Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-00 Shenandoah (Major revision to Wheatlands) - Backfile (2)
I �j 1 h SHENANDOAH Active Adult Resort Gated Community "Age Restricted" I fl I I G 1 Frederick County, Vireinia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Project Title: "Shenandoah" 2. Owner's Name: Fred L. Glaize, III and Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 888 Winchester, VA 22604 Fred L. Glaize, III and James L. Bowman (Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest) 3. Applicant: G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Address c/o Charles E. Maddox, Jr. 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester_ VA 22601 Phone (540) 667-2139 4. Design Company: G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Address 200 N. Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Phone Number (540) 667-2139 1 gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers — Surveyors — Land Planners — Water Quality 2 October 2000 Mr. Kris Tierney, Director Frederick County Planning 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: "Shenandoah" Ordinance Waiver Request RECEIVED: O C T 0 2 2000 DEPT. OF PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT; Dear Kris, do Board of Directors: President: Thomas J. O'Toole, P.E. vice Presidents: Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Earl R. Sutherland, P.E. Ronald A Mislowsky, P.E. David J. Saunders, P.E. Directors: P. Duane Brown, L.S. William L. Wright Michael A. Hammes Thomas W. Price Thank you for our meeting last Wednesday, 27 September. To assist in review by the Commission, we are pleased to submit this letter as a summary of those items identified as requiring a formal waiver by the County, in accord with the zoning ordinance as has been recently revised. j Waiver 1- 165-31(A�`l, 2, &-3) and 165-( )7 .k*,,.4 (43,t4s A waiver allowing minor disturbance of wetlands and flood plains, primarily for roads and trails, as shown on MDP. Waiver 2- 165-31(A)(5) � +cam v4 rael-yM) Ax-,j we� vc;�" a4-e4%A ? A wavier, as required to construct the system of approximately 27 storm ponds and facilities which are created to protect the water quality in Lake Frederick. Waiver 3- 165-31-(A)(7) A Waiver allowing the disturbance of 60% of the woodlands identified by the MDP. The ordinance allows 25%. This clearing is required in order to cluster the housing units and roads on ground remote from the edge of the lake as shown on the MDP. Additional clearing is also required in order to install the substantial stormwater management facilities necessary to protect water quality on Lake Frederick. The plan is offered to replace trees along residential streets on 50' centers, on greenways where view lines are not required as designated on the MDP and at least 3 on each single family lot. Waiver 4- 165-37 (Buffers and Screens) and 165-77(H) A wavier is requested of all interior residential screening between uses and of all road efficiency buffers for this age restricted community. Buffers and screens, where required, are specifically shown on the approved MDP. 200 North Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 667-2139 Fax (540) 665-0493 e-mail gwcliff@mnsinc.com Member American Consulting Engineers Council gilbert w. clifford and associates, inc Page 2 Waiver 5—165-77(M) A waiver is requested to allow streets without conventional sidewalks, subject to an approved trail system, as shown on the approved MDP. Thank you for your processing this request as a part of our Master Plan approval process by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Sincerely yours, gilbert w. cWord & associates, inc. C. C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Vice President CEM/id cc: Mr. Ray Smith Mr. Mark Helmer W. David Cobey T_ r gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers — Surveyors — Land Planners — Water Quality 2 October 2000 Mr. Kris Tierney, Director Frederick County Planning 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: "Shenandoah" 1VIDP Revised "Final Notes" and Application Dear Kris, Thank you for our meeting last Wednesday. RECEIVED OCT 0 2 2000 DEPT. OF PLANNINGIDEVELOPMENT Board of Directors: rmiaeat: Thomas J. O'Toole, P.E. va a Tres : Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Earl R. Sutherland, P.E. Ronald A Mislowsky, P.E. David J. Saunders, P.E. Directors: P. Duane Brown, L.S. William L. Wright Michael A Hammer Thomas W.Price I am attaching several revised documents to this letter which we trust are in keeping with the agreements and instructions of that meeting. You will also find a separate letter which summarizes our requested waivers for Commission and Board action. To summarize for your review is the following: A) Master Development Plan 1) Sheet 3 of 10 was not revised but will be as soon as the road name issues can be resolved. We understand that this does not have to be completed prior to Planning Commission review of this document. 2) Sheet 4 of 10 is the phasing plan which delineates adjacent property owners and modifies the "data" section, pursuant to our talks. This "data" is also presented as Appendix "A" in the final notes. 3) Sheet 6 of 10 is the revised "Steep Slope" plan. We trust this version is much easier to follow. 4) Sheet 8 of 10 is the "Woodlands and Wetlands" plan. This clarifies the woodlands disturbance and adds the wetlands delineation information requested. B) "Final Notes to Master Development Plan" 1) We have added a new paragraph 1 to include the governing definition for our "Active Adult Age Restricted Resort Community." We have also added a statement specifying the intent of our deeds, covenants, and HOA bylaws to restrict school age children from permanent residence in this development. 2) We have filled in the blanks as requested. 200 North Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 667-2139 Fax (540) 665-0493 e-mail gwcliff@mnsinc.com Member American Consulting Engineers Council r - - . " gilbert w. clifford and associates, inc Page 2 3) We revised paragraph 7 "Fire and Rescue Service" to read as follows: "A fire and rescue site is offered for a period of 5 years with 5 more years renewable if satisfactory progress is being made on site development for the fire and rescue facility. The site must be either in the Village Center (which is the much preferred site by the developer) or on an alternate site elsewhere in the area, which adequately serves Shenandoah and other areas of the County but is offsite of Shenandoah A one time gift of $20,000 is offered to provide assistance in the purchase of the alternative site." 4) We have added a paragraph 7 as follows: "A library site in the Village Center to a maximum size of 1 acre is offered for a period of 5 years. The developer will provide the site and planning, should the County library decide to construct and operate such a facility." 5) Paragraph 9 (e) and 9 (i) are revised to provide for granting of respective easements at the time plats are recorded on a section by section basis. 6) Paragraph 14 (a) is revised to say "each phase is one year of development. Building permits not granted in any previous phases may be carried over so long as the cumulative total of authorized phases are not exceeded." 7) Paragraph 14 (d) specifies that the Route 636 entrance is to be in place prior to the issuance of the 750 building permit and 14 (e) states that the Route 277 entrance be installed prior to the 1200 building permit. 8) Paragraph 14 (f) is revised to read "disturbance and improvements in future phase areas will be required to implement this plan due to the need for grading, utilities, roadways, the substantial number of storm management ponds to protect water quality in Lake Frederick and the like. This work will be allowed upon plan approval by the County." 9) Paragraph 15 (b) has been changed to read "the HOA is empowered and required to project vegetative screening and open space trees, as well as all common area plantings, such as street trees. Pruning of trees will be a requirement of the HOA, from time to time, to allow proper access by all emergency and service vehicles. We trust these changes meet your approval. After your review please let me know if all is o.k. and we will insert the changes in the earlier submitted booklets prior to your distribution prior to the October 18 Planning Commission meeting. Sincerely yours, gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. C. �C' 4nadcw/ 1�1— C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Vice President CEM/kf Enclosure cc: Mr. Ray Smith Mr. Mark Helmer Mr. David Cobey 4 Shenandoah MDP Notes for September 17 meeting 9/22/00 The following list is not necessarily all inclusive, but attempts to be thorough in identifying issues yet to be resolved. The application is not signed I have 2 sets of Plan notes, one that I received with the application submission on 9/11. This version is dated 7/10/00 and is included in the booklet that has been provided for circulation to the Planing Commission and the Board. I received the second version on 9/15 this one is dated 9/14/00 (the #'s on this version are out of sync). Right of the bat the is getting information which is not current. This creates a great deal of confusion which the P.C. has historically reacted negatively to. I do not see where the issue of children within the development is addressed within the materials submitted. This is a critical issues with the County. Some notation on the MDP should be included, preferable proposed covenants and deed restrictions would be submitted and referred to. Woodlands - With the information submitted I can not dispute the numbers submitted regarding the proposed disturbance, however, I can't verify or explain them either. The map shows three classifications: 1) existing woodlands, 2) existing woodlands delineation and 3) woodlands to remain undisturbed. I don't know the difference between "existing woodlands" and "existing woodlands delineation". There are also areas indicated as areas to remain undisturbed which fall on both sides of the line which is supposed to denote the limits of the woodland area. If the line is the limit, how can there be remaining woodlands on both sides of it? I had raised these issues in a meeting with Tom weeks ago and again in my formal comments. I had assumed that this would be addressed in the formal submission, however there has been no change to the plan. The note refers to areas to be cleared for views with the approval of DGIF, but the plan shows no indication of where these areas are or there extent. DGIF - The only comment I have from DGIF is dated 9/7/00 and says that they have been meeting with you and you are working on a memorandum of understanding ... several issues remain to be resolved. I don't know what those issues are or how they might effect the design and/or layout of the MDP or the notes on the plan. The issues may be minor or they may be major, I have no way of knowing. The Planing Commission is going to want more information. Are they O.K. with the entrance arrangement, public access to the lake, what form will the agreement take and should it be included or at least referenced in the MDP notes? You really need to be able to present at least a draft of this agreement. Why woudn't the proposed easements be granted to DGIF on the subdivision plats? The notes still indicate "within 60 days of recordation. Fire and Rescue - The offer of a fire and rescue and library site for years is quit vague. How large is the site, how will it's location be determined? My understanding is that the Fire Marshal still opposes the proposed location within the village center. Some agreement has to be reached in order for the MDP to be approved. At this point I remain uncertain how we will resolve this issue. Wetlands - The plan still makes no reference to wetlands? It is my understanding that some wetlands do exist below the dam. Steep slopes - Like the woodlands I can neither confirm nor dispute your numbers. You still show no interval on the contours. This also needs to be submitted at a large scale so that it's legible. Timing of improvements - While you have reworded the notes so that certain improvements can be linked to a number of units, the numbers have been left blank. Adjoining ownership and use - While you provide a list of adjoining property identification numbers and the corresponding use of the property, none of the plan sheets indicates where these properties are located. Road plan - Most of the road names submitted have been rejected. All road names will need to be reviewed and approved prior to FMDP approval. The road profiles should be labeled to reflect the road types described in the amended R-5 ordinance. Phasing - The Phasing you have indicated seems unusual. This is more a matter of curiosity which you can probably easily explain. The table indicating #'s of units per phase is a bit confusing. What is the meaning of "models"T' Please indicate one of the housing type described in the R-5 zone rather than "condominiums". Lot widths don't need to be indicated. I don't understand your note # 5. "Phasing" (a) on the 9/14/00 version of the notes. (f) under this same heading should be eliminated as it provides no useful information. Rev 9114100 DRAFT FINAL NOTES TO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHENANDOAH The undersigned owners of the property which is the subject of this Amended Master Development Plan (MDP) submission ("the developer"), provided the following notations to demonstrate compliance with the lawful requirements of the Frederick county Zoning Ordinance, and for the further description of certain aspects of the development of the property. These notes shall be included on the face of the approved plan documents, and submission of final NMPs for the development of the subject property shall be in substantial conformity with the approved preliminary plan, and these notes. 1. Mixture of housing types. (a) The developer shall construct a maximum of 2130 individual dwelling units (2.3 DU/Acre) using a mix of housing types as shown on the attached "PHASING PLAN" (Appendix "A ") i ne mix or nousing types win vary clue to marx Phase. It is intended to allow the developer the ability to establish types of housing at the time of subdivision plat approval . An amended phasing plan shall be submitted for such unit modifications 1. Transportation improvements. (a) The developer shall provide access points on Routes 522/340, Rte 636 and Rte 277 generally as shown in the plan and required by approved 6'DOT Permit. (b) The developer will relocate the existing Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) entry road as shown on the plan during Phase 1 of the project. (c) The developer shall prime and double seal the section of Route 636 between the subject property line and the presently paved section to the North, not later than the time of issuance of the building permit. 1. Trails system. The developer shall construct or cause to be constructed a system of walks and trails within the project to tie pedestrian access within the development from Rev 9114100 residential areas to certain points on the lake and to community recreation areas and commercial areas within 'he project, generally as located on the plan. Location and design of trails within 100' of the Lake will be as mutually agreed with VDGIF. "y 2. Streetlights. Streetlights of design selected by the developer and, approved by the zoning administrator, will be located at intersections and at the ends of cul de sacs. 3. Provision of water and sewer service. (a) The project shall be served by public water and sewer services. (b) The developer shall provide a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in the general location shown on the plan according to plans approved by the Virginia State Water Control Board and the FCSA . (c) Public water will be supplied by existing lines. Sufficient pressure will be afforded by an onsite water storage tank. (d) All water and sewer facilities shall be completed to the satisfaction of the FCSA and transferred to the FCSA ownership. 1. Fire and Rescue Service. A su 17ested site for Fire and Rescue service and a Library Facility is offered for a period of years from approval of this MDP as a prominent part of the village center. The developer will work with the Board of Supervisors and the Emergency Services Professionals to adapt the location to the County needs 2. Preservation of Lake Frederick water quality. (a) No water will be taken from the Lake to operate or maintain the onsite wastewater treatment facility. (b) The development shall incorporate the use of Best Management Practices, in the locations generally identified on the MDP, in accordance with and to implement the recommendations contained in '`An Assessment of Potential Development Impacts on the Water Quality of Wheatlands Lake," October 1990, prepared by Thomas J. Grizzard, Ph.D., P.E. The BMPs constructed for the project shall be designed so as to achieve coverage of 751,of the area of the property which drains into Lake Frederick. To the maximum extent that it may be possible to do Rev 9114100 upon final engineering, this percentage of coverage shall be exceeded. All BMPs shall be either of the wet or dry pond type, as may be determined appropriate upon final engineering of any sub watershed within the property, and each shall be constructed in accordance with the manual entitled "Controlling Urban Runoff A Practical Manual for Designing Urban BMPs," published by Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments, current as of the date of final design. All such facilities shall be designed for a minimum stormwater detention period of forty hours, with a design classified as "High" with regard to the overall removal capacity, as shown in Figure 2.4 of the aforesaid Manual. (c) Responsibility for the continuing maintenance of the BMPs to be incorporated into the project shall be assigned to the developer. Provided that the developer will eventually assign this responsibilay to a homeowner's association, or to such other appropriate entity as may be. determined by Frederick County and the developer. Maintenance required hereunder shall include routine and non -routine maintenance as recommended in the aforesaid Manual, as necessary to achieve the intended purposes of the BMPs. (d) Water quality tests in Lake Frederick to determine BMP effectiveness shall be conducted at least annually according to a schedule agreed to by the Developer and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Such testing shall be at the developer's expense, (mul sUch time as homeowners' association shall have been created, when the responsibility for funding such testing shall be transferred to the said association. The results of such testing shall be provided forthwith to Frederick County, to DGIF, to the developer, and to the homeowner's association created in accordance with these Notes. (e) In order to preserve more of the natural buffering of existing vegetation surrounding the lake, a 50 feet wide easement adjoining the VDGIF property line shall be provided in the form of a conservation and water quality easement, to be granted to the Homeowners Association (HOA) and VDGIF within 60 days of recordation of a final plat tier each residential section of the development. No building, tree cutting, clearing or disturbance of undergrowth or existing vegetation, or any use of the buffer area shall be permitted except with the explicit written approval of VDGIF. (f) To provide and contain walking traffic along the lake, the developer shall build pedestrian trails appropriate to topographic conditions, connecting to fishing, boating, and observation areas within the buffer area and the VDGIF Lakeshore, in alignments acceptable to VDGIF. Such trails shall Rev 9114100 be maintained by the developer and successor HOAs. Trails wA':l clearly identify private property lines (public access limits). (g) In locations satisfactory to VDGIF, the developer will clear selected views to the lake through buffer areas reforesting those areas with herbaceous plants, shrubs and trees to VDGIG satisfaction. (h) The developer will build three piers — one for the Community Center and two for the light boat launches — to VDGIF specifications. (1) Flooding easements will be provided to VDGIF within 60 days of recordation of a final plat for any residential sections of the development. 1. Access to Lake Frederick The Developer will construct two accesses to the lake for cam -ins (canoes, kayaks), as shown on the MDP. Each will have appropriate signage, parking and craft storage racks outside the conservation buffer, a walk path to lakeside in locations agreeable to VDGIF, and a tie-up pier, all at general locations shown on the plan. 2. Provision of adequate monumentation. The Developer shall provide permanent monumentation at approximately 1000 foot intervals around the perimeter of the Lake, for purposes of surveying and mapping the same, and to assist in the correct location of all boundary lines. 3. School site. Since school age children will not reside in this project, and the remote location of the property to the urban population centers of the Count\,, no school site is proposed. A% 4. Recreation Facilities j ,►'` �a developer will provide recreation in accord with the attached schedule �+ B . Each of these facilities will be constructed during the identified phase f the community with which it is associated, and each will be turned over to its community HOA for use and maintenance under terms explicit in all home sale contracts. 