TC 02-07-11 Meeting MinutesTO: Board of Supervisors
MEMORANDUM
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation 1
RE: Transportation Committee Report for Meeting of February 7, 2011
DATE: February 15, 2011
The Transportation Committee met on February 7, 2011 at 8:30 a.m.
Members Present
Chuck DeHaven (voting)
James Racey Voting
Chris Collins (voting)
Bryon Grigsby (voting)
George Kriz (liaison PC)
Gary Oates (liaison PC)
Lewis Boyer (liaison Stephens City)
3. Secondary Priorities
Members Absent
Mark Davis (liaison Middletown)
***Items Requiring Action***
FAX: 540/665-6395
Staff updated the Committee on the secondary system priorities that were adopted in April of
2008. The primary purpose of adopting the secondary system priorities is to help VDOT know
what the next project they should consider is after the completion of Sulphur Springs Road. In
addition, staff noted to the Committee that often the project that is the most timely is the one
that ends up getting done. Staff recommended the following order to the Committee.
1. Redbud Road realignment (new to the priority list)
2. Hopewell/Brucetown Road intersection alignment (promoted from number 4)
3. Spine Road from the Haggerty Development to Senseny Road
4. Double Church Road from Route 277 to the location of future South Frederick Parkway
5. Warrior Drive from Route 277 to the South Frederick Parkway
6. Realignment of Valley Mill Road intersection with Route 7 (west)
7. Senseny Road Widening
8. Extension of Smithfield Avenue to Brooke Road and associated disconnection of Brick Kiln
Road from Brook Road
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
On a motion by Mr. Racey and seconded by Mr. Grigsby, the Committee unanimously
recommended that the Board adopt the above noted priorities.
6. Carpers Valley Road Bridge Replacement
Staff presented the attached email (page 4 of this report) to the Committee for their review and
approval. VDOT is seeking concurrence from Frederick County on the rerouting of traffic in
the vicinity of the Carpers Valley Road Bridge across the Opequon Creek. This project is
currently expected to take place in 2015. Rerouting of traffic will save considerable
construction dollars in the form of temporary structure while the existing bridge is being
replaced. In addition, rerouting traffic will enable VDOT to avoid environmental concerns that
would otherwise be associated with this project.
On a Motion by Mr. Racey that was seconded by Mr. Grigsby, the Committee
recommended that the Board support the VDOT request.
8. Other
Staff presented communication that was received from the law offices of Lawson & Silek
requesting an updated resolution of support for the VDRPT rail access grant in the amount of
$450,000.00 for use in creating a rail spur at the Carmeuse quarry in Middletown. This is an
application the County has previously supported. The request and updated resolution can be
located on pages 5 through 10 of this report. The previously approved resolution is located on
pages 11 and 12. The language of the resolution is unchanged.
On a motion by Mr. Racey that was seconded by Mr. Grigsby, the Committee
recommended adoption of the resolution.
***Items Not Requiring Action***
1. Comprehensive Plan Update
Staff presented the most recent draft of the transportation section. By consensus, the Committee
requested that it be forwarded to the CPPS for continuation in the process. The version
presented is the same version that was included in your retreat packet.
2. Route 522 Study
Staff provided the Committee with the comments Frederick County had provided to the
consultant, along with the consultant's responses to the comments (pages 13-15). Staff noted
that the most critical comments have not been addressed and that the document should not be
adopted in its current form. Mr. Chris Price, Executive Director of the Northern Shenandoah
2
Valley Regional Commission was present and echoed staff's concerns. Mr. Price noted that he
was going to be meeting with VDOT and the consultant to try to resolve the issues.
Mr. DeHaven asked that staff review the events that have transpired in an effort to make sure
the situation is not repeated.
4. Sidewalk Funds
Staff presented the attached summary (page 16) of the sidewalk fund program in Spotsylvania
County. Staff noted that while this was a start, most requests for information have gone
unanswered and considerable more work would be needed in order for Frederick County to
determine whether this is a program that would be viable here. The Committee directed staff to
continue working on the issue as time allowed.
5. Reliance Road Speed Limit
Staff noted to the Committee that officials in Middletown had expressed to the Planning
Director, Mr. Lawrence, that speeds were too high on Reliance Road in the vicinity of Exit 302.
Staff noted that the most recent traffic counts in that location show about 2,000 trips per day and
that site distance did not appear to be an issue. VDOT noted that they can take their traffic
engineer on a site visit of the location to determine if they feel a speed study would yield results
different from the existing adopted speed limit. The Committee will consider that feedback at a
future meeting.
