Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 03-17-14 Price 39870-031714 6' .r- ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION MARCH 17, 2014 2:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER AGENDA 1 . Call to Order--Roll Call. Council Member Lea was absent. The Invocation was delivered by The Reverend Timothy P. Harvey, Pastor, Central Church of the Brethren. Mayor Bowers called for a moment of silence in honor of the late Greg Ervin who had been very active in the Mountain View Civic Group. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor David A. Bowers. Welcome. Mayor Bowers. Recognized Council Birthdays in March Lea - March 13 Price - March 26 Trinkle - March 28 Bestpitch - March 31 1 NOTICE: Today's Council meeting will be televised live and replayed on RVTV Channel 3 on Thursday, March 20 at 7:00 p.m., and Saturday, March 22 at 4:00 p.m. Council meetings are offered with closed captioning for the hearing impaired. ANNOUNCEMENTS: THE PUBLIC IS ADVISED THAT MEMBERS OF COUNCIL RECEIVE THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AND RELATED COMMUNICATIONS, REPORTS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS, ETC., ON THE THURSDAY PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL MEETING TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT TIME FOR REVIEW OF INFORMATION. THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PROVIDES THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ON THE INTERNET FOR VIEWING AND RESEARCH PURPOSES. TO ACCESS AGENDA MATERIAL, GO TO THE CITY'S HOMEPAGE AT WWW.ROANOKEVA.GOV, CLICK ON THE GOVERNMENT ICON. NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. SPECIAL ASSISTANCE IS AVAILABLE FOR DISABLED PERSONS ADDRESSING CITY COUNCIL. EFFORTS WILL BE MADE TO PROVIDE ADAPTATIONS OR ACCOMMODATIONS BASED ON INDIVIDUAL NEEDS OF QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES, PROVIDED THAT REASONABLE ADVANCE NOTIFICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS COUNCIL WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PRIOR TO THE MONDAY COUNCIL MEETING, OR REGISTER WITH THE STAFF ASSISTANT AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBER PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE COUNCIL MEETING. ONCE THE COUNCIL MEETING HAS CONVENED, THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER REGISTRATION OF SPEAKERS, EXCEPT FOR PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS. ON THE SAME AGENDA ITEM, ONE TO FOUR SPEAKERS WILL BE ALLOTTED FIVE MINUTES EACH; HOWEVER, IF THERE ARE MORE THAN FOUR SPEAKERS, EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOTTED THREE MINUTES. ANY PERSON WHO IS INTERESTED IN SERVING ON A CITY COUNCIL APPOINTED AUTHORITY, BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE MAY CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT 853-2541, OR ACCESS THE CITY'S HOMEPAGE TO OBTAIN2 AN APPLICATION. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE IS SEEKING APPLICATIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING CURRENT OR UPCOMING EXPIRATIONS OF TERMS OF OFFICE: FAIR HOUSING BOARD (ONE UNEXPIRED TERM ENDING MARCH 31, 2016) PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD (THREE THREE-YEAR TERMS ENDING MARCH 31, 2017) ROANOKE NEIGHBORHOOD ADVOCATES (ONE UNEXPIRED TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 2015) ROANOKE PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD (AN UNEXPIRED TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 2014) 2. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: A resolution memorializing the late William B. Overstreet, Jr., World War II fighter pilot, who gained fame by flying beneath arches of the Eiffel Tower. Adopted Resolution No. 39870-031714. Presented ceremonial copies to Dick Baynton, representative; Anne Keller, a niece; and Robert S. Bersch, Attorney for other family members. A proclamation declaring March 2014 as American Red Cross Month. Presented proclamation to C. Lee Clark, CEO, American Red Cross. 3. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: CITY COUNCIL SETS THIS TIME AS A PRIORITY FOR CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. ALL MATTERS WILL BE REFERRED TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR RESPONSE, RECOMMENDATION OR REPORT TO COUNCIL, AS HE MAY DEEM APPROPRIATE. Barbara Duerk appeared before the Council and asked that a "Roll-on/Roll-off" platform be implemented when the new passenger rail station is constructed. She also encouraged the Members to appoint a diverse cross-section when making appointments to authorities, boards, commissions and committees; and she called for fairness when determining fees for business licenses. 3 Lucas Thorton offered positive feedback on the recent City Dance Hall Ordinance and he said that the increased presence of security in the downtown area allows the Police Department to patrol other areas of the City. Robert Gravely reminded the Members of Council that they had a responsibility to all members of the community. Troy Eichelberger asked that the tennis courts on the upper level of Washington Park be re-opened and he expressed concern that the softball field had been removed. 4. CONSENT AGENDA (Approved 6-0) ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. C-1 Minutes of the regular meeting of City Council held on Monday, January 6, 2014. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Dispensed with the reading of the minutes and approved as recorded. C-2 A communication from the Mayor requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, specifically upcoming expirations of terms of office on the Roanoke City School Board, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concurred in the request. C-3 A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss the disposition of publicly-owned property located at 117 and 119 Norfolk Avenue, S. W., where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concurred in the request. 4 C-4 Reports of qualification of Max W. Davis as a City representative of the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, Board of Directors to replace Vincent Dabney for a term of office ending December 31, 2016; and Erin Dudley as a member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to replace Christopher Pohlad-Thomas for a term of office ending March 31, 2017. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Received and filed. REGULAR AGENDA 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. 6. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: NONE. 7. REPORTS OF CITY OFFICERS AND COMMENTS OF CITY MANAGER: a. CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: • Citizen Survey - 20 minutes (Deferred until a future Council meeting.) ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: 1. Acceptance and appropriation of funds for the FY 2013 State Homeland Security Program Grant from Virginia Department of Emergency Management to enhance the current capabilities of the City's Division 6 Heavy Technical Rescue (HTR) Team. Adopted Resolution No. 39871-031714 and Budget Ordinance No. 39872-031714 (6-0). 2. Acceptance and appropriation of funds for the FY 2013 State Homeland Security Program Grant from Virginia Department of Emergency Management to upgrade hazardous materials monitoring equipment to support the City's HAZMAT Team. Adopted Resolution No. 39873-031714 and Budget Ordinance No. 39874-031714 (6-0). 5 3. Appropriation of funds in connection with the Virginia Pre-Hospital Information Bridge (VPHIB) Special Incentive Grant Program from the Virginia Office of Emergency Medical Services to purchase computers to be used by the Fire-EMS Department. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 39875-031714 (6-0). 4. Acceptance and appropriation of additional funds in connection with the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Subgrant from the Roanoke Prevention Alliance to fund officer hours of overtime traffic enforcement. Adopted Resolution No. 39876-031714 and Budget Ordinance No. 39877-031714 (6-0). 5. Acceptance of conveyance of real property from the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority. Adopted Ordinance No. 39878-031714 (6-0). 6. Acceptance and authorization to execute Intercity Rail Operating and Capital Transportation Fund Agreement with the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT), in connection with the return on passenger rail service to the City; and appropriation of funds in connection therewith. Adopted Resolution No. 39879-031714 and Budget Ordinance No. 39880-031714 (6-0). 7. Appropriation of Civic Center Retained Earnings for replacement of the carpet at the Roanoke Performing Arts Theatre and coliseum spotlights. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 39881-031714 (6-0). COMMENTS BY CITY MANAGER. The City Manager offered the following comments: St. Patrick's Day Parade: • Approximately 24,000 people attended • Featured City teams such as the Police Department • Social media used to distribute photos — 100's of hits from around the country • Salem Avenue was closed to connect Corned Beef and Company's celebration with the main stage and the children's area at the Taubman Museum of Art • MB Contractors were able to open a portion of the Market Square 6 Hurt Park Bus Shelter: • 13th Street and Salem Avenue, S. W. • Ribbon cutting ceremony— Saturday, March 15, 2014 • Council Member Bestpitch represented City Council • Joint effort of Ride Solutions, Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, Greater Roanoke Transit Company (GRTC) and City of Roanoke • Grant from Ride Solutions and the Federal government through GRTC-Valley Metro Elmwood Park: • Library porch is coming along nicely • Featured in March Edition of Town & City Magazine by the Virginia Municipal League (VML) • Roanoke will be hosting the VML Conference in the Fall Start City Reads: • Basis of Star City Award • Community has embraced • Kelly Woolwine Life-Ring Foundation donation of$40,000.00 • Will focus on: o Foundation's children series o Roanoke Board Book—given to all newborns in Roanoke o Parent engagement series b. DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: 1. Authorization to establish the percentage reduction for personal property tax relief for the 2014 tax year. Adopted Resolution No. 39882-031714 (6-0). 2. Appropriation of proceeds from the sale of Series 2014 General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 39883-031714 (6-0). 7 8. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: a. A report of the Roanoke City School Board requesting appropriation of funds from the Virginia Department of Education State Operated Programs for educational services; and a report of the Director of Finance recommending that Council concur in the request. Kathleen Jackson, Director of Accounting, Spokesperson. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 39884-031714 (6-0). 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: b. Continuation of the matter with regard to an amendment of the City Code to include skateboards as a mode of wheeled transportation and to govern the operation of wheeled transportation within public parks or plazas, effective March 31, 2014. Since action on the matter was to be tabled until the 7:00 p.m. session, under Other Business, the item was taken out of order. a. Continuation of the matter with regard to an amendment of the City Code to establish the Mill Mountain Advisory Board; and dissolve the Mill Mountain Advisory Committee. Action on Alternative Ordinance (Draft date: 03.07.2014)was postponed until April 7, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. 10. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Adopted Resolution No. 39885-031714 urging U. S. Representative Bob Goodlatte to lead the House Judiciary Committee in developing legislation for adoption by the United States House of Representatives of a Marketplace Fairness Act to protect state and local government revenue sources. (6-0) 11 . MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: a. Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and Members of City Council. Council Member Price offered congratulations to the William Fleming Lady Colonels Basketball team for their effort in the State Championship Game in Richmond, Virginia; and even though their bid was unsuccessful, the team had made it obvious they were focused and goal-oriented. 8 Council Member Bestpitch thanked the Mayor for the opportunity to represent the Council at a ribbon cutting ceremony for the new 13`h Street and Salem Avenue, S. W., bus shelter; and he encouraged everyone to visit the structure made of marbles that mimics the rooflines and dormers of the houses in the neighborhood. b. Vacancies on certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council. At 4:39 p.m., the Council meeting was declared in recess fora Closed Meeting in the Council's Conference Room, Room 451, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. Council Member Trinkle left following the Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies. At 5:32 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber. Appointed Shawna Battle as a member of the Roanoke Public Library Board to fill the unexpired term of Taren McCoy ending June 30, 2014. Re-appointed John Dooley (Virginia Tech) as a City representative of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission for a four-year term of office ending March 9, 2018. Waived the City-residency requirement for Mr. Dooley in this instance. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED MEETING. (5-0, Council Member Trinkle was absent.) AT 5:33 P.M., THE COUNCIL MEETING WAS DECLARED IN RECESS UNTIL 7:00 P.M., IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER. 9 } ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION MARCH 17, 2014 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER AGENDA Call to Order--Roll Call. Council Member Lea was absent. The Invocation was delivered by Mayor David A. Bowers. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Bowers. Welcome. Mayor Bowers. NOTICE: Today's Council meeting will be televised live and replayed on RVTV Channel 3 on Thursday, March 20 at 7:00 p.m., and Saturday, March 22 at 4:00 p.m. Council meetings are offered with closed captioning for the hearing impaired. A. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: A resolution memorializing the late Elizabeth T. Bowles, former City Council Member and Vice-Mayor of the City of Roanoke. Adopted Resolution No. 39886-031714 (6-0). Present ceremonial copies to Norm Lagueux, husband of daughter Connie. 10 A proclamation declaring March 2014 as DeMolay Month. Presented proclamation to Chris Lechisin, Member, Roanoke Valley Chapter, Order of DeMolay. Recognition of the James Breckinridge Middle School Builders Club. Deferred until May 19, 2014. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Request of Pegasus Tower Company, LLC, to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan as it pertains to 1809 Franklin Road, S. W., to permit construction of a wireless telecommunications in Phase I and an office building in Phase II having previously been rezoned as Institutional Planned Unit Development Plan (INPUD), pursuant to Ordinance 37269-120505 adopted by the Roanoke City Council on December 5, 2005. Maxwell H. Wiegard, Agent, Spokesperson. Ordinance No. 39887 was adopted on its first reading. (4-2, Council Members Bestpitch and Trinkle voting no.) 2. Request of John and Barbara Frantz to permanently discontinue, vacate and close an approximately 2,921 square foot portion of the right-of-way of 5th Street, adjacent to 502 Janette Avenue, S. W. John Frantz, Owner, Spokesperson. Inasmuch as the request had been continued by the Planning Commission until its next regular meeting on April 8, 2014, at 1:30 p.m., the public hearing was not conducted by the Council. 3. Proposal of the City of Roanoke to convey certain rights and interests in City-owned property situated at 502 Williamson Road, S. E., to the Commonwealth of Virginia, with respect to road improvements being made by the Virginia Department of Transportation in connection with the Interstate 581/Elm Avenue interchange project. Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager. Adopted Ordinance No. 39888-031714 and Budget Ordinance No. 39889-031714 (6-0). 11 4. Proposal of the City of Roanoke to convey a portion of Brown-Robertson Neighborhood Park situated at 0 10th Street, N. W., to the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") and/or the Commonwealth of Virginia in support of the 10th Street Improvement Project in exchange for a portion of property of equivalent or greater value owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia located at 1522 10th Street, N. W., to be used by the City for park purposes subject to approval of the National Park Service. Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager. Adopted Ordinance No. 39890-031714 (6-0). C. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Continuation of the matter regarding amendment of the City Code regarding the Special Business License Tax for fortune-telling and criminal penalty for failure to pay the annual special business license tax in connection therewith. (Action on the matter was postponed at the March 3, 2014 Council meeting). Adopted Ordinance No. 39891-031714 as amended (6-0). 2. Continuation of the matter with regard to an amendment of the City Code to include skateboards as a mode of wheeled transportation and to govern the operation of wheeled transportation within public parks or plazas, effective March 31 , 2014. (Action on the matter was postponed at the January 21, 2014 Council meeting.) Pursuant to Section 24-87, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the matter will be addressed by the City Manager's administration. D. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: CITY COUNCIL SETS THIS TIME AS A PRIORITY FOR CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. ALL MATTERS WILL BE REFERRED TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR RESPONSE, RECOMMENDATION OR REPORT TO COUNCIL, AS HE MAY DEEM APPROPRIATE. NONE. Pat Corp left the meeting, but requested comments be included in the record regarding issues in the Huff Lane Neighborhood area. E. ADJOURNMENT - 9:48 P.M. 12 CITY OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL _ 215 Church Avenue, S.W. -� Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, Suite 456 y-� Roanoke. Virginia 24011 -1536 a4(e r Telephone: (540) 853 -2541 DAVID A. BOWERS Fax: (540) 853 -1145 Mayor March 17, 2014 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council: Council Members William D. Bestpitch Raphael E. "Ray" Ferris Sherman P. Lea Anita J. Price Court G. Rosen David B. Trinkle This is to advise you that I will not be present at the 2:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. sessions of Council on Monday, March 17, 2014. Best wishes for a successful meeting. Sincerely, Sherman P. Lea Council Member SPL /ctw OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W.,Suite 456 Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 E-mail: clerk @roanokeva.gov JONATHAN E.CRAFT,CMC STEPHANIE M.MOON,MMC Deputy City Clerk City Clerk CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk March 24, 2014 Reverend Tim P. Harvey Central Church of the Brethren 416 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Dear Reverend Harvey: On behalf of the Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council, I would like to express sincere appreciation to you for delivering the Invocation at the regular meeting of the Roanoke City Council, which was held on Monday, March 17, 2014. Sincerely, • Jonathan E. Graft, CMC Deputy City Clerk JEC:aa STEPHANIE M. MOON, MMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 -1536 Telephone. (540) 853 -2541 Fax: (540) 853 -1145 &mail: clerk @roanokeva.gov March 19, 2014 Estate of William B. Overstreet, Jr. c/o Robert S. Bersch, Esquire 8207 Bayberry Court, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Mr. Bersch: JONATHAN E. CRAFT, CMC Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T. WEBB, CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk I am enclosing ceremonial copies of Resolution No. 3970 - 031714 saluting the life and serviced of William Bruce Overstreet, Jr. On behalf of citizens of the City of Roanoke, City Council adopted this Resolution to remember and celebrate the remarkable contributions that Mr. Overstreet made throughout his life to his community and his nation. The abovementioned resolution was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at its meeting, which was held on Monday, March 17, 2014. Sincerely, Stephanie M. City Clerk Enclosure Moon, MMC t: ?' M ew W� , '/ William A Overstreet, Jr. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 17th day of March, 2014. No. 39870-031714. A RESOLUTION saluting the life and service of William Bruce Overstreet, Jr. WHEREAS, William Bruce Overstreet, Jr., a long -time resident of Roanoke, passed away on December 29, 2013 at the age of 92, WHEREAS, William Bruce Overstreet, Jr. was one of Roanoke's most decorated World War II veterans, having served with incredible valor and distinction in Europe as a captain of the 35TH' squadron of the U.S. Army Air Force; WHEREAS, William Bruce Overstreet, Jr. received hundreds of medals for his service to his country during World War 11, WHEREAS, William Bruce Overstreet, Jr. demonstrated bravery and courage throughout his service during the war, including his most famous flight that, while in solo pursuit of a German Messerschmitt Bf 109G flying into German - occupied Paris in 1944, Captain Overstreet maneuvered his plane beneath the arches of the Eiffel Tower, and thereby renewing the spirit of the French Resistance troops; WHEREAS, William Bruce Overstreet, Jr. received one his greatest honors in 2009 at the National D -Day Memorial in Bedford when the French ambassador to the United States bestowed on Captain Overstreet France's highest award, the Legion of Honor, and Captain Overstreet demonstrated his true character, grace, and modesty by simply accepting this award in memory of all service members who died in the War; WHEREAS, following the conclusion of World War II, William Bruce Overstreet, Jr. returned to Roanoke, began his career as a certified public accountant, and married Nita Brackens of Covington; WHEREAS, William Bruce Overstreet, Jr. continued his active and distinguished service to his community by working with several charitable organizations, both locally and nationally, to make a positive contribution to his community and nation; WHEREAS, William Bruce Overstreet, Jr. was a native of Clifton Forge, the son of the late William B. and Gertrude Taylor Overstreet, and was preceded in death by his beloved wife, Nita, and his two sisters, Bernice Overstreet Meisebnan, of Alexandria, and Melvene Overstreet Marks, of Rocky Mount, N.C.; and WHEREAS, City Council, on behalf of all citizens of Roanoke, desires to remember, honor, and celebrate the life and service of William Bruce Overstreet, Jr. to his community and his nation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that. I. City Council adopts this Resolution to remember and celebrate the remarkable contributions that William B. Overstreet, Jr. made throughout his life to his community and his nation. 2. On behalf of the citizens of Roanoke, City Council salutes William Bruce Overstreet, Jr. for his dedicated service to the people of Roanoke throughout his distinguished life. 3. On behalf of the citizens of Roanoke, City Council adopts this resolution of its expression of its condolences to the family of William Bruce Overstreet, Jr. on the passing of this truly great member of The Greatest Generation. 4. City Council directs the City Clerk to provide the family of William Bruce Overstreet, Jr. with an attested copy of this Resolution. ATTEST.• Stephanie M. Moon, MMC City Clerk APPROVED David Aid A. Bowers Mayor x4C1�1��1011 LEAS, the American Red Cross has touched many lives in the Roanoke Valley, as well as across the Country and around the world, LEAS, during the month of March, the American Red Cross expresses appreciation to those individuals who contribute to the mission of the Red Cross, whether through time, money or blood; and invite others to support the organization locally, across the Country and around the world; WHEREAS, the American Red Cross has been synonymous in helping people for more than 130 years; throughout the past year, hundreds of disaster relief operations were launched to help people affected by fires, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes in the United States and international disasters, including the Japan Earthquake and Tsunami Response Project, and its work on the 2010 Haiti Earthquake Response and Recovery Project; and WHEREAS, for nearly 100 years United States presidents have called on the American people to support the Red Cross and its humanitarian mission; and because it is not a government agency, the Red Cross depends on public support to continue its humanitarian work, especially during these challenging economic times, which impact the Red Cross and many people in our community and across the nation, NOW, THEREFORE, 1, David A. Bowers, Mayor of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, encourage all citizens to support this organization and its noble humanitarian mission; and do hereby proclaim March 2014 throughout this great All- America City, as AMER /CAN RED CROSS MONTH. Given under our hands and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this seventeenth day of March in the year two thousand and fourteen. ATTEST. Z ;"7"'4'.'4' M. un' Stephanie M. Moon City Clerk Y J Qcgew� David A. Bowers Mayor Comments: City council 2:OOpm; 7:OOpm ;1 barb to: clerk 03/18/2014 11:56 AM Cc: info TO: Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council CC: City Manager, if appropriate Attached are the comments I made during the March 17, 2014 Roanoke City Council citizen comments at the 2:OOpm meeting of council and 7:OOpm public hearing B 1. I did add with parenthesis additional comments for the 2:OOpm Hearing of Citizens upon Public Matters were not included in my oral comments. Other information that might help with your decision: South Roanoke United Methodist Church was approached about cell coverage. The pastor, Stan Wright, asked the Board of Trustees and was given an OK. He tried to contact the carrier several times, but never received a response. You were not show pictures of the proposed site from the Mill Mountain Discovery Center Platform nor the Mill Mountain Zoo Observation Platform. From Mill Mountain the viewshed showcases the medical complex at Riverside, the Cambria Suites, Reserve Avenue, the Rivers Edge playing fields, and the Roanoke River. The distance view is of #581 and the expansion over the Railroad tracks. Towers development is on the left and Old Southwest is on the right. The playing fields are ground level with lights approximate 75 feet with only one story buiildings. The cell tower proposed by Pegasus is unobstructed in the viewshed. It will be visible from #581 and Mill Mountain and Mill Mountain Zoo. The up to 4 story building will not interrupt the viewshed from Mill Mountain. Mr. Maxwell Wiegard said that it is standard practice for localities to require petitioners to hire consultants to substantiate the need for tower coverage. The Old Southwest and my ask was to use a consultant that could identify a better viewshed location. I'm sorry there was nothing in place to require the petitioner to pay for the study. I will be sending by seperate e -mail the roll on/roll off resolutions of Richmond and Chesterfield County. The train platform design is one issue, the second is that rail cars need to be designed to handle carry on bikes. another possible solution would add a baggage car. I will send you pictures of the viewshed from the Zoo and Mill Mountain taken from my cell phone. I would really like Roanoke to take the lead in bicycling advocacy. The Mayor's bike ride, right now, is not on staffs agenda. Ride Solutions has/had proposed a Mayor's bike ride that included the Mayor's of Vinton, Roanoke and Salem. I am no longer on the Greenway Commission nor the Blue Ridge Bicycle Club board, so I have no group to implement an event. Thank you for addressing my ASK. 11 - ROAN Council 7pn cell Tower Mar 17 2014 .docx 2 - Roanoke City Council, Mar 2014.docx boytgor&)- ux.rlU TO: Mayor and Roanoke City Council RE: Citizen Comments: Roanoke Council Meeting Mar 17, 2:OOpm Dear Mayor, Members of Council, City Manager and City Staff First I would like to brag. The Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority's 1st meeting was on January 27, 2014. The Roanoke Valley's TMA status (Transportation Management Area) is the result of the Roanoke Valley Metropolitan area according to the US Census Bureau definitions going over 200,000. A Congestion Management Process Plan was approved January 23, 2014 by the MPO. AND The RVARC's commission completed a 3 year livability study. I would also like to add that bicycling and bicyclists are good for business. People used to assume that the only people who rode a bicycle was unable to afford a care or who had a suspended driver's license. The new think is that bicyclists are drivers of economic engines, support the image of a healthy community and are solutions to air quality and congestion management. Your support for roll on /roll off bicycle access on the train is important now, so designs for the train facility can include access for bicycles. Richmond and Chesterfield county support roll on /roll off service. The Roanoke Valley can too. ASK: City council to support a resolution for roll on /roll of bicycle use on AMTRAK. (Please talk to Kevin Page about what needs to be done to allow bicyclists to bring bikes on the train. A coach car where bicycles can be hung? A baggage car for boxed bicycles? 1 see a future where people from New England and DC can catch a train and travel with their bicycles to destination Roanoke. Shipping your bicycle early or renting a bicycle are less desirable options. ) Roanoke was the 1st city in Virginia to organize a Mayor's bike ride. Mayor Bowers, and Councilmen Bestpitch and Trinkle participated in this event. (Did I miss anyone ?) Thank you for participating. Roanoke Valley legislators in the General Assembly supported the bike partisan Virginia Bicycling Federation's bicycling friendly legislation.. Thank them ... and I hope you will include bicycle /pedestrian legislation in the cities legislative request for next year. Now some insight from a different perspective. You have the responsibility to appoint persons to boards, authorities and commissions. ASK: Change time of meetings so more citizens can participate. Input by different interest groups provides a better final product. The Mill Mountain Advisory Board should include passionate groups who share "ownership" of the mountain because of their active involvement: Mill Mountain Garden Club, Mill Mountain Zoo and the family that donated the land. Roanoke City's planning commission is the only planning commission in the valley that meets during regular business hours. All other localities schedule meetings in early evening. Changing the time of meetings would allow a broader pool of applicants to be considered for appointment. A flexible work schedule is available only for a privileged few. Planning commission members should include persons with diverse backgrounds and interest. Changing the time of meetings for boards, authorities and commissions would allow for public comment by more citizens. Business license: Who decides what is a good business and what is a bad business. I personally would increase the license for a chocolate shoppe and a candy store because they are negative to my weight and health. But I can't, and shouldn't play GOD. Let the Better Business Bureau handle complaints. Thank you for all your time to comment and submit ASK for citizens of Roanoke. Jk� Monday, 3 -17 -2014 Good Evening Mayor Bowers and Ladies and Gentlemen of Rke City Council, Thank you for your work in the Great city of Rke, Va. The best is yet to come! Mayor and City Council, I humbly request that Washington Park upper tennis court be reopen for you use. For 2 years now. The tennis court has had the entrance gates locked with a temporally out of service sign on it. I waited for them to return to service and they did not. I talked to Mr. Clark Superintendent of Parks and Recreation and found out that parks and recreation has no intentions of reopening the upper tennis court and the upper tennis court has been extremely neglected and need upkeep. Now, the softball field has been taken away. I talked to Mr. Clark this morning and asked why the fence has been taken away. He stated that it will no longer be a baseball field. Again, he stated lack of use. I disagreed. For two years, my teenage girl played softball for Addison Middle School and this is where that practiced, at Washington Park Baseball Field. As of now, there is no baseball or sofoball field at Washington Park. Please hear me, the fence barrier that was taken down kept extreme amounts of limbs and debris out of the water channels that flow under Orange Ave at the YMCA when that section of the park floods. Ladies and Gentlemen what is happening to Washington Park. I see parts of our great City flourishing and other parts being stripped and neglected. Washington Park needs to be updated just like the City Market is being updated. I would like to see some of my and my neighbors taxes dollars come back to our neighborhood. Please let me know if reopening the upper tennis court or re- instating the baseball field at Washington Park is a non -issue for you and I will move to plan B and That is the local taxpayers opinion and my neighborhood court. Thank you for your time. My name is: Troy A. Eichelberger 1621 Downing Street N.W. Roanoke, Va 24012 Home No. 540- 345 -6836 Cel. No. 540- 819 -7062 Email: (ro, i1atw% e ichethcr ff(W.2"Mil,cufll *W _ Dance Hall Ordinance Abrina M. Schnurman -Crook to: 'mayor @roanokeva.gov' 03/17/2014 01:50 PM Thank you so much for your willingness to uphold the previously approved Dance Hall Ordinance that will go into effect April 1. Having extra security on the street outside of the open establishments on the weekends is critical to citizens who both live here and visit, to feel safe. I appreciate your leadership in the face of business leaders who may balk at having to provide additional security for only a few hundred dollars during their busiest evenings. Thank you for not caving to pressure to repeal the vote and for your work on behalf of our city. Best, Abrina Abrina Schnurman- Crook, Ph.D., Executive Director Batten Leadership Institute 'A 24020 CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 215 CHURCH AVENUE, S.W., SUITE 452 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011 -1594 TELEPHONE: (540) 853 -2444 FAX: (540) 853 -1145 DAVID A. BOWERS Mayor March 17, 2014 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council: This is to request a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, specifically upcoming expirations of terms of office on the Roanoke City School Board, pursuant to Section 2.2 -3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Sincerely, David A. Bowers Mayor DAB:ctw �m CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT qW To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: March 17, 2014 Subject: Request for Closed Meeting This is to request that City Council convene a closed meeting to discuss the disposition of publicly -owned property, being Tax Map Nos. 1010306 and 1010307 located at 1 1 9 and 1 1 7 Norfolk Avenue, S.W. where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body, pursuant to §2.2 -3711 .A.3, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. nstopher P. Morrill City Manager Distribution: Council Appointed Officers STEPHANIE M. MOON, MMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 -1536 Telephone: (540) 853 -2541 Fax: (540) 853 -1145 E -mail: clerk @roanokeva.guv March 19, 2014 Debbie Bonniwell, Executive Director Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare 301 Elm Avenue SW Roanoke, VA 24016 Dear Ms. Bonniwell: JONATHAN E. CRAFT, CIVIC Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T. WEBB, CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk This is to advise you that Max W. Davis has qualified as a City representative of the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, Board of Directors to replace Vincent Dabney for a term of office ending December 31, 2016. Sincerely, Stephanie M. Moon, MMC City Clerk SMM:jec Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to -wit: I, Max W. Davis, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as City representative of the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, Board of Directors to replace Vincent Dabney for a term of office ending December 31, 2016, according to the best of my ability. So help me God. J&4 Gv . '& c+�,�► 'Max IAA . Davis The foregoing oath of office was taken, sworn to, and subscribed before me by Max W. Davis this L day of 2014. Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of the Circuit Court STEPHANIE M. MOON, MMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 -1536 Telephone: (540)853 -2541 Fax: (540) 853 -1145 E -mail: clerk(aroenokeva.gov March 19, 2014 Nicole Ashby, Secretary Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Ashby: JONATHAN E. CRAFT, CMC Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T. WEBB, CIVIC Assistant Deputy City, Clerk This is to advise you that Erin Dudley has qualified as a member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to replace Christopher Pohland- Thomas for a term of office ending March 31, 2017. Sincerely, #41(b� Stephanie M. City Clerk SMM:jec Moon, MMC Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to -wit: I, Erin Dudley, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to replace Christopher Pohland- Thomas for a term of office ending March 31, 2017, according to the best of my ability. So help me God. Eri N D The foregoing oath of office was taken, sworn to, and subscribed before me by Erin Dudley this ��day of 2AaL�L 2014, Brenda S. Hamilton. Clerk of the Circuit Court IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of March, 2014. No. 39871- 031714. A RESOLUTION accepting the FY 2013 State Homeland Security Program Grant to the City from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM), and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: The City of Roanoke does hereby accept the FY 2013 State Homeland Security Program Grant offered by the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) in the amount of $25,000, to be used to purchase equipment and supplies for the Roanoke Fire -EMS Division 6 Heavy Technical Rescue (HTR) Team. There is no matching fund requirement for this grant. The grant is more particularly described in the City Council Agenda Report dated March 17, 2014. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute and file, on behalf of the City, any necessary documents setting forth the conditions of the grant in a form approved by the City Attorney. 3. The City Manager is further directed to furnish such additional information as may be required in connection with the City's acceptance of this grant. ATTEST: � to. �r �� City Clerk. R- Homeland Security Program Grant- FY2013 -Heavy Technical Rescue Team — 3 -17 -14 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of March, 2014. No. 39872 - 031714. AN ORDINANCE appropriating funding from the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) for the purchase of heavy technical rescue equipment, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2013 -2014 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the following sections of the 2013 -2014 Grant Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Expendable Equipment 35- 520 - 3542 -2035 $ 3,150 Other Equipment 35- 520 - 3542 -9015 21,850 Revenues Haz -Mat Team FY14 35- 520 - 3542 -3542 25,000 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: Al;�" m • -1-1U0-'.') City Clerk. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: March 17, 2014 Subject: Virginia Department of Emergency Management Heavy Technical Rescue Grant Acceptance Background: Roanoke Fire -EMS serves as the Division 6 Heavy Technical Rescue (HTR) Team. The Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) allocates funds each year to regional teams for related expenses. VDEM has awarded the City of Roanoke funds in the amount of $25,000 from the FY 2013 State Homeland Security Program Grant. This grant requires no matching funds from the City. These grant funds will be used to purchase equipment and supplies for the team. Considerations: City Council action is needed to formally accept and appropriate these funds, and authorize the Director of Finance to establish a revenue estimate and appropriate funds to purchase the equipment and supplies in accordance with provisions of this grant. Recommended Action: Accept the grant as described above and authorize the City Manager to execute any required grant agreements or documents, such to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to establish a revenue estimate in the Grant Fund in the amount of $25,000 and appropriate funding in the same amount into an account to be established by the Director of Finance. Cfi`h t pher P. Morrill City Manager Distribution: Council Appointed Officers Virginia Department of ,�; Emergency Management (�jJ� wr Grant Agreement ( Page lof4 ' N. RECIPENT NAME AND AOIXtESS IIndu6r9 ZP Cade) 4.AWARDNAME: 2013SIate HonHard Sewity Pre¢am (SHSP) Grad S. PROJECT PERO6 FROM 11/012013 TO 04TJ62015 Maroke CRY 215Chuch Avenue Roandm. VWinka 24011 BUDGET PEwoO: FROM 11/012013 TO 00 =15 . AWARD DATE: FebRay 19, 2014 2. GRANTEE IRSNENDOR NO. !T.TOTAL AMOUNT OFTHIS AWARD $25,000.00 544001569 16. FEDERAL AMOUNT OF THIS AWARD $25,000.00 9. RECIPIENT NONFEDERAL COST SHARE REQUIREMENT SOAD 3. PROJECT TITLE Heavy TerNkd Retire CapebiPoks 10. SPECIALCONDmOtS THE ABOVE GRANT PROJECT IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS OR LIMITATIONS AS ARE SET FORTH ON THE ATTACHED PAGE(S), 11. STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR GRANT I( The project Is supponed under The Consolidated Appropriations Ad, 2013 (Public Law 113-6) I 1 12 METHOD OF PAYMENT Commonwealth of VVIka Am"" System AGENCY APPROVAL GRANTEE ACCEPTANCE rti TYPE D NAME AND TITLE OF APPROVING VOEM OFFICIAL 14 TYPED NAMEANDTRE OFAUTHORIZEDD GRANTEE OFFICIAL Michael M. Cline Christopher P. Mom? State Coordinator City Manager 15. SIGNATURE OF APPROVING VDEM OFFICIAL 16. SIGNATURE OF F AUTHD REGPIENTOFFICOIL '9 P / ✓� �li &44L i 16A DATE afa�I�u f Virginia Department of AWARD CONTINUATION SHEET p smz�� Emergency Management Grant Agreement Page 2of4 Award Name: 2013 State Homeland Security Grant Program Grant Award Date: Feenmy iQ 2014 SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. The grantee and any subgrantee shall comply with the most recent version of the Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements. A ru r exchulve list of regulations commonly applicable to DHS grants are listed below. A. Administrative Requirements 1. 44 CFR Part 13, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments 2. 2 CFR Part 215, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals. and Other Non -Profd Organizations (OMB Circular A -i 10) 3. Virginia Department of Emergency Management Sub - grantee Administrative Guide B. Cost Principles 1. 2 CFR Part 225, Cost Principles for State. Local and Indian Tribal Governments (OMB Circular A- 87) 2. 2 CFR Part 220, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions (OMB Circular A -21) 3. 2 CFR Part 230, Cost Principtes for Non -Profd Organizations (OMB Circular A -122) 4. Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), Part 31.2 Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, Contracts with Commercial Organizations C. Audi Requirements 1. OMB Circular A -133. Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations 2. Recipient understands and agrees that it cannot use any federal funds, either directly or Indirectly, M support of the enactment, repeal, modification or adoption of any law, regulation or policy, at any level of government, without the express prior written approval of FEMA. 3. The recipient must submit a Quarterly Progress Report . Failure to provide this information may result In VDEM withholding grant funds from further obligation and expenditure. Reports are due on January 15, April 15, July 15, and October 15. A report must be submitted for every quarter of the period of performance, Including partial calendar quarters, as well as for periods where no gram activity occurs. Future awards and fund draw downs may be withheld, if these reports are delinquent. The final Progress Report is due 90 days after the end date of the performance period. 4. In the event VDEM determines that changes are necessary to the award document after an award has been made, including changes to period of performance or terns and conditions, recipients will be notified of the changes In writing. Once notification has been made, any subsequent request for funds will indicate recipient acceptance of the changes to the award. "Working to Protect People, Property and Our Communities" "iPorking to Protect People, Property and Our Communities" Virginia Department of AWARD CONTINUATION SHEET Emergency Management e Grant Agreement Pia 3 of 4 Award Name: 2013 State Homeland Security Grant Program Grant Award Date: Fa nary fa 2014 S. The recipient shall not undertake (obligatelexpend federal arldfor matching funds) any project having the potential to impact Environmental or Historical Preservation (EHP) resources without the prior approval of FEMA, including but not limited to communications towers, physical security enhancements, new construction, and modifications to buildings, structures, and objects that are 50 years rid or greater. Recipient must comply with all conditions placed on the project as the result of the EHP review. Any change to the approved project scope of work will require re-evaluation for compliance with these EHP requirements. H ground disturbing activities occur during project implementation, the recipient must ensure monitoring of ground disturbance, and if any potential archeological resources are discovered, the recipient will Immediately cease construction In that area and notify FEMA and the appropriate State Historic Preservation Once. Any construction activities that have been Initiated without the necessary EHP review and approval will result in a ran - compliance finding and will not be eligible for FEMA funding. 6. The recipient agrees that federal funds under this award will be used to supplement, but not supplant, state or local funds for homeland security preparedness. 7. The recipient agrees that the use of funds under this grant will be in accordance with the Fiscal Year 2013 Guidelines and must support the goals and objectives included in the State Homeland Security Strategy. 8. The recipient agrees that all publications created with funding under this grant shell prominently contain the following statement: "This document was prepared under a grant from FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate or the U.S. Department of Homeland Security." 9. The recipient agrees that, when practicable, any equipment purchased with grant funding shall be prominently marked as follows: "Purchased with funds provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Severity.' 10. The recipient agrees to cooperate with any assessments, national evaluation efforts, or information or data collection requests, Including, but limited to, the provision of any information required for the assessment or evaluation of any activities within this project . "iPorking to Protect People, Property and Our Communities" Mrginla Department of AWARD CONTINUATION SHEET aa°r"er� evr Emergency Management Grant Agreement Page 4 of Award Name: 2013 State homeland Security Grant Program Grant Award Date: Fabuq 14 2014 11. National Incident Management System Implementation Compliance In accordance with HSPD -5, the adoption of the NIMS is a requirement to receive federal preparedness assistance through grants, contracts, and other activities. No federal funds will be released to the primary grantee t n the event of a Corrective Action Plan submitted, VDEMISAA wi10Jdeterm determine If the sub-grantee(s) (have) made suffictent progress to disburse funds. 12. All conferences and workshops using federal preparedness funds must pertain to the project being funded. The recipient agrees to submit a Tdp Report when using federal funds to attend a conference or workshop. The TOP Report template can be found at www.vaemeroencv.cov under Grant Information. These reports must be remitted with your request for reimbursement. Failure to do so will result in a delay of payment unlit received. 13. Recipients agree that under program guidelines, travel expenses are allowable for approved training, planning, administrative, and exercise activities following local, state, and federal guidelines. Prior to traveling for these activities outside of contiguous United States (OCONUS) as well as to Canada and Mexico, oreaooroval is requited by the state and FEMA through the SAA office. Please reference 2 CFR 225, App. A, CA.a, In regard to reasonableness when considering requests for travel of this type. Where applicable, you should also reference the following regarding travel: the Western Hemisphere Travel Infilafrre (heo9h:°:adhsoov/fileslpmramsloc 12006935797766tibn "Working to Protect People, Property and Our Communities" IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of March, 2014. No. 39873 - 031714. A RESOLUTION accepting the FY 2013 State Homeland Security Program Grant to the City from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM), and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City of Roanoke does hereby accept the FY 2013 State Homeland Security Program Grant offered by the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) in the amount of $60,000, to be used to upgrade hazardous materials monitoring equipment to support the City of Roanoke HAZMAT Team. There is no matching fund requirement for this grant. The grant is more particularly described in the City Council Agenda Report dated March 17, 2014. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute and file, on behalf of the City, any necessary documents setting forth the conditions of the grant in a fonu approved by the City Attorney. 3. The City Manager is further directed to furnish such additional information as may be required in connection with the City's acceptance of this grant. R- Homeland Security Pmgmm Grant- FY2013 — 3 -17 -14 ATTEST: 414i�- City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of March, 2014. No. 39874- 031714. AN ORDINANCE appropriating funding from the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) for the upgrade of hazardous materials monitoring equipment, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2013 -2014 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the following sections of the 2013 -2014 Grant Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Other Equipment Revenues Haz -Mat Team FY14 35- 520 - 3541 -9015 35- 520 - 3541 -3541 $ 60,000 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: #t�� City Clerk. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: March 17, 2014 Subject: Virginia Department of Emergency Management Hazmat Grant Acceptance Background: Roanoke Fire -EMS serves as the region's Hazardous Materials Team. The Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) allocates funds each year to regional HAZMAT Teams for related expenses. VDEM has awarded the City of Roanoke funds in the amount of $60,000 from the FY 2013 State Homeland Security Program Grant. This grant requires no matching funds from the City. These grant funds will be used to upgrade hazardous materials monitoring equipment to support the City of Roanoke HAZMAT Team. Considerations: City Council action is needed to formally accept and appropriate these funds, and authorize the Director of Finance to establish a revenue estimate and appropriate funding to purchase the equipment in accordance with provisions of the grant. Recommended Action: Accept the grant as described above and authorize the City Manager to execute any required grant agreements or documents, such to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to establish a revenue estimate in the Grant Fund in the amount of $60,000 and appropriate funding in the same amount to an account established by the Director of Finance. ri per P. Morrill City Manager Distribution: Council Appointed Officers 15. SIGNATURE OF APPROVING VDEM OFFICIAL 18. SIGNATURE OF AF ",yrCIPIENTCFFICIAL 18A at� Virginia Department of Emergency Management V30) GrantAgrearnewit Page I of 4 AND ADDRESS (IrdLxfffV Zip Code) 4,AWARDUAIVE: 2013 State Hometand SeDAY F-c9an (SKSP)Grad S. PROJECT PERIOD:- FROM 11110142013 TO GVWM15 Roanoke City 21S Church Avenue Roanduk Vroha 24011 BUDGETPERIOD: FROM 111MIM3 TO OV302015 AWARD DATE. Fetiruary 18, 2014 z GRANTEE iRSAIENDOR NO ' _TOTALAMOLINT OF THIS AWARD $50,00000 546001569 A FEDERAL AMOUNT OF THIS AWARD $60,000 00 9. RECIPENT NON-FEDERAL COST SHARE REQUIREMENT 30.01) 3 PROJECT TITLE Ha Mal Capatillites 10. SPECIAL ODNDITIONIS THE ABOVE GRANT PROJECT IS APPROVED SUBJECT To SUCH CONDITIONS OR LIMITATIONS AS ARE SET FORTH ON TH E ATTACHED PAGE(S} 11. STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR GRANT The project is supported under The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6) 12 METHOD OF PAYMENT Commormeab of Wginla Acoounting System AGENCYAPPROVAL GRANTEE ACCEPTANCE 13. TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF APPROVING VDEM OFFICIAL 14 TYPED NAME ANDTITUE OF A11rH0RLZED GRANTEE OFFICIAL Michael M. Cline Christopher P, Momill State Coordinator City Manager 15. SIGNATURE OF APPROVING VDEM OFFICIAL 18. SIGNATURE OF AF ",yrCIPIENTCFFICIAL 18A at� °r"V Virginia Department of AZO AWARD CONTINUATION SHEET WA Emergency Management Grant Agreement Page 2 of Award Name: 2013 State Homeland Security Grant Program Grant Award Date: Fab-my 18 2014 SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. The grantee and any subgrantee shall comply with the most recent version of the Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements. A ran - exclusive Est of regulations commonly applicable to DHS grants are listed below. A. Admnistrative Requirements 1. 44 CFR Part 13, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments 2. 2 CFR Part 215, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Inslflutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non -Profit Organizations (OMB Circular A -1 10) 3. Virginia Department of Emergency Management Sub- grantee Administrative Guide B. Cost Principles 1. 2 CFR Part 225, Cost Principles for State, Loral and Indian Tribal Governments (OMB Circular A- 87) 2. 2 CFR Part 220, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions (OMB Circular A -21) 3. 2 CFR Part 230, Cost Principles for Non -Profs Organizations (OMB Circular A-122) 4. Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), Part 31.2 Contract Cost Principles and Procedures. Contracts with Commercial Organizations C. Audit Requirements 1. OMB Circular A -133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Pmfrt Organizations 2. Recipient understands and agrees that it cannot use any federal funds, either directly or indirectly, in support of the enactment, repeal, modification or adoption of any law, regulation or policy, at any level of govemmmt, without the express prior writterm approval of FEMP. 3. The recipient must submit a Quarterly Progress Report. Failure to provide this information may result in VDEM withholding grant funds from further obligation and expenditure. Reports are due on January 15, April 15, July 15, and October 15. A report must be submitted for every quarter of the period of performance, including partial calendar quarters, as well as for periods where no grant activity occurs. Future awards and fund draw downs may be withheld, g these reports are delinquent The final Progress Report is due 90 days after the end date of the performance period. 4. In the event VDEM detem9nes that changes are necessary to the award document after an award has been made, including changes to period of performance or terms and conditions, recipients will be ratified of the changes in writing. Once notification has been made, any subsequent request for funds will indicate recipient acceptance of the changes to the award. "Working to Protect People, Property and Our Communities" "Working to Protect People, Property and Our Communities" Virginia Department of AWARD CONTINUATION SHEET 0 Emergency Management Grant Agreement Page 3 of Award Name: 2013 State Homeland Security Grant Program Grant Award Date: rdnrery 1R 2014 5. The recipient shall not undertake (obligate/expend federal and/or matching funds) any project having the potential to Impact Environmental or Historical Preservation (EHP) resources without the prior approval of FEMA, Including but not limited to communications towers, physical security enhancements, new construction, and modifications to buildings, structures, and objects that are 50 years old or greater. Recipient must comply with all conditions placed on the project as the result of the EHP review. Any change to the approved project scope of work will require re- evaluation for compliance with these EHP requirements. If ground disturbing activities occur during project implementation, the recipient must ensure monitoring of ground disturbance, and 0 any potential archeological resources are discovered, the recipient will immediately cease construction In that area and notify FEMA and the appropriate State Historic Preservation Once. Any construction activities that have been initiated without the necessary EHP review and approval will result in a ran- conphance finding and will not be eligible for FEMA funding. 6. The recipient agrees that federal funds under this award will be used to supplement, but not supplant, slate or local funds for homeland security preparedness. 7. The recipient agrees that the use of funds under this grant will be in accordance with the Fiscal Year 2013 Guidelines and must support the goals and objectives included In the State Homeland Security Strategy. 6. The recipient agrees that all publications created with funding under this grant shall prominently contain the following statement: "This document was prepared under a grant from FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate or the U.S. Department of Homeland Security." 9. The recipient agrees that, when practicable, any equipment purchased with grant funding shall be prominently marked as follows: "Purchased with funds provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security." 10. The recipient agrees to cooperale with any assessments, national evaluation efforts, or information or data collection requests. Including, but limited to, the provision of any information required for the assessment or evaluation of any activities within this project. "Working to Protect People, Property and Our Communities" Vbginia Department of AWARD CONTINUATION SHEET Emergency Management a Grant Agreement Page 4 of 4 Award Name: 2013 State Homeland Security Grant Program Grant Award Date: retnay 1$ 2014 11. National Incident Management System Implementation Compliance In accordance with HSPD-S, the adoption of the NIMS Is a requirement to receive federal preparedness assistance through grants, contracts, and other activities. No federal funds will be relied to the primary grantee and any other entity participating and benefiting in this project t this requirement has not been met. In the event of a Corrective Action Plan submitted, VDEWSAA will determine t the sub-grantee(s) has (have) made sufficient progress to disburse funds. 12. All conferences and workshops using federal preparedness funds must pertain to the project being funded. The recipient agrees to submit a Trip Report when using federal funds to attend a conference or workshop. The Trip Report template can be found at www.vaemeraencv.aov under Grant Information. These reports must be remitted with your request for reimbursement. Failure to do so will result in a delay of payment until received. 13. Recipients agree that under program guidelines, travel expenses are allowable for approved training, administrative, and exercise activities following locat state, and federal guidelines. Prior to planning, traveling for these activities outside of contiguous United States (OCONUS) as well as to Canada and Mexico, weaooroval is required by the slate and FEMA through the SAA office. Please reference 2 CFR 225, App. A, C.1.a, in regard to reasonableness when considering requests for travel of this type. Where applicable, you should also reference the following regarding travel: the Wester Hemisphere Travel Ini tiative( htollwnnv dhsaovlfileslorooramslac 1200693579776shtm). "Working to Protect People, Property and Our Communities" IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of March, 2014. No. 39875- 031714. AN ORDINANCE appropriating funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of Emergency Medical Services through the Virginia Pre - Hospital Information Bridge Special Initiative Grant Program for the purchase of computers for ambulances, fire marshal's office, and training division, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2013 -2014 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the following sections of the 2013 -2014 Grant Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Other Equipment 35- 520 - 3574 -9015 $ 69,625 Revenues Va. Pre - Hospital Info Bridge Grant FY14 35- 520 - 3574 -3574 69,625 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: yr. -ryjWW-,) City Clerk. A!M CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 1W To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: March 17, 2014 Subject: Virginia Pre - Hospital Information Bridge Grant Program Acceptance Background: Roanoke Fire -EMS has received notification from the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of Emergency Medical Services of a grant award from the Virginia Pre - Hospital Information Bridge (VPHIB) Special Initiative Grant Program. Roanoke Fire -EMS will receive funding totaling $69,625 from this grant program. The funds will be used to purchase twenty -five computers for ambulance units, fire marshal's office and training division. This grant does not require matching funds. Considerations: City Council action is needed to formally accept and appropriate these funds, and authorize the Director of Finance to establish revenue estimates and appropriations to purchase the equipment and supplies in accordance with provisions of this grant. Recommended Action: Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to establish a revenue estimate in the Grant Fund in the amount of $69,625 and appropriate funding in the same amount into an account to be established by the Director of Finance. GHilistopher P. Morrill City Manager Distribution: Council Appointed Officers IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of March, 2014. No. 39876- 031714. A RESOLUTION authorizing acceptance of additional funding for the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive sub -grant to the City from the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: I . The City Manager is hereby authorized on behalf of the City of Roanoke to accept from the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, the additional funding for the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive sub -grant in the amount of $10,500, with no local match required, to fund overtime traffic DUI enforcement, as more particularly described in the City Council Agenda Report dated March 17, 2014. 2. The City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute, seal, and attest, respectively, the sub -grant agreement and all necessary documents required to accept the sub - grant, in a form approved by the City Attorney. 3. The City Manager is further directed to furnish such additional information as may be required in connection with the City's acceptance of this sub - grant. ATTEST: p" City Clerk. R- Stategie Prevention Framework State Incentive subgant.add'1 funding— 3 -17 -14 X) IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of March, 2014. No. 39877 - 031714. AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia, through The Roanoke Prevention Alliance, for the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF -SIG), amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2013 -2014 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the following sections of the 2013 -2014 Grant Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Overtime Wages 35- 640 - 3499 -1003 $ 9,754 FICA 35- 640 - 3499 -1120 746 Revenues SPF -SIG Grant FY13 - State 35- 640 - 3499 -3499 10,500 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: City Clerk., 9-=N CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT IMF To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: March 17, 2014 Subject: Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF -SIG): Additional Sub -grant of Funding Background: The Roanoke Prevention Alliance was awarded the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF -SIG) for the purpose of reducing motor vehicle crashes among 15-24 year olds who are under the influence of alcohol. This grant is administered by the Commonwealth of Virginia through Virginia Commonwealth University. SPF -SIG funds are provided by the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. Blue Ridge Behavioral Health serves as the fiscal agent on the SPF -SIG grant. The Roanoke Police Department is a member of the Roanoke Prevention Alliance and was originally sub - granted $21,000 to fund DUI enforcement operations. The Police Department has since been sub - granted an additional $10,500 from the same grant, which will increase the sub -grant award amount to $31,500. This additional funding will allow the Roanoke Police Department to fund approximately 325 officer hours of overtime traffic enforcement. No matching funds are required. Recommended Action: Accept the additional Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant funding described above and authorize the City Manager to execute the grant agreement and any related documents; all such documents to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to revise the revenue estimate and appropriate funding in the amount of $10,500 in accounts that have previously been established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund. Morrill anager Distribution: Council Appointed Officers R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Christopher C. Perkins, Chief of Police Amelia C. Merchant, Director of Management and Budget IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of March, 2014. No. 39878- 031714. AN ORDINANCE accepting the transfer of twenty -two (22) parcels of real property, together with any buildings and improvements thereon, all situated in Roanoke, Virginia and more particularly described as follows: Official Tax Map No. Property Address 4013321 197 Bullitt Avenue, S.E. 4011413 120 Church Avenue, S.E. 1212006 1302 Salem Avenue, S.W. 2010916 0 Patton Avenue, N.W. 2010917 0 Patton Avenue, N.W. 2010918 0 Gainsboro Road, N.W. 2013514 115 Centre Avenue, N. W. 2012921 221 Gainsboro Road, N.W. 2012949 213 Gainsboro Road, N.W. 2012922 224 Henry Street, N.W. 2012923 220 Henry Street, N.W. 2012940 216 Henry Street, N.W. 2012941 212 Henry Street, N.W. 2012942 206 Henry Street, N.W. 2012947 202 Henry Street, N.W. 2012920 0 Wells Avenue, N.W. 2012939 0 Loudon Avenue, N.W. 2012943 0 Loudon Avenue, N.W. 2012944 0 Loudon Avenue, N.W. 2012945 0 Loudon Avenue, N.W. 2012946 0 Loudon Avenue, N.W. 2013004 24 Wells Avenue, N.W. (collectively, the Properties) from the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA); authorizing the City Manager to execute all documents and take such other actions necessary to implement, administer, and effectuate the transfer of the Properties to the City, K\ MeasuresTroperty transfer from RRHA to City 3 ;17 14.docx 3/12/14 including terminating a Parking Lot Management Agreement dated October 15, 2002, between the City and RRHA; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this Ordinance. WHEREAS, RRHA served to promote affordable housing and redevelopment of property for the benefit of the citizens of Roanoke; WHEREAS, RRHA has worked with City staff to review certain properties which RRHA currently owns with the intention of determining the best use of such properties; WHEREAS, RRHA, in consultation with City staff, has determined that RRHA has no immediate plans for development of the Properties, and RRHA has adopted Resolution No. 3772, dated November 18, 2013, that authorized the transfer of the Properties to the City; WHEREAS, the City is prepared to accept the transfer of the Properties; WHEREAS, one or more of the Properties are subject to the Parking Lot Agreement dated October 15, 2002, between the City and RRHA which Parking Lot Agreement shall be terminated following the transfer of the Properties; WHEREAS, Section 2 -263 of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, required City Council to accept a gift in excess of $5,000 and the aggregate assessed value of the Properties is $1,979,900; WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends to City Council to accept the transfer of the Properties from RRHA to the City as more particularly set forth in the City Council Agenda Report dated March 17, 2014; and WHEREAS, City Council has determined that the transfer of the Properties from RRHA to the City will benefit the City and its citizens. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: K \MeasuresVP rope rty transfer from RRHA to City 3 ;17 14.doex 3/12/14 1. City Council accepts the transfer of the Properties from RRHA to the City in accordance with the terms of the proposed general warranty deeds (Deeds), copies of which Deeds are attached to the City Council Agenda Report dated March 17, 2014, and pursuant to Section 2 -263, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended. 2. City Council authorizes the City Manager to accept the Deeds on behalf of the City in accordance with Section 15.2 -1803, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, such Deeds to be substantially similar to the Deeds attached to the City Council Agenda Report dated March 17, 2014, and the form of the Deeds is to be approved by the City Attorney. 3. The City Manager is further authorized to take such further actions and execute such further documents as may be necessary to acquire, accept, effectuate, implement, and administer the transfer and acceptance of the Properties from RRHA to the City, including without limitation, executing such documents necessary to terminate the Parking Lot Agreement, and obtaining owner's title insurance for each of the Properties. All such documents shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney. 4. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter the second reading of this Ordinance, by title, is hereby dispensed with. 5. This Ordinance shall be effective as of the date of its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. KAMeasuresWroperty transfer from RRHA to City 3 ;17 14 does 3/12/14 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: March 17, 2014 Subject: Acceptance of Conveyance of Real Property from the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority Background: The City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) serves to promote the development and operation of affordable housing and redevelopment of property for the benefit of the citizens of Roanoke. As part of its efforts, RRHA acquired many properties as components of various redevelopment and neighborhood conservation projects in the central core of the City of Roanoke over the past decades. Those projects resulted in revitalized areas of the City, however, not all properties that were acquired by RRHA were redeveloped. In 2002, and following the adoption of Council Resolution No. 36091 -1 01 502, the City and RRHA entered into a Parking Lot Management Agreement dated October 15, 2002, to allow the City to provide management and operational services for two (2) surface lots which include a property previously conveyed to the City by RRHA (Official Tax Map No. 401 3322), and Official Tax Map No. 4013321 and 4010413, and which are now considered for conveyance to the City as listed below. In August 2013, after numerous discussions and extensive study with the City, RRHA determined that several properties owned by RRHA were no longer necessary for any current development, redevelopment, or conservation plans or activities of RRHA. As a result, the Commissioners of RRHA adopted Resolution 3754 on August 26, 2013, and Resolution 3772 on November 18, 2013, to transfer various properties to the City. The properties to be conveyed to the City by RRHA are generally located within Downtown Roanoke and the Gainsboro /Henry Street area. There is also one property located in the Hurt Park neighborhood. A summary of the properties to be conveyed by the RRHA to the City follows: Tax Map No 4013321 4011413 2010916 2010917 2010918 2012921 2012949 2013514 Address 197 Bullitt Avenue, S.E. 120 Church Avenue, S.E. 0 Patton Avenue, N.W. 0 Patton Avenue, N.W. 0 Gainsboro Road, N.W. 221 Gainsboro Road, N.W 213 Gainsboro Road, N.W 1 1 5 Centre Avenue, N.W. Current Use Acreage Park Roanoke Lot .33 Park Roanoke Lot .36 Vacant .10 Vacant .07 Vacant .06 Vacant .06 Vacant .03 Vacant .11 Tax Map No. Address Current Use Acreage 2102922 224 Henry Street, N.W. Vacant .11 2012923 220 Henry Street, N.W. Vacant .09 2012940 216 Henry Street, N.W. Vacant .11 2012941 212 Henry Street, N.W. Vacant .06 2012942 206 Henry Street, N.W. Vacant .04 2012947 202 Henry Street, N.W. Vacant .05 2012920 0 Wells Avenue, N.W. Vacant .004 2013004 24 Wells Avenue, N.W. Vacant .20 2012939 0 Loudon Avenue, N.W. Vacant .002 2012943 0 Loudon Avenue, N.W. Vacant .01 2012944 0 Loudon Avenue, N.W. Vacant .02 2012945 0 Loudon Avenue, N.W. Vacant .01 2012946 0 Loudon Avenue, N.W. Vacant .02 1212006 1302 Salem Avenue, S.W. Vacant .17 Considerations: The properties have been reviewed and assessed by the City's Office of Environmental Management pursuant to the City's "Environmental Policy Relating to the Acquisition of Real Property ", and no unwarranted environmental conditions were identified, and no further evaluations or inspections recommended. Title searches were also performed. RRHA will transfer title to these properties by general warranty deed. The City will make no payment to RRHA for these transfers. The City had previously agreed to provide RRHA with the sum of $10,000 from the proceeds to be received from the Virginia Department of Transportation from a property transaction that is subject to a separate City Council action to be undertaken during its March 17, 2014 meeting. Conveying these properties to the City otherwise will relieve RRHA from ongoing costs of insurance and maintenance for which RRHA has no direct funding source. The City will also purchase owner's title insurance coverage for each of these parcels. Recommended Action: Accept the transfer of the properties described above in this report and authorize the City Manager to acknowledge acceptance of the Deeds that are substantially similar to the Deeds attached to this Report, in a form approved by the City Attorney. Authorize the City Manager to execute any documents necessary to effectuate the transfer of the properties to the City, with such documents to be in a form approved by the City Attorney. Authorize the City Manager to take such further actions and execute such further documents as may be necessary to acquire, accept, administer, implement and effectuate the transfer of the properties to the City, including N the purchase of owner's title insurance coverage for each of the properties, and the termination of the Parking Lot Management Agreement between the RRHA and the City, all such documents to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. City Manager Distribution: Council Appointed Officers Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Susan Lower, Director of Real Estate Valuation Debbie Moses, Parking Administrator 3 This Document Prepared By and Return To: B. Webb King (VSB No.: 47044) Woods Rogers PLC P.O. Box 14125 Roanoke, VA 24038 -4125 Tax Map Reference Nos.:4011413 - 120 Church Avenue, SE 4013321 -197 Bullitt Avenue, SE 1012949 -213 Gainsboro Road, NW 2012920 -0 Wells Avenue, NW 2012921 -121 Gainsboro Road, NW 2013514 -115 Centre Avenue, NW 2010917-0 Patton Avenue, NW 2010918 -0 Gainsboro Road, NW 2010916 -0 Patton Avenue, NW 1212006 -1302 Salem Avenue, SW Title Insurance Underwriter: Fidelity National Title Insurance Company Consideration: $- 0- ;Total Assessed Values: $1,192,900.00 Grantee's address: Noel C Taylor Municipal Building, Room 364, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, VA 24011 EXEMPT FROM GRANTOR'S TAX, SECTION 58.1- 811.C.4., CODE OF VIRGINIA AND EXEMPT FROM GRANTEE'S TAX, SECTION 58.1- 811.A.3, CODE OF VIRGINIA. THIS DEED, made and entered into this day of March, 2014, by and between the CITY OF ROANOKE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantor, and the CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee. WITNESSETH THAT, WHEREAS, by resolution adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the Grantor at a meeting of said Board held on August 26, 2013, the transfer of the hereinafter described property to the Grantee was authorized and the Executive Director of Grantor was (#1671798 -1, 077836 - 13774 -01) authorized, for and on behalf of the Grantor, to execute this deed conveying the hereinafter described property to the Grantee. NOW, THEREFORE, THIS DEED WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) cash in hand paid by Grantee unto Grantor, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY, with General Warranty and Modern English Covenants of Title, unto Grantee, all those certain lots or parcels of land, together with any buildings or improvements thereon, located in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, more particularly described on the attached Exhibit A. This conveyance is made subject to all easements, restrictions, conditions and reservations of record affecting the property hereby conveyed. Pursuant to Ordinance No. adopted by Roanoke City Council on March 2014, the City of Roanoke, Virginia, by and through its duly authorized City Manager, accepts this conveyance in accordance with Section 15.2 -1803, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended. [SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW] ,'41671798 -1. 077336 - 13774 -011 WITNESS the signature and seal of the Grantor by its duly- authorized officer as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF ROANOKE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY LIM Glenda Edwards Goh Its Executive Director COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA) to -wit: CITY OF ROANOKE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of March, 2014, by Glenda Edwards Goh, Executive Director of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public Registration No. My commission expires: Approved as to form: Counsel to RRHA Date (,71671798 -1, 077836 - 13774 -01) WITNESS the following signature and seal: CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA) to -wit: CITY OF ROANOKE ) Christopher P. Morrill City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of March, 2014, by Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, on behalf of the City. Notary Public Registration No. My commission expires: Approved as to form: Daniel J. Callaghan Date Roanoke City Attorney ,'�1671798 -1, 077836-13774-01) EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Located in the City of Roanoke, Virginia Tax Map Reference Nos.: 4011413 —120 Church Avenue, SE 4013321 -197 Bullitt Avenue, SE 2012949 -213 Gainsboro Road, NW 2012920 -0 Wells Avenue, NW 2012921 -221 Gainsboro Road, NW 2013514 —115 Centre Avenue, NW 2010917 -0 Patton Avenue, NW 2010918 -0 Gainsboro Road, NW 2010916 -0 Patton Avenue, NW 1212006 -1302 Salem Avenue, SW PARCEL 1 Tract 1 (Tax Map No. 4011413 Parcel One): All those certain parcels of land lying and being in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, designated as Parcel One, containing 15,973 sq ft, located on the North side of Church Avenue, the South side of Kirk Avenue and the West side of Williamson Road as shown on the Revised Map of Downtown East Renewal Project, dated December 5, 1976, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in Map Book 1, Page 234; and BEING all or part of the same property conveyed to the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, under the following deeds recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia: (1) Deed from Mountain Trust Bank, dated May 16, 1969, recorded in Deed Book 1255, page 447; (2) Deed from Emil Peter Rabil, unmarried, dated January 28, 1970, recorded in Deed Book 1270, page 289; (3) Deed from The First National Exchange Bank of Virginia, Trustee under the Will of Alexander N. Nelson, dated November 2, 1970, recorded in Deed Book 1283, page 746. (4) Deed from Margaret K. Betterman, single, et al., dated May 15, 1969, recorded in Deed Book 1256, page 522; and (5) Deed from Louise Schnurman Aber, unmarried, et al., dated March 6, 1970, recorded in Deed Book 1273, page 167. Tract 2 (Tax Map No. 4013321 New Lot 5): Parcel Five, containing 15,205 sq ft, located on the South side of Bullitt Avenue, the East side of Williamson Road, the North side of a 20 ft. Alley and the West side of the N and W Railway as 141671798- 1.077836- !3774 -01) shown on the Revised Map of Downtown East Renewal Project, dated December 5, 1976, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in Map Book 1, Page 234. BEING all or part of the same property conveyed to the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, under the following deeds recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia: (1) Deed from J. M. Richardson and Son, Incorporated, a Virginia corporation, dated January 18, 1971, recorded in Deed Book 1287, page 721; (2) Deed from City of Roanoke, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, dated August 3, 1971, recorded in Deed Book 1297, page 286; PARCEL 2 Tract 1 (Tax_Map No. 2012920): Commencing at an iron pin found at the Northeast comer of the intersection of the North Right - of -way of Loudon Avenue, N.W. and the East Right -of -way of Gainsboro Road, N.W. designated as "Point of Commencement" on Plat by Balzer and Associates, Inc., dated November 18, 2013, having Job Number R1320343.00, a copy of which is attached hereto; Thence with the East Right -of -way of Gainsboro Road, N.W. N 33 deg 32'03" E. 71.03 feet to the Point of Actual Beginning; Thence continuing with said Gainsboro Road, N. W. Right -of -way, N 33 deg 32' 03" E. 21.22 feet to a point; Thence leaving said Right -of -way and with City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority property designated as Tax Map Number 2012921 S 02 deg 08' 13" W. 19.24 feet to a point; Thence leaving said Tax Map Number 2012921 and with City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority property designated as Tax Map Number 2012949, N 82 deg 03' 04" W. 11.11 feet to the point and place of Beginning, and containing 0.0024 acre, more or less, situate in the City of Roanoke, Virginia. Tract 2 (Tax Map No. 2012949): Commencing at an iron pin found at the Northeast corner of the intersection of the North Right - of -way of Loudon Avenue, N.W., and the East Right -of -way of Gainsboro Road, N.W. designated as "Point of Commencement" on Plat by Balzer and Associates, Inc., dated November 18, 2013, having Job Number R1320344.00, a copy of which is attached hereto; Thence with the East Right -of -way of Gainsboro Road, N.W. N 33 deg 32' 03" E. 12.22 feet to the Point of Actual Beginning, Thence continuing with said Gainsboro Road, N. W. Right -of -way N 33 deg 32' 03" E. 58.81 feet to a point; Thence leaving said Right -of -way and with the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority property designated as Tax Map Number 2012920 and 2012921, S 82 deg 03'04" E. 22.60 feet to a point; Thence leaving said Tax Map Number 2012921 and with City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority property designated as Tax Map Number 2012940 and 2012941, S 12 deg 23'00" W. 58.77 feet to a point; thence {,1 6 ,/671798 -/, 077836- 73774 -011 leaving said Tax Map Number 2012941 and with City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority property designated as Tax Map Number 2012944 and 2012943, N 74 deg 46'3 1 " W. 43.81 feet to the point and place of Beginning, and containing 0.0433 acre, more or less, at 213 Gainsboro Road, N. W. in the City of Roanoke, Virginia. The above parcels being part of the unused residue of properties previously acquired by the City of Roanoke for use in connection with the construction of Gainsboro Road, NW. TRACTS 1 AND 2 BEING part of the same property conveyed to the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, from the City of Roanoke, Virginia, a Virginia municipal corporation, by deed dated January 24, 2002, recorded January 28, 2002, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as Instrument No. 020001863. PARCEL 3 Tax Map No. 2012921: Beginning at a point on the south side of Wells Avenue 96 feet west of First Street (formerly called Henry Street); thence S. 2° 4' 8" W. 117.75 feet to a point; thence N. 81' 52' 59" W. 40 feet to a point; thence N. 2° 14' 22" E. 120.38 feet to a point on Wells Avenue; thence with said Wells Avenue S. 780 17' 10" E. 40 feet to the place of beginning and being designated as Lot No. 3 on a plat of survey made of the Voight Lands by R. Stuart Royer, dated April 21, 1909; TOGETHER WITH the strip of land, 3 feet wide, conveyed in the Deed recorded in Deed Book 596, Page 370. BEING the same property in which fee simple title is vested in the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority per Order of Confirmation and Vesting (Law #86- 001027) entered October 20, 1987 in the matter of City o {Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Petitioner v. Robert Lee Moorman, Defendant, and recorded January 6, 1988, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in Deed Book 1575, page 282. PARCEL 4 Tax Map No. 2013514: All of that certain parcel of land lying and being in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, located on the Northwest side of Centre Avenue NW and the West side of First Street NW designated on Lot C- 1 on survey and dedication plat for City of Roanoke, Virginia, made by David A. Perfater, L.S., dated June 15, 2000, revised March 8, 2002 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in Map Book 1, Page 2420. {#1671798 -1, 077836 - 13774 -01) BEING the same property conveyed to the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, from (1) Beatrice W. Williamson, a/k/a Beatrice Williamson, unmarried, by deed dated November 19, 1986, recorded November 25, 1986, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in Deed Book 1549, page 317 and (2) Central Investors, a Virginia limited partnership, by deed dated November 21, 1986, recorded December 15, 1986, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia in Deed Book 1550, page 469. PARCELS Tax Map No. 2010917: Beginning at a point on the North side of Patton Avenue N. 76° 35'3 1 " W. 79.95 feet from the intersection of the North line of Patton Avenue, with the Westerly line of Gainsboro Road; thence N. 7° 35" W. 59.0 feet to a point; thence S. 84° 45'W. 42.0 feet to a point; thence N. 13° 24'29" E. 71 feet more or less to a point on the South side of an alley; thence with said alley N. 76° 35' 31" W. 50 feet to a point; thence S. 13° 24'29" W. 114 feet to a point on the North side of Patton Avenue; thence with the North side of Patton Avenue S. 76° 35' 31" E. 110 feet to the place of Beginning, being all of Lot 6, Section 3 and the South portions of Lots 7 and 8, Section 3, Map of Rogers, Fairfax and Houston Addition. Tax Map No. 2010918: Beginning at a point on Gainsboro Avenue 88 feet north of Patton Avenue, N.W.; thence with Gainsboro Avenue S. 15 deg 34'W. 43.01 feet to an alley; thence with said alley N. 76 deg W. 75.3 feet to a point on same; thence S. 14 deg E. 71 feet, more or less, to a point; thence in an easterly direction 105 feet, more or less, to Gainsboro Avenue, the place of Beginning, being parts of Lots 7 and 8, Section 3, Map of Rogers, Fairfax & Houston Addition. BOTH OF THE ABOVE TRACTS BEING part of the same property in which fee simple title is vested in the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority per Order Confirming Report of Commissioner (No. 6772) entered June 29, 1981 in the matter of City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority Petitioner v Parcel 21 -15 Gainsboro Official Tax No 2010917 owned by Herman Burrell and Elaine C Burrell his wife et al and Parcel 21-16, Gainsboro, Official Tax No 2010919 owned by Ralph V Claytor and Marion A Claytor, his wife and Parcel 21 -17 Gainsboro Official Tax No 2010918 owned by Christine H Mainor et al. Defendants and recorded June 30, 1981, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in Deed Book 1467, page 1169. LESS AND EXCEPT that portion of the subject lots conveyed to the City of Roanoke by deed dated December 9, 1994 recorded in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1729, Page 66 and by deed of correction dated October 26, 1995 recorded in Deed Book 1751, Page 475. 8 {11671798 -1, 077836- 13774 -01; PARCEL 6 Tax Map No. 2010916: Beginning at a point on the North side of Patton Street 200 feet East of Trout; thence N. 14° E. 114 feet to an alley; thence with same S. 76° E. 50 feet to a point; thence S. 14° W. 114 feet to Patton Street; thence with same N. 76° W. 50 feet to the place of Beginning, being Lot 5, Section 3, Map of Rogers, Fairfax and Houston Addition. BEING the same property conveyed to the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, from Garvester Harrington and Elouise Harrington, husband and wife, by deed dated October 3, 1980, recorded October 6, 1980, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in Deed Book 1458, page 1435. LESS AND EXCEPT that portion of the subject property conveyed to the City of Roanoke by deed dated December 9, 1994 recorded in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1729, Page 66 and by deed of correction dated October 26, 1995 recorded in Deed Book 1751, Page 475. PARCEL 7 Tax Map No. 1212006: Beginning at the South West corner of Salem Avenue and "D" Street ( "D" Street is now known as 13th Street); thence with Salem Avenue N. 78 degrees 10' W. 60.7 feet to a point; thence S. 16 degrees 50' W. 110 feet to an alley; thence with said alley S. 74 degrees to E. 73 feet to a point on "D" Street; thence with "D" Street N. 9 degrees 30' E. 114 ft. to the place of Beginning; and Being Lot No. 1, Block No. 1, Map of West End Land Company, and being known as 1302 Salem Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia, the official number being 121- 20 -06. BEING part of the same property conveyed to the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, from Juan Jimenez, by deed dated December 4, 2008, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as Instrument No. 080014936. 