TC 04-28-14 Meeting MinutesCOUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation
RE: Transportation Committee Report for Meeting of April 28, 2014
DATE: May 7, 2014
The Transportation Committee met on April 28. 2014 at 8:30 a.m.
Members Present Members Absent
Chuck DeHaven (voting) Mark Davis (liaison Middletown)
James Racey (voting) Christopher Collins (voting)
Gene Fisher (voting)
Lewis Boyer (liaison Stephens City)
Gary Oates (liaison PC)
* * *Items Requiring Action * * *
1. Welcoming Signage
FAX: 540/665-6395
One of the recommendations of the recent business friendly committee work was to
recommend that welcoming signage be placed at key entrances to Frederick County.
For signage along primary routes such as Route 522, Route 50, or Route 11, the process is
fairly simple. The County would need to design the signage and place it in accordance with
VDOT standards and practices and with a VDOT permit. Attached please find the VDOT
guidelines as well as a memorandum of support from Mr. Riley which includes example
signage.
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
For signage along I-81, the process is somewhat more complicated. VDOT does not allow
location of such signage within the limited access right-of-way so alternative methods must
be evaluated. To utilize an existing billboard, the cost would be approximately $600 per
month in addition to what the cost would be to create and install the signage itself. Staff
would recommend that the agency doing the signage cooperate with property owners
neighboring the I-81 right-of-way to purchase or occupy enough land to place and maintain
a sign. This can be accomplished with a conditional use permit and would allow for greater
variability and likely a more attractive signage design. Actual cost of this option would be
highly variable depending upon agreements reached with property owners and final signage
design.
In addition to this material staff and VDOT noted that signage cannot be placed in the
median.
Motion was made by Mr. Racey and Seconded by Mr. Fisher to recommend that the Board
direct the EDA to proceed with signage on the primary routes and to further investigate the
options (rented billboard vs. county owned sign) and to include consideration of the water
tower. Motion passed unanimously.
***Items Not Requiring Action***
2. Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Plan (appearing as separate agenda item)
The Interstate and Primary Plans are unchanged while the Secondary Plan has been updated
to reflect projects that have been or are in the process of being completed on the scheduled
hardsurfacing list as well as add new projects to the unscheduled list for hardsurfacing.
Additional funding is not available that would allow any projects to be promoted from the
unscheduled to the scheduled list.
Motion to recommend approval was made by Mr. Racey and seconded by Mr. Fisher.
3. Intersection of Tasker Road and Crosskeys Blvd.
Staff has received a request from Mrs. Jorie Martin who serves as the property manager for
the Musket Ridge subdivision. The residents of Musket Ridge have requested that a left
turn lane be installed from Tasker Road onto Crosskeys Boulevard. Staff has attached
graphics of the intersection for reference. Staff contacted Captain Heflin of the Sheriff's
office and he indicated that there are regular issues caused in this location by the lack of a
turn lane and that the installation would be a positive improvement. Accident data has also
been requested from VDOT.
Staff would recommend that the Committee request an evaluation from VDOT's traffic
engineering division that analyze the issue, develop a cost estimate for the improvement,
and evaluate the competitiveness of the project for a safety grant.
The committee directed staff to continue on the course that they had recommended.
4. Private Streets in the R5 Zoning District (appearing under separate agenda item)
Staff provided the minutes of the DRRC as well as a letter from Mr. Lawson and noted that
no other new materials had been received. Staff further noted that the concerns raised by
DRRC were very similar to those raised at Transportation.
Supervisor Wells, several residents of the Shenandoah Development, and the applicant were
present and requested that even if the Transportation Committee did not have a
recommendation that they forward this item to the Board of Supervisors without one.
Motion by Mr. Racey and seconded by Mr. Fisher to forward the request to the Board
without a transportation committee recommendation.
5. 6 Year Improvement Program Public Hearing
Staff noted to the Committee that on April 29, 2014 the Commonwealth Transportation
Board would be holding a public hearing on the Draft 6 Year Improvement Program. Staff
outlined concerns with the draft which had been previously covered with Mr. Shickle and
Mr. Riley. The committee concurred with the concerns and the resulting comments that
were made are below.
Frederick County would like to note our appreciation of the expansion of the revenue sharing
program and note our success in that area. I would particularly like to emphasize how Frederick
County's use of the public private partnership within the scope of the revenue sharing program has
been very successful.
Noted the positive progress on exit 310 and Route 277.
Regarding project funding we would like to note that we waited a long time for significant funding
of those projects and that pattern of funding reminds us in Frederick County how important it is
that the next significant spending item is carefully chosen.
In the draft plan there is 9M on the exit 313 interchange. $3-3.5M is for the interchange study.
Remainder seems to be seed money for the next project.
If that seed money is for the redecking then we are fully supportive of that project which is much
needed for the safety of the traveling public.
