HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/25/2022 - RegularPage 1 of 5
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.”
Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors
January 25, 2022
Page 2 of 5
Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for January 25, 2022. Regular meetings
are held on the second and fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at
7:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be
announced. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3, and will be
rebroadcast on Friday 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. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution of appreciation to P. Jason Peters for his service as Chairman of the
Board of Supervisors in 2021 (Paul M. Mahoney, Chairman of the Board)
2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervi sors of Roanoke
County to Daniel R. O’Donnell, County Administrator, upon his retirement after
more than twenty-one (21) years of service (Paul M. Mahoney, Chairman of the
Board)
Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors
Agenda
January 25, 2022
Page 3 of 5
D. BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing to discuss with the Board of Supervisors the County Administrator's
Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-2032 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) (Laurie
Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services)
E. NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution requesting the Commonwealth Transportation Board fund a
Demonstration Project Assistance grant in fiscal years 2023 and 2024 for shuttle
service to the National Park Service's McAfee Knob Trailhead Parking Lot,
Catawba Magisterial District (Megan G. Cronise, Transportation Planning
Administrator)
2. Resolution authorizing the County Administrator to appoint Assistant or Deputy
County Administrators, or both (Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney)
F. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of real property containing approximately
2.25 acres, located in Roanoke City, for fire and rescue purposes; and
authorizing the execution of a purchase agreement, a deed of conveyance, any
necessary zoning petitions or applications for use of said real property for fire
and rescue purposes, and any other documents necessary to accomplish the
acquisition and proposed use of said real property (Rachel Lower, Senior
Assistant County Attorney; Richard L. Caywood, Assistant County Administrator)
G. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. The petition of The Lawson Companies to amend existing proffered conditions on
approximately 12.15 acres on property zoned R -3C (Medium Density Multi-
Family Residential) District with conditions, to construct 216 apartments located
in the 5000 block of Cove Road, the 2700 block of Peters Creek Road, and south
of Beacon Ridge subdivision, Catawba Magisterial District (Philip Thompson,
Director of Planning)
H. APPOINTMENTS
1. Library Board (appointed by District)
2. Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission (appointed by District)
Page 4 of 5
I. 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. Confirmation of appointment to the Court Community Corrections Program
Regional Community Criminal Justice Board; Regional Drug Court Advisory
Committee; Roanoke Regional Airport Commission (At-Large), Roanoke
Regional Partnership, Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority, Roanoke Valley-
Alleghany Regional Commission, Roanoke Valley Detention Commission,
Roanoke Valley Resource Authority; Visit Virginia's Blue Ridge; Western Virginia
Regional Industrial Facility Authority; Western Virginia Regional Jail A uthority;
Western Virginia Water Authority
2. Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) accept
Warrior Drive of Cherokee Hills 5 Road, in the Catawba Magisterial District into
the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) System
J. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
K. REPORTS
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report
2. Outstanding Debt Report
3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues December 31, 2021
4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of December 31, 2021
5. Accounts Paid – December 31, 2021
6. Statement of Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy as of
December 31, 2021
L. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
1. P. Jason Peters
2. Martha B. Hooker
3. Phil C. North
4. David F. Radford
5. Paul M. Mahoney
Page 5 of 5
M. WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors fiscal year 2021 -2022 mid-
year revenues and expenditures and fiscal year 2022-2023 budget issues (Laurie
Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services; Steve Elliott, Budget
Manager)
N. ADJOURNMENT
Page 1 of 1
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. C.1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPE RVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 25, 2022
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution of appreciation to P. Jason Peters for his service
as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors in 2021
SUBMITTED BY: Deborah C. Jacks
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
APPROVED BY: Daniel R. O’Donnell
County Administrator
ISSUE:
This time has been set aside to recognize P. Jason Peters for his service as Chairman
of the Board of Supervisors in 2021.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.
Page 1 of 2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2022
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO P. JASON PETERS FOR HIS
SERVICE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN 2021
WHEREAS, P. Jason Peters served as Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors during 2021; and
WHEREAS, during Mr. Peters’ term as Chairman, the County achieved a variety of
accomplishments, including:
The revitalization of Tanglewood and the 419 area with new-to-market
restaurant options and seven (7) new commercial businesses,
The opening of the redeveloped Vinyard Station in the former Vinton Motors
building and the openings of its first two (2) tenants
Recognition by the Virginia Association of Counties and the International
Economic Development Council with achievement awards for the Town of
Vinton Central Business District Redevelopment Projects
The Gish Mill redevelopment project and public private partnership with the
Town of Vinton
Expansions in Roanoke County’s healthcare sector including the Richfield
Living Town Center, Friendship Health and Rehab Transitional Care Unit,
LewisGale ER, Vistar Eye Center and the 150,000 sq. ft. Carilion Children’s
Tanglewood Center
A new $12 million hotel redevelopment and public private partnership project
with the Town of Vinton
Cardinal Glass Industries 24,000 sq. ft. expansion in the Vinton Business
Page 2 of 2
Center
Development of the two-story, 16,000 sq. ft. Fallowater Square office building
near Tanglewood
Celebrated the largest population growth rate in the Roanoke Region of
4.9%, demonstrating that quality of place matters
WHEREAS, the Board recognizes Chairman Peters’ contribution to the economic
growth in Roanoke County throughout his term; and
WHEREAS, Chairman Peters emphasized sound financial strategies and practices
and promoted regional projects and initiatives to benefit all the residents of the Roanoke
Valley.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, does hereby extend its deepest appreciation to P. JASON PETERS for
his collaborative and steady leadership of the Board of Supervisors as Chairman during
2021 and for his belief in democracy and championing of citizen participation in local
government.
Page 1 of 1
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. C.2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPE RVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 25, 2022
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County to Daniel R. O’Donnell,
County Administrator, upon his retirement after more than
twenty-one (21) years of service
SUBMITTED BY: Deborah C. Jacks
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
APPROVED BY: Daniel R. O’Donnell
County Administrator
ISSUE:
Recognition of the retirement of Daniel R. O'Donnell
BACKGROUND:
Daniel R. O’Donnell, County Administrator, will retire on February 1, 2022 after twenty-
one (21) years and eight (8) months of service with Roanoke County.
Mr. O’Donnell is expected to attend today’s meeting to accept his resolution and quilt.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.
Page 1 of 3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2022
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO DANIEL R. O’DONNELL,
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER MORE
THAN TWENTY-ONE (21) YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Daniel R. O’Donnell was employed by Roanoke County on June 5,
2000 and
WHEREAS, Mr. O’Donnell will retire on February 1, 2022, after twenty-one (21)
years and eight (8) months of devoted, faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Mr. O’Donnell, through his employment with Roanoke County, has
been instrumental in improving the quality of life and providing services to the citizens of
Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, throughout Mr. O’Donnell’s tenure with Roanoke County, he has
recognized the value of Roanoke County’s quality of life, though the development of Green
Ridge Recreation Center and numerous trails, parks and open spaces within the County of
Roanoke; and
WHEREAS, Mr. O’Donnell’s commitment to public safety can been seen in the
building of Roanoke County’s Public Safety Center, and his advocacy for equitable salary
advancements for Police and Fire and Rescue personnel; and
WHEREAS, Mr. O’Donnell championed the need for mental health services and
awareness of mental health issues in Roanoke County and the greater region; and
WHEREAS, Mr. O’Donnell was instrumental in the expansion of regional
cooperation between the neighboring localities of the City of Roanoke, the City of Salem,
Botetourt County and Franklin County, to enhance services and prosperity for all in the
Page 2 of 3
region; and
WHEREAS, Mr. O’Donnell has helped shape the future of Roanoke County through
citizen engagement and community satisfaction surveys, and the Community Strategic
Plan; and
WHEREAS, Mr. O’Donnell has guided the successful management of Roanoke
County’s budget to increase the position of Roanoke County’s publ ic safety, public school
system and services within the community; and
WHEREAS, Mr. O’Donnell has championed the efforts of Roanoke County’s staff
and actively pursued equitable and fair compensation for staff; and
WHEREAS, Mr. O’Donnell has helped foster the redevelopment of the 419 Corridor
and 419 Town Center into a thriving commercial corridor to support Roanoke County’s
future economic development; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors commends Mr. O’Donnell for managing a
successful transition to modified services in the wake of a global pandemic , helping to
preserve the health of County employees and its citizens while continuing to offer best -in-
class services; and
WHEREAS, during his tenure as County Administrator, Roanoke County
experienced 3.4% population growth as measured by the 2020 U.S. Census; and
WHEREAS, Mr. O’Donnell is commended for his dedication and commitment to
making Roanoke County a brighter and safer place to Work, Live and Play for its
employees and citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke
Page 3 of 3
County to DANIEL R. O’DONNELL for more than twenty-one (21) years of capable, loyal
and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and
productive retirement.
Page 1 of 2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. D.1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPE RVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 25, 2022
AGENDA ITEM: Briefing to discuss with the Board of Supervisors the County
Administrator's Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-2032 Capital
Improvement Program (CIP)
SUBMITTED BY: Laurie Gearheart
Director of Finance and Management Services
APPROVED BY: Daniel R. O’Donnell
County Administrator
ISSUE:
Briefing for the Board of Supervisors regarding the County Administrator's Proposed
Fiscal Year 2023-2032 Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
BACKGROUND:
As part of the annual budget process, the County Administrator presents a ten -year
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. This
briefing provides an overview of the ten -year CIP. The Board of Supervisors will
deliberate the priorities, projects, and funding sources included in the proposed CIP
through budget adoption on May 10, 2022.
DISCUSSION:
This time has been scheduled to provide the Board of Supervisors with a briefing on the
County Administrator's Proposed Fiscal Year 2023 -2032 CIP. This proposal is
submitted in a joint effort as effective February 1, 2022, Richard L. Caywood will
transition to the role of County Administrator with the retirement of Daniel R. O'Donnell.
This proposal differs from prior year presentations as the plan continues to evolve
through discussion with the Board of Supervisors. Therefore, a su mmary of funding
sources and project expenditure budgets, condensed descriptions of projects proposed,
Page 2 of 2
and a summary of the Schools projects are included in lieu of a complete CIP
document.
On January 11, 2022, staff provided an overview of the planned proposal. Staff will
continue discussion on the CIP at a work session scheduled for February 22, 2022.
Topics for discussion include a review of additional bonding scenarios, considerations of
American Rescue Plan Act funds for capital projects and other discussion on future
capital projects.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the briefing. The fiscal impact of the CIP will be
determined at adoption of the fiscal year 2022 -2023 budget on May 10, 2022. The
Board of Supervisors will adopt for appropriation the first year of the ten-year CIP as
part of the annual budget ordinances.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors receive information regarding the County
Administrator's Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-2032 Capital Improvement Program.
Qlounft! of ~oanokr
January 25, 2022
Dear Chairman Mahoney and Members of the Board of Supervisors:
Attached for your consideration is the Proposed FY 2023 -FY 2032 Capital Improvement
Program (CIP). This proposal for the FY 2023 -FY 2032 CIP totals $205,746,903 in
capital projects over the ten-year plan. Of the total, $106,662,223 is proposed for County
capital projects, and $99,084,680 is included within the proposal for Roanoke County
Schools projects, as approved by the Roanoke County School Board on January 18, 2022.
This proposal differs from prior year presentations as the plan continues to evolve
through discussion with the Board of Supervisors. Therefore, a summary of funding
sources and project expenditure budgets, condensed descriptions of projects proposed,
and a summary of Schools projects are included in lieu of a complete CIP document. On
January 11, 2022, staff provided an overview of the planned proposal. With direction from
the Board, $200,000 of Capital Reserves funding has been added in FY 2023 for a Fire
and Rescue Facility Assessment.
This proposal is submitted in a joint effort as effective February 1, 2022, Richard Caywood
will transition to the role of County Administrator with the retirement of Daniel
O'Donnell. Staff will continue discussion on the CIP at a work session scheduled for
February 22, 2022. Topics for discussion include review of additional bonding scenarios
and considerations of American Rescue Plan Act (ARP A) funds for capital projects.
Additionally, discussion will continue on future capital projects.
The proposed FY 2023 -FY 2032 CIP is balanced with funding identified for all projects
proposed and meets all criteria set forth within the County's Comprehensive Financial
Policy. Developing a long-term financial plan in the midst of a global pandemic has been
a challenge over the past two years. While the County has been able to identify adequate
funding for projects in the plan, the anticipated cost of major facility projects and ongoing
maintenance has increased due to inflation and availability of resources.
Fortunately, Roanoke County, through conservative budgeting, substantially contributed
to capital reserves with year-end funds from fiscal year 2021. A portion of these funds,
$4.51 million, is proposed to support County projects. Additionally, fiscal year 2023
serves as the County's borrowing year per the "12-12-12" borrowing agreement with
Roanoke County Public Schools. County project funding for FY 2023 is proposed at
$18,490,146, with $12.0 million in bond funding for major projects. Funding for this plan
also includes the transfer from the general government fund in the amount of $1.4
million.
Attachment A:
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Proposed FY 2023 - FY 2032 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Summary of County Funding Sources
General Government Transfer $1,400,000 $2,525,000 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $24,725,000
Capital Reserves 4,510,059 5,428,394 4,003,945 788,633 759,891 567,358 1,035,584 710,869 2,651,593 708,768 21,165,094
VPSA Refunding Bonds 175,478 157,625 124,750 124,125 125,931 122,831 82,944 82,631 82,631 82,631 1,161,577
Debt Fund - County 279,609 279,609 280,812 276,487 279,309 279,354 143,006 137,366 0 0 1,955,552
Subtotal, Unrestricted Cash $6,365,146 $8,390,628 $7,009,507 $3,789,245 $3,765,131 $3,569,543 $3,861,534 $3,530,866 $5,334,224 $3,391,399 $49,007,223
CommIT Fund Transfer $125,000 $920,000 $920,000 $920,000 $920,000 $920,000 $920,000 $920,000 $920,000 $920,000 $8,405,000
Subtotal, Restricted Cash $125,000 $920,000 $920,000 $920,000 $920,000 $920,000 $920,000 $920,000 $920,000 $920,000 $8,405,000
Transfer from Schools 0 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500,000
Contribution from City of Roanoke 0 0 750,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750,000
Subtotal, Non-County Funding Sources $0 $500,000 $750,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,250,000
Lease / Revenue Bonds $12,000,000 $0 $0 $12,000,000 $0 $0 $12,000,000 $0 $0 $12,000,000 $48,000,000
Subtotal, Lease / Revenue Bonds $12,000,000 $0 $0 $12,000,000 $0 $0 $12,000,000 $0 $0 $12,000,000 $48,000,000
Attachment A:
County of Roanoke, Virginia
FY 2023 - FY 2032 Proposed Capital Improvement Program
County Funding Sources with Projects
Funding Source/Functional Area/Project FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 23-32 Total
Contribution from City of Roanoke
Public Safety
Roanoke Valley Radio System Hardware Upgrade 0 0 750,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750,000
Transfer from Roanoke County Schools Total $0 $0 $750,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $750,000
Lease/Revenue Bonds
Public Safety
New Bonsack/460 Fire Station 5,825,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,825,000
Hollins Fire Station Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,000,000 0 0 0 12,000,000
Internal Services
Public Service Center Construction 4,775,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,775,000
Future Capital Projects 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,000,000 12,000,000
Human Services
Hollins Library Replacement 0 0 0 12,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,000,000
Explore Park 1,400,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,400,000
Lease/Revenue Bonds Total $12,000,000 $0 $0 $12,000,000 $0 $0 $12,000,000 $0 $0 $12,000,000 $48,000,000
Roanoke County - Unrestricted Cash
Public Safety
Sheriff's Office Capital Maintenance Program 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 150,000 150,000 155,000 155,000 155,000 1,390,000
Emergency 911 Phone System Upgrade 51,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51,000
Roanoke Valley Radio System Hardware Update 0 0 750,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750,000
New Bonsack/460 Fire Station 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000,000
Fire & Rescue Facility Assessment 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200,000
Hollins Fire Station Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 0 0 0 100,000
CrewForce Messaging System 0 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150,000
Courthouse HVAC Replacement 0 0 2,350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,350,000
Fire & Rescue Station 3 Roof Replacement 401,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401,000
Attachment A:
County of Roanoke, Virginia
FY 2023 - FY 2032 Proposed Capital Improvement Program
County Funding Sources with Projects
All Funding Sources (continued)
Funding Source/Functional Area/Project FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 23-32 Total
Community Services
Glade Creek Greenway at Vinyard Park West 130,275 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130,275
New Zoning Ordinance 50,000 250,000 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 400,000
VDOT Revenue Sharing Projects (Small Projects & TBD)200,000 350,000 425,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 4,475,000
NPDES - MS4 BMP Construction 150,000 100,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 200,000 1,350,000
Storm Drainage Maintenance of Effort Program 240,000 245,000 250,000 255,000 260,000 265,000 270,000 275,000 280,000 285,000 2,625,000
Roanoke County Broadband Initiative 384,939 387,149 383,664 383,664 384,983 0 0 0 0 0 1,924,399
Wood Haven Property Acquistion and Imprv 369,932 370,479 370,843 370,581 370,148 369,543 370,534 370,866 369,224 371,399 3,703,549
Human Services
Countywide Library Public Use Computer Replacement 75,000 75,000 100,000 100,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 830,000
Hollins Library Replacement 200,000 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 700,000
Green Ridge Capital Maintenance Program 55,000 75,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 125,000 125,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 1,130,000
Green Ridge Dehumidification 0 0 250,000 250,000 240,000 0 0 0 0 0 740,000
Parks and Recreation Capital Maintenance Program 725,000 725,000 725,000 725,000 725,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 7,375,000
Sports Field Lighting Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 250,000 250,000 150,000 0 900,000
Voting Machine Replacement 0 425,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 425,000
Internal Services
County-Wide Computer Replacement Program 170,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170,000
County-Wide Cisco Phone Replacement Program 133,000 133,000 0 0 0 0 266,000 0 0 0 532,000
Email and Business Productivity Tools Replacement 100,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150,000
Enterprise Storage and Data Backup
IT Infrastructure Replacement Plan
Human Resources and Payroll Modules 0 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500,000
Roanoke County - Unrestricted Cash Total $6,265,146 $8,390,628 $7,009,507 $3,789,245 $3,765,131 $3,469,543 $3,961,534 $3,530,866 $5,334,224 $3,391,399 $48,907,223
Attachment A:
County of Roanoke, Virginia
FY 2023 - FY 2032 Proposed Capital Improvement Program
County Funding Sources with Projects
All Funding Sources (continued)
Funding Source/Functional Area/Project FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 23-32 Total
Transfer from Roanoke County Schools
Internal Services
Human Resources and Payroll Modules 0 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500,000
Transfer from Roanoke County Schools Total $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000
Transfer from CommIT Fund
Internal Services
County-Wide Computer Replacement Program 100,000 270,000 270,000 270,000 270,000 270,000 270,000 270,000 270,000 270,000 2,530,000
IT Infrastructure Replacement Program 125,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 5,975,000
Transfer from CommIT Fund Total $225,000 $920,000 $920,000 $920,000 $920,000 $920,000 $920,000 $920,000 $920,000 $920,000 $8,505,000
Roanoke County - All Funding Sources $18,490,146 $9,810,628 $8,679,507 $16,709,245 $4,685,131 $4,389,543 $16,881,534 $4,450,866 $6,254,224 $16,311,399 $106,662,223
Attachment A:
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Proposed FY 2023 - FY 2032 Capital Improvement Program
Summary of County Projects by Functional Team
Functional Team/Department FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 Total FY 23-32
Public Safety
Sheriff $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $150,000 $150,000 $155,000 $155,000 $155,000 $1,390,000
Communications & IT 51,000 0 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,551,000
Fire & Rescue 7,426,000 150,000 0 0 0 100,000 12,000,000 0 0 0 19,676,000
Courthouse and Court Services 0 0 2,350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,350,000
Subtotal, Public Safety 7,602,000 275,000 3,975,000 125,000 125,000 250,000 12,150,000 155,000 155,000 155,000 24,967,000
Community Services
Planning 380,275 600,000 525,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 5,005,275
Stormwater Management 390,000 345,000 450,000 355,000 360,000 365,000 470,000 375,000 380,000 485,000 3,975,000
Economic Development 754,871 757,628 754,507 754,245 755,131 369,543 370,534 370,866 369,224 371,399 5,627,948
Communications & IT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal, Community Services 1,525,146 1,702,628 1,729,507 1,609,245 1,615,131 1,234,543 1,340,534 1,245,866 1,249,224 1,356,399 14,608,223
Human Services
Library 275,000 575,000 100,000 12,100,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 13,530,000
Parks and Recreation 2,180,000 800,000 1,075,000 1,075,000 1,065,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,150,000 1,050,000 900,000 11,545,000
Elections 0 425,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 425,000
Subtotal, Human Services 2,455,000 1,800,000 1,175,000 13,175,000 1,145,000 1,205,000 1,205,000 1,230,000 1,130,000 980,000 25,500,000
Internal Services
Communications & IT 1,153,000 2,403,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 1,186,000 2,820,000 920,000 13,082,000
Finance & Mgmt Services/HR 0 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000,000
General Services 5,755,000 2,630,000 880,000 880,000 880,000 880,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 12,900,000 27,505,000
Subtotal, Internal Services 6,908,000 6,033,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,820,000 2,086,000 3,720,000 13,820,000 41,587,000
Attachment A:
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Proposed FY 2023 - FY 2032 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Summary of County Projects
Functional Team/Department/Project FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 23-32 Total
Sheriff
Sheriff's Office Capital Maintenance Program $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $150,000 $150,000 $155,000 $155,000 $155,000 $1,390,000
Sheriff Total 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 150,000 150,000 155,000 155,000 155,000 1,390,000
Communications & IT
Digital Microwave Ring Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Public Safety Communications Infrastructure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Emergency Medical Dispatch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Emergency 911 Phone System Upgrade 51,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51,000
Roanoke Valley Radio System Hardware Upgrade 0 0 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,500,000
Communications & IT Total 51,000 0 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,551,000
Fire & Rescue
Fire and Rescue Ballistic Body Armor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diesel Exhaust Removal System 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Crew Force Messaging System 0 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150,000
Fire & Rescue Station 3 Roof Replacement 401,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401,000
New Bonsack/460 Fire Station 6,825,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,825,000
Fire & Rescue Facility Asessment 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200,000
Hollins Fire Station Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 12,000,000 0 0 0 12,100,000
Fire & Rescue Total 7,426,000 150,000 0 0 0 100,000 12,000,000 0 0 0 19,676,000
Courthouse and Court Services
Courthouse HVAC Replacement 0 0 2,350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,350,000
Courthouse and Court Services Total 0 0 2,350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,350,000
Public Safety Total $7,602,000 $275,000 $3,975,000 $125,000 $125,000 $250,000 $12,150,000 $155,000 $155,000 $155,000 $24,967,000
Community Services
Planning
Glade Creek Greenway at Vinyard Park West $130,275 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $130,275
New Zoning Ordinance 50,000 250,000 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 400,000
VDOT Revenue Sharing Program
Note: Projects with $0 in FY 2023-2032 are active projects that have been fully funded in prior fiscal years.
Attachment A:
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Proposed FY 2023 - FY 2032 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Summary of County Projects
Functional Team/Department/Project FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 23-32 Total
Community Services(Continued)
Planning (Continued)
419 Town Center Development Standards
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Planning Total 380,275 600,000 525,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 5,005,275
Stormwater Management
NPDES - MS4 BMP Construction 150,000 100,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 200,000 1,350,000
Stormwater Management Total 390,000 345,000 450,000 355,000 360,000 365,000 470,000 375,000 380,000 485,000 3,975,000
Economic Development
Economic Development Total 754,871 757,628 754,507 754,245 755,131 369,543 370,534 370,866 369,224 371,399 5,627,948
Communications & IT
Communications & IT Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Community Services Total $1,525,146 $1,702,628 $1,729,507 $1,609,245 $1,615,131 $1,234,543 $1,340,534 $1,245,866 $1,249,224 $1,356,399 $14,608,223
Human Services
Library
Hollins Library Replacement $200,000 $500,000 $0 $12,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,700,000
Public Computer Replacement Plan
Library Total 275,000 575,000 100,000 12,100,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 13,530,000
All Projects (Continued)
Note: Projects with $0 in FY 2023-2032 are active projects that have been fully funded in prior fiscal years.
Attachment A:
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Proposed FY 2023 - FY 2032 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Summary of County Projects
Functional Team/Department/Project FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 23-32 Total
Human Services (Continued)
Parks and Recreation
Explore Park 1,400,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,400,000
Green Ridge CMP 55,000 75,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 125,000 125,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 1,130,000
Green Ridge Dehumidification 0 0 250,000 250,000 240,000 0 0 0 0 0 740,000
PRT CMP 725,000 725,000 725,000 725,000 725,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 7,375,000
Parks and Recreation Total 2,180,000 800,000 1,075,000 1,075,000 1,065,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,150,000 1,050,000 900,000 11,545,000
Elections
Voting Machine Replacement 0 425,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 425,000
Elections Total 0 425,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 425,000
Human Services Total $2,455,000 $1,800,000 $1,175,000 $13,175,000 $1,145,000 $1,205,000 $1,205,000 $1,230,000 $1,130,000 $980,000 $25,500,000
Internal Services
Communications & IT
Computer Replacement Program $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $2,700,000
County-Wide Phone Replacement Program 133,000 133,000 0 0 0 0 0 266,000 0 0 532,000
Email and Business Productivity Tools Replacement 100,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150,000
Enterprise Storage and Data Backup 0 1,300,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,900,000 0 3,200,000
IT Infrastructure Replacement Plan 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 6,500,000
CommIT Total 1,153,000 2,403,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 1,186,000 2,820,000 920,000 13,082,000
Finance/Human Resources
Human Resources and Payroll Modules 0 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000,000
Finance/Human Resources Total 0 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000,000
Functional Team/Department/Project FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032 FY 23-32 Total
Internal Services (Continued)
General Services
Bent Mountain Community Center Upgrade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
General Services CMP 880,000 880,000 880,000 880,000 880,000 880,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 8,880,000
Public Service Center Replacement 4,775,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,775,000
Cold Storage Building Renovations 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250,000
RCAC Building Evaluation
General Services Total 5,755,000 2,630,000 880,000 880,000 880,000 880,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 12,900,000 27,505,000
Internal Services Total $6,908,000 $6,033,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,820,000 $2,086,000 $3,720,000 $13,820,000 $41,587,000
$18,490,146 $9,810,628 $8,679,507 $16,709,245 $4,685,131 $4,489,543 $16,515,534 $4,716,866 $6,254,224 $16,311,399 $106,662,223
All Projects (Continued)
Note: Projects with $0 in FY 2023-2032 are active projects that have been fully funded in prior fiscal years.
All Projects (Continued)
Attachment B:
County of Roanoke, VA
Proposed FY 2023 – FY 2032 Capital Improvement Program
Project Descriptions
Internal Services
Public Service Center Facility Replacement
General Services
• The Public Service Center Facility Replacement Project began in FY 2017.
• Construction of Phase I of the project began in 2021. Phase I includes expansion of the existing
Fleet Services Center for all General Services department functions, renovation of a section of
the facility adjacent to the Fleet Service Center for relocation of the Communications Shop and
site management functions for Communications & Information Technology, utilization of the
existing site not located within the flood plain for Stormwater Operations, and the relocation of
the district shop for the Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Department to Green Hill Park.
• The County purchased two additional properties on Hollins Road for the future relocation of
Parks, Recreation and Tourism offices and warehouse needs as Phase II of the project.
• Phase II is proposed with $4.775 million in bond funding in FY 2023.
General Services Capital Maintenance Program
General Services
• The program, administered by General Services, incorporates strategic evaluation and planning to
maintain County infrastructure to provide for both the short and long term operational needs.
• Dedicating funding each year to the General Services CMP will fund repairs and maintenance
maximizing the life of County facilities, lots, electrical systems, and plumbing systems.
• Total program funding is proposed at $8.88 million over the ten-year plan, with $880,000 in FY
2023.
Fire and Rescue Facility Assessment
General Services and Fire & Rescue
• Roanoke County operates 11 fire and rescue stations throughout the County.
• Many stations have received minor renovations through the Capital Maintenance Program to
replace outdated and inadequate working and living space within some of the stations.
• Additional funding is included to evaluate the conditions of the station and identify which station(s)
are in need of further renovation and/or replacement.
• In FY 2023, $200,000 is proposed to fund this evaluation.
RCAC Building Evaluation
General Services
• The Roanoke County Administration Center was constructed in 1981 with an open space floor
plan that was subsequently reconfigured to meet the needs of the County.
• As an aging facility that houses departments that serve both public and internal functions, funding
is proposed to evaluate future renovation options.
• In FY 2023, $100,000 is proposed to fund this evaluation.
Attachment B:
County of Roanoke, VA
Proposed FY 2023 – FY 2032 Capital Improvement Program
Project Descriptions
General Services Campus Repairs
General Services
• Renovations to the Cold Storage commenced in FY 2020 as part of the Public Service Center
Facility Replacement project, which included establishing surplus property storage.
• After reevaluating the storage needs for various departments and surplus property, it has been
determined that there is a greater need to store combustible materials and supplies.
• To accommodate the combustible storage needs of the County, the warehouse portion of the
building will require a change of occupancy and interior improvements to align with the current
building code requirements.
• In FY 2024, $250,000 is proposed to fund this renovation.
RCAC HVAC Replacement
General Services
• The Roanoke County Administration Center HVAC Replacement replaces major HVAC
components, improves systems for large meeting spaces with variable occupancy loads, and
improves control over occupied spaces' temperatures.
• Many of the HVAC components are original to the approximately 61,170 square foot facility,
constructed in 1981.
• The project is proposed to receive $1.5 million in funding in FY 2024.
Future Capital Project(s)
General Services
• Per the 12-12-12 policy, Roanoke County is slated for $12.0 million in bond funding in FY 2032.
• As the planned year approaches, more data will be gathered on the viability of the Roanoke
County Administration Center in light of other facility needs.
• Because Roanoke County’s facility needs are vast, the $12.0 million in FY 2032 is not dedicated
to a specific project.
Network & IT Infrastructure Replacement Program
Communications & Information Technology
• The IT Infrastructure Replacement Capital Maintenance Program (CMP) supports maintenance
and repairs to Roanoke County’s network infrastructure, which are vital to supporting business
operations.
• Funding is restored to $650,000 in FY 2023 with $125,000 from the CommIT fund.
• The IT Infrastructure Replacement CMP will transfer $650,000 annually from FY 2024 through FY
2032 from the Communications & Information Technology Fund.
Attachment B:
County of Roanoke, VA
Proposed FY 2023 – FY 2032 Capital Improvement Program
Project Descriptions
County-Wide Computer Replacement Program
Communications & Information Technology
• The Computer Replacement Program operates on a five-year replacement cycle that keeps
County workstations with the most up-to-date operating systems and internal hardware.
• Funding for this program was eliminated in FY 2021 and FY 2022 due to limited resources because
of the COVID-19 pandemic and use of CARES Act funds to purchase laptop stations.
• Funding is restored to $270,000 in FY 2023 with $100,000 from the Communications & IT fund.
• In years FY 2024 – FY 2032, the program is planned to be 100% supported by the Communications
& IT fund transfer.
County-Wide Phone Replacement Program
Communications & Information Technology
• This project upgrades the phone system to prevent hacks and security breaches into the network.
• As the County’s phone system needs to be upgraded to remain in support, phone sets will need
to be replaced in order to function with the new version.
• Funding in the amount of $266,000 in FY 2023 and FY 2024 will be utilized to replace phones for
the County, Town of Vinton, RCACP, and RVRA.
• Additional funding, $266,000, is proposed in FY 2030 for additional phone upgrades and
replacement as needed.
Email & Productivity Tools Replacement
Communications & Information Technology
• The County’s long-term email solution and current business productivity solution (desktop-based
Microsoft Office) need to be replaced.
• Current email systems are now rare and support training is not available; technical support is
limited and difficult to obtain.
• Email options at the scale Roanoke County requires are limited, and are usually components of
larger, cloud-based solutions including email and business productivity solutions.
• Additional funding is proposed for FY 2023 ($100,000) and FY 2024 ($50,000) for consulting and
implementation of an email and business productivity tool replacement.
Enterprise Storage and Data Backup
Communications & Information Technology
• The Enterprise Storage and Data Backup project will replace the existing Compellent Storage
Area Network and Rapid Recovery backup systems currently in place, which have reached the
end of useful life.
• The Storage Area Network is the repository for all County electronic data. This system supports
all applications and departments including public safety, revenue and tax systems, social services,
email and all user electronic files.
• Total project is proposed for $3.2 million in funding with $1.3 million in FY 2024 and $1.9 million
in FY 2031.
Attachment B:
County of Roanoke, VA
Proposed FY 2023 – FY 2032 Capital Improvement Program
Project Descriptions
Global HR: HR & Payroll Modules
Finance & Management Services/Human Resources
• The Human Resources (HR) & Payroll project, replaces human resources and payroll stems.
• Infor/Lawson CloudSuite HCM and Payroll will provide required platform changes and needed
functionality. The modules that will be acquired with this project include Global HR, Performance
and Goals, Talent Acquisition, and Global Payroll.
• The final phase of the project is planned for FY 2024 at $1.0 million.
• Project costs are shared 50% with Roanoke County Public Schools.
Public Safety
New Bonsack/460 Station
Fire & Rescue
• The Bonsack/460 Fire Station project is proposed to receive $6.825 million in funding in FY 2023.
• The new station represents a new and enhanced service as the twelfth station reducing reliance
on other locality responses for emergencies.
• Proposed funding is based on the construction estimate of a three-bay facility.
Fire & Rescue Station 3 Roof Replacement
Fire & Rescue
• The Cave Spring Fire Department Roof Replacement is proposed to replace the existing single-
ply roof cover in poor condition as identified in the 2019 Facilities Condition Assessment.
• The project will incorporate recommendations from the FY 2021 Existing Roof Condition
Assessment, and will install a new 30-year warranty roof system.
• In FY 2023, $401,000 is proposed to cover the design and replacement of the roof.
Sheriff Capital Maintenance Program
Sheriff’s Office
• Dedicating resources each year to the Sheriff CMP funds repairs and maintenance maximizing the
life of the County Jail and Courthouse.
• Funding is planned at $125,000 in FY 2023 with similar amounts through FY 2027 and increasing
thereafter based on facility needs and availability of funding sources.
Emergency 911 Phone System Upgrade
Communications & Information Technology
• The Emergency 911 Phone System Upgrade Project upgrades the current 911 Emergency
Communications Phone System, which will have reached the “end of life” by 2022.
• The project began in FY 2022 with $200,000 in PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point) grant funds
with Roanoke County covering the required match with existing funds.
• An additional $51,000 is proposed in FY 2023 to purchase the last two phone positions required
to fully populate all dispatcher quads within the center. This will ensure that all phones are
upgraded and compatible with the “Next Generation 911” phone system.
Attachment B:
County of Roanoke, VA
Proposed FY 2023 – FY 2032 Capital Improvement Program
Project Descriptions
Roanoke Valley Radio System Hardware Upgrade
Communications & Information Technology
• This project is proposed to update voice and data infrastructure referred to as the Roanoke Valley
Radio System used by Roanoke County and the City of Roanoke.
• The upgrade would enable the Roanoke Valley Radio System to operate the replaced equipment
for an additional 15-20 years.
• Upgrading the 4 towers to accommodate and meet the latest version and assurance that the
towers comply with the latest standard.
• $1.5 M is proposed in FY 2025, with costs shared 50/50 with the City of Roanoke.
Hollins Fire Station Replacement
Fire & Rescue
• In FY 2028 and FY 2029, $12.1 million in funding is proposed to replace the current Hollins Fire
Station, with $12.0 million planned for bond funding.
• Further evaluation regarding site selection and design will be completed closer to the project date.
Crew Force Messaging System
Fire & Rescue
• Project is proposed to replace current messaging systems with an application that works in
conjunction with the County’s computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system and would allow crews to
arrive on the scene—safer and better prepared—with quick access to critical information.
• Funding in FY 2024, in the amount of $150,000, is proposed for project.
Courthouse HVAC Replacement
General Services
• The Courthouse HVAC Replacement project is planned to replace major HVAC components that
are original to the building (constructed in 1985), which have exceeded the end of their useful life.
• A due diligence phase is expected to be completed in November 2022. A&E design services are
proposed to be accomplished in FY 2025 and systems replacement to begin in FY 2025.
• Funding in the amount of $2.35 million in FY 2025 is proposed.
Community Services
Roanoke County Broadband Authority - Debt
Economic Development
• The Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority (RVBA) has approximately 100 miles of network fiber
that traverses the region. Approximately 35 of those miles cross through Roanoke County and
serve our local organizations in healthcare, government, and non-profit sectors.
• Funding is proposed at $384,939 in FY 2023 and $1,539,460 in FY 2024 – FY 2027 for remaining
debt service payments.
Attachment B:
County of Roanoke, VA
Proposed FY 2023 – FY 2032 Capital Improvement Program
Project Descriptions
Woodhaven Property - Debt
Economic Development
• This project will create a 100+ acre business park, which will be owned and developed by the
Western Virginia Regional Industrial Facility Authority (WVRIFA).
• The project aims to increase the amount of marketable property in the Roanoke Valley available
for business development. The specific goal was to create new large parcels in the 50-100 acres
size range, due to consistent prospect interest in larger sites.
• Funding is proposed for $369,932 in FY 2023 and $3,333,617 in FY 2024 – FY 2032 for debt
service payments. Debt service payments are anticipated through FY 2037.
Storm Drainage Maintenance of Effort
Development Services
• The Storm Drainage Maintenance of Effort Program project addresses public drainage problems
through repairs and system upgrades to County-owned storm drainage systems that cannot be
addressed through the operating budget.
• Total program funding is proposed at $2.625 million over the ten-year plan. $240,000 is proposed
in FY 2023, which is a 20% increase over FY 2022.
VDOT Revenue Sharing Program
Planning
• The Revenue Sharing Program provides additional funding for use by Roanoke County to
construct, reconstruct, improve or maintain the VDOT secondary or primary highway system.
• Locality funds are matched with 50 percent state funds.
• It is anticipated that Revenue Sharing Program funding in FY 2023 – FY 2026 will be utilized to
satisfy a new funding deficit on the Dry Hollow Road Safety Improvements project.
• Total program funding is proposed at $4.475 million over the ten-year plan, with $200,000 in FY
2023.
NDPES – MS4 BMP Construction
Development Services
• This program funds capital projects to improve water quality in streams to meet state
requirements.
• The department has applied and has been awarded a grant from the state Stormwater Local
Assistance Fund (SLAF) for the restoration of Wolf Creek, Phase II.
• Funding in the amount of $150,000 in FY 2023 is combined with existing funds to meet the
County’s 50% share of grants funds.
Attachment B:
County of Roanoke, VA
Proposed FY 2023 – FY 2032 Capital Improvement Program
Project Descriptions
Glade Creek Greenway at Vinyard Park West
Planning
• This project proposes to construct a segment of the Glade Creek Greenway along Glade Creek
through Vinyard Park West. The ten-foot-wide asphalt bicycle and pedestrian trail will begin at
the parking lot adjacent to Berkley Road and will continue west for approximately one-half mile
along Glade Creek past athletic fields and another parking lot to the edge of the park, which is
located in the Town of Vinton.
• Proposed funding of $130,275 in FY 2023 would provide a twenty (20) percent local match for
Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Program funding that has been requested through VDOT.
New Zoning Ordinance
Planning
• Roanoke County’s current Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1992, which included a
comprehensive rezoning of the County. Over the last 29 years, the Zoning Ordinance has been
amended on numerous occasions. A major overhaul of the ordinance is needed.
• The project proposes hiring a consultant to assist staff with developing new zoning ordinance.
• Total project costs are $400,000 from FY 2023 – FY 2025 with $50,000 proposed in FY 2023.
Human Services
Explore Park
Parks, Recreation & Tourism
• This project provides funds for the development of Explore Park infrastructure and
implementation of the Explore Park Adventure Plan. It provides the necessary park infrastructure
to support park operations for citizens and to market the facility for economic development.
• The first phase of the project completed water and sewer connections, design of internal park
water and sewer systems, design of the road system, bike skills park, building repairs, land studies,
broadband connections, land purchase, and road paving.
• Bond funding, $1.4 million in FY 2023, completes the final phase of infrastructure improvements.
PRT Capital Maintenance Program
Parks, Recreation & Tourism
• Annual funding to the Parks and Recreation CMP funds repairs and maintenance maximizing the
life of County parks, playgrounds, sports fields, courts, restrooms, and other recreational
buildings.
• In FY 2023, $725,000 is proposed with $25,000 added annually to address regional wayfinding sign
and gateway sign maintenance and landscaping upkeep.
• Total program funding is proposed at $7.375 million over the ten-year plan.
Attachment B:
County of Roanoke, VA
Proposed FY 2023 – FY 2032 Capital Improvement Program
Project Descriptions
Hollins Library Replacement
Libraries and General Services
• The Hollins Library Replacement Project is slated to replace the existing Hollins Library, which is
the only major branch in the Roanoke County library system that has not been replaced.
• Planning and initial design is funded in FY 2023 ($200,000) and FY 2024 ($500,000).
• Construction is planned for bond funding ($12.0 million) in FY 2026.
Public Computer Replacement Plan
Libraries
• This plan established a five-year public computer replacement cycle, allowing the Library to
maintain the technological requirements needed to run current and future software, and security
programs.
• In FY 2023, $75,000 in funding is restored (funding was eliminated in FY 2021 and FY 2022 due to
the pandemic).
Green Ridge Capital Maintenance Program
Parks, Recreation & Tourism
• The Green Ridge Capital Maintenance Program (CMP), established in FY 2022, funds ongoing
maintenance and repair of various systems within the recreation facility.
• Total program funding is proposed at $1.13 million over the ten-year plan, with $55,000
proposed in FY 2023.
Sport Field Lighting Replacement
Parks, Recreation & Tourism
• The Sports Field Lighting Program project includes $900,000 in funding, beginning in FY 2028 to
replace lighting systems to allow for increased athletic field usage.
• Sports field lighting allows more daily uses on a field and minimizes the need for additional athletic
fields in the park system.
• This project will allow the replacement of two of the oldest lighting systems in the County’s park
system while also adding an additional light system to Merriman field 4 located at Starkey Park to
support lacrosse, soccer and flag football.
Green Ridge Dehumidification System Replacement
Parks, Recreation & Tourism
• The Green Ridge Dehumidification Units Replacement project will replace two dehumidification
units that are reaching the end of their useful life.
• Replacement is planned for Fiscal Years 2025 through 2027 with $740,000 in funding.
Attachment B:
County of Roanoke, VA
Proposed FY 2023 – FY 2032 Capital Improvement Program
Project Descriptions
Voting Machine Replacement
Elections/Registrar
• The Voting Machine Replacement project, planned in FY 2024, will replace Roanoke County’s
existing voting equipment initially acquired in 2015. These machines will reach the end of their
useful life within10 years of use.
• In FY 2024, funding in the amount of $425,000 is proposed, and equipment needs will be evaluated
closer to the planned funding year.
