Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-93 Prince Frederick Ofc Park - Shawnee - Backfile (2)Is + t * STAFF MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKLIST * This application is not complete if the following are not included: SUBMISSION PACKAGE Comments sheets from the following agencies along with any marked copies of the plan; 'o� VDOT City of Winchester Sanitation Authority Health Department Inspections Dept. Parks & Recreation Fire Marshal County Engineer One copy of the master development plan application ' 25 copies of the plan on a single sheet One reproducible copy of the plan (if required) A 35mm. slide of the plan TRACKING Date j i 9 Application received 1 14 113. Fee Paid (amount $ '`/J(,Q — ) Preliminary MDP heard by Planning Commission - Action taken 11410 Preliminary MDP heard by Board of Supervisors - Action taken v 3 Letter to applicant regarding action and revisions. 5'a—� Final MDP submitted with review agency, P/C and BOS comments addressed. (G �3 Final MDP signed by County Administrator and Planning Director. (send two copies to applicant) !� to 13 Info added to annual report diskette. KEC:EIPT N_"- 02'?6 %5, 2 AMOUNT DUE AMOUNT PA fD E _. + � -Z BALANCED E PAID BY ❑ CASH yy..,, � �/,'-�.j'�.-\{� El ❑ OTHER F CDE ;i ' AG AND DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 601, 9 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 2601 RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS ___ THI FO By ( DAY -TIMERS RE (. , i - -A COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219-2000 CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM JAMES S. GIVENS COMMISSIONER STATE SECONDARY ROADS ENGINEER August 7, 2000 -4-1' In b9 Mr. John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County c,) CA 107 North Kent Street I;, Winchester, VA 22601 #«s, Dear Mr. Riley:',&�""" �11\ �4 The enclosed report contains a list of all changes to the Secondary System of State Highways in your county approved by the State Secondary Roads Engineer in July 2000. All additions to and abandonments from the Secondary System are effective the day they are approved by the State Secondary Roads Engineer. This date appears in the far right column of the monthly report. These changes will be presented to the Commonwealth Transportation Board at its monthly meeting on August 17, 2000. If you have any questions or comments about this report, please call Martin Law at 786-7399. James S. Givens rL State Secondary ads Engineer JSG/MII RECEIVED AUG 0 9 2000 QErPT, OF PL,Ak"d,WaDBIr3MIENT Cu f'� +(j ?IC%nnI'n 1 O Ii IOo 1 TP WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING �"' Report of Changes to the Secondary System of State Highways 07-Aug-00 Frederick Length Date BOS System Change Project/Subdivision Street Name Route From To Miles Resolution Effective Abandonment ✓ Gore Elementary School Gore Elementary 9158 Route 751 West Route 751 East Via Loop -0.06 7/12/2000 7/26/2000 School Access Road Addition Costello Drive Costello Drive 1367 Route 522 0.28 Mile East Route 522 0.28 5/10/2000 7/l/2000 Addition ✓ Fairlane Orchard Evans Farm Lane 1354 Route 663 Cul-De-Sac 0.14 5/10/2000 7/l/2000 Estates, Section 2;, Addition Fairlane Orchard Fai Die 663 1.08 Mile East Route 661 Routes 1354/1355 0.10 5/10/2000 7/l/2000 Estates, Section 2 Addition J Fairlane Orchard Shirley Court 1355 Route 663 Cul-De-Sac 0.14 5/10/2000 7/l/2000 / Estates, Section 2 Addition✓ Repine Idylwood Drive 1238 0.05 Mile East Route 1222 Cul-De-Sac 0.03 5/24/2000 7/20/2000 Net Mileage Change Reported 0.63 J' COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM COMMISSIONER Mr. John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Riley: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION W1 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219-2000 JAMES S. GIVENS STATE SECONDARY ROADS ENGINEER March 6, 2001 �<36? 89, - tA �n The enclosed report contains a list of all changes to the Secondary System of State Highways in your county approved by the State Secondary Roads Engineer in February 2001. All additions to and abandonments from the Secondary System are effective the day they are approved by the State Secondary Roads Engineer. This date appears in the far right column of the monthly report. These changes will be presented to the Commonwealth Transportation Board at its monthly meeting on March 15, 2001. If you have any questions or comments about this report, please call Martin Law at 786-7399. James S. Givens j dL State Secondary ads Engineer JSG/MII RECEIVED MAR 0 8 2001 DEPT. OF PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT cUII +j ? ckrY\"(c,1 I�-IBC)► I-fr WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Report of Changes to the Secondary System of State Highways 02 Mar-01 13 County of Frederick Length Date BOS Street Names grouped by Project/Subdivision Route Street Termini Miles Resolution Effective System Change: Addition Prince Frederick Office Park \ Costello Drive 01367 From: 0.28 Mile East of Route 522 South To: Route 781 Total Net Change in Mileage 0.32 12/13/2000 2/26/2001 0.32 This document summarizes implemented changes in the secondary system of state highways that will be reported to the Commonwealth Transportation Board on March 15, 2001 Cow, Station Voluntee,-', r-*,- ��esc.ue "."or-noany INC - P.0, E 3037 WInchester, -jrginla 22f>04 2 4 Jar Dea't- Mr. DiCk: to reassure ,)u,.,., intentions A -," G C �- . OLthin yA.l. ' e3state a to SOM'a A -W " It nay appear as ttie airport originall, 90 -k ,pattqrns, anQ nct bej Planned. This being '11-Aw po&sibilitparrs which we could consider making an ao5�;, our late due areas in the eastern corr,-Aor 7? course..) --- Five acres would 'De nice ... I . I'. Please: adviSO Cf proq-r�n.-�vr� tc; d&V�e Thai John A. Harden, PhD President 667-1535 FAX C62-0820 COMMONWEALTH ®f VI]�.GINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM EDINBURG, VA 22824 JERRYA. COPP COMMISSIONER \ RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE (540) 984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 October 19, 2000 Mr. Richard Dick Ref: Prince Frederick Office Park 1400 Millwood Avenue Costello Drive Winchester, VA 22601 Route 1367 Frederick County Dear Mr. Dick: As you are aware, we have performed a walkthrough inspection of the referenced development. Based on this inspection,,I have found the construction to be acceptable. Please be advised that the entire proposed right-of-way must be maintained to its present condition until its admission into the State Secondary System. As per our previous conversation, the following items will need to be furnished to VDOT prior to the start of the addition process. I will begin the legal description for the Board of Supervisors Resolution and once that is received in my office we then can establish an addition date. The addition date will dictate the amount of the maintenance fee. Items Needed: 1.) Three (3) copies of As -Built Construction Plans. 2.) Three (3) copies of the final plats with date and place of recordation, deed book and page number. 3.) Signed permits covering all utilities, publicly or privately owned, to occupy or cross the right-of-way and quitclaiming any prior rights. Should you have any questions or need assistance, please call me at 540-535-1828. Sincerely, Dave A. Heironimus /ep pc: Mr. Randy Moulton; Mr. Aaron Dean; Mr. Kris Tierney r C�� 0 cT ? 3 Q©Q 'OEPi.OF PIANNINGIpEVEI.OPM�Ni WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING • fir. `, y3��i�!�t,E;� rLC�EgIc l/., $-t�P P.O. Box 2397 Winchester, VA 22604 Phone 540-667-9300 L FAX 540-667-2260 Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director Department of Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Revised Master Development Plan Prince Frederick Office Park Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Wyatt, September 30, 1999 Forwarded herewith is a copy of a Master Development Plan (MDP) for the above referenced project which was revised as discussed during one of our recent meetings. It includes information from the first plan which was developed by PHR&A and approved in 1993. It also includes the corrected alignment for Costello Drive as shown on the recently submitted Subdivision Design Plans. We respectfully request that you review this MDP at your convenience and advise us as to revisions which may be necessary. We will also need to know the final numbers of signed copies which are required for formal submittal to your office. We appreciate your assistance on this project. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Enclosure S:\WORDPE—I\PROJECTS\CDO13\WYATT-2.MDP Sincerely, TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. C�4 - Ra L. Moulton, P.E. Senior Vice President EC' EVER OCT 0 11999 DEPT, OF PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT Triad Engineering, Inc. Morgantown • St. Albans • Logan Greensburg Winchester • Harrisonburg West Virginia Pennsylvania Virginia P.O. Box 2397 Winchester, VA 22604 Phone 540-667-9300 1041AD FAX 540-667-2260 September 1, 1999 Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director Department of Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Submission Requirements for Prince Frederick Office Park Phase II Roads - Costello Drive and Ryco Lane Dear Mr. Wyatt, In accordance with your suggestion during our telephone conversation yesterday afternoon, forwarded herewith is a preliminary copy of a Master Development Plan (MDP) for the above referenced project. It has been prepared based on the current plans for the Phase II roads which TRIAD has designed. While we are aware that an MDP was prepared and approved several years ago, we are seeking a decision from your department as to whether or not a revised MDP is required, and if so, whether or not it can be approved administratively. We are also aware that a Subdivision Design Plan must be submitted. However, we will need to know how many copies are required and the specific agencies to whom we must submit comment sheets. It is our understanding that you will be discussing this matter directly with Mr. Mike Ruddy. We will also need to ascertain approximate review times from your departments so that we can advise our clients accordingly. We appreciate your assistance in this matter, and we look forward to hearing from you or Mike Ruddy in the next few days if possible. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. "'E"El V'_ S E P 01 i99i DEPT, OF PLANNING/DEVELOpgN,, Enclosure S:\WORDPE--1\PROJECTS\CD013\WYATT.MDP Sincerely, TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. Rony L. Moulton, P.E. Senior Vice President. Triad Engineering, Inc. Morgantown • St. Albans • Logan Greensburg Winchester • Harrisonburg West Virginia Pennsylvania Virginia I October 29, 1999 Triad Engineering, Inc. Attn: Randy L. Moulton, P.E. P.O. Box 2397 Winchester, VA 22604 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 RE: Approval of Revised Master Development Plan for Prince Frederick Office Park Dear Randy: Frederick County administratively approved the referenced master development plan on October 28, 1999. This master- development plan was revised to delineate the new alignment for Costello Drive, to demonstrate the new lot areas for the acreage on the south side of Costello Drive, and to identify and describe the buffer and screening areas that are applicable to the office park. Please find attached three copies of the approved Final Revised Master Development Plan for distribution to all appropriate parties. Please do not hesitate to contactme if you have any questions regarding the information in this letter. Sincerely, Evan A. Wyatt, P Deputy Director EAW Attachment U:\Evan\Common\REVIEWS\RevisedPrinceFrederickof6ceParkMDPApprovalLetter wpd 107 North Rent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 tG�c��lr. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 June 10, 1993 Hazel & Thomas, PC Attn: Mr. Thomas H. Dickenson, Jr. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Dickenson: This letter is to advise you that on June 8, 1993, the Frederick County Planning Department administratively approved the Master Development Plan for Prince Frederick Office Park. This property, zoned B-2 (Business, General) and consisting of 91.903 acres, is located south of Route 50, west of Carper's Valley Golf Course, in the Shawnee District, and is identified by PIN 64-A-89. Two copies of the signed plan are enclosed for your records. Please give us a call if you have any questions regarding the approval of this master plan. Sincerely, a . Evan . WyatFt Planner 11 EAW/slk enclosure cc: Patton, Harris, Rust and Associates, Bridgewater, VA 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 F Pe I NCE rp-Eoee IL M p•P Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pe Engineers, TRANSMITTAL &A 3998 Fair Ridge Drive Surveyors, PfM PO Box 901 Planners & Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Landscape 703 273-8700 Architects County of Frederick Prince Frederick Office June 8. 1993 'pt.of Planning_&Development - DATE--- P.O. Box 601 Park in Winchester. 8149-10 9 Court Square Winchester, Virqinia 22601 Virqinia Regular Mail Mr. Robert W. Watkins DLH - 10 QUANTITY FILE NO. 8149-10 DATE. DESCRIPTION _ TRANSMITTED 06/01/93 Prince Frederick Office Park. XHerewith ❑ Under Separate Cover VDOT Comment Response MATERIAL ❑ Originals ❑ Photocopies -- ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Mylar ❑ Ozalid Prints ❑ Invoice ❑ Sepia PURPOSE _ ❑ Approval ❑ Your Use 'Your Files ❑ Please Return For your information and review. Corrected Prints ❑ Please Submit Revised Prints n i •r �� �CVt1 Ui,jt1;.lil Gr - -- DATE. :\. \ it +nia --- i Sn Rvrvnr. �rrllilrrt> June 1, 1993 Mr. William H. Bushman Transportation Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation P.O. Box 278 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 RE: PRINCE FREDERICK OFFICE PARK - FREDERICK COUNTY, VA VDOT TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS, DATED APRIL 26, 1993 PHR&A F-8149-10 Dear Mr. Bushman: In reply to the transportation comments from VDOT in Richmond, PHR&A=has prepared the following the responses to each individual VDOT comment. This letter will serve as an addendum to the Trip Generation Analysis for the Prince Frederick Office Park, dated March 8, 1993, by PHR&A and address the relevant transportation issues associated with the Master Plan for the 91.9 acre property. These elements are included in this format to comply with the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' approval of the Master Plan contingent on addressing staff issues. Paragraph references on from the March 8 memo and are cross-referenced to the VDOT letter: Comment L WAT&StuU Page 1, paragraph 4. The on -going Winchester Area Transportation Study does assess the long-range traffic impacts on an area -wide basis; however, it should be noted that the WATS 2015 forecast year is substantially beyond the Year 2003 site build -out date. Response 1: The site study did not analyze beyond build out of the site because the on -going Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS) will assess the regional impacts, since the site is zoned for commercial uses. Comment 2: Site Development Page 2, paragraph 2. Traditionally, roadway volumes have been determined on the basis of site generated traffic in addition to existing roadway traffic. This development process appears to be predicted on the basis of two entrances designed to geometric standards for a major collector roadway. We feel that state and local officials should receive some form of an enforceable understanding that the site will not be developed for more intense usage, or a mechanism providing for payment by the 'developer in the future. (0 Mr. William H. Bushman June 1, 1993 Page 2 Response 2: As part of the Master Plan approval, the property owner and the County staff have reviewed development potential for the property and presented potential development scenarios based on on land use mix and total site square footage; it does not exceed the final square footage stated in the March 8, 1993 memorandum. However, in this case the intersection and roadway designs are the catalysts that drive the amount of development. The pre«ous study determined the maximum allowable trips generated by the site (See Table 1), therefore, the land use may change but the site generated trips would not exceed the maximum. shown below. The site development will be consistent with the zoning regulations with the County. Final land uses are expected as office and R-D uses. Table 1 Prince Frederick Office Park Trip Generation AM Peak PM Peak Land Use IN OUT IN OUT ADT SCENARIO C (Phase 1 & 2 Ca) effective 0.175 GROSS FAR) Office Park- 610,577 SF 906 112 123 ' 697 6,575 Office - . 90.000 SF 152 64 29 140 1263 Total 700,577 SF 1,059 131 152 837 7,838 Effective Rate > 1.52 0.19 0.22 1.19 11.19 Trip rates shown are effective rates per 1,000 gsf. FAR computations did not include reduced site area for unbuildable areas or roadway dedication. Comment 3: Page 4. Background Traffic. The basis for the existing volume (15,000) shown as the 1991 ADT should be documented in the report. If the 24 hour volume was 10% expanded from the peak hour counts, the expansion factor should be included for our review. Also, since only P.M. peak hour counts were obtained, an explanation should be included to show how A.M. peak hour volumes were derived for existing and forecasted volumes. Response 3: The 15,000 vpd is from the VDOT 1991 Average Daily Traffic Volumes. The AM peak hour volumes were derived by reversing the PM peak hour directional volumes and then reducing them by 10 percent. 'The reduction was derived' from VDOT daily link spot counts (collected in the summer of 1992) on Route 50 in Loudoun ' County where the AM peak hour; volumes were approximately 87 percent of the PM peak hour volumes. PHR&A used engineering judgement for the i application in Frederick County. %, ' . A -0 Mr. William H. Bushman June 1, 1993 Page 3 Comment .4:. Site' Traffic. A wide range of Floor -Area -Ratios (FAR) are cited in.the text of the report with a maximum FAR of 0.35 (32 Ac.) `for the total site. This is substantially less than the 0.175 FAR (21.7 Ac) used for traffic generation. As previously noted, the,0.175 FAR equates to the maximum traffic volume that can be accommodated with roadway geometrics of a major collector facility. We feel that a realistic site development plan should be utilized to generate site traffic. This is particularly critical to the protection of public investment in the existing roadways, and public safety on local roadways. Response 4: The March 8, 1993 study stated that the maximum FAR the site could develop at is 0.35 assuming at -grade parking is maximized. This FAR was based on overall development -on projects in a suburban setting. This FAR may be achieved assuming a low intensity land use such as warehouse. However, as stated to the Board of Supervisors and based on the site plan developed for the Corps of Engineers panel on -site, the overall property incorporates several elements which reduce developable land area. Whatever FAR is assumed, the total trips generated would not exceed the maximum shown in Table 1. Comment 5a: Level -of -Service page 6. A Level -of -Service analysis should be included for the No-Buildcondition for each forecast year (1996 and 2003). Response 5a: Capacity analysis was performed for the 2003 No -Build Scenario. The intersections were first assumed to be unsignalized because a signal will probably not be warranted, however, the minor approaches fail during the peak periods. Both intersections were then assumed to be signalized, which resulted in Levels of Service for all approaches to be acceptable during the peak hours. The assumed no -build lane geometry is shown on the attached HCM worksheets. Comment 5b: Signal Operation The Level -of -Service analysis assumed that a semi -actuated signal will be installed at the site entrances. This assumption results in an unbalanced and less than acceptable Level -of -Service C as shown in figures 2, 4, and 6. A fully actuated signal will provide acceptable Levels -of -Service on all approach lanes under the stated conditions. A memorandum (dated September 10, 1986) noting VDOT's current policy regarding lane group balancing is attached for your, reference and information. Mr. William H. Bushman June 1, 1993 Page 4 Response 5b: The Level of Service analysis was revised for the buildout Scenario C assuming actuated signals and 5 percent trucks on mainline Route 50. For the north bound approaches at both intersections the Levels of Service will be at an acceptable 'C' during the peak hours (See attached HCM worksheets). Comment 5c. Turn lanes We would also point out that no length is noted for the right turn lane at Ryco Road. In addition, we feel that the two -right turn lanes in such close proximity may cause unsafe operating conditions and should be reviewed further in the interest of public safety. Response 5c: The eastbound right turn lane on Route 50 at Ryco Road currently exists. The two intersections into the site are approximately 1,200 feet apart (which exceeds VDOT median crossover spacing for 50 MPH design speed). Also, the queue analysis and VDOT Road Design guidelines do not warrant a 1/4 mile right turn lane. In our opinion, the access locations will function independently with the separate turn lanes. Additionally, the owners of the Office Park do not own the property along eastbound Route 50 for a continuous turn lane. Comment 6: Queue Analysis Page 8, item 2. A queue analysis is not included in the report even though the results are cited for left and right turn lanes. Response 6: The Scenario C revised queue analysis worksheets are attached. The analysis is based upon AASHTO and VDOT methodology. Comment 7: Page 9, item 3. No basis for the conclusion that a continuous right turn lane is not warranted on Route 50 eastbound. We have previously noted that this amenity be further considered for reasons of travel safety. Response 7: See Response to Comment 5c. Comment 8a: Traffic Distribution Figure 5. Some rational explanation should be provided for the traffic volume distribution between Ryco Lanes (3582 VPD) and Prince Frederick Drive (5526 VPD) .in the Year 2003. Response 8a:. The reason more site traffic was assumed on Prince Frederick Drive is that its intersection with Route 50 has a higher capacity than the Ryco Lane intersection. Also Prince Frederick Drive will serve as the site's primary entrance. The Phase 1 development for the Corps of Engineers_ site will access via Prince Frederick; Drive to the median crossover. Mr. VX liam H. Bushman June 1, 1993 Page 5 Comment 8b: Density Comparison In addition to the site impact report, a separate single sheet summary of the traffic analysis was provided for our review. The following differences between the sun'=ary sheet and the report were noted: Summary Sheet Site Report Total Usable Acreage 60 Ac N/A Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.20 0.35 Scenario "C" FAR N/A 0.175 Total Projected Space (S.F.) 522,720 700,577 Street Classification Volume 3,000 VPD 3,000-8,000 VPD Proposed FAR 0.26 0.175 Additional Considerations No turn lanes Lt. & Rt. turn on Route 50 lanes on Rte. 50 Response 8b: The site trip study and the summary sheet have different objectives. The site trip study is more indepth and determined the maximum trip generation for the site in regards to the intersection and roadway design to satisfy VDOT design elements. The summary sheet simplifies the traffic volume assignments and does not look at the detailed intersection operations. The summary sheet was prepared by the owner to show the proposed square footage and the 24-hour traffic it generates, based orx the 4th Edition of- the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Table 2 illustrates the resulting trips for Prince Frederick Office Park land uses assumed in the summary, using rates from the up-to-date 5th Edition. These resulting trips are less than the maximum shown in Table 1. Table 2 Prince Frederick Office Park Trip Generation AM Peak PM Peak Land Use I14 OUT IN OUT ADT SUWAARY SHEET (effective 0.20 NET FAR) CORPS OF ENGINEERS Office - 50,000 SF 99 12 19 93 829 R&D- 42,000. SF 43 -9- 7 38 323 Total 92,000 SF 142 21 26 131 1,152 REMAINING SITE Office - 219,360 SF 433 54 83 408 3,637 R&D- 211.360 SF; 216 '44 34 192 1.627 Total 430;720 SF 649 98 117 600 5,264 wi Total 5221720 SF 791 119 143 731 6,416 Effective Rate > 1.51 0.23 0.27 ' L40 12.27 Mr. William H. Bushman June 1, 1993 Page 6 The assumed office rates were based on the average rate for a 50,000 SF building. Comparisons to the Table 1 data illustrate that with development levels for the net property with an office and R-D mix (as projected by the owners), the site generation is less than the traffic projections in the March report. Therefore, the design elements to be incorporated in the roadway design are conservative since the peak hour volumes with the Office/R-D mix are less than the design volumes used to determine turn lanes. PHR&A elected to use the higher volume scenario to allow for flexibility. CONCLUSIONS PHR&A has updated the traffic study technical elements and has responded to the VDOT comments presented in Mr. R C. Lockwood's April 26, D93 correspondence. The enclosed HCM worksheets for the no -build condition and the build condition of Scenario C demonstrate adequate operations at the subject intersections. With site volumes, the Route 50 access will operate at approach LOS C for movements in/out of the proposed Prince Frederick Office Park. We believe Mr. Lockwood's elements #1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 have been addressed as discussed above. Element #4 regarding limiting measures for site development has been reviewed with the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to justify that the proposed development assumed for the Master Plan is realistic in terms of the site development constraints. The owners of the property have provided development contingencies to dedicate an 80 foot roadway for the on -site roadway network to allow a future four lane facility if warranted, if long-term access is provided between Prince Frederick Office Park and the properties to the west (to Route 522). The owners have also agreed as part of the Master Plan development approval to build on -site the roadways to the property edge to ensure that future interparcel access is feasible. These elements provide that the project will be developed in conformance with the Master Plan. :The intersection operates as outlined for the worst -case scenario "C". densities; so actual on -site development envisioned by the owners can be accommodated with the proposed access plan. 0 (. Mr. William H. Bushman June 1, 1993 Page 7 If you have any questions regarding the responses, please call either Doug Kennedy or me at (703) 273-8700. Additional detail comments regarding design elements and development conditions are best associated with the on -site roadway construction, which is proceding independently of the Master Plan revisions. Sincerely, PATTON, HARRIS, RUST & ASSOCIATES A Professional Corporation Lance Hartland Douglas R.. Kennedy, P.E. Transportation Engineer Senior Project Manager ; cc: Tom Dickerson - Hazel & Thomas Carl J. Rinker Jr. - PHR&A John Hash - PHR&A Bruce Edens - Greenway Enclosures - i DLH: jyr 1-985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT :tXX * * * A * A * A A AAAX:tX:t:t/c;t:t/c;t:t:tit;t:t:t/cX:t:kA-k;t:t;t:t:t:t:t:t:c;tX:t't:tX:tAYc*:tX:t:t:tX:t:t x:t INTERSECTION. Route 50/Ryco Lane AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE .......... 