Frederick County does not believe that this is the best project to be the next major project in our
However, if something more is envisioned by VDOT I would caution them and the CTB that
region. I would note that extending Route 37 from exit 310 to Route 522 would be a much more
regionally significant project. This facility will offer much needed relief to exit 307, exit 313, and
offer significantly improved access to vehicles accessing the Virginia Inland Port. Port expansion
has been a key planning item in Virginia for some time now and cannot afford to be overlooked
here.
As I noted earlier, major projects do not often come to our part of the state. HB 2313 certainly
helps that and gives us cause to be optimistic. However it remains critical that when major projects
are up for funding that they are very carefully chosen and that local planning and priorities are
considered and local officials are involved.
6. Other
JB/pd
b.. No signs shall ye erected that would restrict sight distance, or are dose to
highway warning and directional signs;
c. Signs regarding forest gyres should be placed by fire wardens; and
d. Signs shah be maintained by the Department of Forestry.
In all cases, the forest warden is to coordinate the desired location of these signs
with the district administrator's designee prior to placement.
2. Garden week. ;"hese signs are erected and removed by employees of VDOT
The. appropriate committee of the Garden Club of Virginia will designate the
garens and places that are to be officially opened during Garden Week and
notify the district administrator's designee accordingly, who will ensure the
appropriate placement of these signs.
3. Roadside acknowledgement. These signs acknowledge the name and logo of
businesses, organizations, communities, or individuals participating in the
landscape of a segment of the right-of-way in accordance with the
Comprehensive Roadside Management Program (ser 24VAC30-151-760). As
the landscaping is accomplished under a land use permit, the signs are
considered to be covered by that permit.
4. Rescue squad, These signs are fabricated, erected, and maintained by VDOT.
The signs may be used on the approaches to the rescue squad headquarters as
shown in the Virginia Supplement to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (see 24VAC30-151-760).
5. Fire station. These signs are fabricated, erected, and maintained by VDOT.
The signs may be used on the approaches to fire station headqua,ier s as shown
in the Virginia Supplement to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (see
24VAC30-151-760).
6. Bird sanctuary. Upon receipt of a request from a town or cite, VDOT will
fabricate and erect these signs, at the expense of the municipality, at the
corporate limits of the town or city under the municipality name sign as shown in
the Virginia Supplement to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (see
24VAC30-151-760). In order for a municipality to be designated as a bird
sanctuary, the municipality must pass a resolution to that effect. The municipality
shall be responsible for maintenance of bird sanctuary signs.
7. Historical highway markers. Information regarding the historical highway
marker program may be obtained from the Virginia Department of Historic
Resources. Applications for historical highway markers shall be obtained from
and submitted to the Virginia Department of Historic resources.
FJ. The district administrator's designee may authorize the placement of the following
miscellaneous signs within right-ofway under the auspices of a single use permit:
1 Locality identification or "welcome to" signs. Requests for locality identification
or "welcome to" signs to be located within nonlimited access right -of way. These
signs shall not be placed on limited access right-of-way. Locality identification or
"welcome to" signs that interfere with roadway safety, traffic capacity, or
maintenance shall not be permitted. A permit application requesting placement of
a locality identification or "welcome to" sign within the right-of-way must be
accompanied by a formal resolution from the local governing body or a letter from
the chief executive officer of the local government. Such signs shall meet all
VDOT breakaway requirements (see Road Design Manuai, 24VAC30-151-760)
or be erected outside of the clear zone. No advertising shall be placed on these
30
signs. The local governing body shall oe responsible for maintenance of the
locality s identification or "welcome to" signs in perpetuity.
2. VDOT may authorize any individual, group, local government, and other
entities to place storm drain: pollution prevention markers or stenciling on VDOT
storm drain inlet structures accessible by pedestrian facilities. A local
government, through coordination with the district administrator's designee, may
apply for a countywide permit to enable this type of activity of behalf of clubs
citizens groups, and other entities. The permit alpplication miust include, at a
rninimgum, a graphic sample or samples of the proposed markers, structure
locations and a cornerehensive list of streets, if o wide distri;'ution of marker
placernenI is anticipated. Stencil measurements shell not exceed 15" i- x 20" W.
3. VDOT may authorize a local government to install "no loitering" signs within
the right-of-way. The district administrator's designee shall determine the
appropriate location for these signs.
s14�/� i;1' '• +til . OrEiamental posits, !r4A`fu, residential aw:. cammerciaj
t titig s. or oth r" non,.i°ansportaLinn-eeiai.e elements.
Ornamental posts, walls, residentiai and commercial development identification
signs, or other nontransportation elements such as pedestrian oriented trash cans, or
any combination of these, that do not interfere with roadway safety, traffc capacity or
maintenance may be authorized ;ander the auspices of a single use permit. These
nontransporiatiort related elements shall not be placed on limited access rights-of-way.