9 (#1671798 -1. 077836 - 13779 -011 This Document Prepared By and Return To: B. Webb King (VSB No.: 47044) Woods Rogers PLC P.O. Box 14125 Roanoke, VA 24038 -4125 Tax Map Reference Nos.: 2012939 2012943 2012944 2012945 2012946 2013004 - 0 Loudon Avenue, NW - 0 Loudon Avenue, NW - 0 Loudon Avenue, NW - 0 Loudon Avenue, NW - 0 Loudon Avenue, NW - 24 Wells Avenue, NW Title Insurance Underwriter: Fidelity National Title Insurance Company Consideration: $- 0- ;Total Assessed Values: $299,200.00 Grantee's address: Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, Room 364,215 Church Avenue, SW., Roanoke, VA 24011 EXEMPT FROM GRANTOR'S TAX, SECTION 58.1- 811.C.4., CODE OF VIRGINIA AND EXEMPT FROM GRANTEE'S TAX, SECTION 58.1- 811.A.3, CODE OF VIRGINIA. THIS DEED, made and entered into this day of March, 2014, by and between the CITY OF ROANOKE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantor, and the CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee. WITNESSETH THAT, WHEREAS, by resolution adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the Grantor at a meeting of said Board held on November 18, 2013, the transfer of the hereinafter described property to the Grantee was authorized and the Executive Director of Grantor was authorized, for and on behalf of the Grantor, to execute this deed conveying the hereinafter described property to the Grantee. {k1671775 -1, 077836 - 13774 -01) NOW, THEREFORE, THIS DEED WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) cash in hand paid by Grantee unto Grantor, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY, with General Warranty and Modern English Covenants of Title, unto Grantee, all those certain lots or parcels of land, together with any buildings or improvements thereon, located in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, more particularly described on the attached Exhibit A. This conveyance is made subject to all easements, restrictions, conditions and reservations of record affecting the property hereby conveyed. Pursuant to Ordinance No. adopted by Roanoke City Council on March , 2014, the City of Roanoke, Virginia, by and through its duly authorized City Manager, accepts this conveyance in accordance with Section 15.2 -1803, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended. [SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW] (41671775- ],077836 - 13774 -01J WITNESS the signature and seal of the Grantor by its duly- authorized officer as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF ROANOKE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY By (SEAL) Glenda Edwards Gob Its Executive Director COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA) to -wit: CITY OF ROANOKE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of March, 2014, by Glenda Edwards Goh, Executive Director of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public Registration No. My commission expires: Approved as to form: Counsel to RRHA Date {'41671775 -1, 077836 - 13774 -011 WITNESS the following signature and seal: CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA) to -wit: CITY OF ROANOKE ) Christopher P. Morrill City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of March, 2014, by Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, on behalf of the City. Notary Public Registration No. My commission expires: Approved as to form: Daniel J. Callaghan Date Roanoke City Attorney {4167 1775 -1, 077836- 13774 -01J EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Located in the City of Roanoke, Virginia Tax Map Reference Nos.: 2012939 — 0 Loudon Avenue, NW 2012943 — 0 Loudon Avenue, NW 2012944 — 0 Loudon Avenue, NW 2012945 — 0 Loudon Avenue, NW 2012946 — 0 Loudon Avenue, NW 2013004 — 24 Wells Avenue, NW Parcel 1 Tax Map Nos. 2012939 and 2012943: The lot identified as City of Roanoke Official Tax No. 2012939, containing 0.001 acre, more or less, situate on the east side of Gainsboro Road, NW, at its northwest point of intersection with Loudon Avenue, NW., and being parts of Lots 36 -38, Block 8, Official Survey Section Northwest 1; and, The lot identified as City of Roanoke Official Tax No. 2012943, containing 0.02 acre, more or less, situate on the northeast corner of Gainsboro Road, NW and Loudon Avenue, NW, and being part of Lot 39, Block 8. Official Survey Section Northwest 1. The above parcels being part of the unused residue of properties previously acquired by the City of Roanoke for use in connection with the construction of Gainsboro Road, NW. BEING part of the same property conveyed to the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, from the City of Roanoke, Virginia, a Virginia municipal corporation, by deed dated January 24, 2002, recorded January 28, 2002, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as Instrument No. 020001863. Parcel 2 Tax Map Nos. 2012944, 2012945 and 2012946: Lying on the north side of Loudon Avenue, NW, and being an aggregate description of parts of Lots 38 and 39, Block 8, Official Survey Northwest 1, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at an iron pin on the northerly line of Loudon Avenue which lies N. 74 deg 463 1 W. 100.60 feet from the intersection of the said northerly line of Loudon Avenue and the westerly line of First Street a/k/a Henry Street; thence along the northerly line of Loudon Avenue N. 74 deg 46' 31" W. 65.40 feet to an iron pin corner to Official Tax Parcel #2012943; thence with the common line between Official Tax Parcel #2012943 and #2012944, N. 12 deg 17'27" E. 62.45 feet to an iron pin on the line of Official Tax Parcel #2012949, now or formerly owned (x1671775 -1, 077836- 13774 -01J by Gerald R. and Daisy J. Manning; thence with the southerly Manning line and that of City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (Tax Parcel 2012941) S. 74 deg 46' 31" E. 63.54 feet to an iron pin corner; thence S. 10 deg 35' 29" W. passing the line of Tax Parcel #2012941 at 0.68 feet and with the common boundary of Tax Parcels 42012947 and 92012946 a total distance of 62.58 feet to the northerly line of Loudon Avenue, the place of BEGINNING, comprising Official Tax Parcels #2012944, 42012945 and 42012946 bounded by corners 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 to 1 on the plat of survey prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C. under date of 18 April 1994, recorded with deed in Deed Book 1713, Page 1514. BEING the same property conveyed to the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, from Gerald R. Manning and Daisy J. Manning, husband and wife, by deed dated May 16, 1994, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in Deed Book 1713, page 1514. LESS AND EXCEPT that parcel conveyed to the City of Roanoke, Virginia, for street widening purposes by deed from the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority dated March 20, 1995, recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1734, Page 1183. Parcel 3 Tax Map No. 2013004: Lot 3, containing 0.207 acre, more or less, as shown on plat entitled "Subdivision Plat for City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, showing the subdivision of property owned by City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority and creating Lot 1 (0.363 ac.), Lot 2 (0.377 ac.), Lot 3 (0.207 Ac.), Lot 4 (0.976 ac.) and dedicating 0.035 acre to the City of Roanoke for street purposes, dated July 28, 2000, prepared by Mattern & Craig, Inc., and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in Map Book 1, Page 2168. BEING the same property conveyed to the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, under the following deeds recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia: (1) Deed from Nora C. Wheby, widow, dated September 16, 1986, recorded in Deed Book 1545, page 302; (2) Deed from Albert James Wheby, unmarried, dated November 19, 1986, recorded in Deed Book 1549, page 1715; (3) Deed from Katherine Lawson, widow, et al., dated December 17, 1986, recorded in Deed Book 1553, page 1261; (4) Deed from Mary Curtis Steptoe et al., dated August 7, 1998, recorded as Instrument No. 980011743;and (5) Deed from John Scott Stephens and William David Price dated October 26, 2000, recorded as Instrument No. 000014062. (411671775 -1, 07783643774 -01, This Document Prepared By and Return To: B. Webb King (VSB No.: 47044) Woods Rogers PLC P.O. Box 14125 Roanoke, VA 24038 -4125 Tax Map Reference Nos.: 2012922 2012923 2012940 2012941 1012942 2012947 - 224 Henry Street, NW - 220 Henry Street, NW - 216 Henry Street, NW - 212 Henry Street, NW - 206 Henry Street, NW - 202 Henry Street, NW Title Insurance Underwriter: Fidelity National Title Insurance Company Consideration: $ -O- ;Total Assessed Values: $487,800.00 Grantee's address: Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, Room 364, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, VA 24011 EXEMPT FROM GRANTOR'S TAX, SECTION 58.1- 811.C.4., CODE OF VIRGINIA AND EXEMPT FROM GRANTEE'S TAX, SECTION 58.1- 811.A.3, CODE OF VIRGINIA. THIS DEED, made and entered into this day of March, 2014, by and between the CITY OF ROANOKE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantor, and the CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee. WITNESSETH THAT, WHEREAS, by resolution adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the Grantor at a meeting of said Board held on August 26, 2013, the transfer of the hereinafter described property to the Grantee was authorized and the Executive Director of Grantor was authorized, for and on behalf of the Grantor, to execute this deed conveying the hereinafter described property to the Grantee. (67664707- 1,077836- 13774 -01) NOW, THEREFORE, THIS DEED WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) cash in hand paid by Grantee unto Grantor, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY, with General Warranty and Modern English Covenants of Title, unto Grantee, all those certain lots or parcels of land, together with any buildings or improvements thereon, located in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, more particularly described on the attached Exhibit A. This conveyance is made subject to all easements, restrictions, conditions and reservations of record affecting the property hereby conveyed. Pursuant to Ordinance No. adopted by Roanoke City Council on March , 2014, the City of Roanoke, Virginia, by and through its duly authorized City Manager, accepts this conveyance in accordance with Section 15.2 -1803, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended. [SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW] {,,1664107- 1,077836 - 13774 -01j WITNESS the signature and seal of the Grantor by its duly- authorized officer as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF ROANOKE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY al Glenda Edwards Goh Its Executive Director COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA) to -wit: CITY OF ROANOKE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of March, 2014, by Glenda Edwards Goh, Executive Director of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public Registration No. My commission expires: Approved as to form: Counsel to RRHA Date {k1664107 -1 077836- 13774 -01) WITNESS the following signature and seal: CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Lo COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA) to -wit: CITY OF ROANOKE ) Christopher P. Morrill City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of March, 2014, by Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, on behalf of the City. Registration No. Notary Public My commission expires: Approved as to form: Daniel J. Callaghan Date Roanoke City Attorney (4664107 - 1,077836- 13774 -011 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Located in the City of Roanoke, Virginia Tax Map Nos.: 2012922 — 224 Henry Street, NW 2012923 — 220 Henry Street, NW 2012940 — 216 Henry Street, NW 2012941— 212 Henry Street, NW 2012942 — 206 Henry Street, NW 2012947 — 202 Henry Street, NW PARCELS 1, 2 and 3 Tax Map #2012922, #2012923 and 92012940 Beginning at the point of intersection of the southerly line of Wells Avenue with the westerly line of First Street; thence with the westerly line of First Street, in prior deeds and surveys stated variously to be S. 5° 30' W. and S. 0° 38' 01" W., for a distance of 156 feet more or less to the northeasterly corner of Parcel 92012941 as shown on the Official City of Roanoke Appraisal Map; thence with the common boundary of Parcels 42012941 and 42012940 as shown on the Map aforesaid N. 82° 04' W., 132.2 feet more or less to a point on the easterly boundary of Parcel #2012949 as shown on the Map first above mentioned; thence with said easterly boundary of Parcel 42012949, N. 12° 23' E., 42.03 feet more or less to a point on the southerly boundary of Parcel 42012921 according to the Map first above mentioned; thence with said southerly boundary of Parcel 42012921, S. 82° 04' E., 28.6 feet more or less to a point which constitutes the southwesterly corner of Parcel 92012923; thence with the westerly boundaries of Parcels #2012923 and #2012922, N. 2° 04' E., 121.1 feet more or less to a point on the southerly side of Wells Avenue; thence with the southerly side of Wells Avenue S.78° 17' 10" E. 96 feet more or less to the point of intersection with the westerly side of First Street. BEING the same property in which fee simple title is vested in the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority per Order of Confirmation and Vesting (Law 987 -0235) entered May 22, 1987 in the matter of City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority Petitioner v Venson Oliphant and Jessie A. Oliphant Defendant, and recorded September 1, 1987, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in Deed Book 1568, page 545. LESS AND EXCEPT those portions of Tax Parcels #2012922; 42012923 and 42012940 conveyed to the City of Roanoke, Virginia, by deed dated March 20, 1995, recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1734, page 1183. /k1664107 -1, 077836- 13774 -01J PARCEL 4 Tax Map #2012941: Beginning at a point on the west side of Henry, N.W., 157 feet south of Wells Street, thence with Henry Street, S. 5 deg 30' W 23 feet to a point, thence N. 82 deg 45' W 208 feet to a point, thence N. 5 deg 30'E 23 feet to a point, thence S. 82 deg 45'E 208 feet to the BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPT the parcel conveyed in Deed Book 854, Page 408, and more particularly described as follows: STARTING at a point on the Westerly side of Henry or First Street, N. W., 115 feet Southerly from the Southwest corner of said First Street and Wells Avenue, N. W.; thence leaving First or Henry Street and with the Northerly line of property heretofore conveyed by T. W. Urquhart, Trustee, to L. C. Downing by deed dated the 4th day of September, 1943, of record in the Clerk's Office of Hustings Court for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in Deed Book 718, Page 169, 126.43 feet to a point; thence S. 12 deg 23'W. 42.3 feet to the actual point of BEGINNING of the herein described tract or parcel of land; thence continuing S. 12 deg 23' W. 15.47 feet to a point; same being the Northwest corner of the property acquired by Eugene Calloway during the year 1929, and also being point D on plat of survey filed as Exhibit "A" with the bill in the above styled cause; thence N. 74 deg 46' 31 " W. 43.7 feet to point B as shown on plat of survey; thence N. 11 deg 22'E. 11 feet to point P shown on said plat; thence S 82 deg 30' E. (same being also along the Southerly line of the property conveyed to T. W. Urquhart, Trustee, to L. C. Downing aforesaid) 42.6 feet to point T as shown on said plat, the place of BEGINNING. BEING part of the same property conveyed to the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, from Wayne A. Ayers and Carolyn M. Ayers, his wife, and Lois A. Ayers, widow, by deed dated September 26, 1986, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in Deed Book 1547, page 14. PARCEL 5 Tax Map #2012942: Beginning at a point on the west side of First Street, North West, 50.30 feet Northwardly from the Northwest corner of former Loudon Avenue, now closed, and First Street, N.W., thence N. 830 20'44" W. 71.92 feet to a point; thence N. 7° 52' 16" E. 26.34 feet to a point; thence S. 83° 38'44" E. 70.34 feet to the Westerly side of First Street; thence along the West side of First Street, S. 4° 36' 16" W. 26.92 feet to the Beginning. /41664107- 1,077836- 13774 -01) BEING the same property conveyed to the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, from Mary Lee Watkins by deed dated November 19, 1986, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in Deed Book 1550, page 849. PARCEL 6 Tax Map #2012947: Beginning at the north -west corner of Loudon Avenue and First or Henry Street, N.W.; thence along the western side of First Street, N. 40 36' 16" E. 50.3 feet to a nail in crack in wall; thence along the southern side of said wall, N. 83° 20'44" W. 71.92 feet to a cut mark on the concrete wall; thence N. 7° 51' 16" E. 26.34 feet to an iron pipe; thence N. 83° 38' 44" W. 22.06 feet to an iron pipe; thence S. 10° 35' 29" W. 61.9 feet to an iron pipe on the northern side of Loudon Avenue; thence along the Northern side of Loudon Avenue, S. 74° 46' 31" E. 100.6 feet to the place of Beginning, together with the 6" strip of land lying at the North side of the above described property, which is more particularly shown by map filed with a deed and agreement from Jackson Finney and Fanny Finney to Harvey B. Apperson dated the 15th day of August, 1939, and recorded in Deed Book 646, at page 232. BEING the same property in which fee simple title is vested in the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority per Order of Confirmation and Vesting (Law #86- 001002) entered September 16, 1987 in the matter of City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority Petitioner v. Margaret Gill Bass Defendant, and recorded September 18, 1987, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in Deed Book 1569, page 669. LESS AND EXCEPT that portion of Tax Parcel #2012947 conveyed to the City of Roanoke, Virginia, by deed dated March 20, 1995, recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1734, page 1183. 7 ,'41664107 -1, 077836- 13774 -01j �v IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of March, 2014. No. 39879- 031714. A RESOLUTION accepting an award of Intercity Passenger Rail Operating and Capital ( IPROC) Transportation Funds in the amount of $3,000,000 to the City from the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation ( VDRPT); authorizing the City Manager to execute the IPROC Transportation Fund Grant Agreement; and authorizing the City Manager to take such further actions and execute such other documents as may be necessary to obtain, accept, implement, administer, and use such grant funds. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City of Roanoke hereby accepts the VDRPT award of IPROC Transportation Funds in the amount of $3,000,000 for engineering design and construction of improvements to the Trout Run drainage structure for the proposed Roanoke Multi -Modal Passenger Rail Station Platform project, upon certain terms, provisions, and conditions relating to the receipt of such funds. The grant does not require any matching funds but all funding required in excess of VDRPT's level of participation is the responsibility of the City. The grant is more particularly described in the City Council Agenda Report dated March 17, 2014. 2. City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the IPROC Transportation Fund Grant Agreement (Agreement) similar to the one attached to the above mentioned City Council Agenda Report, with such Agreement to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. 3. The City Manager is authorized to take such further actions and execute such further documents as may be necessary to obtain, accept, implement, administer, and use such grant funds, as allowed by the terms and conditions of the Agreement, with any such documents being approved as to form by the City Attorney. ATTEST: U�, 6t1yJ City Clerk. 2 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of March, 2014. No. 39880 - 031714. AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the Passenger Rail Infrastructure project, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2013 -2014 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the following sections of the 2013 -2014 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Capital Proiects Fund Appropriations Appropriated from Third Party 08- 530 - 9653 -9007 $3,000,000 Revenues VDRPT Passenger Rail 08- 530 - 9653 -9653 3,000,000 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: City Clerk. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: March 17, 2014 Subject: Roanoke Passenger Rail - Request Accepting VDRPT Award of IPROC Transportation Funds, Authorizing Execution of the Intercity Rail Operating and Capital Transportation Fund Agreement, and Appropriation of Funds Background: The return of passenger rail service to the City of Roanoke will require a passenger platform to facilitate boarding adjacent to the existing Norfolk Southern right of way along Norfolk Avenue, SW, from the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Bridge to Jefferson Street. The location of the passenger rail siding and platform will have an impact on an existing brick arch culvert that carries Trout Run along Norfolk Avenue and beneath much of the proposed platform and siding. This culvert is a major component of the storm water conveyance system for this portion of downtown Roanoke. The existing culvert needs to be strengthened to accommodate the weight of the platform and passenger trains. The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation ( VDRPT) has requested that the City design and construct the improvements to the Trout Run drainage structure necessary for the proposed Roanoke Passenger Rail Platform and Servicing Facility to support future operation of a passenger train from Lynchburg, Virginia, to Roanoke, Virginia. The expected cost of the required project is $6.1 million. The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) has approved Intercity Passenger Rail Operating and Capital ( IPROC) funding for this Project in the amount of $3,000,000 within its adopted Six Year Improvement Program. Considerations: The IPROC Transportation Fund Agreement will provide funds for the engineering design and construction of improvements to the Trout Run drainage structure necessary to support the VDRPT's proposed Roanoke Passenger Rail Platform and Servicing Facility (Project). The maximum VDRPT participation in IPROC funds is $3,000,000. This grant does not require any matching funds but all funding required in excess of this level of participation is the responsibility of the City. As such, the City has included funding of $.6 million and $3 million in the FYI and FYI components, respectively, of the Capital Improvement Program. This funding is to be provided by the issuance of general obligation public improvement bonds. The FY14 bonds have been issued. Upon adoption of the FYI Capital Improvement Program this spring, City Council will be asked to authorize issuance of the FYI 5 component and to appropriate funding in advance of issuance. The Project will provide public benefits by providing the changes to existing drainage facilities necessary to make possible the subsequent construction of the Roanoke Passenger Rail Station Platform and Servicing Facility which is necessary for the movement of passengers, as a part of intercity passenger service that reduces highway congestion, and promotes fuel efficiency. Recommended Action: Accept the VDRPT award of IPROC Transportation Funds in the amount of $3,000,000 for engineering design and construction of improvements to the Trout Run drainage structure for the proposed Roanoke Passenger Rail Station Platform project. Authorize the City Manager to execute the IPROC Transportation Fund Grant Agreement similar to the one attached to this City Council Agenda Report dated March 17, 2014. Such Agreement shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. Authorize the City Manager to take such further actions and execute such further documents as may be necessary to obtain, accept, implement, administer, and use such grant funds in the amount of $3,000,000. The form of all such other documents to be approved by the City Attorney. Adopt the accompanying Budget Ordinance to establish a revenue estimate for the IPROC Transportation Funds in the amount of $3,000,000 and appropriate funding in the same amount to account 08- 530 -9653, Passenger Rail InfrastrucAure. dw4stopher P. Morrill City Manager Distribution: Council Appointed Officers Sherman M. Stovall, Assistant City Manager for Operations Robert K. Bengtson, P.E., Director of Public Works Philip C. Schirmer, P.E., L.S., City Engineer N DRAFT: 03.17.2014 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL OPERATING AND CAPITAL ( "IPROC ") TRANSPORTATION FUND AGREEMENT GRANTEE: CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA PROJECT: ENGINEERING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO TROUT RUN DRAINAGE STRUCTURE FOR THE MULTI -MODAL PASSENGER RAIL STATION PLATFORM IN ROANOKE AGREEMENT NUMBER: INTERCITY PASSENGER OPERATING AND CAPITAL ( "IPROC ") TRANSPORTATION FUND AGREEMENT Agreement Number: THIS INTERCITY PASSENGER OPERATING AND CAPITAL ( "IPROC") TRANSPORTATION FUND GRANT AGREEMENT ( "Agreement ") for engineering design and construction of improvements to Trout Run Drainage Structure for the multi -modal passenger rail station platform in Roanoke, Virginia is made and executed as of 20_ between the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation ( "Department ") acting by and through its Director, and the City of Roanoke, Virginia ( "Grantee "), collectively the "Parties." RECITALS WHEREAS, the Department has requested that the Grantee design and construct, with guidance from the Department, improvements to the Trout Run Drainage Structure ( "Project ") that are necessary to support the Department's proposed Roanoke Intercity Passenger Rail Station Platform and Servicing Facility to support future operation of a round -trip passenger train from Lynchburg, Virginia, to Roanoke, Virginia; and WHEREAS, on June 19, 2013, the Commonwealth Transportation Board ( "CTB ") approved funding for this Project within its adopted Six Year Improvement Program, which is necessary before the intercity passenger service can begin, from the Intercity Passenger Operating and Capital Transportation Fund; and WHEREAS, the Project will provide public benefits by providing the changes to existing drainage facilities necessary to make possible the subsequent construction of the Roanoke Intercity Passenger Rail Station Platform and Servicing Facility which is necessary for the movement of passengers, as a part of intercity passenger service that reduces highway congestion, and promotes fuel efficiency; and WHEREAS, the Grantee acknowledges that this grant is to fund only the Work as defined in Article 1, Section 1.1 of this Agreement and the direct costs associated with it, and that the funding shall not be used for any other purpose; and WHEREAS, the Grantee acknowledges that the Work shall be in accordance with all Federal, State, and Local criteria to include, but not be limited to, the Norfolk Southern Corporation's ( "NS ") design and construction criteria; and WHEREAS, the Parties wish to define the extent of the Project, the responsibilities of each party, the manner of performing the necessary Work, and the method and time of payment, and to set out additional conditions associated with the Project; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to procure the Project for the lowest possible cost. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the Parties agree as follows: DEFINITIONS Contractor means private contractor, including consultants, which may be engaged by Grantee to perform the Work. Designated Representative means a person or persons appointed by the Grantee or the Department to represent, in whole or in part, the party in issues associated with the Work or this Agreement. Eligible Project Cost means a cost directly associated with the Work. Force Majeure Event means fire, flood, war, rebellion, riots, strikes, or acts of God, which may affect or prevent either party from timely or properly performing its obligations under this Agreement. Letter of No Prejudice means formal acknowledgement of the Project by the Department that allows the Grantee to perform the Work or portions thereof as agreed to by the Department at the Grantee's own risk prior to the execution of the Agreement and issuance of Notice to Proceed. See Attachment C. Monthly Progress Report means a monthly written progress report including any changes or updates to the Project Scope, Project Schedule, Project Budget, and information as provided in Attachment A. Notice to Proceed means written notice issued by the Department authorizing the Grantee to commence a particular portion of the Work. Project Benefit means the public benefit to the Commonwealth of Virginia as described in Article 3 of this Agreement, as well as the public benefit of contributing to the Commonwealth's continued economic growth, vitality, and competitiveness in national and world markets through the establishment of a viable statewide transportation system which has a rail system with the capability of carrying increased amounts of freight and passengers. Project Budget means the budget for the Work in single or multiple years as broken into total costs, Department and Grantee participation, and any subsequent amendments. Project Invoice means the form provided by the Department to the Grantee to use for submission for reimbursement of Eligible Project Costs incurred and paid by the Grantee. This form is Attachment B. Project Schedule means the milestone schedule for completing the Work as agreed to by the Parties. Project Scope means the description of the Work including plans, specifications, schedule of values, cost estimates, and any other documents necessary to complete the Work relating to the Project. Re -work means work required to correct deficiencies in the Project brought about by incomplete Work, incorrect Work, failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement, or applicable state or federal regulations. Trout Run Drainage Structure means that structure located in the Norfolk Avenue right of way, between 1 st Street, S.W. and Market Street, in the City of Roanoke. Work means any and all tasks, duties, obligations, services, requirements, and activities of whatever kind or nature, express or implied, direct or incidental, to be performed, and all items tangible and intangible, to be provided by the Grantee as part of this Agreement with respect to the Project. ARTICLE 1 SCOPE OF WORK, BUDGET, AND MILESTONE SCHEDULE Section 1.1 The Work under the terms of this Agreement is as follows: A. Development of conceptual plans with the guidance of the Department for improvements to the Trout Run Drainage Structure in downtown Roanoke to support the increased structural loadings caused by the proposed passenger train service. The conceptual plans must be reviewed and accepted by the Department and /or its General Engineering Consultant ( "GEC ") and NS prior to advancing the design process. B. Development of final Project Scope, Project Budget, and Project Schedule for the Work for approval by the Department. C. Development of engineering plans for the accepted conceptual design, as selected by the Parties from the Work described in Section 1.1.B. The engineering plans must be developed at a level to be determined sufficient by the Department and must be reviewed and accepted by the Department and /or its GEC and NS prior to developing construction documents. D. Development of the bid package to include construction plans, quantities, engineer's estimate, and project specifications for the Work based on the accepted design in Section 1.1.C. The bid package must be reviewed and accepted by the Department and /or its GEC and NS prior to Project Award. E. Advertise the Project, receive bids, award contract, and construct the work. The completed work must be reviewed and accepted by the Department and /or its GEC and NS prior to Project Closeout. The Department understands that Grantee needs an approved schematic design of the platform rails and other infrastructure improvements in order to perform the work in Section 1.1(A) and 1.1(B), and will endeavor to provide such document within 30 days of the execution of this Agreement Section 1.2 The initial Project Budget and Project Schedule for the Project as an estimate as of the date of the Agreement are as follows: Total Project Budget $6,100,000 Maximum Department Participation in IPROC Funds: $3,000,000 Grantee Contribution: $3,100,000 It is agreed that the maximum funding for reimbursement by the Department as provided for in its Fiscal Year 2014 Program of Projects shall be as follows: Fiscal Year 2014 $ 6,100,000 Maximum Department Participation: $ 3,000,000 Grantee Contribution: $ 3,100,000 Project Schedule Date of Milestone Milestone dates are estimates only and there shall be no penalty for non - compliance Conceptual Design Complete May 15, 2014 Department Review and Comment Complete June 1, 2014 Project Scope, Budget, and Schedule for Full Engineering Services July 1, 2014 Department Review and Comment Complete July 21, 2014 NS Platform and Passenger Track PE Design Complete July 1, 2014 Preparation of Construction Documents October 31, 2014 Department Review and Comment Complete November 15, 2014 Procurement and Contract Award February 15, 2015 Department Review and Comment Complete March 1, 2015 Construction Complete November 1, 2015 Project Acceptance by Department December 31, 2016 Amounts not spent in Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015 shall be carried over into subsequent years, so that the entire $3,000,000 is available for reimbursement for Eligible Project Costs. The Grantee shall have two years from the date of the CTB's approval of the Project to complete the Work and final invoice the Department, unless the Department agrees to an extension. It is understood that the initial Project Budget as stated above is an estimate as of the date of contracting only, and may be lower or higher. However, the Grantee acknowledges that the Department's share of the Project Cost cannot exceed the amount allocated by the CTB. Section 1.3 The Grantee is responsible for completing the Project. In the event that the Grantee is not performing the Work as described under Article 1, the Work being performed by others shall be approved by the Department. Section 1.4 In the event that the Grantee receives subsequent allocation of state funding from another source or federal funding applicable to this Project, the allocations from the IPROC funds shall be reduced by the amount of the subsequent allocation. The Grantee will notify the Department of any such subsequent allocation within 30 calendar days. Failure of the Grantee to notify the Department under the terms of this section is a material breach of this Agreement which will trigger the provisions of Section 9.3 Section 1.5 Any cost of completing the Work in excess of the Project Budget shall be the responsibility of the Grantee. If the Work can be completed as described in Article 1 and the Department approves, the Grantee may revise the Project so that total Project expense does not exceed the Project Budget. However, the Project Benefit shall remain unchanged. Section 1.6 A Monthly Progress Report, as provided in Attachment A, will be submitted to the Department by no later than the 10th day of the following month. The Report will make reference to progress towards completing milestones contained in the Progress Schedule. Section 1.7 Funding availability is subject to annual appropriation by the General Assembly and allocation by the CTB. Section 1.8 The Grantee certifies that it, or its Contractor, has the financial and technical capability to complete the Work in accordance with this Agreement. ARTICLE 2 PLANNING, DESIGN, ENGINEERING, AND CONSTRUCTION Section 2.1 By execution of this Agreement, the Department approves the initial Project Scope specified in the Grantee's letter to the Department dated April 12, 2013. The Grantee may incur Eligible Project Costs beginning on the date of execution to support the Work specified in Section 1.1.A. through 1.1.D. All Eligible Project Costs must be submitted to the Department and approved by the Department prior to reimbursement. The Department does not make any warranty as to the accuracy or suitability of the information submitted, nor does the submission relieve the Grantee of any liability under this Agreement. Any submissions made by an entity representing the Grantee shall contain the Grantee's written approval. Section 2.2 The Grantee shall not commence the Work described in Section 1.1.E until the Department has issued in writing a Notice to Proceed for this Work. The Grantee must submit a final Project Scope, Project Budget, and Project Schedule for the Work to the Department for approval before the Department will issue a Notice to Proceed. 0 Section 2.3 The Department reserves the right to reject any Project Scope items, Project Budget, or Project Schedule because the Department's own analysis reveals that significant cost or schedule savings can be achieved through other contracting means than Grantee proposes which meet the Grantee's performance and Project requirements. Section 2.4 The Grantee shall design the Project according to the most recently Department approved Project Scope, Project Budget, and Project Schedule. Section 2.5 The Grantee shall examine or shall have the Work examined to: A. Ensure that it complies with the contract documents; and B. Verify labor, equipment and material charges for contracts providing for payment on an actual cost basis. Section 2.6 If either the Grantee or the Department determines that any part of the design is not in compliance with applicable provisions of the Manual for Railway Engineering published by the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance -of -Way Association ( "AREMA ") or other applicable federal, state, and local ordinances, laws or design criteria, the Grantee shall bear all costs associated with bringing such deficiencies into compliance without using any funds provided under this Agreement. The Grantee shall certify compliance with the above sentence with Norfolk Southern Railway Company prior to the Grantee procuring construction services. Section 2.7 The Department may take any action, including the inspection of all Project books and records of the Grantee and any of the Grantee's Contractors and subcontractors relating to any project or task receiving funds under this Agreement, to review activities being funded under this Agreement and the adequacy of the Grantee's monitoring efforts. Section 2.8 The Department shall have access to the Project at all times to inspect the Project, to protect its interest in the Project, and to ensure that the Project is being developed consistently with the terms of this Agreement. The Department representatives will contact the Grantee's representative prior to entering the Grantee's right -of -way. The Department's representatives will comply with all safety rules and regulations of the Grantee, and safety instructions from the Grantee's representatives, but entry shall be provided at no cost to the Department. ARTICLE 3 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.1 The Grantee will complete the Work described in Article 1, Section 1.1 within the time period and the budget detailed in the final Project Scope, Project Budget, and Project Schedule as specified in Section 2.1. The Project Benefit will be fully achieved upon the completion of the Project. 7 ARTICLE 4 SPECIAL CONDITIONS Section 4.1 Where the Grantee is acting as overall Project Manager, employee payroll and indirect costs may be charged directly to the Project. The Department will approve reasonable Project charges for the employees, their rates and surcharges. Section 4.2 The Grantee agrees to provide or have provided continuous maintenance in accordance with the Grantee's standards in conformance with AREMA recommended practices, and, as between the Grantee and the Department, the Grantee shall require Grantee's Contractors and subcontractors to assume all liability in connection with their Work during the implementation and operation of the Project. Section 4.3 All funds granted under this Agreement shall be expended by the Grantee in accordance with the Department's regulations, standard procurement procedures, applicable Virginia law, and accepted good business practices. All plans, specifications, estimates of costs, award of contracts, performance and acceptance of the Work, and procedures in general are subject at all times to all applicable laws, rules, regulations, and orders. Section 4.4 Funding provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be for the reimbursement of Eligible Project Costs and for no other purpose. All purchases made as a matter of this Agreement shall be charged at the actual cost to the Grantee with no markups. ARTICLE 5 REIMBURSEMENT OF GRANTEE Section 5.1 The Grantee shall render Project Invoices no more frequently than once every 30 calendar days for reimbursement of Eligible Project Costs. Section 5.2 Project Invoices shall be submitted using the forms provided as Attachment B of this Agreement. Upon approval by the Department for payment, Project Invoices will be paid within 30 calendar days. Project Invoices shall be accompanied by the most recent Monthly Progress Report. Section 5.3 Project Invoices or line items in invoices not found to be complete as to form or not in accordance to the provisions of this Agreement will be separated and a partial payment may be made by the Department on eligible reimbursable expenditures upon approval by the Department. Section 5.4 The Department shall have the right to request an accounting or more detailed statement of invoices. Upon such a request, the Grantee shall provide the requested information within 30 calendar days. Section 5.5 Reimbursement paid to the Grantee by the Department for any items of Work found not to be in accordance with the agreed Work or any applicable federal, state, or local law or regulation by the Department in its final audits will be repaid to the Department by the Grantee within 60 calendar days of the Department's submission to the Grantee of the items disapproved. Section 5.6 The Grantee is responsible for payment of all Contractors. The Grantee shall attach to each Project Invoice copies of Contractor's paid invoices. ARTICLE 6 COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE Section 6.1 By marking the final Project Invoice "Final" the Grantee is certifying in writing that the Work has been completed. Section 6.2 The Department shall have 60 calendar days after Grantee's certification of completion of the Work in which to provide final acceptance of or to reject in writing any portion of the Work. Section 6.3 Not Used. Section 6.4 If Work is accepted by the Department, the final Project Invoice shall be paid within 30 days of acceptance. Section 6.5 Sixty calendar days after payment of the Final Project Invoice, the Department will withdraw any remaining Commonwealth funds as outlined in Article 9. Section 6.6 Acceptance of the Work by the Department shall not be construed to benefit any third parties or create any additional liability to the Commonwealth, nor does it relieve the Grantee of its liability under this Agreement. Section 6.7 If the Department rejects the Work, the Grantee shall have 30 days from the date of written rejection to submit a written plan for remedying any identified problem to the Work. The problem shall be remedied according to a schedule approved by the Department. Section 6.8 Any work necessary in connection with the Project, which is not specifically provided for as Work by this Agreement, including but not limited to Re -work, shall be the responsibility of the Grantee. ARTICLE 7 INTEREST IN COMPLETED WORK Section 7.1 The Parties acknowledge and agree that the Department has an ownership interest in the completed Work for the public benefit of contributing to the Commonwealth's continued economic growth, vitality, and competitiveness in national and world markets through the establishment of a viable statewide transportation system which has a rail system with the capability of carrying increased amounts of freight and passengers in order to reduce traffic on the Commonwealth's highways. The Department's approval must be given before any portion of the Work is shared with any other person or entity beyond the Grantee. For purposes of this Agreement, the value of that interest shall be the value of the payments made by the Department to the Grantee as of the time of acceptance of the Project by the Department. ARTICLE 8 SMALL, WOMEN, AND MINORITY (SWAM) Section 8.1 The Grantee is encouraged to seek and use Small, Women, and Minority (`SWAM ") enterprises in relation to this Agreement. A SWAM achievement goal of 40 percent of total eligible grant expenditures is established by execution of this Agreement by the parties. Information regarding the SWAM code section can be found in Attachment E. ARTICLE 9 TERMINATION Section 9.1 The Grantee may terminate the Project at any time by notifying the Department in writing 30 calendar days in advance. If such termination occurs, the Grantee shall repay the Department for all funds received according to the provisions of this Article. Section 9.2 The Grantee may terminate the Agreement at any time it is determined under Virginia law that the Department has materially breached this Agreement and has failed to cure such breach within 90 calendar days. Should such occur, the Grantee shall be entitled to whatever remedies may be provided for by law. The Grantee will not be required to repay funds that have been provided by the Department pursuant to this Agreement. Section 9.3 Upon 30 calendar days notice to the Grantee, the Department may terminate, in whole or in part, the funding under this Agreement, or the Agreement if funding is complete, at any time it is determined that Grantee has materially breached this Agreement and has failed to cure said breach after 90 calendar days notice or if compliance within 90 calendar days is not reasonable as solely determined by the Department, then within such time period as the Department may agree. The Department shall notify the Grantee promptly in writing of such a determination and the effective date of the termination. The Grantee may request reconsideration by notifying the Department within 30 calendar days of the date of the Department's notification. If the Grantee requests reconsideration, the Department shall not terminate funding until after the request has been reconsidered, but it may withhold funds in the interim. Following reconsideration, if requested, the decision of the Department will be final. If this Agreement is terminated by the Department for the Grantee's material breach, the Grantee will repay the Department all funds received for the Project plus the statutory legal rate of interest as detailed in Section 9.7. Such payment shall be made within 60 calendar days following notification by the Department of the amount to be repaid. Section 9.4 Upon 30 calendar days notice to the Grantee, the Department may terminate, in whole or in part, the funding under this Agreement at any time if (1) the Department fails to secure the necessary budgetary appropriation to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, (2) the Grantee becomes insolvent, (3) the Grantee fails to apply provided funds as intended under this Agreement, or (4) statutory changes affecting the Program under which these funds were provided render funding with this Agreement impossible. The Department shall notify the Grantee promptly in writing of such a determination and the effective date of the termination. The Grantee may request reconsideration by notifying the Department within 30 calendar days of the date of the Department's notification. The Department shall not terminate funding until after the request has been reconsidered but may withhold 10 funds in the interim. Following reconsideration, if requested, the decision of the Department will be final. Section 9.5 Should the Project be terminated by the Department because of a lack of funds or statutory changes, the Department will exercise best efforts to seek funds to be used to defray costs of shutting down and the Grantee need not repay any funds already paid to the Grantee if such funds represent eligible Project Costs that the Grantee has incurred. The Grantee shall repay the Department for all funds paid associated with this Agreement should the Grantee become insolvent or fail to apply funds as intended under this Agreement. Section 9.6 Delays caused by Force Majeure Events during the Work shall not be deemed a breach or default under this Agreement. Upon the occasion of a Force Majeure Event, that the Department determines makes it impossible for the Project to be completed and /or moots the need for the Project, the Department may terminate this Agreement at its discretion. If such termination occurs, the Department shall reimburse the Grantee for all approved Project Costs incurred prior to such termination. Force Majeure Events occurring during the Project Schedule of this Agreement will automatically result in day- for -day extension to the Project Schedule specified in this Agreement. The Grantee shall notify the Department within five working days of Grantee's opinion that a Force Majeure Event has occurred and provide the Department with information to supports its opinion. The Department will complete its review based on the information submitted by the Grantee within 10 working days of receipt of such information, and notify the Grantee in writing of its opinion. Both parties must agree that a Force Majeure Event has occurred before an event will be deemed a Force Majeure Event. Section 9.7 All reimbursement of funds granted by the Department under any Article of this Agreement shall also require the payment of interest using the prevailing statutory legal rate of interest established by the Virginia General Assembly, calculated from the date payment is made by the Department to date of reimbursement by the Grantee. ARTICLE 10 ASSIGNMENT Section 10.1 The Grantee may not assign any portion of this Agreement without the prior written approval of the Department. ARTICLE 11 TERM, ENTIRE AGREEMENT, AND AMENDMENT Section 11.1 This Agreement shall be effective immediately upon its execution. Section 11.2 This Agreement and any Amendments thereto constitute the entire and exclusive agreement between the parties relating to all specific matters covered herein. All other prior or contemporaneous verbal or written agreements, understandings, representations, and /or practices relative to the foregoing are hereby superseded, revoked and rendered ineffective for any purpose. 11 Section 11.3 This Agreement maybe altered, amended, or revoked only by an instrument in writing signed by both of the parties. ARTICLE 12 NOTICES AND DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE Section 12.1 All notices or communications with respect to this Agreement, shall be in writing and shall be deemed delivered upon delivery by hand, upon the next business day if sent prepaid overnight delivery service, or on the third business day following mailing by U.S. Mail, certified, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the addresses set forth below or such other addresses as may be specified by delivery of prior notice by a party to the other parties. Department: Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation 600 East Main Street, Suite 2102 Richmond, VA 23219 Attention: William S. Pittard, Chief Financial Officer steve.pittard(i�dipt.vir ig nia.g_ov_ Designated Representative: Kevin B. Page, Chief Operating Officer Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation 600 East Main Street, Suite 2102 Richmond, VA 23219 kevin. page(iWrpt. virgini a. gov Nancy C. Auth, Senior Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 900 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219 nauthroag.state.va.us Grantee: City of Roanoke, Virginia Attn: Assistant City Manager for Operations 364 Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Fax: 540- 853 -1138 Designated Representative: City of Roanoke, Virginia Attn: City Engineer 350 Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Fax: 540-853-1364 12 ARTICLE 13 NON - DISCRIMINATION Section 13.1 In the solicitation or awarding of any contracts directly related to this Agreement, the Grantee shall not discriminate against a bidder or offeror because of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, or any other basis prohibited by Virginia law. Section 13.2 During the performance of this Agreement, the Grantee agrees as follows: (a) the Grantee will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, or other basis prohibited by Virginia law relating to discrimination in employment. The Grantee agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause; (b) the Grantee, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the Grantee, will state that the Grantee, where applicable, is an equal opportunity employer. Notices, advertisements and solicitations placed in accordance with federal law, rule or regulation shall be deemed sufficient for the purpose of meeting the requirements of this section. ARTICLE 14 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Section 14.1 The Grantee agrees that its plans will incorporate statewide plans or projects that support freight and /or passenger rail growth or to make every reasonable attempt in its designs not to preclude specified statewide passenger and or freight projects in the future. Section 14.2 The Grantee shall at all times observe and comply with all federal, state and local laws, regulations, ordinances, orders, and decrees applicable to the Work. The obligations of this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement and completion of the Project. Section 14.3 Data or information provided by the Grantee to the Department that is protected under federal or state law, or otherwise deemed by the Grantee and the Department as proprietary, will be clearly marked by the Grantee on each document prior to its submission. The Department shall hold and protect said documents identified by the Grantee as proprietary in accordance with law. For the purposes of this Agreement, proprietary items are listed in Attachment F. Section 14.4 The Grantee shall maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and any other evidence, showing actual time devoted and supporting the cost incurred. Such books, documents, papers, accounting records, etc. shall be kept in accordance with commonly accepted business /industry accounting procedures. Such information shall be made available for audit and inspection at the Grantee's offices at all reasonable times during the Agreement period and for a period of three years from the date of final payment to the Grantee and acceptance by the Department. Copies of such information shall be furnished to the Department upon request. The Department shall have the absolute right to audit to determine compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Section 14.5 The Grantee will contract with the Contractor for performance of all Work for the Project and will require the Contractor and its subcontractors to be responsible for all damage to life and property due to the activities of the Contractor, its subcontractors, agents, and employees in connection 13 with the Work performed under this Agreement.. The Grantee shall contractually require the Contractor and its subcontractors to indemnify the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Department, the Virginia Department of Transportation and their officers, agents and employees and to obtain insurance to cover this risk. All such insurance shall list the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Department, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and their officers, agents and employees of these entities as additional insureds. Acceptance of the Work by the Department shall not waive any of the rights of the Department contained in this section nor shall it waive any of the rights of the Department contained in this section or release the Grantee from any responsibilities or duties contained in this Agreement. Further, it is expressly understood that the Grantee shall require Grantee's Contractors and subcontractors to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Department of Rail and Public Transportation, the Virginia Department of Transportation, its officers, agents, and employees from and against all damages, claims, suits, judgments, expenses, actions and costs of every name and description, arising out of or resulting from any negligent act or omission in the performance by such Contractors and subcontractors of the Work covered by this Agreement, and shall purchase insurance to cover any risk arising from the actions of the Grantee's Contractors and subcontractors. All obligations of this section shall survive the termination or expiration of the term this Agreement or completion of the Project. Section 14.6 During the performance of this Agreement, the Grantee agrees to (a) provide a drug -free workplace for its employees; (b) post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, sale, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance or marijuana is prohibited in the workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violations of such prohibition; (c) state in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the Grantee that the Grantee maintains a drug -free workplace; and (d) include the provisions of the foregoing clauses in every subcontract or purchase order of over $10,000, so that the provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. For the purposes of this section, "drug -free workplace" means a site for the performance of Work done in connection with a specific contract awarded to a Contractor in accordance with this chapter, the employees of whom are prohibited from engaging in the unlawful manufacture, sale, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of any controlled substance or marijuana during the performance of the Agreement. Section 14.7 No member, officer, or employee of the Department, during his tenure or one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, that is prohibited by Virginia law in this Agreement. Section 14.8 This Agreement shall, in all respects, be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Section 14.9 If any term or provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, it shall not affect the legality or validity or enforceability of any other part of this Agreement. Section 14.10 This Agreement, when properly executed, shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective successors and assigns. 14 Section 14. 11 The Grantee agrees to supply one hard copy, one electronic copy in PDF format, and all electronic computerized design and drafting files of the completed Work to the Department. The electronic files will include all graphical, design, and digital terrain modal data, which must be electronic files compatible with the Grantee's standard Autodesk platform. All electronic files are to be provided to the Department utilizing compact disc, USB flash drive, or File Transfer Protocol (FTP) server site for downloading. ARTICLE 15 UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS Section 15.1 The Grantee certifies that it does not, and that it and its contractors shall not, during the performance of this contract knowingly employ an unauthorized alien as defined in the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ( "Act "). Unauthorized alien means, with respect to the employment of an alien (which is defined as any person not a citizen or national of the United States), at a particular time, that the alien is not at that time either (a) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or (b) authorized to be so employed by the Act or by the United States Attorney General. This area intentionally left blank 15 IN TESTIMONY THEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed, each by its duly authorized officer, all as of the day, month, and year hereinabove first written. WITNESS WITNESS COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Jennifer Mitchell Director CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA C Christopher P. Morrill City Manager Approved as to form: City Attorney Authorized by Resolution No. 16 Attachment A - Monthly Progress Report Monthly Grant Progress Report Date: DRPT Project: Number: Grantee Project: Project Type: New Construction❑ Rehabilitation ❑ Study ❑ Rail Infrastructure ❑ Equipment/Rolling Stock ❑ Signals /Communication ❑ Other: Reporting Period Range: — / —/ thru — / —/. Commonwealth Project Funding: Total Funds Allocated $ Amount spent this period: $ Total Funds Spent: $ Project Fund Balance: $ Percent Spent to date: _% SWAM participation this period: Yes ❑ No ❑ SWAM participation: % Schedule Project is on schedule: ❑ Project is not on schedule: ❑ Percent Project Complete: _% Response plan: Milestones Completed Scoping Construction or Study Project is <5 %behind schedule Project is > 5% behind schedule Project is > 10% behind schedule Project Issue(s) and Update Narrative: Submitted by: 17 Date: Attachment B - Project Invoice Page 1 D RPT Voucher: Department of Rail and Public Transportation Reimbursement Form Organization Name: EIN: New Address, If applicable Project Agreement Name: Project Number: Total Contract Amount Total of Previous Payments Invoice Date Invoice # [$ •]s -Js s Total Expended This Period $ - $ $ I $ - Balance Remaining After This Invoice l $ j,$ $ Total Reimbursable Amount for This Invoice [$ 1 certify that the grantee agency has incurred expenses in accordance with the project agreement and that these funds have not been previously requested. Grantee Authorized Signature Title Note: Percentage calculations are rounded to the nearest dollar. T Al Grant Manager Signature Date Check here to close prgect afta-this request Form# DRPT06302003F IN Attachment B - Project Invoice Page 2 Payment Number Total Expended This Period Date of Request Previous Total gv- 14 2 cq 16 4 18 �6y r 20 8 10 12 yy ggy � F 14 16 18 OVA, r 20 19 Attachment B - Project Invoice Page 3 Summary Sheet (sample for individual Grantee and /or Contractor invoices within a Project Invoice) Vendor Invoice Number Vendor Name Work Performed Dollar Value of Work Invoice Paid Date TOTAL 20 Attachment C - Letter of No Prejudice Month Day, Year Name Title Railroad Name Railroad Address Line 1 Railroad Address Line 2 Re: Project Name Letter of No Prejudice Dear Name: The Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) is in receipt of your letter dated Month Day, Year in which you requested a Letter of No Prejudice to proceed with the Project Description. Total project costs of $Amount will be shared at Percent DRPT Intercity Passenger Rail Operating and Capital funds of $ Amount and Percent Grantee Name funds of $ Amount. Although the pre- agreement has not been concluded nor the grant agreement executed, the importance of the timing of this project dictates that work begin. Accordingly, you are hereby authorized to begin incurring expenses towards this Project, pending the execution of a project agreement. Eligible expenses incurred towards this project will be eligible for reimbursement when a project agreement is executed between Grantee Name and DRPT. However, if for some reason an agreement is not executed, then DRPT has no obligation to reimburse any expense that may have been incurred. All expense will be subject to audit and reporting requirements, which will be described in the project agreement. Members of my staff are currently working with the Office of the Attorney General to develop a project agreement which will include all of the conditions and requirements of the grant program. DRPT anticipates providing the project agreement to you within the next 30 days. Sincerely, Name Director 21 Attachment D - Section 2.2 -4301, Code of lrrginia A part of the Virginia Public Procurement Act § 2.2 -4301. (Effective until July 1, 2014) Definitions As used in this chapter: "Affiliate" means an individual or business that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another individual or business. A person controls an entity if the person owns, directly or indirectly, more than 10 percent of the voting securities of the entity. For the purposes of this definition "voting security means a security that (i) confers upon the holder the right to vote for the election of members of the board of directors or similar governing body of the business or (ii) is convertible into, or entitles the holder to receive, upon its exercise, a security that confers such a right to vote. A general partnership interest shall be deemed to be a voting security. "Best value," as predetermined in the solicitation, means the overall combination of quality, price, and various elements of required services that in total are optimal relative to a public body's needs. "Business" means any type of corporation, partnership, limited liability company, association, or sole proprietorship operated for profit. "Competitive negotiation" is a method of contractor selection that includes the following elements: 1. Issuance of a written Request for Proposal indicating in general terms that which is sought to be procured, specifying the factors that will be used in evaluating the proposal and containing or incorporating by reference the other applicable contractual terms and conditions, including any unique capabilities or qualifications that will be required of the contractor. 2. Public notice of the Request for Proposal at least 10 days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals by posting on the Department of General Services' central electronic procurement website or other appropriate websites. Additionally, public bodies shall publish in a newspaper of general circulation in the area in which the contract is to be performed so as to provide reasonable notice to the maximum number of offerors that can be reasonably anticipated to submit proposals in response to the particular request. Posting on the Department of General Services' central electronic procurement website shall be required of any state public body. Local public bodies are encouraged to utilize the Department of General Services' central electronic procurement website to provide the public with centralized visibility and access to the Commonwealth's procurement opportunities. In addition, proposals may be solicited directly from potential contractors. 3. a. Procurement of professional services. The public body shall engage in individual discussions with two or more offerors deemed fully qualified, responsible and suitable on the basis of initial responses and with emphasis on professional competence, to provide the required services. Repetitive informal interviews shall be permissible. The offerors shall be encouraged to elaborate on their qualifications and performance data or staff expertise pertinent to the proposed project, as well as alternative concepts. In addition, offerors shall be informed of any ranking criteria that will be used by the public body in addition to the review of the professional competence of the offeror. The Request for Proposal shall not, 22 however, request that offerors furnish estimates of man -hours or cost for services. At the discussion stage, the public body may discuss nonbinding estimates of total project costs, including, but not limited to, life -cycle costing, and where appropriate, nonbinding estimates of price for services. Proprietary information from competing offerors shall not be disclosed to the public or to competitors. At the conclusion of discussion, outlined in this subdivision, on the basis of evaluation factors published in the Request for Proposal and all information developed in the selection process to this point, the public body shall select in the order of preference two or more offerors whose professional qualifications and proposed services are deemed most meritorious. Negotiations shall then be conducted, beginning with the offeror ranked first. If a contract satisfactory and advantageous to the public body can be negotiated at a price considered fair and reasonable, the award shall be made to that offeror. Otherwise, negotiations with the offeror ranked first shall be formally terminated and negotiations conducted with the offeror ranked second, and so on until such a contract can be negotiated at a fair and reasonable price. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the terms and conditions for multiple awards are included in the Request for Proposal, a public body may award contracts to more than one offeror. Should the public body determine in writing and in its sole discretion that only one offeror is fully qualified, or that one offeror is clearly more highly qualified and suitable than the others under consideration, a contract may be negotiated and awarded to that offeror. A contract for architectural or professional engineering services relating to construction projects may be negotiated by a public body, for multiple projects provided (i) the projects require similar experience and expertise, (ii) the nature of the projects is clearly identified in the Request for Proposal, and (iii) the contract term is limited to one year or when the cumulative total project fees reach the maximum cost authorized in this paragraph, whichever occurs first. For state public bodies, such contract, except those awarded for environmental, location, design and inspection work regarding highways and bridges by the Commissioner of Highways may be renewable for four additional one -year terms at the option of the public body. For local public bodies, including metropolitan planning organizations or planning district commissions, such contract may be renewable for four additional one -year terms at the option of the public body. Under such contract, the fair and reasonable prices, as negotiated, shall be used in determining the cost of each project performed, (a) except for those awarded for environmental, location, design and inspection work regarding highways and bridges by the Commissioner of Highways, the sum of all projects performed in one contract term shall not exceed $500,000 or, in the case of a state agency, as defined in § 2.2 -4347, such greater amount as may be determined by the Director of the Department of General Services, not to exceed $1 million, except that in any locality or any authority, sanitation district, metropolitan planning organization or planning district commission with a population in excess of 80,000, or any city within Planning District 8, the sum of all such projects shall not exceed $5 million and those awarded for any airport as defined in § 5.1 -1 and aviation transportation projects, the sum of all such projects shall not exceed $1.5 million, and (b) except for those awarded for environmental, location, design and inspection work regarding highways and bridges by the Commissioner of Highways or for architectural and engineering services for rail and public transportation projects by the Director of the Department of Rail and Public Transportation, the project fee of any single project shall not exceed $100,000, or for architectural or engineering services for airports as defined in § 5.1 -1 and aviation transportation projects, the project fee of any single project shall not exceed $500,000, or, in the case of a state agency, such greater amount as may be determined by the Director of the Department of General Services not to exceed $200,000, except that in any locality or any authority or sanitation district with a population in excess of 80,000, or any city within 23 Planning District 8, such fee shall not exceed $2 million. Any unused amounts from the first contract term shall not be carried forward to the additional term. Competitive negotiations for such contracts may result in awards to more than one offeror provided (1) the Request for Proposal so states and (2) the public body has established procedures for distributing multiple projects among the selected contractors during the contract term. Notwithstanding any other provision in this section, for contracts for environmental location, design and inspection work regarding highways and bridges by the Commissioner of Highways, the initial contract term shall be limited to two years or when the cumulative total project fees reach $5 million, whichever occurs first. Such contract may be renewable for two additional one -year terms at the option of the Commissioner, and the sum of all projects in each one -year term shall not exceed $5 million. For architectural and engineering services for rail and public transportation projects by the Director of the Department of Rail and Public Transportation, the sum of all projects in one contract term shall not exceed $2 million and such contract may be renewable for two additional one -year terms at the option of the Commissioner. Multiphase professional services contracts satisfactory and advantageous to the Department of Transportation for environmental, location, design and inspection work regarding highways and bridges may be negotiated and awarded based on a fair and reasonable price for the first phase only, when completion of the earlier phases is necessary to provide information critical to the negotiation of a fair and reasonable price for succeeding phases. Multiphase professional services contracts satisfactory and advantageous to a local public body, including metropolitan planning organizations and planning district commissions, for environmental, location, design and inspection work regarding construction of infrastructure projects may be negotiated and awarded based on qualifications at a fair and reasonable price for the first phase only, when completion of the earlier phases is necessary to provide information critical to the negotiation of a fair and reasonable price for succeeding phases. Prior to the procurement of any such contract, the local public body shall state the anticipated intended total scope of the project and determine in writing that the nature of the work is such that the best interests of such public body require awarding the contract. b. Procurement of other than professional services. Selection shall be made of two or more offerors deemed to be fully qualified and best suited among those submitting proposals, on the basis of the factors involved in the Request for Proposal, including price if so stated in the Request for Proposal. Negotiations shall then be conducted with each of the offerors so selected. Price shall be considered, but need not be the sole determining factor. After negotiations have been conducted with each offeror so selected, the public body shall select the offeror which, in its opinion, has made the best proposal, and shall award the contract to that offeror. When the terms and conditions of multiple awards are so provided in the Request for Proposal, awards may be made to more than one offeror. Should the public body determine in writing and in its sole discretion that only one offeror is fully qualified, or that one offeror is clearly more highly qualified than the others under consideration, a contract may be negotiated and awarded to that offeror. "Competitive sealed bidding" is a method of contractor selection, other than for professional services, which includes the following elements: 1. Issuance of a written Invitation to Bid containing or incorporating by reference the specifications and contractual terms and conditions applicable to the procurement. Unless the public body has provided for 24 prequalification of bidders, the Invitation to Bid shall include a statement of any requisite qualifications of potential contractors. When it is impractical to prepare initially a purchase description to support an award based on prices, an Invitation to Bid may be issued requesting the submission of unpriced offers to be followed by an Invitation to Bid limited to those bidders whose offers have been qualified under the criteria set forth in the first solicitation. 2. Public notice of the Invitation to Bid at least 10 days prior to the date set for receipt of bids by posting on the Department of General Services' central electronic procurement website or other appropriate websites. In addition, public bodies may publish in a newspaper of general circulation. Posting on the Department of General Services' central electronic procurement website shall be required of any state public body. Local public bodies are encouraged to utilize the Department of General Services' central electronic procurement website to provide the public with centralized visibility and access to the Commonwealth's procurement opportunities. In addition, bids may be solicited directly from potential contractors. Any additional solicitations shall include businesses selected from a list made available by the Department of Small Business and Supplier Diversity. 3. Public opening and announcement of all bids received. 4. Evaluation of bids based upon the requirements set forth in the invitation, which may include special qualifications of potential contractors, life -cycle costing, value analysis, and any other criteria such as inspection, testing, quality, workmanship, delivery, and suitability for a particular purpose, which are helpful in determining acceptability. 5. Award to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. When the terms and conditions of multiple awards are so provided in the Invitation to Bid, awards may be made to more than one bidder. "Construction" means building, altering, repairing, improving or demolishing any structure, building or highway, and any draining, dredging, excavation, grading or similar work upon real property. "Construction management contract" means a contract in which a party is retained by the owner to coordinate and administer contracts for construction services for the benefit of the owner, and may also include, if provided in the contract, the furnishing of construction services to the owner. "Design -build contract" means a contract between a public body and another party in which the party contracting with the public body agrees to both design and build the structure, roadway or other item specified in the contract. "Employment services organization" means an organization that provides employment services to individuals with disabilities that is an approved Commission on the Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) accredited vendor of the Department for Aging and Rehabilitative Services. "Goods" means all material, equipment, supplies, printing, and automated data processing hardware and software. 25 "Informality" means a minor defect or variation of a bid or proposal from the exact requirements of the Invitation to Bid, or the Request for Proposal, which does not affect the price, quality, quantity or delivery schedule for the goods, services or construction being procured. (Effective July 1, 2014) "Job order contracting" means a method of procuring construction services by establishing a book of unit prices and then obtaining a contractor to perform work as needed using the prices, quantities, and specifications in the book as the basis of its pricing. The contractor may be selected through either competitive sealed bidding or competitive negotiation depending on the needs of the public body procuring the construction services. A minimum amount of work may be specified in the contract. The contract term and the project amount shall not exceed the limitations specified in § 2.2- 4302.2 or 2.2 -4303. "Multiphase professional services contract" means a contract for the providing of professional services where the total scope of work of the second or subsequent phase of the contract cannot be specified without the results of the first or prior phase of the contract. "Nonprofessional services" means any services not specifically identified as professional services in the definition of professional services. "Potential bidder or offeror" for the purposes of §§ 2.2 -4360 and 2.2 -4364 means a person who, at the time a public body negotiates and awards or proposes to award a contract, is engaged in the sale or lease of goods, or the sale of services, insurance or construction, of the type to be procured under the contract, and who at such time is eligible and qualified in all respects to perform that contract, and who would have been eligible and qualified to submit a bid or proposal had the contract been procured through competitive sealed bidding or competitive negotiation. "Professional services" means work performed by an independent contractor within the scope of the practice of accounting, actuarial services, architecture, land surveying, landscape architecture, law, dentistry, medicine, optometry, pharmacy or professional engineering. "Professional services" shall also include the services of an economist procured by the State Corporation Commission. "Public body" means any legislative, executive or judicial body, agency, office, department, authority, post, commission, committee, institution, board or political subdivision created by law to exercise some sovereign power or to perform some governmental duty, and empowered by law to undertake the activities described in this chapter. "Public body" shall include any metropolitan planning organization or planning district commission which operates exclusively within the Commonwealth of Virginia. "Public contract" means an agreement between a public body and a nongovernmental source that is enforceable in a court of law. "Responsible bidder" or "offeror" means a person who has the capability, in all respects, to perform fully the contract requirements and the moral and business integrity and reliability that will assure good faith performance, and who has been prequalified, if required. `0 "Responsive bidder" means a person who has submitted a bid that conforms in all material respects to the Invitation to Bid. "Reverse auctioning" means a procurement method wherein bidders are invited to bid on specified goods or nonprofessional services through real -time electronic bidding, with the award being made to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. During the bidding process, bidders' prices are revealed and bidders shall have the opportunity to modify their bid prices for the duration of the time period established for bid opening. "Services" means any work performed by an independent contractor wherein the service rendered does not consist primarily of acquisition of equipment or materials, or the rental of equipment, materials and supplies. § 2.2 -4301. (Effective July 1, 2014) Definitions. As used in this chapter "Affiliate" means an individual or business that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another individual or business. A person controls an entity if the person owns, directly or indirectly, more than 10 percent of the voting securities of the entity. For the purposes of this definition "voting security" means a security that (i) confers upon the holder the right to vote for the election of members of the board of directors or similar governing body of the business or (ii) is convertible into, or entitles the holder to receive, upon its exercise, a security that confers such a right to vote. A general partnership interest shall be deemed to be a voting security. "Best value," as predetermined in the solicitation, means the overall combination of quality, price, and various elements of required services that in total are optimal relative to a public body's needs. "Business" means any type of corporation, partnership, limited liability company, association, or sole proprietorship operated for profit. "Competitive negotiation" is the method of contractor selection set forth in § 2.2- 4302.2. "Competitive sealed bidding" is the method of contractor selection set forth in § 2.2- 4302.1. "Construction" means building, altering, repairing, improving or demolishing any structure, building or highway, and any draining, dredging, excavation, grading or similar work upon real property. "Construction management contract" means a contract in which a party is retained by the owner to coordinate and administer contracts for construction services for the benefit of the owner, and may also include, if provided in the contract, the furnishing of construction services to the owner. "Design -build contract" means a contract between a public body and another party in which the party contracting with the public body agrees to both design and build the structure, roadway or other item specified in the contract. 27 "Employment services organization" means an organization that provides employment services to individuals with disabilities that is an approved Commission on the Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARE) accredited vendor of the Department for Aging and Rehabilitative Services. "Goods" means all material, equipment, supplies, printing, and automated data processing hardware and software. `Informality" means a minor defect or variation of a bid or proposal from the exact requirements of the Invitation to Bid, or the Request for Proposal, which does not affect the price, quality, quantity or delivery schedule for the goods, services or construction being procured. "Job order contracting" means a method of procuring construction services by establishing a book of unit prices and then obtaining a contractor to perform work as needed using the prices, quantities, and specifications in the book as the basis of its pricing. The contractor may be selected through either competitive sealed bidding or competitive negotiation depending on the needs of the public body procuring the construction services. A minimum amount of work may be specified in the contract. The contract term and the project amount shall not exceed the limitations specified in § 2.2- 4302.2 or § 2.2- 4303. "Multiphase professional services contract" means a contract for the providing of professional services where the total scope of work of the second or subsequent phase of the contract cannot be specified without the results of the first or prior phase of the contract. "Nonprofessional services" means any services not specifically identified as professional services in the definition of professional services. "Potential bidder or offeror, for the purposes of §§ 2.2 -4360 and 2.2 -4364, means a person who, at the time a public body negotiates and awards or proposes to award a contract, is engaged in the sale or lease of goods, or the sale of services, insurance or construction, of the type to be procured under the contract, and who at such time is eligible and qualified in all respects to perform that contract, and who would have been eligible and qualified to submit a bid or proposal had the contract been procured through competitive sealed bidding or competitive negotiation. "Professional services" means work performed by an independent contractor within the scope of the practice of accounting, actuarial services, architecture, land surveying, landscape architecture, law, dentistry, medicine, optometry, pharmacy or professional engineering. "Professional services" shall also include the services of an economist procured by the State Corporation Commission. "Public body" means any legislative, executive or judicial body, agency, office, department, authority, post, commission, committee, institution, board or political subdivision created by law to exercise some sovereign power or to perform some governmental duty, and empowered by law to undertake the activities described in this chapter. "Public body" shall include any metropolitan planning organization or planning district commission which operates exclusively within the Commonwealth of Virginia. "Public contract" means an agreement between a public body and a nongovernmental source that is enforceable in a court of law. W] "Responsible bidder" or "offeror" means a person who has the capability, in all respects, to perform fully the contract requirements and the moral and business integrity and reliability that will assure good faith performance, and who has been prequalified, if required. "Responsive bidder" means a person who has submitted a bid that conforms in all material respects to the Invitation to Bid. "Reverse auctioning" means a procurement method wherein bidders are invited to bid on specified goods or nonprofessional services through real -time electronic bidding, with the award being made to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. During the bidding process, bidders' prices are revealed and bidders shall have the opportunity to modify their bid prices for the duration of the time period established for bid opening. "Services" means any work performed by an independent contractor wherein the service rendered does not consist primarily of acquisition of equipment or materials, or the rental of equipment, materials and supplies. 