05-11-93 TIME.......... AM Peak Hour. COMMENT ....... 2003 - PFOP 0.17.5 FAR - R_,n 5 --------------------------- -------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB `*B : EB WB NB SB LT 0 65 35 0 : T 12.0 L 12.0 LR 12.0 12.0 TH 1364 -787 0 n : T 12.n T 12.0 12.0 12._0 FT 79 rl 20 n R 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12„0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12. 0 12. 0 12.0 12.0 12. ;� -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENI" FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT, ARR. TYPE (%) (0 Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 11.3 3 WB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 11.3 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 25.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 25.8 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 90.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-' EB LT RB LT X TH X TH RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT TH X X TH RT RT PD PD GREEN 8.-0 55.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 1. 7, 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOG EB T 0.729 0.622 8.3 B 6.7 B R 0.440 0.811 1.8 A WB L 0.255 0.744 2.9 A 2.6 A T 0.351 0.744 2.6 A NB LR 0.263 0.189 20.2 C 20.2 C -=--------------------__--------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 5.7 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.572 LOS = B 1985 HCM. SIGNALIZED _iNTEPSEC710NS gIJMMARY REPORT X X:t XX:t :t X:t X X X X X* X X;t X:t X X:t X:tXX:tX XXX:tX:tXXXXX>t:t X X XX:t:t X X X X X X X:tXXX:t<tXX X XXXJC JCX XXX INTERSECTION. Route 0/Ryoo L.=ne AREA TYPE..... OTHER - ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE .......... 05-11-93 TIME.......... PM Peak Hour COMMENT ....... 2003 - PFOP 0.175 FAR - Run 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NE SB LT 0 22 230 0. 7 12.0 L 12.0 L R 12. ,-) 12.0 TH 848 is5i O 0 . T 12.0 T 12.0 12.=' 12.0- RT 71 0 55 0 : R 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12. ,E 12. n 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.01 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJIJSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. B11-. ARR. TYPE Y/N Nm NL' Y/N min T EB 0.00 5.00 N O 0 0.90 5 N = . 5 3 WB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 5..5 NB 0.00 2. 00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 2i---. 5 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 2:� . 5 3 ------------------------------------=---------------------------------- - ST_GNAL SETTINGS CYCLE '_�NGTH = 90.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT Y TH X TH RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT TH X X TH RT RT PD PD GREEN 7.0 43.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C. DEL.AY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB T 0.577 0.489 10.9 B 10.2 B R 0.064 0.822 1.0 A WB L 0.075 0.600 5.7 B 11.9 B T 0.859 0.600 11.9 B NB LR 0.773 0.333 22.6 C 22.6 C ----------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 12.3.(seo/veh) V/C = 0.829 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED T_PC*SEGTTON1S S1-IMMARY REPORT :k.t ;k:k *;t;k X;k A* X;k *;k ;k;t :t >t ;t rt < xis ;k yc ;k k;k :k ;k ;k;t ;k;k ;k;t*;k;k:t;k :t ;k =t :k;k X;t :c ;t :k :k AA Xrt;tA X Jt ;t ;t;k :k;kX INTERSECTION.. Route 50/Prince Frederick Drive AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE .......... 05/27/0z TIME.......... AM Peak Hour COMMENT...... 2003 - PF-OP @ 0.175 FAR - Run 5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY, EB WB NB SE.;; EB WB NB SB LT 37 160 89 25": L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 11.0 TH 914 644 1 11 : T 12.0 T 12.0 LT 12.0 12.0 RT 454 7 24 93 : T 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 RR 0 O 0 0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12. () 12.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS RED. BUT. ARR. TYPE' (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 O N 2.3.5 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0.90 0 N 23.5 .3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-! PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT ?' PD PD ! WB LT X X S8 LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 6.0 56.0 ,0.0 0.0 GREEN 27.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 ------------------------------------------ -------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.115 0.550 9.9 B 12.5 B T 0.640 0.475 15.9 C R 0.483 0.700 5.5 B WB L 0.596 0.550 19.0 C 14.7 B TR 0.456 0.475 13.8 B NB L 0.132 0.225 28.2 D 25.0 C. LT 0.130 0.225 26.0 C R 0.064 0.275 20.7 C SB LTR 0.715 0.150 37.7 D 37.7 D ---------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- INTERSECTION• Delay = 15.1 -(sec/veh) V/C = 0.562 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPOR- :t t ;t* XKk kA < XXA Tic A )r* X:t X *X;k kX:tx xk :c <t:t;t=t �c JC t Y<h:t 7c :t t t is 9c Jt��Jt Yc :t /c :tX iNTERSECTION.. Route 50./Princ. e Frederick r,riv= AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST.......PHR&A DATE .......... OS/27/93 TIME.......... PM Peak Hour COMMENT ....... 2003 PFOP = 0.175 FAR - ruin 5 VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB W8 NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 104 27 540 7 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 11.0 TH 699 1016 8 2 T 12.0 T 12.0 LT 12.0 12.0 RT 59 ?� 127 55 T 12.O TR 1 .0 R 12.0 12.0 RR 0 , 0 O : R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.O --------------------------------=-----------------------------------------; ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE W W Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14..5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 n N 23.5 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 O N 23.5 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-'4 EB LT y X NB LT X TH X TH X j RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT Y TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN _6.0 54.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 36.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRF. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.444 0.533, 14.7 B 14.1 B T 0.507 0.458 15.0 C R 0.058 0.758 2.4 A WB L 0.094 0.533 10.5 B 18.7 C TR 0.764 0.458 18.9 C NB L 0.599 0.300 28.7 D 24.9 C LT 0.598 0.300 24.3 C R 0.266 0.350 18.1 C SB LTR' 0.576 0.092 37.7 D 37.7 D -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 19.2 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.666 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIOI\.IS SUMMARY REPORT kkyc k:tkYtkk tk:t it 7t:tkk k:tyt:ck:tkkkk;k :K k;t k k k kk k k k k:tk hkkk kk kk kkx k k:t k kkkk:tkkk7ck7Ck INTERSECTION.. Route '"'-ill/Prince Frederick Drive AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE .......... n5/27/9.3 TIME.......... AM Peak Hour COMMENT ....... 2003 - No Bpild -------------------------=-•----------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 37 1 12 29 .•L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 11.0 TH 907 592 1 1 . T 12.O T 12.0 12.0 12.0 RT 41 -7 4 93 : TR 1?.C1 TR 12.0 n 12.0 RR 0 n 0 n. 1.:2. 12.n 12 n 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12,0 1 2.f-i 1­".n 12,0 AD.71._1STMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BJ_lT. ARR. TYPE YIN Nm Nh Y/N min T EB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0. 0.90 0 N 8.4 3 WB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0.. 0.90 0 N 8.4 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 20.5 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 20.5 3 -------------------•-----------------------------------------------•--------- =IGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH -!a EB LT X X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 10.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE.GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.075 0.700 4.3 A 9.5 B TR 0.536 0.592 9.7 B WB L 0.003 0.700 4.1 A. 8.1 B TR 0.337 0.592 8.1 B NB LTR 0.063 0.250 22.2 C 22.2 C SB LTR 0.396 0.250 24.5 C 24.5 C -=------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION; Delay = 10.1 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.469 LOS = B 1P85 HCM: SIGNALIZED _TNTE::;R°=ECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT K* X A:C * * * X Xk* * ** x <X Ykh X A Xx /c X A * Yc INTERSECTION. R^_: 50/Prime Frederick Lori k,,e AREA TYPE.....07HER ANALYST ....... PHR&.A DATE .......... 05/27/g3 TIME.......... PM Peak �41our COMMENT ....... 2003 - Nc-Build ----------------------- VOLUMES -------------------------------------------------- GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB• : EB WB NB SB LT 104 4 46 7 : L 12.0 L =2.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 11.0 TH 657 1008 1 1 : T 12.0 T _2.0 12.0 12.0 RT 1 33 1 55 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 _2.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ._ 2.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEGS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 8.4 3 WB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 8.4 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 O N 20.5 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N O n 0.90 0 N 20.5 3 ---------------------------------- SIGNAL -•---------------------------------------- SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 F`H-4 EB LT X X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT x X SB LT u TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 10.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.416 0.700 6.7 B 8.1 B TR 0.370 0.592 8.3 B WB L 0.009 0.700 4.1 A, 10.2 B TR 0.588 0.592 10.2 B NB LTR 0.167 0.250 22.8 C 22.8 C SB LTR 0.207 0.250 23.0 C 23.0 C INTERSECTION: Delay = 10.1 (sec/veh) VIC = 0.468 LOS = B 19S5 Hi:M• SIGNALIZED INTERSECTT-ONS SUMMARY REPORT ;t X;t ;t Jt ;tA <:t ;t;t ;t ;t;t X;t ;t;t :t x;t Ayc;t yc Yc ;t ;t Yc Yc;t INTERSECTION.. Route, 50/Ryco L_arle AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ... ;...PHR&A DATE........ .-05/27/93 TIME .......... ,AM Peak Hour COMMENT ....... 20.03 - No Build ----------------- ---- ------------------------------------------------------ VOLUM S GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 0 12 9 1- T 12. O L 12.0 L R 12 . "D 12.0 TH 951 710 0 0 _ 12, CJ T 12. 0 1 2. 1, 12.0 RT 56 0 1.3 0 T 12.0 11 _ 12. r, RR 0 0 0 0: 12. 0 12.0 12. 0 12. ID 12. i1 12 PDJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV Aid? PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE ( ) (o) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N mi,- T EB 0.00 5.00 N 0 Cl 0.90 5 N 1i.3 3 WB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 11.3. 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 25.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 25.8 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE _=NGTH = 90.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH X TH RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT TH X X TH RT RT PD PD GREEN 8.0 55.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELA'r APP. LOS EB T 0.508 0.622 6.2 B 5.9 B R 0.051 0.811 1.1 A WB L 0.037 0.744 2.3 A 2.5 A T 0.317 0.744 2.5 A NB LR 0.105 0.189 19.5 C 19.5 C ---- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 4.7 (sec/Veh) V/C = 0.365 LOS = A 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ;k ;k :t ;t ;t :t :k ;k ;t A * * * :k ;k rt yk ;k x :k ;k :k ;k Jk X :k yc ;k ;k ;k K :k :k A ;k ;k ;t ;k ;k yc ;k 7c ;k ;k :t ;k ;k :t M A * x ;k :k 7t :t x x INTERSECTION.. Route 50/F-co Lane AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST: PHR&.A DATE...... .05/27/93 TIME ......... .,PM Peak Hour COMMENT...... 2003 - No Build -------------=------------------------------------------------------------ VOCUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 0 15 62 0 T 12.0 L 12.0 LR 12.0 12.0 TH 789 1057 0 0 T 12.0 T 12.C° 12.0 12.0 RT 10 0 13 0 R 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.O RR 0 O 0 0 12.0 12.C, 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.C, 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 1-;,.0 12.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 11.:3 3 WB 0.00 5.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 11.3 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 25.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 25.8 3 ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 90.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH y TH RT X RT u PD PD WB LT X X SB LT TH X X TH RT RT PD PD GREEN 8.0 55.0 0.0 _0.0 GREEN 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB T 0.421 0.622 5.7 B 5.6 B R 0.009 0.811 i.0 A WB L 0.036 0.74.4 2.3 A 3.0 A T 0.472 0.744 3.0 A NB Lk 0.359 0.189 20.9 C 20.9 C -=------------------------------------------------------ 7----------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 4.7 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.449 LOS = A 1984 AASHTO: QUEUE ANALYSIS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Patton, Harris, Rust, & Associates ---------------- Streets: (E-W) ROUTE 50 (N-S) PRINCE FREDERICK DR Analyst: DLH File Name: PFP2R5QU.WK1 Date: ..05/28/93 Comment:";2003 - PFOP @ 0.175 FAR - RUN 5 -------=-------------------------------=----------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Input Data & Adjustment Factors ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- Auto Length- 7 25 ft ; AM Cycle Length = 120 secs ____> 30 Cycles/hr Prob. Factor'-'= 2.0 ; PM Cycle Length = 120 secs =___> 30 Cycles/hr Design Speeds = (E-W) 50 mph (N-S) 35 mph Min. Stopping Distance = (E-W). 475 feet (N-S) 250 -feet *** --------------- 7--------------=---------------------------------------------- Eastbound ; Westbound ; Northbound ; Southbound L T R* ; L T R* ; L T R*; L T R* ----- ----------,---- ---------- ,---- - ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- No.Lanes; 1. 2 1; 1 2< 0; 1> 1 1 0> 1{ 0 ------------------------------------------------------------=--------------- AM Vols 1 37 914 454 1160 644 7 1 89 1 24 1 29 11 93 AM % HV ; 2% 5%. 2%; 2% 5% 2%; 2% 2% 2%, 2% 2% 2% --------------------7-------------------------------------------------------- PM Vols ; 104 699 59 ; 27 1016 33 ; 540 8 127;; 7 2 55 PM % HV ; 2% 5% 2%; 2% 5% 2V 2% 2% 25; 2% 2% 2% Queue Analysis Summary ----------------------=----------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour ; PM Peak Hour ;; **Max Que Lane ; g/C veh/ Total Que/1 g/C veh/ Total Que/ ; Per Lane Mvmnts ;Ratio Cycle Que Lane;Ratio Cycle Que Lane ;;;. (feet) --------;----------------_ --- ___------------- -------- ----------------- EB L 10.55 1 28 !28 ;0.53 4 84 84 84 T 10.47 32 . 842 � 421. ; 0. 45 25 700 350 ; ; " 421 R ; O 7 15 227 227 10.75 2 24 24 ;; 227 WB L 110.55 5 .122 122 10.53 1 22 22 122 TR 10.4,7 22 '570 285 10.45 36 1018' 509 ;; 509. 0 0 .0 0; 0 0 O. O ;; O. NB L 10.22 2 60 60 0.3 9 335 335 ;; 335 LT :0.22 2 59 59 ; 0.3 9 331 331 ;; 331 R 10.27 1 29 29'10.35 4 140 140 ;; 140 0 O O O; 0 O O O ;; 0 SB LTR :0.15 5 192 192 10.09. 2 101 101 ;_.; 192 0 O 0 O i O O 0 0 i i 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Right-tur-n.voiume minus RTOR. ** Length of Turn Lanes (exclusive of taper) equal to the,Storage Length•(Queue)_ `Minimum Stopping Distance includes taper. t { i 6 1984 .AASHTO: QUEUE ANALI'�S FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSEC�ONS Page 1 Patton, Harris, Rust, & Associates Streets:.(E-W) ROUTE 50 (N-S) RYCO.LANE Analyst: DLH File Name: RYP2R50U.WK1 Date: 05/28/93 Comment: 2bO3 - PFOP @ 0.175 FAR - RUN 5 Input Data & Adjustment Factors ------------ 7------------------------------------------------ Auto Length =.- 25 fit ; AM Cycle Length = 90 secs =___} 40 Cycles/hr Prob. Factor =. 2.0 ; PM Cycle Length = 90 secs =_=_} 40 Cycles/hr Design Speeds = (E-W) 40 mph (N-S) 30 mph Min. Stopping Distance.= (E-W) 325 feet (N-S) 200 fleet *** -----------------------------------------------=---------------------------- Eastbound ; Westbound ; Northbound ; Southbound L T R* ; L T R* ; L T R*; L T R* ' ----- -----' -----'----- ----- '---- ----- ---- No.Lanes; 0 2 1; 1 2 O; O? 0< O; 0 O 0 --------------------------------------------------------------;-------------- AM Vols ; O 1364 479 ; 65 787 0 ; 35 0 20 ; O O 0 AM % HV ; 0% 5%.. 2%; 2% 5% 0%; 2% 0% 2%, O% O% 0% ----------------- PM Vols ; 0 -=---=------------------------------------------------------- 848 71 ; 22 1551 0 ; 230 0 55 ; 0 O O PM % HV ; o% 5% 2%; 2% 5% 0%; 2% 0% 2%;- 0% 0% 0% Queue Analysis Summary ----------------------- AM Peak ----------------------------------------------------- Hour ; PM Peak Hour ;;. **Max Que Lane ; g/C veh/ Total Que/1 g/C veh/ .Total Que/ ;; Per Lane, Mvmnts ;Ratio Cycle Que: Lane;Ratio Cycle Que Lane ;; (feet) -------- ------------------- ---;.---=--------------------;;------------------ t 0 0 0 'O ; O o O 0 ;; 0 EB T 10.62 36 678 339 10.48 22 600 300 ;;. 339 R 10.81 12 113 113 '0.82 2 16 16 ;; 113 WB L 110.74' 2 .21 21 ; 0.6 1 11 1.1 ;; 21 T 110.74' 20 252 126 ; 0.6 40 833 416 ;; 416 0` 0 O 0; 0 O O O ;; o 0 0 O o; O O O 0 ;; O NB LR 10.18 1 0 57 10.33 7 242 242 ;; 242 O O 0 O; 0 0 0 O ;; O 0 0 0 0; O 0 O 0 ;; o o o 0 0; 0 0 0 0 0 o j o 0 0; o 0 0 0 ;; o * Right -turn volume minus RTOR. **_Length of Turn Lanes (exclusive of taper) equal to the Storage Length•(Queue). ***Minimum Stopping t r f Distance • includes taper. leds) Stoppi *ight Distance (VDOT Sta� Design Speed (mph) 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Min. Lane Length 50 100 100 125 200 275 350 450 525 Taper* 100 100 150 200 200 200 200 200 200 Stopping Distance 150 200 250 325 400 475 550 650 725 F Ay . N D P T. COMMONWEALTH of VIRCj INIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN COMMISSIONER RESIDENT ENGINEER May 26, 1993 Mr. H. Bruce Edens Ref: Prince Frederick Office Park C/O Greenway, Inc. Route 50/17 970 Baker Lane Frederick County Winchester, VA 22603 Dear Bruce: We are in receipt of the referenced project's site plans dated April 29, 1993. We have forwarded them onto our District Office for review. However, as we recently discussed we will be unable to complete our review or approve the site plan until the issues we provided you concerning the project's traffic impact analysis have been addressed. Should you have any questions or would want to discuss the matter further, please let me know. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior RBC/rf xc: Mr. J. B. Diamond Mr. T. L. Jackson Mr. S. A. Melnikoff Mr. R. W. Watkins Mr. James L. McIlvaine MAY1993 w. RECEIVED DEPT. OF pLANNING + AND DEMENT TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY • A DP COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 May 10, 1993 Patton Harris Rust & Associates Attn: Mr. George Foard, LS 100 South Main Street, P.O. Box 46 Bridgewater, Virginia 22812 RE: Prince Frederick Master Development Plan Dear Mr. Foard: This letter regards the information that Frederick County will require to be incorporated on the Final Master Development Plan for the Prince Frederick Office Park project. Please revise this plan to include the following information: 1) Storm Water Management Plan - Mr. Whit Wagner provided the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors with a storm water management study for this project. Please incorporate the language contained under the heading Storm Water Management Plan onto the Final Master Development Plan. I have provided you with a copy of this study. 2) Environmental Features - The current Master Development Plan states that there are 20 acres of land defined as steep slope, and 30.5 acres of land defined as woodlands. Please provide the amount of each type of environmental feature that will be disturbed through the creation of roads, installation of water lines, sewer lines, and gas lines, and the creation of storm water management facilities. Please submit four once the revisions PHR&A with a final Sincerely, &L� �. `- Evan A. Wyatt Planner II (4) copies of the Final Master are complete. We will provide approved copy of the plan. cc: Mr. James L. Mcllvaine, Jr. Mr. Whit L. Wagner Mr. Thomas Dickenson 9 North Loudoun Street Winchester, VA 22601 Development Plan the applicant and P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22604 PRINCE FREDERICK OFFICE PARK STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SUMMARY WATERSHED DESCRIPTION - The total water shed that contributes to the existing Route 50 pond at the Carpers Valley Golf Course entrance is approximately 1,100 acres. Of this acreage approximately 460 acres are in the Sulfur Springs Run watershed and 640 acres of contribution flows from north to south under Route 50 just above or at the pond. Based on the current "C" factors, 38 % of the water thru the Route 50 pond flows from Sulphur Springs Run and 62 % flows under Route 50. CONTRIBUTION FROM OFFICE PARK - Prince Frederick Office Park contains 92 acres or 20 % of the Sulfur Springs Run flow and 7.6 % of the total flow thru the existing Route 50 pond. Per the county ordinance each site or subdivision is required to retain storm water equal only to the difference between pre and post development. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN - The developers propose to provide storm water management (SWM) ponds as shown on the revised master plan. The developers will* also dedicate the area along the Sulphur Springs Run as shown on the master plan for a regional SWM facility to be developed by the county under a future regional SWM plan. The developer further agrees to contribute its pro -rated share of the regional facility for any sites developed after the approval and/or construction of the regional facility. 4 �J COMMONWEALTH of VIRINIA S/a CO � RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER Mr. Richard A. Edens C/O Greenway, Inc. 970 Baker Lane Winchester, VA 22603 Dear Mr. Edens: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 278 EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT ENGINEER May 4, 1993 984-4133 FAX (703)►984-9761 Ref: Prince Frederick Office Park Route 50 Frederick County This office has no overall objections to the development of the referenced project. However, we will be unable to sign off on the dedication plat for Prince Frederick Drive until site plans detailing roadway geometrics and drainage design have been reviewed and approved. Should you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer 6�� /6. Aja/-C-�— By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior RBC/rf Enclosures xc: Mr. Steve A. Melnikoff Mr. Robert W. Watkins MAY - 5 1993 Il TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY ed' } REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION COMMENTS Virginia Department of Transportation Attn:, Resident Engineer P.O. Box 278 Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0278 (703) 984-4133 The local office of the Transportation Department is located at 1550 Commerce St.. in Winchester if you prefer to hand deliver this form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: 9 %O 34 Ke-=- ;;�' ,C,4/,Ze7 �c�l ST�f?� 114 226o3 Name of development and/or description of the request: 4PI2-\ t,LCJE, -D Z\\E; - "� = -D%;fD ►LL71 i 1. IL�^CS Location: Va. Dept. of Transportation Comments: See attached letter dated May 4, 1993.from W. H. Bushman to Greenway, Inc. VDOT Signature and Date: G✓wz,--� (NOTICE TO RESIDENT ENGINEER*PLEAS E RETURN THIS FORM T j1 93 P LICANT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. -14- RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 EDINBURG, 22824 Mr. H. Bruce Edens C/O Greenway, Inc. 970 Baker Lane Winchester, VA 22603 Dear Bruce: May 4, 1993 PRNcr F ePWtIc� C-- h� MpP WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE(703)984-4133 FAX (703) 984-9761 Ref: Prince Frederick Office Park Route 50 Frederick County We have reviewed the referenced project's trip generation analysis. Our comments may be found on the enclosed copy of letter dated April 26, 1993 from Mr. R. C. Lockwood. Any questions you may have should be directed to Mr. George Pierce or Mr. Walter Prible of Mr. Lockwood's office at (804) 786-3600. Once the enclosed comments have been addressed, please resubmit four (4) copies of the analysis for further review. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans Resident Engineer Q,4,e.4z /d. 1 Zja� By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior RBC/rf Enclosure xc: Mr. R. C. Lockwood 2Mr. S. A. Melnikoff IF [E L52 Mr. R. W. Watkins MAY - 5199(3 TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY fn U� 4q. B • /-UIS,yn;05 y t>}c�aii� R % � G IJ COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION y 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RAY D. PETHTEL RICHMOND, 23219 RICHARD C.-WCKWOOD COMMISSIONER April 26, 1993 .. ` TRANSPORTATION PI N�ING ENGINEER Prince Frederick Office Park Traffic Impact Analysis Frederick County MEMORANDUM To - Mr. R. L. Moore In accordance with Mr. W. H. Bushman's memorandum dated March 26, 1993, we have reviewed the subject site impact study for the complete development (Scenario C). We offer the following comments: Page 1, paragraph 4 The on -going Winchester Area Transportation Study does assess the long-range traffic impacts on an area -wide basis; however, it should be noted that the WATS 2015 forecast year is substantially beyond the Year 2003 site build -out date. Page 2, paragraph 2. Traditionally, roadway volumes have been determined on the basis of site generated traffic in addition to existing roadway traffic. This development process, appears to be predicted on the basis of two entrances designed to geometric standards for a major collector roadway. We feel that state and local officials should receive some form of an enforceable understanding that the site will not be developed for more intense usage, or a mechanism providing for payment by the developer in the future. Page 4. Background Traffic The basis for the existing volume (15,000) shown as the 1991 ADT should be documented in the report. If the 24 hour volume was expanded from the peak hour counts, the expansion factor should be included for our review. Also, since only P.M. peak hour counts were obtained, an explanation should be included to show how A.M. peak hour volumes were derived for existing and forecasted volumes. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY t Mr. R. L. Moore. Page 2 April 26, 1993 Site Traffic A wide range.of Floor-Area-Ratios.(FAR) are cited in the text of the report with a maximum FAR of 0.35 (32 Ac.) for the total site. This is substantially less than the 0.175 FAR (21.7Ac) used for traffic generation. As previously noted, the 0.175 FAR equates to the maximum traffic volume that can be accommodated with roadway geometrics of a major collector facility. We feel that a realistic site development plan should be utilized to generate site traffic. This is particularly critical to the protection of public investment in the existing roadways, and public safety on local roadways. Level -of -Service (page 6) A Level -of -Service analysis should be included for the No -Build condition for each forecast year (1996 and 2003). The Level -of -Service analysis assumed that a semi -actuated. signal will be installed at the site entrances. This assumpti.on results in an unbalanced and less than acceptable Level -of -Service C.as shown in figures 2, 4, and 6. A fully actuated signal will provide acceptable Levels -of -Service on all approach lanes under the stated conditions. A memorandum (dated September 10, 1986) noting VDOT's.current policy regarding lane group balancing is attached for your reference and information. We would also point out that no length is noted for the right turn lane at Ryco Road. In addition, we feel that the two -right turn lanes in such close proximity may cause unsafe operating conditions and should be reviewed further in the interest of public safety. Page 8, item 2 A queue analysis is not included in the report even though the results are.cited for left and right turn lanes. Page 9, item 3 No basis for the conclusion that a -continuous right turn lane is not warranted on Route 50 eastbound. We have previously noted that this amenity be further considered for reasons of travel safety. Mr. R. L. Moore Page 3 April 26, 1993 Figure 5 Some rational explanation should be provided for the traffic volume distribution between Ryco Lanes (3582 VPD) and Prince Frederick Drive (5526 VPD).in the Year 2003. In addition to the site, impact report, a separate single sheet summary of the traffic analysis was provided for our review. The following differences between the summary sheet and the report were noted: Total Usable Ac Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Scenario "C" FAR Total Projected Space (.S.F.) Street Classification Volume Proposed FAR Additional Considerations Summary Sheet 60 Ac 0.20 N/A ,522,720 3,000 VPD 0.26 No turn Lanes on Route 50 Site Report N/A 0.35 0.175 700,577. 3,000-8,000 VPD 0.175. Lt. & Rt. turn Lanes on Rte. 50 We strongly recommend that the noted differences be reconciled before further action is taken on this proposed development. Review Summary Based.on our review, we recommend the following changes/additions be.incorporated in the traffic analysis report: 1. 'Provide background data .on derivation of existing 24-hour traffic volumes with an analysis of existing conditions. Also provide data for A.M. peak hour conditions. 2. Provide an analysis of the No -Build conditions for each forecast year 3. Utilize a fully actuated signal system in the capacity analysis, and include the results of the queue analysis in the report appendix. Also, the truck percentage used (2%) in the analysis procedures should be documented. 4. Develop trip generation volumes for the full build -out condition, or provide limiting measures to prevent over saturation of proposed entrance geometrics-. Mr. R. L. Moore Page 4 April 26, 1993 5. Undertake further review of the proposed eastbound right turn lane(s) to ensure safe operating conditions when the site is .completed. 6. Provide supporting information to substantiate the traffic volume split on the two site entrances. 7. Resolve the noted differences between the site report and the accompanying summary analysis. We apologize for the lengthy delay in replying to your request, due to our current workload and limited staff availability, however, if you have any questions or desire further discussion of our review comments please feel free to contact George Pierce or Walter.Pribble (804-786-3600) of my staff. C+ R. C. ockwood Transportation Planning Engineer Attachments GNP/WLP/vv' c: Mr. W. C. Jeffrey / w/attachments Mr. W. H. Bushman ✓ w/attachments Mr. J. B. Diamond w/attachments • �o y .0 O t� < a 4 ti SITE G a G �i fi DD i BB J, :: { IS' CID C_ .0 LEGEND Total LOS-B A AM Peek Hour Level of Service • B • B PM Peak Hour Level of Service + Traffic Signal 123' - TURN LANE QUEUE LENGTH A PI�lcNo Scale 1996 SCENARIO A Figure PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE 2 and LANE CONFIGURATION Total LOS-BB 0 LEGEND AM Peak Hour Level of Service • B PM Peak Hour Level of Service + Traffic Signal Total LOS-B .B 123' - TURN LANE QUEUE LENGTH p �11lA met No Scale .0 2003 SCENARIO B Figure PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE 4 and LAME CONFIGURATION 5 ✓�0 Total LOS-B .B LEGEND A AM Peak Hour Level of Service • B PM Peak Hour Level of Service + Traffic Signal Total LOS-B C 123'. - TURN' LANE QUEUE LENGTH A ANo Scale PS11 &A 2003 SCENARIO C Figu re PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE 6 and LANE CONFIGURATION September 10, 1986 1985 Highway Capacity Manual - Special Report 209 MEMORANDUM TO - Directors District Engineers As the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual has been available since January and training has been provided to VDH&T employees, this manual will replace the 1965 Highway Capacity Manual as the Department's official method for performing capacity analysis. To assist in using these procedures, FHWA is expected to distribute computer software on these procedures in the near future. Several questions have been raised concerning the new procedures and are addressed as follows: 1. The 1985 HCM procedures replace the 1965 HCM procedures immediately, and should be applied to ongoing projects where possible in addition to all new projects. 2. The 1985 HCM procedures utilize a peak hour factor to convert the hourly traffic volume to a 15 minute rate of flow for analysis purposes for rural two-lane and multi -lane analysis. Where the peak hour factor is not available but a peak hour count exists, we will use the peak hour factor from Table 8-3 on page 8-7 for 2 lane roads. For multi -lane roads judgement will be used to estimate a peak hour factor. Where only a 24 hour or estimated ADT exists, we will estimate a design hourly volume (30th highest hourly volume) and use a peak hour factor of 1.0. We do not plan to field verify operating speeds unless it is identified as a major issue. 3. For urban intersection analysis the minimum acceptable level of service criteria should be applied to each lane group, not just to the inter- section overall. Thus an intersection with an overall level of service C but with a lane group level of service F would not be acceptable. This situation would indicate the need to reallocate green times such that the critical lane groups would have approximately the same v/c ratio. If a lane group on a minor street is borderline, it may be accepted. � D.irectors District Engineers Page 2 September 10, 1986 Should you have any questions on these or any of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual procedures, please pass them on to the Transportation Planning Division. J. G. Ripley Director of Planning and Programming LCC/vv bcc: Mr. R. C. Lockwood Mr. H. M. Shaver, Jr. Mr. A. L. Thomas, Jr. EQ 1a0P • COMMONWEALTH WEALTH of v1RCI I` IA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY DAVID R. GEHR 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE COMMISSIONER P.O. BOX 278 EDINBURG, VA 22824-0278 August 20, 1997 Mr. Steven L. Patton, P.E. C/O Triad Engineering, Inc. P. O. Box 2397 Winchester, VA 22604 Dear Steve: JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE (540) 984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 Ref: Prince Frederick Office Park Route 50 Frederick County We have reviewed the preliminary road layout plan dated 08/08/97 and have the following comments as shown in red on the attached plan sheet: 1. Does the owner plan to relocate existing Costello Drive on adjacent (Price Club) property or extend existing Costello Drive to tie into proposed Costello Drive? 2. There has been a previous traffic analysis which concluded the warrants would be in place to require signalization at the intersection of Ryco Lane and also at Prince Frederick Drive (Route 781) during construction for the proposed development under consideration. The developer will be required to participate in the cost of these signalizations. 3. It would be desirable to have uniform right-of-way on the west side of Ryco Lane. The required width of right-of-way should be constant. 4. All existing commercial entrances should be reviewed and updated to current standards. 5. At proposed intersecting roadways, additional right-of-way should be dedicated as flares or tapers to accommodate the need for highway hardware, i.e. signs, signals, etc. 6. A preliminary typical section should be provided. It needs to be developed with consideration for anticipated traffic volumes for each proposed street. Costello Drive should at least meet the typical section shown on the 04/23/69 approved plans. Other comments are shown in red on the plans. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Sidcerely, Barry J. Sweitzer, Trans. Roadway Engin( For: Robert B. Childress, Permits & Subd. Spec. BJS/rf Enclosure xc: Mr. R. B. Childress, Mr. S. A. Melnikoff, Mr. Kris Tierney WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING �;s� M t7 P RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER a' a v ham- COMMONWEALTH Of VIRGIINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 EDINBURG, 22824 April 12, 1993 Mr. H. Bruce Edens C/O Greenway, Inc. 970 Baker Lane Winchester, VA 22603 Dear Bruce: WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RES:DENT ENGINEER TEL° (703) 984-4133 FAX (703) 984-9761 Ref: Prince Frederick Office Park Route 50 Frederick County As discussed last week enclosed you will find copies of all correspondence we have relative to the referenced project. If we can be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer 9 By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior RBC/rf Enclosures xc: Mr. Steve A. Melnikoff Mr. Robert W. Watkins 4PR 131993 TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Grcenuw, Inc 1104 Baker Lane • Winchester, Virginia • 22601 • 703,662-4165 H. Bruce Edens • C.L.S. • President LEETTEEM Q)F VQURS VAOTUFL, t1WO WE A,2E SE/VO/ti/G YOU T//E ATTACh/ED �-e/.vT.S CO//CS DATE A/O. DESCe/�T/OtJ .S/T /d!!�N ����/��s DET�iZ S Tf1ESEAZE E/T�Q�t1S.N/TTED AS C�/EC�E� �ELO�V FO,e ❑ �ESUBM/T7E0 COP/ES f0� .4�PeO�.4L p fO,e ,e USE ❑ SUBM/TTEU COP/ES FD.Z D/ST,e/BUT/ON ❑ AS ,eEQUESTED ❑ ,eETU.evED co,eeECTED P.e/.(/TS ,eEMA,e,eS REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN COMMENTS Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer P.O. Box 278 Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0278 (703) 984-4133 The local office of the Transportation Department is. located at 1550 Commerce St. in Winchester if you prefer to hand deliver this form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: i I�G,v w4 Y /ilLA. Name of..development and/or description of the request: Location: S. OF ,fT� . SO To -4/,PP0/2 7- Va. Dept. of Transportation Comments: NO OVERALL OBJECTIONS TO SITE PLAN. HOWEVER, WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO COMMENT FURTHER AFTER DETAILED PLANS AND PROFILES OF THE PROPOSED ACCESS ROADWAY ARE AVAILABLE. THE PROPOSED ENTRANCE DESIGN MAY HAVE TO BE REVISED TO ACCOMMODATE THE STREET DESIGN MINIMUM SIGHT DISTANCF REQUIREMENTS VIILL A!_SO HAVE TO BE MET. `�. VDOT Signature and Date: G�J �e,.,, (NOTICE TO RESIDENT ENGINEER*PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO APPLICANT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach three cozies of your plans and/or application form. -10- �o Grezmu�.., Ina � Baker Lana • WnCncslor. Vvg,ruo - 2200i - 7U�- 2.41co6 H. Bruce Ecens - C.L.S. - Presidant LIEUUM (IF V, v D. /'. �/SST Y� � M �,PCE s•r. KJ aJ cuEST�e Y4 FFB 25 1993 o� 2/23/93 I.,oe ham. 1c' E-,vrz EMeAl WE A,e c Co/ld.s PATt .1/O. OesC'e/.-T/o.,L/ JOPIVIO AI J3 • /43 .4r- 4o or &VC-,MF.EBs S.1Te 7'41 ES E A x c � FO,e A P/,�0�'AL ❑ .PESUfSM/T1c"D lvi'iE� f0.2 .G/'!'.�Or/✓C p Fa,z Youe USE ❑ suen/�rrrE v co�rES fo,2 oi�r,�,:�✓r�o,./ ❑ AS .e dV 41 STc"D ❑ ZETU.c',c/Eo co,�,� E crE o �.zr vr� �O.e ,&Y/Ery f coMME.UT ❑ -- ,eEMA,eZ-s F I N AT ciUP, DIVIc,IOH PLAT OF A PORTION OF THE LAND OF LEWIS M. COciTELLO, ET AL5 PRINCE FIZEDEIZICK OFF10E FAIzK SHAWHEE DIclTfZtGT - FREDERICK GOLINTi VIIZGIWA 8-go . 50 �� vE�GO Pl A1A CA K P E R'cf w �, - VA LEY GOL F Q CLUB LU o � r- it o0 LU p� w = w ~ N OC ~ z SITE WIHORESTER AIRPORT OWNER'S CERTIFICATE THE A60VE AND FOREGOING SU6DIVISION OF THE .LAND OF LEWIy M. C05TELLO, ET ALS 15 WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DE51RE9 OF THE UNDEIZSIGRED OWNERci, PROPRIETORS , AND-TR115TEE5 , IF ANY. VAT E VAT E CIAT E DAT E DATE SURVEY0 Z'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE LAND GONTAINED IN THE SUBDIVISION tSAPORTION OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO LEV419 M. CNTELLO , WILLIAM H. CLEMENT, LUCYL. GUliTEIZ, 1Z10HARD G. DICK AND MAURICE W. PERVY BY DEEDS DATED OCTOBER. 30, 1090 AND DECEMBER 5, 19139 RECORDED IN THE FREDERICK COURTI CIRCUIT COURT CLEvv"C7 OFFICE IN DEED BOOK -753 AT PAGE 367 AND DEED BOOK -100 A-T FAG- 4-0), RESPECTIVELY. N. 15IZUCE EDE WY, L.S. APPRoVAL9 VA-DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION VAT C FRED. CO. FLANNIHG COMMICrcr(OH DATE FRED. CO. SANITATION AUTHORM DAT E FRED GO. CiUBMISlON ADMIH. PAT E H o T E y t os.'.TAX I.D. H0. � 64-(( A))- 60 CA ru� zoNED'. B-'Z %.CE �SCALE EDcN3 No. 000162-13 � NIA DATE � rEBRUARY 2 3, 1�93 GREEN WAY INC. _ - - — 0-70 Baker Lane , Winchester, Virginia 22603 703-562-4185 H. Bruce Edens ,L.S.-President ,? Q �d,SUjZV% SURVEYING — DESIGNING — PLANNING��`' SHEET I of 2 RESIDENTIAL • AGRICULTURAL- COMMERCIAL- INDUSTRIAL- CONSTRUCTION I � Q F- � Z i� .0 N 500 07' 2G" IF, 147. ab' U � Z 601 S �— r \ j� EET ClULFHUrz 3 C,PRING \ \ EX.40' F E` RuH t� ,� p.6. 68°), {'G. i O o m > LW E 19 C0S�t-bO ET ALcr �' ��` ���� Um� IZETAINCD�TION cfl N o ^ (76.7Co0 REMAINING 0 N6, r S3 „ 34, 0- 4 � 2 �� 0 13.14-3 AcIZES > Q - r- M APPROX. LOCATION n � EX.50' GA5 LINE I N 1 c tzlW l / � o � U Z lz 5 3 GOLF GLUE CAIZI'ElZ'Ci �6Ir808 p.t3 2' GOLF GOURSE ZONI;17.� A, cu Rv E UAI a CURVE N0. RADIUS ARC PE LTA TANGENT CHOP-0 30.00' 44.`ll' 85'23'47" Z7.68' 507"Z5'33 w - 40 69' 2 450. 00' 101.07 ' Z 3" 03' I S" 91. 78' N 35" 5Z' 39" W - 17 0. 13 3 4000.Z°)' 107.07' 15*05' 59" 53.05' N 31° 54' 00"W - jOCv.77' 30.00' 47.35' 900Z5 35" 3o.Z7- N 64-0 3�' 47" W - 47-.58' F INA L SUI3I?IVic, 10N PLAT v v* Of A PORTION OF THE LANF D O �op r0'j. L EW IS M. G051 E L L 0 , ET A LS o�' �r'' ► FIZINCE FREVERICK OFFICE PARK SNAW NEE DISTIZIGT- FREDEIZICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA v EiW EELILNS'�'' SCALE I" = 700' DATE : FEtWUARY 23 I19°�3 x Y INC.� No. 0001 02-13 GREEN WA . %70 Baker Lone, Winchester, Virginia 22E03 *Ok,� 703-662-4185 '�_ Cq N. Bruce Edens, L,S.-PresidentN SUtt'O SURVEYING — DESIGNING — PLANNING RESIDENTIAL- AGRICULTURAL, COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL- CONSTRUCTION kSHEET 2 of 2 REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION COMMENTS Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer P.O. Box 278. Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0278 (703) 984-4133 The local office of the Transportation Department is located at 1550 Commerce St. in Winchester if you prefer to hand deliver this form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: /mac. 9-7b )E ASTZ w M I QAE`tT F , y P< ZZ ,03 Name of development and/or description of the request: ACM. F LOT Location: -PTz 1.110E" GE-F4-F-k/ - -;!�-T _570 E Va. Dept. of Transportation Comments: No objection to the subdivision of this property. However, this Department will be unable to sign off on the plat since the parcel does not adjoin a State maintained roadway. VDOT Signature and Date: // (NOTICE TO RESIDENT ENGINEER*PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO PLICANT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form asaccuratelyas possible in order to assist the agency with their. review. Also, please attach a.copy of your plans and/or application form. -14- • Nora L. Garber Trust c/o Patricia G. Biggs 261 Shawnee Avenue Winchester, Va. 22601 March 4, 1993 Frederick County Planning Commission c/o Evan Wyatt P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Va. 22604 Dear Commission Members: We are currently preparing a Master Development Plan for a tract of our land which adjoins the land of Prince Frederick Office Park. We have no objection to this development or to the interconnection of the street between our properties. We do, however, feel that each property owner should construct the street to the property line. Since it is unknown, at this time, which development will be first to construct their street, we feel this is equitable. The location of the proposed street, as shown on the M.D.P. (Rev. 2-17-93) appears reasonable for our development. We would, however, reserve the option to comment on any changes in location. We appreciate your consideration of our interest in this project. Nora L. Garber Trust Patricia G. Biggs J4 X , Alma G. Biggs PRINCE PREDERICK OFFICE PARK TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PARK DESCRIPTION - The Prince Frederick Office Park is zoned B-2 and is planned as an office and research/development park designed in a campus type setting. TOTAL AND USABLE ACREAGE - The total acreage for the park is approximately 92 acres, but approximately 32 acres contain steep slopes, flood plain, highway dedication, or other unusable areas leaving approximately 60 acres for development. FLOOR AREA RATIO - In a typical office and research/development park, approximately 50 % of the space is used as office and 50 % of the space is needed for R & D type uses. The Corps of Engineers building is a typical project where the 92,000 square foot space plan includes 42,000 square feet for offices and 50,000 square feet for R & D. The Corps project is a one and two story building and has a floor area ratio of .16. The maximum FAR for this type of project is typically about 0.2. TOTAL PROJECTED SPACE - Assuming the buildable area at 60 acres and an FAR of .2 with 50 % office and 50 % R & D space, the total proposed office space would be 261,360 square feet and the R & D space would be 261,360 square feet for a grand total for the building area of 522,720 square feet. VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY - The I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual lists 11.404 trips per day for 1,000 square feet of office, or 2,976 TPD, and 6.090 trips per day for R & D uses or 1,589 TPD. The total trips per day generated from the park would be 4,565. STREET CLASSIFICATION - There are four planned entrances into the site, but this model assumes a worst case scenario with only the two entrances constructed to Route 50. Assuming equal uses of the entrances, the entrance streets would handle 2,283 TPD which can be serviced with a major collector street that handles up to 3,000 TPD with two lanes and a 60 foot ROW. Capacity analysis indicates that a two lane road is adequate if additional turn lanes are added at Route 50. PROPOSED FAR - Based on the above model, the proposed park could be built to a .26 FAR (679,539 square feet) and still only require a major collector street. The developers are prepared to limit the maximum FAR to a .26 and/or a combination of uses that would limit the TPD at the main entrance roads to 3,000 TPD. It should be noted VDOT only requires you to handle the trips generated on your site. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS - The developers also agree to build additional turn lanes (one right and two left) and provide traffic signals in Phase I and also Phase II as determined by the actual trips generated on the site. This would permit easy access both north and south on Route 50. e, s j {30 GL`� 77� /)L��i c '/ �C�, `111�...� iilcr Jl:v i. REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN C01424ENTS Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer P.O. Box 278 Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0278 (703) 984-4133 The local office of the Transportation Department is located at 1550 Commerce St. in Winchester if you prefer to hand deliver this form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Lewis M. Costello (703) 665-0050 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601 Name of development and/or description of the request: Prince Frederick Office Park Master Plan for Office Park Location: South of Route 50, West of Carper's Valley Golf Course, and North of Winchester Regional Airport Va. Dept. of Transportation Comments: No objections to revised master development plan All of nur earl;Pr cnmmPntc (see attached letter to PHR & A dated 01/13/93) will need to be addrP,sed at the site plan stage VDOT Signature and Date: GcJt�Y �J�*^�• c Z�¢�� (NOTICE TO RESIDENT ENGINEER* PLEAS E RETURN THIS FOR2•i TO AP L'ICANT. ) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, Please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. COIMM 0 2TTWEALTH of VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG. 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN CC'+1MISSIONER RESMEN7 ENG:NE=R TELE(703198=-<.33 January 13, 1993 FAX (703) 98e-9761 Mr. George Foard C/O Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates 100 South Main Street P. 0. Box 46 Bridgewater, VA 22812 Dear Mr. Foard: Ref: Prince Frederick Office Park Route 50 East Frederick County We have completed our review of the above referenced project's preliminary master plan. The following comments are preliminary and subject to change when we receive a more detailed site plan. 1. A traffic signal may be required at the intersection with Route 50 and the -proposed entrance at build out of Phase I. The same may be required for the west entrance at Phase H build out: Developer participation for any and all costs incurred to perform the signal work will be required and included in the developer's land use permit assembly. 2. A left turn lane with proper taper will be required at the crossover serving the proposed east entrance. A right turn lane may also be needed at this location. 3. A right turn lane along the property frontage terminating west of the proposed west entrance thus providing a right turn lane for the %vest entrance and pavement continuity between the two entrances will be required. A portion of this right turn lane could be delayed until Phase II is constructed. 4. Curb and gutter should be considered in the entrance design for Phase I and should connect the evstinLcurb and gutter terminating west of the proposed Nvest entrance during Phas�- II development. 5. Anv grading or entrances which may require the adjustment of any guardrail will be the developer's responsibility. 0 Mr. George Foard Ref: Prince Frederick Office Park - January 13, 1993 Page #2 6. The existing cut section in the Route 50 median east of the proposed east entrance will have to be removed to obtain a minimum 650' of sight distance to the east. Prior to making any further comments this office will require a complete set of site plans, drainage calculations and a trip generation analysis for review. We appreciate the opportunity to review your proposal and ask you give us a call should you have any questions. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer By: Robert-B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior RBC/rf Enclosures xc: Mr. J. B. Diamond hir. R. W. Watkins ■ Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pe Engineers, TRANSMITTAL 100 South Main Street Surveyors, PO Box 46 Planners & Bridgewater, Virginia 22812 Landscape Architects Fax 703 828-6437 Metro 385-3835 703 828-2616 zsql' County -of Frederick RE _--mince 'Frederick Of f i c-� Par? : 5 / 2 6 / 9 3 ------ I 'rii Department of Planning and Develo ne.-it 81119-1 C 9 North T-oudoun Street Winchester, -VA 22601 - — UPS overdght Mr. Evan_ Wyatt R. _safer/tlb Cv' ATTENTION ----- -- _-- BY -- - QUANTITY FILE N0. DATE DESCRIPTION TRANSMITTED IX Herewith 9 _ Final rlaster Development Plan ❑ Under Separate Cover MATERIAL ❑ Originals ❑ Photocopies ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Mylar CR Ozalid Prints ❑ Invoice ❑ Sepia PURPOSE I Approval -- — -- — -- — El Your Use ❑ Your Files ❑ Please Return NOTES: Revisions made per your letter - of MAX 1 Q. Enclosed are four Corrected Prints copies for you, three copies for Tom Dickenson, and two ❑ Please Submit copies for Carl Pinker. _______-_ Revised Prints 7 7R79� !� IMAY199� OF PLANNING 2 4w) DEVELOPMENT DATE 4 RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER v 232�42S�6�� AUa 1993 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA )EM OF . AND ATION WILLIAM H. EUSjHMAA RESIDENT E4r3u�?. TELE (703 33 FAX (703 ) 9�A- .;761 Mr. Richard G. Dick 1401 Millwood Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Dick: • - 40 Clgl:. 1 -n DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT P. 0. BOX 278 EDINBURG, 22824 August 19, 1993 Ref: Prince Frederick Business Park Routes 50/ 17 Frederick County Thank you for your letter of July 23, 1993 agreeing to pay for design costs of a traffic signal at the Prince Frederick Drive connection with Routes 50/ 17. You are correct in stating signalization is not presently warranted. We will not require signal installation as part of your land use permit work. However, to ensure a signal is installed when conditions warrant, we ask you to sign and return the enclosed signalization agreement along with a surety bond in the amount of $75,000.00 to cover future design and installation costs. Surety can be provided on either the enclosed VDOT MP-20 bond form or a letter of credit from your bank. If you choose a letter of credit, please have the bank contact me for the necessary format. Should you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter, please let me know. RBC/rf Enclosures xc: Mr. S. A. Melnikoff Mr. R. W. Watkins Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Agreement for the Installation of Traffic Signal . WHEREAS, Fredericktowne Group, L.C.is constructing a business park in Frederick County on the south side of Routes 50/ 17 between Route 780 and Route 746 and WHEREAS, during the traffic and engineering review of plans for this business park to determine what traffic control measures would be necessary at the Prince Frederick Drive entrance of the development to Routes 50/ 17 it became apparent based on traffic generation values provided by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates several of the warrants contained in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for consideration of fully actuated -traffic signal control were met at the Park Center Drive entrance as shown on the site plan for the development, and WHEREAS, it is recognized traffic projections were used in determining signalization might be required and actual traffic conditions might vary which might influence the need for a traffic signal for a development of this size, IT. IS THEREFORE AGREED: 1. The Department of Transportation will not require the developer to have a traffic signal installed as a condition of the initial entrance permit. 2. The Department of Transportation will secure actual traffic counts after the businesses in the development are open. If at that time or at any time for a. period of five (5) years after Land Use Permit # _ is marked complete the Department determines a signal is warranted based on the traffic volumes, or if a signal is determined to be needed for any other reason, such as accident experience, during: that five (5) year period, a signal shall be installed. In this event, 3. Fredericktowne Group, L.C. will pay for all design, materials and installation costs to provide a traffic signal at the Prince Frederick Drive entrance and Routes 50/ 17 as described above, the actual process of design and installation to.be on an account receivable basis or under permit as may be agreed upon by `Fre61eric&tL6wne Group, L.C. and the Department of Transportation at the time the need for a sign;:d.may be verified. 4. If the need for a traffic signal is verified, it will be desig ed and installed in accordance with Department of Transportation specifications and W'i11 become the property of the Department of Transportation upon completion. i Agreement for the Installation of Traffic Signal Page #2 5. Fredericktowne Group, L.C.. will furnish a surety bond in the amount of $75,000.00, the total estimated cost of the traffic signal, the bond to be in force for the five (5) year period described above, to guarantee the installation of the.signal in the event such installation is required. Individual, Firm or Corporation: Address: By: (Signature) (Title) Date: By: Date: Virginia Department of Transportation P. O. Box 278 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 . (Signature - Resident Engineer) COMMONWEALTH of WRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 COMMISSIONER August 17, 1993 Mr. H. Bruce Edens, C.L.S. C/O Greenway, Inc. 970 Baker Lane Winchester, VA 22603 Dear Bruce: p9eD-- MDP WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN. RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE1703I984-4133 FAX (703) 984-9761 Ref: Prince Frederick Office Park Routes 17/50 Frederick County This is to acknowledge receipt of your revised plans dated August 16, 1993 for the above referenced project. The plans appear satisfactory and are approved. Please advise the developer accordingly. I offer the following comments: • A meeting be held by the engineer and/or developer with the attendance of the contractor, various County agencies and VDOT to discuss what has been accomplished to date and to review our requirements for the remainder of the project. • Materials used and method of construction shall apply to current observed VDOT Road & Bridge Specifications applicable during construction of this development. • Our review and comments are general in nature. Should conditions in the field exist such that additional measures are warranted, such measures shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Department prior to inclusion into the Secondary Road System. • Attached is a copy of the minimum requirements and information needed prior to acceptance of subdivision streets into the Secondary System. This is the responsibility of the developer. • All drainage is to be carried within the right-of-way in ditch lines .or gutters along the street to a pipe or drainage easement. • The contractor shall notify VDOT when work is to begin or cease for any undetermined length of time. VDOT will also require 48 hours notice for inspections. • The appropriate land use permits shall be obtained before any work is performed on the State's right-of-way. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY ff • • Mr. H. Bruce Edens Ref: Prince Frederick Office Park August 17, 1993 Page 2 • If mailboxes are to be placed along the roadway fronting lots, a minimum of four (4') feet shall be between the edge of pavement and the front of mailbox as shown on the enclosed detail. • Any entrances constructed from the referenced street shall meet VDOT minimum standards. This is the developer's responsibility. • Any signs to be installed will be in accordance with attachments. • I suggest any utilities and/or storm sewer placed within the proposed right-of-way be backfilled completely with C.R. Type 21-A Stone. This will greatly reduce the possibility of any pavement settlement. As we have previously discussed, since construction of Prince Frederick Drive was started in May of this year without the benefit of having approved plans, we will require certification from a licensed professional engineer that all construction methods and material used through the week of August 16, 1993 meet current VDOT Road & Bridge Standards and Specifications. Copies of any and all test reports and material tickets will also be required. This information will be required before we can add Prince Frederick Drive to the State's Secondary System. Also as we have previously advised, the traffic impact analysis furnished was based on the Year 2003 build out; however, it is our understanding only Prince Frederick Drive will be constructed in the first phase and that Ryco Road will be developed sometime in the future. Since traffic projections for the build out year were based on 1991 ADT volumes and because of the potential for a significant increase in traffic volumes on Route 50, an updated traffic impact analysis will be required at the time Ryco Road is developed, unless of course no significant changes occur in the Route 50 traffic volumes prior to that time. Should you need additional information, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer Q&A- a � jw By: Robert B. Childress k Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior RBC/rf Attachments xc: T. L. Jackson, S. A. Melnikoff (w/ copy of plans), R. W. Watkins, H. E. Strawsnyder, James McIlvaine, Perry Engineering Company, Inc. 0A D P `'A Yry, a AUG 1993, COMMONWEALTH of VIRCj INIA rtecE1yEp DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPT. QF PL401" P. 0. Box 278 'AND RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 °�1 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT ENGINEER COMMISSIONER August 12, 1993�TELE 7031984--4133 2i FAX (703) 984-9761 Mr. H. Bruce Edens, C.L.S. Ref: Prince Frederick Office Park C/O Greenway, Inc. Route 17/50 970 Baker Lane Frederick County Winchester, VA 22603 Dear Bruce: Upon further review of the above referenced project's revised site plan dated April 29, 1993, please find our recommendations on the enclosed plans marked in red and as follows: 1. A note concerning the type, placement and termini of the guardrail along Prince Frederick Drive will need to be added to Sheet No. 2. 2. Standard MH-1 or MH-2 Manholes will be required in lieu of the proposed JB-1 Junction Boxes within the Route 17/50 median. 3. Standard EW-1 Endwalls should not be used. Instead the 18" culverts should have their ends mitered. 4. The concrete ditch should be adjusted as shown. Please revise and resubmit six (6) copies for final approval. Should any changes be deemed necessary, please design them to meet or exceed the above recommendations. Should you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior RBC/rf Enclosures xc: T. L. Jackson, S. A. Melnikoff, R. W. Watkins, H. E. Strawsnyder, James Mcllvaine TRANSPORTATICN FOR THE 21ST CENTURY it jA r. r n% .�r', COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER Mr. H. Bruce Edens C/O Greenway, Inc. 970 Baker Lane Winchester, VA 22603 Dear Bruce: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 0..0. BOX 278 EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE (703) 984-4133 FAX (703) 984-9761 July 21, 1993 Ref: Prince Frederick Business Park Route 50/ 17 Frederick County As requested we have reviewed the above referenced project's site plans dated April 29, 1993 and traffic impact analysis. Our comments may be found on the enclosed plans marked in red and as follows: 1. A title sheet with general construction notes and vicinity map will be required. 2. All cut and fill slopes are to be 2:1 or flatter. . 3. Curb and gutter will need to be extended from Station 4+00 to Station 5+00+ (the crest) to eliminate ditches draining toward the curb and gutter. 4. For clarity, Standard CG-6 should be labeled on the plan views on Sheets 1 and 3 to match the Section A -A on Sheet 3. 5. Riprap, ditches and drainage easements are to be provided at the locations noted. 6. Ditches left of Stations 5+00 to 6+00 and 9+00 to 10+00 should be either eliminated by lowering adjacent lots or a toe ditch and lining is needed to carry ditch runoff to pipe outfalls. 7. The 60" culvert at Station 15+30 needs its endwalls labeled. They should be Standard EW-2. Guardrail will be needed at both ends. A minimum 11' shoulder will be needed for the tangent guardrail with additional shoulder for terminals as. required. Due to variables such as lot grading,, specific VDOT requirements for guardrail will be determined when grading is completed. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY / Mr. H. Bruce Edens 0 Ref: Prince Frederick Business Park July 21, 1993 Page #2 0 8. The future Phase II intersection at Station 15+20 may create problems. We recommend full details be shown now for review. Items to address include: •_ Guardrail with adequate shoulder will be required around the radius at the inlet of the 60" pipe. • Edge of pavement radii should be 50' minimum. • The right fill slope of Phase II Drive may conflict with the drainage. • Ditch details right of Station 14+00 to 17+00 (show a plan for before and after Phase II). 9. The pavement design of the temporary cul-de-sac should be specified. 10. A CD Underdrain will be required at the vertical sage at approximate Station 14+25 and under the intersection of Route 50/ 17. 11. Drainage pipe and ditches on Route 50 affected by turn lanes and crossover, need to be adjusted, modified, etc. A minimum 8' shoulder is to be provided along the left turn lane and taper. The plans should show typical sections and details of the relocated drainage facilities. West of the crossover, it may be possible to eliminate the crossover pipe by carrying the water northwest (partially in a pipe) to the 48" culvert. An open median ditch may not work due to the median slopes of the eastbound and westbound lanes. East of the crossover, concrete ditches would not necessarily have to be replaced in kind. Temporary lining .could be used if submitted calculations permit. 12. The left turn lane should remain 275' and the taper extended to 200' . 13. The curb radii at Station 0+20 should be increased from 30' to 40'. The exit taper should be 36'. 14. A typical section of the Route 50/17 improvements should be included in the plan. 15. Handicap Ramps Standard CG-12 should be provided at the intersection with Route 50/ 17. 16. The `traffic impact analysis was based on the. Year .2003 build out; however, it is our understanding only Prince Frederick Drive will be constructed in the first phase and that Ryco Road will be developed sometime in the future. Since traffic projections for the build out year were based on 1991 ADT volumes and because of the potential for a significant increase in traffic volumes on. Route 50, an updated traffic impact analysis will be required at the time Ryco Road is developed, unless of course no significant changes occur in the Route 50 traffic volumes prior to that time. Mr. H. Bruce Edens Ref: Prince Frederick Business Park July 21, 1993 Page #3 17. A complete set of design plans for the required traffic signal at the Prince Frederick Drive connection with Route 50/17 will need to be submitted at this time for review. If the developer wishes, the Department can design and install the signal on an account receivable basis. If he chooses this option, a letter from him agreeing to bear all costs associated with the signal design and installation will be required. If the developer wishes to design and install the signal himself, this work can be covered under his land use permit. Also, an agreement between the developer and VDOT will need to be established to cover the future installation of a traffic signal at the Ryco Road connection if warranted prior to the expiration of the Prince Frederick Drive permit. We trust this information is self-explanatory and ask you revise the plans to reflect these comments and resubmit four (4) copies for further review. Should any changes be deemed necessary, please design them to meet or exceed the above recommendations. We apologize for the delay in our review and ask you give us a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer 6 �16- e-1 W-'-e4� By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior RBC/rf Enclosures xc: Mr. C. E. Mattox Mr. J. B. Diamond Mr. S. A. Melnikoff Mr. R. W. Watkins Mr. H. E. Strawsnyder Mr. James McIlvaine CO DEpi. Of AMD DF�EEpPN+EN1 R.r I- 1 i COUNTY of FREDERICK July 6, 1993 �u` 1gg3 GE�VE�� pEPS• �F t,�� p AD 10E< Mr. John E. Gast Greenway, Inc. ��'• -�t 970 Baker Lane Winchester, Virginia 22603 RE: Temporary Access Road for COE Site Prince Frederick Business Park Dear John: This letter will confirm our previous verbal approval of the erosion and sediment control plan for the temporary access drive. Considering the access road follows the alignment of Prince Frederick Drive, we anticipate that it will basically be incorporated into the final design of the permanent roadway. Consequently, we request that drainage calculations be submitted as soon as possible to expedite the review of the final road design for Prince Frederick Drive. To date we have not received the design for this roadway. Sincerely, V Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr. P.E. Director of Public Works HES:bjn cc: Evan Wyatt, Planning and Zoning 9 North Loudoun St. - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 FREUaR C.K MAP COUNTY of FREDERICK Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Engineering & Inspections 9 North Loudoun St., 2nd Floor 703/665-5643 March 2, 1993 Mr. George Foard, C.L.S. Patton Harris Rust and Associates, p.c. 100 South Main Street Bridgewater, Virginia 22812 MAR RE: Preliminary Master Development Plan Prince Frederick Office Park Shawnee Magisterial District Dear Mr. Foard: The latest submittal, revision four (4), dated February 17, 1993, has adequately addressed our previous comments dated December 4, 1992. Consequently, the stormwater management concept is approved for the proposed master development plan. As indicated in our previous comments, consideration should be given to establishing a regional stormwater management facility on this property. We have discussed this concept with Mr. Lewis Costello who agreed with this approach and offered his support for future regional stormwater management within the Prince Frederick Office Park. In addition to the regional approach, we suggest that the design of the road extension toward the airport property incorporate the stormwater management design planned for Phase Two (2). In other words, the road embankment and piping required in the crossing of the existing drainage swale could be designed to accommodate the Phase Two (2), stormwater management, thus serving a dual purpose. Again, this observation is made as a suggestion only. The actual design of the road will determine if it is a viable alternative. We trust that our approval will allow the development to proceed for the Phase One (1) portion of the master development plan. HES:rls j 'ncerely, � vey Strawsnyder, Jr.,P.E. recto of Public Works Fax: 703/678-0682 - P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia - 22604 • P/C Review Date: 3/03/93 P/C Discussion : 4/07/93 BOS Review Date: 4/14/93 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #001-93 PRINCE FREDERICK OFFICE PARK LOCATION: South of Route 50, west of Carper's Valley Golf Course MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 640000A0000890 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned B-2 (Business General) land use - vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned B-2 (Business General), B-3 (Industrial Transition) and M-2 (Industrial) - land use, business, industrial and vacant PROPOSED USE: Business office park REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached letter from W. H. Bushman to Mr. George Foard dated January 13, 1993. Fire Marshal: Posted fire lanes required at all hydrant locations per Frederick County Chapter 10. Add the following to general construction notes on site plan: 1) Burning of land clearing debris requires permits from Fire Marshal office. Burning of construction debris is not permitted in Frederick County. 