Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07 Comments/Correspondence0 2_u'l re February 2, 2007 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Department of Planning and Develop 540/665 FAX: 540/665 RE: Proposed Rezoning of the Eastgate Commercial Property Dear Patrick: I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Eastgate Commercial Property. This' application seeks to rezone 11.81 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District and 8.23 acres from the B3 (Industrial Transition) District to the B2 (Business General) District. Staffs review comments are listed below for your consideration. 1. Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. The site is within the limits of the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. The plan shows a portion of this property with a commercial designation. The proposed B2 Zoning is a business use and is generally consistent with the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan as it relates this area. 2. Additional Property. There are two additional properties owned by Wrights Run LP which have not been included with this rezoning; PIN's 87 -A -36 and 87 -A -37 are central to this rezoning and currently zoned RA. These properties will need to be included in this rezoning. 3. Rezoning #02 -97. Rezoning 402 -97 currently covers PIN# 76 -A -53. This proposed rezoning only covers the B3 portion of 76 -A -53. Parcel 76 -A -53, in its entirety, should be included with this rezoning application so that everything within the project is included under the same proffers. Including the entire project under one proffer statement will ensure consistent entrances and improvements throughout the entire development. 4. Transportation Levels of Service. The Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for Level of Service Category C or better for proposed industrial and commercial development. This application clearly does not achieve a Level of Service C. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 0 Page 2 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Eastgate Commercial Property February 2, 2007 5. Rezoning Application — Proposed Uses. The application states the rezoning is for 47,OOOsf of office and 166,OOOsf of retail uses. The proffer statement does not call for a specific use. Unless a specific use and square footage is proffered, the County will assume the maximum possible development (retail) as per the County's application, combined with the maximum possible floor space. At the maximum possible use, there is the potential for 428,074sf of retail uses. A proffer to limit the square footage of this development to no more than what the TIA was based on would be appropriate (see issue on assumptions below). 6. Traffic Impact Analysis - Assumptions. The TIA is based upon 166,662sf of retail uses, 47000sf of office uses and 224,660sf of warehouse /industrial uses. As stated under section D of your impact analysis, the warehouse /industrial uses could be generated from the adjacent land bay (potential industrial). The potential industrial should be included under your background traffic, not your assumption, and your TIA should be based on what could actually be developed on the site (428,074sf of retail). 7. Maranto Manor Drive. Maranto Manor Drive needs to connect to Rainville Road; this application does not provide any assurances for the required continuation of this road. 8. Tasker Road. The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan designates Tasker Road as an improved major collector. Full implementation of the four -lane major collector road design would be appropriate along 76 -A -53. 9. Site Access. This development has access on Maranto Manor Drive as well as access onto Tasker Road once Maranto connects to Rainville Road. The proffers /GDP for this development state that this project will have two entrances on Maranto Manor Drive and a right - in/right -out onto Route 522 and Rezoning #02 -97 does not place any restrictions on the number or type of entrances on the remainder of 76 -A -53. As stated in comment 3, the entire 76 -A -53 should be included under one rezoning application and access to Route 522 should be completely prohibited. Also, Section C (Location and Access) of your impact analysis states that access will be provided through the existing B2 zoned acreage by a northern entrance on Tasker Road and an eastern entrance on Route 522. The referenced Tasker entrance is not shown on the GDP and there is no mention of this access anywhere in the proffer statement. 10. TIA Background Development. On sheet 6 of the Background Development, please clarify what project developments 9 -11 consist of and on sheet 7 under the Artrip project, there is no soccer complex. 0 9 Page 3 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Eastgate Commercial Property February 2, 2007 11. Traffic Impact Analysis — Route 522/Tasker Road Intersection. The TIA calls for this intersection to be signalized and to have a new eastbound and northbound left turn -lane. While Rezoning 402 -97 proffered the installation of the signalization, there is no commitment for the installation of the turn lanes. It is noted that even with the installation of the two turn lanes, PM peak traffic will still function at a level of service D. As this application is not proffering any of the needed turn lanes, it would be beneficial to see what the LOS would actually be with only the previously proffered signalization. 12. Transportation Proffer 1.2. Proffer 1.2 provides for the traffic signal at the intersection of Tasker /Rainville but does not provide the two northbound left turn lanes called for in the TIA conclusions. These turn lanes are required to maintain a level of service C. 13. Transportation Proffer 1.3. Proffer 1.3 provides for the traffic signal at the intersection of the project entrance and the Home Depot entrance on Maranto Manor Drive but does not account for any of the turn lanes called for in the TIA conclusions. 14. Transportation Proffer 1.4. Proffer 1.4 provides for the eastbound left turn lane for Maranto Manor Drive at the intersection of Route 522 / Maranto Manor as called for in the TIA conclusions. It is noted that even with this improvement, this intersection will not function at a level of service C or better and does not meet County requirements. 15. Other Traffic Improvements. As stated in the TIA conclusions, there are various transportation improvements which are necessary to maintain a LOS C or better. The following improvements (in addition to comments I1 -13) have not been addressed: • Rainville Road/Maranto Manor Drive turn lanes • Site Driveway 1/Maranto Manor Drive turn lanes • Site Driveway 3/Route 522 turn lanes • Site Driveway 4 /Route 522 turn lanes 16. Bike Path. Front Royal Pike is identified on the Frederick County Bicycle Plan as a short term destination. Provide a bike trail in this location. 17. Design Standards. The proffer statement includes nothing that relates to design standards (building facades, parking lot locations, landscaping, signage etc.). Buildings should be placed adjacent to the roads and the parking lots placed Page 4 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Eastgate Commercial Property February 2, 2007 behind the buildings, especially along Tasker Road and Route 522. Street trees should be provided along all public and internal roads and specific types of building materials should be utilized within the project. Limitations on the number and size of freestanding signs should be considered as well. Route 522 signage should be limited (number and size) and only monument style signage should be utilized. 18. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Historic Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick - Winchester Health Department, the local Fire and Rescue Company and the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority. The proposed proffers have been forwarded by staff to the Frederick County Attorney. Once attorney comments are received by the Planning Department, they will be forwarded to your office. Attorney comments are required for acceptance of the rezoning application. 19. Special Limited Power of Attorney. Provide a power of attorney for the property owners. 20. Fees. The fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. This is based on fees as of January 27, 2005. Fees may change. All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sin erely, di n ceE Perkins, AICP Planner II Attachments cc: Wrights Run, LP, 2800 S. Shirlington Road, Suite 803, Arlington VA 22206 Steven & Mary Ritter, 3022 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602 CEP/bad 0 • HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN ST MITCHELL HAND - DELIVERED Candice E. Perkins Planner Il Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Eastgate Commercial (Wrights Run, LP) Proposed Proffer Statement Dear Candice: PLEASE REPLY TO. P. O, Box 846 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 have reviewed the above - referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: I. The Proffer Statement should contain a specific proffer that the Transportation proffers will be made in conformity with the attached GDP. 2. Proffer 1.1 references No. 1 on the GDP. No. l is shown in two places on the GDP, one of which says "right -in, right- out." If this entrance is to be right -in, right -out, the proffer should so state specifically. A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892 THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924 -1999) 5 309 FAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA O. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703.777 1050 TELEPHONE 540 662 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAX 540 662 4304 .JAMES A. KLENKAR lawyers@hallmonahan com STEVEN F. JACKSON ( E-MAIL January 29, 2007 DENNIS J. MCLo UGHLIN, JR. HAND - DELIVERED Candice E. Perkins Planner Il Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Eastgate Commercial (Wrights Run, LP) Proposed Proffer Statement Dear Candice: PLEASE REPLY TO. P. O, Box 846 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 have reviewed the above - referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: I. The Proffer Statement should contain a specific proffer that the Transportation proffers will be made in conformity with the attached GDP. 2. Proffer 1.1 references No. 1 on the GDP. No. l is shown in two places on the GDP, one of which says "right -in, right- out." If this entrance is to be right -in, right -out, the proffer should so state specifically. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Candice E. Perkins January 29, 2007 Page 3 It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact me. Very truly yours, Robert T. Mitc) ell, RTM /ks 540/665 - FAX: 5401665- February 12, 2007 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Eastgate Commercial Property Dear Patrick: I am in receipt of your rezoning application for Eastgate Commercial submitted on February 9, 2007. The application Property formally is incomplete and so is being returned to you. I would specifically point out that the ap ment plication is missing a review com from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT); the correspondence submitted from VDOT was simply asking for additional clarification on the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). Once you have obtained a review comment from VDOT regarding the complete application, we will welcome a submission of the rezoning package. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins, AICP Planner II CEP/bad Attachment cc: Wrights Run, LP, 2800 S. Shirlington Road, Suite 803, Arlington VA 22206 Steven & Mary Ritter, 3022 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602 Lloyd Ingram, VDOT 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 , JAI a 0 - l.J G5 �C�0 �e�0.- � ^nr+� Patton Harris Rust & PCssociates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 1 East PHRA Winchester, 40 Virginia rt 22601 F 540.665.0493 To: Candice Perkins Organ izationlCompany: From: Date: Project Name /Subject: APR 2 5 2001 Frederick County Planning Patrick Sowers Anti] 25.2007 Eastgate Rezoning Application Please find attached a finalized signature page for Steve and Mary Ritter for the Eastgate proffer statement. Feel free to call if you have any questions. 1`hanks, Patrick Patton Harris Rust &Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. H�" {1 +,A 7 East Piccadilly Street 7 Y 1 �.L l Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 To: Candice Perkins Organization /Company: Frederick County Planning From: Patrick Sowers Date: April 19, 2007 Project Name /Subject: Eastgatc Rezoning Please find attached a revised proffer statement dated April 17, 2007 for the Eastgate Commercial rezoning application. The modifications are as follows: 1) Proffer heading has been amended to reference the revised GDP dated 4/16/07. 2) Proffer 1.2 includes now includes the provision for a Westbound turn lane at the intersection of Tasker Road and Rainville Road. The TIA assumed this as an existing condition but it has yet to be constructed. We've included this provision to be certain that we are in keeping with the TIA. 3) The GDP has been revised to depict the minim number of lanes provided by the proffer statement at the subject intersections. Please feel free to call with any questions. Thanks, Patrick D) C C ' � ) i i LI iI APR 1 9 2007 fftF� FF:Ci: 04i'J7•r Patton Harris Rust & tsociates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects, P H R A 1 17 East Piccadilly Street tl l Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 To: Candice Perkins Organization /Company: Frederick County Planning From: Patrick Sowers Date: March 9, 2007 Project Name /Subject: Eastgate Commercial Proffer Signatures Please find attached the submitted proffer statement for the Fastgate Commercial rezoning with new signature pages which are dated after the latest proffer revision. Thanks, Patrick Patton Harr{ 8 Associates Engineers- Surveyors_ Planners. Landscape ArdNteas. P Ca0.Pa0.Al E'. Chontilty VIRGINIA OFFICES Bridgewater Chantilly Charlottesville Fredericksburg Leesburg Newport News Virginia Beach WmChesle, Woodbridge LABad AIOAIFS: Chantilly Fredericksbwg MA NO OFFICES: Bahimore Columbia Frederick Germantown Hollywood PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE[ Allentown WEST VIkcINIA OFFICE. Marlinsburg 7 540.667.21 39 F 540.665.0493 117 Easl Piccadilly Sneel S,I 200 Wlnches,eL, VA 22601 February 9, 2007 Candice Perkins Frederick Count}' Planning 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Eastgate Commercial Rezoning Dear Candice, U FE0 1 2 2007 I have provided response to your comments dated February 2, 2007 regarding the Eastgate Commercial Rezoning Application as follows. 1. Eastern Frederick County Lang Range Land Use Plan. The site is within the limits of the Eastern Frederick county Long Range Land Use Plan. The plan shows a portion of this property with a commercial designation. The proposed 132 Zoning is a business use and is generally consistent with the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan as it relates this area. Agreed 2. Additional Property. Thcre are two additional properties owned by Wrights Run 1..P which have not been included with this rezoning; PIN's 87 -A -36 and 87 -A -37 arc central to this rezoning and currently zoned RA. These properties will need to be included in this rezoning. These properties are not, listed in the rezoning application as tve// as the proffer heading. 