7. Millwood Avenue Closure Study
Staff noted that a draft of the Millwood Avenue closure study was available for review and
would be going through the regional process. There does not appear to be a need for comment
from Frederick County at this time.
Attachments
JAB/bad
John Bishop
From: John Riley
Sent: Monday, January 24, 20112:45 PM
To: John Bishop
Subject: FW: Rt. 723 Bridge replacement at Opequon Creek/County Line
Would you please have the transportation comm -review and advise the BOS:Thanks 1R
From: Carter, Edwin fmailto:Edwin.Carter@VDOT.Virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, January 24, 20112:20 PM
To: John Riley; dash@clarkecounty.gov
Cc: Copp, Jerry; Ali, Mohamed, PE; Meng, Junyi, PE; Tehrani, Homayoun, PE; Stecker, Marc, PE
Subject: Rt. 723 Bridge replacement at Opequon Creek/County Line
Gentlemen, hope this finds you well and surviving the cold weather. VDOT is seeking concurrence from the Board of
Supervisors of Frederick and Clarke Counties to close Carpers Valley Road/Old Winchester Road at Opequon
Creek/County line for a bridge replacement in 2015. The project is currently scheduled for advertisement in October of
2014 with construction starting in March of 2015. We would expect the closure to be from March 2015 to December 2015
(approximately nine months). The detour length during the closure would be 6.8mi.
Allowing this closure during construction will reduce the environmental impact, the footprint (area disturbed), the time of
construction and ultimately the cost of the project.
The new structure will be constructed in place with 2-11' lanes and a 28' clear width.
Please let us know how you wish to proceed ie. If you would like for us to appear before the Board to answer questions or
just let you handle it.
Thank you for your consideration.
!gig
Edwin Z. Carter
Program Manager
VDOT-Edinburg Residency
(540) 9845605
Fax (540) 984-5607
Edwin.Carter@VJOT.Virginia.Gov
LmvsON AND SILEK9 R L.C,
120 EXETER DRIVE, SUITE 200
POST OFFICE BOX 2740
WINCHESTER, VA 22604
TELEPHONE: (540) 665-0050
FACSIMILE: (540) 722-4051
February 1, 2011
John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director — Transportation
County of Frederick
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Dear John:
FF5 2
r
THOMAS MOORE LAWSO AWSON(&LSPLC.COM
Re: Rail Grant
Our File No. 462.016
Enclosed please find a revised Railroad Fund Application and Resolution for Carmeuse
Lime & Stone's Middletown operations. The State requires a new Resolution from Frederick
County as the one they currently have on file is a year old. As you will see, the only change to
the documents is the date. I respectfully request that you present this information to the Board of
Supervisors for approval. As you know this project has already run through the Transportation
Committee and in fact, after receiving that Committee's recommendation, was unanimously
approved as a Resolution by the Board of Supervisors. What we are doing in this case is a little
unorthodox, but based on discussions with the Virginia Department of Rail and Public
Transportation we are being asked to resubmit the application, and secure an updated Resolution
from the Board of Supervisors. This matter will then be presented out -of -turn at the
Commonwealth Transportation Board's next meeting. The reason for this is because there were
discussions between the Department of Rail and Public Transportation and Carmeuse before the
railroad work commenced and while it was ongoing; thus, the project may well be eligible for
incentive funds. Further still, I have been advised that there are, at the Commonwealth
Transportation Board's discretion, funds available even if the County has already submitted
Resolutions for other qualifying projects in a fiscal year. Apparently these extra funds can be
allotted to a jurisdiction for worthy projects. We certainly hope that the project in Middletown
will be one of those projects.
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. If after reviewing the above, you have
FRONT ROY.AI. ADDRESS: POST OFFI(F Box 602, FRONT ROYAL, VIRO IN IA 22630, TELEPHONE: (540) 635-9415, FACSIMILE: (540) 635-9421, E-MAIL: JSILEKQu LAWSONANDSILEK.COM
FAiRFAX ADDRESS: 10805 MAIN STREET, SUITE 200, FAIRFAX, VIRGIN LA 22030, TELEPHONE: (703) 352-261.5, FACSIMILE: (703) 352-4190, E-MAIL: THOMASO.LAWSONC'YERIZON.NET
John A. Bishop
February 1, 2011
Page 2
any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Also if you think it would be helpful for
me to appear before the Board of Supervisors to further explain this Resolution, please let me
know and I will attend.