Attachment C:
County Administrator’s
Proposed FY 2023 –FY 2032
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Board of Supervisors Meeting
January 25, 2022
Proposed FY 2023 –FY 2032 CIP
Updates
•Since the January 11, 2022 Work Session, $200,000 has been added
for a Fire and Rescue Facility Assessment in FY 2023, to be funded
through Capital Reserves
•Attachments to the Briefing include:
•Summary of Funding Sources and Project Expenditure Budgets
•Condensed Descriptions of Projects Proposed
•School Board Approved Summary of Schools CIP
•A Proposed CIP document has not been prepared due to continued
discussions and work session planned for February 22, 2022
2
FY 2023 –FY 2032 CIP Process
•Staff will follow up with Work Session on February 22, 2022
•Additional bonding scenarios
•Evaluation of the ARPA funds to fund capital projects
•Discussion of future capital projects (FY 2032)
•Move excess funding from land purchase for new 460 Fire/Rescue
Station to the construction project for the Fire/Rescue Station
•Listing of surplus properties with estimated values
3
Agenda
•FY 2023 –FY 2032 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Summary
•FY 2023 –FY 2032 Proposed CIP Projects
•FY 2023 –FY 2032 Funding Overview
•Next Steps
4
5
FY 2023 –FY 2032
Capital Improvement Program
Summary
6
Proposed FY 2023 –FY 2032
CIP Project and Funding Priorities
•Strategically Locating Fire Stations to Efficiently Respond to Emergencies
•Funding for Replacement of County Facilities:
•Public Service Center (Final Phase)
•Hollins Library
•Continued Funding to Support Maintenance of Facilities and Technology Infrastructure
•Continuing Progress on Commitments to Promote Community and Economic Development in Roanoke County
7
Proposed FY 2023 –FY 2032 CIP
Ten-Year Program
•Ten-year plan for County and Schools capital infrastructure needs•First year (FY 2023) appropriated by the Board of Supervisors, which is also Roanoke County’s borrowing year per 12-12-12 policy•Years two through ten (FY 2024 –FY 2032) are a planning document
•Capital Improvement Program updated annually
•Balanced ten-year plan –all projects in County’s proposed CIP have an identified source of funding
8
FY 2023 –FY 2032
Proposed CIP Projects
9
Proposed FY 2023 –FY 2032 CIP Projects
New & Replacement Facilities
Proposed CIP Project FY 2023
FY 2024 –
FY 2032
FY 2023 –
FY 2032 Total
New Bonsack/460 Fire Station $ 6,825,000 ---$ 6,825,000
Public Service Center Replacement 4,775,000 ---4,775,000
Hollins Library Replacement 200,000 12,500,000 12,700,000
Hollins Fire Station Replacement ---12,100,000 12,100,000
Future Capital Project(s)---12,000,000 12,000,000
Total, New & Replacement Facilities $ 11,800,000 $ 36,600,000 $ 48,400,000
10
Proposed FY 2023 –FY 2032 CIP Projects
Capital Maintenance Programs
Proposed CIP Project FY 2023
FY 2024 –
FY 2032
FY 2023 –
FY 2032 Total
General Services $ 880,000 $ 8,000,000 8,880,000
Parks and Recreation 725,000 6,650,000 7,375,000
Sheriff 125,000 1,265,000 1,390,000
Green Ridge 55,000 1,075,000 1,130,000
Total, Capital Maintenance Programs $1,785,000 $16,990,000 $18,775,000
11
Proposed FY 2023 –FY 2032 CIP Projects
Maintenance of County Facilities & Parks
Proposed CIP Project FY 2023
FY 2024 –
FY 2032
FY 2023 –
FY 2032 Total
Explore Park $ 1,400,000 ---$ 1,400,000
Fire & Rescue Station 3 Roof Replacement 401,000 ---401,000
Fire & Rescue Facility Assessment 200,000 ---200,000
RCAC Building Evaluation 100,000 ---100,000
Courthouse HVAC Replacement ---2,350,000 2,350,000
RCAC HVAC Replacement ---1,500,000 1,500,000
Sports Field Lighting Replacement ---900,000 900,000
Green Ridge Dehumidification System Replacement ---740,000 740,000
General Services Campus Repairs ---250,000 250,000
Total, Maintenance of County Facilities & Parks $2,101,000 $5,740,000 $7,841,000
12
Proposed FY 2023 –FY 2032 CIP Projects
Technology Infrastructure
Proposed CIP Project FY 2023
FY 2024 –
FY 2032
FY 2023 –
FY 2032 Total
Network & IT Infrastructure Replacement Plan $ 650,000 $ 5,850,000 $ 6,500,000
County-Wide Computer Replacement Program 270,000 2,430,000 2,700,000
County-Wide Phone Replacement Program 133,000 399,000 532,000
Email & Productivity Tools Replacement 100,000 50,000 150,000
Public Computer Replacement Plan 75,000 755,000 830,000
Emergency 911 Phone System Upgrade 51,000 ---51,000
Enterprise Storage and Data Backup ---3,200,000 3,200,000
Roanoke Valley Radio System Hardware Upgrade ---1,500,000 1,500,000
Global HR: HR & Payroll Modules ---1,000,000 1,000,000
Crew Force Messaging System ---150,000 150,000
Total, Technology Infrastructure $1,279,000 $15,334,000 $16,613,000
13
Proposed FY 2023 –FY 2032 CIP Projects
Community & Economic Development
Proposed CIP Project FY 2023
FY 2024 –
FY 2032
FY 2023 –
FY 2032 Total
Roanoke County Broadband Authority -Debt $ 384,939 $ 1,539,460 $ 1,924,399
Woodhaven Property -Debt 369,932 3,333,617 3,703,549
Storm Drainage Maintenance of Effort 240,000 2,385,000 2,625,000
VDOT Revenue Sharing Program1 200,000 4,275,000 4,475,000
NPDES –MS4 BMP Construction 150,000 1,200,000 1,350,000
Glade Creek Greenway at Vinyard Park West 130,275 ---130,275
New Zoning Ordinance 50,000 350,000 400,000
Total, Community & Economic Development $1,525,146 $13,083,077 $14,608,223
1FY 2023 –FY 2026 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program funding is planned for Dry Hollow Road project
14
FY 2023 –FY 2032
Funding Overview
15
Proposed FY 2023 –FY 2032 CIP
Funding Overview
Funding Source Description FY 2023 FY 2024 –
FY 2032
FY 2023 –
FY 2032 Total
General Government
Fund Transfer
Unrestricted cash source provided by the General
Government Fund to support ongoing projects $ 1,400,000 $ 23,325,000 $ 24,725,000
Other County
Unrestricted Cash Cash from other County -Capital Reserves 4,510,059 16,655,035 21,165,094
Other County
Unrestricted Cash Cash from other County -Debt Fund and Refunding Credits 455,087 2,662,042 3,117,129
Roanoke County
Restricted Cash
Cash sources restricted in their use from the
Communications-IT Fund 125,000 8,280,000 8,405,000
Non-County Funding
Sources
Transfer from Roanoke County Public Schools and
Contribution from the City of Roanoke ---1,250,000 $1,250,000
Lease/Revenue
Bonds
Bonds issued and backed by the full faith and credit of the
County for infrastructure investments 12,000,000 36,000,000 48,000,000
Total $ 18,490,146 $ 88,172,077 $ 106,662,223
16
Next Steps
FY 2023 –FY 2032 CIP Process
•Staff will follow up with Work Session on February 22, 2022
•Additional bonding scenarios
•Evaluation of the ARPA funds to fund capital projects
•Discussion of future capital projects (FY 2032)
•Move excess funding from land purchase for new 460 Fire/Rescue
Station to the construction project for the Fire/Rescue Station
•Listing of surplus properties with estimated values
17
18
Next Steps
Item 2022 Date
Work Session –FY 2022 Mid-Year Revenue & Expenditure Update; FY 2022 –2023 Budget Issues January 25
Work Session –FY 2022 –2023 Revenue Outlook; County Fees & Charges Compendium February 8
Work Session –FY 2023 –2032 Capital Improvement Program
Work Session –FY 2022 –2023 Compensation Update, Outside Agency Funding February 22
Briefing –County Administrator’s Proposed FY 2022 –2023 Operating Budget March 8
Public Hearings: Effective Tax Rate; Maximum Tax Rate
Adoption of Maximum Tax Rate
Work Session –Proposed FY 2023 Operating Budget (first of two)
March 22
Public Hearings: Tax Rate Adoption; Operating and Capital Budgets (first of two)
Adoption of 2022 Tax Rates
Work Session –Proposed FY 2023 Operating Budget (second of two)
April 12
Public Hearing: Operating and Capital Budgets (second of two)
First Reading of FY 2022-2023 Operating and Capital Budget Ordinances April 26
Second reading of FY 2022-2023 Operating and Capital Budget Ordinances (total of five ordinances)
Approval of Operating and Capital budgets, Revenues and Expenditures for County and Schools May 10
19
Questions & Comments
Page 1 of 3
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. E.1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPE RVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 25, 2022
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution requesting the Commonwealth Transportation
Board fund a Demonstration Project Assistance grant in
fiscal years 2023 and 2024 for shuttle service to the National
Park Service's McAfee Knob Trailhead Parking Lot, Catawba
Magisterial District
SUBMITTED BY: Megan Cronise
Transportation Planning Administrator
APPROVED BY: Daniel R. O’Donnell
County Administrator
ISSUE:
The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) requires a local
match commitment from the Board of Supervisors in order to apply for a Demonstration
Project Assistance grant.
BACKGROUND:
Shuttle service to the McAfee Knob trailhead parking lot from the Interstate 81 Exit 140
Park and Ride is an eligible New Service project for a DRPT Demonstration Project
Assistance grant. The Demonstration Project Assistance grant program exists to
incentivize the implementation of new transit services and test innovative and non -
traditional public transportation solutions by reducing the financial risks assumed at the
local level. The proposed shuttle service meets the New Service goals by offering a
creative approach in determining a new travel market for public transportation, as well
as by improving the utilization and productivity of an existing public transportation
service with a connection to the Smart Way bus route at the I-81 Exit 140 Park and
Ride.
The net project cost is eligible for up to 80 percent (80%) reimbursement by grant funds
and the applicant must provide up to 20 percent (20%) match from non -State or Federal
funds. The application is due by February 1 and, if awarded, funding is available on
Page 2 of 3
July 1, 2022.
DISCUSSION:
McAfee Knob is one of the most photographed locations on the Appalachian National
Scenic Trail (AT). The National Park Service (NPS) trailhead parking lot on Route 311
that provides access to McAfee Knob has been insufficient to meet heavy visitor
volumes for several years and parking challenges have increased during the COVID -19
Pandemic.
The NPS has been studying the AT Triple Crown Area (Dragon's Tooth, McAfee Knob
and Tinker Cliffs) since 2017. The U.S. Department of Transportation's Volpe Center
completed a Transit Feasibility Study for the NPS in February 2021, which proposed
several scenarios for providing shuttle service to and from the Triple Crown trailhead
parking lots. The Transit Feasibility Study was initiated to inform a Visitor Use
Management (VUM) Plan currently being written by the NPS Denver Service Center
Planning Division. Not only would the Transit Feasibility Study provide long -term shuttle
service options for the VUM Plan, but it was also intended to provide a foundation for a
pilot program for shuttle service during the upcoming construction of the AT pedestrian
bridge over Route 311, slated to begin in early 2024, when available trailhead parking
will be reduced by half. When the Transit Feasibility Study was presented to County
staff in early 2021, staff contended that shuttle service could be utilized immediately due
to the vastly increased visitation rates and parking issues observed in 2020.
While the Transit Feasibility Study is a useful tool, the NPS does not have funding
available to initiate shuttle service at this time. The DRPT Demonstration Project
Assistance grant opportunity offers a means to test shuttle service prior to the
pedestrian bridge construction to determine whether the service could be successful
both during and after construction.
The Baseline Service scenario identified in the Transit Feasibility Study would collect
passengers at the Interstate 81 Exit 140 Park and Ride located in Roanoke County and
would transport passengers to the McAfee Knob trailhead parking lot. County staff
intends to issue a Request for Proposals within the next sixty (60) days for turnkey
shuttle service. Proposed shuttle details include:
· Route duration/headway: 30 minutes
· Vehicle: One 12-passenger van (minimum size)
· Service duration: 12 hours per day
· Service days: Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays with occasional Monday holidays
(Memorial Day and Labor Day at a minimum)
· Service months: Beginning of March through end of November
· Fare: $5 round trip plus $1.25 fee per ticket for online registration software and
Page 3 of 3
credit card fees; tickets to be booked online
Utilizing anticipated conservative passenger volumes from the Transit Feasibility Study
and known technology costs to operate the service, the expected expense of operating
the shuttle is approximately $14,600 per month.
County staff recommends the following service months up until the pedestrian bridge
construction begins in early 2024:
· September 2, 2022 (Labor Day weekend) through November 27, 2022 (end of
Thanksgiving weekend)
· March 3, 2023 through November 26, 2023 (end of Thanksgiving weekend)
The table below indicates, per fiscal year, the estimated total operation costs,
anticipated fare collection, estimated net operation costs and the expected local match.
Fiscal Year Operating Months Operation Cost Fare Collection Net Operation Cost 20% Local Match
Totals 12 $175,200 $52,800 $122,400 $24,480
FISCAL IMPACT:
The net project cost is eligible for up to 80 percent (80%) reimbursement by grant funds
and the applicant must provide up to 20 percent (20%) match from non -State or Federal
funds. The anticipated local match required is $14,280 in fiscal year 2023 and $10,200
in fiscal year 2024. Required matching funds will be included in the County
Administrator's budget proposal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the resolution.
McAfee Knob Trailhead Parking Issues Update January 18, 2022
Below are updates since October 2020 regarding overflow parking issues near the
National Park Service’s McAfee Knob Trailhead Parking Lot:
1. November 2020 weekends: VDOT Salem Residency placed a portable message
board reminding drivers to keep vehicles out of the roadway with strict enforcement
expected. County Parks, Recreation and Tourism staff also placed cones along Old
Catawba Road in locations where parking should not occur. Roanoke County and
partners pushed social media messaging about appropriate parking locations.
2. December 2020: The Conservation Fund, in conjunction with the Appalachian Trail
Conservancy and the Roanoke Appalachian Trail Club, purchased the property
next door to the trailhead (4420 Catawba Valley Drive) for future bathrooms and an
information center.
3. January 2021: At the County’s request, VDOT installed 14 “No Parking” signs on Old
Catawba Road indicating locations where the shoulder is too narrow for cars to
park off of the roadway. The portable message board was removed when the signs
were installed.
4. April 2021: National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT) presented the draft Appalachian National Scenic Trail, Triple Crown Area
Transit Feasibility Study to County staff. The Study considers the feasibility of
operating a shuttle service to one or more of the trailheads of the Triple Crown
during construction of the Route 311/Appalachian Trail pedestrian bridge. Staff
expressed the need for a shuttle now, due to overwhelming demand throughout
most of the year. NPS and USDOT do not have any funding to implement a shuttle
but may permit a shuttle.
5. April through December 2021: Using the NPS and USDOT Study as a foundation,
County staff is investigating potential models, options and costs for the County to
potentially run a shuttle from the I-81 Exit 140 Park and Ride to the McAfee Knob
Trailhead Parking Lot.
6. September 2021: The Catawba Greenway and trailhead parking lot opened at the
Catawba Sustainability Center, with 25 new parking spaces and a new connection
to the Appalachian Trail. There are also 12 parking spaces available at the Roanoke
County Catawba Center that also connect to the Catawba Greenway.
7. October 2021: At the County’s request, VDOT added “Tow-Away Zone” signs
underneath every other “No Parking” sign along Old Catawba Road.
8. October 2021: County staff led outreach and marketing efforts with partners to
inform the public about the Catawba Greenway and parking lots to include:
Police Department Press Release;
Media interviews; and
Stakeholder meeting with tourism organizations, local colleges and
universities, National Park Service, Appalachian Trail Conservancy/Roanoke
Appalachian Trail Club.
McAfee Knob Trailhead Parking Issues Update January 18, 2022
9. January 2022: Roanoke County Police Department records indicate significant
decreases in towed vehicles and parking citations issued between 2020 and 2021,
likely due to the multifaceted approach to inform visitors about new and
appropriate parking locations:
Year Towed Vehicles Parking
Citations
Total Improperly
Parked Vehicles Cited
10. January 2022: County staff will apply for a Virginia Department of Rail and Public
Transportation Demonstration Project Assistance grant. If awarded, the grant could
provide up to 80 percent funding for the County to operate a shuttle from the I-81
Exit 140 Park and Ride to the McAfee Knob Trailhead Parking Lot.
Page 1 of 2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2022
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COMMONWEALTH
TRANSPORTATION BOARD FUND A DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
ASSISTANCE GRANT IN FISCAL YEARS 2023 AND 2024 FOR
SHUTTLE SERVICE TO THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE’S MCAFEE
KNOB TRAILHEAD PARKING LOT, CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Virginia Department of Rail and Public
Transportation (DRPT) Transit and Commuter Assistance Grant Application Manual, the
Board of Supervisors must commit to providing local match funds as part of the
Demonstration Project Assistance grant application and t his commitment may be
established through a resolution; and
WHEREAS, the proposed shuttle service to the National Park Service’s McAfee
Knob Trailhead Parking Lot meets the goals of the Demonstration Project Assistance
grant by offering a creative approach in determining a new travel market for public
transportation, as well as by improving the utilization and productivity of an existing
public transportation service with a connection to the Smart Way bus route at the I -81
Exit 140 Park and Ride; and
WHEREAS, the proposed shuttle service is included as part of Recommendati on
1.Z. in the Roanoke Valley Transit Vision Plan, which was approved by the Roanoke
Valley Transportation Planning Organization on September 22, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the proposed shuttle service was studied by the National Park
Service as the baseline service scenario in the February 2021 Appalachian National
Scenic Trail, Triple Crown Area Transit Feasibility Study.
Page 2 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors requests that the
Commonwealth Transportation Board provide funding for a DRPT Demonstration
Project Assistance grant in fiscal years 2023 and 2024 for shuttle service to the National
Park Service's McAfee Knob Trailhead Parking Lot in the Catawba Magisterial District.
2. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby commits to
provide up to twenty percent (20%) matching contribution for this project.
3. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby grants authority for
the County Administrator, or his designee, to execute project agreements for an
approved Demonstration Project Assistance grant for fiscal years 2023 and 2024.
Page 1 of 2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. E.2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPE RVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 25, 2022
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution authorizing the County Administrator to appoint
Assistant or Deputy County Administrators, or both
SUBMITTED BY: Peter S. Lubeck
County Attorney
APPROVED BY: Daniel R. O’Donnell
County Administrator
ISSUE:
Authorization for the County Administrator to appoint deputies or assist ants, or both
BACKGROUND:
Section 15.2-1502 of the Code of Virginia states that "local government officers may
employ, when duly authorized by the governing body, deputies and assistants to aid
them in carrying out their powers and duties.
DISCUSSION:
As defined in the Code of Virginia, a "deputy" means a person who is appointed to act
as a substitute for his principal, in the name of the principal and in his behalf, in matters
in which the principal may act; such person shall be a public officer.
Further, an "assistant" is defined means a person who is not a public officer or deputy
but who aids or helps a public officer.
Mr. Caywood will begin acting in his role as County Administrator on February 1, 2022,
and may desire to appoint deputies or assistants, or both.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Page 2 of 2
There is no fiscal impact associated with this resolution.
Page 1 of 1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2022
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO
APPOINT ASSISTANT OR DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS, OR
BOTH
WHEREAS, §15.2-1502 of the Code of Virginia states that “local government
officers may employ, when duly authorized by the governing body, deputies and
assistants to aid them in carrying out their powers and duties”; and
WHEREAS, as defined in the Code of Virginia, a “deputy” means a person who is
appointed to act as a substitute for his principal, in the name of the principal and in his
behalf, in matters in which the principal himself may act; such person shall be a public
officer; and
WHEREAS, as defined in the Code of Virginia, an “assistant” means a person
who is not a public officer or deputy but who aids or helps a public officer; and
WHEREAS, the Board has appointed a new County Administrator, who will begin
acting as such on February 1, 2022, and
WHEREAS, the newly selected County Administrator may desire to appoint
assistants or deputies, or both, to aid him in carrying out his powers and duties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOVLED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County that pursuant to § 15.2-1502 of the Code of Virginia, the Roanoke County
Administrator is authorized to appoint deputies or assistants, or both, to assist him in
carrying out his powers and duties. This resolution shall be effective as of its date of
adoption.
Page 1 of 3
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. F.1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPE RVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 25, 2022
AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of real property
containing approximately 2.25 acres, located in Roanoke
City, for fire and rescue purposes; and authorizing the
execution of a purchase agreement, a deed of conveyance,
any necessary zoning petitions or applications for use of said
real property for fire and rescue purposes, and any other
documents necessary to accomplish the acquisition and
proposed use of said real property
SUBMITTED BY: Rachel Lower
Senior Assistant County Attorney
APPROVED BY: Daniel R. O’Donnell
County Administrator
ISSUE:
In order to enhance services for Roanoke County residents, and to reduce demands on
other fire and rescue stations, staff have identified a need for a new fire and rescue
station to be built near the Bonsack area and within the Route 460 corridor . The County
must first acquire real property to build a new fire and rescue facility upon.
BACKGROUND:
Staff have identified the need for a new Roanoke County fire and rescue facility to
provide new and enhanced services to residents near and around th e Bonsack area
and within the Route 460 corridor. The addition of this 12th Roanoke County fire and
rescue facility is expected to replace services currently provided by Read Mountain Fire
and Rescue Department, will reduce demands on Vinton Fire Departmen t and Roanoke
City Station #14, and will improve response times to certain Roanoke County
addresses.
To accomplish this project, staff initiated a search of real estate to acquire and build
upon near the Bonsack Kroger area. The availability of appropria te parcels presented a
Page 2 of 3
challenge due to the need for signalized access, limited appropriate parcels in the
corridor, and costs. With the assistance of Balzer and Associates, staff initiated a site
analysis on a number of parcels identified within the 460 corridor that could potentially
serve the County’s need for said fire and rescue purposes.
As a result, County staff has concluded that a certain parcel, containing approximately
2.25 acres, located in the City of Roanoke, would be the most appropriate pa rcel to
purchase and build upon for fire and rescue purposes. The parcel is currently part of a
larger parcel, containing approximately 70.7850 acres, owned by Parkway Wesleyan
Church, Inc.
DISCUSSION:
County staff have been in contact with representatives of Parkway Wesleyan Church,
Inc., and have informally agreed upon certain provisions to be memorialized in an
Agreement of Sale and Purchase. The terms of said mutual agreement include, but are
not limited to:
· A purchase price of $540,000;
· A built-in contingency allowing the County to elect not to purchase the property in
the event the County fails to receive all necessary approvals for use of the
property for fire and rescue purposes (i.e. any land -use approvals or approvals
necessary for ingress and egress by the City of Roanoke or the Virginia
Department of Transportation); and
· An option for Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc. to re -acquire a portion of the
property in the future for development purposes, at no cost, so long as said
development does not interfere with the County’s use of the parcel for fire and
rescue purposes. The County does not intend to build upon this portion of the
property; rather, this portion of the property will be graded at a slope in order
facilitate the development of the other portion of the parcel. If the Church elects
to re-acquire and develop this portion of the property, it will construct a retention
wall or otherwise make the site stable, so as to not impact the County's use of
the parcel.
A draft Agreement of Sale and Purchase is attached to this Board Report.
Also attached is a preliminary conceptual site plan prepared by Balzer & Associates.
This preliminary site plan shows the “PROPOSED FIRE STATION PARCEL”
(approximately 1.65 acre) and the “ADDITIONAL PARCE L” (approximately 0.60 acre),
both of which are proposed to make up the approximately 2.25 acre parcel to be
subdivided and acquired by the County. The “ADDITIONAL PARCEL” containing
approximately .60 acres is the proposed “option area” that may be re -acquired by
Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc. in the future.
Page 3 of 3
FISCAL IMPACT:
The purchase of the new parcel will cost the County $540,000.00. Additional costs will
be incurred which are necessary to effectuate and complete the purchase, such as, but
not limited to, the costs to complete a land survey, a title examination, costs associated
with any approvals necessary for use for fire and rescue purposes/ingress and egress,
and any closing costs.
Funds were appropriated for the land purchase with the approval o f the fiscal year
2022-2031 Capital Improvement Program budget ordinance #051121 -6 and are
available in the Capital Fund.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the first reading of the ordinance, and recommends the
scheduling of the second reading.
1
THIS AGREEMENT OF SALE AND PURCHASE (“this Agreement”) is made and
entered into this _____ day of __________________, 2022 (“the Effective Date”), by and between
PARKWAY WESLEYAN CHURCH, INC., a Virginia nonstock corporation, whose address is
3645 Orange Avenue NE, Roanoke, Virginia 24012 (“Seller”), and the ROANOKE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, whose address is 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia 24018
(“Purchaser”). The parties acknowledge that no real estate broker was involved in this transaction.
Purchaser, through its employees, has negotiated directly with the Seller.
R E C I T A L S
A. Seller is the owner of a certain parcel of real property located at 3645 Orange
Avenue NE in Roanoke City, Virginia, bearing City of Roanoke Tax Parcel No. 7110105 and
containing +/- 70.7850 acres (“the Church Property”).
B. Seller is willing to subdivide from the Church Property and create a new parcel to
sell to Purchaser, said new parcel containing +/- 2.25 acres, as more particularly shown on Exhibit
A attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement and labeled the “Proposed Fire Station Parcel”
and the “Additional Parcel” (collectively, “the New Parcel”), on the terms and conditions set forth
in this Agreement.
C. Purchaser desires to purchase the New Parcel from Seller, on the terms and
conditions set forth in this Agreement.
D. Seller desires to retain an option to purchase back the Additional Parcel as shown
on Exhibit A for development purposes (“the Option Area”) and, if the option is exercised, to
acquire the same at no cost, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
E. Purchaser agrees to grant an option to the Seller to purchase back the Option Area
for development purposes, and to sell the same at no cost, on the terms and conditions set forth in
this Agreement.
2
F. These recitals are incorporated by reference into this Agreement.
W I T N E S S E T H
Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants set forth
herein, the parties agree as follows:
(1) Sale and Purchase. In consideration of the sum of Five Hundred Forty Thousand
and 00/100 Dollars ($540,000.00) (“the Purchase Price”) to be paid by Purchaser to Seller in cash
(by wire transfer of good funds or bank check) in full, at the Closing hereinafter provided for.
Seller hereby sells, and agrees to grant and convey to Purchaser, and Purchaser hereby purchases,
and agrees to accept conveyance of, the New Parcel from Seller, on the terms and subject to the
conditions of this Agreement.
(2) Contingency of Purchase. Purchaser is buying the New Parcel to use for fire and
rescue purposes. The New Parcel will not serve Purchaser’s business needs unless it is approved
for use for fire and rescue purposes by the City of Roanoke. To that end, Purchaser’s obligation to
purchase the New Parcel shall be contingent upon Purchaser, with the cooperation of Seller,
securing all approvals by the City of Roanoke for use of the New Parcel for fire and rescue
purposes. This includes, but is not limited to, any zoning changes and all other land use approvals
necessary to use and operate the New Parcel according to its intended plans as a fire and rescue
facility, and any approvals necessary for ingress and egress to the New Parcel required by the City
of Roanoke or the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”). In the
event Purchaser fails to obtain the approvals, before the expiration of the Inspection Period (as
hereinafter defined), Purchaser may, upon written notice to Seller prior to the expiration of the
Inspection Period, terminate this agreement without being in default. At no expense to Seller,
Seller agrees to cooperate with Purchaser in the filing of any petitions or applications required by
the City of Roanoke and VDOT necessary to accomplish such approvals.
3
(3) Grant of Option. The Seller retains as part of this agreement a sole and exclusive
option to purchase back the Option Area for development purposes, so long as said development
purposes do not interfere with the Purchaser’s use of the New Parcel for fire and rescue purposes.
In the event this option is exercised, the parties agree that the purchase price for the said Option
Area shall be $0.00. The exercise of the option to purchase the Option Area, if exercised, shall be
made by Seller or its assigns by delivering written notice of the exercise of the option. In the event
Seller exercises the option, Purchaser agrees to sell and Seller agrees to purchase the Option Area,
together with all easements, rights, and appurtenances thereto, improvements located thereon. The
provisions of this paragraph (3) will be true as of the date of this Agreement and as of the date of
Closing, and will survive the Closing. The parties agree to execute a Memorandum of Option
memorializing Seller’s option which will be recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court for
the City of Roanoke immediately after the deed of conveyance.
(4) Right of Access for Inspections.
(a) Between the Effective Date and the date which is ninety (90) days after the
Effective Date (“the Inspection Period”), Purchaser and its agents and
contractors shall have the right of free access to and entry upon the New Parcel
for the purpose of making such surveys, inspections, surface and subsurface
explorations, tests, borings, and other site evaluations and analyses as Purchaser
may desire to make. In exercising its right of access, Purchaser, its agents and
contractors shall not disrupt or interfere with the operations and activities of the
Seller or impede access to the Church Property by Seller and its invitees . In
order to avoid disruption to Seller, the Purchaser agrees that each entry on the
New Parcel by Purchaser or its agents or contractors must be coordinated in
advance with Seller. Purchaser shall (i) indemnify Seller and hold Seller
harmless from and against any loss, cost, damage, or liability arising out of or
4
resulting from the exercise by Purchaser or Purchaser’s agents or contractors of
the rights granted by this paragraph (4), to the extent allowed under the laws of
the Commonwealth of Virginia, and (ii) if Closing does not occur under this
Agreement, at its expense, restore the Church Property substantially to its
condition immediately prior to those tests and inspections.
(b) If Closing does not occur, Purchaser shall deliver to Seller copies of the results
of any and all such surveys, tests, and studies not later than ten (10) days after
termination or expiration of the Inspection Period.
(c) Purchaser may, at any time prior to the end of the Inspection Period (including
on the final day of the Inspection Period), by written notice to Seller terminate
this Agreement, for any reason or no reason. If Purchaser does not terminate
this Agreement before the expiration of the Inspection Period, then Purchaser
shall be deemed to have waived its rights to terminate the Agreement under this
paragraph (4).
(5) Title, Survey, and Subdivision Plat. Purchaser shall, at its expense, and prior to the
expiration of the Inspection Period (if Purchaser has not terminated this Agreement during the
Inspection Period) obtain such examination of the title to the New Parcel and such survey of the
New Parcel as Purchaser shall deem necessary or advisable. Purchaser shall also, at its expense,
and subject to the approval of Seller, arrange for the preparation and approval of the subdivision
plat creating the New Parcel. Should any title examination or survey indicate that Seller cannot
convey to Purchaser good and marketable fee simple title to the New Parcel, other than because of
liens in a total amount less than the Purchase Price which can be satisfied by the payment of money
deducted from the Purchase Price at Closing, then Purchaser shall, on or before the end of the
Inspection Period give Seller written notice of any conditions, restrictions or encumbrances which
Purchaser will not waive (“the Title Exceptions”), and Seller will have a period of thirty (30) days
5
from its receipt of such notice to take such action as Seller wishes to take to cure the Title
Exceptions (the “Title Cure Period”). “Cure” of any Title Exception may be accomplished either
by resolving and removing the Title Exception or by obtaining the agreement of Purchaser’s title
insurer to insure Purchaser against loss resulting from the exception, on terms reasonably
satisfactory to Purchaser. If all Title Exceptions have not been cured within the Title Cure Period,
then Purchaser shall have the option either (i) to terminate this Agreement, or (ii) to allow this
Agreement to continue in effect and to proceed with Closing with no reduction in the Purchase
Price. In the event that Purchaser fails to notify Seller before the end of the Inspection Period of
any Title Exceptions, the Purchaser shall be deemed to have accepted the Title Exceptions and
shall have waived its right to terminate the Agreement under this paragraph (3). Seller agrees that
it will not, from the Effective Date until the date of Closing, convey any rights in the New Parcel
(including by lease) to any other person or entity without the specific written consent of Purchaser,
which consent Purchaser may grant, condition or withhold in its sole discretion.
(6) Closing; Closing Costs. Closing shall take place on or before July 1, 2022, at a
location in the City or County of Roanoke, Virginia, selected by Purchaser. In the event that (a) a
change in the land use is necessary pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (2) or (b) approval
necessary for ingress and egress from the City of Roanoke or VDOT is necessary pursuant to the
provisions of paragraph (2), then Purchaser may extend the date for which Closing shall take place,
by giving written notice to the Seller. In no event, however, shall Closing extended beyond
____________. At Closing, Purchaser shall pay to Seller the Purchase Price, and Purchaser shall
also pay all closing costs except those that are specifically provided in this paragraph (6) to be paid
by Seller. At Closing, Seller shall deliver to Purchaser a fully executed and notarized general
warranty deed with modern English covenants of title, conveying good and marketable fee simple
title to the New Parcel to Purchaser, subject only to real estate taxes which are not yet deli nquent
and to such other Title Exceptions as Purchaser shall have agreed in writing, prior to Closing, to
6
accept or otherwise accepted in accordance with paragraph (5). The deed shall convey the New
Parcel to Purchaser with all appurtenances and by description based on a survey obtained by
Purchaser. Seller shall also deliver such other instruments, certificates, and affidavits as shall be
reasonably and customarily required by Purchaser and its title insurer to complete and evidence
the purchase and sale transaction. Seller shall pay the cost of preparation of the deed, any required
certificate of non-foreign status, any applicable IRS Forms, any recording tax applicable to
grantors, and its own attorneys’ fees. Any applicable real estate taxes shall be prorated as of the
date of the Closing.
(7) Risk of Loss. If after the expiration of the Inspection Period (and Purchaser not
having elected to terminate this Agreement during the Inspection Period), but prior to Closing the
New Parcel is materially damaged by a casualty or the environmental condition of the New Parcel
is materially and adversely changed (and such change is not due to the acts of Purchaser or its
agents or contractors), then, Purchaser shall have ten (10) business days within which to notify
Seller whether it wishes to (a) proceed to close and be entitled to an assignment of all insurance
proceeds at Closing; or (b) terminate this Agreement which shall have no further force or effect
except for any liability pursuant to the indemnity provisions of paragraph (4). For purposes of this
paragraph (7), the New Parcel shall be considered materially damaged if the cost of repair or cure
exceeds $100,000.00. Seller agrees that if the New Parcel is damaged within thirty (30) days of
the Closing date as a consequence of a non-material insured casualty for which Seller has not
commenced repair, then Seller will assign the insurance proceeds associated with that casualty to
Purchaser at Closing.
(8) Possession. Seller shall deliver exclusive possession of the New Parcel to
Purchaser on the date of Closing and shall, prior to Closing, remove any personal property from
the New Parcel.
7
(9) Assignment. Purchaser may assign its rights under this Agreement at any time prior
to the Closing date, but only with Seller’s prior written approval which may be withheld in Seller’s
sole and absolute discretion. In the event of an assignment, the assignee shall succeed to all of the
rights and obligations of the Purchaser under this Agreement and Purchaser shall remain liable
under this Agreement notwithstanding such assignment.
(10) Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall
be in writing, addressed to the parties at the addresses set forth above in the opening paragraph of
this Agreement, and sent either by certified mail, return receipt requested, via the United States
Postal Service, or by a nationally recognized overnight delivery service. The postmark date, in the
case of a mailed notice, or the date of deposit with the overnight delivery service, in the case of
use of an overnight courier, shall be the effective date of such notice. A copy of any such notice
sent to Seller shall be sent to Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte, Attention Maryellen Goodlatte
at 37 Campbell Avenue, S.W., P.O. Box 2887, Roanoke, Virginia 24001, and a copy of any such
notice sent to Purchaser shall be sent to Senior Assistant County Attorney, Attention Rachel W.
Lower, at 5204 Bernard Drive, P.O. Box 29800, Roanoke, Virginia 24018.
(11) Default.
(a) If Purchaser is ready, willing and able to close and tenders closing on the date
set for Closing, but Seller fails to deliver to Purchaser’s settlement agent on or
before the Closing date the executed deed and other closing documents required
by paragraph (6) above and/or is unable to deliver to Purchaser exclusive
possession of the New Parcel as required by paragraphs (5) and (8) above and
to proceed with Closing, then Seller shall be in default under this Agreement.
(b) If Seller is ready, willing and able to close on the date set for Closing, but
Purchaser fails to close, then Purchaser shall be in default under this Agreement.
8
(c) Prior to the exercise of any default remedies provided in this paragraph (11),
the non-defaulting party shall provide written notice of any default(s) to the
defaulting party (the “Default Notice”) permitting the defaulting party ten (10)
business days to cure any such default(s). If the defaulting party does not cure
the default(s) or does not respond to the Default Notice, then the non-defaulting
party may pursue any legal remedy provided for by law.
(12) Seller’s Warranties. Seller represents and warrants to Purchaser that (a) Seller has
full right and power to enter into and perform its obligations under this Agreement; (b) the person
signing this Agreement on behalf of Seller has full authority to do so; (c) this Agreement
constitutes the valid and binding agreement of Seller and is fully enforceable in accordance with
its terms; (d) there are no actions, suits or proceedings at law or in equity pending, threatened
against, or affecting the Property before or by any federal, state, municipal, or other governmental
department, commission, board, bureau, agency, or instrumentality; and (e) to the best of Seller's
actual knowledge: no toxic or hazardous materials (as said terms are defined in any applicable
federal or state laws) have been used, discharged or stored on or about the New Parcel in violation
of said laws, no such toxic or hazardous materials are now or will be at Closing located on or
below the surface of the New Parcel, and there are no petroleum storage tanks located on or beneath
the surface of the New Parcel.
(13) Agents and Brokers. Each party represents and warrants that it did not consult or
deal with any agent or broker with regard to this Agreement or the transaction contemplated herein,
and each party hereto agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the other party from all liability,
expense, loss, cost or damage, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, that may arise by reason of
any claim, demand or suit of any agent or broker arising out of facts constituting a breach of the
foregoing representation and warranty.
9
(14) Entire Agreement; Amendment; Governing Law. This Agreement constitutes the
entire agreement of the parties with respect to its subject matter, and it shall not be amended except
by a written amendment signed by both Seller and Purchaser. It shall be governed by and construed
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
(15) Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be
binding upon and enforceable against the parties hereto and their respective personal
representatives, heirs, successors and assigns.
(16) AS IS. Except for the deed, any representations or warranties of Seller expressly
set forth in this Agreement, and the requirement set forth in paragraph (8) above that personal
property be removed from the New Parcel prior to Closing, the purchase and sale pursuant to this
Agreement will be on an “AS IS,” “WHERE IS,” and “WITH ALL FAULTS” basis, with no
representations, warranties, guarantees, or commitments of any kind whatsoever, express or
implied, by Seller with respect to the New Parcel or any matter relating to the New Parcel.
(17) Stormwater Management Facilities. The parties acknowledge that the Church
Property currently includes stormwater management facilities as required by the City of Roanoke.
Those facilities serve the Church Property. The parties also acknowledge that there will be a
requirement by the City of Roanoke that the Purchaser install and maintain separate stormwater
management facilities on the New Parcel to support Purchaser’s proposed development. Purchaser
intends to meet its stormwater management obligations by the use of underground detention
facilities and will not direct any of its stormwater to the Seller’s existing stormwater management
facility. After Closing, Purchaser shall be solely responsible for any costs or responsibilities
associated with the installation and maintenance of any stormwater management facilit y required
to be placed on or under the New Parcel by the City of Roanoke. However, if Seller exercises its
option to purchase back the Option Area as contemplated in paragraph (3) above, then Seller shall
become responsible for any costs or responsibilities associated with the installation and
10
maintenance of any stormwater management facilities required by the City of Roanoke to serve
the Seller’s proposed development of the Option Area at the time the Option Area is conveyed
back to Seller. The provisions of this paragraph (17) will be true as of the date of this Agreement
and as of the date of Closing, and will survive the Closing.
WITNESS the signatures and seals of the parties as of the date first above written:
Seller: PARKWAY WESLEYAN CHURCH, INC.
By:
Title:
Purchaser: ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS
By:
Title: County Administrator
POSSIBLE
ABOVE GROUND
SWM FACILITY
OPTION 1
PROPOSED WATER
CONNECTION
POSSIBLE
UNDERGROUND
SWM FACILITY
OPTION 2
PROPOSED FIRE
STATION
±11,600 SF
FFE=1060
ADDITIONAL
PARCEL
±0.60 AC.
B
TOTAL
±2.25 AC.
FULL ACCESS
ENTRANCE
PROPOSED FIRE
STATION PARCEL
±1.65 AC.
A
PROPOSED
GENERATOR
PROPOSED
DUMPSTER
PROPOSED 5,000 GAL
FUEL TANK
PROPOSED
FUEL PAD
AIR GAS
TO ROU
T
E
4
6
0
TO PA
R
K
W
A
Y
C
H
U
R
C
H
FUTURE
CONNECTION
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
B
A
Y
1
B
A
Y
2
B
A
Y
3
PROJECT NO.
REVISIONS
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
www.balzer.cc
Roanoke / Richmond
New River Valley / Staunton
Harrisonburg / Lynchburg
P L A N N E R S / A R C H I T E C T S
E N G I N E E R S / S U R V E Y O R S
J:
\
2
0
\
0
0
\
0
4
\
0
4
2
0
0
0
8
6
.
0
0
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
C
O
C
O
S
T
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
I
N
G
-
N
D
A
\
C
I
V
I
L
\
d
w
g
\
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
C
h
u
r
c
h
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
B
a
s
e
2
0
2
1
-
1
0
-
0
6
.
d
w
g
P
L
O
T
T
E
D
:
10
/
8
/
2
0
2
1
9
:
1
5
:
4
1
A
M
1208 Corporate Circle
Roanoke, VA 24018
540.772.9580
KAM
BTC
BTC
10/8/2021
1" = 20'
BO
N
S
A
C
K
F
I
R
E
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CO
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
36
4
5
O
R
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
N
E
RO
A
N
O
K
E
,
V
A
2
4
0
1
2
EX-A
04200086.00
PRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
POSSIBLE
ABOVE GROUND
SWM FACILITY
OPTION 1
PROPOSED WATER
CONNECTION
PROPOSED SANITARY
SEWER CONNECTION
POSSIBLE
UNDERGROUND
SWM FACILITY
OPTION 2
approx. location ex. 8" public
sanitary sewer main
approx. location ex. 8"
public water main
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
RO
U
T
E
4
6
0
MEXICO
W
A
Y
EXIST
I
N
G
PRIVA
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
RO
U
T
E
4
6
0
EXIST
I
N
G
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
G
R
A
V
E
L
D
R
I
V
E
SMART SCALE PROJECT
PROPOSED OFFSET
LEFT-TURN LANE
SMART SCALE PROJECT
PROPOSED OFFSET
LEFT-TURN LANE
PROPOSED STARS VDOT
INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
PROPOSED FIRE
STATION
±11,600 SF
FFE=1060
ADDITIONAL
PARCEL
±0.60 AC.
B
TOTAL
±2.25 AC.
REMAINING CHURCH
PARCEL
±68.535 AC.
PROPOSED CROSS
ACCESS EASEMENT
±0.10 AC.
FULL ACCESS
ENTRANCE
PROPOSED FIRE
STATION PARCEL
±1.65 AC.
