TC 08-27-12 Meeting MinutesTO: Board of Supervisors
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
MEMORANDUM
FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation
RE: Transportation Committee Report for Meeting of August 27, 2012
DATE: September 4, 2012
The Transportation Committee met on August 27, 2012 at 8:30 a.m.
Members Present Members Absent
Chuck DeHaven (voting) Mark Davis (liaison Middletown)
Gene Fisher (voting)
James Racey (voting)
Gary Oates (liaison PC)
Bryon Grigsby (voting)
Lewis Boyer (liaison Stephens City)
***Items Requiring Action***
2. Dairy Corner Lane Proposal
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
Staff advised the Committee that VDOT has recently been approached by a citizen
requesting that they consider modifying the intersection of Dairy Corner Lane and Valley
Mill Road to allow only right turn entering traffic to use that intersection, while requiring
other traffic movements to take advantage of Dowell J. Circle. Feedback from the Sheriff's
office indicated support of the project. As yet, requests for feedback from the schools
division have not been answered. Please see attached map for reference.
Motion: Mr. Fisher made a motion that was seconded by Mr. Grigsby to recommend the
Board of Supervisors request that the first block of Dairy Corner from Dowell J. Circle to
Valley Mill Road be converted to one way westbound.
Motion passed unanimously.
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
3. Removing Portion of Golds Orchard Road from the State System
Staff has recently been contacted by a representative of Mr. Cordel Watt regarding the
public road within property he owns on Golds Orchard Road. He would like to remove the
portion projecting into his property in order to enable him to secure his property. No other
property owners are impacted or landlocked by this action. Attached please find a map of
the area with the portion of Golds Orchard Road that would remain in the system
highlighted. Also attached is the VDOT process for removing a roadway from the state
system.
Motion: Mr. Racey made a motion seconded by Mr. Grigsby to recommend that the
Board authorize staff to begin the process of removal.
Motion passed unanimously.
4. Hayfield Road
Please see background information below. To date, the requested improvements have been
vetted out and found to not meet VDOT standards.
Motion: Mr. Fisher made a motion seconded by Mr. Racey that the Board should request
no changes at this time.
Motion passed unanimously.
Below please find the information presented last time this issue was discussed. At that
meeting, staff was requested to seek input from VDOT regarding the site distance concerns
that were raised. VDOT has had staff measure the distance and finds it to be within state
standards. Staff is now seeking recommendation from the Board on three items as follows:
1. Speed limit on Hayfield Road.
2. Left turn lane from westbound Route 50 to southbound Hayfield Road.
3. Site distance at the intersection of Route 50 and Hayfield Road.
As previously discussed at this Committee, the County has received concerns from Mr.
Bruce Sigurdson regarding the length of the left turn lane from Route 50 west onto Route
600 SB (Hayfield Road), and also regarding the speed limit on Route 600.
Staff has conducted research with other agencies on the issue and learned the following:
VDOT — VDOT reviewed both issues and determined that a speed study was unlikely to
yield a recommendation of a change in speed limit in this area. In addition, VDOT
determined that a warrants analysis would be borderline as to whether lengthening the left
turn lane would be warranted.
2
Frederick County Schools — I spoke with Mr. Puglisi, who is in charge of the school's bus
fleet. He indicated that they are always supportive of more room in the turning lane. He
also noted that there was an issue with site distance in this location. He did not have an
issue with the speed limit.
Frederick County Sherriff"s Office — I spoke with Lieutenant Mike Richardson and he did
not have an issue with the speed limit on that roadway, but noted that they had been giving
it increased attention due to some citizen concerns in the area. Regarding the need for a
turn lane, he wasn't sure it was really necessary. When asked about the site distance issue
brought up by Mr. Puglisi, he thought that was a very valid concern.
5. Other
Please see the attached resolution for the Board's Consideration. Transportation Committee
member and Supervisor Mr. Gene Fisher has been working with VDOT and staff for some
time to try and resolve the issue of advance warning for some of the high speed traffic
signals in Frederick County. It is the recommendation of the Committee that the Board
adopt the attached resolution which would then be forwarded to the appropriate authorities.
In addition, the Committee has recommended that the first two intersections to be
considered should be Sulphur Springs (Route 655) at Route 50 and Marple Road (Route
654) at Route 522.
***Items Not Requiring Action***
1. BDAS Committee Update
Staff updated the Committee on the status of the Business Development Advancement
Study and sought feedback from the Committee.
