The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9/28/2022 - Regular Roanoke County Board of Supervisors September 28, 2022 INVOCATION: Pastor Greg Irby Temple Baptist Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES FLAG Disclaimer: t of the Board meeting shall be the voluntary offering of a private citizen, to and for the benefit of the Board. The views or beliefs expressed by the invocation speaker have not been previously reviewed or approved by the Board and do not necessarily represent the religious beliefs or views of the Board in part or as a whole. No member of the community is required to attend or participate in the invocation and such decision will have no impact on their right to actively participate in the business of th Page 1 of 5 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda September 28, 2022 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for September 28, 2022. Regular meetings are held on the second and fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3, and will be rebroadcast on Thursday at 7:00 p.m. and on Sunday from 10:00 a.m. until 5 p.m. Board of Supervisors meetings can also be viewed online through Roanoke Co website at www.RoanokeCountyVA.gov. Our meetings are closed-captioned, so it is important for everyone to speak directly into the microphones at the podium. Individuals who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings should contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005 at least 48 hours in advance. Please turn all cell phones off or place on silent. A. OPENING CEREMONIES 1. Roll Call B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Proclamation commemorating the 30th Anniversary of Dominion Metallurgical and expressing appreciation to Paul Huffman for 30 years of providing outstanding service to the Roanoke community (Marshall Stanley, Economic Development Specialist) D. BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing to introduce Jim Blanton, Director of Library Services (Doug Blount, Assistant County Administrator) Page 2 of 5 E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution adopting legislative priorities for the 2023 session of the Virginia General Assembly and petitioning the General Assembly to favorably consider the priorities addressed herein (Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney) 2. Resolution requesting the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration fund a Planning Grant through the Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program in the Bonsack Area, Vinton Magisterial District (Megan G. Cronise, Assistant Director of Planning) F. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 1. Resolution adopting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia: amending the 419 Town Center Plan by incorporating the 419 Town Center Design Guidelines (dated June 2022) (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning) G. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCE-CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of these items does not indicate support for, or judge the merits of, the requested zoning actions but satisfies procedural requirements and schedules the Public Hearings which will be held after recommendation by the Planning Commission: 1. The petition of the Gallery at South Peak, LLC, to rezone approximately 10.83 acres from C-2C, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions, and R-4C, High Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions, to R-4C, High Density Multi-Family Residential with amended conditions, to construct 260 apartments located in the 5000 block of The Peaks Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District H. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating $290,700 and further appropriating $75,000 of Capital Fund Reserves, for the purchase of approximately 56 acres to expand public access to Read Mountain Preserve, Hollins Magisterial District (Lindsay Webb, Parks Planning and Development Manager) I. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Program grant funds from the Virginia Department of Transportation for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 in the amount of $651,375 for the Glade Creek Greenway through Vinyard Park West in the Vinton Magisterial District and in the Town of Vinton (Megan G. Cronise, Assistant Director of Planning) Page 3 of 5 J. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending Chapter 5 (Animals and Fowl), Article II (Dogs, Cats and Other Animals), Sections 5-27. (Barking or howling dogs) and 5-34 (Penalties) of the Code of Roanoke County (Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney) 2. Ordinance amending Chapter 13 (Offenses - Miscellaneous), Article I (In General), Section 13-5.5 (Urban archery hunting season) of the Roanoke County Code (Rachel Lower, Senior Assistant County Attorney) K. APPOINTMENTS 1. Roanoke County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) (appointed by District) 2. Roanoke County Economic Development Authority (EDA) (appointed by District) 3. Roanoke County Library Board (appointed by District) 4. Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission (appointed by District) L. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY 1. Approval of minutes May 24, 2022 2. Request to participate in the Virginia Department of Emergency Management multi-jurisdictional Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) Educational Grant 3. Resolution amending the Board's written policy for participation in Board of Supervisor Meetings through electronic communication M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS N. REPORTS 1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report 2. Outstanding Debt Report 3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of August 31, 2022 Page 4 of 5 4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances as of August 31, 2022 5. Accounts Paid August 31, 2022 O. WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors the preliminary and unaudited financial results for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022 and Budget Planning for fiscal year 2024, for the County of Roanoke, Virginia (Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services; Steve Elliott, Budget Administrator) EVENING SESSION 7:00 P.M. P. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. The petition of ABoone Real Estate, Inc., to rezone approximately 32.323 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, and R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, to construct a hotel and townhouses located in the 1300 and 1400 blocks of Edgebrook Road, Catawba Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning) Q. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS R. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1. David F. Radford 2. P. Jason Peters 3. Martha B. Hooker 4. Phil C. North 5. Paul M. Mahoney S. ADJOURNMENT Page 5 of 5 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 28, 2022 AGENDA ITEM: Proclamation commemorating the 30th Anniversary of Dominion Metallurgical and expressing appreciation to Paul Huffman for 30 years of providing outstanding service to the Roanoke community SUBMITTED BY: Jill Loope Director of Economic Development APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: A Proclamation commending Dominion Metallurgical on the occasion of its 30th anniversary BACKGROUND: Dominion Metallurgical has been in the Roanoke Valley since 1992, and under the ownership of Paul Huffman for 30 years. DOMMET is a long running consulting and service business success story in Roanoke County, and is well known for providing high quality, customer service-oriented solutions to the foundry industry. DOMMET specializes in supply chain management, component manufacturing and quality management services for manufacturers. Their core business is the Tier 1 supply of castings, machining and turnkey metal components. DOMMET is recognized throughout the foundry and metal casting supply industry as a valued and dependable partner, as they are known for their responsiveness and unique solutions. Owner Paul Huffman will be present to accept the Proclamation. Page 1 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT: This item has no fiscal impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached proclamation. Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. D.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 28, 2022 AGENDA ITEM: Briefing to introduce Jim Blanton, Director of Library Services SUBMITTED BY: Doug Blount Assistant County Administrator APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Jim Blanton is the new Director of Library Services for Roanoke County DISCUSSION: This time has been set aside to introduce Jim Blanton, Director of Library Services. Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. E.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 28, 2022 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution adopting legislative priorities for the 2023 session of the Virginia General Assembly and petitioning the General Assembly to favorably consider the priorities addressed herein SUBMITTED BY: Peter S. Lubeck County Attorney APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: County staff and legislative liaison, Eldon James, have identified legislative issues of local and statewide concern to be considered by the 2023 session of the Virginia General Assembly. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Each year the Board of Supervisors adopts a resolution setting forth legislative priorities for the upcoming session of the General Assembly, to provide direction to County staff, its legislative liaisons and members of the local delegation. Several priorities are set forth in the accompanying resolution. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact exists in adopting a resolution setting forth legislative priorites. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adopting the resolution. Page 1 of 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 RESOLUTION ADOPTING LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES FOR THE 2023 SESSION OF THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND PETITIONING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO FAVORABLY CONSIDER THE PRIORITIES ADDRESSED HEREIN WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has identified legislative priorities of local and statewide concern to be considered during the 2023 session of the Virginia General Assembly; and WHEREAS, the Board adopts this resolution setting forth its legislative priorities, and respectfully petitions the General Assembly to favorably consider such. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke s consideration during its 2023 session. PRIORITIES 1. Education K-12 Funding a. The County supports making additional state resources and funding available to localities to support school capital needs, including rehabilitation and upgrades to existing facilities as well as construction of new facilities. b. The County urges the General Assembly to authorize and provide capital grant funding for fiscal year 2024 (which funding is presently authorized only for fiscal year 2023). Page 1 of 3 c. The County urges the General Assembly to provide economic development workforce grants that could be used to fund career and technical education capital projects. 2. Mental Health and Public Hospital Needs a. The County urges the General Assembly to use available funds to continue the operation and expansion of Catawba Hospital. 3. Airport Expansion a. The County supports legislation that would provide funding for the expansion of airports, to foster regional economic development. b. The County specifically urges the General Assembly to provide funding for the Roanoke-Blacksburg Regional Airport, to support a needed runway extension and other airport improvements. 4. Authority to Impose Civil Penalties a. At present, § 15.2-1429 of the Code of Virginia authorizes localities to impose criminal penalties for violations of local codes; civil penalties are not universally authorized. The County proposes that § 15.2-1429 be amended (or that the Code of Virginia otherwise be amended) to allow localities the option to impose civil penalties for violations of local codes, in lieu of criminal penalties. The County further proposes that localities be granted authority to issue civil summonses for such violations, that violators be allowed to prepay such penalties in lieu of holding a trial, and that localities further be authorized to impose liens on the real property of violators who fail to pay such fines or penalties. Page 2 of 3 5. Broadband Expansion a. The County urges the General Assembly to use available funding to improve access to and affordability of broadband, to promote the goal of statewide coverage. Page 3 of 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. E.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 28, 2022 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution requesting the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration fund a Planning Grant through the Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program in the Bonsack Area, Vinton Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Megan G. Cronise Assistant Director of Planning APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: A resolution of support is requested from the Board of Supervisors to apply for a Planning Grant for planning, environmental review and design of an eligible project through the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration's Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program. BACKGROUND: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has made available $573 million in funding through the Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program. This Program is intended to enhance safety on railroads by eliminating at-grade crossings, where railroad tracks cross roadways, therefore reducing the risk of interaction between trains and roadway users. At least three (3) percent of this funding, or $18 million, is available for Planning Grants through this program. The Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program provides eighty percent (80%) federal funding for a twenty percent (20%) local match. The application is due October 4, 2022. DISCUSSION: Staff recommends applying for a planning grant to build upon the conceptual work completed for the Layman Road and Glade Creek Road railroad crossings as part of the Page 1 of 2 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study. If awarded, the grant would enable planning, environmental review and design of an eligible project. The next step would be requesting funding for the designed safety improvement project in future application windows of the Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program. FISCAL IMPACT: The twenty percent (20%) match will be submitted as a fiscal year 2024 Capital Improvement Program request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the resolution of support. Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION FUND A PLANNING GRANT THROUGH THE RAILROAD CROSSING ELIMINATION GRANT PROGRAM IN THE BONSACK AREA, VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors is committed to advocating for and ensuring safe transportation facilities both in the County and in the region; and WHEREAS, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funded the Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program to enhance safety on railroads by eliminating at-grade crossings, therefore reducing the risk of interaction between trains and roadway users; and WHEREAS, conceptual analysis of two railroad crossings in the Bonsack area has been completed as part of the Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study; and WHEREAS, a Planning Grant through this program focusing on the Bonsack area would enable planning, environmental review and design of an eligible project for future Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program application opportunities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors requests the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration fund a Planning Grant through the Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program. 2. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby commits to provide Page 1 of 2 a twenty percent (20%) matching contribution for a Planning Grant through the Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program, up to and not to exceed $100,000. 3. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby grants authority for the County Administrator, or his designee, to execute project agreements for an approved Planning Grant. Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. F.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 28, 2022 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution adopting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia: amending the 419 Town Center Plan by incorporating the 419 Town Center Design Guidelines (dated June 2022) SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson Director of Planning APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Agenda item for adoption of a resolution amending the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan and 419 Town Center Plan by incorporating the 419 Town Center Design Guidelines. BACKGROUND: The Comprehensive Plan is a planning document that is general in nature and reflects the community’s goals and visions of what the future might be. It is a blueprint for the future growth and development of the County over the next 20 years. It provides direction and guidance, for both the public and private sectors, in making decisions about land development, public services and resource protection. In July 2019, the Board of Supervisors incorporated the 419 Town Center Plan into the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The 419 Town Center Plan study area is located near Tanglewood Mall and is approximately 400 acres in size covering Route 419 from US-220 to the railroad bridge near Chaparral Drive. The 419 Town Center Plan provides an overall vision for a mixed-use, multi-modal area with recommendations on how to achieve this vision. Page 1of 2 DISCUSSION: In January 2021, Planning staff applied for a Growth and Accessibility Planning (GAP) technical assistance grant through Virginia's Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment (OIPI), which was successful. In June 2021, a project kick-off meeting was held between staff and the consultants (Michael Baker and Renaissance Planning). Work sessions with the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission were held in September 2021. An open house public meeting on draft guidelines was held on March 10, 2022. A joint work session with the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission was held on May 10, 2022, to review a final draft of the design guidelines. Staff and the consultants finalized the design guidelines document in June 2022. The design guidelines are proposed as an accompaniment to the 419 Town Center Plan to provide further guidance on the design of both public and private investments and improvements in the study area to help shape the built environment, meet community expectations, provide a vibrant public realm, and maintain a consistent character and high quality of design and aesthetic over the long-term future. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to amend the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan by incorporating the 419 Town Center Design Guidelines into the 419 Town Center Plan. Several citizens spoke during the public hearing with specific questions regarding their properties. The Planning Commission and staff answered their questions. The Planning Commission recommends amending the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan by incorporating the 419 Town Center Design Guidelines into the 419 Town Center Plan. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact on this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the resolution amending the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan and 419 Town Center Plan by incorporating the 419 Town Center Design Guidelines. Page 2of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORSOF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: AMENDING THE 419 TOWN CENTER PLAN BY INCORPORATING THE 419 TOWN CENTER DESIGN GUIDELINES(DATED JUNE 2022) WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 15.2-2223 requires that every jurisdiction adopt a comprehensive plan for the physical development of that jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, Virginia Code §15.2-2230 requires that the Planning Commission review the comprehensive plan at least once every five (5) years to determine whether it is advisable to amend the plan; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to incorporate the 419 Town Center Design Guidelines (dated June 2022) into the 419 Town Center Plan, which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on September 6, 2022, after providing notice as required by Virginia Code § 15.2-2225; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the 419 Town Center Design Guidelines (dated June 2022) into the 419 Town Center Plan, which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: Page 1of 2 1)The Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended by incorporatingthe 419 Town Center Design Guidelines (dated June 2022) into the 419 Town Center Plan, which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. 2) This resolution is effective upon its adoption. Page 2of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 28, 2022 AGENDA ITEM: The petition of the Gallery at South Peak, LLC, to rezone approximately 10.83 acres from C-2C, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions, and R-4C, High Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions, to R-4C, High Density Multi-Family Residential with amended conditions, to construct 260 apartments located in the 5000 block of The Peaks Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson Director of Planning APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Consent agenda item for first reading on an ordinance. BACKGROUND: The first reading of this ordinance is accomplished by adoption of this ordinance in the manner of consent agenda items. The adoption of these items does not imply approval of the substantive content of the requested zoning actions; rather, approval satisfies the procedural requirements of the County Charter and schedules the required public hearing and second reading of these ordinances. The second reading and public hearing on this ordinance is scheduled for October 25, 2022. The title of this ordinance is as follows: 1. The petition of the Gallery at South Peak, LLC, to rezone approximately 10.83 acres from C-2C, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions, and R-4C, High Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions, to R-4C, High Density Multi- Family Residential with amended conditions, to construct 260 apartments located in the 5000 block of The Peaks Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District. Page 1 of 2 DISCUSSION: There is no discussion on this item. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact on this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: 1. That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of this ordinance for the purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for October 25, 2022. 2. That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth as Item(s) 1, and that the Clerk is authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this action. Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. H.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 28, 2022 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance accepting and appropriating $290,700 and further appropriating $75,000 of Capital Fund Reserves, for the purchase of approximately 56 acres to expand public access to Read Mountain Preserve, Hollins Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Lindsay B. Webb Parks Planning and Development Manager APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Roanoke County staff recommends that the Board accept and appropriate $150,000 from the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, $140,700 from the Pathfinders for Greenways, and that the Board further appropriate $75,000 of Roanoke County capital fund reserves for the purchase of approximately 56 acres for the expansion of Read Mountain Preserve in the Hollins Magisterial District. BACKGROUND: Read Mountain Preserve became a 243-acre park in 2008 as a result of citizen-initiated efforts to preserve the forested open space and viewshed from development. The Preserve was originally comprised of two (2) conservation easements held by the Blue Ridge Land Conservancy (formerly the Western Virginia Land Trust) and the Virginia land development. The Preserve was expanded in 2020 when Roanoke County acquired an additional 304 acres of forested land for open space and outdoor recreation with funding provided through the VOF Forest CORE Program. The top of the ridge, Buzzards Rock, and the northern face of Read Mountain were largely in the hands of the Andrews' descendants, the family which has held the property for generations. Roanoke County has worked cooperatively with the heirs to preserve the mountain, and the family is now supportive of expanding the Preserve further north and providing public access to Old Mountain Road (State Road 605). Page 1 of 4 The current 547-acre Preserve is forested with the exception of a trailhead parking lot and a park access road on the south side of Read Mountain, over five (5) miles of natural surface trails, and unimproved access roads that serve for emergency and maintenance. The land is steep, with many rock outcrops, but also has perennial streams and large cove hardwoods. Read Mountain is in the viewshed of both the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and the Blue Ridge Parkway. The Great Wagon Road ran down Old Mountain Road and the area still has many historic sites, such as Monterey and Bellvue. There are three (3) parcels located adjacent to Read Mountain Preserve and Old Mountain Road, identified as Roanoke County Tax Parcel IDs: 028.00-01-07.00-0000, 028.03-01-22.00-0000, and 039.01-01-46.00-0000. The owners of these parcels have signed a willingness letter and agreed to sell an approximate 56-acre portion of these parcels to Roanoke County in the amount of $325,000, which is based off of a 2022 Restricted Use Appraisal. The upper slope of the property connects directly to the Read Mountain Preserve. This additional property will help protect the upper slopes of the northwestern facing side of the mountain from future residential development. The only portion of the property that is not forested is an existing power line corridor, which will serve as the lower property boundary demarcation. The lower slopes of the property were a former apple orchard and are currently being farmed. Roanoke County plans to use the 56-acre property to expand Read Mountain Preserve for passive recreation (i.e., hiking trails, bird watching, environmental education, etc.) and provide public access to Old Mountain Road with a trailhead parking lot, access road and amenities such as kiosks, signs, and fencing. With the development of trail access on the north-side of the Preserve, the public will be able to hike more directly to Buzzards Rock, the most prominent land feature on the property. Roanoke County has prepared a preliminary site plan that includes the proposed subdivision of the three (3) subject parcels and a site distance evaluation that has been supported by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for a parking lot entrance on Old Mountain Road. The site plan includes a 24-foot access road, temporary construction easements, and a parking lot. Roanoke County staff submitted a Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF) Preservation Trust Fund-Public Access (PTF) Program grant application in March of 2022 requesting funding for acquisition of the 56 acres. The total project cost estimate for acquisition of the subject property and associated due diligence items such as surveying, plat preparation, title reports, environmental assessments and an updated appraisal is $365,700. The Pathfinders for Greenways agreed to provide a match in the amount of $90,000 in support of the land acquisition, which reduced the PTF grant application request submitted by Roanoke County to $275,700. Page 2 of 4 DISCUSSION: Roanoke County was awarded partial VOF PTF funding in the amount of $150,000 on June 30, 2022, pursuant to terms and conditions that are outlined in a Grant Agreement attached to this report. The project period begins on August 2, 2022 and terminates on August 2, 2024. The 56 acres proposed for acquisition shall be conveyed to Roanoke County with a permanent right of public access and designated as open-space in accordance with §10.1-1700 and §10.1-1801.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Following funding appropriation by the Board of Supervisors, staff will proceed with execution of the VOF PTF Program Grant Agreement and procurement of professional services for the due diligence items including: a. A survey of the property prepared by a Virginia licensed surveyor or professional engineer, preferable in digital form, depicting the metes and bounds of the property unless VOF determines that an adequate legal description of the Property is available. b. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared within six (6) months of closing shall be provided. c. Fin old showing title vested in the seller of the properties and that upon closing of the purchase transactions, Roanoke County will hold an unencumbered fee simple interest in the property (subject to easements and other encumbrances of record acceptable to VOF). d. Verification of eligible expenditures related to property acquisition at closing and shown on a settlement statement, including, but not limited to survey fees, appraisal fees, legal fees including title reports and insurance, required reports and recordation fees. These services will be performed to the satisfaction of County and VOF requirements in advance of a real estate closing and recordation of a deed of conveyance, which will be presented to the Board of Supervisors for consideration and authorization at a later date. FISCAL IMPACT: The total anticipated project costs for acquisition of the property and the due diligence items required to fulfill the terms of the grant agreement is $365,700. The VOF PTF Program provides a partial grant funding award of $150,000, and the Pathfinders for Greenways have committed $90,000 in private donations and up to $50,700 from general funds. Roanoke County staff are recommending the appropriation of $75,000 from Capital Fund Reserves to fulfill the outstanding balance. The VOF PTF grant funds distributed shall not exceed the approved appraised value of Page 3 of 4 the property acquired, plus eligible due diligence costs incurred not to exceed the total grant amount of $150,000. Funding will be dispersed from the VOF and Pathfinders for Greenways after interest in the real estate has been conveyed to Roanoke County and reimbursement requests are submitted. Following acquisition of the property, Roanoke County will develop a site plan to include development of a trailhead parking lot, access road, stormwater features, and trails. Funding for the public access improvements will be determined at a future date, but staff intend to apply for additional grant funds. Roanoke County anticipates project completion by 2025. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance and scheduling the second reading for October 11, 2022. Page 4 of 4 Proposed 56-Acre Land Acquisition Existing 5-Mile Trail System I Access Road Read Mountain Preserve 100 Acre Streams Jurisdictions VOF Conservation Easement 028.00-01-07.00-0000 028.03-01-22.00-0000 VOF Conservation Easement 039.01-01-46.00-0000 Blue Ridge Land Conservancy Conservation Easement 1 inch = 1,238 feet 04358701,740 Roanoke City Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN), Roanoke County, Va 2021, Feet Roanoke County 2018 Read Mountain Preserve North Expansion 2022Preservation Trust Fund Grant Application Date: 3/10/2022 June 30, 2022 Lindsay Webb Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism 1206 Kessler Mill Road Salem, VA 24153 Greetings, The Virginia Outdoors Foundation(VOF)is pleased to award your proposal, Read Mountain Preserve, North Expansion, submitted to the Preservation Trust Fund-Public Access Program, a grant award of$150,000. This project will permanently protect land for public use and enjoyment. A grant agreement will be sent for review and signature within the month. VOF recognizes the merit of access to open space for all citizens, and the funded project will result in this goal. VOF is glad to support Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism in the pursuit to make outdoor space more accessible for all. Warmest regards, Emily White Conservation Grant Program Manager Preservation Trust Fund Program Requirements Land Acquisition & Protection Required Documents Prior to Fund Disbursement: 1. A boundary survey of the property prepared by a Virginia licensed surveyor or professional engineer, preferable in digital form, depicting the metes and bounds of the property unless VOF determines that an adequate legal description of the Property is available. 2. Copies of title work showing grantor’s fee simple interest in the property and/or a title insurance policy showing title vested in the grantor as well as any easements, rights, and other encumbrances of record acceptable to VOF. 3. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared within six months of closing shall be provided. 4. A copy of the draft deed, or the recorded deed, the form of which has been approved by VOF. The property interest must be held by VOF or a locality as defined in Virginia Code §10.1-1700 The property interest must be dedicated in perpetuity as open-space land under the Open-Space Land Act (Virginia Code §§ 10.1-1700 to 10.1-1705). The deed must include the following recitals: Pursuant to Chapter 18, Title 10.1, Section 10.1-1801.1 the Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF) has provided an Open-Space Lands Preservation Trust Fund Grant in the amount of $___________ to Grantee for the protection and enhancement of open space, as more fully described in the Virginia Outdoors Foundation Open-Space Lands Preservation Trust Fund Grant Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A. When there is acquisitionof a property interest by a locality: o Grantor is conveying the described property (the “Property”) to Grantee to be retained and used by Grantee in perpetuity as open-space land pursuant to Chapter 17, Title 10.1, Section 10.1-1701 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. OR o When property interest is already held by a locality: o Grantor is dedicating the described property (the “Property”) to be retained and used in perpetuity as open-space land pursuant to Chapter 17, Title 10.1, Section 10.1-1701 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The deed must include the following restrictions to be imposed in perpetuity: o A right of public access o A conversion/diversion clause The deed may include the following restrictions to be imposed in perpetuity: o No division o Only structures allowed are those that enable public use and enjoyment. Impervious surface will be limited/capped. 10% of property is average cap. o A clause in which VOF must agree that the determination of the public body to convert/divert the public land has met all the requirements of 10.1-1704. 5. Verification of eligible expenditures including, but not limited to: appraisals, settlement statements, copies of invoices, cancelled checks (both sides), survey fees, appraisal fees, legal fees including title reports and insurance, and recordation fees, etc. 6. Contact information for the settlement agent who will be receiving the grant funds for closing and a W-9 for that company at least two weeks before the desired closing date. VIRGINIA OUTDOORS FOUNDATION OPEN SPACE LANDS PRESERVATION TRUST FUND-PUBLIC ACCESS GRANT AGREEMENT Grant Recipient: Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism Project Title: Read Mountain Preserve, North Expansion Approval Date: June 30, 2022 Project Number: PTFPA2022-016 Project Period: August 2, 2022-August 2, 2024 Project Description: Read Mountain Preserve, North Expansion, is focused on the acquisition of 56 acres of land adjacent to the 547-acre Read Mountain Preserve in Roanoke County. The existing preserve has three conservation and open space easements protecting the natural environment, but only one limited public access point. This potential addition will allow for direct public access from a VDOT road, a future trailhead on the northern slope of the mountain, and further provide a buffer from development. Location: 37.33428, -79.91778 Roanoke County, VA Grant Amount: $150,000.00 (Exhibit A, budget attached) The Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism, in consideration of the grant funds in the amount of $150,000.00 being provided to it pursuant to this agreement by VOF, agrees to comply to the following terms and conditions: GRANT POLICIES Scope of Work 1. The following deliverables are included in the grant agreement and are expected to be completed within the grant lifespan: Acquisition of 56 acres of land, Roanoke County Parcel IDs: 028.03-01-22.00, 039.01- 01-46.00, and 28.00-01-07.00 Conveyance to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF) or a locality of a right, interest, or privilege that that will protect, in accordance with Virginia Code § 10.1-1801.1 and § 10.1-1700, approximately 56acres of open space. Such right, interest, or privilege shall also convey a permanent right of public access to the property. 