2) All fire safety and access issues will be addressed on site plan. Inspections Department: Buildings shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, the BOCA National Building Code/1990. Other codes that apply are title 28 Code of Federal Regulation, Part 36 Nondiscrimination on the Basis in 2 of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities. Shall comment on Use Group and handicap parking at the time of building site plans review. Sanitation Authority: First review - 12 items, correct and resubmit. County Engineer: See attached memo from Harvey E. Strawsnyder to PHR&A dated December 4, 1992. Winchester Regional Airport: See attached comments from Kenneth F. Wiegand, Executive Director. Plannina & Zonin GENERAL COMMENTS: The proposed Master Development Plan is for a 91.903 acre tract that is currently zoned B-2 Business General District. The proposed use for this tract is office sites and parking. The B-2 District does not require a specified maximum gross density; however, all developed areas must meet requirements of the Zoning Ordinance including a floor area to lot area ratio (FAR). SPECIFIC CONCERNS: Staff has specific concerns regarding transportation issues, environmentally sensitive areas, and stormwater.management for this project. The specific concerns are as follows: 1) Transportation - The applicant has revised the preliminary Master Development Plan to extend two cul-de-sacs near the adjoining property boundary lines. Staff believes that a dedicated right-of-way easement needs to be provided to the Garber property and the Winchester Regional Airport property. This right-of-way easement needs to be in place to insure that a future road network option is possible for this area. The applicant needs to provide this easement on the preliminary Master Development Plan and also include this easement as an integral part of the deed of dedication to Frederick County 2) Environmentally sensitive areas - The applicant has indicated that there are 20 acres of land defined as steep slope on this site. The preliminary Master Development Plan states that the impacted amount of steep slope will be a 250 maximum. The applicant needs to include the amount of steep slope that is proposed to be disturbed through the development of roads, the installation of water lines, sewer lines, and natural gas lines, and creation of stormwater management areas. This information is necessary for staff to determine the amount of steep slope disturbance proposed for site improvements, and to insure that future development does not exceed this requirement. 3 3) Stormwater management - The applicant states that the existing pond on the Carper's Valley Golf Club property will be modified to manage stormwater for development associated with Phase I of this site. The Master Development Plan does not provide the location of this pond, and does not provide a stormwater drainage easement. Staff believes that the applicant needs to provide the County Engineer with enough detailed information to verify that the existing pond is an adequate stormwater management facility. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 3/3/93 PC MTG.: Approval, provided that the applicant addresses staff concerns, review agency comments, and any concerns of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS OF 313193: Approval, provided the plan calls for a four -lane road and that traffic lights are put in place when they are called for. Also, the applicant must address all staff concerns, review agency comments and any concerns of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. (Absent - T. Shenk) The vote was as follows: Yes (to approve): G. Romine, B. Wilson, M. DeHaven, J. Golladay, M. Copenhaver, J. Marker and R. Carper. No: J. Light Abstain: R. Thomas PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OF 417193: The applicant requested an opportunity to address the Planning Commission prior to consideration by the Board of Supervisors. The purpose of this request was to address specific concerns of the Planning Commission. The applicant has proposed to extend the cul-de-sacs as close as possible to adjoining property lines for future network connections. The applicant also stated that they are working with representatives of the Garber property to insure correct road alignment to the adjoining property. The applicant has provided an 80 foot right-of-way in the event that future road expansion is necessary, and has provided a four (4) lane ingress/egress with signalization (to be installed when warranted by VDOT). The Planning was satisfied and the staff believes concerns have been adequately met. W The applicant stated that the developers will dedicate the area along the Sulpher Spring Run for a regional storm water management facility to be developed by the county. The applicant also stated that the developer will contribute its pro-rata share for any sites developed after the approval of this regional facility. Staff feels that this addresses storm water management concerns, and also feels that this information should be stated on the final Master Development Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS OF 417193: The March 3, 1993 recommendation by the Planning Commission, and all additional information provided by the applicant should be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for discussion and final determination. (Absent - R. Carper, G. Romine, R. Thomas) The vote was as follows: Yes: Unanimous APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Frederick County Virginia Date: January 19, 1993 Application # OWNERS NAME: Estate of Monfred D. Custer, William H. Clement, Maurice W. Perry, Richard G. Dick, & Lewis M. Costello (Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest) .A=PPLICANT/ AGENT: Lewis M. Costello - Agent " Address: 107 North Ypni- gtraaf- Winchester, VA 22601 Daytime Phone Number (703) 665-0050 DESIGNER/DESIGN, COMPANY: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Address: P. O. Box 46 Bridgewater, VA 22812 Phone Number (703) 828-2616 Contact Name George ID. Foard FA 0 PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKLIST The following checklist is intended to assist the applicant in insuring that all required information is provided or is available to allow review by the County. This form must be completed by the applicant and submitted with the preliminary master development plan. All required items must be provided on the PMDP. Background Information: 1. Development's name: Prince Frederick Office Park 2. Location of property: South of Route 50, West of Carver's Valley Golf Course 3. Total area of property: 91.903 Acres 4. Property ID # (14 Digit) 640000A 0000089 5. Property zoning and present use B-2-Vacant 6. Adjoining property zoning and present use: B-2 Business, B-2 Vacant, B-3 Business, M-2 Industrial 7. Proposed Uses: Business Office Park 8. Magisterial District: Shawnee 9. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original X Amended 93 General Information: 1. Have the following items been included? North arrow Yes X No Scale Yes X No Legend Yes X No Boundary Survey Yes X No Total Area Yes X No Topography Yes X No Project Title Yes X No Preparation and Revision Date Yes X No Applicant's Signed Yes No X Consent Statement 2. Number of phases proposed? 2 3. Are the proposed phases shown on the Master Development Plan? Yes X No 4. Are the_uses of adjoining properties clearly designated? Yes X No 5. Is an inset map provided showing the location of -the project and all public roads within 2,000 feet. Yes X No 6. Are all land uses clearly shown? Yes X No 7. Are environmental features clearly shown? Yes X No 8. Describe the following environmental features: Total Area (Acres) Floodplains 6.2 Lakes and ponds 0 Natural retention areas 0 Steep slopes (15% or more) 20 Woodlands 30.5 9 % Disturbed Acres in by development Open Space 3.3 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9. Are the following shown, on the master development plan? Street layout Yes X No Entrances Yes X No •Parking areas Yes No X Utilities (mains) Yes X No 10. Has a conceptual stormwater management plan been provided? Yes X No 11. Have all historical structures been identified? Yes N o X None Residential Uses If the Master Development Plan includes any land zoned RP, (Residential Performance) or any residential uses,, the following. items should be completed. 1. What numbers and types of housing are proposed? N/A 2. Is a schedule provided describing each of the following in each phase: Open space acreage Yes No N/A Acreage in each housing type Yes No N A Acreage in streets and right of ways Yes x No Total acreage Yes x No Number of dwellings of each type Yes No N A 3. What percentage of the total site is to be placed in common open space? 0 10 4. Are recreational facilities required? Yes No X 5. What types of recreational facilities are proposed? N/A None 6. Are separation buffers required? Yes X No 7. Are road efficiency buffers required? Yes No X 8. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required? Yes No X 9. Are required buffers, screens, and landscaping described by the plan with profiles or examples? Yes No N/A 11 ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the public hearing. For -the purpose of this application, adjoining property,is any property abutting the requested property on the side or -rear or any property directly across a road from the requested property. .The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the 1.4 digit tax parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. NAME _ Address Lennox Hill Station Abraham A. Rosen New York Property ID# 64 - -A - - 101 Address Lenox Hill Station Delco Development New York NY Property ID# 64 - -A - - 102 Address 1401 Millwood Avenue Carper's Valley Golf Club Winchester VA 22601 Property ID# 64 - - A - - 87 Address 1401 Millwood Avenue Carper's Valley Golf Club Winchester, VA 22601 Property ID# 64 - - A - - 87 - A Address Route 1, Box 208-A Winchester Regional Winchester, VA 22601 Property ID# 64 - - A - - 88 Airport Authority Address 1275 Millwood Pike Marlow & Board Winchester, VA 22601 Property ID# 64 - - A - - 89A Address 1205 Route 50 East Winchester VA 22601 Winchester Harley Davidson property ID# 64 - - A - - 97 Address Route 2, 18 Cline Drive Thurston B. Collins Inwood, WV 25428 Property IS/` 64 - A ((4)) 8 & 9 Address' 1184 Millwood Pike_ Jerry G. Helen H. Kirk Winchester VA 22601 Property ID# 64 - A ((4)) . 10 & 11 Address 130 Morgan Street Prenith Lenear Bartley, Winchester, VA 22601 Property ID# 64 - A ((4)) 20 et als 13 NAME Address 261 Shawnee Avenue Donald.E. Garber Winchester VA 22601 c/o Patricia Biggs Property ID# 64- - A - - 4 Address Lenox Hill Station New York NY Delco Development Co. property ID# 64 - - A - - 4 - A Address P"• O. Box 222 Middleburg,VA 22117 Property ID# 64 - - A - - A Winchester Office Center Address 1401 Millwood Avenue Carper's Valley Golf Course Winchester VA 22601 Property ID# 64 - - A - -' 86 Address Route 6, Box 64 Winchester, VA 22601 Raymond N. &Frances Riding Property ID# 64 - - A - - 90 Address Route 6, Box 63 Shirley F. Carter Winchester VA 22601 Property ID# 64 - - A - - 91 - A Address 1151 Yale Drive - Guy E. Strosnider Winchester, VA 22601 Property ID# 64 - - A - - 92 Address P. O., Box 2740 Lewis M. Costello Et Al ...,Win6hester, VA 22601 Property ID# 64 - - A - - 100 - A, Address P. O. Box 2740 Lewis M. Costello Winchester VA 22601 Property ID# 64 - - A - - 100 - B Address P. O. Box 1168 Ryco Management Corp. Front Royal, VA Property ID# 64 - - A - - 100 Address P. O. Box 3214 James H. Carroll Winchester VA 22601 Property ID# 64 - A ((4)) 20A Address Property ID# 1.4 Z I it` REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS k Ra ,i`` Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer P.O. Box 278 Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0278 "t (703) 984-41.33 The:- loc"a1'office of ,the 'Transportation Department is located at 1550;Commerce St, in Winchester if you prefer to hand deliver this :f orm . Appiicant''s name, address and phone number: Lewis M. CostelloT't Al (703) 665 0050 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601 ''; Name ofE' development: and/or description of the request: Prince Frederick Office Park Master Plan for Office Park South of Route 50, West of Ca is Valley Golf Course and North of Winchester Regional Airport Va. Dept. of Transportation'.Comments:. See attached letter From W. I•i. Bushman to PI•IR & A dpted 01 /_t3/9'3 VDOT Signature and,Date: 41J. /Y. .�u�.�w. / 3 A3 (NOTICE TO RESIDENT ENGINEER*PLEASE RETURN TI[Ii8 FORM TO APPLICANT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT Zt `is your responsibility to complete this .form" as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please,attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. q is N ql 4 ' COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 COMMISSIONER January 13, 1993 Mr. George Foard C/O Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates 100 South Main Street P. O. Box 46 Bridgewater, VA 22812 Dear Mr. Foard: WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE (703) 984-4133 FAX (703) 984-9761 Ref: Prince Frederick Office Park Route 50 East Frederick County We have completed our review of the above referenced project's preliminary master plan. The following comments are preliminary and subject to change when we receive a more detailed site plan. 1. A traffic signal may be required at the intersection with Route 50 and the proposed entrance at build out of Phase I. The same may be required for the west entrance at Phase II build out. Developer participation for any and all costs incurred to perform the signal work will be required and included in the developer's land use permit assembly. 2. A left turn lane with proper taper will be required at the crossover serving the proposed east entrance. A right turn lane may also be needed at this location. 3. A right turn lane along the property frontage terminating west of the proposed west entrance thus providing a right turn lane for the west entrance and pavement continuity between the two entrances will be required. A portion of this right turn lane could be delayed until Phase II is constructed. 4. Curb and gutter should be considered in the entrance design for Phase I and should connect the existing curb and gutter terminating west of the proposed west entrance during Phase II development. 5. Any grading or entrances which may require the adjustment of any guardrail will be the developer's responsibility. Y f� Mr. George Foard Ref: Prince'Frederick Office Park January 13, 1993 Page #2 6. The existing cut section in the Route 50 median east of the proposed east entrance will have to be removed to obtain a minimum 650' of sight distance to the east. Prior to making any further comments this office will require a complete set of site plans, drainage calculations and a trip generation analysis for review. We appreciate the opportunity to review your proposal and ask you give us a call should you have any questions. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior RBC/rf Enclosures xc: Mr. J. B. Diamond Mr. R. W. Watkins 4TY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINI - FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No. 1110920871 Date Received 111092 Date Reviewed 011393 Applicant Name Lewis M' Costello Et. Al. --.-_. Address 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Project Name Prince Frederick Office Park Phone No. 703-665-0050 Type of Application Master Plan Current Zoning B-2 ----- 1st Due Fire Co. 18 1st Due Rescue Co. 18 Election District Shawnee RECOMMENDATIONS Automatic Sprinkler System X Residential Sprinkler System Automatic Fire Alarm System X Other Emergency Vehicle Access; Adequate X Inadequate Not Identified �����— ������ Fire Lanes Required; Yes X No Comments: Posted fire lanes required at all hydrant locations per Frederick County Chapter 10. o Roadway/Aislevia y Widths; Adequate Inadequate Not Identified X Special Hazards Noted; Yes No X Comments: 6 Hydrant Locations; Adequate Inadequate Not Identified X Siamese Connection Location; Approved Not Approved Not Identified X Additional Comments: 1) Add the following to general construction notes on site plan: Burning of land clearing debris requires permits from the Fire Marshal's Office. Burning of construction debris is not permitted in Frederick County. 2) All fire safety and access issues will be addressed on site plan. Review Time '50 hr PLANS APPROVED Douglas A. Kiracofe Fire Marshal REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOP14ENT PLAN COMMENTS Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer Director P.O. Box 618 Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5690 The Frederick County Sanitation Authority is located on the 2nd floor of the old Frederick Co. Courthouse in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Lewis M. Costello (703) 665-0050 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601 Name of development and/or description of the request: Prince Frederick Office Park Master Plan for Office Park Location: South of Route 50, West of Carper's valley Golf Course, and North of Winchester Regional Airport Sanitation Authority Comments: .ZNA - 04AAt90V-, 0 Sanitation Authority Signature & Date: (NOTICE TO SANITATION AUTHORITY * R N THIS FORM TO APPLICANT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or applicajr,, n form. 199 )!,' `3 Alli, ES ER D Frederick County Sanitation Author Attn: Engineer Director P.O. Box 618 Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5690 LCEIVE I ' • titi/ The Frederick County Sanitation Authority is located on the,,:'2nd floor of the old Frederick Co. Courthouse in Winchester, if you. prefer to hand deliver this review. titiYD COv�M'Ey%ffi Applicant's name, address and phone number: Lewis M. Costello Et Al (703) 665-0050 x444/Alo :r; 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601 /i ��y h w�j� Name of development and/or description of the request: JO/2 Prince Frederick Office Park /4 `f " V Master Plan for office Park Location: South of Route 50, West of Carper's Valley Golf Course and North of Winchester Regional Airport Sanitation Authority Comments: - / I APO view- /.� /T��! • �'o� ,rccT Sanitation Authority Signature & Date: , (NOTICE TO SANITATION AUTHORITY * R VffRN THIS ,FOR TO APPLICANT.) /2! ,'ez NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to as the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form.. • REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS Frederick .County Inspections Department At,Ln: Building official P.O. Box 601 _ Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5650 The Frederick Countrinspections Department is located at 9 North Loudoun St., 2nd Floor of the Hammon Building in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Lewis M. Costello (703) 665-0050 . 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601 Name of development and/or description of.the request: Prince Frederick'Office Park Master Plan for Office Park Location: South of Route 50, West of Carper's Valley Golf Course. and North of Winchester Regional Airport Inspection Department Comments: Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Codes that apply are title 28 Code of Federal regulation, Part 36 Nondiscrimniation on the Basis of Disability by Public Accomodations and in Ccavmerical Facilities. You shall comment on USV.,qROW a th time of Individual Site Plan Reviews. Code Administrator Signature & Date: (NOTICE TO INSPECTIONS DEPT.*PLEASE R RN THIS YORM TO AP I AN .) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. 0 REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS Frederick County,.'`,Inspections.Department Attn: Building Official. P.O. Box 601 _ ,,•0 .4 Winchester, Virginia 22601 . ^.' (703) 665-5650 Frederick County Inspections Department is located at 9 North Loudoun St., 2nd Floor of the Hammon Building in Winchester, if you '.- prefer,to hand deliver this review'. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Lewis M_ Cbstello RE Al, (703) 665-( OSO 107 North Kent S rep -., Winchester, VA 22601 Name of development and/or description of the request: Prince FrExlPrirk Off inp_ Park Master Plan for Office Park Location: South of Route 50, West of Carper's Valley Golf Course and North of Winchester Regional Airport Inspection Department comments: Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, the BOCA National Building Code/1990. Other codes that apply are title 28 Code of Federal Regulation, Part 36 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public AcccRramdations a -id in Corm. ercial Facilities. Shall comment on use group and handicap parking at the time of buildingp s 1 Code -Administrator Signature & Date: (NOTICE TO INSPECTIONS DEPT. *PLEASE RjeMR THI , ORM TO AP ICANT. )� ✓ `�� NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possi.ble in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. I i 0 3 . r"4 1:% 2 5 I'j 3 W P I R 11 H Id i of h oo A t op r, 02. REQUEST V011 MASTER DBVELOPHENT PLAN COMMENTS Frederiok 'County Enqincerijiq Depart in on L' Attn-.' Director of Engineering P,O. Dox 601 Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5643 The Frederick County Engineering Department is located at 9 North LoUdoun St. - Prid Plaor of the Hammon Building in Winchester, if' you prefer to hand delivor this review. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Lewis M.-Costello Et Al (703) 665-0050 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601 ,Name of development'and/or description of the request: Prince Frederick office Park Master Plan for Office Park Location: South of Route 50, West of parL)aKl S Valley Golf course and North of Winchester Airport Engineers Comments: (Ac Engi neers sic'jtlatUre & D a t c (NOTICE TO BNGXNBV.R.TNG )DVPT. 2- APPLICANT.) j 'WPLTCANT it .is your re,,Pons ibi.lity t.-.o nointhis1I.ete this form Lis aCCIIrately* as po!,,siblo in order to assiot the ationcy w-Ith thuir rlcview. Also, please attach a. copy of your plans and/or application form. I :. " 0 C; " 9 ": I I., ; ,, .1 0 o t. , ti e 3 9 PHRIL r4- 14 1 richr. a Let, DATE:. December 4, 1992 PROJECT: 'Prince Prederick Office Park Shawnee Hagisterial:District Frederick Countye Virginia DtSIGNER: Patton 11arris Rust and Associates, P.C. 100 South Main Stroot Bridgewater, Virginia 22812 COMMENTS 1. The pr6liminary master plan indicates three (3) stormwater management ponds. One (1) of these structures is proposed on property owned by the CarpertB 'Valley Golf Club. Indicate whether the stormwater management ponds will be phased with the development or constructed prior to any development. Provide an explanation of the phasing if that ..,;,Option is utilized. 