Loading...
TC 11-27-06 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Transportation Committee FROM: John A. Bishop, Transportation Planner RE: November 27, 2006 Transportation Committee Meeting DATE: November 17, 2006 The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, November 27, 2006 in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The agenda for this meeting is as follows: AGENDA 1. Review of Proffers for Woodside Commercial Center 2. Revenue Sharing Project Application 3. Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO) Activity Update 4. Survey Work for Brucetown\Hopewell Road Realignment 5. Article Distribution 6. Other Business Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Attachments JAB/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 ITEM #1 Review of Proffers for Woodside Commercial Center This item as seen below was reviewed and tabled at the last meeting of the Transportation Committee. The applicant has gathered additional information on costs of improvements and per trip cost which is attached. As relates to the overall approach, staff continues to have the concerns listed below and believes this item should be handled as a discussion item. Attached please find a copy of the proposed proffers for the Woodside Commercial Center as well as a map describing the site location. While proffer review and comment would not typically be an item under the purview of the Transportation Committee, this item has been brought forth due to its attempt to address a transportation issue in a way that has previously not been done in Frederick County. Specifically, it is the per vehicle trip proffer detailed in item F, where incremental funds have been proffered rather than the roadway being constructed. These funds are targeted toward issues facing all future rezonings along that corridor. Most critical among those issues are intersections along and the widening of the Route 11 north corridor and the realignment of Route 672 (Brucetown Road). Clearly, this proffer alone would not resolve any of those issues, but would attempt to pay an incremental share. While staff is generally supportive of a cooperative effort to address the needs for the transportation issues in this area, there are the following concerns: 1. Without additional analysis of the comprehensive planned uses and impacts along this corridor, it is difficult to assign what would be the proper `per trip' dollar amount to expectant rezonings. In addition, without determining that amount relative to the improvement needs that further development of the corridor requires, there is the risk of setting a level that is insufficient for the needs, thus leaving the County with an insufficient road system upon build out. The proffer, as written, would allow the businesses to be built regardless of whether full funding for the needed improvements to accommodate the additional traffic generated by that business had been received. 2. The use of site plan as the trigger for the payment of the proffered amount; the issue here is that if you were to tie this particular proffer to the site plan, the County would have little assurance of when those funds would become available. In a situation where the County would be relying on a group of proffers from different developers to address a particular issue, waiting until site plan to collect the proffer has the potential to cause delay in the needed improvements indefinitely. 3. The proposed concept fails to guarantee actual road improvements\construction, which is necessary to accommodate traffic generated by the rezoning. It is County policy that rezoning applications guarantee needed improvements in order to secure rezoning approval. Based upon the issues detailed above, it is the opinion of staff that this issue should be dealt with as a discussion of the possibilities of this approach and whether it is something the County should consider pursuing. OCT 1 1 2,006 TRANSMITTAL LETTER_ GREYWOLFE,r INC. 1073 REDBUD ROAD • WINCHESTER, VA 22603` y (540) 667-2001 • (540) 545-4001 FAx G' GREYWOLFEINC@AOL.COM Frederick County Planning & Development October 11, 2006 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22603 Attn: John Bishop Subject: Woodside Commercial Center Dear Sir: Attached is a copy of the Transportation Proffers and a vicinity map for the Woodside Commercial Center rezoning. I would appreciate a review of these proffers by the Transportation Committee since they are not the typical proffers seen from applicants. Thank you, Gary R. Oates, LS -B, PE GreyWolfe, Inc Proffers: A. On -Site and Off-site Improvements 1. Transportation a. Access i. Access to this property from Martinsburg Pike (US Route 11) shall be limited to one commercial entrance. The final location will be subject to VDOT review and approval once a site plan is submitted. ii. Access to this property from Woodside Road (Route 671) shall be limited to a maximum of