Loading...
TC 11-24-08 Meeting MinutesCOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 MEMORANDUM FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation RE: Transportation Committee Report for Meeting of November 24, 2008 DATE: December 3, 2008 The Transportation Committee met on November 24, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. Members Present Chuck DeHaven (voting) Dave Burleson (voting) James Racey (voting) Phil Lemieux (voting) George Kriz (liaison PC) Gary Oates (liaison PC) Members Absent Lewis Boyer (liaison Stephens City) Mark Davis (liaison Middletown) 'F**Items Requiring Action*** 2. I-81 Corridor Coalition Frederick County has recently been approached to join the I-81 corridor coalition. This coalition is an attempt to mirror the I-95 coalition in terms of a multistate initiative to bring federal attention to the needs of the corridor. The primary purpose of the coalition is to coordinate the solutions developed by the six states along the corridor and to protect the interests of the localities along the corridor. Staff noted that the organizing meeting of the coalition determined that the coalition would not be lobbying for additional funding for the roadway. Staff also noted that, while disagreeing with that principle, the coalition has potential to benefit the communities along the I-81 corridor. The Committee discussed the coalition and had some questions regarding VDOT staffing of the effort. Staff noted that the State Dot's along the corridor have committed staff to the effort and it would not require additional staffing at the local level. Staff also agreed to follow up with VDOT to determine the individual who will be working with the coalition and to verify that additional workload would not be placed upon our local VDOT partners. The Committee unanimously recommended that the Board approve Frederick County's participation in the I-81 Corridor Coalition, pending acceptable responses to the questions noted above. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 ***Items Not Requiring Action*** 1. Agenda Format The Committee resolved to go to a paperless agenda and asked that staff communicate that to all the recipients of the Transportation Committee agenda, along with the offer of a paper copy to all of those who may have difficulty receiving the agenda electronically. 3. Transportation Component — Development Impact Model Staff presented preliminary outputs from the new transportation component of the Development Impact Model (attached). Discussion among the Committee covered how this model component would relate to the impacts being discussed in the rural areas of the County. Staff noted that the only impact fee that the County is currently enabled for in the rural areas is transportation, and that the legislation dictating how those fees are calculated is very specific. Staff also noted that the legislature has asked that localities not proceed with that impact fee while Richmond continues to work on the program. Committee members also noted that a per -trip fee might be more accurate and that they would like to get input from the Development Impact Model Oversight Committee before forwarding a recommendation to the Board. 4. Route 522 Realignment Review The Committee reviewed potential modifications to the Route 522 realignment area brought forth by Greenway Engineering. It was noted that the outcome of the pending rezoning of the Governor's Hill development could significantly impact the benefits of any alterations. It was also noted that much additional study would be needed of the traffic. No recommendation was made on the proposal, but the Committee did move that Greenway could seek comments from VDOT if VDOT was so inclined and had the time. 5. TIA Standards Staff distributed an updated draft of the proposed County TIA Standards (attached). Committee members noted that this was by far the best draft to date and asked staff to continue meeting with the private sector on the standards and to add the issue to the Planning Commission retreat agenda to allow for discussion by the PC and Board before sending it forward. 6. Other Attachments JAB/bad 2 Traffic Impact Analysis Standards Draft 4 11/24/08 A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is required in order to allow County Officials and staff the opportunity to assess the impact of a proposed development. The TIA should provide sufficient information to allow this assessment to take place. Any application that includes a TIA, as determined by planning staff, which does not meet the standards laid out herein shall not be considered complete. These TIA standards shall be applicable to rezonings, masterplans, subdivisions, and site plans. When a TIA is required Any action that meets the thresholds outlined in the Virginia Department of Transportation Chapter 527 regulations shall require a TIA (see attached VDOT table). Additionally, Frederick County may choose to require a TIA under the following scenarios; For Site Plans: 1. When one has not been done previously AND the development is expected to generate 100 or more vehicle trip ends in the peak hour. For Master Plans and Subdivisions: 1. When a TIA that models the development that is being master planned or subdivided has not previously been done. If item one has been satisfied, then none of the following items would apply. 2. Any proposed action that is expected to generate 1200 or more vehicle trip ends per day or 100 or more vehicle trip ends in the peak hour and has not previously had a TIA done for similar or greater trip generation. Additionally, staff may require a TIA for any level of traffic generation on corridors facing significant congestion or safety concerns as determined by the professional judgment of the planning staff. 3. A change in use that, while not resulting in greater trip generation, results in a significant change in trip demographics or peak travel times resulting in an unstudied impact on the transportation system. For Rezonings: All rezoning shall require a TIA unless waived by planning staff. Cgjaunfi­,�- af Mviola niahp, Richard C. Flora, Chairman Hollins Magisterial District Michael W. Altizer, Vice -Chairman Vinton Magisterial District Board of Supervisors P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VA 24018-0798 October 13, 2008 Hon. Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Frederick County Board of Supervisors 1 C 7 North Kent Street Winchester VA 22601 Dear Chairman Shickle: t � r r >. I T r r � 1• OCT P j FE�ench Cp�rmy ul Joseph B. "Butch" Church Catawba Magisterial District Joseph P. McNamara Windsor Hills Magisterial District Charlotte A. Moore Cave Spring Magisterial District The purpose of this letter is to encourage your locality's participation in the 1-81 Corridor Coalition that was created in September 2007. The 1-81 Corridor Coalition is represented by every state that 1-81 passes through, along with the federal and state departments of transportation. The Coalition is not promoting any one single solution to the current "over capacity" traffic condition that we are now experiencing. The primary concern of the coalition is to coordinate the solution(s) developed by the states and to protect the interest of the localities along the corridor. Those interests are primarily safety and the compatibility of any solution with local land use regulations. I have attached some information regarding the coalition. I hope you will share this with other members of your governing body in an effort to make them familiar with this very important organization. The 1-81 Corridor Coalition is modeled after the 1-95 Coalition, which has been very successful in getting Congress's attention. Sincerely, Richard C. Flora, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Attachments C'. Richard L. Rovegno, Vice Chairman, Commissioners of Cumberland County, PA OFFICE: FAX: VOICE MAIL: E-MAIL: (540)772-2005 (540)772-2193 (540)772-2170 bos@roanokecountyva.gov I-81 CORRIDOR COALITION PLANNING COMMITTEE'S REPORT July 30, 2008 OVERVIEW At the September 2007 conference in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, the Planning Committee was assembled and assigned the task of developing the proposed Vision/Mission Statements, Goals and Objectives, and an Organizational Structure for the Coalition_ The committee met via teleconference six times since December 2007 and most recently held a retreat in Martinsburg, West Virginia on June 17, 2008 (see attached draft minutes) to form an operating structure for the Coalition and finalize their work. The committee was in agreement the Coalition will have no formal by-laws or written agreements and would be modeled after the I-95 Corridor Coalition. There will be a Memorandum of Understanding among the six State Departments of Transportation in order to rotate taking turns in serving as the administrator of any grant funds that may be appropriated. Additionally, the DOTS will agree to essentially loan an employee to the Coalition for initial_ staffing for this effort. The committee also agreed the Coalition will not lobby for capital funding. The next goal is to have the Coalition in place for when the SAFETEA-LU legislation is scheduled for reauthorization in 2009. At this point, the Planning Committee has tentatively planned to reconvene the conference in Carlisle, Pennsylvania on October 16`y' and a half day on October 17th. As the details unfold and the agenda is completed, correspondence will be sent out to keep everyone informed. In the meantime, the Planning Committee will continue to organize meetings and identify and recruit members for the Executive Board as well as the Steering Committee and Program Track Committees. VISION The I-81 Corridor Transportation Network supporting both freight and passenger movement will be safe, efficient, environmentally sensitive, seamless and intermodal. The network will support economic development and encourage coordinated land use policy. MISSION We will work together in the I-81 Corridor to improve freight and passenger movement through the corridor. This will be accomplished through the sharing of information and coordinated decision making, management and operations. GOALS & OBJECTIVES ➢ SAFETY • Define and quantify "safety issues" within the corridor • Develop protocols and the technical ability (including an ITS system) to provide real time sharing of incident management information to mitigate traffic delays and avoid secondary incidents • Identify strategic placement of TWIS (Truck Weigh & Inspection Stations) and virtual weigh stations; develop uniform enforcement standards and practices to maintain work zone safety • Ensure adequate availability of truck parking / rest areas • Advocate for the provision of an educational program for younger drivers on sharing the road with commercial freight hauling vehicles ➢ FREIGHT MOVEMENT • Assess all current studies and data on freight movement through the corridor, including intermodal / inland port facilities • Develop uniformity of data and definitions Undertake a comprehensive study (or one to fill in any gaps of knowledge) to provide a complete undeistallding of total quantities, descriptions, origins and destinations, and mode of movement of all freight moving through the corridor, as well as projections for future increases 9 ENVIRONMENT • Coordinate the provision of hookups for IRTs (Idle Reduction Technologies) • Encourage additional alternative fueling stations as appropriate along corridor ® Encourage use of Green Building Practices for truck parking facilities, rest areas and weigh stations • Compile data of air quality studies completed along the corridor to collaborate on areas of non -attainment. ➢ TECHNOLOGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE • Develop a website to communicate real- time sharing of critical information • Develop protocols and technical ability to provide real time sharing of critical information • Encourage implementation of an interoperative 511 System in the corridor • Share with coalition states and provide public access to information on construction schedules and seek long-term coordination of maintenance schedules ➢ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • Share information and expand planning outreach to consider economic development opportunities as they relate to transportation ➢ FINANCE • Share statewide investment plans for corridor improvements and collaborate to the maximum