Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/28/2023 - RegularRoanoke County Board of Supervisors March 28, 2023 INVOCATION: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES FLAG Disclaimer: "Any invocation that may be offered before the official start 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 the Board." Page 1 of 4 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda March 28, 2023 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for March 28, 2023. 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 County's 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. BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing to discuss with the Board of Supervisors the County Administrator's Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Operating Budget and Proposed Fiscal Year 2024-2033 Capital Improvement Program (Richard Caywood, County Administrator and Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services) D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution 1) designating signatory authority for grant applications to the Virginia Opioid Abatement Authority and 2) voluntarily agreeing to meet the Authority's "gold standard" requirements for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 (Madeline Sefcik, Assistant to the County Administrator) Page 2 of 4 E. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Emergency ordinance authorizing the acceptance of a public access easement located at 7515 Friendship Lane for a sidewalk on private property along Plantation Road and Friendship Lane, Hollins Magisterial District (Due to time constraints for the project, it is requested that the second reading be dispensed with upon an affirmative vote of 4/5ths of the members of the Board, and that this matter be deemed an emergency measure pursuant to Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter) (Megan G. Cronise, Assistant Director of Planning) F. 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) G. 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 — December 7, 2022; December 13, 2022 2. Ordinance authorizing the approval of new variable width drainage easements to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia properties located along Denise Circle for the purpose of drainage improvements, Vinton Magisterial District (Second Reading) 3. Ordinance authorizing the approval of new variable width drainage easements to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on properties on Girard drive for the purpose of drainage improvements, Cave Spring Magisterial District (Second Reading) 4. Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) accept Fairway Ridge Court of Ridge at Fairway Forest Section 3 in the Catawba Magisterial District into the VDOT Secondary Road System 5. Confirmation of appointment to the Roanoke County Board of Zoning Appeals (District) Page 3 of 4 H. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS I. REPORTS 1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report 2. Outstanding Debt Report 3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of February 28, 2023 4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances as of February 28, 2023 5. Accounts Paid — February 28, 2023 6. Statement of Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy as of February 28, 2023 J. WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to discuss the new Police Chief's vision for the Police Department with the Board of Supervisors (Michael Poindexter, Chief of Police) EVENING SESSION — 7:00 P.M. K. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 1. Resolution adopting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia, by incorporating the U.S. Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study (Megan G. Cronise, Assistant Director of Planning) L. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1. Phil C. North 2. Paul M. Mahoney 3. David F. Radford 4. P. Jason Peters 5. Martha B. Hooker N. ADJOURNMENT Page 4 of 4 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: March 28, 2023 AGENDA ITEM: Briefing to discuss with the Board of Supervisors the County Administrator's Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Operating Budget and Proposed Fiscal Year 2024-2033 Capital Improvement Program SUBMITTED BY: Laurie Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Briefing for the Board of Supervisors regarding the County Administrator's Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Operating Budget and Fiscal Year 2024-2033 Capital Improvement Program. BACKGROUND: As part of the annual budget process, the County Administrator presents a balanced operating budget and a balanced ten year capital improvement program for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. This briefing provides an overview of the County Administrator's Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Operating Budget and Ten - Year Proposed Fiscal Year 2024-2033 Capital Improvement Program. DISCUSSION: This time has been scheduled to provide the Board of Supervisors with a briefing on the County Administrator's Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Operating Budget and Proposed Fiscal Year 2024-2033 Capital Improvement Program. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this briefing. The fiscal impact of the operating Page 1 of 2 budget will be determined at budget adoption scheduled for May 23, 2023. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors receive information regarding the County Administrator's Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Operating Budget and Proposed Fiscal Year 2024-2033 Capital Improvement Program. 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: March 28, 2023 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 1) designating signatory authority for grant applications to the Virginia Opioid Abatement Authority and 2) voluntarily agreeing to meet the Authority's "gold standard" requirements for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Madeline L Sefcik Assistant to County Administrator APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Designating signatory authority for grant applications to the Virginia Opioid Abatement Authority and voluntarily agreeing to meet the Authority's "gold standard" requirements for fiscal years 2023 and 2024. BACKGROUND: The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors seek to mitigate and abate the impacts of the opioid epidemic in Roanoke County by using funds received from opioid settlements. One of the ways the County can receive funding is through the Virginia Opioid Abatement Authority (OAA) whose mission is to abate and remediate the opioid epidemic in the Commonwealth through financial support in the form of grants, donations, or other assistance. The OAA has invited each city and county in Virginia to submit proposals for grants to support efforts to treat, prevent, and reduce opioid use disorder and the misuse of opioids in the Commonwealth, this funding will be used to provide opioid mitigation and abatement efforts in Roanoke County. The County intends on preparing and submitting grant proposals for fiscal years 2023 Page 1 of 2 and 2024 that accept the terms and conditions required by the OAA but before doing so must approve a resolution to designate signatory authority for grant applications (both individual and cooperative) to the OAA and to accept the "gold standard." DISCUSSION: Staff held a work session to discuss the opioid abatement process at the March 14, 2023 Board Meeting and based on the direction of the Board prepared a resolution designating signatory authority and accepting the OAA's "gold standard" for the fiscal years 2023 and 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: With adoption of the Opioid Abatement Authority's "Gold Standard" the County will receive an additional twenty-five percent (25%) in OAA funding eligibility in fiscal year 2023-2024. The County anticipates filing an application for funds in the amount of $139,537 (for fiscal year 2023) and $23,473 (for fiscal year 2024), plus the additional incentive amounts of $34,884 (for fiscal year 2023) and $5,868 (for fiscal year 2024), which amounts total $203,762. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the resolution 1) designating signatory authority for grant applications to the Virginia Opioid Abatement Authority and 2) voluntarily agreeing to meet the Authority's "gold standard" requirements for fiscal years 2023 and 2024. 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, MARCH 28, 2023 RESOLUTION 1) DESIGNATING SIGNATORY AUTHORITY FOR GRANT APPLICATIONS TO THE VIRGINIA OPIOID ABATEMENT AUTHORITY AND 2) VOLUNTARILY AGREEING TO MEET THE AUTHORITY'S "GOLD STANDARD" REQUIREMENTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2023 AND 2024 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County seeks to mitigate and abate the impacts of the opioid epidemic in Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, the mission of the Virginia Opioid Abatement Authority (OAA) is to abate and remediate the opioid epidemic in the Commonwealth through financial support in the form of grants, donations, or other assistance; and WHEREAS, the OAA has invited each city and county in Virginia to submit proposals for grants to support efforts to treat, prevent, and reduce opioid use disorder and the misuse of opioids in the Commonwealth; and WHEREAS, the financial assistance offered by the OAA is needed to provide opioid mitigation and abatement efforts in Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, the County intends on preparing and submitting grant proposals for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 that accept the terms and conditions required by the OAA; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County further voluntarily agrees to meet the OAA's "Gold Standard" requirements in return for a 25% increase in OAA funding eligibility during these two fiscal years; and WHEREAS, in addition to any cooperative grant proposals that the County may elect to file (in conjunction with partnering localities), the County anticipates filing an Page 1 of 2 application for funds in the amount of $139,537 (for fiscal year 2023) and $23,473 (for fiscal year 2024), plus the additional incentive amounts of $34,884 (for fiscal year 2023) and $5,868 (for fiscal year 2024), which amounts total $203,762. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, as follows: 1) The Board authorizes the County Administrator or his designee to execute the grant application to the Virginia Opioid Abatement Authority, to accept the grant award, and to execute all documents in connection therewith. 2) The Board voluntarily agrees to meet the OAA's "Gold Standard" requirements for fiscal years 2023 and 2024. Page 2 of 2 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: March 28, 2023 AGENDA ITEM: Emergency ordinance authorizing the acceptance of a public access easement located at 7515 Friendship Lane for a sidewalk on private property along Plantation Road and Friendship Lane, Hollins Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Megan G. Cronise Assistant Director of Planning APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: The Board of Supervisors must adopt an ordinance to acquire a permanent public access easement for public use of sidewalk to be constructed along Plantation Road and Friendship Lane in the Hollins Magisterial District. An Emergency Ordinance is requested to facilitate the expeditious transfer of the property. BACKGROUND: The Plantation Road Bicycle, Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvement Project was initiated in 2009 to implement the 2008 Hollins Area Plan. The original project scope included both sides of Plantation Road, extended from Williamson Road to Interstate 81, and proposed connecting Walrond Park with the Tinker Creek Greenway envisioned along Carvin Creek by constructing bicycle and/or pedestrian accommodations along Walrond Drive and Friendship Lane. Three (3) phases of the project have been funded and constructed through several transportation programs since 2009. Phase 2 of the project, completed in 2022, included construction of a crosswalk with pedestrian signals at the Friendship Lane/Plantation Road corner in the public right-of- way adjacent to the subject property. Due to funding constraints, sidewalk was not constructed along the east side of Plantation Road or along Friendship Lane with that project. Page 1 of 2 InSite Real Estate Investment Properties, LLC. (InSite) entered into a Purchase and Sale Contract with Margaret O. Klapperich for the property located at 7515 Friendship Lane in May 2022. InSite requested that the property be rezoned from R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, to construct a drive-in or fast food restaurant (Quick -Serve Coffee Shop) in June 2022. The Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning request with proffered conditions in August 2022. DISCUSSION: As part of the site plan review process, InSite included sidewalk along the property's Plantation Road and Friendship Lane frontage to conform with the proffered concept plan. It is InSite's preference to construct the sidewalk on its property instead of installing curb, gutter and sidewalk in Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) right-of-way. Because the sidewalk which is intended for public use will be constructed on private property, a permanent public access easement is needed. The site plan for the coffee shop has been approved. InSite has not yet purchased the subject property, therefore the parties to the Deed of Easement are the Board of Supervisors and Margaret O. Klapperich (the current property owner). Staff has requested the Board of Supervisors adopt this ordinance with only one reading (as an emergency measure), to facilitate the expeditious transfer of the property from Mrs. Klapperich to InSite. InSite's inclusion of sidewalk along Plantation Road and Friendship Lane implements the 2008 Hollins Area Plan, the 2020 Hollins Center Plan and the Plantation Road Bicycle, Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvement Project. FISCAL IMPACT: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of the ordinance and it is requested, upon a four -fifths vote of the Board, the second reading be waived, and the ordinance be adopted as an emergency measure. Page 2 of 2 Prepared by: Rachel W. Lower Senior Assistant County Attorney VSB #88094 Office of the County Attorney 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 Exemption claimed: Grantee is exempted from recordation taxes and fees pursuant to §58.1-811(A)(3), Code of Virginia. Roanoke County Tax Map No. 027.06-05-06.00-0000 Property Owner: Margaret O. Klapperich Consideration: $10.00 THIS DEED OF EASEMENT is entered into this day of , 2023, by MARGARET O. KLAPPERICH, ("Grantor") and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, ("Grantee"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of certain property located in the County of Roanoke, Virginia, designated as Roanoke County Tax Map No. 027.06-05-06.00-0000 located at 7515 Friendship Lane, in the Hollins Magisterial District of Roanoke County, Virginia ("Property"); WHEREAS, Grantee needs to acquire a permanent public use easement from Grantor across the Property in order for the general public to use a sidewalk to be installed across the Property; and WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to convey a permanent public use easement to Grantee for such purposes upon the terms and conditions stated below. NOW THEREFORE, THAT, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of TEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10.00), cash in hand paid by the Grantee to Grantor, receipt of which is 1 hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby GRANTS AND CONVEYS a permanent public use easement unto the Grantee and to the general public for the purpose of maintaining, operating, repairing and, if necessary, replacing such sidewalk, with all necessary appurtenances thereto, and Grantor does hereby assign, transfer and set over any and all right, title and interest it may have in and to said existing or future sidewalk and all necessary appurtenances thereto, that may be installed by Grantee within the easement area, said easement being over, through and across real estate lying in the County of Roanoke, Virginia, bearing Official Tax Map No. 027.06-05-06.00-0000 and being more particularly described as follows: A PERMANENT PUBLIC USE EASEMENT, containing 2,553 sq. ft., more or less, designated as "PROPOSED PUBLIC VARIABLE WIDTH SIDEWALK EASEMENT (2,553 SF)" as shown on the plat entitled "PROPOSED EASEMENTS EXHIBIT FOR INSITE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, L.L.0 OF TAX MAP #027.06-05-06.00- 0000 — 0.933 ACRE — INSTRUMENT #202209719 SITUATE ALONG FRIENDSHIP LANE AND PLANTATION ROAD 7521 FRIENDSHIP LANE (f/k/a 7515 FRIENDSHIP LANE) HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA" dated January 25, 2023 and recorded along with this Deed of Easement as Exhibit 1. The parties acknowledge that the above -described easement shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. Members of the general public shall have free access to and use of the sidewalk within the easement area subject to the laws and ordinances of the County of Roanoke or its assigns for pedestrian purposes, including but not limited to: walking, jogging, and hiking. There shall be no access by the County of Roanoke or the public at large granted by this easement to any property of the Grantor other than that described and conveyed herein. Provided, however, Grantor acknowledges that Grantee shall be authorized to enter Grantor's Property immediately adjacent to 2 the area of the easement if such entry is reasonably necessary to maintain, repair or replace such public sidewalk. The general public shall have no right to construct or improve any portion of the easement area. The County of Roanoke shall have no obligation to construct, improve, or maintain any portion of the easement area or public sidewalk, but may do so within the discretion of the County of Roanoke. 2. Public access with any type of motor vehicles, including but not limited to motorcycles, 4-wheel drives, motor bikes, mopeds, ATVs, and snowmobiles, shall be prohibited, except to the extent vehicles are necessary for construction, inspection, emergency calls, maintenance, or reconstruction of the public sidewalk within the easement area by the Grantee or its agents. 3. No building, sign, guardrail, or other structure shall be erected within the area of the easement by the Grantor or located so as to render the easement inaccessible. In the event that this covenant is violated, the Grantee shall not be obligated to repair, replace, or otherwise be responsible for such improvements if damaged or removed by Grantee. 4. There shall be no dumping of ashes, garbage, waste, brush or other unsightly, offensive or hazardous material of any kind on or within the area of the easement by Grantor. 5. There shall be no excavation or dredging on the easement or removal of loam, rock, sand, gravel or other materials by Grantor or Grantee, except as the same may be required to construct and maintain the sidewalk. 6. The Grantee and its agents shall have the right, but not the obligation, to inspect the easement and to cut, clear, and remove all undergrowth, obstructions, or improvements lying within or upon the easement that in any way endanger or interfere with the proper use of the same. 3 7. The Grantor shall be considered the fee owner of the real estate across which the easement conveyed herein will be placed, for purposes of determining development density standards under applicable zoning and land use regulations, and shall be responsible for payment of taxes on the property. 8. At all times during the duration of this easement, Grantor, Grantee and their agents, successors, and assigns shall be liable for their own negligent acts and omissions. 9. In the event any violation of these terms, conditions, or restrictions is found to exist, by either Grantor or Grantee, the other party may, after a thirty (30) day notice to the other party to cure such violation, institute a suit to enjoin by injunction such violation, to require the restoration of the property to its prior condition, or for damages for breach of covenant, or as otherwise permitted by applicable law. 10. The covenants agreed to and the terms, conditions, and restrictions imposed herein shall be binding upon Grantor and Grantee and their agents, heirs, and assigns and shall continue as a servitude running in perpetuity with the described land and are binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties hereto. The easement is subject to all covenants, conditions, restrictions, and other easements of record insofar as they may affect this easement. Pursuant to Ordinance No. , adopted by Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County on , 2023, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, by and through its duly authorized County Administrator, accepts this conveyance in accordance with Section 15.2-1803 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended. Approval of this instrument as to form by the Office of the Roanoke County Attorney, along 4 with the recordation of this instrument by Grantee constitutes Grantee's acceptance of the easement conveyed herein. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ROANOKE MARGARET O. KLAPPERICH GRANTOR to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2023, by Margaret O. Klapperich, Grantor. My commission expires: 5 Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ROANOKE ) ) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY By (SEAL) Richard L. Caywood to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2023, by Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator, for and on behalf of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. My commission expires: Approved as to Form: County Attorney 6 Notary Public Registration No. (SEAL) 1RIABLE WIDTH SIDEWALK EASEMENT -RN RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF FRIENDSHIP LANE IVA SEC RTE 10AD (VA RTE 41115I, THENCE TRAVELING WITH SAID ERSECTION WITH THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE OF THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNINGTHENCE WITH SAID PROPERTY \ND TRAVELING THROUGH NEW LOT Al (FAX PARCEL " W, G6.09", THENCE S 57.2G'43" W 29.804 THENCE S 57"0032" 1.3.03'; I HENCE 5 48'55' 2C W, 5.33'; I HENCE S 513721'08" W 19.G7': A RADIUS OF 10.00', A TANGENT OF 8.43 AN ANGLE OF W 42.53',THENCE WITH A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A LENGTH 1'49" AND A CI IORD OF 512'2/'Sn" F,1/./ 1 TI IFNC:F IS LE- 49.554 A I ANGLN I OF 5.83' AN ANGLE OF 13'25'35" AND THENCE WITH A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A LENGTH OF 5.71', , AND A CHORE OF S 15'25'15" E,5.70 THENCE S 17' 14'17" E, 1ERN PROPERTY LINE OF THE MIKEONE EK ROANOKE LLC ITY LINEN 16'4G'51" W, 52.88'; THENCE N 17'14'17" W, 5.09", IONED HIGH I OF WAY OF PLAN! AI ION ROAD; !HENCE N A CURVE TO TI IF RIGI IT WITI I A LENGTI I OF 5.35 A RADIUS HORG OF N 15"1010" W, G.95", THENCE N 9"07'45" W, 14.17'; RADIUS OF 42.53', A TANGENT OF 4.80 AN ANGLE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A LENGTH OF 21.71'A RADIUS OF DRD OF N 12"32'15" W. 21.42', THENCE NR"3623 F 42./R'. A RADIUS OF 25.00' A TANGENT OF 11.53 AN ANGLE OF .1'08" E 10.32', THENCE N 48"55.23" E 4.42 THENCE N 41'27.29" DF FRIENDSHIP LANE; THENCE N 57"3209" E, 142.55' TO THE 1 SIDEWALK EASEMENT THROUGH NEW LOT Al EFAX fC URVE TABLE CHORD DIRECTION CHORD LENGTH 3P1839, 15.41' 12'27'63" E 17.73' 1502'49" E 11.59' 15'2516"E 21.42' N 30'29'22" E 21.23' SIDE LINE k 5L13 5L14 SL15 SUS SL17 KIS SUS 5L20 SL21 SL22 SL23 ALK EASEMENT LINE TABLE DIRECTION LENGTH 558"07'41"\V/ 52.88' 12.10' N 9'07'43 W 14., N 6'23'221 E 42.78 N 58'21'09" E 19.32' N 48'55'26' E N a1'2/'29" E 13.89' N 5713209" E 142.95' LOCATION MAP BY ROANOKE COUNTY GIS NO SCALE OWNER INFORMATION: OWNER, MARG,ARET OGHOA KLAPPERICH LEGAL REF.: INSTRUMENT N201805317 S H201300505 TAX MAP: GE" /.054 ,-39.nit-01t01t, 432 /,/ '.-n.H-n /..11t-lt 11 1 7027.06-05-08.00-0000 1.1i parker DESIGN GROUP 2122 Carolina Ave, SW Roanoke, VA 24014 Ph: 540-387-1153 1915-B W. Cary S[rcc4 Richmond, VA 23220 Phone: 804-358-2947 www.parkerdg.com c' STEVEN C. BARBA 'a Lic. No. 003125 03-13-2023 REVISIONS END REV: 2-17-2023 3RD REV. 3-13-2023 SCR/REC DRAWN BY SCB/REC CHECKED BHT SGB SCALE 1" = 20' DATE 24 JANUARY, 2023 4RaLE_TN 22-0173:01 SHEET NO. 1 OF 2 SEWER MANHOLE TOP'. 1111.73. 8"PVC PIPE INV.: 1098.68' APPROX ARCO EASEMENT D.B. 7315, PG. 7467 (EXCEPTION #8) NA TERLINE EASEMENT INST, #201507685 (EXCEPTION #6) RLAN SIGNAL P N20°01'24"E 19.00 aL S 80°00'08" E POWER VAULT 4./ 106 L18 SIGNAL POLE APPROX. APCO EASEMENT D.B. 1348, PG. 777 (EXCEPTION #7) SL8 FR/ENDSH/P LANE- RTE. 1895 VAR/ABLE W/D TH R MBL /C RAN N 57'32'09"E i 198.46' SL6 Mi e 8SL7 SL5 AREA DEDICATED IN INST, 1207507683 (EXCEPTION #6) 7'08"E 10. 6 APCO EASEMENT SH.P.B, 14, PG 310 0243 ACRE T T.M. 102706-05-07.00-0000 (FORMER PARCEL 6. -SL 11 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT INSTRUMENT #201507683 (EXCEPTION #6) VACATED BY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AS INST.M TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT INSTRUMENT jj207507683 (EXCEPTION #6) 36"RCP INV.:1098.71' STORM MANHOLE TOP:1107.53' INV.: 1100.5'± 12"RCP INV.:1007.33' SL3 SL2 PROPOSED PUBLIC VARIABLE WIDTH SIDEWALK EASEMENT (2,553 SF) > }STORY BRLCK 2,339 SF 0,523 ACRE TM #02706-05-06,00-0000 (FORMER PARCEL A) 7527 FRIENDSHIP LANE (r/k/a 7575 FRIENDSHIP LANE) LINE VACATED BY COMBINATION PLAT RECORDED SEPT 15, 2022 AS INST #202209719 01. ACRE TM. y02706-05-08.00-0000 FORMER PARCEL En 249.55' S 58°07'41" W DRAINAGE DITCH 87515&7517 10 DRAINAGE EASEMENT VDOT PLAN 0775-080-103 RW-202 SHEET 4 PROPERTY OF M/KEONE EK ROANOKE LLC INST /201501045 T.M. j027.0B-05-02.00-0000 3ASED ON FIELD sS !TICKET ,URVEY. REMARKING OF BIBLE EARTH WORK IS LEGEND: 0 DEEDED CORNER • IRON PIN FOUND -OHW- OVERHEAD WIRES -W- UNDERGROUND WATER ® STORM MANHOLE -SAN- UNDERGROUND SEWER X— FENCE ® SEWER MANHOLE UTILITY POLE UNDERGROUND STORM PIPE RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE OO IRON PIN SET • U IILIIYPLEES I AL MBS MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK INDICATES EXCEPTION ITEM NO. BENCHMARK. TOP OF IROI ELEV. 1696.79'(NA • TPF 1632' AREA DEDICATED IN D.B. 667, PG 574 S.H.P.R. 4, PG 251 (EXCEPTION #4) PROPERTY OF ALFREO L. HUGHES, JR. CAROL A. HUGHES 81LL INST. 1201500055 T.M. 5027.06-05-04.00-0000 get parker DESIGN GROUP 2122 Carolina Ave, SW Roanoke, VA 24014 Ph: 540-387-1153 1915-B W. Cary Scree1 Richmond, VA 23220 Phone: 804-358-2947 www.parkerdg.com 41,PV,TH 0p .' STEVEN C. HAREM a UP. No. 003125 03 -13 -2023 C,1ND SU RV S.k. REVISIONS 2ND REV: 2-17-2023 3R0 REV. 3-13-2023 CALL. BY SGB/REG DRAWN ev. SGB/REG CHECKED BY SUB SCALE 1" = 20' DATE 25 JANUARY, 2023 PROJECT NUMBER. 22-0173:01 20F2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2023 EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT LOCATED AT 7515 FRIENDSHIP LANE FOR A SIDEWALK ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ALONG PLANTATION ROAD AND FRIENDSHIP LANE, HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Roanoke County's Plantation Road Bicycle, Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvement Plan was initiated in 2009, and its scope envisions the construction of pedestrian accommodations along Friendship Lane in Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, the owner of the property located at 7515 Friendship Lane (Roanoke County Tax Map No: 027.06-05-06.00-0000) agrees to convey a permanent public use easement across the said property in order for the general public to use a sidewalk to be installed across the said property; and WHEREAS, the said sidewalk would assist in implementing the Plantation Road Bicycle, Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 28, 2023, and the second reading has been dispensed with, upon an affirmative vote of 4/5ths of the members of the Board, this being deemed to be an emergency measure pursuant to Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: Page 1 of 2 1. That the conveyance of a new permanent public use easement by Margaret O. Klapperich to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, in the Hollins Magisterial District, located at 7515 Friendship Lane (Roanoke County Tax Map No: 027.06-05- 06.00-0000), shown and designated as "PROPOSED PUBLIC VARIABLE WIDTH SIDEWALK EASEMENT (2,553 SF)" upon the plat entitled "PROPOSED EASEMENTS EXHIBIT FOR INSITE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, L.L.0 OF TAX MAP #027.06-05-06.00-0000 — 0.933 ACRE — INSTRUMENT #202209719 SITUATE ALONG FRIENDSHIP LANE AND PLANTATION ROAD 7521 FRIENDSHIP LANE (f/k/a 7515 FRIENDSHIP LANE) HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA" prepared by Parker Design Group, dated January 25, 2023, is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator, any of whom may act, are authorized to execute, deliver and record the deed, and any other documents on behalf of the County, and to take all such further action as any of them may deem necessary or desirable in connection with this project. The form of the deed is hereby approved with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes as the County Administrator may approve, whose approval shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery thereof, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney's Office. 3. An emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption. 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: March 28, 2023 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 Arthur's five (5) year term representing the Windsor Hills Magisterial District expired June 30, 2022. 2. Roanoke County Economic Development Authority (EDA)(appointed by District): Steve Musselwhite's four-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 Windsor Hills Magisterial District Page 1 of 2 4. Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission (appointed by District): The following appointments remain open: Mike Roop's three (3) year term representing the Vinton Magisterial District expired 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 TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2023 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I- 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 March 28, 2023, designated as Item G - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 5 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes — December 7, 2022; December 13, 2022 2. Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) accept Fairway Ridge Court in the Catawba Magisterial District into the VDOT Secondary Road System 3. Ordinance authorizing the approval of new variable width drainage easements to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia properties located along Denise Circle for the purpose of drainage improvements, Vinton Magisterial District (Second Reading) 4. Ordinance authorizing the approval of new variable width drainage easements to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on properties on Girard drive for the purpose of drainage improvements, Cave Spring Magisterial District (Second Reading) 5. Confirmation of appointment to the Roanoke County Board of Zoning Appeals (District) Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 28, 2023 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance authorizing the approval of new variable width drainage easements to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia properties located along Denise Circle for the purpose of drainage improvements, Vinton Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Tarek Moneir Director of Development Services APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of public drainage easements for multiple properties to facilitate construction of drainage improvements using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funds BACKGROUND: The drainage improvements projects selected for construction using ARPA funds were selected from the priority list maintained by the Stormwater Operations Division of the Department of Development Services. The selected projects involve long-standing drainage issues which have typically been the source of numerous complaints or maintenance issues. Additional easements maybe needed in some cases to construct the required drainage improvements. Denise Circle Drainage Improvements, Vinton Magisterial District: Tax Parcel ID 039.04-01-32.00, Randall Light & Susan Light Tax Parcel ID 039.04-01-26.00, Rosemarie Novotny Page 1 of 2 DISCUSSION: The Owners of the impacted parcels have generously agreed to donate public drainage easements to Roanoke County for construction and maintenance of storm drainage improvements. The new easements will be public drainage easements to allow for construction and maintenance of the proposed improvements. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no cost to Roanoke County for preparation of the easement, as the deeds and plats have been prepared by Roanoke County staff. Construction cost for this improvement have previously approved by the Board of Supervisors. Roanoke County will administer the construction and maintenance of the drainage improvements. There have been no changes since the first reading of this ordinance on March 14, 2023. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the attached ordinance. Page 2 of 2 ead Mountain rr ve Roanoke Co,."'VkLginia 2019, VITA, Esri, HERE,,Garmin, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS, Proposed Easements 75 150 Denise Circle Public Drainag( District: Bonsack Easements Date: 3/ st lDi9 .Source: Esri,.Earthstar i s • AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2023 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF NEW VARIABLE WIDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENTS TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, ON PROPERTIES ON DENISE CIRCLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, it appears that improvements to a drainage system located on two properties on Denise Circle in the Vinton Magisterial District are needed; and WHEREAS, the names of the property owners for the individual properties at issue (collectively, "Property Owners") and the corresponding tax map numbers across which the variable width drainage easements will lie are set forth on this chart: Address Tax Map No. Owner 2044 Denise Circle 039.04-01-32.00-0000 Randall Lee Light & Susan B. Light 2049 Denise Circle 039.04-01-26.00-0000 Rosemarie Novotny WHEREAS, in order to assist the Property Owners in making such drainage system improvements, the County has requested that the Property Owners grant new variable width drainage easements to the County; and WHEREAS, the Property Owners have agreed to convey the new variable width drainage easements to the County; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 14, 2023, and the second reading was held on March 28, 2023. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: Page 1 of 2 1. That the conveyance of these new variable width drainage easements by the Property Owners to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, in the Vinton Magisterial District, is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator is authorized to execute, deliver and record the deed, and any other documents on behalf of the County, and to take all such further action as any of them may deem necessary or desirable in connection with this project. The form of the deed is hereby approved with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes as the County Administrator may approve, whose approval shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery thereof, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 3. That this ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption. Page 2of2 Return to: Roanoke County Attorney's Office Prepared and Recorded by Roanoke County Attorney Office Mary Beth Nash, VSB: 38800 5204 Bernard Drive P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Tax Map No 039.04-01-32.00-0000 Exemption Claimed: Grantee is exempt from recordation taxes and fees pursuant to Section 58.1- 811(A)(3) and (C)(5) of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. This Deed of Easement, made this day of 2023, by and between RANDALL LEE LIGHT and SUSAN B. LIGHT, hereinafter referred to as "Grantors" and THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, its successors or assigns, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee." WITNESSETH That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors hereby GRANT and CONVEY with General Warranty and Modern English Covenants of Title unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, the following described easements in the County of Roanoke, Virginia, to -wit: A new DRAINAGE EASEMENT of variable width and consisting of approximately 1180 square feet, to construct, install, improve, operate, inspect, use, maintain, remove, monitor, repair or replace present or future drainage courses, ditches, lines, pipes, facilities, and other necessary or related structures, appurtenances and improvements, for management, collection, transmission and distribution of any form of drainage, including but not limited to stormwater drainage, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to the Grantors and designated on the Roanoke County Land records as Tax Map No. 039.04-01-32.00-0000. A variable width TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT of approximately 1315 square feet to construct, install, improve, operate, inspect, use, maintain, remove, monitor, repair or replace present or future drainage courses, ditches, lines, pipes, facilities, and other necessary or related structures, appurtenances and improvements, for management, collection, transmission and distribution of any form of drainage, including but not limited to stormwater drainage, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to the Grantors and designated on the Roanoke County Land records as Tax Map No. 039.04-01-32.00-0000. These easements are shown and designated on the document entitled "PLAT OF DRAINAGE AND CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT for COUNTY OF ROANOKE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS and RANDALL LEE LIGHT and SUSAN B. LIGHT, 2044 DENISE CIRCLE, VINTON MAG. DISTRICT, ROANOKE, VA, TAX PARCEL 039.04-01-32.00-0000", dated March 15, 2023, prepared by Nickie D. Mills, Land Surveyor for Roanoke County Department of Development Services, Virginia License 0403003418. The location of said easements is more particularly described on the plat attached hereto as Exhibit A which is incorporated by reference herein. The Grantee agrees to restore and repair any actual damage to Grantors' property which may be directly caused by the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of or within the easement, except as hereinafter provided. The Grantors agree that the Grantee will not be expected to restore the property to Page 1 of 4 the identical original condition, but rather as near thereto as is practicable, and that the Grantors will cooperate with the Grantee in effectuating such restoration. The Grantee shall have full use of the easement for the purposes hereinabove set forth and shall have all rights and privileges reasonably necessary to the exercise of the easement. It is expressly agreed between the parties hereto that the Grantee and its agents hall have the right to inspect the easement and to trim, cut, clear, and remove all undergrowth, obstructions, or improvements lying within, upon or immediately adjacent to the easement, that in any way endanger or interfere with the proper use of the same. The Grantors covenant that no buildings, structures or other improvements of any kind whatsoever shall be erected upon or within the easement herein granted or placed in such location as to render the easement inaccessible. In the event that this covenant is violated, the Grantee shall not be obligated to repair, replace, or otherwise be responsible for such improvements if damage or removed. The fixtures, facilities, lines, utilities, and any other improvements placed upon, under or across the property by the Grantee shall remain the property of the Grantee. The easement herein granted is in addition to, and not lieu of, any easement or right-of-way now in existence or which may be acquired in the future. The Grantors covenant and agree for themselves, and their successors and assigns, that the consideration aforementioned and the covenants herein shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation and damages by reason of the location, construction, operation, maintenance or reconstruction of or within the easement herein granted. To have and to hold unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. This deed is exempt from the recordation tax imposed by Section 58.1-801, Code of Virginia, pursuant to Section 58.1-811 A.3., Code of Virginia. This instrument is executed by a duly authorized administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, to signify acceptance by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County of the real estate conveyed herein pursuant to Action No. adopted by said Board of Supervisors on the day of 2023. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: *********remainder of page intentionally blank***************** Page 2 of 4 RANDALL LEE LIGHT Commonwealth of Virginia, County of Roanoke, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2023, by Randall Lee Light. My Commission Expires: Notary Public Reg.# SUSAN B. LIGHT Commonwealth of Virginia, County of Roanoke, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2023, by Susan B. Light. My Commission Expires: Notary Public Reg.# Approved as to form: THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY By: Senior Assistant County Attorney Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator Page 3 of 4 Commonwealth of Virginia, County of Roanoke, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2023, by Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator, on behalf of The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County. My Commission Expires: Notary Public Reg.# Page 4 of 4 Return to: Roanoke County Attorney's Office Prepared and Recorded by Roanoke County Attorney Office Mary Beth Nash, VSB: 38800 5204 Bernard Drive P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Tax Map No 039.04-01-26.00-0000 Exemption Claimed: Grantee is exempt from recordation taxes and fees pursuant to Section 58.1- 811(A)(3) and (C)(5) of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. This Deed of Easement, made this day of 2023, by and between ROSEMARIE NOVOTNY, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor" and THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, its successors or assigns, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee." WITNESSETH That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor hereby GRANTS and CONVEYS with General Warranty and Modern English Covenants of Title unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, the following described easements in the County of Roanoke, Virginia, to -wit: A new DRAINAGE EASEMENT, of approximately 2758 square feet. of variable width, to construct, install, improve, operate, inspect, use, maintain, remove, monitor, repair or replace present or future drainage courses, ditches, lines, pipes, facilities, and other necessary or related structures, appurtenances and improvements, for management, collection, transmission and distribution of any form of drainage, including but not limited to stormwater drainage, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to the Grantors and designated on the Roanoke County Land records as Tax Map No. 039.04-01-26.00-0000. This easement is shown and designated on the document entitled "PLAT OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT for COUNTY OF ROANOKE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS and ROSEMARIE NOVOTNY, 2049 DENISE CIRCLE, VINTON MAG. DISTRICT, ROANOKE, VA, TAX PARCEL 039.04-01-26.00-0000", dated March 15, 2023, prepared by Nickie D. Mills, Land Surveyor for Roanoke County Department of Development Services, Virginia License 0403003418. The location of said easements is more particularly described on the plat attached hereto as Exhibit A which is incorporated by reference herein. The Grantee agrees to restore and repair any actual damage to Grantor's property which may be directly caused by the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of or within the easement, except as hereinafter provided. The Grantor agrees that the Grantee will not be expected to restore the property to the identical original condition, but rather as near thereto as is practicable, and that the Grantor will cooperate with the Grantee in effectuating such restoration. The Grantee shall have full use of the easement for the purposes hereinabove set forth and shall have all rights and privileges reasonably necessary to the exercise of the easement. It is expressly agreed between the parties hereto that the Grantee and its agents hall have the right to inspect the easement and to trim, cut, clear, and remove all undergrowth, obstructions, or improvements lying within, upon or Page 1 of 3 immediately adjacent to the easement, that in any way endanger or interfere with the proper use of the same. The Grantor covenants that no buildings, structures or other improvements of any kind whatsoever shall be erected upon or within the easement herein granted or placed in such location as to render the easement inaccessible. In the event that this covenant is violated, the Grantee shall not be obligated to repair, replace, or otherwise be responsible for such improvements if damage or removed. The fixtures, facilities, lines, utilities, and any other improvements placed upon, under or across the property by the Grantee shall remain the property of the Grantee. The easement herein granted is in addition to, and not lieu of, any easement or right-of-way now in existence or which may be acquired in the future. The Grantor covenants and agrees for herself, and her successors and assigns, that the consideration aforementioned and the covenants herein shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation and damages by reason of the location, construction, operation, maintenance or reconstruction of or within the easement herein granted. To have and to hold unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. This deed is exempt from the recordation tax imposed by Section 58.1-801, Code of Virginia, pursuant to Section 58.1-811 A.3., Code of Virginia. This instrument is executed by a duly authorized administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, to signify acceptance by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County of the real estate conveyed herein pursuant to Action No. adopted by said Board of Supervisors on the day of 2023. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: *********remainder of page intentionally blank***************** Page 2 of 3 ROSEMARIE NOVOTNY Commonwealth of Virginia, County of Roanoke, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2023, by Rosemarie Novotny. My Commission Expires: Notary Public Reg.# Approved as to form: THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY By: Senior Assistant County Attorney Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator Commonwealth of Virginia, County of Roanoke, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2023, by Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator, on behalf of The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County. My Commission Expires: Notary Public Reg.# Page 3 of 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 28, 2023 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance authorizing the approval of new variable width drainage easements to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on properties on Girard drive for the purpose of drainage improvements, Cave Spring Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Tarek Moneir Director of Development Services APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Ordinance authorizing the approval of new variable width drainage easements to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on properties located within Eton Hills along Girard Drive for the purpose of drainage improvements using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. BACKGROUND: The drainage improvements projects selected for construction with ARPA funds were selected from the priority list maintained by the Stormwater Operations Division of Department of Development Services. The selected projects involve long standing drainage issues, which have typically been the source of numerous complaints or maintenance issues. Additional temporary easements maybe needed in many cases to construct the required drainage improvements. DISCUSSION: The Owners of the impacted parcels shown within the attached exhibit (Exhibit A) have generously agreed to donate public drainage easements to Roanoke County for construction and maintenance of storm drainage improvements. The new easements Page 1 of 2 will remain public drainage easements to allow for construction and maintenance of the proposed improvements. Listed here below is a list of easements along with current owners slated for acquisition, all within Cave Spring Magisterial District. Tax Parcel ID 077.17-02-46.00, Barry Agnew & Elizabeth Merritt Tax Parcel ID 077.17-02-45.00, Maurice Saunders & Judith Saunders Tax Parcel ID 077.17-02-44.00, James Burnett & Julie Leighton Tax Parcel ID 077.17-02-43.00, Shirley Evans Tax Parcel ID 077.17-02-42.00, Mark Tanis Tax Parcel ID 077.17-02-41.00, Robert Perdue & Jennifer Perdue Tax Parcel ID 077.17-02-11.00, Michael Simons FISCAL IMPACT: There is no additional cost to Roanoke County for preparation of the easement, as the deeds and plats have been prepared by Roanoke County staff. Cost of construction improvement is part of the ARPA funds previously approved by Board of Supervisors. Roanoke County Department of Development Services will administer the construction and maintenance of the drainage improvements. There have been no changes since the first reading of this ordinance held on March 14, 2023. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached 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 TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2023 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF NEW VARIABLE WIDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENTS TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, ON PROPERTIES ON GIRARD DRIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, it appears that improvements to a drainage system located on six adjacent properties on Girard Road in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, are needed; and WHEREAS, the names of the property owners for the individual properties at issue (collectively, "Property Owners") and the corresponding tax map numbers across which the variable width drainage easements will lie are set forth on this chart: Address Tax Map No. Owner 4515 Girard Drive 077.17-02-41.00-0000 Robert D. & Jennifer A. Perdue 4525 Girard Drive 077.17-02-42.00-0000 Mark D. Tanis 4531 Girard Drive 077.17-02-43.00-0000 Shirley D. Evans 4537 Girard Drive 077.17-02-44.00-0000 James S. Burnett & Julie E. Leighton 4543 Girard Drive 077.17-02-45.00-0000 Saunders Living Trust 4557 Girard Drive 077.17-02-46.00-0000 Barry K. Agnew & Elizabeth M. Merritt 4566 Girard Drive 077.17-02-11.00-0000 Michael Allen Simons Jr. WHEREAS, in order to assist the Property Owners in making such drainage system improvements, the County has requested that the Property Owners grant new variable width drainage easements to the County; and WHEREAS, the Property Owners have agreed to convey the new variable width drainage easements to the County; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the Page 1 of 2 first reading of this ordinance was held on March 14, 2023, and the second reading was held on March 28, 2023. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the conveyance of these new variable width drainage easements by the Property Owners to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator is authorized to execute, deliver and record the deed, and any other documents on behalf of the County, and to take all such further action as any of them may deem necessary or desirable in connection with this project. The form of the deed is hereby approved with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes as the County Administrator may approve, whose approval shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery thereof, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 3. That this ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption. Page 2 of 2 1-509 Eton Hill Public Drainage Easements District: Cave Spring Date: 3/9/2023 _r l 2 Salem <. C OL.V.V,, ,..koo Count Roanoke County, Virginia 2019, VITA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS 2, Source: 4E;02 r, a ..zm [ [i t f PREPARED BY: Rachel W. Lower, Sr. Assistant County Attorney VSB # 88094 Office of the County Attorney 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 This instrument is exempt from the imposition offees and taxes pursuant to § 58.1-811(A)(3) and § 17.1-266 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Roanoke County Tax Map No: 077.17-02-46.00-0000 Property Owners: Barry K. Agnew & Elizabeth M. Agnew THIS DEED OF EASEMENT is entered into this day of 2022, by and between BARRY K. AGNEW and ELIZABETH M. AGNEW, Grantors, and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee. WITNESSETH That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), paid in hand at and with the execution and delivery of this Deed, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantors do hereby GRANT and CONVEY unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, the following described real estate for drainage purposes: A new five (5) foot (645 square foot) public drainage easement to construct, install, improve, operate, inspect, use, maintain, and repair or replace a drainage system, together with related improvements, including slope(s), if applicable, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to Barry K. Agnew and Elizabeth M. Agnew, Grantors, shown and designated as "NEW 5' PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT 645 S.F." upon the Plat entitled "PLAT SHOWING NEW 5' WIDE PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON LOT 14, BLOCK 2 SECTION #2 — "ETON HILL" P.B. 6, PG. 4 PROPERTY OF BARRY K. AGNEW & ELIZABETH M. MERRITT BEING GRANTED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY SITUATED AT #4557 GIRARD DRIVE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA" prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated July 28, 2022, said parcel being designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map #077.17-02-46.00-0000. The location of said easement is more particularly Page 1of5 described on the plat attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and by reference incorporated herein. The drainage easement being for the installation and maintenance of a drainage system, and to allow for necessary grading and storage during any phase of construction, reconstruction, repair or replacements of the improvements to the drainage system, the location of which is set forth on the plat. The Grantee agrees to restore and repair any actual damage to Grantors' property that may be directly caused by the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of said project except as hereinafter provided. The Grantors agree that the Grantee will not be expected to restore the property to the identical original condition, but rather as near thereto as is practicable, and that the Grantors will cooperate with the Grantee in effectuating such restoration. It is expressly agreed between the parties hereto that the Grantee and its agents have the right to inspect the easement herein granted and to cut, clear, and remove all trees, shrubbery, undergrowth, obstructions, or improvements lying within, upon, or adjacent to said easement that in any way endanger or interfere with the proper use of the same. The Grantors covenant that no building or structure shall be erected upon or within the easement herein granted or placed in such location as to render said easement inaccessible. In the event that this covenant is violated, the Grantee shall not be obligated to repair, replace, or otherwise be responsible for such improvements if damaged or removed. The Grantors acknowledge that the plans for the aforesaid project as they affect Grantors' property have been fully explained to Grantors. The fixtures, facilities, lines, utilities, and any other improvements placed upon, under, or across the easement by the Grantee shall remain the property of the Grantee. The easement herein granted is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any easement or right-of-way now in existence or which may be acquired in the future. Page 2of5 The Grantors covenant and agree for themselves, and for their successors and assigns that the consideration aforementioned and the covenants herein shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation and damages by reason of the location, construction, operation, maintenance, or reconstruction of or within the easement area. The grant and provision of this Deed of Easement shall constitute a covenant running with the land for the benefit of the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance by the Board of Supervisors of the interest in the real estate conveyed herein pursuant to Action No. adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on the day of , 20 WITNESS the following signatures and seals: By Barry K. Agnew State of Virginia County/City of , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20, by Barry K. Agnew. My commission expires: Notary Public Page 3 of 5 By Elizabeth M. Agnew State of Virginia County/City of , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20, by Elizabeth M. Agnew. My commission expires: Notary Public Page4of5 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator State of Virginia County of Roanoke, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20, by Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Notary Public My commission expires: Approved as to form: County Attorney Page 5 of 5 PREPARED BY: Rachel W. Lower, Sr. Assistant County Attorney VSB # 88094 Office of the County Attorney 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 This instrument is exempt from the imposition offees and taxes pursuant to § 58.1-811(A)(3) and § 17.1-266 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Roanoke County Tax Map No: 077.17-02-44.00-0000 Property Owner: James S. Burnett & Julie E. Leighton THIS DEED OF EASEMENT is entered into this day of 2022, by and between JAMES S. BURNETT and JULIE E. LEIGHTON, Grantors, and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee. WITNESSETH That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), paid in hand at and with the execution and delivery of this Deed, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantors do hereby GRANT and CONVEY unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, the following described real estate for drainage purposes: A new five (5) foot (375 square foot) public drainage easement to construct, install, improve, operate, inspect, use, maintain, and repair or replace a drainage system, together with related improvements, including slope(s), if applicable, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to James S. Burnett and Julie E. Leighton, Grantors, shown and designated as "NEW 5' PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT 375 S.F." upon the Plat entitled "PLAT SHOWING NEW 5' WIDE PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON LOT 12, BLOCK 2 SECTION #2 — "ETON HILL" P.B. 6, PG. 4 PROPERTY OF JAMES S. BURNETT & JULIE E. LEIGHTON BEING GRANTED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY SITUATED AT #4537 GIRARD DRIVE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA" prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated July 28, 2022, said parcel being designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map #077.17-02-44.00-0000. The location of said easement is more particularly Page 1of5 described on the plat attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and by reference incorporated herein. The drainage easement being for the installation and maintenance of a drainage system, and to allow for necessary grading and storage during any phase of construction, reconstruction, repair or replacements of the improvements to the drainage system, the location of which is set forth on the plat. The Grantee agrees to restore and repair any actual damage to Grantors' property that may be directly caused by the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of said project except as hereinafter provided. The Grantors agree that the Grantee will not be expected to restore the property to the identical original condition, but rather as near thereto as is practicable, and that the Grantors will cooperate with the Grantee in effectuating such restoration. It is expressly agreed between the parties hereto that the Grantee and its agents have the right to inspect the easement herein granted and to cut, clear, and remove all trees, shrubbery, undergrowth, obstructions, or improvements lying within, upon, or adjacent to said easement that in any way endanger or interfere with the proper use of the same. The Grantors covenant that no building or structure shall be erected upon or within the easement herein granted or placed in such location as to render said easement inaccessible. In the event that this covenant is violated, the Grantee shall not be obligated to repair, replace, or otherwise be responsible for such improvements if damaged or removed. The Grantors acknowledge that the plans for the aforesaid project as they affect Grantors' property have been fully explained to Grantors. The fixtures, facilities, lines, utilities, and any other improvements placed upon, under, or across the easement by the Grantee shall remain the property of the Grantee. The easement herein granted is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any easement or right-of-way now in existence or which may be acquired in the future. Page 2of5 The Grantors covenant and agree for themselves, and for their successors and assigns that the consideration aforementioned and the covenants herein shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation and damages by reason of the location, construction, operation, maintenance, or reconstruction of or within the easement area. The grant and provision of this Deed of Easement shall constitute a covenant running with the land for the benefit of the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance by the Board of Supervisors of the interest in the real estate conveyed herein pursuant to Action No. adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on the day of , 20 WITNESS the following signatures and seals: By James S. Burnett State of Virginia County/City of , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20, by James S. Burnett. My commission expires: Notary Public Page 3 of 5 By Julie E. Leighton State of Virginia County/City of , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20, by Julie E. Leighton. My commission expires: Notary Public Page4of5 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator State of Virginia County of Roanoke, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20, by Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Notary Public My commission expires: Approved as to form: County Attorney Page 5 of 5 PREPARED BY: Rachel W. Lower, Sr. Assistant County Attorney VSB # 88094 Office of the County Attorney 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 This instrument is exempt from the imposition offees and taxes pursuant to § 58.1-811(A)(3) and § 17.1-266 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Roanoke County Tax Map No: 077.17-02-43.00-0000 Property Owner: Shirley D. Evans THIS DEED OF EASEMENT is entered into this day of 2022, by and between SHIRLEY D. EVANS, Grantor, and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee. WITNESSETH That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), paid in hand at and with the execution and delivery of this Deed, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, the following described real estate for drainage purposes: A new 5 (five) foot (375 square foot) public drainage easement to construct, install, improve, operate, inspect, use, maintain, and repair or replace a drainage system, together with related improvements, including slope(s), if applicable, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to Shirley D. Evans, Grantor, shown and designated as "NEW 5' PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT 375 S.F." upon the Plat entitled "PLAT SHOWING NEW 5' WIDE PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON LOT 11, BLOCK 2 SECTION #2 — "ETON HILL" P.B. 6, PG. 4 PROPERTY OF SHIRLEY D. EVENS BEING GRANTED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY SITUATED AT #4531 GIRARD DRIVE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA" prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated July 28, 2022, said parcel being designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map #077.17-02-43.00-0000. The location of said easement is Page 1 of 4 more particularly described on the plat attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and by reference incorporated herein. The drainage easement being for the installation and maintenance of a drainage system, and to allow for necessary grading and storage during any phase of construction, reconstruction, repair or replacements of the improvements to the drainage system, the location of which is set forth on the plat. The Grantee agrees to restore and repair any actual damage to Grantor's property that may be directly caused by the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of said project except as hereinafter provided. The Grantor agrees that the Grantee will not be expected to restore the property to the identical original condition, but rather as near thereto as is practicable, and that the Grantor will cooperate with the Grantee in effectuating such restoration. It is expressly agreed between the parties hereto that the Grantee and its agents have the right to inspect the easement herein granted and to cut, clear, and remove all trees, shrubbery, undergrowth, obstructions, or improvements lying within, upon, or adjacent to said easement that in any way endanger or interfere with the proper use of the same. The Grantor covenants that no building or structure shall be erected upon or within the easement herein granted or placed in such location as to render said easement inaccessible. In the event that this covenant is violated, the Grantee shall not be obligated to repair, replace, or otherwise be responsible for such improvements if damaged or removed. The Grantor acknowledges that the plans for the aforesaid project as they affect Grantor's property have been fully explained to Grantor. The fixtures, facilities, lines, utilities, and any other improvements placed upon, under, or across the easement by the Grantee shall remain the property of the Grantee. The easement herein granted is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any easement or right-of-way now in existence or which may be acquired in the future. Page 2 of 4 The Grantor covenants and agrees for themselves, and for their successors and assigns that the consideration aforementioned and the covenants herein shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation and damages by reason of the location, construction, operation, maintenance, or reconstruction of or within the easement area. The grant and provision of this Deed of Easement shall constitute a covenant running with the land for the benefit of the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance by the Board of Supervisors of the interest in the real estate conveyed herein pursuant to Action No. adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on the day of , 20 WITNESS the following signatures and seals: By Shirley D. Evans State of Virginia County/City of , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20, by Shirley D. Evans. My commission expires: Notary Public Page 3 of 4 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator State of Virginia County of Roanoke, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20, by Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Notary Public My commission expires: Approved as to form: County Attorney Page 4 of 4 PREPARED BY: Rachel W. Lower, Sr. Assistant County Attorney VSB # 88094 Office of the County Attorney 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 This instrument is exempt from the imposition offees and taxes pursuant to § 58.1-811(A)(3) and § 17.1-266 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Roanoke County Tax Map No: 077.17-02-41.00-0000 Property Owners: Robert D. Perdue & Jennifer A. Perdue THIS DEED OF EASEMENT is entered into this day of 2022, by and between ROBERT D. PERDUE and JENNIFER A. PERDUE, Grantors, and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee. WITNESSETH That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), paid in hand at and with the execution and delivery of this Deed, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantors do hereby GRANT and CONVEY unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, the following described real estate for drainage purposes: A new variable width (1,558 square foot) public drainage easement to construct, install, improve, operate, inspect, use, maintain, and repair or replace a drainage system, together with related improvements, including slope(s), if applicable, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to Robert D. Perdue and Jennifer A. Perdue, Grantors, shown and designated as "NEW VARIABLE WIDTH PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT 1,558 S.F." upon the Plat entitled "PLAT SHOWING NEW VARIABLE WIDTH PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON LOT 9, BLOCK 2 SECTION #2 — "ETON HILL" P.B. 6, PG. 4 PROPERTY OF ROBERT D. PERDUE & JENNIFER A. PERDUE BEING GRANTED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY SITUATED AT #4515 GIRARD DRIVE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA" prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated July 28, 2022, said parcel being designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map #077.17-02-41.00-0000. The location Page 1 of 5 of said easement is more particularly described on the plat attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and by reference incorporated herein. The drainage easement being for the installation and maintenance of a drainage system, and to allow for necessary grading and storage during any phase of construction, reconstruction, repair or replacements of the improvements to the drainage system, the location of which is set forth on the plat. The Grantee agrees to restore and repair any actual damage to Grantors' property that may be directly caused by the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of said project except as hereinafter provided. The Grantors agree that the Grantee will not be expected to restore the property to the identical original condition, but rather as near thereto as is practicable, and that the Grantors will cooperate with the Grantee in effectuating such restoration. It is expressly agreed between the parties hereto that the Grantee and its agents have the right to inspect the easement herein granted and to cut, clear, and remove all trees, shrubbery, undergrowth, obstructions, or improvements lying within, upon, or adjacent to said easement that in any way endanger or interfere with the proper use of the same. The Grantors covenant that no building or structure shall be erected upon or within the easement herein granted or placed in such location as to render said easement inaccessible. In the event that this covenant is violated, the Grantee shall not be obligated to repair, replace, or otherwise be responsible for such improvements if damaged or removed. The Grantors acknowledge that the plans for the aforesaid project as they affect Grantors' property have been fully explained to Grantors. The fixtures, facilities, lines, utilities, and any other improvements placed upon, under, or across the easement by the Grantee shall remain the property of the Grantee. The easement herein granted is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any easement or right-of-way now in existence or which may be acquired in the future. Page 2 of 5 The Grantors covenant and agree for themselves, and for their successors and assigns that the consideration aforementioned and the covenants herein shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation and damages by reason of the location, construction, operation, maintenance, or reconstruction of or within the easement area. The grant and provision of this Deed of Easement shall constitute a covenant running with the land for the benefit of the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance by the Board of Supervisors of the interest in the real estate conveyed herein pursuant to Action No. adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on the day of , 20 WITNESS the following signatures and seals: By Robert D. Perdue State of Virginia County/City of , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20, by Robert D. Perdue. My commission expires: Notary Public Page 3 of 5 By Jennifer A. Perdue State of Virginia County/City of , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20, by Jennifer A. Perdue. My commission expires: Notary Public Page4of5 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator State of Virginia County of Roanoke, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20, by Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Notary Public My commission expires: Approved as to form: County Attorney Page 5 of 5 PREPARED BY: Rachel W. Lower, Sr. Assistant County Attorney VSB # 88094 Office of the County Attorney 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 This instrument is exempt from the imposition offees and taxes pursuant to § 58.1-811(A)(3) and § 17.1-266 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Roanoke County Tax Map No: 077.17-02-45.00-0000 Property Owner: Stephanie Renee Beadles as Trustee of the Saunders Living Trust Dated September 9, 2021 THIS DEED OF EASEMENT is entered into this day of 2022, by and between STEPHANIE RENEE BEADLES AS TRUSTEE OF THE SAUNDERS LIVING TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 2021, Grantor, and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee. WITNESSETH That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), paid in hand at and with the execution and delivery of this Deed, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, the following described real estate for drainage purposes: A new 5 (five) foot (375 square foot) public drainage easement to construct, install, improve, operate, inspect, use, maintain, and repair or replace a drainage system, together with related improvements, including slope(s), if applicable, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to Stephanie Renee Beadles as Trustee of the Saunders Living Trust Dated September 9, 2021, Grantor, shown and designated as "NEW 5' PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT 375 S.F." upon the Plat entitled "PLAT SHOWING NEW 5' WIDE PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON LOT 13, BLOCK 2 SECTION #2 — "ETON HILL" P.B. 6, PG. 4 PROPERTY OF SAUNDERS LIVING TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 2021 BEING GRANTED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY SITUATED AT #4543 GIRARD DRIVE CAVE SPRING Page 1 of 5 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA" prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated July 28, 2022, said parcel being designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map #077.17-02-45.00-0000. The location of said easement is more particularly described on the plat attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and by reference incorporated herein. The drainage easement being for the installation and maintenance of a drainage system, and to allow for necessary grading and storage during any phase of construction, reconstruction, repair or replacements of the improvements to the drainage system, the location of which is set forth on the plat. The Grantee agrees to restore and repair any actual damage to Grantor's property that may be directly caused by the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of said project except as hereinafter provided. The Grantor agrees that the Grantee will not be expected to restore the property to the identical original condition, but rather as near thereto as is practicable, and that the Grantor will cooperate with the Grantee in effectuating such restoration. It is expressly agreed between the parties hereto that the Grantee and its agents have the right to inspect the easement herein granted and to cut, clear, and remove all trees, shrubbery, undergrowth, obstructions, or improvements lying within, upon, or adjacent to said easement that in any way endanger or interfere with the proper use of the same. The Grantor covenants that no building or structure shall be erected upon or within the easement herein granted or placed in such location as to render said easement inaccessible. In the event that this covenant is violated, the Grantee shall not be obligated to repair, replace, or otherwise be responsible for such improvements if damaged or removed. The Grantor acknowledges that the plans for the aforesaid project as they affect Grantor's property have been fully explained to Grantor. The fixtures, facilities, lines, utilities, and any other improvements placed upon, under, or across the easement by the Grantee shall remain the Page 2of5 property of the Grantee. The easement herein granted is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any easement or right-of-way now in existence or which may be acquired in the future. The Grantor covenants and agrees for themselves, and for their successors and assigns that the consideration aforementioned and the covenants herein shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation and damages by reason of the location, construction, operation, maintenance, or reconstruction of or within the easement area. The grant and provision of this Deed of Easement shall constitute a covenant running with the land for the benefit of the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. The undersigned Grantor, Stephanie Renee Beadles as Trustee of the Saunders Living Trust Dated September 9, 2021, covenants that she has the authority to execute this Deed of Easement on behalf of the Saunders Living Trust Dated September 9, 2021. Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance by the Board of Supervisors of the interest in the real estate conveyed herein pursuant to Action No. adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on the day of , 20 WITNESS the following signatures and seals: Page 3 of 5 By Stephanie Renee Beadles as Trustee of the Saunders Living Trust Dated September 9, 2021 State of Virginia County/City of , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20, by Stephanie Renee Beadles as Trustee of the Saunders Living Trust Dated September 9, 2021. My commission expires: Notary Public Page 4 of 5 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator State of Virginia County of Roanoke, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20, by Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Notary Public My commission expires: Approved as to form: County Attorney Page 5 of 5 PREPARED BY: Rachel W. Lower, Sr. Assistant County Attorney VSB # 88094 Office of the County Attorney 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 This instrument is exempt from the imposition offees and taxes pursuant to § 58.1-811(A)(3) and § 17.1-266 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Roanoke County Tax Map No: 077.17-02-11.00-0000 Property Owner: Michael Allen Simons, Jr. THIS DEED OF EASEMENT is entered into this day of 20 , by and between MICHAEL ALLEN SIMONS, JR., Grantor, and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee. WITNESSETH That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, the following described real estate for drainage purposes: A new variable width public drainage easement, containing 2,082 square feet and approximately 0.0478 acres, to construct, install, improve, operate, inspect, use, maintain, and repair or replace a drainage system, together with related improvements, including slope(s), if applicable, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to Michael Allen Simons, Jr., Grantor, shown and designated as "NEW VARIABLE WIDTH PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT" upon the Plat entitled "PLAT SHOWING NEW VARIABLE WIDTH PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON LOT 11, BLOCK 1 SECTION #2 —"ETON HILL" P.B. 6, PG 4 PROPERTY OF MICHAEL ALLEN SIMONS, JR. BEING GRANTED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY SITUATED AT #4566 GIRARD DRIVE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA" prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated July 26, 2021, said parcel being designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map #077.17-02-11.00-0000. The location of said easement is more particularly described on the plat attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and by reference incorporated herein. Page 1 of 4 The drainage easement being for the installation and maintenance of a drainage system, and to allow for necessary grading and storage during any phase of construction, reconstruction, repair or replacements of the improvements to the drainage system, the location of which is set forth on the plat. The Grantee agrees to restore and repair any actual damage to Grantor's property that may be directly caused by the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of said project except as hereinafter provided. The Grantor agrees that the Grantee will not be expected to restore the property to the identical original condition, but rather as near thereto as is practicable, and that the Grantor will cooperate with the Grantee in effectuating such restoration. It is expressly agreed between the parties hereto that the Grantee and its agents have the right to inspect the easement herein granted and to cut, clear, and remove all trees, shrubbery, undergrowth, obstructions, or improvements lying within, upon, or adjacent to said easement that in any way endanger or interfere with the proper use of the same. The Grantor covenants that no building or structure shall be erected upon or within the easement herein granted or placed in such location as to render said easement inaccessible. In the event that this covenant is violated, the Grantee shall not be obligated to repair, replace, or otherwise be responsible for such improvements if damaged or removed. The Grantor acknowledges that the plans for the aforesaid project as they affect Grantor's property have been fully explained to Grantor. The fixtures, facilities, lines, utilities, and any other improvements placed upon, under, or across the easement by the Grantee shall remain the property of the Grantee. The easement herein granted is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any easement or right-of-way now in existence or which may be acquired in the future. The Grantor covenants and agrees for themselves, and for their successors and assigns that the consideration aforementioned and the covenants herein shall be in lieu of any and all Page 2 of 4 claims to compensation and damages by reason of the location, construction, operation, maintenance, or reconstruction of or within the easement area. The grant and provision of this Deed of Easement shall constitute a covenant running with the land for the benefit of the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. Daniel R. O'Donnell, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance by the Board of Supervisors of the interest in the real estate conveyed herein pursuant to Action No. adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on the day of , 20 . WITNESS the following signatures and seals: By MICHAEL ALLEN SIMONS, JR. State of Virginia County/City of , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20 , by Michael Allen Simons, Jr. My commission expires: Notary Public Page 3 of 4 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator State of Virginia County of Roanoke, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20 , by Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Notary Public My commission expires: Approved as to form: County Attorney Page 4 of 4 PREPARED BY: Rachel W. Lower, Sr. Assistant County Attorney VSB # 88094 Office of the County Attorney 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 This instrument is exempt from the imposition offees and taxes pursuant to § 58.1-811(A)(3) and § 17.1-266 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Roanoke County Tax Map No: 077.17-02-42.00-0000 Property Owner: Mark D. Tanis THIS DEED OF EASEMENT is entered into this day of 2022, by and between MARK D. TANIS, Grantor, and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee. WITNESSETH That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), paid in hand at and with the execution and delivery of this Deed, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, the following described real estate for drainage purposes: A new variable width (427 square foot) public drainage easement to construct, install, improve, operate, inspect, use, maintain, and repair or replace a drainage system, together with related improvements, including slope(s), if applicable, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to Mark D. Tanis, Grantor, shown and designated as "NEW VARIABLE WIDTH PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT 427 S.F." upon the Plat entitled "PLAT SHOWING NEW VARIABLE WIDTH PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON LOT 10, BLOCK 2 SECTION #2 — "ETON HILL" P.B. 6, PG. 4 PROPERTY OF MARK D. TANIS BEING GRANTED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY SITUATED AT #4525 GIRARD DRIVE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA" prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated July 28, 2022, said parcel being designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map #077.17-02-42.00-0000. The Page 1 of 4 location of said easement is more particularly described on the plat attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and by reference incorporated herein. The drainage easement being for the installation and maintenance of a drainage system, and to allow for necessary grading and storage during any phase of construction, reconstruction, repair or replacements of the improvements to the drainage system, the location of which is set forth on the plat. The Grantee agrees to restore and repair any actual damage to Grantor's property that may be directly caused by the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of said project except as hereinafter provided. The Grantor agrees that the Grantee will not be expected to restore the property to the identical original condition, but rather as near thereto as is practicable, and that the Grantor will cooperate with the Grantee in effectuating such restoration. It is expressly agreed between the parties hereto that the Grantee and its agents have the right to inspect the easement herein granted and to cut, clear, and remove all trees, shrubbery, undergrowth, obstructions, or improvements lying within, upon, or adjacent to said easement that in any way endanger or interfere with the proper use of the same. The Grantor covenants that no building or structure shall be erected upon or within the easement herein granted or placed in such location as to render said easement inaccessible. In the event that this covenant is violated, the Grantee shall not be obligated to repair, replace, or otherwise be responsible for such improvements if damaged or removed. The Grantor acknowledges that the plans for the aforesaid project as they affect Grantor's property have been fully explained to Grantor. The fixtures, facilities, lines, utilities, and any other improvements placed upon, under, or across the easement by the Grantee shall remain the property of the Grantee. The easement herein granted is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any easement or right-of-way now in existence or which may be acquired in the future. Page 2 of 4 The Grantor covenants and agrees for themselves, and for their successors and assigns that the consideration aforementioned and the covenants herein shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation and damages by reason of the location, construction, operation, maintenance, or reconstruction of or within the easement area. The grant and provision of this Deed of Easement shall constitute a covenant running with the land for the benefit of the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance by the Board of Supervisors of the interest in the real estate conveyed herein pursuant to Action No. adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on the day of , 20 WITNESS the following signatures and seals: By Mark D. Tanis State of Virginia County/City of , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20, by Mark D. Tanis. My commission expires: Notary Public Page 3 of 4 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator State of Virginia County of Roanoke, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20, by Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Notary Public My commission expires: Approved as to form: County Attorney Page 4 of 4 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 28, 2023 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) accept Fairway Ridge Court of Ridge at Fairway Forest Section 3 in the Catawba Magisterial District into the VDOT Secondary Road System SUBMITTED BY: Tarek Moneir Director of Development Services APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) accept Fairway Ridge Court, the Ridge at Fairway Forest - Section 3 into the Virginia Department of Transportation System, in the Catawba Magisterial District. BACKGROUND: The County of Roanoke is requesting that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution asking the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) accept, as described by the AM-4.3, (See attachment A) 0.13 mile of Fairway Ridge Court from the intersection with Fairway Ridge Road (VA SEC. Route # 1396) to the end of its southern cul-de-sac. This road is located within the Ridge at Fairway Forest - Section 3 subdivision in the Catawba Magisterial District. DISCUSSION: The staff has inspected this road along with representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation and finds the road acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. Page 1 of 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Board approve this resolution to VDOT requesting that they accept Fairway Ridge Court into the Secondary Road System. 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, MARCH 28, 2023 RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF FAIRWAY RIDGE COURT INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Addition Form AM-4.3, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements, and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999 for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.2-705, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, after receiving a copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the developer, whichever occurs last in time. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Page 1 of 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board hereby guarantees the performance of the street(s) requested herein to become a part of the State maintained secondary system of state highways for a period of one year from the date of the acceptance of the referenced streets by VDOT into the secondary system of state highways. This Board will reimburse all costs incurred by VDOT to repair faults in the referenced streets and related drainage facilities associated with workmanship or materials as determined exclusively by VDOT. Page 2 of 2 Ruaice C uwiya �i; 2.C9742, Earl. 251 [ atcgr 't[ 5 �[1 Description Length ROW Width Services Fairway Ridge Court; From: Int. 1396 To: End of its southern cul-de-sac 0.134 mi 40 ft 28 ft 13/16 houses ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ACCEPTANCE OF FAIRWAY RODGE COURT INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM In Roanoke County 38878123 by Resolution of the governing body adopted March 28, 2023 The following VDOT Form AM-4.3 is hereby attached and incorporated as part of the governing body's resolution for changes to the secondary system of state highways. A Copy Testee Signed (County Official): Report of Changes in the Secondary System of State Highways Project/Subdivision: Ridge at Fairway Forest Section 3 Addition - New subdivision street §33.2-705 Rte Number 1417 Street Name Fairway Ridge Court From Termini To Termini Intersection with Fairway Ridge Road, route end of cul- 1396 de -sac Length 0.13 Number Of Lanes 2 Recordation Reference Row Width 40 Page: 1/1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 28, 2023 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of appointment to the Roanoke County Board of Zoning Appeals (District) SUBMITTED BY: Deborah C. Jacks Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Confirmation of appointment. BACKGROUND: Carlton Wright's five-year appointment expires June 30, 2023. Mr. Wright has resigned effective February 1, 2023. DISCUSSION: Supervisor Phil C. North has recommended the appointment of Jeffrey W. Armstrong to represent the Hollins District for a five-year term to expire June 30, 2028. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends confirmation of this appointment. Page 1 of 1 County of Roanoke Unappropriated Balance, Board Contingency, and Capital Reserves Fiscal Year 2022-2023 General Government Capita Unappropriated Balance % of Revenues Board Contingency Expenditure Contingency Reserves 22 $ 24,124,662 $ - $ 502,597 $ 7,923,936 id close out of completed projects 35,604 mbulances and fire arms(Ordinance 02283-4) 216,832 ;et (Ordinance 051022-4) 2,093,025 50,000 43,605 tions - December 13, 2022 7,547,689 t (Ordinance 051022-5) (3,225,059) acres at Read Mountain Preserve (Ordinance 101122-1) (75,000) id fire arms (Ordinance 022823-4) (613,339) $ 26,217,687 12.0% $ 50,000 $ 546,202 $ 11,810,663 COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CHANGES IN OUTSTANDING DEBT Changes in outstanding debt for the fiscal year to date were as follows: VPSA School Bonds Lease Revenue Bonds Subtotal Premiums Audited Outstanding Outstanding June 30, 2022 Additions Deletions March 28, 2023 $ 85,873,052 $ $ 8,043,501 $ 77,829,551 73,900,000 12,660,000 3,800,000 82,760,000 159,773,052 12,384,805 12,660,000 812,376 11,843,501 160,589,551 13,197,181 $ 172,157,857 $ 13,472,376 $ 11,843,501 $ 173,786,732 Submitted By Laurie L. Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services Approved By Richard L. Caywood County Administrator Real Estate Taxes Personal Property Taxes Public Service Corp Base Penalties & Interest on Property Taxes Payment In Lieu Of Taxes Total General Property Taxes COUNTY OF ROANOKE Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues General Fund - C100 For the Eight Months Ending Tuesday, February 28, 2023 Prior Year Current Year Revenues Revenues Budget Revenues %® of Budget Budget Revenues %® of Budget $102, 084, 564 33, 500, 000 3,710,928 529,072 180,000 $51,591,892 2,230,435 3,858,439 596,439 92,291 140,004,564 58,369,497 50.54% $110,497,500 $55,028,468 6.66% 39,000,000 2,397,166 103.98% 4,040,928 3,917,800 112.73% 529,072 617,280 51.27% 180,000 93,069 49.80% 6.15% 96.95% 116.67% 51.71% 41.69% 154,247,500 62,053,784 40.23% Communication Taxes 2,900,000 1,643,268 56.66% 2,650,000 1,598,534 60.32% Local Sales Tax 12,200,000 8,466,708 69.40% 14,267,641 8,984,341 62.97% Consumer Utility Tax 3,650,000 2,051,565 56.21% 3,750,000 2,196,268 58.57% Business License Tax 6,364,000 4,138,182 65.02% 7,225,000 4,629,804 64.08% Franchise Tax 660,000 0 0.00% 700,000 (42,136) -6.02% Motor Vehicle License Fees 2,400,000 406,680 16.94% 2,400,000 431,047 17.96% Taxes On Recordation & Wills 1,400,000 1,037,876 74.13% 1,800,000 708,774 39.38% Utility License Tax 725,000 197,567 27.25% 600,000 285,036 47.51% Hotel & Motel Room Taxes 807,597 947,998 117.39% 1,349,568 995,570 73.77% Taxes - Prepared Foods 4,270,750 2,959,066 69.29% 4,800,000 3,363,262 70.07% Other Taxes 275,000 283,730 103.17% 675,000 808,192 119.73% Total Other Local Taxes 35,652,347 22,132,639 62.08% 40,217,209 23,958,692 59.57% Animal Control Fees 42,500 28,750 67.65% 42,500 31,580 74.31% Land and Building Fees 15,850 74,962 472.95% 15,850 6,640 41.89% Permits 549,840 377,326 68.62% 924,107 368,188 39.84% Prior Year Current Year Revenues Revenues Budget Revenues % of Budget Budget Revenues % of Budget Fees 64,600 30,815 47.70% 64,600 53,389 82.65% Clerk of Court Fees 127,000 85,164 67.06% 127,000 85,247 67.12% Photocopy Charges 210 0 0.00% 210 0 0.00% Total Permits, Fees and Licenses 800,000 597,017 74.63% 1,174,267 545,044 46.42% Fines and Forfeitures 353,500 285,514 80.77% 400,000 262,692 65.67% Total Fines and Forfeitures 353,500 285,514 80.77% 400,000 262,692 65.67% Revenues from Use of Money 125,000 21,826 17.46% 90,897 380,702 418.83% Revenues From Use of Property 178,200 108,570 60.93% 178,200 132,266 74.22% Total Use of Money and Property 303,200 130,396 43.01% 269,097 512,968 190.63% Charges for Services 3,780,400 2,136,255 56.51% 3,790,100 1,934,351 51.04% Charges for Public Services 70,000 100 0.14% 70,000 445 0.64% Education Aid -State 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% Total Charges for Services 3,850,400 2,136,355 55.48% 3,860,100 1,934,796 50.12% Reimb-Shared Programs Salem 771,464 223,462 28.97% 996,464 371,425 37.27% Miscellaneous Revenue 309,694 235,676 76.10% 314,036 305,581 97.31% Recovered Costs 875,000 366,755 41.91% 800,129 423,630 52.95% Total Miscellaneous 1,956,158 825,893 42.22% 2,110,629 1,100,636 52.15% Non -Categorical Aid 402,000 1,009,492 251.12% 402,000 989,317 246.10% Shared Expenses 5,520,626 3,403,877 61.66% 5,772,874 3,214,188 55.68% Prior Year Current Year Revenues Revenues Budget Revenues % of Budget Budget Revenues % of Budget Welfare & Social Services -Categorical 4,448,865 2,493,141 56.04% 4,000,727 2,471,848 61.78% Other State Categorical Aid 2,320,569 1,135,657 48.94% 2,468,805 1,253,360 50.77% Welfare & Social Services 5,495,953 3,626,410 65.98% 6,250,000 3,688,843 59.02% Education Aid -Federal 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% Other Categorical Aid 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% Total State and Federal Revenue 18,188,013 11,668,575 64.16% 18,894,406 11,617,555 61.49% Other Financing Sources 38,711,874 0 0.00% 39,426,765 0 0.00% Total Other Financing Sources 38,711,874 0 0.00% 39,426,765 0 0.00% Transfers 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% Total Transfers 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% Grand Totals 239,820,056 96,145,886 40.09% 260,599,973 101,986,166 39.14% COUNTY OF ROANOKE Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbranc General Fund - C100 For the Eight Months Ending Tuesday, February 28, 2023 Prior Year Current Year Expenditures Exp & Encum Expenditures Exp 1 Budget & Encumbrances % of Budget Budget & Encumbrances % of Legislative 331,603 261,165 78.76% 398,981 248,401 General & Financial Administration 7,904,251 4,839,807 61.23% 8,809,620 5,744,129 Electoral Board & Officials 471,516 408,774 86.69% 820,131 458,942 General Government Administration 8,707,370 5,509,746 63.28% 10,028,732 6,451,472 Courts Other Judicial Support Judicial Law Enforcement & Traffic Cont Fire and Rescue Correction & Detention Animal Control Public Safety 1,647,977 1,344,243 911,316 917,998 55.30% 68.29% 1,715,404 1,461,425 978,197 987,095 2,992,220 1,829,314 61.14% 3,176,829 1,965,292 14,991,033 17,359,644 9,679,077 837,711 9,700,699 11, 675, 609 5,753,454 552,531 64.71% 67.26% 59.44% 65.96% 16,914,417 20,140,145 10, 862, 582 1,124,393 11,234,705 13, 362, 969 6,707,433 672,608 42,867,465 27,682,293 64.58% 49,041,537 31,977,716 General Services Administration 797,665 583,125 73.10% 949,179 605,016 Refuse Disposal 5,441,462 3,477,756 63.91% 5,646,669 3,916,395 Maint Buildings & Grounds 5,049,229 3,534,060 69.99% 5,424,601 3,585,923 Engineering 1,664,905 1,171,855 70.39% 2,329,994 1,552,346 Inspections 1,569,358 805,378 51.32% 1,117,938 693,222 Garage Complex 0 0 0.00% 0 0 Public Works Prior Year Current Year Expenditures Exp & Encum Expenditures Exp 1 Budget & Encumbrances % of Budget Budget & Encumbrances % of 14,522,619 9,572,174 65.91% 15,468,381 10,352,902 Mental Health 0 0 0.00% 0 0 Public Health 515,902 386,927 75.00% 579,181 413,701 Social Services Administration 8,818,788 5,456,079 61.87% 8,651,519 5,173,019 Comprehensive Services Act 0 0 0.00% 0 0 Public Assistance 4,918,666 3,060,721 62.23% 4,918,666 2,982,458 Social Services Organizations 0 0 0.00% 0 0 Health and Welfare 14,253,356 8,903,726 62.47% 14,149,366 8,569,178 Parks & Recreation 2,390,260 1,397,612 58.47% 2,546,009 1,602,695 Library 4,356,057 2,571,303 59.03% 4,655,691 2,856,533 Cultural Enrichment 0 0 0.00% 0 0 Parks, Recreation & Cultural 6,746,317 3,968,915 58.83% 7,201,700 4,459,228 Planning & Zoning 1,304,878 767,938 58.85% 1,557,390 967,734 Cooperative Extension Program 87,097 23,753 27.27% 87,097 56,613 Economic Development 529,257 330,504 62.45% 563,335 285,311 Public Transportation 0 0 0.00% 766,930 166,509 Contribution to Human Service Organization 0 0 0.00% 0 0 Planning 1,921,232 1,122,194 58.41% 2,974,752 1,476,168 Employee Benefits Dixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup 3,368,937 2,931,594 52,000 18,126 87.02% 34.86% 1,666,434 838,778 67,000 21,351 Prior Year Current Year Expenditures Exp & Encum Expenditures Exp 1 Budget & Encumbrances % of Budget Budget & Encumbrances % of Miscellaneous 9,240,340 6,940,232 75.11% 9,994,982 7,386,937 Tax Relief/Elderly & Handicapp 1,110,000 728,560 65.64% 1,110,000 734,408 Refuse Credit Vinton 110,000 110,000 100.00% 225,000 110,000 Board Contingency 24,677,259 0 0.00% 29,813,889 0 Unappropriated Balance 0 0 0.00% 0 0 Non -Departmental 38,558,536 10,728,512 27.82% 42,877,305 9,091,474 Interfund Transfers Out 103,101,040 73,459,634 71.25% 109,864,921 80,785,336 Intrafund Transfers Out 6,149,901 5,315,041 86.42% 5,816,452 4,751,856 Transfers Out 109,250,941 78,774,675 72.10% 115,681,373 85,537,192 Grand Totals 239,820,056 148,091,549 61.75% 260,599,975 159,880,622 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: March 28, 2023 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid — February 2023 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 Deposit Checks Total Payments to Vendors $ $ $ 9,082,894.98 Payroll 02/03/23 1,881,367.04 16,014.99 1,897,382.03 Payroll 02/17/23 1,731,863.14 16,451.52 1,748,314.66 Manual Checks Grand Total $ 12,728,591.67 A detailed listing of the payments to vendors is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER. MEETING DATE: March 28, 2023 AGENDA ITEMS: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy, as of 28-Feb-23 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: CASH INVESTMENT: TRUIST CONCENTRATION 12,463,232.30 12,463,232.30 GOVERNMENT: TRUIST CONTRA (1,302,645.00) TRUIST 50,500,211.86 TRUIST ROA CONTRA (26,450.00) TRUIST ROA 1,000,000.00 LOCAL GOV'T INVESTMENT POOL: GENERAL OPERATION ROCO EMA PORTFOLIO ROCO EMA PORTFOLIO CONTRA 22,385,203.84 1, 012, 796.35 1,036.01 MONEY MARKET: ATLANTIC UNION BANK 4,570,332.44 HOMETRUST BANK 4,066,848.29 TRUIST 11,583,251.09 TRUIST ROA 4,377,339.10 PUBLIC FUNDS: BANK OF BOTETOURT 2,029,412.17 50,171,116.86 23,399,036.20 24,597,770.92 2,029,412.17 TOTAL 112,660,568.45 03-28-2023 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: March 28, 2023 AGENDA ITEM: Work session to discuss the new Police Chief's vision for the Police Department with the Board of Supervisors SUBMITTED BY: Michael Poindexter Chief of Police APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Police Department Overview Page 1 of 1 Roanoke Couht 1 1 ♦ • R. ichael Poindexter Jr. • Hired August 15,1994 \• 28 years of service • Honored to assume new role as Chief January 2 Vision and Goals • Vision • To improve upon over three decades of success la with employees and external stakeholders. • I understand members of our department are resource we have available to serve our comp • Retention of current personnel sworn and civ • Identify and recruit qualified applicants • Increase staffing to fill the needs of the depar • Elementary School Resource Officers • 4 currently hired • Grant application for 8 additional positions 3 Vision and Goals • Short-term Goals • Ensure a seamless transitional period • Recent Promotions of Assistant Chief Tuck, Commander Sergeants Grubb and Smith • Interview 1 on 1 every employee within my first s • Foster relationships with internal and external par 4 Experience • Operations • Served as a Detective, Sergeant and Acting Lieuter Investigations Division • Served as Officer, Sergeant and Commander on all • Administration • Served as a Commander in Professional Standards • Conducted Internal Investigations as well as hiring new standards. • Served as Acting Assistant Chief of Administration • Maintained duties in Professional Standards as well as s the Police Academy and Services Division and the CrimE 5 Roanoke County PolicE Mission To partner with our commun provide professional and pro - police services to maintain c environment. 110 I EIT Si* Roanoke County Police Department enforcement agency that utilizes innovE serve our communit iii Our Vision: Values Integrity....Courage....Accountabil 4 Business Coordinator Office Support Specialist Commander Commander Academy PSu Sergeant Office Support Specialist Common -11 Services Roanoke County Pg III Chi 8 Firearms/Driving Training Center Facilities Public Safety Center South County Substation Strategic Plan: 2023-2025 Organizational excellence • Develop, implement and continuously improve employee retention strategy • Increase employee recruitment • Ensure adequate work force to protect Roanoke 10 Strategic Plan: 2023-2025 Organizational Safety and Wellness • Create a program that actively engages and educ; network • Maintain and enhance comprehensive programs emotional and mental health • Establish a process for line of duty death 11 Strategic Plan: 2023-2025 Community Outreach and Engagement • Develop and implement age appropriate, preve for school aged children. • Develop and implement methods to continually interactions between police an the community. 12 Strategic Plan: 2023-2025 Innovative Policing • Improve police response to mental health relate • Align technologies to meet operational demands • Operationalize data -driven strategies and predict 13 Police Department 1, Separations: Applicants: 2019: 13 2020: 28 2021: 18* 2022: 11* Retirement: 3 Termination: 2 Resign- other police: 1 Resign- other job: 2 Resign during Academy: 3 2023: 3* Retirement: 2 Resign- other job: 1 *July 1,2021 Implementation of Public Safety Pay Plan 2019: 2020: 2021: 2022: 2023: Number tested: 2019: 2020: 2021: 2022: 2023: 14 Police Department Si Authorized strength (sworn): 140 Vacancies: 5 �- -+ rmitn Field Training: 41 Academy: 6 Limited duty: 6 Total: 21 Available strength: 119 (15% shortage Part time SRO: 4 hired (50% shortage) Grant application for 8 additional Elementary ! Workload Calls for Service Traffic Stops [Security Checks Paper Service Attempts Non -Permitted Arrests 2013 29,564 18,812 19,422 2,953 1,787 2014 31,079 16,923 19,987 3,684 1,732 2015 31,645 16,202 20,045 3,564 1,597 2016 30,186 13,338 19,933 3,113 1,520 2017 32,608 17,441 16,516 3,602 1,647 2 1 Roanoke County Calls for Service IN.,. 14 I E.. lue• A IITTTIfil 0 0.75 1.5 3 lain "'' 1114.. 49.-rs ow' rs — ) ( • 17 Criminal Offenses Crime Offense 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 201E Homicide 1 0 2 2 0 Rape 18 13 23 13 22 2E Robbery 10 15 9 12 18 3( Aggravated Assault 78 85 128 129 104 91 Part 1 Violent Subtotal 107 113 162 156 144 15E Arson 3 1 2 1 4 1 Motor Vehicle Theft 37 33 24 43 58 8E Burglary 235 198 191 171 171 15: Larceny 883 864 792 857 916 98E Larceny- Theft f/ MV 151 167 172 134 145 22( Part 1 Property Subtotal 1309 1263 1181 1206 1294 1442 Part 1 Total 1416 1376 1343 1362 1438 159E 18 Roanoke County Part 1 Crimes 19 20 Reportable Crashes Crash Type 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 DMV-Fatality 5 3 7 5 5 2 DMV-Personal Injury 223 258 299 349 337 297 DMV-Property Damage 743 760 741 778 936 946 Total 971 1021 1047 1132 1278 1245 Top Crash Locations Challenger Ave/West Ruritan Rd Electric Rd/Colonial Ave West Main St/Dow Hollow Rd Electric Rd/South Peak Blvd Challenger Ave/Cloverdale Rd Franklin Rd/Clearbrook Village Ln 7 Count 15 11 10 8 8 7 Electric Rd/Chaparral Dr 7 Electric Rd/Brambleton Ave 7 Franklin Rd/Buck Mountain Rd 7 21 *Yearly average based on previous 4 years Note: Based on Reportable Crashes Only Roanoke County Reportable Crashes Haorir 111,161147 ap0 - , - A • II-1 [lin 0 0.75 1 5 3 Milt1/2' tr 1 111%.1.-:arr. A 22 Data -Driven Approaches Traffic Safety DDACTS is an operational model that uses the based crime and traffic data to establish E methods for deploying law enf and other resources. DDACTS TargE eNte L 4 S 4rit CAT ;srst MO„ rib .ra i'1(r CP 11LICitmcihl 0 4j t3 • # c4i36tlrieet 1 01-47 hd Cedar .60. A l di WE� Or L n 17 47.04111114 Par L k� bite cidy A v 'If11r111+NtA [fir C Tt IztEr Lek Lin QTd#1'Y Dt SW44+▪ . al= C ei. f ontaitue 13 f €i I '`Y Dr N. ilC3x e *, �� 'fr"rkbyCho St~e54xy irbrOaii C` i, S., II a▪ ��e • • x"& lei,.. w q. Pit TO Orr EL C.r sill 111 Or 1 Ifl EL,• {ASP' 0 0.07 0.15 0.3 Miles I• Cave Spring F r Eincrr,C `si 24 Target Zone 1 Crime Offense 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Homicide 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rape 2 4 2 2 4 2 Robbery 2 4 2 1 0 2 Aggravated Assault 12 10 12 15 9 6 Part 1 Violent Subtotal 16 18 16 18 13 10 Arson 1 0 0 0 1 0 Motor Vehicle Theft 3 6 1 4 4 5 Burglary 25 14 9 9 14 12 Larceny 80 79 49 73 64 64 Larceny- Theft f/ MV 20 14 4 12 16 10 Part 1 Property Subtotal 129 113 63 98 99 91 Part 1 Total 145 131 79 116 112 101 25 DDACTS Targc 0 a L n . ti y '�t+'w.� I. 72 LP It 9,1 tr Oi'H ollin s +cr vr fi e,P , AI 4.• 4, +sr . 'D S,: to r iC `r r fro rr N. 0 0.07 0.15 0.3 Milee J I L d I L a 411 ts IP r 17, m t_444 vn¢ .i. t 4.44 70 C4111 ,awl.Peed 0 0- s ic,Kuto, 0 se Fill 1,a, 26 Target Zone 2 Crime Offense 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Homicide 0 0 0 1 0 0 Rape 1 1 3 1 1 1 Robbery 0 1 0 1 1 6 Aggravated Assault 4 10 10 16 8 1 Part 1 Violent Subtotal 5 12 13 19 10 8 Arson 0 0 0 0 1 0 Motor Vehicle Theft 2 1 2 5 2 7 Burglary 15 6 19 5 14 12 _ Larceny 57 67 46 39 45 44 Larceny- Theft f/ MV 12 8 9 8 9 16 Part 1 Property Subtotal 86 82 76 57 71 79 Part 1 Total 91 94 89 76 81 87 DDACTS: Target .rf ..,0.11111 1'. r'5‘ <Sefr c" or 414 46' 4 0.07 0.15 0_3 Mi14g.' I , I acdOad aodr--1 r N 28 Target Zone 3 Crime Offense 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Homicide 0 2 0 0 0 0 Rape 1 1 1 0 2 1 Robbery 0 0 0 1 2 3 Aggravated Assault 6 7 7 2 5 4 Part 1 Violent Subtotal 7 10 8 3 9 8 [Arson 0 0 0 0 0 0 Motor Vehicle Theft 3 5 1 4 2 6 Burglary 10 4 5 3 4 6 Larceny 105 87 91 93 83 79 Larceny- Theft f/ MV 13 15 15 8 7 15 Part 1 Property Subtotal 131 111 112 108 96 106 Part 1 Total 138 121 120 111 105 114 29 Target Zone 1 Crash Type — 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 DMV-Fatality 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 DMV-Personal Injury 12 16 21 23 26 17 18 DMV-Property Damage 56 45 36 44 64 59 52 Total 68 61 57 67 90 76 71 Target Zone 2 Crash Type 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 DMV-Fatality 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 DMV-Personal Injury 17 19 18 12 22 14 7 DMV-Property Damage 47 26 46 36 53 47 36 Total 64 45 65 49 75 61 43 Target Zone 3 Crash Type 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 DMV-Fatality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DMV-Personal Injury 16 19 24 27 32 23 16 DMV-Property Damage 57 62 66 85 101 75 104 Total 73 81 90 112 133 98 120 30 Speed Enforcerr • 145 complaints • 76 speed surveys • Portable speed board • Selective Enforcement Top Roads • Keagy Rd. • Woodhave • Sugar Loaf • Roselawn F • Old Catawl 31 Overdoses in Roanoke 120 100 80 0 60 U 40 20 0 1 Suspected Opioid Related Overdoses • 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Year Nonfat • Fatal 32 Roanoke Valley Regionc 2019 2020 Fe nta nyl 6.08oz. 1.60I bs. Heroin 5.13Ibs. 1.88Ibs. Methamphetamine 27.54Ibs. 13.62Ibs. Cocaine 6.81 I bs. 0.22I bs. Value of Drugs Seized $705,190 $319,020 Assets Seized (Non Narcotic) $230,931 $226,450 52 48 Firearms 33 Mental Health Incid Type Suicide Threats/Attempt Other* Total 2017 2018 2019 60 63 289 306 349 369 2020 50 380 44 412 430 456 *Other includes the incident types 1096 and 1096 w/ Weapon and any oti with the dispositions MH, 4M, or CIT 34 School Safety • School Resource Officers • Security Checks • School Safety Task Force • Security Advisory Committee School Security Ch High Burton Center Cave Spring High Glenvar High Hidden Valley High Northside High William Byrd High High Total Middle Cave Spring Middle Glenvar Middle Hidden Valley Middle Northside Middle William Byrd Middle Middle Total Total Security Ch 35 Questions 36 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: March 28, 2023 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution adopting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia, by incorporating the U.S. Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study 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 by incorporating the U.S. Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study. BACKGROUND: Route 460/Challenger Avenue handles the second highest traffic volume and has the second highest number of crashes in Roanoke County, behind Route 419 near Route 220 in the Tanglewood area. To begin to address congestion and crashes along the corridor, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) initiated a Strategically Targeted Affordable Roadway Solutions (STARS) Study in 2019 to analyze opportunities for safety and operational improvements along Route 460 between Williamson Road in the City of Roanoke and Alternate Route 220/Cloverdale Road in Roanoke County near the Botetourt County line. The STARS Study included a Public Information Meeting with a survey, as well as a virtual public meeting with a second survey. Ultimately, seven (7) projects from the STARS Study were chosen for submission through the SMART SCALE program. Six (6) of these projects were funded in the City of Roanoke and in Roanoke County with combined cost estimates of over $43 million. The Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization (RVTPO) provided leverage funding for five (5) of the six (6) Page 1 of 3 projects and no local funds are allocated to these projects. All projects are currently in the design phase and construction is anticipated to begin in 2026 and 2027. While the STARS Study projects focus on safety and operational improvements for Route 460, Roanoke County had also identified a need to consider opportunities for connectivity off of Route 460 to reduce the necessity for area residents to travel the busy corridor. Roanoke County contracted with Timmons Group in September 2021 to conduct the U.S. Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study with three goals: 1) Recommend ways to travel around the Bonsack community that are alternatives to Route 460/Challenger Avenue; 2) Consider existing zoning classifications and future land use designations to determine potential changes to match desired development types; and 3) Examine existing at -grade railroad crossings for potential improvements that may create development opportunities between the railroad and the Blue Ridge Parkway. Three (3) community meetings have been held throughout the study: 1) January 13, 2022: 44 attendees talked with County staff, VDOT staff and consultants about the funded VDOT intersection projects and what they would like to see in their community. 220 survey responses were completed. 2) May 18, 2022: 98 attendees talked with County staff, VDOT staff and consultants about existing road upgrades, new road connections, potential future land use changes, pedestrian, bicycle and greenway facilities. 140 survey responses were completed. 3) September 29, 2022: 107 attendees considered a presentation reviewing study progress and including changes made according to the public feedback provided in May. 35 survey responses were completed. On October 19, 2022, the Planning Commission and Economic Development Authority held a joint meeting to review and discuss progress on the study. On November 9, 2022, the Board of Supervisors held a work session to review progress on the study. Planning staff worked with Timmons Group on the draft Study through November, December and January. The draft Study was posted on the project webpage in mid - February with a brief comment form. Over 2,600 postcards were mailed to property owners, renters and tenants in the study area in February to inform the community about the availability of the draft Study for review and comment, the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors public hearing. Page 2 of 3 DISCUSSION: On March 7, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft U.S. 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study. Approximately 20 people attended the meeting and six attendees spoke during the public hearing. The Planning Commission voted 3-0 to approve a resolution recommending adoption of an amendment to the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the U.S. 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study into it. A 29-day public comment period ended March 17, 2023. Ten (10) respondents provided comments through the online comment form, by email and by phone. While there are comments about the proposed roadway projects included in the draft Study, many comments received pertain to concerns about the VDOT intersection projects on Route 460 that are funded and in design. Two (2) changes have been made to the Potential Transportation Improvements exhibit dated March 2023: 1) An adjustment to alignment G to connect the proposed roadway with existing public right-of-way dedicated to Roanoke County in 1987, instead of to a private driveway; and 2) The legend descriptions have been expanded to better describe the intent of the proposed alignments, in response to concerns expressed during the Planning Commission Public Hearing and the public comment period. The Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider additional public comments on the draft U.S. Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study on March 28, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors hold a public hearing and consider approving a resolution to amend the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the U.S. Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study. Page 3 of 3 U.S. Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Board of Supervisors Public Hearing March 28, 2023 Overview of Presentation • Previous Corridor Planning and Funded Projects • Study Purpose • Process of this Study to Date • Recommended Improvements • September Survey Results • FaII/Winter Activities • Draft Study Document • March 2023 Engagement and Actions • Implementation 2 VDOT Route 460 STARS Study • 2019 and 2020: VDOT, the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County studied potential safety and operational improvements along Route 460 from Williamson Road to Alt. Route 220 • November 2019: Public Information Meeting and Survey (over 1,000 responses) • June 2020: Virtual Meeting and Survey • August 2020: Seven projects chosen and submitted for SMART SCALE funding POOL, 1141,0111•Vor Route 460 (O Operation WE Purpose of the Route 46S Operational Improvemer • Evaluate operational and safet (Orange/Challenger Avenue) bE Route 220 Alternate (Cloverdal Consider and assess potential s study area Develop cost estimates for the Objectives of the Public I • Inform the public about the stk. • Present preliminary informatio study area • Provide the public an opportun existing safety and traffic open and reduce congestion in the u 6 3 Route 460 Funded SMART SCALE Projects BEGIN STUDY AREA Funded 0 Not Funded Route 460 Funded SMART SCALE Projects Funded Transportation Projects Route 460 and Alternate Route 220 Intersection Improvements Route 460 Intersections from Carson Rd. to Huntridge Rd. Route 460 at West Ruritan Intersection Improvements Route 460 (Orange Avenue) Improvements near Blue Hills Drive Route 460 (Orange Avenue) Improvements Seibel Dr/Hickory Woods Route 460 (Orange Avenue) Improvements at King Street Total Funding Status Projects have been grouped and design is underway for all projects $7,5 $43,1 There are no local funds on these projects, though the Roanoke Valley Transportation Plan provided leverage funding for five out of six projects. 5 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study While the VDOT STARS Study provided recommendations fc intersections and traffic flow on Route 460, Roanoke Counl focus on improving traffic flow around Route 460. Particularly with demand for redevelopment of parcels fro' 460, adding new commercial entrances onto Route 460 w congestion worse. This study proposes new and improved ways for motorists, K and bicyclists to move around the Bonsack area without h( Route 460. It will also establish recommended access route development and redevelopment activities. 6 Study Purpose 1) Recommend ways to travel around the Bonsac community that are alternatives to Route 460/C Avenue; 2) Consider existing zoning classifications and futu designations to determine potential changes tc desired development types; and 3) Examine existing at -grade railroad crossings for improvements that may create development c between the railroad and the Blue Ridge Parkes OCT 2021- JAN 2022 Consultant Due Diligence and Review of the Study Area JAN - FEB 2022 7 First Community Survey FEB 2022 FEB - MAY 2022 7 First Community Open House MAY 2022 MAY - SEPT 2022 SEPT 2022 V V Second Community Survey Consultant Revisions Based Final Community Meeting On Community Feedback Consultant Review of Community Feedback and Preparation of Potential Improvements OCT 2022 NOV 2022 V V Presentation to Planning Commission and Economic Development Authority Presentation to Bo Supervisors OCT 2021- JAN 2022 Consultant Due Diligence and Review of the Study Area MAY 2022 MAY - SEPT 2022 SEPT 2022 Second Community Survey Consultant Revisions Based Final Community Meeting On Community Feedback FEB - MAY 2022 Consultant Review of Community Feedback and Preparation of Potential Improvements OCT 2022 NOV 2022 ♦ ♦ Presentation to Planning Commission and Economic Development Authority Presentation to Bo Supervisors IHNIGNIMPBERIIPINEIR Q2 What is your current level of satisfaction of the following in the Study Area? 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% AROANOKE COUNTY VA Answered: 220 Skipped. 0 Roadway Roadway Recreatio Community Retail/Sh Housing Safety Connectio n Safety opping Opportuni ns Opportuni and Opportuni ties ties Security ties No Opinion • Not Satisfied Somewhat .,. • Highly Sat is... U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY OCT 2021- JAN 2022 ♦ Consultant Due Diligence and Review of the Study Area JAN - FEB 2022 ♦ First Community Survey FEB 2022 ♦ First Community Open House MAY 2022 MAY - SEPT 2022 SEPT 2022 Second Community Survey Consultant Revisions Based Final Community Meeting On Community Feedback FEB - MAY 2022 Consultant Review of Community Feedback and Preparation of Potential Improvements OCT 2022 Presentation to Planning Commission and Economic Development Authority NOV 2022 Presentation to Bo Supervisors Virginia Dept. of Historic Resource Virginia Cu Leeew 0 Archi Archi ❑ Fndivl © Arch: ArchE DHR • USG! Conn) 0 Virginia Dept. of Hist Virginia Cu Leeen� © Archi Archi Q tndivi ▪ Arch: Arch: DHR • USG! Count Virginia Virginia ( Leu_en Arch DHF • use Roa ■ Fmel US Siau Secc Caul 0 a 0 ROANOKE 1.36_ COMM' VA TOPOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ROANOKE COUNTY, VA - FEBRUARY 2022 �s��_a k� ` _ _ ..• ` .. OCT 2021-JAN 2022 JAN - FEB 2022 7 Consultant Due Diligence and Review of the Study Area Q FEB 2022 FEB - MAY 2022 7 7 First Community Survey First Community Open House Q MAY - SEPT 2022 7 SEPT 2022 7 Consultant Revisions Based Final Community Meeting On Community Feedback Consultant Review of Community Feedback and Preparation of Potential Improvements OCT 2022 7 Presentation to Planning Commission and Economic Development Authority NOV 2021 7 Presentation to Br Supervisors ALTERNATE POTENTIAL CARSON ROAD ALIGNMENT AROANOKE COUNTY VA U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ROANOKE COUNTY, VA - Mar 2022 CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE ..°,°rcera! ,._m...n a .mmutandnalaimeran am, awdaa the *I a, Waal. dao eamaaaa. arlVaaaVaroadatio raaare. areal pin.* ear., .zaWnMala , nmwnn n;Wrp maew.m�o�.ryvwn. RM. PP -VERVE Mau.. ga., °mwvel .y ame.1.01.re a nqn ur+rtaoReae "Mare Warn artrern 'Mg ins 1,1 RINK 1,01,1Mpa-eaola Ma. POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE AROANOKE COUNTY VA U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE ROANOKE COUNTY, VA - MAY 2022 ALTERNATE POTENTIAL CARSON ROAD ALIGNMENT AROANOKE COUNTY VA U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ROANOKE COUNTY, VA - Mar 2022 OCT 2021-JAN 2022 JAN - FEB 2022 7 Consultant Due Diligence and Review of the Study Area MAY 2022 7 Second Community Survey Q FEB 2022 FEB - MAY 2022 7 7 First Community Survey Q First Community Open House MAY - SEPT 2022 SEPT 2022 7 7 Consultant Revisions Based Final Community Meeting On Community Feedback Consultant Review of Community Feedback and Preparation of Potential Improvements OCT 2022 7 Presentation to Planning Commission and Economic Development Authority NOV 2021 7 Presentation to Br Supervisors AROANOKE COUNTY VA BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ROANOKE COUNTY, VA - SEPTEMBER 2022 CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE cmariForr Fund. L0.1. GUIDE COM Mulure lend use am mare niar in.., marl la lat IMAM. IMEZEILVE m of n4M ralMO. eta aar.M.I. MIMIC Awn an. la POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE AROANOKE COUNTY VA U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE ROANOKE COUNTY, VA - SEFTEMBER 2022 EXISTING CARBON ROAD SECTION POTENTIAL CARBON ROAD SECTION AROANOKE COUNTY VA MARV IN BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY THE_ U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND Cuivr : l rv►Ulu r POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ROANOKE COUNTY, VA - SEPTEMBER 2022 September Survey Results Summary Overview • 35 September Responses (far fewer than 140 rest May and 220 responses in January) • Open between September 21 st and October 101 '/2 weeks) • Survey requested opinions about proposed road greenways, shared use paths and Future Land U5 22 September Survey Results Summary Road Segments Highest Agree and Somewhat Agree Scores by Op • C: 85% (17 responses) • B: 84% (16 responses) • J: 74% (14 responses) 23 September Survey Results Summary Road Segments Highest Disagree and Somewhat Disagree Scores k Opportunity: • F: 42% (8 responses) • E: 40% (8 responses) • D: 33% (7 responses) • A: 33% (7 responses) 24 September Survey Results Summary Road Segments Agree/Somewhat Agree: 88% (22 respondents) No Opinion: 4% (1 respondent) Disagree/Somewhat Disagree: 8% (2 respondents) 25 September Survey Results Summary Greenways and Shared Use Paths Greenways ITEDT©©flj Agree/Somewhat Agree: 82% (18 respondents) No Opinion: 5% (1 respondent) Disagree/Somewhat Disagree: 14% (3 respondents) Shared Use Paths (magenta) Agree/Somewhat Agree: 57% (12 respondents) No Opinion: 10% (2 respondent) Disagree/Somewhat Disagree: 33% (7 respondents) 26 September Survey Results Summary Future Land Use Changes Area 1 Agree/Somewhat Agree: 50% (10 respondents) No Opinion: 30% (6 respondents) Disagree/Somewhat Disagree: 20% (4 respondents) Area 2 Agree/Somewhat Agree: 63% (12 respondents) No Opinion: 16% (3 respondents) Disagree/Somewhat Disagree: 21% (4 respondents) Area 3 Agree/Somewhat Agree: 47% (8 respondents) No Opinion: 29% (5 respondents) Disagree/Somewhat Disagree: 24% (4 respondents) mmrualy Lt"NGEg4 ct- 11410, 27 Fall/Winter Activities • October 19, 2022: Planning Commission and Economic Development Authority held a joint meeting to review and discuss progress on the study • November 9, 2022: Board of Supervisors reviewed progress on the study at a work session • December through February: Staff reviewed and commented on draft Study • Mid -February 2023: • Draft Study and comment form posted to the project webpage; • Over 2,600 postcards mailed to owners, tenants and renters in the study area; and • Email sent out to those subscribed to project updates about the availability of the draft Study and March public hearings. Next Steps: The Roanoke County Planning Com Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors will ll Connectivity Study as a component of the Roanoke ( Roanoke County Planning Commissio Public Hearing March 7, 2023 at 7:00 p.rr Both public hearings will be First Floor Board Meeting Contact US: Megan Gronise, Assistant Director of Plannin Route 460 (Challeng[ Land Use and Connele Comment Period and P� Study Update, Inc draft Route 460 Land useandconnectl study is now available for your review andcomment. draft May alias heavily on 2022 public engagement eft and includesf • Recommended concepts to improve trove! omit Me Bonsack area without using Route Aro/chosen • Proposed Mare land rise changes along Route 9 Challenger Avenue and • Polenllal safety improvements los two existing rail, crossings. Review and Comment: Visit www.RoanokeCountyVA.g1 draft Study. and complete a bri thoughts by March 17, 2023. 28 Draft U.S. Route 460 Land Use and Connectiv Outline • Introduction • Project Overview • Corridor Issues • Current Conditions • VDOT Improvements Underway • Transportation Improvement Tools • Community Engagement • Transportation Improvement Options • Future Land Use Analysis • Railroad Crossings • Recommended Priority of Improvement Options • Appendices A. Roanoke County Map B. Study Area Map C. Railroad Crossing Study D. Public Engagement Results - Survey One E. Public Engagement Results - Survey Two F. Public Engagement Results - Survey Three U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE ROANOKE COUNTY, VA 29 Draft U.S. Route 460 Land Use and Connectiv XI. Recommended Priority of Improvement Options Each of the potential improvement projects described in this report have different capacity to improve the quality of life in the Bonsack community. Each has the potential to improve safety and convenience, but each comes with different costs to implement. Recognizing the need to identify opportunities in a context that can be evaluated for prioritization by Roanoke County, the matrix to the right identifies some of the cost and benefit expectations of each of the improvements noted in this report Note, the cost, safety, and congestion/convenience scales are relative to one another, and do not reflect real dollars or expected level of service improvements, respectively. Opportunity Improvement Description SaTely Impact ce Convenience imp.., Mitigate New Development PedestrPedestrian,Bicycle Accommodations Public Interest C, Carson Road K Carson Read Safety Improve- ends High High No Yes, Where Feasible High Hi Access to East f Railroad L Layman Road Grade -Separated Railroad Cross- ing and Roadway Realignment High High Yes Yes, Where Feasible Medium Hi AccessloEast of Railroad M Glade Creek Road Grade-Sep- mated Railroad Crossing and Connection to. Route 460 High High Yes Yes, Where Feasible Medium HI Greenway N Glade Creek Green'''' Ex- tension Gener- ally along Glade Creek High for Ped atri- a nd Bicyclists Medium No N/A High HI Blue Hills to East Ruritan A Trail Drive to Blue Hills Village Drive connection Medium High Yes Yes, Where Feasible Medium Me( Blue Hills to East Ruritan D West Ruritan Road to East Ruritan Road connection Medium High Yes Yes, Where Feasible Medium HI Valley Gateway G Evan Lane to CVO Private Driveway Medium High Yes Yes, Where Feasible High Hi East Ruritan to Walmart E East Ruritan Road to Hunt- ridge Drive (Op- tional) Medium High Yes Yes, Where Feasible Low Hi Valley Gateway H Route 4601frall Drive Intersection to Integrity Drive Medium High Yes Yes, Where Feasible High HI Valley Gateway 1 CVO Private Driveway to Valley Gateway Boulevard (Op- tional) Medium High Yes Yes, Where Feasible Medium Mel Blue Hills to East Ruritan C Route 460Nalley Gateway Inter- section to "B" Medium Medium Yes Yes, Where Feasible High Met East Ruritan to Weimar' F Country Corner crossover to"E" Medium Medium Yes Yes, Where Feasible Low Mel East Ruritan to Walmad D Huntridge Road to Lowe's/ Walmad Parking Lot Law High No Yes, Where Feasible Medium HI Valley Gateway J Kroger Parking Lot to Carson Road LOW Medium No Yes, Where Feasible High HI 30 Draft U.S. Route 460 Land Use and Connectiv Future Land Use Map The recommended opportunities for the County to update its Future Land Use Map areshown at the right with hatching to identify the extent of those changes. Area !: In the western portion of the corridor, an expansion of the Transition area to the parcels behind the Route 460 commercial Core properties is recommended. This will allow for transition uses that extend the commercial and higher density residential without disruption to the neighborhoods to the west and north of the area. Area 2: With large parcels and frontage along the Route 460 right-of- way, this highly visible area is envisioned as an appropriate location for Core uses. This use type can take advantage of VDOT planned improvements and the improvements recommended in this study to expand the retail and commercial opportunities for the Bonsack community. Area 3: Adjacent to an existing Transition Area, an expansion of the Transition area is recommended. This will create a buffer between the existing neighborhoods and any future commercial uses. LEGEND Z>xE EOP�.0 GORE TRANSITON 11, PRINCIPAL INDUSTRIAL RURAL PRESERVE DEVELOPMENT BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY .Walmartr,•a 31 March 2023 Engagement and Actions March 7, 2023: Planning Commission Public Hearing held a relayed the following comments: Proposed Study Projects • Concern about the alignment of proposed roadways B and C • Concern about the alignment of the proposed greenway • Concern about Carson Road safety issues, not wanting speeding to worsen, accommodations • Concerns over the railroad study recommendations and locations of possib VDOT Projects Underway • Concerns about VDOT projects that will restrict turning movements • Request that Route 460 be widened to six lanes instead of intersection proje Other Comments • Concerns about the use of eminent domain 32 March 2023 Engagement and Actions March 17, 2023: 29-day public comment period closed and respondents commented through the survey, by email an( Proposed Study Projects • Support for connecting residences to jobs and retail to minimize traffic on major I • Support a greenway along Glade Creek with connections for area residents to a • Support bicycle or pedestrian paths in magenta and safe crossings of Route 460 • Concern about connection A sending more traffic to the Blue Hills Drive intersect • Disagree with West Ruritan to East Ruritan connection B as it will make East Rurita 460 more dangerous • Disagree with connection C adding more traffic to the Valley Gateway intersect • Disagree with the railroad crossing projects L and M ranking high • Questions about residential impacts as a result of the potential Layman Road rail • Concern that the connecting roadways will not reduce traffic on Route 460 and development and redevelopment activities 33 March 2023 Engagement and Actions VDOT Projects Underway • Concern about the West Ruritan project resulting in more U-Turns at the VaIIE intersection • Concern about West Ruritan intersection and disagree with pedestrian acc( • Route 460 pedestrian crossings are needed but concern about VDOT projec that incorporates pedestrian accommodations • Concern about Country Corner crossover • Concern about Bonsack Road (west) proposed changes (two respondents) • Concern about Bonsack Road (west) intersection changes encouraging resi Bonsack Road (east) intersection which is dangerous Other Comments • Concern about crashes at West Ruritan and Valley Gateway intersections • Concern about speeding and crime on Route 460 34 i EXISTN ARSON ROAD SECTION POTENTIAL CARSON ROAD SECTION Changes in March 2023 exhibit: 1) Adjustment to alignment G to connect with right-of-way dedicated to Roanoke County in 1987 (white circle); and 2) Expanded legend descriptions to better describe intent of proposed alignments (orange box). BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY ROANOKE COUNTY VA U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ROANOKE COUNTY; VA - MARCH 2023 Implementation: Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Building off of the railroad crossing analysis performed as part of this study, Planning staff submitted a request for funding to conduct a Planning Study through the Federal Railroad Administration's Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program. The area of focus includes the following at -grade railroad crossings: • Layman Road • Glade Creek Road Awards are anticipated anytime. 36 Railroad Crossing Elimini Location Map Virginia's 6th Congressional District 0 250 500 1000 September 2022 Implementation: Carson Road Safety ImproN Due to overwhelming community feedback about the need for Carson Road improvements, Roanoke County is beginning survey activities and will initiate preliminary design activities for a SMART SCALE Round 6 application which could include: Glade Creek bridge widening/ replacement; • Sight distance improvements; • Shoulder improvements; Feasibility of bicycle and/or pedestrian improvements; and Feasibility of a connection to the Kroger parking lot. Implementation: Roadway Connections Staff have used the proposed roadway improvements exhibit in several discussions with prospective developers over the past several months. The exhibit and the corresponding table are valuable tools. 