5. Phasin (a) Th Project shall be developed in Six (6) Phases as shown on Append& "and "B': Each phase mav have multiple sectionsfor platting Each �Jkt 47 Rev 9114100 phase is to be one year of development. Units unsold L. turret.. phase year may be carried over and added to the following phase. (b) Phase one development shall include the wastewater treatment plant, the entrance on US Rte 340/522, the main gate house facility and the relocation of the Lake access road. (c) Public water and sewer lines will be extended into each phase on an as - needed basis. (d) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 636 shall be constructed not later than before the unit building permit of the development of the subject property, and shall be utilized for construction access until phase 3 , when it will be opened for public access. (e) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 277 shall be constructed not later than before the unit building permit of the development of the subject property, and shall be utilized for construction access until phase 6 , when it will be opened for public access. Sti h� '-�Af) Concurrent infrastructure construction in two adjoining phases is r` 7 possible after the first year, in accord with market demand for housing. 1. Homeowners' Association (HOA). (a) The developer shall cause to be created one or more homeowners' associations within t!:1- project to perform the functions common to such associations, inciuding, but not limited to, (i) Operation of a community center and Tennis Center. (ii) Maintenance of common areas. (iii) Maintenance of Best Management Practices Facilities, subject to the provisions of § 16 hereof. (iv) Maintenance of trails. (v) Maintenance of street lights. (vi) Maintenance of the recreation areas (vii) Maintenance of Roadway system —� (a) The HOA will protect the open spaces, trees, and vegetation established during the final plat approval process Revision 1.1 RECEIVED DRAFT O C T 0 2 2000 FINAL NOTES TO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHENANDOAH DEPT. OF PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT The undersigned owners of the property which is the subject of this Amended Master Development Plan (MDP) submission ("the developer"), provided the following notations to demonstrate compliance with the lawful requirements of the Frederick county Zoning Ordinance, and for the further description of certain aspects of the development of the property. These notes shall be included on the face of the approved plan documents, and submission of final MDPs for the development of the subject property shall be in substantial conformity with the approved preliminary plan, and these notes. 1. Project Classification The developer agrees to include in its HOA Declaration and Restrictions a provision which age restricts the gated active adult portion of the site (everything except the Village Center and the CCRC sites) so that; "80% of the homes will have at least one prime resident who is 55 years of age or older. The other 20% of the homes will have one prime resident who is 45 years of age or older. No children under the age of 19 may live in the community for more than 90 days a year." The HOA further must develop a system, that they are obligated to maintain, which enforces this age restriction. The enforcement system must be included in the declarations and restrictions that run with the land. 2. Mixture of housing types. (a) The developer shall construct a maximum of 2130 individual dwelling units (2.3 DU/Acre) using a mix of housing types as shown on the attached "PHASING PLAN" (Appendix "A") (b) The mix of housing types will vary due to market demand from Phase to Phase. It is intended to allow the developer the ability to establish types of housing at the time of subdivision plat approval. An amended phasing plan J shall be submitted for such unit modifications. 3. Transportation improvements. (a) The developer shall provide access points on Routes 522/340, Rte 636 and Rte 277 generally as shown in the plan and required by approved V DOT Permit. z (b) The developer will relocate the existing Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) entry road as shown on the plan during Phase 1 �+� of the project. Revision 1.1 (c) The developer shall prime and double seal the section of Route 636 between the subject property line and the presently paved section to the North( -got later t a he time of issuance of the 750 building permit. 4. Trails syste P-4 W � The developer shall construct or cause to be constructed a system of walks and trails within the project to tie pedestrian access within the development from residential areas to certain points on the lake and to community recreation areas and commercial areas within the project, generally as located on the plan. Location and design of trails within 100' of the Lake will be as mutually agreed with VDGIF. 5. Streetlights. Streetlights of design selected by the developer and, approved by the zoning administrator, will be located at intersections and at the ends of cul de sacs. 6. Provision of water and sewer service. (a) The project shall be served by public water and sewer services. (b) The developer shall provide a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in the general location shown on the plan according to plans approved by the Virginia State Water Control Board and the FCSA. (c) Public water will be supplied by existing lines. Sufficient pressure will be afforded by an onsite water storage tank. (d) All water and sewer facilities shall be completed to the satisfaction of the FCSA and transferred to the FCSA ownership. 7. Fire and Rescue Service. A fire and rescue site is offered for a period of 5 years with 5 more years 1� renewable if satisfactory progress is being made on site development for the fire �5 and rescue facility. The site must be either in the Village Center (which is the much preferred site by the developer) or on an alternate site elsewhere in the area, Y� which adequately serves Shenandoah and other areas of the County but is offsite of Shenandoah. A one time gift of $20,000 is offered to provide assistance in the purchase of the alternative site. Revision 1.1 8. Library A library site in the Village Center to a Daaximum size of 1 acre is offered for a period of 5 years. The developer wQ rovide th she an i 7should the County library decide to construct and operate such a facility. 1 9. Preservation of Lake Frederick water quality.�°'°,'`'� (a) No water will be taken from the Lake to operate or maintain the onsite wastewater treatment facility. (b) The development shall incorporate the use of Best Management Practices, in the locations generally identified on the MDP, in accordance with and to implement the recommendations contained in "An Assessment of Potential Development Impacts on the Water Quality of Wheatlands Lake," October 1990, prepared by Thomas J. Grizzard, Ph.D., P.E. The BMPs constructed for the project shall be designed so as to achieve coverage of 75% of the area of the property which drains into Lake Frederick. To the maximum extent that it may be possible to do upon final engineering, this percentage of coverage shall be exceeded. All BMPs shall be either of the wet or dry pond type, as may be determined appropriate upon final engineering of any sub watershed within the property, and each shall be constructed in accordance with the manual entitled "Controlling Urban Runoff. A Practical Manual for Designing Urban BMPs," published by Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments, current as of the date of final design. All such facilities shall be designed for a minimum stormwater detention period of forty hours, with a design classified as "High" with regard to the overall removal capacity, as shown in Figure 2.4 of the aforesaid Manual. (c) Responsibility for the continuing maintenance of the BMPs to be incorporated into the project shall be assigned to the developer, provided that the developer will eventually assign this responsibility to a homeowner's association, or to such other appropriate entity as may be determined by Frederick County and the developer. Maintenance required hereunder shall include routine and non -routine maintenance as recommended in the aforesaid Manual, as necessary to achieve the intended purposes of the BMPs. (d) Water quality tests in Lake Frederick to determine BMP effectiveness shall be conducted at least annually according to a schedule agreed to by the Developer and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Such testing shall be at the developer's expense, until such time as homeowners' association shall have been created, when the responsibility for funding such testing shall be transferred to the said association. The results of such testing shall be provided forthwith to Frederick County, to Revision 1.1 DGIF, to the developer, and to the homeowner's association created in accordance with these Notes. (e) In order to preserve more of the natural buffering of existing vegetation surrounding the lake, a 50 feet wide easement adjoining the VDGIF property line shall be provided in the form of a conservation and water -� quality easement, to be granted to the Homeowners Association (HOA) 0 to�_d VDGIF at the time of recordation of a final plat for each residential U section of the development. No building, tree cutting, clearing or disturbance of undergrowth or existing vegetation, or any use of the buffer area shall be permitted except with the explicit written approval of VDGIF. (f) To provide and contain walking traffic along the lake, the developer shall build pedestrian trails appropriate to topographic conditions, connecting -to_fishing, boating, and observation areas within the buffer area and the VDGIF lakeshore, in alignments acceptable to VDGIF. Such trails shall be maintained by the developer and successor HOAs. Trails will clearly identify private property lines (public access limits). (g) In locations satisfactory to VDGIF, the developer will clear selected views to the lake through buffer areas reforesting those areas with herbaceous plants, shrubs and trees to VDGIG satisfaction. (h) The developer will build three piers — one for the Community Center and two for the light boat launches — to VDGIF specifications. (i) Flooding easements will be provided to VDGIF on a section by section basis as plats are recorded. 10. Access to Lake Frederick The Developer will construct two accesses to the lake for carry -ins (canoes, kayaks), as shown on the MDP. Each will have appropriate signage, parking and craft storage racks outside the conservation buffer, a walk path to lakeside in locations agreeable to VDGIF, and a tie-up pier, all at general locations shown on the plan. 11. Provision of adequate monumentation. The Developer shall provide permanent monumentation at approximately 1000 foot intervals around the perimeter of the Lake, for purposes of surveying and mapping the same, and to assist in the correct location of all boundary lines. Revision 1.1 [the . School site. nce school age children will not reside in this project, and the remote location of property to the urban population centers of the County, no school site is oposed. 13. Recreation Facilities The developer will provide recreation in accord with the attached schedule (Appendix `B"). Each of these facilities will be constructed during the identified phase of development of the community with which it is associated, and each will be tumed over-W il"s community HOA for use and maintenance under terms -- - explicit in all home sale contracts. 14. Phasing (a) Each phase is ono ar of development. Building permit not granted in 7 .-wwu�l3sses��nay be carried over so long as the cumulative total of �- authorized phases are not exceeded. 11 ` _ (b Phase one development shall include the wastewater treatment plant, the 1 lai� or' entrance on US Rte 340/522, the main gate house facility and the relocation of the Lake access road. (c) Public water and sewer lines will be extended into each phase on an as - needed basis. icabr! b l 5� (d) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 636 shall be constructed - to hefia" the 750 unit building permit of the development of the subject property, and shall be utilized for construction access until phase 3, when it will be opened for public access. J"WaVI�4 (e) The entrance to the su 'ect property from- rom toe Route 277 shall be constructed net -later- . fore the 1200 unit building permit of the development of the subject property, and shall be utilized for construction access until phase 6, when it will be opened for public access. l > Disturbance and improvements in Dphase ar-eas-will-besequiired to impent-this-plan-due-te-the-need-for-wading;—utilities,—roadways, the substtant-tal-number_.o£stonn-management-ponds4o-.pr ect water quality in Lake re eri&--and-the--like. This work will be allowe up i plan approval by the County. -z�")az L ", e� `l) fie,- � $� Revision 1.1 15. Homeowners' Association (HOA). (a) The developer shall cause to be created one or more homeowners' associations within the project to perform the functions common to such associations, including, but not limited to, (i) Operation of a community center and Tennis Center. (ii) Maintenance of common areas. (iii) Maintenance of Best Management Practices Facilities, subject to the provisions of § 16 hereof (iv) Maintenance of trails. (v) Maintenance of street lights. (vi) Maintenance of the recreation areas (vii) Maintenance of Roadway system l / (b) The HOA i empowered and required to �r ect gefati screening and open space trees, as well as all common area p antings, such as street .,� trees. Pruning of trees will be a requirement of the HOA, from time to time, to allow proper access by all emergency and service vehicles. APPENDIX "A" DENSITY AND PHASING DATA Frederick County, Virginia Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Village Center Totals Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 S. Family Small Lot 65' Wide Lot 59 104 155 136 75 64 593 55' Wide Lot 75 149 153 146 66 40 628 Duplex 65 100 112 106 42 34 459 TownHouse 0 70 70 70 0 0 210 Garden Apartments 36 39 45 36 44 40 240 Totals 235 462 535 493 227 178 2130 Area Summary (acres) Area in Lots Area in Roads Area Area in Open Space 175.75 173.43 191.90 190.31 83.18 76.43 35.00 926.00 44.42 67.67 79.22 70.93 39.31 37.37 338.92 33.63 18.06 17.11 20.44 6.84 6.00 102.08 97.82 87.82 95.68 99.06 37.14 32.48 15.00 465.00 AREA in FREDERICK COUNTY 926.266 acres ALLOWED DENSITY per R-6 ZONE(2.3/acre) 2130 50.2% APPENDIX "Be' Recreation Unit Summary Frederick County, Virginia Type Community Building Trout Pond Outdoor Pool Play Courts Hiker/Biker Trails Natural Trails Nature Center(Vlllage) Boat Docks DGIF Facilities Golf School Phase Totals County Requirements No of Dwellings No of Rec Units at 1 per 3C Value per Rec Unii Value reqd by Ordinance Phase 1 Value of Amenities - Dollars Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase 2 3 4 5 6 236.0 462.0 535.0 493.0 227.0 178.0 7.8 15.4 17.8 16.4 7.6 5.9 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16 000 $16,000 $125,2801 $246,4001 $285,3331 $262,9331 $121,0671 $94,933 Remarks Constructed in 3 phases $4,765,000 $1,135,946 "Shenandoah" Master Development Plan Supplemental Materials 1. Shenandoah Preliminary Master Development Plan (Rec'd 7-12-00) 2. Application Booklet 3. Woodlands Plan 4. Open Space Plan 5. Trail System Plan 6. Shenandoah Preliminary Master Development Plan (Rec'd 9-11-00) 1 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Packaee APPLICATION cont'd MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5. Location of Property: t3.5 miles east of Stephens City on south side of VA Route 277 and f 1 mile south of Double Tollgate on west side of US Route 340 & 522 6. Total Acreage: 922.16 Acres (Frederick County) 921 , 7. Property Information: " `" a) Property Identification Number (PIN): 87-A-102 & 103 Current Zoning: b) C : R-5 g c) Present Use: Vacant d) Proposed Use: Residential e) Adjoining Property Information: See attachment Property Identification Property Uses North South East West f) Magisterial District: Opequon 8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original Amended X I have read the material included in this and understand what is required b the package �1 Y Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material will be complete prior to the submission of my master development plan application. Signature: Date: 2 I Attachment 7e. 1 I 1 1 1 I Adjoining Property Information Property Identification Numbers Property Use North 86-A-218 Agricultural 87-A-15 Aaricultural 87-A-16B ARficultural 87-A-95 Mobile Home Park 87-A-95B Vacant 87-A-96 Agricultural 87-A-96A Residential 87-A-97 Vacant 87-A-97A Vacant 87-A-98 Residential 87-A-99 Residential 87-A-100 Residential 87-A-101 Residential 27-A-12 Clarke Count Residential South 87-A-103B Commonwealth 93-A-77 Agricultural 94A-1-1-12 Vacant 94A-1-10-11 Vacant 94A-1-11-20 Vacant East 87-A-103A Residential 87-A-105 Residential 87-A-107 Residential 94-A-1 Residential 27-A-14 Clarke Count Residential 27-A-16 (Clarke Count Vacant West 86-A-220 Residential 86-A-223 cultural 86-A-272 Residential 86-A-273 Residential 86-A-273B Residential 86-A-273C Awicultural 86-A-273D Agricultural 1 n 1 I 1 I 1 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Required Information Checklist MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN The following information must be included on the master development plan. If the submitted master development plan is incomplete or is missing information, it will not be reviewed and will be returned to you for revisions. Administrative Information Yes No X 1. Name of proposed development. X 2. Name, address, and telephone number of owner. X 3. Name, address, and telephone number of developer. X 4. Name, address, and telephone number of designer. X 5. Signed certificate of surveyor, engineer or architect. X 6. Date plan prepared and date of revisions. N/A 7. A listing of all conditions placed on the site as a result of a conditional zoning approval. Rezoning file number should be cited. X 8. A space labeled "Approved by the Director of Planning and Development" for the approval Signature and date of approval. X 9. A space labeled "Approved by the County Admini- strator" for the approval signature and date of approval. X 10. Magisterial District. X 11. Sheet size less than 42 inches. 3 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package General Information Yes No X X X ..v X X X Available X *X 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. E 10. N/A 11 12 13 14 Location Map (scale 1:2000). Scale of the MDP is not to exceed 1:100. North Arrow. Legend describing all symbols. Surveyed boundaries of all lots and parcels. Acreage of all parcels included in the MDP. Topography contour lines at acceptable interval. A schedule of phases, boundary of phases, and order of development. Use, zoning, and property owner of all adjoining properties. Location of proposed uses (location, boundaries, arrangement). Location and treatment of historic structure and sites. History of all land divisions in relation to this tract. Acreage, location and boundaries of environmental features: floodplains, lakes and ponds, wetlands, natural stormwater retention areas, steep slopes, woodlands. Amount and percentage of disturbed and protected land in common open space. * Reduced scale approved by Planning Staff. 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Residential Development Information Yes No X 1. Location and dimension of Residential Separation X 3 X 4 X 5 Infrastructure Informaiton Buffers. Acreage in common open space, in housing type, in road rights -of -way, and for the entire development (by Phase). Location and boundaries of housing types. Resi- dential Performance (RP) dimensional requirements should be indicated. Number of dwelling units (by type, phase, and in total. Location and configuration of required recreational facilities. Statement of required and type of facil- itties to be provided. Yes No X 1. Location of adjoining streets and utilities. X 2. Location, arrangements, and right-of-way widths of roads and property access. X 3. Location and arrangement of street entrances, drive- ways, and parking areas. X 4. Location of entrances to the development from pub- lic streets. X 5. Type of road design (rural or urban). X 6. Use of inter -parcel connectors. X 7. Traffic impact analysis. To be submitted to the Virginia Department of Transportation. 5 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package X 8. Location of sewer and water mains with statements concerning the connection with and availability of `' X 11� 9. facilities. Location and arrangement of electric and gas utilities. Other Design Information Yes No �Z N/A 1. Location of Zoning District and Road Efficiency buffers, and examples specifying the screening to be provided. X 2. Plan for stormwater management. Location of stormwater facilities. X 3. Acreage of each type of environmental protection land. (Amount and percentage of disturbed and protected land in common open space.) Shown in a table format. X 4. Amount, boundaries, and location of common open space. (Indicate the percentage of the entire site to be placed in common open space.) X 5. Location of environmental protected areas to be in- cluded in common open space. 