2. Any variance from the listed scope of work and deliverables must be approved by VOF. Schedule 3. All components listed above must be completed by August 2, 2024. 4. If no significant progress has been made after the first year of the contract, the grant agreement may be nullified, and funds reassigned. 5. In the case of land acquisition, the land acquisition must be completed before any investment in infrastructure or improvements is made. 1 Funding 6. Grant funds distributed shall not exceed eligible documented costs incurred, not to exceed the total grant amount of $150,000.00. 7. Funding may be disbursed only once a real estate interest has been conveyed to VOF or a locality, such as the recordation of an open space easement, the dedication of land to open space, or another mechanism approved by VOF. 8. In the case of land acquisition using grant funds, verification of purchase price is required. Acceptable forms of verification include a settlement statement or deed of conveyance. 9. The general budget is a guide for expenditure. Funds from any item category may be reallocated toward other deliverables in the grant agreement as long as there is no impact to the scope of work. The grant recipient should inform VOF regarding line-item changes greater than 5% of the total award. 10. The parties understand that the grant funding hereunder may be subject to rescission by the Virginia General Assembly. In such event, VOF shall have the right to cancel this Agreement without liability thereon. In the Case of Land Acquisition 11. The recordable deed of conveyance, executed on behalf of the grant recipient, must be previously approved in form and substance by VOF. See Land Protection section below, which must follow acquisition or occur at the time of closing. 12. Should land be acquired using PTF grant funds, the following due diligence items must be provided: a. A survey of the property prepared by a Virginia licensed surveyor or professional engineer, preferable in digital form, depicting the metes and bounds of the property unless VOF determines that an adequate legal description of the Property is available. b. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared within six months of closing shall be provided. c. Final policy or commitment for owner’s title insurance less than ninety (90) days old showing title vested in the seller of the properties and that upon closing of the purchase transactions, Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism will hold an unencumbered fee simple interest in the property (subject to easements and other encumbrances of record acceptable to VOF). d. Verification of eligible expenditures related to property acquisition at closing and shown on settlement statement, including, but not limited to survey fees, appraisal fees, legal fees including title reports and insurance, required reports, and recordation fees. 13. Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism must provide contact information to the settlement agent who will be receiving the grant funds for closing and must also provide a W-9 for that company at least two weeks before the desired closing date. 14. Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourismshall work closely with VOF to set up all property closings and must contact VOF at least one month before the desired closing date to ensure that VOF will have sufficient funds available to meet the funding obligations created hereunder. 2 15. Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism must provide copies of all recorded deeds of transfer, open space easements, and right-of-way or trail easements for which VOF monies have been awarded, showing the locality, deed book, page of recordation, and/or instrument number to VOF no later than one month after recordation. Land Protection 16. A recordable legal instrument reflecting the conveyance of a real estate right, interest, or privilege, such as deed of Open-Space dedication or easement executed on behalf of Grant Recipient, must be previously approved in form and substance by VOF. See Exhibit B: Sample Deed Language for example language that may be included. 17. If the property is being purchased by or is already owned by VOF or a locality, the deed must designate such property as open-space land in accordance with the Open-Space Land Act (Va. Code § 10.1-1700 et seq.) including Section 10.1-1701 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The deed shall include a right of public access and any other restrictions that pertain. 18. If the property is being purchased by or is already owned by any entity other than VOF or a locality, the deed must designate such property as open-space land in accordance with the Open-Space Land Act (Va. Code § 10.1-1700 et seq.) including Section 10.1-1701 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended and the restrictions outlined below shall be imposed in perpetuity by enforceable restrictions set forth in the deed of conveyance or by restrictions set forth in a deed of easement or other instrument to be granted to VOF or a locality. The decision of whether deed restrictions, a deed of easement or some other instrument thereof shall be used shall be determined by VOF. a. A right of public access b. A conversion/diversion clause 19. Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism must provide the following due diligence: a. A survey of the property prepared by a Virginia licensed surveyor or professional engineer, preferable in digital form, depicting the metes and bounds of the property unless VOF determines that an adequate legal description of the Property is available. b. Copies of title work showing grantor’s fee simple interest in the property and/or a title insurance policy showing title vested in the grantor as well as any easements, rights, and other encumbrances of record acceptable to VOF. 20. Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism must provide contact information to the settlement agent who will be receiving the grant funds for closing and must also provide a W-9 for that company at least two weeks before the desired closing date. 21. Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism shall work closely with VOF to set up all property closings and must contact VOF at least one month before the desired closing date to ensure that VOF will have sufficient funds available to meet the funding obligations created hereunder. 22. Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism must provide copies of all recorded deeds of transfer, open space easements, and right-of-way or trail easements for which VOF monies have been awarded, showing the locality, deed book, page of recordation, and/or instrument number to VOF no later than one month after recordation. 3 Reporting 23. Progress reports are required throughout the lifespan of the grant. Reports should be submitted every six months following the signing of the grant agreement. Reports should be submitted through the VOF standardized process. Additionally, a final report is due upon completion of the project. Photo documentation should be included when appropriate. Media and Publicity 24. The grant recipient will release information to the media informing the community of the grant award to the project and acknowledging that it has received funding from VOF. 25. All press releases and other printed materials and publications, audiovisuals, and signs pertaining to the project should reference the Virginia Outdoors Foundation or include the VOF logo. VOF staff is available to assist with drafting and distributing press releases by request. Please contact Jason McGarvey, communications manager, at jmcgarvey@vof.org to coordinate. 26. Each project site will be permanently marked with a VOF sign or signs (as appropriate) in locations reasonably selected or approved by VOF. VOF shall provide such signs at no cost to the property owner. In cases where there are multiple funders this requirement may be fulfilled by including VOF on the sign acknowledging all funding sources. 27. All material submitted as support or documentation of project progress, such as photographs, may be used by VOF to promote the grant program. Any VOF publications will cite the source of the reprinted material. These records will also be deemed public records and subject to Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act; however, copyright holders will retain their copyrights. Contract Authority 28. Modification of this Agreement must be in a writing executed by the parties hereto. 29. The interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the remaining provisions shall not be affected thereby. 30. Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism shall hold the Commonwealth of Virginia harmless from all legal liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq., together with any other federal, state or local law or ordinance related to hazardous substances or hazardous waste. 31. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors. 32. The individuals executing this Agreement on behalf of VOF and Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism possess all necessary power and authority to bind the parties hereto and, upon execution, this Agreement shall constitute a legal and valid obligation of the parties hereto. 4 Termination: 33. VOF reserves the right to reclaim grant funds, or properties purchased with grant funds, or to nullify the grant agreement if recipient fails to meet land transfer deadlines, obtain appropriate open space protection, or provide required documentation regardless of transfer of ownership. Specifically, if no significant progress has been made at the one-year review of the project, the grant agreement may be nullified. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this contractual agreement as of the dates entered below. Virginia Outdoors Foundation By: Date: ___________________________ Leslie Grayson, Deputy Director Grant Recipient, Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism: By: Date: ___________________________ \[Signature\] Please print name here: Title: 5 VIRGINIA OUTDOORS FOUNDATION PRESERVATION TRUST FUND-PUBLIC ACCESS PROGRAM Exhibit A: General Budget Grant Recipient: Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism Project Title: Read Mountain Preserve, North Expansion Project Number: PTFPA2022-016 Grant Amount: $150,000 ITEMEXPENSE Acquisition and permanent protection of approximately 56 acres of land, Roanoke County Parcel IDs: 028.03-01-22.00, 039.01-01-46.00, and 28.00-01-07.00 as open $150,000.00 space including associated due diligence costs Total $150,000.00 General budget is a guide for expenditure. Funds from any item category may be reallocated toward other deliverables in the grant agreement as long as there is no impact to the scope of work. Grant recipient should inform VOF regarding line-item changes greater than 5% of the total award. Grant funds distributed shall not exceed eligible documented costs incurred, not to exceed the total grant amount of $150,000. Funding may be disbursed only once a real estate interest has been conveyed to VOF or a locality, such as the recordation of an open space easement, the dedication of land to open space, or another mechanism approved by VOF. Preservation Trust Fund-Public Access Program Grant Agreement Exhibit B: Sample Deed Language A draft deed must be approved by VOF and meet the following requirements: The property interest, the form of which may be determined by VOF, must be held by VOF or a locality as specified in Virginia Code §10.1-1801.1. The property interest must be dedicated in perpetuity as open-space land under the Open- Space Land Act (Virginia Code §§ 10.1-1700 to 10.1-1705). The grant agreement must be recorded as an exhibit to the deed. Recitals: Pursuant to Chapter 18, Title 10.1, Section 10.1-1801.1 the Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF) has provided an Open-Space Lands Preservation Trust Fund Grant in the amount of $___________ to Grantee for the protection and enhancement of public open space, as more fully described in the Virginia Outdoors Foundation Open-Space Lands Preservation Trust Fund-Public Access Grant Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A. When there is acquisitionof a property interest by a locality: o Grantor is conveying the described property (the “Property”) to Grantee to be retained and used by Grantee in perpetuity as open-space land pursuant to Chapter 17, Title 10.1, Section 10.1-1701 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. OR When property interest is already held by a locality: o Grantor is dedicating the described property (the “Property”) to be retained and used in perpetuity as open-space land pursuant to Chapter 17, Title 10.1, Section 10.1-1701 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Designation: The owner/public body/grantee hereby designates the Property to be retained and used in perpetuity as open-space land to Chapter 17, Title 10.1, Section 10.1-1701 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended. Restrictions: The deed must include the following restrictions to be imposed in perpetuity: o A right of public access o A conversion/diversion clause No part of the Property may be converted or diverted from its open-space use unless such conversion or diversion is determined by the owner/public body to be in compliance with the provisions of Section 10.1-1704 of the Open-Space Land Act. The deed may include the following restrictions to be imposed in perpetuity: o No division o Only structures allowed are those that support public use of the property. Impervious surface will be limited/capped. 10% of property is average cap. o A clause in which VOF must agree that the determination of the public body to convert/divert the public land has met all the requirements of 10.1-1704, such as: No part of the Property may be converted or diverted from its open-space use unless such conversion or diversion is determined by VOF to be in compliance with the provisions of Section 10.1-1704 of the Open-Space Land Act. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING $290,700, AND FURTHER APPROPRIATING $75,000 OF CAPITAL FUND RESERVES, FOR THE PURCHASE OF APPROXIMATELY 56 ACRES TO EXPAND PUBLIC ACCESS TO READ MOUNTAIN PRESERVE, HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT protect land in perpetuity and expand public access for outdoor recreation; and WHEREAS, the VOF has awarded Roanoke County $150,000 in grant funding from the Preservation Trust Fund-Public Access Program for the purchase of approximately fifty-six (56) acres of real property, identified as portions of Roanoke County Tax Map Numbers 028.00-01-07.00-0000, 028.03-01-22.00-0000, and 039.01- 01-46.00-0000, for the expansion of Read Mountain Preserve to provide public access from Old Mountain Road (State Road 605); and WHEREAS, the landowners have signed a letter of willingness to sell a portion of the three parcels totaling approximately fifty-six (56) acres of real property to Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, the Pathfinders for Greenways, a 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable organization has a mission of preserving and promoting greenways and trails in the Roanoke Valley; and WHEREAS, the Pathfinders for Greenways has committed up to $50,700 from their general funds and $90,000 from two private donations to help Roanoke County secure the acquisition of the above-referenced real property; and Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan encourages the acquisition of land for expansion of parks and supports the development of trails; and WHEREAS, the future acquisition of the above-noted property will be owned and maintained by Roanoke County for outdoor recreation and open-space in perpetuity for year-round public access; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the VOF PTF program requirements, the property shall be conveyed to Roanoke County with a permanent right of public access and designated as open-space in accordance with §10.1-1700 and §10.1-1801.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be appropriated by ordinance; and WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on September 28, 2022, and the second reading was held on October 11, 2022. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the sum of $150,000 is hereby accepted from the Virginia Outdoors Foundation Preservation Trust Fund-Public Access Program and appropriated fund for the purpose of purchasing the above-referenced real property for the expansion of Read Mountain Preserve to provide public access to Old Mountain Road (State Road 605). 2. That the sum of $90,000 in private donations is hereby accepted from the Pathfinders for Greenways and appropriated to the fund for the purpose of purchasing the above-referenced real property for the Page 2 of 3 expansion of Read Mountain Preserve to provide public access to Old Mountain Road (State Road 605). 3. That the sum of $50,700 in general funds is hereby accepted from the Pathfinders for Greenways for the purposes of purchasing the above- referenced real property for the expansion of Read Mountain Preserve to provide public access to Old Mountain Road (State Road 605). 4. That the sum of $75,000 is hereby appropriated from the Roanoke County capital fund reserves for the purpose of purchasing the above-referenced real property for the expansion of Read Mountain Preserve to provide public access to Old Mountain Road (State Road 605). 5. That these appropriations designated for the expansion of Read Mountain Preserve will not lapse at the end of the fiscal year, and shall remain appropriated until the completion of the above-referenced project. 6. That the County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator are hereby authorized to execute such documents and to take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish this appropriation. 7. That this ordinance is to be in full force and effect upon its passage. Page 3 of 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. I.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 28, 2022 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance accepting and appropriating Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Program grant funds from the Virginia Department of Transportation for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 in the amount of $651,375 for the Glade Creek Greenway through Vinyard Park West in the Vinton Magisterial District and in the Town of Vinton SUBMITTED BY: Megan G. Cronise Assistant Director of Planning APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Accept and appropriate $651,375 in Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TA) Program funding to design and construct the Glade Creek Greenway through Vinyard Park West. BACKGROUND: The Glade Creek Greenway is identified in the 2018 Roanoke Valley Greenway Plan, which was adopted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors in September 2018. The Town of Vinton has constructed two segments of the greenway and a third segment is funded and in design. The Town has conceptually scoped a greenway alignment (Phase 3) that will connect the constructed segment to the proposed Vinyard Park West segment (Phase 4). The Town has obtained Surface Transportation Block Grant funding to conduct an engineering study for Phase 3. The proposed half-mile asphalt Glade Creek Greenway segment in Vinyard Park West, located in both Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton, will continue to extend the greenway east, towards Vinyard Park East and residential neighborhoods in the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County. These neighborhood connections will enable residents to walk from their homes along the Glade Creek Greenway to Tinker Creek Greenway Page 1 of 2 and to the Roanoke River Greenway. Roanoke County Planning, Development Services and Parks, Recreation and Tourism staff have collaborated with Town of Vinton and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) staff on the design of the Glade Creek Greenway through Vinyard Park West. The alignment is intended to: 1) Avoid existing sports fields; 2) Preserve existing access points to Glade Creek; 3) Provide an appropriate terminus on the western edge of the park for the Town of Vinton's Phase 3 greenway connection; and 4) Meet VDOT design requirements. The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing and adopted a resolution supporting the project at its September 21, 2021, meeting. DISCUSSION: The Commonwealth Transportation Board adopted the Six Year Improvement Program on June 21, 2022, which included TA Program funding. This program provides eighty percent (80%) Federal funding for a twenty percent (20%) local match to fund community-based projects that expand non-motorized travel choices and enhance the transportation experience by improving the cultural, historical and environmental aspects of the transportation infrastructure. VDOT administers the TA Program and Roanoke County will administer the greenway project. The total amount to be accepted and appropriated is $651,375, which includes $130,275 in local match and $521,100 in Federal funding. There have been no changes since the first reading on September 13, 2022 FISCAL IMPACT: The required local match was appropriated in the fiscal year 2023 adopted Capital Improvement Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. Page 2 of 2 Appendix A - Locally Administered Original Prepared Date:9/062022 Project Details UPC:State Project #:CFDA #:122101EN22-080-971 NBFNAEXRHD76 20.205 Locality UEI #: Locality:Address:Roanoke CountyPO Box 29800, Roanoke VA 24018-0798 Construct Phase 4 of the Glade Creek Greenway along Glade Creek through Roanoke Project Location County's Vinyard Park West, from the Berkley Road parking lot (150 Vinyard Park Dr.) 24012-6413 Work Description: (Zip +4) to the western edge of the park located in the Town of Vinton. Project Points of Contact y Project ManagerVDOT Project Coordinator Localit Jessie Nester David Henderson Name:Name: 540-772-2083 540-613-4115 Phone:Phone: dhenderson@roanokecountyva.gov Jessie.Nester@vdot.virginia.gov Email:Email: Project Estimates Preliminary Right of Way and ConstructionTotal EngineeringUtilities $98,177$0$528,198$626,375 Estimated Locality Project Expenses Estimated VDOT Project Oversight$5,000$0$15,000$20,000 Estimated VDOT Project Services (Appendix C) $5,000$0$5,000 Estimated Total Project Costs $108,177$0$543,198$651,375 Project Financing Allocated Funds Local % Max Reimbursement Total Estimated Allocated Funds Type Local Share Total Reimbursement to Locality AmountParticipationto Locality Transportation Alterntatives$651,37520%$130,275$521,100 $0$0 $0$0 $0$0 $0$0 $0$0 $0$0 $0$0 $0$0 $0$0 $0$0 $0$0 Funding Totals$651,375$130,275$521,100$496,100 Note - The funds order is not indicative of the actual spend order of funds on the project. This Appendix A supersedes all previous versions signed by VDOT and the LOCALITY for the Project. Authorized Locality OfficialDate Authorized VDOT Official Date Printed Name of Locality OfficialPrinted Name of VDOT Official Title of Locality OfficialTitle of VDOT Official This attachment is certified and made an official attachment to this document by the Parties to this Agreement. Updated June 2022 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS IN FISCAL YEARS 2023 AND 2024 IN THE AMOUNT OF $651,375 FOR THE GLADE CREEK GREENWAY IN VINYARD PARK WEST IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT AND IN THE TOWN OF VINTON WHEREAS, the federal Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) was enacted in 2015 and provides a set-aside of Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program funding for Transportation Alternatives; and WHEREAS, the proposed Glade Creek Greenway in Vinyard Park West meets the goals of the Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TA) Program by providing a pedestrian and bicycle facility that will expand non-motorized travel choices, strengthen the local economy, improve quality of life and protect the environment; and WHEREAS, the Glade Creek Greenway is included in the 2018 Roanoke Valley Greenway Plan, which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 25, 2018, as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on September 21, 2021, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing and endorsed a resolution supporting the TA Program application; and WHEREAS, on September 23, 2021, the Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization (RVTPO) endorsed the TA Program application; and Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, on October 1, 2021, the County of Roanoke submitted an application to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for Fiscal Year 2023 and 2024 TA Program funds for the Glade Creek Greenway in Vinyard Park West; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the selection of TA Program projects on June 21, 2022, through adoption of the Fiscal Year 2023-28 Six-Year Improvement Program in accordance with §33.2-221 of the Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the VDOT awarded eighty percent (80%) TA Program grant funds to Roanoke County in the amount of $521,100; and WHEREAS, the TA Program requires twenty percent (20%) matching funds from Roanoke County in the amount of $130,275, which may be in the form of cash, private contributions, donations of goods and services and land value; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be appropriated by ordinance; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 13, 2022, and the second reading was held on September 28, 2022. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as follows: 1. The Board accepts TA Program grant funding in the amount of $521,100 and appropriates such funds to the grant fund for the construction of the Glade Creek Greenway in Vinyard Park West; and Page 2 of 3 2. The Board further appropriates the local match of $130,275 to the grant fund (such amount having been previously designated for use in the fiscal year 2023 Capital Improvement Program); and 3. That Board acknowledges that the County will be responsible for maintenance, upkeep and operating costs of any facility constructed with TA Program funds, unless other arrangements have been made with the VDOT; and 4. That appropriations designated for the Glade Creek Greenway project will not lapse at the end of the fiscal year but shall remain appropriated until the completion of the project; and 5. That if Roanoke County subsequently elects to cancel this project, the Board acknowledges that it will be required to reimburse VDOT for the total amount of costs expended by VDOT up until the date VDOT is notified of such cancellation. Roanoke County also acknowledges that it will be required to repay any funds previously reimbursed that are later deemed ineligible by the Federal Highway Administration; and 6. That the County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator are hereby authorized to execute such documents and to take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish this appropriation. 7. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption. Page 3 of 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 28, 2022 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance amending Chapter 5 (Animals and Fowl), Article II (Dogs, Cats and Other Animals), Sections 5-27. (Barking or howling dogs) and 5-34 (Penalties) of the Code of Roanoke County SUBMITTED BY: Peter S. Lubeck County Attorney APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Amendment of the Roanoke County Code to 1) enact an enforceable standard prohibiting excessive barking of dogs, and 2) increase penalties for such violations. BACKGROUND: The Virginia Supreme Court, in the case of Tanner v. City of Va. Beach, 227 Va. 432 (2009), ruled that penal ordinances must contain ascertainable standards, and that violations must not be determined by police officers on a subjective basis. DISCUSSION: Section 5-27 of the Roanoke County Code, states, in part, "The harboring or keeping of any dog which, by loud, frequent or habitual barking or howling or by any other conduct, shall cause annoyance and disturb the peace and quiet of any person or neighborhood shall be unlawful; and any such dog is hereby declared to be a public nuisance." Violations of Section 5-27 are punishable pursuant to the penalties set forth in Section 5-34 (which have not been updated since 2006). The above Section 5-27 does not set forth objective standards as required by the Tanner case, and is accordingly unlawful (it violates the constitutional prohibition on Page 1 of 2 vagueness for penal ordinances) and is therefore unenforceable. It is proposed that the Section 5-27 accordingly be amended to set forth objective standards prohibiting the excessive barking or howling of dogs, and that Section 5-34 be amended to provide increases to the schedule of penalties for violations. The proposed amendments are set forth in the attached ordinance. There have been no changes since the first reading of this ordinance on September 13, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this amendment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the ordinance Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5 (ANIMALS AND FOWL), ARTICLE II (DOGS, CATS AND OTHER ANIMALS), SECTIONS 5-27 (BARKING OR HOWLING DOGS) AND 5-34 (PENALTIES) OF THE CODE OF ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, the Virginia Supreme Court, in the case of Tanner v. City of Va. Beach, 227 Va. 432 (2009), ruled that penal ordinances must contain ascertainable standards, and that violations must not be determined by police officers on a subjective basis; and WHEREAS, Section 5-27 of the Roanoke County Code, states, in part, "The harboring or keeping of any dog which, by loud, frequent or habitual barking or howling or by any other conduct, shall cause annoyance and disturb the peace and quiet of any person or neighborhood shall be unlawful; and any such dog is hereby declared to be a public nuisance"; and WHEREAS, violations of Section 5-27 are punishable pursuant to the penalties set forth in Section 5-34 (which have not been updated since 2006); and WHEREAS the above Section 5-27 does not set forth objective standards as required by the Tanner case, and is accordingly unlawful (it violates the constitutional prohibition on vagueness for penal ordinances), and is therefore unenforceable; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that Section 5-27 accordingly be amended to set forth objective standards prohibiting the excessive barking or howling of dogs, and that Section 5-34 be amended to provide increases to the schedule of penalties for violations; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 13, 2022, and the second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on September 28, 2022. Page 1 of 3 NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors: 1. That Chapter 5 (Animals and Fowl), Article II (Dogs, Cats and Other Animals), Sections 5-27 (Barking or howling dogs) and 5-34 (Penalties) of the Roanoke County Code are hereby amended as follows: Sec. 5-27. - Barking or howling dogs. The harboring or keeping of any dog which, by loud, frequent or habitual barking or howling or by any other conduct, shall cause annoyance and disturb the peace and quiet of any person or neighborhood shall be unlawful; and any such dog is hereby declared to be a public nuisance. Any such dog may, after reasonable notice has been given by the community service officer or other law enforcement officer to the owner of such dog, if known, or upon the complaint of any person, if such owner is unknown, be impounded and confined in the county animal shelter by the community service officer. The disposition of any such dog shall be in accordance with section 5-29. a) The harboring or keeping of any dog that causes any sound or noise such that it is plainly audible at least once a minute for ten (10) consecutive minutes (i) inside the confines of the dwelling unit, house or apartment of another, or (ii) at fifty (50) or more feet from the animal is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall be unlawful. b) A dog that is in violation of Subsection (a) may be impounded by a community service officer or other law enforcement officer under the following circumstances: 1) If, after reasonable efforts by the officer, the keeper of the animal cannot be located and the noise in violation of this Section persists, 2) If, after being advised by an officer that the dog is in violation of this Section, the keeper of the dog is unwilling or unable to take steps to stop the dog from barking, or 3) The keeper of a specific dog has been notified on three (3) or more separate occasions that the dog was in violation of this Section, and the officer again observes the dog to be in violation of this section. The disposition of any such dog shall be in accordance with Section 5-29. c) It is requested, upon the first instance that a specific dog creates a public nuisance (as set forth in subsection (a) above), that the affected citizen first attempt to resolve objections with the keeper. Page 2 of 3 d) A community service officer or other law enforcement officer may institute civil proceedings against any person that is in violation of this section. Citizens may also institute their own civil proceedings to resolve barking dog problems. Sec. 5-34. - Penalties. A violation of any provision of this article and any "animal nuisance" as defined in sections 5-21 may also be corrected, removed or abated through an appropriate action at law or suit in equity by any person suffering injury or or damage therefrom. Except as otherwise specifically provided, the penalties for violations of all sections of this chapter shall be as follows: (1) For the first offense, a fine of not less than twentyseventy-five dollars ($725.00) nor more than one hundred and fifty dollars ($15000.00). (2) For a second offense within a consecutive twelve-month period, a fine of not less than one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) nor more than twoone hundred fifty dollars ($2150.00). (3) For a third and all subsequent offenses, a fine of not less than twoone hundred fifty dollars ($2150.00) nor more than threewo hundred fifty dollars ($3250.00). (4) The judge trying case may order any animal permanently removed from the county within twenty-four (24) hours of such order. 2. That this ordinance shall be effective immediately. Page 3 of 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 28, 2022 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance amending Chapter 13 (Offenses - Miscellaneous), Article I (In General), Section 13-5.5 (Urban archery hunting season) of the Roanoke County Code SUBMITTED BY: Rachel Lower Senior Assistant County Attorney APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Roanoke County Code Section 13-5.5(4) erroneously allows hunting with "toy" bows instead of prohibiting such. BACKGROUND: Section 13-5.5 of the County Code (Miscellaneous Offenses) makes it unlawful for any person, while hunting deer during the County's archery season (the County follows the Virginia Division of Wildlife Resources urban archery deer season), to violate a number of County restrictions. For example, the County requires that any person discharging a bow have written permission from landowners to do so on their premises, limits the discharge of a bow across public highways/near schools/parks/toward buildings or dwellings, and requires that the discharge of bows must be from an elevated position above the ground (i.e. in a tree stand). DISCUSSION: Section 13-5.5(4) includes definitions for bows and arrows that may be used while archery hunting in Roanoke County. In this section, a "bow" includes "all compound bows, crossbows, longbows and recurve bows that have a peak draw of less than ten (10) pounds or that are designed or intended to be used principally as toys." State Code defines "bow" as "all compound bows, crossbows, slingbows, longbows, and recurve Page 1 of 2 bows having a peak draw weight of 10 pounds or more." The County Code seems to have intended to mirror the State Code, but instead erroneously allows hunting with "toy" bows instead of prohibiting such. Hunting with toy bows may have a greater potential to injure and cause suffering to animals, and may only rarely result in the animal's immediate death as intended during archery hunting. It is recommended that the County Code be amended in order for the County's definition of "bow" to be identical to the definition included in the State Code. It is also recommended that the County Code be amended in order to reflect the change in the Virginia state regulatory agency for urban archery hunting, namely from the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries to the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources. There have been no changes since the first reading of this ordinance on September 13, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this recommended amendment to the Roanoke County Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approves this ordinance. Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13 (OFFENSES MISCELLANEOUS), ARTICLE I (IN GENERAL), SECTION 13-5.5 (URBAN ARCHERY HUNTING SEASON) OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE WHEREAS, Section 13-5.5 of the Roanoke County Code regulates certain conduct WHEREAS, Section 13-5.5(4) includes definitions for bows and arrows that may be used while archery hunting in Roanoke County, and specifically includes the following that have a peak draw of less than ten (10) pounds or that are designed or intended to be slingbows, longbows, and recurve bows having a peak draw weight of 10 pounds or WHEREAS, the County Code seems to have intended to mirror the Virginia Code, to the definition included in the Virginia Code as it relates to archery hunting; and WHEREAS, the County Code also needs to be amended in order to reflect the change in the Virginia state regulatory agency for urban archery hunting, namely from the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries to the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources; and Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 13, 2022, and the second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on September 28, 2022. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors: 1. That Chapter 13 (Offenses Miscellaneous), Article I (In General), Section 13-5.5 (Urban archery hunting season) of the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended as follows (all portions of Section 13-5.5 not specifically amended or deleted below shall remain without amendment): Sec. 13-5.5. Urban archery hunting season. Archery deer hunting is permitted within the county limits by licensed hunters during an approved state department of game and inland fisheries Department of Wildlife Resources urban archery season. In addition to the urban archery season, archery deer hunting is also allowed during the early archery deer season, the general firearms deer season, and the late archery deer season. Licensed archery deer hunters must abide by all applicable sections of the state code and state hunting regulations (including bag limits and tagging/checking requirements). It shall be unlawful and a Class 4 misdemeanor for any person, while hunting deer during the county's archery season, to violate any of the following additional county restrictions: (1) Any person discharging a bow shall, at all times, while engaged in such activity, have in his possession written permission from the landowner(s) to discharge such a weapon on his premises. Page 2 of 3 (2) No person shall discharge a bow from, over or across any street, sidewalk, alley, near primary or secondary highways, roadway, or public land or public place or near a public school and county/town/regional parks within the county limits or toward any building or dwelling in such a manner that an arrow may strike it. (3) No person may discharge a bow unless from an elevated position of at least ten (10) feet above the ground. (4) It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in hunting with a bow or to discharge arrows from bows within one hundred (100) yards of a dwelling house or occupied building not his or her own. A "bow" includes all compound bows, crossbows, slingbows, longbows and recurve bows that havehaving a peak draw weight of 10 pounds or more. The a peak draw weight of less than ten (10) pounds or that are designed or intended to be used principally as toys. The term "arrow" means a shaft-like projectile intended to be shot from a bow. 2. This amendment shall be effective immediately. Page 3 of 3 Sec. 13-5.5. Urban archery hunting season. Archery deer hunting is permitted within the county limits by licensed hunters during an approved state Department of Wildlife Resources urban archery season. In addition to the urban archery season, archery deer hunting is also allowed during the early archery deer season, the general firearms deer season, and the late archery deer season. Licensed archery deer hunters must abide by all applicable sections of the state code and state hunting regulations (including bag limits and tagging/checking requirements). It shall be unlawful and a Class 4 misdemeanor for any person, while hunting deer during the county's archery season, to violate any of the following additional county restrictions: (1) Any person discharging a bow shall, at all times, while engaged in such activity, have in his possession written permission from the landowner(s) to discharge such a weapon on his premises. (2) No person shall discharge a bow from, over or across any street, sidewalk, alley, near primary or secondary highways, roadway, or public land or public place or near a public school and county/town/regional parks within the county limits or toward any building or dwelling in such a manner that an arrow may strike it. (3) No person may discharge a bow unless from an elevated position of at least ten (10) feet above the ground. (4) It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in hunting with a bow or to discharge arrows from bows within one hundred (100) yards of a dwelling house or occupied building not his or her own. A "bow" includes all compound bows, crossbows, slingbows, longbows and recurve bows having a peak draw weight draw weight of less than ten (10) pounds or that are designed or intended to be used principally as toys. The term "arrow" means a shaft-like projectile intended to be shot from a bow. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. K.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 28, 2022 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards SUBMITTED BY: Deborah C. Jacks Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Open district appointments BACKGROUND: 1. Roanoke County Board of Zoning Appeals: Robert Arthu expired June 30, 2022. 2. Roanoke County Economic Development Authority (EDA)(appointed by District): -year term on the EDA expired on September 26, 2021 and he does not wish to be reappointed. 3. Roanoke County Library Board (appointed by District): The following District appointments remain open: Vinton Magisterial District 4. Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission (appointed by District): Page 1 of 2 The following appointments remain open: June 30, 2019. Rich Tomlinson's three (3) year term representing the Vinton Magisterial District expired June 30, 2021. Murray Cook's three (3) year term representing the Windsor Hills Magisterial District expired June 30, 2020. There is also one open Windsor Hills Magisterial District appointee. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM L-CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for September 28, 2022,designated as Item L-Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 3 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes –May 24, 2022 2. Request to participate in the Virginia Department of Emergency Management multi-jurisdictional Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) Educational Grant 3.Resolution amending the Board's written policy for participation in Board of Supervisor Meetings through electronic communication Page 1of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. L.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 28, 2022 AGENDA ITEM: Request to participate in the Virginia Department of Emergency Management multi-jurisdictional Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) Educational Grant SUBMITTED BY: Susan Slough Assistant Director of Communications APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: To approve the participation in the multi-jurisdictional grant, which will allow multiple jurisdictions the opportunity for additional training BACKGROUND: The PSAP Grant Program will financially assist primary PSAPs through funding for 9-1- 1 and GIS education and training. Funding is made available through the Commonwealth of Virginia and administered by the Board of the Virginia Department of Emergency Management. Funding is limited to those projects that fall within the programmatic areas identified in the guidelines. DISCUSSION: This will be the first year Roanoke County E911 will participate in this multi-jurisdictional grant. This grant will help to offer additional training to staff. FISCAL IMPACT: Bedford County will be the fiduciary agent. No matching funds are required. Page 1of 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of participation. Page 2of 2 C OUNTY P UBLIC S AFETY B UILDING 1345 F ALLING C REEK R OAD B EDFORD, V IRGINIA 24523 D E P A R T M E N T O F E - 911 C O M M U N I C A T I O N S J U D S O N W. S M I T H - D I R E C T O R In an effort to provide additional training to employees in the emergency communications centers, the Counties of Bedford, Amherst, Roanoke, Campbell, and City of Lynchburg hereby agree to participate in the multi-jurisdictional Public Safety Answering Point Educational Grant Program (PEP Grant) through the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM). Bedford County grant requirements. As outlined in the grant guidelines, funding will be received in the amount of $5,000 per primary PSAP participating in the multi-jurisdictional PEP grant, giving us a total of $25,000 to be used towards education for emergency communications staff. The twelve-month grant award period begins July 1, 2023 and ends on June 30, 2024. Each participating locality agrees that funding awarded through the grant will be used to provide classroom training and will be held within our region (locations to be determined). A minimum of two classes will be provided with one focusing on the frontline communications officers and the second class focused on supervision. Additional classes will be offered if they do not exceed the allotted $25,000 available. All class expenses will be initially paid for by Bedford County and will be submitted in accordance with the PEP grant guidelines for reimbursement to Bedford County. By signing this agreement, each participating agency agrees to the terms and conditions listed in this multi-jurisdictional agreement and in the PEP grant guidelines attached provided by Virginia Department of Emergency Management; and, furthermore, agrees to reimburse Bedford County for any costs expended on behalf of a participating agency in the event that Bedford County does not receive reimbursement for said costs through this grant. Jurisdiction Printed Name Title Signature Date Bedford County Judson Smith Director of Emergency Communications City of Melissa Foster Directory of Lynchburg Emergency Services Roanoke Bekki Craft Emergency County Communications Manager Campbell Tracy Fairchild Director of Public County Safety Amherst County Sam Bryant Directory of Public Safety 540-586-7827 -T ELEPHONE 540-586-7668 -T ELEFACSIMILE jsmith@bedfordcountyva.gov - E-MAIL www.bedfordcountyva.gov Virginia Department of Emergency Management PSAP Grant Program Guidelines FY24 Page | 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 3 PSAP Grant Committee (PGC) ........................................................ 3 Auditing ......................................................................................... 4 Errors ............................................................................................. 5 Definitions ..................................................................................... 6 PSAP EDUCATION PROGRAM (PEP) ......................................................... 7 Eligibility ........................................................................................ 7 Funding Amounts ........................................................................... 7 Grant Award Period ........................................................................ 7 Grant Cycle and Application ........................................................... 8 How to Apply/Deadline .................................................................. 8 Program Concept ........................................................................... 8 Program Goals and Objectives ....................................................... 9 Payment Request Process .............................................................. 9 Grant Award Amendments ........................................................... 11 Grant Progress Reports ................................................................ 11 Grant Award Extension ................................................................ 11 Grant Award Closure .................................................................... 12 APPENDIX A ................................................................................. 13 APPENDIX B ................................................................................. 17 APPENDIX C ................................................................................. 18 Page | 2 INTRODUCTION The PSAP Grant Program will financially assist primary PSAPs through funding for 9-1-1 and GIS education and training. Funding is made available through the Code of Virginia and administered by the Board. Funding is limited to those projects that fall within the programmatic areas identified in the guidelines. As a result, requests from PSAPs for exceptions to the guidelines are discouraged. The PSAP Grant Program has been established in the Code of Virginia, §56- 484.17(D): Wireless E-911 Fund; uses of Fund; enforcement; audit required: 40 percent of the Fund shall be distributed to PSAPs or on behalf of PSAPs based on grant requests received by the Board each fiscal year. The Board shall establish criteria for receiving and making grants from the Fund, including procedures for determining the amount of a grant and payment schedule; however, priority shall be given to grants that support the deployment and sustainment of NG9-1-1. PSAP Grant Committee (PGC) Committee. Membership to the PGC will be staggered and appointments are made for three-year terms. Members can be reappointed for only one additional consecutive term. Committee members are appointed and serve Committee membership shall consist of at least two Board members. Furthermore, members of the Grant Committee should adequately represent the geographic diversity of the Commonwealth, the varied operational capacities of Virginia primary PSAPs, and public safety professional organizations. Accordingly, a nine-person Grant Committee is established consisting of the following individuals: Two Board members (one of which will chair the committee) Four primary PSAP representatives (two of which will represent APCO and NENA) Three at-large members Page | 3 Members with the same organizational affiliation will have different reappointment and replacement schedules: Replacement/Reappointment Schedule 1: - one Board member (co-chair) - two primary PSAP representatives (one of which will represent APCO) - and two at-large members Replacement/Reappointment Schedule 2: - one Board member (chair) - two primary PSAP representatives (one of which will represent NENA) - and one at-large member Each year, in anticipation of the upcoming grant application cycle, the Grant Committee recommends grant guidelines and funding priorities. This edition of the PSAP Grant Guidelines will function differently. This document provides guidelines to assist PSAPs for the PSAP Education Program (PEP). The Grant Committee will also make recommendations to the Board regarding the development of any criteria for awarding grants, and the proposal of any necessary changes to the administration of the PSAP Grant Program. The Grant Committee will meet multiple times a year to evaluate all complete and eligible applications. Furthermore, the committee has the discretion to make case by case evaluations and recommendations for approval or disapproval of all submitted applications. Auditing The Board shall audit funding received by all recipients to ensure that it was utilized in accordance with the award requirements. If it is determined that the funding was misused, or if the guidelines were not adhered to, the Commonwealth may take appropriate action to the extent permitted by law, including, and not limited to, requiring the return of the funds. Page | 4 Errors If NGS staff discovers that a funding or grant award is not consistent with Board action, NGS staff will notify the PSAP by email about the error and take corrective action. Page | 5 Definitions GIS Education and Training PEP awards may support education and training that further the readiness or ability of locality GIS skills to support PSAP GIS needs such as GIS address points, road centerlines, and emergency service and PSAP polygons. Examples include: classes or workshops in creating, editing, and maintaining spatial data used by the PSAP; training on new software used to maintain spatial data used by the PSAP; training that expands methods or techniques of extracting, transforming, and loading (ETL) spatial data for the PSAP or the interoperability of spatial data between systems to meet PSAP needs, such as python or web services training; registration/training fees, lodging, travel assistance for the VAMLIS state conferences only as described on page 18. GIS Education and Training opportunities may be in-person, virtual, or by access to a Subscription-Based Learning Program. Multi-jurisdictional Agreement (MJA) A document, signed by appropriate representatives of all PSAPs/localities planning to participate in a multi- jurisdictional PSAP education or training project. It defines their working relationship and commitment to the project. The MJA must be included with the grant application. Multi-Jurisdictional Projects A project in which two or more primary PSAPs participate. For the purpose of these grant guidelines, these are multi- jurisdictional PEP projects. Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) A facility equipped and staffed on a 24-hour basis to receive and process E9-1-1 calls or that intends to receive and process E9-1-1 calls and has notified commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers in its jurisdiction of its intention to receive and process such calls. Subscription Based Learning Programs Online 9-1-1 and GIS education/training events that are purchased on a monthly or yearly basis, and are an eligible expense for the PEP. See pages 20 -23 for additional information. Wireless E-911 Fund A dedicated fund consisting of all moneys collected pursuant to the Wireless E-911 surcharge, as well as any additional funds otherwise allocated or donated to the Wireless E-911 Fund. Page | 6 PSAP EDUCATION PROGRAM (PEP) Eligibility Any Virginia primary PSAP is eligible to apply for and receive funding from the FY23 PEP. Secondary PSAPs are not eligible for PEP funding. Grant funds to supplant funds. Funding Amounts Approved grants in this program will receive funding from the PSAP Grant Program before any other funding priority. PSAPs have two funding options: $4,000 per primary PSAP for individual PEP requests $5,000 per primary PSAP for multi-jurisdictional PEP requests Multi-jurisdictional PSAP education or training projects require that one the fiscal agent responsible for fulfilling all grant requirements. All jurisdictions participating must be identified in a MJA signed by all parties. PSAPs may receive an award for an individual PEP grant and participate in a multi-jurisdictional PEP grant in the FY24 grant cycle. However, the multi- jurisdictional PEP grant award cannot be used to supplement an individual PEP grant award that has been exhausted during the grant award period. Example: If PSAP A receives an individual PEP grant award, the PSAP will receive an award of $4,000. If PSAP A also participates in a multi- jurisdictional PEP grant award, PSAP A will receive an additional $5,000 as a participating PSAP. PSAP B will receive $5,000 (plus $4,000, if they also received an individual PEP grant award). Grant Award Period Page | 7 The FY24 PEP is an annual grant program with an award period that runs month grant award period begins on July 1, 2023 and ends on June 30, 2024. All grant funds must be expended by the end of the grant award period. PEP grants are not eligible for extensions. The Board will approve the PEP awards at their November 2022 meeting. Grant Cycle and Application The FY24 grant application cycle for the PEP begins on July 1, 2022 and will remain open until 5:00 pm on September 30, 2022. PEP grant applications are available from -1-1 and Geospatial Services website. Each PEP application must include the following: Description of how the education/training is 9-1-1/GIS specific and how this will benefit the employee(s) and/or PSAP(s) Breakdown of the funding allocation of the 9-1-1/GIS education/training opportunities Evaluation plan that describes how the PSAP will measure the extent to which employees of the grantee PSAPs received value from the education/training How to Apply/Deadline The FY24 PEP application cycle begins on July 1, 2022. PEP applications must be submitted electronically to the NG911 Funding and PSAP Grant Program mailbox (psapgrants@vdem.virginia.gov) using the appropriate form and with required supporting documentation copy to the Regional Coordinator by 5:00 pm on September 30, 2022. Program Concept The PEP funds registration/training fees, lodging, travel assistance (for VA APCO, VA NENA, and VAMLIS state conferences only), M & IE (meals and incidental expenses for all other conferences and training opportunities), required training course material, and certifications. Life-saving courses or training must be provided by instructors certified by the American Red Cross Page | 8 or American Heart Association. Reimbursement for travel assistance and M & IE requires an overnight stay. Reimbursement information is available from -1-1 and Geospatial Services website. Reimbursement will only be made at the posted rate effective on the date of the training, plus applicable state and occupancy taxes based on the Commonwealth of Virginia Travel Guidelines (based on GSA Per Diem Rates). Program Goals and Objectives The PEP is designed so that all primary PSAPs will take advantage of in- person and online opportunities including subscription based learning programs. Education and training must be related to technology adoptions, ongoing management of technology hardware/software, career development specific to Public Safety Communications (PSC) and/or GIS personnel, knowledge and skill development for the creation, maintenance, and management of GIS data required for use in the PSAP, and other relevant examples of allowable GIS education and training.) Payment Request Process The PEP uses a cost recovery method of funding. In the Comprehensive Project Description section of the PEP grant application, the applicant will provide a reasonable estimate of the funds to be used. The grantee will pay the costs of all allowable expenses. Mileage and fuel are not allowable expenses under the PEP grant funding. During the grant award period, in order to receive reimbursement for training and related expenses, the grantee must submit: Hotel receipt, conference/training registration receipt, and certificate of completion, if applicable. A conference registration form or a hotel reservation confirmation are not sufficient, and therefore, are not an acceptable form of documentation. Online education/training payment documentation (including a dated certificate of completion for any online training received). Page | 9 A list of all those attending the conference/training and the dates of attendance. A copy of the event agenda to determine the provided meals for subtraction from the per diem. This is not required for the standard in-state conferences as this is already known. Receipts are not required for meal reimbursement. A detailed invoice for all allowable expenses in association with an education/training opportunity. EXCEPTION: Grantee may seek reimbursement for subscription th courses at the end of the grant award year (June 30), but within th 45 days of June 30 of the expiring grant award year. Payment of invoices for these programs cannot overlap fiscal years and cannot extend beyond the grant award period. To the extent practical, a single reimbursement request should be submitted for subscription based learning programs. In the event that additional documentation is required from the grant recipient to process the payment reimbursement request, the Program Manager shall make the first contact with the grant recipient to request the information. Generally, such requests will be made by email, but can be made by telephone if easier with an email follow up for documentation. The Regional Coordinator for the locality will be copied on the request and follow up emails. The payment request will be held until the additional information is provided and not be partially paid, unless requested by the PSAP. - If the required information is not received from the grant recipient within ten (10) business days of the request for additional information, the Program Manager will alert the Regional Coordinator for that locality to follow up with the grant recipient. The Regional Coordinator will contact the grant recipient to determine the cause for the delay in response and work with the Program Manager to determine a path forward to getting the required information or rejecting the request. Page | 10 - If the required information is not received by the Program Manager within twenty (20) business days of the request for additional information, the Program Manager will alert the PSC Coordinator. The PSC Coordinator will determine if additional action is necessary. - If the required information is not received by the Program Manager within thirty (30) business days of the request for additional information, the Program Manager will summarily reject the Grant Drawdown Request with an email to the grant recipient, copying the responsible Regional Coordinator and PSC Coordinator, asking them to resubmit the PEP drawdown request when all of the required information is available. PEP grant payment requests received without all required receipts will be considered null submissions after 30 calendar days of notification and non- receipt of required documentation. In addition, grant payment requests will be held until all progress reports, or other Board required information, are received. Grant Award Amendments Funding award amendments are not typically issued. If there is a need to change to focus of the project from its original intended use, the PSAP can work with the PSAP Grant Program Manager for review and administrative use. Grant Progress Reports The PEP grant award does not require progress reports. Grant Award Extension The PEP grant award is a one-year grant. Grant award extension is not applicable to the PEP. Page | 11 Grant Award Closure The PEP grant award will be considered close at the end of the grant award. Any remaining balance will automatically return to the wireless fund. Page | 12 APPENDIX A Virginia Primary PSAPs VDEM Included Region PSAP PSAPs 7 Alexandria 6 Alleghany Clifton Forge 1 Amelia 3 Amherst 3 Appomattox 7 Arlington 3 Augusta 6 Bath 6 Bedford Bedford City 4 Bland 6 Botetourt 4 Bristol City 1 Brunswick 4 Buchanan 3 Buckingham 3 Campbell 2 Caroline 1 Charles City 3 Charlotte 3 Charlottesville Albemarle/UVA 5 Chesapeake 1 Chesterfield 2 Clarke 1 Colonial Heights 6 Covington City 6 Craig Page | 13 2 Culpeper 3 Cumberland 6 Danville City 4 Dickenson 1 Dinwiddie Accomack/ Chincoteague/ 5 Eastern Shore Northampton 1 Emporia City 1 Essex Fairfax 7 Fairfax County City/Vienna 3 Farmville Prince Edward 2 Fauquier 6 Floyd 3 Fluvanna 6 Franklin City 5 Franklin County 2 Frederick 2 Fredericksburg 4 Giles 5 Gloucester 1 Goochland 2 Greene 1 Greensville 3 Halifax South Boston 5 Hampton City 1 Hanover 3 Harrisonburg/Rockingham Harrisonburg 1 Henrico 6 Highland 1 Hopewell City 5 Isle of Wight 5 James City 1 King And Queen Page | 14 2 King George 1 King William West Point 5 Lancaster 4 Lee 7 Loudoun 2 Louisa 3 Lunenburg 3 Lynchburg City 2 Madison 7 Manassas City 6 Martinsville Henry 5 Mathews 3 Mecklenburg 5 Middlesex 3 Nelson 1 New Kent Christiansburg/ Blacksburg/ 6 New River Valley Montgomery 5 Newport News 5 Norfolk City 5 Northumberland 4 Norton City 1 Nottoway 2 Orange 2 Page 6 Patrick 1 Petersburg 6 Pittsylvania 5 Portsmouth 1 Powhatan 1 Prince George 7 Prince William 4 Pulaski 4 Radford City Page | 15 2 Rappahannock 1 Richmond City 5 Richmond County 6 Roanoke City 6 Roanoke County 6 Rockbridge Lexington 4 Russell 6 Salem City 4 Scott 2 Shenandoah 4 Smyth 5 Southampton 2 Spotsylvania 7 Stafford 3 Staunton City 5 Suffolk City 5 Surry 1 Sussex 4 Tazewell 4 Twin County (Galax) Carroll/Grayson 5 Virginia Beach 2 Warren 4 Washington 3 Waynesboro 5 Westmoreland 2 Winchester 4 Wise 4 Wythe Wytheville Williamsburg/ 5 York Poquoson Page | 16 APPENDIX B SAMPLE PEP Grant Reimbursement Request This is an example of a completed PEP reimbursement form (for informational purpose only - for latest version, please contact your NGS Regional Coordinator). Page | 17 APPENDIX C Acceptable Supporting Documentation PEP Grant Reimbursement Requests During the grant award period, in order to receive reimbursement for training and related expenses, the grantee must submit: Hotel receipt, conference/training registration receipt, and certificate of completion, if applicable. A conference registration form or a hotel reservation confirmation are not sufficient, and therefore, are not an acceptable form of documentation. Online education/training payment documentation (including a dated certificate of completion for any online training received). A list of all those attending the conference/training and the dates of attendance. A copy of the event agenda to determine the provided meals for subtraction from the per diem. This is not required for the standard in-state conferences as this is already known. Receipts are not required for meal reimbursement. A detailed invoice for all allowable expenses in association with an education/training opportunity. EXCEPTION: Grantee may seek reimbursement for subscription th courses at the end of the grant award year (June 30), but within th 45 days of June 30 of the expiring grant award year. Payment of invoices for these programs cannot overlap fiscal years and cannot extend beyond the grant award period. To the extent practical, a single reimbursement request should be submitted for subscription based learning programs. Page | 18 NOT ACCEPTABLE DOCUMENTATION FOR REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST: Agency fiscal or financial system documentation of payment for training expense. Purchase orders Contract quotes Page | 19 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. L.3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 28, 2022 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution amending the Board's written policy for participation in Board of Supervisor Meetings through electronic communication SUBMITTED BY: Peter S. Lubeck County Attorney APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Amending the Board's written policy for participation in Board of Supervisor meetings through electronic communication. BACKGROUND: The Board, in 2017, adopted a resolution, pursuant to Section 2.2-3708.2 of the Code of Virginia (Freedom of Information Act), enabling Board members to participate in meetings remotely, under certain limited conditions. Since 2017, the Code of Virginia has been amended, providing other limited circumstances in which a Board member may participate remotely. However, prior to utilizing any such provisions, the Board must first adopt, by resolution, a policy regarding remote participation. DISCUSSION: It is proposed that the Board adopt an amended remote participation policy, consistent with the amendments to the Code of Virginia. Page 1 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this issue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the proposed resolution. Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2017 RESOLUTION 060617-2ESTABLISHING A WRITTEN POLICY FOR PARTICIPATION IN BOARD OF SUPERVISORMEETINGS THROUGH ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 2.2-3708 allows membersof local governing bodies to participate in a meeting through electronic communication means from a remote locationin certain situations;and WHEREAS, a written policy must be establishedfor such participation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisorsof Roanoke County, as follows: That the following policy isestablished for Board members’ remote electronic participation in Board of Supervisormeetings: 1.On or before the day of a meeting, the member shall notify the Chairman that the member is unable to attend the meeting due to an emergency or a personal matter. Themember must identifywith specificity the nature of the emergency or personal matter. Amember may also notifythe Chairmanthat the memberis unable to attend a meeting due to a temporary or permanent disability or other medical condition that prevents the member’s physical attendance. 2.A quorum of the Boardmust be physically assembled at the primary or central meeting location. The Boardmembers present must approve the participation; however, the decisionshallbebased solely on the criteria in Page 1of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 PARTICIPATION IN BOARD OF SUPERVISOR MEETINGS THROUGH ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 2.2-3708 allows members of local governing bodies to participate in meetings through electronic communication means from remote locations in certain situations; and WHEREAS, the Board, in 2017, adopted a resolution setting forth a policy for participation in Board of Supervisor meetings through electronic communication, consistent with § 2.2-3708; and WHEREAS, since adoption of the policy in 2017, the Virginia General Assembly has amended the Code of Virginia in order to provide additional situations in which members of local governing bodies may participate in meetings through electronic communications; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Board amend its prior policy to embrace the additional authority granted by the Virginia General Assembly. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, that the resolution, establishing a written policy for participation in Board of Supervisor meetings through electronic communication, adopted June 6, 2027, is hereby rescinded and superseded by the following policy for remote participation, which is today adopted and effective: Page 1 of 6 1. AUTHORITY AND SCOPE a. This policy is adopted pursuant to authorization of Va. Code § 2.2-3708.3 and is to be strictly construed in conformance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Va. Code §§ 2.2-3700-3715. b. This policy shall not govern an electronic meeting conducted to address a state of emergency declared by the Governor of Virginia or the Board of Supervisors. Any meeting conducted by electronic communication means under such circumstances shall be governed by the provisions of Va. § 2.2- 3708.2. This policy also does not apply to an all-virtual public meeting. 2. DEFINITIONS a. Virginia. b. c. Board by electronic communication means in a public meeting where a quorum of the Board is physically assembled, as defined by Va. Code § 2.2- 3701. d. ned by Va. Code § 2.2-3701. e. as email or letter. Notice does not include text messages or communications via social media. Page 2 of 6 3. MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS Regardless of the reasons why the member is participating in a meeting from a remote location by electronic communication means, the following conditions must be met for the member to participate remotely: a. A quorum of the Board must be physically assembled at the primary or central meeting location; and b. Arrangements have been made for the voice of the remotely participating member to be heard by all persons at the primary or central meeting location. If at any point during the meeting the voice of the remotely participating member is no longer able to be heard by all persons at the meeting location, the remotely participating member shall no longer be permitted to participate remotely. 