TC 06-25-12 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Transportation Committee
FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation
RE: June 25, 2012 Transportation Committee Meeting
DATE: June 18, 2012
The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, June
25, 2012 in the first floor conference room of the Frederick County Administration Building,
107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia.
AGENDA
1. Transportation Concerns for Route 600
2. Road Resolution Request
3. Project Updates
4. Other
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: Transportation Concerns for Route 600
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.
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.
2
Item 2: Road Resolution Request
As part of the normal system of getting new roadways accepted into the State Highway system,
County staff coordinates with VDOT as they review whether a roadway meets the criteria. Once
everything appears to be in order, a road resolution is forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for
their consideration. In the situation of the attached request, we have a section of roadway in
which this normal process is not working very well.
Milton Ray Drive, in the Rutherford development on Route 11 North, is constructed from the
entrance of FEMA and runs approximately .2 miles past Lowes and across the railroad tracks.
Per proffer, this roadway was constructed to state standards and has since been under bond by
the County pending acceptance to the state system. To date, coordinating staff at VDOT have
indicated it does not meet their standards for acceptance into the state system.
The applicant disagrees with this determination and is asking that Frederick County move ahead
with our road resolution so that VDOT may issue a formal action which they, in turn, would
have the ability to appeal. While this is somewhat different from the process we are used to, it is
the only way to allow the applicant to move forward in their desired process.
Please see the attached request from the applicant, map of the vicinity showing the roadway in
question highlighted in orange, and supporting letters from Target and Lowes.
Staff is seeking a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on whether to adopt a resolution
requesting that VDOT accept the roadway into the State System.
�utner-ri ?rc:ji rossin
Milton Ray Drive
Transportation
Land Development
Environmental
o
S e r v i c e s
a imagination I innovation
May 22, 2012
L MAY 2 4
r
L—P,�rqf-,?hfr. r),.v I
FREDERICK COL04TY
energy Creating results for our clients and benefits for our communities
Mr. Mark R. Cheran
Luning and Subdivision Administrator
Department of Planning and Development
County of Frederick
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202
Winchester, VA 22601
Subject: Street Acceptance of Milton Ray Drive
Dear Mr. Cheran:
I am writing to you on behalf of NV Retail to formally request that the Frederick County staff
process and submit to VDOT the resolution for VDOT to accept Milton Ray Drive into the
state's secondary system. We believe that it is appropriate for the county to advance the process
in that it is county and state requirements and negotiations that caused the road to be proposed
and built as a public road eligible for acceptance into the VDOT system. Our belief is NV Retail
has complied with the requirements as desired and approved by the county and if the county is
not supportive of the road being in the public system, then the county was inappropriate in
their requirements to design and build the road as such.
We believe that VDOT has given the county incorrect guidance on whether this road should be
accepted into the state system. Therefore, after the county resolution is provided, we intend to
appeal any refusal from VDOT to accept the road. We will make this appeal to the District
Administrator consistent with 24V AC30-92-110 as found on the VDOT web page.
Under the Site Plan for Rutherford Crossing plan dated February 2007 and lawfully approved
by Frederick County and VDOT, Merchant Street and portions of Market Street have been
constructed and accepted into the VDOT system. VDOT has declined acceptance of Milton Ray
Drive. It is our understanding the Department has chosen not to accept Milton Ray Drive into
the secondary system based on the lack of public benefit. We first believe the Department is in
error in this conclusion and even if the Department were correct we believe there is sufficient
reason for the local governing body to request the street acceptance prior to the public benefit
being met since, "subject to approval by the district administrator, the public service
requirement may be reduced for individual streets serving state or local economic development
projects."
8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 700
Vienna, Virginia 22182-2624
703.947.3071 . FAX 703.847.0299
email: infoC6vhb.com
www.vhb.com
We believe the road can be accepted into the state secondary system for several reasons;
without any special consideration. Our belief is that there are sufficient users of this street in
that it serves three or more stand alone business. A temporary cul-de-sac has been constructed
on the northwest terminus of this road, serving the adjacent property, the active use for that
property being agriculture. There is also a county owned property accessing Milton Ray Drive,
its use is as a pumping station. Finally, John Milton Ray Drive, in its design and its current
function provides a criticai element in the access and operation of the various independent
stand alone lots and businesses by providing ingress and egress for its customers and also
being the primary means by which large trucks access the back of these businesses. Without
this public road, the independent businesses would have serious logistical problems having to
route large vehicles through parking lots where they would be forced to mix with customer
vehicles and pedestrians. Further, we believe the road provides the connecting segment for
adjacent development should the property use change.