3. Rezoning #02'97. Rezoning #02 -97 currently covers PIN# 76 -A -53. This proposed rezoning only covers the 133 portion of 76 -A -53. Parcel 76 -A -53, in its entirety, should be included with this rezoning application so that everything within the project is included under the same proffers. Including the entire project under one proffer statement will ensure consistent entrances and improvements throughout the entire development. This appBcation is simply an attempt to create a more viable node of B2 development by incorporating the existing B3 portions of 76 -A -53 into that parcel's existing B2 acreage while adding an additional 10.5 acres of B2 that are currently RA. As the B2 zoning rights for the remainder ofparcel 76 -A -53 were established by conditional rezoning #02 -97, the Applicant should not need to include this portion of the Property as part of this application. Additionally, any entrances to the Property will be governed by the regulations found in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance as well as any VDOT requirements at the entrance permit phase of development to ensure safe and adequate access to the Property. 0 r 4. Transportation Levels of Service. The Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for Level of Scrvicc Category C or better for proposed industrial and commercial development. This application clearly does not achieve a Level of Service C. The revised proffer statement dated February 9, 2007 includes provisions for every transportation needed to achieve a LOS C for every intersection identified in the TIA. I would note that while Westbound Matanto Manor Drive and Westbound Tasker Road at Route 522 have PM Peak Hour Level of Service D, these intersections work at a LOS C as a whole. When taking into account background traffic and the positive fiscal impacts of the application, the proffered transportation improvements are appropriate. P H ^ 5. Rezoning Application — Proposed Uses. The application states the rezoning � R t is for 47,000 s.f. of office and 166,000 s.f. of retail uses. The proffer statement does not call for a specific use. Unless a specific use and square footage is proffered, the County Will assume the maximum possible development (retail) as per the County's application, combined with the maximum possible floor space. At the maximan possible use, there is the potential for 428, 074 s.f. retail uses. A proffer to hunt the square footage of this development to no more than what the T]A was based on mould be appropriate (sec issue on assumptions below). Using a "worst case" scenario of a .50 FAR suggests a square footage that more than doubles what a commercial developer could expect to build on a given property. The square footage provided in the application package and TIA represent an aggressive .25 FAR. With required setbacks, maximum building heights, parking standards, and stormwater management obtaining an FAR of greater than .20 is ditRcult. Thus, the areas provided by the TIA and application are much more indicative of the potential build -out for the Property than the "worst case" scenario you identify above. 6. Traffic Impact Analysis- Assumptions. The'CIA is based upon 166,662 s.f. of retail uses, 47,000 s.f. of office uses 224,660 s.f. of warchousejindustrial uses. As stated under section D of your impact analysis, the warehouse /industrial uses could be generated from the adjaceut land bay (potential industrial). The potential industrial should be included under your background traffic, not your assumption, and your TIA should be based on what could actually be developed on the site (428,074 s.f. of retail). Again I would reference my response to comment 5 above that using a .5 FAR suggests an unrealistic potential build -our for the Property. In Fact, a study completed by Greenway Engineering in 2004 found that the average commercial project develops at a FAR of .192 despite the LO Ordinance maximum and .5 "worst case" scenario used by staff. 7. Maranto Manor Drive. Maranto Manor Drive needs to connect to Rainville Road; this application does not provide any assurances for the required continuation of this road. The Applicant is now in the process of bonding Maranto Manor Drive which guarantees the funding of this connection. 8. Tasker Road. The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan designates Tasker Road as an improved major collector. Full implementation of the four -lane major collector road design would be approptiate along 76 -A- 53. While I don't necessarily agree that a 8.23 acre B3 to B2 and 10.65 acre RA to B2 rezoning should be responsible for implementing a full four P ^ lane road design when the TIA indicates that a LOS C is attainable � R \ using a two lane section with additional turn lanes, I would note that additional road improvements may be necessary during the site plan review process. These improvements would be determined by the specific use for the properly during the commercial entrance permitting process. 9. Site Access. This development has access on Maranto Manor Drive as well as access onto Tasker Road once Maranto connects to Rainville Road. The proffers /GDP for this development state that this project will have two entrances on Maranto Manor Drive and a right -in /right -out onto Route 522 and Rezoning remainder of 76 -A 53. As stated in comment 3, the entire 76- A-53 should be included under one rezoning application and access to Route 522 should be completely prohibited. Also, Section C (Location and Access) of your impact analysis states that access will be provided through the existing 132 zoned acreage by a northern entrance on Tasker Road and an eastern entrance on Route 522. The referenced Tasker entrance is not shown on the GDP and there is no mention of this access anywhere on the proffer statement. The Tasker Road entrance would be located across the existing B2 portion ofparcel 76 -A -53. A specific location for this entrance has yet to be determined but any entrance on Tasker would have to meet Ordinance specifications and VDOT requirements. Additionally, the proffer has been amended so that the right in /right out entrance on the subject property would be subject to approval by VDOT during the site plan review phase. If this entrance is not deemed to be safe or appropriate, then traffic would use other means of ingress /egress. The scenario would be the same for any right in/right out entrances on the existingB2portiorn ofparcel76A -53. 9 0 10. "TIA Background Development. On sheet G of the Background Development, please clarify what project development 9 -11 consist of and on sheet 7 under the Artrip project, there is no soccer complex. Background developments #9, 10, and 11 are indicative of potential development on the existing B2 zoned portion ofparcel 76 -A -53. 11. "Traffic Impact Analysis — route 522 /Tasker Road Intersection. The TIA calls for this intersection to be signalized and to have a new eastbound and northbound left turn -lane. While Rezoning #02 -97 proffered the installation of the signalization, there is no commitment for the installation of the turn lanes. It is noted that even with the installation of the two turn lanes, PNI peak traffic will still function at a level of service D. As this application is not proffering any of the needed mm lanes, it would be beneficial to see what the P� n /� LOS would actually be with only the previously pr signahzation. j1 \ The turn lanes identified by the TIA that rvere not proffered as part of Rezoning #02 -97 are included as part of the revised Proffer Statement dated February 9, 2007. 12. Transportation Proffer 12. Proffer 1.2 provides for the traffic signal at the intersection of "Tasker /Rainville but does not provide the two northbound left turn lanes called for in the TIA conclusions. These turn lanes are required to maintain a level of service C. These lanes are included as part of the revised Proffer Statement. 