29 Attachment E - SWAM Information SWAM Code Section § 2.2 -4310. Discrimination prohibited; participation of small, women- owned, minority- owned, and service disabled veteran -owned business. A. In the solicitation or awarding of contracts, no public body shall discriminate against a bidder or offeror because of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, status as a service disabled veteran, or any other basis prohibited by state law relating to discrimination in employment. Whenever solicitations are made, each public body shall include businesses selected from a list made available by the Department of Small Business and Supplier Diversity. B. All public bodies shall establish programs consistent with this chapter to facilitate the participation of small businesses and businesses owned by women, minorities, and service disabled veterans in procurement transactions. The programs established shall be in writing and shall comply with the provisions of any enhancement or remedial measures authorized by the Governor pursuant to subsection C or, where applicable, by the chief executive of a local governing body pursuant to § 15.2- 965.1, and shall include specific plans to achieve any goals established therein. State agencies shall submit annual progress reports on small, women - owned, and minority -owned business procurement and on service disabled veteran-owned business procurement to the Department of Small Business and Supplier Diversity in a form specified by the Department of Small Business and Supplier Diversity. The Department of Small Business and Supplier Diversity shall make information on service disabled veteran -owned procurement available to the Department of Veterans Services upon request. C. Whenever there exists (i) a rational basis for small business enhancement or (ii) a persuasive analysis that documents a statistically significant disparity between the availability and utilization of women - owned and minority -owned businesses, the Governor is authorized and encouraged to require state agencies to implement appropriate enhancement or remedial measures consistent with prevailing law. D. In the solicitation or awarding of contracts, no state agency, department or institution shall discriminate against a bidder or offeror because the bidder or offeror employs ex- offenders unless the state agency, department or institution has made a written determination that employing ex- offenders on the specific contract is not in its best interest. E. As used in this section: "Minority individual" means an individual who is a citizen of the United States or a legal resident alien and who satisfies one or more of the following definitions: 1. "African American" means a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Africa and who is regarded as such by the community of which this person claims to be a part. 2. "Asian American" means a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands, including but not limited to Japan, China, 30 Vietnam, Samoa, Laos, Cambodia, Taiwan, Northern Mariana Islands, the Philippines, a U.S. territory of the Pacific, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Sri Lanka and who is regarded as such by the community of which this person claims to be a part. 3. "Hispanic American" means a person having origins in any of the Spanish - speaking peoples of Mexico, South or Central America, or the Caribbean Islands or other Spanish or Portuguese cultures and who is regarded as such by the community of which this person claims to be a part. 4. "Native American" means a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and who is regarded as such by the community of which this person claims to be a part or who is recognized by a tribal organization. "Minority -owned business" means a business that is at least 51 percent owned by one or more minority individuals who are U.S. citizens or legal resident aliens, or in the case of a corporation, partnership, or limited liability company or other entity, at least 51 percent of the equity ownership interest in the corporation, partnership, or limited liability company or other entity is owned by one or more minority individuals who are U.S. citizens or legal resident aliens, and both the management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more minority individuals. "Service disabled veteran" means a veteran who (i) served on active duty in the United States military ground, naval, or air service, (ii) was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable, and (iii) has a service - connected disability rating fixed by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. "Service disabled veteran business" means a business that is at least 51 percent owned by one or more service disabled veterans or, in the case of a corporation, partnership, or limited liability company or other entity, at least 51 percent of the equity ownership interest in the corporation, partnership, or limited liability company or other entity is owned by one or more individuals who are service disabled veterans and both the management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more individuals who are service disabled veterans. "Small business" means a business, independently owned and controlled by one or more individuals who are U.S. citizens or legal resident aliens, and together with affiliates, has 250 or fewer employees, or annual gross receipts of $10 million or less averaged over the previous three years. One or more of the individual owners shall control both the management and daily business operations of the small business. "State agency" means any authority, board, department, instrumentality, institution, agency, or other unit of state government. "State agency" shall not include any county, city, or town. "Women -owned business" means a business that is at least 51 percent owned by one or more women who are U.S. citizens or legal resident aliens, or in the case of a corporation, partnership, or limited liability company or other entity, at least 51 percent of the equity ownership interest is owned by one or more women who are U.S. citizens or legal resident aliens, and both the management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more women. 31 Attachment F - Grantee's Proprietary Items Nothing to list as of the Date of this Agreement. However, Grantee reserves the right to designate to the Department Proprietary Items in the future. 32 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of March, 2014. No. 39881 - 031714. AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding from the Civic Facilities Fund Retained Earnings for replacement of carpet in the Roanoke Performing Arts Center and spotlights in the Coliseum, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2013- 2014 Civic Facilities Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the following sections of the 2013 -2014 Civic Facilities Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Other Equipment Appropriated from General Revenue Fund Balance Retained Earnings - Available 05- 550 - 2105 -9015 05- 550 - 8618 -9003 05 -3348 $ 25,000 180,000 (205,000) Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: A m" �MYJ City y� Clerk. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: March 17, 2014 Subject: Appropriation of Civic Center Retained Earnings Background: The current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes funding for capital maintenance and other improvements at the Roanoke Civic Center. Funding from Civic Center retained earnings is available to supplement CIP funding for smaller capital maintenance and improvement projects. Two projects have been identified for use of retained earnings. The first project will replace the existing carpet in the Roanoke Performing Arts Theatre. The current carpet has exceeded its useful life and has become a potential safety hazard for patrons of the facility. The estimated cost of replacing the carpet is $180,000. The second project is to replace two spotlights in the Coliseum. Due to the age of the existing spotlights, repairs cannot be made because parts are no longer available. The estimated cost of replacing the two spotlights is $25,000. Consideration: These two projects will enhance customer experience and safety at events held in both the RPAT and Coliseum. City Council approval is needed to appropriate from Civic Center retained earnings. Recommended Action: Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to appropriate the $205,000 from Civic Center Fund retained earnings to capital project accounts to be established by the Director of Finance. C mi-5fopher P. Morrill City Manager Distribution: Council Appointed Officers Sherman Stovall, Assistant City Manager for Operations Robyn Schon, General Manager, Roanoke Civic Center IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of March, 2014. No. 39882- 031714. A RESOLUTION setting the allocation percentage for personal property tax relief in the City of Roanoke for the 2014 tax year. WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 58.1 -3524 (C) (2) and Section 58.1 -3912 (E) of the Code of Virginia, as amended by Chapter 1 of the Acts of Assembly and as set forth in item 503.E (Personal Property Tax Relief Program or "PPTRA ") of Chapter 951 of the 2005 Acts of Assembly, qualifying vehicles with a taxable situs within the City commencing January 1, 2014, shall receive personal property tax relief; and, WHEREAS, this Resolution is adopted pursuant to Ordinance 37221 - 101705 adopted by City Council on October 17, 2005. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. That tax relief shall be allocated such as to provide 100% tax relief for qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $1,000 or less. 2. That qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $1,001 420,000 will be eligible for 58.37% tax relief. 3. That qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $20,001 or more shall only receive 58.37% tax relief on the first $20,000 of value. 4. That all other vehicles which do not meet the definition of "qualifying" (for example, including but not limited to, business use vehicles, farm use vehicles, motor homes, etc.) will not be eligible for any form of tax relief under this program. 5. That the percentages applied to the categories of qualifying personal use vehicles are estimated filly to use all available PPTRA funds allocated to the City of Roanoke by the Commonwealth of Virginia. 2 ATTEST: a'�..tJ U c � • � �lM� City Clerk. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: March 17, 2014 Subject: Adoption of Tax Year 2014 Personal Property Tax Relief Act ( PPTRA) Percentage Background: The PPTRA was enacted in 1998 and provides for a measure of personal property tax relief based on assessed motor vehicle values. (Vehicles valued at $1,000 and below are exempt from taxation.) The amount of relief each locality receives from the Commonwealth has been fixed since 2006 (Roanoke currently receives $8,075,992 annually). Considerations: City Council is required by the Commonwealth to annually adopt a resolution setting the percentage reduction in personal property for that year. City staff computed the effective reimbursement rate using the PPTRA Allocation Model, developed by a working group of local officials and used across the Commonwealth. The percentage reduction is calculated to distribute the $8,075,992 block grant allocation from the Commonwealth in an equitable manner. The allocation model applies a five year average of personal property data to the vehicle levy from the prior year. When the prior year levy and the calculated averages increase, as is the case this year, the relief percentage decreases. Since there is a fixed grant amount, the higher the levy, the smaller share each taxpayer receives. The rate as computed for tax year 2014 is 58.37 %, down from the 2013 rate of 59.89 %. Recommended Action: Adopt the attached resolution which establishes the percentage reduction for personal property tax relief at 58.37% for the City of Roanoke for the 2014 tax year. -bpi l ANN H. SHAWVER Director of Finance Distribution: Honorable Sherman A. Holland, Commissioner of the Revenue Honorable Evelyn W. Powers, Treasurer Council Appointed Officials Amelia C. Merchant, Director of Management and Budget 2 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of March, 2014. No. 39883- 031714. AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding to be provided by the issuance of General Obligation Bonds to the Civic Center Building Upgrades, Broadband Infrastructure, City -wide Curb /Gutter /Sidewalk FY14, Passenger Rail Infrastructure, Franklin Road over Norfolk Southern Rail Way - Bridge Replacement, Main Library 1st Floor Improvements, Parks & Rec Master Plan - Phase II, Neighborhood Storm Drains, Streetscape Improvements, Roanoke Police Academy Expansion, Virginia Heights Improvement & Expansion, and Round Hill Expansion — Phase I projects, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2013 -2014 Civic Facilities, Capital Projects and School Capital Projects Funds, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the following sections of the 2013 -2014 Civic Facilities, Capital Projects and School Capital Projects Funds Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, added, amended, and reordained to read and provide as follows: Civic Facilities Fund Appropriations Civic Center Upgrades 05- 550 - 9506 -9340 $ 1,000,000 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations City -wide Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk FY14 08- 530 - 9535 -9361 750,000 Passenger Rail Infrastructure 08- 530 - 9535 -9362 600,000 Franklin Rd over NSRW — Bridge Replace 08- 530 - 9535 -9342 1,800,000 Main Library 1St Floor Improvements 08- 530 - 9535 -9343 2,800,000 Parks & Rec Master Plan - Phase II 08- 530 - 9535 -9344 1,0_00,000 Neighborhood Storm Drain Projects 08- 530 - 9535 -9337 1,120,000 Streetscape Improvements 08- 530 - 9535 -9363 500,000 Roanoke Police Academy Expansion 08- 530 - 9535 -9364 250,000 Revenues General Obligation Bond Proceeds - Par 08- 110 - 1234 -1042 $ 8,262,800 General Obligation Bond Proceeds - Premium 08- 110 - 1234 -1046 557,200 School Capital Projects Fund Appropriations Virginia Heights Improv & Expand Round Hill Exp — Phase I Revenues General Obligation Bond Proceeds - Par General Obligation Bond Proceeds - Premium 31- 060 - 9691 -9366 2,400,000 31- 060 - 9691 -9367 600,000 08- 110 - 1234 -1042 2,810,400 08 -110- 1234 -1046 189,600 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: in) h,-r City Clerk. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: March 17, 2014 Subject: Appropriation of Proceeds from the Sale of Series 2014 General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds Background: On February 20, 2014, the City of Roanoke issued new money bonds series 2014A (tax- exempt) in the amount of $12,010,000 and refunding bonds series 2014B (taxable) in the amount of $7,110,000, the form of which bonds were approved by counsel for the City. The new money bonds will be utilized to fund projects included in the City's approved Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Funding was appropriated in advance of issuance for all of these projects. The projects included: School Facility Maintenance and Improvement $ 2,000,000 Bridge Renovations 1,800,000 Library Master Plan 2,800,000 Parks and Recreation Master Plan 1,000,000 Civic Center Improvements 1,000,000 Stormwater System Improvements 1,120,000 Rail Passenger Infrastructure Improvements 600,000 Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Program 750,000 Streetscape Improvement 500,000 Roanoke Police Academy Expansion 250,000 Total $12,820,000 Bond proceeds of $12.01 million are less than the projects to be funded of $12.82 million because these bonds were issued at a premium. A bond issuance premium provides up front funds for the project and enables the amount of debt issuance to be reduced. This occurs when the market rate on the bonds is lower than the stated interest rate. Bond issuance premium of $810,000 will therefore be appropriated toward project costs. The refunding bond series was necessary to refinance tax - exempt debt issued in 2008 and 2010 for Market Garage renovations because a privately owned and operated hotel will be built on the garage. This private activity requires taxable debt rather than the tax - exempt debt which was issued previously. This results in average annual cost to the City of $36,000. The size of the issue, along with the City's new AA+ upgraded rating from Standard and Poors, enabled the City of Roanoke to take advantage of low rates in a competitive bidding process, in both the municipal tax exempt market and the taxable treasury market. The true interest costs for the new money portion of the issue was 2.94% with average life of 1 1 years and the taxable refunding portion was 3.55% with average life of 10 years. At the time of Council appropriation, budget placeholder entries were made, enabling staff to maintain a proper record of appropriation of funds in advance of issuance. Upon sale of the bonds, it is now appropriate for a revenue estimate to be developed for proceeds from the sale of bonds and associated bond premium and remove the placeholder entries. Recommended Action: Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to reflect the sale of Series 2014 Bonds. Sincerely, ANN F�"'S AWVER Director of Finance Distribution: Council Appointed Officers Rita D. Bishop, Superintendent, RCPS Margaret Lindsey, Executive Director of Fiscal Services, RCPS 2 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of March, 2014. No. 39884- 031714. AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding from the Virginia Department of Education State Operated Programs grant for educational services, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2013 -2014 School Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the following sections of the 2013 -2014 School Grant Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Appropriations Juvenile Detention Education Coordinators /Instructors Tech/Hardware Replacements Revenues State Grant Receipts 302- 110 - 0000 - 1070 -316H- 61100 - 41138 -9 -09 302 -110- 0000 - 1070 -316H- 68100 - 48110 -9 -09 302- 000 -0000- 0000 -316H- 00000 - 32220 -0 -00 $ 3,200 10,000 13,200 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: y� u eJ a Y) City Clerk. March 17, 2014 The Honorable David Bowers, Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council Roanoke, VA 24011 Dear Members of Council: As a result of official School Board action on Tuesday, March 11, 2014, the Board respectfully requests that City Council approve the revised appropriation request below: Revised Appropriation Change in Award State Operated Programs -- Juvenile Detention Home and Child Development Clinics 2013 -14 $13,200 On behalf of the School Board, thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Cindy H. Poulton Clerk pc: Dan Callaghan Chris Morrill Ann Shawver Todd A. Putney Rita D. Bishop Margaret Lindsey Tao Leng (w /details) ROANOKE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Strong Students. Strong Schools. Strong Cty. School Board Todd A. Putney Chairman Suzanne P. Moore Vice Chairman William B. Hopkins, Jr. Mae G. Huff Annette Lewis Lori E. Vaught Richard Willis Dr. Rita D. Bishop Superintendent Cindy H. Poulton Clerk of the Board p: 540- 853 -2381 f: 540 -853 -2951 P.O. Box 13145 Roanoke, VA 24031 www.rcps.info CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: March 17, 2014 Subject: School Board Appropriation Request Background /Considerations: As the result of official School Board action at its March 1 1, 2014 meeting, the Board respectfully requested that City Council appropriate funding as outlined in this report. The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) State Operated Programs grant constitutes educational services provided at the Roanoke Valley juvenile Detention Center and Roanoke Child Development Clinics operated by the Virginia Department of Health. Previously the VDOE issued awards for these services separately. For 2013 -14, VDOE has made one State Operated Programs award to cover both functions together. The program will be fully reimbursed by state funds and will end March 30, 2014. This is a continuing program. Recommended Action: We recommend that Council concur with this report of the School Board and adopt the attached budget ordinance to establish revenue estimates and to appropriate funding in the amount of $13,200 as outlined. Ann Tt. SWawver Director of Finance Distribution: Council Appointed Officers Rita D. Bishop, Superintendent, RCPS Margaret Lindsey, Executive Director of Fiscal Services, RCPS STEPHANIE M. MOON, MMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 -1536 Telephone: (540) 853 -2541 Fax: (540)853 -1145 E -mail: clerkoaroanokeva.gov March 19, 2014 Dr. Nancy Dye, Chairman Mill Mountain Advisory Committee 1801 Prospect Road, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Dear Dr. Dye: JONATHAN E. CRAFT, CIVIC Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T. WEBB, CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk The matter with regard to an amendment of the City Code to establish the Mill Mountain Advisory Board and dissolve the Mill Mountain Advisory Committee, was again before the Council of the City of Roanoke at its regular meeting held on Monday, March 17, 2014. Following discussion regarding an alternative ordinance, the matter was tabled until the April 7 Council Meeting at 2:00 p.m. Sincerely, Otl� Stephanie M. Moon, MM City Clerk SMM:jec pc: Sam Lionberger, Jr., 55 Harborview Circle, Penhook, Virginia 24137 Fayetta Weaver, 2502 Stanley Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Mary Ellen Stokes, 122 24th Street, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Chriss Davies -Ross, 3940 Buck Mountain Road, Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Mary Louise Kegley, c/o Louise Kegley, 301 Tinker Creek Lane, N. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Richard Clark, 4529 Royal Oak Drive, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Vickie Bibee, 3465 Peakwood Drive, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Roger Malouf, 4025 Mudlick Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Sara Beedie, 720 Cassell Lane, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Sara Brooks, 2912 Avenham Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Dr. Nancy Dye March 19, 2014 Page 2 PC: Christopher P. Morrill, City Manger Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney �1� u Alternative Ordinance (Draft date: 03.07.2014) IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 24, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by adding the following new Article V; dispensing with the second reading by title of this Ordinance; and establishing an effective date. WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 16631, adopted September 7, 1965, City Council established Mill Mountain Development Committee for the purpose of advising, assisting, and making recommendations regarding the development of Mill Mountain Park; WHEREAS, Council designated seven (7) persons to serve on Mill Mountain Development Committee, including the Mayor, the City Manager, the City Auditor, the Director of Parks and Recreation, the President of the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, and the President of the Roanoke Junior Women's Club; WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 23074, dated July 6, 1976, City Council continued the existence and operation of twelve (12) ad hoc committees, including Mill Mountain Development Committee, as ad hoc committees, and expressly dissolved all other ad hoc committees created by City Council; WHEREAS, by motion adopted at a regular session of City Council held on March 17, 1997, City Council approved the mission and vision statements adopted by the Mill Mountain Development Committee and changed the name of such committee to the Mill Mountain Advisory Committee; 1 WHEREAS, Mill Mountain Advisory Committee currently has nine (9) members and the Mayor as ex officio, continues to meet on a regular basis, and submits an annual report and recommendations to City Council consistent with its mission "regarding appropriate maintenance and improvement for Mill Mountain Park;" WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 38862- 062110, adopted June 21, 2010, City Council authorized the conveyance of a perpetual conservation easement to Virginia Outdoors Foundation and Western Virginia Land Trust (now known as Blue Ridge Land Conservancy) that would encumber approximately 537.2798 acres of the approximately 568.0058 acres of land owned by the City within the Mill Mountain area; WHEREAS, by deed of gift of easement dated June 23, 2010, the City granted the perpetual conservation easement to Virginia Outdoors Foundation and Western Virginia Land Trust in order to preserve and protect the conservation value of the approximately 537.2798 acres of land subject to such conservation easement; WHEREAS, the conservation easement expressly excluded approximately 30.7260 acres of land owned by the City at Mill Mountain from the encumbrance and restrictions of the conservation easement; WHEREAS, over the past two (2) years City Council, members of Mill Mountain Advisory Committee, and interested individuals have discussed the status of Mill Mountain Advisory Committee; WHEREAS, by motion adopted at a regular session of City Council held on February 18, 2014, City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an appropriate measure to establish Mill Mountain Advisory Committee as a permanent committee to advise City Council; 2 WHEREAS, this matter was set for consideration by City Council at the regular session of City Council on March 3, 2014, and the matter was continued to the regular session of City Council on March 17, 2014, at 2:OOpm due to inclement weather; WHEREAS, Mayor David Bowers has requested the City Attorney to prepare an alternative to the proposed ordinance included in the City Council Report dated March 3, 2014, submitted by the City Attorney; WHEREAS, the alternative proposed ordinance is included in the City Council Report dated March 17, 2014, submitted by the City Attorney; and WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed alternative ordinance and City Council Report dated March 17, 2014, submitted by the City Attorney, and City Council has determined that the establishment of Mill Mountain Advisory Committee as an advisory board within the Code of the City of Roanoke, with the duties and responsibilities set forth in the proposed alternative ordinance, as more particularly described in the City Council Report dated March 17, 2014, as submitted by the City Attorney, is in the best interests of the City and its citizens and, in accordance with Section 63 of the Charter of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, Mill Mountain Advisory Board shall be established as set forth herein. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Chapter 24, Public Buildings and Properties Generally, is hereby amended by adding Article V. Mill Mountain Advisory Board, to read and provide as follows: Article V. Mill Mountain Advisory Board Sec. 24 -104. Definitions. The following terms shall have the following meanings when and as used in this article: 3 (a) "Board" shall mean the Mill Mountain Advisory Board as established by Section 24 -105. (b) "Conservation Easement" shall mean the perpetual conservation easement dated June 23, 2010, granted by the City to Virginia Outdoors Foundation and Western Virginia Land Trust, and their respective successors and permitted assigns, and any amendments thereto. The conservation easement is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia as Instrument No. 100006658. (c) "Conservation Easement Property" means the approximately 537.2798 acres of land located at Mill Mountain and encumbered by the conservation easement. The conservation easement property is also more particularly described in the conservation easement and the plat referenced in the conservation easement. (d) "Excluded Property" means the approximately 30.7260 acres of land owned by the city at Mill Mountain that is expressly excluded from and not subject to the conservation easement. The excluded property is more particularly described in the conservation easement and the plat reference therein. The excluded property is depicted as the "Property of the City of Roanoke Not Included in Conservation Easement," on the plat that is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia at Map Book 1, Pages 3599 -3606. (e) "Mill Mountain Park" means the conservation easement property and the excluded property. Sec. 24 -105. Board established; composition. There is hereby established a Mill Mountain Advisory Board to be comprised of nine (9) members none of whom shall be a member of city council. One (1) member shall be a member of the Mill Mountain Garden Club; one (1) member shall be a member of the Mill Mountain Zoo, and one (1) member shall be a representative of the Fishburn family. In the event that no individual from one or more of these three groups is willing or available to serve as a member of the board, city council shall appoint a person without such qualification to serve for each such position for which the designated group has no candidate for a position on the board. Pursuant to Section 2 -282 of the code of the city, the Mayor shall serve ex officio, as a nonvoting member. The presence or absence of the Mayor shall not be counted in determining a quorum. Sec. 24 -106. Appointment and terms of members. Members of the board shall be appointed by the city council. Initially, three (3) members shall each serve for a term of one (1) year ending June 30, 2015; three (3) members shall each serve for a term of two (2) years ending June 30, 2016; and three (3) members shall each serve for a term of three (3) years ending June 30, 2017. Thereafter, members shall be appointed for terms of three (3) years, each terminating on June 30. Vacancies shall be filled by the council for the unexpired portion of any tern. Sec. 24 -107. Members not compensated. The members of the board shall serve without compensation for their services as such members. Sec. 24 -108. Selection of officers; meetings. (a) The members of the board shall annually, at its July regular meeting, select a chairman and a vice - chairman. Special meetings of the board shall be held on call of the chairman, the vice - chainnan, the mayor or of any three (3) members of the board. The board shall schedule not more than six (6) regular meetings in any one fiscal year and shall not schedule more than one (1) regular meeting of the board during any two (2) calendar month period. (b) The chainnan of the board shall be the presiding officer at all meetings. The vice-chairman shall act on behalf of the chainnan in the absence or inability of the chairman to act. (c) The director of the department of parks and recreation shall appoint staff to keep minutes and records of all proceedings of the board, prepare agendas for meetings, notify members of meetings, arrange for legal notices of meetings, prepare all agenda packages, and perform all other duties of a secretary. (d) The board may adopt bylaws with respect to the operation of the board provided such bylaws are not inconsistent with this article. Sec. 24 -109. General functions and duties. (a) Subject to the limitations set forth in this article, the board shall act solely in an advisory capacity to advise council regarding: (i) appropriate maintenance and improvements of Mill Mountain Park; (ii) conservation, preservation, or development proposals that may be presented to city council regarding the conservation easement property that may be permitted thereon pursuant to the terms of the conservation easement; (iii) amendments that may be proposed to be made to the conservation easement that are presented to council; 5 (iv) proposed development that may be presented to city council within the excluded property. (b) The board shall act solely in an advisory capacity on all other matters that city council may refer to the board. (c) The board shall provide regular reports to city council regarding the recommendations and advice to council and shall provide an annual report as required pursuant to section 2 -285 of the code of the city. Sec. 24 -110. Limitation on authority. (a) The board and its members shall have no authority to act for or on behalf of city council, the city manager, any other officer of the city, or any department of the city in any matter related to the discharge of its duties, responsibilities or authorities of such department or officer. The recommendations and advice made by the board to the city council are advisory only and the city council shall act upon such recommendations and advice as it shall determine. (b) The board's duties and responsibilities are not exclusively assigned to the board as other boards, commissions, and committees within the city have assigned duties with respect to activities in, at, or around the Mill Mountain Park area. Nothing in this article shall preclude city council from creating additional boards, committees, or commissions with respect to Mill Mountain Park, including any proposed development within the excluded property. 2. This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2014. 3. Pursuant to §12 of the Roanoke City Charter, the second reading by title of this ordinance is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: City Clerk. 0 'IN THE COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA A RESOLUTION repealing Resolution No. 16631 adopted September 7, 1965, which established Mill Mountain Development Committee, now known as Mill Mountain Advisory Committee (the "Committee ") and thereby dissolving the Committee effective June 30, 2014, and expressing the appreciation of the Council for the commitment, dedication, and efforts of the Committee and its members. WHEREAS, the Council adopted Resolution No. 16631 on September 7, 1965, to create a committee to be known as Mill Mountain Development Committee and the committee was charged with the duty "to advise, assist, and make recommendations to the Council in the development of the City's Mill Mountain Park," and the Council appointed members of the Committee; WHEREAS, the Council adopted Resolution No. 23074 on July 6, 1976 to continue certain ad hoc committees, including the Mill Mountain Development Committee and abolish all other ad hoc committees created by the Council which were not specifically continued by Resolution No. 23074; WHEREAS, the Council, by motion on March 17, 1997, approved (a) the Vision Statement and Mission Statement presented to the Council by the Committee, and (b) the change in the name of the Committee to Mill Mountain Advisory Committee; WHEREAS, a substantial portion of Mill Mountain Park is now subject to a Conservation Easement; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.280 of the Code of the City of Roanoke, the Council has the authority to establish ad hoc committees from time to time; WHEREAS, the individuals who have served on the Committee have provided a valuable service to the Council and the citizens of the City of Roanoke; and K, \Measures \Mill Mountain Advisory Committee Abolishing 3 2014.0ocLeisha Cook 0 WHEREAS, the Council has adopted an ordinance that creates the Mill Mountain Advisory Board to provide the Council with respect to Mill Mountain Park and the Conservation Easement. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Council hereby repeals Resolution No. 16631, adopted September 7, 1965, which created the Committee and hereby dissolves the Committee effective June 30, 2014. 2. Council recognizes the contributions made by the Committee and its members to Council and the citizens of the City of Roanoke and expresses the appreciation and gratitude for their service, commitment and dedication to Mill Mountain Park. 3. The City Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this Resolution to the members of the Committee. ATTEST: City Clerk. K: \Measures \Mill Mountain Advisory Committee Abolishing 3 2014.DocLeisha Cook CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 215 CHURCH AVENUE, SW ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011.1595 Daniel J. Callaghan TELEPHONE 540. 853.2431 City Attorney FAX 540. 853 -1221 EMAIL ciryatty @roanokeva.gov March 17, 2014 The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council Re: Mill Mountain Advisory Committee Dear Mayor Bowers and Council Members: Background Timothy R. Spencer Steven J. Talevi David L. Collins Heather P. Ferguson Laura M. Carini Assistant City Attorneys On March 3, 2014, City Council continued Agenda Item 7.c.1 scheduled for its regular session that day to March 17, 2014 at 2:00pm due to inclement weather. The matter presented to City Council was consideration of an ordinance (the "Proposed Ordinance ") to create a new Article V of Chapter 24 of the City Code to establish the Mill Mountain Advisory Board (the "Board "). If the Proposed Ordinance is adopted, the Board would have nine (9) members appointed by City Council. The responsibilities of the Board would be: Provide advice and recommendations regarding the maintenance and improvement of Mill Mountain Park; 2. Provide advice and recommendations regarding any proposed development within the Conservation Easement area that encumbers most of Mill Mountain; 3. Provide advice and recommendations regarding proposed amendments to the Conservation Easement; and 4. Provide advice and recommendations regarding other matters that may be assigned to the Board. In addition, the Proposed Ordinance expressly noted the authority of City Council to appoint an ad hoc committee to review any proposals for the development of all or any portion of approximately 30 acres of land situated at the top of Mill Mountain that are specifically excluded from the provisions of the conservation Easement. If City Council decided to appoint an ad hoc committee, the Proposed Ordinance provides that two (2) members of the Board will be appointed to this ad hoc committee. In the event that City Council did not exercise its authority to appoint such a committee, the Board will provide its advice and recommendations to City Council with regard to any proposal to develop any portion of Mill Mountain that is not subject to the Conservation Easement. Under all circumstances, the Board's role under the Proposed Ordinance is limited to an advisory role and the City Council may act on the advice and recommendations of the Board as City Council may determine. Since March 3, 2014, Mayor Bowers requested an alternative proposed ordinance, a copy of which alternative proposed ordinance is attached to this report (the "Alternative Proposed Ordinance "). The substantive changes presented by the Alternative Proposed Ordinance are: 1. The board created by the Alternative Proposed Ordinance (the "Alternative Board ") will have nine (9) members, three of whom will represent specific constituencies; the Mill Mountain Garden Club, the Mill Mountain Zoo, and the Fishbum family. 2. The Alternative Board is authorized to provide advice and recommendations regarding proposals for the (a) conservation, preservation, or development of the portions of Mill Mountain Park subject to the Conservation Easement, and (b) development of the areas of Mill Mountain Park that are not subject to the Conservation Easement. 3. Removal of the specific reference to the authority of City Council to appoint an ad hoc committee to consider development proposals within the areas of Mill Mountain Park that are not subject to the Conservation Easement. 4. Include a specific provision that acknowledges the authority of City Council to appoint a committee to consider development proposals within the excluded property. In summary, the substantive changes suggested by the Alternative Proposed Ordinance involve the membership of the Board and the authority of the Alternative Board, in the absence of action by City Council, to provide advice and recommendations with regard to development proposals within the excluded property. Although the reference to the creation of an ad hoc committee is deleted, City Council retains its authority under Section 2 -280, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to create ad hoc committees from time to time. Adoption of the Alternative Proposed Ordinance will not prohibit City Council from forming an ad hoc committee at some other time. Recommendation City Council should consider adoption of the Proposed Ordinance or the Alternative Proposed Ordinance before consideration of the resolution to abolish the existing ad hoc Mill Mountain Advisory Committee that accompanies the March 3, 2014 City Council Report. If City Council adopts either the Proposed Ordinance or the Alternative Proposed Ordinance, then City Council should adopt the resolution to abolish the Mill Mountain Advisory Committee. Sincerely, Daniel J. all'a han City Attorney DJC /Isc c: Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager, R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Sherman Stovall, Assistant City Manager for Operations Stephanie Moon, City Clerk STEPHANIE M. MOON, MMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 -1536 Telephone: (540) 853 -2541 Fax: (540) 853 -1145 E -mail: clerk @roanokeva.gav March 19, 2014 The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Member United States House of Representatives 10 Franklin Road, S. E., Suite 540 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Congressman Goodlatte: JONATHAN E. CRAFT, CMC Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T. WEBB, CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 39885- 031714 urging you to lead the House Judiciary Committee in developing legislation for adoption by the United States House of Representatives of a Marketplace Fairness Act to protect State and local government revenue sources. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 17, 2014. Sincerely, aye °,milj� Steph me M. Moon, MMC I City Clerk l� SMM:jec Enclosures cc: The Honorable Morgan Griffith, Member, United States House of Representatives, 17 West Main Street, Christiansburg, Virginia 24073 The Honorable Mark Warner, Member, United States Senate, 475 Russell Senate Office, Washington, D. C. 20510 The Honorable Tim Kaine, Member, United States Senate, 388 Russell Senate Office, Washington, D. C. 20510 �a IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of March, 2014. No. 39885- 031714. A RESOLUTION urging U. S. Representative Bob Goodlatte to lead the House Judiciary Committee in developing legislation for adoption by the United States House of Representatives of a Marketplace Fairness Act to protect state and local government revenue sources. WHEREAS, many state and local governments, including the Commonwealth of Virginia and many localities in the Roanoke Valley, rely upon revenues generated from the sales of goods and products; WHEREAS, the Internet has created exciting new markets for entrepreneurs, existing businesses, and emerging enterprises throughout the Roanoke Valley; WHEREAS, traditional retail outlets throughout the Roanoke Valley and the Commonwealth of Virginia confront an unfair disadvantage because of the inability to collect sale tax revenues on remote, online purchases; WHEREAS, one study, conducted in 2009, estimated that Virginia lost $230 million annually in revenue from e- commerce transactions that are subject to existing sales taxes in the Commonwealth; WHEREAS, the sales tax revenues support approximately 8% of general fund budget of the City of Roanoke; WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke estimates that its annual sales tax revenues would be an addition 4% of the general revenues of the City if fair, effective, and reasonable mechanisms are established to facilitate the collection of existing sales taxes from e- commerce transactions; WHEREAS, the United States Senate has passed the Marketplace Fairness Act by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote; KAMeasuresWirket Place Fairness Resolution.doe 3/14/14 WHEREAS, the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, chaired by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, has announced the opening hearings on consideration of the Marketplace Fairness Act; and WHEREAS, immediate action on the Marketplace Fairness Act in the United States House of Representatives is essential to the economic growth of the Commonwealth and the Roanoke Valley. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that The Council of the City of Roanoke urges Rep. Bob Goodlatte, as chair of the House Judiciary Committee, to lead the Judiciary Committee in adopting a version of the Marketplace Fairness Act to protect the vital economic interests of the Commonwealth and the Roanoke Valley, lead the House of Representatives in adopting the proposal, and lead the conference committee with the United States Senate in creating a law to protect and enhance of the economic interests of states and local governments, including the Commonwealth of Virginia and the localities of the Roanoke Valley. 2. The Council of the City of Roanoke urges Congress to enact a Marketplace Fairness Act to eliminate an antiquated disadvantage to small businesses throughout the Country and support state and local governments by providing the tools to recover revenues due to such state and local governments. 3. The City Clerk is directed to delivered attested copies of this Resolution to Rep. Goodlatte and all other members of the Virginia Congressional delegation. ATTEST: City Clerk, K NeaswesWarket Place t;aimess Resolution.doc 3/14/14 k J -! STEPHANIE M. MOON, MMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 -1536 Telephone: (540) 853 -2541 Fax: (540) 853 -1145 E -mail: cicrkLroanokeva.gov March 19, 2014 Shawna A. Battle 3822 Greenland Avenue, N. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Dear Ms. Baffle: JONATHAN E. CRAFT, CIVIC Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T. WEBB, CIVIC Assistant Deputy City Clerk At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Monday, March 17, 2014, you were appointed as a member of the Roanoke Public Library Board to fill the unexpired term of Taren McCoy ending June 30, 2014. Once the Oath has been administered, please return a signed copy to the City Clerk's Office prior to serving in the capacity to which you were appointed. Pursuant to Section 2.2 -3702, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, I am enclosing copy of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, The Act requires that you be provided with a copy within two weeks of your appointment and each member is required "to read and become familiar with provisions of the Act." On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for your willingness to serve as a member of the Roanoke Public Library Board. Sincerely, Stephanie M. Moon, MMC City Clerk SMM:jec Enclosures pc: Sheila Umberger, Secretary, Roanoke Public Library Board, w /application COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) ) To -wit: CITY OF ROANOKE ) I, Stephanie M. Moon, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof, do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council which was held on the sevententh day of March 2014, Shawna A. Battle was appointed as a member of the Roanoke Public Library Board to fill the unexpired term of Taren McCoy ending June 30, 2014. Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this nineteenth day of March 2014. wd,�� City Clerk it CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456 N1. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 -1536 p Telephone: (540) 853 -2541 Fax: (540) 853 -1145 STEPHANIE M. MOON, MMC E -mail: clerk@,,roanokeva.gov City Clerk March 19. 2014 John E. Dooley 1825 Augusta National Road Blacksburg, Virginia 24060 Dear Mr. Dooley: JONATHAN E. CRAFT, CMC Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T. WEBB, CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Monday, March 17, 2014, you were reappointed as a member of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission for a four -year term of office ending March 9, 2018. 315 Church Avenue, S. W. Once the Oath has been administered, please return a signed copy to the City Clerk's Office prior to serving in the capacity to which you were reappointed. Pursuant to Section 2.2 -3702, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, I am enclosing copy of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, The Act requires that you be provided with a copy within two weeks of your reappointment and each member is required "to read and become familiar with provisions of the Act." On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for your willingness to continue your service as a member of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission. Sincerely, \\ oil J Ste hanie M. Moon, MMC City Clerk SMM:ctw Enclosures PC: Cathy Bowman, Secretary, Roanoke Regional Airport Commission, 5202 Aviation Drive, Roanoke, Virginia 24012 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) To -wit: CITY OF ROANOKE ) I, Stephanie M. Moon, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof, do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council which was held on the seventeenth day of March, 2014, John E. Dooley, was reappointed as a member of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission for a four -year term of office ending March 9, 2018. Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this nineteenth day of March, 2014. City Clerk Or �r , , IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Th(! 17th day of March, 2014. No. 39886 - 031714. A RESOLUTION memorializing the late Elizabeth Thomas Bowles, former City Council member and longtime resident of Roanoke. WHEREAS, the members of Council learned with sorrow of the passing of Ms. Bowles on Tuesday, December 10, 2013; WHEREAS, Ms. Bowles grew up in Pembroke in Giles County, and lived there until her family moved to Roanoke; WHEREAS, Ms. Bowles was a graduate of Jefferson High School; WHEREAS, Ms. Bowles married Ralph K. Bowles in 1940 and the couple owned and operated Bowles Bake Shop for 38 years; WHEREAS, Ms. Bowles was elected to serve on City Council in 1976 and won five terms, serving for 20 years before retiring in 1996, and was the first woman vice -mayor from 1976 to 1978; WHEREAS, Ms. Bowles' husband, Ralph, served an interim term on Roanoke City Council in 1965, and he and she are the only couple in Roanoke who both served their City as members of the Roanoke City Council; WHEREAS, during her years on the Council, Ms. Bowles supported the creation of Center in the Square that became a cultural centerpiece in the City Market district; backed the construction of the Roanoke Regional Airport terminal in the late 1980's; and was an early supporter of the Roanoke River flood reduction project; WHEREAS, a fellow Council member once dubbed Ms. Bowles the "Iron Lady of Williamson Road" for her determination in shutting down massage parlors and adult bookstores near her neighborhood; WHEREAS, Ms. Bowles led beautification and landscaping projects throughout the City; WHEREAS, Ms. Bowles was active in the Williamson Road community and her church, Huntington Court United Methodist, for 72 years; WHEREAS, Ms. Bowles developed a strong connection to the Miss Virginia Pageant, having traveled to Atlantic City, N.J., as a representative of the Valley Junior Woman's Club, where she was granted a scholarship pageant franchise for the club and is credited for bringing the pageant to Roanoke; was named the 1996 First Woman of the Year by the Miss Virginia Pageant for her part in securing the Miss Virginia franchise for Roanoke; and was on the board of the Miss Virginia Pageant for 45 years, serving as president during a portion of her tenure on the board; WHEREAS, Ms. Bowles was honored with awards, including the 1962 Mother of the Year award and the 1981 Outstanding Woman of the Year for Southwest Virginia; WHEREAS, Ms. Bowles was the first female president of the merchants association at Towers Shopping Center, where one of her bakeries was located, and helped found the Williamson Road Action Forum; and WHEREAS, Ms. Bowles served her community and was active on the board for Total Action Against Poverty Board for 22 years; on the Advisory Board for the Salem VA Hospital; as Secretary and Treasurer for the Roanoke Valley Chapter of American Ex- Prisoners of War; as State Commander for the Commonwealth of Virginia for the American Prisoners of War Mayor's committee for the disabled; as Chairman of the Virginia Municipal League and National League of Cities Committee; as a Charter Member of Roanoke Crossroads Lions Club; and was a member of the American Business Women's Association, the Williamson Road Women's Club, and the Oakland Garden Club (President three years). THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: City Council adopts this resolution as a means of recording its deepest regret and sorrow at the passing of Elizabeth Thomas Bowles, extending to her family its sincerest condolences, and recognizing her indelible legacy she has left to her City and fellow citizens. 2. The City Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this resolution to Ms. Bowles' children, Patsy Heffernan, Connie Lagueux, Thomas Bowles, and David Bowles, all of Roanoke, Virginia. ATTEST: - /YT kty) City Clerk. j yp p g 8�• roclamation EREAS, DeMolay is a character - building organization ofyoung men from ages 12 to 21; EREAS, since 1919, DeMolay has encouraged more than one million young men to become leaders of character; WHEREAS, members learn life - skills, responsibility and cooperation by working together to plan and carry out a customized program of social, sports and community service activities to prepare themselves to become better citizens and better leaders for tomorrow; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley Chapter of DeMolay is the Commonwealth of Virginia's second largest chapter, and will observe its 95th Anniversary during 2014. NOW, THEREFORE, L David A. Bowers, Mayor of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, encourages all citizens to join in saluting the young men of DeMolay, and in expressing appreciation for the fine example set by them and for their contributions to the community and, do hereby proclaim the month of March 2014 throughout this great six time All- America City, as DeMOLAYMONTH Given under our hands and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this seventeenth day of March in the year two thousand and fourteen. ATTEST: AUIT� Stephanie M. Mo City Clerk �gAy�ti. David A. Bowers Mayor C/''k 1\X IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA AN ORDINANCE to amend §36.2 -100, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and the Official Zoning Map, City of Roanoke, Virginia, dated December 5, 2005, as amended, to amend the INPUD Development Plan to permit construction of a wireless telecommunications tower in Phase I and an office building in Phase II on property identified by Official Tax Map No. 1040102, located at 1809 Franklin Road, S.W.; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. WHEREAS, Pegasus Tower Company, LLC, has made application to the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia ( "City Council'), to amend the INPUD Development Plan to permit construction of a wireless telecommunications tower in Phase I and an office building in Phase II to property, identified by Official Tax Map No. 1040102, located at 1809 Franklin Road, S.W.; WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, after giving proper notice to all concerned as required by §36.2 -540, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and after conducting a public hearing on the matter, has made its recommendation to City Council; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by City Council on such application at its meeting on March 17, 2014, after due and timely notice thereof as required by §36.2 -540, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard, both for and against the amendment of the INPUD Development Plan as it pertains to property described as Official Tax Map No. 1040102, located at 1809 Franklin Road, S.W.; and WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the aforesaid application, the recommendation Ord -Amend INPUD PIan.Pegasus Tower Company LLC E made to the Council by the Planning Commission, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the matters presented at the public hearing, finds that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice, require the amendment of the INPUD Development Plan to permit construction of a wireless telecommunications tower in Phase I and an office building in Phase II on property identified by Official Tax Map No. 1040102, located at 1809 Franklin Road, S.W., as herein provided. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: Section 36.2 -100, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and the Official Zoning Map, City of Roanoke, Virginia, dated December 5, 2005, as amended, be amended to reflect the amendment of the fNPUD Development Plan to permit construction of a wireless telecommunications tower in Phase I and an office building in Phase II on property identified by Official Tax Map No. 1040102, located at 1809 Franklin Road, S.W., as set forth in the Zoning Amended Application No. 4 dated February 27, 2014. 2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: City Clerk. Ord -Amend INPUD PIan.Pegas rs Tower Company LLC 2 l CITY COUNCIL D. REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: March 17, 2014 Subject: Application by Pegasus Tower Company, LLC to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan as it pertains to 1809 Franklin Rd., SW, containing approximately 4.3610 acres, bearing Official Tax No. 1040102, to permit construction of a wireless telecommunications tower in Phase I and an office building in Phase II previously rezoned to Institutional Planned Unit Development Plan (INPUD), during the comprehensive rezoning, Ordinance 37269- 120505, on December 5, 2005. Recommendation The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 1 1 , 2014. By a vote of 7 -0, the Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request, finding Amended Application No. 4 is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Policy, South Jefferson Redevelopment Area Plan, and Zoning Ordinance as a vacant lot will be developed to provide needed wireless telecommunications service consistent with the Federal Wireless Telecommunications Act and will ultimately be redeveloped for an active use appropriate to the surrounding area. Application Information Request: Amendment of Planned Unit Development Owner: Steve Strauss, Tlmberbrook Properties VI, LLC Applicant: Craig Clifton, Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Authorized A ent: Max Wie ard, Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, LLP City Staff Person: Katharine Gray, Land Use and Urban Design Planner Site Address /Location: 1809 Franklin Road, S.W. Official Tax Nos.: 1040102 Site Area: 4.3610 acres Existing Zoning: INPUD, Institutional Planned Unit Development Proposed Zoning: INPUD, Institutional Planned Unit Development Existing Land Use: Vacant Proposed Land Use: Phase I: Wireless Telecommunications Facility Phase II: Office, General or Professional and /or Business service establishment, not otherwise listed and /or Medical Clinic Neighborhood Plan: South Jefferson Redevelopment Area Plan Specified Future Land Use: Commercial: Business and Professional Support Services, Lodging and Travel Services Filing Date: Original Application: October 3, 2013 Amended Application No. 1: December 2, 2013 Amended Application No. 2: December 17, 2013 Amended Application No. 3: February 20, 2014 Amended Application No. 4: February 27, 2014 Background In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. [47 U.S.C._332(c)(7)(C)(i)] This Act affects the City of Roanoke's land use decisions in regard to wireless telecommunications facilities. The Act preserves the City's zoning authority over the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. However, City regulations and actions cannot unreasonably discriminate among wireless providers or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. The Act is intended to facilitate the growth of wireless telecommunications services while maintaining substantial local control over construction of towers and other wireless infrastructure. In 1997, City Council adopted the City of Roanoke Policy as to Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Located on City Property. That document establishes standards for wireless telecommunications facilities located on City owned properties. On May 20, 2004, the City Council adopted a Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Policy as an Element of Vision 2001 -2020 to provide applicants for wireless telecommunications facilities, property owners, and all other City residents clear guidance on the policies of the City of Roanoke regarding wireless telecommunications facilities on public and private lands. The policy sets forth principles, standards, and intended achievements in regards to wireless telecommunications facilities on both publicly and privately owned land to accommodate the growing coverage and capacity needs of carriers, while preserving and minimizing the negative impact wireless telecommunications towers have on the surrounding natural and built environments. On March 12, 2001, the Board of Commissioners of the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) approved the Redevelopment Plan for the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area (Redevelopment Plan). City Council adopted the Redevelopment Plan by Resolution No.35248- 031901 on March 19, 2001. Acquisition, site preparation, and development of the area between Franklin Road and Jefferson Street began soon after adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. Four large buildings and a parking garage have been completed including a hotel across Franklin Road from the subject property. FA Prior to 2005, the parcel was zoned HM, Heavy Manufacturing, without conditions. In 2005, as part of a comprehensive rezoning of the entire City, the parcel was rezoned to INPUD, Institutional Planned Unit Development. In September of 2013, the applicant and owner met with staff to discuss the possibility of amending the plan to include a wireless telecommunications facility, office building, and associated site development. In October of 2013, the applicant filed an application to amend the planned unit development plan. The plan included two phases. Phase I was a 195' tall wireless telecommunications facility. Phase 2 was an office building with associated site development. Between the original filing and today, four amended application have been filed to address staff, neighborhood, independent consultant, and Planning Commission concerns as follows: 1 . Early December of 2013, tower height reduced to 165 ft. with streetscape improvements, and plantings within the riparian buffer included as part of Phase 1. 2. Late December of 2013, concerns raised in the December Public Hearing incorporated prior to assessment by a third -parry consultant including additional propagation maps to show performance at various antenna heights. 3. Mid - February of 2014, response to some of the recommendations in the independent consultant report. The application included the ability to increase the height by ten feet in height based on future need. 4. Late February of 2014, response to additional staff, neighborhood, and Planning Commissioner concerns, additional development standards that reflect a revised FAA ruling on the need for a light on the tower and all of the recommended conditions in the consultant report, including the ability to increase the height by ten feet in height based on future need and additional concerns of the neighborhood by calling for larger evergreen trees at planting, seeding and strawing all of the site beyond the areas already noted for particular plantings. At the December Planning Commission Public Hearing the application was not recommended for approval to City Council by a vote of 3 -4. The Planning Commission and neighborhood residents requested an independent consultant report regarding the need for a cell tower at the proposed location. Subsequently, the applicant requested a remand to Planning Commission at the City Council Public Hearing so that the consultant report might be completed and the application heard at Planning Commission again before being heard at City Council. At its December 16, 2013 public hearing, City Council voted to remand the request back to the planning commission for further consideration. 3 The City contracted with Cityscape Consultants, Inc. to perform an independent, third -party evaluation of the applicant's request, specifically related to the need for a wireless telecommunications facility at this property and the necessity for the 165 ft. tower height. In mid - February of 2014, the Citiscape Consultants report was received. The key points of the report are as follows: • In general, the trend for data capacity is growing and the need for additional services will continue to increase. • This is a rapid growth area and this addition will help relieve existing service concerns. It is anticipated that other Carriers will soon be requiring new and upgraded facilities in the City and surrounding areas. • The proposed facility is required because of generally accepted and adequately demonstrated technological reasons and is essential in order for the Applicants to provide satisfactory existing communications service, to alleviate a signal coverage issue and to provide new fourth generation (4G) services. • The Applicants' submissions indicate there is a substantial service void in the general area surrounding the subject site and that the addition of new service at a height of 165 feet for AT &T and 140 feet for nTelos will help relieve much of these concerns. • The tower elevation and design as a concealed structure could possibly result in the need for additional support structures of similar design in the general surrounding area. • The site will be designed and constructed by professionals with expertise in telecommunications site design and construction on behalf of the Applicants. • The application has met the technical requirements of the City of Roanoke ordinance and if approved should contain the following conditions: 1. The Applicants shall submit satisfactory NEPA and SHPO documentation prior to any permitting; and, 2. The City should consider the possibility of one tower extension which would allow the total height to be raised by ten (10) feet, should there be a future need that would circumvent the requirement for an additional tower in the same general area; and, 3. Upon completion and prior to occupancy the Applicants shall provide to the City a structural analysis from a Virginia Registered Professional Engineer, indicating the tower will support up to four (4) similar antenna systems in accordance with ANSiffiA -2220 for Roanoke, Virginia; and, M 4. The Applicants shall submit a statement of compliance that the tower will be erected and operated in compliance with current FCC and FAA rules and other applicable federal standards; and, 5. All access ports shall be sufficiently sealed to prevent access by birds and other wildlife. Planned Unit Development Plan The development plan included in Amended Application Number 4 is binding on the development of the site. All development must be in substantial conformance with the development plan and other pertinent elements of the zoning ordinance. Considerations The property is located within a unique area that is separated from the surrounding area by roads, rail roads, and the Roanoke River. It is currently zoned INPUD and an amendment to the planned unit development plan has been requested. From a land use perspective only, all of the uses proposed on the plan are uses by right within an INPUD district. The manner in which the development is to occur is of upmost importance to the effect the change will have on the property and surrounding neighborhood. Staff has requested many forms of information from the applicant to clearly show the effect to the surrounding areas the proposed development will have. The applicant has provided much of the requested information. With this information, it is possible to clearly see the relationship of the proposal to the City's Comprehensive Plan, zoning ordinance, and effect to the surrounding community. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: 9 Zoning District Land Use North Railroad & Highway Railroad & US Route 220, RM -2, Residential Mixed Density Multi- family and Single family District and RM -1 Residential Mixed and other housing types in the , Density District Old Southwest neighborhood South ROS, Recreation and Open Space and Roanoke River & Greenway CG, Commercial-Neighborhood District Office, Hotel, and Vacant East INPUD, Institutional Planned Unit Vacant and Hotel Develo ment West Railroad & Highway Railroad & US 220 ROS, Recreation and Open Space Roanoke River & Greenwa 9 Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance: The property is in the floodplain overlay district and any development must comply with section 36.2 -333 of the zoning ordinance. Floodplain compliance poses a significant challenge to any development in that the developer must raise the first occupied floor or floodproof the building to two feet above the base flood elevation. The property is in the River and Creek Corridor and any development must comply with section 36.2 -335 of the zoning ordinance. This means that no principal or accessory uses or structures are allowed in the 50 feet riparian buffer landward from the top of the bank of the Roanoke River and its tributaries. Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Plan: The proposed rezoning could enable implementation of several actions contained in the Vision 2001 -2020 comprehensive plan. The plan specifically discusses the area as Roanoke's major redevelopment effort (p. 54) and maps 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 (pp. 55 -56) depict the area as a commercial development opportunity. Relevant action items in the plan include: ED Al 8. Identify underutilized sites and promote redevelopment as part of Roanoke's economic development strategy. ED Al 9. Support the redevelopment of the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area (SJRA) by coordinating with participating organizations such as Carilion, Virginia Tech, and the University of Virginia. ED A33 Explore redevelopment of areas identified for industrial, commercial or mixed -use development or reuse such as South Jefferson Redevelopment Area. EC Al 1. Adopt zoning regulations that address communication towers to minimize their visual impact. IN P6. Technology environment and infrastructure. Roanoke will create an environment for electronic government and technology businesses through planning, development of favorable policies, and incentives for technology infrastructure. Roanoke will facilitate development of the capacity and coverage of fiber - optic, cable, and wireless communication networks. The visual impact of telecommunication facilities will be minimized by co- location and placement of towers in strategic locations. The overall development of the property fulfills City vision for redevelopment. The first phase supports data access which is important and protected by federal telecommunications act. It also improves a major streetscape in the 1i redevelopment area. The second phase supports economic development through the construction of a new commercial facility in the formerly blighted area. The South Jefferson Redevelopment Area Redevelopment Plan and associated design guidelines were established, as required by state code, to control the redevelopment of this formerly blighted area. The design guidelines remain in effect for any property within the redevelopment area and are administered by RRHA. The Design Guidelines were amended by RRHA resolution and approved by City Council on February 6, 2012. This amendment contained substantive changes related to building massing, building location, building materials, relationship of buildings to streets, and location of parking. The amendment also included a procedural change to require involvement of City planning staff in the process of reviewing specific development proposals for consistency with the guidelines. The proposed planned unit development plan is generally consistent with the overall South .Jefferson Redevelopment Area Plan and the South Jefferson Area Redevelopment Design Guidelines. The redevelopment of this parcel reflects the appropriate commercial land uses noted in the plan, advanced technology communication systems, and public improvements. The plan designates the parcel as part of the Campus and Institutional District with a hospitable edge along the street and consistent materials and shapes. The South Jefferson Area Redevelopment Design Guidelines, amended in January- February 2012, contain important design features to encourage an urban development pattern within the Campus and Institution District: • Potential site redevelopers should have their designers meet with the RRHA and City Planning Staff prior to preparing site plans. • A second meeting with RRHA and City Planning Staff is required at the conclusion of the schematic design to ensure general compliance with the guidelines. • Building materials and architecture in the campus and institutional areas should be consistent with traditional Virginia campus and reflective of existing campus style buildings along Reserve Avenue. No materials are specified in the applicant's development plans, but acceptable materials are specified within the design guidelines. • Each redeveloper, contemporaneously with the development of improvements on the site, shall install landscaping on all unimproved areas on its site in accordance with plans approved by the Authority. • Zero setbacks from front lot lines are desired in most cases. • Surface lots should not dominate any sites. Locate parking at the rear or within the interior of sites. ►A • Grade level surface parking must be screened from the street and pedestrian areas by solid walls or permanent rail or balustrade fences not exceeding 4 feet in height. • All streets shall be equipped with paving, curbing, sidewalks, lighting fixtures, street name signs, and street trees, as designated by the Authority. • Greenway connectors will be provided by redevelopers. • Place utilities and utility easements in back -of -house areas, such as adjacent to the numerous railroad rights -of -way. The redevelopment guidelines are addressed in Phase I as the wireless telecommunications facility is placed in the rear portion of the property adjacent to the railroad right -of -way and the streetscape along Franklin Road is improved to better reflect the redevelopment area along Reserve Avenue. The redevelopment guidelines are also addressed in Phase II through the placement of the building and parking areas on the site and future development guideline review. The Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Policy provides guidance on the policies of the City of Roanoke regarding wireless telecommunications facilities on public and private lands. WTF Pl . The placement, construction, or modification of wireless telecommunications facilities on existing buildings and other existing structures is strongly encouraged, and providers should always seek opportunities to locate on existing structures. WTF P2. Collocation on existing towers is strongly encouraged, provided visibility is not unnecessarily exacerbated. WTF P3. Requests for new wireless telecommunications towers in the City should be approved when no other reasonable alternative exists for locating antennas needed for service coverage. Approved towers should be low impact in terms of location, siting, height, and design. WTF P4. Consideration of any request for a new wireless telecommunications facility within the City should be reviewed for its potential effects on surrounding jurisdictions as well as the City. Newly constructed towers should be located to provide the least negative impact to the citizens of all jurisdictions. The independent consultant has confirmed that no other support structures exist that could support the applicant's needs in the search area, therefore a new tower is needed. The location of the proposed tower in the moderately preferable institutional land use is compatible to the adjacent institutional land uses and is separated from other land uses by a railyard, highway, river, and street. The tower is sited to the rear portion of the property and will be less visible on the site with the existing and new vegetation on the southern portion of the site and new streetscape along the eastern portion of the site. The independent consultant has verified that the antenna heights are justified to provide sufficient service to existing and future subscribers. The monopole design of the tower with flush mounted antennas is preferred as it reduces the visibility of the facility. The principal consideration is whether the proposed planned unit development plan is consistent with Vision 2001 -2020, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Policy, and the South Jefferson Area Redevelopment Plan. Staff finds that the overall plan as proposed is consistent with these plans and emphasizes that the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area Guidelines will address many areas often included in planned unit development plans. More specifically, the wireless telecommunications facility has been determined to be consistent based on additional propagation data supplied by applicant and verified by the third -party consultant. City Department Comments: Significant comments on the original application provided by City staff to the applicant include the following: • Incorporation of appropriate streetscape elements as part of Phase I of the development (included on PUD development plan). • Performance of a traffic study (to be completed before development plans are submitted) and modify layout of proposed circulation. • Noted that upgrading the traffic signal will be required for Phase 11. • Relocation /removal of parking and other improvements initially located within the floodway of the Roanoke River to areas outside the floodway. • Provide additional plantings in portions of the riparian buffer that do not currently contain trees. • Perform a balloon test to better understand the visual impact of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility. • Provide Section 106 information for this site. Public Comment Summa Following are short summaries of the public comments received regarding this application for amendment of planned unit development. The comments are divided into two parts: those received after the Original Application was filed and those received after the Amended Application No. 1 was filed. All comments received regarding the Original Application were negative. The comments received after the Amended Application No. 1 was filed were both positive and negative. Complete comments are included in Attachment No. 1. 2 Comments regarding Original Application: Dinah Ferrance of Old Southwest She called to voice her concern over the proximity of the proposed tower location to the Old Southwest neighborhood. She is particularly concerned with the viewshed from Old Southwest and the flight path for the helicopters to and from the hospital. Joel Richert for Old Southwest, Inc She submitted a list of concerns from Old Southwest, Inc. They involved the viewshed form OSW, justification of the height, FAA report, notification of the balloon test, impacts to the greenway, topo maps showing height at site and surrounding areas, proximity to proposed Global tower in 2011, lighting rods, size and materials of structure, larger maps of gaps in service. Ron Owens of Old Southwest He called in reference to the balloon test to voice his opposition to the tower as a property owner in Old Southwest. He lives on Mountain Ave., SW, and although he cannot see the balloon from his home, a home he recently was involved in selling at 343 Janette Ave, SW, can see the balloon from there. He believes that any home on Janette, King George, 4th St, Woods, and 5th St will all be negatively affected. Frank Smith of South Roanoke He called to thank the City for sending out the notification of the balloon test. He is generally supportive of telecommunications as it is good for economic development, but believes that the size of the balloon used in the balloon test does not show the potential visual impact of a 100 -250' tall tower. Their neighborhood, South Roanoke, does not support it and they plan to take this to the City manager and Council Members. Barbara Duerk of South Roanoke She of Neighbors in South Roanoke will be monitoring the cell tower impact on Mill Mountain viewshed and the Roanoke River on Wednesday. She believes that economic vitality strategies for the Roanoke Valley should include preservation of natural resources and protection of viewshed from tourist destinations. The viewshed from the overlooks on Mill Mountain and the Zoo are important to preserve. The Roanoke River is being cleaned up and is becoming a destination for boaters and fishermen. The Roanoke River Greenway is located in a linear park. The Park should be protected. She looks WE forward to seeing the impact of the cell tower. The balloon test on Wednesday should help decision making. Jan Keister, Old Southwest, Inc. She and other OSW, Inc. members oppose the proposed cell tower off of Franklin Rd. near the river for all the reasons they opposed the last two cell tower requests also apply here, as well as the fact that this location interferes with the hospital's flight path. She does not believe that cell towers are necessary as the newest technology puts small devices unobtrusively on or within existing structures. She thinks that it is irresponsible of this company to diminish the public's enjoyment of Roanoke's scenery just to make a profit and states that they do not want any more cell towers near our historic areas. Comments regarding Amended Application No 1: Anonymous of Old Southwest I am actually ok with this site. I wasn't ok with it when it was proposed in a historical residential area so close to homes, but now that it's in a more business /industrial area away from residences, I don't mind it going there. Hope this helps. (I would like to remain anonymous, please - as to not get the wrath from my neighbors who disagree with me.) Curtis Rupe of Old Southwest He lives in OSW and is aware that it is an intercity neighborhood and things like this proposed cell tower are a fact of life for this area along with the city noise and traffic sounds from 1 -581. He has no problem with the proposed tower location and believes that a tower will eventually be built in this area if the need exists. Joel Richert of Old Southwest She requested another balloon test at the proposed 165 feet and information from Carilion on the path of the helicopters at this site. Valerie Eagle of Old Southwest She is concerned with the new cell towers effect on the view from Historic Old Southwest. She recognizes the need for towers but does not think that this is the appropriate location. She believes this proposed cell tower will greatly diminish the progress Old Southwest has made in the quality of life in this historic district and urges the City to turn down the proposal. Jim Steagall of Old Southwest He believes that the 360 degree view enjoyed by the Old Southwest neighborhood will be ruined if the proposed tower is built. Jan Keister of Old Southwest She still finds the application unacceptable due to no churches being listed as being contacted to hide antennas in their spires. Jim Hyams of Old Southwest He is opposed to the erection of the proposed cell tower off of Franklin Road as the towers themselves and the bunkers beneath are unattractive and in view of several properties in Old Southwest. He believes that Phase II only offers another big building and parking lot and may never happen. He thinks that that application shows that no one else is willing to locate the tower on their site and he doesn't want it here either and encourages the City to reject the proposal. Kirk and Judy Gibson of Old Southwest They own property on Janette Ave in Old Southwest and we oppose the location chosen for the proposed cell tower on Franklin Rd. as it will obstruct the views we have enjoyed over the last 40 years and in general will be an eyesore to this area. They feel that a better location should be researched and utilized, perhaps a location on an already existing structure or a natural, higher elevation location. They believe that if Roanoke City is really concerned about the opinions of its citizens that they will turn down the application. Mark Hostetter of Old Southwest He reviewed the plans and believes that this is one of the best sites available that is not in OSW. He understands that it will be visible from OSW but believes that it will be necessary now or in the near future to allow for technology to reach more customers. However, he does not see anything proposed to mask the view of the tower and would like a cell tower disguised as a tree at this site or multiple lower towers to achieve the same coverage. The Roanoke Valley Preservation Foundation They do not support this application because the tower will be visible from both the Old Southwest Historic District and the Roanoke River Greenway. The proposed height of 165 feet would impact the vista from Old Southwest. The approval of this application would also set a precedent for similar applications in the future, compromising the 12 work accomplished by Old Southwest Inc, Roanoke Valley Greenways, and the security afforded to those living in local historic districts. However, if this application is approved the RVPF requests the following design changes to the monopole and associated antennas to mitigate the visual impact. 1. Restrict the height of the tower to the minimum necessary; 2. Paint the monopole in a neutral, matte color; 3. Limit the number of antennas to two; and 4. Use flush mounted antennas (cross polarized) instead of the proposed 'reindeer hat' antennas (spatial diversity). Comments regarding Amended Application No 3: Members of Old Southwest Members of Old Southwest met with staff and suggested additional changes to the application: clarifying the height of ground equipment behind the fence, increasing the height of the evergreen trees surrounding the telecommunications facility, and seeding and strawing of the site. The Roanoke Valley Preservation Foundation The Roanoke Valley Preservation Foundation reiterated comments made in earlier correspondence dated December 6, 2013. They do not support this application and feel it would set a dangerous precedent for similar applications in the future. However, if this application is approved then they request the following design changes to the monopole and associated antennas to mitigate the visual impact. 1. Restrict the height of the tower to the minimum necessary; 2. Paint the monopole in a neutral, matte color; 3. Limit the number of antennas to two; and 4. Use flush mounted antennas (cross polarized) instead of the proposed 'reindeer hat' antennas (spatial diversity). Planning Commission Work Session (October 25, 2013): • Planning Commissioners requested more visual information on how the height of the wireless telecommunications structure and distance of the antenna extensions from the monopole will affect the surrounding area. • Planning Commissioners requested information whether coverage objectives could be met with three smaller stealth wireless telecommunications facilities instead on the wireless telecommunications tower proposed. 13 Planning Commission Work Session (November 22, 201 3) • Planning Commissioners requested visual information portraying the worst possible scenario on how the height of the wireless telecommunications structure, number of antenna, and distance of the antenna extensions from the monopole will affect the surrounding area. Planning Commission Work Session (February 21, 2014) • Planning Commissioners agreed with staff that the recommended items from the independent consultant report should be incorporated into the development plan. Applicant Response to Staff, Public, and Planning Commission Comments • Performed a balloon test to better understand the visual impact of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility. • Reduced the requested height of the monopole to 165 feet in height • Incorporated streetscape elements as part of Phase I of the development • Included performance of a traffic study (to be completed before development plans are submitted) as development guideline on plan • Modified layout of proposed circulation • Relocated /removed parking and other improvements initially located within the floodway of the Roanoke River to areas outside the floodway • Provided additional plantings in portions of the riparian buffer that do not currently contain trees • Provided photosimulations of the proposed 165' tall tower from many locations in town • Provided Section 106 Review - While staff recommends approval of the application, this does not negate the possibility of additional comments from City staff in the Section 106 process related to the project and mitigation of any impacts on the nearby historic district. • Provided additional propagation maps at varying heights. • Incorporated development standards into the development plans that address all of the suggested conditions from the independent consultant report. o Applicant will submit a statement of compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations, including the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Aviation Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, and State Historic Preservation Act 14 o Applicant will submit a structural analysis from a Virginia Registered Professional Engineer demonstrating the tower will support up to 10 additional feet in height. o Applicant will provide a structural analysis from a Virginia registered professional engineer demonstrating that the subject tower will support up to four antenna systems o All access ports will be sufficiently sealed to prevent access by birds and wildlife • All cables serving the antenna equipment located on the tower shall be contained inside the subject monopole tower. • Areas of the property not subject to riparian buffer planting specifications or other surface improvements shall be seeded and strawed upon completion of the tower. • The height of evergreen screening trees shall be 8' minimum at planting. Planning Commission Public Hearing Discussion: Two people spoke during the public hearing in regards to the proposed planned unit development plan, only one spoke in opposition. The opposition concerns were related to the height of the fill on the site adding to the overall height of the proposed wireless telecommunications tower with the resulting effect on the viewshed from Old Southwest and the desire for another balloon test at 165 feet. The second speaker, from the helicopter flight service for the hospital, does not oppose the tower if lighted as proposed in the Amended Application No. 4. Glued �� Y& Chad Van Hyning, Chair City Planning Commission cc: Chris Morrill, City Manager R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager Chris Chittum, Director of Planning Building & Development Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Steve Strauss, Tlmberbrook Properties VI, LLC Craig Clifton, Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Max Wiegard, Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, LLP 15 Zoning Amendment . Application RECENT " Department of Planning, Building and Development Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Munic pal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Phone: (540) 853-1730 Fax: (540) 853 -1230 r Date: 2/27/2014 Rogmo t ("1eSs all Sheet ttpp&L- ❑ Rezoning, Not Otherwise Listed FEB 27 2014 ROANOKE CITY OF ROANOKE PLANNING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT Click Here to Print Submittal Number: Amended Application No.4 ❑ Rezoning, Conditional ❑ Rezoning to Planned Unit Development El Establishment of Comprehensive Sign Overlay Dls'nc( rCOpominfoCmg-1011: Address: rranklin Road, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia ❑ Amendment of Proffered Conditions ❑ Amendment of Planned Unit Development Plan ❑ Amendment of Comprehensive Sign Overlay District Official Tax No(s).: J1 040102 — — -i Existing Base Zoning: ❑ With Conditions (If multiple zones, please manually enter all districts.) INPUD, Institutional Planned Unit Development ❑ Without Conditions Ordinance No(s). for Existing Conditions (If applicable): Requested Zoning: ❑ With Conditions Proposed ❑ Without Conditions Land Use Multistory commercial building; telecommu 'RraD4!