two commercial entrances. The final locations will be subject to VDOT review and approval once site plans are submitted. b. Additional Lane — Route 11 The applicant hereby proffers to construct a 12' lane onto Route 11 along the site road frontage. This +/-650' long lane will be built to VDOT requirements. This will be built or bonded prior to receiving any final occupancy permits on site. c. Road paving — Route 671 i. The applicant hereby proffers to pave Route 671 from Route 11 s j along the road frontage of this parcel of approximately 650'. The final typical section including width & pavement section will be subject to VDOT review and approval once site plans are submitted. This will be built or bonded prior to receiving any final occupancy permits on site. d. Interparcel connections i. The applicant hereby proffers one interparcel connection along the southern boundary. This connection will be shown on the Master Development Plan. e. Right of Way Dedication i. The applicant hereby proffers to the Commonwealth of Virginia a strip of land ten feet (10') in width along the entire frontage of the property on Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) Right of Way. The applicant also proffers to the Commonwealth of Virginia a strip of land twenty-five (25') in width from the centerline of Woodside Road (Route 671) along the entire frontage of the property. These dedications will take place prior to site plan approval. f. Monetary Contributions for Road Improvements i. The applicant hereby proffers $100 per "Average Vehicle Trip Ends on a Weekday", as defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook 7h edition, generated by the Woodside Commercial Center for maintenance, road improvements, right of way acquisition on Route 11 and Route 672 located in Clear Brook, Virginia. The trip generation data will be submitted to the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Frederick County Planning Department for review with each site plan submission. The proffer shall be paid to the Treasurer of Frederick prior to final site plan approval. This site may have multiple site plans and each shall pay accordingly prior to their site plan approval by Frederick County. M q4v cFo O O ............. SITE ........... ............. .............. .......... TITAN r PINE KNOLL CONSTRUCTION 210 EBERT RD. WINCHESTER, VA 22603 PHONE 540-6673092 FAX 540-667-3263 1-800-664-3092 GreyWolfe, Inc. 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, VA 22603 Phone (540) 667-2001 Re: Route 11 North Improvements Dear Sir: CO., INC. November 14, 2006 I have reviewed the attached spreadsheet and agree the dollar amounts associated with each construction task appears realistic. I would caution that a final set of construction drawings, showing all improvements, would be necessary before an exact bid could be given. However, the numbers you have shown are a very close approximation of the cost. Pine Knoll Construction would be pleased to offer a proposal for this project when engineered road plans are available. Thank you, V_� Jeffery G. Jenki s Pine Knoll Construction, Inc. Route 11 Widenin — Length Width Area (sf) Value per sf Total Land (Right of Way) 13,500 10 135,000 $3.00 $405,000.00 Demolition of Center Lane 113,500 12 162,000 $1.25 $202,500.00 Landscaping 13,500 12 162,000 $1.00 $162,000.00 Curb & Gutter (4 runs) 13,500 4 $12.50 $675,000.00 Grading 13,500 30 405,000 $1.00 $405,000.00 15" Stone Base 13,500 30 405,000 $1.75 $708,750.00 6" Pavement 13,500 24 324,000 $2.50 $810,000.00 Traffic Control Allowance $25,000.00 Storm Sewer Allowance $60,000.00 Admin Allowance # $15,000.00 Mobilization Allowance $15,000.00 E&S Allowance $50,000.00 Total $3,533,250.00 I I Interchanue Land 78,500 $6.00 $471,000.00 Road Improvements I $925,000.00 Traffic Light $175,000.00_ Total $1,571,000.00 Road Improve mis Total per Eastern Road Plan Potential Land for Rezoning I _ Acres Use Trips per Acre Total Commercial 230 Business Park 149.79 34,452 Industrial 518 General Light 51.8 26,832 Industrial Park Total 61,284 Eastern Road Plan Improvements $5,104,250.00 Total VPD's 61,284 Cost per Vehicle $83.29 +20% Contingency JIL66 C $99.95 jTcitial Cost per Vehicle ITEM #2 Revenue Sharing Project Application Staff is seeking endorsement from the Transportation Committee to proceed with application for revenue sharing funds for the Tevis Street Extension project to Route 522. As many of you may be aware, the Russell 150 development is completing the majority of the extension including a bridge over I-81. This project is to complete the final .25 miles to connect that road system into Route 522. According to MPO projections, which staff is in the process of verifying through VDOT, this project would cost $2.6 million. If the application is successful, $ l million of that would be covered by VDOT, and the other $1.6 million would need to be covered by a combination of proffer and County funds. New