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package County Health Department Information Yes No X 1. Statements and locations pertaining to sewer and water availability. X 2. Statements and locations concerning any existing pre- or post -water treatment facilities. X 3. Statements and location of any planned private treatment facilities. 7 1 IFrederick County, Virginia Master Develoument Plan Aaulication Package rl i L 1 1 u I 1 1 I Adjoining Property Owners MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2"d floor of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name Address Property # John M. & Joann G. Leight 115 Massie Lane, Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-218 Harvey O. Lewis, Rose E. Vuillermet, Margaret E. Palmer 1633 Hudson Hollow Road, Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-220 Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 6, Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-223 Loretta D. Bailey 1748 Hudson Hollow Road, Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-272 John Campbell 1895 Hudson Hollow Road, Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-273 Lee E. Campbell 1787 Hudson Hollow Road, Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-273B Bobby W. & Gladys E. Gibson 1883 Hudson Hollow Road, Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-273C Oak Ridge Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 885, Winchester, VA 22604 86-A-2731) Beatrice I. Apperson, Trustee 1702 Fairfax Pike, White Post, VA 22663 87-A-15 Montie W. & Pearl E. Gibson 155 Castlebridge Court, Winchester, VA 22602 87-A-16B Sandy's Mobile Court, Inc. 2044 Fairfax Pike, White Post, VA 22633 87-A-95 Melvin R. & Ethyl L. Sandy P.O. Box 432, Stephens City, VA 22655 87-A-95B Giles R. Cooke, Robert L. Cooke, Mary J. Cooke 986 Clark Road, Stephens City, VA 22655 87-A-96 Ralph L. & Stella M. Catlett 1954 Fairfax Pike, White Post, VA 22663 87-A-96A Harold E. & Bernice A. Rapczyk 1590 Fairfax Pike, White Post, VA 22663 87-A-97 1 rJ I L 1 it I 1 1 Harold E. & Bernice A. Rapczyk 1590 Fairfax Pike, White Post, VA 87-A-97A 22663 Floyd L. & Shirley J. Lee 1908 Fairfax Pike, White Post, VA 87-A-98 22663 Carolyn C. Parker 113 W. Whitlock Avenue, Winchester, 87-A-99 VA 22601 Roger G. Clark 205 Moore Drive, Berryville, VA 22611 87-A-100 Gary A. Bolyard 1880 Fairfax Pike, White Post, VA 87-A-101 22663 David A. Headley 4490 Front Royal Pike, White Post, VA 87-A-103A 22663 Commonwealth of Virginia 4010 W. Broad Street, Richmond, VA 87-A-103B Commission of Game & Inland 23230 Fisheries J. David & Dirma V. Headley 4488 Front Royal Pike, White Post, VA 87-A-105 22663 Boyd D. & Candace L. Ritter 4436 Front Royal Pike, White Post, VA 87-A-107 22663 Victor A. & Julia A. Tolkan 4712 Reservoir Road, NW, Washington, 93-A-77 DC 20007 Jeffrey E. Williams P.O. Box 87, Stephens City, VA 22655 94-A-1 Mary M. Grady P.O. Box 442, Stephens City, VA 22655 94A-1-1-12 Mary M. Grady P.O. Box 442, Stephens City, VA 22655 94A-1-10-11 Albert M. & Terri L. Grady P.O. Box 442, Stephens City, VA 22655 94A-1-11-20 Robert C. Benton 4000 Chipstead Court, Chester, VA 27-A-12 (Clarke County) 23831 John F. , Jr. & Lillian M. Davis 4100 Stonewall Jackson Highway, 27-A-14 (Clarke County) White Post, VA 22663 Fred L. Glaize, III & Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 888, Winchester, VA 22604 27-A-16 (Clarke County) 11 MASTER PLAN NOTES 1 F� I IRev 7/10/00 DRAFT FINAL NOTES TO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN ' SHENANDOAH The undersigned owners of the property which is the subject of this Amended Master Development Plan (MDP) submission ("the developer"), provided the following notations to demonstrate compliance with the lawful requirements of the Frederick county Zoning Ordinance, and for the further description of certain aspects of the development of the property. These notes shall be included on the face of the approved plan documents, and submission of final MDPs for the development of the subject ' property shall be in substantial conformity with the approved preliminary plan, and these notes. f� I I 1 1. Mixture of housing types. (a) The developer shall construct a maximum of 2130 individual dwelling units using a mix of housing types allowed in the R-5 zone in Frederick County.. (b) The mix of housing types will vary due to market demand from Phase to Phase. It is intended to allow the developer the ability to establish types of housing at the time of subdivision plat approval and 11.vithout� need to nio mvi a thig Master Plate . The principal plan improvements common elements and roadway alignments shall not change without modification of this Master Plan through the revision process. 2. Transportation improvements. (a) The developer shall provide access points on Routes 522/340, Rte 636 and Rte 277 generally as shown in the plan. (b) The developer will relocate the existing Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) entry road as shown on the plan. (c) The developer shall prime and double seal the section of Route 636 between the subject property line and the presently paved section to the North, not later than concurrently with phase two of this project. 3. Trails system. The developer shall construct or cause to be constructed a system of walks and trails within the project to tie pedestrian access within the development from residential areas to certain points on the lake and to community recreation areas and commercial areas within the project, generally as located on the plan. Location and design of trails within 100' of the Lake will be as mutually agreed with VDGIF. Rev 7/70/00 F 4. Streetlights. ' Streetlights of design selected by the developer will be located at intersections and at the ends of cul de sacs. I5. Provision of water and sewer service. I(a) The project shall be served by public water and sewer services. (b) The developer shall provide a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in the I general location shown on the plan according to plans approved by the Virginia State Water Control Board. . f] I I I 1 (c) Public water will be supplied by existing Imes. Sufficient pressure will be afforded by an onsite water storage tank. 6. Fire and Rescue Service. A suggested site for fire and rescue service and a Library Facility is offered for a period of three years from approval of this MDP as a prominent part of the village center. The developer will work with the Board of Supervisors and the Emergency Services Professionals to adapt the location to the County needs 7. Open space reserved. The developer will retain not less than the required open space set forth in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. S. Preservation of Lake Frederick water quality. (a) No water will be taken from the Lake to operate or maintain the onsite wastewater treatment facility. (b) The development shall incorporate the use of Best Management Practices, in the locations generally identified on the MDP, in accordance with and to implement the recommendations contained in "An Assessment of Potential Development Impacts on the Water Quality of Wheatlands Lake," October 1990, prepared by Thomas I CGrizzard, Ph.D., P.E. The BMPs constructed for the project shall be designed so as to achieve coverage of 75% of the area of the property which drains into Lake Frederick. To the maximum extent that it may be possible to do upon final engineering, this percentage of coverage shall be exceeded. All IRev 7/10/00 ' BMPs shall be either of the wet or dry pond type, as may be determined appropriate upon final engineering of any sub watershed within the ' property, and each shall be constructed in accordance with the manual entitled "Controlling Urban Runoff. A Practical Manual for Designing Urban BMPs," published by Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments, current as of the date of final design. All such facilities shall be designed for a minimum stormwater detention period of forty hours, with a design classified as `High" with regard to the overall ' removal capacity, as shown in Figure 2.4 of the aforesaid Manual. (c) Responsibility for the continuing maintenance of the BMPs to be incorporated into the project shall be assigned to the developer, provided that the developer will eventually assign this responsibility to and appropriate homeowner's association, or to such other appropriate entity as may be determined by Frederick County and the developer, or as may be provided in Section 16, hereof with respect to the transfer of such responsibilities. Maintenance required hereunder shall include routine ' and non -routine maintenance as recommended in the aforesaid Manual, as necessary to achieve the intended purposes of the BMPs. ' (d) Water quality tests in Lake Frederick to determine BMP effectiveness shall be conducted at least annually according to a schedule agreed to by the Developer and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Such testing shall be at the developer's expense, until such time as homeowners' association shall have been created, when the responsibility for fimdmg such testing shall be transferred to the said association. The ' results of such testing shall be provided forthwith to Frederick County, to DGIF, to the developer, and to the homeowner's association created in accordance with these Notes. ' (e) In order to preserve more of the natural buffering of existing vegetation ' surrounding the lake, a 50 feet wide easement adjoining the VDGIF property line shall be provided in the form of a conservation and water quality easement, to be granted to the Homeowners Association (HOA) within 60 days of recordation of a final plat for each residential section of the development. No building, tree cutting, clearing or disturbance of undergrowth or existing vegetation, or any use of the buffer area shall be permitted except with the explicit written approval of VDGIF. (f) To provide and contain walking traffic along the lake, the developer shall build pedestrian trails appropriate to topographic conditions, connecting to fishing, boating, and observation areas within the buffer area and the VDGIF lakeshore, in alignments acceptable to VDGIF. Such trails shall be maintained by the developer and successor HOAs. Trails will clearly identify private property lines (public access limits). I 1 IRev 7/10/00 ' (g) In locations satisfactory to VDGIF, the developer will clear selected views to the lake through buffer areas reforesting those areas with ' herbaceous plants, shrubs and trees to VDGIG satisfaction. (h) The developer will build three piers — one for the Community Center and two for the light boat launches — to VDGIF specifications. (i) Flooding easements will be provided to VDGIF within 60 days of recordation of a final plat for any residential sections of the development. 9. Access to Lake Frederick The Developer will construct two accesses to the lake for carry -ins (canoes, kayaks), as shown on the MDP. Each will have appropriate signage, parking and craft storage racks ' outside the conservation buffer, a walk path to lakeside in locations agreeable to VDGIF, and a tie-up pier, all at general locations shown on the plan. ' 10. Provision of adequate monumentation. The Developer shall provide permanent monumentation at approximately 1000 ' foot intervals around the perimeter of the Lake, for purposes of surveying and mapping the same, and to assist in the correct location of all boundary limes. 11. School site. Owing to the small number of school age children generated by the project, and ' the off -center location of the property in the County, no school site is proposed. ' 12. Recreation Facilities ' The developer will provide substantial recreation facilities including recreation buildings and outdoor facilities for swimming and tennis,and hiking , throughout the Community. Each of these facilities will be constructed in the initial part of the identified phase of development of the community with which it is associated, and each will be turned over to its community HOA for use and maintenance under terms explicit in all home sale contracts. 13. Phasing ' (a) The Project shall be developed in Six (6) Phases as shown in the attached phasing map. (b) Phase one development shall include the wastewater treatment plant, the 30,000 sf Community center ,the main gate house facility and the relocation of the Lake access road. 1 1 Rev 7/10/00 (c) Public water and sewer Imes will be extended into each phase on an as, needed basis. (d) The main parkway entrance from Route 522/340 shall be constructed in the first phase of development. (e) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 636 shall be constructed not later than during Phase 2 of the development of the ' subject property, and shall be utilized for construction access until phase 3 , when it will be opened for public access. (f) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 277 shall be constructed not later than during Phase 4 of the development of the subject property, and shall be utilized for construction access until phase 6, when it will be opened for public access. ' (g) It is intended that the infrastructure improvements in each phase of the project shall be nearing completion prior to moving to the next phase of construction . Exceptions to this plan may include work needed in ' adjacent phases in order to properly phase construction of utilities, haul roads and/or earth balances.. Unit density planned in each phase that is not used due to elective changes in types of dwelling revisions shall be ' carried over to the next phase. 14. Homeowners' Association (BOA). ' (a) The developer shall cause to be created one or more homeowners' associations within the project to perform the fimctions common to ' such associations, including, but not limited to, (i) Operation of a community center and Tennis Center. ' (ii) Maintenance of common areas. (iii) Maintenance of Best Management Practices Facilities, subject to the provisions of § 16 hereof (iv) Maintenance of trails. (v) Maintenance of street lights. (vi) Maintenance of the recreation areas. (b) Clearing of lots and sites shall be restricted to those areas necessary for extension of utilities, construction of drives and homes, and the grading ' needed to adapt them for use in the Active Adult Community, the small lot sizes and large building footprints will result in clearing of the entire lot area, except for some rear yards which will not require grading. u 1 11 VDOT COMMENTS 7 �J F� 1 1 AUG -01 00(TUE) 15 31 1 VDOT LURAY RESIDENCY TEL S40 743 7249 P. 002 CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr., PE, VP G.W, Clifford & Associates 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 308 LURAY, VA 22835 July 31, 2000 RANDY S. KISEA RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL I5W) 7434606 FAX (61OI 743.7249 ' REF: Shenandoah Routes 277, 340, 522 Clarke, Warren, and Frederick Counties Dear Chuck, We've received your July 11, 2000 letter along with an amended master development plan for the referenced project. After discussing this project recently with Mr. Steve Melnikoff, Edinburg Residency will handle and coordinate the plan review for this extensive project. The basis for the approach is due to the fact a majority of the project lies within their Residency boundaries, and should make facilitation of the plan review/approval process more efficient for you and your client by having to deal with only one local office. We also believe this method will be more effective for us to deal with our District Office Sections, if you recall, this arrangement is similar to how the process was to be handled for the former Wheatlands Project. We of course will be coordinating closely with and providing our recommendations to Edinburg's Permit and Subdivision Office for inclusion into their own review comments. ' We plan to field review the Route 340/322 corridor and possible impacts sometime this week. You indicated in your letter the centerline of the entrance roadway would be staked. Has this been accomplished? If not please do so at your earliest opportunity. I understand a meeting will be setup once the master plan and transportation study has been reviewed. We look forward to participating and ask that you give us a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Robert B. Childress Assistant Resident Engineer RIiC/msy cc: JA Copp Lid/ —14/ —1t3tJu 14; 1 / U .. I,L. ' r V'%L a .JJ V'v I 1V — �c.e-Sttovi�GAr-\ Ni,l�� ' v ' COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA ' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINSURG RESIDENCY 1403' Ok.D VALLEY PIKE JERRY A. COPP CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM EDINBURG. VA 22824 RESIDENT ENGCNEEA �,'14111S j.,)NI ra TELE (Se09a-�t+/ ' August 23, 2000 FAX j'.IC , y-N'-560' ' Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. C/O G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street ' Winchester, VA 22601 Ref: "Shenandoah" — Preliminary Master Development Plan ' Route 522/340 (Front Royal Pike) @ Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) Clarke, Frederick & Warren Counties Dear Chuck: A VDOT review by Luray and Edinburg Residencies has been completed on the ' preliminary plan dated 07/01/00 for the referenced project. Our comments follow and are illustrated in red on the attached plan and supplemental references. 1 I REFERENCES I. U.S. Route 522/340 (Warren County) North Corridor Study by Clifford & Associates dated August, 1998: We recommend the traffic volumes and geometric recommendations for improvement to existing south bound lanes be given a weighted value consideration for impact by this proposed master development plan. A copy of "Findings" and "Recommendations" of the study has been extracted and is attached as a quick reference for your use. 2. The traffic analysis as developed by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates and Mr. John Callow using a peak hour count and projecting to a daily volume may be inadequate. It may be more desirable to provide a 24 hour count on several weekdays. PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Destinations from termini access points (proposed entrances) should be provided. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 08/24/2000 14:17 5406650,193 G W CLIFFOPD & ASSOC PAGE 02 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Ref: "Shenandoah" — Preliminary Master Development Plan August 23, 2000 Page #2 ___ ' T meet the geometric roadway requirements, additional right-of-way should be 2. 0 9 Y dedicated for public road. a. Recommend a 50' wide right-of-way for portions of SR 636, Hudson Hollow Road, which fall within proposed development. b. On the corridors containing Route 522/340 and Route 277 respectively, adequate fight -of -way should be provided to cover geometric designs. 3. The access and crossover for CCRC area on north end of Route 522 should proposed be rerouted to internal access or access development via the next crossover to the south. If continued access is planned, this entrance should be included in the traffic analysis. 4. Need for signalization at major access points: a. Route 277 and Route 636 intersection b_ Route 277 at access entrance c. Phasing and potential signal head additions/modifications at Route 522/340 and Route 217 intersection d. Route 522/340 and main entrance — This location may need to be provided in the initial phasing or provision made by supplying a signalization agreement. 5. In the traffic analysis, reference is made to the proposed pavement structure as being prime and double seal. Based on raw traffic data, the surface should be asphalt concrete sufficient to accommodate projected volume of traffic. d&TAnN 6. Consideration of coordination between "Shenandoah" development and proposed preliminary VDOT plan (Project #0277-034-103, RW201, C501) currently being Cal —� prepared for Route 277 improvement between Route I-81 and Route 636, White T�hl Oak Road. 7. Warren County should be added to the title block. 8. All existing substandard crossovers should be upgraded, left and/or right turn lanes provided as appropriate for use and location. Of specific concern even at this I concept stage, is the apparent main entrance access on Route 522/340 to "Shenandoah". a. Left turn lanes should be provided in both directions. The raw traffic volumes come close to S-250' on Chart Figure C-1-1.1, 250' length of lane should be provided. The taper of 200' appears satisfactory. 1 1 1 I 08/24/2000 14:17 5406650493 G W CLIFFOPD 8. A:SSOC PAGE 04 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Ref: "Shenandoah" — Preliminary Master Development Plan August 23, 2000 Page #3 _J b. Lane grade differential may be too large to acquire desirable 5% grade on crossover. The desirable algebraic difference in grade at crown lines is 4 or 511/o. The designer should strive to achieve those desirable elements, primarily due to large volumes of traffic projected. c. Consider relocating farm entrance on east side of Route 522/340 to align with proposed "Shenandoah" entrance and crossover. d. Please note the extremely poor "worse than the general" vertical alignment of Route 340/522 southbound lanes in the vicinity of the proposed main entrance, The stopping sight distance should be reviewed. Any necessary plan for relocation and/or reconstruction of vertical alignment should be developed under VDOT review to confirm adequacy of all sight distance concerns. e. All germane VDOT comments on geometrics of Entrance Development Plan dated (5/10/00 SHEN) are shown in red on the copy of plan being returned with this review. 