4. PROCESS TO REQUEST REMOTE PARTICIPATION a. On or before the day of the meeting, and at any point before the meeting begins, the requesting member must notify the Board Chair (or the Vice- Chair if the requesting member is the Chair) that they are unable to physically attend a meeting due to (i) a temporary or permanent disability or an attendance, (iii) their principal residence location is more than 60 miles from the meeting location, or (iv) a personal matter, and identifies with specificity the nature of the personal matter. Page 3 of 6 b. The requesting member shall also notify the County Administrator and Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of his or her request, but failure to do so shall not ability to remotely participate. c. If the requesting member is unable to physically attend the meeting due to a personal matter, the requesting member must state with specificity the nature of the personal matter. Remote participation due to a personal matter is limited each calendar year to two meetings or 25 percent of the meetings held per calendar year rounded up to the next whole number, whichever is greater. There is no limit to the number of times that a member may participate remotely for the other authorized purposes listed in (i) though (iii) above. d. The requesting member is not obligated to provide independent verification regarding the reason for his or her nonattendance, including the temporary medic physical attendance at the meeting. e. The Chair (or the Vice Chair if the requesting member is the Chair) shall promptly notify the requesting member whether their request is in conformance with this policy, and therefore approved or disapproved. 5. PROCESS TO CONFIRM APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF PARTICIPATION FROM A REMOTE LOCATION When a quorum of the Board has assembled for the meeting, the Board shall vote to determine whether: Page 4 of 6 a. request to participate from a remote location was in conformance with this policy; and b. The voice of the remotely participating member can be heard by all persons at the primary or central meeting location. 6. RECORDING IN MINUTES a. If the member is allowed to participate remotely due to a temporary or permanent disability or other medical condit condition that requires the member to provide care to the family member, or principal residence is located more than 60 miles from the meeting location, the Board shall record in its minutes (1) the Board description of the remote location from which the member participated. b. If the member is allowed to participate remotely due to a personal matter, such matter shall be cited in the minutes with specificity, as well as how many times the member has attended remotely due to a personal matter, and a general description of the remote location from which the member participated. c. disapproval, including the grounds upon which the requested participation violates this policy or FOIA, shall be recorded in the minutes with specificity. Page 5 of 6 7. CLOSED SESSION If the Board goes into closed session, the member participating remotely shall ensure that no third party is able to hear or otherwise observe the closed meeting. 8. STRICT AND UNIFORM APLICATION OF THIS POLICY This policy shall be applied strictly and uniformly, without exception, to the entire membership, and without regard to the identity of the member requesting remote participation or the matters that will be considered or voted on at the meeting. The Chair (or Vice- remotely and the written response for a period of one year, or other such time required by records retention laws, regulations, and policies. Page 6 of 6 COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CHANGES IN OUTSTANDING DEBT Changes in outstanding debt for the fiscal year to date were as follows: Unaudited OutstandingOutstanding June 30, 2022AdditionsDeletionsSeptember 28, 2022 VPSA School Bonds$ 85,873,052$ -$ 8,043,501$ 77,829,551 Lease Revenue Bonds 73,900,000 - - 73,900,000 Subtotal 159,773,052 - 8,043,501 151,729,551 Premiums 12,384,805 - - 12,384,805 $ 172,157,857$ -$ 8,043,501$ 164,114,356 Submitted ByLaurie L. Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services Approved ByRichard L. Caywood County Administrator %% e 64 c 64 n .. a 10 i 0.00%0.00%2.20%0.66%0.00%1.58% - 4 r-4.47%-5.95%-1.07% 25.06%15.03%13.87%13.84%93.40%16.44% - a-55.82%-29.02%-35.33% 435.79% V f s o e c % n a i )) r 22 000 a (9) 58 V 92 s 429 l,, 71 a 4,8501,9521,111 3(4,403)1 u 18,40412,71766,802 ( t 7 (53,807)(22,692)(34,842) , 156,143105,186 c (122,316) 1 A ( ($1,912,500) t %% e s 06 g e 73 .. d u 26 u3.10%1.60%0.00%0.00%8.32%8.44%7.92%1.02%0.00%3.82%4.52%5.79%5.26% n -1.56% 23.14%10.06%16.68%15.89%10.67% B e v f e o R % 50 r 000 61 s a 93 e e834 ,, u 19 Y 6,755 n 75 t 73,95391,71827,10878,20398,618 e 15 (28,068) n ,, 623,055122,415220,488297,015482,686112,615 v e 42 r e 1,203,593 r $3,426,495 R s u e C u n 09 e 00 v 52 t ,, e e 77 g 41 R 42,50015,850 22 d l 529,072180,000,700,000600,000675,000,924,107 u a 40 4,040,9282,650,0003,750,0007,225,0002,400,0001,800,0001,349,5684,800,000 B 54 u t 39,000,00014,267,641 1 c $110,497,500 A E d t K %% n e 21 s Oa g 22 e .. d N u d 47 5.23%1.39%0.00%0.00%7.44%8.08%1.23%0.00%3.29%6.73%3.68%9.74%2.70%5.32% u n Ae 19.66%10.31%12.49%13.28%24.27% t B e O v e f e o g R d R F % u OB f 71 000 Y o 19 s r T 95 t e 843 a ,, n N u e 90 7,4285,645 e n 07 Y U 78,35679,00194,24826,678 General Fund - C100 e 95 r 466,911104,010,215,638295,063100,895415,884,133,461 m v O 52 o e i e 1,257,400 t C r $5,338,995 R a P t S e 47 v 64 i 53 t t ,, a e 42 r 05 g 42,50015,850 a 06 d 529,072180,000,660,000725,000807,597275,000,549,840 p u 05 For the Two Months Ending Wednesday, August 31, 2022 3,710,9282,900,0003,650,0006,364,0002,400,0001,400,0004,270,750 B 43 m 33,500,00012,200,000 1 o $102,084,564 C s e x a T s ye t x r a e T p l o r a c P lo aL r r e e n h et GO ll aa tt oo TT Real Estate TaxesPersonal Property TaxesPublic Service Corp BasePenalties & Interest on Property TaxesPayment In Lieu Of TaxesCommunication TaxesLocal Sales TaxConsumer Utility TaxBusiness License TaxFranchise TaxMotor Vehicle License FeesTaxes On Recordation & WillsUtility License TaxHotel & Motel Room TaxesTaxes - Prepared FoodsOther TaxesAnimal Control FeesLand and Building FeesPermits %%%%% e 15175 c 19489 n ..... a 46922 i 0.00%0.00% 19122 r-8.35%-8.06%-1.21% 80.26%51.95%22.51% --- a-68.39%-96.95%-26.15%-22.82% 112.12% -226.67% V f s o e c % n a i ))) r 12177 00 a 55650 V 68178 s l,,,,, (170) 01112 a (8,790)2417(2,927)4(4,323) u 21,88021,24620,54525,189 ((( t (41,852)(10,085)(71,587)(26,548) c A t %%%%% e s 69734 g e 47319 ..... d u 20188 u0.00%8.28%0.11%0.00%3.52%6.22% n 112 42.20%10.12%10.79%20.85%21.64%13.71%13.99%81.94% B e v f e o R % 09261 r 00 26121 s a 75 31575 e e ,,,,, u 63736 Y n 44518 t 27,26012,85243,16918,95038,56235,05239,547 e 131 n 313,651111,912329,398357,649 v e r e r R u C 70709 0 60902 20011 t210 ,,,,, e 40905 g 70668 64,60090,89770,000 14280 d 127,000,400,000178,200,996,464288,536800,129,402,000 u 132 3,790,1005,752,453 B t %%%%% e 75913 s g 80204 e ..... d u 04507 8.33%0.00%0.35%0.00%4.92%6.59%9.91%6.61% u n 2211 -1.84% 17.04%24.05%27.30%10.19%88.54% B e v f e o R % 01144 00 72580 s r 90347 e 245 a ,,,,, u e 65653 5,381 n 68484 (2,296) Y 21,64285,02148,64837,97919,00286,723 e 131 r 385,239355,946361,973 v o i e r R P 00000 0 00000 05240 210 t ,,,,, e 03305 05053 g 64,60070,000 83389 d 127,000353,500125,000178,200,771,464288,536875,000,402,000 u 31 3,780,4005,472,453 B s y t e r s e n p e o c r s i s e L P e r c di ud t v ni n r a e a f e s r s y S u o e e r o F e n o e f Fo d n , n s M a s l ae l tf i g e o s r mc e a re s n i sh e i PFUCM lllll aaaaa ttttt ooooo TTTTT FeesClerk of Court FeesPhotocopy ChargesFines and ForfeituresRevenues from Use of MoneyRevenues From Use of PropertyCharges for ServicesCharges for Public ServicesEducation Aid-StateReimb-Shared Programs SalemMiscellaneous RevenueRecovered CostsNon-Categorical AidShared Expenses %%%% e 6007 c 4002 n .... a 4003 i 3.70%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% 21 r-0.40% 92.34% - a V f s o e c % n a i ) r 8008 0000 a 47 V 95 s l,, 26 a (1,473)48 u 20,733 t 52 , 554,559 c 1 A ( t %%%% e s 3005 g e 8003 .... d u 1004 u9.58%8.96%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% n 1 24.33% B e v f e o R % 1004 r 0000 89 s a 50 e e ,, u 98 Y n 19 t e 26 n ,, 372,012600,575559,948 v e 29 r e r R u C 9001 000 539 665 t ,,, e 565 g 534 711 d ,,, u 823 3,882,4012,468,8056,250,0002,136,630 B 12 2 t %%%% e 4004 s g 2004 e .... d u 9005 8.40%1.98%9.81%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% u n B e v f e o R % 3003 0000 37 s r 66 e a ,, u e 64 n 78 Y 46,016 e 69 r 373,484539,215,, v 10 o i e 1 r R P 0001 000 405 842 t ,,, e 943 348 g 177 d ,744,400, u 81 4,448,8652,320,5695,495,953 B 10 2 e u n e s v e e c Rr l u a o r S e d g e n i F c ns d r a n e s n a f l i s a eF t tn r o aa t e r T h ST t d ll n O aa tt a l r oo a t TTG o Welfare & Social Services-CategoricalOther State Categorical AidWelfare & Social ServicesEducation Aid-FederalOther Categorical AidOther Financing Sources T Transfers %%% e 668 c f n829 ... o a 4.38%6.37%8.27%3.99%1.61%0.00% i 673 r 16.73%29.99%14.24%10.28%19.91%23.01%45.64%29.58% 11 % -20.72% a s V e c n a0 792 i r047 a807 s l ,,, V 2,2215,735 a667 18,33216,97519,07341,23113,20597,355 u 330 (34,699) t 216,254380,406301,220284,916355,388 20 c , 1 A %%% t 775 m e 263 u ... g c 7.47%0.00% 455 d n 12.86%14.97%15.55%15.82%16.59%15.20%13.65%15.95%15.60%15.54%16.26%14.88%15.00% s111 u E e B c f & n o ap r x % b E m u c 0 334 s n 718 e r E s c 684 a ,,, e d n r e 467 n a u 51,11761,123 Y 298 r t a i 266,303230,510179,192143,864874,835875,130343,874167,430 t 444 b ,, d s n 1,312,4332,780,4033,053,4331,474,456 m17 n e e r ru e r u c p t u i n x d C E E n e& E p K x O E 0 867 l N612 a 460 A t,,, u t 198 Oe c g866 R 397,452818,050922,357 A 917 d ,,, F u 8,765,9661,712,1911,457,4251,123,8045,631,3375,383,2492,310,6881,116,090 d 938 B O16,755,91120,084,55510,803,757 n 4 a Y d T e Nt e U g%%% General Fund - C100 t O m 299 d e u C u189 g ... c B 9.27%9.50%0.00% d 454 n f 14.68%14.39%15.48%16.41%16.26%15.45%12.08%16.48%18.40%18.06%14.20%12.97% u 111 E o B t &f n o p e x m % E e t a t 0 s017 S For the Two Months Ending Wednesday, August 31, 2022 e318 s e c 055 ,,, ve n i r r t 348 a a u 48,48943,002 a r167 t e r i 253,073211,437137,961143,884495,944904,268235,167202,129 b243 ,, ad Y 1,121,5402,408,4602,667,8331,164,332 m 16 p n r u e o m i c p r o n x P C E E & 0 115 724 758 ,,, t 931 e 825 g 330,283464,067837,240781,935 595 d,,, 7,795,4211,634,7701,288,7519,640,4225,219,5805,008,3281,656,5341,558,913 u 822 14,810,60817,263,575 4 B n o i t a r t s i n i m d A t n e m n r e y v t o e f G a l l S a a r i c i e c l i n b d e u u LegislativeGeneral & Financial AdministrationElectoral Board & OfficialsGCourtsOther Judicial SupportJLaw Enforcement & Traffic ContFire and RescueCorrection & DetentionAnimal ControlPGeneral Services AdministrationRefuse DisposalMaint Buildings & GroundsEngineeringInspectionsGarage Complex %%%% e 3701 c f n5549 .... o a 0.00%6.47%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% i 9672 -4.71%-4.47% r - 24.56%12.90%12.58%82.61% 112 % -11.99%-18.49% a 100.00% -368.45% s V e c n) a00000 4496 i r8657 a9172 s l(221) ,,,, V 8,9254,721 a6514 (7,669) 87,29924,76161,847 u 3397 (55,677)(88,413)(12,111) t 104,460 411 c ( A %%%% t 5905 m e 6603 u .... g c 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.07%8.06%0.00%6.30%8.53% 5461 d n 23.81%13.89%14.99%16.83%15.54%13.51%11.67% 1111 u E B f & o p x % E 00000 3950 s 60 3417 e r s c 1264 a ,,,, e n r e 5,714 5745 a u 65,55661,847 Y 0533 r t i 137,900737,230426,324708,291208,007171,639 t 4013 b ,,, d n 1,182,120 m221 n e ru e r c p u n x C E E & 00000 1402 2919 7408 t,,,, 3634 e 87,09767,000 g6095 579,181561,720766,930 3009 d ,,,, u 8,508,6474,918,6662,533,6914,559,3191,539,1452,724,380 5472 B 11 %%%% t m 3467 e u 9994 g .... c 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.57%0.00%0.00%6.65%1.91% d 3533 n 25.00%14.93%16.79%13.85%14.02%13.26%16.42% u 1111 E B &f o p x % E 000000 s2458 e9165 s c494994 3551 ,,,, e n r r 1800 a a u 77,617 r8535 t e i 128,976825,642325,569604,996172,046205,280 b9292 ,, d Y 1,303,896 m 12 n r u e o i c p r n x P E E & 000000 0999 9478 2543 ,,,, t 5557 e 87,09752,000 2665 g 515,902472,690 2168 d,,,, 8,730,9814,918,6662,350,3284,315,1511,297,6023,086,974 u 4461 11 B l a r u t l u C & e r n a o f i l t e a s e W r k r c d o e n g a R W n ,i h c ts in l l k n a br a e ual PMental HealthPublic HealthSocial Services AdministrationComprehensive Services ActPublic AssistanceSocial Services OrganizationsHParks & RecreationLibraryCultural EnrichmentPPlanning & ZoningCooperative Extension ProgramEconomic DevelopmentPublic TransportationContribution to Human Service OrganizationsPEmployee BenefitsDixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup %%% e 463 c f n012 ... o a 0.00%0.00%0.00% i 824 r 20.46%15.92%39.32% 132 % a -146.83% s V e c n a000 393 i r616 a746 s l ,,, V a627 u 263 t 512,790116,921 694 c ,, 9,361,198 70 A (1,398,779) 1 %%% t 172 m e 245 u ... g c 0.00%0.00% 139 d n 24.93%66.16%24.44%23.88%16.43% 221 u E B f & o p x % E 00 323 s 824 e r s c 432 a ,,, e n r e 822 a u 55,000 Y 566 r t i 734,408952,651 t 475 b ,,, d n 2,491,722 m343 n e 23,809,672 24 ru e r c p u n x C E E & 0 491 419 945 t,,, 705 e g004 225,000 351 d ,,, u 9,994,9341,110,0002,186,6305,798,293 653 B 99,702,126 102 12 %%% t m 924 e u 144 g ... c 0.00%0.00% d 076 n 21.95%55.63%50.00%15.77%48.85% u 211 E B &f o p x % E 00 s231 e804 s c 895 ,,, e n r r 097 a a u 55,000 r097 t e i 617,487 b971 ,,, d Y 2,022,1212,351,430 m 263 n r 14,448,473 u 13 e o i c p r n x P E E & 0 701 735 492 ,,, t 583 e 638 g 110,000794,400 347 d,,, 9,212,1031,110,0004,813,234 u 461 91,625,696 190 B 2 l a t n e t us m l t r O a t a s o p r T e e f d D s - n n n a a r o r MiscellaneousTax Relief/Elderly & HandicappRefuse Credit VintonBoard ContingencyUnappropriated BalanceNInterfund Transfers OutIntrafund Transfers OutTG ACTION NO. _______________ ITEM NO. __________________ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 28, 2022 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid Î August 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Laurie L. Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Direct DepositChecksTotal Payments to Vendors-$ -$ 12,340,712.83$ Payroll08/05/221,694,569.2026,758.071,721,327.27 Payroll08/19/221,804,767.8626,957.461,831,725.32 Manual Checks- - - Grand Total$ 15,893,765.42 A detailed listing of the payments to vendors is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. O.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 28, 2022 AGENDA ITEM: Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors the preliminary and unaudited financial results for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022 and Budget Planning for fiscal year 2024, for the County of Roanoke, Virginia SUBMITTED BY: Laurie Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Provide the Board of Supervisors a preliminary overview of the financial results for fiscal year ending June 30, 2022 and Budget Planning for fiscal year 2024. BACKGROUND: Per Section 4-1 and 4-5 of the County of Roanoke's Comprehensive Financial Policy, County staff will provide a year-end comparison of budgeted to actual revenues and expenditures for the previous fiscal year. This presentation provides an overview of the budgeted and actual revenues and expenditures of the general government and other funds, along with information on fund balance reserves and policies. DISCUSSION: The Department of Finance and Management Services is currently working through the financial results for fiscal year ending June 30, 2022, and preparing for the annual audit of those results. The purpose of this work session is to provide the Board of Supervisors with preliminary and unaudited revenue and expenditure information for County funds as of June 30, 2022 along with budget planning for fiscal year 2024. Department of Finance and Management Services staff will review the attached PowerPoint presentation at the work session. Page 1 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the receipt of this information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors receive the preliminary financial results for fiscal year ending June 30, 2022 and budget planning for fiscal year 2024. Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. P.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 28, 2022 AGENDA ITEM: The petition of ABoone Real Estate, Inc., to rezone approximately 32.323 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, and R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, to construct a hotel and townhouses located in the 1300 and 1400 blocks of Edgebrook Road, Catawba Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson Director of Planning APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Agenda item for public hearing and second reading of ordinance to rezone property from low density residential to commercial and higher density residential. BACKGROUND: · The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines a hotel/motel/motor lodge building or group of attached or detached buildings containing lodging units intended primarily for rental or lease to transients by the day, week or month. Such uses generally provide additional services such as daily maid service, lodge is not allowed as a permitted use in the R-1, Low Density Residential District, but is allowed as a permitted use in the C-2, High Intensity Commercial District. · The County Zoning Ordinance defines townhouses more attached single family dwellings in a row in which each unit has its own front and rear access to the outside, no unit is located over another unit, and Page 1 of 3 Townhomes are not allowed as a permitted use in the R-1, Low Density Residential District, but are allowed as a permitted use in the R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District. Section 30-82-14 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance provides use and design standards for townhomes. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on September 6, 2022. Sixteen (16) citizens spoke during the public hearing (15 in opposition and 1 in support). The concerns and comments expressed by those in opposition were: increased traffic on local roads; traffic safety; the validity of the traffic study and the traffic counts; the need for the hotel (plenty of hotels and hotel rooms nearby, occupancy rates of local hotels, parking lots empty at hotels); increased crime due to hotel; deterioration of hotels over time; the Core future land use designation and determinants; develop site as single-family subdivision; impacts to property values; stormwater runoff and management; market still strong for expensive homes; and development will change the character of the area. The person in support of the project provided the development background for this area and this property, what it would take to develop the property as a single-family subdivision, and why the proposed project is a better development alternative than a single-family subdivision. The Planning Commission discussed: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), traffic counts, and VDOT's concurrence on the traffic study; buffers; amount of land preserved if developed as single-family subdivision; hotel height and location; visibility of hotel; traffic generated by development versus a single-family development; Core future land use designation; renting of townhomes; property values; and proffered conditions. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning request from R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-2, High Intensity Commercial, and R-3, Medium Density Multi- Family Residential, with four proffered conditions: 1. The owner hereby proffers substantial conformance with the "Edgebrook Park - Development Plan" Exhibit A and Exhibit B prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. dated July 8, 2022 subject to any changes required by the County of Roanoke, Virginia Department of Transportation, or Western Virginia Water Authority during the site plan review process. 2. A maximum of 80 townhomes shall be constructed with this request. 3. The allowable use for the commercial parcel shall be a hotel. 4. The proposed hotel shall be a maximum of 4 stories in height. Page 2 of 3 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact on this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the second reading of an ordinance to rezone approximately 32.32 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, and R-3, Medium Density Multi- Family Residential District, with four proffered conditions: 1. The owner hereby proffers substantial conformance with the "Edgebrook Park - Development Plan" Exhibit A and Exhibit B prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. dated July 8, 2022 subject to any changes required by the County of Roanoke, Virginia Department of Transportation, or Western Virginia Water Authority during the site plan review process. 2. A maximum of 80 townhomes shall be constructed with this request. 3. The allowable use for the commercial parcel shall be a hotel. 4. The proposed hotel shall be a maximum of 4 stories in height. Page 3 of 3 TUBGG!SFQPSU Qfujujpofs;BCppof!Sfbm!Ftubuf-!Jod/ Sfrvftu;!!!!!Sf{pofbqqspyjnbufmz!43/43!bdsft!gspn!S.2-!Mpx!Efotjuz!Sftjefoujbm!Ejtusjdu-!up!D. 3-!Ijhi!Joufotjuz!Dpnnfsdjbm!Ejtusjdu-!boe!S.4-Nfejvn!Efotjuz!Nvmuj.Gbnjmz! Sftjefoujbm!Ejtusjdu-up!dpotusvdu!b!ipufm!boe!upxoipvtft! Mpdbujpo;2411!boe!2511!cmpdlt!pg!Fehfcsppl!Spbe Uby!Qbsdfm;Uby!Nbq!$146/15.13.44/11.1111 Nbhjtufsjbm!Ejtusjdu;Dbubxcb Qspqptfe!Qspggfsfe2/Tvctuboujbm!dpogpsnbodf!xjui!uif!Fehfcsppl!Qbsl!Efwfmpqnfou!Qmbo! Dpoejujpot;Fyijcju!B!boe!Fyijcju!C!qsfqbsfe!cz!Cbm{fs!boe!Bttpdjbuft-!Jod/!ebufe!Kvmz!9-! 3133!tvckfdu!up!boz!dibohft!sfrvjsfe!cz!uif!Dpvouz!pg!Spboplf-!Wjshjojb! Efqbsunfou!pg!Usbotqpsubujpo-!ps!Xftufso!Wjshjojb!Xbufs!Bvuipsjuz!evsjoh!uif! tjuf!qmbo!sfwjfx!qspdftt/ 3/B!nbyjnvn!pg!91!upxoipnft!tibmm!cf!dpotusvdufe!xjui!uijt!sfrvftu/ 4/Uif!bmmpxbcmf!vtf!gps!uif!dpnnfsdjbm!qbsdfm!tibmm!cf!Ipufm0Npufm0Npups!Mpehf/ 5/Uif!qspqptfe!ipufm!tibmm!cf!b!nbyjnvn!pg!5.tupsjft!jo!ifjhiu/! FYFDVUJWF!TVNNBSZ;! ABoone Real Estate, Inc. is petitioning to rezone approximately 32.32 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, and R-3,Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District,to construct a hotel and townhouses located in the 1300 and 1400 blocks of Edgebrook Road, Catawba Magisterial District. The original land use petition was submitted in February 2022 with public hearings by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors scheduled for April of 2022.The original petition proposed to rezone approximately 7.31 acres toC-2, High Intensity Commercial, district to include a hotel and professional/medical offices, and to rezone approximately 25.01 acres to R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential, districtto construct townhomes. A community meeting was held on Wednesday, March 16, 2022, with approximately 120citizens in attendance. Staff presented information about the rezoning process and instructed citizens on how to submit comments and sign up to speak at the public hearing. The applicantpresented the petition, answered citizen questions, and listened to public feedbackon many issues. The applicant requested to postpone the public hearings on this petition in order to consider revisions to the land use application anddevelopment plan. In July 2022, the applicant submitted a revised land use application with a revised concept plan. The application is now proposing to rezone approximately 3.46 acres toC-2, High Intensity Commercial, district to construct a four- storyhotel, and to rezone approximately 28.86 acres toR-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential, district to construct 80townhomes. The 2005 Roanoke County Comprehensive Planindicates theFuture Land Use Designationsofthis parcel as Development,Neighborhood Conservation, and Core. Approximately 2/3 of the site is designated Development and is where the majority of the townhouse development is proposed. Development is afuture land use area where most new neighborhood development will occur, including large-scale planned developments which mix residential 1 with retail and office uses. Innovation in housing design and environmental sensitivity in site development is a key objective. Clustered developments are encouraged as is the use of greenwaysandbike and pedestrian trails. Appropriate land use types include conventional residential, cluster residential, multi-family housing, planned residential development, which includes townhouses, planned community development, and community activity centers. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Development future land use designation. A small portion of the property in the northeast corner of the property is designated Neighborhood Conservation. Townhouses are proposed in this area. Neighborhood Conservation is afuture land use area where established single-familyneighborhoods are delineated and the conservation of the existing development pattern isencouraged. Attached housing at a reasonably higher density that is sensitive to the surroundingneighborhood is an appropriate land use within the Neighborhood Conservation future land use designation. The proposed rezoningis consistent with the Neighborhood Conservation future land use designation. The portion of the property that fronts directly onto Edgebrook Road is designated Core. The four-story hotel and some townhomes are proposed in the Core future land use area. Coreis afuture land use area where high intensity urban development is encouraged. Land uses within core areas may parallelthe central business districts of Roanoke, Salem and Vinton. Core areas may also be appropriate for larger-scale highway-oriented retail uses and regionally based shopping facilities. Due to limited availability, areas designated as Core are not appropriate for tax- exempt facilities.The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Core future land use designationfor the hotel site, but is inconsistent with the townhouses. 2/!!!!!!!!!!BQQMJDBCMF!SFHVMBUJPOT The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance definesa ipufm0npufm0npups!mpehf as “a building or group of attached or detached buildings containing lodging units intended primarily for rental or lease to transients by the day, week or month. Such uses generally provide additional services such as daily maidservice, restaurants, meeting rooms and/or recreation facilities.” A hotel/motel/motor lodge is not allowed as a permitted use in the R-1, Low Density Residential District, but is allowed as a permitted use in the C-2, High Intensity Commercial District. The County Zoning Ordinance defines upxoipvtft as “agrouping of three (3) or more attached single family dwellings in a row in which each unit has its own front and rear access to the outside, no unit is located over another unit, and each unit is separated from any other unit by one (1) or more common walls.”Townhouses are not allowed as a permitted use in the R-1, Low Density Residential District, but is allowed a permitted use in the R-3,Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District. Section 30-82-14of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance provides use and design standards for townhouses (attached). If the rezoning is approved, construction of the proposed townhousesand hotel will require comprehensive building and site plan reviews. 3/!!!!!!!!!!BOBMZTJT!PG!FYJTUJOH!DPOEJUJPOT Background–The parcel is approximately 32.323 acres in size. There is an abandoned single family residence on the parcel, but the property has been vacant for many years. Previously, thesubject parcel wasproposedto be developed as part of the Fairways at Hanging Rock subdivision. This concept plan indicated the parcel could be developed intoapproximately 93new parcels for single family residences. Some grading and clearing was done in 2018 on the east side of theproperty adjoining Edgebrook Road across from the Park and Ridelot. 2 Topography/Vegetation–The property consists of mostly wooded area, save for around one acre on the east of the property which was cleared in 2018.The wooded area contains mature deciduous and evergreen trees along with established underbrush.Gish Creek runs through the property from the northwestern corner to the southeastern corner. The subject parcel experiences large shifts in elevation. There is an approximate160-foot change in elevation from the highest point of the parcelat the westto the lowest elevation along Gish Creek. Surrounding Neighborhood–The parcel is surrounded to the north, west,and south by parcels zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, containingsingle family residences. These neighborhoods consist of Mountain Heights, Innsbrooke Estates, Hanging Rock Estates, Hanging Rocks Terrace, and the Fairways at Hanging Rock. To the east, the parcel abuts the Park and Ride lot and Interstate 81. 4/BOBMZTJT!PG!QSPQPTFE!EFWFMPQNFOU Site Layout/Architecture–As shown on the submitted concept plan, approximately 3.46 acres is proposed to be zoned C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, and approximately 28.86 acres is proposed to be zoned R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District. A four-story hotel with 100 parking spaces is proposed to be constructed in the commercial area. Eighty (80) townhouses are proposed to be constructed in the area proposed to be rezoned to R-3. A large vegetated area along Gish Creek is proposed to remain undisturbed. The applicant has provided an architectural rendering of the four-story hotel as well as cross-section profile drawings from different vantage points across the property. If the rezoning is approved, certain buffers would be required between different zoned areas. A type “B” buffer is required where the C-2 property adjoins R-3 zoned property. For a 30-foot wide buffer, every 100feet of buffer must include one row of large evergreen trees (5), one row of large evergreen shrubs (16-18), and one row of large deciduous shrubs (22- 24). However, the applicant denotes a proposed type “C” buffer to be approximately 40feet wide with plantings on the concept plans. A 40-foot wide type “C” buffer must include one row of large evergreen trees (5), one row of small deciduous trees (6), one row of large evergreen shrubs (16-18), and one row of large deciduous shrubs (22-24)for every 100feetof buffer.A type “A” buffer is required wherever the parcels zoned R-3 adjoin parcels zoned R-1. The plan denotes a 20-foot type “A” buffer to utilize existing foliage where possible but at minimum to include one row of large deciduous trees (3), one row of large evergreen shrubs (12-14), and one row of largedeciduous shrubs (16-18) for every 75feetof buffer. The applicant will be required to submit a detailed landscaping plan, parking plan,stormwater management plan, and a site lighting plan with photometric data as part of the site plan and building plan review processes. Access/Traffic Circulation–The parcel is located along Edgebrook Road,which is a public road and maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation. The parcel is located directly across from the Park and Ride lot, which is within 200 yards of exit 140 off of Interstate I-81. Edgebrook Road connects to Mountain Height Drive and then Thompson Memorial Drive (Route 311) and to Red Lane Extension (Route 705). As shown on the concept plan, one public road and two private roads are proposed within this development. The public road, “A,” would have an entrance off of Edgebrook Road across from the Park and Ridelot entrance and provide access to the hotel site and to 65 townhouses.One of the private roads is a loop road with two entrances off of the public road “A.”This private road would provide access to 15 townhouses. The second private road proposed is located approximately 300to 340 yards down Edgebrook Road. This circular road would provide access to 15 townhouses. 3 Bhfodjft!Dpnnfout: The following agencies provided comments on this application: Office of Building Safety–All construction will need to meet the requirements of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code in effect at the time. Chief of Police, Roanoke County-While I do not oppose this project, I must point out that motels and high density residential developments result in additional demand for policeservice. For the past several years, we have been unable to attract qualified applicants. This has resulted in constant staff shortages. Additionally, ourmost recent workload assessment (using pre-pandemic data) identified the need to add 6 police officers to our patrol staff. As this and other projects progress, it will be important for the County to address police staffing to ensure that we have the personnel to respond to the needs of our citizens.On another note, I would be interested in how the developer defines and "upscale" hotel. The motels that are currently in the immediate vicinity of I-81 tend to generate a much higher than average need for police service as compared to other hotels/motels in the County. Hopefully, an "upscale" hotelwould have higher standards and a higher price point to help avoid these issues. Economic Development-Economic Development enthusiastically supports the rezoning request by ABoone Real Estate, Inc. for the purpose of developing EdgebrookPark, a mixed use commercial and residential community which includes a new hotel, and townhouses at 0 Edgebrook Road.The proposedmixed-use project is consistent with the County's economic development goals of: 1-Attracting new commercial development and creating mixed-use development opportunities near key transportation corridors 2-Developing in-demand high quality housing options in under-served areas to support population growth and workforce development needs ofarea employers. 3-Attracting new economic development projects that will enhance the County's tax base and re- purpose underutilized properties for productiveuse. The project is creative, innovative and desirable at this location due to convenient I-81 "gateway" interstate access, proximity to nearby employersand a strong demand for new housing options. Overall, this is a very attractive project inan excellent location of the County that will enhance the County's tax base, residential and economic diversity. Engineering-Engineering has no comments. Specific design requirements and details will be addressed during normal site plan submittal and review process. Roanoke County Transportation:There is an existing sidewalk on Thompson Memorial Drive that extends from the Exit 140 Park and Ride past Roanoke College to downtown Salem. The existing sidewalk along Thompson Memorial Drive underneath Interstate 81 is one of only two interstate crossings available in Roanoke County, with the other being the Hanging Rock Battlefield Greenway along Kessler Mill Road. The Gish Branch Greenway is included as a Category 4 Route in the 2018 Roanoke Valley Greenway Plan. This greenway is proposed to extend along Gish Creek between Kessler Mill Road at Forest Lawn Drive and Interstate 81 at Thompson Memorial Drive. 4 Thompson Memorial Drive between the City of Salem and Route 311/Catawba Valley Drive is included as a proposed greenway connection in the Roanoke Valley Greenway Plan, included as a Priority List Corridor in the 2012 Bikeway Plan for the Roanoke Valley Area MPO, and recommended for hard surface improvements in the 2015 Regional Pedestrian Vision Plan. Thompson Memorial Drive between the City of Salem/Roanoke County line and East Main Street in Salem is also included in the Bikeway Plan for the Roanoke Valley Area MPO as a Vision List Corridor. Roanoke County is starting a McAfee Knob Trailhead Shuttle onSeptember 2, 2022, running from the Exit 140 Park and Ride to the trailhead parking lot on Route 311. The service will operate on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays and holiday Mondays until the end of November 2022, taking a winter break and restarting in March2023 through the end of November 2023. It would be an amenity for hotel guests who would like to hike to McAfee Knob to walk from the hotel to the Park and Ride to catch the shuttle. Because of the extensive planning efforts conducted to set a foundationfor pedestrian and bicycle accommodations and connections in this area of the County, as well as a new shuttle, Transportation staff strongly recommends: 1. Constructing sidewalks throughout the proposed development; 2. Installation of a crosswalk across Edgebrook Road to provide residents with direct pedestrian access to the Exit 140 Park and Ride, Roanoke College and downtown Salem; and 3. Shared use path or greenway along Gish Creek to provide a multimodal connection to the Exit 140 Park and Ride. Fire and Rescue–Fire and Rescue does not object to this project, however, it will increase the services provided due to potential emergency medical calls, fire alarms,and fires at the development. This would be in addition to the increased services for the Smith Ridge Commons as well as the already establishedRetreat Apartments. This project would also have to conform with access and fire flow requirements during the site plan review process. General Services–General Services does not see any issues and does not have comments. Stormwater–No concerns or comments. VDOT–We have reviewed the above mentioned rezoning request and have the following comments: 1. A Land Use Permit will be required if a new entrance is needed from the VDOT right-of-wayor for the change in use of an existing entrance. 