state code passed at the last regular session of the General Assembly requires that no more than 50% of the matching funds come from proffer dollars. Staff would interpret that to mean that of the $1.6 million in funds the County would need to put forth for this project, only $1 million is the actual match, with the additional $600,000 included in an attempt to make the County more competitive in the first tier mentioned below. If this is correct, up to $1.1 million could be covered via proffer dollars and $500,000 would need to come from other County funds. Staff is seeking clarification from VDOT on this interpretation. This year's revenue sharing program has $15 million available statewide and a new tiering system for consideration of projects. To make it into the first tier of consideration, localities must be committing $1 million or more in matching funds (combined proffer and County funds). Clearly, this year, with so few dollars available and without being in the first tier, the chances of receiving funds are virtually zero. Even those applications within the first tier will be in a highly competitive environment as those who commit funds above the required $1 million match will receive first consideration. :7 • ITEM #3 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Activity Update There are a number of initiatives underway at the MPO about which the Committee should know. Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan The first public meeting was held on November 13, 2006 from 4-7 pm. The meeting was quite successful in terms of some very interested citizens who came out to be involved and give feedback. 2. Local Assistance Projects At the September 25, 2006 Committee meeting, staff updated the Committee on two projects that the MPO would be undertaking with the assistance of consultants. Both the (I-81/Route 37/Route 11/Shady Elm) and the Route 11 access\corridor management study are stilt being worked on by the steering committee and at this point, it appears they will both be able to be completed without commitment of funds by the MPO; however, the MPO Policy Committee has made $50,000 available for the eventuality that additional funds are needed. In light of the cost savings that have been achieved, the MPO Technical Committee, of which the County is represented by four staff members including the transportation planner, will be reviewing the adopted list of technical assistance projects and considering new projects for addition to the list in an effort to recommend new local technical assistance projects to undertake. This item is for information and discussion. No action is required. • C • ITEM #4 Survey work for Hopewell\Brucetown Rd Realignment And intersection improvements Attached please find a quote for services from on call consultant Marsh and Legge to provide survey services. As you may be aware, the County has been working diligently on a solution for the misalignment of these roadways and the traffic concerns that exist and will be increasing as development along the Route 11 corridor. Those efforts have progressed to the point that it is appropriate to move to survey. Staff is seeking recommendation from the transportation committee that they be enabled to bill these services to the transportation line item. MARSH & L EGGF. LAND SU'RVE YORS, PL.C. . �1Jir ?.r " L. AB.r 4f" tf.•r .. W. -I... 'IJ .:c f. V 226'.r" ■ '.yfl-fA o-Ak1 ■ F-... " i'(.(d; - -If; ■ October 20, 2006 VIA FAX (678-8828) AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Mr. Charles S_ DeHaven, Jr., Supervisor County of Frederick, Stonewall District 2075 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 Re: Proposal for Surveying Services Proposed Brucetown Road Realignment Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. DeHaven: We are pleased to propose our surveying services to complete a field run survey to define the approved Brucetown Road realignment situated at the intersection of U. S. Route 11 North and Virginia Secondary Route 672 (Brucetown Road), adjacent to Clearbrook Park in northern Frederick County, Virginia. The attached sketch shows the approved alignment that was provided by your office and has been reviewed by VDOT for final layout. The scope of our surveying services is proposed in Phase 1 and 2 as follows: Phase 1(a) Survey Services for Horizontal Alignment of the Proposed Brucetown Road: Our firm will provide labor, equipment and materials to complete a field survey, plan view exhibits and proposed alignment stakeout for the new Brucetown Road. The field survey will include deed research, field work and computations to define existing conditions, boundary lines and existing rights of way within the property limits that encompass the new proposed alignment. The boundary and existing conditions survey will delineate the proposed new Brucetown Road alignment and will show areas of right of way acquisition on a composite plan and individual exhibits for each respective parcel. our fee for the horizontal alignment, existing conditions -boundary survey and exhibit plats - $14,450.00 Lump Sum. Phase 1(b) Survey Stakeout Services: Upon completion of Phase 1(a) above, our firm will return to the field and stake the proposed alignment rights of way and centerline in conformance with the approved plan. Our fee for survey stakeout - $4,500.00 Lump Sum. Total Phase 1 - $18,950.00 Lump Sum Mr. Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. October 20, 2006 Page Two Phase 2. Field Run Topographic Survey for the Proposed Alignment: Our firm will provide labor, equipment and materials to complete a field run topographic survey of the horizontal alignment survey described in Phase 1 above. The topographic survey will show contours on a one -foot interval with spot elevations to establish critical conditions. The topographic survey will show the location of utilities, storm structures, buildings, trees 12 inches in diameter and larger, roadways, walks, and other above -surface features that relate to the construction of the new roadway alignment. Our fee for field -run topographic survey - $14,400.00 Lump Sum. Surveying services described in Phases 1 and 2 above will be oriented to VA NAD 83 North Zone State Grid, and vertical datum will be based on NAVD 88 elevations. Survey control will be established onsite using GPS methods, and four benchmarks and/or survey control stations will be set onsite at the time of the field survey for future construction. The final survey described in Phases 1 and 2 above will be delivered to your office on black line plots and in AutoCAD 2006 electronic format. If this proposal meets with your approval, please issue a project order number and notice to proceed. We trust that the information contained in this proposal will assist you in proceeding with this project. Should you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Scot W. Marsh, L.S. SWM/clh Enclosures 1 / f 0' 200' 400' 600' E3 ❑ / o� 0o ° FEED STORE I (/ ��� CLEAR BROOK / ii Ji//f LOBE (I Po ^tf MILLER I Q / �1 ( l 0', E W � / JOBE I / PARK ' I 1 �- �r1"67 y.(,'1 b / MAINTENANCE / f I CHURCH l l CD LD O S - 1 OLD rl O WATER / TOWER • C: J ITEM #5 Article Distribution Staff has included a number of articles from statewide news outlets for your consideration. HAMPTON ROADS News (Printable Version) Pagel of 2 Brakes slammed on road projects By TOM HOLDEN, The Virginian -Pilot O October 19, 2006 Last updated: 12:02 AM Commuters can't seem to catch a break Postponed proposals Plans to widen Interstate 64 in Chesapeake and rebuild the High -Rise Third bridge -tunnel to the Peninsula Bridge - one of the region's top commuter choke points - were postponed again Wednesday because the region will not have enough money. Widening of Interstate 64 in Chesapeake Rebuilding the High -Rise Bridge (at right) Progress also slowed on the proposed third bridge -tunnel to the Peninsula and on the Southeastern Parkway and Greenbelt, intended to ease traffic in fast-growing Greenbrier and Princess Anne. The Southeastern Parkway and Greenbelt The rebuilding of U.S. 460 The Metropolitan Planning Organization, which sets the region's long-range transportation plans, removed the projects in response to the General Saved programs Assembly's failure last month to raise new money for the region - or to allow Hampton Roads to raise its own money. A new Midtown Tunnel between Norfolk and Portsmouth The organization's move put in jeopardy about $63 million in federal guarantees slated for various projects, including $39 million pegged to the Widening portions of 1-64 on the third crossing, and $15.7 million in state match money. Peninsula Widening Dominion Blvd. in Chesapeake "There is no joy in this," said Norfolk Mayor Paul D. Fraim, a commission and replacing the Steel Bridge member and longtime advocate for a new harbor crossing to relieve chronic congestion at the Hampton Roads Bridge -Tunnel. Endorsing plans for the proposed City Line interchange along 1-64 near Regent "This is a sad day for the region." University The organization is composed of mayors and city managers from 17 cities and counties in Hampton Roads, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and Hampton Roads Transit. Because the region spends federal money to build roads, it must develop a plan that identifies what projects Hampton Roads can afford and then submit that plan for federal review. If there's no money for a specific project, then it must be excluded. Del. Glenn G. Oder, R -Newport News, said the organization met its responsibilities. "The bottom line is, they did what they had to do," said Oder. "There are no free roads." Oder was part of a small group of Republican legislators who tried to raise additional money for transportation through a series of fees and a regional tolling authority. The plan was killed during the assembly's special