A
PROPOSED
GENERATOR
PROPOSED
DUMPSTER
PROPOSED
5,000 GAL
FUEL TANK
PROPOSED
FUEL PAD
AIR GAS
FUTURE
CONNECTION
1 2 3
MEMBER
ONE
FREEDOM
FIRST
PROJECT NO.
REVISIONS
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
www.balzer.cc
Roanoke / Richmond
New River Valley / Staunton
Harrisonburg / Lynchburg
P L A N N E R S / A R C H I T E C T S
E N G I N E E R S / S U R V E Y O R S
J:
\
2
0
\
0
0
\
0
4
\
0
4
2
0
0
0
8
6
.
0
0
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
C
O
C
O
S
T
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
I
N
G
-
N
D
A
\
C
I
V
I
L
\
d
w
g
\
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
C
h
u
r
c
h
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
B
a
s
e
2
0
2
1
-
1
0
-
0
6
.
d
w
g
P
L
O
T
T
E
D
:
10
/
8
/
2
0
2
1
9
:
1
7
:
3
8
A
M
1208 Corporate Circle
Roanoke, VA 24018
540.772.9580
KAM
BTC
BTC
10/8/2021
1" = 30'
BO
N
S
A
C
K
F
I
R
E
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CO
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
36
4
5
O
R
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
N
E
RO
A
N
O
K
E
,
V
A
2
4
0
1
2
EX-B
04200086.00
PRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
MEXICO
W
A
Y
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
R
O
U
T
E
4
6
0
ADDITIONAL
PARCEL
±0.60 AC.
PROPOSED
FIRE
STATION
PROPOSED
FIRE STATION
PARCEL
±1.65 AC.
ROANOKE CO
U
N
T
Y
ROANOKE CI
T
Y
REMAINING
CHURCH PARCEL
±68.535 AC.
AIR GAS
MEMBER
ONE
FREEDOM
FIRST
WENDY'S
IMPACT
LIVING
PROJECT NO.
REVISIONS
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
www.balzer.cc
Roanoke / Richmond
New River Valley / Staunton
Harrisonburg / Lynchburg
P L A N N E R S / A R C H I T E C T S
E N G I N E E R S / S U R V E Y O R S
J:
\
2
0
\
0
0
\
0
4
\
0
4
2
0
0
0
8
6
.
0
0
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
C
O
C
O
S
T
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
I
N
G
-
N
D
A
\
C
I
V
I
L
\
d
w
g
\
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
C
h
u
r
c
h
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
B
a
s
e
2
0
2
1
-
1
0
-
0
6
.
d
w
g
P
L
O
T
T
E
D
:
10
/
8
/
2
0
2
1
9
:
2
1
:
0
2
A
M
1208 Corporate Circle
Roanoke, VA 24018
540.772.9580
KAM
BTC
BTC
10/8/2021
1" = 100'
BO
N
S
A
C
K
F
I
R
E
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
CO
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
36
4
5
O
R
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
N
E
RO
A
N
O
K
E
,
V
A
2
4
0
1
2
EX-C
04200086.00
PRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
Page 1 of 3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2022
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2.25 ACRES, LOCATED I N ROANOKE
CITY, FOR FIRE AND RESCUE PURPOSES; AND AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF A PURCHASE AGREEMENT, A DEED OF
CONVEYANCE, ANY NECESSARY ZONING PETITIONS OR
APPLICATIONS FOR USE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY FOR FIRE AND
RESCUE PURPOSES AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY
TO ACCOMPLISH THE ACQUISITION AND PROPOSED USE OF SAID
REAL PROPERTY
WHEREAS, in order to enhance services for Roanoke County residents, and to
reduce demands on other fire and rescue stations, staff have identified a need for a new
fire and rescue station to be built near the Bonsack area and within the Route 460
corridor; and
WHEREAS, the addition of this 12th Roanoke County fire and rescue facility is
expected to replace services currently provided by Read Mountain Fire and Rescue
Department, will reduce demands on Vinton Fire Department and Roanoke City Station
#14, and will improve response times to certain Roanoke County addresses; and
WHEREAS, the County must first acquire real property to build a new fire and
rescue facility upon; and
WHEREAS, Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc. is the owner of a certain parcel of
real property located at 3645 Orange Avenue NE in Roanoke City, Virginia, bearing City
of Roanoke Tax Parcel No. 7110105 and containing approximately 70.7850 acres (“the
Church Property”); and
WHEREAS, Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc. is willing to subdivide from the
Church Property and create a new parcel to sell to the County, said new parcel
Page 2 of 3
containing approximately 2.25 acres, for the County to use and build upon for fire and
rescue purposes (“the New Parcel”); and
WHEREAS, funds were appropriated for the land purch ase with the approval of
the fiscal year 2022-2031 Capital Improvement Program budget ordinance #051121 -6
and are available in the Capital Fund for this project; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County has determined that it
is in the public interest to acquire the New Parcel, under certain terms and agreements
outlined in a purchase agreement;
WHEREAS, § 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acqu isition
and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading
of this ordinance to be held on January 25, 2022, and the second reading to be held on
February 8, 2022;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervis ors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the acquisition of approximately 2.25 acres located in Roanoke City
(identified as part of City of Roanoke Tax Parcel No. 7110105) is hereby
authorized and approved at the purchase price of $540,000.00.
2. That the grant of an option to Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc. to purchase
back approximately 0.60 acres of the New Parcel for development purposes
is hereby approved at no cost to Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc., so long as
said development purposes do not interfere with the County’s use of the New
Parcel for fire and rescue purposes.
Page 3 of 3
3. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are hereby
authorized to execute such documents, including but not limited to the
purchase agreement, the deed of conveyance (with any changes as approved
by the County Attorney’s Office), a memorandum of option, any necessary
zoning petitions or applications for use of said real property for fire and rescue
purposes, and any other documents necessary to accomplish the acquisition
and to take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as are
necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this real estate, all of which shall
be approved as to form by the County Attorney.
4. That this ordinance is to be in full force and effect upon its passage.
1
PREPARED BY: Rachel W. Lower, Sr. Assistant County Attorney
VSB # 88094
Office of the County Attorney
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, VA 24018
Consideration: $540,000.00
Assessed Value: __________
Title Insurance: Fidelity National Title Insurance Company
Roanoke City Tax Map Parcel No: 7110105
This instrument is exempt from the imposition of recordation taxes (other than those recordation taxes
imposed by § 58.1-802) pursuant to § 58.1-811(A)(3) of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
THIS DEED is made and entered into this _____ day of _______________, 2022,
by and between PARKWAY WESLEYAN CHURCH, INC., party of the first part (the
“Grantor”), and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, party of the second
part (the “Grantee”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantor has the authority to execute this Deed of conveyance; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of a certain parcel of real property located at 3645
Orange Avenue NE in Roanoke City, Virginia, bearing City of Roanoke Tax Parcel No.
7110105 and containing approximately 70.7850 acres; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to subdivide and create a new parcel to sell to the
Grantee, said new parcel containing approximately 2.25 acres, as more particularly shown
on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement and labeled the “Proposed
Fire Station Parcel” and the “Additional Parcel” (collectively, “the New Parcel”); and
WHEREAS, Grantor desires to retain an option to purchase back the Additional
Parcel as shown on Exhibit A for development purposes (“the Option Area”) and, if the
option is exercised, to acquire the same at no cost; and
WHEREAS, Grantee agrees to grant an option to the Grantor to purchase back the
Option Area for development purposes, and to sell the same at no cost; and
NOW, THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of FIVE HUNDRED
AND FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($540,000.00) cash in hand paid by Grantee unto
Grantor, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt whereof is hereby
acknowledged, Grantor does hereby bargain, sell, grant and convey with General Warranty
and Modern English Covenants of Title unto Grantee, all of the following lot or parcel of
land lying and being in the City of Roanoke, Commonwealth of Virginia, and more
particularly described as follows:
NEW PARCEL, located in Roanoke City, Virginia, and
being part of the City of Roanoke Tax Parcel No. 7110105,
and containing approximately 2.25 acres (legal description
to be updated once a complete survey is done on the parcel
to be purchased and a plat is finalized)
This conveyance is made subject to all recorded easements, conditions, reservations,
and restrictions now affecting the Property.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
GRANTOR:
PARKWAY WESLEYAN CHURCH, INC.
By: (SEAL)
Title:
STATE OF ____________________
CITY/COUNTY OF ________________, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
____________________, 2022, by _____________________________ on behalf of
Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc.
Notary Public
Commission Expires:
Registration Number:
GRANTEE:
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
By: _________________________________
Richard Caywood, County Administrator
STATE OF ____________________
CITY/COUNTY OF ________________, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
____________________, 2022, by Richard Caywood, County Administrator for the County
of Roanoke, Virginia.
Notary Public
Commission Expires:
Registration Number:
Approved as to form:
_____________________
County Attorney
1
Land Purchase
New Bonsack/460 Fire Station
New Bonsack/460 Fire Station
Cost Estimate
Building Construction Description FY 2022 FY 2023
Total,
FY22 –FY23
Building Construction (3-Bay Concept)-$4,676,136 $4,676,136
Site Development -$804,000 $804,000
Architectural & Engineering (10% of const.)$400,000 $60,485 $460,485
Furniture, Fixtures, & Equipment -$402,500 $402,500
Other $60,000 $219,606 $279,606
Contingency (10% of project)-$662,273 $662,273
Land Acquisition (approx. 2.25 acres)$540,000 -$540,000
Total, Cost Estimate $6,825,000 $7,825,000
2
*Funding source -cash ($2M) and bond proceeds ($5.825M)
3
4
5
Land Purchase Details
•Purchase price: $540,000
•Purchase contingent upon the County receiving all necessary
approvals for use of the property for fire and rescue purposes (i.e. any
land-use approvals required by the City of Roanoke, any approvals
necessary for ingress and egress)
•An option for Parkway Wesleyan Church, Inc. to re-acquire a portion
of the property in the future for development purposes, at no cost, so
long as said development does not interfere with the County’s use of
the parcel for fire and rescue purposes
6
Next Steps
•Second reading and public hearing
•Execution of Agreement for Sale and Purchase
•Applications to the City of Roanoke for zoning approval, entrance
permit, signal modification, etc.
•Other due diligence items (title search, property survey)
•Closing on or before July 1, 2022, or at a later date if necessary based
upon the County’s need to secure all required approvals from the City
of Roanoke
7
8
Questions and Comments
Page 1 of 3
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. G.1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPE RVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 25, 2022
AGENDA ITEM: The petition of The Lawson Companies to amend e xisting
proffered conditions on approximately 12.15 acres on
property zoned R-3C (Medium Density Multi-Family
Residential) District with conditions, to construct 216
apartments located in the 5000 block of Cove Road, the
2700 block of Peters Creek Road, and south of Beacon
Ridge subdivision, Catawba Magisterial District
SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson
Director of Planning
APPROVED BY: Daniel R. O’Donnell
County Administrator
ISSUE:
Agenda item for second reading of ordinance to amend proffered conditions to construct
a residential apartment complex.
BACKGROUND:
· In 1984, this property was rezoned from Residential District R-1 and Business
District B-2 to Residential District R-6 with conditions, with the purpose of
constructing 185 residential apartment condominiums, though this development
never happened. During the County-wide rezoning in 1992, the property’s zoning
was changed to R-3C Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District with
conditions.
· The proposed project contains seven (7) apartment buildings of two varying
sizes, a clubhouse, and a maintenance building. Parking would be dispersed
throughout the complex with the total number of spaces to be determined. All
apartment buildings would be three (3) stories in height. Of the 216 apartments,
36 are proposed to be one-bedroom units, 135 are proposed to be two-bedroom
units, and 45 are proposed to be three-bedroom apartments. The project is
Page 2 of 3
proposed to be constructed in three (3) phases.
· The proposed amendment to the proffered conditions is consistent with the
Transition future land use designation.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request on December 6, 2021.
Six (6) citizens spoke during the public hearing. Concerns and issues raised incl uded:
access/easements for public water and sewer to adjacent properties; height of
apartment buildings (4 stories or 3 stories); proposed buffers, buffer widths, and what is
included in the buffer areas; traffic congestion and traffic safety on Peters Cre ek Road
and Cove Road; pedestrian safety along roadways especially Cove Road; type of
fencing/barriers will be installed; stormwater runoff; erosion and sediment control;
impacts to neighboring wells; noise; how will the property be graded; lighting; and l oss
of wildlife habitat.
The Planning Commission discussed the following issues: the zoning history of the
property; the surrounding uses and zoning; the Transition future land use designation;
changes to the R-3 density standards adopted this year; tax credits; stormwater
management; erosion and sediment control; fencing; buffers; traffic congestion; traffic
safety and pedestrian safety; site development; and lighting.
The Planning Commission recommends approval to amend the existing proffered
conditions on 12.15 acres zoned R-3C Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District
with conditions.
The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this request on December 14, 2021.
Ten (10) citizens spoke during the public hearing. Their concerns a nd issues raised
included: the need for affordable housing; crime statistics for similar projects in the
vicinity; traffic issues and safety; school capacity; impact on safety services; number of
units being too high; buffers; traffic diversion from I-81; location of a school bus stop;
impacts to quality of life; impact to wells on adjacent properties; people trespassing on
adjacent properties; number of parking spaces; timing/phasing of traffic light at Peters
Creek Road/Cove Road needs to be improved; schools understaffed; noise from trash
trucks; loss of wildlife habitat; and floodplain/erosion and sediment control impacts.
The Board of Supervisors voted to postpone action on this application until its January
25, 2022, meeting in order to receive the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) being prepared
for the applicant. Since that time, Roanoke County has received a TIA dated 1/14/2022,
and comments from Roanoke County schools (both of which are attached hereto).
Page 3 of 3
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact on this agenda item.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the second reading of an
ordinance to amend the proffered conditions on 12.15 acres zoned R -3C Medium
Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions.
Contact: Steve Schmidt, PE, PTOE
1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 300 • Richmond, VA 23225
(804) 200-6500 phone • (804) 560-1438 fax
www.timmons.com
Smith Ridge Commons
Traffic Impact Analysis
Roanoke County, Virginia
January 14, 2022
01-14-22
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis – Roanoke County, VA
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................................... I
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ II
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. III
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. IV
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1-1
2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 STUDY AREA LIMITS ........................................................................................................ 2-1
2.3 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK ........................................................................................... 2-1
2.4 FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................... 2-2
2.5 SITE IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................................................................... 2-2
2.6 OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................... 2-2
3 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................... 3-1
3.1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES .............................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 CAPACITY ANALYSES ........................................................................................................ 3-2
3.3 2022 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS .................................................................................. 3-4
4 ANALYSIS OF 2026 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT .............. 4-1
4.1 FUTURE BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES .............................................................................. 4-1
4.2 2026 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................. 4-1
5 TRIP GENERATION ..................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 TRIP GENERATION ........................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS ................................................................................................ 5-2
5.3 SITE TRIP ASSIGNMENTS................................................................................................... 5-2
6 ANALYSIS OF 2026 TOTAL CONDITIONS WITH DEVELOPMENT ................................. 6-1
6.1 2026 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES .......................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 2026 TOTAL TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 6-1
7 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 7-1
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis – Roanoke County, VA
ii
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Scoping Agreement
Appendix B – Traffic Counts
Appendix C – SYNCHRO & SimTraffic Analysis of 2022 Existing Conditions
Appendix D – SYNCHRO & SimTraffic Analysis of 2026 Background Conditions
Appendix E – SYNCHRO & SimTraffic Analysis of 2026 Total Conditions
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis – Roanoke County, VA
iii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3-1: LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................... 3-2
TABLE 3-2: UNSIGNALIZED AND SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA ............................................. 3-3
TABLE 3-3: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE, DELAY, AND QUEUE SUMMARY 2022 EXISTING TRAFFIC AND EXISTING
GEOMETRY ............................................................................................................................................................... 3-5
TABLE 4-1: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE, DELAY, AND QUEUE SUMMARY 2026 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4-
3
TABLE 5-1: TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 5-1
TABLE 6-1: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE, DELAY, AND QUEUE SUMMARY 2026 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........ 6-3
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis – Roanoke County, VA
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1: SITE LOCATION MAP AND STUDY INTERSECTIONS
FIGURE 1-2: SITE LAYOUT PLAN
FIGURE 2-1: EXISTING LANE USE AND TRAFFIC CONTROL
FIGURE 2-2: FUTURE LANE USE AND TRAFFIC CONTROL
FIGURE 3-1: 2022 EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIGURE 4-1: 2026 BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIGURE 5-1: SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS
FIGURE 5-2: SITE TRIPS
FIGURE 6-1: 2026 TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
1-1
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the findings of the traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed Smith
Ridge Commons development in Roanoke County, Virginia. The proposed development is located along
Cove Road, to the west of Peters Creek Road as shown on Figure 1-1 (all figures are located at the end
of their respective chapter).
The approximately 12-acre site is currently undeveloped and the Applicant is seeking to rezone the site to
permit the development of 216 residential dwelling units (apartments). Access to the site will be provided
via a full movement entrance on Cove Road and an exit only access point on Peters Creek Road. A site
layout plan is shown on Figure 1-2.
With development of the site, the Applicant will construct sidewalks internal to the site and provide an on-
site school bus stop.
While the parcel is wholly located within Roanoke County, the access points on Cove Road and Peters
Creek Road are located in the City of Roanoke and are on City maintained streets. This TIA was prepared
for the City (in conjunction with the County) since the traffic impacts occur on City maintained streets.
For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed the site will be complete and occupied by 2026.
When complete, the proposed development will generate a total of 90 AM peak hour trips (22 in and 68
out), 113 PM peak hour trips (71 in and 42 out), and 1,460 average daily trips.
The purpose of this analysis is to determine the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding
roadway network. The scope of this study was developed in conjunction with City of Roanoke staff at a
scoping meeting held (virtually) on December 9, 2021 and in subsequent correspondence. A copy of the
scope and correspondence is included in Appendix A.
In accordance with the scoping agreement, the study limits include the following existing intersections
(see Figure 1-3):
The study area shown in Figure 2-1 includes the following 5 intersections:
1. Green Ridge Road and Route 780 (Unsignalized);
2. Cove Road and Route 629 (Unsignalized);
3. Cove Road and Peters Creek Road (Signalized);
4. Peters Creek Road and North Lake Drive (Signalized); and
5. Peters Creek Road and School Entrance (Signalized).
Additionally, both site entrances will be analyzed in future conditions.
In accordance with the scoping agreement, analyses were completed for the following scenarios:
1. 2022 Existing Traffic Conditions;
2. 2026 Background Traffic Conditions (without development of the site); and
3. 2026 Future Traffic Conditions (with development of the site);
The following steps were taken to determine the potential traffic impacts associated with this project:
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
1-2
1. Data Collection –Weekday AM/PM peak hour traffic counts were collected at the study intersections in
January 2022. All 2022 traffic counts were compared/adjusted to account for the decrease in traffic
due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic (see detailed discussion in Chapter 3).
2. Background Traffic Growth – In order to be conservative, a 1% annual growth rate was applied to
existing traffic volumes to account for development outside the study area.
3. Trip Generation – Traffic generated by the proposed development was estimated using the 11th edition
of the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual.
4. Traffic Distributions – The distribution of trips generated by the proposed developed was based on
the existing traffic volumes, the nature of the use, and local knowledge.
5. Traffic Projections – Future traffic volumes were determined using the adjusted existing traffic counts,
a 1% growth rate on all existing intersection movements, and the trips generated by the site.
6. Traffic Capacity Analysis – Level of service calculations for existing, background, and future conditions
were performed using SYNCHRO Version 10 for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
7. Queuing Analysis – The 95th percentile (Synchro) and maximum (SimTraffic) queue lengths were
reviewed at the intersections listed above.
This traffic impact analysis (TIA) has been prepared in accordance with (1) the procedures outlined in the
Virginia Department of Transportation’s (VDOT) Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations (henceforth referred
to as Chapter 527), (2) the VDOT Traffic Operations and Safety Analysis Manual (TOSAM), and (3) the
Scope of Study agreed upon between the City of Roanoke and Timmons Group (see Appendix A for the
scoping agreement).
Based on the analyses the following is offered:
Under 2022 existing conditions:
1. At the Green Ridge Road/Route 780 intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements operate at
LOS A in both peak hours. The southbound (stop controlled) approach operates at LOS D in the
AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
2. At the Cove Road/Route 629 intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements operate at LOS A
in both peak hours. The southbound (stop controlled) approach operates at LOS C in both peak
hours. The northbound (stop controlled) approach operates at LOS C in the AM peak hour and
LOS B in the PM peak hour.
3. The signalized Cove Road/Peters Creek Road intersection operates at an overall LOS D in the AM
peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. The east and westbound (Cove Road) approaches
operate at LOS E in both peak hours. The north and southbound (Peters Creek Road) approaches
operate at LOS D in both peak hours.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues fill or exceed the available storage for the eastbound
right, westbound right, northbound left, and southbound left movements.
4. The signalized Peters Creek Road/North Lake Drive intersection operates at an overall LOS B in
both peak hours. All movements operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours with the exception
of the eastbound left which operates at LOS E in the PM peak hour.
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
1-3
The 95th percentile and maximum queues are contained in the available storage with the exception
of the eastbound right and southbound right queues which fill or exceed the available storage in
the AM peak hour.
5. The signalized Peters Creek Road/School Entrance intersection operates at an overall LOS C in the
AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour. The eastbound (school entrance) and westbound
(commercial entrance) approaches operate at LOS E in one or both peak hours. The north and
southbound (Peters Creek Road) approaches operate at LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in
the PM peak hour.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues are contained in the available storage with the exception
of the eastbound right and southbound right queues which fill or exceed the available storage in
the AM peak hour.
Under 2026 background conditions, the study intersections are generally anticipated to operate at similar
LOS and queueing to existing conditions. Specifically:
1. At the Green Ridge Road/Route 780 intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements will
continue to operate at LOS A in both peak hours. The southbound (stop controlled) approach will
continue to operate at LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
2. At the Cove Road/Route 629 intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements will continue to
operate at LOS A in both peak hours. The southbound (stop controlled) approach will operate at
LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour. The northbound (stop controlled)
approach will continue to operate at LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
3. The signalized Cove Road/Peters Creek Road intersection will continue to operate at an overall
LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. The east and westbound (Cove Road)
approaches will continue to operate at LOS E in both peak hours. The north and southbound
(Peters Creek Road) approaches will continue to operate at LOS D in both peak hours.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues will continue to fill or exceed the available storage for
the eastbound right, westbound right, northbound left, and southbound left movements.
4. The signalized Peters Creek Road/North Lake Drive intersection will continue to operate at an
overall LOS B in both peak hours. All movements will continue to operate at LOS D or better in
both peak hours with the exception of the eastbound left which will continue to operate at LOS E
in the PM peak hour.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues will be contained in the available storage with the
exception of the eastbound right and southbound right queues which will continue to fill or exceed
the available storage in the AM peak hour.
5. The signalized Peters Creek Road/School Entrance intersection will continue to operate at an
overall LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour. The eastbound (school
entrance) and westbound (commercial entrance) approaches will continue to operate at LOS E in
one or both peak hours. The north and southbound (Peters Creek Road) approaches operate at
LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
1-4
The 95th percentile and maximum queues will be contained in the available storage with the
exception of the eastbound right and southbound right.
Under 2026 future conditions, with development of the site, the study intersections are generally
anticipated to operate at similar LOS and queueing to background conditions. Specifically:
1. No improvements are required at any of the study intersection to mitigate the traffic from the site.
2. At the Green Ridge Road/Route 780 intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements will
continue to operate at LOS A in both peak hours. The southbound (stop controlled) approach will
continue to operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours.
3. At the Cove Road/Route 629 intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements will continue to
operate at LOS A in both peak hours. The southbound (stop controlled) approach will operate at
LOS D in both peak hours. The northbound (stop controlled) approach will continue to operate at
LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
4. At the Cove Road/Site Drive intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements will operate at LOS
A in both peak hours. The eastbound left turns and westbound right turns into the site will operate
at LOS A with less than 1.0 second/vehicle of delay. The southbound (stop-controlled) movement
will operate at LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
5. The signalized Cove Road/Peters Creek Road intersection will continue to operate at an overall
LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. The east and westbound (Cove Road)
approaches will operate at LOS E or F in both peak hours. The north and southbound (Peters
Creek Road) approaches will continue to operate at LOS D in both peak hours.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues will continue to fill or exceed the available storage for
the eastbound right, westbound right, northbound left, and southbound left movements.
6. At the Peters Creek Road/Site Exit intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements will operate
at LOS A in both peak hours. The eastbound right turns leaving the site will operate at LOS B in
both peak hours.
7. The signalized Peters Creek Road/North Lake Drive intersection will continue to operate at an
overall LOS B in both peak hours. All movements will continue to operate at LOS D or better in
both peak hours with the exception of the eastbound left which will continue to operate at LOS E
in the PM peak hour.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues will be contained in the available storage with the
exception of the eastbound right and southbound right queues which will continue to fill or exceed
the available storage in the AM peak hour.
8. The signalized Peters Creek Road/School Entrance intersection will continue to operate at an
overall LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour. The eastbound (school
entrance) and westbound (commercial entrance) approaches will continue to operate at LOS E in
one or both peak hours. The north and southbound (Peters Creek Road) approaches operate at
LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
1-5
The 95th percentile and maximum queues will be contained in the available storage with the
exception of the eastbound right and southbound right queues which will continue to fill or exceed
the available storage in the AM peak hour.
Figure
1-1
NOT TO SCALE
Smith Ridge Commons
Site Location Map and Study Intersections
Roanoke County, Virginia
2 4
1
6
7
LEGEND:
Proposed Site
Study Intersections
Future Intersections
X
X
N
3
5
Figure
1-2
Smith Ridge Commons
Site Layout Plan
Roanoke County, Virginia
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
2-1
2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT
The approximately 12-acre site is currently undeveloped and the Applicant is seeking to rezone the site to
permit the development of 216 residential dwelling units (apartments). Access to the site will be provided
via a full movement entrance on Cove Road and an exit only access point on Peters Creek Road. A site
layout plan is shown on Figure 1-2.
With development of the site, the Applicant will construct sidewalks internal to the site and provide an on-
site school bus stop.
While the parcel is wholly located within Roanoke County, the access points on Cove Road and Peters
Creek Road are located in the City of Roanoke and are on City maintained streets. This TIA was prepared
for the City (in conjunction with the County) since the traffic impacts occur on City maintained streets.
For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed the site will be complete and occupied by 2026.
2.2 STUDY AREA LIMITS
The study area shown in Figure 1-1 includes the following 5 intersections:
1. Green Ridge Road and Route 780 (Unsignalized);
2. Cove Road and Route 629 (Unsignalized);
3. Cove Road and Peters Creek Road (Signalized);
4. Peters Creek Road and North Lake Drive (Signalized); and
5. Peters Creek Road and Northside High School Road (Signalized).
Additionally, both site entrances will be analyzed in future conditions.
2.3 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK
Cove Road is a two-lane, undivided major collector road with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. According
to 2019 VDOT AADT data, Cove Road services 2,600 vehicles per day between the Roanoke City Limits
and Green Ridge Road. For purposes of this analysis, Cove Road is assumed to run east-west through
the study area.
Green Ridge Road is a two-lane, undivided minor collector road with a posted speed limit of 35 mph.
According to 2019 VDOT AADT data, Green Ridge Road services 2,300 vehicles per day in the vicinity of
the site. For purposes of this analysis, Green Ridge Road is assumed to run east-west through the study
area.
Peters Creek Road (Route 117) is a four-lane, divided minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 45 mph.
According to 2019 VDOT AADT data, Peters Creek Road services 19,000 vehicles per day north of Cove
Road and 16,000 vehicles per day south of Cove Road. For purposes of this analysis, Peters Creek Road
is assumed to run north-south through the study area.
North Lake Drive is a two-lane, undivided local road with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. According to
2019 VDOT AADT data, North Lake Drive services 3,200 vehicles per day between Peters Creek Road and
Twilight Road. For purposes of this analysis, North Lake Drive was assumed to run east-west at the
intersection with Peters Creek Road.
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
2-2
The existing lane use and traffic control at the study intersections is shown on Figure 2-1.
2.4 FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
There are no planned or funded improvements within the study area outside of the improvements
proposed by the site.
2.5 SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Access to the site will be provided via a full movement entrance on Cove Road and an exit only access
point on Peters Creek Road.
With development of the site, the Applicant will construct sidewalks internal to the site and provide an on-
site school bus stop.
The future lane use and traffic control is shown on Figure 2-2.
2.6 OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
This study also reviews the potential for walking, bicycling, and transit trips to and from the area.
Currently, there no sidewalks or pedestrian facilities along the major roadways in the study area.
Peters Creek Road has on-street bicycle lanes in both directions throughout the study area. There are no
bicycle facilities on the other study area roadways.
Valley Metro provides local bus service within the vicinity of the site with the nearest stop located at the
Food Lion in the southeast quadrant of the Peters Creek Road/Cove Road intersection.
While it is possible that some trips to the site will be made via walking, bicycle, and transit, given the
nature of the use and the limited provided facilities, it is unlikely that a significant portion of trips would
be made via these modes. To be conservative, no reduction in trips was taken for other modes of
transportation.
Figure
2-1
Smith Ridge Commons
Existing Lane Use and Traffic Control
Roanoke County, Virginia
1
2
6
7
4
LEGEND:
Signalized Intersection
Stop Controlled Intersection
Stop Controlled Approach
Turning Movement
Effective Storage (in feet)*
*According to TOSAM guidelines, effective storage is the length
of the full width storage plus ½ the length of the taper
S’
Ro
u
t
e
78
0
1 3
S’=190’
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
4
6 7
NOT TO SCALE
N
3
5
Green
Ridge Rd.
Cove
Road
Ro
u
t
e
62
9
2
Cove
Road
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
Cove
Road
S’=95’
S’
=
1
9
0
’
S’
=
1
8
0
’
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
N. Lake
Drive
S’
=
2
0
0
’
Comm.
Ent.
S’
=
1
7
0
’
S’=120’
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
School
Ent.
S’
=
2
6
0
’
Comm.
Ent.
5
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
S’=120’
S’=95’
S’
=
3
2
0
’
S’
=
2
2
0
’
S’
=
2
8
0
’
Figure
2-2
Smith Ridge Commons
Future Lane Use and Traffic Control
Roanoke County, Virginia
1
2
6
7
4
LEGEND:
Signalized Intersection
Stop Controlled Intersection
Stop Controlled Approach
Turning Movement
Effective Storage (in feet)*
*According to TOSAM guidelines, effective storage is the length
of the full width storage plus ½ the length of the taper
S’
Ro
u
t
e
78
0
1 3
S’=190’
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
4
6 7
NOT TO SCALE
N
3
5
Green
Ridge Rd.
Cove
Road
Ro
u
t
e
62
92
Cove
Road
Cove
Road
S’=95’
S’
=
1
9
0
’
S’
=
1
8
0
’
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
N. Lake
Drive
S’
=
2
0
0
’
Comm.
Ent.
S’
=
1
7
0
’
S’=120’
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
School
Ent.
S’
=
2
6
0
’
Comm.
Ent.
5
S’=120’
S’=95’
S’
=
3
2
0
’
S’
=
2
2
0
’
S’
=
2
8
0
’
Si
t
e
Dr
i
v
e
Cove
Road
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
Site Drive
(Exit Only)
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
3-1
3 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Existing count data was obtained from a peak hour directional turning movement count at each of the
five (5) intersections noted above. The peak hour counts were collected in January 2022 from 7:00 AM
to 9:00 AM and from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. The peak hour counts included heavy vehicles by movement
and pedestrian counts.
As noted above, this analysis was conducted during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic which has impacted
typical traffic patterns. As such, all counts used in the analysis were compared to prior counts and adjusted
to account for any decrease in traffic.
Specifically, the 2022 hourly counts along Peters Creek Road were compared to 2019 VDOT traffic count
data. During the PM peak hour, the 2019 counts indicate a total of 1,843 vehicles along Peters Creek
Road. The 2022 counts indicate a total of 1,586 vehicles along Peters Creek Road, or a reduction of 14%.
Therefore, to account for the reduction in traffic due to the ongoing pandemic, all 2022 traffic count data
was increased by 15%.
The counts indicate the AM peak hour generally occurs from 7:30 to 8:30 AM and the PM peak hour occurs
from 4:30 to 5:30 PM. The existing traffic data with all adjustments is summarized on Figure 3-1 and the
complete traffic data is included in Appendix B.
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
3-2
3.2 CAPACITY ANALYSES
Capacity analysis allows traffic engineers to determine the impacts of traffic on the surrounding roadway
network. The Highway Capacity Manual methodologies govern how the capacity analyses are conducted
and how the results are interpreted. Levels of service (LOS) are determined for each part of the roadway
network. The general standard for an overall intersection is LOS D representing acceptable results and
the standard for individual traffic movements is LOS E. Table 3-1 shows in detail how each of these levels
of service are interpreted.
Table 3-1: Level of Service Definitions
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
3-3
For both unsignalized and signalized intersections, level of service is defined in terms of delay, a measure
of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Table 3-2 summarizes the delay
associated with each LOS category:
Table 3-2: Unsignalized and Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria
Capacity analyses were performed to assess existing (2022), background (2026), and future (2026)
operational conditions. These intersections, both signalized and unsignalized, were analyzed using
SYNCHRO Version 10 based on 2000 HCM methodologies (see note below) with the following assumptions:
· Level terrain;
· 12-foot lane widths;
· No parking activity or bus stops;
· Existing peak hour factor as determined by the traffic counts (by intersection);
· Heavy vehicle percentage as determined by the traffic counts (by movement); and
· Traffic signals timing data provided by the City. The cycle length, timings, and offsets were held
consistent across all scenarios.
HCM 2000 methodologies were utilized in the analysis due to limitations in HCM 2010 and HCM 6 when it
comes to phasing. HCM 2010 and HCM 6 do not allow for non-NEMA phasing which the City is using at
several of the study intersection.
The maximum queues reported by SimTraffic are the average simulated maximum queues after 10 runs
of 60 minutes each.
A ≤ 10 A 0 to 10
B > 10 to ≤ 20 B > 10 to ≤ 15
C > 20 to ≤ 35 C > 15 to ≤ 25
D > 35 to ≤ 55 D > 25 to ≤ 35
E > 55 to ≤ 80 E > 35 to ≤ 50
F > 80 F > 50
Source: Exhibit 16-2 and Exhibit 17-2 from
TRB's "Highway Capacity Manual 2000"
Signalized Intersections
Level of
Service
Level of
Service
Control Delay per
Vehicle (sec/veh)
Unsignalized Intersections
Average Control
Delay (sec/veh)
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
3-4
3.3 2022 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Table 3-3 summarizes the 2022 existing intersection LOS, delay, 95th percentile (Synchro) and maximum
(SimTraffic) queue lengths based on the 2022 existing peak hour traffic volumes shown on Figure 3-1,
the existing lane geometry shown on Figure 2-1, and the existing traffic signal timings. The corresponding
SYNCHRO worksheets are included in Appendix C.
As shown in Table 3-3:
1. At the Green Ridge Road/Route 780 intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements operate at
LOS A in both peak hours. The southbound (stop controlled) approach operates at LOS D in the
AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
2. At the Cove Road/Route 629 intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements operate at LOS A
in both peak hours. The southbound (stop controlled) approach operates at LOS C in both peak
hours. The northbound (stop controlled) approach operates at LOS C in the AM peak hour and
LOS B in the PM peak hour.
3. The signalized Cove Road/Peters Creek Road intersection operates at an overall LOS D in the AM
peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. The east and westbound (Cove Road) approaches
operate at LOS E in both peak hours. The north and southbound (Peters Creek Road) approaches
operate at LOS D in both peak hours.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues fill or exceed the available storage for the eastbound
right, westbound right, northbound left, and southbound left movements.
4. The signalized Peters Creek Road/North Lake Drive intersection operates at an overall LOS B in
both peak hours. All movements operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours with the exception
of the eastbound left which operates at LOS E in the PM peak hour.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues are contained in the available storage with the exception
of the eastbound right and southbound right queues which fill or exceed the available storage in
the AM peak hour.
5. The signalized Peters Creek Road/School Entrance intersection operates at an overall LOS C in the
AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour. The eastbound (school entrance) and westbound
(commercial entrance) approaches operate at LOS E in one or both peak hours. The north and
southbound (Peters Creek Road) approaches operate at LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in
the PM peak hour.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues are contained in the available storage with the exception
of the eastbound right and southbound right queues which fill or exceed the available storage in
the AM peak hour.
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
3-5
Table 3-3: Intersection Level of Service, Delay, and Queue Summary
2022 Existing Traffic and Existing Geometry
Delay 1
(sec/veh)LOS 1
SYNCHRO
95th
Percentile
Queue
Length (ft)
SimTraffic
Maximum
Queue
Length (ft)
Delay 1
(sec/veh)LOS 1
SYNCHRO
95th
Percentile
Queue
Length (ft)
SimTraffic
Maximum
Queue
Length (ft)
1. Green Ridge Road (E-W) at EB Left-Thru 1.0 A 2 75 0.6 A 1 81
Route 780 (S)EB Approach 1.0 A -- -- 0.6 A -- --
Unsignalized WB Thru-Right 0.0 A 0 8 0.0 A 0 0
WB Approach 0.0 A -- -- 0.0 A -- --
SB Left-Right 26.1 D 81 128 18.9 B 38 84
SB Approach 26.1 D -- -- 18.9 B -- --
2. Cove Road (E-W) at EB L-T-R 1.7 A 5 72 2.8 A 8 131
Route 629/ Lancelot Lane (N-S)EB Approach 1.7 A -- -- 2.8 A -- --
Unsignalized WB L-T-R 1.5 A 3 62 1.3 A 4 109
WB Approach 1.5 A -- -- 1.3 A -- --
NB L-T-R 16.3 C 17 70 14.8 B 11 65
NB Approach 16.3 C -- -- 14.8 B -- --
SB L-T-R 23.6 C 64 116 30.0 C 63 125
SB Approach 23.6 C -- -- 30.0 C -- --
4. Peters Creek Road (N-S) at EB Left-Thru 69.1 E #536 553 73.9 E #473 588
Cove Road (E-W) EB Right 190 35.4 D 9 190 40.2 D 15 190
Signalized EB Approach 63.8 E -- -- 67.4 E -- --
WB Left-Thru 69.2 E #246 294 86.0 F #476 779
WB Right 95 49.5 D 1 95 43.2 D 29 95
WB Approach 63.7 E -- -- 76.2 E -- --
NB Left 190 62.0 E 78 190 63.7 E 136 190
NB Thru 36.7 D 335 318 45.4 D 397 363
NB Thru-Right 36.7 D 335 285 45.4 D 397 340
NB Approach 38.3 D -- -- 47.4 D -- --
SB Left 180 62.1 E 92 179 74.1 E #177 180
SB Thru 37.3 D 353 359 46.7 D 418 383
SB Thru-Right 37.3 D 353 384 46.7 D 418 405
SB Approach 39.1 D -- -- 50.0 D -- --
Overall 47.1 D -- -- 56.1 E -- --
6. Peters Creek Road (N-S) at EB Left 54.9 D 252 372 63.2 E 173 251
N. Lake Drive(E-W) EB Right 120 34.7 C 12 120 47.9 D 35 58
Signalized EB Approach 51.1 D -- -- 59.4 E -- --
WB L-T-R 34.4 C 0 50 47.7 D 0 39
WB Approach 34.4 C -- -- 47.7 D -- --
NB Left 200 9.3 A 31 107 7.0 A m26 142
NB Thru 11.2 B 276 260 8.3 A m133 238
NB Thru-Right 11.2 B 276 260 8.3 A m133 250
NB Approach 11.1 B -- -- 8.2 A -- --
SB Left-Thru 18.4 B 160 311 9.7 A 136 220
SB Thru 18.4 B 160 330 9.7 A 136 224
SB Right 170 19.8 B m25 169 5.7 A 16 141
SB Approach 18.6 B -- -- 9.1 A -- --
Overall 19.8 B -- -- 13.0 B -- --
7. Peters Creek Road (N-S) at EB Left-Thru 756.0 F #374 500 60.1 E 22 36
School Entrance (E-W) EB Right 120 39.6 D 36 120 59.3 E 0 31
Signalized EB Approach 65.5 E -- -- 59.5 E -- --
WB Left-Thru 56.3 E 47 79 60.7 E 50 68
WB Right 95 53.8 D 0 77 58.3 E 7 80
WB Approach 54.6 D -- -- 58.9 E -- --
NB Left 260 79.7 E #236 235 67.5 E m36 77
NB Thru 16.4 B 240 296 18.0 B 457 290
NB Right 320 15.4 B m0 51 8.3 A 10 55
NB Approach 24.9 C -- -- 18.2 B -- --
SB Left 250 59.2 E 57 195 61.5 E 76 90
SB Thru 30.5 C 385 408 9.8 A 326 194
SB Right 280 24.1 C 50 279 6.6 A 0 22
SB Approach 28.9 C -- -- 11.7 B -- --
Overall 32.8 C -- -- 17.2 B -- --
1 Overall intersection LOS and delay reported for signalized intersections only.
# - 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m - Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Intersection and
Type of Control
Movement and
Approach
Effective
Turn
Lane
Storage
(ft)
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Ro
u
t
e
62
9
Figure
3-1
Smith Ridge Commons
2022 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Roanoke County, Virginia
1
2
6
7
4
Ro
u
t
e
78
0
1 3
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
4
7
NOT TO SCALE
N
3
5
Green
Ridge Rd.
Cove
Road
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
Cove
Road
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
School
Ent.
Comm.
Ent.
5
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
LEGEND:
Signalized Intersection
Stop Controlled Intersection
Stop Controlled Approach
Turning Movement
AM Peak Hour Volumes
PM Peak Hour Volumes
00
(00)
6
2
Cove
Road
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
N. Lake
Drive
Comm.
Ent.
(16) 26
(332) 277
95 (109)
219 (355)
28
(
3
9
)
12
8
(
8
9
)
(95) 59
(320) 363
(14) 5
21 (75)
205 (399)
35 (53)
(197) 276
(146) 112
(82) 71
62 (94)
91 (207)
70 (109)
(9
0
)
4
1
(6
3
3
)
5
6
2
(1
4
1
)
5
4
14
8
(
2
3
3
)
50
9
(
5
6
0
)
52
(
1
0
7
)
(5) 263
(2) 7
(16) 105
43 (71)
9 (2)
14 (22)
(1
5
)
1
4
7
(1
0
4
7
)
9
1
0
(4
8
)
3
3
46
0
(
3
7
)
84
9
(
1
0
1
1
)
30
(
4
3
)
(133) 231
(1) 0
(44) 53
1 (9)
0 (0)
1 (3)
(9
2
)
4
0
(8
9
1
)
8
6
5
(3
)
3
91
(
1
4
4
)
73
8
(
8
5
3
)
6
(
3
)
(6
)
1
0
(0
)
0
(4
5
)
4
7
98
(
8
3
)
0
(
0
)
46
(
4
2
)
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
4-1
4 ANALYSIS OF 2026 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT
The background 2026 volumes were analyzed assuming existing intersection geometry in conjunction with
projected background traffic volumes.
As discussed during scoping, there are no other approved developments in the study area and therefore,
the background traffic volumes were developed based on a 1% annual growth rate.