*Y Q�clnfg_rr�atLan:: Name: imberbrook Properties VI LLC Phone Number: +1 (540) 774 -4800 Address: 5100 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia 24018 E -Mall: 55 trauss @strausscc.com� -1 Property Owner's S gnature. Al2p11c4irlt WQrlLsliL•tlgnjlf .dMreAt jr2M_9WnWl;4 ' Name: (Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Address: 548 East Riverside Drive, Ste. D, North Tazewell, Va. 24630 Applicant's Signa!ure: AP_fhgdz_* _A9 lhfl ta�ln {I(�ppJSs�1+ 1: Name Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, LLP Address: 10 Franklin Road, SE, Roanokp, Virginia 24011 Agent's Phone Number. +t (276) 963 -tats E -Mail' cchkonr, pegasustoweccom Phone Number: +1 (540) 983 -9350 E -Mall: mwiegard@gentrylocke.com� Department of Planning, Building and Development Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Phone: (540) 853 -1730 Fax: (W) 853-1230 Date 2 27/2014 r Roqu —st _(select 81 that 4ppi Submittal Number. mended Application No.4 ❑ Rezoning, Not Otherwise Listed ❑ Rezoning, Conditional ❑ Rezoning to Planned Unit Development [ Establishment of Comprehensive Sign Overlay District Prope ft InIgMatton: Address: 1809 Franklin Road, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia Official Tax No(s). 1040102 — ROANOKE Click Here to Prim [ ] Amendment of Proffered Conditions 0 Amendment of Planned Unit Developmenl Plan ❑ Amendment of Comprehensive Sign Overlay District Existing Base Zoning: INPUD, Institutional Planned Unit Development E] With Conditions (If multiple zones, please manually enter all districts.) ❑ Without Conditions Ordinance No(s). for Existing Conditions (If applicable): C— 1 Requested Zoning F_ — — J ❑ With Conditions Proposed 4 g J ❑ Without Conditions Land Use: Multistory commercial building; telecom Prey Owner InfqImOtMn: Name Ttmberbrook Properties VI LLC Address: 5 tOoBernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia 24018 AkArw ii_ Property Owner's Signature ft0leaM lydwmaiINAlftmrent frorm pwlwr)l Name: 'Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Address. 1548 East Riverside Drive, Ste. D, North Tazewell, Va. 24630 Applicant's Signature: �15:1h4Jli @� �ffit 1Dis?1:71t!tIOQSIt %2RUcakid0b Name: lGentry Locke Rakes & Moore, LLP Address. I10 Franklin Road, SE, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Authorized Agent's Signature Phone Number +1(540)774 -4800 _ ] E -Mad' SStrauss@strausscc,com Phone Number +1(276)963 -181 E -Mail' cchftonr= pegasustoweccom Phone Number: 71 (540)983 -9350 E -Mail: mwiegarclogentrylocke.com Department of Planning, Building and Development Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Phone: (540) 8531730 Fax (540) 8531230 Date 2/771'014 �iil.�!l1�4S +fll l'llli �- Riti�: ❑ Rezoning, Not Otherwise Listed ❑ Rezoning, Conditional ❑ Rezoning to Planned Unit Development Click Here to Print Submittal Number Amended Application No.4 i ❑ Amendment of Proffered Conditions Q Amendment of Planned Unit Development Plan ❑ Amendment of Comprehensive Sign Overlay District ❑ Establishment of Comprehensive Sign Overlay District �S{mrtyLln[4rtaa ±t�a< Address: t Franklin Road, SW, Roanoke, Virginia Official Tax No(s).: 11 D40102 - �- -- - - -- - _ -- - Existing Base Zoning ❑ With Conditions (If multiple zones, please manually enter all districts) INPUD, Institutional Planned Unit Development ] Without Conditions Ordinance No(s). for Existing Conditions (If applicable). ❑ With ut Co Conditions proposes � Requested Zoning Multistory commercial huild' +rig: telecommu ❑ wltlaul Conditions Land Use: Etc- owner. laf2mile Fong Name: 1Timberbrook Properties VI LLC Address: [5100 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia 24018_ Property Owners Signature. AMftanLInfannyAbeffl, slllfirnni from a ymi Phone Number -1 (540) 7744800 E•Mail: SStrauss�strausscc.com Name: Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Phone Number: +1(276)963 -18— 18 1548 Fast Riverside Drive, Ste. D, North Tazewell, Va.24630 Name, [Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, LLP Address: 110 Franklin Road, SE, Roanoke, Virginia Authorized Agent's Signature: 24011 E -Mall cltflonopegasustoweccom Phone Number. +1 (5401 ..__ _.�E -Ma. mWegardiagenirylockacom The following'must be submitted for all appfoations: F Completed application form and checklist. G Written narrative explaining the reason for the request. G Metes and bounds description, if applicable. F- Filing fee. For a rezoning not otherwise listed, the following must also be submltted: F- Concept plan meeting the Application Requirements of item'2(c)' in Zoning Amendment Procedures. For a condkional rezoning, the following must also be submitted: F- Written proffers. See the City's Guide to Proffered Conditions. ROANOKE Concept plan meeting the Application Requirements of item '2(c)' In Zoning Amendment Procedures. Please labe as i- 'development plan' if proffered. For a planned unit development, the following must also be submitted. r- Development plan meeting the requ rements of Section 36.2 -326 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. For a comprehensive sign overlay district, the following must be submitted:; I- Comprehensive signage plan meet ng the requirements of Section 36.2- 336(d)(2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance. For an amendment of proffered conditions, the following must also be submitted: Amended development or concept plan meeting the Application Requirements of item'2(c)' In Zoning Amendmer. Procedures, F- if appl,cable. F- Written proffers to be amended. See the City's Guide to Proffered Conditions. F opy of previously adopted Ord nance. For a planned unit development amendment, the following must also be submitted: F- Amended development plan meeting 'he requirements of Section 36.2.326 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. F- Copy of previously adopted Ordnance. For a comprehensive sign overlay amendment, the following must also be submitted: F Amended comprehensive signage plan meeting the requirements of Section 36.2- 336(d) of the City's Zoning Ord nance. F- Copy of previously adopted Ordinance. For a proposal that requires a traffic impact study be submitted to the Ofly, the following must also be submitted: i- A Traffic Impact Study in compliance with Appendix B -2(e) of the City's Zoning Ordinance. For a proposal that requires a traffic impact analysis be submitted to VDOT, the following must also be submitted. F- sheet. i Traffic Impact analysis, F- Concept plan. r Proffered conditions, if appl cable. F equired fee. "An elec'ronic copy of :his application and checklist can be found at www.roanokeva.gov /pbd by selecting 'Plann ng Commission' under 'Boards and Commissions'. A complete packet must be submitted each tme an application is amended, unless otherwise specified by staff. GENTRY LOCKS RAKES & M ®RE "P Attorneys Fao nle 540.9939400 POS1 Office Bar 40013 Roanoke, 'ArgiNa 240220013 February 27, 2014 Katharine Gray, City Planner Department of Planning, Building and Development For the City of Roanoke Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Re: Amended Application No. 4 for Amendment of Planned Unit Development Plan Applicant: Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Owner: Timberbrook Properties VI LLC Property: 1809 Franklin Road, S.W. —Tax Map #1040102 Dear Katharine: Enclosed is Amended Application No. 4 for the Amendment of Planned Unit Development Plan referenced above, along with the Application Checklist, Justification Narrative, Revised Development Plan, and other supporting documents and information, which we are submitting on behalf of Pegasus Tower Company, LLC ( "Pegasus "). In response to comments and requests for additional information that we have received from members of the Roanoke City Planning Commission, the independent consultant retained by the City of Roanoke to review and assess the Applicant's Amended Application No, 2, Cityscape Consultants, Inc., and representatives of Old Southwest, Inc., Pegasus has made certain appropriate changes to its Application. For example, the following documents, that were not filed with Amended Application No. 2, filed on December 17, 2013, are enclosed and incorporated into Amended Application No. 4: (1) A revised FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation dated February 9, 2014; (2) A Photo Simulation Labled "View 4909 from Janette Avenue approximately 765ft. north - northwest of site;" (3) A redacted copy of the Option and Lease Agreement between the Applicant, as landlord, and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, a communications affiliate of AT &T Mobility, LLC ( "AT &T "), as tenant; 10 FrankPn R0a0 SE, Suite 800 a Rmoke, VA 240110 To l Free, 666963-0666 w genty &e.m 11589:10 6584999v1 GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & M ®RE ' February 27, 2014 Page 2 (4) A redacted copy of the Site Lease between the Applicant, as landlord, and Virginia PCS Alliance, L.C„ doing business as NTELOS ( "NTELOS "), as tenant; (5) Additional AT &T propagation maps showing AT &T radio frequency signal coverage at lower heights (155' and 145'); (6) A map showing the AT &T search ring for this site (RO21 l); (7) Additional nTelos propagation maps showing nTelos radio frequency signal coverage at lower heights (130' and 120'); and (8) A map showing the NTELOS's search ring for this site (RN942) and the collocation candidates that it considered and ruled out. Amended Application No. 4 also includes an amended version of the Development Plan, which includes a third sheet ( "Sheet 3 of 3 ") showing an elevation of the proposed wireless telecommunications tower (the "Tower ") and listing certain Design Standards for the Tower, in response to certain comments made by representatives of Old Southwest, Inc. and other comments made by Cityscape in the assessment it submitted to the City of Roanoke. Please let us know if you have any questions about the "Design Standards set forth on Sheet 3 of 3 of the enclosed amended version of the Development Plan. In response to other comments made by representatives of Old Southwest, Inc., the enclosed amended version of the Development Plan also provides that the evergreen screening trees that will be planted on three sides of the fenced area containing the Tower will be a minimum of 8' tall at planting and it includes a note on "Site Seeding." This note governing Site Seeding provides that areas of the property that are not subject to the riparian buffer planting specifications set forth on Sheet I of 3 of the Development Plan and not otherwise receiving pavement or other surface improvements shall be seeded and mulched with straw following completion of construction of the Tower. l 1589/ 1016584999v I GENTRY LOCKE RNCGS « WARE '. February 27, 2014 Page 3 Please let us know if you need any additional information as you prepare the Staff Report or in preparation for the Planning Commission hearing scheduled for March 11, 2014. As always, we appreciate all of your input and assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & M E, LLP Maxwell H. Wiegard MHW:jpd Enclosures cc: Ms. Rebecca Cockram Mr. Craig N. Clifton Mr. Steven S. Strauss 11589 10 6584999v PEGASUS TOWER COMPANY, LLC APPLICANT'S FOURTH AMENDED WRITTEN NARRATIVE FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 1809 FRANKLIN ROAD, S.W.. ROANOKE, VIRGINIA OFFICIAL TAX MAP NO.: 1040102 Pegasus Tower Company, LLC ( "Pegasus "), the applicant, as lessee of a portion of the subject property, which is owned by Timberbrook Properties VI, LLC ( "Timberbrook "), files this Fourth Amended Application for Approval of an Amended Planned Unit Development Plan (the "Amended Development Plan") for the subject property, on behalf of its subtenants, AT &T Mobility ( "AT &T") and nTelos Wireless ( "nTelos "), and the property owner, Timberbrook. See attached redacted Lease Agreements with AT &T and nTelos.) The subject parcel of property is a 4.3610 acre tract of undeveloped, blighted land located at 1809 Franklin Road, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia (the "Property "). The Property is zoned INPUD (Institutional Planned Unit Development) and is located in the Campus and Institutional portion of the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area. The Development Plan provides for development of the Property in two (2) phases. In Phase I, Pegasus will construct a wireless telecommunications tower, certain ancillary features, certain landscaping features, curbs and gutters, and sidewalks. In Phase II, Timberbrook will construct an office building, surface parking, additional landscaping features, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and other amenities. In filing this fourth amended application, Pegasus utilizes information provided by Timberbrook to the extent necessary. Section I below summarizes Phase I of the proposed Amended Development Plan and Section 11 below summarizes Phase II of the proposed Amended Development Plan. I. PHASE I A. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE AND DEVELOPMENT As shown on the proposed Amended Development Plan, Pegasus now proposes to build a 165' monopole design wireless telecommunications tower with a 4' lightning rod, flush mount antennas, a red low intensity (non -LED) lighting system located at the top of the tower, installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460 -1 K Change 2 obstruction marking and lighting, red lights- Chapters 4, 5 (RED), and 12, and ground equipment cabinets (collectively, the "Tower ") within a 50' x 50' leased area located in the north/central portion of 11589/10/6584499v1 the Property (the "Leased Area "). Pegasus also proposes to build a 20' wide access road, which will lead from the Leased Area to the intersection of Franklin Road and Reserve Avenue. The Leased Area will be surrounded by a wood fence and buffered by Leland cypress trees that will be at least 8' at planting on three sides, opaque wood fencing on the fourth side, and certain existing trees located on the Property and adjacent parcels. This buffering will screen the Leased Area from view from portions of Franklin Road, Reserve Avenue, State Route 220, and Jeanette Avenue. Due to the area's topography, existing landscaping, and trees located on parcels situated between Jeanette Avenue, State Route 220, and the Property, the Leased Area and the base of the Tower, will not be visible from portions of Jeanette Avenue and State Route 220. See attached Photo Simulation Labeled "View #909 from Janette Avenue. ") The Leased Area, including the base of the Tower and ground equipment cabinets, will be further screened from view from the Roanoke River Greenway and portions of Franklin Road by landscaping. including trees, planted adjacent to the sidewalk to be installed along Franklin Road, and in the riparian buffer area located between the Leased Area and the Roanoke River. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility will allow certain wireless telecommunications carriers that have agreed to lease space on the Tower from Pegasus, including AT &T, nTelos, and two additional wireless telecommunications carriers, for a total of four (4) wireless telecommunications carriers, to collocate their antennas on the Tower and thereby provide for the orderly extension, improvement, and enhancement of wireless telecommunication coverage and service in certain portions of the City of Roanoke, including the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area, South Roanoke, Old Southwest Roanoke, and the I- 581 /State Route 220 corridor South of Downtown Roanoke. The proposed Tower will be designed to support up to ten (10) additional feet in height should a need for additional space on the tower larise in the future in order to reduce the probability that an additional wireless telecommunications tower will need to be built in the same general area of the City of Roanoke. B. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT: AT &T has identified significant gaps in wireless telecommunications coverage and areas of poor wireless telecommunications service in the 1 -581 /State Route 220 condor South of Downtown Roanoke, the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area, portions of South Roanoke, and portions of Old Southwest Roanoke. AT &T seeks to fill these gaps in its wireless 11589/10/6584499v 1 2 telecommunications coverage network in order to provide continuous, uninterrupted, and improved wireless telecommunications service to the residents of South Roanoke, the residents of Old Southwest Roanoke, the businesses and recreational facilities in the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area, and the residents of, and visitors to, the City of Roanoke as they travel through, and shop in, the 1 -581 /State Route 220 corridor South of Downtown Roanoke. The AT &T propagation maps attached to this application show the gap in wireless telecommunications service coverage in the I -581 State Route 220 Corridor South of Downtown Roanoke, the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area, portions of the neighborhoods of Old Southwest Roanoke and South Roanoke. See attached AT &T Propagation Map entitled "Indoor Coverage with RO211 Off Air. ") AT &T needs to locate wireless telecommunications antennas on the Tower, which is identified as RO211G on the attached AT &T propagation maps, to extend and enhance the capacity of its wireless telecommunications coverage network in these portions of the City of Roanoke. (See attached AT &T Propagation Map entitled "Indoor Coverage of RO211 at 165ft. ") The AT &T wireless telecommunications antennas located on the Tower will provide a seamless network of wireless telecommunications coverage and improved wireless telecommunications service resulting from enhanced network capacity, by working with sites RO400 and 80401 identified on the attached AT &T propagation maps, thereby providing residents in these portions of the City of Roanoke with uninterrupted, and improved, wireless telecommunications service. See attached AT &T Propagation Map entitled "Indoor Coverage with RO211 't;, 165ft On Air. ") AT &T would prefer to have its antennas located at 195' because an additional 30' of height would increase the size of the "footprint" of wireless telecommunications coverage afforded by this site. (See attached AT &T Propagation Maps entitled "Indoor Coverage of RO211 at 195ft" and "Indoor Coverage with RO211 @ 19511 On Air. ") However, in response to comments and concerns about the effect of the Tower on the viewshed expressed by residents of the neighborhoods of Old Southwest Roanoke and South Roanoke, AT &T is willing to reduce the height of its antennas on the Tower to 165', and to use "flush mount" antennas to further minimize the impact of the Tower on the viewshed. Any further reduction in the height of the Tower would make it more difficult, if not impossible, for AT &T to meet its coverage objective for this site. See attached AT &T Propagation Maps entitled "Indoor Coverage of RO211 at 1158910 6584499v 1� 15511 ," "Indoor Coverage of RO211 at 145ft," "Indoor Coverage with RO211 @15511 On Air," and "Indoor Coverage with RO211 @ 14511 On Air. ") nTelos has identified certain areas of poor wireless telecommunications service in the South Roanoke neighborhood, the Old Southwest Roanoke neighborhood, and the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area. Residents of these neighborhoods are experiencing poor call quality and slow data speeds on their smartphone devices, especially inside buildings, due to a lack of capacity of the nTelos wireless telecommunications network in portions of the City of Roanoke located to the South of Downtown Roanoke. As a result of increased usage of the surrounding sites in nTelos's wireless telecommunications network by in- building users operating smartphones, nTelos needs to add another site South of Downtown Roanoke, to improve the performance of its wireless telecommunications network by improving the network's capacity. Most new wireless telecommunications tower sites are located in rural areas, where the carrier wants to expand the "footprint" of the coverage of its wireless telecommunications network as much as possible. For nTelos, this site, which is identified on the attached nTelos propagation maps as RN942, is not such a site. Due to its location in the core of the City of Roanoke, nTelos's objective for this site is to improve the capacity of its wireless telecommunications network in the neighborhoods of South Roanoke and Old Southwest Roanoke, and the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area, as opposed to the objective of a site focused on improving the coverage of nTelos's wireless telecommunication network, which would be to extend the footprint of wireless telecommunications coverage out as far as possible. In other words, a site focused on improving capacity of nTelos's wireless telecommunications network, such as this site, is meant to cover a particular area of concern and nothing else. When this site goes on -line, nTelos will physically tilt its antennas on the surrounding towers downward to create a gap in wireless telecommunications coverage, which the proposed site is designed to fill. nTelos will do so in order to reduce radio frequency interference resulting from overlapping coverage from neighboring sites, which will improve performance of nTelos's wireless telecommunications network by improving call quality and data transmission speeds, especially inside buildings. As designed, the nTelos antenna on the proposed Tower will take over a portion of data "traffic" on nTelos's wireless telecommunications network in South 11589/10/6584499v 1 4 Roanoke, Old Southwest Roanoke, and the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area. However, in order to optimize the performance of nTelos's wireless telecommunications network, it is important that the proposed site does not cover the same areas as the existing sites in nTelos's wireless telecommunications network, which would cause interference and reduce call quality and the speed of data transmission. As shown on the attached nTelos propagation maps, mounting nTelos's antennas at a higher height improves nTelos's control over the propagation of its wireless telecommunications signal. See attached nTelos Propagation Map entitled "NTELOS RN942 Propagation 182 "' and "NTELOS RN942 Propagation 140 "'). There is a significant difference in the coverage afforded by antennas located at 140' and 182'. This is because, at a higher height, nTelos can tilt the antennas down more than it can at a lower height. For example, at 182', nTelos has more control over the propagation pattern of its radio frequency signal resulting from more antenna down tilt. At a lower height, such as 140', on the other hand, nTelos has less control over the propagation of its radio frequency signal because it uses less antenna down tilt. (See attached nTelos Propagation Maps entitled "NTELOS RN942 Propagation 182 "' and "NTELOS RN942 Propagation 140 "'). The attached nTelos propagation maps show the difference in propagation of nTelos's wireless telecommunications signal as the height of nTelos's antenna is reduced. See attached nTelos Propagation Maps entitled "RN942 130' Capacity Config.," "RN942 120' Capacity Config.," "RN942 130' Coverage Config.," and "RN942 120' Coverage Config.") At 182', nTelos has well - controlled focused wireless telecommunications coverage. Whereas, at 140', although this height meets nTelos's coverage objective, nTelos's antenna clumsily covers areas that nTelos does not intend to cover, which causes radio frequency interference and reduces call quality and data transmission speeds. In order to achieve the desired small and focused coverage footprint for a "capacity" site, such as this, nTelos needs some control over the propagation of its wireless telecommunications signal. In planning and designing the growth and expansion of their wireless telecommunications network in the City of Roanoke, AT &T and nTelos have sought to limit the number of new towers built within the City of Roanoke by searching for existing structures located within identified search rings, such as wireless telecommunications towers, water tanks, electrical transmission structures and buildings, on which they can collocate its antennas and meet their 11589110/6584499v1 5 coverage objectives. (See attached AT &T search ring for RO211 and nTelos search ring for RN942.) Although it is possible to meet the coverage objectives discussed above using shorter wireless telecommunications towers and antennas collocated on existing structures, such an approach would require AT &T and nTelos to erect several new wireless telecommunications towers or collocate their antennas on several existing structures to achieve the same radio frequency signal coverage that they can achieve using the proposed 165' Tower. AT &T and nTelos evaluated the following existing structures located within the search rings identified by AT &T and nTelos to determine whether they were potential collocation opportunities, however, each of the sites listed below were unsuitable for colocation for the stated reason: A. VTC School of Medicine (evaluated by AT &T and nTelos): 370 15' 26.67" N 790 56' 33.46" W AT &T Conclusion: This site was rejected because the structure to be used was too short and far from the center of AT &T's search ring. nTelos Conclusion: VTC never responded to nTelos's inquiry regarding whether it was interested in leasing space on its rooftop to nTelos for the purpose of collocating an antenna there. B. Towers Shopping Center (evaluated by AT &T only): 370 15' 21.85" N 790 57' 22.92" W AT &T Conclusion: This site was rejected because the tower on the roof of a structure on the site was not structurally sound and, in addition, the site is far from the center of the search ring. C. Cambria Suites (evaluated by AT &T and nTelos): 370 15' 23.10" N 790 56'48.64" W AT &T Conclusion: This site was rejected because the structure to be used was too short and the site is at a lower ground elevation. nTelos Conclusion: The owner and operator of the Cambria Suites hotel was not interested in leasing space to nTelos for the purpose of collocating an antenna on the roof. D. Janette Avenue (evaluated by AT &T and nTelos): 11589/10/6584499v1 6 370 15' 30.49" N 790 57' 02.69" W AT &T Conclusion: This site met coverage objectives, but many residents in Old Southwest Roanoke and the Old Southwest, Inc. neighborhood group opposed a tower located on this site. nTelos Conclusion: This site met coverage objectives, but many residents in Old Southwest Roanoke and the Old Southwest, Inc. neighborhood group opposed a tower located on this site. E. Rescue Mission (evaluated by AT &T only): 370 16' 13.44" N 790 56' 06.71" W AT &T Conclusion: This site was rejected because it is too far from the center of the search ring and is close to an existing site. F. Highland Park Elementary (evaluated by AT &T only): 37° 15' 46.91" N 790 57' 02.08" W AT &T Conclusion: This site was rejected because the structure to be used is too short, the site is far from the center of the search ring, and the site is close to an existing site. G. Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital (evaluated by nTelos only): 370 15' 03.56" N 790 56' 32.69" W nTelos Conclusion: Carilion executives contacted by agents acting on behalf of nTelos did not respond to nTelos's proposal to lease space on the rooftop for the purpose of collocating a stealth wireless telecommunications antenna on Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital. H. Carilion Roanoke Community Hospital (evaluated by nTelos only): 370 15' 58" N 790 56' 22" W nTelos Conclusion: This site was too close to an existing nTelos site. I. Maher Field Lie,ht Pole (evaluated by nTelos only): 370 15' 17.8"N 790 56'48.4" W nTelos Conclusion: nTelos entered into an Entry & Testing Agreement with the landlord for this property in preparation for performing a drive test. After some delays in finalizing the Entry & Testing Agreement for this property and obtaining a response to nTelos's draft lease, and due to concerns about floodplain issues and costs associated 11589/1016584499v1 with replacing the existing light pole, nTelos discontinued its pursuit of this candidate in favor of pursuing negotiations with Carilion over collocating a stealth antenna on the rooftop of Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital. Cityscape Consultants, Inc. (" Cityscape"), the independent contractor retained by the City of Roanoke to review the Applicant's Second Amended Application, after conducting a detailed investigation, has concluded that there were no viable existing support structures within the search rings identified by AT &T and nTelos that could support these carriers' needs. Thus, the Applicant, on behalf of its tenants AT &T and nTelos, has proposed to construct a new Tower on the Property. Cityscape also has concluded that the proposed 165' height of the Tower is justified to provide sufficient service for existing and future subscribers, and to comply with federal guidelines for wireless telecommunications deployment. In fact, Cityscape concluded that the proposed 165' height of the Tower could limit potential future collocations, which, in turn, will create the need for additional wireless telecommunications towers in the same area in the near future. However, Cityscape has further concluded that the proposed Tower should be sufficient to allow for improvement of service to the customers of AT &T and nTelos in the Old Southwest Roanoke neighborhood, the South Roanoke neighborhood, the 1 -581 /Slate Route 220 corridor South of Downtown Roanoke, and the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area into the foreseeable future. CityScape also has opined that the proposed Tower will accommodate other wireless telecommunications carriers' needs for new and upgraded wireless telecommunications facilities in this rapidly growing portion of the City of Roanoke in the near future. For these reasons, Cityscape ultimately concluded that that the construction of the proposed Tower is justified. C. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD Pegasus has worked closely with City of Roanoke Planning, Building & Development staff, Timberbrook, AT &T, and nTelos to locate the site of the proposed Tower and to design the proposed Tower so as to reduce the adverse effects of the Tower on the viewshed from the surrounding neighborhoods. Although the Tower will be visible from certain portions of the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area, the Roanoke River Greenway, Franklin Road, the Old Southwest Roanoke neighborhood, and the South Roanoke neighborhood, Pegasus seeks to mitigate the effects of the Tower on the viewshed by proposing a sleek monopole design with a 11589/10/6584499vl 8 galvanized steel finish and flush mount antennas of a neutral, nonreflective color. All of the cables for the antennas located on the Tower will be run through the inside of the monopole structure. Furthermore, the Tower will not have any signs or advertising will be placed on it. The 50' x 50' Leased Area will be buffered by Leland cypress trees that will be at least 8' at planting on three sides and opaque wooden fencing on the fourth side. The Leased Area. including the base of the Tower and associated ground equipment cabinets, will be further screened from view from the Roanoke River Greenway and portions of Franklin Road by landscaping, including trees, planted adjacent to the sidewalk to be installed along Franklin Road, and in the riparian buffer area located between the Leased Area and the Roanoke River. The proposed height of the Tower is necessary to meet the stated coverage objectives of AT &T and nTelos and to provide other wireless telecommunications carriers opportunities to collocate their antennas on the Tower, thereby reducing the total number of wireless telecommunications towers in the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area, and the neighborhoods of Old Southwest Roanoke and South Roanoke. Pegasus initially proposed building a 195' Tower. However, it an effort to address concerns about the effect of the Tower on the viewshed expressed by residents of Old Southwest Roanoke and South Roanoke, Pegasus has agreed to reduce the height of the Tower to 165'. This 30' reduction in the height of the Tower will reduce the visibility of the Tower from certain portions of the Old Southwest Roanoke and South Roanoke neighborhoods. (See attached Photo Simulations at 165'). However, any further reduction of the height of the Tower will make it more difficult, if not impossible, for AT &T and nTelos to meet the coverage objectives discussed above. Pegasus also has agreed to have its tenants use "flush mount" antennas to further minimize the impact on the viewshed. Pegasus further has agreed to use trees in the landscaping surrounding the Leased Area on three sides that are 8' tall at planting and to run all cables through the interior of the Monopole Structure, in order to further limit the effect of the Tower on the viewshed. In its assessment of the Applicant's Second Amended Rezoning Application, the independent consultant hired by the City of Roanoke, CityScape, recommended certain conditions for the development of the Tower. In response to CityScape's comments, Pegasus has proposed the following design standards on the Amended Development Plan: II589/10/6584499v1 9 (1) The Applicant shall submit, with its application for a building permit for the subject Tower, a statement of compliance satisfactory to the Zoning Administrator that the subject Tower will be erected, operated and maintained in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local regulations, including but not limited to, Federal Communication Commission, Federal Aviation Administration, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and State Historic Preservation Act (HPA) regulations; (2) With its application for a building permit for the subject Tower, the Applicant shall provide to the Zoning Administrator, a structural analysis from a Virginia registered professional engineer, demonstrating that the subject Tower will support up to ten (10) additional feet in height, such documentation to be in form and sufficiency acceptable to the Zoning Administrator for the City of Roanoke, with the understanding that a zoning permit or a building permit for such additional construction shall not be sought, unless the need for such additional construction can be demonstrated by an engineering report which includes coverage area data and other information deemed pertinent by the Zoning Administrator; (3) The Applicant shall, prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy or receiving final approval of the subject Tower as constructed, provide to the Zoning Administrator a structural analysis from a Virginia registered professional engineer, demonstrating that the subject Tower will support up to four (4) antenna systems of like design in accordance with the American National Standards Institutes /Electronic Industry Association/Tower industry Association — 222G Regulations for Roanoke, Virginia. Such documentation to be in form and sufficiency acceptable to the Zoning Administrator for the City of Roanoke; and (4) All access ports shall be sufficiently sealed to prevent access by birds and wildlife. In response to concerns about the proposed Tower's proximity to the heliport located at Carillon Roanoke Memorial Hospital, the FAA issued a revised Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation dated February 19, 2014 (the "Revised FAA Determination "), a copy of which is attached to this Amended Application. Per the requirements set forth in Revised FAA Determination, Pegasus will install and maintain a low red, low- intensity (non -LED) light at the top of the Tower, in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460 -1 K Change 2, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights — Chapters 4, 5 (Red), & 12. See attached Revised FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation dated February 19, 2014.) Pegasus hopes 115891IOl6584499vl In that the proposed low- intensity, non -LED light, which is visible to helicopter pilots using night - vision goggles, will ensure the safety of those traveling in helicopters en route to Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital, while minimizing the obtrusiveness of the light to residents of the neighborhoods of Old Southwest Roanoke and South Roanoke. The Property is surrounded by commercial industrial parcels to the east and west, the Norfolk and Southern railroad to the north, and the Roanoke River and the Roanoke River Greenway to the south. The Tower is compatible with the nature or the character of this commercial area. Pegasus acknowledges the City of Roanoke's efforts to develop a network of greenways to provide pedestrian and bicycle linkages between the region's parks, rivers, natural areas, business centers and other institutions. The Roanoke River Greenway is used by hundreds of walkers, runners, joggers, and cyclists daily, most of whom carry mobile phones for safety. Therefore, the continuous, uninterrupted network of wireless telecommunications coverage, which the proposed Tower will provide, will result in a significant public safety benefit to Roanoke residents, including tourists, outdoor enthusiasts, and business people. Wireless telecommunications service is not an intensive use and poses no threat of any type to public health, safety and welfare. D. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: The Property is located in the "South Jefferson Redevelopment Area" identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to ensure that wireless telecommunications towers are sited in locations which provide the least negative impact to the City's residents. The Comprehensive Plan also seeks to promote the redevelopment of the underdeveloped parcels in the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area. To facilitate such redevelopment, the City must ensure that certain services, including a network of continuous, uninterrupted wireless telecommunications service, are available in the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area, the Old Southwest Roanoke neighborhood and the South Roanoke neighborhood. The Tower will support the growth and development of the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area, and the neighborhoods of Old Southwest Roanoke and South Roanoke, while mitigating its negative effects on the surrounding properties and neighborhoods. 1158911016584499vI 'iI II. PHASE 11 A. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE AND DEVELOPMENT: Timberbrook will use the portion of the Property identified as Phase 11 on the Development Plan for "commercial use' as such tern is defined in the South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan effective as of 2001, as amended by that certain Amended South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan effective as of June 30, 2010 (collectively, the "South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan"). Specifically, in Phase II, Timberbrook seeks to complete the development of the Property in anticipation of medical clinic, professional office, general office, or other office support services use. As Phase II of the Amended Development Plan, Timberbrook proposes to construct a 4- story commercial building for medical clinic, professional office, general office or other office support uses on the Property. Phase Il of the Amended Development plan also includes certain landscaping spaces, parking spaces, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and new large trees, among other features. These features are consistent with the atmosphere of the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area. The Property is zoned INPUD (Institutional Planned Unit Development). In its Zoning Ordinance, the City of Roanoke encourages the development of commercial and institutional uses with a controlled degree of flexibility on properties located in the INPUD zoning district. The proposed use of the Property is permitted "by right' in the INPUD zoning district, subject to the approval of the proposed Amended Development Plan. B. JUSTIFICATION FORTHE DEVELOPMENT: The development of the Property represents an opportunity to further the substantial progress that has been made in connection with ongoing redevelopment of the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area in accordance with the South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan, Phase II of the Amended Development Plan will (1) improve the aesthetics of the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area; (2) enhance economic opportunities for businesses in the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area; and (3) enhance opportunities for further growth and redevelopment of the surrounding residential neighborhood, including Old Southwest Roanoke and South Roanoke. 11589110/6584499v1 13 Phase 11 of the Amended Development Plan would further the City's efforts to eliminate blight, blighting influences and deleterious land use in the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area and improving the aesthetic qualities of the surrounding areas by redeveloping a formerly blighted and currently undeveloped parcel of Property. The 4 -story commercial building and related improvements to the Property proposed in Phase II of the Amended Development Plan are designed to conform to the "Campus and Institutional Area" urban design theme required by the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area Design Guidelines, which is intended to "create an intensely urban condition, as the patterns of the Main Street are contrasted with the scenic qualities of the adjacent inner - focused campus." The development of the Property proposed in Phase I1 of the Amended Development Plan would complement the existing developed environment in the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area. Phase Il of the Amended Development Plan, including the proposed building, will provide an opportunity to expand the growing business activity in the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area by providing a commercial campus that would draw employees, visitors and others to the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area. This inflow of additional people into the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area will lead to new opportunities for the growth of businesses in the surrounding community. The industries that may benefit from Phase Il of the Amended Development Plan include the hospitality, retail, and food service industries, as this influx of additional people into the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area will require venues for lodging, shopping, and dining. Finally, the South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan specifically notes that "there is a need for continued redevelopment of the remaining undeveloped parcels in the [South Jefferson] Redevelopment Area." Phase II of the proposed Amended Development Plan for the Property will meet this need. C. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD The use proposed in Phase II of the Amended Development Plan will have no adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood. In fact, the improvements to the Property identified in Phase 11 will improve the quality of the surrounding neighborhood by complementing the variety of current uses in the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area as noted in Section (I)(C) above. 11589/10/6584499x1 13 The quality of the neighborhood will be improved by the improvements contemplated in Phase II of the Amended Development Plan, which are designed to conform to the requirements of the South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan. Again, the Property is surrounded by commercial and industrial parcels to the east and west, the Norfolk and Southern railroad to the north, and the Roanoke River and the Roanoke River Greenway to the south. Phase II of the Amended Development Plan includes establishing new green areas, consistent with the objectives of maintaining the Roanoke River Greenway, while adding a new commercial building, accompanied by new landscaping, to the Property, which currently is vacant. The improvements proposed in Phase II of the Amended Development Plan can only benefit an area that was once described as blighted and deteriorated. D. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: (i) Conforming Uses The improvements proposed in Phase 11 of the Development Plan will comply with the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinances, the Roanoke City Comprehensive Plan, the South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan, and applicable tloodplain regulations. The Roanoke City Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan specifically identifies the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area as an action area for economic development (Section 3.3(Al9). The improvements proposed in Phase 11 of the Development Plan will provide new opportunities for economic development in the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area, in accordance with the South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan. Zoning Ordinance: As noted above in Section (1I)(A) the proposed use of the improvements identified in Phase ❑ of the Amended Development Plan complies with the Zoning Ordinance's requirements of properties located in the INPUD (Institutional Planned Unit Development) zoning district. South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan: The Property is reserved for "Commercial Use" under the South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan. The proposed use of the improvements identified in Phase II of the Amended Development Plan comply with this use requirement, by using the Property for business or professional support services. I 1 589/ i o/6584499v 1 14 Floodplain Regulations: A portion of the Property is located in a 100 -year floodway. The Development Plan initially filed by Pegasus anticipated a portion or the surface parking area to be constructed within the floodway. However, although Timberbrook plans to file an application with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) intended to adjust the boundary line of the 100 -year floodway, Timberbrook has agreed to revise the Amended Development Plan to remove the portion of the proposed surface parking area located within the floodway. If Timberbrook's application is successful, Timberbrook plans to revise Phase 11 of the Amended Development Plan to include additional surface parking in compliance with FEMA regulations. (ii) Conformity with Obiectives of the South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan As noted above, the Property is within the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area, and thus, it is governed by the South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan. The improvements proposed in Phase II of the Amended Development Plan further numerous goals and objectives of the South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan. For example, Phase II of the Amended Development Plan will (1) reduce or eliminate blight and blight influences; (2) improve business activity and generate economic value for the City of Roanoke; (3) make use of the area's location and urban character; and (4) provide versatility in land uses in the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area. (1) Phase II of the Amended Development Plan will reduce blight and blight influences. The proposed commercial campus will convert a vacant lot into a bustling corporate atmosphere, which will enhance the urban landscape of the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area. (2) Phase II of the Amended Development Plan will improve business activity and generate economic value fqr the City of Roanoke. Business activity will be improved, as a 4- story office building, occupied by employees, will be constructed on a vacant undeveloped lot. Also, as noted above, an influx of employees, visitors and other people into the Property will create opportunities for businesses in this area to increase their revenue. (3) Phase 11 of the Amended Development Plan will make use of the area's location and urban character. Fronting Franklin Road, the Property is located on a portion of the "gateway" to the downtown Roanoke area. The improvements proposed in Phase II of the Amended Development Plan will enhance the aesthetics of the gateway, and inject vitality into 11589/10/6584499v1 15 the area by providing new large deciduous street trees, screened parking areas and new sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. This will allow for a smooth aesthetic transition from the South Roanoke area to the downtown area. (4) Phase 11 of the Amended Development Plan is designed to provide versatility in land uses in the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area. A main goal under the "providing versatility in land uses" objective is to create a vibrant place for work. Phase II of the Amended Development Plan is designed to achieve the same goal by creating a commercial campus that is consistent with the surrounding area. (iii) Compliance with Provisions of South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan Phase II of the Development Plan is intended to substantially comply with the specific requirements for development in the South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan and the accompanying design guidelines. The following list describes certain relevant features of the Development Plan which comply with the South Jefferson Development Plant: • The main entrance to the building will be oriented to Franklin Road and surface parking along the frontage of the road will be appropriately screened (Section (E)(2)(a)(1))- • Common open space areas will be landscaped. However, certain open areas which have significant landscape value will not be disturbed (Section (E)(2)(a)(4))• • All surface parking lots will be located to the side or rear of the building to permit orientation of the front facade to the street (Section (E)(2)(a)(6)). • Signage will comply with the South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan and other relevant regulations (Section (E)(2)(a)(8)). • Natural vegetation and trees will be used to buffer the commercial uses of the Property (Section (E)(2)(c)). ' References to section numbers will refer to the initial South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan. Such sections were reaffirmed as valid in the Amended South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan. 11589/10/6584499vl 16 The design criteria contained within Phase 11 of the Development Plan is also intended to substantially conform to the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area Design Guidelines. The Property is designated as a "Campus and Industrial Area" thereunder. The following list describes certain relevant features of the development plan which comply with the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area Design Guidelines: • The height of the proposed building will be a maximum of 90 feet. • Surface parking will be screened from the street and pedestrian areas. • Trees will be distributed throughout the parking area. Although Timberbrook has yet to finalize some of the design elements and other details of the improvements identified in Phase lI of the Development Plan, Timberbrook acknowledges that the Property is governed by the South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan and the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area Design Guidelines. Moreover, Timberbrook will work with the City of Roanoke to substantially comply with all applicable plans, ordinances, and other regulations that may govern future development of the Property. 11589 10.6584499v1 17 i 0 9 A C ' Ia z° Y i 2 i� / a I a S — W w LU W Ln v ow o Q U Q d d zw QN °ten 4 ZZC K Z� Z; o t'. � g=—�o= �Ya $ wz iZZia / N v Lu Uu \ > z W a [yJ s J \\ OoLU p- it tI i °19 ill I b � g J Rum � "' e jj of ; E X9091 '111 ISA110111 s �W b b a x b Vial E1,1I z u fUf'' ^S W §S� o� �m <e <s Z 0P� m�s RUoo °0 U a� 0.. U G0 6 W .�wo 8 a �Y yttU1 F 'o H i yy \ C y� \ \ <640v-- u u � I �Q / 0 iA LoUo-L��NN�w•wn��LTLt / EL "'a3a• VI. u p N QVOLJ W N Kr> O �Zwo i ZfOoo'z Y w °yam \ door \� Dou W i W $ / \\ woJ \ 0LL� / o Raj 6 Rya - �a 0 ai Mill REM R PRE alex a @ g Glex 4R� o ENS; p selifi l, 0 «4P< SC 01 L i02 '^ ' g �2 u 2 r r m LL gm0 dd u °O >o NN1� Z�� =LLZ a � I wm W a z •rJ+NK m g W �mO �<p O < 1 K U � 0. W 4 w� C7 .awx° c! c 1 16 <<w 7 vn tip H F62 6 Cf <F $Z S qg 0-0 , W 2? Zaoz-�nm< 43' ffi 6 w� <a K UP E ;Oil! $ dW��Z -2°° ! <�Z w� < i ��LLo o o F $$ frry yg Ry LL�V 5 Lw o N N a N F— z < p U yS� list a V p NV 4 N y Q n ^ W ■ yy � a�0 ee Ee w @�g b019 b o by ..s p tl a 5 z 7 U ru> m�> �mz �o c a r t cotta . mm rn+ovm y y � rw, cart vms.®ma un 0. ran U1 Z sm Q16 �14z � U w oww cnZ °z e lid H Y p C _8 m rc Ji'C W c C D W 3 0 Q U w G ♦ w' "tom V h ot (7 Z S O 0 O 0 i (7 Z S O 0 O 0 V r Iyt V yy 4.� IW z a f J a u O O "J Q � � % � . 2 j « . \ .�\ « {� © . \ ° �� � \ .`® j r ! 2 \� y � \ � < �� \ C \ � : , x\ \ ,� . a �� � �/� ; »! ` % } � \ i.1 a I a nk i LD 0 J 0 U c C a .e R W 3 0 I- Q w TT~ e 3 1�i r x4 IL, S t 1' � v ''inn � ♦ i r t v _ t v y i t . C7 Z Q F t? 0 J 7 O L7 f h' v y i t . C7 Z Q F t? 0 J 7 O L7 I M. P.. - I . YI, I. Y �� ee. • 4 1. tsj I k�►�} r �y ,A.{ I a Z Q J Q ED J C7 T 4 t: i 44 . I 7t it' k , 6 AV. L i II 'i P1�:S jW �; I -249' ti 7 Lliwk- 'N", 4V I J. 1.12 F Or' GOULD DIGITAL IMAGING r 4It 4 JI 'AM. DIGITAL IMAGING z, 4N � � A� } 1AW "'-I y � �y i '.• t ►tI{{�� •. A. r w6 p PIT : -a� .2♦ 7 GYiF• i ire t ` f F �.f f l 1• I C S w� F t ' f t 2 V" 4 J _H O O J O (7 lb N s d> z� t' rn Y F Q � N Q ` Q C � J N �v v y " c d Y w H � F Q N ® Q r- M' '7 t L y ■ 4 ' mann i t ■ f- ■ el 1 00 1 / m C r .r r r I Is L ` rt K IL ♦ \ \` N W q6 . IN . 1 . A w TV V /,/ I i.l, m Il • 1 1 ti Ilti 1� ? =1 I• 4 r � 1: t.. Ito*' Hdl r yr. 7/ 4, \ . i- I.. r N N R •i T n n n F I T T� 1- Olw 16 _y . r� f. ■r • 1 Ifs lit V 4 1 I ' lr • � 5 /, Mir _. _ •. � S- J i ' l J l y 1� �.J n ti X 1 Iii • A A A I I ATR lz j a . i . - . r x . H � ■ i li i lit m Ga'^ f r �I � �14 i • P �I q• 4 � r J . ;W, Ii k n � - � Q ` •,� A A A DOEM / ti v \ . r_ is -. • •..- lug 11 ,� ro i� � �� �� , . a z . 9 �i , , h,l a• 1 .� 1 J I 1 y � E 1. xA B • :I G J WL i r� AL L r n r V 4�y A� ti 443 c �► t I,, p: q i ru r 07 li'd IN q� Zi dow, w YJJ � �'� > i �_� RN942130" CAPACITY CONFIG nrv74� propagation shown below at 130' rad center BLUE-'DEEP INDOOR COVERAGE, GREEN: INDOOR COVERAGE, YELLOW: VEHICULAR COVERAGE, RED: OUTDOOR COVERAGE RN942 120'CAPACITY CONFIG RN942 propagation shown below at 120' rad center BLUE: DEEP INDOOR COVERAGE, GREEN: INDOOR COVERAGE, YELLOW: VEHICULAR COVERAGE, RED: OUTDOOR COVERAGE RN942 130' COVERAGE CONFIG BLUE: DEEP INDOOR COVERAGE, GREEN. INDOOR COVERAGE, YELLOW. VEHICULAR COVERAGE, RED: OUTDOOR COVERAGE RN942 120' COVERAGE CONFIG RN942 propagation shown below at 120' rad center x >, 11 C1 I BLUE: DEEP INDOOR COVERAGE, GREEN' INDOOR COVERAGE, YELLOW. VEHICULAP COVERAGE, RED. OUTDOOR COVERAGE RN942 MLame atreel "m us" 2011 t ' qe '4 ♦.. l �'1 X1'7 ;. 4+44,♦ � j� e,`' 0 .� • 3 "� w.n „y r+” a e. O a firer k"4- i = b �� hrrW_-ar w, �� -�..a lr+'° ••, rrngr r � r 11�. r.q ri,yrC'1 wmr- ^• '' d � /'^ • ~ Mme'"' 'P p� " �{. ri I' L. ` w ti �wec,u• f ma WAO" to lceae. O Delame.Oelama aeeelMm VC:A>P 2071. 1 0 SO M 1 1 1 0 elm >m "''�''i4bi" can LW (8.5' WI tWa zoom 14.1 Fig. I Illustrates the location of the search ring. SITE DESIGN PARAMETERS NAME: Crystal Spring Engineer: Jae Tatusko Site ID.: RN942 Latitude 37.2559750 NAD83 Market Roanoke Longitude - 79.9407720 NAD8, oun Roanoke, VA Server RCL Highest available RCL —150' AGL Ma Name SR R11942 Donor RCL WA Release Date 111 i3 /2012 BTS Type 4.OB Mod Cell tors 3 nTelos PCS Tx Fn B Block 1950 -1965 MHz I Priori 2012 Sprint PCS Tx Fre D Block: 1945 -1950 G Block: 1910 -1915 1990 -1995 MHz AWS Tx Fre A Block 2110 -2120 MHz NTELOS Confidential Roanoke Tower Heights [ft] 4 tiraauaeu�„�,o a,qa' .. 030022b9S , TAII MAP 1'1081040102 Pspb ?4 No 1.18 DBL. ROY V. CRaASY, S900IR8 THIS DBBD, made and entared into this the 13th day of Novembar, 2003, by and between Valley Properties, LLC, a virgypof limited iiab111ty a�aaYr Grantorsl and T1ab■Lbreok Properties VI, LLC, a virpiala lilyaad liability M°°�PaaY. Greases. NITNgagaTH, THAT Po' AND 11; CONBIDBRATIOly of the Mum of T$1 DOyS.a" the unto the Granoor, (42-0-00) Grant" U and other good and valuable & con=Id"Ationm said by receipt whereof is hraby end owladged, the Maid Grantor does hareby BARGAIN m8yy, GR1(PT and CONVW. with G>SM$RAL WARRANTY and BNOLIaR unto the Grantee, all that eertain lot COVRp1AN'1'9 08 TITLE, the appurtaaabcea thereunto ar lying a d of land, with CITY or ROANO1Cg, beloagigg. lyring and being !.ri the a. to -wit, VIRGIIJIA, more particularly described follow as PLAT aXGitING PARC8y3Ag 4 .361 sates, as showb an PROPBRTIS9, L.L.C. BOBGZ({•963AC)VALLgY BITGA•rgD OF YI• �i925) VIRGINIA, dated Oetobar 1�O�' B'N•• ROANOM, Vincent K. "Madan. 1, 7007, prePared the Clerk a Office of "ad au Oycrt and re zoo by Ray V. Cntiyy za JaLl a�RSanoka, Virginia, In Map B�1kt of the in Page ft-mlo v10nIS some pa� Dty conveed d to Valley Jun, 3, 1997, of wwla,�om,map qp,i yv,tti- . IP6Dbup meIla record in the afaresaid Clsrk�s Tice Hook 1781, page 1777. Of in peed TH - C""YANCM is Made el+bject to all effective eaesm restrictions end conditions effeeti n8 tha enta, conveyed. proPertY herein WITNNBb TIM FOLLOWINr, SIONATOR$ AND 8SALS, -TAT$ OF VIRGINIA, CZTY OF ROMore. TO -WIT. The foregoiA9 instrument Wa■ 4ckeo"'I1e49ed before me this daY of November, 2003, by for Valle `7p Lipscomb, operating Nanagea Y properties, Is.c. MY comma e -, al. expires, Roy V. C,eaw Abnq M taw. -2_ nw o. wxrJbaM,�woia "��_ PGObul No n2 'STAY$ OF VIRGINIA, CITY OF ROANOIOE, TO -WIT, �r( Tha foregoing instrument Was acknowledged before me tbie Y day of November, 7003, by David No4ay, Operating Mab for Valley aropertiea, LLC. alter Notary publ e MY QO!" ss n expires: IRIS DaaD WA9 pitr4. BD RY ROY V. daznay, "Q. RY� -3- a BODE .30 DC> Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 2601 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth, TX 76193 Issued Date: 02.19 2014 David McClure Pegasus Tower Company, LIX 125 Whitestick Road ileckley, H V 25801 Aeronautical Study No. 2013- AEA - 5600 -0E ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** (REVISED) The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted in aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.. Section 44718 and it Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Monopole STRAUSS Location: Roanoke, VA Latitude: 37- 15- 23.53N NAD 83 Longitude: 79-57-01.05W Heights: 939 feet site elevation (SE) 199 t:et above ground level (AGL) 1138 teet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical stud} revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the followin condition(s), if any, is(are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure is marked lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70 7460 -1 K Change 2, Obstruction Marking and Li-,hting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),& 12. It is required that FAA Form 7460 -2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be a -tiled any time the project is abandoned or: _ _ At least 10 day; prior to start of construction (7460 -2, Part 1) _\_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460 -2, Part '_) This determination expires on 08 19'2015 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460 -2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the I-CC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. Page I of NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE- EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates , heights, frequency(ies) and power . Any changes in coordinates , heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration , including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. iEquipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487_6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) because the structure is subject to their licensing authority. This determination cancels and supersedes prior determinations issued for this structure. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (816) 329 -2528. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2013- AEA - 5600 -OE. Signature Control No: 198933364- 208359702 Cindy Whitten (DNE ) Specialist Attachment(s) Frequency Data Map(s) cc: FCC Page 2 of 4 Frequency Data for ASN 2013 - AEA - 5600 -OE LOW HIGH FREQUENCY ERP FREQUENCY FREQUENCY UNIT ERP UNIT 698 806 MHz 1000 W 806 824 MHz 500 W 824 849 MHz 500 W 851 866 MHz 500 W 869 894 MHz 500 W 896 901 MHz 500 W 901 902 MHz 7 W 930 931 MHz 3500 W 931 932 MHz 3500 W 932 932.5 MHz 17 d8W 935 940 MHz 1000 W 940 941 MHz 3500 W 1850 1910 MHz 1640 W 1930 1990 MHz 1640 W 2305 2310 MHz 2000 W 2345 2360 MHz 2000 W Page 3 of 4 TOPO Map for ASN 2013- AEA - 5600 -OE t !! ? ��" !�•w �a "aT 1� e. �� Af .- R 4.1� ASt)Ae L:b' 4 � �. Sr i ..,,_ ti+�ryw�. 5Y l Lr''I'� .✓� ,y or r M. .3 wsS A , �.� r+ µ Page 4 of 4 O a �g 5 boo �Ow o = c LL u c z � u O N N VI 9 W W W C W F C W0 O¢ CL W G o = m o x o = W W 4 W W W ppW O C N N � � N PA O M O p N N N m O � N T, 41m U411 01 31 13 04116 �1 31 0 S7 4. ...... ..... 1809 Franklin Road, S.W. il 02 Official Tax Map No. 104010 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS For Franklin Road/Reserve Avenue Commercial Development Roanoke, VA For Timberbrook Properties 5100 Bernard Drive P.O. Box 2087 Roanoke, VA 24018 December 6, 2013 Commission No. 2894A O-4� No. 15232 (21013 MATTERN & CRAIG, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS 701 FIRST STREET, S.W. ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24016 (540) 345 -9342 FAX: (540) 345 -7691 FRANKLIN ROAD/RESERVE AVENUE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXCECUTIVE SUMMARY This document presents the results of the traffic impact analysis performed for a commercial development at the intersection of Franklin Road and Reserve Avenue in Roanoke, VA. The development is proposed by Timberbrook Properties. Timberbrook Properties proposes to construct one of the following land uses as part of an Institutional Planned Unit Development (INPUD): Medical Clinic, Professional Office, General Office, or Office Support Services. The report illustrates that the Medical Clinic will generate the greatest number of trips at each of the peak hour study periods (AM, Mid -Day, and PM), therefore, Medical Clinic trips are used for the analysis. Each of the development options will consist of 46,875 SF of gross floor area. The study analyzes 2013 Existing conditions, 2020 Background conditions, and six 2020 Buildout scenarios. The existing intersection is a three leg signalized intersection. The 2020 Background traffic volumes are derived by utilizing a 1.0% annual growth rate and incorporating trips from a planned development known as "The Bridges" development. The Buildout date for "The Bridges" development is 2020. The six 2020 Buildout scenarios consider the intersection with different lane configurations for the northbound, southbound and westbound approaches and include the proposed eastbound approach. The eastbound approach lane configuration remains the same for all scenarios — shared through/right lane and dedicated left turn lane. The analysis addresses the traffic impacts of the proposed development on the Level of Service at the existing signalized intersection for each scenario as compared to the 2013 Existing and 2020 Background conditions. The traffic signal cycle length for each scenario and each study period was held constant at 90 seconds for each Level of Service analysis for comparison purposes. Also, the analysis analyzed the southbound approach's queue length as there is concern of sight distance over the Franklin Road railroad bridge. After comparing the scenarios based on the above considerations, it was concluded that Scenario B best meets the criteria. Scenario B calls for dual left turn lanes on the westbound approach and otherwise retains the existing intersection configuration. The new eastbound intersection leg will have one entrance lane and two exit lanes, one separate left turn lane and a shared through and right turn exit lane. Based on a three phase 90 second cycle length, Scenario B provides Level of Service C or better operation in the 2020 Buildout year. This study has approached the analysis of the proposed development in a conservative manner by utilizing the trips generated by the proposed land use that generates the greatest number of trips. Recommendations: Based on the analysis performed in this study, the following recommendations are made: 1. Construct new site development entrance on the west side of the existing intersection. The entrance will consist of one entrance lane and two exit lanes, one separate left turn lane and a shared through and right turn exit lane. 2. Construct southbound Franklin Road widened pavement taper to accommodate the proposed dual left turn lanes from Reserve Avenue. This geometric modification will require new curb, gutter and sidewalk and relocation of an existing drop inlet. The final design of this street improvement will be determined during the site plan review process. 3. Modify the existing traffic signal equipment to provide new signal heads for the site development entrance. This modification will require new span wire over Reserve Avenue. Also, the signal pole on the southwest corner of the intersection in front of the site will need to be relocated to accommodate the new entrance and geometric improvements. 4. Re -time traffic signal to accommodate the reconfigured lane striping and geometric improvements. For the initial signal timing utilize the Synchro analysis for Scenario B and a 90 second cycle length. Field adjustments in the timing may be required to more efficiently accommodate the traffic volumes at the time of initial operations. 5. Restripe existing Franklin Road and Reserve Avenue to provide new stop bar locations and dual left turn lanes on Reserve Avenue. The dual left turn lanes should striped a minimum of 300 feet in length plus proper transition length. Provide lane usage arrows in all lanes. The final design of lane restriping will be determined during the site plan review process. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ......:.......................................................................... ..............................1 A. Purpose ...................................................................................... ..............................1 B. Site Location and Study Area .................................................... ..............................2 C. Existing Land Use and Surrounding Area ................................. ..............................2 D. Proposed Land Use .................................................................... ..............................2 E. Existing and Future Streets ........................................................ ..............................2 F. Sight Distance ............................................................................ ..............................6 II. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING (2013) CONDITIONS ............................. ..............................8 A. ADT and Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ....................................... ..............................8 B. Levels of Service ....................................................................... ..............................8 C. Level of Service Analysis ......................................................... .............................10 III. FUTURE CONDIITONS WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT ................... .............................11 A. Background (2020) Traffic ....................................................... .............................11 B. Level of Service Analysis ......................................................... .............................12 IV. TRIP GENERATION ........................................................................... .............................12 EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS V. TRIP DISTRIBUTION ......................................................................... .............................15 TRIP GENERATION BACKUP VI. FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH FULL DEVELOPMENT BUILDOUT ........................15 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS A. Scenario 1: Existing Lane Configuration ................................. .............................19 QUEUING ANALYSIS B. Scenario 2: New Lane Configuration ...................................... .............................19 LOS & DELAY SUMMARY TABLES C. Scenario 3: New Southbound Right Lane ................................ .............................21 D. Scenario 4: Existing Lane Configuration Plus Southbound Right Turn ...............21 E. Scenario A ................................................................................. .............................21 F. Scenario B ................................................................................. .............................22 G. Levels of Service ...................................................................... .............................24 VII. QUEUING ANALYSIS ........................................................................ .............................28 VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... .............................31 A. Conclusions ............................................................................... .............................31 B. Recommendations ..................................................................... .............................32 IX. REFERENCES APPENDIX A EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS APPENDIX B TRIP GENERATION BACKUP APPENDIX C LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS APPENDIX D QUEUING ANALYSIS APPENDIX E LOS & DELAY SUMMARY TABLES i X:\2894A \TIA Report\2894A - Franklin- Reserve- TIS.doc LIST OF TABLES Table No. Page 1. Characteristics of Adjacent Streets ........................................................ ..............................6 2. Highway Capacity Manual Levels of Service and Delay ..................... .............................10 3. Proposed Land Use Trip Generation Comparison ................................ .............................14 4. Trip Distribution for Site Generated Trips ........................................... .............................15 5. 2020 Total Buildout Traffic LOS for AM, Mid -Day and PM Peak Hours 90 Second ...... 27 6. Southbound Queues Scenario Comparison ........................................... .............................29 LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Page 1. Site Location .......................................................................................... ..............................3 2. Location Map ......................................................................................... ..............................4 3. Proposed Site Concept ........................................................................... ..............................5 4. Road Profile ........................................................................................... ..............................7 5. Existing Traffic Counts — Nov 20, 2013 AM, Mid -Day, PM Peak Hour ............................9 6. 2020 Background Traffic AM, Mid -Day, PM Peak Hour .................... .............................13 7. Trip Distribution AM Mid -Day, PM Peak Hour .................................. .............................16 8. Site Generated Trips AM, Mid -Day, PM Peak Hour ........................... .............................17 9. Buildout Traffic 2020 AM, Mid -Day, PM Peak Hour ......................... .............................18 10. Lane Configuration Scenarios .............................................................. .............................20 11. Site Entrance Revised Scenario B ........................................................ .............................23 ii X:\2894A %TIA Report\2894A - Franklin- Reserve- TIS.doc I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose Timeberbrook Properties VI, LLC owns a 4.361 Acre parcel of vacant land (Tax Map No. 1040102) at the intersection of Franklin Road and Reserve Avenue in southwest Roanoke, Virginia. The parcel is currently zoned as INPUD (Institutional Planned Unit Development). Timberbrook Properties proposes to construct one of the following land uses as part of the INPUD: Medical Clinic, Professional Office, General Office, or Office Support Services. Either of the chosen land use structures will contain 46,875 S.F. of gross floor area. This Traffic Impact Analysis study report is submitted at the request of Roanoke City Transportation Department. This report summarizes the findings of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) associated with the potential impacts to the adjacent street network caused by traffic generated by the proposed land use of the property. To accomplish this objective, this study analyzes the existing (2013) traffic conditions, forecast year 2020 background traffic conditions, and lane condition scenarios with projected traffic generated by the development on the street network in year 2020. A similar TIA was performed for this intersection and a similar development proposed by Timberbrook Properties in January 2009, this TIA is independent of the January 2009 TIA. Additionally, this report incorporates trips generated as described in the "Roanoke River District Traffic Study ", prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. in January 2013, for the development currently referred to as "The Bridges" development. The trips generated by the "The Bridges" development at the intersection of Franklin Road and Reserve Avenue are incorporated into the 2020 background traffic conditions. R:\Dwgs\2894A \17A Report\2894A - Franklin- Reseme TIS.&c B. Site Location and Study Area The property lies in the west side of the intersection of Franklin Road and Reserve Avenue. Figure 1 shows an aerial view of the site. The parcel is triangular in shape and has approximately 500 feet of frontage on Franklin Road. The site is further bounded by the Norfolk Southern railroad tracks to the north and the Roanoke River to the south. See Figure 2 for a site location map. At the City's direction, this Traffic Impact Analysis considers a study area encompassing only the signalized intersection of Franklin Road and Reserve Avenue. C. Existing Land Use and Surrounding Area The parcel is zoned MUD (Industrial Planned Unit Development) and is currently vacant. In general, the property is surrounded by developed commercial and recreational (park) land uses. D. Proposed Land Use Timberbrook Properties VI, LLC proposes to construct a 46,875 S.F. building for Medical Clinic, Professional Office, General Office, or Office Support Services. Figure 3 depicts the complete proposed site development concept including the building, adjacent parking lots and site entrance location. E. Existing and Future Streets Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the streets adjacent to the development site. (The street network is illustrated on Figure 2). No future streets are planned in the immediate vicinity of the site. R:\Dwgs\2894A \TiA Report\2894A - Franklin- Reserve -TISAm 2 Mm `lam /�Ci `��;'�� ��'.w,,,, ►s�� (� c:� ! �.� �_ art s `• L gg V S a 0 I! a \ ruin�ar"aao rox WDILY LLWSpy�Q A EI .LLS \� BYfWSHM Amy pG y / s., 4' W Q c 'op m <d OONj M > 1 rOL =ZdW c t d n a 53 �Zw N u O- =y =&p g—d o= > z 2QO �Y m Q ZEZ -� ao y /LuOMA N a CL 0 i dome �u \ / ONOC N W }(/ \ Lu 6 W o hif R;5 VAR : 91 fill Ebd 3G 2� O \ 0 Erin- grN IQ a =gig �w Qge�o�� W fig# 1 "tl &M: H , 0 z �_ £¢ ° 8 '» W 3.h 6 SS «2A <�i Y WUI P Yn `j z P Q � � �yC z G �� 0 (J a J z � ry z z L mgW moo Oa � a ode ci Oda c> z> Im `� MOO v� .-1 zw2 U n L 0 O �pn by z TABLE 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF ADJACENT STREETS Roadway Number of Lanes Seed Limit Type of Road Percent of Trucks Franklin Road (NB) 4 25 mph Major Arterial 2% Franklin Road (SB) 3 25 mph Major Arterial 2% Reserve Avenue 4 25 mph Collector Road 3% * Approximate percentages of trucks are based upon 12 -hour turning movement counts performed for this study on Wednesday, November 20, 2013. F. Si¢ht Distance Traffic approaching the Franklin Road / Reserve Avenue signalized intersection and the site from the direction of downtown Roanoke (SB) traverses the Franklin Road bridge over the Norfolk Southern railroad. Due to the relatively steep downgrade approaching the intersection from the southbound direction, concern was raised regarding the stopping sight distance across the crest vertical curve on the bridge. Vehicles queueing back onto the bridge from the signal could possibly cause a safety hazard for other approaching vehicles. The sight distance at the existing Franklin Road bridge was graphically determined from the street profile measured in the field by Mattem & Craig. VDOT criteria for stopping sight distance (SSD) on crest vertical curves, based upon the proper height of eye (3.5 ft) and height of object (2.0 ft), was utilized to check the existing stopping sight distance adequacy. Based upon on the field- determined profile across the crest vertical curve, the existing SSD is approximately 175 feet (See Figure 4). According to AASHTO and VDOT standards for crest vertical curves, the minimum safe SSD is 155 feet for a 25 mph street and 200 for a 30 mph street. Once over the crest vertical curve and on the 6% downgrade, the required minimum SSD for 25 mph increases to 165 feet and to 215 feet for 30 mph running speed. Based upon the distances from the crest vertical RADwgs\2894A\T1A Report\2894A - Franklin -Rmm TTS.doc iPM' UN RMD k RESEM M, M ROAD PROFILE fWltlN[.V.1'�� ^ °� xxa S §S 5pe m curve to the current stop bar location of 435 feet, approximately six to eight cars (200') could be queued at the intersection before SSD became a safety issue. IL ANALYSIS OF EXISTING (2013) CONDITIONS A. ADT and Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Turning movement classification counts were taken at the intersection of Franklin Road and Reserve Avenue on Wednesday, November 20, 2013 from 6:30 AM to 6:30 PM. The 15- minute increment turning movement counts and summary counts are presented in Appendix A. Trucks were counted separately from autos. The counts indicate that weekday peak hour traffic occurs between 7:45 and 8:45 AM, between 11:30 and 12:30 PM Mid -Day, and between 4:45 and 5:45 PM. Figure 5 presents the results of the peak hour turning movement counts. B. Levels of Service Delay within Synchro is reported with a Level of Service (LOS) designation. Level of service is a quantitative measure of driver perception of delay (waiting time) experienced at an intersection, and LOS is based on the delay thresholds specified in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). LOS conditions range from "A" (little delay) to "F' (very long delay). Table 2 reflects the delay ranges in seconds drivers may experience for a corresponding level of service for both a signalized intersection. LOS for signalized intersections is based on control delay per vehicle. Control delay, as defined by HCM, includes initial deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay and final acceleration delay. According to this definition the minimum design acceptable delay is "D" for design purposes, particularly in a more developed area. However, LOS E may be acceptable for existing signal locations. For signalized intersections, LOS F indicates that more than one signal change cycle may be required for a driver to pass through the intersection. R:\Dwgs\2894A \TIA Report\2894A - Franklin -Re me T[S.dw 8 Lamad ■ Slgnollzeo Interswflon f\ae eI \a y2 ?Po e y k \� or 2 ....................... yyy �J> 9 7:45 - 8:45 AM PEAK HR. 11:30 - 12:30 MID -DAY PEAK HR. 4:45 - 5:45 PM PEAK HR. FRANKLIN ROAD & RESERVE AVENUE TIA ROANOKE, VIRGINIA EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS NOV. 20, 2013 AM, MID -DAY, PM PEAK HOUR MWM.Na Rr5 F/WR£ 5 ZMA TABLE 2 LEVELS OF SERVICE AND DELAY SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Average Control Level of Delay Per Vehicle Service (Seconds) A 0 -10 B 10 -20 C 20 -35 D 35 -55 E 55 -80 F >80 Synchro traffic software was used to analyze the signalized intersection in this report. SimTraffic simulation software was used in conjunction with Synchro to further analyze vehicle queuing results. The procedures used by Synchro and SimTraffic are in accordance with the methodologies stated in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) for intersection analysis. Analysis results for signalized intersections provide level of service calculations for all approaches as well as an overall intersection level of service. In this study, level of service is the basis for the evaluation of existing and background traffic conditions and the impacts of the traffic generated by the proposed site development at full buildout on the existing roadway network. C. Level of Service Analysis For the existing (2013) conditions, LOS analyses were performed at the existing intersection. In accordance with HCM 2010 parameters, actual peak hour factors (PHF), and percent trucks were utilized to determine the peak hour levels of service. Appendix E presents the LOS operations and delay for the three existing peak hours at the intersection for all applicable traffic movements as well as the overall LOS for R:\Dwgs\2894A \M Repw\2894A - Franklin- Reserve -rnsdm 10 Luffil ■ Slgnonzed Wersed1w 50 tsNaP np pP 13 AM PEAK HR. MID -DAY PEAK HR. PM PEAK HR. FRANKLIN ROAD & RESERVE AVENUE TIA ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 2020 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC AM, MID -DAY, PM PEAK HOUR cavu'NO' ATS FWRE 6 2894A TABLE 3 PROPOSED LAND USE TRIP GENERATAION COMPARISON Service Type ITE Trip Ends AM Peak Hour MID-DAY Peak PM Peak Hour Code Per Day (vph) Hour(vph) (vph) Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit (vpd) (Medical Clinic) Medical- Dental Office Building 720 1702 92 24 112 57 47 128 46,875 SF Total Trips 116 169 175 General Office Building 710 744 90 12 22 109 46,875 SF Total Trips 102 - 131 The PTE Trip Generation Manual does not provide Mid -day trip generation rates for the General Office land use. As seen in Table 3, General Office land use generates less trips for both the AM and PM peak hours than the Medical- Dental Office (Medical Clinic) land use, it can be logically concluded that the General Office land use would generate less trips in the Mid -day peak hour as well. Comparing the two land uses, it is clear that the Medical- Dental Office (Medical Clinic) land use generates the greater number of trips in all of the analysis periods considered. The following analyses will consider only the proposed development with the Medical-Dental Office (Medical Clinic) land use. Either of the potential land uses will have less impact on the signalized intersection operations than the Medical -Dental Office (Medical Clinic) land use. Appendix B provides calculations and backup for trip volumes generated by the site. R:\Dwgs\2894A \TIA Report\2894A - Franklin- Reseme TIS.dx 14 V. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The distribution of trips onto the existing street network was evaluated using the existing traffic counts taken in November 2013. Upon concurrence with City Traffic Engineering, the directional distribution percentages of vehicle trips ingressing and egressing the site and the assignment of these trips on the existing street network at the site are depicted on Figure 7. The site trip volumes are distributed at the existing intersection based on the percentages of the existing traffic shown on Table 4 for each peak hour. TABLE 4 TRIP DISTRIBTION FOR SITE GENERATED TRIPS Street Entering From Exiting To AM MID PM AM MID I PM Reserve Avenue 20% 15% 25% 20% 15% 25% NB Franklin Road 60% 50% 40% 20% 35% 40% SB Franklin Road 20% 35% 35% 60% 50% 35% The resulting trip distribution of site generated trip volumes is depicted on Figure S. VI. FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH FULL DEVELOPMENT BUILDOUT The 2020 total projected traffic volumes (full buildout of the development) were determined by adding the Site - Generated traffic volumes to the 2020 Background traffic volumes. The resulting Buildout Traffic volumes for 2020 are shown in Figure 9. The proposed site lies between two major bridge structures on Franklin Road; one over the Roanoke River, the other over the Norfolk Southern railroad. With these physical constraints, practical improvements to the intersection cannot include the addition of through lanes on Franklin Road. Therefore, the primary alternatives (scenarios) for improvements to the intersection include reconfiguration of the lane striping on existing pavement and the possible addition of a right turn lane into the site on southbound Franklin Road. RADwgs\2894A \T1A Report\2894A - Franklin- ReseNe TIS.dx 15 16 SITE '•. • ' ��i.R Vii. AM PEAK HR. `'•, e�aEp SITE - -► •, '' �P /�y� w� V F,o MID -DAY PEAK HR. SITE —� '•. •' �a. ,, //�5�. \aV' �'•B �� 2s� Wpb PM PEAK HR. FRANKLIN ROAD & RESERVE AVENUE TIA ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Slgwllzed lMerswtfw TRIP DISTRIBUTION AM, MID -DAY, PM PEAK HOUR N• "X � Nrs FlWRE 7 16 SITE xB /// Pd• � •9'e �pn �0 56 AM Total Stla generated trips -116 vph Enter - 92 vph Exit - 24 vph SITE 0 Fro � Mld -Day Total 5/lef,enerated trips - 169 vph Enter - 112 vph Exlf - 57 vph SITE - ► /\6 . F� �g PM Total SlY&13w rdled trips -175 vph Enter - 47 vph Exlt -128 vph t Sigwtlzed IntersectIm 17 AM PEAK HR. MID -DAY PEAK HR. PM PEAK HR. FRANKLIN ROAD & RESERVE AVENUE TIA ROANOKE, VIRGINIA SITE GENERATED TRIPS AM, MID -DAY, PM PEAK HOUR Nr5 I FWY/RE 8 P894A i . WE e. F cfi 5 SITE �' n� ig SITE - -► tQMW ■ Slgwllza> lf*r6wtf R 's s 9 18 AM PEAK HR. MID -DAY PEAK HR. PM PEAK HR. FRANKLIN ROAD & RESERVE AVENUE TIA ROANOKE, VIRGINIA BUILDOUT TRAFFIC 2020 AM, MID -DAY, PM PEAK HOUR 2894A I Rr5 I FWRE 9 2awa Several lane configuration scenarios were evaluated in the study process, all of which include the addition of the proposed site entrance and the appropriate lane striping modifications in the existing intersection approaches. All lane reconfiguration scenarios evaluated use the same lane assignments for traffic exiting the proposed development: a separate left turn lane and a shared through and right turn lane. These scenarios are described briefly below. All scenarios considered in the 2020 Buildout phase are the same as those considered in the original January 2009 Traffic Impact Analysis for this intersection and the proposed development location. A. Scenario 1: Existing Lane Configuration Scenario 1 involves the total Buildout traffic applied to the existing lane striping configuration, the addition of the site entrance at the intersection and the addition of entering and exiting trip movements to the site. The turning movements into the site were added as a shared through and left turn lane northbound on Franklin Road, a shared through and right turn lane southbound on Franklin Road and a shared through and right turn lane on Reserve Avenue. A depiction of the lane configuration for Scenario 1 can be seen on Figure 10. B. Scenario 2: New Lane Configuration A large portion of the site development traffic is anticipated to enter and exit from the south via Franklin Road. Therefore, the northbound left turn traffic desirably would have a separate left turn lane at the intersection and the approach would then require three northbound lanes (See Scenario 2 on Figure 10). This results in only one lane available for southbound through traffic. With this scenario, the southbound approach would have a separate left turn lane and a shared through and right turn lane. R:\1)wgs\2894A\TTA Report%2894A - Franklin- Reserve- TIS.dm 19 e��o SITE ► �n Pg/ U EXISTING AND BACKGROUND CONDITIONS F SCENARIO 2 f SCENARIO 4 e� a� SCENARIO I ..�\� c1Q Pg• F SCENARIO 3 0\a� e (f fig/ ��• , SCENARIO A 0�\acp RP' FRANKLIN ROAD & RESERVE AVENUE TIA ROANOKE, VIRGINIA LANE CONFIGURATION SCENARIOS SCENARIO B �A'� MI5 fGURE q 20 The Scenario 2 concept results in all southbound through traffic approaching from the direction of Downtown Roanoke utilizing only the existing outside lane. Through traffic is over 70% of the total traffic in all three peak hours on the southbound approach. Therefore, queueing all vehicles in one lane when stopped at the signal raises concerns about the anticipated length of the vehicle queue. The bridge over the railroad has relatively steep grades and a crest vertical curve approaching from the north. The adequacy of the stopping sight distance over this crest vertical curve and the potential for the vehicle queue to be just beyond the crest on the bridge were investigated. The results of this investigation were discussed previously in the Introduction section of this study. See also Queuing Analysis section and Appendix D. C. Scenario 3: New Southbound Right Lane The intersection layout for this scenario consists of the same restriping configuration as Scenario 2 plus a new southbound right turn lane exclusively for the traffic entering the site. The addition of this exclusive right lane will involve construction on existing Franklin Road south of the bridge over the railroad. The existing intersection conditions provide approximately 165 feet from the existing southbound stop bar to the bridge. See Figure 10 for Scenario 3 lane configuration. D. Scenario 4• Existing Lane Configuration Plus Southbound Right Turn Scenario 4 is the same as Scenario 1 with the addition of the southbound right turn lane discussed under Scenario 3. See Figure 10 for Scenario 4 lane configuration. E. Scenario A• Shared Northbound Through and Right Turn Lane with Reserve Avenue Dual Left Turn Lanes RADwgs\2894A \T1A Report\2894A - Franklin- Reserve- T1S.doc 21 Scenario A retains the two southbound through lanes analyzed in Scenarios 1 and 4. However, the northbound approach is restriped to provide a separate left turn lane into the site and a shared through and right turn lane. See Figure 10 for the resulting Scenario A lane configuration. Noting that in all previously investigated scenarios the large left turn volume from Reserve Avenue required a significant amount of green time, the City suggested analyzing westbound dual left turn lanes from Reserve Avenue. With this scenario, Reserve Avenue would be restriped to provide four lanes: one eastbound lane, the westbound dual left turn lanes and a westbound shared through and right turn lane. The restriping of Reserve Avenue to provide the dual left turn lanes will require the construction of wider lanes on Franklin Road to receive the left turning traffic. This additional width would require minor construction of additional pavement between the proposed site entrance and the bridge over the Roanoke River. The wider lanes would taper back to the existing pavement width prior to the bridge and would meet VDOT's minimum length criteria for such a taper. F. Scenario B: Reserve Avenue Dual Left Turn Lanes Scenario A lane configuration resulted in undesirable queue lengths on the northbound approach in the shared through and right turn lane in all three peak hours analyzed. To alleviate this condition for the major northbound traffic volume, Scenario B provides a shared through and left tam lane and a separate right turn lane. See Figure 10 for Scenario B lane configuration. This allows the significant right turn volume to operate with the other Franklin Road traffic signal phases and with the Reserve Avenue dual left turn phase as well. With the signal operating with permissive phasing on Franklin Road and the configuration noted above, Scenario B provides very acceptable levels of service and lengths of queues. See Figure 11 for a R:\nwgs\2894A \TTA Report\2894A - Franklin- Reserve -TTS.dm 22 i il1 .r ���_ .. , �� �� � ���� .. � �.