ry truly yours,
l
l homa�m ore Lawson
TML:jk
Enclosures
cc: Carmeuse Lime & Stone
COMMONWEALTH OF YIIRGLNU
DEPARTMFENI' OF RAIL AND PU13LIC TRANSPORTATION
INDUSTRIAL ACCESS RAILROAD TRACKS
APPLICATION
APPLICATION DATE:
APPLICANT: _O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Carmeuse Lime & Stone of Northerhn
Virginia
CONTACT PERSON:
Bob Carter
TELEPHONE NUMBER: _ (412) 995-5588
DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S ORGANIZATION (CITY, COUNTY, ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ETC.): Limestone mining and processing activities
Middletown, Frederick County, Virginia
INDUSTRY(BUSINESS TO BE SERVED BY PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL ACCESS TRACK:
Rail improvements will allow the plant to supply FGD limestone to two large power
plants in Maryland
.ADDRESS: (Plant) 351 McCune Road, Middletown, VA 22645
CONTACTPERSON: Names Bottom, Area Operations Manager
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (540)465--5161 X146
PROPOSED OR EXISTING LOCATION:
Plant site at Middletown, VA
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Unit train track and system installation to hold and load
Yd --100 car shipmetts of high calcium limestone
LENGTH OF PROPOSED TRACK:. 10,000 feet ESTIMATED COST:
REQUESTED AMOUNT OF RAIL ACCESS FUNDS: $450,000
$2.1 million
TBE APPROXIMATE CAPITAL OUTLAY OF THE INDUSTRY TO CONSTRUCT AND EQUIP
IT'S PROPOSEDNEWFACILITY: $10,470,000 (estimated
THE APPROXIMATE CAPITAL, OUTLAY TO CONSTRUCT AND EQUIP I"TS PROPOSED
EXPANSION: N/A
ESTIMATED ANNUAL NUMBER OF CARLOADS AND COMMODITY TYPES TO BE
HANDLED ON THE PROPOSED NEW TRACK: Approximately 2600, oarloads per year
of limestone
IF ANEW INDUSTRY, THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PEOPLE TO BE EMPLOYED: NIA
IF AN EXISTING INDUSTRY, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED: 27
AND THE ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT TO BE CREATED BY THE
EXPANSION. - Q
RAILROAD THAT WILL SERVE BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY: CSXT
THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTATION IS TO BE INCLUDED WITH THE APPLICATION:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.1
RESOLUTION FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNING BODY SUPPORTING THE PROJECT
AND REQUESTING THE RAIZ, INDUSTRIAL ACCESS FUNDS.
LOCATION SKETCH SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE SITE ON AN AREA MAP.
DRAWING OF THE PROPOSED TRACK PROJECT SHOWING THE CLEAR POINT (S).
SIGNED APPLICANTANDUSTRY CERTIFICATION
DOCUMENTATION THAT THE RAILROAD OWNING THE MAIN LINE TO WHICH
THE PROPOSED ACCESS TRACK WILL CONNECT HAS AGREED TO:
A. SERVING THE INDUSTRY OR BUSINESS,
B. APPROVING AND/OR PARTICIPATING IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE PROPOSED ACCESS TRACK,
C. MAKING THE FACILITIES AVAILABLE FOR USE BY ALL COMMON
CARRIERS USING THE RAILWAY SYSTEM TO WHICH THE
INDUSTRIAL ACCESS TRACK COL :� ECTS.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE BUSINESS.
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF THE UTILIZATION OF INDUSTRIAL ACCESS RAILROAD
TRACK FUNDS
The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, in regular meeting on the _ day of , 2011,
adopted the following:
WHEREAS, O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Carmeuse Lime and Stone of Northern
Virginia has expressed its intent and desire to the Board of Supervisors to locate its commercial,
business, or industrial operation in Frederick County; and
WHEREAS, O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Carmeuse Lime and Stone of Northern
Virginia and its operation will require rail access; and
WHEREAS, the officials of O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Carmeuse Lime of
Northern Virginia have reported to the County their intent to apply for industrial access railroad
track funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia's Department of Rail and Public Transportation
in the amount of $450,000.00; and
WHEREAS, O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Carmeuse Lime and Stone of Northern
Virginia has requested that the Board of Supervisors provide a resolution supporting its
application for said funds which are administered by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public
Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County,
Virginia hereby endorses and supports the application of O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company
d/b/a Carmeuse Lime and Stone of Northern Virginia for $450,000.00 in industrial access
railroad track funds; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors hereby makes known its
desire and intent to assist the Commonwealth Transportation Board in providing the maximum
financial assistance to O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Carmeuse Lime and Stone of
Northern Virginia, for the purpose of locating its business, commercial or industrial facility in
Frederick County.
■+
ADOPTED:
This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle, Chairman
Gary W. Dove
Gene E. Fisher
Christopher E. Collins
Gary A. Lofton
Bill M. Ewing
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.