4.1 FUTURE BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The 1% annual growth rate was compounded annually for the four-year period from 2022 to 2026 and
applied to all movements at the study intersections. The resulting 2026 background traffic volumes are
shown on Figure 4-1.
4.2 2026 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Table 4-1 summarizes the 2026 background intersection LOS, delay, 95th percentile (Synchro) and
maximum (SimTraffic) queue lengths based on the 2026 background peak hour traffic volumes shown on
Figure 4-1, the existing lane geometry shown on Figure 2-1, and the existing traffic signal timings. The
corresponding SYNCHRO worksheets are included in Appendix D.
As shown in Table 4-1, under 2026 background conditions, the study intersections are generally
anticipated to operate at similar LOS and queueing to existing conditions. Specifically:
1. At the Green Ridge Road/Route 780 intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements will
continue to operate at LOS A in both peak hours. The southbound (stop controlled) approach will
continue to operate at LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
2. At the Cove Road/Route 629 intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements will continue to
operate at LOS A in both peak hours. The southbound (stop controlled) approach will operate at
LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour. The northbound (stop controlled)
approach will continue to operate at LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
3. The signalized Cove Road/Peters Creek Road intersection will continue to operate at an overall
LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. The east and westbound (Cove Road)
approaches will continue to operate at LOS E in both peak hours. The north and southbound
(Peters Creek Road) approaches will continue to operate at LOS D in both peak hours.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues will continue to fill or exceed the available storage for
the eastbound right, westbound right, northbound left, and southbound left movements.
4. The signalized Peters Creek Road/North Lake Drive intersection will continue to operate at an
overall LOS B in both peak hours. All movements will continue to operate at LOS D or better in
both peak hours with the exception of the eastbound left which will continue to operate at LOS E
in the PM peak hour.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues will be contained in the available storage with the
exception of the eastbound right and southbound right queues which will continue to fill or exceed
the available storage in the AM peak hour.
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
4-2
5. The signalized Peters Creek Road/School Entrance intersection will continue to operate at an
overall LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour. The eastbound (school
entrance) and westbound (commercial entrance) approaches will continue to operate at LOS E in
one or both peak hours. The north and southbound (Peters Creek Road) approaches operate at
LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues will be contained in the available storage with the
exception of the eastbound right and southbound right queues which will continue to fill or exceed
the available storage in the AM peak hour.
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
4-3
Table 4-1: Intersection Level of Service, Delay, and Queue Summary
2026 Background Traffic Volumes
Delay 1
(sec/veh)LOS 1
SYNCHRO
95th
Percentile
Queue
Length (ft)
SimTraffic
Maximum
Queue
Length (ft)
Delay 1
(sec/veh)LOS 1
SYNCHRO
95th
Percentile
Queue
Length (ft)
SimTraffic
Maximum
Queue
Length (ft)
1. Green Ridge Road (E-W) at EB Left-Thru 1.0 A 2 83 0.6 A 1 65
Route 780 (S)EB Approach 1.0 A -- -- 0.6 A -- --
Unsignalized WB Thru-Right 0.0 A 0 4 0.0 A 0 11
WB Approach 0.0 A -- -- 0.0 A -- --
SB Left-Right 29.1 D 94 143 20.1 C 43 98
SB Approach 29.1 D -- -- 20.1 C -- --
2. Cove Road (E-W) at EB L-T-R 1.7 A 5 92 2.9 A 9 147
Route 629/ Lancelot Lane (N-S)EB Approach 1.7 A -- -- 2.9 A -- --
Unsignalized WB L-T-R 1.5 A 3 70 1.4 A 4 116
WB Approach 1.5 A -- -- 1.4 A -- --
NB L-T-R 16.9 C 18 68 15.3 B 12 62
NB Approach 16.9 C -- -- 15.3 B -- --
SB L-T-R 26.2 D 75 145 34.8 C 76 125
SB Approach 26.2 D -- -- 34.8 C -- --
4. Peters Creek Road (N-S) at EB Left-Thru 74.1 E #570 606 79.5 E #503 664
Cove Road (E-W) EB Right 190 35.1 D 11 190 40.0 D 19 190
Signalized EB Approach 68.1 E -- -- 71.9 E -- --
WB Left-Thru 71.1 E #262 328 88.6 F #499 826
WB Right 95 49.3 D 4 95 42.8 D 33 95
WB Approach 65.1 E -- -- 78.1 E -- --
NB Left 190 62.1 E 79 189 64.3 E 142 190
NB Thru 38.2 D 353 322 48.3 D 419 381
NB Thru-Right 38.2 D 353 289 48.3 D 419 360
NB Approach 39.7 D -- -- 50.0 D -- --
SB Left 180 61.9 E 93 178 73.9 E #192 180
SB Thru 38.7 D 372 359 50.1 D 463 440
SB Thru-Right 38.7 D 372 387 50.1 D 463 455
SB Approach 40.4 D -- -- 52.9 D -- --
Overall 49.1 D -- -- 59.0 E -- --
6. Peters Creek Road (N-S) at EB Left 54.6 D 259 349 63.1 E 178 237
N. Lake Drive(E-W) EB Right 120 34.1 C 14 120 47.6 D 35 65
Signalized EB Approach 50.8 D -- -- 59.2 E -- --
WB L-T-R 33.8 C 0 33 47.4 D 0 49
WB Approach 33.8 C -- -- 47.4 D -- --
NB Left 200 9.9 A 33 89 7.6 A m27 140
NB Thru 11.8 B 297 269 8.9 A m139 219
NB Thru-Right 11.8 B 297 286 8.9 A m139 229
NB Approach 11.8 B -- -- 8.8 A -- --
SB Left-Thru 18.5 B 176 356 9.7 A 125 246
SB Thru 18.5 B 176 372 9.7 A 125 270
SB Right 170 19.4 B m28 170 4.5 A 13 158
SB Approach 18.6 B -- -- 8.9 A -- --
Overall 20.0 B -- -- 13.1 B -- --
7. Peters Creek Road (N-S) at EB Left-Thru 79.4 E #395 547 60.1 E 22 49
School Entrance (E-W) EB Right 120 39.3 D 40 120 59.3 E 0 35
Signalized EB Approach 68.2 E -- -- 59.5 E -- --
WB Left-Thru 56.3 E 48 69 60.7 E 51 83
WB Right 95 53.7 D 0 74 58.3 E 10 83
WB Approach 54.6 D -- -- 58.9 E -- --
NB Left 260 84.1 F #249 244 68.0 E m35 73
NB Thru 17.5 B 267 283 18.5 B 480 306
NB Right 320 15.7 B m1 86 8.4 A 10 117
NB Approach 26.4 C -- -- 18.7 B -- --
SB Left 250 59.4 E 57 219 61.6 E 77 101
SB Thru 32.0 C 406 382 10.1 B 345 204
SB Right 280 24.8 C 51 271 6.7 A 0 20
SB Approach 30.1 C -- -- 12.0 B -- --
Overall 34.2 C -- -- 17.6 B -- --
1 Overall intersection LOS and delay reported for signalized intersections only.
† SYNCHRO does not provide level of service or delay for unsignalized movements with no conflicting volumes.
# - 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m - Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Intersection and
Type of Control
Movement and
Approach
Effective
Turn
Lane
Storage
(ft)
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Ro
u
t
e
62
9
Figure
4-1
Smith Ridge Commons
2026 Background Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Roanoke County, Virginia
1
2
6
7
4
Ro
u
t
e
78
0
1 3
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
4
7
NOT TO SCALE
N
3
5
Green
Ridge Rd.
Cove
Road
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
Cove
Road
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
School
Ent.
Comm.
Ent.
5
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
LEGEND:
Signalized Intersection
Stop Controlled Intersection
Stop Controlled Approach
Turning Movement
AM Peak Hour Volumes
PM Peak Hour Volumes
00
(00)
6
2
Cove
Road
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
N. Lake
Drive
Comm.
Ent.
(17) 27
(345) 288
99 (113)
228 (369)
29
(
4
1
)
13
3
(
9
3
)
(99) 61
(333) 378
(15) 5
22 (78)
213 (415)
36 (55)
(205) 287
(152) 117
(85) 74
65 (98)
95 (215)
73 (113)
(9
4
)
4
3
(6
5
9
)
5
8
5
(1
4
7
)
5
6
15
4
(
2
4
2
)
53
0
(
5
8
3
)
54
(
1
1
1
)
(5) 274
(2) 7
(17) 109
45 (74)
9 (2)
15 (23)
(1
5
)
1
5
3
(1
0
9
0
)
9
4
7
(5
0
)
3
4
47
9
(
3
9
)
88
3
(
1
0
5
2
)
31
(
4
5
)
(138) 240
(1) 0
(46) 55
1 (9)
0 (0)
1 (3)
(9
6
)
4
2
(9
2
7
)
9
0
0
(3
)
3
95
(
1
5
0
)
76
8
(
8
8
8
)
6
(
3
)
(6
)
1
0
(0
)
0
(4
7
)
4
9
10
2
(
8
6
)
0
(
0
)
48
(
4
4
)
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
5-1
5 TRIP GENERATION
Site traffic for the proposed development was estimated based on the site characteristics and subsequently
distributed to the surrounding roadway network.
The approximately 12-acre site is currently undeveloped and the Applicant is seeking to rezone the site to
permit the development of 216 residential dwelling units (apartments). Access to the site will be provided
via a full movement entrance on Cove Road and an exit only access point on Peters Creek Road. A site
layout plan is shown on Figure 1-2.
With development of the site, the Applicant will construct sidewalks internal to the site and provide an on-
site school bus stop.
While the parcel is wholly located within Roanoke County, the access points on Cove Road and Peters
Creek Road are located in the City of Roanoke and are on City maintained streets. This TIA was prepared
for the City (in conjunction with the County) since the traffic impacts occur on City maintained streets.
For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed the site will be complete and occupied by 2026.
5.1 TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation was completed using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
Manual, 11th edition. The site-generated traffic volumes shown in Table 5-1 was estimated using the 11th
edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and was calculated
using the number of units as the independent variable.
Table 5-1: Trip Generation Summary
As shown in Table 5-1, when complete, the proposed development will generate a total of 90 AM peak
hour trips (22 in and 68 out), 113 PM peak hour trips (71 in and 42 out), and 1,460 average daily trips.
Buildout
Land Use Average
Land Use Size Units Code In Out Total In Out Total Daily Trips
ITE Trip Generation(1)
Proposed Development
Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise) 216 DU 220 22 68 90 71 42 113 1,460
Note: (1) Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 11th Edition. Assumes General Urban/Suburban land use category.
Weekday
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
5-2
5.2 SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS
The distribution of site trips generated by the development was based on the existing travel patterns, the
nature of the use, and local knowledge.
The following directional distributions were assumed:
- To/From the North on Peters Creek Road – 55%
- To/From the East on Cove Road – 10%
- To/From the South on Peters Creek Road – 10%
- To/From the West on Cove Road – 25%
The regional distributions were then applied to the study intersections as shown on Figure 5-1. Please
note that due to the exit only site drive on Peters Creek Road, some traffic enters the network through
one study intersection and exits through a difference study intersection.
5.3 SITE TRIP ASSIGNMENTS
The trip distribution percentages for the site trips shown on Figure 5-1 were applied to the trip generation
shown in Table 5-1 to distribute the site trips to the surrounding roadway network. The resulting site
generated trips are shown on Figure 5-2.
Figure
5-1
Smith Ridge Commons
Site Trip Distributions
Roanoke County, Virginia
1
2
6
7
4
NOT TO SCALE
N
3
5
LEGEND:
Signalized Intersection
Stop Controlled Intersection
Stop Controlled Approach
Turning Movement
Inbound Distribution
Outbound Distribution
00
(00)
Ro
u
t
e
78
0
1
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
4
7
Green
Ridge Rd.
Cove
Road
Cove
Road
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
School
Ent.
Comm.
Ent.
6
Ro
u
t
e
62
9
2
Cove
Road
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
N. Lake
Drive
Comm.
Ent.
25%
(25%)
25%
(25%)
(55%)
(5%)
(5%)
10%
10
%
55
%
(5
%
)
(5
%
)
(5
5
%
)
55
%
3
5
Si
t
e
Dr
i
v
e
Cove
Road
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
Site Drive
(Exit Only)
25%
75%
(2
5
%
)
(6
5
%
)
(10%)
55
%
(5
5
%
)
Overall Distributions
55% To/from North on Peters Creek Rd.
10% To/from East on Cove Rd.
10% To/from South on Peters Creek Rd.
25% To/from West on Cove Rd.
(5
5
%
)
55
%
Figure
5-2
Smith Ridge Commons
Site Generated Trips
Roanoke County, Virginia
1
2
6
7
4
NOT TO SCALE
N
3
5
LEGEND:
Signalized Intersection
Stop Controlled Intersection
Stop Controlled Approach
Turning Movement
AM Peak Hour Volumes
PM Peak Hour Volumes
00
(00)
Ro
u
t
e
78
0
1
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
4
7
Green
Ridge Rd.
Cove
Road
Cove
Road
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
School
Ent.
Comm.
Ent.
6
Ro
u
t
e
62
9
2
Cove
Road
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
N. Lake
Drive
Comm.
Ent.
(18) 6
17 (11)
(23) 37
(2) 3
(2) 3
2 (7)
(7
)
2
12
(
3
9
)
3
(
2
)
4
(
2
)
3
5
Si
t
e
Dr
i
v
e
Cove
Road
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
Site Drive
(Exit Only)
(18) 6
16 (53)
17
(
1
1
)
44
(
2
7
)
(4) 7
12
(
3
9
)
(2
3
)
3
7
(18) 6
17 (11)
(2
3
)
3
7
12
(
3
9
)
(2
3
)
3
7
12
(
3
9
)
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
6-1
6 ANALYSIS OF 2026 TOTAL CONDITIONS WITH DEVELOPMENT
To complete the analysis of the 2026 total conditions (with the proposed development), the estimated
site trips were added to the background 2026 volumes. The projected volumes were then used to
complete the capacity analysis.
6.1 2026 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES
To generate the 2026 total future traffic volumes, the site trips shown in Figure 5-2 were added to the
background 2026 traffic volumes shown in Figure 4-1. The resulting 2026 future volumes are shown in
Figure 6-1.
6.2 2026 TOTAL TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Table 6-1 summarizes the 2026 future intersection LOS, delay, 95th percentile (Synchro) and maximum
(SimTraffic) queue lengths based on the 2026 future peak hour traffic volumes shown on Figure 6-1, the
future lane geometry shown on Figure 2-2, and the existing traffic signal timings. The corresponding
SYNCHRO worksheets are included in Appendix E.
As shown in Table 6-1, under 2026 total conditions, the study intersections are generally anticipated to
operate at similar LOS and queueing to background conditions. Specifically:
1. No improvements are required at any of the study intersection to mitigate the traffic from the site.
2. At the Green Ridge Road/Route 780 intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements will
continue to operate at LOS A in both peak hours. The southbound (stop controlled) approach will
continue to operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours.
3. At the Cove Road/Route 629 intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements will continue to
operate at LOS A in both peak hours. The southbound (stop controlled) approach will operate at
LOS D in both peak hours. The northbound (stop controlled) approach will continue to operate at
LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
4. At the Cove Road/Site Drive intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements will operate at LOS
A in both peak hours. The eastbound left turns and westbound right turns into the site will operate
at LOS A with less than 1.0 second/vehicle of delay. The southbound (stop-controlled) movement
will operate at LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
5. The signalized Cove Road/Peters Creek Road intersection will continue to operate at an overall
LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. The east and westbound (Cove Road)
approaches will operate at LOS E or F in both peak hours. The north and southbound (Peters
Creek Road) approaches will continue to operate at LOS D in both peak hours.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues will continue to fill or exceed the available storage for
the eastbound right, westbound right, northbound left, and southbound left movements.
6. At the Peters Creek Road/Site Exit intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements will operate
at LOS A in both peak hours. The eastbound right turns leaving the site will operate at LOS B in
both peak hours.
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
6-2
7. The signalized Peters Creek Road/North Lake Drive intersection will continue to operate at an
overall LOS B in both peak hours. All movements will continue to operate at LOS D or better in
both peak hours with the exception of the eastbound left which will continue to operate at LOS E
in the PM peak hour.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues will be contained in the available storage with the
exception of the eastbound right and southbound right queues which will continue to fill or exceed
the available storage in the AM peak hour.
8. The signalized Peters Creek Road/School Entrance intersection will continue to operate at an
overall LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour. The eastbound (school
entrance) and westbound (commercial entrance) approaches will continue to operate at LOS E in
one or both peak hours. The north and southbound (Peters Creek Road) approaches operate at
LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues will be contained in the available storage with the
exception of the eastbound right and southbound right queues which will continue to fill or exceed
the available storage in the AM peak hour.
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
6-3
Table 6-1: Intersection Level of Service, Delay, and Queue Summary
2026 Future Traffic Volumes
Delay 1
(sec/veh)LOS 1
SYNCHRO
95th
Percentile
Queue
Length (ft)
SimTraffic
Maximum
Queue
Length (ft)
Delay 1
(sec/veh)LOS 1
SYNCHRO
95th
Percentile
Queue
Length (ft)
SimTraffic
Maximum
Queue
Length (ft)
1. Green Ridge Road (E-W) at EB Left-Thru 1.0 A 3 69 0.6 A 1 90
Route 780 (S)EB Approach 1.0 A -- -- 0.6 A -- --
Unsignalized WB Thru-Right 0.0 A 0 6 0.0 A 0 0
WB Approach 0.0 A -- -- 0.0 A -- --
SB Left-Right 31.5 D 101 130 21.0 C 45 93
SB Approach 31.5 D -- -- 21.0 C -- --
2. Cove Road (E-W) at EB L-T-R 1.7 A 5 81 2.9 A 9 144
Route 629/ Lancelot Lane (N-S)EB Approach 1.7 A -- -- 2.9 A -- --
Unsignalized WB L-T-R 1.4 A 3 82 1.4 A 4 111
WB Approach 1.4 A -- -- 1.4 A -- --
NB L-T-R 17.4 C 19 68 15.8 B 13 68
NB Approach 17.4 C -- -- 15.8 B -- --
SB L-T-R 28.1 D 80 130 37.6 D 81 120
SB Approach 28.1 D -- -- 37.6 D -- --
3. Cove Road (E-W) at EB Left-Thru 0.2 A 0 503 0.5 A 1 507
Site Drive (S)EB Approach 0.2 A -- -- 0.5 A -- --
Unsignalized WB Thru-Right 0.0 A 0 2 0.0 A 0 2
WB Approach 0.0 A -- -- 0.0 A -- --
SB Left-Right 16.8 C 16 263 17.9 B 11 219
SB Approach 16.8 C -- -- 17.9 B -- --
4. Peters Creek Road (N-S) at EB Left-Thru 80.4 F #654 226 85.2 F #552 244
Cove Road (E-W) EB Right 190 33.7 C 14 190 39.3 D 22 190
Signalized EB Approach 73.5 E -- -- 76.6 E -- --
WB Left-Thru 72.0 E #265 308 112.1 F #514 833
WB Right 95 49.3 D 4 95 43.9 D 33 95
WB Approach 65.8 E -- -- 96.7 F -- --
NB Left 190 62.0 E 82 189 66.6 E 151 190
NB Thru 40.5 D 355 323 47.8 D 419 376
NB Thru-Right 40.5 D 355 299 47.8 D 419 366
NB Approach 41.5 D -- -- 49.9 D -- --
SB Left 180 62.1 E 98 178 72.1 E #190 180
SB Thru 41.7 D 381 333 50.3 D 480 356
SB Thru-Right 41.7 D 381 347 50.3 D 480 359
SB Approach 43.2 D -- -- 52.8 D -- --
Overall 52.4 D -- -- 62.7 E -- --
5. Peters Creek Road (N-S) at EB Right 11.3 B 1 33 12.2 B 1 28
Site Drive (W)EB Approach 11.3 B -- -- 12.2 B -- --
Unsignalized NB Thru ††† 47 † † † 133
NB Approach ††-- -- † † -- --
SB Thru † † 101 † † † 169
SB Approach † † -- -- † † -- --
6. Peters Creek Road (N-S) at EB Left 54.6 D 259 369 63.1 E 178 242
N. Lake Drive(E-W) EB Right 120 34.1 C 14 120 47.6 D 35 66
Signalized EB Approach 50.8 D -- -- 59.2 E -- --
WB L-T-R 33.8 C 0 33 47.4 D 0 39
WB Approach 33.8 C -- -- 47.4 D -- --
NB Left 200 9.9 A 33 131 7.3 A m29 157
NB Thru 12.1 B 313 277 8.1 A m147 234
NB Thru-Right 12.1 B 313 277 8.1 A m147 242
NB Approach 12.0 B -- -- 8.1 A -- --
SB Left-Thru 18.2 B 182 320 9.3 A 110 245
SB Thru 18.2 B 182 348 9.3 A 110 334
SB Right 170 18.9 B m29 170 3.7 A 11 158
SB Approach 18.3 B -- -- 8.6 A -- --
Overall 19.9 B -- -- 12.5 B -- --
7. Peters Creek Road (N-S) at EB Left-Thru 79.4 E #395 537 60.1 E 22 40
School Entrance (E-W) EB Right 120 39.3 D 40 120 59.3 E 0 29
Signalized EB Approach 68.2 E -- -- 59.5 E -- --
WB Left-Thru 56.3 E 48 69 60.7 E 51 83
WB Right 95 53.7 D 0 68 58.3 E 10 84
WB Approach 54.6 D -- -- 58.9 E -- --
NB Left 260 84.1 F #250 233 68.3 E m36 75
NB Thru 18.1 B 286 280 18.6 B 493 321
NB Right 320 15.7 B m1 28 8.4 A 10 77
NB Approach 26.7 C -- -- 18.8 B -- --
SB Left 250 59.4 E 57 194 61.6 E 77 132
SB Thru 32.3 C 414 409 10.3 B 363 213
SB Right 280 24.8 C 51 269 6.7 A 0 22
SB Approach 30.3 C -- -- 12.1 B -- --
Overall 34.3 C -- -- 17.6 B -- --
1 Overall intersection LOS and delay reported for signalized intersections only.
† SYNCHRO does not provide level of service or delay for unsignalized movements with no conflicting volumes.
# - 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m - Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Intersection and
Type of Control
Movement and
Approach
Effective
Turn
Lane
Storage
(ft)
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Ro
u
t
e
62
9
Figure
6-1
Smith Ridge Commons
2026 Total Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Roanoke County, Virginia
1
2
6
7
4
Ro
u
t
e
78
0
1
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
4
7
NOT TO SCALE
N
3
5
Green
Ridge Rd.
Cove
Road
Cove
Road
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
School
Ent.
Comm.
Ent.
LEGEND:
Signalized Intersection
Stop Controlled Intersection
Stop Controlled Approach
Turning Movement
AM Peak Hour Volumes
PM Peak Hour Volumes
00
(00)
6
2
Cove
Road
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
N. Lake
Drive
Comm.
Ent.
(17) 27
(363) 294
99 (113)
245 (380)
29
(
4
1
)
13
3
(
9
3
)
(99) 61
(351) 384
(15) 5
22 (78)
230 (426)
36 (55)
(228) 324
(154) 120
(87) 77
65 (98)
97 (222)
73 (113)
(1
0
1
)
4
5
(6
5
9
)
5
8
5
(1
4
7
)
5
6
16
6
(
2
8
1
)
53
3
(
5
8
5
)
58
(
1
1
3
)
(55) 274
(2) 7
(17) 109
45 (74)
9 (2)
15 (23)
(1
5
)
1
5
3
(1
1
1
3
)
9
8
4
(5
0
)
3
4
47
9
(
3
9
)
89
5
(
1
0
9
1
)
31
(
4
5
)
(138) 240
(1) 0
(46) 55
1 (9)
0 (0)
1 (3)
(9
6
)
4
2
(9
5
0
)
9
3
7
(3
)
3
95
(
1
5
0
)
78
0
(
9
2
7
)
6
(
3
)
(6
)
1
0
(0
)
0
(4
7
)
4
9
10
2
(
8
6
)
0
(
0
)
48
(
4
4
)
3
5
Si
t
e
Dr
i
v
e
Cove
Road
Pe
t
e
r
s
Cr
e
e
k
R
d
.
Site Drive
(Exit Only)
(18) 6
(441) 478
16 (53)
292 (428)
17
(
1
1
)
44
(
2
7
)
(4) 7
75
2
(
9
7
6
)
(9
8
3
)
9
7
4
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
7-1
7 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analyses the following is offered:
Under 2022 existing conditions:
1. At the Green Ridge Road/Route 780 intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements operate at
LOS A in both peak hours. The southbound (stop controlled) approach operates at LOS D in the
AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
2. At the Cove Road/Route 629 intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements operate at LOS A
in both peak hours. The southbound (stop controlled) approach operates at LOS C in both peak
hours. The northbound (stop controlled) approach operates at LOS C in the AM peak hour and
LOS B in the PM peak hour.
3. The signalized Cove Road/Peters Creek Road intersection operates at an overall LOS D in the AM
peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. The east and westbound (Cove Road) approaches
operate at LOS E in both peak hours. The north and southbound (Peters Creek Road) approaches
operate at LOS D in both peak hours.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues fill or exceed the available storage for the eastbound
right, westbound right, northbound left, and southbound left movements.
4. The signalized Peters Creek Road/North Lake Drive intersection operates at an overall LOS B in
both peak hours. All movements operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours with the exception
of the eastbound left which operates at LOS E in the PM peak hour.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues are contained in the available storage with the exception
of the eastbound right and southbound right queues which fill or exceed the available storage in
the AM peak hour.
5. The signalized Peters Creek Road/School Entrance intersection operates at an overall LOS C in the
AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour. The eastbound (school entrance) and westbound
(commercial entrance) approaches operate at LOS E in one or both peak hours. The north and
southbound (Peters Creek Road) approaches operate at LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in
the PM peak hour.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues are contained in the available storage with the exception
of the eastbound right and southbound right queues which fill or exceed the available storage in
the AM peak hour.
Under 2026 background conditions, the study intersections are generally anticipated to operate at similar
LOS and queueing to existing conditions. Specifically:
1. At the Green Ridge Road/Route 780 intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements will
continue to operate at LOS A in both peak hours. The southbound (stop controlled) approach will
continue to operate at LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
2. At the Cove Road/Route 629 intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements will continue to
operate at LOS A in both peak hours. The southbound (stop controlled) approach will operate at
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
7-2
LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour. The northbound (stop controlled)
approach will continue to operate at LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
3. The signalized Cove Road/Peters Creek Road intersection will continue to operate at an overall
LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. The east and westbound (Cove Road)
approaches will continue to operate at LOS E in both peak hours. The north and southbound
(Peters Creek Road) approaches will continue to operate at LOS D in both peak hours.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues will continue to fill or exceed the available storage for
the eastbound right, westbound right, northbound left, and southbound left movements.
4. The signalized Peters Creek Road/North Lake Drive intersection will continue to operate at an
overall LOS B in both peak hours. All movements will continue to operate at LOS D or better in
both peak hours with the exception of the eastbound left which will continue to operate at LOS E
in the PM peak hour.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues will be contained in the available storage with the
exception of the eastbound right and southbound right queues which will continue to fill or exceed
the available storage in the AM peak hour.
5. The signalized Peters Creek Road/School Entrance intersection will continue to operate at an
overall LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour. The eastbound (school
entrance) and westbound (commercial entrance) approaches will continue to operate at LOS E in
one or both peak hours. The north and southbound (Peters Creek Road) approaches operate at
LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues will be contained in the available storage with the
exception of the eastbound right and southbound right.
Under 2026 future conditions, with development of the site, the study intersections are generally
anticipated to operate at similar LOS and queueing to background conditions. Specifically:
1. No improvements are required at any of the study intersection to mitigate the traffic from the site.
2. At the Green Ridge Road/Route 780 intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements will
continue to operate at LOS A in both peak hours. The southbound (stop controlled) approach will
continue to operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours.
3. At the Cove Road/Route 629 intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements will continue to
operate at LOS A in both peak hours. The southbound (stop controlled) approach will operate at
LOS D in both peak hours. The northbound (stop controlled) approach will continue to operate at
LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
4. At the Cove Road/Site Drive intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements will operate at LOS
A in both peak hours. The eastbound left turns and westbound right turns into the site will operate
at LOS A with less than 1.0 second/vehicle of delay. The southbound (stop-controlled) movement
will operate at LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
5. The signalized Cove Road/Peters Creek Road intersection will continue to operate at an overall
LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. The east and westbound (Cove Road)
approaches will operate at LOS E or F in both peak hours. The north and southbound (Peters
Creek Road) approaches will continue to operate at LOS D in both peak hours.
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis
7-3
The 95th percentile and maximum queues will continue to fill or exceed the available storage for
the eastbound right, westbound right, northbound left, and southbound left movements.
6. At the Peters Creek Road/Site Exit intersection, the mainline (east-west) movements will operate
at LOS A in both peak hours. The eastbound right turns leaving the site will operate at LOS B in
both peak hours.
7. The signalized Peters Creek Road/North Lake Drive intersection will continue to operate at an
overall LOS B in both peak hours. All movements will continue to operate at LOS D or better in
both peak hours with the exception of the eastbound left which will continue to operate at LOS E
in the PM peak hour.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues will be contained in the available storage with the
exception of the eastbound right and southbound right queues which will continue to fill or exceed
the available storage in the AM peak hour.
8. The signalized Peters Creek Road/School Entrance intersection will continue to operate at an
overall LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour. The eastbound (school
entrance) and westbound (commercial entrance) approaches will continue to operate at LOS E in
one or both peak hours. The north and southbound (Peters Creek Road) approaches operate at
LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour.
The 95th percentile and maximum queues will be contained in the available storage with the
exception of the eastbound right and southbound right queues which will continue to fill or exceed
the available storage in the AM peak hour.
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Impact Analysis – Roanoke County, VA
Appendix A
Scoping Correspondence
1
Steve Schmidt
From:Ian.Coffey@Roanokeva.gov
Sent:Monday, December 13, 2021 3:52 PM
To:Steve Schmidt
Cc:Amelia Wehunt; Freddie Fletcher; Hong.Liu@RoanokeVa.gov
Subject:Re: [EXTERNAL] Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Study
Attachments:Smith Ridge Commons Trip Gen.pdf; Figure 1.pdf; Evans Spring Figure 3-1.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Steve,
We concur with the scope and details including the removal of the Cove/Hershberger intersection from the TIA. Once
available, please share with us the trip distribution and any other preliminary data for review.
I will send to you the signal timings as soon as possible.
Ian Coffey | Traffic Engineer
Transportation Division
1802 Courtland Road, N.E. | Roanoke, VA 24012
540-853-2210 | ian.coffey@roanokeva.gov
From: "Steve Schmidt" <Steve.Schmidt@timmons.com>
To: "Ian.Coffey@Roanokeva.gov" <Ian.Coffey@Roanokeva.gov>,
"Hong.Liu@RoanokeVa.gov" <Hong.Liu@RoanokeVa.gov>
Cc: "Amelia Wehunt" <amelia.wehunt@timmons.com>, "Freddie Fletcher"
<ffletcher@lawsoncompanies.com>
Date: 12/10/2021 04:01 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Study
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or on
clicking links from unknown senders.
Ian and Liu,
Thank you for meeting with us yesterday to discuss the extents/parameters of the traffic study for the proposed Smith
Ridge Commons project. I have complied the following scope based on the conversation. Can you please review and let
us know if you have any comments/questions/additions?
2
Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Scope
The proposed development will consist of 216 apartment units with primary access via a full movement entrance on
Cove Road. A secondary (potentially emergency access only) inbound only entrance will be located on Peters Creek
Road. The development will generate 90 AM peak hour trips, 113 PM peak hour trips, and 1,460 average daily trips as
shown on the attached table. The site location is shown on Figure 1 (attached).
The study will include the following intersections (shown on Figure 1) as requested by the City:
1. Green Ridge Road/Cove Road/Route 780 (side street stop controlled)
2. Cove Road/Route 629 (side street stop controlled)
3. Cove Road/Peters Creek Road (signalized)
4. Peters Creek Road/Lake Drive (signalized)
5. Peters Creek Road/School Entrance (signalized)
6. Cove Road/Hershberger Road (signalized)
a. See Note Below
7. All site entrances
The study will include the following analysis scenarios:
1. Existing AM and PM weekday peak hours
2. Background (without the site) 2026 AM and PM weekday peak hours
3. Future (with the site) 2026 AM and PM weekday peak hours.
Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic counts will be conducted at intersections #1 through #5 when public schools are in
session. A 24-hour automated tube count will be conducted along Peters Creek Road and compared against historic
VDOT traffic count data to determine if an adjustment is required to account for pandemic level traffic. The adjustment,
if required, will be applied to all movements at the study intersections.
Existing traffic counts for intersection #6 (if required – see note below) will be obtained from the Evans Spring TIA.
Background 2026 traffic volumes will be based on the existing (adjusted) traffic counts and a 1% annual traffic growth
rate. No traffic impacts from other developments will be considered.
Site trip distributions will be based on the existing traffic counts, the surrounding roadway network, and the nature of
the use. The distributions will be shared with the City for comment/approval prior to including in the TIA.
The City will provide the existing traffic signal timings at each of the signalized intersections (#3-#6).
Note:
We did want to discuss this Cove Road/Hershberger Road intersection briefly. The intersection is approximately 1.5
miles from the site and will see a very small percentage of site traffic. At most, we anticipate 10% of site traffic using the
intersection as an alternate means to I-581.
The Peters Creek Road interchange is approximately 1 mile closer to the site and offers more direct access.
a. We took a look at the existing traffic counts at the
intersection (from the Evans Spring Study – figure attached).
The intersection is labeled as Intersection #7 on the attached
figure.
i. In the AM peak hour, the existing counts at the
intersection show 193 southbound vehicles on Cove Road
approaching the intersection and 85 northbound vehicles
on Cove Road leaving the intersection.
3
1. At 10%, the site will add 7 southbound trips and 2
northbound trips in the AM on Cove Road near the
intersection.
a. This equates to between 2 and 4% of the
existing traffic.
ii. In the PM peak hour, the existing counts at the
intersection show 278 southbound vehicles on Cove Road
approaching the intersection and 380 northbound vehicles
on Cove Road leaving the intersection.
1. At 10%, the site will add 4 southbound trips and 7
northbound trips in the PM on Cove Road near the
intersection.
a. This equates to between 1 and 2% of the
existing traffic.
Based on the distance from the site and the minimal traffic generated by the site at the intersection, we request the City
reevaluate the need to include the Cove Road/Hershberger Road intersection in the TIA.
Thank you for all your help and we look forward to continuing to work with you on this project.
Have a great weekend.
Steve
Steve Schmidt, PE, PTOE
Senior Project Manager – Traffic Analysis & Planning
TIMMONS GROUP |
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timmons.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7
CSteve.Schmidt%40timmons.com%7C3318c9de2e2c482624a908d9be7a5d36%7Cad6f659bc6ac4bfa81e28c8fa7c5fca4%
7C0%7C0%7C637750255269267055%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6
Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=EELTkUMWz%2BqC96We5lzzsfUnAHN6WT7OWmFI%2FTKwp6U%3D
&reserved=0
1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 300 | Richmond, VA 23225
Office: 804.200.6502 | Fax: 804.560.1016
Mobile: 540.818.3356 | steve.schmidt@timmons.com Your Vision Achieved Through Ours
To send me files greater than 20MB click here.
