TC 02-24-14 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, Deputy Director - Transportations,
RE: February 24, 2014 Transportation Committee Meeting
DATE: February 19, 2014
The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday,
February 24, 2014 in the first floor conference room of the Frederick County Administration
Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia.
AGENDA
1. Shenandoah Private Streets
2. Cougill Road Paving
3. Getting Private Roadways Adopted for State Maintenance
4. Devolution
5. Other
Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting.
Attachments
JAB/pd
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Item 1: Shenandoah Private Streets
Attached, please find the request from Supervisor Wells and Ty Lawson regarding an ordinance
amendment to allow private streets in the non age -restricted portion of the Shenandoah
development. Following that you will find the actions of the committees and the Board
regarding this item and the Board minutes. Finally, Staff has attached the draft ordinance that
the Board previously considered.
ROBERT W. WELLS
5114 Laura Drive
Stephens City, Virginia 22655
January 29, 2014
Mr. Charles S. (Chuck) DeHaven, Jr.
Frederick County, Va. Supervisor, Stonewall District
Representative Supervisor, Transportation Committee
2077 Martinsburg Pike
Winchester, Virginia 22603
REFERENCE: Shenandoah Development (Lake Frederick) request for private streets
Chuck:
Please find enclose copies of the formal request for the above from Lawson and Silek, P.L.C. and
an email that I received from Mr. Charlie Harmon, resident of Lake Frederick expressing his
feeling about private streets in his community. From what I have been able to ascertain so far
approximately 90% of the current residents are in favor of having private roads.
I have spoken to Mr. Lawson and the current owner/developers to listen to their request. On
all occasions I have expressed my desire for them to be able to assure me and the other board
members that MREC and Lansdowne Development have the finances,(reserve fund) and
experience necessary in installing and maintaining private streets that will assure this request
success.
At present one section of this development is already "Gated" and MREC and Lansdowne
Development have expressed their intentions in installing a gated situation for the second
section. I am presenting this information because I have been told that VDOT will not accept
nor maintain roads in a Gated Community. I will rely on the Transportation Committee's
resources determine if this is true.
I would support this request based on receipt of the necessary assurances from MREC and
Lansdowne and the approval from Transportation. If after reviewing the enclosed you need
additional information please let me know.
Sincerely,
Robert W. (Bob) Wells
XFINITY Connect
XFINITY Connect
Re: Shenandoah Development Private Streets
From : robertwells946@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Shenandoah Development Private Streets
To : Charlie Harmon <charlieharmon@mindspring.com>
Pagel of 2
robertwe11s9"@comcwt.ne
± Font Size -
Wed, Sep 25, 2013 07:42 AM
Mr. Harmon:
As I said I fowared your email to Mr. John Riley, County Administrator. He directed me to Mr. Eric Lawrence, Director of Planning &
Development for Frederick County. I received an email response from Mr. Lawrence yesterday in reference to your quesition
concerning the private roads. His response was as follows: "The Board by NOT advancing the request to Public Hearing killed the
amendment request. If Landow wants they can bring it up again but the conunty has not heard anything from them at this time."
Bob Wells
From: "Charlie Harmon" <chadieharmon@mindspring.com>
To: "Robert Wells" <robertwells946@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 5:42:39 PM
Subject: Shenandoah Development Private Streets
Robert —
My name is Charlie Harmon and we met following the last meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. I asked you at that time if you
could look further into the decision of the Board of Supervisors to not allow the Ordinance Amendment for Private Streets in the RS District to
proceed to a Public Hearing. It appeared that the ruling was rather sudden an totally unexpected on the part of Lansdowne, our new developer.
Although I was not able to find minutes from that February 27th meeting, I was able to view the video and found it interesting and enlightening
2UuHh6Xu5&sndex= iG.
Following public presentations on behalf of the Shenandoah Community, a County representative presented a set of slides outlining the impacts
of allowing private streets within the RS District in general and the Shenandoah Community in particular The impact analyses were based on
approximately 230 age -restricted lots and 1826 non -age restricted lots and estimated that the impacts on capital facilities would be in excess of
$30M. She also referenced some historical information that was related to the Shawnee District back in the late 1980s. Following her
presentation. Bill Ewing (Opeguon District and Vice Chairman)challenged the number of age -restricted lots and stated that the number was
several hundred more than the impact analysis. Gary Lofton (Back Creek District) then asked if simply making the roads private versus public
would have any real impact on capital facilities and the young lady replied that there would be none. Gene Fisher (Shawnee District) made the
motion to not proceed to public hearings based on the impact to unspecified County Services.
During the discussions following the motion, both Gary Lofton and Bill Ewing recommended that the proposal be allowed to proceed to public
hearings. Gene Fisher only asked that the impact slide be put back up on the screen. Following that, the Chair called the question and the
motion to not allow this to proceed carried by a 4-3 vote. It appears to me that the impact slide did not adequately represent the impacts of this
particular request and should have been revised accordingly. It also appears that there was some history with Shawnee District that influenced
the vote.
I'm not interested in discrediting anyone on the Board of Supervisors. My only interest, as a home owner in the Shenandoah Community, is to
request that you look into this issue and determine if there is any opportunity for the Board to revisit the issue with the impacts properly stated
to them. The Developer clearly indicated that the roads were being built to VDOT standards for public streets and that the maintenance of these
streets would be the responsibility of the community. Additionally, Mr. Lofton argues convincingly that he would like to hear the results of public
hearings. The time line for the video: Public Comments start at 3:09; the County Representative starts at 22:00; and the Board discussions and
voting start at 27:19.
Thanks You in advance for considering this issue.
Regards —Charlie Harmon
Charles D. Harmon
112 Harvester Drive
Lake Frederick, VA 22630-2096
http://web.mail.Comcast.netlzimbralhlprintmessage?id=544103&tz=AmericalNew York&... 9/25/2013
XFINTTY Connect
Phone: (540) 869-1454
FAX: (540) 869-1419
Cell: (505) 573-6113
E -Mail: chariieharmon(ar r mndstxlnc�.cgrn
Page 2 of 2
http://web.mail.comcast.netlzimbralhlprintmessage?id=544103&tz--AmericalNew York&... 9/25/2013
LAWSON AND SILEK, P.L.C.
120 EXETER DRIVE, SUITE 200
POST OFFICE BOX 2740
WINCHESTER, VA 22604
TELEPHONE: (540)665-0050
FACSIMILE: (540) 722-4051
October 1, 2013
Mr. Robert W. Wells
Frederick County Board of Supervisors
5114 Laura Drive
Stephens City, VA 22655
THOMAS MOORS LAWSON • TLAWSON(a�LSPLC.COM
Re: Shenandoah Development
Our File No. 1211.001
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Dear Supervisor Wells:
It was very nice meeting with you last week to discuss the new development at
Shenandoah. This is to confirm that the owners, MREC Shenandoah VA, LLC and MREC
Shenandoah Investment, LLC (collectively "MREC"), would like to formally request that the
Board of Supervisors consider a waiver to allow for private streets throughout the entire
Shenandoah community and not just in the age -restricted areas. MREC is committed to
installing private streets that have a depth of pavement that meets or, in many cases, exceeds
VDOT's standards. Its goal is to create a private, gated community that benefits the residents
and also helps to create an exclusive community feel. MREC and Lansdowne Development
Group have had a significant amount of experience installing and maintaining private streets in
other communities and look forward to doing the same at Shenandoah.
For your convenience, I enclose a draft ordinance which we would ask be considered by
the Board of Supervisors and allowed to be advertised for a public hearing.
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. After you have considered this request,
please feel free to call with any questions.