Traffic counts taken the period 5-13 to 5-20 reflect an Average Daily Vehicle count is between
631 and 778 VPD, far in excess of the VDOT minimum 100 VPD.
If VDOT continues to erroneously interpret the public benefit, under 24VAC-92-60, we would
then request VDOT to approve noting that the public service requirements may be reduced for
individual streets serving the state or local economic development projects. Clearly the large
retail facilities such as Target and Lowes, along with the other independent business within this
development, create a significant economic engine and benefit. The economic benefit rationale
alone would be sufficient reason to believe that the public would be better served if John Milton
Ray Drive were maintained by VDOT.
For the above reasons, we make the appeal to you move forward with the county resolution
and process to force VDOT to make a determination and allow us to complete the appeal
process. We invite the opportunity to meet with you further in the immediate future. Your time
in this matter is appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
Z�4_ /�,/ r,�;
Charles K. O'Connell
VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN, INC.
cc: Mr. Jack Waghorn
i1ft
Impr ming Home, 1mpr0vernent
1605 Curtis Bridge Road, Wilkesboro NC 28697 336-658-4000
Acquisition Department
June 5, 2012
Mr. Mark Cheran
Zoning Administrator
County of Frederick
107 North Kent Street
Suite 202
Winchester VA 22601
RE: Milton Ray Drive
Dear Mr. Cheran,
We understand that Jack Waghorn on behalf of Rutherford Crossing LLC has been in
contact with you requesting the County's assistance with V -DOT in the acceptance of
Milton Ray Drive into the V -DOT system.
Milton Ray Drive is essential to the operation of our business and should be designated
as a V -DOT maintained road. Our company utilizes this road for deliveries and customer
traffic.
This letter is to provide our endorsement of Mr. Waghorn's request with the hope that
V -DOT will take this road into their system and the County will support this request.
Please feel free to give me a call if you any questions or comments.
Sincerely
Sam,_ACo�
Sam McCoy
Director of Real Estate
Lowe's Companies, Inc.
540-776-0090
Monday, June 11, 2012
Mr. Mark Cheran
Zoning Administrator
County of Frederick
107 North Kent St
Suite 202
Winchester VA 22601
Re: ut4��
I.
TARGET
Dear Mr. Cheran,
We understand that Jack Waghorn on behalf of Rutherford Crossing LLC has been in contact
with you requesting the County's assistance with V -DOT in the acceptance of Milton Ray Dr into
the V -DOT system.
This letter is to provide our endorsement of Mr. Waghorn's request with the hope that V -DOT
will take this road into their system for the purpose of using and maintaining it for vehicular
access by the general public and that the County will support this request.
This letter shall not be construed as an approval pursuant to, or modification of, the Operation
and Easement Agreement between Target Corporation and Rutherford Farm, LLC, dated July
19, 2007, and recorded in book 070011908 at page 0280 in the county recorder's office at
Frederickson County, Virginia, including all amendments thereto.
Yours truly,
Jacob Torgerson
Real Estate Negotiator,-'/"
Target Corporation
Projieny '.mvain, o:,:r.- pA)U N"r, All „9LttltiiN ti:74403
Diane Walsh
From: John Bishop
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:50 PM
To: Diane Walsh
Subject: FW: Rutherford Crossing - Milton Ray Drive - Courtesy InspectionMon 6/11/2012 12:43 PM
From: Smith, Matthew, P.E. (VDOT) [ma iIto: Matthew. Smith @vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:49 PM
To: John Bishop
Subject: FW: Rutherford Crossing - Milton Ray Drive - Courtesy InspectionMon 6/11/2012 12:43 PM
Matthew B. Smith, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
VDOT - Land Development
Clarke, Frederick, Shenandoah & Warren Counties
14031 Old Valley Pike
Edinburg, VA 22824
Phone # (540) 984-5615
Fax # (540) 984-5607
From: Funkhouser, Rhonda (VDOT) On Behalf Of Hoffman, Gregory
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 12:43 PM
To: 'mcheran@co.frederick.va.us'
Cc: Smith, Matthew, P.E. (VDOT); Ingram, Lloyd (VDOT); Hoffman, Gregory (VDOT)
Subject: Rutherford Crossing - Milton Ray Drive - Courtesy InspectionMon 6/11/2012 12:43 PM
As requested, VDOT performed a courtesy inspection on Milton Ray Drive on Friday, June 8, 2012. The
following items were found to be in need of repairs:
1. All cracked curb & gutter will need to be replaced.
2. There are areas in the roadway that have settled and are holding water. These areas will need to be repaired
by removing pavement, recompacting subgrade, up to grade then relay plant mix according to plans. The
remainder of the pavement will be monitored.
3. Railroad crossing will require signals, gates and signage.
4. An overview of the storm drains was performed. At this time, they appear to be acceptable.
5. At the time Milton Ray Drive is eligible for inclusion into the State's Secondary Road System, a more detailed
review will need to be performed.
Should you have any questions, do not hestiate to contact me.
Gregory T. Hoffinan, Permit Specialist
Clarke, Frederick, Shenandoah & Warren Counties
VA Department of Transportation — Land Development
2275 Northwestern Pike
Winchester, VA 22603
Phone #(540) 535-1824
Fax #(540) 535-1846
C10MIM"ONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219-2000
David S. Ekern, P. E.
COMMISSIONER
November 16, 2009
Mr. David S. Patalita
NVRetail
8230 Leesburg Pike, Suite 500
Vienna, Virginia 22182
Subject: NVRetail's Rutherford Crossing Shopping Center
Routes I 1 and I-81, Winchester, Virginia
Dear Mr. Patalita:
It was indeed a pleasure to meet with you at the IHOP at Zions Crossroads (I-64) on Tuesday
morning of last week to discuss your development. I repeat my thoughts shared then that I think
we may be able to resolve the issue of acceptance regarding the road beside the Lowe's store but
my boss, Robert Hofrichter, has pointed out a few concerns that we did not discuss and those set
out the circumstances under which the street might be accepted.
Attached is an annotated version of the rendering your Leasing Director, Judd Bostian, provided
to me at your request, which you will want to reference.
I also encourage your reference to the attached excerpts of provisions of the 2005 Subdivision
Street Requirements, which govern VDOT's consideration of the streets in this development, in
which you will find the statement: "internal streets in these complexes (i.e. retail shopping
complexes) do not normally qualify for addition to the system because their operation and
maintenance are considered to be a responsibility of the owner, who stands to profit, rather than
the tenant or customer." NVRetail, which appears to be an owner leasing out storefronts, is duly
responsible for the upkeep of its internal infrastructure. VDOT was able to grant an exception to
the above provision thanks only to the presence of the FEMA office, a critical public services site.
However, Links B -Y -Z are associated with the FEMA office operations and facilitate traffic
movements associated with the signalized intersection at Node A. Because of this factor, VDOT
will consider these links favorably for acceptance; provided their construction is adequate and all
other SSR requirements for acceptance are meet.
Link C -C 1, however, was the focus of our discussions and the fact remains the service it
currently provides is exclusively to NVRetail. While that service is to Lowes, a retail outlet,
serving its customers and as a drive to the back of the store to receive shipments — the road at this
point is a part of NVRetails internal infrastructure and associated with its lease of that property.
However, as I indicated at our meeting that link might be considered a "stub street" facilitating
development of the adjoining, undeveloped property across the rail road tracks. There are
additional concerns with that approach that must be resolved before we can commit to accepting
that roadway under the following alternative approaches.
In order for Link C -C 1 to be considered further for acceptance:
1. To be considered as a stub street, the land beyond the tracks must be a mixed use
development and not primarily retail, otherwise service by the street is purely retail oriented
and inappropriate for acceptance.
2. Alternately, if the land use is completely retail, acceptance could be justified if the
service provided by the street became that of a through street, providing travel circulation
to another, existing VDOT maintained street. With the formalization of such a proposal,
including bonding at the County level, the street might be considered for acceptance.
In all of these scenarios, an agreement from the rail company is necessary, as required by the
2005 Subdivision Street Requirements.
These considerations are consistent with our discussion on Tuesday, although they do add some
complications I failed to point out, outlining parameters that affect our ability to accept the street
(Link C -C I).