13. "Transportation Proffer 1.3. Proffer 1.3 provides for the traffic signal at the intersection of the project entrance and the Home Depot entrance on Nlaranto Manor Drive but does not account of any of the turn lanes called for in the'TIA conclusions. These lanes are included as part of the revised Proffer Statement. 14. Transportation Proffer 1.4. Proffer 1.4 provides for the eastbound left turn lane for Nlaranto Nlanor Drive at the intersection of Route 522 /Nlaranto Manor as called for in the TIA conclusions. It is noted that even with this improvement, this intersection will not function at a level of service C or better and does not meet County requirements. While the PM Peak Hour LOS for the uvestbound movement ofMaranto Manor Drive will operate at a LOS D with the additional left tutu lane in place, I would note that the intersection as a whole will operate at a LOS C. Again I would suggest that the positive fiscal impacts of this tvpe of economic development use would offset a single movement at LOS D within an intersection that operates at a LOS C. 0 • 15. Other "Traffic Improvements. As stated in the TiA conclusions, there are various transportation improvements which are necessary to maintain a LOS C or better. The following improvements (in additional to comments 11 -13_ have not been addressed: • Rainville Road /Dlaranto Nlanor Drive turn lanes • Site Driveway 1 /Nfaranto Manor Drive turn lanes • Site Driveway 3 /Route 522 turn lanes • Site Drivewav 4 /Route 522 turn lanes Pcr the previous responses, all turn lanes needed have been included in the revised Proffer Statement. If the right in /right out entrances (Site Driveway 3 and 4) are permitted, turn lanes would be provided as required during the entrance pernuttmg phase. P R +A 16. Bike Path. Front Royal Pike is identified on the Frederick County Bicycle Plan as a short term destination. Provide a bike trail in this location. The Applicant has proffered a bike path in lieu of sidewalks along Front Royal Pike. 17. Design Standards. The proffer statement includes nothing that relates to design standards (building facades, parking lot location, landscaping, signage, etc). Buildings should be placed adjacent to the roads and the parking lots placed behind the buildings, espcciallY along Taskcr Road and Route 522. Street trees should be provided along all public and internal roads and specific types of building materials should be utilized within the project. Limitations on the number and size of freestanding signs should be considered as well. Route 522 signage should be limited (number and size) and only monument style signage should be utilized. As any proffered design materials would not be applicable to the existing B2 zoned portions ofparcel 76 -A -53, a design palette would not necessarily be of use for the Property. This same notion is applicable to signage as well. Any development on the property would be subject to Ordinance requirements. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Patton Harris Rust & Associates Patrick R. Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Plorrnrs_ Laridscaoe Architects. F F 3 2 3 2007 P CORPORATE: Chantilly VII.INIA OFFICES Bndgewcter Chantilly Challolleso l le Fred,: icksbu rc Leesburg Newporl News Virginia Beach Winchester Woodbridge LABORATORIES'. Chant Ily Fredericksburg MABYLANO OINCES_ Bolrmar, Columblo F,ed.rick Germantown Hcllywood Hunt Valley Williamsport PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE' Allentown WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE: MoTtinsburg 7 540 - 667.2139 F 540 66 0493 117 East Piccadilly Street Sidle 200 Winchester, VA 22601 February 23, 2007 Candice Perkins Frederick County Planning 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Eastgate Commercial Rezoning Dear Candice, I have provided response to your comments dated February 2, 2007 regarding the Eastgate Commercial Rezoning Application as follows. 1. Eastern Frederick County Lang Range Land Use Plan. The site is within the limits of the Eastern Frederick county Long Range Land Use Plan. The plan shows a portion of this property with a commercial designation. The proposed B2 Zoning is a business use and is generally consistent with the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan as it relates this area. Agreed 2. Additional Property. There are two additional properties owned by Wrights Run LP which have not been included with this rezoning; PIN'S 87 -A -36 and 87 -A -37 are central to this rezoning and currently zoned RA. These properties will need to be included in this rezoning. These propeltzes are no w listed in the , ezozzi>zg application as well as tl>eprofferheadzng. Rezoning # 02 -97. Rezoning # 02 -97 currently covers PIN# 76 -A -53. This proposed rezoning only covers the B3 portion of 76 -A -53. Parcel 76 -A -53, in its entirety, should be included with this rezoning application so that everything within the project is included under the same proffers. Including the entire project under one proffer statement will ensure consistent entrances and improvements throughout the entire development. This application is simply <zn attempt to create a ""laze "Table "rode of B2 dezelopmezzt by incorporating the existing S3portiorzs of76A -S3 into thatparcels existing BZ acreage while addzng an additionahO.S acres of BZ that are crr"re"ztly R 4. 4s the B2 zoning nA, hts for the remainder ofpa"re176 -A -S3 were established by conditional rezoning #02 -97, the Applicant should not need to include this portion of the Property as parr ofthzs application. A 12.1- rally, any entrances to the Property will be gozeizzed by the regulations found izz the Frederick County Zozzing Ordinance as well as any VDOT reVzzirenzezzts at the entrance pe»nit phase of ent to e"zs""re s6e and adequate access to the Property 4. Transportation Levels of Service. The Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for Level of Service Category C or better for proposed industrial and commercial development. This application clearly does not achieve a Level of Service C. The revised proffer statement dated Febrzrary 21, 2007 includes prozrsions farezerytransporfiatian neededto achieze aLOSC1breze1}1 intersection ident fed 6r the TIA. I ze+zrrld note that mlwle Westhorrnd JLlaranto rl7anor Drize mul Westborurd Tasker Road at Route S22 haze Pff Peak Horrr of Ser rce D, these intersections work at a LOS C as a inhale. IP77en taking into accorr>rt background trol�c and the posrtlze frscal Impacts of the applrcatiotr, the proffered transportation lrrrpro zenrents are appropriate. P ^ 5. Rezoning Application - Proposed Uses. The application states the rezoning n R \ is for 47,000 s.f. of office and 166,000 s.f. of retail uses. The proffer statement does not call for a specific use. Unless a specific use and square footage is proffered, the County will assume the maximum possible development (retail) as per the County�s application, combined with the maximum possible floor space. At the maximum possible use, there is the potential for 428, 074 s.f. retail uses. A proffer to limit the square footage of this development to no more than what the TIA was based on would be appropriate (see issue on assumptions below). Using a "worst case "scerrarzo ofa .SOFAR suggests a square faotage tb <rt mare than doubles chat a comnrercurl dezeloper could eipect to b1111d orr a gizerr property. The square footage prozided m the appllcatiou package and TIA represent an aggressiz .25"-FAR 111 - regnhed setbacks, matinrrrm brrildirrg herd hts, pmkirrg standards, and s10171Mater management obtaining an FAR of greater than .20 is dfficvriz Thrrs, theareasprozldedbyMeTlA andapplicatrou ale nruc /> more nrdreatize of the potential brrr/dOnt for the Property than the "eorst case "sce>ralza yorr rderftrfy aboze. 