I�
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT
BY THE
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE UTILIZATION OF INDUSTRIAL ACCESS
RAILROAD TRACK FUNDS
The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, in regular meeting on the 23rd day of February
2011, adopted the following:
WHEREAS, O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Carmeuse Lime and Stone of Northern
Virginia has expressed its intent and desire to the Board of Supervisors to locate its commercial
business or industrial operations in Frederick County; and
WHEREAS, O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Carmeuse Lime and Stone of Northern
Virginia and its operation will require rail access; and
WHEREAS, The officials of O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Carmeuse Lime and
Stone of Northern Virginia have reported to the County their intent to apply for industrial access
railroad track funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia's Department of Rail and Public
Transportation in the amount of $450,000.00; and
WHEREAS, O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Carmeuse Lime and Stone of Northern
Virginia has requested that the Board of Supervisors provide a resolution supporting its
application for said funds which are administered by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public
Transportation; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County,
Virginia, hereby endorses and supports the application of O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company
d/b/a Carmeuse Lime and Stone of Northern Virginia for $450,000.00 in industrial access
railroad track funds; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors hereby makes known its
desire and intent to assist the Commonwealth Transportation Board in providing the maximum
financial assistance to O -N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Carmeuse Lime and Stone of
Northern Virginia, for the purpose of locating its business, commercial or industrial facility in
Frederick County.
PDRes#05-11
I�
ADOPTED this 23rd day of February, 2011.
This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shicklc, Chairman Gary A. Lofton
Gary W. Dove
Gene E. Fisher
Christopher E. Collins
PDRes#05-11
Bill M. Ewing
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.
A COPY ATTEST
John R. Riley, Jr.
Frederick County Administrator
From: John Bishopjmailto:jbishop@co.frederick.va.us]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 11:47 AM
To: Karen Taylor
Cc: John Bishop
Subject: RE: Draft - Route 522 Corridor Study 09-13-2010 Comments
1. Page 2-3 and associated graphic on page 4. The future intersection of Tevis and 522 was supposed
to be added
The future intersection of Tevis Street was not scoped to be included in the capacity analysis. The
document does discuss Tevis Street and the future traffic volumes do assume that Tevis Street will be
constructed. No changes were made to the document based on this comment.
2_ Page 5 technically the portion of 522 that is minor arterial is where it heads south from the
intersection with 50. Millwood Pike is a principle arterial per VDOT classification.
Yes, the VDOT Classification shows Millwood Pike as a Principal Arterial. However, the MPO LRP shows
Millwood Pike as a Minor Arteria to the east of I-81. Text was changed in the report to report this
finding.
3. Page 7, paragraph 1 says Frederick road when I think it means to say Frederick County
Text updated to "Frederick County'
4. Figures 2.3,2.4,2.5,2.6, would be improved by road/intersection labels. Same for
3.6,3.7,3.8,3.9,3.10
Road Labels and Route Shields were added to the Traffic Figures.
5. The roadway levels of service shown on page 20 may be confusing to some. They will wonder why
the intersections have marginal or poor ievels of service when the corridor is good. Perhaps some
discussion of the differences between measurement of corridor and intersection levels of service
would be useful.
Paragraph added below Table 2.4 discussing differences between Roadway and Intersection LOS.
�3
6. Page 23 notes that pedestrian facilities are 'lacking in the more rural sections of the study area'.
This wording indicates a deficiency when, in truth, you don't really need dedicated pedestrian
facilities in the rural areas. Multiuse paths or something of the sort would be desirable.
Sentence re -written to omit 'lacking'.
7. Page 24 notes the lack of bicycle facilities along 522. Frederick County's comprehensive plan and
the MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Study call for bicycle facilities in this area so while it's clear
that there aren't any there now, it's important to know that we are planning for it and as properties
develop (such as the walmart coming to the intersection of Tasker and 522) the plan is being
implemented.
This is addressed in the future conditions Multimodal Recommendations. This sections is only for
existing multimodal facilities.
S. Freight section does a good job of pointing out that 522 has significant truck percentages due to
commercial/industrial and the inland port, not to mention the potential for cut through and scale
avoiding traffic. Combine this with the potential for even further increase via expandability of the
inland port and new development as allowed in local comprehensive plans and a case can be made
that removal of the signage on Route 7 and Route 340 in Clarke County that directs inland port
traffic to take Route 7 to 1-81 would create a positive impact on Route 7,1-81, and Route 277 in
Frederick County. This would allow vehicles that are currently being directed away from Route 340
to use 340 and thus remove them from the above noted congested roadways. I know the report
states that inland port is not a huge overall percentage of the trucks on 522 is does account for as
much as 'several hundred truck trips per day'. When you consider that a decent percentage of these
may be using 7,1-81, and 277 and improvement could be made to those roadways by allowing those
trucks to use 340.