I must also tell you that an appeals process exists regarding street development matters that some
in VDOT might feel was circumvented by our meeting, leaving out the role of the District
Administrator. However, as questions regarding public service lie with my office rather than the
District Administrator and as our discussion focused on public service options rather than an
actual appeal, our discussion was not inappropriate. Ultimately, the addition of a qualifying street
must still be coordinated with the Residency Office and the County Board.
If you have further questions, I will be happy to attempt an answer.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth M. Smith
Subdivision Streets Requirements and
Highway Systems Inventory Manager
Attachment Regarding: NVRetail's Rutherford Crossing Shopping Center
Routes 11 and I-81, Winchester, Virginia
Excerpt from the 2005 Subdivision Street Requirements a State Regulation having the force of Law.
24 VAC 30-9t-50. Service requirements.
A. Service consideration. A street may only be accepted by the department for maintenance as part
of the secondary system of state highways if it renders sufficient public service to justify
expending public funds for its subsequent maintenance.....
B. Criteria. For the purpose of these requirements, public service may include, but is not necessarily
limited to, streets meeting one or more of the following situations:
1. Serves three or more occupied units of varied proprietorship with a unit being a single-family
residence, owner -occupied apartment, owner -occupied residence in a qualifying
manufactured home park, a stand-alone business, or single business entity occupying an
individual building, or other similar facility.....
2. Constitutes a connecting link between other streets that qualify from the point of
public service.
3. Provides an extension of a street to the subdivision boundary (stub street) to facilitate the
continuity of possible adjacent development, if required by local ordinance.....
4. Serves as access to schools, churches, public sanitary landfills, transfer stations, public
recreational facilities, or similar facilities open to public use.
5. Serves at least 100 vehicles per day generated by an office building, industrial site, or
other similar nonresidential land use in advance of the occupancy of three or more such
units of varied proprietorship.....
6. Constitutes a part of the network of streets envisioned in the transportation plan or
element of a county's comprehensive plan that, at the time of acceptance, serves an active
traffic volume not less than 100 vehicles per day.
Attachment Regarding: NVRetail's Rutherford Crossing Shopping Center
Routes 11 and I-81, Winchester, Virginia
C. Apartment and retail shopping complexes. A through street that serves a shopping center or rental
apartment building may be considered for maintenance as part of the secondary system of state
highways if it is deemed by the department to provide a public service. However, internal streets
in these complexes do not normally qualify for addition to the system because their operation and
maintenance are considered to be a responsibility of the owner, who stands to profit, rather than
the tenant or customer.
However, a street that serves as the principal access to rental apartment buildings may be
considered to provide public service if unrestricted public use is permitted and
maintenance continuity is practical.
2. Entrance streets and the internal traffic circulation system of shopping centers and
apartment complexes qualify only if more than three property owners are served and the
street is separated from the parking areas.
3. Streets serving manufactured home parks may only be considered if the residents of the
park own the land occupied in fee simple.
D. Special exceptions. There may be other sets of circumstances that could constitute public service.
Consequently, any request for clarification regarding unclear situations should be made in writing
to the resident engineer. The resident engineer should then consult the Director of the Local
Assistance Division (sic. These duties now under the Maintenance Division Director.) or other
designee (sic. includes Rob Hofrichter and Ken Smith) appointed by the commissioner for resolution.
VAC 30-91-110.M.4 Railroad crossings.
a. Short -arm gates with flashing signals, flashing signals alone, or other protective
devices as deemed appropriate by the department shall be provided at any at -grade
crossing of an active railroad by a subdivision street.
Crossings of railroad right-of-way are subject to the requirements of the railroad.
Subdivision streets to be accepted by the department for maintenance as part of
the secondary system of state highways that cross railroad right-of-way will only
be considered if the protective measures outlined under this section have been
fully installed and an agreement between the railroad, the developer and the local
governing body has been executed. Prior to execution, such agreements shall be
presented to the department for consideration in consultation with the
Department of Rail and Public Transportation.
Item 3: Project Updates
Staff will be updating the Committee on the following projects.
1. Snowden Bridge Boulevard economic development access project
2. Carroll Industrial Park economic development access project
3. Route 1 I North Revenue Sharing
4. Renaissance Drive Revenue Sharing, Phase I and II
C!
Item 4: Other