9. The intersection at existing Route 522/340 with Route 277 should be considered In terms of adequacy to serve the high volumes of traffic generated by the proposed "Shenandoah" site. The potential need for dual left turn appears to be realistic considering the projected traffic volumes in the "U.S. Route 522/340 North Corridor Study" (even with proposed "Shenandoah" volumes being included therein) would appear to suggest the need to consider dual left turn exiting Route 522/340 onto Route 277 west bound. Reference is cliven here to the several attachments to this review: • Copy of comments offered for VDOT by letter from Mr. R. B. Childress, ARE, Luray: The entire letter is being forwarded. As can be seen, the comments overlap and do address similar concerns of the Edinburg Residency. This mirrors the VDOT view of the major impacts generated by the "Shenandoah" development. An excerpt page from "U.S, Route 522/340 North Corridor Study" showing "Findings" and "Recommendations". • A marked in red copy of Preliminary Master Development Plan dated 07101100. • A marked in red copy of "Shenandoah" Entrance Development Plan. 06/24i2000 14:17 54CIG650493 G W CLIFFORD g. ASSOC PAGE 05 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 1 1 1 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Ref: "Shenandoah" - Preliminary Master Development Plan August 23, 2000 Page #4 — The master development plan should Identify the proposed phasing as nearly as possible to the development plan of action for construction. Please review all the above concerns expressed by each VDOT review unit and address each comment. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call the respective VDOT personnel. Sirleer�/- �t Barry J. Sweitzer Trans. Roadway Engineer For: Steven A. Melnikoff Transportation Engineer BJSIrf Enclosures xc; Mr. Jim Diamond, Attn: Mr. Kelly Downs Mr. Terry Jackson, Attn, Mr. Guy Tudor Mr. Bob Childress, Attn: Mr. Rick Miller (xi enclosures & copy for Clarke Co. ) Mr. Dave Heironimus Mr. Kris Tierney esi214/2000 14:24 5406650493 G W CLIFFORD & ASSOC PAGE ©2 1 TO: ' ATTN: FROM. SUBJECT: 1 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM LURAY RESID NCY August 4, 2000 .1.A. Copp S.A. Nielnikoff Rol:-:rt B. Childress QAj. C - Shenandoah Development Routes 277/340/522 Clarke. Frederick, & Warren Counties We've reviewed the Preliminary Mister Alan and revised Traffic Impact Analysis for the subject proic(t submitted w)th Mr. Chuck Maddox's July 11, 2000 letter (copy enclosed). Our prelintinaoy c.,nnnictiLs on this submittal follow. It should be noted the Clarke County Board of Supervisors have yet to approve the portion of the project lying within its boundaries. Additionally, 6.%V. Clifford and Associates completed a study of the U.S. Route 340/ 522 North Corridor for the Warren County Board of Supervisors in August 1998. Some of the conclusions and recommendations of this studv directly relate to the types of improvements which will be rrgtdied of this development_ When mentioned below we will refer (o it as simple the Corridor Study. 1) Si;;nalization o the main entrance on Route 340/522 should be a requirement of the initial Frt. if not required based on initial project phasing then its installation should be covered under agreement. 7) The Traffic Impact Analysis indicates the development will generate 17,094 trills per day at build out in 2007. On the surface this number seems somewhat Iow based on the project's size. 25 percent of the project's traffic will head east on Route 340 toward Waterloo and .'_5 percent south on Route 340/522 toward Front Royal. 25 percent equates to an additional 4,274 vehicles impacting these roadways. The Traffic Impact Analysis should be reviewed by the Traffic Engineering Section. We also suggest that current traffic counts be secured on all impacted roadways to ensure accuracy of the analysis. 3) Any access points into the development will need to meet our sight distance requirements and in keeping with the previous Corridor Study kept to a minimum. The access points for the commercial portions of the development on the south end of the project should be eliminated. Access can be provided through the main access roadway. Also, the proposed access point on the north end of the project serving the multi family sections should be 08/24/21000 14:24 5406650493 G W CLIFFORD 8. ASSOC PAGE 03 eliminated and ac arced inter tly. If this isn't possible it will need to be shifted southward to ;ilign with the existing median crossover serving the Frederick/Clarke County Refuse Collection Site. 4) There are currently 8 substandard median crossovers on Route 340/522 within the limits of +he project_ 'tile crossovers serve mainly residential single family homes and farms on both the east and west side of the roadway. Only one has been improved with a northbound I& turn lane. Aside from the crossover serving the aforementioned Refuse Collection Site all should be closed/removed. Any remaining should be upgraded, widened, and tarn lanes added. 5) The existing southbound lanes through the project limits are the old original roadway prior to the corridor's four laning. These southbound lanes do not meet our current geometric design guideline. The pavement width ranges from 20' 22' with 2' 6' shoulders. The vcrtical alignnment is some of the worst on the corridor which results in poor sight distance. 1 it is extremely had within the southern end of the project. The designer proposes the main Access to the project within this area. The resulting median crossover necessary for this entrance v,,Ould he locited in an area where there is a significant difference in elevation between the north and south bound lanes. The resulting grade would hamper muintenuricc olvi-ations, be unsafe and may not meet our minimum requirements at this Icx-ation. To compound these current design and safety deficiencies this project is proposed to add an additional 4,274 trips per day to the Route 340/522 corridor. The previous Corridor Study's findings indicate this roadway will carry in access of 100,000 vehicles per day. 'nis figure is b.ised on build out of assumed zoned uses of warren Counties Land Use Map ' of properties along the corridor between I-66 and Route 661 just south of this development. The Corridor Study Roes further to recommend the roadway be reC0n5tI:1ICted 1,,) provide 3-12' wide through lanes with a continuous 12' right turn lane in ' both directiOns. To this end, we would recommend the existing southbound lanes of Route 340 / ,22 within the limits of the development be reconstructed/widened to meet current vcrtic,il and horizontal alignment and provide 3-12'through lanes and 12" right ' turn lane.. 7'lic improvements should include all necessary right of way, curb and gutter alcmg the frontage and any storm sewer upgrades. 6) Standard 5' concrete sidewalk should be considered along the entire frontage due to the ' proposed and liotential commercial development along the corridor. 7) We have no ovcrall objections to the boulevard design of the proposed main access road. However, as previously mentioned its location causes us concern due to the difference in evaluation bet-,veen he north and southbound lanes. The median crossover will need to inciudr a southbound left turn lane. Exact dimensions of the entrance/crossover iit1provements will need to be determined after the Traffic Impact Analysis and .ite plan has been reviewed by the Traffic Engineering Section. If possible the existing farm entrance (in flic east side of the highway should be realigned with the crossover. 8) \Ve are currently getting feedback from the Clarke County Board of Supervisons to improve the Route )77;'i4O/522 intersection. The Board recently asked for preliminary engineering money at the Primary Planning and Scheduling meeting to fund a st1tdy/design 1`.O future improvements. As proposed, at least an additional 4,274 vehicles 1 5406650493 G W CLIFFORD & 4SSOC RgGE ©a will impact this intersection daily. At a minimum a separate left turn lane should be provided by the developer on southbound Route 340 and eastbound Route 277. it appears ' the necessaL'V right of way is available to accommodate these improvements. The capacity of the existing Koute 340/522 northbound lane should also be considered when the Traffic Impact Analysis is reviewed. Even with its recent extension with the 7-1 1 project we've witnessed stacking problems in the P.M. peak hour. This turn lane may need to be e\(ended eoid,`or a dual Icft provided (which would compound problems westbound on Route 277). Any necessary signalization adjustments/improvements will need to be addressed to accommodate any intersection modifications. 9) While only a small portion of the project lies within Warren County, approval from their Board should be required also if required. The Preliminary Master Plan doesn't indicate 1 W:Irren County in the title. As you're aware the plans submitted offer very little detail and our comments are focused "big primarily on picture" issues. More detailed coi nierw can be provided once Traffic Engineering reconimendatioirs on the Traffic Impact ,Analysis are known and site plans are provided. We appreciate your office agreeing to handle the review of this project and look forward to working with you in the future . We \%-ill kcep _you apprised of Clarke County and Warren Counties position on this development. L RBC/trsy Attachments cc: RA Miller ' 1B Diamond :J 1 1 08/24/2060 15:44 5406650493 G W CLIFFORD $ ASSOC PAGE 01 Findines (F) and Recommendations CRl (F1) U S. Route 522/340 has an `old" lane which was paralleled by a new lane more recently. This old lane is substandard in terms of alignment, lane width, sight distance, and drainage as well as general construction dimensions It requires reconstruction and/or other improvements too extensive to ?e described in this report. (Ri) VPOT be requested to prepare P. E. Study identifying specific improvements required (F2) Collector road% need to be "free flowing" in the vicinity of intersections with U.S. Route 522/340 (R-1) Major commercial entrances and street intersections should be set back about 300 ft fruitt M U.S. Route 5221340 travel lane to facilitate 200ft turn lanes with transitions. Frontage roads should he discouraged (,See appendix). (F3) Traffic generated by commercial and industrial development should be delivered to U S Route 5?2 =} at efficient and controlled intersections. R3) Collector roads should be used to carry commercial and industrial traffic to safe sropli,htrd intersec•rions identified as C through G complete with left and right turn lanes in all direc•ticit,. Direct entrance onto U.S. Route S221340 should be discouraged but, w/ten needed, the entry►►i e should provide ingress and egress for multiple uses such as at property lines. Additional rullc c : r roads should be built to provide safe and convenient access to internal industrial parcels such u•. 'n they Kelli'< Toray, Inland, Success, and Stephens Industrial parks. (F-i) Future traffic flows and movements on U.S. Route 522!340 will exceed the capacity of a 4 lane hi_hwa\- 1 ( (R4, Provider a sir land roadway to hart the ultimate traffic (.See t)�pical section on sheet 2 tt (175) Nlisalivnnic•rit of S K 658 (Rockland Road) and S R 627 (Reliance Road) will create traffic co»tlici, (R5) Reali,►r S. R. 658 to intersect U.S. Route 522/340 it) match centerline intenectiuu is-ith 3. 6. %. TWN n•ill a/!(,,,, ►tie of evisting Crooked Run Bridge and allow direct access to high rl,ii:..... cncnnierc'iul use's eej.►t of U.S. Route 5221340. 1 " -C fl', �) f r�•nta_� i��,�ds �7i iiiil'I'Jt,c li0i1 1. create traffic conflict points (RN .. r!�EZ• o, ,.:� oe E2�.•-t..��'r� /F � 4 s s r g 4 � i t , I Q CCC 1, 1 ; , -�`'�� /� , �'• � '' ����+� I 5A w U rTFN 1 1 1' 1 1 1 1 1• 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �o-cu "40 %D�gc-5 F Re &I 8 U. �.. PUCE fCE S FsCZ� C p-C u qu4 PR va,5 5s voi S�oG DO T. R/W Ncl TURN C A scRVcs 5UM �s DAY FAR MEE HOMES ot�t VVES`1 �►irr.. rd� I �; lei � '•I r ` -...� �� v10 `y • I �'' �� ; �,.q.' i � dry►1 .1 b: blwM! Ait 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i D. N S,F• cons P kv p 1 3 4 14532 to IW, Ono* *** 2051.1619 la 703.444.6700 l00.S50AU FK M449.6713 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc I August 7, 2000 Mr. Ray Smith &Wft aw 504, *prig President Dogwood Development *rW Oats 11800 Sunrise Valley Drive WWI Suite 925 woklwk Reston, Virginia 20191 Wah LAMdr Dear Mr. Smith: ' The Edinburg office of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) had two b.. questions about the study, "Revised Traffic impact Analysis of Shenandoah" by Callow swwms Transportation Consulting in Association with Patton Harris Rust and Associates, pc dated ram May 4, 2000. I answered the questions by telephone and it was requested that I also reply 1a&W" in writing and they would forward the letter and report to the Staunton office of VDOT for k6ftm final review. This letter is that requested written response. • The fast question was in regard to the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) shown on Figure 1 on Route 277 west of Route 340. VDOT's most recent daily count (1997) was about 4,000 trips higher than the ADT shown in the May 2000 report. The ADT shown in the ' report was derived from the peak period turning movement counts made in April 2000 by our firm. As has been done in other reports by us that have been reviewed by the ' VDOT Staunton District Office, the ADT is calculated by assuming that the PM peak hour is 10 percent of the daily volume. • The second question was with respect to the annual background growth rate of 5 percent used in the Shenandoah report. Callow Transportation conducted the first study for this property in 1990 when it was known as Wheatlands. The traffic count conducted in May 2000 was compared to the count made in 1990. The average compound annual growth over the 10-year period was determined to be 5 percent. Si eeely hn F. Callow ice President p+0000.��o.00,,aeuu.o,.�a,.aee�, a� 1 1 FREDERICK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 1 F 7 1 11 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County Public Schools Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick County Public Schools Frederick County Public Schools Attn: School Superintendent 1415 Amherst St. ' 1415 Amherst St. Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 662-3888 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach one (1) copy of the MDP with this sheet. Applicant's Name: G.W. Clifford & Associates Inc. Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 Phone Number: (540) 667-2139 ' Name of development and/or description of the request: "Shenandoah" Location of Property: South side and adjacent to VA Route 277; west side and adjacent to US Route 340 in Double Tollgate area of Fredrick County, east of Stephens City, VA Frederick County Public Schools Comments: / J A /i// !1f r �//`/` I r C n 18 1! FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY 117, Frederick County, Vireinia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority 315 Tasker Road Attn: Engineer Stephens City, VA P.O. Box 1877 (540) 868-1061 Winchester, VA 22604 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick County Sanitation Authority with their review. Please attach two (2) copies of the MDP with this sheet. Applicant's Name: G.W. Clifford & Associates. Inc Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 Phone Number: (540) 667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: "Shenandoah" Location of Property: South side and adjacent to VA Route 277; west side and adjacent to US Route 340 in Double Tollgate area of Fredrick County, east of Stephens City, VA Frederick County Sanitation Authority's Comment: See page 2 (attached). ..._.....e t 3 �# ae taasale ..... _ . . �yasnxe;� 11 1 1 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plant Application Package Page 2 Frederick County Sanitation Authority's Comment: 1) Frederick County Sanitation Authority will need approval from Clarke County to extend water and sewer service into their county. 2) I will need to see how you plan to extend the water line on SR636 and connect to our existing system. 3) Will the existing 8-inch water line be sufficient to supply the area served? 4) I have marked two locations I feel the water lines need to be looped to ensure better service. r,� �u 11 FREDERICK COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS f' P 1 I COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 Mr. C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Vice President Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 September 6, 2000 RE: "Shenandoah" - Active Adult Resort Community - Master Development Plan Frederick County, Virginia I 1 ';1 1 11 L Dear Chuck: The master development plan dated July 1, 2000, is approved with a few minor comments which may be implemented during the actual site plan design phase. Our main concern at this point in time is the number of BMPs that will be required for the project to satisfy the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). Because of the number and complexity of the BMPs, we will require that the engineer of record perform inspections during construction and provide this office with a written certification that each facility meets the approved design. This requirement should be conveyed to the developer who will be responsible for the cost of these services. We realize that the roman numerals shown on the development plan are not intended as phasing sections. However, it would be very helpful to provide a plan which does reflect the anticipated construction phasing considering the construction of the entrance roads is tied to the phasing. We intend to perform a more comprehensive review at the time of the subdivision design submittal. We look forward to receiving your design documents for the individual BMP facilities. Sincerely, Harvey 0 Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 I FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING STAFF �J I L P P, [Fld �t.�z,l IAugust 24, 2000 C.E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Vice -President G.W. Clifford and Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 1 RE: Shenandoah Preliminary Master Development Plan COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 Dear Chuck: Enclosed are my comments on the materials submitted in association with the Preliminary Master Development Plan for the proposed Shenandoah project. I have reviewed the various sheets submitted as part of the MDP, as well as the associated notes, and my comments are separate accordingly. In general, you will find that there are a number bits of detailed information that are required by Ordinance that have not been provided. These include specifics on the types and numbers of units to be constructed, details on the type of recreational facilities to be provided and phasing of the project. In addition, there are a number of details that will need to be worked out regarding such things as access to (and use of) Lake Frederick, the extent and location of environmental features present and the degree of proposed disturbance. If you would like to discuss any of the comments or issues raised, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Director Icc: Dogwood Development Group C \Kris 2000\letters`shendoahI wpd 1 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Shenandoah Preliminary Master Development Plan Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Review Comments 8/22/2000 The Shenandoah Project proposes 2,130 dwellings on 926 acres for a residential density of 2.3 units per acre which is well within the maximum permitted density of the R-5 zone. The R-5 zone permits developments which are age -restricted subject to appropriate deed restrictions or other legal documents being provided which insure that the development will in fact be age -restricted. This documentation will need to be provided prior to final approval of a Master Development Plan (MDP). Please note that for our purposes the MDP should be limited to the land area within Frederick ' County. The Preliminary Master Development Plan (PMDP) which has been submitted fails to provide a number of required bits of information. The required information which is lacking from the plan submitted is listed below. 1) The Plan must indicate the proposed number of units of each housing type which are proposed in each phase of the development and in the total development, as well as the approximate location of the various housing types. In addition, the acreage in common open space, roads, streets or right-of-ways by phase and for the entire development should be provided. Experience indicates that the most efficient way to convey this information is to produce a table listing each phase and the various numbers, units, acreage, percentages, etc. per phase. 2) A certified boundary survey ofthe entire property indicating all dimensions in feet is required. 3) Intervals of the topography should be indicated. For the sake of legibility, topography should not be shown on each sheet, but rather limited to the page indicating the location of steep slopes. 4) In addition to the information provided in the title block, the names of the owners, contract owners and firms preparing the plan should be clearly identified. The age -restricted nature of the development should also be indicated. 5) The use and ownership of adjoining properties should be indicated on the plan. 6) In addition to the location steep slopes and woodland, the location of wetlands should be provided. 