2. The VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: Access Management Design Standards for Entrances and Intersections must be adhered to where applicable for commercial entrances. This includes, but is not limited to, commercial entrance spacing and intersection sight distance. The intersection sight distance must be field verified and measures taken to ensure the minimum required distances can be met. 3. VDOT granted concurrence with the Traffic Study for this project on January 5th, 2022. Any changes to the concept plan may require the Traffic Study be revised or an addendum submitted for 5 review and concurrence. 4. The department will not issue an approval of the plans or any necessary Land Use Permits until the locality approves this request. In addition, information regarding any changes to the existing drainage system should also be included for review. 5/DPOGPSNBODF!XJUI!SPBOPLF!DPVOUZ!DPNNVOJUZ!QMBO The 2005 Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan indicatesthe Future Land Use Designationsof this parcel as Development,Neighborhood Conservation, and Core. Approximately 2/3 of the site is designated Development and is where the majority of the townhouse development is proposed. Development is a future landuse area where most new neighborhood development will occur, including large-scale planned developments which mix residential with retail and office uses. Innovation in housing design and environmental sensitivity in site development is a key objective. Clustered developments are encouraged as is the use of greenwaysand bike and pedestrian trails. Appropriate land use types include conventional residential, cluster residential, multi-family housing, planned residential development, which includes townhouses, planned community development, and community activity centers. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Development future land use designation. A small portion of the property in the northeast corner of the property is designated Neighborhood Conservation. Townhouses are proposed in this area. Neighborhood Conservation is afuture land use area where established single-familyneighborhoods are delineated and the conservation of the existing development pattern isencouraged.Attached housing at a reasonably higher density that is sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood is an appropriate land use within the Neighborhood Conservation future land use designation. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Neighborhood Conservation future land use designation. The portion of the property that fronts directly onto Edgebrook Road is designated Core. The four-story hotel and some townhomes are proposed in the Core future land use area. Core is afuture land use area where high intensity urban development is encouraged. Land uses within core areas may parallel the central business districts of Roanoke, Salem and Vinton. Core areas may also be appropriate for larger- scale highway-oriented retail uses and regionally based shopping facilities. Due to limited availability, areas designated as Core are not appropriate for tax-exempt facilities. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Core future land use designation for the hotel site, but is inconsistent with the townhouses. 6/TUBGG!DPODMVTJPOT ABoone Real Estate, Inc. is petitioning to rezone approximately 32.32 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, and R-3 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District to construct a 4-story hotel and80 townhouses located in the 1300 and 1400 blocks of Edgebrook Road, Catawba Magisterial District. The 2005 Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan indicates the Future Land Use Designations of this parcel as Development, Neighborhood Conservation, and Core. The proposed rezoning is consistent with these future land use designations for most of the proposed project. The applicant has proposed four (4) proffered conditions with the proposed rezoning: substantial conformance with the development plan; limiting the maximum number of townhouses to 80; limiting the allowable use for the commercial portion of the rezoning to a hotel/motel/motor lodge; and limiting the height of the hotel to four stories. 6 DBTF!OVNCFS;$3.503133 QSFQBSFE!CZ;Bmzttb!Evocbs! IFBSJOH!EBUFT;!QD;!Tfqufncfs!7-!3133!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!CPT;!Tfqufncfs!39-!3133 BUUBDINFOUT;Bqqmjdbujpo!Nbufsjbmt Nbqt!)Bfsjbm-!\[pojoh-!Gvuvsf!Mboe!Vtf* Qipuphsbqit S.2Ejtusjdu!Sfhvmbujpot S.4Ejtusjdu!Sfhvmbujpot D.3!Ejtusjdu!Sfhvmbujpot Tfd/!41.93.25-!Upxoipvtft!Vtf!boe!Eftjho!Tuboebset Tdsffojoh-!Mboetdbqjoh!boe!Cvggfs!Zbse!Sfhvmbujpot Efwfmpqnfou!Gvuvsf!Mboe!Vtf!Eftjhobujpo Dpsf!Gvuvsf!Mboe!Vtf!Eftjhobujpo Ofjhicpsippe!Dpotfswbujpo!Gvuvsf!Mboe!Vtf!Eftjhobujpo! !!!!!!!!!!!!Qvcmjd!Dpnnfout 7 43/43 IN RE: ABOONE REAL ESTATE, INC., APPLICANT, AMENDED APPLICATION FOR ZONING TO COMMERCIAL 2 0 ABRE Road, Official Tax Number 035.04-02-33.00-0000 Initially Filed February 11, 2022 Amended July 8, 2022 I. INTRODUCTION AND REQUST FOR REZONING FROM R-1 TO C2 AND R-3 Pursuant to Section 30.1 of the Code of the County of Roanoke, as amended, ABoone Real Estate, Inc., a Virginia corporation ABRE), respectfully submits the following written narrative in support of its application for Rezoning from R-1 Low Density Residential District 1 -to C-2 High Intensity Commercial District - with proffered conditions and R-3 Medium Density Multi-Family -, as follows: ABRE hereby requests that a portion of the Property be rezoned from the currently zoned R-1 Residential Low Density Residential District to C-2, Commercial High Intensity Commercial District and a portion of the Property to Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District R-3 in substantial conformance with the Edgebrook Park by Balzer Associates dated July 8, 2020(the Development Plan Aoning for the development of the Property into two (2) parcels: one (1) parcel for a for a Hotel (+/- 3.46 acres), and one (1) for residential townhomes (+/- 28.86 acres). II. NARRATIVE IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION ABREamendment of the existing zoning classification for the Property is in concert with the CCommunity Plan munity . By proposing an exciting new mixed use commercial and residential community at the gateway of western Roanoke County adjacent to a well-facility on Interstate 81, a new upscale hotel proposed by the Development Plan will support the many residential communities close to the Property, as well as travelers to Roanoke County, the City of Salem, Roanoke College. Moreover, the proposed townhome community offers much needed new housing options to the County. Edgebrook Park will be an efficient, attractive, and compatible use for the Property for the reasons more fully set forth in this Narrative. EXHIBIT A See Attached Overall Proffered Development Plan by Balzer Associates, Inc. dated July 8, 2022. EXHIBIT B See Attached Proffered Commercial Development Plan by Balzer Associates Inc., dated July 8, 2022. EXHIBIT C See Attached Landscape Exhibit Plan by Balzer Associates Inc., dated July 8, 2022. EXHIBIT D See Attached Cross Sections by Balzer Associates Inc., dated July 8, 2022. EXHIBIT E See Attached Hotel Schematic Elevation by Balzer Associates Inc., dated July 8, 2022. SS T R PHS WKHWKH C O E Y 7/8/2022 T E I V H AS SHOWN R C U R S A / / S S R R 540.772.9580 E E E Shenandoah Valley Roanoke, VA 24018 N Roanoke / Richmond N1208 Corporate Circle I N G A New River Valley / Lynchburg L N PE EXHIBIT F See Attached Proffered Conditions by Applicant. EXHIBIT G Metes and Bounds Property Description Official Tax Number: 035.04-02-33.00-0000 (C-2 Commercial Portion, R-3 Residential Portion and Overall Metes and Bounds Property Description attached) LEGAL DESCRIPTION NEW COMMERCIAL PROPERTY (Portion of Parent Tract Being Rezoned to C2) BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF EDGEBROOK ROAD; +/- 1,613 FEET NORTHEAST OF OLDE COURSE LANE;THENCE LEAVING EDGEBROOK ROAD AND WITH A NEW LINE THROUGH ROANOKE COUNTY TAX PARCEL #035.04-02-33.00-0000 N 72°51'11" W A DISTANCE OF 518.90’ TO A POINT; THENCE N 17°08'49" E A DISTANCE OF 258.97’ TO A POINT; THENCE A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH AN ARC LENGTH OF 493.55', A RADIUS OF 1351.31', AND A CHORD BEARING & DISTANCE OF S 81°28'56" E, 490.81' TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF EDGEBROOK ROAD; THENCE WITH THE SAME S 29°10'45" W A DISTANCE OF 105.45’ TO A POINT; THENCE S 06°43'46" W A DISTANCE OF 100.38' TO A POINT; THENCE S 01°03'26" E A DISTANCE OF 128.62' TO A POINT; THENCE S 34°38'03" W A DISTANCE OF 8.99 ' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, HAVING AN AREA OF 150,778 SQUARE FEET, 3.461 ACRES SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. THIS DESCRIPTION BEING COMPILED FROM RECORDS. LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRACT A1 (Portion of Parent Tract Being Rezoned to R3) BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH/WEST LINE OF EDGEBROOK ROAD +/- 794 FEET EAST OF OLDE COURSE LANE; THENCE LEAVING THE ROAD AND WITH “THE FAIRWAYS AT HANGING ROCK SECTION 2” THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: N 18°05'11" W A DISTANCE OF 210.36' TO A POINT; THENCE N 71°54'49" E A DISTANCE OF 75.00' TO A POINT; THENCE N 15°01'19" E A DISTANCE OF 87.05' TO A POINT; THENCE N 35°30'56" W A DISTANCE OF 100.75' TO A POINT; THENCE N 82°23'55" W A DISTANCE OF 126.60' TO A POINT; THENCE N 14°39'16" E A DISTANCE OF 20.25' TO A POINT; THENCE N 67°02'56" W A DISTANCE OF 78.66' TO A POINT; THENCE S 68°04'48" W A DISTANCE OF 50.00' TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF OLDE COURSE LANE; THENCE WITH A CURVE TURNING TO THE LEFT WITH AN ARC LENGTH OF 74.55', WITH A RADIUS OF 55.00', WITH A CHORD BEARING OF N 60°45'12" W, WITH A CHORD LENGTH OF 68.98' TO A POINT; THENCE N 67°29'39" W A DISTANCE OF 281.07' TO A POINT; THENCE N 52°45'53" W A DISTANCE OF 342.69' TO A POINT; THENCE S 74°40'18" W A DISTANCE OF 233.62' TO A POINT; THENCE WITH “THE FAIRWAYS AT HANGING ROCK SECTION 3” THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: S 85°11'56" W A DISTANCE OF 144.30' TO A POINT; THENCE N 31°00'00" W A DISTANCE OF 126.39' TO A POINT; THENCE N 22°00'00" W A DISTANCE OF 120.00' TO A POINT; THENCE N 21°00'00" W A DISTANCE OF 120.00' TO A POINT; THENCE N 13°00'00" W A DISTANCE OF 176.75' TO A POINT; THENCE WITH “HANGING ROCK ESTATES SECTION 1” N 81°20'02" E A DISTANCE OF 217.59' TO A POINT; THENCE WITH “HANGING ROCK ESTATES SECTION 2” S 08°36'09" E A DISTANCE OF 139.00' TO A POINT; THENCE N 81°23'49" E A DISTANCE OF 164.85' TO A POINT; THENCE N 25°02'07" E A DISTANCE OF 167.29' TO A POINT; THENCE WITH “HANGING ROCK ESTATES SECTION 1” N 81°20'02" E A DISTANCE OF 428.51' TO A POINT; THENCE S 15°45'05" E A DISTANCE OF 231.02' TO A POINT; THENCE N 88°56'42" E A DISTANCE OF 200.33' TO A POINT; THENCE N 64°10'02" E A DISTANCE OF 210.43' TO A POINT; THENCE WITH TAX PARCEL #035.04-01-44.00-0000 S 15°17'19" E A DISTANCE OF 164.81' TO A POINT; THENCE N 81°42'41" E A DISTANCE OF 200.00’ TO A POINT; THENCE N 34°13'41" E A DISTANCE OF 207.30' TO A POINT; THENCE WITH “BLOCK 5, MOUNTAIN HEIGHTS” S 46°49'32" E A DISTANCE OF 498.03' TO A POINT; THENCE S 41°40'45" E A DISTANCE OF 26.85' TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF EDGEBROOK ROAD; THENCE WITH THE WEST LINE OF EDGEBROOK ROAD S 08°04'39" W A DISTANCE OF 64.31' TO A POINT; THENCE S 29°10'45" W A DISTANCE OF 33.40' TO A POINT; PROPERTY BEING REZONED TO R3 1 THENCE ON A CURVE WITH A NEW LINE THROUGH ROANOKE COUNTY TAX PARCEL #035.04-02-33.00-0000 THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH AN ARC LENGTH OF 493.55', A RADIUS OF 1351.31', AND A CHORD BEARING & DISTANCE OF N 81°28'56" W, 490.81' TO A POINT; THENCE S 17°08'49" W A DISTANCE OF 258.97’ TO A POINT; THENCE S 72°51'11" E A DISTANCE OF 518.90’ TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF EDGEBROOK ROAD; THENCE WITH THE WEST LINE OF EDGEBROOK ROAD S 34°38'03" W A DISTANCE OF 125.52' TO A POINT; THENCE S 20°12'55" W A DISTANCE OF 253.70' TO A POINT ; THENCE S 58°08'12" W A DISTANCE OF 139.53' TO A POINT ; THENCE S 76°27'39" W A DISTANCE OF 300.59' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, HAVING AN AREA OF 1,257,266 SQUARE FEET, 28.863 ACRES SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. THIS DESCRIPTION BEING COMPILED FROM RECORDS. PROPERTY BEING REZONED TO R3 2 EXHIBIT H VDOT Concurrence Letter for Traffic Impact Analysis & REVISED Balzer and Associates, Inc. Traffic Study ! EFQBSUNFOU!PG!USBOTQPSUBUJPO! 825!Tpvui!Cspbe!Tusffu! Tbmfn-!WB!35264! TUFQIFO!D/!CSJDI-!Q/F/! DPNNJTTJPOFS! ! xxx/Wjshjojbepu/psh! Xf!Lffq!Wjshjojb!Npwjoh TRAFFIC STUDY FOR EDGEBOOK PARK SALEM, VA TAX MAP #: 035.04-02-33.00-0000 EDGEBROOK ROAD ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA B&A PROJECT #04210056.00 DATE: October 15, 2021 REVISED: December 7, 2021 REVISED: June 24, 2022 PLANNERS ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Phone: (540) 772-9580 Table of Contents Page 1. IntroductionÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ. 1 2. Analysis of Existing ConditionsÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ....... 3 3. Analysis of Future Conditions Without Development.ÈÈ..ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ... 7 4. Trip Generation.ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ.ÈÈÈ 10 5. Site Traffic Distribution and AssignmentÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ..ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ. 11 6. Analysis of Future Conditions with DevelopmentÈÈÈ.ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ.............. 13 7. Turn Lane WarrantsÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ.ÈÈÈ.ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ.............. 16 8. ConclusionsÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ 17 Appendix A Î Vicinity MapÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ... 18 Appendix B Î Existing Traffic DataÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ. 20 Appendix C Î VDOT Turn Lane WorksheetsÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ 30 Appendix D Î VDOT Pre-Scoping FormÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ 33 Appendix E Î SimTraffic 10 Intersection Analysis DataÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ.ÈÈÈÈÈ. 37 2021 Existing AM Peak Hour AnalysisÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ 38 2021 Existing PM Peak Hour AnalysisÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ 46 2023 Background AM Peak Hour AnalysisÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ. 54 2023 Background PM Peak Hour AnalysisÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ. 62 2023 Buildout AM Peak Hour AnalysisÈ..ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ.ÈÈÈÈÈ 70 2023 Buildout PM Peak Hour AnalysisÈÈÈ..ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ. 79 Appendix F Î Concept PlanÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ..ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ.ÈÈÈÈÈ. 88 List of Figures Fig. 1 Î 2021 Existing Turning MovementsÈ..ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ..ÈÈÈÈ.ÈÈ............ÈÈÈ.. 4 Fig. 2 Î Existing Heavy Vehicle Percentages ÈÈÈÈÈÈ..ÈÈÈÈÈ....ÈÈ.È.........ÈÈÈ.. 5 Fig. 3 Î Projected 2023 Background TrafficÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ..............................ÈÈÈ.. 8 Fig. 4 Î Site-Generated Traffic AssignmentsÈÈÈÈÈÈ...ÈÈÈÈ.............................ÈÈÈ.. 12 Fig. 5 Î Projected 2023 Buildout TrafficÈÈÈÈÈÈ..È.È...ÈÈÈÈÈÈ..ÈÈÈÈ.ÈÈ........ 14 List of Tables Table 1 Î LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (HCM)ÈÈÈ...ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ.. 2 Table 2 Î 2021 Existing LOS & Queuing AnalysisÈÈÈÈÈ..ÈÈÈÈÈ..ÈÈÈ.........ÈÈÈ.. 6 Table 3 Î 2023 Background LOS & Queuing AnalysisÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ...ÈÈÈ.. 9 Table 4 Î Site-Generated TrafficÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ...È..ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ.ÈÈ.....ÈÈÈ.. 10 Table 5 Î 2023 Buildout LOS & Queuing AnalysisÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ.ÈÈÈÈÈÈ...È.ÈÈÈ.. 15 1.Introduction Edgebrook Land Co., LLC is proposing to rezone approximately 32 acres of currently undeveloped land located along Edgebrook Road, Route 1130, in Roanoke County (see Appendix A for vicinity map). The proposed zoning of the property would allow for the property to be developed with a hotel and townhomes. A breakdown of the anticipated uses is provided below: Hotel with 85 Rooms 8 Townhomes The site is located on the west side of Edgebrook Road to the south of Mountain Heights Drive across from the existing VDOT park and ride facility. The property is described as Roanoke County Tax Parcel #035.04-02-33.00. The site is currently zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The proposed development has one proposed full access entrance on Edgebrook Road. As discussed with VDOT at the pre-scoping meeting, the following intersections will be analyzed to determine how levels of service and queue lengths are impacted by this development: Thompson Memorial Drive and Mountain Heights Drive (Unsignalized) Edgebrook Road and Mountain Heights Drive (Unsignalized) Edgebrook Road and Site Entrance (Unsignalized) Thompson Memorial Drive, Route 311, is a four-lane, divided roadway that provides access from the City of Salem to Interstate 81. This section has a posted speed of 45 mph. Mountain Heights Drive, Route 1128, is a two-lane, local roadway that provides access from Thompson Memorial Drive to residential areas. The posted speed on this roadway is 25 mph. Edgebrook Road, Route 1130, is a two-lane, local roadway that provides east/west access between Thompson Memorial Drive and Red Lane. The posted speed on this roadway is 30 mph. Three scenarios will be considered: Existing Condition 2021, Background Condition 2023, and Buildout Condition 2023 to determine the effects of the background traffic growth and the proposed development on the levels of service at the existing intersections. Traffic Study 1 Edgebrook Commercial Development Î Roanoke County, VA June 24, 2022 Level of service (LOS) for unsignalized intersections is evaluated based on control delay per vehicle and the driverÓs perception of those conditions. Control delay is the portion of the total delay attributed to the control at the intersection. Table 1 depicts the LOS scale with corresponding control delay per vehicle, with LOS ÐAÑ representing the best operating conditions and LOS ÐFÑ representing the worst. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Avg. Control Delay Level Of Service (Sec./Veh) A < 10 B > 10 Î 15 C > 15 Î 25 D > 25 Î 35 E > 35 Î 50 F > 50 Table 1: LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (HCM) The Synchro 10 and SimTraffic 10 softwares were used for all modeling and analysis. Synchro 10 was utilized to calculate the expected delay and the SimTraffic 10 software was utilized to determine all queue lengths. This procedure was used for all scenarios to provide a consistent analysis for comparison purposes. This study was undertaken by Balzer and Associates, Inc. to: determine the total number of vehicle trips generated by the potential development to be added to the adjacent street network; determine the impacts to level of service and queue lengths at the existing intersections as a result of the background traffic growth and from the proposed development; determine if any roadway or intersection improvements are warranted as a result of the proposed development; and to determine turn lane/taper requirements at the proposed entrance to the site. Traffic Study 2 Edgebrook Commercial Development Î Roanoke County, VA June 24, 2022 2. Analysis of Existing Conditions The site is currently vacant. The northeast corner of the site has previously been utilized as a borrow area for construction operations. The remainder of the site is mostly wooded, with a creek flowing from west to east across the southern portion of the site and collected in a box culvert under Edgebrook Road. The intersections of Edgebrook Road and Mountain Heights Drive, as well as Mountain Heights Drive and Thompson Memorial Drive, are unsignalized. 2020 VDOT traffic count data is available for these roads, and this information is provided in Appendix B and summarized below. 2020 VDOT Traffic Count Data: Thompson Memorial Drive, Rte. 311 AADT = 5,100 vpd Directional Factor = 0.525 K Factor = 0.113 Mountain Heights Drive, Rte. 1128 AADT = 1,800 vpd Directional Factor = 0.7 (assumed) K Factor = 0.113 (assumed) Edgebrook Road, Rte. 1130 AADT = 1,500 vpd Directional Factor = 0.7 (assumed) K Factor = 0.113 (assumed) In addition to the VDOT published traffic count data, manual traffic counts were performed for the each of the study intersections. The counts were performed on Tuesday, September 21, 2021 from 7:00 AM Î 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM Î 6:00 PM to capture the AM and PM peak hours. All turning and through movements were counted to facilitate analysis of the intersections. The manual traffic count data is provided in Appendix B. Figure 1 graphically depicts the existing peak hour traffic volumes and Figure 2 shows the heavy vehicle percentages obtained from the counts. The SimTraffic 10 software was used to analyze delays, level of service, and queue lengths for existing weekday AM and PM peak hours. The existing conditions levels of service, delays, and queue lengths are shown in Table 2. The SimTraffic 10 results are included in Appendix E. Traffic Study 3 Edgebrook Commercial Development Î Roanoke County, VA June 24, 2022 Table 2 - Existing 2021 Condition Edgebrook Commercial Development - Roanoke County, VA Intersection Level of Service and Queuing Analysis Average Max Average Max Levels of Levels of Queues Queues Queues Queues Service Service Intersection Control Approach Available (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Storage AM PM AM AM PM PM (ft) 1. Thompson Memorial Dr & Stop EBLTR 130 B (12.8) B (14.1) 46 91 37 75 Mountain Heights Dr & WBLTR -- B (11.4) C (16.7) 3 31 9 34 Deborah Ln NBL 100 A (8.1) A (7.9) 13 45 15 46 NBTR -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SBL 120 A (7.4) A (7.7) 0 0 0 3 SBTR -- -- -- 0 5 0 2 2. Edgebrook Rd & EBTR -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Mountain Heights Dr WBL 100 A (7.6) A (7.4) 7 52 2 35 NBLR -- A (9.2) A (8.8) 32 74 30 63 Notes: (1) Levels of service are as reported by Synchro. (2) Numbers in parentheses () represent control delay in seconds per vehicle as reported by Synchro. (3) Queues are average and maximum queue lengths as reported by SimTraffic with 10 recording intervals of 60 minutes. Traffic Study 6 Edgebrook Commercial Development Î Roanoke County, VA June 24, 2022 3. Analysis of Future Conditions Without Development It is anticipated that the proposed development will be constructed and in use by 2023. To analyze the future conditions and obtain the projected background traffic volumes, an annual growth factor was applied to the existing traffic volumes. From studying VDOT traffic data from 2005 to 2020, it was determined that a 3.8% annual growth rate is appropriate for this area. Therefore, this growth factor was applied to the existing traffic counts to project traffic from the traffic count year of 2021 to the design year of 2023. Figure 3 graphically depicts the projected background traffic in the year 2023 with the growth rate applied. Table 3 provides a summary of the levels of service, delays, and queue lengths for the 2023 Background condition. The SimTraffic 10 output is included in Appendix E. Traffic Study 7 Edgebrook Commercial Development Î Roanoke County, VA June 24, 2022 Table 3 - Background 2023 Condition Edgebrook Commercial Development - Roanoke County, VA Intersection Level of Service and Queuing Analysis Levels Levels Average Max Average Max of of Queues Queues Queues Queues Service Service (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Intersection Control Approach Available Storage AM PM AM AM PM PM (ft) 1. Thompson Memorial Dr & Stop EBLTR 130 B (13.3) C (15.1) 49 94 41 89 Mountain Heights Dr & WBLTR -- B (11.7) C (17.9) 3 30 12 36 Deborah Ln NBL 100 A (8.2) A (7.9) 14 50 17 43 NBTR -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SBL 120 A (7.5) A (7.8) 0 3 0 2 SBTR -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2. Edgebrook Rd & EBTR -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Mountain Heights Dr WBL 100 A (7.7) A (7.4) 9 59 3 38 NBLR -- A (9.3) A (8.9) 34 75 30 60 Notes: (1) Levels of service are as reported by Synchro. (2) Numbers in parentheses () represent control delay in seconds per vehicle as reported by Synchro. (3) Queues are average and maximum queue lengths as reported by SimTraffic with 10 recording intervals of 60 minutes. Traffic Study 9 Edgebrook Commercial Development Î Roanoke County, VA June 24, 2022 4. Trip Generation Trip generation for this study was based on the anticipated and assumed uses outlined in the Introduction and information provided by the developer regarding the possible uses of the property. The policies and procedures found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, were employed to determine the potential site generated traffic volumes for the proposed development for the average weekday and AM and PM peak hours. Trip generation calculations were performed using the equations provided in the ITE manual. Table 4 shows the potential site-generated traffic for this development. Trip Generation Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday Proposed ITE Independent Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Total Development Code Variable 80 Dwelling Townhomes 220 9 30 39 30 18 48 566 Units Hotel 310 85 Rooms 22 15 37 19 19 38 533 Total 31 45 76 50 37 86 1,099 Table 4: Site-Generated Traffic Based on this being a mixed-use development, it could be appropriate to apply an internal capture trip reduction. However, to provide a conservative analysis, neither internal capture nor pass-by reductions were applied for this development. Traffic Study 10 Edgebrook Commercial Development Î Roanoke County, VA June 24, 2022 5. Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment The distribution of potential site generated traffic was completed by observing the directional splits from the traffic counts and by applying engineering judgement based on knowledge of the proposed uses, as well as the surrounding area. The directional percentages were then applied to the site generated traffic to determine the ingress/egress movements for each direction. It is assumed that the majority of site-generated traffic will enter from and exit toward Thompson Memorial Drive. This development is proposed to have one full access entrance point on Edgebrook Road. After distribution of trips to the roadway, trips were distributed at each intersection based on existing traffic patterns and engineering judgement. Traffic assignment for the site-generated traffic is shown graphically in Figure 4. Traffic Study 11 Edgebrook Commercial Development Î Roanoke County, VA June 24, 2022 6. Analysis of Future Conditions With Development The buildout traffic was calculated by adding the 2023 background traffic (Figure 3) to the site-generated traffic (Figure 4). The 2023 buildout traffic for each of the study intersections is shown in Figure 5. The intersections were then modeled and evaluated using the Synchro and SimTraffic software. Table 5 provides a summary of the levels of service, delays, and queue lengths for the 2023 buildout condition. The SimTraffic 10 output can be found in Appendix E. As shown in the data, the existing and proposed intersections will function at an acceptable level of service in the buildout condition, with minimal increases in delays and queuing. No further improvements are recommended as a result of the development traffic. Traffic Study 13 Edgebrook Commercial Development Î Roanoke County, VA June 24, 2022 Table 5 - Buildout 2023 Condition Edgebrook Commercial Development - Roanoke County, VA Intersection Level of Service and Queuing Analysis Levels Levels Average Max Average Max of of Queues Queues Queues Queues Service Service (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Intersection Control Approach Available Storage AM PM AM AM PM PM (ft) 1. Thompson Memorial Dr & Stop EBLTR 130 B (14.5) C (16.9) 53 108 45 100 Mountain Heights Dr & WBLTR -- B (12.4) C (20.4) 3 28 9 35 Deborah Ln NBL 100 A (8.2) A (8.0) 19 60 19 60 NBTR -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SBL 120 A (7.5) A (7.8) 0 8 0 6 SBTR -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2. Edgebrook Rd & EBTR -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Mountain Heights Dr WBL 100 A (7.7) A (7.5) 12 58 4 38 NBLR -- A (9.5) A (9.1) 37 80 32 60 3. Edgebrook Rd & EBLR -- A (9.9) A (9.9) 27 56 25 57 Site Entrance NBL -- A (7.5) A (7.5) 1 24 2 35 Notes: (1) Levels of service are as reported by Synchro. (2) Numbers in parentheses () represent control delay in seconds per vehicle as reported by Synchro. (3) Queues are average and maximum queue lengths as reported by SimTraffic with 10 recording intervals of 60 minutes. Traffic Study 15 Edgebrook Commercial Development Î Roanoke County, VA June 24, 2022 7. Turn Lane Warrants The analyses to determine turn lane requirements for the new entrance on Edgebrook Road to serve the proposed development were completed by following the procedures and methodologies found in the VDOT Road Design Manual, Volume I, Appendix F. Right-Turn Lane into Site AM Peak Hour Analysis: - 25 Vehicles per Hour Turning Right into site from Edgebrook Road - Approach Volume = 119 VPH Edgebrook Road -- Right-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: Radius Required (please see Attachment 3). PM Peak Hour Analysis: - 41 Vehicles per Hour Turning Right into site from Edgebrook Road - Approach Volume = 122 VPH Edgebrook Road -- Right-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: Radius Required (please see Attachment 3). Left-Turn Lane into Site AM Peak Hour Analysis: - 6 (6.4%) Vehicles per Hour Turning Left into site from Edgebrook Road Posted Speed Limit = 25 mph - Advancing Volume = 94 VPH - Opposing Volume = 119 VPH -- Left-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: None Required (please see Appendix C). PM Peak Hour Analysis: - 10 (9.6%) Vehicles per Hour Turning Left into site from Edgebrook Road Posted Speed Limit = 25 mph - Advancing Volume = 104 VPH - Opposing Volume = 122 VPH -- Left-Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: None Required (please see Appendix C). Traffic Study 16 Edgebrook Commercial Development Î Roanoke County, VA June 24, 2022 8. Conclusions Based on the data collected, the assumptions made, and the potential site generated traffic, the results of the analysis are: the existing and proposed roadway network appears to function at an acceptable level of service at full buildout of the proposed development, and no turn lanes or tapers are warranted by the proposed development. Traffic Study 17 Edgebrook Commercial Development Î Roanoke County, VA June 24, 2022 Appendix A Vicinity Map Traffic Study Edgebrook Commercial Development Î Roanoke County, VA June 24, 2022 18 SITE Traffic Study Edgebrook Commercial Development Î Roanoke County, VA June 24, 2022 19 Appendix B Existing Traffic Data Traffic Study Edgebrook Commercial Development Î Roanoke County, VA June 24, 2022 20 21 Wjshjojb!Efqbsunfou!pg!Usbotqpsubujpo Usbggjd!Fohjoffsjoh!Ejwjtjpo 3131 Boovbm!Bwfsbhf!Ebjmz!Usbggjd!Wpmvnf!Ftujnbuft!Cz!Tfdujpo!pg!Spvuf Spboplf!Nbjoufobodf!Bsfb ...............Usvdl...............LEjs Spvuf Mfohui BBEU 5UjsfCvtRDRLBBXEURXZfbs RB 2Usbjm3Usbj 3Bymf4,BymfmGbdupsGbdups Spboplf!Dpvouz Gspn; Efbe!Foe Fmmjtpo!Bwf1/2:1503503126 731S OBOB 2225 Up; TDM!Tbmfn Gspn; Efbe!Foe Mbodfs!Es1/21OBOB1402:03126 351S 2226 Up; 91.2225!Fmmjtpo!Bwf Gspn; Efbe!Foe Bsspx!Es1/21OBOB1503503126 331S 2227 Up; 91.2225!Fmmjtpo!Bwf Gspn; Efbe!Foe Cmbdlxppe!Es1/21OBOB1503503126 441S 2228 Up; 91.2225!Fmmjtpo!Bwf Gspn; GS.81!Tlzwjfx!Se Xfbwfs!Se1/47OBOB1901303129 51S 2229 Up; Efbe!Foe Gspn; 91.939 Johbm!Cmwe1/73OBOB140170312: 781S 222: Up; 91.2257!Xftuxbse!Mblf!Es Gspn; 91.222:!Johbm!Cmwe Qpmmz!Es1/14OBOB1901303129 61S 2231 Up; Efbe!Foe Gspn; Efbe!Foe Tuzqft!Csbodi!Se1/21OBOB1503303126 221S 2232 Up; 91.888<!91.939 Gspn; 91.2234!Tlzwjfx!Se Tlzwjfx!Se1/26OBOB1701603129 411S 2233 Up; 91.866!Tlzwjfx!Se Gspn; 91.2249!Csvtiz!Sjehf!Se<!Tlzdpf!Es Tlzwjfx!Se1/18OBOB1701603129 261S 2234 Up; 91.224:!Tijsmfz!Se Gspn; Tlzwjfx!Se1/25OBOB1701603129 381S 2234 Up; 91.2233 Gspn; Efbe!Foe Dsfflxppe!Es1/1:OBOB140180312: 71S 2235 Up; 91.2244!Tjmwfsmfbg!Es Gspn; Dsfflxppe!Es1/69OBOB140180312: 2711S 2235 Up; 91.752!Ufybt!Ipmmpx!Se Gspn; Efbe!Foe Qvdlfuu!Djsdmf1/25OBOB140180312: :1S 2236 Up; 91.2235!Dsfflxppe!Es Gspn; Efbe!Foe Cfbcfscsppl!Se1/21OBOB140180312: 8:1S 2237 Up; 91.2242!Dspxo!Djsdmf Gspn; Cfbwfscsppl!Se1/25OBOB140180312: 711S 2237 Up; Efbe!Foe Gspn; 91.2235!Dsfflxppe!Es Gfsombxo!Se1/32OBOB140180312: 291S 2238 Up; 91.223:!Fmefsxppe!Se Gspn;Gspn; TS!422!Uipnqtpo!Nfnpsjbm!EsTS!422!Uipnqtpo!Nfnpsjbm!Es Npvoubjo!Ifjhiut!EsNpvoubjo!Ifjhiut!Es1/761/76OBOBOBOB17016031291701603129 29112911SS 2239 Up;Up;Up; 91.2266!Xzcbm!Es91.2266!Xzcbm!Es Gspn;Gspn; Npvoubjo!Ifjhiut!Es1/26OBOB1701603129 241S 2239 Up; Efbe!Foe Gspn; Dvm.ef.Tbd Fmefsxppe!Se1/34OBOB140180312: 621S 223: Up; 91.2237!Cfbwfscsppl!Se 22 702403132 Wjshjojb!Efqbsunfou!pg!Usbotqpsubujpo Usbggjd!Fohjoffsjoh!Ejwjtjpo 3131 Boovbm!Bwfsbhf!Ebjmz!Usbggjd!Wpmvnf!Ftujnbuft!Cz!Tfdujpo!pg!Spvuf Spboplf!Nbjoufobodf!Bsfb ...............Usvdl...............LEjs Spvuf Mfohui BBEU 5UjsfCvtRDRLBBXEURXZfbs RB 2Usbjm3Usbj 3Bymf4,BymfmGbdupsGbdups Spboplf!Dpvouz Gspn; Efbe!Foe Mblf!Gspou!Es1901303129 61S OBOB 2259 Up; 91.2258!Xftuxbse!Mblf!Es Gspn; 91.222:!Johbm!Cmwe Epu!Djsdmf1/14OBOB1901303129 61S 225: Up; Efbe!Foe Gspn;Gspn; 91.816!Sfe!Mbof!Fyufotjpo91.816!Sfe!Mbof!Fyufotjpo Fehfcsppl!SeFehfcsppl!Se1/:81/:8OBOBOBOB17016031291701603129 26112611SS 2261 Up;Up; TS!422<!91.2224TS!422<!91.2224 Gspn; 91.222:!Johbm!Cmwe Ofub!Djsdmf1/14OBOB140170312: 61S 2262 Up; Efbe!Foe Gspn; 91.752!Ufybt!Ipmmpx!Se Tubogpse!Es1/33OBOB140170312: 81S 2263 Up; 91.937!Uzmfs!Se Gspn; VT!22!Xftu!Nbjo!Tu Fmnxppe!Mbof1/16OBOB1503303126 2:1S 2264 Up; Efbe!Foe Gspn; 91.757!Cbsmfz!Es Dvoojohibn!Es1/16OBOB1503303126 41S 2265 Up; Efbe!Foe Gspn; 91.2239!Npvoubjo!Ifjhiut!Es Xzcbm!Es1/19OBOB1701603129 81S 2266 Up; 91.2267!Svcmfz!Bwf Gspn; Dvm.ef.Tbd Svcmfz!Bwf1/22OBOB1701603129 61S 2267 Up; 91.2266!Xzcbm!Es Gspn; Svcmfz!Bwf1/17OBOB1701603129 31S 2267 Up; Dvm.ef.Tbd Gspn; 91.2257!Xftuxbse!Mblf!Es Npvoubjo!Qbsl!Es1/24OBOB140170312: 91S 2268 Up; 91.2269!Joejbo!Ijmm!Se Gspn; 91.2257!Xftuxbse!Mblf!Es Joejbo!Ijmm!Se1/31OBOB140170312: 91S 2269 Up; 91.2268!Npvoubjo!Qbsl!Es Gspn; Efbe!Foe Njmmxppe!Es1/22OBOB1503503126 2211S 226: Up; TDM!Tbmfn Gspn; GS.79!Ebo!Spcjo!Se Tvoebodf!Se1/58OBOB1503303126 621S 2271 Up; 91.2272!Difsplff!Ijmmt!Es Gspn; Efbe!Foe Difsplff!Ijmmt!Es1/:5OBOB1503303126 2411S 2272 Up; GS.7:!Difsplff!Ijmm!Es Gspn; 91.2279!Njmm!Csjehf!Se Tupofnjmm!Es1/36OBOB1503503126 541S 2273 Up; 91.2278!Njmm!Xiffm!Es Gspn; Tupofnjmm!Es1/28:6&4&2&2&1&1&D1/254G1/64:271H3131 271H 2273 Up; XDM!Tbmfn Gspn; 91.2271!Tvoebodf!Se Xijtqfsjoh!Xjoe!Es1/26OBOB1403703126 231S 2274 Up; Dvm.ef.Tbd Gspn; 91.2278!Njmm!Xiffm!Es Tupofnjmm!Es1/25OBOB1503503126 :1S 2275 Up; 91.227:!Njmm!Qpoe!Es 23 702403132 CARS TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by:VCU Intersection of:Thompson Memorial DriveDate:September 21, 2021Tuesday and:Mountain Heights DriveWeather:Sunny/Warm Location:Salem, VirginiaEntered by:SNStar Rating: 5 SOUTHBOUNDNORTHBOUNDWESTBOUNDEASTBOUNDTOTAL on:Thompson Memorial Driveon:Thompson Memorial Driveon:Deborah Laneon:Mountain Heights DriveN + S TIME+ RIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALRIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALRIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALRIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALE + W AM 7:00 - 7:15543004802711038001012604030117 7:15 - 7:30544004921860260000032013045120 7:30 - 7:451073108422015037100014206048170 7:45 - 8:0010671078522100371000131010041157 8:00 - 8:1511410052031150460010130011041140 8:15 - 8:301641005722017039000002208030126 8:30 - 8:45549105512214037100011703020113 8:45 - 9:00104311552189029002022214027113 2 Hr Totals 7240141478141789702893040722215902821056 1 Hr Totals 7:00 - 8:003022720259987420138201031310330164564 7:15 - 8:153622520263991460146201031350400175587 7:30 - 8:304722220271993570159201031250350160593 7:45 - 8:454219820242895560159201031000320132536 8:00 - 9:00421742121959155015110304911260118492 PEAK HOUR 7:30 - 8:30 4722220271993570159201031250350160593 PM 4:00 - 4:154230027057200770020213117031137 4:15 - 4:301332004515021072000001604020137 4:30 - 4:4511381050058210790010120015035165 4:45 - 5:001230004206715183001011809027153 5:00 - 5:1516370053067200870050512019031176 