session in late September. The organization also kept alive efforts to build a new Midtown Tunnel between Norfolk and Portsmouth and to widen portions of 1-64 on the Peninsula. Both projects would call for tolls where none exist today, including the first-ever tolling of 1-64 on the Peninsula. http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story=112907&ran=221525 10/19/2006 HAMPTON ROADS News (Printable Version) Page 2 of 2 The group also backed a plan to widen Dominion Boulevard in Chesapeake and replace the Steel Bridge with a much taller structure, again using tolls to pave the way. It also endorsed plans for the proposed City Line interchange along 1-64 near Regent University in an unusual deal that uses mostly private money. And in a move that provoked some debate, the group pulled plans to rebuild U.S. 460, less than a week after a swollen Blackwater River closed the highway for a week. Rebuilding 460, considered a vital hurricane evacuation route, is considered a priority by Gov. Timothy Kaine, leaders in the General Assembly and VDOT. VDOT's Hampton Roads District Administrator Dennis W. Heuer, a member of the planning organization, argued that taking 460 out of the long-range plan would send the wrong message to private companies that have expressed a desire to build the project. The move also would slow final work on two environmental impact statements now being finalized, one on 460 and the other on the Southeastern Parkway, he said. By not including them in the long-range plan, federal rules prohibit completing the work. But Heuer conceded that 460 could be put back into the plan one day if sufficient money becomes available. VDOT is considering three sets of proposals to build a new four -lane divided highway between Suffolk and Petersburg, one high enough to resist flooding. The highway would be funded with a combination of public and private money and tolls. Reach Tom Holden at (757) 446-2331 or tom.holden@pilotonline.com © 2006 HamptonRoads.com/PilotOnline.com http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story=112907&ran=221525 10/19/2006 Tired of Waiting on States, Counties Fund Roads on Their Own - washingtonpost.com Page 1 of') washing#onpoAcom Tired of Waiting on States, Adve"'S`' Counties Fund Roads on Their Governor J* Own EHRUCIP -L� By Eric A Weiss Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, November 7, 2006; BO 1 Local governments in the Washington region have given up on getting additional state money for major transportation projects and are instead going into debt to embark on an unprecedented half -billion -dollar road -building boom to try to ease some of the area's worst jams. Delivered the Inter County Connector Pali tae and ftlhormd bry ft Bab E. dick for rdary&W Cor UnToM o In most cases, the money will go to build or expand roads that are the responsibility of the state governments in Richmond and Annapolis, which have failed to fund projects promised for years. "We're tired of waiting around," said Steven A. Silverman (D -At Large), a member of the Montgomery County Council. "Our people are crying for relief, and we want to provide it." Montgomery officials agreed in April to put up $160 million to accelerate state road projects. Prince William County is placing a $300 million bond before voters today that would improve Route 1, Route 28 and several other roads. Loudoun County has $51 million on the ballot -- the county's first transportation bond -- that would expand such roads as Routes 7 and 50. Fairfax County is in the middle of a $160 million construction plan that voters approved two years ago. "This is the great state shift -- or the great state shaft," said Gerald E. Connolly (D), chairman of the Fairfax Board of Supervisors. "You are seeing that in Loudoun, Prince William and Fairfax -- all of us are taking on more debt because of the state's failure to invest in any fashion." Funding and building roads locally have advantages. County governments can be quicker, less bureaucratic and more responsive to changing needs. Local funding also ensures that tax money will be spent where it originates rather than being spread across a state. But local construction plans are isolated and work against a growing regional desire to coordinate development. The results might be new highways and wider roads but even worse bottlenecks. Virginia Transportation Secretary Pierce R. Homer said the growing role of local governments in road - building makes it more difficult for state officials to keep an eye on the big picture. "The state has a responsibility to ensure that major transportation corridors are developed in a coordinated fashion," he said. "Without adequate state resources, that state role is diminished or in some cases nonexistent." Prince William, for instance, is spending $42 million to widen Linton Hall Road, the main connector between several new housing developments, such as Sudley Manor, and major