A A Startup lost time 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 ed/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 50 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N I N N N N Parking/hr Eo ' Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 ed timing 3.2 3.2 WB Only 02 03 04 Thru Only 06 07 08 G= 50.0 JG= G= 1Y= G= G= 80.0 IY= G= G JG= Timing Y= 2.0 JY= Y= 2.0 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 140.0 file://C:\temp\s2kE0C6.TMP 10/26/2001 Full Report Page 2 of 3 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Volume Adjustment EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 1491 298 1597 1235 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow Rate 1569 261 1681 1300 Lane Group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 1569 261 1681 1300 Prop. LT or RT - 0.000 - 1.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 Saturation Flow Rate Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 fvv 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fH V 0.917 0.917 0.917 0.917 9 1.000 1.000 1.000 p 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 b 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fa 1.00 1.00 1.00 U 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 fl-T 0.950 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - Secondary fLT - - - - T - - 0.850 - 1.000 - 1.000 pb - 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - pb - - 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 Adj. satflow 1656 1482 312 312 Sec. adj. satflow - - - - file://C:\temp\s2kEOC6.TMP 10/26/2001 Full Report .rapt:.) ei .3 CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Capacity Analysis EB WB NB SIB Lane group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 1569 261 1681 1300 atflow rate 1656 1482 3312 3312 Lost time 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.36 0.36 0.57 0.57 Lane group cap. 591 529 1893 1893 /c ratio 2.65 0.49 0.89 0.69 Flow ratio 10.95 0.18 10.51 0.39 rit. lane group Y N I Y N Sum flow ratios 1.46 Lost time/cycle 10.00 Critical v/c ratio 1.57 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, nd LOS Determination EB WB NB SIB Lane group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 1569 261 1681 1300 Lane group cap. 591 529 1893 1893 /c ratio 2.65 0.49 0.89 1 0.69 Green ratio 0.36 0.36 0.57 0.57 nif. delay dl 45.0 35.1 26.1 21.2 122.2 Delay factor k 0.50 0.11 0.41 0.26 Increm. delay d2 749.5 0.7 5.6 1.1 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 794.5 35.8 31.7 Lane group LOS F D C C pprch. delay 686.3 31.7 22.2 Approach LOS F C C Intersec. delay 278.1 Intersection LOS F 11CS2000T"t Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Klgnts Keserveu file://C:\temp\s2kEOC6.TMP 10/26/2001 Full Report rabu 1 ui FULL REPORT General Information Site Information US Route 11 & NB Off - Analyst PHRA Intersection Ramp Agency or Co. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 10/26/01 urisdiction Time Period AM Peak Hour nalysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons Intersection Geometry Grade = 0 0 2 0 ■ Grade = 0 0 0 0 Y/'- 0 0 Grade = Grade = 0 0 2 0 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 1070 1424 1276 1623 % Heavy veh 9 1 9 9 9 PHF 10.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 Actuated P/A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 A 2.0 2.0 eff.green_ 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 .val type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 1 3.0 rn 3.0 3.0 ed/BlKe/K I UK volume Lane Width v 1 12.0 0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N rc N N N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 Ped timing 3.2 3.2 WB Only 02 03 04 1 ru Only 06 07 08 iming G= 50.0 Y= 2.0 G= Y= G= Y= G= Y= G= 50.0 Y= 2,0 G= Y= G= Y= = I!= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Len th C = 110. file://C:\temp\s2kE2D 8.TMP 10/26/2001 Full Report rabc /- ui D VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Volume Adjustment EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 1070 424 1276 623 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow Rate 1126 394 1343 656 Lane Group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 1126 394 1343 656 Prop. LT or RT - 0.000 - 1.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 Saturation Flow Rate Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 fvv 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 V 0.917 0.917 0.917 0.917 9 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 b 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fa 1.00 1.00 1.00 fLU 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 fl-T - .950 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - Secondary fLT - - - T _ - 0.850 - 1.000 - 1.000 pb - 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 - pb _ - 1.000 - 1.000 - 1.000 Adj. satflow 1656 1482 3312 3312 ec. adj. satflow file:HC:\temp\s2kE2D8.TMP 10/26/2001 Full Report ' CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Ca acity Analysis EB VVB NB SB ' Lane group L LR T T Adj. flow rate 1126 394 1343 1656 atflow rate 1656 1482 3312 13312 Lost time 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.45 10.45 0.45 0.45 Lane group cap. 753 674 1505 1505 /c ratio 1.50 0.58 0.89 0.44 w ratio 0.68 0.27 0.41 0.20 [nt.lane group Y N Ym flow ratios 1.09 Lost time/cycle 10.00 Critical v/c ratio 1.19 Lane Group Capacity, ontrol Delay, nd LOS Determination EB VVB NB SB Lane group L LR T T -- Adj. flow rate 1126 394 1343 656 Lane group cap. 753 674 1505 1505 /c raflo 1.50 0.58 0.89 0.44 Green ratio 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 Unif. delay d1 30.0 22.3 27.5 20.4 ' Delay factor k 0.50 0.18 0.42 0.11 ncrem. delay d2 229.9 1 1.3 7.2 0.2 F factor 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 ontrol delay 259.9 23.6 34.7 20.6 ane group LOS F C C C pprch. delay 198.7 34.7 20.6 Approach LOS F C L77�F ' Intersec. delay 102.9 Intersection LOS HCS2000Tt`t Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved file://C:\temp\s2kE2D 8.TMP Version 4.1a 10/26/2001 I Full Report Pale 1 of 3 FULL REPORT eneral Information Site Information US Route 11 & Site - Analyst PHRA Intersection Driveway gency or Co. Area Type All other areas ate Performed 10126101 urisdiction ime Period AM Peak Hour nalysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons ntersection Geomet i 2 0 Grade = 0 ) Grade = i 0 0 0 1 0 Grade = 0 Grade = 0 2 1 0 Volume and Timing Input WB NB SB LT EB TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 56 112 766 369 7448 1583 0/6 Heavy veh 8 8 0.95 8 9 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 HF 0.95 A A A A ctuated P/A A A 2'0 2 0 2 0 2.0 2.0 tartu lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 eff. green 2.0 3 3 3 3 rrival e 3 3.0 3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Unit Extension 0 0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ane Width 12.0 12.0 N N N N N arking (Y or N) N N N Parking/hr 0 0 0 0 Bus stops/hr 0 0 3.2 Ped timing 3.2 3.2 08 EB Only 02 03 04 NB G= 20.0 G= G= My_07 G= G= = G=iming Y=Duration Y= 2.0 Y= Y= Y= Y= = 120.0 of Anal sis hrs = 0.25 10/26/2001 file://C:\temp\s2kF 126.TMP Full Report i arvo G Vi J VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Volume Adjustment EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 56 112 766 369 748 153 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow Rate 59 118 806 388 787 161 Lane Group L R L T T R Adj. flow rate 59 118 806 388 787 161 Prop. LT or RT - - 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 Saturation Flow Rate Base satflow 1900 1900J 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 1 0 1- 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 fW 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ffiV 0.926 0.926 0.926 0.917 0.917 0.926 9 1.000 1.000 fp 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 b 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fa 1.00 1.00 U 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 fl-T 950 - 0.950 1.000 - 1.000 - econdary fLT - - - T - 0.850 - - 1.000 - 1.000 0.850 pb 1.000 - - 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 - pb - 1.000 - - 1.000 - 1.000 1.000 Adj. satflow 1671 1495 242 1743 3312 1495 Sec. adj. satflow - - - - iile:HC:\temp\s2kF 126.TMP 10/26/2001 Full Report raga -1 el CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET eneral Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Capacity Analysis EB WB NB SB Lane group L R L T T R Adj. flow rate 59 118 806 388 787 161 atflow rate 1671 1495 3242 1743 3312 1495 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.17 0.54 0.33 0.75 0.38 0.56 Lane group cap. 279 810 1081 1307 1242 872 /c ratio 0.21 0.15 0.75 0.30 0.63 0.18 Flow ratio 0.04 0.08 0.25 0.22 0.24 0.11 tit. lane group Y N Y N Y N um flow ratios 0.52 fi1e://C:\temp\s2kF 126.TMP 10/26/2001 Full Report rage i or FULL REPORT ' General Information Site Information US Route 11 & Site - Analyst PHRA Intersection Driveway 'Agency or Co. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 10125101 urisdiction Time Period PM Peak Hour �nalysis Year 2010 Build -out Condiitons 'Intersection Geometry Grade = 0 1 2 0 Y Grade = 1 � 0 0 0 0 1 ' Grade = 0 0 Grade = 2 1 0 t Timing In ut Volume and SB ' EB WB NB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 'Volume (vph) 254 609 203 1080 803 41 % Heavy veh 8 8 1 8 9 9 8 P H F 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 tActuated P/A A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 xt. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' rrival e 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 100 0 0 0 ' Lane Width 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N arking/hr ' Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped timing 3.2 3.2 3.2 ' EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only Thru & RT 07 08 G= 25.0 G= IY= G= G= G= 35.0 G= 45.0 G= IY= G= Timing Y= 2.0 Y= Y= Y= 2.0 Y= 2.0 Y= ' Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Leneith C = 1950. file://C:\temp\s2kF2CB.TMP i 10/26/2001 Full Report rage z of f VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET , ' General Information Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park Volume Adjustment ' SB EB WB NB ' LT TH RT LT TH RT F TH RT LT TH RT ' Volume 254 609 203 1080 803 41 i PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow Rate 267 536 214 1137 845 43 Lane Group L R L T T R L--- Adj. flow rate 267 536 214 1137 845 43 1 _ — 0.000 — 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 Prop. LT o, R Saturation Flow Rate Base satflow 1900 file://C:\temp\s2kF2CB.TMP 10/26/2001 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of l TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR&A Intersection Right in/out & US Route 11 Agency/Co. Date Performed 10/25/01 Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford's Industrial Park East/West Street: Right in/out Site -Driveway North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South — IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments or Street Northbound Southbound vement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R lume 0 1136 0 0 757 102 [eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 udy Flow Rate, HFR 0 1195 0 0 796 107 rcent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 —dian Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R stream Signal 0 0 Street Westbound Eastbound vement 7 8 9 10 11 12 rinor L T R L T R ume 0 0 0 0 0 56 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 58 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 8 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N torage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 onfiguration R lelay, Queue Len th and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 R Lane Configuration 58 (vph) 585 (m) (vph) 0.10 /c 0.33 5% queue length 11.8 ontrol Delay B LOS pproach Delay — — 11.8 pproach LOS -- — B Copyright () 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved f'ile://C:\temp\u2k 13 5 .TMP Version 4. )a 10/26/2001 Two -Way Stop Control rage t of TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information eneral Information nalyst PHR&A Intersection Right in/out & US Route 11 ' Agency/Co. Date Performed 10/25/01 Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Rutherford's industrial Park ' East/West Street: Right in/out Site -Driveway North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South J§tudy Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a or Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 L 5 T 6 R ' L T R 27 0 1283 0 0 1384 olume eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1350 0 0 1456 28 ereent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — edian Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 1 1 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 R T o uration T 0 Unfi stream Signal 0 inor Street Westbound Eastbound 12 ovement 7 8 9 10 11 T R ' L T R L 154 0 0 0 0 olume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0. Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 162 8 ' Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N ' Storage 0 0 0 RT Channelized 0 1 ' Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 R onfiguration 'elay, Queue Length, and Level of Service NB SB Westbound Eastbound pproach 7 8 9 10 11 12 ovement 1 4 R Lane Configuration 162 (vph) 353 (m) (vph) 0.46 ' /c 2.32 5% queue length 2 Control Delay C LOS Approach3.6 Delay - — 2 C Approach LOS — — Copyright m 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1a 10/26/2001 file://C:\tem,p\u2k2F4.TMP Two -Way Stop Control TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. Date Performed 10126101 Analysis Time Period AM Peak US Route 11 & NB On - Intersection ramp Jurisdiction nalysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park East/West Street: NB On -ram North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South tud Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a'or Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 571 1114 16 9 585 220 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 601 1172 16 9 615 231 ercent HeavyVehicles 9 — — 9 — — edian Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 anes 1 2 0 1 1 1 onfiuration L T TR L T R stream Signal 0 0 inor Street Westbound Eastbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 39 23 22 39 23 22 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 41 1 24 1 23 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 9 9 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 onfiuration LTR elay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR (vph) 601 9 88 (m) (vph) 744 546 13 /c 0.81 0.02 6.77 5% queue length 8.53 0.05 12.10 ontrol Delay 26.8 11.7 LOS D B F Approach Delay — — pproach LOS - - F fi1 e: HC : \temp\u2k 1121. TMP Two -Way Stop Control rage i or z TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information alyst PHRA Agency/Co. Date Performed 10/26/01 Analysis Time Period PM Peak US Route 11 & NB On- Intersection ramp Jurisdiction nalysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park st/West Street: NB On -ram North/South Street: US Route 11 ersection Orientation: North -South tud Period hrs : 0.25 hicle Volumes and Adjustments La 'or Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 593 1264 39 29 1203 307 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 624 1330 41 30 1266 323 ercent HeavyVehicles 9 — — 9 — — edian Type Raised curb T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 1 1 iuration L T TR L T R ream Signal 0 0 VinorStreet Westbound Eastbound Eastbound 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R volume 33 34 19 39 23 22 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 34 1 35 1 20 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 9 9 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N torage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 onfi uration LTR elay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR (vph) 624 30 89 (m) (vph) 378 462 0 /c 1.65 0.06 5% queue length 37.06 0.21 Control Delay 329.8 13.3 LOS F B F Approach Delay — — pproach LOS — — a file://C:\temp\u2k 1295.TMP 10/26/2001 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 ' TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information 'Agency/Co. Analyst PHRA Date Performed 10/26/01 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Intersection US Route 11 & SB Ramps Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park ' East/West Street: SB Rams North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South tud Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments ' a or Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R ' Volume 127 1004 1185 264 1430 109 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 1056 1 1247 277 1 1505 0 ' Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T U stream Signal 0 0 ' inor Street Westbound Eastbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 25 499 764 272 0 639 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 286 1 0 672 ' Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 9 9 L 9 9 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 onfiguration I LT LR elay, Queue Length, and Level of Service ' pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R (vph) 277 286 672 (m) (vph) 194 0 338 /c 1.43 1.99 ' 5% queue length 16.62 47.10 Control Delay 265.4 480.8 LOS F F F Approach Delay — — LOS — — 'Approach Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. In file://C:\temp\u2k21 AO.TMP 10/26/2001 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. Date Performed 10/26/01 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Intersection US Route 11 & SB Ramps Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park East/West Street: SB Rams North/South Street: US Route 11 Intersection Orientation: North-South[Study Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a or Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 127 1004 1185 264 1430 109 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1056 1247 277 1505 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 — — 9 — — edian Type Raised curb T Channelized 0 0 anes 0 2 1 1 2 0 onfi uration T R L T stream Signal 0 0 inor Street Westbound Eastbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 25 499 764 272 0 639 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 286 0 1 672 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 9 9 9 9 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 anes 0 0 0 0 1 1 onfiguration LT R elay, Queue Len th and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R (vph) 277 286 672 (m) (vph) 194 0 338 /c 1.43 1.99 5% queue length 16.62 47.10 ontrol Delay 265.4 480.8 LOS F F F pproach Delay — — pproach LOS — — 01 file://C:\temp\u2 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHRA Agency/Co. Date Performed 10126101 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Intersection US Route 11 & SB Ramps Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Build -out Conditions Project Description Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park East/West Street: SB Rams North/South Street: US Route 11 intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a'or Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 127 1452 1266 544 2182 109 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 1528 1 1332 572 1 2296 0 rcent Heavy Vehicles 9 — — 9 — — dian Type Raised curb Channelized 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 0nfi leanes uration T R L T stream Si nal 0 0 nor Street Westbound Eastbound vement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 25 499 764 145 0 656 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 0 152 0 1 690 Percent Heavy Vehicles 9 9 9 9 9 9 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N torage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 onfi uration J. LT R elay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R (vph) 572 152 690 (m) (vph) 114 0 182 lc 5.02 3.79 5% queue length 60.78 67.34 Control Delay LOS F F F pproach Delay — — pproach LOS — — copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved file://C:\temp\u2k2376.TN1P Version 4.1a 10/26/2001 8 m Ln m In m M .f th 0 rnr,j In Z Ln Q U z n cl, ,n m , c, LD CIO h c r to cli ci 0 00 0 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT 014 MARCH 13. 2001 I MADE AN ACCURATE SURVEY OF THE ➢REMISES SHOWN HEREON AND THAT THERE ARE NO EASEMENTS OR ENCROAC}IENTS VISIBLE ON THE GROUND OTHER THAN THOSE SHO1,N HEREON. THIS LOT IS LOCATED IN HUD FLOOD ZONE C, AREA OF MINIMAL FLOODING AS SHOWN ON FIRM P1Ap P 510063 0105 B EFFECTIVE JULY 17, 1979. DUtC A!y _S 25a$3 1D„V iilpg Wg ,4 P' S? i 21 _ II S. 2Y83cj Acres I � A7-7-E'NT/0Al � ~ Ld 25 _ 1L 8.92600 ACRES (TOTAL) n D"'R' T ON H0O'J`rZ LOTS DB. 14 P. 499 24 ti 23 l K=5fJp9, S8' CH 517.3.3, 1 = 17. 51 ' CH. BRG, N 14.44'55" E INTERSTATE ROUTE 81' { WIDTH VARIES ) sI5i8" C3 _ '• N 13021'10"E 467.57' CD m U3 ELLIOTT 243 /22 O t' (D m •0.5MILTO �••- RTE II FURSTENAU SURVEYING (540) 662-9323 III SOUTH LOUDOUN ST, WINCHESTER, VA. Lc. tivrz/ � ce a Lo n t4 5/8" rod &at BOUNDARY SURVEY LAND OF BURTON HOOVER STONEWALL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIR DEED REF. DB. 207 P. 62 SCALE: I" = 1Q9' TAX MAP 43-A-97 I& Frederick County Treasurer 107 North Kent Street SUITE 100 DATES TO REMEMBER Jan. 2 Vehicle decals go on sale Jan. 31 Dog Tags are due Feb. 15 Vehicle decals to be displayed Mar. 1 Business Equipment and License must be filed Apr. 1 Business License must be paid June 5 First half takes due PERSONAL PROPERTY REAL ESTATE SANITARY DISTRICT STREET LIGHTS Nov. 1 Dog tags go on sale Dec. 5 Second half taxes due PERSONAL PROPERTY REAL ESTATE SANITARY DISTRICT STREET LIGHTS Other due dates as billed by the Comm. of Revenue Mailing Address c. William orndoff, Jr. Treasurer p. o. Box 225 Winchester, Virginia 22604-0225� 540-665-5607 E-Mail Address Borndoff@co.frederick.va.us For Tax Information And Online Payments Go To Our Web Site At: WWW.CO.FREDERICK.VA.US Treasurer's Office Hours Monday thru Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm Extended hours Will be offered during peak times Watch for details in local media T A X R E C E I P T 10 Y E A R FREI'"RTCK COUNTY C. VILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR P.O. BOX 225 VINCHESTER VA 22604 2001 REAL ESTATE TAKES 11.50 ACRES 43 A Acres: 2 0 0 1 0icket #:00144860001 @@ Date 8/07/2001 Register: COS/CO Trans. #: 10870 Dept # RE200101 ACCT# 8618 Previous 97 Balance S 11.50 Principal Being Paid S Land: 57500 Imp: 0 Penalty $ Interest. $ HOOVER, REVA A Amount Paid $ *Balance Due 2456 MARTINSBURG PIKE as of 8/07/2001$ STEPHENSON, VA 22656 1709 Check 197.74 Pd Ly HARRISON & JOHNSTON ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST. 175.38 175.38 17.54 4.82 197.74 .00 # FM 8731 DUPLICATE EAR 0 o v} o H 'y w� A H H rn z a 0 C� H 0100/0398 co DEED co THIS DEED, made and dated this day of August, 2001, by and between REVA A. HQOVER, Executor of the Estate of Burton G. Hoover and REVA A. HOOVER, Individually, parties of the first part, hereinafter called Grantors, and TURNER ENTERPRISES. INC, party of the second part, hereinafter called Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby grant and convey with Special Warranty of title, in fee simple, unto Turner Enterprises, Inc., together with all rights, privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging, the following described parcel of real estate: All of that certain lot or parcel of land, together with the improvements thereon, located about three (3 ) miles North of the City of Winchester, in the County of Frederick, Virginia, containing 8.92600 acres, more or less, according to the survey prepared by David M. Furstenau, L.S., dated the 13th day of March, 2001, attached hereto and by this reference hereby made a part hereof. BEING the remaining portion of the same real estate that was conveyed to Burton G. Hoover by Deed dated the 14th day of September, 1948 from Harry W. Ebert, et als of record in Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 207, at Page 62, to which reference is hereby made for a further and more particular description of the real estate herein conveyed. Burton G. Hoover died testate on August 27, 2000, being survived by his wife, and sole surviving heir, Reva A. Hoover, and by his Will of record in the Office of the Clerk for the 0 CX1 Circuit Court for Frederick County authorized his Executrixvio sell his real estate for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of his Will. Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid instruments and the references therein contained for a further and more particular description of the realty herein conveyed. The above conveyance is made subject to all legally enforceable rights of way, easements, restrictions, and covenants of record, if any, affecting the same. The Grantor covenants that she has the right to convey said real estate to the Grantee; that the Grantee shall have quiet and peaceful possession of said real estate; and that the Grantor will execute such further assurances of title as may be requisite. WITNESS the following signature(s) and seal(s): ESTATE OF BURTON G. HOOVER BY: - �- (SEAL) 4E�W HOOVER, Ex Gutrix, Grantor ,. 1 �. �HOO � -a tip- (SEA.L) (g AAA.E , Individually, Grantor STATE OF VIRGINIA LLnc_�to-wit. ItA The foregoing Deed bearing date the 1LL, day of August, 2001, was acknowledged before me by Reva A. Hoover, Executrix of the Estate of Burton G. Hoover and Reva A. Hoover, Individually. -4.. • I My Commission expires: N ary P lic This instrument was prepared by Clinton R. Ritter, Esq., 205 E. Boscawen St.,Winchester, VA 22601, without the opportunity of a title examination. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON MN c�—n I--- -- _ _ - - OF THE DREMISES SHOWN HEREON AND THAT THERE ARE NO EAS�iENTS OR ENCROACF,4ENTS VISIBLE ON THE GROUND OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN HEREON_ THIS LOT IS LOCATED�pIN H5D FLOOD ZONE C, AREA FYI 10063 0105 B EFFECTIvEEjuL, 1978NG - AS SHOWN ON FIRM S 2S°S3 �B 10' >,r 74 P S ? 6,92600 ACRES --- = R=5629,58' �CH-517.33' R=517. 51 ' CH. BRG. N i4.44'55'. E INTERSTATE ROUTE 81 ( WIDTH VARIES) r-- 61%JR-TIFON H.00VER, 1-0-1 S DD. 214 Pl. 499 1 24 N 13021'10"E 467.57' cry — co W ELLIOTT 243 /22 m a ti EDCC n �0.5MIL TO RTE ►i FURSTENAU SURVEYING 1.11 SOUTH LOUDOUN ST. (540) 662-9323 WINCHESTER, VA, S.�piE CCf)DUAVIDU RST tNAU 455 BOUNDRRY SURVEY LRND OF BURTON HOOVER STONEWRLL D15TRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINII DEED REF. DB. 207 4TE; MARCH. S3� ?� :ALE: I" = lQW TAX MAP 43-A-97 . to CD N tl�f MEDERICK COUNTY, SCF. jbh ftW0 Mt Cf wiJUng was produced tome on ado W 6.YtjWty bf fit:'3Mov4cdVmcnt thereto annexed wt4 gdjWtjW ib t eft, Tw imp=d by Sm 58,I-802 of $ /44. D to; Am paid, if assessable 3 Frederick County Treasurer 107 North Kent Street SUITE 100 DATES TO REMEMBER Jan. 2 Vehicle decals go on sale Jan. 31 Dog Tags are due Feb. 15 Vehicle decals to be displayed Mar. 1 Business Equipment and License must be filed Apr. 1 Business License must be paid June 5 First half taxes due PERSONAL PROPERTY REAL ESTATE SANITARY DISTRICT STREET LIGHTS Nov. 1 Dog tags go on sale Dec. 5 Second half taxes due PERSONAL PROPERTY REAL ESTATE SSNITARY DISTRICT STREET LIGHTS Other due dates as billed by the Comm. of Revenue Mailing Address c. William Orndoff, Jr. Treasurer P. O. Box 225 • Winchester, Virginia 22604-0225 540-665-5607 E-Mail Address BOrndoff@co.frederick.va.us For Tax Information And Online Payments Go To Our Web Site At: WWW.CO.FREDERICKNAMS Treasurer's Office Hours Monday thru Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm Extended hours will be offered during peak times Watch for details in local media WINCHESTER VA 22604 2001 REAL ESTATE TAXES 23.00 ACRES Land: 45660 DUNCAN, EMMA S. C/O RICHARD R DUNCAN 6101 EDSALL RD APT 1802 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22304 6009 T A X R E C E I P T 41Y E A R 2 0 0 1 � cket 4:00083950001 FREDERICK COUNTY C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR P.O. BOX 225 Previous 43 A ill Balance $ Acres: 23.00 Principal Being Paid $ Imp: 113000 Penalty $ Interest $ Amount Paid $ *Balance Due as of 5/21/2001$ to 5/21/2001 Register: ESR/ES Trans. #: 20483 Dept # RE200101 ACCT# 8632 483.92 483.92 .00 .00 483.92 11 Pd by ESTATE OF DUNCAN, EMMA S. ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST. (DUPLICATE) • • Mamie Orndorff, his wife, whose names are signed to the foregoing writing bearing date of February, 14th, 1945, have personally appeared before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid, and acknowledged the same. VIRGIP;IA FREDERICK COUNTY, (SCT. Given under my hand this 14th day of February, 1945. My commission expires March 24, 1948. VIMI14IA RITTER Ro aryl Pubilc This instrument of writing was produced to me on the 14th day of Feb. 1945 at 3:50 P. M. and with certificate of acknowledgment thereto annexed was admitted to record. �-3 V, c e- A •. ,. •. •. ,. •... •... •. • . •.., ........ �ci; i'• i'• i; is iii: is ¢r100 WILLIA1 B. CASILEAR EY AL TO DEED RAY H. DUNCAN ET UX i. 11 1 :.......: i:..........:... .' '; i2 ...... ;.:. :.....: i; 1 THIS DEED made this lst day of February, 1945, between 1 &IAA4 William B. Casilear and fury Anna Casilear, parties of the first part, and Ray H. Duncan r t� nd Emma Duncan, his wife, parties of the second part. 7ITII%SSETH: That in consideration of the sum of Ten Dolla s (�10 00) h h d 'd 4- 4-1,'d t' f t JJ, CLERK I I r3 19/ r. z70 r cas In an pat o e sat par ies o hs first part, at and before the sealing; and delivery of this deed, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, and other good and valuable consideration, the•said William B. Casilear and Ulary Anna Casilear, parties of the first part, doth bargain and sell, grant and convey unto the said Ray II. Duncan and Fmma Duncan, his wife, as tenants by the entirety, with the right of survivor- ship as at common law, parties of the second part, with general warranty of title, all of the following: described real estate together with the buildings and improvements thereon and the appurtenances and privileges thereto belongin€, or in any wise appertaining and more particularly described as follows: All of that certain tract or parcel of land improved by a new nine -room brick dwelling: house and garage, situated in Frederick County, Virginia, hbout three (3) miles north from the City of Winchester, Virginia, on the West Side of the 'Winchester and Martinsburg Turnpike (also known as U. S. Route #11 ), containing twenty-four (24) acres, more or less, and which tract of land is bounded on the north- east by the lands of Riley, on the Vilest by Rutherford heirs, on the Southwest by Ruther- ford heirs and Wilson Kiter, and on the Southeast by the Winchester and Martinsburb Turnpike, and being part of a Twenty -Five (25) Acre tract of land conveyed to William B. Casilear by deed dated the 25th day of March, 1940, from Annie J. Rees (unmarried), which deed is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 180, page 67; the said parties of the first part having conveyed hC l7PPfl (I,,f.A f1004-1, a.... ..i` ---ti In A^ " . V.- __. _ . /9 / /"-7r • -� 19) V Z-)? Iclerk's office in Deed Book 180 page 214), a small part of said land fronting on said Turnpike a distance of One Hundred and Forty -Five (145) feet and extending westward i with an even width of One IIundred and Forty -Five (145) feet for a depth of three IIundred and Thirty -Nine (339) feet, containing; approximately One (1) Acre, to which deeds and 'the references therein contained, and to the plats and surveys attached to and made a part j of said deeds, a reference is here made for a more particular description of the realty I herein conveyed. The grantors herein covenant that they will warrant. i generally the title to the real estate hereby conveyed- that they have the right to convey the same to the aforesaid grantees; that the said grantees shall have quiet possession of the said real estate, free from all encumbrances;,and that they will execute such further assurances of said real estate as may be requisite. ;';ITNESS the following signatures and seals. 'iILLIAM B. CASILEAR (SEAL) i I I iam Casilear M RY ANNA CASILEA R (SEAL) ary Anna Gasiiear STATE OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF LOUDOUN, TO -V'IT: I, Stilso,nll. Ball, a Notary Public of and for the County aforesaid in the State of Virginia, do certify that 'William B. Casilear, whose name is 1 signed to the foregoing writing; bearing date on the lst day of February, 1945, has this iday acknowledged the same before me in my County and State aforesaid. My Comm, exr.ires; July 24, 1947. STATE OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF FREDERICK, TO -;;'IT: Given under my hand this lst day of February, 1945. STILSON ' . HALL —116tary u is I, Frances W. Beverley, a Notary Public of and for the County of Frederick, in the State of Virginia, do certify that I+iary Anna Casilear, whose name is signed to the foregoing writing bearing date on the lst day of February, 1945, has this day- acknowledged the same before me in m4r County and State aforesaid. Given under my hand this 12th day of February, 1945. My Comm. expires: July 10, 1945. ;; :: ,..; as ., •: a; ..:.., 4: REVE19JE STAI,4PS $22.00 CANCELLED VIRGINIA FREDE RICK COUNTY, (SCT. FRANCES W. BL•VERLEY - No ary u 51 is This instrument of writing was produced to me on the 14th day of Feb. 1945 at 3:50 P. M. and with certificate of acknowledgment thereto annexed was admitted to record. X2 /, Z /�' 7.1 4 a� D'i/ /• ao rr.ds M 3 � f / I Plot and description of tract of land surveyed for Wm. B. Casilear, 'Situated along the West side of Highway U. S. No. 11 about three miles North of i i Winchester in Frederick County Virginia. Beginning at (1) a stake in West limits of said highway and corner to i ! � Z47 0 'Thence S. 44 iRiley and running with Highway as follows: S. 44,E W. 14.83 rods to (2), �Z6,0d z-18,�8 W. 13.75 rods to (3), Thence S. 42y' W. 16.89 rods to (4), corner to land of Rutherford \,31 heirs, Thence with Rutherford heirs N. 49} W. 81.66 rods to (5) a post, Thence 7G -T, (Cd :.continuoing with Rutherford heirs, N. 332 E. 46.40 rods to (6) a stake corner to I l 4e-2,G !Riley, 'Thence with Riley N. 49J E. 88.64 rods to the beginning and containing twenty 1five Acres. i I !H. A. Funk Funk, burveyor, 'March 22nd 1940 VIRGINIA �FREDERICK COUNTY SCT: This I4strument of writing was produced to me on the 25th day of March 11940 at 12 noon and with certificate of acknowledgment thereto annexed was admitted to record. C IE RK. P 'may �a-- Frederick County Treasurer 107 North Kent Street SUITE 100 DATES TO REMEMBER Jan. 2 Vehicle decals go on sale Jan. 31 Dog Tags are due Feb. 15 Vehicle decals to be displayed Mar. 1 Business Equipment and License must be filed �pr. 1 Business License must be paid June 5 First half taxes due PERSONAL PROPERTY REAL ESTATE SANITARY DISTRICT STREET LIGHTS Nov. 1 Dog tags go on sale Dec. 5 Second half taxes duo PERSONAL PROPERTY REAL ESTATE SSNITARY DISTRICT STREET LIGHTS Other due dates as billed by the Comm. of Revenue Mailing Address C. William Orndoff, Jr. Treasurer P. O. Box 225 • Winchester, Virginia 22604-0225 540-665-5607 E-Mail Address BOrndoff@co.frederick.va.us Tax Information And Online For Payments Go To Our Web Site At: WWW.CO.FREDERICK.VA.US Treasurer's Office Hours Monday thru Friday 0:30am to 5:00pm Extended hours will be offered during peak times Watch for details in local media TAX RECEIPT 6YE,11,R FREDERICK COUNTY C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR P.O. BOX 225 WINCHESTER VA 22604 2001 REAL ESTATE TAXES 115.30 ACRES Land: 21177 DUNCAN, EMMA S. C/O RICHARD R DUNCAN 6101 EDSALL RD APT 1802 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22304 6009 2 0 0 1 Ticket 4:00083940001 *te 5/21/2001 Register: ESR/ES Trans. #: 20483 Dept # RE200101 ACCT# 8620 Previous 43 A 99 Balance $ Acres: 115.30 Principal Being Paid $ Imp: 0 Penalty $ Interest $ Amount Paid $ *Balance Due as of 5/21/2001$ 64.59 64.59 .00 .00 64.59 Pd by ESTATE OF DUNCAN, EMMA S. ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST. (DUPLICATE) c in The 'Winchester Evening Star, Winchester, Virginia. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK 3. Subject to call upon default. 4. Renewal or extension permitted. 5. Insurance required: Full insurable value 6. Trustee's commission of 5% of gross proceeds of sale. Witness the following signatures and seals: ELWOOD MAXW.E, LL COMER ( SEAL EMILY G. COM (SEAL I, Herbert S. Jones, a notary public in and for the State of and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Elwood M. Comer and Emily Comer, his wife, who names are signed to the foregoing writing, bearing date on the 31st day of July 1952, personally appeared and acknowledged the same before me in my State and County aforesaid. My commission expires on the 4th day of March 1956. Given under my hand this 31st day of July, 1952. (SEAL) HERBERT S.' JONES i I o ary T u is VIRGIIIA FREDERICK COUNTY, (SCT. This instrument of writing was produced to me on the 2nd day of August 1952 at 2:15 P. M. and with certificate of acknowledgment thereto annexed was admitted to record. 411 ,CLERK 3EiE9EiF#iEiE :Eii#iHE3E3Ei'r iE3EiE%EiE3i-;EdE•iE'.EiEe'EiY.EdE�EiFiE3EiE #993 SE r�. C9,11ILLA R. BARDSHAR, ET ALS ,E ,y TO DEED aE g IRAY H.�DUNCAN, ET UX ,E \�,.EiEiEdEzEiE:E4EiE•;E-JE:EiEdEiEiEdEiE#?EiE#:E3Ei:?i�iF'.E:Eic'.ciEiE# 'THIS DEED, made the 7th day of June, 1952, between Camilla R. Bardshar, widow, Volina M. Rutherford, single, Florence A. Rutherford, single, Elsie L. u Gluck and Albert F. Gluck, her husband, and Cornelia S. I.I. Rutherford, single, of the onel part, hereinafter called the Grantors, and Ray H. Duncan and Emma Duncan, his wife, of i the other part, hereinafter called the Grantees. WITNESSETH: That for valuable consideration,.the Grantors do grant unto the Grantees, jointly, with right of survivorship as provided in Section 55-21 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, all of that certain tract of land situate in Stonewall 14agisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, fronting on the 4estern side of the vinchester-Martinsburg Turnpike, now U. S. No. 11, and more particularly described,,by plat and survey description of �ialker McC. Bond, made in May, 1952, which plat and survey description are hereto attached and made a part hereof as if copied herein in full. This is part of the property that was devised under the last will and testament of John H. Rutherford, probated February 5, 1900, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, where it is recorded in Will Book 41, at page 303, to A. G. P f11nnPnnrl fnn 1if?, 1yit'h namninrlan to his rhila"Pn. A. G. Rutherfeni 6jaJ )rl 7934 lCqu�vly S�ivivic., c/�✓t.� G1,i/•✓re+� in Wiip,•�/t5t/ �!e b� �raPY 43 «-"q �/ 9 uvv The 'interests of said children, not included in this deed, have been conveyed by instruments to the above grantors, all of which deeds are of record in said Clerk's Office. Part of the property devised in said will has been conveyed off at one time or another, all of which off -conveyances are of record in said Clerk's Offic� A reference is now made to said plat, survey and will and all re- ferences therein contained for a further description of the property hereby conveyed. Special reference is made to the will of Mary R. y'dhelchel, copy of which is recorded in said Clerk's Office in Will Book 59, at page 485. The Grantors covenant that they have the right to convey said land to the Grantees; that the Grantees shall have quiet possession thereof, free from encum-1 brances; that they have done no act to encumber the same and that they will execute such) further assurances of title as may be requisite. iE'.F-:F:ciFtiF?HFiFiciFiF'.HEihiEiFiFiFiEiE REVENUE STAMPS iE $29.70 iF CANCELLED it iF?F9EiiitiFiPiEinriFiEiEiEiEiE3F?E±F-1FiF Witness the following signatures and seals: CAI,11 LLA It _BARDSHAR ( SEAL` VOLINA M. FLOREHCE ELSIE L. RUTHERFORD _ A. RU`i'HERFORD_ GLUCK _ J(SEAL� (SEAL4 (SEAL, ALBERT F. GLUCK (.SEAL, CORNELIA _ S.I.I. RUTHERMID^(SEAL) STATE OF CALIFORIJIA City of Los Angeles, to wit: County City I, G. E. Anderson, a notary public of and for the County of Los Angeles in the State of California, do certify that Camilla R. Bardshar, Volina lit. Rutherford, Florence A. Rutherford, Elsie L. Gluck, Albert F. Gluck and Cornelia S. M. Rutherford, whose names are signed to the foregoing instrument, bearing date of June 7, City 1952, have this day appeared before me in my County aforesaid and acknowledged the same. My commission expires January 7, 1955. Given under my hand and seal this 24th day of July, 1952. (SEAL) G. E. ANUERSON ---1V0 ary u lc The following is a survey of the kutherford farm situate and lying in Stonewall District, Frederick County, State of Virginia, fronting; or) the Western side of the Winchester and Martinsburg Pike, now Primary highway U. S. No. 11, and more parti cularly described by a survey viz; Beginning at a post corner to the F. S. Boyd lands in the western highway boundary line of the above mentioned U. S. No. 11, running; with the following five lines, courses and distances, of said boundary line, Pt. 67 1/4 E. 56.54 rods to a higThy{ay.