��a �, i,������ �� �� _ ,,, �� '' ':w � 4� a �,� ��� � i � � 5 ,, ,�� , \. �y,,. � - ... i" .. �� ,.�:; ,� �,� A �. 1 � � • �"AJ�" • � i� ��'� Ai% � i �.� . 1 � ` �►� ,; � , , - ;. .- �� � ��� �� r �_�_ �•- ��� � '�' ��� � N � � i �\ % � r `.+ // � I / �� ' ji //. � � % 9 1 .y�, layout of the preliminary site entrance, westbound dual left turn lanes on Reserve Avenue and Scenario B northbound approach lane configuration. G. Levels of Service Appendix E presents the LOS operations and delay for the three existing peak hours at the intersection for all lane configuration scenarios and for all applicable traffic movements as well as the overall LOS for the intersection at each scenario. Appendix E provides summarized LOS and delay results for optimized traffic signal cycle lengths and summarized LOS and delay results with all 2020 Buildout scenarios' traffic cycle lengths equal to 90 seconds. All scenarios were analyzed using 90 second cycle lengths, which are typical in the City of Roanoke, as a method to compare LOS and delay between scenarios. The Synchro report for Level of Service Analysis for the 2020 Buildout scenarios is included in Appendix C for the three peak hours. Below is an analysis of each 2020 Buildout scenario with 90 second cycle lengths as compared to the 2013 Existing conditions. 1. Scenario 1 Levels of Service remains acceptable for all movements for each peak hour period with the exception of the PM westbound left which experiences a LOS E. The westbound left traffic movement experiences LOS C in the 2013 Existing conditions with a delay time of 30.9 seconds; 2020 Buildout Scenario 1 conditions yield a delay time of 62.7 seconds. Trips exiting the site (eastbound left, through, and right) experience LOS D in all peak hours. Trips entering the site (westbound through, northbound left, and southbound right) experience acceptable LOS in all peak hours. R:\Dwgs\2894A \77A Repo t\2894A - Franklin- Reserve -TTS.dm 24 2. Scenario 2 Levels of Service is acceptable for all movements for the AM and Mid -Day peak hours. The overall LOS is F during the PM peak hour. The 2013 Existing PM peak hour over LOS is B. The large volume of southbound through traffic constricted to one lane in combination with the large volume of westbound left traffic contributes to the poor LOS during the PM peak hour. Trips exiting the site (eastbound left, through, and right) experience LOS D in all peak hours with the exception of LOS E for the eastbound left in the PM peak hour. Trips entering the site (westbound through, northbound left, and southbound right) experience acceptable LOS in all peak hours. 3. Scenario 3 The LOS analysis for this scenario indicates insignificant changes result as compared to Scenario 2. The constriction of southbound through traffic causes poor LOS in the PM peak hour. 4. Scenario 4 The LOS analysis indicates no significant changes as compared to Scenario 1. 5. Scenario A This scenario requires dual left turn lanes on the Reserve Avenue approach and reconfigures the northbound approach to include a through and right turn lane and a separate left turn lane. This configuration results in poor LOS in the AM and PM peak hours as compared to the 2013 Existing conditions. The northbound shared through and right turn lane takes so much signal green time to clear the major traffic volume that there are insignificant improvements in LOS for other traffic movements. R:\Dwgs\2894A \TIA RepoR\2894A - Franklin- Reserve- TIS.dm 25 6. Scenario B This scenario balances the critical movements better than all other scenarios. The overall intersection LOS in all three peak hours in acceptable. Trips exiting the site (eastbound left, through, and right) experience LOS D in all peak hours with the exception of LOS C for the eastbound through and eastbound right in the PM peak hour. Trips entering the site (westbound through, northbound left, and southbound right) experience acceptable LOS in all peak hours. Table 5 presents a LOS summary of the three best performing Scenarios: Scenario 1, Scenario 4, and Scenario B. Table 6 in the Queuing Analysis section presents the 95`s percentile queue length for the critical southbound approach for these three Scenarios. Note the LOS E in the PM peak hour for the westbound left movement in Scenario 1 and Scenario 4; Scenario B experiences a LOS C for this movement at the same peak hour. R:Owgs\2894A \TTA Report\2894A - Franklin -Reser TIS.dm 26 TABLE 5 2020 TOTAL BUILDOUT TRAFFIC LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR AM, MID-DAY AND PM PEAK HOURS (SELECTED SCENARIOS ONLY — 90 SECOND CYCLE LENGTHS) Scenario 1 EB WB NB SB LT TH/RT LT TH/RT TH/LT RT LT/TH/RT Franklin Road & AM D D D C C A B Reserve Avenue MID D D D B C A B PM D D E B C A D Scenario 4 EB WB NB SB LT TH/RT LT TH/RT RT TH/LT RT Franklin Road & AM D D D C A B A Reserve Avenue MID D D D B EC A B B PM D D E B A D B Scenario B EB WB NB SB LT TH/RT LT TH/RT LT/TH RT LTTH/RT Franklin Road & AM D D C C B A A Reserve Avenue MID D D D C B A B PM D C C C C A B R.\Dwgs\2894A \TV+ Report\2894A - Franklin -Reser TIS.dm 27 VII. QUEUEING ANALYSIS Queue lengths associated with the existing, 2020 Background, and the Timberbrook Properties' development full Buildout traffic were analyzed. The 95s' percentile queueing for each development scenario was compared with the queueing resulting from existing and 2020 Background traffic volumes on Franklin Road and Reserve Avenue. Synchro 8 and SimTraffic computer software were used to determine the results for the 951 percentile queueing length. Special attention was given to the queue storage available and the queueing length for the scenarios listed in Table 5 and the 2013 Existing and 2020 Background (for comparison), particularly on the southbound approach due to the sight distance issues associated with the Franklin Road bridge over the railroad. The distance from the stop bar at the intersection to the crest of the bridge is approximately 435 feet; however, keeping queueing length to a minimum on the southbound approach was a primary objective of the study analysis and was considered in arriving at a recommended scenario for implementation. Table 6 presents the results for each analysis period's southbound approach with the 90 second cycle lengths in the Buildout Scenarios. Appendix D provides SimTraffic Queuing information reports for each analysis period. The reports are derived from a multiple run analysis of 10 runs. The time period for the runs used one 3 minute seeding period and four 15- minute analysis periods. The above noted methods of analysis are recommended by the current VDOT Traffic Operation Analysis Tool Guidebook. X:\2894A\TIA Repoct12894A - Franklin- Reserve- TIS.dm 28 Table 6 — Southbound Queues Scenario Comparison Scenario Peak Hour Movement 95th Percentile Queue Length (ft) 2013 Existing AM SBLT 199 SBT 154 Mid -Day SBLT 161 SBT 118 PM SBLT 209 SBT 177 2020 Background AM SBLT 238 SBT 195 Mid -Day SBLT 163 SBT 122 PM SBLT 219 SBT 196 2020 Buildout Scenario 1 AM SBLT 173 SBTR 119 Mid -Day SBLT 172 SBTR 132 PM SBLT 287 SBTR 254 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 AM SBLT 283 SBT 255 SBR 47 Mid -Day SBLT 178 SBT 160 SBR 39 PM SBLT 328 SBT 285 R:\Dwgs\2894A \17A Reporl\2894A - Franklin - Reserve- TIS.dm 29 None of the buildout scenarios or the 2013 Existing or 2020 Background southbound queue lengths are less than 200 feet in all peak hours. Scenarios 1 and 4 yield excessive queue lengths in the PM peak hour as compared to Scenario B. For Scenario 1, this can be attributed to the green time necessary for the westbound left movement. For Scenario 4, this can be attributed to blocking by southbound through traffic to the southbound right tam lane as well as green time required for the westbound left movement. Scenario B includes a maximum southbound queue length of 250 feet; this is the shortest southbound queue length of all the scenarios considered. R:\Dwgs\2894A \TIA Repmt\2894A - Franklin- Reserve -TTS.dm 30 .d SBR 103 2020 Buildout Scenario B AM SBLT 250 SBTR 201 Mid -Day SBLT 157 SBTR 123 PM SBLT 232 SBTR 196 None of the buildout scenarios or the 2013 Existing or 2020 Background southbound queue lengths are less than 200 feet in all peak hours. Scenarios 1 and 4 yield excessive queue lengths in the PM peak hour as compared to Scenario B. For Scenario 1, this can be attributed to the green time necessary for the westbound left movement. For Scenario 4, this can be attributed to blocking by southbound through traffic to the southbound right tam lane as well as green time required for the westbound left movement. Scenario B includes a maximum southbound queue length of 250 feet; this is the shortest southbound queue length of all the scenarios considered. R:\Dwgs\2894A \TIA Repmt\2894A - Franklin- Reserve -TTS.dm 30 .d VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Conclusions This study presents the appropriate existing traffic volume data, trip generation information, future traffic projections, level of service and queueing analyses for the proposed development at the Franklin Road and Reserve Avenue intersection to allow the City to evaluate the impacts of this development on the existing street network. The total traffic moving through the intersection in the critical (PM) peak of the Buildout year (2020) is anticipated to be approximately 2085 vph. The expected LOS without development in 2020 (2020 Background) is LOS C or better, generally LOS B. The fully built out development will only add approximately 8% (175 vph) to the intersection. The primary impact will be to add a fourth approach to the existing signalized T- intersection for the site entrance. Adding the entrance approach will require additional signal riming phases to accommodate the additional traffic movements and increasing overall cycle length. The existing signal equipment will require modification to accommodate the additional movements and phases, primarily by adding additional signal heads and retiming the controller. Several scenarios for modifying the lane configurations were analyzed to determine the best alternative for accommodating the new development while maintaining acceptable levels of service. The LOS results described in Section VI and the Queuing Analysis described in Section VII clearly show that the Scenario B configuration results in the most acceptable intersection LOS in all peak hours and demonstrates the best situation for potential stopping sight distance issues in regards to queue length on the southbound approach as compared to all other Scenarios. Based on three phase, 90 second cycle length, Scenario B provides overall intersection LOS C or better operation in the 2020 Buildout year. Scenario 1 results in the next best configuration, however the potential southbound approach queue length of 287 feet causes concern in regards to stopping sight distance from the crest X:\2894A \TIA Report\2894A - Franklin -Reser TTSAoc 31 of the existing railroad bridge. Scenario B requires a minor geometric improvement as it proposes westbound dual left turn lanes from Reserve Avenue. Widening of the receiving lanes on the southbound lanes of Franklin Road is required. These improvements would be made along the front of the proposed development site. This improvement will reduce the lengths of queues anticipated significantly when evaluated and compared against Scenario 1 with equal 90 second cycle lengths. (See Figure 11 for a conceptual drawing of the analyzed geometric improvements, revised land configurations and new site entrance). In summary, the new development can be adequately accommodated with the noted signal modifications and geometric improvements at acceptable levels of service, based upon the projected Buildout traffic for a Medical Clinic. It should be noted that the Professional Office, General Office, and Office Support Services land uses will generate less trips in the AM, Mid -Day, and PM peak hours than the Medical Clinic land use. Therefore, the traffic operations (LOS and control delay) at the intersection will be considerable better than indicated by the analyses in this study should either of these two land uses be selected for development. B. Recommendations 1. Construct new site development entrance generally in accordance with Figure 11 providing one entrance lane and two exit lanes, one separate left turn lane and shared through and right turn exit lane. 2. Construct southbound Franklin Road widened pavement taper to accommodate the proposed dual left turn lane from Reserve Avenue. This geometric modification will require new curb, gutter and sidewalk and X:\2894A \17A Report\2894A - Fmnklin -Re e m T7S.doc 32 relocation of an existing drop inlet, as depicted on Figure 11. The final design of this street improvement will be determined during the site plan review process. 3. Modify the existing traffic signal equipment to provide new signal heads for the site development entrance. This modification will require new span wire over Reserve Avenue. Also, the signal pole on the southwest corner of the intersection in front of the site will need to be relocated to accommodate the new entrance and geometric improvements. 4. Retime traffic signal to accommodate the reconfigured lane striping and geometric improvements. For the initial signal timing utilize the Synchro analysis for Scenario B and a 90 second cycle length. Field adjustments in the timing may be required to more efficiently accommodate the traffic volumes at the time of initial operations. 5. Restripe existing Franklin Road and Reserve Avenue generally in accordance with Figure 11 to provide new stop bar locations and the dual left turn lanes on Reserve Avenue. The dual left turn lanes should be striped a minimum of 300 feet in length plus proper transition length. Provide lane usage arrows in all lanes. The final design of lane restriping will be determined during the site plan review process. X.\2894A \TTA Report\2894A - Franklin- Reserve- TTS.dm 33 I" 1. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual 2010. 2. Federal Highway Administration. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, MUTCD, 2003 Edition. 3. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual 7s' Edition. Volume 2, 2003. 4. Virginia Department of Transportation. Road Design Manual. Volume 1 5. Virginia Department of Transportation. Traffic Operations Analysis Tool Guidebook. Volume 1 6. Traffic Study for Roanoke River District by Balzer & Associates. January 21, 2013. 7. Traffic Impact Analysis for Franklin Road/Reserve Avenue Commercial Development by Mattem & Craig. January, 2009. 34 R:\Dwgs\2894A \TTA Report\2894A - Franklin- Reseme TIS.doc APPENDIX A Existing Traffic Counts 35 PASSENGER VEHICLE TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by: VCU ) Intersection of: and: Franklin Road Reserve Avenue Date: Weather: November 20, 2013 Fair, Cold Day: Wednesday !b Location: City of Roanoke, VA Entered by: AG TRAFFIC FROM NORTH TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH TRAFFIC FROM EAST TRAFFIC FROM WEST TOTAL on: Franklin Road on: Franklin Road on: Reserve Avenue on NIA N ♦ S TIME RIGHT THRU LEFT U -TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U -TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT -U-TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL E h W AM 6:30 -6:45 18 5 0 23 34 31 0 65 2 17 0 19 0 107 6:457:00 24 5 0 29 33 53 0 86 2 18 0 20 0 135 7:00 -7:15 39 5 0 44 50 47 0 97 7 25 0 32 0 173 7:15 -7:30 46 7 0 53 65 81 0 146 10 38 0 48 0 247 7:30 -7:45 52 10 0 62 105 95 0 200 4 52 0 56 0 318 7:45 -8:00 44 24 0 68 150 119 0 269 7 54 0 61 0 398 8:00 -6:15 47 10 0 57 128 105 0 233 11 61 0 72 0 362 8:15 -8:30 55 8 0 63 122 135 0 257 4 46 0 50 0 370 8:30 -8:45 43 9 0 52 112 111 0 223 9 48 0 57 0 332 8:45 -9:00 58 8 0 66 88 100 0 188 6 65 0 71 0 325 9:00 -9:15 53 9 0 62 61 71 0 132 2 46 0 48 0 242 9:159:30 52 4 0 56 59 75 0 134 4 35 0 39 0 229 9:30 -9:45 60 10 0 70 54 85 0 139 3 44 0 47 0 256 9:45 -10:00 57 7 0 64 45 153 0 108 9 48 0 57 0 229 10:00 -10:15 67 6 0 73 42 80 0 122 5 44 0 49 0 244 10:1510:30 47 6 0 53 47 65 0 112 6 50 0 56 0 221 10:30 - 10:45 66 6 1 73 46 64 0 110 1 46 0 47 0 230 10:4511:00 58 5 0 63 57 60 0 117 8 71 0 79 0 259 1100 -11:15 63 9 0 72 48 57 0 105 9 55 0 64 0 241 11:1511:30 59 2 0 61 43 68 0 111 5 63 0 68 0 240 1130 -11:45 100 2 0 102 51 86 0 137 13 67 0 80 0 319 11:45- 12:00 99 6 0 105 52 112 0 164 5 67 0 72 0 341 12:00 -12:15 122 3 0 125 63 88 0 151 4 93 0 97 0 373 12:1512:30 82 3 0 85 73 93 0 166 9 63 0 72 0 323 12:30 -12:45 94 4 0 98 76 86 0 162 5 51 0 56 0 316 12:451:00 78 6 0 84 68 130 0 198 7 57 0 64 0 346 1:00 -1:15 102 5 0 107 63 113 0 176 7 55 0 62 0 345 1:15 -1:30 78 6 0 84 78 84 0 162 7 63 0 70 0 316 1:30 -1:45 80 7 0 87 60 112 0 172 6 59 0 65 0 324 1:452:00 89 10 0 99 57 92 0 149 9 37 0 46 0 294 2:00 -2:15 75 6 0 81 51 93 0 144 5 61 0 66 0 291 2:15 -2:30 71 5 0 76 63 105 0 168 5 44 0 49 0 293 2:30 -2:45 59 4 0 63 69 83 0 152 6 50 0 56 0 271 2:453:00 81 8 0 89 64 82 0 146 7 79 0 86 0 321 3:00 -3:15 91 3 0 94 56 79 0 135 7 83 0 90 0 319 3:153:30 59 2 0 61 49 76 0 125 10 80 0 90 0 276 3:30 -3:45 80 8 0 88 61 73 0 134 5 76 0 81 0 303 3:454:00 72 6 0 78 68 96 0 164 10 90 0 100 0 342 4:00 -4:15 109 8 0 117 63 74 0 137 9 83 0 92 0 346 4:15-4:30 98 10 0 108 65 75 0 140 15 83 0 98 0 346 4:30 -4:45 97 11 0 108 53 96 0 149 14 98 0 112 0 369 445 -5:00 125 3 0 128 61 77 0 138 15 136 -0 151 0 417 5:00 -5:15 145 9 0 154 65 78 0 143 17 147 0 164 0 461 5:155:30 152 8 0 160 74 95 0 169 14 139 0 153 0 482 5:30 -5:45 130 12 0 142 63 97 0 160 11 74 0 85 0 387 5:45-6:00 101 9 0 110 53 76 0 129 4 73 0 77 0 316 6:00 -6:15 93 12 0 105 53 65 0 118 10 58 0 68 0 291 6:15-6:30 47 7 0 54 37 77 0 114 11 47 0 58 0 226 12 Hr Totals 0 66 4 0 3956 41 67 0 7156 10 30 0 3400 0 0 0 0 0 1 14512 36 PASSENGER VEHICLE TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by: VCU Intersection of: and: Franklin Road Reserve Avenue Date: Weather: November 20, Fair, COItl 2013 Day: We ,/� ,IN/ Location: City of Roanoke., VA Entered by: AG l /0(� TRAFFIC FROM NORTH TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH TRAFFIC FROM EAST TRAFFIC FROM WEST TOTAL on: Franklin Road on: Franklin Road on: Reserve Avenue on: NIA N ♦ S TIME RIGHT THRU LEFT U -TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U -TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U -TH TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U -TN TOTAL E •W 1 Hr Totals 6:30 -7:30 0 127 22 0 149 182 212 0 0 394 21 0 98 0 119 0 0 0 0 0 662 6:45 -7:45 0 161 27 0 188 253 276 0 0 529 23 0 133 0 156 0 0 0 0 0 873 7:00$:00 0 181 46 0 227 370 342 0 0 712 28 0 169 0 197 0 0 0 0 0 1136 7:153:15 0 189 51 0 240 448 400 0 0 848 32 0 205 0 237 0 0 0 0 0 1325 7:30 -8:30 0 198 52 0 250 505 454 0 0 959 26 0 213 0 239 0 0 0 0 0 1448 7:458:45 0 189 51 0 240 512 470 0 0 982 31 0 209 0 240 0 0 0 0 0 1462 8:00 -9:00 0 203 35 0 238 450 451 0 0 901 30 0 220 0 250 0 0 0 0 0 1389 8:159:15 0 209 34 0 243 383 417 0 0 800 21 0 205 0 226 0 0 0 0 0 1269 8:30 -9:30 0 206 30 0 236 320 357 0 0 677 21 0 194 0 215 0 0 0 0 0 1128 8:459:45 0 223 31 0 254 262 331 0 0 593 15 0 190 0 205 0 0 0 0 0 1052 9:00 -10:00 0 222 30 0 252 219 294 0 0 513 18 0 173 0 191 0 0 0 0 0 956 9:1510:15 0 236 27 0 263 200 303 0 0 503 21 0 171 0 192 0 0 0 0 0 958 9:30 -10:30 0 231 29 0 260 188 293 0 0 481 23 0 186 0 209 0 0 0 0 0 950 9:45 -10:45 0 237 25 1 263 180 272 0 0 452 21 0 188 0 209 0 0 0 0 0 924 10:00 -11:00 0 238 23 1 262 192 269 0 0 461 20 0 211 0 231 0 0 0 0 0 954 101511:15 0 234 26 1 261 198 246 0 0 444 24 0 222 0 246 0 0 0 0 0 951 10:30 -11:30 0 246 22 1 269 194 249 0 0 443 23 0 235 0 258 0 0 0 0 0 970 10:4511:45 0 280 18 0 298 199 271 0 0 470 35 0 256 0 291 0 0 0 0 0 1059 11:00 -12:00 0 321 19 0 340 194 323 0 0 517 32 0 252 0 284 0 0 0 0 0 1141 11:1512:15 0 380 13 0 393 209 354 0 0 563 27 0 290 0 317 0 0 0 0 0 1273 11:30 -12:30 0 403 14 0 417 239 379 0 0 618 31 0 290 0 321 0 0 0 0 0 1356 11:4512:45 0 397 16 0 413 264 379 0 0 643 23 0 274 0 297 0 0 0 0 0 1353 12:00 -1:00 0 376 16 0 392 280 397 0 0 677 25 0 264 0 289 0 0 0 0 0 1358 12:151:15 0 356 18 0 374 280 422 0 0 702 28 0 226 0 254 0 0 0 0 0 1330 12:30 -1:30 0 352 21 0 373 285 413 0 0 698 26 0 226 0 252 0 0 0 0 0 1323 12:451:45 0 338 24 0 362 269 439 0 0 708 27 0 234 0 261 0 0 0 0 0 1331 1:00 -2:00 0 349 28 0 377 258 401 0 0 659 29 0 214 0 243 0 0 0 0 0 1279 1:152:15 0 322 29 0 351 246 381 0 0 627 27 0 220 0 247 0 0 0 0 0 1225 1:30 -2:30 0 315 28 0 343 231 402 0 0 633 25 0 201 0 226 0 0 0 0 0 1202 1:452:45 0 294 25 0 319 240 373 0 0 613 25 0 192 0 217 0 0 0 0 0 1149 2:003:00 0 286 23 0 309 247 363 0 0 610 23 0 234 0 257 0 0 0 0 0 1176 2:153:15 0 302 20 0 322 252 349 0 0 601 25 0 256 0 281 0 0 0 0 0 1204 2:303:30 0 290 17 0 307 238 320 0 0 558 30 0 292 0 322 0 0 0 0 0 1187 2:453:45 0 311 21 0 332 230 310 0 0 540 29 0 318 0 347 0 0 0 0 0 1219 3:00-4:00 0 302 19 0 321 234 324 0 0 558 32 0 329 0 361 0 0 0 0 0 1240 3:15-4:15 0 320 24 0 344 241 319 0 0 560 34 0 329 0 363 0 0 0 0 0 1267 3:304:30 0 359 32 0 391 257 318 0 0 575 39 0 332 0 371 0 0 0 0 0 1337 3:454:45 0 376 35 0 411 249 341 0 0 590 48 0 354 0 402 0 0 0 0 0 1403 4:00-6:00 0 429 32 0 461 242 322 0 0 564 53 0 400 0 453 0 0 0 0 0 1478 4:155:15 0 465 33 0 498 244 326 0 0 570 61 0 464 0 525 0 0 0 0 0 1593 4:305:30 0 519 31 0 550 253 346 0 0 599 60 0 520 0 580 0 0 0 0 0 1729 4:455:45 0 552 32 0 584 263 347 0 0 610 57 0 496 0 553 0 0 0 0 0 1747 5:005:00 0 528 38 0 566 255 346 0 0 801 46 0 433 0 479 0 0 0 0 0 1646 5:15$:15 0 476 41 0 517 243 333 0 0 576 39 0 344 0 383 0 0 0 0 0 1476 5:308:30 0 371 40 0 411 206 315 0 0 521 36 0 252 0 288 0 0 0 0 0 1220 PFAK HOUR 1 7:45-0:45 0 189 51 0 240 512 470 0 0 982 1 31 0 209 0 2 0 0 0 0 1482 :45-5:45 552 3 4 0 57 5 0 0 1747 37 TRUCK TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by: VCU /J Intersection of: Franklin Road Date: November 20, 2013 Day: Wednesday {ar and: Reserve Avenue Weather: Fair. Cold Location: Cry of Roanoke., VA Entered by: AG TRAFFIC FROM NORTH TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH TRAFFIC FROM EAST TRAFFIC FROM WEST TOTAL on: Franklin Road on: Franklin Road on: Reserve Avenue on: NIA N+S TIME RIGHT TXRU LEFT U -TN TOTAL RIGHT TXRU LEFT U -TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U -TN TOTK RIGHT TXRU LEFT U-TN TO AL E.W AM 6:30-6:45 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6:45 -7:00 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 4 7:00 -7:15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 7:15 -7:30 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 5 7:30 -7:45 2 1 0 3 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 7 7:45 -8:00 2 1 0 3 1 1 0 2 0 6 0 6 0 11 8:00 -8:15 4 0 0 4 5 2 0 7 0 5 0 5 0 16 8:15 -8:30 2 0 0 2 3 3 0 6 0 4 0 4 0 12 8:30 -8:45 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 3 1 2 0 3 0 7 8:45 -9:00 4 0 0 4 2 1 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 9 9:00 -9:15 3 0 0 3 6 2 0 8 0 3 0 3 0 14 9:15-9:30 4 1 0 5 2 3 0 5 2 2 0 4 0 14 9:30 -9:45 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 5 9:45 -10:00 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 5 10:00 -10:15 1 0 0 1 3 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 10:15 -10:30 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 6 10:30 -10:45 1 0 0 1 3 1 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 6 10:45 -11:00 2 1 0 3 3 1 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 8 11:00 -11:15 1 0 0 1 4 1 0 5 0 3 0 3 0 9 11:15 -11:30 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 7 11:30 -11:45 2 0 0 2 4 2 0 6 0 4 0 4 0 12 11:45.12:00 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 4 0 6 12:00 -12:15 3 0 0 3 2 1 0 3 1 3 0 4 0 10 12:15 -12:30 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 6 12:30 -12:45 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 4 0 5 12:45 -1:00 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 4 1:00 -1:15 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 1:15 -1:30 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 5 0 5 0 9 1:30 -1:45 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 4 1:45 -2:00 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 6 2:00 -2:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2:15 -2:30 3 2 0 5 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 2:30 -2:45 2 2 0 4 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 8 2:45 -3:00 1 0 0 1 3 4 0 7 1 3 0 4 0 12 3:00,115 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 5 3:15 -3:30 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 6 3:30 -3:45 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 5 3:45 -4:00 3 0 0 3 2 3 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 9 4:00 -4:15 3 0 0 3 2 2 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 9 4:15.4:30 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 6 4:30 4:45 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 4:45 -5:00 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:00515 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 5:15 -5:30 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 5:305:45 1 2 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 6 5:455:00 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 6:005:15 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 6:155:30 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 12Hr Totals 0 1 0 0 79 1 0 0 132 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 307 38 TRUCK TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by: VCU ]X Intersection of: Franklin Road Date: November 20, 2013 Day: Wednesday and: Reserve Avenue Weather: Fair, Cold Location: City of Roanoke., VA Entered by: AG G/rw J TRAFFIC FROM NORTH TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH TRAFFIC FROM EAST TRAFFIC FROM WEST TOTAL on: Franklin Road on: Franklin Road on: Reserve Avenue on: NIA N. S TIME + RIGHT THRU LEFT U -TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U -TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U -TN TOTAL RIONT THRU LEFT U -TN TOTAL E.W 1 Hr Totals 6:30 -7:30 0 3 1 0 4 3 2 0 0 5 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 12 6:45 -7:45 0 4 2 0 6 4 3 0 0 7 1 0 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 18 7:00 -8:00 0 5 2 0 7 5 3 0 0 8 1 0 9 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 25 7:15 -8:15 0 9 2 0 11 9 5 0 0 14 1 0 13 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 39 7:30 -8:30 0 10 2 0 12 10 7 0 0 17 0 0 17 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 46 7:45 -8:45 0 9 1 0 10 11 7 0 0 18 1 0 17 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 46 8:00 -9:00 0 11 0 0 11 12 7 0 0 19 1 0 13 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 44 8:15 -9:15 0 10 0 0 10 13 7 0 0 20 1 0 11 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 42 8:30 -9:30 0 12 1 0 13 12 7 0 0 19 3 0 9 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 44 8:45 -9:45 0 11 1 0 12 12 6 0 0 18 2 0 10 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 42 900 -1000 0 7 1 0 8 11 8 0 0 19 2 0 9 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 38 915 -1015 0 5 1 0 6 8 7 0 0 15 2 0 6 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 29 9:30 -10:30 0 2 0 0 2 7 5 0 0 12 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 21 9:45 -10:45 0 3 0 0 3 8 6 0 0 14 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 22 10:00.11:00 0 5 1 0 6 10 4 0 0 14 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 25 10:15 -11:15 0 5 1 0 6 11 4 0 0 15 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 29 10:30 -11:30 0 5 2 0 7 12 3 0 0 15 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 30 10:45-11:45 0 6 2 0 8 13 4 0 0 17 0 0 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 36 1100 -12:00 0 5 1 0 6 10 4 0 0 14 0 0 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 34 11:15 -1215 0 7 1 0 8 8 4 0 0 12 1 0 14 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 35 11:30 -12:30 0 7 0 0 7 8 5 0 0 13 1 0 13 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 34 11:45 -1245 0 5 0 0 5 4 4 0 0 8 3 0 11 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 27 12:00 -1:00 0 4 0 0 4 5 4 0 0 9 3 0 9 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 25 1215.1:15 0 2 0 0 2 4 5 0 0 9 2 0 6 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 19 12:30 -1:30 0 2 0 0 2 2 7 0 0 9 2 0 9 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 22 1245 -1:45 0 2 0 0 2 2 7 0 0 9 0 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 21 100 -200 0 3 0 0 3 1 8 0 0 9 0 0 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 23 1:15 -2:15 0 2 0 0 2 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 20 1:30 -2:30 0 4 2 0 6 2 3 0 0 5 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 18 1:45 -2:45 0 6 4 0 10 4 3 0 0 7 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 22 2:00 -3:00 0 6 4 0 10 7 5 0 0 12 1 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 28 2:15 -3:15 0 9 4 0 13 7 6 0 0 13 1 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 32 2:30 -3:30 0 7 3 0 10 7 6 0 0 13 1 0 7 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 31 2:45 -3:45 0 5 1 0 6 7 7 0 0 14 1 0 7 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 28 3:00 -4:00 0 7 1 0 8 6 6 0 0 12 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 25 315 -415 0 7 1 0 8 8 7 0 0 15 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 29 3:30 -0:30 0 8 0 0 8 6 8 0 0 14 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 29 345445 0 8 0 0 8 4 7 0 0 11 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 26 4:00 -5:00 0 6 0 0 6 2 4 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 18 415 -5:15 0 3 1 0 4 1 3 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 12 4:30 -5:30 0 2 1 0 3 1 4 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 4:45 -5:45 0 3 3 0 6 1 5 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 5:00-6:00 0 3 3 0 6 1 6 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 5:156:15 0 3 2 0 5 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 5:30-6:30 0 3 2 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 PEAK HOUR 7:45 -845 0 9 1 0 10 11 7 0 0 18 1 I 0 17 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 1 46 4:45 -5:45 0 3 j O 6 I 1 5 0 0 b 0 u I 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 39 TOTAL TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by: VCU 7,1170t Intersection of: Franklin Road Date: November 20, 2013 Day: Wednesday and: Reserve Avenue Weather. Fair, Cold Location: City of Roanoke., VA Entered by: AG mylp TRAFFIC FROM NORTH TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH TRAFFIC FROM EAST TRAFFIC FROM WEST TOTAL on: Franklin Road on: Franklin Road on: Reserve Avenue on: N/A N F S TIME RIGHT THRU LEFT U -TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT V -TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U -TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U -TX TOTAL E h W AM 6:30 -8:45 0 19 5 0 24 34 31 0 0 65 2 0 17 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 108 6:45 -7:00 0 25 6 0 31 33 54 0 0 87 2 0 19 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 139 7:00 -7:15 0 39 5 0 44 51 47 0 0 98 7 0 26 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 175 7:15 -7:30 0 47 7 0 54 67 82 0 0 149 11 0 38 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 252 7:30 -7:45 0 54 11 0 65 106 96 0 0 202 4 0 54 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 325 7:45 -8:00 0 46 25 0 71 151 120 0 0 271 7 0 60 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 409 8:00-8:15 0 51 10 0 61 133 107 0 0 240 11 0 66 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 378 8:15 -8:30 0 57 8 0 65 125 138 0 0 263 4 0 50 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 382 8:30 -8:45 0 44 9 0 53 114 112 0 0 226 10 0 50 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 339 8:459:00 0 62 8 0 70 90 101 0 0 191 6 0 67 0 73 0 0 0 0 0 334 9:00 -9:15 0 56 9 0 65 67 73 0 0 140 2 0 49 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 256 9:15 -9:30 0 56 5 0 6t 61 78 0 0 139 6 0 37 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 243 9:30 -9:45 0 60 10 0 70 56 85 0 0 141 3 0 47 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 261 9:45 -10:00 0 57 7 0 64 46 66 0 0 112 9 0 49 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 234 10:00 -10:15 0 68 6 0 74 45 81 0 0 126 5 0 44 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 249 10:1510:30 0 48 6 0 54 48 66 0 0 114 6 0 53 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 227 10:30 -10:45 0 67 6 1 74 49 65 0 0 114 1 0 47 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 236 10:4511:00 0 60 6 0 66 60 61 0 0 121 8 0 72 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 267 11:00.11 A 5 0 64 9 0 73 52 58 0 0 110 9 0 58 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 250 11:1511:30 0 60 3 0 63 45 68 0 0 113 5 0 66 0 71 0 0 0 0 0 247 11:30 -11:45 0 102 2 0 104 55 88 0 0 143 13 0 71 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 331 11:45 -12:00 0 100 6 0 106 52 113 0 0 165 5 0 71 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 347 12:00 -12:15 0 125 3 0 128 65 89 0 0 154 5 0 96 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 383 12:1512:30 0 83 3 0 86 75 94 0 0 169 9 0 65 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 329 12:30 -12:45 0 94 4 0 98 76 87 0 0 163 7 0 53 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 321 12:45 -1:00 0 78 6 0 84 69 131 0 0 200 7 0 59 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 350 1:00 -1:15 0 103 5 0 106 64 115 0 0 179 7 0 55 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 349 1:15 -1:30 0 79 6 0 85 78 87 0 0 165 7 0 68 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 325 1:30 -1:45 0 80 7 0 87 60 113 0 0 173 6 0 62 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 328 1:45-2:00 0 90 10 0 100 57 94 0 0 151 9 0 40 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 300 2:00 -2:15 0 75 6 0 81 51 93 0 0 144 5 0 62 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 292 2:15 -2:30 0 74 7 0 81 65 105 0 0 170 5 0 44 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 300 2:30 -2:45 0 61 6 0 67 71 84 0 0 155 6 0 51 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 279 2:453:00 0 82 8 0 90 67 86 0 0 153 8 0 82 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 333 3:00 -3:15 0 94 3 0 97 56 80 0 0 136 7 0 84 0 91 0 0 0 0 0 324 3:15 -3:30 0 60 3 0 63 51 76 0 0 127 10 0 82 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 282 3:30 -3:45 0 80 8 0 88 63 75 0 0 138 5 0 77 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 308 3:45-4:00 0 75 6 0 81 70 99 0 0 169 10 0 91 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 351 4:00 -4:15 0 112 8 0 120 65 76 0 0 141 9 0 85 0 94 0 0 0 0 0 355 4:15 -4:30 0 100 10 0 110 65 76 0 0 141 15 0 86 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 352 4:30 -4:45 0 97 11 0 108 53 97 0 0 150 14 0 99 0 113 0 0 0 0 0 371 4:45 -5:00 0 126 3 0 129 61 77 0 0 138 15 0 136 0 151 0 0 0 0 0 418 5:005:15 0 145 10 0 155 66 79 0 0 145 17 0 147 0 164 0 0 0 0 0 464 5:15 -5:30 0 153 8 0 161 74 97 0 0 171 14 0 139 0 153 0 0 0 0 0 485 5:30 -5:45 0 131 14 0 145 63 99 0 0 162 11 0 75 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 393 54546:00 0 102 9 0 111 53 77 0 0 130 4 0 73 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 318 6:00-6:15 0 93 12 0 105 53 66 0 0 119 10 0 58 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 292 6:15 -6:30 0 48 7 0 55 37 78 0 0 115 11 0 47 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 228 12 Hr Totals 0 3882 352 1 4035 3168 4120 0 0 7288 369 0 3127 0 3496 0 0 0 0 0 1 14819 40 TOTAL TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMARY Counted by: VCU Intersection of: Franklin Road end: Reserve Avenue Date: Weather: November 20, Fair, Cold 2013 Day: Wednesday x, qtr / /7t Location: City of Roanoke., VA Entered by: AG ( ), /D//p TRAFFIC FROM NORTH TRAFFIC FROM SOUTH TRAFFIC FROM EAST TRAFFIC FROM WEST TOTAL on: Franklin Road on: Franklin Road on: Reserve Avenue on: NIA N ♦ S TIME i RIGHT THRU LEFT U -TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U-TN TOTAL RIGHT TNRU LEFT U -TN TOTAL RIGHT THRU LEFT U -TN TOTAL E .W 1 Hr Totals 6:30 -7:30 0 130 23 0 153 185 214 0 0 399 22 0 100 0 122 0 0 0 0 0 674 6:45 -7:45 0 165 29 0 194 257 279 0 0 536 24 0 137 0 161 0 0 0 0 0 891 7:00 -8:00 0 186 48 0 234 375 345 0 0 720 29 0 178 0 207 0 0 0 0 0 1161 7:15.8:15 0 198 53 0 251 457 405 0 0 862 33 0 218 0 251 0 0 0 0 0 1364 7:30 -8:30 0 208 54 0 262 515 461 0 0 976 26 0 230 0 256 0 0 0 0 0 1494 7:45 -8:45 0 198 52 0 250 523 477 0 0 1000 32 0 226 0 258 0 0 0 0 0 1508 8:00 -9:00 0 214 35 0 249 462 458 0 0 920 31 0 233 0 264 0 0 0 0 0 1433 8:15 -9:15 0 219 34 0 253 396 424 0 0 820 22 0 216 0 238 0 0 0 0 0 1311 8:30 -9:30 0 218 31 0 249 332 364 0 0 696 24 0 203 0 227 0 0 0 0 0 1172 8:459:45 0 234 32 0 266 274 337 0 0 611 17 0 200 0 217 0 0 0 0 0 1094 9:00 -10:00 0 229 31 0 260 230 302 0 0 532 20 0 182 0 202 0 0 0 0 0 994 9:15 -10:15 0 241 28 0 269 208 310 0 0 518 23 0 177 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 987 9:30 -10:30 0 233 29 0 262 195 298 0 0 493 23 0 193 0 216 0 0 0 0 0 971 9:45 -10:45 0 240 25 1 266 188 278 0 0 466 21 0 193 0 214 0 0 0 0 0 946 10:00 -11:00 0 243 24 1 268 202 273 0 0 475 20 0 216 0 236 0 0 0 0 0 979 10:1511:15 0 239 27 1 267 209 250 0 0 459 24 0 230 0 254 0 0 0 0 0 980 10:30 -11:30 0 251 24 1 276 206 252 0 0 458 23 0 243 0 266 0 0 0 0 0 1000 10:45 -11:45 0 286 20 0 306 212 275 0 0 487 35 0 267 0 302 0 0 0 0 0 1095 11:00 -12:00 0 326 20 0 346 204 327 0 0 531 32 0 266 0 298 0 0 0 0 0 1175 11:15 -12:15 0 387 14 0 401 217 358 0 0 575 28 0 304 0 332 0 0 0 0 0 1308 11:30 -12:30 0 410 14 0 424 247 384 0 0 631 32 0 303 0 335 0 0 0 0 0 1390 11:45 -12:45 0 402 16 0 418 268 383 0 0 651 26 0 285 0 311 0 0 0 0 0 1380 12:00 -1:00 0 380 16 0 396 285 401 0 0 686 28 0 273 0 301 0 0 0 0 0 1383 12:151:15 0 358 18 0 376 284 427 0 0 711 30 0 232 0 262 0 0 0 0 0 1349 12:30 -1:30 0 354 21 0 375 287 420 0 0 707 28 0 235 0 263 0 0 0 0 0 1345 12:451:45 0 340 24 0 364 271 446 0 0 717 27 0 244 0 271 0 0 0 0 0 1352 1:00 -2:00 0 352 28 0 380 259 409 0 0 668 29 0 225 0 254 0 0 0 0 0 1302 1:152:15 0 324 29 0 353 246 387 0 0 633 27 0 232 0 259 0 0 0 0 0 1245 1:30 -2:30 0 319 30 0 349 233 405 0 0 638 25 0 208 0 233 0 0 0 0 0 1220 1:452:45 0 300 29 0 329 244 376 0 0 620 25 0 197 0 222 0 0 0 0 0 1171 2:00 -3:00 0 292 27 0 319 254 368 0 0 622 24 0 239 0 263 0 0 0 0 0 1204 2:153:15 0 311 24 0 335 259 355 0 0 614 26 0 261 0 287 0 0 0 0 0 1236 2:303:30 0 297 20 0 317 245 326 0 0 571 31 0 299 0 330 0 0 0 0 0 1218 2:453:45 0 316 22 0 338 237 317 0 0 554 30 0 325 0 355 0 0 0 0 0 1247 3:00 -4:00 0 309 20 0 329 240 330 0 0 570 32 0 334 0 366 0 0 0 0 0 1265 3:15 -4:15 0 327 25 0 352 249 326 0 0 575 34 0 335 0 369 0 0 0 0 0 1296 3:30-4:30 0 367 32 0 399 263 326 0 0 589 39 0 339 0 378 0 0 0 0 0 1366 3:45 -445 0 384 35 0 419 253 348 0 0 601 48 0 361 0 409 0 0 0 0 0 1429 4:00-5:00 0 435 32 0 467 244 326 0 0 570 53 0 406 0 459 0 0 0 0 0 1496 4:155:15 0 468 34 0 502 245 329 0 0 574 61 0 468 0 529 0 0 0 0 0 1605 4:305:30 0 521 32 0 553 254 350 0 0 604 60 0 521 0 581 0 0 0 0 0 1738 4:455:45 0 555 35 0 590 264 352 0 0 616 57 0 497 0 554 0 0 0 0 0 1760 5:005:00 0 531 41 0 572 256 352 0 0 608 46 0 434 0 480 0 0 0 0 0 1660 5:15-6:15 0 479 43 0 522 243 339 0 0 582 39 0 345 0 384 0 0 0 0 0 1488 5:30 -6:30 0 374 42 0 416 206 320 0 0 526 36 0 253 0 289 0 0 0 0 0 1231 PEAK HOUR 7:45-0:45 0 198 52 0 250 523 477 0 0 1000 32 0 226 0 258 0 0 0 0 0 1508 5:45 555 35 0 590 352 0 0 16 57 0 4 7 0 554 0 0 0 0 1760 41 O z Z ap N 1 RESERVE AVENUE 9'.8" Ir9'.7" PO 20'.3" 11 Z J nEXISTING z o TffIC S GNAL FIELD WORK BY, Chr/5 Hinkey JOB No.: 2008-0521 FRANKLIN ROAD AT DRAWN BY: P Dorr DWG NAME: vnRdc eAve RBSBrl Reser DGN RESERVE AVENUE DATE: Nov. 20, 2013 LOCATION: Clty Of Roanoke, VA SCALE: N/A SHEET NOa / OF / APPENDIX B Trip Generation Backup 43 ' E o LL PROJECT; Mattern &Craig CONSULTING ENCINEEf6• SURVEYORS DATE COMM NO. 2.39t4A_ TYPE PREL. FINAL SHEET NO. CONTENTS CAL. BY CKD. BY _ 116,87s SF Tl E 77n - MED)tAt_-DFA) "AL OFF'ICr 4'011.,1,V 6. ER lOr.5) S!-' GRASS rtr�,n_ ArrA, 11 /'I P'Fi1kC POOR, (Al I.,VerAlh !�TRFr-• ) 7 — 9 AAA r vii, PM iTAk- fkn,� (hDS,YCF,IT SrtEri' y -6 PM USE A,100 (W- WVA•I/vE YALU- 9,P74jrfnt r2, Aavo Av4. P,4Tr o,q,7) Ln eA-) t 1.c17 S k yti.87S rZ 115-6 q4 3,72 • 116.875 D 117 Fc —rm",4 L List, L7' /. ENTF0,11M 1/7._.vP� l7'/ v?A /7-5 v � -e-- o-vo (?, 't li�z vp; 44 } 5JVP n 6AVrl, Alin/? EXHIBIT PROJECT TYPE CONTENTS yL,67s sf ;a Mattern &Craig GONSIILTINC F.NCINEEPS• 9JMEYOPS DATE— COMM NO. 28?f4 PREL. FINAL ____.SHEET NO. CAL. BY CKD. BY ,777E (ejDp— 7l0 — G- ExreAt. OFFICF 1EU)4l 011V(, i va /coo ,SF (T -pass rLvo2 +!?rA > ° qM II=A.k .vla. 41,rSKUAy) Lrn CT)= 0.9n Li (.N) f /•` i k - y6.�7S T its z vpk DI R. pis 7. qo (GJkib4-CAy� F= /, l Z(k) a 7e.831 131 vp 17 /° IN 0 w zz vf� l�q vp4 EXHIBIT LL 45 EXHIBIT APPENDIX C Level of Service Analysis 46 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing AM 1: Franklin Rd & Reserve Av. 12/2/2013 t f P 1 Lane Configurations R r f r 0 Volume (vph) 226 32 477 523 52 198 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Said. Flow (prot) 1655 1552 1881 1599 3525 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 Said. Flow (perm) 1655 1552 1881 1599 2580 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.73 0.86 0.87 0.52 0.57 Adj. Flow (vph) 263 44 555 601 100 347 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 33 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 263 11 555 601 0 447 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 8% 3% 2% 2% 2% 5% Turn Type NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA Protected Phases 3 2 3 6 Permitted Phases 3 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.6 11.6 25.0 36.6 25.0 Effective Green, g (s) 11.6 11.6 25.0 36.6 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.51 0.75 0.51 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 395 370 967 1599 1327 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.29 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.29 0.17 vlc Ratio 0.67 0.03 0.57 0.38 0.34 Uniform Delay, dl 16.7 14.2 8.1 2.1 6.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.2 0.0 2.5 0.1 0.7 Delay (s) 20.9 14.2 10.6 2.2 7.6 Level of Service C B B A A Approach Delay (s) 20.0 6.2 7.6 Approach LOS B A A HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 48.6 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions AM Peak HR Baseline thl 47 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing MID 1: Franklin Rd & Reserve AV. 121212013 f- t I y Lane Configurations I IN T IF 416 Volume (vph) 303 32 384 247 14 410 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1718 1552 1900 1584 3640 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 Satd. Flow (perm) 1718 1552 1900 1584 3372 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.79 0.62 0.85 0.82 0.58 0.82 Adj. Flow (vph) 384 52 452 301 24 500 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 37 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 384 15 452 301 0 524 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 3% 1% 3% 0% 2% Turn Type NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA Protected Phases 3 2 3 6 Permitted Phases 3 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.5 15.5 25.1 40.6 25.1 Effective Green, g (s) 15.5 15.5 25.1 40.6 25.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.48 0.77 0.48 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 506 457 906 1584 1609 vls Ratio Prot c0.22 c0.24 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.13 0.16 vlc Ratio 0.76 0.03 0.50 0.19 0.33 Uniform Delay, d1 16.9 13.2 9.4 1.6 8.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.4 0.0 2.0 0.1 0.5 Delay (s) 23.3 13.2 11.4 1.7 9.1 Level of Service C B B A A Approach Delay (s) 22.1 7.5 9.1 Approach LOS C A A HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 52.6 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions Mid -Day Peak HR Baseline IN 48 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2013 Existing PM 1: Franklin Rd & Reserve AV. 12/212013 < t f P � Lane Configurations I r + r *TT Volume (vph) 497 57 352 264 35 555 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade 1 %) 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Lill. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1787 1599 1900 1631 3675 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1599 1900 1631 3268 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.84 0.89 0.89 0.63 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 585 68 396 297 56 610 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 43 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 585 25 396 297 0 666 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 0% 0% 1% 0% 9% 0% Turn Type NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA Protected Phases 3 2 3 6 Permitted Phases 3 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.7 21.7 25.0 46.7 25.0 Effective Green, g (s) 21.7 21.7 25.0 46.7 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.43 0.80 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 660 591 809 1631 1391 vls Ratio Prot c0.33 c0.21 0.07 vls Ratio Perm 0.02 0.11 0.20 vlc Ratio 0.89 0.04 0.49 0.18 0.48 Uniform Delay, dl 17.3 11.8 12.2 1.4 12.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.6 0.0 2.1 0.1 1.2 Delay (s) 30.9 11.9 14.3 1.5 13.3 Level of Service C B B A B Approach Delay (s) 28.9 8.8 13.3 Approach LOS C A B HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 58.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions. PM Peak HR Baseline thl 49 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background AM 1: Franklin Rd & Reserve AV. 1213/2013 c CdticaiLane Group 2020 Background AM Peak HR 12/3/2013 Baseline thl 50 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 < < t '► l Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 248 36 510 586 61 212 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Said. Flow (prot) 1655 1552 1881 1599 3523 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 Satd. Flow (pens) 1655 1552 1881 1599 2385 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.73 0.86 0.87 0.52 0.57 Adj. Flow (vph) 288 49 593 674 117 372 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 37 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 288 12 593 674 0 489 Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 3% 2% 2% 2% 5% Turn Type NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA Protected Phases 3 2 3 6 Permitted Phases 3 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.9 11.9 25.0 36.9 25.0 Effective Green, g (s) 11.9 11.9 25.0 36.9 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.51 0.75 0.51 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 402 377 961 1599 1219 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 c0.32 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.32 0.21 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.03 0.62 0.42 0.40 Uniform Delay, d1 17.0 14.1 8.5 2.2 7.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.0 0.0 3.0 0.2 1.0 Delay (s) 22.9 14.1 11.5 2.3 8.3 Level of Service C B B A A Approach Delay (s) 21.7 6.6 8.3 Approach LOS C A A HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 48.9 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c CdticaiLane Group 2020 Background AM Peak HR 12/3/2013 Baseline thl 50 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background MID 1: Franklin Rd & Reserve Av. 12/3/2013 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Background Mid -Day Peak HR 121312013 Baseline thl 51 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 r T ti l Lane Configurations ►j �T Volume (vph) 346 37 411 293 17 439 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1718 1552 1900 1584 3640 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 Said. Flow (perm) 1718 1552 1900 1584 3342 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.79 0.62 0.85 0.82 0.58 0.82 Adj. Flow (vph) 438 60 484 357 29 535 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 41 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 438 19 484 357 0 564 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 3% 1% 3% 0% 2% Turn Type NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA Protected Phases 3 2 3 6 Permitted Phases 3 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.6 16.6 25.0 41.6 25.0 Effective Green, g (s) 16.6 16.6 25.0 41.6 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.47 0.78 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 532 480 886 1584 1558 v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 c0.25 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.16 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.04 0.55 0.23 0.36 Uniform Delay, d1 17.1 12.9 10.2 1.6 9.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.0 0.0 2.4 0.1 0.7 Delay (s) 27.1 13.0 12.7 1.7 9.8 Level of Service C B B A A Approach Delay (s) 25.4 8.0 9.8 Approach LOS C A A HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 53.6 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Background Mid -Day Peak HR 121312013 Baseline thl 51 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Background PM 1: Franklin Rd & Reserve AV. 1213/2013 f- t I y Lane Configurations I IN T F 411 Volume (vph) 564 65 377 310 40 594 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1599 1900 1631 3673 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1599 1900 1631 3179 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.84 0.89 0.89 0.63 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 664 77 424 348 63 653 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 47 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 664 30 424 348 0 716 Heavy Vehides (%) 0% 0% 1% 0% 9% 0% Turn Type NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA Protected Phases 3 2 3 6 Permitted Phases 3 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.0 23.0 25.0 48.0 25.0 Effective Green, g (s) 23.0 23.0 25.0 48.0 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.42 0.80 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 685 612 791 1631 1324 vls Ratio Prot c0.37 0.22 0.08 vls Ratio Perm 0.02 0.13 c0.23 vlc Ratio 0.97 0.05 0.54 0.21 0.54 Uniform Delay, dl 18.2 11.6 13.1 1.4 13.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 26.6 0.0 2.6 0.1 1.6 Delay (s) 44.7 11.7 15.7 1.5 14.8 Level of Service D B B A B Approach Delay (s) 41.3 9.3 14.8 Approach LOS D A B HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Background PM Peak HR 12/3/2013 Baseline thl 52 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 90 SECOND CYCLE LENGTH 53 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout- Scenario 1 AM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 12/3/2013 ~ t * 1 I Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 5 5 14 248 18 36 56 510 586 61 212 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.85 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Said. Flow (Prot) 1770 1653 1655 1636 1873 1599 3507 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.59 Satd Flow (perm) 1770 1653 1655 1636 1711 1599 2094 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.86 0.92 0.73 0.92 0.86 0.87 0.52 0.57 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 15 288 20 49 61 593 674 117 372 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 37 0 0 0 187 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 6 0 288 32 0 0 654 487 0 506 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 8% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 3 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7 3.5 16.8 19.6 39.3 56.1 39.3 Effective Green, g (s) 0.7 3.5 16.8 19.6 39.3 56.1 39.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.05 0.22 0.25 0.51 0.72 0.51 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 15 74 358 413 866 1279 1060 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.17 c0.02 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm c0.38 0.22 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.08 0.80 0.08 0.76 0.38 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 38.2 35.5 28.8 22.1 15.3 4.1 12.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 12.7 0.4 12.3 0.1 6.1 0.2 1.5 Delay (s) 50.9 35.9 41.2 22.2 21.4 4.3 14.0 Level of Service D D D C C A B Approach Delay (s) 38.9 37.5 12.7 14.0 Approach LOS D D B B HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.6 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 1 AM 12/3/2013 Baseline thl Wfl Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout- Scenario 1 MID 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. 12/3/2013 Lane Configurations '* Vi T+ 4 r Volume (vph) 20 9 28 346 17 37 56 411 293 17 439 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1653 1718 1619 1887 1584 3602 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.88 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 1653 1718 1619 1656 1584 3162 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.79 0.92 0.62 0.92 0.85 0.82 0.58 0.82 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 10 30 438 18 60 61 484 357 29 535 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 40 0 0 0 104 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 12 0 438 38 0 0 545 253 0 600 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 1% 3% 0% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 3 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.9 5.1 23.2 26.4 33.2 56.4 33.2 Effective Green, g (s) 1.9 5.1 23.2 26.4 33.2 56.4 33.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.06 0.29 0.33 0.42 0.71 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 42 106 501 537 691 1243 1320 vls Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.01 c0.25 0.02 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm c0.33 0.10 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.11 0.87 0.07 0.79 0.20 0.45 Uniform Delay, d1 38.4 35.1 26.8 18.2 20.1 3.9 16.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.3 0.5 15.5 0.1 8.9 0.1 1.1 Delay (s) 49.6 35.5 42.3 18.2 29.0 4.0 17.8 Level of Service D D D B C A B Approach Delay (s) 40.5 38.6 19.1 17.8 Approach LOS D D B B HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 1 Mid -Day Peak HR 12/3/2013 Baseline thl 55 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario 1 PM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 121412013 ��� r~ *\ t� ti 1 r Lane Configurations I T, I A 4 IN QA Volume (vph) 51 32 45 564 12 65 19 377 310 40 594 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Fr: 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1700 1787 1635 1895 1631 3660 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.70 Said Flow (perm) 1770 1700 1787 1635 1793 1631 2588 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.92 0.84 0.92 0,89 0.89 0.63 0.91 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 55 35 49 664 13 77 21 424 348 63 653 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 45 0 0 45 0 0 0 108 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 39 0 664 45 0 0 445 240 0 731 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 2% 0% 2% 1% 0% 9% 0% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 3 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.0 7.4 30.2 33.6 26.2 56.4 26.2 Effective Green, g (s) 4.0 7.4 30.2 33.6 26.2 56.4 26.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.09 0.37 0.41 0.32 0.69 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 86 153 659 671 574 1244 828 vls Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.02 c0.37 0.03 0.07 vls Ratio Perm 0.25 0.08 c0.28 vlc Ratio 0.64 0.26 1.01 0.07 0.78 0.19 0.88 Uniform Delay, di 38.2 34.6 25.8 14.6 25.1 4.5 26.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.6 0.9 36.9 0.0 9.9 0.1 13.1 Delay (s) 52.8 35.5 62.7 14.6 35.0 4.6 39.5 Level of Service D D E B C A D Approach Delay (s) 42.4 57.0 21.7 39.5 Approach LOS D E C D HCM 2000 Control Delay 39.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 81.8 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 1 PM Peak HR 1213/2013 Baseline IN 1 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 AM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 12/3/2013 � � r��4% t r ti 1 4/ Lane Configurations j, I A + r R A Volume (vph) 5 5 14 248 18 36 56 510 586 61 212 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1653 1655 1636 1787 1881 1599 1823 1852 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1770 1653 1655 1636 842 1881 1599 376 1852 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.86 0.92 0.73 0.92 0.86 0.87 0.52 0.57 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 15 288 20 49 61 593 674 117 372 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 37 0 0 0 214 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 6 0 288 32 0 61 593 460 117 390 0 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 8% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm +pt NA pt +ov pm +pt NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 23 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7 3.6 16.1 19.0 35.1 32.8 54.9 38.5 34.5 Effective Green, g (s) 0.7 3.6 16.1 19.0 35.1 32.8 54.9 38.5 34.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.04 0.20 0.24 0.44 0.41 0.68 0.48 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 15 73 331 386 394 766 1090 251 793 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.17 c0.02 0.00 c0.32 0.29 c0.02 0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.08 0.87 0.08 0.15 0.77 0.42 0.47 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 39.7 36.9 31.2 24.0 13.4 20.6 5.7 14.3 16.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 12.7 0.5 21.2 0.1 0.2 7.5 0.3 1.4 2.2 Delay (s) 52.3 37.3 52.4 24.0 13.6 28.1 6.0 15.7 18.8 Level of Service D D D C B C A B B Approach Delay (s) 40.3 46.9 16.2 18.1 Approach LOS D D B B HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.5 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 AM Peak HR 1213/2013 Baseline thl 57 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 MID 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance/ Reserve Av. 1213/2013 t/0W �► l 4/ Lane Configurations + �► Volume (vph) 20 9 28 346 17 37 56 411 293 17 439 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1653 1718 1619 1787 1900 1584 1859 1898 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 Sald Flow (perm) 1770 1653 1718 1619 274 1900 1584 514 1898 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.79 0.92 0.62 0.92 0.85 0.82 0.58 0.82 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 10 30 438 18 60 61 484 357 29 535 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 41 0 0 0 109 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 12 0 438 37 0 61 484 248 29 574 0 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 1 % 3% 0% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm +pt NA pt +ov pm +pt NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 23 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.8 4.8 21.6 24.6 29.6 27.5 55.1 28.2 26.8 Effective Green, g (s) 1.8 4.8 21.6 24.6 29.6 27.5 55.1 28.2 26.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.06 0.27 0.31 0.37 0.35 0.69 0.36 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 40 100 467 502 142 658 1100 206 641 vls Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.01 c0.25 0.02 c0.01 0.25 0.16 0.00 c0.30 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.05 vlc Ratio 0.55 0.12 0.94 0.07 0.43 0.74 0.23 0.14 0.90 Uniform Delay, dl 38.3 35.2 28.2 19.3 18.7 22.7 4.4 17.7 24.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 15.3 0.5 26.5 0.1 2.1 7.2 0.1 0.3 17.6 Delay (s) 53.7 35.8 54.7 19.4 20.8 29.9 4.5 18.0 42.5 Level of Service D D D B C C A B D Approach Delay (s) 42.1 49.4 19.2 41.3 Approach LOS D D B D HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.3 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 Mid -Day Peak HR 121312013 Baseline IN 58 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 PM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 12/4/2013 l 1 'r � t 1 t P b j d Lane Configurations I to ?, + r R ?, Volume (vph) 51 32 45 564 12 65 19 377 310 40 594 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prof) 1770 1700 1787 1635 1787 1900 1631 1706 1949 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.32 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1700 1787 1635 252 1900 1631 571 1949 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.63 0.91 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 55 35 49 664 13 77 21 424 348 63 653 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 45 0 0 56 0 0 0 118 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 39 0 664 34 0 21 424 230 63 669 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 2% 0% 2% 1% 0% 9% 0% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm +pt NA pt +ov pm +pt NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 23 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.9 7.2 19.4 22.7 31.4 29.9 55.3 34.4 31.4 Effective Green, g (s) 3.9 7.2 19.4 22.7 31.4 29.9 55.3 34.4 31.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.09 0.23 0.27 0.38 0.36 0.66 0.41 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 82 146 415 444 122 680 1080 276 732 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.02 c0.37 0.02 0.00 0.22 0.14 c0.01 c0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.27 1.60 0.08 0.17 0.62 0.21 0.23 0.91 Uniform Delay, dill 39.2 35.7 32.0 22.6 19.8 22.1 5.5 15.9 24.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 19.4 1.0 281.1 0.1 0.7 4.3 0.1 0.4 17.9 Delay (s) 58.6 36.7 313.2 22.7 20.5 26.4 5.6 16.3 42.7 Level of Service E D F C C C A B D Approach Delay (s) 45.4 278.5 17.1 40.4 Approach LOS D F B D HCM 2000 Control Delay 1073 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 83.5 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 PM Peak HR 12/3/2013 Baseline thl 59 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 AM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. 12/612013 Lane Configurations R A 331 I A 766 I + r I 4 F Volume (vph) 5 5 14 248 18 36 56 510 586 61 212 18 Ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 0.38 0% 0.47 0.01 2% 39.7 36.9 -2% 24.0 13.4 -6% 8.0 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 Progression Factor 6.0 6.0 1.00 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.5 1.00 1.00 0.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 24.0 1.00 0.89 8.3 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 C 0.95 1.00 B 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1653 1655 1636 Approach LOS 1787 1881 1599 1823 1864 1631 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 Said Flow (perm) 1770 1653 1655 1636 884 1881 1599 376 1864 1631 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.86 0.92 0.73 0.92 0.86 0.87 0.52 0.57 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 15 288 20 49 61 593 674 117 372 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 37 0 0 0 265 0 0 11 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 6 0 288 32 0 61 593 409 117 372 9 Heavy Vehicles 1%) 2% 2% 2% 8% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm +pt NA pm +ov pm +pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7 3.6 16.1 19.0 35.1 32.8 48.9 38.5 34.5 34.5 Effective Green, g (s) 0.7 3.6 16.1 19.0 35.1 32.8 48.9 38.5 34.5 34.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.04 0.20 0.24 0.44 0.41 0.61 0.48 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (sl 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 15 73 331 386 411 766 1090 251 798 699 vls Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.17 c0.02 0.00 c0.32 0.08 c0.02 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.18 0.20 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.08 0.87 0.08 0.15 0.77 0.38 0.47 0.47 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 39.7 36.9 31.2 24.0 13.4 20.6 8.0 14.3 16.4 13.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 12.7 0.5 21.2 0.1 0.2 7.5 0.2 1.4 2.0 0.0 Delay (s) 52.3 37.3 52.4 24.0 13.5 28.1 8.3 15.7 18.4 13.2 Level of Service D D D C B C A B B B Approach Delay (s) 40.3 46.9 17.4 17.6 Approach LOS D D B B HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.5 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c CdticalLane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 AM Peak HR 12/312013 Baseline thl 60 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 MID 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 1216/2013 Lane Configurations IN )+ Volume (vph) 20 9 28 346 17 37 56 411 293 17 439 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fri 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1653 1718 1619 1787 1900 1584 1859 1919 1631 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (Perm) 1770 1653 1718 1619 337 1900 1584 514 1919 1631 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.79 0.92 0.62 0.92 0.85 0.82 0.58 0.82 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 10 30 438 18 60 61 484 357 29 535 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 41 0 0 0 136 0 0 28 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 12 0 438 37 0 61 484 221 29 535 14 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 1% 3% 0% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm +pt NA pm +ov pm +pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.8 4.8 21.6 24.6 29.6 27.5 49.1 28.2 26.8 26.8 Effective Green, g (s) 1.8 4.8 21.6 24.6 29.6 27.5 49.1 28.2 26.8 26.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.06 0.27 0.31 0.37 0.35 0.62 0.36 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 40 100 467 502 164 658 1100 206 648 551 vls Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.01 c0.25 0.02 c0.01 0.25 0.05 0.00 c0.28 Ws Ratio Perm 0.13 0.08 0.05 0.01 vlc Ratio 0.55 0.12 0.94 0.07 0.37 0.74 0.20 0.14 0.83 0.03 Uniform Delay, di 38.3 35.2 28.2 19.3 18.1 22.7 6.6 17.7 24.1 17.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 15.3 0.5 26.5 0.1 1.4 7.2 0.1 0.3 11.5 0.1 Delay (s) 53.7 35.8 54.7 19.4 19.5 29.9 6.7 18.0 35.6 17.6 Level of Service D D D B B C A B D B Approach Delay (s) 42.1 49.4 20.0 33.5 Approach LOS D D B C HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.3 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 Mid -Day Peak HR 121312013 Baseline IN 61 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 PM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 121612013 Lane Configurations 1 11 1 A I + r I ? r Volume (vph) 51 32 45 564 12 65 19 377 310 40 594 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1700 1787 1635 1787 1900 1631 1706 1957 1631 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.32 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1770 1700 1787 1635 252 1900 1631 571 1957 1631 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.63 0.91 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 55 35 49 664 13 77 21 424 348 63 653 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 45 0 0 56 0 0 0 143 0 0 11 Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 39 0 664 34 0 21 424 205 63 653 6 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 2% 0% 2% 1 % 0% 9% 0% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prat NA pm +pt NA pm +ov pm +pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.9 7.2 19.4 22.7 31.4 29.9 49.3 34.4 31.4 31.4 Effective Green, g (s) 3.9 7.2 19.4 22.7 31.4 29.9 49.3 34.4 31.4 31.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.09 0.23 0.27 0.38 0.36 0.59 0.41 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 82 146 415 444 122 680 1080 276 735 613 vls Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.02 c0.37 0.02 0.00 0.22 0.04 c0.01 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.00 vlc Ratio 0.67 0.27 1.60 0.08 0.17 0.62 0.19 0.23 0.89 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 39.2 35.7 32.0 22.6 19.5 22.1 7.9 15.9 24.4 16.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 19.4 1.0 281.1 0.1 0.7 4.3 0.1 0.4 15.0 0.0 Delay (s) 58.6 36.7 313.2 22.7 20.1 26.4 8.0 16.3 39.4 16.3 Level of Service E D F C C C A B D B Approach Delay (s) 45.4 278.5 18.2 36.9 Approach LOS D F B D HCM 2000 Control Delay 106.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 83.5 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 PM Peak HR 1213/2013 Baseline thl 62 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 AM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance/ Reserve AV. 121612013 � N r 4- -IN t ti t Lane Configurations I T, Vi T, 4 r 4+ IN Volume (vph) 5 5 14 248 18 36 56 510 586 61 212 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% •6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1653 1655 1636 1873 1599 3523 1631 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.59 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1653 1655 1636 1717 1599 2114 1631 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.86 0.92 0.73 0.92 0.86 0.87 0.52 0.57 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 15 288 20 49 61 593 674 117 372 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 0 38 0 0 0 180 0 0 9 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 5 0 288 31 0 0 654 494 0 489 11 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 8% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA pm +ov Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 3 6 7 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.4 2.5 16.8 17.9 39.3 56.1 39.3 40.7 Effective Green, g (s) 1.4 2.5 16.8 17.9 39.3 56.1 39.3 40.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.03 0.22 0.23 0.51 0.73 0.51 0.53 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 32 53 362 382 880 1296 1084 994 vis Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.17 c0.02 0.08 0.00 vis Ratio Perm c0.38 0.23 0.23 0.01 vic Ratio 0.16 0.10 0.80 0.08 0.74 0.38 0.45 0.01 Uniform Delay, dl 37.0 36.0 28.3 22.9 14.7 3.8 11.8 8.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 0.9 11.5 0.1 5.6 0.2 1.4 0.0 Delay (s) 39.3 36.8 39.7 23.0 20.3 4.0 13.2 8.5 Level of Service D D D C C A B A Approach Delay (s) 37.3 36.5 12.0 110 Approach LOS D D B B HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 76.6 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 AM Peak HR 121312013 Baseline IN 63 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 MID 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 12/6/2013 � � � � ~ � 4% t �► 1 Lane Configurations I To I A 4 r 0 F Volume (vph) 20 9 28 346 17 37 56 411 293 17 439 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1653 1718 1619 1887 1584 3640 1631 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.88 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1653 1718 1619 1671 1584 3216 1631 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.79 0.92 0.62 0.92 0.85 0.82 0.58 0.82 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 10 30 438 18 60 61 484 357 29 535 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 41 0 0 0 100 0 0 23 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 12 0 438 37 0 0 545 257 0 564 19 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 1 % 3% 0% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA pm +ov Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 3 6 7 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 2.8 4.0 23.2 24.4 33.2 56.4 33.2 36.0 Effective Green, g (s) 2.8 4.0 23.2 24.4 33.2 56.4 33.2 36.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.05 0.30 0.31 0.42 0.72 0.42 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 63 84 508 503 707 1260 1361 873 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.01 c0.25 0.02 0.06 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm c0.33 0.10 0.18 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.14 0.86 0.07 0.77 0.20 0.41 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 36.9 35.6 26.1 19.0 19.3 3.6 15.8 11.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.3 0.7 14.0 0.1 8.0 0.1 0.9 0.0 Delay (s) 40.2 36.3 40.1 19.1 27.3 3.7 16.7 11.6 Level of Service D D D B C A B B Approach Delay (s) 37.7 36.9 18.0 16.4 Approach LOS D D B B HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.4 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 Mid -Day Peak HR 1213/2013 Baseline thl 64 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 PM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 1216/2013 Lane Configurations I T, I A 4 r Q+ F Volume (vph) 51 32 45 564 12 65 19 377 310 40 594 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0. Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1700 1787 1635 1895 1631 3673 1631 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.70 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1700 1787 1635 1796 1631 2594 1631 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.63 0.91 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 55 35 49 664 13 77 21 424 348 63 653 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 45 0 0 45 0 0 0 108 0 0 11 Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 39 0 664 45 0 0 445 240 0 716 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 0% 2% 0% 2% 1 % 0% 9% 0% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA pm +ov Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 3 6 7 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.0 7.4 30.2 33.6 26.2 56.4 26.2 30.2 Effective Green, g (s) 4.0 7.4 30.2 33.6 26.2 56.4 26.2 30.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.09 0.37 0.41 0.32 0.69 0.32 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 86 153 659 671 575 1244 830 721 vls Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.02 c0.37 0.03 0.07 0.00 vls Ratio Perm 0.25 0.08 c0.28 0.00 vlc Ratio 0.64 0.26 1.01 0.07 0.77 0.19 0.86 0.01 Uniform Delay, dl 38.2 34.6 25.8 14.6 25.1 4.5 26.1 16.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.6 0.9 36.9 0.0 9.8 0.1 11.5 0.0 Delay (s) 52.8 35.5 62.7 14.6 34.9 4.6 37.6 16.3 Level of Service D D E B C A D B Approach Delay (s) 42.4 57.0 21.6 37.1 Approach LOS D E C D I HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 81.8 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 PM Peak HR 12/312013 Baseline IN 65 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario A AM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 12/4/2013 Lane Configurations I ll, 11 A I A 4A Volume (vph) 5 5 14 248 18 36 56 510 586 61 212 18 Ideal Flaw (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.92 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1653 3210 1636 1787 1731 3507 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.52 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 1653 3210 1636 765 1731 1850 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.86 0.92 0.73 0.92 0.86 0.87 0.52 0.57 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 15 288 20 49 61 593 674 117 372 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 43 0 0 35 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 6 0 288 26 0 61 1232 0 0 506 0 Heavy Vehicles 1%) 2% 2% 2% 8% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm +pt NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7 3.7 6.1 9.1 52.9 52.9 44.6 Effective Green, g (s) 0.7 3.7 6.1 9.1 52.9 52.9 44.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.66 0.66 0.55 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 15 75 242 184 530 1134 1022 vls Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.09 c0.02 0.00 c0.71 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.27 vlc Ratio 0.33 0.08 1.19 0.14 0.12 1.09 1.09dI Uniform Delay, d1 39.8 36.9 37.3 32.3 5.2 13.9 11.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 12.7 0.4 119.0 0.3 0.1 53.4 1.7 Delay (s) 52.4 37.3 156.3 32.6 5.3 67.3 12.8 Level of Service D D F C A E B Approach Delay (s) 40.3 132.4 64.4 12.8 Approach LOS D F E B HCM 2000 Control Delay 63.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.12 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.7 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario A AM Peak HR 12/3/2013 Baseline IN 66 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario A MID 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 12/3/2013 s -i te r. T ti l Lane Configurations I T. j. T, QA Volume (vph) 20 9 28 346 17 37 56 411 293 17 439 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.94 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1653 3333 1619 1787 1764 3602 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.86 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1653 3333 1619 629 1764 3111 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.79 0.92 0.62 0.92 0.85 0.82 0.58 0.82 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 10 30 438 18 60 61 484 357 29 535 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 49 0 0 25 0 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 12 0 438 29 0 61 816 0 0 601 0 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 1% 3% 0% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm +pt NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.9 5.1 12.1 15.3 46.9 46.9 38.7 Effective Green, g (s) 1.9 5.1 12.1 15.3 46.9 46.9 38.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.06 0.15 0.19 0.57 0.57 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 40 102 491 301 390 1007 1466 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.01 c0.13 c0.02 0.00 c0.46 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.12 0.89 0.10 0.16 0.81 0.41 Uniform Delay, dl 39.7 36.4 34.4 27.7 8.4 14.1 14.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 15.3 0.5 18.2 0.1 0.2 7.1 0.8 Delay (s) 55.0 36.9 52.5 27.8 8.6 21.1 15.1 Level of Service E D D C A C B Approach Delay (s) 43.3 48.8 20.3 15.1 Approach LOS D D C B HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 82.1 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario A Mid -Day Peak HR 12/3/2013 Baseline thl 67 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario A PM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 12/3/2013 � � � 'r ~ � -N t �- ti 1 4/ Lane Configurations I TO Prot NA T+ NA I A 7 4 QA 8 Volume (vph) 51 32 45 564 12 65 19 377 310 40 594 16 Ideal Flaw (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) Actuated g/C Ratio 0% 0.09 0.19 2% 0.51 0.51 -2% Clearance Time (s) 6.0 -6% 6.0 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 372 0.97 1.00 1084 1.00 1.00 c0.02 c0.19 0.95 0.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 HCM 2000 Control Delay 1.00 0.87 39.2 1.00 0.93 D 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 0.95 1.00 85.5 1.00 Satd. Flow (Prot) 1770 1700 3467 1635 1787 1779 D 3660 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.69 Satd Flow (perm) 1770 1700 3467 1635 481 1779 2540 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.63 0.91 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 55 35 49 664 13 77 21 424 348 63 653 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 45 0 0 59 0 0 29 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 39 0 664 31 0 21 743 0 0 731 0 Heave Vehicles ( %1 2% 2% 2% 0% 2% 0% 2% 1% 0% 9% 0% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm +pt NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 0.67 Uniform Delay, dill 40.1 36.5 2 34.7 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.0 7.4 16.1 19.5 44.0 44.0 36.5 Effective Green, g (s) 4.0 7.4 16.1 19.5 44.0 44.0 36.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.09 0.19 0.23 0.51 0.51 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehide Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 82 147 652 372 270 915 1084 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.02 c0.19 0.02 0.00 c0.42 C vls Ratio Perm 0.04 0.29 We Ratio 0.67 0.27 1.02 0.08 0.08 0.81 0.67 Uniform Delay, dill 40.1 36.5 34.7 26.0 11.3 17.3 19.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 19.4 1.0 40.0 0.1 0.1 7.8 3.4 Delay (s) 59.5 37.5 74.7 26.1 11 A 25.1 23.1 Level of Service E D E C B C C Approach Delay (s) 46.2 68.9 24.7 23.1 Approach LOS D E C C HCM 2000 Control Delay 39.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.5 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario A PM Peak HR 12/312013 Baseline thl 68 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario B AM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. 12/4/2013 Lane Configurations IN Volume (vph) 5 5 14 248 18 36 56 510 586 61 212 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% •6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.85 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1653 3210 1636 1873 1599 3507 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.64 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1653 3210 1636 1715 1599 2255 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.86 0.92 0.73 0.92 0.86 0.87 0.52 0.57 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 15 288 20 49 61 593 674 117 372 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 40 0 0 0 186 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 6 0 288 29 0 0 654 488 0 507 0 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 8% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 3 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7 3.5 10.8 13.6 45.4 56.2 45.4 Effective Green, g (s) 0.7 3.5 10.8 13.6 45.4 56.2 45.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.05 0.14 0.18 0.58 0.72 0.58 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 15 74 446 286 1002 1280 1317 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.09 c0.02 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm c0.38 0.25 0.22 vlc Ratio 0.33 0.08 0.65 0.10 0.65 0.38 0.38 Uniform Delay, d1 38.3 35.6 31.6 26.9 10.9 4.1 8.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 12.7 0.4 3.2 0.2 3.3 0.2 0.9 Delay (s) 50.9 36.0 34.8 27.1 14.2 43 9.5 Level of Service D D C C B A A Approach Delay (s) 39.0 33.3 9.2 9.5 Approach LOS D C A A HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.7 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario B AM Peak HR 12/3/2013 Baseline thl 69 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario B MID 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 1214/2013 Lane Configurations I T+ M {► 4 r 41A Volume (vph) 20 9 28 346 17 37 56 411 293 17 439 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1653 3333 1619 1887 1584 3602 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 Satd Flow (perm) 1770 1653 3333 1619 1667 1584 3297 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.79 0.92 0.62 0.92 0.85 0.82 0.58 0.82 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 10 30 438 18 60 61 484 357 29 535 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 47 0 0 0 105 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 12 0 438 31 0 0 545 252 0 601 0 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 1% 3% 0% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 3 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.8 5.0 13.9 17.1 41.5 55.4 41.5 Effective Green, g (s) 1.8 5.0 13.9 17.1 41.5 55.4 41.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.06 0.18 0.22 0.53 0.71 0.53 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 40 105 590 353 882 1240 1745 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.01 c0.13 c0.02 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm c0.33 0.12 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.11 0.74 0.09 0.62 0.20 0.34 Uniform Delay, di 37.9 34.6 30.6 24.4 12.9 3.9 10.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 15.3 0.5 5.0 0.1 3.2 0.1 0.5 Delay (s) 53.2 35.1 35.6 24.5 16.1 4.0 11.2 Level of Service D D D C B A B Approach Delay (s) 41.5 33.9 11.3 11.2 Approach LOS D C B B 17.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.4 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario B Mid -Day Peak HR 12/312013 Baseline thl 70 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario B PM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. 12/4/2013 _A1 -• r 4 �, T �► 1 Lane Configurations ►� �►� �, �� Volume (vph) 51 32 45 564 12 65 19 377 310 40 594 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1700 3467 1635 1895 1631 3660 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.82 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1700 3467 1635 1803 1631 3017 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.63 0.91 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 55 35 49 664 13 77 21 424 348 63 653 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 44 0 0 54 0 0 0 112 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 40 0 664 36 0 0 445 236 0 731 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 2% 0% 2% 1% 0% 9% 0% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 3 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.9 7.3 20.0 23.4 33.6 53.6 33.6 Effective Green, g (s) 3.9 7.3 20.0 23.4 33.6 53.6 33.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.09 0.25 0.30 0.43 0.68 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 87 157 878 484 767 1232 1284 Ws Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.02 c0.19 0.02 0.05 vls Ratio Perm c0.25 0.10 0.24 vlc Ratio 0.63 0.25 0.76 0.07 0.58 0.19 0.57 Uniform Delay, dl 36.8 33.3 27.2 20.0 17.3 4.7 17.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.0 0.8 3.8 0.1 3.2 0.1 1.8 Delay (s) 50.8 34.1 31.0 20.0 20.5 4.7 19.0 Level of Service D C C C C A B Approach Delay (s) 40.7 29.6 13.6 19.0 Approach LOS D C B B HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.9 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario B PM Peak HR 121312013 Baseline thl 71 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 OPTIMIZED CYCLE LENGTH M HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout- Scenario 1 AM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. 12/3/2013 Lane Configurations �, ►� �► ��, Volume (vph) . 5 5 14 248 18 36 56 510 586 61 212 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.85 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1653 1655 1636 1873 1599 3507 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.59 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1653 1655 1636 1711 1599 2094 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.86 0.92 0.73 0.92 0.86 0.87 0.52 0.57 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 15 288 20 49 61 593 674 117 372 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 37 0 0 0 187 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 6 0 288 32 0 0 654 487 0 506 0 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 8% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 3 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7 3.5 16.8 19.6 39.3 56.1 39.3 Effective Green, g (s) 0.7 3.5 16.8 19.6 39.3 56.1 39.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.05 0.22 0.25 0.51 0.72 0.51 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 15 74 358 413 866 1279 1060 Ws Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.17 c0.02 0.08 Ws Ratio Perm c0.38 0.22 0.24 vlc Ratio 0.33 0.08 0.80 0.08 0.76 0.38 0.48 Uniform Delay, di 38.2 35.5 28.8 22.1 15.3 4.1 12.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 12.7 0.4 12.3 0.1 6.1 0.2 1.5 Delay (s) 50.9 35.9 41.2 22.2 21.4 4.3 14.0 Level of Service D D D C C A B Approach Delay (s) 38.9 37.5 12.7 14.0 Approach LOS ` D D B B Int9 �SttgQl�Y , HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.6 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 1 AM 12/312013 Baseline IN 73 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout- Scenario 1 MID 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. 1213/2013 Lane Configurations I T+ j► 4 r 4A Volume (vph) 20 9 28 346 17 37 56 411 293 17 439 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prof) 1770 1653 1718 1619 1887 1584 3602 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.88 Sal Flow (perm) 1770 1653 1718 1619 1656 1584 3162 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.79 0.92 0.62 0.92 0.85 0.82 0.58 0.82 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 10 30 438 18 60 61 484 357 29 535 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 40 0 0 0 104 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 12 0 438 38 0 0 545 253 0 600 0 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 1 % 3% 0% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 3 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.9 5.1 23.2 26.4 33.2 56.4 33.2 Effective Green, g (s) 1.9 5.1 23.2 26.4 33.2 56.4 33.2 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.02 0.06 0.29 0.33 0.42 0.71 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 42 106 501 537 691 1243 1320 Ws Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.01 c0.25 0.02 0.06 vls Ratio Perm c0.33 0.10 0.19 vlc Ratio 0.52 0.11 0.87 0.07 0.79 0.20 0.45 Uniform Delay, dt 38.4 35.1 26.8 18.2 20.1 3.9 16.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.3 0.5 15.5 0.1 8.9 0.1 1.1 Delay (s) 49.6 35.5 42.3 18.2 29.0 4.0 17.8 Level of Service D D D B C A B Approach Delay (s) 40.5 38.6 19.1 17.8 Approach LOS D D B B HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 1 Mid -Day Peak HR 12/312013 Baseline thl 74 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario 1 PM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 12/3/2013 l r '- t 4N t r` �► 1 Lane Configurations I j. I T. $ It QT• Volume (vph) 51 32 45 564 12 65 19 377 310 40 594 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1700 1787 1635 1895 1631 3660 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.72 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1700 1787 1635 1796 1631 2652 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.63 0.91 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 55 35 49 664 13 77 21 424 348 63 653 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 46 0 0 47 0 0 0 94 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 38 0 664 43 0 0 445 254 0 732 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 2% 0% 2% 1% 0% 9% 0% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 3 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 6.4 35.2 35.6 31.2 66.4 31.2 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 6.4 35.2 35.6 31.2 66.4 31.