Mr. Racey noted that the study takes good advantage of the existing highway system to give
business access while separating business traffic from residential. He also noted that this
was preferable to communities that only use existing interior infrastructure. Mr. Grigsby
asked why Tech industries were not focused on more heavily. Mr. Lawrence noted that
analysis shows manufacturing to be a more stable use likely to stay in the community longer
and offer better bang for the buck. VDOT questioned the use of MPO for traffic analysis by
wondering what happens when a more intensive use shows up for rezoning than was
previously studied. Staff noted that if what was requested was more intense than previously
agreed to with the land owner, then additional traffic study would still be needed. Mr.
DeHaven noted that there are a number of questions that still need to be answered before
this can move forward. Among those questions would be how to manage this program and
those who did or did not participate in it equitably. He is also interested in gaining broader
input from the private sector.
9
•
Y-
i } { +, • _ _ . qlf, max,
�w
41
A �fy
1 ' Y •
.. s
SRD 211/93 — e PrinUng June 2002
ABANDONMENT OF J3 ROAD FROM THE SECONDARY SYS ENAI OF 8TATE .L1'1,Gj41=YAC'.
" INDER 33.1-151 OR 33A_i66,,r;0DE`0F VI G11431 a
The power to abandon a secondary road is vested entirely In the Board of Supervisors of the various counties or equilvalent local governing body
Notes:
Has a new road been built
(het sorvs;s the same cMzem as
were served by the old road?
Yes
i
FHas the new road been added to the
condary system of state highways?
I
Yes 1
NO
t
The old road should
be abandoned, per
§33.1-155, CN and
the new road added,
In that order, as part
of the some resolution
adopted by the LGS.
BOS adopts resolution declaring the
old road abandoned to the extend
altered, per §33.1-155, CN.
Specht wording may be required If the
addition hes been compfuted. Contact
Secondary Roads.
Hes the BOS provided the prescribed Notice of intent to Abandon road by:
❑ Postfing Notice at Courthouse or 3 places along the road to bu abandoned, AND
❑ Publlatting Ncticu In 2 iszues of a local newspaper, AND
❑ Notifying the CTB/Commissioner of the proposed abandonment?
(See Notes 1 and 2) 1
Note: A public hearing a ragUhW 11, within 30 days following publlcatlon of
the Notice of Intent to abandon the road, one Is requested by:
❑ Any dozen that uses the road OR +
❑ The CTB (See Notes 1 and 2)
Yea No
4
rREQUIREMENTS NOT SATISFIED
Has a Publr'e Hearing mOnts answered NO must be satisfied
been raquestad7 the afthratIva or the abandonment
dismissed.
No �a — Y�� NO VDOT action required.
I
i Has/dId the Board of Supervisors: i
i
i ❑ Published notice of time and place In two Issues j
1
Of newspaper prior to the hearing, AND a _ _Nor
1 ❑ Notified the CTB/Commissloner
(See Notes 1 and 21
Based on avallable Information, has
BOS determined abandonment of the
facility Is warranted because:
• No public necessity Is served? OR
• Current safety and w elfaru of the
public is best served?
Tha SOS should enter an order on IF,
minutes dismissing thu abandonment
within four (4) months after the public
hearing or after tha and of the 30 day
public notice advertising the BOS Intent
to abandon the facility.
NO VDOT action required.
Citing §33.1-151, CN, the BOS must enter an order of abandonment in Its minutes within
• four (4) month6 following the public hearing or
• end of the 30 -day period following the notice of public hearing.
See the Administrative Action Chart for Abandonments, Diacontinuances, and Project Adjustments
The Administrative Actions Chart cornplameMs this flow chart, detailing actions and time frame requirements
imposed by status or policy on the official bodies and offices involved with the abandonment process.
1, The Department of Game and Iniand Fisheries is to be notified when the proposed abandonment Involves a public landing.
2. The Resident Engineer is to notify the Secondary Roads Engineer Immediately upon learning of efforts to abandon a
secondary road, advising of the circumstances concerning the potential abandonment, and his recommendations.
3. When the road proposed to be abandoned lies in more than one county, the BOS of each county Involved must agree on the
proposed abandonment. (As a practical matter, th)s applies to §33.1-151 and §33.1-155, but Is cited only under §33.1-151.)
Ft. Any appeal from a BOS' order of abandonment under §33.1-151 shall le to the circuit court of the county pursuant to §33.1-
152.
5. As a practical matter, when the abandonment (or discontinuance of an old road is associated Wih the construction of anew
road that serves the same citizens as the old, in the LGB's resolution, the old road Is ordered abandoned before the new
road is added.
6. Abandonment of a road has the effect of removing the road from the public domain as a public way.
7. When public service Is provided, but Is not sufficient to Justify maintenance as a public expense, a discontinuance, pursuant
to §33.1-150, should be considered.