5:15 - 5:3011440055153310850120313012025168 5:30 - 5:456290035045200652020415013028132 5:45 - 6:001417203303817055300031202014105 2 Hr Totals 872503034024351651603511301911919102111173 1 Hr Totals 4:00 - 5:004012310164123277131100404671450113592 4:15 - 5:155213710190124277132100707660470113631 4:30 - 5:3050149102001245871334019010630550118662 4:45 - 5:45451400018512328613202110013580530111629 5:00 - 6:004712720176120388029251901552046098581 PEAK HOUR 4:30 - 5:30 50149102001245871334019010630550118662 24 HEAVY TRUCKS TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by:VCU Intersection of:Thompson Memorial DriveDate:September 21, 2021Tuesday and:Mountain Heights DriveWeather:Sunny/Warm Location:Salem, VirginiaEntered by:SNStar Rating: 5 SOUTHBOUNDNORTHBOUNDWESTBOUNDEASTBOUNDTOTAL on:Thompson Memorial Driveon:Thompson Memorial Driveon:Deborah Laneon:Mountain Heights DriveN + S TIME+ RIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALRIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALRIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALRIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALE + W AM 7:00 - 7:15110020020200000101026 7:15 - 7:30100010310400000000005 7:30 - 7:45020020110200000000004 7:45 - 8:001400503104000002000211 8:00 - 8:15130040200200000300039 8:15 - 8:30010010110200000100014 8:30 - 8:45040040010100000200027 8:45 - 9:00020020110200000000004 2 Hr Totals 417002101180190000090101050 1 Hr Totals 7:00 - 8:00370010075012000003010426 7:15 - 8:15390012093012000005000529 7:30 - 8:302100012073010000006000628 7:45 - 8:45212001406309000008000831 8:00 - 9:00110001104307000006000624 PEAK HOUR 7:30 - 8:30 2100012073010000006000628 HV %4.1%4.3%0.0%0.0%4.2%0.0%7.0%5.0%0.0%5.9%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%4.6%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.6% PM 4:00 - 4:15000000110200000100013 4:15 - 4:30020020400400000100017 4:30 - 4:45030030110200000100016 4:45 - 5:00020020110200000100015 5:00 - 5:15030030100100000000004 5:15 - 5:30010010000000000000001 5:30 - 5:45000000000000000000000 5:45 - 6:00010010010100000100013 2 Hr Totals 0120012084012000005000529 1 Hr Totals 4:00 - 5:0007007073010000004000421 4:15 - 5:15010001007209000003000322 4:30 - 5:300900903205000002000216 4:45 - 5:450600602103000001000110 5:00 - 6:00050050110200000100018 PEAK HOUR 4:30 - 5:30 0900903205000002000216 HV %0.0%5.7%0.0%0.0%4.3%0.0%1.2%2.2%0.0%1.5%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.7% 25 TOTALS TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by:VCU Intersection of:Thompson Memorial DriveDate:September 21, 2021Tuesday and:Mountain Heights DriveWeather:Sunny/Warm Location:Salem, VirginiaEntered by:SNStar Rating: 5 SOUTHBOUNDNORTHBOUNDWESTBOUNDEASTBOUNDTOTAL on:Thompson Memorial Driveon:Thompson Memorial Driveon:Deborah Laneon:Mountain Heights DriveN + S TIME+ RIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALRIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALRIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALRIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALE + W AM 7:00 - 7:15644005002713040001012705032123 7:15 - 7:30644005022170300000032013045125 7:30 - 7:451075108622116039100014206048174 7:45 - 8:0011711083525110411000133010043168 8:00 - 8:1512440056033150480010133011044149 8:15 - 8:301642005822118041000002308031130 8:30 - 8:45553105912215038100011903022120 8:45 - 9:001045115721910031002022214027117 2 Hr Totals 76418414991418910503083040723116002921106 1 Hr Totals 7:00 - 8:003323420269994470150201031340340168590 7:15 - 8:1539234202759100490158201031400400180616 7:30 - 8:3049232202839100600169201031310350166621 7:45 - 8:4544210202568101590168201031080320140567 8:00 - 9:00431842123059558015810304971260124516 PEAK HOUR 7:30 - 8:30 49232202839100600169201031310350166621 PHF 0.892 PM 4:00 - 4:154230027058210790020214117032140 4:15 - 4:301334004715421076000001704021144 4:30 - 4:4511411053059220810010121015036171 4:45 - 5:001232004406816185001011909028158 5:00 - 5:1516400056068200880050512019031180 5:15 - 5:3011450056153310850120313012025169 5:30 - 5:456290035045200652020415013028132 5:45 - 6:001418203403818056300031302015108 2 Hr Totals 872623035224431691615511301912419102161202 1 Hr Totals 4:00 - 5:004013010171123980132100404711450117613 4:15 - 5:155214710200124979133000707690470116653 4:30 - 5:3050158102091248891339019010650550120678 4:45 - 5:45451460019112348713232110013590530112639 5:00 - 6:004713220181120489029451901553046099589 PEAK HOUR 4:30 - 5:30 50158102091248891339019010650550120678 PHF 0.942 26 CARS TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by:VCU Intersection of:Mountain Heights DriveDate:September 21, 2021Tuesday and:Edgebrook DriveWeather:Sunny/Warm Location:Salem, VirginiaEntered by:SNStar Rating: 5 SOUTHBOUNDNORTHBOUNDWESTBOUNDEASTBOUNDTOTAL on:on:Edgebrook Roadon:Mountain Heights Driveon:Mountain Heights DriveN + S TIME+ RIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALRIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALRIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALRIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALE + W AM 7:00 - 7:15018001821401611101246 7:15 - 7:30015001521001212802956 7:30 - 7:45018001842202603203276 7:45 - 8:00019001971201901901957 8:00 - 8:15021002132402702002068 8:15 - 8:30018101972102811301461 8:30 - 8:450130013713020160740 8:45 - 9:00011001121701911601747 2 Hr Totals 000001330101340341330167514500150451 1 Hr Totals 7:00 - 8:00000007000070015580732900092235 7:15 - 8:150000073000730166808419900100257 7:30 - 8:300000076010770217901001840085262 7:45 - 8:45000007101072024700942580060226 8:00 - 9:00000006301064019750943550058216 PEAK HOUR 7:30 - 8:30 0000076010770217901001840085262 PM 4:00 - 4:150221023913022080853 4:15 - 4:3001110121022032090953 4:30 - 4:4503000301520035050570 4:45 - 5:000151016111702801001054 5:00 - 5:150190019181603411101265 5:15 - 5:3002000202519044040468 5:30 - 5:450170017121202411201354 5:45 - 6:00062081321034060648 2 Hr Totals 00000140050145011314002532650067465 1 Hr Totals 4:00 - 5:000000078030810457201170320032230 4:15 - 5:150000075020770547501291350036242 4:30 - 5:300000084010850697201411300031257 4:45 - 5:450000071010720666401302370039241 5:00 - 6:000000062020640686801362330035235 PEAK HOUR 4:30 - 5:30 0000084010850697201411300031257 27 HEAVY TRUCKS TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by:VCU Intersection of:Mountain Heights DriveDate:September 21, 2021Tuesday and:Edgebrook DriveWeather:Sunny/Warm Location:Salem, VirginiaEntered by:SNStar Rating: 5 SOUTHBOUNDNORTHBOUNDWESTBOUNDEASTBOUNDTOTAL on:on:Edgebrook Roadon:Mountain Heights Driveon:Mountain Heights DriveN + S TIME+ RIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALRIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALRIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALRIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALE + W AM 7:00 - 7:1501001210301015 7:15 - 7:3000000200201013 7:30 - 7:4500000010100001 7:45 - 8:0002002030300005 8:00 - 8:1502002010100003 8:15 - 8:3001001020200003 8:30 - 8:4502002010100003 8:45 - 9:0000000010100001 2 Hr Totals 000008000804100140200224 1 Hr Totals 7:00 - 8:000000030003045090200214 7:15 - 8:150000040004025070100112 7:30 - 8:300000050005007070000012 7:45 - 8:450000070007007070000014 8:00 - 9:000000050005005050000010 PEAK HOUR 7:30 - 8:30 0000050005007070000012 HV %6.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%6.1%0.0%0.0%8.1%0.0%6.5%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% PM 4:00 - 4:1501001010100002 4:15 - 4:3000000000001011 4:30 - 4:4501001010100002 4:45 - 5:0001001010100002 5:00 - 5:1500000000000000 5:15 - 5:3000000000000000 5:30 - 5:4500000000000000 5:45 - 6:0001001010100002 2 Hr Totals 000004000400404010019 1 Hr Totals 4:00 - 5:00000003000300303010017 4:15 - 5:15000002000200202010015 4:30 - 5:30000002000200202000004 4:45 - 5:45000001000100101000002 5:00 - 6:00000001000100101000002 PEAK HOUR 4:30 - 5:30 000002000200202000004 HV %2.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%2.3%0.0%0.0%2.7%0.0%1.4%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% 28 TOTALS TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by:VCU Intersection of:Mountain Heights DriveDate:September 21, 2021Tuesday and:Edgebrook DriveWeather:Sunny/Warm Location:Salem, VirginiaEntered by:SNStar Rating: 5 SOUTHBOUNDNORTHBOUNDWESTBOUNDEASTBOUNDTOTAL on:on:Edgebrook Roadon:Mountain Heights Driveon:Mountain Heights DriveN + S TIME+ RIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALRIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALRIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALRIGHTTHRULEFTU-TNTOTALE + W AM 7:00 - 7:150000019000190415019112001351 7:15 - 7:300000015000150410014129003059 7:30 - 7:450000018000180423027032003277 7:45 - 8:000000021000210715022019001962 8:00 - 8:150000023000230325028020002071 8:15 - 8:300000019010200723030113001464 8:30 - 8:4500000150001507140211600743 8:45 - 9:000000011000110218020116001748 2 Hr Totals 000001410101420381430181514700152475 1 Hr Totals 7:00 - 8:00000007300073019630822920094249 7:15 - 8:1500000770007701873091110000101269 7:30 - 8:300000081010820218601071840085274 7:45 - 8:450000078010790247701012580060240 8:00 - 9:00000006801069019800993550058226 PEAK HOUR 7:30 - 8:30 0000081010820218601071840085274 PHF 0.890 PM 4:00 - 4:1500000230102409140230800855 4:15 - 4:3000000110101201022032010001054 4:30 - 4:45000003100031015210360500572 4:45 - 5:0000000160101701118029010001056 5:00 - 5:1500000190001901816034111001265 5:15 - 5:30000002000020025190440400468 5:30 - 5:4500000170001701212024112001354 5:45 - 6:000000070209013220350600650 2 Hr Totals 00000144050149011314402572660068474 1 Hr Totals 4:00 - 5:000000081030840457501200330033237 4:15 - 5:150000077020790547701311360037247 4:30 - 5:300000086010870697401431300031261 4:45 - 5:450000072010730666501312370039243 5:00 - 6:000000063020650686901372330035237 PEAK HOUR 4:30 - 5:30 0000086010870697401431300031261 PHF 0.906 29 Appendix C VDOT Turn Lane Worksheets Traffic Study Edgebrook Commercial Development Î Roanoke County, VA June 24, 2022 30 F-79 41 PM AM 25 NO TURN LANES OR TAPERS REQUIRED 119 122 Appropriate Radius required at all Intersections and Entrances (Commercial or Private). LEGEND PHV-Peak Hour Volume (also Design Hourly Volume equivalent) Adjustment for Right Turns For posted speeds at or under 45 mph, PHV right turns > 40, and PHV total < 300. Adjusted right turns =PHV Right Turns -20 If PHV is not known use formula: PHV = ADT x K x D K = the percent of AADT occurring in the peak hour D = the percent of traffic in the peak direction of flow Note: An average of 11% for K x D will suffice. * When right turn facilities are warranted, see Figure 3-1 for design criteria. FIGURE 3-26WARRANTSFOR RIGHT TURN TREATMENT (2-LANE HIGHWAY) * Rev. 1/15 31 F-61 WARRANT FOR LEFT-TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO-LANE HIGHWAY FIGURE 3-5 AM 122 PM 119 94 104 FIGURE 3-6 32 Appendix D VDOT Pre-Scoping Form Traffic Study Edgebrook Commercial Development Î Roanoke County, VA June 24, 2022 33 PRE-SCOPE OF WORK MEETING FORM Information on the Project Traffic Impact Analysis Base Assumptions The applicant is responsible for entering the relevant information and submitting the form to VDOT and the locality no less than three (3) business days prior to the meeting. If a form is not received by this deadline, the scope of work meeting may be postponed. Contact Information Chris Burns - Balzer and Associates, Inc. Consultant Name: (540)772-9580 Tele: E-mail: cburns@balzer.cc Edgebrook Land Co., LLC Developer/Owner Name: Tele:540-278-1365 E-mail: ab@boonehomes.com Project Information Edgebrook Commercial Development Roanoke County Project Name: Locality/County: Project Location: Edgebrook Road - Roanoke County, VA (Attach regional and site specific location map) Submission Type Comp Plan Rezoning Site Plan Subd Plat Project Description: The proposed project is a mixed-use development, consisting of an 85-room hotel, (Including details on the land 85 13,250 s.f. of medical office space, and 60 townhomes. The site is approximately 32 use, acreage, phasing, access location, etc. Attach additional acres. The development plan includes one full access entrance on Edgebrook Road. sheet if necessary) Proposed Use(s): Residential Commercial Mixed Use Other (Check all that apply; attach additional pages as necessary) Residential Uses(s) Number of Units: 60 ITE LU Code(s): 220 Other Use(s) ITE LU Code(s): Commercial Use(s) ITE LU Code(s): 310 - 85 Rooms Independent Variable(s): 720 - 13,250 s.f. Square Ft or Other Variable: Total Peak Hour Trip Less than 100 100 Î 499 500 Î 999 1,000 or more Projection: It is important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting. 34 Traffic Impact Analysis Assumptions Existing Year: 2021 Build-out Year: 2023 Design Year: 2023 Study Period North:Mountain Heights Dr. South: Site Entrance (Route 1128) Study Area Boundaries (Attach map) East: Thompson Memorial Dr. West: Edgebrook Rd. (Route 1130) (Route 311) External Factors That Could Affect Project No known external factors that could affect the project. (Planned road improvements, other nearby developments) Consistency With Proposed use is consistent with Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan (Land use, transportation plan) VDOT historical traffic data. Data from 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 was reviewed Available Traffic Data to determine appropriate growth rate for the area. The historical data shows a growth (Historical, forecasts) rate of approximately 4.5% per year on Edgebrook Road. Road Name: 80% to/from north Road Name: Trip Distribution (Attach sketch) Road Name: 20% to/from south Road Name: Peak Period for Study AM PM SAT Annual Vehicle Trip (check all that apply) 4.5% Growth Rate: N/A Peak Hour of the Generator 1.Thompson Mem./Mtn. Heights 6. 2.Mtn. Heights/Edgebrook 7. Study Intersections and/or Road Segments 3.Edgebrook/Site Entrance 8. (Attach additional sheets as necessary) 4. 9. 5. 10. Internal allowance: Yes No Pass-by allowance: Yes No Trip Adjustment Factors Reduction: % trips Reduction: % trips Software Methodology Synchro HCS (v.2000/+) aaSIDRA CORSIM Other SimTraffic Traffic Signal Proposed or Affected N/A (Analysis software to be used, progression speed, cycle length) It is important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting. 35 Improvement(s) The existing intersections will be analyzed to determine impacts of the proposed Assumed or to be development on LOS and queuing. Turn lane requirements will be evaluated at the Considered proposed site entrance on Edgebrook Road (Route 1130). Background Traffic N/A Studies Considered Master Development Plan(MDP)Generalized Development Plan (GDP) Plan Submission Preliminary/Sketch Plan Other Plan type (Final Site, Subd. Plan) Queuing analysis Actuation/Coordination Weaving analysis Additional Issues to be Merge analysis Bike/Ped Accommodations Intersection(s) Addressed TDM Measures Other NOTES on ASSUMPTIONS: SIGNED: _________________________________ DATE: ______________ Applicant or Consultant PRINT NAME: _____________________________ Applicant or Consultant It is important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting. 36 Appendix E Synchro 10 & SimTraffic 10 Intersection Analysis Data Traffic Study Edgebrook Commercial Development Î Roanoke County, VA June 24, 2022 37 HCM 2010 TWSC 12/06/2021 3: Thompson Memorial Dr & Mountain Heights Dr/Deborah Ln Intersection Int Delay, s/veh4.3 MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h350131102601009223249 Future Vol, veh/h350131102601009223249 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control StopStopStopStopStopStopFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized--None--None--None--None Storage Length------140--150-- Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor898989898989898989898989 Heavy Vehicles, %005000570044 Mvmt Flow3901471026711210226155 Major/MinorMinor2Minor1Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All5455492896175711173160012200 Stage 1293293-251251------- Stage 2252256-366320------- Critical Hdwy7.16.56.257.16.56.24.15--4.1-- Critical Hdwy Stg 16.15.5-6.15.5------- Critical Hdwy Stg 26.15.5-6.15.5------- Follow-up Hdwy3.543.3453.543.32.245--2.2-- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver4524467434054349411227--1478-- Stage 1719674-758703------- Stage 2757699-657656------- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver4324217433114109411227--1478-- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver432421-311410------- Stage 1679673-716664------- Stage 2714661-526655------- ApproachEBWBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s12.811.42.90.1 HCM LOSBB Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTNBREBLn1WBLn1SBLSBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1227--6455621478-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.055--0.2890.0060.002-- HCM Control Delay (s)8.1--12.811.47.4-- HCM Lane LOSA--BBA-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.2--1.200-- 2021 Existing AM 7:30 am 12/06/2021 BaselineSynchro 10 Report CPBPage 1 3838 HCM 2010 TWSC 12/06/2021 7: Edgebrook Rd & Mountain Heights Dr Intersection Int Delay, s/veh5.1 MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h8418621181 Future Vol, veh/h8418621181 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFreeStopStop RT Channelized-None-None-None Storage Length----0- Veh in Median Storage, #0--00- Grade, %0--00- Peak Hour Factor898989898989 Heavy Vehicles, %008006 Mvmt Flow9419724191 Major/MinorMajor1Major2Minor1 Conflicting Flow All0095031395 Stage 1----95- Stage 2----218- Critical Hdwy--4.18-6.46.26 Critical Hdwy Stg 1----5.4- Critical Hdwy Stg 2----5.4- Follow-up Hdwy--2.272-3.53.354 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver--1462-684951 Stage 1----934- Stage 2----823- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver--1462-638951 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver----638- Stage 1----871- Stage 2----823- ApproachEBWBNB HCM Control Delay, s06.19.2 HCM LOSA Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBTEBRWBLWBT Capacity (veh/h)945--1462- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.097--0.066- HCM Control Delay (s)9.2--7.60 HCM Lane LOSA--AA HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.3--0.2- 2021 Existing AM 7:30 am 12/06/2021 BaselineSynchro 10 Report CPBPage 2 3939 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 12/06/2021 Baseline Summary of All Intervals Run Number11023456 Start Time7:157:157:157:157:157:157:15 End Time8:308:308:308:308:308:308:30 Total Time (min)75757575757575 Time Recorded (min)60606060606060 # of Intervals5555555 # of Recorded Intervals4444444 Vehs Entered648615618628604612605 Vehs Exited648611624627611615605 Starting Vehs43731443 Ending Vehs4714713 Travel Distance (mi)134126128129124126123 Travel Time (hr)5.45.15.25.24.95.04.8 Total Delay (hr)0.80.70.80.80.70.80.7 Total Stops287274274300252249245 Fuel Used (gal)4.84.64.74.74.44.64.4 Summary of All Intervals Run Number789Avg Start Time7:157:157:157:15 End Time8:308:308:308:30 Total Time (min)75757575 Time Recorded (min)60606060 # of Intervals5555 # of Recorded Intervals4444 Vehs Entered615617633620 Vehs Exited616613629620 Starting Vehs11545 Ending Vehs10984 Travel Distance (mi)126126130127 Travel Time (hr)5.15.05.35.1 Total Delay (hr)0.80.70.80.8 Total Stops242266319271 Fuel Used (gal)4.54.54.74.6 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time7:15 End Time7:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. 2021 Existing AMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 1 4040 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 12/06/2021 Baseline Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time7:30 End Time7:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered163138136150140146127 Vehs Exited161137140149148143125 Starting Vehs43731443 Ending Vehs6434675 Travel Distance (mi)33282831293025 Travel Time (hr)1.31.11.11.21.11.20.9 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.20.10.10.1 Total Stops69605880525742 Fuel Used (gal)1.21.11.01.11.01.10.9 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time7:30 End Time7:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered152134159144 Vehs Exited160136159145 Starting Vehs11545 Ending Vehs3342 Travel Distance (mi)32283230 Travel Time (hr)1.31.11.31.2 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.2 Total Stops57567561 Fuel Used (gal)1.21.01.11.1 2021 Existing AMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 2 4141 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 12/06/2021 Baseline Interval #2 Information Start Time7:45 End Time8:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered153146160154135173140 Vehs Exited154146160152137179142 Starting Vehs6434675 Ending Vehs5436413 Travel Distance (mi)32303332273629 Travel Time (hr)1.31.21.31.21.11.51.1 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.20.10.30.2 Total Stops71627560627854 Fuel Used (gal)1.11.11.21.21.01.31.0 Interval #2 Information Start Time7:45 End Time8:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered150159135151 Vehs Exited151154135150 Starting Vehs3342 Ending Vehs2843 Travel Distance (mi)31332831 Travel Time (hr)1.31.31.11.2 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.2 Total Stops61767666 Fuel Used (gal)1.11.21.01.1 2021 Existing AMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 3 4242 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 12/06/2021 Baseline Interval #3 Information Start Time8:00 End Time8:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered154151149148141148162 Vehs Exited153151148153142144154 Starting Vehs5436413 Ending Vehs64413511 Travel Distance (mi)31303131293032 Travel Time (hr)1.31.21.31.21.11.21.3 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.20.10.20.2 Total Stops72596975466177 Fuel Used (gal)1.11.11.11.21.01.11.2 Interval #3 Information Start Time8:00 End Time8:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered138153141147 Vehs Exited137159140149 Starting Vehs2843 Ending Vehs3250 Travel Distance (mi)29322930 Travel Time (hr)1.21.21.21.2 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.2 Total Stops63667465 Fuel Used (gal)1.01.11.01.1 2021 Existing AMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 4 4343 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 12/06/2021 Baseline Interval #4 Information Start Time8:15 End Time8:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered178180173176188145176 Vehs Exited180177176173184149184 Starting Vehs64413511 Ending Vehs4714713 Travel Distance (mi)37373636383037 Travel Time (hr)1.51.51.51.51.61.21.4 Total Delay (hr)0.30.20.20.20.20.20.2 Total Stops75937285925372 Fuel Used (gal)1.41.41.31.31.41.11.3 Interval #4 Information Start Time8:15 End Time8:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered175171198174 Vehs Exited168164195174 Starting Vehs3250 Ending Vehs10984 Travel Distance (mi)35344136 Travel Time (hr)1.41.41.71.5 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.30.2 Total Stops61689476 Fuel Used (gal)1.21.21.61.3 2021 Existing AMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 5 4444 Queuing and Blocking Report 12/06/2021 Baseline Intersection: 3: Thompson Memorial Dr & Mountain Heights Dr/Deborah Ln MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)9131455 Average Queue (ft)463130 95th Queue (ft)7419380 Link Distance (ft)124466472 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)140 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Edgebrook Rd & Mountain Heights Dr MovementWBNB Directions ServedLTLR Maximum Queue (ft)5274 Average Queue (ft)733 95th Queue (ft)3255 Link Distance (ft)124472 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2021 Existing AMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 6 4545 HCM 2010 TWSC 12/06/2021 3: Thompson Memorial Dr & Mountain Heights Dr/Deborah Ln Intersection Int Delay, s/veh3.8 MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h55065910892481115850 Future Vol, veh/h55065910892481115850 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control StopStopStopStopStopStopFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized--None--None--None--None Storage Length------140--150-- Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor949494949494949494949494 Heavy Vehicles, %003000210060 Mvmt Flow590691010952641116853 Major/MinorMinor2Minor1Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All6526521956866782652210026500 Stage 1197197-455455------- Stage 2455455-231223------- Critical Hdwy7.16.56.237.16.56.24.12--4.1-- Critical Hdwy Stg 16.15.5-6.15.5------- Critical Hdwy Stg 26.15.5-6.15.5------- Follow-up Hdwy3.543.3273.543.32.218--2.2-- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver3843908443643777791348--1311-- Stage 1809742-589572------- Stage 2589572-776723------- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver3623628443163507791348--1311-- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver362362-316350------- Stage 1752741-548532------- Stage 2546532-712722------- ApproachEBWBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s14.116.72.10 HCM LOSBC Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTNBREBLn1WBLn1SBLSBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1348--5243191311-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.07--0.2440.0330.001-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.9--14.116.77.7-- HCM Lane LOSA--BCA-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.2--0.90.10-- 2021 Existing PM 4:30 pm 12/06/2021 BaselineSynchro 10 Report CPBPage 1 4646 HCM 2010 TWSC 12/06/2021 7: Edgebrook Rd & Mountain Heights Dr Intersection Int Delay, s/veh5 MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h3017469186 Future Vol, veh/h3017469186 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFreeStopStop RT Channelized-None-None-None Storage Length----0- Veh in Median Storage, #0--00- Grade, %0--00- Peak Hour Factor919191919191 Heavy Vehicles, %003002 Mvmt Flow3318176195 Major/MinorMajor1Major2Minor1 Conflicting Flow All0034027234 Stage 1----34- Stage 2----238- Critical Hdwy--4.13-6.46.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1----5.4- Critical Hdwy Stg 2----5.4- Follow-up Hdwy--2.227-3.53.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver--1571-7221039 Stage 1----994- Stage 2----806- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver--1571-6831039 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver----683- Stage 1----940- Stage 2----806- ApproachEBWBNB HCM Control Delay, s03.88.8 HCM LOSA Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBTEBRWBLWBT Capacity (veh/h)1033--1571- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.093--0.052- HCM Control Delay (s)8.8--7.40 HCM Lane LOSA--AA HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.3--0.2- 2021 Existing PM 4:30 pm 12/06/2021 BaselineSynchro 10 Report CPBPage 2 4747 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 12/06/2021 Baseline Summary of All Intervals Run Number11023456 Start Time4:154:154:154:154:154:154:15 End Time5:305:305:305:305:305:305:30 Total Time (min)75757575757575 Time Recorded (min)60606060606060 # of Intervals5555555 # of Recorded Intervals4444444 Vehs Entered686678703706633710694 Vehs Exited684677698707633715690 Starting Vehs6366754 Ending Vehs84115708 Travel Distance (mi)140139143144129145140 Travel Time (hr)5.45.45.55.64.95.65.3 Total Delay (hr)0.80.80.80.80.70.80.8 Total Stops211236230247202222240 Fuel Used (gal)4.94.95.15.04.55.24.9 Summary of All Intervals Run Number789Avg Start Time4:154:154:154:15 End Time5:305:305:305:30 Total Time (min)75757575 Time Recorded (min)60606060 # of Intervals5555 # of Recorded Intervals4444 Vehs Entered665711654683 Vehs Exited661707654683 Starting Vehs4374 Ending Vehs8774 Travel Distance (mi)135145132139 Travel Time (hr)5.25.65.25.4 Total Delay (hr)0.70.90.80.8 Total Stops185246257227 Fuel Used (gal)4.75.14.64.9 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time4:15 End Time4:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. 2021 Existing PMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 1 4848 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 12/06/2021 Baseline Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time4:30 End Time4:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered161164165160145171160 Vehs Exited161161166159146172159 Starting Vehs6366754 Ending Vehs6657645 Travel Distance (mi)32333432303533 Travel Time (hr)1.31.31.31.21.11.41.3 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.20.10.20.2 Total Stops69615354515062 Fuel Used (gal)1.11.21.21.11.01.21.2 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time4:30 End Time4:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered176166179164 Vehs Exited175161177164 Starting Vehs4374 Ending Vehs5895 Travel Distance (mi)36333633 Travel Time (hr)1.41.31.41.3 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.2 Total Stops54527156 Fuel Used (gal)1.31.21.21.2 2021 Existing PMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 2 4949 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 12/06/2021 Baseline Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time4:45 End Time5:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered177171188174149193165 Vehs Exited175173190175150193168 Starting Vehs6657645 Ending Vehs8436542 Travel Distance (mi)36353936303934 Travel Time (hr)1.41.41.51.41.11.51.3 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.20.10.20.2 Total Stops41546461396359 Fuel Used (gal)1.21.21.41.21.01.41.2 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time4:45 End Time5:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered167190145169 Vehs Exited171192149174 Starting Vehs5895 Ending Vehs1653 Travel Distance (mi)34393035 Travel Time (hr)1.31.61.21.4 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.2 Total Stops46655654 Fuel Used (gal)1.11.41.01.2 2021 Existing PMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 3 5050 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 12/06/2021 Baseline Interval #3 Information Rercording Start Time5:00 End Time5:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered163169160183154156172 Vehs Exited166167159183156151165 Starting Vehs8436542 Ending Vehs5646399 Travel Distance (mi)34353337323234 Travel Time (hr)1.31.31.21.41.21.21.3 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.20.20.20.2 Total Stops50604659385154 Fuel Used (gal)1.21.21.21.31.11.11.1 Interval #3 Information Rercording Start Time5:00 End Time5:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered149170146161 Vehs Exited143175149162 Starting Vehs1653 Ending Vehs7123 Travel Distance (mi)30353033 Travel Time (hr)1.21.31.21.3 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.2 Total Stops50684752 Fuel Used (gal)1.01.31.11.1 2021 Existing PMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 4 5151 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 12/06/2021 Baseline Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time5:15 End Time5:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered185174190189185190197 Vehs Exited182176183190181199198 Starting Vehs5646399 Ending Vehs84115708 Travel Distance (mi)38363839384040 Travel Time (hr)1.41.41.51.51.51.51.5 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.20.20.20.2 Total Stops51616773745865 Fuel Used (gal)1.41.31.41.31.41.41.4 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time5:15 End Time5:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered173185184184 Vehs Exited172179179184 Starting Vehs7123 Ending Vehs8774 Travel Distance (mi)35373638 Travel Time (hr)1.31.41.51.5 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.30.2 Total Stops35618363 Fuel Used (gal)1.31.31.31.3 2021 Existing PMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 5 5252 Queuing and Blocking Report 12/06/2021 Baseline Intersection: 3: Thompson Memorial Dr & Mountain Heights Dr/Deborah Ln MovementEBWBNBSBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLLTR Maximum Queue (ft)75344632 Average Queue (ft)3791500 95th Queue (ft)59324032 Link Distance (ft)124466472 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)140150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Edgebrook Rd & Mountain Heights Dr MovementWBNB Directions ServedLTLR Maximum Queue (ft)3563 Average Queue (ft)230 95th Queue (ft)1748 Link Distance (ft)124472 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2021 Existing PMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 6 5353 HCM 2010 TWSC 12/06/2021 3: Thompson Memorial Dr & Mountain Heights Dr/Deborah Ln Intersection Int Delay, s/veh4.4 MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h3801411026510810225053 Future Vol, veh/h3801411026510810225053 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control StopStopStopStopStopStopFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized--None--None--None--None Storage Length------140--150-- Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor929292929292929292929292 Heavy Vehicles, %005000570044 Mvmt Flow4101531027111711227258 Major/MinorMinor2Minor1Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All5715753016475991233300012800 Stage 1305305-265265------- Stage 2266270-382334------- Critical Hdwy7.16.56.257.16.56.24.15--4.1-- Critical Hdwy Stg 16.15.5-6.15.5------- Critical Hdwy Stg 26.15.5-6.15.5------- Follow-up Hdwy3.543.3453.543.32.245--2.2-- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver4354317323874189331213--1470-- Stage 1709666-745693------- Stage 2744690-645647------- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver4144057322923939331213--1470-- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver414405-292393------- Stage 1667665-701652------- Stage 2699649-509646------- ApproachEBWBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s13.311.72.90 HCM LOSBB Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTNBREBLn1WBLn1SBLSBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1213--6295391470-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.058--0.3090.0060.001-- HCM Control Delay (s)8.2--13.311.77.5-- HCM Lane LOSA--BBA-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.2--1.300-- 2023 Background AM 7:30 am 12/06/2021 BaselineSynchro 10 Report CPBPage 1 5454 HCM 2010 TWSC 12/06/2021 7: Edgebrook Rd & Mountain Heights Dr Intersection Int Delay, s/veh5.2 MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h9119323187 Future Vol, veh/h9119323187 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFreeStopStop RT Channelized-None-None-None Storage Length----0- Veh in Median Storage, #0--00- Grade, %0--00- Peak Hour Factor929292929292 Heavy Vehicles, %008006 Mvmt Flow99110125195 Major/MinorMajor1Major2Minor1 Conflicting Flow All001000327100 Stage 1----100- Stage 2----227- Critical Hdwy--4.18-6.46.26 Critical Hdwy Stg 1----5.4- Critical Hdwy Stg 2----5.4- Follow-up Hdwy--2.272-3.53.354 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver--1456-671945 Stage 1----929- Stage 2----815- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver--1456-624945 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver----624- Stage 1----864- Stage 2----815- ApproachEBWBNB HCM Control Delay, s06.19.3 HCM LOSA Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBTEBRWBLWBT Capacity (veh/h)940--1456- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.102--0.069- HCM Control Delay (s)9.3--7.70 HCM Lane LOSA--AA HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.3--0.2- 2023 Background AM 7:30 am 12/06/2021 BaselineSynchro 10 Report CPBPage 2 5555 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 12/06/2021 Baseline Summary of All Intervals Run Number11023456 Start Time7:157:157:157:157:157:157:15 End Time8:308:308:308:308:308:308:30 Total Time (min)75757575757575 Time Recorded (min)60606060606060 # of Intervals5555555 # of Recorded Intervals4444444 Vehs Entered674670679664691663630 Vehs Exited676666684668697663631 Starting Vehs73881344 Ending Vehs5734743 Travel Distance (mi)139137140137142136129 Travel Time (hr)5.75.65.75.55.75.45.1 Total Delay (hr)0.90.90.90.80.80.80.7 Total Stops307301315311301267256 Fuel Used (gal)5.05.05.14.95.04.94.6 Summary of All Intervals Run Number789Avg Start Time7:157:157:157:15 End Time8:308:308:308:30 Total Time (min)75757575 Time Recorded (min)60606060 # of Intervals5555 # of Recorded Intervals4444 Vehs Entered673650679669 Vehs Exited670646675667 Starting Vehs5543 Ending Vehs8983 Travel Distance (mi)138133138137 Travel Time (hr)5.65.35.55.5 Total Delay (hr)0.90.80.80.9 Total Stops287280287292 Fuel Used (gal)5.04.85.04.9 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time7:15 End Time7:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. 