6. Traffic Impact Analysis- Assumptions. The TIA is based upon 166,662 s.f. of retail uses, 47,000 s.f. of office uses 274,660 s.f. of warehouse/ industrial uses. As stated under section D of your impact analysis, the warehouse /industrial uses could be generated from the adjacent land bay (potential industrial). The potential industrial should be included under your background traffic, not your assumption, and your TIA should be based on what could actually be developed on the site (428,074 s.f. of retail). Again I zebuld reference my response to comment Saboze that using a . SFAR suggests an rrnrealzstic potential build orrt for the Properly, In fact, astrrdycorrrpletedbyOeenzeny Eli ginee�xngin2004forrn ,/I 'the azuIrTe connne. I zelops it aFAR of. 192 despite the ZO Ordlnarrce matimunr arrrl.S "zeorstcase "scerrmio nsedbystff.� 0 9 7. Maranto Manor Drive. Maranto Manor Drive needs to connect to Raawille Road; this application does not provide any assurances for the required continuation of this road. Proffer 17 has been added to prozza'e for this connection prior to issuance of a cezticate of occupancy for any building constricted on the Property. 8. Tasker Road, The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan designates Tasker Road as an improved major collector. Full implementation of the tour -lane major collector road design would be appropriate along 76 -A- 53. While 1'//0"1 t "lees sorrily agzee that a 8.23 acre 93 to S2 and 10.6Sacre PHR1t RA to B2 rezoning shozrld be responsible for z>mplementing a fidl four lane road desig>r when the 7'14 indicates that a LOS C is attainable using a two lane sectioiz with additional turn lanes, I would note that additional roadimplo zements may be necessary diming the site plan reziezv process. These zmprozements would be determined by the spec fie use forthe property daring the commercial entrance permitting process. 9. Site Access. This development has access on Maranto Manor Drive as well as access onto Tasker Road once Maranto connects to Rainville Road. The proffers /GDP for this development state that this project will have two entrances on Maranto Manor Drive and a right - in/right -out onto Route 522 and Rezoning remainder of 76 -A 53. As stated in comment 3, the entire 76- A-53 should be included under one rezoning application and access to Route 522 should be completely prohibited. Also, Section C (Location and Access) of your impact analysis states that access will be provided through the existing B2 zoned acreage by a northern entrance on Tasker Road and an eastern entrance on Route 522. The referenced Tasker entrance is not shown on the GDP and there is no mention of this access anywhere on the proffer statement. The Tasker Road entrance would be located across the existing e72 portion ofparce176 - -A -S3 A specific location forthis entrance has ye, lo Ile determined but any entrance on Tasker wozrld haze to meet Oldzriance spec fications and UDOT requirements. Additionally, the profferhas been amended so that the right in /rght ozrt entrance on the subjectproperzy would be sribjectto appmzwlby VD07di1nwg the site pliri zeui , w phase. If this entrance a not deemed to be safe or appIopr7ate, then traffie woulduse otherineazis ofingress /egress. The scenario wozzld be the sazrze for any right in /right out entrances on the existiug-82portion ofpaicel76 -A -S3 0 9 10. TIA Background Development. On sheet 6 of the Background Development, please clarify what project development 9 -11 consist of and on sheet 7 under the Artrip project, there is no soccer complex. Background de�lopments #9, 10, and 11 are indicatiz"r ofpotential aezelopnaenton the existing B2zotrea'po. ofparcel76 -A -S.3 11. Traffic Impact Analysis - route 522 /Tasker Road Intersection. The TIA calls for this intersection to be signalized and to have a new eastbound and northbound left tum -lane. While Rezoning # 02 -97 proffered the installation of the signalization, there is no commitment for the installation of the turn lanes. It is noted that even with the installation of the two turn lanes, PM peak traffic will still function at a level of service D. As this application is not PH � A proffering any of the needed turn lanes, it would be beneficial to see what the l�[, LOS would actually be with only the previously proffered signalization. The turn hires identfed by the TIA that were notproffe. as pan of Rezoning #02- -97 are inclzrded as part of the rezysed Proffer Statement datedFebrna>y 9, 2007. 12. Transportation Proffer 1.2. Proffer 1.2 provides for the traffic signal at the intersection of Tasker /Rainville but does not provide the two northbound left turn lanes called for in the TIA conclusions. These rum lanes are required to maintain a level of service C. These lanes are inckrdedaspartofthe revisedl'rofferState vent. 13. Transportation Proffer 1.3. Proffer 1.3 provides for the traffic signal at the intersection of the project entrance and the Home Depot entrance on Maranto Manor Drive but does not account of any of the tun lanes called for in the TIA conclusions. These laires ave i7ulrrdedas part ofthe rez2s edProff rStatement. 14. Transportation Proffer 1.4. Proffer 1.4 provides for the eastbound left turn lane for Maranto Manor Drive at the intersection of Route 522 / Maranto Manor as called for in the TIA conclusions. It is noted that even with this improvement, this intersection will not function at a level of service C or better and does not meet County requirements. fFh' lletheAffA- akHourLOSforMe teestbonndmo mentofitlaranto ,1111ZnorD>7"ze will operate at aLOSD with the additiovrallefttirrn lane in place, Iwo7rldnote thatthe intersection as a whole willoperate ataLOS C. Again I would suggest that the positize f7scalimpacts ofthz's type of economic development use would offset a single mozement at LOS D within an intersectian that operates ataLOS C. 15. Other Traffic Improvements. As stated in the TIA conclusions, there are various transportation improvements which are necessary to maintain a LOS C or better. The following improvements (in additional to comments 11 -13_ have not been addressed: • Rainville Road /Maranto Manor Drive turn lanes • Site Driveway 1 /Maranto Manor Drive turn lanes • Site Driveway 3 /Route 522 turn lanes • Site DrivewayVRoute 522 turn lanes Perthepreziorrs responses, etllturrr lames neededhaze beery irrclrtdedirr MV reused Pioff r Statement. If the right irr/nght orrt entrances (Srte D"z e-reay 3 and -�/ are pelmittete; trtnr lames zenrrla' be prozmled as re�rrireddirring the entrancepennittingpl >ase. P 16. Bike Path. Front Royal Pike is identified on the Frederick County Bicycle Plan as a short term destination. Provide a bike trail in this location. The Appl camv has proffered a bike pate lr trerr ofsrdezeniks along Front RoyalPike. 