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.34 0.73 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 116 119 692 641 617 1300 911 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.02 c0.37 0.03 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.25 0.08 c0.28 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.32 0.96 0.07 0.72 0.20 0.80 Uniform Delay, d1 40.9 40.1 27.1 17.2 26.0 3.8 27.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 1.6 24.3 0.0 7.1 0.1 7.4 Delay (s) 43.9 41.7 51.4 17.3 33.1 3.9 34.5 Level of Service D D D B C A C Approach Delay (s) 42.6 47.3 20.3 34.5 Approach LOS D D C C HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.8 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 1 PM Peak HR 12/312013 Baseline thl 75 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 AM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. 121312013 Lane Configurations ►j IN �+ Volume (vph) 5 5 14 248 18 36 56 510 586 61 212 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1653 1655 1636 1787 1881 1599 1823 1852 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 Satd Flow (perm) 1770 1653 1655 1636 842 1881 1599 376 1852 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.86 0.92 0.73 0.92 0.86 0.87 0.52 0.57 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 15 288 20 49 61 593 674 117 372 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 37 0 0 0 214 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 6 0 288 32 0 61 593 460 117 390 0 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 8% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm +pt NA pt +ov pm +pt NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 23 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7 3.6 16.1 19.0 35.1 32.8 54.9 38.5 34.5 Effective Green, g (s) 0.7 3.6 16.1 19.0 35.1 32.8 54.9 38.5 34.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.04 0.20 0.24 0.44 0.41 0.68 0.48 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 15 73 331 386 394 766 1090 251 793 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.17 c0.02 0.00 c0.32 0.29 c0.02 0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.08 0.87 0.08 0.15 0.77 0.42 0.47 0.49 Uniform Delay, di 39.7 36.9 31.2 24.0 13.4 20.6 5.7 14.3 16.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 12.7 0.5 21.2 0.1 0.2 7.5 0.3 1.4 2.2 Delay (s) 52.3 37.3 52.4 24.0 13.6 28.1 6.0 15.7 18.8 Level of Service D D D C B C A B B Approach Delay (s) 40.3 46.9 16.2 18.1 Approach LOS D D B B HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.5 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 AM Peak HR 12/3/2013 Baseline thl 76 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 MID 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 12/3/2013 * 1 /0. Lane Configurations + tS Volume (vph) 20 9 28 346 17 37 56 411 293 17 439 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util, Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1653 1718 1619 1787 1900 1584 1859 1898 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1653 1718 1619 274 1900 1584 514 1898 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.79 0.92 0.62 0.92 0.85 0.82 0.58 0.82 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 10 30 438 18 60 61 484 357 29 535 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 41 0 0 0 109 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 12 0 438 37 0 61 484 248 29 574 0 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 1 % 3% 0% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm +pt NA pt +ov pm +pt NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 23 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.8 4.8 21.6 24.6 29.6 27.5 55.1 28.2 26.8 Effective Green, g (s) 1.8 4.8 21.6 24.6 29.6 27.5 55.1 28.2 26.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.06 0.27 0.31 0.37 0.35 0.69 0.36 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 40 100 467 502 142 658 1100 206 641 vls Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.01 c0.25 0.02 c0.01 0.25 0.16 0.00 c0.30 vls Ratio Perm 0.15 0.05 vlc Ratio 0.55 0.12 0.94 0.07 0.43 0.74 0.23 0.14 0.90 Uniform Delay, d1 38.3 35.2 28.2 19.3 18.7 22.7 4.4 17.7 24.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 15.3 0.5 26.5 0.1 2.1 7.2 0.1 0.3 17.6 Delay (s) 53.7 35.8 54.7 19.4 20.8 29.9 4.5 18.0 42.5 Level of Service D D D B C C A B D Approach Delay (s) 42.1 49.4 19.2 41.3 Approach LOS D D B D HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.3 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 Mid -Day Peak HR 12/312013 Baseline thl 77 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 PM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 1213/2013 '► i' t 1 t P\0, 1 r Lane Configurations R A I ? IN I A Volume (vph) 51 32 45 564 12 65 19 377 310 40 594 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6 % Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (Prot) 1770 1700 1787 1635 1787 1900 1631 1706 1949 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 Satd Flow (perm) 1770 1700 1787 1635 180 1900 1631 515 1949 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.63 0.91 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 55 35 49 664 13 77 21 424 348 63 653 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 43 0 0 49 0 0 0 83 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 41 0 664 41 0 21 424 265 63 669 0 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 0% 2% 0% 2% 1% 0% 9% 0% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm +pt NA pt +ov pm +pt NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 23 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.6 7.1 42.4 42.9 43.2 41.7 90.1 46.4 43.3 Effective Green, g (s) 6.6 7.1 42.4 42.9 43.2 41.7 90.1 46.4 43.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.35 0.76 0.39 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 98 102 640 592 86 669 1242 233 713 vls Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.02 c0.37 0.03 0.00 0.22 0.16 c0.01 c0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.10 vlc Ratio 0.56 0.40 1.04 0.07 0.24 0.63 0.21 0.27 0.94 Uniform Delay, dill 54.4 53.5 38.0 24.6 29.9 31.9 4.0 24.4 36.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.2 2.6 45.6 0.0 1.5 4.5 0.1 0.6 21.7 Delay (s) 61.6 56.1 83.6 24.7 31.4 36.5 4.1 25.0 57.9 Level of Service E E F C C D A C E Approach Delay (s) 58.3 76.6 22.1 55.1 Approach LOS E E C E HCM 2000 Control Delay 51.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 118.3 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 PM Peak HR 12/312013 Baseline thl 78 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 AM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 1216/2013 Lane Configurations I T+ Vi T* Vi + r I + tr Volume (vph) 5 5 14 248 18 36 56 510 586 61 212 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1653 1655 1636 1787 1881 1599 1823 1864 1631 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 1653 1655 1636 884 1881 1599 376 1864 1631 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.86 0.92 0.73 0.92 0.86 0.87 0.52 0.57 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 15 288 20 49 61 593 674 117 372 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 37 0 0 0 265 0 0 11 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 6 0 288 32 0 61 593 409 117 372 9 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 8% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm +pt NA pm +ov pm +pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7 3.6 16.1 19.0 35.1 32.8 48.9 38.5 34.5 34.5 Effective Green, g (s) 0.7 3.6 16.1 19.0 35.1 32.8 48.9 38.5 34.5 34.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.04 0.20 0.24 0.44 0.41 0.61 0.48 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 15 73 331 386 411 766 1090 251 798 699 Ws Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.17 c0.02 0.00 c0.32 0.08 c0.02 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.18 0.20 0.01 vlc Ratio 0.33 0.08 0.87 0.08 0.15 0.77 0.38 0.47 0.47 0.01 Uniform Delay, dl 39.7 36.9 31.2 24.0 13.4 20.6 8.0 14.3 16.4 13.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 12.7 0.5 21.2 0.1 0.2 7.5 0.2 1.4 2.0 0.0 Delay (s) 52.3 37.3 52.4 24.0 13.5 28.1 8.3 15.7 18.4 13.2 Level of Service D D D C 8 C A B B B Approach Delay (s) 40.3 46.9 17.4 17.6 Approach LOS D D 6 B HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.5 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 AM Peak HR 12/312013 Baseline thl 79 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 MID 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 12/6/2013 -il -,* 1- 4--- t 4\ t ti 1 Lane Configurations I '9 A + r R t F Volume (vph) 20 9 28 346 17 37 56 411 293 17 439 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1653 1718 1619 1787 1900 1584 1859 1919 1631 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 1653 1718 1619 337 1900 1584 514 1919 1631 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.79 0.92 0.62 0.92 0.85 0.82 0.58 0.82 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 10 30 438 18 60 61 484 357 29 535 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 41 0 0 0 136 0 0 28 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 12 0 438 37 0 61 484 221 29 535 14 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 1% 3% 0% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm +pt NA pm +ov pm +pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.8 4.8 21.6 24.6 29.6 27.5 49.1 28.2 26.8 26.8 Effective Green, g (s) 1.8 4.8 21.6 24.6 29.6 27.5 49.1 28.2 26.8 26.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.06 0.27 0.31 0.37 0.35 0.62 0.36 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 40 100 467 502 164 658 1100 206 648 551 vls Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.01 c0.25 0.02 c0.01 0.25 0.05 0.00 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.08 0.05 0.01 We Ratio 0.55 0.12 0.94 0.07 0.37 0.74 0.20 0.14 0.83 0.03 Uniform Delay, dl 38.3 35.2 28.2 19.3 18.1 22.7 6.6 17.7 24.1 17.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 15.3 0.5 26.5 0.1 1.4 7.2 0.1 0.3 11.5 0.1 Delay (s) 53.7 35.8 54.7 19.4 19.5 29.9 6.7 18.0 35.6 17.6 Level of Service D D D B 8 C A B D B Approach Delay (s) 42.1 49.4 20.0 33.5 Approach LOS D D B C HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.3 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 Mid -Day Peak HR 12/3/2013 Baseline IN 80 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 PM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 12/6/2013 Lane Configurations I ll, T* + r I T r Volume (vph) 51 32 45 564 12 65 19 377 310 40 594 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1700 1787 1635 1787 1900 1631 1706 1957 1631 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 1700 1787 1635 180 1900 1631 515 1957 1631 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.63 0.91 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 55 35 49 664 13 77 21 424 348 63 653 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 43 0 0 49 0 0 0 101 0 0 11 Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 41 0 664 41 0 21 424 247 63 653 6 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 2% 0% 2% 1% 0% 9% 0% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm +pt NA pm +ov pm +pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.6 7.1 42.4 42.9 43.2 41.7 84.1 46.4 43.3 43.3 Effective Green, g (s) 6.6 7.1 42.4 42.9 43.2 41.7 84.1 46.4 43.3 43.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.35 0.71 0.39 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 98 102 640 592 86 669 1242 233 716 596 Ws Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.02 c0.37 0.03 0.00 0.22 0.07 c0.01 c0.33 vls Ratio Perm 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.00 vlc Ratio 0.56 0.40 1.04 0.07 0.24 0.63 0.20 0.27 0.91 0.01 Uniform Delay, dl 54.4 53.5 38.0 24.6 29.4 31.9 5.8 24.4 35.7 23.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.2 2.6 45.6 0.0 1.5 4.5 0.1 0.6 17.9 0.0 Delay (s) 61.6 56.1 83.6 24.7 30.9 36.5 5.8 25.0 53.6 23.9 Level of Service E E F C C D A C D C Approach Delay (s) 58.3 76.6 22.9 50.5 Approach LOS E E C D HCM 2000 Control Delay 50.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 118.3 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 PM Peak HR 12/312013 Baseline thl 81 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 AM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. 12/6/2013 4e ~ t � Lane Configurations R A I A 4 r 0 F Volume (vph) 5 5 14 248 18 36 56 510 586 61 212 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1653 1655 1636 1873 1599 3523 1631 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.59 1.00 Satd Flow (Perm) 1770 1653 1655 1636 1717 1599 2114 1631 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.86 0.92 0.73 0.92 0.86 0.87 0.52 0.57 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 15 288 20 49 61 593 674 117 372 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 0 38 0 0 0 180 0 0 9 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 5 0 288 31 0 0 654 494 0 489 11 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 8% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA pm+ov Perm NA pm +ov Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 3 6 7 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.4 2.5 16.8 17.9 39.3 56.1 39.3 40.7 Effective Green, g (s) 1.4 2.5 16.8 17.9 39.3 56.1 39.3 40.7 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.02 0.03 0.22 0.23 0.51 0.73 0.51 0.53 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 32 53 362 382 880 1296 1084 994 vls Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.17 c0.02 0.08 0.00 vls Ratio Perm c0.38 0.23 0.23 0.01 vlc Ratio 0.16 0.10 0.80 0.08 0.74 0.38 0.45 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 37.0 36.0 28.3 22.9 14.7 3.8 11.8 8.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 0.9 11.5 0.1 5.6 0.2 1.4 0.0 Delay (s) 39.3 36.8 39.7 23.0 20.3 4.0 13.2 8.5 Level of Service D D D C C A B A Approach Delay (s) 37.3 36.5 12.0 13.0 Approach LOS D D B B 16.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 76.6 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 AM Peak HR 121312013 Baseline thl 82 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 MID 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. 1216/2013 .< ~ k 4N t ti 1 Lane Configurations ►j 'A I f, Volume (vph) 20 9 28 346 17 37 56 411 293 17 439 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fr: 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1653 1718 1619 1887 1584 3640 1631 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.88 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 1653 1718 1619 1671 1584 3216 1631 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.79 0.92 0.62 0.92 0.85 0.82 0.58 0.82 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 10 30 438 18 60 61 484 357 29 535 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 41 0 0 0 100 0 0 23 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 12 0 438 37 0 0 545 257 0 564 19 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 1% 3% 0% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA pm +ov Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 3 6 7 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 2.8 4.0 23.2 24.4 33.2 56.4 33.2 36.0 Effective Green, g (s) 2.8 4.0 23.2 24.4 33.2 56.4 33.2 36.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.05 0.30 0.31 0.42 0.72 0.42 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 63 84 508 503 707 1260 1361 873 vls Ratio Prot 0.01 x0.01 c0.25 0.02 0.06 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm c0.33 0.10 0.18 0.01 vlc Ratio 0.35 0.14 0.86 0.07 0.77 0.20 0.41 0.02 Uniform Delay, dl 36.9 35.6 26.1 19.0 19.3 3.6 15.8 11.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.3 0.7 14.0 0.1 8.0 0.1 0.9 0.0 Delay (s) 40.2 36.3 40.1 19.1 27.3 3.7 16.7 11.6 Level of Service D D D B C A B B Approach Delay (s) 37.7 36.9 18.0 16.4 Approach LOS D D B B HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.4 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 Mid -Day Peak HR 12/3/2013 Baseline thl 83 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 PM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 121612013 � 'r ~ t � t 1 Lane Configurations R y, A 4 IN 44 IN Volume (vph) 51 32 45 564 12 65 19 377 310 40 594 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1700 1787 1635 1895 1631 3673 1631 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.70 1.00 Satd Flow (perm) 1770 1700 1787 1635 1796 1631 2594 1631 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.63 0.91 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 55 35 49 664 13 77 21 424 348 63 653 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 45 0 0 45 0 0 0 108 0 0 11 Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 39 0 664 45 0 0 445 240 0 716 6 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 2% 0% 2% 1% 0% 9% 0% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA pm +ov Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 3 6 7 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.0 7.4 30.2 33.6 26.2 56.4 26.2 30.2 Effective Green, g (s) 4.0 7.4 30.2 33.6 26.2 56.4 26.2 30.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.09 0.37 0.41 0.32 0.69 0.32 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 86 153 659 671 575 1244 830 721 vls Ratio Prot 0.03 c102 c0.37 0.03 0.07 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.25 0.08 c0.28 0.00 vlc Ratio 0.64 0.26 1.01 0.07 0.77 0.19 0.86 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 38.2 34.6 25.8 14.6 25.1 4.5 26.1 16.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.6 0.9 36.9 0.0 9.8 0.1 11.5 0.0 Delay (s) 52.8 35.5 62.7 14.6 34.9 4.6 37.6 16.3 Level of Service D D E B C A D B Approach Delay (s) 42.4 57.0 21.6 37.1 Approach LOS D E C D HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 81.8 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 PM Peak HR 12/312013 Baseline thl 84 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario A AM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. 12/3/2013 l ~ t 1 t I' �► 1 r Lane Configurations R 'y 11 A I A *TT* Volume (vph) 5 5 14 248 18 36 56 510 586 61 212 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.92 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1653 3210 1636 1787 1731 3507 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.49 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 1653 3210 1636 804 1731 1745 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.86 0.92 0.73 0.92 0.86 0.87 0.52 0.57 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 15 288 20 49 61 593 674 117 372 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 43 0 0 23 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 6 0 288 26 0 61 1244 0 0 507 0 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 8% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm +pt NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 6.4 13.0 18.6 104.5 104.5 95.3 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 6.4 13.0 18.6 104.5 104.5 95.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.74 0.74 0.67 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 9 74 294 214 614 1274 1171 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.09 c0.02 0.00 c0.72 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.29 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.08 0.98 0.12 0.10 0.98 1.60dl Uniform Delay, d1 70.4 64.9 64.3 54.5 5.4 17.5 10.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 58.1 0.4 46.3 0.3 0.1 20.2 1.2 Delay (s) 128.5 65.4 110.6 54.7 5.4 37.7 12.0 Level of Service F E F D A D B Approach Delay (s) 78.0 99.8 36.2 12.0 Approach LOS E F D B HCM 2000 Control Delay 41.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service EMINNEFEW D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 141.9 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 dl Defacto Left Lane. Reoode with 1 though lane as a left lane c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario A AM Peak HR 12/3/2013 Baseline IN 85 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario A MID 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 121312013 Lane Configurations I '# 0.85 Vili A Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.1% ICU Level of Service D T, 15 c Critical Lane Group $+ Volume (vph) 20 9 28 346 17 37 56 411 293 17 439 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.94 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prof) 1770 1653 3333 1619 1787 1764 3602 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.86 Said Flow (perm) 1770 1653 3333 1619 629 1764 3111 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.79 0.92 0.62 0.92 0.85 0.82 0.58 0.82 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 10 30 438 18 60 61 484 357 29 535 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 49 0 0 25 0 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 12 0 438 29 0 61 816 0 0 601 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 1% 3% 0% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm +pt NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.9 5.1 12.1 15.3 46.9 46.9 38.7 Effective Green, g (s) 1.9 5.1 12.1 15.3 46.9 46.9 38.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.06 0.15 0.19 0.57 0.57 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 40 102 491 301 390 1007 1466 vls Ratio Prot 0.01 0.01 c0.13 c0.02 0.00 c0.46 vls Ratio Perm 0.09 0.19 vlc Ratio 0.55 0.12 0.89 0.10 0.16 0.81 0.41 Uniform Delay, dl 39.7 36.4 34.4 27.7 8.4 14.1 14.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 15.3 0.5 18.2 0.1 0.2 7.1 0.8 Delay (s) 55.0 36.9 52.5 27.8 8.6 21.1 15.1 Level of Service E D D C A C B Approach Delay (s) 43.3 48.8 20.3 15.1 Approach LOS D D C B HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 82.1 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario A Mid -Day Peak HR 121312013 Baseline thl 86 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario A PM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. 1213/2013 --.* --P� oe k -N t 1 Lane Configurations I j, 0.88 11 T, Intersection Capacity Utilization Vi A 15 c Critical Lane Group $A Volume (vph) 51 32 45 564 12 65 19 377 310 40 594 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% •6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Fr: 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.93 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1700 3467 1635 1787 1779 3660 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.69 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1700 3467 1635 481 1779 2540 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.63 0.91 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 55 35 49 664 13 77 21 424 348 63 653 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 45 0 0 59 0 0 29 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 39 0 664 31 0 21 743 0 0 731 0 Heavy Vehicles 1%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 2% 0% 2% 1% 0% 9% 0% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm +pt NA Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.0 7.4 16.1 19.5 44.0 44.0 36.5 Effective Green, g (s) 4.0 7.4 16.1 19.5 44.0 44.0 36.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.09 0.19 0.23 0.51 0.51 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 82 147 652 372 270 915 1084 vls Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.02 c0.19 0.02 0.00 c0.42 vls Ratio Perm 0.04 0.29 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.27 1.02 0.08 0.08 0.81 0.67 Uniform Delay, dl 40.1 36.5 34.7 26.0 11.3 17.3 19.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 19.4 1.0 40.0 0.1 0.1 7.8 3.4 Delay (s) 59.5 37.5 74.7 26.1 11.4 25.1 23.1 Level of Service E D E C B C C Approach Delay (s) 46.2 68.9 24.7 23.1 Approach LOS D E C C HCM 2000 Control Delay 39.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.5 Sum of lost time (s) 24.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario A PM Peak HR 12/3/2013 Baseline thl 87 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario B AM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 12/3/2013 z f- *-- 4- 4N T 1 W Lane Configurations I Ts 11 A 4 F 4A Volume (vph) 5 5 14 248 18 36 56 510 586 61 212 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.85 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1653 3210 1636 1873 1599 3507 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.64 Said Flow (perm) 1770 1653 3210 1636 1716 1599 2264 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.86 0.92 0.73 0.92 0.86 0.87 0.52 0.57 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 15 288 20 49 61 593 674 117 372 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 0 42 0 0 0 233 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 5 0 288 27 0 0 654 441 0 506 0 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 8% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 3 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7 1.2 7.1 7.6 29.3 36.4 29.3 Effective Green, g (s) 0.7 1.2 7.1 7.6 29.3 36.4 29.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.02 0.13 0.14 0.53 0.65 0.53 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 22 35 409 223 904 1219 1193 vls Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.09 c0.02 0.05 vls Ratio Perm c0.38 0.23 0.22 vlc Ratio 0.23 0.15 0.70 0.12 0.72 0.36 0.42 Uniform Delay, dl 27.2 26.7 23.2 21.1 10.1 4.3 8.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.2 2.0 5.4 0.2 5.0 0.2 1.1 Delay (s) 32.4 28.7 28.7 21.3 15.1 4.5 9.1 Level of Service C C C C B A A Approach Delay (s) 29.5 27.3 9.7 9.1 Approach LOS C C A A HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 55.6 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario B AM Peak HR 12/3/2013 Baseline thl 88 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario B MID 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. 12/3/2013 � 'r � � 4% t 1 Lane Configurations I T+ 11 y, +T if QT+ Volume (vph) 20 9 28 346 17 37 56 411 293 17 439 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 0% 2% -2% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Will. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (Prot) 1770 1653 3333 1619 1887 1584 3602 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 1653 3333 1619 1666 1584 3301 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.79 0.92 0.62 0.92 0.85 0.82 0.58 0.82 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 10 30 438 18 60 61 484 357 29 535 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 48 0 0 0 133 0 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 12 0 438 30 0 0 545 224 0 599 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 1% 3% 0% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 3 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7 3.6 9.1 12.0 27.4 36.5 27.4 Effective Green, g (s) 0.7 3.6 9.1 12.0 27.4 36.5 27.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.06 0.16 0.21 0.47 0.63 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 21 102 522 334 785 1158 1556 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.01 c0.13 c0.02 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm c0.33 0.11 0.18 v/c Ratio 1.05 0.12 0.84 0.09 0.69 0.19 0.39 Uniform Delay, d1 28.7 25.7 23.8 18.6 12.1 4.6 9.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 212.0 0.5 11.3 0.1 5.0 0.1 0.7 Delay (s) 240.7 26.3 35.1 18.8 17.1 4.7 10.6 Level of Service F C D B B A B Approach Delay (s) 102.4 32.6 12.2 10.6 Approach LOS F C B B HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service 8 HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 58.1 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 Buildout Scenario B Mid -Day Peak HR 12/3/2013 Baseline thl 89 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2020 Buildout Scenario B PM 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve AV. 121312013 4N Lane Configurations I T+ 25.3 1) T* 3.4 6.9 Q IF 36.4 QA 0.06 Volume (vph) 51 32 45 564 12 65 19 377 310 40 594 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade ( %) 1.00 0% 7.2 0.6 2% 0.1 3.5 -2% 1.9 35.4 -6% 77.7 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 15.7 6.0 6.0 E B 6.0 6.0 B 6.0 29.3 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 C 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.85 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1700 3467 1635 1895 1631 3660 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.84 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 1700 3467 1635 1801 1631 3095 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.63 0.91 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 55 35 49 664 13 77 21 424 348 63 653 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 43 0 0 59 0 0 0 141 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 41 0 664 31 0 0 445 207 0 731 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 2% 0% 2% 1% 0% 9% 0% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA pm +ov Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 3 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (sl Vehicle Extension (: Lane Grp Cap (vph) vls Ratio Prot vls Ratio Perm vlc Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 3.4 6.9 111 14.6 25.3 36.4 25.3 3.4 6.9 11.1 14.6 25.3 36.4 25.3 0.06 0.11 0.18 0.24 0.41 0.59 0.41 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 98 191 627 389 743 1128 1277 0.03 c0.02 c0.19 0.02 0.03 c0.25 0.09 0.24 0.56 0.21 1.06 0.08 0.60 0.18 0.57 28.2 24.7 25.1 18.1 14.0 5.7 13.8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.2 0.6 52.6 0.1 3.5 0.1 1.9 35.4 25.3 77.7 18.2 17.6 5.8 15.7 D C E B B A B 29.3 70.6 12.4 15.7 C E B B 2020 Buildout Scenario B PM Peak HR 1213/2013 Baseline thl 90 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 APPENDIX D Queueing Analysis Summary 91 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Existing AM Baseline 1212/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Reserve Av. Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 Existing Conditions AM Peak HR thl 92 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Directions Served L R T R LT T Maximum Queue (ft) 190 46 228 88 235 214 Average Queue (ft) 89 13 111 45 100 47 95th Queue (ft) 154 35 187 78 199 154 Link Distance (ft) 591 591 470 470 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 Existing Conditions AM Peak HR thl 92 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Existing MID Baseline 12/2/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Reserve Av. Directions Served L R T R LT T Maximum Queue (ft) 241 55 205 64 188 154 Average Queue (ft) 131 17 109 26 100 53 95th Queue (ft) 210 42 178 55 161 118 Link Distance (ft) 591 591 470 470 966 966 Upstream Bilk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Bilk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Sum Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 Existing Conditions Mid -Day Peak HR thl 93 SimTrafBc Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Existing PM Baseline 12/2/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Reserve Av. Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 Existing Conditions. PM Peak HR thl 94 SimTraffc Report Page 1 Directions Served L R T R LT T Maximum Queue (ft) 327 49 204 61 238 210 Average Queue (ft) 173 16 97 23 132 85 95th Queue (ft) 278 38 166 52 209 177 Link Distance (ft) 591 591 470 470 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 Existing Conditions. PM Peak HR thl 94 SimTraffc Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Background AM Baseline 1213/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Reserve Av. Directions Served L R T R LT T Maximum Queue (ft) 216 56 239 120 271 237 Average Queue (ft) 99 15 113 54 120 68 95th Queue (ft) 170 40 191 93 238 195 Link Distance (ft) 591 591 470 470 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Background AM Peak HR thl 95 SimTrafflc Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Baseline Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Reserve Av. 2020 Background MID 12/3/2013 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Sum Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Background Mid -Day Peak HR thl 96 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Directions Served L R T R LT T Maximum Queue (ft) 243 52 223 74 198 171 Average Queue (ft) 126 13 101 28 95 53 95th Queue (ft) 207 36 177 61 163 122 Link Distance (ft) 591 591 470 470 966 966 Upstream Bilk Time ( %) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Sum Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Background Mid -Day Peak HR thl 96 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Background PM Baseline 12/3/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Reserve Av. Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Su Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Background PM Peak HR thl 97 SimTraffc Report Page 1 Directions Served L R T R LT T Maximum Queue (ft) 501 158 222 57 242 205 Average Queue (ft) 247 37 111 27 145 105 95th Queue (ft) 446 210 184 56 219 196 Link Distance (ft) 591 591 470 470 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 3 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Su Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Background PM Peak HR thl 97 SimTraffc Report Page 1 90 SECOND CYCLE LENGTH 98 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario 1 AM Baseline 12/3/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L TR LT R LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 37 52 219 66 317 143 218 175 Average Queue (ft) 5 17 116 21 145 50 93 37 95th Queue (ft) 25 45 192 49 254 105 173 119 Link Distance (ft) 294 294 591 591 468 468 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summ Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario 1 AM thl 99 SimTraffc Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario 1 MID Baseline 12/3/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L TR LT R LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 64 79 306 59 372 158 196 166 Average Queue (ft) 19 27 153 21 170 32 104 60 95th Queue (ft) 51 63 258 47 317 116 172 132 Link Distance (ft) 348 348 591 591 469 469 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildoul Scenario 1 Mid -Day Peak HR thl 100 SimTraffc Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario 1 PM Baseline 1214/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Su Network wide Queuing Penalty; 0 2020 Buildout Scenado 1 PM Peak HR thl 101 SimTraffic Report Page 1 `NB-- NB SB SB Directions Served L TR L TR LT R LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 93 114 478 229 474 348 314 280 Average Queue (ft) 36 48 266 38 220 54 188 150 95th Queue (ft) 74 91 465 172 402 209 287 254 Link Distance (ft) 341 341 591 591 469 469 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 2 1 3 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Su Network wide Queuing Penalty; 0 2020 Buildout Scenado 1 PM Peak HR thl 101 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Baseline Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 AM 12/3/2013 Movement EB EB WB WB NB ' NB SB SB Directions Served L TR L TR L T R L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 33 52 239 70 62 306 209 111 197 Average Queue (ft) 5 17 123 21 26 155 79 43 77 95th Queue (ft) 23 44 211 50 54 263 174 89 154 Link Distance (ft) 300 300 585 585 469 469 469 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Su Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 AM Peak HR IN 102 SimTrafflc Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 MID Baseline 1213/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Network Sum Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 Mid -Day Peak HR thl 103 SimTraffc Report Page 1 Directions Served L TR L TR L T R L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 57 69 296 68 70 272 118 56 340 Average Queue (ft) 20 27 147 21 30 129 26 15 168 95th Queue (ft) 50 57 250 49 59 228 82 44 283 Link Distance (ft) 354 354 585 585 469 469 469 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Sum Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 Mid -Day Peak HR thl 103 SimTraffc Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Baseline Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 PM 12/4/2013 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Sum Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 PM Peak HR thl 104 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Directions Served L TR L TR L T R L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 88 113 600 600 44 278 149 82 456 Average Queue (11) 35 48 578 524 14 135 54 30 238 95th Queue (ft) 71 90 695 843 40 232 121 67 397 Link Distance (ft) 348 348 585 585 470 470 470 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 85 62 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Sum Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 PM Peak HR thl 104 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 AM Baseline 12/6/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L TR L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 28 48 245 73 63 311 184 91 178 47 Average Queue (ft) 4 13 122 21 27 154 73 39 71 8 95th Queue (ft) 20 35 207 51 56 255 134 77 142 35 Link Distance (ft) 289 289 585 585 469 469 469 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time ( %) 3 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 Network Summ Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 AM Peak HR thl 105 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 MID Baseline 12/6/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Movement Directions Served L TR L TR L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 52 56 290 73 71 266 81 72 328 125 Average Queue (ft) 16 20 148 22 31 126 30 16 157 25 95th Queue (ft) 43 46 249 51 62 225 64 52 265 85 Link Distance (ft) 343 343 585 585 469 469 469 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time ( %) 19 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 8 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 Mid -Day Peak HR thl 106 SimTra(fic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 PM Baseline 12/6/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L TR L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 92 98 600 600 46 280 108 84 444 115 Average Queue (ft) 31 40 578 526 14 136 42 29 227 14 95th Queue (ft) 70 79 695 841 40 228 80 66 379 66 Link Distance (ft) 336 336 585 585 470 470 470 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 84 64 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time ( %) 32 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 5 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 PM Peak HR thl 107 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 AM Baseline 1216/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L TR LT R LT T R Maximum Queue (ft) 32 46 266 69 341 125 283 255 47 Average Queue (ft) 5 13 124 20 159 50 125 70 7 95th Queue (ft) 21 35 218 48 270 94 244 202 31 Link Distance (ft) 283 283 591 591 468 468 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time ( %) 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Network Summ Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 AM Peak HR thl 108 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 MID Baseline 12/6/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L TR LT R LT T R Maximum Queue (ft) 55 53 256 64 300 80 178 160 39 Average Queue (ft) 16 19 142 21 149 28 96 51 11 95th Queue (ft) 44 43 225 48 263 60 158 117 35 Link Distance (ft) 337 337 591 591 469 469 966 966 Upstream Bilk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time ( %) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Network Summ Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 Mid -Day Peak HR thl 109 SimTraffc Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 PM Baseline 1216/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 2 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 PM Peak HR thl 110 ShTraff c Report Page 1 Directions Served L TR L TR LT R LT T R Maximum Queue (ft) 89 100 512 182 423 242 328 285 103 Average Queue (ft) 31 41 265 35 204 44 188 149 9 95th Queue (ft) 68 82 452 152 369 153 289 257 50 Link Distance (ft) 330 330 591 591 469 469 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 1 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time ( %) 13 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 2 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 PM Peak HR thl 110 ShTraff c Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario A AM Baseline 12/412013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Su Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario A AM Peak HR thl 111 ShTraffc Report Page 1 Directions Served L TR L L TR L TR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 37 54 255 224 80 490 512 637 598 Average Queue (11) 6 17 157 113 32 344 431 447 410 95th Queue (ft) 25 45 238 217 63 686 613 749 718 Link Distance (ft) 289 289 597 597 597 464 464 959 959 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 24 54 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Su Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario A AM Peak HR thl 111 ShTraffc Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario A MID Baseline 12/3/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L L TR L TR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 65 68 228 198 80 105 399 231 211 Average Queue (ft) 20 27 142 90 32 30 180 101 69 95th Queue (ft) 53 57 209 179 64 83 336 189 162 Link Distance (ft) 343 343 597 597 597 464 464 959 959 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Sum Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario A Mid -Day Peak HR thl 112 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario A PM Baseline 12/312013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L L TR L TR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 94 137 320 287 88 218 467 327 298 Average Queue (ft) 37 51 204 160 37 27 245 195 155 95th Queue (ft) 77 100 289 258 70 155 434 316 287 Link Distance (ft) 336 336 597 597 597 464 464 959 959 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Bilk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Su Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario A PM Peak HR thl 113 SimTraffc Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario B AM Baseline 12/4/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario B AM Peak HR thl 114 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Directions Served L TR L L TR LT R LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 37 52 207 168 68 339 212 290 253 Average Queue (ft) 5 18 113 51 24 134 58 123 67 95th Queue (ft) 24 47 180 129 53 257 146 250 201 Link Distance (ft) 294 294 592 592 592 463 463 960 960 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario B AM Peak HR thl 114 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario B MID Baseline 12/4/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L L TR LT R LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 65 73 209 170 74 282 81 201 175 Average Queue (ft) 20 26 129 68 25 136 28 86 50 95th Queue (ft) 52 58 193 151 55 241 64 157 123 Link Distance (ft) 348 348 592 592 592 463 463 960 960 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summ Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenado B Mid -Day Peak HR thl 115 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario B PM Baseline 1214/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L L TR LT R LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 90 116 228 195 75 336 112 259 220 Average Queue (ft) 36 49 156 104 27 149 35 149 107 95th Queue (ft) 74 94 216 187 58 281 85 232 196 Link Distance (ft) 341 341 592 592 592 463 463 960 960 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Su Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario B PM Peak HR thl 116 SimTrafBc Report Page 1 OPTIMIZED CYCLE LENGTH 117 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario 1 AM Baseline 1213/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L TR LT R LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 37 52 219 66 317 143 218 175 Average Queue (ft) 5 17 116 21 145 50 93 37 95th Queue (ft) 25 45 192 49 254 105 173 119 Link Distance (ft) 294 294 591 591 468 468 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario 1 AM thl 118 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario 1 MID Baseline 12/312013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L TR LT R LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 64 79 306 59 372 158 196 166 Average Queue (ft) 19 27 153 21 170 32 104 60 95th Queue (ft) 51 63 258 47 317 116 172 132 Link Distance (ft) 348 348 591 591 469 469 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summ Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildoul Scenario 1 Mid -Day Peak HR thl 119 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario 1 PM Baseline 12/3/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. g Mm . - NB NB W SB Directions Served L TR L TR LT R LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 91 116 544 83 464 320 340 289 Average Queue (ft) 37 52 272 27 227 53 201 160 95th Queue (ft) 76 97 462 60 409 205 303 269 Link Distance (ft) 341 341 591 591 469 469 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 0 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Sum Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario 1 PM Peak HR thl 120 SimTraffc Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 AM Baseline 12/3/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L TR L T R L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 33 52 239 70 62 306 209 111 197 Average Queue (ft) 5 17 123 21 26 155 79 43 77 95th Queue (ft) 23 44 211 50 54 263 174 89 154 Link Distance (ft) 300 300 585 585 469 469 469 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenado 2 AM Peak HR thl 121 SimTraif c Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 MID Baseline 12/3/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L TR L T R L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 57 69 296 68 70 272 118 56 340 Average Queue (ft) 20 27 147 21 30 129 26 15 168 95th Queue (ft) 50 57 250 49 59 228 82 44 283 Link Distance (ft) 354 354 585 585 469 469 469 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Su Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 Mid -Day Peak HR thl 122 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 PM Baseline 12/3/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L TR L T R L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 99 134 583 434 46 382 165 95 668 Average Queue (ft) 40 58 382 80 15 193 53 34 356 95th Queue (ft) 86 111 613 345 42 322 121 76 617 Link Distance (ft) 348 348 585 585 470 470 470 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 7 1 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Bilk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Sum Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario 2 PM Peak HR thl 123 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 AM Baseline 1216/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 AM Peak HR thl 124 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Directions Served L TR L TR L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 28 48 245 73 63 311 184 91 178 47 Average Queue (ft) 4 13 122 21 27 154 73 39 71 8 95th Queue (ft) 20 35 207 51 56 255 134 77 142 35 Link Distance (ft) 289 289 585 585 469 469 469 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time ( %) 3 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 AM Peak HR thl 124 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 MID Baseline 1216/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Network Su Network wide Queuing Penalty: 8 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 Mid -Day Peak HR thl 125 SimTraffc Report Page 1 Directions Served L TR L TR L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 52 56 290 73 71 266 81 72 328 125 Average Queue (ft) 16 20 148 22 31 126 30 16 157 25 95th Queue (ft) 43 46 249 51 62 225 64 52 265 85 Link Distance (ft) 343 343 585 585 469 469 469 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time ( %) 19 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 0 Network Su Network wide Queuing Penalty: 8 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 Mid -Day Peak HR thl 125 SimTraffc Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scecario 3 PM Baseline 1216/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L TR L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 88 124 579 398 46 371 106 87 650 98 Average Queue (ft) 35 49 380 80 15 193 40 33 336 12 95th Queue (ft) 75 101 611 339 43 318 82 73 586 65 Link Distance (ft) 336 336 585 585 470 470 470 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 6 1 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time ( %) 45 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 7 2020 Buildout Scenario 3 PM Peak HR IN 126 SimTra(fic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 AM Baseline 12/6/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L TR LT R LT T R Maximum Queue (ft) 31 46 264 72 343 124 302 275 45 Average Queue (ft) 5 13 124 21 159 50 132 76 7 95th Queue (ft) 21 35 218 50 271 94 269 228 31 Link Distance (ft) 283 283 591 591 468 468 966 966 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time ( %) 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Network Summ Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 AM Peak HR thl 127 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 MID Baseline 12/6/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 Mid -Day Peak HR thl 128 SimTraffc Report Page 1 Directions Served L TR L TR LT R LT T R Maximum Queue (ft) 65 66 308 67 366 158 192 177 54 Average Queue (ft) 18 21 153 22 168 33 103 59 11 95th Queue (ft) 50 48 257 49 310 105 174 133 38 Link Distance (ft) 337 337 591 591 469 469 966 966 Upstream Bilk Time ( %) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Bilk Time ( %) 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 Mid -Day Peak HR thl 128 SimTraffc Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 PM Baseline 12/6/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Move ` _. EB EB ' NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR L TR LT R LT T R Maximum Queue (ft) 89 100 512 182 423 242 328 285 103 Average Queue (ft) 31 41 265 35 204 44 188 149 9 95th Queue (ft) 68 82 452 152 369 153 289 257 50 Link Distance (ft) 330 330 591 591 469 469 966 966 Upstream BIk Time ( °k) 1 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage BIk Time ( %) 13 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 0 Network Sum Network wide Queuing Penalty: 2 2020 Buildout Scenario 4 PM Peak HR thl 129 SimTraffc Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario A AM Baseline 12/312013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L L TR L TR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 37 69 276 234 109 481 509 798 779 Average Queue (ft) 6 20 176 134 40 156 392 589 550 95th Queue (ft) 25 52 257 227 84 497 605 973 941 Link Distance (ft) 289 289 597 597 597 464 464 959 959 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 3 21 7 5 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenado A AM Peak HR thl 1130 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario A MID Baseline 1213/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L L TR L TR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 65 68 228 198 80 105 399 231 211 Average Queue (ft) 20 27 142 90 32 30 180 101 69 95th Queue (ft) 53 57 209 179 64 83 336 189 162 Link Distance (ft) 343 343 597 597 597 464 464 959 959 Upstream Blk Time ( °k) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Sum Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenado A Mid -Day Peak HR thl 131 SimTraffc Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario A PM Baseline 12/3/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L L TR L TR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 94 137 320 287 88 218 467 327 298 Average Queue (ft) 37 51 204 160 37 27 245 195 155 95th Queue (ft) 77 100 289 258 70 155 434 316 287 Link Distance (ft) 336 336 597 597 597 464 464 959 959 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario A PM Peak HR thl 132 SimTraffc Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario B AM Baseline 12/3/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L L TR LT R LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 35 50 187 164 69 298 232 277 243 Average Queue (ft) 5 17 101 43 22 124 61 115 66 95th Queue (ft) 23 45 169 120 49 231 144 234 194 Link Distance (ft) 294 294 592 592 592 463 463 960 960 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Sum Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario B AM Peak HR thl 133 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario B MID Baseline 12/3/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Directions Served L TR L L TR LT R LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 60 66 191 161 59 262 90 184 155 Average Queue (ft) 19 25 118 58 21 122 32 82 45 95th Queue (ft) 50 56 177 135 48 214 67 145 107 Link Distance (ft) 348 348 592 592 592 463 463 960 960 Upstream Bilk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2020 Buildout Scenario B Mid -Day Peak HR thl 134 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2020 Buildout Scenario B PM Baseline 12/3/2013 Intersection: 1: Franklin Rd & Site Entrance /Reserve Av. Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Bik Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summ Network wide Queuing Penalty; 0 2020 Buildout Scenario B PM Peak HR thl 135 SimTraffic Report Page 1 Directions Served L TR L L TR LT R LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 89 102 267 230 71 260 80 248 205 Average Queue (ft) 35 44 173 128 26 116 37 133 90 95th Queue (ft) 73 81 244 216 55 206 66 216 181 Link Distance (ft) 341 341 592 592 592 463 463 960 960 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Bik Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summ Network wide Queuing Penalty; 0 2020 Buildout Scenario B PM Peak HR thl 135 SimTraffic Report Page 1 APPENDIX E LOS & Delay Summary Tables 136 R: \Owgs \2894A \TIA Report\Appendix E \90 Second AMD= 137 90 Second Cycle Level of Service per Movement by Approach Scenario Overall (Delay in sec /veh LOS Eastbound Westbound T-L, Northbound Southbound LT TH RT TH RT LT I TH I RT LT I TH RT AM Peak Hour 2013 Existing A (8.8) C B (14.2) B (10.6) A (2.2) A (7.6) A (7.6) B (20.0) A (6.2) A (7.6) 2020 Background AB (9.4) - - (22.9) (14.1) (11.5) A (2.3) A (8.3) A (8.3) C (21.7) A (6.6) A (8.3) 2020 D D D D C 1 C C C A 1 B B 1 B Build-Out ( 50.9) (35.9) (35.9) (41.2) (22.2) (22.2) (21.4) (21.4) (4.3) (14.0) (14.0) (14.0) Scenario 1 (17.3) D (38.9) D (37.5) B (12.7) B (14.0) 2020 D D D D C C B I C A B B B Build -Out (5.3) (37.3) (37.3) (52.4) (24.0) (24.0) (13.6) (28.1) (6.0) (15.7) (18.8) (18.8) Scenario 2 (21.9) D (40.3) D (46.9) B (16.2) B (18.1) 2020 D I D D D C C B C A B B B Build -Out 24) (52.3) (37.3) (37.3) (52.4) (24.0) (24.0) (13.5) (28.1) (8.3) (15.7) (18.4) (13.2) Scenario 3 ( 2 D (40.3) D (46.9) B (17.4) B (17.6) 2020 D I D D D C C C C A B B A Build -Out (16.5) (3 9.) (36.8) (36.8) (39.7) (23.0) (23.0) (20.3) (20.3) (4.0) (13.2) (13.2) (8.5) D (37.3) D (36.5) B (12.0) B (13.0) Scenario 4 2020 D D D F C C A I E E B I B B Build -Out (52.4) (37.3) (37.3) (156.3) (32.6) (32.6) (5.3) (67.3) (67.3) (12.8) (12.8j (12.8) Scenario A 63.3 (63.3) D (40.3) F (132.4) E (64.4) B (12.8) 2020 D D D C C C B B A A A A Build -Out (50.9) (36.0) (36.0) (34.8) (27.1) (27.1) (14.2) (14.2) (4.3) (9.5) (9.5) (9.5) Scenario B 135 (13.5) D (39.0) C (33.3) A (9.2) A (9.5) R: \Owgs \2894A \TIA Report\Appendix E \90 Second AMD= 137 P: \D gs \2894A \TIA 8eport\Appendix E \90 Second MIDDAY. Dacx 138 90 Second Cycle Level of Service per Movement by Approach Overall (Delay in sec /veh Scenario LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH I RT LT I TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT MIDDAY C B B A A A 2013 B (23.3) (13.2) (11.4) (1.7) (9.1) (9.1) Existing (11.7) - C (22.1) A (7.5) A (9.1) C B B A A A A 2020 B (27.1) (13.0) (12.7) (1.7) (9.8) (9.8) (9.8) Background (13.1) C (25.4) A (8.0) A (9.8) D D D D B B C C A B B B 2020 Build -Out (49.6) (35.5) (35.5) (42.3) (18.2) (18.2) (29.0) (29.0) (4.0) (17.8) (17.8) (17.8) Scenario 1 (242) D (40.5) D (38.6) B (19.1) B (17.8) 2020 D D D D B B C C A B D D Build -Out C (53.7) (35.8) (35.8) (54.7) (19.4) (19.4) (20.8) (29.9) (4.5) (18.0) Scenario 2 D (42.1) D (49.4) B (19.2) D (41.3) D D D D B B B C A B D B 2020 Build -Out C (53.7) (35.8) (35.8) (54.7) (19.4) (19.4) (19.5) (29.9) (6.7) (18.0) (35.6) (17.6) Scenario 3 (31'8) D (42.1) D (49.4) B (20.0) C (33.5) 2020 D D D D B B C C A B B B Build -Out C (40.2) (36.3) (36.3) (40.1) (19.1) (19.1) (27.3) (27.3) (3.7) (16.7) (16.7) (11.6) Scenario 4 (22'8) D (37.7) D (36.9) B (18.0) B (16.4) 2020 E D D D C C A C C B B B Build -Out C (55.0) (36.9) (36.9) (52.5) (27.8) (27.8) (8.6) (21.1) (21.1) (15.1) (15.1) (15.1) Scenario A (26'5) D (43.3) D (48.8) C (20.3) B (15.1) 2020 D D D D C C B B A B B B Build -Out (53.2) (35.1) (35.1) (35.6) (24.5) (24.5) (16.1) (16.1) (4.0) (11.2) (11.2) (11.2) Scenario B (1B8, D (41.5) C (33.9) B (11.3) B (11.2) P: \D gs \2894A \TIA 8eport\Appendix E \90 Second MIDDAY. Dacx 138 R: \Dwgs \2894A \TIA RepoK\Appendix E \90 Second PM.Docx 139 90 Second Cycle Level of Service per Movement by Approach Scenario Overall (Delay in sec /veh LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT I TH I RT LT TH I RT LT I TH RT PM PEAK HOUR 2013 Existing B (1 B C (30.9) B (11.9) B (14.3) A (1.5) B (13.3) B (13.3) C (28.9) A (8.8) B (13.3) 2 Background C (21.7) D (44.7) B (11.7) B (15.7) A (1.5) B (14.8) B (14.8) D (41.3) A (9.3) B (14.8) 2020 D D D E B B C C A D D D Build -Out (52.8) (35.5) (35.5) (62.7) (14.6) (14.6) (35.0) (35.0) (4.6) (39.5) (39.5) (39.5) Scenario 1 39 3 (39. D (42.4) E (57.0) C (21.7) D (39.5) 2020 E D D F C C C C A B D D Build -Out ( 10 3 ) 7 (58.6) (36.7) (36.7) (313.2) (22.7) (22.7) (20.5) (26.4) (5.6) (16.3) (42.7) (42.7) D (45.4) F (278.5) B (17.1) D (40.4) Scenario 2 2020 E D D F C C C C A B D B Build -Out (58.6) (36.7) (36.7) (313.2) (22.7) (22.7) (20.1) (26.4) (8.0) (16.3) (39.4) (16.3) Scenario 3 (106.5) D (45.4) F (278.5) B (18.2) D (36.9) 2020 D I D D E B B C C A D D B Build -Out (38.5) (5.8) (35.5) (35.5) (62.7) (14.6) (14.6) (34.9) (34.9) (4.6) (37.6) (37.6) (16.3) D (42.4) E (57.0) C (21.6) D (37.1) Scenario 4 2020 E D D E C C B C C C C C Build -Out (39.2) 39.2 (59.5) (37.5) (37.5) (74.7) (26.1) (26.1) (11.4) (25.1) (25.1) (23.1) (23.1) (23.1) D (46.2) E (68.9) C (24.7) C (23.1) Scenario A 2020 D C C C C C C C A B B B Build -Out (21.0 2 ) 18 (50.8) (34.1) (34.1) (31.0) (20.0) (20.0) (20.5) (20.5) (4.7) (19.0) (19.0) (19.0) D (40.7) C (29.6) B (13.6) B (19.0) Scenario e R: \Dwgs \2894A \TIA RepoK\Appendix E \90 Second PM.Docx 139 140 Level of Service per Movement by Approach (Delay in sec /veh) Scenario Overall LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT I TH RT LT I TH RT AM Peak Hour C B B A 2013 A (20.9) (14.2) (10.6) (2.2) Existing (8.8) B (20.0) A (6.2) WI(8.31) C B B A 2020 A (22.9) (14.1) (11.5) (2.3) Background (9.4) C (21.7) A (6.6) D D D D C C C C A B B B 2020 Build -Out B3) (50.9) (35.9) (35.9) (41.2) (22.2) (22.2) (21.4) (21.4) (4.3) (14.0) (14.0) (14.0) Scenario 1 (1 D (38.9) D (37.5) B (12.7) B (14.0) 2020 D D D D C C B C A B B 8 Build -Out (52.3) (37.3) (37.3) (52.4) (24.0) (24.0) (13.6) (28.1) (6.0) (15.7) (18.8) (18.8) Scenario 2 (2C9) D (40.3) D (46.9) B (16.2) B (18.1) D D D D C C B C A B 8 B 2020 Build -Out (52.3) (37.3) (37.3) (52.4) (24.0) (24.0) (13.5) (28.1) (8.3) (15.7) (18.4) (13.2) Scenario 3 (224) D (40.3) D (46.9) B (17.4) B (17.6) 2020 D D D D C C C C A B B A Build -Out B (39.3) (36.8) (36.8) (39.7) (23.0) (23.0) (203) (20.3) (4.0) (13.2) (13.2) 1 (8.5) Scenario 4 (16'5) D (37.3) D (36.5) B (12.0) B (13.0) F E E F D D A D D B B B 2020 Build -Out D (128.5) (65.4) (65.4) (110.6) (54.7) 1 (54.7) (5.4) (37.7) (37.7) (12.0) (12.0) (12.0) Scenario A (41'4) E (78.0) F (99.8) D (36.2) B (12.0) C I C I C C C C B B A A A A 2020 Build -Out B (32.4) (28.7) (28.7) (28.7) (21.3) (21.3) (15.1) (15.1) (4.5) (9.1) (9.1) (9.1) Scenario B (12'6) C (29.5) C (27.3) A (9.7) A (9.1) 140 R: \Dwgs \2894A \TIA Report\Appendix E \MIDDAY TABLE.Do" 141 Level of Service per Movement by Approach Overall (Delay in sec /veh) Scenario LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT I LT I TH I RT LT TH I RT I LT TH RT MIDDAY 2013 Existing B (11,7) - - C (23.3) B B A A A C (22.1) A (7.5) A (9.1) ro Backgund (11) 3 C 1 ( B 0) B (12.7) A (1.7) A (9.8) A 9.8 A (9.8 ) C (25.4) A (8.0) A (9.8) 2020 D D D D B B C C A B B B Build -Out (242 ) (49.6) (35.5) (35.5) (42.3) (18.2) (18.2) (29.0) (29.0) (4.0) (17.8) (17.8) (17.8) D (40.5) D (38.6) B (19.1) B (17.8) Scenario 1 2020 D D D D B B C C A B D D Build -Out (33.8) (537) (35.8) (35.8) (54.7) (19.4) (19.4) (20.8) (29.9) (4.5) (18.0) (42.5) (42.5) D (42.1) D (49.4) B (19.2) D (41.3) Scenario 2 2020 D D D D B B B C A B D B Build -Out (53.7) (35.8) (35.8) (54.7) (19.4) (19.4) (19.5) (29.9) (6.7) (18.0) (35.6) (17.6) Scenario 3 31.8 (31.8) D (42.1) D (49.4) B (20.0) C (33.5) 2020 D D D D B B C C A B B B Build -Out 28 (40.2) (36.3) (36.3) (40.1) (19.1) (19.1) (27.3) (27.3) (3.7) (16.7) (16.7) (11.6) Scenario 4 (22.8) D (37.7) D (36.9) B (18.0) B (16.4) 2020 E D D D C C A C C B B B Build -Out 26.5 ( ) (55.0) (36.9) (36.9) (52.5) (27.8) (27.8) (8.6) (21.1) (21.1) (15.1) (15.1) (15.1) D (43.3) D (48.8) C (20.3) B (15.1) Scenario A 2020 F C C D B B B B A B B B Build -Out (240.7) (26.3) (26.3) (35.1) (18.8) (18.8) (17.1) (17.1) (4.7) (10.6) (10.6) (10.6) Scenario B ( 19.5) F (102.4) C (32.6) B (12.2) B (10.6) R: \Dwgs \2894A \TIA Report\Appendix E \MIDDAY TABLE.Do" 141 142 Level of Service per Movement by Approach (Delay in sec /veh) Scenario Overall LOS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound _FTH7 LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT I TH I RT I LT RT PM PEAK HOUR C B B B B 2013 (30.9 1 3.3) (13.3) Existing (16.8) - C (28.9) A (8.8) B (13.3) D B B A B B 2020 C (44.7) (11.7) (15.7) (1.5) (14.8) (14.8) Background (21.7) D (41.3) A (9.3) 8(14.8) D D D D B B C C A C C C 2020 Build -Out C (43.9) (41.7) (41.7) (51.4) (17.3) (17.3) (33.1) (33.1) (3.9) (34.5) (34.5) (34.5) D (42.6) D (47.3) C (20.3) C (34.5) Scenario 1 (34'3) E E E F C C C D A C E E 2020 Build -Out (61.6) (56.1) (56.1) (83.6) (24.7) (24.7) (31.4) (36.5) (4.1) (25.0) (57.9) (57.9) Scenario 2 (5D2) E (58.3) E (76.6) C (22.1) E (55.1) E E E F C C C D A C D C 2020 Build -Out D (61.6) (56.1) (56.1) (83.6) (24.7) (24.7) (30.9) (36.5) (5.8) (25.0) (53.6) (23.9) Scenario 3 E (58.3) E (76.6) C (22.9) D (50.5) D D I D E B C 2020 Build -Out D ( . . . . (14. 6) (14B . 6) 7D . 7D . (16B . 3 ) Scenario 4 (3 8'5) D (42.4) E (57.0) C (21.6) 7.1)2020 E D D E C C B C C C FD(3 C C Build -Out D (59.5) (37.5) (37.5) (74.7) (26.1) (26.1) (11.4) (25.1) (25.1) (23.1) .1) (23.1) Scenario A (39'2) D (46.2) E (68.9) C (24.7) C (23.1) D C C E B B 8 B A B B B 2020 Build -Out C (35.4) (25.3) (25.3) (77.7) (18.2) (18.2) (17.6) (17.6) (5.8) (15.7) (15.7) (15.7) Scenario B (32'5) C (29.3) E (70.6) B (12.4) B (15.7) 142 ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA RNMOMrkPITAL I CAUMCEIMCAL I WMANDS 113(:oLOf.Y I CULTURA MOURCB4 CITY OF ROANOKE PLANNING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT Pegasus Tower Company, LLC - Timberbrook/Franklin 1809 Franklin Road, SW Roanoke, Virginia ECA Project No. P -1403 SUBMITTED TO: Mr. Chris Novelli Resources Services and Review Vrrgrnra Department of Hrstorrc Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, VA 23221 loop a. i PREPARED BY: Environmental Corporation of America 1375 Union Hill Industrial Court, Suite A Alpharetta, GA 30004 ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA I NVIRt1N,\tl %11 1`1 1 L] 011 CIINK M 1 KI IL %NUti I it OI U4N ( 1 I I L Ret. It] Sot R( . s December 19, 2013 Resources Services and Review Virginia Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, VA 23221 Attention; Mr. Chris Novelli Subject: Section 106 Review TCNS ID #102747 Proposed 165 -Foot Monopole Telecommunications Structure (169 -Foot Overall Height with Appurtenances) Pegasus Tower Company, LLC — Timberbrook/Franklin 1809 Franklin Road, SW Roanoke, Virginia ECA Project #: P -1403 Dear Mr. Novel l is Environmental Corporation of America's (ECA) client, Pegasus Tower Company, LLC, is proposing to lease a 50 -foot by 50 -foot (15 -meter by 15- meter) area for the construction of a telecommunications facility as described in the following FCC Form 620, New Tower (NT) Submission Packet. The facility would consist of a fenced compound surrounding a 169 -foot overall height monopole telecommunications structure and associated ground -level support equipment. The facility would be accessible via a proposed approximate 421 -foot long by 20 -toot wide ( -128 -meter by 6- meter) access utility easement. ECA has identified and evaluated Historic Properties within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for visual and direct effects as directed in Sections VI.D.1 and 2 of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement, effective on March 7, 2005. We have identified two properties (DHR# 128 -0049 — Soutinvest Historic District, and DHR# 128- 6269— WasenaHisloric District) listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) within the Y2 -mile NPA- mandated APE for visual effects. Based on our review of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources' (DHR), Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (V- CRIS), four NRHP-eligible orlisted Historic Properties (DHRPs 128 -0049 — Soatinvesi Historic District; 128 -0056 — Young Women's Christian Association; 128- 6269 — Wasena Historic District: and 128-6393— Roanoke River & Railroad Historic District), and twenty six previously determined ineligible, unevaluated, or no longer extant historic resources were Allnrna. CA Ashe, 1; ­ NC r l' •: u1:,. 11 Na,n. ale. TN I West Palm Beath, fL I www.e..a- usa.rnm 1 :770) 667 - ;040 Mr. Novelli Page 2 identified within the % -mile APE for visual effects. A topographic map with the location of the Historic Properties is located in Attachment B -2a. ECA Resource 1 — Southwest Historic District (DHR# 128 -0049; NRHP# 85001349) is located approximately 600 feet ( -183 meters) northwest of the proposed telecommunications facility at its closest point. Based on ECA's site visit and the photograph tower structure simulations provided by BC Architects Engineers, PLC, we believe the proposed telecommunications facility would be visible from several locations (I E, I F) within the southern portions of ECA Resource 1. However, ECA Resource 1 is surrounded by modern development such as a nursing home /medical facility, the 220 Expressway, and several office buildings. In addition, utility lines are also within the viewshed of ECA Resource 1. We believe the addition of the proposed telecommunications facility would not adversely compromise the setting of ECA Resource I or its NRHP eligibility. Therefore we believe the proposed facility would have no adverse effect on ECA Resource 1. ECA Resource 2 — Young Women's Christian Association (DHR# 128 -0056) is located approximately 1,500 feet (-457 meters) northeast ofthe proposed telecommunications facility. ECA Resource 2 appears to be mapped in the wrong location on the V -CRIS resource mapping program, and would appear to be located approximately 250 feet ( -76 meters) to the south. ECA Resource 2 has been assessed by the Virginia DHR as potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Based on ECA's site visit, we believe the proposed telecommunications facility would not be visible from ECA Resource 2 due to distance, topography, and intervening vegetation. Therefore, we believe the proposed facility would have no effect on ECA Resource 2. ECA Resource 3 — Wasena Historic District (DHR# 128 -6269; NRHP# 1] 000984) is located approximately 2,600 feet ( -792 meters) northwest of the proposed telecommunications facility at its closest point. Based on ECA's site visit, we believe the proposed telecommunications facility would not be visible from ECA Resource 3 due to distance, topography, and intervening vegetation. Therefore, we believe the proposed facility would have no effect on ECA Resource 3. ECA Resource 4 — Roanoke River & Railroad Historic District (DHR# 128 -6393) is located approximately 2,250 feet (-686 meters) east of the proposed telecommunications facility at its closest point. ECA Resource 4 has been determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP by the Virginia DHR. Based on ECA's site visit, we believe the proposed telecommunications facility would be minimally visible from ECA Resource 4. However, due to modern intrusions such as light poles and utility lines, we believe the proposed facility would not compromise the setting of ECA Resource 4. Therefore, we believe the proposed facility would have no adverse effect on ECA Resource 4. An Archaeological Assessment was conducted within the APE for direct effects. During our database research, we found seven previously recorded archaeological sites (44RN0043, 44RN0044, 44RN0053, 44RNOI 14, 44RN0218, 44RN0221, and 44RN0245) and no surveys within our 1 -mile background research radius. However, none of these sites are located in or near the APE for direct effects. During our site visit, we discovered no archaeological sites or cultural artifacts (see Attachment E -I c). Atlanta, GA Asheville, NC I Ch cago, IL I Nashville, TN We t Palm Beach, FL I www.eca- usa.com (770) 667 2040 Mr. Novell! Page 3 Based on our findings, we recommend no further consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for this proposed undertaking. Further, based on this documentation. prepared in accordance with the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement effective March 7, 2005, CA believes that this proposed facility would have no adverse effect on any Historic Properties identified in accordance w;th the NPA. Therefore, we recommend a finding of "No Adverse l ffect" for the proposed undertaking. We are submitting this letter, on behalf of Pegasus Tower Company, LLC, to comply with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requirements as identified in 47 CFR 1.1307. Please contact our office with questions or comments. Sincerely. Environmental Corporation of America 44L \ Matthew fields tutu n Du on, Project Manager Senior Archaeologist Atlanta, GA I Ashoville, NC I Chicago, IL Nashvllla, TN I Wan Palm Beach, FL i www ws ula,com 1 17701067-2040 FCC Form 620 FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Approved by OMB 11) Street Address: New Tower ( "NT") Submission Packet 3D50 -1039 Notification Date: See Inswrdons for File Number pudic burden mlimeles General Information 1) (Select only one) ( NE ) NE — New UA — Update of Application WD— Withdrawal of Application 2) If this application Is for an Update or Withdrawal, enter the file number of the pending application File Number currently on file. information 3) FCC Registration Number (FRN): 0020322319 4) Name: Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Contact Name 5) First Name: Nathan 6) ML 7) Last Name: Byrd 8) Suffix: 9) Title: Project Manager Cnnfart Infnrmatinn 10) P.O. Box: 233 A d 11) Street Address: 12) City: Richlands 13) State VA 14) Zip Code: 24641 15) Telephone Number. (276)964.7416 16) Fax Number 17) E-mail Address: nbyrd @bcpic.com Consultant information 18) FCC Registration Number (FRN): 0011662921 19) Name: Environmental Corporation of America rinci al investigator 20) First Name: Dina 21) MI: M 22) Last Name BaZ2ill 23) Suffix: 24) Title. Principal Archaeologist/Hlstorlan PrinHnal Invnafinnfnr Cnntfet Infn...,afln.. 25) P.O. Box: And 1 26) Street Address: 1376 Union Hill Industrial Court, Suite A 27) city: Alpharetta 28) State: GA 29) Zip Code: 30004 30) Telephone Number. (770)667 -2040 31) Fax Number (770)667.2041 32) E -mail Address: dina.ba2zitl @eca- usa.com al 17 FCC Form 6.0 September 2009 33) Does the Principal Investigator satisfy the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards? I (X )ye, ( 1 No 34) Areas of Professional Qualification ( X ) Archaeologist ( ) Architectural Historian ( X ) Historian ( ) Architect ( ) Other ( Speciy) ldditional Staff 35) Are there other staff Involved who meet the Professional Qualification Standards of the Secretary of the interior? ( X ) y_es ( ) No If "YES." comnlefw the fminwm, 36) First Name: Autumn 37) MI: 38) Last Name: DuBois 39) Suffix: 40) Title: MA, RPA - Senior Archaeologist 41) Areas of Professional Qualification: ( X ) Archaeologist ( ) Architectural Historian { X ) Historian ( } Architect ( ) Other (Specify) 36) First Name: Matthew 37) Mf: 38) Last Name: Beazley 39) Suffix: 40) Title: MA, RPA - Senior Archaeologist 41) Areas of Professional Qualification: ( X ) Archaeologist ( ) Architectural Historian ( X ) Historian ( ) Architect ( ) Other (Specify) O1 17 FCC Form 620 September 2009 Site Information 1) TCNS Notification Number 102747 Site Infnemaflnn 2) Site Name Pegasus Tower Company, LLC • Tlmberbrook7Franklin 3) Site Address: 1809 Franklin Road, SW 4) Clty Roanoke 5) State VA 6) Zip Code: 24016 7) County/SoroughlPansh ROANOKE CITY 8) Nearest Crossroads Franklin Road, SW a Reserve Ave., SW 9) NAD 83 Latitude (DD- MM- SS.S). 37 -15 -23.5 ( X )Nor( ) I 10) NAD 83 Longitude (DD- MM- SS.S). 079.57 -01.0 ( ) € or ( X ) W 11) Tower height above ground level (Include top - mounted attachments such as lightning rods): 61.6 ( ) Feet ( X ) Meters 12) Tower Type (Select One) ( ) Guyed lattice lower ( ) Self- supporting lattice ( X ) Monopole ( ) Other (Describe): 13) Current Project Status (Select One): ( X ) Construction has not yet commenced ( ) Construction has commenced, but is not completed Construction commenced on: ( ) Construction has been completed Construction commenced on Construction completed on: 3 "" 17 FCC Forth 620 September 2008 14) Direct Effects (Select One): ( X ) No Historic Properties in Area of Potential Effects (APE) ( ) No Effect on Historic Properties In APE ( ) No Adverse Effect an Historic Properties In APE ( ) Adverse Effect on one or more Historic Properties In APE 15) Visual Effects (select One): ( ) No Historic Properties in Area of Potential Effects (APE) ( i No Effect on Hislonc Properties In APE ( X ) No Adverse Effect on Historic Properties In APE ( ) Adverse Effect on one or more Historc Properties in APE i nr 17 FCC Form 620 September 2009 Tri ba I/N H O Involvement 1) Have Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOS) been Identified that may attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties which may be affected by the undertaking within the APEs for direct and visual ( X ) ies ( ) NO effects? 2a) Tnbss/NHOs contacted through TCNS Notification Number 102747 Number of Tribes /NHOs 6 2b) Tribes)NHOs contacted through an alternate system; Number of Tdbes/NHOs 0 I noernnu r.omacteu Inrou n Iu.Na 3) Tnbe /NHO FRN: 4) Tribe/NHO Name: Catawba Indian Nation Cultural Preservation Project Contact Name 5) First Name: Dr. Wenonah 6) MI: G 7) Last Name: Haire 8) suffix 0) Tire: THPO and Executive Director 10) Date Contacted 11128/2013 11) Date Replied ( X ) No Reply ( ) Replied/No Interest ( ) Replied /Have Interest ( ) Replied /Other i nuemnu uontacoio rnrou n Icna 3) Tdbe/NHO FRN: 4) Tribe /NHO Name. Delaware Nation Contact Name 5) First Name: Tamara 6) MI: 7) Last Name Francis- Fourklller 8) Suffix: g) Title: Cultural Preservation Director 10) Dale Contacted 11128/2013 11) Dale Replied ( X ) No Reply ( ) Replied/No Interest ( ) Repiled /Have Interest ( ) Replied/Other FCC Form 620 September 2008 TrIbaVN HO Involvement 1) Have Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) been identified that may attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties which may be affected by the undertaking within the APES for direct and visual ( X ) Xes ( ) No effects? L s/NHOs contacted through TCNS Notification Number. 102747 Number of Tribes /NHOs 6 s/NHDs contacted through an alternate system: Number of Tnbes/NHOs: 0 3) Tdbe/NHO FRN: a) Tribe /NHO Name: Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Contact Name 5) First Name: Rebecca 6) MI: 7) Last Name Hawkins 8) Suffix: s) Title: Archaeologist 10) Date Contacted 1112712013 ( ) No Reply ( ) Replied/No Interest ( ) Replied/Have Interest ( X ) Repl:ed/Oiher 11) Date Replied 12/04!2013 3) Tnba1NH0 FRN: -7I 4) Tdbe/NHO Name Shawnee Tribe I ontact Name 5) First Name Kim 6) MI 7) Last Name Jumper 8) Suffix: 3) Title THPO 10) Date Contacted 11/2812013 11) Date Replad 12J1 312013 ( ) No Reply ( ) Repked/No Interest ( ) Replied /Have Interest ( X ) Replied/Other I ur 17 FCC Form 620 Seplem1xcr2008 TriballN HO Involvement 1) Have Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) been identified that may attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties which may be affected by the undertaking within the APES for direct and visual ( X ) yes ( ) No effects? 2a) Tnbes/NHOs contacted through TONS Notification Number: 102747 Number of Tribes /NHOs. 6 21b) Tribes /NHOs contacted through an alternate system: Number of TribeslNHOs 0 'ribelNHO Contacted Through TCNS 3) TribelNHO FRN: 4) Tribe/NHO Name: Tuscarora Nation ontact Name 5) First Name: Leo 6) MI: R 7) Last Name: Henry 6) Suffix: 9) Title: Chief 10) Date Contacted 1112812013 11) Date Replied ( X ) No Reply ( ) Replied /No Interest ( ) Replied/Have Interest ( ) Replied /Other FCC Form 620 September 2008 Other Tribes /NHOs Contacted 1) FCC Registration Number (FRN): 2) Name: :ontact Name 3) First Name: _E7 5) Last Name: 6) Suffix: 7) Title: Contact lnfnrtnaflnn 8) P.O. Box: And /Or 9) Street Address: 10) City: 11) State 12) Zip Code 13) Telephone Number: 14) Fax Number: 15) E-mail Address: 16) Preferred means of communication: ( ) E -mail ( ) Letter ( ) Both Date$ & ReSloonSe 17) Date Contacted 18) Dale Replied ( ) No Reply ( ) Replied/No Interest ( ) Replled/Haw interest ( ) Replied /Other 8 of 17 FCC Form 620 September 2008 Historic Properties Properties Identlped 1) Have any historic properties been identified within the APES for direct and visual effect? ( X ) Yes ( ) No 2) Has the identification process located archaeolog cal materials that would be directly affected, or sites that are of ( )Yes (X ) No cultural or religious significance to Tribes/NHOs? 3) Are there more than 10 historic properties within the AP: s for direct and visual effect? "Yes ", ( )Yes ( X ) No If you are required to attach a Cultural Resources Report in I eu of adding the Historic Property below. iistoric Property 4) Property Name. Southwest Historic District 5) SHPO Site Number 128.0049 rope roperty Address 6) Street Address: Roanoke 7) City: Roanoke 6) State VA 9) Zip Coda 24016 1D) County /Barough /Parish: ROANOKE CITY Status A Elielhllity 11) Is this property listed on the National Register? Source: NRHP# 88001349 ( X )Yes ( ) No 12) Is this property eligible for listing an the National Register? Source: NRHP# 85001349 ( X ) Yes ( )NO 13) Is this property a National Historic Landmark? ( ) Yes (X ) No 14) Direct Effects (Select One): ( X ) No Effect an this Historic Property in APE ( ) No Adverse Effect on this Historic Property in APE ( ) Adverse Effect on this Historic Property In APE 15) Visual Effects (Select One): ( ) No Effect on this Historic Property In APE ( X ) No Adverse Effect on this Historic Property in APE ( ) Adverse Effect on this Historic Property in APE c. t 7 FCC Form 620 September 2008 Historic Proonrtlx 1) Have any historic properties been Identified within the APES for direct and visual effect? ( X ) Yes ( ) No 2) Has the identification process located archaeological materials that would be directly affected, or sites that are of cultural or religious significance to Tr bes/NHOs? ( )Yes ( X ) No 3) Are there more than 10 historic properties within the APES for direct and visual effect? If "Yes', you are required to allach a Cultural Resources Report in lieu of adding the Historic Property below. ( ) Yes ( X ) No Iistoric Pro perty 4) Property Name: Young Women's Christian Association 5) SHPO Site Number 128 -0056 Properly Address e) Street Address: Franklin Road, SW 7) City: Roanoke a) State VA 9) Zip Code: 24016 10) County/Bomugh/Parish: ROANOKE CITY 11) Is this property listed on the National Register? Source ( )Yes (X ) No 12) Is this property eligible for listing on the National Register? Source: VA DHR Staff, 1988 ( X )Yes ( )"a 13) Is this property a National Historic Landmark? 14) Direct Effects (Select One): ( X ) No Effect on this Historic Property in APE ( ) No Adverse Effect on this Historic Property in APE ( ) Adverse Effect on this Historic Property in APE 15) Visual Effects (Select One): ( X ) No Effect on this Historic Property in APE ( ) No Adverse Effect on this Historic Property in APE ( ) Adverse Effect on this Historic Property In APE ( ) Yes ( X ) No 100, 17 FCC Forth 620 Septcmbcr2008 Historic Properties D.....eMfea IAenllnnA 1) Have any historic properties been identified within he APES for direct and visual effect? ( X ) Yes ( ) No 2) Has the Identification process totaled archaeological materials that would be directly affected, or sites that are of ( )Yes ( X ) No cultural or religious significance to TdbeslNHOs? 3) Are there more than 10 historic properties within the APES for direct and visual effect? ( ) y� (X ) No If "Yes ", you are required to attach a Cultural Resources Report In lieu of adding the Historic Property below. ilatoric Property 4) Property Name: Wasena Historic District 5) SHPO Site Number: 128 -6269 rope roperty Address 6) Street Address: Winona Street 7) City: Roanoke 8) Stale: VA 9) Zip Codw 24015 10) County/BoroughlPadsh: ROANOKE CITY Status A Ellal611ity 11) Is this property listed on the National Register? Source: NRHPN 11000984 ( X ) yes ( )ho 12) Is this property eligible for listing on the National Register? Source: NRHP# 11000994 ( X ) Yes 1 ) No 13) Is this property a National Historic Landmark? ( ) Yes ( X ) No 14) Direct Effects (Select One): ( X ) No Effect on [his Historic Property in APE ( ) No Advisme Effect on this Historic Property In APE ( ) Adverse Effect on this Historic Property in APE 15) Visual Effects (Select One): ( X ) No Effect on this Historic Property in APE ( ) No Adverse Effect an this Historic Property In APE ( ) Adverse Effect on this Historic Property In APE I 1 of 17 FCC Form 620 September 2008 Historic Properties Pronertlas tdenfificd 1) Have any historic properties been Identified within the APES for direct and visual effect? ( X ) Yes ( ) No 2) Has the Identification process located archaeological materials that would be directly affected, or eses that are of 12) Is this property ellgtble for listing on the National Register? Source. VA DHR Staff, 2012 cultural of religious significance to Tdbes(NHOs? ( )Yes ( X ) No 3) Are there more than 10 historic properties within the APES for direct and visual effect? ( )Yes (X )No If "Yes', you are required to attach a Cultural Resources Report in lieu of adding the Historic Property below. )yes I X ) No ( ilsloric Property 4) Property Name. Roanoke River & Railroad Historic District 5) SHPO Site Number: 128.6393 rope ropertv Address 6) Street Address: Walnut Avenue 7) City: Roanoke 8) Slate: VA 9) Zip Code: 24014 10) Countyr6orough/Parish: ROANOKE CITY Sfahre A Flinihilifi. 11) Is this property listed on the National Register? Source: ( ) yea ( x ) No 12) Is this property ellgtble for listing on the National Register? Source. VA DHR Staff, 2012 ( X )yes ( ) No 13) Is this property a National Historic Landmark? ( )Yes (X )No 14) Direct Effects (Select One): ( X ) No Effect an this Historic Property In APE ( ) No Adverse Effect on this Historic Properly in APE ( ) Adverse Effect on this Historic Property in APE 15) Visual Effects (Select One): ( ) No Effect on this Historic Properly In APE ( X ) No Adverse Effect on this Historic Property in APE ( ) Adverse Effect on this Historic Properly in APE I _ n 117 FCC Form 620 September 2008 Local Government Involvement aovemmenc 1) FCC Registration Number (FRN): 2) Name. Roanoke Planning, Building, and Development :ontact Name 3) First Name: To Whom 4) MI 5) Last Name It May Concern 6) Suffix. 7) Title: 6) P.O. Box: 9) Stmet Address. 215 Church Avenue, SW, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building -Room 166 lAOnA 10) City: Roanoke 11) Slale VA 12) Zip Code: 24011 13) Telephone Number: (540)863.1730 14) Fax Number: 15) E -mail Address: 16) Preferred means of communication ( ) Email ( X ) Letter ( ) Both a 17) Date Contacted 11126/2013 16) Date Reptied 12/0412013 No Reply ( ) RepliedlNo tnteresi ( X ) ReplledlHave Interest ( ) Replied /Other 19) Information on local government's role or interest (optional): I 1 m 1' FCC Form 620 Scplember 2008 Other Consulting Parties 4her Consulting Parties Contacted 1) Has any other agency been contacted and Invited to become a consulting parry? 2) FCC Registration Number (FRN): 3) Name. Historical Society of Western Virginia :ontact Name 4) First Name: To Whom 5) MI: 6) Last Name It May Concent 7) Suffix. 6) Title: Contact Information 9) P.O. Box: 1904 And ror 10) Street Address: 11) City: Roanoke 12) State VA 13) Zip Code: 24008 14) Telephone Number: (640)342.6770 15) Fax Number. 16) E-mail Address: 17) Preferred means of communication. ( ) E -mail ( X ) Latter ( ) Both 16) Date Contacted 11/26/2013 19) Date Replied ( X ) No Reply ( ) Replied /No Interest ( ) Replied /Have Interest ( ) Raplied /Other 20) Information on other consulting parties' role or Interest (optional): 14 of 17 FCC Form 620 September 2009 Other Consulting Parties )ther ConsultIng Parties Contacted 1) Has any other agency been contacted and Invited to become a consulting party? ( X ) Yea ( ) NO 2) FCC Registration Number (FRN): 3) Name: Vinton Historical Society Contact Name 4) First Name: To Whom 5) MI: 6) Last Name: It May Concern 7) Suffix: 8) Title: Contact Information 9)P-0- Box: 32 IO a 10) Street Address: 210 East Jackson Avenue 11) City- Vinton 12) State VA 13)Zp Code 24179 14) Telephone Number (640)342 -9634 15) Fax Number. 16) E -mail Address: 17) Preferred means of communication: ( I E -mail ( X )Letter ( ) Both 18) Date Contacted 17N9I2013 19) Date Replied ( X ) No Reply ( ) RepNed/No Interest ( ) Replied /Have Interest ( ) Reptied/Other 20) information on other consulting parties' role or interest (optional). 15 of 17 FCC Form 620 September 2008 Designation orrSHP0/THP0 1) Designate the Lest! Stele Histonc Preservation Officer (SHPO) w Tnbal HistOde Preservation Off cer (THPO) based en the lour on or the toyer SHPOITHPO Name Virginia Department O/ Historic Resources 2) You may also designate up to three addLonsISHPOWTHPOs I the AFF s indude mulfiple states Itthe APEsindude other counlne „ruler tie namea the National Historic Preserval on Ajency and arty state and Pmvmal H stunt Preservation Agency. SHPO/THPO Name SH�OITHPO Nacre SHPOITHPO Name re.xn....r.... I CO Ofy Orel all rapnasentai van on Mis FCC Form 620 Submission Packet and the,accormarrying altarhmmnO are Ime, correct, and cornpiete Party Authorized to Sign . MI LagL�4ame Suff. RFAILURE oathO SIGN THIS APPLICATION MAY RES IN DISedSSAL OF THE APPUCA71ON AND FORFEITURE OF ANY FEES PAID. WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON THUS FORM OR ANY ATTACHMENTS ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND/OR 1MPRISONME NT (US. Code, Title 18, Section 1001) AND/OR REVOCATION OF ANY STATION LICENSE OR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT (US. Coda, Title 47, Section 712(s)(1)). AND/OR FORFEITURE (U.S. Code, Ttlta 47, Soctloo 50). l6 of H , CC Form 620 Septe ,tic :We Attachments : Type Descnption Date Entered :7of 17 FCC Form 620 September 2008 Attachment A Page I of 8 Attachment A Consultant Information Resume /Curriculum Vitae Applicant's Nacre: Pegasus Tcw Company, LLC Project Name: Timberbrook/Franklm Project Number: P•1403 Atlanta, GA I Asheville, NC I Chicago, IL I Nashville, TN I West Palm Beach, FL I w w.eca- usaxom 1 (770 667.2040 ED(C.ATION Fast Carolina University M.A.. Marmme Stuck, Gzd,aed May 21Rf GPA: 3,89 4.0 Southwest Missouri State University B.A., Anlhropologs, minor in Aniigwt.cs Graduated May 2004. Ma.:na Cum Laude GPA: 3.8 4.0 Dina A Bazzill, MA, RPA Principal Archaeologlst/Hisiorian 13'3 Union Hill Industrial Court. Suite A. Alpharetta. GA 30004 (770) 667 -2040: St. I I I d na.bau, I L i ecu- wa.com (; n:em die. NC Spnn, field. MO Secretary orthe Interior's 36CFR61 Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology and History ance:007 Register of Professional Archaeologist since 200" Section 106 Tr:dnim, Certification from SRI Foundation, 2009 Advanced Section 106 Training Certification from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 2009 NEPA Compliance and Cultural Resources Training Certification from the National Preservation Institute, 2009 Section 4 (0 Compliance for Historic Properties Training Certification from the National Preservation Institute. 2009 Identification and Management of Traditional Cultural Properties Training Certification from the National Prescnalion In titutc. 