-boundary line marker; thence N. 63 E. 18 rods; thence N. 56 E'. 16 rods; thence- N. 49E. 18.66 rods; thence N. 44.1/4 E. 1.39 rods to an iron pipe driven into the ground a corner to the John M. Hepfer lot; thence running with the southern line of -said lot N. .45 3/4 W. 18.18 rods to an iron pipe driven into the ground a corner to said lot; thence with the rear line of said lot'and the rear lints of the two lots to the north of the Hepfer lot N..44 E..17.16 rods to a stake corner; the north eastern corner of a lot previously purchased by Clarence W. Cole, in a line of Abbie Hottel M mel.rinht Int: then, W 4; 72- %r lot; thence N. 44 E. 35.19 rods to a sake�corner one oaas£ o a ence post, a corne1— to Eston Taylor's estate lot in a line of the Casilear land; thence with said line of the Casilear lands; thence IV. 49 3/4 W. 58.02 rods to a corner to the Casilear land; thence N. 34 1/4 E. 75.21 rods to the center line of the Martinsburg and 'Winchester R. R. con- � I tinuing in all 83.76 rods to a post corner in the western right of way line of the said R. R., a corner to the lands of Oliver and Martin Miller; thence N. 41 3/4 W. 54.72 rods to a set stone another corner to the same; thence S. 49 3/4 W. 67.08 rods to a post corner to the hoover land; thence S. 34 1/4 E. 26.42 rods to a post corner to the Hoover land; thence S. 32 W. 84.84 rods to, another corner to the same; also a corner to the Rutherfor land fronting on Welltown Pike; thence S. 30 3/4 E. crossing the center line of the R. R at 128 feet in all 10.66 rods to a stake corner in the eastern R. of W. line of the R.R.; thence with said line S. 49 W. 76.78 rods to a post corner to Boyd; thence S. 40 1/2 E. 76.18 rods to a post corner to the Boyd lands in the western highway boundary line of U. S. No. 11, the point of beginning, containing 124.8 acres. The Rutherford tract of land fronting on the Welltown Pike and joining the tract fronting on the Martinsbur. Pike is described as follows:- Beginning in the eastern highway boundary line of the Welltown Pike, a post corner to the Railroad Company's tie yard, running with a line of same S. 40 3/4 E. 29.39 rods to a post in the western R. of W. line of the R. R.; thence with the last mentioned -line N. 50 E. 71.29 rods to a post corner in line (S. 30 3/4 E. 10.66 rods of the tract frontingg on the Martinsburg Pike) thence running this line reversed 11. 30 3/4 W. 6.88 rods to Hoover's third corner; thence with a line of the Hoover lands N. 68 3/4 W. 57.57 rods to a Hoover corner in the eastern highway boundary line of the Welltown Pike; thence with the last mentioned line S. 18 1/2 W. 53.78 rods to the point of beginning 17.8 Acres. Surveyed May, 1952. WALKER McC. BOND G. B. ad- SSA t' P� sc./e - 1 4 ad' ? N Is Frederick County Treasurer 107 North Kent Street SUITE 100 DATES TO REMEMBER Jan. 2 Vehicle decals go on sale Jan. 31 Dog Tags are due Feb. 15 Vehicle decals to be displayed Mar. 1 Business Equipment and License must be filed •Apr. 1 Business License must be paid June 5 First half taxes due PERSONAL PROPERTY REAL ESTATE SANITARY DISTRICT STREET LIGHTS Nov. 1 Dog tags go on sale Dec. 5 Second half taxes due PERSONAL PROPERTY REAL ESTATE SSNITARY DISTRICT STREET LIGHTS Other due dates as billed by the Comm. of Revenue Mailing Address C. William Orndoff, Jr. Treasurer P. O. Box 225 . Winchester, Virginia 22604-0225 540-665-5607 E-Mail Address BOrndoff®co.frederick.va.us For Tax Information And Online Payments Go To Our Web Site At: WWW.CO.FREDERICK.VA.US Treasurer's Office Hours Monday thru Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm Extended bourn will be offered during peak times Watch for details in local media T A X R E C E I P T Y E A R FREDERICK COUNTY • 2 0 0 1 cket #:00083920001 Ote 5/21/2001 C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR Register: ESR/ES P.O. BOX 225 Trans. #: 20483 Dept # RE200101 WINCHESTER VA 22604 ACCT# 8617 2001 REAL ESTATE TAXES Previous 5.50 ACRES 43 A 96 Balance $ 83.88 Acres: 5.50 Principal Being Paid $ 83.88 Land: 27500 Imp: 0 Penalty $ .00 Interest $ .00 DUNCAN, EMMA S. Amount Paid $ 83.88 C/O RICHARD R DUNCAN *Balance Due 6101 EDSALL RD APT 1802 as of 5/21/2001$ .00 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22304 6009 Check 672.96 4 lU 315 Pd by ESTATE OF DUNCAN, EMMA S. ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST. (DUPLICATE) • 359 #2140 J. S. HOOVER TO: .. DEED RAY H. DUNCAN, ET UX *************************** I MAtli[. $MARA & MONAHAN 11"*11 Y. Ai LAM •IMCM[ffLM. YI.04 .. BOOK 293 PAGE 359 THIS DEED, made and dated this 1st day of October, 1963, by and between J. S. Hoover, widower, party of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantor, and Ray H. Duncan and Emma Duncan, his wife, parties of the second part, hereinafter called the Grantees. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) cash in hand paid and other good and valuable considerations, receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey, with general warranty of title, unto Ray H. Duncan and Emma Duncan, his wife, jointly with remainder to the survivor in fee simple as at common law, all of the hereinafter described realty, to -wit: All that certain lot or parcel of land lying and being situate in Stonewall District, Frederick County, Virginia, bounded on the western side by Interstate Highway 81 for a distance of approximately 760 feet, on the southern side by the land of Burton Hoover for a distance of approximately 536 feet, on the eastern side by the lands of Ray H. Duncan and Emma Duncan for approximately 350 feet, and on the northern side by the lands of Ray H. Duncan and Emma Duncan and M. L. and 0. F. Miller for approximately 612 feet, said lot or parcel of land containing approximately 5� acres. This is part of a larger tract or parcel of land which was conveyed to J. S. Hoover and Venie Hoover, his wife, from Burton Hoover, divorced, by deed dated April 4, 1949, and recorded in the Clerks Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 209 at page 333. A plat of the aforesaid lot or parcel of land may be found in Plat Book 3 at page 10 of the Virginia Department of Highways filed in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in connection with the acquisition of the right of way from J. S. Hoover and Venie Hoover for Interstate Highway 81. The Grantor covenants that he has the right to convey the within described property; that the same is free from all liens and encumbrances; and that he will forever warrant 360 PACE 3�t1 and defend the title thereto. . WITNESS the following signature and seal the first date he-r',inabove written. O.fpu�;�Lal,om . (SEAL) i 'YJ. S. Hoover STAGE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK, To -wit: I, Janet M. Castleman, a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid, do certify that J. S. Hoover, widower, whose name is signed to the foregoing writing, bearing date on the 1st day of October, 1963, has personally appeared before me in my County and State aforesaid and acknowledged the same. Given under my hand this 1st day of October, 1963. My commission expires January 22, 1964. Notar is VG `01'" PMER!CK COUNTY, SCT, Pis ma writing was produced to M on � ' •/ at V ,and with certtfkate "day of, ' ( "�Odqm ohp tRXiQKOd wQl odd KASSIC. 2= A MOMAMAM II AT7, .N[T! AT UM WINCH CITCR. VIA.INIA Frederick County Treasurer 107 North Kent Street SUITE 100 DATES TO REMEMBER Jan. 2 vehicle decals go on ©ale Jan. 31 Dog Tags are due Feb. 15 Vehicle decals to be displayed Mar. 1 Business Equipment and License must be filed �pr. 1 Business License must be paid June 5 First half taxes due PERSONAL PROPERTY REAL ESTATE SANITARY DISTRICT STREET LIGHTS Nov. 1 Dog tags go on sale Dec. 5 Second half taxes due PERSONAL PROPERTY REAL ESTATE SSNITARY DISTRICT STREET LIGHTS Other due dates as billed by the Comm. of Revenue Mailing Address C. William Orndoff, Jr. Treasurer P. O. Box 225 Winchester, Virginia 22604-0225 • 540-665-5607 E-Mail Address BOrndoff@co.frederick.va.us For Tax Information And Online Payments Go To Our Web Site At: WWW.CO.FREDERICK.VA.US Treasurer's Office Hours Monday thru Friday 0:30am to 5:OOpm Extended hours will be offered during peak times Watch for details in local media T A X R E C E I P T 6Y E A R FREDERICK COUNTY C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR P.O. BOX 225 WINCHESTER VA 22604 2001 REAL ESTATE TAXES 2.66 ACRES Land: 13300 DUNCAN, EMMA S. C/O RICHARD R DUNCAN 6101 EDSALL RD APT 1802 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22304 6009 2 0 0 1 Ticket 4:00083930001 to 5/21/2001 egister: ESR/ES Trans. #: 20483 Dept # RE200101 ACCT# 8619 Previous 43 A 98 Balance $ Acres: 2.66 Principal Being Paid $ Imp: 0 Penalty $ Interest $ Amount Paid $ *Balance Due as of 5/21/2001$ 40.57 40.57 .00 .00 40.57 11 Pd by ESTATE OF DUNCAN, EMMA S. ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST. (DUPLICATE) [CIO * 2 � / N. HAMPTOI 0 : : • . , ' .. DEED RA ,Y H. DUNCAP i �ET UX i eooK THIS DEED, made and dated.this 15th day of November, 1963, by and between A. N. Hampton, divorced, party of the -first part, and Ray H. Duncan and Emma Duncan, his wife, parties of the second part. WITNESSETH:• That for and in consideration of the sum of Teri Dollars ($10.00) cash in hand paid and other good .and valuable considerations$' receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged, the party of the first part does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey, with general warranty of title, unto Ray H. Duncan and Emma Duncan, his wife, jointly with the remainder to the survivor in fee simple, all of the following described property, to -wit: All of that certain lot or parcel of land lying and being situate and adjoining the eastern boundary of Interstate Highway No. 81 for a distance of approximately 612 feet, bounded on the northern side by the land of Barbara Elliott and Burton Hoover for a distance of approximately 292 feet, on the north- eastern bide by the lands of the parties of -the second part herein for a distance of approximately 120 feet, and on the southeastern side by the Pennsylvania Railroad right of way for a distance of.approximately 600 feet, as shown on the plat of the Virginia Department of Highways recorded in Virginia Department of Highways Plat Book 2 at page in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia. This is part of a'larger tract or parcel of land which was conveyed to A. N. Hampton by Ray H. Duncan and wife by deed dated February 25, 1953, and recorded in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 226 at-page4M , to which deed and the references therein contained, reference is here made for a more particular description of the property hereby conveyed. The party of the first part covenants that, he has the right to convey the within described property; that the same is free from all liens and encumbrances; and that he will forever Arf*"M .T tAr Wt*mElm. r11NIHA �, rwur, aAur A IlollANA+I ATT.ANM AT LAW rrw , an" "**INA r eotrn 294 ma bpi warrant and defend the title thereto. WITNESS the following signature and seal the first . date hereinabove written. (SEAL) A. N.' mpton STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICCK,, To -wit: ' a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid, do certify that A. N. Hampton, divorced, whose name is signed to the foregoing writing, bearing date on the 15th day of November, 1963, has personally appeared before me in my County and State aforesaid and acknowledged the same. Given under my hand this 19-_�4day of November, 1963. My commission expires //J . , . ,. dS� �, 12 G 41 . Notary Public VIRGINIA FRE15CRICK COUNTY,. SCT. Th4_jM1rvme"t o wrilkl wdr produced to — a+ lh.. — day of of 7 • 'rr<O •/�i • r oriel with camicale o led{tmeA a�+MxW war odrnlMed to record, 'OL - 2 - 657 '29/ /ems% Frederick County Treasurer 107 North Kent Street SUITE 100 DATES TO REMEMBER Jan. 2 Vehicle decals go on sale Jan. 31 Dog Tags are due Feb. 15 Vehicle decals to be displayed Mar. 1 Business Equipment and License must be filed . Apr. 1 Business License must be paid June 5 First half taxes due PERSONAL PROPERTY REAL ESTATE SANITARY DISTRICT STREET LIGHTS Nov. 1 Dog tags go on sale Dec. 5 Second half taxes due PERSONAL PROPERTY REAL ESTATE SSNITARY DISTRICT STREET LIGHTS Other due dates as billed by the Comm. of Revenue Mailing Address C. William Orndoff, Jr. Treasurer P. 0. Box 225 Winchester, Virginia 22604-0225 • 540-665-5607 E-Mail Address BOrndoff®co.frederick.va.us Information And Online For Tax Payments Go To Our Web Site At: WWW.CO.FREDERICKNAMS Treasurer's Office Hours Monday thru Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm Extended hours will be offered during peak times Watch for details in local media T A X R E C E I P T IVY E A R FREDERICK COUNTY C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR P.O. BOX 225 WINCHESTER VA 22604 2001 REAL ESTATE TAXES 1.32 ACRES Land: 39600 DUNCAN, RICHAARD R 6101 EDSALL RD APT 1802 ALEXANDRIA, VA. 22304 6009 2 0 0 1 cket #:00084020001 @@ late 5/21/2001 Register: ESR/ES Trans. #: 20484 Dept # RE200101 ACCT# 8621 Previous 43 A 100 Balance $ 120.78 Acres: 1.32 Principal Being Paid $ 120.78 Imp: 0 Penalty $ .00 Interest $ .00 Amount Paid $ 120.78 *Balance Due as of 5/21/2001$ .00 Check 120.78 # lU 8014 Pd by DUNC_AN, RICHARD R ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST. (DUPLICATE) C3 0 CA N N 'L7 ' oca Wco> J ap.aaowv K WMMMMM APTUMAYAT "W 104 /-WP%AOOi00f 8T. WF40-001V-4 W a 1 B1(968PG0092 THIS DEED, made and dated this A day of June, 2000, by and between DONALD W. MOULDEN, SR. and MELVINA M. MOULDEN, husband and wife, hereinafter called the Grantors; and RICHARD R. DUNCAN, unmarried, hereinafter called the Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars, and other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby grant and convey with General Warranty and English Covenants of title unto the Grantee, in fee simple, the following property: All of that certain lot or parcel of land, together with all rights, rights of way and appurtenances thereto belonging and improvements thereon, lying and being situate on the Martinsburg Pike, U.S Route 11, about two miles northeast of the City of Winchester, in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 1.310 acres, more or less, and more particularly described by plat and survey of Lee A. Ebert, C.L.S., dated April 11, 1983, attached to the hereinafter referenced deed; AND BEING the same property conveyed from Louise M. Stotler to Donald W. Moulden, Sr, and Melvina M. Moulden by deed dated April 20, 1983, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 563, at Page 338. Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid instruments and the attachments and the references therein contain-d, for a more particular description of the property hereby conveyed. 131is conveyance is made subject to all easements, rights of way and ge-e/sa -M 1 ox96C1i't )0093 epwa 11Y r. F*-C N.oN ArTaiV AT "W Tad a wMCOCX R VTR w we t restrictions of record, if any, affecting the subject property. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: ), M , ���ct ,(SEAL) DONALD . MOULDEN, SR. '/% ,e ,,, , �c, -/(. Y/�I�a.•4.(S F,AL) MELVINA M. MOULDEN STATE OF VIRGINIA, f CITY/GOUNT-Y OF `-Gl"C`Lt ¢ - , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me in my aforesaid jurisdiction this 1_ day of T" 2 , 2000, by DONALD W. MOULDEN, SR. My Commission Expires: O_ O Y PUBLIC STATE OF-VIRGINIA, 1,' ' �,�{(� , to -wit: CTTYfCE3��F.OF , The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me in my , T� aforesaid jurisdiction this 14 day of �c� + �- , 2000, by MELVINA M. MOULDEN. My Commission Expires: a w �...—,, . 'i• Yt1•q S r OT Y PUBLIC VIRGINIA. FREDERICK COUNW. SM Thh ktitnMtM of wrW%wn pwd=d to me on e ai with offflUte of a&m.Acdaemcnt�rtfo mnexed ' wadndlted In record. Tax tntpM by of aa i s /•" , and 58.1401 hove been paid. M aracwablc 0"k i; T . may' •t a...i K. mz d- m N Lu cy) o m LO N r` Z Ln Q U Z D 0 ,__ r _ I "ron od; 8.92600 ACRES (TOTAL) THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON MARCH 13, 2001 I MADE AN ACCURATE SURVEY OF THE PREMISES SHOWN HEREON AND THAT THERE ARE NO EASEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS VISIBLE ON THE GROUND OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN HEREON. THIS LOT IS LOCATED IN HUD FLOOD ZONE C, AREA OF MINIMAL FLOODING AS SHOWN ON FIRM MAP ,# 510063 0105 B EFFECTIVE my 17, 1978. ` S 2S° DUNcgN w 53'I0 1'w �pp4 Q ,4 P 57' .2 1 I CH. 517.33' CH. BRG N 14°44'55" E INTERSTATE ROUTE 81 ( WIDTH VARIES) R=5629,58' A=517, 51 ' CL 25 stonune fod 1 1 F TON A D I,,.y � �� 1 T � B V � i 1 / ,00 v �R L0 I .S OIB. 21.4 P. 499 1 l 24 U 23 °� ae 15/8" Cl rodsetN 13021 ' I0"E 467.57' 00 m ED ELLIOTT 243 /22 0 r` cn co n '± 0.5 MIL TO Vs*-t RTE 11 FURSTENAU SURVEYING I-11 SOUTH LOUDOUN St (540) 662-9323 WINCHESTER, VA, r� z 5/8" rod set ESTATE �� GR BOUNORRY SURVEY LAND OF BURTON HOOVER STONEWALL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DEED REF. DB. 207 P. 62 ATE; MARCH. 13, 2001 '-ALE• I" = IQ(y TAX MAP 43-ATAX MAP 43 -977 A May,16- 2001 7:350 No-9916 P. 2 r T A X A E C E I P 'T - Y E A R FREDMICK COUNTY C. WILLIAM ORNDOFfi, JR P.O. BOX 225 WINCHESTER VA; 22604 2000 HEAL ESTATE TAXES 11.50 ACRES 43 .A Acres; 2 0 0 0 Ticket *:00142990001 00 Date : 5/12/2000 Register: L101/LM Trans. 0: 05332 Dept }f ; RE200001 ACCT$ Previous.Principal 97 Balance $ 184,00 Principal Being Paid $ 184,00 Lands 57500 Imp: 0 Penalty $ .00 Interest $ .00 HOOVER, BURTON 3 Amount Paid $ 184.00 *Balance Tau• 2456 MARTYNSBUAG PIKE as of 5/12/2000$ .00 STEPHENSON, VA 22656 1709 Pd by Roo"R, BURTON ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST. (DUPLICATE) T A X R E C E I P T - Y E A R FREDERICK COUNTY C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF,. JR - P,O, BOX 225 WINCHESTER VA 22604 2006 REAL'ESTATE TAXES 11.50 ACRES 43 A Acres; 2 0 0 0 Ticket 4:00142990002 00 Date ; • 5/1-2/2000 Register: LNIM/LM Trans. M: 05332 Dept 4 ; M200002 ACCT# Previous Principal 97 Balance $ 184,00 Principal Being Paid $ 181.00 Land: 57300 Imp: 0 Penalty $ .QO Interest S .00 HOOVER, BURTCN G Amount Paid $ 184.00 *Balance Due 2456 MARTTIJ95URG PIKE as of 5/12/2000$ .00 STEPHENSON, VA 22656 1709 Pd by HOOVER, BURTON ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND 0TEREST. (DUPLICATE) 0 171 13:23!50 VIsjol :F.?K.4Vrrft Lqammt iu3j% TuE DidE MY - o2p ?bmbw: 43 fj 99 THO trf Ticket s Yd*C pryer RAW rawc P�sm I ty Intarust 1'ayworrt3 DMI: #25sr.? t19S-9XX RE19M SWI-jo Ml ULDCFPL BM 5- ltpis-57 4:155-SXR Flaggs owt-m =2 UUNCRL B" a- **8-7G SIM-?OCR PPtBlle 8998304 "1 VJCM- am 3- *"-75 **W.?ZR REM= 0068304 W GUKUAK. BM S- 9000 on wowN ow ftwn on am sm vW== =000 = 89100 wo wom" sm somm mm ow BGTrm Coa: End Job --CKE: Fl-fAt*vPrk Call: Ficbz-n for Search Cep: mmity Pf Frpowlpk v11*9tp1_= 13:24:2G Fop 1: F--tEdtx TAK 'Waih Flap Wumbor. 43 A fli TMS MP HUNEER DOES KE SE AW IWA, YQU HV PRINT HE MACKE KLZMW tMEW THE Ogn NEY- Ticket s Tax Payer Oa!* Tat Penal ty intarast pwyowtv Dept NOW I -IS OM MW-M- E?M S- *478-79 *4m-7" Fum NW179 WZ owlCm- Emm 5- *47e-78 t479.WCR FIE1999 ewes ftl DWICAH- EHM S. Isis-36 *5193= FEL)WS 4W DWIDM. E"ft 8- #519.36 tSIEL36CR RE20ft 65MOM m tlssssss Inns = tlisseB am ausesa of WIN soft sm Y/l1MBY so@ MWOW On smumm on CmdB: End Job DAA: Pripk&pSr.k Dmd7: Aeturn fur SaGm+ CAMM: balm • E /}sl'O1 Pmu ty P -f Fr*l rj. vtrgfiit-nt 13:23:21 PORL €>< tp x&K Ppwrh Map Humber: 43 A 88 THIS typ NLMM DOES ml StaE WK Tfq�i VDL� tMYtt PR1MT THE P41ti111FliT H[Si1rA'�15(� i� Cldk MEY— Tlekat >f lax Paver Barn Tac PemI ty Interest Payments Dept MM177 gal OLVE M4. t3#M S. SM24 $3924M fiEIS99 tielle177 w2 ULVCMI. E" 3. m-23 t3923CR W1999 0168383 MI DU40RM_ EM M 3. t42:56 *42-9BCR !1@ZM 2818303 M2 OU4a1M_ BRIM S. ti42 51i L42.56CR {IF2M MMlM M M11MM M YfUMM M MMM M ' IIBeNM� M �O MP el�Y IME BeMYei am eBMMtf WOO WMM M Gmd3: CY4 Job CmJi: p}7}1ttp43Wr k IluT7: Pvhrn for 3mrch Oede: 8JTTW CaFLty-Df Frp-w5a4VjS'3t^3s 13:}3:79 �F11S/B1 i_ f t-itp TAC zit ; i� gi1V TAM- YM my PRINT TF9 PAi144 34T IIISTF" MW TIIE I�6 ma- fiop Ikirbor �3 !1 96 T"' m* h Ticket 9 Tax Pmyar Baao Tax Penalty Interest Payments Dept /f1Y81m gal Dl!< W- EE?M S_ 581.13 !et_18CTt IEi999 Sal_12M fE19% A6176 WMLTIM. Qtfifi 3. �2 M GM9r6 12 tet_12 iee_7t t8� oom FAM M Dt111L`l1H. E!!K t3_ $eB_Y� i6B.41SCR 11E2Mo _ Mo83Q OW DUi6fW. EMM S_ MMNYR NM *Nam etle onsom M McNNe! aw Mello an -G 1 we MOM an *Nam NN8 Isom" Nip weor>oNe ales Meem we I�ulon Liid3: Erd .Ice aids: Pr-,*t REp-wt NO: ActLr-n for Starch CadB: 0 ,. huff-14-2001 12:18pm From-HARRISON AND JOHNSTON 5406677893 T-985 P.001/005 F-549 • CD Q 0 16 3 M DEED C� THIS DEED, made and dated this day of August, 2001, by and between REVA A. HOOVER, Executor of the Estate of Burton G. Hoover and REVA A. HOOVER, Individually, parties of the first part, hereinafter called Grantors, and TURNER ENTERPRISES, INC, party of the second part, hereinafter called Grantee. WITNESSETH; That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10,00), and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby grant and convey with Special Warranty of title, in fee simple, unto Turner Enterprises, Inc., together with all rights, privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging, the following described parcel of real estate: All of that certain lot or parcel of land, together with the improvements thereon, located about three (3) miles North of the City of Winchester, in the County of Frederick, Virginia, containing 8,92600 acres, more or less, according to the survey prepared by David M. Furstenau, L.S., dated the 13th day of March, 2001, attached hereto and by this reference hereby made a part hereof. BEING the remaining portion of the same real estate that was conveyed to Burton G. Hoover by Deed dated the 14th day of September, 1948 from Harry W. Ebert, et als of record in Clerks Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 207, at page 62, to which reference is hereby made for a further and more particular description of the real estate herein conveyed. Burton G. Hoover died testate on August 27, 2000, being survived by his wife, and sole surviving heir, Reva A. Hoover, and by his will of record in the Office of the Clerk for the AuQ-14-7001 1Z:14 m From-HARRISON AND JOHNSTON 54066TT883 T-985 P.00Z/005 F-549 r • Circuit Court for Frederick County authorized his Executrix'-'?,o sell his real estate for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of his Will. Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid instruments and the references therein contained for a further and more particular description of the realty herein conveyed. The above conveyance is made subject to all legally enforceable rights of way, easements, restrictions, and covenants of record, if any, affecting the same. The Grantor covenants that she has the right to convey said real estate to the Grantee; that the Grantee shall have quiet and peaceful possession of said real estate; and that the Grantor will execute such further assurances of title as may be requisite. WITNESS the following signature(s) and seal(s): ESTATE OF BURTON G. HOOVER BY: 4EV_kt�. �HOOV�ER, (SEAL) �Ex�utrix�,Gr`anto�r /�' , 3 at ++ -A J (SEAL) "VEVA A. HOOVER, Individually, Grantor STATE OF VIRGINIA Lnc_AIIS41r� r to-Wlt The foregoing Deed bearing date the day of August, 2001, was acknowledged before me by Reva A. Hoover, Executrix of the Estate of Burton G. Hoover and Reva A. Hoover, Individually. h Ilw� 1'! •vvl Iw.IVMlII I IVIII Ilfll \I\IVVII f\IIV YVIIIIV IVII J9VVVIIVVJ 1—aou r•uuJ,uuu r—u4a •'O v O My Commission expires: vlary1:1lic This instrument was prepared by Clinton R. Ritter, Esq., 205 E. Doseawen St.,Winchester, VA 22601, without the opportunity of a title examination. 191 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON MARCH 13. 2001 I MADE AN ACCURATE: 51:KVEY OF THE DRF-MISES SHOWN HEREON AND THAT THERE ARE NO FASL-TENTS _OR F-NCP.OACHMENTS VISIBLE ON THE GROUND OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN HERFON. THIS LOT IS LOCATED IN HUD FLOOD ZONE C, AREA OF MINIMAL FLOODING AS SHOWN ON FIRM MAP f 510063 0105 B EFFECTIVE JULY 17. 1978. S Zsa$�' 1 Q fie" 74 P. _ "V 2S? j f - w 25 Ci 8.92600 ACRES o (TOTAL) c3 B'k..;RTON HOOVER LOTS OB. 214 P.]499 Il_} I N J. m o O rod H m cn m o � 23 N 15021'10"E 467.57' ELLIOTT 243 /22 R=5629, 5B' CH. 517.33' t a' - 04 MIL TO A=517. 51 ' CH. BRG. N 14.44'55" E RTE JI INTERSTATE ROUTE 81 (WIDTH VARIES) Z 5/8' rod »f STATE Z� BOUNORRY SURVEY LRNO OF BURTON HOOVER STONEWALL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DEED REF. DB. 207.P. 62 nur-14-LVVI IL•IaNlll rlulll-nnnnIOVII nnV VVNWIVn 44VVVIIVQV I-0vv f•vuv/Vvv r-v4v COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA I•' IN I I OFFICIAL RECEIPT ; FREDERICK CIRCUIT COURT DEED RECEIPT p! DATE: 08/07/01 TIME: 11:30:32 ACCOUNT: 069CLROIOOI039B RECEIPT: 01000014770 CASHIER: NBS RES: UN17 TYPE: DBS—PL PAYMENT: FULL PAYMENT X; INGTRUMENT : 010010390 BOOK: PAGE: RECORDED: 08/07/01 AT 11:38 GRANTOR: HOOVER, REVA A; EXECUTOR EX: N LOC; CO }. GRANTEE: TURNER ENTERPRISES INC EX: N PCT: 100% RECEIVEDREOF : HARRISONN6IJOHNSTO�I NINCHESTER, VDATE2OF2DEED! 00/07/01 CHECK : $499.00 PAGES: 0 DESCRIPTION 1: DIST ;•• I NAMES: 0 2: PARCEL OF LAND CONSIDERATION: 100,000.00 ASSUME/VAL: 0 MAP: 43—A-97 _L ' CODE DESCRIPTION PAID CODE DESCRIPTION PAID 301 DEEDS 14.50 145 VSLF1.50 037 DEEDS AND CONTRACTS ISO 00 038 DEEDS OF CONVEYANCE 50.00 • NTY GRANTEE TAX COU50:00 212 TRANSFER FEES 1.00 213 213 GRANTOR TAX 50.00 106 TECHNOLOGY FUND FEE 3.00 — TENDERED : 499.00 • , I ; AMOUNT PAID: 320.00 K CHANGE AMT : 177.00 • CLERK OF COURT: REBECCA P. HOBAN cc-ie lmu AREA TARUI AT1nN 116.7 ACRES 14.5 ACRES 23.2 ACRES TOTAL AREA = 154.4 ACRES ..,WESTERN RAILROmomm-AD PG _f4,_, . 495, 66.0 _ �' -co- _ '`OMAc_ED�SpN , - f pT U.S. ROUTE 11 MARTINSBURG PIKE S ` " " 20011 EXHIBIT A .9 DATE - JULY 16, 2001 SCALE - 1" - 5W' DESIGNED BY. - MD5 J08 NO. • 2795 SHEET -1 OF 1 r T 16B 32B 416B 32B B i / 40 16C 6C \ 3 0 LEGEND SOILS —EXHIBIT B DATE: 7 5 01 SOIL: RUTHERFORD INDUSTRIAL PARK STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: N/A GREENWAY ENGINEERING Engineers 151 WINDY HILL LANE Surveyors WINCHESTER. VA. 22802 TELEPHONE (540) 882-4185 Founded in 1971 FAX: (540) 722-9528 lllf W. GREENWAYENG. COM 7C 4 0 6C 3E :jATH OF D I� L) MARK D. SMITH 9 No.022837 Ov ~ ��S`SJpNAL �� FLOOD PLAIN 0 aI LEGEND FLOOD PLAIN -EXHIBIT C DATE: 7 5 01 RUTHERFORD INDUSTRIAL PARK FLOOD ZONE: STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FIMMCK COUNTY, VMGRUA SCALE: N/A GREENWAY ENGINEERING Engineers 151 WINDY HILL, LANE Surveyors WINCHE.=, VA. 22602 TELEPHONE: (640) 862-4185 Founded in 1971 11FAX: (640) 722-9528 WW.GPXE"AYENG.COM TH OF y MARK D, SMITH N0, 022837 r ON GAINTRIP' LINr- I STONEWALL DIS ICT LINE 702 IN �E 1 W'04' . 0114 111 a is. #�' 4 ❑♦ 11 E�z ZONING LEGEND Q u Q Q5 RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT 0. �--a ........1 RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT 0 � CS O 0 R-4 RESIDENTIAL, PLANNED COMMUNITY z (Yi ® R-5 RESIDENTIAL, RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY z O P� MH-1 MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY DISTRICT Z Q W W B-1 BUSINESS, NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT F Ri z O 1:' / B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT (� E- H b� B-3 INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION DISTRICT w W M-1 INDUSTRIAL, LIGHT DISTRICT T� M-2 INDUSTRIAL, GENERAL DISTRICT EM EXTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING DISTRICT / HE HIGHER EDUCATION DISTRICT / DATE, 3/8/OI 500 25 0 500 1000 5CALE, 1•-500' DE5161ED BY, -KT 5GALE: 1" = 500' JOB No. 2,cT3 / SHEET i OF I • 31 • • W w E w u c� �g "4- ,i mao. v � d pRo x / % x a � � E ZONING LEGEND RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT Z RP RESDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT of R-4 RESIDENTIAL, PLANNED COMMUNITY R-5 RESIDENTIAL, RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY Q N MH-1 MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY DISTRICT Lh Q B-1 BUSINESS, NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT r4 B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT O Gx.4 8-3 INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION DISTRICT -, M-1 INDUSTRIAL, LIGHT DISTRICT DWI W I 'J M-2 INDUSTRIAL, GENERAL DISTRICT EM EXTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING DISTRICT HE HIGHER EDUCATION DISTRICT DATE. "/OI 500 25 O 500 1000 51-ALE, 1-.500' DES16NW BY, j4T SCALE: 1" = 500' Boas - - I51�T I OF I m u� m to P u m� J. "Iti 0 Ln N M —__ ro — Irop d; THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON MARCH 13. 2001 I MADE AN ACCURATE SURVEY OF THE PREMISES SHOWN HEREON AND THAT THERE ARE NO EASEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS VISIBLE ON THE GROUND OTHER TH.ku'N THOSE SH014N HEREON. THIS LOT IS LOCATED IN HUD FLOOD ZONE C, AREA OF MINI14AL FLOODING AS SHOWN ON FIRM MAP la 510063 0105 B EFFECTIVE JULY 17, 1978. ` S 25°5 DUNCgN WB i4 • w $ I004.21 1 8.92600 ACRES (TOTAL) R=5629.56' CH. 517.33• R=517. 51 ' CH. BRG. N 14.44'55" E INTERSTATE ROUTE 81 ( WIDTH VARIES) I25 I o ro '' m co m c°n m BURTON HOOVER LOTS DB. 214 P. 409 24 23 N 13°21'10'E 467.57' ELLIOTT 243/22 0.5 MIL TO RTE I I 1towdon• I� 0 J rods d set FURSTENAU SURVEYING (540) 662-9323 1-11 SOUTH LOUDOUN .ST. WINCHESTER, VA. �1 �pTE . BOUNDRRY SURVEY LRNO OF BURTON HOOVER STONEWALL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DEED REF. DB. 207 P. 62 'ALE:r = IQG- TAX MAP 43-A-97 14.5 AC \ 60'6POTOMA6Ep—§ N�6'� `x l C, v 61.3 AC B-2 ` \ 23.3 AC QD W ra W � I W 1 `— Q k W W_ Fes- TH OF `o MARK D. SMITH v a 0 No.022837 z J 91 0 S"ONAL Ea i ,��VtIVE 5€P 0 7 2001 EXHIBIT A X Q d J Q cr D Z 0 Cc F- cc 0 3c 0 DATE • JlXY 1Q 2001 SCALE. • 1" - =* U.S. ROUTE 11 MARTINSBURG PIKE DESIGNED Dr -,Ks JOB HQ • 2793 SHEET - 1 OF • 1 FEE I s 1 / 40 / 32B 16B 16C 32B 11 14 17C 0 7C 2 0 0 6C 3 v 0 6C a 3E LEGEND SOIIS-EXHIBIT B DATE: 7/5/01 RUTHERFORD INDUSTRIAL PARK TH OF SOIL: STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT SCALE: N/A �f'� FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA GREENWAY ENGINEERING MARK D. SMITHIL 9 Engineers 151 WINDY HILL LANE ii0,022837 Surve ors WINCHESTER. VA. 22602 Y TELEPHONE (540) 662-4185 FAX: (540) 722-9528 NAI. v Founded in 1971 WWW GREENWAYENG COM a ��1 LEGEND FLOOD PLAIN —EXHIBIT C RUTHERFORD INDUSTRIAL PARK FLOOD ZONE: STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DLSTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA GREENWAY ENGINEERING Engineers 151 WINDY HUI LANE Surveyors WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 TELEPHONE: (640) 662-4185 Founded in 1971 FAX: (540) 722-9526 1fWW.GFYEMAYENG.COM DATE: 7/5/01 SCALE: N/A U MARK DSMITH No. Z2sa7 1.0 o A, s`SIONAL MAFM v v+rn NO Oneji „V. 3/e/01 sr.ALE.1'0600' e -ND 2796 SOURCE OF DATA: INTERSTATE 81 IMPROVEMENT STUDY VDOT PROJECT No. 0081-968—F11, PE-100 MP 305 TO WEST VIRGINIA STATE LINE FREDERICK COUNTY LEGEND — PROPOSED R/W, L/A LINE PROPOSED INTERCHANGE ® IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED MAINLINE WIDENING COLORS MATCH SOURCE DATA PROPOSED " I'l \\ \/ /'ll FLOOD PLAIN 11 MARK 0. 55' M No.022 3, A w a4 E U �yr F � A a Q °3 z o toHM �U Q Q' �W w rn ° W x c/ 0 ��PO DATEi 3/B/0I SCALE. 1'•900' O iam 500 1000 DE51514w BY. ,)rtf SCALE: 1" = 500' JOB NO. 2ra5 SHEET I OF I I I STONEWALL LN C .215,i'�!f�/%® jFjjjrjAWW,%:�`�, 317. p- w_ m z 5 j�a W X C7 / IA PN d1 n� W El (F� r) U] Qc7 ZONING LEGEND RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT ....._ _._� RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICTU �I �O R-4 RESIDENTIAL- PLANNED COMMUNITY ® R-5 RESIDENTIAL, RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY x N MH-1 MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY DISTRICT B-1 BUSINESS, NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT [x.l B-3 INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION DISTRICT M-1 INDUSTRIAL, LIGHT DISTRICT N-d H M-2 INDUSTRIAL, GENERAL DISTRICT ® EM EXTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING DISTRICT a EMU HE HIGHER EDUCATION DISTRICT DATE, 5/D/0I 500 25 0 500 1000 SCALE- 1'-5001 yesl6mm B(.:NT 5GALE, 1" = 500' JOB NO 2-M / / 1 \ 5{EET I OF I L0 K) m CV z Q U z m m L0 ui 0 M q 0 h .l pro 8.92600 ACRES (TOTAL) THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON MARCH 13, 2001 I MADE AN ACCURATE SURVEY OF THE PREMISES SHOWN HEREON AND THAT THERE ARE NO EASEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS ITISIBLE ON THE GROUND OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN HEREON. THIS LOT IS LOCATED IN HUD FLOOD ZONE C, AREA OF MINIMAL FLOODING AS SHOWN ON FIRM MAP P 510063 0105 B EFFECTIVE JULY 17, 1978. S 2So DUNcAN IN S3+10W 1�� e.?4P5? 4.21 I CH. 517.33' CH. 13RG. N 14°44'55" E INTERSTATE ROUTE 81 (WIDTH VARIES) R=5629, 58' A=517,51' 25 stone found BJRTGN HOOVER � 0 �; DE.3. 214 P. 4913 I 24 N 0 3 u t� cn m 23 Lo I r•, z 15 /8" Oro s Ln - - h m 0 h cc m I'll I ± 0.5 MIL TO ash RTE II N I3°21'I 467.57' ELLIOTT 243 /22 FURSTENAU SURVEYING (540) 662-9323 I -II SOUTH LOUDOUN ST. WINCHESTER, VA. 5 /8" nod set �STATe �� GR BOUNDARY SURVEY LAND OF BURTON HOOVER STONEWALL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DEED REF. DB. 207 P. 62 ATE; MARCH. 131 2 :ALE: I" = Iqe' TAX MAP 43-A-97 ARK -A TART 11 AT►llA► TOTAL AREA 116.7 ACRES 14.5 ACRES 23.2 ACRES 154.4 ACRES ■ it ♦____ .-#Ott*. B-2 �s 23.3 AC 1 TES &-LEST RN RAILROAD PG. —�4_ D B_ — 60.0 I �I U.S. ROUTE 11 MARTINSBURG PIKE M1 61.3 AC EXHIBIT A St° 0 7 2001 - ,''17_OPM I �o g -a a- Z v Z= 0 �- N.,_ 0 1 Rl' F-- C!) D 0 z 0 im O lJL cr W D DATE. • JULY 16, 2001 SCALE. • 1' - 500' DESIGNED BY. • MD5 JOB NO. • 2795 SHEET -1 OF • 1 ( 32B 16B 32B �3 i 1 / 40 16C I \� 6C \ s AI#rl o LEGEND SOILS —EXHIBIT B DATE: 7/5/01 SOIL: RUTHERFORD INDUSTRIAL PARK STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGD11A SCALE: _ N/A GREENWAY ENOINEERINQ Engineers 151 WINDY HILL LANE Surveyors WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 TELEPHONE (540) 882-4185 FAX: (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 WWW.GREENWAYENG.COM 4 0 6C 3E pyTH pF Nlt�' �a1►� � U MARK D. SMITH 9 110 No.022837 ti S`S10 AL � i r L r ......: :: `;:� FLOOD PLAIN ° c/ 0 h9 o �P� LEGEND FLOOD PLAIN —EXHIBIT C DATE: 7 5 01 RUTHERFORD INDUMMIAL PARK 'TH 0 FLOOD ZONE: STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DMMCT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: N/A QREENW" ENGINEERING MARK D. SMITH Engineers 161 WINDY HILL LANE N0,022837 Surveyors WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 TELEPHONE: (640) 862-4186 s �� FAX: (540) 722-9528 SIGNAL Founded in 1971 WWW.GRE MAYKNG.COM SOURCE OF DATA: INTERSTATE 81 IMPROVEMENT STUDY VDOT PROJECT No. 0081-968-F11, PE-100 MP 305 TO WEST VIRGINIA STATE LINE FREDERICK COUNTY LEGEND ® PROPOSED R/W, L/A LINE PROPOSED INTERCHANGE 1 ® IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED MAINLINE WIDENING COLORS MATCH SOURCE DATA V/Z FLOOD PLAIN A. I I��I or z W � W Z C' _6 ry Z Z c � Q J5 z fW L.a J ; 0 � MARK D. SMITH NO.02253-7 DATE, 3/B/0I 1 SCALE- 1'-500' 1000 DE51C+U? BY- -NT .IOB NO. 2-795 54 T I OF I 6- REZONING APPLICATION #07-01 RUTHERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Public Hearing Prepared: April 17, 2002 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. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: November 7, 2001 Deferred February 6, 2002 Recommended Approval Board of Supervisors: April 22, 2002 Pending PROPOSAL: • To rezone 113 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and 3.7 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to M1 (Light Industrial); • To rezone 21.8 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and 1.4 acres of RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General); - To rezone 14.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to 133 (Industrial Transition); To include the entire 154.4 tract in the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District. LOCATION: This property is located on the northeastern quadrant of Interstate 81, Exit 317. The tract is bounded by Interstate 81 on the west, and Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11 North) on the east and south. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43-A-96; 43-A-97; 43-A-98; 43-A-99; 43-A-100; 43-A-111 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Agricultural / Vacant RP (Residential Performance) District Use: Agricultural / Vacant REVISED PROFFER RECEIVED 1/11/02 Deleted-p-anguage New Language RUTHERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK REZONING Tax Parcels 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100 . Stonewall Magisterial District Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 07-01 for the rezoning of 154.4 acres from the Rural Area (RA) zoning district to the following: Zoning districts • 116.7 acres Light Industrial (M1) 23.2 acres Commercial (B2) 14.5 acres Commercial (133) Overlay district 154.4 acres Interstate Area Overlay (IA) Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the lands owned by Richard Ray Duncan, Janet D. Riddick, and Turner Enterprises, LLC being all or part of Tax Map Parcels 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, and 43-A-99, 43-A-100 and further described by zoning plat prepared by Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S., dated July 16, 2001 (Exhibit A). A.) Maximum Building Structure Square Feet The applicant hereby proffers to limit the total building structures to 1,400,000 square r� feet for the entire 154.4 acres. B.) Prohibited Uses The following uses shall not be permitted on the proposed Industrial Park: Description Sic Truck Stop 5541 (Excluding Truck Stops, all other uses within SIC Code 5541 are hereby acceptable and included) C.) Transportation Traffic Signalization a.) A traffic signal will be installed by the applicant when warranted by the Virginia Department of Transportation at the intersection of the proposed Industrial Park entrance and the unnamed Comprehensive Plan collector road in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement and pay their pro rata portion as determined by 3YIDE)T prior to the first site plan approval of said Industrial Park. b.) A traffic signal will be installed by the applicant when warranted by VDOT at the southbound ramps of the 317 interchange and U.S. Route 11 in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the first site plan approval of said Industrial Park. 2.) Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements at the proposed two entrances will be installed and paid for by the applicant. The existing multi -lane system on U.S. Route 11 will be extended north to the intersection of the proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Road. All left and right turn lanes and pavement transitions north and south of proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Road on U.S. Route 11 will be installed and paid for by the applicant. The improvements shall be completed within one year of the first site plan approval and prior to the second site plan approval for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. If all or part of the intersection improvements are required for the first site plan of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, they shall be made part of and constructed with this first site plan. 3.) Right of Way Dedication a.)_The applicant hereby agrees to dedicate right of way to the Commonwealth of • • Virginia along U.S. Route 11 adjacent to the property as determined by VDOT. This right • of way dedication shall be recorded prior to the approval of the U.S. Route 11 construction plans prepared for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park as noted in Proffer C2 (Intersection Improvements) and Proffer C5 (Route 11 and Northbound I-81 Ramp Improvements).equested prior to or at the time of master development ,!an for said industrial Pafk. Additi ona*y-,fhe-app 1i cant hereb , agreea-tol),rohibit th-e eonstmetion oFbttildings adjacent to b) The applicant herebyagrees to dedicate right of way to the Commonwealth of Virginia along Interstate 81 as shown on Interstate 81 Improvement Study VDOT Project No. 0081-968-Fl 1, PE-100 MP 305 to West Virginia State Line Frederick County, dated November 1998 (specifically noted on Sheet 24 of said study). The right of way dedication shall be recorded prior to the master development plan approval for Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. 