Page 47
\ TM. 25-A-63
\ TIMBER RIDGE FRUIT FARM LLC
f
�� INST ¢060004J40
\E`sq1RS N_2547'28'"E
929.48'T.M 37-A-74
UMBER RIDGE FRUIT
FARM LLC
INST. 4060004340
0.5 MILESt
TO VA.
PRIMARY
ROUTE 259
1�
Z�
'K
(40.'00,
IPF WITH
AL UMINUM
CAP
IPF WITH $3931.
AL UMINUM
CAP _ p0
394411 -
VA. SEC. SOS 5B' IPF
o ROUTE 708
GOLD FRAME W
o ORCHARD ROAD CA -BIN
o; (GRA VEL SURFACE) A
30 " PRESCRIPT/ VE ,X a
,.,h, /-EASEMENT
END OF STATE ---1 IRF
-
MA/NTEMANCE SIGN
5 `PJ1 100
�pR
LEGEND
IRF - IRON RDD FOUND
IRS - IRON ROD SET
1Pf - IRON PIPE FOUND
SSF - SET STONE FOUND
- > -- FENCE
CREEK, STREAM, RUN
T.M. 26-A-62
TIMBER RIDGE FRUIT
FARM LLC
INST )eO60004240
N 39'34'18" E
205.12'
IRS
TAX MAP 37-A - 73
o i _ 106.091 ACRES
(INCL UDING 0.7 ACRES
N W1 THIN THE PRESCRIPT/ VE o
o EASEMENT OF VA. SEC.
Z ROUTE 708)
D.B. 974 PG. 411 SSFP
W REF D. B. 57 PG. 505 651.41 ' 1 T M 27-A-15
~ 4 REF. D. B 63 PG 158 JAMES W CRAIG &
REF. CHANCERY REMAINS PAMELA L. CRAIG
cn W �' /NST. ,¢000011018
2 INDEX 11858-007 OF W1RF
Q W FENCE
PROPERTY LINE PER N 1
N PROPERTY LINE PER
DIVISION OF THE LANDS RICHARD U GOOOE
OF ROBERT MUSE
CHANCERY INDEX p858-007 cn SURVEY
115 DA TED MA Y 6" 1955
�- SSF S �_�� D. 8.572 PG 478
FL Ow IRS 931 OSq" 4,
S
TM 38-A -8 �h�y\ ¢42�;g,
JAMES' A. COOTS
& REGINA COOTS I TM
INST yV70013483 / LESLIE WILLIAM 1 IRS
-
WHITA CRE
INST. If'050005793 116"" MARK£U
HICKORY f
CRAPHIC SCALE T.M 38-A-5 / T.M. 38 -A -IA
0, 500' 1000' CHARLFS K RO-SALFE ELLIOTT,
WILLIAMS ET AL
— � D.5. 222 Q. B. 87 PG 795
SCALE: I "= 500' PG 129
BOUNDARY SURVEY �Tt� f,
OF THE LANDS OF ��P �,
LINDA L. BOULDER
AND JOEL C. BOULDER o�
DEED BOOK 974 PAGE 411 v v
BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT S.W. Marsh
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Lac. No. 001843
DRAWN BY. ✓TG DWG NAME. 8974-BDS PLAT SHEET 3 OF 3 4Np Rv�y
Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C.
` 560 NORTH LOUDOUN STREET WINCHESTER" VIRGINIA 22601 DATE: 05/06/2011
JJJ PHONE (540) 667-0468 FAX (540) 667-0469
EMAIL office&norshondlegge. corn SCALE.' 1 " = 500'
•�
.
yam,
REQUEST FOR ADVANCED
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARNING DEVICES
WHEREAS, Advanced Traffic Signal Warning Devices (i.e. signage with flashing lights
warning motorists of the pending change of a traffic light) are in place in numerous Virginia
localities; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia continues to install ATSWD devices in other
localities; and
WHEREAS, several requests have been directed to the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) for the installation of said signage within Frederick County; and
WHEREAS, specific location for improvements have been requested of VDOT to no avail; and
WHEREAS, the Shawnee District representative to the Board of Supervisors requested the
Transportation Committee of Frederick County identify specific locations for the installation of
these improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Committee of Frederick County considered this request and
draft resolution at its August 27, 2012 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Committee forwarded its recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors
officially request that VDOT implement the ATSWD for signalized intersections as designated
by the Transportation Committee of Frederick County; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a true copy of this resolution be delivered to the Staunton
District Office of VDOT and the Edinburg Residency.
ADOPTED this day of September, 2012.
VOTE:
Richard C. Shickle
Christopher E. Collins
Gene E. Fisher
Ross P. Spicer
Resolution No.:
Gary A. Lofton
Bill M. Ewing
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.
John R. Riley, Jr.
Frederick County Administrator