38 Questions U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND ROANOKE COUNTY, VA ..•. •r •r TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. V.S. Route 460 Connectil Roanoke Cot Februai Prepar Phone: 54C Address: 5204 Seconc Roanoke,' https://www.roanokec Prepay •` TIMMON U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND U I U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY I. Introduction The U.S. Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study (Study) has been prepared for the County of RoanokE (County) to identify opportunities for mitigating the impacts of development and reducing high volumes of traffic in the Challenger Avenue Corridor. Efforts to mitigate safety challenges and increase convenience and quality of life arE among the goals of the Study. Timmons Group met with the County and other stakeholders, including surrounding governmental jurisdictions, Virginiz Department of Transportation (VDOT), agencies, residents, and businesses in the Bonsack area, to understand the challenges the area faces. Timmons Group identified potential transportation improvements based on feedback from these stakeholders anc shared this information in several public meetings, where feedback was received and incorporated into the Study. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY II. Project Overview Purpose of Study Roanoke County desires to position itself for future economic growth. Safety, access, and availability of utilities and other infrastructure is imperative to that goal. The U.S. Route 460 (Route 460) corridor between the City of Roanoke and Botetourt County (also referred to in this report as the Challenger Avenue Corridor) is identified as one of the primary locations for future commercial development and redevelopment, along with infill opportunities. Roanoke County's Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study focuses on recommending alternate ways to travel around the Bonsack community, consideration of whether existing zoning and future land use designations match the desired development of the area, and an examination of whether the two at -grade railroad crossings can and should be improved to create development opportunities between the railroad and the Blue Ridge Parkway. This study identifies improvement opportunities in both traffic and land use for the Challenger Avenue Corridor. Traffic issues, including heavy daily traffic backups that lead to safety concerns, are central to addressing if the corridor is to successfully grow. Similarly, the correct decisions in land use for the properties that are yet to be developed or redeveloped, is critical to preserving the character of the area which so many residents and landowners currently enjoy. This Study will guide Roanoke County in its future decisions and actions over the next 5 to 15 years in the Challenger Avenue Corridor and can be reviewed in the next two pages. Limits of Study The limits of this study include the Challenger Avenue Corridor from the City of Roanoke to Botetourt County and includes properties proximate to Route 460 most impacted by land use and transportation issues. The Study Area also includes lands east of the Norfolk Southern Railroad Tracks to the Blue Ridge Parkway. ORM 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY WATERBODIES II CEMETERIES -STREAMS PARCEL BOUNDARIES STUDY LIMITS Study Area Map U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Study Purpose I. Recommend ways to travel around the Bonsack community that are alternatives to Route 460/Challenger Avenue One characteristic of the Challenger Avenue Corridor impacts Bonsack traffic more than any other, and that is the presence of a single major arterial road serving high volumes of local and regional motorists. Central to this study is determining viable recommendations for potential ways to travel through the area using alternatives to Route 460, which can include existing and potential proposed routes. 2. Consider existing zoning classifications and future land use designations to determine potential changes to match desired development types The area surrounding the Challenger Avenue Corridor is poised for commercial growth and economic development opportunities for Roanoke County. This Study examines, in combination with alternate routes of travel around the Bonsack community, whether the existing future land use types, and newly created areas of development, along the corridor meet the future land use goals and desires of Roanoke County and its residents. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Study Purpose 3. Examine existing at -grade railroad crossings for potential improvements that may create development opportunities between the railroad and the Blue Ridge Parkway Because of the abundance of large parcel acreage to the east of the Norfolk Southern rail line, this Study evaluates the opportunities for economic development and expansion of land use options to that area. Expansion in that area will depend on safe access and other appropriate infrastructure to support such activities. As such, the Layman Road railroad crossing and Glade Creek Road railroad crossing were studied to evaluate what improvements could be made to either crossing to access the land east of the railroad. 4. Examine the potential for a greenway along Glade Creek as an expansion of the Roanoke Valley Greenway Plans Following the first public response of this Study, many respondents expressed overwhelming support for the construction of a greenway along Glade Creek. Due to the public response, this Study seeks to determine opportunities for the Bonsack community to enhance and develop outdoor recreation opportunities in the form of greenways and trails. Greenways are envisioned as part of three Roanoke Valley Greenway Plans conducted since 1995. Inclusion of this corridor in advancing that vision and determining the viability of a greenway along Glade Creek is an important component of this Study. This Study also seeks to find ways to improve pedestrian and bicycle accommodations within the Bonsack community to reduce the auto dependence for all activities in the area. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Project Timeline The process of this study was a combination of consultant and County evaluations as well as engagement with the coordination with outside agencies, including VDOT, Roanoke City, Botetourt County, and the Roanoke Valley Alleg Q rffi g OCT 2021- JAN 2022 T Consultant Due Diligence and Review of the Study Area JAN - FEB 2022 T First Community Survey FEB i First Commi Hou MAY 2022 MAY - SEPT 2022 SEPT 2022 T T T Second Community Survey Consultant Revisions Based Final Community Meeting On Community Feedback U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Public Engagement Meetings with Public Public engagement and feedback is critical for the successful implementation of the Plan. Many points of interaction were planned and executed in the Study to help guide the final recommendations. In all, three in -person community engagement sessions were held, along with companion surveys for each session to allow the public a variety of options to participate. These meetings proved to be valuable to the final report. Many comments were based on issues of traffic congestion, existing road conditions, and safety concerns. In addition, issues were discussed with the public, including property rights, expectations of how the report would be used, and whether there were future processes that would take place where public input could be gathered. Over the three meetings, 249 citizens attended in person and 399 more responded to surveys. These sessions are detailed in Section VII of this report and the surveys are included in the appendix. The public engagement sessions were followed by staff and consultant meetings with the County Planning Commission (in a joint work session with the Economic Development Authority) and the Board of Supervisors. Each of these meetings is further detailed in Section VII of this report. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Public Engagement Surveys of the Public Three surveys were employed during this plan process. They are included, along with responses, in Appendix E and are further described below. ► Survey 1 — General Information & Opinion Request This survey requested feedback from the public on their concerns and hopes for the future of the Challenger Avenue Corridor. ► Survey 2 — Feedback and Concerns Survey of Draft Improvements Recommendations This survey asked for specific feedback on the various improvements offered by the consultants in both transportation and future land use. ► Survey 3 — Feedback on Final Draft This brief survey sought additional feedback given the changes between public meetings prior to sharing the draft report with the Planning Commission, Economic Development Authority, and Board of Supervisors. Response to Public Input The public input was critical to the final draft. Input received in all public meetings and surveys generated substantial beneficial guidance to the final product, and substantially benefits the legitimacy of the improvement plan included in this report. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY III. Corridor Issues This Study was produced to plan for the future of the Challenger Avenue Corridor, specifically as it relates to traffic issues existing and likely to increase in the future. Significant daily rush -hours in the corridor contribute to challenges to the quality of life and potential economic growth. Some of the problems encountered in the corridor are included below. Route 460 Mainline Congestion — Heavy commuter traffic during rush hour between the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, Botetourt County, and Bedford County produces the most common traffic concern, which is backups on Route 460. Lack of Alternate Routes — The Challenger Avenue Corridor provides only one direct route from the City of Roanoke to points east. Alternative routes, where available, generally carry traffic through residential neighborhoods, creating safety concerns in those communities. Recent Commercial Development — Several recent commercial developments along the corridor have increased congestion and intersection delays, which lead to commuter tendency to run red lights during signal changes. This safety concern will only increase as the commercial development along Route 460 increases. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Corridor Issues Route 460 Capacity Route 460 serves as the only primary arterial to points east and north of Roanoke, aside from Interstate 81 and Route 11 several miles to the north. Virtually all traffic in Roanoke riding east, including non -local commuters traveling to places like Lynchburg, Richmond, and the Atlantic coast, use one of these two routes. Challenger Avenue is four lanes wide, with two lanes in each direction, along with associated turn lanes at several intersections through the Corridor. There are four major signalized intersections that serve the corridor, including Alternate Route 220, West Ruritan Road, Valley Gateway Boulevard, and Walmart/ Lowes Shopping Center (Walmart), These are the most controlled points through the corridor. There are an additional 23 access points, both public roads and private entrances, along Route 460 that are less controlled and add to congestion and safety in the area. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Corridor Issues Route 460 Access One of the primary constraints along the corridor for businesses and residents are the limited access points. Due to the high volume and speed along the corridor and the lack of available alternative routes, VDOT classifies this roadway as a principal arterial. On principal arterials, minimizing access points for safety and through traffic progression is desirable. This is because any crashes or congestion impact proportionally larger numbers of roadway users when compared to less important highways. VDOT's access management standards provide minimum spacing of various types of intersections to help preserve these characteristics, becoming more restrictive as roadway volumes and speeds increase. An excerpt of VDOT's standards is available in the table below. Functional Classification Design Speed Minimum Distance (ft) Between Intersections Signalized Four Leg Tee/ Directional Four Leg Right -In Right -Out Principal Arterial 35 to 45 mph 1,320 1,050 565 305 Collector 35 to 45 mph 660 440 335 250 See VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F, Table 2-2 for additional functional classifications and speeds Many intersections along the corridor were established prior to these standards and violate minimum spacing requirements. As such, VDOT's study recommends restricting certain turning movements for safety reasons and optimizing signals and their geometry to reduce delay along the corridor. Route 460 is also one of VDOT's Corridors of Statewide Significance and is part of its Arterial Preservation Program, which further restricts access. As a result, adding new signals to provide access for developments is more difficult. Access management requirements also greatly restrict access to properties along roads connecting to Route 460, many of which are collectors with speed limits of 35 miles per hour (mph). This limits the ability to create accesses to parcels or parallel routes off of side streets. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Corridor Issues Carson Road During the study, Carson Road emerged as a significant component of the Challenger Avenue Corridor network. It serves as a primary relief valve for daily backup traffic and is a cut -through for many commuters, including (through public communications) students that travel to William Byrd High School. Carson Road has many challenges that make it a priority for improvement consideration. It is two lanes of inconsistent alignment and width, and has a one -lane bridge where Glade Creek crosses the road. It is tightly fit between a tributary stream and rock -faced slopes, leaving little potential for major improvements. Carson Road also is the focus of many concerns expressed in the public engagement sessions, primarily relating to safety concerns and worry about the extent of potential improvements by those who own property along it or in the vicinity. While Carson Road will likely serve as a continued relief -valve road for peak hour traffic in the future, care should be taken in balancing improvements that help the current safety challenges without disrupting the nature of the current Carson Road and the neighborhoods that it serves. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Corridor Issues West Ruritan Road Intersection West Ruritan Road at its intersection with Route 460 has seen significant change in recent years with the arrival of a new Chick-fil-A restaurant on the northwest corner of the intersection. The successful chain, opened in 2015, has created backups and neighborhood challenges to those who use West Ruritan Road as the primary access. Furthering the congestion is the recent opening of the Lewis Gale Blue Hills Emergency Room across the street from Chick-fil-A. These two commercial uses are generating steady traffic on West Ruritan Road. VDOT has proposed and is scheduled to improve the intersection by converting it to a thru-cut. A thru-cut is an intersection design where side street through movements are prohibited. A thru-cut will reduce the number of points where vehicles cross paths, and it will eliminate the side street through movement, allowing for fewer and shorter traffic signal phases, which reduces delay and increases capacity. Fewer traffic signal phases means less time stopped at the intersection. Offset left turn lanes will also be included for improved sight distance, along with pedestrian facilities through the median. As the majority of movements on the side streets are left and right turns, this will not significantly impact the way that drivers currently use the intersection, except for trips between the residential uses to the north and the CVS which will require vehicles to U-turn at the next downstream intersection. While this intersection brings economic benefit through its commercial activity, traffic challenges will continue in the future. Improvements made elsewhere in the corridor will be aimed at helping relieve visitors to this area without further disrupting neighborhoods. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY IV. Current Conditions In evaluating the best future for the Challenger Avenue Corridor, it is important to begin with the conditions that exist today. There are several factors that are considered in determining land use and transportation options. The primary factors include more than just road networks and geographic features. They also include the land uses that the existing infrastructure is serving. The following pages identify current conditions that are relevant to determining the best improvement strategies for the future of the corridor. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Current Conditions Jurisdictional Boundaries The study area is located at the northeastern edge of Roanoke County between the City of Roanoke and the County of Botetourt. It is a narrow but significant segment of Roanoke County, given the lack of regional roads other than Route 460. ROANOKE COUNTY CITY OF SALEM ROANOKE COUNTY BOTETOURT COUNTY STUDY AREA CITY OF ROANOKE T1 OWN O' BEDFORD COUNTY FRANKLIN COUNTY Jurisdictional Boundaries Map LEGEND 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY WATERBODIES II CEMETERIES -STREAMS PARCEL BOUNDARIES STUDY LIMITS County8du idary Map" "' . "" U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Current Conditions Challenger Avenue Corridor The existing Route 460 corridor is a 45 mph urban major arterial throughout most of the study area until after U.S. Route 220 Alternate(Alt.), which provides a connection to 1-81. Traffic volumes are approximately 34,000 vehicles per day. Land uses along the corridor are a mix of low density residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses (churches and cemeteries). There are also undeveloped, forested parcels to the west of the road and a mix of forested parcels and graded pads present to the east, along with agricultural uses further east across the railroad. The existing roadway section is a four lane divided highway with wide outside paved shoulder for most of its length and intermittent left and right turn lanes. Regional drainage patterns run west to east from a ridge to Glade Creek, which roughly parallels Route 460. Drainage along the roadway is primarily conveyed by ditches or sheet flow, with a number of crossing culverts with mapped floodplains crossing under the road. No pedestrian or bicycle facilities are present along the road. Intermittent median openings are present in Roanoke County at Blue Hills Village Drive, Carson Road, East Ruritan Road, Country Corner Store, Huntridge Road, and Bonsack Road. Signals are present at West Ruritan Road, Valley Gateway Boulevard, the entrance to the Walmart and Lowe's shopping center, and at Route 220 Alt. Improvements are funded for several of these intersections, as discussed later in this document. LEGEND 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN '.'. BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY WATERBODIES II CEMETERIES -STREAMS PARCEL BOUNDARIES STUDY LIMITS ChallengerAVenue Corridor Map U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Current Conditions Railroad Norfolk Southern railroad has a strong history in the Roanoke Region, and its impact on the Bonsack community is significant. The railroad serves as a primary coal carrying route from states to the west through Roanoke to Norfolk. Amtrak also uses the railroad track to access the Roanoke station. It divides land in the Bonsack area between the residential areas and the agricultural lands adjacent to the Blue Ridge Parkway. The tracks generally sit in the lower elevations that follow the Glade Creek watershed through the County. There are two at -grade railroad crossings in Bonsack impacted by the Norfolk Southern line. Those lines include the Layman Road crossing and the Glade Creek Road crossing. Both are further identified and studied in this report. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Current Conditions Blue Ridge Parkway The internationally recognized Blue Ridge Parkway is adjacent to the Bonsack community and provides a unique outdoor benefit to the residents of Roanoke as well as those visiting the area. There is no direct access to the Blue Ridge Parkway from the Bonsack community. The Blue Ridge Parkway does present some issues that were evaluated in this Study, including visibility of proposed land uses. Because of the location of, and access to, the Blue Ridge Parkway, its primary beneficial role in the Bonsack community is aesthetic. It provides a direct view of outdoor conservation and preservation, and the residents who currently see views of the Parkway and beyond can be confident that they will continue to enjoy this for generations to come. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Current Conditions Neighborhoods The most prevalent land use, in and around the Study Area, is residential single-family neighborhoods. These neighborhoods were built primarily in the 1980's and 1990's, while other parcels have long been residential homesites, making the Bonsack area a long -known and desired location for residential living in Roanoke County. Larger scale residential neighborhoods are prevalent to the west of Challenger Avenue. These neighborhoods have their primary access limited to East and West Ruritan Roads and Huntridge Road, so traffic impacts to these roads directly impact these neighborhoods. Neighborhoods east of Challenger Avenue are directly visible from Challenger Avenue and more familiar to commuters as a result. This community is primarily individually built parcels, though there are two small subdivisions that have been built through the years, including Little Tree Acres and more recently, Aprils Meadow east of the railroad. SUMMERFIELD COLONIAL TRAIL PARK EVINGTON AT ONSACK MEAL TI WEST RURIT HOMES MARVIN MOUTAIN MEADOWS AUTUMN ESTATES O DRIVE', TRIPL CROWN ESTATES w GLADE HILL ESTATES LEGEND 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY WATERBODIES II CEMETERIES ,STREAMS PARCEL BOUNDARIES STUDY LIMITS Surroun:ing` erg"bithi ci ap' U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Current Conditions Commercial and Industrial Uses Commercial use exists along the Challenger Avenue Corridor and is a reason for much of the traffic on Route 460. Commercial uses range from long-standing roadside garden centers to big -box retailers like Lowe's and Walmart. The corridor has a major grocer and also is home to several large-scale industrial users. More recently, commercial development has expanded to bring fast-food restaurants and emergency medical service centers to the area. These commercial and industrial uses are recognized as important drivers of the local economy while at the same time adding to some of the traffic challenges in the area. COMME COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL LEGEND 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN L_,, BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY • WATERBODIES II CEMETERIES STREAMS PARCEL BOUNDARIES STUDY LIMITS Surrounding Non -Residential Use Map U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Current Conditions Topography Part of the beauty and attractiveness of the Challenger Avenue Corridor and Bonsack is its rolling hills and varied vertical landscapes. What is pleasing to the eye, however, is a challenge for infrastructure, most specifically roads with safe sight distances. With the exception of the Glade Creek floodplain that parallels the rail line, well over 50% of the Bonsack area exceeds topographical grades of 10%. Route 460 itself was carved into some of the steepest topography through the corridor and the steepest slopes in the area are found near East Ruritan Road. Carson Road is also carved into a very steep granite hillside. In areas east of the rail line, the lands steepen significantly from flat in the floodplain to 25% or more in some areas as the land moves east toward the Blue Ridge Parkway. LEGEND 0TO4% SLOPE 4 TO 8% SLOPE 8 TO 12% SLOPE 12 TO 15% SLOPE ■ > 15% SLOPE Existing Slope Map U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Current Conditions Streams & Floodplains Glade Creek carves a significant floodplain through the heart of the Bonsack area. This floodplain ranges from 60 to 1,460 feet wide in some areas and limits the opportunities for both access and development due to the constraints it creates. Streams, both Glade Creek and its tributaries, braid through the area, with the most significant tributaries extending north along Carson Road and to East Ruritan Road. A second significant stream bed drains lands from the Route 220 Alt area and carries water south past the Walmart shopping center and through the heart of Bonsack before reaching Glade Creek. These environmental features, including the wetlands and soil conditions that often accompany them, create development constraints that must be considered when identifying opportunities for future development. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY V. VDOT Improvements Underway In 2019 and 2020, VDOT, the City of Roanoke, and Roanoke County studied potential safety and operational improvements along Route 460 from Williamson Road to Alternate Route 220. This is known as the VDOT Route 460 STARS Study. The purpose of the study was to evaluate operational and safety conditions along Route 460 within the study area, consider and assess potential safety and operational improvements in the study area, and develop cost estimates for potential improvements. While this County study focuses on improving traffic flow around Route 460, the VDOT STARS Study provided recommendations for improving intersections and traffic flow on Route 460. For this study to properly propose new and improved ways for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists to move around the Bonsack area without having to use Route 460, it must consider the Route 460 improvements planned as a result of the VDOT STARS Study. Two of the intersection improvements (Route 460 at Patrick Road and Blue Hills Drive/Mexico way and Route 460 at Blue Hills Village Drive) are located within City of Roanoke limits and therefore their outcomes are not directly impacted by Roanoke County. However, since the intersections are adjacent to the study limits, they are included for completeness. CITY OF ROANOKE IMPROVEMENT 411605 ROANOKE COUNTY IMPROVEMENT U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY VDOT Improvements Underway Blue Hills Drive Just south of the County of Roanoke line, the left out of Patrick Road will be removed to reduce delay and crashes caused by vehicles trying to take lefts out of Patrick Road during heavy traffic. A southbound left lane will be added to the existing median opening so that vehicles who want to turn left into Grace and Truth Baptist Church or take a U-turn to access other businesses can do so without blocking one of the southbound through lanes. The signal at Blue Hills Drive and Mexico Way will be converted to a thru-cut. This will reduce the number of phases at the signal from four to three by allowing the side streets to operate simultaneously, reducing loss time at the signal, and optimizing performance. Offset left turn lanes will improve sight distance for left turn vehicles so that opposing lefts do not block sight distance. Removing the through movement will reduce the number of conflict points in the intersection. Pedestrian facilities will be installed to facilitate safe crossings of Route 460. PROJECT FACTS: COST: $5.6M FUNDING SOURCE: FUNDED THROUGH SMART SCALE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION ADVERTISEMENT DATE: 2026 7 Route 460 (Orange/Challenger Avenue) Operational Improv=, SB Left Divert Lynn Brae D NB Left Divert: Blue Hills Dr Modify Existing C Install RGU 1.47117.4 Wi U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY VDOT Improvements Underway Blue Hills Village Drive At Blue Hills Village Drive, the existing median opening will have a concrete island installed. All maneuvers on Route 460 will be completed as they are today. Drivers who previously took lefts out of Blue Hills Village Drive or the Advance Auto Parts or crossed Route 460 will no longer be able to do so. This will improve safety by reducing the number of vehicles trying to cross multiple lanes of traffic, which is especially dangerous during periods of heavy traffic. For businesses along Blue Hills Village Drive, vehicles can route out the other end to Blue Hills Drive, turn left, and then use the signal at Blue Hills Drive and Route 460 to have a signalized movement to head north. This moves the unprotected left turn movement off of Route 460 and onto Blue Hills Drive, which is lower volume and lower speed, and directs traffic to a signal with protected movements, which is safer than using the currently uncontrolled movement. PROJECT FACTS: COST: $5.6M FUNDING SOURCE: FUNDED THROUGH SMART SCALE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION ADVERTISEMENT DATE: 2026 Route 460 (Orange/Challenger Avenue) Operational Improv=, 1.47117.4 Wi U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY VDOT Improvements Underway West Ruritan Road ROL Similar to the intersection at Blue Hills Drive, the intersection of Route 460 and West Ruritan Road will also be converted to a thru-cut to improve operations and reduce conflicts points, thus improving safety. Offset left turn lanes will also be included for improved sight distance, along with pedestrian facilities through the median. As the majority of movements on the side streets are left and right turns, this will not significantly impact the way that drivers currently use the intersection, except for trips between the residential uses to the north and the CVS which will require vehicles to U-turn at the next downstream intersection. PROJECT FACTS: COST: $7.5M FUNDING SOURCE: FUNDED THROUGH SMART SCALE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION ADVERTISEMENT DATE: 2026 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY VDOT Improvements Underway Carson Road to Huntridge Road Carson Road and East Ruritan Road currently operate as four leg intersections in very close proximity to one another. The larger number of turns and crossing movements in a short distance is unsafe and violates access management standards. By removing the ability to take lefts or make through movements from Carson Road, the Roanoke Seventh- Day Adventist Church entrance, East Ruritan Road, and Bonsack Road, the number of conflict points between vehicles making those movements and vehicles along the mainline is reduced. These are also some of the most dangerous maneuvers to make, especially when traffic is heavy and there are minimal gaps between vehicles. Vehicles who previously turned left onto Challenger Avenue will have to turn right. For most of these movements, the next available movement will be an unprotected U-turn at the adjacent intersection. PROJECT FACTS: COST: $2.8M FUNDING SOURCE: FUNDED THROUGH SMART SCALE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION ADVERTISEMENT DATE: 2026 ROUTE 460 FROM I U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY VDOT Improvements Underway Carson Road to Huntridge Road (cont.) The median opening outside of Country Corner currently has no left turn lanes. Vehicles trying to make left turns and U-turns can wait in the median, but if there are too many vehicles, they block one of the through lanes, leading to congestion and accidents. By adding left turn lanes in both directions, the safety of the intersection is greatly improved. Similar to other intersections, vehicles turning left out of Country Corner have more lanes of traffic to cross, which can be difficult and unsafe during periods of high volume. By adding a concrete island, these vehicles are directed northbound to U-turn at Huntridge Road or to the signal at the commercial entrance north of Huntridge Road. Limiting through movements from the west side of the intersection currently only affects one home. Due to topographic constraints, there are currently no downstream ingresses for over 1,000'. If the northwest parcel is redeveloped and desires full access to Route 460, vehicles can route to Huntridge Road, turn right, and then U-turn at this intersection. At Huntridge Road, full access is currently permitted, which presents similar safety concerns for outbound lefts during heavy traffic. By removing the outbound left and restricting the intersection to right turns and downstream U-turns, the crash rate at the intersection will decrease. PROJECT FACTS: COST: $2.8M FUNDING SOURCE: FUNDED THROUGH SMART SCALE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION ADVERTISEMENT DATE: 2026 Install Left-Tu ROUTE 460 FROM I NB Left Diverted to Huntridge Road Install RCUT Install Left -Turn Lane U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY VDOT Improvements Underway Route 220 Alternate The intersection of Route 460 and Route 220 Alternate (Cloverdale Road) is currently one of the main sources of congestion along the corridor since Cloverdale Road provides access across a mountain ridge to 1-81, the only such crossing for almost 5 miles. Heavy turning movements occur at this intersection. Safety issues on the southbound approach caused by congestion are compounded by the reduction in speed limit from 60 mph to 45 mph to the north and the fact that there are no nearby traffic signals, so drivers are not expecting to stop. By converting the intersection to have a displaced left turn on Cloverdale Road, operations are improved by allowing the northbound left to operate simultaneously with turning movements from Cloverdale Road. This reduces the number of phases at the primary signal from three to two, optimizing operations. The two-phase signal along Cloverdale Road would be coordinated to optimizing progression of left turning movements. Adding a second right turn lane will reduce queues and maximize the benefits of providing an overlapping (or simultaneous) movement with the northbound left. PROJECT FACTS: COST: $21.8M PROJECT FUNDING SOURCE: FUNDED THROUGH SMART SCALE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION ADVERTISEMENT DATE: 2027 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY VI. Transportation Improvement Tools Central to this study is the goal of improving transportation options. Improvement options include physical road improvements as well as pedestrian, bicycle, and/or transit improvements. For the purpose of this study, no plans for transit are contemplated, including bus, rideshare, or other non -infrastructure based improvements. Land use decisions also impact the expectation of additional traffic as the Bonsack area builds out. This study evaluates the impact of future land use changes and makes recommendations for potential amendments to the Future Land Use Map in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. Infrastructure improvements include several options, and those options are outlined on the next two pages. Each option carries different costs to implement, different challenges to acquire property needed, and different community concerns regarding the nature of change that the improvement will create. This Study evaluates the benefit of each option weighed generally against the potential adverse impacts. It further includes feedback from the public engagement to include the opinions of the community most directly impacted in shaping the final recommendations. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY NewTie-Ins & Connections New connections, or points of connection for vehicles serve several beneficial goals. A new connection adds capacity to the system. More important, it adds directional options for traffic. This is particularly important for emergency vehicle access to citizens in need, but also provides peak time -of -day alternative options for residents to get to and from their destinations. Road Widening Road widening options in this category include building new lanes of traffic, widening existing lanes of traffic, adjusting paint markings, and widening shoulders and medians. Road widenings can increase capacity where it is needed without diverting that traffic to other points on the route to destinations. Continued widening of roadways has a point of diminishing returns when the improvements are met with road networks nearby with lower capacity. Right-of-way acquisition costs increasingly make widening projects financially infeasible. Care should be taken in utilizing road widenings to areas where the traffic backlogs have a reasonable long-term benefit in traffic throughout. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Road Realignment Road realignments can improve roads that have evolved from old alignments. In Virginia, many roads are built along historic wagon and horse roads that are paved over as the need for additional roadways arise. These old alignments can be unsafe from both a visibility and curvature standpoint. Visibility of higher speed roads requires longer sight distances for safe stopping and maneuvering of vehicles, and curvatures of some of the old roadbeds do not consider such speeds. Many of these roadways also don't consider wide shoulders which provides a factor of safety for motorists whose tires leave the driving surface for whatever reason. The lack of safe shoulders, when combined with limited visibility, can be major factors in crashes. Road realignment uses more modern design criteria to reduce the risk of crashes due to unsafe stopping conditions. Road realignment can be considered a form of road widening, since in most realignments, the road is improved in both curvature and lane width. One concern when choosing a road realignment is whether the alignment improvement will create a more attractive alternative for motorists to use. If too many new motorists use an improved alignment, it can burden the capacity of that road which then may create unsafe conditions. Traffic Calming Traffic calming is a technique primarily aimed at reducing speeds and increasing safety on existing roads without restricting capacity or access to those roads. These tools include speed humps, raised intersections, chokers, raised intersections, curb extensions, and median island refuges. Roundabouts in certain forms can act as a traffic calming device, reducing approach speeds to the intersection while improving flow through the intersections. Most traffic calming techniques are employed on roadways where excessive speed is the primary issue. In the Bonsack community, this issue was not seen as a prevalent issue. The exception was Carson Road, which many in the community felt was dangerous and needed more safety measures to reduce dangerous speeds through the corridor. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY VII. Community Engagement Community Meeting #I January 13, 2021 Purpose — Because the Challenger Avenue Corridor goals include improving the quality of life for the citizens who regularly use the roads, Community outreach was an important component of this study. The purpose of Meeting #1 was providing the community with clarity of purpose of the study, so that the public could understand their role in shaping the study and its recommendations. Survey— Prior to the first meeting, a community survey was offered for the community to share their thoughts on a variety of topics, including traffic, economic opportunities, quality of life, and the history of Bonsack. The survey received 220 responses which are provided in Appendix D. These responses helped the team in prioritizing elements of the study for the first draft of improvement suggestions. Meeting Summary— The meeting, held at Bonsack Elementary School, on January 13, 2021, was attended by 44 citizens. Timmons Group provided maps and was present to share the study limits that define the scope of the study. The team listened to questions and comments from those in attendance. No recommended strategies were provided to the public, rather the event was entirely about collecting the thoughts of those most impacted by the area, those who live and work in the area. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) staff attended to answer questions about the planned and funded SMART SCALE projects located at West Ruritan Road, at intersections between and including Carson Road and Huntridge Road, and at Route 220 Alternate. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Community Engagement Community Meeting #2 May is,zozz Purpose — In Community Meeting #2, the study team shared initial opportunities for consideration and feedback. The opportunities included a variety of new roads, improvements to existing roads, pedestrian path options, and potential Future Land Use changes. The graphic locations and their relationship to properties was shown on large boards and displayed for the community to see. Survey — Prior to Community Meeting #2, a detailed survey shared potential improvements and proposed Future Land Use changes throughout the Bonsack Community. 140 surveys were completed and included a wide range of ideas and comments. The survey responses are shown in Appendix E. Meeting Summary— Community Meeting #2 was attended by 98 citizens interested in commenting and asking questions about the plan. This meeting included considerable feedback from those at the meeting. As expected in such meetings, many comments were focused around areas that were relevant to an individual's home or property. The team learned about historical elements and property details, and fielded questions about the purpose of the opportunities presented. The substantive feedback, along with concerns about safety and property impacts, was valuable in adjustments for the team in consideration of priorities and the value that the community placed on the improvements. Resulting from the meeting, it was decided by the study team to add an additional engagement meeting to share new improvement opportunities that would be presented in the final document. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY were made to the improvement opportunities after the study team heard feedback from Community Engagement Community Meeting #3 Septemeber 29, 2022 " ffin Purpose — Community Meeting #3 intended to share the substantive changes that 4 both survey and in -person responses from the community in Community Meeting #2. Like each of the other meetings, central to the purpose of this meeting was clarity and opportunity for responding to the ideas presented. Survey — Prior to Community Meeting #3, a final survey showed the recommended improvements prepared by the team and asked for responses of agreement or disagreement. In all, 39 surveys were completed and those surveys are shown in Appendix F. Meeting Summary — Community Meeting #3 was held in the gymnasium of Bonsack Elementary School. There were 107 attendees, again providing an opportunity to ask questions and present feedback to the team. In addition to the recommendations for the Challenger Avenue Corridor, pipeline projects (those already underway) were shared to ensure that concerns of specific projects were not misconstrued as part of the study proposals for the corridor. In addition to general conversation and feedback, many in attendance shared their appreciation that the team had listened and incorporated public feedback substantively into the plan. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Community Engagement Other County Meetings Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Economic Development Authority October 19, 2022 I n this special meeting ofthe Planning Commission and the Economic DevelopmentAuthority, Timmons Group and County Planning staff reviewed the project, the process, and the recommendations to the members, and received questions and feedback. Comments and questions included economic development issues east of the railroad tracks, Read Mountain Preserve (unrelated to this study), and County/City cooperation in the study. Board of Supervisors Work Session November 9, 2022 In this work session of the Board of Supervisors, Timmons Group and County Planning staff reviewed the project, process, and recommendations to the Board members present. Comments from the Board members were focused on the value and importance of moving forward on improvements, along with funding needs to ensure that the improvements can become reality. The Board received the report with enthusiasm, and was supportive of taking the next steps to finalize the study and work toward Comprehensive Plan changes to ensure guidance of this report into future land use decisions. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY VIII.Transportation Improvement Options After review of existing conditions, road improvement projects in the pipeline, and after hearing from the public through three community meetings and surveys, Timmons Group analyzed the potential tools that could be used to improve transportation options in the Bonsack community. Those areas of study, and recommendations, are grouped into areas of impact. There are seven areas of potential transportation improvements. They are: ► Blue Hills to East Ruritan ► East Ruritan to Walmart ► Valley Gateway ► Carson Road ► Greenways & Paths ► Access to Points East of Railroad These improvement opportunities are detailed on the next several pages. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Blue Hills Drive to East Ruritan Road The improvements shown in this area are intended to increase directional driving options for residents and commercial travelers on the west side of Challenger Avenue between the Roanoke City line and East Ruritan Road. Central to these improvements are efforts to reduce impacts, both current and future, at the intersection of West Ruritan Road and Route 460. Improvement recommendations include an extension of a publicly accessible road between Trail Drive and Blue Hills Village Drive. This road will give viable options to residents living west of Challenger Avenue in the vicinity of West Ruritan Road, to customers of Chick-Fil-A, and other nearby businesses with indirect but convenient access to a signalized intersection at Blue Hills Drive in Roanoke City. This improvement is depicted as Project A on the map. Project B shows an improvement opportunity for the neighborhoods west of Route 460 to have alternative paths to destinations without having to access Route 460 directly. This additional connection serves not only to benefit travel at rush hours, but throughout the day as well. This road would likely be constructed as part of new development or redevelopment of the parcels over which the road is built. This might include commercial and/or residential development. Right-of-way acquisition would be an important element of this road, and the conceptual alignment has been shown to minimize the need for right-of-way from different property owners. The addition of this road, if built, is not anticipated to increase traffic to the neighborhoods, but it will provide more convenient options for the residents of those neighborhoods, while reducing slightly the burden of traffic on Route 460. Project C includes a proposed access road from the currently signalized intersection of Route 460 and Valley Gateway Boulevard. This access, if built, would be part of the development of parcels along the Challenger Avenue Corridor and is intended to connect with the road alignment depicted as Project B. The primary purpose of this improvement is to reduce traffic on Route 460. It will have minimal impact on current traffic patterns and is thus not a short-term priority. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Blue Hills to LEGEND - NEW ROADWAYS - CROSSINGS 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY WAT ERBO DI ES —STREAMS a CEMETERIES STUDY LIMITS COUNTY BOUNDARY •—•—.- PARCEL BOUNDARIES •-i, C % Y14 a C)11k1 It -I e ', *mi..- _ .. 111 a r z cc cc HCA 1-14ath =Ai -r:72 r ir•—` 11004.04fti U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY East Ruritan Road to Walmart The improvements shown in this area are intended to increase driving options for residents and commercial travelers on the west side of Challenger Avenue between East Ruritan Road and Walmart. The improvements also allow an increased use of existing signalized intersections nearby for better mobility after the current VDOT projects are in place. Project D represents an opportunity to provide a direct access from Huntridge Road to Walmart without having to access directly to Route 460 to do so. This directional option will be important particularly as the VDOT improvement at Huntridge Road and Route 460 closes off eastbound left turns for those on Huntridge Road heading to Walmart. While topography is a consideration because of the grade differential from Huntridge Road to the Lowes side of the shopping center, there is a viable access that ties directly to the service road in the shopping center. Project E, as shown on the map, represents a potential east/west parallel road to Route 460 between East Ruritan Road and Huntridge Road, without necessarily having to access Route 460 directly. This road serves a significantly similar role as Project B, described in the preceding pages. This road, if built, is envisioned as a public or private road (with public access granted), and would likely be constructed as part of new development of the parcels over which the road is built. This might include commercial and/or residential development. The road is shown as a dashed line to reference the importance of the connection, but not specifically the alignment. As development is planned in the area, this access can be woven into the design of road and parking elements of new development. The exact location of this access path would be determined at the time of concept planning for the development. The addition of Project E, if built, is not anticipated to increase traffic to the neighborhoods, but it will provide more convenient options for the residents of those neighborhoods, especially those traveling to Walmart, while reducing slightly the burden of traffic on Route 460. Project F represents an opportunity for primary access to new development along the Route 460 corridor without adding burden to East Ruritan Road or Huntridge Road to get there. This road is not anticipated to have any signalization in the future, so its primary benefit is to address eastbound traffic turning into the new development. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY East Ruritan CARTER LEGEND NEW ROADWAYS DEVELOPMENT DEPENDENT ROADWAYS CROSSINGS 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN El BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY WATERBODIES -STREAMS II CEMETERIES STUDY LIMITS COUNTY BOUNDARY PARCEL BOUNDARIES U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Valley Gateway Valley Gateway is a significant traffic driver because it has both a major grocer and is the primary access for several major employers in the area. While improved with one of the few signalized intersections on the corridor, it faces unique challenges that are addressed in these recommendations. Major employers like Marvin and Coca-Cola present "shift -change" peak trip challenges that generate significant backups during those times. Though signalized, the Valley Gateway intersection can only accommodate so many exits during a single traffic cycle, while keeping Route 460 traffic flow moving as the priority. Extending the signal cycle for exiting Valley Gateway is not seen as a viable and reliable improvement. Additionally, the expectation of future potential employment centers will increase traffic on the already burdened "cul-de-sac" of Valley Gateway and Integrity Drive. For these new potential economic development opportunities to succeed, new paths for incoming and outgoing traffic should be considered. Project G shows how several points of access to Route 460 can be tapped to allow for multiple options for drivers, including direct access to shopping at stores like CVS, Exxon, and Bank of Botetourt. More significantly, it gains a second signalized intersection by accessing the West Ruritan Road traffic signal through the CVS property. This Project, if built, provides a parallel road connector to Route 460 that gives options for arrival and departure that will have a positive impact on employment center -based traffic issues. Project H is offered as a recommendation because Integrity Drive and Valley Gateway Boulevard cannot carry the burden of employment center traffic alone. The additional road connection from Integrity Drive aims to reduce the "one way in and one way out" current condition of the industrial center. Properly designed, this road could dramatically reduce the existing traffic to Valley Gateway Boulevard, and help with future economic development traffic. This project, if built, would be constructed as part of the expansion of the business park and serve as either a private or public road, depending on the end user. Project I is shown as an extension through the parcel immediately adjacent to Valley Gateway Boulevard and is shown to indicate a goal of connecting Project G to Valley Gateway Boulevard. The exact location of the connection is not critical, and this location would be finalized during the site plan approval process for an end user. The intersection with Valley Gateway Boulevard is anticipated to be a right -in -right out access only, but this is enough to benefit arriving employees from Route 460 as well as those on Project G seeking to access the Kroger Shopping Center. Project J is a short but important connector that allows the Shopping Center to have a direct connection to Carson Road without having to access Route 460. This project would likely tie to an improvement plan for Carson Road, detailed on the pages that follow. This access is close to Carson Road's intersection with Route 460, so close coordination with VDOT will be needed to assure that this opportunity can become a reality. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Valley C U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Carson Road The most significant feedback received in this Study related to the current condition of Carson Road, Project K. Du the lack of other viable relief roads, Carson Road currently serves as the alternate route for commuters looking to out of the Route 460 traffic backups that occur daily. In the public engagement meetings and surveys, speed, safety, traffic volume on Carson Road were consistently mentioned as the biggest traffic concerns. Because Carson Road is well known as a cut -though, the goal of recommendations for this road is to improve sa while not creating a more inviting cut -through alternative that will increase the total volume of traffic on Carson Roar Carson Road is physically challenged with steep topography, a narrow (one lane) bridge, little to no shoulder: some segments, and existing homes and properties along the narrow right-of-way. All of these elements create de: challenges for improvement options. While a typical public road realignment project is an easy tool to consider here, tl- is very little room for an actual realignment to happen without retaining walls, blasting rock, and property acquisitior Regarding safety, several iterations of improvement options were investigated, including a potential roundabou reduce speed and provide potential access to a greenway park envisioned for the Glade Creek area. The space nee for a roundabout required a significant amount of land. Numerous public comments were received that rejected the w of such a traffic calming method. Ultimately, Carson Road modifications should include minor improvements to the road alignment, along with shou and road width improvements. The alignment would generally follow the current alignment with modest curva improvements to increase sight distances. Improvements to the shoulder, including guardrails where warranted, we reduce the danger for motorists that might lose control on Carson Road. Widened roads, though maybe by only on, two feet for each lane, should be accompanied by narrow pavement markings that visually imply slower speeds. - gives the dual benefit of slower and steadier traffic, but with additional paved material (outside the paint) if needec safety maneuvers. The significant improvement recommendation for Carson Road is the replacement of the Glade Creek tributary brit which should be improved to carry two lanes of traffic. These improvements will likely include a high degree of environmental scrutiny and mitigation, as well as modest ri, of -way acquisition to fit the needed improvements. If built, this improved Carson Road will dramatically increase sa for those traveling it, and modestly increase its capacity, while not becoming a primary route for motorists avoiding Rc 460. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Carson EXISTING CARSON ROAD SECTION NOT TO SCALE EXISTING KROGER PROPERTY EXISTING PRIVATE PROPERTY 1' UNPAVED SHOULDER EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT 9.5' NORTHBOUND TRAVEL LANE EXISTING ROAD STRIPING ROAD CENTERLINE EXISTING ROAD STRIPING 9.5' SOUTHBOUND TRAVEL LANE EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT 1' UNPAVED SHOULDER e 9 POTENTIAL CARSON ROAD SECTION NOT TO SCALE SOUTH CARSON ROAD INSET POTENTIAL GUARDRAIL OR CONCRETE BARRIER EXISTING KROGER PROPERTY EXISTING PRIVATE PROPERTY POTENTIAL CURB & GUTTER POTENTIAL EDGE OF PAVEMENT POTENTIAL 10' NORTHBOUND TRAVEL LANE -EXISTING ROAD STRIPING ROAD CENTERLINE -EXISTING ROAD STRIPING -POTENTIAL 10' SOUTHBOUND TRAVEL LANE POTENTIAL EDGE OF PAVEMENT POTENTIAL 3' OR 4' PAVED SHOULDER POTENTIAL 2' PAVEMENT BEHIND GUARDRAIL MARVIN 'rM► U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Greenways & Paths The first survey asked the public its opinion of a publicly accessible greenway in the area along Glade Creek. The response to this topic was overwhelmingly positive. Residents thought there should be a greenway available, and if one was built, that they would likely use it themselves. Because outdoor recreation is one of the high -priority influences on quality of life for this and upcoming generations, the study recommends that the Glade Creek Greenway be a priority for the County in the years ahead. The exact alignment of the greenway will be subject to separate discussions with stakeholders and landowners. The Greenway can and should be designed to connect to points beyond the county, both toward the city and into Botetourt County, as indicated in the 2018 Roanoke Valley Greenway Plan. Additional efforts may be considered to link non -motorized pathways to the Blue Ridge Parkway and its access to hikers and cyclists. Blue Ridge Parkway staff will be critical to these efforts. This study also reveals locations that are suitable for improvements for bicycle and pedestrian activities. These modest improvements will allow more activities in the area to be accessed without a car, including access to the greenway itself. Because of its volume and speed of traffic, the opportunity for pedestrian crossings on Route 460 are limited to the VDOT intersection improvements planned for West Ruritan Road. These proposed improvements envision a crosswalk -oriented design that allows pedestrians to cross with multiple refuge spots along the way. Carson Road also envisions a shared use path for bicycles and pedestrians along this improved corridor. LEGEND GREENWAY PATH OPTIONS mGREENWAY BY OTHERS 2018 ROANOKE VALLEY GREENWAY PLAN BIKEWAY/PEDESTRIAN PATH 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN SI BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY WATERBODIES -- -STREAMS II CEMETERIES STUDY LIMITS COUNTY BOUNDARY PARCEL BOUNDARIES RAILROAD /Ne.0*_b. _ _— rm. Mb U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Access to East of Railroad Part of this Study focused on the potential long-term viability of the properties east of the Norfolk Southern Ra several large tracts of land exist in close proximity, this study sought to determine whether industrial or other econom opportunities exist. Challenges to economic development east of the railroad include limits of access, at -grade railroad crossings, pot( issues with Blue Ridge Parkway, and current land use expectations. Public engagement sessions furthered the exi rural edge to the Bonsack community was an appreciated and expected future characteristic. Two at -grade railroad crossings are a primary concern for potential economic development. For the area to attract pr( separated crossings would need to be constructed, for an easy means of access to the property. Assuming that the grade -separated crossing issue was successfully addressed, the access to and through the Bonsack could show an increased percentage of tractor trailer traffic. This type of traffic would require more segrega road geometries than are currently available through the Bonsack community. Given the public position of expects residents and landowners' views, this infrastructure requirement is not anticipated to be a viable possibility. Finally, when evaluating the opportunities for economic development, a low -traffic, high -revenue option is a date evaluating the viability of a data center site, most important are access to high voltage power transmission lines and NA the high -temperature producing electrical systems. Delivery of both is not impossible in the Bonsack area. An AEP tr runs just north of the Roanoke County/Botetourt County line, and a water line network could be extended with an el tank for water redundancy needs. After thorough review of the space between the Norfolk Southern railroad and the Blue Ridge Parkway, the reco to keep the properties in the agricultural and low -intensity residential use that it is currently in, reducing the need network upgrade considerations. An analysis of the existing at -grade railroad crossings at Layman Road and Glade Creek Road can be found in / October 2022, Roanoke County utilized the information compiled for both railroad crossings to submit the plannl "Planning Grant for a Bonsack Area Railroad Crossing Elimination Study". If funded, the study will set a foundati construction funding to build a bridge over the railroad tracks in the future. A grade -separated railroad crossing is supported by several comments received during the public comment peric Comments indicate that trains block road access for residents on a frequent basis. In addition to inconvenience, tracks has fire and rescue response implications. Funding the railroad crossing should be a priority for the County. During the public engagement process, several s where citizens had at times been blocked by stalled trains on the rail line speak to the importance of improving the who live east of the rail line. The potential lack of ingress or egress during an emergency should help Roanoke Cc grant opportunities to improve the safety and health of its citizens. Providing funding for both grade separated crossings may prove challenging, and should there be only funding aN project at a time, Timmons Group recommends that the Layman Road Crossing be prioritized, since it is the more fre( crossing, and also accesses a greater acreage of land to the east. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Access to Ea! U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY IX. Future Land Use Analysis Beyond improvements for the current traffic concerns in the Challenger Avenue Corridor, it is important to evaluate the future land use recommendations in Roanoke County's Comprehensive Plan. The goal is to facilitate appropriate future growth, where the added business and residential activity mitigate traffic concerns. Roanoke County's Comprehensive Plan can be found at Roanoke County's Planning Office or online. It outlines the expected land use patterns in the future and helps guide decisions of County leadership and staff when considering zoning cases and other land use requests from landowners. This study reviewed the Future Land Use Map in the Challenger Avenue Corridor and identifies opportunities to modify the Future Land Use Map in ways that will balance positive growth in the future with the traffic challenges that can come with that growth. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Current Future Land Use Map The Future Land Use Map sets the course for future development in the County. Future Land Use designations are typically considered when Rezoning or Special Use Permit requests are evaluated by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The map to the right shows the County's Future Land Uses as of the date of this study. See the Future Land Use designation descriptions below for additional information. 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 -oriented retail uses and regionally - based shopping facilities. Due to limited availability, areas designated as Core are not appropriate for tax-exempt facilities. Transition: A future land use area that encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels. Transition areas generally serve as developed buffers between highways and nearby or adjacent lower intensity development. Intense retail and highway oriented commercial uses are discouraged in transition areas, which are more suitable for office, institutional and small-scale, coordinated retail uses. Principal Industrial: A future land use area where a variety of industry types are encouraged to locate. Principal Industrial areas are existing and planned regional employment centers and are distributed throughout the county, convenient to major residential areas and suitable highway access. Due to limited availability, areas designated as Principal Industrial are not appropriate for tax-exempt facilities. Neighborhood Conservation: A future land use area where established single-family neighborhoods are delineated and the conservation of the existing development pattern is encouraged. Rural Preserve: A future land use area of mostly undeveloped, outlying lands. These rural regions are generally stable and require a high degree of protection to preserve agricultural, forestall, recreational, and remote rural residential areas. 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 LEGEND CORE TRANSITION PRINCIPAL INDUSTRIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION RURAL PRESERVE DEVELOPMENT U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Future Land Use Map The recommended opportunities for the County to update its Future Land Use Map are shown at the right with hatching to identify the extent of those changes. Area 1: In the western portion of the corridor, an expansion of the Transition area to the parcels behind the Route 460 commercial Core properties is recommended. This will allow for transition uses that extend the commercial and higher density residential without disruption to the neighborhoods to the west and north of the area. Area 2: With large parcels and frontage along the Route 460 right-of- way, this highly visible area is envisioned as an appropriate location for Core uses. This use type can take advantage of VDOT planned improvements and the improvements recommended in this study to expand the retail and commercial opportunities for the Bonsack community. Area 3: Adjacent to an existing Transition Area, an expansion of the Transition area is recommended. This will create a buffer between the existing neighborhoods and any future commercial uses. LEGEND RECOMMENDED PLAN CHANGES CORE TRANSITION PRINCIPAL INDUSTRIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION RURAL PRESERVE DEVELOPMENT U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY X. Railroad Crossings Current Concerns & Conditions In order to access large areas across the railroad that are currently undeveloped or underdeveloped, safe, reliable access needs to be provided. Currently, there are two at -grade railroad crossings in Roanoke County which provide access to these areas. Both are substandard in width and have many geometric deficiencies. In the short term, signing, striping, clearing, and pavement widening can help positively guide drivers across the existing crossings. These options, however, will not solve larger safety issues from poor crossing angles and other substandard geometry, conflicts with trains, and potential flooding of Glade Creek. For reliable long-term access for denser development, grade separation is recommended. The Railroad Crossing Study completed was limited to existing railroad crossings, which constrains the alternatives as both have numerous residences nearby. A new crossing could avoid impacts to structures and optimize access and length of crossing and depending on the connecting road may need significant road improvements, such as if a crossing were added that connects to Carson Road. A grade -separated railroad crossing is supported by several comments received during the public comment period of this study. Comments indicate that trains block road access for residents on a frequent basis. In addition to inconvenience, trains blocking tracks has fire and rescue response implications. In October 2022, Roanoke County utilized the information compiled for both railroad crossings to submit a planning grant titled, "Planning Grant for a BonsackArea Railroad Crossing Elimination Study". If funded, the study will set a foundation to apply for construction funding to build a bridge over the railroad tracks in the future. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Glade Creek Road Crossing The first crossing is along Glade Creek Road. The existing road is accessed from Bonsack Road and parallels Glade Creek Road and the railroad in the floodplain before crossing both with a series of sharp curves. Since most of the road is running parallel to and within the floodplain, an alternative alignment that provides the shortest crossing of the floodplain possible is preferred. This can be achieved and even furthered by realigning Bonsack Road to tie into the new alignment, giving the realigned Glade Creek Road a full access point to Route 460. This avoids routing development traffic through Old Bonsack and would likely have a shorter bridge than the Layman Road option but would be further from developable land and would require additional road work. LIMITS OF 100-YEAR .,FL000PLAIN ' : E I 1 RE LIGN BONSACK - R AD TO TIE INTO HE NEW GLADE CREEK ROAD ggi U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Layman Road Crossing The second crossing studied along Layman Road provides the most direct access to the best available developable land. To access Layman Road, however, requires driving through historic Old Bonsack, where roads are substandard in width and many historic properties are directly adjacent to the road, limiting opportunities to support additional traffic. The existing road also crosses the floodplain and railroad track at an angle with multiple sharp turns. The road will need to be realigned to safely handle larger traffic volumes, but due to adjacent historic properties, there is no way to correct the angle. To prevent flooding to upstream properties, this will require a longer bridge, which limits the ability to connect existing driveways to the realigned road, further increasing cost. Creating a grade -separated railroad crossing to eliminate the possibility of train and vehicle collisions is the most expensive traffic improvement considered in this study. It is recommended that only one grade -separated crossing be built because of the financial cost. Layman Road provides access to more property than does Glade Creek Road. Agricultural activities, along with future potential land use options, are reasons that Layman Road is the preferred project to consider for a grade -separated crossing. The Layman Road crossing also has a history of actual blockages due to train backups on the tracks. This is a dangerous scenario from an emergency services standpoint, furthering the benefit of a grade -separated crossing here. ACCESS TO PARCEL -, CHALLENGED DUE.TQ GRADE pIFFEREN6ES, U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY XI. Recommended Priority of Improvement Options Each of the potential improvement projects described in this report have different capacity to improve the quality of life in the Bonsack community. Each has the potential to improve safety and convenience, but each comes with different costs to implement. Recognizing the need to identify opportunities in a context that can be evaluated for prioritization by Roanoke County, the matrix to the right identifies some of the cost and benefit expectations of each of the improvements noted in this report. Note, the cost, safety, and congestion/convenience scales are relative to one another, and do not reflect real dollars or expected level of service improvements, respectively. Carson I Access tc of Railr Access tc of Railr Green\ Blue Hil East Ru Blue Hil East Ru Valley Ga East Run Walm Valley Ga Valley Ga Blue Hil East Ru East Run Walm East Run Walm Valley Ga U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY XI. Appendices I. Appendix A - Roanoke County Map 59 II. Appendix B - Study Area Map 61 III. Appendix C- Railroad Crossing Study 63 IV. Appendix D - Public Engagement Results - Survey One 81 V. Appendix E - Public Engagement Results - Survey Two 114 VI. Appendix F - Public Engagement Results - Survey Three 139 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Appel Roanoke C U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Appei Study Ai U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Study Area BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE ANCDOMNIHL9EMfifVY17STSDUDY Apper Railroad Cr( U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FOR US ROUTE 460 ANALYSIS OF AT -GRADE RAILROAD CROSSINGS ROANOKE COUNTY, VA January 17, 2023 Prepared For: ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING c/o Megan G. Cronise, AICP, Transportation Planning Administrator TIMMONS GROUP Contact: Kevin O'Meara, PE 1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 300 • Richmond, VA 23225 (804) 200-6500 phone • (804) 560-1438 fax U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2. INTRODUCTION 1 3. RAILROAD CROSSING REQUIREMENTS 2 4. LAYMAN ROAD 5 4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 4.2 PROPOSED AT -GRADE IMPROVEMENTS 8 4.3 GRADE SEPARATION RECOMMENDATIONS 9 5. GLADE CREEK ROAD 10 5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 10 5.2 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 12 5.3 GRADE SEPARATION RECOMMENDATIONS 13 6. APPENDIX A: PLAN VIEW EXHIBITS 15 7. APPENDIX B: U.S. DOT CROSSING INVENTORY FORMS 21 1-1 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY 3. RAILROAD CROSSING REQUIREMENTS Railroad crossings have different requirements depending on the type of crossing, rail volumes, traffic volumes, speeds, and a variety of other factors. This report is focused on at -grade vehicular crossings of railroads and what can be done to improve crossings to meet or exceed requirements. Grade separation is mentioned but is not fully explored. As discussed later in this document, many of the basic requirements are already met, and so supplemental additional signage are the primary changes, along with geometric improvements where feasible. FHWA has specific requirements for highway -railway grade crossings. The Railroad -Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (Second Edition) is the primary document for crossings. VDOT generally references this document as well as a few supplemental requirements; for example. VDOT requires a 22' minimum clear zone between highways and railways. It includes a history of railroad crossing, methods to estimating collisions, and recommendations for improvements among other information. Removing at -grade rail crossings is always the first recommendation, followed by grade separation and highway and railroad relocation, but all are often not cost effective, especially for low volume existing crossings. As such, other improvements to the at -grade crossing should be explored. The primary recommendation to improve safety for at -grade crossings in the Railroad -Highway Grade Crossing Handbook is through MUTCD signage, striping, and signals. As such, most of this section discusses MUTCD improvements. The crossings discussed later in this document are already compliant with most of the requirements. Additional signing and striping improvements beyond what is required, however, are recommended throughout this document to improve sight distance and other factors that impact safety of at -grade crossings. 9 inches 41. f ( CDS\ 99C Qi +` \ 48 inches /40 R 1 5-1 Figure 1 — MUTCD R15-1 Crossbuck Sign Chapter 8 of the MUTCD discusses railroad crossings in depth. Minimum standards require crossbuck signs, with the number of tracks included if there are not automatic gates. Both crossings have gates but providing the number of tracks as a supplemental plaque is recommended. Where geometry is inadequate for proper sight distance, a supplemental crossbuck assembly shall be provided on the left-hand side of the highway. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY B inches or 12 caches Leriuth as specified 1711 MIN, clearance above crown of roadway Minimum of three red ii0fitS positioned as appropriate for approaching traffic 3.511 MIN. 4_5 It MAX_ i Crown of the rutedway Edge of the traffic control device that is nearest to the roadway 1 17 7.5 ft MIN. 2.5 ft MAX. 15 inches 4.25 ft MAx- 25_d inches MAX. Figure 4 — Example Railroad Flashing -Light Signal f Counts rweigrn (sae Nola 1) 4 inches MAX. aloe round tevref {see Note2} Flashing light signals are often used to improve traffic control and provide an automated warning to improve driver compliance and safety at railroad crossings. A crossbuck sign with a plaque specifying the number of tracks is required. Signals shall be oriented towards traffic, and where two- way traffic is present lights must be provided on both sides of the signal. Gate arms are used to prevent traffic from entering. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Figure 6 - Layman Road Looking Westbound The crossing itself is outside of the 100-year floodplain and is skewed approximately 45 degrees. Pavement widths are inconsistent, and after crossing each railroad track the road bends sharply to the south to avoid a historic property, closely paralleling the railroad. The road then bends sharply back to the north around an embankment before crossing Glade Creek preceded by object markers where blunt -end guardrail is present. The road continues for approximately 2,000' adjacent to a small stream before terminating, although state maintenance ends 1,000' after the creek crossing. In the eastbound direction between the railroad crossing and the creek crossing, a railroad warning sign and pavement markings are present. At the crossing itself, an arm is present but does not have an overhead assembly and is obscured by vegetation and difficult to see due to the skew of the railroad. In 2021, VDOT recommended clearing of vegetation, signing, and striping improvements, with a work order scheduled for Fall 2021. These improvements were not observed as of November 2021 but included installation of a 25 mph speed limit near the intersection with Bonsack Road, clearing of vegetation in front of the railroad mast arms, and installation of stop bars where they do not currently exist or are faded. Some of these improvements are echoed in the next section of this report. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY 4.2 PROPOSED AT -GRADE IMPROVEMENTS Layman Road has numerous deficiencies in terms of width and roadside hazards such as buildings and waterways. Proposed improvements listed below are depicted in plan view in Appendix A. Providing a 20' minimum paved width to meet state fire code and guardrail to protect, however, is not feasible due to the right of way needed and potential environmental impacts to adjacent streams. East of the railroad tracks, improved signage is recommended. The railroad warning sign assembly and at -grade railroad crossing pavement markings should be relocated to be at least 300' from the crossing gate to provide space for additional warning signs. A reverse turn sign (W1-3) should be installed 100' from the crossing gate with an advisory speed plaque (W13-2) of 10 mph. A skewed crossing warning sign (W10-12) should be installed another 100' away. Vegetation on the slope preceding the crossing gate should be removed and rock netting or other methods of slope stabilization should be installed. If possible, the slope should be cut back, or a retaining wall should be installed. If possible, the curve halfway between Bonsack Road and the railroad crossing should be cleared of vegetation to improve sight distance around the horizontal curve. Additional pavement should be installed across the tracks, especially in sharp bends, to ensure that vehicles that attempt to simultaneously cross or larger vehicles such as those with trailers do not leave the pavement and potentially get stuck on the tracks. A 4-inch white pavement marking should be installed parallel to the track at least six feet from the rail to indicate where the dynamic envelope of the train is. Concrete pads or colored pavement could also be installed to provide greater visual contrast to warn drivers, although the skew of the crossing will make installing concrete pads difficult. Horizontal curves between the railroad crossing and the Glade Creek crossing have radii that are only adequate for 10 to 15 mph. Signs warning the driver of reverse turns (W1-3) and recommending a speed of 10 mph (W13-2) should be installed in both directions and supplemented with chevron warning signs (W1-8). Property impacts and environmental constraints appear less severe here, so pavement should be widened in the curves to allow simultaneous operation of at least passenger vehicles in opposite directions. A total width of 26' is recommended based on American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials Green Book Table 3-26a. The embankment where the road turns sharply north should be regraded to provide sight distance around the curve. Where the road closely parallels the railroad, an offset of at least 22' is required. The road should be relocated to the east onto private property if possible. If that is not feasible, delineators located outside of the dynamic envelope of the train tracks should be installed to discourage vehicles from getting too close to the railroad and potentially entering the dynamic envelope of the train. While not directly related to the Glade Creek railroad crossing, steep slopes and vertical drops offs are present alongside the creek. Substandard guardrail is only present across the bridge and does not have crashworthy terminals. The guardrail should be extended to meet length of need and have proper terminals. While the height would ideally be adjusted to comply with MASH standards, it appears to be connected directly into the structure. As such, height transitions at the end of all guardrail terminals are also recommended to complement any installed terminals. In the westbound direction, the skew of the approach makes it difficult for the arm of the crossing gate to fully cover the pavement, and visibility is limited. A skewed crossing (W10-12) warning sign should be installed. The vegetation obscuring the crossing gate should be cleared, and the arm should be extended, especially if additional pavement is added. The crossing gate could also be moved to the tangent section that runs parallel to the railroad tracks. Delineators should be added adjacent to Glade Creek west of the railroad crossings and at Cook Creek, and in front of the adjacent homes if possible. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY 5. GLADE CREEK ROAD Glade Creek Road serves as the other railroad crossing adjacent to Glade Creek in Roanoke County north of the City of Roanoke. It connects Bonsack to a large, primarily agricultural area before passing under the Blue Ridge Parkway, where more agricultural land and a small neighborhood are present. Near the railroad tracks is an existing community of numerous historic buildings. 5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Glade Creek Road begins at a skewed intersection with Bonsack Road and parallels Glade Creek. A railroad crossing warning sign with a low ground clearance warning sign is present at the intersection. No posted speed limit is available, but the offset to the creek exceeds 30'. Power lines within a few feet of the edge of pavement are present. This segment continues for 1,000 feet before sharply turning east and crossing Glade Creek. Power lines end after the Glade Creek crossing. The road then sharply turns north for 150' before sharply turning east again to cross the railroad tracks, where it curves up a hill. Prior to the hill, most of the road is within the 100-year floodplain of Glade Creek. Pavement widths are generally greater than 20'. The road serves approximately 300 vehicles per day with 20% truck traffic. Figure 9 - Glade Creek Road Prior to Sharp Curve and Creek Crossing In the eastbound direction, a windy road warning sign with a recommend speed of 10 mph is present but sight distance is obstructed by vegetation. A railroad crossing warning sign and striping is present before the first sharp curve and the Glade creek crossing. The Glade Creek crossing has a barrier across the structure with delineators but no barrier preceding the bridge approaches. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Figure 11 - Glade Creek Road Westbound Prior to Railroad Crossing In the westbound direction, an advanced railroad crossing warning sign and pavement markings are present, with a windy road railroad crossing located further uphill. A crossing arm is also present at the railroad but does not specify the number of tracks crossed. Conditions east of the railroad tracks such as the bridge and adjacent power lines are as described previously. 5.2 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The conditions of the Glade Creek Road railroad crossing are significantly better than the Layman Road railroad crossing. Proposed improvements listed below are depicted in plan view in Appendix A. There are few obstructions that impact sight distance. Road widths are adequate to meet fire code, with few steep slopes and embankments adjacent to the road. Road widths are increased in sharp curves and across the railroad tracks to better accommodate simultaneous vehicular travel in both directions. The primary improvements are related to signage. Trees should be trimmed to improve visibility of the winding road warning sign. In both directions, directional arrows (W1-6) should be installed to better guide drivers around the sharp turns. The crossbucks on both railroad crossings need a supplemental plaque telling drivers how many tracks they are crossing (R15-2p). In terms of striping, while a double yellow centerline is not warranted by current traffic volumes, it may be helpful on this road to guide vehicles around curves and across the railroad tracks. Dynamic vehicle envelope striping should be considered as a low-cost alternative to further improve vehicle stopping characteristics. Edge striping delineating the edge of asphalt may also be helpful, especially near the railroad track, to improve visibility of road edges. Raising the pavement of approaches on either side is also recommended to reduce the risk of vehicles bottoming out or getting stuck on the tracks as they are currently elevated above the pavement on either side. Due to inconsistent pavement widths, spot widening may be required to provide consistent lanes in each direction, and additional width should be considered for sharp turns to better accommodate turning trucks. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY connect further east along Glade Creek Road. This option would have the shortest bridge crossing as the floodplain is very thin in this location, although it would require cutting into a large hill. While this option would require the most right of way, it opens the area east of the railroad track with excellent access, has few structural impacts, and provides the shortest bridge. Based on the limitations listed above, the impacts, and the benefits, the third alternative should be prioritized if volumes are not expected to require a signal, while the fifth option would best serve larger redevelopment to the east. The fifth alternative is somewhat beyond the purview of this crossing, although it would allow the closure of the railroad crossing, and so this study will focus on the third option and short-term considerations with moderate development. As mentioned previously, the third alternative is to have Glade Creek Road tie into US Route 460 at the Bonsack Road intersection. For a plan and profile view, please see Appendix A. Bonsack Road would be aligned to intersection 330' along Glade Creek Road, at the edge of the floodplain, to meet access management requirements. The road would then span the floodplain, Glade Creek, and the railroad. Sidetrack Road would require realignment to tie into the new alignment due to vertical differences. If Sidetrack Road could be aligned further north (albeit with greater property impacts), it would be feasible to span almost the entire floodplain with a bridge, minimizing upstream flooding impacts. The existing Glade Creek Road would need a hammerhead turnaround after the Glade Creek bridge to close the existing crossing. This alignment is more viable than Layman and could provide an alternative if a road to the east of the railroad tracks connects Glade Creek Road and Layman Road. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY 6. Appendix A: Plan View Exhibits • BONSACK • .' UNITED t rs' METHODIST CHURCH EAR VEGETATION ON • INSIDE OF HORIZONTAL. CURVE TO IMPROVE SIGHT DISTANCE m VCN REMOVE V AND REGRADE IMPROVE VI a CRO INSTALL DELI ADJACENT TO vAit e WO'� > RELOCATE EXISTING -- '"..„RAILROAD CROSSING/ WARNING SIGNS AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ' - INSTALL W1-3 (REVERSE TURN), AND ADVISORY SPEED 10 MPH PLAQUE (W13-1P) US ROUTE 460 ANALYSIS OF Al LA MAN KOAD RP U.S. ► 1 E 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY NOTE: CENTERLINE AND EDGE MARKINGS ARE NOT CURRENTLY REQUIRED BUT SHOULD BE INSTALLED IF TRAFFIC VOLUMES INCREASE FROM ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT. STRIPE CENTERLINE AND t EDGE MARKINGS 1\ THROUGH THE RAILROAD CROSSING AND CURVES CLEAR VEGETATION ON -I INSIDE OF HORIZONTAL CURVE IMPROVE VISIBILITY OF CURVE WARNING SIGN US ROUTE 460 ANALYSIS OF Al GLADE CREEK ROAD ROANOKE COUNTY 1 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY --` ACLESS TO PAR N CHALLENGED DUE TO �t GRADE DIFFERENCES ONSACK SA1 Ci\ UNITED TH?DIST CHURCH CLOSE = - EXISTING -- AT-GRADE CROSSING. LIMJTS OF 1 Da -YEAR FLOODPLAIN US ROUTE 460 ANALYSIS OF GRADE LAYMAN ROAD RAILROf U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY HIGH PT STA = 10+70.47 HIGH POINT ELEV = 1011.29 STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE = 239 1080 PVI STA = 11 +00 1070 1020 2 1010 1000 990 980 970 960 950 M PVI ELEV = 1012.34 A.D. _ -6.60% K = 22.74 150' VC V=25MPH Q CIS 0 Q 0 rn 0 -4 0 LOW POINT STA = 13+30.87 LOW POINT ELEV = 1004.73 PVI STA = 13+50 PVI ELEV = 1000.84 A.D. = 10.54% K = 28.46 300' VC V = 25 MPH .11 LAYMA - 15+32.3' HIGH POINT ELEV = 11014. STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE PVI STA = 16+50 PVI ELEV = 1018.67 A.Q. _-13.84% K = 18.06 25DVC V = 25 MPH cJ w 0 7 m 4°10 --- EXISTING RAILROAD y`— GLADE CREEK F N c APPRO 0 a o-i 0 Q rn C7 CO CO ai a3 r7 cNi rn 0) cfl co o) 0 co ra co a) r-- Lci C3 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 r7 c0 h 0) C37 n as a) co L cal C7 O (0 00 0) ►ri c oa co Cr') 0 r 0 15+00 16+00 17+00 US ROUTE 460 ANALYSIS OF GRADE LAYMAN ROAD RAILROAC ROANOKE COUNTY. VI U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY LIMITS OF — 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN _gSEC1-1°11 N 317+68.5 011401-N neG1h1G P`CCESS r--,C1'°R) , 35 opo CO‘-k- 1 IRE LIGN BONSACK R AD TO TIE INTO I HE NEW GLADE G&EEK ROAD la 4 i I CLOSE EXISTING AT -GRADE CROSSING 0 N., 64, US ROUTE 460 ANALYSIS OF GRADE GLADE CREEK ROAD RAILI ROANOKE COUNTY, VI U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY HIGH PT STA = 300+50.00 HIGH POINT ELEV = 1043.61 STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE = 435 1100 PVI STA = 301+00 1090 1080 1070 1060 1050 1040 1030 1020 1010 1000 990 980 DATUM ELEV 970 970 a PVI ELEV = 1042.61 A.D. = -2.80% K = 35.71 100' VC a V=35MPH o o + MTDM O l ) � U m W I -2.00o 0 1W S EVCE = 1040.21 CONNECT TO US ROUTE 460 (CHALLENGER AVENUE) GLADE C APPROX. INTERSECTION WITH REALIGNED BONSACK ROAD BVCS = 303+25.00 LOW POINT STA = 305+75.00 LOW POINT ELEV = 1024.81 1 PVI STA = 304+50 STC PVI ELEV = 1025.81 A.D. = 4.00% K = 62.50 250' VC V=35MPH 0 0 T-c° + 4 Lc) nr co d , d 11 11 (1] W U.0 W w -0. APPROX. LIMITS OF 10C d C7 O t-� 0 iV co c co d co N 0 r LC) ("7 300+00 301+00 302+00 303+00 co (0 0-)(0Od —00 —0 C]d 67CO Utzf. r'--LO ('VLC) co co co (NJ 00(y a]N 6004 a)0 07c3 ° c a-)d rnd T T^ T T T if a c C 304+00 305+00 30( US ROUTE 460 ANALYSIS OF GRADE GLAD CREEK ROAD RAILRC ROANOKE COUNTY, VI U.S. R • UTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY U. S. DOT CROSSING INVENTORY FORM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION OMB No. 2130-0017 Instructions for the initial report+ng of the following types of new or previously unreported crossings: For public highway -rail grade crossings, complete the entire inventory Form. For private highway -rail grade crossings, complete the Header, Parts I and lf, and the Submission Information section. For public pathway grade crossings (including pedestrian station grade crossings), complete the Header, Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For Private pathway grade crossings, complete the Header. Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For grade -separated highway -rail or pathway crossings (including pedestrian station crossings), complete the Header, Part I, and the Submission Information section. For changes to existing data, complete the Header, Part I Items 1-3, and the Submission Information section, in addition to the updated data fields. Note: For private crossings only, Part I Item 20 and Part III Item 2,K_ are required unless otherwise noted. An asterisk *denotes an optional field. A. Revision Date (MM/DD/YYYY) 05 / 18 / 2021 B. Reporting Agency CA Railroad 0 Transit U State 0 Other C. Reason for Update (Select only one) RI Change in ❑ New - Closed E No Train ❑ Quiet Data Crossing Traffic Zone Update LJ Re -Open 1-.1 Date Change in Primary LI Admin. Change Only Operating RR Correction D. DOT Crossing Inventory Number 468556M T Part I: Location and Classification Information 1. Primary Operating Railroad Norfolk So:athern Railway Company INS] 2, State VIRGINIA 3. County ROANOKE 4. City / Municipality i In Near V I NTON _ 5. Street/Road Name & Block Number LAYMAN ROAD I 6. Highway Type & No. SR 606 (Street/Road Nome) I" (Block Number) 7. Do Other Railroads Operate a Separate Track at Crossing? ❑ Yes C No if Yns, Specify RR B. Do Other Railroads Operate Over Your Track at Crossing? Ca] Yes 0 No If Yes. Specify RR ATK 9. Railroad Division or Region J None BLUE RIDGE 10. Railroad Subdivision or District None BLUE RIDGE 11, Branch or Line Name _rt None 12, RR Milepost N 1 0251.940 1 (prefix) I (nnnn.rmn) I (suffix) 13. Line Segment ' N 14. Nearest RR Timetable Station ' BGNSACK 15. Parent RR (if applicable) ©N/A 16. Crossing Owner (if oppficablc) R N/A _ 17. Crossing Type Public Private 18. Crossing Purpose r Highway Li Pathway, Ped. ❑ Station, Ped. 19. Crossing Position (ii At Grade 0 RR Under ❑ RR Over 20. Public Access (if Private Crossing) Li Yes 0 No 21. Type of Train ❑ Freight LJ Transit lii intercity Passenger 0 Shared Use Transit El Commuter ❑ Tourist/Other 22. Average Passenger Train Count Per Day 0 Less Than One Per Day N Number Per Day 2 23. Type of Land Use J Open Space ❑ Farm ® Residential 0 Commercial ❑ Industrial 0 Institutional 0 Recreational 0 RR Yard 24. Is there an Adjacent Crossing with a Separate Number? 0 Yes 2 No If Yes, Provide Crossing Number 25. Quiet Zone (RA provided) CQ No 0 24 Hr 0 Partial 0 Chicago Excused Date Established 26. HSR Corridor ID N/A 27. Latitude in decimal degrees (WGS84 std: mn.nnnnnnn) 37.3183585 28. Longitude in decimal degrees (WGSSA std:-nnn.nnrr nnnn)• 79.8690081 _ 29. Lat/Long Source _r Actual 0 Estimated 30.A. Railroad Use ' 31.A. State Use • 0.27 M1 E RT 603 30.B. Railroad Use * 31.B. State Use * 30.C. Railroad Use * 31.C. State Use ' 30.D. Railroad Use * 31.D. State Use ' 32.A. Narrative (Railroad Use) * 32.B. Narrative (State Use) * 33. Emergency Notification Telephone No. (posted) 800-946-4744 34. Railroad Contact (Telephone No.) 800-946-4744 35. State Contact (Telephone No.) 804,786.2822 Part II. Railroad Information 1. Estimated Number of Daily Train Movements 1.A. Total Day Thru Trains (6 AM to 6 PM) 7 1.8. Total Night Thru Trains (6 PM to 6 AM) 5 1.C. Total Switching Trains 0 1.0. Total Transit Trains 0 1.F. Check if less Than One Movement Per Day How many trains per week? 2. Year of Train Count Data (YYYY) 2021 3. Speed of Train at Crossing 3.A. Maximum Timetable Speed (mph) 70 3.8. Typical Speed Range Over Crossing (mph) From 40 to 55 4, Type and Count of Tracks Main 2 Siding0 Yard 0 Transit 0 Industry 0 _ 5. Train Defection (Main Track only) G Constant Warning Time - Motion Detection ❑AFO 0 PTC 0 DC ❑ Other 0 None 6. Is Track Signaled? fit Yes 0 No 7.A. Event Recorder 0 Yes fi No 7.B. Remote Health Monitoring I 0 Yes Di No U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY U. S. DOT CROSSING INVENTORY FORM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION OMB No. 2130-0017 Instructions for the initial reporting of the following types of new or previously unreported crossings: For public highway -rail grade crossings, complete the entire inventory Form. For private highway -rail grade crossings„ complete the Header, Parts I and 11, and the Submission Information section. For public pathway grade crossings (including pedestrian station grade crossings), complete the Header, Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For Private pathway grade crossings, complete the Header, Parts I and II, and the Submission Information section. For grade -separated highway -rail or pathway crossings (including pedestrian station crossings), complete the Header, Part I, and the submission Information section. For changes to existing data, complete the Header, Part I Items 1-3, and the Submission Information section, in addition to the updated data fields. Nate: For private crossings only, Part I Item 20 and Part III Item 2.k. are required unless otherwise noted. An asterisk "denotes an optional field. A. Revision Date (MM/©[i/YYYY) 06 / 01 j2021 8. Reporting Agency [ Railroad 0 Transit U State U Other C. Reason For Update (Select only one) C Change in ❑ New - Closed _i No Train ❑ Quiet Data Crossing Traffic Zone Update L-i Re -Open L] Date Change in Primary U Admin. Change Only Operating RR Correction D. DOT Crossing Inventory Number 468553S Part I: Location and Classification Information 1. Primary Operating Railroad Norfolk Southern Railway Company INST 2. State VIRGINIA 3. County ROANOKE 4. City / Municipality -1In Near ROANOKE 5. Street/Road Name & Block Number GLADE CREEK ROAD I 6. Highway Type & No. SR 6:46 (Street/Road Nome) I* (Block lumber) 7. Do Other Railroads Operate a Separate Track at Crossing? 0 Yes No If Yes, Specify RR 8. Do Other Railroads Operate Over Your Track at Crossing? .r Yes ❑ No if Yes, Specify RR ATK 9. Railroad Division or Region I None BLUE RIDGE 10. Railroad Subdivision or District yartr BLUE RIDGE 11. Branch or line Name Eii None 12. RR Milepost N 1 0251.390 1 (prefix) J (nnnn.nnn) I (suffix) 13. Line Segment ' N 14. Nearest RR Timetable Station ' BONSACK 15. Parent RR (if applicable) 4. N/A - 16. Crossing Owner (if applicable) N/A 17. Crossing Type r Public Private 1S. Crossing Purpose x Highway Pathway, Ped. . Station, Ped. 19. Crossing Position 111 At Grade O RR Under 0 RR Over 20. Public Access (if Private Crossing) U Yes 0 No 21. Type of Train Li Freight li Transit EN Intercity Passenger IJ Shared Use Transit 0 Commuter 0 Tourist/Other 22. Average Passenger Train Count Per Day i Less Than One Per Day R Number Per Day 2 23. Type of Land Use J Open Space ❑ Farm Chi Residential 0 Commercial Industrial ❑ Institutional 0 Recreational LI RR Yard 24. Is there an Adjacent Crossing with a Separate Number? Yes L No If Yes, Provide Crossing Number 25. Quiet Zone (FRA provided) [3 No 0 24 Hr 0 Partial 0 Chicago Excused Date Established 26. HSR Corridor ID TA N/A 27. Latitude in decimal degrees (WGS84 std: nn.nnnnonn) 37,3258651 28. Longitude in decimal degrees (WG584 std;-nnn.nnnnnnry-79.8656201 _ 29. Lat/Long Source Q Actual 0 Estimated 30.A. Railroad Use ' 31.A. State We ' 0.25 MI S RT 603 30.B. Railroad Use ' 31.B. State Use ' 30.C. Railroad Use * 31.C. State Use ' 30.D. Railroad Use " 31.D. State Use • 32.A. Narrative (Railroad Use) ' 32.B. Narrative (State Use) * 33. Emergency Notification Telephone No, (posted) 800.946-4744 34. Railroad Contact (Telephone No.) 800.946.4744 35. State Contact (Telephone No.) 804.786.2822 r Part II: Railroad Information 1. Estimated Number of Daily Train Movements 1.A. Total Day Thru Trains (6 AM to 6 PM) 7 1.8. Total Night Thus Trains (6 PM to 6 AM) 5 1.C. Total Switching Trains 0 1.0. Total Transit Trains 0 1.E. Check if Less Than One Movement Per Day ❑ How many trains per week? 2. Year of Train Count Data (YYYY) 2021 3. Speed of Train at Crossing 3,A, Maximum Timetable Speed (mph) 70 3.B. Typical Speed Range Over Crossing (mph) From 40 to 50 4. Type and Count of Tracks Main 2 Siding° Yard 0 Transit 0 Industry 0 5. Train Detection (Main Track only) 0 Constant Warning Time r- Motion Detection E]AFO 0 PTC 0 DC 0 Other N None 6. Is Track Signaled? ix Yes 0 No 7.A. Event Recorder Yes No 7.B. Remote Health Monitoring I 0 Yes 0 No FORM FRA F 6180.71 (Rev. 08/03/2016) OMB approval expires 11/30/2022 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Page 1 OF 2 Apper Public Engagement f Prior to the first community meeting, a survey was r transportation issues and concerns in the Study AreE responses are shown in U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Q1 Do you live inside or outside of the Bonsack Community (i.e. Study Area)? Inside Outside Answered: 220 Skipped: 0 0% 1 0 % 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Inside Outside 47.73% 105 52.27% 115 TOTAL 220 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Q3 Do you commute or travel through the study area regularly? 1'es No Answered: 220 Skipped: 0 J 1 0% 1 0 % 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 95.91% 211 4.09% 9 TOTAL 220 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY 5 6 7 8 9 10 Troutville Blue ridge to roanoke Do not live i. The community but work there often. Job involves driving all through Bonsack n/a Troutville I lived in the study area for 8 years and recently moved out of the area. Most of the traffic seems to be commuters moving from Challenger Drive Kroger area toward the Roanoke Civic Center and beyond in the morning and in the opposite direction at the "rush hour" / end of workday. Midday traffic is typically busy, but not as congested as the morning or afternoon commute times. 11 Do not commute through this area 12 I live adjacent to the study area and drive the area daily 13 I travel 460 everyday from Roanoke City to Bedford, Blue Ridge, Bonsack, Daleville, Troutville etc. and the 460 Orange Ave. should have been taken in consideration of the traffic years ago on planning three lanes both ways in and out of the city and to not build right on the road for a three lane project and the stop lights should be synced so the traffic would keep flowing through easy 14 I live in the Carson Rd neighborhood. My child goes to Bonsack ele and we use all the Bonsack services but we are "technically" not included here. 15 do not live in study area 1/14/2022 7:24 AM 1/14/2022 7:11 AM 1/14/2022 1:50 AM 1/10/2022 12:57 PM 1/7/2022 11:12 AM 1/6/2022 9:11 PM 1/5/2022 10:30 AM 1/4/2022 7:10 PM 1/4/2022 3:54 PM 1/4/2022 2:31 PM 1/4/2022 11:57 AM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Q6 What business do you most frequently visit in the Study Area? Answered: 209 Skipped: 11 # RESPONSES DATE 1 Marvin 1/28/2022 8:39 AM 2 Kroger 1/27/2022 9:19 PM 3 Kroger 1/27/2022 8:30 PM 4 Kroger, lowes, Chick-fil-A 1/27/2022 7:49 PM 5 Walmart 1/27/2022 11:36 AM 6 Wal-Mart and The Country store 1/27/2022 8:37 AM 7 Kroger and Walmart 1/26/2022 8:19 PM 8 Kroger 1/26/2022 7:01 PM 9 Kroger 1/26/2022 6:17 PM 10 Restaurant 1/26/2022 11:08 AM 11 Kroger 1/26/2022 8:39 AM 12 Kroger, other gas stations 1/24/2022 1:22 PM 13 Kroger, Country Corner, Walmart, Lowe's CVS, Friends 1/24/2022 9:19 AM 14 Lowes 1/23/2022 1:44 PM 15 Kroger and Walmart 1/23/2022 10:34 AM 16 Murphys and food lion 1/22/2022 11:06 PM 17 Wal-Mart, Lowes, Kroger, Vinton Carilion, Vinton Restaurants, Vinton hair salon, To travel to 1/22/2022 3:10 PM Valley View Mall shopping and restaurants, also restaurants on orange ave and Challenger Ave. 18 WALMART AND LOWES 1/22/2022 12:32 PM 19 Kroger 1/17/2022 3:34 PM 20 Lowes 1/17/2022 12:00 PM 21 Kroger, Walmart and Lowes 1/17/2022 11:26 AM 22 Country store, Walmart 1/17/2022 10:53 AM 23 Kroger, Chick-fil-A, Starbucks 1/17/2022 9:19 AM 24 Grocery, food, post office, Walmart, Lowe's, banks, church 1/17/2022 9:01 AM 25 Walmart, Lowe's, Country Corner, Chick Fil A 1/16/2022 11:02 AM 26 Grocery, bank. Hardware, restaurant 1/16/2022 8:34 AM 27 Bonsack Baptist 1/16/2022 8:17 AM 28 Kroger 1/15/2022 11:12 PM 29 Lowes 1/15/2022 5:39 PM 30 Chick Fil A 1/15/2022 2:30 PM 31 Kroger 1/15/2022 2:18 PM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY 70 Walmart 1/14/2022 11:47 AM 71 Kroger, chick fil A, dominos 1/14/2022 11:31 AM 72 Food and gas 1/14/2022 11:22 AM 73 Kroger, Walmart, cvs, country corner, chick fil a, Starbucks, nail salons, a lot more 1/14/2022 11:13 AM 74 Restaurant/ work 1/14/2022 11:09 AM 75 Chick-fil-a, Kroger, Sals, Cafe Asia, Lowes 1/14/2022 11:00 AM 76 Kroger 1/14/2022 10:59 AM 77 Kroger 1/14/2022 10:57 AM 78 Kroger, Lowes 1/14/2022 10:54 AM 79 Sal's Restaurant 1/14/2022 10:11 AM 80 Kroger 1/14/2022 10:10 AM 81 Kroger, Walmart, gas stations 1/14/2022 9:49 AM 82 Gas stations, Kroger, Sal's Restaurant, Bonsack Baptist Church 1/14/2022 9:43 AM 83 Lowes 1/14/2022 9:25 AM 84 Kroger /walmart 1/14/2022 9:24 AM 85 Walmart and Kroger 1/14/2022 8:46 AM 86 Kroger, Walmart & Lowes 1/14/2022 8:39 AM 87 Kroger, Walmart 1/14/2022 8:37 AM 88 Lowes, Walmart, Kroger, Chick fil A, Bank 1/14/2022 8:30 AM 89 Walmart and kroger 1/14/2022 8:22 AM 90 Kroger 1/14/2022 8:04 AM 91 Kroger Shopping Center 1/14/2022 8:01 AM 92 WalMart 1/14/2022 8:00 AM 93 Walmart, country corner, Lowe's, orchard hills church, 1/14/2022 7:47 AM 94 Kroger, Walmart and Lowes, famous Anthony's's 1/14/2022 7:38 AM 95 Walmart 1/14/2022 7:24 AM 96 Walmart and kroger and all the food places 1/14/2022 7:11 AM 97 Kroger 1/14/2022 7:10 AM 98 Walmart 1/14/2022 7:03 AM 99 Lowe's 1/14/2022 6:51 AM 100 Restaurants 1/14/2022 6:21 AM 101 Kroger chick felet Walmart lowes 1/14/2022 6:18 AM 102 Kroger, Lowe's, Walmart, CVS 1/14/2022 6:05 AM 103 Kroger 1/14/2022 5:10 AM 104 Kroger 1/14/2022 1:50 AM 105 Walmart, Lowes, country corner, chick-flia wendys 1/14/2022 1:16 AM 106 Kroger, Walmart, loves, domino's, nail salons, Starbucks, El rodeo, 1 store, McDonald's, chick 1/14/2022 12:30 AM fil a, cvs, county corner. Pretty much every where. 107 Kroger 1/14/2022 12:27 AM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY 144 Chick fil a, Walmart 1/10/2022 12:57 PM 145 Krogers & Walmart 1/10/2022 12:53 PM 146 Kroger 1/10/2022 12:47 PM 147 Walmart 1/10/2022 12:44 PM 148 Kroger, Wal-Mart 1/10/2022 12:44 PM 149 Kroger Bonsack 1/10/2022 9:42 AM 150 Lowes and WalMart 1/10/2022 9:39 AM 151 Walmart, Lowes, Kroger 1/9/2022 11:59 PM 152 Kroger, Lowes 1/9/2022 7:08 PM 153 Wal Mart 1/9/2022 11:27 AM 154 Lowe's, Walmart 1/8/2022 6:47 PM 155 walmart and kroger 1/8/2022 2:07 PM 156 Kroger 1/8/2022 10:46 AM 157 Chick Filet 1/8/2022 9:32 AM 158 Kroger, Walmart, Lowes 1/7/2022 6:09 PM 159 Kroger Bonsack 1/7/2022 1:42 PM 160 Kroger, walmart, dry cleaners, Sal's 1/7/2022 12:35 PM 161 Walmart 1/7/2022 11:41 AM 162 Walmart 1/7/2022 11:12 AM 163 Walmart, Lowes, Kroger 1/7/2022 11:08 AM 164 Walmart 1/7/2022 10:06 AM 165 Kroger and Walmart 1/7/2022 9:03 AM 166 Kroger, Walmart, Lowe's 1/7/2022 7:38 AM 167 Walmart, Kroger, Lowes, Chick-fil-A 1/7/2022 5:16 AM 168 Kroger 1/6/2022 10:57 PM 169 Kroger 1/6/2022 9:30 PM 170 Lowes and Walmart and Kroger 1/6/2022 9:28 PM 171 Kroger and Chick-Fil-A 1/6/2022 9:11 PM 172 Kroger, Walmart, Lowes 1/6/2022 9:00 PM 173 Kroger 1/6/2022 8:42 PM 174 Kroger 1/6/2022 5:38 PM 175 Kroger 1/6/2022 4:44 PM 176 Kroger, Lowe's, Chik-fil-A 1/6/2022 9:07 AM 177 1. Kroger. 2.Walmart. 3.Chickfila. 4. Sals 1/5/2022 6:40 PM 178 Kroger and Walmart 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 179 Kroger 1/5/2022 3:22 PM 180 lowes, wal-mart 1/5/2022 12:41 PM 181 Kroger, Chick fil a, CVS, Lowes, Sonic 1/5/2022 11:28 AM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Q7 Please rank the following intersections regarding level of congestion or other concerns. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 1 0 % 0% 1 Answered: 188 Skipped: 32 11111111111 II it I.I.I. I. E. I. H. L. F. J. K. G. B. C. D. A. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route Route 460... 460... 460... 460... 460... 460... 460... 460... 460... 460... 460... 460... • No Opinion 1.1 Not Concer... Somewhat ... In Very Conce... U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q8 Are there any intersections not listed above that you have opinions or concerns about in the Study Area? If so, please list them below. Answered: 86 Skipped: 134 RESPONSES none Na No No Not at this moment, but should come back to the intersection on 460 & King St. no King St intersections in the city are still a problem. No none NONE Bonsack Rd and 460 King Street Intersection Country Corner is a gem, but safety in and out is very much a concern. 45 mph in left lane going from walmart heading west on 460 and people have no deceleration lane to turn left into Country Corner. IT'S HAZARDOUS. They said that they would be charged 300K for a turn lane? Not sure that's true...but at what cost is a life? Very dangerous. People have been killed there. ALSO, Chick Fil A is a mess. The road turning into it either way on 460 is too small for the amount of business it gets. It needs to be widened so that CFA has it's own turn lane on that street and people can get to their homes. The LGH ER just made it worse. When the Christmas lights covered CFA there was so much traffic and people could be stopped in the road waiting to get to the turn lane going West on 460. Dead stop. And my last rant is the Jeter Farm just outside of the study area. AGAIN, their seasonal agri-tourism is great for them, but dangerous for anyone in the left lane hitting 60mph going E on 460. No deceleration lane to turn left into their pumpkin patch or whatever they have going on...and stopped traffic. DEADLY. Traffic could be much smoother and safer with a few improvements. No na N/a Kings St, Gus Nicks, 13th Street are worse than any of the others listed. No These are NOT issues. What you are proposing looks TERRRIBLE to those who live here. It may help "commuters" but it is not good for the community. None No Just about every intersection Alt 220 at Bonsack Baptist Church No DATE 1/28/2022 8:44 AM 1/27/2022 7:58 PM 1/27/2022 8:45 AM 1/26/2022 11:11 AM 1/24/2022 9:31 AM 1/23/2022 1:52 PM 1/23/2022 11:11 AM 1/22/2022 11:10 PM 1/22/2022 3:52 PM 1/22/2022 12:36 PM 1/17/2022 12:11 PM 1/16/2022 11:46 AM 1/16/2022 11:19 AM 1/16/2022 8:42 AM 1/15/2022 1:37 PM 1/15/2022 10:47 AM 1/15/2022 9:51 AM 1/15/2022 2:08 AM 1/14/2022 9:46 PM 1/14/2022 9:23 PM 1/14/2022 7:45 PM 1/14/2022 5:44 PM 1/14/2022 4:43 PM 1/14/2022 3:38 PM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 220 and Crumpacker n/a Number of semis on the road none The Walmart road that intersects Crumpacker Drive needs a new stop bar and sign. Read Mtn Rd/Alt 220. Chick Fil A light and ER --dangerous at any time of day or night. Any intersection with a flashing yellow needs to be returned to a red light. Not sure who thought those things up when people can't drive and make any better decisions than they do. N/A Cloverdale Rd at Bonsack Baptist Church CLC entrance N/A No Carson Rd. Intersection with challenger. No turn lane. Forced to pull off in shoulder lane or get hit in the rear. Where east bonsack rd connects to 460 Crumpacker Drive leading up to Bonsack Elementary during school hours NA I am concerned about 220: if you turn left onto 220 at intersection L, then often there is traffic trying to merge onto 220 from the right 220 merge ramp. When the traffic are large trucks / tractor trailers or carrying large equipment, they are sometimes attempting to merge at too high a rate of speed. If cars that are in the right lane on 220 after having made the left turn off Challenger are in the right lane, they often try to move to the 220 left lane to avoid the trucks attempting to merge onto 220. The traffic flow is us all too heavy to provide room for a quick lane change. Many times this results in sudden braking by the truckers (who should have been driving slower) and frantic right lane drivers trying to keep from getting hit. A double flashing yellow light sign for those trying to merge onto 220 there, warning that they need to slow down and be cautious, might help. no Why spending so much for pedestrian crossing at WestRuritan, that's money wasted. no n/a No No entry onto 460 leaving bonsack rd None No No No No No Mountain Pass Road and Webster Road, depending on what happens with the others. no no No, but I am extremely unhappy about the "no left turn" changes that will be coming to the 1/11/2022 9:48 PM 1/11/2022 1:30 PM 1/10/2022 8:53 PM 1/10/2022 2:41 PM 1/10/2022 1:53 PM 1/10/2022 9:49 AM 1/10/2022 9:46 AM 1/9/2022 7:19 PM 1/8/2022 9:44 AM 1/7/2022 6:16 PM 1/7/2022 12:59 PM 1/7/2022 11:22 AM 1/7/2022 10:20 AM 1/6/2022 10:24 PM 1/6/2022 9:07 PM 1/6/2022 5:48 PM 1/6/2022 1:39 PM 1/6/2022 9:13 AM 1/5/2022 7:04 PM 1/5/2022 3:27 PM 1/5/2022 12:50 PM 1/5/2022 7:53 AM 1/5/2022 7:15 AM 1/5/2022 6:23 AM 1/4/2022 6:40 PM 1/4/2022 3:49 PM 1/4/2022 1:54 PM 1/4/2022 12:29 PM 1/4/2022 12:11 PM 1/4/2022 7:42 AM 1/3/2022 4:48 PM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Q9 When traffic is congested, which most closely describes your driving habits? I wait in the congestion a... I find alternative... I generally don't travel... Answered: 188 Skipped: 32 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES I wait in the congestion and am delayed in traffic. I find alternative routes on minor roads to try to get around the backup. I generally don't travel during peak hours when I know there will be congestion. TOTAL RESPONSES 46.28% 36.17% 17.55% 87 68 33 188 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY 25 Carson Rd 1/15/2022 9:51 AM 26 Carson Rd 1/15/2022 2:08 AM 27 Carson Road 1/14/2022 11:23 PM 28 Its only bad when there is an accident. The traffic light between ChickFilet and Kroger is the 1/14/2022 10:11 PM problem. If the lights would conform with traffic speeds and patterns the problem would go away. Often only a few cars can make it through those 2 lights at a time. This is what backs up traffic. 29 The only issue is coming out of the city. The entire problem is the timing of the lights. If you 1/14/2022 9:46 PM work with the timing ... you don't need to spend this money, mess up our traffic and most importantly mess up our community. Its all about the light timing. 30 Carson road, Blue Ridge Parkway, 220 1/14/2022 9:23 PM 31 carson rd 1/14/2022 7:58 PM 32 Carson road 1/14/2022 7:45 PM 33 I never found a better route 1/14/2022 5:44 PM 34 King st 1/14/2022 5:11 PM 35 From Carson Rd over to King St. there are no good alternatives in getting to Walmart and 1/14/2022 4:43 PM Lowes from Carson. 36 604 to Read Mountain 1/14/2022 3:49 PM 37 Carson Road 1/14/2022 3:38 PM 38 Carson Rd/Belle Ave 1/14/2022 2:59 PM 39 Carson Rd 1/14/2022 2:41 PM 40 I live off of west rurtian which means when chick fil a is busy I have to use east ruritan road to 1/14/2022 12:35 PM get home 41 Carson Road 1/14/2022 12:35 PM 42 Carson 1/14/2022 12:16 PM 43 There are limited east -west routes for US460 to use as alternate routes. Some of the north- 1/14/2022 12:14 PM south connections do not have connections to other neighborhoods to make them useful as alternates. 44 Have used Carson Road before, but it's not great. 1/14/2022 11:43 AM 45 460 to 220 to read Mt road or 81, or take the parkway to vinton. 1/14/2022 11:25 AM 46 Belle Ave / Carson Rd 1/14/2022 11:06 AM 47 220 to Read Mtn Rd to route 11 1/14/2022 11:05 AM 48 Carson Road to King Street 1/14/2022 11:03 AM 49 I don't really have an alternate route to get home. 1/14/2022 11:01 AM 50 None 1/14/2022 10:21 AM 51 Carson Rd 1/14/2022 10:11 AM 52 Huntridge 1/14/2022 9:54 AM 53 Back over Mountain Pass to avoid 460. 1/14/2022 9:52 AM 54 Blue Ridge Parkway 1/14/2022 9:29 AM 55 I cut over to the Mason Mill area. 1/14/2022 8:54 AM 56 Old Hollins to Shadwell to Read Mountain to 604 1/14/2022 8:50 AM 57 E ruritan 1/14/2022 8:45 AM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Carson Road N/A Carson Rd towards vinton n/a NA Read Mountain Rd Carson Road If I have to use 460 during peak hours, I use Google maps, look at the congestion there (red/yellow on map) and estimated travel times and choose the best route that way. Google maps also alerts a user to accidents if the responders have been at the scene long enough. 100 Carson Road to King Street (headed towards downtown) 101 Carson rd 102 any 103 Carson Road 104 CaArson Road 105 vary 106 Carson Rd. 107 Carson Road if going to Vinton. Cloverdale to Read Mt Rd to Williamson to go to mall or N. Roanoke. 108 109 110 181 Going thru Vinton carson road I commute from Vinton to Daleville. In the morning I use Carson road to avoid stoplights from King Street onwards to that point. In the evening I use King Street as the Carson Road intersection with King Street is difficult to turn left onto King. 111 Carson Rd, E and W Ruritan Rd, Bonsack Rd, Huntridge Rd 112 I go all the way over to route 11 and come home that way. 113 I use the recommended path 114 Carson rd, huntridge rd 115 I live on Carson Rd, but MANY drivers use Carson as a cut through to avoid the congestion from KFC (King St) intersection and the CFA/CVS intersection at West Ruritan, and the Valley Gateway intersection. I know the plan is to prevent left turns onto 460 from Carson Rd In the future and residents in this area are NOT happy about that. We need a stop light at Carson/460 instead of that lousy option. 116 That's the problem with this area. A lack of back roads! Carson is the only one, but it's not great. 117 Carson road 118 Peters Creek to Route 11 around Read Mountain Rd 119 None 120 Not sure depends on where I am. 121 Sometimes I take Carson Road. Sometimes I take Huntridge home even though Cortland is closer to my home 122 East Ruritan to West Ruritan 123 Carson Rd 1/8/2022 11:08 AM 1/7/2022 6:16 PM 1/7/2022 12:59 PM 1/7/2022 11:22 AM 1/7/2022 10:20 AM 1/7/2022 5:27 AM 1/6/2022 11:07 PM 1/6/2022 10:24 PM 1/6/2022 9:46 PM 1/6/2022 9:35 PM 1/6/2022 9:07 PM 1/6/2022 8:51 PM 1/6/2022 5:48 PM 1/6/2022 1:39 PM 1/6/2022 9:13 AM 1/5/2022 7:04 PM 1/5/2022 3:27 PM 1/5/2022 12:50 PM 1/5/2022 9:19 AM 1/5/2022 9:08 AM 1/5/2022 7:53 AM 1/5/2022 7:15 AM 1/5/2022 6:23 AM 1/5/2022 5:02 AM 1/4/2022 7:18 PM 1/4/2022 6:56 PM 1/4/2022 6:40 PM 1/4/2022 3:49 PM 1/4/2022 3:30 PM 1/4/2022 1:54 PM 1/4/2022 1:20 PM 1/4/2022 12:29 PM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q11 Other than Route 460 intersections mentioned in questions 7 and 8, are there other roadways in the study area that need improvements? Answered: 95 Skipped: 125 RESPONSES A better route from 460 to Route 24 would be great! Possibly using Carson Gus nicks and king street Na King and Belle No no Definitely need to look at the left on 460 to King St. Not on your study but is backed up awful. Left turn lane isn't long enough, light isn't long enough. Traffic gets backed up awful. Also 460 onto Gus Nicks, again left turn lane isn't long enough, light isn't long enough and traffic gets backed up really bad. But again it isn't within your study, but something should be done!!! 8 One lane bridge on Carson Road needs to be widened to 2 way. 9 All of 460 10 NONE 11 All of Orange / Challenger is a nightmare. Roanoke City has an obligation to fix Orange also. 12 Carson Road (Curvy area) East Ruritan 13 West Ruritian road needs to be widened to accommodate a left turn into CFA. Right turn lane into ER and straight for homeowners. The hill is too steep and they fly over the hill and sometimes can't see traffic backed up at light waiting to get ONTO 460. Warning lights for them the light is RED would help. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 No All of 460 between downtown and Cloverdale. Add at least two more lanes. Widen it. better signal coordiation no New LG ER access pathways to 460 No Carson road, not the intersection the entire road King's St, Gus Nicks, 13th St. No Not that I can think of No Carson road, Trail Drive Carson road Vinton area No DATE 1/28/2022 8:44 AM 1/27/2022 9:25 PM 1/27/2022 7:58 PM 1/26/2022 7:11 PM 1/26/2022 11:11 AM 1/26/2022 8:42 AM 1/24/2022 9:31 AM 1/23/2022 11:11 AM 1/22/2022 11:10 PM 1/22/2022 12:36 PM 1/17/2022 12:11 PM 1/16/2022 11:46 AM 1/16/2022 11:19 AM 1/16/2022 8:42 AM 1/15/2022 5:48 PM 1/15/2022 2:34 PM 1/15/2022 1:37 PM 1/15/2022 11:51 AM 1/15/2022 10:47 AM 1/15/2022 10:21 AM 1/15/2022 9:51 AM 1/15/2022 2:08 AM 1/14/2022 11:23 PM 1/14/2022 9:46 PM 1/14/2022 9:23 PM 1/14/2022 7:45 PM 1/14/2022 5:44 PM 1/14/2022 4:43 PM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY 63 Hillview Drive/Alt 220; Country Corner parking lot is a deathtrap. There should not be a left turn allowed at Huntridge/460. 1/10/2022 1:53 PM 64 No 65 No 66 N/A 67 N/A 68 No 69 Carson Rd. needs to be be continually monitored for speed. People use this as a shortcut to Vinton at 45mph speeds. Spring tree is used the same way. 70 West Ruritan Road to better accommodate Chick Fila traffic during peak hours. Concern over how the new LewisGale ER will add even further to this congestion. At times traffic is backed up onto 460 by people trying to get into Chick-fil-A or other traffic, like us, who live in the vicinity and West Ruritan is the only option for residents exiting off of 460. 71 the Chik fil a intersection is a true nightmare. Cars back up going into the establishment which prevents flow of traffic and backs up into 460 and blocks people who live in that area. No they are adding the new Emergency Room which will make it worse. 72 I would like to see walking improvements like a sidewalk up Crumpacker Drive leading up to Bonsack Elementary. Also too possibly something to slow traffic coming down the hill from the school. 73 Not really 74 Hillview Dr and Cloverdale Rd (Alt 220) 75 Widening Carson Road 76 I came extremely close to being seriously injured or killed at intersection B. It was when the Blue Hills Car Wash was under construction. I was at the light, headed toward the Civic Center on 460 and stopped behind 4-5 other cars for the red light. In my rear view mirror I saw a pickup truck barreling down on me (about 40 mph). As it got closer, I saw that the driver was looking to the left, not at the road. (I think he was looking at the car wash construction site.) In a split second I considered 3 options. I decided to stay where I was, because I believe that if the driver looked back at the road, he might go to the left or right to avoid hitting my car, so I decided not to change lanes. Watching in my rear view mirror, I saw the driver finally look back at the road. A look of absolute horror and surprise came across his face. I thought I was about to die in an explosion of gasoline. I closed my eyes and prayed. Miraculously, there was no impact. The other driver had slammed on his brakes. I opened my eyes to see the driver behind me slumped over the steering wheel, head and arms on the wheel, looking down. He clearly understood the gravity of the situation. The light changed and I wondered if he'd had a heart attack in that moment or needed assistance. I mentally weighed getting out of my car to check on him, but felt that would not have been safe, as traffic was moving again. I drove forward slowly and kept looking back to see if his vehicle moved. He did not make the green light, but eventually he slowly moved up to the light, which was red. So I felt he must be ok and I drove on. But at least two of us were very shaken up that night. Please minimize distractions on 460, use as many stoplights as necessary even if it slows traffic and help keep drivers focused on the road. 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 No Carson Road, and King St. no Carson Rd More turn lanes at Chickfila intersection. Improved timing of Kroger stoplight. When turning left from 460 East, it often misses cycles. All No opinion 1/10/2022 1:06 PM 1/10/2022 12:52 PM 1/10/2022 9:49 AM 1/9/2022 7:19 PM 1/9/2022 11:36 AM 1/7/2022 6:16 PM 1/7/2022 1:51 PM 1/7/2022 12:59 PM 1/7/2022 11:22 AM 1/7/2022 10:20 AM 1/7/2022 5:27 AM 1/6/2022 11:07 PM 1/6/2022 10:24 PM 1/6/2022 9:35 PM 1/6/2022 8:51 PM 1/6/2022 1:39 PM 1/6/2022 9:13 AM 1/5/2022 7:04 PM 1/5/2022 4:09 PM 1/5/2022 3:27 PM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Q12 Several projects in the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County received funding in 2021 to improve intersections along Route 460. These intersections include: Patrick Road, Blue Hills Drive, Blue Hills Village Drive, West Ruritan Road, Carson Road, Bonsack Road, Country Corner Nursery, Huntridge Road and Cloverdale Road/Alternate Route 220. Have you heard about funded improvements for one or more of these intersections? 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 1 0 % 0% Answered: 163 Yes No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 38.04% 62 61.96% 101 TOTAL 163 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY ... its all a timing issue. It doesn't have anything to do with traffic patterns. 25 Connection from Carson Road or Bonsack road area to Blue Ridge Parkway. Connect Ruritan neighborhoods to Huntridge neighborhoods and Old Mountain Road/Monterey neighborhoods. 26 Around west ruritan to alleviate the back ups headed to chic fil a 27 Back side of Kroger on Carson road/2nd entrance to kroger area from other side 28 Add another lane on both sides allowing more ppl to go straight with out stopping for right turning 29 Entrance to Kroger from Carson Rd. 30 Carson road and king street 31 The bow tie plan will not help!!! The biggest issue is the right lane merge from alt 220 to right onto 460. 32 I don't think new connections are the answer as much as widening and improvement what is currently in place. 33 no 34 460 /220 alt 35 I'm not sure there are at new connections available 36 Connect W. Ruritan to Kroger S/C light to provide alternate neighborhood entry/exit point to homes behind Chick-fil-A. 37 I think a design like Christiansburg/Blacksburg Smart Road & overpasses would simplify traffic routes and allow travelers and commuters easier accesses to their destinations. 38 Can't really think of any 39 If bonsack road was extended to Carson road Then that could cut down on traffic at the bonsack road and west Ruritan road. People from bonsack could easily use Carson as a way around the 460 traffic with out crossing 460 2 times. Also allowing Bonsack road traffic not to have to cross at the same spot as west Ruritan. Also there could be a road put in beside the new med express building on the side that the house is for an alternative entry to east Ruritan around the chick fil a mess. Or make the chick fil a traffic use the trail road beside the dry cleaner. 40 I would recommend a bi-pass that connects 581 directly to 460 north of this study area, or at the 220 intersection so that these roads will be used primarily by local traffic rather than commuters. 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 don't know West ruitan There needs to be arrows at the 460/Carson Rd intersection!!! People don't know which side of the road to be on at the crossover!!! Also, Country Corner needs a turning lane going 460 West!!!! So many wrecks. Need roundabouts NA Make the road behind the nursery a bypass around the 460/220 intersection 460 just need more Lanes to help the flow of traffic. The congestion is basically all day. Definitely at L, K & E W Ruritan to Blue Hills and E Ruritan to Huntridge None needed Maybe make a fourth entry, new road that comes out at across from bonsack walmart or at 604/460 light and make a 4 way intersection. Make the people that are yielding right toward the walmart light have a light too and they can go when the other traffic turning left gets a green 1/14/2022 9:23 PM 1/14/2022 7:58 PM 1/14/2022 7:45 PM 1/14/2022 5:44 PM 1/14/2022 4:43 PM 1/14/2022 4:35 PM 1/14/2022 3:38 PM 1/14/2022 2:59 PM 1/14/2022 2:41 PM 1/14/2022 12:30 PM 1/14/2022 12:16 PM 1/14/2022 12:14 PM 1/14/2022 12:10 PM 1/14/2022 11:43 AM 1/14/2022 11:25 AM 1/14/2022 11:05 AM 1/14/2022 11:01 AM 1/14/2022 10:45 AM 1/14/2022 10:11 AM 1/14/2022 9:54 AM 1/14/2022 9:52 AM 1/14/2022 9:33 AM 1/14/2022 8:54 AM 1/14/2022 8:50 AM 1/14/2022 8:45 AM 1/14/2022 8:08 AM 1/14/2022 7:27 AM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY is very dangerous! We just need a no u-turn sign put up to stop that and make it safer. 79 not qualified to express opinion 80 Connections to roads to make it possible to not have to access 460 at all times. Reduce number of traffic intersections. Connect E Ruritan to Blue Hills 81 82 n/a I would not allow Left hand turns into Chick-fil-A from W. Ruritan. I would make them only be able to enter from Trail Drive. 83 Chick Filet and new Urgent care Facility at intersection of West Ruritan - need their own entry - Not Part of West Ruritan. West Ruritan should be used for residential only 84 None 85 Connect Crumpacker Drive in Samuel Gates community to Greggin Drive which connects to East Ruritan Road. This will help even out traffic flow 86 No opinion 87 We need another road to access neighborhoods in old bonsack like Aprils Meadow. The RR track double crosses the only access and over the past year there have been multiple times that the train has blocked access for literally hours. We are a family neighborhood and this could be a HUGE potential safety issue. We have made multiple complaints to NS RR. Access needs to be re-established out to Carson Rd where there was once a crossing. 88 Behind Ruritan Road to connect East and West to an alternate way to get out. 89 Tie it into Alt 220, or possibly Carson Rd. 90 West Ruritan needs a dedicated right turn lane for ambulances to get into the new Lewis Gale Emergency Department. This is by far the area with the most backed up traffic, as people want to turn left off West Ruritan into Chick-Fil-A and the traffic is backed up to Route 460 at peak times. Also, cars traveling from West Ruritan towards 460 do not have a clear line of site due to the hill they encounter right before the Chick-Fil-A entrance. So the situation is those cars are coming up over a blind hill and encounter cars turning left (into Chick-Fil-A) directly in front of them. Soon ambulances will be added into this nightmare scenario as they try to get into the new Emergency Dept. on West Ruritan. 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 West Ruritan to Blue Hills Drive Carson rd. King St Spend money on the Cloverdale Road460 intersection, that's the.busiest unsure Maybe a way to cut thru to Cloverdale Road from 460 east besides Mt Pass. (I have to take this opportunity to also say these 2 suggestions that might help 460 closer to Roanoke City. It would be nice to have a wider, straighter road to travel to Valley View area that did not require lots of turns. And one thru Orange Ave thru town, which is crooked with lanes changes. By chick-fil-a West Ruitan Valley Blvd carson rd As much as I'd dislike another light, Carson road needs to be widened and a light added Na Unsure I don't know enough about the area to suggest anything helpful needs to be tree lanes through all of this 1/10/2022 12:56 PM 1/10/2022 12:56 PM 1/10/2022 9:49 AM 1/9/2022 7:19 PM 1/9/2022 6:53 PM 1/9/2022 11:36 AM 1/8/2022 9:44 AM 1/7/2022 6:16 PM 1/7/2022 12:59 PM 1/7/2022 10:20 AM 1/7/2022 5:27 AM 1/6/2022 10:24 PM 1/6/2022 9:46 PM 1/6/2022 9:35 PM 1/6/2022 8:51 PM 1/6/2022 5:48 PM 1/6/2022 9:13 AM 1/5/2022 7:04 PM 1/5/2022 4:09 PM 1/5/2022 3:27 PM 1/5/2022 12:50 PM 1/5/2022 7:53 AM 1/5/2022 7:15 AM 1/4/2022 7:18 PM 1/4/2022 6:40 PM 1/4/2022 4:01 PM 1/4/2022 3:49 PM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Q14 Is it important for pedestrians to be able to cross U.S. Route 460 in the Study Area? 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 1 0 % 0% Yes Answered: 188 Skipped: 32 No ANSWER CHOICES Yes No No Opinion TOTAL No Opinion RESPONSES 31.91% 44.68% 23.40% 60 84 44 188 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY 33 If crosswalks exist they should only be at select intersections with the highest visibility. 1/14/2022 7:25 AM Intersection E would be the ideal intersection for a crosswalk. 34 Every traffic signal 1/14/2022 7:05 AM 35 Crosswalks? Your kidding right? This is a BUSY four lane highway - you would need a 1/14/2022 12:08 AM pedestrian bridge for it to work safely. 36 NA 1/13/2022 11:30 PM 37 W Ruritin and 460 1/13/2022 11:27 PM 38 3814 challenger Ave 24012 1/13/2022 8:41 PM 39 CVS, Kroger, East Ruritan Road, Hunt Ridge Road, and Walmart 1/13/2022 7:29 PM 40 None unless elevated above road. Not the place for pedestrian travel. 1/13/2022 4:42 PM 41 N/A 1/13/2022 2:49 PM 42 At Blue Hills Drive. 1/12/2022 10:39 AM 43 Up to the studies. 1/10/2022 8:53 PM 44 West Ruritan intersection and Blue Hills intersection 1/10/2022 8:35 PM 45 West Ruritan / 460 1/10/2022 8:03 PM 46 gus nicks blvd / 1/10/2022 2:41 PM 47 From existing neighborhoods to shopping centers. 1/10/2022 1:06 PM 48 At King St light where there is a bus stop. 1/10/2022 1:06 PM 49 All roads that feed a subdivision and the Lowe's/WalMart main entrance. 1/10/2022 9:49 AM 50 E. West Ruritan 1/9/2022 7:19 PM 51 At traffic lights 1/8/2022 6:56 PM 52 N/A 1/7/2022 6:16 PM 53 West Ruritan, Mexico Way, King Street 1/7/2022 1:51 PM 54 Near Blue Hills Rd with sidewalks to walk to West Ruritan 1/7/2022 12:59 PM 55 I'm not sure. Leaving up to studies for best possible locations. 1/7/2022 11:22 AM 56 At the Ruritan exits. Near Kroger, near Walmart, near Chick Fil A. It would be excellent to have 1/7/2022 10:20 AM a bike lane and/or sidewalks added along 460. This would make the area feel more liveable and inviting. 57 The intersection by MacDonald's has the most pedestrians in my experience and they struggle 1/6/2022 10:24 PM to cross safely over all lanes of traffic (to the KFC side, for instance). Additionally, homeless people are often in that median which is very distracting to drivers trying to avoid all pedestrians who may be crossing. 58 Blue Hills, Carson Rd (G,H) 1/6/2022 9:07 PM 59 I never see pedestrians, wasteful spending to accommodate pedestrians at these intersections 1/6/2022 5:48 PM 60 No in this area. better crossing for Burgland center area. 1/6/2022 1:39 PM 61 That is ridiculous. We need some thru roads to keep traffic and commerce moving. This is not 1/5/2022 7:04 PM a hometown local small city area. 62 At traffic lights perhaps 1/5/2022 3:27 PM 63 At all traffic signals 1/5/2022 10:30 AM 64 Greenway somewhere along the road. Sidewalks connecting Kroger to neighborhoods. 1/5/2022 9:19 AM 65 None 1/5/2022 7:53 AM 66 No 1/5/2022 7:15 AM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Q16 The Bikeway Plan for the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (2012 Update) includes Priority and Vision alignments along roadways in the Study Area. Do you agree with the following locations for bicycle accommodations? 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Answered: 188 Skipped: 32 111 11 1111' Cloverdale (City of Carson Road Bonsack Road (Botetourt Road/Route Roanoke) between the between County) 220 ALT Orange City of Challenger Cloverdale between... Avenue/Rou... Roanoke an... Avenue/Rou... Road/Route... Yes No ® No Opinion YES NO NO OPINION TOTAL Cloverdale Road/Route 220 ALT between Challenger Avenue/Route 460 and the Botetourt 32.98% 38.83% 28.19% County line 62 73 53 188 (City of Roanoke) Orange Avenue/Route 460 from Gus Nicks Boulevard to the Roanoke 36.90% 38.50% 24.60% County line 69 72 46 187 Carson Road between the City of Roanoke and Challenger Avenue/Route 460 33.16% 37.97% 28.88% 62 71 54 187 Bonsack Road between Challenger Avenue/Route 460 (west entrance) and Challenger 38.50% 33.16% 28.34% Avenue/Route 460 (east entrance) 72 62 53 187 (Botetourt County) Cloverdale Road/Route 220 ALT between the Roanoke County line and 36.36% 33.16% 30.48% Lee Highway/Route 11 68 62 57 187 PLEASE INDICATE OTHER ON -ROAD LOCATIONS WHERE BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED: DATE 1 People don't ride bikes on these roads 1/27/2022 9:25 PM 2 King st to Gus Nicks 1/26/2022 7:11 PM 3 I don't think it would be safe, to much speed to accomdate riders on bicycles. 1/24/2022 9:31 AM 4 Congestion and speed too much on 460 and 220 for bikes. Lower speed roads possibly if 1/23/2022 11:11 AM widened and sight distance. 5 none 1/22/2022 3:52 PM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY 38 Too much traffic for a bike lane. 1/6/2022 8:51 PM 39 none 1/6/2022 9:13 AM 40 Could we more plan for some green space on the edge of these areas that could be used by 1/5/2022 7:04 PM bikes, walkers, runners??? I am opposed to having them in the flow of busy traffic! But understand there definitely is room for improvement in the area! 41 N/A 1/5/2022 3:27 PM 42 they need to stay off 460 , death trap. 1/5/2022 12:50 PM 43 No where near 460 travel speed is 45 miles and hour and 460 is not safe for bikes 1/5/2022 6:23 AM 44 Carson Road 1/5/2022 5:02 AM 45 ride your bike somewhere else not on a major road 1/4/2022 4:01 PM 46 Crazy to think about a bicycle on orange ave. I love riding my bike, but that's suicide. 1/4/2022 3:49 PM 47 NONE! 1/4/2022 1:20 PM 48 I would think bike paths on those location would be very dangerous because of all the car 1/4/2022 12:29 PM wrecks but I am not sure about what accommodations are proposed. 49 On road locations should be minimized. Unless there is sufficient room for cyclists, they pose 1/3/2022 4:48 PM a danger both for themselves and drivers when on the roadway. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Q18 The 2018 Roanoke Valley Greenway Plan includes a conceptual alignment for the Glade Creek Greenway to connect the Tinker Creek Greenway to the Blue Ridge Parkway. Do you support constructing a greenway for pedestrians and bicyclists along Glade Creek? 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Yes Answered: 188 Skipped: 32 No No Opinion ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No No Opinion 76.60% 10.11% 13.30% 144 19 25 TOTAL 188 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Q20 The following questions relate to the Layman Road and Glade Creek Road railroad crossings. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 1 0 % 0% II Yes Answered: 188 Skipped: 32 Do you feel the Layman Road crossing is safe? Do you feel the Layman Road crossing is safe? Do you feel the Glade Creek crossing is safe? Do you feel the Glade Creek crossing is safe? III No No Opinion YES NO NO OPINION TOTAL 17.02% 24.47% 58.51% 32 46 110 188 20.21% 24.47% 55.32% 38 46 104 188 DO YOU HAVE OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT THESE CROSSINGS? PLEASE COMMENT DATE BELOW. 1 No 1/26/2022 11:11 AM 2 The Layman Road crossing needs the grades made more gradual. They currently have blind 1/26/2022 8:42 AM spots due to the steepness of the approach grades. 3 People just need to be aware and be safe everywhere. 1/24/2022 9:31 AM 4 Narrow and feels unsafe driving back over the layman crossing due to poor visibility 1/23/2022 1:52 PM 5 no 1/22/2022 3:52 PM 6 Layman road is falling apart everywhere and a giant sink hole is just as you approach the RR 1/17/2022 12:11 PM crossing. 7 Glade Creek and Layman could be improved but too costly for marginal benefit. 1/16/2022 11:46 AM 8 No 1/16/2022 8:42 AM 9 At Layman Road, the road around the big turn leaving Aprils meadow is too close to the tracks. 1/14/2022 9:46 PM The gate should be moved back to the turn so vehicles are not a few feet from the train. The house is in the way a normal approach. 10 Is this between the railroad and the county both? 1/14/2022 3:05 PM 11 They just need safety measures. 1/14/2022 12:10 PM 12 Train stop and block the crossing for long periods of time. Not safe 1/14/2022 11:25 AM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Q21 What is your impression of Bonsack's history? I have no insight on t... Its history, while... It has a rich and importan... Other (please specify) Answered: 186 Skipped: 34 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES I have no insight on the history of Bonsack. Its history, while important, should not drive future development patterns and land use decisions. It has a rich and important history and should be preserved by limiting future growth. Other (please specify) 42.47% 79 35.48% 66 17.20% 32 4.84% 9 TOTAL 186 OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DATE While it is important that importance should be limited. 1/14/2022 9:53 AM All roads need improvement in this area 1/14/2022 8:51 AM History has its place and should be preserved as best as possible in a changing world 1/14/2022 12:10 AM Wouldn't want to disturb the old farms 1/13/2022 11:28 PM Its history involves the tobacco industry and how Mr. Bonsack prospered. His invention 1/13/2022 5:04 PM affected all who smoke. I like the heritage of old Bonsack and would like to see it incorporated into any development. I 1/5/2022 7:22 PM dont think it should necessarily STOP development. It is a nice area all thru there - relatively quiet yet wonderfully close to stores and services - and I would hate to see that lost to super shopping centers, big box stores, etc. I would rather see smaller local businesses and family friendly!! really nothing in old bonsack that is worth saving, old churches need to be torn down, almost 1/5/2022 12:51 PM no membership, at least 3 old homes sitting vacant and need to be torn down Grow the area 1/5/2022 6:24 AM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Q22 Do you ever visit the Old Bonsack Community? (defined as properties east of U.S. Route 460 off Bonsack Road) Yes, 1 visit/shop a... No, I do not visit 01d... I live in 01.d Bonsack so I... I did not know there was an... Answered: 186 Skipped: 34 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes, I visit/shop at businesses or otherwise visit Old Bonsack. No, I do not visit Old Bonsack. I live in Old Bonsack so I am there generally every day. I did not know there was an Old Bonsack. 31.72% 46.24% 9.14% 12.90% 59 86 17 24 TOTAL 186 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Q24 Do you support additional business growth in the Old Bonsack area? 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 1 0 % 0% None of the above Answered: 184 Skipped: 36 Yes No No Opinion ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES None of the above Yes No No Opinion 0.00% 65.76% 15.76% 18.48% 0 121 29 34 TOTAL 184 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Road. I'm okay living through construction, etc, as long as the end product is in keeping with the natural beauty of the area. 22 4 lanes of 460 isn't sufficient for current traffic here, and if this is really 2nd highest trafficked road in the county, this will continue to get worse as more expansion occurs east. As we get new retail pads along 460, or a new tenant in the old Walmart/Kroger location, I see it getting even worse. Doing more to interconnect more access roads to nearby businesses could do a lot to help flow around some current intersections such as those near Chickafilet, Blue Hills, and the ER. I suspect Old Bonsack wants to keep its current feel, but others are already using it as the Walmart bypass when heading east despite the low speed limit. I also don't see any solutions to this congestion involving the recent trend of adding roundabouts. 23 Congestion and growth should be top priorities. Attracting new business and development to such a heavily used artery should be a given. 24 Serious planning considerations are needed. The number of car washes along the corridor is ridiculous. 25 Small businesses and local businesses, nothing big! It's a cute community as is 26 Carson Road needs to be widened and the one car only small bridge needs to be bigger or removed all together. There needs to be a Right turn lane from 460 onto Carson Road. I currently use the shoulder to turn right onto Carson as the traffic tries to run me over if I stay in the current lane to slow down and turn. It is very difficult to turn left from Carson onto 460 during heavy traffic times. 27 While I like the idea of new businesses, I'm concerned about growing traffic. I guess this is what it's all about! Keep tax payer dollars in mind. Roanoke County citizens are already paying more than surrounding areas. 28 It is going to harm the charm of the area. This is a very friendly neighborhood area without much traffic. Goods and services are readily available, and there is not a need for locals. Commuter traffic is the only advantage which is just bringing heavy traffic into an otherwise quiet area. It will harm the charm and appeal to the area. 29 This area is somewhat rural and special. People enjoy the wildlife, the country environment, and the pace. We walk the neighborhoods and talk. If we want growth, its all around us and a short drive. Once you install comercialization, it will never go back. Its only new and cool for a short time and for the rest of time, history and the atmosphere has been destroyed. Put growth along alt 220 or out in the village or near Kroger. Leave the rest of the area alone. 30 Growth should be limited to businesses that will raise the profile of the community and grow job opportunities and tax income for the county 31 I believe future growth in this are a is important as it is beneficial to people living in the study area as well as those living in the NE part of Roanoke City 32 More store variety 33 It's a mess to drive on these roads that were designed for general traffic. I feel it's not designed for truck traffic. I am originally from Ft Wayne Indiana area and worked in the area. Look at the road around the city 469 it allows the truck traffic out of the city and allows for faster travel for people who need to get to the other side. We need a major highway around the south side and the east side. It's time 34 We need more restaurants, especially sit-down and casual dining. 35 This area does not need additional growth. If growth is needed it needs to happen further down 460 in Botetourt county 36 Strongly support it. Would love to see more amenities instead of having to travel to south Roanoke, valley view, or daleville. 37 I am in support of growth but not industrial or office space. 38 460 is not capable of dealing with more traffic. You will just cause more crashes because people are unhappy with all the extra time they sit inch by inch to get home from work. We are tired Do not add more trouble ! 39 I think Roanoke Co is taking advantage of the City's inability to promote growth on the City's 1/15/2022 12:09 PM 1/15/2022 10:50 AM 1/15/2022 9:54 AM 1/15/2022 2:09 AM 1/14/2022 11:26 PM 1/14/2022 10:51 PM 1/14/2022 10:17 PM 1/14/2022 9:54 PM 1/14/2022 9:25 PM 1/14/2022 8:04 PM 1/14/2022 7:49 PM 1/14/2022 5:51 PM 1/14/2022 5:13 PM 1/14/2022 4:48 PM 1/14/2022 4:38 PM 1/14/2022 3:41 PM 1/14/2022 3:15 PM 1/14/2022 3:02 PM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY to route 220 alt linking straight to 181. I would love to see the area accept the growth to support better jobs in the region. 62 Improving existing businesses would be the first step. Big -box stores along the corridor have, from the time they opened, offered less variety than stores in other areas (e.g., Lowe's and Walmart have always carried products in other stores which the Bonsack areas don't have); 1 often have to travel to other Roanoke area stores for basic needs. 63 right now it would seem the growth is limited, one by it being a historic area, and additionally by the residential areas surrounding much of the study area. however, this does not have to be the case moving forward as opening up the roadways, and allowing for business growth will create opportunities for local and regional development. growth should be focus along business as well as consumer use, business meaning manufacturing or service based industries like Amazon, and consumer use meaning new businesses and eateries (Target, Homegoods, Hobby Lobby, Cabelas, Chilis Zaxbys to name a few options). 64 Stay on bonsack road preferably only on the one side that is along 460. As long as the growth does not go down the roads off of bonsack road into the neighborhoods then I would think it's fine. 65 The Bonsack area needs other nice, sit-down restaurants, like a Melting Pot or Texas Roadhouse. I'd like to see a restaurant which has a really nice salad bar -- perhaps one where you pay by the weight of your container/tray. (I miss having a grocery store with a self -serve salad bar where you pay by the weight.) I'd even take a large friendly sports bar if it had reasonably priced, delicious foods. We have only a few, limited choices for flavorful food here. Additionally, I WOULD LOVE FOR COSTCO TO COME HERE!!! 66 Would love to see new shops and life in the area 67 I would not like to see our section of 460 become even more congested. Better restaurants would be welcome -not more like McDonalds. 68 I see this corridor as a target growth area and support improvements in the area. I live in the city but use this area heavily for retail and dining. I access the corridor at hollins road. I support growth from Exit 150/hollins down to bonsack and believe it would be good for home values and the quality of life. However, something needs to be done about traffic flow. Williamson road to botetourt line during rush hour is a nightmare. 69 Part of the charm of the area is the quaint quietness of it. Filling it with big businesses could detract from that and I would ask for careful consideration of the present and future residents in the area. Thank you. 70 Would love to see more diversity in restaurants in the area 71 I perceive my input has little value 72 I see growth as a positive in the study area, especially where it reutilizes/replaces buildings and land that is currently dilapidated and overgrown. Not only would growth add economic benefits, but also resolve the eye -sores which pepper US 460. (Driving 460 into Roanoke leave a terrible impression.) 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 All the land on Route 460 should be commercial. County government can be vague and then become very tribal Future growth will no doubt come to this area, but it simply has to be effectively managed Tastefully done, very restrictive with regards to appearance Limited As long as traffic delays can be alleviated in some capacity, I fully support growth in this area. Would like to maintain the charm of the area while providing for more local and unique shopping/dining experiences 80 I just would like Bonsack Road itself to be preserved, but I'm okay with growth up around 460 level. 81 I think it's great as long as the traffic situation is taken care of. 1/14/2022 6:27 AM 1/14/2022 1:36 AM 1/14/2022 12:57 AM 1/14/2022 12:50 AM 1/14/2022 12:13 AM 1/14/2022 12:10 AM 1/13/2022 11:38 PM 1/13/2022 11:33 PM 1/13/2022 11:31 PM 1/13/2022 8:38 PM 1/13/2022 8:11 PM 1/13/2022 7:36 PM 1/13/2022 5:12 PM 1/13/2022 4:57 PM 1/13/2022 4:51 PM 1/13/2022 4:39 PM 1/13/2022 2:51 PM 1/13/2022 2:49 PM 1/12/2022 10:41 AM 1/11/2022 4:59 PM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY down Orange Avenue and then 581 to the Valley View shopping area. I wish we had more shopping/restaurants closer to Bonsack/Vinton. Preferably businesses not currently in the area like Trader Joes. 102 Too much development taking away from the beauty of the area, including subdivision development. There are so many ratty places along 460 that can be rejuvenated to make this a real standout area in Roanoke. Preserving charm and easy access to outdoor recreation, maintaining a family -first environment, with an emphasis on more businesses like the Country Corner store, would serve the community best. If new development needs to happen, consider building up instead of out. 103 Need a Trader Joe's. It's a need here.We have had a huge population growth.Also need to have an upscale restaurant. 104 Intelligently managed growth is good. Need the infrastructure for increased traffic. Well designed mixed use areas similar to the Daleville towncenter would be welcomed. 105 If you develop Old Bonsack, the traffic safety issues must be the top priority. 106 Would love to see the area grow with locally owned shopping, retail, restaurants, breweries, etc. 107 Some changes will be welcomed others not so much. 108 We have lived in LaBelview for 42 years. I have seen businesses com and go. If more business cause any more congestion than Chick-fil-a, forget it. Too many stop lights. 109 Their is a need for business growth to support the huge residential communities on areas Mountain. 110 All I read about is making it harder for me to get anywhere I want by the road changes on 460. I have not read or seen anything that relates to future growth. The only thing that is going to grow is more traffic on Carson Road with this change 111 I believe the infrastructure does not support additional growth in the Bonsack area, even with improvements to traffic. 112 It is nice to have more stores for convenience, but NOT at the price of more congestion. Roanoke is not so big we cant get somewhere fairly easily. Perhaps consider service roads at a stoplights to get to further future developed businesses - like a "neighborhood" of businesses. And make it look attractive, not just bricks and concrete/pavement. Nice turn lanes thats are not confusing. I moved out here to NOT BE LIKE CAVE SPRING! I do not want millions of lights and buildings and congestion. I want to see some big green areas mixed in between - make it a pleasant area like the rural roots it has! Thanks fo asking for input! Good luck! 113 Unavoidable 114 The transportation congestion needs to be addressed before more growth should be considered. Additional stoplights would be a detriment to this area. 115 I support future economic growth as long as infrastructure and traffic concerns are proactively addressed and rectified. 116 It's already too congested. It would be nice to have more unique business to keep it from being another Williamson road in 30 years 117 NA 118 I believe we are headed down a great path. BONSACK area could be the next big thing in roanoke if we only put some efforts in it 119 People live in this area because it is the opposite of the City. We are getting more and more crime in the area moving East from Williamson Rd intersection and many of us are considering moving out of the area. We want to keep it green (country feel). What neighbors want is restaurants (nice sit down style like Olive Garden for example). We have grocery stores, car washes and oil changes, we could use the bike and walking greenway in places that won't bring in MORE outside people. We do not want increased crime!! We do not want transients and beggers in the street. We do not want big offices and buildings in this beautiful area! Keep 1/7/2022 10:28 AM 1/7/2022 9:09 AM 1/7/2022 5:30 AM 1/6/2022 10:33 PM 1/6/2022 9:50 PM 1/6/2022 9:41 PM 1/6/2022 9:02 PM 1/6/2022 5:52 PM 1/6/2022 1:43 PM 1/6/2022 9:17 AM 1/5/2022 7:31 PM 1/5/2022 3:29 PM 1/5/2022 9:35 AM 1/5/2022 9:11 AM 1/5/2022 7:56 AM 1/5/2022 7:16 AM 1/5/2022 6:26 AM 1/5/2022 5:13 AM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Q26 Finally, please comment below if you have any additional information you would like to share relevant to this study that has not been addressed in the previous answers and comments. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Answered: 80 Skipped: 140 RESPONSES Specifically, I think the Bonsack area needs a Target. Bring more Internet to the area!! n/a BE WISE, intersections similar to the CVS, Kroger, Lewis Gayle, & Chick-fil-A is unwise and hasn't been thought through to be kind or helpful to travelers. Need to coordinate well with neighboring jurisdictions. Study area not an island. Ingress egress/flow critical. Lots of 460 commercial property seems available. Be careful about any development on steep (Belle/Carson) and rocky ground (Southern Comfort) and floodplains. 100 yr is now 10yr. Try to avoid duplication of services (Did not need 2 car washes) while encouraging competition. none There is entirely too much traffic for the number of lanes on the current roadways. They more lanes and better timing of the traffic lights. You can sometimes sit thru 2 to 3 light changes trying to get onto Challenger from the Lowe's parking lot. Additional construction of businesses will only make traffic worse. Major need is for an artery from L intersection SE to Vinton and Rt 220 (Clearbrook). This is important to me since I commute from Blue Ridge to downtown weekdays. As more people move to this beautiful area, keep it safe for travel. As a side note, where were the snow plows JAN 3? N/a Please I am glad to see a focus on this corridor. It appears that local politicians do not give recommendations made by residents any credence. Building the Chic Fil A on the lot chosen was irresponsible, 14 Let's not pollute an area that is more clean and bring higher population to an area that can't contain it! Handle what's here first before trying to grow even more 15 There seems to be a huge amount of large truck traffic in this area....are there alternatives? It's not just the traffic on 460, you have to look at the intersections and side streets too. Allowing several very busy businesses on the same intersection is not a good idea. 16 The new traffic patterns that are proposed are going to be very harsh to the locals. The traffic patterns are only nicer to those outside the area and the locals will feel the pain the most. The redirection of traffic to go the wrong way to go the right way is actually going to double the amount of traffic at each intersection and make it less desirable. Please do NOT do this. 17 The new traffic patterns you are proposing are not going to be friendly to those of us who live here. It is actually going to impeed our commute and ability to get out. Traffic is going to have to go around in circles to get around, actually creating more traffic in both directions, not less. I've been in other communities in Ohio and other areas with similiar layouts and this is not a good solution to the percieved problem. 18 None DATE 1/28/2022 8:46 AM 1/26/2022 11:13 AM 1/26/2022 8:43 AM 1/24/2022 9:37 AM 1/23/2022 11:34 AM 1/22/2022 4:20 PM 1/17/2022 12:19 PM 1/16/2022 12:06 PM 1/16/2022 11:25 AM 1/16/2022 8:45 AM 1/15/2022 5:50 PM 1/15/2022 2:36 PM 1/15/2022 2:31 PM 1/15/2022 2:09 AM 1/14/2022 11:02 PM 1/14/2022 10:17 PM 1/14/2022 9:54 PM 1/14/2022 9:25 PM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY 41 I have seen the proposed intersection at 220/460 and that is awful. That intersection is fine 1/14/2022 12:57 AM other than people who run red lights. There are far to many accidents at the county corner store at that intersection. Also from bonsack road to 460 with West Ruritan traffic is dangerous, there should be a signal there. More family restaurants with accessible parking not clogging up the intersections. Maybe add bridges over traffic or add lanes. Then less banks and car repair places. 42 Personally, I feel your Bonsack map should have included the neighborhoods behind Wal-mart 1/14/2022 12:50 AM as part of Bonsack. Read Mountain is a natural geographical barrier which certainly lends to making these neighborhoods part of Bonsack. Also, locally everyone calls this entire area Bonsack -- except this study. It makes it seem as if the powers that be want to give more clout to opinions from the east side of Challenger Ave. However, there are a lot of residents in Huntridge/The Orchards, etc. who utilize the roads and businesses in "our" Bonsack arena. 43 Slow speed on alt 220, do not put u turns turns in on 460 1/14/2022 12:13 AM 44 Current plans suggest making u turns on 460. This seems dangerous on this high volume road. 1/13/2022 11:55 PM 45 Please get rid of the turns that are all along orange Ave. Make all left turns only an option at a 1/13/2022 11:44 PM traffic light. Add a 3rd lane both directions all the way past Walmart. Put in wide sidewalks all the way down 46 Bottlnecks in the city are a major hinderance to the community. Support more growth at Kroger 1/13/2022 11:38 PM shopping center. Empathize with neighbors on Ruritan who are frustrated with chick fil a. 47 NA 1/13/2022 11:33 PM 48 With the hospital being built on W Ruritan and the Chick fil a already there, traffic is terrible. I 1/13/2022 11:31 PM would suggest a light at E Ruritan and 460 for safer access to the housing in that area 49 You might what to relocate the U-turn feature planned at Country Corner a bit more to the west. 1/13/2022 8:11 PM Drivers leaving Country Corner are notorious for inventing ways to cross eastbound 460 in order to head westbound. They drive backward (westward) in the parking area until they can access the current cross -over area. They will access your U-turn feature in a similar manner if it's located in the planned location. Moving the U-turn further west will defeat this maneuver and better enforce discipline of using the Huntridge U-turn. Recommend a reconnaissance to view for yourself once Country Corner opens in the spring. I think you'll be surprise by what you see. 50 51 52 Add more lanes to Route 460! Change the name from Bonsack to something more socially appealing. It is unlikely that the growth for this corridor could or should be stopped, but it should be managed to ensure the safety and vibrancy of the overall area. 53 I think the proposed East Ruritan/Carson Road improvements will have unintended negative 1/13/2022 4:51 PM consequences. Because you are forcing all traffic from E. Ruritan heading North on 460 to utilize the u-turn at Carson Road, that turn will bottleneck. Also, it will create a line of traffic backed up towards E. Ruritan.... Then the traffic from E. Ruritan will back up because they cannot get across to get in the turn lane. Put a light at E. Ruritan. 1/13/2022 7:36 PM 1/13/2022 5:12 PM 1/13/2022 4:57 PM 54 no. 1/12/2022 10:41 AM 55 There is a vacant lot between east and west Ruritan that would be a good place for a county 1/10/2022 8:40 PM park or rec area 56 460 shuttle system from designated areas that could be used for workers in the industrial 1/10/2022 2:45 PM parks would be an idea. That may have the potential to eliminate 81, 460 and 581 traffic 57 This survey and the community meeting are just appease the residents. You already have your 1/10/2022 2:01 PM mind made up about what you're going to do, and it will most likely be the worse decision for the community --like traffic circles, diverging diamonds, and flashing yellow lights. 58 Access management. 1/10/2022 1:40 PM 59 No U-turn sight at 460 and West Ruritan Rd and fix Chick-fil-A traffic are 2 of the biggest 1/10/2022 1:13 PM concerns i have living in the neighborhood behind there. 60 There needs to be parks for kids to play in. A skateboard park, fields for soccer, softball and 1/9/2022 7:22 PM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY 75 Crime and bums moving into the area is my biggest concern and we seriously are considering 1/5/2022 5:13 AM moving out of RoCo to Botetourt Co. very soon. Please talk with State police about the crime moving its way down 460 from the City towards Bonsack. People chose to live in this area because it is had a safe, semi rural feel and too much development will be horrible for the many neighborhoods nearby. You didn't include the neighborhoods on Carson Rd in this study area...but we are the citizens using the main roads in this study and these changes will greatly affect our daily lives. 76 Na 1/4/2022 7:21 PM 77 I think Carson Rd would be very dangerous to add a bike lane, it's already narrow and their are 1/4/2022 6:59 PM a lot of tight turns. 78 79 80 N/A N/A None. 1/4/2022 3:32 PM 1/4/2022 1:55 PM 1/4/2022 12:40 PM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Appel Public Engagement 1 Prior to the second community meeting, a website with described the potential transportation improvements in were asked to provide their thoughts on the improveml total website responses and these U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment Access to East of Railroad Why not consider replacing the NS crossing with a bridge? Would gi housing development! May receive funding from Smart Scale or Economic Development El Access to East of Railroad I think M, N, and 0 would be great if that were something that coul Access to East of Railroad Agree on the option N to build bridge between North end of Bonsar eliminate the railroad crossing. Access to East of Railroad Good Blue Hills to East Ruritan Has potential. May have citizen opposition. Blue Hills to East Ruritan Road A - Trail Drive is already very narrow and the left turn from Bit see oncoming traffic due to grade and vegetation. Increasing traffic to these roads. Road B - I support this plan. Road C - The Valley Gateway Blvd traffic signal is already very busy s during evening commutes. Increasing traffic through this signal nee intersections are very close together and I do not support increasin, designed now. Blue Hills to East Ruritan Roads A, B, and C seem helpful. Blue Hills to East Ruritan I think all three options would be realistic improvements for the cor have more direct impact of the neighborhood off of 460 but could I: that area to avoid congestion. Blue Hills to East Ruritan Good U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment Blue Hills to East Ruritan If Option A takes place, please keep in mind that Trail Dr should be adding more traffic to Trail could be dangerous. Additionally, visibi poor due to the hill AND the overgrown property at Blue View and 1 when also increasing the traffic at this intersection. Otherwise as a option A. This would allow us easy access to the businesses on and through the lights on Challenger. I have no major opinions for or against options B or C. I think I saw able to use the light at C to cross Challenger into the Kroger shoppir keep some of the traffic off of Challenger. However... the light at Kr Ruitan, and can cause quite the backup at the light with Chick Fil A r band affect is part of what causes so many accidents at that interse adding to the light cycle another turn option to the intersection. Th up and down 460 to limit cross traffic/left turns at lights. Blue Hills to East Ruritan Their should not be any more traffic on this road. This road ice® is v ever wants to put this plan into place has not been here to walk the out of the cleaner's parking lot onto 460 West. Their is a right hand to Trail Drive. Then you have your road into the Industrial Park. Blue Hills to East Ruritan Strongly agree Blue Hills to East Ruritan 460 needs more lanes, off topic but true. Carson Road Has potential but could be citizen concerns. Carson does need safet Carson Road I prefer the option 1 that includes access to Glade Creek greenway i Carson Road I am 100% on board with Option 1, to include the roundabout and drive at a minimum over to Tinker Creek to pick up the greenway sy around my neighborhood due to Carson Road not being pedestrian and I guarantee you that the number of people that would use this U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment Carson Road I do not support any walking trail access through Carson Road area. because of the privacy. The last thing we want is the bums that nov intersections at King Street and Walmart having easier access to wa already had a string of robberies over last summer by people who c in crime in this area is going to drive out good, hardworking, produr talking about moving to Botetourt. We do not want to live in the ci on King St is going to impact our quiet neighborhood in a negative v hand turn onto Carson Rd when leaving Kroger. Although the new would be great...having turning vehicles from Carson onto the new sharp right turn onto Carson and then having to abruptly stop for tr Carson Road We as residents in this area do not want a greenway, roundabout o increased theft, suspicious persons in and around our neighborhoo Carson Road Would love to see a park on carson with no greenery or any parks n right off carson i strongly agree with this plan and the road improve Carson Road I live off of Carson road and a park and greenway would be fantastil Carson Road The proposed park and greenway would essentially be in my backyi safety that comes along with it. There is been an increase in panhar Avenue in recent years. Myself and our neighbors strongly feel that provide an area for these activities to spread, therefore jeopardizin, neighborhood enjoy. While a park would theoretically be enjoyable worth it, at the expense of jeopardizing the security and safety that Carson Road All of these options provide access and reasons for MORE traffic on years and while traffic has increased it is never congested nor have to the cars cutting through. This is a HUGE waste of taxpayer money the homeowners in this area. Please think of the homeowners FIRS" Carson Road Bike paths and pedestrian paths seem to add to the chaos of Carsor and access from Carson to the Kroger center. I like the idea of a par pedestrian paths concern me for how hectic traffic can be as well a! when it comes to unwanted traffic. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment Carson Road Carson Rd should not be used as a through way, King St already pro for improvement before Carson Rd. Carson Rd is more of a neighbc Carson Road Improvements to Carson road would be welcomed with open arms. this road for its size. Easy access to Kroger would be greatly appreci Carson Road Please leave Carson Road as a neighborhood. The below "improver thoroughfare to Vinton. Carson Road I live on Carson Road at the entrance to Mountain Meadow Estates than I can use. Too much traffic on Carson now, known as the Bon: be taken by eminent domain if the widening plans go through with( noise reducing fencing like those on the interstates? What's to keel hitting my home? I didn't cause this problem. I just want to live a c Carson Road I want the County to leave Carson Road alone. There currently is no who think it is the Daytona Speedway. I don't think that a residentiz traffic on Rt 460. I live off of Carson Rd and do not want an increase inconvenience of a lengthy construction project that will reduce the from my home. Carson Road Realigning Carson (Point P) seems very difficult to do without disrui it. Though to be honest, some of those houses/trailers/farms are ur see them gone if it resulted in higher property values I personally w high volume cut through due to the amount of deer, lack of speed r of many residential neighborhoods with very active foot/family/pet reach the Kroger and CVS is absolutely necessary. It is next to impm challenger heading toward 581. Having access to a new park/green support turning Carson into a high traffic alternative to Challenger. King St -Walnut Ave the better cut through since they are already hit will need roads to be reworked anyways. Heck a cut through from ] tinker creek might be good too. I have no problems with the roundi don't think it will have much of an effect for the road as a whole. Carson Road Kroger access from Carson will result in heavy traffic cutting into Ca harder for residents to get hom off 460. The greenway and park would be nice but a roundabout is just encc L U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment Carson Road I think this sounds great. Much needed improvements and great re( along Carson Rd are kept at their natural beauty onlooking the mou natural beauty along Carson Rd. preserved Carson Road I am for the option including new park, greenway, roundabout, and Carson Road Carson Rd could stand to be a little wider but should not be improv Carson Road To whom it may concern, As a citizen (and taxpayer) who will be impacted by the proposed RI Study/realignment/widening of Carson Rd. I would like to have seve county. 1.What is the proposed timeline for this project? 2.When is this project projected to begin? 3.how will this impact taxes? I am very interested in the answer to t have increased every year since we moved to this area. 4.What is the proposed percentage of 460/Challenger Ave. traffic th appreciate the need to improve throughput and reduce accidents a favor of increasing traffic along Carson/Belle. Currently, even thoug road the amount of traffic is fairly light on an average day. 5.51/ill Carson/belle remain closed to tractor trailers and large trucks significantly impact safety along Carson/Belle. I would vehemently c trucks. 6.how do you propose to address the safety of the residents that hE traffic will increase once it exits the roundabout. That along with in( homeowners/residents in that area. 7.171edestrian and bike paths are needed, and I am not opposed to ti 8.IIwould not oppose the greenway or a small parking lot for access 9.Esupport the addition of the road connecting Carson to the Kroge to mitigate the increase in traffic turning onto Carson from this add convenient detour plus, you will still have traffic turning from 460. 10.B there additional connectivity between 460 and Carson/Belle pl 11.how is this project being coordinated with Roanoke City since till On the Roanoke County VA/Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity S convenience of the motorist is the main focus. Little is said about th U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment Carson Road RoCo is guilty of developing this section of 460 for revenue. RoCo i! now is looking for an "answer" by making changes to Carson Road. safety of the subdivisions in this area AND the homes that run adjar create more traffic on Carson which means more speeding, acciden drive our house values down as no one wants to raise children in a • improvements, please stop developing an already busy 460 corrido taking away from my safety, my privacy, my home value. There has justify a roundabout. There are parks in Huntridge, Berkleys bottor like the park was put in there to diminish the blow of the increase it want to put a park there and make changes to the road that will lea Hopefully, by now, you will understand your changes all support yo congestion by running more cars through this area and oh by the w pacify the changes. DO BETTER ROANOKE COUNTY Carson Road Regardless of which option is chosen, there certainly is the need for Carson Road Carson Rd is way too curvy and dangerous for the amount of traffic plan with the roundabout. Carson Road I like option 1 Carson Road Not opposed to road J that connects Carson to Kroger. The rest of tl Carson Road Any improvement to carson will only increase traffic problems, and Speed bumps would help more than anything, and no one that live! a park. Also, alot of houses sit higher up off the road and any prop() be cut out. Are retaining walls going to be put up to protect against for potential property damage due to errosion? Carson Road Option 1 road J. Both sound awesome! Carson Road Option 2 Carson Road Maps were hard to interpret, fuzzy when enlarged. Carson Road Just install a signal light at Carson and King St U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment Carson Road As a resident in the Glade Creek neighborhood on Carson Rd optior Option one includes a roundabout in the King Street junction. This i increase in traffic after the Sheetz and new housing development ai to the area, a stop light would be better at the intersection. Both of the options provided show access to Kroger from Carson bL Challenger Ave. Considering the current traffic and potential new tr of Carson and endanger traffic turning in from Challenger as well as should be further back on Carson. School busses already have a dif The primary concerns of residents in this area is the dangerous inte the width of the roads. In neither of these options is there a sufficif Currently if you intend to take a left turn onto Challenger from Cars areas of Carson there is a steep terrain, blind turns and a single Ian( allow a car and bus to pass in several of the turns; add the cyclists a happen. Carson Road I travel Carson Rd a lot, and yes it is a narrow road and a one lane b Simply replacing the bridge with a new and wider bridge will help a bridge will also help, but will take out the entire front yards of a nut ridiculous there, and again will destroy a farm and a number of hon lawyer, so you know this will end up in court. The home values at b There are more expensive homes at the opposite end of Carson fro neighborhoods more congested. As a construction person who de entrance to Kroger itself will be be an expensive project. This is an i well project that will cost millions of dollars and not solve the probl up in court over eminent domain and fair market values for properi to 40% than estimated. Bad idea, with even worse consequences fc area. Rethink this project. Carson Road Great improvement to the area very well needed Carson Road We need more places for activities in our area great job Carson Road The maps are very difficult to read to the point that they are next tc exact placement of the round about. You cannot enlarge them to s placed and whose property the access roads would go through. Als improvement of Carson Road, but I prefer the non -roundabout, not round about, parking lot and park. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment Carson Road Love the sidewalks and greenway! Carson Road Carson Road is a fully residential area, and by making any of these c live here. There is no reason to bring more traffic through the area road and would reduce safety for families that live here. Taking awz and have chosen to live here because of its location, adding more tr roads is absurd. We don't want a park here - there are plenty in the become a secluded area for criminal activity. We did not ask for thi! have chosen to live here because it's somewhat secluded yet still clr and any of these changes will ruin everything we love about our hoi families that live her into consideration! So many kids playing on str families taking walks, and neighbors gathering. Making this more of ruin our neighborhoods. This is not a solution because there is not i Carson Road This is very visually difficult to interpret. I think Option 1 is good bui presented. It is nice that they are trying to increase connectivity wit pedestrians and usage of greenways. Carson Road Good Carson Road Disagree with access to Kroger from Carson Road; Bad topography, Residential areas and less likely to obey speed limit. Disagree with expansion of Carson Road; Disagree with the roundabout; Disagree with the extension from roundabout to parking of greenw Disagree to greenway west of Railroad tracks, (destroys protected f use of property, More dangerous with liability of crossing RR); Maps and disclosure of the notice of public community meetings fa proposed. Comments in open forum such as not taking property is U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment Carson Road I live on Carson Rd. with my wife and young child and we currently lack acc way pedestrian or bike friendly. In addition the neighborhoods on and aloe pedestrian friendly infrastructure. We have close neighbors we like to visit like due to no sidewalks or bike lanes on Carson Rd. The proposal with a rc only way to do this right. Otherwise we are increasing traffic flow without infrastructure with no access point to those it could benefit the most. The would be a most welcome addition. The bike lanes do not serve runners, want sidewalks on Carson in addition to the bike lanes, at least to access tl a local park, and bike friendly infrastructure would be surefire ways for us featured as platinum level bike friendly cities by the League of American B average. https://www.bikeleague.org/content/new-platinum-new-gold-bicycle-frie commuter and rider for years and Roanoke's current infrastructure and pc area. My only chief concern is that traffic flow would increase on Carson, t outweighs this concern for me. Regarding the bike lanes protecting the lar way to increase usage by those concerned that riding on the road may be l https://ggwash.org/view/71253/arl ington-tests-the-futu re-of-protected-b help in any way I would be happy to. Thank von. Carson Road Transparency on the part of Roanoke County would go a long way. to 460, yet never even mentions Carson Rd or Bonsack Rd. Making i upset or inconvenience some people, but it's not nearly as impactfL you are proposing is not a simple shift in traffic. You would be leavii house of at least one (if not more) of my neighbors, and taking fare (and speed) would increase, thus negating your proposed plan to n- not the magic solution to slower traffic. People will speed before an the approximate 5 seconds that a car is actually in it. So, in a move impacts to the property owners of Carson Rd when you send out yc Put it in black and white and then see how much support you get fc U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment Carson Road Carson Road and Bonsack are incredible gems for this area, but there's something backyard, yet we can't access it without 460. We have a grocery store, restaurants either without 460 or King St (which is only getting busier & busier). Truly, living in safely walk to our neighbors house on Belle Ave or Carson Road; if we cannot safe) most certainly do not feel comfortable biking, with my family, to Vinton, downtow The infrastructure here is completely and 100% car dependent. As an avid cyclist, who has, at my peak, commuted over 5,000miles in three month improvements you make to Carson will be better than it is. That's a fact. Option 1 I cannot miss out on this greenway access point. Addressing Carson Road is vital to ; used as a cut through for years, and I think out of the two, Option 1 with a park an the health and vitality of our community. Adding bike lanes is simply not enough. If I'm biking with my family, those glorifies me or my family safe from the ever-increasing distracted driver. If we add bike lan progressive, sustainable model here. An excellent example of this is shown by a pr https://www.fcgov.com/bicycling/west-mulberry-street-improvements. A poor exi Bridge in Surf City, NC. I can't find a link, but they protected the pedestrian lanes, I cyclists never use it. It doesn't feel safe! They should have protected cyclists AND 1 , and I appreciate you collaborating with the locals. If you're looking to build and s i nvest. I think a roundabout is a great idea, but will it solve the problem? As someone whc roundabouts function differently here in the United States. I think they are great, perhaps in addition, where we can mitigate the increased traffic (and not those fla people go faster to see how fast their going). Let's think about life without a car. How do you get places? How can you promote or bike ride together. Also, are you aware we're building an (Lewis Gale perhaps) Urgent Care alongside already cause delays on 460. Are people thinking about how to address this potent the development building on King Street. That road is also used as a cut -through, z and more people move here. Thank you for taking the time to collaborate a build a better future together. I'm b Carson Road Definitely Optionl w/a new park. Carson Road Option 1 would be better Carson Road Absolutely love this idea! East Ruritan to Walmart Has potential. East Ruritan to Walmart I believe there is a significant grade change from the Lowes Parking handled with Road "F"? East Ruritan to Walmart All options seem great. East Ruritan to Walmart I think all 3 options are good and would be beneficial both for those wanting to get to the shopping center without getting on 460. 