2. The 'design of the stormwater management facilities shaill be based on the assumption that 75 percent of the property in question is available for total development (i.e., roads, parking and buildings). 3. It is suggested that consideration be given ven to contacting the upstream property owners to determine their interest in participating in the construction of a regional storm;water management facility.' A regional facility could serve this site as well as others with the costs shared by all.. O v or. Ha ey --'\8trawsnyd0 r ' 7 P E . Direato;k:-6f Public Works 03 4P Z�22 2324.j . REQUEST F t DEVEL Winchester Regional Airpor 'ram II Attn: Executive Director Route 1, Box 208-A 8 G Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 662-2422 y o co Y/,o06 The Winchester Regional Airport is located on Route 645, off of Route 522 South, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Lewis M. Costello (703) 665-0050 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601 Name of development and/or description of the request: Prince Frederick Office Park Master Plan for Office Park Location: South of Route 50, West of Carper's Valley Golf Course, and North of Winchester Regional Airport Winchester Regional Airports Comments: (Please see comments on back.) Airport Signature and Date: KMNUMF.WIEGAND (NOTICE TO AIRPORT. * PLEASt RETURN TH S FORM TO9%MffM7MT6L10R _NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. iGC�LEOWE A ? 1 1001 I� t Please consider the following comments when reviewing this Request for Master Development Plan: The Developer should be familiar with and be required to comply with the provisions of the Frederick County Airport Zoning District (AP-1) and Airport Support Area (ASA) described in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The developer should also be familiar with the provisions and requirements of the following codes: Title 15.1 Code of Virginia, Section 489 (Purpose of Zoning Ordinances) and Section 491.02 (Airport Safety Zoning). Title 5-1-25.1 Code of Virginia (Permits Required for Erection of Certain structures.) As Winchester Regional Airport expands services and operations, noise associated with such expansion is very likely to increase. The Airport Support Area established by the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is designed to discourage residential development in the vicinity of the airport to preclude citizen concerns for noise created by aircraft operating on, to and from Winchester Regional Airport. If the developer is planning residential development adjacent to the ASA or under a flight path used regularly by aircraft outside of the ASA as they arrive or depart the Airport, he should be either required or encouraged to insulate all habitable structures for noise and be required to specifically address, in the property Covenants and Easements, existing airport related noise and the probability of increased noise as airport operations expand. 6113,44,11V 1 H"I" 90133i113 JWJTLQ34 rr�= REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTa Winchester itegi:onal Airk�orL' Attn: Executive Director Route 1, Box 208-A Winaiiest:er, Virginia 22601 (703) 662-2422 The Winchester Regional Airport is located on Route 645, o,ff of Route 522 South, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Lewis M. Costello Lt Al 703 665-0050 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601 Name of.development and/or description of the roquest: Prince Frederick Office Park Master Plan for Office Park Location: South of Route 50, West of x's Valley Golf Course and North of Winchester Regional. Airport Winchester Regional Airports Comments: Please review comments on back. " KENNETH F. vu�Ecano 7 Airport Signature and pate: (NOTICE TO AIRPORT. * PLE145 tETURN THIS >~'O� APPLICANT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. Please Consider the following comments when reviewing thin Request for Master Development Plan: The Developer ahould be fami.liar wit11 and be required to comply with the provisions of the Frederick County Airport 2oning District (AP-1) and Airport Support Area (ASA) described in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The developer should also be familiar with the provisions and requirements of the following codes: Title 15.1 Code of Virginia, Section 489 (Purpose of Zoning Ordinances) and Section 491.02 (Airport Safety Zoning). Title 5.1-25.1 Code of Virginia (permits Required for Erection of Certain structures.) As Winchester Regional. Airport expands services and operations, noise associated with such expansion is very likely to increase. The Airport Support Area established by the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is designed to discourage residential development in the vicinity of the airport to preclude citizen concerns for Noise created by aircraft operating on, to and from Winchester Regional Airport. If the developer is planning residential development adjacent to the ASA or under s flight path used regularly by aircraft outside of the ASA as they arrive or depart the Airport, he should be either required or encouraged to insulate all habitable structures for noiae and be required to specific&?:ly address, in the property Covenants and Easements, existing airport related noise and the probability of increased noiafa as airport operationa expand. Qt1AIC TW I NY?«Y g Fu11JartifQ ]VITU030 t1i+R—�E.—So - FF' I 1 - fir'. E:ER F- _ CA 48 PRjNCF, FRFDEraCK OFFICE PARK STP-F FT CLASSIFICATION & TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY PARK DESCRIPTION - The Prince Frederick Office Park is zoned B-2 and, is planned as an office and research/development park designed in a campus type seting. TOTAL AND USABLE ACRRAGE - The total acreage for the park is approximately 92 acres, but approximately 32 acres contain steep slopes, flood plain, highw4y dedication, or other unusable areas leaving approximately 60 acres for developrne4t. FLOOR AREA RATIO • In a typical office and research/development park, approximately .50% of the space is used as office and 50% of the space is needed for R & D type uses. The Corps of Engineers building is,a typical project where the 92,060 square foot space plan includes 42,000 square feet for offices and 50,00b square feet for R & D. The Corps project is a one and two story building and has � floor area ratio of .16. The maximum FAR for this type of project is typically about 0.2. TOTAL PROJECTED SPACE - Assuming the buildable area at 60 acres and an FAR of .2 with 50% office and 50% R & D space, the total proposed office space would be 261,360 square feet and the R & D space would be 261,360 square feet for grand total for the building area of 522,720 square feet. VEHICt.E TRIPS PER DAY - The I.T.E. Trip Getileration Manual lists 11,404 trips per day for 1,000 square feet of offi,:e, or 2,976 tPD, and 6.090 trips pe� day for R & D uses or 1,589 TPD. The total trips per day generated from the park would be 4,565. STRF,ET CLASSIFICATION - There are four planned entrances into the site, but this model assumes a worst case scenario with only the two entrances constructed to Route 50. Assuming equal uses of the entrances, the`entranee streets would handle 2,483 TPD which can be serviced with a major collector street that handles up to+3,000 TPD Kith two lanes and a 60 foot R-O-W. Capacity analysis indicates that a two lane road is adequate if additional turn lanes are added: at Route 50. PROPOSED FAR - Based on the above model and the Technical Analysis Ind VDOT Road Guidelines, the proposed park could be bui)t to a .26 FAR or 700,000 square feet and still only require a major collector street.' The developers are preplared to limit the maximum FAR to a .26 and/or a combination of uses that would limit the T`PD at the main entrance roads to 3,000 TPD. It s}iould be noted that a .26: FAR on the 60 useable acres equates to a .17 FAR for t e total acreage. It should also be noted VDOT only requires you to handle the trips generated on your site.' ADDITIONAL CONSTDLRATIONS - The developer's also agree to build additional turn lanes (one right and two left) and provide traffic signals in Phase I and lalso Phase I1 as determined by the actual trips generated on the site. This would permit easy access both north and south on Route 50. The developers also agree to dedidate a 86' R-O-W as shown on the master plan to accommodate future potential regional traffic demand. PRINCE FREDERICK OFFICE PARK STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SUMMARY WATERSHED DESCRIPTION - The total water shed that contributes to the existing Route 50 pond at the Carpers Valley Golf Course entrance is approximately 1,100 acres. Of this acreage approximately 460 acres are in the Sulfur Springs Run watershed and 640 acres of contribution flows from north to south under Route 50 just above or at the pond. Based on the current "C" factors, 38 % of the water thru the Route 50 pond flows from Sulphur Springs Run and 62% flows under Route 50. CONTRIBUTION FROM OFFICE PARK - Prince Frederick Office Park contains 92 acres or 20 % of the Sulfur Springs Run flow and 7.6 % of the total flow thru the existing Route 50 pond. Per the county ordinance each site or subdivision is required to retain storm water equal only to the difference between pre and post development. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN - The developers propose to provide storm water management (SWM) ponds as shown on the revised master plan. The developers will also dedicate the area along the Sulphur Springs Run as shown on the master plan for a regional SWM facility to be developed by the county under a future regional SWM plan. The developer further agrees to contribute its pro -rated share of the regional facility for any sites developed after the approval and/or construction of the regional facility. March 8, 1993 Mr. Robert W. Watkins, Director Department of Planning & Development County of Frederick P.O. Box 601 9 Court Square Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: PRINCE FREDERICK OFFICE PARK TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA PHR&A F-8149-10 Dear Mr. Watkins: Based on comments from staff, the County's Planing Commission, and VDOT, we have analyzed the local roadway impacts associated with Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed Prince Frederick Office Park Master Plan on U.S. Route 50 near Winchester, Virginia. We have updated our conclusions to respond to specific VDOT comments, which should address the traffic concerns discussed by the Planning Commission on Wednesday, March 3, 1993. The analysis demonstrates the adequacy of the proposed roadway improvements to support site development for safe access. Detailed information regarding implementation conditions and design details can be addressed with construction plans and/or subdivision plans, when more specific site development plans are available. The analysis was prepared to respond to VDOT comments, dated January 13, 1993 as part of the original submittal of the subject master plan requesting a trip generation analysis. The VDOT comments focused on turn lanes at Route 50 and documentation of site characteristics. Based on discussions with VDOT representatives, the trip generation analysis is focused to the peak hour characteristics and intersection capacities. Daily volumes have also been computed for link assessments. Since the 91.9 acres is master -planned for office/employment uses, a regional traffic analysis is not included to respond to VDOT and County access issues. MAR 2 519M UU� Mr. Robert W. Watkins March 8, 1993 Page 2 Regional elements of the property and the related travel impacts to the roadway network can be assessed through on -going VDOT/Frederick County regional planning, which are incorporated into the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS). Therefore, the study scope is restricted to the proposed public street locations at Route 50. As stated to the Planning Commission, specific land -use assumptions for the property have been calculated by PHR&A, based on the roadway capacity of the proposed improvements. As tenants begin to occupy the property, the mix and intensity of the site development may vary; However, the County can utilize these traffic forecasts as a basis for comparisons should future development be modified from the assumptions presented herein. As revised for review by Frederick County, the internal street network is designed to allow for future construction by others to connect the on -site streets with other collector roads. The eastern site entrance, opposite Route 781 median crossover, ends in a cul-de-sac adjacent to the Winchester Regional Airport. To the west, the on -site roadway system includes a cul-de-sac with R-O-W reservation should the collector be extended towards U.S. Route 522, by others. Analysis of this scenario is not included. BACKGROUND The approved Eastern Frederick County Regional roadway plan does not envision new Major Collectors or Arterials in the southeast quadrant of the U.S. Route 50/Route 522 intersection. The proposed development of the Prince Frederick Office Park envisions a campus style office/business park of 91.9 acres south of Route 50 to be served by two (2) collector roads, two (2) lanes in width. R-O-W for the collectors are shown on the Master Plan with a 60 foot width. The site is currently served by two (2) private driveways south of Route 50 and is divided by the Sulpher Sprung Run. To the east, the site has access to the Route 50 median crossover at Route 781. The GW Motors car dealership is located southwest of the intersection. Route 50 is a four (4) lane divided facility with shoulders. The site also has access to Ryco Lane, a private entrance just west of the Route 791/Route 50 intersection. Ryco Lane serves as the eastern parking lot entrance to the Big Lot retail outlet and as the access to a car wash, auto service places, and industrial/warehouse uses behind the Harley-Davidson store. To the west of Route.791, Route 50 is a four (4) lane undivided road with a continuous eastbound right turn lane and two (2) continuous left turn lanes starting just east of the intersection and extending to Route 522. To test the adequacy of the roadway system, PHR&A developed trip generation scenarios, and intersection assignments for the site as described below, to support the Master Plan development. Mr. Robert W. Watkins lhiri-Hhl March 8, 1993 Page 3 ANALYSIS APPROACH The determining factor for the amount of site development which could be supported was the PM Peak Hour capacity of the northbound left movement at the Prince Frederick Drive intersection along Route 50. Due to the site's limited amount of frontage with access to Route 50, the proposed access adjacent to the GW Motors facility would dictate the potential vehicles. Using standard trip generation rates, the peak hour vehicle trips were converted to building sizes. To analyze the turn capacity, PHR&A initially approximated site densities using general turn lane and link capacities. Subsequent intersection analyses refined the site trips to achieve acceptable operations using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The left turn lane capacity of approximately 300 vph per lane is a VDOT "rule -of -thumb" value for design and planning proposes. The following methodology was used to develop development scenarios for the property, as documented below: 1. Evaluate existing traffic operations, 2. Determine Background traffic conditions without the Prince Frederick Drive Office Park, 3. Determine Site Traffic trip rates, 4. Assign site traffic to the roadway network, and 5. Compute intersection operations and evaluate turn lane and link operations. Based on the analysis methodology, three (3) scenarios were investigated: Scenario A: Single site access for Phase 1 development opposite the Route 781 median cross -over. Separate left turn lanes on the, northbound and westbound approaches with a separate right turn lane on eastbound Route 50. Scenario B: Two (2) site access locations for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 development on -site. Additional access from Scenario A with Ryco Lane reconstructed to VDOT street standards without additional turn lanes. Scenario C: In addition to the Scenario B development thresholds, PHR&A calculated the additional site development potential assuming Prince Frederick Drive would have three (3) northbound approach lanes. This scenario will require additional ROW and allow double left turn lanes from Prince Frederick Office Park to westbound Route 50. For capacity purposes, intersection analyses assumed that the intersections on U.S. Route 50 would be signalized. Due to the through traffic on Route 50, there is not available 'gap -acceptance' for the side streets to operate at desirable LOS for existing or future conditions. VDOT typically determines the implementation of traffic signal installation based on standards in the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devises (MUTCD) based on traffic conditions beyond the peak periods examined in this report. Mr. Robert W. Watkins 1"Itt"11 I Iarri, Nu! t R' 1-- rinir-. lir March 8, 1993 Page 4 PHR&A assumed a three (3) year build -out to assess the traffic impacts of Scenario A. A 10-year horizon was assumed for Scenarios B and C. The design years allow for growth on Route 50 not associated with the Prince Frederick Office Park. Long-term impacts for a 2010 or 2015 horizon are best addressed in the WATS study, since the property is proposed for development consistent with the site's zoning designation. Background Traffic The background traffic was computed by applying a growth factor to existing volumes. Current VDOT traffic data for U.S. Route 50 shows approximately 15,000 ADT (Average Daily Traffic) east of Route 522 in 1991. To assess peak hour conditions adjacent to the property, PM peak hour counts were conducted on February 3, 1993 at both intersection locations by PHR&A (See Appendix A). The existing counts were increased at a rate of four (4) percent per year for the years 1996 and 2003. This percent is the growth that has occurred over the past five (5) years along Route 50 adjacent to 'the site, and was calculated from the annual VDOT 24-hour counts. Site Traffic The trips generated by the build -out of the proposed site were estimated using the trip equations from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition (1991). For a conservative estimate of site generated trips, the ITE Codes 750 for Office Park and 710 for General Office were assumed. Other uses, such as Business Parks, R&D, or flex -industrial parks could have larger building sizes with the equivalent traffic volumes. The land -use codes applied for the site are based on an office park or campus uses with an assumed building square footage. Since the type and intensity of uses are not known, PHR&A applied two (2) assumptions to test site development potential: 1. Use TyW - The ITE Manual defines an Office Park as "Office Parks are generally suburban subdivisions or planned unit developments containing general office buildings and support services such as banks, savings and loan institutions, restaurants, and service stations, arranged in a park- or campus -like atmosphere." In relation to other employment uses that could be applied to the property, the office park trip equations translate into a higher trip rate per 1,000 gross square feet (gsf) for the PM peak hour in comparison to Industrial Parks, Corporate Headquarters, Research and Development Centers. The Daily trip rates are consistent with office trip rates in ITE. Since less intense traffic uses can be mixed into the property, the Office Park equations from ITE were used. PHR&A did modify the trip rates for approximately 90,000 square feet of office space, to account for a potential user under consideration by the owners. Mr. Robert W. Watkins I'au n flarri- -1 urcilr . pr March 8, 1993 Page 5 2. Use IntensitX - The maximum development of any property varies subject to topography, roadway dedication, parking requirements, and building uses. Since site development plans are not available for the property, PHR&A initially assumed a development between 0.15 and 0.35 FAR (Floor -Area -Ratio). For the subject site, the densities could range between 600,000 gsf and 1,400,000 gsf. Additional review of the site, accounting for the steep slopes and existing 100-year floodplain, the potential site development may only achieve a 0.15 to 0.25 FAR. Initial development concepts for the site's initial office building show an effective FAR between 0.15 and 0.19, which is consistent with ITE Trig Generation Manual ratios of 1,000 gsf/acreage for R&D Centers and Business Parks. For this analysis, the effective building square footages were determined based on the carrying capacities of the roadways for each scenario. Using the Office and Office Park trip equations, Table 1 shows the maximum square footage permitted for each scenario, and gives the resulting trips generated by the site during the AM and PM peak periods for each phase. Table 1 Prince Frederick Office Park Trip Generation AM Peak PM Peak Land Use IN OUT IN OUT ADT SCENARIO A (Phase 1 @ effective 0.12 FAR) Office Park-125,000 SF 248 31 33 188 1,749 Office - 90,000 SF 152 64 29 140 1,263 Total 215,000 SF 400 95 62 328 3,012 Effective Rate > 1.86 0.23 0.29 1.53 14.01 SCENARIO B (Phase 1 & 2 @ effective 01 FAR) Office Park-310,329 SF 521 64 70 399 3,737 Office - 90,000 SF 152 64 29 140 1,263 Total 400,329 SF 673 83 99 539 4,999 Effective Rate > 1.68 0.21 0.25 1.35 .12.49 SCENARIO C (Phase 1 & 2 @ effective 0175 FAR) Office Park-610,577 SF 906 112 123 697 6,575 Office - 90,000 SF 152 64 29 140 1,263 Total 700,577 SF 1,059 131 152 837 7,838 Effective Rate > 1.52 0.19 0.22 1.19 11.19 Trip rates shown are effective rates per 1,000 gsf. FAR computations did not include reduced site area for unbuildable areas or roadway dedication. 