The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/23/2007 - Regular Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda October 23, 2007 Please be advised that this Board meeting will be held at the former Roanoke County Public Safety Center, 3568 Peters Creek Road, Roanoke, VA 24019. Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for October 23, 2007. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the 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 Thursdays at 7:00 p.m. and on Saturdays at 4:00 p.m. The meetings are now closed-captioned. 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. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 p.m.) 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation: Pastor Greg Irby Temple Baptist Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Introduction of Gray Goldsmith - new member of the Western Virginia Water Authority's Board of Directors 2. Certificate of recognition for Sheriff Deputy Brian Keenum on being selected as a runner in the final leg of the Law Enforcement Torch Run at the Special Olympics World Games in China 1 D. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding a proposed amendment to the fiscal year 2007-2008 budget in accordance with Section 15.2-2507, Code of Virginia. (Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to appropriate funds for the new County garage, the South County library, and the North County fire station, and to adopt a resolution declaring intent to reimburse expenditures from bond proceeds for the North County fire station. (Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer) 2. Request for permission to apply for a Land and Water Conservation Fund grant to help finance the construction of the Taylor Tract Park and Trail System at the site of the new South County library. (Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism) 3. Request for permission to apply for a grant from the Virginia Department of Transportation to help finance the construction of approximately five miles of Roanoke River Greenway in the eastern section of the County. (Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism) 4. Adoption of a list of interstate and primary road projects and resolution to be presented at the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT's) public hearing for the fiscal years 2009-2014 Six-Year Improvement Program. (Teresa Becher, Transportation Engineering Manager) F. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of an ordinance conveying the former Public Safety Center to the Roanoke County School Board (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) 2. First reading of an ordinance to accept a donation of 89.82 acres on Read Mountain from Alfred and Beth Durham. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 3. Request to authorize the emergency relocation of the Northside voting precinct polling place from Northside High School to the former Public Safety Center at 3568 Peter's Creek Road, Catawba Magisterial District. (Judith Stokes, General Registrar) G. APPOINTMENTS 1. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (appointed by district) 2. Grievance Panel 2 H. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Approval of minutes for September 25, 2007 2. Resolution of appreciation to Sherry B. Pearson, Library Services, upon her retirement after fourteen years of service I. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS J. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS K. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS L. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency 4. Accounts Paid - September 2007 5. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for the month ended September 30, 2007 6. Claims activity for the self-insurance program for the period ended September 30,2007 7. Proclamation signed by the Board M. CLOSED MEETING N. WORK SESSIONS EVENING SESSION O. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION P. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 3 Q. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 1. Public hearing and resolution to amend the Roanoke County Community Plan to include the 2007 update to the Greenway Conceptual Plan. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) R. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCE 1. CONTINUED UNTIL NOVEMBER 13, 2007, AT THE REQUEST OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 1.421 acres from R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, for the operation of an extended stay hotel, located near the intersection of Hershberger Road and Oakland Boulevard, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Auslo, Inc. (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning) 2. Second reading of ordinance to rezone 0.804 acre from R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to C-1, Office District, for the construction of an office building, located near the intersection of Pleasant Hill Drive and Route 221, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Kenneth S. Gusler, Jr. (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning) 3. Second reading of an ordinance authorizing the vacation of a 30 foot access and water line easement located upon portions of Samuel's Gate Subdivision, Section No. 16, and crossing Crumpacker Drive and Tolman Circle as shown on the plat of property of F & W Community Development Corporation, and the relocation and vacation of a 30 foot access easement located upon remaining portion of property of F & W Community Development Corporation, located in the Hollins Magisterial District. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 4. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a Special Use Permit to operate a construction yard on 1.87 acres, located at 2914 Jae Valley Road, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc. (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning) 5. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 2.917 acres from 1-1 C, Industrial District with Conditions, to C-2, General Commercial District with Conditions, for the construction of an administrative services building, located near the intersection of Valleypointe Parkway and Valleypark Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Timberbrook Properties III, LLC. (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning) S. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 4 T. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1. Michael A. Wray 2. Joseph B. "Butch" Church 3. Michael W. Altizer 4. Richard C. Flora 5. Joseph P. McNamara U. ADJOURNMENT TO SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 11 AT 1 :00 P.M. FOR THE ANNUAL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RETREAT, THE HOMESTEAD RESORT, HOT SPRINGS, VIRGINIA. 5 Ac-rION NO. ITEM NO. C-' AT A REGULAR MEE1-ING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD MEE1-ING DATE: October 23, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Introduction of Gray Goldsmith, new Western Virginia Water Authority Board of Directors member APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside to introduce R. Grayson JrGray" Goldsmith as the newest member of the Western Virginia Water Authority's Board of Directors. Mr. Goldsmith is currently a senior vice president at Valley Bank. He has thirty-one years of experience in commercial banking. Prior to joining Valley Bank. Mr. Goldsmith was a senior vice president at SunTrust Bank where he was responsible for managing commercial sales for the Blue Ridge Region. Whire at SunTrust, Mr. Goldsmith placed special emphasis on motivating sales personnel, customer retention, new business development activities, problem resolution, and credit structuring and approval. He has also held senior-level management positions with First Union Bank and Dominion Bank. Mr. Goldsmith is an excellent addition to the Water Authority Board. He will lend his expertise in commercial relationship management and new business development to the work of the Western Virginia Water Authority as it prepares to extend water operations into Franklin County. Mr. Goldsmith will also contribute his experience in customer retention, credit structuring, and sales management. Mr. Goldsmith currently serves as a member of the Board for Junior Achievement of Southwest Virginia and as a member of that organization's Funding and Finance Committee. He is also a member of the YMCA of Roanoke Valley's Corporate Board and Finance Committee. A graduate of Patrick Henry High School, Mr. Goldsmith holds a B.A. in psychology from Hampden-Sydney CoUege. Ac-rION NO. ITEM NO. C- - :.L AT A REGULAR MEE"rING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COLINTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PE-rERS CREEK ROAD MEETING DATE: October 23, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Certificate of recognition for Sheriff Deputy Brian Keenum on being selected as a runner in the final leg of the Law Enforcement Torch Run at the Special Olympics World Games in China SLJBMITTED BY: Gerald Holt Sheriff Elmer C. Hodge cL it p/",? County Administrator ~~':J/ APPROVED BY: COLINTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SllMMARY OF INFORMAl-ION: Sergeant Brian Keenum was selected to represent Virginia as a runner in the final leg of the Law Enforcement Torch Run at the Special Olympics World Games held this year in Shanghai, China, from September 24,2007, through October 4,2007. Sergeant Keenum and other Virginia law enforcement officers who regularly participate in the Virginia Law Enforcement Torch Run for the Special Olympics submitted applications to Special Olympics Virginia to be considered for the honor of running at the World Games. The Virginia Torch Run Executive Council selected Sergeant Keenum due to his dedication and hard work in promoting the Special Olympics during the last several years. Sergeant Keenum has been very active in raising funds and awareness for the Special Olympics and has become well known at the state level. Sergeant Keenum joined law enforcement runners from all fifty states and numerous foreign countries as well as Special Olympics athlete runners in running across China to spread awareness of the Special Olympics internationally. Each team of law enforcement runners, which included a Special Olympics athlete, ran a different route. Each route took approximately one week to run. At the end of run, the teams came together for the opening ceremonies of the world games in Shanghai, China, when the torch carrying the Special Olympics Flame of Hope was carried into the opening ceremonies. Sergeant Keenum will be present to receive his certificate of recognition. Sheriff Holt will also be present. ~untP of l\oano~ CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION AWARDED TO Sergeant Brian Keenum Sheriff's Office for being selected as a Law Enforcement Torch Runner in the Special Olympics World Games ~ Sergeant Brian Keenum was selected to represent Virginia as a runner in the final leg of the Law Enforcement Torch Run at the Special Olympics World Games held this year in Shanghair China, from September 24 through October 4, 2007. ~ Sergeant Keenum who regularly participates in the Virginia Law Enforcement Torch Run for the Special Olympics submitted his application to Special Olympics Virginia to be considered for the honor of running at the World Games. ~ The Virginia Torch Run Executive Council selected Sergeant Keenum due to his dedication and hard work in promoting the Special Olympics during the last severa~ years. ~ The Board of Supervisors congratulates Sergeant Keenum upon this achievement and expresses its best wishes for success in his future endeavors. Presented this 23rd day of October 2007 Richard C. Flora, Vice-Chairman In~ 71. ~ Michael W. Altizer ~8. "&.,,~ t~~ Joseph B. "Butch" Church "\1\'~ C{. W Michael A. Wray ~ ] ACTION NO. ITEM NO. D-1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEE-rING DATE: October 23, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding a proposed amendment to the fiscal year 2007-2008 bUQget in accordance with Section 15.2-2507, Code of Virginia SUBMITTED BY: Brent Robertson Director, Management and Budget APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Adrninistrator COLINTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMAl-ION: "rhis is a public hearing to secure citizen's comments concerning amending the fiscal year 2007-2008 budget by adjusting the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year. Section 15.2-2507 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, provides that whenever such amendment exceeds 1 percent of the total expenditures shown in the adopted budget or $500,000, whichever is lesser, the County must publish notice of a meeting and public hearing. The notice must state the County's intent to amend the budget and include a brief synopsis of the proposed budget amendment(s). This notice was published on October 16, 2007. 1. Request to appropriate an amount not to exceed $6,700,000 for a County Fleet Maintenance Facility. 2. Request to appropriate an amount not to exceed $16,290,000 for the South County library . 3. Request to appropriate an amount not to exceed $3,500,000 for the North County fire station. These figures do not represent the total costs of the projects, but represent the total amount of the proposed financing. Each project is partiaUy funded using existing balances accumulated through the adopted capital funding formulas and savings previously approved by the Board of Supervisors. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact as a result of the public hearing. Requests for the appropriations will occur later on this agenda. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board hold the required public hearing. Board action appropriating funds, as provided in this notice, will occur later during this meeting. 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. 't:. - I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SLIPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY~ VIRGINIA HELD AT -rHE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE) VIRGINIA MEE1-ING DATE: October 23, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Request to appropriate funds for the new County garage, the South County library) and the North County fire station, and to adopt a resolution declaring intent to reimburse expenditures from bond proceeds for the North County fire station SUBMITTED BY: Diane Hyatt Chief Financial Officer APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: In December 2004) the County Board adopted a series of fiscal policies that enhanced the cash position of the County, and directed money toward much needed capital projects. Through these policies, surplus funds at the end of each fiscal year are used to buBd the Unappropriated Ba~ance of the County and to fund the Major and Minor County capital reserves. The Major and Minor Capital Reserves allow the County to pay cash for smaller capital projects, and act as a down payment on larger capital projects. In addition, through the budget process, the County and the Schools jointly fund a growing Future Debt Service Reserve Fund, which allows the County and the Schools to pay for the debt service on future bond issues to fund larger capital projects. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Today, we are requesting the Board to appropriate funds for the following capital projects: 1. A new garage 2. A South County library 3. A North County fire station The total budgets for the garage, the library, and the fire station are shown on Attachment A. These budgets have been reviewed with the Board in previous work sessions. Each of these projects is partially funded from money that has already been appropriated to the project in the current or prior years. The remaining portion of the projects will be funded with bond proceeds. In previous meetings, the Board has taken action to appropriate funds and award contracts for the upgrade to the radio system and the multigenerational center, which will also be included in this bond issue. In addition, the Board has previously adopted resolutions declaring the intent to reimburse itself with bond proceeds for each of the projects except the fire station. This resolution is presented today. FISCAL IMPACT: The County has already appropriated a total of $3,670,000 to these three projects, as detailed in Attachment A. -rhese funds were generated through the Boards' new fiscal policies, as explained above. The balance of $26,230,000 will be included in the upcoming bond sale, along with the multigenerational center and the radio upgrade. Debt service for this bond sale will be paid in future years, with money from the Future Debt Service Reserve Fund, increased Fee for Transport rates recently approved by the Board, and partnerships with the Western Virginia Water Authority. -rhe debt service will be paid from the County's existing revenue stream, and will not impact the funding for the Schools. The fiscal policies adopted by the Board have worked well, and allow us the opportunity to proceed with these needed capital projects now while interest rates are low. A delay in construction will only result in construction costs increasing faster than we are able to accumulate additional funds. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the following: 1. Appropriate the balance of the needed capital funds for the projects from bond proceeds, as shown below and detailed on Attachment A. Garage Library Fire Station $6,440,000 16,290,000 3,500,000 2. Approve the attached resolution, which allows the County to reimburse itself from future bond issues or other financings for expenditures made on the fire station. ATTACHMENT A Roanoke County Capital Projects Sources and Uses of Funds North County Garage Library Fire Station Source of Funds Currently appropriated $ 1,260.000 $ 1. 71 0,000 $ 700,000 Roanoke County Bond Proceeds 6,440,000 16,290,000 3,500,000 $ 7,700,000 $ 18,000,000 $ 4,200,000 Use of Funds Purchase of land $ 1,000,000 $ $ 500,000 A&E 500,000 1,368.838 200,000 Construction 4,500,000 10,334,309 3,500,000 Equipment & Furnishings 2,291,250 Site development 1,250,000 2,334,940 Other 1,019,959 Contingency 4501000 650,704 $ 7,700,000 $ 18,000,000 $ 4,200,000 AT A REGLILAR MEE1-ING OF -rHE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COLINTY PUBI_IC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2007 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF -fHE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FROM THE PROCEEDS OF A FINANCING FOR CERTAIN COSTS OF A FIRE STATION WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, (the "County") has determined that it may be necessary or desirable to advance money to pay the costs of designing, acquiring, constructing~ and equipping a new Fire Station (the" Project"). NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows: 1. -rhe Board of Supervisors adopts this declaration of official intent under Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2. 2. The Board of Supervisors reasonably expects to reimburse advances made or to be made by the County to pay the costs of designing, acquiring, constructing, and equipping the Project from the proceeds of its debt or other financing. The maximum amount of debt or other financing expected to be issued for the des~gning, acquiring, constructing and equipping the Project is $4,200,000. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. ACT~ON NO. ITEM NO. ~-L AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CEN-rER, 3568 PE-rERS CREEK ROAD MEETING DATE: October 23, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Request for permission to apply for a Land & Water Conservation Fund grant to help finance the construction of the Taylor Tract Park and Trail System at the site of the new South County library SUBMITTED BY: Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Lon Williams, Parks Planner APPROVED BY: COllNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: -rhe new South County library is an exciting project that will help the County meet the growing demand for modern library services and programs. Equally exciting for our citizens is the creation of a park and trail system at the site of the new library. Plans for the Taylor Tract Park and Trail system include the development of passive parks facilities and a system of walking and hiking trails. Roanoke County staff continually looks for new ways to help fund projects. Roanoke County's Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Department has identified one such grant it would like to apply for through the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. The Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grant administered by OCR could make up to $100,000 in reimbursement available to the County. Plans for the project call for construction of a raised boardwalk trail in the wetlands that will tie into upland trails to form an integrated trail system that will link the new library to the north of the site, to Penn Forest Elementary School and Darrell Shell Memorial Park to the east of the site, and to Starkey Park and the Merriman Soccer Corrlplex to the south of the site. The project will also include a wetland enhancement program, a small gravel parking lot, a picnic shelter, and a new family picnic area to serve young library patrons, Penn Forest Elementary School students, and park users. Future improvements to complete the park master plan, subject to the availability of funding, that are not included in this grant request include a new paved 3D-space parking lot that will serve users of the site and meet ADA accessibility requirementst another picnic shelter, a playground, and continuation of the wetland enhancement program. The LWCF program requires that all areas helped with LWCF funds be maintained in perpetuity as public outdoor recreation areas. And all work supported by the grant is to be accomplished within a three-year time frame. Of the 16 acre site available to the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism for recreational development, approximately six acres have been delineated as jurisdictional shrub-scrub wetlands that fall under the regulation of the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Consistent with LWCF grant requirements, the six acres of wetlands would also be maintained in perpetuity as a public outdoor area recreation area. Part of the application process requires a resolution of support from the local jurisdiction that includes an assurance that required matching funds are available from the local jurisdiction. FISCAL IMPACT: Roanoke County's share of the required match is available in the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Capitar Improvements and Capital Maintenance budgets and through in-kind construction services that will be provided by parks and recreation staff. ALTERNATIVES: Alternative 1: Adopt the attached resolution of support for a grant application to the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation for a Land & Water Conservation Fund grant to help finance the construction of the Taylor Tract Park and Trail System. Alternative 2: Do not adopt the attached resolution resulting in the scaling back of the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative one. 2 AT A REGULAR MEE1-ING OF -rHE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, -rUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2007 RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION TO -rHE VIRGINIA DEPAR-rMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION FOR A LAND & WATER CONSERVATION FUND GRANT TO HELP FINANCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF -rHE TAYLOR -rRACT PARK AND TRAIL SYSTEM WHEREAS, the Department of Conservation and Recreation (OCR), provides funds to assist political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia in acquiring and developing open space and park lands; and WHEREAS, there are urgent needs within Roanoke County to develop passive parks facilities and systems of walking and hiking trails; and WHEREAS, the Taylor Tract parcel is deemed to be of a high acquisition and development priority by Roanoke County and shall be referred to as the Taylor Tract Park and Trail System Project. WHEREAS, in order to attain funding assistance from OCR, it is necessary that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors guarantee that a proportionate share of the cost thereof is available; and WHEREAS, the total project cost is $162,620, and Roanoke County is seeking a grant from OCR in an amount of $77,700 and the County's 52 percent proportionate project share of $84,920 will be funded by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. NOW, -rHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the County Adrrlinistrator is hereby authorized to cause such information or materials as may be necessary to be provided to the Department of Conservation and Recreation (OCR) and to enter into such agreements as may be necessary to permit the formulation, approval, and funding of the Taylor Tract Park and Trail System Project. 2. That Roanoke County gives its assurance that the funds needed as the proportionate share of the cost of the approved program will be provided up to $84,920. 3. That Roanoke County gives its assurance that the general provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (L&WCF) and the fiscal procedures will be complied with in the administration of this project. 4. That Roanoke County will operate and maintain the public recreation facility in good condition and will provide permanent project acknowledgement signs of the participating funding agencies, and that this signage will clearly state that the said facility is a "public" recreational facility. 5. That Roanoke County shall dedicate the metes and bounds of the Taylor Tract Park and Trail System Project properties, in perpetuity, for public outdoors recreational purposes in accordance with the Land and Water Conservation Fund (L&WCF) Act. 6. That Roanoke County gives its assurance that all other applicable federal and state regulations governing such expenditure of funds will be complied with in the administration, development, and subsequent operation of this Taylor Track Park and Trail System Project. 7. That the Department of Conservation and Recreation is respectfully requested to assist in approval and funding of the Taylor Tract Park and Trail System Project in order to enhance the standard of public recreational enjoyment for all our citize n ry . 2 AC1-ION NO. rrEM NO. E-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD MEETING DATE: October 23, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Request for permission to apply for a grant from the Virginia Department of Transportation to help finance the construction of approximatery five miles of Roanoke River Greenway in the eastern section of the County SUBMITTED BY: Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Lon Williams, Parks Planner APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMA-rION: Roanoke County is supportive of construction and development of Roanoke River Greenway throughout the Roanoke Valley. Over the years, the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism has worked closely with the Greenway Commission to identify and apply for grants to bring more greenways to the Valley. The department has learned of a grant offered through the Virginia Department of Transportation that would help with the development and construction of an approximately five mile stretch of Roanoke River Greenway from Roanoke City to Explore Park. The project will cost approximately $3.5 million, which includes trail construction, bridges, retaining walls, boardwalks in wet areas and recreational amenities. Also included in the project costs are land acquisition costs, mobilization and administration costs, design, engineering and permitting fees, and a project contingency. The first phase of this project will address project design, engineering and permitting, and private land acquisition along the proposed greenway corridor. Costs associated with this first phase are estimated at $465,608. With a resolution of support from the Board, Roanoke County staff would like to apply for a VDOT Transportation Enhancement Program grant that would cover 80 percent of the cost. This leaves a balance of 20 percent or $93,122 that the County would need to cover. The County's Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department has funding available in its budget to cover 50 percent of this balance. It is anticipated that the remaining $46,561 will come from a combination of in- kind services, donated lands within the greenway corridor, and other local matching funds. The Roanoke River Greenway is envisioned as the backbone of the Roanoke VaHey greenway system and has been designated as the top greenway priority for completion by the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission in its 2007 update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan. With the Board's support, the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism will move forward with submitting an application to help make this five rTlile section of greenway a reality. FISCAL IMPACT: Roanoke County's proposed cash match, 50 percent of the required matching funds or $46,561, will be available in the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Capital Improvements and Capital Maintenance budgets. It is anticipated that the other 50 percent of the required matching funds, $461561, will come from a combination of in-kind services, donated lands within the greenway corridor, and other local matching funds. AL TERNATIVES: Alternative 1: Adopt the attached resolution of support for a grant application to the Virginia Department of Transportation for a Transportation Enhancement Program grant to help finance the construction of the eastern section of the Roanoke River Greenway. Alternative 2: Do not adopt the attached resolution resulting in the scaling back of the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative one. 2 AT A REGL~LAR MEE-rING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2007 RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR A FY 2008 - 2009 TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM GRANT TO HELP FINANCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EASTERN SECTION OF THE ROANOKE RIVER GREENWAY WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that a request by resolution be received from the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County in order that the Virginia Department of Transportation program an enhancement project in the Roanoke County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, as follows: 1. That it requests the Commonwealth Transportation Board to establish a project for the construction and development of approximately 5 miles of the Roanoke River Greenway in eastern Roanoke County from the Roanoke City line to Explore Park. 2. That the costs associated with the first phase of the project (which will address project design, engineering and permitting, and private land acquisition along the proposed greenway corridor) are estimated to be $465,608. Roanoke County is requesting grant funding in the amount of $372,486 which is 80 percent of the total estimated cost of the first phase of this project. Roanoke County hereby agrees to pay matching funds of $93,122 which is 20 percent of the total estimated project cost. 3. That Roanoke County will provide 50 percent of the matching funds which is $46,561. The remaining 50 percent of the matching funds will come from in-kind services, donated real estate within the greenway corr~dor, and matching funds provided by other sources. 4. That if Roanoke County subsequently elects to cancel this project the County hereby agrees to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation for the total amount of costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation. 2 Ac-rION NO. ITEM NO. E. - L! AT A REGULAR MEETING OF -rHE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT -rHE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: October 23, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of a list of interstate and primary road projects and resolution to be presented at the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT's) public hearing for the fiscal years 2009-2014 Six-Year Improvement Program SUBMITTED BY: Teresa Becher Transportation Engineering Manager Elmer C. Hodge ~ HT County Administrator APPROVED BY: COLINTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTS) is holding public hearings to receive comments about which essential rail, public transportation, bicycle, pedestrian, and highway projects (primary and interstate roads) should be included in the fiscal years 2009- 2014 Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP). This year's public hearing for the Salem District is scheduled for October 24,2007, at the Salem Civic Center, Community Room, beginning at 6 p.m. and ending when all comments have been received. Listed below are: A. Primary and interstate road projects that are currently in the VDOT Fiscal Year 2007- 2008 Six Year Improvement Program that the County recommends for the continuance of funding for planning and construction. B. Primary and interstate road projects that are currently not funded in the VDOT 2007- 2008 Six Year Improvement Program that the County has identified as extremely important to its citizens and has a strong desire to see included in the improvement program. c. Primary and interstate road projects that deserve consideration for spot improvements and inclusion in the improvement program. A. Enclosed herein is a list of projects included in the fiscal year 2007-2008 VDOT Six- Year Improvement Program that County staff and Board of Supervisors recommend for continuance of funding for the planning and construction of said projects. Facility Rte # & Name: Interstate 73 Interstate 81 Rte. 11/460 (West Main Sf) Rte. 221 (Bent Mtn Rei) Bridge on Rte. 116 (Jae Valley Rd) Safety/Mobility Improvements Rte 220 From: Countywtde Botetou rt Co. line Salem City limits Rte 735 (Coleman Rd) Over Back Creek Rte 419 (Electric Rd) To: Countywide Montgomery Co. line 0.10 mi west Rte 830 Rte 688 (Cotton Hill Rd) Over Back Creek Franklin Co. line Comments: In a letter dated June 3, 2001, the Board of Supervisors encouraged VDOT to work closely with the impacted citizens to address their concerns and mitigate any negative impacts to them. This is in addition to the resolution 120500-2 passed December 5, 2000 reaffirming the Board's support for 1-73. FHWA record of decision made April 6, 2007. Roanoke County continues to support VDOT's proposed plan to widen 1-81 from its present four lanes. We look forward to continuing our partnership with VDOT to develop regional cooperation for storm water detention facilities, potential utility crossings, and other design issues that could impact Roanoke County's future. Roanoke County continues to support the ongoing design for improvements in this important commercial and residential development area. Improvements will provide an increase in the level of service, bringing it up to standards required for the expected growth. Design has been approved by VDOT and VDOT is in the process of acquiring the right of way. This project had been removed from the SYIP but was reinstated in FY 05-06. The residential development that has occurred/expected to occur within this area will place additional demands on the road system that is currently providing an inadequate level of service; safety issues need to be addressed. Currently no construction funds are allocated. The VDOT Salem Residency has notified staff that the bridge over Back Creek is in need of repair and we wish to offer our support for improvements to the approaches and bridge replacement. We support continued funding of safety and mobility improvements and crossover closures and desire the continuance of that work. First phase is comp~ete. 2 B. Enclosed herein is a list of projects that are not included in the fiscal year 2007-2008 VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program that County staff and Board of Supervisors have identified as extremely important to the continued growth of Roanoke County and/or for safety improvements. County staff and Board of Supervisors request that the following list of prioritized projects be included in the FY 2009-2014 VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program: Facility Rte # & Name: Rte. 221 (Bent Mtn Rd) Rte. 11 (Williamson Rd) Rte. 115 (Plantation Rd) Rte. 220 (Franklin Rd) Rte. 116 (Jae Valley Rd) Rte. 460E (Challenger Ave) Rte. 419 (Electric Rd) From: Rte 688 (Cotton Hill Rd) Rte 117 (Peters Creek Rd) Roanoke City limits Rte 41 9 (E lectric Rd) Roanoke City limits Roanoke City limits Salem City Ii m its To: Rte 752 (Old Mill Rd) Roanoke City Jim its Rte. 11 (Williamson Rd) Franklin Co. line Franklin Co. line Botetourt Co. line Roanoke City limits (US 220) 3 Comments: Portions of Rta 221 have been funded for PE, County requesting RW and Construction funding for extension of project: much needed improvement project due to increasing residential demands on corridor Now that Route 11 has been widened from Plantation Road to Hollins College, this particular section of three-lane road remains to be improved. Additionally, the existing bridge over Carvins Creek does not meet current standards, and the alignment of Florist Road with Route 11 creates additional congestion and safety concerns. The existing section of road, 1.52 miles, is currently a three-lane with the center lane used for turning movements. Ninety percent of the tracts adjacent to Williamson Road are developed for commercial use. This two-lane section of Plantation Road is approximately 2.43 miles in length with numerous secondary road connections. If full funding were not available, various spot improvements, such as turn lanes, alignment and grade improvements would help with safety issues. Additional land is available along the road for future development, which will increase traffic and construction costs in the future. Increasing commercial and residential development and commuter traffic have placed transportation demands on this corridor. Additional lanes, improved vertical alignment, and/or spot improvements are needed. This road is serving the growing commuter traffic from Franklin County and recreational traffic to Smith Mountain Lake; need to improve to provide safety and capacity (there is funding for the bridge in FY 05-06, need road improvements, as well). The continued residential, commercial, and industrial growth within this corridor has increased traffic demands. Need based on existing traffic volume, current and anticipated economic development, and accident history. Could focus on operational improvements (e.g. turn lanes, signal coordination, etc.) from Salem City limits to Rte 221; need to add capacity from Rte 221 to US 220. c. Enclosed herein is a list of projects that are not included in the fiscal year 2007-2008 VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program that County staff and Board of Supervisors feel deserve consideration for spot improvements. Facility Rte # & Name: Comments: Route 419 (Electric Road) Intersection improvements throughout corridor Route 118 (Airport Road) Construct left-turn lane at intersection with Rte. 623 (Dent Rd.) Route 24 (Washington Avenue) Improvements at the intersection of William Byrd High School Route 311 (Catawba Valley Road) Construct left-turn lane at intersection with Route 864 (Bradshaw Road - Mason's Cove area) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the list of projects and resolution to be presented at the Virginia Department of Transportation update hearing for the fiscal years 2009-2014 Six-Year Improvement Program on October 24,2007. 4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COLINTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA ON OCTOBER 23, 2007 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF -rRANSPORTA1-ION (VDOT) TO CON-rINUE FUNDING PRO,-IECTS CURRENTLY IDEN-rIFIED IN -rHE FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008 VDOT SIX- YEAR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND TO ADOPT THE PRIORITIZED LIST OF INTERSTATE AND PRIMARY ROAD PRO,-IECTS HEREIN IDEN1-IFIED AS "NO'"" INCLUDED IN -rHE FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008 VDOT SIX-YEAR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM" FOR INCLUSION INTO THE FISCAL YEAR 2009-2014 SIX-YEAR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Six-Year Improvement Program is the Commonwealth Transportation Board's plan for identifying funds anticipated to be available for highway and other forms of transportation construction; and WHEREAS, this program is updated annually to assist in the allocation of federal and state funds for interstate and primary roads. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke CountYJ Virginia, as follows: 1. That the following projects identified as "included in the fiscal year 2007-2008 VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program" are recommended for continuance of funding for the planning and construction of said projects. .:. Interstate 73 - In a letter dated June 3, 2001, the Board of Supervisors encouraged VDOT to work closely with the impacted citizens to address their concerns and mitigate any negative impacts to them. This is in addition to resolution 120500-2 passed December 5, 2000, reaffirming the Board's support for 1-73. .:. Interstate 81- Roanoke County continues to support VDOT's proposed plan to widen 1-81 from its present four lanes. We look forward to continuing our partnership with VDOT to develop regional cooperation for storm water detention facilities, potential utility crossings, and other design issues that could impact Roanoke County's future. .:. Rte. 11/460 (West Main St) - From: Salem City limits to: 0.10 mi west Rte 830, Technology Dr. - Roanoke County continues to support the ongoing design for improvements in this important commercial and residential development area. Improvements will provide an increase in the level of service, bringing it up to standards required for the expected growth. .:. Rte. 221 (Bent Mtn RdJ - From: Rte 735, Coleman Rd. to: Rte 688 Cotton Hill Rd. - This project had been removed from the Six-Year Improvement Program but was reinstated in fiscal year 05-06. The residential development that has occurred/expected to occur within this area will place additional demands on the road system that is currently providing an inadequate level of service. .:. Bridae ReDlacement Rte. 116 (Jae Vallev Rd.) over Back Creek- The VDOT Salem Residency has notified staff that the bridge over Back Creek is in need of repair, and we wish to offer our support for improvements to the approaches and bridge replacement. .:. Rte. 220 Safety/Mobility ImlJrovements - We support continued funding of safety and mobility improvements and crossover closures and desire the continuance of that work. 2. That the following projects identified as Unot included in the fiscal year 2007- 2008 VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program" have been identified, prioritized, and selected by the Board of Supervisors as extremely important to the growth of Roanoke County and/or for safety improvements and are requested to be included in the fiscal year 2009-2014 VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program. 1. Rte. 221 (Bent Mtn Rd) - From: Rte 688 (Cotton Hill Rd) to: Rte 752 (Old Mill Road) - Portions of the Rte 221 corridor have been funded for Preliminary Engineering. Roanoke County is requesting right-af-way and construction funding for the extension of the project to extend to the base of Bent Mountain. The much needed improvement project is due to increasing residential demands on corridor. 2. Rte,. 11 (Williamson RdJ - From: Rte 117 (Peters Creek Rd) to: Roanoke City limits - Now that Rte 11 has been widened from Plantation Road to Hollins College, this particular section of three-lane road remains to be improved. Additionally, the existing bridge over Carvins Creek does not meet current standards, and the alignment of Florist Road with Rte 11 creates additional congestion and safety concerns. The existing section of road, 1.52 miles in length, is currently a three-lane road with the center lane used for turning movements. Ninety percent of the tracts adjacent to Williamson Road are developed for commercial use. 2 3. Rte. 115 (Plantation RdJ - From: Roanoke City limits to: Rte. 11 (Williamson Rd) - This two-lane section of Plantation Road is approximately 2.43 miles in length with numerous secondary road connections. If full funding were not available, various spot improvements, such as turn lanes, alignment and grade improvements would help with safety issues. Additional land is available along the road for future development, which will increase traffic and construction costs in the future. 4. Rte. 220 (Franklin RdJ - From: Rte 41 9 (Electric Rd) to: Franklin Co. line - Increasing commercial and residential development and commuter traffic have placed transportation demands on this corridor. Additional lanes, turn lanes, improved vertical alignment, and/or spot improvements are needed. 5. Rte. 116 (Jae Vallev Rd) - From: Roanoke City limits to: Franklin Co. line - This road is serving the growing commuter traffic from Franklin County and recreational traffic to Smith Mountain Lake. We need to provide safety and capacity to its users (Note: there is funding for the bridge on Rte 116 in fiscal year 05-06; however need road improvements, as well). 6. Rte. 460 (Challenger AveJ - From: Roanoke City limits to: Botetourt Co. line - The continued residential, commercial, and industrial growth within this corridor has increased traffic demands. 7. Rte. 419 (Electric RdJ - From: Salem City limits to: Roanoke City rimits (US 220) - The need is based on existing traffic volumes, current and anticipated economic development, and accident history. Could focus on operational improvements (e.g. turn lanes, signal coordination, etc.) from Salem City limits to Rte 221; need to add capacity from Rte 221 to US 220. 3. That the following projects identified as "not included in the fiscal year 2007- 2008 VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program" are recommended for spot improvements and for inclusion in the Fiscal Year 2009-2014 VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program. .:. Route 419 (Electric Road) - Intersection improvements throughout corridor .:. Route 118 (AirlJorl Road) - Construct left-turn lane at intersection with Rte. 623 (Dent Rd.) .:. Route 24 rwashinaton Avenue) - Improvements at the intersection of William Byrd High School 3 .:. Route 311 (Catawba Vallev Road) - Construct left-turn lane at intersection with Route 864 (Bradshaw Road - Mason's Cove area) 4 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. r:- - J AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CEN-rER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: October 23, 2007 AGENDA rrEM: Ordinance conveying the former Public Safety Center to the Roanoke County School Board SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend approval. We agreed to transfer ownership of this property to the Schools and it is time to do so. This would be a good time to review the terms of the agreement which is attached. 1) Complete. The School Board has conveyed title to the ten acres on which the new Public Safety Building is located. Comparable property has sold at $100,000 to $150,000 per acre. 2) Today's action will transfer ownership of the old Public Safety Building property to the Schools. -rhis property was appraised recently at $750,000 in its current condition. The Board needs to determine what is meant by liThe Board of Supervisors furthermore agrees to pursue funds in future budgets for renovation of the current Public Safety Building back to a school building." 3) The County contributed $657t245 towards the construction of a replacement warehouse for the Schools. In addition, the County paid the cost of grading the warehouse pad and replacing the sewer line. 4) The School Board originally agreed to transfer ownership of the Roanoke County Career Center to the County. Since that time we determined that the County has no use for the property. If that is the final decision, the Board needs to take action to remove this condition from the agreement and allow the Schools to use or dispose of the property. This property has an approximate value of $750,000 in its present condition. SLJMMARY OF INFORMA-rION: This ordinance authorizes the conveyance of the former Public Safety Building (Southview Elementary School) located at 3568 Peters Creek Road to the Roanoke County School Board. "rhis action conveys approximately 3.723 acres to the School Board. On July 15, 2004, Chairman Flora and Chairman Canada executed a Memorandum of Understanding (copy attached) between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board to cooperate in the provision of a site for a new Public Safety Building in exchange for the then current Public Safety Building and the construction of a new warehouse for the School Board. This Memorandum of Understanding was intended to establish the framework of future legal agreements between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board. The Board of Supervisors acquired this property from the Schoof Board by deed dated October 15,1990, and recorded in Deed Book 1337, page 1345. -rhis deed conveyed two parcels to the Board of Supervisors: 2.281 and 3.723 acres. In August 1992, the Board conveyed the 2.281 acre parcel to the Virginia Public Building Authority for the state forensics lab. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. The various fiscal impacts have occurred during the construction of the new Public Safety Building and construction of the warehouse for the School Board. The renovation costs of the building on this parcel are yet to be determined by the School Board. AL TERNATIVES: 1. Adopt this ordinance at first reading and proceed to second reading on November 13, 2007. 2. Decline to adopt this ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDA1-,ON: Staff submits this ordinance to the Board for its consideration. Memorandum of Understanding The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding between the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors (Board of Supervisors) and the Roanoke County School Board (School Board) is to signify the intent of the School Board to cooperate in the provision of a site for a Public Safety Building in exchange for the current Roanoke County Public Safety Building and the construction of a new warehouse adjacent to the School Board A~ve Offices on Cove Roa<L This memorandum is intended to establ1sli"the framework of future legal agreements to be executed between Board of Supervisors and the School Board.. The parties agree to proceed with the follo\Ving; 1) The School Board agrees to transfer the ovmersbip of no more thaIi ten (10) acres of property at the site of the current School Board Administrative Offices, 5937 Cove Road, to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors for the purposes of constmction of a Public Safety Building of approximately 80,000 square feel The exact metes and bounds oftbe acreage will be determined by future sUrveys and site plans and will be the subj ect of a future agreement and formal land transfer. . 2) As soon as practical following the occupancy oftbe new Public Safety Building at the Cove Road location by the County, the Board of Supervisors agrees' to transfer ownership of the CUlTent Public Safety Building and site located at 5368 Peters Creek Road to the School Board. The Board of SupeMsors furthermo~ agrees to pursue funds in future budgets for renovation of the current Public Safety Building back to a school building. 3) The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors agrees to grade an earthen pad on the School Board" s property on Cove Road for the School Board to use for the replacement of the warehouses that will be demolished as part of the site preparation for the proposed Public Safety Building and to construct replacement warehouses. The exact location and . design of the replacement warehouses will be determined mutually by the Board of Supervisors and the Sch'?Ol Board. 4) The School Board agrees to transfer ownership of the current Roanoke County Career Center, located at 100 Highland Road, Vinton, to the Board of Supervisors if and when the facility is no longer needed by the School Board. Approved this / S!/.h day orO- ~ by the Roanoke County School Board and the Roanoke County Board ofS~ 9~ J:. ~~ Jerry L. .canada, an Roanoke County School Board ~~. c. .~ o.t-~. Richard C~ Flora, Chainnan Roanoke County Board of Supervisors AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2007 ORDINANCE CONVEYING THE FORMER PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors acquired this property located at 5368 Peters Creek Road consisting of two parcels containing 2.281 acres and 3.723 acres from the School Board by deed dated October 15, 1990, and recorded in Deed Book 1337, page 1345; and WHEREAS, in August 1992, the Board conveyed the 2.281 acre parcel to the Virginia Public Building Authority for the State Forensics Lab; and WHEREAS, the remaining property served as the Public Safety Building until completion of the new Public Safety Building located on Cove Road in 2006; and WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board provided for the Boards to cooperate in the provision of a site for a new Public Safety Building in exchange for the then current Public Safety Building and the construction of a new warehouse for the School Board; and WHEREAS, this ordinance authorizes the conveyance of the former Public Safety Building (the former Southview Elementary School) located at 3568 Peters Creek Road to the Roanoke County School Board; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 23, 2007, and the second reading was held on November 13, 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the conveyance of a 3.72 acre parcel of real estate located at 3568 Peters Creek Road (Tax Map No. 37.10-1-21.2) to the Roanoke County School Board is hereby approved and authorized; and 2. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are hereby authorized to execute such documents and 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. 2 Ac-rION NO. ITEM NO. F"-~ AT A REGULAR MEE1-,NG OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD MEETING DATE: October 23, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: First reading of an ordinance to accept a donation of 89.82 acres on Read Mountain from Alfred and Beth Durham SLIBMIT-rED BY: Janet Scheid Planner APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COllNTY ADMINIS-fRATOR'S COMMENTS: SLIMMARY OF INFORMATION: In 2002, Dr. and Mrs. Durham donated a conservation easement on 89.82 acres on Read Mountain to the Western Virginia Land Trust. This property is visible from the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Read Mountain Overlook. It includes the upper slopes of the southern side of Read Mountain and extends to the ridgeline. -rhe generous donation of this conseNation easement will forever protect this scenic viewshed for the public good. At this time, the Durhams are offering to donate the fee simple ownership of this property to Roanoke County for public park purposes. The conservation easement that encumbers the property does not allow any further subdivision of the property. The easement expressly states that the property can be used as a public park and that non-residential outbuildings incidental to the use of the property as a park are allowed. No building or structure can be built within 100 feet in elevation from the ridge line. The donation of this property to the County will add open space acreage to our inventory, which as pointed out in the recent Parks Master Plan, is needed. During the last ten years, Roanoke County has worked cooperatively with the National Park Service to identify and protect viewsheds from the Parkway. Almost four years ago, Scenic American named the Roanoke County stretch of the Parkway a "Last Chance Landscape" - a dubious distinction at best. -rhat designation has encouraged the County to renew efforts to preserve this beautiful and unique stretch of national parkland. It is through the generous, civic-minded efforts of private corporations and citizens such as Dr. and Mrs. Durham that the County can hope to be successful in our efforts to protect this national park, open spaces. mountainsides, and ridgetops. By forming a partnership with Roanoke County and the Western Virginia Land Trust, the Durhams have proven their commitment to protect the County's natural resources now and forever. FISCAL IMPACT: None. AL TERNATIVES: 1. Accept the donation of 89.82 acres from Dr. Alfred and Mrs. Beth Durham 2. Do not accept the donation of 89.82 acres from Dr. Alfred and Mrs. Beth Durham STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2007 ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF 89.82 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE (TAX MAP NO. 39.00-1-8) LOCATED ON READ MOUNTAIN ALFRED AND BE-rH DURHAM TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHEREAS, Alfred and Beth Durham wish to donate to the County a parcel of real estate consisting of 89.82 acres located on Read Mountain; and WHEREAS, this parcel is encumbered with a conservation easement in favor of the Western Virginia Land Trust that limits the uses of this property; and WHEREAS, the Durhams will convey this property without cost to the County of Roanoke to protect this portion of Read Mountain for the benefit of the citizens of and visitors to the Roanoke Valley; and WHEREAS, the acceptance of this conveyance is consistent with the adopted Community Plan, and it will support the open space and viewshed protection policies and goals of the County and provide enhanced opportunities for passive recreational uses; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance will be held on October 23, 2007, and the second reading will be held on November 13, 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. -rhat the acquisition by donation from Alfred and Beth Durham of a 89.82 acre parcel of real estate located on Read Mountain (Tax Map No. 39.00-1-8), is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are hereby authorized to execute such documents and 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. 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. r:- - 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF -rHE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT -rHE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEE1-ING DATE: October 23, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Request to authorize the emergency relocation of the Northside voting precinct polling place from Northside High School to the former Public Safety Center at 3568 Peters Creek Road, Catawba Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Judy Stokes General Registrar APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINIS.rRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Voters in the Northside voting precinct, Catawba Magisterial District, usually cast ballots in the auditorium lobby of Northside High School. This area of the school is still undergoing renovation, and the county needs to relocate this polling place for the November 6,2007, election. School administration and personnel at Northside have made great efforts to accommodate the county and have been working diligently with the Registrar's office to find an alternative location for the polling place. Ongoing construction disturbance within and at the entrance to Northside High School has made it difficult to find an adequate space inside the school. As an alternative, Northside High has offered the use of a trailer adjacent to the school. While use of the trailer would eliminate the need to relocate the polling place from Northside High School, staff has determined that the trailer will not adequately serve the needs of voters and poll workers. Space inside the trailer would be limited during periods of heavy traffic. There are no restrooms inside the trailer; and, in the event of rain, covered areas would be unavailable to citizens waiting in line to vote. In order to better serve the voters of the Northside precinct, the Registrar is requesting that the Board authorize the emergency relocation of the Northside voting precinct polling place from Northside High School to the former Public Safety Center at 3568 Peters Creek Road (also known as former Southview Elementary). This facility is located only a short distance from Northside High School and offers additional space for voters and elections staff, areas for waiting, and on-site restroom facilities. All individuals registered to vote in the Northside voting precinct will be notified in writing of the change of location immediately upon Board approval of this measure. An official notice will be published in the Roanoke Times, and information about the change will be available on the county's website. Additional signage will be posted on Election Day, and county staff will be present at Northside High School throughout the day to redirect voters to the former Public Safety Center. The Registrar has contacted all candidates for Supervisor and School Board in the Catawba Magisterial District to ensure that they are aware of the change. FISCAL IMPACT: -rhe cost of mailing relocation notices to voters and publication of the notice in the Roanoke Times can be paid from the Elections budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends dispensing with the second reading and adopting the ordinance as an emergency measure. 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PL~BLIC SAFETY CEN-rER, 3568 PE-rERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2007 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EMERGENCY RELOCATION OF THE NORTHSIDE VOTING PRECINCT WHEREAS, Section 24.2-310 0 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, provides that if a polling place becomes inaccessible due to an emergency, that the electoral board shall provide an alternative polling place subject to the prior approval of the State Board of Elections; and WHEREAS, Section 24.2-307 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, mandates that the governing body of each county shall establish the polling place for each precinct in that jurisdiction by ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Northside High School building has recently become unavailable for use as a polling place for the November 6, 2007, election due to problems with the renovations to this building; and WHEREAS, the former Public Safety Building (formerly the Southview Elementary School) at 3568 Peters Creek Road is available to serve as the new polling place for the Northside precinct; and WHEREAS, an emergency exists due to the urgent need to notify voters in the Northside precinct of the new location of their polling place which necessitates the adopting of this ordinance on an emergency basis in accordance with the Roanoke County Charter; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 23, 2007; and the second reading of this ordinance has been dispensed with~ since an emergency exists, upon a 4/5ths vote of the members of the Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. -rhat an emergency exists due to the sudden unavailability of the Northside High School as the polling place for the Northside precinct of the Catawba Magisterial District of Roanoke County. 2. That the former Public Safety Building at 3568 Peters Creek Road is hereby designated as the polling station for the Northside precinct, Catawba Magisterial District for the November 6, 2007, election. 3. That the General Registrar for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, ;s hereby authorized to take all measures necessary to comply with Virginia law and regulations regarding a change in a polling precinct and for reasonable notification to the voters of the Northside precinct of this change in their polling location. 4. That the County Administrator and the General Registrar are hereby authorized and directed to take such others actions as may be necessary to accomplish the intent of this ordinance. 5. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately. The first reading of this ordinance was held on October 23 2007; and the second reading of this ordinance has been dispensed with since an emergency exists, upon a 4/5ths vote of the members of the Board. 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G - , AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SL~PERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CEI\JTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DA-rE: October 23t 2007 Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: Wanda G. Riley, CPS Clerk to the Board Elmer C. Hodge t rf County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMA-rION: 1. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (Appointed by District) The following one-year terms expired on August 31, 2007: a) King Harvey, Catawba District b) James T. Anderson, Cave Spring District (Mr. Anderson has advised that he does not wish to serve an additional term.) c) Brian Garber, Windsor Hills District 2. Grievance Panel The three-year term of Lee Brair expired on October 10, 2007. H' ! 1-2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PE-rERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2007 RESOLu-rION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM H - 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 October 23, 2007, designated as Item H - 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. Approval of minutes for September 25, 2007 2. Resolution of appreciation to Sherry B. Pearson, Library Services, upon her retirement after fourteen years of service -rhat the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ,~-2 AT A REGULAR MEE-rING OF -rHE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT -rHE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD MEE1-ING DATE: October 23, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution of appreciation to Sherry B. Pearson, Library Services, upon her retirement after fourteen years of service SUBMITTED BY: Brenda J. Holton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board Elmer C. Hodge c: f .y County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMAl-ION: Ms. Sherry B. Pearson, Branch Librarian, retired on October 1, 2007, and has requested that her resolution of appreciation be mailed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the attached resolution and direct the Deputy Clerk to mail it to Ms. Pearson with the appreciation of the Board members for her many years of service to the County. \-4 - z. AT A REGULAR MEE1-ING OF -rHE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COLINTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2007 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SllPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO SHERRY B. PEARSON, LIBRARY SERVICES, UPON HER RETIREMENT AFTER FOURTEEN YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Sherry B. Pearson was employed by Roanoke County on September 13, 1993, by Library Services; and WHEREAS, Ms. Pearson retired from Roanoke County on October 1, 2007, as Vinton Branch Librarian, after fourteen years and one month of service; and WHEREAS, through her professionalism, excellent customer service, and selfless dedication, Ms. Pearson ensured that the Vinton Library became an outstanding resource for its patrons; and, WHEREAS, Ms. Pearson was a trusted advisor to her colleagues and a patient and wise mentor to her staff; and WHEREAS, Ms. Pearson was a generous supporter and enthusiastic proponent of countless library and community festivals, events, and celebrations; and WHEREAS, Ms. Pearson, through her employment with Roanoke CountyJ has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its 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 County to SHERRY B. PEARSON for fourteen years of capable, loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FUR-rHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. 2 L-I GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount 0/0 of General Amount Unaudited Balance at June 30, 2007 $14,488,420 8.230/0 Juty 1, 2007 Payment on Loan from Explore Park 20,000 Balance at October 23, 2007 14,508,420 8.24010 Note: On December 21,2004, the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy to maintain the General Fund Unappropriated Balance for 2007-08 at a range of 8.50/0-9.50/0 of General Fund Revenues 2007-2008 General Fund Revenues $176,033,678 8.50Ib of General Fund Revenues $14,962,863 9.50/0 of General Fund Revenues $16,723,199 The Unappropriated Fund Balance of the County is currently maintained at a range of 8.5010-9.50/0 of General Fund revenus and will be increased over time to the following ranges: 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 9.00/0-10.00/0 9.50/0-10.50/0 1 0.0010 -11 .0 ok Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge t.fl. County Administrator L-~ COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL RESERVES Minor County Capital Reserve (Projects not in the CIP, architectural/engineering services, and other one-time expenditures.) Unaudited Balance at June 30, 2007 Amount $6,234,044.55 August28t2007 Upgrade to the 800 MHZ Radio System (5,000,000.00) $1,234,044.55 Balance at October 23, 2007 Maior County Capital Reserve (Projects in the CIP, debt payments to expedite projects identified in CIP, and land purchase opportunities.) Unaudited Balance at June 30, 2007 $1,049,620.00 July 24, 2007 Acquisition of property for Fleet Maintenance Facility (890,000.00) September 11, 2007 Needs assessment and program analysis for Glenvar Library Expansion (100,000.00) Balance at October 23, 2007 $59,620.00 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge {J /1 County Administrator L- 3 RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA From 2007-2008 Original Budget Amou nt $ 100,000.00 June 12, 2007 Appropriation for Legislative Liaison ($24,000.00) June 26, 2007 Appropriation for the veteran's monument at the Vinton War Memc ($30,000.00) Balance at October 23, 2007 $ 46,000.00 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge ['I J County Administrator ACTION NO. ITEM NO. L-- ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT -rHE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 23, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts paid for September 2007 SUBMITTED BY: Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge t[-f County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMAl-ION: Direct Deposit Checks Total Payments to Vendors $ $ $ 6,935,273.56 Payroll 09/07/07 1,002,512.56 126,086.88 1,128,599.44 Payroll 09/21/07 966,895.17 123,755.05 1 ,090,650.22 Manual Checks 640.57 640.57 Voids Grand Total $ 9,155,163.79 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. v 0 Cl) ~ ~ 0 l ;) , -~"\ t'J .i: "Ell ;... ;; oS' ..:t Q = ~ Q =:: c.- Q ~ ..... = = Q U "'l \0 ....J 00 23 ~ = .= ... l:': "i: c.. o a.. C. :::.. -< "'0 = ~ (I.l 4,) y c = a.. ..c e = ~ = ~ ~ ~ a.. .s :a c Q.I Q. ~ ~ lit. o 4J = -0 CLI .c CJ V".J ~ < V) ("f") o ~ .; ~~ "'CI~eQG:i S!~~.: i ~ LI,;l ~ ~ ~~~; "0 <101 ;.., 4.l ,.Q Q,.l e Cj = = l.J = C -; ~ = ;:;. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ 5 :l J,. S" ~ ~ ~~> ~ r- = Q ~ ~ = <101 C,(lCJ ~ f = ...l:l <<I S :E = = v o~ "CI lI.J "'Cl = ~ "CI o .;: QJ c.. ..cI = o ~ (fIl Q,l ;.., = >.,0-= -"'C = ;z C Q. Cl ~ :;~ ,." = 4.li ; J,.., Q I..- r- 0 0"- c::~ r-<""') N o ~ N V) 00 t- oOV)~ N ~ 00 N t'f') ~~ ~... t-"' '-.0 0\ '-II N N N 00 ~~~ t'i""':V) 00\00 or-V") ~ \0"' r-: ......... 0 ~ .,...-t r- ("...,f o N 0 0-0 o..q:d 1.0 0-" 6 N" rot') o ,..., N 0000": r---:oOV"l ~ t'f') N f"') \0., 00 ~-oO \0 '"1'" ... Q,i I:ll) "'C = = 000 ~oo r-..:o o 0\ ("f') 0\ ~"' ~ 00 00 0 0\ MO",N - "'0 = :I '- "'; :r... '"' = q,; ~ en "2 U'J "s ~ ""d Ou <t:E ~O Og a(j d "'0 C @ ti: 0 u co o~ ~ ~ ~ "2 .. ~ ~ .s O!) c:: ~ ~OWJ =: e -= c .= N ~ 000 ....... - 000 0\ -n ~ N V) ....... ~t') - M N N \D o c.:: ar4 o ,..r ~ QO rrS NO 0'\ tr) 0\00 o 0'\ "l~ M~ t- ~ 0\ r- ~ C'\ ~ ~ f"f") ~ t- ee N 00 0 ~V) f'f')r...: 0"1 ~ 0\ ~o \t;) N N N M ... ~ In ~ ~ f"f") ... r- 0 tnO ~o V) t- IT'J ... N o Q(l ..; QO ~ M M 0", ~ o~ N 0 o lr) oO~ an ~ = o CI6 Q "I!f' vi QCl ~ ... ... o c- o 0 M ....0 o ~ r- M r-:v-i' M "'d" N.,O\ .... eQ .:: I'I:l "c 's "'C ~ C u e c ... IU ~ Q ~ -; s.. c.I C u e" 1:: o 0.. c.. ===' r.r; ~ 'u :.;a ~ v; ~ 1:: ~ =' ..J::: 80 o :: = N o 0 N N o 0 M N N M :!t::~~ r-:~NV) N N N N N ~ cO o 0-.. r-: 0\ ~ ONV)f'1"i 00 00-. N<.DoOO an. l""'j 0 ~ o 00 "'d" 0\ r-:~oOoO o r- r- '-0 r-\.DOM ~ r--:' v) QC an Q ~ ..... .n QO "1" o 00 II") r- NOC:O-:C: oOM M -\D~lF"l l.r) 00", f'f'l 0\ -o~MV) -~-N \ON v:, ~"' ('f')"' t- I(; ~ ~ f"-. 0\000 0-..0;00 -..D-oOO 0'. N ........ '-0 VI ~ \0" 00 \0"' N t- V) \C f'I") .n N In .,; 0'-. 000 f'1"i O\\OO...c: N\Ov) O\N\OO 'D., ~"' ;" ~ N'-ONM r-~~ = o 0\ "'!!t Q ,.{ QO - N 000 0 C:OOO do~ r- 0 V) 0-., ~ ~~ r-.., :.., N 0"\0-. MO'\v)~ M 0'" \0"' -; 'u :.0 = ..., '-' t) E co ;.... c r- .S ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 "0 e ~ ~ ~ ~cGCO c "9 o,g ; ~ - U w ~ ~ E ~ ~ 0 os:: -:lti:U<( Q = N o N ~ ~ 0000 0 M ~ ('I') M o 0 0 0 .-, ..... ......: N VI t'- 0'\ \0 ~ ~ ...0 r- \0 00 0 ~ r-..:ONoOM~ MNNV'iN 10 0\ r-: Hi N 0\ N QO N N ~~~~s~ N 00 IriN -aMt-N~"'1'" ~~~2-d~ o 'o::t" v:.> V) 0\ N M r- N.. -", C)O tr) MM o ..... ~ r- \C ~ 0'\ ~ ,,; ~ V")ooo~ t-vNOO~~ N~""";~V)N oo\Ooot- o-~ ~, ~ ~"' '-0" ~ OOOOLr)~lI)OO 0\ 0\ \0.. N ~ QCl ...c Q\ IT':,. - ... \C 0-,0000-,00 ;;;~~~~;:: o 0 0 M ooVJNO 00 ~' ~ .n' 00 t- M N \If; go ~ ...... 'V ~ ... -.::to"'d" ~~:J o '-0 \0 t- 0"- r-:-c\--" ~ ("1j ~ N N~N O\O~ O..,.)tr) r1")\D~ V) ~ NoOM ~~V) = o .n ... Q"\ aO ~ ~ ... f"') 000000 ~OO~~O V)oci~VI v-) t- 'o::tN~ M6~~"'~~ ~t:2~oo:!;'oO ~~"N-: ~ ~ = rJJ .~ :E = =- U'J "'0 ~ =' o o ad v:l lZl 8 ~ gf oE ~ ~ ~ .:!a .:; iZlOCO e ~ tU (/') :::;: s::: ~ '(; o~~ =:> e rr) = OJ) t:: oc: Ij) Ij) c::: 'On c eLl ;Jo( Q,) 0- ~ g .9 u u ~ ~ ~ ~ a _0 Nl"')~~...o 000000 ~~""'"~~~ 000000 ... "'l1' ~ N 0\0:::0 000 ~~M;:j~~~ V) N-MOO QO '"1 ...... r-- QO ~ QO go ~ anot- r-o 00000 ~ \.0 V) o \0 V) v) r-: v)" N tr) V) '-0 ~ MOO \00\00 000~o ~NV) ~~~.- t'- 1,,0 ~~ N \C ~ 'lI!1' ""1 r-: ~ ~ ..; tnO("'f)r-o-..oo :i~:~C:;~ ~ ('i") l.r) t-- 0 0 ~ \Or- t-M r-"' 0-: (...,r ~ ~ \0 o\OV)NO 0", 00 00 N ~ Q\ ,.,.; \&; \Q ~ f'-. ...... 0000000 0000000 0000000 N ~ ..; QO = \tS f"f") 1--... Ort"l(".ooOO ~~~r-:~~ t"f'i 0 l.r) M 00 ooO\~ 0\ ~"' 00 o ~ t- N~N = o aO ~ M N = o :i 0000000 ooooC>~o "")oOr-:~OlllO t-\OO\oo~o "'d"'\O-OV1NM N ....: v) 0 0-.."' v)" -.6 MNtnOO-NO -.n t- V) \0 N ~ '-D"' (...,r .~ ...... -a U t: ~ :~ -0 ~ c o .~ .~ i:e 0.0 o ~ I.., = ~ tr.l o :oJ '> t-. d) r:/J U':l (t) -= r- ~ .~ "'@ ro .; c :t ~ ;; ~ :I: Vl Go) ";$ .~ (; a ~ :0 'u ~ ~O:~U C) v g ~ (/) {': U v Vi u 'Vj ~ oE .( .~ ~ .~ o~ ~ :0 .,- Ou :; ~ 0 o.....5VJ .~ :0 = Q. o o ~ = ~ ~ I.r') \D r- 00 0000000 V) V) V) V) lr) V) lI") 0000000 OJ OJ) ta Q.. "; .~ ... ;; as' ~ ~ ; o ~ ~ Q ~ ...... = = Q U ("'.J \0 :J 00 2; d) (;i Cl :2 -< V) r<") 2:) \"'! l'/') = o~ ..... ~ oi: :. o s.. c... Q. < = ; fIl QJ CJ = = So. ~ C = '-i = ~ r;; a; .. .s :c = Q,i Q. ~ ~ ... Q QJ -= "'C QJ .:: '=J 00 ~ ~ .g "C e '0 Q,j s ~~~.: ;~~=~ ~'-l~; "C ~ lo. ~ .c ~ e ~ = C !.J ell = -; ~ CQ :J aJ ~ ~ ~ f: ~ c; .s..c~ =6 E! .s S ::I lo. ~ ~ ~ ~~> ~ ..... = Q ~ 0'1 = ~ ~(J ~ E = .c '" E! E = ::I ~ OW;:l "'0 cu "'0 = ~ "CI o oc Q.lo =- ..c: C ~ ~ (II} Q,l 10. .E ~,;; .c = C ~ .:; l'l! ~~ l"') = 0,.1 -= .. o ~ ... '" OIl "'CI = CO "':J = = ~ ~ ~ = Q"I l;.j =- = -= .= ~ f!'Ir') d N 0"1 ("<"") r') OO~~ r-...: ~ .'-Ci N N M \C "1!1' ,...) QO t't") 0\ f'f1 r-: '-.D 0 Or-O ~o\o:. 00 tr) r--... oed'" 0-.. M tr)"' N N~\O t- 0 N NN ~ an r...: = o ....: 10 o ~ oo:::t 0\ 0 ::~~ 00 0 0 0\ 0 t'- N ~' 0" l./") N lI') 0" "-0 ........ = o o 0000 0;00 lr)o6 r- N ~ N Ii M o ~ f'f') go V) t- 0 -.:::r:OOO lr'lv)O o v 0 ~ N \,(') \I!; N' r---."' N N N ......... Q c: '1""""1 0\ l"f') \15 ~ f"- ..; ~ 000 ~5~ \0 ...0 t- ~ ~"' ~~ r- r- - r- '\0 ~ ~N ~ ... .e "i: ~ "'Q = ~ : -; == l""" ~ o /U O;:i S ~ ...t::: ~ 'C 0,) C cG w ~ C ~ ~ ~ .a ~~3 o...:.::3u o = an o N M 000 \0 I,J;) I.D 000 r- \Cl ~ ~ 00 r- \0 r-:o;~~ ~ ~OO t'-- t'- N N ~ ...... ~ = vr -.oM~O O~C;O IJ::i ....... v) '" - 0-. N - ("1"") V)N~N M 0\ f'i"') 00 V) 1"1") N f't"i go \0 c:: N oq,. l"""lI "'1"1'"'-\00 O'IV"iO\O r-:r-:NO 0\ '-.D co 0 f-., 00" ~ ~ ('f') ~O N ......... ac C'\ .n r- N 0000 - 000 """:000 VI t""") -.6 M ~ ~ In ... ~ It') r"") t-N-nO MC:OOO \000..00 MNO\O CJ',O\-n~ -0 O~ M N Q = ~ o "'l ....... '=' QCl ~ o 000 OOO~ ~~"';tn N 0'\ - r--.. ~ 00 ~ ~ -...0 >.0"' \0 0'\ 00 - O~ \0 -; I., .2 -; u ~ = .S: e; 4,,) .. !;J QI = 0iJ s:: 'C o N ~ .~ t: cO 0: bb 'E o 0 .. r./J 0... -= t:: o ~ ~ "Vi C. ~ 5 0 ::r:: ~o ~ t .8 0,) Q .~_c:_ ,~ u ~ ~ 's :9 & g ~ g 8 0 uwu ~ ~ .. ~ er. Q Q \:I 0' N ("'I") -n o 0 0.0 r- r- r- I-- 0000 ~ ..;. M \0000000 ~oo~c:c:~ r-.i~~ N ~ tn ....; o \0 c:, I""-- ~ N t'-o; M o 0 N .no M Mocao 000000 -.00000 1.1')0000 OOO~OO ~ci......o~ NOOt'-N 00 r- V) N t' ('4")"' r- ~ QC) ..,. tI'I .,r QO ~ 0-,001--0000 NO 00'00 r----:oOoOoooo '-0 0', 0--. 1:"'-... 00 C ~~"N 0'\ a-. 00 '= .....-I 0000000 0000000 00\.00000 M a- V)'" ...-l "" f't") \IS "1!1' ...-l ooo-nOOOO o~ooooo o0r-:oooo ~"I':T ~~ M ~ 00 ....: iii Q o N r.n ...... an \Q 0). """""'l o 0 c:~ t- 0 0\ 0 00 v) o f'"") QO M' I 000000 c:oooo ~gggg "'o~oo '-.6 0 0 ..q-'" r-g~r-~ f""'l"' -= Q,I e Co Q "'i; .... Q,I Q .c- o2 = E E o U u ~ ;j :r: ~ a b1:: ~ > U'l I;Ij "'0 ..... E 5@;a o a,) ~ '1) ~ a .~ u u - ~ 0 .~ ] ~ 2 O~r-~ 0,) u = coo r; .:c >.. u c Il) ,5 c o U I=: ~ /U U a cI.l -g is l'a 0,) ....J = IV ::0 0,) Q) ~ o ~ ~ = = r- = N M oo:o:t '-D r- 00 0000000 00 00 00 00 00 00 DO 0000000 o u @ -; co -:::l (l) ~ 'C 0.. o lo-. 0.. 0.. C'O t:: ~ an ~ - -- ......... V") N~ o \Cl ...,. N \C \r"O r-: .... go ~ V) 'o:::t 0\ ('.l r...:r...: \0 o~ ~ N 00 an 0"'>.. t"")"' r- ~ an ~ 'o,Cl r- = ~ ~ VJ \0 or- 00\ N 00 ~.... ~ \0 ~ ("'f') I.Il 06 o o ~ ~ '" .,.r 00 00 00 ~ ~ ,...) a-. M ~ .... ~ -~ O\~ ~M r- E:- o "'d" r-"'d 0-..00 N N Q o ..:; M ...,. aO = QlO ~ o 0 o 0 -.:::r=r-: 0\ M QlO ..0 ~M 00 N ~~ 00 "; .... C dJ E 1: elf c.. Q,I Q C: o 'Z. "s -;i 00 III ~ ""'" .... ~~ 1:1) C/'} a ~ 1..., $.... ~f- ]~ 22 ~~ o = 00 Q N o 10 O\Q"I o 0 N '" III g ~ r- r--: '1""""1 0\ ...... lii QIO M f"t") o Vj .,.r r- r- .....-II ~ ~ \0 ...:; Q"I r- ..; ~ '1""""1 .....-I QO an "'T M .n- o 0'\ rIS f'f") ~ ~ r- ~ ="" ~ ~ .-r) Q ~ o 0\ V4 N l"f') ~... ...... I"f") 0'\ l(j ~ QO r- d 00 I"fl ...... o = ~ 1.1) tn ~ f'. ~ M o ~ ...... I"f") Vi ~ 01 ""1" ...; QO = = ~ 0', I"f") o 0\ C"\ an- t--- .....-II ~ -; C E- "';I = ~ \.: :; o fIJ J. ~ r.I.l C ~ ~ ~ o = a-... = 00 25 11> (l) I:l.O Cd ~ Cl ~ .c .s;, I. ;> c.r ~ o c ~ o a:: c.- = ~ ...... = = Q U (1:1 C .s: .... = oi: Q. Q ... C. Q.. -< -C C = W'} ~ ~ = e: :r.. ..Q e = CJ = ~ (I'} ~ I. 2 :;; = "" Q. ~ ~ ... o ~ = -0 ~ ..= ~ CI'J QJ ~"Ce~ .s 5 a ~ ~ ... Q. = \) "C == ~ ~ == :I ~~~~= "0 ~ ~ ~ ~ E <,.I ::I C V (If = - ~~ ;:;l ~ ~ ~ ~ 1- = ClI ~.a:Q ] ~ ~ ~ :; : ~~;;.... ~ l"'-- = = l""J ~ = CI.I t)lIY C = ._ Cl:l "0 ;.., C .c ~ E -:l ::s :I v o~ ""CI 4.l "0 = ~ "'C o ot: lIJ ~ -= = Q ~ IIl'.I cu 100 = >>:-= - "C '5 c I:: Q,I o Q. .. ~ ~Wi:I f"'l") Q llJ -= I- o Wi. (oj bli "'CI = = "Cl 00 M t- o 0 0 = 0 23 = N ~ ("0") "'; r;n 0:; .... 0 :.. 'U ~ ~ = G.i ~ .... ~ ~ .... E Q,) ~ ~ ro --< a... aJ 0 = >-- ~ Cl V) = 0 .... N M - ~ ca 0 \0 0 c.. u 0 \! ""CI ~ U'l V'J c.. --.J = 0:: u::: u:: (\) = ~ v ~ ro 0... CI: .= .~ - ;; oS .= c = t1 = ::z:: c- o ~ ... = = o U ~ -< r- ~ ~ o ('.1 QQ Ci a...l "E Cl r.f.l QJ = = 4.1 i> e.,l c::: -; = .... C'.J < "'C = ec "'C a; .... ee .5 .... rI'.I ~ - o .... = GJ e GJ .... ~ ...... 00 " ""; r.. Q ..., 0 - .8 ~ ~ t ... ~ Clca :: ~.. G'l= ~ ~ = "0 .~ ~ ~ :: ~ -; ;5= f' c:l o l"":l 0\ =- "'0 ... "0 = ~ "'0 .~ ~ c. -= == o ~ (I,l ~ 4J := ; = '" o ;;.. ~=: f'f') = ~ -= r.. o ~ MOOOOO ~~~~~~OOMO~M~ ~~~~ ~o~~ ~MNNOO ~~~~~~~~d~~~6~~~:~~~~~o~~~~~:~~~~~N~~ ~ - ~ N ~N~N~~--M~NN ~ ~N~ ~ N - ~ O~O~~M~~MN~~ O~~~ ~M ~~O~~~~~~~M~O MOOON~~~O~~~NM~~~~~~~N~-~~M~ ~ ~~~OO ~oo-o~~ ~-MN~~ON~~~~NM~q~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~d~~~~~~~~~~~~d~~~d ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~oo~~~~~~~~N~~N ~~ ~~~~~~8~~~~N~ ~~~ M~ ~ M~ ~ ~~ r- N ~ III l#J Q ~ S ~ :L.. ;;. = Q,.l tJ == >- -- 40i =.fj "C = == ~ 0-, 00 \C; - 0"- OM - ~ ~l/') N"' r-o - - ~1I1 - - N 00 0'\ 00 r:-: r- ~~r-~~~oo~~~o~~~r-~r-o-, OO-~M~ N~~~~O r-~ Mo-,-N~~~~~O~~M~~~M~~M~r-M~N~OO ~O~NOO\c;~M~~OO~~N~ ~~~~r-~~~r-M~r-~~~ ~N~~M~~~~~~~ ~o O-~~~~M ~o,..~~~~ ~r- MOOOO~~~N N~N~ ~o 0- MN 0 ~-r-N ~~ M N -l/') -N ~q - ~~oor-~ M N 00 .,.; ~ O~N~~N~ N~~~O~~~N~~~ N~M r- NN~MO~~~~~~ ~-r-~~~~o ~ ~2~~~~~~6 qq~~~ ~~~~~~~o ~N~ ~N 0 M ~~ ~~N ~N - ~ ~M ~lr)~,.o\O ("f")V)(""'")OVl \C)oO\~'" ~iNN~' ~ lr) r- ooaoooooooooooOOOOaOOOOOON OOONOOOO~~ ooooooooooooooooooo~oooo~~ooo~r-oo ~o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2~~~~ ~N~~~~~~~~O~ ~~N~N~~ ~o N~~~~-~O"'~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ MN ~q ~~M ~N~~~~ t- N o tr) NW>. r- \0 "Cl = = .. "; l- ~ C ClJ e,:I ~ "'CI = = rT t' U 0 OJ u .:s ~.~ old ct ] :~ .~ :D~ ==' Q) 0... Q... 11) x ~ ~ d.) rg r:l)ca ~ ~ o ~ ~~ tL.I ~ ~ ~ :5 8 ~ ~ ~~r- c:a Q) cr. ~ Cf) g g; :.a V) c u c: 'r;j C o ==' e UaJ~ ::1 o :J ~ E v E ~ ~ g 0........J ...J ~ (--i 0::: ~ ~8~a:i~ ~~ ] (0) Co Q.CJ:l, - v~8~~~oCO > c5 :J ~~ 0... ~ u '"8 ""l;J I.--C;; ~ ~ en ........_>-.. V) ~ 011) ] ~ 'J.) f"""~ ~~5~~6~j r.i: ~. "::: ..-J -- ~ ~ := :; 0 o U 0 ~ >.. w... -,-, U Q. '"0 V) o c 0 u co ::1 o v:l t:: :8 .5 ~ Q...[.I..O::: ~ t:oC:: o fJ) ~ "'0 L-; C/J ~ d.) ~c2,.2 ~ ~ U':l en V5 g ~ ~ .0 ll) ~ ~ E ~ ] ~ .0 ~uu~ ~ z: r.n rI:l :::I 0 o U o "'0 t: IV ~ ~ v > u 0 V'l V ~~ ca u 'C o c.o 11) d u I c: o Z ~ 1.) tI':l 5 0.. >::: uJ "'0 v ~ c'i:l ..c: r:/) CD =: 'u c: ~ c: Li: .~ ~ t: ~ ti ~~o ~ ar .u ~ ~u ~ ~ ~ tiS ~ [) "il..c ~6 ~ .~ ] 'u ~ ctl ~ 0 "'0 ~ 2 a ~ C'O ..J '- U r....... tE: L-o 0 L-o ~~ Q,.)~ ~o~5 o NM~O NM~~~~OO~O N~~OO~O N~O-~O ~MO~ON --NNNNNNNNNNMMMM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oooo~~ acc~oaoaaoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 00 S tV V Oi} ~ VI eQ: 0 0.. '..c: Q.i ('l") ~ l;..., -.n 0 Q tIl'l 0 .... 0'\ 4.l ~ " ~ ,S = b. = 0 :: ... Q.i =: Ii elS ~ cr.l G.I G.l = ;.. c:z:: "C If) 4.1 4.1 .~ t.l r') t- O; = - 0'\ 40l =: 0\ N .... -; 00 N = .= 0\ f'I") ~ 0 = N \Cl .... '" .... = tIl'l 00 N Q Q.i "'T = ('i') r: oS = G.l 0\"' \0 - >- N '..Q Q.i ~ c:z:: o::::t uo) ~ r-f rI.I ~ ~ = l'""- e = CJ = ;;;.- ~ CIi '= :t 0\ .c = "~ -; = I-. ........ "'Cl ;; ~ Q,.l ~ < "'0 0\ \C = I'I'.l M N as' "'C ~ ;;... G.l ~ rr) := = ~ = "'0 Cl N.... => s: = Q -= G.I ~ N "i: 0 ~ 0 r-: ;; "'C u 0,.) Q"l :;; a:: !'i Q ......, Q. a:: = ; ~ .5 = 0 ..... Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :; c..,. f'II') 0 =' Q .... ~ u = ; ~ a l.. \C Q ~ ~ t: - C'\ ..... ~ ("4"') ~ ee = ... "'C N rJ:; = 00' Q\ = N CI\ Vi 11"7 ~"' r- ....... ~ -= '0 r- ""0 = '= l.. " 00 0 0 t- N 0 2:3 r<") rr) ~ 0 0 "C C ::s ~ E U'J 10- Q; ~ ~ c ~ ~ Q.) \J ~ CIl ..c C ~ lo-o L.o == ~ Clj 10. c... el5 0 ~ =' ~ Q) := t:: >-- 2 a ~ 0 ca ca t 0 Q.) ~ ~ Q. r--- ~ ~ u::: ~ IV r') N M ~ Vi 0', r~ 0\ ~ (">1 ~ ACTION NO. ITEM NO. L- to AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CEN-rER1 3568 PE-rERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: October 23, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Report of claims activity for the self-insurance program SUBMITTED BY: Robert C. Jernigan Risk Manager Elmer C. Hodge ~ -k~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COLINTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: V~ ,~~J__~_~(3oJ:fi-- SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In accordance with the self-insurance program, Ordinance 0-061494-6, Section 2-86.C, attached is the fiscal year-ta-date claims activity report including the first quarter that ended September 30, 2007. Attachment A - Auto, Attachment B - General Liability. FISCAL IMPACT: None <( c Q) E ~ u 1!! ~ ~ ~I I I I I I I ;{ 0, --- 0 ~I CO 0 M Lri M N . I I -0 "'C 1i11 -01 ~ '~-----~_. . Cl) Q) CDi i_J_' 4-I~i UJ UJ ~I UJ 0 0 0 0' (3 0, U ...... ! I ' 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 U () () () c..> i N <! ~ :; ~ :; c:( -~- 0 > > M ~ I 1l w ..ot .,,--------+-______ -... i co .... :2 I:r: W 0 I- Q). 0.. il 0.. w W en I:r: en "'0 ' C1l (1) ~ W ,.... ~, m w 0 ~ a. N .... 0) 0 0 > ~ en N u u ::I .. 0 Q) 2 Q) a:: ~ ~ (j) en t- O .... C1J Q) Co ci) co :J "i3 (3 C- n.. W > c::c :c :.c ~! c: U ..J Q) Q) 0' 'c :) > > 2 c Z ..., ~ Q; CD (;)1 2 ~ U) .c. ..c ~ ~ c, 0 (5 0' 0 ~ :::J ~' a. ..:::.::: ..:::.:::1 S Q) rn w ..:::L a. 0 0 13 E 2 2 U) :.c z I- 0 (l) 2 .!! (;j en en, 0), I' ct (j) ~i > U. C ..:::.::: c c: m "'C1 1 ..J a. !I ~ .a 0), i W 0 OJ 1:: "'0: -Jl-- (;) t:! UJ t- O') C) co .!L ~ c c: E n:: 0 :.i: :i: ..... I '(ij COi ::::::I 2, ca lU 5' 1 c( ~ t-- ~ ~ u -1- --l w - <------ -- - ; I >- E ...J .~I en < .~ u 0 tJ) I- 0(5 I Li: Q) ~ I ~ Q,) u ii) UJ i 0 en (1) lU co 1 UJ co c:: 5: s: ~I &:: s: en ~I .~ ~ ~ ----+- .c. (5 Co c..1 en (/)' CL I i t--. "'~ t'o-, t"--i 01 0 0' 0' 0: 0 0 0 Ni N N ~ _I 05 0 ('I') , ;; ~ ~ ~ co co IX) co 0 0 0 0 lO ~ Il') r-- N ----l 0> 0 .or- 0: 0 N 0 0 ~ 0, cO rb cO ex) t::: t::: co ;:::: ;::::1 I r-- 0 0 N r::: T"'" 0 <( c Q) E .c. u ~ 4: N '0 N CD C') ro a.. ,..... o o N ;::: "IE"""" o r- o o N N o ;::: ..::.:::: "3 .0 Q) ~ >.. ..0 Q. ::J 1:) a.> .:::t:. (,) '0.. >.. Cl ~I U) 'E r.n E ~ ~w I I I ! I Q) t;; as ~ ::g (5 en t"'- o o N N o ii5 co o o cO j:::: co ... c: Q) E ..c u S ;;( N o Q) 0) co a.. ,...... o o N t::: ,..... o "'~'~:'t " w w., ,g.. ..~_:,.:......:.--:::...-:,..I-<c.~. '.}.::. ":::'0 J....r;iI .~:..-:, ::!-......:a ...S'. z" o CD c Cl) E s=. (.) ~ < N '0 N Q) C') co a.. ,...... o o N j:::: 25 L-l (!louut~ nf ~naunk.e t(lC~~~lttinq . ~ .~ G') ~ ~ DECLARING OCTOBER 22 THROUGH OCTOBER 28,2007, AS RED RIBBON weEK IN THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, SYMBOLIZING A COMMrrMENT TO A DRUG..FREE LIFESTYLE WHEREAS, the Red Ribbon Campaign was initiated in 1985 by the Virginia Federation of Communities for Drug-Free Youth; and WHEREAS, the red ribbon was designated as the symbol of intolerance of illegal drug use and a commitment to a drug-free lifestyle; and WHEREAS, a group of concerned citizens, parents, students, teachers, police officers, business people, judges, drug treatment providers, counselors, ministers, and other caring individuals have established the Roanoke Area Youth Substance Abuse Coalition (RA YSAC) to bring better coordination and development of substance abuse prevention programs and resources; and WHEREAS, RA YSAC and Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare have asked that the Board of Supervisors recognize Red Ribbon Week in Roanoke County and are promoting the Red Ribbon Campaign in the Roanoke Valley through a variety of activities. NOW, THEREFORE, WE, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim October 22 through October 28,2007, as RED RIBBON WEEK in Roanoke County, Virginia, and encourage all of our citizens to join in the observances and activities of this event. ~rutlh II /I ~ 'R~ anda G. Riley, CI rk ~,~..S> {. ~c-.t~ Richard C. Flora, Vice-Chairman In uW '11. ~ Michael W. Altizer ~J3. "tk-k t{]iuti!P oseph Be "Butch" Church \Yl~Q.W Michael A. Wray ~ o AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COL~NTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT -rHE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PE-rERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2007 RESOLU1-ION CER-rIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virgjnia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution app~ies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. a - \ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SL~PERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT -rHE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: October 23, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Public hearing and resolution to amend the Roanoke County Community Plan to include the 2007 update to the Greenway Conceptual Plan SUBMITTED BY: Janet Scheid Planner Elmer C. Ho?~e d~ -fC=ri? ? County Administrator ~-- Y'" APPROVED BY: COL~NTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: J~Jd1._~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The 1995 Conceptual Greenway Plan was developed and adopted by the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, City of Salem, and the Town of Vinton. That plan launched development of a regional greenway network and establishment of the Roanoke Valley Greenway Cornmission. In 2005, the Greenway Commission decided it was time to update the 1995 plan and sought assistance from the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission to do so. -rhere were numerous reasons to update the document, but the driving force was a desire to look at how the process of building greenways might be improved. The Greenway Commission and Regional Commission decided that the update should include two components: (1) an update and prioritization of routes included in the 1995 plan and (2) an organizational assessment examining roles and responsibilities of various partners. A steering committee of local staff and partners was formed to address the first task of updating and prioritizing the routes. This document, the 2007 update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan, is the result of the steering committee's work and public input received throughout the process. A consultant was hired to address the second task of assessing the organization and recommending improvements to the way in which the Greenway Commission operates and the partners interact. Based on public input received and staff analysis conducted, the focus for the next five years will be to finish the Roanoke River Greenway. Secondary priorities will be those north-south routes that are already underway and will provide connections from the Roanoke River Greenway to other public lands. The goal is to finish these in five to ten years. Other routes are listed but will be pursued only as opportunities arise. The fourteen mile section of the Roanoke River Greenway that is in Roanoke County will require approximately $11,597,420 to complete. Funding will continue to be requested through the Capital Improvement Plan process and coordinated through the Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Department. -rhis year, through the CIP process, the department will be requesting design/engineering money for the eastern section of the Roanoke River Greenway - wastewater treatment plant to Explore Park. Implementation of this plan will require continued cooperation among the many partners and will offer many opportunities for community involvement. The vision of finishing the Roanoke River Greenway has been a resounding theme echoed from the citizens and corporations of the valley. The dream is laid out in this plan and challenges all the partners to focus efforts on implementation rather than planning. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Hold a public hearing on October 23, 2007, and adopt a resolution to amend the Roanoke County Community Plan to include the 2007 update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan. 2. Do not hold a public hearing on October 23,2007, and do not adopt a resolution to amend the Roanoke County Community Plan to include the 2007 update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. 2 2007 UPDATE TO THE ROANOKE VALLEY CONCEPTUAL GREENWAY PLAN -- -, ., /. . ... - .~.. . - ~O':. _-, ,,:;:;'. . ._._ I. . ........ I I.. . . - .',.,~~~' .... ~ -~ .~. ,~ . ~.-=-- +-.. ~'-~~L,~:~li~1 G own TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 Acknowledgements Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Impetus for Updating the Plan 1.2 Terminology: What is a Greenway? 