Requests for the placement of ornamental posts, walls, residential .and commercial
development identification signs, or other nontransportation related elements, or any
combination of these: may be permitted as authorized by the district administrator's
designee. Permit applications requesting placement of ornamental posts, walls,
residential and commercial development identification signs, other nontransportaiion
related elements, or any combination of these, within the right-of-way must be
accompanied by documentation indicating the issuar:ce of all required approvals and
permissions from the local jurisdictional authority. Such ornamental posts, walls,
residential and commercial development identification signs; and other nontransportation
related elements shall meet all VDOT breakaway requirements (see Roars Design
Manual, 24VAC30-151-760) or be erected outside of the clear zone. No advertising shall
be placed on these nontransportation related elements permitted within the right-of-way.
The permittee shrill be responsible for maintenance of these nontransportation related
elements in perpetuity.
j VAw30-4151-691,. Outdoor advertising adjaca° t to tb e right-of-way.
Permits for outdoor advertising located off the right-of-way are obtained through the
roadside management section at any VDOT district office or the Maintenance Division in
accordance with Chapter 7 (§ 33.1-351 et seq.) of Title 33.1 of the Code of Virginia.
Selective pruning permits for outdoor advertising shall be issued in accordance with §
33.1-371.1 of the Code of Virginia.
24VAC3045,1-600. PedestrirarE and bicycle facilities.
The installation of sidewalks, steps, curb .ramps, shared use paths, pedestrian
underpasses and overpasses within right-of-way may be authorized under the auspices
of a single use permit. VDOT shall maintain those facilities that meet the requirements of
the Commonweafth Transportation Board's Policy for }ntegrating Bicycle and Pedestrian:
Accommodations (see 24VAC30-.151-760). The maintenance of sidewalks, steps, curb
ramps, shared use paths, pedestrian underpasses and overpasses not meeting these
:s 1
COUNTY of FREDERICK
John R. Riley, Jr.
County Administrator
540/665-5666
MEMORANDUM Fax 540/667-0370
E-mail:
jri1ey@co.frederick.va.us
TO:
Transportation Committee
FROM:
John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator
SUBJECT:
Signage Placement Along Major Routes Entering Frederick County
DATE:
April 8, 2014
The Frederick County Economic Development Authority would like to install signage along the
major routes entering Frederick County (i.e. Routes 7, 11, 50, and 522) as away of establishing
Frederick County's identity and promoting the county as a business destination. This initiative
was one of the phase I recommendations taken from the County's business friendly initiative.
The Authority would like to see this signage placed within the median of the divided highways
rather than on the shoulder, as this placement would draw attention to the signage.
At the Authority's March 20, 2014 meeting, the members voted to forward this item to the
Transportation Committee for guidance on the structure of the signs, placement, and how
VDOT might work with the County to accomplish this objective.
The Authority continues to work on the design and messaging for these signs, but would like to
have the Transportation Committee begin looking at this proposal. Following the Transportation
Committee's consideration of this item, the Authority would like to receive a recommendation so
it can be incorporated into the final report that will be considered by the Board of Supervisors.
You will find attached some sample signage showing metal signs, medium density overlay panel,
and high density urethane foam.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
JRR/j et
Attachment
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601
EXAMPLES
1. Meiai
2. Medium density overlay panel (MDO)
3. High Density Urethane foam (HDU)
Planning Access Terminal Page 1 of 1
wig
http://fredweb.co.frederick.va.us/planning/pat/index.html 4/21/2014
Planning Access Terminal
6
IV
In
e
latll,�Ct�43826 ��� � 2�� 1I1/
� tawg�tude: T8,17g1S55 1
http://fredweb.co.frederick.va-us/planning/Pat/index.html
Yr'
�M
Page 1 of 1
r h7 W
rD
!7/I,, ,Nip Nip �►
6 FF IF!
4/21/2014
DRRC Meeting — 03/27/2014
Members present: Greg Unger, Tim Stowe, Gary Oates, June Wilmot, Jay Banks
Absent: Larry Ambrogi, Kevin Kenney, Eric Lowman, Dwight Shenk, Whit Wagner, Roger Thomas
Staff: Candice Perkins
Applicants: Rick Lanham, Josh Hummer - Attorney
Item 1: Private Streets in the R5 Zoning District. Discussion on revisions to the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance to remove the requirement that R-5 communities must be "age restricted communities" to
qualify for private streets.
The Applicant's Attorney summarized the Transportation Committee meeting. The TC wanted the roads
built to state standards and cbr's to be provided to the county. They also wanted to have the PE
requirement to monitor the instillation and certify the construction. Mr. Unger asked about the
construction and the PE certification. The applicant stated that the same standards would apply to
them; paving design would be provided to the county and bonded. They would be inspected and then
fixed at the end and off bond.
