Loading...
TC 04-23-07 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, AICP, Transportation Pla e'N RE: April 23, 2007 Transportation Committee Meeting DATE: April 16, 2007 The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, April 23, 2007 in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. Note that this will be a joint meeting with Public Works and CPPS to continue working on the issue of private streets in the County. The meeting will be staffed by Deputy Director Mike Ruddy: AGENDA 1. Public and Private Subdivison Street Requirements Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Attachments JAB/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22001-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) Public Works Committee Frederick County Fire and Rescue Frederick County Sheriff Frederick County Treasurer Frederick County Public Schools FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Director ,./u:/-�< J RE: April 23, 2007 Transportation Committee Joint Meeting and Agenda DATE: April 16, 2007 The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, April 23, 2007 in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. This will be a joint meeting with Public Works, CPPS, and others to continue working on the issue of private streets in the County. The attendance and input of the above identified stakeholder groups is again requested. The joint working group continues to seek input from the interested stakeholder groups regarding the use of private streets within the community to ensure that the needs of each group is fully recognized in any modifications to the existing County Policy on Subdivision Streets. The Transportation Committee, in conjunction with a working stakeholder group, has been determined to provide the best forum for the continued discussion of this issue. The intention of the group is to continue with a joint effort to address this issue and provide additional input and guidance on how the County would implement a change in its policy to allow private ownership and maintenance of subdivision streets by Home Owners and Property Owners Associations. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 a Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Discussion of Public and Private Subdivision Street Requirements. Private ownership and maintenance of subdivision streets by Home Owners Associations. On Monday March 26, 2007, the Transportation Committee provided a forum for the ongoing discussion of public and private street requirements and, in particular, on how the County would implement a change in its policy to allow private ownership and maintenance of subdivision streets by Home Owners and Property Owners Associations. The meeting format provided for the following: 1. Overview of BOS request and Public and Private Street Policies. 2. Review of CPPS input. 3. Discussion of the requirements of stakeholder group participants. 4. Implementation of a new policy 5. Recommendation from group to BOS. Staff and the working group sought input from the interested stakeholder groups regarding the use of private streets within the community to ensure that the needs of each group was fully recognized in any modifications to the existing County Policy on Subdivision Streets. This input continues to be sought. Potential Policy Proposal The Working Group's discussion focused around enabling the use of private streets within future subdivisions under the ownership of Homeowners associations with the following considerations: • The private streets meet or exceed current VDOT standards or enhanced local street design standards. • The creation of an enhanced Public review entity to administer the private street program. • The creation of an oversight organization to ensure the financial structure and stability of the Associations responsible for ownership and maintenance of the private streets. The alternative approaches may include a special transportation district or a district similar to that of a Sanitary District. • The application of this requirement to specific types of communities and populations. In lieu of the above commitment, consideration of Frederick County creating and maintaining a Public Subdivision Street Program similar to that presently provided by VDOT and similar to that offered by Arlington and Henrico Counties, and urban districts within the State, may be the best approach to addressing this issue. Previous Discussion of Subdivision Streets. Current Policy The Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance requires that all lots abut and have direct access to a public street or right-of-way dedicated for maintenance by the Virginia Department of Transportation. The vast majority of new lots created in Frederick County are created consistent with this policy. Exceptions to this policy include multifamily, single family attached, and single family small lot housing types which may abut private roads, parking lots, or access easements, and Minor Rural Subdivisions. In the case of proffered age restricted communities, the Board of Supervisors may provide a waiver to the public street requirement. However, the private street must meet or exceed VDOT Standards. Virginia is a state that manages and maintains the maintenance and operation of local streets. Therefore, in Frederick County, VDOT maintains the local streets. VDOT's Subdivision Street Requirements (SSRs) establishes the criteria governing VDOT's acceptance of new roads. Each locality is responsible for establishing new streets and roads within its jurisdiction, including those that VDOT will maintain. These new streets are usually built through the efforts of land developers. To qualify for VDOT acceptance, new streets must: ■ Be available for unrestricted public use, ■ Provide public service sufficient to warrant maintenance at public expense, ■ Be located on right-of-way that is dedicated to public use; and ■ Have been fully and properly constructed to a standard adequate to sustain the traffic volume anticipated when