Ve y yours,
Tho as o son
TML.jk
Enclosure
cc: Lansdowne Development Group
FRONT ROYAL ADDRESS: POST OFFICE BOX 692, FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA 22630 • TELEPHONE: (540)63.1;-9415 • FACSIMILE: (540)635-942) • E-MAIL: JSILEK(o)LA WSONANDSILEK.
Chapter 165. ZONING
ARTICLE V. Planned Development Districts
Part 502. R5 Residential Recreational Community District
§ 165-502.05. Design requirements.
F. Open space. A minimum of 35% of the gross area of any proposed development shall
be designated as common open space. This open space shall be for purposes of
environmental protection and for the common use of residents of the development. No
more than 50% of the required open space shall be within lakes and ponds, wetlands or
steep slopes. The Board of Supervisors may allow a larger amount of steep slopes to
be utilized where the developer can demonstrate a viable plan for the use of these
areas. Where age Fes 0Gted-When communities are approved with private streets, a
minimum of 45% of open space shall be required.
[Amended 9-26-20121
K. Streets. The residential recreational community development shall be provided with a
complete system of public streets dedicated to the Virginia Department of
Transportation. The road system shall conform with the Frederick County
Comprehensive Policy Plan and with road improvement plans adopted by the County.
[Amended 9-26-20121
(1) Within any portion of a residential recreational community -AG G4 ^ a44e - ^
F^6'-'s.�.,.o.ed GGFA^^• RitT , the Board of Supervisors may waive the public street requirement
and allow for the installation of private streets, provided that all road sections meet the
minimum thickness based on the Virginia Department of Transportation pavement
design standards, all storm sewer, signage, guardrails, and any other accessory
features shall be designed following the VDOT Manual of Road and Bridge Standards
streets A0449FFTI to the GARRUI-intinn details ARd FnAteFiAls Af the Virginia Department Gf
and that a program for the perpetual maintenance of all
streets by the property owner's association is provided which is acceptable to the Board
of Supervisors and the Transportation Planner.
(a) Three classes of private streets shall be permitted in age FestNcted
semmuatt eland shall be identified on a MDP as follows:
[1) Greenways. All private streets with a projected ADT of over
3,000 shall have a minimum right-of-way of 50 feet and shall
have no direct lot frontage. Greenways shall be lined on both sides
with street trees having a minimum caliper of two inches at the time
of planting, spaced not more than 50 feet apart. Along the portions
of right-of-way which abut mature woodland, the Planning Director
may waive the requirement for street trees. The horizontal center
line geometrics and vertical profile design shall meet the VDOT
criteria for subdivision streets with a design speed of 30 miles per
hour (mph).
[2] Neighborhood collectors. All private streets with a projected ADT
of over 400 shall have a minimum right-of-way of 50 feet and may
have lot frontage. Neighborhood collectors shall be lined on both
sides with street trees having a minimum caliper of two inches at
the time of planting, spaced not more than 50 feet apart. The
horizontal center line geometrics and vertical profile design shall
meet the VDOT criteria for subdivision streets with a design speed
of 30 mph.
[3] Local streets. All private streets with a projected ADT of 400 or
less shall have a minimum right-of-way of 30 feet and may have lot
frontage. Local streets shall be lined with street trees having a
minimum caliper of two inches at the time of planting, spaced not
more than 50 feet apart. The horizontal center line geometrics and
vertical profile design shall meet the VDOT criteria for subdivision
streets with a design speed of 20 mph.
(b) Developments utilizing private streets shall meet the following conditions:
[1] The plan for the development shall include 1000 or more
planned lots.
[2] The subdivision design plans and final subdivision plats for
all lots that utilize private streets shall include language that states
'The private streets within this development are not intended for
inclusion in the system of state highways and will not be maintained
by VDOT or Frederick County. Frederick County and VDOT have
not, and will have no, responsibility for the maintenance, repair, or
replacement of the private streets within this development. The
maintenance and improvement of said private streets shall be the
sole responsibility of the property owners' association."
[3] The developer shall
establish a reserve
fund
dedicated
solely for the maintenance
of the private streets
within the
development. The reserve
fund shall consist
of a
specified
percentage of all dues collected from the residents as determined
by the developer. The percentage may be reduced by the
developer or the property owners' association only after a reserve
study has been completed and said study shows that a lesser
amount is necessary to maintain the private street system within
the development.
[4) Sales brochures or other literature and documents, provided
by the seller of lots served by such private streets, shall include
information regarding responsibility for maintenance, repair,
replacement, and covenants pertaining to such lots, including a
statement that the County has no, and will have no, responsibility
for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of private streets.
(2) Within R-5 residential recreation community developments approved prior to 1980,
the Board of Supervisors may allow the extension of existing private roads if no other
means of access is available.
(3) Within developments utilizing private streets, a certified professional engineer,
licensed in the State of Virginia, shall be employed by the developer to monitor and
supervise the materials used; the adequacy of the subgrade; the installation of drainage
structures, curb and gutter and all concrete items; and all road, driveway and parking
area construction activities, including material compaction, grading tolerances and
compliance with the plans and specifications. Prior to issuance of the last certificate of
occupancy, the certified professional engineer, licensed in the State of Virginia, shall
provide the County with certification that each phase of construction met density
requirements; that all material depths were verified for compliance; and that the road
and parking areas have been constructed in strict accordance with the plans and
specifications.
L. Curb and gutter. All public and private streets shall be provided with curb and gutter.
John Bishop
From: John Bishop
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 12:31 PM
To: 'cdehaven@crosslink.net'
Subject: FW: Shenandoah
Attachments: February 27 2013 Regular Meeting Minutes.pdf
Chuck;
Below are the important dates regarding the issue of private streets in Shenandoah and its previous discussion by the
Board and other Committees.
DRRC at their October 2012 meeting
The Planning Commission discussed this item at their meeting on December 4, 2012;
The Board of Supervisors discussed this item on December 12, 2012 and forwarded the amendment to the Public Works
Committee and the Transportation Committee (no substantive board discussion was noted in the Board meeting
minutes)=
The Public Works Committee discussed the amendment at their meeting on January 29, 2013; the Committee expressed
concerns about the significant impact the revised development would have on county services; concern was expressed
regarding the future maintenance of the private roads, and it was suggested that the ordinance amendment be revised
to require a certain percentage of the development be restricted to age restricted to offset the potential impact to
county services.
The Transportation Committee discussed the amendment at their meeting on February 19, 2013; there were no
comments received, and the Committee recommended the proposed amendment be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors (without a recommendation) for further consideration.
Board of Supervisors Discussion on February 27, 2013 — didn't send to public hearing. Minutes attached.
Thanks
John
262'
A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 7:00 Y.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room,
County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia.
PRESENT
Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Christopher E. Collins; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.;
Bill M. Ewing; Gene E. Fisher; Robert A. Hess; and Gary A. Lofton,
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order.
INVOCATION
Supervisor Fisher delivered the invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice -Chairman Ewing led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA - APPROVED
Cot.mty Administrator John R. Riley, Jr. advised there were no additions to the agenda.
Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board
approved the agenda by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle
Ave
Bill M. Ewing
Aye
Christopher E. Collins
Aye
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.
Aye
Gene E. Fisher
Aye
Robert A. Hess
Aye
Gary A. Lofton
Aye .
CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED
Administrator Riley offered the following items for the Board's consideration under the
consent agenda:
- Parks and Recreation Commission Report — Tab D; and
- Transportation Committee Report — Tab F.