17. Design Standards. The proffer statement includes nothing that relates to design standards (building facades, parking lot location, landscaping, signage, etc). Buildings should be placed adjacent to the roads and the parking lots placed behind the buildings, especially along Tasker Road and Route 522. Street trees should be provided along all public and internal roads and specific types of building materials should be utilized within the project. Limitations on the number and size of freestanding signs should be considered as well. Route 522 signage should be limited (number and size) and only monument style signage should be utilized. As any proffered desrgu materials zeorrld not be applicable to the existing B2zorredportions ofparce1761J-f3 adesignpalette wouldnot necessarily be ofrrse forthe Property. This same notion is applicable to signage as well. Any dezrloprrrent on the property zenrrld be subject to Ordinance levlmelllellls. Please feel free to call if you have anyquestions. Sincerely, Patton arris Rust & Associat s Patrick R Sowers ep LY0 nia D 0TOr l ansportation Staunton Staunton District Planning comments on: Eastgate Commercial Property TIA (dated 1/19/07) Frederick County, Virginia Staunton District Planning has completed our review of the subject TIA and offers the following comments for the Edinburg Residency's consideration: TIA - General • We recall an agreement to study the Rt. 522 and Rt. 277 intersection. Please explain why this has been omitted from the study. We recall an agreement that the study was to be performed using Synchro v.6. Please explain. • Referencing page 1, it states "...conducted AM and PM peak hour... counts at the intersections of Rt. 522 / Tasker Road, Tasker Road/Rainville Rd. and Route 522/Maranto Manor Drive. ". The supporting count data indicates that counts along Rt. 522 were conducted in May 2005. While we understand that a growth factor was applied to this data, it is important that the reviewer understand the analyst's methodology. Please explain and revise. • Several development plan illustrations are provided in the submittal, and numerous references to 4 land bays that will generate uniquely different traffic volumes, and yet no illustration appears to accurately define where the land bays are situated. Figure 6 thru 9 do not correspond to the Land Bay Trip Generation Table 2, page 10. Please explain. • Referencing Table 1, page 6, errors exist in the Background Development # 5: • The Elementary School AM Peak Hour In and Out Volumes should be 127 and 104, not 110 and 76 • The Middle School AM Peak Hour In and Out Volumes should be 246 and 206, not 223 and 168. • We are unable to determine the potential impacts to Rt. 522 as a result of the two proposed additional right - in/out site drives. We are concerned that the arterial level of service along this corridor could be compromised should these entrances be approved without further study. • Referencing Table 1, page 7, errors exist in the Background Development # 13: The code for Elderly Housing — Attach should be 252, not 253. • We question some of the Background Conditions traffic assignments. For example: • Why does the intersection of Maranto Manor Drive / Site Drive 42 have almost the same amount southbound left -turn and right -turn traffic? Please explain your assumptions. • It seems illogical that right turn traffic from Land Bays' A &B would exit, make a right turn at Rainville, and then make another right to arrive Rt. 522. Please explain your assumptions. 2/6/2007 Page 1 of 2 inia Department • XVDOT*ransportation Staunton • The HCS report for the intersection of Maranto Manor Drive / Site Drive #1 has different traffic volumes then those illustrated in Figure 8: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions on page 13. Please revise. • We are concerned about the operation and safety allowing full (or even partial) access at Site Drive #1 and Maranto Manor Drive. The analysis as presented during 2010 build -out conditions assumes an unsignalized condition with NB left and right movements. The HCS analysis assumes a raised median storage area for left turning vehicles with an opposing WB thru volume of 403 vehicles. The only reason that this NB left turning movement operates at LOS C is the raised median, without it the LOS is F. As presented in the study, the right tum movement is already expected to operate at LOS F. Please explain. • Numerous movements both internal and external to the proposed site operate at levels of service of D or worse, even with the "Suggested Improvements ". All movements are to perform at a LOS of C or better. • There is no analysis of Site Drive 93 and Rt. 522. Please explain. • There are numerous "Suggested Improvements" that appear in the study with no corresponding text as to what the applicant is willing to participate in funding. Many of the improvements will require right -of -way for which the applicant does not control. Please explain. • Please explain why the analyst choose to use a PHF of 0.90 for 2010 AM build - out conditions at Maranto Manor Dr. and Site Dr #2, and yet choose to use a PHF of .95 for 2010 PM build -out conditions? • The AM signal timing for the intersection of Maranto Manor Drive / Site Drive # 2 has two phases, while the PM signal timing has four phases. AM and PM signal timings can have different splits, but the phases should be the same. Please explain. END 2/6/2007 Page 2 of 2 0 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 10212 Governor PH RA l F Williamsport, 301 223.4010 217ggvd., Suite 1007 Memorandum To: Organization /Company: From: Candice Perkins Frederick County Planning Department Michael Glickman, P.E. Date: Fe bruary 9, 2007 Project Name /Subject: PHR +A Project file Number: Response to January 19, 2007 VDOT comments regarding the report titled: A Traf/ic Impact Ana lyri of EmXYale Re onine 13612 -1 -3 cc: Jerry Copp; Lloyd Ingram; Eric Lawrence; Patrick Sowers In addition to the modified proffer statement submitted on February 9, 2007 as part of the rezoning application for the Eastgate Commercial Property, we have provided the following responses for comments provided via e -mail by the Virginia Department of Transportation on February 8, 2007 with regards to the submitted Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA): VDOT Comment # 1: We recall an agreement to study the Rt. 522 and Rt. 277 intersection. Please explain why this has been omitted from the study. PHR +A Response: Based upon a scoping session attended by PHR +A, VDOT and Frederick County, this intersection was not included as a part of the TIA scope of study. However, it is important to note that the major intersections affected by the proposed development have been included in the study. VDOT Comment # 2: We recall an agreement that the study was to be performed using Synchro v.6. Please explain. PHR +A Response: Based upon a scoping session attended by PHR +A, VDOT and Frederick County, Synchro v.6. was not a requirement for the TIA. VDOT Comment # 3: Referencing page 1, it states "...conducted AM and PM peak hour... counts at the intersections of Rt. 522 /Tasker Road, Tasker Road /Rainville Rd. and Route 522 /Maranto Manor Drive. ". The supporting count data indicates that counts along Rt. 522 were conducted in May 2005. While we understand that a growth factor was applied to this data, it is important that the reviewer understand the analyst's methodology. Please explain and revise. PHR +A Response: Counts for this study area were begun in 2005 and, as such, were included as data for the TIA. As you have indicated, a growth factor was used in the TIA to accommodate the original date of the traffic counts. VDOT Comment # 4: Several development plan illustrations are provided in the submittal, and numerous references to 4 land bays that will generate uniquely different traffic volumes, and yet no illustration appears to accurately define where the land bays are situated. Figure 6 thru 9 do not correspond to the Land Bay Trip Generation Table 2, page 10. Please explain. 