commuter routes. On Friday, workers graded part of the road as construction trucks rumbled in and out of the new housing http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dynlcontent/article/2006/11lO6lAR2006110601182_p... 11/7/2006 Tired of Waiting on States, Counties Fund Roads on Their Own - washingtonpost.com Page 2 of 3 sites. But no matter how many lanes the county adds, Linton Hall commuters will still run into one of the biggest bottlenecks in the region, at Route 29 and Interstate 66. A state project to redo the interchange has been a top Northern Virginia priority, but a lack of funding has delayed it for years. The state now has the $182 million interchange penciled in for construction -- beginning in 2013. "They're just moving the traffic from one place to another. You still can't get on 29," said Jim Lemmon, 44, of Prince William, buying coffee Friday morning at a Wi-Not Stop on Linton Hall Road. "The state's not going to do anything about it. They make promises they can't keep, and we're the ones who have to live with it." Increasing local investment in transportation projects is part of a long-term trend away from traditional state sources. Political leaders in Virginia and Maryland, as well as in several other states across the country, plan to fund highways with tolls or through the private sector. Major projects such as expanding the Capital Beltway, for example, will be financed largely through a combination of the two. A recent study required by the federal government of how the Washington region plans to pay for road and transit improvements through 2030 illustrates a clear change. Three years ago, the study showed state governments, including the District, paying for 43 percent of transportation funding, with local governments contributing 11 percent. But a revision of the plan released last month showed the state share plummeting to 32 percent and the local share increasing to 17 percent. The same analysis showed toll revenues rising from 1 percent to 7 percent. The federal contribution held steady at 27 percent. "This is a harbinger," said Ronald F. Kirby, transportation planning director for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, which conducted the study. "It's a recognition that the states can't keep up. So Plan B is tolls and local bonds. We better get used to that because that's the way it's heading." In Virginia, the state government is supposed to pay for and maintain almost every road in the commonwealth. Under Virginia's six-year construction plan, the state is spending $795 million less than last year as more money is shifted to road maintenance. Legislators debated dozens of plans to increase transportation funding for most of 2006, including during a special session of the General Assembly in September, but they couldn't agree on any. In Maryland, highways and major roads are built and maintained by officials in Annapolis, with local governments paying for local streets. Its six-year plan for new transportation projects is also shrinking -- $500 million less is included than six years ago. Maryland Transportation Secretary Robert L. Flanagan said the state came up with a plan two years ago to add $238 million a year for projects. But he said there is a lot of "catch-up" to be done on roads and rail. "We can talk philosophically about what is the state's responsibility versus what is a local responsibility," he said. "As long as we're working together, it's a better approach." In the Washington region, fast-growing Prince William is becoming the king of road -building, doing it on a bigger scale than any jurisdiction. When the state continued to delay money for the Prince William Parkway, for example, the county built the four -lane highway itself. To keep up with the work, the county created a transportation department this year. http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dynlcontentlarticle/2006/11lO6lAR2006110601182_p... 11/7/2006 Tired of Waiting on States, Counties Fund Roads on Their Own - washingtonpost.com Page 3 of 3 Craig S. Gerhart, the county's executive, said political leaders are not happy to spend the money, but they came to realize that Richmond was not going to come through. "People can argue about a lot of things, but at the end of the day it takes money to build roads, and they don't have any money," he said. "We can't be successful as a community with a failed transportation network." cO 2006 The Washington Post Company Ads by Google Prince William County Move your career forward with an accredited online degree! www. CourseAdvisor.com Prince William Co VA Home Gain Access to All Active Listings of Homes in Prince William County www.nvfh.com Potomac Club New condos and townhomes in a Woodbridge, VA gated community. ww.v.potomacclub.com http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dynlcontent/article/2006/ 11 /06lAR2006110601182_p... 11/7/2006 J • • ITEM #6 Other Business