4.) Comprehensive Plan Road Construction The applicant hereby agrees to coordinate, set aside right of way, and construct the portion of the major collector road traversing on the land herein to be rezoned and developed and as outlined in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Northeast Land • Use Study adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on September 27, 2000. Said collector road will be incorporated in and constricted with each site plan submission that is adjacent to or part of the site plan. 5.) Route 11 and Northbound I-81 Ramp Improvements The applicant will construct a third southbound lane on US Route 11 from the northern most entrance of the applicant's property to the northbound I-81 ramp of Exit 317. These improvements will include a 12' wide lane of approximately 600 linear feet in length to serve as a continuous right turn lane for the northbound entrance ramp of the Exit 317 interchange. Additionally, the applicant will construct turning radius improvements at the entrance ramp to ensure a smooth transition.. The improvements shall be completed within one year of the first site plan approval and prior to the second site plan approval for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park.. If all or part of the intersection improvements are required for the first site plan of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, they shall be made part of and constructed with this first site plan. D.) Historic Resource 1.) Interpretative Signs The applicant hereby proffers to provide an interpretive area in the location of the old Rutherford's Farm House along U.S. Route 11 and more particularly at the location of the old concrete steps that now remain. An easement of sufficient size will be provided for a pull -off area and viewing. Three interpretative plaques will be provided. -:They are as follows: The Second Battle of Winchester The Battle of Rutherford's Farm The Rutherford's Farm House The interpretative plaques will contain language and pictures acceptable to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. 0 All work performed for the pull -off area will meet the minimum standards of Virginia Department of Transportation and Frederick County Ordinances in respect to Highway pull -off and safety. Ground maintenance of the interpretative area will be performed by the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Association under a separate continuous approved permit issued by VDOT. 2.) Landscaping A transitional landscape buffer will be provided along U.S. Route 11 from Interstate 81 traveling north to the Comprehensive Plan collector road and transmission power line easement. This landscape easement will be 15' in width and will consist of a low earthen mound of 2-3' in height with plantings of ground covers, flowers, and grasses. Indigenous trees such as redbud, oaks, cedars, etc. will be incorporated along said landscape easement in a cluster mass fashion to provide a naturally planted look. The maintenance of said landscape buffer will be the responsibility of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Association and will be installed with the first commercial development adjacent to said easement. 3.) Industrial Park Name 0 • The applicant hereby proffers the naming of the Industrial Park to: • "Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park" E.) Lighting Building mounted lights and pole -mounted lights will be of a downcast nature and shielded and directed away from adjacent properties surrounding the proposed project. Lighting plans will be submitted as a separate attachment for review and approval by the Frederick County Planning Department prior to installation. F.) Signage 1.) Within the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District, the applicant hereby proffers to that all freestanding business signs shall be monument -style not to exceed 12' in height. 2.) Within the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District, the applicant hereby proffers to limit the total number of signs to three. G.) Recycling Proffer Recycling programs will be implemented with each Industrial Park user to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct material. This program will be reviewed and approved by the Frederick County Recycling Coordinator prior to final occupancy permit. H.) Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned owners of the above -described property hereby voluntarily proffer that in the event rezoning application # 07-01 is approved, and the property is subsequently developed within an B2, B3, and M1 zone, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia the following amount: $ 10,000 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue This payment is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services and will be paid at the time of the first site plan submission. I.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, • the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. i 0 • 0 • IMPACT STATEMENT RUTHERFORD' S FARM INDUSTRIAL Stonewall District Frederick County, Virginia TM 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100 154.4 Acres July 5, 2001 Revised September 28, 2001 Current Owners: Richard Ray Duncan Janet D. Riddick Turner Enterprises, LLC Contact Person: Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S. Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 540-662-4185 Greenway Engineering 0 July 5, 2001 0 Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28,•2001 Industrial Park RUTHERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezoning of 154.4 acres parcel owned by Richard Ray Duncan, Janet D. Riddick and Turner Enterprises, LLC. The subject site is located on.a natural boundary created by Interstate 81 on the western edge of the tract. Norfolk Southern and the Winchester and Western Railroads have rail lines paralleling Route 11 North. The current zoning is RA. Duncan, Riddick and Turner Enterprises proposes to rezone 154.4 acres to commercial (13-2/13-3) and Industrial (M-1). See attached Proposed Zoning "Exhibit A". Basic information Location: Intersection of Interstate 81 and Route 11 Magisterial District: Stonewall Property ID Numbers: 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100 Current Zoning: RA Current Use: Agriculture Proposed Use: Industrial Park and Business • Proposed Zotung: B2 — 23.2 Acres B3 — '14.5 Acres M1-116.7Acres Total rezoning area: 154.4 Acres (Exhibits A & D) Proposed build -out 1.4 million sf (Based on 9000 sf per acre) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed site is being developed in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, Northeast Land Use Study adopted in 1996 and updated in 2000. With in the limits of the study, the property will consist of commercial and industrial development. 1. Urban Development Area Expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. 2. Sewer and Water Service Area Expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) beyond its existing boundary is • not required by this application. 0) Greenway Engineering. July 5, 2001 Revised September 28, •2001 A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Access 0 Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park The subject site, tax parcels 43-A-96, 43-A- 97, 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100, 43-A-111 is located on a manmade boundary created by interstate 81 on the western edge of the tract and U.S. Route 11 to the east. U.S. Route 11 enables vehicular traffic to quickly travel to the south onto interstate 81 at Exit #317. The availability of rail through the north portion of the tract increases the opportunities of transporting freight in and out of the area. Flood Plains (Exhibit C) a The subject site is located on the FEMA NFIP map #510063-0105 -B. The majority of the site is located as "Zone C", area outside the 100-year flood plain. The area traversing Hiatt Run is indicated "Zone A", 100-year flood plain. See Exhibit C. Wetlands The soil types on the property are well -drained and predominantly moderately sloping terrain. The southern portion of the property contains rock out crops. However, Hiatt Run travels through the northern section of the tract, which is estimated to contain one - tenth of an acre of wetland. The National Wetlands Inventory Map indicates this feature. Any disturbance of this area will be in conformance with Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Environmental Quality permitting procedures. Gradual Slopes — 2-7 % The site contains gradual slopes with well -drained soils draining into Hiatt Run. Prime Agricultural Land Use All of the aforementioned soils do not support crops without fertilization, liming, and soil management. Portions of the property contain rock out crops however; all of the soils are suitable for agricultural use such as hay, pastures, and orchards. Soil Types (Exhibit B) The following soil types contained in this tract have been obtained from the Soil Survey of Fredrick County, published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service. n 41 • • i Greenway Engineering July 5, 2001 • Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28,.2001 Industrial Park The subject site is located on map sheet number 24, and contailns nine soil types: 6C-Carbo Oaklet — Silt Loam covers approx. 13 % of site 7C-Carbo Oaklet — Rock Out Crop covers approx. 15 % of site 1413-Fredrick Poplimento — Loams covers approx. 25 % of site 1613-Fredrick Poplimento — Loams, very rocky 2-7 percent slopes, covers approx. 4 % of site 16C-Fredrick Poplimento — Loams, very rocky 7-15 percent slopes, covers approx. 13% of site 17C-Fredrick Poplimento — Rock Out Crop, covers approx. 9 % of site 3213-Oaklet Silt Loam, covers approx. 16 % of site 513-Carbo Silt Loam, covers approx. 4 % of site 34-Pagebrook Silt Loam < 1% of site B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining property zoning and present use: North: Zoned M2 (General Industrial) District South: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District RA (Rural Area) District East: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District RA (Rural Area) District West: Zoned B-2 (Business, General) District B-3 (Industrial Transition) District M-1 (Light Industrial) District C. TRANSPORTATION 1. Traffic ;> r See existing Zoning Map "Exhibit F" The traffic impact for the proposed 154-acre Industrial Park has been calculated by using two methods for traffic projections. The Institute of Transportation of Engineers Trip Generation 6`1' Edition, Volume 1, Classification 130-Industrial Park, estimates the following: Method 1 Trip generation per 1,000 sf gross floor area: Range of trips = 0.91 to 36.97 Average trip = 6.96 Projected sf = 1.4 million Projected traffic = 9,744 VPD 4 Greenway Engineering • July 5, 2001 Revised September 28, 2001 r' Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Method 2 Based on existing counts that Greenway Engineering conducted on Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park during the month of November, 2000, and knowing at that time the total developed square feet of 2,344,104 and 1,767,877 respectively, it was determined that Stonewall Industrial Park produced 3.12 VPD per 1,000 sf and Fort Collier produced 4.14 VPD per 1,000 sf which is within the range of rates listed in the Industrial Park's 130 classification. Therefore, the Method 2 traffic study is as follows: Average trip = 3.63 Projected sf = 1.4 million Projected traffic = 5,082 VPD Method 3 A traffic impact analysis has been performed and is attached and made part of this application. The highlights from that study are as follows: • Existing level of service on US Route 11 is currently "A" at the existing median break of the divided highway and "C" at the three -lane section north of the median break. Proposed level of service on US Route 11 will be "B" at the median section and "C" at the three -lane section. The main entrance level of service will be "C" (see Figure 6 of the Traffic Study). Total projected ADT for the project will be 9,744. In conclusion, with the vision of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park having a small sector utilizing the B3 (Industrial Transition) and B2 (General Business), the traffic projections for this Park should range between the three methods stated above. For simplification and as an added safeguard to insure compliance with the Traffic Study, Proffer Statement C.6. has been prepared to insure the County that accumulative traffic tabulations will be made part of each site plan submission and, if at any time the accumulative traffic reaches 10,000 VPD, a new traffic study will be performed to outline additional improvements to the road system that would be caused by these additional vehicles. This Proffer has been created because of the varying uses of the three different zones within the Industrial Park. By preparing a second traffic study, the County, VDOT, and the users of the Industrial Park are ensured of adequate improvements being installed. 2. Interstate Improvements Exhibit E shows the Interstate 81 lane-widenings and future Route 37 interchange improvements. The Exhibit has been color -coordinated to match Interstate 81 Improvement Study VDOT Project # 0081-968-F11, PE-100 to demonstrate the different widening requirements. • 5 Greenway Engineering 0 July 5, 2001 • Rutherford's farm Revised September 28, 2001 Industrial Park CONCLUSION OF TRANSPORTION IMPROVEMENTS Based on Greenway Engineering's feasibility study of this 154-acre project and in discussions with VDOT on August 9, 2001 and with the dialogue in preparing the Traffic Study, the following items have been determined for the proposed Rutherford's Farm rezoning: The applicant will install a traffic signal at the main entrance to the site (per Proffer C.1.) Estimated Cost: $115,000 2. Intersection improvements at the proposed two entrances will be installed by the applicant with the main site entrance requiring the extension of the existing grass median north to the intersection of the proposed County Comprehensive Plan collector road. All left and right turn lanes will be installed by the applicant and pavement transitions on US Route 11 will be north of said entrance (per Proffer C.2.). In accordance with the Traffic Impact Analysis, dual left turn lanes will be installed on US Route 11 at the main entrance of the Industrial Park. Estimated Cost: $310,000 • 3. The applicant will dedicate right -of way along US Route 11 that will be offset approximately 59' from the existing right-of-way. This area is estimated at 50,000 sf (per Proffer C.3.). • Estimated Cost: Value of Land 4. The applicant will construct the Comprehensive Plan collector road as outlined in Proffer C.4. The length of this collector road is estimated at 4,200 linear feet traversing through the 154-acre project. The estimated construction cost is projected at $150 per linear foot. Estimated Cost: $630,000 5. The applicant will construct a third southbound lane on US Route 11 from the southern most proposed entrance to the northbound I-81 ramp. Additionally, the applicant will improve the turning radius of the said entrance ramp and the proposed third lane improvement. This lane widening is approximated at 600 linear feet. This improvement will be installed to facilitate traffic movement on the Stephenson Exit 317 interchange. Estimated Cost: $200,000 6 Greenway Engineering 0 July 5, 2001 Revised September 28,.2001 D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT 0. Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park The subject site is within the northeastern portion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The maximum design usage for the subject site is determined by comparing the current discharge of sewage within the developed acreage of Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park. Based on discharge patterns, FCSA has determined that 500 gallons/day per acre quantity is reasonable to consider for the sewer impact analysis for this commercial and industrial site. The proposed zoning will add 0.08 mgd to the public sewage conveyance system and the Opequon Waste Water Treatment plant. Q=500 gallons/day/acre Q=500 gpd x 154.4 acres Q=77,200 gpd (0.08 mgd) E. WATER SUPPLY The maximum design consumption for the subject site is determined by comparing the current use of water within the developed acreage of Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park. Based on existing water consumption patterns, FCSA has determined that 1,000 gallons/day per acre quantity is reasonable to consider for the water impact analysis for this commercial and industrial site. Q=1000 gallons/day /acre Q=1000gpd X 154.4 acres for Q=154,400 gpd (0.15 mgd) F. DRAINAGE Currently the runoff from approximately 154.4 acres drains into fingers, natural streams, and drainage ditches. These conveyances flow into Hiatt Run, which flows from the northern boundary to the east and off site. The following calculations estimate the proposed storm water runoff for a ten-year flow: Existing C = 0.30 (pasture) Iio = 4.6 in/hr (15min) A = 154.4 acres Qio = 213 cfs (Q = CIA) Reference: VDOT Drainage Manual Proposed C = 0.90 (commercial) Iio = 5.5 in/hr (10 min) A = 154.4 acres Qio= 764 cfs (Q = CIA) • 0 7 Greenway Engineering • July 5, 2001 0 Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28, 2001 Industrial Park • Development of the subject site at maximum build -out will therefore result in an increased runoff of 559 cfs. A detailed stormwater evaluation shall be included with any site plan submittals. Detention ponds and other stormwater management facilities will be built to control storm water discharge into the above referenced streams and Hiatt Run. By controlling runoff of the site, the impact of developing the subject site on Hiatt Run will be within acceptable limits. Based on historical knowledge of this area, and in consultation with the Frederick County Public Works Department, karst topography appears to be present at the western property line adjacent to Interstate 81. Prior to master development plan preparation, an analysis of the karst topography in relationship to surface drainage will be performed to protect any further degradation that could be caused by surface drainage. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL :, t Using Fairfax County design requirements, the following calculations were made to estimate the maximum impact of solid waste generated by the proposed rezoning of the subject site. At 100% buildout of 1,400,000 sf Building • Industrial waste generated rate = 3210 lb 1000 sf/yr Total solid waste = 1,400,00 sf X 3210 lb 1000 sf/yr Maximum total solid waste = 4,494 tons/year It should be emphasized that the above calculations do not include any recycling by industry. Most industries recycle a large percentage of their waste stream due to economics and cooperation with local landfill authorities. Therefore, the above calculations are generally conservative and indicate a "worst -case scenario" of maximum impact for solid waste generation. A SO% recycling program would produce a 2,247 tons/year solid waste. H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES 1. Virginia historic Landmark Commission The Rutherford's Farm Pile # 10082 34-727 is sited as a IIistorical Landmark. Ilowever, all that remains of the house is a set of concrete steps that lead from Route 11 up to the site of the house. There is a historical marker south of the site on Route 11. Landmark . records can be found on file at the Virginia Department of IIistoric Resources. 8 Greenway Engineering July 5, 2001 0 � Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28,-2001 Industrial Park 2. Virginia Department of Historic Resources and Archeological Sites One archeological site is noted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. It is a raised berm allowing access to opposite side of rail lines. However, it is abandoned and no loner in use. This site does not exhibit features that suggest eligibility for National Register consideration. Records can be found on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Conclusion of Historic Resource Advisory Board Meeting that was held on July 17, 2001, the Historic Resource Proffer D.1, D.2, and D.3 were a result of the HRAB meeting. • I • 0 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 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 Connnissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Greenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Telephone: (540) 662-4185 2. Property Owners (if different than above) Name: Richard Ray Duncan & Janet D. Riddick Address: 6101 Fisel Rd. Apt# 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Telephone: (703) 461-7988 Name: Turner Enterprises, LLC Address: 317 Greenfield Avenue Winchester, VA 22602 Telephone: (540) 722-2200 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S. Telephone: (540) 662-4185 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Plat X Deed to property X Verification of taxes paid X Agency Comments X Fees X Impact Analysis Statement X Proffer Statement X 0 0, 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Richard Ray Duncan Janet D. Riddick Turner Enterprises, LLC 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Agricultural, undeveloped B) Proposed Use of the Property: 154.4 acres Commercial & Industrial 7. Adjoining Property: Please see attached 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): The subject site, tax parcels 43-A-111, 43-A-100, 43-A- 99, 43-A-96, 43-A-98, 43-A-97 is located on a natural boundary created by interstate 81 on the western edge of tract. U.S. CSX and the Winchester and Western Railroads have rail lines paralleling Route 11 North. C] 0 • • 40 LJ Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number Districts Magisterial: Stonewall High School: Stonewall Fire Service: Stonewall Middle School: Stonewall Rescue Service: Stonewall Elementary School: Stonewall ., 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoiung category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 116.7 RA M1 23.2 RA B2 14.5 RA B3 154.4 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed : Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi -Family: Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: Other: • To rezone 113 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and 3.7 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to Ml (Light Industrial); • To rezone 21.8 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and 1.4 acres of RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General); • To rezone 14.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B3 (Industrial Transition); • To include the entire 154.4 tract in the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District. • Supplement to Item 9 • Name and Property Identification Number Address Name: Emma S Duncan (c/o Richard R. Duncan) 6101 Edsall Rd., Apt. 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Property # 43 (A) 96 Name: Turner Enterprises, Inc. 317 Greenfield Ave. Winchester, VA 22602 Property #: 43 (A) 97 Name: Emma S Duncan (c/o Richard R. Duncan) 6101 Edsall Rd., Apt. 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Property # 43 (A) 98 Name: Emma S Duncan (c/o Richard R. Duncan) 6101 Edsall Rd., Apt. 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Property #: 43 (A) 99 Name: Richard R. Duncan 6101 Edsall Rd., Apt. 1892 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Property: #43 (A) 100 Name: Emma S Duncan (c/o Richard R. Duncan) 6101 Edsall Rd., Apt. 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Property # 43 (A) 111 • • 0 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. OU —Applicant: �-''� Date: Date: Owner(s): Date: Date: Date: ��iaY� SL 0. -S \vt I -T H • C • Adjoining Property Owners CJ 0 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 Adrninistrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Property Identification Number Address Name Taylor Charles C & Mary M 1849 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 : T Property # 43-(A)-101 Name Bradford Village Apartments LC 2520 Bradford Court Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43-(A)-102 Name Johnson Robert B 2054Northwestern Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-103 Name Moore Michael A 1927 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-104 Name Rissler Thomas W& Mary L 1937 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43 (A)-105 Name Lee Ronald A & Mary C 1947 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-106 Name McQuain Clifford D & Etals 1957 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-107 Name Kercheval Ethel T 1985 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-108 Name Keiter Mildred P 412 S Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43-(A)-109 • Name and Property Identification Number Address Name Riddick Thomas E Jr & Janet 2045Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-110 -Name DeHaven Charles Stuart 2073 Bradford Court Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43-(A)-112A, 112B, 113 Name Buckley Lages Inc P.O Box 337 Stephenson, VA 22656 Property # 43-(A)-84, 85 Name Messick Roy R & Nancy L 1897 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43C-((1))-A Name Elliott Barbara E. 6115 E. Peabody Street Long Beach, CA 90808 Property # 43B-((8))-22 & I '�11111 I]gLI Ma ��sb�,r� P� y1e, uv� 9 0 0 0 0 0 ...:.......::. ......:..:......... .. ...... ........::: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON MARCH 13. 2001 I MADE AN ACCURATE SURVEY OF THE PRE*iISES SHOWN HEREON AND THAT THERE ARE NO EASEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS VISIBLE ON THE GROUND OTHER THAN THOSE SH014N HEREON. THIS LOT IS LOCATED IN HUD FLOOD ZONE C, AREA OF MINIMAL FLOODING AS SHOWN ON FIRM MAP 0 510063 0105 B EFFECTIVE JULY 17. 1978. NCgN S �5oS3 1W@ ?4 P 1 >r 1p04.21 $ w 25 Iw 8.92600 ACRES I ~ I (TOTAL) I `� BURTON HOOVER LOTS DB. 214 P. 4g9 0 24 0_ 23 R=5629, 58' CH. 517.33' R=517. 51 ' CH. BAG. N 14.44'55" E INTERSTATE ROUTE 81 ( WIDTH VARIES) z 16/8" M f0 '• N 13021'10"E 467.57' 00 m to ELLIOTT 243 /22 O N to m t\ '�!g t 0.5 MIL TO dal- RTE 11 • �ton• owd STATE C) ol tv }0 ✓�s• 1�5�. Lo d a•tt .BOUNDARY SURVEY LAND OF BURTON HOOVER STONEWRLL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIR DEED REF. DB. 207 P. 62 FURSTENAU .SURVEYING - (540) 662-9323- . = T 'MARCH. 13 2001 SCALE. 1.11 SOUTH L0UD0UN ..ST; - WINCH ESTER, VA; TAX MAP 43-4-97 AOr"A TAP111 AT1ll Al Ml 116.7 ACRES B3 14.5 ACRES B2 23.2 ACRES = 154.4 ACRES asmL 5 AC � 60'0-. TOMAC EpISQN � ♦�' � M1 6LJ AC B-2 23.3 AC Ivl O Ivl ICI U.S. ROUTE 11 MA ' SBURG PIKE LTH OF �c 2 MARK D. SMITH v No.022837 /CNAL 9EP 0 7 2001 EXHIBIT A z r V v Z C.DLAJ CD � � o o o c c LL w X D DATE. -JtkY IA 2001 ' I SCALE • 7' - 500' 1 DEEMED eN. • ALAS s� ND. 2793 SHEET 1 OF 1 17-1 FLOOD PLAIN • 0 LEGEND FLOOD PLAIN-EXMIT C DATE: 7 5 01 RUTHERFORD INDUSTRIAL PARK r��!, FLOOD ZONE: SrON"ALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FMERICK CoUnY, VMG]NU SCALE: N/A GREENWAY ENGINEERING Engineers 151 WINDY HII.I. TA Surveyors 1INCHE1 - . VA 22802 41. TELEPHONE: (540) 882-4185Founded in 1971 FAX: (`�) 722-9528 lI7W.Gl ss iT.1Ys'TiG.Ml • • 4 SOURCE OF DATA: INTERSTATE 81 IMPROVEMENT STUDY VDOT PROJECT No. 0081-968—F11, PE-100 MP 305 TO WEST VIRGINIA STATE LINE FREDERICK COUNTY LEGEND PROPOSED R/W, L/A LINE PROPOSED INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED MAINLINE WIDENING COLORS MATCH SOURCE DATA wj PROPOSED " FLOOD PLAIN 11 rw D. 9Mm No.omwi a W H � A o� A z co o w� a o w / x a DATE, 3/6/0I 1 SCALE- V-500' O 500 1000 CM16NM BY- XT Sr —AL F, P = 500' JOB NO. zws OF I • 17 Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 2 April 17, 2002 ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District Zoned M2 (Industrial General) District South: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District East: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District West: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District PROPOSED USE: 154.4 acres Commercial and Industrial REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Use: Agricultural/Nursery Use: Industrial Use: Commercial/Industrial Use: Residential Use: Residential Use: Agricultural/Residential Use: Vacant Virginia Dept. of Transportation: VDOT has reviewed the rezoning application for the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park, rezoning Application #07-01. Based on our review, we find we are not in opposition of the transportation proffers (revised January 7, 2002) as offered to Frederick County. Also, see attached letters from Homer Coffman, Trans. Assistant Resident Engineer, dated September G, 2001, and from Steven Melnikoff, Transportation Engineer, dated October 18, 2001. Fire Marshal: Access identified during site plan process, along with waterline extension for fire protection services. Plan approval is recommended. Historic Resources Advisory Board: See attached letters dated March 22, 2002 and July 19, 2001. Inspections: No comment required at this time. Shall comment at the time of site plan review. Conn , Engineer: See attached letter fi-ont H. E. Strawsuyder, Jr., Director of Public Works, dated 915101. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: This property is in the Sewer and Water Set -vice Area (SWSA). FCSA has sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve it. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: Public water and sewer must be provided. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 3 April 17, 2002 County Attorney: Once signed by owners and changes as shown on proffers are made, they appear to be in proper form. Parks & Recreation: No comment. Frederick Co. Public Schools: No direct impact on Frederick County Public Schools. Planning; & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) depicts the zoning for the six parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning as R-3 (Residential -General) District. On October 8, 1980, parcels 43-A-96; 43-A-98; 43-A-99; 43-A-111; and a portion of 43-A-97 were rezoned from R-3 to A-2 during a Comprehensive Downzoning. The A-2 (Agricultural General) District zoning classification was modified to RA (Rural Areas) District on February 14, 1990 during the comprehensive amendment to the county's Zoning Ordinance. The R-3 (Residential -General) District zoning classification was modified to RP (Residential Performance) District on February 14, 1990 during the comprehensive amendment to the county's Zoning Ordinance; this action affected 43-A-100, and a portion of 43-A-97. 2) Location The six parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning are located on the north side of Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11); and on the east side of Interstate 81. The parcels are located on the northeast quadrant of Interstate 81 interchange Exit 317. Martinsburg Pike is classified as a major arterial roadway. The site is bisected by a north -south running CSX rail line. 3) Comprehensive Policy Plan The parcels are within the county's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and are a component of the Northeast Land Use Plan which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 27, 2000. The parcels were also a component of the Route 11 North Corridor Plan which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 8, 1997. Both land use plans proposed future commercial and industrial development within the area of these parcels; as well as the provision of a Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) overlay along Martinsburg Pike. The Northeast Land Use Plan also identifies a major collector road along the northern portion of the subject tract. This planned roadway would intersect with Martinsburg Pike and travel westerly Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 4 April 17, 2002 towards I-81, and then angle towards the north. The applicant has made provisions to construct this planned roadway. 4) Site Suitability The six parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning contain areas that are defined as floodplain and wetlands. The majority of the defined environmental features are located in the vicinity of Hiatt's Run which travels through the northern section of the tract. The soil types on the property are well -drained and predominantly moderately sloping terrain. The southern portion of the property contains rock outcrops. All of the aforementioned soils do not support crops without fertilization, liming, and soil management. All of the soils are suitable for agricultural use such as hay, pastures, and orchards. 5) Potential Impacts a) Transportation Impact Analysis Statement Information provided within the applicant's Impact Analysis Statement advises that traffic generation from the154 acres requested to be rezoned will produce 9,744 vehicle trips per day on the existing road system, as calculated utilizing The Institute of Transportation of Engineers Trip Generation 6°i Edition, Volume 1, Classification 130-Industrial Park. The applicant conducted traffic count studies at Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park in November 2000 to determine the vehicle trips per day (VPD) per square foot generation of these industrial parks. The applicant's traffic study identified a range between 4.14 VPD per 1,000 sf. and 3.12 VPD per 1,000 sf, respectively. The applicant has assumed a projected VPD of 3.63 per 1,000 sf which would yield 5,082 VPD for the development of 1.4 million square feet. The applicant's impact analysis projects traffic generation between 5,082 and 9,744 VPD. The Impact Analysis Statement refers to the applicant's Proffer Statement to indicate what improvements will occur with the development. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 5 April 17, 2002 Rei,iew Agency Comment The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has reviewed the traffic impact analysis' dated September 28, 2001, and October 26, 2001. The VDOT comments, dated 9/6/01 and 10/18/01, acknowledge the applicant's proposed road improvements. The VDOT comment dated January 11, 2002 acknowledges the revised proffer statement dated January 10, 2002, and concurs that the identified transportation impacts have been mitigated through the proffer statement. Planning Staff Connnent The Traffic Impact Analysis dated October 26, 2001 provides an accurate depiction of the current traffic information for the impacted roadways immediately southwest of the site. The study also provides the current and projected Level of Service (LOS) information for the impacted roadways. The 2000 Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volumes Jurisdiction Report 34 indicates that the average annual weekday traffic (AAWDT) counts for Martinsburg Pike from Interstate Exit 317 to Old Charles Town Road was 10,000 trips. The applicant has estimated that the build -out of this acreage would generate between 5,082 and 9,744 VPD; therefore, the projection would increase traffic on Martinsburg Pike by at least 50%, and possibly up to 97% of the current average daily traffic volume. The applicant's traffic impact analysis projects that approximately 75 percent of the trips generated would travel through the Exit 317 interchange area (southwest of the site), yet the applicant has not addressed this anticipated traffic impact. The Northeast Land Use Plan calls for the provision of a new east -west collector road throughout the subject tract. The applicant, through the proffer statement, has proffered to provide the necessary right-of-way and construct the segment of the planned collector road as it transverses the subject tract. b) Water and Sewer Impact AnaNsis Statement Information provided within the applicant's Impact Analysis Statement advises that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has determined that on average, 500 gallons -per -day -per -acre is reasonable to use for sewer impact analysis for this commercial and industrial site. The proposed zoning will add 0.08 mgd to the public sewage conveyance system and the Opequon Waste Water Treatment Plant. 0 • Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 6 April 17, 2002 The applicant has also provided information advising that the FCSA has determined that 1,000 gallons -per -day -per -acre quantity is reasonable to consider for the water impact analysis for this conunercial and industrial site. The maximum design consumption for the subject site is determined by comparing the current use of water within the developed acreage of Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park. The proposed zoning will use 0.15 mgd of the public water conveyance system. The applicant has projected that the development of 155 acres will result in water usage of 154,400 gallons -per -day and 77,200 gallons of service discharge per day. Review Agency Connnent The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) comment, dated 7/20/01, states that sufficient water and sewer capacity exist to serve the demands of the rezoning. The proposed service discharge will not negatively impact the projected available 250,000 gallons -per -day allocated for this area of Frederick County. PlanninL- Staff Comment Staff contacted the FCSA prior to the commencement of the Northeast Land Use Plan process to discuss water and sewer capacity issues. Representatives of the FCSA advised staff to assume a 1,000 gallon -per -day -per -acre quantity to project potential water and sewer capacity needs for the planned area. These figures have been revised more recently to adjust to more realistic consumption figures. Staff would agree with the applicant's assumptions that while water continues to be consumed at 1,000 gallon -per -day -per -acre, sewer discharge is more closely generated at 500 gallons -per -day -per -acre. Staff compared the current water and sewer use within the developed acreage of Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park to determine which projection was more realistic. The data for water and sewer consumption within these industrial parks was provided by the FCSA which accounts for use from August 2000 to August 2001. The following tables provide the gallon -per -day -per -acre quantity for water and sewer use for each industrial park during this time period: Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 7 April 17, 2002 Existing Industrial Park Water Use Name Total Developer) Total Gallons of Total Gallons of Gallons/Day Acreage Acreage Water Used Between Water Per• Day /Acre 8100 - 8101 Fort Collier 442 acres 370 acres 201,671,000 gallons 552,500 gpd 1493 gpd/acre Stonewall 494 acres 205 acres 19,792,000 gallons 54,120 gpd 264 gpd/acre Existing Industrial Park Sewer Use Name Total Acreage Developed Acreage Total Gallons of Sewer Generated Between 8100 - 8101 Total Gallons of Sewer Generated Per Day Gallons/Day /Acre Fort Collier 442 acres 370 acres 73,047,000 gallons 200,000 gpd 415 gpd/acre Stonewall 494 acres 205 acres 14,016,000 gallons 40,000 gpd 195 gpd/acre Based on existing water and sewer consumption patterns, it appears that the 1,000 gallon -per -day - per -acre projection that was utilized by staff during the Northeast Land Use Plan process is reasonable to consider for the applicant's water, and 500 gallons -per -day -per -acre is reasonable for sewer impact analysis. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 8 April 17, 2002 c) Solid Waste: Impact Analysis Statement The applicant has provided information which projects potential solid waste generation associated with the development of the 155 acres requested to be rezoned. This analysis utilizes an industrial waste calculator from Fairfax County. The calculator assumes a worst case scenario and does not account for recycling. The applicant has projected that the potential solid waste generation from this acreage would account for approximately 4,494 tons -per -year. Implementation of a recycling program could reduce the potential solid waste by approximately 50 percent, to 2,247 tons -per - year. Review Agency Comment The Department of Public Works (County Engineer) comment, dated 9/5/01, endorses the recycling proffer and recommends that it also be included in the deed covenants. Accordingly, it will be important to inform potential lot buyers and developers that the respective certificate of occupancy will not be issued until a recycling program has been reviewed and approved by Frederick County. Planning StaEComment The county landfill is designed to dispose of solid waste that is generated by residential, commercial, and industrial land uses within the municipal solid waste landfill (MSW); and to dispose of construction waste in the construction demolition debris landfill (CDD). The county has an anticipated MSW landfill life of 20 years, based on a 3% average annual increase in solid waste disposal. The Department of Public Works has filed an application with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to increase the permitted air space (vertical capacity) at the landfill. The amended permit to extend air space capacity would expand the landfill life by an additional 15-20 years. The DEQ will render a final decision regarding this application in July 2002. Based on existing development patterns in Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park, it appears that the approximately 4,500-ton-per-year solid waste generation is reasonable to consider for the applicant's solid waste impact analysis. This figure suggests that the build -out of the acreage requested to be rezoned would generate the average annual increase of solid waste disposal experienced by the county for a one-year period. • 0 Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 9 April 17, 2002 d) Historic Resources: Impact Analysis Statement The applicant has provided information which identifies Rutherford's Farm (VA Historic Landmark Commission File #10082 34-727) as a Historical Landmark. However, all that remains of the house is a set of concrete steps that lead from Route 11 up to the site of the house. There is a historical marker south of the site on Route 11. One archeological site is noted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. It is a raised berm allowing access to the opposite side of the rail line. However, it is abandoned and no longer in use. This site does not exhibit features that suggest eligibility for National Register consideration. Review Agency Comment The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) comments, dated 3/22/02 and 7/19/01, encourages the implementation of a number of improvements offered by the applicant that would further assist in the preservation and the historic interpretation of the subject site. Specifically, the applicant offered, and the HRAB supported, the establishment of a pull -off location for historical interpretation of the Second Battle of Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and the Rutherford Farm. The HRAB also encouraged the provision of linear landscaping along Route 11 to maintain the visual rural community features existing along Martinsburg Pike. Staff would note that additional information submitted by Dr. Brandon Beck was reviewed by the HRAB during their March 19, 2002 meeting. The I-IRAB felt this new information would not change their- previous reconvnendation. Planning Staff Comment The subject properties are partially located within the limits of the Second Winchester study area, and are also within the Battle of Rutherford's Farm study area. Therefore, the HRAB has expressed concern for the loss of historic battlefields and the aesthetic qualities of the rural community in which these parcels are located. The applicant has proffered to establish a Civil War interpretive site pull -off along Route 11, in the general area where the existing historical marker is currently located. This site will offer an opportunity for interpretation of Second Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and the Rutherford Farm operation. The HRAB will review the information that will be placed on the proposed interpretative markers. It will be imperative of the applicant to design the pull -off area Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 10 April 17, 2002 so as to not further detract from the interpretive site. The applicant has also proffered to establish and maintain the proposed interpretive site. e) Proffer Statement The applicant has submitted a proffer statement which has been signed by the property owner, notarized, and reviewed by the County Attorney's office. The following list is a summary of the conditions voluntarily proffered by the applicant: • Establish a maximum building square footage of 1,400,000 square feet for the entire 154 acre site. • Prohibit the Truck Stop use from the entire site. • Installation of a traffic signal at the site's main entrance (Route 11 and the planned Major Collector Road, as illustrated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan) • Installation of a traffic signal at the southbound ramps of the 317 interchange • Dedicate the necessary right-of-way for the I-81 improvement project. • Construction of intersection improvements at the two proposed entrances. The improvements will be constructed as necessary to serve the first site plan in the Rutherford project. The improvements in their entirety will be constructed prior to the approval of a second site plan in the Rutherford project. • Construct the planned Major Collector Road as it transverses the site. • Construct a third southbound lane along Route 11. The improvements will be constructed as necessary to serve the first site plan in the Rutherford project. The improvements in their entirety will be constructed prior to the approval of a second site plan in the Rutherford project. • Establish an interpretative area and pull -off along Route I 1 for historical interpretation of Second Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and Rutherford's Farrn. • Establish a 15-foot transitional landscape buffer along Route 11, extending the length of the site. Ground cover, trees, and an earthen berm of 2-3 feet in height would be provided within the transitional buffer. • Establish maximum height of 12-foot for all freestanding business signs/monument signs in the M1 Zoning District. Staff Note: The height limitation, as proffered, would only apply to freestanding signs in the MI District. • Limit the total number of IA (Interstate Area Overlay) signs to three within the subject site. • Establishment of recycling program to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct material. Such programs must be approved by the County prior to issuance of certificate of occupancies. Staff Note: This program should be included in the development's covenants to ensure all property owners are aware of the requirements. • Provide a monetary contribution of $10,000 to the county to be utilized for fire and rescue services. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 11 April 17, 2002 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/07/01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The 155-acre site proposed for rezoning is located within the county's Sewer and Water Service Area; is within the portion of the Northeast Land Use Plan which recommends future commercial and industrial land use; is adjacent to the identified Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA); and contains a portion of the Second Battle of Winchester and the Battle of Rutherford's Farm. The Northeast Land Use Plan recommends that cormnercial and industrial land uses should only occur if impacted road systems function at a grade "C"level of service (LOS) or better; that commercial and industrial land uses be developed with public water and sewer service; and that commercial and industrial land uses be adequately screened from adjoining land uses to mitigate visual and noise impacts. The applicant has submitted proffered conditions including the elimination of the Truck Stop land use; various road improvements to address the projected build -out of 5,082-9,744 VPD; future studies and improvements to the impacted road systems, in the event the project VPD exceeds 10,000; and the establishment of a pull -off area for historic interpretation. A monetary contribution for fire and rescue services has also been proffered. In an effort to address the Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA), the applicant has proffered the establishment of a landscape buffer along the entire Route 11 road frontage. This buffer, to be 15-feet in depth, would contain a 2-3 foot berm and various landscape plantings. Deciduous and evergreen trees would be planted throughout the length of the landscape buffer. There continues to be a number of concerns regarding transportation issues, identified by the Virginia Department of Transportation and staff. The Traffic Impact Analysis did not adequately address the necessary items for inclusion in a traffic impact analysis, as indicated in the rezoning application package. Most specifically the analysis should provide traffic count information for all roads impacted; pre- and post- development Level -of -Service for the affected roadways; details regarding vehicle composition; and traffic movements. Rutherford's Industrial Park trip assignments include the Route 11 /I-81 interchange. However, the 2010 Build Out Traffic Condition at the interchange and the proposed right in -out Rutherford entrance/intersection are excluded from the intersection analysis of the study. There is no "method of management" suggested for the northbound ramp/Route 11 intersection, the southbound ramp/Route 11 intersection or the Rutherford right in-out/Route 11 intersection, all of which should be addressed. Without a thorough Traffic Impact Analysis, it is unclear if the proposed rezoning will have a detrimental impact on the road network servicing the site. The applicant has proffered to construct various road improvements, but the time at which the improvements will be completed, and agreements executed, have not been addressed. The applicant should provide a more thorough Traffic Impact Analysis for review, and be prepared to address how the proffer statement addresses the various issues identified by staff. Staff would recommend that action on this rezoning request be deferred until the identified issues are provided and resolved. Rutherford's Farm REZ 407-01 Page 12 April 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 11/07/01 Staff presented the application to the Planning Commission and identified a number of transportation issues identified by staff and VDOT that were not adequately addressed by the applicant. The applicant reviewed the planned transportation improvements. The applicant requested that the application be tabled to allow time to addressed the outstanding transportation issues. Six citizens spoke during the public hearing. Concerns raised included the need for architectural standards, and master planned developments; impacts of the existing road networks; and buffers against adjoining residential properties. Citizen comments also addressed the positive aspects of the property's location in proximity to the interstate, and that the site is appropriate for commercial and industrial development. The Planning Commission tabled the rezoning until such time that staff felt the comments are addressed. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 2/06/02 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The applicant has submitted a revised traffic impact analysis and revised proffer statement that addresses the concerns of staff and VDOT. The revised proffered conditions provide for the installation of a traffic signal at the southbound ramp for Interstate 81; a more defined time frame as to when the traffic improvements would be competed; and right-of-way dedication along Interstate 81 to accommodate the planned I-81 improvement project. The applicant should be prepared to address how the January 7, 2002 proffer statement adequately mitigates the issues and impacts previously identified by staff during the review of this application by the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 02/06/02 MEETING: During the February 6, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, staff reported that the applicant had submitted a revised transportation impact analysis and a revised proffer statement that addressed the concerns of both the Planning Staff and VDOT. The revised proffered conditions provided for the installation of a traffic signal at the southbound ramp for I-81; a more defined time frame as to when the traffic improvements would be completed; and right-of-way dedication along I-8 1 to accommodate the planned 1-8 1 improvement project. Both the Planning Staff and VDOT were comfortable with what had been done by the applicant and believed the proposal would mitigate the traffic impacts in this area. A representative from VDOT was available to provide additional comments relative to the interchange in the Rt. 11 corridor immediately south of the Rutherford Project. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 13 April 17, 2002 Four citizens spoke against the rezoning proposal, citing concerns about traffic congestion, water availability, contamination of ground water, and possible degradation of the quality of life for residents in the area due to over -development. Two citizens spoke in favor of the rezoning, citing the property's proximity to the interstate, rail accessibility, and the need for additional pre -zoned sites in the County to attract businesses; however, the need to establish architectural and landscaping design standards to improve viewsheds; the need for buffer protection against adjacent residential properties; and the need for a master plan for the entire area were also raised as issues needing to be addressed. After hearing comments from the applicant's representative, VDOT, and staff, Commission members believed the revised transportation impact analysis and revised proffer statement addressed the concerns raised at the previous meeting. Commission members commented about the County's need for properly - zoned and suitable sites to attract business and industrial prospects in order to support the County's tax base; it was noted that the County's continued residential growth will need to be supported in some form. It was also suggested that with recent changes in technologies, some industrial processes may not be as detrimental as they were once thought to be and the County needs to be open to the possibilities. The continent was made that one of the things that Frederick County has had going for it in the past is its diversity of industry. The vote on this application was: YES (TO APPROVE): Triplett, Fisher, Kriz, Ours, Morris, Unger, Watt NO: Rosenberry, Gochenour, Straub ABSTAIN: DcHaven, Light (Mr. Thomas was absent from the meeting.) 7;EPBENSON'S DEPOT REZONING Page 1 of 6 Funkhouser, Rhonda Fr Funkhouser, Rhonda on behalf of Coffman, Homer Seo Friday, January 11, 2002 7:10 AM To: 'Donna Stephens' Cc; 'Eric Lawrence; 'Evan Wyatt'; Melnikoff, Steve; Coffman, Homer Subject: RUTHERFORD FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK, REZONING APPLICATION #07-01 VDOT has reviewed the rezoning application for the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park, Rezoning Application #07-01. Based on our review, we find we are not in opposition of the transportation proffers as offered to Frederick County. Homer F. Coffman Aesistant Resident Engineer VDOT - Edinburg Residency 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, YA 22524 (540) 984-5625 (540) 984-5607 (fax) ----Original Message ---- From: Donna Stephens[mallto:dstephens@greenwayeng.com] •Sent Wednesday, January 09, 2002 12:16 PM To: 'hcoffman@vdot.state.va.us' Subject: FC Planning Proffers Jan7-REVIEW SHADED AREA -THANKS R.UTHERFORD IS FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK REZONING Tax Parcels 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100 Stonewall Magisterial District Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 07-01 for the rezoning of 154.4 acres from the Rural Area (RA) zoning district to the following: Zoning districts • 116.7 acres Light Industrial (M1) • 23.2 acres Commercial (B2) • 14.5 acres Commercial (E3) Overlay district /1 1 /2002 • i Rezoniu Cettments Post -it' Fax Note 371 D=6 f D3qf..* — — 70 Co -'Deus phono Y Plronf f Fax Y Fv v 1 01" 9 1 n G--/ 7 D N'irginia Department of Transportation Mail to: Virginia Depar went of Trarsportatiea Ann: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia =_824 (540) 984-5600 Hand deliver to: Virginia Department of Transportation Artn: Resident Engineer 1550 Commerce Street Winchester, Virginia AppLcant's Name: Gres-nwav Fng neerin_ Telephone: (540)662-41R5 Mai_irtg Address: . 151 Winciv Hill Lare Winchester. NA 22602 Location of proper!v: Located on the natural boundary created ho Interstate 81 on the western • edge of the track. US Rt. 11 bisects this area in a North/Snt2th linear fashion. CSX and Winchester & Western Railroad h2ve lines pars r--Uri Rt. 11 North. 40 C'Lrren: zori:--: EA Zcring req cs:cd: �i1,B2,B3 Acreage: 1$4,4 acres " '�1nia Department of Transportation Comments: -ne'o-tnw.n� =nmerrs are otterec nasel--^on a rPkiew of nGUtratorm ";aped as par' of the rezcn" eque t tar !,e propose+ Rj,,,% Farm I (• ''DOT Is in agroe^ant -ttl the h propose) intersection rp^u9ments at thB co :eCor road ert»rce a: the unnamed comprehensive r^'-tom va^ ircl,'s"I e' a 1-5r s'r-o! an e)censinn of #IF Rte I fnllf-lane maC sat—m fans nnadn-1 tiy!h t-nnsltons r-t south of the unnamed comprenens:'m elector read, right and :ett turn lanes and a turn lane from fhe np-nern m entan: e t . northbound eitmoe rr mp of 1-81 with Improved !Lrr.k>8 redlus. A second enhance north of t'le Collector road entranC_^ i5 of corcem tc `/SOT due to safety cf t`te "Yel:nc public enc se' -tacks 'he second entrance ropy ne perni tt-.c tased upon Tina, cts-gn. Should the second e^trarct be prcoded, a melon crovsirg froT the 11 botlnC .are of ate. 1' to the seconc e:Y-ance may not be permitted due tc rninimW distance between cr-ssoiers not toeing met In adci tr^ c signal nnay be recured at the secxvx entrance depen1ing upon final des! n arC a determined imo2c;� • VDCT has net seen a rafltc ;^tpac: thus M* -anrot co . on the traffic tmr3 ! of the propo3ed develDprnert on Rts. 11 noM or ccu.4 or the 317 interchange and its ramp system VDOT Signature & Date: 09/06/01 Trans. ASs istant Resident Engineer -- II i 1 Y F 0 ford ary: the .0'. . o.-th in a )uth FVI: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park • Subject: FN3%1: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park Bate: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:27:44 -0400 From: "Funkhouser, Rhonda" <RFunkhouser@VDOT.STATE.VA.US> To: 'Eric Lawrence' <elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us> > -----Original Message----- • From: Funkhouser, Rhonda On Behalf Of Melnikoff, Steve > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 2:23 PM > To: 'Mark Smith @ Greenway Engineering'; Greenway Engineering (E-mail) > Cc: Coffman, Homer; Clem, Sam; Melnikoff, Steve; Heironimus, David > (Dave); 'Evan Wyatt'; 'Eric Lawrence' > Subject: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park > Virginia Department of Transportation > Edinburg Residency > October 18, 2002 > Mr. Mark Smith > C/O Greenway Engineering > 151 Windy Hill Lane > Winchester, VA 22602 > Ref: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park > Route 21, Frederick County > Dear Mr. Smith: > Staff comments regarding the traffic impact analysis dated September 28, > 2002 as received from PER&A are as follows: > This impact analysis states the four -lane divided section of Route 11, > which presently transitions to three (3) lanes just north of I-81, will be • > extended to the proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Roadway. All > site entrance roadways will include left and right turn lanes where > applicable. The County Comprehensive Plan Collector Roadway will have two > inbound left turn lanes from Route 11 and will be signalized. > The Rutherford's Industrial Park trip assignments include the Route > 11/I-81 interchange. However, the 2010 Build Out Traffic Condition at the > interchange and the proposed right in -out Rutherford entrance/intersection > are excluded from the intersection analysis of the study. There is no > "method of management' suggested for the north bound ramp/Route 11 > intersection, the south bound ramp/Route 11 intersection or the Rutherford > right in-out/Route 11 intersection. All of which should be addressed. > It is anticipated this development will generate traffic volumes that will > warrant signalized intersection and ramp roadway improvements. > Please submit the additional information to allow VDOT to complete the > analysis and impacts this proposed development will have to the I-81 > interchange and Route 11. > Steven A. Melnikoff > Transportation Engineer > VDOT - Edinburg Residency > Permit & Subdivision Section > 14031 Old Valley Pike > Edinburg, VA 22824 > (540) 984-5611 > (540) 984-5607 (fax) • r /� • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 March 22, 2002 Mark Smith, P.E., L.S., President Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Rutherford's Farm Rezoning Application Dear Mr. Smith: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the referenced proposal during their meeting of March 19, 2002. Specifically, the HRAB reviewed additional battlefield historical information that was provided by Dr. Brandon Beck of the Civil War Institute at Shenandoah University. The HRAB determined that this additional information will not change their previous comments regarding the proposed rezoning, dated July 19, 2001. Based on the proffered conditions submitted with the rezoning application, the HRAB looks forward to the opportunity to review the proposed pull -off area and the historical markers as the Rutherford's Farm development proceeds. Please contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. Sincerely, Rebecca Ragsdale - Planner I cc: Dr. Richard R. Duncan, 6101 Edsall Road, Apt 1802, Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Mr. R. J. Turner, Adams -Nelson & Assoc., 303 So. LOudot111 St., Winchester, VA 22601 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • • COUNTY of FREDERICIK Department of Planning and Development S40/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 My 19, 2001 Mark Smith, P.E., L.S., President Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Rutherford's Farm Rezoning Proposal Dear Mr. Smith: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the referenced proposal during their meeting of July 17, 2001. This proposal involves the rezoning of approximately 144 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General), B3 (Industrial Transition), and M1(Light Industrial) Zoning Districts. The subject properties are partially located within the limits of the Second .R'mchester study area, and.. are also -Mthin the Battle of Rutherford's Farm study area. Therefore, the HRAB has: expressed concern -.for -the loss. cif historic battlefields and the aesthetic qualities of the rural community in which these parcels are located. In response to the BRAB's concerns, you presented a number of proffered condition concepts and indicated your willingness to incorporate- the conditions with the formal rezoning application submittal. Specifically, you offered the following concepts: To establish a pull -off location for historical interpretation of the Second Battle of Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and the Rutherford Farm. The interpretation area would contain historical markers and be maintained by the Industrial Park Association. It was also stated that the marker design and textual content would be returned to the BRAB for review and approval. Maintain the visual rural community elements existing along Martinsburg Pike by providing linear landscaping. This landscaping along Martinsburg Pike would include combinations of three-foot high evergreen hedges and berms, and mass clustering of tree and shrub plantings. The landscaping.is intended to retain the natural feel of the rural community and utilize native vegetation including red buds, oaLs;.and cedars. A combination of hedges; berms, and tree clusters would be implemented to lessen the visual impact of the proposed development. J �-I ' to- I07 North Kent Street , Ninchester, Virgini2 22601-S000 Page 2 Mark Smith, P.E., L.S., President, Greenway Engineering Re: Rutherford"s Farm July 19, 2001 • Establish a link to the property's history by naming the development after the Rutherford's Farm. The BRAD felt the rezoning proposal would be more palatable for the historic preservation community, if the above identified concepts were included in the rezoning application's proffer statement. Please contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. 04 Erick Lawrence, AICP Deputy Director ERRL/kac cc: Dr. Richard R. Duncan, 6101 Edsall Road, Apt 1802, Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Mr. StephenL. Pettler, Jr., Harrison & Johnston, 21 So. Loudoun St., Winchester, VA 22601 Mr. R. J. Turner, Adams -Nelson & Assoc., 303 So. Loudoun St., Winchester, VA 22601 U:1Eric\Cw= mVMA,UT,u herford Fv mF]R &Reooff m=ddimvpd • 9 W-QUNTY of FREDERICK I September 5, 2001 Mr. Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S. Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mark: Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/ 678-O682 We have completed our review of the rezoning request for the proposed Rutherford Farm Industrial Park and offer the following comments: 1) A review of exhibits "C" and "E" revealed that a substantial portion of the proposed M-1 zoning is located within the 100-year flood plain. This delineation should be reflected on the master development plan. Also, the impact of proposed development on the 100-year flood plain should be addressed in the master development submittal. 2) Existing wetland areas and obvious karst features (i.e., sinkholes), should be reflected on the master development plan. r' 3) In an earlier proffer submittal (July 19, 2001), regional stormwater management was proposed for low-lying areas. This facility or facilities should be highlighted in the master development plan. This same proffer statement indicates that BMP facilities might be required on individual sites if regional stormwater management is not available. We applaud this approach considering the sensitive nature of Hiatts Run. This requirement should be added to the deed covenants for -each building lot considering BMPs implementation is not a county requirement. 4) We strongly endorse your recycling proffer and recommend that it also be included in the deed covenants. Please insure that the buyers or potential lot developers are informed of this requirement that a certificate of occupancy will not be. issued until a recycling program has been reviewed and approved by ,. :r , 107 North Kent Street <i'inchester, Virginia 22601-SOOO Rutherford Farm Industrial Park Rezo ' g Page 2 September 5, 2401 Frederick County. We certainly do not, want any misunderstandings at a later date. This requirement should also be highlighted in the master development submittal. • I can be reached at 665-5643 if you have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, tey . Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/rls It cc: Patrick Davenport, Zoning Administrator file r • GREENWAY ENGINEERING \\ inch.ster Virgini" /ounded In I ) I March 22, " 002 Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 Forth Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Attn: Eric Lawrence Re: Rutherford Farm Rezoning Thar Lric: On lx:half of our clients, Richard Duncan, Janet Riddick, John Scully, and R.J. Turner, we are requesting for the Rutherford Farm project to be placed on the next Board of Supervisors meeting. Thank you for your assistance with this project. Please call with any questions or need for additional information. Sincerely, t.ireenw y F sneering Mark D. , mi , P.h., . . President RECEIVEV LIAR 2 2 2002 'APT. OF PLANNINGIDEVELOPMEN i Lngincri, "in" -I FileM279i/M1)S','dls Iclrl,hnnc 140 662-418, 1 V\ k, www.greenwaveFig,< III PiLtt-- Z-q Tz,c>4 LJ As of November 2, 2001 Existing Industrial Park Water Use Name Total Developed Total Gallons of Total Gallons GallonslDa Acreage Acreage Water Used of Water Per y/Acre Between 8100 - 8101 Day Fort Collier 442 acres 370 acres 201,671,000 552,500 gpd 1493 gallons gpd/acre Stonewall 494 acres 205 acres 19,792,000 gallons 54,120 gpd 264 gpd/acre Existing Industrial'Park Sewer Use Name Total Developed Total Gallons of Total Gallons of GallonslDa Acreage Acreage Sewer Generated Sewer ylAcre Between 8100 - Generated Per 8101 Day Fort Collier 442 acres 370 acres 73,047 gallons 200,000 gpd 415 gpd/acre Stonewall 494 acres 205 acres 14,016,000 gallons 40,000 gpd 195 gpd/acre PHONE (540) 667-4919 • • FAX (540) 667-4991 H. H. OMPS, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22603 January 29, 2002 County of Frederick Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Va. 22601-5000 Attention: Mr. Eric R. Lawrence Deputy Director Re: Rezoning Application #07-01 of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Dear Mr. Lawrence: With reference to the above noted re -zoning request, I will be unable to attend the February 6 meeting, but it will be appreciated if you could express to the Planning Commission the support of our family and our three businesses, H. H. Omps, Inc., North Stephenson, Inc., and K & J Investments, LC., in favor of the requested re -zoning. All three of these companies either operate our business or own property adjoining the Rutherford Farm and we strongly support the re -zoning request. The recent denial of the Mid -Atlantic Industrial & Tech Center by the Board of Supervisors and the subsequent announcement that several hundred new homes are being planned for that land have me very concerned about were the tax dollars will come from to pay for the schools and other services demanded by these homes and others now planned or being built in our county. We need new areas in this county to expand our business and industrial tax growth and this farm, as did the Shockey property, exists in the area previously designated by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, as a planned industrial growth area. Sincerely, H. H. Omps, Inc. Keven V. Omps Treasurer !f�°l1( CA [ --N @:9 �� ' F C B 0 12002 `FPT. OF PLANNING,IDEVELOPMR 1- Rutherford's Farm is Subject: Rutherford's Farm Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:11:26 -0500 From: Eric Lawrence <elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us> Organization: Frederick County Planning Department To: Brandon Beck <bbeck@su.edu> Hello Dr. Beck. Unfortunately I have been unable to reach via phone, therefore I am hopeful that you receive this e-mail. Bessie Solenberger has advised me that you may have additional information that the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) may want to consider in reference to the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park rezoning petition. Ms. Solenberger was uncertain what this additional information pertained to, but requested that I contact you. The HRAB has a meeting scheduled for next Tuesday, February 19, 2002 at 7:30 PM. While the agenda has already been distributed, if you could provide me (via e-mail or fax 665-6395) with the relevant information on the Rutherford's Farm, I will see that the HRAB receives it. I would also invite you to attend the HRAB next week to present your findings. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you. Eric Lawrence Deputy Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, CZA Deputy Director Department of Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 540.665.5651 540.665.6395 fax elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us 1 of 1 2/12/2002 4:11 PM Re: Rutherford's Farm • Subject: Re: Rutherford's Farm Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:22:55 -0500 From: "Brandon Beck" <Bbeck@su.edu> To: <elawrenc@co.frcderick.va.us> I have your message and will comply right away. Thanks. bhb >>> Eric Lawrence <elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us> 02/12/02 04:11PM >>> Hello Dr. Beck. Unfortunately I have been unable to reach via phone, therefore I am hopeful that you receive this e-mail. Bessie Solenberger has advised me that you may have additional information that the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) may want to consider in reference to the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park rezoning petition. Ms. Solenberger was uncertain what this additional information pertained to, but requested that I contact you. The HRAB has a meeting scheduled for next Tuesday, February 19, 2002 at 7:30 PM. While the agenda has already been distributed, if you could provide me (via e-mail or fax 665-6395) with the relevant information on the Rutherford's Farm, I will see that the HRAB receives it. I would also invite you to attend the HRAB next week to present your findings. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you. Eric Lawrence Deputy Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, CZA Deputy Director Department of Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 540.665.5651 540.665.6395 fax elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us loft 2/13/2002 9:22 AM oh /� i -,� lzg(( )V// FEB 1. 9 2.002 DFPT', OF PI.ANNIN('IDFVFLOPMENI' . 1 • ale we S e e- c e a� D s Ivv �O e s }- G t� o f-4- vr� a.✓�.f i'vte A I I s�Ou Jbe (-u-rv-ed, c�� �Oc�c�eJ �SYY1aA 0ko4ci J 26689 Civil War Battles.qxd /2/13/0 22 AM Page 18 I 18 THE ENGAGEMENT AT RUTHERFORD'S FARM July 20, 1864 In the first weeks of June, 18 , theXar in Virginia took a decisive turn. Far from "fighting it out online if it takes all summer," General U. S. Grant, commanding the Army of the Potomac, concluded that he could not break Lee's lines north and east of Richmond. Therefore, on e3, he began his crossing of the James River, intending to attack Richmond from the south. General Lee, mead", concerned for the safety of Lynchburg and his railroad communications with the Shenandoah Valley, used a lull infighting after his victory at Cold Harbor to send the sadly depleted Second Corps of his Army — the Old Valley Army — under General Jubal Early west to Lynchburg and then down the Valley. It was Lee's hope that Early would repeat the great diversionary strategy he and Jackson had employed in 1862. Early's Valley Campaign was, initially, a great success. Early saved Lynchburg from capture, driving Union General David Hunter's force away to the west. Early then turned north, down the Valleatoward� Winchester and beyond to the Potomac. The Confederates threatener) Washington itself, driving to within 6 miles of the Capitol Dome on July 11 2 before prudently pulling back. The diversion was successful — Early's successes compelled Grant to send forces west, toward Washington and the Valley. Early began his retreat from Washington on July 1�)aiming for Berryville. On July 16 he turned on his pursuers, driving them back across the Shenandoah River with heavy losses at the Battle of Cool Spring. There was also Federal pursuit from the direction of Martinsburg. There, General W. W. Averell, commanding a mixed force of about 000 infantry and cavalry, was probing in the direction of Bunker Hill. Learning from his pickets that the Confederates were in Berryville, Averell marched south on the morning of July 19. Also on that day, Early ordered Major General Stephen Ramseur's divisioiR to Winchester, behind a C&Velrlscreen °"' of Bunker Hill. Ramseur and Averell collided on July 20 just north of town, at Rutherford's (some- times called Carter's),arm. The ensuing engagement ended in a complete Union victory that did no credit either to Ramseur or his cav?lry commanders. The cavalry undoubtedly gave Ramseur an Ll` `' impression of the size of the force bearing down on them, but the infantry was badly placed and easily flanked from the north. For the first time in theXar in the Lower Valley, I26689 Civil War Battles.gxd 12/13/01 22 AM Page 19 19 a Confederate force had been defeated and driven back in disorder. There was no pursuit. The reaction in the Southern newspaper press was a combination of shock and anger. Ramseur, mortified, steeled himself and his men to redeem themselves, a challenge they met and exceeded in the following battles. Nevertheless, the engagement revealed two weaknesses in Early's forces: the worn down state of his cavalry and the predictable results of a growing shortage of experienced general officers. 0 26689 Civil War Battles.qxd 12/13/01 22 AM Page 20 20 OPPOSING FORCES AT RUTHERFORD'S FARM July X0, 1 ir(.� Confederate RamseuN Division Johnston's Brigade (Johnston)) 5th North Carolina 12th North Carolina 20th North Carolina 23rd North Carolina 1st Battalion Sharpshooters Lewt�rigade (Lewis) 6th North Carolina 21st North Carolina 54th North Carolina 57th North Carolina Union Se-c,o, �, Division (,kVe.re-10 erell's Infantry Col. Isaac Duval's Brigade valry lst West Virginia 2nd West Virginia 3rd West Virginia 14th Pennsylvania :illery 1st West Virginia 1st Ohio I S. L , y's rigade—(LA- } th Virginia 3 1st Virginia 49th Virginia 52nd Virginia 58th Virginia • 0 26689 Civil Pear Battles.gxd 12/13/0 22 A14 Page 21 21 Casualties Engagement at Rutherford's Farm Union 53 killed 155 wounded Vs 6 hissing \o` Confederate (according to General Averell) 73 killed 01*'S 130 wounded 267 captured RE: Rutherford is 9 Subject: RE: Rutherford Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:32:05 -0500 From: Donna Stephens <dstephens@greenwayeng.com> To: "'Eric Lawrence"' <elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us> We will deliver your requested copies on Monday, Mar 25. Thanks. Donna -----Original message ----- From: Eric Lawrence[mailto•elawrencOco.frederic]c.va.us] Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 3:29 PM To: Donna Stephens Cc: Mark Smith Subject: Rutherford Hello. I received your request to place the Rutherfords rezoning on the next available Board of Supervisors meeting. We will request that this item be placed on the April 24th agenda. Because the item went to the PC twice, I am out of copies of the support materials (maps, etc.). Could you place send over more copies (20) of these maps? I would need them by April 12, 2002. Thanks. -Eric Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, CZA Deputy Director Department of Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 540.665.5651 540.665.6395 fax elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us I of I 3/22/2002 3:53 PM 1\ ULICL LULU L aI LLL- 1 LLUlLJLi La 1 1 alN 0 Subject: Rutherford Farm -Industrial Park Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:46:13 -0500 From: "Jill Mouths" <jIII0Unts@adelphia.net> To: <nilenlaste@co.frederick.va.us> February 6, 2002 Dear Mr. Lemaster, I was unable to attend the meeting this evening, but wanted to express my voice. I read in Tuesday's paper that those wishing to develop the Rutherford site was willing to install a traffic light at southbound I81 and Rt 11. Well in my opinion, that is really a nice but stupid proffer. That will put 4 traffic lights with in a very short distance. Have you been in this area since VDOT installed the light at the Xpress Stop?? Before changing the cycle of turn arrows, this intersection was definitely an accident waiting to happen. Now it is a little better, but not great. Drivers are to remain in their left hand lanes -which very few understand and the lanes that go straight, create huge backups clear past I81, and up the I81 ramps, morning and evening. There already have been several accidents in this stretch recently. what this county needs at the Interstate 81 interchanges are cloverleafs. Before you allow more building at these areas, please consider building the cloverleafs. By doing this you will eliminate several of these traffic lights. These current roads, interchanges and lights will not be able to handle up to 9,000 additional cars and trucks. I am not a rocket scientist, but any fool can see that by allowing all this building close to the entrance and exit ramps creates problems down the road! And yes, we have these problems. We can see that Rt 7 & I81, Rt 50 & I81, and Rt 277 & I81 are already major disasters. Rt 11 & I81 at Stephenson still has a chance of being fixed now. I hope you will try and understand these opinions. I am not alone in thinking that more industrial parks, bring more trucks and traffic to an already inadequate system. Thank you, Jill B. Mounts cc: Richard Shickle, Lynda Tyler 1 of 1 2/7/2002 9:41 AM JPEG image 1216012 pixels 1 of 1 2/6/2002 3:43 PM 1PEG image 1216012 pixels • • I o l' I Rutherford's Farm sign 6 6 Subject: Rutherford's Farm sign Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:03:05 -0500 From: Donna Stephens <dstephens@greenwayeng.com> To: `elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us"' <elawrenc@co.frcderick.va.us> Eric, On Thursday, January 31, 2002, the Rutherford rezoning sign was checked and verified that it was in place. Let us know if you need anything else for tonight's hearing Thanks, Donna 1 of 1 2/6/2002 2:10 PM REZONING APPLICATION #07-01 RUTHERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK Staff Report for the Planning Commission Public Hearing Prepared: October 24, 2001 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 nnatter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 11/7/01 Pending Board of Supervisors: 12/12/01 Pending PROPOSAL: • To rezone 113 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and 3.7 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to M1 (Light Industrial); • To rezone 21.8 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and 1.4 acres of RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General); To rezone 14.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B3 (Industrial Transition); To include the entire 154.4 tract in the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District. LOCATION: This property is located on the northeastern quadrant of Interstate 81, Exit 317. The tract is bounded by Interstate 81 on the west, and Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11 North) on the east and south. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43-A-96; 43-A-97; 43-A-98; 43-A-99; 43-A-100; 43-A-111 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Agricultural / Vacant RP (Residential Performance) District Use: Agricultural / Vacant 0 0 Rutherford's Farin REZ #07-01 Page 2 October 26, 2001 ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District Zoned M2 (Industrial General) District South: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District East: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District West: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District PROPOSED USE: 154.4 acres Commercial and Industrial REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Use: Agricultural/Nursery Use: Industrial Use: Commercial/Industrial Use: Residential Use: Residential Use: Agricultural/Residential Use: Vacant Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached letters ftoni Homer Coffman, Trans. Assistant Resident Engineer, dated September 6, 2001, and from Steven Melnikoff, Transportation Engineer, dated October 18, 2001. Rutherford's Industrial Park trip assignments include the Route I l/I-81 interchange. However, the 2010 Build Out Traffic Condition at the interchange and the proposed right in -out Rutherford entrance/intersection are excluded from the intersection analysis of the study. There is no "method of management" suggested for the northbound ramp/Route 11 intersection, the southbound ramp/Route 11 intersection or the Rutherford right in-out/Route 11 intersection, all of which should be addressed. Fire Marshal: Access identified during site plan process, along with waterline extension for fire protection services. Plan approval is recommended. Historic Resources Advisory Board: See attached letter dated July 19, 2001. Inspections: No comment required at this time. Shall comment at the time of site plan review. County Engineer : See attached letter fi-om H. E. Strawsnyder, Jr., Director of Public Works, dated 915101. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: This property is in the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). FCSA has sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve it. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 3 October 26, 2001 Frederick -Winchester Health Department: Public water and sewer must be provided. County Attorney: Once signed by owners and changes as shown on proffers are made, they appear to be in proper form. Parks & Recreation: No comment. Frederick Co. Public Schools: No direct impact on Frederick County Public Schools. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) depicts the zoning for the six parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning as R-3 (Residential -General) District. On October 8, 1980, parcels 43-A-96; 43-A-98; 43-A-99; 43-A-111; and a portion of 43-A-97 were rezoned from R-3 to A-2 during a Comprehensive Downzoning. The A-2 (Agricultural General) District zoning classification was modified to RA (Rural Areas) District on February 14, 1990 during the comprehensive amendment to the county's Zoning Ordinance. The R-3 (Residential -General) District zoning classification was modified to RP (Residential Performance) District on February 14, 1990 during the comprehensive amendment to the county's Zoning Ordinance; this action affected 43-A-100, and a portion of 43-A-97. 2) Location The six parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning are located on the north side of Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11); and on the east side of Interstate 81. The parcels are located on the northeast quadrant of Interstate 81 interchange Exit 317. Martinsburg Pike is classified as a major arterial roadway. The site is bisected by a north -south running CSX rail line. 3) Comprehensive Policy Plan The parcels are within the county's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and are a component of the Northeast Land Use Plan which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 27, 2000. The parcels were also a component of the Route 11 North Corridor Plan which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 8, 1997. Both land use plans proposed future commercial and industrial development within the area of these parcels; as well as the provision of a Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) overlay along Martinsburg Pike. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 4 October 26, 2001 The Northeast Land Use Plan also identifies a major collector road along the northern portion of the subject tract. This planned roadway would intersect with Martinsburg Pike and travel westerly towards I-81, and then angle towards the north. The applicant has made provisions to construct this planned roadway. 4) Site Suitability The six parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning contain areas that are defined as floodplain and wetlands. The majority of the defined environmental features are located in the vicinity of Hiatt's Run which travels through the northern section of the tract. The soil types on the property are well -drained and predominantly moderately sloping terrain. The southern portion of the property contains rock outcrops. All of the aforementioned soils do not support crops without fertilization, liming, and soil management. All of the soils are suitable for agricultural use such as hay, pastures, and orchards. 5) Potential Impacts a) Transportation Impact Analysis Statement Information provided within the applicant's Impact Analysis Statement advises that traffic generation from the154 acres requested to be rezoned will produce 9,744 vehicle trips per day on the existing road system, as calculated utilizing The Institute of Transportation of Engineers Trip Generation 6°1 Edition, Volume 1, Classification 130-Industrial Park. The applicant conducted traffic count studies at Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park in November 2000 to determine the vehicle trips per day (VPD) per square foot generation of these industrial parks. The applicant's traffic study identified a range between 4.14 VPD per 1,000 sf. and 3.12 VPD per 1,000 sf, respectively. The applicant has assumed a projected VPD of 3.63 per 1,000 sf which would yield 5,082 VPD for the development of 1.4 million square feet. The applicant's impact analysis projects traffic generation between 5,082 and 9,744 VPD. The Impact Analysis Statement refers to the applicant's Proffer Statement to indicate what improvements will occur with the development. Review Agency Continent Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 5 October 26, 2001 The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has reviewed the traffic impact analysis dated September 28, 2001. The VDOT comments, dated 9/6/01 and 10/18/01, acknowledge the applicant's proposed road improvements. However, the traffic impact analysis does not adequately assess impacts on the existing road network. Additional information has been requested to allow VDOT to complete the analysis and determine the impacts this proposed development will have on the I-81 interchange and Route 11. Planning Staff Comment The information within the applicant's traffic impact analysis does not provide current traffic count information for the impacted roadways immediately southwest of the site; does not estimate the percentage of vehicle trips that will be tractor -trailer and normal vehicle; nor does it provide current and projected Level of Service (LOS) information for impacted roadways. The 2000 Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volumes Jurisdiction Report 34 indicates that the average annual weekday traffic (AAWDT) counts for Martinsburg Pike from Interstate Exit 317 to Old Charles Town Road was 10,000 trips. The applicant has estimated that the build -out of this acreage would generate between 5,082 and 9,744 VPD; therefore, the projection would increase traffic on Martinsburg Pike by at least 50%, and possibly up to 97% of the current average daily traffic volume. The applicant's traffic impact analysis projects that approximately 75 percent of the trips generated would travel through the Exit 317 interchange area (southwest of the site), yet the applicant has not addressed this anticipated traffic impact. The Northeast Land Use Plan calls for the provision of a new east -west collector road throughout the subject tract. The applicant, through the proffer statement, has proffered to provide the necessary right-of-way and construct the segment of the planned collector road as it transverses the subject tract. b) Water and Sewer: Impact Analysis Statement Information provided within the applicant's Impact Analysis Statement advises that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has determined that on average, 500 gallons -per -day -per - acre is reasonable to use for sewer impact analysis for this commercial and industrial site. The proposed zoning will add 0.08 mgd to the public sewage conveyance system and the Opequon Waste Water Treatment Plant. • • Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 6 October 26, 2001 The applicant has also provided information advising that the FCSA has determined that 1,000 gallons -per -day -per -acre quantity is reasonable to consider for the water impact analysis for this conunercial and industrial site. The maximum design consumption for the subject site is determined by comparing the current use of water within the developed acreage of Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park. The proposed zoning will use 0.15 mgd of the public water conveyance system. The applicant has projected that the development of 155 acres will result in water usage of 154,400 gallons -per -day and 77,200 gallons of service discharge per day. Review Azency Comment The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) comment, dated 7/20/01, states that sufficient water and sewer capacity exist to serve the demands of the rezoning. The proposed service discharge will not negatively impact the projected available 250,000 gallons -per -day allocated for this area of Frederick County. Plannin.e Staff Comment Staff contacted the FCSA prior to the commencement of the Northeast Land Use Plan process to discuss water and sewer capacity issues. Representatives of the FCSA advised staff to assume a 1,000 gallon -per -day -per -acre quantity to project potential water and sewer capacity needs for the planned area. These figures have been revised more recently to adjust to more realistic consumption figures. Staff would agree with the applicant's assumptions that while water continues to be consumed at 1,000 gallon -per -day -per -acre, sewer discharge is more closely generated at 500 gallons -per -day -per -acre. Staff compared the current water and sewer use within the developed acreage of Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park to determine which projection was more realistic. The data for water and sewer consumption within these industrial parks was provided by the FCSA which accounts for use from August 1999 to August 2000. The following tables provide the gallon -per -day -per -acre quantity for water and sewer use for each industrial park during this time period: 0 Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 7 October 26, 2001 Existing Industrial Park Water Use Name Total Developed Total Gallons of Total Gallons of Gallons/Day Acreage Acreage Water Used Between Water Per Day /Acre 8199 - 8100 Fort Collier 442 acres 370 acres 110,979,000 gallons 304,000 gpd 822 gpd/acre Stonewall 494 acres 205 acres 13,503,000 gallons 37,000 gpd 180 gpd/acre Existing Industrial Park Sewer Use Name Total Developed Total Gallons of Total Gallons of Gallons/Day Acreage Acreage Sewer Generated Sewer Generated /Acre Between 8199 - 8100 Per Day Fort Collier 442 acres 370 acres 55,959,000 gallons 153,300 gpd 415 gpd/acre Stonewall 494 acres 205 acres 8,151,000 gallons 22,330 gpd 110 gpd/acre Based on existing water and sewer consumption patterns, it appears that the 1,000 gallon -per -day - per -acre projection that was utilized by staff during the Northeast Land Use Plan process is reasonable to consider for the applicant's water, and 500 gallons -per -day -per -acre is reasonable for sewer impact analysis. • 0 Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 8 October 26, 2001 c) Solid Waste: Impact Analysis Statement The applicant has provided information which projects potential solid waste generation associated with the development of the 155 acres requested to be rezoned. This analysis utilizes an industrial waste calculator from Fairfax County. The calculator assumes a worst case scenario and does not account for recycling. The applicant has projected that the potential solid waste generation from this acreage would account for approximately 4,494 tons -per -year. Implementation of a recycling program could reduce the potential solid waste by approximately 50 percent, to 2,247 tons -per - year. Review Agency Comment The Department of Public Works (County Engineer) comment, dated 9/5/01, endorses the recycling proffer and recommends that it also be included in the deed covenants. Accordingly, it will be important to inform potential lot buyers and developers that the respective certificate of occupancy will not be issued until a recycling program has been reviewed and approved by Frederick County. Planning Staff Connnent The county landfill is designed to dispose of solid waste that is generated by residential, commercial, and industrial land uses within the municipal solid waste landfill (MSW); and to dispose of construction waste in the construction demolition debris landfill (CDD). The county has an anticipated MSW landfill life of 20 years, based on a 3% average annual increase in solid waste disposal. The Department of Public Works has filed an application with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to increase the permitted air space (vertical capacity) at the landfill. The amended permit to extend air space capacity would expand the landfill life by an additional 15-20 years. The DEQ will render a final decision regarding this application in July 2002. Based on existing development patterns in Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park, it appears that the approximately 4,500-ton-per-year solid waste generation is reasonable to consider for the applicant's solid waste impact analysis. This figure suggests that the build -out of the acreage requested to be rezoned would generate the average annual increase of solid waste disposal experienced by the county for a one-year period. • 0 Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 9 October 26, 2001 d) Historic Resources: Impact Analysis Statement The applicant has provided information which identifies Rutherford's Farm (VA Historic Landmark Commission File # 10082 34-727) as a Historical Landmark. However, all that remains of the house is a set of concrete steps that lead from Route 11 up to the site of the house. There is a historical marker south of the site on Route 11. One archeological site is noted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. It is a raised berm allowing access to the opposite side of the rail line. However, it is abandoned and no longer in use. This site does not exhibit features that suggest eligibility for National Register consideration. Review Azencv Comment The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) con-nnent, dated 7/19/01, encourages the implementation of a number of improvements offered by the applicant that would further assist in the preservation and the historic interpretation of the subject site. Specifically, the applicant offered, and the HRAB supported, the establishment of a pull -off location for historical interpretation of the Second Battle of Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and the Rutherford Farm. The HRAB also encouraged the provision of linear landscaping along Route 11 to maintain the visual rural community features existing along Martinsburg Pike. Planning Staff Comment The subject properties are partially located within the limits of the Second Winchester study area, and are also within the Battle of Rutherford's Farm study area. Therefore, the HRAB has expressed concern for the loss of historic battlefields and the aesthetic qualities of the rural community in which these parcels are located. The applicant has proffered to establish a Civil War interpretive site pull -off along Route 11, in the general area where the existing historical marker is currently located. This site will offer an opportunity for interpretation of Second Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and the Rutherford Farm operation. The HRAB will review the information that will be placed on the proposed interpretative markers. It will be imperative of the applicant to design the pull -off area so as to not further detract from the interpretive site. The applicant has also proffered to establish and maintain the proposed interpretive site. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 10 October 26, 2001 e) Proffer Statement The applicant has submitted a proffer statement which has been signed by the property owner, notarized, and reviewed by the County Attorney's office. The following list is a surnmary of the conditions voluntarily proffered by the applicant: • Establish a maximum building square footage of 1,400,000 square feet for the entire 154 acre site. • Prohibit the Truck Stop use from the entire site. • Installation of a traffic signal at the site's main entrance (Route 11 and the planned Major Collector Road, as illustrated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan). • Prohibit building construction adjacent to 1-81 and within the proposed right-of-way for the I-81 improvement project. • Construction of intersection improvements at the two proposed entrances. The time at ivhich the improvements would be constructed has not been addressed. The extent of improvements should also be addressed in greater detail. • Construct the planned Major Collector Road as it transverses the site. • Construct a third southbound lane along Route 11. The time at which the improvement would be constructed has not been addressed. • Provide an accumulative traffic tabulation for the entire development on each site plan. When the accumulative traffic generation exceeds 10,000 VPD, a traffic study outlining the necessary improvements will be conducted for the site plan exceeding 10,000 VPD, and improvements constructed, to maintain a level of service "C" on the affected road systems. • Establish an interpretative area and pull -off along Route 11 for historical interpretation of Second Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and Rutherford's Farm. • Establish a 15-foot transitional landscape buffer along Route 11, extending the length of the site. Ground cover, trees, and an earthen berm of 2-3 feet in height would be provided within the transitional buffer. • Establish maximum height of 12-foot for all monument signs in the M1 Zoning District. As proffered, the maximum sign height would not apply to any freestanding sign, regardless of the Zoning district. The height limitation, as proffered, would only apply to `monument signs' in the MI District. • Limit the total number of IA (Interstate Area Overlay) signs to three within the subject site. • Establishment of recycling program to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct material. Such programs must be approved by the County prior to issuance of certificate of occupancies. This program should be included in the development's covenants to ensure all property owners are aware of the requirements. • Provide a monetary contribution of $10,000 to the county to be utilized for fire and rescue services. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 11 October 26, 2001 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/07/01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The 155-acre site proposed for rezoning is located within the county's Sewer and Water Service Area; is within the portion of the Northeast Land Use Plan which recommends future commercial and industrial land use; is adjacent to the identified Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA); and contains a portion of the Second Battle of Winchester and the Battle of Rutherford's Farm. The Northeast Land Use Plan recommends that commercial and industrial land uses should only occur if impacted road systems function at a grade "C"level of service (LOS) or better; that commercial and industrial land uses be developed with public water and sewer service; and that commercial and industrial land uses be adequately screened from adjoining land uses to mitigate visual and noise impacts. The applicant has submitted proffered conditions including the elimination of the Truck Stop land use; various road improvements to address the projected build -out of 5,082-9,744 VPD; future studies and improvements to the impacted road systems, in the event the project VPD exceeds 10,000; and the establishment of a pull -off area for historic interpretation. A monetary contribution for fire and rescue services has also been proffered. In an effort to address the Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA), the applicant has proffered the establishment of a landscape buffer along the entire Route 11 road frontage. This buffer, to be 15-feet in depth, would contain a 2-3 foot berm and various landscape plantings. Deciduous and evergreen trees would be planted throughout the length of the landscape buffer. There continues to be a number of concerns regarding transportation issues, identified by the Virginia Department of Transportation and staff. The Traffic Impact Analysis did not adequately address the necessary items for inclusion in a traffic impact analysis, as indicated in the rezoning application package. Most specifically the analysis should provide traffic count information for all roads impacted; pre- and post- development Level -of -Service for the affected roadways; details regarding vehicle composition; and traffic movements. Rutherford's Industrial Park trip assignments include the Route 11 /1-81 interchange. However, the 2010 Build Out Traffic Condition at the interchange and the proposed right in -out Rutherford entrance/intersection are excluded from the intersection analysis of the study. There is no "method of management" suggested for the northbound ramp/Route 11 intersection, the southbound ramp/Route 11 intersection or the Rutherford right in-out/Route 11 intersection, all of which should be addressed. Without a thorough Traffic Impact Analysis, it is unclear if the proposed rezoning will have a detrimental impact on the road network servicing the site. The applicant has proffered to construct various road improvements, but the time at which the improvements will be completed, and agreements executed, have not been addressed. The applicant should provide a more thorough Traffic Impact Analysis for review, and be prepared to address how the proffer statement addresses the various issues identified by staff. Staff would recommend that action on this rezoning request be deferred until the identified issues are provided and resolved. OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: PIN 43-A-96,97,98,99,100,111 Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE business/industr Costs of Itnpact_Credit; INP_UT_v1ODULE Creditts to_be Take REAL EST VAL $127,780,934 Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ FIRE & RESCUE 1 Capital Faciltties col sum only) OpeLCap-Equip Expend/Debt_S Iaxes._Other Fire and Rescue Department S730,362 Elementary Schools SO Middle Schools SO SO SO High Schools SO Parks and Recreation SO $0 Public Library SO SO Sheriffs Offices SO S40,352 SO SO Administration Building SO SO Other Miscellaneous Facilities SO $467,822 S94,139 SUBTOTAL S730,362 S508,174 S94,139 SO LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT S32,184,482 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT Total Potential Adjustment For Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per (Unadjusted) Cost -Balance Eacilities_Impact Dwelling -Unit SO SO S730,362 ERR SO SO $0 ERR SO SO SO ERR SO SO SO ERR S40,352 $40,352 SO ERR SO SO SO ERR S561,961 S561,961 SO ERR S602,313 $602,313 $128,049 ERR S32,184,482 $32,184,482 ($32J84-482) ERR $01 ERR INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included: 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 1.000 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg = 1.433 METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Date 10/15/01 ERL W.I.N. 43-A-96,97,98,99,100,111 Rezoning: Assumes155 acres zoned B2, B3, M1 utilizing a maximum of 1,400,000 square feet Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. Post -it' FaxNote i71 Date T° G/'S /1nm /Rezoning Comments '{'1::/ill£!!: s[!lt(�!!� ���:{::f'If � s%::l`f (�1/5: �::f(':.':i.st ::.'Y. A,t.'-: �<:1L � ::;/n ,�:l.t.� ✓.'�i'�f��% t I COJDeAI, Phono k Fax -It Virginia Department of Transportation .flail to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (540) 984-5600 AppEcant's Name: Grefmm,av Engineerin; Nlaii_itig Address: 151 Windy Hill Lame. Winchester, VA 22602 Phone # !• (du\J Lx Hand deliver to: Virginia DcparSment of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 1550 Commerce Street Winchester, Virginia Telephone: 540)662-4185 Location of property: Located on the natural boundary created by Interstate 81 on the western edge of the track. US Rt. 11 trisects this area in a North/South linear fashion. CSX and Winchester & Western Railroad have tines parailelin Rt. 11 !North. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: M1,B2,B3 Acrea,e: 154,4 Acres VirFlnla Department of Transportation Cormne.trts: The otlowing rx ments are offered basel unon a review of Illustrations dolalled as part of the rozoning request tor tie proposed R Ithe ' Farm I(ulucrrinl Park* I!• VDOT Is in agreement with the proposed intersection Improvements at the collector road entrance at the unnamed comprehonsivol cgll�Qtor road Inclrsive of a •r affir. s'CC:31 an ind ginn 4L07r� Re i l four-iaU rond sy tam (grass mad v) vvlt LanolLons sort south of the unnamed comprehensive collector road, right and !cft turn lanes and a turn lane from the northern most entrance t northbound entrance rump of 1-81 with improved !uming radius. • A second entrance south of ttie collector road n ra rr is of cone rp ` 7 T Ie <o safat c _tja traveL1 _k tic znd set -tacks from The second entrance may `ae permitted based upon final ces!gn. Should the second entrance be provided, a median crossing from the bound :are of Rte. 1 I to the second entrance may not be permitted due to rninimal distance between crossovers not being wet. In adcit traffic signal may be requlred at the secorr' entrance depending upon final design and a determined imoac:. • VIDOT has not seen a traffic impact thus We cannot co. on the traffic impact of the proposed development on Rte. 11 north or bound or the 317 interchange and its ramp system. i VDOT Signature & Date: 09/06/01 Trans. Assistant Resident Engineer /> </' i'ra?yv; ;�'r f(��'J Cf}✓".r?%•;S="�7: >�:la!(%i'.!: j'/.1i?!%S",�...,.�.../���� �.,,�...� G'�"�£':.',%'/;'; '% I ford :):an and tt:a orth ma luth Fw: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park Subject: FW: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:27:44 -0400 From: "Funkhouser, Rhonda" <RFtuikhouser@VDOT.STATE.VA.US> To: 'Eric Lawrence' <elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us> > -----Original Message----- • From: Funkhouser, Rhonda On Behalf Of Melnikoff, Steve > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 2:23 PM > To: 'Mark Smith @ Greenway Engineering'; Greenway Engineering (E-mail) > Cc: Coffman, Homer; Clem, Sam; Melnikoff, Steve; Heironimus, David > (Dave); 'Evan Wyatt'; 'Eric Lawrence' > Subject: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park > Virginia Department of Transportation > Edinburg Residency > October 18, 2001 > Mr. Mark Smith > C/O Greenway Engineering > 151 Windy Hill Lane > Winchester, VA 22602 > Ref: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park > Route 11, Frederick County > Dear Mr. Smith: > Staff comments regarding the traffic impact analysis dated September 28, > 2001 as received from PHR&A are as follows: > This impact analysis states the four -lane divided section of Route 11, > which presently transitions to three (3) lanes just north of I-81, will be > extended to the proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Roadway. All > site entrance roadways will include left and right turn lanes where > applicable. The County Comprehensive Plan Collector Roadway will have two > inbound left turn lanes from Route 11 and will be signalized. > The Rutherford's industrial Park trip assignments include the Route > 11/I-81 interchange. However, the 2010 Build Out Traffic Condition at the > interchange and the proposed right in -out Rutherford entrance/intersection > are excluded from the intersection analysis of the study. There is no > "method of management' suggested for the north bound ramp/Route 11 > intersection, the south bound ramp/Route 11 intersection or the Rutherford > right in-out/Route 11 intersection. All of which should be addressed. > It is anticipated this development will generate traffic volumes that will > warrant signalized intersection and ramp roadway improvements. > Please submit the additional information to allow VDOT to complete the > analysis and impacts this proposed development will have to the I-81 > interchange and Route 11. > Steven A. Melnikoff > Transportation Engineer > VDOT - Edinburg Residency > Permit & Subdivision Section > 14031 Old Valley Pike > Edinburg, VA 22824 > (540) 984-5611 > (540) 984-5607 (fax) I of 1 10/26/2001 3:23 PM tiGY` , CO G COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 a� 1731 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 July 19, 2001 Mark Smith, P.E., L.S., President Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Rutherford's Farm Rezoning Proposal Dear Mr. Smith: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the referenced proposal during their meeting of July 17, 2001. This proposal involves the rezoning of approximately 144 acres fromRA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General), B3 (Industrial Transition), and MI (Light Industrial) Zoning Districts. The subject properties are partially located within the limits of the Second Winchester study area, and are also within the Battle of Rutherford's Farm study area. Therefore, the HRAB has expressed concern for the loss of historic battlefields and the aesthetic qualities of the rural community in which these parcels are located. In response to the BRAB's concerns, you presented a number of proffered condition concepts and indicated your willingness to incorporate the conditions with the formal rezoning application submittal. Specifically, you offered the following concepts: • To establish a pull -off location for historical interpretation of the Second Battle of Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and the Rutherford Farm. The interpretation area would contain historical markers and be maintained by the Industrial Park Association. It was also stated that the marker design and textual content would be returned to the B AB for review and approval. • Maintain the visual rural community elements existing along Martinsburg Pike by providing linear landscaping. This landscaping along Martinsburg Pike would include combinations of three-foot high evergreen hedges and berms, and mass clustering of tree and shrub plantings. The landscaping is intended to retain the natural feel of the rural community and utilize native vegetation including red buds, oaks,.and cedars. A combination of hedges, berms, and tree clusters would be implemented to lessen the visual impact of the proposed development. av -i 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • ( Page 2 Mark Smith, P.E., L. S., President, Greenway Engineering Re: Rutherford's Farm July 19, 2001 I • Establish a link to the property's history by naming the development after the Rutherford's Farm. The HRAB felt the rezoning proposal would be more palatable for the historic preservation community, if the above identified concepts were included in the rezoning application's proffer statement. Please contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. Eric/R. Lawrence, AICP Deputy Director ERL/kac cc: Dr. Richard R. Duncan, 6101 Edsall Road, Apt 1802, Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Mr. StephenL. Pettler, Jr., Harrison & Johnston, 21 So. Loudoun St., Winchester, VA 22601 Mr. R. J. Turner, Adams -Nelson & Assoc., 303 So. Loudoun St., Winchester, VA 22601 U:\Pxic\CommonMAB\RWhcrford Paim.HRAB.Rommnxndalion.wpd i#OUNTY of FRFDERICK September 5, 2001 Mr. Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S. Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mark: Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 We have completed our review of the rezoning request for the proposed Rutherford Farm Industrial Park and offer the following comments: 1) A review of exhibits "C" and "E" revealed that a substantial portion of the proposed M-1 zoning is located within the 100-year flood plain. This delineation should be reflected on the master development plan. Also, the impact of proposed development on the 100-year flood plain should be addressed in the master development submittal. 2) Existing wetland areas and obvious karst features (i.e., sinkholes), should be reflected on the master development plan. 3) In an earlier proffer submittal (July 19, 2001), regional stormwater management was proposed for low-lying areas. This facility or facilities should be highlighted in the master development plan. This same proffer statement indicates that BMP facilities might be required on individual sites if regional stormwater management is not available. We applaud this approach considering the sensitive nature of Hiatts Run. This requirement should be added to the deed covenants for each building lot considering BMPs implementation is not a county requirement. 4) We strongly endorse your recycling proffer and recommend that it also be included in the deed covenants. Please insure that the buyers or potential lot developers are informed of this requirement that a certificate of occupancy will not be issued until a recycling program has been reviewed and approved by q of 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • i Rutherford Farm Industrial Park Rezoning Page 2 September 5, 2001 Frederick County. We certainly do not want any misunderstandings at a later date. This requirement should also be highlighted in the master development submittal. I can be reached at 665-5643 if you have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, E, hi� fey . Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Patrick Davenport, Zoning Administrator file Greenway i:nginecring , July 19, 2001 Ruth s Farm Industrial Park Revised October 10, 2001 RUTHERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK REZONING Tax Parcels 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100 Stonewall Magisterial District Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # _ �lor the rezoning of 154.4 acres liom the Rural Arca (RA) zoning district to the following: Zoning districts • 116.7 acres Light Industrial (M1) • 23.2 acres Commercial (132) • 14.5 acres Commercial (133) Overlay district • 154.4 acres Interstate Area Overlay (IA) Development of the subject property shall he done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approves] by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed Withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the lands owned by Richard Ray Duncan, .Janet D. Riddick, and "Turner I nterprises, L,LC being all or part of Tax Map Parcels 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, and 43-A-99, 43-A-100 and further described by zoning plat prepared by Mark 1). Smith, P.L? L.S., dated July 16, 2001 (1-?xhibit A). A.) Maximum Building Structure Square Feet The applicant hereby proffers to limit [lie total building structures to 1,400,000 square feet for the entire 154.4 acres. Greenway Engineering 0 13.) Prohibited Uses July 19, 2001 Ruth's Farm Industrial Park Revised October 10, 2001 `File following uses shall not be permitted on the proposed Industrial Park: Description Sic Truck Stop 554"1 (Excluding Truck Stops, all other uses within SIC Code 5541 are hereby acceptable and included) C.) 'Transportation 1.) Traffic Signalization A traffic signal will be installed by the applicant when warranted by the Virginia Department of Transportation at the intersection of the proposed Industrial Park entrance and the unnamed Comprehensive Plan collector road In the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The applicant shall enter into and execute a signatization agreement and pay their pro-rata portion as determined by VDOT. 2.) Intersection Improvements Intersection ImproVCmCIltS at the proposed two entrances will be installed and paid For by the applicant. The existing multi -lane system on U.S. Route 11 will be extended north to the intersection of the proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Road. All left and right turn lanes and pavement transitions north and south of proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Road on U.S. Route 11will be installed and paid for by the applicant. 3.) Right of Way Dedication The applicant hereby agrees to dedicate right of way to the Commonwealth of Virginia along U.S. Route 11 adjacent to the property as determined by VDOT. This right of way dedication shall be requested prior to or at the time of the master development plan for said Industrial Park. Additionally, the applicant hereby agrees to prohibit the construction of buildings adjacent to Interstate 81 and within the proposed right-of-way as shown on Interstate 81 Improvement Study VDOT Project No. 0081-968-F11, PI-?-100 MP 305 to West Virginia State Line Frederick County, dated November 1998 (specifically noted on Sheet 24 of said study). Greemvay 13n1oincering 0 July 19, 200t Revised October 10, 2001 4.) Comprehensive Plan Road Construction Ruth # s Farm Industrial Park The applicant hereby agrees to coordinate, set aside right of way, and construct the portion of the major collector road traversing on [lie land herein to be rezoned slid dCVC10pCd and as outlined 111 the 1'I-CdcrlCk COL111ty COMINCIMISiVC Nall Northeast Land Use Study adopted by the Frederick County I3oard of Supervisors on September 27, 2000. Said collector road will be incorporated in and constructed with each site plan submission that is adjacent to or part of the site plan. 5.) Route 11 and Northbound I-81 Ramp Improvements The applicant will construct a third southbound lane on US Route 11 from the northern most entrance of the applicant's property to the northbound I-81 ramp of Exit 317. These improvements will include a 12' wide lane of approximately 600 linear feet in length to serve as a continuous right turn la►1C for the northbound entrance ramp of the Exit 317 interchange. Additionally, the applicant will construct turning radius improvements at the entrance ramp to CnsLlre a smooth trallsitloll. 6.) Traffic Generation Cap The applicant hereby proffers to provide an accurinllativC traffic tabulation for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park on each site plan Submitted to the Frederick County Planning Department. When the aCCL1111L11,16VC traffic generation from the Industrial Park exceeds 10,000 VPD, the applicant of the site plan exceeding the 10,000 VPD will prepare a traffic study outlining necessary improvements to maintain a level of' service "C" on the effected road systems. These said improvements will be paid for and installed by the applicant of [lie submitting site plall. D.) Historic Resource 1.) Interpretative Signs The applicant hereby proffers to provide an interpretive area in the location of the old RL1tIlCITOrd's Farm IIouse along U.S. Route 11 alld I1101-C partlCulal-ly at the location of the old concrete steps that now remain. nn easement of sufficient size will be provided for a pull -off area and viewing. Three interpretative playucs will be provided. They are as follows: • 'Tile Second Rattle of W111ChCS1Cr • The Rattle of Rutherford's Farm Greenway Engineering + July 19, 2001 Revised October 10, 2001 • The Rutherlord's Farm IIouse Ruth d's Farm Industrial Park The interpretative plaques will contain language and pictures acceptable to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. All work performed for the pull -off area will meet the minimum standards of Virginia Department of "Transportation and lrederick County Ordinances in respect to Highway pull -off and safety. Ground maintenance of the interpretative area will be performed by the Rutherford's farm Industrial Park Association under a separate continuous approved permit issued by VDOT. 2.) Landscaping A transitional landscape buffer will be provided along U.S. Route 11 from Interstate 81 traveling north to the Comprehensive Plan collector road and transmission power line easement. "I'his landscape casement will he 15' in width and will consist of a low earthen mound of 2-3' in height with plantings of ground covers, flowers, and grasses. Indigenous trees such as redbud, oaks, cedars, etc. Will he incorporated along said landscape easement in a cluster mass fashion to provide a naturally planted look. The maintenance of said landscape buffer will be the responsibility of the Rutherford's farm Industrial Park Association and will be installed with the first commercial development adjacent to said casement. 