1.3 Benefits of Greenways 2.0 Status of the Roanoke Valley Greenway Program 2.1 Establishment of the Greenway Program 2.2 Greenway Partners 2.3 Summary of 1995 Conceptual Greenway Plan 2.4 Progress on the 1995 Plan 3.0 Purpose and Process for the Update 3.1 Need for Update to the 1995 Conceptual Greenway Plan 3.2 Description of the Study Area 3.3 Funding of the Update 3.4 Establishment of a Steering Committee 3.5 Procurement of Professional Greenway Planning Services 3.6 Community Involvement 4.0 Community Involvement and Input 4.1 Public Input Meetings 4.2 Input from Elected Officials and Staff 4.3 Corporate Input 4.4 Input from Other Sources 4.5 Discussion of Issues 4.6 Goals 5.0 Greenway Network 5.1 Prioritization of Greenways 5.2 Priority #1 Roanoke River Greenway 5.3 Priority #2 Greenways 5.4 Priority #3 Greenways 5.5 Priority #4 Greenways 5.6 On-road Connections TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 6 6.0 Implementation Strategies Greenway Construction Funding Land Acquisition Community Outreach and Education Organizational Structure Greenway Management Goals and Objectives from 1995 Plan A Appendices A. Bibliography B. Intergovernmental Agreement C. Public Input D. Case Studies E. On-road Routes from the Bikeway Plan Acknowledgements This plan was prepared by the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission and Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, in cooperation with the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, City of Salem, and Town of Vinton, Virginia. Consultant services were provided by LandDesign, Inc. Funding was provided by the Virginia Department of Transportation, Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, and Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission. Inquiries should be directed to: Shane Sawyer, Regional Planner Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission P.O. Box 2569 Roanoke, VA 24010 540-343-4417 Liz Belcher, Greenway Coordinator Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission 1206 Kessler Mill Road Salem, VA 24153 540-387 -6060 Project Consultant: LandDesign, Inc. 223 North Graham Street PO Box 36959 Charlotte, NC 28236 704-333-0325 Steering Committee: Liz Belcher Roanoke Valley Greenway Coordinator Janet Scheid Roanoke County, Community Development Department Cristina Finch City of Roanoke, Planning Division Ian Shaw City of Roanoke, Planning Division Bill Gordge Pathfinders for Greenways Benjamin Tripp City of Salem, Planning Department Michael Gray Virginia Department of Transportation Donnie Underwood City of Roanoke, Parks and Recreation Department Anita McMillan Town of Vinton, Planning and Zoning Department Linda Oberlender Pathfinders for Greenways Lon Williams Roanoke County, Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Shane Sawyer Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission Donald Witt Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2005 the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission and Roanoke Valley- Alleghany Regional Commission, in partnership with the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, the City of Salem, and the Town of Vinton, decided to update the 1995 Conceptual Greenway Plan, Roanoke Valley, Virginia. They obtained a grant from the Virginia Department of Transportation to help fund the project, set up a Steering Committee with representatives from the four localities, and in 2006 began the process of updating the plan. The update had two components: . An update to the routes included in the 1995 Plan and prioritization of those routes. The Steering Committee directed this effort and the results are included in this document, 2007 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan. . An organizational assessment of the roles and responsibilities of the various partners. This was completed by a consultant, LandDesign, Inc., and is encapsulated in a separate volume for internal use. This document has several parts: . A summary of the progress on greenways since 1995, . Discussion of the issues raised by the public and others during the update process, . Prioritization of the greenway routes and information on each, and . Implementation strategies. Based on the public input and update process, the focus for the next five years will be to finish the Roanoke River Greenway. Secondary priorities will be those north-south routes that are already underway and will provide connections from Roanoke River Greenway to other public lands. The goal is to finish these in five to ten years. Other routes are listed but will be pursued only as opportunity a rises. Implementation of this plan will require continued cooperation among the many partners and will offer opportunity for all of the community to be involved. The vision of finishing the Roanoke River Greenway has been a resounding theme echoed from the citizens and corporations of the valley. The dream is laid out herein and challenges all the partners to focus efforts, not on planning, but on implementation. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 1.0 Introduction 1-1 1.1 Impetus for Updating the Plan 1-1 1.2 Terminology: What is Greenway? 1-1 1.3 Benefits of Greenways 1-2 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Impetus for Updating the Plan The 1995 Conceptual Greenway Plan, Roanoke Valley, Virginia (1995 Plan) was developed and adopted by the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, City of Salem, and Town of Vinton. That plan launched development of a regional greenway network and establishment of the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission (Greenway Commission). In 2005 the Greenway Commission decided it was time to update the 1995 Plan and sought assistance from the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (Regional Commission) to do so. There were numerous reasons to update the document, but the driving force was a desire to look at how the process of getting greenways built might be improved. The Greenway Commission and Regional Commission decided that the update should include two components: 1) an update and prioritization of routes included in the 1995 Plan, and 2) an organizational assessment examining roles and responsibilities of various partners. A Steering Committee of local staff and partners was formed to address the first task, to update and prioritize the routes. This document, the 2007 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan (the Update), is the result of the Steering Committee's work. It describes the accomplishments since 1995, the process of developing the update, public input and issues, routes, and recommendations for implementation. ~~q (p'-1P4) ~ L A ~ open space estab1ished along either ~ natura1 coaidor, such as a riverfront, stream valley, or ridgdinc, ~ overland alOQ.g a railroad right-of-way convened to ~ ~ a ~ a scenic ~ or other route. 2.. Any natural or landscaped. course for pedestriaD or bicycle passage. ~I An opcn-space CODDCCtOr linking parks, nature reserves, cultural fcamm, or historic sites with each other and with populated .areast 4. Locill~ certain strip or linear parks desigDated as a parkway or grecobclt. [.American neologism: grraJ + way; origin obscure. ] A consultant, LandDesign, Inc., was hired to address the second task of assessing the organization and recommending improvements to the way in which the Greenway Commission operated and the partners interacted. That assessment was considered in development of the Update and in the implementation strategies presented in Section 6. 1 ~for~ CbarIca B. Utde 1.2 Terminology: What is a Greenway? In his 1990 book Greenways for America Charles Little recounts the origins of the greenway idea and traces a century of development of the greenway movement. He recognizes that any group of greenway advocates will undoubtedly have multiple definitions of a greenway or even different words for the concepts. Common themes in the greenway movement are green Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 1-1 1-2 space, connections, conservation, non-motorized transportation, linear trails, ecology, and sustainable development. While the terminology of this movement varies from one state or country to another, the Roanoke Valley's development of the 1995 Plan included a strong focus on the "trail" within the greenway corridor. Since development of the 1995 Plan, the Regional Commission and four local governments have each developed other plans, many of which incorporate the ideas of open space, green space, blueways, and green infrastructure. Many of these recent plans recognize the importance of green space for environmental protection, wildlife habitat, and stormwater management. Each locality has refined its preferences and the degree to which its greenways focus on pedestrian/bicycle facilities and green infrastructure elements. The Greenway Commission encourages and supports each locality's efforts to develop greenways, trails, and green infrastructure. Because citizens typically equate greenways with trails, the focus in this regional Update to the 1995 Plan is on those corridors that will include a public trail. Thus, the definition that is used encompasses the transportation, recreation, and green infrastructure elements and mirrors the terminology of citizens: Greenways are linear parks, corridors of natural or open space: . following land or water features such as streams, rivers, canals, utility corridors, ridgelines, or rail lines and . managed for conservation, recreation, and/or alternative transporlation and . including trails for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other trail users. 1.3 Benefits of Greenways The benefits of greenways are well documented in a variety of publications on greenways and trails listed in the Bibliography (Appendix A) and in the 1995 Plan. The 1995 Plan included objectives and strategies for meeting goals associated with these benefits, and the progress on those is included in Section 2.4.7 of this Update. The benefits of greenways include: Transportation Greenway trails provide corridors for moving from one location to another without an automobile. Economic Opportunities Greenways strengthen the local economy by increasing property values, enticing businesses concerned with quality of life for employees, stimulating community revitalization, and creating jobs related to recreation and tourism. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 Health and Recreation Cultural and Educational Amenities Preservation of Natural Resources Greenways provide free facilities for exercising, and most of the valley's greenway trails are handicapped accessible. Obesity is one of the biggest health issues in the region. Greenways encourage "active living by design" which can help improve citizens' health, as well as providing a location close to home to enjoy the outdoors. Good health among citizens translates into an economic benefit for businesses. Greenways provide a facility for events, such as walks and parades, and an avenue for groups to join forces for service projects. Many Roanoke Valley greenways follow historic corridors and provide an opportunity for protecting and interpreting historic resources. While several of the existing greenways connect to area schools, there is significant opportunity to increase environmental education along greenways. Greenways are linear parks, designed to provide and connect the green infrastructure of the valley. Greenways preserve existing natural resources and enhance the environment through expansion of tree canopy, protection of riparian buffers that reduce stormwater runoff, and provision of continuous habitat for plants, birds, and animals. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 1-3 The Potential of Greenways 1-4 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Status of the Roanoke Valley Greenway Program Establishment of the Greenway Program Greenway Partners Summary of 1995 Conceptual Greenway Plan Progress on the 1995 Plan 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-4 2-5 2.0 STATUS OF THE ROANOKE VALLEY GREENWAY PROGRAM 2 2.1 Establishment of the Greenway Program The Roanoke Valley greenway program arose as a citizen initiative to improve quality of life in the region. In 1993 members of Valley Beautiful Foundation heard about the need to replace the sewer interceptor lines along the Roanoke River and suggested that a greenway be built at the same time. They organized local informational and motivational meetings featuring speakers with greenway experience in other cities. At their urging, the local governing bodies for the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, City of Salem and Town of Vinton appointed members to an Open Space/Greenways Steering Committee in 1994. This committee worked under the sponsorship of the Fifth Planning District Commission (now the Regional Commission) to visit greenway programs in other communities and persuaded the local governments to fund development of a greenway plan. Greenways, Inc. was hired to assist with public input meetings and development of the Conceptual Greenway Plan, Roanoke Valley, Virginia, which was completed in December 1995. After the 1995 Plan was written, the committee began exploring ways to begin implementation. In 1996 the four local governments provided funds for a full time staff position devoted to greenways. Liz Belcher started work as the Greenway Coordinator in the office of the Regional Commission in August of that year. The committee then began planning to establish a structure for implementing the 1995 Plan. The consensus was that the greenway organization should not be autonomous, as with an authority, but rather a regional partnership among the local governments and citizens. In 1997 the four local governments agreed to form a commission to direct the greenway program, established pursuant to Section 15.1-21 of the Code of Virginia. On Earth Day in April 1997 greenway supporters celebrated with a walk up Mill Mountain and the signing of an Intergovernmental Agreement Establishing the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission (Appendix B.) Prior to its dissolution when the Greenway Commission was established, the committee also helped volunteers organize a non-profit, Pathfinders for Greenways. David Bowers, Liz Belcher, Bob Johnson, Spike Harrison, Jim Trout, Sonny Tarpley, Lucy Ellett, and Buford Barton celebrate the signing of the Intergovernmental Agreement on A/Jril19, 1997. 2.2 Greenway Partners 2.2.1 Local Governments The greenway program has been implemented as a regional partnership. The four local governments of the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, City of Salem and Town of Vinton established the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission. In spring of 1997 each of the four Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 2-1 2-2 localities adopted the 1995 Plan as a component of its comprehensive/community plan, with Roanoke County and the City of Roanoke also adopting additional policies. The four jurisdictions help fund the office of Greenway Coordinator on a per capita basis, match capital grants within their respective jurisdictions, oversee planning and construction projects, and provide extensive staff time and in-kind services for greenway construction and management. The greenways are owned and operated by the localities, and the respective parks and recreation departments have responsibility for management and maintenance. 2.2.2 Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission As mentioned in Section 2.1, the Greenway Commission was formed by an Intergovernmental Agreement among the four local governments (Appendix B). It is comprised of three members appointed by each of these governments, one member appointed by the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and non-voting ex-officio members representing the planning and parks departments, Western Virginia Land Trust, Pathfinders for Greenways, and other interested organizations. The purpose of the Greenway Commission is to "promote and facilitate coordinated direction and guidance in the planning, development, and maintenance of a system of greenways throughout the Roanoke Valley." In accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement, the Greenway Commission's responsibilities are to encourage incorporation of greenways into each jurisdiction's planning efforts, explore greenway opportunities, make recommendations on legislation, investigate funding and grants, recommend standards, pursue partnerships, and coordinate the efforts of the federal, state, and local governments involved. When the Intergovernmental Agreement was adopted, the greenway movement in the valley was a new frontier. Over time each locality has developed internal processes and staff expertise to deal with many greenway issues, and thus over time the Greenway Commission's role has evolved. That role varies by jurisdiction, depending on the locality's needs and staffing. The Greenway Commission strives to be responsive in complementing the localities' programs and in finding resources to help meet localities' needs. 2.2.3 Pathfinders for Greenways The Greenway Commission is assisted by a volunteer, nonprofit group formed in March 1997. Pathfinders for Greenways is a 501 (c)(3) grass-roots citizen organization with volunteer members united by the vision of establishing a first-class regional greenway system within the Roanoke Valley. The Pathfinders' purposes are to promote and encourage development of a greenway network, educate citizens and officials on greenway benefits and value, raise and receive gifts, donations and grants, organize volunteers to assist with greenway development and maintenance, and sponsor greenway promotional efforts. The Pathfinders have been particularly effective in building and maintaining natural surface trails. They donate 3-5,000 hours of volunteer service each year and have purchased over $40,000 worth of trail building equipment. 2.2.4 Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission The Regional Commission is a state-established regional planning organization. It provides assistance to local governments for land use planning, transportation planning, mapping, Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 project management services, and grant applications. The Regional Commission sponsored and facilitated development of the 1995 Plan and has developed the regional bicycle plans. It has continued to provide greenway services, particularly GPS data and GIS mapping, web assistance, bicycle route assessment and planning, and open space planning. The Greenway Coordinator serves on the Transportation Technical Committee of the Metropolitan Planning Organization of the Regional Commission. The Regional Commission obtained the grant for the update to the greenway plan and has provided significant staff time and support to the Greenway Commission. Ex-officio members have been added to the Greenway Commission over the years to represent diverse groups interested in greenways such as running and bicycle clubs, equine enthusiasts, the Roanoke Appalachian Trail Club, Western Virginia Water Authority, and other interested groups. 2.2.5 Other Partners The Intergovernmental Agreement included an ex-officio position on the Greenway Commission for the Western Virginia Land Trust. The Land Trust was established in the fall of 1996 and is the partner which can assist with acquisition of rights-of-way and transfer of property. Other groups which have been very involved in the program include Valley Beautiful Foundation, Roanoke Valley Urban Forestry Council, and Greater Raleigh Court Civic League. Other neighborhood groups have been involved with specific projects, and citizens, corporations, and civic organizations are encouraged to be actively involved in greenway planning and construction. The Greenway program has received valuable assistance from Virginia Road and Transportation Builders Association, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, corporations, and volunteers from Rotary, Kiwanis, Valley Area Shared Trails, Roanoke College, Virginia Tech, North Cross School, the Governor's School for Science and Technology, and Faith Christian School. The Greenway Commission has established important formal and informal connections to state and federal agencies. In 2002 the Blue Ridge Parkway approved a General Agreement with the Greenway Commission that allows working cooperatively to develop and maintain trails on and connecting to Parkway facilities. Greenway Commission members and staff have been very active with state agencies such as the Department of Conservation and Recreation, Department of Forestry, Department of Transportation, and Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. In 1999 the first statewide greenway and trail conference was held in Roanoke. The Greenway Commission and staff have assisted with all subsequent statewide greenway conferences and workshops and have provided advice to a number of nearby jurisdictions interested in planning and constructing greenway systems. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 2-3 2-4 2.3 Summary of 1995 Conceptual Greenway Plan The 1995 Plan was developed as a regional project by the four local governments, Regional Commission, and citizens, with guidance from a nationally renowned consultant, Greenways, Inc. Development of the plan included speakers, meetings with elected officials and community leaders, and three public input workshops. The 1995 Plan included 51 conceptual greenway routes. It described the benefits of greenways, design criteria, funding strategies, potential corridors, design guidelines, and management and maintenance issues. It is available on-line at The 1995 Conceptual Greenwav Plan, Roanoke Valle v, Virainia included 51 potential corridors. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 2.4 Progress on the 1995 Plan 2.4.1 Implementation Schedule The 1995 Plan began the process of establishing a structure for developing a greenway network. It recommended an implementation schedule wherein the first task was formation of an intergovernmental organization and a citizens' advocacy group. This was completed when the Greenway Commission and Pathfinders for Greenways were established in 1997. Secondly, the 1995 Plan recommended a pilot project; Mill Mountain Greenway was selected and has since been completed. It recommended master plans for phase I and then phase II projects; several of these have been completed. It recommended marketing literature and maps, which have been developed. The 1995 Plan recommended an evaluation after ten years, which is the process documented in this Update. More detail on completion of the 1995 strategies is included in Section 2.4.7. 2.4.2 Design Guidelines The Intergovernmental Agreement charged the Greenway Commission with recommending standards for the design and construction of greenways. Standards for on-road facilities are mandated by the Virginia Department of Transportation and by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). In 1997 the Greenway Commission drafted guidelines for development of the off-road greenway routes with trails, based on federal, state, and other published guidelines. These guidelines recognized that different users require different surfaces and that different environments call for different levels of development. While each locality is responsible for its respective greenway and trail facilities, the Greenway Commission's goal was to encourage uniformity in design of regional greenways, suggest best practices for consideration by each locality, and provide guidance for distinctions in levels of development. Class A The most developed greenways include a hard surfaced trail to accommodate a range of activities and high levels of use. These greenways are highly suitable for urban environments where wheeled modes of travel such as strollers, wheelchairs, skateboards, and roller blades are common. High use and urban sights and amenities are expected, but users also are able to enjoy a park-like environment or natural area. Trails are paved with either asphalt or concrete. Traffic control devices such as lane markings and bicycle speed limits are acceptable. Facilities are handicapped-accessible. The Roanoke River Greenway, Lick Run Greenway, and Garst Mill Park Greenway are examples of this Class A environment. Class B These greenways are built in areas where moderate use is expected and a more natural environment is available. Trails could be hard surfaced, but often the surface is "cinders" similar to a rail-trail, with compacted aggregate stone or wood chips. Narrower trail widths are acceptable in some cases, and users are expected to use courtesy when passing others. These surfaces do not accommodate as many wheeled uses but offer a softer surface for Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 2-5 walking and running and a more relaxed environment. Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail and Wolf Creek Greenway are representative of Class B greenways. Class C The third category for Roanoke Valley greenways has natural surfaced trails. These offer a rural or wooded environment and opportunities for long distance walking, hiking, mountain biking, and possibly horseback riding where approved. Trail widths are narrower, and trails may have steeper grades and more challenging terrain. Murray Run Greenway and the trails on Mill Mountain, the Blue Ridge Parkway, and Carvins Cove are Class C facilities. These trails can be built and maintained by volunteers. Setting and Use Table Design Factor Class A B C User Joggers Joggers Walkers Walkers Walkers Hike rs Bicyclists Bicyclists Mountain bikers Skateboarders Mountain bikers Horseback riders Wheelchair users Horseback riders (where (where approved) Roller bladers approved) Distance runners Stroller pushers Use Level High Moderate Moderate to Low Setting Urban, suburban. City sights less obvious. Natural or rural Universally Park-like. environment, accessible. removed from city sights. Surface Asphalt or concrete Crushed aggregate stone, Natural surface, wood chips, or wood chips, or hard surface crushed stone 2.4.3 Priorities in 1995 Plan The 1995 Plan listed several priority projects. It confirmed that valley residents felt the top priority should be a greenway paralleling the Roanoke River. Other routes for which there was public support were also listed, but there was no analysis of the feasibility of any routes. The priority projects listed in the 1995 Plan and the progress on them is shown in the table below. Further information on each is available in Sections 2.4.4, 2.4.5, and 5. 2-6 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 Priority from 1995 Plan Roanoke River Mudlick Creek/Garst Mill Blue Ridge Parkway (on and off road) Salem Rail Trail (Hanging Rock) Tinker Creek Downtown Roanoke to Explore Park via Mill Mtn. Connection to Appal. Trail via Carvins Cove Electric Rd/ Rt. 419 Wolf Creek Stewartsville Road/ Rt. 24 Connection to existing horse trails Summary of Status and Obstacles Status: The Roanoke River Greenway has remained the priority project. Three miles have been built. Master plans have been completed. Obstacles: Coordination with sewer and flood projects, right-of-way acquisition, proximity of railroad, proximity of businesses, terrain, flooding. Status: The section in Garst Mill Park has been completed. Two other rights-of-way have been donated. Obstacles: Most of the creek is in residential backyards, making right-of- way d ifficu It; flood i ng . Status: A General Agreement with the Parkway has been completed. Six miles of off-road trail have been refurbished. The Parkway has completed feasibility study of an off-road multi-use path. Draft trail plan has been developed. Obstacles: Parkway is managed by National Park Service; Parkway has been involved in development of its own General Management Plan; Parkway focus is on motor road, not trails. Status: Opened in 1999, 1.7 miles. Still needs bridge across creek. Obstacles: Flooding, restricted right-of-way, agreements with VDOT about Enhancement funding. Status: First mile opened in 2002. Conceptual plan completed in 2000. Obstacles: Right-of-way acquisition, narrow corridor next to roads, flooding, private residences. Status: Mill Mountain Greenway opened in 2003. Connections via trails on Mill Mountain and the Parkway are open to Pitzer Road. Trails at Explore have been built. Obstacles: Explore Park is now under option to private developer; trail completion is dependent on Parkway schedule in completing trail plan; connections still needed through market area. Status: This is an existing trail. No new connection has been identified or authorized. The City has provided a permanent easement for the AT. Status: Minimal progress. VDOT has paved shoulders when resurfacing. Obstacles: No off road corridor has been explored. Status: Over two miles have been built from Hardy Rd to Blue Ridge Pkwy. Obstacles: Connection to Roanoke River would require right-of-way through very steep terrain. Status: No progress. This was reviewed during bikeway planning and was not considered a popular route. Bicyclists prefer Mountain View Road which is being rebuilt with bike lanes. Status: Minimal progress. Location options have been explored. Connections have been suggested to Blue Ridge Pkwy as part of its trail plan. Input has been provided to the Jefferson National Forest. Horse parking is now available at Carvins Cove. Perimeter Trail included in this Update. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 2-7 2-8 2.4.4 Construction of Greenways Since the Roanoke Valley Greenway program began, over nineteen miles of trail have been built on nine greenways. Each of the routes has gone through the stages of planning, engineering, right-of-way acquisition, funding, and construction. The chart below shows the greenways completed to date. These are shown on the map at the back of this Update in purple. R k V II G B .It 1995 2006 aana e a ey reenways UI - Greenway Local ity Class Year Opened Mileage Garst Mill Park Roanoke County A 1997 0.5 Greenway on (Paved) Mudlick Creek Hanging Rock Roanoke County, City B 1999 1.7 Battlefield Trail of Salem ( Cinder) Lick Run Greenway City of Roanoke A 1999, 2002, 3.0 (Paved) 2006 Mill Mountain City of Roanoke A 2003 3.5 Greenway (Paved) Mill Mountain Star City of Roanoke C 1999 1.7 Trail* (Natural) Murray Run City of Roanoke B-C 2001-2005 2.8 Greenway (Cinder, natural) Roanoke River City of Roanoke A 1999-2006 2.5 Greenway (Paved) Roanoke River City of Salem A 2002 0.5 Greenway - David (Paved) Smith Trail Tinker Creek City of Roanoke A 2002 1.25 Greenway (Paved) Wolf Creek Vinton, Roanoke B 1999, 2001, 2.5 Greenway County ( Cinder) 2005, 2006 Total 19.95 * Built with assistance from Pathfinders for Greenways Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 In addition, Pathfinders for Greenways, working with the Greenway Commission and localities, has completed the following natural surface trails, structures, and features which provide important connections and amenities for the greenway network. Additional Greenway and Trail Projects with Pathfinders for Greenways T ra i I Location Task Year Mileage Bennett Springs Carvins Cove Construction 2004 1 structure Bridge Chestnut Ridge Loop Blue Ridge Parkway Reconstruction 2004 6 miles Trail Fern Park Trail City of Roanoke Construction 2006 1 mile Fishburn Park Rain City of Roanoke Construction 2005 1 garden Garden Four Gorges Trail Carvins Cove Construction 2005-06 3 miles Horse Trail from Blue Ridge Parkway Reconstruction 2003 2 miles Stewarts Knob to Rt. 24 Kiosks Blue Ridge Parkway, Construction of 2002-03 4 structures Murray Run, Wolf 4 kiosks Creek Monument Trail Mill Mountain Park Reconstruction 2002 1.5 miles Murray Run City of Roanoke Construction of 2001- 2 structures Greenway bridges 2 bridges 2006 Ridgeline Trail Mill Mountain Park Construction 2005 1 mile Roanoke River Trail Blue Ridge Parkway Repairs 2005 0.5 mile Trough Trail Carvins Cove Relocation 2005 1 mile Wolf Creek Bridges Vinton, Roanoke Construction 1999,20 3 structures County 01 Total 16 miles 11 structures 2.4.5 Greenway Planning In addition to construction, the Greenway Commission, localities, and Pathfinders have worked on planning and design for other routes listed in the 1995 Plan. Each of the localities has updated its Comprehensive Plan since 1995 and each has prioritized its greenway routes. The matrices on the following pages show the status of On-road and Off-road routes in the 1995 Plan. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 2-9 Status of Off-Road Routes Included in the 1995 Conceptual Greenway Plan 0IL0ff. .EXPkmt. Rigbt.af. PROJECT NAME Plan # Rd. Iladbte tim Plannina Enaineerina funding Y:JaY. Construction tmwt= COMMENTS Appalachain Trail 3 Off I I I I I I 1985 Easement 1998 Back Creek 45 Off I Barnhardt Creek 36 Off I CalVin Creek 9 Off I I Dry Hollow 34 Off I G arnand Branch 41 Off I I G ish Branch 14 Off x G lade Creek 26 Off I I G lenwood Horse Trail Link 27 Off I I Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail 15 Off I I I I I I 1999 Hanging Rock Bridge 15 Off I I I I I 2007-08 Horners Branch 11 Off x Horse Pen Branch 7 Off I Lick Run 21 Off Section 4 21 Off I I I I I I 1999 Section 3 21 Off I I I I I I 2002 Section 1 &2 21 Off I I I I I I 2006 Mason Creek 4 Off I Partial Mill Mountain 44 Off/On Downtown-P iedmont P k 44 Off/On I I I I I I 2003 P iedmont-up Prospect 44 Off/On I I I I I I 2003 Mill Mtn P k Spur Rd 44 On I Add to Bike Plan Mill Mtn S tar Trail 44 Off I I I I I I 1999 Mudlick Creek 37 Off High School 37 Off I I HS-Garst Mill Park 37 Off/On I I One tract Garst Mill Park 37 Off I I I I I I 1997 G MP-Roanoke River 37 Off/On I One tract Murray Run 43 Off G randin-track 43, p. 41 Off I I I I I Partial 2003 Track-B rambleton 43, p. 41 Off I I I I I I 2001 Fishburn Park 43, p. 41 Off I I I I I I 2004 F ishburn-Colonial 43, p. 41 Off I I I I I I 2004 Colonial-Ggden 43, p. 41 Off I Paint Bank Branch 10 Off x Roanoke River Tributary 12 Off I Dry B ranch, golf course Roanoke River Tributary 28 Off x Up Twelve Olclock Knob Route to Appalachain Trail 8 Off I Route to Smith Mountain Lake 46 Off By others In Franklin Co. Plan Tinker Creek 24 Off Kenwood-Wise Ave. 24 Off I I I I I I 2003 Wise Ave.-County line 24 Off I I Conceptual plan in 2000 Co line-CalVins Cove 24 Off I I Two tracts in cooperation w / R C IT Connection 24, p. 41 Off I Virginia Tech Wolf Creek 51 Off Roanoke R +1ardy Rd 51 Off I Hardy-S tone bridge P k 51 Off I I I I I 1999, 2001 S tonebridqe-B RP 51 Off I I I I I I 2005-2006 W ill open 2007 2-10 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 Status of Off-Road Routes Included in the 1995 Conceptual Greenway Plan PROJECT NAME f1anj ~ Iladble Exploration Planning Engineering funding Right of 'Nay Construction tmDte Comments Roanoke River I Dixie Caverns-G reen Hill 32 Off I Green Hill P ark-Diuguids Lane 32 Off I I I I I 2007 Diuguids Lane-Mill Lane 32 Off I I Mill Lane-f ddy Street 32 Off I I I Partial 2002 opened to Eddy S treet-Colorado Street 32 Off I I I I I I Partial Williams B r. Colorado S treet-Apperson Drive 32 Off I I I I Apperson Drive-Apperson Drive 32 Off I I I I Apperson Drive-Roanoke City Line 32 Off I I I I Roanoke City Line-Mudlick 32 Off I I Partial Partial Phase II of Flood P roj. Mudlick-B ridge Street 32 Off I I Partial Partial Phase II of Flood P roj. Bridge S treet-Memorial Avenue 32 Off I I Partial Partial Phase II of Flood P roj. Memorial Avenue-Wasena Park 32 Off I I I Phase II of Flood P roj. Wasena P ark-P iedmont Park 32 Off I I I I I I Partial Phase I of Flood P roj. Piedmont P ark-9th Street 32 Off I I I I I 2007 Phase I of Flood P roj. 9th S treet-B rownlee 32 Off I I I I I I 2007 W ill open in 2007 Brownlee-Golden Park-City line 32 Off I I B ridge to Tinker Creek 32 Off I I Partial Roanoke City line-B lue Ridge P arkw, 32 Off I I Blue Ridqe Parkway to Back Creek 32 Off I I Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 2-11 Status of On-Road Routes Included in the 1995 Conceptual Greenway Plan PROJECT NAME Plan # 0n.mf.Bd. ~ -- Six-Yr Plan Plannina Enaineerina funding ConstnJction tmmte COMMENTS Sidewalks and bike lanes included 10th Street 22 On I I I I in plans G en. Agreement to work on trails; Draft Trail Plan 04; BRP bike study Blue Ridqe Parkway 49 On I I in 05;Final Trail Plan FY08 Brandon Road 38 On Salem line-Mudlick 38 On I I I I I I I Widened outside lane, sidewalks M udlickf ranklin 38 On I Colonial Avenue 40 On City 40 On I I Partial Bike lanes near VW CC Plans show paved shoulder; neighborhood requesting sidewalks, County 40 On I I I bike lanes Cotton Hill Road No# On I I Dale Avenue;8 ullitt 31 On I I I I I 2004 Traffic calming installed Traffic calming in village, bike lanes Grandin Road 39 On I Partial on Memorial Hardy Road No# On Vinton No# On I I I I I I 2003 Includes bike lanes and sidewalks Sidewalk included on Wolf Creek County No# On I bridge Hershberqer Road 17 On I Bike lanes denied; paved shoulder Hollins Road 19 On I I I I I included J ae Valley Road No# On I L ynchburg~ alem Turnpike 30 On I Main Street in Salem 20 On East -Salem 20 On I I I I West -County 20 On I I I I I Plans include 1 t paved shoulder Peters Creek Road Extension 29 On I I I I I I I Widened outside lane, sidewalks P eters Creek~ reen Ridge Road 16 On I Plantation Road 18 On I Red Lane 13 On x Route 622;8 radshaw Road 2 On x Route 639;HarboUtwood Road 35 On x Route 785;8 lacksburq Road 1 On x 76 Bike Route Paved shoulder included in last Route 419;Electric Road 48 On I resurfacing Rutrouqh Road 42 On x Salem High School Connection No# On x S tewartsville Road 33 On x Reviewed in Bike Plan Thompson Memorial No# On x Timbetview Road 5 On I US 220 50 On I Paved shoulder requested US 221;8 rambleton Avenue 47 On I I I I Plans include paved shoulder US 460;Challenqer Avenue 25 On I Williamson Road 23 On I Traffic calming in some parts Wood Haven Road 6 On x 2-12 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 G rants and Allocations for Roanoke Valley G reenways Year Awarced Federal 5 tate Local Private Total 1995 $ 549,300 $ 4, CXX> $ 30, CXX> $ - $ 585,295 1996 $ 24O,CXX> $ 25, CXX> $ 60, CXX> $ 1 0, CXX> $ 336,996 1997 $ 350, CXX> $ 35,242 $ 848,450 $ 1 , CXX> $ 1,236,689 1998 $ 300, CXX> $ 48,250 $ 86,700 $ 31 ,500 $ 468,448 1999 $ 575,CXX> $ 217,460 $ 1oo,CXX> $ 45,700 $ 940, 1 59 2CXX> $ 300, CXX> $ 84, CXX> $ 234,CXX> $ 215,CXX> $ 835,CXX> 2001 $ 269, CXX> $ 87,440 $ 555,100 $ 5, CXX> $ 918,541 2002 $ 200, CXX> $ 48,250 $ 230, CXX> $ 3,500 $ 483,752 2003 $ 1oo,CXX> $ 51 ,950 $ 230, CXX> $ 4,050 $ 388,003 2004 $ 2,437,400 $ 44,980 $ 245,CXX> $ 21,241 $ 2,750,625 2005 $ 294, CXX> $ 102,~ $ 250,026 $ 11 ,500 $ 660,431 2roJ $ 1,055,CXX> $ - $ 1,0B0,CXX> $ 88, CXX> $ 2, 225,roJ Total $ 6,669, 700 $ 749,472 $ 3,949,276 $ 436,491 $ 11,804,939 2.4.6 Greenway Funding The greenway program has been funded through a variety of sources. Most of the federal and state monies are through grants. The local funds shown include operational funds to the Greenway Commission and capital allocations. The private funds are donations. Locality staff time is not included. 2.4.7 Review of 1995 Goals, Objectives and Strategies The 1995 Plan presents a holistic vision for a valley-wide greenway system. That plan identifies many greenway corridors to establish an interconnected trail system. However, the greenway system is more than just an alternative transportation and recreation facility. The 1995 Plan addressed not just the physical infrastructure but the following as well: . Recreation opportunities . Wellness of the Valley's citizens (health and fitness needs/active lifestyle) . Preservation/conservation of natural resources . Educational opportunities . Economic development potential These ideas are represented as seven goals with 45 related objectives and strategies. The consultant, LandDesign, and Steering Committee for the Update reviewed these strategies and subjectively evaluated the success in achieving each. The table below lists the goals and objectives/strategies and ranks the degree of progress on each as: None, Low, Moderate, or High. These goals, objectives and strategies represent an ambitious concept that could create a model greenway system. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 2-13 2-14 Goals 1995 Plan 1. Transportation Provide corridors that bicyclists, pedestrians, and others can use to get from one place to another as an alternative to motor vehicle use. 2. Safety Design a green way system that maximizes safety of green way system users and nearby property owners and neighborhoods. 3. Recreation/ Fitness/Health Design the green way system as both a recreational resource and as public access to other recreational resources, offering a full spectrum of recreation and exercise opportunities. Progress on 1995 Goals and Objectives Objectives/Strateaies Quoted from 1995 Plan Progress . Provide green ways that connect schools, . Moderate libraries, shopping centers, work sites, parks and other places in the community. . Provide connections between mass transit sites . Low and make arrangements for safe storage of greenway system users' bicycles (or other belongings) while they are using the transit system. . Identify and make plans for existing roads that. Moderate should be widened or otherwise modified to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians. . Initiate Valley-wide design and installation . Low standards to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities on new roads and road improvement plans. . Initiate design standards that are sensitive to the . High disabled in order to ensure opportunities for a variety of users. . Establish integrated law enforcement and. Low emergency response programs that service the needs of greenway system users and landowners. . Incorporate into the greenway management. Moderate system appropriate safety and security strategies. . Design the greenway system to accommodate . Moderate different activities (such as horseback riding and bicycling) with a minimum of user-conflict. . Improve bicycle safety by implementing safety. None education programs in local schools and the community. . Provide a greenway system that accommodates . High a variety of recreational activities. . Encourage businesses to establish and integrate . Low use of greenways into corporate health and wellness programs. . Promote programs and facilities that provide . Moderate opportunities for individual health related activities. . Make each greenway a stand-alone destination . Moderate (as well as a link to other resources) by providing amenities such as benches, picnic areas, and workout stations. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 Goals 1995 Plan 3. Recreation/ Fitness/Health (continued) 4. Education Educate the public about the need for . and benefits of green ways, and educate the greenway system user about the . areas natural ad cultural history. 5. Economic Development Address both the appropriate costs of implementing the greenway system (including land acquisition and capital improvements) and the benefits that will result from its creation. Goals 1995 Plan Objectives/Strategies Quoted from 1995 Plan Progress . Provide access to the Valleys existing and. Moderate proposed recreation areas, such as local parks, the Blue Ridge Parkway, and the Appalachian Tra if. . Inform the public on how using the greenways . Moderate can help citizens increase personnel fitness and maintain healthy lifestyles. . Educate the community on the importance of. Moderate environmental conservation and restoration ecology. Develop a program of continuing education for. Low elected officials, agency staff, developers and engineers to define the latest technologies, design methodologies and land use practices for managing the environment. Increase public awareness of the importance of. Moderate the Roanoke River and its watershed lands to the future of the Roanoke Valley . Educate the public on the benefits and uses of. Moderate green ways. Develop an out-reach education program to attract new users. . Educate property owners of the economic . Low advantages of having a greenway on or near their property . Educate greenway system users on proper. Moderate greenway system etiquette that respects the rights of adjacent property owners and other green way system users. . Use the greenway system as an outdoor. Moderate Environmental Learning Lab for school and community use. . Provide historic information using trail markers . Low along historically significant trail corridors. . Provide maps and literature on trail length, . Moderate difficulty, restrictions and amenities. . Utilize the greenway system as an economic . Low development marketing tool for the Roanoke Valley. . Use greenway linkages to compliment and. Moderate enhance tourist attractions. . Document economic benefits of green ways, such . Low as increasing the value of land that lies contiguous to a greenway and the benefits to a new business locating in the Roanoke Valley. Objectives/Strategies Quoted from 1995 Plan Progress Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 2-15 2-16 5. Economic Development (continued) 6. Environmental Design a plan that preserves, promotes and enhances the Valleys environmental assets. 7. Organizational and Operational Implement the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan on a regional level and proceed with future greenway system planning and implementation. . Establish a mechanism to ensure continuing . maintenance of the green ways, such as using volunteers to keep maintenance costs low and starting Adopt-A-Greenway program. Utilize tax incentives, easements and other . approaches to encourage individuals and businesses to donate land, funding or materials. Establish procedures for subdivision developers . to provide donations of land or rights-ot-way for green way systems. Utilize existing rights-ot-way, utility corridors, and . other features to lower installation costs. Explore and obtain multiple sources of funding . for green ways. Encourage localities to include greenways as a . flood reduction strategy in the Roanoke Reaional Storm water Manaaement Plan. Develop a valley-wide strategy for protecting . natural stream corridors and other open space, plus a mitigation program for addressing resources that have been adversely altered by land development. Promote green ways as an alternative. transportation mode that can help reduce air pollution. Utilize areas adjacent to greenways as natural . areas that protect, maintain, or restore natural vegetation and aquatic and wildlife habitats. Design greenways to reduce non-point source . pollution in storm water runoff. Utilize greenways as buffer zones between . developed area and open spaces. Obtain local government and citizen support for . the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan. Respond to citizen concerns such as safety . issues and user conflicts in the establishment and operation of the green way system. Establish standards for the design, operation, . and maintenance of the green way system. Ensure that an organizational structure exists for . regional planning, implementation, and operation of green ways in the Roanoke Valley. Establish a non-profit organization to launch a . public awareness campaign, volunteer programs and fundraising efforts Select a pilot green way project and implement it. . Pursue implementation of other elements of the . Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moderate Moderate Low Low Moderate Moderate None Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate Low High High High Moderate Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3 Purpose and Process for the Update Need for Update to the 1995 Conceptual Greenway Plan Description of the Study Area Funding for the Update Establishment of a Steering Committee Procurement of Professional Greenway Planning Services Community Involvement 3-1 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-4 3-4 3.0 PURPOSE AND PROCESS FOR THE UPDATE 3.1 Need for Update to the 1995 Conceptual Greenway Plan The 1995 Plan included a valley-wide map of potential greenway corridors. The corridors were broad-brush routes with minimal study of topography, green infrastructure, public health, private land issues, and economic development. It served the greenway process well in its initial endeavors, but over the years, as routes became better defined, some corridors were deemed unpractical or, at best, low on the respective jurisdiction's priority lists. As jurisdictions refined their own greenway priorities and other plans such as the Bikeway Plan were developed, the 1995 Plan became more dated. In 1995, greenways were a new concept to many in the valley, and staff from the four localities was still struggling with how greenways would be developed and managed. Today, citizens, governments, businesses, and civic leaders recognize the many benefits of greenways, including transportation, open space protection, flood mitigation, encouragement of healthy lifestyles, conservation, recreation, aesthetic improvement, and quality of life. Many developers are interested in including trails and greenways in residential and industrial developments and seek guidance on how to do this. The Greenway Commission has worked with adjacent counties on blueways, with the City of Roanoke on equestrian and mountain bike opportunities at Carvins Cove, and with the Blue Ridge Parkway to complete a trail plan that allows connections of greenways to Parkway trails. Since the 1995 Plan was completed, many related plans have been updated including comprehensive, neighborhood, and transportation plans. An Update to the 1995 Plan was needed to accurately reflect present conditions and facilitate coordination among the Greenway Commission, local governments, federal and state agencies, and other stakeholders in the future development of a regional greenway network. It was time to re-Iook at the 1995 Plan maps and better define the routes utilizing the experience of ten years of greenway development and planning. There were other issues a new plan would need to address. Many in the community felt the process of implementing the greenway program was too slow. Although over 19 miles of trail have been constructed, many felt that there had to be a faster, more efficient means of getting greenways financed and built. While conceptual master plans have been developed for 45 miles of greenway, these plans have not always led subsequently to preliminary engineering, acquisition of right-of-way, and construction, and have seldom been officially adopted by the affected localities. In some cases opportunities for right-of-way donations have been "missed" because master plans were either not completed or not adopted. On occasions grant funding for construction has been received prior to engineering and right-of-way acquisition, making it difficult to meet deadlines. On other occasions grants have been received before matching funds have been secured. The Greenway Commission felt that a comprehensive review of the process was in order. That meant reviewing financial alternatives, engineering methods, procurement for construction, construction management, the role of the Greenway Commission, the role of the Greenway Coordinator, and a host of other issues. This update Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 3-1 3-2 was an opportunity for the localities and Greenway Commission to look at the past ten years and create a document that would serve the community for the next decade. The Update to the 1995 Plan is the product of a collaborative effort among the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission, local governments, citizens, and other stakeholders. Other objectives of this Update are to harness the synergy among neighborhood and civic leaders, corporations, staff, and elected officials and to identify improvements needed to ensure that our greenway network provides seamless transportation corridors that capitalize on and showcase the green infrastructure and natural character of the Roanoke Valley. 3.2 Description of the Study Area The Roanoke Valley is located in southwest Virginia, within 500 miles of many of the major population, business, and economic regions of the United States. The valley is bisected by Interstate 81, which generally runs south to north, and the Roanoke River, which generally runs west to east. While some waters in Roanoke County flow to the James River and Chesapeake Bay, most of the valley is in the Upper Roanoke River drainage which flows to the Albemarle Sound in North Carolina. Nestled between the Blue Ridge and Allegheny Mountain ranges, the Roanoke Valley is surrounded by mountains and benefits from many natural resources and public lands. These public lands are shown in green on the map included in this Update and include the Jefferson and George Washington National Forests, the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Appalachian Trail, Havens Wildlife Management Area, Virginia's Explore Park, Carvins Cove Reserve, Spring Hollow Reservoir, and Poor Mountain Preserve. The table below shows that the population of the four localities in 2005 was 205,457. While the City of Roanoke has experienced population loss since 1990, it remains the largest locality represented in the Greenway Commission. Overall the valley's growth is limited, with Roanoke County experiencing the most increase in population since 1990. Total Population and Percent Change Cit of Roanoke 92,631 Cit of Salem 24,654 Roanoke County* 88,172 Total Population 199,600 205,436 205,457 * Includes the Town of Vinton. In 2000, the population of the Town of Vinton was 7,782. Source: US Census Bureau Given the 2005 population and the total number of completed greenway miles (205,457 population 7 19.95 miles), the current mileage per capita is one mile of greenway for every 10,300 people. One of the case studies completed by LandDesign shows that Knoxville, TN has one mile per 6,600 people. Based on national standards, Pros Consulting has Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 recommended to the City of Roanoke that it strive for one mile of greenway per 3,300 people. Because obesity is one of the largest health issues in the Roanoke Valley, active living, walk ability, and proximity to greenways and parks have become increasingly important aspects of addressing health issues. The table below provides the total land area and population density for Roanoke Valley localities. The Town of Vinton has the highest population density with approximately 2,432 persons per square mile. Roanoke County is the least densely populated locality in the study area, with approximately 315 persons per square mile. Much of the County's population is in areas adjacent to the cities of Roanoke and Salem. Land Area and Population Density, 2000 City of Roanoke Cit of Salem Roanoke County* Town of Vinton Total * Does not include the Town of Vinton. Source: US Census Bureau 43.0 14.0 247.8 2207 1768 315 3.2 308.0 2432 The table below lists population projections for the four localities, through 2030. The combined population is expected to be over 218,000 by 2030. This represents a 6.2 percent increase over the 2005 population. The populations of the cities of Roanoke and Salem are projected to remain relatively stable over this period while Roanoke County is expected to account for the vast majority of growth. Population increases may translate into greater demand for an expanded Greenway system in the Roanoke Valley. Population Projections - 2010, 2020, and 2030 City of Roanoke City of Salem Roanoke County* Total Population * Includes the Town of Vinton Source: Virginia Employment Commission 93,400 25,401 90,500 209,301 92,398 25,898 95,000 213,296 92,399 26,299 99,499 218,197 3.3 Funding of the Update In the winter of 2005 the Virginia Department of Transportation announced that it would provide grant funding under the Pilot Transportation Planning Grant Program to address planning for special transportation needs. The Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 3-3 Commission, partnering with the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission, applied for one of these grants to fund an update to the regional greenway plan. In July 2005 the Regional Commission received $73,000 in grant funding to update the greenway plan. Funding from the grant program was used to contract with the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission and a private consultant for assistance in the update process. The Regional Commission also contributed transportation planning funding, staff hours, and a cash match to the project. Funded through transportation based monies, the Update does focus, as did the 1995 Plan, on those corridors which will include a trail, but the Update also considers the broad range of benefits of greenways as linear parks, as cited in Section 1.3. 3.4 Establishment of a Steering Committee A Steering Committee was formed to guide the update process. Steering Committee members included: Liz Belcher (Roanoke Valley Greenway Coordinator) Cristina Finch (City of Roanoke, Planning Division) Michael Gray (Virginia Department of Transportation) Bill Gordge (Pathfinders for Greenways) Anita McMillan (Town of Vinton, Department of Planning and Zoning) Linda Oberlender (Pathfinders for Greenways) Shane Sawyer (Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission) Janet Scheid (Roanoke County, Department of Community Development) Ian Shaw (City of Roanoke, Planning Division) Benjamin Tripp (City of Salem, Department of Planning and Development) Donnie Underwood (City of Roanoke, Department of Parks and Recreation) Lon Williams (Roanoke County, Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism) Donald Witt (Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission) 3.5 Procurement of Professional Greenway Planning Services In August 2005 the Regional Commission advertised for professional assistance with the update. A consultant was sought to complete a management analysis, develop alternative funding strategies, provide comparisons with other communities, and recommend implementation strategies. LandDesign Inc., based in Charlotte, North Carolina, was selected to assist in the update process. 3.6 Community Involvement The Steering Committee and consultant designed a variety of methods for involving the public, staff, and elected officials in the update to the greenway plan. Because the greenway program requires large outlays of capital funds to get greenways built and then operational funds to maintain them, political support is crucial. Greenway users and citizens can support the localities' allocation of funds and provide backing to staff and elected officials on issues such as right-of-way acquisition. Greenway users often know routes and opportunities better than staff and thus provide important input on routes. The methods for obtaining community input and the various comments are summarized in Section 4 and Appendix C. 3-4 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4 Community Involvement and Input Public Input Meetings Input from Elected Officials and Staff Corporate Input Input from Other Sources Discussion of Issues Goals 4-1 4-1 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-16 4.0 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND INPUT The Steering Committee and consultant selected a variety of methods for involving citizens, staff, and elected officials in the update to the greenway plan. These methods included: Citizens: . Two input meetings, one February 16, 2006 and one on June 8, 2006 . Continuous updates to the Regional Commission website, with on-line comment form and message board . Presentations to a variety of user and civic groups Staff: . Review of routes and priorities . Assessment of routes . Interviews with consultant . Steering Committee review of materials and development of plan . Greenway Commission assessment of roles and responsibilities Elected Officials: . Interviews with consultant . Presentation by consultant at Metropolitan Planning Organization and Regional Commission . Presentation by Greenway Commission at City Councils, Town Council, and Board of Supervisors meetings Input from these various sources is summarized in this section. 4.1 Public Input Meetings Two public meetings were held to receive input on routes and greenway-related issues. 4.1.1 First Public Input Meeting The initial public input meeting was held on February 16, 2006 from 7:00-9:00 p.m. at the Roanoke Civic Center Exhibition Hall. This meeting was well attended with more than 125 people providing input and discussion on a range of greenway issues including: . Vision . Route Priorities . Problems . Improvements Needed . Community and Public Involvement Stakeholders had the opportunity to identify routes on maps and provide comments by completing a public input form and/or A large crowd attended the first public input meeting. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 4-1 4-2 participating in facilitated break-out sessions. The public input form was also made available on the website to be completed by those who could not attend the meeting. During the break-out sessions, facilitators guided the discussion of the questions from the public input form and recorded/displayed the groups' comments. Following the break-out sessions, each group provided a brief summary of the discussion to the larger audience. The compiled public input from the first public meeting is provided in Appendix C. The Steering Committee and consultant distilled this input into key issues. Citizens provided feedback at break-out comment sessions at first public meeting. Public Input Meeting #1 · Key Issues . Prioritize routes to better focus effort to get greenways on the ground - Priority #1: Roanoke River Greenway. . Promote connectivity between greenways and other activity centers /destinations. . Provide additional greenway information - signage, mapping, kiosks. . Provide additional amenities along greenways - trash bins, restrooms, signs, benches. . Increase publicity and promotion of greenways - races, special events, etc. . Promote sponsorship by corporations and adoption by neighborhoods. . Recognize greenways as an economic generator. . Recognize that some public lands are managed for specific purposes, e.g. Carvins Cove and Spring Hollow for watershed protection, Havens Wildlife Management Area for hunting, the Blue Ridge Parkway as a recreational motor road, the Appalachian Trail as a foot path for hikers. 4.1.2 Second Public Input Meeting The second public input meeting was held on June 8, 2006 from 7:00-9:00 p.m. at Virginia Western Community College. Between the first and second public meetings, the Steering Committee reviewed and analyzed input from the first meeting, held staff meetings in each locality to discuss priorities, field checked some routes, and revised maps. Approximately 80 people attended the second meeting. Staff and the consultant presented the key issues from the February meeting and the prioritization of greenways developed by the Steering Committee. Citizens review maps at the second public meeting. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 The focus of this meeting was to present to the public some of the challenges faced by local governments and to get public input on methods of addressing these concerns. The critical issues to be addressed were: . Priorities of Routes . Acquisition Methods . Funding . Other Initiatives . Organization After the presentation, participants were given the opportunity to fill in a comment sheet and to express their opinions on alternatives under each issue, using a dot exercise. Comment sheets were also available. Public Input Meeting #2 - Key Comments . Finish the Roanoke River Greenway in the next five years. . Create an aggressive land acquisition program to acquire the right-of-way, using all methods of acquisition. . Use a variety of funding methods, including a bond, local government contributions, corporate donations, and private/public sponsorships. . Increase information on existing greenways. . Increase greenway staffing to facilitate greenway development. The results of the dot exercise are shown in Appendix C. The issues from the public input meeting are discussed further below in Section 4.5. 4.2 Input from Elected Officials and Staff 4.2.1 Presentations to Regional Commission and Metropolitan Planning Organization The consultant made presentations to the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission and the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization on April 27, 2006. At these meetings Regional Commissioners and MPO representatives were asked to review various possible funding mechanisms and indicate their level of support for each mechanism and to provide any additional comments. 4.2.2 Key Stakeholder Interviews The consultant conducted qualitative telephone interviews with key stakeholders during the month of April 2006 to gain an understanding of perceptions and attitudes towards greenway development. The Steering Committee provided the consultant with a list of key stakeholders - elected officials, chief administrative officers, department heads, and other decision makers. From this list, the consultant conducted fifteen qualitative, anonymous, telephone interviews consisting of nine qualitative discussion questions pertaining to general greenway development and greenway specific funding. Most of those interviewed supported greenways and understood the connection to economic development. Most were willing to consider a Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 4-3 4-4 variety of funding options, but unwilling to use condemnation to obtain the land. A summary of the Key Stakeholder Interviews is provided in Appendix C. 4.2.3 Work Sessions with Elected Officials Between June and October of 2006 the Greenway Commission met with each locality's elected officials at either a work session or a Council/Board meeting. There was significant support for greenways, but also continued concern about right-of-way acquisition and questions about the process for deciding the location when the north and south sides of the river were in different jurisdictions. 4.2.4 Input from Staff and Greenway Organizations The Steering Committee and consultant used several methods to obtain additional input from the Greenway Commission, Pathfinders for Greenways, and local staff. These included homework assignments, a survey, discussion of organizational options at meetings, and assessment of who should be doing various tasks. 4.3 Corporate Input After the first public input meeting in February of 2006, the Greenway Commission was approached by Ted Melnik, president of Novozymes Biologicals, Inc., for information about the greenway program. On April 4 Novozymes held a press conference to announce its support and commitment of $50,000/year for the next five years to help complete the Roanoke River Greenway. Mr. Melnik has made numerous presentations to solicit additional Ted Melnik, president of Novozymes Biologicals, corporate and business support for the presents a $50,000 check to the Greenway greenway program. An economic study Commission to show corporate support for finishing completed by Dr. Sabine O'Hara for the Roanoke River Greenway. Roanoke Business Council also emphasizes the importance of greenways and trails to attracting businesses to the region. Many corporate leaders have lived in other areas with more extensive greenway networks and recognize the importance of these facilities to their employees. A frequent request from the business community has been to see a business or implementation plan for the Roanoke River Greenway. The Greenway Commission has now asked the Steering Committee to work on compiling the necessary information and developing an implementation plan for Roanoke River Greenway through all jurisdictions. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 4.4 Input from Other Sources 4.4.1 Case Studies The consultant prepared four case studies, comparing the Roanoke Valley Greenway program to the efforts in Charlotte, NC, Indianapolis, IN, Knoxville, TN, and on the Washington and Old Dominion Trail in northern Virginia. These studies revealed organizational differences, as well as different sources of funding. The case studies are included in Appendix D. 4.4.2 Local Park Plans During the time that the Greenway Plan update was being developed, Roanoke County was engaged in a year-long process to write its first Parks Master Plan and the City of Roanoke began a process of updating its 2000 Parks Master Plan. At the public meetings for both of these processes, there was strong support for greenways. Roanoke County's process included a statistically valid survey of County residents, asking about their needs and support for park facilities. This survey showed that more households (590~) felt a need for greenways than for any other park facility. Greenway development was the action most supported to improve parks and recreation facilities. The County Park Master Plan recommends increasing greenways and park trails. In the City of Roanoke's master plan update, a statistically valid survey of residents also showed greenways and walking/biking trails as the park facility most needed, with 50.20~ of respondents finding it very important. When asked what actions were needed to improve parks and recreation facilities, development of walking/biking trails was again the first choice of respondents. 4.4.3 Blueways In fall of 2005 the Greenway Commission was approached by a group of "blueway" advocates proposing that the Greenway Commission expand its role to include blueways. After a series of meetings, the group summarized its request in a letter stating that the goal of the blueways initiative was to "ensure the protection, preservation and appropriate economic and recreational use of the valley's waterways, particularly those waterways that interface with greenways and other open spaces." The Greenway Commission was asked to consider including in its work: education on stream and river issues, study of watershed land use with consideration of sedimentation and pollution loads, coordination of monitoring and stewardship, coordination of media relations, coordination of blueway clean-ups and water quality mitigation, partnering with community organizations, promotion of recreation and tourism, support of historic preservation along the river, and promotion of neighborhood utilization and adoption of blueways. The Greenway Commission decided to consider this request during the update to the 1995 Plan and to ask the consultant to assess the feasibility of including blueways in the Greenway Commission mission. This is discussed in Section 4.5.13. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 4-5 4-6 4.5 Discussion of Issues The Steering Committee and Greenway Commission have tried to address the issues raised by the public and by elected officials and staff. The discussion below provides some background to these issues and some of the rationale used in developing the implementation strategies presented in Section 6. Some of the issues are applicable in all four jurisdictions; others are not. The intent is to show how the greenway program, with all its partners, has evolved and how the partners might continue to work together to improve the greenway network. The issues to be addressed are: Issue# Issue Source of Issue 1 Prioritization of routes Public meetings, corporations 2 Connectivity between greenways Public meetings 3 Greenway signage and information Public meetings 4 Greenway amenities Public meetings 5 Publicity and promotion Public meetings, elected officials 6 Sponsorships Public meetings, elected officials, corporations 7 Economic development Public meetings, corporations 8 Trails on other public lands Staff from other agencies 9 Land acquisition for greenways Elected officials, staff 10 Funding Elected officials, staff, corporations 11 Staffing for greenway projects; roles and Public meetings, staff responsibilities 12 Timeliness of implementation Public meetings, corporations 13 Slueways Slueway group 14 Design, management and operations Staff, public meetings 4.5.1 Prioritization of Routes When the greenway program began, greenway advocates and staff agreed that it was important to get some trails on the ground and build grassroots support for the program. Each of the greenways built to date was initiated because of some factors which simplified implementation. In many cases the land was already in public ownership, and thus the most difficult of issues, right-of-way acquisition, was avoided. While Roanoke River Greenway has always been considered the priority project, construction of the greenway had to be coordinated around other public works projects, specifically the sewer interceptor line replacement and the flood reduction project. While the greenway was not built with the sewer line replacement, acquisition of land for that project did simplify completing the greenway in the Cities of Salem and Roanoke. The Roanoke River Greenway is now a component of the flood reduction project in the City of Roanoke, and federal funds are paying 50o~ of the cost of trail installation. Thus, coordination with these projects has Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 helped, albeit slowly, to build resources for completion of Roanoke River Greenway, and the flood project is now moving in a timely fashion. The priorities in the 1995 Plan were based on public input at the time (See Section 2.4.3). To the extent that these projects fall within the jurisdiction of the four local governments, progress has been made on implementation. The priorities identified then which have seen little progress are those which require action by another agency, such as Virginia Department of Transportation or the Slue Ridge Parkway. Some projects that were not priorities were implemented as a result of unique opportunities, such as coordination with other projects. An example would be a portion of Lick Run Greenway, which was coordinated with the interchange construction for Valley View Extension. A key comment during the update has been that the greenway program needs to be more focused on fewer projects and that the projects need to connect to provide longer trail opportunities. The priorities in this Update are based on input from citizens, staff, elected officials, and corporations, assessments of feasibility, importance to the regional network, benefits, opportunities, and resources. The projects have been divided into four priorities. (See Chapter 5.) The rationale for these priorities is: Priority #1 Route: This will be the most important project, Roanoke River Greenway. It will be the only #1 priority, in order to focus efforts on finishing it within five years. This greenway offers the longest route when finished, the most opportunity for economic development on adjacent lands, the greatest attraction for tourists, the most recreation and health benefit for residents, the most opportunity for special events such as marathons, the most opportunity for water based recreation such as canoeing and fishing, the most opportunity to enhance appreciation of environmental resources, and the most opportunity to be a regional asset. Roanoke River Greenway is the "backbone" of the greenway network. Priority #2 Routes: These are important regional greenways, already underway, which could be finished in 5-10 years. They include five north-south routes connecting to Roanoke River Greenway and three destination sites with clusters of trails. These routes provide the major side corridors of the greenway network. Priority #3 Routes: These greenways are priorities within specific localities. These are important at the local level for enhancement of neighborhood values, economic development and public health. The goal is to finish these in 5-10 years. Most have already had some work done, such as planning or acquiring right-of-way. Some are neighborhood priorities. Priority #4 Routes: These are other greenway projects to be addressed as opportunity and resources arise. Included in this group are several routes that Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 4-7 4-8 have strong citizen support but no resources in terms of land or funding. Also included are clusters of trails on other public lands that help provide connectivity for the greenway network. 4.5.2 Connectivity among Greenways Because of the initial approach of building greenways where public land or right-of-way was already available, many of the greenways are short and do not have good connections to other greenways, trails or destinations. An interconnected, regional, greenway trail network provides a range of benefits - transportation, economic, environmental, and health - that, collectively and individually, improve the overall quality of life for residents of the Roanoke Valley. The need to promote greater connectivity among greenways and other activity centers/destinations was identified as a key issue at the public input meetings. Increasing connectivity between the greenway and trail networks and the transportation and recreation infrastructure can be accomplished through the development of a variety of accommodations. These could be temporary measures until a greenway is completed or they may be the long-term plan. These accommodations could include: Sidewalks Paved shoulders Bike lanes Wide travel lanes Shared streets and roadways Roadways with "Share the Road" signs Path adjacent to roadway Trails or other routes Neighborhood streets Alleys Signage and pavement markings Spot improvements Connectivity between greenways could be improved by on-road way finding and signage. Street maintenance and signage are locality functions within the Cities of Roanoke and Salem and the Town of Vinton; in Roanoke County the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is responsible for road maintenance. Under VDOT's new policy for integrating bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, the local district has initiated efforts to pave shoulders, erect signs, and stripe lanes in ways that improve bicycle safety and use. This issue will need to be addressed not only through construction of greenways but also through better identification of user needs, greater coordination between departments in each locality, better signage, and improvements to road and sidewalk infrastructure. The Regional Commission's new Mobility Map is a first step, as it helps show the connectivity among greenway trails, bike lanes, and bus routes. 4.5.3 Greenway Signage and Information A key issue noted during the Update process was the need for additional information on existing greenways. Examples of ways to improve information include signage and route markers, information kiosks, web site information, and brochures at visitor centers. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 4.5.3.1 Signage and Route Markers The public input process cited the need for additional signage and route markers along greenways to assist users. Confusion for users is often due to insufficient number of signs, but may also be due to a combination of factors such as insufficient size/height or placement of the signs or route markers. Greenway signage across the Roanoke Valley varies considerably between different greenways as well as along individual routes. Signs are particularly important at greenway termini, when a greenway crosses roads or parking lots, or when a route changes from off- road to on-road. The photos above show the efforts to provide signage, pavement markings, and route markers along the Mill Mountain Greenway in the City of Roanoke. This greenway is at times off-road and at other times on sidewalks and streets. Although signage is adequate in some places, citizen comments have indicated that pavement markings and way finding posts are not always visible from a distance. A balance needs to be maintained with sensitivity to providing for user needs while limiting vertical signage that might detract from natural scenery and attractive landscapes. In addition to signage to assist in way finding, public input indicated the need for additional mileage markers, interpretive signs (cultural, historical), and environmental education. The need for increased consistency in greenway signage was also noted. A concern for the localities is cost control. Several departments have the ability to make metal-backed street signs themselves. Wooden or routed signs are usually more expensive. Within each locality signage design criteria need to be compatible with locality requirements, while meeting the user needs and recognizing the regional greenway network. 4.5.3.2Information Kiosk Kiosks are available downtown near the market, at Mill Mountain Star, at the Discovery Center, at Wolf Creek Greenway in Goode and Stonebridge Parks, at Stewarts Knob on the Blue Ridge Parkway, and at Fishburn Park. Ideally these should display mapping, contact information, Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 4-9 4-10 interpretive information, and greenway descriptions. The kiosks could also promote greenway connections and educate the public on benefits of a greenway network. While several of the kiosks have been built by volunteers, localities have standards for signage and publications that volunteers may not be able to address. Maps and educational information for kiosks are items which require professional development and approval by the localities. 4.5.3.3 Web Sites and Brochures The Greenway Commission's web site is www.qreenwavs.orq.Maintenance of the site and posting of timely information has been sporadic. Each locality and the Regional Commission also post greenway information on their web sites. In 1998 the Greenway Commission developed a greenway brochure with maps and information on benefits, volunteering, and greenway history. (This was revised and reprinted in 2003.) In 2002 the Pathfinders developed a less expensive brochure for users with sketched maps and drawings. This is currently being updated. Brochures for individual greenways have occasionally been developed prior to ribbon cuttings, but there is no family of brochures for the greenways. The Greenway Commission recognizes that the Internet is currently the most important source of information for many people. Pathfinders for Greenways have obtained a donation to pay for redesigning the web site. After this is done, maintenance of the site by either staff or volunteers will be an on-going need. 4.5.4 Greenway Amenities The public has requested greenway amenities such as toilet facilities, trash receptacles, bike racks, water fountains, benches, and lighting. In the past the localities and Greenway Commission have focused on getting the trail built and have added amenities later as funds or donations became available. Amenities requiring infrastructure are more difficult to add than benches and trees. Flush toilets and water fountains which can be open year round require frost proof lines, which are often not available. Lighting requires conduit and operational funds. In the past the localities have opted not to provide lights because parks are closed at night. Ultimately, all amenities require maintenance, whether it is bi-weekly trash removal or biennial painting. Localities are challenged to provide amenities and pay operational costs of maintaining them. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 At this time the addition of amenities to greenways can be a piece meal process. Localities may be approached with donations, grants, Eagle Scout projects, requests, and suggestions. The localities and Greenway Commission need to work together to develop a process for utilizing donations, providing consistent facilities, utilizing energy and water free designs, and maintaining amenities. 4.5.5 Publicity and Promotion Citizens and elected officials recognize that the Roanoke Valley greenway program needs more publicity and promotion. Common complaints are that many people don't know about the greenways, it is hard to find information, it is hard to locate the greenways, and it is difficult to know when you are on a greenway. Improvement to signage, information, and the web site (See 4.5.3) will address part of this issue. Another component is that greenways could be used more frequently for special events such as races and walks and for fundraisers for monies to speed up greenway construction. 4.5.6 Sponsorships Citizens and corporations suggested sponsorships as a method by which they could be involved and provide funding for greenways. A neighborhood or civic group initially sponsored several greenways. Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail was initially a project of the Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Foundation. The Greater Raleigh Court Civic League has sponsored Murray Run Greenway. Sponsorships by corporations could be a method for providing capital funds for construction as well as annual maintenance monies. Other communities, such as Laguna, CA, recognize sponsors who provide funding for greenway maintenance with small signs along the trails. Corporations are also often willing to provide manpower of employees for special projects like clean-ups or plantings. Companies adjacent to greenways are particularly good candidates to be sponsors, as greenway users would recognize their contribution and proximity to the trail. Development of a regional "adopt-a-greenway" program has been difficult because of the localities' different approaches to liability, volunteerism, and risk management. The City of Roanoke has developed a Greenway Sponsorship program, which is utilized for adopting greenway sections. A similar system could be adapted to fit each jurisdiction's needs. The benefits include not only the manpower for minor maintenance like trash pick-up but also the ownership and watch functions that daily users can provide. 4.5.7 Economic Development Citizens and corporations have recognized the importance of greenways for economic development. In 2003-04 the Greenway Commission assisted with a state sponsored study of the economic impact of the Virginia Creeper, Washington & Old Dominion, and New River trails. This study confirmed that these trails are important economic generators for surrounding communities. The economic study by Dr. O'Hara (see 4.3) recognized trails as an important quality of life attraction for employees. Several corporate executives have been promoting greenways as important to their ability to attract employees and as a factor in their location in Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 4-11 4-12 the Roanoke Valley. Real estate agents and developers have already recognized the value of greenways and trails, and use this asset in advertising. The Roanoke River Greenway in particular has potential to contribute to the economic vitality of the Riverside Centre and other industrial complexes. Other communities also see small business impacts once greenways of substantial length are built. 4.5.8 Trails on Other Public Lands Within the Valley there are federal, state and local lands which are managed for specific purposes and include trail networks. Many citizens voiced their need to be connected to these trail systems. Agency personnel expressed concern for recognition of their specific management direction. The Steering Committee recognized the following federal, state, and local trail networks as important destinations for greenway users. In response to public input and with consideration of agency concerns, these trails are included in this plan as existing networks which are destinations within the greenway network. These are described in more detail in Section 5. Federal: . Appalachian National Scenic Trail, managed for foot travel only . Blue Ridge Parkway, Chestnut Ridge Trail, managed for pedestrian and horse use, may be proposed for multiple use . Blue Ridge Parkway Horse Trail, managed for pedestrian and horse use . Jefferson and George Washington National Forest trails, managed for multiple use State: . Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Birding and Wildlife Trail, a mapped network of existing local and state park sites where birding and wildlife observation are available . Havens Wildlife Management Area trails and roads, managed for hunting and wildlife observation . Virginia's Explore Park trails, hiking and mountain biking . Poor Mountain Preserve, a Natural Heritage preserve, hiking trails Local: . Carvins Cove Natural Reserve trails, multiple use . Green Hill Park trails, multiple use . Mill Mountain Park trails, multiple use but hiking only on Star Trail . Spring Hollow Reservoir trails, not yet developed, proposed for multiple use Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 Within locality parks there are other trails providing on-site recreation opportunities. These are not included in the Greenway Plan unless they provide connections to destinations beyond the park. 4.5.9 Land Acquisition for Greenways Elected officials recognize land acquisition as the most sensitive issue for greenway development. The four localities own and operate the greenways. Because of the linear nature of greenways, many properties may be crossed. Some greenway easements have been donated and others proffered as part of rezonings. The City of Roanoke has acquired numerous properties for Lick Run, Mill Mountain, and Roanoke River Greenways. Roanoke River properties were bought in conjunction with the flood reduction project, where City Council has authorized condemnation if needed. Elected officials from other jurisdictions have expressed reluctance to consider using condemnation but are amenable to donation or purchase. The City of Salem acquired many properties along the river when installing the sewer line and is proceeding with acquisition of easements needed for Roanoke River Greenway. 4.5.10 Funding Construction costs for greenways have increased dramatically in the last five years and are expected to continue to do so. Costs vary depending on the trail surface and the terrain. Volunteers can build natural surface trails at minimal cost. Class B trails with cinder surface cost $40,000-$100,000/ mile. Paved greenways in urban areas have ranged from $150,000- $800,000/mile. Bridges increase those costs. The Roanoke River Greenway alone is projected to cost $30 million. Funding for the greenway program has come from a variety of sources. (See Section 2.4.6.) The Roanoke Valley has received at least one Transportation Enhancement grant every year since 1995; this funding requires a 20o~ match. At least one locality has received a Virginia Recreational Trails grant every year also; these also require match. The Greenway Commission has assisted the localities with submission of these applications. In 2000 the Greenway Commission requested that the localities provide capital funding every year to get the Roanoke River Greenway completed. The City of Roanoke responded by putting $200,000 per year in its capital funds for greenways every year starting in 2001, and it has set up a multi-year action plan for its greenway effort through 2010. In 1999 the Greenway Commission received a challenge grant of $100,000 from a private foundation for Roanoke River Greenway in Salem. With the help of Salem staff the Greenway Commission raised the matching funds, but that effort took a year. The Greenway Commission is not currently staffed or set up for fundraising activities and campaigns. During LandDesign's review of funding issues, it concluded that the program is overly dependent on Transportation Enhancement Funds. The consultant's recommendation was that private giving increase to 250~ of costs and locality contributions to 50o~. The consultant recommended obtaining funding from all four sources (federal, state, local, private) every year. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 4-13 4-14 4.5.11 Staffing Roles and Responsibility When the greenway program began, the four localities' representatives to the steering committee were planning staff. With formation of the Greenway Commission, parks and planning staff became ex-officio members of the Greenway Commission. In the early years some projects were coordinated by locality staff, and, for others, the Greenway Commission, Greenway Coordinator, and Pathfinders were important players. Many times the roles were dictated by the source of funding for the project, with paved trails with larger budgets requiring involvement of a variety of staff while natural surfaced trails involved more volunteers. As greenways were built, it became clear that staff from a variety of departments needed to be involved and that ultimately the parks departments were responsible for maintenance and management. Today the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County each have park planners responsible for greenway planning within the parks departments to lead local project planning and construction management. Over the years the Greenway Coordinator has assumed different roles in projects, depending on the needs of the localities. Because the roles and responsibilities have evolved, there have been times when responsibilities were unclear. As part of this update the Greenway Commission and Regional Commission included an organizational analysis, which has been completed by the consultant, LandDesign. LandDesign has provided an outsider's perspective and has evaluated roles and responsibilities for the different partners. The recommendations of that analysis will need to be addressed further by the Greenway Commission and localities and may be further defined through revisions to the Intergovernmental Agreement. 4.5.12 Timeliness of Implementation Corporations and citizens have voiced concern about progress on greenways, particularly Roanoke River Greenway. The public wants to see Roanoke River Greenway completed within five years. To focus the valley's efforts and address this issue the Steering Committee developed priorities. (See Section 4.5.1.) In addition, the purpose of the organizational analysis was to improve efficiency. Efficient implementation requires a well defined project timeline, aggressive land acquisition, and continuous funding. Clear responsibilities and good coordination are needed to accomplish this. 4.5.13 Blueways The blueway group which approached the Greenway Commission in 2005 was actually looking for coordination of multiple activities along major streams and the river. While the term blueway could be interpreted to mean any stream or water body, it is generally used interchangeably with "water trail". (See Virginia Outdoors Plan, Thus blueways are rivers and streams with sufficient depth and access to provide opportunity for water trails for canoeing and kayaking. Common blueway amenities and features include canoe and kayak access points, parking, route information on kiosks or maps, markers, toilet facilities, and outfitters for rentals and shuttles. The designated blueways closest to the Roanoke Valley are the New River Blueway, the James River Water Trail, and the Pigg River and Blackwater River Blueways in Franklin County. While the Greenway Commission and Steering Committee recognize the concerns of this group, they felt that the only opportunity in the valley for a blueway as a water trail is on Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 Roanoke River. Other activities on smaller streams such as monitoring, land use studies, and clean-ups are the purview of other organizations and agencies. Should the four localities choose to enlarge the scope of the Greenway Commission, it would require substantial changes in organizational structure and staffing. Currently, the Roanoke River has many of the amenities associated with blueways. Local governments maintain several public access points along the river, and a commercial outdoors store is adjacent to the river on Apperson Drive. Amenities at public access points vary, but generally include parking areas, launching points for canoes, kayaks, and light boats, and trash receptacles. Many of these access points are located at public parks with additional land-based amenities (picnic tables and shelters, playgrounds, restrooms, and water fountains) or are in close proximity to commercial establishments. Numerous bridges crossing the Roanoke River provide emergency access for water related search and rescue situations. Moreover, once completed, the Roanoke River Greenway would provide access along the entire length of a Roanoke River Blueway. Canoe access sign in Wasena Park. Stream flows and water levels in Roanoke River are sufficient for blueway activities for about half the year. Typically in the summer flows may drop to levels that are not conducive to paddling (e.g., sections may not be floatable or vessels may scrape bottom.) The river level can increase significantly following periods of moderate to heavy precipitation. Real-time stream flow data for the Roanoke River Basin is available at: htt ://waterdata.us s. ov/va/nwis/current/?t e=flow& rou ke =basin cd. While the Roanoke River flows unimpeded through much of the valley, obstacles do exist; which may require portage. Underwater utility lines may be crossed during high water but not low; low water bridges may be passed in low water but not high. Obstacles that always require portage are the ledge in Wasena Park, the two low water bridges in Smith Park, and Niagara Dam. The Niagara Dam portage is on the left side of the river and, at one-quarter mile long, is the most physically demanding. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 4-15 4-16 4.5.14 Design, Management, and Operations This issue encompasses a range of concerns raised by the public and staff about the way greenways are designed, managed and maintained. Examples are concerns about dogs, crime and security, emergency management, bicycle police patrols, dumping of trash, bicycle interaction with other users, maintenance, and budget. Design issues have been addressed over the years by using national standards, such as Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) to improve security in public areas and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials guidelines to consider design safety. While these guidelines have been considered in greenway design, staff may not know how well they are working. Users may, through experiences, recognize problem areas where accidents could happen prior to staff knowing. Thus, a loop of feedback from users and from staff who manage and maintain the greenways to those designing the greenways could provide for continual improvement. Other management issues may be ones that Park staff addresses frequently for other facilities. Many times design is influenced by available budget, and an acceptable solution may be built rather than the best solution. Staff charged with management of greenways need increases in budget to cover maintenance of new facilities as they are built. Interaction among departments is important, so that emergency management and police know where the greenways are and how to access them. Coordination among jurisdictions, within localities, and between citizens, volunteers, and staff is an on-going task which may require more attention. 4.6 Goals Since development of the 1995 Plan, public support for a regional greenway system has continued to grow. This is exhibited by the continued construction of trails and greenways over the last decade and responses from citizen surveys that show greenway development as a top priority issue for area residents. As greenway development has evolved over the past decade, so has recognition that the goals and objectives of the 1995 Plan must be modified to reflect implementation efforts to date and evolving needs and perceptions of the citizens and governments in the region. There is concern that the original 1995 Plan may have been too ambitious and that there has not been a focused effort to complete long sections of trail and connections between greenways. It is the goal of this Update to develop a more focused approach to implementation of the greenway system over the next ten years. The Update continues the previous 1995 Plan's goals to achieve a well connected transportation network that will satisfy recreational, health and fitness needs of the region's residents and to provide open spaces and buffers that will maintain and enhance the natural resources of the Valley. However, the Update also focuses efforts so that a base system of connected trails can be constructed in the near term (next five years). In this way a functional greenway system will be in place soon, while still allowing full completion of the system over time. This Update includes six goals to address the vision and issues raised through community involvement. These goals are essential to allow for construction of the base greenway system over the next five to ten years and provide for full construction over the longer term. The goals Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 are shown below, with the issues they address. Implementation strategies for these goals are in Section 6. Goals Goals and Associated Issues Issues to be addressed 1. Greenway Construction Prioritization of routes (4.5.1) Complete a connected greenway network of Connectivity between greenways (4.5.2) trails to provide the multiple benefits of a Greenway signage and information (4.5.3) greenway system, with focus on finishing Greenway amenities (4.5.4) Roanoke River Greenway. Trails on other public lands (4.5.8) Blueways (4.5.13) 2. Funding Funding (4.5.10) Increase greenway funding to meet the goals Timeliness of implementation (4.5.12) for trail construction and completion of the greenway network. 3. land Acquisition Land acquisition for greenways (4.5.9) Develop a land acquisition program that Timeliness of implementation (4.5.12) provides rights-of-way needed for greenway construction. 4. Community Outreach and Greenway signage and information (4.5.3) Education Publicity and promotion (4.5.5) Develop a community outreach and education Economic development (4.5.7) program that provides information on Sponsorships (4.5.6) greenway opportunities and benefits. 5. Organizational Structure Staffing, roles and responsibilities (4.5.11) Refine the organizational structure to effectively and efficiently implement the Update to the Conceptual Greenway Plan and manage the growing greenway system. 6. Greenway Management Design, management, and operations Manage the greenway network to meet user (4.5.14) needs, provide a range of experiences in a Greenway signage and information (4.5.3) secure environment, and protect the natural Sponsorships (4.5.6) resources. Staffing, roles and responsibilities (4.5.11) Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 4-17 4-18 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5 Greenway Network Prioritization of Greenways Priority #1 Roanoke River Greenway Priority #2 Greenways Priority #3 Greenways Priority #4 Greenways On-road Connections 5-1 5-1 5-4 5-8 5-23 5-26 5-32 5.0 GREENWA V NETWORK 5.1 Prioritization of Greenways The 1995 Plan recommended 51 greenway routes with each route labeled as either on-road or off-road on a map. In addition, it described six other routes not shown on the map. This Update focuses on the off-road routes and endorses the 2005 Bikeway Plan for on-road routes (Section 5.6). The Update includes 35 routes. In response to public input, the Steering Committee and each locality prioritized the off-road greenways and trails to provide more focus to implementation efforts. Priority #1 Route: The Roanoke River Greenway was identified as the most important greenway in the regional network. It will be the only #1 priority, in order to focus efforts on finishing it within five years. This greenway offers the longest route when finished, the most opportunity for economic development on adjacent lands, the greatest attraction for tourists, the most recreation and health benefit for residents, the most opportunity for special events such as marathons, the most opportunity for water based recreation such as canoeing and fishing, the most opportunity to enhance appreciation of environmental resources, and the most opportunity to be a regional asset. Roanoke River Greenway is the "backbone" of the greenway network. Cit of Roanoke Roanoke River Town of Vinton Roanoke River Priority #2 Routes: These are important regional projects, already underway, which could be finished in 5-10 years. They include five north-south routes connecting to Roanoke River Greenway and three destination sites with clusters of trails. These routes provide the major side corridors of the greenway network. Cit of Roanoke . Blue Ridge Parkway Trails . Carvins Cove Trail Network . Lick Run Greenway . Mill Mtn. Greenway . Mill Mtn. Park Trails . Tinker Creek Greenwa Priorit #2 Greenwa s Roanoke Count Cit of Salem · Blue Ridge Parkway . Hanging Rock Trails Battlefield · Hanging Rock Trail Battlefield Trail . Mason Creek · Lick Run Greenway Greenway . Mason Creek Greenway . Tinker Cr. Greenway . Wolf Cr. Greenwa Town of Vinton . Tinker Cr. Greenway . Wolf Creek Greenway Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5-1 Priority #3 Routes: These greenways are priorities within specific localities. These are important at the local level for enhancement of neighborhood values, economic development and public health. The goal is to finish these in 5-10 years. Most have already had some work done, such as planning or acquiring right-of-way. Some are neighborhood priorities. Priority #3 Greenways City of Roanoke Roanoke County City of Salem Town of Vinton . Biomed Loop . Glade Creek . Glade Creek . Garden City Greenway Greenway Greenway . Mudlick Creek . Mudlick Creek/Garst . Gladetown Trail Greenway Mill Greenway . Murray Run Greenway . Read Mountain Trails . Neighborhood Connections Priority #4 Routes: Cit of Roanoke . Barnhardt Creek Greenway . Birding and Wildlife Trail sites · Glade Creek Greenway 5-2 These are other greenway projects to be addressed as opportunity and resources arise. Included in this group are several routes which have strong citizen support but no resources in terms of land or funding. Also included are clusters of trails on other public lands which help provide connectivity for the greenway network. Priorit #4 Greenwa s Roanoke Count . Appalachian Trail . Back Cr. Greenway . Barnhardt Creek Greenway . Birding and Wildlife Trail sites . Carvin Cr. Greenway . Catawba Greenway . Explore Park Trails . Green Hill Pk. Trails . Havens Wildlife Mgt. Area Trails . Jefferson National Forest Trails . Long Ridge Trail . Masons Cove Greenway . Murray Run Greenway . Perimeter Trail . Poor Mountain Preserve Trails . Roanoke River Grwy Extensions . S rin Hollow Trails Cit of Salem . Birding and Wildlife Trail sites . Dry Creek Greenway . Gish Branch Greenway Town of Vinton . Birding and Wildlife Trail sites Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 On the map included with this Update the routes are listed and numbered in alphabetical order. The table below shows the numbering system, jurisdiction, and surface expected for each trai I. Roanoke Valley Greenway Network PROJECT NAME Plan # Localities Priority Class Appalachian Traili( 1 Roanoke (ounty 4 ( Back (ree k G ree nway 2 Roanoke (ounty 4 B--c Barnhardt (reek Greenway 3 Roanoke (ounty, (ity of Roanoke 4 A -B --c B ioMed Loop 4 (ity of Roanoke 3 A B irdinq and Wildlife Trail Sites 5 All 4 A -B --c Blue R idqe Parkway Trailsi( 6 Roanoke (ounty, (ity of Roanoke 2 ( (arvin (reek Greenway 7 Roanoke (ounty 4 A-B (arvins (ove Trail Network 8 (ity of Roanoke 2 ( (atawba Greenway 9 Roanoke (ounty 4 B--c Dry (reek Greenway 10 Salem 4 A-B Explore P ark Trails 11 Roanoke (ounty 4 B--c G a rd e n (ity G re e nw a y (G a rn and B ra n c h) 1 2 (ity of Roanoke 3 A-B G is h Branch G ree nway 1 3 Salem 4 B--c Glade (ree k G ree nway 14 Roanoke (ounty, Vinton 3 A -B --c 14 (ity of Roanoke 4 A-B G ladetown Trail 1 5 Vi n to n 3 ( Green Hill P ark Trails 16 Roanoke (ounty 4 B--c Hanqinq Rock Battlefield Trail 1 7 Roanoke (ounty, Salem 2 B--c Havens Wildlife ManaqementArea Trails+ 18 Roanoke (ounty 4 ( J e ffe rs 0 n N a ti 0 n a I Fore s t T ra i Is i( 19 Roanoke (ounty 4 ( Lick Run G ree nway 20 (ity of Roanoke, Roanoke (ounty 2 A Lonq R idqe Trail 21 Roanoke (ounty 4 ( Masons (ove Greenway 22 Roanoke (ounty 4 B--c Mason (reek Greenway 23 Salem, Roanoke (ounty 2 A-B Mill Mountain G ree nway 24 (ity of Roanoke 2 A Mill M ou nta in Park Tra ils 25 (ity of Roanoke 2 ( Mud Iic k ( re e k G re e nwa y (& Gars t Mill) 26 Roanoke (ounty, (ity of Roanoke 3 A-B Murray Run G ree nway 27 Roanoke (ounty 4 B--c 27 (ity of Roanoke 3 B--c Peri mete r T ra i I 28 Roanoke & Botetourt (ounties 4 ( Poor Mountain P rese rve Trails + 29 Roanoke (ounty 4 ( Read Mountain Trails 30 Roanoke (ounty 3 ( Roanoke RiverGreenway 31 All 1 A -B --c Roanoke Rive r G ree nway E xte ns ions 32 Franklin, Montgomery (ounties 4 A -B --c S prinq Hollow Trails 33 Roanoke (ounty 4 ( Tinke r (ree k G ree nway 34 (ity of Roanoke, Roanoke (ounty 2 A -B --c Wolf (ree k G ree nway 35 Roanoke (ounty, Vinton 2 B i(F ede ral Jurisdiction (lass A= Paved with as phalt or concrete (S ee Section 2.4.2) +S tate Jurisdiction ( la s s B = (rus hed aggregate stone or wood chips ( la s s (= Natural surface wood chips or crushed stone Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5-3 5-4 5.2 Priority #1 Roanoke River Greenway, Map #31 Descri ption The Roanoke River Greenway has always been considered the backbone of the regional greenway and trail network. This 30-mile bicycle/pedestrian path will be the major west-east greenway, making it possible to travel from western Roanoke County near Spring Hollow Reservoir through the City of Salem to the City of Roanoke, Town of Vinton, Blue Ridge Parkway and Explore Park. The greenway will provide linkages to neighborhoods, industrial facilities and business complexes, ten parks, three schools, two sport complexes, Cardinal Criminal Justice Academy, the Blue Ridge Parkway and Montgomery and Franklin Counties. It will be a continuous route for non-motorized transportation where none currently exists. Connections to streets with bike lanes and to Masons Creek, Murray Run, Mill Mountain, Lick Run, Tinker Creek, and Wolf Creek greenways will permit travel north and south. Status Currently, three miles of Roanoke River Greenway are finished and open. One section is a half mile long near the Moyer Sports Complex in Salem. It was built in 2002 using private funds. A two and a half mile section is complete in the City of Roanoke, linking both Wasena and Smith Parks to the Rivers Edge Sports Complex and the Riverside Centre for Research and Technology. This was built using City monies and federal funds for the flood reduction project. Another two mile section is under construction in the City of Roanoke from the Waste Water Treatment Plant to Hamilton Terrace; completion is expected in 2007. A master plan for the western section of Roanoke River Greenway from Green Hill Park through Salem was completed in 1998; a plan for the City of Roanoke's section was completed in 2000; and one for the eastern section in Roanoke County and Vinton was completed in 2003. No master plan has been completed for the western section from Green Hill Park to the Montgomery County line. Engineering for the section in Green Hill Park in western Roanoke County is complete, and construction is anticipated in 2007. In Salem engineering is 80o~ complete. Construction there should start in FY 08. In the City of Roanoke the greenway is being built in conjunction with the flood reduction project. The first five miles will be finished in 2008. Right-of-way acquisition for the upstream section should begin in 2007 -08. No engineering or right-of-way work has been completed for the eastern section in Roanoke County. Benefits The Roanoke River Greenway has long been recognized in local, regional, and state plans as an important facility for the area. It is included in each locality's comprehensive plan, the regional greenway and open space plans, and the Virginia Outdoors Plan. The Roanoke River Greenway is a multi-faceted project. All of the master plans include canoe launches, providing access to a river once used for bateau travel. The greenway plans also include historic and Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 environmental interpretive signage, landscaping, mitigation of runoff into the river, and establishment of riparian buffers. This project will provide transportation, safety, health, environmental, and economic benefits to the valley, thus improving total quality of life in the region. The trail is often used for races and fundraising walks and runs. Greenways and trails in other areas have attracted significant tourism business, and the Roanoke River Greenway is expected to be a similar attraction. Challenges A big challenge in completion of Roanoke River Greenway is acquisition of rights-of-way. Local elected officials are reluctant to use condemnation, and approximately two-thirds of the corridor is in private ownership. There are two sections where the north and south side of the river are in different jurisdictions. Officials in the City of Roanoke are willing to justify the acquisition in conjunction with the flood reduction project and are moving forward with both the acquisition and design processes. A second challenge is the proximity of the railroad to the river. In many places the rail bed drops straight into the river, and often there is a railroad track on both sides of the river. Crossing the tracks and being within the rail right-of-way are both safety concerns for Norfolk Southern. Further dialogue between the localities, the Greenway Commission and Norfolk Southern is needed. Other challenges include flooding and topography, such as cliffs. Funding is a critical issue for the jurisdictions. While grants have been received every year, additional sources of revenue and innovative funding methods are needed. Next Steps For several years there have been suggestions that the Roanoke River be designated a blueway. The Draft 2007 Virginia Outdoors Plan recommends development of the Roanoke River Greenway and Canoe Trail. For approximately half the year the river through the Roanoke Valley has sufficient flow for floating as a water trail. Each of the localities has existing and planned facilities for canoers, kayakers, and fishermen. Should the four localities choose to expand the scope and role of the Greenway Commission to include other blueway functions, this change would require action by the localities and changes in organizational structure and staffing. Completion of the Roanoke River Greenway is strongly supported. The table below proposes a schedule needed to complete the greenway in the next five years. Each locality is responsible for finishing its section. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5-5 Proposed Schedule for Roanoke River Greenway Completion Previous Work 2011 Roanoke County Montgomery Co. -G reen Hill Green Hill P ark-Diu uids Lane Salem Diuguids Lane-Mill Lane Mill Lane-Moyer Complex Mo er Com lex-Roanoke Ci City of Roanoke Salem City Line-Memorial Ave. Memorial Avenue-W asena Park Wasena Park-Piedmont Park Piedmont P ark-9th Street 9th S treet-WWTP ;B rownlee Brownlee-Golden Park-City line B rid e to Tinker Creek Roanoke County /fown of Vinton Roanoke City line-Blue Ridge Parkwa Blue Rid e P arkwa to Franklin Co. + 2006 2006 2006 2001-05 2002-04 2001-05 2002-04 2006-07 Planning Engineering Right-of-way Acquisition Construction Costs The table below shows the projected cost and funds needed to complete Roanoke River Greenway. Construction, Prelininary Contingency, Length Engineering and ColTITitted Section in Miles and Pemits Right-of-way Adninistration To~1 Cost Funding Funding Needed County of Roanoke - Western Section S prinq Hollow Reservoir to Green Hill Park 7.2 $ 567,420 $ 540,000 $ 5,843,475 $ 6,950,895 $ - $ 6,950,895 Green Hill Park to Diuquids Lane 0.9 $ 26,600 $ - $ 372,100 $ 398,700 $ 398,700 $ - City of Salem - Western Section Diuquids Lane to Roanoke line 5.8 $ 167,590 $ 262,500 $ 1,932,870 $ 2,362,960 $ 1,430,400 $ 932,560 City of Roanoke - Central Section Phase II-Salem to Memorial 4.5 ACOE $ 1,830,000 $ 3,400,000 $ 5,230,000 $ 3,530,000 $ 1,700,000 Me morial to W ase na 0.5 $ 87,800 $ - $ 679,800 $ 767,600 $ 575,000 $ 192,600 Phase I-Wasena to 13th Street 5.0 Complete $ 1,830,000 $ 5,700,000 $ 7,530,000 $ 7,530,000 $ - 13th S t. to Tinker Creek Greenway 1. 1 $ 278,600 $ 1 00,000 $ 1,675,700 2,054,300 $ 394,000 $ 1,660,300 County of Roanoke}l'own of Vinton Wastewater Treat. Plant to Franklin Co. 5.9 $ 382,980 $ 330,000 $ 3,978,525 4,691,505 $ 44,98) $ 4,646,525 To~1 30.9 $ 472,790 $ 4,022,500 $ 13,(8),670 $ 29 985,960 $ 13,903 (II) $ 16,tm,mI) 5-6 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5-7 5-8 5.3 Priority #2 Greenways 5.3.1 Blue Ridge Parkway Trails, Map #6 Descri ption The Blue Ridge Parkway, a National Park, is a 469-mile recreational motor road through Virginia and North Carolina connecting Shenandoah and Great Smoky National Parks. The Parkway is a popular on-road cycling route for recreational cyclists, in part due to its limited access and lower traffic levels when compared to most community streets and highways. The Parkway traverses southern Roanoke County from MP 105 near US 460 to MP 136 near Adney Gap. The Parkway has several trail systems in the Roanoke Valley: 1) the six mile Chestnut Ridge Loop Trail around Roanoke Mountain Campground, 2) the 13 mile horse trail paralleling the Parkway from US 220 to Stewarts Knob, 3) the one mile Roanoke River Trail from the overlook to the river, and 4) the half mile Buck Mountain Trail from the parking area to an overlook. Status In 2001 the Greenway Commission and the Blue Ridge Parkway signed a General Agreement allowing the Commission to assist with trail planning, mapping, and rehabilitation of Parkway trails. This agreement allowed the Commission to facilitate volunteer assistance in reconstructing and maintaining Parkway trails under the direction of Parkway staff. In 2002 the Greenway Commission, Parkway staff, and National Park Service staff from the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program began a process of training, inventory and assessment of the Parkway trail system from MP 121 (US 220) to MP 110 (Stewart's Knob). This process involved a 25 member team of trail professionals and resource management staff working to develop a trail plan, with the final draft completed in January 2004. The plan recognized greenway connections at Mill Mountain, Roanoke River, and Wolf Creek Greenways and recommended construction of several new trail sections, as well as extensive trail rehabilitation. The plan made specific recommendations on the feasibility of developing a shared-use trail network, linking the Parkway, Greenway, and Mill Mountain trails. Shared use sections were to ROANOKE VALlEY TRAILS N t ~ ~~ ~.IIIIIIIIIIJII; ~ 1&7 ---- Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 allow mountain bicycles as well as horses and hikers. A categorical exclusion environmental document was completed documenting impacts of the trail work. The Blue Ridge Parkway planned to incorporate the plan into its new General Management Plan, but the GMP was never completed. In fall of 2004, the Greenway Commission, working with Parkway staff and using a $43,250 Virginia Recreational Trails grant, hired a professional trail contractor to relocate the sections of Chestnut Ridge Loop Trail which were considered irreparable. In addition, Pathfinders for Greenways worked with a variety of groups to rehabilitate damaged trail sections, establish campground connections, maintain all sections and thus complete the plan's vision for the loop. The Greenway Commission bought and installed interpretive signs showing the Chestnut Ridge Loop Trail. In 2005 the Parkway completed a Multi-Use Path Feasibility Study for the entire Parkway, looking at the feasibility of having an off-road bicycling path. In January 2006 the Parkway held a public meeting in the Roanoke Valley to discuss bicycling issues and illegal use of the trail system. This meeting launched a new trail planning process. Staff have mapped and documented the official and social trails and access points. A charette was held in January 2007 for representative users to discuss staff recommendations. The 2004 Roanoke Valley, Blue Ridge Parkway Trail Plan, the 2005 Blue Ridge Parkway Multi-Use Path Feasibility Study, and the current proposals are available on-line under Blue Ridge Parkway at Benefits The Parkway trails provide many loop connections between Roanoke Valley greenways. Completion of the Parkway system would greatly enhance the local network. It would also give the Parkway trail attractions in the Roanoke region and much needed assistance with trail construction and maintenance. Challenges The biggest challenge in completing the Parkway trail system is providing a bridge across the river for trail users. Next Steps The Parkway hopes to have a public input meeting about its trail proposals in summer of 2007. The new recommendations include the greenway connections and a new trail from Buck Mountain overlook to Back Creek Greenway, as well as a new trail on Stewart's Knob. The Parkway is looking to Greenway volunteers for completion of the trail work. The uses allowed on each trail are not finalized. No funding is available at this time for the trail work. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5-9 5-10 5.3.2 Carvins Cove Natural Reserve's Trail Network, Map #8 Oescri ption The Carvins Cove Natural Reserve is a 12,700-acre municipal park protecting the watershed of Carvins Cove Reservoir. The Cove is located in Roanoke and Botetourt counties, 7 miles from downtown Roanoke and 4 miles from Interstate 81. The reservoir is fed by springs and creeks within the Reserve as well as by tunnels from Catawba and Tinker Creeks. When the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) was formed in 2004, the City gave the reservoir and lands below the 1,200-foot contour to WVWA to be managed as one of the valley's major water sources. The remaining Reserve lands above 1,200' were retained by the City and are managed by the Parks and Recreation Department. Carvins Cove is the largest municipally owned park east of the Mississippi River and the second largest municipal park in the country. The Appalachian Trail (AT) follows the ridge above Carvins Cove for fifteen miles from McAfee Knob to Tinker Cliffs and Tinker Mountain. This is one of the most photographed sections of the AT. In 1998 the National Park Service paid the City for a permanent easement for the Trail. This funding allowed the City to develop the Carvins Cove Land Use Plan, adopted by Council in 2000. The Land Use Plan recognized the many recreational activities at the Cove, including fishing, boating, bird watching, picnicking, hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding. Carvins Cove Natural Reserve can be accessed from three public roads: . Reservoir Road near Hollins, known as "the boat landing" . Carvins Cove Road, Route 740 off of Route 311, known as "Bennett Springs" . Timberview Road At the Reservoir Road entrance there is a large parking lot, picnic area, fishing pier, restrooms, and office. On Carvins Cove Road there is a parking lot and trailhead located a mile from the Bennett Springs gate. At Timberview Road there are no facilities, but bicyclists can access trails if they approach from Timberview. Status The 1995 Plan shows five greenway routes in the vicinity of the Cove. They are: . Appalachian Trail (AT) . Route to Appalachian Trail . Carvins Creek . Horse Pen Branch . Timberview Road There are 23 trails within the Reserve now, most of them open to hikers, mountain bikers, and equestrians. There are two trails within the Cove which provide connection to the AT. One is Sawmill Branch Trail near Riley's Loop and the other is near the boat launch; these are open to hikers only. This Plan incorporates the entire Carvins Cove trail network into the greenway system. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 When the City of Roanoke Parks and Recreation Department was given responsibilities at the Cove in 2004, it began to assess management of the trail network. Mountain biking had increased dramatically, and the internet had made information about the Cove trails widely available. In 2005 the Parks and Recreation Department obtained a Virginia Recreational Trails grant to begin assessment of trail conditions and relocation of trails that were not sustainable. In 2006 the City hired Trail Solutions to provide an assessment of seven miles of the trail network and make recommendations on sustainable locations. In fall of 2006 Trail Solutions installed two of the recommended trail relocations. Volunteers have provided finish work on those trails. In the two years since an on-line database was established, volunteers have provided 9000+ hours in trail work at the Cove. Benefits The Carvins Cove trail network provides a premier natural area as a destination site for greenway users, as well as for tourists of all trail persuasions. Completion of greenway connections to the Cove would allow local users to ride to the Reserve and would enhance connectivity to other parks and public lands. The Cove has the potential to become a national destination for naturalists, mountain bikers, hikers, and equestrians. Challenges Currently, Carvins Cove is in a pristine state with a large system of multi-use trails cared for by dedicated volunteers. A resource and recreational management plan is needed to ensure long-term sustainability of the natural resources at the Reserve. Next Steps The City is currently developing a Carvins Cove Natural Reserve Management Plan, which will provide further direction on development and management of the entire Cove. As part of the management plan, the City will develop a trails assessment, which will address not only existing trails but also any future trail needs. The assessment will address sustainability of existing trails and recommend retirement or relocation of any trail negatively affecting water quality. Additional information on Carvins Cove is available from the City of Roanoke's Parks and Recreation Department at http://www.roanokeva.qov . Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5-11 5-12 5.3.3 Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail, Map #17 Oescri ption Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail is the only rail-trail project in the Roanoke Valley. It is a portion of Mason Creek Greenway, 1.7 miles long, along a railbed donated by Norfolk and Southern. The project was initiated by the Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Foundation, supported by the City of Salem and Roanoke County. The railroad right-of-way was donated to the Foundation and then from it to the localities. Other donations included land owned by the United Daughters of the Confederacy and easements from the Hinchee family. This is a joint project between the City of Salem and Roanoke County, funded under the Enhancement program in 1995, 1997, and 2004. The greenway includes many signs explaining the history of the Civil War battle and of the Catawba Branch rail line. Natural features include the Hanging Rock, Mason Creek, Buzzards Roost, and Route 311 scenic byway. The Battle of Hanging Rock is commemorated on a stone obelisk, and a statue of a Confederate officer has been relocated to the north parking lot. The greenway is listed on Virginia's Civil War Trails map of the Shenandoah Valley and on the western Virginia Birding and Wildlife Trail Guide. The conversion of the rail line to a bicycle/pedestrian trail has provided opportunities not only for tourists studying Civil War history or looking for birds, but also for residents and business employees using the corridor for transportation to work, stores and government offices. The trail is used at all hours of the day by people wanting a pleasant path on which to exercise and enjoy the scenic and historic area. The current facilities on Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail are a northern parking lot with historic information and exhibits, shared parking facilities at the Orange Market and at the southern terminus of the trail, numerous interpretive signs about the Battle of Hanging Rock and the railroad corridor, bike racks, a renovated trestle bridge, and wildflower plantings along the trail. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 Status A bridge connection is still needed to connect the northern parking lot to the Orange Market section of trail. Plans include a 100' free span bridge across Masons Creek, a 150' ADA compliant ramp from the bridge on the north side, and a tie-in to the existing trail on the Orange Market side. Funding has been awarded under the Enhancement program and over $1000 has been donated to Pathfinders for this bridge. Benefits This greenway has been an attraction for tourists, particularly those interested in the Civil War. The Civil War Roundtable at Virginia Tech often sponsors field trips to this site, which is the closest battlefield to the Blacksburg. With easy access to Interstate 81, tourists are most apt to be introduced to the Valley's greenway network at this trail. Challenges In addition to the challenge of completing the bridge across Mason Creek, managers have the opportunity to expand interpretive facilities along the trail by renovation of the coal tipple. Such a renovation is unfunded at this time. Next Steps Roanoke County received an updated Enhancement grant agreement from VDOT in 2007. The County is proceeding with design and construction of the bridge. Completion is expected in 2009. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5-13 5-14 5.3.4 Lick Run Greenway, Map #20 Oescri ption Lick Run is a tributary of Tinker Creek, starting beyond Countryside Golf Course and running to downtown Roanoke. The creek has water year round and is one of the major drainages in the valley, contributing to flooding downtown during heavy rains. The 1928 Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke depicted a green corridor along this creek, thus recognizing its importance to the green infrastructure of the valley. Status Construction of Lick Run Greenway was initiated as part of the interchange at Valley View Extension. When the interchange was built, the Greenway Commission and City of Roanoke recognized that there was an opportunity to provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities to cross 1- 581. The consulting firm of Whitesell Orrison, working with the Greenway Commission, completed a feasibility study for the greenway from there to downtown, and the City was able to fund construction of the greenway with the interchange, which opened in 1999. The next section of Lick Run Greenway, was from the Valley View interchange to Court Street. This area historically was part of the Watts Plantation, the largest farm operation in antebellum Roanoke. Until the early 1900's it was known as "the Barrens," open land originally cleared by Native Americans for hunting. White oaks on the property are several hundred years old. The land was donated to the Western Virginia Land Trust until the trail was completed and then was passed on to the City. Funding for the construction was from multiple sources including Virginia Recreational Trails grant, Strategic Regional Alliance funds, City monies, Roanoke County in-kind services, private donations, and land donations. This section of the greenway opened in 2002. The third section of Lick Run from Court Street to the Hotel Roanoke was developed by the City of Roanoke Parks and Recreation Department and opened in 2006. This portion connects several northwest neighborhoods including Historic Gainsboro, three schools, two parks, two fitness facilities, the Civic Center, Hotel Roanoke, and the Visitor Center. Funding came from Transportation Enhancement grants, the City, and Community Development Block Grant funds. The three miles of greenway built to date are paved. Phase II of Lick Run Greenway will run from 19th Street, past Fairland Lake, to William Fleming High School and Countryside Golf Course, and then to Peters Creek Road for a connection to Roanoke County's multi-generational fitness center at Valleypointe Business Park and Northside High School. No plans for this phase have been developed. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 Benefits Lick Run Greenway is a crucial greenway in terms of transportation from downtown Roanoke to northern parts of the valley. It provides a free exercise and recreation facility in a section of the City which has historically been underserved medically and which has had high risk for health and obesity problems. It also is important in terms of green infrastructure. Protection of riparian buffers along this perennial stream helps reduce runoff and thus flooding in downtown. The wooded linear trail linking multiple parks provides a beautiful setting with unusual habitat for an urban area. Challenges No plans for the next phase of the greenway have been developed, but there are unique opportunities for inclusion of the greenway during development of properties currently in open space. Next Steps The City of Roanoke should consider including Lick Run Greenway, phase II, in plans for development of Countryside Golf Course and William Fleming High School. Likewise, Roanoke County should consider development of Lick Run Greenway to provide access to the proposed multi-generational center. Lick Run Greenway Map Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5-15 5-16 5.3.5 Mason Creek Greenway, Map #23 Oescri ption Mason Creek begins in the Masons Cove area of Roanoke County and runs into the Roanoke River across from the Salem industrial park at Cook Drive near Apperson Drive. Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail is a portion of Mason Creek Greenway. Upstream from Hanging Rock the greenway is in Roanoke County and could be extended to provide connections to Carvins Cove Road, Masons Cove, and thus over the mountain to Catawba Valley and Hospital. Downstream from Hanging Rock Trail, the creek is in Salem. It parallels Kesler Mill Road to Main Street, flows behind Lakeside Shopping center, under Rt. 419, past the General Electric plant and Arnold Burton Vocational School, to Roanoke River near Apperson Drive. Employees at General Electric are particularly interested in having this greenway built to provide connections for them back to Hanging Rock Trail. Status In 2004 this greenway was awarded $994,400 in funding through the Scenic Byway portion of the federal Omnibus bill. Benefits Completion of this greenway from Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail to Roanoke River Greenway will provide an important north-south connection from the river to Carvins Cove, Havens Wildlife Management Area, the Jefferson National Forest, the Appalachian Trail, and north County neighborhoods. There are numerous businesses and commercial areas along the route, and thus the greenway could be important for access to these employment areas, as a health and fitness facility for these businesses, and as a quality of life attraction that facilitates retention of a talented work force. Because of the linkage to Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail, this greenway has great potential as a destination site for tourists, who might then bike or run on to Roanoke River Greenway. Challenges There is little right-of-way available at this time, but much of the corridor is in commercial and industrial areas where businesses might be willing to provide an easement. Next Steps The City of Salem should consider appointing a project manager to work with VDOT on the funding and to lead project design and implementation. The Greenway Commission could assist Salem with field work and contacts with businesses and landowners. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5.3.6 Mill Mountain Greenway, Map #24 Oescri ption The Mill Mountain Greenway was selected in 1996 to be the Roanoke Valley's pilot project. The original plans envisioned the greenway trail connecting from the market downtown to Mill Mountain Park and out to Explore Park, via the Blue Ridge Parkway. Status The City of Roanoke was awarded two Transportation Enhancement grants, totaling $390,000, to build the project and included $250,000 in a bond referendum. Right-of-wa issues necessitated modifications in the alignment. The existing section, 2.5 miles long, begins in Elmwood Park, parallels Williamson Road through the railroad district, crosses Walnut Street bridge and follows the Roanoke River to Piedmont Park. Trail users then folio sidewalks and streets to reach the rugged terrain of Mill Mountain, following historic Prospect Road, the old road up the mountain. The greenway passes under the old Toll House and utilizes the unique switchback bridge. The greenway reaches the top of the mountain at the Discovery Center, where park pathways link to both the Mill Mountain Star and the trail system of the mountain. The greenway opened in 2003 in a joint dedication with the western phase 0 the Virginia Birding and Wildlife Trail. In order to fulfill the initial vision of tying the market to Explore Park, the Greenway Commission has worked with the City and the Blue Ridge Parkway to link the off-road trails of Mill Mountain to the Parkway trail network. Pathfinders for Greenways has been instrumental In completing the rehabilitation of the Parkway's Chestnut Ridge Loop Trail and in construction of Ridgeline Trail to connect Chestnut Ridge to the Discovery Center. In addition, in 1999 Pathfinders worked with the Mill Mountain Advisory Board Trail Committee to construct the Star Trail, a hiking connection from the Star to a parking lot on Riverland Road across from the AEP substation. When the Roanoke River Greenway is completed, the Star Trail will be an even more important link, providing a loop with Mill Mountain Greenway and Roanoke River Greenway. Benefits This greenway provides an important connection from downtown to the northern section of the Riverside Centre for Research and Technology, Roanoke River Greenway, Mill Mountain Park and Star, and the Blue Ridge Parkway. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5-17 Challenges Because of its urban location, this greenway has off-road and on-road sections. Clear signage for users, as well as for adjacent motorists, is important. Users continue to say that the wayfinding needs to be improved. Further wayfinding identification should be considered to create fluid connectivity between Mill Mountain and Lick Run Greenways through downtown Roanoke. Next Steps The City Parks and Recreation Department will be coordinating with other departments and with Downtown Roanoke, Inc. to develop wayfinding that connects the Lick Run and Mill Mountain trail opportunities. 5-18 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5.3.7 Mill Mountain Park Trails, Map #25 Oescri ption Mill Mountain Park is a 600-acre park managed by Roanoke Parks and Recreation Department. It has historically attracted recreational use and many of the trails are shown on 50-year old maps. Status In 2006 Roanoke City Council adopted the Mill Mountain Park Management Plan, developed by the Roanoke Parks and Recreation Department. This plan addressed management of trails in the park. A few trails on the mountain are open to hikers only, but most are available also for mountain biking and equestrian use. The trail network connects the park to Chestnut Ridge Loop Trail, managed by the Blue Ridge Parkway, to Fern Park and Piedmont Park, and to Riverland, south Roanoke, and Garden City neighborhoods. When Roanoke River Greenway is complete, the trail network will be extended to connect to Mill Mountain. Pathfinders for Greenways has helped build many of the park trails and recruit volunteers for trail work. r~~~.~ I ~ ~ I ~ , ,- - l.j"~~~ I ~:r ,:..,:-~~~ ~ ' : ~ . . · - .:-<<:""""':'I......-:-.;'Y...-...::-'~ p. I~ b~.~I~-%~ 1 ~ . I~~~."~-~;j..: ,.. 1'1 . Benefits The Mill Mountain Park trails provide a wonderful, wooded network of natural surface trails within walking distance of numerous City neighborhoods. These trails also provide an attraction for tourists coming from the Blue Ridge Parkway. Challenges Park staff face the typical challenges of managing a wooded park and trail network in an urban area. These challenges include restricting illegal uses, such as all terrain vehicles, camping, and fires, managing user conflicts, educating inexperienced users, managing resources such as control of invasive species, protecting resources like trees and wildlife, and maintaining facilities. Next Steps Park staff is working with volunteers to complete construction of the trail network. Wayfinding will be developed, so that all trails are well marked, with directional signs at intersections. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5-19 5-20 5.3.8 Tinker Creek Greenway, Map #34 Oescri ption The Tinker Creek corridor is one of the most historic in the valley. The creek has its headwaters in Botetourt County and is fed by Carvins Creek, Lick Run, and Glade Creek. It is one of the few urban trout streams in the east and connects seven parks and three golf courses. Historic resources include the Great Wagon or Carolina Road, Monterey, Bell Mont, numerous other historic buildings, and remains of mills near the creek. Status In spring 2000 a conceptual plan for an 11-mile Tinker Creek Greenway was completed, for the City of Roanoke, with assistance from Virginia Tech. This plan inventoried natural and cultural resources and land uses, explored alternative trail locations, and included a public input meeting with landowners and neighbors. The plan recognized that beyond Mountain View School right-of-way would become more problematic. Thus a connection from Tinker Creek to Carvins Creek near LaMarre Drive was proposed, allowing utilization of Hollins University properties to reach Carvins Cove. The first mile of Tinker Creek Greenway was built in the City of Roanoke along a utility corridor, opening in January 2003. There are connections to southeast via Kenwood Boulevard and to Fallon Park. Parking lots on Dale Avenue, Wise Avenue and Fallon Park provide ample access. The City has done extensive riparian planting within the corridor. Roanoke Parks and Recreation Department has been awarded funding to begin design of a bridge to cross the river and tie Tinker Creek Greenway to Roanoke River Greenway. In Roanoke County, right-of-way for the greenway was dedicated at Villages of Tinker Creek, and Hollins has included the greenway in its master plan. Further engineering and right-of-way acquisition for other sections have not been initiated. Benefits When Tinker Creek Greenway is completed, it will provide a direct linkage from Roanoke River Greenway to Carvins Cove trail network. It will also attract significant tourism traffic because of its historic resources. Challenges Significant challenges include right-of-way acquisition and location of the trail along 13th Street, where the road is adjacent to the creek. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 Next Steps Several willing landowners, such as Hollins University and Community School, have stepped forward in support of this greenway, and development of a partnership should be explored. Ideally, a more detailed master plan of the greenway would be created to specifically address acquisition, corridor design, and multi-year capital outlay. 5.3.9 Wolf Creek Greenway, Map #35 Oescri ption This greenway corridor parallels Wolf Creek from the Blue Ridge Parkway to Roanoke River. The creek is the boundary between the Town of Vinton and Roanoke County. Development of this greenway as a joint project was initiated early in the greenway program because of the availability of land within parks, along sewer corridors, and next to Vinton's well fields. Status The section of the greenway in Vinton from Hardy Road to Washington Avenue was completed in 1999 using Virginia Recreational Trails Grant funds. The 80' bridge crossing the creek was built by volunteers, and the ribbon cutting for the trail was incorporated into the first Governor's Conference for Greenways and Trails. Vinton has continued to utilize volunteers for greenway maintenance and enhancement, with the addition of flower beds, kiosks, benches, additional parking, and a Police fitness course. In 2001 Hardy Road was widened from two lanes to five, and bicycle lanes and sidewalks were included with connection to the greenway. Extensions from Hardy road south to Vinton Business Center and down the creek to Roanoke River Greenway are options in the future. Roanoke County's section of the greenway was initiated by an Eagle Scout as a trail project in 1995. The County obtained a Virginia Recreational Trails Grant to upgrade the trail to greenway standards from Stonebridge Park to Goode Park. Improvements included an aggregate stone surface, culverts and bridges at stream crossings, benches, and a trail shelter. Volunteers have helped with construction of two bridges, two kiosks, bluebird boxes, tree identification signs and a seating area for William Byrd classes. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5-21 The third section of the greenway to be built is between Stonebridge Park and the Blue Ridge Parkway. The County installed the section from Stonebridge Park to Mountain View Road in 2005. A right-of-way from Mountain View Road to the Blue Ridge Parkway was donated when the sewer line was installed across the Gross Farm in 1996. In 2006 construction began on improvements to Mountain View Road. The greenway will be able to go under the new road and the road itself will include bike lanes. The extension of the trail from Mountain View Road to the Blue Ridge Parkway was completed in 2006, but will not open until the road is completed. Benefits Wolf Creek Greenway provides a well used connection in Vinton and Roanoke County neighborhoods. Many senior citizens, William Byrd students, and residents from local subdivisions as well as the neighboring county use the trail. With completion to the Parkway, Wolf Creek Greenway will offer many extended loops. Next Steps Plans for extension of the greenway to Vinton Business Center and to Roanoke River should be developed before right-of-way acquisition can be initiated. 5-22 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5.4 Priority #3 Greenways 5.4.1 The BioMed Loop, Map #4 This corridor recognizes potential loops utilizing Lick Run Greenway, the Railwalk, Mill Mountain Greenway, Roanoke River Greenway, and Tinker Creek Greenway. "BioMed" is the colloquial name given to the area along Reserve Avenue and Jefferson Street where the Riverside Centre for Research and Technology is being developed. 5.4.2 Garden City Greenway, Map #12 The Garden City Greenway corridor follows Garnand Branch from the Roanoke River near the AEP substation to Garden City Elementary School. Several properties have been purchased with flood mitigation funds and are now being managed by the City of Roanoke Parks and Recreation Department. This greenway could provide connections from Roanoke River Greenway through the neighborhood to the trail networks of Mill Mountain Park and the Blue Ridge Parkway, as included in the Garden City Neighborhood Plan. 5.4.3 Glade Creek Greenway, Map #14 Glade Creek is a tributary of Tinker Creek, with headwaters in eastern Roanoke County near US 460. The Town of Vinton and Roanoke County have explored running the greenway from Tinker Creek Greenway to Gearhart Park, Vinyard Park and connecting to the Blue Ridge Parkway near Stewarts Knob. The portion in Vinyard Park is a priority for Roanoke County in its Parks master plan. 5.4.4 Gladetown Trail, Map #15 Gladetown Trail in Vinton would connect Craig Avenue Recreation Center to Niagara Road. It is included in Vinton's Comprehensive Plan, with connections to the proposed Tinker Creek canoe launch and to Wolf Creek Greenway. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5-23 5-24 5.4.5 Mudlick Creek Greenway, Map #26 Mudlick Creek flows through many neighborhoods in Roanoke County and the City of Roanoke, generally connecting Hidden Valley High School, Garst Mill Park, and the Deyerle Road area. The creek is subject to flash flooding after hard rains, and in 2002 Roanoke County installed a stormwater detention pond as part of the High School construction. The first section of this greenway opened in Garst Mill Park in 1999. A plan was developed with assistance from the Virginia Tech Community Design Assistance Center. The greenway was built in conjunction with a sewer line upgrade, with additional right-of-way donated by an adjacent landowner. The ~ mile paved trail is heavily used by neighbors and by others driving to the park. In addition to those exercising, frequent users include families with children learning to ride bikes, handicapped groups with wheelchairs, neighbors walking dogs, and elderly folks with some mobility impairments. Since the trail was built, many amenities have been installed, including trees, benches made from recycled materials, pooper scooper bag dispensers, and a memorial to Lee Eddy, a County Supervisor instrumental in establishing the greenway program. Extension of the trail is challenging because of the proximity of residences to the creek itself, but several easements have been secured. In 1999 an easement for the greenway near Route 419 was secured as a proffer with the McVitty Forest development. An easement downstream from the park, parallel to Garst Mill Road, was secured in 1999. The greenway has been included in development plans for the high school, McVitty Forest, and McVitty Road. Connections to Cave Spring Junior High and Penn Forest Elementary have also been proposed in conjunction with Merriman Road improvements. 5.4.6 Murray Run Greenway, Map #27 Murray Run is a stream which starts near Green Valley School in Roanoke County, runs through a site known as the Old Jefferson Hills Golf Course, passes behind residential houses, and then enters Fishburn Park. From the park the stream goes under Brambleton Road, through a neighborhood, through Lakeside Park, behind more residences and then under Brandon Road to Roanoke River. In 1998 the Greater Raleigh Court Civic League adopted this project and developed a plan in 2000, which combined three routes suggested in the 199 Conceptual Greenway Plan. The greenway has been built in stages, with much of the work by Pathfinders fo Greenways and corporate volunteers. The trail has a natural surface in wooded areas and a cinder surface across school and park fields. The sections of the greenway which have been built connect six schools and three parks: Patrick Henry High, Roanoke Valley Governor's School, Raleigh Court Elementary, James Madison Middle School, Fishburn Park Elementary, Virginia Western Community College, Shrine Hill Park, Woodland Park, and Fishburn Park. Other facilities Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 along the route include the Virginia Western Arboretum and the Gator Aquatic Center. There are two sections of the greenway which are not finished in the phase from Grandin Road to Colonial Avenue: the section behind Raleigh Court Elementary and the bridge near the rain garden at Fishburn Park. An extension of the greenway is planned from Colonial Avenue to Ogden Road, Tanglewood Mall, and Green Valley School. Another connection to Mudlick Creek Greenway is proposed along Grandin Road. The City of Roanoke Parks and Recreation Department expects to initiate a corridor feasibility analysis by 2008 to determine the best corridor alternatives to connect to Roanoke County near Tanglewood Mall. 5.4.7 Read Mountain Trails, Map #30 Read Mountain lies between US 460 and Old Mountain Road and is undeveloped on its upper slopes. In 2000 a grassroots group called Read Mountain Alliance was formed to protect the mountain from ridge line development. The Alliance has worked with property owners to secure easements and to explore and build trails on the mountain. In November 2006 a developer donated 125 acres to Roanoke County to be part of this new park. In addition to trails on the mountain there is opportunity for a connection to Tinker Creek Greenway, Roanoke Center for Industry and Technology, and the Jefferson National Forest. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5-25 5-26 5.5 Priority #4- Routes 5.5.1 Appalachian Trail, Map #1 The Appalachian National Scenic Trail (AT) is a 2,17 4-mile footpath along Appalachian Mountains from Katahdin in Maine to Springer Mountain in northern Georgia. The AT provides the ultimate greenway on the northern edge of the Roanoke Valley. This section of the Trail is managed for foot travel only by the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Appalachian Trail Conservancy, and Roanoke Appalachian Trail Club. Well known lookouts along this section of AT include Audie Murphy Memorial, Dragon's Tooth, McAfee's Knob, Tinker Cliffs, and Fulhardt Knob. Key access points with parking are located at: . VA 311 at Dragon's Tooth Trailhead, north of Catawba . VA 311 at the top of Catawba Mountain (Catawba Valley Road) . VA 779 near the cement plant, Catawba Creek Road (Botetourt County) . US 220 in Daleville at the park-n-ride (Botetourt County) . US 11 near Troutville (Botetourt County) The parking lots at Dragon's Tooth and VA 779 provide access to the AT via blue-line trails. There are also two trails within Carvins Cove Natural Reserve which provide connection to the AT: Sawmill Branch Trail from the Bennett Springs end and another from the boat launch end. Additional information on the AT is available from the National Park Service at the Appalachian Trail Conference at www.appalachiantrailconference.ora, and from the Roanoke Appalachian Trail Club at www.ratc.ora. Note: Bicycles and horses are not allowed on the AT. 5.5.2 Back Creek Greenway, Map #2 The 1995 Plan included a greenway route (#45) along the entire length of Back Creek. Exploration of the corridor, setting of priorities, and recognition of the extensive acquisition that would be needed has led to shortening the corridor. The most feasible section is from the headwaters to Merriman Park. Here a connection to the Blue Ridge Parkway is planned. In the headwaters of Back Creek there are several public properties which might be linked by a greenway, including a well field site and Back Creek School. This part of Roanoke County is a mix of rural farms and newer subdivisions. Widening of VA 220 as far as Cotton Hill Road is included in the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Six Year Plan. While the original engineering did not include bike lanes or a greenway, VDOT is re-examining the available right-of-way in an effort to provide some bicycle accommodations. VA 220 is a critical road for bicyclists because it provides a section of so many loop rides. Roanoke County Parks, Recreation, and Tourism manages a large park complex on Back Creek near Penn Forest. This complex includes Darrell Shell Park, Starkey Park, and Merriman Park. The County has built some sidewalks and pedestrian connections between the park facilities which could be linked together as part of Back Creek Greenway. There is a well- Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 used bicycle access point from Merriman Park to the Blue Ridge Parkway, which is proposed by the Parkway as an official access and connection of Parkway and greenway trails. 5.5.3 Barnhart Creek Greenway, Map #3 Barnhardt Creek begins near state property on Long Ridge, parallels the end of Grandin Road Extension, winds through Hidden Valley Country Club and Junior High, and runs into Roanoke River at the Salem/City of Roanoke line. Within the City of Roanoke it is often called Craven Creek. While this route is difficult from a right-of-way standpoint and would require on- and off- road sections, it is retained from the 95 Plan (where it was Route 36) because it could provide linkages from suburban neighborhoods like Meadow Creek, Fairway Forest, Farmingdale, Medmont Lake, and Crestwood to Roanoke River and to Poor Mountain Preserve. 5.5.4 Birding and Wildlife Trail, Map #5 The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has developed a Birding and Wildlife Trail to celebrate the state's diverse habitat and bird watching opportunities. The Mountain Area guide includes two loops in the Roanoke Valley, the Star City Loop and the Roanoke Valley Loop. The guide highlights parks, trails, greenways, and other sites where nature enthusiasts will have good opportunities for observing birds and wildlife and directs users on driving between these sites. While many of the individual sites are otherwise listed in the Greenway Plan, the Birding and Wildlife Trail is included as a separate "greenway" to highlight its importance as a state network. Sites currently listed on the Roanoke loops are: Star City Loop . East Gate Park . Masons Mill Park . Thrasher Park . Wolf Creek Greenway . Virginia's Explore Park . Chestnut Ridge Trail . Mill Mountain Park (including Star Trail) . Roanoke Water Pollution Control Plant . Tinker Creek Greenway . Wasena Park and the Roanoke River Greenway . Rivers Edge Sports Complex . Fishburn Park . Garst Mill Park Greenway Roanoke Valley Loop . Woodpecker Ridge Nature Center . Carvins Cove Recreation Area . Whispering Pines Park . Carvins Cove Recreation Area - Upperside . Havens Wildlife Management Area . Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail . Green Hill Park . Moyer Sports Complex! Roanoke River Greenway . Poor Mountain Natural Area Preserve . Happy Hollow Garden . Bent Mountain Elementary School Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5-27 5-28 Virginia Birding and Wildlife Trail Guides are available from the Virginia Tourism Corporation at 1-866-VABIRDS (1-866-822-4737). Additional information is available at http://www . d a if. vi ra in i a. a ov Iwi I d I ife/v bwtli n d ex. as p. ~lIll III ...... ...-. . oI...~ 'f;': .:~~ I .~~x:: ~ ~I .':' ' .. .~.J. ..' --:.;r..... ~~ ~~~~~ .,.' . .'.' i.... _, j":-~ loo.:"" n. .or- ~ ' '. . _ 1- ' I t ~" . ~ -" ..." .. ;11<" : '.- ,~~ ~ ~. · ... - .n . ,.r "'" .. ...... I ~. " .~~..,.l . -'.1 K::.J(I . J~ ~' ~~_,_ .- ~ 1 _~ I. ~l~.~ P -"'""i -- -.. J . -... ~~:Si ... ;Jr.\~~ !;.;"\" .. ';"~ ~ u .~. ...___:.....~ : p..J' ..:.:::n.......... -.,..=>'.; .11::7 ~ .::.~' . :11.~ i- -' - . J' _.i " _... ,~, ~~ 1[=1: ~ q.._ : (... :..:-: .~...... I ~~rs'~- 1-:: ~.~~-'- ~~~" 1'1- ~ _. . ... -' ;,J"'" ~.!L .. · .. ~,. ........)~ I ...-----. J:'!I ~f' I ~. 7 P .:. ~ l.. ~ .' ~~~IM.. . : ~ .,~.,J ,.,:1~. t.- ;~~. .{JL ..r f~.~,~ , "1.1 ~I"'_"a:r,:t ---. P ... ~:... ," \.': r. I_ ~...;J "'T --....1-. - '. ~~.-.J. ..:. ~ ::~;> ~ 'I . . ,.-~ .~;~/~ .d~iJ- , .. -~?--.. ...:",..r....:-.., -'+$~::;"~II J 1 ~. . .~., ~- r.~~~..:--~ ~ ~ '~Y' .~:.. ,'."" ..~:-~ l~\'U 6 ~ 'P... I ~-. ~_...:.. "-:-.... - ~~. ~ .~. ~_''EIII''-=-- ....._. .'1..... I. ...... ..~.4..:'~'.~: ':..~(~'-" ".f>~~~Jl III , I ~ r;~ . -;......-:-; P~ . g, .. ..: - III \ II ~ .. ~~ ~-~..~-A;. ~ ': ~~~ ~~ ~ :.. 1:! j'-.:PII.~ ~I '..:.\ ~ d I .' ..(I rI-. rr ~ 'I' 1I.~'.~._ ~. r:-..s: ~:-'! ~ . toO '., I ...,. ). ~ >~. . .' .rtI:~...:- ~~. .... __;~~i ',~" . " ':~~~ ~ lJIf"l J til_ L.~ .. '~~=~Il, ~~ ~ .~.......:;-- . P~ ~ 1- .~.. .. 5.5.5 Carvin Creek Greenway, Map #7 The 1995 Plan included a greenway route (#9) from Carvins Cove Reservoir to Tinker Creek. Exploration of the corridor, setting of priorities, and recognition of the extensive acquisition that would be needed has led to shortening the corridor. There are two feasible sections. One is from Brookside Park to Tinker Creek. The second section is being incorporated into the Tinker Creek Greenway corridor from LaMarre Drive through Hollins University campus to Carvins Cove. 5.5.6 Catawba Greenway, Map #9 This greenway has been added to the Greenway Plan through this Update at the request of citizens. It would run from Masons Cove, cross the Appalachian Trail on Sandstone Ridge, descend through the Catawba Farm owned by Virginia Tech, and connect to Catawba Hospital and the National Forest. 5.5.7 Dry Creek Greenway, Map #10 This corridor (Route #12 in the 95 Plan) follows a small tributary of Roanoke River. The drainage begins in Havens Wildlife Management Area, goes through the municipal golf course, and connects several Salem neighborhoods and a park along Shanks Street. It goes underground and resurfaces near Timber Truss, with connections to Union Street near Moyer Complex. 5.5.8 Explore Park Trails, Map #11 Virginia's Explore Park is 1,100 acres of state owned land managed by the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority (VRFA). The park includes an historic interpretive area and many recreation opportunities like canoeing, fishing, picnicking, hiking, and mountain biking. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 Within the park are a Blue Ridge Parkway visitor center, the restored Brugh Tavern, and a restored church which can be rented for special events. Access to the park is from Milepost 115 on the Blue Ridge Parkway. VRFA has signed an option to lease the park to Virginia Living Histories for development as a family recreation area. Details of that development have not been completed. Explore Park's trail system currently has several components. . There are 12 miles of mountain bike trails, which were professionally built by International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA) and volunteers. . There are hiking trails from the third overlook of the entrance road, which generally descend to the river and historic area. . There is a Sociey of American Foresters' trail, 0.65 miles, designed to demonstrate forestry regeneration and natural resource management. . Back Creek Nature Trail is a half mile interpretive loop near the river. . Along the river, there is Riverwalk, a dual track, wooded trail. This is a potential location for the Roanoke River Greenway. . From the Shenandoah Picnic Pavilion to the end of the park at Rutrough Road there is trail. Initially it is dual track, and then beyond the wildlife plot it is a single track trail. In 2005 the Greenway Commission sponsored an Eagle Scout to build a bridge on this trail. Explore Park is an important component of the Roanoke River Greenway. The Roanoke River Greenway is projected to enter park lands near Niagara Dam, run under the Blue Ridge Parkway, and then re- enter the park to run through to Back Creek, where it would connect to Franklin County. The greenway will also connect Explore Park to downtown Roanoke and other portions of the Roanoke River. Additional information on Explore Park is at www.explorepark.ora. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5-29 5-30 5.5.9 Gish Branch Greenway, Map #13 Gish Branch is a tributary of Mason Creek, and the corridor includes several historic structures related to the Valley Railroad. This greenway could link Salem neighborhoods to the Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail. 5.5.10Green Hill Park Trails, Map #16 Green Hill is a 224-acre Roanoke County Park on the Roanoke River west of Salem. The park offers a range of festival events, sports, and recreation opportunities. It includes an equestrian facility with show rings, stables, and a hunt course, and multi-use trails for hiking and mountain biking. Construction of the Roanoke River Greenway through the park has been designed and funded; construction is expected to begin in 2007. 5.5.11 Havens Wildlife Management Area Trails, Map #18 Havens Wildlife Management Area (WMA), covering 7,190 acres, is located in northwest Roanoke County and managed by Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Havens encompasses most of Fort Lewis Mountain and is generally steep and inaccessible terrain except to the hardiest hunter or nature enthusiast. Elevations range from 1,500 to 3,200 feet. In addition to hunting, Havens offers visitors the opportunity to hike, view wildlife and wild flowers, and pursue other outdoor interests. The WMA is an important connection between Carvins Cove and the western part of Roanoke County. r.~~?- ~ .. i~i~~ ,. / ~, ~~. '. ?~ . " . y~ -~.--.'h! ~ · ~ .r ..... 1.1 . .~. .. .. r-r..t'" . . .;i , . ........~ ~ I~~ ~ '~j" ...: &~~. .1 .L'.~~~~; .~ t'1. _ ..,. ~ ~.~. &.~ ~I ...-. ~ 1l "~ "-I ..... . 5... ~., . .., .- r.....;..., I .... '. ., ::f: ~~.i~.:~~., w.:~. ~ -L ...._ ..~.. L.L.....- --r Havens has two primary public access points: . Carroll's Access Road from Wildwood Road on the south side of the property . Bradshaw Road, VA 622, where it joins the area's northwest boundary. Additional information is available at http://www.daif.state.va.us/HUNTING/wma/havens.html. 5.5.12 Jefferson National Forest Trails, Map #19 The Jefferson National Forest includes 690,000 acres of woodlands between the James River and southwest Virginia. It is managed by the U. S. Forest Service for multiple uses, including recreation, timber, wildlife, water, and minerals. The Jefferson is now administered jointly with the George Washington National Forest, which covers the Forest Service lands in the western part of the state from the James River to the Potomac. The U. S. Forest Service is one of the experts nationally in construction and management of natural surface trails for hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and other trail uses. The Jefferson NF provides important greenway connections for the Perimeter Trail, Appalachian Trail, and other trail loops. Other trails close to the Roanoke Valley include North Mountain Trail and the Glenwood Horse Trail. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5.5.13 Long Ridge Trail, Map #21 Long Ridge connects Poor Mountain Preserve, managed by the Virginia Division of Natural Heritage, to Happy Hollow Gardens, managed by Roanoke County as a park. The ridge is undeveloped at this time and provides a unique opportunity for a woodland trail connecting western Roanoke County to southwest County. 5.5.14 Mason Cove Greenway, Map #22 The Masons Cove greenway would connect Mason Creek Greenway to Catawba Greenway utilizing an old railroad bed. 5.5.15 Perimeter Trail, Map #28 The Perimeter Trail will be a multi-use trail circling the Roanoke Valley and connecting existing public lands. Existing trail networks to be connected include Carvins Cove, Havens Wildlife Management Area, Green Hill Park, Spring Hollow, the Blue Ridge Parkway, Explore Park, and the Jefferson National Forest. This greenway would provide a long distance trail for hikers, equestrians, and mountain bikers. A route for the perimeter trail through Botetourt County from the Jefferson National Forest to Carvins Cove has not been identified. 5.5.16 Poor Mountain Preserve, Map #29 Poor Mountain Preserve is a 925-acre site managed by the Virginia Division of Natural Heritage (Department of Conservation and Recreation) to protect the world's largest population of the globally rare piratebush. This shrub is saprophytic to Table Mountain pine and hemlock. The Division plans to install a new four mile trail system to provide better public access to its very steep terrain. The Preserve could provide a connection from Harborwood Road to Twelve O'Clock Knob. 5.5.17 Roanoke River Greenway Extensions to Franklin and Montgomery Counties, Map #32 This route is the extension of Roanoke River Greenway from Explore Park to Smith Mountain Lake and from Spring Hollow to the New River Valley. The Valley's portion of this route may be only a bridge to Franklin County or a short connection to Montgomery County, but the route is included in both the Virginia Outdoors Plan and the Franklin County Trails Plan. The Montgomery County Bikeway/Walkway Plan includes a North Fork route, and the New River Planning District Commission is currently updating the regional greenway plan, which is expected to include a Roanoke River Greenway connection to New River. 5.5.18 Spring Hollow Trails, Map #33 Spring Hollow is a major reservoir for the Roanoke Valley, now managed by the Western Virginia Water Authority. Adjacent lands are owned by Roanoke County, as is the adjacent Camp Roanoke. A master plan for the site completed in 1996 proposed numerous horse trails and other facilities, but these have not yet been developed. Spring Hollow is an important connection for the Perimeter Trail and a destination along Roanoke River Greenway. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5-31 5-32 5.6 On-road Connections While the focus in this Update is on greenways which provide linkages and which are both "green" and a "trail", there was in 1995 and still is today, recognition that on-road transportation connections are needed to traverse the valley and to get from one greenway to another. The 1995 Conceptual Greenway Plan included thirty-one routes, some numbered and some not, which were labeled as being on-road. These are listed in the matrix in Section 2.4.5. For on-road routes, this Update endorses the 2005 Bikeway Plan for the Roanoke Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization and the 2006 Rural Bikeway Plan. 5.6.1 Bikeway Plan for the Roanoke Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization The 2005 Bikeway Plan for the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (Bikeway Plan) represents a coordinated effort by the Roanoke Valley Area MPO, local jurisdictions, and other stakeholders to facilitate development of a regional transportation network that accommodates and encourages bicycling as an alternative mode of travel and as a popular form of recreation in the MPO study area. The MPO study area covers the "urbanized" portions of the region and includes the City of Roanoke, City of Salem, Town of Vinton, and portions of Botetourt and Roanoke Counties. These localities, with the exception of Botetourt County, are members of the Greenway Commission. The Bikeway Plan describes a variety of on-road facilities that might be constructed or managed for bicycle use, including striped bicycle lanes, paved shoulders, widened outside lanes, and rural roads with low levels of vehicular use. These routes are ranked as either "priority" or "vision". The routes currently included in the 2005 Bikeway Plan and thus endorsed as on-road transportation routes for the Greenway Plan are shown in Appendix E. The Bikeway Plan includes an annual review and update process. The Regional Commission is currently reviewing the Bikeway Plan with an expected update by June 2007. An initial comparison of corridors listed in the Bikeway Plan with on-road greenway routes from the 1995 Conceptual Greenway Plan identified corridors for inclusion in the 2007 update to the Bikeway Plan. The following routes are recommended as an amendment to the Bikeway Plan to provide for the needs recognized in the greenway network. The complete Bikeway Plan for the RVAMPO and information on the update process is available at www.rvarc.ora/bike. On-Road Greenway Routes and/or Connections for Consideration in the 2007 Update of the Bikeway Plan for the RVAMPO Cove Road Electric Road 41 9 Green Rid e Harborwood Road Main Street Mill Lane Mill Mountain Park S ur Road S artan Lane Timberview Road US 220 South Washin ton Avenue oute 24 Wood Haven G reenrid e Road Route 311 Wood Haven Road Poor Mountain Road Peters Creek Road Roanoke River Mill Mountain Park Mill Lane Terminus Blue Rid e Parkwa Bedford Coun CL Peters Creek Road Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5.6.2 Rural Bikeway Plan The Rural Bikeway Plan, completed in 2006, covers the portions of Roanoke County outside of the Roanoke Valley Area MPO and the localities of Alleghany, Craig, and Franklin Counties, the City of Covington, the Town of Clifton Forge, and the rural portions of Botetourt County. On-road greenway routes included in the Rural Bikeway Plan are provided below. The Rural Bikeway Plan is available at www.rvarc.ora. On-Road Greenway Routes Included in the 2006 Rural Bikeway Plan Route 311 Route 311 Route 311 Botetourt Coun CL Roanoke Coun Roanoke Coun Roanoke Coun Botetourt Coun 5.6.3 Virginia Interstate Bicycle Route 76 Several nationally recognized bicycle routes that run through Virginia. These include the BikeCentennial Route 76, the Trans-America Bike Trail, and the Interstate Bicycle Route 76. The Trans-America Bike Trail (a.k.a. BikeCentennial Route 76) runs for 4,250 miles from Williamsburg, Virginia to Astoria, Oregon. The 500-mile Virginia section of the Trans-America Bicycle Route runs from Yorktown to the Kentucky state line near Breaks Interstate Park and is known as the Virginia Interstate Bike Route 76. The Virginia Interstate Bicycle Route 76 runs through portions of Roanoke County. Although "Route 76" signs with a bicycle image demarcate the route (Figure 6.1), the roads along the route have not necessarily been improved for bicycle travel. Bike Route 76 through Roanoke County is outlined below. . Enter Roanoke County on Route 779 (Catawba Creek Road) from Botetourt County . Continue on Route 779 until the intersection with Route 311 (Catawba Valley Road) . Turn right (west) onto Route 311 for a short distance . Turn left onto Route 785 (Blacksburg Road) and continues on Route 785 into Montgomery County Route 785 was noted as an on-road greenway route in the 1995 Plan and is included in the 2006 Rural Bikeway Plan. 5.6.4 Virginia Department of Transportation Policy for Integrating Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations The Commonwealth Transportation Board adopted the new Policy for Integrating Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations on March 18, 2004. This policy provides the framework through which VDOT will accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians in the planning, funding, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of Virginia's transportation network. In this policy an Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 5-33 accommodation is defined as any facility, design feature, operational change, or maintenance activity that improves the environment in which bicyclists and pedestrians travel. This policy states that VDOT will initiate all construction projects with the presumption that the project will accommodate bicycling and walking. While exceptions are allowed, this policy significantly improves the availability of funding for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The policy also eliminates the past VDOT requirement that a roadway be included in an approved bikeway plan in order for bicycle accommodations to be considered. Additional information on the VDOT Policy for Integrating Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations and other bike/ped information is available on VDOT's Bicycling and Walking in Virginia web site 5-34 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 6.0 6.0 6 Implementation Strategies Greenway Construction Funding Land Acquisition Community Outreach and Education Organizational Structure Greenway Management Goals and Objectives from 1995 Plan 6-1 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-6 6-7 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES The Update to the Conceptual Greenway Plan envisions an ambitious network of trails and accommodations that connects the region. As shown in Section 4, the issues raised by the public led to development of six new goals, in addition to those in the 1995 Plan. (See Section 4.6.) These six goals are regional goals for all the partners involved in the greenway program to consider during future greenway planning. The objectives and strategies address these six goals and suggest methods for implementing the Update. The four localities and Greenway Commission will need to work together to determine needs within each jurisdiction and the best allocation for sharing responsibilities. The Greenway Commission will address the goals, objectives and strategies outlined in this section in a cooperative partnership with the four local governments, recognizing that each locality operates in an individual manner and is responsive to a broad spectrum of needs and desires from its citizenry, one of which is the implementation of the regional greenway program. Goals Objectives Strategies 1. Greenway Construction . Prioritize greenway . Focus on finishing the Complete a connected construction and focus Roanoke River Greenway greenway network of trails to resources on completion (Priority #1) in the next five provide the multiple benefits of the greenway years. of a greenway system, with network's arterial routes. focus on finishing Roanoke . Focus on finishing Priority #2 River Greenway. . Provide a connected routes in five to ten years. greenway system by focusing on long . I ncorporate on-road stretches of off-road trails greenways and connections and tying them together into the regional Bikeway with on-road bicycle and Plans. pedestrian facilities. . Develop master plans for . I mprove the process for Priority 1 and 2 greenways getting greenways built. with time lines for land acquisition and construction. . Provide identification, regulatory, and . Identify a project team for informational signs on each project, with assigned each greenway to roles and responsibilities. facilitate use and management. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 6-1 Goals Objectives Strategies 1. Greenway Construction . Within each locality ( continued) coordinate project management, land acquisition, and greenway construction with all departments that might help or be impacted. . Develop greenway sign guidelines to encourage signage consistency while retaining flexibility to meet locality requirements. . Continue to use Pathfinders for Greenways to build Class C trails. 2. Funding . Develop an aggressive, . Continue to seek federal and Increase greenway funding regional, multi-year state grants but reduce to meet the goals for trail funding plan that reliance on these sources. construction and completion identifies fiscal goals and of the greenway network. sources of continuous . Develop an implementation funding for greenway plan for completion of the construction. Roanoke River Greenway and utilize it in soliciting . Develop new sources of corporate donations and revenue for greenway investments. construction. . Target multiple funding sources and explore innovative funding possibilities such as bonds, stormwater fees, private grants, and partnerships. . Expand fund raising activities such as charitable donations, festivals, races, and other fundraising events. 6-2 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 Goals Objectives Strategies 2. Funding . Include capital money for ( continued) greenways in each locality's Capital Improvement Program. . Develop a donation program to allow private donation of greenway amenities such as water fountains, bike racks and benches. . Develop a method for receiving and efficiently utilizing corporate donations. . Develop a list of specific trail sections or components that could be funded by corporate or other private monies. 3. land Acquisition . Develop an aggressive, . Form land acquisition teams, Develop a land acquisition land acquisition program define roles and program that provides that identifies properties responsibilities of team rights-of-way needed for needed for each project members, and train team greenway construction. and time lines for members to assist with acquisition that dovetail acquisition of greenway with construction easements. schedules. . Identify existing public . Work cooperatively properties and easements among local jurisdictions being acquired for other to coordinate land purposes to determine if acquisition across greenway easements can be jurisdictional boundaries. incorporated. . Develop a mechanism to be involved in the utility easement process so that greenway easements can be considered where appropriate. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 6-3 Goals Objectives Strategies 3. land Acquisition . Work with planning staff to ( continued) refine local zoning ordinances to encourage and protect greenway corridors. . Work with developers to include greenway easements, and greenway construction, within new developments that are located along identified greenway corridors. Utilize corporations and chambers of commerce to support development of trails within industrial/business complexes. 4. Community Outreach . Develop a dynamic . Expand the Greenway and Education outreach program that Commission and localities' Develop a community communicates the web sites to provide current outreach and education economic, health, information on projects and program that provides environmental, and events, trail locations and information on greenway quality of life benefits of maps, and information for opportunities and benefits. the greenway system. tourists. . Increase awareness of . Provide greenway marketing greenway implementation information to the economic efforts through a development departments of comprehensive marketing the local jurisdictions. strategy. . Develop an outreach program . Expand environmental that goes beyond the educational programs Roanoke Valley to be used to and service opportunities attract new businesses and through cooperation with enhance the valley's value as local schools and an a tourism destination. expanded volunteer program. . Develop a speaker's bureau to market g reenways to Valley residents through club and organization meetings, civic associations, and business groups. 6-4 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 Goals Obiectives Strategies 4. Community Outreach . Standardize use of the and Education greenway logo on trail signs, ( continued) maps, and marketing materials. . Publicize greenway projects, trail locations, and benefits via the press, newsletters, sig nage, and web site. . Expand the volunteer and volunteer recognition program. . Develop a "Youth of the Greenways" advocacy component to engage young audiences to volunteer and contribute to future greenway development. 5. Organizational . Clarify the roles and . Clarify the roles and Structure responsibilities for responsibilities of each Refine the organizational implementing the locality, the Greenway structu re to effectively and Greenway Plan. Commission and volunteers efficiently implement the in implementation of the Update to the Conceptual . Improve the Greenway Greenway Plan and specific Greenway Plan and manage Commission's function to projects. the growing greenway assist the localities system. effective Iy. . Update and renew the Intergovernmental Agreement. . Identify staffing needs of the localities and Greenway Commission to meet the responsibilities of each in implementing the Greenway Plan and managing the greenway network. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 6-5 Goals Objectives Strategies 5. Organizational . Develop a Memorandum of Structure Understanding with Western ( continued) Virginia Water Authority and other utility companies to facilitate right-of-way planning and management of greenways within utility corridors. 6. Greenway Management . Utilize best management . Work with legal department to Manage the greenway practices in design and develop any ordinances network to meet user needs, maintenance of needed to effectively manage provide a range of greenways. greenways. experiences in a secure environment, and protect the . Improve regional . Develop methods for users to natural resources. coordination among report problems or conditions greenway managers to on greenways. address management issues and develop . Involve law enforcement and consistent responses. emergency management personnel prior to the . Provide departments opening of new greenways. maintaining greenways with sufficient budget . Schedule regional meetings and resou rces to among staff managing manage the growing greenways to share methods greenway network. and experiences. . Identify greenways in locality mapping and geographic information systems. . Use national and state guidelines like CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) and AASHTO (Amer. Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) to design secure and safe trails. . Expand adopt-a-greenway prog rams and other methods for volunteer assistance to reduce maintenance costs. 6-6 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 In addition to goals, objectives and strategies in the table above, this Update reaffirms the goals and objectives of the 1995 Plan. Goals from 1995 Plan 1. Transportation Provide corridors that bicyclists, pedestrians, and others can use to get from one place to another as an alternative to motor vehicle use. 2. Safety . Design a greenway system that maximizes safety of . greenway system users and nearby property owners and . neighborhoods. 3. Recreation/ Fitness/Health . Design the greenway system . as both a recreational resource and as public access . to other recreational resources, offering a full . spectrum of recreation and exercise opportunities. Objectives/Strategies Quoted from 1995 Plan . Provide greenways that connect schools, libraries, shopping centers, work sites, parks and other places in the community. . Provide connections between mass transit sites and make arrangements for safe storage of greenway system users' bicycles (or other belongings) while they are using the transit system. . Identify and make plans for existing roads that should be widened or otherwise modified to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians. . Initiate Valley-wide design and installation standards to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities on new roads and road improvement plans. . Initiate design standards that are sensitive to the disabled in order to ensure opportunities for a variety of users. . Establish integrated law enforcement and emergency response programs that service the needs of greenway system users and landowners. Incorporate into the greenway management system appropriate safety and security strategies. Design the greenway system to accommodate different activities (such as horseback riding and bicycling) with a minimum of user-conflict. Improve bicycle safety by implementing safety education programs in local schools and the community. . Provide a greenway system that accommodates a variety of recreational activities. Encourage businesses to establish and integrate use of greenways into corporate health and wellness programs. Promote programs and facilities that provide opportunities for individual health related activities. Make each greenway a stand-alone destination (as well as a link to other resources) by providing amenities such as benches, picnic areas, and workout stations. Provide access to the Valley's existing and proposed recreation areas, such as local parks, the Blue Ridge Parkway, and the Appalachian Trail. Inform the public on how using the greenways can help citizens increase personnel fitness and maintain healthy lifestyles. . Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 6-7 Goals from 1995 Plan 4. Education Educate the public about the need for and benefits of greenways, and educate the greenway system user about . the area's natural ad cultural history. 5. Economic Development Address both the appropriate costs of implementing the greenway system (including land acquisition and capital improvements) and the benefits that will result from its creation. 6-8 Objectives/Strategies Quoted from 1995 Plan . Educate the community on the importance of environmental conservation and restoration ecology. . Develop a program of continuing education for elected officials, agency staff, developers and engineers to define the latest technologies, design methodologies and land use practices for managing the environment. Increase public awareness of the importance of the Roanoke River and its watershed lands to the future of the Roanoke Valley . Educate the public on the benefits and uses of greenways. Develop an out-reach education program to attract new users. . Educate property owners of the economic advantages of having a greenway on or near their property. . Educate greenway system users on proper greenway system etiquette that respects the rights of adjacent property owners and other greenway system users. . Use the greenway system as an outdoor Environmental Learning Lab for school and community use. . Provide historic information using trail markers along historically significant trail corridors. . Provide maps and literature on trail length, difficulty, restrictions and amenities. . Utilize the greenway system as an economic development marketing tool for the Roanoke Valley. . Use greenway linkages to compliment and enhance tourist attractions. . Document economic benefits of greenways, such as increasing the value of land that lies contiguous to a greenway and the benefits to a new business locating in the Roanoke Valley. . Establish a mechanism to ensure continuing maintenance of the greenways, such as using volunteers to keep maintenance costs low and starting Adopt-A-Greenway program. . Utilize tax incentives, easements and other approaches to encourage individuals and businesses to donate land, funding or materials. . Establish procedures for subdivision developers to provide donations of land or rights-of-way for greenway systems. . Utilize existing rights-of-way, utility corridors, and other features to lower installation costs. . Explore and obtain multiple sources of funding for greenways. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 Goals from 1995 Plan 6. Environmental . Design a plan that preserves, promotes and enhances the . Valley's environmental assets. 