(See attached file: Smith Ridge Commons Trip Gen.pdf)(See attached file:
Figure 1.pdf)(See attached file: Evans Spring Figure 3-1.pdf)
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis - Roanoke County, VA
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis - Roanoke County, VA
Appendix B
Traffic Counts
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: Cove Rd/Rt 780 -- Green Ridge Rd NW/Cove Rd QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 15665801
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Roanoke, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, Jan 6 2022
157 0.58 138
32 0 125
216 26 112 296
0.86 230 0.790.79 184 0.82
256 0 0 355
0 0 0
00 0
Peak-Hour: 7:15 AM -- 8:15 AMPeak-Hour: 7:15 AM -- 8:15 AM
Peak 15-Min: 7:30 AM -- 7:45 AMPeak 15-Min: 7:30 AM -- 7:45 AM
5.7 3.6
15.6 0 3.2
6 3.8 3.6 4.1
2.2 4.3
2.3 0 0 2.5
0 0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
15-Min Count15-Min CountPeriod Period Beginning AtBeginning At
Cove Rd/Rt 780 Cove Rd/Rt 780
(Northbound)(Northbound)
Cove Rd/Rt 780 Cove Rd/Rt 780
(Southbound)(Southbound)
Green Ridge Rd NW/Cove RdGreen Ridge Rd NW/Cove Rd
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
Green Ridge Rd NW/Cove RdGreen Ridge Rd NW/Cove Rd
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 7 0 5 0 7 27 0 0 0 43 24 0 113
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 30 0 11 0 8 40 0 0 0 40 40 0 169
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 53 0 15 0 8 58 0 0 0 44 46 0 224
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 22 0 2 0 6 68 0 0 0 54 13 0 165 671
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 20 0 4 0 4 64 0 0 0 46 13 0 151 709
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 16 0 3 0 5 51 0 0 0 46 11 0 132 672
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 11 0 3 0 4 43 0 0 0 40 11 0 112 560
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 16 0 3 0 2 39 0 0 0 41 6 0 107 502
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-Min
FlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 212 0 60 0 32 232 0 0 0 176 184 0 896
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 8 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 4 36
Buses
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 1/12/2022 8:56 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 1 of 1
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: Cove Rd/Rt 780 -- Green Ridge Rd NW/Cove Rd QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 15665802
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Roanoke, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, Jan 6 2022
111 0.9 109
34 0 77
343 14 95 404
0.83 289 0.940.94 309 0.94
303 0 0 366
0 0 0
00 0
Peak-Hour: 4:30 PM -- 5:30 PMPeak-Hour: 4:30 PM -- 5:30 PM
Peak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PMPeak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PM
0 1.8
0 0 0
0.3 7.1 1.1 0.5
2.1 0.3
2.3 0 0 1.6
0 0 0
0 0
0
0 0
2
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
15-Min Count15-Min CountPeriod Period Beginning AtBeginning At
Cove Rd/Rt 780 Cove Rd/Rt 780
(Northbound)(Northbound)
Cove Rd/Rt 780 Cove Rd/Rt 780
(Southbound)(Southbound)
Green Ridge Rd NW/Cove RdGreen Ridge Rd NW/Cove Rd
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
Green Ridge Rd NW/Cove RdGreen Ridge Rd NW/Cove Rd
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 22 0 8 0 3 58 0 0 0 70 20 0 181
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 14 0 7 0 6 58 0 0 0 68 26 0 179
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 23 0 8 0 4 87 0 0 0 61 24 0 207
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 21 0 7 0 2 58 0 0 0 75 28 0 191 758
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 15 0 10 0 7 78 0 0 0 92 16 0 218 795
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 18 0 9 0 1 66 0 0 0 81 27 0 202 818
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 11 0 7 0 5 82 0 0 0 70 15 0 190 801
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 15 0 3 0 2 57 0 0 0 67 19 0 163 773
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-Min
FlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 60 0 40 0 28 312 0 0 0 368 64 0 872
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4
Buses
Pedestrians 4 0 0 0 4
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 1/12/2022 8:56 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 1 of 1
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: Green Ridge Rd/Rt 629/Lancelot Ln NW -- Cove Rd QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 15665803
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Roanoke, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, Jan 6 2022
149 0.7 67
107 1 41
297 50 16 236
0.83 328 0.850.85 185 0.97
383 5 35 419
5 1 48
0.8439 54
Peak-Hour: 7:15 AM -- 8:15 AMPeak-Hour: 7:15 AM -- 8:15 AM
Peak 15-Min: 7:30 AM -- 7:45 AMPeak 15-Min: 7:30 AM -- 7:45 AM
4 6
3.7 0 4.9
4.4 8 0 5.1
2.7 4.9
3.4 0 8.6 3.1
0 0 4.2
7.7 3.7
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
15-Min Count15-Min CountPeriod Period Beginning AtBeginning At
Green Ridge Rd/RtGreen Ridge Rd/Rt
629/Lancelot Ln NW 629/Lancelot Ln NW
(Northbound)(Northbound)
Green Ridge Rd/RtGreen Ridge Rd/Rt
629/Lancelot Ln NW 629/Lancelot Ln NW
(Southbound)(Southbound)
Cove RdCove Rd
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
Cove RdCove Rd
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotals
LeftLeft ThruThru RightRight UU LeftLeft ThruThru RightRight UU LeftLeft ThruThru RightRight UU LeftLeft ThruThru RightRight UU
7:00 AM 1 0 3 0 7 0 22 0 3 32 1 0 3 42 3 0 117
7:15 AM 1 1 12 0 8 1 33 0 8 69 2 0 10 47 4 0 196
7:30 AM 1 0 15 0 14 0 39 0 17 97 1 0 6 46 6 0 242
7:45 AM 2 0 11 0 10 0 20 0 16 83 1 0 9 45 5 1 203 758
8:00 AM 1 0 10 0 9 0 15 0 9 79 1 0 8 47 1 1 181 822
8:15 AM 5 0 5 0 7 0 11 0 9 57 1 0 5 40 6 1 147 773
8:30 AM 2 0 9 0 8 0 14 0 6 51 0 0 6 38 5 0 139 670
8:45 AM 1 1 5 0 4 0 14 0 4 47 0 0 3 37 2 0 118 585
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-Min
FlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 4 0 60 0 56 0 156 0 68 388 4 0 24 184 24 0 968
Heavy Trucks 0 0 8 4 0 0 8 12 0 0 4 0 36
Buses
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 1/12/2022 8:56 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 1 of 1
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: Green Ridge Rd/Rt 629/Lancelot Ln NW -- Cove Rd QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 15665804
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Roanoke, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, Jan 6 2022
109 0.85 149
72 0 37
424 83 65 458
0.86 278 0.920.92 347 0.92
373 12 46 353
5 0 39
0.7958 44
Peak-Hour: 4:30 PM -- 5:30 PMPeak-Hour: 4:30 PM -- 5:30 PM
Peak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PMPeak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PM
0 0
0 0 0
0.5 0 0 0.4
1.8 0.6
1.3 0 0 1.7
0 0 2.6
0 2.3
0
1 0
1
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
15-Min Count15-Min CountPeriod Period Beginning AtBeginning At
Green Ridge Rd/RtGreen Ridge Rd/Rt
629/Lancelot Ln NW 629/Lancelot Ln NW
(Northbound)(Northbound)
Green Ridge Rd/RtGreen Ridge Rd/Rt
629/Lancelot Ln NW 629/Lancelot Ln NW
(Southbound)(Southbound)
Cove RdCove Rd
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
Cove RdCove Rd
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotals
LeftLeft ThruThru RightRight UU LeftLeft ThruThru RightRight UU LeftLeft ThruThru RightRight UU LeftLeft ThruThru RightRight UU
4:00 PM 2 1 15 0 8 0 17 0 13 62 2 0 9 74 18 0 221
4:15 PM 0 2 10 0 10 0 15 0 12 57 4 0 7 85 12 0 214
4:30 PM 3 0 8 0 8 0 11 0 22 83 4 0 9 79 17 0 244
4:45 PM 1 0 11 0 7 0 20 1 16 62 2 0 14 84 17 0 235 914
5:00 PM 1 0 13 0 10 0 22 0 24 68 4 0 12 95 18 0 267 960
5:15 PM 0 0 7 0 11 0 19 0 21 65 2 0 11 89 13 0 238 984
5:30 PM 0 0 11 0 9 0 9 0 14 77 3 0 13 78 9 0 223 963
5:45 PM 2 1 8 0 7 0 13 0 10 60 2 0 15 79 9 0 206 934
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-Min
FlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 4 0 52 0 40 0 88 0 96 272 16 0 48 380 72 0 1068
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Buses
Pedestrians 0 0 4 0 4
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 1/12/2022 8:56 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 1 of 1
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: Peters Creek Rd -- Cove Rd QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 15665805
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Roanoke, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, Jan 6 2022
618 0.91 786
129 443 46
243 240 54 194
0.84 97 0.900.90 79 0.73
399 62 61 187
36 489 47
0.89567 572
Peak-Hour: 7:30 AM -- 8:30 AMPeak-Hour: 7:30 AM -- 8:30 AM
Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AMPeak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AM
5.5 5
5.4 6.1 0
4.9 3.8 1.9 2.1
5.2 2.5
3.8 1.6 1.6 5.3
8.3 5.9 10.6
5.1 6.5
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
15-Min Count15-Min CountPeriod Period Beginning AtBeginning At
Peters Creek Rd Peters Creek Rd
(Northbound)(Northbound)
Peters Creek Rd Peters Creek Rd
(Southbound)(Southbound)
Cove Rd Cove Rd
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
Cove Rd Cove Rd
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
7:00 AM 5 69 7 0 6 105 29 0 16 13 10 0 5 13 4 0 282
7:15 AM 12 78 6 0 7 95 36 0 53 16 21 0 13 13 6 0 356
7:30 AM 7 140 13 1 7 96 34 1 60 27 22 0 15 19 17 0 459
7:45 AM 8 135 10 0 11 114 30 0 79 21 19 0 19 30 17 0 493 1590
8:00 AM 9 125 14 0 10 125 35 0 55 25 8 0 9 18 14 0 447 1755
8:15 AM 11 89 10 0 15 108 30 2 46 24 13 0 18 12 6 0 384 1783
8:30 AM 7 103 13 0 16 104 20 0 34 20 6 0 9 22 15 0 369 1693
8:45 AM 8 94 16 0 16 111 20 0 32 20 12 0 9 16 13 0 367 1567
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-Min
FlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 32 540 40 0 44 456 120 0 316 84 76 0 76 120 68 0 1972
Heavy Trucks 0 44 0 0 16 4 12 4 4 4 4 4 96
Buses
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 1/12/2022 8:56 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 1 of 1
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: Peters Creek Rd -- Cove Rd QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 15665806
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Roanoke, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, Jan 6 2022
781 0.9 803
203 487 91
461 171 82 357
0.95 127 0.950.95 180 0.95
369 71 95 341
78 550 123
0.96653 751
Peak-Hour: 4:30 PM -- 5:30 PMPeak-Hour: 4:30 PM -- 5:30 PM
Peak 15-Min: 5:15 PM -- 5:30 PMPeak 15-Min: 5:15 PM -- 5:30 PM
2.9 2.5
0 3.5 6.6
0.7 2.3 1.2 1.4
0.8 1.1
1.6 1.4 2.1 2.6
1.3 2.7 1.6
3.1 2.4
0
0 1
1
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
15-Min Count15-Min CountPeriod Period Beginning AtBeginning At
Peters Creek Rd Peters Creek Rd
(Northbound)(Northbound)
Peters Creek Rd Peters Creek Rd
(Southbound)(Southbound)
Cove Rd Cove Rd
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
Cove Rd Cove Rd
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
4:00 PM 13 143 27 0 26 102 35 1 39 34 22 0 19 54 14 0 529
4:15 PM 24 128 22 1 29 120 45 2 29 33 19 0 21 39 22 0 534
4:30 PM 22 124 33 0 21 122 44 0 41 38 18 0 24 41 19 0 547
4:45 PM 25 146 24 0 19 126 53 0 49 36 10 0 26 45 18 0 577 2187
5:00 PM 18 144 28 0 21 108 51 0 37 28 17 0 20 48 22 0 542 2200
5:15 PM 13 136 38 0 30 131 55 0 44 25 26 0 25 46 23 0 592 2258
5:30 PM 16 113 19 1 27 107 50 1 51 27 12 0 17 38 13 0 492 2203
5:45 PM 19 88 21 0 22 96 52 0 44 34 19 0 19 36 13 0 463 2089
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-MinFlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 52 544 152 0 120 524 220 0 176 100 104 0 100 184 92 0 2368
Heavy Trucks 0 16 0 4 16 0 4 0 0 8 0 0 48
Buses
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 1/12/2022 8:56 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 1 of 1
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: Peters Creek Rd -- North Lake Dr QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 15665807
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Roanoke, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, Jan 6 2022
726 0.91 955
79 642 5
113 201 1 2
0.86 0 0.860.86 0 0.5
247 46 1 7
35 752 3
0.8690 790
Peak-Hour: 7:30 AM -- 8:30 AMPeak-Hour: 7:30 AM -- 8:30 AM
Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AMPeak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AM
4.8 4.8
1.3 5.3 0
5.3 3.5 100 50
0 0
3.2 2.2 0 14.3
14.3 5.1 33.3
5.1 5.6
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
15-Min Count15-Min CountPeriod Period Beginning AtBeginning At
Peters Creek Rd Peters Creek Rd
(Northbound)(Northbound)
Peters Creek Rd Peters Creek Rd
(Southbound)(Southbound)
North Lake Dr North Lake Dr
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
North Lake Dr North Lake Dr
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
7:00 AM 2 89 0 0 0 131 4 1 29 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 270
7:15 AM 2 133 0 0 0 136 5 0 25 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 304
7:30 AM 11 195 0 0 1 138 13 0 57 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 425
7:45 AM 11 233 1 1 3 175 22 0 49 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 511 1510
8:00 AM 5 178 2 0 0 168 23 0 60 0 12 0 0 0 1 0 449 1689
8:15 AM 7 146 0 0 0 161 21 1 35 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 380 1765
8:30 AM 9 146 2 0 1 118 8 0 32 0 16 0 1 0 1 0 334 1674
8:45 AM 8 135 2 1 2 151 10 0 13 1 10 0 1 0 0 0 334 1497
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-Min
FlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 44 932 4 4 12 700 88 0 196 0 60 0 4 0 0 0 2044
Heavy Trucks 12 52 0 0 24 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 104
Buses
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 1/12/2022 8:56 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 1 of 1
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: Peters Creek Rd -- North Lake Dr QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 15665808
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Roanoke, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, Jan 6 2022
870 0.95 899
125 742 3
201 116 8 11
0.86 1 0.970.97 0 0.69
155 38 3 7
80 775 3
0.98787 858
Peak-Hour: 4:30 PM -- 5:30 PMPeak-Hour: 4:30 PM -- 5:30 PM
Peak 15-Min: 5:15 PM -- 5:30 PMPeak 15-Min: 5:15 PM -- 5:30 PM
2.5 3.1
0.8 2.8 0
0.5 2.6 0 0
0 0
2.6 2.6 0 0
0 3.2 0
2.8 2.9
1
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
15-Min Count15-Min CountPeriod Period Beginning AtBeginning At
Peters Creek Rd Peters Creek Rd
(Northbound)(Northbound)
Peters Creek Rd Peters Creek Rd
(Southbound)(Southbound)
North Lake Dr North Lake Dr
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
North Lake Dr North Lake Dr
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
4:00 PM 17 179 0 0 2 164 25 0 18 0 9 0 0 0 2 0 416
4:15 PM 13 178 1 0 1 181 36 0 30 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 447
4:30 PM 18 183 1 2 3 186 22 0 18 1 10 0 2 0 1 0 447
4:45 PM 18 199 0 1 0 178 31 0 36 0 9 0 0 0 4 0 476 1786
5:00 PM 20 195 1 0 0 186 36 0 30 0 10 0 1 0 2 0 481 1851
5:15 PM 20 198 1 1 0 192 36 0 32 0 9 0 0 0 1 0 490 1894
5:30 PM 12 169 2 0 0 171 31 1 29 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 429 1876
5:45 PM 11 148 1 0 0 156 38 0 22 0 5 0 1 0 3 0 385 1785
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-MinFlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 80 792 4 4 0 768 144 0 128 0 36 0 0 0 4 0 1960
Heavy Trucks 0 24 0 0 20 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 52
Buses
Pedestrians 0 4 0 0 4
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 1/12/2022 8:56 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 1 of 1
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: Peters Creek Rd -- Northside HS Rd QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 15665809
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Roanoke, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, Jan 6 2022
1164 0.8 1057
400 738 26
533 229 37 57
0.74 6 0.860.86 8 0.84
326 91 12 61
128 791 29
0.87844 948
Peak-Hour: 7:30 AM -- 8:30 AMPeak-Hour: 7:30 AM -- 8:30 AM
Peak 15-Min: 8:00 AM -- 8:15 AMPeak 15-Min: 8:00 AM -- 8:15 AM
5.2 4.8
0.5 7.7 3.8
0.8 2.6 5.4 3.5
0 0
2.1 1.1 0 3.3
1.6 5.4 3.4
6.9 4.9
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
15-Min Count15-Min CountPeriod Period Beginning AtBeginning At
Peters Creek Rd Peters Creek Rd
(Northbound)(Northbound)
Peters Creek Rd Peters Creek Rd
(Southbound)(Southbound)
Northside HS RdNorthside HS Rd
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
Northside HS RdNorthside HS Rd
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
7:00 AM 1 106 3 0 1 146 19 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 6 0 288
7:15 AM 7 142 4 0 5 148 52 0 14 0 6 0 3 0 4 0 385
7:30 AM 19 205 8 0 9 160 86 0 46 2 7 0 6 0 11 0 559
7:45 AM 46 221 6 0 5 241 114 0 41 1 26 0 2 3 9 0 715 1947
8:00 AM 54 172 10 0 5 168 189 0 74 1 35 0 1 3 10 0 722 2381
8:15 AM 6 193 5 3 7 169 11 0 68 2 23 0 3 2 7 0 499 2495
8:30 AM 2 163 5 0 3 136 9 0 9 0 1 0 2 0 7 0 337 2273
8:45 AM 2 151 11 2 5 171 8 1 8 0 2 0 3 0 11 0 375 1933
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-Min
FlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 216 688 40 0 20 672 756 0 296 4 140 0 4 12 40 0 2888
Heavy Trucks 4 36 0 0 76 4 4 0 4 0 0 4 132
Buses
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 1/12/2022 8:56 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 1 of 1
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: Peters Creek Rd -- Northside HS Rd QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 15665810
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Roanoke, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, Jan 6 2022
949 0.9 1020
32 879 38
42 46 62 83
0.6 2 0.950.95 2 0.9
62 14 19 80
13 910 42
0.96917 965
Peak-Hour: 4:30 PM -- 5:30 PMPeak-Hour: 4:30 PM -- 5:30 PM
Peak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PMPeak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PM
2.2 2.9
0 2.3 2.6
0 2.2 1.6 1.2
0 0
1.6 0 0 2.5
0 3.1 2.4
2.2 3
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
15-Min Count15-Min CountPeriod Period Beginning AtBeginning At
Peters Creek Rd Peters Creek Rd
(Northbound)(Northbound)
Peters Creek Rd Peters Creek Rd
(Southbound)(Southbound)
Northside HS RdNorthside HS Rd
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
Northside HS RdNorthside HS Rd
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
4:00 PM 0 222 6 1 11 183 14 0 31 1 2 0 7 2 10 0 490
4:15 PM 0 215 3 2 16 208 7 0 16 1 6 0 7 0 11 0 492
4:30 PM 4 206 9 0 5 206 5 2 19 0 7 0 7 0 9 0 479
4:45 PM 2 231 13 4 12 202 3 0 11 1 3 0 2 0 20 0 504 1965
5:00 PM 0 242 10 0 8 233 9 0 12 1 3 0 4 2 16 0 540 2015
5:15 PM 2 231 10 1 11 238 15 0 4 0 1 0 6 0 17 0 536 2059
5:30 PM 3 204 9 1 8 194 9 0 16 1 6 0 6 1 9 0 467 2047
5:45 PM 2 165 4 1 13 170 10 0 31 1 3 0 9 0 10 0 419 1962
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-Min
FlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 0 968 40 0 32 932 36 0 48 4 12 0 16 8 64 0 2160
Heavy Trucks 0 16 0 4 24 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 48
Buses
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 1/12/2022 8:56 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 1 of 1
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis - Roanoke County, VA
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis - Roanoke County, VA
Appendix C
SYNCHRO/SimTraffic Analysis
Worksheets For 2021 Existing Conditions
Smith Ridge Commons 2022 Existing AM Peak Volumes
1: Green Ridge Road/Cove Road & Route 780 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2022 Existing AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 26 277 219 95 128 28
Future Volume (Veh/h) 26 277 219 95 128 28
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Hourly flow rate (vph) 35 369 292 127 171 37
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 419 794 356
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 419 794 356
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.4
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.5
p0 queue free % 97 50 94
cM capacity (veh/h) 1151 342 656
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 404 419 208
Volume Left 35 0 171
Volume Right 0 127 37
cSH 1151 1700 374
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.25 0.56
Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 81
Control Delay (s) 1.0 0.0 26.1
Lane LOS A D
Approach Delay (s) 1.0 0.0 26.1
Approach LOS D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 5.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Smith Ridge Commons 2022 Existing AM Peak Volumes
2: Lancelot Lane /Route 629 & Cove Road HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2022 Existing AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 59 363 5 35 205 21 10 0 47 46 0 98
Future Volume (Veh/h) 59 363 5 35 205 21 10 0 47 46 0 98
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
Hourly flow rate (vph) 74 454 6 44 256 26 13 0 59 58 0 123
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 282 460 1085 975 457 1021 965 269
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 282 460 1085 975 457 1021 965 269
tC, single (s) 4.2 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.3 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 94 96 91 100 90 67 100 84
cM capacity (veh/h) 1258 1112 152 229 597 177 232 770
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 534 326 72 181
Volume Left 74 44 13 58
Volume Right 6 26 59 123
cSH 1258 1112 391 371
Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.04 0.18 0.49
Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 3 17 64
Control Delay (s) 1.7 1.5 16.3 23.6
Lane LOS A A C C
Approach Delay (s) 1.7 1.5 16.3 23.6
Approach LOS C C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 6.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Smith Ridge Commons 2022 Existing AM Peak Volumes
4: Peters Creek Road & Cove Road Queues
2022 Existing AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 3
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 431 79 179 69 46 684 58 730
v/c Ratio 0.91 0.15 0.75 0.22 0.38 0.57 0.42 0.61
Control Delay 70.6 1.8 74.1 1.6 65.6 37.6 65.6 37.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 70.6 1.8 74.1 1.6 65.6 37.6 65.6 37.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 349 0 146 0 38 254 47 267
Queue Length 95th (ft) #536 9 #246 1 78 335 92 353
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1951 768 1257 2436
Turn Bay Length (ft) 190 95 190 180
Base Capacity (vph) 488 530 251 327 229 1201 249 1206
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.88 0.15 0.71 0.21 0.20 0.57 0.23 0.61
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Smith Ridge Commons 2022 Existing AM Peak Volumes
4: Peters Creek Road & Cove Road HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2022 Existing AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 276 112 71 70 91 62 41 562 54 52 509 148
Future Volume (vph) 276 112 71 70 91 62 41 562 54 52 509 148
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1759 1583 1813 1583 1656 3347 1805 3298
Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1759 1583 1813 1583 1656 3347 1805 3298
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 307 124 79 78 101 69 46 624 60 58 566 164
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 58 0 0 60 0 5 0 0 18 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 431 21 0 179 9 46 679 0 58 712 0
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 5% 2% 2% 3% 2% 9% 6% 11% 0% 6% 5%
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 3 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 34.9 34.9 17.1 17.1 8.3 45.3 8.7 45.7
Effective Green, g (s) 34.9 34.9 17.1 17.1 8.3 45.3 8.7 45.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.35 0.07 0.35
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 6.0 3.5 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 472 424 238 208 105 1166 120 1159
v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 c0.10 0.03 0.20 c0.03 c0.22
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.91 0.05 0.75 0.04 0.44 0.58 0.48 0.61
Uniform Delay, d1 46.1 35.3 54.4 49.3 58.6 34.6 58.5 34.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 23.0 0.1 14.8 0.2 3.4 2.1 3.6 2.4
Delay (s) 69.1 35.4 69.2 49.5 62.0 36.7 62.1 37.3
Level of Service E D E D E D E D
Approach Delay (s) 63.8 63.7 38.3 39.1
Approach LOS E E D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 47.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.6% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Smith Ridge Commons 2022 Existing AM Peak Volumes
7: Peters Creek Road Queues
2022 Existing AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 5
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 314 122 26 50 171 1058 38 35 987 535
v/c Ratio 0.91 0.29 0.21 0.22 0.82 0.58 0.04 0.27 0.67 0.53
Control Delay 77.8 7.1 56.5 2.1 86.0 16.4 0.1 57.1 30.8 4.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 77.8 7.1 56.5 2.1 86.0 16.4 0.1 57.1 30.8 4.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 239 0 19 0 138 350 0 26 332 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #374 36 47 0 #236 240 m0 57 385 50
Internal Link Dist (ft) 595 397 1875 876
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 95 260 320 220 280
Base Capacity (vph) 352 428 138 241 211 1809 889 274 1467 1001
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.89 0.29 0.19 0.21 0.81 0.58 0.04 0.13 0.67 0.53
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Smith Ridge Commons 2022 Existing AM Peak Volumes
7: Peters Creek Road HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2022 Existing AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 263 7 105 14 9 43 147 910 33 30 849 460
Future Volume (vph) 263 7 105 14 9 43 147 910 33 30 849 460
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1760 1599 1843 1538 1770 3438 1568 1736 3343 1599
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1760 1599 1843 1538 1770 3438 1568 1736 3343 1599
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 306 8 122 16 10 50 171 1058 38 35 987 535
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 98 0 0 47 0 0 19 0 0 305
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 314 24 0 26 3 171 1058 19 35 987 230
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 0% 1% 0% 0% 5% 2% 5% 3% 4% 8% 1%
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 3 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 23.5 6.8 6.8 14.2 59.6 59.6 6.1 51.5 51.5
Effective Green, g (s) 23.5 23.5 6.8 6.8 14.2 59.6 59.6 6.1 51.5 51.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.50 0.50 0.05 0.43 0.43
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 344 313 104 87 209 1707 778 88 1434 686
v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 c0.01 c0.10 0.31 0.02 c0.30
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.14
v/c Ratio 0.91 0.08 0.25 0.03 0.82 0.62 0.02 0.40 0.69 0.33
Uniform Delay, d1 47.2 39.4 54.2 53.5 51.6 22.0 15.4 55.2 27.7 22.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 28.4 0.2 2.2 0.3 20.5 1.5 0.1 4.0 2.7 1.3
Delay (s) 75.6 39.6 56.3 53.8 79.7 16.4 15.4 59.2 30.5 24.1
Level of Service E D E D E B B E C C
Approach Delay (s) 65.5 54.6 24.9 28.9
Approach LOS E D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.1% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Smith Ridge Commons 2022 Existing AM Peak Volumes
53: Peters Creek Road & Lake Drive Queues
2022 Existing AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBR WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 269 62 2 47 1009 865 106
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.14 0.01 0.14 0.45 0.48 0.11
Control Delay 58.8 3.0 0.0 10.1 12.3 20.2 7.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 58.8 3.0 0.0 10.1 12.3 20.2 7.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 196 0 0 12 189 174 19
Queue Length 95th (ft) 252 12 0 31 276 160 m25
Internal Link Dist (ft) 389 2436 1875
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 200 170
Base Capacity (vph) 511 638 480 356 2227 1809 930
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.53 0.10 0.00 0.13 0.45 0.48 0.11
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Smith Ridge Commons 2022 Existing AM Peak Volumes
53: Peters Creek Road & Lake Drive HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2022 Existing AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 231 0 53 1 0 1 40 865 3 6 738 91
Future Volume (vph) 231 0 53 1 0 1 40 865 3 6 738 91
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1583 1152 1570 3434 3438 1599
Flt Permitted 0.76 1.00 0.98 0.25 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1396 1583 1152 410 3434 3251 1599
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 269 0 62 1 0 1 47 1006 3 7 858 106
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 47 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 41
Lane Group Flow (vph) 269 0 15 0 0 0 47 1009 0 0 865 65
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 2% 2% 0% 0% 100% 15% 5% 33% 0% 5% 1%
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 1 6 2
Permitted Phases 8 8 4 6 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 29.2 29.2 29.2 77.8 77.8 65.6 65.6
Effective Green, g (s) 29.2 29.2 29.2 77.8 77.8 65.6 65.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.65 0.65 0.55 0.55
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 339 385 280 325 2226 1777 874
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.29
v/s Ratio Perm c0.19 0.01 0.00 0.09 c0.27 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.04 0.00 0.14 0.45 0.49 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 42.6 34.7 34.4 9.0 10.5 16.8 12.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.53
Incremental Delay, d2 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.1
Delay (s) 54.9 34.7 34.4 9.3 11.2 18.4 19.8
Level of Service D C C A B B B
Approach Delay (s) 51.1 34.4 11.1 18.6
Approach LOS D C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.9% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Smith Ridge Commons 2022 Existing AM Peak Volumes
Queuing and Blocking Report
2022 Existing AM Peak.syn SimTraffic Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 1
Intersection: 1: Green Ridge Road/Cove Road & Route 780
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 75 8 128
Average Queue (ft) 10 0 53
95th Queue (ft) 44 5 95
Link Distance (ft) 964 1318 1484
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Lancelot Lane /Route 629 & Cove Road
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 72 62 70 116
Average Queue (ft) 13 10 30 47
95th Queue (ft) 48 39 56 86
Link Distance (ft) 1318 1940 242 1629
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Peters Creek Road & Cove Road
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 553 190 294 95 190 319 285 179 359 384
Average Queue (ft) 300 83 145 50 52 176 149 56 156 183
95th Queue (ft) 486 213 253 111 142 273 243 136 295 323
Link Distance (ft) 1940 792 1286 1286 2429 2429
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 190 95 190 180
Storage Blk Time (%) 27 0 27 0 0 6 0 7
Queuing Penalty (veh) 19 2 17 1 0 3 0 4
Smith Ridge Commons 2022 Existing AM Peak Volumes
Queuing and Blocking Report
2022 Existing AM Peak.syn SimTraffic Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 2
Intersection: 7: Peters Creek Road
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 500 120 79 77 235 286 296 51 195 400 408 279
Average Queue (ft) 255 73 20 21 116 118 131 5 35 211 171 92
95th Queue (ft) 441 153 59 54 205 230 241 38 113 327 298 199
Link Distance (ft) 617 418 1874 1874 917 917
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 95 260 320 220 280
Storage Blk Time (%) 40 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 42 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 3 0
Intersection: 53: Peters Creek Road & Lake Drive
Movement EB EB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L R LTR L T TR LT T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 372 120 50 107 260 260 311 330 169
Average Queue (ft) 182 47 3 25 92 99 122 134 39
95th Queue (ft) 315 127 22 73 204 211 253 271 124
Link Distance (ft) 511 423 2429 2429 1874 1874
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 200 170
Storage Blk Time (%) 24 0 0 1 4 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 13 1 0 0 4 0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 115
Smith Ridge Commons 2022 Existing PM Peak Volumes
1: Green Ridge Road/Cove Road & Route 780 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2022 Existing PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 332 355 109 89 39
Future Volume (Veh/h) 16 332 355 109 89 39
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Hourly flow rate (vph) 17 353 378 116 95 41
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 494 823 436
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 494 823 436
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.3 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 72 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 1044 340 625
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 370 494 136
Volume Left 17 0 95
Volume Right 0 116 41
cSH 1044 1700 394
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.29 0.34
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 38
Control Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 18.9
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 18.9
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Smith Ridge Commons 2022 Existing PM Peak Volumes
2: Lancelot Lane/Route 629 & Cove Road HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2022 Existing PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 95 320 14 53 399 75 6 0 45 42 0 83
Future Volume (Veh/h) 95 320 14 53 399 75 6 0 45 42 0 83
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 103 348 15 58 434 82 7 0 49 46 0 90
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 516 363 1242 1194 356 1202 1160 475
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 516 363 1242 1194 356 1202 1160 475
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 90 95 94 100 93 66 100 85
cM capacity (veh/h) 1060 1207 116 162 686 135 169 594
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 466 574 56 136
Volume Left 103 58 7 46
Volume Right 15 82 49 90
cSH 1060 1207 425 276
Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.05 0.13 0.49
Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 4 11 63
Control Delay (s) 2.8 1.3 14.8 30.0
Lane LOS A A B D
Approach Delay (s) 2.8 1.3 14.8 30.0
Approach LOS B D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 5.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.5% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Smith Ridge Commons 2022 Existing PM Peak Volumes
4: Peters Creek Road & Cove Road Queues
2022 Existing PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 3
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 361 86 333 99 95 814 113 834
v/c Ratio 0.90 0.19 0.95 0.24 0.61 0.76 0.72 0.76
Control Delay 76.0 3.1 88.2 5.0 72.9 44.8 83.3 44.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 76.0 3.1 88.2 5.0 72.9 44.8 83.3 44.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 297 0 282 0 78 318 101 374
Queue Length 95th (ft) #473 15 #476 29 136 397 #177 418
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1951 768 1257 2436
Turn Bay Length (ft) 190 95 190 180
Base Capacity (vph) 408 457 352 407 178 1079 168 1102
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.88 0.19 0.95 0.24 0.53 0.75 0.67 0.76
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Smith Ridge Commons 2022 Existing PM Peak Volumes
4: Peters Creek Road & Cove Road HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2022 Existing PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 197 146 82 109 207 94 90 633 141 107 560 233
Future Volume (vph) 197 146 82 109 207 94 90 633 141 107 560 233
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1818 1599 1843 1599 1787 3415 1687 3379
Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1818 1599 1843 1599 1787 3415 1687 3379
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 207 154 86 115 218 99 95 666 148 113 589 245
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 67 0 0 80 0 14 0 0 35 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 361 19 0 333 19 95 800 0 113 799 0
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% 7% 3% 0%
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 3 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 28.6 28.6 24.9 24.9 11.5 40.3 12.2 41.0
Effective Green, g (s) 28.6 28.6 24.9 24.9 11.5 40.3 12.2 41.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.31 0.09 0.32
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 6.0 3.5 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 399 351 353 306 158 1058 158 1065
v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 c0.18 0.05 0.23 c0.07 c0.24
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.90 0.05 0.94 0.06 0.60 0.76 0.72 0.75
Uniform Delay, d1 49.4 40.0 51.9 43.0 57.0 40.4 57.2 39.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05
Incremental Delay, d2 24.5 0.1 34.1 0.2 6.6 5.0 13.9 4.6
Delay (s) 73.9 40.2 86.0 43.2 63.7 45.4 74.1 46.7
Level of Service E D F D E D E D
Approach Delay (s) 67.4 76.2 47.4 50.0
Approach LOS E E D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 56.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.4% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Smith Ridge Commons 2022 Existing PM Peak Volumes
6: Peters Creek Road & Lake Drive Queues
2022 Existing PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 137 46 12 95 922 882 148
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.17 0.04 0.20 0.35 0.41 0.14
Control Delay 69.9 14.4 0.2 6.8 9.1 10.5 1.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 69.9 14.4 0.2 6.8 9.1 10.5 1.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 111 1 0 28 195 167 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 173 35 0 m26 m133 136 16
Internal Link Dist (ft) 493 389 2436 1875
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 170
Base Capacity (vph) 308 386 426 481 2650 2170 1090
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.44 0.12 0.03 0.20 0.35 0.41 0.14
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Smith Ridge Commons 2022 Existing PM Peak Volumes
6: Peters Creek Road & Lake Drive HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2022 Existing PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 133 1 44 3 0 9 92 891 3 3 853 144
Future Volume (vph) 133 1 44 3 0 9 92 891 3 3 853 144
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1575 1687 1805 3503 3505 1599
Flt Permitted 0.75 1.00 0.95 0.27 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1383 1575 1620 512 3503 3339 1599
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 137 1 45 3 0 9 95 919 3 3 879 148
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 39 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 52
Lane Group Flow (vph) 137 7 0 0 2 0 95 922 0 0 882 96
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 3% 1%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 1 6 2
Permitted Phases 4 4 6 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 18.7 18.7 18.7 98.3 98.3 84.5 84.5
Effective Green, g (s) 18.7 18.7 18.7 98.3 98.3 84.5 84.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.76 0.76 0.65 0.65
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 198 226 233 464 2648 2170 1039
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.01 c0.26
v/s Ratio Perm c0.10 0.00 0.14 c0.26 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.03 0.01 0.20 0.35 0.41 0.09
Uniform Delay, d1 52.9 47.9 47.7 5.1 5.2 10.8 8.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.35 1.53 0.85 0.65
Incremental Delay, d2 10.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2
Delay (s) 63.2 47.9 47.7 7.0 8.3 9.7 5.7
Level of Service E D D A A A A
Approach Delay (s) 59.4 47.7 8.2 9.1
Approach LOS E D A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.1% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Smith Ridge Commons 2022 Existing PM Peak Volumes
7: Peters Creek Road Queues
2022 Existing PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 7
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 7 17 25 75 16 1102 51 45 1064 39
v/c Ratio 0.05 0.07 0.20 0.33 0.15 0.45 0.04 0.35 0.40 0.03
Control Delay 56.6 0.6 60.5 5.0 60.9 19.6 1.5 63.5 10.0 0.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 56.6 0.6 60.5 5.0 60.9 19.6 1.5 63.5 10.0 0.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 6 0 20 0 12 368 3 37 171 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 22 0 50 7 m36 457 10 76 326 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 595 397 1875 876
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 95 260 320 220 280
Base Capacity (vph) 334 400 195 282 194 2432 1136 256 2652 1242
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.04 0.13 0.27 0.08 0.45 0.04 0.18 0.40 0.03
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Smith Ridge Commons 2022 Existing PM Peak Volumes
7: Peters Creek Road HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2022 Existing PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 2 16 22 2 71 15 1047 48 43 1011 37
Future Volume (vph) 5 2 16 22 2 71 15 1047 48 43 1011 37
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1809 1615 1816 1583 1805 3505 1583 1752 3539 1615
Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1809 1615 1816 1583 1805 3505 1583 1752 3539 1615
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 2 17 23 2 75 16 1102 51 45 1064 39
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 16 0 0 71 0 0 18 0 0 12
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 7 1 0 25 4 16 1102 33 45 1064 27
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 3% 2% 3% 2% 0%
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 3 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 6.0 7.4 7.4 3.6 84.2 84.2 8.4 89.0 89.0
Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 6.0 7.4 7.4 3.6 84.2 84.2 8.4 89.0 89.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.65 0.65 0.06 0.68 0.68
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 83 74 103 90 49 2270 1025 113 2422 1105
v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.01 0.01 c0.31 c0.03 c0.30
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.08 0.01 0.24 0.05 0.33 0.49 0.03 0.40 0.44 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 59.4 59.2 58.6 58.0 62.0 11.8 8.2 58.4 9.2 6.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.47 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.1 2.1 0.4 5.1 0.7 0.1 3.1 0.6 0.0
Delay (s) 60.1 59.3 60.7 58.3 67.5 18.0 8.3 61.5 9.8 6.6
Level of Service E E E E E B A E A A
Approach Delay (s) 59.5 58.9 18.2 11.7
Approach LOS E E B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.7% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Smith Ridge Commons 2022 Existing PM Peak Volumes
Queuing and Blocking Report
2022 Existing PM Peak.syn SimTraffic Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 1
Intersection: 1: Green Ridge Road/Cove Road & Route 780
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 81 84
Average Queue (ft) 10 42
95th Queue (ft) 45 71
Link Distance (ft) 964 1484
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Lancelot Lane/Route 629 & Cove Road
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 131 109 65 125
Average Queue (ft) 42 21 27 48
95th Queue (ft) 101 73 53 90
Link Distance (ft) 1318 1938 279 1629
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Peters Creek Road & Cove Road
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 588 190 779 95 190 363 340 180 383 405
Average Queue (ft) 311 86 629 57 95 224 208 110 204 231
95th Queue (ft) 533 216 960 122 191 333 313 198 350 366
Link Distance (ft) 1938 792 1286 1286 2429 2429
Upstream Blk Time (%) 37
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 190 95 190 180
Storage Blk Time (%) 34 0 75 1 0 14 2 13
Queuing Penalty (veh) 28 1 70 2 1 12 5 14
Smith Ridge Commons 2022 Existing PM Peak Volumes
Queuing and Blocking Report
2022 Existing PM Peak.syn SimTraffic Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 2
Intersection: 6: Peters Creek Road & Lake Drive
Movement EB EB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR LTR L T TR LT T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 251 58 39 142 238 250 220 224 141
Average Queue (ft) 115 19 10 46 95 106 83 89 29
95th Queue (ft) 205 42 32 102 201 216 171 179 92
Link Distance (ft) 511 511 423 2429 2429 1874 1874
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 170
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 1 0
Intersection: 7: Peters Creek Road
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 36 31 68 80 77 290 289 55 90 194 185 22
Average Queue (ft) 6 10 20 27 16 106 117 6 38 62 47 2
95th Queue (ft) 25 29 53 57 52 234 253 38 78 148 130 13
Link Distance (ft) 617 418 1874 1874 917 917
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 95 260 320 220 280
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 135
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis - Roanoke County, VA
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis - Roanoke County, VA
Appendix D
SYNCHRO/SimTraffic Analysis
Worksheets For 2026 Background Conditions
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Background AM Peak Volumes
1: Green Ridge Road/Cove Road & Route 780 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Background AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 27 288 228 99 133 29
Future Volume (Veh/h) 27 288 228 99 133 29
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Hourly flow rate (vph) 36 384 304 132 177 39
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 436 826 370
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 436 826 370
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.4
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.5
p0 queue free % 97 46 94
cM capacity (veh/h) 1134 327 644
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 420 436 216
Volume Left 36 0 177
Volume Right 0 132 39
cSH 1134 1700 359
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.26 0.60
Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 94
Control Delay (s) 1.0 0.0 29.1
Lane LOS A D
Approach Delay (s) 1.0 0.0 29.1
Approach LOS D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 6.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Background AM Peak Volumes
2: Lancelot Lane /Route 629 & Cove Road HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Background AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 61 378 5 36 213 22 10 0 49 48 0 102
Future Volume (Veh/h) 61 378 5 36 213 22 10 0 49 48 0 102
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
Hourly flow rate (vph) 76 473 6 45 266 28 13 0 61 60 0 128
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 294 479 1126 1012 476 1059 1001 280
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 294 479 1126 1012 476 1059 1001 280
tC, single (s) 4.2 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.3 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 94 96 91 100 90 64 100 83
cM capacity (veh/h) 1245 1094 141 217 583 165 220 759
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 555 339 74 188
Volume Left 76 45 13 60
Volume Right 6 28 61 128
cSH 1245 1094 376 353
Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.04 0.20 0.53
Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 3 18 75
Control Delay (s) 1.7 1.5 16.9 26.2
Lane LOS A A C D
Approach Delay (s) 1.7 1.5 16.9 26.2
Approach LOS C D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 6.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Background AM Peak Volumes
4: Peters Creek Road & Cove Road Queues
2026 Background AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 3
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 449 82 187 72 48 712 60 760
v/c Ratio 0.94 0.16 0.78 0.23 0.39 0.60 0.43 0.64
Control Delay 75.0 2.1 76.0 2.0 65.8 38.7 65.6 38.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 75.0 2.1 76.0 2.0 65.8 38.7 65.6 38.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 368 0 153 0 39 268 49 282
Queue Length 95th (ft) #570 11 #262 4 79 353 93 372
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1951 768 1257 2436
Turn Bay Length (ft) 190 95 190 180
Base Capacity (vph) 487 529 251 327 229 1181 249 1188
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.92 0.16 0.75 0.22 0.21 0.60 0.24 0.64
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Background AM Peak Volumes
4: Peters Creek Road & Cove Road HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Background AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 287 117 74 73 95 65 43 585 56 54 530 154
Future Volume (vph) 287 117 74 73 95 65 43 585 56 54 530 154
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1759 1583 1813 1583 1656 3347 1805 3298
Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1759 1583 1813 1583 1656 3347 1805 3298
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 319 130 82 81 106 72 48 650 62 60 589 171
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 60 0 0 62 0 5 0 0 18 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 449 22 0 187 10 48 707 0 60 742 0
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 5% 2% 2% 3% 2% 9% 6% 11% 0% 6% 5%
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 3 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 35.3 35.3 17.3 17.3 8.4 44.5 8.9 45.0
Effective Green, g (s) 35.3 35.3 17.3 17.3 8.4 44.5 8.9 45.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.34 0.07 0.35
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 6.0 3.5 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 477 429 241 210 107 1145 123 1141
v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 c0.10 0.03 0.21 c0.03 c0.22
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.94 0.05 0.78 0.05 0.45 0.62 0.49 0.65
Uniform Delay, d1 46.3 35.0 54.5 49.1 58.6 35.7 58.4 35.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 27.7 0.1 16.6 0.2 3.5 2.5 3.6 2.9
Delay (s) 74.1 35.1 71.1 49.3 62.1 38.2 61.9 38.7
Level of Service E D E D E D E D
Approach Delay (s) 68.1 65.1 39.7 40.4
Approach LOS E E D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 49.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.3% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Background AM Peak Volumes
7: Peters Creek Road Queues
2026 Background AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 5
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 327 127 27 52 178 1101 40 36 1027 557
v/c Ratio 0.93 0.30 0.21 0.22 0.85 0.61 0.05 0.28 0.71 0.55
Control Delay 81.7 7.6 56.6 2.2 89.3 17.4 0.1 57.1 32.0 4.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 81.7 7.6 56.6 2.2 89.3 17.4 0.1 57.1 32.0 4.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 251 0 20 0 141 241 0 27 352 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #395 40 48 0 #249 267 m1 57 406 51
Internal Link Dist (ft) 595 397 1875 876
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 95 260 320 220 280
Base Capacity (vph) 351 428 138 241 211 1795 883 274 1452 1009
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.93 0.30 0.20 0.22 0.84 0.61 0.05 0.13 0.71 0.55
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Background AM Peak Volumes
7: Peters Creek Road HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Background AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 274 7 109 15 9 45 153 947 34 31 883 479
Future Volume (vph) 274 7 109 15 9 45 153 947 34 31 883 479
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1760 1599 1842 1538 1770 3438 1568 1736 3343 1599
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1760 1599 1842 1538 1770 3438 1568 1736 3343 1599
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 319 8 127 17 10 52 178 1101 40 36 1027 557
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 102 0 0 49 0 0 20 0 0 321
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 327 25 0 27 3 178 1101 20 36 1027 236
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 0% 1% 0% 0% 5% 2% 5% 3% 4% 8% 1%
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 3 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 23.9 23.9 6.9 6.9 14.3 59.1 59.1 6.1 50.9 50.9
Effective Green, g (s) 23.9 23.9 6.9 6.9 14.3 59.1 59.1 6.1 50.9 50.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.49 0.49 0.05 0.42 0.42
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 350 318 105 88 210 1693 772 88 1417 678
v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 c0.01 c0.10 0.32 0.02 c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.93 0.08 0.26 0.03 0.85 0.65 0.03 0.41 0.72 0.35
Uniform Delay, d1 47.3 39.1 54.1 53.4 51.8 22.7 15.7 55.2 28.7 23.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.16 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 32.1 0.2 2.2 0.3 24.2 1.7 0.1 4.2 3.3 1.4
Delay (s) 79.4 39.3 56.3 53.7 84.1 17.5 15.7 59.4 32.0 24.8
Level of Service E D E D F B B E C C
Approach Delay (s) 68.2 54.6 26.4 30.1
Approach LOS E D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.0% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Background AM Peak Volumes
53: Peters Creek Road & Lake Drive Queues
2026 Background AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBR WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 279 64 2 49 1050 900 110
v/c Ratio 0.80 0.14 0.01 0.15 0.48 0.50 0.12
Control Delay 58.5 3.1 0.0 10.6 13.0 20.2 8.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 58.5 3.1 0.0 10.6 13.0 20.2 8.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 203 0 0 13 205 170 18
Queue Length 95th (ft) 259 14 0 33 297 176 m28
Internal Link Dist (ft) 389 2436 1875
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 200 170
Base Capacity (vph) 511 638 480 339 2203 1783 918
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.55 0.10 0.00 0.14 0.48 0.50 0.12
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Background AM Peak Volumes
53: Peters Creek Road & Lake Drive HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Background AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 240 0 55 1 0 1 42 900 3 6 768 95
Future Volume (vph) 240 0 55 1 0 1 42 900 3 6 768 95
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1583 1152 1570 3434 3438 1599
Flt Permitted 0.76 1.00 0.98 0.23 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1396 1583 1152 384 3434 3251 1599
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 279 0 64 1 0 1 49 1047 3 7 893 110
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 48 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 42
Lane Group Flow (vph) 279 0 16 0 1 0 49 1050 0 0 900 68
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 2% 2% 0% 0% 100% 15% 5% 33% 0% 5% 1%
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 1 6 2
Permitted Phases 8 8 4 6 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 77.0 77.0 64.7 64.7
Effective Green, g (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 77.0 77.0 64.7 64.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.64 0.64 0.54 0.54
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 349 395 288 308 2203 1752 862
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm c0.20 0.01 0.00 0.09 c0.28 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.80 0.04 0.00 0.16 0.48 0.51 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 42.2 34.1 33.8 9.6 11.1 17.6 13.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.45
Incremental Delay, d2 12.4 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.1
Delay (s) 54.6 34.1 33.8 9.9 11.8 18.5 19.4
Level of Service D C C A B B B
Approach Delay (s) 50.8 33.8 11.8 18.6
Approach LOS D C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.0% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Background AM Peak Volumes
Queuing and Blocking Report
2026 Background AM Peak.syn SimTraffic Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 1
Intersection: 1: Green Ridge Road/Cove Road & Route 780
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 83 4 143
Average Queue (ft) 11 0 59
95th Queue (ft) 45 3 114
Link Distance (ft) 964 1318 1484
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Lancelot Lane /Route 629 & Cove Road
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 92 70 68 145
Average Queue (ft) 18 13 31 53
95th Queue (ft) 61 45 58 109
Link Distance (ft) 1318 1940 242 1629
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Peters Creek Road & Cove Road
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 606 190 328 95 189 322 289 178 359 387
Average Queue (ft) 346 77 159 51 56 192 165 55 171 197
95th Queue (ft) 584 207 290 114 145 288 265 133 317 345