3.) Industrial Park Name The applicant hereby proffers the naming ol' the Industrial Park to: "Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park" E.) Lighting Building mounted lights and pole -mounted lights will be of a downcast nature and shielded and directed away from adjacent properties surrounding the proposed project. Lighting plans will be submitted as a separate attachment for review and approval by the Frederick County Planning Department prior to installation. F.) Slgnage 1. Within the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District, the applicant hereby proffers to limit all monument suns to 12' in height. 2. Within the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District, the applicant hereby proffers to limit the total number ol'signs to three. Greenway Engineering . G.) Recycling Proffer July 19, 2001 Ruth 0,s Farm Industrial Park Revised October 10, 2001 Recycling programs will be implemented with each Industrial Park user to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct material. This program will be reviewed and approved by the Frederick County Iecycling Coordinator prior to final occupancy permit. I -I.) Monetary Contribution to Ofi'set Impact of Development The undersigned owners of the above -described property hereby voluntarily proffer that in the event rezoning application # i .'' i is approved, and the property is subsequently developed within an 132, 133, and M"I zone, the undersigned will pay to the 'Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia the following amount: 10,000 for Frederick County 1-ire and Rescue This payment is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County clue to an increased demand on public services and will be paid at (lie time of the first site plan submission. I.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the I�der-ick County Code. RespeQ1,blly S ibfiitted: By: Richard Ray Duncan C Commonwealth of Virginia, toil --j-Z-00) Date City CD of C(-e<-(2y1CL To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 15 clay of 2001 by Wlcty�{- 6 Notary Pub My Commission lxpires (,�ZI- Greenway Engineering 0 July 19, 200t R110101's Farm Industrial Park Revised October 10, 2001 I3y: .GL et D. Riddick Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City ill:t y f To Wit: TIIC fOCCgOIng u1sti-umcnt was acknowledged before me this 1 Z day of LJdOkx-,- 2001 by Jane+ D R i dd ick. G6--lL,4-6L -/-) 1�4 & Notary P.uI lIc My Commission Expires & 'b ro , vc 2 ZGY��— Ttrlir l;nte> rises, LLC Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City County of To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledgccl before me this i2 clay of CL-: is toe Y'-- 2001 by Jroe r C'u Notary Puhlic My Commission Expires%►'�� 2 Z002/ 6 i • After review of the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Rutherford's Farm project, dated September 28, 2001, I would offer the following comments: 1. The Trip Generation Summary, Page 4, utilizes the "130- Industrial Park" land use. Why hasn't the Commercial use, as proposed in the rezoning, been included in the Trip Generation Summary? Do Commercial uses generate more VPD than Industrial? 2. What are the Level of Services (LOS) pre- and post- development. It is necessary to determine pre- and post- development LOS for the 4 areas that would be impacted by the proposed development resulting from a rezoning. The four areas include: both signalized intersections for accessing the I-81; the proposed main entrance to the Site; and the right - in, right -out intersection at the Site. 3. The Comprehensive Policy Plan states that LOS post -development should not deteriorate below LOS "C" [2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan, page 7-5]. Will this proposal comply with these policies? • 0 Information on anticipated traffic should be provided in terms of average trips per day and average peak hour trips for each proffered phase of the project. Some determination of the resulting travel conditions on the roads should also be provided. In order to determine traffic generation, the maximum possible density or intensity of development should be used (the maximum possible density and intensity for each zoning district can be found on Page 9 of this application packet.) Lesser densities or intensities of development should be used only if they have been proffered. If the proposed rezoning increases the anticipated traffic generatedby 5,000 average daily trip ends or by more than 50% of the existing traffic volume, or if the staff determines that there will be substantial adverse impacts on traffic, a more detailed traffic analysis may be required. Examples of additional information which may be required include: *Detailed traffic count information on roads impacted including traffic in each lane *Information on turning movements at intersections and entrances impacted *Existing level of service on roads and at intersections impacted *Distribution of trips generated on roads impacted *Projected level of service on roads without rezoning *Projected level of service on roads impacted with rezoning, upon completion of each proffered phase and after complete build out of the site. *The resulting road improvement cost that would be the result of the rezoning The detailed traffic analysis shall be prepared by a qualified professional and employ standard traffic planning methods and data sources, such as those described in the following sources: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209.. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation. Joe Mehra and C. Richard Keller, Development and Application of Trio Generation Rates, Federal Highway Administration, Report Number FHWA/PL/85/003. C. Richard Keller and Joe Mehra, Site Impact Traffic Evaluation (SITE) Handbook, Federal Highway Administration, Report Number FHWA/PL/85/004. In making projections, the applicant may select a time period which seems appropriate in terms of the build out period of the project. The detailed traffic analysis should describe the methods used. Details of the calculations should be provided along with a narrative describing the analysis, the 5 t. 11 No Scale Pro f1 tog ay SITE �(2S4�s6 S4�S6 v► _ ^b opas�d olyry�b` � ao v 04) y J en l o^� - N 5°�ti(3ol titil°i6° OO � RM PH MA A. . Figure 4 Rutherford's Industrial Park Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park September 28, 2001 PHRA,A, Page 6 0 • SITE ay Unsignalized Intersection Los ? . * Pam- Pm-r- L.c )s ? Signalized Intersection LOS = C(C) Figure 6 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service No Scale AM(PND A Traffic Impact Analysis of Ruth xford's Farm Industrial Park PUR8A.+. September 28, Zool Page 8 Transportation The commonly used Highway Capacity Manual, which is produced by the Transportation Research Board, contains methods for measuring the congestion and efficiency of existing and planned streets. The Highway Capacity Manual describes congestion and the capacity of the road to carry traffic in terms of levels of service, as shown in Table 13: Table 13: Level of Service- Categories and Description _ Category A Free flow, operating speed at speed limit, turns easily made, excess green time at signals. B Stable flow, operating speed at speed limit, some lines of vehicles at intersections and turns, less than 10% of cycles loaded at signals. C Stable flow, operating below speed limit, some lines of vehicles at intersections and turns, 10% to 30% of cycles loaded at signals. D Approaching unstable flow, fluctuating flow, little freedom to maneuver, 30% to 70% of cycles loaded at signal, some drivers must wait through one cycle. E Unstable flow, low operating speed, 70% to 100% of cycles loaded at signals, vehicles frequently wait through cycles Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 198) Most roads in Frederick County are currently operating at a "A" or 'B" level of service. Many localities use a standard of "C" as the minimum acceptable level. Level of service "C" should be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new developments in the County. Traffic analysis should be provided by applicants proposing new development to insure that needed road improvements are identified in order to maintain or improve upon the level of service. In some cases, it will be appropriate to expect the level of service of roads to be maintained at an "A" or'B" level. It will not be acceptable for roads or intersections that are operating at a level of service "A" to deteriorate to a "C" level over relatively short periods of time as a result of traffic generated from a single development. The type of land use adjoining any road and the resulting traffic generated is a major factor influencing whether the use of a road exceeds its capacity. Land use, road improvements and intersections should be carefully planned and controlled to provide maximum safety and efficiency based on design capacity and level of service. Frederick County 7 - 5 Comprehensive Plan COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 A � 1. TO: Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Director ew� RE: Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Rezoning DATE: January 24, 2002 Attached is the updated staff report for the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park Rezoning. In order to more clearly provide the Commission with an update on this application, staff has included a number of character font features in the staff report. The features are as follows: Staff concerns are shown in BOLD ITALICS New staff report information is shown in BOLD UNDERLINE Information that has been removed p-OrL Is S11OWn with a STRIKEGUT Staff has also provided a copy of the revised proffered conditions utilizing the font features. It is our hope that this information will assist you in better understanding the changes to this rezoning application. Please contact staff with any questions regarding this mernorandurn or application. Thank you. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 REZONING APPLICATION #07-01 RUTHERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK Staff Report for the Planning Commission Public Hearing Prepared: January 24, 2002 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. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: November 7, 2001 Deferred February 6, 2002 Pending Board of Supervisors: February 27, 2002 Pending PROPOSAL: • To rezone 113 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and 3.7 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to M1 (Light Industrial); • To rezone 21.8 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and 1.4 acres of RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General); • To rezone 14.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B3 (Industrial Transition); • To include the entire 154.4 tract in the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District. LOCATION: This property is located on the northeastern quadrant of Interstate 81, Exit 317. The tract is bounded by Interstate 81 on the west, and Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11 North) on the east and south. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43-A-96; 43-A-97; 43-A-98; 43-A-99; 43-A-100; 43-A-111 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Agricultural / Vacant RP (Residential Performance) District Use: Agricultural / Vacant • is Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 2 January 25, 2002 ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District Zoned M2 (Industrial General) District South: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District East: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District West: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District PROPOSED USE: 154.4 acres Commercial and Industrial REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Use: Agricultural/Nursery Use: Industrial Use: Commercial/Industrial Use: Residential Use: Residential Use: Agricultural/Residential Use: Vacant Virginia Dept. of Transportation: VDOT has reviewed the rezoning application for the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park, rezoning Application #07-01. Based on our review, we find we are not in opposition of the transportation proffers (revised January 7, 2002) as offered to Frederick County. Also, see attached letters from Homer Coffman, Trans. Assistant Resident Engineer, dated September G, 2001, and fi-on: Steven Melnikoff, Transportation Engineer, dated October 18, 2001. Fire Marshal: Access identified during site plan process, along with waterline extension for fire protection services. Plan approval is recommended. Historic Resources Advisory Board: See attached letter dated July 19, 2001. Inspections: No comment required at this time. Shall comment at the time of site plan review. County Engineer: See attached letter fi-om H. E. Strawsuyder, Jr., Director of Public Works, dated 9/S/01. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: This property is in the Sewer and Water- Service Area (SWSA). FCSA has sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve it. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: Public water and sewer must be provided. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 3 January 25, 2002 County Attorney: Once signed by owners and changes as shown on proffers are made, they appear to be in proper form. Parks & Recreation: No comment. Frederick Co. Public Schools: No direct impact on Frederick County Public Schools. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) depicts the zoning for the six parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning as R-3 (Residential -General) District. On October 8, 1980, parcels 43-A-96; 43-A-98; 43-A-99; 43-A-111; and a portion of 43-A-97 were rezoned from R-3 to A-2 during a Comprehensive Downzoning. The A-2 (Agricultural General) District zoning classification was modified to RA (Rural Areas) District on February 14, 1990 during the comprehensive amendment to the county's Zoning Ordinance. The R-3 (Residential -General) District zoning classification was modified to RP (Residential Performance) District on February 14, 1990 during the comprehensive amendment to the county's Zoning Ordinance; this action affected 43-A-100, and a portion of 43-A-97. 2) Location The six parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning are located on the north side of Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11); and on the east side of Interstate 81. The parcels are located on the northeast quadrant of Interstate 81 interchange Exit 317. Martinsburg Pike is classified as a major arterial roadway. The site is bisected by a north -south running CSX rail line. 3) Comprehensive Policy Plan The parcels are within the county's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and are a component of the Northeast Land Use Plan which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 273 2000. The parcels were also a component of the Route 11 North Corridor Plan which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 8, 1997. Both land use plans proposed future commercial and industrial development within the area of these parcels; as well as the provision of a Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) overlay along Martinsburg Pike. The Northeast Land Use Plan also identifies a major collector road along the northern portion of the subject tract. This planned roadway would intersect with Martinsburg Pike and travel westerly Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 4 January 25, 2002 towards I-81, and then angle towards the north. The applicant has made provisions to construct this planned roadway. 4) Site Suitability The six parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning contain areas that are defined as floodplain and wetlands. The majority of the defined environmental features are located in the vicinity of Hiatt's Run which travels through the northern section of the tract. The soil types on the property are well -drained and predominantly moderately sloping terrain. The southern portion of the property contains rock outcrops. All of the aforementioned soils do not support crops without fertilization, liming, and soil management. All of the soils are suitable for agricultural use such as hay, pastures, and orchards. 5) Potential Impacts a) Transportation Impact Analysis Statement Information provided within the applicant's Impact Analysis Statement advises that traffic generation from the154 acres requested to be rezoned will produce 9,744 vehicle trips per day on the existing road system, as calculated utilizing The Institute of Transportation of Engineers Trip Generation 6°1 Edition, Volume 1, Classification 130-Industrial Park. The applicant conducted traffic count studies at Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park in November 2000 to determine the vehicle trips per day (VPD) per square foot generation of these industrial parks. The applicant's traffic study identified a range between 4.14 VPD per 1,000 sf. and 3.12 VPD per 1,000 sf, respectively. The applicant has assumed a projected VPD of 3.63 per 1,000 sf which would yield 5,082 VPD for the development of 1.4 million square feet. The applicant's impact analysis projects traffic generation between 5,082 and 9,744 VPD. The Impact Analysis Statement refers to the applicant's Proffer Statement to indicate what improvements will occur with the development. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 5 January 25, 2002 Revieuv Agenci) Connnent The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has reviewed the traffic impact analysis' dated September 28, 2001, and October 26, 2001. The VDOT comments, dated 9/6/01 and 10/18/01, acknowledge the applicant's proposed road improvements. However,thetrafficimpaet analysis does not adequately assess impaets an the existing road network. Additional informatioti has been requested to allow N199T to eomplete fflid determine the impaets this proposed development will have on the 1 81 interchange and Route 11. The VDOT comment dated January 11, 2002 acknowledges the revised proffer statement dated January 10, 2002, and concurs that the identified transportation impacts have been mitigated through the proffer statement. Planning Staff Conunent ey 0 . The Traffic Impact Analysis dated October 26, 2001 provides an accurate depiction of the current traffic information for the impacted roadways immediately southwest of the site. The study also provides the current and projected Level of Service (LOS) information for the impacted roadways_ The 2000 Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volumes Jurisdiction Report 34 indicates that the average annual weekday traffic (AAWDT) counts for Martinsburg Pike from Interstate Exit 317 to Old Charles Town Road was 10,000 trips. The applicant has estimated that the build -out of this acreage would generate between 5,082 and 9,744 VPD; therefore, the projection would increase traffic on Martinsburg Pike by at least 50%, and possibly up to 97% of the current average daily traffic volume. The applicant's traffic impact analysis projects that approximately 75 percent of the trips generated would travel through the Exit 317 interchange area (southwest of the site), yet the applicant has not addressed this anticipated traffic impact. The Northeast Land Use Plan calls for the provision of a new east -west collector road throughout the subject tract. The applicant, through the proffer statement, has proffered to provide the necessary right-of-way and construct the segment of the planned collector road as it transverses the subject tract. • Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 6 January 25, 2002 b) Water and Sewer: Impact Analysis Statement Information provided within the applicant's Impact Analysis Statement advises that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has determined that on average, 500 gallons -per -day -per -acre is reasonable to use for sewer impact analysis for this commercial and industrial site. The proposed zoning will add 0.08 nngd to the public sewage conveyance system and the Opequon Waste Water Treatment Plant. The applicant has also provided information advising that the FCSA has determined that 1,000 gallons -per -day -per -acre quantity is reasonable to consider for the water impact analysis for this commercial and industrial site. The maximum design consumption for the subject site is determined by comparing the current use of water within the developed acreage of Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park. The proposed zoning will use 0.15 mgd of the public water conveyance system. The applicant has projected that the development of 155 acres will result in water usage of 154,400 gallons -per -day and 77,200 gallons of service discharge per day. Review k--ency Comment The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) comment, dated 7/20/01, states that sufficient water and sewer capacity exist to serve the demands of the rezoning. The proposed service discharge will not negatively impact the projected available 250,000 gallons -per -day allocated for this area of Frederick County, Planning Staff Comment Staff contacted the FCSA prior to the commencement of the Northeast Land Use Plan process to discuss water and sewer capacity issues. Representatives of the FCSA advised staff to assume a 1,000 gallon -per -day -per -acre quantity to project potential water and sewer capacity needs for the planned area. These figures have been revised more recently to adjust to more realistic consumption figures. Staff would agree with the applicant's assumptions that while water continues to be consumed at 1,000 gallon -per -day -per -acre, sewer discharge is more closely generated at 500 gallons -per -day -per -acre. Staff compared the current water and sewer use within the developed acreage of Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park to determine which projection was more realistic. 9 • Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 7 January 25, 2002 The data for water and sewer consumption within these industrial parks was provided by the FCSA which accounts for use from August 1999 to August 2000. The following tables provide the gallon -per -day -per -acre quantity for water and sewer use for each industrial park during this time period: Existing Industrial Park Water Use Name Total Acreage Developed Acreage Total Gallons of Water Used Between 8199 - 8100 Total Gallons of Water Per Day Gallons/Day /Acre Fort Collier 442 acres 370 acres 110,979,000 gallons 304,000 gpd 822 gpd/acre Stonewall 494 acres 205 acres 13,503,000 gallons 37,000 gpd 180 gpd/acre Existing Industrial Park Sewer Use Name Total Acreage Developed Acreage Total Gallons of Sewer Generated Between 8199 - 8100 Total Gallons of Sewer Generated Per Day Gallons/Day /Acre Fort Collier 442 acres 370 acres 55,959,000 gallons 153,300 gpd 415 gpd/acre Stonewall 494 acres 205 acres 8,151,000 gallons 22,330 gpd 110 gpd/acre Based on existing water and sewer consumption patterns, it appears that the 1,000 gallon -per -day - per -acre projection that was utilized by staff during the Northeast Land Use Plan process is reasonable to consider for the applicant's water, and 500 gallons -per -day -per -acre is reasonable for sewer impact analysis. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 8 January 25, 2002 c) Solid Waste: Impact Analysis Statement The applicant has provided information which projects potential solid waste generation associated with the development of the 155 acres requested to be rezoned. This analysis utilizes an industrial waste calculator from Fairfax County. The calculator assumes a worst case scenario and does not account for recycling. The applicant has projected that the potential solid waste generation from this acreage would account for approximately 4,494 tons -per -year. Implementation of a recycling program could reduce the potential solid waste by approximately 50 percent, to 2,247 tons -per - year. Review Azencv Comment The Department of Public Works (County Engineer) comment, dated 9/5/01, endorses the recycling proffer and recommends that it also be included in the deed covenants. Accordingly, it will be important to inform potential lot buyers and developers that the respective certificate of occupancy will not be issued until a recycling program has been reviewed and approved by Frederick County. hlannine- Staff Comment The county landfill is designed to dispose of solid waste that is generated by residential, commercial, and industrial land uses within the municipal solid waste landfill (MSW); and to dispose of construction waste in the construction demolition debris landfill (CDD). The county has an anticipated MSW landfill life of 20 years, based on a 3% average annual increase in solid waste disposal. The Department of Public Works has filed an application with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to increase the permitted air space (vertical capacity) at the landfill. The amended permit to extend air space capacity would expand the landfill life by an additional 15-20 years. The DEQ will render a final decision regarding this application in July 2002. Based on existing development patterns in Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park, it appears that the approximately 4,500-ton-per-year solid waste generation is reasonable to consider for the applicant's solid waste impact analysis. This figure suggests that the build -out of the acreage requested to be rezoned would generate the average annual increase of solid waste disposal experienced by the county for a one-year period. i • Rutherford's Farm REZ 907-01 Page 9 January 25, 2002 d) Historic Resources: Impact Analysis Statement The applicant has provided information which identifies Rutherford's Farm (VA Historic Landmark Commission File #10082 34-727) as a Historical Landmark. However, all that remains of the house is a set of concrete steps that lead from Route 11 up to the site of the house. There is a historical marker south of the site on Route 11. One archeological site is noted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. It is a raised berm allowing access to the opposite side of the rail line. However, it is abandoned and no longer in use. This site does not exhibit features that suggest eligibility for National Register consideration. Reyietiv Agency Comment The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) comment, dated 7/19/01, encourages the implementation of a number of improvements offered by the applicant that would further assist in the preservation and the historic interpretation of the subject site. Specifically, the applicant offered, and the HRAB supported, the establishment of a pull -off location for historical interpretation of the Second Battle of Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and the Rutherford Farm. The HRAB also encouraged the provision of linear landscaping along Route 11 to maintain the visual rural community features existing along Martinsburg Pike. Planning Staff Comment The subject properties are partially located within the limits of the Second Winchester study area, and are also within the Battle of Rutherford's Farm study area. Therefore, the HRAB has expressed concern for the loss of historic battlefields and the aesthetic qualities of the rural community in which these parcels are located. The applicant has proffered to establish a Civil War interpretive site pull -off along Route 11, in the general area where the existing historical marker is currently located. This site will offer an opportunity for interpretation of Second Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and the Rutherford Farm operation. The HRAB will review the information that will be placed on the proposed interpretative markers. It will be imperative of the applicant to design the pull -off area so as to not further detract from the interpretive site. The applicant has also proffered to establish and maintain the proposed interpretive site. Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 10 January 25, 2002 e) Proffer Statement The applicant has submitted a proffer statement which has been signed by the property owner, notarized, and reviewed by the County Attorney's office. The following list is a summary of the conditions voluntarily proffered by the applicant: • Establish a maximum building square footage of 1,400,000 square feet for the entire 154 acre site. • Prohibit the Truck Stop use from the entire site. • Installation of a traffic signal at the site's main entrance (Route 11 and the planned Major Collector Road, as illustrated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan) • Installation of a traffic signal at the southbound ramps of the 317 interchange Prohibit buil ffig cons,ructioij adj aeen to i 8 ! and within the proposed rxight-01-VVEty I-r tile 1 81 Dedicate the necessary right-of-way for the I-81 improvement proiect. • Construction of intersection improvements at the two proposed entrances. The improvements will be constructed as necessary to serve the first site plan in the Rutherford project. The improvements in their entirety will be constructed prior to the approval of a second site plan in the Rutherford project. • Construct the planned Major Collector Road as it transverses the site. • Construct a third southbound lane along Route 11. The improvements will be constructed as necessary to serve the first site plan in the Rutherford project. The improvements in their entirety will be constructed prior to the approval of a second site plan in the Rutherford project. provide an accumulative traffic tabulation for the entire developmenNin-eaell site Plan. When thee acetimulative traffic generation exceeds >000 > improvements will be conducted for the site plan exceeding,g eonstirttete a t� �oservicecc »-oad Systems. • Establish an interpretative area and pull -off along Route 11 for historical interpretation of Second Wincliester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and Rutherford's Farm. • Establish a 15-foot transitional landscape buffer along Route 11, extending the length of the site. Ground cover, trees, and an eartlien berm of 2-3 feet in height would be provided within the transitional buffer. • Establish maximum height of 12-foot for all freestanding business signs/monument signs in the M 1 Zoning District. The height limitation, as proffered, would only apply to freestanding sighs in the MI District. • Limit the total number of IA (Interstate Area Overlay) signs to three within the subject site. • Establishment of recycling program to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct material. Such programs must be approved by the County prior to issuance of certificate of occupancies. This program should be included in the developixent's covenants to ensure all property owners are aivare of the requirements. • Provide a monetary contribution of $10,000 to the county to be utilized for fire and rescue services. C] Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 11 January 25, 2002 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/07/01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The 155-acre site proposed for rezoning is located within the county's Sewer and Water Service Area; is within the portion of the Northeast Land Use Plan which recommends future commercial and industrial land use; is adjacent to the identified Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA); and contains a portion of the Second Battle of Winchester and the Battle of Rutherford's Farm. The Northeast Land Use Plan reconunends that commercial and industrial land uses should only occur if impacted road systems function at a grade "C"level of service (LOS) or better; that commercial and industrial land uses be developed with public water and sewer service; and that commercial and industrial land uses be adequately screened from adjoining land uses to mitigate visual and noise impacts. The applicant has submitted proffered conditions including the elimination of the Truck Stop land use; various road improvements to address the projected build -out of 5,082-9,744 VPD; future studies and improvements to the impacted road systems, in the event the project VPD exceeds 10,000; and the establishment of a pull -off area for historic interpretation. A monetary contribution for fire and rescue services has also been proffered. In an effort to address the Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA), the applicant has proffered the establishment of a landscape buffer along the entire Route 11 road frontage. This buffer, to be 15-feet in depth, would contain a 2-3 foot berm and various landscape plantings. Deciduous and evergreen trees would be planted throughout the length of the landscape buffer. There continues to be a number of concerns regarding transportation issues, identified by the Virginia Department of Transportation and staff. The Traffic Impact Analysis did not adequately address the necessary items for inclusion in a traffic impact analysis, as indicated in the rezoning application package. Most specifically the analysis should provide traffic count information for all roads impacted; pre- and post- development Level -of -Service for the affected roadways; details regarding vehicle composition; and traffic movements. Rutherford's Industrial Park trip assignments include the Route 11/1-81 interchange. However, the 2010 Build Out Traffic Condition at the interchange and the proposed right in -out Rutherford entrance/intersection are excluded from the intersection analysis of the study. There is no "method of management" suggested for the northbound ramp/Route I I Intersection, the southbound ramp/Route 11 intersection or the Rutherford right in-out/Route 11 intersection, all of which should be addressed. Without a thorough Traffic Impact Analysis, it is unclear if the proposed rezoning will have a detrimental impact on the road network servicing the site. The applicant has proffered to construct various road improvements, but the time at which the improvements will be completed, and agreements executed, have not been addressed. The applicant should provide a more thorough Traffic Impact Analysis for review, and be prepared to address how the proffer statement addresses the various issues identified by staff. Staff would recommend that action on this rezoning request be deferred until the identified issues are provided and resolved. • 0 Rutherford's Farm REZ #07-01 Page 12 January 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 11/07/01 Staff presented the application to the Planning Commission and identified a number of transportation issues identified by staff and VDOT that were not adequately addressed by the applicant. The applicant reviewed the planned transportation improvements. The applicant requested that the application be tabled to allow time to addressed the outstanding transportation issues. Six citizens spoke during the public hearing. Concerns raised included the need for architectural standards, and inaster planned developments; impacts of the existing road networks; and buffers against adjoining residential properties. Citizen comments also addressed the positive aspects of the property's location in proximity to the interstate, and that the site is appropriate for commercial and industrial development. The Planning Commission tabled the rezoning until such time that staff felt the comments are addressed. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 2/06/02 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The applicant has submitted a revised traffic impact analysis and revised proffer statement that addresses the concerns of staff and VDOT. The revised proffered conditions provide for the installation of a traffic signal at the southbound ramp for Interstate 81; a more defined time frame as to when the traffic improvements would be competed; and right-of-way dedication along Interstate 81 to accommodate the planned I-81 improvement project. The applicant should be prepared to address how the January 7, 2002 proffer statement adequately mitigates the issues and impacts previously identified by staff during the review of this application by the Planning Conunission. OUTPUTPULE APPLICANT: PIN 43-A-96,97,98,99,100,111 Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE business/industr Costs of Impact Credit: INPUT-MQDULE_Gle_dits_to-be Take REAL EST VAL $127,780,934 Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ FIRE & RESCUE 1 Capital-Eacifiies col sum only) Oper_Cap_Equip Expand/Debt-S. Iaxes Other Fire and Rescue Department $730,362 Elementary Schools SO Middle Schools SO $0 SO High Schools $0 Parks and Recreation SO $0 Public Library SO $0 Sheriffs Offices SO $40,352 $0 $0 Administration Building $0 $0 Other Miscellaneous Facilities SO $467,822 $94,139 Total Potential Adjustment For Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per (Unadjusted) Cost -Balance EacilitiesJmpact Dwelling Unit $0 $0 S730,362 ERR $0 SO SO ERR $0 $0 $0 ERR $0 $0 $0 ERR $40,352 S40,352 $0 ERR $0 $0 SO ERR S561,961 $561,961 $0 ERR SUBTOTAL $730,362 $508,174 $94.139 SO S602,313 LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $32,184,482 $32,184,482 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included: 1.0 INDEX: "1:0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg = METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are Input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). $602,313 $128,049 ERR $32,184,482 S32 184 48 EER 0 ERR 1.000 1.433 NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Date 10/15/01 ERL P.I.N. 43-A-96,97,98,99,100,111 Rezoning: Assumes155 acres zoned B2, B3, M1 utilizing a maximum of 1,400,000 square feet Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. • uTEPBENSON'S DEPOT REZONING Page 1 of 6 Funkhouser, Rhonda From: Funkhouser, Rhonda on behalf of Coffman, Homer Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:10 AM To: 'Donna Stephens' Cc: 'Eric Lawrence'; 'Evan Wyatt; Melnikoff, Steve; Coffman, Homer Subject: RUTHERFORD FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK, REZONING APPLICATION #07-01 VDOT has reviewed the rezoning application for the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park, Rezoning Application #07-01. Based on our review, we find we are not in opposition of the transportation proffers as offered to Frederick County. Homer F. Coffman Ac,elstant Reeident Engineer YDOT - Edinburg Residency 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540) 984-5625 (540) 984-5607 (fax) -----Original Message ----- From: Donna Stephens(mailto:dstephens@greenwayeng.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 12:16 PM To: 'hcoffman@vdot.state.va.us' Subject: FC Planning Proffers Jan7-REVIEW SHADED AREA -THANKS RUTHERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK REZONING Tax Parcels 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100 Stonewall Magisterial District Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 07-01 for the rezoning of 154.4 acres from the Rural Area (RA) zoning district to the following: Zoning districts • 116.7 acres Light Industrial (M1) • 23.2 acres Commercial (132) • 14.5 acres Commercial (B3) Overlay district CPT 0� P1ANN���'IOkV�1.OPM��;1 /1 1 /2002 • Poat-it' Fax Note I�'1a..1)or n,2 co -Dew Phone f Rezoning Comments F� D�acc� Front 76 Ptwne f 7 z f-e t e'dk1. Virginia Department of Transportation Mail to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attti: Resident Etgineer 14031 Old Vallev Puce EdinL-urg, Virginia 22824 (540) 984-5600 Hand deliver to: Virginia Department of Transportation Artn: Resident Engirteer 1550 Commerce Street Winchester, Virginia r � ..f4' ter.! _ i' S.�• g7" or -'r ''F• f 'L`'. ry.i Applicant's Name: Greenwac Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Nlaiiittg Address: . 151 Windy Hill Laae Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: Located on the natural boundary created by Interstate 81 on the western edge of the track. US Rt 11 bisect% this area in a North/South linear fashion. CSX and Winchester & Western Railroad have tines paratleiing Ott. 11 North. Current zoning: jA Zoning reques:ed: M1.B2.B3 :acreage: 154.4 Acres VLrginla Department of Transportation Comments: 7ne 75-iowtng cdnments are oRerec Basel Loon a resew of llkm atlons detaNed as part of the rezenk g equest to tie proposed R itn Farm lrvLtetrfai Padr C• VDQT Is in agreement with me proposed intem:fioe inprovoments at the cot:octor road er:trarce at the unnamed cornprahonsiw r^-' rose inclusive Y a raie s'CEoL an :s,dwnei-,n ef!6�Rto 11 fmajana read AygtA _(crass madtx) vvfth tanal"Ons rorth south of the unnamed comprenem:ve =lector reed. right and :eft Wm lanes and a turn lane frern the northern moot entrance t northbound eitranoe ramp of 1-01 with Improved'lming radius. • A second entrance =rth of tie collector road errtrance ie of concerr tc `SOT, due to safety ct t,m "vel,na oub8c end set -.