7. Organizational and . Operational Implement the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan on a regional level and proceed . with future greenway system planning and implementation. . Objectives/Strategies Quoted from 1995 Plan . Encourage localities to include greenways as a flood reduction strategy in the Roanoke Reoional Stormwater Manaoement Plan. Develop a valley-wide strategy for protecting natural stream corridors and other open space, plus a mitigation program for addressing resources that have been adversely altered by land development. Promote greenways as an alternative transportation mode that can help reduce air pollution. Utilize areas adjacent to greenways as natural areas that protect, maintain, or restore natural vegetation and aquatic and wildlife habitats. Design greenways to reduce non-point source pollution in stormwater runoff. Utilize greenways as buffer zones between developed area and open spaces. . . . . Obtain local government and citizen support for the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan. Respond to citizen concerns such as safety issues and user conflicts in the establishment and operation of the greenway system. Establish standards for the design, operation, and maintenance of the greenway system. Ensure that an organizational structure exists for regional planning, implementation, and operation of greenways in the Roanoke Valley Establish a non-profit organization to launch a public awareness campaign, volunteer programs and fundraising effo rts Select a pilot greenway project and implement it. Pursue implementation of other elements of the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan. . . . Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 6-9 APPENDIX A: BIBLIOGRAPHY American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1999), Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, Washington D.C. Beneficial Designs Inc. (1998), The Universal Trail Assessment Process Training Guide, PAX Press, Santa Cruz, CA. Birkby, Robert (1996), Lightly on the Land: The SCA Trail-Building and Maintenance Manual, Student Conservation Corps Inc., published by The Mountaineers, Seattle, WA. Bowker, J.M., John C. Bergstrom and Joshua K. Gill (2004, December), The Virginia Creeper Trail: An Assessment of User Demographics, Preferences, and Economics - Final Report Prepared for the Virginia Department of Conservation. Bowker, J.M., John C. Bergstrom and Joshua K. Gill (2004, December), The Waterway at New River State Park: An Assessment of User Demographics, Preferences, and Economics - Final Report Prepared for the Virginia Department of Conservation. Bowker, J.M., John C. Bergstrom, Joshua K. Gill and Ursula Lemanski (2004, December), The Washington & Old Dominion Trail: An Assessment of User Demographics, Preferences, and Economics - Final Report Prepared for the Virginia Department of Conservation. Brandywine Conservancy, Inc. (1997), Community Trails Handbook, Chadds Ford, PA. Duffy, Hugh (1991, June), Developing Sustainable Mountain Trail Corridors, National Park Service, Rivers & Trails Program, Denver, CO. Flink, Charles, Loring Schwarz, and Robert Stearns (1993), Greenways: A Guide to Planning, Design, and Development, Island Press, Washington DC. Hesselarth, Woody and Brian Vachowski (2004), Trail Construction and Maintenance Notebook, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Technology and Development Program, 0423-2825-MTDC-P. Hooper, Lennon (1988), NPS Trail Management Handbook, National Park Service, Washington, DC. International Mountain Bicycling Association (2004), Trail Solutions: IMBA's Guide to Building Sweet Singletrack, International Mountain Bicycling Association, Boulder, CO. Labaree, Jonathan (1992), How Greenways Work: A Handbook on Ecology, National Park Service and Atlantic Center for the Environment. Little, Charles E. (1995), Greenways for America, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. McCoy, M. and M. Stoner (1992), Mountain Bike Trails: Techniques for Design, Construction, and Maintenance, Bikecentennial, Missoula, MT. Miller, Jay S (1983), Construction & Maintenance of Horse Trails, prepared in cooperation with Arkansas Trails Council, U.S. Forest Service, Arkansas Trail Ride Association, and the Northwest Arkansas Horse Trail construction volunteers. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 A-1 Moore, Roger and Kelly Barthlow (1998, March), The Economic Impacts and Uses of Long-Distance Trails, United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program (1992), Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors, National Park Service. North Carolina State University, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Office of Parks, Tourism Research, 1995-96 Economic Impact of Travel to the Blue Ridge Parkway Virginia and North Carolina, Prepared for the Coalition for the Blue Ridge Parkway and the National Park Service. Parker, Troy Scott (2003), Natural Surface Trail Design: The Pattern That Works, Natureshapes, Inc. Parsons Harland Bartholomew & Asso., Inc. (1999), Connecting Our Commonwealth, The Virginia Greenways and Trails Toobox, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and Virginia Trails Association. PFK Consulting (1994), Analysis of Economic Impacts of the Northern Central Rail Trail, Maryland Greenways Commission. Proudman R.D and Rajala (1981), Trailbuilding and Maintenance, Appalachian Mountain Club, Boston, MA. Rathke, David M. and Melvin Baughman (1994), Recreational Trail Design and Construction, Minnesota Extension Service and University of Minnesota. Ritter, Mike, Jan Ritter, Joey Klein, Rich Edwards, and Jen Edwards (2001), Building Better Trails: Designing, Constructing, and Maintaining Outstanding Trails, International Mountain Bicycling Association, Boulder, CO. Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (2005, August), Bikeway Plan for the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, Roanoke, VA. Ryan, Karen-Lee, editor (1993, 2000), Trails for the Twenty-First Century: Planning, Design, and Management Manual for Multi-Use Trails, Rails- To- Trails Conservancy, Island Press, Washington DC. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (1999), Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access. FHWA-HEP-99-006, HEHE/8-99/(5M)E, and FHWA-EP-01-027, HEPH/8-01(10M)E. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Transit Administration (2002, August), Rails-with- Trails: Lessons Learned. FT A-MA-26-0052-04-1. United States Forest Service, Angeles National Forest (1991, February), Trail Selection Criteria for Mountain Bike Use on Existing Forest Trails. United States Forest Service, Engineering Staff (1984, June), Standard Specifications for the Construction of Trails, Washington DC, EM-7720-102. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (2000), The Virginia Greenways and Trails Toolbox. Virginia Dept. of Conservation & Recreation, Div.of Planning & Recreation Resources (2002), Virginia Outdoors Plan. Virginia Dept. of Game & Inland Fisheries, Discover Our Wild Side: Virginia Birding and Wildlife Trail, Mountain Area. Virginia Department of Transportation (2002, January), The Virginia Bicycle Facility Resource Guide. A-2 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 APPENDIX B: INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT _1~_II1.BITAL~""'I__ TIE RDMIOICI VALLEY'~~Y COMrlrlllDII 1. PIJRII08E The pwpoee GIllie RDeI.M "- ~ ~~wJt.ICh-I~. 11'1C.-f) II to pI~."1IId fa[-~ cxaanII .0\ j dINdIan.. ~....In __ ,...-q "J1I~ IIId 11_...... d. -...1111 ~ (IIMfIlnP IIaughaut lie IID-... VIIIIr. I. lOOP I 111II ~~ .,.111., IIInIMdId 10 ~NnoI__ QUIIItId -- far ~ cIIDne Iftd vtTi ~. 8nd 10: (.) (II) InODI.I'IIga cIIIIn weln.l. .., IIIIInIIIn 1fMl1OI_* whkt1 P'~- apportunIIIIafor _acIhIIIM: ~ ..III..... __...... ...lellI eaaIagiDII IIIif 1.. I . 0IJI1IIg.1OUI .... forIIIl <<011.1111. 10 NCIuoI 0DtIWIIrily wldllIWifQIlIIIIIIMI pmbIIIna IUCh . elt[ .1" ......n.naI. *CIIIIIr 1IIsJU&.., ... paIuIiDn. IIId n.. elm. ctIInge; ,..._., lPPf'{*r1fm far lie VIIIia...... hIIIoIIcIII.-d cdUeI___lndlla~ ~0fIId INI lINe ~ ...-... rI 1M eaIIIftrilra undlvlloped open ~ waa~ n WIII....r enhIncI ,. ~ IIlJlIIf... 10 ~ .... ptaIIIOII -.1IOMk "It~ 1M ~..,.. ,. living ~forl'll*ra (0) (d) ee) (I) (I) I. ....c__ DA~ IITMUlfIl8TOF COIDIIION 1Na Ae.....m 11III be ~'" Ind lie c:c.Wjll'" IhIIIIII 1.1IIIIhIcL ,.....w 10 115.141. Code fA VIIgIniI (1850). . ...-. upon 1111 II auIIan ,....n to 1M ~ of ~a~ MopIId -., the ~ bocIII ~ lid ~ b car at ~ h CIr ~ 8IIIIm. h Caw'IIr Of~ 1nIIW. Tow.n of \Won. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 B-1 B-2 APPENDIX B - CONTINUED .-. ~- rr1I!I AIIJ II1ID n. ~r.o, IIId ... --~L.. ,...........AIJm.. .n ~ 00 To ~ InI .li1M_ Clfb ~ Y.IIIW.IAd b1l1101 ~ .. v.IIr ,..... -....... lei ~ IhI ~ Vall)- ~~~-.cI~l-t~." .... .., b-. iIrMndId ftam 111M I:a ~ IInd IiO wade lei . ~~~ ~.. ... -=i I1I1811M!1t8 .-rt8..... · )1I~~ftltt8, . . Tb"'MClworm__~I'l!QtlO1T ~_..~.. ~ . hi Wt.l II ~u. -.....:1. IiTIIIiI ~~ ~--- J-L ~~ ...~ -MtI*.I h ..~~t; . (bJ (0) Ta ..... II~.L"~ 11::II-' glrl..amlng bodIll ......>> ..... ~ __ .n IacIII IIgiIlIIan ~ ~...~..~_n.--lI~ [d) . To hiI--~. m:I . ~ ftmdtng. ...... mdIar ~ " MInai pI~ << .....--.. Ian 1M . e.J.____~~.thillWtM ~cI~ __ . _~ pIt.D ~~~.. ~..,.....-.d.... . to ...~ 001'" -Dr ~ o.llJIIII!IIIII .., .IM ~VII. . Te" W 1MCIn.1lll1Id 1dann....1i.~ b' Iw ~-.I ~ af ......;.~ h*d1g.. ....... I ~ b8. .. ........~ VIII) __ . ~. (f) ra.=1U1W md pnnc.te pjtIG'pdl & .,.. ~"'~I . WIt: w!tIlw W1rtMn vqlnII Lmd rn.t md ... ncqKaIl =n:.. Md .... otqtINIDn IIIDQ VtlIIIj .._...11IIII. ~ _liD,*,,- ~ ...a ~.:I}.....tI~~1M\tI11Irt ~ TriI ~.. hi ~ rI UJB J$dIW. ItI1II IInd ~ ~:-&.. ~ --. '~ In UlMtA . ~ .-m II ~1IIIrd__N~" ~~Id1 0111I_ ~ or bL _~. ......~...m '-11 MIIiL (II L 1117..,.. 00 TIw ~ VilIIIr .~ e....I...1IarI IIf1II be- ~Id~~ .,,~.tIItJwI: (1) Thi" (3) mMM. tiWn ..". tI tw ~~ poItk;III ~ lID M 2 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 APPENDIX B - CONTINUED .(q lb) IIppalr*lcl br hi ~ bcdfJl. .... b- u .... at ttn. m ~ ~ I:Ir h rnIIBI ~,.~ b. wf*:h...1O.. ~MfQ'--=h ,..... -.-... ~ ......... bID n- I.. -- ~ ........ 1M JI~~~_ br "M lC'~rng tIadt. ~ ~ _II hi .. P-1AAt or 1M ~ ~ tie a-'" tIpI ---I tIl IJRI-nl thN_ ~1I:ad Dr 1M -~ . ,...11II110' r:q.=~'11I II'IfI FiIh - Pllmlng IJIIImI ~ ...1IIIfn ~I-AII (I) ~ -.....tob__MIrI~ _~~ ICt .___diII.... · ~ ~ 1"=~ ........... _1I!Nftf~ ..... vaItw...an "IM GtIIIIIMrIIJ Can111111an: 1hI d1III p..q aIIaII[ af..rL~ IM:IIIM ~.fa-pMcI.lI'IG_ tram ..:b~~ ani I'IpIllit11lDM t:l 1M ~ PJP . h.~~b...wvt~1n .b RaIrdII V.I~ Iftd. GIII.~ ......,. tl". vaili'm _mil LR ,..... A..........,. b"b.....~* Gfarw ...1IwI _11Id by It. .. · ~ bodr~--arighII ~ t1) (2) <S) ~') (d). 11w ec:mn.1IIaft..., --.. dIcE ~ .. ~ . hn nr..-d~.. (-> 1M ~ <<M ~1IIIan MIl .... ___ PQ. -. II... J..... 00 (bJ h ~...J I II .1ItIaU bald ....11III.. v- Ii ~ GIIIfII'" ~..... .... ~. II mv<&.... ..a...... oIiII'h II~ IIhII - ~ to tt. IU* ~ PIMa IL-..IL IWII =-1wId ......,. to ...w.M.. . rlthl vr.,1II FF:IIIdcJm d rmdI1 AcI. It.-oIIUII nI:JIIaI.t:lthI ~ ..:1-' at.ll ~n IIpI(tIII ~ 11III_"" ~ III pMl = ___ till aIIJK1 bJ tw dIIlr-n..-. Gr ~ ..,.11It aI. alltM ~ TM~.IhII__~~IDacn:i.ab diIh GlIw '~...J ];n. ] Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 B-3 8-4 APPENDIX B - CONTINUED ? 0PIIIA.1M IIEVIIlIUE! 00 00 n. ~:IhIIl1d op8IIlM IU . '--I ~ IUd1I to( :M:IraQ:tOrl1o hi CUI....... ..., .. mIdJ IIR6W ~ ~.-IId _1Id~ Id ~ ~ ~ .w..I ftnInc:I. ...,.. 111II. rram. III eann.J em IhII bI ..... by .= 1 a.... ~ t8 tw 1Ift-I'IV IIOIhI d .......... .. .... ~ a. --.oION 00 M IPI'UIII ,., ItIiI tJt ~vd ~ .a.~ to --.....G r6__ .taIy 0I118d1 ~~ IIIdI ~... ,... ",. ~ ,..., 1I!IBtIItII1IItIi.., ~--- .----.:.1 10 tun '-.-pal ~ IIld dI..- ~ 1M CcrnNIIm kti ~ ~ crlll1lf"~-1I "tw~ ~......d bt -hi ~ ~ -:-1 _ ftnIMII .,... pIf CIpItII t.I1II . cIIM .1'6 __ Dr b 1nDII:...rn ~~. .--. ~ b ~. ecq.- ClrWb PIatI ~ ~b I.tMtIIr ~vr--. (b) 00 I. DUM.!ION MIl) .- -....11OM 00 ma~..l ~........an IJI ~ Q B pIriac:I ~~ ~,...... unIMi" ~~ ~.d.4 ar .........drled t," -=tIan Gftiw ~...-, IDIeI gf..a m....~ )ndctima . ~ A 1"IiId~ ~tIc:III IdIdtvlllcn 11II)' wlM..... hili IMI by ~ CII....."""'~..., ~_~ tI. .~~6 1N& MIr bi .......ad en,. br ..........., Irt till ~.~T~G badeI crI-..ch ~ ~~... '1. UAlllUIY . . To ... .... ....A.d :t. ...~ .. ~ paIttIaII ~II ~ to ~"I.llI;. r..pM::l td:I b IMI m 01"-" c...r-..~ IInd tII..twiIl1rd twrm_ 4 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 APPENDIX B - CONTINUED tana-wlrt-.-on ..-fltIt' 1r$Ir00dlMOl 01.".. to If\''''' -1*II*lr ...... ud .........a fllw cUIeIMd......... rq,c..d ~ ....~ me. MI",." lUll or prDOldng1Woughl1gllMt IIIiIlbM 01 Ita 1ItII.I111 ~ Of II iliff, lie ~I[CIII NHIuiIiarw 11III,., ".Ih~ 001II cI Ilr...... ,., co-. 01 '" poa.IlIMwillDna IfttIr thillecIion 1hII-.e .,... on . per c:;IPII bIIiIM ~ br Iw 11IIII...- pcIIM t nett.1tir 11I1. ~ __ V.~AI CoapIr Cinllrfar 1U*s.va ~--IJniI.__ rI~a _ow........,.. *rat .. tll7. AnESr: ~~:I~ c.,'~, l,11 rIc cnv 0II1IOANOI1Ce ...S) ~._- "-'l" - AT1E8T: ~~.~~. a~f~ C/e.r,f:H ~. -vi art OP 11'. - IJ,A-t?, ~d AnEST: 10MII 01 WINTON .,,4A,I~ -- ~ti ti.t~.- J 11'I-- 1M I _I_lIl s Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 8-5 APPENDIX C: INPUT TO THE UPDATE OF THE ROANOKE VALLEY CONCEPTUAL GREENWAY PLAN Summary of Public Response on Update to the Greenway Plan February 16, 2006 1. What is your vision of the greenway network? Are there corridors that should be added or deleted from the Conceptual Greenway Plan? Input Question No. # Written Comment Date G1 1 Work on core greenways and not on roadways 2/16/2006 G1 1 Major east west = Roanoke River; perhaps north-south=Lick Run 2/16/2006 G1 1 Roanoke River top priority; to Explore Park-destination 2/16/2006 G1 1 Connectivity to schools - needed 2/16/2006 G1 1 Connect to trails outside area 2/16/2006 G1 1 Connect Nature Conservancy and Happy Hollow 2/16/2006 G1 1 Concern with use at Havens Wildlife Management Area 2/16/2006 G2 1 Pedestrian traffic area 2/16/2006 G2 1 Connecting parks and recreation areas 2/16/2006 G2 1 Connecting people with places of employment 2/16/2006 G2 1 Venue for events - races 2/16/2006 G2 1 Connects natural resources 2/16/2006 G2 1 Connect neighborhoods/communities 2/16/2006 G3 1 Extend connections to Franklin, Montgomery and Botetourt County 2/16/2006 G3 1 Green Hill Park to Explore Park 2/16/2006 G3 1 Include Read Mountain 2/16/2006 G3 1 Tinker Creek to Carvins Cove to Botetourt 2/16/2006 G3 1 Lick Run out to William Fleming (west) 2/16/2006 G3 1 More bicycle/walker friendly greenways along roadways! 2/16/2006 G3 1 Add Glade Road trail - south of Vinton 2/16/2006 G3 1 Add Interior Dept. trails from 111 to Explore 2/16/2006 G3 1 Must include Explore Park 2/16/2006 G4 1 Mixed surfaces 2/16/2006 G4 1 On/off road 2/16/2006 G4 1 * Mix of location (urban, suburban, rural) 2/16/2006 G4 1 * Better/more uniform signage 2/16/2006 G4 1 Length of river entire way; tributaries as well 2/16/2006 G4 1 *Potential connection to other counties (Botetourt, Bedford) 2/16/2006 G4 1 * Better volunteer promotion 2/16/2006 G4 1 Tie into existing events (i.e. Clean Valley Day, etc) 2/16/2006 *Enhance connections: Carvins Cove, Read Mtn, National Forest G4 1 land 2/16/2006 G4 1 Low maintenance, pedestrian traffic 2/16/2006 G5 1 Emphasize the protection and enhancements of Nature 2/16/2006 G5 1 Safe clean area 2/16/2006 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway · January 2007 C-1 C-2 APPENDIX C - CONTINUED G5 1 Create trails that serve multiple users 2/16/2006 G5 1 Greenways should parallel rivers/streams/creeks, not roadways 2/16/2006 G5 1 Focus on off-road trails; do not drop trails on top of roadways 2/16/2006 1-1 1 Nature Conservancy tract on Bent Mtn, connect to Happy Hollow 2/16/2006 Perimeter trail - horse trail around valley; start with trail along Blue 1-1 1 Ridge Parkway 2/16/2006 1-10 1 1 - Recreation first 2/16/2006 1-10 1 2 - Casual development such as restaurants or condos 2/16/2006 1-10 1 3 - Connectors to access greenways 2/16/2006 1-11 1 Connected trails 2/16/2006 1-12 1 Add Hollins College to Carvins Cove 2/16/2006 1-12 1 Add Read Mtn. 2/16/2006 Vision: Connectivity to outlying counties and their trails, open 1-12 1 spaces/nat. lands 2/16/2006 Vision: *Preservation within city of undeveloped properties, open 1-12 1 spaces, still natural patches of land. 2/16/2006 1-12 1 Vision: Connecting neighborhoods and communities 2/16/2006 That neighborhoods are connected to business districts to encourage more walking and biking to run your errands instead of driving - connecting neighborhoods to downtown and places like 1-13 1 Grand village is essential 2/16/2006 Connections to all points & planned routes that can be accessed 1-14 1 by bicycle & walking 2/16/2006 Connect existing trails of Roanoke River trail, Chestnut loop & 1-14 1 Carvins Cove 2/16/2006 1-15 1 Facilitate biking transportation around the city and into downtown 2/16/2006 Add back greenway in Explore Park along Roanoke River. Also 1-16 1 trails along river from STP down to Explore 2/16/2006 1-16 1 Havens Wildlife Refuge needs a trail 2/16/2006 Selfishly, my vision would be to use connected network of trails for commuting on bicycle from Garden City area to downtown, to northwest area of city. I think connecting downtown to Mill 1-17 1 Mountain and Blue Ridge Parkway would also be wonderful! 2/16/2006 I think the greenway system should be both 1) beautiful and 2) functional. Some areas would be more of 1 and some would be 1-18 1 more of 2, of course, depending on location and type of trail. 2/16/2006 I hope we're not holding up work in certain areas because of the overwhelming nature of the "big plan". My present perception is that we have a gorilla that we don't quite know how to approach. How many miles per year have we finished? Keep the big plan in 1-19 1 mind, but finish something. 2/16/2006 1-2 1 Everything look good 2/16/2006 Delete the highways (e.g. #20, #1, #2). These are not greenways. 1-20 1 Focus on real trails. 2/16/2006 I think the greenways need to be interactive connections throughout the whole region. We need connections to natural areas like Explore Park, the Appalachian Trail, the GW National 1-21 1 Forest and the Roanoke River. 2/16/2006 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway · January 2007 APPENDIX C - CONTINUED To be able to travel by foot or bike from downtown Roanoke to the Roanoke River and then either east to the Salem city limits or west to the Blue Ridge Parkway following the river's floodplain. There should also be at least 2 north-south greenways: Lick Run corridor and Peters Creek or Masons Creek corridors. Lastly, a connection to Carvins Cove and Havens WMA would be nice but only after 1-22 1 the above items are finished. 2/16/2006 The greenways will be more populated & used when there is a continuous path of 5 miles. Therefore, all efforts should be 1-23 1 directed toward this. 2/16/2006 All stream corridors should be greenways, as well as abandoned 1-24 1 railroad rights of way and many alleys. 2/16/2006 1-25 1 A network that crosses the valley with connected trails 2/16/2006 Riverside greenway from Green Hill Park to Explore with feeder 1-26 1 trails leading to the river from strategic areas of the valley 2/16/2006 Walks all the greenways all the time. Greenways make Roanoke a better place to be, healthier environment. Old folks need the 1-27 1 greenways; they can't do the AT. 2/16/2006 1-28 1 Completion of the current plan throughout the Valley 2/17/2006 To have a network of pathways (paved/unpaved) throughout the valley to provide routes for non-motorized transportation, exercise, 1-3 1 and recreation 2/16/2006 I have a copy of the original 1906 Roanoke River Greenway Plan. Back then they knew the value of having a greenway along the 1-30 1 river. It is TIME we finish the thing!!! 2/14/2006 It would enhance our valley's offerings not only to citizens but to the traveling public, visitors, and tourists, if we could do a circumferential from Carvins Cove to Havens Wildlife Area to Spring Hollow, up Bent Mountain, down the Parkway to the National Forest, to Greenfield, and to the Cove. Many 1-30 1 communities in America now have these wonderful loops 2/14/2006 Long range goal-- connect Montgomery County to Smith 1-30 1 Mountain Lake. 2/14/2006 We need to get the river corridor completed as soon as possible. There are unlimited possibilities for greenways, but the corridor along the Roanoke River will serve as the backbone. The many 1-4 1 smaller trails need to be connected by this river backbone. 2/16/2006 To be able to walk out my door and go anywhere from anywhere, on foot. To Damascus on the AT & back a different way, for example. To travel in large circles from my house. To walk & bike 1-5 1 on more errands, commutes, etc. 2/16/2006 1-6 1 Extend Roanoke River Greenway to Blacksburg, Franklin County. 2/16/2006 1-6 1 Extend Lick Run to Peters Creek Rd. and to Mason's Cove. 2/16/2006 1-6 1 Use paper alleys in city for greenway corridor's. 2/16/2006 1-6 1 Use utility right of ways - sewer upgrade for right of way. 2/16/2006 1-6 1 Push for rail with trail from Wasena Park to Ghent Park. 2/16/2006 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 C-3 C-4 APPENDIX C - CONTINUED I'm of the impression that the scope of Roanoke's Conceptual Greenway Plan is too ambitious at this stage. Too much red, not 1-7 1 enough blue. Promote a more scaled back stage. 2/16/2006 1-8 1 Connected, usable for transportation as well as recreation 2/16/2006 I would like to see a place my family can ride bicycles and walk/run without fear of traffic. I would also enjoy being able to 1-30 1 walk/bicycle to work and school safely. 2/16/2006 2. Which Greenways should be completed first? List 1-5 Input No. Question # Written Comment Date 1-14 2 #32 [Roanoke River] to Blue Ridge Parkway 2/16/2006 1-18 2 #4, #5 Any other long wooded trails 2/16/2006 #8, #9, #23 - bike access from downtown Roanoke to Carvins 1-15 2 Cove 2/16/2006 1-18 2 1 Roanoke River 2/16/2006 1) Roanoke River - as far as feasible - hopefully to Explore Park 1-23 2 and/or Salem 2/16/2006 1-10 2 1) Roanoke River corridor 2/16/2006 1. #32 [Roanoke River] Get the trunk done, then focus on the 1-20 2 branches 2/16/2006 1-21 2 1. Bridge at Hanging Rock 2/16/2006 1. Lick Run. This corridor should ultimately serve the Carvins Cove natural area north of the City limits. Ample open space exists north of Valley View Crossing to extend this multi-use trail 1-29 2 to residents near Countryside Golf Course and beyond. 2/16/2006 1-12 2 1. Roanoke River 2/16/2006 1-13 2 1. Roanoke River 2/16/2006 1-22 2 1. Roanoke River - No. 32 2/16/2006 1-17 2 1. Roanoke River #32 2/16/2006 1-18 2 2 Lick Run 2/16/2006 1-23 2 2) Barn hardt Creek #36 2/16/2006 1-10 2 2) Connectors to downtown, shopping 2/16/2006 2. #15 [Hanging Rock] Get the bridge in behind Orange Market 1-20 2 so trail connects to trailhead and parking and future #4 & 5. 2/16/2006 1-12 2 2. Hollins to Carvins Cove 2/16/2006 1-22 2 2. Lick Run - No. 22 2/16/2006 1-13 2 2. Mill Mountain 2/16/2006 1-17 2 2. Mill Mountain #44 2/16/2006 1-21 2 2. Roanoke River Greenway - west Salem to Roanoke Co. 2/16/2006 2. Roanoke River. Currently, the City should focus on extending the Roanoke River greenway from Wiley Drive to Ghent park utilizing open space adjacent to the Roanoke River under the 1-29 2 city's ownership. 2/16/2006 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway · January 2007 APPENDIX C - CONTINUED 1-18 2 3 Mill Mtn 2/16/2006 1-23 2 3) Roanoke River Tributary #28 2/16/2006 1-17 2 3. Garnand Branch #41 2/16/2006 3. Grandin Road - something to connect south Roanoke and 1-13 2 downtown to Grandin Village 2/16/2006 1-22 2 3. Hanging Rock - No. 15 2/16/2006 1-21 2 3. Roanoke River Greenway - Roanoke City to Explore Park 2/16/2006 3. Tinker Creek. This corridor should be extended to NE Roanoke to Old Mountain Road. This is a viable option that can get pavement down now so that people can enjoy Tinker Creek and 1-29 2 surroundings. 2/16/2006 1-17 2 4. Blue Ridge Parkway 2/16/2006 4. Blue Ridge Parkway - access from south Roanoke and 1-13 2 downtown to BRP 2/16/2006 4. Get the 1 st three done [Roanoke River, Lick Run, Hanging 1-22 2 Rock] 2/16/2006 1-21 2 4. Raleigh Court area to Garst Mill Park 2/16/2006 1-21 2 5. Colonial Ave. (VWCC) to Parkway at 220 S. 2/16/2006 1-2 2 Along the Parkway: connected to Stewarts Knob 2/16/2006 As much of the river as possible. Green Hill Park to Explore Park 1-4 2 as a start 2/16/2006 G4 2 Back Creek removed? 2/16/2006 1-5 2 Bent Mountain 2/16/2006 1-8 2 Bike lanes on 10th Street 2/16/2006 1-15 2 Blue Ridge Parkway #49 - biking access along BRP trails 2/16/2006 G2 2 Chestnut Ridge loop to Explore Park (horse trail) 2/16/2006 G5 2 Complete Garnand Branch (from Bedford County Residents) 2/16/2006 G5 2 Complete Roanoke Loop through the Havens area 2/16/2006 G3 2 Complete segments along the river (connect)* 2/16/2006 G5 2 Completion of Roanoke River Greenway a TOP priority 2/16/2006 G4 2 Concentrate on loops 2/16/2006 G2 2 Connect existing greenways! All greenways! 2/16/2006 1-11 2 Connect to Carvins Cove 2/16/2006 1-11 2 Connect to Parkway 2/16/2006 G2 2 Connect to Parkway - Mill Mtn. Greenway 2/16/2006 G2 2 Connect to Tanglewood Mall- Franklin Rd. corridor 2/16/2006 G5 2 Create Connection between Melrose and Cove Road 2/16/2006 1-28 2 Didn't pick up the map, but the River corridor 2/17/2006 G5 2 Finish Tinker Creek 2/16/2006 1-16 2 Greenway at Explore park, along river. 2/16/2006 1-5 2 Hanging Rock - connect to AT 2/16/2006 Hanging Rock - I live in the City near HR and would sure love to see the trail extend to Roanoke River. My end of town has 1-30 2 NOTHING, no parks, no trails, no anything. 2/14/2006 I think connectivity is the most important aspect of staging. Making the first greenway development connect is most 1-7 2 important. This whether linear connection or circular connection. 2/16/2006 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 C-5 C-6 APPENDIX C - CONTINUED 1-1 2 Lick Run 2/16/2006 1-6 2 Lick Run 2/16/2006 1-8 2 Lick Run 2/16/2006 1-5 2 Lick Run - connect to AT 2/16/2006 G5 2 Link Blue Ridge Parkway #42/#33 2/16/2006 1-1 2 Mason Creek 2/16/2006 G1 2 Masons Creek 2/16/2006 G4 2 Mason's Creek 2/16/2006 Masons Creek - Initiate Construction of Masons Creek from G5 2 Battlefield Trail 2/16/2006 1-1 2 Murray Run - Tanglewood 2/16/2006 1-9 2 Ones that link existing segments together. 2/16/2006 G1 2 Roanoke River 2/16/2006 1-1 2 Roanoke River 2/16/2006 1-11 2 Roanoke River 2/16/2006 1-24 2 Roanoke River 2/16/2006 1-26 2 Roanoke River 2/16/2006 1-6 2 Roanoke River 2/16/2006 1-8 2 Roanoke River 2/16/2006 1-5 2 Roanoke River - Victory Park - canoes 2/16/2006 Roanoke River #32 upstream from Smith/Wasena Park and 1-15 2 downstream to BRP 2/16/2006 1-25 2 Roanoke River from Green Hill park to Mill Mt. 2/16/2006 Roanoke River core of the system (Blueway) - also greenways G4 2 leading into it, incorporation of blueways 2/16/2006 G2 2 Roanoke River!! 2/16/2006 Roanoke River!! This should be the core of the entire greenway 1-19 2 project. What a showcase it could be. 2/16/2006 G4 2 Same goes for Parkway connections to other jurisdictions 2/16/2006 Roanoke River #32 Garden City #41 Tinker/Carvin Creek 1-30 2 #19&24 Roanoke Valley Perimeter Trail #49 Wolf Creek #51 2/16/2006 Should complete main east-west trails 1 st, then main south-north trails 2nd, then other connecting trails and long, wooded trails 1-18 2 3rd. 2/16/2006 G1 2 Shrine Hill ? 2/16/2006 The City should focus on Lick Run, Roanoke River and Tinker 1-29 2 Creek. We cannot afford to wait any longer. 2/16/2006 1-5 2 Tinker Creek - connect to AT 2/16/2006 G4 2 Tinker Creek and Lick Run connections to AT are important 2/16/2006 G2 2 Tinker Creek to Carvins Cove + AT 2/16/2006 1-1 2 Work on Perimeter Trail 2/16/2006 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway · January 2007 APPENDIX C - CONTINUED 3. Have you encountered any problem (s) while visiting area greenways? If so, please describe what problem (s) was/were encountered and where encountered. Input Question No. # Written Comment Date G5 3 Better lighting to promote safe trails 2/16/2006 Biggest problem is that the sections are not long enough for 1-25 3 biking. 2/16/2006 City of Roanoke has a sign on the trail between Carvin Cove Dam and boat launch that says trail closed. Needs to be 1-16 3 removed. 2/16/2006 1-8 3 Could they be plowed? 2/16/2006 Disconnected w/ other greenways or other non-motorized friendly 1-3 3 routes - not always easy to get to 2/16/2006 G5 3 Emergency phones should be made available to Greeway users 2/16/2006 1-1 3 Erosion 2/16/2006 1-3 3 Finding/learning about the greenways 2/16/2006 Free ranging dogs along Mill Mountain Greenway and Roanoke River Greenway from Carilion Memorial to Piedmont Park area. 1-22 3 These dogs come from nearby homes. 2/16/2006 Garst Mill - congestion/people not cleaning up after pets 1-30 3 Hanging Rock - Trail not clearly marked 2/16/2006 Getting info on greenways (RVCVB) (New Comer Mag.) (Media Coverage) (Website links from area hotels) (Pamphlets at retail G2 3 establishments) 2/16/2006 I think unauthorized cross country travel is leading to erosion in 1-18 3 some areas, esp. where there are switchbacks. 2/16/2006 G5 3 Increase the connectivity between trails 2/16/2006 1-6 3 Keep glass off of trails 2/16/2006 1-21 3 Lack of bathrooms 2/16/2006 1-21 3 Lack of interpretive signage 2/16/2006 1-21 3 Lack of trash cans 2/16/2006 G1 3 Lick Run: shopping carts, vandalism, security concerns 2/16/2006 G4 3 Lighting most important in urban areas 2/16/2006 G1 3 Loose pit bull 2/16/2006 Maintenance - keep open (Wiley Drive and Tinker Creek) - they close gates and are slow in removing mud from transportation 1-6 3 corridor 2/16/2006 1-4 3 Marking of greenway to Mill Mountain 2/16/2006 1-6 3 Markings make it difficult to follow trails 2/16/2006 G1 3 Murray Run: trash, trash cans needed 2/16/2006 My husband Mr. Bryant looks after Wolf Creek Trail. We pick up trash - 24 underpass clean out after each flood, call Mrs. 1-2 3 McMillan about portajohn's upside down 2/16/2006 1-11 3 No 2/16/2006 1-14 3 No 2/16/2006 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 C-7 C-8 APPENDIX C - CONTINUED 1-28 3 No 2/17/2006 1-15 3 No - trash in trees is unsightly 2/16/2006 No except the bridge over Mason's Creek needs to be 1-26 3 completed. 2/16/2006 1-17 3 No problems encountered 2/16/2006 1-12 3 Not enough clear signage leading me to the routes 2/16/2006 1-12 3 Not enough promotion/publicity 2/16/2006 1-7 3 Not really. 2/16/2006 Obnoxious graffiti on the 1-581 underpass, south side of Roanoke River; visible from Roanoke River trail where it passes under 1- 1-22 3 581, looking south at underpass supports along old NS tracks. 2/16/2006 1-24 3 Pet poop pollutes the water. Pet owners need to pick it up. 2/16/2006 G5 3 Police patrols 2/16/2006 G3 3 Problems: Amenities 2/16/2006 G4 3 Promotion should improve 2/16/2006 G1 3 Roanoke River: graffiti 2/16/2006 1-10 3 Safety - some are pretty scary 2/16/2006 G5 3 Safety (perception of being unsafe - Wolf Creek, Lick Run) 2/16/2006 G2 3 Security issues - lighting, call boxes in specific areas 2/16/2006 G4 3 Separate uses on a single greenway? 2/16/2006 G4 3 Smell! (Roanoke River)* 2/16/2006 G1 3 Smith/Wasena: security at night 2/16/2006 Some greenway routes are hard to follow (e.g. between VWCC & Patrick Henry). But not too many sians - ruins the outdoor 1-18 3 experience. 2/16/2006 G1 3 Tinker Creek: garbage, security 2/16/2006 1-1 3 Trash 2/16/2006 G4 3 Trash (Roanoke and Tinker) * 2/16/2006 1-8 3 Trash in waterways and along Tinker Creek Greenway 2/16/2006 1-20 3 Vandalism & erosion from adjacent athletic fields on #21 2/16/2006 G4 3 Vandalism (Wolf Creek) * 2/16/2006 Washouts/trail cutting on hills on Murray Run above Fishburn 1-12 3 Park 2/16/2006 Wiley Drive is a joke because of token auto traffic. The low water bridges should be replaced by graceful arched pedestrian 1-19 3 bridges. 2/16/2006 G4 3 Wiley Drive near Smith Park (lighting concerns/safety) 2/16/2006 1-13 3 Yes - they don't connect and there aren't enough!! 2/16/2006 Yes. They only run a mile or two, on a long hike you have to 1-5 3 navigate through scrambles. I've solved some problems. 2/16/2006 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway · January 2007 APPENDIX C - CONTINUED 4. What improvements or amenities would you like to see on existing greenways? Input Question No. # Written Comment Date G4 4 *Interpretive signage in appropriate areas (natural, historical, etc.) 2/16/2006 G4 4 *Kiosks with maps 2/16/2006 1-27 4 Add bathrooms, trash cans (occasional) 2/16/2006 1-21 4 Add blueways (recreational water use) to the master plans. 2/16/2006 G2 4 Amenities - bike racks 2/16/2006 G3 4 Art on the trail 2/16/2006 1-12 4 Art sculptural elements 2/16/2006 G4 4 Auto traffic (remove where possible, river) - alternate routes 2/16/2006 Barriers keeping people on main trail and off of spur trails/cut 1-12 4 throughs (erosion and degradation a problem) 2/16/2006 1-6 4 Bathrooms should be open all year round 2/16/2006 G1 4 Benches 2/16/2006 G3 4 Better markings on greenway itself (except Mill Mountain) 2/16/2006 1-12 4 Better signage 2/16/2006 G3 4 Better signage/identification - help in using/promoting 2/16/2006 G1 4 Bridge at Hanging Rock 2/16/2006 1-12 4 Call boxes and lighting periodically 2/16/2006 1-19 4 Complete Roanoke River section 2/16/2006 1-3 4 Connections w/ other greenways 2/16/2006 Consider porous pavement or grass pavers instead of asphalt on 1-9 4 a demonstration segment 2/16/2006 G1 4 Contact information - notify about trash 2/16/2006 G3 4 Control of animals/ what to do if dog attacks? 2/16/2006 1-2 4 Do not have any complaints 2/16/2006 1-20 4 Don't worry about amenities. Get the core trail network built. 2/16/2006 1-12 4 Educational;/interpretive signage 2/16/2006 1-19 4 Have picnic areas, bike racks, benches, etc. 2/16/2006 1-18 4 Historic walks (with signs) 2/16/2006 1-5 4 Historical markers, monuments, fountains, etc. 2/16/2006 1-7 4 I'm more concerned with new trail than trail improvements 2/16/2006 G3 4 Kiosks with history of area or to emphasize natural amenities 2/16/2006 1-5 4 Latrines 2/16/2006 1-19 4 License vendors 2/16/2006 G3 4 Maintenance 2/16/2006 G1 4 Maps 2/16/2006 1-4 4 Maps 2/16/2006 1-4 4 Mile markers. From the river out. 2/16/2006 G1 4 Mileage markers 2/16/2006 Mileage markers and maps would be great although I realize the 1-22 4 vandalism risk of these features. 2/16/2006 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 C-9 C-10 APPENDIX C - CONTINUED G1 4 Mill Mountain kiosk - update 2/16/2006 1-12 4 More clear mapping & an adopt-a-mile plan 2/16/2006 1-11 4 More trees 2/16/2006 G1 4 Multi-use/ horse trails 2/16/2006 Natural habitat restoration (cleanout ivy, restore native plants, 1-12 4 grasses) 2/16/2006 1-18 4 Nature walks (with signs) 2/16/2006 1-16 4 None 2/16/2006 G1 4 Parking - access - Murray Run 2/16/2006 1-9 4 Plan for pet waste bag dispensers as part of all new segments. 2/16/2006 Preserve or replant thick veoetation on stream banks for wildlife 1-24 4 and water quality. 2/16/2006 1-21 4 Promote regular clean up events (like the fall waterways cleanup) 2/16/2006 Put up more bike ways near shops and retail areas. E.g. put up an outside bikeway around Towers and put bike racks at a safe location along the outside bikeway. The idea would be to have a 1-18 4 safe corridor at these areas to increase non-motorized use. 2/16/2006 1-6 4 Remove debris that accumulates behind low water bridge 2/16/2006 1-23 4 Remove the concrete median in Smith Park 2/16/2006 1-10 4 Restaurants 2/16/2006 G2 4 Restrooms, etc. 2/16/2006 G4 4 Restrooms/water fountains, access 2/16/2006 1-12 4 Restrooms/water fountains/trash cans 2/16/2006 1-5 4 Rock gardens, sculptures, flowerbeds, other aesthetic things 2/16/2006 1-10 4 Security cameras 2/16/2006 See previous question [lack of bathrooms, trash cans, interpretive 1-21 4 signage] 2/16/2006 G4 4 Signs (uniformity)* 2/16/2006 G4 4 Surface consideration important 2/16/2006 The car side of the Smith Park is too narrow, an extra 6 inches 1-28 4 would mean a lot 2/17/2006 There should be a footbridge over Lick Run to connect G5 4 community. 2/16/2006 1-10 4 Trash pick up 2/16/2006 G4 4 Trash receptacles near greenways (wildlife prooD 2/16/2006 1-8 4 Trees, trees, trees! 2/16/2006 G1 4 Water fountains 2/16/2006 1-5 4 Water fountains 2/16/2006 1-6 4 Water fountains 2/16/2006 1-30 4 We need some decent signs for the trails. 2/14/2006 1-25 4 What exists is fine. We just need more. 2/16/2006 Wildflower gardens in some areas would be nice. Otherwise, retain the forest cover and allow older forests to grow along 1-18 4 greenways. 2/16/2006 1-1 4 2/16/2006 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway · January 2007 APPENDIX C - CONTINUED 5. What is the best way to get citizens involved in greenways? Are there ways in which you would be willing to volunteer? For information on volunteering opportunities, please contact Pathfinders for Greenways (E-mail: pathfi n ders@g reenways. org) Input Question No. # Written Comment Date G1 5 Foot race up Mill Mtn - fund raiser/interest 2/16/2006 G1 5 Sponsors for clean up 2/16/2006 G1 5 Have Pathfinder notifications 2/16/2006 G1 5 Involve Scouts, other groups 2/16/2006 G1 5 Brochures on greenways 2/16/2006 G1 5 Adopt-a-trail - neighborhood or corporate 2/16/2006 G3 5 Present to neighborhood groups 2/16/2006 G3 5 Adopt a trail/sponsors - create a sense of ownership 2/16/2006 G3 5 Involve everyone - arts community/civic 2/16/2006 G3 5 Better mapping to identify trails 2/16/2006 G3 5 Launching points to encourage and facilitate use 2/16/2006 Promote to schools - outdoor recreation/nature or community G3 5 study 2/16/2006 G4 5 Tie into festivals, etc. 2/16/2006 G4 5 Hype awareness "Greenway Day" media coverage 2/16/2006 G4 5 Advertise and increase opportunities more frequent 2/16/2006 G4 5 Promote awareness with additional events 2/16/2006 G4 5 Incorporate schools (curriculum and sports) - art, history, science 2/16/2006 G4 5 Promote ownership (adopt-a-trail/stream,greenway) 2/16/2006 1-1 5 2/16/2006 1-10 5 Great website. The current one did not list this meeting tonight. 2/16/2006 1-11 5 Branch out to business, civic groups, other non-profits 2/16/2006 1-11 5 Solicit funds from local business 2/16/2006 Present to & involve schools - PH cross country team adopt the trail they use; school groups volunteer on trails; taking home info 1-12 5 to parents 2/16/2006 More neighborhood events on greenways - "may day", festivals, 1-12 5 children's events, races, etc. 2/16/2006 1-12 5 Present regularly (1/yr or 1/2 yr?) at neighborhood meetings 2/16/2006 1-13 5 Build more to connect to neighborhoods to businesses! 2/16/2006 1-15 5 Adopt a section 2/16/2006 1-16 5 I already am a volunteer. 2/16/2006 Emphasize Charlotte's success. Stress economic development 1-17 5 potential 2/16/2006 Have outdoor festivals with mayoral proclamations, youth 1-19 5 participation, media coverage 2/16/2006 We are members of Dr. Bill Gordge's Wednesday work group - "all day, year round". Working at Carvins Cove - we have dug about 2 1-2 5 miles - with 3/4 mile to go. 2/16/2006 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 C-11 C-12 APPENDIX C - CONTINUED I already do volunteer. Many others would if they knew how. I 1-20 5 found out by accident. 2/16/2006 1-21 5 I already do volunteer and support program. 2/16/2006 Have picnics and outdoor events, like Earth day, to help get 1-21 5 people out of doors. 2/16/2006 1-21 5 + more money from the state. 2/16/2006 1-22 5 Race events, fun runs/walks/rides 2/16/2006 1-22 5 Clean-up events 2/16/2006 1-22 5 Neighborhood association events 2/16/2006 1-22 5 Adopt a trail programs 2/16/2006 1-22 5 School field trips 2/16/2006 Contact neighborhoods - people who live near a greenway will be 1-25 5 more likely to volunteer on a particular section 2/16/2006 See sponsorship for sections on an annual basis, say $1000 a 1-28 5 mile 2/17/2006 1-3 5 Advertise/promote current greenways and their potential users 2/16/2006 Willing to volunteer w/ maintenance/upkeep - currently a member 1-3 5 of Pathfinders for Greenways 2/16/2006 1-4 5 By having a greenway connect to their neighborhood 2/16/2006 Publicize it better. The open stretches are attracting traffic. Build 1-5 5 more miles 2/16/2006 1-6 5 Fun! 2/16/2006 Connecting with community groups is probably the most effective 1-7 5 way to engage people who are engaged. 2/16/2006 1-8 5 The picnics are good 2/16/2006 1-30 5 Make sure people know about them. 2/16/2006 6. Additional Comments? Response Input No. Question # # Written Comment Date G3 6 C "Rails with trails" 2/16/2006 30 years from now greenways will define Roanoke, whereas what city managers are doing 1-27 6 B won't matter 2/16/2006 Alley greenways. Bring into the neighborhoods. G6 6 A Identify. 2/16/2006 Bridges. Can Highland Park be connected with 1-5 6 A Roanoke River via footbridge? 2/16/2006 Carilion would be a good target for corporate G4 6 K participation 2/16/2006 Coordinate right-of-way negotiations for alleys/sewers/electric service improvements w/ 1-12 6 B greenway development 2/16/2006 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway · January 2007 APPENDIX C - CONTINUED Create obligations (govt/zoning) that developers allow/set aside funds and land for connections 1-12 6 A and or protections of corridors 2/16/2006 Develop a pilot project urban greenway along the rive to show the possibilities of a greenway as an G6 6 C urban economic generator, i.e. little San Antonio 2/16/2006 G4 6 I Focus on important areas 2/16/2006 Funding needs to be a higher priority. Ask 10,000, 1,000 - 500 sponsors for business & government. 1-6 6 A Sell bonds to finance greenways. 2/16/2006 Good opportunity for connections with Havens G4 6 A Wildlife area 2/16/2006 Governments need to secure rights of way for greenways when creating/changing land use or G3 6 A rig hts of way 2/16/2006 1-10 6 A Great recruiting tool for bringing people to town! 2/16/2006 Greenways must be perceived as economic G6 6 B generators like softball/soccer complexes. 2/16/2006 Identify potential places for redevelopment (ex.: G4 6 H Walnut Street bridge, Smith Park, etc.) 2/16/2006 Incorporate bike lanes on city streets to link 1-15 6 A existing sections 2/16/2006 Incorporate greenway during Carilion G4 6 J development, biomed center 2/16/2006 G4 6 M Involve NS railroad in the process 2/16/2006 Is there any way to add bike lanes on Jefferson St. from Memorial Hospital to downtown/Mill 1-15 6 B Mountain Greenway along Williamson? 2/16/2006 It seems that funding is a problem - the gov't needs to make it more of a priority to increase the 1-13 6 A quality of life for the area 2/16/2006 1-2 6 A Just keep going. 2/16/2006 1-22 6 A Keep up the good work! 2/16/2006 1-28 6 A Keep up the good work! 2/17/2006 G4 6 F More greenway development = cleaner rivers 2/16/2006 1-2 6 B Mrs. Liz Belcher does a wonderful job. 2/16/2006 Need more efforts in Roanoke County and Salem City and some effort in Botetourt County to 1-21 6 A complement the City of Roanoke's efforts. 2/16/2006 One other thought - develop the river! (The rest 1-19 6 A will follow!) 2/16/2006 G3 6 B Open utility ROW for greenways 2/16/2006 1-30 6 A Please, please allow bikes on sidewalks. 2/14/2006 Presentations by Commission can be made at City Council, boards of supervisors, with budget 1-24 6 A requests. 2/16/2006 G4 6 G Private contractors help 2/16/2006 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 C-13 C-14 APPENDIX C - CONTINUED G4 6 E Promote commercial exposure to greenway 2/16/2006 Promote to local/reaional business for economic G4 6 D benefit/quality of life long term benefits - ITT 2/16/2006 Push for corporate financial assistance along with 1-26 6 A construction money from local governments. 2/16/2006 Rails to Trails potential sites? (Roanoke River Greenway near Wiley) - can be big economic G4 6 L driver 2/16/2006 1-6 6 B Rails with trails 2/16/2006 Reach out to business promote themselves G4 6 C through greenway awareness/participation 2/16/2006 Some paved trails are good to get bikes off roads, G4 6 B road bi kes 2/16/2006 The City needs greenways AND more trees to offset its increasing air pollution problem; on the back end, they need to plan to deal with the 1-30 6 C increasing amount of leaves to pick up. 2/14/2006 The City should avoid future mistakes in greenway design and construction evident in Mill Mountain greenway corridor. Sidewalks should not be 1-29 6 A eligible as green ways. 2/16/2006 The trail concept being connected with a historic neighborhood walk concept makes for interesting 1-5 6 B crosstown hikes. 2/16/2006 Use existing alleys, for which the City already owns the right of ways, to extend the greenway 1-23 6 A network 2/16/2006 Yearly funding could come from each locality as 1-30 6 B capital improvement funds. 2/14/2006 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway · January 2007 APPENDIX C - CONTINUED Public Input from Individuals at June 8, 2006 Public Input Meeting 1. Do you support the vision of completing the Roanoke River Greenway as th #1 · .t? e pnon :y-. Comment # Question Response Date 1 1 Yes 6/8/2006 3 1 Yes 6/8/2006 4 1 Yes 6/8/2006 5 1 Yes 6/8/2006 6 1 Yes 6/8/2006 Yes - showcase segments only to start with. This leaves money 7 1 for other small connectors or less expensive greenways 6/8/2006 8 1 Yes. It is a natural artery. 6/8/2006 9 1 Yes, it is the cornerstone. 6/8/2006 I think that regionally, this is a great notion; however, localities may be privy to unplanned circumstances that provide them with 10 1 positive opportunity to tackle other greenways. 6/8/2006 11 1 Yes. 6/8/2006 12 1 Yes 6/8/2006 13 1 Do it in two years 6/8/2006 The sooner this can be completed, the more that people and the community will see the benefits of a completed trail/greenway 14 1 across the valley. 6/8/2006 15 1 Yes! 6/8/2006 16 1 Yes 6/8/2006 Yes - complete it first and use it as a model to gain support for 17 1 other projects. 6/8/2006 18 1 Yes - like a tree, must have a strong trunk to support the limbs 6/8/2006 19 1 Yes 6/8/2006 Yes, but act on other opportunities for other greenways that 20 1 become available too! 6/8/2006 21 1 Yes 6/8/2006 Yes but we need more involvement from the private sector in getting funds. Novozymes is a great start & maybe that will spur competition among other large companies to donate & get 22 1 involved. 6/8/2006 23 1 Yes! 6/8/2006 24 1 Yes 6/8/2006 This would create a very long trail that should be scenic through much of the Roanoke Valley. Break the task up into sections and complete 1 section a year that could be used. With the right publicity this could creat more local support and this should 25 1 create local demand for connecting existing trails to this 6/8/2006 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 C-15 C-16 APPENDIX C - CONTINUED 2. Do you agree with the #2 priorities listed on the back of your map? If not, h t h Id t? wac anges wou you sugges . Comment # Question Response Date 1 2 See 3 6/8/2006 #2 priority should be #9 in Botetourt and Ro. Co; #2 priority should 3 2 be #8 in Botetourt Co. 6/8/2006 4 2 Yes 6/8/2006 5 2 Yes 6/8/2006 6 2 No. Move the Murray Run Greenway to a higher priority 6/8/2006 Delete 49. Add new trail Hanging Rock to Hollins via Timberview Road 1) connecting to Loch Haven Road via Loch Haven Lake 7 2 2)extending through the woods & connecting to #9 Tinker Creek 6/8/2006 Yes, because they connect to the Roanoke River Greenway, 8 2 forming the beginnings of a network 6/8/2006 9 2 Yes 6/8/2006 10 2 Yep 6/8/2006 Yes. Also consider making main gravel trail through Carvins Cove a 12 2 paved greenway. 6/8/2006 13 2 ? 6/8/2006 I think that more emphasis should be placed in connecting neighborhoods and communities to existing trails and the Roanoke River Greenway. Specifically, the ability to access downtown and the greenway there is important but currently quite difficult to do safely. The connectivity can be done piece by piece and should be advocated by the Greenway Commission any time that 14 2 road/infrastructure work is done in Roanoke. 6/8/2006 15 2 Yes. 6/8/2006 17 2 Yes 6/8/2006 18 2 Yes 6/8/2006 19 2 Yes 6/8/2006 Yes, again other opportunities that "pop up" should be grabbed 20 2 even if on other #3 & #4 priorities. 6/8/2006 21 2 Yes - plus a connection from the Mason Cove trail to Carvins Cove. 6/8/2006 22 2 Yes 6/8/2006 23 2 Yes! 6/8/2006 24 2 Yes 6/8/2006 3. Other Comments? Comment # Question Response Date Biking is my priority. We should complete small connector routes on the greenway or on a suitable public road. Typical of this would be a route around Roanoke Memorial Hospital which would allow biking from river's edge to the road going downstream along the Roanoke 1 3 River. Perhaps Carilion would pay for this? 6/8/2006 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway · January 2007 APPENDIX C - CONTINUED Acquisition Methods: I like rights of way in coordination with utility easements. I do not like condemnation because I distrust localities to 2 2 pursue condemnation in a fair and equitable way 4 3 Open Chestnut Ridge to mountain bikes!!! 6/8/2006 Thank you for all of your hard work. Please find more commitment for 5 3 paying new staff members. A volunteer coordinator? 6/8/2006 More government staffing is an obvious and critical need. Liz Belcher 6 3 cannot do it all!! 6/8/2006 7 3 For the issue ranking, for each idea indicate the level of difficulty 6/8/2006 There should be a greenway authority, just as there is now a water authority. The only way to get anything done in a region of competing localities. Allow condemnation up to 1 Oo~ of land needed, so that one 8 3 landowner can't stop a whole greenway. 6/8/2006 Reserve the right to condemn 1 Oo~. A very few can ruin a good plan. We need a regional water authority. We need a regional airport authority. We need a regional trash authority. WE NEED A 9 3 REGIONAL GREENWAY AUTHORITY. 6/8/2006 Lack of connectivity an obvious problem. Definitely need one comprehensive resource for trail maps and information, bikeways, etc. Push advertising of greenways as an economic development 11 3 incentive. 6/8/2006 I hae ridden on many rail trails along east coast. Does Roanoke area have any potential rail trail areas from abandoned Norfolk-Southern 12 3 routes. 6/8/2006 13 3 Take the railroad tracks you need for the Roanoke River greenway 6/8/2006 When at all possible keep greenways separate and free of motor vehicle traffic. Some streets could be closed and used for foot or bicycle use only! Work with "rails to trails" and other groups to 17 3 connect projects. Ned to protect trails at Explore Park. 6/8/2006 Develop a bond issue regionally that includes greenway funding, schools, public safety, transportation, etc. - Something for everyone so it has a decent chance of voter approval - with coordinated marketing to all voters -- by all elected officials speaking as one voice 18 3 (as close to it as possible) 6/8/2006 Create more regionalization to support other area localities in their 19 3 greenwayefforts. 6/8/2006 Would like to see the perimeter trail built, even if as sections at first connecting various major greenways (ex. Parkway to Carvins Cove 20 3 via Greenfield) 6/8/2006 21 3 Let's have this as a priority for our valley. 6/8/2006 22 3 Have an online survey to solicit more input from the public 6/8/2006 Collect public input on greenway priorities via an online survey form 23 3 so people can provide input without having to come to a meeting 6/8/2006 24 3 Utilize as many funding mechanisms & partners as possible! 6/8/2006 We need to create local support and convince everyone that it is to 25 3 their advantage to have pleasant places to walk. More publicity. 6/8/2006 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 C-17 C-18 APPENDIX C - CONTINUED Construction Priorities place a dot under the one statement ou most support Build the complete Roanoke River Greenwa in 5 ears Build the complete Roanoke River Greenway over the next 10-15 years Build smaller nei hborhood reenwa s and trails first, then the Roanoke River Greenwa Build some critical segments of the Roanoke River Greenway and a few smaller greenway segments Build more on-road and sidewalk connections to connect existin # stickers 44 2 o 8 1 Acquisition Methods (place a dot under the one statement you most support) Create an aggressive land acquisition program for greenway development that utilizes a range of acquisition methods, including land purchase at fair market value, land donations (which allow tax advanta es , ri hts'-of-wa in coordination with utilit easements, and possibl condemnation. Create an aggressive land acquisition program for greenway development that utilizes only land purchase at fair market value and land donations (which allow tax advantages). Rei on donations of ri hts-of-wa or purchase onl from willin sellers 42 7 o 32 11 27 18 14 39 4 5 15 5 12 14 for elected officials and overnment staff 3 2 Or anization place a dot under the one statement ou most support Maintain the current organizational structure with the Greenway Commission as a regional advisory and planning board and local governments responsible for greenway construction and management within their jurisdictions; more clearly define the roles and responsibilities of each. 7 Increase the authority and staffing of the Greenway Commission to implement the Greenway Plan and better facilitate development of area reenwa s 30 Create a re ional reenwa authorit responsible for development of a re ional reenwa network 12 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway · January 2007 APPENDIX C - CONTINUED Summary of Qualitative Interviews by LandDesign Regional Greenway Support and Funding The Consultant addressed perceptions and attitudes regarding financial support for greenway development by conducting fifteen key stakeholders telephone interviews (one person per interview) with designated elected and appointed officials and government staff during the month of April, 2006. Interviewees were selected by the Client and asked nine qualitative discussion questions pertaining to general greenway development and greenway specific funding. Each interview was completed in a continuous timeframe, each lasting up to 45 minutes. A general summary of the results are presented below. 1. Do you support right-of-way acquisition and greenway development? Most of the respondents supported the idea of acquiring more land for greenway development. However, the majority of the respondents did not support the idea of land condemnation for greenway development, but did support donation and fair value acquisition. 2. What type of funding strategies would you support for greenway and trail development? In general the respondents cited the need for increases in private donations to fund greenway development. They also noted aggressive funding pursuits must continue through all available options, including leveraging of funds to develop more greenways at a quicker pace and various public/private partnership efforts. Some respondents noted that increasing local taxes for greenway development probably would not be supported. 3. In what way does your locality contribute towards greenway development each year? Most of the respondents understood that their locality contributes in some fashion for greenway development either by monetary allocations or in kind services. Some of the participants were unable to report specific contribution amounts or hours of in-kind services used each year. 4. Do you feel that your locality needs to contribute more in order to further stimulate right-of-way acquisition and greenway development? A mixed group of results were obtained from this question. Some participants highlighted the need for each locality to contribute more funds and services and others felt that increases were not necessary to stimulate greenway development and rights of way acquisition. 5. Do you feel that greenways can spur economic development? A majority of the respondents agreed that greenways have the potential to spur economic development in some fashion. The respondents cited new business development, increased real estate values, cultural and tourism development as the most common forms of economic development that could spur from greenway development. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 C-19 C-20 APPENDIX C - CONTINUED 6. Are there any specific interests that you or your organization would like to see addressed in the Greenway Plan update. A variety of responses were generated from the participants, the following lists the most common interests cited: Increased public education, increase publicity, consistent goals and objectives, increased cooperation, shared vision, better planning efforts, funding strategies, development of the Roanoke River Greenway. 7. What role do you see your organization playing in future greenway development? Most of the participants highlighted a variety of roles in which they see their organization playing in future greenway development. It was surprising to discover of wide variety of responses from leadership roles and financier responsibilities to site specific design assistance. Overall, there seamed to be a lack of consistency of defined roles for each organization. 8. In your opinion, what are the challenges that need to be overcome before developing a strong regional greenway network? A variety of responses were generated from the participants, the following lists the most common interests cited: Funding, public education, accountability, need for goals and objectives, lack of design standards, coordination and cooperation, and improved trail maintenance efforts. 9. Are you willing to become an avid supporter of right-of-way acquisition and greenway development? The majority of participants are willing to become avid supporters of greenway development and avid supporters of acquisition efforts as long as it does not include land condemnation. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway · January 2007 APPENDIX D: CASE STUDIES Charlotte Mecklenburg Greenway System Background There are currently 23 miles of developed trails and 185 miles of planned greenways to be completed in the next 20 years in Mecklenburg County (MC). 16 miles will be built within the next 4 years. Most greenways will be located along 22 creeks within the County. The two main goals in building greenways are to protect the floodplains and to provide public transportation. The development of future greenways are funded by public, private and foundation support. Getting the first greenway on the ground has helped people understand what greenways are and has helped to educate them on their benefits. MC has found that once the public has experienced them first hand they want more of them. Greenway Infrastructure Trails cross sections within the various greenway corridors range from 8-10 foot-wide paved and/or limestone surface trails. All existing and future greenway infrastructure development occurring within floodplains are specifically designed to reduce flooding damage from anticipated rain events. Program Objectives As stated above the main objective of the Mecklenburg County Greenway Program is to protect the floodplains and to provide alternative transportation routes for bikes and pedestrians. The 1999 Mecklenburg Greenway Master Plan identifies three major objectives based on their overall vision statement "The preservation, protection, and appropriate recreational use of floodplains in Charlotte-Mecklenburg through a greenway and greenway trail program will create a more livable and sustainable community for all residents and businesses." 1. "Preserve and reclaim natural floodplains for the purposes of improving water quality protection, protecting wildlife habitat and open space, and providing recreational, educational, and alternative transportation opportunities." 2. "Create a primary infrastructure of multi-use trails along suitable floodplain corridors that are connected to adjacent parks and nature preserves and provide a system of contiguous and substantial trail mileage for rigorous pedestrian and bicycle use." 3. "Include partnerships between civic, corporate, and governmental entities to ensure that overland linkage beyond the County's floodplain greenway trail system is provided to offer access to destinations such as schools, neighborhoods, businesses, and shopping." Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 0-1 APPENDIX D - CONTINUED Interagency Partnerships Storm Water Services MC Park and Recreation and Storm Water Services often partner in land acquisition and development projects. MC Storm Water Services is working aggressively to tackle water quality problems in its 22 creeks and their tributaries through stream and wetland restoration and flood mitigation projects. Through a flood buyout program, residential and commercial parcels subject to flooding have and continue to be acquired. The use of this land is turned over to floodplain restoration coupled with greenways - a much more suitable use for the floodplains than the previous. MC Storm Water Services is also very involved in stream restoration projects. Often the stream restoration construction is coupled with trail construction, in order to save on construction cost and limit land disturbance. These two county departments have learned that you can stretch your dollars when doubling up. Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities Partnering with the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department (CMU) has also brought benefits to the greenway system. Park and Recreation is a County department and CMU is a City department so consequently they are different land owners. Although crossing easements to locate their services in each others properties works well, when one department pays for an easement on private property, the other department has to pay the private property owner again to use the same easement. Planning- Subdivision Ordinance Reservation Clause Within the subdivision ordinance, MC, has the right to reserve land if the development is happening within or near a public entity, such as a planned greenway corridor. This means they reserve the right to buy that property. Of course, they would prefer if this clause required a dedication of land, rather than just the reservation. General Organization Structure According to Mecklenburg County Greenway Master Plan, a new organization strategy was proposed in the 1999 plan to improve the process of greenway development. The following section highlights the organizational structure cited from the adopted 1999 master plan. Mecklenburg County is the lead agent, owner, developer, and manager of the primary greenway system throughout the County. The County has partnered with local municipalities throughout the County to build and maintain various segments of the greenway system. Listed below are the key agencies and organizations that playa role in greenway implementation. The Park and Recreation Department acquires necessary land and prepares detailed corridor master plans and construction documents for each greenway segment. The Park and Recreation Department is the primary steward for greenway lands and facilities. 0-2 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 APPENDIX D - CONTINUED The Mecklenburg County Commission is called upon to adopt and implement the recommendations of the adopted Master Plan. The County Commission is viewed as the ultimate "Champion" of this master plan and will need to exhibit appropriate leadership of the overall system goals and objectives. The Mecklenburg County Manager is vested with management responsibilities for the community's public resources. The County Manager is called upon to determine a coordinated capital improvements program that enables various County departments to share resources in support of greenway development. The Greenway and Trails Advisory Council mission is to "promote and support implementation efforts of the Mecklenburg County Greenway System through public education, coordination, identification of future greenways, facilitating regional cooperation The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission supports the Greenway Master Plan and helps with implementation by showing potential greenways in District Plans, notifying Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department of proposed developments in a greenway area, utilizing the rezoning process to encourage dedication of lands, such as sidewalks and bicycle facilities, for the greenway system, and planning transportation improvements in coordination with greenways. The Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services Department assists the Park and Recreation Department with the development of specific greenway segments via use of funds obtained from federal and state grants and through a coordinated capital improvement approach to project implementation. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department plays an important role in the implementation strategy for county-wide greenways. CMUD's system of sanitary sewers offers enormous potential for shared use with greenway development objectives. The Mecklenburg County Engineering and Building Standards Department assists the Park and Recreation Department with the preparation of detailed corridor master plans for each of the greenway segments defined by the comprehensive master plan. Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection (MCDEP) assists the Park and Recreation Department with the implementation of this master plan. MCDEP maintains an advisory role, assisting with scientific, technical, and policy issues that impact water quality. 900 East 64th Street (317) 327-7431 I ndyG reenways@indygov.org Major Implementation Strategies Mecklenburg County has put together the following implementation plan to guide for each greenway corridor: Step One - land Acquisition: Before detailed master planning of an individual corridor occurs, it is necessary for the County to have an ownership interest in the land that is included in this greenway system. A variety of land acquisition techniques are included in this master plan to guide both public and private interests. It is essential that an interest in land ownership take place prior to beginning a detailed master plan for an individual greenway corridor. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · January 2007 0-3 APPENDIX D - CONTINUED Step Two · Corridor Master Planning: Site specific master planning for individual greenway corridors will determine the feasibility and the appropriate level of use for a segment of corridor and, where appropriate, trail routing. Each master plan for a greenway corridor or segment of a corridor should involve residents from surrounding neighborhoods, as well as adjacent property owners and businesses. Step Three · Design Development, Construction Documents, and Engineering: After master planning has been completed and a specific corridor plan has been defined, detailed construction documents will then be produced for the project as well as a detailed cost estimation and assignment of responsibilities and costs. Step Four · Construction and Facility Development: Depending on the level of use that is appropriate for a greenway corridor, actual construction of the greenway facilities, such as trails, habitat restoration, and stream-bank restoration will take place. Construction and development operations can be phased as necessary to meet budget and time constraints. Step Five · Maintenance and Management: Once the greenway facilities have been completed, maintenance and management should begin immediately. The Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department and its divisions shall be the lead management agency and should work in partnership with other county agencies, the City of Charlotte, and municipalities throughout the County, as well as private sector groups, to effectively manage the greenways. Successful Funding In 1999 the residents of Mecklenburg County approved a bond package with $7,235,000- for greenway development. Again in 2004 the residents approved a bond package for $25,000,000 specifically for greenway development. The 2004 bonds have to be spent by 2009. The combined 32 million dollar bond packages are for greenway development not land acquisition In 1999 the public also supported land banking bonds for land acquisition for all open space for approximately $220 million dollars. The 2004 bond referendum had a very high approval rate of 630~. The referendum had a lot of support through Partners for Parks and other public awareness efforts. Park and Recreation as a public department, could not advertise their own support for the issue, the advocacy came form outside the Department. In addition to the bond issues, the Department also receives various amounts of money form standard government grants efforts. Greenway Staff In 2005 the operating budget for Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation's Greenway was $304,361.88 which includes staff salaries and operational expenses. The current staff includes: 6 construction/maintenance team members, 4 planners (including the Branch Manager). 0-4 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 APPENDIX D - CONTINUED There are two "Community Liaison" positions for Little Sugar Creek Greenway. Their positions are funded by grants from the Knight Foundation and the Foundation for the Carolinas. They are primarily engaged in public relations, community outreach and grant writing. They also act as a support system for the four greenway planners through educating the public and keeping the community engaged in the greenway system. Contact: Don Morgan Greenway Director Mecklenburg County Park & Recreation Dept 5841 Brookshire Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28216-2403 (704) 336-8834 morgad r@co.mecklenburg. nc. us http://www.parkandrec.com Julie Clark Greenway Planner Mecklenburg County Park & Recreation Dept 5841 Brookshire Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28216-2403 (704) 336-5927 clarkjk@co. mecklen bu rg. nc. us Sources: Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department 1999 Mecklenburg County Greenway Master Plan Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · January 2007 0-5 APPENDIX D - CONTINUED Case Study Indianapolis Greenway System Background The Indianapolis Greenways System, when fully constructed as planned in 2002, will span 175 miles including 150 miles of 8-12 foot-wide paved or limestone trails. They will link more than 125 destinations. The current plan follows 1 river, 12 streams, 3 historic rail corridors, and the Central Canal. Currently, an estimated two million users access the Indianapolis greenway trails annually. Greenway Infrastructure A 11 nhoto~ (,OllrtP~"\T OfUTUTUT Tnr11~n~tr~11~ ('om At present a total of sixty-five miles of interconnected greenway trails exist within Indianapolis/Marion County, and an additional forty-five miles of greenway trails are either being constructed or planned within the near future. Trails cross sections within the various greenway corridors range from 8-12 foot-wide paved and limestone surface trails. The current greenway infrastructure inventory also includes over 56 miles of greenway green conservation corridors that do not include any trail infrastructure components. Program Objectives The Indianapolis Greenways Plan describes the community's vision for a regional network of linear open space that connects neighborhoods and promotes recreation, fitness, and alternative transportation and conservation. This network, known as the Indianapolis Greenways System, will benefit not only Marion County, but will also help connect the entire central region of Indiana." General Organization Structure The organization structure for Indianapolis Greenways contains three main components: The City of Indianapolis, Marion County and The Greenways Foundation, Inc. According to the 2004 Indianapolis Marion County Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, the Indianapolis Department of Parks and Recreation is the primary regional park agency for the more than 860,000 residents of both the City of Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana. The Department's roots are within the pre-1969 boundaries of the City of Indianapolis. Since that time, the Department's jurisdiction has grown to the boundaries of the County. The Greenways Foundation, Inc. is a charitable trust working to promote the growth, enhancement and use of Indiana trails and greenways. The Greenways Foundation, Inc. is not affiliated with Indy Parks, other than to provide the Indy Greenways web site at no cost to the City of Indianapolis and to provide amenities and services for the various Indy Greenways trails. Established in 1991, the Greenway Foundation, Inc. (formerly known as the White River Greenways Foundation, Inc.) was created specifically to facilitate contributions, of all forms, to central Indiana greenway projects. After receiving cash and in-kind donations, the Greenway Foundation can hold them until they are needed for greenway development, enhancement or operation. As a private, permanent and on-going entity, the Greenway Foundation 0-6 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 APPENDIX D - CONTINUED doesn't have the bureaucratic burdens of annual re-appropriation, or the cumbersome and inflexible procurement regulations, which must be followed by city-county government. Non-partisan and non-political, the Greenway Foundation can focus exclusively on the needs of greenway projects on a regional basis for cross county coordination. Major Implementation Strategies Indy Parks actively pursues acquisition of open spaces and natural areas wherever possible and works to create partnerships that promote stewardship, program and facility development and maintenance of those areas. Indy Parks implements strategies that provide the necessary resources to establish programs to acquire land for Greenway connections and parks using land trust or other strategies to preserve corridor open space for resource conservation. Land acquisitions shall be targeted through criteria based on established policies used to prioritize locations. Additional effort will be made to increase environmental education program opportunities on the Greenways by developing partnerships with local schools and environmental groups. Indy Parks continues to develop plans for "Living Links", which identify various ways of accessing parks and community facilities. According to the 2004 Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, One of the outcomes of this plan was the establishment a new greenway development standard of .15 miles of greenways per 1,000 people. The growth of Indianapolis has outpaced the number of actual miles added to the greenways in recent years. While there are long- term plans for many more miles and connections within the county, the current state of built greenways falls short of our created standard. Currently, there are approximately .03 miles per 1,000 people. In order to increase this number the following implementation strategies have been identified. . Develop and implement a methodology to coordinate use/management and acquisition of non-park open space. . Advocate, develop and implement an aggressive policy for land acquisition, land transfers, sale of surplus property and acquisition of more critical lands in expansion areas. Indy Parks should be a leader in conservation of open spaces. . Implement strategies to provide necessary resources to establish programs to acquire land for Greenway connections and parks, using land trust strategies to preserve corridor open space for resource conservation. . Review and update criteria for land acquisition by Indy Parks. Criteria based on land stewardship policies, demographic needs, and developed baseline standards for recreation services, compelling need and that fit Indy Park's overall land policies. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · January 2007 0-7 APPENDIX D - CONTINUED . Develop and maintain a prioritized list of potential property acquisitions within Marion County that fulfill the criteria developed above. . Acquire property using the prioritized list of available areas. Successful Funding Mechanisms According to the 2002 Indianapolis Greenway Master Plan, local greenway efforts have brought in nearly $18 million dollars of funding for greenway projects above and beyond the local tax dollars. The most important funding source for Indy Parks Greenway projects since 1993 has been federal transportation enhancement funds, available under the ISTEA statute and its successor the TEA-21 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century). Transportation enhancement funds are administered through the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), and total approximately $16 million annually for all Indiana projects. In addition to TE, other sections of TEA-21 may also be used to fund pedestrian and bikeway expenditures, including CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Program) STP (Surface Transportation Program) and others." "Although local tax monies have never been the major source of funding to develop the Indy Parks Greenway System, they have played a key role. Many of the external grants previously mentioned require 20o~ to 50o~ "matching" funds which have primarily come from local tax revenue. Given that Indy's greenways are on properties under mixed jurisdiction, using municipal staff and budgets to coordinate greenway maintenance and capital improvements have proven to be the most efficient course. Local budgets also provide for the small professional staff to manage Indy Parks Greenways." Contact: Peggy Boehm Greenway Administrator I ndy Parks and Recreation 900 East 64th Street (317) 327-7431 I ndyG reenways@indygov.org Sources: City of Indianapolis Marion County Greenway Foundation, Inc. 2004 Indianapolis Marion County Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan 2002 Indianapolis Greenway Master Plan 0-8 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 APPENDIX D - CONTINUED Case Study City of Knoxville, TN Greenway System Background The City of Knoxville is home to over 39 miles of paved greenways which is also part of a larger regional greenway system. Knoxville's greenways have been built from the "bottom up" claims Greenway director Donna Young. During our case study research, we spoke with Donna and she explained to us how Knoxville's system was built by integrating greenway projects and various transportation capital improvement efforts together. As road improvements started to incorporate trails in their design, the network began to grow over time and has continued to gain momentum every year. New greenways are built every year in Knoxville and the system is evolving further into neighborhoods, connecting thousands of citizens to recreation and transportation opportunities. Third Creek Park River Greenway Greenway Infrastructure The Great Smokey Regional Greenway Board helps to guide regional greenways efforts throughout the Knoxville area. Approximately 90 miles of greenways have been built in the area including: 44 miles in Knox County, encompassing the City of Knoxville, 30 miles in Anderson County, 15 miles in Blount County, 6 miles in Sevier County and less than 2 miles in each Cocke, Jefferson, and Loudon Counties. (source: http://www.knoxtrans.org) Program Objectives The primary objective for the City of Knoxville's greenways system is connecting neighborhoods. Neighborhood connections for recreation and transportation have driven local greenway development over the past 12 years. Additional objectives have arisen lately, which include strong support for increased greenway based tourism development and water quality management efforts. "Our goal is to have a greenway system that connects throughout the entire city and we're well on our way to making this happen" - Mayor Haslam General Organization Structure Currently, the organization structure, in theory, is similar to the Roanoke Valley. A Greenway Commission has been appointed and has similar roles as Roanoke's Greenway Commission. A grass roots organization called Knoxville Greenway Coalition has been activated and has similar objectives to the Pathfinders for Greenways. A full time Greenway Coordinator position was established by the City and a Greenway Sidewalk Coordinator with the Transportation Planning Organization has also been a key working partner. "The more people who work on greenways the better they get. Having an inclusive quality of working on greenways is extremely important. It hurts your greenways when your territorial"- Donna Young Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · January 2007 0-9 APPENDIX D - CONTINUED Major Implementation Strategies The major implementation strategy for greenway development in the Knoxville area is teaming up with the Tennessee Department of Transportation to include greenway and trail projects on all upcoming capital improvement projects. An increased awareness from the State has brought on many new projects to the Knoxville area which grew from the earlier success of the City's first greenway efforts. An additional implementation strategy is integrating greenway projects with school programs designed to stop the current child obesity epidemic. This approach enables the City of Knoxville to work with the local schools to help design access to safe greenway trails that connect to the local neighborhoods. The final major implementation strategy for the City is to find and acquire as much green space as possible, along every creek, riverbank on all state roads. This initiative of acquisition has helped Knoxville to position itself in creating a larger future network of greenway trails and connections. Successful Funding Mechanisms The City of Knoxville has never paid for a greenway/trail easement. Donations have enabled the project thus far even without a formal donation process. Local coordination with land owners and a supportive council have led to major victories in the easement donation department. But it's anticipated that a formal produce will need to be identified over the next few years as major alignments may require easement purchases. All of the greenway projects over the last 12 years have been built with grant money and matching funds. The City has only spent 3.4 million dollars and relies on earmarks from the State with more and more funding expected to be available in the near future. With both the Tennessee Department of Transportation (T-DOT) and the Governor of Tennessee in favor of greenway development substantial strides are expected over the next few years. Contact: Donna Young, Greenways Coordinator; P. O. Box 1631, Knoxville, Tennessee 37901; 865-215-2807; dyo u na@cityofknoxville. 0 ra Sources: www.cityofknoxvi lie. 0 rg www.knoxtrans.org Donna Young -phone interview - April 2006 Photos - courtesy of cityofknoxville.org 0-10 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 APPENDIX D - CONTINUED Case Study: Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority - W&OD Regional Railroad Trail Background: W&OD railroad Regional Park is a linear park 100 feet wide and 45 miles long, built on the old roadbed and named for the former trains which ran along the right of way from 1859 to 1968, extending from Arlington to Purcellville in western Loudoun County, Virginia. According, to www.savetthetrail.com. "the first phase of the W&OD Trail's construction was a mile-and-a-half in length and was an experiment. In 1974, the NVRPA, in partnership with the City of Falls Church and Virginia Electric and Power Company (now Dominion Virginia Power (DVP)), sought to gauge public reaction to the conversion of a railway line into a long and narrow park. This type of park is now widely known as a rail-trail. Reaction was overwhelmingly positive and this prompted the NVRPA to purchase the W&OD Railroad line from DVP in 1978. A decade later the entire 45-mile stretch of the trail had been built. It is described by the Park Authority as, "the most popular rail-trail in the U.S." All photos courtesy of: www.savethetrail.com In 1987, the W&OD was designated a National Recreation Trail by the U.S. Department of the Interior and completed in 1988. Since its completion, the W&OD has become a nationally know trail exhibiting historically high levels of inter- jurisdictional cooperation tremendous local support. The trail currently travels through variety of jurisdictions including: . Loudoun County, VA . Fairfax County, VA . Purcellville, VA . Leesburg, VA . Herndon, VA . Reston, V A . Falls Church, VA . Arlington, VA . Ashburn, VA . Sterling, VA According to a recent economic study conducted by the Virginia Department of Conservation, an estimated 1.7 million users spent in total about $12 million annually related to their use recreational use of the trail. Of this amount, about $7 million was spent directly in the northern Virginia economy by locals and non-locals using the trail. The estimated 1.6 million local visits accounted for about $5.3 million of spending directly related to the use of the W&OD. Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · January 2007 0-11 APPENDIX D - CONTINUED Greenway Infrastructure The W&OD regional trail corridor is an 100 foot wide corridor area that includes specific infrastructure components such as a 45 mile paved asphalt trail ranging from 8-12 feet in width along with a parallel 31 mile 10' wide gravel horse trail. The gravel horse trail is being used more and more by walkers and runners seeking a softer trail surface for their recreation endeavor as wells as providing an alternative to trail overcrowding. The trail also has a variety of designated access points and parking areas scattered strategically throughout the corridor. The W&OD trail provides opportunities for a wide variety of trail uses by promoting activities such as, walking, hiking, running, biking, blading and horseback riding. Due to the over 2 million people per year visiting the regional trail, a continuous program of trail infrastructure maintenance has been implemented throughout the corridor to keep up with daily wear and tear. Currently, there is not an overall greenway plan for the area. All of the planning efforts are done via general management plan updating. Program Objectives The major program objective of the W&OD trail is provide a continuous linear non motorized multi-use regional trail to be used for regional recreation purposes. Currently, the primary objective remains the same, but the added objective of alternative transportation has arisen from the tremendous growth impacts and vehicle congestion in the Northern Virginia Area. General Organization Structure The W&OD trail is owned by the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority. "Created In the late 1950's, the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission and a group of citizens from several local jurisdictions came together to protect Northern Virginia's rich heritage of woods, meadows, lakes and streams from the threat of suburban sprawl. These citizens, working with their local parks for all Northern Virginians to enjoy governments--Fairfax County, Arlington County and the City of Falls Church--organized under the Virginia Park Authorities Act in 1959 as the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority (NVRPA). (www.nvrpa.org) The Park Authority is a separate regional authority containing 6 member jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction appoints two members that make up the 12 member independent board. The W&OD regional trail is also supported by a strong advocacy group. Similar to the Roanoke Valley's Pathfinders for Greenways, the Friends of the W&OD Trail is a non profit citizens group dedicated to preservation, enhancement and preservation of the W&OD Regional Trail established in 1991. The governing body of the Friends of the W&OD consists of 15 northern Virginia residents from a number of jurisdictions on or near the trail who have a variety of recreational interests in the W&OD trail. (www.wodfriends.org) 0-12 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 APPENDIX D - CONTINUED Major Implementation Strategies Various strategies have change since the trail was completed in 1998. The initial implementation strategy for the trail development stemmed from the Park Authority's charge to purchase the full 45 miles of linear trail for approximately 9 million dollars from the Dominion Valley Power Company. According savethetrail.org, the sale of the 45 mile stretch of property from Dominion Valley Power to the Park Authority also contained an easement clause on the acquired property. This easement has allowed the power company to place future towers carrying overhead transmission lines along and over the existing rail corridor. This clause, is currently the subject of highly controversial power line development proposal that seeks the compromise beautiful mature tree covering throughout the last 11 miles of the trail corridor. Successful Funding Mechanisms A major contributor to the start up of the regional trail was the award of a Rail to Trails grant for approximately 1.8 million dollars from the Department of the Interior. This grant helped to provide monies for acquisition, design and construction of the trail. As the trail developed over time, the Northern Regional Park Authority had to investigate other financial avenues to keep the trail going. Today, the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority generates approximately 80o~ of its operating funds through various enterprise revenues and only 20o~ of its revenue from government assistance programs. Most of the revenues fall into the category user fees, license agreements and rents and account for close to a million dollars of revenue each year collected from the W&OD Regional Trail. Typically the Park Authority grants revocable permits and licenses for a specified time period for various utility agreements. They are set up as ongoing reoccurring annual payments every year for the length of the term of the license with an inflation factor built into the fee terms. Utility crossings, water and sewer permits are a one time fee, but cable, gas and phone utilities fall into the category of reoccurring fees. The base ranges for the permit fees are generated from real estate appraisals based on land values. Private commercial purposes must pay if using trail land for utility easements. The telecom boom in 90's is one example on how the W&OD capitalized on the utility market. Fiber optic companies were willing to pay the fees in exchange for utility crossing along the trail. The Park Authority also inherited leases when they brought property the land where the W&OD stands today. They have wisely increased rents to adjacent properties which bring in additional funding for various trail projects. Another way the Park Authority creates revenue from its regional trail is to charge administration fees for various projects. Staff time dedicated to any permit work is fully recoverable. They charge a three time multiplier of their hourly rate for any administration time accrued. The Park Authority also charges any out of pocket expenses for engineering and legal support that is needed to process various permits and requires a cash bond for utility construction work on park property. Contact: Kate Rudacille Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority W&OD Regional Railroad Trail Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · January 2007 0-13 APPENDIX D - CONTINUED 703-359-4615 www.nvrpa.org Sources: Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority U. S. Department of Transportation Virginia Department of Conservation Savethetrails.org Wodfirends.org Railserve.com Railstotrails.org 0-14 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 APPENDIX E: ON-ROAD ROUTES FROM THE BIKEWAY PLAN FOR THE ROANOKE VALLEY AREA MPO Table 3 City of Roanoke Priority List of Corridors for Bicycle Accommodation 10th Street Brandon Avenue Colonial Avenue Dale Avenue Grandin Road Melrose Avenue Memorial Avenue Peters Creek Road Shenandoah Avenue Walnut Avenue / Mill Mountain Spur Ferdinand Avenue Franklin Road Do wood Drive 13th Street Brandon Avenue Salem Turnpike Campbell Avenue Brandon Avenue Williamson Road Jefferson Street Shenandoah Avenue Campbell Avenue Williamson Road Wise Avenue Lick Run Greenwa Mill Mountain Greenwa Murra Run Greenwa Roanoke River Greenwa Tinker Creek Greenway Williamson Road Cit of Salem CL Brandon Avenue Town of Vinton CL Memorial Avenue Peter Creek Road Grandin Road Cove Road Cit of Salem CL Cit of Salem Town of Vinton Hershber er Road 8th St. / Walnut Avenue Roanoke Count Town of Vinton Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 E-1 APPENDIX E - CONTINUED Table 4 Roanoke County Priority List of Corridors for Bicycle Accommodation Bent Mountain Road / Route 221 Brambleton Avenue / Route 221 Cit of Roanoke CL Buck Mountain Road Starke Road Catawba Valley Drive / Route 311 Colonial Avenue Electric Road / Route 419 Hard Road Hollins Road Loch Haven Drive Merriman Road Mountain View Road Plantation Drive Ranchcrest Drive Riverside Drive Shadwell Drive Starke Road Thompson Memorial/Route 311 Electric Road / Route 419 Cotton Hill Road Electric Road / Route 419 Franklin Road / Route 220 Cit of Roanoke Electric Road / Route 419 Carvins Cove Road Bent Mountain Road / Route 221 Electric Road / Route 419 Catawba Valley Drive / Route Roanoke Count CL 311 Town of Vinton CL Blue Rid e Parkwa Shadwell Drive Plantation Road Electric Road / Route 419 Belle Haven Road Ranchcrest Drive Starke Road Vinton CL Blue Rid e Parkwa 1-81 Hollins Road Bent Mountain Road / Route 221 Merriman Road Harborwood Road / Diuguids Salem CL Lane Williamson Road / Route 11 Hollins Road Merriman Road Buck Mountain Road Cit of Roanoke CL Colorado Avenue Apperson Drive West Main Street Apperson Drive Main Street Roanoke County CL Town of Vinton City of Salem Boteto u rt Co u nt Table 5 City of Salem Priority List of Corridors for Bicycle Accommodation Electric Road / Route 419 Electric Road / Route 419 Main Street Colle e Avenue Riverside Drive Colorado Avenue Route 311 / Catawba Valley Drive West Riverside Drive Cit of Roanoke Roanoke County Roanoke Count Roanoke Count Roanoke County Apperson Drive Colle e Avenue Colorado Avenue Diuguids Lane East Riverside Drive Thompson Memorial Avenue / Route 311 Twelve O'Clock Knob Road E-2 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 APPENDIX E - CONTINUED Table 6 Town of Vinton Priority List of Corridors for Bicycle Accommodation Hard Road Mountain View Road South Pollard Street Virginia Avenue Walnut Avenue Terminus of bike lane Washin ton Avenue Gus Nicks Boulevard South Pollard Street Lee Street Roanoke Count CL Roanoke Count CL Vir inia Avenue City of Roanoke CL Wise Avenue Roanoke Count Roanoke Count Cit of Roanoke City of Roanoke City of Roanoke Table 8 City of Roanoke Vision List of Corridors for Bicycle Accommodation 13th Street / Bennin ton Rutrou h Road Dale Avenue 13th Street / Hollins Connector Dale Avenue Oran e Avenue Brambleton Avenue Garst Mill Road Brandon Avenue Franklin Road Reserve Drive Route 220 Roanoke Count Grandin Road Garst Mill Road Brandon Avenue Roanoke Count Hollins Road Oran e Avenue Libert Road Ki n Street 8th / Braddock Street Oran e Avenue Liberty Road Hollins Road Burrell Street Plantation Road Libert Road Roanoke Count CL Garden City Boulevard Yellow Mountain Road Riverland Road Belle Avenue Ki ng Street Roanoke County CL Roanoke County o den Road Roanoke CL Electric Road / Route 419 Mount Pleasant Boulevard Riverland Road Roanoke Count CL Roanoke Count Riverland Road Garden City Boulevard Mt. Pleasant Boulevard Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 E-3 APPENDIX E - CONTINUED Table 9 Roanoke County Vision List of Corridors for Bicycle Accommodation 221 Bent Mountain Road Cotton Hill Road Twelve O'clock Knob Road Belle Haven Road Loch Haven Road North Barrens Road Carson Road Cit of Roanoke CL 460 Challen er Avenue Cit of Roanoke Catawba Valley Drivel Route Catawba Creek Road 311 Roanoke CL Colonial Avenue Electric Road I Route 419 o den Road Colonial Avenue o den Road Cit of Roanoke CL Cit of Roanoke Bent Mountain Road I Route Cotton Hill Road 221 Blue Ridge Parkway Dallas Road Webster Road Enon Drive Electric Road I Route Brambleton Avenue I Route 419 Cit of Roanoke CL 221 Cit of Roanoke Enon Drive Dallas Road Walrond Drive Feather Road Route 24 I Washin ton Ave Rte 634 Hard Road Town of Vinton Brambleton Avenue I Route Garst Mill Road 221 Cit of Roanoke CL Cit of Roanoke Feather Road Washin ton Avenue Hard Road Town of Vinton Jae Valle Road Cit of Roanoke CL Blue Rid e Parkwa Cit of Roanoke Laban Road North Barrens Road Webster Drive North Barrens Road Belle Haven Road Laban Road o den Road Colonial Avenue Electric Road I Route 419 Peters Creek Road Cit of Roanoke CL Williamson Road Cit of Roanoke Rte 24 Washington Avenue Vinton CL Town of Vinton Starke Road Electric Road I Route 419 Twelve O'clock Knob Bent Mountain Road I Route Road 221 W. Riverside Drive Cit of Salem Walrond Drive Enon Drive Plantation Road Walrond Park Road Enon Drive Walrond Drive Webster Drive Laban Road Dallas Road Wildwood Road Cit of Salem CL 1-81 I Cit of Salem CL Williamson Road Peters Creek Road Botetourt Count CL E-4 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 APPENDIX E - CONTINUED Table 10 City of Salem Vision List of Corridors for Bicycle Accommodation Boulevard Roanoke Idaho Street Twelve O'clock Knob Road Wildwood Road Academy Street Electric Road I Route 419 Texas Street Roanoke County CL West Main Street Roanoke County CL I 1-81 CL I 1-81 Roanoke County Roanoke Count Roanoke County Table 11 Town of Vinton Vision List of Corridors for Bicycle Accommodation Gus Nicks Blvd./Washin ton Avenue Th i rd Street Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan · 2007 E-5 I (:',:1: I :' _ - ::i I!f .! 