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates A Traffic Impact Analysis of Eastgate Rezoning: Response to VDOT Comments 0 Memorandum Page 2 PHR +A Response: Figures 6 -9 depict four land bays labeled A, B, C, and D. Land Bay A is shown twice on the figures as it is bisected by Maranto Manor Drive. The remaining labels are located with the locations that correspond to the actual land bay locations. I would reference the Generalized Development Plan which was included as part of the submission package which clearly shows the boundaries of land bays A, B, and C. Land Bay D is included as part of the TIA as a potential future use but is not formally included in the rezoning application. VDOT Continent # 5: Referencing Table 1, page 6, errors exist in the Background Development # 5:- The Elementary School AM Peak Hour In and Out Volumes should be 127 and 104, not 110 and 76 - The Middle School AM Peak Hour In and Out Volumes should be 246 and 206, not 223 and 168. PHR +A Response: The trip generation results associated with Background Development # 5 were copied verbatim from an approved traffic study for a project located within the vicinity of the Eastgate development. The minor increase in trip generation would cause a negligible impact to the study area intersections and would not alter the conclusions derived in the TIA. VDOT Comment # 6: We are unable to determine the potential impacts to Rt. 522 as a result of the two proposed additional right- in/out site drives. We are concerned that the arterial level of service along this corridor could be compromised should these entrances be approved without further study. PHR +A Response: The location of the two (2) proposed right -in /right -out site - driveways, with respect to the adjacent planned signalized intersections of Tasker Road /Route 522 and Maranto Manor Drive /Route 522, present an opportunity to accommodate commercial traffic and facilitate commercial ingress and egress from the site without burdening other area intersections. VDOT Comment # 7: Referencing Table 1, page 7, errors exist in the Background Development # 13: The code for Elderly Housing —Attach should be 252, not 253. PHA +A Response: This is a typographical error and will not impact the conclusions derived in the TIA VDOT Cornrnent # 8: We question some of the Background Conditions traffic assignments. For example: - Why does the intersection of Maranto Manor Drive / Site Drive # 2 have almost the same amount southbound left -tum and right -tum traffic? Please explain your assumptions. - It seems illogical that righ! !rani traffic from Land Bays' A&B would exit, make a right turn at Rainville, and then make another right to arrive Rt. 522. Please explain your assumptions. PHR +A Response: We believe that with the new retail developments occurring to the south in Warren County, trips to and from the proposed development will be from the north and west. Traffic desiring to go west on Tasker Road may find it easier to use Maranto Manor and Rainville. Traffic heading north may use Maranto Manor Drive to Route 522. Z • Patton Harris Rust & Associates A Traffic Impact Analysis of Eastgate Rezoning: Response to VDOT Continents n LJ Memorandum Page 3 VDOT Continent # 9: The HCS report for the intersection of Maranto Manor Drive / Site Drive # 1 has different traffic volumes then those illustrated in Figure 8: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions on page 13. Please revise. PHR +A Response: There is typographical error in entering volume for 2010 AM build -out conditions in HCS file. However, with the correct volumes shown in Figure 8, the levels of service results will remain same for each movement and approach LOS as shown in TIA. VDOT Continent # 10: We are concerned about the operation and safety allowing full (or even partial) access at Site Drive # 1 and Maranto Manor Drive. The analysis as presented during 2010 build -out conditions assumes an unsignalized condition with NB left and right movements. The HCS analysis assumes a raised median storage area for left turning vehicles with an opposing WB thnn volume of 403 vehicles. The only reason that this NB left turning movement operates at LOS C is the raised median, without it the LOS is F. As presented in the study, the right turn movement is already expected to operate at LOS F. Please explain. PHR +A Response: A concrete median has been included as a proffered condition in order to obtain a LOS C for the PM Peak Hour. With the installation of this median, the referenced intersection, as a whole, will accommodate a minimum LOS C which meets the guidelines of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. VDOT Conunent # 11: Numerous movements both internal and external to the proposed site operate at levels of service of D or worse, even with the "Suggested Improvements ". All movements are to perform at a LOS of C or better. PHR +A Response: Each intersection, as a whole, will operate at a LOS C or better with the proffered transportation improvements in place. While the use of the word "numerous" in your comment would indicate a great deal of movements will operate at a LOS D or worse, only two movements in fact operate below a LOS C. These two movements are identified as westbound Maranto Manor Drive and westbound Tasker Road. Both of these movements operate at a LOS D. I would note that background traffic alone would place these movements at a LOS C and, furthermore, that the positive fiscal impacts that this type of economic development use poses for Frederick County should more than offset a one tier discrepancy for two movements within the entire development area. VDOT Continent # 12: There is no analysis of Site Drive # 3 and Rt. 522. Please explain. PHR +A Response: This movement would use the internal site for required stacking distance and, as such, would not pose an) detrimental impacts to the public traffic network. Patton Harris Rust & Associates A Traffic Impact Analysis of Eastgate Rezoning: Response to VDOT Continents Memorandum Page 4 VDOT Continent # 13: There are numerous "Suggested Improvements" that appear in the study with no corresponding text as to what the applicant is willing to participate in funding. Many of the improvements w ll require right -of -way for which the applicant does not control. Please explain. PHR +A Response: Every necessary improvement identified by the TIA has been proffered by this rezoning request or a previous application. For each transportation improvement, appropriate right of way either already exists or can be provided by the Applicant as the applicant owns property adjacent to each of the subject intersections. VDOT Comment # 14: Please explain whythe analyst choose to use a PHF of 0.90 for 2010 AM build -out conditions at Maranto Manor Dr. and Site Dr # 2, and yet choose to use a PHF of .95 for 2010 PM build -out conditions? PHR +A Response: Overall PHF value of 0.95 was calculated from the PM peals hour counts conducted at the intersection of Route 522 /Maranto Manor Drive. This value was applied to the analysis of the Maranto Manor Drive /Site - Driveway # 2 intersection since existing counts do not exist at this location. However, as a test, PHR +A re- analyzed this intersection using a 0.90 PHF during PM peak hour conditions and determined levels of service (overall, approach and lane group) will remain consistent with those represented in the TIA. VDOT Comment # 15: The AM signal timing for the intersection of Maranto Manor Drive / Site Drive # 2 has two phases, while the PM signal timing has four phases. AM and PM signal timings can have different splits, but the phases should be the same. Please explain. PHR +A Response: It is our understanding that it is acceptable to have multiple phase combinations throughout the day since the controllers can be programmed to accommodate daily variations in traffic patterns.. However, as test, PHR +A verified that assuming four (4) phases during the AM and PM peak hour conditions, respectively, would result in levels of service (overall, approach and lane group) consistent with those represented in the TIA. 0 0 �'§igndlized' "Suggested ` Inteiection Improvements" Signalization h. NB - I Left No Scale EB - 1 Left X11 = M;Stgna6zed', st "Suggeed !t. Intersection Improvements" sL05 C(Cj'. Signalization l'- .T 1 NB 2 Lcft i s i i i F Ij a 522 signalized ': "Suggested nter iection, Improvements" LOS —C(C) EB- I Left see � Os �a I n J Signalized Unsi 522 nelize f; �Ol� �� t s• g Intersection �}' y 4� 1 z •' 522 ft, Intersection LOS =C(f7 Intersection � � 01 Oft Unsignalized 14 t ` Intersection r\ w'O ,t` P . � 4(c). F�tis 1 �ti t f. }2- "Suggested } » a t Improvements" LAND BAY LAND BAY `+'?'a " New Intersection "A " ,4„ Unsi r nalaed ' :. v? A •.:'. e a Intersecnonf Man sto MaN 19n c ertt ono c .' Macanw M Signalizedn 'Suggested ntersecbon Improvements' p LOS =C(C)` Newlntersectio LAN IC BAY "Ot`jeMs ak h O `� y r t i CtC)s_ LAND BAY " e� M¢mnto Manoc i LAND BAY —_one �tiY� •. 