Link Distance (ft) 1940 792 1286 1286 2429 2429
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 190 95 190 180
Storage Blk Time (%) 33 0 32 0 0 9 0 10
Queuing Penalty (veh) 25 2 21 1 0 4 0 5
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Background AM Peak Volumes
Queuing and Blocking Report
2026 Background AM Peak.syn SimTraffic Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 2
Intersection: 7: Peters Creek Road
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 547 120 69 74 244 283 282 86 219 381 382 271
Average Queue (ft) 275 80 19 23 123 119 137 7 38 215 181 101
95th Queue (ft) 489 157 49 53 211 227 241 51 126 327 304 213
Link Distance (ft) 617 418 1874 1874 917 917
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 95 260 320 220 280
Storage Blk Time (%) 45 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 49 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 3 1
Intersection: 53: Peters Creek Road & Lake Drive
Movement EB EB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L R LTR L T TR LT T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 349 120 33 89 269 286 356 372 170
Average Queue (ft) 180 48 2 25 99 110 138 149 46
95th Queue (ft) 304 129 17 71 208 225 277 296 143
Link Distance (ft) 511 423 2429 2429 1874 1874
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 200 170
Storage Blk Time (%) 23 0 1 6 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 13 1 0 6 1
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 138
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Background PM Peak Volumes
1: Green Ridge Road/Cove Road & Route 780 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Background PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 345 369 113 93 41
Future Volume (Veh/h) 17 345 369 113 93 41
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 367 393 120 99 44
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 513 856 453
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 513 856 453
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.3 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 70 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 1027 325 611
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 385 513 143
Volume Left 18 0 99
Volume Right 0 120 44
cSH 1027 1700 380
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.30 0.38
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 43
Control Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 20.1
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 20.1
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Background PM Peak Volumes
2: Lancelot Lane/Route 629 & Cove Road HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Background PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 99 333 15 55 415 78 6 0 47 44 0 86
Future Volume (Veh/h) 99 333 15 55 415 78 6 0 47 44 0 86
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 108 362 16 60 451 85 7 0 51 48 0 93
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 536 378 1292 1242 370 1250 1208 494
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 536 378 1292 1242 370 1250 1208 494
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 90 95 93 100 92 61 100 84
cM capacity (veh/h) 1042 1192 105 150 673 124 157 580
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 486 596 58 141
Volume Left 108 60 7 48
Volume Right 16 85 51 93
cSH 1042 1192 407 257
Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.05 0.14 0.55
Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 4 12 76
Control Delay (s) 2.9 1.4 15.3 34.8
Lane LOS A A C D
Approach Delay (s) 2.9 1.4 15.3 34.8
Approach LOS C D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 6.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.5% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Background PM Peak Volumes
4: Peters Creek Road & Cove Road Queues
2026 Background PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 3
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 376 89 345 103 99 849 117 869
v/c Ratio 0.94 0.20 0.96 0.25 0.62 0.81 0.74 0.81
Control Delay 81.3 3.4 90.4 5.8 73.8 47.5 82.6 47.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 81.3 3.4 90.4 5.8 73.8 47.5 82.6 47.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 313 0 ~300 0 81 337 106 391
Queue Length 95th (ft) #503 19 #499 33 142 419 #192 463
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1951 768 1257 2436
Turn Bay Length (ft) 190 95 190 180
Base Capacity (vph) 405 454 360 413 178 1066 168 1084
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.93 0.20 0.96 0.25 0.56 0.80 0.70 0.80
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Background PM Peak Volumes
4: Peters Creek Road & Cove Road HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Background PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 205 152 85 113 215 98 94 659 147 111 583 242
Future Volume (vph) 205 152 85 113 215 98 94 659 147 111 583 242
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1818 1599 1843 1599 1787 3415 1687 3379
Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1818 1599 1843 1599 1787 3415 1687 3379
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 216 160 89 119 226 103 99 694 155 117 614 255
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 69 0 0 83 0 15 0 0 35 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 376 20 0 345 20 99 834 0 117 834 0
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% 7% 3% 0%
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 3 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 28.8 28.8 25.4 25.4 11.7 39.5 12.3 40.1
Effective Green, g (s) 28.8 28.8 25.4 25.4 11.7 39.5 12.3 40.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.09 0.30 0.09 0.31
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 6.0 3.5 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 402 354 360 312 160 1037 159 1042
v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 c0.19 0.06 0.24 c0.07 c0.25
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.94 0.06 0.96 0.06 0.62 0.80 0.74 0.80
Uniform Delay, d1 49.7 39.9 51.8 42.6 57.0 41.7 57.3 41.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.07
Incremental Delay, d2 29.8 0.1 36.8 0.2 7.3 6.6 15.7 6.1
Delay (s) 79.5 40.0 88.6 42.8 64.3 48.3 73.9 50.1
Level of Service E D F D E D E D
Approach Delay (s) 71.9 78.1 50.0 52.9
Approach LOS E E D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 59.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service E
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.0% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Background PM Peak Volumes
6: Peters Creek Road & Lake Drive Queues
2026 Background PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 5
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 142 48 12 99 959 918 155
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.18 0.04 0.22 0.36 0.43 0.14
Control Delay 70.0 13.9 0.2 7.2 9.7 10.5 1.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 70.0 13.9 0.2 7.2 9.7 10.5 1.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 115 1 0 27 198 177 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 178 35 0 m27 m139 125 13
Internal Link Dist (ft) 493 389 2436 1875
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 170
Base Capacity (vph) 308 387 426 462 2639 2157 1087
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.12 0.03 0.21 0.36 0.43 0.14
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Background PM Peak Volumes
6: Peters Creek Road & Lake Drive HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Background PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 138 1 46 3 0 9 96 927 3 3 888 150
Future Volume (vph) 138 1 46 3 0 9 96 927 3 3 888 150
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1575 1687 1805 3504 3505 1599
Flt Permitted 0.75 1.00 0.95 0.26 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1383 1575 1621 487 3504 3339 1599
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 142 1 47 3 0 9 99 956 3 3 915 155
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 40 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 55
Lane Group Flow (vph) 142 8 0 0 2 0 99 959 0 0 918 100
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 3% 1%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 1 6 2
Permitted Phases 4 4 6 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.1 19.1 19.1 97.9 97.9 84.0 84.0
Effective Green, g (s) 19.1 19.1 19.1 97.9 97.9 84.0 84.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.75 0.75 0.65 0.65
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 203 231 238 446 2638 2157 1033
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.01 c0.27
v/s Ratio Perm c0.10 0.00 0.15 c0.27 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.03 0.01 0.22 0.36 0.43 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 52.7 47.5 47.4 5.4 5.5 11.2 8.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.37 1.58 0.81 0.50
Incremental Delay, d2 10.4 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.2
Delay (s) 63.1 47.6 47.4 7.6 8.9 9.7 4.5
Level of Service E D D A A A A
Approach Delay (s) 59.2 47.4 8.8 8.9
Approach LOS E D A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.3% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Background PM Peak Volumes
7: Peters Creek Road Queues
2026 Background PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 7
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 7 18 26 78 16 1147 53 47 1107 41
v/c Ratio 0.05 0.07 0.21 0.35 0.15 0.47 0.05 0.36 0.42 0.03
Control Delay 56.6 0.6 60.6 5.9 61.3 20.2 1.5 63.6 10.2 0.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 56.6 0.6 60.6 5.9 61.3 20.2 1.5 63.6 10.2 0.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 6 0 21 0 12 389 2 38 181 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 22 0 51 10 m35 480 10 77 345 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 595 397 1875 876
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 95 260 320 220 280
Base Capacity (vph) 334 400 195 282 194 2426 1134 256 2650 1241
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.04 0.13 0.28 0.08 0.47 0.05 0.18 0.42 0.03
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Background PM Peak Volumes
7: Peters Creek Road HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Background PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 2 17 23 2 74 15 1090 50 45 1052 39
Future Volume (vph) 5 2 17 23 2 74 15 1090 50 45 1052 39
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1809 1615 1816 1583 1805 3505 1583 1752 3539 1615
Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1809 1615 1816 1583 1805 3505 1583 1752 3539 1615
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 2 18 24 2 78 16 1147 53 47 1107 41
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 17 0 0 74 0 0 19 0 0 13
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 7 1 0 26 5 16 1147 34 47 1107 28
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 3% 2% 3% 2% 0%
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 3 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 6.0 7.5 7.5 3.6 84.0 84.0 8.5 88.9 88.9
Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 6.0 7.5 7.5 3.6 84.0 84.0 8.5 88.9 88.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.65 0.65 0.07 0.68 0.68
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 83 74 104 91 49 2264 1022 114 2420 1104
v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.01 0.01 c0.33 c0.03 c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.08 0.01 0.25 0.05 0.33 0.51 0.03 0.41 0.46 0.03
Uniform Delay, d1 59.4 59.2 58.6 57.9 62.0 12.1 8.3 58.4 9.5 6.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.1 2.2 0.4 5.0 0.8 0.1 3.3 0.6 0.0
Delay (s) 60.1 59.3 60.7 58.3 68.0 18.5 8.4 61.6 10.1 6.7
Level of Service E E E E E B A E B A
Approach Delay (s) 59.5 58.9 18.7 12.0
Approach LOS E E B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.7% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Background PM Peak Volumes
Queuing and Blocking Report
2026 Background PM Peak.syn SimTraffic Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 1
Intersection: 1: Green Ridge Road/Cove Road & Route 780
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 65 11 98
Average Queue (ft) 8 0 47
95th Queue (ft) 38 6 82
Link Distance (ft) 964 1318 1484
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Lancelot Lane/Route 629 & Cove Road
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 147 116 62 125
Average Queue (ft) 43 20 28 50
95th Queue (ft) 105 70 54 100
Link Distance (ft) 1318 1938 279 1629
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: Peters Creek Road & Cove Road
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 664 190 826 95 190 381 360 180 440 455
Average Queue (ft) 391 93 683 56 110 232 215 128 226 253
95th Queue (ft) 734 227 994 123 211 338 319 211 380 406
Link Distance (ft) 1938 792 1286 1286 2429 2429
Upstream Blk Time (%) 45
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 190 95 190 180
Storage Blk Time (%) 43 0 76 1 0 14 3 16
Queuing Penalty (veh) 36 2 74 3 1 14 9 18
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Background PM Peak Volumes
Queuing and Blocking Report
2026 Background PM Peak.syn SimTraffic Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 2
Intersection: 6: Peters Creek Road & Lake Drive
Movement EB EB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR LTR L T TR LT T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 237 65 49 140 219 229 246 270 158
Average Queue (ft) 118 20 11 46 88 104 96 101 32
95th Queue (ft) 206 48 37 95 184 202 192 204 100
Link Distance (ft) 511 511 423 2429 2429 1874 1874
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 170
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 2 0
Intersection: 7: Peters Creek Road
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 49 35 83 83 73 306 299 117 101 204 179 20
Average Queue (ft) 8 10 23 30 15 112 119 11 35 70 51 2
95th Queue (ft) 32 30 61 63 51 258 260 71 78 170 139 13
Link Distance (ft) 617 418 1874 1874 917 917
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 95 260 320 220 280
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 161
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis - Roanoke County, VA
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis - Roanoke County, VA
Appendix E
SYNCHRO/SimTraffic Analysis
Worksheets For 2026 Future Conditions
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future AM Peak Volumes
1: Green Ridge Road/Cove Road & Route 780 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Total AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 27 294 245 99 133 29
Future Volume (Veh/h) 27 294 245 99 133 29
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Hourly flow rate (vph) 36 392 327 132 177 39
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 459 857 393
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 459 857 393
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.4
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.5
p0 queue free % 97 44 94
cM capacity (veh/h) 1113 313 624
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 428 459 216
Volume Left 36 0 177
Volume Right 0 132 39
cSH 1113 1700 344
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.27 0.63
Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 101
Control Delay (s) 1.0 0.0 31.5
Lane LOS A D
Approach Delay (s) 1.0 0.0 31.5
Approach LOS D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 6.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future AM Peak Volumes
2: Lancelot Lane /Route 629 & Cove Road HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Total AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 61 384 5 36 230 22 10 0 49 48 0 102
Future Volume (Veh/h) 61 384 5 36 230 22 10 0 49 48 0 102
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
Hourly flow rate (vph) 76 480 6 45 288 28 13 0 61 60 0 128
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 316 486 1155 1041 483 1088 1030 302
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 316 486 1155 1041 483 1088 1030 302
tC, single (s) 4.2 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.3 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 94 96 90 100 89 62 100 83
cM capacity (veh/h) 1222 1087 134 208 577 157 212 738
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 562 361 74 188
Volume Left 76 45 13 60
Volume Right 6 28 61 128
cSH 1222 1087 365 339
Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.04 0.20 0.55
Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 3 19 80
Control Delay (s) 1.7 1.4 17.4 28.1
Lane LOS A A C D
Approach Delay (s) 1.7 1.4 17.4 28.1
Approach LOS C D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 6.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future AM Peak Volumes
3: Cove Road & Site Drive HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Total AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 478 292 16 44 17
Future Volume (Veh/h) 6 478 292 16 44 17
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 531 324 18 49 19
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 300
pX, platoon unblocked 0.95 0.95 0.95
vC, conflicting volume 342 878 333
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 285 847 276
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 99 84 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 1217 315 727
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 538 342 68
Volume Left 7 0 49
Volume Right 0 18 19
cSH 1217 1700 374
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.20 0.18
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 16
Control Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 16.8
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 16.8
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future AM Peak Volumes
4: Peters Creek Road & Cove Road Queues
2026 Total AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 4
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 493 86 189 72 50 712 64 776
v/c Ratio 0.98 0.16 0.78 0.23 0.40 0.63 0.44 0.68
Control Delay 81.3 2.5 76.7 2.0 66.0 40.4 65.8 40.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 81.3 2.5 76.7 2.0 66.0 40.4 65.8 40.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~426 0 155 0 41 269 52 291
Queue Length 95th (ft) #654 14 #265 4 82 355 98 381
Internal Link Dist (ft) 220 768 1257 339
Turn Bay Length (ft) 190 95 190 180
Base Capacity (vph) 504 544 251 327 229 1123 249 1133
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.98 0.16 0.75 0.22 0.22 0.63 0.26 0.68
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future AM Peak Volumes
4: Peters Creek Road & Cove Road HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Total AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 324 120 77 73 97 65 45 585 56 58 533 166
Future Volume (vph) 324 120 77 73 97 65 45 585 56 58 533 166
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1758 1583 1814 1583 1656 3347 1805 3292
Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1758 1583 1814 1583 1656 3347 1805 3292
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 360 133 86 81 108 72 50 650 62 64 592 184
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 61 0 0 62 0 5 0 0 21 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 493 25 0 189 10 50 707 0 64 755 0
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 5% 2% 2% 3% 2% 9% 6% 11% 0% 6% 5%
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 3 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 37.3 37.3 17.3 17.3 8.6 42.3 9.1 42.8
Effective Green, g (s) 37.3 37.3 17.3 17.3 8.6 42.3 9.1 42.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.33 0.07 0.33
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 6.0 3.5 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 504 454 241 210 109 1089 126 1083
v/s Ratio Prot c0.28 c0.10 0.03 0.21 c0.04 c0.23
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.98 0.05 0.78 0.05 0.46 0.65 0.51 0.70
Uniform Delay, d1 45.9 33.6 54.5 49.1 58.5 37.5 58.3 38.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 34.4 0.1 17.5 0.2 3.6 3.0 3.8 3.7
Delay (s) 80.4 33.7 72.0 49.3 62.0 40.5 62.1 41.7
Level of Service F C E D E D E D
Approach Delay (s) 73.5 65.8 41.9 43.2
Approach LOS E E D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 52.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.0% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future AM Peak Volumes
5: Peters Creek Road & Site Exit HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Total AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 7 0 974 752 0
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 7 0 974 752 0
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 8 0 1082 836 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 419
pX, platoon unblocked 0.83
vC, conflicting volume 1377 418 836
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1034 418 836
tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 188 584 794
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 8 541 541 418 418
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 8 0 0 0 0
cSH 584 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.25 0.25
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B
Approach Delay (s) 11.3 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future AM Peak Volumes
6: Peters Creek Road & Lake Drive Queues
2026 Total AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBR WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 279 64 2 49 1093 914 110
v/c Ratio 0.80 0.14 0.01 0.15 0.50 0.51 0.12
Control Delay 58.5 3.1 0.0 10.7 13.3 20.0 8.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 58.5 3.1 0.0 10.7 13.3 20.0 8.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 203 0 0 13 217 163 16
Queue Length 95th (ft) 259 14 0 33 313 182 m29
Internal Link Dist (ft) 389 2017 1875
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 200 170
Base Capacity (vph) 511 638 480 335 2204 1783 918
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.55 0.10 0.00 0.15 0.50 0.51 0.12
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future AM Peak Volumes
6: Peters Creek Road & Lake Drive HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Total AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 240 0 55 1 0 1 42 937 3 6 780 95
Future Volume (vph) 240 0 55 1 0 1 42 937 3 6 780 95
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1583 1152 1570 3434 3438 1599
Flt Permitted 0.76 1.00 0.98 0.23 1.00 0.94 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1396 1583 1152 376 3434 3249 1599
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 279 0 64 1 0 1 49 1090 3 7 907 110
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 48 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 41
Lane Group Flow (vph) 279 0 16 0 1 0 49 1093 0 0 914 69
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 2% 2% 0% 0% 100% 15% 5% 33% 0% 5% 1%
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 1 6 2
Permitted Phases 8 8 4 6 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 77.0 77.0 64.7 64.7
Effective Green, g (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 77.0 77.0 64.7 64.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.64 0.64 0.54 0.54
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 349 395 288 303 2203 1751 862
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.32
v/s Ratio Perm c0.20 0.01 0.00 0.10 c0.28 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.80 0.04 0.00 0.16 0.50 0.52 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 42.2 34.1 33.8 9.6 11.3 17.7 13.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.41
Incremental Delay, d2 12.4 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.1
Delay (s) 54.6 34.1 33.8 9.9 12.1 18.2 18.9
Level of Service D C C A B B B
Approach Delay (s) 50.8 33.8 12.0 18.3
Approach LOS D C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.0% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future AM Peak Volumes
7: Peters Creek Road Queues
2026 Total AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 9
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 327 127 27 52 178 1144 40 36 1041 557
v/c Ratio 0.93 0.30 0.21 0.22 0.85 0.64 0.05 0.28 0.72 0.55
Control Delay 81.7 7.6 56.6 2.2 89.2 18.0 0.1 57.1 32.3 4.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 81.7 7.6 56.6 2.2 89.2 18.0 0.1 57.1 32.3 4.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 251 0 20 0 139 217 0 27 359 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #395 40 48 0 #250 286 m1 57 414 51
Internal Link Dist (ft) 595 397 1875 876
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 95 260 320 220 280
Base Capacity (vph) 351 428 138 241 211 1795 883 274 1452 1009
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.93 0.30 0.20 0.22 0.84 0.64 0.05 0.13 0.72 0.55
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future AM Peak Volumes
7: Peters Creek Road HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Total AM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 274 7 109 15 9 45 153 984 34 31 895 479
Future Volume (vph) 274 7 109 15 9 45 153 984 34 31 895 479
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1760 1599 1842 1538 1770 3438 1568 1736 3343 1599
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1760 1599 1842 1538 1770 3438 1568 1736 3343 1599
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 319 8 127 17 10 52 178 1144 40 36 1041 557
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 102 0 0 49 0 0 20 0 0 321
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 327 25 0 27 3 178 1144 20 36 1041 236
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 0% 1% 0% 0% 5% 2% 5% 3% 4% 8% 1%
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 3 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 23.9 23.9 6.9 6.9 14.3 59.1 59.1 6.1 50.9 50.9
Effective Green, g (s) 23.9 23.9 6.9 6.9 14.3 59.1 59.1 6.1 50.9 50.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.49 0.49 0.05 0.42 0.42
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 350 318 105 88 210 1693 772 88 1417 678
v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 c0.01 c0.10 0.33 0.02 c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.93 0.08 0.26 0.03 0.85 0.68 0.03 0.41 0.73 0.35
Uniform Delay, d1 47.3 39.1 54.1 53.4 51.8 23.2 15.7 55.2 28.9 23.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.16 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 32.1 0.2 2.2 0.3 24.0 1.9 0.1 4.2 3.4 1.4
Delay (s) 79.4 39.3 56.3 53.7 84.1 18.1 15.7 59.4 32.3 24.8
Level of Service E D E D F B B E C C
Approach Delay (s) 68.2 54.6 26.7 30.3
Approach LOS E D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.0% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future AM Peak Volumes
Queuing and Blocking Report
2026 Total AM Peak.syn SimTraffic Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 1
Intersection: 1: Green Ridge Road/Cove Road & Route 780
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 69 6 130
Average Queue (ft) 12 0 56
95th Queue (ft) 45 4 106
Link Distance (ft) 964 1318 1484
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Lancelot Lane /Route 629 & Cove Road
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 81 82 68 130
Average Queue (ft) 17 14 30 50
95th Queue (ft) 58 49 56 99
Link Distance (ft) 1318 1671 240 1629
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Cove Road & Site Drive
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 503 2 263
Average Queue (ft) 215 0 91
95th Queue (ft) 457 2 233
Link Distance (ft) 1671 210 338
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future AM Peak Volumes
Queuing and Blocking Report
2026 Total AM Peak.syn SimTraffic Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 2
Intersection: 4: Peters Creek Road & Cove Road
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 226 190 308 95 189 323 299 178 333 347
Average Queue (ft) 214 68 152 55 61 187 162 62 161 189
95th Queue (ft) 246 191 275 114 155 286 263 154 303 336
Link Distance (ft) 210 791 1287 1287 338 338
Upstream Blk Time (%) 39 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 203 1 5
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 190 95 190 180
Storage Blk Time (%) 44 0 29 0 0 8 0 9
Queuing Penalty (veh) 34 1 19 1 0 4 0 5
Intersection: 5: Peters Creek Road & Site Exit
Movement EB SB SB
Directions Served R T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 33 47 101
Average Queue (ft) 5 2 5
95th Queue (ft) 24 27 42
Link Distance (ft) 314 2045 2045
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Peters Creek Road & Lake Drive
Movement EB EB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L R LTR L T TR LT T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 369 120 33 131 277 277 320 348 170
Average Queue (ft) 182 48 2 28 93 102 121 135 44
95th Queue (ft) 315 128 17 80 212 222 254 279 137
Link Distance (ft) 511 423 2045 2045 1874 1874
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 200 170
Storage Blk Time (%) 23 0 0 1 5 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 13 1 0 0 5 1
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future AM Peak Volumes
Queuing and Blocking Report
2026 Total AM Peak.syn SimTraffic Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 3
Intersection: 7: Peters Creek Road
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 537 120 69 68 233 280 292 28 194 409 384 269
Average Queue (ft) 276 73 18 23 114 121 134 5 37 217 179 95
95th Queue (ft) 487 153 51 52 198 232 245 19 118 343 312 205
Link Distance (ft) 617 418 1874 1874 917 917
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 95 260 320 220 280
Storage Blk Time (%) 45 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 49 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 3 1
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 352
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future PM Peak Volumes
1: Green Ridge Road/Cove Road & Route 780 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Total PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 363 380 113 93 41
Future Volume (Veh/h) 17 363 380 113 93 41
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 386 404 120 99 44
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 524 886 464
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 524 886 464
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.3 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 68 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 1018 312 602
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 404 524 143
Volume Left 18 0 99
Volume Right 0 120 44
cSH 1018 1700 366
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.31 0.39
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 45
Control Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 21.0
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 21.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future PM Peak Volumes
2: Lancelot Lane/Route 629 & Cove Road HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Total PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 99 351 15 55 426 78 6 0 47 44 0 86
Future Volume (Veh/h) 99 351 15 55 426 78 6 0 47 44 0 86
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 108 382 16 60 463 85 7 0 51 48 0 93
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 548 398 1324 1274 390 1282 1240 506
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 548 398 1324 1274 390 1282 1240 506
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 90 95 93 100 92 59 100 84
cM capacity (veh/h) 1032 1172 99 143 656 117 150 571
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 506 608 58 141
Volume Left 108 60 7 48
Volume Right 16 85 51 93
cSH 1032 1172 391 246
Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.05 0.15 0.57
Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 4 13 81
Control Delay (s) 2.9 1.4 15.8 37.6
Lane LOS A A C E
Approach Delay (s) 2.9 1.4 15.8 37.6
Approach LOS C E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 6.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.7% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future PM Peak Volumes
3: Cove Road & Site Drive HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Total PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 18 441 428 53 27 11
Future Volume (Veh/h) 18 441 428 53 27 11
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph) 19 464 451 56 28 12
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 311
pX, platoon unblocked 0.89 0.89 0.89
vC, conflicting volume 507 981 479
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 388 919 357
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 89 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 1045 264 614
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 483 507 40
Volume Left 19 0 28
Volume Right 0 56 12
cSH 1045 1700 319
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.30 0.13
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 11
Control Delay (s) 0.5 0.0 17.9
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.0 17.9
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future PM Peak Volumes
4: Peters Creek Road & Cove Road Queues
2026 Total PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 4
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 402 92 353 103 106 849 119 912
v/c Ratio 0.97 0.20 1.04 0.26 0.65 0.80 0.74 0.84
Control Delay 86.5 3.7 110.2 5.9 76.0 47.0 81.0 47.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 86.5 3.7 110.2 5.9 76.0 47.0 81.0 47.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 341 0 ~320 0 87 337 106 406
Queue Length 95th (ft) #552 22 #514 33 151 419 #190 480
Internal Link Dist (ft) 231 768 1257 331
Turn Bay Length (ft) 190 95 190 180
Base Capacity (vph) 416 463 340 397 178 1065 168 1089
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.97 0.20 1.04 0.26 0.60 0.80 0.71 0.84
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future PM Peak Volumes
4: Peters Creek Road & Cove Road HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Total PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 228 154 87 113 222 98 101 659 147 113 585 281
Future Volume (vph) 228 154 87 113 222 98 101 659 147 113 585 281
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1816 1599 1844 1599 1787 3415 1687 3366
Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1816 1599 1844 1599 1787 3415 1687 3366
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 240 162 92 119 234 103 106 694 155 119 616 296
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 71 0 0 84 0 15 0 0 44 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 402 21 0 353 19 106 834 0 119 868 0
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% 7% 3% 0%
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 3 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 29.8 29.8 24.0 24.0 11.8 39.8 12.4 40.4
Effective Green, g (s) 29.8 29.8 24.0 24.0 11.8 39.8 12.4 40.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.31 0.10 0.31
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 6.0 3.5 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 416 366 340 295 162 1045 160 1046
v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 c0.19 0.06 0.24 c0.07 c0.26
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.97 0.06 1.04 0.06 0.65 0.80 0.74 0.83
Uniform Delay, d1 49.6 39.1 53.0 43.7 57.1 41.4 57.3 41.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.04
Incremental Delay, d2 35.6 0.1 59.1 0.2 9.5 6.4 16.3 7.1
Delay (s) 85.2 39.3 112.1 43.9 66.6 47.8 72.1 50.3
Level of Service F D F D E D E D
Approach Delay (s) 76.6 96.7 49.9 52.8
Approach LOS E F D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 62.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service E
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.4% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future PM Peak Volumes
5: Peters Creek Road & Site Exit HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Total PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 4 0 983 976 0
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 4 0 983 976 0
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 4 0 1035 1027 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 411
pX, platoon unblocked 0.78
vC, conflicting volume 1544 514 1027
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1141 514 1027
tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 152 506 672
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 4 518 518 514 514
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 4 0 0 0 0
cSH 506 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B
Approach Delay (s) 12.2 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future PM Peak Volumes
6: Peters Creek Road & Lake Drive Queues
2026 Total PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 142 48 12 99 982 959 155
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.18 0.04 0.23 0.37 0.44 0.14
Control Delay 70.0 13.9 0.2 6.8 8.9 10.1 1.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 70.0 13.9 0.2 6.8 8.9 10.1 1.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 115 1 0 22 175 174 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 178 35 0 m29 m147 110 11
Internal Link Dist (ft) 493 389 2026 1875
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 170
Base Capacity (vph) 308 387 426 444 2639 2157 1086
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.12 0.03 0.22 0.37 0.44 0.14
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future PM Peak Volumes
6: Peters Creek Road & Lake Drive HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Total PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 138 1 46 3 0 9 96 950 3 3 927 150
Future Volume (vph) 138 1 46 3 0 9 96 950 3 3 927 150
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1575 1687 1805 3504 3505 1599
Flt Permitted 0.75 1.00 0.95 0.24 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1383 1575 1621 461 3504 3339 1599
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 142 1 47 3 0 9 99 979 3 3 956 155
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 40 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 53
Lane Group Flow (vph) 142 8 0 0 2 0 99 982 0 0 959 102
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 3% 1%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 1 6 2
Permitted Phases 4 4 6 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.1 19.1 19.1 97.9 97.9 84.0 84.0
Effective Green, g (s) 19.1 19.1 19.1 97.9 97.9 84.0 84.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.75 0.75 0.65 0.65
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 203 231 238 428 2638 2157 1033
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.01 c0.28
v/s Ratio Perm c0.10 0.00 0.16 c0.29 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.03 0.01 0.23 0.37 0.44 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 52.7 47.5 47.4 5.5 5.5 11.4 8.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.28 1.43 0.76 0.41
Incremental Delay, d2 10.4 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.2
Delay (s) 63.1 47.6 47.4 7.3 8.1 9.3 3.7
Level of Service E D D A A A A
Approach Delay (s) 59.2 47.4 8.1 8.6
Approach LOS E D A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.0% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future PM Peak Volumes
7: Peters Creek Road Queues
2026 Total PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 9
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 7 18 26 78 16 1172 53 47 1148 41
v/c Ratio 0.05 0.07 0.21 0.35 0.15 0.48 0.05 0.36 0.43 0.03
Control Delay 56.6 0.6 60.6 5.9 61.5 20.4 1.3 63.6 10.4 0.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 56.6 0.6 60.6 5.9 61.5 20.4 1.3 63.6 10.4 0.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 6 0 21 0 13 401 1 38 191 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 22 0 51 10 m36 493 10 77 363 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 595 397 1875 876
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 95 260 320 220 280
Base Capacity (vph) 334 400 195 282 194 2426 1134 256 2650 1241
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.04 0.13 0.28 0.08 0.48 0.05 0.18 0.43 0.03
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future PM Peak Volumes
7: Peters Creek Road HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2026 Total PM Peak.syn Synchro 10 Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 2 17 23 2 74 15 1113 50 45 1091 39
Future Volume (vph) 5 2 17 23 2 74 15 1113 50 45 1091 39
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1809 1615 1816 1583 1805 3505 1583 1752 3539 1615
Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1809 1615 1816 1583 1805 3505 1583 1752 3539 1615
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 2 18 24 2 78 16 1172 53 47 1148 41
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 17 0 0 74 0 0 19 0 0 13
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 7 1 0 26 5 16 1172 34 47 1148 28
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 3% 2% 3% 2% 0%
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 3 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 6.0 7.5 7.5 3.6 84.0 84.0 8.5 88.9 88.9
Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 6.0 7.5 7.5 3.6 84.0 84.0 8.5 88.9 88.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.65 0.65 0.07 0.68 0.68
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 83 74 104 91 49 2264 1022 114 2420 1104
v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.01 0.01 c0.33 c0.03 c0.32
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.08 0.01 0.25 0.05 0.33 0.52 0.03 0.41 0.47 0.03
Uniform Delay, d1 59.4 59.2 58.6 57.9 62.0 12.2 8.3 58.4 9.6 6.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.1 2.2 0.4 5.0 0.8 0.1 3.3 0.7 0.0
Delay (s) 60.1 59.3 60.7 58.3 68.3 18.6 8.4 61.6 10.3 6.7
Level of Service E E E E E B A E B A
Approach Delay (s) 59.5 58.9 18.8 12.1
Approach LOS E E B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.7% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future PM Peak Volumes
Queuing and Blocking Report
2026 Total PM Peak.syn SimTraffic Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 1
Intersection: 1: Green Ridge Road/Cove Road & Route 780
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 90 93
Average Queue (ft) 9 45
95th Queue (ft) 50 77
Link Distance (ft) 964 1484
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Lancelot Lane/Route 629 & Cove Road
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 144 111 68 120
Average Queue (ft) 43 20 28 50
95th Queue (ft) 102 68 56 93
Link Distance (ft) 1318 1663 279 1629
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Cove Road & Site Drive
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 507 2 219
Average Queue (ft) 222 0 91
95th Queue (ft) 494 2 246
Link Distance (ft) 1663 225 307
Upstream Blk Time (%) 6
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future PM Peak Volumes
Queuing and Blocking Report
2026 Total PM Peak.syn SimTraffic Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 2
Intersection: 4: Peters Creek Road & Cove Road
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 244 190 833 95 190 376 366 180 356 359
Average Queue (ft) 225 101 744 58 125 240 224 125 231 257
95th Queue (ft) 259 235 945 125 219 346 327 209 373 384
Link Distance (ft) 225 793 1291 1291 332 332
Upstream Blk Time (%) 42 57 4 5
Queuing Penalty (veh) 195 0 17 24
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 190 95 190 180
Storage Blk Time (%) 51 1 79 1 0 16 3 18
Queuing Penalty (veh) 44 2 77 2 1 17 10 21
Intersection: 5: Peters Creek Road & Site Exit
Movement EB SB SB
Directions Served R T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 28 133 169
Average Queue (ft) 3 12 21
95th Queue (ft) 19 72 97
Link Distance (ft) 255 2054 2054
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Peters Creek Road & Lake Drive
Movement EB EB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR LTR L T TR LT T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 242 66 39 157 234 242 245 334 158
Average Queue (ft) 116 19 9 46 85 101 92 99 34
95th Queue (ft) 206 45 33 99 190 212 193 231 104
Link Distance (ft) 511 511 423 2054 2054 1874 1874
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 170
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 2 0
Smith Ridge Commons 2026 Total Future PM Peak Volumes
Queuing and Blocking Report
2026 Total PM Peak.syn SimTraffic Report - 01/14/2022
Timmons Group Page 3
Intersection: 7: Peters Creek Road
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT R LT R L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 40 29 83 84 75 302 321 77 132 228 213 22
Average Queue (ft) 8 9 24 31 16 123 132 7 39 76 55 3
95th Queue (ft) 29 28 60 65 53 264 281 50 88 186 156 13
Link Distance (ft) 617 418 1874 1874 917 917
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 95 260 320 220 280
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 414
January 2022 Smith Ridge Commons Traffic Impact Analysis - Roanoke County, VA
C h r i s L o w e
STAFF REPORT
Petitioner: The Lawson Companies
Request: To amend existing proffered conditions on approximately 12.15 acres on property
zoned R-3C, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions.
The proposed amended proffers would establish conformance with the concept
plan prepared by Timmons Group on October 8, 2021, and would increase the
overall number of apartment dwelling units from 185 to 216. Proffers restricting
access to the Beacon Ridge subdivision via Candlelight Circle would remain in
place.
Location: Near the 5000 Block of Cove Road and the 2700 Block of Peters Creek Road
Magisterial District: Catawba
Proposed
Amendments to
Proffered Conditions
(changes shown in
red)
property, and Petitioner will not build any units to be rented on a government
subsidized rental basis. The site shall be developed in general conformance with
"The Lawson Companies - Cove Road Apartments Concept Plan" prepared by
Timmons Group and dated October 8, 2021, subject to any changes required during
the site plan review process.
2. There shall be no street access from the subject property to the Beacon Ridge
subdivision/Candlelight Circle.
3. The maximum number of dwelling units on the subject property shall be 185 216.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The applicant (Lawson Companies) is requesting to amend existing proffered conditions from a previous rezoning
(1984). The property was never developed and is currently vacant. The applicant is proposing to amend all three
proffered conditions. The amended proffered conditions proposed by the applicant relate to conformance with the
applicant’s concept plan, clarifies that no access would be allowed from Candlelight Circle (Beacon Ridge
subdivision), and increase the number of allowable dwelling units on the property from 185 to 216. The proposed
development (Smith Ridge Commons) includes seven (7) 3-story apartment buildings, a clubhouse and maintenance
building. The project is proposed to be constructed in three (3) phases and contains a mixture of 1-bedroom, 2-
bedroom, and 3-bedroom apartments.
This site is designated Transition on the future land use map of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. Transition
is a future land use area where orderly development of highway frontage parcels is encouraged. Transition areas
generally serve as developed buffers between highways and nearby or adjacent lower intensity development. Some
appropriate land use types are office, institutional, retail, and multifamily development. The proposed project is
consistent with the Transition future land use designation.
1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
right in the R-3 zoning district. Section 30-82-11 provides use and design standards for multi-family
dwellings. Sections 30-45 and 30-82-11 are attached to the staff report.
If the site is developed, that development would be subject to site plan and building plan review and
approval by several agencies including, but not be limited to: Engineering, Stormwater, Office of Building
Safety, Virginia Department of Transportation, Western Virginia Water Authority, Zoning, Solid Waste, and
Fire and Rescue.
2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
Residential District R-6 with conditions, with the purpose of constructing 185 residential condominiums,
though this development never happened. During the Countywide rezoning in 1992, the property’s zoning
was changed to R-3C Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions.
behind CVS, then converts into a gentler slope upward with some rolling hills. The access and slope from
Cove Road is much more gradual running parallel with the steepest slope. The property is entirely wooded
with a mix of hardwoods.
(Medium Density Residential) with single family homes and a vacant lot. Properties to the east are zoned
R-3 (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential) and C-2 (High Intensity Commercial) and consist primarily of
a CVS, a parcel with a dilapidated single-family structure, and vacant properties. Properties to the west are
zoned R-2 and included a mix of single family houses and vacant properties. Properties to the south,
across Cove Road, are located in the City of Roanoke, are zoned ROS (Recreation and Open Space) and
CN (Commercial Neighborhood), and consist of convenience stores and a large parcel that is a cemetery
(Cedar Lawn Memorial Park).
3.ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Site Layout/Architecture – According to the Concept Plan dated October 8, 2021, prepared by the Timmons
Group, the apartment complex, once complete, would contain seven (7) apartment buildings of two varying
sizes, a clubhouse, and a maintenance building. Parking will be dispersed throughout the complex with the
total number of spaces to be determined. The apartment complex is proposed to have 4 larger buildings
with a total of 144 units, and 3 smaller buildings with a total of 72 units. All buildings will be 3 stories in
height. Of the 216 apartments, 36 are proposed to be one-bedroom units, 135 are proposed to be two-
bedroom units, and 45 are proposed to be three-bedroom apartments. The project is proposed to be
constructed in three (3) phases. Construction of two (2) of the larger apartment buildings, the clubhouse,
and the maintenance building are proposed to be built in the first phase. The second phase would consist of
constructing three (3) of the smaller sized apartment buildings, and the third phase would construct the final
two (2) larger sized apartment buildings (concept plan, building layout plans, and building renderings are
included in the application). The proposed project will also include sidewalks, lighting, trash compactors,
mailboxes, and stormwater management.
The rear of the property closest to Candlelight Circle will remain undeveloped with a wooded buffer between
the residential neighborhoods (approximately 200 feet). Properties to the west of the proposed apartment
complex will have a 20-foot landscaped buffer and at least a 10-foot side yard setback. The R-3 zoned
Access/Traffic Circulation – The proposed development would have one main entrance and exit off Cove
Road, and a secondary entrance only access point off Peters Creek Road.
Agencies Comments: The following agencies provided comments on this application:
Office of Building Safety: All construction shall be required to meet the Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code in effect at time of permitting.
Fire and Rescue: Fire and Rescue does not object to this project, however, it will increase our
services relating to emergency medical calls, fire alarms, and traffic accidents. During the site plan
review process, fire flow and access requirements will have to be met.
General Services, Parks, Recreation & Tourism: There is no location shown on the concept plan for
a dumpster/trash receptacle. This site plan detail may be addressed later in the development
review process; however, it appears that vehicular access to the maintenance building is located off
the proposed one-way access road. Please consider whether there is adequate access for trucks to
service a dumpster.
Roanoke County Police Department: While I am not opposed to this project in general, I will offer
two concerns that need to be addressed:
1. Residential projects of this type inherently increase demand for public safety services. Police
Department staffing has remained stagnant for many years. Our most recent workload analysis
using data from 2019 (pre-pandemic) identifies the need for six additional officers in the Uniform
Division as well as needs in several other areas of the Department. This issue is exacerbated by
the very small pool of qualified applicants for police officer positions.
2. The proposal shows the main ingress/egress for the complex in the 4900 block of Cove Road.
Under current conditions, traffic traveling E/B on Cove Road routinely backs up from the light at
Cove Road/Peters Creek Road beyond Cedar Lawn Memorial Park. Adding the traffic that will
result from the proposed complex will increase this problem. Left turns from the complex onto Cove
Road will be very difficult during peak hours. Better access directly to/from Peters Creek Road,
where many of the residents will be traveling, would be desirable. Obviously, it will be several years
before this project is completed. It is important to address both public safety staffing and traffic
issues during the approval process.
Roanoke County Transportation Department: The segment of Cove Road that this application has
frontage on, is identified in the Roanoke Valley Pedestrian Vision Plan for pedestrian improvements
and in the Bikeway Plan for the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization as a
Vision alignment, meaning that bicycle accommodations should be provided.
At the Peters Creek Community Planning Area Roanoke County 200 Plan meeting in September,
we also received a comment about how a sidewalk is needed along Cove Road from Peters Creek
Road to Green Ridge Road as there are many pedestrians walking along the roadway.
It is the recommendation of Transportation staff that sidewalk be constructed along the parcel's
Cove Road frontage, and that sidewalks be provided throughout the development to connect to the
sidewalk along Cove Road.
The Department has no comments on this request. It appears from the information provided that the
use of this property for a multi-family apartment development will not adversely impact the VDOT
right of way. The City of Roanoke maintains the roadways in this area so they should be consulted
4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN
This site is designated Transition on the future land use map of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan
(2005). Transition is 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.
This site is situated between a low-density residential development and two roads (Peters Creek Road and
Cove Road). Suitable land uses in Transition areas include office and institutional uses, limited retail uses,
multifamily residential, single-family attached residential, and parks. Multifamily residential uses included
garden apartments at a density of 12 to 24 units per acre. The proposed project is consistent with the
Transition future land use designation.
5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS
Lawson Companies is requesting to amend existing proffered conditions related to a rezoning from 1984.
The property was never developed after the previous rezoning and the Lawson Companies wishes to
amend the proffered conditions to construct their project of 216 apartments. The parcel is situated between
a residential neighborhood and CVS, and is located near the corner of Peters Creek Road and Cove Road.
This proposed use is consistent with the future land use designation of Transition in the County’s
Comprehensive Plan.
Maps (Aerial, Zoning, Future Land Use)
Photographs
Ordinance 484-14
R-3 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District Standards
Multi-family Dwelling Use and Design Standards
Transition Future Land Use Designation
Public Comments
1
24719/1/10154525v1
October 7, 2021
Revised October 25, 2021
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Ms. Rebecca James
Zoning Administrator
Community Development Planning and Zoning
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Re: 0 Candlelight Circle – Proffered Condition Amendment/Rezoning
Application Justification
Applicant: The Lawson Companies
Dear Ms. James:
On behalf of The Lawson Companies (“Applicant”) please accept this justification letter in
support of a proffered condition amendment/rezoning application for property located in the
vicinity of 0 Candlelight Circle, and identified as Tax Map No. 037.13-04-07.00 (the
“Property”). The Applicant intends to develop the Property as multi-family apartments
(“Project”).