1,1 1 I . AT A REGLILAR MEE1-ING OF -rHE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2007 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN TO INCLUDE THE 2007 UPDATE TO THE ROANOKE VALLEY CONCEPTUAL GREENWAY PLAN WHEREAS, the 1995 Conceptual Greenway Plan was adopted by the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, City of Salem, and Town of Vinton, and WHEREAS, the Roanoke VaUey Greenway Commission determined that it was time to update the 1995 plan and sought assistance from the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, and WHEREAS, a grant was obtained from the Virginia Department of Transportation to help fund the project and a steering committee was set up with representatives from the four localities, and WHEREAS, two public meetings were held to gather citizen input, surveys were conducted, and personal interviews were held with stakeholders to receive comments on priorities for the 2007 update, and WHEREAS, the 2007 update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan recommends that focus be placed on finishing the Roanoke River Greenway in the next five years and developing north/south connections to the Roanoke River Greenway over the next ten years, and WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission recognizes that implementation of the 2007 update will require continued cooperation among the many partners and that development of any specific greenway will require approval by the local governing body and a determination by the local governing body to allocate funding to that project, and WHEREAS, the Greenway Commission approved the 2007 update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan on June 27, 2007, and the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the 2007 update August 7, 2007, and approved a resolution supporting the 2007 update on October 16,2007, and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors recognize the important role that greenways play in a community's quality of life and that: (1) greenway trails provide alternative transportation modes lessening the dependence on automobiles; (2) that greenways strengthen the local economy by increasing property values by attracting businesses that are concerned with quality of life for employees and by creating an outdoor recreation environment where young professionals want to work and live; (3) that greenways provide free facilities for all age groups to exercise and encourage active living by design which can help improve citizens' health; and (4) that greenways preserve existing natural resources and enhance the environment through expansion of the tree canopy, protection of riparian buffers that reduce stormwater runoff, and provide for continuous habitat for plants and wildlife. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors that the Roanoke County Community Plan be amended to include the 2007 update to the Conceptual Greenway Plan in so far as this is consistent with the Community Plan. 2 ~-J PETITIONER: CASE NUMBER: Auslo, Inc. 19-10/2007 Planning Commission Hearing Date: November 5, 2007 (Continued from October 2, 2007) Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: November 13, 2007 (Continued from October 23, 2007) A. REQUEST The petition of Auslo, Inc. to rezone 1.421 acres from R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, for the operation of an extended stay hotel, located near the intersection of Hershberger Road and Oakland Boulevard, Hollins Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Three citizens spoke in opposition to the project. Ms. Kim Novak cited traffic and safety concerns. Mr. and Mrs. Peckman spoke regarding the impact to Carvins Creek and the Roanoke River. c. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Ms. Nicole Gilkeson presented the staff report. Information requested by staff from the petitioner had not been submitted in order to be considered for the public hearing. Philip Bane, Auslo Inc., and Wayne Wilcox, ACS Design, presented information for the petitioner. Members of the Planning Commission posed questions to the petitioner regarding the proffers presented at the meeting. Commissioners requested additional information before voting on this item. D. CONDITIONS E. COMMISSION ACTION Mr. Jarrell made a motion to continue the public hearing until the Planning Commission's November 5th meeting. The motion carried 4-0. F. DISSENTING PERSPEC-rIVE G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Staff Report _ Vicinity Map Other Philip Thompson, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission 3 t.-:J.. PE-rITIONER: CASE NUMBER: Kenneth S. Gusler, Jr. 18-10/2007 Planning Commission Hearing Date: October 2, 2007 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: October 23, 2007 A. REQUEST The petition of Kenneth S. Gusler, Jr., is requesting to rezone 0.804 acre from R-2, Medium Density Residential, District to C-1, Office, District at 4806 Pleasant Hill Drive in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District in order to construct a 2-story, 8,000 square foot office building. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS No citizens spoke either in favor or against the proposal at the hearing. c. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Chris Patriarca presented the staff report. Representatives of the petitioner addressed questions 'from the Commission. Members of the P'anning Commission posed questions to the petitioner and staff concerning traffic. Commissioners cited support for implementing the Transition future land use des~gnation. D. CONDITIONS 1. -rhe subject property will be developed in substantial conformance with the submitted concept plan prepared by Lumsden Associates PC and dated October 2,2007, subject to those changes that may be required by Roanoke County during site plan review. 2. The office building that is proposed for the site will be constructed with the same architectural design and materials as the existing office building on the adjoining property located at 4800 Pleasant Hill Drive (Titan Park I). 3. A treated wood fence six feet in height will be built along the westerly boundary line where the site adjoins residential property. Landscape plantings (type B buffer, option no. 2) will be installed as a part of the project. The fence will be oriented with the finished side facing the adjoining parcel. The same fence will also be built along the rear boundary together with a 30' wide buffer strip. 4. Applicant agrees that there will be no entrance or exit constructed to the site from Lange Lane. 5. There will be no exterior site lighting other that the lights on the building to provide light at the front and rear entrances. 6. Applicant proposes to build an unlighted sign, 7.5' x 15' of the identical appearance and materials as the existing sign located at 4800 Pleasant Hill Drive. 7. Applicant agrees that no dumpster will be placed on this site. The site will utilize the existing dumpster on the 4800 Pleasant Hill Drive lot adjoining the site. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. McNeil made a motion to favorably recommend approval of the rezoning request to the Board of Supervisors. Motion passed 4-0. F. DISSEN-rING PERSPEC1.IVE None G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Staff Report _ Vicinity Map Other Philip Thompson, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission 2 ~.:: S. "r:" "'A:' " ~:~'~'::.;"'R":';'-E'-"'" "p' " "'o"':"':{"R"" .','~",):'0'-:~::~::,,~;:~';;~::,:::;~::~:. .:,/;:,~-.,~'}.~::'":':;::'~;;::'.""~~>':,':.;Y': ",: ,:. '.' .~ _'I '. f?:.r:.,.. j~ 1-<- ~~, '"":';"., .. ~"'lil' - '~... . : . ~c.~ ".. :~.c........;;::.~.,.'. ...l.~i'!',\'.I~ 'Io:!:"'r:..~-.l.::~::J.._[': r .... '.~:... >, ;) '". -~-::... '~I ,,-~,'~:.:,.i': ~ "J.":.c-"C : .t.. l~~. I-~'- ..:t I. : j..'. :1' ;"jt :,. :, Petitioner: Kenneth S. Gusler, Jr. Request: Rezone 0.804 acre from R-2. Medium Density Residential District, District to C-1, Office. District and to construct one office bu ilding Location: 4806 Pleasant Hill Drive Magisterial District: Windsor HiUs Proffered Conditions: Pending submission by petitioner EXEcu-rIVE SUMMARY: Mr. Kenneth S. Gusler, Jr. is requesting to rezone 0.804 acre at 4806 Pleasant HiU Drive from R-2, Medium Density Residential, District to C-1, Office. District with the intention of constructing a 2-story, 8,000 square foot office building. The buUding is proposed to contain 4 separate, leaseable office suites for prospective small business operations. The C-1, Office. District provides for both the development of attractive and efficient office uses in the urban service area which serve both community and county-wide needs. Small scale o'fflce uses are acceptable within the C-1 district. 'This district is most appropriately found along or near major arterials adjacent to similar developments or adjacent to residentiar districts where the development would serve as a buffer between confiicting land use types. The Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Neighborhood Conservation and is adjacent to a frontage site designated Transition. -rhe Neighborhood Conservation land use area is an area where established single-family neighborhoods are delineated and the conservation of the existing development pattern is encouraged. Included in this designation are low impact services to serve the local neighborhood. The proposed rezoning petition does not conform to the Neighborhood Conservation future land use designation. However. as previously stated, the adjoining site is in the Transition future land use designation area and the proposed use on this adjoining parcel does conform to this designation. -rhere have been various conversations regarding proffered conditions for this deve~opment. At the time this report was written, no proffered conditions have been officially submitted in writing. If the P'anning Commission chooses to recommend approval of this petition, staff would suggest the following proffered condition issues be addressed: 1) Substantial conformance with the submitted concept pran, subject to those changes that may be required by the County during comprehensive site plan review, 2) Submit an architectural rendering of the proposed building 3} Show specific landscaping and screening on concept plan 4) No entrance/exit from or to the site from Lange Lane. 5) Exterior site lighting height 6) Set decreased limits for both signage size and lighting 7) Existing dumpster for Titan Park I will be utilized for the proposed development 1 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Current zoning is regulated by Sec. 30-42, R-2, Medium Density Residential District. (R-2 District Regulations attached) Proposed development would be regulated by Sec. 30-53, C-1, Office, District Regulations. (C-1 District Regulations Attached) Site development review is required. VDOT approval required. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Backqround - Currently the property is the location of an existing, approximately 1,800 square foot single family home. The property was purchased by Mr. Gusler in the late 19905. Current plans, as proposed, ca" for the structure to either be sold and relocated or demolished to make way for the proposed 2-story, 8.000 square foot office structure. TODographvNegetation - The developed area of the site is generally flat. The north side of the site slopes down towards Pleasant Hill Drive, across a broad front lawn. The southern side of the site has a slight slope as it approaches a steeper grade along its Lange Lane frontage. The Lange frontage has an existing strand of deciduous trees along the right-af-way. The property is generally level on the western side with a sight slope on the eastern side of the property. Surroundinq Neiqhborhood - To the east is the Titan Park office building constructed in 2005 and is zoned C-1. The remainder of the property is surrounded by R-2 zoning with one residence under construction at the time of this report, one constructed in 1955 and another constructed in 1988. 'mmediately across Pleasant Hill Drive to the north, the parcels are zoned R-1. 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site LavouUArchitecture -The proposed structure will be an 8,000 square foots 2-story office building. Jt wiU be oriented in an east-west position with parking located on its northern and southern sides. It will be similar architecturally to the neighboring Titan Park I offices. and will be slab on grade with a brick fac;ade. Access to the parking areas will be achieved through a permanent access easement utilizing the existing driveway of Titan Park ,. Screening will meet the minimum standards for "Type 8u as set in section 30-92-6 of the zoning ordinance between the property and neighbors zoned as R-2 to the west and south of the proposed site. "Type 8" affords two options to the petitioner: Option 1 requires a 30' buffer with large trees with one row of evergreen shrubs and one row of dec~duous shrubs Option 2 requires a 20' buffer with one large and 2 small trees for every SO', 6' screening, and 3 shrubs for every 10' 2 However, the petitioner has indicated that he will be willing to go above the minimum standard as defined by the county at the request of the neighbors. At the time of this report, a 6 foot, outward-facing, treated fence with additional pJantings along its perimeter has been proposed. Additional screening will be required for all proposed outside mechanical equipment. Per multip'e conversations with the petitioner, the dumpster located on the western end of the northern parking area will not be constructed. A larger dumpster will be acquired for Titan Park I and will be utilized by tenants of the proposed building. Per conversations with the petitioner, the signage will resemble the existing signage for Titan Park I, and will be located at the end of the driveway along Pleasant Hill Drive. Both this signage and any additional signage proposed for the building must faU within the guidelines set forth in Section 30-93-13 (0) as well as acquire all appropriate sign permits required per Section 30-93-5 of the zoning ordinance. AccessfTraffic Circulation - No new driveways into the property are proposed from Pleasant Hill Drive. Access to the office is to be concurrent with the existing driveway for the Titan Park I building. Additionally, the existing driveway on the northwestern edge of the property will be closed and there will be no vehicular access to the property from Lange Lane. At the time of this report, sight distances in both directjons from the entrance/exit area have not been field verified, but the project engineer and VDO'T have been in contact over the issue and expect it to be resolved during the site plan review process. The Virginia Department of Transportation and Roanoke County transportation staff has concluded that a Traffic Impact Analysis is not necessary for the project. However, if approved, an analysis of the existing and future AM and PM peak turning movements must be performed to determine overall traffic impacts. Fire & Rescue/Utilities -The proposed development is located 0.6 mile from the Cave Spring Fire Station and has access to hydrants at both of Brambfeton Avenue and Pleasant Hill Drive and the intersection of Pleasant Hill and Lange Lane. Fire and rescue is in favor of the front and rear access as shown on the plan. Impact on Fire Prevention Division will be two additional Fire Inspections per year at this facility. Public water and sanitary sewer are available to the site. Development ;s acceptable per the countyts economic development department. Community Meetinqs - A conlmunity meeting was held on September 6,2007, to present the project to the neighbors. Approximately 8 -10 citizens attended. Questions and concerns were raised about potential crime/loitering associated with the property and its overaH irnpact on traffic counts. The petitioner indicated both that loitering/crime have not been issues at the existing Titan Park as well as indicating there would not be enough trips generated to and from the proposed site to conduct a traffic impact analysis. Questions were also asked to c'arify what could and could not be constructed on the property per R-2 district regulations. 3 4. CONFORMANCE WrrH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Ne'ighborhood Conservation and is adjacent to a frontage site designated Transition. The Neighborhood Conservation land use area is an area where established single-family neighborhoods are delineated and the conservation of the existing development pattern is encouraged. Included in this designation are low impact services to serve the local neighborhood. The proposed rezoning petition does not conform to the Neighborhood Conservation future land use designation. However, as previously stated, the adjoining site is the Transition future land use designation area and the proposed use on this adjoining parcel does conform to this designation. 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS Currently designated as a Neighborhood Conservation future land use, the property is bounded on two sides by parcels zoned R-2J by C-1 on the third side, and is located just off the Brambleton Avenue corridor. The site of the proposed development provides ample space for the project to conform with all applicable development standards. The property does have access to adequate public services and a primary, arterial road. Additionally, the traffic generated by the proposed development is not considered significant enough to warrant a Traffic Impact Analysis. The most significant issue with respect to the property is its locaUon adjacent to a residential district. However, impacts on these districts should be minirnized by meeting buffering and screening requirements detailed in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. Again, at the time this report was written. no proffered conditions have been submitted in writing. If the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of this petition, staff recommends the following proffered issues should be addressed: 1. Substantial conformance with the submitted concept plan. subject to those changes that may be required by the County during comprehensive site plan review. 2. Submit an architectural rendering of the proposed structure 3. Show specific screening and landscaping on the plan 4. No entrance/exit to or from Lange Lane 5. Exterior lighting height 6. Set decreased limits for both signage size and Ughting 7. Existing dumpster for Titan Park I wm be utilized for the proposed development 4 CASE NUMBER: PREPARED BY: HEARING DATES: ATTACHMENTS: 18-10/2007 Chris Patriarca &Tammi Wood PC: 10/2/2007 BOS: 10/23/2007 Application Letter from VDOT dated September 12, 2007 Site Requirement Snapshot Photographs Aerial Map Land Use Map Zoning Map C 1 J Office District Stand ards R2, MediuITI Residential District Standards Screening, Buffering and Landscaping Standards & Specifications 5 Address of Subiect Property: 4806 Pleasant Hill Drive Windsor Hills Magisterial District Roanoke County Tax Map No.: 086.08-04-13.01-0000 Owner/Applicant's Name: Kenneth S. Gusler. Jr. PROFFERS The undersigned owner/applicant does hereby proffer the folrowing conditions in conjunction with rezoning application: 1. The subject property will be developed in substantial conformance with the submitted concept plan prepared by Lumsden Associates PC and dated October 2. 2007. subject to those changes that may be required by Roanoke County during site plan review. 2. The office building that is proposed for the site will be constructed with the same architectural design and materials as the existing office building on the adjoining property located at 4800 Pleasant Hill Drive (Titan Park I). 3. A treated wood fence six feet in height will be built along the westerly boundary line where the site adjoins residential property. Landscape plantings (type B buffer, option no. 2) will be installed as a part of the project. The fence will be oriented with the finished side facing the adjoining parcel. The same fence will also be built along the rear boundary together with a 30' wide buffer strip. 4. Applicant agrees that there will be no entrance or exit constructed to the site from Lange Lane. 5. There will be no exterior site lighting other that the lights on the building to provide light at the front and rear entrances. 6. Applicant proposes to build an unlighted sign. 7.5' x 15. of the identical appearance and materials as the existing sign located at 4800 Pleasant Hill Drive. 7. Applicant agrees that no dumpster will be praced on this site. -rhe site will utilize the existing dumpster on the 4800 Pleasant Hill Drive lot adjoining the site. By: Owner/Applicant: fz-Olo:J02> ~ County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning For Staff Use Onl Date received: Received by: 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 ALL ~~~jeANrS Check type of application filed (check all that apply) l1tRezoning 0 Special Use D Varian~e D Waiver 0 Administrative Appeal 0 Comp Plan (15.2-2232) Review ~~ '; 7 _,_ ~~ ")::, Applicants name/address w/zip ~ Kenneth s. ~us ler Jr. 4800 Pleasant ill Roanoke, VA 24018 Phone: Work: Cell #: Fax No.: 540-989-7900 Owner's name/address w/zip Same Phone #: Work: Fax No. #: Pr012erty. Loc.ati on k ~.W. Koano e, County Pleasant Hill Drive Magisterial District: Windsor Hi 11 s Community Planning area: Tax Map No.: 86.08-4-13.1 Existing Zoning: R-2 Size ofparcel(s): Acres:,o.. ~ Existing Land Use: Single Family Res idence REZifNING~'kfEfi;p.I!!f1f~i#l!l'il!1!Jii)4Jvjlc;Q~# pi~ (i5.:Z~22J2) imV!liW ~PPLIt:Af{ts (~S/W/CP) Proposed Zoning: Proposed Land Use: C-l Office Buildin Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes X No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes X No IF NO, A V ARlANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes No V ARIANCE, WAIVER AND Al)~iryISTR;4TIVE APPEAL APPLICANTS (V/WIAA) Variance/Waiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation ofSection(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. RlS/W lep V I AA 00/ Consultation .",/ Application v"" Justification I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the PT,. of the owner. ~~) owners ~ ledrndCOn en at~ C> 2 County of Roanoke,Virginia r~:~\:~f~~~z~r5:n ,fui: ~;~,<:. _:}~] n::~.~:j~i~}cj:-~':.~ ~ (u~~jjE:1t~~.-~~;~J r Parcel Td: 086.0X-04-1 3.0 1-0000 Property Address: 4806 PLEASANT HILL DR Unit# Building Name: Owner Name: GUSLER KENNETH S JR Billing Address: 4800 PLEASANT HILL DR Deeded Acre (AC) or Lot (LT): 0.8 AC Calculated Acreage: ROANOKE VA 24018 In Land Use: N Legal Description: CAVE SPRlNG ON PLEASANT HILL DR Neighborhood: 70012 Use Model: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Appraiser: 20 Year Built (Est): 1983 Style: CONTEMPORARY County Utilities: WATER/SEWER Billing Type Class: Not all Urilitlcs included. SCl' Help. Roanoke County Real Estate Data 2007 Land Value: 2007 Building Value: 2007 Total Market Value: $47,300. . $145 600 Chcl{ here for , 2007 \7 alues $192,900 Transfers Instrument References Year/Month Sales Price Type Number PLAT 016901450 199906 $150,000 DEED 016240046 199410 $132,000 DEED 014590047 198807 $114,000 DEED 012871763 200103 $0 DEED 016901447 199905 $0 DEED 000571116 Foundation: CONT FOOTING Sub Floor: PLYWOOD Floor Cover #]: HARDWOOD Floor Cover #2: CARPET Interior Wall #1: PLASTER Interior Wall #2: Exterior Wall #1: WOOD ON SHEA T OR P Exterior WaU #2: Commercial Structure Frame: Fire Place Description: 1 STY SINGL Roof Structure: IRREG/CA TH Roof Cover: ASP/COMP SHNG Heat Fuel: ELECTRIC Heat Type: HEAT PUMP Air Condition Type: CENTRAL # Apartment Units: Page 1 of 1 Print lr Close Window 1 Card N ulnber: 001 of 00 I Jurisdiction: COUNTY Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Census Block: 511610307013000 Help Flood Certificate: Zoning: R2 Zoning Conditions: Bed Rooms: Lower 0, Base 3, Upper 0, Total 3 Full Baths: Lower 0, Base 2) Upper 0, Total 2 Half Baths: Lower 0, Base 0, Upper 0, Total 0 Sub Area Description BASE WOOD DECK GARAGE-FINISHED UPPER STORY -FINISHED Sq. Ft. 1820 408 576 ~OTICE: E\cry l'n~)rl i-; made to pr~)dlll'C and rubli.-:.h the I1h)St \:urrcn! and a~Tur~\LC infPTmalinn possihk. ~{I \\-..~rraI11ics, expressed or Jlnr1ic-d. Me pn~\ idcd f\lf the data hereil1. Its lIse or it:-; 101crpr('ta1 inn. In al J i n,..;t.lJlces Ilk" officiu I ('Olllll-y rcC'ords ..;h~lIl be consulted fpr \ L'ri fl,,:al ion or d.iJla. http://eservices.roanokecountyva.gov/engineer/re/al12.asp?ParcelId=086.08-04-13.0 1-0000... 8/10/2007 JUSTIFICA1-ION FOR REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR WAIVER REQUEST Applicant Kenneth S. Gussler Jr. The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit requests to deternline the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. Applicant intends to construct a 2-story brick and frame office building, similar to the one he built next dOOf. The site is one block off u.s. Route 221, a nlajor arterial highway adjoining several residential neighborhoods and will provide an effective buffer between those areas and the general commercial and retail uses along Route 221. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. Applicant intends to build a general use office building to house businesses and professionals who can provide services to the surrounding neighborhoods such as CPA's, Insurance Companies, Counselors and similar low impact services. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. Applicant believes the proposed building will have minimal impact on the surrounding area. There is to be no impact on parks/recreation and based on proposed hours of operation and preliminary traffic analysis, existing roads will be able to handle the expected traffic. There are several fire hydrants in the area as well as water and sewer lines. Access will be through a shared entrance with adjoining office building. Comm: 2003-398 The following is a deed description for Roanoke County Tax Parce186.08-4-13~1, property of Kenneth S. Gusler, Jr. to be rezoned from R-2 to C-I. The description is as follows: BEGINNING at Comer #1, said point located on the southerly right-of-way of Pleasant Hill Drive, said point also being the northwesterly corner of Titan Park) LLC; thence leaving Pleasant Hill Drive and with Titan Park, S 230 05' 13" W, 258.95 feet to Comer #2, said point located along the northerly boundary of Estel D~ & Susan K. Singleton; thence leaving Titan Park and with Singleton, N 730 55' 42" W, 120.20 feet to Comer #3, said point located along the easterly boundary of James R~ Paynter, et ux, and said point also located along the right-of-way of Lange Lane, SW; thence leaving Lange Lane and with Paynter, N 170 05' 48" E, passing the northeasterly corner of Paynter at approximately 85 feet, in all 252.42 feet to Comer #4, said point located on the southerly right-of-way of Pleasant Hill Drive and said point also being the noreasterly comer of Sowder & Lochner property; thence leaving Sowder and Lochner and with Pleasant Hill Drive for the following 2 courses; thence with a curve to the right, which said curve is defined by a radius of275.00, an arc length of68.41 feet, a chord 0[68.24 feet and bearing S 860 11' 14" E, to Comer #5, thence S 660 57' 37" E, 81.23 feet to Comer #1, the place of BEGINNING and containing 0.804 acres. ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS COMM: 2003-398 Tax Map Number: 086.08-04-12 Name: Titan Park, LLC Address: 4800 Pleasant Hills Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 Current Zoning: C-l Tax Map Number: 086.08-04-14 Name: A. Ray Sowder & Roy G. Lochner Address: 6484 Poage Valley Road Ext. Roanoke, VA 24018 Current Zoning: R-2 Tax Map Number: 086.08-04-15 Name: James R. & Martha E. Paynter Address: 4820 Pleasant Hills Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 Current Zoning: R-2 Tax Map Number: 086.08-04-16.3 Name: Estel D. &Susan K. Singleton Address: 4819 Lange Lane Roanoke, VA 24018 Current Zoning: R-2 Tax Map Number: 086.08-04-16.4 Name: Kim H. Essington Address: 4815 Lange Lane Roanoke, VA 24018 Current Zoning: R-2 Tax Map Number: 086.08-04-16.5 Name: Michael & Frances M.Driscol1 Address: 4811 Lange Lane Roanoke, VA 24018 Current Zoning: R-2 Tax MaD Number: 086.08-04-16.6 Name: William R. & Ashley N.Steigerwald Address: 4807 Lange Lane Roanoke, VA 24018 Current Zonine:: R-2 Tax MaD Number: 086.08-06-06 Name: Vera Galloway Address: 4795 Chippenham Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 Current Zoning: R-I Tax Map Number: 086.08-06-07 Name: Ronald D. & Michelle K.Brandt Address: 4796 Chippenham Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 Current Zoning: R-I Tax Map Number: 086~08-06-08 Name: Chang Family LLC Address: 1716 Rubley Lane Salem, VA 24153 Current Zoning: C-I Western Virginia Water Authority Water jSewer Availability Application Date: ~L:LL1 Applicant: _k:_~:bLli~~..H__~L_~ld.~.k~1Z- I j1Z- Mailing Address: __4~j~l-~.:(_~ I LL~ t.7e. j2..oAkbl?~-t-Y'A.--~~ 18 Ph on e: LtzftQ)---j.f3=1-:.1 OJ 00 Cell: _______________________ Fax: _________-___----_-----_ Property Address: _~_~-'.2._fkeA~+--UJJ.~k~- ~ City or County: ~~Q~~-_~Y:L'f.------------- Tax Map Number(s): _~~_~-~.Q.B-:.Q-4-~-t2LQ-l--_--_-- Development (Subdivision) Name: -.1i$tJ--~Ek-1JI----- Single Residential) Duplex, Multi..Residential, Subdivision, or Commercial Facility? C:Ot::U:jr;:~I~I~ f~~ (G1E-blt;iI28~ 9Pf:tGE )_ . d~! u Water Meter Size Requeste : ___________4.________________________ . J Sewer Lateral Size Requested: _____Le.._____-_____-_______________ COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL AND MLIL-r'-RESIDEN-rIAl SERVICES Domestic Flow Required? *~ ___"1-~t2______GPM ** (Attach completed "Sizing Water Service Lines and Meters" Form AND "Non-Residential Sanitary Sewer Checklist". blank forms available on website under "Engineers" section) Is Building to be Sprinkled? YES ~ Minimum Fire Flow Required? ___YLA.___GPM Return to; David Barnhart, Utility Planner, Phone: 540-853-1588 Via Mail : Fax: E-mail: Website: 601 South Jefferson Street, Suite 300 Roanoke, VA 24011 540-853-1017 David. Barnhart@westernvawater.ora westernvawater.org Rev. 1/29/07 Western Virgirlia Water Authority Sizing Water Service Lines arid Meters Development: .:D:r A L1. fA ~ n ~ ~ I I t--? I ~'''-E:.-- Type of Occupancy~ ~l;i ~ ^ -- ~ \-....J Plumbing Fixture Bathtub Bedpad Washers Combination Sink & Tray Dental Unit Dental Lavatory Drinking Fountain - Cooler Drinking Fountain - Public Sink 1/2" Connection 3/4" Connection 3/8" Connection 1/2" Connection 1/2" Connection 3/4" Connection Shower Head (Shower only) Lavatory Laundry Tray Pedistal Flush Valve Wall Flush Valve Trough ( 2 foot unit) Wash Sink ( each set of faucets) Water Closet - Flush Valve Tank Type Urnial - 1/2" connection 3/4" connection Washing Machine - 1/2" connection 3/4" connection 1 n connection Dishwasher - Hose Connection (Wash Down) Hose (50 foot Wash Down) 1/2" 3/4 " 1/2" 5/8" 3/411 No. of Fixtu res I -----1---- ~ -, ~ A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the land use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the future.. use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County pennitting regulations . The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accep!ed in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted by the zoning district and other regulations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver, community plan (15.2-2232) review and variance . applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature of the request. The County Planning Division staffmay exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the following are considered minimum: A 77'APPLICANTS _ a. Applicant name and name of development / b. Date, scale and north arrow / c. r d. /' e. ./ f. / g. / h. /' 1. ~ J. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions Location, names of O\V11ers and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties All property lines and easements All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional information requiredfor REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS /' k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site / 1. Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers / m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals ./ Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections n. / o. Locations of all adj acent flIe hydrants - / p. Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed ...L q. If proj ect is to be phased, please show phase schedule checklist above are complete. fov- ~~~ 0vJ Da~{(OI07 6 Community Development Planning & Zoning Division NOTICE TO APPLICANTS FOR REZONING, SUBDIVISION WAIVER, PUBLIC STREET WAIVER, OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITION PLANNING COMMISSION ApPLICA nON ACCEPTANCE PROCEDURE The Roanoke County Planning COlllinlssion reserves the right to continue a Rezoning~ Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver or Special Use Permit petitiol1 ifnew or additional information is presented at the public hearing. If it is the opinion of tile majority of the Planning Commissioners present at the scheduled public hearing that sufficient time was not available for planning staff and/or an outside referral agency to adequately evaluate and provide written comments and suggestions on the new or additional infornlation prior to the scheduled public hearing then the Planning Commission may vote to continue the petition. This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the new or additional information and provide written comments and suggestions to be included in a written memorandum by planning staff to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall consult with planning staff to determine if a continuance may be warranted. POTENTIAL OF NEED FOR TRAFFIC AN.AL YSES AJ\1D/OR TRAFFIC IM:P ACT STUDY The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver, or Special Use Permit petition if the County Traffic Engineer or staff from the Virginia Department of Transportation requests further traffic analyses and/or a traffic impact study that would be beneficial in making a land use decision (Note: a list of potential laJ1d uses Qrzd situatiol'zs that vtlould necessitate further study is provided as part of this application package). This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the required traffic analyses and/or traffic impact study and to provide written comments and/or suggestions to the planning staff and the Planning Commission. If a continuance is warranted, the applicant will be notified of the continuance and the newly scheduled public hearing date. Effective date: April 191 2005 ate 9 w(,~..:i.t......~,.;-,.,~ ."......., tl'Y~ ~ ".....II'.;~~...,..p.liI-' 'III"'",,/..:. il'Drll I....f..,ll'..... L- 0.1 Z-~ ~Ot:f~ 03NOZ3t:1 38 01 Alld3dOf;id 9NlMOHS l1BlHX3 DNINOZ3t:! ,. Dr: .....J'-r.l..,IIII l"1i1qlll;i"'U. ..~: tVIII v. ll"'v... "'-1..-1 Jl~u......... YNDtI.A 'J..J.N'lOO !I)I()N'f'OW l0U19tO -rnaJ.M>>WJlI g~ l:IOIKNM ot:tr "l::f31Sno .S H13NN3'>t 1f>>W,O YINI~U. '3lK>NVOY .-_ . , Sll3NNY'1d-SlIOlJAlU\S-S)!3]Nl!)N3 . - '~Jd 'S3.LVI~ N3asrm1 ---- II )t~" d NV.111 i I!: ,I) i l I 1- :~ ~ , 1 , ~ ~ ~l i .. I ~ ~ i I: i ~ i ! j I! 1 I J ~l t I ~ f! } 1 1 Ii.l 1 f ~ III -I! i j i i t I; i-itl~ [i : i ~ Iii I ~ f ~ l i I.. l t I ".. ~ ~.1 ~ ! -]1 ~ i r l ~ -.f J It t t ~ II ! 1 i j Air!1 ~,:! s:-l ;i~ll! 'rlt!~I: Ui i~ U~H~i:H!:~H!.f ;,'~hj!~ ! Ilhi~!~1 J IjflhI pi i f (I ~~~ll Qfj~ ~ i~&Ull ~: I ! ~ ir:a!h.~: ~H!!1t Is f i I 1 jJIJ!il~111Jlfj;J!1 ; I A ~ ~ w ! ~ ~ ~ I ~=~! !I!I ~ ! ~.. II I ~ i fH I I I 1 U ~\ _ i !~il i 8-11 !! ., I . ... ,. a I !bl-i ij~il a I ... l! l . i. 1 I I JI J ! r J J' j I i I I I ~f!ll lI.i ! .. i L------ I i r r J I I . ; hli i ~ --- $'!lClO51~]. ~ . U In I~ ~ ~I ~ . CJ .. .. .., ~ - ~S ~t! _lilt ~~ III ... " " ~ It ... COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PO BOX 3071 SALEM, VA 24153-0560 DAVID S. EKERN, P.E. COMMISSIONER September 12, 2007 Ms. Susan Carter Roanoke County Planning Department P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Faxed 540- 772-21 08 RE: Rezoning - R2 to C-l Kenneth S. Gusler Jr. Proposed Land Use - Office Building Route 1548 (Pleasant Hill Drive) Dear Ms. Carter: We have reviewed the above mentioned rezoning request and offer the following comments: I. The proposed rezoning may increase the potential traffic generated from the site. 2. With the increase in use of the existing entrance with additional commercial access, the VDOT Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways should be adhered to where applicable. This would include meeting current minimum sight distance requirements. 3. The current posted speed limit along Pleasant Hill Drive is 25 mph. The minimum required intersection sight distance is 280 feet and appears to be inadequate looking to the left. The sight distance to the right appears to be adequate. Sight distance in both directions should be field verified and measures taken to ensure the required sight distance is obtainable. 4. It appears that the potential for increased traffic may cause conflicts for the left turn movement into the existing entrance. An analysis of the existing and future AM and PM peak turning movements should be performed to determine overall traffic impacts. 5. Upon review and approval of site plans, a commercial entrance permit and/or a land use permit will be required for work within VDOT right-of-way. In addition, information regarding any changes to the existing drainage system should also be included for review. WE KEEP VIRGI~IIA MOVING Ms. Susan Carter September 12, 2007 Page 2 of2 Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to calL Thank you. Sincerely, P!!l14mn Scott A. Woodrum, P.E. Staff Engineer VDOT, Salem Residency Site Requirement Snapshot Current Site Zonino: Proposed Site Zonina: Proposed Use: R-2, Medium Density Residential C-1, Office District General Office - see C1 General Commercial Zoning attachment Buildinq Heiaht Required: Building Heioht Proposed: 45 feet None proposed Total number of parkino spaces required: 28 (includes 2 handicapped) Total number of parkinq spaces oroDosed: 34 (includes 2 handicapped) Required number of handicap parkinq spaces: 2 Actual number of handicap parkinQ spaces: 2 Required StackinQ spaces: Proposed Stackinq spaces: None proposed None proposed Required Buffer Type: Type B adjoining R-2 zoned properties, none for adjoining C-1 property Required Crown Coveraqe 0/0: Proposed Crown CoveraQe: 350/0 Not known 5 , . I ,) I '. t1 I;;. i.}.!j ,I ~ ,I . . . . ." ". , II I! < I ~ I" I II , R 'j ~ I 1 .' ,I , , ~ iflJitlt fW'_ I .. -~.-iIjL'; -.-,. :---~.~. "-~~\I!l~J., ' , '. N.. - ~1lJl!lIW.(~ ~ ~. _ ~'WI" ..." f -~. "' '. '~, ',," ~"-=:'iIWf ~~:M ... .:~~ ARTICLE III. DISTRlCT REGlTLA TIONS Page 1 of3 SEC. 30-53. C-1 OFFICE DISTRICT. Sec. 30...53-1. Purpose. (A) The purpose of the C-1 Office District is to provide for the development of attractive and efficient office uses in the urban service area which serve both community and county-wide needs. The C-1 district allows for varying intensities of office development as part of either a planned office complex or, to a limited degree, small scale office uses. Retail uses are permitted, to a limited extent, where they are supportive of the office environment. The C-1 districts are most appropriately found along or near major arterial streets where existing commercial deve'opment has occurred and/or where commercial zoning has been established, or near existing residential development where it would serve as a logical buffer strip between conflicting land use types. Land uses permitted in the C-1 Office District are generally consistent with the recommendations forth in the Transition and Core land use categories of the Comprehensive Development Plan. Site development standards are intended to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses. Sec. 30-53-2. 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 are 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 *' Multi-family Dwelling * Two-fami'y Dwelling * 2. Civic Uses Administrative Services Clubs Cultural Services Day Care Center * Educational Facilitiest College/University Educational Facilities, Primary/Secondary * Guidance Services Park and Ride Facility * Post Offi ce Public Parks and Recreational Areas * httn:/ Ilibrarv2.municode.com/newords/Doc View/12222/1 / 150/ 153 9/25/2007 ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGULATIONS Page 2 of3 Safety Services * Utility Services, Minor 3. Office Uses Financial Institutions '/( General Office Medical Office 4. Commercial Uses Business Support Services Business or Trade Schools Communications Services Personal Services Studio, Fine Arts Veterinary Hospital/Clinic 5. Miscellaneous Uses Amateur Radio Tower * Park,ng Facility * (8) The following uses are allowed only by Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 30-19. An asterisk (*) indicates additiona', modified or more stringent standards are listed in Article IV, Use and Design Standards, for those specific uses. 1. Civic Uses Religious Assembly * Utility Services, Major * 2. Office Uses Laboratories 3. Commercial Uses Commercial Indoor Sports and Recreation 4. Industrial Uses Landfill, Rubb~e * 5. Miscellaneous Uses Broadcasting Tower * Outdoor Gatherings * (Ord. No. 82493-8, 9 2,8-24-93; Ord. No. 042799-11, 92,4-27-99; Ord. No. 042203-13,91,4-22-03) Sec. 30-53-3. Site Development Regulations. General Standards. For additional, modified, or more stringent standards for specific uses, see Article IV, Use and Design Standards. httn:/ Ilibrarv2.municode.com/newordslDoc View/12222/1 /150/153 9/25/2007 ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGLTLATIONS Page 3 of3 (A)Minimum lot requirements. 1. Lots served by private well and sewage disposal system; a. Area: 1 acre (43,560 square feet). b. Frontage: 100 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. 2. Lots served by either public sewer or water, or both: a. Area: 15,000 square feet. b. Frontage: 75 feet on a pubricly owned and maintained street. (B)Minimum setback requirements. 1. Front yard: a. Principal structures: 30 feet, or 20 feet when all parking is located behind the front building line. b. Accessory structures: Behind front-building line. 2. Side yard: a. Principal structures: 10 feet on anyone side, with a combined total on both sides of at least 25 feet. b. Accessory structures: 10 feet behind the front building line, or 3 feet behind rear building line. 3. Rear yard: 8. Principal structures: 15 feet. b. Accessory structures: 3 feet. 4. Where a lot fronts on more than one street. front yard setbacks shalf apply to all streets.. (C)Maximum height of structures. 1. Height limitations: a. Principal structures: 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 two feet for each foot in height over 45 feet. In aU other locations the height is unlimited unless otherwise restricted by this ordinance. b. Accessory structures: 15 feet. (D)Maximum coverage. 1. Building coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area. 2. Lot coverage: 80 percent of the total lot area. (Ord. No. 62293-12, 9 10,6-22-93) http://library2.rnunicode.com/newords/Doc View/12222/1 /150/153 9/25/2007 ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGULATIONS Page 1 of3 SEC. 30-42. R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DIS-rRICT. Sec. 30-42-1. Purpose. (A) The purpose of the R-2. medium density district is to establish areas in the county within the urban service area where existing low-middle to middle density residential development (one to six (6) units per acre) is primarily located and land areas which appear generally appropriate for such development. These areas are consistent with the neighborhood conservation land use category I and where public services warrant. the development land use category as recommended in the community plan. This districtis intended to provide reasonable protection to existing single family residential neighborhoods. whire accommodating a diversity of alternative housing options. These areas are designated based on access to roads, sewer and water, and schools with suitable capacity to accommodate development at the stated density. Older neighborhoods where smaller platted lot sizes exist are also included where opportunities exist for additional in-fill development. (Ord. No. 042799-11, S 1f., 4-27-99) Sec. 30-42-2. 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 are listed in Article IV, Use and Design Standards, for those specific uses. 1. Residential Uses Accessory Apartment * Home Occupation. Type I * Manufactured Home * Manufactured Home, Emergency * Residential Human Care Facility Single-Family DwelHng, Attached * Single-Family Dwelling, Detached (For Zero Lot Line Option - *) Single-Family Dwelling, Attached and Detached (Cluster Subdivision Option - *) Two-Family Dwelling * 2. Civic Uses Community Recreation * Park and R;de Facility * Public Parks and Recreational Areas * Religious Assembly * Utility Services. Minor 3. Miscellaneous Uses Amateur Radio Tower * http://library2.municode.com/newords/Doc View/12222/1 /150/ 153 9/26/2007 ARTICLE III. DISTRlCT REGULATIONS Page 2 of3 (8) -rhe following uses are allowed only by Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 30-19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional1 modified or more stringent standards are listed in Article IV, Use and Design Standards, for those specific uses. 1. Residential Uses Home Beauty/Barber Salon * Multiple Dog Permit * Townhouse * 2. Civic Uses Adult Care Residences Cemetery * Crisis Center Day Care Center * Educational Facilities, Primary/Secondary * Family Day Care Home * Utility Services, Major * 3. Commercial Uses Boarding House Gorf Course 4. Miscellaneous Uses Outdoor Gatherings * (Ord. No. 82493-8,9 2, 8-24-93; Ord. No. 62795-10,6-27-95; Ord. No. 042799-11, 9 2,4-27-99; Ord. No. 042500-9, 9 11,4-25-00; Ord. No. 072605-7, 9 1,7-26-05) Sec. 30-42-3. 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: 8. 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 publicfy owned and maintained street. 3. Lots served by both public sewer and water: a. Area: 7,200 square feet. b. Frontage: 60 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. http://library2.municode.com/newords/Doc View/12222/1 / 1501153 9/26/2007 ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGULATIONS Page 3 of3 (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. 5. The expansion of a legally establ;shed nonconforming structure into the required side or rear yard shall be permitted provided the expansion does not encroach into the required yard any greater than the existing encroachment. (C)Maximum height of structures. 1. Height limitations: a. Principal structures: 45 feet. b. Accessory structures: 15 feet, or 25 feet provided they comply with the setback requirements for principal structures. (D)Maximum coverage. 1. Building coverage: 30 percent of the total lot area for aU buildings and 7 percent for accessory buildings. 2. Lot coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area. (Ord. No. 62293-12, S 10,6-22-93; Ord. No. 42694-12t 9 8, 4-26-94) SEes. 30-43, 30-44. RESERVED. http://library2.municode.com/newordslDoc View/12222/ 1/150/153 9/26/2007 ARTICLE V. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Page 1 of 5 Sec. 30-92-5. Standards and Specifications. (A) General. 1. All landscape plans shall be prepared by either a registered landscape architect, certified nurseryman, arborist, or professional engineer. At a minimum. fifty (50) percent of all plantings shall be native and every effort should be made to incorporate healthy existing vegetation into the landscaping plan. 2. No vegetation greater than thirty (30) inches in height shall be allowed in the clear sight triangle. 3. For each tree removed from the disturbed area with a trunk diameter of twenty-four (24) inches or greater at five (5) feet above ground level, shall be replaced with one (1) of similar species or characteristics unless otherwise approved by the administrator. (8) Where buffer yards are required by this ordinance the following shall apply: 1. Buffer yards shall be reserved solely for screening and landscaping. No proposed building, building addition, structure. parking area or any other type of physical land improvement shall be located in a buffer yard. Not withstanding the above, a driveway entrance or a public road may cross a buffer yard if it is necessary for safe and convenient access to the building site. In addition, buffer yards may be used for greenways. 2. When a proposed buffer yard has a variation in e'evation of greater than six (6) vertical feet at any point, the required screening or landscaping within the yard shari be placed to maximize the effectiveness of the screening or landscaping, as determined by the administrator. 3. The maximum slope of any required buffer yard shall be 3:1 (horizontaJ:vertical). Sufficient vegetation and ground cover shall be established and maintained on any slope to ensure stabilization and re-vegetation. In areas where extreme slopes exist, retaining walls no greater than four (4) feet in height may be used. If more than one (1) retaining wall is used, a planting area at least six (6) feet wide with a slope no greater than 3:1 must be left between the retaining waUs. 4. Existing vegetation within buffer yards shall be considered as a substitute for otherwise required screening, if in the opinion of the administrator, the type, size, and density of the existing vegetation complies with the following standards and the intent of this section. Any existing trees to be incorporated into the landscape must be adequate'y protected during construction to insure their survival (fencing around the drip line perimeter). 5. Where deemed appropriate by the county zoning administrator, buffer yards may be allocated for the present or future use as a greenway. (C) Where landscaping is required by this ordinance, the following shall apply: 1. Screening shall be visually opaque, and constructed of a durable material. It shall be installed within a required buffer yard and shall be continuously maintained so as to meet the intent of this section. 2. Acceptable screening materials include stockade fences, decorative masonry walls, brick wa(ls, earth berms, and/or a mix of evergreen/deciduous vegetation. Alternative materials may be approved, if in the opinion of the administrator, their characteristics and design meet the intent and standards of this section. (0) Where landscaping is required by this ordinance, the following shall apply: http://library2 .rnunicode.comJnewords/Doc View/12222/1 /150/155 9/27/2007 ARTICLE V. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Page 2 of5 1. Existing vegetation sha" be considered as a substitute for otherwise required landscaping, if in the opinion of the administrator, the type, size, and density of the existing vegetation complies with the following standards and the intent of this section. Any existing vegetation to be preserved and incorporated into the landscape must be adequately protected during construction to insure their survival, as specified in the protection and preservation methods section (Section 30-92-4(E)). 2. All plant material must meet American Association of Nurserymen Specifications for No. 1 grade. Native plantings are encouraged when compatible with the surrounding land use. Every effort should be made to incorporate healthy existing trees into the landscape. 3. All plant species chosen shall be suitable for planting and growth within the proposed environment and shall meet the size requirements in the following table. Plants used for screening purposes shan be planted in accordance with the on-center requirements of the table. If spacing requirements are not specified, required landscaping shall be arranged within a buffer yard to achieve the intent of this section. Size/Spaci ng/N umber/M in imums TABLE INSET: Height At Final Height Screening and Spacing Planting Requirements Evergreen/deciduous 24" 6' minimum 5' on center shrubs Small evergreen trees 51 15' 15' on center minimum Large evergreen trees 6--81 50' 20' on center minimum Small deciduous trees 1 1/2" caliper 15' 15' on center minimum Large deciduous trees 1 1/2" caliper SOt 3D' on center minimum (E) Protection and preservation methods. 1. Vegetation designated for protection and/or preservation shall be enclosed in a protection zone which establishes limits of construction disturbance to the root area of designated plant material. All protection zones and measures shall be established to the satisfaction of the zoning administrator. During construction, plastic or wood fencing shall be installed at the perimeter of all protection zones. Vegetation of specimen quality, historic designation or cultural value: Provide extraordinary measures to ensure complete protection/preservation * Type of material specified may vary due to site-specific determinants. Silt, erosion control, or geotechnical fabric materials are not acceptable for use as vegetation protection. 2. Areas designated for protection and/or preservation shall not be violated throughout the entire construction period by actions including, but not limited to: a. Placing I storing, or stockpiling backfill or construction related supplies. b. Felling trees into the designated area. http://library2.municode.com/newordslDoc View/12222/1/150/1 55 9/27/2007 ARTICLE V. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Page 3 of5 c. Burning within or in close proximity. d. Modifying site topography in a manner which causes damage by collection/ponding or flow characteristics of site drainage. e. Trenching or grading operations. f. Operating equipment or machinery. g. Parking of construction vehicles. h. Temporary or permanent paving or impervious surface installation. i. Temporary or permanent utility construction installation. j. Disposal of construction debris or chemical pollutants. 3. Work or construction related activities within areas designated for protection and/or preservation of existing vegetation shall be accomplished only with prior approval of the zoning administrator. (Ord. No. 111301-10, 99 1, 2, 11-13-01) Sec. 30-92-6. Applicability of Regulations and Requirements. (A) Requirements of screening, landscaping and buffer yards between zoning districts shall be determined by using Chart 1. CHART 1 TABLE INSET: Adjoining Zoning Site Zoning R-3 R-4 C-1 C-2 1-1 1-2 AG-3 D 0 D D D E AG-1 D D D D 0 E AR B B B or C B or C D E AV A A A A D E R-1 A A B C D E R-2 A A B C D E R-3 B B B D E R-4 A B D E PRD D E NC B C C-1 B C C-2 B B TABLE INSET: Type Option 1 (Large Buffer, Minimal Option 2 (Smaller Buffer With More Landscaping) Land sea pi ng/Screen i ng) 20. buffer 15' buffer http://library2.municode.com/newordslDoc View/12222/1 /150/15 5 9/27/2007 ARTICLE V. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Page 4 of 5 Large trees One large and 3 small trees for every 75' A One row of evergreen shrubs and 6' screening one row of deciduous shrubs and 2 large shrubs for every 10' 30'buffer 20'buffer B Large trees One large and 2 small trees for every 50' One row of evergreen shrubs and a 61 screen;ng row of deciduous shrubs and 3 shrubs for every 10' 40' buffer 30fbuffer C Large and small trees One large tree tor every 30' One row of evergreen shrubs and a 6' screening row of deciduous shrubs and 4 shrubs for every 10' 501 buffer 3S'buffer One ~arge tree for every 3D' D Large and small trees 6' screening One row of deciduous shrubs and 6 shrubs for every 10' 50'buffer 75' buffer One large tree and 2 small trees for every E Large and small trees 30' One row of deciduous shrubs 6' screening and 8 shrubs for every 10' (8) Requirements for adjacent right-of-way/street side plantings. 1. Where a new or expanded development, or reconfigured parking area is proposed adjacent to a public street right-ot-way, a planting strip shall be established between the parking areas and the adjacent right-of-way. The planting strip shall have a minimum width of ten (10) feet. 2. Within this planting strip a minimum of one (1) large deciduous tree shall be planted every thirty (30) linear feet along the public street right-af-way. Small trees planted every twenty (20) linear feet, may be used where an overhead power line or other obstruction is present. In addition, a minimum of two (2) shrubs shall be placed in the planting strip for every five (5) linear feet of frontage. This should not be construed as meaning that the plants must be uniformly planted. (C) Parking areas. 1. New parking areas shall include landscaped medians. peninsulas or planters that are planned, designed and located to channel traffic. facilitate storm water management. and define and separate parking areas and aisles. 2. Each landscaped area shall be planted with large deciduous trees with a minimum caliper of one and one-half (1 1/2) inches at the time of planting in accordance with section 30-92-3(C). 3. Rows of parking shall be separated by a landscaped island at least every fifteen (15) spaces and landscaped islands shall also be placed at the end of each row. Landscaped parking islands shaU be spaced throughout the parking area and have a minimum dimension of eighty (8) feet in width of pranting area. To protect the plant material from vehicular damage, the island must be delineated by a clear physical barrier such as concrete curbs or set landscaping timbers. 4. A minimum of one (1) large tree with surrounding turf grass or other ground cover shall be required in all parking lot is'ands. Additionally, three (3) shrubs for every fifteen (15) parking spaces shall be planted within or adjacent to the parking area. 5. Large parking areas shall be broken into sections not to exceed one hundred (100) http://library2.municode.com/newords/Doc View/12222/1 /150/155 9/27/2007 ARTICLE V. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Page 5 of5 parking spaces. Each section is to be separated by major landscaped buffers to provide visual relief. 6. Paved areas greater than five hundred (500) sq. ft. such as loading areas, that are not necessarily striped parking lots shari place one (1) landscaped island, as specified above for every seven hundred fifty (750) sq. ft. of area. They shall be located to channe' traffic, and/or define separate parking areas. 7. Expansion of existing parking areas shall comply with the requirements above if the expansion involves the addition of an area equivalent to ten (10) or more parking spaces and the resultant parking area has the equivalent of fifteen (15) or more spaces. The amount of landscaping required above shall be based on the number of spaces in the new parking area only. (D) Landscaping requirements for new and expanded developments. Adequate minimum landscaping shan be provided as follows: 1. The area coverage of trees and shrubs to be planted. together with the existing crown area of those retained shall occupy at least thirty-five (35) percent of the total land area of the proposed project. Total land area for purposes of this paragraph shall be the area shown on the site plan as the area of the site plan under consideration. 2. The approved crown coverage allowances are listed below. They are based upon the anticipated size at maturity when located in a buift environment. TABLE INSET: Type Minimum Height at Maturity Crown Coverage Allowance Large deciduous trees 50' min. height 1 ,250 square feet each (35') Large evergreen trees 30' min. height 500 square feet each (22') Small deciduous trees 15' min. height 250 square feet each (15') Small evergreen trees 15' min. height 250 square feet each (151) Large shrubs 5' min. height 10 square feet each (3') Small shrubs 2' min. height 5 square feet each (2') 3. Shrub planting which apply toward crown coverage allowance requirements shall not exceed more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total crown coverage allowance requirements. Shrub p'antings proposed for use as screen plantings (such as related to refuse service areas, outdoor storage areas, mechanical equipment. etc.) do not apply toward crown coverage allowance requirements. 4. Groundcovers, perennial plantings, or turf grass do not apply toward crown coverage allowance requirements. (E) Additional screening requirements. 1. All refuse service (dumpsters/containers) and outdoor storage areas in all zoning districts shall be screened from surrounding views. In addition, ground level mechanical equipment shall be screened or 'andscaped. 2. Commercial and industrial use types shall screen from surrounding views all articles and materials being stored. maintained, repaired, processed, erected, fabricated, dismantled, or salvaged. Articles and materials available for retail sale by a commercial use type shall be exempt from this requirement. (Ord. No. 111301-10, 99 1, 2, 11-13-01) http://library2.municode.comlnewords/Doc View/12222/ 1/150/ 155 9/27/2007 - "'l!~ AT A REGLILAR MEE-rING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2007 ORDINANCE TO REZONE 0.804 ACRES FROM R-2, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DIS.rRICT, TO C-1, OFFICE DISTRICT, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A 2- STORY, 8000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 4806 PLEASANT HILL DRIVE (TAX MAP NO. 86.08-4- 13.1), WINDOR HILLS MAGIS-rERIAL DISTRICT UPON THE APPLICA1-,ON OF KENNETH S. GUSLER, JR. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 25,2007, and the second reading and public hearing were held October 23, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 2, 2007; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 0.804 acres, as described herein, and located at 4806 Pleasant Hill Drive (Tax Map Number 86.08-4-13.1) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, ;s hereby changed from the zoning classification of R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to the zoning classification of C- 1, Office District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Kenneth S. Gusler. 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (1.) -rhe subject property wi If be developed in substantial conformance with the submitted concept plan prepared by Lumsden Associates PC and dated October 2, 2007, subject to those changes that may be required by Roanoke County during site plan review. (2.) The office building that is proposed for the site will be constructed with the same architectural design and materials as the existing office building on the adjoining property located at 4800 Pleasant Hill Drive (Titan Park I). (3.) A treated wood fence six feet in height will be built along the westerly boundary line where the site adjoins residential property. Landscape plantings (type B buffer, option no. 2) will be installed as a part of the project. The fence will be oriented with the 'finished side facing the adjoining parcel. The same fence will also be built along the rear boundary together with a 30' wide buffer strip. (4.) Applicant agrees that there will be no entrance or exit constructed to the site from Lange Lane. (5.) There will be no exterior site lighting other that the lights on the building to provide light at the front and rear entrances. (6.) Applicant proposes to build an unlighted sign, 7.5' x 15' of the identical appearance and materials as the existing sign located at 4800 Pleasant Hill Drive. (7.) Applicant agrees that no dumpster will be placed on this site. The site will utilize the existing dumpster on the 4800 Pleasant Hill Drive lot adjoining the site. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: 0.804 acre located at 4806 Pleasant Hill Drive also known as Tax Map No. 86.08-4- 13.1 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict w'ith the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. -rhe Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. R-3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT -rHE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MEE1-ING DATE: October 23, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Second reading of an ordinance authorizing the vacation of a 30 foot access and waterline easement located upon portions of Samuel's Gate subdivision, Section No. 16, and crossing Crumpacker Drive and Tolman Circle as shown on the plat of property of F & W Community Development Corporation, and the relocation and vacation of a 30 foot access easement located upon remaining portion of property of F & W Community Development Corporation, Hollins Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Joseph B. Obenshain Senior Assistant County Attorney Elmer C. Hodge C/~ I~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COlJNTY ADMINISTRATOR1S COMMENTS: /J /7 ,.<4 ./ J-~~ i ( I./"~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: -rhe originally recorded plat for Samuel's Gate Subdivision, Section 16, of F & W Community Development Corporation, recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, in Plat Book 30, Page 193t dedicated a 30 foot access and waterline easement for purposes of access to a water tank situated on adjoining property of the developer. Subsequent to the development of this subdivision property and adjoining property of F & W Development Corporation, the developer has agreed to relocate this 30 foot access easement to adjoining property owned by it to permit road dedications and building of houses. The new location of this 30 foot access easement has been approved by the County's development staff as part of the review process for adjoining subdivision development. Construction of the required infrastructure improvements, including the building of Crumpacker Drive and Tolman Circle to state mandated standards, for this subdivision have been completed. Because the platted 30 foot access and waterline easement runs under both Crumpacker Drive and Tolman Circle, it must be re~ocated and action must be taken by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with Section 15.2-2271 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to accomplish this relocation. This formal action is required by the Virginia Department of Transportation in order for Crumpacker Drive and Tolman Circle to be accepted into the Virginia Secondary Road System. The County's Department of Community Development and the Western Virginia Water Authority have reviewed this request and support the relocation of this 30 foot access and waterline easement and the vacation of that portion of the easement located in Samuel's Gate, Section 16, and crossing Crumpacker Drive and Tolman Circle and lots 27 and 28. A new access easement to the Western Virginia Water Authority water tank serving this area will be located on an adjoining parcel, being deve~oped by F & W Community Development Corporation, currently in the review process with the County's Department of Community Development. The County will require that the new access road be constructed and the new access easement plat prepared by Lumsden, dated March 12, 2007, be recorded prior to this easement vacation being effective. Pertinent information is shown on Exhibits "Au & "8" and attached hereto and titled "Plat Showing PORTION OF EXISTING 30' ACCESS & WATERI_INE EASEMENT (0.8. 1640, PG. 1942) TO BE VACATED Located in SECTION No.16, SAMUEL'S GA-rE AT "-rHE ORCHARDS" (P.B. 30, PG. 193) Situated Along Crumpacker Drive and Tolman Circle, Hollins Magisterial District, ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA", (Exhibit A) and HPlat Showing EXIS-rING 30' ACCESS EASEMENT (0.8. 1640, PG. 1942) TO BE VACATED across Roanoke County Tax # 040.01-01-04, Botetourt County Tax # 107-254 & Lots 27 & 28, Section #16, Samuel's Gate at uThe Orchards" (P.B. 30, PG. 193) and CREATING HEREON A NEW 30' ACCESS EASEMENT Across Roanoke County Tax # 040.01-01-04, Botetourt County Tax #107-254 Hollins Magisterial District, ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA", (Exhibit B). FISCAL IMPACT: -rhe cost and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the petitioners. AL TERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the proposed ordinance authorizing the vacation of the easements. 2. Do not adopt the proposed ordinance authorizing the vacation of the easements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed ordinance as written and attached 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CEN-rER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA ON OCTOBER 9, 2007 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF A 30 FOOT ACCESS AND WATERLINE EASEMENT LOCATED UPON PORTIONS OF SAML~EL'S GATE SUBDIVISION, SECTION NO. 16, AND CROSSING CRUMPACKER DRIVE AND TOLMAN CIRCLE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF PROPERTY OF F & W COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 30, PAGE 193, AND THE RELOCA-rJON AND VACA1-,ON OF A 30'ACCESS EASEMENT LOCATED UPON REMAINING PORTION OF PROPERTY OF F &W COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 1409, PAGE 241, LOCATED IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, a 30 foot access and waterline easement for purposes of access to a water tank was dedicated to the County of Roanoke by deed recorded in Deed Book 1640, page 1942, and by plat for subdivision of property of F & W Community Development Corporation, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 30, page 193; and, WHEREAS, the said 30 foot access and waterline easement for purposes of access to a water tank is shown as crossing various lots of Samuel's Gate, Section No. 16, subdivision and undertying Crumpacker Drive and Tolman Circle, public streets proposed for acceptance into the Virginia Secondary Road System~ all as shown on HPlat Showing Portion of Existing 30' Access & Waterline Easement (0.8. 1640, PG. 1942) TO BE VACATED Located in Section No. 16, SAMUEL'S GATE AT "THE ORCHARDS", Situated Along Crumpacker Drive and Tolman Road, Hollins Magisterial District, Roanoke County Virginia", dated February 28,2007, prepared by Lumsden Associates P.C.; and, WHEREAS, in consultation with the Roanoke County Department of Community Development and the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) , F & W Community Development Corporation has agreed to the relocation of said 30 foot access and waterline easement upon its adjoining property, which proposed new easement location is acceptable to the County~s engineers and to WVWA; and, WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has requested that this easement relocation be accomplished by formal action of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Section 15.2-2272 (2), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, in order to permanently vacate that portion of the easement underlying Crumpacker Drive and Tolman Circle so as to permit the proper acceptance of Crumpacker Drive and Tolman Circle into the State Secondary Road System; and, WHEREAS, this formal Board action of vacation will serve to remove potential title questions affecting potential property owners in Samuel's Gate subdivision, Section No. 16; and WHEREAS, the developer, as the Petitioner, has requested that, pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, vacate the existing 30 foot access and waterline easement dedicated in Plat Book 30, Page 193, and relocate said easement as now shown on the attached Exhibits "A" & HB"; and, WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County and the affected County departments and WVWA have recommended this easement relocation and formal vacation; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia (1950~ as amended), and the first reading of this ordinance was held on October g~ 2007, and the second reading and public hearing was held on October 23, 2007. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 2 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on October 9, 2007, and a second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was he'd on October 23, 2007. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter, the subject real estate, a 30 foot access and water line easement, is hereby declared to be surplus and the nature of the interests in real estate renders them unavailable for other public use. 3. -rhat the 30 foot access and waterline easement, being designated and shown as "PORTION OF EXIS-rING 30' A. E. & W.L.E.(DB.1640, PG.1942) BOUNDED BY CORNERS 1 -rHRU 21 TO ~I INCLUSIVE WrrHIN STREE-r RIGHTS-OF-WAY TO BE VACATED" on Exhibit llA" attached hereto, and having been dedicated on the subdivision plat for F & W Community Development Corporation and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 30, page 193, in the Hollins Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia,1950, as amended. 4. That the 30 foot access easementt being designated and shown as "EXISTING 30' ACCESS EASEMENT.(DB.1640, PG.1942) TO BE VACA-rED" on Exhibit uB" attached hereto, and having been dedicated on the subdivision plat for F & W Community Development Corporation and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk~s Office in Plat Book 30, page 193, in the Holnns Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 5. -rhat a new 30 foot access easement substantially in accordance with the location as shown on "Plat Showing EXIS-rING 30' ACCESS EASEMENT (0.8.1640, PG. 1941) TO BE VACATED across Roanoke County Tax # 040.01-01-04, Botetourt County Tax # 107- 254 & Lots 27 & 28, Section # 16, Samuel's Gate at "The Orchards" (P.B. 30, PG. 193) 3 and CREATING HEREON A NEW 30' ACCESS EASEMENT Across Roanoke County Tax # 040.01-01-04, Botetourt County Tax # 107-254 Hollins l\t1agisterial District, ROANOKE COL~NTY, VIRGINIA." shall be dedicated to the County of Roanoke, Virginia, upon the construction of the new 30 foot access easement and the approval and recording of the aforesaid plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia. 6. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioner. 7. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, aU of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 8. That this ordinance shall become effective upon the completion of construction of the new access easement and the prior recording of the plat identified as Exhibit etA" above, and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with Section 5.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). 4 , . \ VIN-lnUIA'3"UONVOll. .OOl!J.L SlOTL Vn'lllr~l^ 'I>tONVOlt ..J() .II &990l )(0& .O.d SlI3NNY1d-SlIOA3AlfnS-SH33NlnN3 9vt-90 MS 'lnNlA\I NOll19Y'N)JA t'99t p:r d 'S3~ Y I:x)SSY N30SI^lOl L<XE"1i: NnIqI;I r-~~)s r.~ / f-.. I \-.._9O-X" .. : · j: /"'- V / I - ~'. 1/' .. " /". j;~~ 'v',," I I~i /--.. " /'" Y ! ~ 8":' I '.-(1(-.. "j": .-~<~r~._..=O.~ -.__,~=- /' ~... --.. ;:!~If }.. 1i.~ It: ~']/ ~.. \ 1M: I.r-,.('............o. ! ,/' ~ \ , ........ ' o~- /' ~::: ! " I'~ . .td~. ~r--. ~ ;: I! ;!' ~~: :'!oIl \ - ._J. .. I. )/6 0_ -- o.\o_~ I ....~ 'f>'~~ ,.~_o-r \ ~I.. r't~ Y< \ \ : ill'" .. V~'~ ,. "\ \ \ ! j I I I:i (I 111I. .--1 .'- li~i! · iii : / ~"ll!: ; 1 :'1 I · -! r- I~'I; i .:il ~ i! ~II II II- I · ~ t-;: - .. -!I I j : · d ! ~. ~ ~. ~ I II I ~ ~ ~ t I · "~.I ~ ~ ~ ~~i ~ , l' I,ll t)~ ~ ~ i ~ a--t ' , -. " is .. ~ ! e; ~ .e~.. I. }---.. ~ ..-..~~~.-../ 11:1 (:l&i~~ a ~rs~~~~ . '~':.I --..J"'l I ~~.. ...1... ia~ ~~ cii=l-~ti; · ~ ) IE II;~. i..~:t ~~~. ~ s~~ ."f--..--1~f.~..__ " ,( e I:"II~II ... Q~i ~~~~~ (:la~ 1~ 7 :5~ ~ CZl~fi~ rri ~ : I-- :~-. /' \. ~I!I~I ll~~~e ~~~:!~ _ Jr-.......... I 'lit ~ ~ p, ~ ; '. 1 .---; / -'-- (u~~i '!_".I=i,=, -: i ~ ~ .\/'--..~ j i _ fl'tOII O:YJdN3QSWnl@,tm :1IVW-3 '''6-l.!.t (O"5~ :xv.:t .\t?-lrll (0"5') :3NOl--td ~. -= ,....---- ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ , . \ l:~- ~ i~: \ _i- . oIl!~QI . 1.0.. l! c:s ,,1 ~~ g~ ,: -----; J . . J . . I . , I c i! ~j ",. ....:Kt :W.l YO ~ ~ ~I~ ~8!~ !~~~ s~~ ~i~ ~~~~ !8. .0 .. .... y ~ISlIH:X4 Si 9 ;I~ tll == 11i~lt~ I' ~g;5{ 1Q;;4ICII ~ ~ d": !~. ~ .. "'- ~ 9 ~ !5 s !i I . , 1 ~ ~ !:: 9 :% ~ , . , ~:")dNlOSWn'@'M'V :'fV~-3 5'Hr6-Z":": (~5') :xY:oJ ~ t ""'''LL (Otr~) :2NOI-Id tlOtl VINOHIt\ 'l)eQNVOM ~ X08 'O"d MS 'lnN3AV N01311W'f'18 ~ I VINI~8IA ~ONVOll . SH3NNV1d-S'dOA3AlffiS-SH33N InN3 "J"d 'Sat YlJOSSV N30SYffi1 \ . I , / ~ i ~ \ ~ I . .~_ It \-" · '..b:- -- J- · · av Ii .N} ."."., I~--.. m E-t H ~ H :::c >::: ~ ~I ~; lit ; j~ ~I ~ = .l if itlt~_ ~~ ...;QI &1 Ioot...~c:i ~ c:i I c.n u :2 ~ I a:: o c i~ .. -J I I .. . ............. . .. I ~-; ~.l.~ ;Ssr l~: g ~ I :. !i II~ " ! fl~ / ' -I / -~- " . Iii / ,t t ,~~, h- I; " I .------- .... l !i i-.~a;.u !i ... \. -;;: ; ,'.. : ~!Ii a.. \ " ~ I r; \ J ,~-II! t: ~4-. , ... , CD.:s ~ , 9 , , ~..,;::-, h/\ ".. , I.'~...~ .- _..- / I, ,,-lqj --_..- , ~ / .. -'-- -----~ ~- ~ /., / · .......... t I .c........ - J!' j: ._~ I 1/ ..... '$ / , 'I/{r! / ' . / ' / I . I : /' ~., ........".~ il I ~11*1 .acn · .L M~ .tDC2' ~l 'fW" T1l' :"C* ,. .... g: ~lg:III:fi 1-- .... <II t ..; ~ cr. VI i- 9:; ~ -II") ~ ~-~ Q (\r tel -c:: t.; C l ~ I I li.:z: ~....., " WI,J -... - ,..", <J ~ - c ~~Ia ~~~~;;' ~~ ~, ~~!5-I ~:-~~~ 2~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~. = CI) ~ C~Q..~~li( · rrQ~rnV))c).. ;x:,... ;.; 0 ~ ~ _.... ;z ~ ~ 0 ~..... 11)...., d' It; Jo- - <IIlII: .. <11II{ ~ Clr:: :z ~'IIf::~~tZ:~ ~ ~~~t~ ~a - CQ :z 5'" ~ - :; ~ z 0 Q..~~ 0 au~~: ~.. 51- tJcS~ o~ '"'" Ei;;j~ u~ ~ -- "" '::) ~ . ~ .... 0 ;;; ~ 0 Q cj t.:i ~ ::ac ~ ~ O~-..I~ ~ o~ ~ ~~ ~ 2; ~o IiQ ~~ Co1 ~Q1 ., I li~ Iii 1".1 ..I III :; I I hill !I- i all I I. I" I lelll II! rl-. .. t !'!i Iii IP. Ii il 11:1 I~ II 11:1 I! II ;1,9 l'Ir;~ = I Ilfl: II~I ';i;~ il'jil,llll! I l!ZlIlr -III -~-l _. _ I. ..t; .111 R-l-f PE-rITIONER: CASE NUIVISER: McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc. 16 - 9/2007 Planning Commission Hearing Date: September 4, 2007 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: October 23) 2007 (Continued from 9/25/2007) A. REQLIEST Spec'al Use Pernlit for the operation of a construction yard on a 1.87 -acre parcel zoned AV AgriculturalNillage Center located at 2914 Jae Valley Road, Vinton Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Three citizens spoke opposing the request. -rhe key items emphasized by neighbors included the following: stormwater runoff in the immediate vicinity drains to the Brookfield subdivision detention facility (across Route 116 west of the McNeil property); the nature of asphalt-related operations increases the risk to surrounding residents and properties; the operation is not in accord with the Community Plan; an approval in this case could set a precedent for future industrial requests; the former garage business on the subject parcel operated for decades under a grandfather clause and residents had no opportunity to oppose it; an asphalt facility presents potential airborne as well as underground hazards to the local area; a live stream and wells could be at risk - other than Brookfield, most of the vicinity is not served by public water; and, Jocal residents support the draft Mount Pleasant area plan which does not encourage industrial facilities. In addition to the speakers, the owners of 13 local pieces of property emailed their positions opposing the continued operation of McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc. c. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Timothy Beard presented the staff report. Following comments from Ed Natt, attorney for the applicant, regarding the land use history of the subject property and how the current situation came about, Mr. Azar asked if night-time work occurs and if asphalt maintenance is seasonal. IVlr. Natt replied affirmatively to both questions. Mr. Azar also asked about violation notices received by the McNeils~ and the administrative appeal procedure relative to the definition of "construction yard." Mr. I\latt responded that his clients filed an appeal of staff's construction yard interpretation quickly, but that the term could be interpreted either way. Mrs. Hooker stated that she is concerned with the metal drums and their contents stored ansite and any potential hazard related to those materials. Mr. Thomason suggested that asphalt-related materials on the property be laboratory-tested for toxicity. Mr. Jarrell asked what information was available from Material Safety Data Sheets on two items kept on the property, Utarconite" and "paveshield." Mr. Natt and materials specialist Jeff Caton of Neyra Industries, Inc., stated the coal tar emulsion and asphalt resin substances pose no threat and are not toxic. "rhose statements have not been verified by independent analyses. Mr. Natt stated that asphalt is not manufactured on the McNeil site, that his clients are willing to construct a retaining wall to prevent offsite flow of substances in case of a spill, that trucks containing asphalt-related materials are cleaned at jobsites (not on the subject property) and that any unused material is returned to the manufacturer. Mr. Natt stated that the request is for a special use permit - not a rezoning - and that the A V district allows construction yards by SUP. l\Ar. Natt offered to protect the underground aquifer and to provide adequate stormwater control to 3 insure that the facility would be a good neighbor. Mr. Azar noted that even with suggested conditions. the petitioners have operated their business with disregard for the zoning ordinance and if allowed to continue, other industrial uses may be sought in the area. Furthermore, McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc. is not compatible with surrounding uses or with the Community Plan. Mrs. Hooker stated that this application is about land use intensity and that the existing onsite operation should cease. Mr. Thomason reiterated that the asphalt-related substances should be lab- tested. Mr. Jarrell noted that the existing use is not in conformance with the Community Plan. D. CONDITIONS Staff recommends the following conditions be attached should the petition receive a favorable recommendation: 1. The subject property shall be used only for the operations of asphalt maintenance construction yards. 2. All storage of asphalt or asphalt-related materials (asphalt sealer, acrylic crack sealant. all 55-gallon drums and contents thereof, latex paint, rubber blocks) shall occur inside a completely enclosed building. 3. No business vehicles or equipment shall be parked in front of the existing Office and garage as depicted on the July 2, 2007, concept plan. 4. No additional exterior lighting shall be installed on the property. 5. Along the site's south. east and north boundaries, Type E, Option 1 or 2 screening and buffering or its equivalent per existing vegetation shall be implemented. 6. A stormwater management facility and spill-detection system shall be designed, constructed, maintained and periodically monitored to insure that no contamination is occurring onsite and/or on any neighboring property traceable to the subject property. E. COMMISSION AC1.'ON(S) Mr. Azar motioned to deny the request with conditions. The motion carried 4-0. Mr. Rodney McNeil was not in attendance. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Staff Report _Vicinity Map Other Philip Thompson, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission 4 Petitioner: Request: Location: Magisterial District: Suggested Conditions: STAFF REPORT McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc. Special Use Permit for the operation of a construction yard 2914 Jae Valley Road Vinton 1. The subject property will be used only for the operations of asphalt maintenance construction yards. 2. AU storage of asphalt or asphalt-related materials (asphalt sealer, acrylic crack sealant, all 55 gallon drums and contents thereof, latex paint, rubber blocks) shall occur inside a completely enclosed building. 3. No business vehicles or equipment shall be parked in front of the existing office and garage as depicted on the July 2,2007, concept plan. 4. No additional exterior lighting shall be installed on the property. 5. Along the site's south, east and north boundaries, Type E, Option 1 or 2 screening and buffering or its equivalent per existing vegetation shall be implemented. 6. A stormwater management facility and spill-detection system shall be designed, constructed, maintained and periodically monitored to insure that no contamination is occurring onsite and/or on any neighboring property traceable to the subject property. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a petition by McNeiJ Asphalt Maintenance, Inc., requesting a special use permit (SLIP) in order to operate a construction yard in the Mount Pleasant comnlunity planning area. The facility employs three individuals onsite and approximately 12 off the property. Listed as an industrial use by the zoning ordinance, a construction yard requires a SUP to legally operate in an Agricultural/Village Center zoned area. Per Section 30-36- 1 (A), llnew development should be carefully considered for its cOITlpatibility with surrounding deveropment 'and the purpose and intent of this districf. The intensity of the existing and proposed use is not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. The subject parcel and adjoining properties are designated Village Center by the 2005 Community Plan. The asphalt maintenance is not in keeping with Village Center policies and guidelines. Please see "Analysis of Existing Conditions - Background" for a complete description of materials, equipment and vehicles stored on the property. In addition to the siting of this asphalt maintenance facility without proper zoning permits, accessory buildings and a permanent sign have also been installed illegally. Potentjaf issues have arisen concerning stormwater managernent and the possibility of soil and/or groundwater contamination. Staff does not support this application, but lists suggested conditions above should the Planning Commission favorably recommend the SUP request. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The zoning ordinance defines construction yard as an establishment housing facilities or businesses primarily engaged in construction activities, including outside storage of materials and equipment. Typical uses are building contractor's yards. K.W. and Nancy McNeil, owners of McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc., have been notified of the foHowing zoning ordinance violations ongoing at the subject property: . Section 30-36-2 The operation of a contractor's storage yard without a special use permit; . Sect,on 30-9 & 30-9.1 The installation of carports/equipment sheds without building/zoning permits; . Section 30-93-5(A) The installation of a permanent freestanding sign without a sign permit. Building code requirements regarding change of use must be met in addition to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards relative to modifications to the existing onsite office building. Per code, a building must be evaluated by design professionals for both structural adequacy and code compliance before a change of use occurs. By letter dated July 10, 2007, the county Building Commissioner notified McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc., of violations of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code including construction of a buHding or structure without required permits] failure to notify the building official of required inspections and occupying a building or structure without a Certificate of Occupancy. The McNeil's have filed a formal appeal to the county Building Code Board of Appeals. Virginia Erosion & Sediment Control regulations provide for the protection of land parcels and waterways downstream from development sites. Roanoke County drainage regulations require the onsite detention of stormwater at pre-development flow rates. A COITllllercial entrance perrnit will be required by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Complete site and building plan review and approval is required prior to occupancy. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Backqround - Owners of the subject property, K.W. and Nancy McNeil, purchased the site (formerly Jae Valley Automotive) in February 2007, and relocated McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc., from its previous location at 7210 Franklin Road. This move was carried out without permits or written authorization from Roanoke County. Upon receiving violation notices, the applicant formally appealed the county Zoning Administrator's interpretation of uses permitted in the A V district and the application of the definition of llconstruction yardtl. The Board of Zoning Appeals continued that request for 120 days pending the outcome of this petition before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The petitioner's attorney has "proffered" the following conditions in junction with the SUP application: · The subject property will be used in accord with the site plan entitled uMcNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc." dated July 2r 2007 · No additional lighting will be installed on the property. . All vehicles will be instructed to turn off their "back-up beepers" when on the property. · No toxic products wifl be on the property other than asphalt sealer, which is to be stored on the property and then loaded onto trucks. · Planters will be placed in front of the existing office. · Vehicle storage will not be in front of the existing buildings. Only the second and sixth items (or variations thereoD are supported by staff. Suggested Conditions are listed on page 1. According to the applicant, the following equipment and vehicles are stored on the premises: · Two 6,000 gallon storage tanks used for asphalt sealer · Two sealer tank trucks . Two asphalt pavers . Two asphalt rollers · One flatbed truck · One asphalt tack truck 2 . One skid steer loader . Four equipment traHers . Three dump trucks . Three pickup trucks . One van . One forklift 50-pound bags of sand are also stored outside. Latex paint, blocks of rubber, acrylic crack sealant, and 55- gallon drums of acrylic tennis court sealant are kept inside. The applicant has also identified "Paveshield" asphalt sealer and LIT arconite" coal tar sealer as materials kept onsite. Real Estate department records estimate 1960 as a construction date for the office and garage. The tract has been zoned A V since 1992 and B-2 prior to that time. Per McNeil AsphaU Maintenance, Inc., staff, the normal work week ;s Monday through Friday, 8:00 am until 4:00 pm - fater when necessary with occasional weekend work. The facility is not open during winter corresponding with asphalt manufacturing faciHties. T opoqraphv/Veqetation - The parcel is predominantly flat and gravel-covered excluding the southeast part of the site that exhibits grass and, upslope along the southeast border, a densely wooded tree line. Less heavily vegetated evergreen and deciduous growth stands parallel to the east and north boundaries. All existing landscape buffers on the south, east and north property lines are situated s~gnificantly hig her than the portion of the site utilized for equipment and vehicle parking. Surroundinq Neiqhborhood - In addition to the McNeil property, alf adjoining and most surrounding parcels are zoned A V Agricultural/Village Center. Adjacent uses include general (film processing) and convenience/gas retail (Mount P'easant Quick Mart) and single family residential to the south, institutional (Mount Pleasant United Methodist Church) to the east and single family residential to the north. West across Jae Valley Road is the Mount Pleasant Fire and Rescue Station and Brookfield subdivision. 