the land served is fully developed. Historic Perspective Prior to the requirement for all lots to have access to state maintained roads, many lots in Frederick County were provided access via private easements, which in many cases were not improved to any particular standard. Frederick County historically had little involvement in the ongoing maintenance of the streets or their administration. Most of the lots and access roads were rural in character with the private property owners and users being responsible for their maintenance. The County's involvement was limited and consisted of responding to citizen concerns regarding access to their homes. Frederick County's most significant involvement with roads occurred in Shawneeland. The Shawneeland Sanitary District was created in response to a variety of public health, safety, and welfare issues which were occurring in Shawneeland. As a result, the Shawneeland Sanitary District has a program for improving and maintaining roads in Shawneeland. Policy alternatives In lieu of the current system of constructing and maintaining residential subdivision streets, two alternatives are available for consideration; 1) Public maintenance of subdivision streets by County, and 2) Private maintenance of subdivision streets by Home/Property Owners Associations. The Board's discussion sought to transfer this responsibility to Home Owners or Property Owners Associations. Issues for discussion In general, public street systems, in particular residential streets, are designed to balance considerations of safety and efficiency, cost effectiveness, livability, and community attractiveness. The entire community benefits from street improvements that are functionally adequate, durable, and cost effective. Current County and State policies seek to achieve this. Any future policies should seek to ensure this position is maintained or enhanced. A change in the approach presently taken by the County to require private ownership and maintenance of subdivision streets by Home Owners and Property Owners Associations would result in a significant increase in the County's transportation and infrastructure construction and maintenance capabilities. Such a change in policy would in essence transfer many of the roles and responsibilities currently provided by VDOT to the County. Frederick County Public Works Department has expressed that this would include the adoption of road standards, the addition of personnel, and potentially the acquisition of equipment. The role of the Public Works Department would need to be increased to effectively administer a road program. An alternative would be to contract for the same. Overall, the fiscal responsibility for such programs would also need to be increased. The private maintenance of subdivision streets by Home/Property Owners Associations, which the Board's discussion sought to achieve, would be a major policy change for the County. The function of Home Owners or Property Owners Associations should be a significant consideration when evaluating requiring private streets for all development in the County. Such a responsibility would be beyond the scope of such an organization's customary duty. Recent experiences throughout the County would indicate that Homeowners Associations do not typically function effectively. Therefore, to require such associations to be responsible for privately maintaining a public street system would require a great deal of consideration and, ultimately, oversight. The transfer of all public streets over to the ownership and control of the Property Owners Associations of Subdivisions within which the Public Streets are located would appear to have many important considerations for the County and the Community. Such considerations include but are not limited to the following: ■ Maintaining the Public Health, Safety, and Welfare of the residents of the Subdivision and the Community. ■ Public Access. ■ Emergency responsiveness. ■ Maintaining property values and quality communities. ■ Increase the financial responsibility of the residents of the Subdivision and Community in their on-going maintenance of the public road system. ■ Long term life cycle costs of road programs. ■ Equitable distribution of taxation revenues. ■ Potential source of conflict between the County and residents. ■ Additional fiscal impacts to County. An alternate view of the proposal might suggest that transferring the responsibility for Subdivision Streets to the County or a Private Home Owners Association may provide additional flexibility in the design of the streets beyond that which is presently afforded by the State. However, this point is immaterial if the private streets have to meet VDOT Standards. Such a proposal would appear to reduce the financial responsibility of the State in their on-going maintenance of the State's road system. Virginia State Legislature Current discussion at the State level related to this issue was in response to a bill that included provisions for VDOT no longer accepting roads into the State System. This is a transportation issue with budgetary constraints, the on-going restructuring of VDOT, and the financing of transportation improvements within the State having a bearing on the bill's consideration. HB3202 was ultimately approved by the State Legislature. Final resolution at the State level is pending. VACO and VAPA's positions were generally opposed to this road reversion legislation based upon the transfer of this responsibility from the State to the Localities without a revenue source and the use of general funds for transportation. Board of Supervisors discussion and motion (01/10/07) The Board of Supervisors at its meeting on January 10, 2007 initially provided direction to the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee and Planning Commission to study and make a recommendation to the Board regarding a change to the Frederick County Code to require subdivision streets not to be maintained by VDOT; however, the streets should be built to State