2009 Tribal Consultation Tranm4 Cero ficauon from the SRI Foundation, 2010 RELATED E)1PLOYMENT June 200- Present Environmental( orponiuon ofAmerico AlahovUt GA Position 11nncipal investigator Res ponsi bihties: • Archaeological and historical research. • Conductut. archaeological and historical site assessments for Secunn 106 co^tpli:na. • Author= Section 106 archaeological assessment, phase one environmental impeet reports for submission to clirms, SHPO oliim, tribes, rn sulting panes, and other stale agencies. REPRESENTATIA E EXPERIENCE Juno 2007 - Present Section 106 Cell Tower Esniout.ons 1. SA Dim M. Barzill, Principal Archaeolo. ist/Histonan Goals: The scope ofwork fortheseproJects ha, included archacolw. ical and histore stand, %sa,�ctumssitc asses,ments,orthe Section 106M%ic" process in forty do ferent states. May June 2011 Chicago and North Western Railway Bnditc Replacement: Phase 1 t nderwater Archaeological Suney Oshkosh, WI Dina M. Bazzill, Principal Archaeologist/Histonan Goals: The scope of work for this pro ecl included a Phase I side -scan sonar survey for the replacement of the Chicago and North Western Railway Line over the Fox River in Oshkosh, N innebaco County, Wisconsin. "f he side -scan sonar,urvey wn, per formed by Jerry Guycr of Pirate': Cove Diving Inc. Dina M. Bamill performed the necessary re arch, analyzed the side -sc.:n sonar data, and pie pared a report in conformance w, lh Wisconsin Historical Soekty Guidelines. Arta hmen• A Applmant's Name Pegasus Tnsser( ampony. LLC Page 2 of s i'royeci Name Tlmberbrook/Franlhn Prove t Number P-1403 Atlanta, GA A,tnv )i W Ch ngo IL Nashville. IN West Palm Sea, it FL , +viv^ r� i tie- r.om (770' 667 2010 April /May 2010 Snowbird Youth Center Phase 1 Robbireville, NC Dina M. Bazzill, Field Director and John P, McCarthy, Principal Investigator Goals: The scope ofwork for this project included a survey fora proposed Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Youth Center located on Forest Service land in Robbinsville, North Carolina. High probability landforms were tested as per Forest Service archaeological testing guidelines. Shovel tests were excavated at 65 -foot intervals, where appropriate. Key staff members included Dina M. Bazzill, Field Director and John P. McCarthy, Principal Director. Dina M. Bazzill authured the report, with the assistance of John P. McCarthy. April /May 2010 Cabe Jail Phase I - F,BCI Reservation Cherokee, NC Dina M. Bazzill, Project Archaeologist and John P. McCarthy, Principal Investigator Goals: The scope of work for this project included a survey for a proposed jail located on the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians reservation in Cherokee, North Carolina. The entire proposed property was systematically surveyed utilizing guidelines provided by the EBCI THPO office. Shovel tests were excavated at 65 -foot intervals, where appropriate. Key staff members included Dina M. Bazzill, Project Archaeologist and John P. McCarthy, Principal Director. John P. McCarthy authored the report, with the assistance of Dina M. Bazzill. October /November 2009 Old 04 Sewer Line Replacement - EBCI Indian Reservation Cherokee, NC Dina M. Bazzill, Field Director and John P. McCarthy, Principal Investigator Goals: The scope of work for this project included a systematic survey for a proposed sewer line replacement located on the Eastern Band ofChemkcc Indian Reservation in Cherokee, North Camlina. A pedestrian survey was conducted, and shovel tests were conducted as per EBCI THPO once guidelines. This entailed excavating shovel tests at 65 -foot intervals, where appropriate. Crew members included Dina M. Bazzill, Field Director, who supervised Mary E. Seagrove, field technician, Dave McGlothlin, field technician, and Landon Abernethy, field technician.John R McCanhyoversaw the fieldwork and the report preparations, with assistance from Dina M. Bazzill. July 2009 Phase 11 Archaeological Site Delineation Ixwis Creek, IN Dina M. Bazzill, Principal Investigator Goals: The scope of work for this project included delineating a circa 1940 pioneerhomestead located in Lewis Creek, Indiana in order to determine National Register of Historic Places eligibility. Dina M. Bazzill served as Principal Investigator and supervised Mary E. Seagrave, Project Archaeologist. Artifacts recovered from the field work were analyzed and photographed by Dina M. Bauiil. A Section 106 Review was prepared by Dina M. Bazzill and submitted to the Indiana State Historic Preservation Office for their review and comment. April/May 2008 City orNorcross— Proposed Greenspace Park Norcross, GA Dina M. Bazzill, Field Director and Principal Investigator Goals: The scope of work for this project includes a Phase 1 survey of a seven acm tract of land in the City of Norcross, Georgia. F CA evaltsrted archaeological and historic resources present within the survey ores and advise the City of Norcross on how best to preserve these resources and utilize them for educational purposes. In addition, a comprehensive user friendly report was produced. November 2007 Deep Testing for Archaeological Deposits Nashville, TN Artis West, Principal Investigator Goals: The scope of work for this project included placing 10 -foot deep two trenches with the proposed APE for direct effects for a proposed cell tower located adjacent to the Harpeth River in Nashville. Tennessee. Backfill soil was selectively sampled and negative findings were recorded. A report summarizing the findings was prepared and accepted by the Tennessee Historical Commission, Division of Archaeology. Attachment A Page 3 of 8 Applicant's Name Pegasus Tower Company,LLC Pro= Name Timberbrix k/Franklrn Project Number: P -1403 Atlanta, GA I Asheville, NC I Chicago, IL I Nashville, TN I West Palm Beach, Fl. I www.eca- usa.com 1 (770)667-2040 t DUCATION Northern Arizona University M.A., Anihropuloi Graduated Ma_c 2008 GPA: 3.80 University of North Florida B.A.. Anthropolo i Psycholopv minor Graduated: 2004 Cum Laude GPA: 3.5 Autumn A. DuBois, M.A., R.P.A. Project Manager lrchaeolo,.i.1 13 -5 1'nion H 1 Industrial Court. Suite A. Alpharett,t. GA 30004 { "(1) 667 -3040 . 10' uulumn.dubois r cca- u,a.com r'.d.ata AZ Jee i[hr. Ft. PROFE55IONAL Cl RTIF ICATTON5 Secretary of the Interior's 36CFR61 Professional Qualification Standards for .Archaeci and History since 2009 Register of Professional Archaeologist (RPA) since _010 PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS • RPA June 20 .0 - Preent Environmental Corporation of America Alpharetta GA Position: Archaeolog, st/ Project Manager Responsibilities: • Archaeological and historical research. • Conducting archaeological and historical site assessments for Section 106 compliance. • Authonng Section 106'Archaeological Assessment Phase I Environmental Assessment reports for submission to clients, SHPO offices, tribes, consulting panies. and other state agents. • Reviewing Section 106 reports. • Authoring Fish and Wildlife species impact reports. • Producing NEPA reports REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE June 2010. Present Section 106 Cell Tower Evaluations U iA Autumn DuBois Archaeologist /Historian Goals: The scopeof work for these projects has included over 100 archaeological and historic standing structures site assessments for the Section 106 review process in forty different states. August 2009- December 2010 Field Crew Supery iror Rockland, IN Conducted Phase I survey, for lour month, at a base decommissioning in Indiana. Rnpcni es consisted of Phase I survey, sik recording and documentation, and eligibility assessment 2007 /2009 Cabin Bluff Kingsland. CA Conducted Phase 1 and 11 surveys over n period or two years. Responsibilities included mapping, site documentation, and artifact identification. Attadiment A Paie4 of 3 Applicant's Name Pegasus Tower Company. LLC Project Name TimberbmoklFmnkhn Project Number P -1403 Atl,,nt a, GA ' Ashcvdte. NC I Chic.: go. IL l N35tl i TN W, t P I ea h EL l www n; a -E so. -: m (770: 66 2040 2005 Cemetery Delineation Darien, GA Project consisted of mapping and documenting cemetery. Responsibilities included documenting known graves, recording grave markers, and conducting ground probing to locate previously undocumented/acknowledge graves. 2008 CPR Cemetery Identification I assisted in using Ground Penetrating Ruder to locate burial vaults at known plantation site. 2008 CPR Survey Project surveyed locations surrounding Tybee Island Lighthouse searching for possible underground walls. 2008 CPR Survey Project surveyed locations in a city park looking for underground vaults. 2009 Phase 1 and 11 Archaeological Survey Responsibilities consisted of Phase I survey, site recording and documentation, and eligibility assessment. 2009 Phase 1 Archaeological Survey Responsibilities consisted of Phase I survey, site recording and documentation, and eligibility assessment. 2009 Phase I Archaeological Survey -Power line Corridor Expansion Phase I archaeological survey of power line corridor. McIntosh County, GA Tybee Island, GA Savannah, GA Fort Knox, KY Stennis Space Center, LA Multi-county, KY 2008 Phase If Archaeological Survey Darien County, GA Excavation at a prehistoric, Mocama site, responsibilities consisted of Phase 1 survey, site recording and documentation, and eligibility assessment. 2008 Phase 11 Archaeological Survey Fort Beaming, GA Phase II excavations at an early 20" century site, responsibilities consisted of Phase 1 survey, site recording and documentation, and eligibility assessment. 2008 Phase 111 Archaeological Survey Conducted Phase III survey at DuPont Plantation site 2008 Phase 111 Archaeological Survey Conducted Phase III at early 20's century hospital South Carolina Panama City, Florida 2005 NAU Mapping Field School Flagstaff, AZ This field school, directed by Dr, Christopher Dmvnum, consisted of gradates students conducting pedestrian surveys at W upatki National Monument, mapping and documentation of agro -field wind breaks, mapping of a field house, and the mapping and documentation ora pueblito. 2005 Walnut Canyon Field School Flagstaff, AZ Field work consisted orthe documentation and excavation of a pit house at Walnut Canyon National Monument for the expansion of septic pond. 2004 Cedar Point Field School Jacksonville, FL Project consisted orthe excavation of a pre- contact Mocama villiage on Black Hammock Island. Students conducted Phase I and 11 excavations of prehistoric shell middens, conducted artifact identification, and mapped units. Attachment Apphranl's Name: Pegasus Tower Compeny,LLC Page S of Project Name Timberbtock/Franklin Pmlect Number P•1403 Atlanta, GA Asheville, NC Chicago, IL I Nashv Ile, Thl West Palm Beacq, FL I www.eca- usa.com 1 (770) 667 -2040 I. DI. CATION Matthew Beazley, MA, RPA Prdect ArchaeoloeistM:storian 13'5 Union Hill Industral Court. Suite A. Alpharetta GA 30004 ( '70) 667 -2040 Eu. 109 ma hew.beazles wma- usa.com North C4 rolina State University Roleiu6, NC M.A., Liberal Studies. Anthrupolug.) emfh::"s, 2009 Georgia College and State l niversih Nlilletteevdle. G 1, H.S.. History, Photography minor, 2005 Registered Professional Archaeologist (RP k) 2010 Secretary of the Interior's 36CFR61 Professional Qualification Standards archneologz and hhslory 2010 Advanced Metal Detecting for the Archaeologist Certification (RPA) 2012 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE. January 2010 - Present Environmental Corporation of America Alpharetta, GA Position: Project Archaeologist Historian Responsibilities: • Archaeological and historical research. • Conducting archaeological and historical site assessments for Section 106 compliance. • Authoring Section 106 archaeological usi,>smcntlphaseone enwmnmental ass, intent mpun>firsubmissionto clients, SI IPO ollicvs, tcbes, consulting parties, and other sate a, ecmacs. • Rev iewing Section 106 reports. • Authoring Fish and Wildlife species impact reports. • Praducing NEPA reports. August 2005 December 2009 Cultural Resources Assmsmeal Group Raleigh, NC Position: Senior Archaeological Field Technic-an R espoastbi0ties/Training: • Archaeological and Hi tone Research • Cultural Resource Surveys • Artifact anal, sa • Use of AutoCAD. GIS. SkctchUp, Photoshop. and M. trosotl Otl:ce so0werc • Report venting and editing June 2004 - July 2004 Position: field student June 2003 - July 200", Position: Field student APV 1 Jamestown Fieldsehool AAPP Fieldschool at Pompeii Jamestown, VA Pompeii, Italy Project Manager Archaeologist for investigations that have included National Register of Historic Places evaluation ofover 200 historic structures and archaeological site assessments for the Section 106 review process under the terms of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Delaware. Missouri, Illinois, Mississippi, Alebuna, Idaho, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, North Carolina, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia. Attachment A Page 6 of 8 Applicam's Name Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Protect Name TimbemrooVFmnklm Pmucct Number P -1403 Atlanta, GA , Aslx vrlle NC , Chi-, ago, IL i Nashvd4% TN v,w PAM Dear h. f-L www.cc i , -a : rn 770 667 . 04� Midway & Cove Creek Rea. Area Cell Tower Monroe, TN The scope of work for this project included an archacological and historic standing . structures site assessment for the Section 106 Review process and evaluation of five historic resources in the project vicinity. Ben Adams Boy Seoul Camp Covington, GA The scope of work for this project included an archaeological and historic standing structures site assessment for the Section 106 Review process. Crewel Cell Tower Varins, VA The scope of work for this project included an archaeological and historic standing slruclum site assessment for the Section 106 Review process and evaluation of four historic Civil War Battlefield:, in the project vicinity. Wilkes Barre Cell Tower Plains, PA The scope of work for this project included an archaeolop ical and historic standing structures site assessment for the Section 106 Review process. SL Judo Church Cell Tower Hopatcong, NJ The scope of work for this pnc*l included an archaeological and h. *tone standing structures site assessment for the Section 106 Review process. Moline Cell Tower Moline, IL 'rhe scope of work for this project included an archaeological and historic standing structures site assessment for the Section 106 Review process. Clarksville South Cell Tower Clarksville, AR The scope of work for this project included an archaeological and historic standing structures sale assessment for the Section 106 Review process. Bracken Cell Tower San Antonio, TX The scope of work for this project included an archaeological and historic standing structures site assessment for the Section 106 Review process. Glaccow, i Cell Tower Newark, DE The scope ofwork for this project included an arctaeological and historic standing structures site assessment forthe Section 106 Review process and evaluation of four historic resources in the project vicinity. Carolina Lakes Project Fort Mill, SC Senior field technician for a cultural resources phase I survey of o 2,500 acre tract and subsequent phase III excavations of three sites of significance. Doby's Bridge Project York County, SC Senior field technician for a cultural resources phase I survey of a 600 acre tract and subsequent phase II toting of two sites of significance. Wal -Mart development site monitoring Charlotte, NC Monitoring of a sensitive site located within the property boundary over the course of two months as well as revisits to other sites located on the property. Survey of the Gardenciale Property York County, SC Senior field technician fora phase I survey of a 450 acre property and subsequent phase 11 testing of one site. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS The Archaeological Institute of America Attachment A Page 7 of $ Applicant's Name: Pegasus Towr Cot, trsny, LLC Project Name Timberbrook/Fmnkhn Project Number P -1403 Atlanta, GA Asheville. NC I Chicago, IL Nashville, TN We,t Palm Beach, FL I www.eca- usa.com 1 (770) 667 -2040 i Dl CATION i niversity of Norlh Carolina at Asheville Bachelor of Science, I m ironmental Management & Policy, 2011 Bachelor of Arts, Erv.mnmental Economics. 2011 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Matthew Fields Project Seient,,t/Marr, er 1340 Patton Avenue, Suite K, Ashev, lie, NC 28806 (828) 505 -0755 mitthew.Felds,t eca- usacom %,he%�tic. NC July 2013 - Present Environmental Carpon lion ofAmcriea Asheville, fir Position: Proieel ScientisdManagsx Responsibilities: • FCCINEPA Assessments • Phase 1 Archacolog� cal Surveys • Historic Structure Suneys • Section 106 Reviews • Phase I Em imnmental Site Assessments • Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Reports • Geotechnical Investigations • Welland/Flood Plain Evaluations • Field Data and Sample Collection • Proposal and Report Preparation Mar 20 10 - May 2013 Environmental Test, ng Solutions Ashetillc.NC Position: Laboratory Technician Raponsibilitim. • Tested water samples for biochemical oxygen d und. total im,pundod solids, total residual chlunne, fecal cohform. twbidit). cooductm fly, pH, dissolved oxygen, total dissolved sal d,. wl:le�hle solids. percent solids. percent mo,sture, a.loninuy and hardness • Maintained aqua is organisms • Made stock standards and chemical reagents Attuchmrnt A Par_ 8of5 Appliclnt's Name Pegasus Tower Comvny.LLC Project Name limbertimolulranklm Project Number P•1403 ENVIRONMFN'IALCORPORATION OF AMERICA Atlanta, GA • Chicago IL • Asheville NC • Wrs' Palm Beach FL • wrvwera•usacorn • (7701 66 - -2040 Attachment B Site Information The proposed lease area would measure 50 feet by 50 feet ( -15 meters by 15 meters) and would contain a fenced compound. The facility would be accessible via a proposed approximate 421 -foot long by 20 -foot wide (-128 -meter by 6- meter) access/utility easement. The facility would include a 169 -foot (overall height) monopole telecommunications structure and associated ground level equipment. The address listed in this report and throughout the attachments is the best approximation of this project's address at the time environmental services were ordered. It should be noted that the address may change once the E -91 I address is established by the local municipality. Despite any change in address, the site has not changed position and the correct site location was reviewed in this report. Atuchmcm 6 Applicant's Name: Pegasus Towcr Company, LLC Page 1 of 20 Project Name: Timberbrook/Franklin Project Number P -1403 1: Photographs The following photographs were taken using a digital camera from a height of 6'0". a: Directional photographs taken from the Proposed Tower Site and of the associated access road. b: Photographs of all listed or eligible properties within the Areas of Potential Effects, if any. c: Photographs from listed or eligible properties within the Area of Potential Effects looking toward the proposed tower site, if any. d: Aerial photograph showing APE for visual effects. AmchmentB Applicant's Name: Pegasus Town Company, LLC Paget of20 Project Name: Timberbraok/Franklin Project Number: P -1403 s n. r - SIV ' s 4 YR C: Southerly View From Near the Center of the Proposed Lease Area ti D: Westerly View From Near the Center of the Proposed Lease Area Pegasus Tower Company, LLC - TimberbrookfFranklin 1809 Franklin Road, SW ESA Roanoke, Virginia Attachment B -1a: Photographs Page 4 of 20 ECA Prod. s P -14o3 w' t E: Westerly View of the Proposed Lease Area Ad I F: Southeasterly View of the Proposed Lease Area Pegasus Tower Company, LLC - Timberbrook/Franklin 1809 Franklin Road, SW EcA Roanoke, Virginia Attachment B -1a: Photographs Page 5 of 20 ECA Prq. t. P -103 P G: Northeasterly View of the Proposed Lease Area I S - 1 H: Northwesterly View of the Proposed Lease Area Pegasus Tower Company, LLC - Timberbrook /Franklin 1809 Franklin Road, SW Roanoke, Virginla Attachment &1a: Photographs Page 6 of 20 ECA Pool, •. P -tn03 , I: Northwesterly View of the Proposed Access/Uti lity Easement ry � Y.tiV w ¢ 4r J: Southeasterly View of the Proposed AccessfUtillty Easement Pegasus Tower Company, LLC - Timberbrook/Franklin 1809 Franklin Road, SW Roanoke, Virginia Attachment B -1a: Photographs Page 7 of 20 ECA Pros. s P -1ao9 r 10I U, 20175 1A: Northwesterly View of ECA Resource 1 18: Southwesterly View of ECA Resource 1 Pegasus Tower Company, LLC - Timberbrook/Franklin 1809 Franklin Road, SW ECA Roanoke, Virginia Attachment B-W Photographs Page 8 of 20 ECA P q • P -103 1C: Southerly View of ECA Resource 1 A 1 D: Southerly View of ECA Resource 1 Pegasus Tower Company, LLC - Timberbrook/Franklm 1809 Franklin Road, SW Roanoke, Virginia Attachment B -1b: Photographs Pape 9 of 20 ECA ECA Praj. IF P -1403 a H c 0 0 m m z m (i c a ;W O oo Na QA OYA�� H ix G s '> n CL O c, o C- o E x T L. y O C T A % ^ 7 G � � � v L C U � F d ' 3 c y0 F m � � L a �Z � o C 0. E T A 3 .e — a o .° v: � C L[. YO O v3 E F 4 � p J G , Y C 4 a O x v 3 F h u o, rn y G �c 0. N j O O V i ^ a 2 j- 74, r,7 f. 2A: Northerly View of ECA Resource 2 2B: Southwesterly View From ECA Resource 2 Towards the Proposed Tower Facility Located Approximately 1,500 Feet ( -457 meters) Northeast of the Proposed Tower Facility Pegasus Tower Company, LLC - Timberbrook/Franklin 1809 Franklin Road, SW Roanoke, Virginia Attachment B -1b /c: Photographs Paae 12 of 20 ESA ECA Proi. r. P -1403 arw s � n x it i r 3A: Northerly View of ECA Resource 3 w t Proposed l Tower 3B: Southeasterly View From ECA Resource 3 Towards the Proposed Tower Facility Located Approximately 3,000 Feet (-914 meters) Northwest of the Proposed Tower Facility Pegasus Tower Company, LLC - Timberbrook/Franklin 1809 Franklin Road, SW ECA Roanoke, Virginia Attachment B -1 b /c: Photographs Page 13 of 20 ECA Prof. r. P -1A03 LIM 4A: Northeasterly View of ECA Resource 4 4B: Southwesterly View From ECA Resource 4 Towards the Proposed Tower Facility Located Approximately 2,600 feet ( -792 meters) Northeast of the Proposed Tower Facility Pegasus Tower Company, LLC - Timberbrook/Franklin 1809 Franklin Road, SW Roanoke Virginia Attachment B -1b /c: Photographs Page 14 of 20 ECA eca Pros. x P -uo3 Source Google Earth Aerial Photograph (2012). Pegasus Tower Company, LLC - Timberbrook/Franklin 1809 Franklin Road, SW N Roanoke, Virginia Attachment B -t& Aerial Photograph Paqe 15 of 20 ECA ECA Pm}! P -1403 2: Maps a: 7.5- Minute topographic map showing the Area of Visual Effects and the location of any identified historic properties a -ii: 7.5- Minute topographic map showing photograph locations within ECA Resources 1 — 4 b: 7.5- Minute topographic map showing the Area of Direct Effects including any new access roads or other easements c: Site Vicinity Plan showing the location of the proposed tower site, any new access roads, easements, additional structures, utility lines, fences, and excavations. AoachmmtB Appli=t's Name: Pcpsua TowarC Page 16 of 20 nklan �� B Project Name: TimberhrooWFradclm Project Number: P -1403 2000 0 2000 Feet M� Source USGS Topogrcph¢ Quadrangle Maps, 7.5 Minute Series, Roanoke, VA (1963, photorevised 1984) and Garden Cdy, VA (1963, pholorewsed 984). Pk Pegasus Tower Company, LLC - Timberbrook/Franklin 1809 Franklin Road, SW Roanoke, Virginia Attachment B -2a: Area of Visual Effects Paoe 17 of 20 ECA ECA Prot. 0 P -1403 2000 0 2000 Feet Source USGS Topograpbc Quadrangle Maps, 7.5 4nute Ser as, Roanoke, VA (1963, photoredsed 1984) and Garden Gty, VA (1963, phworevoed 1984). Pegasus Tower Company, LLC - Timberbrook/Franktn 1809 Franklin Road, SIN CA N Roanoke, Virginia Attachment B -2a-ir Photograph Locations Within ECA1 - 4 Page 18 of 20 ECA Proi. 9 P•1403 r ►� • LS i 1% 'h Ara r � " 4F > .. 06 � r. 250 0 250 Feet MMMM i Source USGS Topographic Duadrangie Map, 7.6 Mmule Series, Roanoke, VA (1963, photorevteo 1984). N Pegasus Tower Company, LLC - Timberbrook/Franklin 1809 Franklin Road, SW Roanoke, Virginia Attachment B -2b: Area of Direct Effect Page 19 of 20 ECA ECA Pro). 0. P -1403 Attachment C Determination of Effect Attachment C Page I oft Applicant's Name: TiMb9r Tower Campany, LLC Project Name: Timberbrook/F'mnklm Project Number: P -1403 1: Areas of Potential Effects a: Direct Effects The APE for direct effects is limited to the site of the proposed tower and surrounding easements, as described in the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement.' For this particular undertaking the area of disturbance would include the proposed 50 -foot by 50- foot ( -15- meter by 15- meter) lease area, the proposed approximate 421 -foot long by 20 -foot wide ( -128 -meter by 6- meter) access /utility easement, and all of the immediately adjacent areas. The general APE for direct effects is shown in Attachment B -2b and Attachment B -2c. b: Visual Effects The APE for visual effects is the geographic area or areas within which the facility may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of Historic Properties? Unless otherwise noted, the area of potential effect for visual effect is as described in the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement: • If the proposed tower is 200 feet or less in overall height, the APE is %2 mile in radius from the proposed tower. • If the proposed tower is more than 200 feet in height and no more than 400 feet in height, the APE is' /4 -mile in radius from the proposed tower. • If the proposed tower is more than 400 feet in height, the APE is I %2 miles in radius from the proposed tower. The'/ -mile APE for visual effects is shown in Attachment B -2a: Area of Visual Effect. 2: Mitigation of Effect a: Copies of correspondence and summaries of oral communications with SHPO/CHPO and any consulting parties including descriptions of alternatives that have been considered in order to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects Not Applicable Section VI.C.2 of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (WT Docket No. 03 -128: FCC -222). '- Section I1.3 of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (WT Docket No. 03-128; FCC -222), 'Section VI.C.4.a -c of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (WT Docket No. 03.128; FCC -222). Attachment C Applicant's Name: Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Page 2 oft Pro /ecl Name: Timberbrook/Franklin Project Number: P -1403 Attachment D Tribal and NHD Involvement ECA made notification through the FCC Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS) in order to identify Indian Tribes and NHOs that may attach religious and cultural significance to Historic Properties that may be affected by the tower project within the APE for direct or visual effects. ECA identified five federally recognized tribes that may be interested in participating in the Section 106 Review process in the county where the undertaking would occur. Any Tribe listed on the TCNS that does not respond within 14 and 30 days of initial notification will receive a follow up letter. Any Tribes requesting to be involved in the Section 106 Review consultation process will be provided a copy of this submission packet and will be provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed undertaking. Copies of all relevant documents received to date, including correspondence, are provided in the following pages. ArtachmmD Applicant's Name Pq^asus Tower Compan,,LLC Page I of 9 Pmjcct Name Ttmberbrook/Frankltn Project Number P -1403 TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT TCNS #102747 - INITIAL CONTACT November 29, 2013 INDIAN TRIBE OR SECOND TRIBAL RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM TRIBE REFER TO TRIBAL NATION CONTACT DATE FCC CLEARANCE Requested information 11129/13 — via TCNS Requested Section 106 DELAWARE. NATION will be sent upon Review Documentation, &Review Fee NA completion of report 11/29113 - via TCNS Requested 30 -Day NA TUSCARORA NATION NA Response Limit Agreement Requested information 1129113 & 12/4113- via TCNS EASTERN SHAWNEE will be sent upon Requested Archaeological Assessment, NA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA completion of report SHPO Response, and Review Fee Requested information 11/29/13 & 12/13/13 - via TCNS SHAWNEE TRIBE will be sent upon Requested Archaeological Assessment, NA completion of report SHPO Response, and Review Fee CATAWBA INDIAN Requested information 11/29/13 - via TCNS NATION CULTURAL will be sentupon Requested Limited Section 106 Review NA PRESERVATION completion of report Documentation, SHPO Response, and PROJECT Review Fee Attachment D Applicant's None: Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Page 2 of 9 Project Name: Timberbrook/Franklm Project Number: P -1403 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: towernotifyinfo@ fcc. gov [ mailto:towernotifyinfo @fcc.00v] Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 1:21 PM To: tribal.notify @eca- usa.com Subject: Proposed Tower Structure Info - Email ID #3530219 Dear Dina M Bazzill, Thank you for submitting a notification regarding your proposed construction via the Tower Construction Notification System. Note that the system has assigned a unique Notification ID number for this proposed construction. You will need to reference this Notification ID number when you update your project's Status with us. Below are the details you provided for the construction you have proposed: Notification Received: 11/25/2013 Notification ID: 102747 Tower Owner Individual or Entity Name: Environmental Corporation of America Consultant Name: Dina M Bazzill Street Address: 1375 Union Hill Industrial Court Suite A City: Alpharetta State: GEORGIA Zip Code: 30004 Phone: 770- 667 -2040 Email: tribal.notify @eca- usa.com Structure Type: MTOWER - Monopole Latitude: 37 deg 15 min 23.5 sec N Longitude: 79 deg 57 min 1.0 sec W Location Description: 1809 Franklin Road, SW City: Roanoke State: VIRGINIA County: ROANOKE CITY Ground Elevation: 285.9 meters Support Structure: 50.3 meters above ground level Overall Structure: 51.5 meters above ground level Overall Height AMSL: 337.4 meters above mean sea level Anachment D Applicant's Name Pegasus Tower Company LLC Page 3 of Project Name T. mbabrook/Franklm Project Numbcr P -1403 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: towernotifyinfo@ fcc. gov ( mailto:towernotifyinfo @frc.gov) Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 3:01 AM To: tribal.notify @eca- usa.com Cc: kim.pristello @fcc.gov; diane.dupert @fcc.gov Subject: NOTICE OF ORGANIZATIONS) WHICH WERE SENT PROPOSED TOWER CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION INFORMATION - Email ID #3532211 Dear Sir or Madam: Thank you for using the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS). The purpose of this electronic mail message is to inform you that the following authorized persons were sent the information you provided through TCNS, which relates to your proposed antenna structure. The information was forwarded by the FCC to authorized TCNS users by electronic mail and /or regular mail (letter). Persons who have received the information that you provided include leaders or their designees of federally - recognized American Indian Tribes, including Alaska Native Villages (collectively "Tribes "), Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs), and State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs). For your convenience in identifying the referenced Tribes and in making further contacts, the City and State of the Seat of Government for each Tribe and NHO, as well as the designated contact person, is included in the listing below. We note that Tribes may have Section 106 cultural interests in ancestral homelands or other locations that are far removed from their current Seat of Government. Pursuant to the Commission's rules as set forth in the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for Review of Effects on Historic Propert.as for Certain Undertakings Approved by the Federal Communications Commiss -on (NPA), all Tribes and NHOs listed below must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond to this notification, consistent with the procedures set forth below, unless the proposed construction falls within an exclusion designated by the Tribe or NHO. (NPA, Section IV.F.4). The information you provided was forwarded to the following Tribes and NHOs who have set their geographic preferences on TCNS. I' the information you provided relates to a proposed antenna structure in the State of Alaska, the following list also includes Tribes located in 'he State of Alaska that have not specified their geographic preferences. For these Tribes and NHOs, if the Tribe or NHO does not respond within a reasonable time, you should make a reasonable effort at follow -up contact, unless the Tribe or NHO has agreed to different procedures (NPA, Section IV.F.S). In the event such a Tribe or NHO does not respond to a follow -up inquiry, or it a substantive or procedural disagreement arises between you and a Tribe or NHO, you must seek guidance from the Commission (NPA, Section IV.G . These procedures are further set forth in the FCC's Declaratory Ruling released on October 6, 2005 (FCC 05 -176). 1. Cultural Preservation Director Tamara Francis - Fourkiller - Delaware Nation - Anadarko, OK - regular mai- Details: The Delaware Nation located n Anadarko, Oklahoma charges a $500 administrative fee for the review of ALL projects. (Change Effective 5/21/2013). Send fee payable to the Delaware Nation in the form of a check or money order. Atuehmcnt D Applicant's Name Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Page 4 of 9 Project Name: TimberhrookfFrenklin Project Numbcr P -1403 All projects for review by the Delaware Na _on must pay the $500 :ee. Please note that the Delaware Nat on and the Delaware Tribe ot - nd.ans ARE NOT the same enitity. Send a_1 correspondence for the Delaware Nation to The Delaware Na, on ATTN: Cultural Preservation Depar-ment 31064 State Hwy 281 Anadarko, OK 73005. 2. Chief Leo R Henry - Tuscarora Nation - Via: Lewiston, NY - regular mail Details: It the Applicant /tower builder receives no response from the Tuscarora Nation within 30 days after notification through TCNS, the Tuscarora Nation has no interest in participating in pre- construction review for the s te. The Applicant /tower builder, however, must IMMEDIATLY notify the Tuscarora Nation in the event archaeological properties or human remains are discovered during construction. 3. Archaeologist Rebecca Hawkins - Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma - Wyandotte, OK - electronic mail Details: The following information is provided automatically via the TCNS web site. Additional information may be provided in the email that we send for each tower that is logged into TCNS. The Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma is interested in consulting on th's tower, PTC, or broadband project, just as we are interested in consulting on all federal undertakings in our areas of geographic interest. Consultation regarding our heritage resources is one of the activities required by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for undertakings licensed or permitted by federal agencies such as the FCC. Please note our new mailing address: 70500 East 128 Road, Wyandotte, OK 74370 Please carefully review our archaeological procedures (dated 9- 9- 13)and our NHPA consultation procedures ( dated 3 -1- 2013). Please provide the archaeo_ogy procedures to your archaeologists BEFORE they do field work. These procedures may be ob�a'ned bye - mailing the cell tower program archaeologist, Rebecca Hawk'' -ns (a_gonqu'n @neok.com) . All further correspondence regardng this tower should also be d. rected to Ms. Hawkins at that e-mail address or via phone at 918 -541 -0782. This is the e-mail address that we will use for all of our TCNS communications and final responses. Please also contact Ms. Hawkins for details on research fees. The fee for collocations and lowers sla*.ed or previously disturbed areas has been revised as of TCNS #99800 and higher. Thank you, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahom, At=hment D Appheant's Name: Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Pages of 9 Projea Name: Timbabmok/Feankhn Project Number P -1403 4. THPO Kim Jumper - Shawnee Tribe - Miam', OK - regular mail Details: THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL NOTICE THAT THE SHAWNEE TRIBE IS INTERESTED IN CONSULTING ON ALL PROJECTS BU "LT :N OUR AREAS OF GEOGRAPHIC INTEREST. ATTENTION, NEW INFORMATION: Our procedures were updated on 14 January 2008. Please call Kim Jumper, THPO, at 91- -542 -2441, so that she can send you a copy. If your tower is a co- location, please fax us this nformation to let us know. We cannot always tell from the TCHS web site that a tower is a co- location. We require a written response from you to let us know that it is a co- location. If a co- location project includes some new ground disturbance (such as from an expanded compound or access road, or construction of an ancillary structure), the Shawnee Tribe treats such a project the same as any other non co- location project. Our correct mailing /physical address is: 29 South Highway 69A. Our correct phone number is (918 -542 -2441) and our histor'c preservation fax line is (918- 542- 9915). THPO Kim Jumper manages all cell tower consultation. As of 26 June2006, all of the faxed responses of our final comments on a tower site will contain an original Shawnee Tribe signature. Each final comment fax is signed individually. Copies may be compared, for authentication, against the original in our Iiles.If afinal comment fax does not contain a signature, it is not val d. ALL FINAL COMMENTS FROM THE SHAWNEE TRIBE ARE WRITTEN; FINAL COMMENTS ARE NEVER PROVIDED VERBALLY. IF THE SHAWNEE TRIBE IS CREDITED WITH HAVING GIVEN A VERBAL R:SPONSE, THAT RESPONSE IS NOT VALID. If you receive notification through the TCNS listing the Shawnee Tribe, that is an indication that the Shawnee Tribe is interested in consulting on the tower for which that notification was received. Please consider that our official indication of interest to you. The Shawnee Tribe considers the Tower Construction Notification System's weekly e-mail to be the first notification that we receive that a tower will be constructed in an area o' our concern. We do not view the TCNS notificationas completion of 106 consultation obligations. The Shawnee Tribe has developed streamlined consultation procedures for cell tower developers and their subcontractors. If you do not 'ave a copy of t'e procedures - most recently updated on 14 January2008 - please contact us, as You must follow these procedures to consult with us on ce -1 tower pro]ec•s. Call us at 918 -542 -2441 or fax us at 918 -542 -9915. It is the tower builder's responsibility to make sure that you have our most recent consultation procedures. PLEASE DO NOT SEND US INFORMATION, QUERIES, OR COMMENTS ELECTRONICALLY. SINCE 1 DECEMBER 2005, WE HAVE NOT HANDLED ANY CELL TOWER CONSULTATION, INQUIRIES, OR CORRESPONDENCE VIA E -MAIL. 5. THPO and Executive Director Dr. Wenonah G aire - Catawba Indian Nation Cultural Preservation Project - Rock Hill, SC - electronic mail and regular mail Anwhmem D A liami's Namc Page 6 of 9 PP Ti bsus Tower Company, LLC Project Nsme' T,mberb,onk/Fmnkhn Pmica Number P -1403 Details: The Catawba Indian Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office requests that you send us by regular mail the following .iw ornation needed to complete our research for the your proposed project: Project Name Project Number 1. The name, complete address, phone number, fax number and a -nail address of the project manager. _2. The project location plotted on a topo map. _3. The project name, addressland location; street or hgg :way, city, county, state. 4. A brief description of the proposed project. Please _nclude the size of the proposed project site and the size of the area where ground- disturbing activities will be taking place and the type o: disturbance anticipated. 5. A brief description of current and former land use. We are primarily interested in ground disturbance and do not need det:,':ed information or photographs of historic structures in the projec- .area. 6. A list of all recorded archaeological sites w_LI._n one halt (112) mile of the project area. 7. A list of all eligible and potentially eligible Nat-on el Reg ster, oi- Historic Places sites within one half (1/2) mile of the proposed project area. 8. If there has been an archaeological survey done in the area, a copy of that report. 9. It is not necessary to send original color photos if you can provide high - resolution color copies. 10. A letter of concurrencefrom the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office. If you use the FCC Form 620, please do not send Attachments 1 through 6. They are not necessary for our determination. We do not have an interest in projects that require no ground disturbance. Please note: Our research /processing fee is currently $250. This fee will be changing to $900 effective March 1, 2012. Please send these requested materials in hard copy format. Send to: CIN -THPO 1536 Tom Steven Road Rock Hill, S.C. 29730 The information you provided w.s also forwarded to the additional Tribes and NHOs listed below. These Tribes and NHOs have NOT set their geographic Attachment D Applicant's Names Pegasus Towa Company, LLC Page 7 of 9 Project Name Timberbrook/Pnnklin Project Number P -1403 preferences on TCNS, and therefore they are currently receiving tower notifications for the entire United States. For these Tribes and NHOS, you are required to use reasonable and good faith efforts to determine if the Tribe or NHO may attach religious and cultural s gnif :cane to historic properties that may be affected by its proposed under!aking. Such efforts may include, but are not limited to, seeking :nformat_on from the relevant SHPO or THPO, Indian Tribes, state agencies, the U.S. Bureau of ndian Affairs, or, where applicable, any federal agency with land holdings within the state (NPA, Section IV.B). If after such reasonable and good faith efforts, you determine that a Tribe or NHO may attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties in the area and the Tribe or NHO does not respond to TCNS notification within a reasonable time, you should make a reasonable effort to follow up, and :oust seek guidance from the Commission in the event of continued non - response or :n the event of a procedural or substantive disagreement. If you determine that the Tribe or NHO 's unlikely to attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties within the area, you do not need to take further action unless the Tribe or NHO indicates an interest in the proposed construction or other evidence of potential interest comes to your attention. None The information you provided was also forwarded to the following SHPOS in the State in which you propose to construct and neighboring States. The information was provided to these SHPOs as a courtesy for their information and planning. You need make no effort at this time to follow up with any SHPO that does not respond to this notification. Prior to construction, you must provide the SHPO of the State in which you propose to construct (or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, if the project will be located on certain Tribal lands), with a Submission Packet pursuant to Section VII.A of the NPA. 6. Environmental Review Coordinator Renee GledhillEarley - NC State Historic Preservation Office - Raleigh, NC - electronic mail 7. Deputy SHPO David Brook - Historic Preservation Office - Raleigh, NC - electronic mail 9. M.nager - Otf_ce of Review 6 Compliance Ethel R Eaton PhD - Department o= H_storzc Resources - Richmond, VA - electronic mail 9. Deputy SHPO Susan Pierce - West Virginia Division of C..1'ure b History, Historic Preservation OTr_ce - Charleston, WV - electronic m,i., 10. Director Julie Langan - Virginia Department of Historic Resources - Richmond, VA - electronic mail Attachment D Applicant's Name Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Pages of 9 Project Name. Tim"rook/Franklin Project Number M403 If you are proposing to construct a facility in the State of Alaska, you should contact Commission staff for guidance regarding your obligations in the event that Tribes do not respond to this notification within a reasonable time. Please be advised that the FCC cannot guarantee that the contact(s) listed above opened and reviewed an electronic or regular mail notification. The following information relating to the proposed tower was forwarded to the person(s) listed above: Notification Received: 11/25/2013 Notification ID: 102747 Tower Owner Individual or Entity Name: Environmenta: Corporation or America Consultant Name: Dina M Bazzill Street Address: 1375 Union Hill Industrial Court Suite A City: Alpharetta State: GEORGIA Zip Code: 30004 Phone: 770 -667 -2040 Email: tribal.notify @eca- usa.com Structure Type: MTOWER - Monopole Latitude: 37 deg 15 min 23.5 sec N Longitude: 79 deg 57 min 1.0 sec W Location Description: 1809 Franklin Road, SW City: Roanoke State: VIRGINIA County: ROANOKE CITY Ground Elevation: 285.9 meters Support Structure: 50.3 meters above ground level Overall Structure: 51.5 meters above ground level Overall Height AMSL: 337.4 meters above mean sea level If you have any questions or comments regarding this notice, please contact the FCC using the electronic mail form located on the FCC's website at: http: / /wireless.fcc.gov /outreach /notification /contact.fcc html. You may also call the FCC Support Center at (877) 480 -3201 (TTY 717- 338- 2824). Hours are from 8 a.m, to 7 :00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday (except Federal holidays). To provide quality service and ensure security, all telephone calls are recorded. Thank you, Federal Communications Commission ArtachmemD Appheant's Name: Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Page9or9 Project Name Timberbrook/Franklm Project Number P -1403 Attachment E Historic Properties Method of Identification: The following sources and records were reviewed to identify Historic Properties within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for visual and direct effects: L Properties listed in the National Register; ii. Properties formally determined eligible for listing by the Keeper of the National Register; iii. Properties that the SHPO /THPO certifies are in the process ofbeing nominated to the Nation Register; iv. Properties previously determined eligible as part of a consensus determination of eligibility between the SHPO/THPO and a Federal Agency or local government representing the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and V. Properties listed in the SHPO/THPO Inventory that the SHPO(fHPO has previously evaluated and found to meet the National Register Criteria, and that are identified accordingly in the SHPO/THPO Inventory.° 4 Section VI.D.I.a.i -v of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (WT Docket No. 03 -128; FCC -222) Attachment E Applicant's Name P4—US Tower Company. LLC Page I of 12 Praject Name Timh rbrook/Pian.,bn Project Number P -1403 Historic Properties Identified in the APE for Direct Effects a: Historic Properties identified within the APE for direct effects If any Historic Properties were identified, see Historic Properties pages within the FCC Form 620, Page 7. b: Historic Properties within the APE, not listed in `°a ", that ECA Considers to be Eligible for Listing in the National Register as a result of ECA's research. ECA has identified no Historic Properties within the area for direct effects. c: Description of techniques and methodology used to identify Historic Properties within the APE for direct effects. See Archaeological Assessment, Attachment E -I e. AnachmemE ApphcanPs Name: Pegasus Town Company, LLC Page 2 of 12 Projeet Name: Timberbrook/Franklin Project Number. P -1003 2: Historic Properties Identified in the APE for Visual Effects a: Historic Properties Identified in the APE for visual effects that are listed in the National Register, have been formally determined eligible by the Keeper of the National Register, or have been evaluated and found to meet NR criteria for listing by the SHPO/THPO and are identified as such in the SHPO/fHPO inventory. 1 fany historic resources were identified, see Historic Properties pages within the FCC Form 620, Page 7 or if more than ten identified historic resources see Cultural Resource Report, Attachment E -2a. b: Historic Properties, not listed in part "a," that are in the APE for visual effects that were identified through the comments of Indian Tribes, NHOs, local government, or members of the public. See Historic Properties pages within the FCC Form 620, Page 7. c: Properties listed in part "a," which ECA considers no longer eligible for inclusion in the National Register Not applicable. Anachmem F: Applicant's Name: Pegasus Tower Company. LLC Page 3 of 12 Pm*t Name: Timberbrook/Trankl.n Project Number: P -1403 Attachment E -1c Archaeological Assessment CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: Attachment E -Ic may contain information on historic and/or prehistoric archaeological cultural resources. This information is to be regarded as strictly confidential and is not for public dissemination or distribution and is not to be published in the public domain or provided to any unauthorized parties. AnachmemE Applicant's Name: Peg®us TOwer Company, LLC Page 4 of 12 Project Name: TimberbrooWPranklin Project Number: P -1403 Archaeological Assessment TCNS ID #102747 proposed 165 -Foot Monopole Telecommunicatioav Structure (169 -Foot Overall Height with Appurtenances) Within A M -Foot by 50- Foot ( -15 -Meter by 15- Meter) Lease Area Pegasus Tower Company, LLC — Timberbrook/Franklin 1809 Franklin Road, SW Roanoke, Virginia Submitted to Virginia Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, VA 23221 By Matthew Fields Autumn DuBois, Project Manager Senior Archaeologist December 19, 2013 EIIRONMf NTAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1375 UNION HILL INDUSTRIAL COURT, SUITE A ALPIfARETTA,Gr.ORGIA 30004 ECA Project #: P -1403 Atmchmml E Applipm's Name PgPu Tower Company, LLC Page 5 of lZ Projat Name Tlmb=bto&JFw Im Nw Nmnber P -1403 Executive Sumnuvy Environmental Corporation of America (ECA) has completed an Archaeological Assessment for the federal undertaking at the subject site. The subject site would include a proposed 50 -foot by 50 -foot ( -15 -meter by 15- meter) lease area containing a fenced compound and a proposed approximate 421 -foot long by 20 -foot wide ( -128 -meter by 6- meter) access /utility easement. The facility would include a 169 -foot overall height monopole telecommunications structure and associated ground - level support equipment. The subject site is located at 1809 Franklin Road, SW, Roanoke, Virginia. This archaeological assessment was conducted in order to ascertain whether the proposed undertaking, on the project site, might directly or indirectly affect cultural resources, if any such resources exist. Through our review of available cultural records and databases, we found that seven archaeological sites (44RN0043, 44RN0044, 44RN0053, 44RN0114, 44RN0218, 44RN0221, and 44RN0245) and no surveys have been recorded within our standard I -mile background search radius. However, none of the identified sites were located within or near the area of direct effects. During the course of the field survey portion of this archaeological assessment, no archaeological cultural resources were encountered. We conclude that the undertaking would not affect any historic or prehistoric archaeological resources that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Therefore, for archaeological cultural resources, we recommend a finding of No Effect for the proposed undertaking at the project site. Auachmenl E A lic Vs Name' P Page 6 of 12 PP ember i k/ Company, LLC Pro�ea Name: Timberbmak/Fnmklm Project Number P -1403 An Archaeological Assessment of a Proposed 50 -Foot by 50 -Foot (15 -Meter by 15- Meter) Telecommunications Facility Roanoke, Virginia Background ECA was contracted by BC Architects Engineers, PLC (on behalf of Pegasus Tower Company, LLC) to perform an archaeological assessment as part of the Section 106 Review process for the proposed telecommunications facility. The facility would be located approximately 400 feet.( -122 meters) northwest of Franklin Road, SW, Roanoke, Virginia. The purpose of our work was to determine whether any archaeological sites might exist within the project impact area. The proposed lease area is located within a mostly cleared gravel- covered area northwest of Franklin Road, SW. The proposed lease area would be accessed via a proposed approximate 421 - foot long by 20 -foot wide ( -128 -meter by 6- meter) access/utility easement which would traverse an existing gravel - covered area to the proposed lease area. The proposed telecommunications facility would measure 50 feet by 50 feet ( -15 meters by 15 meters) with the center located at approximately N 37° 15' 23.5" W 79e 57' 01.0" (UTM 17 593087E 4123847N). Photographs of the proposed project area are provided in Attachment B -1. Descriptions of the photographs are provided underneath each photograph. The project area is located within the limits of the Roanoke, VA (1963, photorevised 1984) United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5- minute Topographic Quadrangle Map, as shown on Attachment B -2a. Attachment B -2c is a site vicinity plan that shows the site configuration. Attachment B -I d is a recent aerial photograph (Google 2012) of the site area. The facility would be located in a mostly cleared gravel- covered area, situated at an approximate elevation of 938 feet ( -286 meters) Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL). The nearest drainage feature is the Roanoke River located approximately 200 feet ( -61 meters) southwest of the proposed lease area at its closest point. The project area is located within the Great Valley Sub - province of the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province of Virginia. The Valley and Ridge province has developed on thick, folded beds of sedimentary rock deposited during the Paleozoic. In general, the more resistant sandstones Attachment E Applicant's Name Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Page 7 of 12 Project Nam Timberbrookli'michn Project Number P -1403 cap the ridge -tops, protecting softer bedrock below from erosion; limestones and other carbonate rocks form the lowlands and valleys. According to the USDA Web Soil Survey, soils found at the Property are Speedwell -Urban land complex (NRCS 2013). The Speedwell series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils found on flood plains. Urban land represents areas that have been cut, filled, or graded. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is defined as "the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist" (FCC 2005). For purposes of this work, the APE for direct effects is the actual physical impact area. The impact area includes the proposed 50 -foot by 50 -foot ( -15 -meter by 15- meter) lease area, the proposed approximate 421 -foot long by 20 -foot wide (-128 -meter by 6- meter) access/utility easement, and all of the immediately adjacent areas. Literature and Documents Search National Register of Historic Places The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the Nation's official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. Authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Register is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect historic and archaeological resources. Properties listed in the National Register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. The National Park Service, which is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior, administers the National Register. ECA conducted a review of the National Register of Historic Places to determine whether any resources were located within a %, -mile radius of the project site. Two NR1 P listed properties (DHR# 128- 0049 — Southwest Historic District, and DHR# 128 -6269 — Wasena Historic District) were identified within the %x -mile NPA- mandated APE for visual effects (NRIS 2013). Attachment f. Applicam's Name Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Page 9 of R Project Name Timberbmak/Franklm Pmject Number P -1403 Virginia Department of Historic Resources The Virginia Department of Historic Resources — Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (DHR V -CRIS) contains the database records of known archaeological sites, architectural structures, and historic districts. The Virginia DHR V -CRIS has architectural and archaeological survey forms and survey forms for any known sites within the research area. ECA conducted a review of the Virginia DHR V -CRIS to determine whether any listed archaeological sites or surveys were located within a 1 -mile radius of the project site. Seven archaeological sites (44RN0043, 44RN0044, 44RN0053, 44RNO114, 44RN0218, 44RN0221, and 44RN0245) and no surveys were identified within a 1 -mile radius of the subject site, but outside the APE for direct effects. Site 44RN0043 is a historic 19'h century dwelling site. The site is located approximately 4,800 feet ( -1,463 meters) northeast of the proposed telecommunications facility. The dwelling was destroyed in 1964 and the site condition is unknown. Site 44RN0044 is a historic 18'h century dwelling site. The site is located approximately 1,000 feet ( -305 meters) northeast of the proposed telecommunications facility. The dwelling was destroyed in 1964 and the site condition is unknown. Site 44RN0053 is a Prehistoric Woodland Period Native American camp site. The site is located approximately 3,200 feet (--975 meters) southeast of the proposed telecommunications facility. A surficial survey of the site, dated 1981, revealed various flakes, pieces of shatter, a scraper, a piece of earthenware, a clay marble, the base of a Guilford point, and the midsection of triangular chert. The majority of the site has apparently been obliterated, and the site condition is unknown. Site 44RNOI 14 is a Prehistoric (15,000 B.C. — 1606 A.D.) Lithic quarry site. The site is located approximately 4,700 feet ( -1,433 meters) southeast of the proposed telecommunications facility. A surficial survey of the site, dated 2006, revealed many hundreds of flakes, cores and two preforms. The site condition is unknown. Amchnamt E Applicaul's Name Pegesw Tower Company, LLC Page 9 of 12 Project Name: Timberbrook/Fmnkhn Projen Number: P -1403 Site 44RN0218 is a Prehistoric Woodland Period Native American site. The site is located approximately 1,400 feet (--427 meters) northwest of the proposed telecommunications facility. One core, twenty -two prehistoric ceramics, and about 200 flakes were observed at the site. A portion of the site has been destroyed and the site condition is unknown. Site 44RN0221 is a Prehistoric Late - Woodland Period camp site. The site is located approximately 750 feet ( -229 meters) southeast of the proposed telecommunications facility. A Late Woodland Period projectile point, nine prehistoric ceramics, and four flakes were revealed at the site. A portion of the site has been destroyed and the site condition is unknown. Site 44RN0245 is a historic 201h century power generating steam plant. The site is located approximately 3,400 feet ( -1,036 meters) northeast of the proposed telecommunications facility. The site has apparently been destroyed and the site condition is unknown. Field Conditions The project area consists of a proposed 50 -foot by 50 -foot (15 -meter by 15- meter) lease area that is currently occupied by a mostly cleared gravel- covered area. The proposed lease area would be accessed via a proposed approximate 421 -foot long by 20 -foot wide (-128 -meter by 6- meter) access/utility easement. The proposed approximate 421 -foot long by 20 -foot wide ( -128 -meter by 6- meter) access /utility easement is currently occupied by an existing gravel- covered area. The proposed access /utility easement would originate from the northwest side of Franklin Road, SW and would traverse an existing gravel - covered area to the proposed lease area. The proposed lease area appears to be located on a fill slope that slopes downward toward the north. The nearest surface water is the Roanoke River located approximately 200 feet ( -61 meters) southwest of the proposed lease area at its closest point. Ground surface visibility in the proposed lease area and the proposed access /utility easement was approximately one hundred percent. Attachment E Applicant's Namc Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Page 10 of 12 Project Name. Timberbroc k/Ftanklm Project Number- P•1403 Field Methods The methodology for the Phase I intensive field survey for this project was determined by the professional opinions and experience of our principal and staff archaeologists, applicable SHPO guidelines, and applicable Tribal guidelines. The survey was performed by Matthew Beazley, MA, RPA, Senior Archaeologist of ECA on October 8, 2013. Approximately two hours of field time was recorded for the Phase I intensive field survey. A pedestrian survey was conducted over the project site by visual inspection of exposed ground surfaces throughout the proposed 50 -foot by 50 -foot (15 -meter by 15- meter) lease area, along the length of the entire proposed approximate 421 -foot long by 20 -foot wide ( -128 -meter by 6- meter) access/utility easement, and all of the immediately adjacent areas. Visual inspections were conducted at approximately 16 -foot (5- meter) intervals. Due to documented soil and groundwater contamination beneath the parent tract, no shovel test pits were excavated. In addition, according to the Property owner, the parent tract was covered with several feet of fill material as a result of previous development activities. ECA determined that a pedestrian survey within the proposed 50 -foot by 50 -foot (15 -meter by 15- meter) lease area and the proposed approximate 421 -foot long by 20 -foot wide ( -128 -meter by 6- meter) access /utility easement would be an adequate representative sampling of the proposed project area. Field Survey Results A pedestrian survey was conducted over the project site by visual inspection of exposed ground surfaces throughout the proposed 50 -foot by 50 -foot (15 -meter by 15- meter) lease area, along the length of the entire proposed approximate 421 -foot long by 2040ot wide ( -128 -meter by 6- meter) access/utility easement, and all of the immediately adjacent areas. Visual inspections were conducted at approximately 16 -foot (5- meter) intervals. During the pedestrian survey, no archaeological sites or cultural artifacts were identified. Auchmenl E Applicant's Name Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Page 1 I of 12 PmjM Name: Timberbrook/Franklm Project Number P -1403 Summary of Findings and Recommendations During the course of this archaeological assessment, no sites, either historic or prehistoric, were identified within the APE for direct effects. We believe that no archaeological resources will be affected by the proposed project. Therefore, we recommend a finding of No Effect for the proposed undertaking as it relates to archaeology. We request your concurrence with our finding. Closure We are submitting this report, on behalf of Pegasus Tower Company, LLC, to seek concurrence with our finding and to comply with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requirements as identified in 47 CFR 1.1307. Matthew Beazley, MA, RPA, Senior Archaeologist, of ECA completed the field survey, and Matthew Fields conducted the research and authored this report. Dina M. Bazzill, MA, RPA, Principal Investigator supervised the production of this documentation. Autumn DuBois, MA, RPA, Senior Archaeologist reviewed this assessment. We request your concurrence with our finding. Please contact our office with questions or comments or if additional information is required. Attachment E Applicant's Name: Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Page 12 of 12 Project Name Timberbmok/Franklin Project Number P -1403 �I I Attachment F Local Government Involvement Contact Information a: List of all government agencies contacted and a summary of contact including copies of relevant documents. Please see the Local Government pages of the FCC Form 620 for a Iist of agencies contacted. Documentation of our correspondence follows this page. b: Local government agencies that will be contacted, but have not as of this date. Not Applicable A=hment P Appbcznt's Name Pegasus Tow Com parry, LLC Page 1 of Project Name Timberbroak/Frenklm Prkw Number P•1403 ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA I K1llt0 \111. t�1 \I ! l lurt(imil 11 � 1%111 %%'1)% 1 1(lpr)l111 (l'I ICIt.0 Itl tiOClt(IS November 26, 2013 Roanoke Planning. Building, and Development 215 Church Avenue, SW Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building Room 166 Roanoke, VA 24011 Subject: Section 106 Review TCNS ID # 102747 Proposed 165 -Foot Monopole Telecommunications Structure (169 -Foot Overall Height with Appurtenances) Pegasus Tower Company, LLC — Timberbrook/Franklin 1809 Franklin Road, SW Roanoke, Virginia ECA Project P: P -1403 To Whom It May Concern: Pegasus Tower Company, LLC proposes to construct a 165 -foot monopole telecommunications structure (169 -foot overall height) at 1809 Franklin Road, SW, Roanoke, Virginia. A map is included for your reference. In accordance with the f ederai Communications Commission regulation at 47 C.F.R. L 1307(a)(4), we are providing notice to you and seeking any comments that you may have regarding the effect of the action described above on Historic Properties in your community. Based on your level of interest in the project, you may wish to become a consulting party. This notice is not intended to supplant any local zoning or perniitting requirements, but is necessary before we can request review of the action by the State Historic Preservation Office. We welcome any comments that you may have regarding any Historic Properties located in the area that may be affected by the proposed undertaking. Please direct your comments to Dina Bazzill, Environmental Corporation of America, 1375 Union Hill Industrial Court, Suite A. Alpharetta, Georgia 30004, 770- 667 -2040 x I 11. We request that you provide any comments that you may have by December 31, 2013. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Envyt' onmental l Corporation of America Mattaattthew ields Project Manager Attachment F PaFc 2 of 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA Atlanta. GA � Astevdls . NC C111i It i Nashville. TN Ben Ea ter Principal Scientist Applicant's Name Pettasus Tmver Company, LLC Pmieet Name TimberhradJFrank1m PrWtNumber P -1403 West P.dmaeech. fL www.eca- usaxom (7 70) 667 -204- Attachment r Applicant's Name Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Page 3 oF4 Project Name Timbeirbrook/Fninklin PircijectNumber P-1403 Google P P wk k ly 4� MW 01 e le ihuu reuse P6, zii 00 Pak ra MPrNgin WM309ogic MW Otto 4M 0.,* Attachment r Applicant's Name Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Page 3 oF4 Project Name Timbeirbrook/Fninklin PircijectNumber P-1403 Got,gie �a 0ran�,�n Aye sW y e5� y� CM 3 GOWG �y GIXyle w ar 4rt K r a, Map ". cm I: *'a Nfr rl WQoopl -< .'IWUTFW.JT2% 4,7A xT1t16egr. n02t7'. 9P. Or5M78hmaa• 756gyo .6ld.zZlTUp7CNMi&'G",e9v8p 2 In AUbcbmoetF Applicant's Name Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Page of Project Name T,mberbro&Fmnklm Protect Number P•1403 Attachment G Consulting Parties Public Involvement by Legal Notices, Letters, or Public Meetings Copies of all relevant documents, including correspondence and legal notices, are provided in the following pages. AlrachmentG Appiicanrs Name. Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Page 1 of 10 Projea Name: Timbabrook/rranklin Project Number, P•1003 From: McClure, Barbara [ mailto. .:Barbara.McClure�g:roangke_comI Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:40 AM To: Matthew Fields Subject: RE: Legal Notice You are most welcome! Yes, I've scheduled this to run on Monday, December 9`! Barbara McClure Recruitment Advertising The Roanoke Timesrwww.jobs.roanoke.com P: 540.981.3414 F: 540.981.3415 Barbara.mcclure!d roanoke corn From: Matthe« Fields [mailto:matthew.fcld deca-us_a.comj Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:09 AM To: McClure, Barbara Subject: RE: Legal Notice Thanks Ms. McClure, Could you print this on Monday, 12 9? Matthew Fields t_nvironmental Corporation of America (t:CA) (828) 505 -0755 malt hew.fields.a eca- usa.com From: McClure, Barbara [mailto:Barbara.McClure ri roanoke.com3 Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 9:42 AM To: matthew:fieldsia eca- usa.com Subject: FW: Legal Notice Matthew, Your proof and pricing information are both attached. I'm happy to make any changes. Barbara McClure Recruitment Advertising The Roanoke Times www jobs.roanoke.com P: 540.981.3414 F: 540.981.3415 Barbara.mcclure( roanoke.com Amehm (, Appt¢am's Same l'egaws Tower Company, LLC Page: er 10 Project Name Tlmberbm VA,am%hn Praject\wr,bm P -1403 From: Matthew Fields j mailto :matthew_fieldstgeca- usa.comJ Sent: Wednesday, December 04,2013 3:01 PM To: ROA Legals Subject: Legal Notice Good afternoon, Attached is a legal notice I would like printed in the Roanoke Times as soon as possible. Please let me know what date this could be printed as well as the estimated cost as I may need to revise the notice before it publishes. Also, would you be able to send a bill along with the affidavit? Thanks, Matthew Fields Fnvironmental Corporation of America (FCA) 1340 Patton Avenue, Suite K Asheville, NC 28806 Office: (828) 505 -0755 Fax: (828) 505-0959 matthew.fleldsfdeca -usa com_ www.eca- usa.com Alpharetta, GA i Asheville, NC, Chicago, IL / Nashville, TN : West Palm Beach, FL AnnhmrniL Applicant's Name Pegasus Tua¢r('ntWzas, LIX Page 3 of 10 Project Name Tunbed uk/Fwktn Project Number P•1403 Public Notice to be Published in the Roanoke Times Newspaper on Monday, December 9, 2013 (start) Pegasus Tower Company, LLC proposes to construct a 165 -foot (169 -foot overall height with appurtenances) monopole telecommunications structure. The tower would be located at 1809 Franklin Road, SW, Roanoke, Virginia, Tax Parcel ID 1040102. The tower would not be lighted. Pegasus Tower Company, LLC invites comments from any interested party on the impact the proposed undertaking may have on any districts, sites, buildings, structures orobjects significant in American history, archaeology, engineering, or culture that are listed or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Comments pertaining specifically to historic resources may be sent to Environmental Corporation of America, ATTN: Dina Bamill, 1375 Union Hill Industrial Court, Suite A, Alpharetta, Georgia 30004. Ms. Bazzill can be reached at (770) 667- 2040 ext. 111. Comments must be received within 30 days of the date of this notice. In addition, any interested party may also request further environmental review of the proposed action by notifying the FCC of the specific reasons that the action may have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.1307. This request must only raise environmental concerns and can be Fled online using the FCC pleadings system or mailed to FCC Requests for Environmental Review, Attn: Ramon Williams, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554 within 30 days of the date that this notice is published. Instruction for filing an online Request for Environmental Review can be found at www. fcc .gov /asr /environmentairequest. Refer to File No. A0865534 when submitting the request and to view the specific information about the proposed action. (end) Attachment G Applicant's Name Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Page 4 of 10 Project Name Timberbrook/Franklm Project Number P -1403 ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA IVt IRUNNII NIU i (Joil(11 \It %I t %ITI ANDS , I'COLOGY I CUL, URA RItiOt R(:s November-26,2013 Historical Society of Western Virginia 1'.0. Box 1904 Roanoke, VA 24008 Subject: Section 106 Review TCNS ID k 102747 Proposed 165 -Foot Monopole Telecommunications Structure (169 -Foot Overall Height with Appurtenances) Pegasus Tower Company, LLC — Timberbrook/Franklin 1809 Franklin Road, SW Roanoke, Virginia ECA Project #: P -1403 To Whom It May Concern: Pegasus Tower Company. LLC proposes to construct a 165 -foot monopole telecommunications structure (169 -foot overall height) at 1809 Franklin Road, SW, Roanoke, Virginia. A map is included for your reference. In accordance with the Federal Communications Commission regulation at 47 C.F.R. 1.1307(a)(4), we are providing notice to you and seeking any comments that you may have regarding the effect of the action described above on Historic Properties in your community. Based on your level of interest in the project, you may wish to become a consultink party. This notice is not intended to supplant any local zoning or perntittinz requiremeniv, but is necessary before we can request review of the action by the Slate Historic Preservation Office. We welcome any comments that you may hav(' regarding any Historic Properties locitted in the area that may be affected by the proposed undertaking. Please direct your comments to Dina Bazrill, Environmental Corporation of America, 1375 Union Hill Industrial Court, Suite A, Alpharetta, Georgia 30004, 770 - 667 -2040 x I 11. We request that you provide any comments that you may have by December 31, 2013. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, EnA onmental Corporation of America Matthew ields Project Manager iltachrrcri G Age $ ar 10 -Z7 - c 4, Ben Salter Principal Scientist Applicant's Name Pegasus Tmsv CMPWa ,LL(" Proica Name Timbe bwk/I ran;iin Pra)rct Number 81403 ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA Ailansl, (,A i At htro+lle, NC i Chmauc ILI Na,Tv Ile TN West Pdm Beach. FL i ww.v.rILa- usa.com i 17701 667 2i 49 1tgUr7 0o1Ne Meps Googie _ - aIpW�PA NW C. ^e' -- Pr k F $ 3 E Sa4m TH�eNW l�Jagr�a� j . � Vm I . yMaledo.A Are mY - S x w rtni n ®' Pa.k k SnIun "'hy. 0 Perk .Iy,A X�tAre lk W'4 w 5E NmWek Pre ¢ Iyr PFk IAK SW camol* Roanok! p(e G... 4 ' Wsfe rx � � 5 �' �.• �� ,mot. a x. W - rnNl,nw '.. t. sm aA f I AP'k lon Sri) e a P" f F . Me11MNli x.r '^r /4f CenpgraunE �'Nk C� FS Ii♦ 6 ED bvn OA pMOfant Y 6 �qwa + +o q n5 C sizw000w ew .. �ti kMV tllra e¢d 70aokM hgp llnmsOaopN.- an. T1. URey .gr]gRSl..ig.;!pT�p{�,OC7.79iA d5Mial. mta156lyac •66e.zTetUp*CkMHMf�IWOBnBp.r1 to AOachmen G Apphwnt's Name Ni •; w Tower Co pang. UX Page 6 o 10 Proiect Name TmIw,bmok/Fmri.lrn Project Number P -1403 1.1." GO -r$le R {U O G 8 z ry Ve MT 1 i t JO, *. Map Eel. CM GeopM WIMS*W 9e09lecva'- aUiFBY• 37.i56.b;799!g728aaornp.b2179`p DISM18Fm8a158wac .aae.rlaTUP7CNMNMd1bHOBvBPw2 in Atuachmem e, ApplicanisName Pegasus ToHw Company,l.LC P r. 7 of to Project Name Tlmberbrouk/Franki n Pmjca Number P -1403 ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA I"iR0 \ Nil .0 I. %I I Gl It l I(tiNIC ti scull kmis ; hr oloc.1 i Cullult.V RIiOIRLIC December 19, 2013 Vinton Historical Society 210 East Jackson Avenue P.O. Box 32 Vinton, VA 24179 Subject: Proposed 165 -Foot Monopole Telecommunications Structure (169 -Foot Overall Height with Appurtenances) Pegasus Tower Company, LLC — TimberbrooklFranklin 1809 Franklin Road, SW Roanoke, Virginia ECA Project tt: P -1403 To Whom It May Concern: Pegasus Tower Company, LLC proposes to construct a 165 -foot monopole telecommunications structure (169 -foot overall height) at 1809 Franklin Road, SW, Roanoke. Virginia. A map is included for your reference. In accordance with the Federal Communications Commission regulation at 47 C.F,R. 1. 1 307(a)(4), we are providing notice to you and seeking any comments that you may have regarding the effect of the action described above on Historic Properties in your community. Based on your level of interest in the project, you may wish to become a consulting party. This notice is not intended to supplant any local zoning or permitling requirements, but is necessary before we can request review of the action by the Stale Historic Preservation Office. We welcome any comments that you may have regarding any Historic Properties located in the area that may be affected by the proposed undertaking. Please direct your comments to Dina Bazzill, Environmental Corporation of America, 1375 Union Hill Industrial Court Suite A, Alpharetta, Georgia 30004, 770- 667 -2040 x 111. We request that you provide any comments that you may have by January 21, 2014. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Environmental Corporation of America Matthew Fields Ben Salter Project Manager Principal Scientist Atucbme -i 6 Appl:ant's Name Pegasus To Car:pmi y, LLC PoRe a a 10 Pmlm Name Timberbroukli'michn Pmica Number P -1403 ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA Atlanta, GA A• In v nt,, NC Chicago. It Nashville. TN W! st Palm Beae!e, FL I www e[a- usa.com 1 17701 667 -2040 u iQ013Ge0de MW dap @01) 0000 Was Anamo"l.=oMwU TF86F272MW,?97 77864'00217BBOI95447E6-m6a 1 AVq 680- aOTYWCXMH MM81d10@%6V 2 to An hm t G Applicant's Name Pegasus Tower Company. LLC Page 9 o 10 Prolea Name Tlmberbmok/Fmnkbn Project Number. P -1403 Google �,TZ7 �'0ewger xO Nw Cq� r Hafl LeM � . 1 A.•NW.. S 3 m j �v'ro4. Nw V a•"0• •.. Nw ww . n0 m� UVO rhreahe* Park • sf+.nv�. -.... fart 'YfV WYnw 11re .II�:.4r•4 C) w Newh Ovx 4`r SCu Prt', •. _ Roanoke � 3 . r_ ' ... rWr•14 .yr :11� y ...[111tH nrrmoe .fir ♦^ t 4 N FD "�.. rA WMp LekrwOUl J ��.$ti..� Pert Nell NgUnIMn �. � • r f? kati' tl... � ,ter Peru r]Oj at �F n• 2 p. ,•�•., Gmpproun4 b u iQ013Ge0de MW dap @01) 0000 Was Anamo"l.=oMwU TF86F272MW,?97 77864'00217BBOI95447E6-m6a 1 AVq 680- aOTYWCXMH MM81d10@%6V 2 to An hm t G Applicant's Name Pegasus Tower Company. LLC Page 9 o 10 Prolea Name Tlmberbmok/Fmnkbn Project Number. P -1403 Google Ooc&MwI J"P \C qb rC @017 000�e r* Qb i xc 6 V me 020:3 G.O* MWk"" J OW lft,L—MaU 7 F 011114:1 -7" -'T 728&V'C JZX" 91) 015447& Maj—j S8Wc-6&d-ZbT U PTC*A H An�4011011M#,.2 A!.aAMMG Applitnim'sNam Pegalis Tower Company, LLC P�gc loot 10 Projw Name Timberlmook Franklm P(DimtNumber P•1403 \C qb rC @017 000�e r* Qb i xc 6 V me 020:3 G.O* MWk"" J OW lft,L—MaU 7 F 011114:1 -7" -'T 728&V'C JZX" 91) 015447& Maj—j S8Wc-6&d-ZbT U PTC*A H An�4011011M#,.2 A!.aAMMG Applitnim'sNam Pegalis Tower Company, LLC P�gc loot 10 Projw Name Timberlmook Franklm P(DimtNumber P•1403 Bibliography Google Earth 2012 Aerial Photograph National Register Information System (NRIS) 2013 National Register of Historic Places <http: / /www. nps.gov /nr/>. Accessed October 29, 2013 Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey (MRCS) < http: / /websoilsurvey.nres. usda .gov /app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx >. Accessed October 29, 2013 Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey (MRCS) 2013 Speedivell. Official series description. <https: / /soilseries.sc.egov.usda. gov /OSD_Docs/S/SPEEDWELL.html >. Accessed October 29, 2013 United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 2005 Federal Communications Commission Federal Register, 47 CFR Part 1, Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for Review Under the National Historic Preservation Act; Final Rule, WT Docket No. 03 -129; FCC 04 -222. Washington, DC. United States Geological Survey USGS 1963 (photorevised 1994) Garden City, VA Quadrangle Map, 7.5- minute series. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington DC. United States Geological Survey USGS 1963 (photorevised 1994) Roanoke, VA Quadrangle Map, 7.5- minute series. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington DC. Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (V -CRIS) < https: / /veris.dhr.virginia.gov /vcris> Accessed October 3, 2013 Bibliography Appiicam', Name: Pegum Tower Company, LLC Project Name: Timbettrook/Fronktm Project Number. P -1403 ROANOKE PI ANNING. BUR DING and DFVN OPMCNT DATE: February 12, 2014 TO: File Copy: Planning Commission Max Weigard, Applicant's Agent FROM: Ian Shaw, Planning Administrator MEMO SUBJECT: Consultant Study, Wireless Telecommunications Facility 1809 Franklin Road, S.W., Official Tax No. 1040102 Attached is the report assessing the Pegasus Tower /AT &T /NTEOLS Mobility/nTelos Application for a wireless telecommunications facility at the above referenced address. The report was prepared by Cityscape Consultants, Inc. which was contracted by the City to assess the validity of the proposed location, height, antenna configuration, etc. at the request of the Planning Commission and Old Southwest, Inc. during the Commission's December work session. The report provides an overview of how wireless providers locate their facilities to provide overall coverage and coverage capacity and then assesses the need for wireless service in this location, the proposed tower height and proposed antenna design (currently proposed as flush mounted to the tower). The report also addresses the concern discussed during the December work session regarding height /design of the proposed tower and how that height /design might impact the need for other towers in the general vicinity. State of Virginia Telecommunications Site Review New Structure February 9, 2014 [an D. Shaw, PE, AICP, CZA Planning Administrator Planning Building & Development 2t5 ChurchAvenue,S W. Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building Roanoke, Virginia 24011 04°% 1 q r.tt.ivt .® Consultants, Inc. 7050 west Palmetto Park Road N 15 -652 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Phone: 877 -438 -2851 • Fax: 877-2204593 RE: Pegasus Tower /AT &T/NTELOS Mobility /nTelos Application 1809 Franklin Road, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Shaw, At your request on behalf of the City of Roanoke, Virginia (City), CityScape Consultants, Inc. (CityScape), in its capacity as telecommunications consultant for the City, has considered the merits of an application submitted by Pegasus Tower Company, LLC on behalf of AT &T /nTelos. Pegasus Tower Company does not have any special federal or state oversight which therefore does not qualify Pegasus Tower any special considerations. The same is not true for AT &T Mobility and nTelos. AT &T and nTelos, as are numerous other wireless service providers, have federal and state protection under various laws and regulations. For that reason, CityScape suggests that AT &T and nTelos be designated as the "Applicants." Being proposed is a new low - profile support structure of one hundred sixty five (165) feet with a lightning rod that appears to be four (4) feet for a total elevation of one hundred sixty nine (169) feet, see figure 1. The tower is intended to support a total of four (4) carriers. The ground area of the site is owned by Timberbrook Properties VI, LLC and is situated along Franklin Road in Roanoke, Virginia, seefigure 1. All personal wireless service providers ( "Carriers") are in the process of upgrading their services. AT &T Mobility has released approximately 46,000 search rings for new construction and upgraded sites; Verizon has stated they will be doing a substantial number of similar facilities; T- Mobile recently merged with MetroPCS and has said they will start their upgrades later this year Nextel has begun rebranding their iDEN service to be more compatible with their sister provider Sprint and both Sprint/Nextel began their upgrades last year; the remaining service providers have not publically announced any changes. All Carriers are making changes that will morph personal wireless services into a broader capability. The goal is high speed wireless broadband service. Each carrier has their own name for the advanced wireless service (AWS). Currently Carriers operate in spectrum of 800MH7, 850MHz, 1,700MHz and 1,900 MHz the expanded band is now including frequencies between 700MHZ- 799MHz, formally used in television broadcast and continuing developing spectrum between 2,100 and 2,300MHz. Carriers identify the changes by differing names. The most common is "LTE" for long term evolution which is exactly what it says; it will be a long term to evolve to the speed the public demands. Other Carriers reference the improved service as "Site Modernization" yet others don't place a name on the service. The goal is to provide the download/upload speed equated to computers. Achieving this is more difficult because the majority of intereonnectivity is via copper wires. To develop the necessary data transference speeds, copper wire will not work and the system will require more modern methods for data "backhaul" which is limited to either fiber optic cable or microwave link. PEGASUSIAT &T/NTELOS Application Site /Facility: Timberbrook Properties Address: 1809 Franklin Road February 9, 2014 Page 2 �� • - Consultants, Inc. Telecommunications Site Review State of Virginia - New Support Structure All wireless communications systems depend on the concept of resource re -use to achieve their great capacities. With some technologies, the individual channel frequencies are reused every few cells, but not too closely, since interference would result. In other systems, power from one base station interferes with the users on another, impacting network capacity making it undesirable for the wireless phones to communicate with more than a few base stations simultaneously. Cellular, PCS and EMSR wireless providers attain service coverage through ground equipment base stations and antennas mounted on towers or other elevated structures and buildings. The height and location of the elevated antenna platform is critical to two aspects of radio frequency (RF) engineering. The first of these is wireless network coverage. Generally, the higher the antenna is mounted on the support structure, the farther the wireless signal penetrates a defined geographic area. However, the ground equipment at the base station has capacity limitations. In areas where wireless subscribers are intense and airtime minutes are high, caller volume will exceed the designed network capacity, resulting in busy signals or "no service" messages. To help remedy this situation, the antenna heights are mounted at lower elevations than would be necessary for coverage. In the standard wireless system evolution, a Carrier will initially provide service with a few coverage base stations with relatively tall antenna elevations to maximize the "footprint" for a minimal cost. As subscriber totals grow, and network capacity for that base station is maximized, antennas must be lowered and the areas in between the former "tall' base stations fill in with lower - antenna "coverage" base stations. Such a stipulation is not difficult to achieve in a new system. In most cities and in all rural areas, wireless providers seek to maximize height in new systems in order to provide continuous coverage at the least expense to the provider. However, in urban -to- suburban areas and demand increases, as is happening in Roanoke and much of Central Virginia, each base station becomes less capable of meeting network objectives. Thus, wireless providers seek to deploy antennas mounted at lower elevations. An important part of any wireless communication facility application is the verification of the provider's proposed height requirements with generally accepted engineering. To accomplish the proposed location is the controlling factor in which AT &T submitted its "search ring," see figure 3. All Carriers utilize assigned 700MHz through 2,300MHz spectrum within Tarrant County. The proposed facility is anticipated to operate in spectrum close to state, county and local public safety communications, but this should not have a concern for the public safety communications within the area. Cellular search areas are usually circles of approximately one- quartcr the radius of the proposed cell. In practice it is fairly simple to determine whether the search area radius is reasonable. The distance from the closest existing site is determined, halved, and a handotf "overlap" of about 20 percent is added. One fourth of this distance is the search area radius, see Sample I illustration below. PEGASUS/AT&T/N Application Site /Facility: Timberbrook brook Properties Address: 1809 Franklin Road Consultants, Inc. February 9, 2014 Telecommunications Site Review Page 3 State of Virginia - New Support Structure f' Wanduff1" [--Search am r Cep 1 Cap 2 Sample l: Search Area Determination In Sample I, the hexagonal search areas radius is one - quarter of the radius of the cells coverage less a 20 percent handoff overlap. A reasonable search area location is a key element in assuring that a site is justified. Generally, new wireless communication facilities are equally spaced with respect to existing sites. However, terrain, network capacity and other issues may necessitate a facility that it is not equally spaced with respect to existing sites. Typically the wireless provider is asked to provide a frequency grid or coverage predictions to indicate that a site is properly located. In order to verify that the site is technologically suitable for AT &T's stated needs; a "Search Ring" was submitted, indicating the desired area for the proposed facility. Upon detailed investigation, Cityscape confirmed there was no other support structure that could support the Applicants' needs and therefore the Applicants have proposed to construct a new support structure. The Applicants have determined, and Cityscape confirms, the antenna heights are justified to provide sufficient service for existing and future subscribers, and to comply with federal guidelines for personal communications deployment. CityScape believes this height limit could limit potential future collocations and believes that will create the need for additional towers in the same area in the near future; however the tower height is controlled by the City. There are options, such as to require the tower to have capability of an extension to be added at a later date. That would not be an option if the support structure is designed and constructed as a concealed tower. This application could be considered for that potential extension and should allow sufficient internal pole size to accommodate feed lines and the overall structure would not have the strength to support an addition. The current number of carrier deployments could possibly result in the need for additional support structures of similar design in the same general location. PEGASUSIAT &T/NTELOS Application Site /Facility- TimberbrookProperties 1 7w2 g iivPtiT 0!M i GI Address: 1809 Franklin Road February 9, 2014 Consultants, Inc. Telecommunications Site Review Page 4 State of Virginia - New Support Structure Specifically, the undersigned has evaluated AT &T /nTelos` proposal from the following perspectives: • The proposed antenna additions are required due to technological reasons and is essential for the Applicants to provide its telecommunications service, and, • The proposed facility will have the capacity to add additional collocations; and, • The Applicants is required by federal mandate to provide wireless communications_servces for emergency needs; and, • The Applicants have shown need to construct facilities for high speed wireless broadband service; and, • The proposed new site is reasonably within the proximity of the Applicants' Search Ring or the Applicants have followed the guidelines of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the State of Virginia statutes and the Roanoke City Ordinance. All designs and plans for the proposed new facilities were developed according to accepted practices of RF propagation engineering and the persons completing all work are sufficiently qualified within their disciplines. Figure 4 represents the existing service for the AT &T and clearly shows a need for the addition of a new support structure. Figure 5 indicates the AT &T's predicted service which shows the improvement in the general area. Figure 6 shows the improvements for nTelos. CityScape anticipates this plan, if built as designed, should be sufficient to allow an improvement of service to both Applicants' customers within this area into the foreseeable future and justify the proposed construction of a new support structure. CityScape recognizes this is a rapid growth area and this addition will help relieve existing service concerns within the present Applicants operating system. It is anticipated that other Carriers will soon he requiring new and upgraded facilities in the City and surrounding areas. For the reasons listed below, it is our opinion that: • The proposed facility is required because of generally accepted and adequately demonstrated technological reasons and is essential in order for the Applicants to provide satisfactory existing communications service, to alleviate a signal coverage issue and to provide new fourth generation (4G) services; and, • The Applicants' submissions indicate there is a substantial service void in the general area surrounding the subject site and that the addition of new service at a height of 165 feet for AT &T and 140 feet for nTelos will help relieve much of these concerns; and, • The tower elevation and design as a concealed structure could possibly result in the need for additional support structures of similar design in the general surrounding area • The site will be designed and constructed by professionals with expertise in telecommunications site design and construction on behalf of the Applicants. PEGASUS/AT &T/NTELOS Application �� Site /Facility: Timberbrwk Properties i Address: 1809 Franklin Road Consultants, ='V I Inc. February 9, 2014 Page 5 Telecommunications Site Review State of Virginia - New Support Structure The Applicant shifted the location from the initial submittal in order to accommodate numerous complaints and issues raised by public concern. The selected location facilitates the objective of reaching a certain targeted location and the placement is in a railroad yard which is generally only commercial use only. Accordingly the Applicants, AT &T Mobility and nTelos Wireless has met the technical requirements of the City of Roanoke ordinance. If the City finds in favor of the application, CityScape Consultants, as the wireless expert for the City of Roanoke Virginia confirms the application as submitted meets the requirements of wireless facility network design according to the guidelines of the federal govemment and recommends the application as described in the Construction Drawings submitted by Pegasus Towers, AT &T Mobility and nTelos Wireless within the Application package dated December 17, 2013 should be approved with the following conditions: The Applicants shall submit satisfactory NEPA and SHPO documentation prior to any permitting; and, 2. The City should consider the possibility of one tower extension which would allow the total height to be raised by ten (10) feet, should there be a future need that would circumvent the requirement for an additional tower in the same general area; and, 3. Upon completion and prior to occupancy the Applicants shall provide to the City a structural analysis from a Virginia Registered Professional Engineer, indicating the tower will support up to four (4) similar antenna systems in accordance with ANSI/TIA -222G for Roanoke, Virginia; and, 4. The Applicants shall submit a statement of compliance that the tower will be erected and operated in compliance with current FCC and FAA rules and other applicable federal standards; and, 5. All access ports shall be sufficiently sealed to prevent access by birds and other wildlife. Respectfully submitted, � r Richard L. Edwards FCC Licensed PCIA Certified CityScape Consultants, Inc. PEGASUSIAT &T/NTELOS Application Site /Facility. Timberbrook Properties Address: 1809 Franklin Road February 9, 2014 Page 6 =OPT U- Consultarts, Inc. Telecommunications Site Review State of Virginia - New Support Structure know OMM ou UM toaMOM Or a"m, if 0 M b Few= Cal Moms a /1101 Nam 01410 0010 1170A0Ir0M /11101112 0 rum kam tm 2 1A . - I muualnm t2 UM K loaf 100 a Dan II SW w rr o la m �Ca to mot® Pal" r -. atenr Mm au k 1110111 aTY K am 10010 000300 0 OLL 0>a1 Figure 1. Tower Elevation nor® home ns ralra.c ii g X �N -ypy Q j N >I �a II SW w rr o la m �Ca to mot® Pal" r -. atenr Mm au k 1110111 aTY K am 10010 000300 0 OLL 0>a1 Figure 1. Tower Elevation PEGASUS /AT &TMTELOS Application Site /Facibty: Timberbrook Properties Address: 1809 Franklin Road February 9, 2014 Page 7 ■��11����11 Consultants, Inc. Telecommunications Site Review State of Virginia - New Support Structure alM..9bwAtl99 VS9I m99 �•�T. VABWtt J1(9M� Y Dlause �eclb lcrose O Detonre. Delarte SUMAtlas USM 2009. vnwMmne tom �3 td _ W6PWN-11 a 0 180 760 540 720 900 W 191' V.