Upon a motion by Supervisor Collins, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board
approved the consent agenda by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle
Aye
Bill M. Ewing
Aye
Christopher E. Collins
Aye
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.
Aye
Gene E. Fisher
Aye
Robert A. IIess
Aye
Gary A. Lofton
Aye
Minute Book Number 38
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/27/13
a
(26
Under a separate consent agenda, Administrator Riley offered:
- Subdivision Waiver Request— 300N, LLC (Wincrest Drive -Blue Ridge Hospice Site)
— Tab G.
Chairman Shickle advised he would abstain from consideration of item G due to a
conflict of interest.
Upon a motion by Supervisor DeIIaven, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board
approved the second consent agenda by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle
Abstain
Bill M. Ewing
Aye
Christopher E. Collins
Aye
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.
Aye
Gene E. Fisher
Aye
Robert A. Hess
Aye
Gary A. Lofton
Aye
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Tim Donovan, Opequon District and resident of Lake Frederick, appeared before the
Board to urge the approval of the proposed R-5 text amendment. He said it is important that it be
approved so the development can continue to grow. He said the proposal was a win/win. He
concluded by saying he would provide copies of a petition signed by the residents urging support
of the proposed amendment.
Ty Lawson, attorney with Lawson & Silek, appeared before the Board on behal f' of the
Lansdowne Development Group. He noted the existing Lake Frederick community was
approved for private streets: however, the developer would like to continue developing this
property and add non -age restricted lots. He noted 221 residents signed the petition in favor of
the text amendment and waiver. Ile noted the text amendment provides tougher standards than
the current ordinance. He went on to say the developer wants gated private streets for the
community, He concluded by saying the applicant would like to have the text amendment and
waiver request heard at the same time so the Board could see exactly what the proposal would
allow.
Hobie Mitchell, real estate developer and former member of the Commonwealth
Transportation Board, expressed his excitement about the potential to develop the rest of the
Lake Frederick community. He noted the developer planned to get the community active right
away and they had no problem with the new standards proposed. He expressed some concern
about design speeds. He concluded by asking the Board to send the text amendment forward and
to consider the amendment and waiver request at the same time.
Minute Book Number 38
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/27/13
I,
264
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS
There were no Board of Supervisors' comments.
MINUTES -APPROVED
Supervisor Hess advised he would abstain from voting on the approval of the minutes.
Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board
approved the minutes from the February 13, 2013 budget work session.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle
Aye
Bill M. Ewing
Aye
Christopher E. Collins
Aye
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.
Aye
Gene E. Fisher
Aye
Robert A. Hess
Abstain
Gary A. Lofton
Aye
Upon a motion by Vicc-Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board
approved the minutes from the February 13, 2013 regular meeting.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle
Aye
Bill M. Ewing
Aye
Christopher E. Collins
Aye
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.
Aye
Gene E. Fisher
Aye
Robert A. Hess
Abstain
Gary A. Lofton
Aye
COUNTY OFFICIALS
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
REAPPOINTMENT OF AI,I.AN HUDSON TO THE RUSSELL 150
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CDA) - APPROVED
Upon a motion by Vice -Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board
reappointed Allan Hudson to the Russell 150 Community Development Authority. This is a four
year appointment. Term expires March 1, 2017,
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle
Aye
Bill M. Ewing
Aye
Christopher E. Collins
Aye
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.
Aye
Gene E. Fisher
Aye
Robert A. Hess
Aye
Gary A. Lofton
Aye
RFOUEST FROM COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE FOR REFUND -
APPROVED
Minute Book Number 38
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/27113
265
Administrator Riley advised this was a request from the Commissioner of the Revenue to
authorize the Treasurer to refund Winchester Speech Pathologists the amount of $5,152.20 for
over reporting and over paying business license for one or more years. One or more subsequent
years was adjusted with an increase and all other records are now correct.
Upon a motion by Vice -Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board
approved the refund request by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle
Ave
Bill M. Ewing
Aye
Christopher E. Collins
Aye
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.
Aye
Gene E. Fisher
Aye
Robert A. IIess
Ave
Crary A. Lofton
Aye
COMMITTEE REPORTS
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT — APPROVED UNDER
CONSENT AGENDA
The Parks and Recreation Commission met on February 12, 2013. Members present
were: Martin Cybulski, Gary Longerbeam; Charles R. Sandy, Jr., Ronald Madagan, and Kevin
Anderson. Members absent were: Ron Hodgson, Patrick Anderson, and Christopher Collins.
Items Requiring Board of Supervisor Action:
1. None.
Submitted for Board Information Only:
1. Foundation/Reserve Fund — Mr. Madagan moved to go forward with the Reserve
Fund and develop policies to operate the fund, second by Mr. Sandy, motion tamed
unanimously (5-0).
2. Committee Appointments — Mr. Cybulski appointed the following committees:
Executive Committee: Martin Cybulski and Clary Longerbeam
Finance Committee: Patrick Anderson and Charles R. Sandy, Jr.
Buildings and Grounds: Ronald Madagan and Gary Longerbeam
Public Relations: Charles R. Sandy, Jr. and Kevin Anderson
Appeals Committee: Kevin Anderson, Ronald Madagan, and Ron Hodgson
FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT - APPROVED
The Finance Committee met in the First Floor Conference Room at 107 North Kent
Street on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 8:00 a.m. The Audit Committee immediately
followed. Members Stephen Swiger and Richard Shickle were absent. Items 1 and 2 were
approved under consent agenda.
Upon a motion by Vice -Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board
approved the consent agenda by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle Aye
Bill M. Ewing Aye
Christopher E. Collins Aye
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye
Minute Book Number 38
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/27/13
266
Gene E. Fisher Aye
Robert A. Hess Aye
Gary A. Lofton Aye
1. The Sheriff requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of
$2,207.14. This amount represents payment for firing range use ($500), a reimbursement from
the Department of Homeland Security ($1,492.14), and donations to DARE ($15) and the K-9
program (5200). No local funds are required. See attached memo, p.4-8. — Approved Under
Consent Agenda.
2. The Department of Social Services requests a General Fund supplemental
Wropriation in the amount of $20,000 for Strengthening Families Innovators for Success
Council. No local funds required. See attached memo, p. 9. — Approved Under Consent
Agenda.
3. The NRADC Superintendent request a NRADC Fund supplemental appropriation in
the amount of 5261,183 for the fall 2012 employee bonus and to revitalize Office Career
Advancement and Development Program this spring. The Jail Authority approved the request.
See attached memo, p.10. The committee recommends approval. —Approved.
Upon a motion by Vice -Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board
approved the above request by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle
Aye
Bill M. Ewing
Aye
Christopher E. Collins
Aye
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.
Aye
Gene E. Fisher
Ave
Robert A. Hess
Aye
Gary A. Lotion
Aye
4. Greenwood Volunteer F&R Company requests a General Fund supplemental
appropriation in the amount of $23,797.38. This amount represents proffer funds available to
Greenwood for the purchase of an ambulance. The item is listed on the County's CIP. Se e
attached memo, p. 11-13. The committee recommends approval of the current balance of the
proffers designated to Greenwood, $25,211.38. — Approved.
Upon a motion by Vice -Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board
approved the above request by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle
Aye
Bill M. Ewing
Aye
Christopher E. Collins
Aye
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.
Aye
Gene E. Fisher
Aye
Robert A. Hess
Aye
Clary A. Lofton
Aye
5. The Voter Registrar requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the
amount of $33,385 for the June dual primary election. See attached information, p. 14-15. The
committee recommends appropriation contingent on the calling of the primary. — Approved.