standards. The Board of Supervisors discussion and motion follows: Supervisor Dove stated that the Board approved resolutions tonight (1/10/07) dedicating roads to VDOT, which put more burden on the State to maintain subdivision streets. He would like to make a change in Frederick County that all subdivision streets would be maintained by the Homeowners' Association. He went on to say that if the Board does not do this then they will be forced to when the State mandates it. Upon a motion by Supervisor Dove, seconded by Vice - Chairman Fisher, the Board unanimously directed the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee and the Planning Commission to study and make a recommendation to the Board. Chairman Shickle stated that this suggestion should go to committee because it needs to be discussed. Supervisor DeHaven stated that he did not oppose discussion because there were a lot of issues associated with this proposal that needed to be discussed. Supervisor Van Osten stated that it was reasonable to look at this, but she also had interest in waiting to see what comes out of the State. Supervisor Ewing stated this proposal was worth studying. Supervisor Lemieux stated that his only concern was the homeowners' associations trying to fund this maintenance because they often do not have the cash to pay for these types of expenses. CPPS Update from March 12, 2007 Meeting. The CPPS reaffirmed their belief that the existing County policy is appropriate, provides for quality community development, and promotes the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. However, in recognition of the Board's direction, the CPPS offered the following comments for further consideration should the County change its policy to require private ownership and maintenance of subdivision streets by Home Owners and Property Owners Associations. ■ The establishment of financial and administrative mechanism such as a Sanitary District or Special Taxing District to ensure the function and accountability of the Associations responsible for ownership and maintenance of the private street systems. ■ Consideration of transportation districts. ■ Addressing the legalities of access over and through private road systems. ■ Promoting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to quality community development, interconnected street systems, and interparcel access. ■ Ensuring the continuity of ingress and egress. ■ Differentiating standards and requirements between rural and urban areas. ■ Enabling private street standards to serve special populations and projects of limited scope. Previous CPPS Comments (02/12/07) The CPPS considered this item at their February 12, 2007 meeting. The discussion was thorough and additional input was received at the meeting from representative of the Blue Ridge Association of Realtors. The CPPS unanimously recommended that no change be made to the County's current policy. The CPPS expressly stated that the responsibility and maintenance of streets should not be the responsibility of Homeowners Associations. The CPPS discussed the possibility of private street maintenance for all new roads created in the County with the understanding that existing state roads would remain state roads. The following points were made regarding this shift: In favor of turning to private maintenance: • Faster response time on road issues when owned privately verses owned by the state. • HOA owned/operated roads don't result in an increase in taxes for county residents. Against turning to private maintenance: • School Buses will not service private roads — School system expressed significant concern. • Private roads will more than likely lead to gated communities which demolish previous attempts at interparcel connectors during rezoning applications. • Public access is a concern. • HOAs in Frederick County have typically been unsuccessful at managing even small projects within their development, how can they maintain something as important as roads? If given to the HOAs, a strong oversight committee will be necessary to ensure that work is done and the associations don't just default. • Who is responsible if the HOAs default? • "HOA owned roads will result in total anarchy for the county", "HOA owned roads are inefficient to maintain." • HOAs will need to charge high dues/fees in order to compensate for road maintenance which could create an undesirable living environment in new developments — individual property owners are not going to want to pay $10,000 HOA dues • The development community would be opposed to the change. Change would create uncertainty in the development process and reduce value in projects. • VDOT has experience maintaining roads and recognizing problems requiring immediate attention • Currently, the school's transportation division notifies VDOT if they see issues or problems (potholes, signs down, etc). VDOT has been very cooperative with the school board in quickly fixing these issues. The schools won't be able to identify issues like these on private streets if they don't service them. Comments from representatives from the Blue Ridge Association of Realtors: • HOA maintained roads means a decrease or total lack of affordable housing options, creation of gated communities or HOA's with higher dues means the depletion of affordable housing • The BRAR is totally against a move towards HOA owned/operated roads • This option creates undesirable subdivisions due to the fact that schools won't service the roads and the severe increase in HOA fees • Currently, HOA. contact information is nearly impossible to keep up to date for perspective home buyers, members of the board for HOAs don't return phone calls on small problems — how will residents get in touch with them over issues like roads? • Private roads reduces growth due to higher fees • Who will enforce speeding and road safety on private roads, private safety officers? • Increased chance of involving civil liberties groups, activists, political groups, etc if county moves towards private roads.