Loading...
073-10B ®l�D�D 1'RO.1�EC'I' At a regularly scheduled meeting of The $card of Supervisors of Frederick County, held on April 2$, 2010, on a motion by Supervisor -char seconded by Supervisor Gax-y A. Lofton . � �e following resolution was adopted by a vote of 7 to �_. 'V�HEREAS, Graystone Corporation of Virginia has acquired propezty for the purpose of economic development use located off of Route 11 in the County of Frederick, Virginia, for the purpose of economic development within Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park; and WiFIEREAS, this property is expected to be the site of new private capital investment in Iand, building, and manufacturing equipment which will provide substantial employment; and WHI�REAS, the subject property has no access to a public street ar highway and will require the construction of a new roadway to connect with Route 11; and WHEREAS, the County of Frederick hereby guarantees that the necessary environmental analysis, mitigation, fee simple right -of- -way and utility relocations oz adjustments, if necessary, far this project will be provided at no cost. to the Economic Development, Airport and Rail Access Fund; and WHEREAS, the County of Frederick acknowledges that no land disturbance activities may occur within the limits of the pzoposed access project prior to appropriate notification from the Department of Transportation; and wgEREAS, the County of Frederick hereby guarantees chat all ineligible project costs and all costs not justified by eligible capital outlay will be provided from sources other than those administered by the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, 'I`HEREFORE, SE IT �2ESOLVIED THAT: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby requests that the Carnrnonwealth Transportation Board provide Economic Development Access Program fua�ding to provide an adequate toad to this property; and BE TT FURTHER. RESOLVED THAT: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby agrees to provide a surety bond, acceptable to and payable to the Virginia Department of Transportation, in the full amount of the Corrimonwealth Transportation Board's allocation less eligible private capital outlay credit determined by VDOT; this surety shall be exercised by the Department of Transportation in the event that sufficient qualifying capital investment does not occur on Route 11 within five years of the Commonwealth Transportation Board's allocation of fiends pursuant to this request; and PDRes. #12 -10 BE TT F�1ZTl�TEit �S�I1'VEI} T>�AT: The Frederick County Soard of Supervisors hereby agrees that the new roadway so constrr�cted will be added to and become a past of the Frederick County secondary system of state highways. AT��iP'1['EI� this 28th day of April, 20i 0. This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote; Richard G Shickle, Chairman Gary W. Dove Gene E. Fisher Christopher E. Collins PDRes� i 2 -1 a sos R��. ��o�3 -�a Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Aye A C` ®P A'T'TEST Jo it y, Jr. F Brick County Administrator Departe�t ®� Pianna�g and �e�reflapme�t S�� /6�5 -565 �. TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Sohn A. $ishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Trartsportation`�, �` �� Transportation Committee Report for Meeting of March 22, ZO10 �A'�`E: Apri16, 2014 The Transportation Committee rnet on March 22, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. Members Present Chuck DeHaven (voting} CFary Lofton (voting) Dave Burleson (voting) James Racey {voting) George Kriz (liaison PC) Gary Elates {liaison PC) Lewis Boyer {liaison Stephens City} Members Absent Mark Davis (liaison Middletown) Y�: *Items �2egtairing Activn��x 1. Update of I�eterstate, Primary, and Secondary 1.2aad Piares This is a public hearing item chat is scheduled for the Apri128, 2010 Board zx�eeting. 2. Economic Development Access funding The owners of the Graystone Industrial Park have asked far County support in obtaining Economic Development Access Funding to aid in the construction of Snowden Budge Boulevard into the park. The Committee asked staff to clarify when the funds need to be spent and where the project will go. Staff noted that VDOT prefers funds to be spent within two years and that the road segment to be addressed would be from Route I i to the nrst planned intersection in the development. On a motion by Mr. Lofton and seconded by Mr. Racey, the Committee voted aaa�anirnously to recommend that the &aard adapt a resolution of support to apply for fl071�iarth went Street, Saite ��2 s �znehester, �irgiaia 2641 -�4Q� Ec€ruamic 1�evel�rlaeent Access �`�nds fir the Craystone ��€Ius.t�ial p'ar I�. �Res€elutio:� �ttache�I) 3. :€�caute �' an€I Rcsute 277 pc�tenti�el Safely �`rograr� P�-ajeets Attached please find the table of potential projects and theix associated graphics which were presented as potential projects for which to ap�Iy for safety program f�zn -ding. 'the Committee rec�mFr�er�ded the foll€�wing via. consensus: 1�Iake ap�Iication for tlae foiimwi�n�: Route 277 at the T -81 NB Ramps Route 277 at White Oak and Hudson Hallow Rand Route 7 at T -8l. NB Ramps/Valley Mill Road Route 7 at Regency Lakes Drive (Combine Lozzg and Tntermediate term projects} Route 7 at Blossom Drive and Millbrook Drive Route 7 at Greenwood Road (after reviewing cost estizxzates for accuracy) Route 7 at Morgan Mill Road Review with Su ervisor Ewim ors the fcrIIowin Route 277 at Aylor Road (Long and Tnterrnediate term projects} Route 277 at Stickley Drive Coo�'dinate with the Town ©f Stephens.Ciiy on the fa�Ilowiz��: Route 277 at Mulberry Street C ®ordinate wzth the Ciiy of Wimehester on the f ®II ©wind: Route 7 at T -Sl SB Ramps 4. Route S® and Ytoute 61�E (Bask 1W.Eo�taata.in � ®ad) Potential 5igmali�ation VDOT recently completed a signal warrants study (atiached} on the intersection in question and noted that it does have warrants. VDOT was seeking concurrence from the County befaxe seeking funding for the project. Staff noted that the Con�nittee has been very concerned with the proliferation of signal lights on major roadways in the County, but that since Back Mountain Road is one of the mast significant rural highways in Frederick County, that it seemed appropriate to review the situation. Due to the significant amount of existing and potential residential development on and along Back Mountain Road, the Cornrnittee was concerned about the safety. However, it was noted that the safety portion of the signal warrants was not rrtet_ Committee member Burleson, who lives in the area, noted that it seemed somewhat borderline as to whether a signal was actually 2 needed_ lie Hated. that many issues aut there are due to drivers aggressively entering Route SfI withnnt waiting for proper spacing. It was also noted that sorrae of the issue inay be due to site distance. Additionally, it eras noted that an acceleration Iane might be appropriate in tlxis area to allow people turr�in�; eastbound from Back Mountaizx Road. onto Route 50 an opporturfity to accelerate aid rxxerge rather thaax turning. directly into a Iane of traffic. Tlxe Co��nznittee carne to a conseixsus tixat an izxcremental approach should be used rather than placing a signal at this tirz�e. Y�YIte�s I�€�t �2.e�u�r-Y�g Ac���Y�:�: 5, �the�- JABibad 3