`.asks from The second entrance rna� ce permit -to :aced upon fina, cosign. Should the second entrarce be provided, a median crcasirg from, the t bound ;are of Rts. 11 to the secone e.Y,rance may not be permitted due to minimal distance between cr-ss:),fm not being reset. In adci trt'1:: signal may be reaut ed at the secorx: entronce dependtng upon final deslgn and a determined imoac • VDCT has not seen a Tafftc mpact thus we annot co. on the traffic irnpa= of the proposed devetopmert on Rte. 11 north or sound or the 317 interchange and its ramp sysxm. Y VDOT Signature & Date: 09/06/01 h Trans. assistart Resident Engineer I ford pan and tt:a ) )UM F\V: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park • • Subject: FNA': Rutherford Farm Industrial Park Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:27:44 -0400 From: "Fuiflchouser, Rhonda" <RFunkhouser@VDOT.STATE.VA.US> To: 'Eric Lawrence' <elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us> > -----Original Message ----- > From: Funkhouser, Rhonda On Behalf Of Melnikoff, Steve > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 2:23 PM > To: 'Mark Smith @ Greenway Engineering'; Greenway Engineering (E-mail) > Cc: Coffman, Homer; Clem, Sam; Melnikoff, Steve; Heironimus, David > (Dave); 'Evan Wyatt'; 'Eric Lawrence' > Subject: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park > Virginia Department of Transportation > Edinburg Residency > October 18, 2001 > Mr. Mark Smith > C/O Greenway Engineering > 151 Windy Hill Lane > Winchester, VA 22602 > Ref: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park > Route 11, Frederick County > Dear Mr. Smith: > Staff comments regarding the traffic impact analysis dated September 28, > 2001 as received from PHR&A are as follows: > This impact analysis states the four -lane divided section of Route 11, > which presently transitions to three (3) lanes just north of I-81, will be > extended to the proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Roadway. All > site entrance roadways will include left and right turn lanes where > applicable. The County Comprehensive Plan Collector Roadway will have two > inbound left turn lanes from Route 11 and will be signalized. > The Rutherford's Industrial Park trip assignments include the Route > 11/I-81 interchange. However, the 2010 Build Out Traffic Condition at the > interchange and the proposed right in -out Rutherford entrance/intersection > are excluded from the intersection analysis of the study. There is no > "method of management' suggested for the north bound ramp/Route 11 > intersection, the south bound ramp/Route 11 intersection or the Rutherford > right in-out/Route 11 intersection. All of which should be addressed. > It is anticipated this development will generate traffic volumes that will > warrant signalized intersection and ramp roadway improvements. > Please submit the additional information to allow VDOT to complete the > analysis and impacts this proposed development will have to the I-81 > interchange and Route 11. > Steven A. Melnikoff > Transportation Engineer > VDOT - Edinburg Residency > Permit & Subdivision Section > 14031 Old Valley Pike > Edinburg, VA 22824 > (540) 984-5611 > (540) 984-5607 (fax) ION 1 10/26/2001 3:23 N Cali • • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 rim FAX: 540/665-6395 July 19, 2001 Mark Smith, P.E., L.S., President Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Rutherford's Farm Rezoning Proposal Dear Mr. Smith: The Frederick County Ifistoric Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the referenced proposal during their meeting of July 17, 2001. This proposal involves the rezoning of approximately 144 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General), B3 (Industrial Transition), and MI (Light Industrial) Zoning Districts. The subject properties are partially located within the limits of the Second. Winchester study area, and.. are also within the Battle of Rutherford's Farm study area. Therefore, the BRAB has. -expressed concern .for the loss of historic battlefields and the aesthetic qualities of the rural community in which these parcels are located. In response to the BRAB's concerns, you presented a number of proffered condition concepts and indicated your willingness to incorporate. the conditions with the formal rezoning application submittal. Specifically, you offered the following concepts: • To establish a pull -off location for historical interpretation of the Second Battle of Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and the Rutherford Farm The interpretation area would contain historical markers and be maintained by the Industrial Park Association It was also stated that the marker design and textual content would be returned to the B RAB for review and approval. • Maintain the visual rural community elements existing along Martinsburg Pike by providing linear landscaping. This landscaping along Martinsburg Pike would include combinations of three-foot high evergreen hedges and berms, and mass clustering of tree and shrub plantings. The landscaping is intended to retain the natural feel of the rural community and utilize native vegetation including red buds, oaks,.and cedars: A combination of hedges, berms, and tree clusters would be implemented to lessen the visual impact of the proposed development. i 107 Forth Kent Street ��linchester, Virginia 22601-5000 U • I Page 2 Mark Smith, P.E., L.S., President, Greenway Engineering Re: Rutherford's Farm July 19, 2001 • Establish a link to the property's history by naming the development after the Rutherford's Farm The BRAB felt the rezoning proposal would be more palatable for the historic preservation community, if the above identified concepts were included in the rezoning application's proffer statement. Please contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. EricAL Lawrence, AICP Deputy Director 9. cc: Dr. Richard R Duncan, 6101 Edsall Road, Apt 1802, Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Mr. StephenL. Pettler, Jr., Harrison & Johnston, 21 So. Loudoun St., Winchester, VA 22601 Mr. R. J.'Turner, Adams Nelson & Assoc., 303 So. Loudoun St., Winchester, VA 22601 U:T-nd CommonWRABTuAherford Fa m.HRAB.Remmn=dsUc&vq ci WOUNTY of FREDERICK September 5, 2001 Mr. Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S. Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Rutherford Farm Industrial Park Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mark: Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 We have completed our review of the rezoning request for the proposed Rutherford Farm Industrial Park and offer the following comments: 1) A review of exhibits "C" and "E" revealed that a substantial portion of the proposed M-1 zoning is located within the 100-year flood plain. This delineation should be reflected on the master development plan. Also, the impact of proposed development on the 100-year flood plain should be addressed in the master development submittal. 2) Existing wetland areas and obvious karst features (i.e., sinkholes), should be reflected on the master development plan. 3) In an earlier proffer submittal (July 19, 2001), regional stormwater management was proposed for low-lying areas. This facility or facilities should be highlighted in the master development plan. This same proffer statement indicates that BMP facilities might be required on individual sites if regional stormwater management is not available. We applaud this approach considering the sensitive nature of Hiatts Run. This requirement should be added to the deed covenants for -each building lot considering BMPs implementation is not a county requirement. 4) We strongly endorse your recycling proffer and recommend that it also be included in the deed covenants. Please insure that the buyers or potential lot developers are informed of this requirement that a certificate of occupancy will not be issued until a recycling program has been reviewed and approved by 107 North Kent Street - I'Vinchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 0 Rutherford Farm Industrial Park Rezoning Page 2 September 5, 2001 Frederick County. We certainly do not, want any misunderstandings at a later date. This requirement should also be highlighted in the master development submittal. I can be reached at 665-5643 if you have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, E.hk,- Harvey . Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Patrick Davenport, Zoning Administrator file Greenway Engineeruig • July 19, 2001 Rutheols Farm Industrial Park Revised January 7, 2002 RUTHERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK REZONING Tax Parcels 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100 Stonewall Magisterial District Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Secl. of. the Code of Virginia, '1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County 'Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 07-01 for the rezoning of 154.4 acres from the Rural Area (RA) zoning district to the following: Zoning districts • 116.7 acres Light Industrial (Iv11) • 23.2 acres Commercial (132) • 14.5 acres Commercial (B3) Overlay district • 154.4 acres Interstate Area Overlay (IA) Development of tine subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning Is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the lands owned by Richard Ray Duncan, Janet D. Riddick, and Turner Enterprises, LL,C being all or part of. Tax Map Parcels 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, and 43-A-99, 43-A-100 and further described by zoning plat prepared by Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S., elated July 16, 2001 (Exhibit A). A.) Maximum Buildinng Structure Square Feet The applicant hereby proffers to limit the total building structures to 1,400,000 square feet for the entire 154.4 acres. r�EPT OF PLi�IdNtNUIUrV �� " 1 Greenway Engineering • July 19, 2001 Rulherles farm Industrial Park Revised January 7, 2002 B.) Prohibited Uses fhe following uses shall not be permitted on the proposed Industrial Park: Description Sic Truck Stop 5541. (Excluding Truck Stops, all other uses within SIC Code 5541 are hereby acceptable and included) C.) Transportation 1.) Traffic Signalization a.) A traffic signal will be installed by the applicant when warranted by the Virginia Department of Transportation at the intersection of [lie proposed Industrial Park entrance and the unnamed Comprehensive Plan collector road in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the first site plan approval of said Industrial Park. b.) A traffic signal will be installed by the applicant when warranted by VDOT at the southbound ramps of the 317 interchange and U.S. Route 11 in tine configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to tine first site plan approval of said Industrial Park. 2.) Intersection Improvements Intersection inprovennents at the proposed two entrances will be installed and paid for by the applicant. The existing multi -lane system on U.S. Route 11 will be extended north to the intersection of the proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Road. All left and right turn lanes and pavement transitions north and south of proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Road on U.S. Route 11 will be installed and paid for by the applicant. The improvements shall be completed within one year of the first site plan approval and prior to the second site plan approval for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. If all or part of the intersection improvements are required for the first site plan of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, they shall be made part of and constructed with this first site plan. 3.) Right of Way Dedication a.) The applicant hereby agrees to dedicate right of Way to the Commonwealth of Virginia along U.S. ROule 11 adjacent to the property as determined by VDOT. This right of way dedication shall be recorded prior to the approval of 2 Grecimay Enginceruig • July 19, 2001 RutheIs farm Industrial Park Revised January 7, 2002 the U.S. Route 11 construction plans prepared for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park as noted in Proffer C2 (Intersection Improvements) and Proffer C5 (Route 11 and Northbound I-81 Ramp Improvements). b.) The applicant hereby agrees to dedicate right of way to the Commonwealth of Vlrgnlla along Interstate 81 as shown on Interstate 81 Improvement Study VDO`T Project No. 0081-968-1-1"l, PE-100 MP 305 to West Virginia State Line Frederick County, dated November 1998 (specifically noted on Sheet 24 of said study). The right of way dedication shall be recorded prior to the master development plan approval for Rutherford's farm Industrial Park. 4.) Comprehensive Plan Road Construction The applicant hereby agrees to coordinate, set aside right of way, and construct the portion of the major collector road traversing on the land herein to be rezoned and developed and as outlined in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Northeast Land Use Study adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on September 27, 2000. Said collector road will be incorporated in and constructed with each site plan subnvssion that is adjacent to or part of the site plan. 5.) Route 11 and Northbound I-81 Ramp Improvements The applicant will construct a third soutllbound lane on US Route 11. fi-onl the northern most entrance of [lie applicant's property to the northbound 1-81 raInp of Exit 317. These improvements will IIICILICIC a 12' wide lane of approximately 600 linear feet in length to serve as a continuous right turn lane for the northbound entrance ramp of the Exit 317 interchange. Additionally, the applicant will construct turning radius nllprovements it the entrance ramp to ensure a smooth transition. The improvements shall be completed within one year of the first site plan approval and prior to the second site plan approval for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. If all or part of the intersection improvements arc required for the first site plan of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, they shall be made part of and constructed with this first site plan. D.) Historic Resource 1.) Interpretative Signs 'The applicant hereby proffers to provide an Interpretive area In the location of the old Rutherford's Farm House along U.S. Route 11 and more particularly at the location of the old concrete steps that now remain. All casement of sufficient size will be provided for a pull -off area and viewing. 'Three interpretative plaques will be provided. They are as follows: 3 Greenway Engineering • July 19, 200 t Ruthelo's Parm Industrial Park Revised January 7, 2002 • The Second Battle of Winchester • The Battle of Rutherford's Farm • The Rutherford's Farm House The interpretative plaques will contain language and pictures acceptable to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. All wort{ performed for the pUll-Off area will meet the minimum standards of Virginia Department Of'hransportation and Frederick County Ordinances lil respect to Highway pull -off and safety. Ground maintenance of the interpretative area will be performed by the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Association under a separate continuous approved permit issued by VDOT. 2.) Landscaping A transitional landscape buffer will be provided along U.S. Route 11 from Interstate 81 traveling north to the Comprellcnsive Plan collector road and transmission power line easement. This landscape easement will be 15' in width and will consist of a low earthen mound of 2-3' in height with plantings of ground covers, flowers, and grasses. Indigenous trees such as redbud, oaks, cedars, etc. will be lllcorporated along said landscape easement hi a cluster mass fashion to provide a naturally planted look. The maintenance of said landscape buffer will be the responsibility of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Association and will be installed with the first commercial development adjacent to said casement. 3.) Industrial Park Name The applicant hereby proffers the namitlg of the Industrial Park to: "Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park" E.) Lighting Building mounted lights and pole -mounted lights will be of a downcast nature and shielded and directed away from adjacent properties surroundnlg the proposed project. Lighting plans will be submitted as a separate attachment for review and approval by the Frederick County Planning Department prior to installation. F.) Signage 1.) Within the N11 (Light Industrial) Zoning District, the applicant hereby proffers that all freestanding business signs shall be nlonunlent-style not to exceed 12' hi height. 2.) Within the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District, the applicant hereby proffers to limit the total number of signs to three. 4 Greenway Engineering July t9, 2001 Ruthes Farm Industrial Park Revised January 7, 2002 G.) Recycling Proffer Recycling programs W11I be 1I71plenicntcd With each Industrial Park user to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct material. This program will be reviewed and approved by the Frederick County Recycling Coordinator prior to final occupancy permit. H.) Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The Undersigned owners of the above -described property hereby voluntarily proffer that in [lie event rezoning application # 07-01. is approved, and the property is subsequently developed withui an 132, 133, and M1 zone, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia the 1*o11owinb amount: $ 10,000 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue This payment is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services and will be paid at the tinge of the first site plan SUbI111SSiOn. 1.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in [lie interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to Other requirements set forth in tjjQ_Frc�lerick County Code. ResAectfully SLA)i�itted: Richard Ra31Y Conunonwealth of Virginia, City OUllly f !0 1�Z()a`L Date To Wit: The foregoing instrument was aC1CIlOWIedgCCl before 171C Lh1S V,l/I day Of -JQnva2' 2cez 23&1 by My Conirriission Expires Pct- Notary Publi 5 Greenway Enginceruig • July t9, 2001 Ruthele's Darin Industrial Park Revised January 7, 2002 Q By: cew t D. Riddick Date a 1 e ComIllonwealth of Virginia, Cit County f FoejytG(L TO Wit: The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this 101clay of JOWUC� 2fXz Jane. D- t'ctdt �oc�- by Notary Pulal c My Commission Expires re-(o✓ua, 2 q1 ZOc�I- By:Z- 4cr erpriscs, LLC Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City Count�f Frec(ec-(,-:k- To Wit: The forcoonlg nlstrUIllent was acknowledged before Ilse this dy)clay of Jc�u)UO.� *ZC.Y�Z -2001 by Z J -Fume r 41 r- I u.rrr.r _ I Notary Pt sic My COI nl ssioIl Expires 6Io a ZC r ay ` 6 REVISED PROFFER Deleted 1-:;anguag New Language RUTHERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK REZONING RECEIVED 1/11/02 Tax Parcels 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100 Stonewall Magisterial District Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application 11 07-01 for the rezoning of 154.4 acres from the Rural Area (RA) zoning district to the following: Zoning districts 116.7 acres Light Industrial (M 1) 23.2 acres Commercial (132) 14.5 acres Commercial (133) Overlay district 154.4 acres Interstate Area Overlay (IA) Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the lands owned by Richard Ray Duncan, Janet D. Riddick, and Turner Enterprises, LLC being all or part of Tax Map Parcels 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, and 43-A-99, 43-A-100 and further described by zoning plat prepared by Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S., dated July 16, 2001 (Exhibit A). A.) Maximum Building Structure Square Feet The applicant hereby proffers to limit the total building structures to 1,400,000 square feet for the entire 154.4 acres. B.) Prohibited Uses The following uses shall not be permitted on the proposed Industrial Park: Description Sic Truck Stop 5541 (Excluding Truck Stops, all other uses within SIC Code 5541 are hereby acceptable and included) C.) Transportation Traffic Signalization a.) A traffic signal will be installed by the applicant when warranted by the Virginia Department of Transportation at the intersection of the proposed Industrial Park entrance and the unnamed Comprehensive Plan collector road in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement ajid pay their pro rata-pettion as determined by V G�-T- prior to the first site plan approval of said Industrial Park. b) A traffic signal will be installed by the applicant when warranted by VDOT at the southbound ramps of the 317 interchange and U.S. Route 11 in the configuration and design as approved by VDOT. The applicant shall enter into and execute a signalization agreement prior to the first site plan approval of said Industrial Park. 2.) Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements at the proposed two entrances will be installed and paid for by the applicant. The existing multi -lane system on U.S. Route 11 will be extended north to the intersection of the proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Road. All left and right turn lanes and pavement transitions north and south of proposed County Comprehensive Plan Collector Road on U.S. Route 11 will be installed and paid for by the applicant. The improvements shall be completed within one year of the first site plan approval and prior to the second site plan approval for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park If all or part of the intersection improvements are required for the first site plan of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, they shall be made part of and constructed with this first site plan. 3.) Right of Way Dedication a. The applicant hereby agrees to dedicate right of way to the Commonwealth of Virginia along U.S. Route 11 adjacent to the property as determined by VDOT. This right of way dedication shall be recorded prior to the approval of the U.S. Route 11 construction plans prepared for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park as noted in Proffer C2 (Intersection Improvements) and Proffer C5 (Route 11 and Northbound I-81 Rapp Improvements). reqttested -prior to or at ihe time ofmaster development Plan for said- industrial Park. Additiena44y,-th-e-applieant hereby agrees to prohibit th b) The applicant hereby grees to dedicate right of way to the Commonwealth of Virginia along Interstate 81 as shown on Interstate 81 Improvement Study VDOT Project No. 0081-968-Fl 1, PE-100 MP 305 to West Virginia State Line Frederick County, dated November 1998 (specifically noted on Sheet 24 of said study). The right of way dedication shall be recorded prior to the master development plan approval for Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. 4.) Comprehensive Plan Road Construction The applicant hereby agrees to coordinate, set aside right of way, and construct the portion of the major collector road traversing on the land herein to be rezoned and developed and as outlined in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Northeast Land Use Study adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on September 27, 2000. Said collector road will be incorporated in and constructed with each site plan submission that is adjacent to or part of the site plan. 5.) Route 11 and Northbound I-81 Ramp Improvements The applicant will construct a third southbound lane on US Route 11 from the northern most entrance of the applicant's property to the northbound I-81 ramp of Exit 317. These improvements will include a 12' wide lane of approximately 600 linear feet in length to serve as a continuous right turn lane for the northbound entrance ramp of the Exit 317 interchange. Additionally, the applicant will construct turning radius improvements at the entrance ramp to ensure a smooth transition.. The improvements shall be completed within one year of the first site plan approval and prior to the second site plan approval for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park.. If all or part of the intersection improvements are required for the first site plan of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, they shall be made part of and constructed with this first site 1p an. 0 • : Vol :.. -.: D.) Historic Resource 1.) Interpretative Signs The applicant hereby proffers to provide an interpretive area in the location of the old Rutherford's Farm House along U.S. Route 11 and more particularly at the location of the old concrete steps that now remain. An easement of sufficient size will be provided for a pull -off area and viewing. Three interpretative plaques will be provided. They are as follows: The Second Battle of Winchester The Battle of Rutherford's Farm The Rutherford's Farm House The interpretative plaques will contain language and pictures acceptable to the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board. All work performed for the pull -off area will meet the minimum standards of Virginia Department of Transportation and Frederick County Ordinances in respect to Highway pull -off and safety. Ground maintenance of the interpretative area will be performed by the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Association under a separate continuous approved permit issued by VDOT. 2.) Landscaping A transitional landscape buffer will be provided along U.S. Route 11 from Interstate 81 traveling north to the Comprehensive Plan collector road and transmission power line easement. This landscape easement will be 15' in width and will consist of a low earthen mound of 2-3' in height with plantings of ground covers, flowers, and grasses. Indigenous trees such as redbud, oaks, cedars, etc. will be incorporated along said landscape easement in a cluster mass fashion to provide a naturally planted look. The maintenance of said landscape buffer will be the responsibility of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Association and will be installed with the first commercial development adjacent to said easement. 3.) Industrial Park Name • • The applicant hereby proffers the naming of the Industrial Park to: "Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park" E.) Lighting Building mounted lights and pole -mounted lights will be of a downcast nature and shielded and directed away from adjacent properties surrounding the proposed project. Lighting plans will be submitted as a separate attachment for review and approval by the Frederick County Planning Department prior to installation. F.) Signage 1.) Within the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District, the applicant hereby proffers to limit all montiment sign that all freestanding business signs shall be monument -style not to exceed 12' in height. 2.) Within the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District, the applicant hereby proffers to limit the total number of signs to three. G.) Recycling Proffer Recycling programs will be implemented with each Industrial Park user to ensure appropriate waste reduction, disposal, and recycling of any waste or byproduct material. This program will be reviewed and approved by the Frederick County Recycling Coordinator prior to final occupancy permit. H.) Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned owners of the above -described property hereby voluntarily proffer that in the event rezoning application # 07-01 is approved, and the property is subsequently developed within an B2, B3, and M1 zone, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia the following amount: $ 10,000 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue This payment is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services and will be paid at the time of the first site plan submission. I.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. IMPACT STATEMENT RUTHERFORD' S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK Stonewall District Frederick County, Virginia TM 43-A-111, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100 154.4 Acres July 5, 2001 Revised September 28, 2001 Current Owners: Richard Ray Duncan Janet D. Riddick Turner Enterprises, LLC Contact Person: Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S. Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 540-662-4185 Grecnway Engineering 0 July 5, 2001 •Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28, 2001 Industrial Park RUTHERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezonuig of 1.54.4 acres parcel owned by Richard Ray Duncan, Janet D. Riddick and 'Turner Enterprises, LLC. '1'lie subject site is located on,a natural boundary created by Interstate 81 on the western edge of the tract. Norfolk Southern and the Winchester and Western Railroads have rail lines paralleling Route 11 North. The current zoning is RA. Duncan, Riddick and Turner Enterprises proposes to rezone 154.4 acres to commercial (B-2/13-3) and Industrial (M-1). Sec attached Proposed Zoning "Exhibit A". I3asic information Location: Intersection of Interstate 81 and Route 11 Magisterial District: Stonewall Property ID Numbers: 43-A-11"l, 43-A-96, 43-A-97, 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100 Current Zoning: RA Current Use: AgrlCUltUre Proposed Use: Industrial Park and Business Proposed Zoning: 132 — 23.2 Acres 133 — 14.5 Acres M1 —116.7 Acres Total rezoning area: 154.4 Acres (1-?xhibits A & D) Proposed build -out 1.4 million sr (Based on 9000 sf per acre) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed site is being developed in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, Northeast Land Use Study adopted in 1996 and updated in 2000. With in the limits of the study, the property will consist of commercial and hidustrial development. 1. Urban Development Area Expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. 2. Sewer and Water Service Area Expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. 2 Greenway Engineering July 5, 2001 ORutherford's Farm Revised September 28, 2001 Industrial Park A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Access The subject site, tax parcels 43-A-96, 43-A- 97, 43-A-98, 43-A-99, 43-A-100, 43-A-111 is located on a manmade boundary created by interstate 81. on the western edge of the tract and U.S. Route 11 to the east. U.S. Route 11 enables vehicular traffic. to quickly travel to the south Onto Interstate 81 at Exit #317. The availability of rail through the Ilorth portion of the tract Increases the opportunities of transporting freight in and out of the area. Flood Plains (Exhibit C) The subject site is located on the PT, MA NFIP map #510063-010.5 -B. The majority of the site is located as "lone C", area outside the 1.00-year hood plain. `1'he area traversing I-liatt Run is indicated "Zone A", 100-year flood plain. See Exhibit C. Wetlands The soil types on the property are well -drained and predominantly moderately sloping terrain. The southern portion of the property contains rock out crops. However, Hiatt Run travels through the northern section of the tract, which is estimated to contain one - tenth of an acre of wetland. The National Wetlands Inventory Map indicates this feature. Any disturbance of this area will be in conforIllance with Artily Corps of Engineers aIld Department of I rivironmental Quality permitting procedures. Gradual Slopes — 2-7 % The site contains gradual slopes with well -drained soils draining into Hiatt Run. Prime Agricultural Land Use All of the aforementioned soils do not support crops without fertilization, liming, and soil management. Portions of the property contain rock out crops however; all of the soils are suitable for agricultural use such as hay, pastures, and orchards. Soil T es (Exhibit I3) The following soil types contained in this tract have been obtained from the Soil Survey of Fredrick County, published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service. 3 Greenway Engineering • July 5, 2001 •Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28, 2001 Industrial Park The subject site is located on map sheet number 24, and contains nine soil types: 6C-Carbo Oaklet — Silt Loam covers approx. 13 % of site 7C-Carbo Oaklet — Rock Out Crop covers approx. 15 % of site 14B-Fredrick Poplimento — Loanis covers approx. 25 % of site 16B-Fredrick Poplimento — Loams, very rocky 2-7 percent slopes, covers approx. 4 % of site 16C-Fredrick Poplimento — Loams, very rocky 7-15 percent slopes, covers approx. 13% of site 17C-I-'redrick Poplimento — Rock Out Crop, covers approx. 9 % of site 3213-Oaklet Silt Loam, covers approx. 16 % of site 5I3-Carbo Silt Loam, covers approx. 4 % of site 34-Pagebrook Silt Loam < 1% of site B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining property in and present use: North: Zoned M2 (General Industrial) District South: "honed RP (Residential Performance) District RA (Rural Area) District Sec existing Zoning Map East: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District "Exhibit F" RA (Rural Area) District West: Zoned B-2 (Business, General) District 13-3 (Industrial 'Transition) District M-1 (Light Industrial) District C. TRANSPORTATION 1. Traffic The traffic impact for the proposed 154-acre Industrial Park has been calculated by using two methods for traffic projections. The Institute of Transportation of Engineers Trip Generation 6"' Edition, Volume 1, Classification 130-Industrial Park, estimates the following: Method "1 "Trip generation per 1,000 sf gross floor area: Range of trips = 0.91 to 36.97 Average trip = 6.96 Projected sf = 1.4 million Projected traffic = 9,744 VPD 4 Greenway Engineering • July 5, 2001 •Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28, 2001 Industrial Park Method 2 Based on existing counts that Greenway Engineering conducted on Fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park during the month of November, 2000, and knowing at that time the total developed square feet of 2,344,104 and 1,767,877 respectively, it was determined that Stonewall Industrial Park produced 3.12 VPD per 1,000 sf and Fort Collier produced 4.14 VPD per 1,000 sfwhich is within the range of rates listed in the Industrial Park's 130 classification. "Therefore, the Method 2 traffic study is as follows: Average trip = 3.63 Projected sf = 1.4 million Projected traffic = 5,082 VPD Method 3 A traffic impact analysis has been performed and is attached and made part of this application. The highlights from that study are as follows: • Existing level of service on US Route 11 is currently "A" at the existing median break of the divided highway and "C" at the three -lane section north of the median break. Proposed level of service on US Route 11 will be "B" at the median section and "C" at the three -lane section. The main entrance level of service will be "C" (see Figure 6 of the Traffic Study). Total projected ADT for the project will be 9,744. In conclusion, with the vision of the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park having a small sector utilizing the 133 (Industrial Transition) and I32 (General Business), the traffic projections for this Park should range between the three methods stated above. For simplification and as an added safeguard to insure compliance with the Traffic Study, Proffer Statement C.G. has been prepared to Insure the County that accumulative traffic tabulations will be made part of each site plan submission and, if at any time the accumulative traffic reaches 10,000 VPD, a new traffic study will be performed to outline additional improvements to the road system that would be caused by these additional vehicles. This Proffer has been created because of the varying uses of the three different zones within the Industrial Park. By preparing a second traffic study, the County, VDOT, and the users of the Industrial Park are ensured of adequate improvements being installed. 2. Interstate Improvements Exhibit E shows the Interstate 81 lane-widenings and Future Route 37 interchange improvements. The Exhibit has been color -coordinated to match Interstate 81 Improvement Study VDOT Project # 0081-968-F11, P1 -100 to demonstrate the different widening requirements. Greenway Engineering • July 5, 2001 *Rutherford's farm Revised September 28, 2001 Industrial Park CONCLUSION OF TRANSPORTION IMPROVEMf?NI'S Based on Greenway Engineering's feasibility study of this 154-acre project and in discussions with VDOT on August 9, 2001 and with the dialogue in preparing the Traffic Study, the following items have been determined for the proposed Rutherford's farm rezoning: 'File applicant will install a traffic signal at the main entrance to the site (per Proffer C.1.) Estimated Cost: $115,000 2. Intersection improvements at the proposed two entrances will be installed by the applicant with the Alain site entrance reClLUring the extension of the existing grass median north to the intersection of the proposed County Comprehensive Plan collector road. All left and right turn lanes will be installed by the applicant and pavement transitions on US Route 11 will be north of said entrance (per Proffer C.2.). In accordance with the Traffic Impact Analysis, dual left turn lanes will be installed on US Route 11 at the main entrance of the Industrial Park. Estimated Cost: $310,000 3. The applicant will dedicate right-of-way along US Route 11 that will be offset approximately 59' from the existing right-of-way. This area is estimated at 50,000 sf (per Proffer C.3.). Estimated Cost: Value of Land 4. The applicant will construct the Comprehensive Plan collector road as outlined in Proffer CA. The length of this collector road is estimated at 4,200 linear feet traversing through the 154-acre project. The estimated construction cost is projected at $150 per linear foot. Estimated Cost: $630,000 5. 'File applicant will construct a third southbound lane on US Route 11 from the southern most proposed entrance to the northbound I-81 ramp. Additionally, the applicant will improve the turning radius of the said entrance raIllp and the proposed third lane improvement. This lane widening is approximated at 600 linear feet. This improvement will be installed to facilitate traffic movement on the Stephenson Exit 317 interchange. Estimated Cost: $200,000 6 Greenway Engineering • July 5, 2001 •Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28, 2001 Industrial Park D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The subject site is within the northeastern portion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The maximum design usage for the subject site is determined by comparing the current discharge of sewage within the developed acreage of Dort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park. Based on discharge patterns, FCSA has determined that 500 gallons/day per acre quantity is reasonable to consider for the sewer impact analysis for this commercial and industrial site. The proposed zoning will add 0.08 mgd to the public sewage conveyance system and the Opequon Waste Water Treatment plant. Q=500 gallons/day/acre Q=500 gpd x 154.4 acres Q=77,200 gpd (0.08 mod) E. WATER SUPPLY The maximum design consumption for the subject site is determined by comparing the current use of water within the developed acreage of fort Collier Industrial Park and Stonewall Industrial Park. Based on existing water consumption patterns, FCSA has determined that 1,000 gallons/day per acre quantity is reasonable to consider for the water impact analysis for this commercial and industrial site. Q=1000 gallons/day /acre Q=1000gpd X 154.4 acres for Q=154,400 gpd (0.15 mgd) F. DRAINAGE Currently the runoff from approximately 1.54.4 acres drains into lingers, natural streams, and drainage ditches. These conveyances flow into Hiatt Run, which flows from the northern boundary to the cast and off site. the following calculations estimate the proposed storm water runoff for a ten-year flow: I�xrsting C = 0.30 (pasture) IIo =4.6 in/hr (15min) A = 154.4 acres Q io = 213 cfs (Q = CIA) Reference; VD07' Drainage Manual Proposed C = 0.90 (commercial) IIo= 5.5 in/hr (10 min) A = 154.4 acres QIo= 764 cfs (Q = CIA) 7 Greenway Engineering 0 July 5, 2001 0 Rutherford's Farm Revised September 28, 2001 Industrial Park Development of the subject site at maximum build -out will therefore result in all increased runoff of 559 cfs. A detailed stormwater evaluation shall be included with any site plan submittals. Detention ponds and other stormwater management facilities will be built to control storm water- discharge into the above referenced streams and Hiatt Run. 13y controlling runoff of the site, the impact of developing the Subject site On I Batt Run will be within acceptable limits. Based on historical knowledge of this area, and in consultation with the Frederick County Public Works Department, karst topography appears to be present at the western property line adjacent to Interstate 81. Prior to master development plan preparation, an analysis of the karst topography in relationship to Surface drainage will be performed to protect any further degradation that could be caused by Surface drainage. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Using Fairfax County design requirements, the following calculations were made to estimate the maximum impact of solid waste generated by the proposed rezoning of the subject site. At 100% buildout of 1,400.000 sl' Building Industrial waste generated rate = 3210 11) 1000 sf%yr Total solid waste = 1,400,00 sf X 3210 lb 1000 sl/yr MaxiIIlun1 total solid waste = 4,494 tons/yeal It should be emphasized that the above calculations do not include any recycling by industry. Most industries recycle a large percentage of their waste stream due to economics and cooperation with local landfill authorities. 'Therefore, the above calClllat1011S are generally conservative and indicate a "worst -case scenario" of maXlmulll impact for solid waste generation. A _50% recycling program would produce a 2,247 tons/year solid waste. H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES 1. Virginia Historic Landmark Commission The Rutherford's Farm File # 10082 34-727 is sited as a Ilistorical Landmark. However, all that remains of the house is a set of concrete steps that lead from Route 11 up to the site of the house. There is a historical marker south ol' the site on Route 11. Landmark records can be found on file at the Virginia Department ol' I-Iistoric Resources. 8 Grecnway Engineering July 5, 2001 ORutherford's Farm Revised September 28, 2001 Industrial Park 2. Virginia Department of Historic Resources and Archeological Sites One archeological site is noted by the Virginia Department of I-Iistoric Resources. It is a raised berm allowing access to opposite side of rail lines. However, it is abandoned and no loner in use. This site does not exhibit features that suggest eligibility for National Register consideration. Records can be found on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Conclusion of Historic Resource Advisory I3oard Meeting that was held on July '17, 2001, the Historic Resource Proffer D.1, D.2, and D.3 were a result of the IIIZAI3 meeting. 9 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA The following information shall be provided by the applicant, All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, 1. Applicant: Name: Greenway En ineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Telephone: .(540) 662-4185 2. Property Owners (if different than above) Name: Richard Ray Duncan & Janet I). Riddick Address: 6101 Fisel Rd. Apt# 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Telephone: (703) 461-7988 Name: Turner Enterprises, LLC Address: 317 Greenfield Avenue Winchester, VA 22602 Telephone: (540) 722-2200 3. Contact person if otlier than above Name: Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S. 'Telephone: (540) 662-4185 4. Cliecklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed to property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X • • 5, The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Richard Ray Duncan Janet D. Riddick Turner Enterprises I I C 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Agricultural, undeveloped B) Proposed Use of the Property: 154.4 acres Commercial & Industrial 7, Adjoining Property: Please see attached 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): The subject site tax parcels 43-A-111 43-A-100 43-A- 99 43-A-96 43-A-98, 43-A-97 is located on a natural boundary created by interstate 81 on the western edge of tract. U.S. CSX and the Winchester and Western Railroads have rail lines paralleling Route 11 North. • • Information to be Subinitted for Capital Facilities ILupact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number Districts Magisterial: Stonewall High School: Stonewall Tire Service: Stonewall Middle School: Stonewall Rescue Service: Stonewall Elementary School: Stonewall 10. Zoning Cliange: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 116.7 RA M 1 23.2 RA 132 14.5 RA B3 154.4 Total acreage to be rezoned *Supplement to Item 9 0 Name and Property Identification Number Address Name: Emma S Duncan (c/o Richard R. Duncan) 6101 Edsall Rd., Apt. 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Property # 43 (A) 96 Name: Turner Enterprises, Inc. 317 Greenfield Ave. Winchester, VA 22602 Property #: 43 (A) 97 Name: Emma S Duncan (c/o Richard R. Duncan) 6101 Edsall Rd., Apt. 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Property # 43 (A) 98 Name: Emma S Duncan (c/o Richard R. Duncan) 6101 Edsall Rd., Apt. 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Property #: 43 (A) 99 Name: Richard R. Duncan 6101 Edsall Rd., Apt. 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Property: 443 (A) 100 Name: Emma S Duncan (c/o Richard R. Duncan) 6101 Edsall Rd., Apt. 1802 Alexandria, VA 22304-6009 Property # 43 (A) 111 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. 91-vt'OD) �L Date: dW Date: Owner(s): Date: Date: /�t'FLlrt Y Date: C.• G N%-n+r� p, 5r-A ►-rH i • Adjoining Property Owners Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Conanissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107North Kent Street. Name and Property Identification Number Address Name Taylor Charles C & Mary M 1849 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-101 Name Bradford Village Apartments LC 2520 Bradford Court Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43-(A)-102 Name Johnson Robert B 2054Northwestern Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-103 Name Moore Michael A 1927 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-104 Name Rissler Thomas W& Mary L 1937 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-105 Name Lee Ronald A & Mary C 1947 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-106 Name McQuain Clifford D & Etals 1957 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-107 Name Kercheval Ethel T 1985 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-108 Name Keiter Mildred P 412 S Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43-(A)-109 Name and Property Identification Number Address Name Riddick Thomas E Jr & Janet 2045Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43-(A)-110 Name DeI-Iaven Charles Stuart 2073 Bradford Court Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 43-(A)-112A, 112B, 113 Name Buckley Lages Inc P.0 Box 337 Stephenson, VA 22656 Property # 43-(A)-84, 85 Name Messick Roy R & Nancy L 1897 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 43C-((1))-A Name Elliott Barbara E. 6115 E. Peabody Street Long Beach, CA 90808 Property # 43B-((S))-22 g; I I end 11 � Ll ma sbur� P; Y) e, Winc-heS�Q-, WINE - STILLWELL CORPORATION 720 N. LOUDOUN STREET, P.O. BOX 2035, WINCHESI'ER, VIRGINIA 22604 OFFICE 540-662-4441 FAX 540-722-364 3 November 8, 2001 Mr. Evan Wyatt Director, Frederick County Planning Department Frederick County 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Rezoning, Rutherford's Industrial Park Dear Evan: This is a follow-up to the Planning Commission hearing on November 7, 2001. Because of the past year's battle over industrial development and the importance of approaching this rezoning correctly, I am suggesting the following be incorporated in the process: 1. Because of the high visibility of this site and the first view of Winchester from the north, special care needs to be incorporated in the planning and three dimensional planning. 2. The planning should include the 107 acre M2 Carroll properly, Zuckerman's, and the former chemical facility along Ebert Rd., all in a coordinated traffic, utility, sewer, landscaping and architectural plan. 3. A one to two acre Rutherford Civil War Memorial Park should be incorporated in the plan near the Rutherford site as an asset to the development. 4. Because of the potential ugliness of industrial development when no standards are established at the start, I would recommend that design standards for materials, colors, building height, set backs, lay down areas, docks, signs, etc. be developed prior to start of construction. This site begs for a new approach - an INDUSTRIAL CAWUS. approach, not a Stonewall Industrial "Park" approach and should include the business type buildings in the standards. 5. Because of the serious traffic problems at the I-81 and Rt. 11 interchange, which we are all aware of, it may be possible during an up -front planning effort to move the whole entrance to the total 257 acre site north and avoid the whole problem at the I-81 Interchange. Master Development planning, if done early, may resolve this critical issue and everyone wins. ROOFING - GUTTER WORK - SHEET METAL FABRICATION Mr. Evan Wyatt - 2 - November 8, 2001 Finally, I support this Industrial rezoning, if done properly, because it is the right location, has rail access, already adjoins an M2 parcel and is located between 1-81 and Rt. 11. Very truly yours, �ames D. Stillwell President JDS/dd cc: Mr. Mark Smith Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 ,� 0 f COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-565t FAX: 540/665-6395 �lorlrlc��rlo�l OF PUBLIC 0-1EWRIINl3 January 23, 2002 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #07-01 OF RUTHERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, February 6, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the board room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following: Rezoning #07-01 of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 5.1 acres of RP (Residential Performance) and 149.3 acres of RA (Rural Areas) to 116.7 acres of MI (Light Industrial); 23.2 acres of B2 (Business General); and 14.5 acres of B3 (Industrial Transition. This property is bounded by Interstate 81 on the west, and Martinsburg Pike on the east and south, and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 43-A-96; 43-A-97; 43-A-98; 43-A-99; 43- A-100 and 43-A-I I 1 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library approximately one week prior to the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. Sincc#y, Ei �* V w`reuce Depector ERL/ch O \AgcndasNAdjoincr Ltrs\1200I\Ruthcrford's Pane RC%.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to ce ti that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick Co ty, Virginia: 43 - A- - 90-C LEDFORD, WILLIAM M & ALICE C 43 - A- - 56- 149 PARSON CT K & J INVESTMENTS WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4517 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4707 43 - A- - 90-B APOSTOLIC UNITED PENTECOSTAL 43 - A- - 52-B WILSON, DIEHL F JR & DEBORAH L 189 PARSON CT 121 MERCEDES CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4638 43 - A- - 52- NEGLEY CONSTRUCTION, INC 127 MERCEDES CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4638 43 - A- - 50-A BRENTWOOD INVESTMENT COMPANY 1323 JAMESTOWN RD STE 101 WILLIAMSBURG, VA 23185.3373 43 - A- - 84- �S BUCKLEY LAGES, INC PO BOX 3214 WINCHESTER, VA 43 - A- - 94- MOULDEN, HOWARD K. 490 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER,VA 22604.2414 WINCHESTER,VA 22603.4517 43 - A- - 93- TRUSTEES OF THE APOSTOLIC UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH 189 PARSON CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603-4517 43 - A- - 95- WEBBER, BEVERLEY L 484 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 43 - A- - 101- TAYLOR, CHARLES C & MARY M 2201COLSTON DR SILVER SPRING, MD 20910.2545 C 22603-4543 Eri R.Xawre ice, Deputy Director Fredetick County Planning Department STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK I, A(Ah no No I I , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Director for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated ) - a 3 - Q ,3� , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this �(1 day off My commission expires on -C 1 a?) Mr. Mark D. Smith, P.C., L.S. Grecnway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 ,L�— 1/1/ NO ARY PUBLIC A-9IA, GOLDIE L. 115 4 43 - A- • 102- BRADFORf' VILLAGE APARTMENTS, LC 2089 MARTINSBURG PIKEWINCHESTER, VA. 22603-4715 112 LAUNCHRIS DR WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 43 - A- - 116- 43 - A- - 103- GRIFFITH, KEITH A. & CAROL M. JOHNSON, ROBERT B. 2054 NORTHWESTERN PIKE 2099 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603-3947 WINCHESTER, VA 22603 4715 43 - A- - 104- 43 -A- - 119- MOORE, MICHAEL A GRAFTON SCHOOL, INC PO BOX 2500 1927 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22604.1700 WINCHESTER, VA 22603-4714 43 • A- - 128- 43 - A- - 105- CLEMONS, DALE E. & BETTY JEAN RISSLER, THOMAS W. & MARY L. 1937 MARTINSBURG PIKE 2080 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603-4714 WINCHESTER, VA 22603-4709 43 - A- - 130- 43 - A- - 106- BOONE, JAMES L & SHARON H LEE, RONALD A & MARY C 2060 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603-4709 1947 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4714 43 - A- - 132- HART, JOHN E. & SHANNON K. 43 - A- - 107- MCQUAIN, CLIFFORD D & ETALS 682 CEDAR GROVE RD 1957 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.3000 WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4714 43 - A- - 132-B LANDMARK CHAPEL CHURCH 43 - A- - 108- 729 ROUND HILL RD NETHERS, PATRICIA S WINCHESTER, VA 22602-2236 915 WELLTOWN PIKE 43 - A- - 133- WINCHESTER, VA. 22603 HART, ROBERT A. & ALICE C. 43 - A- - 109- 2024 MARTINSBURG PIKE KEITER, MILDRED P. WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4709 412 S STEWART ST WINCHESTER, VA. 22601-4019 43 - A- - 134- WILLIAMSON, LINWOOD R. 43 A 110 2014 MARTINSBURG PIKE RIDDICK, THOMAS E. JR. & JANET WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4709 2045 MARTINSBURG PIKE 43 - A- - 134-A WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4715 BRIDGE, CHARLES L & JANE It 43 - A- - 112-A 2010 MARTINSBURG PIKE DEHAVEN,CHARLESSTUART WINCHESTER, VA 22603-4709 2073 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4715 43 - A- - 134-B PIFER, WILLIAM 43 - A- - 112-13 PO BOX 725 DEHAVEN NURSERY INC WINCHESTER, VA 22604.0725 2077 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4715 •• s• pl, 43 - A• • 149- DEHAVEN, THOMAS H 43 . A• - 135• 1840 MARTINSBURG PIKE CUTSHAW, V. V. & AILEEN S. WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4707 1984 MARTINSBURG PIKE 43 - A• - 150- WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4708 K & J INVESTMENTS, LC 43 • A- - 137• 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE SHOEMAKER, ROSALIND LARRICK WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4707 1974 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4708 43B • 8• • 22- ELLIOTT, BARBARA E 43 - A• - 1 6115 E PEABODY ST PARRISH, WILLIAM C. & LONG BEACH, CA 90808.2824 1962 MARTINSBURG PIKE 43B • 8- - 11-A WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4708 FLOWERS, MARY A A 1 456 WELLTOWN RD W WEBER, MICHAEL S. WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 937 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22601.4306 43B • 8• - 13• HAINES, DONALD D. & ELIZABETH C 43 • 1 486 WELLTOWN RD RATLIEF, HARRY B. WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 141 NULTON LN 43B • 8• - 10- WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4731 FISHEL, GARY F & BARBARA S 43 . A• • 142• 450 WELLTOWN RD DUNCAN, ROY 0 & BERTHA B, TRUSTEES WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 149 NULTON LN WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4731 43B • 8- • 9- BLYE, MICHAEL A. 43 - A 143 444 WELLTOWN RD NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE 43B - 8- - 8- WINCHESTER, VA. 22603-4707 MORGAN, RONALD F & ROSEMARIE A 43 A• - 1 438 WELLTOWN RD TRENARY,FLORENCE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4543 & STAUDENMAIER, IRIS C 43B - 8• - 7- 185 NULTON LN BURNS, THOMAS R. & BARBARA A. WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4731 428 WELLTOWN RD 43 • A- • 145- WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4543 BUHL, WILLIAM N. & GRETNA L. 43B • 5- 1- 6•CROSEN, 201 NULTON LN WAYNE &PHOEBE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603-4730 606 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4545 43 • A• • 147- NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 43C • 1- - B- 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE BRADFORD VILLAGE APARTMENTS, LC WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 112 LAUNCHRIS DR WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 ib it 43C - 1- - D- MOORE, MICHAEL A 1927 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4714 43 - A• 97 TURNER ENTERPRISES, LLC 317 GREENFIELD AVE 43C - 3- . 9- WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6609 RICHARDS, GRACE RIGGS PO BOX 712 WINCHESTER, VA. 22604.0712 43C - 3- - 7-A NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1BOO MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 43C - 3- - 6- SANDY, WILLIAM E. 1744 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4706 43C - 3- - 5- NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4707 43C - 2- - 1- BAKER, R. WAYNE & IMOGENE A. 1854 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 43C - 2- - 2- CURTIS, ELIZABETH DAWN 1864 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4707 43C - 2- - 3- FITZWATER, COURTNEY L. SR. 1876 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 44 - A- - 12- ZUCKERMAN ENTERPRISES, INC PO BOX 3275 WINCHESTER, VA 22604-2475 43 -A- - 111- DUNCAN, EMMA S. CIO RICHARD R DUNCAN 6101 EDSALL RD APT 1802 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22304.6009 i COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester ireini 2601 m ea �� N � � O O N rT - ��,N U.S. POST el A JAN23'02 V A H METER71Z,2'iA% W08.2824 C J COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 INI TIFICA:r10INI Cyr P08", L I rl!A41MI G- January 23, 2002 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #07-01 OF RUTHERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, February 6, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the board room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following: Rezoning #07-01 of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 5.1 acres of RP (Residential Performance) and 149.3 acres of RA (Rural Areas) to 116.7 acres of M1 (Light Industrial); 23.2 acres of B2 (Business General); and 14.5 acres of B3 (Industrial Transition. This property is bounded by Interstate 81 on the west, and Martinsburg Pike on the east and south, and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 43-A-96; 43-A-97; 43-A-98; 43-A-99; 43- A-100 and 43-A-111 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library approximately one week prior to the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. Sinceffiy, E ' Vreq_e Depctor ERL/ch OAAgcndas\Adjoincr L1rs\2001\Ruthcrford's F: RET..wpd 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 INIWIFICATICANI Or PUBLIC HEARING April 8, 2002 TO: THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #07-01 OF RUTIIERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Monday, April 22, 2002, at 7:15 p.m. in the board room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following: Rezoning #07-01 of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 5.1 acres of RP (Residential Performance) and 149.3 acres of RA (Rural Areas) to 116.7 acres of M1 (Light Industrial); 23.2 acres of B2 (Business General); and 14.5 acres of B3 (Industrial Transition. This property is bounded by Interstate 81 on the west, and Martinsburg Pike on the east and south, and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 43-A-96; 43-A-97; 43-A-98; 43-A-99; 43- A-100 and 43-A- I I I in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. Sincerely, /-icR.-awrerrce Deputy Director ERL/ch O blgcndu\ %djoincr UrsL002\Rcmnings\Rwhcrford's Penn RC7..wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on .=I=Q? from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 43 - A- - 106- LEE, RONALD A & MARY C 43 - A- - 110- RIDDICK, THOMAS E. JR. & JANET 2045 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4715 43 -A- - 112-A u�,d Il%i10 DEHAVEN, CHARLES STUART 2073 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4715 43 - A- - 112-13 DEHAVEN NURSERY, ING 2077 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4715 43 - A- - 115- MUTA, GOLDIE L. 2089 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 226n-4715 43 - A. - 105- RISSLER, THOMAS W. & MARY L. 1937 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4714 1947 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4714 43 - A- - 107- MCGUAIN, CLIFFORD D & ETALS 1957 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4714 43 - A- - 108- KERCHEVAL, ETHEL T. 1985 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4714 43 - A- - 109- KEITER, MILDRED P. 412 S STEWART ST WINCHESTER, VA. 43 - A- - 95- WEBBER, BEVERLEY L 484 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22601.4019 22603.4543 Eric R. k A wrence, Deputy Director Frederick County Planning Department STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY Ann rOFFREDIE—RICK L1 J 1 1, � I , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Director for� the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated q • 0 � , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this � day of r I UU My commission expires on r Jc( o nj ab C0'-'-) - � V- L-) H- f) n ARY PUBLIC 43 - A- - 101- TAYLOR, CHARLES C AY M 2201 COLSTON DR SILVER SPRING, MO 20910.2545 43 - A- - 102- BRADFORD VILLAGE APARTMENTS, LC 2520 BRADFORD CT WINCHESTER, VA. 22601-3670 43 - A- - 103- JOHNSON, ROBERT B. 2054 NORTHWESTERN PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.3947 43 - A- - 104- MOORE, MICHAEL A 1927 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4714 43 - A- - 90-C DEHAVEN, ALFRED E & VELDA C TRUSTEES 143 ORCHARD VIEW LN WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2324 43 - A- - 90-B aNd � 3 APOSTOLIC UNITED PENTECOSTAL 189 PARSON CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4517 43 - A- - 94- MOULDEN, HOWARD K. 490 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 43 - A- - 56- K & J INVESTMENTS 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4707 43 - A- - 52-B WILSON, DIEHL F JR & DEBORAH L 121 MERCEDES CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4638 43 - A- - 52- NEGLEY CONSTRUCTION, INC 127 MERCEDES CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4638 43 - A- - 50-A BRENTWOOD INVESTMENT COMPANY 1323 JAMESTOWN RD STE 101 WILLIAMSBURG, VA 23185.3373 43 - A- - 84- �85 BUCKLEY LAGES, INC PO BOX 3214 WINCHESTER, VA 22604-2414 43 - A- - 116- GRIFF EITH A. & CAROL M. 2099 TINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4715 43 - A- - 119- GRAFTON SCHOOL, INC PO BOX 2500 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.1700 43 - A- - 128- CLEMONS, DALE E. & BETTY JEAN 2080 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4709 43 - A- - 130- BOONE, JAMES L & SHARON H 2060 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4709 43 - A- - 132- HART, JOHN E. & SHANNON K. 682 CEDAR GROVE RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.3000 43 - A- - 132-B LANDMARK CHAPEL CHURCH 729 ROUND HILL RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2236 43 - A- - 133- HART, ROBERT A. & ALICE C. 2024 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4709 43 - A- - 134- WILLIAMSON, LINWOOD R. 2014 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4709 43 - A- - 134-A BRIDGE, CHARLES L & JANE V 2010 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4709 43 - A- - 134-B PIFER, WILLIAM PO BOX 725 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.0725 43 - A- - 136- Ahd 135 CUTSHAW, V. V. & AILEEN S. 1984 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4708 43 - A- - 137- SHOEMAKER, ROSALIND LARRICK 1974 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4708 43 - A- - 138. " 13 q PARRISH, WILLI4. & 1962 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4700 43 - A- - 140- WEBER, MICHAEL S. 937 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22601.4306 43 - A- - 141- RATLIEF, HARRY B. 141 NULTON LN WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4731 43 - A- - 142- DUNCAN, ROY 0 & BERTHA B, TRUSTEES 149 NULTON LN WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4731 43 - A- - 143- NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 43 - A- - 144. � 144 TRENARY, ROBERT N & FLORENCE M & IRIS C STAUDENMAIER 185 NULTON LN WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4731 43 - A- - 145- BUHL, WILLIAM N. & GRETNA L. 201 NULTON LN WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4730 43 -A.-147.�rSt4 NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 43 - A- - 149- DEHAVEN, THOMAS H 1840 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4707 43 - A.. 150. K & J INVESTMENTS, LC 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4707 43B - 8- - 13- HAdj, DONALD D. & ELIZABETH C 48 LLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 43B - 8- - 10. FISHEL, GARY F & BARBARA S 450 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 43B - 8- - 9- BLYE, MICHAEL A. 444 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 43B - 8- - 8. MORGAN, RONALD F & ROSEMARIE A 438 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4543 43B - 8- - 7- BURNS, THOMAS R. & BARBARA A. 428 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4543 43B - 5. 1. 6. CROSEN, WAYNE & PHOEBE 606 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4545 43B - 8- - I. PARSONS, JAMES WARREN 390 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4624 43C - 1- - A. MESSICK, ROY R. & NANCY L. 1897 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4768 43C - 1- - B- BRADFORD VILLAGE APARTMENTS, LC 2520BRADFORD CT WINCHESTER, VA. 22601.3670 43C - 1- - D- MOORE, MICHAEL A 1927 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4714 43B - 8- - 22- 43C - 3. - 9. Qhd QA ELLIOTT, BARBARA E RICHARDS, GRACE RIGGS 6115 E PEABODY ST PO BOX 712 LONG BEACH, CA 90808.2824 WINCHESTER, VA. 22604.0712 43B - 8- - 11-A at4 it 43C - 3- - 7-A FLOWERS, MARY A NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE 456 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 43C - 3- - 6- SANDY, WILLIAM E. 10 0 1744 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4706 43C - 3- - 5- and 4, �, ?j NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4707 43C - 2- - 1- BAKER, R. WAYNE & IMOGENE A. 1854 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 43C - 2- - 2- CURTIS, ELIZABETH DAWN 1864 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603-4707 43C - 2- - 3- FITZWATER, COURTNEY L. SR. 1876 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 44 - A- - 12- ZUCKERMAN ENTERPRISES, INC PO BOX 3275 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.2475 43 -A- - 111- 1o0,",V) g�; DUNCAN, EMMA S. CIO RICHARD R DUNCAN 6101 EDSALL RD APT 1802 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22304.6009 43 - A- - 97- TURNER ENTERPRISES, I;NC 317 GREENFIELD AVE WINCHESTER,VA 22602 0 i COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-63.95 �l JTI F IC�kr10I 1 Ur PJ:3L I r'IEARIINIG October 24, 2001 TO: THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #07-01 OF RUTIIERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, November 7, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the board room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following: Rezoning #07-01 of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 5.1 acres of RP (Residential Performance) and 149.3 acres of RA (Rural Areas) to 116.7 acres of M1 (Light Industrial); 23.2 acres of B2 (Business General); and 14.5 acres of B3 (Industrial Transition. This property is bounded by Interstate 81 on the west, and Martinsburg Pike on the east and south, and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 43-A-96; 43-A-97; 43-A-98; 43-A-99; 43- A-100 and 43-A-111 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library approximately one week prior to the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. Sin e ely, L Eri R. Lawrence Deputy Director ERL/ch O \Agcndm\Adjoincr Ltn\2001\Ruthaford's Fnrn, Rez.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on ¢ A , ZQ 0 from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 43 A 90 B and Q3 APOSTOLIC UNITED PENTECOSTAL 43 A 56- 189 PARSON CT K & J INVESTMENTS WINCHESTER, VA 22603-4517 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603 4707 43 A 52 B WILSON, DIEHL F JR & DEBORAH L 121 MERCEDES CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603 4638 43 A 52 NEGLEY CONSTRUCTION, INC 127 MERCEDES CT WINCHESTER, VA 22603 4638 43 A 50 A BRENTWOOD INVESTMENT COMPANY 1323 JAMESTOWN RD STE 101 WILLIAMSBURG, VA 23185 3373 43 A 84 ,,^c lq5 BUCKLEY LAGES, INC PO BOX 3214 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 2414 43 A 90 C OEHAVEN, ALFRED E & VELDA C TRUSTEES 143 ORCHARD VIEW LN WINCHESTER,VA 226022324 43 A 93 TRUSTEES OF THE APOSTOLIC UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH wv�wl9 PARSON CT NCHESTER,VA 22603-4517 43 A 94 MOULDEN, HOWARD K. 490 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603-4543 43 A 95 WEBBER, BEVERLEY L 484 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603 4543 43 A 101 TAYLOR, CHARLES C & MARY M 2201 COLSTON OR SILVER SPRING, MO 20910-2545 Eri&.Lawirencc, Deputy Dircctor Frederick County Planning Department STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTN' OF FREDERICK I. &�o Ron �c l I , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Director for the D�e,Partment of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated j o old (DI , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this 26:�2— day of O Aber, Q-w i My commission expires on I' Mr. Mark D. Smith C, Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane TARY PUBLIC Winchester, VA 22602 43 - A- - 115-�� 43 - A- - 102- IA, GOLDIE L. BRADFORD VILLAGE APAOENTS, LC 2089 MARTINSBURG PIKE 2520 BRADFORD CT WINCHESTER, VA. 22603-4715 WINCHESTER, VA. 22601-3670 43 - A- - 116- GRIFFITH, KEITH A. & CAROL M. 43 - A- - 103- 2099 MARTINSBURG PIKE JOHNSON, ROBERT B. WINCHESTER, VA 22603-4715 2054 NORTHWESTERN PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.3947 43 - A- - 119- GRAFTON SCHOOL, INC 43 - A- - 104- PO BOX 2500 MOORE, MICHAEL A WINCHESTER, VA 22604-1700 1927 MARTINSBURG PIKE 43 - A- - 128- WINCHESTER, VA 22603-4714 CLEMONS, DALE E. & BETTY JEAN 43 - A- - 105- 2080 MARTINSBURG PIKE RISSLER, THOMAS W. & MARY L. WINCHESTER, VA 22603-4709 1937 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603-4714 43 - A- - 130- BOONE, JAMES L & SHARON H 43 - A- - 106- 2060 MARTINSBURG PIKE LEE, RONALD A & MARY C WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4709 1947 MARTINSBURG PIKE 43 - A- - 132- WINCHESTER, VA 22603-4714 HART, JOHN E. & SHANNON K. 43 - A- - 107- 682 CEDAR GROVE RD MCQUAIN, CLIFFORD D & ETALS WINCHESTER, VA 22603-3000 1957 MARTINSBURG PIKE 43 A 132 B WINCHESTER, VA 22603-4714 LANDMARK CHAPEL CHURCH 729 ROUND HILL RD KE RCHEVAL, ETHEL T. A- - 108 WINCHESTER, VA 22602-2236 1985 MARTINSBURG PIKE 43 - A- - 133- WINCHESTER, VA. 22603-4714 HART, ROBERT A. & ALICE C. 43 - A- - 109- 2024 MARTINSBURG PIKE KEITER, MILDRED P. WINCHESTER, VA 22603-4709 412 S STEWART ST WINCHESTER, VA. 22601-4019 43 - A- - 134- WILLIAMSON, LINWOOD R. 43 - A- - 110- 2014 MARTINSBURG PIKE RIDDICK, THOMAS E. JR. & JANET WINCHESTER, VA. 22603-4709 2045 MARTINSBURG PIKE 43 - A- - 134-A WINCHESTER, VA. 22603-4715 BRIDGE, CHARLES L & JANE V 43 - A- - 112-A UKzt Ile,113 2010 MARTINSBURG PIKE DEHAVEN, CHARLES STUART WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4709 2073 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603-4715 43 - A- - 134-B PIFER, WILLIAM 43 - A- - 112-B PO BOX 725 DEHAVEN NURSERY, INC WINCHESTER, VA 22604-0725 2077 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603-4715 43 - A- - 135. � 136 • CUTSHAW, V. V. & AILEEN S. 1984 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4708 43 - A- - 137- SHOEMAKER, ROSALIND LARRICK 1974 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4708 43 - A- - 138- and 13q PARRISH, WILLIAM C. & 1962 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4708 43 - A. - 140- WEBER, MICHAEL S. 937 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22601.4306 43 - A- - 141- RATLIEF, HARRY B. 141 NULTON LN WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4731 43 - A- - 142- DUNCAN, ROY 0 & BERTHA B, TRUSTEES 149 NULTON LN WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4731 43 - A- - 143- NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 43 - A. - 144. � 11-6 TRENARY, ROBERT N & FLORENCE M & IRIS C STAUDENMAIER 185 NULTON LN WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4731 43 - A- - 145- BUHL, WILLIAM N. & GRETNA L. 201 NULTON LN WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4730 43 - A- - 147- t ( 5(A NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 43 - A- - 149- DEHAVEN, THOMAS H 1840 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4707 ¢3 C J 3^ 3 43 - A- - 150- 43 9- �'z, 3j 4-, 5 K & J INVESTMENTS 4m-56 1800 MARTINSBURGME vvv WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4707 43B -8- - 22- ELLIOTT, BARBARA E 6115 E PEABODY ST LONG BEACH, CA 90808.2824 43B -B. - 11-A Ut d `l FLOWERS, MARY A 456 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 43B - 8- - 13- HAINES, DONALD D. & ELIZABETH C 486 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 '4; 6 .8. - 11- �� \ FLOWERS, MA r ----'456 WELLTOW RD WINCHESTER, VAS 22603.4543 43B - 8- - 10- FISHEL, GARY F & BARBARA S 450 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 43B - 8- - 9- BLYE, MICHAEL A. 444 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4543 43B - 8- - 8- MORGAN, RONALD F & ROSEMARIE A 438 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4543 43B - 8- - 7- BURNS, THOMAS R. & BARBARA A. 428 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4543 43B - 5. 1- 6- CROSEN, WAYNE & PHOEBE 606 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4545 43B - 8- - 1- PARSONS, JAMES WARREN 390 WELLTOWN RD WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4624 43C - 1- - A- MESSICK, ROY R. & NANO, 1897 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4768 43C - 1- - B- BRADFORD VILLAGE APARTMENTS, LC 2520 BRADFORD CT WINCHESTER, VA. 22601.3670 43C - 1- - D- MOORE, MICHAEL A 1927 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4714 43C - 3- - 9- and p RICHARDS, GRACE RIGGS PO BOX 712 WINCHESTER, VA. 22604.0712 43C - 3- - 7-A NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 43C - 3- - 6- SANDY, WILLIAM E. 1744 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4706 43C - 3- - 5-, +' %� 2-- NORTH STEPHENSON, INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603.4707 43C - 2- - 1- BAKER, R. WAYNE & IMOGENE A. 1854 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 43C - 2- - 2- CURTIS, ELIZABETH DAWN 1864 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603-4707 43C - 2- - 3- FITZWATER, COURTNEY L. SR. 1876 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4707 44 - A- - 12- ZUCKERMAN ENTERPRISES, INC 4-3-�' 11�,� I 43 -A- - 111- 100yg01, qg OUNCAN, EMMA S. CIO RICHARD R DUNCAN {� 6101 EDSALL RD APT 1802 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22304.6009 43 - A- - 100- DUNCAN, RICHARD R 6101 EDSALL RD APT 1802 ALEXANDRIA, VA. 22304.6009 43 - A- - 97- TURNER ENTERPRISES, I;NC 317 GREENFIELD AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22602 PO BOX 3275 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.2475 I!mo, Form ra; - Pa-1-4f P-CAY 7 - C7 / q Adjoining Property Owners TO: Barbara in Data Processing FROM: Carol H�d Planning Department Please 1p�nt�7sets of labels by: 17THANK YOU!! 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. 43-A-56 43-A-52B 43-A-52 43-A-50A 43-A-84 43-A-85 43-A-90C 43-A-90B 43-A-93 43-A-94 43-A-95 43-A-101 43-A-102 43-A-103 43-A-104 43-A-105 43-A-106 43-A-107 43-A-108 43-A-109 43-A-110 43-A-112A 43-A-112B 43-A-113 43-A-115 43-A-116 43-A-118 43-A-119 43-A-128 43-A-130 43-A-132 43-A-132B 43-A-133 43-A-134 43-A-134A 43-A-134B 43-A-135 43-A-136 43-A-137 43-A-138 43-A-139 43-A-140 43-A-141 43-A-142 43-A-143 43-A-144 43-A-145 43-A-146 43-A-147 43-A-149 43-A-150 43-A-151 A 43B-8-25A (/V010" 43B-8-25 43B-8-24 43B-8-23 43B-8-22 �le 43B-8-14A/`+- °t) 43B-8-11 A 43B-8-13 43B-8-12 /vef Cn �le 43B-8-11 43B-8-10 43B-8-9 43B-8-8 43B-8-7 43B-5-6 43B-8-5 43B-8-4 43B-8-3 43B-8-2 43B-8-1 43C-1-A 43C-1-B ��IL 43C-1-C Kai G� 43C-1-D 43C-3-9 43C-3-8A .�c 43C-3-8�f oil 43C-3-7A 43C-3-7No+ Cn 43C-3-6 43C-3-5 43C-3-4 . 43C-3-3 � 3CWo+ of" 43C-2-1 43C-2-2 43C-2-3 44-A-12 Subject Property: 43-A-111 43-A-100 43-A-99 43-A-98 43-A-97 43-A-96 N COUNTY of FREDERICK i -- T Department of Planning & Development I! 107 North Kent Street t-C Winchesterirginia 22601 suc-H NUMBER FVOT KNOW ADDRESS VAC�NT EFUSEC) F I RE) R 43B .8- 22- ELLIOTT, BARBARA E 6115 E PEABODY ST LONG BEACH, CA AF�,V3'02 90808-2824 -2-1065VA*bfifs ItI11111111111 11111111,111111 111 111 ... 0 .COTJNTY ,of FREDERICX Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 N TIFIVIVIC 11 Jr PUBLIC April 8, 2002 TO: THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #07-01 OF RUTHERFORD'S FARM INDUSTRIAL PARK{ On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Monday, April 22, 2002, at 7:15 p.m. in the board room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following: Rezoning #07-01 of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 5.1 acres of RP (Residential Performance) and 149.3 acres of RA (Rural Areas) to 116.7 acres of M1 (Light Industrial); 23.2 acres of B2 (Business General); and 14.5 acres of B3 (Industrial Transition. This property is bounded by Interstate 81 on the west, and Martinsburg Pike on the east and south, and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 43-A-96; 43-A-97; 43-A-98; 43-A-99; 43- A-100 and 43-A-111 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. Sincerely, -ic R. 'awren Deputy Director ERL/ch 0lAgmdas\Adjoincr Ltrs\2002\Raonings\Rothcrford's Faint RFZ.wpd 107 North Kent Street v Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 6 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Fouruled in 1971 TRANSMITTAL Project Name: File No.: Date: Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park 2795 September 7, 2001 To: Frederick Co Planning Attn: Eric Lawrence Copied: From: Mark Smith/ds GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Fax: 540-722-9528 Remarks [i Urgent r j For Your Review Ci As You Requested F-1 Please Comment Message: Eric, Attached are the following for the above rezoning project: -Completed signed application form -Survey of the entire plat -Copy of Deed -Copy of paid taxes -Listing of adjoining property owners -Impact Analysis -Proffer Statement -All Agencies comment sheets -50 copies of color exhibits for your use SIP 0 7 2001 17 OF P1 ANNINIr,I0FVFI.0PMENI' John Scully will be dropping the application fee check off to your office. We will deliver the Duncan Deed on Monday or Tuesday of next week. Thank you for your time and effort with this project. Call with any concerns. Engineers Surveyors Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 greenway@visuallink.com •i OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: PIN 43-A-96,97,98,99,100,111 Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE business/industr Costs of Impact Credit: INRUTw1QDULE_Qredits_to_be_Take REAL EST VAL $127,780,934 Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ FIRE & RESCUE 1 -Capital Factttifea col sum only) Qper_Cap.Equip Expeod/Debt S. Tayas Other Fire and Rescue Department $730,362 Elementary Schools SO Middle Schools SO $0 $0 High Schools SO Parks and Recreation $0 $0 Public Library $0 $0 Sheriffs Offices SO $40,352 $0 $0 Administration Building $0 $0 Other Miscellaneous Facilities $0 $467,822 $94.139 SUBTOTAL $730,362 $508,174 $94,139 $0 LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $32,184,482 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT Total Potential Adjustment For Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per (Unadjusted) Cost,13alance EacilitiesJmpact QAeM[19_U1311 $0 $0 S730,362 ERR $0 $0 $0 ERR $0 $0 $0 ERR $0 $0 $0 ERR $40,352 $40,352 $0 ERR $0 $0 $0 ERR $561.961 $561,961 $0 ERR $602,313 $602,313 $128,049 ERR $32,184,482 $32,184,482 ERE Sol ERR INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included: 1.0 INDEX: "1:0" If Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Cc Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 1.000 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Cc Avg = 1.433 METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are Input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations Is input in row total of second column (zero If negative): included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal Impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid In fourth col as calculated in fiscal Impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include Interest because they are cash payments up front Credits do Include Interest if the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Date 10/15/01 ERL P.I.N. 43-A-96,97,98,99,100,111 Rezoning: Assumes155 acres zoned B2, B3, M1 utilizing a maximum of 1,400,000 square feet Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date.