0 Mr. Robert W. Watkins March 8, 1993 Page 6 Tn� Assigmnent I'.fltnn Ilw'ri, Ru-t & 1,01-. p, The distribution of site generated trips was based upon information supplied to PHR&A by VDOT Transportation Planning Division long-range trip tables for the vicinity. Based on this information, PHR&A determined that the site trips will be oriented 80 percent to/from the west of the site and 20 percent to/from to the east along Route 50. Route 50 existing volume splits during the PM Peak Hour are oriented 60/40 to the west. The site's Scenario A generated trips plus background volumes account for the Total 1996 volumes shown in Figure 1. Effective roadway operations are shown in Figure 2 as described below. Figures 3 and 5 show the Total 2003 volumes which include the site's Scenarios B and C volumes, respectively. LEVEL .OF SERVICE Capacity analysis was performed at the two (2) access points along Route 50 for the weekday AM and PM peak hours assuming the total volumes for each Scenario. AM peak hour conditions for the background volumes were factored from the PM peak hour assignments. The methodology assumed for this analysis was the Highway Capacity Software, version 1.5 (HCM). Intersection turn lane storage was computed based on AASHTO and VDOT standards. The following narrative describes Level of Service and Queue conditions that would be observed in each scenario assuming the lane configurations shown in Figures 2, 4, and 6: Scenario A: o The Route 50/Prince Frederick Drive intersection will operate signalized at Level of Service B during the AM and PM peak hours. The northbound approach will consist of a separate 350' left turn lane and a shared through/right lane. Also, a 270' eastbound right turn lane and a 275' westbound left turn lane will be required. The southbound approach will remain unchanged from the existing conditions. Scenario B: o The Route 50/Prince Frederick Drive intersection will operate signalized at Level of Service B during the AM and PM peak hours. The northbound approach will consist of a separate 350' left turn lane and a shared through/right lane. Also, a 250' eastbound right turn lane and a 275' westbound left turn lane will be required. The southbound approach will remain unchanged from the existing conditions. • • Mr. Robert W. Watkins �>,���„ ��:, �• r ,� ,� �._.,,.. �, .. i„ March 8, 1993 Page 7 o The Route 50/Ryco Lane intersection will require signalization and will operate at Level of Service B during the AM peak hour and C during the PM peak hour. The northbound approach will consist of a single shared left/right lane. Also, left and right turns into the site will be required to achieve this acceptable LOS. The Route 50 turn lanes are already constructed. Scenario C: o The Route 50/Prince Fredericks Drive intersection will operate signalized at Level of Service B during the AM peak and C during the PM peak hour. The northbound approach will consist of separate 370' left turn lane, a shared left/through lane and a separate right turn lane. Also, a 250' eastbound right turn lane and a 275' westbound left turn lane will be required. The southbound approach will again remain unchanged from the existing conditions and it will operate at LOS E during both peak periods. o The Route 50/Ryco Lane intersection will again require signalization and operate at Level of Service B during the AM and PM peak hours. The northbound approach will consist of a single left/right lane. Also, left and right turns into the site will be required to achieve this acceptable LOS. Figures, 2, 4, and 6 also illustrate the individual approach peak hour Level of Service at each intersection for each phase and scenario. The HCM Level of Service worksheets are included in Appendix B. The link capacities to justify the two (2) lane approaches away from the arterial intersections were evaluated based on the Daily Traffic Volumes on the site links. Accounting for the existing uses and the proposed Prince Frederick Office Park uses as discussed for each scenario, the total roadway daily traffic volumes range between 3,000 and 5,500 vehicles per day. VDOT typically requires an ADT of 8,000 vehicles per day to justify additional through lanes; therefore, the site volumes as shown for the. proposed site development do not justify additional through lanes if site development does not exceed approximately 700,000 gsf (or the traffic equivalent as shown in Table 1). Additional right turn lanes may be warranted at individual site entrances to the office park, subject to building configuration. • • Mr. Robert W. Watkins March 8, 1993 Page 8 I'al� ai Ihlrri� I111-1 K \ n i;ilro. Pr If the Scenario C development is realistic, the ultimate northbound Prince Frederick Drive cross-section should be built initially adjacent to Route 50 to avoid construction disruptions. However, the phasing analyses presented here detail that the turn lanes can be added later when capacity warrants the additional lanes, if the design accommodates the improvements with incremental grading and R-0-W. This incremental approach also would facilitate the distribution of on -site roadway costs as the project develops. This analysis was based on the levels of service of the peak hour intersection turning movements instead of daily link capacities. Therefore, the site's land -use square footages were determined by the peak hour capacity of northbound approach lanes assumed at each intersection. VDOT recommends Prince Frederick Drive be classified as a Major Collector. Also, according to the Frederick County Standards, a major collector is a street within a subdivision which may be required to serve as access to adjoining property or to connect with streets in an adjoining subdivision. This definition accurately describes the function of Prince Frederick Drive, therefore, the proposed ROW of 60 feet is adequate. If a four (4) lane cross-section is pursued, either through additional site development or by the construction by others of off -site links to the west or the south, the 60 foot R-O-W could accommodate a four (4) lane undivided roadway with an ultimate curb -and -gutter section (52 feet between face -of -curb) with sidewalks and/or utilities outside of the R-O-W. Responses to VDOT Comments Based on the trip generation analysis, the following responses to the VDOT issues are appropriate (details of the design elements are best addressed at construction stage): 1. Traffic Signals - If warranted by VDOT, the signals would improve access to the site, as documented by the intersection LOS. 2. Route 50 Turn Lanes at Prince Frederick Drive - Separate eastbound right turn lane and westbound left turn lanes are warranted with initial site development. Based on the queue analysis and roadway design features, we recommend a 275 foot westbound left and 250 foot eastbound right turn lane to be constructed next to the existing Route 50 through lanes. Mr. Robert W. Watkins March 8, 1993 Page 9 I'm1oll I hrri� liu,l C :1 _ i; . I,, 3. Route 50 Eastbound Right Turn Lane - A continuous frontage lane is not warranted based on the Route 50 operations. A separate turn lane at the Eastern site entrance is justified and an existing turn lane is available at the Ryco Lane location for eastbound site trips. The subject owners do not own the properties between the Harley-Davidson shop and GW Motors frontage. 4. Curb -and -Gutter Design - Will be considered at design stage adjacent to Route 50. 5. Guardrail Relocation Responsibility - Subject to construction plan approval, the applicant will be responsible for modifications. 6. Route 50 Median - The sight distance issue should be addressed with the construction plans for the westbound left turn lane. If signal control is approved by VDOT, the intersection safety would be improved. In conclusion, based on the technical traffic assumptions in this analysis, the development of high-tech employment uses on the property can be justified with the proposed Master Plan at an approximate 0.175 Floor -Area -Ratio. The resultant intersection and link performances demonstrate safe access for the Prince Frederick Office Park with two (2) public street access connections to Route 50. Subject to design and construction approvals, the on -site roadway network is oriented to promote interparcel access and allow for roadway widening, if justified by other development. The applicant will be responsible for implementing access requirements to.support the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Prince Frederick Office Park. If you have any questions regarding the technical analyses, please can our Fairfax Office (703) 273-8700 or our Project Manager, Mr. John Hash at (703) 828-2616. Sincerely, PATTON, HARRIS, RUST & ASSOCIATES, A Professional Corporation Lance Hartland Transportation Engineer cc: William H. Bushman - VDOT Lewis M. Costello Carl J. Rinker Jr. Michael R. Martin Enclosures DLH/DRK/dkjr word/rhodes.175 Douglas R. Kennedy, P.E. Senior Project Manager 123 (456) LEGEND AM Peat Roar Traffic Volumes PM Peat Novr Traffic Volumes 30h0 Twenty-four (24) Hour. Volumes (ADT) To U ,dd Pe e Lr tw No Scale 1996 SCENARIO A Figure TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1 y .mac o ti� Fi y d� P Q Haivard Dr. A ro Prfn t ce F o� fir• te• S 4; 0&� 4 ,Rte. �8 I 4 SITE v fi a v D .D B M C •C LEGEND A AM Peak Hour level of Service • B PM Peak Hour Level of Service + Traffic Signal Total LOS-B .B 123' - TURN LANE QUEUE LENGTH -N— d To At - GA lddje vrr��f�e ANo Scale PBulA 1996 SCENARIO A Figure PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE 2 and LANE CONFIGURATION LEGEND 123 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (456) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 3000 Twenty-four(24)Hour Volumes (ADT) ANo Scale 2003 SCENARIO B Figure TOTAL PEAK FLOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 3 A P1JR Total LOS-BB LEGEND A AM Peak Hour Level of Service • B PM Peak Hour Level of Service + Traffic Signal Total LOS-B .B 123' - TURN LANE QUEUE LENGTH No Scale 2003 SCENARIO B Figure PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE 4 and LANE CONFIGURATION LEGEND 123 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (456) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 300o Twenty-four(24) Hour Volumes (ADT) ANo Scale PIRI-,k 2003 SCENARIO C Figu re TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 5 • d� P Harvard Dr.� 0 c Pr�n 'eto te• to 1, o � 4 B A .g �T OB 1� 8I a C � D 4 SITE v Total LOS-B . D g �� •t g . C B . g .f �4D .n/ A PT 111A LEGEND A AM Peak Hour Level of Service • B PM Peak Hour Level of Service + Traffic Signal Total LOS-B .0 123' - TURN LANE QUEUE LENGTH G K To A, n l�dp e e60r No Scale 2003 SCENARIO C Figu re PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE 6 and LANE CONFIGURATION APPENDIX A & B ROUTE 50 PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS and SCENARIOS A,B, & C HCM SUMMARY WORKSHEETS PHR&A TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PRINCE FREDERICK OFFICE PARK Frederick County, Va. Revised March 1993 8149-10 NTERSECTION: Route 50 & Route 781 ITY & STATE: Winchester, Virginia • �ILE NUMBER: 8149-10 LEATHER: Sunny '.ATE OF COUNT: 02/03/93 :OUNTER: DLH „;YSHT-ET DATE: 02/J4/93 4:45PM - 6:15PM CUMULATIVE COUNTS NORTH BOUND ?OUTH BOUND :=:T FOUND WEST BOUNi, PERIOD Route 781 Rout- 781 ka::: ;i Route 50 PER 1nr BEGIN LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEE' -�.RL' RIGHT LEFT THRU RIC�T TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4:45 3 0 1 0 4 :0' G 0 166 5:00 5 0 1 3 0 18 !' 239 0 1 375 .1 5:15 6 0 1 0 25 2 555 1^ 5:30 7 0 0 .? 444 681 .. 5:45 7 0 1 0 46 1u" ;? 3 811 ; 6:00 7 0 2 0 55 1_. ^16 1 3 959 PATTON, HARRIS, RUST AND ASSOCIATES INTERSECTION: Route 50 6 Route 781 CITY 6 STATE: Winchester, Virginia WEATHER: Sunny COUNTER: DL H 4:45PM - 6:15PM 15 MINUTE VOLUME: Cl FILE NUMBER: 814c-:_l DATE OF COUNT: 02/!:::3 WOR.KSHEET DATE: 021':- -3 • NORTH BOND ;n!'TH BOUND EAST PERIOD ; Route 781 Route 7;1 Rout SO acute PERIOD BEGIN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEFT THRU RIGi'.i TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL •--EFT THPU :-'=T TO-!- LEFT TH-r.0 PID-:T TOTAL TOTAL 4:45 3 0 1 � 2 0 4 6 ; lE 102 1:_ n u6 0 175 305 5:00 2 0 1 O 1j i. 29 137 1:: ?:� _ 212 ; 395 5:15 1 0 1 2 r, 7 9 28 108 1'. 1 1s0 186 332 5:30 1 0 G 0 19 97 1 126 133 262 5:45 0 0 n !: 0 v 13 92 1 1?0 132 247 6:00 0 0 1c 8O n x 151 260 PEAK 15 MINUTE INTERVAL 5:00 ; 2 0 2 1 0 14 15 ; 29 137 1 1 ?9 2 212 395 4:45PM - 6:15PM HOURLY VOLUMES NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND ; EAST =:r4D TEST BOUND ; PERIOD ; Route 781 Route 781 Route 50 ; Route ;5 ; PERIOD BEGIN LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RI-T TO'=_ LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL ; TOTAL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4:45 7 0 _ 5 0 37 42 ; 94 444 5?: : 3 681 22 706 ; 1294 5:00 4 0 D 4 3 0 42 45 89 434 3 645 15 663 1236 5:15 ; 2 0 1 3 3 0 37 40 78 377 : 45: 2 584 16 602 1101 PEAK HOUR ----------------------------- 4:45 7 0 8 ; 5 0 37 42 ; 94 444 53: ? 631 22 706 1294 PATTON, HARRIS, RUST AN[, ASSOCIATES INTERSECTION: Route 50 x ^yco Lane CITY h STATE: Winchester, Virginia WEATHER: Sunny, Warm COUNTER: DRK 4:45PM - 6:30PM 15 MINjT,- VOLUMF:'z F:.E NUMaFR: :149-10 DATE OF COUNT: :2MV93 WOP.K:;EET GATE: :_:r'41u NORTH ?OUND SOUTH BOUND =? BOUND WEST BOUND PERIOD Ryco Lane syco Lane Route 50 PERIC: BEGIN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- !EFT THRU ^-TGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT T-='! RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4;45 5 r ± n n 0 n rl 1 27 7 65 0 67 lO: 5:00 12 C. 4 1F 0 F. n n n 'l 1 52 5 223 0 228 29= 5:15 251 1 200 0 201 46" 5:30 8 0 1 0 0 0 Fj :_: 2 122 2 137 0 139 27: 5:65 9 C' ? 11 j 0 ? O :? 2 115 2 154 0 156 28: 6:00 6 0 n n n n n 99 1 165 0 166 27 6:15 6 0 4 10 n ri 11 n ? 91 1 132 0 133 _ PEAK 15 MINUTE INTERVA'_ 5:15 ±3 n : ±` n In - - ------'Si----1---------200----C---2O.----'-----`'---- 4:45PM - 6:30PM HOURLY VOLUMEc NORTH BOUNr SOLI' tiUND : _` BOUF) WEST BOUND PERIOD Ryco Lane Ryco Lane Route ': Route 50 PERIL: BEGIN ---- -------- !EFT ------ THRU --- ------------------------------------ PIrHT TOTAL LEFT THRU ??GHT TOTAL LEFT ' =a RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:45 38 0 8 46 C, rI --- --------------------------------- 0 0 _ 4. ---- 452 ------------------------------------- 10 625 0 635 113: 5:00 42 0 9 51 n n n n 0 7 540 10 714 0 726 13_: 5:15 36 0 7 43 0 c r n 0 587 6 556 0 662 129 5:30 29 0 9 3E 0 r, n n n 8 427 6 588 0 594 105= PEAK HOUR ------------------------ ------------------- --- 5:00 42 is 9 5± n n n n n--------------- ::? 7 540 10 714 0 724 131` • • PATTON, HARRIS, RUST AND ASSOCIATES INTERSECTION: Route 50 h Ryco Lane CITY 6 STATE: Winchester, Virgini= WEATHER: Sunny, Warm COUNTER: DRK 4:45PM - 6:30PM CUMULATIVE COUN FILE NUIPFR: 8149-10 DATE OF Cl'l'NT: 02/03/03 WORKSHEET ['ATE: 02/04/91 NORTH BOUND ::)TH BOUND EAST BOUND WET BOUND PERIOD Ryco Lane Ry;c _3ne Route 50 Route 50 PERIOD BEGIN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LEFT THRU RIGHT LEF- THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIS.;T TOTAL 5 1 1 : 0 n 0 ?6 _ h5 , 5:00 17 0 5 0 0 0 71 288 5:15 30 0 7 n n n 32F- 5:30 38 0 8 0 0 0 446 < 10 ;25 5:45 47 0 10 0 0 n 559 12 179 6:00 53 0 12 0 0 0 657 13 �44 6:15 59 0 16 : 0 0 0 74 1^ 14 .'.76 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION -Route 50/Prince Frederick Drive AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE .......... 02-22-93 TIME.......... AM Peak Hour COMMENT ....... 1996 - PFOP Phase 1 @ 0.12 FAR - Run 1 --------------------=----------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 28 81 48 22 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 TH 689 449 1 4 : T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 RT 347 5 13 71 : T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0: R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------=------------------------------ ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) ( o) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 16.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 16.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 28.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 28.8 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 7.0 63.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 7.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.057 0.617 6.9 B 13.0 B T 0.423 0.533 12.9 B R 0.477 0.533 13.7 B WB L 0.225 0.617 7.9 B 11.1 B TR 0.279 0.533 11.7 B NB L 0.133 0.333 21.2 C 21.1 C TR 0.030 0.333 20.5 C SB LTR 0.302 0.250 27.9 D 27.9 D -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 13.5 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.379 LOS = B l •i 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..Route 50/Prince Frederick Drive AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE .......... 02-22-93 TIME.......... PM Peak Hour COMMENT ....... 1996 - PFOP Phase 1 @ 0.12 FAR.- Run 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 79 16 294 6 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 TH 499 766 3 1 T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 RT 49 25 67 42 T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------- 7------------------------ ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PkG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (9.) ( o ) YIN Nm Nb YIN min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 16.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 16.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00. N 0 0 0.90 0 N 28.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 28.8 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 6.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 6.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW .3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. VIC G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.260 0.625 7.9 B 10.6 B T 0.297 0.550 11.1 B R 0.065 0.550 9.6 B WB L 0.034. 0.625 6.6 B 12.5 B TR 0.473 0.550 12.6 B NB L 0.171 0.325 22.1 C 22.0 C TR 0.157 0.325 21.9 C SB LTR 0.156 0.250 26.7 D 26.7 D -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.0 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.349 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION'S SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..Route 50/Prince Frederick Drive AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE .......... 02-19-93 TIME.......... AM Peak Hour COMMENT ....... 2003 - PFOP @ 0.1 FAR - RUN 3 ----------------------------=---------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 37 102 48 29 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 1.2.0 TH 916 659 1 7 : T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 RT 304 7 12 .93 : T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0: R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) M YIN Nm Nb YIN min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 16.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 16.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N' 28.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 28.8 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 7.0 63.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 7.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.099 0.617 7.1 B 13.9 B T 0.562 0.533 14.5 B R 0.418. 0.533 13.0 B WB L 0.413 0.617 10.1 B 12.5 B TR 0.409 0.533 12.8 B NB L 0.143 0.333 21.3 C 21.1 C TR 0.028 0.333 20.5 C SB LTR 0.401 0.250 28.9 D 28.9 D -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.4 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.470 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..Route 50/Prince Frederick Drive AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE .......... 02-19-93 TIME.......... PM Peak Hour COMMENT ....... 2003 - PFOP @ 0.1 FAR - RUN 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 104 19 283 7 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 TH 711 1018 5 1 : T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 1.2.0 12.0 RT 39 33 55 55 : T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0: R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE M (96) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 ITT 16.8 3 WB 0.00 '2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 16.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 28.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 28.8 3 ---------------------------------------=---------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH. X X RT X RT X X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 7.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 6.0 29.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0' 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP, V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.269 0.633 7.7 B 11.5 B T 0.423 0.550 12.1 B R 0.052 0.550 9.5 B WB L 0.053 0.633 6.3 B 14.4 B TR 0.628 0.550 14.6 B NB L 0.267 0.317 23.5 C 23.3 C TR 0.137 0.317 22.3 C SB LTR 0.208 0.242 27.7 D 27.7 D -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 15.0 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.461 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..Route 50/Ryco Lane AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE .......... 02-19-93 TIME.......... PM Peak Hour COMMENT ....... 2003 - PFOP @ 0.175 FAR - Run 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 22 230 0 : T 12.0 L 12.0 LR 12.0 12.0 TH 848 1551 0 0 : T 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.0 RT 71 0 55 0 : R 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE M M Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 5.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 5.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 20.5 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 20.5 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 90.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH X TH RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT TH X X TH RT RT PD PD GREEN 7.0 43.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB T 0.568 0.489 12.7 B 11.8 B R 0.063 0.822 1.1 A WB L 0.074 0.600 5.7 B 13.4 B T 0.846 0.600 13.5 B NB LR 0.773 0.333 26.6 D 26.6 D -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.2 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.820 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..Route 50/Ryco Lane AREA TYPE.....OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE .......... 02-19-93 TIME.......... AM Peak Hour COMMENT ....... 2003 - PFOP @ 0.1 FAR - RUN 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 46 38 0 : T 12.0 L 12.0 LR 12.0 12.0 TH 1180 747 0 0 : T 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.0 RT 325 0 22 0 : R 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) W Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 11.3 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 11.3 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 25.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 25.8 3 ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH ,= 90.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH X TH RT x RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT TH X X TH RT RT PD PD GREEN 6.0 45.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 29.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 0.10 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB T 0.756 0.511 14.6 B 11.9 B R 0.286 0.833 1.3 A WB L 0.205 0.611 6.0 B 6.9 B T 0.400 0.611 6.9 B NB LR 0.168 0.322 16.6 C 16.6 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 10.3 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.494 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..Route 50/Ryco Lane AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE .......... 02-19-93 TIME.......... PM Peak Hour COMMENT ....... 2003 - PFOP @ 0.1 FAR - RUN 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 20 251 0 : T 12.0 L 12.0 LR 12.0 12.0 TH 823 1294 0 0 : T 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.0 RT 50 0 67 0 : R 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ.PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE ( 96 ) (%) YIN Nm Nb YIN min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 11.3 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 11.3 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 25.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 25.8 3 ------------------------------------=------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 90.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH X TH RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT TH X X TH RT RT PD PD GREEN 6.0 42.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 32.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4.0 0.'.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS 'APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB T 0.564 0.478- 13.1 B 12.4 B R O.O44 0.833 1.0 A WB L 0.071 0.578 6.4 B 11.5 B T 0.733 0.578. 11.6 B NB LR 0.809 0.356 27.4 D 27.4 D 7 -------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 13.8 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.762 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..Route 50/Prince Frederick Drive AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE.: ........ 02-19-93 TIME.......... AM Peak Hour COMMENT ....... 2003 - PFOP @ 0.175 FAR - Run 4 -------------'------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 37 160 89 29 :'L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12..0 LTR 11.0 TH 914 644 1 11 : T 12.0 T 12.0 LT 12.0 12.0 RT 454 7 24 93 : T 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0: R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (96) M Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 23.5 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 23.5 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 7.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 18.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 0.'0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 ------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.099 0.608' 7.5 B 12.5 B T 0.570 0.525 15.0 B R 0.493 0.675 7.5 B WB L 0.338 0.608 9.4 B 12.4 B TR 0.407 0.525 13.2 B NB L 0.199 0.150 34.0 D 33.0 D LT 0.194 0.150 34.0 D R 0.085 0.208 29'.1 D SB LTR 0.644 0.167 39.6 D 39.6 D --------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.8 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.539 LOS = B A 1 i 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..Route 50/Prince Frederick Drive AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE .......... 