1 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment East Ruritan to Walmart good East Ruritan to Walmart This road will go right by my back yard, of course I don't want it! East Ruritan to Walmart I purchased this house two years ago knowing that nobody could bi because of land issues. I really do not want a road going directly be is busy enough we do not need more traffic coming from Lowe's or make it very dangerous for the children on the street. If you're not ; road, East Ruritan to Walmart I believe the way of the map will put more traffic on Huntridge Rd . speeders and accidents. Cars going up and down do not go 25 MPH mailboxes, spinning around and going down the culvert, flipping up (this had to be replaced) and hitting the floor porch of neighbor.NO Huntridge Rd with no turns to connect another 1000 families from I neighborhood. East Ruritan to Walmart I do not agree with this proposal, we have enough traffic on Huntri( think what needs to be done is to have a stop light put in. you have why can there not be one put at the Huntridge subdivision. East Ruritan to Walmart This is not the smartest plan that the county has had. The neighborhood know why the county is proposing. No one will to it. The county is just after the tax revenue from the future businE Roanoke yet the county wants to add more traffic to it. There is alrE neighborhood and you very rarely see an officer drive by. I cannot t Huntridge Road is basically a drag strip. Under the county plan who on Huntridge Road? What is the plans for the piece of property behind the Lewis Gale required storm runoff pond for the clinic. The county plan is to run traffic into the Lowes parking lot. Will tra what is the plan to enforce it ? Some days you have to multiple ligh backup in the parking lot. Another part of the plan is to block the median on 460 where you county plan is to have to turn right and make a U turn at Country C( There are more accidents at those two crossovers that the one at H up a traffic light. I wouldn't be any closer between a light at Huntrid and the light at Krogers. I surely the county rethinks this idea and scraps it. It will just be mi 1 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment East Ruritan to Walmart as a home owner on 5300 Setter Road, the propose road runs right traffic and decrease the quality of living East Ruritan to Walmart We are highly concerned as to the use of U turns to allow us to go e Carson Road or for those coming out of Bonsack Road to U turn in f to be built at the back of Wedgewood starting in June and bringing Ruritan. U turns will be causing cars to slow down and the turning I of vehicles. Country Corner median does not even have a turning k speed limits do not slow them down but a stop light at East Ruritan stop light and also from Kroger stop light. I know you are only cone many people live in these neighbors to safely get in or out and the have proven that, and wrecks slow down the flow of traffic more th East Ruritan to Walmart As a property owner living on Setter Road, I have a number of ques how close to my residence will the road run? Will there be a physic commercial properties? How will the road impact property values z income. Secondly, the proposed land use is a buffer between 460 and my sti subsequent land use impact the noise levels in my neighborhood? will be responsible for cleaning up the trash and inevitable debris tl Third, was an environmental impact conducted? Currently, this arei animals including red fox, owls, possums, squirrels, skunk, rabbits, Fourth, for what purpose will the land be used? If commercial, resit from environmental, noise and light pollution. East Ruritan to Walmart First of all, Britaney is narrow and not suitable for heavy traffic. To well as my neighbors. This could case my property to decline. A Iar1 do not need heavy traffic up and down our streets. Widen 460 for years ago. By doing this you are not solving the congestion of traff neighborhoods. You would not want this traffic in front of your ho be ashamed of themselves. 1 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment East Ruritan to Walmart Overall, I'm all for increasing route options that keep traffic off of CI specifically impact me as I don't live in that direct area, but it is a ro from E Ruitan to Lowes) should it be built. East Ruritan to Walmart These are quiet neighborhoods. I don't suggest ruining that by addi East Ruritan to Walmart Use 460. East Ruritan to Walmart Dumb idea. East Ruritan to Walmart Who in their right mind would think of this? East Ruritan to Walmart BAD IDEAI1I I I I I I III I I East Ruritan to Walmart I have lived on Setter Rd for 37 years. It is a peaceful neighbor hood residents in Huntridge. It just makes more traffic in and out and pec hard to get out with just the people in our neighborhood. Not to m wooded area behind our houses. And if you build any businesses ti homes. This is a nightmare waiting to happen. This will not allevia East Ruritan to Walmart I have lived in Huntridge for 30 years. One of the things we love ab this road will destroy. The area under consideration provides a buf well as being a haven for many types of wildlife. It is unconscionabl could build something else here. We do not need any more car wa! stores, restaurants (fast food or otherwise), coffee shops, banks, mi deeply oppose this disastrous project. This will turn backyards and decreasing the traffic on 460 one iota. I see no benefit to the reside and calling it an "improvement" is almost insulting. Once again, I gc saying I oppose this project. 1 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment East Ruritan to Walmart East Ruritan to Walmart I have reviewed the all the plans provided. While I'm interested in a crosses over Huntridge Rd. I've lived on Huntridge since the neighb purchased we were told all that could be built behind us was apartr little subdivision to the Orchards and the developments kept growir Roanoke with a portion being in Botetourt Co. The traffic on our str speeding and numerous wrecks. The first three homes on the right susceptible to the traffic issues. Our house has been hit twice, my n decorative borders to our driveways have been destroyed numerot. yard, catch fire, destroy the utility boxes, damage property, and the so many times we used to keep a spare in the garage. When the cot Walmart amd Lowes to build, the people of the area filled Bonsack But we were told it was a done deal. On our part, the three neighbc with noise, lights, tractor trailers idling overnight, dumpster trash p the light issue that shines in our house all night long!! The county d connect another huge neighborhood and give them access to our r used as the route to 604 (alt.220) so all that traffic will be funneled will be a way to bypass the intersection at 604/ 460 and become a t depreciation of value to every home you place this new road next neighborhoods of Huntridge, The Orchards, etc. I'm tired of our ne and long-term solution would be to widen 460 to three lanes all tht beyond. The current plan looks like very disruptive, short term, and People are not going to Walmart & Lowes when the congestion is a to live on a road like Huntridge I would have bought there. Your proposal is one of desperation and to say you are doing somei to solved the counties problem. If this goes through I will move but not the only one. For this proposal why don"t you just come thru PI to build, I know of several ways to cut thru there, why was that not 1 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment East Ruritan to Walmart There is no need to apologize to the Ruritan neighborhood for the a Chick Fil A and the Emergency Room that isn't even open, by punish have all been there long before Walmart existed. Instead of spendir good, why don't you instead add a traffic light somewhere. There is house I grew up in, or add one beside my mother's house connectir East Ruritan to Walmart I strongly object to the construction of this road. I really do not r traffic congestion problems on Route 460. If you want to cut down ALONG ROUTE 460! More development will bring more traffic. I fe diminish the quality of life I enjoy in Roanoke County. I live on Sett( Huntridge subdivision. The land that you plan on destroying to con provides a natural buffer to the noise of the traffic on Route 460. T creatures which have been pushed from their habitats again and ag Route 460. This parcel is one of only a few remaining forested area I also worry about the increased traffic this proposed road will b the road (Section D) leads right into Britaney Rd. which is in the hei road crosses Huntridge Rd. on its way to Lowe's parking lot. Huntrii road into the subdivision. The last thing Huntridge Rd. needs is ano Let's be honest. The real reason Roanoke County wants a road h develop that vacant land. If the county provides the road, the pote construction cost. I understand that Roanoke County needs tax rev excellent services we county residents enjoy. We do not need anot store, grocery store, big box store, etc. We moved here because it i maintain the wonderful quality of life we now enjoy in our Roanoke East Ruritan to Walmart My Wife and I have lived here since 1985 and loved every minute. running virtually through our back yard. This is going to a disaster f Road. If the traffic wasn't bad enough already, now you're trying tc the extra noise it will create. This will also ruin our property value e extra nice shape. This is ridiculous and should be stopped before it problems this beautiful area has ever known. FIND ANOTHER WAY 1 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment East Ruritan to Walmart No reason for this. When Walmart and Lowes moved in, access via I Rd would destroy the value of the two homes it would run betweer Poor planning on your part should not result in wrecking our neigh East Ruritan to Walmart This should not be done. You will allow people to drive 40 miles an East Ruritan to Walmart This will not help eliminate the problem with traffic on 460. The tra neighborhood. Many of the people who visit the area are not from dogs through this area and children ride their bikes. The extra traffi alternatives as this will have a huge effect on our neighborhood anc East Ruritan to Walmart The need for traffic improvements along the 460 corridor are virtually undeniable. Unfortunately, this entire focus on the East Ruritan Road to Walmart route, but this feedback generally applies to the entire study. He proposed transportation improvement study: 1)This study addresses the symptoms, NOT the root cause of the problem. As noted in the study purpose, th cause is too much vehicular traffic, with insufficient infrastructure on 460 to handle the traffic volume. This increasing infrastructure capacity on 460. 2)Pllails to reduce traffic in a meaningful way. Most of this study diverts traffic into residential subdivisions. Tr not live in Bonsack, commercial drivers, and visiting shoppers to Walmart/Lowe's will still traverse 460 daily that a majority of drivers fall into this category. Virtually NONE of the study proposals addresses this in a me 3)Will REDUCE safety of Residents and Drivers, not enhance it. This study - particularly the E. Ruritan Rd. to contradictory to the stated project purpose. Adding a new road that invites additional through traffic adds f Huntridge and the neighboring area. Many of these roads are narrow and not built to handle much traffic. li without one pulling over to the grass. The volume that the County aspires to divert with this project cannot walkers and dogs on some of these roads than cars. 4)Detrimental to Local Wildlife. This proposal would jeopardize the safety of drivers and wildlife by increasin the Reed Mountain Preserve, many types of wildlife have migratory patterns they use daily that run througl endanger drivers' property and lives by introducing increased vehicular traffic to areas with a large number the Reed Mountain Preserve. Hence, this proposal fails to enhance public safety by endangering wildlife an( 5)Decreases Quality of Life. With more vehicular traffic purposefully diverted into a quiet residential subdivi: neighborhood, walk dogs, let kids play, ride bikes, and more. These are the things that made people want tc of life. 6)Roanoke County Policies made the traffic and safety problems WORSE yet provided few solutions. Despite likely increase traffic, there were few recommendations over the years to address the anticipated activity o 7)This proposed study spreads misery, as opposed to solving the problem. Another example of Roanoke Cou Lewis Gale Emergency Room intersection. That traffic has been a massive problem to the citizens around Rc was a massive blow to the quality of life for Ruritan Rd. area residents. Both of these institutions are a HUGI poorly located due to inadequate planning. Both entities should have been built here, but in different locatii wants to spread similar misery into Huntridge by providing Ruritan Rd. area residents access to Walmart. Sc demographics for Walmart shoppers do not align with the demos for Ruritan Rd. and Huntridge residents. C significant impact on 460 traffic? No! Instead, the proposed route will add traffic to a residential area enoug wildlife, but NOT enough to significantly reduce vehicular traffic congestion along 460. In conclusion, I applaud Roanoke County taking steps to "reduce congestion and improve safety" along the solution. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment East Ruritan to Walmart First of all, I have been "kicked off" this attempt to give feedback several times by my own iPad so I hope I r I realize that midnight is the deadline. If late, Please consider that I am not the most technology savvy persi I totally disagree with this plan that you have to disrupt our entire quiet neighborhood of Huntridge. Just be future noise levels when the new LGH ER opens should not mean that they have to disrupt ours. We have e an urgent care facility in the nearby Valley Gateway strip mall. We also have ambulance service and parame Route 604. They are easily readily available to this neighborhood within a matter of minutes. Trust me, I am have several of my neighbors. I believe that we are pretty well covered for emergency services. A Neighbor 24 hours a day!! Perhaps, in retrospect, you may now see that these problems with the West Ruritan area c that did not involve being part of a subdivision area. You had already allowed a Chick-fil-A to be built on the day. Again, this has terribly inconvenienced residents of the West Ruritan area. When I think of where our .them in business/retail areas. It appears to me that you're addressing some of the symptoms rather than t continue to be more cars as time goes on. I fail to see where it may be a little more difficult for some of these county residents to get to the Bonsack V lot more money generated by our county taxes. The majority of the Bonsack Walmart shoppers are probabl but from Botetourt County, Montvale, Blue Ridge, Stewartsville and Vinton areas. So are you simply trying t neighborhood and, at the same time, totally disrupt another quiet neighborhood and spend millions of our t We designed and built our "dream house" on Britaney Road and moved here in December,1984. We raised County schools and graduated from William Byrd. Two of them live out of state due to their jobs and one liv Roanoke Valley. And now you say you want to make Britaney Road a major thoroughfare To make it easier I You're going to spend millions of dollars developing a piece of wooded and hilly piece of land behind our nei of these actions show any sense of responsibility to the residents of this neighborhood!! Our streets are na grandchildren who play in the neighborhood and this would certainly endanger their lives. I don't believe that you would find anyone in the Roanoke Valley and even nearby Bedford County who woi. few areas in which this can be done because businesses are so close to the road. Perhaps it would be possil the local vagrants begging for money!) Please go back to the drawing board and put some more heads together and see if you can come up with se tax dollars are spent. We should not be at the mercy of some folks who have listened to some complaints fr decisions of the Board of Supervisors who, in turn, decide to ruin a nearby subdivision!! ALL SO SOME FOLK! seems like it would be simpler to just put a another traffic light at East Ruritan Road. What's one more bet the plan you all are considering! Thank you for your time. I realize I got this at a little late but I hope it does not fall onto deaf ears. 0 East Ruritan to Walmart I do not understand why you would want to take this quiet, family f just to make it easier to get to Walmart. Shame on you! East Ruritan to Walmart Love the approach. I also notice more controlled crossover which w East Ruritan to Walmart Love this change. Future Land Use Opportunities Do not support Core on 460 where Transition now exists. Future Land Use Opportunities Good Future Land Use Opportunities ADA rest stops must be added, and new property managers must b people with disabilities have equal opportunities for housing. U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment Future Land Use Opportunities Future Land Use Opportunities I love bringing more business to Bonsack. But please, please, please stuff. The traffic is horrible as it is. Trying to get to Vinton or 581 is bike lanes, and restrictive barriers to prevent left hand turns at inte problem, much less the problem of additional traffic with additions please make it a 6 (or even plan for farther in the future and make i houses and more business. This corridor has issues, alot due to poor planning in years past. An issue is traffic, this will not fix the issues. If you restrict left hand tui make uturns which will cause more crashes. If safety is the idea for it to prohibit left hand turns unless there is a deceleration lane in pl synchronize the traffic lights. This area the signage at the Walmart/ think they are turning onto Alt 220 and then jump back out onto th bound before you reach Alt 220 needs to be graded down several fi Alt 220 to west 460 needs a light not a yield sign, people are lookin pull out and as soon as they do the light at Walmart is red, another has people backing out into the traffic is a major issue and the cars Alt 220 that was build many decades ago with the idea of taking thi: would help the traffic thru the city. It is sad the last road project in I even that project wasnt completed as they promised. 1 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment Future Land Use Opportunities I strongly disagree with your plan for future land use opportuniti subdivision. The land you have designated for "potential core use" the westbound side of Route 460. The land in question provides a r 460. One of the things I love about my neighborhood --we have all r highway without all of the noise. We moved to Roanoke County to development of the city. Now you are planning to take this away fr I realize that another business or businesses on this vacant parce County. And I know that tax revenue funds our schools and all of ti• County. Do we have to develop every empty piece of land to do thi gas station, grocery store, convenience store, restaurant, big box st on Route 460. However, I don't see how more development is goin make traffic worse. My quiet neighborhood will be exposed to all o emanating from the asphalt of new roads and new development. T reconsider this land use plan. Let's keep Roanoke County a county. Future Land Use Opportunities On the future land use map, I think that Carson Road should be the Transitional Land Use. Nothing toward Bedford from Carson Road s Challenger Ave. I think that the side of Challenger Avenue where W develop more Core businesses. I would like to see more good restai since its opening. However, I live in Little Tree Acres and am comple Bonsack Road. Little Tree Acres and Old Bonsack are quiet, resident and quality of life would be greatly diminished in Little Tree Acres a Little Tree Acres is a wonderful and unique residential neighborhoo character near it. Thank you. Future Land Use Opportunities This involves my house and I'm just now finding out about this. I wi day for the survey and I haven't had a chance to look in more detail Future Land Use Opportunities What ever is finally decided on needs to be both viable for transpor to the economic outlook of the area. Additionally, these surveys are the community to voice opinions and ideas. lastly, while any impro% county do a oak grove like project with the city to improve the entir influx of traffic throughout Roanoke? 1 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment Future Land Use Opportunities I am a Ro County resident, very interested in good economic develc (ie I claim no expertise but live and shop in a great community and I is worth considering). I am not in favor of changing designations fro Increased commercial development appears detrimental to the ben Alt/360 which is intended to move traffic more quickly and safely th especially along the Bonsack Rd side of 460, without proper deceler and accidents - Country Corner being a good example of a dangeroi no decel lanes. On the Bonsack side of the road the land is narrow However, flat land with wider space is possibly available in the Bon! If VDOT and Ro County connected the traffic light at Walmart/Lowe appears to have more value for commercial development (more 'la) traffic light. Note - I'd also consider closing both left turns (West to' 460 and force all left hand traffic to the new traffic light a Walmart. current left hand turns from 460 east into Bonsack ( crossing 460 w on part of the Walmart/460 traffic light. I'm asking Jason Peters al than I but i hope we can improve the area for current residence as Bonsack area. thank you Glade Creek Road Option The current crossings are very dangerous. My two teenagers were h cross these tracks. The bridges over the tracks are long over due an people that live is these neighborhoods. Greenways and Paths I strongly prefer Option 1. Greenways and Paths Option 1 seems way more practical. Greenways and Paths Love the idea of a greenway and improved Carson Rd along with be Greenways and Paths I can't see the graphics. Make them clickable as .pdf files or some of and see the details. I'm serious. I can't see anything in the graphics. This is a very poorly designed way to obtain citizen feedback. Greenways and Paths Option 1 Greenways and Paths Either options would provide a great greenway experience. Option neighborhoods but the two railroad crossings could be problematic Greenways and Paths Greenways much needed in this area 2 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment Greenways and Paths I live in the Little Tree Acres neighborhood. I lean toward not wantii encourages more foot traffic into quiet residential areas. Also, I thir would be a factor. Women would not want to be walking alone in si built, I definitely prefer OPTION 2 where almost all of the greenway railroad tracks away from the yards of most residents. Thank you. Greenways and Paths I love the train along Bonsack but I'd rather loose the train than adc biker and runner and appreciate all that Ro has done with greenwa' and Bot Counties with less need for green space than most in The R the county that needs more greenspace/greenways...second, growl I've learn of some negative effects like higher crime for homes/robl muggings/rapes... along the greenway. Much of this area is very rer close by...and the train will mask any noise from anyone breaking it greenway ...before i could support this I'd want to know what Ro Cc the area safe. Also - keeping people away from the railroad track is needed for sal hang out along a busy railroad track? No greenway is my vote - if it must happen then put it on far side of fencing along the greenway to protect children playing along the gr etc out of the Bonsack community.. II Greenways and Paths Definitely option 1 with the Carson Road park Greenways and Paths Any access to recreation is superb. Old Bonsack As a Planning Commissioner for this area, I've had a number of folk! this proposal. In particular, several living along Red Barn Lane. I do I the rural and tranquil nature these folks enjoy and it would create s Route 460 congestion. It has been suggested to me to look at exten sorts, and connecting to Carson Road. Granted, this would cause so intersection with Route 460. Nonetheless, I suspect many from this this approach and I do understand why they would do so. Old Bonsack There is a need for an optional way to get out of Bonsack. 2 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment Old Bonsack I am the owner of red barn lane. I also own land on adjacent to thi! are private roads in a a quiet neighborhood. I own 4 parcels which this roadway you will be disrupting a peaceful private neighborhooc on acreage of land. You would have to run these roads through my garages and concrete structures or put the roadway very close to th does not outweigh the disruption and upheaval it will cause, Old Bonsack This proposal is extremely intrusive on the owners of the current pr to see the benefit of destroying the homestead of approximately 11 other properties. I don't believe this will have any real effect in red this Bonsack /460 area does not seem to be the treacherous area of accidents from the Blue Hills intersection to the Valley Gateway ligf hazardous. Perhaps Timmons group could study how that area affe left turns from 460 in a similar fashion to busy New Jersey thorough Old Bonsack Essentially you are wanting to cut our property (5.42 acres) into hal two-lane road cutting through our property to access the other side there are two buildings that we use that again we will have to cross to get to. I'm not sure you have looked at this property or others be neighbors you are cutting the road through are on huge hillsides. Sc through our property, but it will cause run off from where you cut t off for us as well. I'm not thinking anyone has even looked at what anyone who was on the committee for this idea wouldn't want in th ours and all the neighbors. Old Bonsack I do not want to see travel being rerouted from 460 to Bonsack Roa to Red Barn Lane and it is a private road maintained by the resident is a nice neighborhood where people are able to walk and enjoy usi more traffic through this neighborhood is not going to alleviate traf Road would help slow down traffic that speeds through the 45 mph traffic trailers that downshift the hill heading to Walmart need to be 2 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment Old Bonsack As a resident whose property contacts the existing private road (Re the road. We do not need additional traffic coming into old Bonsac traffic lights for Lowes/WalMart and the 220 interchange and speec Barn lane into Carson Rd (which has twists and turns and a one lane that "residents would be able to sub -divide their property" is equal) here (26 years ago) was that it gave us some space to enjoy, a quali subdivision. Your suggested changes to old Bonsack will NOT allevii impact 22 landowners and the other 72 residents who call this quie Old Bonsack Much needed road improvements for safe and efficient travel Old Bonsack I live in the Little Tree Acres neighborhood and do NOT want the ro that our neighborhood is not very accessible. I do not mind having 1 on 460 toward town. That is okay. Old Bonsack Roads K and L seem like they would be beneficial. Old Bonsack good Old Bonsack The extension of Red Barn Lane through our neighbors' private prof idea for many reasons. Right now, our neighborhood is not a thru E private road, lending to our neighborhood's safe and calm area for environment. Adding the extension of Red Barn Lane through to Ca cruise through our neighborhood and would make it much more ur neighborhood to more crime, as it would be much more accessible Red Barn Lane through to Carson Road. Thank you Old Bonsack Please do not bring connect a very busy road (Carson) through the cars are using Carson as a time saver to stay off 460 and they speed have frequently observed drivers "run through" the stop sign enter Tree Acres does not sound like an effective "improvement." Please Tree Acres from the plan. Old Bonsack Good idea! 2 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY May 2022 Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Results Transportation Area Name Comment Old Bonsack I'm not 100% clear on this potential land use map. We do not want interrupt Old Bonsack. Specifically, there is a neighboring plot of lar (we are 4496) with potential 460 frontage. We do not want this to property value and historic appeal of the neighborhood. I would like Old Bonsack Not sure. Not familiar with this area. Valley Gateway Cost concerns are a factor. Whom pays ? Valley Gateway Roads H and G would be helpful in opening opportunities while mir Valley Gateway Do it. Please. This plus the Kroger cut through to Carson would be s wasn't wasted on that church. Valley Gateway I think it is hard to visualize these concepts. I believe that redirectin minimizing congestion but it will just be putting that off onto these offset roads could negatively impact the industrial plants - tractor ti Valley Gateway Make 460 speed limit through higher like Lynchburg to reduce less 1 and not only that make it 3 lane highway instead of two Valley Gateway Love the idea Valley Gateway Has potential. Not sure how much it would help the majority of 46( 2 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Appel Public Engagement R Prior to the third and final community meeting, a sure recommendations of the Challenger Avenue Corridor. Tr following U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Q1 What are your thoughts about the recommendations shown in the area above? Agree Somewhat agree No Opinion Somewhat disagree Disagree Answered: 24 Skipped: 11 i 0% 1 0 % 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70°A) 80% 90% 100% Opportunit... Opportunit... Opportunit... U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Q2 What are your thoughts about the recommendations shown in the area above? Agree Somewhat agree No opinion Somewhat disagree Disagree Answered: 22 Skipped: 13 0% 1 0 % 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Opportunit... Opportunit... Opportunit... U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Q3 What are your thoughts about the recommendations shown in the area above? Agree Somewhat agree No opinion Somewhat disagree Answered: 21 Skipped: 14 u U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Q4 What are your thoughts about the recommendations shown in the area above? AGREE (no label) Answered: 25 Skipped: 10 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% le Agree Disagree SOMEWHAT AGREE 111 Somewhat ... NO OPINION No opinion le Somewhat ... SOMEWHAT DISAGREE DISAGREE TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE (no 68.00% 20.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% label) 17 5 1 1 1 25 0.24 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY Q6 What are your thoughts about the recommendations shown in the area above? Agree Somewhat agree No opinion Somewhat disagree Disagree Answered: 23 Skipped: 12 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Opportunit... Opportunit... OPPORTUNITY L OPPORTUNITY M TOTAL RESPONDENTS Agree 83.33% 83.33% 5 5 6 Somewhat agree 50.00% 83.33% 3 5 6 No opinion 75.00% 75.00% 9 9 12 Somewhat disagree 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 Disagree 66.67% 100.00% 2 3 3 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY AREA 1 AREA 2 AREA 3 TOTAL RESPONDENTS Agree 50.00% 50.00% 40.00% 5 5 4 Somewhat agree 50.00% 70.00% 40.00% 5 7 4 No opinion 66.67% 33.33% 55.56% 6 3 5 Somewhat disagree 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 2 1 1 Disagree 40.00% 60.00% 60.00% 2 3 3 10 10 9 2 5 U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY feel of this area and keep it from becoming a "fast cut through." The street must be improved, but it needs to be designed in a way that discourages speeding. 9 I think the changes will help defer traffic from 460 but it is a stop gap measure compared to what is truly needed to improve 460 along this area. 10 make the survey capable of a common response for more than one option in a question. If I agree with two options, the survey only lets me choose one for "agree" 11 The proposed left-hand turn lanes from Cloverdale onto 460 is going to be confusing for most motorists and probably cause increased motor vehicle accidents. 9/29/2022 5:32 PM 9/28/2022 8:38 AM 9/23/2022 11:09 AM U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY ACOUNTY VA TIMMONS GROUP ROANOKE 0• U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY EXISTING CARBON ROAD SECTIOI NOT TO SCALE EXISTING KROGER PROPERTY EX RC EX 9.5' SOUTHB EXISTING EDGE 1 1' UNPAVED SHO POTENTIAL CARBON ROAD SECTI NOT TO SCALE POTENTIAL GUARDRAIL OR CONCRETE BARRIER ** EXISTING KROGER PROPERTY • q, EX Draft U.S. Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey Q1 Please share your thoughts about the draft U.S. Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study: Answered: "r RESPONSES I will begin with expressing my support for planning that provides for connectivity of residences to places of employment and retail services - minimizing traffic on major highways. Unfortunately, I believe that the proposed "connecting" roadways will have very little impact on reducing 460 traffic, are impractical in several cases and will in fact hinder the development of undeveloped or under developed properties. The concept is valid - it just a bit too late for it to be affective. Some comments about the proposed roadways ("lines on a map" was the way it was explained to me). Roads A & B would likely be the most logical and affective - but even at that - the impact on the existing residential neighborhood for this connection weighted with the relatively few people that would benefit from it, hardly seems worthwhile. Road D, connecting Huntridge and Lowes is thru developed property, has a significant grade difference and crosses a jurisdictional streambed. How is this paid for? The residents that would benefit from this already have an available access point to Wal-Mart and Lowes off of Crumpacker. Road E would have a negative impact on the development of this vacant parcel. Some type of connection ( private) might be valid - but with the site being shallow - a public street would have a significant impact on how this tract could be used. Road J Carson Road to Kroger - it is just not practical in any way - very steep, creek crossing and again - how and by who is this funded? Road H does not seem to serve any upside to connectivity that would mitigate traffic on 460. I understand there are concerns over traffic from the two industrial uses that have the same shift changes - why not get one of them to change the shift 30 minutes - seems simple enough. I guess with Road G a handful of residents could see some benefit. Road H is a hindrance to the marketing and ultimate use of vacant land. Road I would essentially destroy the use of the tract it passes thru - it is located in the only buildable part of this tract. Suggest that the Lldl plans be reviewed. In summary, the plan implies a great deal of expense with very little impact on 460 traffic. There is no funding, no schedule and no measurable (positive) impact on the concern. I asked staff if the consultant had provided any statistics about traffic reduction and was told no. Not sure how you can adopt a plan with so little assurance of implementation or affect. Thank you Challenger ave has become a 460 bypass around walmart and lowes. Drivers speed excessively to get ahead of traffic. There are people that run for exercise, people walk with or without their dogs, and some residents back into the road from their driveway. We have found empty syringes and cars are frequently meeting and passing things before speeding away. I have lived on this road 35 years and pay considerable taxes to live on a speedway in a drug zone. Thanks. Sending CVS customers to an already congested u-turn is asking for more wrecks not fewer. That u-turn is already congested. I can't tell what the plans are for the traffic light at West Ruritan as it is a very confusing diagram. Making a new road from West Ruritan to East Ruritan is simply causing more traffic noise to the community who actually have to deal with it and going to make the intersection at East Ruritan more dangerous. It seems to me you are just shuffling things around hoping to lower wrecks. It is overthinking everything, at best. I have lived in this area many years and have gotten hit twice, both at Blue Hills Drive intersection. Routing more traffic to that intersection is just compounding the problems again...Also, adding yet another road from the ER and WR "new" road down to Challenger avenue at the Kroger intersection is adding more problems to that intersection as well. People in this area, all the area, are tired of going through traffic delays for road construction, all because the Board of Supervisors are more concerned with revenue , rather than people who live here. It is true because all of these problems that you are spending millions to fix directly stem from the revenue they insisted on making for businesses they ok'd to be here. Living in the old Bonsack area I have one area of concern that doesn't appear to be addressed in the projected plans. Since you are eliminating the use of being able to go Westbound on the 460 from the west end of Bonsack Road this only leaves all the residents in old Bonsack to be able to cross the 460 to go westbound on 460 at the eastern end of Bonsack Road. This is a DATE 3/14/2023 10:00 AM 3/10/2023 5:36 PM 3/5/2023 11:19 PM 2/24/2023 11:33 AM 1/2 Draft U.S. Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Survey terrible crossing currently as it is. The westbound traffic on 460 at this crossing currently backs up past the Bonsack crossing because of the light at Cloverdale Road. There is so much traffic that is always traveling westbound on 460 it is nearly impossible to get across the 460 from Bonsack Road at this location. The only break from the westbound traffic on 460 is when the light further down on 460 at Laymantown Road turns red. This will create a small break allowing the 1 or possibly 2 cars to get across. All residents in the old Bonsack area will now only have 1 access point to get on the 460 westbound. This will become a nightmare unless something is done to somehow give us a chance to get across the eastbound 460 traffic and then somehow merge into the westbound 460 traffic as this will now become the only way for us to get onto westbound 460. I love the idea of adding the greenway along Glade Creek. I think a very important aspect of adding the greenway is ensuring that people from all over the area can access it from their home by walking or biking so that car trips can be reduced. Ideally, bike and pedestrian routes to the greenway should be planned in a way that a parent would feel comfortable taking their 10 year old on a ride from their house. A big challenge is getting across 460. The pedestrian accommodations in the Thru Cut configurations look extremely scary. To get across 460 you have to cross a dangerous right turn slip lane, cross 3 lanes of traffic, stand in a small refuge island in the middle of the intersection, cross 3 more lanes of traffic, then go across another slip lane. I can't imagine taking a child across that or even going myself. This kind of infrastructure does not encourage bike and pedestrian activity and there are much better alternatives, such as a bike and pedestrian only lights that go across the new R-Cut intersections. Also, VDOT's YouTube video `VDOT's Innovative Intersections: Thru Cut" has a much less chaotic pedestrian crossing configuration there. I would love for the possible greenway to be used to its maximum potential, but if most people can only access it by car, its usefulness in reducing car trips will be limited. I like the look of the bikeway/pedestrian path in purple on page 49 but there needs to be more ways to safely get across 460 so that people who live in the neighborhoods off E/W Ruritan and Huntridge can access the greenway. Getting this area to be safely and conveniently traversable on foot or by bike is a big challenge but one that I think is worthwhile. West Ruritan intersection. There will be no safe way to go from West Ruritan to CVS or back without making a U-turn with is the most unsafe act in an intersection, or drive to Kroger parking lot and turn around. Second is there will be thousands of dollars wasted on crosswalks and pedestals in an intersection that has no foot traffic. I imagine the foot traffic that was seen during initial studies were actually just the contractors working on the III -placed emergency room. The crossover at Countey Corner. The only thing this barrier will do is cause people to drive the wrong direction on 460 to get around it so they don't have to go to Walmart and try to make a dangerous U-turn there. Drivers already do this and won't stop. Your spending a lot of tax payers money to fix people bad driving habits and none of it will change the way they drive. Than your going to bring those horrible drivers closer into the neighborhoods. Please save the taxpayers money and use it for something useful instead of taking peoples advise from up north that only see this area in a brief study and fix issues like Hollins road intersection and leave the biggest issue still there. Last page of the study: I do not agree with the ranking of these projects on this page. I feel that the other connector roads at Valley Gateway, Blue Hills/Ruritan etc should be given higher priority over the railroad crossings that fewer people will use. I have lived in this area since 2001 and have been in those railroad crossing areas maybe twice if that. The other road improvements will be more used and improve safety along 460 more. The worst part of traveling 460 area is the Valley Gateway and Chick Fil A intersections. I have seen so many terrible accidents at those lights. I hold my breath everytime I have to travel through those intersections which is several times per day. Thanks. 2/20/2023 6:28 AM 2/15/2023 6:04 PM 2/15/2023 8:33 AM 2/2 Page 1 of 1 Megan Cronise - [EXTERNAL] - U.S. Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study From: "Pam H. Feuer" <pfeuer@sfcs.com> To: "mcronise@roanokecountyva.gov" <mcronise@roanokecountyva.gov> Date: 3/15/2023 10:02 AM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - U.S. Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study Ms. Cronise, 1 live on Bonsack Road and I have concerns about making the west end of Bonsack Road left turn only. As one resident already commented, it is very difficult to make a left turn onto the Challenger Avenue from the east end during peak travel times due to its proximity to the traffic light. This means 1 will have to turn right, get across the left lane of traffic to the new turn lane and then make a U-turn. I do not see how this makes traffic safer. In my opinion, it is less safe. I also wonder what the school busses are going to do? They currently enter the east end of Bonsack Road and exit the west end and then turn on Carson Road. Has anyone talked to Roanoke County Schools about how they will navigate the busses? Pamela H. Feuer, AIA, CCCA, CCS, LEED AP BD+C I Project Manager / Senior Associate I SFCS Direct: 540.682.8029 I Office: 540.344.6664 I Cell: 540.525.7395 WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. fi le:///C:/Users/mcron i se/A ppData/Local/Tem p/XPGrpWise/641 197D3P02_DOMAINM-... 3/20/2023 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2023 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, TO INCORPORATE THE U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, § 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia requires that the Planning Commission of every jurisdiction prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan for the physical development of their jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, § 15.2-2230 of the Code of Virginia requires that the Planning Commission shall review the comprehensive plan at least once every five 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 U.S. Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study into the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on March 7, 2023, after posting, advertisement and notices as required by § 15.2-2225 and § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1) The Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the U.S. Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study. 1 2) Pursuant to § 15.2-2225 of the Code of Virginia, the Secretary to the Planning Commission shall certify this Resolution to the Board of Supervisors by providing a copy of it to the Clerk to the Board. 3) Pursuant to § 15.2-2225 of the Code of Virginia, the Secretary to the Planning Commission shall also post this Resolution on the Commission's website. Commissioners absent Votes in favor Votes against Abstentions McMurray, Woltz Bower, James, Henderson None None CERTIFICATION The undersigned secretary of the Roanoke County Planning Commission does hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, complete and correct Resolution adopted by a vote of a majority of the Roanoke County Planning Commissioners, present at a regular meeting of the Commission held on March 7, 2023, at which a quorum was present and acting throughout, and that the same has not been amended or rescinded and is in full force and effect as of the dat- of this certification, March 7, 2023. Philip Tp'ompson, Secr:'ary, Roano 2 e County Planning Commission AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2023 RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA BY INCORPORATING THE U.S. ROUTE 460 LAND USE AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA 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 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 U.S. Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study into the Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, three community meetings were held on January 13, 2022, May 18, 2022, and September 29, 2022 on the U.S. Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study, as well a 29-day public comment period on the same ending on March 17, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on March 7, 2023, 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 U.S. Route 460 Land Page 1 of 2 Use and Connectivity Study into the Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on March 28, 2023. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1) The Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended by incorporating the U.S. Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study into the Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia. 2) This Resolution is effective upon its adoption. Page 2 of 2