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture - The existing building footprint indicates a 1,500 square-foot office and 2,280 square-foot garage with attached concrete pad. Both buildings are of masonry block construction and one story in height. -rhe structures noted as "tank storage" and "carport" are recent additions to the property. The owners' illegal freestanding identification sign is located immediately south of the entrance from Jae Valley Road. Per Section 30-86-2(B)J the maintenance and repair of all vehicles and equipment shal} be conducted within an enclosed building for construction yards in A V districts. The Board of Supervisors may also consider and set standards for: screening and buffering the entire yard; establishing the maximum height of any structure and extra setback requirements relative to increased height; controlling onsite dust; controlJ;ng onsite noise (measured at adjacent property lines); and, limiting operating hours. Access/Traffic Circulation - The facility utilizes one vehicular access point along its 130 - foot long western boundary adjoining Jae Valley Road (Virginia 116). Employees could account for two trips each (15 employees totaling 30 persona' trips) in addition to the estimated 11 vehicfes (tank trucksJ tack truck, durnp trucks, pickups and van) that are driven separately or in tandem with other pieces of equipment. 50 - 60 total personal and work-related trips could be generated by this activity - a very conservative estimate. No estimates are avairable from the ITE trip generation manual for this land use type. 2005 Annual Average Daily Traffic on Jae Valley Road from Sterling Road to the Roanoke corporate lirTlits was 5,500 vehicle trips. Eight crashes were reported on that same 1.17 mile segment of Jae Valley Road in 2005. The speed limit on this portion of VA 116 is 35 miles per hour. Per VDOT engineer Scott Woodrum, lithe minimum requ}red intersection sight distance for the entrance is 390 feet. AJthough jt appears to be adequate rooking to the right. a sign from an adjacent property may be partially blocking sight distance to the left... .Any changes to the existing drainage systems would require plan review and approval and a permit will be required for any 3 work within VDOT right-of-way.1l Fire & Rescue/Utilities - The Mount Pleasant Fire and Rescue Station is located adjacent to the subject parcell west across Jae Valley Road. Water for fire suppression is available at a hydrant situated on the stat.ion property. Two additional fire prevention inspections will occur at county businesses annually. One hazardous materials vehicle is also garaged at the Mount Pleasant station. Public water is located in the Jae Valley Road right-af-way across from the entrance to McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, fnc. Pubric sewer is as close as the Brookfield subdivisionl but is currently not available on the subject site. Stormwater Manaqement -1\Jo stormwater management is depicted on the petitione(s concept plan. Developed site coverage is approaching 40 percent for the overall 1.87 acre tract (up to 75 percent lot coverage and 30 percent building coverage is permitted in the A V district). Most of that estimated figure (32,000 - 33,000 square feet) is gravel-covered. Permanent building coverage accounts for approximately 5,000 square feet onsite. If new hard surface pavement is constructed, it should be installed in conjunction with a stormwater detention facility behind the existing garage and office to account for business vehicles and equipment only. The stormwater management and contamjnant monitoring system should be in place even if no new hard surface pavement is constructed. Such a system should be designed to assist in monitoring for spill detection/potential contaminants in addition to nlanaging stormwater runoff (please see Suggested Conditions on page 1). No new hard surface is recommended elsewhere on the property. Area topography indicates that, within the developed part of the subject property, an estimated seven- foot drop occurs from the existing office to the pavement of Jae Valley Road and thereafter, an approximate 45-foot decrease in elevation occurs along lower portions of Valley Stream Drive west of the McNeil property. Screeninq & Bufferinq - Existing onsite vegetation along the south, east and north property borders can account for portions of the suggested Type E, Option 1 or 2 screening, landscaping and buffering. Construction yards are identified as industrial land uses by the ordinanceJ but are allowed by speciaJ use permit in A V districts. Type E, Option 1 requires a 75-foot buffer with large and small trees and one row of deciduous shrubs; Option 2 mandates a 50-foot buffer with one large and two small trees for each 30 feet of boundary and six-foot high screening and eight shrubs for each 10 feet of boundary. Additionally, Ilew plantings are required for the parking area in front of the garage and office including landscaped medians or peninsulas designed and located to channel traffic) facilitate stormwater management and define and separate parking areas and aisles per Section 30-92-6(C) 1. Also, right-ot-way plantings will be required along Jae Valley Road within a 10-foot wide planting strip. Community Meetinq - On August 20, 2007, approximately 70 citizens met to discuss the situation with K. W. McNeil and his attorney, Ed Natt. A solid majority of those present object to the facility and voiced such concerns as fire prevention, hazardous materials storage and containment on- and offsite water quality, localized flooding during heavy rain events, landscaping - particularly along the south boundary, the permitting process and exactly what materials, equipment and vehicles are stored on the subject property. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COIV'MUNITY PLAN The site is designated ViI/age Center by the 2005 Community Plan. VHlage Centers serve as the commercia' and institutional focal point of surrounding rural residential and farming establishments. Most commercial and institutional activities in Village Center areas are designed I scaled and marketed to best serve the product and service needs of residents from the surrounding rural areas. The McNeil property is also in close proximity to Neighborhood Conservation areas where established single family neighborhoods are in place and conservation of those existing residential patterns are encouraged and protected. 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS 4 Village Centers bring a sense of community to surrounding rural areas andl increasingly, suburban areas in the case of Mount Pleasant with an emphasis on providing essential goods and services to residents. Such locations are not intended to be employment destinations for urban residents. As stated previously, new development should be carefully considered for its compatibility with surrounding uses and the purpose and intent of the Agricultural/Village Center district. McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc., is the highest intensity redevelopment to appear in Mount Pleasant for many years. The l\AcNeil operation is the most intense project to locate aJong Roanoke County's three mile segment of Jae Valley Road from the Roanoke Corporate limits south to Back Creek. The location of this business was never formally permitted or approved and it is staff's opinion that compatibility with neighboring land uses cannot be achieved. CASE NUMBER: PREPARED BY: HEARING DATES: ATTACHMENTS: 16 - 9/2007 Timothy Beard PC: 9/4/2007 BOS: 9/25/2007 Rezoning Application Aerial Photograph Site Inspection Photographs: 8/16/2007 Future Land Use Map Zoning Map Notice of Zoning Ordinance Violations Notice of Building Code Violations and associated correspondence A V District regulations 5 County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning For Staff Use Only Yz-- a'1~)\ 4 <6 lQ 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 ReCe]\Ted by' AppJlcauon fee: (J Placards Issued: Case Number ALL APPLICANTS Check type of application filed (check all that apply) o Rezoning ~pecial Use 0 Variance 0 Waiver o Administrative Appeal 0 Conlp Plan (15.2-2232) Review Applicants name/address w/zip McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc. P. O. Box 20268 Roanoke, VA 24018 Phone: Wark: 540- 774-0015 Cell #: Fax No.: 540-772-6308 Owner's natne/address w/zip Kenneth W. alld Nancy A. McNeil 5615 Starkey Road Roanoke, VA 24018 Propelty Location Phone #: Work: Fax No. #: 540-989-6351 540- 774-0015 Magisterial District: Vinton 2914 Jae Valley Road Conununity Planning area: Mt. Pleasant Tax Map No.: 079.01-04-22.00 Existing Zoning: A V Size ofparcel(s): Acres: 1.87 Existing Land Use: R V storage & autoll1otive service REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, 1VAlVER AND COMP PLAN (J5.2-2232) REV/EJf' APPLICANTS (R/S/W/CP) Proposed Zoning: A V with Special Use Pernnt for operation of Conh'actors Yard Proposed Land Use: contractor storage yard for Applicant Does the parcel n1eet the minimun110t area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes~ No ~J IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimlUD criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes ~ No 0 IF NO, A V ARlANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes 0 NoD N / A . --. ~ VARIANCE, WAIVER AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL APPLICANTS (V/Jl1fAA) V ariancelW aiver of Section( s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning A dnlinisn.ator' s decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s):_-__ of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEP'TED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOl\fPLETE. RlSfWlCP V/AA R/SIW/CP V/AA R1Sf\V/CP V/AA [[d Consultatjon ~x I 8 1/2" x 1] II concept plan ~ Application fee X Application Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Justification Water and sewer applIcation Adjoining property o\vners I hereby certify that I am either the owner oftheYro~rtx or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and 3lTI acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner, KENNEIB W. DNa a~ NANCY A. McNEIL CONTACT: Edward A. Natt By: E ~ 11 ~ Owner's Signature 3140 ChapalTal Drive, Suite 200-C Its ~ Roanoke, VA 24018 ~ Phone: 540-725-8180 Fax: 540-774-0961 2 FnH~il' pn}ltt(,1)onn taW.C01TI JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING, SPECIAL US;E PERI\lIT \VAlVER OR COl\1P PLAN (15.2-2232) REVIEW REQUESTS McNEIL ASPHALT MAINTENANCE, INC. Appljcant T'he PlalU1ing Cormnission will study rezoning, special use permit waiver or conu11unity plan (15.2-2232) review requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general vvelfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the be~inning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. TIle existing property was used as a garage/automobile/truck repair facility for a considerable period of tilne. The structures which were used in conjunction with that use would be used by McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc. Additional safeguards would be implemented as set forth in proffers. The Planning COl1unission and the Board of Supervisors, as pen11itted by Ordinance, have the right to impose additional conditions on the Special Use Pennit. The County Zoning Ordinance penllits constIuction yards in A V Districts upon the granting of a Special Use Permit. The fact that such uses are perIl1itted indicates that such a use is consistent with the A V District. The history of this property is somewhat significant.. The existing property was fOlmerly used under a grandfather provision of the Ordinance. The McNeils acquired the property in good faith in an effort to move their facility to this location. The realtor for the purchasers, prior to the acquisition of the property, discussed the ll1atter with representatives of the Plalming and Zoning Departn1ent on three different occasions in order to ensure that the property could be used for this purpose. Please see the letter dated April 30, 2007, from Tessa M. Thulman, Realtor, \\Thich is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The MeN eils' purchase of the property and the existing use was based upon the representa tjons n1ade by a nleluber of the County Staff in good faith. The present use is very sim.ilar and, as a result~ could be considered to have less inlpact on the conm1unity based upon the fact that, for the majority of the day, the property is simply used as an office for McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, T .1111"" . Please explajn how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County COll1illunity Plan. The regulations of an A V District pelmit a COl1str"uction yard by Special Use Pernut. That fact, coupled with the fact that this property had been used as an autolllobile/huck repair facility for an extended nU111ber of years, clearly delllonstrates that the continuation of a siluilar use would be appropriate. As set forth belo\\' and with the proffers, the Applicant intends to ensure that its use is less objectionable. The only impact on the neighborhood would be the tucks leaving in the lnolning and returning in the afternoon. There is no work with customers on the site. The site is merely used as an office and a place to store the vehicles. All materials and equipment will be stored inside as required under the Ordinance, leaving only vehicles and related vehicular equipment on the outside. Employees will con1e in the morning, fill their trucks and leave, and then return in the afternoon. The Applicant will perfonl1 SOllle minor vehicular ll1aintenance on its vehicles within the existing buildings. No such maintenance will be conducted outside the buildings. J Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining propel1ies, and the surrounding area, as well as the ilnpacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. There should be very little, if any, iInpact on the nejghborhood inasil1uch as the property will be used almost entirely for storage of vehicles and office operations. In the llloming, trucks will be loaded and they will leave the premises to retu111 late in the afternoon. The only on-site work will be the office work and, when necessary, work on the vehicles within the garage by a part-time mechanic. 3 ~.,~ -:r.[.lLkl ~ \IItII - !IBl~ A ~ ~r;.' : '. _.,-." - ~'J":::'~C-.-_K' ~ Vl'IJ ~I ~ ...~~ - ~-, 1-= - 1M Iii!!!! ! ~ r ~ r - , ~ , I ) ~ i '1, IJ" ;: .tI "'" ffi '1mItL ~,. _ / 1 .. . " I t' i .. r . 1-.. - , 6 I , ~ o I ~ I . ; Address of Subiect Property: 2914 Jae Valley Road Vinton Magisterial District Roanoke County Tax Map No.: 079.01-04-22.00 Applicant's Name: McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc. Owners: Kenneth W. and l\Janey A. McNeil PROFFERS The undersigned owner does hereby proffer the following conditions in conjunction with the special use permit request: 1. The subject property will be used in accordance with the site plan entitled uMcNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc." dated July 2, 2007, attached hereto. 2. No additional lighting will be installed on the property. 3. property. All vehicles will be instructed to turn off their "back-up beepers" when on the 4. No toxic products will be on the property other than asphalt sealerJ which is to be stored on the property and then loaded onto the trucks. 5. Planters will be placed in front of the exjsting office. 6. Vehic'e storage will not be in front of the existing buildings. Applicant: McNEIL ASPHALT MAINTENANCE, INC. BY Owners: ~f1 (tl- ;1( ltL.9 Ke(l/h W. MCNe~1 , 1 )X (Jt.;' r '. Nancy ,A. U:\ZONING\ROANOKE COUNTY\McNeil Asphalt Maintenance\PROFFERS-SPU.doc JJJL ~lJ6-20D7 1 t21 : 52 OSTERHOUDT PRILLRMAN NRTT 15407740951 P.07/12 Community De'velopment r:a;J!!~'12~ ~~.l~ ".' 'ill! ';"~I ~~...ifi}V.' jj~, '.~" <II ~~..~~mi~~~ y,~", . ~' ~;I'\""I~ I"~,. ... -.' , .~ ~ r ~ LnA Plannfng & Zoning Division NOTICE TO ApP:LICANTS FOR REZONING, SUBDIVISION WAIVER, PUBLIC STREET WAIVER, OR SPECIAL USE PER1v1IT PETITION .PL.ANNlNG C~OMMISSION ApPLICATION ACCEPTANCE ,PROCEDURE The Roanoke County Planning C.ommission reserves the rigl1t to continue a Rezoning'l Su"bdivision 'Waiver, PUlblic Street Waiver or Special Use Permit petition ifnew or additiol1al infomlation is presented at the public heal;ng. If it is the opinion of the nlajority of the PlallJlillg Conu11issione]fS present at the sclleduled public hearing that s'ufficient time was not available for l)]anning staff and/or an outside referral agency to adequately evaluate and provide \vrittcn comments and suggestions on the new or additiol1al infonnatioll prior to the sC.heduled IJublic hearing the]1 the Plalmil1g COlnmission Inay vote to continue the petition. This contin"uance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the ne",' or additional infonnation arId provide written comments and sllggestions to be il1cluded ill a wlitten ll1enlorandu1l1 by plalmillg staff to tIle Plalmi.llg COlrunission" The Plalln.ing C01Jlmisslon shall consult Witl1 planning staff to determine if a continuance may be warL"anted.. POTENTIAL OF NEE:D FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES AND/C)R TRAFFI(~ IMPAC1" S1~UDY The Roal1o.ke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver, or Special Use Pen11it petition if tlle County Transportation EIlgineerillg Manager Or staff frOln the Virginia Department of Transportation requests furtller traffic al1alyses and/or a traffic impact study that would be beneficial in 11laking a land use decision (Note: a list of potential land uses anti situations that woulcf necessitate further stuc(p is provided as fJart of this application package). This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviev.ring parties to evall1ate the required traffic analyses and/or traffic tJ11pact study and to provide written comments and/or suggestions to the planning statf and the Plaruling Commissiol1,. If a contin.ual1ce is warranted, the applicarlt will be notified of the continuance and the newly scheduled public hearing date. Effectlve Date: April 19, 2005 McNEIL ASPHALT MAINTENANCE, INC. Name of PetItion 0 By; j/dJ/~Q }i~0'~ .J 1J7ei) Potltlon.rls SlgnZlture U (,.........\ . J.v.( J /J "-111 /1 tOat. r; . ~, ~ I .~ II 11II .. I r " . " 'i I~ 11 . i I , 't J L ,I':.. .. :- I I ~I i I -, .; i t ~ t :1 rail. I r ... .~ I , "III III .. t , .. .J . .. .. 11 I. .. I .....;.t -'1.:,"" I~ *: .~ l. .. f I .. -~~"~1iI I lmfIf~~ ' .~lr :,...~, .~~ ._~, JiaIliQl. '. IBld_. ~ 1.'JJ'. ,. ,iliIIl"'_ · ." .EIIIIII.dd:..-.- .. _ .." . ~ _ ' I I ; ~.\ _ ~ t~J.I Ill'. 0 ~ ~~1 Ws_ illountlJ of 2i\nattokc DEPARTtv1ENT OF= COlvH\~UNITY DEVELOPJviENT BUILDlhJG PERMITS DEVELOPMENT REVlEW EhJGH-.JEERING INSPECTIONS IVlAPPINGJGIS STORlv'lVvATER MANAG ElJi[t'F TP~AhjSPORTATION DIRECTOR, ARNOLD COVEY DEPUTY DI RECTOR OF DEVE:"'OPMENT SERVICES, TAREK r~ONE1R DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANI~lhIG, PHlLlP THOrVlPSON COUI\JTY ENGINEER1 GEORGE W. SIMPSON, 11)1 P.E. BUfLDING COMMISSIDI\jERr JOEL S. BAKER, CBO April 25, 2007 1\1[. K. W. & Mxs. Nancy A. McNeil 5615 Starkey Rd Boones Mill, Vi\. 24065 LOCATION: TAX MAP #: I\1AGISTERIAL DISTRICT: 2914 Jae ValleyRd # 079.01-04-22.00-0000 Vinton Dear Mr. & Mrs. McNeil~ Please take notice that a representative of this office inspected the above referenced property and found DVJ violations of tbe Roanoke COUl1ty Code, in addition to a previous))' noted violation. This fust violation of RoanDke County Code is a violation of Section 30-36-2 of the Roanoke County Code. Your property is zoned A V and this violation (the use of the property as a contractor's storage yard) is a ~v'iolatl{ .ofthe uses permitted in this zoning district. Please correct this violation within ten (10) da)!s of the recei.pt of tills letter. Corrective action would consist of the removal of th.e prohibited equipment and materials to anothe property zoned for this use. Failure to correct the violation within the ten (10) day period may result in additional enforcement actions being take11 by this office. The second violation is a violation of Section 30-9 & 30-9.1 of the Roanoke County Code. This vio1ation is tb alterationlconstruction of any structure(s) (carports/equipment sheds) or the establishrrient of any land use WithOl the issuance of a building/zoning permit. Please correct tills violation within ten (10) days of the receipt oftb- letter. Corrective action would consist of the application for and the obtaining a permit for this property. Als please be advised that part of the building/zoning pennit process is the verjfication of appropriate setbacks fc any structure. Any placement of a structure within a setback constitutes a separate violation of Roanoke Coun1 Code. Please be aware that a third violation of the Roanoke County Code is still in evidence on tills property. }. previously noted in an enforcement letter, dated April 13, 2007, there is a violation of Section 30-93-5(A) ( Roanoke County Code. Tbis violation is a violation of the placement of a permanent freestanding sign on tl property without a sign permit being issued by the County. P.O. BOX 29800 · ROANOKE, VIRGiNIA 2401 B II PHONE (540) 772-2080 0 FAX (540) 772-2108 N;\ DOr"\trlcrl P~r1or Mr. K. W. & i\1rs. Nancy A. McNeil April 25, 2007 Page 2 Please be a\vare that this notice is being 'issued by an agent for the Roanoke County Zoning Administrator and therefore it constitutes an opinion of the Zoning Administrator (Mr. John Murphy, 772-2080). Any person aggrieved by an opinion of the Zoning Administrator may. appeal the decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Appeals must be made within thirty (30) days of the entry of the decision which is the date of this letter. Also please note that this opinion ofth,e Roarloke County Zoning Ad177.irlistrator shall befinal a12d urlappealable ifll0t appealed 1vit!lin tlzis th,irty (30) day period {See 15.2-2311 Code of Va}. The Board of Zoning Appeals also hears requests for variances from various sections of the zoning ordinance. For any additional information about the Board of Zoning Appeals, please contact Planning & Zoning (772-2080). If you ha"ve any questions concerning this Notice and Order, please contact tbis office at (540) 772- 2093. 8120 elL Bill Richardson Planner I QInuntt! of ~llannkt DEPARTMENT OF COM~I1UNrTY DEVELOPMENT BUilDING PERMITS DEVELOPMENT RE.VIEW ENGINEE RING INSPECT1QNS MAPPINGiGlS STORMV-JATER MANAGEMENT TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR. ARNOLD COVEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. TAREK MONEIR DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING. PHILIP THOMPSON COUNTY ENGINEER. GEORGE W. SIMPSON. Ill. o.E. BUILDING COMMISSIONER. JOEL S. BAKER. CBO NOTICE OF \'IOLA TION Date: July 10, 2007 Issued to: McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, (oc. P.O. Box 202668 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0027 This office has detennined thal there are current violations of the Virginia Uniform Statc\vide Building Code for \vork pcrfonned at 2914 Jae Valley Road. The violations are as fol1o\vs: USBC Section I 08. 1 113.].2 116.1 Violation Construction of a building or structure without required permits.. Failure to notify the building official of required inspections Occupying a building or structure \vithout a Certificate of Occupancy You are hereby directed to discontinue and abate said violations \vithin thirty (30) days of your receipt of this notice. Failure to nlake the necessary corrections is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not nlore than 52500.00. Violations of the USBC may also be reported to the Virginia Board for Contractors. You may appeal this decision by tiling an application for appeal in ,vriling to the Board of Building Code Appeals \vithin ninety days of this notice, Applications are available on request from this office. po. BOX 29800 · ROANOKE. V1RGINIA 24018 · PHONE (540) 772.2080 . FAX (540) 772-2108 @ ReCycled Paper I...:~\ \. 0 FF1CE S Osrrl'~({HOL~nT, I~RILL:\..'L~"', X,,-\TT, HEtJSCH~;I~, \~OST, :\I4Lx'\~LL & FERGUSO:\, IlLC Edward A.. Natt Please reply to: P. O. Box 20487 Roanoke ; VA 24018 Direct: (540) 725-8180 Fax: (540) 774.0961 E~mail: enatt@opnlaw.cam 3 l-lO GJlAP.t\HR.\L IJRI\ E. SeITE :!OO.c F?C).-\NOliE" \.'lRGL'-:t.' 2~() J X-4370 f)-H)) 989~OOOO · E~'X (540) 77::!-0126 S:\.I.E~" \"IIHtr:-':l:, 2-1 1:;3 I'.(). Il.f., :::7'l IU~ ~. t~Ol tIIl...no STl~I" f '\" \\..OP~L \\\".CO:"-I .qlll l~oJ"~~J.'" F\.\. t '"":0' \l<.).l~,/,,>O July 19, 2007 Joel S. Baker, Bui1ding Commissioner County of Roanoke P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Re: McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc. Notice of Violation Letter dated July 10, 2007 Dear Mr. Baker: Pursuant to your letter of July 10, 2007 t please be advised that, on behalf of my client, McNeil Asphalt Maintenance1 Inc.1 I intend to file an Application for Appeal to the Board of Building Code Appeals. Please provide a copy of the Apptication to me as set forth in your retter. Since I am appealing, I would assume that this would defer any action on your part until due process has been completed. It is my understanding that I have ninety (90) days from July 10, 2007, in which to file the appeal. Please advise me if any of this information is incorrect or if you intend to try to pursue any other matters prior to that time. Very truly yours. OSTERHOUDT, PRillAMAN, NATT, HELSCHER, YOST, MAXWELL & FERGUSON, P.L.C. t~ rrr Edward A. Natt EAN/csb pc: Mr. Pepse Garcia McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc. P. O. Box 20268 Roanoke, VA 24018 pc: Mr. Kenneth McNeil McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, (oc. P. o. Box 20268 Roanoke, VA 24018 Mr. Arnold Covey, Director Department of Community Development County of Roanoke 5204 Bemard Avenue, S.W. P. o. Box 29800 Roanoke,VA 24018 Q1nuntu .of 3ROctltokc ~ ~-- DEPARTtJiENT OF COtvHAUN1TY DEVELOpr~ENT GU~Lf)l~.JG PER~.H--;"S J!RECTOR. AMr-.10~D COVEY DEPUTY OtRECTOR OF DE'jEi...OP~;~ENI SERV1CES, lr"..REK ;\-~Ol"~EIR DEPUTY DiRECTOR OF PLANNING. PHILlP THO\1PSO!J COUNTY Er'JGJNEER, GEORGE V'l Sn..1PSO~',-!. III. p.E BUILDING corv'lr,1ISSl0t'.JER. JOEL S. Bt'iKER, eGO DE""E-LOPMEf~T Rf\JlE\'/ E UGI ~.;::.ERI:'~G !..!SPECTIO~ ~s !.~/.. PP;NG-GIS STOP.U>:.'/~lEH L~~r~~,G[tf~[H7 TG.:.I1 SP:::<~7tTlC~ J July 26.. 2007 \,1 r. Ed\\'ard i\. 0!att p~ O. Box 20487 Roanokc~ \' a. 2.+018 Rc: ),'"!c Nci 1 ;\sphaIt iv1aintcnancc, Illc. Dear \1r. Natt: Please find enclosed the application for appeal YOll r~qllestcd. Per your inquiry.. I anl unable to confiml that the filing of an nppcal \\"111 defer cnforcen1cnt aClion by this 0 fficc. Section 115.3 oCthe USBC requires thal~ irthe notice of violation is not c0111plied \vith, the building ofTlcial shall request the local legal counsc] to initiate legal proceeding to rcstrain~ correct or ab3tc the \<iolation or to require rCIlloval or lCJ111ination 0 r use of the b u i 1 din gar s true 1 U rei n\"o 1 \' cd. Si nccrc) y! Joel S. Baker, C~BO .Buildillg Conl111issioncr PO, BOX 29800 ~ ROANOKE. VIRGrr~IA 24018 · PHONE (540l 772~2080 · FAX (5"~O) 772-2108 o Pt-:; ~'C:;::::' P,~:- ':'~ UW OFFICES OsrrERHOUDT, PRILLAMAN, NA'llfl', HELSCHER, YOST, lVIAXvvELL & FERGUSON, PLC I dward A. Natt Flease reply to: F. O. Box 20487 iRoanoket VA 24018 jDirect: (540) 725-8180 rax:. (540) 77 4~0961 E-mall: enatt@opnlaw.com 3140 CHAPARRAL DRI\lE. SlHTE 200-c ROA.NOKE f VIRGfNIA 24018-4370 (540) 989-0000 · F.AX (540) 772-0126 V";\\W. OPNLAW .COM SALEM. VIRGINIA 24]53 P.O. Box 279 105 N. GOLOR..A.DO STREET (540) 389- 2349 FAX (540) 389-9560 August 7,2007 / r'/~-- . . j , . ~)...- f:t. :7' . ~f'?1, \::~~ Ii Joel S. Baker, Building Commissioner County of Roanoke Dept. of Community Development P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Re: McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc. 2914 Jae Valley Road Dear Mr. Baker: Enclosed please find Appncation of Appeal which has been executed by Kenneth and Nancy McNeilr owners of the property at 2914 Jae Valley Road. Should you have any questions or need anything further, please advise. Very truly yours, OSTERHOUDT, PRillAMAN, NATT, HELSCHER, YOST, MAXWELL & FERGUSONr P.L.C. (~(x]~tt- Edward A. Natt EAN/csb Enclosure pc: Mr. Arnold Covey, Director Department of Community Development County of Roanoke P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 c~ ,'-\1::)'. '\>~\7~~.~~C..' -SO~;f\ ~t"",V\ '~~ Oo~ Mr. Kenneth McNeil McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc. P. o. Box 20268 Roanoke, VA 24018 AUG-02-2007 15:12 OSTERHOUDT PRILLRMRN NRTT 15407740961 P.02/03 Roanoke County Building Code Board of Appeals Application for Appeal Applicaut: ___ MCB~~~f!_.t..~~J2hal t Maintenance, Inc. Addre~s: p~ O. Box 20268 City: ._~ Roanoke State: VA Zip: 2 4 0 1 8 Applicant is ~Owner;o _Contractor~ _Designer, _____.,Other {describe Address ofPrClperty __........___~914 Jae Valley Road Owner (If different than Applicant)_ K~:r.1,Qeth W" and Nancy A. McNeil Permit Number tor this project: ~lone Statement of Appeal N01'lCE: Neither the Building Conunissioner or the Board of Building Code Appeals may waive or VBty the requirements of the Virginia l)nifonn Statewide Bujlding Code. Only modifications that are equal to or exceed USBe requirelnents, preserve the spirit and intent of the code and assure the public healthJ safety and welfare can be COTIsidcTCd.. Appeals must be made with ninety (90) days of the decision you wish to appeal. Pursuant to Section 36-l05 of the Code of Virginia and Section 119 of the Virginia'Unifonn Statewide Building Code~ 1 bereby requesL an appeal of the decision of the Building Commissioner in regard to the above-described project. My appeal is based on the foIJowing condition(s), (you must choose at least one): o The Building Conunissioner has refused to grant a modification to the USBC. (Modification request must have been denied in writing - attach dated copy) o The provisions oft'he USBC (OT Roanoke County Code) do not apply in this instance. (Attach any supporting data to for your claim and explain wby you believe the code does not apply) (Xl The Building Commissioner has incorrectly interpreted the intent of the USEe (Attach a copy of the interpretation you requested and the reply you received froln the building comlnlssioner.) The appeal is in reference to the following code section($): 108.1 113.1.2 116.1 Supply any additional information that you feel is relevant (you Inay attach additional sheets if necessary): _....".__-- SEE ATTACHED . /--::~,. -~ .;' t'~ -7:7.~>...., . I j ~. 11:7 t~ ~~ ~ ~% ~o ''\ \,-<0 ,'3(\ ~'\ '0 'V\:,,\ \. \t:,tl.\ \~;~\'0- '0'0 \) ~~ Yv ~~YhflJ S~hmii~ion Date McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc. purchased the property at 2914 Jae Valley Road with the intent of refocating its business there. Said acquisition was completed after agents for Mcl\Jeil specifically talked with the County Planning and Zoning Department to ensure that the property was properly zoned for the proposed use. After receiving such assurance, McNeil Asphalt Maintenance moved its business operations to 2914 Jae VaUey Road and undertook certain improvements. McNeil contacted a contractor about installation of certain items and was advised that no building permit was necessary. Thus} McNeil made arrangements for the installation of the property under the assurance from the supplier that no building permit was needed. When in fact it was determined that a building permit was needed for this, and possibly other matters, and that a certificate of occupancy would be required, McNeil approached Roanoke County but, at that point, found out that the property was not properly zoned and, thus, a building permit and the follow-up requirements of the Code could not be met. In an effort to resolve this, McNeil has flied for a Special Use Permit on the property. There was no intent to violate the Code provisions and McNeil simply asks that this matter be deferred until after the zoning issues are resolved. (0~;'" 'i-'~ ._~?:-, '- " "';~.:>. .'",- ' . ~ ,-::",-. \ , . - .~:. \ \ ~'J~ 2007:~.~\ t of '-.{ ) Departme,! ~.j~ j Comn1ur\lty '.; D 'Je\opmef\\ .-: / e '.' / ;. j . .:!.. f"~./ ". -: .... /' - .: . ,.,,/,/' QIount\l of ~oanokc DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUILDING PcRM1TS DEVELOPMENT REVIEYJ ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS MAPPING/GIS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TRAt-JSPORTATION DIRECTOR. ARNOLD COVEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. TAREK MONEIR DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING. PHILIP THOMPSON COUNTY ENGINEER, GEORGE W. SIMPSON. ill. D.E. BUILDING COMMISSIONER. JOEL S. BAKER. CBO August 14, 2007 Mr. Ed\vard A. Natt, Attorney P. O. Box 20487 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 RE: Application for Appeal - 2914 lae Valley Road Dear Mr. Natt, This is to ackno\vledge receipt of the Application for Appeal for the above referenced address. I am unable to process th~ application as it is incOlllplete. As stated on the application, \vhen appealing a code interpretation issued by the building official, you Inust include a copy of your interpretation request and the official interpretation \vhich you have received. As you are a\vare, no such request has been made to my office, therefore there can be no appeal on this basis until such a request is submitted and an interpretation issued. As of August 10,2007 the time to correct the items in the Notice of Violation has expired. This matter has been referred to the county attorney's office for disposition. Joel S. Baker, CBO Building Commissioner P.O. BOX 29800 · ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018 · PHONE (540) 772.2080 . FAX (540) 772.2108 @ Recycled Paper QIountlJ of ~nanolte DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BU~LDING PERMITS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS MAPPING/GIS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TRAr-.JSPORTATION DIRECTOR. ARNOLD COVEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. TAREK MONE1R DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING. PHILIPTHOMPSON COUNTY ENGINEER. GEORGE W. SIMPSON, III. ~E. BUILDING COMMISSIONER. JOEL S. BAKER. eBO DATE: August 15, 1007 TO: Paul Mahoney, County Altonley FROM: Joel Baker, Building Commissioner RE: Notice of Violation issued to McNeil Asphalt Maintenancet Inc.. The above referenced violation notice has not been complied \vith in the allotted time. I am submitting to your office, per Section 115.3 of the USBC, a \vritten request to institute the appropriate legal proceedings to restrain, correct or abate the violation or to require the removal or termination of the use of the buildings or structures involved.. I have attached copies of all related documents concerning this matter. I will be happy to discuss at your convenience. Thanks for your help. P.o. BOX 29800 · ROANOKE, VIRG~NIA 24018 · PHONE (540) 772-2080 · FAX (540) 772-2108 o Recycled Paper ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGULATIONS Page 1 of 4 SEC. 30-36. AV AGRICLfL TURALNILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT. Sec. 30-36-1. Purpose. (A) The purpose of the A V, agricultural/village center district is to estabrish areas which wi[l serve as the focal point for cultural and commercial activity of the rural service areas of the county, as envisioned in the community plan land use category of the same name. The density recommended for these areas is intended to average between one (1) and three (3) units per acre. Small country storesJ family restaurants, and similar small service and personal service businesses~ in addition to public and institutional buildings such as schools, post offices and places of religious assembly, are commonly found at these crossroad locations. These areas bring a sense of community to the surrounding rural areas, with an emphasis on providing the essential goods and services to rural residentsJ but are not intended as employment destinations for urban residents. New development should therefore be carefully' considered for its compatibility with the surrounding development and the purpose and intent of this district. Any expansion of these areas should be contiguous to existing viUage center areas to avoid leap-frog commercial development. Similarly additional development may warrant additional public services, such as community sewer and water systems. (Ord. No. 042799-11, ~& 1 f'1 2, 4-27-99) Sec. 30-36-2. 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 are listed in Article IV, Use and Design Standards, for those specific uses. 1. Agricultural and Forestry Uses Agriculture * Stable, Private * Wayside Stand * 2. Residential Uses Accessory Apartment * Home Beauty/Barber Salon * Home Occupation, Type I * Manufactured Home * Manufactured Home, Emergency * IVlultiple Dog Permit * Residential Human Care Facility Single-Famiry Dwelling, Attached * Single-FamHy Dwelling, Detached Two-Family Dwerling * 3. Civic Uses ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGULA TrONS Page 2 of 4 Administrative Services Clubs * Community Recreation * Cultural Services Day Care Center * Educational Fac'ilities, Primary/Secondary * Family Day Care Home * Park and Ride Facility * Post Office Public Parks and Recreational Areas * Safety Services * Utility Services, Minor 4. Office Uses Financial Institutions * General Office * Medica' Office * 5. Commercial Uses Antique Shops * Bed and Breakfast * Consumer Repair Services Personal Improvement Services Personal Services Restaurant, Family * Studio, Fine Arts Veterinary HospitarlClinic 6. Miscellaneous Uses Amateur Radio Tower * (8) -rhe following uses are arIowed only by Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 30-19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards are listed in Article IV1 Use and Design Standards, for those specific uses. 1. Agricultural and Forestry Uses Stable, Commercial * 2. Residential Uses Alternative Discharging Sewage Systems * Multi-family Dwelling * Townhouse * ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGULATIONS Page 3 of4 3. Civic Uses Cemetery * Crisis Center Halfway House Home for Adults Life Care Facility Nursing Home Religious Assembry * Utility Services, Major * 4. Commercial Uses Agricultural Services * Automobile Repair Services, Minor * Automobile Parts/Supply~ Retail * Boarding House Clinic * Convenience Store * Funeral Services Garden Center * Gasoline Station * Kennely Commercial * Restaurant, General * 5. Industrial Uses Construction Yards * Custom Manufacturing * Recycling Centers and Stations * 6. Miscellaneous Uses Outdoor Gatherings * (Ord. No. 42793-20, ~ 11,4-27-93; Ord. No. 82493-8, 9 2, 8-24-93; Ord. No. 62795-10, 6-27-95; Ord. No. 042799-11. S 214-27-99; Ord. No. 072605-7, S 1, 7-26-05) Sec. 30-36-3. 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. Lots sefVed by private well and sewage disposal system; a. Area: 25,000 square feet ARTICLE III. DISTRlCl~ REGULATIONS Page 4 of 4 b. Frontage: 85 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 pubHcly owned and maintained street. 3. Lots served by both public sewer and water: a. Area: 15,000 square feet b. Frontage: 75 feet on a publicry owned and maintained street. (B) Minimum setback requirements. 1. Front yard: a. Principal structures: 35 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 tine 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. All structures: 45 feet (D)Max;mum coverage. 1. Building coverage: 30 percent of the total lot area. 2. Lot coverage: 75 percent of the total lot area. (Ord. No. 62293-12, ~ 10, 6-22-93) rr--.. .... T" 1-1......""......_ 11 1'1 rA 11 /"1""\ , (9/4/2007) Susan Carter - McNeH AsphaJt Maintenance Ind. Page 1 i '_.__~___~ "______--- "-------~----"-- __"_O~.__~____ .o_____~______-u------~---,----..-~--- __u_o_._ ___ ___ _.____._____ _______ _ _____..__ ____ __________._____._ _.____u __0' _ _ _ _____ ~ _0 __..____~ ou__ ____0_____ ....1 From: To: Date: Subject: <,../FGDWG 1 @aol.com> <Planning@ RoanokeCou ntyV a. gOY> 9/2/2007 10:38 AM McNeil Asphalt Maintenance Ind. I am Joyce Geary (and Daniel Geary). We want you to know that we are opposing the request for a Special Use Permit to operate a "Construction Yard" at 2914 Jae Valley Rd. for McNeil Asphalt Maintenance Ind. We oppose it because if this is approved. later they will be asking for another permit for much larger uses and that will bring in more companies in the area trying to do the same thing. This is a residential area and we want to keep it that way. Thank you for your time. Joyce & Daniel Geary ********************************tIr***** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at h Up:1 / d i scove r. a 01. co m/mem ed/ a 01 com 30tou r (9/4/2007) Susan Carter - McNeif Speiar Use Permit Page 1 l __._~ ~__~__~------.....-~__~___~~.~_~_.. ~___ _~_._ __.. _ _ __~___ ~_ ~__ _~~_ "__ _ _. r _______~__ _ ._ __ _ _ __ _ ____~ ~._~__ ~_~ ~ _____. _.. .~r.~ ~~ ~ ~~_.~r_.._~__~. ~_.___~___ _ ___ _. _~_ _ ~__. _.~ _____~. _ ____~__r_~ __._ ~_~_____ _. __ From: To: Date: Subject: <OldWreck@ao~.com> < Plan n ing@ Roa nokeCou ntyVa .gov> 9/2/2007 2:33 PM McNeil Speial Use Permit cc: <MtP~easantCivic@cox.net> To the Roanoke County Planning Commission Members I would appreciate your consideration of my remarks here, as my work schedule will probably preclude my attendance at the 9/4 meeting. My concern is that the runoff of Mr. McNeil's efforts at cleaning his trucks might end up in my drinking water as well as that of my neighbors. Racher Carson published a book ( "S'ilent Spring" ) in the mid 1960ls evidencing that everything dumped on the surface of the earth eventuaUy ends up in the underground aquifer. I am not a "tree-hugger" but we all know that drinkabJe water is becoming an issue in our society as far as expense and availability. Many of us in Mt. Pleasant live on wells and even the City of Roanoke has drilled wells to supplement their public water system ( one on Mt. Pleasant Boulevard and one on Garden City Boulevard could be affected by this potential pollution). This could mean that the homes in Brookfield could be affected as well as numerous residents of the City of Roanoke. I urge your uNo" vote on this special use permit. Thank you for taking time to consider my request. Gary Dogan 3110 Meadowwood Road Roanoke County, Va. 24014 A life-long resident of the Mt. Pleasant Community ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://diseaver.801.com/memad lao' com 30tou r (9/4/2007) Susan Carter - McNeil Asphalt Maintenace- request for SUP _.~ _._._~_--L___.._ _.___ ___ ___ _________.... _____..... _ .__...._.._.__ _. .._ .. __ .__ ..._ .-.....____.......___. -.r.........._ ___, ...... ....-.-__ ......... .r.___................ ___... .,.. .T..... - -- ....-....__---- ----- Page 1 ~ From: To: Date: Subject: tiThe Sherwoods" <jvs50@cQx.net> < PI ann ing@RoanokeCountyV a. gov> 9/2/2007 8: 12 PM McNeil Asphalt Maintenace- request for SLIP As a resident in Mount Pfeasant, we would like to voice our opposition to the request for a special use permit by McNeil Asphalt Maintenance to operate a construction yard. At the community meetjng, Mr. McNeil stated he used no hazardous materials, so there was no need to deve~op any type of plan in case of an environmental spifl. However, he also stated there had been such an accident at his former site, that EPA was notified within thirty minutes, and that his company bore the cost of the clean-up. The lack of consistency in his information causes us concern for the Mount Pleasant area. We believe any substances such as he stores can have profound effects on the local environment if there is a spill. Our home is in the Brookfield subdivision directly across the street from his business, so we are most ardently opposed. James and Leslie Sherwood 3406 Glen Rock Ln. Roanoke, VA 24014 (9/4/2007) Susan Carter - Planning Commission Sep 4 meeting agenda item r.2 --Page 1- : From: To: Date: Subject: <La rry ABartlett@aol.com> <Pia n ning@ RoanokeCou ntyV a. gOY> 9/2/2007 9:18 PM Planning Commission Sep 4 meeting agenda item 1.2 Subject The Planning Commission's September 4,2007, public hearing (agenda item 1.2) concerning the petition of McNeH Asphalt Maintenance, Inc. to obtain a Special Use Permit to operate a construction yard in an A V, AgriculturalNillage Center, District on 1.87 acres, located at 2914 Jae Varley Road, Vinton Magisterial District. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: My name is Larry Bartlett. 1 live at 3005 Valley Stream Drive in the Brookfield Development across Route 116 from the McNeil property. I oppose the McNeil petition and ask that you recommend the Board of Supervisors deny the McNeil request for a Special Use Permit for the foHowing three (3) reasons: 1. The storm water runoff from the McNeil property drains into the Brookfield storm water retention pond. The proposed use for this property greatly increases the risk of hazardous materia's polluting the pond. If this happens, our Homeowners. Association would be responsible for c'eaning it up. Since the McNeil property is not part of Brookfield, we cannot assess it for pond maintenance. We can only recover our costs by proving McNeil Asphalt caused the problem and suing them. We think the risk is too great and the onfy way we can mitigate this risk is to oppose the McNeil petition. 2. The proposed land use is not in accordance with the Mount Pleasant Community Plan. 3. Granting a Special Use Permit for this proposed land use sets an unwanted precedent for future land use in our community. I have one other point. During the August 20 community meeting, the McNeit people made a big deal about their land use being simirar to the previous use and they did not understand our opposition. What they failed to comprehend was the community never had a say about the previous use. I am sure the community would have opposed that use as well had there been a public hearing on the subject. Thank you for listening and I look forward to your unfavorable recommendation. La rry Larry A. Bartlett 3005 Valley Stream Drive Roanoke, VA 24014-7015 (540) 427-4683 larrya bartlett@aol.com ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.801. co m/m emedl a 01 co m 30to u r (9/4/2007) Susan Carter - McNeil Page 1 i . _~_~____~ .._~_~~~___......-..... ___ _~ ~_ _____~_________ ____~__ __..._r____ _ .......-_____.. ,...~~_......._. .____-'--_...............___________.... ____ . _ ---.-----....--.. ..-.- ---...-.........--___...._ -....--...........-.----... -.--. -- --- ... _ --..-.........----... ..______ .--------- -. ,- From: To: Date: Subject: lIMichael Roop" <trainwhistle@cox.net> < Planning@RoanokeCountyV a. gOY> 9/2/2007 9:35 PM McNeH Dear Sirs, I am writing to you today to voice my personal opposition to the SUP application by McNeil Asphalt Maintenance for property located at 2914 Jae Valley Road. During the 11-years I have lived in the Mt. Pleasant community I have seen the effects of progress as it has slowly inched its way into the area. Thus far, development has either been beneficia~ to the area or 'ess intrusive than what it could have been. The credit for this properly managed growth can be attributed to both the Roanoke County P'anning staff and the developers who pride themselves on taking the higher ground when it comes to these projects. Like many in our communitYJ r am not against growth, however I favor growth that will contribute to the overall good of the community. However, I feel that the proposed SUP for 2914 Jae Valley Road does not conform to the vision that both Roanoke County and area residents had in mind when setting out to establish a community plan. Allowing the SUP will not enhance the area, in fact it could lead to quite the opposite. Over the past year, the county and our area residents have spent much time redefining the community plan for Mt. Pleasant. It is the most up-te-date outline for our area the pfanning commission has to assist in making ifs decisions. To abandon the community plan so soon would not only undermine all this hard workt but would send mixed signals across the county as to the value of community planning. Storm water run-off from the Jae Valley property goes into my subdivision's retention pond. Our homeownerts association has been very dilligent and proactive in maintaining this retention pond, the cost of which is paid for by myself and my neighbors. A chemical spill would contaminate the live stream that passes through the retention pond. Perhaps nothing unfortunate would occur with the petitioner operating his business at this location. However, it is risk that I am not willing to accept. Therefore, I respectfully ask that the Planning Commission make their recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to deny the Special Use Permit by McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc. for a contractors yard at 2914 Jae Varley Road. Respectfully Yours, Michael W. Roop 3033 Bonsall Lane Roanoke, VA 24014 (540) 427-1146 (9/4/2007) Susan Carter - McNeil Pav,ng __..~_~ _............-. ...-._.______.._. _...~~.____----'...._..... __ ........_.. -.-0_' ....-..._ ..... ..-...... _.____.........._____ _....__....__ __ ._ _. ____ ~ - ____ _.......~.-........._.__ _ ....-- _..... ,. --. .....-- _ __..........,. --. ... __-.......- Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: ucandcreed" <candcreed@cox.net> < Plan n ing@RoanokeCountyVa.gov> 9/2/2007 11 :01 PM McNeil Paving My husband and I feel McNeil Paving Co. on Rt. 116 in Mt. Pleasant should NOT be allowed to continue their business. We feel Mr. McNeil has violated his right to run a business at this location by not meeting the laws set for him and his business by Roanoke County and probably would not abide by future 'aws set by Roanoke County. Thank you, Carolyn Reed (9/4/2007) Susan Carter - McNeil Asphalt Maintenance --- - - .--------.-~-- Pag~- 1" -; From: To: Date: Subject: "Andrew M. Hudick, MS, CFP" <andy@feeonlyroanoke.com> <Pia nn i ng@RoanokeCountyVa.9Dv> 9/3/2007 7:58 AM McNeil Asphalt Maintenance Dear Sir/Madam: Re: September 4th Uconstruction yardU special use permit hearing on 2914 Jae Valley I am a Mt. Pleasant Resident. It like most of my neighbors, use a well system for my fresh water supply. I suspect we all draw from the same underwater aquifer. Since an "asphalt maintenance" company implies oil-based tools and equipment I cannot imagine that the cleaning of these machines will not leave a residue that will flow and leak into the ground. There is a large industrial facility on the corner of Ninth Street and Jae Valley (Rt. 116) near the Roanoke River that is monitored by the City and the EPA. -rhis facility is within two mifes of this proposed site on Jae Varley that is the purpose of the September 4th hearing. -rhis industrial site has a "vacancy" and would certainly be a better site for this type of business. We do not need a construction business in the midst of a neighborhood. I would urge you to vote against this change. Thank you for your consideration. Andrew M. Hudick, Randall Drive, 24014. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484/ Virus Database: 269.13.2/985 - Re~ease Date: 9/2/2007 4:32 PM . (9/4/2007) Susan Carter - McNeiJ Asphalt Maintenance Inc Page 1 i __~_ _~__~~_....___~__~~__~_~,~____._ _.. _____._~_~_~___~.__~__ ._____~___~ _....~____ - ____. _~_~. _______ __ _. .~___ ~_ - _. _~ ~___~_ 0.'_-.- ___ ~ . _~ ___.. _ _____ _ _ ..~~___~_ ~__ &_ _ __.. ,_ __ ___"."._ ____ From: To: Date: Subject: trTodd Rowland" <todd2ski@cox.net> <Plan n ing@ Roa nokeCou ntyV a. gOY> 9/3/2007 1 :35 PM McNeil Asphalt Maintenance Inc I plan to attend the meeting but wanted to correspond my feelings for the record. M.Todd & Cindy Rowland 3419 Cedarmeade Drive Roanoke, Va 24014 J oppose the SUP primarily for the reason or fear of what the future development potential wil~ be by allowing this one to be approved. I do not want the Mt. Pleasant area to become an Industrial avenue. As much as I would like to welcome McNeil to the community and maybe even patronize his business I feel it is best to oppose their request. As a resident of Brookfield I also am very concerned about the potential impact from the storm water run off that is discharged jnto our detention pond area. We as Brookfield residents are so'ely responsible for this area and do not want someone that is not a resident that we can assess for damages if any occur. I wish we could welcome McNeil to the community and be a good neighbor but the cost and impact are to great for us to allow it. Thank you M. Todd Rowland (9/4/2007) Susan Carter - MeNeil Asphalt special use permit Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: "Jim and Karen Taten <jetate@cox.net> < P la n n i ng@RoanokeCountyV a .gov> 9/3/2007 6:34 PM MeNeil Asphalt special use permit Item "1.2" at Sept. 4 meeting regarding special use permit for lV1cNeil Asphalt at 2914 Jae Valley Road in Mt. Pleasant area. We are opposed to granting the above special use permit because: The company has been operating at the location for several months without a permit - therefore illegally. If granted the special use, we are concerned about potential hazardous runoff into our Brookfield subdivision. Also, we are concerned that such a permit would give the company an opportunity to attempt other activities not approved for the site. Jim & Karen Tate 3119 Valley Stream Dr., Roanoke , (9/4/2007) Susan Carter - l\I1cNEfL ASPHALT MAINTENANCE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST From: To: Date: Subject: IIDavid Spencer" <DASpencer48@aol.com> < Plan ning@ Roa nokeCountyV a. gOY> 9/4/2007 12:22 AM McNEIL ASPHALT MAINTENANCE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST I am strongly opposed to the request by McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc. to have a construction yard at their location at 2914 Jae Valley Road, state route 116, in the Mt. Pleasant section of Roanoke County. Th[s location is directly across the road from Brookfield subdivision, a Fralin Waldron community of 97 homes valued at $150,000 and up. The area is currently a beautiful, rural residential setting in which a construction yard would be a glaring incongruous anomaly. Located right at the entrance to Brookfield, it would certainly lower property values for the entire subdivision. In addition, there has been discussion recently of a new development of high end homes ($500,000 and up) off Sterling Road. That location is about a mile past Brookfield on Jae Valley Road. Would a construction yard really make the proper gateway for that type of investment by a deve1oper? Which would provide more taxes to the County: that proposed neighborhood of new homes, or a construction yard for asphalt maintenance? I donrt oppose business use development in the County. However there are places where similar land use already exists, and those areas would be better matches for McNeil's plans. I think the big picture would be better served by denying the request for the Special Use Permit for the construction yard on Jae Valley Road, and assisting McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc. in finding a location where their plans would be a good use of the land without detriment to the surrounding community. David Spencer Brookfield Homeowner since 2000 __ ___.. n_u ________ P ~ ~_e _1_ j ------------------- --- ~- '-0-- ------- ------------------------------- -----------~--- __u ---- -~ ...----- --. - --. -..- '__-0_- .------ --~--- - - -- ----~-------~- _____._.u________ -- 1 (9/4/2007) Susan Carter - Regarding McNeil Paving Special Use Permit from homeowners in Brookfield Subdivision Page 1 I .....---L_._...... _ ___ _ _ _._ ____ __ _ _ _n_'_ __ _ _.. ...._.._..... - - _._... ,.....,._ .._ _ _ . _ ____ _ __ ---......_.. _....... _ ...____ _____ ....__.._.. ___-_...___ __.__.... ._..........__. _. . __ _ _._ ____ _ ____ ___ no....._ _ ..... __ .... ....__........ ......_ _ __ __. __ _.. _ _..... ....... .......... - ___._ From: To: Date: Subject: Subdivision "Sarah Dyess" <smdyess@cox.net> <Pia n n ing @RoanokeCountyV a. 9 QV> 9/4/2007 6:42 AM Regarding McNeU Paving Special Use Permit from homeowners in Brookfield We object to McNeil Paving's request for a special use permit. It will take away from the Mt. Pleasant residential atmosphere by adding unpleasant industr;af scenery. This is a step in the wrong direction for this. area; we should be encouraging residential! community growthl not industrializing. One special permit win lead to another. McNeil Paving purchased property not zoned for their intended use. That alone is irresponsabJe & ignorant. Is this the type of business we need in our community? Why have they been allowed to operate on that property to date without a permit? Regards. Danny and Sarah Dyess 3401 Cedarmeade Drive Roanoke VA 24014 540-265-3974 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.3/986 - Release Date: 9/3/2007 9:31 AM ~._~~.~ ~--- ---~-- ~- -----.----- ---- (9/4/2007) Susan Carter - McNeil Asphalt Maintenance Company request for a Special Use Permit - - - -- -- - Page 1 i From: To: Date: Subject: IIJames Sledd" <James.Sledd@eeiengineers.com> < Plan ni ng@RoanokeCountyV a. gov> 9/4/2007 1 :25 PM McNeil Asphalt Maintenance Company request for a Special Use Permit I oppose the Special Use Permit requested by McNeil Asphalt Maintenance Company for the foHowing reasons: * -rhe storm water runoff from the McNeil property drains into our Brookfield retention pond. The proposed use of this property greatly increases the risk of hazardous materials polluting our pond. If this happens, we, Brookfield Homeowner's Association (HOA), would be responsible for cleaning it up. We could only recover our costs by proving (which I believe would be an almost impossible task) McNeil Asphalt caused the problem and sue them. J think the risk is too great and the only way the HOA can mitigate the risk is to oppose the Special Use Permit. * -rhe proposed use is not in accord with the Mount Pleasant Community Plan (This plan has been deve'oped with numerous hours of County and Community time) * Granting this Special Use Permit sets a precedent and opens the flood gates for similar requests in this area. I have heard some discussion about a new library to be added for this area; I believe that this site would be a great location for it. Thanks for your time. James Sledd 3133 Vafley Stream Drive Roanoke, VA 24014 (Two block from the referenced site) James Sledd, CCP, LEED AP Engineering Economics Inc C: 540.761-7807 www.eeiengineers.com <http://www.eeiengineers.com> - - ---- - -- --- - ---- - -- -. - --, --. (9/4/2007) Susan Carter - McNeil AsphaJt Permit - - . - - -- --- Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: UDonna Webb" <DWebb@carilion.com> <Plann ing@RoanokeCountyV a .gov> 9/4/2007 3:47 PM McNeil Asphalt Permit Hello - To Whom it may concern: I will not be able to attend the Roanoke Planning Commission meeting tonight as my daughter has a game and my husband is working. , am a resident of Brookfield subdivision and I wanted to let you know that I do not agree that McNeil Asphalt should be granted the special permit to operate a Uconstruction yard" at 2914 Jae Valley Road. f feel that it would not be good for our neighborhood or community. I don't think that the chemicals that would run off in our retention pond located in our neighborhood would be safe for the environment in which we live. Please consider this e-mail my voice/opinion to this matter. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Donna F. Webb 3003 Bonsall Lane Roanoke, VA 24014 .1. ..~!m~ - ~ " ... f* !l;CW AT A REGULAR MEE1-ING OF -rHE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COLINTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23,2007 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A CONSTRUCTION YARD ON 1.87 ACRES LOCATED AT 2914 JAE VALLEY ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 79.01-4- 22) VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON -rHE PETITION OF MCNEIL ASPHALT MAIN-rENANCE, INC. WHEREAS, McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc. has filed a petition for a special use permit to operate a construction yard on a 1.87 acre parcel located at 2914 Jae Valley Road (Tax Map No. 79.01-4-22) in the Vinton Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on September 4, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on August 28, 2007; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on October 23, 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc. to operate a construction yard to be located at 2914 Jae Valley Road in the Vinton Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2005 Community Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and that it shall have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood or community, and said special use permit is hereby approved with the following conditions: (1) The subject property shall be used only for the operations of asphalt maintenance construction yards. (2) All storage of asphalt or asphalt-related materials (asphalt sealer, acrylic crack sealant, all 55-gallon drums and contents thereof, latex paint, rubber blocks) shall occur inside a completely enclosed building. (3) No business vehicles or equipment shall be parked in front of the existing office and garage as depicted on the July 2, 2007, concept plan. (4) property. No additional exterior lighting shall be installed on the (5) Along the site's south, east and north boundariest Type E, Option 1 or 2 screening and buffering or its equiva~ent per existing vegetation shall be implemented. (6) A stormwater management facility and spill-detection system shall be designed, constructed~ maintained and periodically monitored to insure that no contamination is occurring onsite and/or on any neighboring property traceable to the subject property. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. 2 ~-5 PETITIONER: CASE NLIMBER: Timberbrook Properties, III, LLC 20-10/2007 Planning Commission Hearing Date: October 2, 2007 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: October 23, 2007 A. REQUEST The petition of Timberbrook Properties III, LLC to rezone 2.917 acres from 1-1 C, Industrial District with Conditions. to C-2, General Commercial District, for the construction of an administrative services building, located near the intersection of Valleypointe Parkway and Valleypointe Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Eugene Elliott, Jr., representing Roanoke Valleypointe, LLC (an adjacent land owner), requested a continuance of the public hearing to allow his client time to conduct a professional review and analysis of the development's impact. Mr. Elliott also raised a question about property owner notifications. c. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Philip Thompson presented the staff report. Ms. Maryellen Goodlatte, representing Timberbrook Properties III, LLC, presented information to the Commission. Justin Thomas, Department of Motor Vehicles, outlined DMV's relocation efforts and site selection process. --rhe Commissioners had questions/concerns regarding transportation improvements, traffic analysis, public notice, adjacent property owner notifications, and the length of DMV's lease. D. CONDITIONS 1. That the property will be used only for the following uses: Administrative Services Day Care Center Post Office Safety Services Utility Services, Minor Financial Institutions General Office Medical Office Laboratories Business Support Services Business or Trade Schools 2. That no more than 750lb of the property will be developed for building and parking uses. 3. That all on-premises signage will be aesthetically pleasing and be no more than forty (40) square feet in sign face area and no more than eight (8) feet in height. Outdoor advertising signs (billboards) will be prohibited. 4. That there will be no outdoor storage except under the following conditions: a. that it not be visible from the street b. that it not be higher than the elevation of the building 4 C. that it not compromise an area greater than 500/0 of the floor area of the building d. that it be screened from view with landscaping and/or other approved screening materials in accordance with the provisions of the Roanoke County Ordinance. 5. -rhat all utilities be underground. 6. That there will be no on-street parking. 7. That there wiU be sufficient truck loading spaces designed for each building site. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Hooker made a motion to favorably recommend approval of the rezoning request to the Board of Supervisors with proffered conditions. Motion passed 3-1. F. DISSENTING PERSPEC-rIVE Mr. Azar voted against the motion inorder to allow Roanoke Valleypointe, LLC, time to evaluate the proposed request before taking action. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Staff Report _ Vicinity Map Other Philip Thompson, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission (llIri Philip Thompson , \Ai - Deputy Director of Planning FROM: DA IE: September 28, 2007 SUBJECT: Timberbrook III, LLC Revised Proffers Attached is a revised list of proffers offered by Timberbrook III, LLC, that were received this morning, and therefore are not reflected in the staff report. The only change is proffer # 1 which lists a limited amount of permitted uses rather than listing what uses are prohibited (original proffers)~ This revision addresses the concerns staff had regarding the amount of higher intensity commercial uses that would be allowed with a C-2, General Commercial, zoning once the DMV lease expires on the property. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please contact me by phone (540) 772-2068 or by email pthompson@roanokecountyva.gov. PGT:pt Attachment VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REZONING OF TAX MAP NlTMBER: 037.07-01-14.06-0000 (2.91 acres) ) ) ) VOLUNTARY PROFFER OF ) CONDITIONS ) ) ThT RE: TIMBERBROOK PROPERTIES III, LLC Your applicant, Timberbrook Properties III, LLC (" Timberbrook"), hereby proffers that the above-referenced property be developed as follows: 1. That the property will be used only for the following uses: Administrative Services Day Care Center Post Office Safety Services Utility Services, Minor Financial Institutions General Office Medical Office Laboratories Business Support Services Business or Trade Schools 2. That no more than 750/0 of the property will be developed for building and parking uses. 3. That all on-premises signage will be aesthetically pleasing and be no more than forty (40) square feet in sign face area and no more than eight (8) feet in height. Outdoor advertising signs (billboards) wi]} be prohibited. 4. That there will be no outdoor storage except under the following conditions: a. that it not be visible from the street b. that it not be higher than the elevation of the building c. that it not comprise an area greater than 50% of the floor area of the building d. that it be screened from view with landscaping and/or other approved screening materials in accordance with the provisions of the Roanoke County Ordinance. 5. That all utilities will be underground. 6. That there will be no on-street parking. 7. That there will be sufficient truck loading spaces designed for each building site. Respectfully submitted, TIMBERBROOK PROPERTIES III LLC 2 r';,:,~';~:f~?N:~!~~!J~i(::;'iU~~~~~it;;iff;~jr:~3~~'{;~:r~~,'f~~~;~~~~,?'\f~\:~tA F'~l~~P9t~ti~;;'~(~~1~~f:~f~Q;\;;t~~~,~~~~i~!~;1;!i~.~:X)f}:~::,:t,:[;;!~l.~?;~:.~~lt:~i~2~:;" Petitioner: Timberbrook Properties III, LLC Request: Rezone approximately 2.917 acres from 1-1 C, Industrial District with Conditions, to C-2, General Commercial Location: Southwestern side of the Valleypointe ParkwayNalleypark Drive intersection Magisterial District: Catawba Proffered Conditions: 1. The property will not include permitted uses for: a. Automobile painting, upholstering, repairing, rebuilding, reconditioning, body and fender work, truck repairing or overhauling (Automobile Repair Services, Minor; Automobile Repair Services, Major); b. Manufacture of pottery and figurines or other similar ceramic products (Custom Manufacturing); c. Veterinary hospital and commercial kennels with exterior runs and yards (Kennel, Commercial; Veterinary H os p italIC Ii n ic ). 2. That the property will be developed so as to utilize landscaping and preselVe existing vegetation where possible. No more than 750/0 of each building site will be developed for building and parking uses. 3. That all on-premises signage will be aesthetically pleasing and be no more than forty (40) square feet in sign face area and no more than eight (8) feet in height. Outdoor advertising signs (billboards) will be proh i bited. 4. That there will be no outdoor storage except under the following conditions: a. that it not be visible from the street b. that it not be higher than the elevation of the building c. that it not compromise an area greater than 500/0 of the floor area of the building d, that it be screened from view with landscaping and/or other approved screening materials in accordance with the provisions of the Roanoke County Ordinance. 5. That all utilities be underground. 6. That there will be no on-street parking. 7. That there will be sufficient truck loading spaces designed for each building site. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This request is to rezone approximately 2.917 acres from 1-1 C, Industrial District with conditions, to C..2, General Commerc;al, to allow adrninistrative services, a Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Customer Service Center, within the Valleypointe Industrial Park. The Center's proposed building wit! be approximately 15,200 square feet in size and 31 feet in height. The one. story building wiH be brick with a pitched roof, which is similar in architectural design and materials to the existing office uses along Valleypark Drive. The TIA submjtted for this project states that the DMV will not require any transportation improvements to be made to handle the traffic associated with this use. This project is consistent with the future land use designation of Principal Industrial. Valleypointe was rezoned and developed as a mixed use industrial park and currently has industrial and office uses within the park. The design and architecture proposed with this use is consistent with the existing uses along Valleypark Drive and mainta;ns the unified theme in the park. The project is also compatible with the goals, objectives and implementation strategies listed in the Economic Development Plan component of the Community Plan. The only concern that staff has is with the uses that would be allowed with the C-2, General Commercial, zoning. While the petitioner has proffered prohibiting similar uses to the 1987 rezoning, C..2 zoning would allow more intense commercial uses when DMV's lease expires. An alternative to consider is rezoning the property to C..1 J Office, which would limit higher intensity commercial uses. I 1. APPLICABLE REGllLATIONS Administrative services are defined as 'Igovernmental offices providing administrative, clerical or public contact services that deal directly with the citizen. Typical uses include federal, state, county, and city offices." Administrative services are allowed as a by-right use in the A V (Agricultural Village Center), C-1 (Office), Co.2 (General Commercial), PCD (P'anned Commercial Development), prD (Planned Technology Developrrlent), and EP (Explore Park) zoning districts. In 1992) the County's Zoning Ordinance created administrative services as a separate use from general office. General office is a by-right use in the 1..1, Industrial District. Section 30-61 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance regulates properties zoned )..1. (1..1 Industrial District regulations are attached). Section 30-54 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance regulates properties zoned C-2. (C..2 General Commercial District regulations are attached). 2 Development of the site would follow the County.s site plan review process. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXIS-rING CONOrrlONS Backqround In October 1987, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors rezoned approximately 52 acres from A-1, Agricultural District, to M..1, Light Industrial District, for the purpose of a light industrial (mixed- use) park. In addition, the Board approved a special exception for office and commercial development. -rhe petitioner, Lingerfelt Development Corporation, offered ten (10) proffers as part of the rezoning approval (see attached 80S ordinance). Timberbrook Properties III, LLC, is offering to carry over the first seven (7) proffers from the 1987 rezoning. The other three proffers deal with stormwater management for the entire park. lighting on the northwest portion of the industrial park near residential uses. and the primary access to the property being from Peters Creek Road. In 1992, the property was rezoned from M-1) Light Industrial District, to '-1. Industrial District, as part of the County's comprehensive rezoning process. In January 1993, and again in September 1997 J the Board of Supervisors approved a use-not- provided..for permit and a special use permit on this property for the Easter Seal Society of VirginiaJ Inc.) to allow summer concerts. The permits were valid for a five year period with the last permit expiring ,n September 2002. Currently, the property is vacant. DMV currently is located in Crossroads Mall. Its lease ends during the summer of 2008, and is looking to relocate its operation. DMV has ranked this property as its top site to relocate its operation. DMV will relocate and open its new Customer Service Center by late-summer 2008. The petitioner would develop the site and then enter into a 'ong-term lease with DMV. TODograohvNeoetation The site has been previously graded and is therefore fairly flat. The elevation of the property is highest along VaUeypark Drive (1220 feet above sea level) and drops slightly in elevation (4 feet) over 150+ feet from north to south. The last 60 feet along the southern property line drops off more dramatically 'from an elevation of 1216 feet to 1194 feet. Except for some street trees along Valleypointe Parkway, the property contains no trees/wooded areas. Surroundina Neiahborhood Properties along Valleypark Drive (to the north and to the west) are zoned 1-1 C, , ndustriaf District with conditions, and contain office uses in one story brick buildings. Properties to the south are zoned 1-1 C and contain office and industrial uses (service garage and truck terminals). The Roanoke Regional Airport Commission owns the vacant property to the east which contains the airport's north clear zone. This property is zoned R-1 J Low Density Residential. The remaining properties in Valleypointe are zoned 1-1 C and contain light manufacturing uses or are vacant. 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site LavouUArchitecture According to the concept p'an submitted with the rezoning application, the proposed Virginia DMV Customer Service Center building will be approximately 15,200 square feet in size and 31 feet in 3 height. The one-story building will be brick with a pitched roof (see attached architectural rendering). The architectural design and materials of the proposed building are similar to the existing office uses along Valleypark Drive. Two entrances are proposed off of Vaffeypark Drive with 145 parking spaces being provided (100 for customers; 45 for employees). Concrete sidewalks are shown along all four sides of the proposed building. A dumpster is proposed in the southwest corner of the parking lot and one loading space is provided along the southwest corner of the building. Landscaping will be provided between parking areas and the public streets (Valleypark Drive and Valleypointe Parkway), as well as interior parking lot landscaping, Access/Traffic Circulation The property lies in the southwest corner of the intersection of Valleypointe Parkway and Valfeypark Drive. The property has approximately 300 feet of frontage on Valleypointe Parkway and approximately 450 feet of frontage on Valleypark Drive. As mentioned above, the concept plan shows two entrances off of VaHeypark Drive. These entrances will be constructed in accordance with VDOT commercial entrance standards. The site area can be accessed on Valleypointe Parkway from Peters Creek Road and 1-581 to the south and Wood Haven Road to the north. Peters Creek Road js a major east-west 4-lane divided arterial carrying 21 r000 vehicles per day (vpd). Valleypointe Parkway is a 4-lane undivided street with curb and gutter with 3,700 vpd. Wood Haven Road is a 2..Iane secondary road with 2,300 vehicles. and ValJeypark Drive is a 2- lane street with curb and gutter with 390 daity vehicle trips. The Peters Creek Road and Valleypointe Parkway intersection is signalized. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was conducted by Mattern & Craig on behalf of the petitioner and is attached to this staff report. According to the TIA, the DMV will generate 150 vehicles per hour (vph) during the AM peak hour and 260 vph during the PM peak hour. The critical intersection within the study area is the Peters Creek Road and Valleypointe Parkway signalized intersection. The AM peak hour is the critical hour at this intersection due to the higher volume of through traffic on Peters Creek Road and a large eastbound left turn movement. Under existing conditions in the AM peak hour, the westbound through movement on Peters Creek Road operates at level of service (LOS) D, while the eastbound left turn movement operates at LOS E. Upon full operations of the new DMV facility (2008), the westbound through movement will continue to operate at LOS o in the AM peak hour, and the eastbound left turn movement will continue to operate at LOS E. While the eastbound left turn lane will still operate at a LOS E, the delay at the intersection wiH increase. ~rhe overall level of service for this intersection will remain LOS C after the DMV project is completed. Mattern & Craig state that no lengthening of eXisting separate turn lanes is justified. They recornmend that the traffic operatjons of the signal be evafuated and changes in signal timing be made to optimize the signal operations in the future. Fire & Rescue/Utilities The nearest fire station is the Hollins Fire Station located 2 miles away from the site. A fire hydrant is located along VaUeypark Drive near the proposed entrances to this facility. The proposed 4 building is to have a sprinkler system according to the Water/Sewer application, which Fire & Rescue supports. Two (2) additional fire inspections would be conducted by the Fire Prevention Division each year. The property is served by public water and public sewer. An existing stormwater management pond exists for the entire parle Economic Develooment The Department of Economic Development does not object to the rezoning request. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COL'NTY COMMUNITY PLAN The future land use designation in the 2005 Community Plan for this property and the Valleypointe Industrial Park is Principallndustrral. Princ;pallndustria' is a future land use where a variety of industry types are encouraged to locate. Principallndustlial areas are existing and planned regional employment centers and are distributed throughout the county, convenient to major residential areas and suitable highway access. One of the land use types included in this designation is industrial parks developed under a unified plan, that are employment centers which may include mixed land uses including supporting retail services. This project is consistent with the future land use designation. Valleypointe was rezoned and developed as a mixed use industrial park and currently has industrial and office uses within the park. The design and architecture proposed with this use is consistent with the existing uses along VaJleypark Drive and maintains the unjfied theme in the park. .rhe project is also cornpatible with the goals, objectives and implementation strategies listed in the Economic Development Plan component of the Community Plan. 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS This request is to rezone approximate'y 2.917 acres 'frorr~ 1-1 C1 Industrial District with conditions, to C-2, General Commercial, to allow an administrative services use, a Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Customer Service Center, within the Valleypointe Industrial Park. 'The project is consistent with the future land use designation (Principallndustrial)1 is cornpat'ble with the goals, objectives and strategies listed in the Economic Development Plan component of the Community Plan, and is consistent with neighboring uses along Valleypark Drive. The site has ample space to comply with all the development requirements listed in the County's Zoning Ordinance. The T!A submitted for this project states that the DMV will not require any transportation improvements to be made to hand~e the traffic associated with this use. The only concern that staff has is with the uses that would be allowed with the C-2, General Commercial, zoning. While the petitioner has proffered prohibiting simi'ar uses to the 1987 rezoning, C-2 zoning would allow more intense commercial uses when DMV's lease expires. Staff would prefer that more uses be prohibited. An alternative to consider is rezoning the property to C- 1 , Office J which would limit higher intensity commercial uses. DATE: CASE NlrMBER: HEARING DA.rES: PREPARED BY: September 27, 2007 20 - 10/2007 PC: October 2, 2007 P. Thompson BOS: October 23, 2007 5 ATTACHMENTS: Application Zoning Map Land Use Map 1-1 District Regulations C-2 District Regulations Board of Supervisors Ordinances/Final Orders Letter from VDOT dated September 12, 2007 Traffic Impact Analysis dated September 25, 2007 6 5204 Bernard Drive POBox 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 CascNumber~O - l clod >:.) :~:: ',~'- :;....; .:r::....:i .;~: ;:.~.:>-i:;.::i~.~:.::~':~..; /i;}::.;~:;' ..;:~~~';:Y.?~"::: -~~;..<~:;:~~~:::~i""t?;r ~:.:;':: .ll:;::~;:: ;: ,~.,~..j} :~;':: \ ~. ,:....~.. " '.~. .:i .~ 'i:::':"f2:"}' ::~. .;; '( i~:/ '':''\. ::T .:..: " 'ALL' AP' D'L T.r."'" l\..1T.'S ," " ". .. .., ... . .. ... .'0 '1'" ....... . - . . .. .. '" I .' " ., '.. '. t-1-' ^ ': .:.... "'~' . ~.~!.. ):'..:::;' .:"~'\.:'.~ ':":~ ~ ..:...;....},;.'l ....:'~r. ~~;F; ~:~::.-:::{:).::~.~_.... ~. i::'.;..~... ::',;' ~ " :.;;, "'~.>.':'..~:.... '. '~>" t. 'l U ' . County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning For Staff Use Only Received by: n Date received: Application fce: l. ~ l. Q 0 Placards issued: BOS dale~ C)1'eck type of application filed (check all that apply) 'af Rezoning 0 Special Use 0 Variance 0 Waiver 0 Administrative Appeal 0 Comp Plan (15.2-2232) Review Applicants name/address w/zip Ii trtbu-h J-(Xl h ~ ,.O~ "'e-! l1t LL.(.. ~ 0 11 OX d-.o.a 8 , fl-fh.,: s,"hv tv 5t-r.M.t J~ ftc)ANah. VA ~4a I Phone: Work: eel 1 #: Fax No.: S4 0 '1 ~ 1-') rJ6b Sl40 'l ~ ~ - ~cJ Owner's name/address w/zip ~/rrY>~ Phone #: Wark: Fax Now #: Property Location l)~llfJ f~-Mh.. ~~~ ~cv.h..~~ Tax Map No.: 3 f"l /.0 .. 0 /. H. G Size ofparcel(s): Acres: -a. q i 1- ~ Magisterial District: Community Planning area: fk II. '.., s Existing Zoning: ..t - i Existing Land Use: V ..ytEfqjiw}A';~;tr14'-psJi ;i/4[/i:~#jjrjl~~o~ft$?ii.ttii~Jr~tf.e:ff;.4/RL!cANrs,d;JS[W(C~?t: Proposed Zoning: C. - ~ Proposed Land Use: ~~} - /) rl1 " Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, "Width, and frontage requirements of the re Yesk" No 0 IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FffiST. Doe;the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Ye~ No 0 IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FmsT If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes 0 No 0 o~t~ - aJ ,~:~~~~~,JfJ.!~~.~~Mi~#t.{gi~~t~~t'i.'~.fWdP(#tt~i~:~:::~l~t~;:;~:,'.~.:-;.::".: ~:.;::::~::;.:S';;:i;':f~jl\Jl:(ti::': VarianceIWaiver ofSection(s) oftbe Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation ofSection(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY 0 F THESE ITEMS ARE 1\fiSSING OR INCOl\1PLETE. RJSr.v/CP V/AA RlSIWICP V/AA EE Consultation EI=i 8 112" x 11" concept plan Application Metes and bounds description Justification Water and sewer application I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner's of the O\VTIer. RiSf\V/CP V/AA ~ Application fee Proffers~ if applicable Adjoining property owners urchaser and am actin g with the knowledge and consent Ovmer's Signature 2. JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT WAIVER OR COMP PLAN (15.2~2232) REVIEW REQUESTS Applicant TIMBERBROOK PROPERTIES, III, lLC The Planning Commission will study rezoning) special use permit waiver or community plan (15.2-2232) review requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare, Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use ad ditional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT Please explain how the project conforms to the genera) guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. SEE ATIACHED EXHIBIT Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property ltself, the adjoining properties) and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads) schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. SEE ATIACHED EXHIBIT 3 Applicant: Timberbrook Properties, III, LLC PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE REQUEST F1JRTHERS THE PURPOSES OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE AS WELL AS THE PURPOSE FOUND AT THE BEGINNING OF THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE: The applicant proposes to construct an office building which will be leased to the Department of Motor Vehicles (the "DMV"). The DMV wishes to relocate its customer service center and administrative offices to this site which is centrally and conveniently located. Although this will be an office use, the County's zoning ordinance classifies it more narrowly as an "Administrative Services" use because the offices are governmental in nature. While general office uses are permitted in the I-I district, administrative services uses are not permitted in I-I, but in C-2. The proposed use is consistent with other uses surrounding the property. And locating a regional DMV center on this parcel at Valleypointe takes advantage of the existing arterial road network, as encouraged by the County's zoning ordinance. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE PROJECT COJ\lFORMS TO THE GENERAL GUIDELINES AND POLICIES CONTAINED IN THE ROANOKE COUNTY COrviMLTNITY PLAN. The Community Plan recognizes that planned industrial parks such as ValleyPointe should include mixed uses. Already in place at ValleyPointe are private office uses and governmental office uses. A DMV center on this parcel is consistent with the County's Community Plan and with existing ValleyPointe development. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE Th1PACT(S) OF THE REQUEST ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF, THE ADJOWING PROPERTIES, AND THE SURROUNDING AREA, AS WELL AS THE IMPACTS ON PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES, INCLUDING WATER/SEVVER, ROADS, SCHOOLS, PARKS/RECREATION AND FIRE AND RESCUE. The proposed use is not expected to have any negative impacts on adjoining properties or the surrounding areas or any negative impacts on public services and facilities. Rather, constructing a DMV office on this heretofore undeveloped parcel will aid in the overall development of V alleyPointe~ Carom: 2000-163 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF Tract lE3-1 (2.917 AC.) BEGINNING at Comer 1, an existing rebar iron pin, being the northerly corner of Tract IE2 (P.S. 13,Pg. 29), said point also located on the southerly right-of-way of Valley park Drive (Virginia Route#5003); thence leaving Tract IE2 and with Valleypark Drive for the following 2 courses; thence with a curve to the left which said curve is defined by a delta angle of280 33'43", a radius of661.62 feet, an arc of329.82 feet, a chord of326.41 feet and bearing N 510 01' 48" E, to Comer #2, an existing rebar iron pin; thence N 360 44' 57" E, 70.08 feet to Corner #3, an existing rebar iron pin; thence leaving Valleypark Drive, with a curve to the right which said curve is defined by a delta angle of 900 00' 00", a radius of50.00 feet, an arc of78.54 feet, a chord of70.71 feet and bearing N 810 44' 57" E, to Comer #4; an existing rebar iron pin, said point located on the southerly right-of-way ofValleypointe Parkway; thence with Valleypointe Parkway for the following 2 courses, S 530 15' 03" E, 140.44 feet to Comer #5, an existing rebar iron pin; thence with a curve to the left which said curve is defined by a delta angle of 30 30' 34", a radius of 1959.86 feet, an arc of 120.04 feet, a chord of 120.02 feet and bearing S 550 00' 20" E, to Comer #5A, an existing rebar iron pin, said point being the northwesterly comer of Tract IF-I; thence leaving Valleypoint Parkway and with Tract IF-l S 520 33' 19" W, 332.08 feet to Comer #10, an existing rebar iron pin, said point being the southwesterly comer of Tract IF-I and a corner of Overnight Transportation Co. (D.B. 972., Pg. 569); thence leaving Tract IF...} and with Overnight Transportation Co. S 520 33' 19" W, 205.57 feet to Corner #11, an existing rebar iron pin, said point being the easterly comer of Tract lE2 (P.B. 13, Pg. 29); thence with Tract IE2 the following 2 courses; N 370 26' 41" W, 222.14 feet to Corner #12, an existing rebar iron pin; thence N 240 41' 20" W, 35.00 feet to Comer #1, the place of BEGINNING and containing 2.917 acres, being all of Tract lE3-1 as recorded in Plat Book 15, Page 130. Community Development P~anning & Zoning Division NOTICE TO ApPLICANTS FOR REZONING, SUBDIVISION WAIVER, PUBLIC STREET WAIVER, OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITION PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE PROCEDURE The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning) Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver or Special Use Permit petition if new or additional information is presented at the public hearing. If it is the opinion of the majority of the Planning Commissioners present at the scheduled public hearing that sufficient time was not available for planning staff and/or an outside referral agency to adequately evaluate and provide written comments and suggestions on the new or additional information prior to the scheduled public hearing then the Planning Commission may vote to continue the petition. This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the new or additional information and provide written comments and suggestions to be included in a written memorandum by planning staff to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall consult with planning staff to determine if a continuance may be warranted. POTENTIAL OF NEED FOR TRAFFIC ANAL YSES AND/OR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver, or Special Use Permit petition if the County Transportation Engineering Manager or staff from the Virginia Department of Transportation requests further traffic analyses and/or a traffic impact study that would be beneficial in making a land use decision (Note: a list of potential land uses and situations that would necessitatefurther study is provided as part of this application package). This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the required traffic analyses and/oT traffic impact study and to provide written comments and/or suggestions to tbe planning staff and the Planning Commission. If a continuance is warranted, the applicant will be notified of the continuance and the newly scheduled public hearing date. Effective Date: April] 9, 2005 TIMBERBROOK PROPERTIES, III, LLC Name of Petition By: ~ F'~ Petitioner's Signature1 S at torney & agent AllgllSt 20, 2007 Date Western Virginia Water Authority Water/Sewer Availability Application Date: -!?Jl~L~.1-- Applicant: _'D~1?~~J~~~_~ep.~1~~~_~-J_,:-Lc. (c.l.o '7rE:-V~ $TFA\J$$) Mailing Address: _r.:.t2..:_~~_~_.?_~~~l_____________ ~^~G>\'-e VA Z'tol'b -----------~------------------- Phone: _1~~~}_~~1:.]~~___ Cell: _______________________ Fax: __(?i~l_<J~~___J~~!:___ P rope rty Add res s: __?_\_~~__y~~~.Y..!::~~~__!~~~~_______ City or County: -~~~~-~~~!X_------------------------- Tax Map Number(s): -.2.1~':]_=-L:J~~~li'^-~UA-~Mi~-~f-M.;-yqr.. l/e.Hla.E:S Development (Subdivision) Name: -~~--~~:f-~~~~-~ Single Residential, Duplex, Multi-Residential, Subdivision, or Commercial Facility? G:oMM~\A-\-1 CIVIc.. - DMV .17~Vl~ G.E::.t-l~ Water Meter Size Requested: _Jp__I2.~__Q~JJ..~.tl~'?_______________ Sewer Lateral Size Requested: _tr!._f;~_PJ~gY~~l.tL~p_______________ COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING FOR NON-RESIDEN-rIAL AND MULTI-RESIDENTIAL SERVICES Tt>~ Domestic Flow Required? .* _pm~~~___GPM ..* (Attach completed "Sizing Water Service Lines and Meters" Form AND "NonaResidential Sanitary Sewer Checklist". blank forms available on website under 'IEngineers" section) Is Building to be sprinkled?