The committee was concerned because private streets don't have the same requirements as the public
streets. Private streets go bad eventually; the committee questioned how this could be avoided. The
applicant stated that the ordinance includes a provision for a reserve fund and a reserve balance
analysis to make sure there are adequate funds for repairs. He further stated that Shenandoah is a large
community and the residents are asking for private streets. Every two years a capital reserve study is
completed that ensures there are adequate funds for repairs.
Mr. Unger expressed concern about busses not being able to go into the community. Ms. Wilmot
wanted to know if this community would draw more residents with or without kids. The applicant stated
that he believes that it will draw fewer children, but can't be sure. The DRRC also had questions about
liability for accidents on the private streets.
The committee questioned how the reserve is started? The Applicant stated that it is created at day one
and as more improvements get underway more gets added to the fund.
The committee expressed concern about the guarantee that the HOA would never fold and then the
residents come back to the county for help. The applicant stated that there is no way to provide a
complete guarantee but they are trying to put ordinances in place to help that from happening. The
applicant further stated that Shenandoah is proposed to be a nice development and the residents are
going to want to keep it up but how do you make sure the maintenance is kept up. If the HOA doesn't
do the reserve study then the county would have to enforce the ordinance and make them do it.
Item 2: (Other) Setbacks for Midrise apartments.
The committee expressed concern with the proposal to reduce the front setback from 35 feet to 15 feet.
They felt that it seemed to close to a public street.
1
TND or high density developments should have commercial elements that include eating establishments
which would be between the street and the building and i5 feet seems close. The committee expressed
comfort with reducing the setback from 35 feet to 20 feet because it would provide more distance to
the public road.
The committee also stated the possibility of going off the speed limit. Roads with a 25 mph should be 20
feet and anything overt that should be 35 feet.
2
Estimate Previous FY15 FY16-20 Balance;
UPC Description Route District Road System Jurisdiction (Values in Thousands of Dollars)
75881
RTE 81 - INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION, EXIT 310
81
Staunton
Interstate
Frederick County
$49,121
$37,614
$3,121
$8,386
$0
PE FOR I-81 EXIT 307 INTER
88659
RELOCATION\IM PROVEM ENT
81
Staunton
Interstate
Frederick County
$1,300
$1,300
$0
$0
$0
88820
I-81 INTERCHANGE STUDY FOR EXIT 313
81
Staunton
Interstate
Frederick County
$9,000
$2,028
$1,357
$5,614
$0
104562
I-81 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION - SITE 3
81
Staunton
Interstate
Frederick County
$4,444
$100
$750
$3,594
$0
VIEW SHED PROTECTION OF CEDAR CREEK VERMONT
91123
MONUMENT
Staunton
Miscellaneous
Frederick County
$1,797
$2,254
$0
$0,-,
7 )
90218
RTE 11 SAFETY STUDY (PE ONLY)
11
Staunton
Primary
Frederick County
$50
$50
$0
$0
$0
BRIDGE (FED ID 8055) RTE 17 MILLWOOD PIKE OVER I
104020
81
17
Staunton
Primary
Frederick County
$12,629
$2,429
$0
$0
$10,201
85972
RTE 37 EASTERN BYPASS (PE ONLY)
37
Staunton
Primary
Frederick County
$5,800
$1,563
$0
$0
$4,237
105586
RTE 37 EASTERN BYPASS (PHASE II)
37
Staunton
Primary
Frederick County
$4,237
$940
$2,000
$1,296
$0
18003
RTE 277 - WIDEN TO 5 LANES
277
Staunton
Primary
Frederick County
$33,068
$9,698
$0
$17,370
$6,000
98361
INSTAL OBJECT MARKERS, WIDEN PAVE
277
Staunton
Primary
Frederick County
$28
$36
$0
$0
(j,8!
ROUTE 522, FREDERICK CO., STR. ID 08156 BRIDGE
78825
REPL.
522
Staunton
Primary
Frederick County
$1,553
$771
$0
$0
$783
104262
AIRPORT ROAD AND WARRIOR DRIVE EXTENSION
0
Staunton
Secondary
Frederick County
$5,600
$5,600
$0
$0
$0
RTE 623 - REPLACE BRIDGE OVER CEDAR CREEK VA
90173
STR. 6908
623
Staunton
Secondary
Frederick County
$2,206
$295
$0
$1,911
$0
ADDING RIGHT TURN LANE TO RT 661 TO SOUTH RTE
100547
11
661
Staunton
Secondary
Frederick County
$1,160
$203
$594
$1,160
($797)
86316
ROUTE 723 OVER OPEQUON CREEK VA STRUC 6904
723
Staunton
Secondary
Frederick County
$1,719
$374
$189
$1,156
$0