Upon a motion by Vice -Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board
approved the above request by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle Aye
Bill M. Ewing Aye
Christopher E. Collins Nay
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye
Minute Book Number 38
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02!27!13
267
Gene E. Fisher Aye
Robert A. Hess Aye
Gary A. Lofton Aye
6. The Transportation Director requests a General Fund supplemental U ro2riation in
the amount of $710,904. This amount represents revenue sharing with VDOT for work on Route
11 N. No local fiends required. See attached information, p. 16-17. The committee recommends
approval. - Approved
Upon a motion by Vice -Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board
approved the above request by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle
Aye
Rill M. Ewing
Aye
Christopher E. Collins
Aye
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.
Aye
Gene E. Fisher
Aye
Robert A. Hess
Aye
Gary A. Lofton
Aye
7. The Public Works Director requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in
the amount of $452.347 for the design of the new Round Hill Fire and Rescue Station and Social
Hall. The Public Works Committee has approved this request. Local funds are required. The
committee recommends approval. - Approved
Upon a motion by Vice -Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board
approved the above request by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle
Aye
Bill M. Ewing
Aye
Christopher E. Collins
Aye
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.
Aye
Gene E. Fisher
Aye
Robert A. Hess
Aye
Gary A. Lofton
Aye
8. The County Administrator requests authorization to have an appraisal on the County
Administration Building. Funds are available in current budget. The committee recommends
approval. - Approved
Upon a motion by Vice -Chairman Ewing, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board
approved the above request by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle
Aye
Bill M. Ewing
Aye
Christopher E. Collins
Aye
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.
Aye
Gene E. Fisher
Aye
Robert A. Hess
Aye
Gary A. Lofton
Aye
9. The Finance Director discusses the FY2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR). No action is required.
AUM COMMITTEE
1. David Foley from Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates will present the FY2012 final
audit and be available for discussion of the upcoming 2013 audit. The committee authorized the
Finance Committee chairman to sign the engagement letter for the 2013 audit.
Minute Book Number 38
Board ol'Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/27/13
288
***Information Only***
1. The Finance Director provides a Fund 10 Transfer report for January 2013. See
attached, p. 18-19.
2. The Finance Director provides 1/31/13 financial statements. See attached, p. 20-30.
3. The Finance Director provides 2/13/13 General Fund fund balance report. See
attached, p. 31.
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT — APPROVED UNDER!
CONSENT AGENDA
The Transportation Committee met on February 19, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.
Members Present Members Absent
Chuck DeHaven (voting) Mark Davis (liaison Middletown)
Gene Fisher (voting) Christopher Collins (voting)
James Racey (voting)
Gary Oates (liaison PC)
Lewis Boyer (liaison Stephens City)
Bryon Grigsby (voting)
***Items Requiring Action***
None
***Items Not Requiring Action***
1. Private Streets in the R5 District
Staff presented the draft modifications to the ordinance governing the use of private
streets in the R5 district.
The applicant was present and noted that they had specific desires regarding thea
development which prompted the modification request. They also noted that what they intend tc
build exceeds the proposed requirements.
In discussion the committee did not identify any concerns with the modifications.
MOTION: Mr. Racey made a motion to forward to the Board of Supervisors for
consideration. Mr. Fisher seconded the motion. The motion passed with I vote against.
2. VDOT Route 37 Work
For information only at this point staff and VDOT presented a draft or the Route 37
corridor refinements being undertaken by VDOT. The purpose of this work is to make sure that
current planning for the corridor is consistent with current design standards where the old plans
may not be. Staff is doing some additional work to the map coverage and will then forward them
for consideration.
This item will return to the Transportation Committee at their March meeting for a
recommendation of comments to the Board of Supervisors.
3. I-81 Corridor Coalition
Staff notified the committee that the County had been solicited to join the 1-81 Corridor
Coalition at a cost of $5,000.00 per year for a three year term. Staff noted that based on
discussions with local public safety leaders that the benefits of being a direct member did notl';
I'
Minute Book Number 38
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02/27/13
1269
seem to justify the cost of membership. In addition the County is still a member under the
umbrella of the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission which is a member.
MOTION: Mr. Racey made a motion that the committee not recommend membership at
this time. Motion was seconded by Mr. Grigsby. The motion passed unanimously.
4. Other
Mr. Carter of VDOT noted that they will be approaching the committee for a
recommendation regarding the reconstruction of the Rt. 623 bridge at the Frederick/Shenandoah
County line.
Mr. Oates asked for follow up on the discussion of MARC. train access or shuttles from
Frederick County that was discussed at the Planning Commission retreat.
PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS
SUBDIVISION WAIVER REQUEST — 300N, LLC (WINCRF,ST DRIVE -BLUE
RIDGF. HOSPICE SITE) — PUBLIC ROAD FRONTAGE WAIVER — APPROVF,D
UNDER CONSENT AGENDA
This was a request from 300N, LLC to subdivide commercial lots, which would utilize
private roads instead of public streets. In order for the subdivision to occur a waiver of Section
144-24C of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance must be approved by the Board of
Supervisors.
This item was approved under the consent agenda.
DISCUSSION — PRIVATE STREETS IN TIIE R5 (RESIDENTIAL
RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY) DISTRICT— DENIED SENDING FORWARD
FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Senior Planner Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She
advised staff received a request to allow the use of private streets for all types of developments in
the R5 (Residential Recreational Community) Zoning District. She noted the use of private
streets in the R5 District is currently only permitted within age -restricted communities and only
if approved by the Board of Supervisors. She went on to say the proposed amendment has the
potential to modify communities previously approved (not proffered) as age -restricted and could
introduce dwelling units that accommodate all ages; therefore, the impacts on the County's
school system should be considered with this amendment. The proposed amendment was
reviewed by the Development Review and Regulations Committee, Public Works Committee,
Transportation Committee, and Planning Commission. Senior Planner Perkins noted the Public
Works Committee expressed concern about impacts on county services and future maintenance
of the private streets.
Supervisor Lolton asked if the Board did not allow private streets then the developer
could still do their proposal using public streets?
Minute Book Number 38
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02127/13
270j
Senior Planner Perkins responded if the developer kept the project as age -restricted then j
they could utilize private streets; however, a non -age restricted development would have to j
jimplement public streets.
_4 Supervisor Lofton asked if this amendment affected current subdivisions.
I
Senior Planner Perkins responded no.
Supervisor Lofton asked if it would affect future developments:
I
Senior Planner Perkins responded yes.
I
Supervisor Fisher stated that he believed the impact on county services was serious. j
Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board denied 1
sending this proposal forward for public hearing due to impacts on County services.
Supervisor Lofton stated he was looking forward to hearing from the community. He
noted if the development continues with public streets the impacts are not negated. Ile
concluded by saying private streets might be an advantage to the County in the future.
Vice -Chairman Ewing stated he was hoping to hear from the community also.
There being no further discussion, the above motion was approved by the following
recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle
Aye
Bill M. Ewing
Nay
Christopher E. Collins
Nay
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.
Aye
Gene E. Fisher
Aye
Robert A. Hess
Aye
Gary A. Lofton
Nay
BOARD LTATSON REPORTS
Vice -Chairman Ewing informed the Board that Trish Ridgeway, Director of Handley 1
Regional Library, was retiring in August.
Supervisor Lofton informed the Board that Karen Ridings from Cooperative Extension;
was retiring. He noted she had done a wonderful job and he thanked her for her service to the;
county.
Chairman Shickle provided a brief report on the Joint Finance Committee meeting.'