The Property is currently zoned to the R-3 zoning district and subject to proffered conditions
associated with a rezoning approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 8, 1984. The existing
proffers consist of the following:
1. Petitioner shall build only residential condominium units on the subject property, and
Petitioner will not build any units to be rented on a government subsidized rental basis.
2. There shall be no street access from the subject property to the Beacon Ridge
subdivision.
3. The maximum number of dwelling units on the subject property shall be 185.
The existing proffers are inconsistent with the Applicant’s proposed development. In addition,
Virginia law now includes “source of funds” as a protected class for purposes of the Virginia
Fair Housing Law. Virginia law defines “source of funds” as “any source that lawfully provides
funds to or on behalf of a renter or buyer of housing, including any assistance, benefit, or subsidy
program, whether such program is administered by a governmental or nongovernmental entity.”
As a result, “government subsidized” rental units cannot be restricted on the Property.
The Applicant proposes to develop the Property with up to 216 multi-family affordable rental
units. The apartment units will be offered at rental rates that will be affordable to the residents of
Roanoke County, with the expectation that high-quality affordable housing will allow Roanoke
County to retain more young professionals that are otherwise leaving the area. The units will be
located in several low-rise buildings and surface parking will be provided. The Project will
include other amenities such as a clubhouse and outdoor gathering spaces and will be built in
PROFFER STATEMENT FOR THE APPLICATION OF
Smith Ridge Commons
Case Number 7-12/2021
November 8, 2021
Pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-2298 and Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance §Sec. 30-15-4, the
undersigned owner of the property that is the subject of this Application (Tax Map No. 037.13-04-07.00-
0000) will be developed in accordance with the following voluntarily proffered conditions.
The site shall be developed in general conformance with "The Lawson Companies -Cove Road
Apartments Concept Plan" prepared by Timmons Group and dated October 8, 2021, subject to
any changes required during the site plan review process.".
2. There shall be no street access from the subject property to the Beacon Ridge
subdivision/Candlelight Circle.
The maximum number of dwelling units on the subject property shall be 216.
The undersigned hereby warrants that all of the owners of a legal interest in the subject property have
signed this proffer statement, that they have full authority to bind the property to these conditions, that the
proffers contained in this statement are not "unreasonable" as that term is defined by Virginia Code, and
that the proffers are entered into voluntarily.
Should any provision of this proffer statement be determined to be invalid by a court of competent
jurisdiction, that determination shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the provisions in this
document.
[signatures follow on next page]
FW Properties LLC
By; Fralin &Waldron, Inc., Manager
Printed Name: /9jVc7~~'Fu/ ~ e~d r~ ou-~ ~
Title D y'~eS/~x.7`
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF a--~~..sr1r
Acknowledged before me this d ~~ ~ day of P-to ~~.,n~L~v , 20 Z. \
Notary Public
~~~~o~~~ My Commission Expires: ~~•y SP~NDE S'•,~ Registration No.: ~.` ~, '4 ',
,~~ • NOTARY' ~~
cv : ~ PUBLIC •.~'•. U'O
m ~ REG # 7038495 ~ Z •
n ; MY COMMISSION
O ~ EXPIRES
~~~~~'• 5/31/2022 '~~_
~' EgLTH.~F .~`~ ~~~"~~~eoeee~e~~
THE LAWSON COMPANIES - COVE ROAD APARTMENTS
CONCEPT PLAN - October 8, 2021
S C A L E 1 ” = 1 0 0 ’
PET
E
R
S
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
PET
E
R
S
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
VAR
I
A
B
L
E
R
O
W
COVE RD
80’ ROW
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
PARCEL
ID
TAX
PARCEL
ID
OWNER SITE
ADDRESS LAND USE ZONING
1
037.17-
01-04.01-
0000
CVS 6296 VA
LLC
2712 PETERS
CREEK RD,
ROANOKE VA,
24019
COMMERCIAL C2
2
037.17-
01-06.00-
0000
CHESAPEAKE
& POTOMAC
TELEPHONE
; AKA BELL
ATLANTIC VA
INC
5049
COVE RD,
ROANOKE VA,
24019
UTILITY R2
3
037.17-
01-07.00-
0000
GOAD HARLAN
; GOAD
CORRINE L
0 COVE RD,
ROANOKE VA,
24019
VACANT R2
4
037.17-
01-08.00-
0000
GOAD HARIAN
H ; GOAD
CORRINE L
5071
COVE RD,
ROANOKE VA,
24019
RESIDENTIAL R2
5
037.13-
04-06.00-
0000
BEASON LENA
H ; BEASON
RICHARD
0 GREEN
RIDGE RD,
ROANOKE VA,
24019
VACANT R2
6
037.13-
08-10.00-
0000
MAZEY
HEATHER L 4840 RESIDENTIAL R1
7
037.13-
08-09.00-
0000
HAMBRICK
DANNY L ;
HAMBRICK
KAY P
4843 RESIDENTIAL R1
8
037.13-
04-03.00-
0000
ROANOKE
CITY OF
4900 NORTH
SPRING DR,
ROANOKE VA,
24019
UTILITY R2S &
R3S
9
037.17-
01-02.00-
0000
HART
INVESTMENTS
IV LLC
2836 PETERS
CREEK RD,
ROANOKE VA,
24019
VACANT C2 S
UTILITY LEGEND
ROANOKE COUNTY FIRE HYDRANTS
ROANOKE COUNTY WATER LINES
ROANOKE COUNTY SEWER LINES
CITY OF ROANOKE STORM CONVEYANCES
PHASING LEGEND
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
PHASE 3
SITE DATA
OWNER: FW PROPERTIES LLC
APPLICANT: THE LAWSON COMPANIES
DEVELOPMENT: COVE ROAD APARTMENTS
SITE ADDRESS: 0 CANDLELIGHT CIR, ROANOKE VA, 24019
ACREAGE: 12.2 AC
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
TOTAL UNITS: 216 UNITS
PARKING PROVIDED: TBD
PARKING RATIO: TBD
3 STORY BUILDINGS A, C, D & G:
1 BEDROOM: 24 UNITS
2 BEDROOM: 90 UNITS
3 BEDROOM: 30 UNITS
TOTAL UNITS: 144 UNITS
3 STORY BUILDINGS B, F & E
1 BEDROOM: 12 UNITS
2 BEDROOM: 45 UNITS
3 BEDROOM: 15 UNITS
TOTAL UNITS: 72 UNITS
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
A
B
C
D
F G
E
CLUBHOUSE
ONE-WAY ACCESS ONLY
MAINTENANCE BUILDING
TS
3
2
1
0
6
6
.
0
0
Cove Road Apartments | ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
11.16.21
BUILDING ‘A’ COLORED ELEVATIONS
TS
3
2
1
0
6
6
.
0
0
Cove Road Apartments | ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
11.16.21
BUILDING ‘G’ COLORED ELEVATIONS
Benefits of Affordable Housing
• Income-based rents remove the financial burden of housing allowing our residents to have more dis-
posable income to inject directly into the local economy through restaurants, entertainment, trans-
portation, local businesses, retail, utilities, communication & shopping
• Healthy housing supports all aspects of resident health (mental, emotion, physical, financial, socio-
economic) and well-being
• Affordable housing contributes to stability at home, which lends a hand to success in the classroom
• Strategic housing locations decrease the drive time for the local workforce
Smith Ridge Commons Rents
373 Edwin Drive, Virginia Beach, VA 23462 | (757) 499 -6161 | lawsoncompanies.com
Smith Ridge Commons
By uniquely positioning our rents we are able to provide a number of young professionals
and families with opportunities to live comfortability in high quality housing that reduces
the financial burden often associated with monthly rental payments
Target Residents
of current housing stock is
sufficient for income eligible
families
9.7%
income eligible
families in the surrounding
area
18,867
families are potentially rent
overburdened
17,037
Affordable Rents
$1,090 $780 $940
$1,600 $1,200 $1,400
Roanoke Market Rate Rents
Income-Based Housing Ensures Strong Roanoke
County Workforce
373 Edwin Drive, Virginia Beach, VA 23462 | (757) 499 -6161 | lawsoncompanies.com
Young Professionals
Profession: Medical Scribe at Carilion
Household Income: $23,600
Single-Parents
Profession: Senior Care Provider
Household Income: $35,200
Young Couples
Profession: Firefighter
Household Income: $41,500
Educators
Profession: Teaching Assistant &
Day Care Teacher
Household Income: $45,700
Aerial Map
The Lawson
Companies
Total Acreage:
12.15 Acres
Existing Zoning:
R-3C
Proposed Zoning:
R-3
Future Land Use:
Transition,
Neighborhood
Conservation
Magisterial District:
Catawba
Roanoke Co.
Planning
(540) 772-2068
5204 Bernard Dr.
Roanoke VA
24018
0 145 290 580
Date: 10/18/2021
0 145 290
2
RR11
Zoning Map
RR22SS
CC22CC
The Lawson
Companies Total
Acreage: 12.15
Acres
Existing Zoning:
R-3C
Proposed Zoning:
R-3
Future Land Use:
Transition,
Neighborhood
Conservation
Magisterial District:
Catawba
RR22
RR33CC
RR33SS CC22
CC22SS
Zoning
C2
R1
R2
R3
Roanoke Co.
Planning
(540) 772-2068
5204 Bernard Dr.
Roanoke VA
24018
580
F eeeet
Date: 10/18/2021
NC
Future Land Use Map
TR
The Lawson
Companies
Total Acreage:
12.15 Acres
Existing Zoning: R-3C
Proposed Zoning:
R-3
Future Land Use:
Transition,
Neighborhood
Conservation
Magisterial District:
Catawba
Jurisdictions Future Land Use
Neighborhood Conservation
Transition
Roanoke Co.
Planning
(540) 772-2068
5204 Bernard Dr.
Roanoke VA
24018
Feet 0 145 290 580
Date: 10/18/2021 1:4,514 Roanoke County, Virginia 2019
Roanoke County, Virginia
2019
J
T-
~ ,,-/-.. _-----.-.__\.: .‘i j ;\ i/J / 1\. w,.i.- </ --,p.‘Li
VIRGINIA: _'-7-v xc. Ty /;!:‘Qo
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
IN RE:1
REZONING 14.50 ACRES ON
RTE.116 (COVE ROAD) FROM 1 FINAL
R-l AND B-2 TO R-6 1
)BY FRALIN & WALDRON, INC.,)PETITIONER )
At a meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia,held at the County Administration Center, on the 8th
day of May, 1984:
WHEREAS, Petitioner did petition the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to rezone certain property described in said
petition,and to amend the Zoning Ordinance of Roanoke County so
as to provide that certain property described in said petition be
rezoned from Residential District R-l and Business district B-2
to Residential District R-6, which petition was filed on the
19th day of March, 1984,and referred on that day to the
Planning Commission of Roanoke County for recommendation in
accordance with the provisions of the Code of Virginia, as
amended.
AND WHEREAS the Planning Commission, by resolution adopted
at a meeting held on the 17th day of April,1984,after due
advertisement and after hearing evidence touching on the merits
of said Petition,recommended to this Board that said Petition be
approved.
AND WHEREAS the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County did
order that the Clerk of this Board,upon receipt of said
recommendation from the Planning Commission,forthwith set the
same down for a public hearing at the next permissible regular or
special meeting of this Board and give notice thereof by
publication in accordance with the County Zoning Ordinance and
the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended.&.f
AND WHEREAS the Clerk of this Board did set the regular
meeting of this Board to be held on the 8th day of May, 1984, at
7:00 p.m.,as the date and time for public hearing on the
aforesaid proposed amendment to the said County Zoning Ordinance
and advertised the same by notice duly published in the Roanoke
Times and World-News,a newspaper having general circulation in
the City and County of Roanoke, Virginia,two insertions on
April 24,1984, and on May 1,1984, as required by said Order of
this Board,and in accordance with the provisions of the 1950
Code of Virginia, as amended.
AND WHEREAS the public hearing was this day had on the said
proposed amendment.
AND WHEREAS this Board,after giving careful consideration
to said Petition and to said prior Recommendation of the Planning
Commission and after hearing evidence touching on the merits of
said proposed amendment,being of the opinion that said County
Zoning Ordinance should be amended,subject to the conditions
offered by Petitioner.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED and ORDERED that at this
meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
held on the 8th day of May,1984, the said Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance be,and the same is hereby,amended so as to reclassify
the hereinafter-described property from Residential District R-l
and Business District B-2 to Residential District R-6, which
property is described on the attached Schedule A, subject to the
following conditions:
1.Petitioner shall build only residential condominium
units on the subject property,and Petitioner will not build any
units to be rented on a government subsidized rental basis.
2.There shall be no street access from the subject
property to the Beacon Ridge subdivision.&=
3.The maximum number of dwelling units on the subject
property shall be 185.
AND IT IS ACCORDINGLY SO RESOLVED AND ORDERED.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Clerk of
this Board shall forthwith certify a copy of this resolution and
order to the Secretary of the Planning Commission of Roanoke
County, Virginia.
The foregoing resolution was adopted on motion of Supervisor
McGraw and the following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors Brittle, Burton, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
NAYS:None
ABSENT: -
Boar/d of SdpervisorsRoanoke County5-10-84
cc:County Assessor
County Engineer
Department of Development
Zoning Administrator/
Fralin & Waldron
R-3 District Regulations
1
SEC. 30-45. R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-45-1. Purpose.
(A) The purpose of the R-3, medium density multi-family residential district is to provide
areas in the county within the urban service area where existing middle-high density
residential development (six (6) to twelve (12) units per acre) has been established and
land areas which generally appear to be appropriate for such development. This district is
intended to coincide with the development and transition land use categories contained in
the comprehensive plan. They are designated based on access to major streets, sewer and
water, and schools with suitable capacity to accommodate development at the stated
density, and where parcel sizes allow for well-planned residential development. The areas
designated in this district are also intended to serve as a buffer between less intensive
residential areas and more intensive office, commercial and industrial areas and districts.
A variety of housing densities and styles is encouraged in order to permit a diversity and
flexibility in design and layout. Additional standards are established to provide for
amenities in higher density developments.
(Ord. No. 042799-11, § 1f., 4-27-99; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08)
Sec. 30-45-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements
contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more
stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific
uses.
1. Residential Uses
Accessory Apartment *
Home Beauty/Barber Salon *
Home Occupation, Type I *
Manufactured Home *
Manufactured Home, Emergency *
Multi-family Dwelling *
Residential Human Care Facility
Single Family Dwelling, Attached *
Single Family Dwelling, Attached (Cluster Subdivision Option) *
R-3 District Regulations
2
Single Family Dwelling, Detached
Single Family Dwelling, Detached (Cluster Subdivision Option) *
Single Family Dwelling, Detached (Zero Lot Line Option) *
Townhouse *
Two Family Dwelling *
2. Civic Uses
Community Recreation *
Family Day Care Home *
Park and Ride Facility *
Public Parks and Recreational Areas *
Religious Assembly *
Utility Services, Minor
3. Commercial Uses
Boarding House
4. Miscellaneous Uses
Amateur Radio Tower *
(B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30-19. An
asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article
IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses.
1. Civic Uses
Adult Care Residences
Cemetery *
Crisis Center
Cultural Services
R-3 District Regulations
3
Day Care Center *
Educational Facilities, Primary/Secondary *
Safety Services *
Utility Services, Major *
2. Industrial Uses
Landfill, Rubble *
3. Miscellaneous Uses
Outdoor Gatherings *
Wind Energy System, Small *
(Ord. No. 62293-12, § 9, 6-22-93; Ord. No. 82493-8, § 2, 8-24-93; Ord. No. 62795-10, 6-27-95;
Ord. No. 042799-11, § 2, 4-27-99; Ord. No. 042500-9, § II, 4-25-00; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-
22-08; Ord. No. 052609-22, § 1, 5-26-09; Ord. No. 030811-1, § 1, 3-8-11, Ord. No. 111213-15,
§ 1, 11-12-13)
Sec. 30-45-3. Site Development Regulations.
General Standards. For additional, modified, or more stringent standards for specific uses, see
Article IV, Use and Design Standards.
(A) Minimum lot requirements.
1. All lots served by private well and sewage disposal systems:
a. Area: 0.75 acre (32,670 square feet).
b. Frontage: 90 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street.
2. Lots served by either public sewer or water:
a. Area: 20,000 square feet.
b. Frontage: 75 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street.
3. All lots served by both public sewer and water:
a. Area: 7,200 square feet.
R-3 District Regulations
4
b. Frontage: 60 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street.
4. For minimum lot size and permitted densities for multi-family dwellings and
townhouses refer to Article IV, Use and Design Standards.
(B) Minimum setback requirements.
1. Front yard:
a. Principal structures: 30 feet.
b. Accessory structures: Behind the front building line.
2. Side yard:
a. Principal structures: 10 feet.
b. Accessory structures: 10 feet behind front building line or 3 feet behind
rear building line.
3. Rear yard:
a. Principal structures: 25 feet.
b. Accessory structures: 3 feet.
4. Where a lot fronts on more than one street, front yard setbacks shall apply to all
streets.
(C) Maximum height of structures.
1. Height limitations:
a. Principal structures:
i. When adjoining property zoned R-1 or R-2, 45 feet, including
rooftop mechanical equipment. The maximum height may be
increased, provided each required side and rear yard adjoining the
R-1 or R-2 district is increased 2 feet for each foot in height over
45 feet to a maximum height of 60 feet. In all other locations, the
maximum height is 60 feet (including rooftop mechanical
equipment).
ii. In the study areas of the 419 Town Center Plan, the Hollins Center
Plan, and the Oak Grove Center Plan:
R-3 District Regulations
5
(a) 75 feet (including rooftop mechanical equipment); or
65 feet (including rooftop mechanical equipment) above
the top of structured parking, whichever is greater.
(b) The maximum height may be increased if a special use
permit is granted by the board of supervisors.
b. Accessory structures: 15 feet, or 25 feet provided they comply with the
setback requirements for principal structures.
(D) Maximum coverage.
1. Building coverage: 35 percent of the total lot area for all buildings and 7 percent
for accessory buildings.
2. Lot coverage: 60 percent of the total lot area.
(Ord. No. 62293-12, § 10, 6-22-93, Ord. No. 072721, § 1, 7-27-21)
Use & Design Standards – Residential Uses
1
Sec. 30-82-11. Multi-family Dwelling.
(A) Intent. The following minimum standards are intended to accommodate multi-family
dwellings, ensuring adequate separation and other design characteristics to create a safe
and healthy residential environment while protecting adjoining uses which are less
intensive.
(B) General standards:
1. Minimum front yard setback: Thirty (30) feet from any street right-of-way for all
structures.
2. Minimum side yard setback: Twenty (20) feet for principal structures.
3. Minimum rear yard setback: Twenty-five (25) feet for principal structures.
4. Additional setbacks in the form of a buffer yard shall be required in accordance
with Section 30-92 where the property adjoins a less intensive zoning district.
5. The minimum separation between multi-family buildings shall be twenty (20)
feet.
6. Reserved.
7. Standards for open space and recreational areas required below:
a. Shall be in addition to any buffer yard required under Section 30-92 of this
ordinance;
b. Shall be in addition to and not be located in any required front, side or rear
yard setback;
c. Shall have a horizontal dimension of at least fifty (50) feet, except that
areas with a horizontal distance of not less than twenty (20) feet shall be
counted as open space provided such areas contain facilities such as, but
not limited to, bikeways, exercise trails, tot lots, gazebos, picnic tables,
etc.;
d. Shall not include proposed street rights-of-way, open parking areas,
driveways, or sites reserved for other specific uses; and,
e. Shall be of an appropriate nature and location to serve the residents of the
multi-family development.
8. Provisions must be made for vehicular access and turn around for regularly
scheduled public service vehicles such as trash collection.
Use & Design Standards – Residential Uses
2
(C) Additional standards in the AV district:
1. Minimum lot size: Twenty thousand (20,000) square feet for the first dwelling
unit, plus five thousand (5,000) square feet for each additional unit.
2. When adjoining a lot containing a single family dwelling, a Type C buffer yard as
described in Section 30-92 shall be provided.
(D) Additional standards in the R-3 district:
1. Minimum lot size: Seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet for the first
dwelling unit, plus two thousand four hundred twenty (2,420) square feet for each
additional unit.
2. Maximum density: Eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre.
3. The property shall be served by public sewer and water.
4. Common open space and recreational areas required: Five (5) percent of the total
lot area for parcels of two (2) to five (5) acres, and ten (10) percent for parcels
over five (5) acres. No open space is required for parcels under two (2) acres.
(E) Additional standards in the R-4 district:
1. Minimum lot size: Seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet for the first
dwelling unit, plus one thousand eight hundred fifteen (1,815) square feet for each
additional unit.
2. Maximum density: Twenty-four (24) dwelling units per acre.
3. The property shall be served by public sewer and water.
4. Common open space and recreational areas required: Five (5) percent of the total
lot area for parcels of two (2) to five (5) acres, and ten (10) percent for parcels
over five (5) acres. No open space is required for parcels under two (2) acres.
(F) General standards in the C-1 and C-2 districts, independent of the general standards
above:
1. The multi-family use shall be allowed in conjunction with a civic, office or
commercial use type.
2. The multi-family use may account for up to fifty (50) percent of the gross floor
area on the site. A special use permit shall be required if the multi-family use
accounts for more than fifty (50) percent of the gross floor area on the site.
Use & Design Standards – Residential Uses
3
3. In the study areas of the 419 Town Center Plan, the Hollins Center Plan, and the
Oak Grove Center Plan, the multi-family use may account for up to seventy-five
(75) percent of the gross floor area on the site. A special use permit shall be
required if the multi-family use accounts for more than seventy-five (75) percent
of the gross floor area on the site.
(Ord. No. 042799-11, § 2, 4-27-99, Ord. No. 111213-15, § 1, 11-12-13, Ord. No. 092215-9, § 1,
9-22-15, Ord. No. 072721, § 1, 7-27-21)
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.
Land Use Types: Office and Institutional - Planned office parks and independent facilities in
park-like surroundings are encouraged. A high degree of architectural
design and environmentally sensitive site design is encouraged.
Retail - Small-scale planned and clustered retail uses.
Multifamily Residential - Garden apartments at a density of 12 to 24 units
per acre.
Single-Family Attached Residential - Planned townhouse communities of
6 or more units per acre.
Parks - Public and private recreational facilities. These facilities should be
linked to residential areas by greenways, bike and pedestrian trails.
Land Use Determinants: EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN - Locations where limited
commercial uses exist.
EXISTING ZONING - Locations where commercial zoning exists.
ACCESS - Locations where properties have direct frontage and
access to an arterial or major collector street.
SURROUNDING LAND USE - Locations which serve as a logical
buffer strip between conflicting land use patterns.
ORIENTATION - Locations which are physically oriented toward
the major street.
URBAN SECTOR - Locations served by urban services.
Will Crawford - [EXTERNAL] - Concerning apartments to be built on peters creek road.
From:Benjamin Kanode <benjamin.kanode@gmail.com>
To:<wcrawford@roanokecountyva.gov>
Date:11/30/2021 8:46 PM
Subject:[EXTERNAL] - Concerning apartments to be built on peters creek road.
Mr. Crawford,
I hope this email finds you well. My name is Benjamin Kanode, a resident of the the North Lakes
Subdivision and have been for the past 5 years. I am married with a two year old son and a
daughter on the way.
My wife and I are overly concerned with the proposal of the new apartment complex that is to be
constructed on peters creek road. Our list is as follows in no particular order:
* congestion on the main road will cause a heightened amount of traffic to cut through our
neighborhood.
- traffic is bad enough with passing through traffic nit obeying the posted speeds already in place
and the last thing we want to see is speed reduction measures be installed that could further damage
or elevate the wear and tear on our vehicles, or even worse causing our children to become a victim
to injury by a speeding unfamiliar.
* the schools in this district are already well beyond the capacity at its current state.
- I see the day-to-day struggles our teachers and faculty endure to ensure our children get the
quality of education that they deserve.
* our infrastructure of goods and services are as well stretched beyond its ability to best fulfill the
needs of the community.
- adding to the population would require larger, better supplied grocery stores, gas stations and
health care facilities.
- our emergency response centers would need at least a bump of 20% of its current operating
personnel and equipment in order to serve the new proposed complex.
- Hospitals will need to increase their capacities as well to facilitate the needs of the addition to our
community population.
* child care is already at max capacity and would need to have new sites constructed to
accommodate the child population.
* traffic incidents and accidents will increase. People can't even figure out how to stop at a red light
on the corner of North lake dr and peters creek rd.
- mostly the commuters traveling south bound on peters creek road.
* crime rates will spike due to that is generally what happens when there is a spike in population
density.
Page 1 of 2
12 1 2021file:///C:/Users/wcrawford/AppData/Local/Temp/XPGrpWise/61A68DBDPO2_DOMAIN...
Mr. Crawford, these are just a few concerns that Icu4rently have the time to write at this moment.
I want to thank you and the office for your time and consideration of this matter. I do understand
that the taxes and monies earned from this project. could seem very lucrative at this very moment.
However, I know that with the addition of this proposed project, it could very well damage our
quality of life and the value of our great community in-which we pride ourselves by calling it our
home.
I hearby cast my vote of NO to the proposed plan, if I am unable to attend the scheduled hearings.
Thank you,
Very respectfully
Benjamin Kanode
North Lakes subdivision resident.
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.
Page 2 of 2
12 1 2021file:///C:/Users/wcrawford/AppData/Local/Temp/XPGrpWise/61A68DBDPO2_DOMAIN...
Will Crawford - [EXTERNAL] - Cove and Peters Creek Development
From:David Sink <davidsink1@gmail.com>
To:<wcrawford@roanokecountyva.gov>
Date:12/1/2021 8:21 AM
Subject:[EXTERNAL] - Cove and Peters Creek Development
Mr. Crawford,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our concerns/questions as it relates to the rezoning request
by The Lawson Companies.
We live at 4831 Candlelight and our concerns are:
• An increase in traffic so close to the light at Cove and Peters Creek,
• Possible light pollution
• Increase in noise and trash.
I do see by the overhead image that the structures will be a good distance away from the woods that
back up to the Candlelight cul-de-sac. I am hopeful that will provide a good barrier from the latter,
but would like to see something that could reduce the amount of light that is able to go skyward.
We chose this location due to how dark it is in the evenings and how quiet it is due to the cul-de-
sac.
I know that there is not a lot that can be done about the traffic, but I think providing multiple two-
way streets would be better than just the single one on Cove Rd.
Thank you for your time.
David Sink
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.
Page 1 of 1
12 1 2021file:///C:/Users/wcrawford/AppData/Local/Temp/XPGrpWise/61A7306EPO2_DOMAIN...
Will Crawford - [EXTERNAL] - Proposed Apartments
From:Diane Wood <dswood13@verizon.net>
To:"wcrawford@roanokecountyva.gov" <wcrawford@roanokecountyva.gov>
Date:11/30/2021 7:24 PM
Subject:[EXTERNAL] - Proposed Apartments
Mr. Crawford,
I am a current resident of the North Lakes community, a retired Northside HS teacher, and a current
employee of Roanoke County Schools.
While I recognize and support
the need for affordable housing, I am concerned about the additional traffic and student population
in an already crowded area.
Additionally, the proposed site is currently zoned as commercial, not residential, as it is in a heavily
trafficked area.
I feel that it is not in the best interest of North County to build an apartment complex in the
proposed spot.
Respectfully,
Diane Wood
540 761 8663
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
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.
Page 1 of 1
12 1 2021file:///C:/Users/wcrawford/AppData/Local/Temp/XPGrpWise/61A67A62PO2_DOMAIN...
Will Crawford - [EXTERNAL] - Apartment Complex Proposal - Cove Rd/Peters Creek Rd
Location
From:Greg Moser <gregmoser93@gmail.com>
To:"wcrawford@roanokecountyva.gov" <wcrawford@roanokecountyva.gov>
Date:12/1/2021 10:57 PM
Subject:[EXTERNAL] - Apartment Complex Proposal - Cove Rd/Peters Creek Rd Location
Dear Mr. Crawford,
My wife and I would like to express that we are not in favor of new apartments being built at the Cove
Road/Peters Creek Road location.
We are very open to new residents coming into our area, but we do not think this location is wise for
several reasons.
•We travel the Cove Road location (near Hardees and CVS) nearly every day. It already experiences
long lines at the traffic light. The hill at Cedar Lawn Cemetery generates a short reaction time for
those turning in and out of that road near Hardees and CVS already.
•On top of that, it is not a safe location at all for an entrance/exit for those apartments.
•We believe traffic jams will be frequent, and quit frustrating, for local residents. Possible road
construction to accommodate this new need would require more money to be spent out of an
already stretched budget – which means possibly higher taxes.
•The Glen Cove School district is already at a stretched capacity. I don’t know how adding these
apartments will create a good learning environment for a school that is already stretched to its
limits.
•We had new apartments built near the end of Cove Road (near Rt. 419) recently. That’s a lot of
apartments in a close proximity, impacting the same school community, in a short amount of time.
It would be our sincere desire to have this proposal denied, and consider a better location for such a
project. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Greg & Allison Moser
4782 Lantern Street
Roanoke, VA 24019
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.
Page 1 of 1
12 2 2021file:///C:/Users/wcrawford/AppData/Local/Temp/XPGrpWise/61A7FDCDPO2_DOMAIN...
Will Crawford - [EXTERNAL] - Proposed Affordable Housing Near Northlakes
From:"Harris, Joshua Tyler - harri3jt" <harri3jt@dukes.jmu.edu>
To:"wcrawford@roanokecountyva.gov" <wcrawford@roanokecountyva.gov>
Date:11/30/2021 8:13 PM
Subject:[EXTERNAL] - Proposed Affordable Housing Near Northlakes
Mr. Crawford,
As a resident of the North Lakes neighborhood I feel rather invested and concerned by the
possibility of extensive affordable housing being built in close proximity to my home. I feel that an
apartment complex of the proposed size and nature could have several adverse effects on the
neighborhood in varying facets.
One such area of concern is a great potential for a rise in crime rates in the area nearby, to include
my neighborhood. A sudden influx of renters would flood the area with a large group of people
with no real ties to or vested interests in the area. I feel that very quickly we will see a spike in
property crimes and drug activity in the area. I fear that my home will not be as safe as it once was
from vehicle break-ins, thefts of possessions, suspicious traffic by foot and vehicles, possible
burglaries, and any other combination of similar offenses.
Traffic will also increase greatly from the increased residents in the area. Peters Creek Road is
already highly trafficked and adding another mass of housing pouring motorists into a busy
intersection could lead to extreme congestion, increased traffic crashes, wear on the roads, and
other inconveniences and hazards. It is likely that many drivers will use North Lakes as a cut
through to avoid the traffic nightmare caused by the new apartment complex placed in a busy
intersection, bringing the crashes, congestion, and wear on roads into my neighborhood as well.
I am also worried that a large amount of noise will be generated by the new apartment complex.
North Lakes is a desired are for home owners because of its quiet nature and reputation. An
apartment complex in our back yard would certainly change this reputation.
The above listed concerns will no doubt all culminate in a detrimental drop in property values in
near by neighborhoods. As a home owner in North Lakes you can probably sense that I am less
than thrilled about this possible outcome. This apartment complex could lead to a mass exodus of
good tax paying home owners from a well regarded neighborhood, leaving the door open for the
face of the community to change for the worse.
I know I have written a lot in this email, but I feel very strongly on this topic. I greatly appreciate
your time and considerations. Please do all you can to prevent this apartment complex construction
from moving forward.
Sincerely,
Josh Harris
Get Outlook for iOS
Page 1 of 2
12 1 2021file:///C:/Users/wcrawford/AppData/Local/Temp/XPGrpWise/61A68604PO2_DOMAINM...
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.
Page 2 of 2
12 1 2021file:///C:/Users/wcrawford/AppData/Local/Temp/XPGrpWise/61A68604PO2_DOMAINM...
Will Crawford - [EXTERNAL] - Proposed Apartments near North Lakes Subdivision
From:Kaylin Stenson <kaylinstenson@gmail.com>
To:<wcrawford@roanokecountyva.gov>
Date:11/30/2021 8:05 PM
Subject:[EXTERNAL] - Proposed Apartments near North Lakes Subdivision
Dear Mr. Crawford,
I have several concerns about the proposed apartments as a current resident of this neighborhood.
The first one being increased traffic on the surrounding roadways. Cove Rd is already a very well
traveled road with heavy traffic. Increasing the number of people and vehicles in the area this
drastically will come with significant fall out. There will be more motor vehicle accidents more
wear on the roads and even more congestion than there already is. There are also a lot of young
families in the area who have children running about. A hundred or more new vehicles speeding
through the neighborhood could be potentially disastrous for some of them. The increase of traffic
will also contribute to the noise level of the area. North Lakes is a generally quiet community
which would change with more vehicles going in and out of it. Also the apartments themselves
would lead to an increase in activity and noise. This could also potentially lead to more crime.
Criminals are more likely to target an area such as this due to there being a large amount of
vehicles that might be unlocked and easy pickings. This is concerning for several reasons. One
being that the property crimes could spill over into the neighborhoods of actual home owners. And
two being the increase in crime leading to the devaluation of homes. The apartment complex idea
as a whole would lead to a vast majority of homes losing value. Therefore, many residents would
seek to move out causing further instability. Our police officers are already overworked and
understaffed. We do not need to be adding to their problems by creating more apartment complexes
that will just increase their calls for service.
Please do not let this proposed plan pass.
Sincerely,
Kaylin Stenson
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.
Page 1 of 1
12 1 2021file:///C:/Users/wcrawford/AppData/Local/Temp/XPGrpWise/61A683FDPO2_DOMAIN...
Will Crawford - [EXTERNAL] - Zoning off Cove Rd.
From:Larry Saul <lwsaul@gmail.com>
To:<wcrawford@roanokecountyva.gov>
Date:12/1/2021 4:20 PM
Subject:[EXTERNAL] - Zoning off Cove Rd.
Will,
I am extremely concerned with the apartment complex being proposed at the Cove Road in peters
Creek Road location. I believe the largest issue will be the impact of the traffic on Cove Road
especially during high traffic times. It is very bad already in adding all these new units will make
this a very dangerous place for the pedestrian traffic that already walks up and down Cove Road as
well as the entrance to CVS and Hardee’s.
Has there been a traffic study completed? If not why? If so what are the results?
Also our schools in the area are at capacity as we just had to rezone the school districts to
accommodate the population that we currently have to send more kids to masons Cove. It doesn’t
seem very responsible to make the situation worse with yet another apartment complex in this
area.There have already been two new apartment complexes put up in this area in the last couple of
years. Why would we need yet another one in this location?
Thank you for including my concerns in the packet for the board of supervisors to review. I just
don’t see a positive impact that this apartment complex would provide unless some major road
renovations are done first.
Larry W. Saul
4816 Candlelight Cir, Roanoke, VA 24019
540-819-9730
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.
Page 1 of 1
12 1 2021file:///C:/Users/wcrawford/AppData/Local/Temp/XPGrpWise/61A7A0E4PO2_DOMAIN...
Will Crawford - [EXTERNAL] - Rezoning Proposal for 037.13-04-07.00-0000
From:Matthew Brown <matthew.brown7254@gmail.com>
To:<wcrawford@roanokecountyva.gov>
Date:12/1/2021 8:00 PM
Subject:[EXTERNAL] - Rezoning Proposal for 037.13-04-07.00-0000
Mr. Crawford,
I am unable to attend the scheduled hearings, however, as a resident of the North Lakes subdivision
(5038 Nicholas Hill Lane) I wanted to share my opposition of the proposed zoning changes at tax
map number 037.13-04-07.00-0000. The addition of an even higher number of units than is already
allowed by current zoning is not pursuant to the current environment and infrastructure that is
currently in place.
There are many aspects to take into account for the impact on the surrounding area including the
additional traffic added to cove road at an already congested intersection, adding additional
enrollments to already overcrowded schools, especially at the elementary level. Glenn Cove
specifically still does not even have separate classrooms, rather large shared rooms with movable
partitions to create classroom space. Additionally, stormwater mitigation, sediment and wildlife
displacement, and other environmental concerns must also be taken into account.
Thank you for allowing this avenue to share feedback and passing it along to the appropriate
parties/venues.
Matthew Brown
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.
Page 1 of 1
12 2 2021file:///C:/Users/wcrawford/AppData/Local/Temp/XPGrpWise/61A7D458PO2_DOMAIN...
Will Crawford - [EXTERNAL] - Housing concerns
From:Misty Lemon <misty@magnetsusa.com>
To:"wcrawford@roanokecountyva.gov" <wcrawford@roanokecountyva.gov>
Date:11/30/2021 9:32 PM
Subject:[EXTERNAL] - Housing concerns
Phillip Thompson, Director of Planning and Will Crawford, Transportation Planner of
the apartments that are proposed would rent from $800 to $1100 per month. The “affordable “
housing complex. It is currently not to be government subsidized. My concerns are property
devaluation and traffic on Cove Rd. among some others. It's my understanding that there will be
will be a public hearing on Dec. 6th, however it is understood that those who are concerned with
this project can attend so we are encouraged to email you with concerns and I am concerned about
this new housing. Please take my concerns into consideration as this will
Bring traffic to our neighborhood which is a concern for safety and propert values.
Thank you for your attention. Best regards, Misty Lemon
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.
Page 1 of 1
12 1 2021file:///C:/Users/wcrawford/AppData/Local/Temp/XPGrpWise/61A69852PO2_DOMAINM...
Will Crawford - Re: [EXTERNAL] - Concerns of Affordable Housing Complex
From:Shelby Quesenberry <shelbyjean67@yahoo.com>
To:Will Crawford <WCRAWFORD@roanokecountyva.gov>
Date:12/1/2021 8:36 PM
Subject:Re: [EXTERNAL] - Concerns of Affordable Housing Complex
Attachments:IMAGE.jpeg; IMAGE.jpg
Mr. Crawford,
I am in the North Lakes neighborhood on North Garden Lane. We have seen an increase on the
traffic on Woodhaven since moving in 20+ years ago. The development that has occurred during
this time. And the industrial center isn't even complete. And when there is an accident on 81 -
it is horrible.
North Garden along with Eveningwood Lane are used as through ways so many times and the
stop signs go completely unnoticed. The one at the corner of North Garden and North Spring - I
see people completely blow through constantly. This is a bus stop corner - my son was almost
hit when learning to drive, having the right of way to turn on to North Garden, I was with him -
the person blew through without any regard or acknowledgement that we were there.
I hope that there are studies on the traffic and school situation. I would invite you to come from
419 through Cove to Peters Creek one afternoon aroun 5:30 to see what the trafic is like.
Shelby Quesenberry
Page 1 of 3
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
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.
12 2 2021file:///C:/Users/wcrawford/AppData/Local/Temp/XPGrpWise/61A7DCD1PO2_DOMAIN...
Will Crawford - [EXTERNAL] - Concerns of Affordable Housing Complex
From:Shelby Quesenberry <shelbyjean67@yahoo.com>
To:"wcrawford@roanokecountyva.gov" <wcrawford@roanokecountyva.gov>
Date:11/30/2021 10:05 PM
Subject:[EXTERNAL] - Concerns of Affordable Housing Complex
Attachments:20211119_181024.jpg
Mr. Crawford,
I am writing to express my concerns in regards to the location of the 'proposed' housing complex
to be located off of Cove Road near the North Lakes neighborhood.
I am curious about any of the studies done in regards to traffic in the area of Cove Road,
Greenridge and Peters Creek Road. Below is a sample of what traffic looks like sitting above
Sheetz on a WEDNESDAY coming from Hershberger at around 5:45pm. The traffic is coming
across in a steady stream....the traffic would only be worse with the influx of that many new
families in the area. I see no way to alter this traffic problem for one. The traffic is lined up
both ways on Peters Creek as well. People trying to get in and out of Sheetz from my side - and
someone blocking that entrance which only holds up the line processing through. How many
more accidents will be here? At this is a typical traffic pattern daily.
Second, would the schools be able to handle the influx of these families -- both in staff and
classroom size. My son recently graduated from Northside -- Glen Cove, while a wonderful staff
when he was there, was in need of serious repair and updating. I don't think the room is there.
I feel the same about the Middle School as well.
What about the complex that already exist near the cemetary? Are they full?
I do worry about the effect it will have on the North Lakes neighborhood. I have just ordered a
Ring doorbell due to evidence of someone messing around my property. I see that becoming an
issue with the increase of people and addition of young people who will like cut through the
nieghborhood from school.
I have just recently learned about this (and why wasn't this shared by the county to the local
residents rather than hearing it from a neighbor) and didn't realize there was a deadline to share
concerns -- otherwise, I would have been much more prepared to vocalize my concerns and do
some other research.
Regards,
Shelby Quesenberry
Page 1 of 2
12 1 2021file:///C:/Users/wcrawford/AppData/Local/Temp/XPGrpWise/61A6A02DPO2_DOMAIN...
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
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.
Page 2 of 2
12 1 2021file:///C:/Users/wcrawford/AppData/Local/Temp/XPGrpWise/61A6A02DPO2_DOMAIN...
Will Crawford - [EXTERNAL] - Planning Commission Public Hearing
From:Steve <spgkws@yahoo.com>
To:"planning@roanokecountyva.gov" <planning@roanokecountyva.gov>
Date:12/1/2021 5:13 PM
Subject:[EXTERNAL] - Planning Commission Public Hearing
Hello,
My name is Steve Grammer. My address is 1817 Westview Ave. Roanoke, VA 24016. When building new
apartments, they need to be ADA compliant. The owner of the apartment complexes needs to be encouraged
to accept Section, so that people on low income, especially the disability community, have access to equal
housing opportunities.
Sincerely,
Steve Grammer- Graduate of Partners in Policymaking 2013, Advocate for people with disabilities.
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.
Page 1 of 1
12 2 2021file:///C:/Users/wcrawford/AppData/Local/Temp/XPGrpWise/61A880DEPO2_DOMAIN...
Will Crawford - [EXTERNAL] - New apartment complex on Cove
From:Teresa Schaeffer <schaeffer.teresa@gmail.com>
To:<wcrawford@roanokecountyva.gov>
Date:11/20/2021 8:25 AM
Subject:[EXTERNAL] - New apartment complex on Cove
Cc:<bos@roanokecountyva.gov>
We are homeowners on Woodhaven Rd and our children attend Glen Cove and Northside. We are
very concerned about the request by The Lawrence Companies to change the zoning of the property
on Cove to both allow additional units and to remove the government housing restriction. We are
concerned about the effect it will have on our schools which are in need of renovation, traffic in an
already congested area and our property values to have 216 low rent housing units built on that
property.
It was just a few years ago that the lines for Glen Cove were redrawn and several of our children's
friends had to start going to school all the way out in Glenvar because Glen Cove was considered
over capacity. How then can Glen Cove absorb the children from 216 additional families when
there are other apartments already in various stages of development? Our children already sit 3 to a
seat on overcrowded school buses. Today as I picked our children up from Glen Cove it took me
over 20 minutes to go from Greenridge to Peters Creek on Cove Road due to the traffic. I'm not
sure of the exact distance but I believe it is less than half a mile and is the site proposed for the
entrance to these apartments.