@)/ NO 1t>9l' Minimum Fire Flow Required? __~~~~_GPM Return to: David Barnhart, Utility Planner, Phone: 540-853-1588 Via Mail : Fax: E-mail: Website: 601 South Jefferson Street, Suite 300 Roanoket VA 24011 540-853..1 (J 17 David. BarnhartCWweste rnvawater .orQ westernvawater .org Rev. 1/29/07 ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS Tax Parcel No. 037.07-01-14.06 TIMBERBROOK PROPERTIES III, LLC T AX MAP NO. OWNERIS) I ADDRESS ZONING 037.07-01-14.01 Roanoke Valleypointe, LLC 11C And Professional Arts Building, Suite 800 037.07.01-14.05 30 West Franklin Road I Roanoke, Virginia 24011 037.07-01-14.08 Charles D. Fox, 111 and Donn W. Branch 11 Co-Trustees of the Warren W. Hobbie Trust P. O. Box 12821 Roanoke, tVirginia 24028 037.07-01-14.04 Tech Federal Credit Union 11 C P. O. Box 1999 Salem, Virginia 24153 037.07-01-07.00 LIPS Ground Freight, Inc. I 11 (formerly Overnite Transportation Company) I P. O. Box 1216 I Richmond, Virginia 23218 I 037.07-01-05.00 Roanoke Regional Airport Commission R1 Jacqueline L. Shuck, Executive Director II 5202 Aviation Drive, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 I CONCEPT PLAN CHECKLIST A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the land use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County permitting regulations. The concept plan should not be confused with the site pI an or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a bui lding permit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted by the zoning district and other reguJations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver, community plan (15.2-2232) review and variance apphcations. The plan shouJd be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on tne nature of the request. The County Planning Division staffmay exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the followinK are considered minimum: ALL APPLICANTS / a. Applicant name and name of development ....,......., b. Date, scale and north arrow ~ c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions ~... _ d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties /' e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. ...../""'r. ..........-- 'g . .............' h. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties All property lines and easements All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other pu bli c ways within or adj acent to the deve ropment Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces ............. - i . ~ Additional infornlation requiredfor REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS v' k. Existing utihties (water, sewer~ storm drains) and connectlons at the site ~- l. Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers --==.- m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals --==-- n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections ~_. o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants ---==--p. Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed N~ q. Ifproject is to be phased, please show phase schedule 1 certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. TIMBERBROOK PROPERTIES, I II, LLC By: ~f~~ Signature of applicant I S a orney agent 8/20/07 Date 6 wo:rJdNIDSWmS11YW :11V'Vr3 S:I't6-ra (c>>~l :XV:l L Ln'-t'U (OPSI :3t-&O~ IH 01r l VI NOlI iI\ '3~()t.IVQI 6990l )(01 'O'd MS '~nl'o3^V NOll18~8 to9,.. VINIQl:IlA '3~ONVO}j ..r. ..-. --._ S'lJ3NN Vld-S)JOA 3 A MnS-S1:I33N InN3 'J"d 4S3.L V lJOSSV N3GSW01 , ~ II~ I~ Ie II lEI I;J~ i!1 ;; I!:. ! !ll~ 1=, iilCl -. ... i:, ~ IQ IJ ~~~ii : I!! ii! ! i I ~ ~ ~!I ~I~ ~ ~ I ~~ "I~~~~ Eijt III! ;ii~l~ ... ioj I . ,.,- -,,~" ---- .. .. .,.,.., .--' .. ~~" -..-'.-.. ~----~~ ---~ ,-'". ~:;;;:..:::~ .~ ~ -----.. ~ ..~ "" \ .- . . \\ \~ \\ \\ " \\ \\\ \ \\ \~ , \\ ; ~~. ~5u irJ~tr~r ~iii:j=lw ~l~:;"'s - ~ .. . ... .....II~ "',&u.D ~,. .~..I' ."..".." ~.. .~ ""..- ~ I 'tl~ -~~~i "it;tidfCt !;li~:~li ! 0.: I ~ f ; i i i ,- f I t j I ~ S I fb~I=' ~l:lt.. I :fl~11 .., .... ~ 10 a . ~ NMOHS $V Oll-lDOz: lDOC 'VI 13oqWD\daS "...., ~. rcM=i K3 c.t:t1 ~tB ~~ C,) ~ ~ t3~ ~ 5>- E;:C ::: ~f ti~ ~~ .... ~~ ~t; ~ f3 ~~ 5~ ~l4IC1}~f3~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Q "- ~ j:;: ~ ~t= ~ ~E--t ~@; ~ ~~ h ~z ~ l:: ~~ lle z ~ ..c,~ 1t:W:: ~ ~ :I 8 ~~G.g~~i~ CI)~ m...."C~~ ~~ ~ 1;~ ~~ u~ ~ ~~ a; 0.. ~"Il; t_...~ 2 S<~ V\ o 2:::S ~2: 0....... ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ . a _c I~ !I <8 ...1 :., 1")"" 8~ ~!=I O,i ;,io OC"'l -- -- 1&1...,,,,,, f.:)" o~ z~ ~~ ~; ,,;,,:i: ii~;; :1 ZVlZ .-- --,- .... ~N~ UQ :;q:i c~ ""~::t =0 f- - ~ ~~ ~; ID C oel .. ~tn .o~ lilt- - >- II ~~ cs~ :::) u 9~ ~~ 1--.....- ~8 ~~ ~g ~; a:: ~CI --I-- I ~i ZZ a::;u a .'"'PlOfll 1111111 \ ...., DU..l.ll \.l II II r, ,......". . . . , \ ~ II 1'( I I :, i I ! : I II ' I I ; ! i : ~ .....~, - I I 1 ~ VIRGn~IA: BEFORE THE ROANOKE COlTNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REZONING OF TAX MAP NUMBER: 037.07-01-14.06-0000 (2.91 acres) ) ) ) VOLUNTARY PROFFER OF ) CONDITIONS ) ) IN RE: TIMBERBROOK PROPERTIES III, LLC Your applicant, Timberbrook Properties III, LLC ("Timberbrook"), hereby proffers that the above-referenced property be developed as follows: 1 ~ The property will not include pemritted uses for: a. Automobile paIntIng, upholstering, repalnng, rebuilding, reconditioning, body and fender work, truck repairing or overhauling (Automobile Repair Services, Minor; Automobile Repair Services, Major); b. Manufacture of pottery and figurines or other similar ceramic products (Custom Manufacturing); c. Veterinary hospital and commercial kennels with exterior runs and yards (Kennel, Commercial; Veterinary Hospital/Clinic). 2. That the property will be developed so as to utilize landscaping and preserve existing vegetation where possible. No more than 75% of each building site will be developed for building and parking uses. 3. That all on-premises signage will be aesthetically pleasing and be no more than forty (40) square feet in sign face area and no more than eight (8) feet in height. Outdoor advertising signs (billboards) will be prohibited. 4. That there will be no outdoor storage except under the following conditions: a. that it not be visible from the street b. that it not be higher than the elevation of the building c. that it not comprise an area greater than 50% of the floor area of the building d. that it be screened from view with landscaping and/or other approved screening materials in accordance with the provisions of the Roanoke County Ordinance. 5. That all utilities will be underground. 6. That there will be no on-street parking. 7. That there will be sufficient truck loading spaces designed for each building site. Respectfully submitted, TIMBERBROOK PROPERTIES III, LLC By: Steven S. Strauss, Manager 2 ,..~- lfj Li# ,- --. \~ J1Il1',.,lfd-'.Rt iL ._" .~- '-., fi 'j~ , ': '.,;~.. .' - <'-, 11IlI! - ~ ^'"'......... ~ llI.IIfl~~ ..., - --, - · )~ ~ - - -_. jJ~~~>t' - ~- .--- - --- - . -- ~~ ~~ ;I."n,. .~:JII!Dl ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGULATIONS Page 49 of 80 b. Accessory structures: actual height of principal structure. (B) Maximum coverage. 1. Building coverage: 50 percent of the total rot area. 2. Lot coverage: 70 percent of the total lot area. (Ord. No. 121900-11,91,12-19-00) Sec. 30-58-6. Special Regulations in th~ Clearbrook Village Overlay District. -rhe following special regulations shall apply within the Clearbrook village overlay district (A) Landscaping. Required landscaping within the Clearbrook village overlay district shall comply with the standards contained in section 30-92-4.1 of this ordinance. (B) Signage. Signage within the Clearbrook village overlay district shall comply with C- 1 sign district regulations, except as modified by section 30-93-14(F) of this ordinance. (C) Lighting. Lighting within the Clearbrook village overlay district shall comply with the provisions of section 30-94 of this ordinance. (0) Utilities. All new utility lines and services within the Clearbrook village overlay district shall be located underground. (E) Residential use types. Residential use types within the Clearbrook village overlay district upon the date of the adoption of this ordinance shall not be deemed to be nonconformitiest and may be reconstructed, altered and/or enlarged consistent with the requirements contained in section 30-58-5 of this ordinance. In addition, single family detached dwellings may be developed in the district on lots of record in existence on the effective date of this ordinance. Any dwelling constructed shall not be deemed to be a nonconformity. No new subdivisions for residential purposes shall be allowed within the Clearbrook village overlay district, except that family exemption subdivisions shall be permitted pursuant to section 30-100-11 of this ordinance. (F) Parking. All off-street parking, stacking and loading areas within the Clearbrook village overlay district shall comply with the provisions of 30-91 of this ordinance, including construction standard provisions found in section 30-91-6(A)1. (Ord. No. 121900-11, S 1 J 12-19-00) SEC. 30-59, 30-60. RESERVED. * SEC. 30-61. 1-1 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Sec. 30-61-1. Purpose. (A) The purpose of the 1-1, industrial district is to provide areas within the urban service area which are suitabte for less intensive industrial activities. These areas are primarily designated based on the suitability of the land in terms of slope and freedom from flooding, as well as the availability of adequate sewer and water capacity, access to arterial road network, and proximity to rail and airport facilities or the interstate highway system. This district generally coincides with the recommendations for the principal industrial land use category contained in the community http://library2.municode.com/newordslDoc View/12222/1 /150/15 3 9/27/2007 ARTICLE III. DISTRlCT REGlTLA TrONS Page 50 of 80 plan, and particularly those areas unsuitable for more intensive or potentially hazardous industrial uses. Distributing these areas around the county in a planned manner to create employment centers within close proximity to residential growth areas and reduce heavy traffic generation of industrial uses is encouraged. Since land with suitable characteristics for less intensive industrial development is limited in the county, a high degree of protection is promoted where industrial development is located adjacent to existing or future residential areas. The conversion and/or redevelopment of existing non-conforming uses in this district which are unrelated to industrial needs is also encouraged. (Ord. No. 042799-11) 9 1f., 4-27-99) Sec~ 30-61-2. Permitted Uses. (A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to aU other applicable requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards are listed in Article IV, Use and Design Standards, for those specific uses. 1. Agricultural and Forestry Uses Agriculture 2. Civic Uses Day Care Center * Park and Ride Facility Post Office Public Maintenance and Service Facilities Safety Services Utility Services, Minor Utility Services, Major * 3. Office Uses Financial Institutions * General Office Laboratories 4. Commercial Uses Automobile Repair Services, Major * Business Support Services Business or Trade Schools Equipment Sales and Rental * Laundry 5. Industrial Uses Custom Manufacturing * Industry, Type I Landfill, Rubble * http://library2.municode.com/newords/Doc View/12222/1 /150/153 9/27/2007 ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGULATIONS Page 51 of80 Recycling Centers and Stations * Transportation Terminal Truck Terminal Warehousing and Distribution 6. Miscellaneous Uses Amateur Radio Tower * Parking Facilities * (8) The foUowing uses are allowed only by Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 30-19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards are listed in Article IVJ Use and Design Standards, for those specific uses. 1. Commercial Uses Commercial Indoor Sports and Recreation Mini-warehouse * Surplus Sales Truck Stop * 2. Industrial Uses Composting * Resource Extraction * Transfer Station * 3. Miscellaneous Uses Aviation Facilities, Private * Broadcasting Tower * Outdoor Gatherings * (Ord. No. 82493..8, 9 2, 8-24-93; Ord. No. 042297, 9 1, 4-22-97; Ord. No. 042799-11, 9 2, 4-27-99) Sec. 30-61-3. 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. Lots served by private well and sewage disposal system; a. Area: 1 acre (43,560 square feet). b. Frontage: 100 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. 2. Lots served by either public sewer or water, or both: a. Area: 15,000 square feet. b. Frontage: 75 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. (B)Minimum setback requirements. http://library2.municode.com/newords/Doc View/12222/1 /150/153 9/27/2007 ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGULATIONS Page 52 of 80 1. Front yard: 30 feet, or 20 feet when all parking is located behind the front building line. 2. Side yard: a. Principal structures: 1 0 feet. b. Accessory structures: behind front building line and 3 feet from side line. 3. Rear yard: a. Principal structures: 15 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. All structures: When adjoining property zoned Residential, 45 feet, including rooftop mechanical equipment. The maximum height may be increased provided each required yard (side, rear, or buffer yard) adjoining a Residential district is increased two feet for each foot in height over 45 feet. This distance shall be measured from the portion of the structure which exceeds 45 feet. In all other locations the height is unlimited. (D)Maximum coverage. 1. Building coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area. 2. Lot coverage: 90 percent of the total lot area. (Ord. No. 42694-12,9 9, 4-26-94) SEC. 30-62. 1-2 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Sec. 30-62-1. Purpose. (A) The purpose of the 1-2, industrial district is to provide areas within the urban service area which contain existing more intensive industrial uses or are suitable for such activities. These areas coincide with the principal industrial land use category contained in the community plan and are designated based on the suitability of the land in terms of slope and freedom from flooding and the rerative remoteness and absence of substantial residential development which could be adversely affected by such development. In addition, the availability of adequate sewer and water capacity, access to arterial road network, and proximity to rail and airport facilities or the interstate highway system are major considerations. Distributing these areas around the county in a planned manner to create employment centers within close proximity to residential growth areas and reduce heavy traffic generation of industrial uses is encouraged. (Ord. No. 042799-11, 9 1f., 4..27-99) Sec. 30-62-2. Permitted Uses. (A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements http://library2.municode.com/newordslDoc View/12222/1 /150/153 9/27/2007 ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGULATIONS Page 37 of 80 height is unlimited unless otherwise restricted by this ordinance. b. Accessory structures: 15 feet. (D)Maximum coverage. 1. Building coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area. 2. Lot coverage: 80 percent of the total lot area. (Ord. No. 62293-12,9 10,6-22-93) * SEC. 30-54. C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. Sec. 30-54-1. Purpose. (A) The purpose of this district is to provide locations for a variety of commercial and service related activities within the urban service area serving a community of several neighborhoods or large areas of the county. This district is intended for general application throughout the county. General Commercial Districts are most appropriately found along major arterial thoroughfares which serve large segments of the county's population. The C-2 district permits a wide variety of retail and service related uses. land uses permitted in this district are generally consistent with the recommendations set forth in the Transition and Core land use categories of the Comprehensive Development Plan. Site development regulations are designed to ensure compatibility with adjoining land uses. Sec. 30-54-2. 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 are listed in Article IV, Use and Design Standards, for those specific uses. 1. Residential Uses Accessory Apartment 1r Home Beauty/Barber Salon * Home Occupation, Type I * Mu'ti-Family Dwelling * Two-Family Dwelling * 2. Civic Uses Administrative Services Clubs Cultural Services Day Care Center * Educational Facilities. College/University Educational Facilities, Primary/Secondary * Family Day Care Home * http://library2.municode.com/newords/Doc View/12222/1/150/153 9/27/2007 ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGULATIONS Page 38 of 80 Guidance Services Park and Ride Facility * Post Office Public Assembly Public Parks and Recreational Areas * Safety Services * Utility Services, Minor 3. Office Uses Financial Institutions * General Office Medical Office Laboratories 4. Commercial Uses Agricultural Services * Antique Shops Automobile Dealership. New * Automobile Repair Services, Minor * Automobile Rental/Leasing Automobile Parts/Supply, Retail * Bed and Breakfast * Boarding House Business Support Services Business or Trade Schools Commercial Indoor Entertainment Commercial Indoor Sports and Recreation Commercial Outdoor Entertainment Commercial Outdoor Sports and Recreation Communications Services Construction Sales and Services * Consumer Repair Services Funeral Services Garden Center * Gasoline Station * Hospital Hotel/Motef/Motor Lodge http://library2.municode.com/newords/Doc View/12222/1 /150/153 9/27/2007 ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGULATIONS Page 39 of 80 Kennel, Commercial * Pawn Shop Personal Improvement Services Persona' Services Restaurant, General Restaurant, Family Retail Sales Studio, Fine Arts Veterinary Hospital/Clinic 5. Industrial Uses Recycling Centers and Stations * 6. Miscellaneous Uses Amateur Radio Tower * Parking Facility * (8) The following uses are allowed only by Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 30-19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards are listed in Artie'e IV. Use and Design Standards, for those specific uses. 1. Civic Uses Adult Care Residences Halfway House Life Care Facility Nursing Home Religious Assembly Utility Services, Major * 2. Commercial Uses Automobile Dealership, Used * Automobile Repair Services, Major * Car Wash * Commercial Indoor Amusement Convenience Store * Dance Hall Equipment Sales and Rental * Manufactured Home Sales * Mini-warehouse * Outpatient Mental Health and Substance Abuse Center Recreational Vehicle Sales and Service * http://library2.municode.com/newords/Doc View/12222/1 /150/153 9/27/2007 ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGULATIONS Page 40 of 80 Restaurant, Drive-in and Fast Food * Surplus Sales Truck Stop * 3. Industrial Uses Custom Manufacturing * Landfill, Rubble * Transportation Terminal 4. Miscellaneous Uses" Broadcasting Tower * Outdoor Gatherings * (Ord. No. 82493-8, 9 2, 8-24-93; Ord. No. 022796-14, 9 1,2-27-96; 042297-14, 9 1,4-22-97; Ord. No. 042799-11,92,4-27-99; Ord. No. 102803-15,92,10-28-03) Sec. 30-54-3. Site Development Regulations. General Standards. For additionaf, modified, or more stringent standards for specific uses, see Article IV, Use and Design Standards. (A)Minimum lot requirements. 1. Lots served by private well and sewage disposal system; a. Area: 1 acre (43,560 square feet). b. Frontage: 100 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. 2. Lots served by either public sewer or water, or both: a. Area: 15,000 square feet. b. Frontage: 75 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. (B)Minimum setback requirements. 1. Front yard: a. Principal structures: 30 feet, or 20 feet when all parking is located behind the front building line. b. Accessory structures: Behind the front building line. 2. Side yard: None. 3. Rear yard: a. Principal structures: 15 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: http://library2.municode.com/newordslDoc View/ 12222/1/150/153 9/27/2007 ARTICLE Ill. DISTRICT REGULATIONS Page 41 of 80 a. Principal structures: 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 two feet for each foot in height over 45 feet. In all 'ocations the height is unlimited unless otherwise restricted by this ordinance. b. Accessory structures: actual height of principal structure. (D) Maximum coverage. 1. Building coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area. 2. Lot coverage: 90 percent of the total lot area. (Ord. No. 62293-12, S 10,6-22-93) SEC. 30-55. RESERVED. SEC. 30-56. INT IN-rERCHANGE DIS-rRICT (RESERVED). SEC. 30-57. peD PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. Sec. 30-57-1. Purpose. (A) The intent of the Planned Commercial Development (PCD) distr;ct is to promote the efficient use of commercial land by allowing a range of land uses and densities and the flexible application of development controls. -rhis may be accomplished while also protecting surrounding property, the natural features and scenic beauty of the land. -rhe Planned Commercial Development district is provided in recognition that many commercial, office and residential establishments seek to develop within unified areas, usually under single ownership or control. Because these concentrations of retail, service and office establishments are generally stable and offer unified internal arrangement and development, potentially detrimental design effects can be recognized and addressed during the review of the development. For these reasons, the provisions for the PCD allow greater development latitude. Districts should be proposed and planned for areas that provide for adequate development and expansion space, controlled access points, landscaped parking areas and public utilities. Development of the PCD will take place in general accordance with an approved Master Plan, which may allow for clustering of uses and densities in various areas of the site. P'anned Commercial Development districts should be a visual asset to the community. Buildings within the district are to be architecturally similar in style and the relationship among individual establishments should be harmonious. The site should be well landscaped and parking and loading areas are to be screened. (Ord. No. 92794-17,3 1, 9-27-94) Sec. 30-57-2. Permitted Uses. {A} All of the residential, CIVIC, office and commercial use types listed in Article II of this ordinance are permitted in the PCD. Residential use types shall be limited to no more than thirty http://library2.municode.comlnewords/Doc View/12222/1 /150/153 9/27/2007 1 11/11 1&;8?-3 VIRGINIA: Page i of 2 BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY A 52.218 acre parcel of land, generally located at Peters Creek Road and I-581 within the Hollins Magisterial FINAL ORDER r---.. co .......... ,..... N " o .,....... District, and recorded as parcel #37.06-1-1 and #37.07-1-8,9,11,12,13 in the \I} ~ Roanoke County Tax Records. TO THE HONOPJ\BLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: I-- z lLJ t- Z o u WHEREAS, your Petitioner, Lingerfelt Development Corporation, did petition the Board of County Supervisors to o rezone the above-referenced parcel of land from A-l, l- e/) Agricultural District to M-l, Light Industrial District for the ~ o Lt.J > C> cr: 0- ~ ~ purpose of a light industrial (mixed-use) park. WHEREAS, after due legal notice, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing of the peti tion on October 6, 1987, at which time, all parties in interest were given an oppor- tunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, after full consideration, the Board of County Supervisors determined that the rezoning be approved. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned parcels of land, which are contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps as Parcels 37.06-1-1 and 37.07-1-8,9,11,12 and 13 and legally described below, be rezoned from A-l, Agricultural District to M-l, Light Industrial Oistrict..with special exception for office and commercial development. . ... /~8 7- 3 Page 2 of 2 Legal Description of Property: See attached Exhibit "A" for description. BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be trans- mitted to the Secretary of the Planning Corrunission and that he be directed to reflect that change on the official zoning map of Roanoke County. ADOPTED on motion of Supervisor Johnson and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisor Sri ttle, Garret t, McGraw, Nickens, Johnson NAYES: None ABSENT: '-fY)~ ~~ ~ Roanoke County Board of Supervisors , Clerk 10/30/87 CC: Rob Stalzer, Director of Planning Arnold Covey, Development Review John Willey, Real Estate Assesment .:.~ i , /t!;8'7-.3 ., .. to ~ EXHIBIT "A" ~ .' ....-..... ., --.-..... . ... ...-;,...........:. ." ~ .~'0~.,.~,.. .,."'7:7~~~~~~:.:~.~ .'~" .'. ",:. ,""y: .: '~~::'." 4~ .,. '";. ~ . ," '.BEGINNING at an existing Virginia: Department of 'Hi gh~ay's'" ~onu~en t on the northerly side of a service road (Recess Lane) 14,.., to .' . Virginia Route 117 (Peters Creek~Road)" S 57004'25" W - 10.081 to' a se: iron rebar,~' .t~e ~ctual pla~e.:. o~ BEGINNING; , , , .' .~.., , :':.' , . ". , f": .. . . ... '. ~ .. ..oil... .. II ,., :. r .... .. t .. . ,.THENCE, along"-the north'R/W of.' said service road, S 57004'25" w '. ......... to a 'set . ir~n rebar, '~corner. to' Smi ~h 1 S. rransfer Corpora tion; :< :. ." .::.. . ':'.:' ". .: ...: ~ :-:, .:.':. ':':':"~~:<~:.':"'-."_. :..':': ~:::':.".:r.:~...'.,'''., ::.~. ~';" ~;:;.:<'; ;...:.,.,....:... . .. .' .' ','.' .' .. . . '. >.....:..THENCE le'aving'.said 'service 'road "an'd with' the line of Smith's . ~:. Transfer Corporation, N 45018'05t~. W - '1013.50' .to a set iron rebar; . ';...::;..:; I; .:..:. : :.:. ..' ~ '.~ ..' II......:: :..~...... ..... '. ..... . .:~:~?~: .:..~.:~.:.~ ", .:. . H.~:....-:.THENCE 'continuing along. sa_id lin~',.N"46,o52'.10".W .;.5~ . 50 t to a . , :~~~/:~:~"~ e ~ ';'~ .~?~ ":::~~~'~" . ::>::':~; . :~~.:.~::.~' L'.:':>:. ~'" '.i::':' :.~//' .;:{ ".:::' :'. :~.... '. . ~.: . . :. ': ___ ~.: ':' '::'" ..,.. ..-:~..)~>:':~:THENCE; S .59Doi's5,.i'.W ~:"867~'57'.";:'to an --existing: iron rebar, corner · ..... :'.:' '. ....to Overnitq '..Tra'nspor.tation Company;. >....:~.:::..:. ....,'.... '. , :: :' .:. ....:. I'., .. -":::i'''~::~ .:: :;"":. .;~~.:. :~..:...~.>..:..:.I <.~..-i....'" .... ~,.I': ~'. ,....' ....... .~HENCE wi'th the >li tie':':of ....Ove.rn'i te~ T r:ansporta tion Company, .'. :..~~;',S 30058'05" E'~'.,,597.27.';.:. to an existing iron rebar on the northerly,. : \: ::':;" / ~ ~,~ ':':- f~ ~'~:~~: ~:;~. ;:. ~.~:~.~:.~. ::~.;T~::: ~::~.< ;:7: .'~:::': . ::;: ;:.(:':;., "'>::" :: '.."::' -<. '. '. . . ' . .. '. , .:.;.:.....~:..:.THENCE with' 'the"nor'th'e'rly'.side of 'Recess.Road, N 80012120".W - . . :.:_I:.:~ 66.011 .to ~n existing iron rebar;.' corner to Industrial Development "':~'.~:.;}'::.:.~.:.:Authori ty of Roanoke ...County " .Vi.rginia T/A Truck En~erpri ses .':- .-.... .... ......" :,~~:~ ~.~ ~~?~ ~~. ~~ ~.~ ~ f ~';7.~~7/E:;~~~::~~~P('~~~T~~ ~:;;';:~~~~~~~;t:~imIE~?~~} {:.( '~<;;;; .':....:, -',: .~;', ;.< ;.'.::.. .':. ',~ ~ >.:" ~ . ,: .'. : :.~.: ;. ':. ;.. '.~ :.. ~. ' ':.. ~~:. '. '. ~~::~~f:,~;~~:~ THENCE wi thO t~ e....1 i'n e".~: 6 f ~.Tru'c k~. . Eft t e'rp'r i. 5 es Roa n (, ke''',~ I nc. , . .:. ... . :'.~.'. . . ...:. .:~~. r' . ~'.'~ .': ". <...... :. . ~.:.\~~"~:.. ..N 30,0 58 1 0 5 t~ .ll ...~. ..~?17. . 00 ~. .:' to. .8 n . ex i s ~ i ng : iron r e ba r; ~~. " ":.:.. ..~:.~:~'~.::.::'.'::':. ." .~ \" '.-. :"., .~:. .... '..~" . ~.4'l..::.:...~.;'~':":;'~~"" ..;...~..:....:..<..~:.;.~:..:>....::r.~::.~~;.:.;~..:.::~. ....:.::;..:.~...::~.\...:.:.::.{~.::~.~.~;..: :..:..::.......: .' ...:"':: ...~.~!..~....:::.::..:;..:..:::....~.;::.-..:.~<;::../:~.'..::.... '..~ .. .... '.. .:...~.:..,:~.~r.. THENCE ~i th the ~ li tie' of .Truck" ~En.rterpri ses Roan'oke ;~.....'Inc.~~:.;-..~;:~:~.:~~..: ..~: :..~.;.:~~~:~::.. ..:.....-~.. '-';-'. ,~..~.::~:-/~~~: S 59001.155" W -.: 5.43.69'.. tc? an" existing.'ir.o'n .reb~'~. on..~he.: easterl)'. ......~..~.: '... .~.=-~':'.'"'' .::~~~; ~\;.. :~ i.~.~:~ ~ ,o.~. ~ ~ ~r, ~\~ .~.~. .~. ~.f::'. ~ ~:~ ~ ~ s.; ,t ~ : ~ :.'l ~? ! ~ ". ~.::~>~' ~ :'; ,:: : .~: ::.:<r:'~;}> . :..~..:..;;'?~::<: .~. . : ". ::~ i, ;-.,' .:.:' "".;:' ::: .. ,. {~<::.THENCE' w~t~.. th~ ,e'a.s terly 'side ~f. ;}n ~er:s.t.a ~'e. 581th'e f ollo\Vi ng .' . ~ ,~:.'..":' . . \': ',: ::~. :::0 ". ~. \:. ~~. ~..; '''.:;.';{; ;'. :::r:~/'< . ,. . J:~ '~':~:.< ::.,' ':.~".' :.: ':::-/'. .q:~' :~).) :~.'; .;.: /- ~:;~, ~ j ~ y..::-:.'. . ,: . . .:., . .... . -. .' . ',' . . . .:: :~. -::. :':. :.;' :.~. :_:. :. .' <\..~..~..:': ::.:. ::'~'>.~.' .,:': N 180 33 I 55 ". w......~..:. i31. '10' . 't o' ." a ri'. '~~i s ti ng." V . D. H .' monumen t'; .'~:. '.' ~..;""'. .~" <.-.:'.~;..:;.::(~"~,...t.N 44023'40".W -....347.15' ..to' an ...e~isting 'V.D.H. monument; ..' . ~<:''':....;. .<':~..~'..""\,'::'~~..:"~~:...:F "'N. 20052' 50" .~ ...:.... .145".51'. .to a~. existing V .'D. H. monument; .. ..... :. : .' . ...~;.: ..: '.-. .~~:~..I.~ .:: '~: ".' N 270 34 I 50" .. W .~.. 'I .9 & ; 29 ".. to Cln ex is t i ng V. D. H, monumen t; ..:........... ....~~.~.;~:~~>.}t,~:,\~;~~~.. N ..18: 56.;_45.::- W '~.' 193 .. 8 6 :-::~.t o' . an: e x ~ s t ~ ng .v. D. H .' monument;.. '::.";;:,':,'. ":'.:::".":, ,. . . ..:..,..:......;!..:::.:~.;..:~.~..:-~:..N 11 09.45' .W.'-..194.45 ""..to an .exlstlog V.D.H~:.monument.; __:::;,..:........ :...... ..\... ~~:::~~:.,;:!..:'.","..://~.\:~<~.N. 15005 t 25" W .~ .194. '43 ':; .to~ an . exi s ti ng V. D ..H .~.' monumen t; '. '.' ..P:......: . ,. :._., ~f~ ~~ :'.::'~:~:' ;~':".:.'. ./~...:.\.~'..:: . N 06 0 41 t 10" .' W :.. '.~ 24'2 . 80 t....:- t o~.' B'n .'e xis t i ng "V ~ D. H .'. m on u me 1;1 t; : >:'1.' :..::. ..... . .". :...~~<:~~.~:..:.:.:.. ~:<~::I...N 00020'40" W_..-. 1h?_nh,...:.tn':=-n.'DY;~t~ns v.n J.f mnnl1rnt)-nt': .....~":.,...::. ......;\ :~: ;.':,~:::,,':',~~,."'(:':i:~:'w.";N 01056'301.'.E :.:~.":124.5~'::'.t~'.ari exIsting 'V..D.H~ 'monument. :..':.'.:. .-<..... ;.:.,.~ . '.'~ :~'. ~. ~.-. ...~. ..~~.':; <."~ :' :.., "~:":.~~"":", '.' . ".'-.:"!;.:~..;~.:~' :... <. '::;~;..:::. .:~.' :..... ".:.... ..y;~ ~ ..~..., . ,..:...:......~.~.:~:.....':.;: ;~..,,,,,: '< .:' .., ..: ~.: ...' .". :. ': . . ::':. )...~...<.:..~.~~;': a nd ~o r n er" t P.:. ~'i"mp-s or::t'. pr'o p e.I-, t y' ; ~'., > .. .<>.: >: : ", '.' . , . . >. ..... ..'.~.~:..;~~.:....... ..:..~:?:.~::.:.::::.~::><~....:.r...:;j:t.:...: .~.:...,;:.:...'..~.:. :-.~.:i.:.~.. ~'.:' :......: .... .' ...;...:.,.. '. ;.~'''']'..'......:' _....... .:.:~. ..'. THENCE,. w'i'th: the. li n'e:."of .Simpson 'N 53046120" E '~:'.J.184. 60 t. 'to a "set ..:'; r..; :. ,~ r. o~;,:.~ 7,~~~',~ ~":I;'<i>:~\:: :;. .}.~:':~~F;?t: ':(: /.~;: ~~::,.-\{~"-:}."":'? :.~'f)~:'..' ~:. ..:" ":;.;~'...'L:j ;::':'/'. . \; :),~:;.<.;', . ": ';....~ - " ~ ',;=:,{.:;';~:IH~NCE;: 'condriuing'.~ith. the..lin(;of ~inipson'N.,:55~5:St20~":E: -, .338.871 :;.;', );'.;.: ~ ~:;;:~,~,:: ~..~~:~,t i.~.~ -:,t:.'~~>.~,\~:~..~} >....:/~.:~~~:~;:~:.~:}:~.:::<::~.;.:! .~;, : ;:.~.:,: . . .:~::~;.~:::: ': ~'.~:. i; :: ::~':: '.. ._:.. :.::: ~. . · ~ .: . :~'I."","',;'~~.THENCE','.'wi th the""l'ine"~~ of .Simp.son.....& ,C'i tY.'of' R:oano'k'e'~ S 46057'40" E 51.19' . '. ... .... .. ~ . VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY A 52 ! acre parcel of land, generally loca ted north of Peters Creek Road, adjacent to I-581 wi th the Hollins Magisterial District, and recorded as parcel Nos. 37.06-1-1 (part), 37.07-1-81 37.07-1-9, 37.07-1-11, 37.07-1-12 and 37.07-1-13 in the Roanoke County Tax Records. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PROFFER OF CONDITIONS TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVI SORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: Being in accord with Section 15.1-491.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia and Section 21-10SE. of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, the Petitioner, Lingerfelt Development Corporation, hereby voluntarily proffers to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, the following conditions to the rezoning of the above referenced parcel of land: 1. The property will not include permitted uses for: a. Automobile painting, upholstering, repairing, rebuilding t recondi tioninq , body and fender work, truck repairing or overhauling: b. Manufacture of similar ceramic pottery products: and figurines or other c. Veterinary hospital and commercial kennels with exterior runs and yards; d. Outside flea markets, unless a special exception has been granted by the Board of Supervisors. 2. That the property will be developed so as to utilize landscaping and preserve existing vegetation where possible. No more than 75% of each building site will be developed for building and parking uses. 3. That all on-premises signage will be aesthetically pleasing and be no more than forty (40) square feet in sign face area and no more than eight (8) feet in height. Outdoor advertising signs (billboards) will be prohibited. 4. That there will be no outdoor storage except under the following conditions: a. that it not be visible from the street b. that it not be higher than the elevation of the building c. that it not comprise an area greater than 50% of the floor area of the building d. that it be screened from view with landscaping and/or other approved screening materials in accordance with the provisions of the Roanoke County Ordinance. s. That all utilities will be underground. 6. Tha t. there will be no on-street. parking. 7. That there will be sufficient truck loading spaces designed for each building site. 8. That the Petitioner will review the drainage situation for Valleypointe and implement a design for drainage facilities to either retain or detain the two (2) year storm (as has been required by Roanoke County) and to consider retention or detention for a ten (lO) year storm. 9. That all exterior lighting in parking areas on the northwest side of the project will be directed away from adjacent residential areas. 10. Tha t primary access to the property will be from Peters Creek Road. Respectfully submitted, LINGERFELT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BY .//,,//_1 (1-/(/"1" c/ - ~':;:: ";, .. .~V'?.1- h:v\~T I( \ ~; I, r...c /::.. ,,( ./:.. ..~~ / I ~ ..../ ';:) !,-z l~ :;:.. AT A RBGOLAR\:.MBBTI:RG OF TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF RODOD COUNTY, VIRGINIA, OLD AT '1'BB RODOa COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CmrrBR, TUBSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1993 ORDINANCE 12693-12 AUTHORIIIBG A DBB-HOT- PROVIDED-FOR PERMIT FOR A FIVE YBU PERIOD TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF TWENTY-FIW (25) CONCERTS PER YEAR TO BE HELD AT VALLRYPOINTE IN TEE BOLLISS MA.GISTERIAL DISTRICT UPON TD APPLICATION OF TEE EASTER SEAL SOCIETY OF VIRGINIA, INC. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 15, 1992, and the second reading and public hearing was held January 26, 1993; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Corrunission held a public hearing on this matter on January 5, 1993; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That a use-not-provided-for permi t for a five year period ending September 30, 1997, allowing a maximum of twenty-five (25) summer concerts per year to be held from April until September of each year on a certain tract of real estate containing 2.4 acres (part of Tax Map Number 37.07-1-l4) (unless the Zoning Administrator shall approve another location within Valleypointe Phase One) located at Valleypointe Corporate Development Community in the Hollins Magisterial District is hereby authorized. 2 . That the applicant has voluntarily proffered the following condi tions on the special use perrni t which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: Applicant shall be responsible for complying wi th all Use and Design Standards contained in S 30-87-3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Strategies for compliance shall be as generally outlined in the application materials dated November 13, 1992, and shall include the hiring of personnel to provide on-site security and direct traffic flow. Off-street parking areas shall be utilized as designated in the application materials. Adequate traffic lanes shall be preserved on all streets within Valleypointe. If parking is provided on Valleypointe Blvd., it shall be parallel parking only. 3. That this action is taken upon the application of The Easter Seal Society of Virginia, Inc. 4. Tha t this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Johnson, Kohi n ke, Nickens, Minn ix NAYS : None A COpy TESTE: ~~~ Brenda J. lton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board-af-Supervisors cc: File Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John Willey I Di r e ct or, Real Estate Assessment Paul Mahoney, County Attorney l Map Updated Verifi By: r By: n~t,,: I~ /,'1. 0..2 I .........~ - - ~................. ......,. ..... ...... I ".."" ~.. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVI SORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1997 ORDINANCE 092397-13 AUTHORIZING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD TO ALLOW SUMMER CONCERTS TO BE HELD AT VALLEYPOINTE (TAX MAP NO. 37.07-1-14.6) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE EASTER SEAL SOCIETY OF VIRGINIA, INC. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 19, 1997, and the second reading and public hearing was held September 23, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on September 2,1997; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That a special use permit for a five year period ending September 30, 2002, allowing summer concerts to be held from Apr il until September of each year on a certain tract of real estate containing approximately 2.4 acres (Tax Map Number 37.07-1-14.6) located at Valleypointe Corporate Development Corrununi ty in the Hollins Magisterial District is hereby authorized. 2. That the applicant has voluntarily proffered the following conditions on the special use permit which the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts: (1) Applicant shall be responsible for complying wi th all Use and Design Standards contained in S 30-87-3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Strategies for compliance shall be as generally outlined in the application materials dated November 13, 1992, and shall include the hiring of personnel to provide on-site securi ty and direct traffic flow. Off-street parking areas shall be provided using off-street parking areas within Valleypointe. Adequate traffic lanes shall be preserved on all streets within Valleypointe. I f parking is provided on Valleypointe Blvd., it shall be parallel parking only. (2) If the current site of the concert series becomes unavailable within the next five years due to the development of the property, the Zoning Administrator shall have the authority to approve an alternative site for the concert series within the corporate center. (3) The Special Use Pe rmi t shall run through the 2002 concert series. 3. That this action is taken upon the application of The Easter Seal Society of Virginia, Inc. 4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens A COpy TESTE: ~p.~ Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board cc: File Arnold Covey, Engineering and Inspection Terry Harrington, Planning and Zoning John Birckhead, Real Estate Assessments Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney ./ COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PO BOX 3071 SALEM, VA 24153-0560 DAVID S. EKERN, P.E. COMMISSIONER September 12, 2007 Ms. Susan Carter Roanoke County Planning Department P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Faxed 540-772-2108 RE: Rezoning - I-I to C-2 Timberbrook Properties ill, Steven Strauss Proposed Land Use - Administrative ServicesIDMV Route 1947 (Valleypointe Parkway) & Route 1948 (Valleypark Drive) Dear Ms. Carter: We have reviewed the above mentioned rezoning request and offer the following comments: 1. The proposed rezoning will increase the potential traffic generated from the site. 2. With the addition of proposed commercial entrances, the VDOT Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways should be adhered to where applicable. This would include meeting minimum sight distance requirements. 3. The current posted speed limit along Valleypointe Parkway is 40 mph. The minimum required intersection sight distance is 475 feet and appears to be adequate looking to the right. There does not appear to be adequate sight distance looking to the left. Valleypark Drive does not have a posted speed limit. A study is underway to detennine the appropriate posted speed limit for Va1leypark Drive for which the minimum required sight distance will be based. Sight distance at both proposed entrances should be field verified and measures taken to ensure the required sight distance is obtainable. 4. An alternate site layout was received by VDOT on September 10,2007 by e-mail. This layout shows two proposed entrances on Valleypark Drive only. Although this alternate appears more favorable for access management, a traffic impact analysis has been requested of the developer by Roanoke County and will be reviewed upon receipt. 5. Upon review and approval of site plans, a commercial entrance permit and/or a land use permit will be required for work within VDOT right-of-way. Information regarding any changes to the existing drainage system should also be included for review. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Ms. Susan Carter September 12, 2007 Page 2 of2 Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you. Sincerely, /aft! J1/~ Scott A. Woodrum, P.E. Staff Engineer VDOT, Salem Residency Traffic Impact Analysis Proposed Site Df Department Ilf Motor Vehicles ValleYPDint Parkway at Valleypark Drive TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS For Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles Roanoke County, V A For Timberbrook Properties lll, LLC P.O. Box 20287 Roanoke, VA 24018 September 25, 2007 Commission No. 2777 MATTERN & CRAIG, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · SURVEYORS 701 FIRST STREET, S.W. ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24016 (540) 345-9342 FAX: (540) 345-7691 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTR 0 D U crro N .. .. .. .. . .. . . . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. ... 1 A. PuI-pose .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . . .. .. . . . . .. . .. .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. . . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . . .. .. . .. ... 1 B.. Site Location and Study Area ................................ H .. .. H .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 1 C. Existing Land Use and Surrounding Area .................................................................. 4 D.. Proposed Land Use ................ _ . ~ .. .. _ .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . .. . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . 4 E. Existing and Future Roadways......... ... .. .. . ........... .. . ... ... . .. ... . . . .... .......... .. ...... ...... ... ... .... ... . ... 4 F. Sight Distance.. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . . . .. .. . .. .. . .. . . . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . .. . . .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . 6 II. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING (2007) CONDITIONS........ .............................................................. 7 A. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................. 7 B.. Levels of Service ............ .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. 9 C. Level of Service Analysis............ ........... . ......... .... ........ .... ... . ..... .. .. ................ .. ..... ........ .. .. ...... 10 III. FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT ........n.......................... 12 A. Background (2008) Traffic ................................................................................................ 12 B. Level of Service Analysis....................... . - .. .. - .. .. . . .. . . . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 14 IV .. TRIP GENERA TIO N ................................................................................................................................... 15 v .. TRIP D ISTRffi UTI 0 N ............................................................................................................................. 17 VI. ANALYSIS OF FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH THE DMV FACILITY ~H..A..."..~.. 19 A. Future (2008) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................................. 19 B .. Le vel S 0 f S erv ice ............................................................................................................... 19 VII.. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................~........................u........ 23 APPENDIX A EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS APPENDIX B TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS, DISTIDUTION & ASSIGNMENTS APPENDIX C CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS QUEUEING ANALYSIS K:\2 7\1777\Timberbrook- TIS .doc LIST OF TABLES Table No. Pa~ 1. Highway Capacity Manual Levels of Service and Delay.... ...... ........................... .. H"" 10 2. Existing Levels of Service. .... . .... ... eo .... .... . ................. .. .. .... .... ........ . .. ... .. . ... ...... ... .. _ .. _ . . .... ....... 11 3.. Background Levels of Service.. .. .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. . . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . . . .. .. . . .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. _ 14 4. Trip Generation.............. .. .. .. .. . .. . . .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . . . .. .. .. . .. . . . . .. .. . .. .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. .... 16 5. 2008 Total Projected Traffic Levels of Service............ ........... .. . . ..... . .......... .... ... .. ..... .... ........... ..... 22 LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Page 1. Proposed DMV Site................................................................................................................................................... 2 2. Location Map ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 3 .. Proposed Site Plan ..................................................................................................................."........................................ 5 4.. Existing Traffic Counts - Wednesday, August 29,2007 7: 30 - 8: 30 AM - 4: 30 - 5: 30 PM .................................................................................................................. 8 5.. 2008 Background Traffic......................................................................................................................................".... 13 6.. Existing Trip Distribution............................................................................................... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 18 7.. Site Generated Traffic ................................................................................................................................................ 20 8.. 2008 Total Projected Traffic ...................."......................................................................................................... 21 II K:\27\2777\Tirnberbrook- TIS.doc I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose Timberbrook Properties III, LLC owns a 2.917 Acre parcel of vacant land (Tax Map No. 37~07-01-14.6) at the intersection of ValIeypointe Parkway and Valleypark Drive in the Valleypointe Industrial Park in Roanoke County, Virginia. The parcel is currently zoned 1-1 ~ The property owner proposes to construct an administrative services building for Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)~ An application for rezoning the property to C-2 commercial use has been submitted to Roanoke County by the property owner. This Traffic Impact Analysis report is submitted at the request of Roanoke County to accompany the rezoning application. This report summarizes the fmdings of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) performed to determine the potential impacts to the adjacent street network caused by traffic generated by the proposed use of the property. To accomplish this objective, this study analyzed the existing (2007) traffic conditions and the traffic conditions at the opening of the facility in late 2008, approximately one year in the future. B. Site Location and Study Area The property lies in the southwest corner of the intersection of Valleypointe Parkway and Valleypark Drive. Refer to Figure 1 for an aerial view of the site. The parcel has approximately 300 feet of frontage on Valleypointe Parkway and approximately 450 feet of frontage on Valleypark Drive. The site area can be accessed on Valleypointe Parkway from Peters Creek Road and 1-581 to the south and Wood Haven Road to the north. Refer to Figure 2 for a vicinity location map 1 K:\27\2777\Timberbrook..llS.doc PROPOSED OMV SIrE Figure 1 2 .~~\ ~. -~ ...~; ~i'I'-t- '~,."v~~, cak.....~~~~ (~::::)'1ff, ~ ,~. ~o-- ~I, ./.., "~.I' " 2~~- "~.') I ': q q ~- .~~ . .~~f~nAi!'-, /e;,~~,,~p; " ~~c~~'^.... ..~. ., ..,...,~ '~~~i~\:m.to;fi". \-? ~" ...~' .p~~':~u,:" "% ,..,~% s"-~- . .. . ~ ~'iJrf~t .......... ~......... ~ - 6~:r!i"'" '0~.t;li: , '?i~ i:t -- 4' \..~ r ". ......_'::~fid" ' ,..." .:a..t.....1... "-, ....~ . :".~~~~~~~~~ '0\ , -~.., <J.r /...i~>'- ~ ~~/ /^~.;;/ / .../// " .:'::~?~::.: DMV Site ",<~'''v~ ./ / . ,/.... ",./ . ~N -_.'~~_,'-. '.'t".~' /.~ \..../ . ~..-. -- ~ /~// " <. -.'e~..... . ,';;:citD:i~~1t;':~' " ,..... t .J'~~:1 ,,) 1-', . ."~>~.... . "'~'" "'~~%ir'~-;-- O~'" ~', . .-.-~. t.., ~ " '" 0, ',.....~ LOCATION MAP Figure 2 3 of the site, a T-intersection approximately 1,600 feet north of the Peters Creek Road signalized intersection and approximately 2,100 feet south of the Wood Haven Road T-intersection. At the County's request, the study area consists of the following intersections: · Valleypointe Parkway and Peters Creek Road · Valleypointe Parkway and Valleypointe Drive · Val1eypointe Parkway and Wood Haven Road · The two proposed site entrances on Valleypark Drive c~ Existin~ Land Use and Surroundin~ Area The existing site is vacant. The property is surrounded by office buildings to north, south and west. To the east is the vacant land owned by the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission for runway approach clear zone. This airport land is undevelopable. D ~ Proposed Land Use The owner proposes to construct an administrative services office building for the DMV. Figure 3 provides the proposed complete site development indicating the 15,203 sf office building, adjacent parking lots and the two site entrance locations. E. Existing and Future Roadways The project study area consists of Peters Creek Road (Route 117) Valleypointe Parkway (Route 1947), Valleypark Drive (Route 194B) and Wood Haven Road 4 K:\2 TO. 777\Timberbrook- TIS.doc o , i~ ... f2s aaEyts ~f _~fe& :t~I:fi; ~ I :!;si ... . Figure 3 5 (Route 648). Peters Creek Road is a major east-west 4-lane divided arterial in the City of Roanoke with a 45 mph speed limit- Valleypointe Parkway is a 4-lane undivided street with curb and gutter and a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Wood Haven Road is a 2-lane secondary route with a speed limit of 35 mph. Valleypark Drive is a 2-lane lane street with curb and gutter 4 No speed limit is posted on Valleypark Drive as it is a short, dead end street. The site entrances will be constructed in accordance with VDOT commercial entrance standards. According to VDOT information, the Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes (AADT) on the study area streets are as follows: · Peters Creek Road, 21,000 vehicles per day (vpd) · Valleypointe Parkway, 3,700 vpd · Valleypark Drive, 390 vpd · Wood Haven Road, 2,300 vpd. All streets have 3 % or less trucks, although a higher percentage may occur at the Peters Creek Road intersection due to the adjacent trucking terminal. The streets, other than Peters Creek Road, are in Roanoke County. To our knowledget no improvements to the existing streets or additional streets are planned by VDOT or the County in the immediate vicinity.. F. Sight Distance The sight distance at the existing Valleypark Drive intersection was graphically determined from the road profile in the As-Built roadway construction plans for the Valleypointe Industrial Park.. VDOT criteria for sight distance at intersections, based upon the proper height of eye and height of object (approaching vehicle) was utilized to check the sight distance adequacy. The VDOT requirement for sight 6 K:\2 7\2777\Timberbrook- TIS .doc distance at an intersection on a roadway posted at 40 mph is a minimum of 475 feet. From the As-Built plans, the existing sight distance at the Valleypark Drive intersection was determined to be equal to or greater than 475 feet. Similarly, the sight distance at the two proposed site entrances was evaluated. A 25 rnph speed limit was used for this analysis~ which requires a minimum sight distance of 280 feet. At each entrance the sight distance to the west is much greater than 280 feet. To the east, the stop sign at the Valleypointe Parkway intersection can be seen from either entrance. II. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING (2007) CONDITIONS A. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Turning movement counts were taken at the Va11eypointe Parkway intersections with Peters Creek Road / Thirlane Road, Valleypark Drive and Wood Haven Road on Wednesday, August 29, 2007. It is assumed for this study that typical weekday traffic conditions existed during the periods in which the counts were taken. The counts were taken between 7 AM and 9 AM and between 4 PM and 6 PM. Schools were in session when the counts were taken. The counts revealed that the peak hour during the morning and evening counting periods occurred between 7:30 and 8:30 AM and between 4:30 and 5:30 PM. Figure 4 presents the results of the peak hour turning movement counts. The raw data and summary counts are contained in Appendix A. 7 K:\27\2777\Timberbrook.. TIS.doc t\I L "- (\f f'r) ,~, ~ Il') - OJ ~ 2/3 J I L~ ~75/127 t (( r52/8 lfi Wood Haven Rood O'\QJ~ U')-- ," lO~""" is e~ ':;::ti ~a: Peters Creek Rood 234/92~ 100//1022---- 213/"2, ~~ \:8 ~r:e ~ 0 ,~~ jlL L50//2. ----/236/1071 ,47/54 lti S!'tt\J ~,~ O)~U') .." t\I PROPOSED DMV CENTER TIMBERBROOK PROPERTIES ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2007 7:30 - 8:30 AM 4:30 - 5:30 PM ~ II SignaliZed IntersectIon . Uns/fJoollzed Intersect/on X/Y AM/PM Peat Hoor TraffIc COIIII. NO.. 2777 NTS FIGURE ~ 8 B. Levels of Service The study intersections were analyzed using Synchro 6. Synchro is a comprehensive software package that allows the user to model and optimize signal timing for signalized intersections to determine Levels of Service (LOS), based on the thresholds specified in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual published by the Transportation Research Board. Synchro also allows unsignalized analyses to be performed using the methodologies outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HeM). Analysis results for signalized intersections provide level of service calculations for all approaches as well as an overall intersection level of service~ Please note that analysis results for unsignalized intersections do not provide level of service calculations for all approaches or an overall level of service, but rather a level of service for movements andlor approaches that have a conflicting movement. Capacity and level of service are the design criteria for this traffic. In this study, level of service is the basis for the evaluation of existing traffic conditions and the impacts of the traffic generated by the proposed site. The HeM defines capacity as "the maximum hourly rate at which persons or vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a lane or roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions" . Level of service (LOS) is a term used by the HeM to represent different driving conditions, and is defined as "qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and their perception by motorists and/or passengers". Level of service varies from Level tlA II representing free flow and minimal delay, to Level "F" where greater vehicle delays are evident. Table 1 reflects the delay ranges in seconds drivers may experience for a corresponding level of service for 9 K:\27\2 777\Ti mberbrook. TlS.doc both signalized and unsignalized intersections. For signalized intersections, Level of Service F indicates that more than one signal change cycle may be required for a driver to pass through the intersection. Control delay, as defined by the HeM, includes ., initial deceleration delay y queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay". For example, an average control delay of 43 seconds at a signalized intersection results in level of service D operation at the intersection, as shown in Table 1. TABLE 1 Highway Capacity Manual Levels of Service and Delay UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION A verage Control A verage Control Level of Service Delay Per Vehicle Level of Service Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) (Seconds) A 0-10 A 0-10 B 10-15 B 10-20 C 15-25 C 20-35 D 25-35 D 35-55 E 35-50 E 55-80 F >50 F >80 c. Level of Service Analysis For the existing (2007) conditions, level of service analyses were performed for the three existing intersections noted previously on Valleypointe Parkway. The Peters Creek Road signal is owned by the City of Roanoke. For the '"signal analysis, information from the City was used to approximate the current timing, including the 4_0 sec. yellow and 2.0 sec. all red phases for all signal phases.. Minor modifications were made to the timing to take advantage of unused green time on 10 K:\27\2777\Timberbrook. TIS.doc minor volume approaches. Table 2 reflects the LOS operations for the peak hours counted. The analysis reveals that the intersection is operating at a satisfactory overall level of service C in the AM and PM peak hours. Ho'wever, as Table 2 reveals, the eastbound left turn movement is experiencing LOS E operations. This is the major movement into the Valleypointe Industrial Park with an existing count of 234 vehicles per hour. This is the critical turning movement in the intersection. The through movements on Peters Creek Road and the eastbound left rnrn control the level of service at the intersection. A queueing analysis has been performed for all Peters Creek Road LOS analyses using SimTraffic. The analysis reveals that the 300 foot long left turn lane is of sufficient length for the existing traffic. TABLE 2 Existing Levels of Service Signalized Intersections LT RT LT NB RT LTR LT RT Peters Creek Road B .~~.~: WB LT AM Peak Hour Va11eypark Drive A A Wood Haven Road A A B PM Peak Hour Valleypark Drive A A Wood Haven Road A A B B B 11 K:\2 7\2 777\Timberbrook- TIS . doc All Synchro LOS analyses are presented in Appendix C . Due to existing intermediate streets and entrances between the intersections analyzed, the actual counts are not the same for approaches at each adjacent intersection~ The volumes were balanced for the Synchro analyses by inserting the entrance to the US Forest Service offices and Research Road. Differences in volumes were adjusted and balanced at these intersections. This method was used to balance volume for analyses in this study ~ The turning volumes of these intersections necessary to balance the Synchro model are shown on the figures in this report. Level of Service analyses are not presented herein for these two intersections as they do not have significant volumes. III. FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT A. Background (2008) Traffic Background traffic is that traffic anticipated to use the existing street network at the time the proposed DMV facility is expected to begin operations~ but without the new facility traffic on the street network. The DMV facility is expected to begin operations in late 2008. At the recommendation of the County, an annual growth rate of 2.5 % has been applied to the actual 2007 traffic counts taken with this study in August 2007 to develop the 2008 Background traffic for analysis. Figure 5 indicates the projected peak hour Backgrou~d traffic volumes. The calculations for projection of 2008 Background traffic are shown in Appendix B. 12 K:\27\2777\Tjmberbrook~ TIS.doc ~~~ · L t.n ~ Il) ~ 5/5 J ~ L; r~~~to ~;~---J l t r 75/20 ---......... I J ~~~ "....... IOf.OU1 ~l') \~ ~"~ -v-t.. :I ~S y) If) ;/ ,," \C5 ~ Woo:t HCNBn Rood Peters Creek Rood 240/95 --1 1025/1050 --- 220/"51 ~ ~~ ~a: '0 N~~ '" ~~~ J~L Lso/IS -----/255/1100 ,SO/55 ltr ~~~ d!!J~ \l) (\J PROPOSED DMV CENTER TIMBER BROOK PROPERTIES ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA /.mOOJi II Slgnol/zed Intersect/on . Unslgnaflzed IntersectIon X/Y /JM/pu Peat HWf Traffic 2008 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC C1)1/1/~ NO.. ZT77 NTS FIGURE 5 13 B~ Level of Service Analysis The level of service operations for the 2008 Background traffic were analyzed to determine if any significant changes may occur. Table 3 presents the levels of service for the Background traffic at the three intersections in the 2008 AM and PM peak hours. Very minor increases in the control delay times result for the 2008 Background traffic. The levels of service remain the same as with the existing 2007 traffic. Detailed level of service results are presented in Appendix C, along with the queueing analysis. TABLE 3 Background Levels of Service Signalized WB NB SB Intersections LT RT LT RT LTR LT RT AM Peak Hour Peters Creek Road B PM Peak Hour Peters Creek Road D D Unsignalized EB WB NB SB Intersections LT LT LT LT AM Peak Hour Valleypark Drive B A Wood Haven road A A B B PM Peak Hour Valleypark Drive A A Wood Haven road A A B B 14 K :\27\2777\Timberbrook- TIS.doc IV. TRIP GENERATION The local DMV office provided information on the average number of customers served by the Roanoke Customer Service Center (CSC) for fiscal year July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007. The local CSC is open from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. The following average number of customers served during the corresponding AM and PM peak hour analysis periods are as follows: 8:00 - 9:00 AM, 81 customers 4:00 - 5:00 PM, 51 customers No further breakdown of customer data for possible peaks during any portion of a month nor for seasonal peaks is available from the local DMV. The AM and PM peak hour traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed land use was developed utilizing the methodology from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition. The Manual contains rates for State Motor Vehicles Department facilities, Land Use Code 731. Based upon rates provided in the ITE Manual, the anticipated traffic entering and exiting the site during the AM peak hour is 150 vehicles per hour (vph) and 260 vph during the PM peak hour. The trips generated by the land use code 731 for the AM peak hour compares closely with the local DMV customers served data for the first daily hour of operation (82 customers served x 2 trips each = 164 trips). However the PM trip generation rate from the Manual reflects a much higher number of trips during the PM peak hour than the local data would indicate. The critical intersection within the study area is at Peters Creek Road. The AM peak hour is the critical hour at this intersection due to the higher volume of through traffic on Peters Creek Road and a large eastbound left turn movement. Though the number of trips 15 K:\27\2777\Timberbrook- TIS.doc generated for the PM peak hour utilizing land use code 731 appears high as compared to the local DMV customer data, the PM peak hour is not the critical peak hour at this intersection. Therefore, for purposes of analysis, the trip generation rates, directly from the ITE Manual reflecting full capacity operations at the DMV facility are used for this study. Consideration of a reduction in the projected volumes for pass-by trips is not appropriate for this type facility. The ITE Manual does not provide guidance on the percentage of traffic entering and exiting the site during each peak hour. A similar government service land use available in the ITE Manual may be a United States Post Office; land use 732. The ITE Manual indicates approximately a 50 % entering and 50 % exiting directional distribution for both the AM and PM peak hours. The DMV facility may have longer visits than the average post office customer. To be conservative, a 60% entering and 40% exiting in the AM peak hour distribution and the reverse in the PM has been used in the study. Table 4 reflects the total trips generated by the proposed DMV facility and the split for entering and exiting trips in both peak hours. TABLE 4 Trip Generation AM PM Proposed Size ITE Trip Ends Peak: Hour Peak Hour Development (sf) Code Per Day (vph) (vph) (vpd) Enter Exit Enter Exit DMV Facility 15,203 73 2,540 90 60 105 155 On an average weekday, it is estimated that the DMV site will generate 150 trips (90 entering and 60 exiting) during the AM peak hour and 260 trips (105 entering and 155 exiting) in the peak hour. Appendix B provides calculations and backup for these site generated volumes.. 16 K:\27\2777\Timberbrook- TIS.doc v. TRIP DISTRIBUTION No information is available from the local DMV to assist in determining the percentage of customers arriving and departing from each direction. The best information available is the existing traffic counts taken in August, 2007. This same directional distribution would then be used to distribute the site trips and assign them to the existing street network. The existing directional distribution for vehicles arriving and departing Valleypark Drive is depicted in Figure 6. Backup calculations for the determination of the existing directional distribution are provided in Appendix B. Matching the existing directional distribution was the procedure used in this study to assign trips entering and exiting Valleypark Drive. Further distribution must be made to assign for Valleypark Drive trips into and out of each of the two site entrances~ The local DMV office has provided information that the facility will have a total of 54 employees, some of which are field personnel~ DMV further indicates that 10 employees arrive between 7:00 - 7:30 AM and up to 19 arrive between 7:30 - 8:30 AM. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that 30 employees arrive between 7:30 - 8:30 AM and depart between 4:30 - 5:30 PM. As depicted on Figure 3, the employee's parking lot is located on the east end of the site and the customer lot on the west end. A small number of parking spaces are located in front of the building. All employee entering trips are assigned to the east (1' entrance in the AM peak hour~ The customers can enter the customer lot from either the fIrst entrance or the west (2nd) entrance. Approximately two-thirds (67%) of the customers trips entering are assigned to the west entrance. The remaining customer trips are assigned to the east entrance. It is further assumed that all trips will exit at the same entrances by which they entered. The same assignment distribution is also assumed for the PM peak hour trips. 17 K:\27\2777\Timberbrook- TIS_doc ~ ~ ~ ,---/3>:/6:/. Wood HtNen Rood lr ;-...::-..,: t:::;LO ,,- ;...:~ ...."'1 .- II- . tr . 77.122X~ 93X/7SX SITE~.'..~ ~~ ~~ ~N "'~ Peters Creet Road J L 577./707. ~ L'Z7./97. ~l:J ~S iA1at ~o: II SI~nal'zed IntersectIon . UnsTgnallzed IntersectIon XXIYX Percent TraffIc (AM Peat /PN Peak) PROPOSED DMV CENTER T/MBERBROOK PROPERTIES ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA EX/STING TRIP DISTRIBUTION WI/II. NO. ZTT7 /ITS FIGtJRE 6 lR On the existing street network, the trips arriving and departing are distributed in the same manner as for the Background traffic. Figure 7 reflects the 2008 Site Generated Traffic as assigned to the existing street network and the two site entrances. Backup calculations for distribution and assignment are included in Appendix B. VI. ANALYSIS OF FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH THE DMV FACILITY AT Future (2008) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes The 2008 total projected traffic volumes were developed by combining the 2008 Background traffic with the Site Generated traffic volumes for the 2008 AM and PM peak hours. Again, no reductions for pass-by trips were included for the 2008 total projected traffic as such reduction is inappropriate for this type facility Figure 8 reflects the resulting 2008 total projected traffic. B. Levels of Service The level of service analyses were performed for the year 2008 AM and PM peak hours. The resulting LOS are presented in Table 5. 19 K:\2 7\2777\Timbcrbrook- TIS .doc , ;z ~ ,10/5 SITE----:- -...... sAs --.J ~S/I~ t ( 5 ee Detail) ........._ Peters Creek Rood ~o ~~ ,.Q J L L/o/,o I.<<J!:M. II Sfgnallzed Intersection . Unslgnal/zed IntersectIon X/Y AM/PU Peat Hour TraffIc ~b ~B ......0: 20 Wo:xJ H(j(en Rood tOo C\J- ~C3 2 d C: ~ .., -a ~ r- 40/65,-- 50/40 J f ~ , Va/Ii '/Xlrt J Drive ...~ r..........~ r~~;~2: ~ ~ SITE ~ f2 T: 3: 0 I.LJ cl : 'f'" C\J : 111 ~ Detail PROPOSED OW CENTER TIUBERBROOK PROPERTIES ROANOKE COUNTY. VIRGINIA. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC COUll. NO. Zl77 NTS FIGURE 7 l.O L ll) C\J <:) "'-,= . J~ jW1Lg --i;~80 t ct /65/30 lfr 1.000 COC\J,..... ~~~ Wood Haven Road \l')1.t') C\J~ cia C::~ ---145/25 ---185/~ ~ll! r-40/65 ,50/40 ~~ ~ ....~~I~.~~...~ t~~:~~~! l t ;S r ~ ,,1 65/245 t~ ~ &1 ~~ SITE ~ ~~ ~ ~ s , : ~'o ~ ~ : ~ -.. ~~ ~~ ~~ Detail ~ II SIgnalIzed IntersectIon . Unslgnollzed IntersectIon X/Y AM/PM Peat Hour Traffic Peters Creek Road 290/170~ 1025/1050 --- 220/175, ~b 'l::B ~~ ..... U") :?o~ "rC\f' a'\O JiL L 60/25 ~/Z65/1I00 ,50/55 lfr ~~~ '" ~~~ PROPOSED OW CENTER TIMBERBROOK PROPERTIES ROANOKE COUNTY. VIRGINIA 2008 TOTAL PROJECTED TRAFFIC COIII/.NO. ZTT7 NTS FIGJJRE 8 21 TABLE 5 2008 Total Projected Traffic Levels of Service ~ EB WB NB SB Signalized Intersections LT TH RT LT TH RT LTR LT TH RT AM Peak Hour Peters Creek Road E B A D D A D E D B PM Peak Hour Peters Creek Road D C A D C A D D D B ..' ,;'iY":;";' ""'.. ." "",.,'. ,'.,', ...,.. .;-,,' "'. ""'.'~'._~,:"'" ;,,, ',_. -,:':'l~::;i!:~:;' ';,-- . --;;., .,,::., . :..,' , ;,~. :';.:< '.<c" ':..... ,,,,.,.<,,, ~. U nsignalized EB WB NB SB Intersections LT AM Peak Hour Valleypark Drive B (L T) - A (LT) - East Entrance A A A - West Entrance A A A - Wood Haven Road A A (LT) B B PM Peak Hour Valleypark Drive B (LT) - A (L T) - East Entrance A A A - West Entrance A A A - Wood Haven Road A A B B The analyses indicate that the levels of service for the Peters' Creek Road signal will remain the same for all movements on each approach' with only slight decreases in the control delay, with two exceptions. The level of service for the Peters Creek Road eastbound left turn movement will remain at level of service E but there will be a recognizable increase in the control delay for this movement, from 57.1 sec. to 75.4 sec. The queueing analysis indicates that the existing lane is of sufficient length to handle the projected additional left turn traffic. 22 K:\2 7\2777\Timberbrook. TIS.doc The southbound left turn movement increases with the DMV opening. The level of service drops from LOS D to LOS E in the AM peak hour. The levels of service at all unsignalized intersections are LOS B or better for all turning movements. Appendix C contains the detailed LOS analyses. The queueing analysis follows each Peters Creek Road signalized intersection LOS analysis. VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study presents the appropriate existing traffic volume data, trip generation information, future traffic projections, level of service analyses and findings for Roanoke County to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed DMV facility on the existing street network and the requested zoning change. The study reveals that all unsignalized intersections will operate with satisfactory levels of service upon completion of the DMV facility. With minor tlIDmg adjustments, the analysis reveals that the Peters Creek Road intersection will continue to operate at a satisfactory level of service C even after the proposed DMV facility is in full operation~ Analyzing specific movements at the Peters Creek Road signalized intersection, we conclude that the two critical traffic movements are the westbound through movement and the eastbound left turn movement. The eastbound left turn is the major access to the Valleypointe Industrial Park. Evaluation of potential changes to the operations of these two critical movements reveals the impacts the proposed DMV traffic will have on this intersection, as follows: 23 K:\27\2777\Timberbrook. TIS.doc Under existing conditions in the critical AM peak hour, the westbound through movement on Peters Creek Road operates at LOS D. The eastbound left turn movement operates at LOS E. Upon full operations of the new DMV facility, the westbound through movement will continue to operate at LOS D in the critical AM peak hour. The eastbound left turn movement will continue to operate at LOS E. No lengthening of existing separate turn lanes is justified. We recommend that upon the opening of the DMV facility the traffic operations at the signal be evaluated and changes in the signal timing be made to optimize the signal operations. This will involve coordination with the City of Roanoke. 24 K:\27\2777\Timberbrook- TIS.doc APPENDIX A Existing Traffic Counts ~ ~ ~~ .J U) ~ M CD Cot') 'V I,() t- ~ CO 0 0 CO 0 N N Q') 0 0) 0> c( 0 N CO (0 t- ('f) m CO t- .....- 0 C; I'- to 0 tV) to co N to 0 t- CO N LO CO I- + + + to N 0) "'It C"') C") LO N en 'V Ol CO l() N ~ ....... 0> CD m 0 :0 II) r- eo CO (0 CO 0 Z W M U") to co co co &n III ~ N N M N N ("f') U") <0 (D to t- t- l{) IJ') N N N N N C'\I I- -J 'Ct en N en CO CD en CO -q CO CJ -.:::r ~ CD N CO M M M t- ee Ll) rn CD ...... co ~ M to 0 co 0 -.::t to OJ V ,..... ~ <.0 co 1J") 0 co -< v N N ~ 0 M C"') N ~ C"") "Cf M ...... ""I:t' M - N 0 N C"") co L() M N N N N N I- ...... M "l;f" 'o;;f' cry N N N M M M C"') M N N 0 N -r- ...... ...... ~ ...... ...... N 'l"""" ...- ..- ...- ...... T""" ~ t- o ...... 0 a 0 0 0 0 ...... ...... ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 "d- o 0 C) "d" 0 ~ oo::t ~ ~ .q (I') Z w I-:" ;: ::l T ::e "0 0 a:: lO co N N N co N CD U') U") N q- V 0 oq- CW) lO co {.p 'V 0 en 0 to N ~ co 0') M co 0:: .::JC t: N N lJ') <0 I,{) ~ .q ...:t t-.. aJ or- ('") N Q') C") N ...... -r- N N N N ...., co co C) co CJ) 0 co >. u.. CD M ...... N N N ...... N ....... ...... co 0 f UJ ...J 1:1 u: U CI) QJ U. ~ U') 0 ;; (j) N ...... N c <( ~ M (0 to to 0 N a ...... (0 eX) "'t ,...., <0 to N ~ 0 t() 0) en 0r- a) N ...... a) N 'C 0:: CD =' 0 ("") CD IX) ...... t-... ,.... c.o to oq a M v 0 a:) LO "'d" N CD CJ') M 0') CD ..- co 0 0 co 0 I- a:: ,.... N N N N ..- ...... t- O') rn co ....... N N N N N N -.:- en 0) 0'> 4' a; :z: ~ ...... ...... ...... ...... ....... 3: 11. l- >. c ~ 0 ~ co l"- T'"' M N co C) t- r-- N M N 0- M N t- O) I.C) M t- V co a; M N N r- eo C"o.l C x M 0 &r.l 0 ~ 0- U") ...... co CD ?- M 0 ,..... " ...... (") ,...., to "Cf N ...... ('t) ...... N N N ...... N N ~ I.{) It) N N N N ...... 'l"""" ...... ...... ....- ...... i"i ..J a:> ;0 It) 0 l"'- t: ID co to oo:::t M M .q- N M IJ') ;0 co :n N t-. ...... co N U") ..... t- o to- r- ...... ~ N C"') M m cry 0 co ~ C) N M c( ,....., C") I[) t- M 0 N M M N 0 M ~ Lt':l 0 N co 0 t- o ...... 0 0 'l"'"" .... or- N M M M N N N N N N N C"') M ~ CD ~ N ~ "l"""" ~ ~ ...... "I"""" N "I"""" ...... ~ ....... .- l- e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. a 0 0 0 a 0 "I- D a 0 ~ 0 "I"""" ..- ...... "'""" ~ CI) z c:( "':' w :j :; -r ..... "a 0 0 a: l"'- t-. 0) co to C"? 0 ... a:: ..!II: t M ..... -q to') M t'-- ~ LO CD r- r- ,.... P"- C() It) CD C') M ....... N t- co M N N ca u.. GJ -- ....... ...... (0 M ....,.. oo::t' C"") N ""'::t" ...... N t-- l.C) 10 I.() V tl"J c; ., 0 c>> W N (3 ii: U ..J - t.L II) ~ 4: f N t'--. ...... l{) M to eX) C") ...... "'d" CO LO N co. 'oct ()) 0 IJ) -q- N m to 0) co co ...... 0 ..- .- ::S' c: II:: CD ::l r- :; 0 N U') ao N m ,..... ....,.. N M 10 M M. 0 C"'J "I:t N 0 0 m ....... co 0 0 r- M co ,...... C) c ~ a:: 0 0 N N -- 0 N co 0 0 0 0 ::E ::II ~ m -; :J: or- N (I') ("') M N N .- N ...... ..:- or- -- ~ "I"""" N N N N C"') ("') ...... ...... ...- CD .,- -.:- ...... en ....... <( <( (I) -, a.. I- >. 0; i.: ~ r: ~ fti OJ .a 0 t- V r- CD N 0 N 0 0 lO ...... oo;t N ""=t oo::t N .c x: C"') C"') (0 C) = CD to ;; "Ct ~ r') 0 l"- N af) "0 C -;; 'tJ "II"'"" ...... ..- t- V 1.0 1.0 ..q to ....... M ...... -r- ...... ...... N v- GI ! C) 'E Q) r2 ~ CD ::s 'E 0 (.) W -I 0) M ;; CD 0 co ~ ll) CD 0 (0 N N ;r; 0') co N :; CD <C( CD t- N ~ N '" t- ....,.. ""It" M N M en <0 co LO to to- ,.- N C") co 10 N l() ...... ID ~ en M M "'d" oct It) N M N ....... ...... .- ,..- "'I"""" ....... 0 .... X z .... ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,- ...... 0 0 C) 0 ...... 0 0 0 ...... 0 0 ~ 0 0 N ~ ~ N ...... "'I"""" N ::) ~ 0 ~ U) :E t: 0 ..-- ...... (0 ....... ~ 0 a:> M N Ol <0 tt) en co N M 0 co ~ to co N M ....... m C; 0'> co ~ w ...... "'Ct -- ..- ...... N 'V 'V U') M "I:t Lt) 0> N U') -- C"\I N M M "II"'"" C'\I 0) 0> ....... 0 0) 0 IL ~ .... ,- ~ .- ~ ...... -- -- 0 a: iL . ll.- e ::J :! ~ a: ~ 0 N ....t 't'- l"- 'q" lO V r- ,.... v to "- ..q-- U) -.:t' M ........ "I:t M l"- N N CD an q- co <0 -q-- >- :::z::: N ..- ..- ,- ...... C"') T'"" -- ...... ....... ...- ....... I- :E t- ~ ..... <( C I- :E 0 % 0 a:> ~ N I.l) 0) N It) ..... M N co ~ N N N U') N :E 0 ...... C") to t.D (0 t--- - Ol ~ N N M N ...... co ...... m ..- co ('l') N co ~ .q- f') N --.::t ::) it: rJ) ....I . < C) an N co CD -- M CD co N 0) LO c0- co ll) ...... 0 0 M t'\I LO t- M ....... a LO 0 l"'- ....... 0 to- C'I? [1") ..... C") ('l') 0 M 0 CD 0 lO 0 N co 0 I- ~~ 0 ,.... (") N U) M N N N N ..- ...... 'r"" ,... ~ ...- "'I;t ""lit V 1"- ...... co <0 M 'V N N M M N M Z .... ~ " it ,; .J&:: 0 a: a.. .JIl: :J: Z 0 ~ 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tJ ~ . c CD - nil 0 ~ l- e .E 0 z >.. Z U o a:: :e l ! Q.~ t: w >. 0 0 D.. Ct.I ?"- M co in co ...... U') N 0 M ~ -.:t" ~ <0 N (0 0 'V V 0 :E CD .! ~ IX: . w .,.... N ...... "II"'"" to m ..q- I.t) 'V N N M M N M "II"'"" ,.- ,..., ...... ...... - M co 'V ~ LD to V U') .. 'ii~ u.. ~ ...J ~ 0.. > 0 u - i:i C iL 0 0 ~ Q. :I 0 I: .2 >- ~ " .! a:: 0 rt) N N -- N ..q- T- U') r- a) t- O> ~ ....... .,.... co ~ co ll') ID 0 ..- co to 0 0 t'- N 0 :E .E fi 'ii % ...... N "II"'"" N N ...... ...... N U l- f- C) U 0 > CD -I C Z en .... = 0 % CO 0 m It) CD 0 1.0 0 to N cry M 0) -.;t C"') ..q- ~ 0 ""It- ll) to m M N en 0 <D ...- 0 Z :'€ C) .,.... M ,- C"') N ~ ....- N t- O ..- m CX) ...... m M N M LO ro to 10 N ,..., ~ ex) M L(') M M ii: - ...... ...... oM .,.... N N N N 0::: :::t l- II) UJ rr I/J ~ a:: ::> ~ W t() t.n "iij Ii '" 0 U') 0 0 LO 0 Lf) a U) 0 U') 0 co na tn 0 I.t) 0 0 ...J UI T'"' 0 LO 0 ...... 0 It) 0 '0 '0 co ~ ("') 'V 0) M ~ -- C") "l:t C> <or""" M .,. 0 '0 "0 It') lO M V CD M ~ :i ("') ~ 0 M ..q- 0 0 co co 0 :t GO 0 l/) U') 0 r &t) U i= 0 .0 6 .b 0 an 0 .0 I- ..... ~ J, 0 J, rh 0 a.. ~ .n 0 an 0 .b 0 JJ ..... ..... ~ J, 0 an Lb 0 5: ;..:. ...... M -.:t cD ....... ("') .q- ... :I: 0 ...... (") v a ~ M ...;t "II"'"" M ~ irj "II"'"" M -.:t' X ~ 0 M V 0 ~ C"') 0 0 ::c t- f'. l"- e( to- o 0 X ~ v ..q- c( oct W ("of .,.... 1IJ N ...... W > D.. a.. ~~CJ ~ I'll 1j II) CD C "C m ~ >. 1'O o ,.... o o '- N 1'O m fa) NO ;; >; ~ C u.. ga~m :2<0, ~ .Q "tS ~ at C W ~ CD i.: ,Qni.! " 0 - . ca c: OJ ::I 3: o u >- a:: c:( ~ == ~ U) I- Z :J o U t- Z w :IE w > o ~ C) Z Z [t =>> t- W ...J o J: W > >to } ,; D.. ... ~ . 0 C c .:.: <<I 15 :;; ~ ~ e: '0 ~~~ >>0 ..... ;; E ~ :; .2 .2 3 u 0 . ...J ~ .. :5 ;;J, UJ ~ ~ + + + ~ Z W J- en w 3: :::e o fE 0 u ~ u:: C'lJ U- Q. c( >. a:: .! t- co > i:: a ~ U) c( w :E o a:: u. o ~ LL ~ at I- 5 z i:: o :t: ..... :;, o >0.. ~ ~ o D.. a:: . LL. 'E 00 ~i I- Ci > C o ~ x t; o >. ~ } o D.. a: . II. c: 00 ~i .... ~ c o I/) OJ C"') ll) ~~;;!;~ CD oc:t C') oo::t to :2 -J < I- o ... ~ 0 M M ~ ~ N ~ ~ V M CO to L() ~ ~ ~ M ~ to- ...... or- 0 N ~ -- ~ ~ (0 to ("') ~ ~ o o o ~ o o o o o o N N o ~ N ..- '" 0) o U') ("') ~ o o It) -- ..- o N ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 m ~ ~ v v ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ g ro ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ 00..- 0 0 ~ 0 0 N - 0 ~ ~ M M N ~ ~ cry I'- r- t- N M 1{) to- m ..- M v N N _ ~ o 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 N ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 m I'- ~ N ..- N N N ~ M N ~ 000000000 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ It) m m ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ re ~ ~ ,..... co a:I -q- (J) 0) U') CD "-T'""N;;~N"""N~ 00000000'0 It) co co ...- 'V co 0> oq- LO --NM""=tN-N~ NOOOOT'""O~~ ~ co to co t- rn lO N '" co .q-- NMM['I")C"J ,...... co M z ~ :; 00000 0 000 t:: w -J 000 - 0 0 0 0 - :J Er :t: I- I- oX " a: ...... 0 M N ~ ~ N ~ ~ ...J -< .... o to- 000 a 0 0 000 % I- :; tL: w ...J =;J a: .% I- l- X ~ Ii: -J 41( I- o I- ("') cO N Q) C') p.... to .q T'"" N U; co ~ C") N ('I') ~ z ..... :i 000 0 0 0 000 t: w .... M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :J a:: ::t: I- o N M ~ M N ~ 0 N ~ N N M N N ~ N ~ I- ::z:: e" it: ~ t- O t- Ng~~~ CD ,.... M ~ T'"" or- ~ N z ~ ~ 000000000 00000 -c- -c- ~ ..- 0 o o 0 000 co 0 0'> Q) ~ ;: oq :! ~ 0') ~ t: w ..J =' II: % I- N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x C) ii o T'"" ~ ~ W ~ N -- ~ CD CD ~ OJ ~ 00000 o a 0 000 ,-.---N......- --t- m ;: ::! ~ en I.() ~ o 00000 o 00000 o o 000 0 0 (,0 co ...,. C""J C) tO~~~~ M M .... o o 0 000 00000 o oo::t m 0 CD 0 ......ONmlt;) T'"" N N -- -- 00000 CX)o--m-q co :: N ~ ,..... co CD C) t--- (0 CD 0) en IX) t-- o 00000 o 00000 o M ,...... U') 0 M ~ ~ ~ ...... co o 0 0 0 0 o 00000 o 00000 o ~~~~;: NCDOCON ............N~<or- o 00000 o o 00000 o omvlOM C) co~::: ~ t.t) -- "'""" 00000 o ~CDmtt:l...... N ...... ~ N N IJ") N 0') ..- LO 0 CD co r- co C) co o a> o o 00000 ~~~ES M N """" 00000 o o 00000 o o 0> ~ m :: ~ N If) N -- ...... ...... N N ~ N 0 ~ ...... N w :!: i= CfJ 4n 0::: ~O~O~O&()Oiiiicol()ol,() 50:e ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- M ~ ~ ...... M ~ I ~ 0 ~ M ~ 0 ~ M .- ,...,,, w..... N ..- a.. m In tt' LC) 0 Ll) 0 'l) 0 ll) 0 ii ii t.O 0 It') 5 It) or- M ~ a ~ M ~ 0 0 0 q ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ g ~ I;: t;: ~ ~ 0 to th ~ .n o 0 :z::c o;~~oi1i~ N """" CL ~~ >. IIG "C U) OJ C "0 CD 3: >. CO c .... o 01 .... N ns 0) .. NU ~ ~ ~ C CI C LL ::I ~ CD .....<cn..., ~ ;,; :p >. ~8.c~ cp m! c ~. ::J :> 'E' 8 w ~ <t :E :E ::> rn I- Z ~ o o I- Z w :i w > o :E (!) z Z IX: ::J J- W ..J o :c w > ~ .! 1:1 . D.~~ e c ~ C ~ ~ ii!~ >.." 0 .!! 0 ~~B '0 -a c c :i .2 .2 3 ti 0 . ..J ~ G:I ~ ~ ;l rn t- + ~ z I- (I') w ;: ~ " o IX: ~ r:: o ~ ii: ~ ~-g to- 0 3: i::: o f- (f.I <( w :E-c ~a: 1L C ~ ~ LL ~ ~" .... g 3: c: o :r t- ~ o >- In ~ =: .JiI: 00. 0:::: CD ~ C u:o u.. e; :..!! .... Ci > C o Z t- ex: o z >.. =: C'G o 3: e: ~ u~ iL u. at ~ m ... ~ &: c o 3: + + w m rn M N 0 ~ N m 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ...J II( I- o .... MCDC:OLOM N N ""'" ll') r? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N-.:tN-CD NMNt-O ('I") CO") M N N ~~~~o or- 'II"""" ~ ,..... 'II"""" o 0 000 NN N..... N ~w~~~ --C)MLf>O ,...... ,..... t- to V ~~~~~ o 000 0 o t- N IJ') C') tnLOLn"ll::tN ......,.....to......c.o r- t-- r- U".l ~ ll)--N("")M ~~~~~ 00000 ll) co l,{) 1.0 (0 aJ It) (") ...,. tD C"') ...... M r) C"') ~~~~~ 00000 -NNN- ~~~ccco N V It), &t) M ~ M M t- 10 C") co 0 ::: 0) ~ (.Q ffi ~ """ONcYlC") OltOcnOCD N ("') M <o:;t M C"") o ~ Z to- ~ 000 0 0 0 000 v ('f') N co tn <D 0> co N c.o "I"""" rt') ::::: v co 0 M ..... V N ~ oq- co to CIJ to o ,.... N M M ~ ,.... ...... ...... w ~ ,.... t: w ..J o ...... ,.... 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ (J)MNO ...... N M M o o 0 0 0 0 0 000 00000 o =- a: % ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N 0 a ~ 0 0 ...... 0 ~ Uj C'f') M oo:;t ...... v f- ~ CJ a: m ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;x; ~ ~ ~ ~ o <0 CD -.:t t- ('I') N (") N ~ ~COMM(D ('D 0') ~ ::: ,.... M ,.... ...J <l( .... o t- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ N ~ N N ~ M N ~ ~ ~ N CJ:l ,..." ~I ~ ~ ~ 000)0-0> ...... or- N C'\I ~ 'l"""' N z "':' ~ 000 0 000 0 0 N ~ c.o <0 C"? IJ') (") -- o co r- N co C'? CD v <D N N ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ 8r')~~:; ...... - 'f'""" ...... ~ 0) v ,.- t w ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ID m ,.... ~ o 000000000 00000 o j a: % ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 r-... I.l) ~NN""""d""""'C'?N~ <OChCOc)~ en to- %: " i2 ~ - 0 0 0 N ...... 0 ~ ...... to-- m ~ m 0 ...... ~ ~ N ~ ~ N N ~ ~ M M N ~ ~::s~~ P- C"'") ....... ..J <l( t- O ~ CD "I:t U') ...... LQ 0 co (0 ~ oC")o,.-............ooco &D ,.... ~co~~~~~ T"" C") ...... ~ ..qLOM("")N M z ~ ~ 000000000 o 000000000 to Q') co aJ ....... co ~ en a:> I'- CD aJ t: w ..J N ...... NOM 0 N - ~ co t----~~~~~t---~ 00000 o ~ a: x to- ...q- N N 0 ..- 0 C"') oq- ~ It') ...... ,..... ....... Ll) II) T""' T""' N ~ v C"J CD to 0 M oq tl) l.O LO CD LD ... :I:: o a: 0-.............-0........-(0 'V U">OM~U")......"'l:t~g ~~~~m N ...... ...J -< .... o .... ~ ~ ,..... ~ ~ M T""' ~ ~ N N N (0 ~ "d" ~ CD to &t) ~ NNC'JOCO ...... ...... ,.... N ""- o N z t; ~ 000000000 o 000000000 NNNQ)O> N (W') (9) N N co N ~ W ...J OOO--.......OOON N O-OON~"""''l''''"'(O 00000 o =' rc % I~ ~ ~ I'- ~ ~ N ...... v ~ o 0.0 N N - 0 0 ~ <0 ,.... N U) r- oo:t OJ M (9) M ~ ....... M M V LO ""=t ..q OOMONNN-~ a) ..q C"I co ,..." ...... N C\iI <or ..- CD ....... (W') L{) ,..... co ..... co w :e i= ~ 0 ~ w w ~ ~ ~ n; n; U') 0 lJ') 5 In U') 0 It') 0 to 0 \C') 0 "ii n; LO 0 U) 5 It) ~o~~g~g~8ooqm~~~~~~~~oo:tO~M~OOO~~~~~~~ ct t..:. ~ 0 J, co .n 0 ID ': ~ ~ '!; g ~ ~ :s '!! ~ ~ '!:. g ~ u; ~ g ~ I- ~ -.:t .;, 0 .;, aD ~ en o <?~o~t')~~;: ~~~ ~..... 0 C) ~::o;~::to~~ APPENDIX B Traffic Projections, Directional Distribution & Assignments PROJECT J)M"; ,.) A Mattern & Craig CONSULTING ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS TYPE CONTENTS b J,- i (~lM'-~ T rt-&-.( (/:- -A M DATE COMM NO. L'711 PREL. FINAl SHEET NO. 'I, CAL. BY /'Yl sA CKD. BY I, 2. Z>O e Pr~;ec.-.f-~ 'bo.J:,jrl)J 1rr4[.('~ -AM Pf-c....-"-.Mo~ ... 4ss/A./Y(..) 2.5""/. r--..~ 1".1,.AJ1J....) 'f(,(' (2~~L c"u-l'\f7 .. A .s~ l.UrC... Cf" '0 v' +1... 0 r\ P ~ -ft..r s c...r to. e- J;.. f!..o (L~, ()J 6 0 cl ~ oj ~ 'Ro~ I ~ Tk,', (~ Y2.0-P OA.li ' - t2..o~ ., +0 ftvu-ft.-,j ~I/f'h I c.. , P e.. -t t.( : L~ e-e...-Ic" Il c> o-1J (p c. re. E~ L 2.~'I- ~ 1,.,,( J: -r J 0 0 I ,L If ~ 1.. ,1> X. 'f .,. 2.. &..1--0 l 0 --z.. S ~ 1.1.0 w~ L 4-1 ~ \. O~ '$ ~ 50 T \ 1.. '3 (, 1C.. /1 .: I-z.t..o' (l. 50 ')( 't ~ ~CJ ~. -r h.\ ',.l ~,....c..... t<-O · ( Ttz.) N~ '-- scr ;(. LQt..,c; - (.00 ., T 14- x- u .: ,~ R l' )L I( ~ 2( c. W~~_~_, I+,:v~ ~O~~. (v.J ~ ~) ...E_~..._ _ _ __4._______. _ _ _~... J<~ .ILg~.~~_.._~ S T __ _ _. _.. ~ ~ ~ "._ _ .~ n ._=: .., _q-__ R- '7 3 i I( ~ 75 W__rtJ . L. T It 51.- 7~ 2 ~ I, 0 "S -- - )(. 4r .: >' If .. 5~ 7S e; J.. · " ..J t~ r ~.',.,.. .f '- POi"' k.. w ~ 2 'P Co to. .s~ L ~') '/... \. ~'- ~ :: '} ~ T f '" l.~L..~ /0 K .1 <<+ t... 1\ O'l.. ~ '2. ~ I FXHIBfT PROJECT :DMV -rIA Mattern & Craig CONSULTING ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS DATE q Iii / \)] COMM NO. '2- 777 . z/~ PREL. FINAl SHEET NO. _ CAL. BY ;-t1 s A CKD. BY TYPE CONTENTS ~A-r,.-~1ro~ (,.D-.{.I,~ -AM AM P~k \ u~~ (c.~"'.}.J V P (J @. V '- \ ~ ~..,. ~ 'tJ t' I'~ (\I P t> ) l\{~ L 11. >'- '.CJ~~:; I~ T 9~ ><. 1.~1-S.. 100 V'Pf ~ VI 14 rt I\} ~ L S '/.-. l\~"2.S- ~ T ~ l- I , ~ R ~ ..J- I ( .. e. V "- , I ~ t e.. ,.Ie.. 1>... ..~ EB L. I )( I . c.) !,. r;- :- n. JO "- ,/ . Nib L I 'Z If ~ l,~1.(" ~ T 9 ~ ;( J .u,S" c: ,. J 15 ><. L~01.'5 - - R 1 0 'i-- '. - - se, _ _ tl PitA,. ~ ~ + ~'. ~ ~H 1> SRJ L 5 ~ T I~ ;( R. 7.)C, 5 5 t; I 5 /0 /tCtj 100 I~o 20 l.:>~~ _. . 5 -- 't '& I~ 'f = 5 , r::VWU=UT PROJECT ].) tv\ V II A ~~ Mattern & Craig CONSUL'T'lNG ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS TYPE CONTENTS 1?J~(,.,i r:>J. -rr...-f~ v - P?1 DATE er 1'1/07 COMM NO. ~ i l' PREL. FINAl SHEET NO. 3 /~ CAL. BY t'i1 ~ A CKD. BY 7.. '200 e f r~F+clJ B o.c.-'., (''''''''Ad T r..... Uk:" - PM. Pc-e...,(. I-h..... ( a..t p~+~s fA ~Ic. r< C) (..L J (Pc. ~) It/'!; L ~1- j{- I, ",,-,)" = 9'5 I lo~~ '" It I:" /05D {(. J 7 l ~ /1 lit /75 (,0f1;; L 54- "- I. v-zS" ~ se; ---- 107/ t /100 , It /e.. t \'5 b. 7ljt l~ (2.oJ (TR) J" 8 L II 0 )( /.C)1,( = II~ ...... 14- ~ II ... 1t5 \ (l ~~ ~ 'i .. 4-5 C. tJ)uot) 1-+14V~ R.o~). ( w l4 r2. ) Er!;, L .~ ~ I. ~ '"Z.- ~ :: 5 ~ /0 3 )( h ~ lo~ f2. ,,0 x- ~ ..". 1.0 , w~ L a ~ ._(~.~~~ .r . ._._I.Q__ _ -. .... T / ,; ,... " - . _ l_?_~_ -- It .~ ~ tl r 5 J., V b-l~ fC>''''~c.. ,otorLw~ . (V? P) @ Pc- rt 5~ '- 50 ~ l,ol..~ - ~() - T ,0 )(. " - ,0 ~ R. ,.:~ c Jl ' , ~ z. :, r; I t=Vl-Il ~IT T:~ Mattern & Craig CONSULTING ENGJNEERS. SURVEYORS DATE ~ 1t7 / c 7 COMM NO. '2..177 I PREL. FINAl SHEET NO. 4/1 CAL. BY /?1)A CKD. BY PROJECT J:)MV -rIA TYPE B~l1~~J -r;....-+tl:'" - pM P f'\ P c.A- It. l-l ~ vr ( , .. "" 1- ) CONTENTS yrP<?- V I-=> D N~ L ,~ 't. L.:> ~ S- ..: T 8~ 'I.. If ..r- v?p€.- wi-\It / \J 1::> L 51 >' (.'2,,~ ... -r f6 >< Ie - - It t ~ ')( It = e... V~"/rW't.. Dr('~~ (vPD) !:~ L. I~ ~ I. ~e.~ - 1<- 17.. ~ )L 't =- :. N~ L l~ 'I- I.~,~ :; T ~~ 'I... .( -r- /~ \ X l,Y~S = ~ \ 'I- 'I S~ (. PII.(.' ~rJ.r_.@.. ~HJ?:._.__: Slb L T (2. . .. 1 Z~ 3 1- !~_~~.__u~,,___._.__~L~,_.__._ _ "- 'I I" ! S" ~ .- .. It _po - .., ;.- . - --- :E- 2.0 <=JO (pO 2.0 ~o 1..0 I~S "0 9D 13) G~ II=YI--IIRJT PROJECT DM v' T I A Mattern & Craig CONSULTING ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS DATE cr / rCfJl:l1 COMM NO. Ll" PREL. FINAl SHEET NO. S'" /~ GAL. BY "., sA CKD. BY TYPE CONTENTS ])l,~~JI",;J .]), ~~ r, bw.ho'/- (,tA t:" F ,,, ~~ '/..1 ~~ l~ ^ :D"re.t.A--,,~ 1;), J :t-f' b ~ 'otV ~ e.-l ~.I~ -10 & I ~c,., I. AM Er\+~ lr'~f( Vt..t...{~ p~i^,,~.c... ParLi (Vp(3) E B L ="2. :'4 wr>R = Sv /No...t> ~~IJ'- ItD, (v.rl-tR) E 11f' ~ ~~ bJ ~ l · :f2 40'1 "~ - 51.1- 17.1. ll'e, I.~ ~ 1 /00 .,(~ L{. ~e 57 11- Ie ,; Jf) 0 If. "'Z... IJ ty1 6.lC- i +- VPP j)~L 2~ I ~."2c./" J'i $' f1; (2.. :;:- . C;3 ,4. 4.-/4 1~ W 14ft NBL .: '~ 4.0./. i.1- . ~ - N5R :- ~ 'L14O/l:# 3 .--.-. ~ l7-S 100 l>fo (00 D/O ~. PM E^+~ v pp fJfI(t E. B L ~ Cf'L: Wl?~ =- 'IL. ... ._ _E- ~..rr ~ . __~.~.._.__ w, ~~ - :~ _ .. . ._ 1 ~'2 t..'l.1 er. 1 I.? '. Lu :. .. '._t. " .l.~. _ . t' 100-.....; tJ " O' -=, 11$; . i.f . -- -- ..... ~ ;Io~ 4. f.M f=:~\'+ .- V?fJ S~L :- t50 /4-,0,% 14- S~~ : 2~O c#Ll.t.olo cP4 Lv l-t ~ NroL ~ $'1 t Le. '5 Q/.:t 11 1~1O~ . I~ 5,3O/v 5 3~B I DO ~l~ 0 IOD I Ir-vr un.T PROJECT DM V --rIA Mattern & Craig CONStfl...TING ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS CONTENTS ~ I'+~ G~e.ro-'~ -r;o--~('C. DATE 9 II '0/0' COMM NO. '2.,,1 I ' FINAl SHEET NO. Co / , TYPE PREL. CAL. BY /l1! A CKD. BY I. nu...\'\~ .sl;~ ~ IS,"L.::>'; sf AM f~r-ll~ew 72.o.-~ e- It;, 20 '3 ~,. -3 4-- = E ~ l.l. e.. 4,.,),.,., .. L n (T ') :: D, 77 L 1'\ ( ,<; , '2. 0 ~) + "2 · f: -; .= /5o"rh u..s~ I?,ea vph - P M P e..a-I~ ~ yo . 2 O-+~ ED, t~. "0:' )( II. 0'1 ~ fJo + 8" 1Ie-r'\ u,o "f' "- A't>T R~Je '. e~. IS. ., 0 3 '!-. I C, C. ,01..,' . ~(i) : Ot~l Lit (~) + Cc.l1.. s .. ,-S~'1 Vf'J. 1..l 4~' "pel T(",'p. ~~~t~-u~~~L__w~vl~ I'~~~' ~~ '~cJpA_\j~Q..~~ r-u....:\:~ (s (\'\ ..~f Q.fJ ()r~ r{"f~ 1.- . D Ire... ~ -+ . .:>:C....Q D I ~ -I r t. b..v\ I:""'" N o' J..ltu..-tl~~ ,L~.frl~lA.:.L:1V p~,:)VI'J~J ~ rTE M",t\.~ ..,l A,,~ &4~ I' AMp eA.lc. (.0' O/~ ~ Vl.t-e..r - 40. ./~ ~../'.f- PM r~l 4o.)/oe.....-t~ - 4t)./~ e.'t..+ ~ (Co n S~ V o..~ ,\Ie.. 'is. Il ~ P,5 .it'....{t, 110 ........~, ~ i\. ~ U ~ (' S d.~~'l~ - Lo...,...~ (A~e...~.L..... 7~'2. I~J. ~ A /It ~ S; 7. ~:> 1:^- - 48 --I:, ...:f I'M = s, % :I;.. - 4-&J <I/~ ,,":"'t I ~ '\.... I I I F""\ ..,... PROJECT DMv TtA TYPE S;.f-e, G~t-~ [("&;..CClc..- CONTENTS E V\4-r~ fI\ c..c... D I~/l. ~~ I .."" AM p e~~ f.w....r +f"I'f~ E" +t-r r=. 'to \~+ /50 \Irk i- C-O% e I~D "f' '" 'I- 40 '/6 PM ~u.-k l,.~ ~"\fj '{;^~~ O\J- + "2.<... 0 ,,~k '/-.. '4 0 ~/. ~ -z~ 0 1wJ(J l Y-- (p O~(~ = ~. COYlc.e..p-f -:- 2. EI\..fn~. O^ vCa-t~ .,c.rlc.. "D~IVe. t+s.s~ 30 e......" fo'1 ee.r -a.II~ 1st E',...+rr....r\e..c.. I $'" E" +r~ AM In ~ 0 e,,,,,- r' lo 1 c..e..> .~:_ f? c....L ~ -+ o~ ! -- '50 vi~h W~L D~+ 20 ~~ E~~ PM Tt\ o~+ 4'0 Ua $+.~~ VJbL ~ 0 e ""f:J ~~ e..~}~ 4 .. I &.C2r c..~:-c,~. (0 "f h' E D>(<.. -'2......,J E'tw ..!rr~ A M I ^ :4 C? ~~ po,.....,- 1 o u.+ 40 ~ ~J C? """""~ W1::>>L E';(2.. PM '1 (\ c.,~' ~ :.~~~ C u...+ ..~.~ t,,14.~;Io~!L LV ~\.. E~f<- Mattern & Craig OONSULTlNG ENGlNEERS. SURVEYORS t:t 0 :r ^- (J 0 o~ I~,:) "f" 10 ro I" / is S Ow..:+ ...... '1.. "- ~ ., t' ~ I r- '\.11 I.,....."'r PROJECT :DMV -rIA Mattern & Craig CONSULTING ENGINEERS- SURVEYORS CONTENTS D\ f'~C.+1 .~ D,,:>.{r/ b ~j l~iV ~ A SSr t\"'~ COMM NO. 2. ,77 PREL._FINAI SHEET NO. !!!1~ GAL. BY fi1 sAr CKD. BY TYPE It X>t'fec.4-I~(\.J 'D.l skr I'~ ~.:L~i\,. tro~ VP? ~ vPD A '4 AM E t\.t. ~v- 9 0 vf~ ~ c.. '1' o/~ = '-0 "r~ 14 ~L )t.. ?J' &/ '-' ~ 3 0 'If L.. S ~ rl ~ qo ~f~ E~l+ 40 vpk ~ 11; oj., = 'Ssvrk E~~ 'k 1 ~/.s .. ~ J ph EBL. ~o \J f \.. 13. ?M E 1\ +~ IOSvfk 'I. l~./o = a~ "f~ 1\1 ~ L ~ '2.' 0 I~ = 20 tlfk 5~~ I()~ E~\~ I S~ IIph )( 7 & ~/~ = I " C> uf~ E'r;, R. 2. I 0/0 - 3 ~ 1I1'~ E?JL. 15~~. s ;-t eo. '1",. i, ~ ... j), ~~;I ~JI"~ :It "D~e.~4-,~ +' 'f ~ 'I"- Vpp +~ tpcl<. i wHit A, A.r'\ En+~ G> _F t: ((. .@ P~r<.. €>.~ liIL ~ w l~~ <:J 0 ""r' k )( IS 7 ~/,! '1 ~ "ph ~ ~ ': .(~..... 9 0 tlf~ ~le/~/~. _ , 0 -.Jph ~ I ~ .a/o . ~ 5,Q~ph__ f;~L._ \ 0 "l. W1b1C. . . - -_. r ,. . - - .-..- -.. ---. , .__~~._2l> v-f.h_~--t;.~-~_. _ ~ . .19. !(f.~-- ~ ~.L ..., ~ ~ .~.f.~ ~,- - r~ ... r T _ _ (;, .AM r~lt p PC4t G. 0 '.If It:"f.. ,~..t~ =- I tJ ~r ~ S~ L <2. P ,(t ~o "ph 'I... 14- ~~ :- 4~.~t~ _ ~r;f2- c:., w 14 ~ ~o ~r'~ 't-. '4'b 5 "rk l\f PJ L e (u He G.O "t'~ ~ ~ .(. 0 N~r<.. .-- (p ~ vr~ PROJECT --=c> Nt V Ii A DATE a, / I~ I /j 7 TYPE CONTENTS :D,'rec. + .,:..J) ]), ~..f., I L..,.A.. ~ ,,::..... d A~t lc./~Mt!:Nr :If (~o~+.) c... PM 1) k PM E ^ + t..-( e pc.fL e Pc r<.. @ 'W HD tl. w J...I 0 E)(. \+ Q P t;..(t fQ P, R... @., IIJ l...{ 0 e w /-10 PREL. FINAl CAL. BY (h S"A . J D S "'f l 't... 7 to 0/.. I tJ ~ vr (f... "1 -/0 I Q ,. ~ fL 0{... I 5 .~ IQ r ~f~)(. ~ "/0 I ~ ~ IIfl ><: 14':/:1 15~ "'r~ "f.. (;4-010 , ~S" IJ f~ '/... 11 ./~ l'i~ trrl. '!