02-19-93 TIME.......... PM Peak Hour COMMENT ....... 2003 - PFOP - 0.175 FAR Run 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 104 27 540 7 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 11.0 TH 699 1016 8 2 : T 12.0 T 12.0 LT 12.0 12.0 RT 59 33 127 55 : T 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 '0 : R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED, BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) M Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 23.5 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 23.5 3 --------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 121.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 6.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 28.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 .0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.421 0.579 12.2 B 14.3 B T 0.454 0.504' 14.8 B R. 0.086 0.504 11.8 B WB L 0.084 0.579 8.6 B 17.8 C TR 0.684 0.504 18.0 C NB L 0.777 0.231 39.6 D 37.1 D LT 0.775 0.231 39.5 D R 0.332 0.281 26.4 D SB LTR 0.456 0.116 39.4 D 39.4 D ------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ INTERSECTION: 'Delay = 21.9 (sec/veh) V/C =- 0.658 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..Route 50/Ryco Lane AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE .......... 02-19-93 TIME.......... AM Peak Hour COMMENT ....... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 - PFOP @ 0.175 FAR - Run4 VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 65 35 0 : T 12.0 L 12.0 LR 12.0 12.0 TH 1364 787 0 0 : T 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.0 RT 479 0 20 0 : R 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE M (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 .5 N 11.3 3 WB 0.00 .2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 11.3 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 25.8 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 25.8 3 -------------------------------------------------------�------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 90.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH--3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH X TH RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT TH X X TH RT RT PD PD GREEN 8.0 55.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB T 0.718 0.622' 9.6 B 7.7 B R 0.433 0.811 2.0 A WB L 0.252 0.744 2.9 A 3.0 A T. 0.346 0.744 3.0 A NB LR 0.263 0.189 23.8 C 23.8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 6.6 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.565 LOS = B r COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II RE: Prince Frederick Office Park Discussion DATE: March 30, 1993 The Frederick County Planning Commission reviewed and approved a preliminary Master Development Plan for the Prince Frederick Office Park on March 3, 1993. The motion for approval stated that the business park would contain a four -lane access road, traffic lights (when warranted by VDOT), and that the applicant would address all review agency comments, and all concerns of staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. The applicant has requested time during the April 7, 1993 Planning Commission meeting to discuss issues regarding traffic and storm water management. Staff and Bill Bushman, of VDOT, met with the applicants on March 25, 1993, to review an updated traffic analysis. This analysis, dated March 8, 1993, is included in your agenda package. The applicant has also provided the Planning Commission with two summary sheets. This information summarizes the street classification, trip generation, and storm water management within the proposed office park. The project engineer has revised the Prince Frederick Office Park Master Development Plan since the March 3, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. Revisions include the following: 1) Extension of the two cul-de-sacs to be built as close to the adjoining properties as possible. 2) Provisions for an 80 foot right-of-way along the east -west access road within the boundaries of the proposed office park. 3) Conceptual design to indicate ingress/egress from the proposed office park onto Route 50 East. 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 0 0 Master Development Plan #001-93 of Prince Frederick Office Park Discussion from Planning Commission Meeting of March 3, 1991 Mr. Roger Thomas said that he would abstain from discussion and vote on this master plan, due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. John Hash, with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates (PHR&A), said that they have revised their preliminary plan to address the two issues identified at the last Planning Commission meeting, which were: 1) extending the two cul-de-sacs nearer to the adjoining property boundary lines to show the possibility of connection with the adjoining properties; and, 2) revisions to address regional stormwater management issues. Staff inquired about projections for level of development expected by the applicant. Mr. Douglas Kennedy, Transportation Engineer with PHR&A, said that they are considering office park and office uses at approximately 700,000 square feet of development on the approximate 90 acres. He said that if the employment areas are developed with warehouse or manufacturing uses, the overall yield of the property could go up.31 The Commission felt the applicant's projections had a bearing on the transportation network through the park. They felt it had a definite bearing on Mr. Childress' letter (VDOT's letter dated 1/13/93), the traffic light on Route 50, and additional accesses to the site. It was pointed out that 700,000 square feet of development on 91 acres only amounted to 15 or 17 acres of building, which meant that approximately 75 acres were unaccounted for. Chairman Golladay noted that only one 100,000 square foot office building with 350-400 employees would result in approximately 400 morning trips and 400 evening trips per day, not including lunch trips. He pointed out that there was only one way for the traffic to go -- to Route 50 and turn left. Mr. Golladay estimated that if you had seven such buildings on the site, the number of trips increased to 2,800 trips --all at one entrance. He felt it was logical to assume that the traffic problems would be significant. Chairman Golladay preferred to see additional access, either through Route 522 or through the airport. It was the staff's feeling that both additional accesses were needed. Mr. Hash said that they were providing the right-of-way dedication to the property line. He said it was his understanding that there may be some development on the property to the west, at which time those people could probably make that connection through, if that was the County's decision. Mr. Douglas Kennedy said that there will be turn lanes required at the Route 50 intersections. 7 Chairman Golladay asked the applicants if they had any problems with Mr. Childress' letter regarding the traffic light, turn lanes, etc. Mr. Kennedy said that they would work with VDOT on the traffic light, if it was warranted. He said that the only condition of Mr. Childress' letter that may cause them a problem was the requirement for an additional turn lane between Ryco Lane and the Big Lots Shopping Center down to G. W. Motors. Chairman Golladay said that a statement was made at the previous Commission meeting that an agreement would be entered into between the County, the State, and the developers indicating that if the road needed widened or improved in any way, that someone other than the developers would pay for it. Mr. Golladay asked if that statement was correct. Mr. Hash responded that the statement was correct. Mr. Romine stated that he would like to have the four -lane road in place at the beginning or at least have the right-of-way. Mr. Romine asked who would pay for the traffic light and other commissioners responded that it should be paid for by the developer. Mrs. Copenhaver inquired if the road within the development would be two or three-laned. Mr. Kennedy ,responded that initially, they would expect to have a one -lane coming into the site and two lanes going out. He said that if traffic builds up, there may be double lefts. Mr. Hash said that they would not have a problem dedicating the right-of-ways upfront for the extension of roads. Mr. Marker felt the main road should have an 80' right-of-way and the four lanes should be put in immediately. Most of the Commissioners agreed with this. The staff commented that it may not be necessary to specify 80' for the right-of- way; if the applicant goes in with a curb and gutter section, they might be able to work within a smaller right-of-way. The Commissioners agreed not specify the "80 feet," but to require the four lanes. Chairman Golladay called for anyone in the audience wishing to speak concerning the proposal and the following persons came forward: Mr. Shirley Carter, adjoining property owner, wanted to know what uses would be allowed within the park. N Mr. Charles Ryan, with Ryco Management, asked where the proposed construction entrance would be located. Mr. Ryan wanted to make sure they could still conduct their business on Ryco Lane. Mr. Edward Strawsnyder, Frederick County's Engineer, said that he had discussions with the developer and his comments on stormwater management had been addressed in the latest revised plan. Mr. Wilson commented that this site had the potential to add a terrific amount of traffic to an already congested area. He said that he could not conceive of building a development of this size without putting a four -lane road into and out of it. Mr. Wilson said that his biggest concern that needed to be addressed was to have the four lanes in there and to have in -place the lights, once they are called for. Mr. Wilson said that other than that, he would move that this be approved based on the staff's recommendations of approval, provided that the applicant address the staff concerns, all review agency comments (including VDOT's 1/13/93 letter), and any concerns of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. This motion was seconded by Mr. Romine. Mr. Light commented that there seemed to be a lot of questions and no definite answers regarding the stop light, turn lanes, widths of right-of-ways, stormwater management, regional stormwater management, good ingress/egress or a second ingress/egress on this property. Mr. Light felt the Commission was jumping the gun on approving this at this time. Mr. Light added that during the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee meeting, there were discussions about the entrances being four-laned or possibly a boulevard center section so that more space was available for traffic to turn. Mr. Light felt the County should set out to get ahead of the project and have it planned right initially. Mr. Wilson said that is why he wanted the four-laned road in. Mr. Light questioned if Mr. Wilson's motion included the four -lane road and Mr. Wilson clarified that his motion did include the four -land road. It was also noted that all the comments from VDOT would have to be complied with. The question was called and the following vote took place YES (TO APPROVES Romine, Wilson, DeHaven, Golladay, Marker, Copenhaver,' Carper NO. Light ABSTAIN: Thomas (Mr. Shenk was absent) • Nora L. Garber Trust c/o Patricia G. Biggs 261 Shawnee Avenue Winchester, Va. 22601 March 4, 1993 Frederick County Planning Commission c/o Evan Wyatt P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Va. 22604 Dear Commission Members: We are currently preparing a Master Development Plan for a tract of our land which adjoins the land of Prince Frederick Office Park. We have no objection to this development or to the interconnection of the street between our properties. We do, however, feel that each property owner should construct the street to the property line. Since it is unknown, at this time, which development will. be first to construct their street, we feel this is equitable. The location of the proposed street, as shown on the M.D.P. (Rev. 2-17-93) appears reasonable for our development. We would, however, reserve the option to comment on any changes in location. We appreciate your consideration of our interest in this project. Nora L. Garber Trust J:ZLn;a Patricia G. Biggs Alma G. Biggs PRINCE FREDERICK OFFICE PARK TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS SUMMARY NOT CURRENT" PARK DESCRIPTION - The Prince Frederick Office Park is zoned B-2 and is planned as an office and research/development park designed in a campus type setting. TOTAL AND USABLE ACREAGE - The total acreage for the park is approximately 92 acres, but approximately 32 acres contain steep slopes, flood plain, highway dedication, or other unusable areas leaving approximately 60 acres for development. FLOOR AREA RATIO - In a typical office and research/development park, approximately 50 % of the space is used as office and 50 % of the space is needed for R & D type uses. The Corps of Engineers building is a typical project where the 92,000 square foot space plan includes 42,000 square feet for offices and 50,000 square feet for R & D. The Corps project is a one and two story building and has a floor area ratio of .16. The maximum FAR for this type of project is typically about 0.2. TOTAL PROJECTED SPACE - Assuming the buildable area at 60 acres and an FAR of .2 with 50 % office and 50 % R & D space, the total proposed office space would be 261,360 square feet and the R & D space would be 261,360 square feet for a grand total for the building area of 522,720 square feet. VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY - The I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual lists 11.404 trips per day for 1,000 square feet of office, or 2,976 TPD, and 6.090 trips per day for R & D uses or 1,589 TPD. The total trips per day generated from the park would be 4,565. STREET CLASSIFICATION - There are four planned entrances into the site, but this model assumes a worst case scenario with only the two entrances constructed to Route 50. Assuming equal uses of the entrances, the entrance streets would handle 2,283 TPD which can be serviced with a major collector street that handles up to 3,000 TPD with two lanes and a 60 foot ROW. Capacity analysis indicates that a two lane road is adequate if additional turn lanes are added at Route 50. PROPOSED FAR - Based on the above model, the proposed park could be built to a .26 FAR (679,539 square feet) and still only require a major collector street. The developers are prepared to limit the maximum FAR to a .26 and/or a combination of uses that would limit the TPD at the main entrance roads to 3,000 TPD. It should be noted VDOT only requires you to handle the trips generated on your site. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS - The developers also agree to build additional turn lanes (one right and two left) and provide traffic signals in Phase I and also Phase II as determined by the actual trips generated on the site. This would permit easy access both north and south on Route 50. NOT CURRENT C a„ Mr CE FREDERICK OFFICE PARK STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SUMMARY WATERSIIFD DESCRIPTION - The total water shed that contributes to the �xisting Route 50 pond at the Carpers Valley Golf Course entrance is approximately 1,100 itcres_ Of this acreage approximately 460 acres are ir1 the Sulfur Springs Run Watershed and 640 acres of contribution flows from north to south under Route 50 just above or at the pond. Based on the current "C° factors,,38% of the water thru the Route 50 pond flows from Sulphur Springs Run and 62% flows under Route 50. COn`1,RIBUTION FROM OFFICE PARK - Prince Frederick Office Park contains 92 acres or 20% of the Sulfur Springs Run flow and Tk of the total flow thru the existing Route 50 pond. Per the county ordinance each site or subdivision is requir�d to retain storm water equal only to the difference between pre and post developrncrlt. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN - The developers propose to provide storm water management (SWM) ponds as shown on tht revised master plan. Th developers will also dedicate the area along the Sulphur Springs Run as shown on th master plan for a regional SWM facility to be developed by the county under a futu e regional SWM plan. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 March 31, 1993 TO THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) The Application of: PRINCE FREDERICK OFFICE PARK PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #001-93 FOR: a business office park. This property, consisting of 91.903 acres, is located on the south side of Route 50, west of Carper's Valley Golf Course, in the Shawnee District, and is identified as GPIN 640000A0000890. This master development plan will be considered by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of April 14, 1993, at 7:15 p.m., in the Board Room of the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak, may attend this meeting. Sincerely, 6j, �. JAI — Evan A. Wyatt Planner II EAW/slk 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 This is to certify tha the attached correspondence wailed to, the following on March 31, 1993 from e Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County., Virginia: Lewis M. Costello 107 North Kent Street _Winchester, Virginia_22601_ ll( Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates Attn: Mr. John Hash P.O. Box 46 Brideewater-. VA -22812 i flirt• 6A 639 I X):i,cw , Pti:l:(:::1 f6y1iX) (:; IXX:'Y'6',i.•.5i, 1 w a: c;i IIXX:r> Y IXX:r. , Ve.) 64 P Q X?a(:)X ZZ44 I...1:::i`.!(:)X 1^I:C1...1... 93*r6'r �lIXX:W Yi: RK , Ny 3.00, .... X)IXX:I_.(:,c) :X)i:X:ifliXa64 Ai'0"`? / I°'' (:) XitC.)X :i- 4.1 1..*:N(:)X I-1j:1.:.l..: :Xi'T'fa INI:YORK, N.,'Y. to n rX)'r GC31..1 �4.400 .M TL.:i...W(1HN) AVGXaWAK .. VA224602 t I STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK MdlFaL(:)W ANX} X-g.) g:t X} `fi4 . r1 ii3<iyr• 1.2•r';:, t�i.i.l..•I...W(.)(.)X} I::IJ.I<I.•. Winchester Harley Davidson: 1160 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA' 22602 t i e: (eL...l. Irll::. ,X}!•ti.^ VA IIA.i34 r tj:l?I..:[. W (:)X} 6lL+l:i:1 F".1...1:::N !••1. t) V6' 1G:+61fs'Y'L.!IXX:Y 1"'FtilXad :'r'! 1 !...IiE:P�liXE:6tiP� Is.:'r 611..::X> VA s C. i fn , Depu ector Frederick C my of Planning I, Renee` S. Arlotta a. Notary Public in and for the state and county aforesaid, do hereby certify that Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director,. for..the Department of' Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated March 31, 1993 , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my state and county foresaid. Given under my hand this 31st day of March 1993 My commission expires on August 31, 1995 NOTARY PUBLIC Prince Fred. Ofc. Park 4/14/93 BOS Meeting I.YP•`thL3(:-0L•: R, d. /O PATRICIA, Blass ::61 ::,o-•rnwNE".EE: AVEE:itiII.AEE: j W:INCHEESTER, VA.. IWinchester Office Center P.O. 'Box 222 Middleburg,, Virginia 22117 64 A A IF�•r...Y:r:NO ANGEL. S, INC,I �Y F11.O. 'OPKA,�XFLA. [i2:r:x):i:iOG, RAYivrt:]ND N & R'•FL61NCEES jRT- el BOX 64 W:I:i4!C:r rEE:;E3 T'EE:F�, VA i 22601 .. [CARTER, SHIRLEY F. "Yt: M P'iJ.r...I.•.wOOD I" _ a i :Y"T•Rt:):3N:I DEE:R, GUY ' 1.05 YAL..GE: 'DRY I I W:GNt:;r••rEEBT'EER, VM ' 64 A. jt:5t:)S T•EE:L..L O, LEWIS M, EET•611. S ' CI 13•T•riE R, VA !WIN I: Yt:.`0 MfthlAGEEME NT', t;t:)RO 1p,. �Y4 A. i•{)<)\ 0,. BOX 1160 IR:•ftiONT ROYAL,. VA. , W:CP�tt;r•drEEa63•TYi: Fa, VA I 22& {) fSt .... COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 February 17, 1993 TO THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) The Application of: PRINCE FREDERICK OFFICE PARK PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #001-93 FOR: a business office park. This property, consisting of 91.903 acres, is located on the south side of Route 50, west of Carper's Valley Golf Course, in the Shawnee District, and is identified as GPIN 640000A0000890. This master development plan will be considered by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their meeting of March 3, 1993, at 7:00 p.m., in the Board Room of the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak, may attend this meeting. Sincerely, Evan A Wyatt Planner II EAW/gll 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 This is to certify th"tehe attached correspondence was�iled to the following on" Febru r 17, 1993, from �ounty, Department of Planning and Development, Frederick ` Virginia:?�•x Center Vil-11...1..1%ne cu I-.s t.^,I...LAN 1.:' 0* Msisl...1...Wt:9(:9X) flktlii:tll;31is; Winchester Office W;j;Nt:aHii:.i#YII2;P4, Vn P.O. Box">222 fin:?i'5f)a.:>.... Middleburg. Virginia 22117. -- �WTNt.aII...SaY1..:16 'Itii...t.::I:tJN�'11... Lewis M. Costello 1 107 North Kent Street'' W:{:I�lra-vn Winchester,. Virginia 22601.:. �• ..... IM(tlUt')W AM> k."t:)(lND Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates -✓„"�j1.:5f'�, •i+�i3:L..i...l�ft:9i:9X} t Ilit.i: ATTN : Mr .. George Foard ✓ �, ,, •}�•� I. P.O. Box 46 't Bridgewater, Virginia 22812. l J64 - f9 t^lr1F:L..L..Y . 89") i. �.FYt} M:i:1...I...W(:)(:)X} 1 •il:l<lic:" X):I:t:!<. RXC`.t••trlRD' t:V lii:'Y'l11...:a ; W:I N(:`.4lt;i:;E# Y'lE::rd,. VA F' C) X:a:)X �2:740°:?t�5 >':5... ..<2 - 64A / Et;a.Jl.J....l. t it:# , 7 I X)Ic.. ¢ AIa3C9t.)X 1f(t N , 01ktPst11••16 M 'F - 1:-,.Nt:)}C ;fi#'Y'61 � ?.:,�LS;3t:# C9 X-M:9X :S;n4 1 1-111...1... V11, Ni:::W Yt: RK , .t4 r , : 64---1.C}E? C9 Xitt)X :3; �k I...1:::N(:)X 1:.-,w Yt: RK ; N Y .. . STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director Frederick County Dept. of Planning I, "Renee' S . Arlotta , a Notary Public in and for the state and county aforesaid, do hereby certify that Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director, for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated February 17, 1993 - , has personally appeared before me and . acknowledged the same in my state and county foresaid. Given under my hand this 17th day of February 5 1993 My commission expires on August 31, 1995 NOTARY PUBLIC fj 7 ®M 111iE.I.:.1:::id 1.5.84 .M:i:l...I.::WC)C)X! AVIEE:. ly, W:I:l`;(:a 11EE:(Ei'T'GE:ft,, VA. (Y.sARTI EN,, 1• FU: i\! ! Y i l i J..:Ptl .r11 �, IE3:'Y'r•1t...S { i 5.'30 ME)R(Yf'yN S T'6+;G61:E: T' i WENCI-41E:18-Ti R, V61 64 f(:Yi'tl'iXi;lEE:12, I":'. IC:/C) AV N(11;. tv I24A..:3l'•IAWNE::E:. EW:EN(:r1•41::.aT'T'{:E.I:l, VA 2, son T 1...Yr.:1 N(v :fviti!C E:e...!S., TNC% 1 1.1.46 64 . A :E. 00 � (r4YCX) rliflNA(6I::gMI:..N 'f if'• .. CD . Xia(:)x 5. 1.68 T' f2(7YA1.:., Vrt ,f:*F":)N Guy' E.. `Strosnider 1-1`51 Yale Drive Winchester 'Virginia 22601 ---------------------- r {•d.1.D:I.h!(:,, RAYi°it.)ND W ! Pq(:.1••11:E:Si):T•1 :I;�, Vol. M ! 1 1 WC)(.)X9 64 A <, 2 C.".)4' 1... I.tl:°:i Yrtl I:::, X!{:i VA. m>Sa,:?... r - -- — 6 r1 , 1,Sltlt� L..Ewx s` M, i •TY11...S 74 .j 1l4er VA 22604 JL.61,I fU.)1...1..., .JdaMl:E:9 I•1 VA a • i . APPLICATION PACKAGE CHECKLIST FOR PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS Frederick County Department of Planning and Development f , This Master Development Plan application is not complete if the items listed below are not present at the time of submission. Tf.': any items are missing the application will be returned to the applicant. It is recommended that the applicant meet with a member..`` of the planning staff when submitting applications in order, to.:.;'.., review the materials for completeness. MDP Package 1. One set of comment sheets from the. following., agencies deemed necessary by the planning staff. along with any marked copies of the plan; X VDOT X Fire Marshal X Co. San. Auth: Co. Health.,Dept. X Co. Engineer Parks x_ Inspections Dept. X -Airport Authority City of Winchester Town of Stephens City Town of Middletown x_ 2. 1 copy of the MDP application X 3. 25 copies of the plan on a single sheet 4. 1 reproducible copy of the plan. (if required) X 5. a 3 5mm . slide of the plan ( under separate cover) X 6. Application Review Fee (check made payable to "Frederick County Treasurer") t 6