7) The sheet depicting the location of woodlands and the areas to be disturbed is flawed. This sheet needs to be redraw to clearly indicate the location of existing woodlands as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and those areas that will be disturbed. It appears -1- [l 11 that more than 25 percent of the existing woodlands are to be disturbed, therefore, a waiver will need to be requested from the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission. Staff notes that the approved Wheatlands MDP called for reforestation of the area between the public fishing area and the proposed community center and the granting of a conservation easement on this acreage to the DGIF. 8) The location of environmental protection land that is to be included in common open space should be shown and the acreage and percentage of open space made up of these features should be given. 9) Additional information on the type, number and scale of recreational facilities to be provided is needed. The location and configuration ofrecreational facilities should also be indicated on the plan. Ultimately, the County Parks and Recreation Department will need to determine the adequacy of the proposed facilities. It should be noted that, if single family small lot housing is proposed within the development, additional recreational facilities must be provided in accordance with section 165-64.A ofthe Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. It should be similarly noted that, within the R-5 zone, recreational facilities are to be provided with each phase in proportion to the fraction of the total dwelling units in each phase. Information will need to be provided which demonstrates how this requirement is to be met. 10) Although there are three street cross-section details among the information provided, the plan fails to indicate which roads within the development are to be of which type. The labeling of the road types should be consistent with the R-5 zoning. Roads should be either Greenways, Neighborhood Collectors, or Local streets. Staff has concerns regarding the depiction of numerous utilities within the rights -of -way of the proposed streets. All indications to this point have been that, although the development would have private streets, the construction of the streets would be such that they could be turned over to the VDOT should that become necessary. VDOT standards would not permit utility lines to be run under the centerline of the pavement. 11) Information on stormwater management facilities should be indicated on the plan. This information will need to be reviewed and approved by the County's Public Works Department. 12) No buffers or screening are depicted on the MDP. Buffers must either be provided ded in accordance with County requirements, or a waiver must be sought. 13) The network of trails depicted does not appear to provide access to every use, structure or recreational facility as required. It appears this might be remedied by providing a few -2- i 1 1 Ll 1 1 I 1�, additional linkages between certain subdivision streets and the trail network which is depicted. 14) Staff anticipates that the Planning Commission will wish to see a detailed Generalized Development Plan (as provided for under R-5 zoning) which indicates the type of uses, access, and circulation patterns proposed for the Village Center. Comments on: Final Notes to Master Development Plan - Shenandoah The following comments pertain to the notes submitted along with the MDP for the proposed Shenandoah Development 1) Mixture of Housing Types a) Describing the housing to be built as "a mix of housing types allowed in the R-5 zone" is inadequate. Please see item #1 above under PMDP comments. (b) This comment is unacceptable. The MDP must specify the number and type of units in each phase. Future variation in the numbers or types of units may require a revision to an approved MDP. (c) This statement should be eliminated as compliance with County Ordinances is required regardless of such statements. 2) Transportation Improvements (a) No problem. (b) The note should clearly state at what point in the project the relocation of the VDGIF entrance will take place. (c) The improvements to Route 636 should be linked to the construction of a specified number of dwelling units rather than approval of a phase of the development. 3) Trail System The trail system described does not meet the requirement of Section 165-77.M of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. (See comment #13 above.) 4) Streetlights While the design of streetlights may be selected by the developer, they must be approved by -3- 1 1 Ithe Zoning Administrator. ' 5) Provision of water and sewer service (a) No problem. (b) In addition to State Water Control Board, the plans for the waste water treatment facility will also need to be approved by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. In addition, arrangements acceptable to the Authority will need to be made for turning all sewer and water facilities (including treatment facilities, lift stations, and water storage facilities) over to the Authority following satisfactory completion of their construction. (c) Same as (b) above. 6) Fire and Rescue In order to be effective, the details concerning the amount and location of this acreage will need to be resolved and noted on the MDP prior to approval. Preliminary indications from the Emergency Services Director are that the proposed location for a fire and rescue facility is undesirable. It is also appears clear that the offer of land for a library (given the limited three-year duration of the offer) is of little value given that a branch library is currently under construction on Tasker Road which is intended to serve the needs of the southeastern area of the County for the foreseeable future. Staff notes that the three-year duration of this offer from the time the MDP is approved falls far short of the "12 years from the date of platting of the first phase of the development" offered by the previous plan. 7) Open Space ' This statement should be eliminated as compliance with County Ordinances is required regardless of such statements. 8) Preservation of Lake Frederick water quality (a) No problem. (b) The language will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Department of Public Works and the VDGIF. (c) The proposed method of maintenance of BMP's will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Department of Public Works. The reference to Section 16 I -4- Ishould be removed as the notes contain no such number. (d) No problem. (e) Staffbelieves that the interests of protecting water quality and maintaining tree cover would be better served if the conservation easement is granted to the VDGIF (as currently stipulated on the Wheatlands MDP) as opposed to the home owners association as is proposed. (f) As with (e) above, the assurance that trails will be constructed with the approval of VDGIF is far better insured if the DGIF holds an easement on this acreage rather than a homeowners association. ' (g) All woodland areas (as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance) proposed for clearing must be indicated as disturbed on the MDP and counted toward the total percentage of disturbed woodlands. ' (h) Any improvements which are intended to count toward fulfillment of required recreation facilities will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Department of Parks and Recreation. The completion of such facilities will need to be covered by performance guarantees prior to platting of relevant sections of the development. (i) Why would the flood easements not be conveyed on, and with, the recordation of approved plats? 9) Access to the Lake It is anticipated that any access to be provided to Lake Frederick would need to be public. 10) Provision of adequate monumentation ' No problem. 11) School Site Staff anticipates that given the approved MDP for Wheatlands includes the offer of a p g pp school site, the failure of the Shenandoah proposal to carry forward with this offer will no doubt generate discussion. 12) Recreational Facilities The statement "substantial recreational facilities" is inadequate. Detailed information on exactly what type of facilities including the number, square footage, cost estimates, etc. along -5- 1 1 ' with specifics on what facilities will be provided at what point in the development of the project must be provided. This information will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Parks and Recreation Department, 13) Phasing (a) This statement indicates that there will be six phases, whereas, the MDP submitted identifies eight phases, which is correct? The exact number of units per phase must be identified on the MDP. Significant alterations to these numbers subsequent to Board of Supervisor approval may result in the need to formally revise the approved ' MDP. (b) These improvements will need to be built or bonded prior to plat approval. (c) No problem. ' (d) It would be preferable to link construction of these improvements to a specific number of units rather than to a general phase of development. At a minimum they should be tied to the approval of a particular phase. (e) Same as (d) above. (f) This comment should be eliminated. Prior to any infrastructure improvements, grading, or other construction activity commencing within any given area, land disturbance and other pertinent permits are required per normal County procedures. More importantly, density within phases is determined by an approved MDP; the swapping of units between phases subsequent to MDP approval is not permitted. 14) Homeowner's Association ' (a) This section again contains a reference to the nonexistent #16 within the notes. A reference to maintenance of the all roads would be appropriate here. (b) There is little apparent value of the statement, particularly given that it is inconsistent with other statements such as note 8.(g), which indicates the developer intents to clear areas solely for the purpose of providing views of the lake. Limits of woodland disturbance must be depicted on the MDP. Staff notes the absence of restrictions contained in the approved Wheatlands MDP which prohibited the cutting trees over a six-inch caliper other than for placement of a home, driveway or utilities, placed a limit of 30% disturbance on those lots which adjoin the lake, ' and had building lot approval subject to HOA with the stated goal of minimizing site disturbance. 0 I 0 11 I FREDERICK COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION 1 7 I 11 L7 7 L 7 L F I 1] Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick County 107 N. Kent Street Department of Parks and Recreation fd Floor 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5678 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach one (1) copy of the MDP with the sheet. Applicant's Name: G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester VA 22601 Phone Number: (540) 667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: "Shenandoah" Location of Property: South side and adjacent to VA Route 277; west side and adjacent to US Route 340 in Double Tollgate area of Fredrick County, east of Stephens City, VA Department of Parks and Recreation's Comments: Plan appears to meet the intent of the Open Space and Recreational Unit Requirements. However, more detailed information is needed y this department to comp ete a tinal review ot open space an recreational amenities. 1 15 1 u I VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES 1 J 1 IFrederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package ' Reauest for Master Development Plan Comments Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries Mail to: Hand deliver to: ' Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries Virginia Department of Game Attn: Residential Engineer Attn: Residential Engineer P.O. Box 996 P.O. Box 996 ' Verona, VA 24482 Verona, VA 24482 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Virginia Department of Transportation with their review. Please attach two (2) copies of the MDP with this sheet. Applicant's Name: G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 Phone Number: (540) 667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: "Shenandoah" ' Location of Property: South side and adjacent to VA Route 277; west side and adjacent to US Route 340 in Double Tollgate area of Fredrick County, east of Stephens City, VA 1 Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries Comments: The Department has had several meetings with Dogwood Deye1:opmgnt and is rilrrPnt 1W wnrki ng on n mPmornndum of understanding, on managing the lake and surrounding ' land. We have developed a cordial working relationship and they have TDeen receptive to addressing the concerns we riave raised. L b l i these I S 1 e s u t e see ne--fffieePre eFa with r e s e v n g -1 VA. Dept. of Game; & Leland tiighertes use Only; Date recent ,Z Nnaler 3 4 5 (P R64ewlease circle one) Date reviewed c evts�on regwred Signature and Date : _ .. ` _:_ °1'� 1 22 CLARKE COUNTY Sep 09 00 04:45p Bobby Levi 5409554002 p.1 I 1 fJ CLARKE COUNTY 9 September 2000 C- F:. ;Maddox, Jr., P.E., Vice President G. W. Clifford & Associates 2(X) North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 CLARKE, !PGINiA �e Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Amended ,Master Development Plan for "Shenandoah" (tormcrly "Wheatlands"). 1 believe that there are potentially three major impacts on Clarke County: 1. kiner-ency Services, 2. Traffic. and 3. Visual Character Based on current circumstances. Clarke County would he responsible liar meeting the emergency service Heeds for 190 +/- age restricted residences and a 150-bed/unit nursing/assisted living facility (CCRC). The County and volunteers have been Providing einer-eney services to age restricted residences, assisted living, and nursing lacitines in Berryville. This experience shows that these uses generate a higher than average per capita demand for services. The Boyce Fire Company does not have the stall to respond to any increase in service calls, The nearest Clarke County, rescue squad to Shenandoah is in Berryville, 12 miles away, Emergency services for 951/'n of Shenandoah will he provided by Frederick County. The current mutual aid agreement has Frederick County providing rescue services to the 522 corridor. However, this agreement was not drafted to address this proposed intensity of use. I believe the most efficient and competent level of emergency services for the Shenandoah residents living in Clarke would be provided by Frederick County_ This will rewire a substantially revised mutual aid agrectltent. Representatives of your project and Frederick and Clarke Counties should meet and discuss this issue further. 1 have heen provided preliminary comments from VDOT's Edinburg and Luray Residencies regarding this project. They do not accept the anticipated degree of trip reduction of the Shcnandaah Itroject when compared to the Wheatlands project. They also have identified major dcsiL--n issues regarding the Shenandoah project entrance, the commercial center entrances, and the CCRC entrance off of Sloncwall Jackson Highway, Route 522. In addition, they believe that Stotlew'all Jackson Highway's nulltiple-crossovers, archaic design of the south bound lanes, and inade.yuale turning lanes at its intersection with Lord Fairfax Highway preclude it lion safely accommodating the additional traffic generated by this project. The formal V DUT comments are not expected until mid-Octobcr. Again, representatives ol' your project, VDOr, and Clarke Should meet to discuss this issue. 1-lowever, detailed discussions may not be ftotsihle until the f0i-nlal VD0T C0I11111Cnt5 have been suhmitted. 102 N. Church S;, W-MV;llc, Virginia 22611 (540) 955-5132 t•nX (540)955-4002 Sep 08 00 04:45p Bobby Levi 5409554002 p.2 F 11 Clifl'ord & Ascociatcs 8 September 2000 Pace Two The land east of Shenandoah, acres Stonewall Jackson Highway, is in the County'. Agricultural Open -Space Conservation Zoning District. The County Comprehensive Plan intends this area to remain agricultural. The visual impact of this development (particularly its commercial, multi- family, and nursing hone/assisted living facility) on the agricultural land will be significant. The agricultural land, with the Blue Ridge behind it, is in the view shed of the Shenandoah project. Conversely, the character and appearance or Shenandoah affects the agricultural land and whether it remains attractive for agricultural uses. Commercial parking lots and multi -story structures on the west -side of Stonewall Jackson Highway will not contribute to the agricultural character of the land on the cast -side of the Wighway. I recommend that the commercial parking areas be entirely within Frederick County, with adjacent Clarke County land used for landscape buffers and attractively designed stormwater management facilities. Multi -family structures should set back from Stonewall Jackson Highway a distance equal to at least two times the height of the structure with a landscaped buffer located in the set back area. The single-family residential areas should also have a landscape buffer from Stonewall Jackson Highway. PICUSe contact Me if you would like to discuss these comments further. 'O lades John.tun Planning Administrator F11 WARREN COUNTY 1 I� I COUNTY OF WARREN �1 I County Administrator's Office Warren County Government Center 220 North Commerce Avenue, Suite 100 Front Royal, Virginia 22630 Phone: (540) 6364600 Douglas P. Stanley FAX: (540) 636-6066 County Administrator August 23, 2000 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Chuck Maddox G.W. Clifford Associates 200 North Cameron Street CHAIRMAN Stuart L. Rudacille Winchester, Virginia 22601 South River District RE: "Shenandoah"- Active Adult Resort Communitv Amended Master Development Plan - Frederick and Clarke Counties Dear Mr. Maddox: VICE-CHAIRMAN I am writing concerning your letter dated Julv 11, 2000 requesting B. K. Haynes, Jr. comments on applications for the "Shenandoah" development around Lake North River District 522 property is ro Frederick. The located off of Route 340/522, just to the north P p / and west of the Warren and Frederick County lines. Since the extent of the development lies outside of Warren County, most of my questions/comments are directed toward the traffic impacts on Brack H. Bentley Route 340/522. Please accept the following questions/comments: HappyCreek Di . Warren Countv has recently conducted a transportation plan for its portion of Route 340/522. This study was incorporated in the Front Royal Area Transportation Plan and its elements have been included in the County's Comprehensive Plan. One of the goals of the plan is to utilize collector roads to handle local traffic and John FFork o reduce the need for unnecessary curb cuts and traffic signals. I would recommend that traffic for the proposed commercial center be handled by the proposed main entrance on Route 340/522. This would reduce the need for a potential traffic signal for the commercial development? Benjamin H. Weddle . This section of Route 340/522(southbound) is the older section of Shenandoah the highway. Are there any plans to address the vertical curve issues with this section of the roadway as part of the development. • In order to maintain continuity of development along the ..... corridor, I would encourage the requirement of at least a 100' building setback from Route 340/522. L I • Due to concerns over outdoor lighting and protection of the night sky, Warren County has adopted stringent outdoor lighting standards. We would strongly recommend that all outdoor lighting fixtures over 50 watts be fully shielded (cut-off fixture). • The assumption is made that the proposed wastewater treatment facility will meet or exceed all. Virginia Department of Health and Department of Environmental Quality standards. Will there be any negative impact on Crooked Run? Thank you for the opportunity to review this request. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, V Douglas P. Stanley, AICP County Administrator/ Planning Director DPS cc: Brett Haynes, Vice -Chairman, Warren County Board of Supervisors FREDERICK COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL il I Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County Fire Marshal ' Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederic County Fire Marshal I" Floor Attn: Fire Marshal 107 N. Kent St. ' 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-6350 ' Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach two (2) copies of the MDP with this sheet. ' Applicant's Name: G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N, Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 Phone Number: (540) 667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: "Shenandoah" Location of Property: South side and adjacent to VA Route 277; west side and adjacent to US Route 340 in Double Tollgate area of Fredrick County, east of Stephens City, VA Fire Marshal's Comments: 11 verevuiwed 4, l ap t? 1 14 r1IV 1 1 1 1 COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No.MD00-0004 Date Received 7/12/2000 Date Reviewed 9/8/2000 Applicant G.W.Clifford & Assoc. Address 200 N.Cameron Street Winchester, Va. 22601 Project Name Shenandoah Phone No.540-667-2139 Type of ApplicationMaster Development Current Zoning R-5 1st Due Fire Co. 11 1st Due Rescue Co. 11 Election DistrictOpequon Tax I.D. No. RECOMMENDATIONS Automatic Sprinkler SystemXX Residential Sprinkler SystemXX Automatic Fire Alarm SystemXX Other REQUIREMENTS Emergency Vehicle Access Adequate Inadequate XX Not Identified Fire Lanes Required Yes XX No Comments: Local Streets- a 30 ft.right of way w/trees on both sides is not conducive to Fire Department ingress & egress. Roadway/Aisleway Widths Adequate Inadequate XX Not Identified Special Hazards Noted Yes XX No Comments : Stormwater & flood considerations at primary roadway below dam. Municipal water supply adequate for demand on total development? Hydrant Locations Adequate Inadequate Not Identified XX Siamese Location Adequate Inadequate Not Identified XX Additional Comments Attached? Yes XX No Plan Approval Recommended? Yes No XX Signature Title" COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA ' FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No.MD00-0004 Date Received 7/12/2000 Date Reviewed 9/8/2000 Applicant G.W.Clifford & Assoc. ' Address 200 N.Cameron Street ' Winchester, Va. 22601 ' Project Name Shenandoah Phone No.540-667-2139 Type of ApplicationMaster Development Current Zoning R-5 1st Due Fire Co. 11 1st Due Rescue Co. 11 Election DistrictOpequon Additional Comments: Where the Trail System and roadways intersect, access for emergency vehicles is necessary. Additional access points may be necessary in areas where ' distance and housing lots preclude vehicle access to trails. ' Fire & Rescue Service- The suggested site within the Village Center is not an acceptable location to serve the Citizens of Frederick County. The site ' originally approved in the "Wheatlands" MDP adjoining Rt. 277 would better serve our needs. As well, the time frame that has been offered for the site is not adequate. We request this be extended to 10 years. Access between the residential area and assisted living/retirement area for emergency vehicles is also necessary. Signature Title 1 FREDERICK COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTIONS 11 1 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County Inspections Department 1%11ail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Inspections Department 4h Floor Attn: Building Official 107 N. Kent St. 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5650 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Inspections ' Department with their review. Please attach one (1) copy of the MDP with this sheet. Applicant's Name: G.W. Clifford & Associates Inc. ' Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 Phone Number: (540) 667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: "Shenandoah" ' Location of Property: South side and adjacent to VA Route 277; west side and adjacent to US Route 340 in Double Tollgate area of Fredrick County, east of Stephens City, VA ' Frederick County Inspections Department use only: No comments required at this time.Shall comment at the time of subdivision -.nt rPviPw_ 1 12 11 1 k RG �EQ � 12aoa p�pio (� PINNING{aEVEI.�Pt��N� 1 11 7 1 SHENANDOAH STREETS DOGWOOD DEVELOPMENT GROUP a DAVID COBEY DESIGN 9 G W CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES 3.9.00 LJI n Fj Cdi�tl�(U�t1Z`(� c FscM I'T 5Z2 e?,-�,T - l i5o R, f w -- SHENANDOAH COMMUNITY ENTRANCES DOGWOOD DEVELOPMENT GROUP • DAVID COBFY DESIGN 9 G W CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES 1 "=20' 3.9.00 I SHENAND MAIN STREET DOGWOOD DEVELOPMENT GROUP • DAVID COBEY DESIGN • G W CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES 1"=167 3.9.00 section LAO- w �'rP.Jrct� 0.E Tu*4 eST d" VILLAC--A A WTI SHENANDOAH PRIMARY HOME COMMUNITY i DOGWOOD DEVELOPMENT GROUP 0 DAVID COBEY DESIGN 1 "=i6' 1.22.00 section 0 L n -g 5 tau � 5ellw c n q6.W-.WWA%(- TYrrCAf oW-11(:*4 situ,&, A WS5T To 0 WE*r t SHENANDOAH PRIMARY HOME COMMUNITY DOGWOOD DEVELOPMENT GROUP • DAVID COVEY DESIGN 1.22.00 71 section I �5 w cfi�+ Cs ��'t131�YtaC. FAX"Wtr- wasr IU�CT-1 V,UAr,E. �-: car er i SHENANDOAH PRIMARY HOME COMMUNITY i DOGWOOD DEVELOPMENT GROUP 9 DAVID COBEY DESIGN r „=1.6' 1.22.00 TA section SHENANDOAH PRIMARY HOME COMMUNITY DOGWOOD DEVELOPMENT GROUP • DAVID COBEY DESIGN 1„=iu 1.22.00 section 1 F1 SHENANDOAH LOCAL STREET TO 25 HOMES ' DOGWOOD DEVELOPMENT GROUP 9 DAVID COBFY DESIGN 9 G W CLIFFORD & ASSOCU rF.S 1"=16' 3.9.00 ACTIVE ADULT (AGE -RESTRICTED) COMMUNITY STREETS These streets do not carry through public traffic. Drivers are adults. The lifestyle is unhurried. Dwellings generate only a third of the trips of a typical family.* VTD MPH LANES NON -AUTO ACCESS PARKWAY 4495 30 12' 8' TRAIL NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR 1231 25 12' 2-6' LANES LOCAL STREET <250 20 10' ON STREET * Institute of Traffic Engineers Handbook, Retirement Community trip generation rate: 3.4/d.u./day HENANDOAH DOGWOOD DEVELOPMENT GROUP 9 DAVID COBEY DESIGN • G W CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES 3.9.00 rm I I'll I 14 1 %c' fc-� ST 4' ^I'I I f"Aee_vY # T;w I-- VAl imp rot. �' G -G L.Qr r 1 N10 4 fu;v F+ a rdo lc amG ` mT SHENANDOAH ACTIVE ADULT COMMUNITY DOGWOOD DEVELOPMENT GROUP • DAVID COBEY DESIGN r l , 1.22.00 section section m N� �C.1-N°�c��Rttc�7 Goy-c.�Gt�%uAf3e A NCWM -TO W + VIULA64e CR SHENANDOAH ACTIVE ADULT COMMUNITY DOGWOOD DEVELOPMENT GROUP 9 DAVID COBEY DESIGN 1 "=2o, 1.22.00 E L [l U ,I section I �. �o' Mau• - _�.— SC; UWAmewT L+04w-j eorzep,-�v 1 SHENANDOAH ACTIVE ADULT COMMUNITY DOGWOOD DEVELOPMENT GROUP • DAVID COBEY DESIGN r=io, 1.22.00 1 fl 1 rj �'� G •G "�" to V . E 8 � F'i�►X sp�gw SHENANDOAH ACTIVE ADULT COMMUNITY DOGWOOD DEVELOPMENT GROUP • DAVID COBEY DESIGN i,,=lo, 1_.22.00 section 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Y' Y SHENANDOAH TRAILS DOGWOOD DEVELOPMENT GROUP • DAVID COSEY DESIGN • G W CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES 3.9.00 section Karen Flynn From: Sweitzer, Barry <BSweitzer@VDOT.STATE.VA.US> To: G. W. Clifford & Associates (E-mail) <gwcliff@mnsinc.com> Cc: Childress, Robert <RChildress@VDOT.STATE.VA.US>; Sweitzer, Barry <BSweitzer@VDOT.STATE.VA.US>, Melnikoff, Steve <SMelnikoff@VDOT.STATE.VA.US> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 1:08 PM Subject: Shenandoah Development Commonwealth of Virginia — Department of Transportation Edinburg Residency 14031 Old Valley Pike, Edinburg, VA 22824 March 1, 20001 Mr. Ronald A. Mislowsky, P.E., V.P. C/O G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Ref: Shenandoah Development US Route 522/340 Improvements and Lake Frederick Drive Frederick, Warren and Clarke Counties Dear Ron: The plans covering the referenced project have been forwarded to our District Office Sections for review. Please note these plans were advanced without the benefit of an actual three day traffic count on the VDOT roadways impacted by the proposed plans for "Shenandoah". Whenever those counts are available, they should be submitted to this office and we will distribute them to the appropriate VDO,r personnel. As soon as the District Sections finish their respective reviews and return them to this office, we will provide comments to your office. If there ate any questions, do not hesitate to call. Barry J. Sweitzer, Trans. Roadway Engineer VDOT — Edinburg Residency Permit & Subdivision 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540) 984-5631 / ( 540) 984-5607 (tax) FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPM March 17, 2005 Mr. Ronald A. Mislowsky, Jr., P.E. Vice President Patton Harris Rust & Associates, p.c. 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Subdivision Comments - Shenandoah, Phase II Frederick County, Virginia COUNTY of FREEDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 Dear Ron: Upon review of the revised subdivision plan dated March 4, 2005, all of our previous comments have been addressed. Therefore, we recommend approval of the subject subdivision plan. Sincerely, r Joe C. Wilder Deputy Director JCW/rls cc: Mark Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administratof file A AshenphlIrevcom.wpd 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 A Revised Traffic Impact Analysis of Shenandoah located in Frederick County, Virginia prepared for Dogwood Development Group 11800 Sunrise Valley Drive Suite 925 Reston, Virginia 20191 prepared by Callow Transportation Consulting in association with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates 14532 Lee Road Chantilly, Virginia 20151-1679 May 4 2000 11 1 1 OVERVIEW Report Summary Shenandoah is an approved residential/commercial development located in Frederick County, Virginia with some parcels in Warren and Clarke Counties. The development is now proposed as an active adult home community within the approved zoning on the land when it was approved as "Wheatlands". The site exists on the west side of Route 522/340 and south of Route 277. A traffic study was performed for the original rezoning, A Traffic Impact Analysis of Wheatlands A Proposed Mixed Use Development in Frederick County, Virginia, by Callow Associates, Inc. dated October 1990. After consultation with the Staunton office of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), it was decided that the original study needed to be updated analyzing the changed uses with current traffic counts and forecasts. This report by Callow Transportation Consulting (CTC) addresses the proposed land uses with any coinciding transportation improvements and compares the trip generation with the approved land uses evaluated in the original study in 1990. This report was prepared following discussions with VDOT and the applicant. Primary access to Shenandoah will be via a spine road located along Route 522/340. The location of this point of access has been moved northward and is in Clarke County. There will also be a right -in -right -out south of the primary road. Route 277 will also have access points with a site driveway and via Route 636 as originally approved. The newest version of the highway capacity software (HCS) program, HCS 3.1c, was used for analysis. The proposed Shenandoah development includes 1,337 single family detached units and 925 attached active adult houses, 121,000 square feet of retail, a church, library, office space of 112,000 square feet and a post office all to be completed by the year 2007. EXISTING CONDITIONS CTC conducted manual traffic counts at the Double Tollgate intersection of Routes 522/340/277 in order to obtain current traffic conditions as well as a growth rate in traffic from the counts made in 1990. Traffic counts at the intersection of Route 277and Route 636 were adjusted for through volumes on Route 277 since there has been no change in land use since 1990 on Route 636. The traffic counts are included in the Appendix section of this report. Figure 1 shows existing (2000) ADT (Average Daily Trips) and A.M. and P.M peak hour traffic volumes at each of the analyzed intersections. ADT was calculated by assuming that the P.M. peak hour is 10 percent of ADT. Figure 2 illustrates all respective lane geometry and A.M. and P.M peak hour levels of service. A detailed description of level of service is found in the Appendix section of this report. u METHODOLOGY The traffic impacts for Shenandoah were established through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic using a growth rate derived from the 1990 and 2000 counts, • Calculation of trip generation for Shenandoah, • Distribution and assignment of Shenandoah generated trips onto the completed road network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using HCS 3.1 c. 2007 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC The existing traffic volumes were increased to account for area growth through Year 2007. CTC determined that the average growth rate in for this part of Frederick County has been at a compound growth rate of 5 per cent per year. Figure 3 shows 2007 background ADT (Average Daily Trips) and A.M. and P.M peak hour traffic volumes at key intersections within the road network surrounding Shenandoah. Figure 4 shows the respective 2007 background lane geometry and A.M. and P.M peak hour levels of service. A detailed description of level of service is found in the Appendix section of this report. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SITE ^ M o vF � h N �■ 30(40) J I L = ��' (17)50 (69)150 mm► t r (72)71 M M m ^N ^ �M•1 ONp � �h Wight In/O�t Driven n � n a �l (1)1 N � h N k CTC AM(PM) No Scale Figure 1 Existing Traffic Conditions 5/3/00 Unsignalized Intersection �o Signalized * �te2�, Intersection 64A A(A j U LOS = QQ )P JUL BM) e � � tLx m4 A. U a� • Future Site Drivewa *i�B <. SITEM N Vi ght Out D riv a j�---..._ away AM(PM) No Scale * Denotes Critical Movement (unsignalized) N I - CTC Figure 2 Existing Lane Geometry and Level of Service sisioo 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 Future Site SITE M Me o v 00 42(56) AL 4 ■ 96(174) r� 75(91) (24)70 _mP (97)211 ■m# i r (101)100 IT M a ZAP �..OD 0�p �n ewa (1)1 �o M N h w Right Out D ..! -----riveway -------- N 4-- CTC AM(PM) No Scale Figure 3 2007 Background Traffic Conditions 5/3/00 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 Unsignalized Intersection �o 4�e 2�j *(-`4)A A(A)* b SITE Signalized Intersection �j LOS = QQ JUL AM QQ I ,r- ■ ■ 'm4 lit r A' ■ Q� ■ I iQ1 Future Site Drivena *iCK' 0 N w O O .�ght In/Out Drivewa �" AM(PM) No Scale * Denotes Critical Movement (unsignalized) N k CTC Figure 4 2007 Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service 5/3/00 ISHENANDOAH TRIP GENERATION ' The automobile trips produced by and attracted to this Shenandoah site were established using ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition rates. Table 1 shows the trip generation results for the Shenandoah development as well as for the original Wheatlands ' approved development. The proposed Shenandoah land uses will produce considerably less traffic than the approved Wheatlands development. The ADT trips will decrease by 44 percent. The A.M. and P.M. peak hours will reduce by 53 and 44 percent respectively. 1 1 Table 1 Shenandoah vs. Wheatlands Trin Generation Summary SHENANDOAH AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT 251 Elderly Housing-Det. 1,337units 98 174 272 180 101 281 2,805 253 Elderly Housing Att. 925 units 41 24 65 55 38 93 3,219 560 Church 10,000 SF 4 3 7 4 3 7 91 590 Library 10,000 SF 6 2 8 35 38 72 743 710 Office 112,000 SF 180 24 204 35 170 205 1,448 732 U. S. Post Office 10,000 SF 42 38 80 55 53 108 1,082 820 Retail 121,000 SF 109 70 179 342 370 712 7,706 Total Trips 478 336 815 704 773 1,477 17,094 WHEATLANDS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT 210 Single Family Detach 1,313 units 232 696 929 699 393 1,093 13,130 220 Apartment 232 units 19 100 119 97 48 144 1,525 230 Townhouse/Condo 527 units 32 158 190 163 80 243 4,585 560 Church 10,000 SF 4 3 7 4 3 7 91 590 Library 10,000 SF 6 2 8 35 38 72 743 710 Office 112,000 SF 180 24 204 35 170 205 1,448 732 U. S. Post Office 10,000 SF 42 38 80 55 53 108 1,082 820 Retail 121.000 SF 109 70 179 342 370 712 7,706 Total Trips 623 1,092 1,716 1,428 1,155 2,583 30,309 Shenandoah minus Wheatlands Trips -145 -756 -901 -724 -382 -1,106-13,215 1 The developers of Shenandoah are going to provide pedestrian and golf cart trails throughout the community as well as connect to areas outside of the community such as the shopping to the west of Shenandoah and the golf courses to the south and east of the community. These should reduce automobile trips even further than those in Table 1. Trips could reduce as much as 25 percent over the calculated trips; however, no additional reductions were made in order to keep the analysis conservative. 7 ITRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT ' The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network surrounding the Shenandoah site. Figure 5 represents the trip distribution percentages into and out of the Shenandoah development. Figure 6 shows the development -generated ' trips assigned onto the local road network surrounding Shenandoah. I 2007 TRAFFIC IMPACTS Shenandoah assigned trips (Figure 6) were added to the 2007 background (Figure 3) traffic. Figure 7 shows 2007 build -out ADT (Average Daily Trips) and A.M. and P.M peak hour traffic volumes at key intersections within the road network surrounding Shenandoah. Figure 8 shows the respective 2007 build -out lane geometry and A.M. and P.M peak hour levels of service. A detailed description of level of service is found in the Appendix section of this report. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Shenandoah development are acceptable and manageable. All intersections maintain acceptable overall levels of service `C' or better for 2007 build -out conditions. The required transportation improvements remain consistent with those shown in the Wheatlands 1990 study. 8 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N k CTC �avte 2>> M b � 3 M o Q o a D�vewa SITE site y Ri ht In/Oat D veway No Scale Figure 5 Development Trip Distribution Percentages 5/3/00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 131(301) M M 38) 96(141) AL 4W7O) 72(106) b �o (39)17 e (77)34 =n► (74)41 o0 b SiMM te Drivewa ` (193)84 (77)34 O aN SITE �h Ri hti g n/put D nvewa t� (77)34 0 N n N k CTC AM(PM) No Scale Figure 6 Development Generated Trip Assignments 5/3/00 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 6- n � �1 '4�() oc e c (S2�13 �1� 241(451) h vO1i 42 JIL 144(244) h ry (2qp �1/ em 147(197) (63)87 mmp ^; a (174)245 ur (175)141 000 afn � M Site Driveway (1"W (78�5...� SITE o VV� Ri htut D In/O rivewa (77)34 •� 0 b N N CTC AM(PM) No Scale Figure 7 2007 Build -Out Traffic Conditions 5/3/00 Signalized Intersection LOS = B(B) C U f,%Signalized ovte Intersection Signalized 27,7. LOS = B(B) Intersection & (BjB O � U LOS = C(C) UL )r IM ------ 10 U A (w 4 itir a U �' ^' A Signalized Site Driveway Al Intersection LOS = B(B) SITE 8"N = N N 7 O AM(PM) No Scale N i CTC Figure 8 2007 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service 5/3/00 1 1 1 t Appendix I 1 1 1 1 I 1 Intersection: E-W: IRT 277 _Weatherl Dry File Name C: files\.Shenandoah`RT522&340.xls N-S: I RT 522 Count By ljjp bqm BY IJJP Locationj VA Count Date 4/I1/00 15 Minute EB: RT 277 WB: RT 340 NB: RT 522 SB: RT 522 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 6:30 8 31 6 45 6 9 6 21 11 48 15 74 8 36 3 47 187 6:30 6:45 11 36 8 55 9 13 8 30 8 54 14 76 10 42 5 57 218 6:45 7:00 16 42 11 69 9 12 10 31 12 71 18 101 7 50 4 61 262 7:00 7:15 25 46 10 81 8 16 9 33 17 63 18 98 9 72 3 84 296 7:15 7:30 20 39 13 72 11 18 10 39 12 68 21 101 8 76 8 92 304 7:30 7:45 14 34 16 64 12 14 8 34 8 59 16 83 8 84 10 102 283 7:45 8:00 6 35 20 61 14 15 6 35 6 51 18 75 12 92 21 125 296 8:00 8:15 1 10 42 22 74 16 21 6 43 8 61 14 83 14 102 18 134 334 8:15 A.M. Total 110 305 106 521 85 118 63 266 82 475 134 691 76 554 72 702 2180 A.M. Total 16:30 5 16 20 41 21 29 7 57 30 122 12 164 4 92 9 105 367 16:30 16:45 4 20 18 42 20 31 9 60 34 134 16 184 6 98 10 114 400 16:45 17:00 3 19 17 39 19 37 12 68 38 148 19 205 4 105 8 117 429 17:00 17:15 6 14 16 36 14 32 11 57 32 164 17 213 7 116 12 135 441 17:15 17:30 4 16 21 41 12 24 8 44 28 136 10 174 10 124 8 142 401 17:30 17:45 4 9 16 29 8 18 6 32 22 98 9 129 9 112 7 128 318 17:45 18:00 3 10 12 25 10 12 4 26 19 86 11 116 6 96 8 110 277 18:00 18:15 5 10 9 24 7 8 4 19 14 72 6 92 7 80 5 92 227 18:15 P.M. Total 34 114 129 277 111 191 61 363 217 %0 100 1277 53 823 67 943 2860 P.M. Total 1 How EB: RT 277 WB: RT 340 NB: RT 522 SB: RT 522 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 6:30 60 155 35 250 32 50 33 115 48 236 65 349 34 200 15 249 %3 6:30 6:45 72 163 42 277 37 59 37 133 49 256 71 376 34 240 20 294 1080 6:45 7:00 75 161 50 286 40 60 37 137 49 261 73 383 32 282 25 339 1145 7:00 7:15 65 154 59 278 45 63 33 141 43 241 73 357 37 324 42 403 1179 7:15 7:30 50 150 71 271 53 68 30 151 34 239 69 342 42 354 57 453 1217 7:30 16:30 18 69 71 138 74 129 39 242 134 568 64 766 21 411 39 471 1637 16:30 16:45 17 69 72 158 65 124 40 229 132 582 62 776 27 443 38 508 1671 16:45 17:00 17 58 70 145 53 Ill 37 201 120 546 55 721 30 457 35 522 1589 17:00 17:15 17 49 65 131 44 86 29 159 101 484 47 632 32 448 35 515 1437 17:15 17:30 16 45 58 119 37 62 22 121 83 392 36 511 32 412 28 472 1223 17:30 1 Hour EB: RT 277 WB: RT 340 NB: RT 522 SB: RT 522 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:30 50 150 71 271 53 68 30 151 34 239 69 342 42 354 57 453 1217 7:30 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.92 PHF = 0.88 PHF = 0.85 PHF = 0.85 0.91I.A.M. Peak 16:45 17 69 72 158 65 124 40 229 132 582 62 776 27 443 38 508 167 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.94 PHF = 0.84 PHF = 0.91 PHF = 0.89 0.9 Intersection: E-W: RT 277 WeaffialDry He Name ICAmy files\Shenmdoah\RT522&340.xis N-S: I RT 522 Count Byljjp Input By JJP Location I VA Count Date 4/11/00 RT 522 A.M. PEAK HOUR 7:30- 8:30 1 453 (3rl.) 319 57 354 42 J L RT 340 41— 159 L— (18%.) 50 30 271 150 68 151 ' 71 53 (17%) 261 ► RT 277 M • r ' 34 239 69 4781 (34°/.) 3421 RT 522 P.M. PEAK HOUR RT 522 16:45 - 17:45 1508 (34°/.) t 639 38 443 27 J L A-- 294 RT 340 ' (140%) 17 �! !_ 40 158 —► 69 —► 41-- 124 f— 229 72 —� �� 65 (12%) 158 --i ' RT 277 r ' 132 582 62 580 I (41%) 776I DLstfibudon j RT 522 East 14.25% West 15.601% North 33.02% South 37.13% ' 100% ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS and LEVEL OF SERVICE The most current analysis methodologies used for evaluating the capacity of intersections were ' developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other members of the transportation profession. This methodology is represented in TRB Special Report Number 209, The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). ' Computerized methods for conducting these analyses were developed by FHWA; and are the methods used in this report. The following brief explanations of the methodologies are adapted from the HCM. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - TWSC ' At an unsignalized two-way stop -controlled (TWSC) intersection, the major street has continuous right of way while the side street is controlled by a stop sign or yield sign. In operation, vehicles exiting the side street and crossing or turning into the main street flow must wait for "acceptable gaps" in the main street flow. The same is true of left -turning traffic from the main street that must cross the opposing flow. ' The analysis takes into account the probability of a gap in the main street traffic. The probability and number of acceptable gaps is lower in higher volume flows. The acceptability of a gap is modified by physical factors (sight distance, turning radius, etc.) and by characteristics of the ' traffic flow (percentage trucks, buses, etc.). In the analysis in these reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless ' additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks (single unit and tractor -trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of service for TWSC intersections is determined only for individual movements - not for the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time ' required for the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue position to the first -in -queue position. ' Level of Service Criteria for TWSC Intersections Average Total Delay ' Level of Service sec/veh A < _5 B >5 and <_ 10 C > 10 and <20 D >20 and 530 E >30 and <_45 F >45 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The operation (and therefore the capacity) of a signalized intersection is complicated by the fact that the signal is allocating time between conflicting traffic movements - movements that must use ' the same physical space. The analysis, therefore, must not only look at the physical geometry of the intersection, but the signal timing aspects as well. In the analysis of signalized intersections, two terms are important: volume to capacity ratio (v/c) and; average stopped delay (seconds per vehicle). The theoretical capacity is based on the physical geometry, the available green time (often expressed as G/C), and the traffic mix (e.g. trucks use more capacity than cars). The average stopped delay may be calculated from the v/c ratio, cycle length, quality of progression on the arterial and available green time on each approach. ' In this report all the default values recommended by the HCM are used unless other specific information is available (percentage of trucks, pedestrians, etc.). Existing signal timings are ' observed and used whenever possible. When future signals are being evaluated, an "optional" signal timing is calculated based on projected volumes. ' The level of service is based on the calculated average delay per vehicle for each approach and for the intersection as a whole. Based on extensive research studies, the maximum delay acceptable by the average driver is sixty seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection. This is defined as the ' upper limit on the possible range of delay/level of service criteria. The following criteria describe the full range of level of service: CII F u Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Service A B C D E F Stopped Delay ner Vehicle (sec) <_5.0 >5.0 and <_ 15.0 > 15.0 and <_25.0 >25.0 and <_40.0 >40.0 and 560.0 >60.0 11 U� 1� II L LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Description A Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, up to 5 sec per vehicle. This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Level of Service B describes operations with delay greater than 5 and up to 15 sec per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C Level Of Service C describes operations with delay greater than 15 and up to 25 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass though the intersection without stopping. D Level of Service D describes operations with delay greater than 25 and up to 40 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, longer cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Level of Service E describes operations with delay greater than 40 and up to 60 sec per vehicle. This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 60 sec per vehicle. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. 1 HCS: Signalized Intersections Release 3.1c Inter: Route 277 nalyst: CTC Date: 4/25/00 r/W St: Route 277 & Route 522 City/St: Shenandoah Proj #: Existing Period: PM Peak N/S St: Route 522 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY, ' Eastbound westbound Northbound L T R i L T R i L T R No. Lanes tGConfig ol ume Lane width ERTOR Vol 0 1 1 LT R 17 69 72 12.0 12.0 0 0 1 0 LTR 65 124 40 12.0 0 Duration 1.00 Area Type: All Signal Phase combination 1 2 3 EB Left A Thru A Right A 1 Peds WB Left A A Thru A A Right A Pegs A 1 2 1 L T R 132 582 62 12.0 12.0 12.0 32 Southbound L T R 1 2 1 L T R 27 443 38 12.0 12.0 12.0 12 other areas Operations 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left A A Thru A A A A � Pedst SB Left A Thru A Right A Pe s NB Right A EB Right 'SB Right WB Right Green 10.0 45.0 14.0 Yellow 2.0 2.0 2.0 'All Red 2.0 2.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 120.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary_ Appr/ Lane Adj sat Ratios Lane Group 'Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Eastbound LT 658 1754 606 1615 'R westbound LTR 772 'Northbound 1571 L 385 T 1594 3610 I R 902 1615 Southbound L 225 771 IT 1053 3610 R 471 1615 Intersection Delay 0.15 0.13 0.33 0.38 0.41 0.04 0.13 0.47 0.06 = 25.9 35.0 2.0 2.0 Approach Delay LOS 0.375 24.9 C 24.8 C 0.375 24.8 C 0.492 18.7 B 18.7 B 0.442 22.6 C 0.442 23.0 C 22.4 C 0.558 12.0 B 0.292 31.6 C 0.292 35.2 D 34.8 0.292 30.7 C (sec/veh) Intersection C LOS = C HCS: Signalized Intersections Release 3.1c Inter: Route 277 Analyst: CTC Date: 4/25/00 E/W St: Route 277 Eas & Route 522 City/St: Shenandoah Proj #: Existing Period: AM Peak N/S St: Route 522 L T nd R IGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 1 westbound I Northbound I L T R I L T R Sou L T R No. Lanes 1 0 1 1 i 0 1 0 I 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 LGConfig I LT R I LTR I L T R ( L T R 1 volume 150 150 71 153 68 30 134 239 69 142 354 57 I Lane width 1 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 1 ' RTOR Vol 1 0 i 0 1 23 I 19 I Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations IPhase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left A I NB Left A A Thru A I Thru A A Right A I Right A A Peds ( Pe�s WB Left A A 1 SB Left A ' Thru A A i Thru A Right A A 1 Right A Peds I Pe NS Right A I EB Right l SB Right ( WB Right Green 10.0 45.0 14.0 35.0 Yellow 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 lAll Red 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 120.0 secs Intersection Performance Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios ULane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C 1 Eastbound Summary Lane Group Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS LT 632 1686 0.35 0.375 27.4 C R 606 ' westbound 1615 0.13 0.375 24.7 C LTR 742 Northbound 1510 0.23 0.492 17.6 L 423 0.09 0.442 20.2 T 1594 3610 0.17 0.442 20.2 R 902 1615 0.06 0.558 12.1 Southbound L 326 1117 0.14 0.292 31.6 !T 1053 3610 0.37 0.292 34.0 R 471 1615 0.09 0.292 31.0 Intersection Delay = 26.0 (sec/veh) 1 26.7 C B 17.6 B C C 19.1 B C C 33.5 C 0 C intersection LOS = C HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS 'Analyst: CTC Intersection: Route 277 & Route 636 Count Date: Existing Conditions Time Period: AM Peak Intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .....................................................••..-••---•--.....................--•..... Volume: 5 249 9 5 147 7 22 12 12 10 7 14 HFR: 6 277 10 6 163 8 24 13 13 11 8 16 PHF: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHV: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 -----------------------------------------------•---•-•---------.....-•--------•--•--•--••--•-- Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: ' % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Northbound 0 # of vehicles: Southbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ' .............................................•-•--•-•..............----•••••............_...... Y Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 tLane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 .............. L ............... T ............. R -...............L -.............. T --............. R-•-• L T R Y N N N Y Y N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R ..............L ............... T ...............R ................L ...............T ...............R.. Y Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: P g y 1 ............................................................................................... Eastbound Westbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 249 147 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 9 7 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 'Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 1.00 IWorksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ............................................................................... t c,base 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 •------------.-- 7.1 6.5 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 t c,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,It 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 tc 1 stage 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t f,base 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 t f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 'P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 tf ............................................................................................... 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 i ............... .............. ...------------ .----------------------------- Conflicting Flows *------------------ 282 167 Potential Capacity 757 877 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 757 877 Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 0.98 .................................--••---------•------------•-•-.............................-- Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 .. . . ........... Conflicting Flows 287 171 Potential Capacity 1275 1406 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Capacity 1275 1406 'Movement Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Maj. L Shared In. Prob. Queue Free St. 1.00 1.00 lStep -•-----•-•-----••-----•----•--•----------•------------• 3: TH from Minor St. •---•-----------------------------•---•- 8 11 --------••.........................................................•- Conflicting Flows • •---..................... 475 476 Potential Capacity 488 488 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 0.99 'Probability Movement Capacity of Queue free St. 484 0.97 483 0:98 --------------•---------....._ . .... Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 483 484 Potential Capacity 494 493 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 1 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.97 0.96 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 0.97 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.95 Movement Capacity •....••.....•.••..•............ 476 --•_--.•.••... 471 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 I...... I I ------------------- I I ------.-•---- I I I I II I j v(vph) 24 13 13 11 8 16 Movement Capacity 476 484 757 471 483 877 Shared Lane Capacity 590 600 ............... ---........--•--................---.............-----------•--------------- Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ---...--•.....................................----•-........------------..--•-• I...... I I ------------------- I I ---------•--- I I I I II I v(vph) 6 6 24 27 34 C m(vph) 1406 1275 476 590 600 v/c 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.06 95% queue length Control Delay 7.6 7.8 13.0 11.4 11.4 LOS A A B B B Approach Delay 12.1 11.4 Approach LOS B B .................................................................•---------....---------------- Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Rank 1 Delay Calculations Movement •----•--•-----------•-•-••----......--••---•--•-••-•-•-----------•-••--•--------------•- 2 5 P of 1.00 1.00 V i 1 249 147 V i2 9 7 S i 1 1700 1700 S i2 1700 1700 P* Oj 1.00 1.00 D maj left 7.6 7.8 N number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.0 0.0 I� IF] I ' HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: CTC Intersection: Route 277 & Route 636 Count Date: Existing Conditions 'Time Period: PM Peak Intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ............................................................................................... Volume: 19 146 46 16 268 10 25 5 4 8 6 23 HFR: 21 162 51 18 298 11 28 6 4 9 7 26 PHF: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHV: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 ............................................................•--.. .... Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: .......................................................................................... Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: 1 J Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: '# of vehicles: Northbound 0 # of vehicles: Southbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L ..................................•-•--•-•--.........-•---...---............................... T R L T R Y Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L .............. T R---•--......... R.. L T R ............... ............... ................ -.............. Y Y Y N N N N N N 1 Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L .............. ............... ............... ................ ............... T ............... R.. L T R Y N N N Y Y N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 T R L T L R... T R ..............L ..........................•-............................ .------•---.... Y Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: ---•---•--•----••--•...................•-•-•----...............------..................-------- Eastbound Westbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 146 268 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 46 10 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 ' Length of study period, hrs: 1.00 ' ....................................•-•---..........................-----------------------•--- Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ---•-•--•..............•---••---...................----•-•---------•-•---•--•---••••••• • • ••-- t c,base 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 t c,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,It 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 tc I 1 stage 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ......................•-•--•---...........---..............................•--••-----•---•--•-- t f,base 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 t f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 tf 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 -••-----•--•......................................••---------------------•--------------•----•- Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 •............................•------•----•--.................... ............. •------ Conflicting Flows 188 303 Potential Capacity 854 736 Pedestrian Impedes nc.;- -actor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 854 736 Probability of Queue free St. 0.99 0.97 ............................................................................ ....... Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 'Conflicting ..-••--•..................•-•-•••---•••••••.....••••-••---•.................................... Flows 213 309 Potential Capacity 1357 1252 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1357 1252 Probability of Queue free St. 0.99 0.98 Maj. L Shared In. Prob. Queue Free St. 0.98 ........---•----•...................................•---•--...------------------•--.......... 0.98 _. Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 ..........................................•----...--•--••-•-------....................--.--•••- Conflicting Flows 574 594 Potential Capacity 429 418 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.97 Movement Capacity 414 403 Probability of Queue free St. 0.99 0.98 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 ......................................................... 10 -•-•-• ... Conflicting Flows 585 574 Potential Capacity 422 430 Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 'Pedestrian Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.95 0.95 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.96 0.96 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.93 0.96 Movement Capacity 392 ................•--..............................................- 412 1 Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 II I ................... I ------------- I I I II v(vph) 28 6 4 9 7 26 Movement Capacity 392 414 854 412 403 736 Shared Lane Capacity 537 565 ------------------------------------------------------ - -------------------------------------- Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 v(vph) 21 18 28 10 41 C m(vph) 1252 1357 392 537 565 v/c 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.07 95% queue length Control Delay 7.9 7.7 14.9 11.8 11.9 LOS A A B B B 'Approach Delay 14.1 11.9 Approach LOS B B •••----•....................•-•.......---•-•••-•----•-•.........------........_.--...._...----- ' Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Rank 1 Delay Calculations Movement 2 5 ........................................................................................ P of 0.98 0.99 V i 1 146 268 'S V i2 i 1 46 1700 10 1700 S i2 1700 1700 P- Oj 0.98 0.98 maj left 7.9 7.7 'D N number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.2 0.1 i 1 I IHCS: signalized Intersections Release 3.1c Inter: Route 277 & Route 522 City/St: Shenandoah Analyst: CTC Pro, #: 2007 Background Date: 4/25/00 Period: AM Peak E/W St: Route 277 N/S St: Route 522 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Eastbound westbound Northbound Southbound L T R i L T R i L T R i L T R No. Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 LGConfi g LT R L TR L T R L T R volume 170 211 100 175 96 42 148 336 97 159 498 80 Lane width 1 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 I RTOR Vol 1 0 1 0 1 32 26 I Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations 'Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left A NB Left A A Thru A Thru A A Right A Right A A Peds Peds WB Left A A SB Left A ' Thru A A Thru A Right A A Right A Peds Peds NB Right A EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 10.0 40.0 14.0 40.0 Yellow 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 All Red 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 120.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound LT 558 1673 0.56 0.333 34.1 C 32.7 C R 538 westbound 1615 0.21 0.333 28.8 C L 387 0.21 0.450 21.0 C TR 816 1813 0.19 0.450 19.9 B 20.3 C Northbound L 409 0.13 0.483 18.1 B 1745 3610 0.21 0.483 17.9 B 16.8 B 'T R 969 1615 0.07 0.600 10.1 B Southbound L 336 1007 0.20 0.333 28.8 C T 1203 3610 0.46 0.333 31.8 C 31.1 C R 538 1615 0.11 0.333 27.8 C Intersection Delay = 26.2 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C HCS: Signalized Intersections 1 c Release 3 1 'Inter: Route 277 & Route 522 City/St: Shenandoah Analyst: CTC Pro, #: 2007 Background Date: 4/25/00 Period: PM Peak E/W St: Route 277 N/S St: Route 522 1 Eastbound L T R GNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY. 1 westbound 1 Northbound I L T R I L T R Southbound L T R No. Lanes ( 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 i 1 2 1 1 LGConfi g ( LT R 1 L TR 1 L T R i L T R 1 Volume 124 97 101 191 174 56 1186 819 87 138 623 53 I Lane width 1 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 I RTOR Vol 1 0 1 0 1 75 1 35 Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations IPhase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left A I NB Left A A Thru A 1 Thru A A Right A i Right A A Peds 1 Pe WB Left A A 1 SB Left A Thru A A 1 Thru A I Right A A 1 Right A Pe 1 Peds Right A 1 EB Right INB SB Right 1 WB Right Green 10.0 38.0 15.0 41.0 Yellow 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Red 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 lAll Cycle Length: 120.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Plow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound LT 547 1728 0.25 0.317 30.6 C 30.5 C 511 1615 0.22 0.317 30.3 C 'R Westbound L 496 0.20 0.433 21.1 C TR 793 1831 0.32 0.433 22.6 C 22.2 C ' Northbound L 390 0.53 0.500 21.0 C 1805 3610 0.50 0.500 20.3 C 20.3 C iT R 996 1615 0.01 0.617 8.9 A Southbound L 203 595 0.21 0.342 28.5 C T 1233 3610 0.56 0.342 32.8 C 32.4 C R 552 1615 0.04 0.342 26.4 C Intersection Delay = 25.2 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: CTC Intersection: Route 277 & Route 636 Count Date: 2007 Background Conditions ' Time Period: AM Peak Intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ............................................................................................... Volume: 5 359 9 5 212 7 22 12 12 10 7 14 HFR: 6 399 10 6 236 8 24 13 13 11 8 16 PHF: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHV: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Northbound 0 # of vehicles: Southbound 0 ' Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 L T R L T R .......................................................................