- 5~(~ Mattern & Craig CONSULTING ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS COMM NO. -z.. 7,7 SHEET NO. cr it CKD. BY .:r f S 1,/ P k 6./3 L- io uf~ w~R.. I~ vth E~~ s \lp~ w~L. - I 0 -S ~r ~ , r; 6;. -- '2..0 vfk 5~L 100 II~~ S~'" G <;; IJf l.. t-.l a L '" "'r h N ~ (l J ~> ~~ h :- t: I ~"'.I1 ..,.....,..,- APPENDIX C Capacity and Level of Service Analysis Queueing Analysis Peters Creek RdNalleypojnte Parkway 2007 Exist AM Optimized Timing 9/20/07 / ~ .f +- , ~ t ~ '. ~ ~ -+ Lane Group EBL EST EBR WBL WBr WBR NBL NBT NBR SBl SBT SBR Lane Configurations ., tt ." , tt ., +11+ ~ t r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (Ok) 10k 10/0 1010 -20/0 Storage Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 0 0 0 350 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Total Lost Time (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.962 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.971 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3208 0 1787 1881 1599 Fit Perm itted 0.950 0.950 0.971 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3208 0 1787 1881 1599 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 212 36 27 101 Headway Factor 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.99 0.99 0.99 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 40 Link Distance (ft) 1574 1526 734 1022 Travel Time (5) 23.8 23.1 14.3 17.4 Volume (vph) 234 1001 213 47 1236 50 59 14 25 24 7 93 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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 20k 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 5% 2% 5010 2% 2% 2010 Adj. Flow (vph) 254 1088 232 51 1343 54 64 15 27 26 8 101 Lane Group Flow (vph) 254 1088 232 51 1343 54 0 106 0 26 8 101 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Split Spl it Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 8 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 Detector Phases 5 2 2 1 6 6 4 4 8 8 8 Minimum Initial (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (5) 14.0 22.0 22.0 14.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (5) 20.0 52.0 52.0 14.0 46.0 46.0 22.0 22.0 0.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (%) 18.2% 47~30/o 47.30/0 12.7% 41.80/0 41.8% 20.00/0 20.0% 0.00/0 20.00"" 20.0% 20.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (5) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max Max Max Max Act Effct Green (5) 16.0 51.5 51.5 8.6 42.0 42.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.47 0.47 0.08 0.38 0.38 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 vie Ratio 0.99 0.67 0.27 0.38 1.01 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.03 0.29 Control Delay 102.3 26.0 4.3 53.5 61.3 10.8 30.5 40.1 39.0 10.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 102.3 26.0 4.3 53.5 61.3 10.8 30.5 40.1 39.0 10.4 LOS F C A D E B C D D B Approach Delay 35.1 59.1 30.5 17.8 Approach LOS D E C B Queue Length 50th (ft) 181 317 8 35 -502 8 25 16 5 0 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 082907 Exist AM.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RdNaJleypointe Parkway 2007 Exist AM Optimized Timing 9/20/07 ~ -. 'y .( .- -\.. ~ t ~ '. ~ .; Lane G rou p EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Length 95th (ft) #348 403 53 74 #661 34 51 42 19 47 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1494 1446 654 942 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 350 Base Capacity (vph) 256 1631 850 156 1331 624 548 292 308 346 StaNation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SpiUback 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 vIe Ratio 0.99 0.67 0.27 0.33 1.01 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.03 0.29 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 110 Actuated Cycle Length: 110 Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vIe Ratio: 1.01 Intersection Signal Delay: 44.9 Intersection LOS: 0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.1 % reLI level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 - vorume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown ;s maximum after two cycJes. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: ~ 01 ~ s2 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd ~04 t. sa ...., . - . .,-: ~~ . ~~ "J~ ro~~-, Page 2 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 082907 Exist AM.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RdNalleypointe Parkway 2007 Exist AM Network Optimized Timing 092007 Intersection: 3: Peters Creek Road & -rhjrlane Rd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB 58 5B Directions Served L T T R L T T R LT TR L T Maximum Queue (ft) 225 409 339 224 92 686 660 52 47 41 21 25 Average Queue (ft) 160 292 262 58 55 498 471 22 26 24 13 7 95th Queue (ft) 251 405 350 195 95 713 688 55 48 49 25 24 Link Distance (ft) 1525 1525 1479 1479 676 676 944 944 Upstream Bfk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 200 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 0.08 0.14 0.12 0.33 0.30 Queuing Penalty (veh) 41 33 25 15 15 Intersection: 3: Peters Creek.Road & Thirlane Rd Movement 58 Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 88 Average Queue (ft) 36 95th Queue (ft) 83 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Sto~age Bay O;st (ft) 350 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing penaUy (v'~h) ... .., "'l .... . , ~ .~ ~ . ~L';' . ;.. L' -- ..; . Intersection: 4: USFS Entr & VPP Movement EB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 32. : Average Queue (ft) 6 95th Queue (ft) .2~ Link Distance (ft) 828 Up:~,~ea'IJ1' ~lkTime (%) .. " :-:. :~.~ ~.;~ ~ ~ f'"' :;;:.~ ~_.-: . ~ . . r I~. '":, = ... . ::..-..... ...-.... ~~. - F_ , '" , Queuing Penalty (veh) St<?~ag~.'.~f3~Y ~Olsf -(ft) ::. .' ,.~ :'''",: ... ~""" .). .;10..,.; ..~ ~ j t < 'r ~. '?' Storage Blk Time (%) Q~~uJl1g Penalty '(vet1) ~~, ',; ... n'T.... ~ ..r~. I . -. . Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 082907 Exist AM.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RdNalleypointe Parkway 2007 Exist AM Modified Timing 092007 ~ ~ .- +- , ~ t r '. + .; -+- Lane Group EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ., tt r' lj tt " 41+ ""i t ." Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (0/0) 10/0 10/0 10/0 -20/0 Storage Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 0 0 0 350 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Total Lost Time (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.962 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.971 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3208 0 1787 1881 1599 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.971 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3208 0 1787 1881 1599 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 193 36 27 101 Headway Factor 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.99 0.99 0.99 link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 40 Link Distance (ft) 1574 1526 734 1022 Travel Time (s) 23.8 23.1 14.3 17.4 Volume (vph) 234 1001 213 47 1236 50 59 14 25 24 7 93 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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 20/0 30/0 2% 20/0 3% 2% 5% 2% 5% 20/0 20/0 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 254 1088 232 51 1343 54 64 15 27 26 8 101 Lane Group Flow (vph) 254 1088 232 51 1343 54 0 106 0 26 8 101 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm S p I it Sp lit Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 8 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 Detector Phases 5 2 2 1 6 6 4 4 8 8 8 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (5) 10.0 36.0 36.0 10.0 36.0 36.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Total Split (5) 28.0 58.0 58.0 28.0 58.0 58~O 18.0 18.0 0.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Total Split (oA>) 23.0% 47.50/0 47.50/0 23.0% 47.50/0 47.5% 14.80/0 14.8% 0.00/0 14.80,.'c>> 14.8% 14.8% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2~O lead/Lag Lead lag Lag Lead Lag Lag lead-lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max Max Max Max Act Effct Green (5) 21.3 63.2 63.2 10.5 49.6 49.6 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.55 0.55 0.09 0.43 0.43 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 vIe Ratio 0.78 0.57 0.24 0.32 0.90 0.08 0.25 0.12 0.03 0.36 Control Delay 57.1 19.2 3.9 52.3 36.9 9.5 38.0 49.8 48.6 13.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 57.1 19.2 3.9 52.3 36.9 9.5 38.0 49.8 48.6 13.4 LOS E B A 0 0 A D 0 0 B Approach Delay 23.1 36.4 38.0 22.5 Approach LOS C D D C Queue Length 50th (ft) 190 280 13 38 495 8 30 19 6 0 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 082907 Exist AM2.syG Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RdNalleypointe Parkway 2007 Exist AM Modified Timing 092007 ~ ---.. 'y .f 1- , ~ t ~ '. ~ .; Lane Group EBl EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SST SBR Queue Length 95th (ft) #300 366 54 78 598 33 58 48 22 53 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1494 1446 654 942 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 350 Base Capacity (vph) 360 1911 950 323 1577 732 417 219 230 284 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 vie Ratio 0.71 0.57 0.24 0.16 0.85 0.07 0.25 0.12 0.03 0.36 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 122 Actuated Cycle Length: 115.3 Natural Cycle: 85 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vIe Ratio: 0.90 Intersection Signal Delay: 29.5 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.10k leLI Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown ;s maximum after two cycJes. 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd .... flJ2 "'f04 ~ gS Page 2 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 082907 Exist AM2.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RdNalleypointe Parkway 2007 Exist AM Network Modified Timing 092007 Intersection: 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served l T T R l T T R LT TR L T Maximum Queue (ft) 226 262 323 18 92 577 546 27 47 63 42 19 Average Queue (ft) 146 199 196 13 58 501 486 10 40 34 17 6 95th Queue (ft) 218 293 304 24 113 636 601 29 50 69 40 19 Link Distance (ft) 1525 1525 1479 1479 676 676 944 944 Upstream Blk Time (0/0) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 200 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 0.06 0.04 O~26 0.27 Queuing Penalty (veh) 15 9 12 14 Intersection: 3: Peters Creek Road & -rhirlane Rd Movement 5B Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 44 Average Queue (ft) 21 95th Queue (ft) 44 link Distance (ft) Upstream Brk Time (%) Queuing PenaJty (veh) Storag~ Bay Dist (ft) 350 Storage Blk Time (0/0) Qr..ie~:~ng Pena'lty (ven) , ~'~,_..~',:,:':'~' 5~'~" Intersection: 4: USFS Entr & WP Movement EB Directions Served LR Maxim~m aueue."(ft)< ,- :~2 Average Queue (ft) 6 95th Queue (ft) . " ',:27 link Distance (ft) 828 Up~Jteary, ~Ik Tirij.~~(~1~,(':~--~,~-~~;~~}-~1' " ;": ~ Queuing Penalty (veh) $@!~9~~:,B~ayiQi~-~iI~)1~i7i~jjf.2~~~:~~?~'~' c t ':'~1:. .'~, S~~~~. BI~ !~,:~~ (~J..", "",,___.~.~~"(."~.. Q~~ulng Pef'.l9lty (V~h):.(L )~{f'.,&;~]-;.~~".' - '-' ' 10..... ~ ~~~J _.";'~.A.. ,~~ ~ '.. /...~....'" ,~.L , '. : ....;- . - . L ~ L ,. . ./ '.. < -- .. ~ ~.... I ~'.:; I~..:.... ~ 'o..: .. .. 40.-..:, ... L.. , ~ /I" Jo'_....... .I' ";'.' : ~ .~ ~ ~ .~:~ -~ ,.:.~~.: " ~ Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 082907 Exist AM2.sy6 Mattern and Craig Valleypointe Parkwayl Valleypark Drive 2007 Exist AM 9/20/07 ~ ~ , t ! .I Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations V 4+ tt+ Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 10/0 90/0 -gok Volume (veh/h) 1 10 121 99 115 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 11 132 108 125 22 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftIs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked Vet conflicting volume 453 73 147 vC1, stage 1 canf vol vC2t stage 2 canf vol vCu, unblocked vol 453 73 147 te, single (s) 6.B 6.9 4.1 te,2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free ok 100 99 91 eM capacity (vehlh) 486 974 1433 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB2 S81 SB2 Volume Total 12 167 72 83 63 Volume Left 1 132 0 0 0 Volume Right 11 0 0 0 22 cSH 892 1433 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.09 0.04 O~O5 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 8 0 0 0 Control Delay (5) 9.1 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach DeJay (s) 9.1 4.4 0.0 Approach t-OS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2_9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.90/0 leu level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 082907 Exist AM.sy6 Mattern and Craig Valleypointe Parkwayl Wood Haven Road 2007 Exist AM 9/20/07 ~ ..,. .f 4- '- ~ f ~ '. ~ .; -... Movement EBL EBT EBR WBl WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ ~ 1+ +t+ 4+ Sign Control Free Free Slop Stop Grade 30/0 -30/0 10/0 - 2010 Volume (veh/h) 2 86 73 52 75 2 5 3 3 2 14 5 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 Hourfy flow rate (vph) 2 93 79 57 82 2 5 3 3 2 15 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftIs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX" platoon unb'ocked ve, conflicting volume 84 173 345 334 133 338 373 83 vC 1 . stage 1 cenf vol vC2, stage 2 cenf vol vCu. unblocked vol 84 173 345 334 133 338 373 83 te, single (5) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.2 6.6 6.3 te, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 242 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.6 4.1 3.4 pO queue free ok, 100 96 99 99 100 100 97 99 eM capacity (vehlh) 1513 1404 573 561 916 577 523 955 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB2 NB 1 S61 Volume Totar 175 57 84 12 23 Volume Left 2 57 0 5 2 Volume Right 79 0 2 3 5 cSH 1513 1404 1700 634 592 Volume to Capacity O~OO 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 3 0 1 3 Control Delay (s) 0.1 7.7 0.0 10.8 11.3 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.1 3.1 10.8 11".3 Approach LOS B 8 Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.5% leu Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 082907 Exist AM.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RoadNalleypointe Parkway 2007 Exist PM Optimized Timing 9/20/07 ~ 't .,. ...- , ~ t ~ '. ~ ~ -+- Lane Group EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBl NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR lane Configurations ., tt ." 1frj tt ., +tt+ ""i t r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (0;0) 10/0 10/0 10/0 - 20/0 Storage Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 0 0 0 350 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane UtiL Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.961 0.850 FIt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.968 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3190 0 1787 1881 1599 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.968 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3190 0 1787 1881 1599 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 169 13 48 255 Headway Factor 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.99 0.99 0.99 link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 40 Link Distance (ft) 1574 1526 734 1022 Travel Time (5) 23.8 23.1 14.3 17.4 Volume (vph) 95 1025 175 55 1100 15 115 15 45 50 20 235 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 Heavy Vehicles (0/0) 2% 30/0 2% 20/0 30/0 2% 50/0 2% 5% 2% 20/0 20/0 Adj. Flow (vph) 103 1114 190 60 1196 16 125 16 49 54 22 255 Lane Group Flow (vph) 103 1114 190 60 1196 16 0 190 0 54 22 255 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm S p I it Split Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 8 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 Detector Phases 5 2 2 1 6 6 4 4 8 8 8 Minimum Initial (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.0 22.0 22.0 14.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (s) 14.0 32.0 32.0 14.0 32.0 32.0 22.0 22.0 0.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (0/0) 15.6% 35.80/0 35.6% 15.6% 35~6% 35.6% 24.4% 24.4% 0.0% 24.4% 24.4% 24.4% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 LeadlLag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max Max Max Max Act Effct Green (5) 9.1 28.7 28.7 8.5 28.1 28.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.33 0.33 0.10 0.32 0.32 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 vIe Ratio 0.57 0.97 0.30 0.36 1.06 0.03 0.27 0.15 0.06 0.48 Control Delay 48.3 51.2 6.6 41.9 75.7 12.3 23.6 31.0 29.8 7.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Deray 48.3 51.2 6.6 41.9 75.7 12.3 23.6 31.0 29.8 7.5 LOS D D A D E 8 C C C A Approach Delay 45.0 73.3 23.6 12.8 Approach LOS D E C B Queue Length 50th (ft) 56 328 8 32 -411 35 26 10 0 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 082907 Exist PM.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RoadNalleypointe Parkway 2007 Exist PM Optimized Timing 9/20/07 ~ --. ~ f ..- '- ~ t r '. ~ .; Lane Group EBl EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBl NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Length 95th (ft) 108 #485 56 70 #539 16 65 57 30 62 Internal L;nk Dist (ft) 1494 1446 654 942 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 350 Base Capacity (vph) 196 1148 632 195 1127 518 700 371 391 534 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 vIe Ratio 0.53 0.97 0.30 0.31 1.06 0.03 0.27 0.15 0.06 0.48 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 87.1 Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vie Ratio: 1.06 Intersection Signal Delay: 51.6 Intersection LOS: 0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.3% leu Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 - Volume exceeds capacity. queue is theoreticaHy infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after tvvo cycles.. Splits and Phases: 3: Peters Creek Road & -rhirlane Rd .('" ml ~ m2 ~ 04 ..". ",5 ~ fZ6 f.ma 't :. Page 2 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 082907 Exist PM.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RdNalleypointe Parkway 2007 Existing PM Network Optimized Timing 092007 Intersection: 3: Peters Creek Road & ThirJane Rd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB 5B Directions Served L T T R L T T LT TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 226 294 268 226 52 284 257 88 80 44 26 88 Average Queue (ft) 73 243 216 101 33 220 202 72 40 20 10 54 95th Queue (ft) 200 343 311 269 53 281 255 99 78 44 29 101 Link Distance (ft) 1525 1525 1479 1479 676 676 944 944 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 200 350 Storage Blk Time (0/0) 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.09 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 14 21 7 1 Intersection: 4: USFS Entr & VPP Movement EB NB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queu~ (ft) 32 24 Average Queue (ft) 31 5 95th,Queu.e (ft) 32 21 Link Distance (ft) 828 944 Upstr~am Blk Tim~:(%) Queu!n~ Penalty (veh) Stl?r~g~. ~~Y I:?i~t (ft}" Storage Blk Time (0/0) Qti'eiiing ~Penalty ~ (ve~) ~' f ' ,-:' ". Intersection: 5: Valleypark Dr & Vpp Movement EB NB Directions Served LR LT Maxim'um' QU~u.~~(ft) .;- '55 27 Average 9ueue (ft) 49 5 95.tf:1 QU,eue (ft) <. ' .. 63, 23 Link Distance (ft) 876 539 U pstr~~~1n ~ ~I~~,;t-im~' .(~ )j~;;~~:!;~:('.:~- '. ..."!.P ; . , . , Queuing Penalty (veh) S!gt~g.e',,-~'~y'~p~~t.:(~) ~. :~~.{~,;'i::.~'~::~.';W ~~0~:;~-1:::" "':'~. ~ . . ~' '. ,,;.... ; .t " ~; .~:. ' ; I . -, '. . ~... -p..'.... -' Storage Blk Time (%) Quellijig Pen'~I.tY: (v~h) :,';~~":'-'>:' . , :~. ..:~... ' .... ~..,. ,...... '. .0: .: Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 082907 Exjst PM.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RdNalleypointe Parkway 2007 Exist PM Modified Timing 092007 ,J. .,. " +- , ~ t ~ \.. ~ 4fI' --. Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'i tt ." lj tt "f 41+ ~ t r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (Ok) 10/0 10/0 10k -20/0 Storage length (ft) 200 200 200 200 0 0 0 350 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Totar Lost Time (8) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leadjng Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane UtiL Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.962 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.968 0.950 Satd. F[ow (prot) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3193 0 1787 1881 1599 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.968 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3193 0 1787 1881 1599 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 152 10 31 250 Headway Factor 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.99 0.99 0.99 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 40 Link Distance (ft) 1574 1526 734 1022 Travel Time (s) 23.8 23.1 14.3 17.4 Volume (vph) 92 1022 172 45 1071 12 110 14 42 50 20 230 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 Heavy Vehicles (Ok) 2% 3% 20/0 2% 3% 2% 5% 2% 50ft, 2% 2% 20k Adj. Flow (vph) 100 1111 187 49 1164 13 120 15 46 54 22 250 Lane Group Flow (vph) 100 1111 187 49 1164 13 0 181 0 54 22 250 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Spl it Split Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 8 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 Total Split (8) 28.0 58.0 58.0 28.0 58.0 58.0 18.0 18.0 0.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Act Effct Green (5) 12.7 44.6 44.6 10.3 39.5 39.5 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.47 0.47 0.10 0.42 0.42 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 vIe Ratio 0.43 0.68 0.23 0.27 0.80 0.02 0.35 0.19 0.08 0.54 Control Delay 43.4 21.3 4.8 45.7 26.5 10.1 36.2 44.0 42.8 10.9 Queue Delay 0.0 O~O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 43.4 21.3 4.8 45.7 26.5 10.1 36.2 44.0 42.8 10.9 LOS D C A D C B D 0 D B Approach Delay 20.6 27.1 36.2 18.5 Approach LOS C C 0 B Queue Length 50th (ft) 58 286 12 29 325 1 45 30 12 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 122 380 51 73 443 12 93 78 41 78 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1494 1446 654 942 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 350 Base Capacity (vph) 395 1845 905 378 1743 792 520 277 291 459 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 vIe Ratio 0.25 0.60 0.21 0.13 0.67 0.02 0.35 0.19 0.08 0.54 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 082907 Exist PM2.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RdNalleypointe Parkway 2007 Exist PM Modified Timing 092007 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 122 Actuated Cycle Length: 94.9 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vIe Ratio: 0.80 Intersection Signal Delay: 23.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.90/0 Analysis Period (min) 15 Intersection LOS: C leu Level of Servjce B Splits and Phases: .(' ",1 m~~__, ..,J- 05 ~' ~, '<~, ',J:~. ..~'_, .-' 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd , ":.; ~.~"l ';' ~ ~., <:' ~.. .' "-. '. .~...:.. " . .. :-.~~"~J' Page 2 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 082907 Exist PM2.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RdNalleypointe Parkway 2007 Exist PM Network Modified Timing 092007 Intersection: 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB 58 S8 Directions Served L T T R L T T R LT TR L T Maximum Queue (ft) 85 298 297 18 53 290 248 219 110 23 70 25 Average Queue (ft) 61 244 225 17 44 231 197 49 75 10 36 7 95th Queue (ft) 86 308 296 18 59 312 261 191 129 26 77 24 Link Distance (ft) 1525 1525 1479 1479 676 676 944 944 Upstream Blk Time (Ok) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 200 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 0.09 0.04 0.10 0.06 0.00 Queuing Penalty (veh) 9 7 5 1 0 Intersection: 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 89 Average Queue (ft) 62 95th Queue (ft) 106 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)., 350 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuihg" Pen-alty -(veJ1)~::;~~::::' "~--"'-"~.' ";".;';" ~".~" ':'-~', '~." ..' ~. . , _.~ ... Intersection: 4: USFS Entr & WP Movement EB NB Directions Served lR L T Maximum Queue (ft) . 3'1. ,: .: . 32 ~ ' Average Queue (ft) 18 6 95~ Queue (ft)' 42 27 Link Distance (ft) 828 944 Ups'tf~arry Blk.'1i~~~{~)~~', '., / Queuing PenaJty (veh) S~'&g~':;~aY 1~'H.~r<f!))t;~~'l:~-~-::,:~~:~?:':"f)i~6~'f~/}' ~,~: Storage Blk Time (%) Qti~.~ing. .F:?ehalty"lv~fj) ...:' _~l ,,', . t ~~... ,. 1~; ~:r~ ~~... . ~ ' ...... r :0"',"': /-.:.. ~ Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 082907 Exist PM2.sy6 Mattern and Craig Valleypointe ParkwayNalleypark Drive 2007 Exist PM 092007 .,;. l- ~ t ~ .; Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations V 4+ +1+ Sign Contro~ Stop Free Free Grade 10/0 gOk -9% Volume (veh/h) 16 124 19 85 131 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 17 135 21 92 142 1 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX. platoon unblocked vel conflicting volume 230 72 143 vC 1, stage 1 canf vol vC2. stage 2 canf vol vCu, unblocked vol 230 72 143 te. single (5) 6.8 6.9 4.1 te. 2 stage (5) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free 0/0 98 86 99 eM capacity (vehlh) 727 976 1437 Direction. Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB2 561 SB2 Volume Total 152 51 62 95 49 Volume Left 17 21 0 0 0 Volume Right 135 0 0 0 1 cSH 939 1437 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 1 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.6 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (5) 9.6 1.4 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.5% leu Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 082907 Exist PM2.sy6 Mattern and Craig Valleypointe ParkwaylWood Haven Drive 2007 Exist PM 092007 .,;. .. ., +- ~ , t r '. ~ .' -. Movement EBl EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 'i 1+ 4+ +f+ Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 3% -3Otb 1% -2% Volume (veh/h) 3 103 20 8 103 3 59 18 19 3 22 7 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) 3 112 22 9 112 3 64 20 21 3 24 8 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed eft's) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pXI platoon unblocked vel conflicting volume 115 134 278 262 123 291 271 114 vC 1 , stage 1 canf vol vC21 stage 2 canf vol vCu. unblocked vol 115 134 278 262 123 291 271 114 te, single (5) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.2 6.6 6.3 tel 2 stage (5) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.6 4.1 3.4 pO queue free % 100 99 90 97 98 99 96 99 eM capacity (vehlh) 1474 1451 645 638 928 613 617 918 Direction. Lane # EB 1 WB1 WB2 NB 1 S8 1 Volume Total 137 9 115 104 35 Volume Left 3 9 0 64 3 Volume Right 22 0 3 21 8 cSH 1474 1451 1700 685 664 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.15 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 13 4 Control Delay (s) 0.2 7.5 0.0 11.2 10.7 Lane LOS A A 8 B Approach DeJay (s) 0.2 0.5 11.2 10.7 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.80/0 leu Lever of Service A Anarysis Period (min) 15 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 082907 Exist PM2.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RoadNalleypointe Parkway 2008 Background AM Optimized Timing 9/20/07 ; 'y ., +- '- ~ t ~ '. ~ .I ....... Lane Group EBl EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'i tt r , tt , 4"1+ .. ; ." Ideal Flow (vphpJ) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (0/0) 10/0 10/0 10/0 -2% Storage Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 0 0 0 350 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Total Lost Time (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.962 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.971 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3209 0 1787 1881 1599 FIt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.971 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3209 0 1787 1881 1599 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 213 36 27 27 Headway Factor 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.99 0.99 0.99 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 40 link Distance (ft) 1574 1526 734 1022 Travel Time (5) 23~8 23.1 14.3 17.4 Volume (vph) 240 1025 220 50 1265 50 60 15 25 95 10 25 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 Heavy Vehicles (010) 2% 30/0 2% 2% 30k 20k 5% 2% 50/0 2010 20/0 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 261 1114 239 54 1375 54 65 16 27 103 11 27 Lane Group Flow (vph) 261 1114 239 54 1375 54 0 108 0 103 11 27 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Split Split Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 8 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 Detector Phases 5 2 2 1 6 6 4 4 8 8 8 Minimum Initial (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4~O 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.0 22.0 22.0 14.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (5) 20.0 52.0 52.0 14.0 46.0 46.0 22.0 22.0 0.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (%) 18.20k 47.3% 47.30/0 12.7% 41.8% 41.8% 20.0% 20.0% O.ook 20.00/0 20.0% 20.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (5) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max Max Max Max Act Effct Green (s) 16.0 51.4 51.4 8.7 42.0 42.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.47 0.47 0.08 0.38 0.38 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 vIe Ratio 1.02 0.68 0.28 0.40 1.03 0.09 0.20 0.35 0.04 0.10 Control Delay 108.6 26.5 4.6 54.0 67.7 10.8 30.7 44.8 39.2 15.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 108.6 26.5 4.6 54.0 67.7 10.8 30.7 44.8 39.2 15.2 LOS F C A D E B C D 0 B Approach Delay 36.6 65.1 30.7 38.7 Approach LOS 0 E C D Queue Length 50th (ft) -192 330 10 37 -550 8 26 65 7 0 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV Background AM.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RoadNalleypointe Parkway 2008 Background AM Optimized Timing 9/20/07 ~ -+- ',- " +- '- ~ t ~ '. ~ 4" Lane Group EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Length 95th (ft) #359 416 57 77 #686 34 52 119 23 25 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1494 1446 654 942 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 350 Base Capacity (vph) 256 1629 849 156 1331 624 548 292 308 284 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 vIe Ratio 1.02 0.68 0.28 0.35 1.03 0.09 0.20 0.35 0.04 0.10 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 11 0 Actuated Cycle Length: 110 Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vIe Ratio: 1.03 Intersection Signal Delay: 49.1 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.20/0 leu Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinitea Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 3: Peters Creek Road & -rhirlane Rd ~ 04 t.08 ....1:- 21. ~,,- .- ;. :-- ~ ..-:-. Page 2 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV Background AM.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RdNalleypointe Parkway 2008 Background AM Network Optimized Timing 092007 Intersection: 3: Peters Creek Road & -rhirlane Rd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R LT TR L T Maximum Queue (ft) 224 335 321 224 94 458 458 219 68 19 156 26 Average Queue (ft) 175 216 191 75 70 423 401 55 24 7 85 15 95th Queue (ft) 234 355 325 200 102 468 453 192 62 22 157 35 L;nk Distance (ft) 1525 1525 1479 1479 676 676 944 944 Upstream Blk Time (0/0) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 200 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.35 0.33 0.00 Queuing Penalty (veh) 53 13 13 17 17 0 Intersection: 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 43 ~.i. ' Average Queue (ft) 16 95th Queue (ft) 42 link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (0/0) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage .~ay Di~t' (ft) 350 Storage Blk Time (Ok) QueuiD9 . P.~~;~~tY. (veh) , : : .~,/;~ ':" -. ;. , , ~ ~ Intersection: 4: USFS Entr & VPP Movement EB NB Directions Served LR LT Maxim'urn Que~e (ft) 54 "-. ',:52 _ c Avera~~ <?ueue (ft) 23 22 95~: qu.eue (ft). 57 55 Link Distance (ft) 828 944 Up~tr~~m:)?lk.rjme (~o). ,( ; f ~_~,. ~ .. f' ~...".... I ) .. . ~,_ I :, .' r < ~: ... -~ I I a... . .. ~ 1 ~ " . ..-.--: l,i Queuing Penalty (veh) S~9@.g~F,'.~,~y:q~,sf,-(ft) ,~:. .:' ::~: ,."..>( .~.i' \ " .... '. . . . Storage Blk Time (%) Qu~-utn'g 'PJ2~~alty (veh).: -~ ' """ ... . t :.' _.... '. - , Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV Background AM.syG Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RdNalleypointe Parkway 2008 Background AM Modified Timing 092007 ~ 'y ~ 04- , ~ t ~ ~ ~ ...; -.... Lane Group EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ tt ~ ~ tt ." +1"1+ "'i t "(I Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (0/0) 10/0 10/0 10/0 -20/0 Storage Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 0 0 0 350 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Total Lost Time (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util ~ Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.962 0.850 FIt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.971 0.950 Satd. Flow (prol) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3209 0 1787 1881 1599 Fit Permitted 0.950 .0.950 0.971 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3209 0 1787 1881 1599 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 194 36 27 27 Headway Factor 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.99 0.99 0.99 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 40 Link Distance (ft) 1574 1526 734 1022 Travel Time (5) 23.8 23.1 14.3 17.4 Volume (vph) 240 1025 220 50 1265 50 60 15 25 95 10 25 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 HeavyVehicJes (%) 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 2% 2% Adj_ Flow (vph) 261 1114 239 54 1375 54 65 16 27 103 11 27 Lane Group Flow (vph) 261 1114 239 54 1375 54 0 108 0 103 11 27 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Split Split Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 8 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 Detector Phases 5 2 2 1 6 6 4 4 8 8 8 Minimum Initial (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (5) 10.0 36.0 36.0 10.0 36.0 36.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Total Split (5) 28.0 58.0 58.0 28.0 58.0 58.0 18.0 18.0 O~O 18.0 18.0 18.0 Total Split (%) 23.00/0 47.50/0 47.5% 23~O% 47.50/0 4745% 14.8% 14.8% 0.0% 14.8% 14_8% 14.80/0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4_0 4.0 4_0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (5) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 LeadlLag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag lag lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max Max Max Max Act Effet Green (s) 21.8 6446 64.6 10.7 50.8 50.8 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.55 0.55 0.09 0.43 0_43 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 vIe Ratio 0.80 0.58 0425 0.34 0.91 0.08 0.26 0448 0.05 0.12 Control Delay 59.1 19.4 4.1 52.6 38.5 9.4 38.4 58.2 48.8 18.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 59.1 19.4 4~ 1 52_6 38.5 9.4 38.4 58.2 48.8 18.4 LOS E B A D D A D E D B Approach Delay 23.6 37.9 38.4 49.8 Approach LOS C 0 D D Queue Length 50th (ft) 196 291 16 41 514 8 31 77 8 0 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV Background AM2.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RdNalleypointe Parkway 2008 Background AM Modified Timing 092007 ~ ... f +- ~ ~ t ~ \.. l ..I --... Lane Group EBl EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Length 95th (ft) #314 380 58 82 622 33 60 138 27 28 Internal link Dist (ft) 1494 1446 654 942 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 350 Base Capacity (vph) 356 1928 958 319 1571 729 411 215 227 216 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SpHlback 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 vIe Ratio 0.73 0.58 0.25 0.17 0.88 0.07 0.26 0.48 0.05 0.13 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 122 Actuated Cycle Length: 116.9 Natural Cycle: 95 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vIe Ratio: 0.91 Intersection Signal Delay: 31.5 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity UtHization 70.20/0 leu Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirfane Rd f.sB a. Page 2 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV Background AM2.syG Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RdNalleypointe Parkway 2008 Background AM Network Modified Timing 092007 Intersection: 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB N8 NB sa S8 Directions Served L T T R L T T R LT TR L T Maximum Queue (ft) 194 191 191 60 223 406 371 23 66 22 110 11 Average Queue (ft) 110 162 144 34 88 332 312 9 50 8 71 2 95th Queue (ft) 193 198 194 60 202 446 406 27 77 25 111 9 Link Distance (ft) 1525 1525 1479 1479 676 676 944 944 Upstream Blk Time (0/0) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 200 200 Storage Blk Time (0/0) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.16 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 1 1 11 8 Intersection: 3: Peters Creek Road & ThirJane Rd Movement S8 Directions Served R M~imum Queue (ft) 19 Average Queue (ft) 9 95th Queue (ft) 23 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (0/0) Queuing Penalty (veh) StprageJ?ay pist (~) 350 Storage Blk Time (%) .9ueu.ng"Penalty(veh) ,:"'~'.. . . "-..;; ? Intersection: 4: USFS Entr & WP Movement Directions Served Maximum ~pu~~i~ (ft) Average Queue (ft) 9~~ Q~eH:e.(ft) " link Distance (ft) ~p~tr~aijj '~J~~Jipt~ (~lL, Queuing Penalty (veh) ~(Cir~g~-::~~~i;~Qlgf (tt) ~:,'~~ :!,:>~' . Storage Blk Time (%) qu~ul'lg~~~nalfY -:{V~h).~. EB NB LR LT 32 " .':'31 12 6 37. :- (27, 828 944 "~.',~ .')~ ~.f~. ~,~ ,: ...... -:...~J .... +... /-" ,~ - ... ...........~. .... ... ~ ~,;.-:f..;. ~ ... I... ~ , ~"'. ~--- ..... Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV Background AM2.sy6 Mattern and Craig Valfeypointe ParkwayNalleypark Drive 2008 Background AM 9/20107 / "t ~ t I ~ Movement EBl EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations V +ft tt+ Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 1010 g% -90/0 Volume (veh/h) 5 10 125 100 120 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 11 136 109 130 22 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftIs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked ve, conflicting volume 467 76 152 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 467 76 152 te, single (5) 6.8 6.9 4.1 te, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3~3 2.2 pO queue free ok 99 99 90 eM capacity (veh/h) 474 970 1426 Direction. Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB2 581 SB2 Volume Total 16 172 72 87 65 Volume left 5 136 0 0 0 Volume Right 11 0 0 0 22 cSH 719 1426 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.04 Queue length 95th (ft) 2 8 0 0 0 Control Delay (5) 1 O~, 6..3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 10.1 4.4 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.2% leU level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV Background AM.sy6 Mattern and Craig Valleypointe ParkwaylWood Haven Road 2008 Background AM 9/20/07 .". -+- ... ~ +- , ~ t ~ '. ~ ..; Movement EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ ~ ~ 4+ 4+ Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 30/0 -3 ok 10/0 -20/0 vorume (veh/h) 5 90 75 55 75 5 5 5 5 5 15 5 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) 5 98 82 60 82 5 5 5 5 5 16 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signa' (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC., conflicting volume 87 179 364 356 139 361 394 84 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2. stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 87 179 364 356 139 361 394 84 te. single (s) 4.1 491 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.2 696 6.3 te, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3..5 4.0 3.3 3.6 4.1 3.4 pO queue free ok 100 96 99 99 99 99 97 99 eM capacity (vehlh) 1509 1396 554 543 910 552 506 953 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB1 WB2 NB 1 581 Volume Total 185 60 87 16 27 Volume Left 5 60 0 5 5 Volume Right 82 0 5 5 5 cSH 1509 1396 1700 632 569 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 3 0 2 4 Control Delay (s) 0..2 7~7 0.0 10.8 11.6 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (5) 0.2 3~ 1 10..8 11.6 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.20/0 leu level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV Background AM.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RoadNalleypointe Parkway 2008 Background PM Optimized Timing 9/20/07 ~ 'y ~ +- '- , t ". '. ~ .,.I --+- Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations , tt rr ~ tt ." 41+ , t ., Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (Ok) 10/0 1% 10/0 -20/0 Storage Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 0 0 0 350 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Total Lost Time (s) 4~O 4~O 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead ing Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.961 0.850 Fit Protected O~950 0.950 0.968 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3190 0 1787 1881 1599 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.968 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3190 0 1787 1881 1599 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 169 13 46 255 Headway Factor 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1 ~O1 1~O1 1.01 1.01 1.01 O~99 0.99 0.99 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 40 Link Distance (ft) 1574 1526 734 1022 Travel Time (s) 23.8 23.1 14.3 17.4 Volume (vph) 95 1025 175 55 1100 15 115 15 45 50 20 235 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 Heavy Vehicles (0/0) 20/0 30k 20k 20/0 30;;" 20/0 5% 2% 5% 2% 20/0 20/0 Adj. Flow (vph) 103 1114 190 60 1196 16 125 16 49 54 22 255 Lane Group Flow (vph) 103 1114 190 60 1196 16 0 190 0 54 22 255 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm S pr it Split Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 8 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 Detector Phases 5 2 2 1 6 6 4 4 8 8 8 Minimum Initial (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (5) 14.0 22.0 22.0 14.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (s) 14.0 36.0 36.0 14.0 36.0 36~O 22.0 22.0 0.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (ok.) 14.9% 38.3% 38.3% 14.9% 38.3% 38.3% 23.4% 23.4Ok 0.00/0 23.4% 23.40Ib 23.4% Yellow Time (5) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1-0 1.0 lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max Max Max Max Act Effct Green (s) 9.2 32.7 32.7 8.5 32.1 32.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.35 0.35 0.20 0.20 0.20 O~20 vIe Ratio 0.59 0.89 0.28 0.37 0.97 0.03 0.28 0.15 0.06 0.49 Control Delay 51.9 39.0 6.1 44.5 50.8 11.8 25.5 33.1 31.7 8.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O~O 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 51.9 39.0 6.1 44.5 50.8 11.8 25.5 33~ 1 31.7 8.0 LOS 0 0 A D D B C C C A Approach Delay 35.5 50~1 25.5 13.6 Approach LOS 0 0 C B Queue Length 50th (ft) 59 329 8 34 -377 1 38 27 11 0 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV Background PM~sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RoadNalleypointe Parkway 2008 Background PM Optimized Timing 9/20107 ". ~ .. ~ , ~ t r '. ~ ~ -+ Lane Group EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Length 95th (ft) 112 #471 54 73 #526 15 69 60 32 64 Internal Ljnk Dist (ft) 1494 1446 654 942 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 350 Base Capacity (vph) 187 1251 674 186 1230 564 670 354 373 521 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 vIe Ratio 0.55 0.89 0.28 O~32 0.97 0.03 0.28 0.15 0.06 0.49 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 94 Actuated Cycle Length: 91.1 Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vIe Ratio: 0.97 Intersection Signal Delay: 38.4 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.30/0 leu Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoreticalfy infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycJes. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: .. 111 .... 1'2 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd "'f B4 f.1l8 ~ ,,6 Page 2 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV Background PM.syG Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RdNalleypointe Parkway 2008 Background PM Network Optimized Timing 092007 Intersection: 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB 58 5B Directions Served L T T R L T T R LT TR L T Maximum Queue (ft) 68 278 277 40 52 260 260 27 154 105 44 26 Average Queue (ft) 46 208 181 21 33 194 178 5 81 37 18 14 95th Queue (ft) 80 338 325 37 53 264 255 23 150 97 45 32 ~ink Distance (ft) 1525 1525 1479 1479 676 676 944 944 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Oist (ft) 200 200 200 200 Storage Blk Time (0/0) 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.02 Queuing Penalty (veh) 11 10 2 0 In~ersection: 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd Movement 58 Directions Served R Maximum Queu.e'(ft} '. 110 Average Queue (ft) 76 95th Queue (ft) 133 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (0(0) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) .: " 350 Storage Blk Time (%) QueuingJ)erii~ftY (vellr:;jc~: , Intersection: 4: USFS Entr & VPP Movement EB NB Directions Served LR LT Maximum qU,eue (ft) 32 25 Average Queue (ft) 31 10 9~th, Queue (ft) 32 30 Link Distance (ft) 828 944 .Up~!rea~.. ~t~. !i~e' (% )~"~\: Z: . ~ '. - , . - -; ~ 1 - . .' . Queuing Penalty (veh) SJgt~g~:;~~Y:Q~~t (ft) .:~~'~.;?~\;\;:~:-\~--- . . ".'J , ".-.' ......,: .. , : ~ . . ...t.. . I";, . Storage Blk Time (0/0) Q~euin~fp'eri.~ftY (ve~) _ ~.~... . -. ,. - . - .' . . j' Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV Background PM..sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RoadNalleypointe Parkway 2008 Background PM Modified Timing 092007 /' 'y ~ +- '- ~ t r \.. ! .; ---II-- Lane Group EBl EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBl NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ tt r 'i tt "f 41+ ""i t ." Ideaf Flow (vphpr) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (0/0) 10/0 10/0 10k -201'0 Storage Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 0 0 0 350 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane UtiL Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.961 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.968 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3190 0 1787 1881 1599 FIt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.968 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3190 0 1787 1881 1599 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 151 12 32 255 Headway Factor 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.99 0.99 0.99 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 40 Link Distance (ft) 1574 1526 734 1022 Travel Time (s) 23.8 23.1 14.3 17.4 Volume (vph) 95 1050 175 55 1100 15 115 15 45 50 20 235 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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 3% 20/0 2% 30/0 2% 50tb 20/0 50/0 20/0 20/0 20k Adj. Flow (vph) 103 1141 190 60 1196 16 125 16 49 54 22 255 Lane Group Flow (vph) 103 1141 190 60 1196 16 0 190 0 54 22 255 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Split SpJit Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 8 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 Detector Phases 5 2 2 1 6 6 4 4 8 8 8 Minimum Initial (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (5) 10.0 36.0 36.0 10.0 36.0 36.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Total Split (s) 28.0 58.0 58.0 28.0 58.0 58.0 18.0 18.0 0.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Total Split (%) 23.0% 47.5% 47.50;/c. 23.0% 47.5% 47.5% 14.8% 14.8% 0.0% 14.8% 14.8% 14.8O~ Yellow Time (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max Max Max Max Act Effct Green (5) 12.9 42.5 42.5 10.9 40.6 40.6 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.44 0.44 0.11 0.42 0.42 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 vIe Ratio 0.45 0.74 0.24 0.31 0.81 0.02 0.37 0.20 0.08 0.55 Control Delay 43.9 23.8 5.1 45.2 26.9 9.7 37.0 44.6 43.3 11.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0_0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 43.9 23.8 5.1 45.2 26.9 9.7 37.0 44.6 43.3 11.0 LOS D C A 0 C A D D 0 B Approach Delay 22.8 27.6 37.0 18.7 Approach LOS C C 0 B Queue Length 50th (ft) 61 302 14 36 340 1 48 31 12 0 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV Background PM2.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RoadNalleypointe Parkway ~ -+ Lane Group EBL EST Queue Length 95th (ft) 125 402 ~nternal Link Dist (ft) 1494 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 Base Capacity (vph) 391 1785 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 Reduced vIe Ratio 0.26 0.64 Intersection Summary AreaT~e: Ofu~ Cycle Length: 122 Actuated Cycle Length: 96.1 Natural Cycle: 85 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vIe Ratio: 0.81 Intersection Signal Delay: 25.1 J ntersection Capacity Utilization 61 .30/0 Analysis Period {min} 15 -,. ,f +- -\.. EBR WBL WBT WBR 53 84 463 15 1446 200 200 200 880 384 1739 792 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.22 0.16 0.69 0.02 Intersection LOS: C leu Level of Service B Splits and Phases: 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd .f s1 85 Page 2 Mattern and Craig 2008 Background PM MOdified Timing 092007 , t ~ \... ! 4fI' NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 97 78 41 79 654 942 350 514 273 287 460 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.37 0.20 0.08 0.55 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV Background PM2.sy6 Peters Creek RdNalleypointe Parkway 2008 Background PM Network Modified Timing 092007 Intersection: 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB 58 5B Directions Served L T T R L T T R LT TR L T Maximum Queue (ft) 217 256 252 223 52 258 200 29 174 105 25 22 Average Queue (ft) 90 218 222 59 38 193 165 11 112 39 5 13 95th Queue (ft) 196 314 284 195 71 257 231 34 190 95 21 27 Link Distance (ft) 1525 1525 1479 1479 676 676 944 944 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 200 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.02 Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 12 2 0 Intersection: 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd Movement sa Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 105 Average Queue (ft) 70 95th Qu~ue (ft) 108 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (0/0) Queuing Penalty (veh) Sto~ge Bay qist (ft) 35Q Storage Blk Time (%) Qu~ulng P~QaiW"(veh) - - .. . ~~-- . ,: Intersection: 4: USFS Entr & WP Movement EB Directions Served LR M~~rnum'QlielJe (ft) . ~2; Average Queue (ft) 25 9?tH~ ~Qu~"iJEf (fl) i' ~:~. . 46., . link Distance (ft) 828 upstream :Bfk~~\TIrhe ,{%) ,~ . J ~~~... ~ , ,. ~ +:II!'" ~. ~ .r" _..... ",.. . ~.. :..... - ~ ~~ .........1~]' ........ Queuing Penalty (veh) ~~4t~g~J?~'Y~PIsf (~l'~;~~ ~ .. '~ ~ ~ :.., ,-". . ~o( ; ': ~ 7- ... T ,~ Storage Blk Time (%) (.)ue'illng' Pe~'~rtY'~(yehl ~.-> L ~ -....', - , ~ '~-.:.'_. .- , . Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV Background PM2.sy6 Mattern and Craig VaUeypointe ParkwayNalleypark Drive 2008 Background PM 9/20107 ~ ... ~ f ! ~ Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations V +ft t1+ Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 10ft, g% -90/0 Volume (veh/h) 20 125 20 90 135 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 136 22 98 147 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (tus) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked ve, conflicting volume 242 76 152 vC 1, stage 1 canf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 242 76 152 te, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 te. 2 stage (5) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 97 86 98 eM capacity (veh/h) 714 970 1426 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB2 SB 1 SB2 Volume TotaJ 158 54 65 98 54 Volume Left 22 22 0 0 0 Volume Right 136 0 0 0 5 cSH 924 1426 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity O~17 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 15 1 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.7 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 9.7 1.4 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.00/0 leu Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV Background PM.sy6 Mattern and Craig Valleypointe ParkwaylWood Haven Road 2008 Background PM 9/20/07 ~ ~ " +- , ~ t ~ '. ~ ..; -+ Movement EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ ~ ~ 4+ * Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 3% -30/0 10/0 - 20/0 Vofume (veh/h) 5 105 20 10 130 5 60 20 20 5 25 10 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) '5 114 22 11 141 5 65 22 22 5 27 11 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (tvs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked VCt conflicting volume 147 136 323 304 125 334 312 144 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 canf vol vCu, unblocked vol 147 136 323 304 125 334 312 144 te, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.2 6.6 6.3 fe, 2 stage (5) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.6 4.1 3.4 pO queue free 0/0 100 99 89 96 98 99 95 99 eM capacity (veh/h) 1435 1448 594 602 926 569 583 883 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB1 WB2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 141 11 147 109 43 Volume Left 5 11 0 65 5 Volume Right 22 0 5 22 11 cSH 1435 1448 1700 642 635 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.17 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 0 15 5 ControJ Delay (s) 0.3 7.5 0.0 11.7 11.1 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.3 0.5 11.7 11.1 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.2 Intersection Capacity Util ization 29.80/0 leu Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV Background PM.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RoadNalleypointe Parkway 2008 Total Traffic AM Optimized Timing 9/20/07 / ~ ..- .- ~ , t ~ ~ ~ .; ---tIt- Lane Group EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations , tt , , tt ~ 41+ 'i t r' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (0/0) 10/0 10/0 1010 -20/0 Storage length (ft) 200 200 200 200 0 0 0 350 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Total Lost Time (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.962 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.971 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3209 0 1787 1881 1599 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.971 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3209 0 1787 1881 1599 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 213 40 27 76 Headway Factor 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.99 0.99 0.99 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 40 Link Distance (ft) 1574 1526 734 1022 Travel Time (5) 23.8 23.1 14.3 17.4 Volume (vph) 290 1025 220 50 1265 60 60 15 25 105 10 70 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 Heavy Vehicles (0/0) 2% 3% 2% 20/0 3% 2% 5% 20/0 5% 20/0 2% 20/0 Adj. Flow (vph) 315 1114 239 54 1375 65 65 16 27 114 11 76 Lane Group Flow (vph) 315 1114 239 54 1375 65 0 108 0 114 11 76 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Split Split Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 8 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 Detector Phases 5 2 2 1 6 6 4 4 8 8 8 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.0 22.0 22.0 14.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (5) 25.0 62.0 62.0 14.0 51.0 51.0 22.0 22.0 0.0 22.0 22~O 22.0 T atal Spl it (0/0) 20.80/0 51.7% 51.70/0 11.70/0 42..50/0 42.50/0 18.3% 18.3O;ib O.ook 18.3% 18.3% 18.30/0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 AlJ-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max Max Max Max Act Effct Green (s) 21.0 61.3 61.3 8.8 47.0 47.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.51 0.51 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.15 0..15 0.15 0.15 vie Ratio 1.02 0.63 0.26 0.43 1.01 0.10 0.21 0.43 0.04 0..25 Control Delay 106.2 23.9 4.0 60.6 62.6 11.5 34.6 51.8 44.2 12.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 106.2 23.9 4.0 60.6 62.6 11.5 34.6 51.8 44.2 12.1 LOS F C A E E 8 C 0 D B Approach Delay 36.6 60.3 34.6 36.4 Approach LOS D E C D Queue Length 50th (ft) -259 332 10 40 -562 12 28 81 7 0 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 2008 Total AM.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RoadNalleypointe Parkway 2008 Total Traffic AM Optimized Timing 9/20/07 / ..,. . 04- '- , t ~ '. ~ ..; --+ Lane Group EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Length 95th (ft) #442 411 54 83 #725 41 57 141 25 44 Internal link Dist (ft) 1494 1446 654 942 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 350 Base Capacity (vph) 308 1781 908 143 1366 641 504 268 282 304 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 vIe Ratio 1.02 0.63 0.26 0.38 1.01 0.10 0.21 0.43 0.04 0.25 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vIe Ratio: 1 .02 Intersection Signal Delay: 46.7 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.50/0 leu Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 - 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 cyc1es. Sprits and Phases: 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd . 1!I1 ... m2 "'f 11I4 j , "" ,.,f 11I5 Page 2 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 2008 Tota' AM.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RdNalleypointe Parkway 2008 Total Traffic AM Network Optimized Timing 092007 Intersection: 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R LT TR L T Maximum Queue (ft) 226 337 193 18 223 433 462 30 68 41 107 26 Average Queue (ft) 203 199 160 16 68 381 352 22 37 16 76 12 95th Queue (ft) 237 324 202 19 196 446 445 40 75 41 115 30 Link Distance (ft) 1525 1525 1479 1479 676 676 944 944 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 200 200 Storage Blk Time (%) 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.29 0.22 Queuing Penalty (veh) 45 2 1 15 13 IrJtersection: 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 67 Average Queue (ft) 38 95th Queue (ft) 77 link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) St~rage Bay Dist (ft) 350 Storage Blk Time (%) Qu~uing penalfY'(veh) ," Intersection: 4: USFS Entr & VPP Movement EB NB Directions Served LR L T Maximum Queue (ft) 31, 54 Average Queue (ft) 12 11 95th Queue (ft) - ~6 46 Link Distance (ft) 828 944 Upstream ~'Bf.k;;~T~m~~ (%):7}: .-. ~ . Queu~ng ~e~~~~ (veh) ., . '. , Stora'g' e,Bay Djsf(ft) ,>>~~'~/~"~:: .(~';:" ~;';'.:. 'r'''. ~'s '.~' ........ "- .:--~;':; ..... . ~_ _.... ... .,.. t ." - ..,. ., Storage Blk Time (0/0) Qu~~lijg P.~naity;(v~ry) . ~ ""; ...,. ; j ; - ".,.:: ..... . -~;~ iV'~, ...~:. _.~ ~.: '.,:3".. "," ....... ~ "( 'i ~ ...... "l _ ~ t _ ~. ~ ~ ,J.~ ", -., '!-. Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 2008 Total AM.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RoadNalfeypointe Parkway 2008 Tota' Traffic AM Modified Timing 9120/07 ~ ... .". -4- ~ ~ t ~ \... ~ -if" --.. Lane Group EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "'i tt 7' , tt f 41+ ~ t ." Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (0/0) 10/0 10/0 10/0 -20/0 Storage Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 0 0 0 350 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4_0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane UfiL Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.962 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.971 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3209 0 1787 1881 1599 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.971 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3209 0 1787 1881 1599 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 194 43 27 76 Headway Factor 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.99 0.99 0.99 link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 40 Link Distance (ft) 1574 1526 734 1022 Travel Time (s) 23.8 23.1 14.3 17.4 Volume (vph) 290 1025 220 50 1265 60 60 15 25 105 10 70 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 Heavy Vehicles (ol'o) 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 5% 20k 5% 2% 2% 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 315 1114 239 54 1375 65 65 16 27 114 11 76 Lane Group Flow (vph) 315 1114 239 54 1375 65 0 108 0 114 11 76 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Split S p' it Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 8 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 Detector Phases 5 2 2 1 6 6 4 4 8 8 8 Minimum Initial (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 490 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4~O 4~O 4~O Minimum Split (5) 10.0 22.0 22.0 10.0 22.0 2290 16.0 16.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 Total Split (5) 28.0 58~O 58.0 28.0 58.0 58.0 18.0 18.0 0.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Total Split (%) 23.0ok 47.5% 47.5% 23.0% 47.5% 47.50/0' 14.8% 14.8% 0.00/0 14.8% 14.80/0 14.8% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4..0 All-Red Time (5) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 290 2.0 2.0 LeadlLag Lead Lag lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max Max Max Max Act. Effct Green (5) 23.5 67.4 67.4 10.7 52.0 52.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.56 0.56 0.09 0.43 0.43 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 vIe Ratio 0991 0.57 025 0.35 0.91 0.09 0.27 0.54 0.05 0.30 Control Delay 75.4 19.0 4.1 52.9 39_8 9_1 38.7 61.2 48.9 14.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 75.4 19.0 4.1 52.9 39.8 9.1 38.7 61.2 48.9 14.3 LOS E B A D 0 A D E D B Approach Delay 27.5 39.0 38.7 42.8 Approach LOS C 0 D D Queue Length 50th (ft) 245 291 16 41 514 10 31 86 8 0 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 2008 Total AM2.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RoadNalleypointe Parkway 2008 Total Traffic AM Modified Timing 9/20/07 /" ~ I' +- ~ " f ~ '. ~ ./ -+- lane Group EBl EBT EBR WBl WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Length 95th (ft) #416 380 58 82 622 36 60 149 27 46 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1494 1446 654 942 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 350 Base Capacity (vph) 352 1964 972 313 1549 724 400 210 221 255 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spiflback 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 vie Ratio 0.89 0.57 0.25 0.17 0.89 0.09 0.27 0.54 0.05 0.30 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle length: 122 Actuated Cycle Length: 119.6 Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vIe Ratio: 0.91 Intersection Signal Delay: 33.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.50/0 Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.. Intersection LOS: C leu Level of Service D 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd Page 2 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 2008 Total AM2.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RdNalleypointe Parkway 2008 Total Traffic AM Network Modified Timing 092007 Intersection: 3: Peters Creek Road & -rhirlane Rd Movement EB E8 EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T T R L T T R LT TR L T Maximum Queue (ft) 225 237 202 39 92 460 485 226 66 41 148 26 Average Queue (ft) 172 158 154 21 44 349 332 61 39 16 88 12 95th Queue (ft) 228 238 200 36 87 474 488 198 71 41 158 30 Link Distance (ft) 1525 1525 1479 1479 676 676 944 944 Upstream Blk Time (010) Queuing Pena'ty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 200 200 Storage Blk Time (Ok) 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.23 0.19 Queuing Penalty (veh) 24 4 1 11 11 Intersection: 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd Movement S8 Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 67 Average Queue (ft) 34 95iliQueue(ft) 66 link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Sto~g~.~aY.pist (~) 350 Storage B~k Time (%) Q~~~~ln'g-~P_e,~~ity (veh) Intersection: 4: USFS Entr & VPP Movement Directions Served Maximum -Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th q.ueue (ft) Link Distance (ft) UP.~.~~f!i'~~I~ Tim'f$ .{o/~}. Queuing Penalty (veh) Stq~9:~~~~y.-~Qls:t:(~}. ~~...~:,- :'. '. Storage Blk Time (%) au~ti'Qg~Pen~lt}i (vell) · EB lR 31 12 36 828 .1..... NB LT 29 11 33 944 .- , , ., ~'.. ; ~ . - ".'. ... . -".. ~ ~ :'"~ .. . . . .' ;:-:.:-:~' ;. . ,:., ~-;~': . - '- - - I . ,. l .~..... - . ~ - .. .... . . - - . ~ - ;... - -. . Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 2008 Total AM2.sy6 Mattern and Craig Vatleypointe ParkwayNalleypark Drive 2008 Total Traffic AM 9/20/07 .,;. ,. ~ t l .; Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations V +it t1+ Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 10k 90/0 -9% Volume (veh/h) 10 65 185 100 120 50 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 71 201 109 130 54 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftIs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX. platoon unblocked ve, conflicting volume 614 92 185 vC1, stage 1 canf vol vC2. stage 2 canf vol vCu. unblocked vol 614 92 185 tet single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 fet 2 stage (5) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free 0/0 97 93 86 eM capacity (veh/h) 362 947 1387 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB2 5B 1 SB2 Volume Total 82 237 72 87 98 Volume Left 11 201 0 0 0 Volume Right 71 0 0 0 54 cSH 779 1387 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.14 0.04 0.05 0.06 Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 13 0 0 0 Control Delay (5) 10.2 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 10.2 5.4 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.7% leu' Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 2008 Totar AM.sy6 Mattern and Craig Valleypark Drive/East Entr 2008 Total Traffic AM 9/20/07 -+- ... ~ +- , r Movement EST EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1+ +t V Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 55 0 50 185 0 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 60 0 54 201 0 22 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB1 NB 1 Volume Total (vph) 60 255 22 Volume Left (vph) 0 54 0 Volume Right (vph) 0 0 22 Hadj (5) 0.03 O~O8 -0.57 Departure Headway (s) 4.2 4.1 4.0 Degree Utilization, x 0.07 0-29 0.02 Capacity (veh/h) 834 873 826 Control De1ay (5) 7.5 8.7 7.1 Approach Delay (s) 7.5 8.7 7.1 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary Delay 8.4 HeM Leve' of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.20/0 leu Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 2008 Total AM.sy6 Mattern and Craig VaJleypark DrivelWest Entr 2008 Total Traffic AM 9/20107 'y ., +- ~ ~ ~ Movement EST EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1+ +f V Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 15 0 40 55 0 40 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 0 43 60 0 43 Direction. Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 Volume Total (vph) 16 103 43 Volume Left (vph) 0 43 0 Vo'ume Right (vph) 0 0 43 Hadj (5) 0.03 0.12 -0.57 Departure Headway (5) 4.1 4.1 3.6 Degree Utilization, x 0.02 0.12 0.04 Capacity (veh/h) 855 861 960 Control Delay (5) 7.2 7.7 6.8 Approach Delay (5) 7.2 7.7 6.8 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary Deray 7.4 HeM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.80;0 leu Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 2008 Total AM.syS Mattern and Craig Valleypointe ParkwaylWood Haven Drive 2008 Total Traffic AM 9/20/07 / .,. .- +- ~ ~ t ". \.. ~ .,I -lit- Movement EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ lj 1+ 4+ 4t Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 30/0 -30/0 10/0 - 20/0 Volume (veh/h) 5 90 95 65 75 5 10 5 5 5 15 5 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) 5 98 103 71 82 5 11 5 5 5 16 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftIs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked Ve, conflicting volume 87 201 397 389 149 394 438 84 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 canf vol vCu. unblocked vol 87 201 397 389 149 394 438 84 te, single (5) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7_2 6.6 6.3 te, 2 stage (s) tF (5) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3_6 4.1 3.4 pO queue free 0/0 100 95 98 99 99 99 97 99 eM capacity (veh/h) 1509 1371 522 516 897 521 474 953 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB1 WB2 NB 1 58 1 Volume Total 207 71 87 22 27 Volume Left 5 71 0 11 5 Volume Right 103 0 5 5 5 cSH 1509 1371 1700 581 537 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 4 0 3 4 Control Delay (s) 0.2 7.8 0.0 11.4 12_1 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (5) 0.2 3.5 11.4 12.1 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.4% leu Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 2008 Tata[ AM_syfi Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RoadNalleypointe Parkway 2008 Total Traffic PM Optimized Timing 9/20/07 ; .... ~ ....... -\.. ~ t ~ '. ~ .; --+- Lane Group EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "i tt r' ~ tt ., 41+ lcj t " Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (0/0) 10/0 1% 1% - 20/0 Storage Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 0 0 0 350 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.961 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.968 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3190 0 1787 1881 1599 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.968 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3190 0 1787 1881 1599 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 165 22 46 323 Headway Factor 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.99 0.99 0.99 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 40 Link Distance (ft) 1574 1526 734 1022 Travel Time (5) 23.8 23.1 14.3 17.4 Volume (vph) 170 1050 175 55 1100 25 115 15 45 70 20 335 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 Heavy Vehicles (Ok) 2% 3% 2% 20/0 30/0 2% 50/0 20/0 5% 2% 2% 20/0 Adj. Flow (vph) 185 1141 190 60 1196 27 125 16 49 76 22 364 Lane Group Flow (vph) 185 1141 190 60 1196 27 0 190 0 76 22 364 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm SpHt Split Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 8 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 Detector Phases 5 2 2 1 6 6 4 4 8 8 8 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.0 22.0 22.0 14.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (s) 14.0 36.0 36.0 14.0 33.0 33.0 22.0 22.0 0.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Total Split (%) 14.9% 38.30;0 38.30/0 14.90/0 35.1 % 35.1 % 23.40/0 23.401'0 0.00/0 23.4% 23.40/0 23.4% Yellow Time (5) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (5) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lead/Lag Lead lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max Max Max Max Act Effct Green (s) 10.0 34.2 34.2 8.6 30.7 30.7 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.37 0.37 0.09 0.33 0.33 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 vIe Ratio 0.97 0.89 0.28 0.38 1.04 0.05 0.29 0.22 0.06 0.64 Control Delay 103.1 38.6 6.3 44.4 60.4 10.4 25.6 33.8 31.6 11.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 103.1 38.6 6.3 44.4 60.4 10.4 25.6 33.8 31.6 11.8 LOS F 0 A 0 E B C C C B Approach Delay 42.4 58.6 25.6 16.4 Approach LOS D E C B Queue Length 50th (ft) 111 341 10 34 -400 2 37 38 11 20 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 2008 Total PM.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RoadNal'eypointe Parkway 2008 Total Traffic PM Optimized Timing 9/20/07 ,J. .,. ., +- '- ~ t ~ '. ~ ..I -.. Lane Group EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Queue Length 95th (ft) #247 #489 56 73 #526 20 69 79 32 108 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1494 1446 654 942 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 350 Base Capacity (vph) 190 1288 686 183 1187 551 656 347 365 570 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 vIe Ratio 0.97 0.89 0.28 0.33 1.01 0.05 0.29 0.22 0.06 0.64 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 94 Actuated Cycle Length: 92.7 Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vIe Ratio: 1..04 Intersection Signal Delay: 44.0 I ntersection Capacity Utilization 67.5010 Analysis Period (min) 15 - 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. 'ntersection LOS: D 'eLl Level of Service C Splits and Phases: ~ QJ 1 ..... 11'2 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd ~ 1114 ,,.,, ,J l!l5 31" f.. 1118 .' ,;~,' . ~ 06 ~ _ ~i4:~ " Page 2 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 2008 Total PM.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RdNalleypointe Parkway Network Intersection: 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (0/0) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage B'k Time (0/0) Queuing Penalty (veh) EB EB EB L T T 134 344 341 106 270 274 150 356 356 1525 1525 200 0.09 0.11 15 19 EB R 226 98 262 200 0.00 o WB WB WB L T T 225 477 435 79 386 358 200 499 477 1479 1479 200 0.44 0.39 24 10 Intersection: 3: Peters Creek Road & -rhirlane Rd Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage B~y Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queui,r-9 P_enalty (ve.h) . . SB R 172 122 170 350 Intersection: 4: USFS Entr & VPP Movement EB Directions Served LR Max,im'um Queue (ft) 50" Average Queue (ft) 29 95th Q~eue (ft) 56 Link Distance (ft) 828 Upstrea'lTr~~~.~!imEr(%):-':, ":.,:, . Queuing Penalty (veh) St9"r~9~!'~~Y: qJs~, (f!) ~'::;{: ;";:;;?'~ / ~,:/ ':.. Storage Blk Time (0/0) quelj~ng P.e.o'alty (y~h) NB LT 28 10 31 944 . ). WB R 224 98 264 200 0.00 o , . .... ~ """" ft, ~;..~: 2008 Total Traffjc PI\II Optimized Timing 092007 NB LT 66 39 70 676 NB TR 38 19 38 676 '.. '. Af . ~~ . ,;.. ' " .';1,...('....,' t~. . .: "': SB L 90 48 86 944 SB T 23 9 26 944 Page 1 Mattern and Craig Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 2008 Total PM_sy6 Peters Creek RoadValleypointe Parkway 2008 Total Traffic PM Modified Timing 9/20/07 .,J -,. .( ~ '- "\ t ,II'- '. ~ .; --ttt- Lane Group EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations , tt ~ lj tt " +ft+ "'i t 7' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 10/0 10/0 10k - 2010 Storage Length (ft) 200 200 200 200 0 0 0 350 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Total Lost Time (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.961 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.968 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3190 0 1787 1881 1599 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.968 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1761 3487 1575 1761 3487 1575 0 3190 0 1787 1881 1599 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 155 21 36 364 Headway Factor 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.99 0.99 0.99 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 40 Link Distance (ft) 1574 1526 734 1022 Travel Time (s) 23.8 23.1 14.3 17.4 Volume (vph) 170 1050 175 55 1100 25 115 15 45 70 20 335 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 Heavy Vehicles (0/0) 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 20/0 20/0 Adj. Flow (vph) 185 1141 190 60 1196 27 125 16 49 76 22 364 Lane Group Flow (vph) 185 1141 190 60 1196 27 0 190 0 76 22 364 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Split Sp I it Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 8 8 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 Detector Phases 5 2 2 1 6 6 4 4 8 8 8 Minimum Initial (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4~O 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (5) 10.0 22.0 22.0 10.0 22.0 22.0 16.0 16.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 Total Split (5) 29.0 47.0 47.0 29.0 47.0 47.0 16.0 16.0 0.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 Total Split (%) 26.60k 43.10/0 43.1% 26.6% 43.1% 43.1% 14.7% 14.7Ok 0.0% 15.6% 15.60/0 15.60/0 Yellow Time (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max Max Max Max Act Effct Green (5) 17.3 48.7 48.7 10.6 39.2 39.2 12.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.40 0.40 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 vie Ratio 0.59 0.66 0.22 0.32 0.86 0.04 0.45 0.32 0.09 0.69 Control Delay 41.2 21.4 4.5 43.6 32.5 9.8 37.7 45.7 42.0 12.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 41.2 21.4 4.5 43.6 32.5 9.8 37.7 45.7 42.0 12.2 LOS 0 C A D C A D D D B Approach Delay 21.7 32.5 37.7 19.1 Approach LOS C C D B Queue Length 50th (ft) 112 283 11 37 351 2 49 46 13 0 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 2008 Total PM2.sy6 Mattern and Craig Peters Creek RoadValleypointe Parkway 2008 Total Traffic PM Modified Timing 9/20107 /" --+ Lane Group EBL EST Queue Length 95th (ft) 183 376 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1494 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 Base Capacity (vph) 419 1733 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.44 0.66 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 109 Actuated Cycle Length: 98 Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vIe Ratio: 0.86 Intersection Signal Delay: 26.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.5004 Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: .r m1 'y ., +- '- ~ t ;a-- '. ~ .' EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 50 79 492 20 91 97 38 92 1446 654 942 200 200 200 350 861 385 1479 680 426 240 252 530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.22 0.16 0.81 0_04 0.45 0.32 0.09 0.69 Intersection LOS: C leU Level of Service C 3: Peters Creek Road & Thirlane Rd 05 ~ 04 f.. IDB 3~.. . .'. _. . _o;~"t::~ r "';t ,- Page 2 Mattern and Craig Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 2008 Total PM2.sy6 Peters Creek RdNa~leypointe Parkway 2008 Total Traffic PM Network Modified Timing 092007 Intersection: 3: Peters Creek Road & -rhirlane Rd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB 58 58 Directions Served L T T R L T T LT TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 154 214 248 39 94 281 287 152 44 70 25 170 Average Queue (ft) 98 185 175 21 53 220 209 118 26 52 16 146 95th Queue (ft) 152 220 263 36 89 296 280 180 52 80 32 171 Link Distance (ft) 1525 1525 1479 1479 676 676 944 944 Upstream BJk Time (0/0) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 200 350 Storage Blk Time (0/0) 0.02 0.03 0.08 0.07 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 4 4 2 Intersection: 4: USFS Entr & VPP Movement EB NB Directions Served LR LT Ma~imum Queue (ft) 32 27. Average Queue (ft) 31 5 95th Queue (ft) 32 23 Link Distance (ft) 828 944 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage,~ay Dist (ft) ., ~ .. .1. ........... ......... _ Storage Bfk Time (0/0) Queul'nifPen~lty .(veh) ~ ~-. "l '-, ~.. ~... ...{ '1..~ Intersection: 5: Valleypark Dr & vpp Movement EB NB Directions Served LR LT Maximum 'Queue (ft) -"'- 73 . '52\". Average Queue (ft) 57 33 95th ~9~~ue (ft) 7,f~ :', ''-'~P~-'':'~ " ~ ~" link Distance (ft) 283 538 Ups!r~~m:J?Jk ~Ti,ni,~ '(%) ~ ' . ":. /'\ ~'.t.. ..- L ,.. .;:.... .. 1,. ~ .... .. ~,.. J< ~,:.::. ~ L J _~.;~ ~_~ ~~~.~ Queuing Penalty (veh) S~9f~g~'~~~~.~tsf(tt) .= -."-f , ' ... ~_~. ::." ,I' " " . . ............ Storage Blk Time (%) QUe~I-6'g)~~elialtY (Veh) ( "'~-~.or: ..-;:' ~:" ~ r. ... .. ,j. ,-.':.... ,. .. ~~ ....: ...,:. ;-r~': 1. 4- '0,:' . " Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 2008 Total PM2.sy6 Mattern and Craig Valleypointe ParkwayNalleypark Drive 2008 Total Traffic PM 9/20/07 .,J. ~ , t ~ ./ Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations V 4t t1+ Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 10/0 g% -g% Volume (veh/h) 55 245 105 90 135 25 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 60 266 114 98 147 27 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked ve, conflicting volume 438 87 174 vC 1, stage 1 canf vol vC2, stage 2 canf vol vCu, unblocked vol 438 87 174 te, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC. 2 stage (5) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 88 72 92 eM capacity (veh/h) 503 954 1400 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB2 58 1 SB2 Volume Total 326 147 65 98 76 Volume left 60 114 0 0 0 Volume Right 266 0 0 0 27 cSH 819 1400 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.40 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 48 7 0 0 0 Control Defay (5) 12.3 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (5) 12.3 4.3 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 6.9 Intersection Capacity Util ization 38.5% leu level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 2008 Total PM2.sy6 Mattern and Craig Valleypark Drive/East Entr 2008 Total Traffic PM 9/20/07 ... ~ +- ~ ~ -+ Movement EST EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1'+ ~ V Sign Contro' Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 230 0 40 90 0 70 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 250 0 43 98 0 76 Directionl Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB1 Volume Total (vph) 250 141 76 Volume Left (vph) 0 43 0 Volume Right (vph) 0 0 76 Hadj (s) 0.03 0.10 -0.57 Departure Headway (5) 4.3 4.4 4.2 Degree Utilization. x 0.30 0.17 0.09 Capacity (veh/h) 827 783 784 Control Delay (5) 9.0 8.4 7.6 Approach Delay (5) 9.0 8.4 7.6 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary Delay 8.6 HeM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.4% feU level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 2008 Total PM2.sy6 Mattern and Craig Valleypark OriveIWest Entr 2008 Total Traffic PM 9/20/07 'y ~ +- ~ t'" -.- Movement EST EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1+ +t V Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Vo'ume (vph) 145 0 65 25 0 85 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 158 0 71 27 0 92 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 Volume Total (vph) 158 98 92 Vo'ume Left (vph) 0 71 0 Volume Right (vph) 0 0 92 Hadj (s) 0.03 0.18. -0.57 Departure Headway (s) 4.2 4.4 3.9 Degree Utilization~ x 0.19 0.12 0.10 Capacity (veh/h) 827 788 862 Control Delay (5) 8.2 8.0 7.3 Approach Delay (5) 8.2 8.0 7.3 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary Delay 7.9 HeM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.80k leu level of Service A Anatysis Period (min) 15 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 2008 Total PM2.sy6 Mattern and Craig VaUeypointe ParkwaylWood Haven Drive 2008 Total Traffic PM 9/20107 .",. ~ .( ...- -\.. ~ t ~ '. ~ .I -.. Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ "'i 1+ 4+ 4+ Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 30/0 -30/0 10Jb - 20/0 Volume (veh/h) 5 105 35 30 180 5 85 20 30 10 25 5 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) 5 114 38 33 196 5 92 22 33 11 27 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX. platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 201 152 424 410 133 451 427 198 vC1) stage 1 canf vol vC2, stage 2 cant vol vCu. unblocked vol 201 152 424 410 133 451 427 198 te, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.2 6.6 6.3 te, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3-6 4.1 3.4 pO queue free 0/0 100 98 82 96 96 98 95 99 eM capacity (vehlh) 1371 1429 504 517 916 462 495 823 Direction. Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB2 NB 1 581 Volume Total 158 33 201 147 43 Volume Left 5 33 0 92 11 Volume Right 38 0 5 33 5 cSH 1371 1429 1700 562 511 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.26 0.09 Queue length 95th (ft) 0 2 0 26 7 Control DeJay (s) 0.3 7.6 0.0 13.7 12.7 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.3 1.1 13.7 12.7 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.4% leu level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 1 Synchro 6 Report 2777 DMV 2008 Total PM2.sy6 Mattern and Craig EUGENE M. ELLIOTT, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAw SUITE 910-WACHOVIA BUILDING 213 SOUTH JEFFERSON STREET ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1787 TELEPHONE (540) 981-0164 FACSIMILE (540) 982-5660 October 1, 2007 Via: FAX: (540) 776-7155 Philip Thonlpson~ Deputy Director Roanoke County Planning Department 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke~ VA 24018 RE: Application for Re-Zoning by Timberbrook Properties III, LLC Property Location: 5162 V alleypointe Parkway, Roanoke, VA Tax Map#: 037.07-01-14.06-0000 Dear Phil, This letter follows our conversation of September 28,2007, and today~ October 1, 2007, when I indicated to you that I represent Roanoke ValleyPointe, LLC., the across the street adjoining landowner in the above re-zoning request. I indicated to you that Roanoke ValleyPointe, LLC did not receive notice by mail of the re-zoning request. The first knowledge of the owner was on Thursday, September 27, 2007. Accordingly~ after investigation, review of the Staff Report including the traffic report ,:vhich \'Vas available Friday afternoon (9/28/07), the opportunity to meet with Steve Strauss, principal of Timberbrook Properties III, LLC and his attorney, Maryellen GC)odlatte~ today, my client simply has not had time to deal with the issues presented in this re-zoning request. It does appear that notice was sent to Roanoke Valleypointe, LLC, at the wrong address, Professional Arts Building., Suite 800, Roanoke, VA 24011 and was never received by Roanoke Valleypointe, LLC. It appears that the proper address required under the Code of Virginia, is to the address on the tax records of the county and that was not in fact the address where the notice was sent. Likewise, it is my understanding that it was the applicant's obligation to furnish the Planning Department with the proper address at which to give the notice. My client is the former developer of this office park as successor to Lingerfelt C:\EM E\PThompson J 001 07Rnk V pt.doc Properties/Liberty Trust. It and its sister organization, RVP Development, LLC, own numerous parcels in the office park having a value in excess of$15,000,000.00. The lack of notice leaves my client with an inability to obtain a professional assessment of the impact of the proposed re-zoning on its property by 7:00 p.m. October 2, 2007. This office park has a professional appearance and is well landscaped and the use as a DMV center is not characteristic of the other existing uses. Without reasonable notice my client is unable to make informed assessments as to traffic impact of this use on the office park, generally, and upon his parcels in particular. The same is true regarding parking requirements and more specifically overflow of parking onto his parcels. He is unable to make any sort of assessment from his tenants as to the opposition or support which they have for this re-zoning. Obviously, tenant reaction is important from the standpoint of the renewal of leases which goes to the essence of whether this re- zoning will positively or negatively affect the value of his holdings in ValleyPointe. On the one hand, my client has endeavored to meet today in good faith with Steve Strauss and Maryellen Good.latte, to understand from them the use Timberbrook Properties III, LLC desires to make of the property, both as to the DMV thereafter. On the other hand, there is no time to evaluate the proposal. On behalf of Roanoke ValleyPointe, LLC, I respectfully object to this matter being heard before the Commission based on the inadequate notice received as required in the Code of Virginia and, also, just by common fairness. We request a continuance to the next monthly meeting of the Planning Commission. EMEjr/whc C:\EME\PThompson 1001 07RnkVpt.doc ,tIlJ' ... t~~" -, -,.. '1.11 tl(j ~,.~.. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE FORMER ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, 3568 PETERS CREEK ROAD, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2007 ORDINANCE TO REZONE 2.917 ACRES FROM 1-1 C, INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS, TO C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH CONOrrIONS, FOR -rHE CONS-rRUC.rION OF AN ADMINISTRA riVE SERVICES BUILDING LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF V ALLEYPOINTE PARKWAY AND VALLEYPARK DRIVE (TAX MAP NO. 37.07-1-14.6), CATAWBA MAGIS-rERIAL DISTRICT UPON THE APPLICATION OF TIMBERBROOK PROPERTIES III, LLC WHEREAS, a portion of this property was rezoned on October 30, 1987, to M-1, Light Industrial District, for the purpose of a light industrial (mixed use) park with a special exception for office and commercial development upon the petition of Lingerfelt Development Corporation with proffered conditions (attached Exhibit A - Proffer of Conditions); and WHEREAS, in 1992, the property was rezoned from M-1, Light Industrial District, to 1-1, Industrial District, as part of Roanoke County's comprehensive rezoning with the adoption of the new zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 25,2007, and the second reading and public hearing were held October 23, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission herd a public hearing on this matter on October 2, 2007; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 2.917 acres, as described herein, and located near the intersection ofValleypointe Parkway and Valleypark Drive (Tax Map Number 37.07-1-14.6) in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of 1-1 C, ~ndustrial District with Conditions, to the zoning classjfication of C-2, General Commercial District with conditions. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Timberbrook Properties III, LLC. 3. -rhat the 1987 Proffer of Conditions (Exhibit A) is hereby repealed. 4. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (1) That the property will be used only for the following uses: Administrative Services, Day Care Center, Post Office, Safety Services, Uti~ity Services (Minor), Financial Institutions, Genera~ Office, Medical Office, Laboratories, Business Support Services, Business or Trade Schools. (2) That no more than 75 percent of the property will be developed for building and parking uses. (3) That all on-premises signage will be aesthetically pleasing and be no more than forty (40) square feet in sign face area and no more than eight (8) feet in height. Outdoor advertising signs (billboards) will be prohibited. (4) That there will be no outdoor storage except under the foUowing conditions: a. that it not be visible from the street b. that it not be higher than the elevation of the building c. that it not comprise an area greater than 50 percent of the floor area of the building d. that it be screened from view with ~andscaping and/or other approved screening materials in accordance with the provisions of the Roanoke County Ordinance. (5) -rhat all utilities will be underground. (6) -rhat there will be no on-street parking. (7) That there will be sufficient truck loading spaces designed for each 2 building site. 5. That said real estate is more fully described as foUows: Being all of Tax Map No. 37.07-1-14.6 containing 2.91 acres. 6. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are. repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. 3 Exhibit A VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY to I-581 wi th the Hollins ) ) ) ) ) ) ) . PROFFER A 52 ~ acre parcel of land, generally loca tad north of Peters Creek Road, adjacent Magisterial District, and OF recorded as parcel Nos. CONDITIONS 37.06-1-1 (part), 37.07-1-8, 37.07-1-9, 37.07-1-11, 37.07-1-12 and 37.07-1-13 ) ) ) in the Roanoke County Tax Records. TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVI SORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: Being in accord with Section 15.. 1-491.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia and Section 21-10SE. of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, the Petitioner, Lingerfelt Development Corporation, hereby voluntarily proffers to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, the following conditions to the rezoning of the above referenced parcel of land: 1. The property will not include permi tted uses for: a. Automobile painting, upholstering, repa~r1ng, rebuilding, recondi tioning , body and fender work, truck repairing or overhauling: b.. Manufacture of pottery and figurines or other similar ceramic products: C.. Veterinary hospital and commercial kennels with exterior runs and yards; d. Outside flea markets, unless a special exception has been grant.ed by the Board of Supervisors. 2. That the property will be developed so as to utilize landscaping and preserve existing vegetation where possible. No more than 75% of each building site will be developed for building and parking uses. 3. That all on-premises signage will be aesthetically pleasing and be no more than forty (40) square feet in sign face area and no more than eight (8) feet in height. Outdoor advertising signs (billboards) will be prohibited. 4. That there will be no outdoor storage except. under the following conditions: a. that it not be visible from the street b. that it not be higher than the elevation of the building c. that it not comprise an area greater than 50% of the floor area of the building d. that it be screened from view with landscaping and/or other approved screening materials in accordance with the provisions of the Roanoke County Ordinance. 5. That. all utilities will be underground. 6. That there will be no on-street parking. 7. That there will be sufficient truck loading spaces designed for each building si te. 8. That. the Petitioner will review the drainage situation for Valleypointe and implement a design for drainage facilities to either retain or detain the two (2) year storm (as has been required by Roanoke County) and to consider retention or detention for a ten (10) year storm. 9. That all exterior lighting in parking areas on the northwest side of the project will be directed away from adjacent residential areas. 10. Tha t primary access to the property will be from Peters Creek Road. Respectfully submitted, LINGERFELT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BY