Sentence added in the Multimodal Recommendations 'Freight' section for the further investigation of
truck rerouting in Frederick and Clarke County.
9. On page 29, 1 know the access management regulations state 1,760 feet, but dust say 1/3 mile.
Makes more sense to people.
'1/3 mile' added in parentheses.
10. Also on page 29, before noting a safety issue such as puddling or poor drainage, please verify with
VDOT. I expect Jerry would be able to confirm or refute this.
This was an observation during a field review of the corridor. The text doesn't state there is a problem,
just mentions the possibility of drainage issues.
11. Page 32, Frederick County has one Urban Development Area and one Sewer and Water Service
Area. Reword from the plural language.
Reworded to singular language.
12. Page 36, bullet 4 discusses the Tevis street connection and bridge into Winchester as a revenue
sharing project. A portion of this improvement is revenue sharing, but the bridge, connection to
airport road, and connection to the south are funded via a community deveiopment authority (CDA)
which is known as the Russell 150 CDA. Only the connection heading northeast from Russell 150 to
the intersection with 522 is revenue sharing.
Text updated to correct the funding sources of the different pieces of the project.
13. Future conditions section which starts on page 37 still does not include the Tevis intersection with
522. This was among our primary issues with the first draft and its exclusion throws the results for
the Airport Rd/522 intersection into question.
See Comment #1 response.
14. Page 47, the potential inland port in martinsburg would not relieve pressure on the Virginia inland
port. They are separate operations under separate ownerships.
The text states that the planned Martinsburg Inland Port would have the potential to divert some
container traffic from VIP, but is expected to mainly relieve pressure from the Port of Baltimore. No
changes were made to the document based on this comment.
15. Page 48, the county comprehensive plan already calls for the 6 laning that is being recommended.
Worth noting.
Sentence added noting the Comp Plan widening recommendation.
16. Regarding the design principles I would just reiterate what has been previously communicated.
a. Members of our Transportation Committee and Board of Supervisors feel that a number of
the design recommendations are not realistic. They have particular concern over the
median plantings.
b. Members of the Board of Supervisors feel that some of the language is vague and it is
difficult to determine if a suggestion is being made for 522 itself or a connecting street.
Depending upon which is being referred to, their opinions may vary.
The design principles were intended to provide a tool / guidance that the localities could use if they
choose to. They are not 'standards' or legally binding in any way. They aren't implying that median
plantings would be required, but could instead be an option in the design of the 522 corridor. These
design principles are flexible and should not be taken as concrete design plans. The true intention of
these design principles was to provide something that could be referenced and used if the localities
wanted to. The language is somewhat vague for this very reason. They were not developed to tell the
localities what the corridor should look like, or what it will look like in the future.
l�
Spotsylvania County Sidewalk Fund Policy
The County Sidewalk fund was established in 2005 for the construction cost of sidewalks
in residential subdivisions or commercial developments required by the subdivision
ordinance or the design standards manual that are waived during the site plan approval
process. The policy requires the developer to contribute the cost of constructing the
sidewalks to the County in lieu of constructing the sidewalks on site. The County will
have the funds in the future for sidewalk construction, trails or other pedestrian needs as
requested by the Board. The sidewalk funds are deposited in a sidewalk account
established for the voting district that the development is to be constructed.
Procedure
A waiver request is submitted by the applicant in writing. The request shall include the
specifics of the request and justification. The request may occur prior to or during
preliminary plat or site plan. The request is evaluated by staff taking into consideration
the following:
1. whether future road improvements are planned for the area that will damage or
relocate the sidewalk if it is constructed;
2. Whether there are existing sidewalks proximate to the development; and
3. Whether the area is experiencing or is likely to experience pedestrian traffic in the
future.
If the waiver is approved, the developer must submit to the County an engineer's estimate
stamped and sealed by a professional engineer or licensed land surveyor for review. The
engineer's estimate shall include the length and area of sidewalk, quantity of material,
cost of material, and total cost to construct the sidewalk. The County also requires that a
125% contingency fee is added to the final construction cost to cover future higher cost
of materials and mobilization to construct the sidewalk.
The County's Transportation Planner reviews and approves the estimate. Once approved,
the applicant submits a check equal to the amount of the approved estimate and that
check is deposited in the appropriate sidewalk fund.
Expenditure of funds requires Board approval.
1(b