We have lived in this area for over 20 years. During that time we have watched our community go
downhill. Our neighbor's house on Wooodhaven was broken into between 10PM and 11PM two
nights ago. We have seen a steep rise in cars and homes being broken into and children's bikes and
basketball hoops being stolen out of front yards. There are pan handlers on street corners at North
Lakes and Peters Creek and homeless individuals and addicts walking Peters Creek to bring
groceries back to dilapidated motels. We never saw these things 10 to 20 years ago in North
County. We felt safe in our homes. Our hope is that the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors votes to not allow the rezoning and the building of low rent apartments and works to
improve our schools and neighborhoods.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter and for your service to the county.
Matthew and Teresa Schaeffer
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.
Page 1 of 1
11 22 2021file:///C:/Users/wcrawford/AppData/Local/Temp/XPGrpWise/6198B0E9PO2_DOMAIN...
Philip Thompson - Anonymous complaint about apartments
From:Isaac Henry
To:Will Crawford; Cecelia Thomas
Date:12/2/2021 8:53 AM
Subject:Anonymous complaint about apartments
Will & Cecelia,
I just got a voicemail from a woman who did not leave her name, phone number, or address complaining
(I'm pretty sure) about the Lawson case. She said she does not want apartments in North Lakes. She said she
can't attend the meeting but will get a petition started if she has to.
I'm not sure if this should be added to the list or not since it's anonymous, but figured I should send along.
Thanks!
Isaac
Page 1 of 1
12 2 2021file:///C:/Users/pthompson/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/61A88F6EPO2_DOMAINM...
Will Crawford - [EXTERNAL] - Concerns About Apartments
From:ashley guilliams <ashleykguilliams22@gmail.com>
To:"wcrawford@roanokecountyva.gov" <wcrawford@roanokecountyva.gov>
Date:12/7/2021 8:08 PM
Subject:[EXTERNAL] - Concerns About Apartments
Mr. William,
I am very concerned with the news I just received about these apartment complexes being built on
cove road, surrounding North Lakes neighborhood. I am a resident in North Lakes. I am expressing
my concerns, along with both my parents and sister who all live in North Lakes. We have been
dealing with a lot of issues with homelessness and crime due to overflowing of people in the motels
on Thiralane. With that being said I feel that the apartment complexes would be at risk of danger as
well. But also, the peace we have left in North Lakes will be disturbed. We also have major issues
with traffic. These apartments will be adding to the issue causing even more problems. This will
make our area even more unsafe than it already is.
I am also very concerned with the amount of kids that will be living there and where they will go to
school. I feel that this will make the capacity of Roanoke county schools ( Glen Cove & Northside)
way too high. That will make everything more difficult on administration and staff of the schools.
As you know with COVID it has made these careers very hard to achieve with decreasing amount
of teachers and staff at the schools. With this increase of students it is going to make everything
more hard on the students and teachers.
I do not understand why there would need to be another complex put in this area. I think it would
be a good idea to consider doing some expansions in Construction for our roadways. Also asking
teachers what their thoughts are on adding more students when they are struggling with keeping
steady work.
Thank you for viewing my concerns,
Ashley Guilliams
5232 N Garden Ln, Roanoke, VA 24019
Ashleykguilliams22@gmail.com
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.
Page 1 of 1
12 10 2021file:///C:/Users/wcrawford/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/61AFBF3FPO2_DOMAIN...
From :W ill C raw ford
To:P hilip Thom pson
CC:C ec elia Thom as
D at e :12/14/2021 2:29 P M
S ubje ct :teleph on e c om m ent for L aw son C om panies
Philip ,
I received the following co mment from a Brenda Vanhus s o f 4910 Lanter n Street via telephone.
She is a g ainst the a p ar tment comp lex locating in this ar ea and ins ists that it s hould be located in the City. Her pr imar y co ncern is tr affic o n Cove Ro ad.
Tha nk you,
Will
The Lawson Companies
Amend Existing Proffered Conditions on Approximately 12.15
acres zoned R-3C, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing
January 25, 2022
Location Map2
NSHS
I-581
North Lakes
Public Safety
Center
Project Site
•5000 Block of Cove
Road; 2700 Block of
Peters Creek Road
•12.15 Acres
•Currently Vacant
•Apartment Complex –
216 Apartments
3
CVS
Sheetz
Hardees
4 Photographs
5 Photographs
Photographs6
Photographs7
Photographs8
Photographs9
Photographs10
11 Zoning Background
•In 1984 –Property was rezoned from Residential District R-1 and
Business District B-2 to Residential District R-6 with conditions.
•Purpose: Construction of 185 residential apartment
condominiums (this development never happened)
•1992 Countywide rezoning designated this property R-3C
12 Amended Proffers
1.Petitioner shall build only residential condominium units on the
subject property, and Petitioner will not build any units to be
rented on a government subsidized rental basis. The site shall be
developed in general conformance with "The Lawson Companies -
Cove Road Apartments Concept Plan" prepared by Timmons Group
and dated October 8, 2021, subject to any changes required during
the site plan review process.
2.There shall be no street access from the subject property to the
Beacon Ridge subdivision/Candlelight Circle.
3.The maximum number of dwelling units on the subject property
shall be 185 216
•Apartments
•7 buildings –2 sizes –3 stories in height
•216 apartments
•36 –One-bedroom Apartments
•135 –Two-bedroom Apartments
•45 –Three-bedroom Apartments
•Clubhouse
•Maintenance Building
•Two access points
•Cove Road (Entrance & Exit)
•Peters Creek Road (Exit Only)
•Parking, Sidewalks, Lighting, Trash Compactors, Mailboxes, SWM
•Project to be built in 3 Phases
13 Concept Plan
14 Architectural Rendering
Zoning
Existing Zoning
•R-3C –Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District with Conditions
15
Surrounding Zoning
•North –R-1, R-2
•East –R-3, C-2
•West –R-2
•South (City) –ROS, CN
Future Land Use16
Transition
•Encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels.
•Serves as a developed buffer between highways and nearby or adjacent lower intensity development.
•Suitable land uses include office and institutional uses, limited retail uses, multifamily residential, single-family attached residential, and parks.
Neighborhood Conservation
•Established Single-Family Residential neighborhoods are delineated and the conservation of the existing development pattern is encouraged.
Planning Commission
Public Hearing –December 6, 2021
•Six (6) citizens spoke during the public hearing
•Citizen Comments/Concerns
•Increased traffic/traffic congestion/traffic safety
•Pedestrian safety along Cove Road
•Height of apartment buildings
•Access to water/sewer (adjacent property)
•Proposed buffer areas
•Fencing/barriers
17
Planning Commission
•Citizen Comments/Concerns (cont.)
•Grading of the site
•Stormwater Runoff
•Erosion & Sediment Control
•Impact to neighboring wells
•Noise
•Lighting
•Loss of wildlife habitat
18
Planning Commission
•Planning Commission Discussion
•Zoning history of the property
•Surrounding use and zoning
•Transition future land use designation
•Changes to the R-3 zoning standards
•Tax Credits
•Stormwater Management
•Erosion and Sediment Control
•Fencing/Buffers
•Traffic Congestion
•Traffic Safety and Pedestrian Safety
•Site Development
•Lighting
19
Planning Commission
Planning Commission recommends approval to amend the existing proffered conditions as proposed by the applicant
20
Board of Supervisors
Public Hearing –December 14, 2021
•Ten (10) citizens spoke during the public hearing
•Citizen Comments/Concerns
•Need for Affordable Housing
•Crime statistics for similar projects in the vicinity
•Traffic Issues and Safety
•School Capacity
•Impact on Safety Services
•Number of Units being proposed is too high
•Buffers
21
Board of Supervisors
•Citizen Comments/Concerns (cont.)
•Traffic diversion from I-81 incidents
•Location of school bus stop
•Impacts on quality of life
•Impacts to wells on adjacent properties
•People trespassing onto adjacent properties
•Number of parking spaces
•Timing/Phasing of traffic light at Peters Creek/Cove Road needs
to be improved
•Noise from trash trucks
•Loss of wildlife habitat
•Floodplain/Erosion & sediment control impacts
22
Board of Supervisors
Board of Supervisors voted to postpone action on this application until January 25, 2022, in order to receive and review the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for this project
23
Questions?
24
Page 1 of 3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2022
ORDINANCE APPROVING THE PETITION OF THE LAWSON
COMPANIES TO AMEND CERTAIN EXISTING PROFERRED
CONDITIONS ON APPROXIMATELY 12.15 ACRES ON PROPERTY
ZONED R-3C (MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS, LOCATED IN THE 5000 BLOCK OF
COVE ROAD, THE 2700 BLOCK OF PETERS CREEK ROAD, AND
SOUTH OF BEACON RIDGE SUBDIVISION, IN THE CATAWBA
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (TAX MAP NO. 037.13-04-07.00-0000)
WHEREAS, The Lawson Companies has petitioned to amend existing proffered
conditions on approximately 12.15 acres on property zoned R -3C (Medium Density Multi-
Family Residential) District, with conditions, as follows:
1. Petitioner shall build only residential condominium units on the subject property,
and Petitioner will not build any units to be rented on a government subsidized
rental basis. The site shall be developed in general conformance with “The Lawson
Companies – Cove Road Apartments Concept Plan” prepared by Timmons Group
and dated October 8, 2021, subject to any changes required during the site plan
review process.
2. There shall be no street access from the subject property to the Beacon Ridge
subdivision/Candlelight Circle.
3. The maximum number of dwelling units on the subject property shall be 185 216.
and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 17, 2021,
and the second reading and public hearing were held on December 14, 2021; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing held on December 14, 2021,
the Board voted to postpone action on the petition until the January 25, 2022 meeting in
order for the applicant to conduct a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared and the results
presented to the Board for review;
Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, the TIA has been completed, and has been presented to the Board
for review;
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on December 6, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the petition as
requested; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
A. The petition of The Lawson Companies to amend existing proffered
conditions on approximately 12.15 acres on property zoned R -3C (Medium
Density Multi-Family Residential) District, with conditions is approved as
requested. The amended conditions shall be as follows:
1. The site shall be developed in general conformance with “The
Lawson Companies – Cove Road Apartments Concept Plan”
prepared by Timmons Group and dated October 8, 2021, subject to
any changes required during the site plan review process.
2. There shall be no street access from the subject property to the
Beacon Ridge subdivision/Candlelight Circle.
3. The maximum number of dwelling units on the subject property shall
be 216.
B. The Board finds that the proposed rezoning request is consistent with the
purpose and intent of the County’s adopted comprehensive plan, will result
in good zoning practice, and will not result in a substantial detriment to the
community.
Page 3 of 3
C. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect t hirty (30) days after its final
passage. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district
map to reflect the changes authorized by this ordinance.
ROANOKE COUNTY
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
5204 Bernard Drive, P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798
TEL: (540) 772-2071
FAX: (540) 772-2089
Peter S. Lubeck
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Mary Beth Nash
Rachel W. Lower
Marta J. Anderson
SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEYS
SAMPLE MOTIONS
The petition of The Lawson Companies to amend existing proffered conditions on
approximately 12.15 acres on property zoned R-3C (Medium Density Multi-Family
Residential) District with conditions, as follows:
1. Petitioner shall build only residential condominium units on the subject property,
and Petitioner will not build any units to be rented on a government subsidized
rental basis. The site shall be developed in general conformance with “The Lawson
Companies – Cove Road Apartments Concept Plan” prepared by Timmons Group
and dated October 8, 2021, subject to any changes required during the site plan
review process.
2. There shall be no street access from the subject property to the Beacon Ridge
subdivision/Candlelight Circle.
3. The maximum number of dwelling units on the subject property shall be 185 216.
MOTION TO PARTIALLY APPROVE THE REZONING
REQUEST: TO ACCEPT THE FIRST AND SECOND AMENDED
PROFFERS, AND TO DENY THE THIRD AMENDED PROFFER
I find that the first and second amended proffered conditions in the proposed rezoning
request:
1. Are consistent with the purpose and intent of the County’s adopted comprehensive
plan and good zoning practice, and
2. Will not result in substantial detriment to the community.
HOWEVER, I find that the third amended proffered condition, which would have the result
of increasing the maximum number of dwelling units on the subject property from 185
units to 216 units, will result in substantial detriment to the community.
I therefore MOVE THAT WE PARTIALLY APPROVE the rezoning request -- that we
approve the request to amend the first and second amended proffered conditions, but
that we and deny the request to amend the third proffered condition.
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
5204 Bernard Drive, P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798
MOTION TO APPROVE THE REZONING REQUEST
I find that the proposed rezoning request:
1. Is consistent with the purpose and intent of the County’s adopted comprehensive
plan and good zoning practice, and
2. Will not result in substantial detriment to the community.
I therefore MOVE THAT WE APPROVE the rezoning request as submitted by the
Petitioner.
MOTION TO DELAY ACTION
I find that the required information for the submitted proposal is incomplete. I therefore
MOVE TO DELAY action until additional necessary materials are submitted to the Board
of Supervisors.
Page 1 of 2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. H.1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPE RVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 25, 2022
AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boa rds
SUBMITTED BY: Deborah C. Jacks
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
APPROVED BY: Daniel R. O’Donnell
County Administrator
ISSUE:
Open district appointments
BACKGROUND:
1. Library Board (appointed by District)
The following District appointments remain open:
Vinton Magisterial District
2. 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.
Page 2 of 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item.
Page 1 of 1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2022
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 January 25,
2022, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred
in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 2
inclusive, as follows:
1. Confirmation of appointment to the Court Community Corrections Program
Regional Community Criminal Justice Board; Regional Drug Court Advisory
Commission; Roanoke Regional Airport Commission (At-Large), Roanoke
Regional Partnership, Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority; Roanoke Valley-
Alleghany Regional Commission, Roanoke Valley Detention Commission,
Roanoke Valley Resource Authority; Visit Virginia's Blue Ridge, Western Virginia
Regional Industrial Facility Authority; Western Virginia Water Authority
2. Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) accept
Warrior Drive of Cherokee Hills 5 Road, in the Catawba Magisterial District into
the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) System
Page 1 of 3
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. I.1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPE RVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 25, 2022
AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of appointment to the Court Community
Corrections Program Regional Community Criminal Justice
Board; Regional Drug Court Advisory Committee; Roanoke
Regional Airport Commission (At-Large), Roanoke Regional
Partnership, Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority, Roanoke
Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, Roanoke Valley
Detention Commission, Roanoke Valley Resource Authority;
Visit Virginia's Blue Ridge; Western Virginia Regional
Industrial Facility Authority; Western Virginia Regional Jail
Authority; Western Virginia Water Authority
SUBMITTED BY: Deborah C. Jacks
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
APPROVED BY: Daniel R. O’Donnell
County Administrator
ISSUE:
Confirmation of appointments
BACKGROUND:
Due to changes in staff, appointments need to be made to several Board and
Commission.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has recommended the following appointments and terms:
Court Community Corrections Program Regional Community Criminal Justice
Board:
Rebecca E. Owens, Assistant County Administrator, is recommended to fill the
Page 2 of 3
unexpired three-year term of Richard L. Caywood, which will expire June 30, 2022.
Regional Drug Court Advisory Board:
Rebecca E. Owens, Assistant County Administrator, is recommended to be the
Administrative appointee in accordance with State Code. There is no term limit.
Roanoke Regional Airport Commission (At-Large):
It is the consensus of the Board of Supervisors to reappoint Gary Powers to an
additional four (4)-year term to expire February 10, 2022.
Roanoke Regional Partnership:
Richard L. Caywood is recommended to replace Daniel R. O’Donnell. There is no term
limit associated with this appointment.
Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority:
Richard L. Caywood is recommended to fill the unexpired, four-year term due to the
retirement of Daniel R. O’Donnell. This appointment will expire December 30, 2025.
Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission:
Richard L. Caywood is recommended to fill the unexpired term of Daniel R. O’Donnell
as the Non-Elected member on the Commission. This term will expire June 3 0, 2023.
Roanoke Valley Regional Juvenile Detention Center Commission:
Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services is recommended to fill
the unexpired term of Richard L. Caywood, which expires June 30, 2022.
Jessica Beemer, Assistant Director of Finance and Management Services is
recommended to fill the unexpired term of Laurie Gearheart (alternate), which expires
June 30, 2022.
Roanoke Valley Resource Authority:
Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services is recomm ended to fill
the unexpired term of Daniel R. O’Donnell, County Administrator. This term will expire
December 31, 2023.
Page 3 of 3
Virginia’s Blue Ridge (CVB):
Richard L. Caywood is recommended to fill the unexpired term of Daniel R. O’Donnell,
County Administrator. This term will expire June 30, 2024.
Western Virginia Regional Industrial Facilities Authority (and Participation
Committee):
Richard L. Caywood is recommended to replace Daniel R. O’Donnell, County
Administrator. This is a four (4)-year term and will expire February 4, 2026.
Rebecca Owens, Assistant County Administrator serves as an alternate on this
Authority. It is recommended that Ms. Owens be reappointed to a four (4) year term
that will expire February 4, 2026.
Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority:
Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services is recommended to fill
the unexpired term of Richard L. Caywood. This is a one (1)-year term and will expire
December 31, 2022.
Western Virginia Water Authority:
Richard L. Caywood is recommended to fill the unexpired term of Daniel R. O’Donnell,
County Administrator. This term will expire June 30, 2023.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this Board Report.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the above recommended appointments.
Page 1 of 2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. I.2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPE RVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 25, 2022
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) accept Warrior Drive of Cherokee
Hills 5 Road, in the Catawba Magisterial District into the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) System
SUBMITTED BY: Tarek Moneir
Director of Development Services
APPROVED BY: Daniel R. O’Donnell
County Administrator
ISSUE:
Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) accept Warrior
Drive, Cherokee Hills Section 5 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 requesting that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) accept, as
described by the AM-4.3, (See Attachment "A") 0.2 mile of Warrior Drive from the
intersection with Tee Pee Lane (VA SEC. Route # 1233) to the end of its western cul -
de-sac. This road is located within Cherokee Hills Section 5 in the Catawba Magisterial
District. See attached Exhibit “A” for exact location.
DISCUSSION:
The staff has inspected this road along with representatives of the Virginia Department
of Transportation and finds the road acceptable.
Page 2 of 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to VDOT requesting that
they accept Warrior Drive into the Secondary Road System.
VICINITYMAP NORTH
PROPOSED ADDITION(S) SHOWN IN BLUE
DESCRIPTION LENGTH ROW WIDTH SERVICES
Miles Feet Feet
Houses
(Current/Future)
Warrior Drive; From: Int. Route 1233, To: End
of its western cul-de-sac 0.2 50 28 6/30
ROANOKE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVLOPMENT
ACCEPTANCE OF WARRIOR DRIVE (WESTERN PORTION)
INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SECONDARY SYSTEM
Exhibit "A"
Page 1 of 2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2022
RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF WARRIOR DRIVE
(WESTERN PORTION) 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 Requirement;, 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; and
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 2 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 (1) 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.
In Roanoke County
by Resolution of the governing body adopted January 25, 2022
38069673
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:Cherokee Hills Section 5
Addition - New subdivision street §33.2-705
Rte
Number Street Name From Termini To Termini Length
Number
Of
Lanes
Recordation
Reference
Row
Width
1234
Warrior
Drive
Intersection with
Tee Pee Lane /
Route 1233
End of cul-
de-sac 0.2 2 50
Page: 1/1
Changes in outstanding debt for the fiscal year to date were as follows:
Audited
Outstanding Outstanding
June 30, 2021 Additions Deletions January 25, 2022
VPSA School Bonds 74,515,490$ 19,910,000$ 8,552,438$ 85,873,052$
Lease Revenue Bonds 77,530,000 - 3,630,000 73,900,000
Subtotal 152,045,490 19,910,000 12,182,438 159,773,052
Premiums 10,777,149 2,543,232 - 13,320,381
162,822,639$ 22,453,232$ 12,182,438$ 173,093,433$
Submitted By Laurie L. Gearheart
Director of Finance and Management Services
Approved By Daniel R. O'Donnell
County Administrator
Revenues Revenues
Budget Revenues % of Budget Budget Revenues % of Budget Actuals % of Variance
Real Estate Taxes $98,611,227 $48,741,103 49.43%$102,084,564 $50,806,626 49.77%$2,065,523 4.07%
Personal Property Taxes 31,991,250 1,689,231 5.28%33,500,000 1,755,873 5.24%66,642 3.80%
Public Service Corp Base 3,400,000 3,710,928 109.14%3,710,928 3,858,439 103.98%147,511 3.82%
Penalties & Interest on Property Taxes 750,000 366,539 48.87%529,072 425,690 80.46%59,151 13.90%
Payment In Lieu Of Taxes 180,000 90,342 50.19%180,000 92,291 51.27%1,950 2.11%
Total General Property Taxes 134,932,477 54,598,143 40.46%140,004,564 56,938,920 40.67%2,340,777 4.11%
Communication Taxes 2,900,000 1,274,268 43.94%2,900,000 1,175,820 40.55%(98,448)-8.37%
Local Sales Tax 9,096,475 5,217,246 57.35%12,200,000 5,642,677 46.25%425,430 7.54%
Consumer Utility Tax 3,750,000 1,233,326 32.89%3,650,000 1,479,566 40.54%246,241 16.64%
Business License Tax 5,420,000 164,693 3.04%6,364,000 191,365 3.01%26,671 13.94%
Franchise Tax 800,000 0 0.00%660,000 0 0.00%0 0.00%
Motor Vehicle License Fees 2,383,600 317,309 13.31%2,400,000 303,602 12.65%(13,706)-4.51%
Taxes On Recordation & Wills 1,509,509 952,557 63.10%1,400,000 758,893 54.21%(193,664)-25.52%
Utility License Tax 600,000 102,810 17.13%725,000 124,661 17.19%21,851 17.53%
Hotel & Motel Room Taxes 734,179 339,695 46.27%807,597 629,787 77.98%290,092 46.06%
Taxes - Prepared Foods 3,382,500 1,783,010 52.71%4,270,750 2,107,979 49.36%324,969 15.42%
Other Taxes 73,600 10,509 14.28%275,000 109,801 39.93%99,293 90.43%
Total Other Local Taxes 30,649,863 11,395,423 37.18%35,652,347 12,524,152 35.13%1,128,729 9.01%
Animal Control Fees 42,500 14,008 32.96%42,500 7,991 18.80%(6,016)-75.28%
Land and Building Fees 15,850 11,149 70.34%15,850 72,180 455.39%61,031 84.55%
Permits 506,685 326,736 64.49%549,840 293,211 53.33%(33,525)-11.43%
Fees 64,600 23,797 36.84%64,600 16,522 25.58%(7,274)-44.03%
Clerk of Court Fees 167,000 52,176 31.24%127,000 63,027 49.63%10,851 17.22%
Photocopy Charges 210 79 37.62%210 0 0.00%(79)0.00%
Total Permits, Fees and Licenses 796,845 427,945 53.70%800,000 452,932 56.62%24,987 5.52%
Fines and Forfeitures 353,500 212,384 60.08%353,500 217,652 61.57%5,267 2.42%
Total Fines and Forfeitures 353,500 212,384 60.08%353,500 217,652 61.57%5,267 2.42%
Revenues from Use of Money 125,000 23,830 19.06%125,000 11,620 9.30%(12,210)-105.07%
Revenues From Use of Property 178,200 72,020 40.42%178,200 87,081 48.87%15,061 17.30%
COUNTY OF ROANOKE
Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues
General Fund - C100
For the Six Months Ending Friday, December 31, 2021
Prior Year Current Year Variances
Revenues Revenues
Budget Revenues % of Budget Budget Revenues % of Budget Actuals % of Variance
Prior Year Current Year Variances
Total Use of Money and Property 303,200 95,851 31.61%303,200 98,702 32.55%2,851 2.89%
Charges for Services 3,900,075 1,674,621 42.94%3,780,400 1,538,076 40.69%(136,545)-8.88%
Charges for Public Services 70,000 8,560 12.23%70,000 520 0.74%(8,040)-1546.15%
Education Aid-State 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00%
Total Charges for Services 3,970,075 1,683,181 42.40%3,850,400 1,538,596 39.96%(144,585)-9.40%
Reimb-Shared Programs Salem 759,934 160,568 21.13%771,464 130,739 16.95%(29,829)-22.82%
Miscellaneous Revenue 415,536 89,019 21.42%288,536 145,574 50.45%56,554 38.85%
Recovered Costs 949,775 268,956 28.32%875,000 280,213 32.02%11,256 4.02%
Total Miscellaneous 2,125,245 518,544 24.40%1,935,000 556,526 28.76%37,982 6.82%
Non-Categorical Aid 402,000 941,647 234.24%402,000 965,458 240.16%23,810 2.47%
Shared Expenses 5,287,652 2,110,469 39.91%5,507,070 2,468,823 44.83%358,355 14.52%
Welfare & Social Services-Categorical 4,518,184 1,812,647 40.12%4,448,865 1,929,933 43.38%117,286 6.08%
Other State Categorical Aid 2,195,683 1,084,830 49.41%2,320,569 1,089,641 46.96%4,812 0.44%
Welfare & Social Services 4,625,000 2,639,300 57.07%5,495,953 2,778,368 50.55%139,068 5.01%
Education Aid-Federal 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00%
Other Categorical Aid 4,500 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00%
Total State and Federal Revenue 17,033,019 8,588,893 50.42%18,174,457 9,232,223 50.80%643,331 6.97%
Other Financing Sources 27,696,091 0 0.00%38,711,874 0 0.00%0 0.00%
Total Other Financing Sources 27,696,091 0 0.00%38,711,874 0 0.00%0 0.00%
Transfers 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00%
Total Transfers 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00%
Grand Totals 217,860,315 77,520,364 35.58%239,785,342 81,559,702 34.01%4,039,338 4.95%
Expenditures Exp & Encum Expenditures Exp & Encum % of
Budget & Encumbrances % of Budget Budget & Encumbrances % of Budget Actuals Variance
Legislative 327,806 159,353 48.61%331,603 203,414 61.34%67,981 33.42%
General & Financial Administration 7,628,587 3,562,023 46.69%7,904,251 3,678,384 46.54%147,615 4.05%
Electoral Board & Officials 452,682 408,888 90.33%471,516 335,999 71.26%(86,283)-25.72%
General Government Administration 8,409,075 4,130,264 49.12%8,707,370 4,217,796 48.44%129,313 3.09%
Courts 1,604,335 685,687 42.74%1,644,335 698,163 42.46%12,717 1.82%
Other Judicial Support 1,236,624 650,108 52.57%1,344,243 700,492 52.11%50,863 7.26%
Judicial 2,840,959 1,335,794 47.02%2,988,578 1,398,655 46.80%63,580 4.55%
Law Enforcement & Traffic Cont 12,488,747 5,434,241 43.51%14,991,033 7,474,700 49.86%1,925,073 26.30%
Fire and Rescue 14,691,003 6,384,671 43.46%17,358,486 8,713,174 50.20%2,339,306 26.96%
Correction & Detention 8,453,346 3,206,275 37.93%9,679,077 4,225,471 43.66%1,013,122 24.14%
Animal Control 946,893 438,298 46.29%837,711 405,071 48.35%(33,227)-8.20%
Public Safety 36,579,989 15,463,485 42.27%42,866,307 20,818,416 48.57%5,244,274 25.46%
General Services Administration 832,716 367,176 44.09%797,665 451,796 56.64%81,633 18.79%
Refuse Disposal 5,085,971 2,450,378 48.18%5,441,462 2,583,627 47.48%67,203 2.67%
Maint Buildings & Grounds 4,935,697 2,395,404 48.53%5,049,229 2,709,231 53.66%223,441 8.59%
Engineering 1,811,009 884,197 48.82%1,664,905 852,424 51.20%(28,634)-3.38%
Inspections 1,151,878 574,770 49.90%1,569,358 646,275 41.18%72,862 11.27%
Garage Complex 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00%
Public Works 13,817,271 6,671,925 48.29%14,522,619 7,243,354 49.88%416,504 5.91%
Mental Health 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00%
Public Health 515,902 381,536 73.96%515,902 386,927 75.00%5,390 1.39%
Social Services Administration 8,392,331 3,721,261 44.34%8,818,788 4,216,404 47.81%438,541 10.57%
Comprehensive Services Act 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00%
Public Assistance 4,743,666 2,424,695 51.11%4,918,666 2,392,968 48.65%(31,728)-1.33%
Social Services Organizations 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00%
Health and Welfare 13,651,899 6,527,492 47.81%14,253,356 6,996,299 49.09%412,203 5.95%
Parks & Recreation 2,674,080 988,129 36.95%2,390,260 1,064,985 44.56%78,852 7.54%
COUNTY OF ROANOKE
Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances
General Fund - C100
For the Six Months Ending Friday, December 31, 2021
Prior Year Current Year Variances
Expenditures Exp & Encum Expenditures Exp & Encum % of
Budget & Encumbrances % of Budget Budget & Encumbrances % of Budget Actuals Variance
Prior Year Current Year Variances
Library 4,244,865 1,661,317 39.14%4,336,057 1,909,719 44.04%260,025 13.65%
Cultural Enrichment 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00%
Parks, Recreation & Cultural 6,918,945 2,649,446 38.29%6,726,317 2,974,704 44.22%338,877 11.48%
Planning & Zoning 1,246,237 582,398 46.73%1,304,878 589,756 45.20%8,100 1.37%
Cooperative Extension Program 87,097 17,588 20.19%87,097 11,053 12.69%(6,535)-59.13%
Economic Development 763,591 518,654 67.92%529,257 250,172 47.27%(268,482)-107.32%
Contribution to Human Service Organizatio 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00%
Planning 2,096,925 1,118,640 53.35%1,921,232 850,980 44.29%(266,916)-31.37%
Employee Benefits 5,231,091 2,282,860 43.64%4,134,317 2,678,580 64.79%397,280 14.98%
Dixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup 52,000 27,482 52.85%52,000 13,643 26.24%(13,839)-101.44%
Miscellaneous 8,265,745 4,655,244 56.32%9,240,340 5,363,767 58.05%698,614 13.05%
Tax Relief/Elderly & Handicapp 1,035,000 580,987 56.13%1,110,000 715,777 64.48%134,790 18.83%
Refuse Credit Vinton 110,000 110,000 100.00%110,000 110,000 100.00%0 0.00%
Board Contingency 23,932,859 0 0.00%24,677,259 0 0.00%0 0.00%
Unappropriated Balance 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00%
Non-Departmental 38,626,695 7,656,573 19.82%39,323,916 8,881,767 22.59%1,216,844 13.76%
Interfund Transfers Out 90,255,221 42,260,067 46.82%102,325,746 57,479,388 56.17%15,219,321 26.48%
Intrafund Transfers Out 4,663,337 3,464,107 74.28%6,149,901 4,897,611 79.64%1,433,504 29.27%
Transfers Out 94,918,558 45,724,174 48.17%108,475,647 62,376,999 57.50%16,652,825 26.70%
Grand Totals 217,860,316 91,277,793 41.90%239,785,342 115,758,968 48.28%24,207,504 21.02%
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: January 25, 2022
AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid – December 2021
SUBMITTED BY: Laurie L. Gearheart
Director of Finance and Management Services
APPROVED BY: Daniel R. O’Donnell
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Direct Deposit Checks Total
Payments to Vendors -$ -$ 10,989,317.98$
Payroll 12/10/21 1,642,538.24 12,867.64 1,655,405.88
Payroll 12/21/21 1,488,761.42 13,834.17 1,502,595.59
Manual Checks - - -
Grand Total 14,147,319.45$
A detailed listing of the payments to vendors is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
01-25-22
ACTION NO.___________________
ITEM NUMBER_______________
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER.
: January 25, 2022
: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy, as of
31-Dec-21
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
CASH INVESTMENT:
SUNTRUST CON 10,883,689.06 10,883,689.06
GOVERNMENT:
SCOTT STRINGFELLOW CONTRA (197,295.00)
SCOTT STRINGFELLOW 51,501,087.42
WELLS FARGO 0.00
WELLS FARGO CONTRA 0.00 51,303,792.42
LOCAL GOV'T INVESTMENT POOL:
GENERAL OPERATION 24,810,967.49 24,810,967.49
MONEY MARKET:
ATLANTIC UNION BANK 4,543,330.68
HOMETRUST BANK 4,039,642.68
SCOTT STRINGFELLOW 8,993,460.90
WELLS FARGO 5,288,481.74
22,864,916.00
TOTAL 109,863,364.97
Page 1 of 2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. M.1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPE RVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 25, 2022
AGENDA ITEM: Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors fiscal
year 2021-2022 mid-year revenues and expenditures and
fiscal year 2022-2023 budget issues
SUBMITTED BY: Laurie Gearheart
Director of Finance and Management Services
APPROVED BY: Daniel R. O’Donnell
County Administrator
ISSUE:
Review fiscal year 2021-2022 mid-year (through December 31, 2021) revenues and
expenditures and fiscal year 2022-2023 budget issues with the Board of Supervisors.
BACKGROUND:
Per section 4-1 Item C and section 4-5 of the Comprehensive Financial Policy, in
January of each year, County staff will provide information to the Board on a mid -year
update of current year revenues and expenditures as relates to the adopted budget.
The attached presentation provides information on revenues and expenditures through
the second quarter (December 31, 2021) of fiscal year 2021-2022.
Additionally, this presentation will review budget issues expected with the development
of the fiscal year 2022-2023 budget.
DISCUSSION:
This time has been scheduled to discuss fiscal year 2 021-2022 mid-year revenues and
expenditures and expected budget issues with the development of the fiscal year 2022 -
2023 operating budget. The attached PowerPoint presentation will be shown.
Page 2 of 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the receipt of the attached presentation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors receive information regarding fiscal
year 2021-2022 mid-year revenues and expenditures and expected budget issues with
the development of the fiscal year 2022-2023 operating budget.
FY 2022 Mid-Year Review of
General Government
Revenues and Expenditures
and FY 2023 Anticipated Budget Issues
Board of Supervisors Budget Work Session
January 25, 2022
Work Session Agenda
•FY 2022 Mid-Year Revenue Update
•FY 2022 Mid-Year Expenditure Update
•FY 2022 Mid-Year General Government Summary
•FY 2023 Anticipated Budget Issues
•Next Steps
2
FY 2022 Mid-Year
Revenue Update
3
FY 2022 General Government
Revenue Collection Summary
4
Category Date(s)/Period of Collection
% of Total
Budget
Real Estate 1st Half in December (CY 2021), 2nd Half in June (CY 2022)*51.9%
Personal Property Receive in May-June, billed annually 16.8%
Sales Tax Receive monthly,2 months delay 4.8%
Business License Receive in February -March annually 2.9%
Hotel/Motel Tax Receive quarterly, some received monthly 0.4%
Meals Receive monthly, 1 month delay 1.8%
*1st Half of Real Estate based on CY 2021 Assessment, 2nd Half based on CY 2022 Assessment finalized in November 2021
FY 2022 General Government Revenue Budget
5
Real Estate Taxes
50.7%
Personal Property
Taxes
16.6%
Other Local Taxes
and Fees
10.9%
Intergovernmental
9.0%
Sales Tax
6.1%
Business License
3.2%
Communications
Tax
1.4%
Meals Tax
2.1%
FY 2022 Adopted General Government
Revenue Budget
$201,323,524
$184.6
$187.3
$194.7
$198.0
$205.8
$183.3
$186.6
$190.7
$196.9
$194.2
$201.3
$180
$185
$190
$195
$200
$205
$210
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Total General Government Revenue
FY 2017 through FY 2022
Actual Revenue Adopted/Amended Budget
FY 2022 General Government Revenue Budget
6
General Government Revenue Budget
Total FY 2022 Adopted Revenue Budget, Net Beginning Balance $201,038,851
Budget Amendments through December 31,2021 (Board Approved)
Commonwealth Revenue for Clerk of Circuit Court $34,617
Carryover for Prior Year Encumbrances $250,056
Total FY 2022 Amended Revenue Budget $201,323,524
Mid-Year Actual Revenue Comparison –General Government
7
Category
FY 2022
Revised Budget
1st Half
FY 2022
% Collected in
1st Half FY 2022
1st Half
FY 2021
% Collected in
1st Half FY 2021
Real Estate $102,084,564 $50,806,626 49.77%$48,741,103 49.43%
Personal Property $33,500,000 $2,521,502 7.53%$2,454,861 7.67%
Other Local Taxes and Fees1 $12,931,102 $7,164,866 55.41%$6,784,319 50.45%
Sales Tax $12,200,000 $5,642,677 46.25%$5,217,246 57.35%
Business License $6,364,000 $191,365 3.01%$164,694 3.04%
Communications Tax $2,900,000 $1,175,820 40.55%$1,274,268 43.94%
Hotel/Motel Tax $807,597 $629,787 77.98%$339,695 46.27%
Meals $4,270,750 $2,107,980 49.36%$1,783,010 52.71%
Intergovernmental $18,174,457 $8,454,672 46.52%$7,823,263 45.93%
Other Non-Shared Revenue2 $8,091,054 $2,864,407 35.40%$2,937,905 37.86%
Total $201,323,524 $81,559,702 40.51%$77,520,364 40.72%
1Other Local Taxes and Fees includes: Other Property Taxes, Consumer Utility, Bank Franchise, Motor Vehicle License, Recordation and Conveyance, Other Local Taxes,
2Other Non-Shared Revenue includes: Permits, Fees, & Licenses, Fines and Forfeitures, Use of Money and Property, Charges for Services, Recovered Costs, and Miscellaneous Revenue
FY 2022 Revenue Trends
8
Actual Budget Projection
$89.36
$91.27
$93.85
$96.47
$100.46
$102.08
$104.50
$84
$89
$94
$99
$104
FY 2017
Actual
FY 2018
Actual
FY 2019
Actual
FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Actual
FY 2022
Budget/
Projection
$
i
n
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
Real Estate Revenue
FY 2017 to FY 2022
$32.68 $32.77
$33.97 $34.38
$37.16 $37.52
$33.50
$30
$32
$34
$36
$38
$40
FY 2017
Actual
FY 2018
Actual
FY 2019
Actual
FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Actual
FY 2022
Budget/
Projection
$
i
n
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
Personal Property Revenue
FY 2017 to FY 2022
FY 2022 Revenue Trends
9
$10.73
$10.24
$11.03
$12.10
$12.94
$13.60
$12.20
$8
$9
$10
$11
$12
$13
$14
FY 2017
Actual
FY 2018
Actual
FY 2019
Actual
FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Actual
FY 2022
Budget/
Projection
$
i
n
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
Sales Tax Revenue
FY 2017 to FY 2022
$6.63 $6.70
$7.13
$7.33
$6.96 $7.03
6.36
$5
$6
$7
$8
FY 2017
Actual
FY 2018
Actual
FY 2019
Actual
FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Actual
FY 2022
Budget/
Projection
$
i
n
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
BPOL Revenue
FY 2017 to FY 2022
FY 2022 Revenue Trends
10
$1.38 $1.39 $1.51 $1.47
$0.73 $0.81
$1.31
$-
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
FY 2017
Actual
FY 2018
Actual
FY 2019
Actual
FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Actual
FY 2022
Budget/
Projection
$
i
n
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
Hotel/Motel Revenue
FY 2017 to FY 2022
$4.54 $4.50 $4.52
$4.28
$4.55 $4.58
$4.27
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
$4.5
$5.0
FY 2017
Actual
FY 2018
Actual
FY 2019
Actual
FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Actual
FY 2022
Budget/
Projection
$
i
n
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
Meals Tax Revenue
FY 2017 to FY 2022
FY 2022 Revenue Summary
•General Government overall revenues are trending above budget
•Staff continue to monitor trends in:
•Personal Property Tax
•Sales Tax
•Business License (BPOL)
•Hotel & Motel Tax
•Meals Tax
•Projections are based on trends seen to date and may fluctuate as
more data becomes available
11
FY 2022 Mid-Year
Expenditure Update
12
FY 2022 General Government Expenditures
13
Functional Team
FY 2022
Revised
Budget
FY 2022 YTD
Actual +
Encumbrances*
FY 2022
Remaining
Balance
% of
Budget Spent
Community Services $11,440,557 $5,374,984 $6,065,573 46.98%
Human Services 11,425,648 5,508,993 $5,916,655 48.22%
Internal Services 11,511,379 5,747,627 $5,763,752 49.93%
Public Safety 57,660,196 27,878,183 $29,782,013 48.35%
Functional Team Subtotal 92,037,780 44,509,787 $47,527,993 48.36%
Non-Departmental 8,217,816 5,403,405 $2,814,411 65.75%
Transfers 101,067,928 51,995,301 $49,072,627 51.45%
Total General Government $201,323,524 $101,908,493 $99,415,031 50.62%
*Note: Actuals are through December 31, 2021
Transfers
50.20%
Non-
Departmental
4.08%
Community
Services
5.68%
Human Services
5.68%
Internal Services
5.72%
Public Safety
28.64%
FY 2022 Adopted General Government
Expenditure Budget
$201,323,524
Mid-Year Actual Expenditure –General Government
14
Category
FY 2022
Revised Budget
FY 2022
Actual +
Encumbrances*
FY 2022
Remaining
Balance
% of
Budget Spent
Personnel $70,163,735 $34,558,822 $35,604,913 49.25%
Non-Personnel/Encumbrances $35,632,958 $18,372,106 $17,260,852 51.56%
Transfers & Other $95,526,831 $48,977,565 $46,549,266 51.27%
Total $201,323,524 $101,908,493 $99,415,031 50.62%
•Transfers anticipated to expend entire budget
*Note:Actuals are through December 31, 2021
FY 2022 Expenditure Summary
•Expenditures appear to be on pace with budget
•Staff continue to monitor trends in:
•Public Safety Overtime
•Regional services and programs
•Maintenance of vehicles
•Fuel Costs
•Tax Relief for the Elderly & Disabled Veterans
•Personnel expenditures trending on target with budget
15
FY 2022 Mid-Year
General Government
Summary
16
FY 2022 General Government Summary
•Overall revenues are trending above budget
•Difficult to project largest revenue sources due to collection dates
•As of 1st Half, only 40.51% of revenue budget collected
•Overall expenditures appear to be on pace with budget
•As of 1st Half, 50.62% of budget expended
17
FY 2022 Revenue Considerations
•Vehicle License Fee (VLF)
•Section 46.2-752(A) of the Code of Virginia authorizes localities to charge
license fees on vehicles, trailers, semitrailers, motorcycles, boats, etc…
•Roanoke County could temporarily change the County Code to eliminate this
fee for one year
•Roanoke County citizens who reside within the Town of Vinton pay the VLF to
the Town, not to Roanoke County
•To extend this benefit to all owners of personal property in Roanoke County
would require coordination with the Town of Vinton to replace lost revenue,
budgeted at $179,576 in FY 2022
•FY 2022 Roanoke County VLF Budget is $2.4 million
18
FY 2023 Anticipated
Budget Needs
19
Anticipated FY 2023
Operating Budget Needs
•Personnel:
•Compensation commitments for Public Safety step plans and Decision Band
Method adjustments for all other employees
•Potential increase to VRS, Health and Dental rates
•Operating:
•Increases for items impacted by inflation including fuel & fleet repair
•Increased technology costs including SAAS (Software as a Service)
•Capital and Other:
•Fleet & Equipment replacement needs
•Address increasing CSA program costs
20
Next Steps
21
Next Steps
•Revenue Team will finalize FY 2022 -2023 revenue projections at beginning of
February
•Preliminary FY 2022 -2023 revenue projections will be presented to the Board at
February 8, 2022 work session
•County Administrator’s Proposed FY 2022 -2023 Budget presentation scheduled
for March 8, 2022
22
Questions and
Comments