Topics included the status of the Request for Proposals for renovations to the Joint Judicial
Center, salary supplements for the General District and Juvenile Domestic Relations Courts,
which were not approved, and discussions regarding outside agency and joint project funding.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Minute Book Number 38
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 1121`7113
John Wright, Red Bud District, addressed the Board regarding the FY2014 budget. He
encouraged the Board to address the priorities of salary increases, salary scales, and benefits. He
noted now was the time to support the employees with a meaningful raise. He noted in the Fire
and Rescue Department the quality of applicants is down over past years. He concluded by
saying the department has seen a 19% turnover rate since 2008.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS
There were no Board of Supervisors' comments.
Reverend Ross Halbersma delivered a benediction.
ADJOURN
UPON A MOTION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN EWING, SECONDED BY
SUPERVISOR FISHER, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME
BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS IIEREBY ADJOURNED. (7:42 P.M.)
Richard C. Shickle
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
wlv�'
J PAICC
A.
Board of Supervisors
'Ik
Minutes Prepared By: �.
Jay E. 7 ibb
Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Minute Book Number 38
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 02r.7113
271
i
I
ATTACHMENT 1
ARTICLE IV
AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Part 502 — R5 Residential Recreational Community District
§ 165-502.05 Design requirements.
F. Open space. A minimum of 35% of the gross area of any proposed development shall be designated
as common open space. This open space shall be for purposes of environmental protection and for
the common use of residents of the development. No more than 50% of the required open space
shall be within lakes and ponds, wetlands or steep slopes. The Board of Supervisors may allow a
larger amount of steep slopes to be utilized where the developer can demonstrate a viable plan for
the use of these areas. ` heFe age Festripted When communities are approved with private streets, a
minimum of 45% of open space shall be required.
K. Streets. The residential recreational community development shall be provided with a complete
system of public streets dedicated to the Virginia Department of Transportation. The road system
shall conform with the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan and with road improvement
plans adopted by the County.
(1) Within any portion of a residential recreational community which qualifies as ,^ age FestFieted
GemmuRity, the Board of Supervisors may waive the public street requirement and allow for the
installation of private streets, provided that all road sections meet the minimum thickness based
on the Virginia Department of Transportation pavement design standards and all storm sewer,
signage, guardrails, and any other accessory features shall be designed following the VDOT
Manual of Road and Bridge Standards stFeets ^ of@Fm to the ^ tF GtiE)R detai'S and Mate
of the ViFginia DepaFtme„t ef TraTspen-At o;TSta;,dards and that a program for the perpetual
maintenance of all streets by the property owner's association is provided which is acceptable to
the Board of Supervisors and the Transportation Planner.
(a) Three classes of private streets shall be permitted in age FestFieted ^^mmwRities and shall be
identified on a MDP as follows:
[1] Greenways. All private streets with a projected ADT of over 3,000 shall have a minimum
right-of-way of 50 feet and shall have no direct lot frontage. Greenways shall be lined on
both sides with street trees having a minimum caliper of two inches at the time of
planting, spaced not more than 50 feet apart. Along the portions of right-of-way which
abut mature woodland, the Planning Director may waive the requirement for street
trees. The horizontal center line geometrics and vertical profile design shall meet the
VDOT criteria for subdivision streets with a design speed of 30 miles per hour (mph).
[2] Neighborhood collectors. All private streets with a projected ADT of over 400 shall have a
minimum right-of-way of 50 feet and may have lot frontage. Neighborhood collectors
shall be lined on both sides with street trees having a minimum caliper of two inches at
ATTACHMENT 1
the time of planting, spaced not more than 50 feet apart. The horizontal center line
geometrics and vertical profile design shall meet the VDOT criteria for subdivision streets
with a design speed of 30 mph.
[3] Local streets. All private streets with a projected ADT of 400 or less shall have a minimum
right-of-way of 30 feet and may have lot frontage. Local streets shall be lined with street
trees having a minimum caliper of two inches at the time of planting, spaced not more
than 50 feet apart. The horizontal center line geometrics and vertical profile design shall
meet the VDOT criteria for subdivision streets with a design speed of 20 mph.
(b) Developments utilizing private streets shall meet the following conditions:
(1] The subdivision design plans and final subdivision plats for all lots that utilize private
streets shall include language that states "The private streets within this development
are not intended for inclusion in the system of state highways and will not be
maintained by VDOT or Frederick County. Frederick County and VDOT have no, and will
have no, responsibility for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of the private
streets within this development. The maintenance and improvement of said private
streets shall be the sole responsibility of the property owners' association".
(21 The developer shall establish a reserve fund dedicated solely for the maintenance of the
private streets within the development. The reserve fund shall consist of a specified
percentage of aU dues collected from the residents as determined by the developer.
The percentage may be reduced by the developer or the property owner's association
only after a reserve study has been completed and said study shows that a lesser
amount is necessary to maintain the private street system within the development.
[3] Sales brochures or other literature and documents, provided by the seller of lots served
by such private streets, shall include information regarding responsibility for
maintenance, repair, replacement, and covenants pertaining to such lots, including a
statement that the County has no, and will have no, responsibility for the maintenance,
repair, or replacement of private streets.
(2) Within R-5 residential recreation community developments approved prior to 1980, the Board of
Supervisors may allow the extension of existing private roads if no other means of access is
available.
ATTACHMENT 1
(3) Within developments utilizing private streets, a certified professional engineer, licensed in the
State of Virginia, shall be employed by the developer to monitor and supervise the materials
used; the adequacy of the subgrade, the installation of drainage structures, curb and gutter
and all concrete items, and all road, driveway and parking area construction activities,
including material compaction, grading tolerances and compliance with the plans and
specifications. Prior to issuance of the last certificate of occupancy, the certified professional
engineer, licensed in the State of Virginia, shall provide the county with certification that each
phase of construction met density requirements; that all material depths were verified for
compliance, and that the road and parking areas have been constructed in strict accordance
with the plans and specifications.
L. Curb and gutter. All public and private streets shall be provided with curb and gutter.
Item 2: Cougill Road Paving
Staff has received a citizen request that the Board consider giving Cougill Road a higher priority
for paving in the secondary plan.
Key reasons given include significant tourist traffic and the upcoming 150th anniversary of the
battle of Cedar Creek.
Attached please find the relevant correspondence from the citizen as well as the current
secondary program and the Board's adopted policy on ranking of unpaved roadways.
John Bishop
From: John Bishop
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 12:07 PM
To: 'Rainman'; june.wilmot@verizon.net
Cc: 'cdehaven@crosslink. net'
Subject: RE: Cougill Road Paving
Mr. Kelley;
Please understand that I do appreciate your concerns. I have been on Cougill road numerous times. The reason the
Board of Supervisors created an objective ranking tool is to fairly allocate a very limited pot of VDOT funds. On each of
our many unpaved roadways in the County we have citizens that feel very strongly regarding the merits of paving their
roadway, and they are correct. We simply don't have the funds to address them all, and so an objective measure is
used. That said, the Board of Supervisors does have the power to override the ranking system if they feel a roadway is
not being accurately portrayed compared to the other candidate projects. I assume they would want a Transportation
Committee and Planning Commission recommendation on this.
Regarding a few of your points:
1. Drainage — drainage is one of the points considered in the ranking system used.
2. Historical Significance —this item is not currently part of the ranking system.
3. Traffic Count — I double checked the most recent VDOT traffic count report which is dated 2012, which means
the count is from 2011 and it was 180. 1 have to use official counts. This count was done in May of 2011. VDOT
tries not to do summer counts because school is not in session which usually means less trips.