4 °'(C)B4�tit o r gH Denotes stop sign control •,zf '��� �°:�.�: x` "x� ' ' ® Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 9 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of Easteate Rezonin e P W � ^ Project Number r25, l� October r 25, 006 Page 14 CONCLUSION 0 The traffic impacts associated with the Eastgate Rezoning development, assuming suggested improvements, are acceptable and manageable. Based upon HCS -2000 results, each of the study area intersections will operate with overall levels of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. The following reiterates the suggested roadway configuration required for each of the study area roadway intersections during 2010 build - out conditions: • Route 522/Tasker Road In order to achieve acceptable levels of service, this intersection will require traffic signalization along with an additional eastbound and northbound left -turn lane. • Tasker Road/Rainville Road In order to achieve acceptable levels of service, this . n will require traffic signalization and two (2) northbound left - tu l�no G • Route 522/Maranto Manor Drive In order to maintain acceptable levels of service, this intersection will require an additional eastbound left -turn lane. • Rainville Road/Maranto Manor Drive This is a new intersection. It will be an unsignalized intersection with westbound left/right shared lane, northbound thru /right shared lane and a southbound left/thru shared lane. • Site Driveway #I/Maranto Manor Drive: This is a new unsignalized intersection. It will require eastbound thru and right -turn lan (westbound left and thru lane and northbound left and right -turn lane. • Site Driveway #2/Maranto Manor Drive: This intersection will require signalization along with eastbound separate left, and thru /right shared lane; westbound separate left, thru, right turn lane; northbound separate left and thru /right shared lane and southbound separate left, thru, right turn lane. • Site Driveway #3/Route 522: This is a new right in /out only intersection. It will require an eastbound right turn lane and a southbound right turn lane. • Site Driveway #4/Route 522: This is a new right in/out only intersection. It will require an eastbound right turn lane and a southbound right turn lane. A Traffic Impart Analysis of Easteate Rezonine P ^ Project Number: r25, 2 006 l�L l October 25, 2006 Page 15 0 SIGNAL I' / � s =1P E- F go r \ ''o ?� EX. ZONING B3 G \/ TE'S STORAGE EX. ZONING H2 \ FUTURE r ' EXISTING B3 RIGHT —IN , \ PROPOSED B2 RIGHT BUT A� L \ �5 EXISTING, B3 EXISTING, RA PROPOSED, B2 'N PROPOSED B2 4 ' 1 'l p FUTU 63 >o R p IGNAL EXISTING RA - 10.65 AC EXISTING B3 - 8.23 AC TOTAL - 18.88 AC EXISTING, RA PROPOSED B2 \� i EXISTING HOME DEPOT / DISTRIBUTION CENTER /7 EXISTING M - 1 ' � (d - / \ 1p EASTGATE COMMERCIAL Patton, Harris, Rust &Associates, pc o ti y GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 p V R VOICE: (540) 667 -2139 FAX: (540) 665 -0493 Cn fRWERICK COUMY, VIRGINIA EXISTING A2 li111v1\4m f 0 Frederick County, Virginia REZONING APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE EASTGATE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY Shawnee Magisterial District October 2006 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone: 540 -667 -2139 Fax: 540-665-0493 PHRA f 0 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS L Application II. Impact Analysis III. Proffer Statement IV. Agency Comments V. Survey Plat and Deed • VI. Tax Ticket �J Patton:Harris Rust & As Engineers, Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 117 East P H 1� Wins es 39 II 2601 F 540.665.0493 1 0 Transmittal To: Candice Perkins Organization /Company: Frederick County Planning Address: Telephone Number: Date: Febniary 9, 2007 From: Patrick Sowers Project Name /Subject: Eastgate Rezoning Application Via: Internal Project File #: Quantity File # Date Description Transmitted ® Herewith 1 Rezoning Application ❑ Under separate cover 1 Application Fee - $4,938 Material ❑ Originals ® Photocopies ❑ Diskette ' ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Mylar ❑ Ozalid Prints ❑ Invoice ❑ Sepia Purpose ® Your Use ❑ Your Files Notes: ❑ Approval ❑ Please Return: r III '! F R 9 2007 1 'T Corrected Prints Received by: Date: ❑ Please Submit: Revised Prints UA •. L . Document Approval Form i FEB 2 3 2001 J _ 'T PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. IF THIS DOCUMENT MEETS YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE INITIAL AND PROVIDE THE DATE AND TIME OF YOUR APPROVAL. IF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT MEET YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS AS TO WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE COMPLETED. INITIALS DATE & TIME Candice Bernie Mark Susan Eric Mike Kevin John Lauren °\ l COMMENTS: Received by Clerical Staff (Date & Time): h�j� '212 U:\Pam \Common\Document Approval Form.wpd z w 7 0v C �) GIS, MAPPING, GRAPHICS WORK REQUES DATE RECEIVED: c2/,� 7 O REQUESTED REQUESTING AGENT: Department, Agency, or Company: - Mailing and/or Billing Address: Telephone: E -mail Address: DATE: FAX: ESTIMATED COST OF PROTECT: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: (Write additional DIGITAL: PAPER FAX:_ SIZES: COLOR BLACK/W=: STAFF MEMBER_ COMPLETION DATE: MATERIALS: DATE OF PICK- UP/DELIVERY: AMOUNT DUE: AMOUNT BILLED: METHOD OF PAYMENT: DEPT. OF GEOGRAPHIC INORMATION SYSTEMS FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA NUNMER OF COPIES: HOURS REQUIRED: AMOUNT PAID: CHECK NO. Frederick County GIS, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601, (540)665 -5651) f .. , FILE COPY CO COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665 -5651 roe FAX: 540 /665 -6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Finance Department FROM: Pam Deeter, Office Assistant II SUBJECT: Return Of Sign Deposit DATE: October 24, 2007 The amount of $50.00 was deposited in line item #3-010-019110-0008 for the company named below had a deposit for one sign for Rezoning 402 -07 for Eastgate Commercial. The company has returned the sign and is therefore entitled to the return of the deposit. You may pay this through the regular bill cycle. Please send a check in the amount of $50.00 to: Wright's Run 2800 S. Shirlington Road Suite 803 Arlington, VA 22206 RSA/pd W 101a'410? 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 I SO tu A l F- -x..12. ON 1 11 1 � AMl ACCT AMT. IR k 4 5' S BAU of CASH CHECK or Nov. I street Light Dec. 5 Dog tags go on sale Second Hall Taxes D Personal Property ue Real Estate Sanitary District Other due Street Light dates as billed by the Corrunissioner Revenue's Office. of the Mai►in Address Frederick County Treasurer P.O Box 225 Winchester, VA 22604 -0225 (540 6 65 -5607 I BO E -mail Address mdo t f @co. Frederick. va. us For Tax ►nformation & Online nlinePa ments E DER►CK. Vq. US Treasurer's Office fs1end fonday through fee hours m be Y 8:30 am to 5 pm etatlsn local during peak times, watch ford ocal media .... , , . FOR VEH►CLF LIC'ENSF REG /ST• 1 declare that the statement and fi , • • , , , • , correct 11, th ures RATION I fsed 50% best of 'y knowledge and bcl (are true, (ull and for Rusiness T A X R E C E I P T Si Y es JERICK COUNTY Rnature S ignature WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR _lP.O. BOX 225 s WINCHESTER VA 22604 -0225 SIGN DEPOSITS PLANNING PLANNING Ticket #:00005670001 Date 2/28/2007 Register: BCC /BC Trans. #: 66568 Dept # 1095 Acct# 40 Previous Balance $ 50.00 Principal Being Paid $ 50.00 Penalty $ .00 Interest $ .00 Amount Paid $ 50.00 *Balance Due $ .00 Pd by PLANNING Check 37161.30 # VARIOUS BALANCE DUE INCLUDES PENALTY /INTEREST THRU THE MONTH 2/2007