2023 Background AMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 1 5656 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 12/06/2021 Baseline Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time7:30 End Time7:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered169169153157152149134 Vehs Exited170165155158159147133 Starting Vehs73881344 Ending Vehs6767665 Travel Distance (mi)35343232323027 Travel Time (hr)1.41.41.41.31.31.21.1 Total Delay (hr)0.20.30.20.20.20.20.1 Total Stops74787887615456 Fuel Used (gal)1.31.31.21.21.11.10.9 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time7:30 End Time7:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered178144183159 Vehs Exited180145184160 Starting Vehs5543 Ending Vehs3433 Travel Distance (mi)36293732 Travel Time (hr)1.51.21.51.3 Total Delay (hr)0.30.20.20.2 Total Stops83617271 Fuel Used (gal)1.31.11.31.2 2023 Background AMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 2 5757 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 12/06/2021 Baseline Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time7:45 End Time8:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered167158185157168196151 Vehs Exited165161188158165200153 Starting Vehs6767665 Ending Vehs8436923 Travel Distance (mi)35333833344031 Travel Time (hr)1.41.31.61.31.31.71.2 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.20.20.30.2 Total Stops79599160719262 Fuel Used (gal)1.21.21.31.21.11.51.1 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time7:45 End Time8:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered167169149168 Vehs Exited167163147166 Starting Vehs3433 Ending Vehs31053 Travel Distance (mi)35353034 Travel Time (hr)1.41.41.21.4 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.2 Total Stops73756573 Fuel Used (gal)1.31.31.11.2 2023 Background AMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 3 5858 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 12/06/2021 Baseline Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time8:00 End Time8:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered149155149175164156170 Vehs Exited151155148177168153161 Starting Vehs8436923 Ending Vehs64445512 Travel Distance (mi)30323036343234 Travel Time (hr)1.21.31.21.41.41.31.4 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.20.20.20.2 Total Stops74706182636170 Fuel Used (gal)1.11.11.11.31.21.21.2 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time8:00 End Time8:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered144147156155 Vehs Exited145155156157 Starting Vehs31053 Ending Vehs2252 Travel Distance (mi)30313232 Travel Time (hr)1.21.21.31.3 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.2 Total Stops65646366 Fuel Used (gal)1.11.11.21.2 2023 Background AMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 4 5959 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 12/06/2021 Baseline Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time8:15 End Time8:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered189188192175207162175 Vehs Exited190185193175205163184 Starting Vehs64445512 Ending Vehs5734743 Travel Distance (mi)39394036423337 Travel Time (hr)1.61.61.61.51.71.31.4 Total Delay (hr)0.30.30.30.20.30.20.2 Total Stops809485821066068 Fuel Used (gal)1.51.51.51.31.51.11.3 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time8:15 End Time8:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered184190191184 Vehs Exited178183188184 Starting Vehs2252 Ending Vehs8983 Travel Distance (mi)37383938 Travel Time (hr)1.51.61.61.5 Total Delay (hr)0.20.30.30.2 Total Stops66808780 Fuel Used (gal)1.31.41.51.4 2023 Background AMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 5 6060 Queuing and Blocking Report 12/06/2021 Baseline Intersection: 3: Thompson Memorial Dr & Mountain Heights Dr/Deborah Ln MovementEBWBNBSBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLLTR Maximum Queue (ft)94305039 Average Queue (ft)4931400 95th Queue (ft)79184134 Link Distance (ft)124466472 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)140150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Edgebrook Rd & Mountain Heights Dr MovementWBNB Directions ServedLTLR Maximum Queue (ft)5975 Average Queue (ft)934 95th Queue (ft)3758 Link Distance (ft)124472 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2023 Background AMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 6 6161 HCM 2010 TWSC 12/06/2021 3: Thompson Memorial Dr & Mountain Heights Dr/Deborah Ln Intersection Int Delay, s/veh4 MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h590701010962671117054 Future Vol, veh/h590701010962671117054 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control StopStopStopStopStopStopFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized--None--None--None--None Storage Length------140--150-- Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor949494949494949494949494 Heavy Vehicles, %003000210060 Mvmt Flow6307411101022841118157 Major/MinorMinor2Minor1Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All7017012107387292852380028500 Stage 1212212-489489------- Stage 2489489-249240------- Critical Hdwy7.16.56.237.16.56.24.12--4.1-- Critical Hdwy Stg 16.15.5-6.15.5------- Critical Hdwy Stg 26.15.5-6.15.5------- Follow-up Hdwy3.543.3273.543.32.218--2.2-- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver3563658283363527591329--1289-- Stage 1795731-564553------- Stage 2564553-759711------- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver3343378282883257591329--1289-- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver334337-288325------- Stage 1734730-521510------- Stage 2520510-690710------- ApproachEBWBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s15.117.92.10 HCM LOSCC Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTNBREBLn1WBLn1SBLSBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1329--4942911289-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.077--0.2780.040.001-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.9--15.117.97.8-- HCM Lane LOSA--CCA-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.2--1.10.10-- 2023 Background PM 4:30 pm 12/06/2021 BaselineSynchro 10 Report CPBPage 1 6262 HCM 2010 TWSC 12/06/2021 7: Edgebrook Rd & Mountain Heights Dr Intersection Int Delay, s/veh5.1 MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h3218074193 Future Vol, veh/h3218074193 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFreeStopStop RT Channelized-None-None-None Storage Length----0- Veh in Median Storage, #0--00- Grade, %0--00- Peak Hour Factor929292929292 Heavy Vehicles, %003002 Mvmt Flow35187801101 Major/MinorMajor1Major2Minor1 Conflicting Flow All0036029036 Stage 1----36- Stage 2----254- Critical Hdwy--4.13-6.46.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1----5.4- Critical Hdwy Stg 2----5.4- Follow-up Hdwy--2.227-3.53.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver--1568-7051037 Stage 1----992- Stage 2----793- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver--1568-6641037 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver----664- Stage 1----934- Stage 2----793- ApproachEBWBNB HCM Control Delay, s03.98.9 HCM LOSA Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBTEBRWBLWBT Capacity (veh/h)1031--1568- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.099--0.055- HCM Control Delay (s)8.9--7.40 HCM Lane LOSA--AA HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.3--0.2- 2023 Background PM 4:30 pm 12/06/2021 BaselineSynchro 10 Report CPBPage 2 6363 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 12/06/2021 Baseline Summary of All Intervals Run Number11023456 Start Time4:154:154:154:154:154:154:15 End Time5:305:305:305:305:305:305:30 Total Time (min)75757575757575 Time Recorded (min)60606060606060 # of Intervals5555555 # of Recorded Intervals4444444 Vehs Entered753733756727675709746 Vehs Exited752731748726678711747 Starting Vehs6368756 Ending Vehs75149435 Travel Distance (mi)154150153148138145152 Travel Time (hr)6.05.96.05.85.35.66.0 Total Delay (hr)1.00.90.90.90.80.80.9 Total Stops257266268267215225275 Fuel Used (gal)5.45.45.45.24.85.15.5 Summary of All Intervals Run Number789Avg Start Time4:154:154:154:15 End Time5:305:305:305:30 Total Time (min)75757575 Time Recorded (min)60606060 # of Intervals5555 # of Recorded Intervals4444 Vehs Entered704752727728 Vehs Exited699748729727 Starting Vehs4364 Ending Vehs9743 Travel Distance (mi)143154148148 Travel Time (hr)5.66.05.85.8 Total Delay (hr)0.80.90.90.9 Total Stops248243256251 Fuel Used (gal)5.05.55.35.3 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time4:15 End Time4:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. 2023 Background PMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 1 6464 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 12/06/2021 Baseline Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time4:30 End Time4:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered187174183164152170179 Vehs Exited187174183165153171180 Starting Vehs6368756 Ending Vehs6367645 Travel Distance (mi)38353733313536 Travel Time (hr)1.51.41.41.31.21.31.4 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.20.20.20.2 Total Stops63557358564863 Fuel Used (gal)1.31.31.31.21.11.21.3 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time4:30 End Time4:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered179181202178 Vehs Exited178176199177 Starting Vehs4364 Ending Vehs5895 Travel Distance (mi)36364036 Travel Time (hr)1.41.41.51.4 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.2 Total Stops68556361 Fuel Used (gal)1.31.31.41.3 2023 Background PMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 2 6565 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 12/06/2021 Baseline Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time4:45 End Time5:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered186179187185168194174 Vehs Exited184176187186171194177 Starting Vehs6367645 Ending Vehs8666342 Travel Distance (mi)38373838343936 Travel Time (hr)1.51.41.51.51.31.61.4 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.20.20.30.2 Total Stops59666265506561 Fuel Used (gal)1.41.31.41.31.21.41.3 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time4:45 End Time5:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered176187151176 Vehs Exited180189155180 Starting Vehs5895 Ending Vehs1652 Travel Distance (mi)36393137 Travel Time (hr)1.41.61.21.4 Total Delay (hr)0.20.30.20.2 Total Stops54685760 Fuel Used (gal)1.21.41.11.3 2023 Background PMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 3 6666 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 12/06/2021 Baseline Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time5:00 End Time5:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered178185166180159180188 Vehs Exited179185168180162176182 Starting Vehs8666342 Ending Vehs7646088 Travel Distance (mi)36383437323737 Travel Time (hr)1.41.51.31.41.21.41.4 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.20.20.20.2 Total Stops54725368486065 Fuel Used (gal)1.21.41.21.31.11.31.3 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time5:00 End Time5:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered159166160172 Vehs Exited153171162172 Starting Vehs1652 Ending Vehs7133 Travel Distance (mi)32343335 Travel Time (hr)1.21.31.31.3 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.20.2 Total Stops54545259 Fuel Used (gal)1.11.21.21.2 2023 Background PMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 4 6767 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 12/06/2021 Baseline Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time5:15 End Time5:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered202195220198196165205 Vehs Exited202196210195192170208 Starting Vehs7646088 Ending Vehs75149435 Travel Distance (mi)42404440403443 Travel Time (hr)1.71.61.81.61.61.31.8 Total Delay (hr)0.30.30.30.30.30.20.3 Total Stops81738076615286 Fuel Used (gal)1.51.51.61.51.41.21.7 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time5:15 End Time5:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered190218214199 Vehs Exited188212213199 Starting Vehs7133 Ending Vehs9743 Travel Distance (mi)39444441 Travel Time (hr)1.61.71.81.6 Total Delay (hr)0.20.30.30.3 Total Stops72668473 Fuel Used (gal)1.41.61.61.5 2023 Background PMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 5 6868 Queuing and Blocking Report 12/06/2021 Baseline Intersection: 3: Thompson Memorial Dr & Mountain Heights Dr/Deborah Ln MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)8936432 Average Queue (ft)4112170 95th Queue (ft)6836402 Link Distance (ft)124466472 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)140 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Edgebrook Rd & Mountain Heights Dr MovementWBNB Directions ServedLTLR Maximum Queue (ft)3860 Average Queue (ft)330 95th Queue (ft)1848 Link Distance (ft)124472 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2023 Background PMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 6 6969 HCM 2010 TWSC 06/28/2022 3: Thompson Memorial Dr & Mountain Heights Dr/Deborah Ln Intersection Int Delay, s/veh5.3 MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h4701691028310810225059 Future Vol, veh/h4701691028310810225059 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control StopStopStopStopStopStopFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized--None--None--None--None Storage Length------140--150-- Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor929292929292929292929292 Heavy Vehicles, %005000570044 Mvmt Flow5101841029011711227264 Major/MinorMinor2Minor1Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All6126163047036431233360012800 Stage 1308308-303303------- Stage 2304308-400340------- Critical Hdwy7.16.56.257.16.56.24.15--4.1-- Critical Hdwy Stg 16.15.5-6.15.5------- Critical Hdwy Stg 26.15.5-6.15.5------- Follow-up Hdwy3.543.3453.543.32.245--2.2-- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver4084097293553949331207--1470-- Stage 1706664-711667------- Stage 2710664-630643------- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver3843787292503649331207--1470-- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver384378-250364------- Stage 1653663-658617------- Stage 2656614-471642------- ApproachEBWBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s14.512.43.40 HCM LOSBB Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTNBREBLn1WBLn1SBLSBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1207--6104881470-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.075--0.3850.0070.001-- HCM Control Delay (s)8.2--14.512.47.5-- HCM Lane LOSA--BBA-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.2--1.800-- 2023 Buildout AM 7:30 am 12/06/2021 BaselineSynchro 10 Report CPBPage 1 70 HCM 2010 TWSC 06/28/2022 7: Edgebrook Rd & Mountain Heights Dr Intersection Int Delay, s/veh5.8 MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h912117232124 Future Vol, veh/h912117232124 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFreeStopStop RT Channelized-None-None-None Storage Length----0- Veh in Median Storage, #0--00- Grade, %0--00- Peak Hour Factor929292929292 Heavy Vehicles, %008006 Mvmt Flow992127252135 Major/MinorMajor1Major2Minor1 Conflicting Flow All001010379100 Stage 1----100- Stage 2----279- Critical Hdwy--4.18-6.46.26 Critical Hdwy Stg 1----5.4- Critical Hdwy Stg 2----5.4- Follow-up Hdwy--2.272-3.53.354 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver--1455-627945 Stage 1----929- Stage 2----773- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver--1455-571945 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver----571- Stage 1----846- Stage 2----773- ApproachEBWBNB HCM Control Delay, s06.49.5 HCM LOSA Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBTEBRWBLWBT Capacity (veh/h)935--1455- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.146--0.087- HCM Control Delay (s)9.5--7.70 HCM Lane LOSA--AA HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.5--0.3- 2023 Buildout AM 7:30 am 12/06/2021 BaselineSynchro 10 Report CPBPage 2 71 HCM 2010 TWSC 06/28/2022 8: Edgebrook Rd Intersection Int Delay, s/veh2 MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h3896889425 Future Vol, veh/h3896889425 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000 Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized-None-None-None Storage Length0----- Veh in Median Storage, #0--00- Grade, %0--00- Peak Hour Factor929292929292 Heavy Vehicles, %222682 Mvmt Flow411079610227 Major/MinorMinor2Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All2261161290-0 Stage 1116----- Stage 2110----- Critical Hdwy6.426.224.12--- Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42----- Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42----- Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.3182.218--- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver7629361457--- Stage 1909----- Stage 2915----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver7589361457--- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver758----- Stage 1904----- Stage 2915----- ApproachEBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s9.90.50 HCM LOSA Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1457-787-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.004-0.065-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.509.9-- HCM Lane LOSAAA-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-0.2-- 2023 Buildout AM 7:30 am 12/06/2021 BaselineSynchro 10 Report CPBPage 3 72 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 06/28/2022 Baseline Summary of All Intervals Run Number11023456 Start Time7:157:157:157:157:157:157:15 End Time8:308:308:308:308:308:308:30 Total Time (min)75757575757575 Time Recorded (min)60606060606060 # of Intervals5555555 # of Recorded Intervals4444444 Vehs Entered759784760755691719730 Vehs Exited761783757754691715732 Starting Vehs53355511 Ending Vehs3466599 Travel Distance (mi)155158154151141145147 Travel Time (hr)6.76.86.66.56.26.26.3 Total Delay (hr)1.21.11.21.11.11.11.0 Total Stops439417421431426428419 Fuel Used (gal)6.06.05.95.85.35.55.7 Summary of All Intervals Run Number789Avg Start Time7:157:157:157:15 End Time8:308:308:308:30 Total Time (min)75757575 Time Recorded (min)60606060 # of Intervals5555 # of Recorded Intervals4444 Vehs Entered730753739740 Vehs Exited725748742740 Starting Vehs2573 Ending Vehs71044 Travel Distance (mi)147153150150 Travel Time (hr)6.46.76.46.5 Total Delay (hr)1.11.21.11.1 Total Stops447427412425 Fuel Used (gal)5.76.15.65.8 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time7:15 End Time7:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. 2023 Buildout AMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 1 73 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 06/28/2022 Baseline Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time7:30 End Time7:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered174179193183166167168 Vehs Exited171171194182166166170 Starting Vehs53355511 Ending Vehs81126569 Travel Distance (mi)35363935343434 Travel Time (hr)1.51.51.61.51.51.41.5 Total Delay (hr)0.20.20.30.20.30.30.2 Total Stops1059510095106102106 Fuel Used (gal)1.41.31.41.41.31.31.3 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time7:30 End Time7:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered187169178176 Vehs Exited183166174174 Starting Vehs2573 Ending Vehs68114 Travel Distance (mi)37343535 Travel Time (hr)1.61.51.51.5 Total Delay (hr)0.30.30.20.3 Total Stops1119785100 Fuel Used (gal)1.51.31.31.4 2023 Buildout AMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 2 74 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 06/28/2022 Baseline Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time7:45 End Time8:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered202194194200159168172 Vehs Exited206191188197158170173 Starting Vehs81126569 Ending Vehs41489648 Travel Distance (mi)41393940323434 Travel Time (hr)1.81.71.71.71.41.51.4 Total Delay (hr)0.30.30.30.30.20.30.2 Total Stops1151021201099511689 Fuel Used (gal)1.61.51.51.51.21.31.3 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time7:45 End Time8:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered202194192185 Vehs Exited203194197187 Starting Vehs68114 Ending Vehs5866 Travel Distance (mi)41404038 Travel Time (hr)1.71.71.81.7 Total Delay (hr)0.30.30.30.3 Total Stops119110131109 Fuel Used (gal)1.61.61.61.5 2023 Buildout AMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 3 75 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 06/28/2022 Baseline Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time8:00 End Time8:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered181213153172190186185 Vehs Exited180216152175182184190 Starting Vehs41489648 Ending Vehs511961463 Travel Distance (mi)37433135383738 Travel Time (hr)1.61.91.31.51.61.61.6 Total Delay (hr)0.30.30.20.30.30.30.3 Total Stops10212778111110105114 Fuel Used (gal)1.51.71.21.31.51.41.5 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time8:00 End Time8:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered171182172181 Vehs Exited170182167181 Starting Vehs5866 Ending Vehs68115 Travel Distance (mi)35373437 Travel Time (hr)1.61.51.41.6 Total Delay (hr)0.30.30.20.3 Total Stops1158892104 Fuel Used (gal)1.41.51.31.4 2023 Buildout AMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 4 76 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 06/28/2022 Baseline Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time8:15 End Time8:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered202198220200176198205 Vehs Exited204205223200185195199 Starting Vehs511961463 Ending Vehs3466599 Travel Distance (mi)41404541364040 Travel Time (hr)1.81.72.01.81.61.71.7 Total Delay (hr)0.40.30.40.30.30.30.3 Total Stops11793123116115105110 Fuel Used (gal)1.61.51.71.61.41.61.5 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time8:15 End Time8:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered170208197196 Vehs Exited169206204198 Starting Vehs68115 Ending Vehs71044 Travel Distance (mi)34424140 Travel Time (hr)1.41.91.71.8 Total Delay (hr)0.20.40.30.3 Total Stops102132104111 Fuel Used (gal)1.31.71.51.5 2023 Buildout AMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 5 77 Queuing and Blocking Report 06/28/2022 Baseline Intersection: 3: Thompson Memorial Dr & Mountain Heights Dr/Deborah Ln MovementEBWBNBSBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLLTR Maximum Queue (ft)108286082 Average Queue (ft)5331900 95th Queue (ft)86174762 Link Distance (ft)124466472 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)140150 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Edgebrook Rd & Mountain Heights Dr MovementWBNB Directions ServedLTLR Maximum Queue (ft)5880 Average Queue (ft)1237 95th Queue (ft)4161 Link Distance (ft)124178 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Edgebrook Rd MovementEBNB Directions ServedLRLT Maximum Queue (ft)5624 Average Queue (ft)271 95th Queue (ft)5010 Link Distance (ft)172238 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2023 Buildout AMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 6 78 HCM 2010 TWSC 06/28/2022 3: Thompson Memorial Dr & Mountain Heights Dr/Deborah Ln Intersection Int Delay, s/veh4.9 MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h6609110101252671117064 Future Vol, veh/h6609110101252671117064 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control StopStopStopStopStopStopFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized--None--None--None--None Storage Length------140--150-- Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor949494949494949494949494 Heavy Vehicles, %003000210060 Mvmt Flow7009711101332841118168 Major/MinorMinor2Minor1Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All7687682158178022852490028500 Stage 1217217-551551------- Stage 2551551-266251------- Critical Hdwy7.16.56.237.16.56.24.12--4.1-- Critical Hdwy Stg 16.15.5-6.15.5------- Critical Hdwy Stg 26.15.5-6.15.5------- Follow-up Hdwy3.543.3273.543.32.218--2.2-- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver3213348222983207591317--1289-- Stage 1790727-522519------- Stage 2522519-744703------- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver2953008222432877591317--1289-- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver295300-243287------- Stage 1710726-469467------- Stage 2468467-656702------- ApproachEBWBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s16.920.42.60 HCM LOSCC Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTNBREBLn1WBLn1SBLSBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1317--4692461289-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.101--0.3560.0480.001-- HCM Control Delay (s)8--16.920.47.8-- HCM Lane LOSA--CCA-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.3--1.60.10-- 2023 Buildout PM 4:30 pm 12/06/2021 BaselineSynchro 10 Report CPBPage 1 79 HCM 2010 TWSC 06/28/2022 7: Edgebrook Rd & Mountain Heights Dr Intersection Int Delay, s/veh5.7 MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h323119743121 Future Vol, veh/h323119743121 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFreeStopStop RT Channelized-None-None-None Storage Length----0- Veh in Median Storage, #0--00- Grade, %0--00- Peak Hour Factor929292929292 Heavy Vehicles, %003002 Mvmt Flow353129803132 Major/MinorMajor1Major2Minor1 Conflicting Flow All0038037537 Stage 1----37- Stage 2----338- Critical Hdwy--4.13-6.46.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1----5.4- Critical Hdwy Stg 2----5.4- Follow-up Hdwy--2.227-3.53.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver--1566-6301035 Stage 1----991- Stage 2----727- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver--1566-5761035 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver----576- Stage 1----906- Stage 2----727- ApproachEBWBNB HCM Control Delay, s04.69.1 HCM LOSA Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBTEBRWBLWBT Capacity (veh/h)1015--1566- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.133--0.083- HCM Control Delay (s)9.1--7.50 HCM Lane LOSA--AA HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.5--0.3- 2023 Buildout PM 4:30 pm 12/06/2021 BaselineSynchro 10 Report CPBPage 2 80 HCM 2010 TWSC 06/28/2022 9: Edgebrook Rd Intersection Int Delay, s/veh1.7 MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h30810948141 Future Vol, veh/h30810948141 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000 Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized-None-None-None Storage Length0----- Veh in Median Storage, #0--00- Grade, %0--00- Peak Hour Factor929292929292 Heavy Vehicles, %222222 Mvmt Flow339111028845 Major/MinorMinor2Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All2351111330-0 Stage 1111----- Stage 2124----- Critical Hdwy6.426.224.12--- Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42----- Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42----- Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.3182.218--- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver7539421452--- Stage 1914----- Stage 2902----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver7479421452--- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver747----- Stage 1907----- Stage 2902----- ApproachEBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s9.90.70 HCM LOSA Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1452-781-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.007-0.053-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.509.9-- HCM Lane LOSAAA-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-0.2-- 2023 Buildout PM 4:30 pm 12/06/2021 BaselineSynchro 10 Report CPBPage 3 81 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 06/28/2022 Baseline Summary of All Intervals Run Number11023456 Start Time4:154:154:154:154:154:154:15 End Time5:305:305:305:305:305:305:30 Total Time (min)75757575757575 Time Recorded (min)60606060606060 # of Intervals5555555 # of Recorded Intervals4444444 Vehs Entered849841856798754790796 Vehs Exited851838847805754785794 Starting Vehs86512477 Ending Vehs691454129 Travel Distance (mi)171168171160151159160 Travel Time (hr)7.17.17.26.76.26.66.7 Total Delay (hr)1.21.21.31.21.01.11.1 Total Stops362392377365349341387 Fuel Used (gal)6.56.56.56.15.66.16.0 Summary of All Intervals Run Number789Avg Start Time4:154:154:154:15 End Time5:305:305:305:30 Total Time (min)75757575 Time Recorded (min)60606060 # of Intervals5555 # of Recorded Intervals4444 Vehs Entered830877835824 Vehs Exited831875835822 Starting Vehs9795 Ending Vehs8997 Travel Distance (mi)166176168165 Travel Time (hr)7.07.47.16.9 Total Delay (hr)1.31.41.21.2 Total Stops375366363366 Fuel Used (gal)6.36.76.56.3 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time4:15 End Time4:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. 2023 Buildout PMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 1 82 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 06/28/2022 Baseline Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time4:30 End Time4:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered204208218205191168180 Vehs Exited205202209208189167183 Starting Vehs86512477 Ending Vehs712149684 Travel Distance (mi)41424342383336 Travel Time (hr)1.61.81.71.81.51.31.4 Total Delay (hr)0.30.30.30.30.30.20.2 Total Stops67119821101056765 Fuel Used (gal)1.51.71.61.61.41.21.3 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time4:30 End Time4:45 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered194190182195 Vehs Exited196184183193 Starting Vehs9795 Ending Vehs71387 Travel Distance (mi)39383739 Travel Time (hr)1.61.61.61.6 Total Delay (hr)0.20.30.30.3 Total Stops72797884 Fuel Used (gal)1.51.51.51.5 2023 Buildout PMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 2 83 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 06/28/2022 Baseline Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time4:45 End Time5:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered204202217181169203202 Vehs Exited210209224186169208201 Starting Vehs712149684 Ending Vehs1574635 Travel Distance (mi)41414436344240 Travel Time (hr)1.61.71.91.51.41.71.7 Total Delay (hr)0.30.30.30.30.20.30.3 Total Stops8391108717683108 Fuel Used (gal)1.51.61.71.41.31.61.5 Interval #2 Information Recording Start Time4:45 End Time5:00 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered217247218204 Vehs Exited224252218210 Starting Vehs71387 Ending Vehs0883 Travel Distance (mi)44504342 Travel Time (hr)1.92.11.81.7 Total Delay (hr)0.40.40.30.3 Total Stops9410310291 Fuel Used (gal)1.61.91.61.6 2023 Buildout PMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 3 84 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 06/28/2022 Baseline Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time5:00 End Time5:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered216203180203170210193 Vehs Exited216198181203168205194 Starting Vehs1574635 Ending Vehs11064884 Travel Distance (mi)44393640344239 Travel Time (hr)1.81.61.51.71.41.81.6 Total Delay (hr)0.30.30.20.30.20.30.3 Total Stops88847785688982 Fuel Used (gal)1.71.51.41.51.31.61.5 Interval #3 Information Recording Start Time5:00 End Time5:15 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Anti PHF. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered205206196197 Vehs Exited197203193195 Starting Vehs0883 Ending Vehs811115 Travel Distance (mi)41414040 Travel Time (hr)1.71.71.61.7 Total Delay (hr)0.30.30.30.3 Total Stops105948184 Fuel Used (gal)1.61.61.51.5 2023 Buildout PMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 4 85 SimTraffic Simulation Summary 06/28/2022 Baseline Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time5:15 End Time5:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number11023456 Vehs Entered225228241209224209221 Vehs Exited220229233208228205216 Starting Vehs11064884 Ending Vehs691454129 Travel Distance (mi)45464741454145 Travel Time (hr)2.01.92.01.71.81.71.9 Total Delay (hr)0.40.30.40.30.30.30.4 Total Stops1249811099100102132 Fuel Used (gal)1.81.71.71.61.61.61.7 Interval #4 Information Recording Start Time5:15 End Time5:30 Total Time (min)15 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number789Avg Vehs Entered214234239223 Vehs Exited214236241222 Starting Vehs811115 Ending Vehs8997 Travel Distance (mi)43474945 Travel Time (hr)1.92.02.11.9 Total Delay (hr)0.40.40.40.3 Total Stops10490102107 Fuel Used (gal)1.71.81.91.7 2023 Buildout PMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 5 86 Queuing and Blocking Report 06/28/2022 Baseline Intersection: 3: Thompson Memorial Dr & Mountain Heights Dr/Deborah Ln MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)10035606 Average Queue (ft)459190 95th Queue (ft)7833483 Link Distance (ft)124466472 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)140 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 7: Edgebrook Rd & Mountain Heights Dr MovementWBNB Directions ServedLTLR Maximum Queue (ft)3860 Average Queue (ft)432 95th Queue (ft)2347 Link Distance (ft)124178 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Edgebrook Rd MovementEBNB Directions ServedLRLT Maximum Queue (ft)5735 Average Queue (ft)252 95th Queue (ft)5115 Link Distance (ft)172238 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2023 Buildout PMSimTraffic Report CPBPage 6 87 Appendix F Concept Plan Traffic Study Edgebrook Commercial Development Î Roanoke County, VA June 24, 2022 88 Development:A future land use area where most new neighborhood development will occur, including large-scale planned developments which mix residential with retail and office uses. Innovation in housing design and environmental sensitivity in site development is a key objective. Clustered developments are encouraged as is the use of greenways and bike and pedestrian trails. Land Use Types:Conventional Residential-Single-family developments in conventional lots. Includes attached, detached and zero-lot line housing options. Greenways and bike and pedestrian trails are encouraged. Cluster Residential-Single family developments with similar gross density of conventional subdivisions but individual lot sizes may be reduced to accommodate the clustering of housing while allocating common open space. Includes attached, detached and zero-lot line housing options. Greenways and bike and pedestrian trails are encouraged. Multi-family-Developments of 6-12 units per acre. Clustering is encouraged as are greenways and bike and pedestrian trails. Planned Residential Development-Mixed housing types at a grossdensity range of 4-8 units per acre. Includes conventional housing, cluster housing, zero lot-line housing, townhouses and garden apartments. Greenways and bike and pedestrian trails are encouraged. Planned Community Development-Planned residential development mixed with office parks, neighborhood shopping centers and supporting retail development. The majority of the development is residential with a maximum limit set on the retail land. Greenways and bike and pedestrian trails are encouraged. Community Activity Centers-Facilities which serve the neighboring residents including parks, schools, religious assembly facilities, parks and recreational facilities and community clubs and meeting areas. These activity centers should be linked to residential areas by greenways, bike and pedestrian trails. Land Use Determinants:PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY -Locations where public facilities are adequate to handle the increased population concentration. This includes schools, parks and recreation facilities and fire and rescue facilities. UTILITY AVAILABILITY -Locations where water and sewer services exist or are scheduled to serve the area. ENVIRONMENTAL CAPACITY -Locations where natural land features, including topography, provide optimum opportunity for urban residential development. ACCESS -Locations which have or can provide direct access to a major street. URBAN SECTOR -Locations served by urban services. Core:A future land use area where high intensity urban development is encouraged. Land uses within core areas may parallel the central business districts of Roanoke, Salem and Vinton. Core areas may also be appropriate for larger-scale highway-orientedretail uses and regionally-based shopping facilities. Due to limited availability, areas designated as Core are not appropriate for tax-exempt facilities. Land Use Types:General Retail Shops and Personal Services-Planned shopping centers and clustered retail uses are encouraged. These centers should incorporate greenways, bike and pedestrian trails into their designs and link them to surrounding neighborhoods. Office and Institutional Uses-Planned developments are encouraged. Limited Industrial Uses-Planned uses in areas designated as economic opportunity areas. Land Use Determinants:EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN -Locations where commercial uses have been developed or will likely be developed. EXISTING ZONING -Locations where commercial zoning exists. ACCESS -Locations served by an arterial street system. POPULATION CENTER -Locations within close proximity to the projected population concentrations. URBAN SECTOR -Locations served by urban services. Neighborhood Conservation: A future land use area where established single-family neighborhoods are delineated and the conservation of the existing development pattern is encouraged. Land Use Types: Single-Family Residential - Attached and detached housing at a reasonable density that is not significantly higher than the existing neighborhood. Infill lots or community re-development should be designed to be sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood but can be at reasonably higher density. New single-family residential developments should incorporate greenways and bike and pedestrian trails. Cluster developments are encouraged. Neighborhood Institutional Centers - Uses that serve the neighborhood residents including parks, schools, religious assembly facilities, recreational and park facilities, community meeting areas and clubs. These facilities should be linked to the residential areas by greenways, bike trails and pedestrian paths. Neighborhood Commercial - Low impact services to serve the local neighborhood that are consistent with the Community Plan design guidelines. Land Use Determinants: EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN - Locations where limited density residential subdivisions have been platted and developed. EXISTING ZONING - Locations where limited density residential zoning has been established. EXPANSION AREAS - Locations where the expansion of the existing development pattern is logical. INFILL DEVELOPMENT - Locations where infill areas complement the surrounding development pattern. ACCESS - Locations served by a local street system. URBAN SECTOR - Locations served by urban services. Janine Powell – 2022 Tula Dr - 540-630-1147 “I received the Department of Planning’s notification of trying to redevelop the land along Edgebrook Drive. The last thing that area needs is another hotel. If you go down one exit there’s five or six hotels and if you go up one exit there’s three to four hotels and an empty building. We don’t need any medical buildings in that area. Housing is one thing, but to bring all of that stuff in to this area is wrong.” From:Alyssa Dunbar To:Janine Powell Date:8/16/2022 4:10 PM Subject:RE- Comments for ABoone Real Estate, Inc Land Use Application Attachments:Janine Powell - 2022 Tula Dr.pdf Good afternoon Ms. Powell, Please be advised I have received your voicemail and thank you for the same. I have included your comments in the packet. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance at this time. Kind regards, Alyssa Dunbar Planner I Roanoke County Planning and Zoning adunbar@roanokecountyva.gov EDGEBROOK PARK ISSUES My name is Lynne Bledsoe and am a relatively new resident to The Fairwaysat Hanging Rock, Section 2-1520 Kinloch Lane.First, I would like to start with thanking Richard Caywood, Martha Hooker, Troy Henderson and all the other Planning and VDOT employees that I have discussedthis proposed development withover the last several months. Eveyone has been very gracious with their time. No doubt by now,you realizeneighboring residents have many concerns related to Alex Boone’s rezoning application. He has requested thatthis property, which is currently zoned R-1, be rezoned to R-3(for 80 townhomesto be built)and C-2(for an 85-room hotel to be built).To date, we have collected over 300 signatureson our petitionto denyall of Boone’srezoning requestsfor theproposed Edgebrook Park. We are concerned that rezoning of this property will dramatically alterthe character of our neighborhoods with traffic and safety issues and lead to a reduction in property values. My concernsrelated to Boone’s rezoning requests fall into 3 categories: I.Core Land Use Determinants-Being Ignored? II.Flawed/Erroneous Premises Contained In Boone’s Applicaton For Rezoning III.Anticipated Traffic Issues I.CORE LAND USE DETERMINANTS-BEING IGNORED? Hopefully by now you have had time to look at the County’s Future Land Use map of the area related to Boone’srezoning request. Did you know this Future Land Use map was created in 1995? In 1995, neither section of The Fairways at Hanging Rock, Innsbrook, or a majority of the other homes shown on this map had even been built. And as you can see, Section 2 of The Fairways at Hanging Rock is not even shown accurately in yellow as Neighborhood Conservation because it has been so long since any updates. So, back in 1995, most likely not much thought by Planning went into designating some of the land in Boone’s parcel as Core, other than it was close to I-81. Fast forward 27 years and this parcel of land is surrounded by over 400 single-family homes, with R-1 zoning. If we look at theCounty’s Planning websiteunder Core, we find alist ofLand Use Determinants. After asimple review, I feel confident that you will agree that thesite Boone has planned for the hotel does not meet 4 of the 5Land UseDeterminants for Core and should therefore notbe rezoned from R-1 to C-2. From Roanoke County Planning’s website: Let’s look at each determinant: 1.Access-locations served by an arterial street system. This proposed hotel would have NO direct access toan arterial road.From this proposed site, one must travel on Edgebrook Road and Mountain Heights Drive to even reach Thompson Memorial Drive. And, according to Brian Blevins/VDOT both Edgebrook Road and Mountain Heights Drive areclassified as localor neighborhoodstreets. So, NO this proposed site is not served by an arterial street system which is SO crucial for something like this proposed hotelor any other commercial business and the trafficsuch a sitewill generate. Local roads are not built for such traffic. 2.Existing Land Use Pattern-Locations where commercial uses have been developed or willbe developed. Like I previously said, the land designated as Core on the County’s Future Land Use Map is dated back to 1995. Today, this piece of property is surrounded by single-family homes. NO Core developments nearthis piece of land.Allowing this tobe rezoned to anything commercial would be ignoring the existing land use that has been established in this area. No doubtthis is one of the principal duties of Planning-to insure compatibility of land uses and patterns. Rezoning any of this property for commercial purposeswould NOT be insuringcompatibility. 3.Existing Zoning-Locations where commercial zoning exists. As I just mentioned, there is NO commercial zoning on this parcel of land nor is there any commercial zoning anywhere around it.This piece of property is zoned R-1. 4.Population Center-Locations within close proximity to the projected population concentrations. Although this site may by near the interstate, it is NOT near the projected population. 5.Urban Sector-Locations served by urban services. Only one of five Land Use Determinants that supports Core for this parcel of land. In conclusion, I urge you to rejectthis rezoning from R-1 to C-2. By Planning’s very own guidelines, this site does not meet 4 of the 5 Land Use Determinants required for Core. Doesn’t the Commission and the Board of Supervisors have an obligation to adhere to the Land Use Determinants set forth by the County’s Planning group? If not, what purpose do the Land Use Determinants serve? How canany resident feel safe with the County’s zoningguidelineswhen deciding to live somewhere within the Countyif they are not followed? Thepiece of property where the commercial zoning is being requestedis surrounded by Neighborhood Conservation. Therefore,it makes the most sense from a Planning perspective to maintain the current R-1 zoning for this piece of property so the natural expansion of the existing development patternof R-1zoningcan be preserved. II.FLAWED/ERRONEOUS PREMISES CONTAINED IN BOONE’S REZONING APPLICATION 1.In Section II ofBoone’srezoningapplication, this proposed developmentis referred to as “an exciting new mixed use commercial and residential community.” Aren’t mixed-use developments usually in downtown areas and not in anarea like thisone off of Edgebrook Road surrounded by Neighborhood Conservation? Seems like a strange place to have mixed- usein the middle of R-1 zoning.A definite break in land use patterns. 2.The application statesin Section IIthat rezoning from R-1 to R-3 to allow the building of townhomes “will help address the significant shortage of new housing in Roanoke County.” Wouldn’t the previously planned single-family homes in what was supposed to be Section 3 of The Fairways at Hanging Rock have contributed between 50-60 new homes in this area? There was a sign at the entrance to this site for years with lots laid out on it for what was supposed to be Section 3 of The Fairways at Hanging Rock. That sign disappeared from the entrance to this property around the time we received the March 2022 letter from Planning about the original rezoning application. 3.In Section II of Boone’s application, it statesthat “Edgebrook Park will be an efficient, attractive, and compatible use for the Property….” How nice will the townhomes actually be? Anywhere close to being comparable to the surrounding single-family homes in price or quality? We seemed to get a wide range for listing prices depending on who you askedat the March community meeting. When one continually sees the word “affordable,” you have to wonder. How will “affordable”townhomes affect the re-sale value of neighboring houses?At the March Community meeting, Alex Boone repeatedly stated that it would be too expensive to build single-family homes on this site, as originally planned, due to the expense of excavating rock. However, Boone’swrittenresponse to aMarch 27, 2022, questionsubmittedby ten of my neighbors to Martha Hooker about thebuilding of single- family homes on the site, as previously advertised, offers conflicting information. (All members of both the Planning Commission andthe Board of Supervisors received this referenced email with my neighbors’ questions and Boone’s responses).Boone said:“Joe (Thomas) and I discussed building single family housing on this site, but I did not want to proceed because of two primary reasons: (1) the topography and rock involved; and (2) the proximity to I-81 for single family homes. We are unable to build a house of anywhere close to the value of the current homes in Fairways at Hanging Rock, because any homes built in the proposed commercial portion of the site backs up to the large VDOT park and ride and an active Interstate instead of a beautiful golf course. Such homes would need to be much lower in price and ultimately could have some impact on the value of the homes in Fairways at Hanging Rock. I cannot emphasize this point enough. The Signers need to recall the three rules of real estate: location, location, location! The proposed commercial buffer is far more effective in supporting the values of the homes in Fairways at HangingRock than a community of much less expensive single-family homes.” What I can’t figure out from this is how the townhomes are not going to be adversely affected because of their close proximity to I-81, the park-and-ride, and a hotel! The townhomes, after all, are all going to be built behind a park-and-ride AND then located either beside of or behind a large 4-story hotel! And Boone is trying to convince us that the price point of these “affordable” townhomes will not cause a reduction in property values for the surrounding single-family homes? What about the three rules of real estate -location, location, locationthat he pointed out in his responses to my neighbors questions? Seems to me that this extremely large group of 80 “affordable” townhomes would be significantly less expensive than anything surrounding them and would certainly lead to a reduction in property values for thesurrounding homes. No doubt Boone would like to rezone a majority of this property to R-3 to maximize his profits under the guise of “affordable housing.” 4.Also, under Section II of Boone’s application it states: “Importantly, the proposed Plan of Development incorporates material revisions to the initial plan of development to address the legitimate concerns of the reasonable residents who attended … community meeting hosted in March.” The commercial rezoning of this existing R-1 property has always been the most troublesome part of the proposalfora majority of the surrounding residents. Onourpetition to reject all of the rezoning requested in this application,a majority of theover 300 residents wrote in “no hotel.” So, if Boone was trying to listen to us, he missed the boat with his latest application. 5.On page 2 of the application, it states that “the property is appropriately located at the intersection of two thoroughfares, I-81 and Thompson Memorial Highway (Rt. 311)….” NOT true. To get to Edgebrook Park from Thompson Memorial Highway, you must first turn onto Mountain Heights Lane and then turn onto Edgebrook Road BEFORE you can reach the site. And, as we have previously discussed, both of these road are classifiedas localor neighborhoodstreets.Proposed site has NOdirect access to an arterial streetand it is NOT located at the intersection of two thoroughfares. 6.Also on page 2 of Boone’s rezoning application, it says: “ABRE’s application for a zoning amendment limits its proposed use to an upscale hotel ….” Key wording here is “upscale hotel.” Whythen on the proffered conditions page does Boone have the following: “3. The allowable use for the commercial parcel shall be Hotel/Motel/Motor Lodge.” This proffer was not listed in the original application, so why is it here now? Does this mean that any of the three of thesecould be builton this site? Also,even if an “upscale hotel”is built on this sitein the beginning,doesn’t this proffer leave the door open for that to change anytime in the future? So it could be a motor lodge when it becomesrun down in 10-15 years? Allowing this proffer to remain,opens up a potential can of worms for neighboring residents. I request that this proffer be amended to read “upscale hotel” like Boone has on page 2 of the rezoning applicationand that the words “motel/motor lodge” be removed. 7.Boone’s application continually says the proposed hotel is in the “core designation in the community plan.” Hopefully we have already established that even though Planning’s 1995 Future Land Use Map showsa small amount ofCoreon this site, 4 of the 5 Land Use Determinants for Corehave not been satisfied. In 2022, we have a totally different reality already built up all around this site-of single-family homes. It is no longer a blank slate waiting for development. 8.The last paragraph on page 2 of the application says: “Edgebrook Park … supports the residents of surrounding communities ….” Not sure how any of this rezoning would “support”our neighborhoods. We will certainly see a dramatic increase in traffic, parking lot lighting pollution,and safety issues. If the C-2 re-zoning is granted, and a hotel is built, we anticipate an increase in criminal activity. The hotel will facilitate drug dealings,sex trafficking (won’t the park-and-ride be convenient for that along with the hotel), to break-ins in our neighborhoodby bringing lots of people from out of the area to our neighborhoods. Recently I spent some time talking about this very thing with Sergeant Chidester,Roanoke County PoliceMotel Task Force, and Brittney Money, Roanoke County Police Crime Analyst. Sergeant Chidester is very knowledgeableaboutwhat is happening at certain hotels/motels in Roanoke County. He was also very familiar with thelocation of this proposed hotel. He immediately commented on how the location is set back from I-81 and how it is “kind of isolated in a quiet, little placewhich could offer more seclusion for criminal activity.”Hotels/motels are their top police call producers every month in the County police departmentbesides calls to the twoCountyWalmarts, according to Brittney Money. She gave me lots of data on five hotels/motels in the ThirlaneRoad area that average between 2.6 and 29 calls per month! Sergeant Chidester emphasized that the number of police callsvariesgreatly depending on the brand of hotel and whether it was a hotel, motel, or motor lodge. He readily admits to high call volumes to the older,run down ones. Over time, some of these actually turn into long-term housingwhere drug use is a frequent problem, he said.He agreed that my fearwas warrantedof the proffer added tothis latest Boone rezoning applicationthat says: “The allowable use for the commercial parcel shall be hotel/motel/motor lodge.” He said he has certainly seen some of theCounty’s hotels/motels go downhill and turn into bad places with high police call volumes. Once again, I request that this proffer be amended to read “upscale hotel”. The words “motel/motor lodge” should be removed. Otherwise we have no guaranteeofwhatcouldevenstart out being built on this site or ultimately end up here 10-15 years from nowwhen the property becomes run down and potentially sold. 9.At the bottom of page 3 of the application it says: “ABRE respectfully submits that the request forrezoning contained in its Application is beneficial for the Property and … offers services to many County residents not currently available in close proximity to home. What “services” would be offered from this development to surrounding homeownersthat is not currently available in close proximity? Is this referring to the proposed hotel? If so, this simply is NOTtrue. Exit 141offers 4 hotels withan availability of 370 total rooms and Exit 137offers 7 hotels withan availability of518 total rooms! Bothof these exits are very close to our neighborhoods since we are only a few miles awayfrom either exit. III.ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC ISSUES 1.As previously discussed, Edgebrook Park provides no direct access to an arterial road. The proposed developmentis located off of Edgebrook Road and Mountain Heights Drive, which are classified as local or neighborhood streets.Boone argues that C-2 zoning is appropriate for this site because of the County’s Future Land Use Map showing part of this landas potential Core zoning; however, Core Use Areas are supposed to be served by an arterial street system per Planning’s own website under Core-Land Use Determinants. Local or neighborhood roadways were not designed for the traffic that commercial property produces. This site will also cause traffic issues if the R-3 rezoning is granted and 80 townhomes are built here. This type of housing is much denser than single-family housing and will produce far more traffic than the approximately 50 single-familyhomes previously advertisedfor this property. 2.If this rezoning is approved, eventually something more than the simpleexisting stop sign will be required atthe intersection ofThompson Memorial Drive and Mountain Heights Roaddue tofuture traffic issues.Specifically, what type of future road improvements at this intersection could VDOT implement here? Well, as previously stated by Blevins/VDOT at the March community meeting, no traffic light can ever be placed at this intersection because of the close proximity to I-81’s ingress/egress. (The entrance ramp to I-81S is less than one- tenth of a mile from this intersection.) According to Blevins,the only future “solution” to the inevitable traffic problems that will occur at this intersection if rezoning is granted would be one of the following3 options: (1.)R-Cut-which is a restricted crossing U-turn, which means no left-turn out onto Thompson Memorial from either Mountain Heights Drive or from Deborah Lane, which is locatedon the other side of Thompson Memorial Drive. Not sure where residents on Deborah Lane would have to go after turning right onto Thompson Memorial Drive in order to make a U-turn to head back to Salem if that was the direction they wished to travel.OR, (2.) Closed Crossover-which is a right in and a right out. Once again eliminating left- hand turns.OR, (3.) Reduced Phase Signal All of these “solutions” sound like they would only add one more restrictive traffic control in an area that alreadyhas I-81 ingress/egress, a narrowing of two lanes down to one on Thompson Memorial Drive coming from Salem as you approach the Park-And-Ride, and a round-about at the next intersection down the road at Catawba Valley Road and Thompson Memorial Drive. We also must not forget about the wide turns the Smart Busesmake coming from or going to the park-and-ridge on EdgebrookRoadwhen turning onto either Edgebrook Road or Mountain Heights Lane. They literally have to wait until no other traffic is coming on these two narrow roads before they can attempt to turn.(The Smart Bus makes 12 stops daily, Monday-Friday, to this park-and-ride. So, that’s 24 times a day they make these wide turns when either entering or exiting Edgebrook Road and Mountain View Lane.)What’s the harm in adding additional traffic produced by 80 townhomes and an 85-room hotel/motel/motor lodge? Sounds like a traffic nightmare! 3.Upon exitingthe proposedEdgebrook Park and turning left onto Edgebrook Road, there wouldonlybeenough space for approximately 5-6 cars to queue beforereaching the stop sign at Mountain Heights Drive. Then, as traffic continues on by turning right onto Mountain Heights Drive, approximately 3 cars can queue there before reaching the stop sign atthe intersection ofThompson Memorial Drive. Imagine the bottlenecks in this short space, especially when the existing neighborhood traffic is added to the mixif this rezoning is approved. 4.According to archived weather history which can be found online, there was a quarter inch of rain on the day Balzerand Associatesconducted their traffic studyon Sept. 21, 2021. Did that rain impact the traffic study by suppressing the traffic on that day? Several engineering companies I have spoken to said they rescheduletraffic studies for this very reason if it does end up raining on the originally scheduled day. Why didn’t Balzer reschedule their traffic study for a day free of precipitationso the most accurate traffic count possible could have been obtained?Was anaccurate traffic count obtained?This is important since VDOT has based their recommendation that no turn lanes or tapers are warranted by the proposed development based in part onthis traffic study. 5.At the March community meeting, Blevins/VDOT was asked a question by one of my neighbors about Balzer’s traffic study numbers and whether or not he thought covid had impacted the numbers by reducing the traffic count. Blevins admitted that the traffic study numberscollected by Balzeron September 21, 2021, were a little low because of the affects of covidon traffic. And because of this, he went on to add, 2019 pre-covid, traffic numbers were used. However, if you look at the traffic information from this rezoning application, there is nothing butBalzer’s September 21, 2021 traffic study figures.There isno 2019 pre- covid traffic count included anywhere in the applicationor in an addendum added by VDOT. I spoke to Ashley Smith/VDOT about this missing information on August 22, 2022. According to Smith, Blevins said VDOT “found Balzer’s numbers acceptable.” If the pre- covid 2019 traffic numbers for Edgebrook Road and Mountain Heights Lane were higher, shouldn’t they have been used and actually included in this rezoning applicationand adjusted to include annual rate increases from 2019 to the time the traffic study was conducted? Why did Blevins say at the community meeting that 2019 pre-covid traffic numbers were used when they were not included in this application? Do Roanoke County residents not have the right to view the most accurate traffic count numbers when there is a rezoning request of this magnitude? Also, as a side note, this application was originally written in 2019, apparently. On page 35 under “Analysis of Future Conditions without Development,” it states current year is 2021, not 2022 as it is now. This means that another 3.8% growth rate should have been factored into these traffic numbers. It is no wonder that the neighboring communities question the existing traffic count numbers included in this rezoning application and the traffic count numberscollected by Balzer’s traffic study conducted on September 21, 2021 considering the affectscovid has had on actualvehiculartraveland the fact that there was a quarter inch of rain the day of the study. If this type of rezoning was being proposed in your neighborhood, wouldn’t you want to have an accurate traffic count of the existing traffic so an accurate level of service could be established before a new development added a lot more traffic to the mix? I would like to request thateitherBoone be required to conduct a new traffic study, with weather being recorded,or VDOT include the 2019 pre-covid traffic counts for this area with the 3.8% growth rate factored in until the anticipated 2024 build out of this developmentprior to approval of any rezoning of this property under consideration. CONCLUSION For all the reasons statedabove,I respectfully request that both the Roanoke County Planning Commission and the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors vote ‘NO” to the rezoning of Edgebrook Parkfrom R-1 to R-3 and C-2. This site is surrounded by over 400 single family homesand there is no existing commercial zoning anywhere in this area. Not only does this site not meet Roanoke County Planning’s own Core Land Use Determinants, we are greatly concerned that all of Boone’s rezoning requests will dramatically change the character of our neighborhoods with traffic and safety issues in addition to reducing our property values. The Roanoke County citizens that will be the mostadverselyaffected with this rezoning need your help in protecting our neighborhoods. We need you to upholdthis property’s R-1 zoning, thereby denying Alex Boone’s rezoning requests.To Alex Boone, this is just another development. To the County residents that live near this site, this is where we live. Please help us preserve the integrity of our beautiful residential neighborhoodsby maintaining the values inherent in the R-1 zoning designation to provide for residential development at a scale intended to conserve the character of this area! !´¦´²³ ΑΘǾ ΑΏΑΑ 2® ®ª¤ #®´³¸ 0« ¨¦ #®¬¬¨²²¨®¤±²Ǿ -¸ ¬¤ ¨² 3³¤µ¤ 0 £¨² £ ) ¬ ±¤²¨£¤³ ®¥ 4§¤ & ¨±¶ ¸² )) ³ ( ¦¨¦ 2®¢ªȁ )Ǿ «¨ª¤ ¬ ¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ®³§¤± ±¤²¨£¤³² ¨ ®´± ¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£Ǿ ¥¤¤« ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¢´±±¤³ 2ȃΐ ¹®¨¦ ®¥ ΒΑχ ¢±¤² ³ Ώ %£¦¤¡±®®ª 2® £ ²§®´«£ ±¤¬ ¨ ´¢§ ¦¤£ȁ !"®®¤ 2¤ « %²³ ³¤ § ² ±¤°´¤²³¤£ ±¤¹®¨¦ ³® #ȃΑ ¥®± §®³¤« £ 2ȃΒ ¥®± ΗΏ ³®¶§®´²¤²ȁ ) § µ¤ ¬ ¸ ¢®¢¤±² ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®² « ¡´³ ¶¨«« ®«¸ ££±¤²² ³¶® ®¥ ³§¤¬ ¡¤«®¶Ȁ .¤¤£ ¥®± (®³¤«Ȁ /´± ¢®¬¬´¨³¸ £ ³§¤ ²´±±®´£¨¦ ±¤ Ǿ ¨¢«´£¨¦ ³§¤ ΒΑ ¢±¤² !"®®¤ ¨² ³±¸¨¦ ³® £¤µ¤«®¯Ǿ ¤¤£² ³® ±¤¬ ¨ ΐΏΏυ ±¤²¨£¤³¨ «Ǿ ¯±¤¥¤± ¡«¸ ²¨¦«¤ §®´²¨¦ §®¬¤²ȁ 4§¤ ¤¤£ ¥®± §®³¤«Ǿ £ ¶§ ³¤µ¤± ¤«²¤ ³§ ³ ¡±¨¦²Ǿ ¨² ®³ ¤¤£¤£ ³ )ȃΗΐ %·¨³ ΐΓΏȁ &®´± §®³¤«² ¶¨³§ ®µ¤± ΒΏΏχ ±®®¬² «±¤ £¸ ¤·¨²³ ©´²³ ®¤ ¬¨«¤ ¶ ¸ ³ %·¨³ ΐΓΐȁ !®³§¤± ²¤µ¤ §®³¤«² ¶¨³§ ¢«®²¤ ³® ΕΏΏ ±®®¬² ¢ ¡¤ ¥®´£ ³§±¤¤ ¬¨«¤² ¶ ¸ ³ %·¨³ ΐΒΖȁ &®®£Ǿ ¢®µ¤¨¤¢¤ ²³®±¤² £ ²¤±µ¨¢¤ ²³ ³¨®² «±¤ £¸ ¤·¨²³ ³ ¡®³§ ®¥ ³§®²¤ ¤·¨³² ³® ²¤±µ¤ ³± µ¤«¤±²ȁ 4§¤ 6¨±¦¨¨ 4®´±¨²¬ #®±¯®± ³¨® Ȩ6!4#ȁ®±¦ȩ ¯´¡«¨²§¤² ¬®³§«¸ £ ¸¤ ±ȃ³®ȃ£ ³¤ µ¤± ¦¤ ®¢¢´¯ ¢¸ ± ³¤ £ ³ ® ³§¤¨± ¶¤¡²¨³¤ȁ 4§¤ £ ³ µ ¨« ¡«¤ ¨¢«´£¤² ³§¤ ³¨® « £ ²³ ³¤ µ¤± ¦¤²Ǿ £ ³§¤ ²³ ³¤ ¨² «²® ¡±®ª¤ £®¶ ¨³® ±¤¦¨®²Ǿ ®¥ ¶§¨¢§ 2® ®ª¤ ¨² ®¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ±¤¦¨®²ȁ !«²® ¯«¤ ²¤ ®³¤ ³§ ³ 6!4# ²³ ³¤² ³§ ³ ³§¤¨± £ ³ ¢ ®³ ¡¤ ¯´¡«¨²§¤£ ®± ±¤´²¤£ ¶¨³§®´³ ³§¤¨± ¯¤±¬¨²²¨®ȁ 4§´²Ǿ ³§¤ ¥®««®¶¨¦ ²³ ³¤¬¤³ ¨² ¬¸ ¨³¤±¯±¤³ ³¨® ®¥ ³§¤ £ ³ ¶¨³§®´³ ¨¢«´£¨¦ ³§¤ ¢³´ « ´¬¡¤±² ¯´¡«¨²§¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ 6!4# ®¥ 94$ µ¤± ¦¤ ®¢¢´¯ ¢¸ ± ³¤² ¥®± ³§¤ . ³¨®Ǿ 3³ ³¤Ǿ £ 2® ®ª¤ ±¤¦¨® ³§±®´¦§ Ζ ¬®³§² ®¥ ΑΏΑΑȀ "®³§ ³§¤ 3³ ³¤ £ . ³¨® « µ¤± ¦¤ ®¢¢´¯ ¢¸ ± ³¤² ±¤ ¨ ³§¤ «®¶ ΕΏυ ± ¦¤Ǿ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ 2® ®ª¤ ±¤ ¡¤¨¦ ³ «¤ ²³ ΒȁΔ ¯¤±¢¤³ ¦¤ ¯®¨³² ¡¤«®¶ ¡®³§ ³§¤ 3³ ³¤ £ . ³¨® « µ¤± ¦¤²ȁ )¥ ³§¤ §®³¤«² ³ %·¨³² ΐΓΏ £ ΐΒΖ ±¤ ³¸¯¨¢ ««¸ ±¤¯±¤²¤³ ³¨µ¤ ®¥ ³§¤ 2® ®ª¤ ±¤¦¨®Ǿ ¨³ ¢ ¤ ²¨«¸ ¡¤ ¢®¢«´£¤£ ³§ ³ ® µ¤± ¦¤ ¨¦§³Ǿ ³§¤±¤ ±¤ ®µ¤± ΒΔΏ µ ¢ ³ §®³¤« ±®®¬² ¨ ³§®²¤ ΐΐ §®³¤«²ȁ !££¨¦ ££¨³¨® « §®³¤« ¶¨³§ ΗΔ ±®®¬² ¶®´«£ ©´²³ «®¶¤± ³§¤ ®µ¤± «« ®¢¢´¯ ¢¸ ± ³¤ ¤µ¤ ¬®±¤Ǿ £ ¶®±²³ȃ¢ ²¤ ²¢¤ ±¨®Ǿ ²®¬¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¢´±±¤³ §®³¤«² ¢®´«£ ¯®²²¨¡«¸ ¢«®²¤ £´¤ ³® «®²³ ¡´²¨¤²² ¢ ´²¤£ ¡¸ ®µ¤± ¡´£ ¢¤ ®¥ µ ¢ ³ ±®®¬²ȁ "´¨«£¨¦ §®³¤« ±®®¬² ³® ¬¤¤³ ¯¤ ª £¤¬ £² ¢ ´²¤£ ¡¸ ²¯¤¢¨ « ¤µ¤³² ¨² «¨ª¤ ¡´¨«£¨¦ ¢§´±¢§ ¥®± % ²³¤± 3´£ ¸ȁ )³ ¨² ®³ ¤¢®®¬¨¢ ««¸ ¥¤ ²¨¡«¤ £ ±¤ «¨²³¨¢ȁ ! §®³¤« ³ %·¨³ ΐΓΏ ¨² ®³ ¤¤£¤£ȁ &´³´±¤ 0¤ ª (®´± 4± ¥¥¨¢Ȁ 7§¨«¤ ¶¤ ±¤ ®³ ²¤¨®± ®± ±¤³¨±¤£ȁ ) ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¦¤ ¦±®´¯² ®¥ ³§¤ ±¤²¨£¤³² ³ ³§¤ & ¨±¶ ¸² ) ¨² «¨ª¤ & ¨±¶ ¸² ))ȁ 4§¤ £±¨µ¨¦ § ¡¨³² ®¥ ¬ ¸ ®¥ ®´± ±¤²¨£¤³² ¨² £¨¥¥¤±¤³ ³§ ³§®²¤ ®¥ ¶®±ª¨¦ ¯±®¥¤²²¨® «²Ǿ ²³´£¤³²Ǿ ¤³¢ȁ ´±² ³± µ¤«¨¦ ³® £ ¥±®¬ ©®¡²Ǿ ²¢§®®«²Ǿ ¤³¢ȁ ) ¢ ®«¸ ²²´¬¤ ³§ ³ ¸ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ²³´£¨¤² £®¤ ¨ § ¡¨³²ȁ -®²³ «¨ª¤«¸ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ³®¶§®´²¤² ¶®´«£ ¢¢®¬¬®£ ³¤ ¸®´¦ ¯±®¥¤²²¨® «²Ǿ ¥ ¬¨«¨¤² £ ²³´£¤³² ³§ ³ ³± µ¤« ¬´¢§ ¬®±¤ £´±¨¦ ¯¤ ª §®´±²ȁ 4§¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¦¤¤± ³¤£ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ±¤²¨£¤³² ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ΗΏ ³®¶§®´²¤²Ǿ ³± µ¤«¤±² ²³ ¸¨¦ ³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ §®³¤«Ǿ 0 ±ª £ 2¨£¤ ´²¤±²Ǿ 3¬ ±³ "´²¤²Ǿ ²¢§®®« ¡´²¤²Ǿ ¶¨«« ¬®²³ «¨ª¤«¸ ¢±¤ ³¤ µ¤±¸ « ±¦¤ ¤ ±«¸ ¬®±¨¦ £ « ³¤ ¥³¤±®® ¯¤ ª² ³§ ³ ±¤ ®³ ¯±¤²¤³ ³®£ ¸ȁ 4§¨² ¢®´«£ ±¤²´«³ ¨ « ±¦¤Ǿ ¨¤¥¥¨¢¨¤³Ǿ £ ´² ¥¤ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¡ ¢ªȃ´¯² ® ¡®³§ -®´³ ¨ (¤¨¦§³² $±¨µ¤ £ %£¦¤¡±®®ª 2® £ ² µ¤§¨¢«¤² ³±¸ ³® ¦¤³ ®³® 4§®¬¯²® -¤¬®±¨ «ȁ ) ¡¤«¨¤µ¤ ¤¶ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ²³´£¸ ¤¤£² ³® ¡¤ ¯¤±¥®±¬¤£ ³ ª¨¦ ¨³® ¢¢®´³ ³§¤ £±¨µ¨¦ § ¡¨³² ®¥ ³¸¯¨¢ « ³®¶§®´²¤ ±¤²¨£¤³²Ǿ £ §®³¤« ¶®±ª¤±² £ ¦´¤²³²Ǿ ³® £¤³¤±¬¨¤ ¬®±¤ ¢¢´± ³¤ ¯¤ ª §®´± £¤¬ £ȁ &´±³§¤± ±¤µ¨¤¶ ®¥ ³§¤ ¨³¤±²¤¢³¨®² ®¥ ³§¤ ±³¤±¨ « ±® £² ¯¯±® ¢§¨¦ £ ²¤±µ¨¦ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³Ǿ £ ¸ ¢¢¤²²¤² ³® ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ ¤¤£ ³® ¡¤ ££±¤²²¤£ ¥®± ¤¥¥¨¢¨¤¢¸ £ ² ¥¤³¸ȁ 3´¬¬ ±¸Ȁ ) £® ®³ ²´¯¯®±³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ±¤¹®¨¦ ¥±®¬ 2ȃΐ ³® #ȃΑ ³® ¡´¨«£ §®³¤« ³§ ³ ¨² ²¨¬¯«¸ ®³ ¤¤£¤£ȁ ) £® ®³ ²´¯¯®±³ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ±¤¹®¨¦ ¥±®¬ 2ȃΐ ³® 2ȃΒ £´¤ ³® ³± ¥¥¨¢ £ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ µ «´¤ ¢®¢¤±²ȁ +¤¤¯¨¦ ³§¤ ΒΑȃ ¢±¤ ¯ ±¢¤« ² 2ȃΐ £ «¨¬¨³¨¦ ³§¤ ´¬¡¤± ®¥ ´¨³² ³® ΔΏȃ ΕΏ ²¨¦«¤ȃ¥ ¬¨«¸ §®¬¤²Ǿ ² ®±¨¦¨ ««¸ ¯« ¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ ¯±¤µ¨®´² £¤µ¤«®¯¤±Ǿ ¨² ¡¤²³ ¥®± ³§¤ ¢®¬¬´¨³¸ȁ 4§ ª ¸®´ ¥®± ¸®´± ³¨¬¤ £ ¢®²¨£¤± ³¨®ȁ 2¤¦ ±£²Ǿ 3³¤µ¤ 0 £¨² ΐΖΏΐ +¨«®¢§ , ¤ From:Board of Supervisors To:Board (Debbie Jacks); Thompson, Philip Date:9/6/2022 9:23 AM Subject:Edgebrook Donna Roye We cannot expect to sell $500,000 homes adjacent to the park and ride and Interstate 81 where approximately 60,000 cars pass daily.” Houses can, and do, sell in that price range with the exact same proximity to I-81. Just up the hill from this development - and the aforementioned Park and Ride- is my neighborhood, Hanging Rock Estates. We have had 5 homes sell in the past six months in the $470-550K price range. Penguin Lane has had sales in that same price range. Walden Circle has homesoverlooking the off-ramp of exit 140 valued in the $500K - $600K price range per Zillow. The Fairways, which is just a few hundred yards farther up Edgebrook from the park and ride and proposed development, has had patio homes selling for $475K. So his argument simply does not hold water. I am an accountant by trade and and have always been a “numbers person”. You need look no further than this: 80 townhomes x $300,000 is $24 million plus whatever he makes from the hotel site development. 40 single family x $500,000 is only $20 million minus the expense of additional grading. I still have a photo of the original platt when a single family development was planned here, so Graham-Thomas knew it was possible. I am sorry if this man made a bad investment, but the burden of that should not be borne by those of us that that will be forever neighbors of this hotel. Sincerely, Karen Brown 1826 Carleton Dr ROANOKE COUNTY OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY 5204 Bernard Drive, P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Peter S. Lubeck Mary Beth Nash TEL: (540) 772-2071 COUNTY ATTORNEY Rachel W. Lower FAX: (540) 772-2089 Marta J. Anderson SENIORASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEYS SAMPLE MOTIONS The petition of ABooneReal Estate, Inc., to rezone approximately 32.32 acres from R-1 (Low Density Residential) District to C-2 (High Intensity Commercial) District and R-3 (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential) District in order to construct a hotel and townhouses located in the 1300 and 1400 blocks of Edgebrook Road, Catawba Magisterial District. MOTION TO APPROVE Ifindthat the proposed rezoning request: 1.Is consistent with the purpose and intent of the County’s adopted comprehensive plan, as the proposed rezoning for the hotel is consistent with the “Core” future land use designation.Further, the majority of the proposed townhomes are located in areas that are consistent with the “Development” and “Neighborhood Conservation” land use designations. While the proposed rezoning forsome ofthe proposed townhomesis not in conformance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan’s future land use designation of “Core,” the proposed use will meet the need for available housing that currently exists in Roanoke County. 2. Is good zoning practice. 3.Will not result in substantial detriment to the community. I therefore MOVE THAT WE APPROVEthe rezoningrequest as it has been requested, with the following proffered conditions: 1.The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the “Edgebrook Park – Development Plan” Exhibit A and Exhibit B prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. dated July 8, 2022 subject to any changes required by the County of Roanoke, Virginia Department of Transportation, or Western Virginia Water Authority during the site plan review process. 2.A maximum of 80 townhomes shall be constructed with this request. 3.The allowable use for the commercial parcel shall be a hotel. 4.The proposed hotel shall be amaximum of four (4) stories in height. MOTION TO DENY I find that the proposed rezoning request: 1.Isinconsistent with the purpose and intent of the County’s adopted comprehensive plan and good zoning practice,or 2. Will result in substantial detriment to the community. I thereforeMOVE THAT WE DENYthe rezoning request as it has been requested. MOTION TO DELAY ACTION I find that the required information for the submitted proposal is incomplete. I therefore MOVE TO DELAYaction until additional necessary materials are submitted to the Board of Supervisors. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY 5204 Bernard Drive, P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 32.323 ACRES FROM R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT TO C-2 (HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT AND R-3 (MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A HOTEL AND TOWNHOUSES LOCATED IN THE 1300 AND 1400 BLOCKS OF EDGEBROOK ROAD, IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (TAX MAP NO: 035.04-02-33.00-0000) WHEREAS,ABooneReal Estate, Inc. is requesting to rezone approximately 32.323 acres from R-1 (Low Density Residential) District to C-2 (High Intensity Commercial) District and R-3 (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential) District in order to construct a hotel and townhouses located in the 1300 and 1400 blocks of Edgebrook Road, Catawba Magisterial District (Tax Map No: 035.04-02-33.00-0000); and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 23, 2022, and the second reading and public hearing were held onSeptember 28, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on September 6, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the petitionwith certain proffered conditions, as requested;and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1.The petition of ABoone Real Estate, Inc. to rezone approximately 32.323 acres from R-1 (Low Density Residential) District to C-2 (High Intensity Page 1of 3 Commercial) District and R-3 (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential) District is approved, with the following proffered conditions: a.The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the “Edgebrook Park –Development Plan” Exhibit A and Exhibit B prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. dated July 8, 2022 subject to any changes required by the County of Roanoke, Virginia Department of Transportation, or Western Virginia WaterAuthority during the site plan review process. b.A maximum of 80 townhomes shall be constructed with this request. c.The allowable use for the commercial parcel shall be a hotel. d.The proposed hotel shall be a maximum of four (4) stories in height. 2.The Boardfinds thatthe proposed rezoning of approximately 32.323acres is consistent with the purpose and intent of the County’s adopted comprehensive plan, as the proposed rezoning for the hotel is consistent with the “Core” future land use designation.Further, the majority of the proposed townhomes are located in areas that are consistent with the “Development” and “Neighborhood Conservation” land use designations. While the proposed rezoning for some of the townhomes is not in conformance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan’s future land use designation of “Core,” the proposed use will meet the need for available housing that currently exists in Roanoke County. 3.The Board further finds that the proposed rezoning of approximately 32.323 acresis consistent withgood zoning practice, and will not result in substantial detriment to the community. Page 2of 3 4.Thisordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. Page 3of 3