4. Maintenance cost vs cost to pave —You are likely correct that in the long term it would be cheaper to pave than
to continue to deal with maintenance issues on a road like this. However, VDOT funding is very regimented and
we can only use funds designated for paving in spite of this fact. This goes back to the days when VDOT
practices of using maintenance dollars for new construction while many critical maintenance issues were
ignored was exposed. Now, by state code, maintenance must be fully funded before any new construction can
take place and the funds cannot be comingled.
5. Illicit activity — I have contact Captain Heflin of the Sheriff's Department to see if they have had any issues over
there.
I hope this answers some of your questions. I will also make sure I bring your concerns to the Transportation Committee
at their next meeting on January 27tH
Thank you
John
From: Rainman [mailto:tak06l8@gmaii.com]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 7:52 PM
To: John Bishop; june.wilmot@verizon.net
Subject: Re: Cougill Road Paving
Mr. Bishop,
I appreciate your replying to my email. I understand where things stand now and that
is why I am requesting that the Planning Commission make it a funded priority because
there are some additional factors about this .25 miles gravel road that merit this
consideration.
The current dirt/gravel when combined with a steep gradient causes drainage problems.
The result is that the road gets rutted in many places and requires additional gravel and
grading several times per year. The future cost of this repeated maintenance activity
would be eliminated by paving this small stretch of a numbered state route that crosses
a railroad track and intersects with two paved roads. The road is used by school buses
and many local residents and LFCC students to reach route 11 and I -81/I-66 without
having to go to/thru the traffic light in Middletown (which is a very tight intersection).
Also, as mentioned in my email to some members of the Planning Commission, there are
many visitors that come to this area from around the country to see the Cedar Creek
battlefield area. Cougill Road, formerly known as Miller's lane, has important historical
significance. Along Cougill Road, Confederate forces made their final stand against
Sheridan's Union forces that were famously rallied from near defeat and conducted a
counter-attack which turned what could have been a terrible defeat into a Union victory.
Many visitors follow a self guided National Park Service battlefield driving tour that takes
them along Cougill Road to see where the battle was won. With next year being the
150th anniversary of this important battle and a huge battle re-enactment scheduled
nearby, there will be a major increase in tourists/visitors to the battlefield area and
traffic on this small local connector road.
Your current traffic count numbers in the report (200), especially in summer, are way
off. There is far more traffic than this. Additionally, with the ongoing expansion of LFCC
and the new convenience store across the street from LFCC as well as the McDonald's to
be built nearby, the traffic is only going to further increase on Cougill Road along with
the risk of more accidents.
I also ask that you give this small connector road a higher priority since it is also
inherently easier and safer to cross the railroad tracks on this section if Cougill Road
(which has no warning lights) if it were a paved road rather than if it remains a rutted
mess of potholes and gravel/dirt. The school buses use this road as do many LFCC
students and trucks with horse trailers. Perhaps you could just drive there and see it
yourself. It gets a lot of traffic each day from 6am - 9pm. Asphalt (about 16,000 cubic
feet?) would make a huge difference in terms of safety, tourism, and save money in the
long term. Thus, paving this .25 mile of gravel road could be done in less than half a
day with the asphalt remnants from most of the other currently funded paving projects.
Lastly, in terms of public safety, paving this small section of road could help deter illicit activity that may be
taking place. It is not clear why but vehicles are frequently parked
for no apparent reason near the shoulder where Cougill Road meets Mineral
Road. You may want to check with the Sheriff's Office if they have reports about this or
have made any arrests. Something is going on there at least four or five times a
month. Paving the road and adding a "no parking" sign near this intersection would
enhance overall community safety.
Sincerely,
Thomas Kelley
i
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:19 PM, John Bishop <, bi ishopa fcva.us> wrote:
Mr. Kelley;
You concern regarding the need for the paving of Cougill Road has been brought to my attention by the Chair
of our Planning Commission, Mrs. Wilmot. While I certainly agree that it is in need of paving, our state
allocation of funds for hard surfacing roadways when compared to the list of needs is very inadequate. Each
year the County Board of Supervisors adopts a Secondary Road Improvement plan which, among other things,
denotes which roadways are expected to be paved with the funds available for that purpose over the next six
years. The most recent adoption cycle was the first time in 4 years that projects were able to be added to the
scheduled list. In addition to scheduling projects each year that funds are available, the County undergoes an
objective ranking process to determine which projects are most worthy of funding. Many different criteria are
utilized in this ranking such as traffic volume, accidents, incidences of poor horizontal and vertical curvature,
utilization by school buses, etc. Projects that are not promoted for paving are maintained on the unscheduled
list for future consideration as funding becomes available. Currently Cougill Road is ranked 10th on the
unscheduled list. While we very much wish we could proceed more rapidly through the list we are constrained
by state funds as noted earlier. For reference, I have attached the most recently adopted secondary plan. If you
have any further questions on this or any other transportation subjects, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you
941180
John A. Bishop AICP
Deputy Director -Transportation
Frederick County Planning & Development
j bishop nco . frederick. va. us
540-665-5651
HARD SURFACE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
RATING SYSTEM POLICY
Adopted by the Frederick County Board ofSupervisors Supervisors on April 25, 2007.
The following procedures are intended to delineate the steps necessary for the application
of this rating system policy. This policy shall be applied and projects updated and
reranked using the most current information available at each update of the Frederick
County Secondary Road Improvement Plan if funds are available that will allow projects
to be added to the `scheduled' list within that plan. Adherence to these procedures will
ensure consistency in the application of this rating system policy for existing and future
hard surface road improvement project requests. This policy shall be effective following
the adoption of these procedures through a public hearing process held by the Board of
Supervisors and shall only be altered through the same process. Information pertaining to
the rating system application for each hard surface road improvement project shall be
maintained in the Frederick County Planning Department.
The Board of Supervisors shall have the authority to revise the Hard Surface Road
Improvement Projects section of the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement
Plan subsequent to the application of the rating system to ensure the health, safety, and
general welfare of the citizens of Frederick County
RATING SYSTEM REVIEW AGENCIES
• Candidate projects shall be evaluated by the Frederick County Planning
Department, the Frederick County Transportation Committee, and the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT).
• One rating sheet shall be prepared for each candidate project.
• Staff from the Frederick County Planning Department and VDOT shall coordinate
to complete a rating sheet for each candidate project and submit the results to the
Transportation Committee for review.
RATING SYSTEM APPLICATION METHODOLOGY
• Candidate projects shall be rated utilizing the following information and
methodology detailed on the scoring sheet for each category:
1. Average Daily Traffic Count — utilize the most recent traffic counts for each
candidate project provided by the VDOT residency.
2. Occupied Structures — utilize the Frederick County Planning Department
addressing database and digital mapping system to determine the total number
of occupied structures that have direct access to, or whose only means of
ingress and egress from a private road is achieved by each candidate project.
3. Physical Road Conditions/Safety
a. Surface Width — obtain surface width data for each candidate project
through the VDOT Residency.
b. Shoulder Width — obtain shoulder width data for each candidate project
through the VDOT Residency.
c. Horizontal Curvature — horizontal curvature is determined to be deficient
if sight distance around the curve is limited by cut sections or vegetation
traveling at normal driving speeds.
d. Vertical Curvature — vertical curvature is determined to be deficient if
sight distance is significantly reduced or eliminated due to the rise and fall
of the road segment traveling at normal driving speeds.
e. Drainage — candidate projects shall be determined to have good, fair, or
poor drainage utilizing the following guidelines.
0
Good: Pipes are of adequate size and number. Water drains away from the
roadway and creates no problem with surface maintenance.
Ditches are of adequate size which produce no flooding within the
roadway.