extent possible ® Identify state / federal funding opportunities and strategy STRUCTURE The Coalition will have a structure with three panels. (See attached organizational chart) The Executive Board comprised of six (6) Department of Transportation Secretaries/Commissioners or their designees and one (1) U.S. Department of Transportation Representative. The decision was made to have a U.S. DOT representative because this organization manages all means of transportation, not just highway. The Steering Committee will have nineteen (19) members. These members are three (3) representatives from each of the six (6) states as follows: one (1) local elected official or designee; one (1) state or federal elected official or designee; one (1) state DOT representative. Additionally, there will be one (1) federal representative_ Commissioner Rovegno has proposed the following terms in order to have a rotation cycle: 1/3 of the members will have a one-year term; 1/3 of the members will have a two-year term; and 1/3 of the members will have a three-year term. Each member may serve an additional three- year term. The role of the Steering Committee is to vet projects suggested by the Program Track Committees and present them to the Executive Board for final approval. There will be six (6) Program Track Committees organized according to the Coalition's Goals and Objectives. These committees are the working groups that will hold public meetings to discuss common issues and develop initiatives and projects to be presented to the Steering Committee. The Program Track Committees will have ar open enrollment for committee members. Anyone with an interest in serving on these Committees is encouraged to participate. Preliminary Model Outputs Single Family Detached (per unit) = $12,800 Single Family Betached (per unit) _ $7,838 Multi Family Detached (per unit) _ $8,814 Retail (per 1,000 so = $32,000 Office (per 1,000 so = 16,000 Industrial (per 1,000 so = $3,200 Process and Report Requirements 1. Submit a determination form to planning staff which will be used to determine whether the project requires a TIA and whether it will require a VDOT Chapter 527 submittal. 2. Each TIA will be required to undergo a formal scoping meeting with VDOT and County Staff at the regular VDOT engineers meeting. The applicant shall be responsible for scheduling the scoping meeting and it will be the responsibility of planning staff to make sure they are in attendance. Applicants will not be required to re -scope the project due to a failure of planning staff to attend the original scoping meeting. 3. Each submittal must include the following: a. All required VDOT copies and payment for Chapter 527 submittal, and all items on the attached checklists which can be found in the Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations Administrative Guidelines published by VDOT in September, 2007. Utilize the subdivision plat or site plan package checklist for master plans. b. 1 paper copy (or PDF on CD) and 1 CD with modeling files. If submitting PDF copy of the report, both report and modeling files may be on the same CD. 4. Each TIA must include the following; a. An executive summary which summarizes the development, significant findings of the TIA, and impacts of proposed mitigation b. Sections on existing traffic, existing traffic with build out year background traffic, existing traffic with build out year background and development generated traffic, existing traffic with full background traffic, and existing traffic with full background and development traffic. In certain situations it may be appropriate to eliminate some of the above scenarios or to have other scenarios included; the planning staff in concert with VDOT is enabled to make these modifications at the scoping meeting with the applicant. c. The TIA must include all proposed access points, with details about access type. d. Accident Data for the most recent 3 year period to include accident type and severity e. Appendices that include output report sheets from the analysis software grouped according to location. f. Planning staff and/or VDOT may require additional analysis as required by the uniqueness of each development. Technical Details Trip generation must be determined using the most recent addition of the ITE Trip Generation Report unless agreed to by VDOT and planning staff. Only trip generation methodology approved by VDOT and planning staff at the scoping meeting may be used. 2. The TIA must depict a worst case scenario allowable under the proposed zoning as determined by planning staff. The applicant may depict a less than worst case scenario if their proposed proffers would limit their development activities to uses that produce equal or less traffic than what is depicted in the TIA. 3. Only scenarios approved by VDOT and planning staff may be included in the TIA. If the applicant wishes to include other scenarios in their presentation to the Board of Supervisors and/or Planning Commission, that will be allowable. 4. Existing signal timings provided by VDOT must be used for existing conditions. However, where existing signal timings are not operating optimally as demonstrated by the applicant and agreed to by VDOT, an improved signal timing plan may be used if that plan will be provided to VDOT. 5. Level of Service (LOS) must be considered for all movements and approaches and shown graphically in the report. 6. When level of service does not meet the requirements of the comprehensive plan, the report must include suggested improvements that would meet the requirements of the comprehensive plan. 7. When a new signal is proposed, arterial level of service must be analyzed. This must include a signal progression analysis if warranted. 8. When conditions of existing or existing with background scenarios result in level of service F, additional analysis must be done when development traffic is added in so that the impacts of the new development may be considered. Items to include when doing this comparison are intersection capacity utilization, changes in delays, queue lengths, and vehicle to capacity ratio. Planning staff could also consider additional analysis that would depict the development impacts in this situation.