•--------------...... Y Y Y N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: ' Lane 1 Lane 2 ............... ............................. R.------..---- ............... r....--•--.......... Y Y Y N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane 3 L T R N N N Lane 3 L T R N N N Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N Y Y N N N Channelized: N ' Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R ..............L ...............T ...............R ................L ...............T R............... R.. Y Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 ' for in Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Data o Computing y J ............................................................................................... Eastbound Westbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 359 212 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 9 7 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 ' Length of study period, hrs: 1.00 ............................................................................................... ' Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ ---- t c,base 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 't c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 t c,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 't 3,It 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 tc 1 stage 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t f,base 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 t f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 tf 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows -------------- 404 *--------- 239 Potential Capacity 647 799 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 647 799 Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 0.98 ............................................................•-•----.........................--- Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 'Conflicting ............................................. Flows 409 ------ 243 Potential Capacity 1150 1323 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Capacity 1150 1323 'Movement Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Maj. L Shared In. Prob. Queue Free St. 0.99 ..............•-----•-•-•-•---...................---••---•-----•--.....------.................. 0.99 ' Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 ..................................................................................... Conflicting Flows 669 ..... ..... 671 Potential Capacity 378 378 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 0.99 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 374 0.96 374 0.98 ..........................•-- ....... 'Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 677 679 Potential Capacity 367 366 Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 'Pedestrian Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.97 0.95 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 0.96 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.94 Movement Capacity ................ .. • .--......................... 351 345 ' Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 ...... I I •------------------ ..---...----• I I I I II I ' v(vph) 24 13 13 11 8 16 Movement Capacity 351 374 647 345 374 799 Shared Lane Capacity 474 476 ----------------- .........-------------- .......... ..... .----- •----- I ....... ........... ......... Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 W v(vph) 6 6 24 27 34 C m(vph) 1323 1150 351 474 476 'v/c 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.06 0.07 95% queue length Control Delay 7.7 8.1 16.0 13.0 13.2 LOS A A C B B Approach Delay 14.5 13.2 Approach LOS B B ..............................................................................•----••---•-..... Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Rank 1 Delay Calculations Movement 2 5 .-•-•-----•-•...................................•------•------ P of 1.00 1.00 V i 1 359 212 V i2 9 7 i 1 1700 1700 'S S i2 1700 1700 P* Oj 0.99 0.99 maj left 7.7 8.1 N number major st lanes 'D 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts .......................................•-------................................------•-------•- 0.0 0.0 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS 'Analyst: CTC Intersection: Route 277 & Route 636 Count Date: 2007 Background Conditions 'Time Period: PM Peak Intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ......................................................................... • -•----•-------.------ 19 210 46 16 387 10 25 5 4 8 6 23 'Volume: HFR: 21 233 51 18 430 11 28 6 4 9 7 26 PHF: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHV: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 -------•--•--•----•-•-•..........................................•-----------------•-•••....... ' Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: Flow: Lane width: Walk speed: ' % Blockage: Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 ' Flared approach Movements: # of vehicles: Northbound 0 ' # of vehicles: Southbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R ' ................•---•---....................-••-----•--.........------•-----.............--••-- Y Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 ' .............. L.......--•-- T.............R... L T R -----•-•-.--T-•----.......R............. Y Y Y N N N N N N 'Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 ' Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- T R L T R ' Y N N N Y Y N N N Channelized: N ' Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R ..............L ...............T R ............................. L ---.......----- T --.......---•--R•. Y Y Y N N N N N N ' Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: ...--•---•----•......................•-.......•-•-•-----•-----.............•-•-----••---•...... Eastbound Westbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 210 387 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 46 10 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 ' Length of study period, hrs: 1.00 •....................................•----. •. •. •-----......................... •-------... ------ ' Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: 'Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 .............................................•-.....---------•-•---------•--------............. t c,base 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 t c,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,It 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' t c,T: 1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t tc 1 stage 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Follow Up Time Calculations: 'Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 .......................•----•--------••-•-•-•-------...............................---•-------- t f,base 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 t f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 'P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 tf 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 ...................•--•---..........------....................................-------•--------- ' Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 ------------ Conflicting Flows 259 436 Potential Capacity 780 621 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Capacity 780 621 'Movement Probability of Queue free St. 0.99 0.96 -•---••-•------.....-•--------------------•---•--.................-----•------•-------------- Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 284 441 Potential Capacity 1278 1119 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1278 1119 'Probability of Queue free St. 0.99 0.98 Maj. L Shared In. Prob. Queue Free St. 0.98 ..........................•-••--•--............-•-•----•------•--.....................••---•••- 0.98 ' Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 ----•--•.................................•-•-•---................---••--------•-----•-----•••-- Conflicting Flows 778 798 Capacity 328 319 'Potential Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.96 Movement Capacity 315 306 'Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 •-------•••---•--••--•-.-••-- . 0.98 S.tep 4: LT from Minor St. 7 ........................ ........................ •-• .. 10 . .......... ..... Conflicting Flows 788 777 Potential Capacity 309 314 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.94 0.94 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.95 0.96 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.91 0.95 'Movement Capacity 282 ...................•-•---------------------------••--•-----------. 299 ' Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations Shared Lane Calculations ' Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 I ...... I I ................... -•-•-----....II I I II I ' v(vph) 28 6 4 9 7 26 Movement Capacity 282 315 780 299 306 621 Shared Lane Capacity 428 443 ---------- .-------- •-------------------------- ...--•--•------------- *...... ... •------------- Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS ' Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 .........................................•--•-•....... II ------•-----------• I I ------------- I I I I II I v(vph) 21 18 28 10 41 C m(vph) 1119 1278 282 428 443 v/c 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.09 95%n queue length Control Delay 8.3 7.9 19.1 13.6 13.9 LOS A A C B B 'Approach Delay 17.7 13.9 Approach LOS C B ---•.............••---...........................----•-•--.........--------.........- •----. ' Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Rank 1 Delay Calculations Movement ..................................... •................................................. 2 5 P of 0.98 0.99 V i 1 210 387 i2 46 10 'V S i 1 1700 1700 S i2 1700 1700 P- Oj 0.98 0.98 maj left 8.3 7.9 'D N number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.2 0.1 HCS. Signalized Intersections Release 3.1c 'Inter: Route 277 & Route 522 City/St: Shenandoah Analyst: CTC Proj #: 2007 Build -out Date: 4/25/00 Period: AM Peak ' E/W St: Route 277 N/S St: Route 522 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Eastbound westbound Northbound I L T R I L T R I L T R Southbound L T R No. Lanes j 0 1 1 j 1 1 0 1 2 1 j 1 2 1 LGConfi g ( LT R L TR L T R ( L T R Volume 187 245 141 1147 144 42 189 353 147 159 522 104 Lane width ( 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 1 ' RTOR Vol ( 0 1 0 I 0 0 Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations 'Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left A NB Left A A Thru A Thru A A ' Right A Right A A Peds Peds WB Left A A SB Left A Thru A A Thru A Right A A Right A Peds Peds NB Right A EB Right 'SB Right wB Right Green 8.0 46.0 12.0 38.0 Yellow 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 All Red 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 120.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS ' Eastbound LT 605 1577 0.61 0.383 31.6 C 29.8 C 601 1568 0.26 0.383 25.6 C tR westbound L 379 0.43 0.483 20.4 C TR 861 1782 0.24 0.483 18.3 B 19.2 B Northbound L 342 0.29 0.450 21.5 C T 1577 3505 0.25 0.450 20.5 C 19.0 B R 862 1568 0.19 0.550 13.7 B Southbound L 304 960 0.22 0.317 30.4 C T 1110 3505 0.52 0.317 34.0 C 33.2 C R 497 1568 0.23 0.317 30.5 C Intersection Delay = 26.2 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C HCS: Signalized Intersections Release 3.1c Inter: Route 277 & Route 522 City/st: Shenandoah Analyst: CTC Proj #: 2007 Build -out Date: 4/25/00 Period: PM Peak JE/W St: Route 277 N/S St: Route 522 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY. Eastbound westbound Northbound I L T R I L T R I L T R Southbound L T R No. Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 LGConfig LT R ( L TR L T R L T R volume 163 174 175 1197 244 56 1260 858 203 138 658 88 Lane Width 1 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 1 ' RTOR Vol 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations iPhase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left A NB Left A A Thru A Thru A A Right A Right A A Peds Peds WB Left A A SB Left A ' Thru A A Thru A Pest A A Pedst A NB RihtSB Right A WB Right Green 10.0 40.0 Yellow 2.0 2.0 'Al Red 2.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 120.0 secs Intersection Performance ,Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C 15.0 39.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Summary Lane Group Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Eastbound LT 507 1522 0.52 0.333 33.2 C 32.2 C 523 1568 0.37 0.333 30.9 C 'R westbound L 406 0.54 0.450 23.7 C TR 807 1793 0.41 0.450 22.6 C 23.0 C Northbound L 353 0.82 0.483 38.6 D 1694 3505 0.56 0.483 22.4 C 23.9 C 'T R 941 1568 0.24 0.600 11.3 B Southbound L 180 554 0.23 0.325 30.2 C T 1139 3505 0.64 0.325 35.8 D 34.8 C R 510 1568 0.19 0,325 29.3 C Intersection Delay = 27.7 (Sec/veh) Intersection ioq = r L HCS: Signalized Intersections Release 3.1c 'Inter : Analyst: Date: ' E/W St: Ii Route 522/340& Driveway City/St: Shenandoah CTC Proj #: 2007 Build -out 4/25/00 Period: AM Peak Route 522/340 N/S St: Main Driveway Eastbound L T R ALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY westbound I Northbound I Southbound i L T R I L T R I L T R No. Lanes i 1 0 1 I 0 0 0 I 1 2 0 I 0 2 1 LGConfi g I L R I I L T I T R i Volume 185 35 I 197 504 I 737 73 Lane width 112.0 12.0 I 112.0 12.0 ( 12.0 12.0 I ' RTOR Vol I 0 I 1 I 0 I Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations IPhase Combination 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8 EB Left A I NB Left A A Thru I Thru A A Right A I Right Peds I Peds WB Left I SB Left Thru Right I ( Thru Right A A Peds I Peds NB Right I EB Right A ' SB Right P ( WB Right Green 36.0 Yellow 2.0 Al Red 2.0 Cycle Length: 100.0 secs Intersection Performance Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios ULane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C 10.0 42.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Summary Lane Group Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound L 631 1752 0.15 0.360 21.8 C 19.1 B 'R 784 1568 0.05 0.500 12.8 B Westbound Northbound L 372 0.29 0.560 12.8 B ' T 1963 3505 0.29 0.560 11.6 B 11.8 B Southbound T 1472 3505 0.56 0.420 22.4 C 20.6 C R 1286 1568 0.06 0.820 1.7 A Intersection Delay = 17.0 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B HCS: Signalized Intersections Release 3.1c Inter: Route 522/340& Driveway City/St: Shenandoah Analyst: CTC Proj #: 2007 Build -out Date: 4/25/00 Period: PM Peak 'E/W St: Route 522/340 N/S St: Main Driveway 1 L ,bound T R No. Lanes j 1 0 1 iLGConfi g L R Volume 1194 78 Lane width 112.0 12.0 ■ RTOR Vol 1 31 GNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Westbound Northbound Southbound I L T R I L T R I L T R I 0 0 0 Duration 1.00 Area Type: All Signal Phase Combination 1 2 3 EB Left A Thru Right A Peds WB Left Thru ' Right Peds Right INB SB Right P Green 36.0 Yellow 2.0 All Red 2.0 1 2 0 L T 142 1127 12.0 12.0 0 2 1 T R 923 107 12.0 12.0 52 other areas Operations 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left A A Thru A A Right Peds SB Left Rhru Pedght A s EB WB Rig9ht ht A 10.0 42.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 100.0 secs Intersection Performance Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios ' Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Summary Lane Group Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound L 631 1752 0.34 0.360 23.7 C 21.6 C R 784 1568 0.07 0.500 13.0 B Westbound ' Northbound L 324 0.49 0.560 15.2 B T 1963 3505 0.64 0.560 15.8 B 15.7 B Southbound T 1472 3505 0.70 0.420 25.3 C 23.9 C R 1286 1568 0.05 0.820 1.7 A Intersection Delay = 19.5 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B 'Inter: Route 277 Analyst: CTC Date: 4/25/00 E/W St: Route 277 HCS: signalized Intersections Release 3.1c & Driveway City/St: Shenandoah Proj #: 2007 Build -out Period: AM Peak N/S St: Full-Acess Driveway ' Eastbound L T R IGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Westbound Northbound Southbound I L T R I L T R I L T R No. Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 I LGConfig T R I L T L R I Volume 406 162 196 241 1114 67 1 Lane width 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 1 1 RTOR Vol ( 0 1 1 0 Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations 'Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left NB Left A Thru A Thru Right A Right A ' Peds I Peds WB Left A A SB Left ' Thru A A Thru Right Right Peds Peds NB Right A EB Right 'SB Right I WB Right Green 10.0 43.0 35.0 Yellow 2.0 2.0 2.0 'All Red 2.0 2.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 100.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound T 793 1845 0.57 0.430 22.5 C 21.4 C R 674 1568 0.27 0.430 18.6 B westbound L 454 0.24 0.570 12.1 B T 1052 1845 0.25 0.570 10.9 B 11.3 B ' Northbound L 613 1752 0.21 0.350 22.9 C 19.5 B ' R 768 1568 0.10 0.490 13.7 B Southbound Intersection Delay = 17.9 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B 1 HCS: Signalized Intersections Release 3.1c 'Inter: Analyst: Date: E/W St: 1 Route 277 & Driveway City/St: Shenandoah CTC Proj #: 2007 Build -out 4/25/00 Period: PM Peak Route 277 N/S St: Full-Acess Driveway Eastbound L T R GNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY. Westboundi Northbound LR L d Southbound L T R No. Lanes j 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 j 1 0 1 j 0 0 0 I LGConfi g I T R I L T I L R I 1 volume 1 257 240 1141 451 1263 155 1 Lane width 1 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 1 ' RTOR Vol 1 0 1 1 0 I Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left I NB Left A Thru A 1 Thru Right A 1 Right A Peds I Peds WB Left A A 1 SB Left Thru A A I Thru Ri ht 1 Right Peas I Peds NB Right A i EB Right 'SB Right 1 WB Right Green 10.0 43.0 35.0 Yellow 2.0 2.0 2.0 All Red 2.0 2.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 100.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound T 793 1845 0.36 0.430 19.5 B 19.7 B 674 1568 0.40 0.430 20.0- B 'R westbound L 553 0.28 0.570 11.5 B T 1052 1845 0.48 0.570 13.0 B 12.7 B Northbound L 613 1752 0.48 0.350 25.9 C 21.8 C R 768 1568 0.22 0.490 14.8 B Southbound Intersection Delay = 17.5 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B HCS: Signalized Intersections Release 3.1c 1 Route 277 & Route 636 City/St: Shenandoah CTC Proj #: 2007 Build -out 4/27/00 Period: AM Peak Route 277 N/S St: Route 636 Inter: Analyst: Date: E/W St: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Eastbound westbound Northbound Southbound j I L T R I L T R I L T R L T R Conditions No. Lanes j 0 1 0 j 0 1 0 j 1 1 0 0 1 0 I LGConfig LTR LTR L TR LTR Volume 15 546 13 15 343 7 125 12 12 110 7 14 Lane width 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 I ' RTOR Vol 0 0 1 0 0 Duration 1.00 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations ,Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left A j NB Left A Thru A Thru A Right A Right A WB Left A j SB Left A ' Thru A Thru A Right A Right A Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 60.0 32.0 Yellow 2.0 2.0 All Red 2.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 100.0 secs Intersection Performance ,Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) V/c g/C Summary Lane Group Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS ' Eastbound LTR 989 1649 0.63 0.600 14.3 B 14.3 B westbound LTR 986 1643 0.40 0.600 10.8 B 10.8 B Northbound L 434 1355 0.06 0.320 23.7 C 1 TR 546 1706 0.05 0.320 23.5 C 23.6 C Southbound ' LTR 468 1464 0.07 0.320 23.8 C 23.8 C Intersection Delay = 13.8 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B !1 HCS: Signalized Intersections Release 3.1c 'inter: Analyst: Date: E/W St: Route 277 & Route 636 City/St: Shenandoah CTC Proj #: 2007 Build -out 4/27/00 Period: PM Peak Route 277 N/S St: Route 636 No. Lanes LGConfig Volume Lane width RTOR Vol Eastbound L T R 0 1 0 LTR 19 485 52 12.0 X GNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY westbound Northbound I L T R I L T R 0 1 0 LTR 16 688 10 12.0 0 Duration 1.00 Area Type: All Signal Phase Combination 1 2 3 EB Left A Thru A Right A ' Peds WB Left A Thru Right A A Peds NB Right SB Right Green 60.0 Yellow 2.0 All Red 2.0 1 1 0 L TR 33 5 4 12.0 12.0 0 Conditions Southbound L T R 0 1 0 LTR 8 6 23 12.0 0 other areas Operations 4 I 6 7 8 NB Left A Thru A Right A Peds SB Left A Thru A Pedst A EB Right WB Right 32.0 2.0 2.0 ' Cycle Length: 100.0 secs Intersection Performance Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Summary Lane Group Approach Delay LOS Delay LOS ' Eastbound LTR 949 1581 0.65 0.600 14.7 B 14.7 B westbound LTR 977 1628 0.81 0.600 21.1 C 21.1 C Northbound L 431 1346 0.09 0.320 23.9 C ' TR 555 1734 0.02 0.320 23.3 C 23.7 C Southbound ' LTR 466 1456 0.09 0.320 23.9 C 23.9 C Intersection Delay = 18.6 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B -- Mns'1'i..iz DIW LOPMENT PLAN #06-00 File 2 of 3 1