Fair: Pipes are of adequate size; however, additional pipes may be
needed. Water drains away from the roadway with minimal
maintenance problems. Drainage ditches are in good condition,
require little maintenance, and produce no flooding within the
roadway.
Poor: Pipes are not adequate in size or number. Ditch lines are
inadequate and require extra maintenance water does not drain
from the roadway effectively, creating maintenance problems and
flooding.
f. Accident Data — obtain crash data detailing the number of accidents in the
most recent data year available from the VDOT Residency.
4. School Bus Travel — utilize information reflecting current or proposed school
bus travel routes for each candidate project provided by the Frederick County
Public Schools Transportation Supervisor.
5. Time on Road Plan — utilize information from current and previously
approved Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plans maintained
within the Frederick County Planning Department to determine when
candidate projects were incorporated.
3
RATING SYSTEM POINTS APPLICATION
• Total points are determined for each category element. A cumulative total is
obtained for each candidate project utilizing the total points derived from each
category element.
• If two or more candidate projects have the same cumulative point average, a tie -
breaking system will be utilized. First priority will be given to the project that has
been on the road plan longer. Following that the individual categories will be used
to break the tie in the following order: 1. Accidents, 2. Combined Score of
physical road conditions categories (Surface width, shoulder width, horizontal
curvature, vertical curvature, drainage), 3. Average Daily Traffic, 4. School Bus
Travel, 5. Occupied Structures.
• The cumulative point average for each candidate project shall be final. Any
citizen request to alter the termini of a current candidate project and subsequent
Board action will require a new rating sheet to be completed for the resulting
segment(s). The resulting segment(s) will retain the `time on road plan' date of
the previous segment.
HARD SURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN FORMAT
• The Hard Surface Road Improvement Projects section of the Frederick County
Secondary Road Improvement Plan will reflect the candidate projects with the
highest cumulative point total that can be incorporated into the VDOT Six -Year
Improvement Program based on available funding. This information will be
provided to the Frederick County Planning Department by the VDOT Residency.
• All remaining candidate projects will be placed on an Unscheduled Hard Surface
Improvement Projects list which will be incorporated within the Frederick County
Secondary Road Improvement Plan. Candidate projects incorporated into this
section of the plan will be ranked from the highest cumulative point total to the
lowest cumulative point total.
• VDOT will advise the Frederick County Transportation Committee when funding
is available for the inclusion of new candidate projects within the Hard Surface
Road Improvement Projects section of the Frederick County Secondary Road
Improvement Plan. All candidate projects placed on the Unscheduled Hard
Surface Improvement Projects list, as well as newly requested candidate projects,
will be reviewed by the procedure detailed above to determine current conditions.
Appropriate ranking for all candidate projects will be determined at that time and
placed accordingly.
rd
NEW PROJECT REQUESTS
• New project requests and supporting materials must be received by the Frederick
County Planning Department by April 1St to be included in the next plan update.
• A written request must be provided to the Frederick County Planning Department
which describes the location of the candidate project, the origin and terminus of
the segment, and a petition signed by at least 51 % of all property owners fronting
on the proposed segment.
• The Transportation Committee shall recommend new project requests which meet
these criteria after determining that the candidate project includes a segment of a
state route that has a rational origin and terminus. The Transportation Committee
shall have the authority to adjust the project origin and terminus to create a more
logical segment at their discretion. Logical termini of projects are evaluated to
ensure that a segment is approved that will be the most complete and efficient
project from the standpoint of construction and a complete transportation
network.
PROJECT REMOVAL
• Road Improvements projects shall be removed from the plan once VDOT has
notified Frederick County that the project has been funded and advertised for bid.
• The Board of Supervisors may remove projects from the plan if VDOT has
provided notification that right-of-way efforts have been ceased.
5
2013114-2018/19
SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN
for
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Frederick County Transportation Committee: 0412212013
Frederick County Planning Commission: 0511512013
Frederick County Board of Supervisors: 0512212013
FREDERICK COUNTY
MAJOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
2013/2014 through 2018/2019
Major road improvement projects command the reconstruction of hardsurfaced roads to
enhance public safety. Improvements required for road width, road alignment, road strength,
and road gradient are considered major road improvements projects.
W
V
J
~ z
� 2
i
W LL
W
g
V V F
W
z
=
4¢ j
W
W
W F W
O
I O
~
Q
W
rn
K
<
LL
W %O
Q7V
W
O
C
p
aC
O
V
O<
N >
W <
1) 655
SNp Spnngs
Route 50
30 Mi East
6000
1l codes
SH
$7,505445 2013 $$]98052
1
Road
Road
Rt 656
Albcsted
2) 661
Red Bud Road
.47 MI
Int
1300
015.11.
ST
$2,000,000 UN/SH Ponied
South
Snoaden
Funded
Route 11
Bridge
Reboation
1
Blvd.
E1.W0,000 Period
3) 872
Sn petpaM Road
Route 11
35 MI East
3200
0 36 m8ea
ST
Sign,hcandy UWSH FuMetl
Variable $1;.doW
Th. Plan
0.44 miles$10,414,000
Apphi for
4) 788
East Tevis Street
Route 522
Winchester
N/A
SH
Revenue UNISH WS Funtls
CMv Limit
Shari
0 40 three5)
]BB
East Tevie SOest
Route 622
I$1
N/A
SH
$Reven000 UN/SH Cover Overall
Revenue Proina News
Shah
BCLoeally
rim.
e)
Rensisance Drive
Route 11
.24 ML
N/A
.24 Mi.
$2,001,000 UWSH Connector
Went of
Revenue Road Through
Rt. 11
Sharing CommerdaU
Industrial Area
17000
BC
VDOT ADM
1) 11
Valley Pike
Intersection
WA
$100.000 UWSH
Rt 706
Revenue
Shap
16000
0.2 Mi
ST
LF Tum L.
8) 11
Martinsburg Pike
Under81
$1,821,808 UWSH SBourd@
ovemaee
Revenue 141 Ovemaas
Exit 317
Shadn
9) 842
Tasker Roatl 8
010 MI
010 MI
7800
0.2 MI
OP
$751,000 Const Install Lab
White Oak
WastSpnng
Tum Lanes
Route 636
Raote 836
2011 COMPLETED
10) 723
(aryers Valley Roatl
At Clarke
1100
N/A
SH
$1,262,327 Beyond Federal
County line
2013 atone
Replacement
Fundin
11) 788
Renaissance
24 MI
Int
WA
18N
BC
$1,635,658 2013 WS
West
Shatly Elm
Funds
Route 11
Road
50
W
522
37
Winchester
.I
11
Stephens City
U3
t'
I
F
r♦�
i
6
1
I
i J
F
i
F
t
1
i
i
1
r'
r"
c`
1. Sulpher Springs Rd
014%102. Redbud Rd
3. Brucetown Rd
�4. East Tevis Street
5. East Tevis Street
4^bV6. Renaisance Dr
^07. Valley Pike
*1%08. Martinsburg Pike
�9. Carpers Valley Rd
S" 10. Tasker Rd / White Oak Rd
11. Renaisance Dr
Frederick County
Major Road
Improvement Projects
2013/2014 thru 2018/2019
FREDERICK COUNTY
HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
2013/2014 through 2018/2019
Hardsurface road improvement projects provide impervious resurfacing and reconstruction of
non-hardsurfaced secondary roads. Hardsurface improvement projects are prioritized by an
objective rating system, which considers average daily traffic volumes occupied structures;
physical road conditions including geometrics, drainage, and accident reports; school bus
routing; and the time that project requests have been on the Secondary Road Improvement
Plan.
W
V
J
Z
f
QRZ
2
W=1'
ZH
=
O
GN
!Wf
W
O
Q V
N
O
N
W
O
G
G
W
U
6
000
$20MRoadsF,nd1na
671
Woodside Road Route 11
0.4 East of
50
0.4 miles000
UN/SH
Alboted
Route 11Potent)
l Rural
RustiidFunding
b Others
676
Warm Spnrgs Road Route
0.83 Mi N
310
0.83 mdes,1
W
04/30/2015
CTB UnpavedRoatls
ing
671
Wootlsitle Road Rou[a 669
WVLine
2]0
0.30miles00
04/2&2018
npaveFu
CTB UnpavetlRoads
Funtlin881
Wright RoaO Rpute 889
WVLirre
240
180 miles00
04/30/2018
CTB UnpavedRwds
Caner lane Route 831
Route 625
220
1.8 miles000
04/30/2019
npav629
CTB UnpavedRoads
Fpave892
Pads Fbrsa Roatl 12h4NE
Rou[a 871
210
14 mitis000
OM30I2020
CTB UnpavetlofRL800
Roads
Laurel Greve Road Route 822
28MIWM
200
2.5 mlks000
04I30�2021
npav829
CTB UnpavetlRt
BY2Roatls
Funtlin
Frederick County
Hardsurface Road
Improvement Projects
^� 1.
Woodside Rd
2013/2014 thru 2018/2019
OR%,,O 2.
Warm Springs Rd
**%o 3.
Woodside Rd
4.
Wright Rd
^� 5.
Carters Ln-
O%wo 6.
Pack Horse Rd
-
^� 7.
Laurel Grove Rd
i. �.-. .. ,.
,
\
,tis,
/ 55 ✓ 1'� ,��I,�,
37
Winchester
'r
'iir
r rYr
\
ephens 01Ay
r
�jr
t .'.
V,
0 2 4 8 Miles
FREDERICK COUNTY
UNSCHEDULED
HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
RATINGS UPDATED
2013/2014 through 2018/2019
W _
(3
—1
faW9LL�
U
aV
O
2
a
O
O
H
N
H
E
IC O
1—
QaV
O
Y
1)
709
RWings Mill Road
130MiS
Route 636
130
1.40
OP
Route 735
1 miles
2)
707
Hollow Road
WV Line
Route 610
190
1.6
GA
74
Miles
3)
734
Nodi Sleepy
127 Mi S W of
2.27 Mi S W of
150
1.0GA
73
Creek Road
Route 522
Route 522
mile
4)
730
Babbs Mountain
Route 654
Route 67]
1
130
0.9
GA
72
Road
1
miles
5)
677
1 Os BaBenore
Route 678
Route 672
170
12
GA
70
Road
I
miles
6)
607
Heishman Road
Route Wit
End of State
150
0.78
SC
68
Maintenance
miles
7)
695
Middle Fork
2.3 Mi N of
WV Line
30
0.9
GA
68
Road
Route 522
meas
8)
733
Fletcher Road
Route 50
Route 707
150
1.3
GA
67
miles
9)
636
Canterburg Road
Route 640
Route 641
170
1.5
OF
Be
masa
10)
634
Cougill Road
Route 635
Route 11
200
0.25
80
64
miles
11)
612
Fmhal Road
Route 600
Route 600
40
1.8
BC
64
mums
12)
638
CSM Road
Route 625
Route 759
90
0.8
BC
63
miles
13)
644
East Perkins Mill
Route 50
End of Slete
140
0.81
SH
61
Road
Maintenance
miles
14)
811
Tmbedakea
Route 671
End of Stale
290
0.25
ST
81
Lens
Maintenance
miles
15)
682
GlenOrchak
mum 1308
Route 671
240
1.54
GA
67
Road
Miss
16)
636
Huffs Road
Route 709
Route 735
140
1.1
OP
53
miles
17)
616
McDonald Road
Rous 608 Mid-
0.44 Mis N
150
0.45
BC
53
Int
Route608
miles
18)
696
South Timber
Route 522
Route 694
120
1.3
CA
53
Zoe Road
miles
19)
685
Light Road
ROM 600
Route 681
130
CoA
47
M3
Miss
20)
731
Cattail Road
Rous 608
Route 854
130
1.7
GA
48
Miss
2t)
608
Hunting Ridge
Route 682
241 Miles West
100
241
GA
46
Road
Of682
Frederick County
Unscheduled
Hardsurface Road
Improvement Projects
Ratings Updated April 2013
0%0,, RUMP MITI Rd
2013/2014 thru 2018/2019
dP%02, Hollow Rd0
o
�9, NCM Sleepy Creek Rd
4M%04, BaeEs Mountain Rd
®®
5. Old Raltmore Rd
dW608. Heishman Rd
0%07, Middle Fork Rd
�)
0%08, Fladher Rd
04%#9. CanleNurg Rd
\
0%010, Cou9ill Rd
22
-.y. 0 \
11, Rahel Rd
GAINESBORO
0%012, Clark Rd
0%013, East Parkins Mill Rd
0
0
01%014, Tmdedakes Ln
/
0
15, Glaiss Orchard Rd
� 50
0
0%018, Rude Rd
^on, Maoonald Rd
STONEWALL
Soum Tmher RId9e Rd
01%018. light Rd
'
0%020, Called Rd
0%V21, Hunting Ridge Rd
37
M
��
Q
4alincrr3uter 7
REDBUD
37
BASCREEK
0
SHAWNEE ® '
0
55
Stephens City
`®
77
a�a 17 OPEQUON
®
00
Middletown
V 22
0 2 4
8 Miles
RESOLUTION
2013-2014 SECONDARY ROAD
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, Sections 33.1-23 and 33.1-23.4 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended,
provides the opportunity for each county to work with the Virginia Department of Transportation
in developing a Six -Year Road Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Transportation Committee recommended approval
of this plan on April 22, 2013; and,
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing and
recommended approval of this plan at their meeting on May 15, 2013; and,
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors had previously agreed to
assist in the preparation of this plan in accordance with the Virginia Department of
Transportation's policies and procedures and participated in a public hearing on the proposed
Plan, after being duly advertised so that all citizens of the County had the opportunity to
participate in said hearing and to make comments and recommendations concerning the proposed
Plan and Priority List; and,
WHEREAS, a representative of the Virginia Department of Transportation appeared
before the Board during the public hearing and recommended approval of the 2013 — 2014
Secondary Road Improvement Plan and the Construction Priority List; and,
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors support the priorities of the
secondary road improvement projects for programming by the Commonwealth Transportation
Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors as follows:
The 2013-2014 Secondary Road Improvement Plan appears to be in the best interest of
the citizens of Frederick County and the Secondary Road System in Frederick County; and
therefore, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the 2013-2014 Secondary
Road Improvement Plan and Construction Priority List for Frederick County, Virginia as
presented at the public hearing held on May 22, 2013.
PDRes # 12-13
This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye
Robert A. Hess
Gene E. Fisher
Christopher E. Collins
PDRes #12-13
BOS Res. 9057-13
Aye Bill M. Ewing
Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.
Aye
A COPY ATTEST
Aye
Aye
Item 3: Getting Private Roadways Adopted for State Maintenance
VDOT staff will be on hand to discuss what is involved in getting a private roadway transferred
to state maintenance. Staff is also expecting some residents from Arklow Road who are
interested in this.
Item 4: Devolution
VDOT Staff will be on hand to review the Devolution program with the Committee. Devolution
is the process by which VDOT turns over ownership of roadways to the locality.
Item 5: Other