� CY9Zoan ISp Figure 2. Site Location 4y j FJ� eq F. 4e. • � Gwf ♦n iw Y Dlause �eclb lcrose O Detonre. Delarte SUMAtlas USM 2009. vnwMmne tom �3 td _ W6PWN-11 a 0 180 760 540 720 900 W 191' V.� CY9Zoan ISp Figure 2. Site Location PEGASUS/AT &T/NTELOS Application Site /Facility: Timberbrook Properties Address: 1809 Franklin Read February 9, 2014 Page 8 Consultants, Inc. Telecommunications Site Review State of Virginia - New Support Structure Figure 3. AT &T Search Ring PEGASUS /AT &T/NTELOS Application Site /Facility: Timberbrook Properties Address 1809 Franklin Road February 9, 2014 Page 9 Consultants, Inc. Telecommunications Site Review State of Virginia - New Support Structure Figure 4. Existing AT &T Service (Gray Indicates Target Area) PEGASUS/AT &TMTF_LOS Application Site /Facility: Timberbrook Properties Address: 1609 Franklin Road February 9, 2014 Page 10 m� Consultants, Inc. Telecommunications Site Review State of Virginia - New Support Structure Figure 5. AT &T's Proposed Service AFFIDAVIT APPLICANT: Pegasus Tower Company, LLC LOCATION: 1809 Franklin Road, S.W., Tax No. 1040102 REQUEST: Amend PUD Plan COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) ) TO -WIT: CITY OF ROANOKE ) The affiant, Rebecca Cockram, first being duly sworn, states that she is Secretary to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2 -2204, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first -class mail on the 26th day of February, 2014, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 11th day of March, 2014, on the request captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels as set out below: Tax No and Owner's Name and Address 1032203 H T B PROPERTIES LLC 202 S JEFFERSON ST ROANOKE VA 24011 1040201 City of Roanoke Maher Fields 215 Church Ave., S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 Rebecca C,ockram SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this 26t day of Febru, 2014 Notary Public 7TVirginia ,y The Roanoke Times Roanoke, Virginia Affidavit of Publication The Roanoke Times —i CITY OF ROANOKE, PDV CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 215 CHURCH AVE, ROOM166 SW ROANOKE VA 24011 REFERENCE: 80076514 13554920 State of Virginia City of Roanoke Public Hearing Notic I, (the undersigned) an authorized representative of the Times -World Corporation, which corporation is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was published in said newspapers on the following dates: City /County of Roanoke, Commonwealth /State of Vir inia. Sworn and subscribed before me this day of MAR 2014. Witness my hand and fic�l seal. ' Notary Public . o l to t/Jyy w�cEN/y�� , Z. NOTARY •• PUBLISHED ON: 02/26 03/05 h _ PUBLIC 9 --G. #332964 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE All public hearings advertised herein will be held in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Rebecca Cockad, Room 450. Noel C. Taylor business service Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Secretary, City PlanWrg Roanoke, Virginia. All DmnMINIM applications are available- — for review in the Planning — City Council will hula Builong and Development hearings on the aforesaid office, Room 166, 215 app' 'cations on March 17, Ave. S.W., Roanoke, 2014, et 7:00 p.m., or as VA, A soon as the matters may be A request from John and heard. Any person with a disability Stephanie ie Stephan M. Moon, MMC, requiring any special accommodation to attend i Cfty Clerk or participate in the hearings should contact. Planning Building and,, Development at (540)' 853 -1730 at least five days prior to the scheduled hearing. The City of Roanoke) Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on March 11. 2014. at 1:30 p.m., or as soon as the matters may be heard, to consider these applications: Application by Pegasus Tower Co Company, LLC to amend the Development nt Plan tl Unit Plan as it pertains to 1809 Franklin Rtl„ S containing approximately ately d.36630 0 No. 1040102, to pe construction of a wire telecommunications I, either with a light or it a light on the top of structure in Phase I an office building in Pha, on the property previo rezoned to Institutir Planned Unit Developn Plan (INPUD). during comprehensive rezon Ordinance 37269 -120! on December 5, 2005. land use categor permitted in the IN[ District include astral, living; commercl a s s e m b l y a entertainment: pub institutional and commk an :I per 1,800 square feet of lot area. The comprehensive plan designates the property for Commercial use. The proposed use of the property is wireless telecommunications facility with or without a light and commercial building FA LT" C' permanently discontinue, TOTAL COST: 1,295.52 �zjr!`!'•`' vacate and close an approximately 2.921 square FILED ON: 03/05/14 right- ofportionth Street -— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —+ S.W. south of Janette J� Avenue, S.W. and adjacent J to 502 Janette Avenue, S.W. properly, bearing Official Tax No 1140513. Authorized nearing on March at 1:00 p.m., or Is the matter may ,to consider this n: Ion from River property located IlSon Ave., S.W., Official Tax No. I, zoned Bill at Mixed Density for a special n pursuant to 8.24905, Zoning, a City of Roanoke Is amended, to bit and breakfast, Pan. In from Eugene , on behalf of n 3. LLC. for use, on as amended, to allow an aggregate sign area of 220 square feet in lieu of the 99 square feet requirement for building mounted signege and to allow an addition to a freestanding sign cabinet to be co- located on the existing Individual freestanding sign with a sign area of 166.8 feet in Ileu of the maximum requirement of 100 square feet at this location. Rebecca Cockrem, CRY Board at Zoning Appeal Signature: Billing Services Representative ,IYCOMMISSION - m medical clinic antl /oi P PIKE Q - b business service I =� ( ( e establishment, not otherwise l •• • • J�Q A A request from John and Frantz to nearing on March at 1:00 p.m., or Is the matter may ,to consider this n: Ion from River property located IlSon Ave., S.W., Official Tax No. I, zoned Bill at Mixed Density for a special n pursuant to 8.24905, Zoning, a City of Roanoke Is amended, to bit and breakfast, Pan. In from Eugene , on behalf of n 3. LLC. for use, on as amended, to allow an aggregate sign area of 220 square feet in lieu of the 99 square feet requirement for building mounted signege and to allow an addition to a freestanding sign cabinet to be co- located on the existing Individual freestanding sign with a sign area of 166.8 feet in Ileu of the maximum requirement of 100 square feet at this location. Rebecca Cockrem, CRY Board at Zoning Appeal Signature: Billing Services Representative PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE All public hearings advertised herein will be held in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia. All applications are available for review in the Planning Building and Development office, Room 166, 215 Church Ave. S.W., Roanoke, VA. Any person with a disability requiring any special accommodation to attend or participate in the hearings should contact Planning Building and Development at (540) 853 -1730 at least five days prior to the scheduled hearing. The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on March 11, 2014, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon as the matters may be heard, to consider these applications: Application by Pegasus Tower Company, LLC to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan as it pertains to 1809 Franklin Rd., SW, containing approximately 4.3610 acres, bearing Official Tax No. 1040102, to permit construction of a wireless telecommunications tower either with a light or without a light on the top of the structure in Phase I and an office building in Phase II on the property previously rezoned to Institutional Planned Unit Development Plan ( INPUD), during the comprehensive rezoning, Ordinance 37269 - 120505, on December 5, 2005. The land use categories permitted in the INPUD District include residential; accommodations and group living; commercial; assembly and entertainment; public, institutional and community facilities; transportation; utility; agricultural; and accessory, with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 1,800 square feet of lot area. The comprehensive plan designates the property for commercial use. The proposed use of the property is wireless telecommunications facility with or without a light and commercial building including office, general and professional, and /or medical clinic and /or business service establishment, not otherwise listed. A request from John and Barbara Frantz to permanently discontinue, vacate and close an approximately 2,921 square foot portion of the right -of -way of 5th Street, S.W., south of Janette Avenue, S.W. and adjacent to 502 Janette Avenue, S.W. property, bearing Official Tax No. 1140513. Rebecca Cockram, Secretary, City Planning Commission City Council will hold public hearings on the aforesaid applications on March 17, 2014, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon as the matters may be heard. Stephanie M. Moon, MMC, City Clerk The City of Roanoke Board of Zoning Appeals will hold a public hearing on March 12, 2014, at 1:00 p.m., or as soon as the matter may be heard, to consider this application: Application from River Laker for property located at 631 Allison Ave., S.W., bearing Official Tax No. 1131117, zoned RM -1, Residential Mixed Density District, for a special exception pursuant to Section 36.2 -405, Zoning, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to permit a bed and breakfast, at this location. Application from Eugene Bane, III, on behalf of Evolution 3, LLC, for property located at 814 Day Avenue, S.W., bearing Official Tax No. 1120407, zoned RM -1, Residential Mixed Density District, for a special exception pursuant to Section 36.2- 705(c)3, Zoning, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to permit an increase in volume, area, or extent of nonconforming use not exceeding an aggregate of fifteen percent (15 %) of a non - conforming multifamily use, at this location. Applications from Adam Skrzeszewski, on behalf of Professional Permits, for property located at 4210 Franklin Road, S.W., bearing Official Tax No. 5470116, zoned CLS (c), Commercial Large Site, with conditions, and CG, Commercial General, for variances from Section 36.2 -668, Zoning, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to allow an aggregate sign area of 220 square feet in lieu of the 99 square feet requirement for building mounted signage and to allow an addition to a freestanding sign cabinet to be co- located on the existing individual freestanding sign with a sign area of 166.8 feet in lieu of the maximum requirement of 100 square feet at this location. Rebecca Cockram, Secretary, City Board of Zoning Appeals Please publish in newspaper on February 26 and March 5, 2014. Please bill and send affidavit of publication to: Rebecca Cockram, Secretary City Planning Commission Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 853 -1730 Please send affidavit of publication to: Stephanie M. Moon, MMC, City Clerk 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456 Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building Roanoke, Virginia 24011 -1536 (540) 853 -2541 AFFIDAVIT APPLICANT: Pegasus Tower Company, LLC LOCATION: 1809 Franklin Road, S.W., Tax No. 1040102 REQUEST: Amend PUD Plan COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) ) TO -WIT: CITY OF ROANOKE ) The affiant, Rebecca Cockram, first being duly sworn, states that she is Secretary to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2 -2204, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first -class mail on the 29th day of January, 2014, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 11th day of February, 2014, on the request captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels as set out below: Tax No and Owner's Name and Address 1032203 H T B PROPERTIES LLC 202 S JEFFERSON ST ROANOKE VA 24011 1040201 City of Roanoke Maher Fields 215 Church Ave., S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 Rebecca Cockram SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this 2911 day of Janu , 2014 CiC R. MARTHT Notary Public i NOTARY PUBLIC Commonwealth of Virginia Peg. #29207 '- 3�rinfl {:`sOil Expires. AFFIDAVIT APPLICANT: Pegasus Tower Company, LLC LOCATION: 1809 Franklin Road, S.W., Tax No. 1040102 REQUEST: Amend PUD Plan COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) ) TO -WIT: CITY OF ROANOKE ) The affiant, Rebecca Cockram, first being duly sworn, states that she is Secretary to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2 -2204, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first -class mail on the 30th day of December, 2013, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 14th day of January, 2014, on the request captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels as set out below: Tax No and Owner's Name and Address 1032203 H T B PROPERTIES LLC 202 S JEFFERSON ST ROANOKE VA 24011 1040201 City of Roanoke Maher Fields 215 Church Ave., S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 T CDC Rebecca Cockram SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this 30 day, of Decembec, 2013 Notary Public CANDACE R. MARTIN NOTARY PUBLIC Commonwealth of Virginia Reg. #282076 My Commission Expires PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE All public hearings advertised herein will be held in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia. All applications are available for review in the Planning Building and Development office, Room 166, 215 Church Ave. S.W., Roanoke, VA. Any person with a disability requiring any special accommodation to attend or participate in the hearings should contact Planning Building and Development at (540) 853 -1730 at least five days prior to the scheduled hearing. The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on February 11, 2014, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon as the matters may be heard, to consider these applications: Application by JMB Investment Company, LLC to rezone the property and repeal conditions proffered as part of a previous rezoning at 1919 10th St., N.W., bearing Official Tax No. 2060534. The application is to rezone the property from Light Industrial District (I -1), with conditions, to Commercial - General District (CG), with conditions. The conditions proposed for repeal, adopted through the enactment of Ordinance Nos. 27204 and 32816- 020596, require existing structures to be painted and repaired; require landscaping and maintenance per a site plan dated August 8, 1984; limit the size and number of outdoor advertising signage boards on the property; prohibit the expansion of the existing buildings or erection of new buildings and limit the use of existing buildings. The applicant proposes to proffer new site plans, development plan exhibits A, B, and C dated June 18, 2013, and a building elevation plan revision dated Dec. 03, 2013, showing a new building, a new configuration of site development, and the existing three (3) outdoor advertising signs. The use classes permitted in the CG District include accommodations and group living; commercial; industrial; assembly and entertainment; public, institutional and community facilities; transportation; utility; agricultural; and accessory, with a maximum floor area ratio of 5.0. The comprehensive plan designates the property for light manufacturing use. The proposed use of the property is retail sales. Application by Harpear Properties, Inc., to rezone property located at 4662 and 0 (zero) Old Mountain Road, N.E., bearing Official Tax Nos. 7410102 and 7410101 respectively. The application is to rezone the property from R -5, Residential Single - Family District, to MXPUD, Mixed Use Planned Unit Development District. The land use categories permitted in the MXPUD District include residential; accommodations and group living; commercial; assembly and entertainment; public, institutional and community facilities; transportation; utility; agricultural; and accessory, with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 1,800 square feet of lot area. The comprehensive plan designates the property for single - family, high density use. The proposed use of the property is convenience store, laundromat, and apartments. Rebecca Cockram, Secretary, City Planning Commission City Council will hold public hearings on the aforesaid applications on February 18, 2014, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon as the matters may be heard. Stephanie M. Moon, MMC, City Clerk The City of Roanoke Board of Zoning Appeals will hold a public hearing on February 12, 2014, at 1:00 p.m., or as soon as the matter may be heard, to consider this application: Application from Chelsea Powell, for property located at 2224 Westover Avenue, S.W., bearing Official Tax No. 1432013, zoned R -7, Residential Single Family District, for a special exception pursuant to Section 36.2 -311, Zoning, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to allow an agricultural operation at this location. Rebecca Cockram, Secretary, City Board of Zoning Appeals Please publish in newspaper on January 29 and February 5, 2014. Please bill and send affidavit of publication to: Rebecca Cockram, Secretary City Planning Commission Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 853 -1730 Please send affidavit of publication to: Stephanie M. Moon, MMC, City Clerk 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456 Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building Roanoke, Virginia 24011 -1536 (540) 853 -2541 STEPHANIE M. MOON, MMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 -1536 Telephone: (540) 853 -2541 Fax: (540) 853 -1145 E -mail: clerkaroanokeva.gov March 13, 2014 Maxwell H. Wiegard, Attorney Gentry, Locke, Rakes and Moore 10 Franklin Road, S. E., Suite 800 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dear Mr. Wiegard: JONATHAN E. CRAFT, CMC Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T. WEBB, CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, a public hearing has been advertised for Monday, March 17, 2014, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., on a request of Pegasus Tower Company, LLC, to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan as it pertains to 1809 Franklin Road, S. W., identified as Official Tax Map No. 1040102, to permit construction of a wireless telecommunication tower in Phase I and an office building in Phase II previously rezoned to Institutional Planned Unit Development Plan (INPUD), during the comprehensive zoning, pursuant to Ordinance No. 37269 - 120505 adopted by the Council on December 5, 2005. At its regular meeting held on Tuesday, March 11, 2014, the City Planning Commission, on a 7 -0 vote, approved the petitioner's request. Should you have questions or need additional information regarding action taken by the Planning Commission, please contact Rebecca Cockram, Secretary to the City Planning Commission, at (540) 853 -1130. Lastly, it will be necessary for you, or your representative, to be present at the March 17 public hearing. Failure to appear could result in a deferral of the matter until a later date. SMM:ctw Sincerely, �Ulht) Stephanie M. Moon, MMC City Clerk Ckctlpublic hearings/2014/Marcb/L -Atty & Adj Pegasus Towers.doc Maxwell H. Wiegard March 13, 2014 Page 2 Pc: HTB Properties, LLC, 202 South Jefferson Street, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Steven Strauss, Timberbrook Properties VI, LLC, 5100 Bernard Drive, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Craig Clifton, Pegasus Tower Company, LLC, 548 East Riverside Drive, Suite D, North Tazewell, Virginia 24630 Mr. Mohan Chandler, P. O. Box 1646, Lake City, Florida 32056 -1646 Shrinath Enterprises, LLC, 1927 Franklin Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Tacklebox Properties, LLC, P. O. Box 8725, Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Lorrd Ganeshji, Inc., 5848 Old Locke Court, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Ms. Barbara N. Duerk, 2607 Rosalind Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Ms. Jan Keister, 817 Marshall Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Mr. John M. McGonigal, 706 Montrose Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Ms. Dinah Ferrance, 402 Day Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Ms. Joel W. Richert, 415 Allison Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Mr. S. Ronald Owens, 18 Mountain Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Mr. Frank J. Smith, 934 Highland Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Mr. H. Curtis Rupe, 424 Highland Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Ms. Valerie S. Eagle, 445 Elm Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Mr. James E. Steagall, Jr., 409 Highland Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Mr. James W. Hyams,349 Walnut Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Mr. and Mrs. Kirk W. Gibson, 1606 Hampton Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Mr. Mark Hostetter, 544 Day Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Jean Bollendorff, Roanoke Valley Preservation Foundation, P. O. Box 1366, Roanoke, Virginia 24007 Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Rebecca Cockram, Secretary, City Planning Commission Ckcdpublic hmings/20141ManhIL -Atty & Adj Pegasus Towm.doc -f - Maxwell H. Wiegand (540) 983-9350 mwdegaid@gentryloc ke.mm HAND DELIVERED GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & M ®RE "P Attorneys January 6, 2014 Katharine Gray, City Planner Department of Planning, Building and Development City of Roanoke Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24011 Facsimile 540.9839400 Post Office Box 40013 Roanoke, Virginia 24022 -0013 Re: Request for Continuance of Public Hearings on Amended Application No. 2 for Amendment of Planned Unit Development Plan (the "Application') Applicant: Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Property Owner: Timberbrook Properties VI, LLC Property: 1809 Franklin Road, S.W. (Tax Map No.: 1040102) Dear Katharine: We serve as zoning counsel to Pegasus Tower Company, LLC, the Applicant for Amendment of a Planned Unit Development Plan governing the parcel of real property referenced above. The purpose of this letter is to request a continuance of the public hearing regarding this matter from the agenda for the Roanoke City Planning Commission's January 14, 2014 meeting, to the agenda for the Roanoke City Planning Commission's February 11, 2014 meeting. By copy of this letter to Ms. Moon, City Clerk of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, we also hereby request a continuance of the public hearing for this matter from the agenda for the Roanoke City Council's January 21, 2014 meeting, to the agenda for the Roanoke City Council's February 18, 2014 meeting. We attended the Roanoke City Planning Commission's informal work session on December 20, 2013 on behalf of the Applicant. Following the Planning Commission's work session, on January 3, 2014, we were advised that the members of the Roanoke City Planning Commission have decided to submit the Applicant's Amended Application No. 2 to an independent consultant for review and comment. We further understand that you do not expect to receive the independent consultant's comments until Friday, January 10, 2014, at the earliest, and possibly later. The requested continuance will provide the Applicant time to fully consider the independent consultant's comments, and determine how to appropriately amend the Application and the proposed Amendment of Planned Unit Development Plan to address such comments. 10 Franklin Road SE, Suite 800 3 Roanoke, VA 240114• Toll Free: 866- 983 -0866 www.gentyocke.com I I 589/10/6526210v I GENTRY LOCKS RAKES & M®RE" Katherine Gray, City Planner January 6, 2014 Page 2 Additionally, in response to the Planning Commission's comments and requests for additional information, enclosed for incorporation as attachments to Amended Application No. 2, filed on December 17, 2013, are the following documents: (1) a redacted copy of the Option and Lease Agreement between the Applicant, as landlord, and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, a communications affiliate of AT &T Mobility, LLC ( "AT &T "), as tenant; (2) a redacted copy of the Site Lease between the Applicant, as landlord, and Virginia PCS Alliance, L.C., doing business as NTELOS ( "NTELOS "), as tenant; (3) copies of additional AT &T propagation maps showing radio frequency signal coverage at lower heights (155' and 145'); (4) a map showing the AT &T search ring for this site (R0211); (5) copies of additional NTELOS propagation maps showing radio frequency signal coverage at lower heights (130' and 120'); and (6) a map showing the NTELOS's search ring for this site (RN942) and the collocation candidates that it considered and ruled out. We appreciate your consideration. If you have any questions regarding the Applicant's request for a continuance or the information set forth above, please do not hesitate to call me at 540 -983- 9350. Very truly yours, GENTRY LOCKE RAKES I; n, , LLP Max ell H . WiegAd MHW:jpd cc: Stephanie N. Moon, City Clerk, City of Roanoke, Virginia Mr. Craig Clifton Mr. Steven S. Strauss Ms. Jean P. Doyle Rebecca Cockram It 589/10/6526210vI STEPHANIE M. MOON, MMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 -1536 Telephone: (540) 853 -2541 Fax: (540) 853 -1145 E -mail: clerkeroanokeva.gov January 7, 2014 Maxwell H. Wiegard, Attorney Gentry, Locke, Rakes and Moore 10 Franklin Road, S. E., Suite 800 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dear Mr. Wiegard: JONATHAN E. CRAFT, CIVIC Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T. WEBB, CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk This will acknowledge receipt of your communication received in the City Clerk's Office under date of January 6, 2014, addressed to Katherine Gray, City Planner, requesting a continuance of a public hearing scheduled to be heard by the Council at its meeting on Monday, January 21, on an application from Pegasus Tower Company, LLC, to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan as it pertains to 1809 Franklin Road, S. W., identified as Official Tax Map No. 1040102, to permit construction of a wireless telecommunication tower in Phase I and an office building in Phase II previously rezoned to Institutional Planned Unit Development Plan (INPUD), during the comprehensive zoning, pursuant to Ordinance No. 37269- 120505 adopted by the Council on December 5, 2005. Inasmuch as the Council remanded the matter to the Planning Commission at its meeting on Monday, December 16, 2013, no request for a continuance is necessary as long as the matter remains with the Planning Commission. If you should have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. er M. Moon, MMC �tepfianie ity Clerk Maxwell H. Wiegard, Attorney January 8, 2014 Page 2 PC: HTB Properties, LLC, 202 South Jefferson Street, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Rebecca Cochram, Secretary, City Planning Commission Maxwell H. Wiegard (540) 983 -9350 m egard@genWockecom HAND DELIVERED GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & M ®RE "P Attorneys January 23, 2014 Katharine Gray, City Planner Department of Planning, Building and Development City of Roanoke Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24011 - FacMle Sd0. 83.9400 Post Ofica Box 40013 Roanoke, Mrginia 24022 -0013 Re: Second Request for Continuance of Public Hearings on Amended Application No. 2 for Amendment of Planned Unit Development Plan (the "Application') Ap lip cant: Pegasus Tower Company, LLC Property Owner: Timberbrook Properties VI, LLC Property: 1809 Franklin Road, S.W. (Tax Map No.: 1040102) Dear Katharine: We serve as zoning counsel to Pegasus Tower Company, LLC, the Applicant for Amendment of a Planned Unit Development Plan governing the parcel of real property referenced above. The purpose of this letter is to request a continuance of the public hearing regarding this matter from the agenda for the Roanoke City Planning Commission's February 11, 2014 meeting, to the agenda for the Roanoke City Planning Commission's March 11, 2014 meeting. By copy of this letter to Ms. Moon, City Clerk of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, we also hereby request a continuance of the public hearing for this matter from the agenda for the Roanoke City Council's February 18, 2014 meeting, to the agenda for the Roanoke City Council's March 17, 2014 meeting. We attended the Roanoke City Planning Commission's meeting on January 14, 2014 for the purpose of formally requesting a continuance of the public hearing for this matter to the agenda for the Planning Commission's February 11, 2014 meeting. On January 22, 2014 we were advised that Roanoke City has yet to retain an independent consultant to review the Applicant's Amended Application No. 2. We further understand that you do not expect to receive the independent consultant's report until after the Planning Commission's informal work session on January 24, 2014. The requested continuance will provide the Applicant time to receive and fully consider the independent consultant's comments, and determine how to appropriately amend the Application and the proposed Amendment of Planned Unit Development Plan to address all outstanding comments at one time. 10 Franklin Road SE, SuAe 800 .} Roanoke, VA 240114• Toll Free: 866- 983 -0866 w .gentrylocke.com I 1589/10/6547589v I GENTRY LOCKS RAKES N M ®RE " Katherine Gray, City Planner January 23, 2014 Page 2 We appreciate your consideration of this request. If you have any questions regarding the Applicant's request for a continuance or the information set forth above, please do not hesitate to call me at 540- 983 -9350. Very truly yours, GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & MOORE, LLP Maxwell 1I. Wiegard MHW:lbs cc: Stephanie N. Moon, City Clerk, City of Roanoke, Virginia Ms. Rebecca Cockram Mr. Craig Clifton Mr. Steven S. Strauss Ms. Jean P. Doyle 11589/10/6547589vl STEPHANIE M. MOON, IVINIC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 -1536 Telephone: (540)853 -2541 Fax: (540) 853 -1145 E -mail: clerka`.roanokeva.gov January 23, 2014 Maxwell H. Wiegard, Attorney Gentry, Locke, Rakes and Moore 10 Franklin Road, S. E., Suite 800 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dear Mr. Wiegard: JONATHAN E. CRAFT, CMC Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T. NVEBB, CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk This will acknowledge receipt of your communication received in the City Clerk's Office under date of January 23, 2014, addressed to Katherine Gray, City Planner, requesting a continuance of a public hearing scheduled to be heard by the Council at its meeting on Monday, January 21, on an application from Pegasus Tower Company, LLC, to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan as it pertains to 1809 Franklin Road, S. W., identified as Official Tax Map No. 1040102, to permit construction of a wireless telecommunication tower in Phase I and an office building in Phase II previously rezoned to Institutional Planned Unit Development Plan (INPUD), during the comprehensive zoning, pursuant to Ordinance No. 37269 - 120505 adopted by the Council on December 5, 2005. Inasmuch as the Council remanded the matter to the Planning Commission at its meeting on Monday, December 16, 2013, no request for a continuance is necessary as long as the matter remains with the Planning Commission. If you should have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Y�^ f 1 j IT Stephanie M. Moon, MMC City Clerk Maxwell H. Wiegard, Attorney January 23, 2014 Page 2 pc: HTB Properties, LLC, 202 South Jefferson Street, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Rebecca Cochram, Secretary, City Planning Commission TO: Mayor, members of council, city manager and city staff, RE: Pegasus Tower Company, LLC re: INPUD at 1809 Franklin Road Response to question "What is on the property right now"? There are two signs representing Strass and Cronk and Poe that advertize will build to suit tenant and a Ray Ferris city council campaign sign promoting economic development. Society has embraced political correctness, rightfully so. Many years ago we used to occasionally make fun of other localities habits. 1 remember the question, " How do you define wealth in a community ?" The answer was one car in the backyard up on cinderblocks. How do "How do you define really wealthy ?" 2 cars in the back yard up on cider blocks. Roanoke City's planning habits indicate that the symbol for wealth and progressiveness in Roanoke are cell towers. The plethera of visible towers approved are located adjacent to #581 - 1 presume for the most visibility to citizens of the area and for visitors who are traveling through the area to see. In the application AT&T and Intelos stated they had asked multiple places including Cambria Suites, Carillon, Riverside and the city of Roanoke for permission to erect a tower. 1 don't know what the reasons were for not wanting a cell tower on their property. Some just didn't response.. Mr. Strass welcomed the request for permission to erect a tower. Pegasus has agreed to build a road including curb, gutter and streetscape for the property he owns. It is only because of persistent citizen involvement Pegasus has agreed to modify (improve) their petition. The proposed up to 4 story building would not visualy shield the tower. This is the 4th amended petition. I now reiterate comments made at the December 13 City Council meeting: LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION Commercial developers, residential realtors and economic development specialists tell you that location is important. 1 would encourage you to protect the locations you have in Roanoke. Roanoke only has one viewshed. From the Greenway, the Roanoke River and Mill Mountain the viewshed should be enhanced to emphasis our livability. 1 missed planning commission on Tuesday. 1 did send pictures to the Secretary of the Commission of the viewshed from observation platforms on Mill Mountain and Mill Mountain Zoo. The Star overlook viewshed is not impacted. Roanoke has only one viewshed. 1st impressions are important. Make Roanoke's viewshed a good first impression for tourists visiting for the first time and for residents that choose to live in the city. Protection of the viewshed includes more than building fences and planting Leland Cyprus around the base of structures. Viewshed protection is also needed from vistas above the area looking down. This cell tower location is, contrary to some thinking, a big deal. My Ask is for city council to deny this request for an amended site plan. Request a proactive approach to finding an appropriate location. A group of concerned citizens would include a high technology expert concerned with viewshed. Ashville, NC has been named as a comparable city. Cell towers are not visible in the urban Ashville area. Let's be like Ashville and make good 1st impressions. Roanoke only has 1 try to make a good first impression. Don't hang your laundry - cell towers - along #581 in your front yard. Keep the viewshed from Mill Mountain and the Mill Mountain Zoo free from Cell towers. ASK: Research other communities that protect their viewshed. Implement a plan to protect Roanoke's viewshed from Mill Mountain, the River and Roanoke Valley Greenways. Barbara N. Duerk .W. Note: Vote NO. Needs impervious surface parking lot, no light to be on tower, access to river by developer, relocation of building to hide tower from ground, flush mount to conceal from air. There is a better location. The tower location is SO visible from #581 and Mill Mountain and surrounding neighborhoods. Roanoke livability Old Southwest, Inc. 641 Walnut Ave SW Roanoke, VA 24016 17 March 2014 Mayor Bowers & Roanoke City Council 215 Church Ave SW Roanoke, VA 24011 Mayor Bowers and members of City Council My name is Jason Cromer and I represent the Old Southwest neighborhood group as its President. I'm here this afternoon to ask of you to thoughtfully consider and veto the proposed construction of a 165 -foot cell tower at 1809 Franklin Road SW by Pegasus Tower Company. Old Southwest, along with the South Roanoke neighborhood group had publicly expressed valid concerns that incorporating this tower in our view -shed would be a step in the wrong direction for Roanoke. This project would threaten and undermine the hard work and outstanding accomplishments that this City Council has made throughout the past several years to promote Roanoke as a first -class city while maintaining the richness of our scenic backdrop. You don't need me to remind you the countless recognition Roanoke receives as a premier destination — likely in part due to our commitment of preserving & enhancing our environment. You also don't need me to remind you that Roanoke has attracted many businesses & homeowners— likely in part due to our inviting landscape and outdoor - friendly atmosphere. And lastly you don't need me to remind you how pleased we are to have city representatives that have many times listened to, valued input, and successfully worked with its concerned citizens. I, along with the many neighbors that I represent, kindly ask that council- members please weigh the concerns of all citizens that have stepped forward to speak on this debate. Now, you have heard from us that oppose this proposal. Have you heard from any citizens that have spoken in favor for it? We have not yet heard one single statement from an affected resident that wishes to go forward with this proposal. As a matter of fact, I have not seen nor heard from any Pegasus representative, thus failing to follow Councilman Lea's advice a few months ago to "reach out and work with" the neighborhood groups. That speaks for itself. 1of2 It is without a doubt that many use their cell - phones every day increasing demand on the cellular networks.You could say we take it for granted. But more importantly, we do not take for granted the city & surrounding view that we have decided to proudly call our home. In conclusion, I'd like to leave you with words Mayor Bowers once said, "All progress is change... but all change is not necessarily progress." This cell tower proposal which will negatively alter our landscape and interrupt the view -shed is most certainly not any progress for Roanoke. Thank you. Since rel Jason A. Cromer President Old Southwest, Inc. 2of2 Proposed Cell Tower mayor, Court Rosen, Sherman Lea, bi I I. bestpitch@ roanokeva.gov, ray.ferris @roanokeva.gov, Anita Price, David Tim Taylor to: Dear Council Members- 03/17/2014 01:15 PM As a resident of the city of Roanoke and neighbor in Old Southwest, I want to strongly oppose the proposed installation of a cell tower at 1809 Franklin Road which was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission last week. I specifically recall in December that Council Member Sherman Lea asked the representative if they had intentions of "reaching out and working with" the various neighbors that have shown concern. Since that Monday night session took place, not one representative has ever attended a neighborhood meeting in Old Southwest. In that meeting it was also discussed that the representative for the cell tower would be offering "alternatives ". To this date, I don't know of or have heard of any alternatives, other than to say, they have edited and updated the landscaping in and around the cell tower itself and stated that they would use low profile antennas. I understand that the city hired an outside study which was appreciated and I read that they found a tower to be necessary for communication. That being said, what type of alternatives have been offered? If you visit the outside studies website, http: / /www.cityscapegov.com/ you can clearly see that they themselves have a photo on their website of a tower that appears to be a very large conifer. As an individual who would be driving by the tower on Franklin Road, my main concern is not necessarily the area in and around the tower. My main concern is up in the sky around the 100 -165 foot mark. If this proposed cell tower is approved by you all, then we all have to live with it. The view shed will be altered for many years to come and when one attempts to take in the natural beauty of the mountains, they will be forced to have a needle in their eye by the sight of a cell tower. This opposition is not just for myself as a resident of Old Southwest, it's in opposition as a resident of the city of Roanoke. As citizens, we are being forced to go to bed with this cell tower company, but only one participant is being pleasured. At least make it worth while for everyone involved. Please do not approve the installation of this cell tower. Thank you- STEPHANIE M. MOON, MMC City Clerk Mr. and Mrs. John Frantz 601 Woods Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Frantz: CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 -1536 Telephone: (540)853 -2541 Fax: (540) 853 -1145 E -mail: clerkalroanokeva.gov March 13, 2014 JONATHAN E. CRAFT, CMC Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T. WEBB, CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, a public hearing has been advertised for Monday, March 17, 2014, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., on your request to permanently, vacate, discontinue and close an approximately 2,921 square foot portion of the right -of -way of 5'h Street, S. W., south of Janette Avenue, S. W., and adjacent to 502 Janette Avenue, S. W., designated as Official Tax Map No. 1140513. At the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission held on Tuesday, March 11, 2013, your request was continued until its next meeting scheduled on Tuesday, April 8, 2014. Due to there being no recommendation to the Council regarding the abovementioned closure, please be advised that City Council currently has no jurisdiction regarding the matter, and therefore no action shall be taken by the Council at its March 171h meeting. SMM:ctw Sincerely, Stephanie M. Moon, MMCI City Clerk Ckctl /public heaiings/2014/March/502 Janette Avenue, S. W.doc Mr. and Mrs. John Frantz March 13, 2014 Page 2 pc: Children's Home Society of Virginia, 420 Fitzhugh Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23230 Ms. Mary C. Bates, 435 King George Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation Rebecca J. Cockram, Secretary, City Planning Commission Ckctl /public hearings /2014/March/502 Janette Avenue, S. W.doc AFFIDAVIT APPLICANT: John and Barbara Frantz LOCATION: Right -of Way adjacent to Janette Ave., S.W REQUEST: Closure COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) ) TO -WIT: CITY OF ROANOKE ) The affiant, Rebecca Cockram, first being duly sworn, states that she is Secretary to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2 -2204, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first -class mail on the 26th day of February, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 11th day of March, 2014 on the request captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels as set out below: Tax No and Owner's Name and Address 1031011 CHILDRENS HOME SOCIETY OF VA 4200 FITZHUGH AVE RICHMOND VA 23230 1140423 MARY C BATES 435 KING GEORGE AVE ROANOKE VA 24016 1140513 (applicant) JOHN FRANTZ BARBARA A FRANTZ 601 WOODS AVE SW ROANOKE VA 24016 � 0"k'� Rebecca Cockram SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this 26th day of February, 2014 p ) Notary Public CANDACE R. MART NOTARY PUBLIC Canmonwealth of Virginia Reg. i�282076 MYCammissbnExpires a7 PUBLIC NEARING The Roanoke Times NOTICE Roanoke, Virginia All public hearings g advertised herein wilt be Affidavit of Publication held in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Rebecca Conkram, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Secretary, City Planning The Roanoke Times Church Avenue, S.W.' Commission CITY OF ROANOKE, PDV CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 215 CHURCH AVE, ROOM166 SW ROANOKE VA 24011 REFERENCE: 80076514 13554920 State of Virginia City of Roanoke Roanoke, Virginia. All - ;icENy �' -- FX - - - - - - - - - - + - appllcatlons are available- - - City Council will hold public Z /z� ; for review In the Planning Building and Development hearings: on the aforesaid ' -EG. #332964 ? �¢ office, Room 166, 215 appllcatlons, on March 17, 2014, at 7:00 p.m., or as O ' Church Ave. S W., Roanoke, VA' soon as the matters may be amended, to permit an increase In volume, area, or Ordinance 37269- 120505, on December 5, 2005. The heard. land use categories permitted In the INPUD Any person with a disability Stephanie M. Moon, MMC, multifamily use, or this requiring any special I City Clerk a s s e m b l y a n d accommodation to attend I entertainment; public, Institutional and community Public Hearing Notic If (the undersigned) an authorized representative of the Times -World Corporation, which corporation is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was published in said newspapers on the following dates: City /County of Roanoke, Commonwealth /State of Vir inia. Sworn and subscribed before me this day of MAR 2014. Witness my hand and fici l seal. v/ Notary Public r 01015 PUBLISHED ON: 02/26 03/05 TOTAL COST: 1,295.52 FILED ON: 03/05/14 or participate In 653 -1730 at least five days prior to the scheduled hearing. The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on March 11, 2014, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon as the matters may be heard, to consider these applications: Application by Pegasus Tower Company, LLC to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan as It pertains to 1809 Franklin Rd.. SW, containing approximately 4.3610 acres, bearing Official Tax No. 1040102, to permit construction of a wireless Is City of Roanoke Board Zoning: Appeals will hold public hearin¢ on March 2, 2014, at 1. 0 p.m., or I soon as the matter may r heard, to consider this Ipllcation: xplicatlon from River iker for property located 631 Allison Ave., S.W., raring Official Tax No. 131117, zoned RM -1, :sldentlal Mixed Density strict; for a special '.caption pursuant to dtlon 36.2 -405, Zoning, de of the City of Roanoke 979), as amended, to mgt a bed and breakfast, this location. plicatlon from Eugene enner wim a ugnt or wnnous - ;icENy �' -- FX a light on the top of the structure in Phase I and an NOTARY ••., '• Z /z� ; PUBLIC ; Z * ' -EG. #332964 ? �¢ rezoned to Institutional I,IY COMMISSICit = O ' AP ¢ ° comprehensive rezoning, amended, to permit an increase In volume, area, or Ordinance 37269- 120505, on December 5, 2005. The extent of nonconforming land use categories permitted In the INPUD use not exceeding a aggregate of fifteen percent (1 %)ofanoq.een(percnt or participate In 653 -1730 at least five days prior to the scheduled hearing. The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on March 11, 2014, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon as the matters may be heard, to consider these applications: Application by Pegasus Tower Company, LLC to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan as It pertains to 1809 Franklin Rd.. SW, containing approximately 4.3610 acres, bearing Official Tax No. 1040102, to permit construction of a wireless Is City of Roanoke Board Zoning: Appeals will hold public hearin¢ on March 2, 2014, at 1. 0 p.m., or I soon as the matter may r heard, to consider this Ipllcation: xplicatlon from River iker for property located 631 Allison Ave., S.W., raring Official Tax No. 131117, zoned RM -1, :sldentlal Mixed Density strict; for a special '.caption pursuant to dtlon 36.2 -405, Zoning, de of the City of Roanoke 979), as amended, to mgt a bed and breakfast, this location. plicatlon from Eugene enner wim a ugnt or wnnous Official Tax No:'1120407. a light on the top of the structure in Phase I and an zoned. RM -1, Residential office building In Phase II Mixed Density . District, for a special exception pursuant on the property previously [o Section 36.2.705(c)3, rezoned to Institutional Zoning; Code of the City of Planned Unit Development Plan (INFO D), during the Roanoke (1979) as comprehensive rezoning, amended, to permit an increase In volume, area, or Ordinance 37269- 120505, on December 5, 2005. The extent of nonconforming land use categories permitted In the INPUD use not exceeding a aggregate of fifteen percent (1 %)ofanoq.een(percnt District include residential; accommodations and group multifamily use, or this living; commercial; location. a s s e m b l y a n d Applications from Adam entertainment; public, Institutional and community Skrzeszewsk1, on behalf of facilities; transportation; Professional Permits, for property located at 4210 utility; agricultural; and accessory, with a maximum Franklin Road, S.W., bearing Official Tax No. density density of one dwelling unit per 1,800 square feet of lot 5470 (c Commercial Large Slte, with area. The comprehensive plan designates the can dItlo ns,. and CG, Commercial.General: far. property for commercial .... _____ e . 1. with or without a light and commercial bulletins including office, general and professional, and /or medical clinic and/or business service establishment, not otherwise listed. A request from John and Barbara Frantz to permanently discontinue, vacate and close an approximately 2,921 square foot portion of the _____ _________ ____ ____ __ _________ __________ -F S.W., south of Janet Avenue, S.W. and adlact d; to 502 Janette Avem. S.W. property, beef Official Tax No. 1140513. �r Authorized the as ex's "ng intliv idual freestanding sign with a sign area of 166.8 feet in lieu of the maximum requirement of 100 square `set at this location. Rebecca Cockram, Secretary, City Board of Zoning Appeals 13554920) i Signature: �� Billing Services Representative PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE All public hearings advertised herein will be held in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia. All applications are available for review in the Planning Building and Development office, Room 166, 215 Church Ave. S.W., Roanoke, VA. Any person with a disability requiring any special accommodation to attend or participate in the hearings should contact Planning Building and Development at (540) 853 -1730 at least five days prior to the scheduled hearing. The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on March 11, 2014, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon as the matters may be heard, to consider these applications: Application by Pegasus Tower Company, LLC to amend the Planned Unit Development Plan as it pertains to 1809 Franklin Rd., SW, containing approximately 4.3610 acres, bearing Official Tax No. 1040102, to permit construction of a wireless telecommunications tower either with a light or without a light on the top of the structure in Phase I and an office building in Phase I1 on the property previously rezoned to Institutional Planned Unit Development Plan ( INPUD), during the comprehensive rezoning, Ordinance 37269 - 120505, on December 5, 2005. The land use categories permitted in the INPUD District include residential; accommodations and group living; commercial; assembly and entertainment; public, institutional and community facilities; transportation; utility; agricultural; and accessory, with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 1,800 square feet of lot area. The comprehensive plan designates the property for commercial use. The proposed use of the property is wireless telecommunications facility with or without a light and commercial building including office, general and professional, and /or medical clinic and /or business service establishment, not otherwise listed. A request from John and Barbara Frantz to permanently discontinue, vacate and close an approximately 2,921 square foot portion of the right -of -way of 5th Street, S.W., south of Janette Avenue, S.W. and adjacent to 502 Janette Avenue, S.W. property, bearing Official Tax No. 1140513. Rebecca Cockram, Secretary, City Planning Commission City Council will hold public hearings on the aforesaid applications on March 17, 2014, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon as the matters may be heard. Stephanie M. Moon, MMC, City Clerk The City of Roanoke Board of Zoning Appeals will hold a public hearing on March 12, 2014, at 1:00 p.m., or as soon as the matter may be heard, to consider this application: Application from River Laker for property located at 631 Allison Ave., S.W., bearing Official Tax No. 1131117, zoned RM -1, Residential Mixed Density District, for a special exception pursuant to Section 36.2 -405, Zoning, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to permit a bed and breakfast, at this location. Application from Eugene Bane, III, on behalf of Evolution 3, LLC, for property located at 814 Day Avenue, S.W., bearing Official Tax No. 1120407, zoned RM -1, Residential Mixed Density District, for a special exception pursuant to Section 36.2- 705(c)3, Zoning, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to permit an increase in volume, area, or extent of nonconforming use not exceeding an aggregate of fifteen percent (15 %) of a non - conforming multifamily use, at this location. Applications from Adam Skrzeszewski, on behalf of Professional Permits, for property located at 4210 Franklin Road, S.W., bearing Official Tax No. 5470116, zoned CLS (c), Commercial Large Site, with conditions, and CG, Commercial General, for variances from Section 36.2 -668, Zoning, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to allow an aggregate sign area of 220 square feet in lieu of the 99 square feet requirement for building mounted signage and to allow an addition to a freestanding sign cabinet to be co- located on the existing individual freestanding sign with a sign area of 166.8 feet in lieu of the maximum requirement of 100 square feet at this location. Rebecca Cockram, Secretary, City Board of Zoning Appeals Please publish in newspaper on February 26 and March 5, 2014. Please bill and send affidavit of publication to: Rebecca Cockram, Secretary City Planning Commission Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 853 -1730 Please send affidavit of publication to: Stephanie M. Moon, MMC, City Clerk 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456 Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building Roanoke, Virginia 24011 -1536 (540) 853 -2541 s ei: n CITY OF ROANOKE -�e'i OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Suite 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 STEPHANIE M.MOON,MMC' E-mail: cicrka1roanokcva.gov JONATHAN E.CRAFT,CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk March 24, 2014 Christopher P. Morrill City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Morrill: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 39888-031714 authorizing the proper City officials to execute a general warranty deed to grant to the Commonwealth of Virginia to sell to the Commonwealth certain interests and rights in portions of City owned real property situated at 502 Williamson Road, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia, which real property is depicted as Official Tax Map No. 4013322; authorizing the City Manager to execute the Deed to convey to the Commonwealth (i) in fee for right-of-way a portion of the Premises consisting of approximately 0.029 acres (Fee Interest), (H) a permanent drainage easement encumbering approximately 0.012 acres of land of the Premises (Permanent Drainage Easement), and (Hi) a temporary construction easement encumbering approximately 0.251 acres of the Premises (Temporary Construction Easement); authorizing the sale of the Fee Interest, the Permanent Drainage Easement and the Temporary Construction Easement to the Commonwealth for the sum of $89,585.00; and authorizing the City Manager to execute such further documents and take such further actions as may be necessary to accomplish the above matters, effective March 17, 2014. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at regular meeting held on Monday, March 17, 2014, and is in full force and effect upon its passage. Sincerely, o o,aw Stephanie M. Moon, MMC '�—^'' City Clerk Attachment Christopher P. Morrill March 24, 2014 Page 2 pc: Richard L. Caywood, P.E., Salem District Administrator, Virginia Department of Transportation, 731 Harrison Avenue, Salem, Virginia 24153 Glenda Edwards, Executive Director, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 2624 Salem Turnpike, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Daniel J. Callahan, City Attorney Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance Amelia Merchant, Director, Management and Budget • IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of March, 2014. NO. 39888-031714. AN ORDINANCE authorizing the proper City officials to execute a general warranty deed (Deed) to grant to the Commonwealth of Virginia (Commonwealth) to sell to the Commonwealth certain interests and rights in portions of City owned real property situated at 502 Williamson Road, S.E., Roanoke, Virginia, which real property is depicted as Official Tax Map No. 4013322 (Premises); authorizing the City Manager to execute the Deed to convey to the Commonwealth (i) in fee for right-of-way a portion of the Premises consisting of approximately 0.029 acres (Fee Interest), (ii) a permanent drainage easement encumbering approximately 0.012 acres of land of the Premises (Permanent Drainage Easement), and (iii) a temporary construction easement encumbering approximately 0.251 acres of the Premises (Temporary Construction Easement); authorizing the sale of the Fee Interest, the Permanent Drainage Easement and the Temporary Construction Easement to the Commonwealth for the sum of$89,585; authorizing the City Manager to execute such further documents and take such further actions as may be necessary to accomplish the above matters; providing for an effective date; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this Ordinance. WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has commenced construction of highway improvements in connection with Interstate 581/Elm Avenue Interchange within the City (Project); WHEREAS, the Commonwealth requires certain rights and interests in City owned property identified as the Premises in connection with the Project being constructed by VDOT; L:\ATTORNEY\CASHARE\502 Williamson Road Transfer 2 14\Ordinance 502 Williamson Avenue TM 4013322 transfer to VDOT 2 14.docx 2/25/14 • WHEREAS, the Commonwealth has proposed acquisition of the Fee Interest, the Permanent Drainage Easement, and the Temporary Construction Easement from the City for the sum of$89,585 on terms and conditions of an option agreement; WHEREAS, the City recently accepted the transfer of the Premises by the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) and the City has agreed to distribute to RRHA a portion of the proceeds received from the Commonwealth for costs incurred by RRHA in transferring the Premises and 22 other parcels of real estate to the City; WHEREAS, the Council, after proper advertisement, held a public hearing on the above matter on March 17, 2014, pursuant to Sections 15.2-1800 and 15.2-1813, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, at which public hearing all parties and interested entities were afforded the opportunity to be heard on the above matter; and WHEREAS, after closing the public hearing, Council believes that the sale of the Fee Interest, the Permanent Drainage Easement, and the Temporary Construction Easement will benefit the City and its citizens. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. City Council approves the Deed as set forth in the City Council Agenda Report dated March 17, 2014, which deed conveys to the Commonwealth the Fee Interest, the Permanent Drainage Easement, and the Temporary Construction Easement in portions of the Premises for the sum of$89,585. City Council further finds that the sale of the Fee Interest, the Permanent Drainage Easement, and the Temporary Construction Easement, as set forth in the City Council Agenda Report dated March 17, 2014, will be of economic benefit to the City and its citizens. L:\ATTORNEY\CASFIARE\502 Williamson Road Transfer 2 14\Ordinance 502 Williamson Avenue TM 4013322 transfer to VDOT 2 14.docx 2/25/14 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized on behalf of the City to execute, deliver, and perform the Deed, and sell, convey and transfer the Fee Interest, the Permanent Drainage Easement, and the Temporary Construction Easement in portions of the Premises as described in the City Council Agenda Report dated March 17, 2014, to the Commonwealth. The Deed is to be substantially similar to the document attached to the City Council Agenda Report dated March 17, 2014, and approved as to form by the City Attorney. The purchase price to be paid to the City is $89,585 of which proceeds the City shall transfer $10,000 to RRHA. 3. The City Manager is further authorized to negotiate, execute, deliver, and implement such further documents and agreements and take such further actions as may be necessary to implement, administer, and enforce the option, and negotiate, execute, deliver, and implement any other agreements or documents related to this matter. The form of all such other documents are to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. 4. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading by title of this Ordinance is hereby dispensed with. 5. This Ordinance is effective as of the date of its passage. ATTEST: 44/14Letie-) • " 1 City Clerk. L.\ATTORNEY\CASHARE\502 Williamson Road Transfer 2 14\Ordinance 502 Williamson Avenue TM 4013322 transfer to VDOT 2 14.docx 2/25/14 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of March, 2014. No. 39889-031714. AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding from the Parking Fund for the acquisition of Real Property located at 502 Williamson Road S. E. (Official Tax Map No. 4013322) from the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority to support the formation of temporary easements on the property and the purchase of a small amount of acreage by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for the improvement project at Elm Avenue and 1-581, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the following sections of the 2013-2014 Parking Funds Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, added, amended, and reordained to read and provide as follows: Parking Fund Appropriations Land Purchases 07-540-8208-9050 10,000 Revenues Elmwood Lot - VDOT 07-110-1234-0585 89,585 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: grtifitAL be) n1070 City Clerk. 0 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: March 17, 2014 Subject: Conveyance of Certain Rights and Interests in City-owned Property at 502 Williamson Road, S.E. to the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) in Connection with the I-581/Elm Avenue Interchange Improvements Background: In January, 2014, the City of Roanoke acquired title to certain real property, with improvements thereon, situated at 502 Williamson Road, S.E., and identified as Official Tax Map No. 4013322 ("Premises") from the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority. At the time of the acquisition of the Premises, the City also purchased an owner's title insurance policy regarding the title of the Premises. VDOT needs to acquire certain rights and interests in portions of the Premises, including a fee simple interest of approximately .029 acres of land for right-of-way, a permanent drainage easement of .012 acres of land, and a temporary construction easement of .251 acres of land, in connection with improvements at the I-581/Elm Avenue interchange. VDOT will pay the City the sum of $89,585 for these rights and interests. As previously indicated to City Council, the City has agreed to provide RRHA with the sum of $10,000 from the proceeds to be received from VDOT to cover the costs of RRHA in connection with the transfer of the Premises along with other properties to be conveyed by the RRHA to the City. Considerations: The Premises has been, and is currently, utilized by the City's Park Roanoke downtown parking system, primarily by monthly parkers employed in downtown. The proceeds received by the City from VDOT will be directed to the City's Parking Enterprise Fund in order to offset losses in monthly revenue from this lot due to VDOT's use of a portion of the Premises for a temporary construction easement for the duration of the interchange project. The permanent loss of the small amount of acreage related to the needed VDOT right-of-way and drainage easement will not have an adverse effect on the City's continued use of the remaining portion of the Premises as a parking lot or on future revenues from monthly parking. Recommended Action: Absent comments at the public hearing needing further consideration, authorize the City Manager to execute a deed of conveyance to the Commonwealth of Virginia with general warranty covenants, similar in form to that which is attached to this report; such deed to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. Authorize the City Manager to execute such further documents and take such further actions as may be necessary to accomplish the above matter with the form of such documents to be approved by the City Attorney, and to implement, administer, and enforce any subsequent documents. Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to establish a revenue estimate in the Parking Fund, and to appropriate funding in the amount of $10,000 for payment to RRHA to an expenditure account established by the Director of Fina ce. Christopher P. Morrill City Manager Attachment Distribution: Council Appointed Officers Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Debbie Moses, Parking Administrator 2 TAX MAP#4013322 RW-16 Corp Revised 7/12 UPC 94089 PREPARED BY VDOT UNDER SUPERVISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Exempted from recordation taxes and fees under Sections 58.1-811(A)(3), 58.1-811(C)(5), 58.1-3315, 25.1-418, 42.1-70, 17.1-266, and 17.1-279(E) This Deed, made this day of , 2014, by and between CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, hereinafter designated as Grantor, and the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Grantee, WITNESSETH: hi consideration of the sum of$89,585.00 paid by the Grantee to the Grantor, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in connection with improvements to Route 581, Highway Project 0581-128-310, RW201, the Grantor hereby grants and conveys unto the Grantee in fee simple, with General Warranty and English Covenants of Title,the land located in the City of Roanoke, and described as follows: All that certain parcel of land containing 0.029 acre ( 1,256 square feet) more or less, in area as shown on a plat titled " COMPILED PLAT OF 0.029 ACRE FEE TAKE AREA BEING GRANTED TO COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, PROPERTY OF CITY OF ROANOKE" , TAX PARCEL NUMBER 4013322, CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, dated May 2, 2013, revised September 13, 2013, by NXL Construction Company, Inc., and recorded simultaneously herewith on record Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in State Highway Plat Book , page And being a part of the lands acquired by the Grantor by General Warranty Deed of City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority dated January 29, 2014, and recorded January 30, 2014, - 1 - as Instrument No. 140000866 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia. The Grantor conveys herewith to Grantee the permanent right and easement to use the area shown on the aforesaid plat as proposed"Permanent Drainage Easement" and containing 0.012 acre (513 square feet), more or less, in area for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a drainage facility. The Grantor also conveys herewith to Grantee the temporary right and easement to use the area shown on the aforesaid plat as "Temporary Construction Easement" and containing 0.251 acre (10,945 square feet), more or less, in area to extend the road slopes, or for other construction within such area. Said temporary construction easement shall terminate at such time as the construction of the aforesaid project is completed. Grantee acknowledges and agrees that in the event any of Grantor's land is damaged or disturbed as a result of Grantee's exercise of its rights under the permanent drainage easement or temporary construction easement granted herein, Grantee will restore such land to the same condition, or as close thereto as is reasonably practical, in which such land existed immediately prior to Grantee's exercise of its rights. The Grantor, by the execution of this instrument, acknowledges that the plans for the aforesaid project as they affect its property have been fully explained to its authorized representative. The Grantor covenants and agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, that the consideration hereinabove mentioned and paid to it shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation for land, including all costs to cure and all incurable damages to the value of the Grantor's remaining property caused by this acquisition, if any, except as otherwise provided herein - 2 - WITNESS the following signature and seal: CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA By (SEAL) Christopher P. Morrill City Manager COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF ROANOKE,VIRGINIA The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2014, by Christopher P. Morrill, the City Manager of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, a municipal corporation, on behalf of City of Roanoke, Virginia. My Commission expires: Notary Registration No.: Notary Public Approved as to Form: City Attorney - 3 - 0029 ACRE rt[ !M[ YHA R[NC aY1rEO TO [WIONN[M.TH or VNCNA PROPERTY OF CITY OF ROANOKE 41 \ C •an or RDAxoWE. vwcaA _ E L' �'j moo q'WO'/L ACRES P[W.Ft. I [A5RESnT T[1V ii LOCT41[NIT ` ��/[ �M001 4y , m5 SO. 513 I 0003 0545 I 0151 .I •+•• • CLONE elliN15N`[ 8551•NOT PA1M1 0.0'07h , "4W i T•FY U I 07 a � F ir ,v • •ON R•PSON 4130 SO O®L a ape Na Pr.13134 0 ,Nyq MGM t t Nit I.JN[S WTI/COMM'Mg TIC RAT O Yin fY SUP RAY SIAYWOS V TY PA DwOT M[LSLOAYCLLAT WAS I. O a COMM PLAT WAS RHP.RO TO Mew CA PROP PERU. amps LORA SAO 0Y5 Aar ONPENI[A AlLl1AY5ON ROAD 501MAIr SLAW,a MC PROPER,'KACMN 515 SO. ESN!. 1 KL Of PLhRAIrS MTSCAI M1109IYNI5 At A07 513 SF 0.00 a 4. ANbrtll6 SHOWN.R[GANG ON rt[S-MEP WY PROPOSED hRIIC Rip 1 DDC Mean RA�1 WaSPMI�MOW!TIC 1BEMI't A/N 54 SO. 1 • C —�� CS Of•MIR[REPORT.C06COYNtt r AOr AI(AXIOMS 0.0913. R —02. OR taLMA.E[S WMr a WIC= 0.020 ACRE J ._-5g0.A1•STN CI a WAS KYO*CD 01.M6 N�CIM 0'DCR I CI 7 5[ALM sweep 4A* ^ atOt -ONNECY�TN/p/ Sts PA Sr4R RN[. .>>.. 7. a Mt WOtCT YFCRAC: ° •04PODFla Prat CPC MOIL PLAY NE[l••413 N• MLEC7 PAPA! 'XI SO!•N•O'N OFN• « PAM .._... ..................�..__...__.........._.._._..._..._..._ I,r Rip Lfl .. G2 PROP. ME M501 f e N w IRIK`1064 CSNI. Y001 Nel pyrO9 34 SO. v y N 4�O 0.251 KJS f TEA : ; 'n gs S F. a n CITT OF ROANOKE L[¢M -' '2 5u PARCEL•4013322 y Pa W�i4nnm��� NO.1 PC.234 4 0478 AC wmwww0WFMMI O Or 1st —__��•■•• NOW T• WON•Y IMMO NO0 NOM IaWPWT&M10T t1 S08.5r27'w 4004• =162�R/W t3, aV 4Y 5[rtE NORFOLK I SOUTHERN RILROAD 0 N 4T .49/.I.TIS02. $, rL- COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 87-25"(u > COMPILED ACODISmON PLAT NM OAIA I/a[1151.TEASNOYCNIS N YII U • 94015 MC DUD MACON 04 RYNO a 0641. 0.W IVA 01•Or IOYOP.O01041 CI 3585 03.One 15JE MI.4r249 394 1K 0414 IAaS f 4UaV[iO ^W.M0 Or — -slO4rlla fw. C3 9805 n'S03Y 49A9 1104'0NZ 98.74 SSO1G OST _ C3 58.59 D7'3034- 2914 104•3T45 5133 0 S98•S117`• 51Y ,.. . .�..�W Cl a4]5 5964 02'W•r 29.32 NO•NOr[ 5914 12 593.4ri7T 3.34 DMndt Jaws ° WNO.4•m1 C5 409.46 7457 0.303F 37_39 502'SNSY• 7419 33 54•0VrS 7.37 30140201101195-0500 'ii T�v4�—Iyq .4.. 10 91.D9.m.50t.■rx001I r.m'WM 7.MU was I I .I I I IM0 W WOt MEntS RRaxC ON[fa 3.00 The Roanoke Times Roanoke, Virginia Affidavit of Publication The Roanoke Times + RINKER DESIGN ASSOCIATES, P.C. ' SUITE 105 I i NOTICE OF PUBLIC 927 MAPLE GROVE DR I I NEARING FREDERICKSBURG VA 22407 I The City of Roanoke Pursuant to the I proposes to convey certain requirements of Sections 1 rights and Interests in 15 2"-180018) and portions of City owned 152-1813.Code of Virginia property situated at 502 (19501,as amended,notice REFERENCE: 871542 65 I Williamson Road, S.E., is hereby given that the Roa noke, Virginia to the Council of the City of 13561591 NOTICEOFPUBLICHEARIN iCommonwealth of Virginia Roanoke will hold a public (the 'Commonwealth'), hearing on the above which City owned property 'matter at its regular is depicted as Official Tax meeting to he held on State of Virginia I Map Na. 4013322 (the Monday,mec March g at 700pm., City of Roanoke I "Premises"). The specific or as soon thereafter as the rights and Interests to be ' conveyed by the City of matter may be heard,in the R o a n o k e to the Council Chamber,4th Floor,'' C.I, (the undersigned) an authorized representative I Commonwealth in portions Bueilding,y215 Church of the Premises include(i) Avenue,S.W., Roanoke, of the Times-World Corporation, which corporation in fee for right-of-way a Virginia,24011. Further portion of the Premises information, including a is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily I consisting of approximately' information,ti proposed includ Dga copy of newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of I "Fee Interest"); (H )ha'' er is available from the Office of p p p permanent drainage) of Roa he Cnak iikelerkRoom 466Y Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was easement encumbering) Noel Taylor Municipal published in newspapers the following I of laand of tlhe 0.012 acres Premises) Building, 215 Church p u se n s p p ers on o o g '("Permanent Drainage Avenue. S.W., Roanoke. dates : I 'Ease men."); and (iii) a Virginia,24011 or(540) 853-2541. temporary construction I Citizens and other 0.251 acres of the persons and other entities I Premises acres e semporare 'wha have an interest in this Construction Easement"). matter shall have the I The Fee Interest. the opportunity to be heard and 1 Permanent Drainage express their opinions on Easement, and the said matter. Temporary Construction If you are a person with City/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of Easement are shown ono a disability who needs Virginia. Sworn and subscribed before me this 1 PCommonwealthofVirgnla hear g,pleasecontactthe � ii pay of MAR 2014 . Witness my hand and I Transportation m e n .piled 853-2541,before 12:001 official seal . I Acquisition Plat,"prepared noono14. Co NXL Construction., GIVEN under my hand' Company,Inc.,dated.May this 3rd day of March, 2. 2013,with a revsion i di a 'I &EA Al . 41 '4 Notary Public 1 date of February 3,2014. 2014. _ _ _ The Commonwealth needs Stephanie M.Moon. I to acquire the Fee Interest, I City Clerk the Permanent Drainage sxxxysstt tt,f,4, Temporary Construction (13561591) `` McENy[� ,., Easement with respect t[ ... C/,y_ i� road improvements being �/ I made by the Virginia ..,=Q-,_. NOTARY .<9 j Department o PUBLIC Transportation tar the h : EU Interstate 581/Elm Avenue PUBLISHED ON: 03/07 REG. +#332964 ';* _ interchange mthe City of )SS Roanoke. Virginia. The * on QOIJI�I IAN 7 C conveyance by the City will ' p10 be by a general warranty cY" deed(the"Deed"). %o:72J� •CC ' I 1 TOTAL COST: 459 . 36 I FILED ON: 03/10/14 I Authorized 1 �, Signature : I L •111 Billing Services Representative V NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Roanoke proposes to convey certain rights and interests in portions of City owned property situated at 502 Williamson Road, S.E., Roanoke, Virginia to the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Commonwealth"), which City owned property is depicted as Official Tax Map No. 4013322 (the "Premises"). The specific rights and interests to be conveyed by the City of Roanoke to the Commonwealth in portions of the Premises include (i) in fee for right-of-way a portion of the Premises consisting of approximately 0.029 acres of land (the "Fee Interest"); (ii) a permanent drainage easement encumbering approximately 0.012 acres of land of the Premises ("Permanent Drainage Easement"); and (iii) a temporary construction easement encumbering 0.251 acres of the Premises (the "Temporary Construction Easement"). The Fee Interest, the Permanent Drainage Easement, and the Temporary Construction Easement are shown on a plat entitled "Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation Compiled Acquisition Plat," prepared by NXL Construction Company, Inc., dated May 2, 2013, with a revision date of February 3, 2014. The Commonwealth needs to acquire the Fee Interest, the Permanent Drainage Easement, and the Temporary Construction Easement with respect to road improvements being made by the Virginia Department of Transportation for the Interstate 581/Elm Avenue interchange in the City of Roanoke, Virginia. The conveyance by the City will be by a general warranty deed (the "Deed"). Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 15.2-1800W) and 15.2-1813, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, notice is hereby given that the Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a public hearing on the above matter at its regular meeting to be held on Monday, March 17, 2014, commencing at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chamber, 4th Floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, 24011. Further information, including a copy of the proposed Deed is available from the Office of the City Clerk for the City of Roanoke at Room 456, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, 24011 or (540) 853-2541. Citizens and other persons and other entities who have an interest in this matter shall have the opportunity to be heard and express their opinions on said matter. If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (540) 853-2541, before 12:00 noon on Thursday, March 13, 2014. GIVEN under my hand this 3rd day of March, 2014. Stephanie M. Moon, City Clerk L:\ATTORNEY\CASHARE\502 Williamson Road Transfer 2 14\PIIN Transfer of Property to the Commonwealth of VA for 581 Interchange 3 14_docx 2/25/14 Notice to Publisher: Publish once in the Roanoke Times on Friday, March 7, 2014. Send affidavit to; Send Bill to: Stephanie M. Moon, MMC, City Clerk Mr. Emmett L. Thompson, Jr. 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Sr. Right of Way Agent Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Rinker Design Associates, P.C. (540) 853-2541 927 Maple Grove Drive, Suite 105 Fredericksburg, Virginia 22407 (703) 334-9314 ethompson@rdacivil.com 1 „yet,. CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue,S.W.,Suite 456 6 � Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 STEPHANIE M.MOON,MMC E-mail: elerk®roanokeva.gov JONATHAN E.CRAFT,CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk March 19, 2014 Christopher P. Morrill City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Morrill: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 39890-031714 authorizing the execution of the necessary documents providing for the conveyance of approximately 1.13 acres of City-owned property known as a portion of Brown-Robertson Neighborhood Park, situated at 0 (zero) 10th Street, N.W., Roanoke, Virginia, and designated as portions of Roanoke Official Tax Map Nos. 2050402 and 2050307, to the Commonwealth, as a right of way to the Commonwealth and VDOT in support of the 10th Street Improvement Project U000-128-V12 (UPC709), RW-202. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 17, 2014, and is in full force and effect upon its passage. Sincerely, VA-Ls) kiTha eThre,f0 Stephanie M. Moon, MMC City Clerk Enclosure 1 Christopher P. Morrill City Manager March 19, 2014 Page 2 pc: Cheryl Pagans, Virginia Department of Transportation, P. 0. Box 3071, Salem, Virginia 24153 The Honorable Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of the Circuit Court Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance Susan Lower, Director of Real Estate Valuation Philip Schirmer, City Engineer Mark Jamison, Transportation Manager Dr. Jeannette E. Manns, 1826 10`h Street, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of March, 2014. No. 39890-031714. AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to execute the necessary documents providing for the conveyance of approximately 1.13 acres of City-owned property known as a portion of Brown-Robertson Neighborhood Park, situated at 0 (zero) 10th Street,N.W., Roanoke, Virginia, and designated as portions of Roanoke Official Tax Map Nos. 2050402 and 2050307, to the Commonwealth of Virginia ("Commonwealth"), as a right of way to the Commonwealth and Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") in support of the 10th Street Improvement Project U000-128-V12 (UPC709), RW-202; upon certain terms and conditions; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 17, 2014, pursuant to Sections 15.2- 1800 and 15.2-1813, Code of Virginia(1950), as amended, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were afforded an opportunity to be heard on such conveyance. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized, for and on behalf of the City, to execute the necessary documents providing for the conveyance of approximately 1.13 acres of City- owned property known as a portion of Brown-Robertson Neighborhood Park, situated at 0 (zero) 10th Street, N.W., Roanoke, Virginia, and designated as portions of Roanoke Official Tax Map Nos. 2050402 and 2050307, to the Commonwealth, as a right of way to the Commonwealth and VDOT in support of the 10th Street Improvement Project U000-128-V12 (UPC709), RW-202, upon certain terms and conditions, and as more particularly stated in the City Council Agenda Report dated March 17, 2014. 0-Robertson Neighborhood Park-TM2050402&2050307 to VDOT 3-17-14 2. In exchange for the aforementioned conveyance, the Commonwealth shall convey to the City approximately 0.289 acres of a portion of property of equivalent or greater value owned by the Commonwealth, adjacent to Brown—Robertson Neighborhood Park, located at 1522 10th Street, N.W., Virginia, designated as Roanoke Official Tax Map No. 2130522, to be used by the City for park purposes. 3. The proposed conveyances are subject to and conditioned on the approval of the National Park Service, because the Brown-Robertson Neighborhood Park was improved, in part, by using federal monies which required the park to permanently be used for park purposes. 4. All documents necessary for the above conveyances shall be in form approved by the City Attorney. 5. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTE�STT:y��e� Iti _ FY) feta City Clerk. 0-Robertson Neighborhood Park-TM2050402&2050307 to VDOT.3-17-14 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: March 17, 2014 Subject: Conveyance of Approximately 1.13 Acres of City-Owned Property Known as a Portion of Brown-Robertson Neighborhood Park to the Commonwealth of Virginia or the Virginia Department of Transportation in Support of the 10`" Street Improvement Project and Accept the Conveyance of Property from the Commonwealth of Virginia Background: The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) needs an approximate 1 .1 3 acre portion of City owned property designated as portions of Roanoke Tax Map Nos. 2050402 and 2050307, located in Brown-Robertson Neighborhood Park, in connection with VDOT's 10th Street Improvement Project, 0000-128- V12 (UPC 709), RW-202. The subject property is located along the park's frontage of 10th Street, N.W., and would be conveyed as right of way to VDOT. The section of park that the City proposes to convey to the Commonwealth of Virginia (Commonwealth) or VDOT is considered "unprogrammable space", and is not used by the City. As a result of VDOT's 10th Street improvements, the widening of 10th Street shall establish new public sidewalks and other improvements whereas none existed previously. Because Brown-Robertson Neighborhood Park amenities utilized grant monies from the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, the property is encumbered with restrictions that require that the land continue to be used for park purposes unless the National Park Service approves conveyance of any portion of the park for another parcel of land of equal or greater value to also be used for park purposes. As compensation to the City for this property, and to satisfy the federal restrictions, VDOT proposes that the Commonwealth convey to the City approximately 0.289 acres of vacant property located at 1 522 10th Street, NW, directly across the street from Brown-Robertson Neighborhood Park, to be used for park purposes. This "replacement" property is believed to be better suited for park use than that of the property being conveyed to the Commonwealth or VDOT due to both its existing grade as well as its proximity to 10th Street. The "replacement" site will provide the opportunity to improve both Brown- Robertson Park and the Lick Run Greenway by the addition of a public trailhead to be created through VDOT's 10th Street improvements. Considerations: The value of both properties has been established by appraisals performed for VDOT on this project. The value of the property being conveyed to the City by the Commonwealth, appraised at $28,150, exceeds the value of the property the City is contributing to the project, appraised at $23,305. In order to keep VDOT's project on schedule, the City of Roanoke hopes to obtain all of the necessary approvals such that 10th Street Improvements may begin by November 1 , 2014. Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents for the conveyance of approximately 1 .13 acres of City-owned property to the Commonwealth or VDOT in exchange for approximately 0.289 acres of land to be conveyed to the City by the Commonwealth located at 1 522 10th Street, NW, such conveyances subject to the approval of the National Park Service, the form of such documents to be approved by the City Attorney. Authorize the City Manager to accept, on behalf of the City, the Deed of Conveyance from the Commonwealth, in a form approved by the City Attorney. Authorize the City Manager to execute such further documents and take such further actions as are necessary to accomplish the foregoing and to implement and enforce the foregoing. The form of such other documents shall be approved by the City Attorney. • opher P. Morrill City Manager Attachment: Plat Distribution: Council Appointed Officers R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Wayne F. Bowers, Economic Development Director Steve Buschor, Director of Parks and Recreation Mark Jamison, Transportation Manager Cassandra L. Turner, Economic Development Specialist 2 Cunt 1681E �l 01.4 .qp and az'.60. o •II•r136 Dr 961116011 a Ems,I R[0[S ILENG01I16NGCM I DELIA E$IIIICE.RIEND NUMNG OECD mu•9.6D6.9'1.11 16 PDX L ‘0P..0 sr 161 CI ufOJY mar M Il' 0161FH' tg31C N Nll'IO-I p.LIONUUDa I• NOR' 110 IWO L.MI os' N6 rose P•R60 Ni! 'Cl WI 1 R• 11003) A• 41A.n oft ore°Or or ' , r Ea °Ism I' S 2 NI Lk pM[_4 SIM SOAK mt A.1X.(94 Ie rW IM ImN •ri SI wit in) 91-0 W}w N�1 N N .nnlwoN for N'.Lw 0 L.199 Cu IM ML[IIc0 IL I I' O LT'1:11° — la•Wl XI x 441W1 V ' s g IC. Ia•'Mm 'p �.__� F. fix I to wave P.PV1L NEImofl uM• ?: •1, ]}.4'49 04IM161OUND) I r I •.1,7531' .S?i I _ PC• 134170)N• IL,INA d 1 ' I 1 ' 0 1 I P - /moo e 1(9 L•IP. M4, tl. w I G E i Y t IIIEI Si ThI - $- n lD4 LENDM DREE71X1 ; P^ S J} 31.• - � LI xx S MOW[ °'' ' } t = CI D1 11 Pa 12 1X]1 s 99]1•. G.'1 n I dd^ I U 111.13 •YTSI'• I G� :II I 1 C U Ha 533743X'[ .1..-- y :@@ I O k [ MOwPM '3 1 1 a e+ 19 1 aP11m111111/41}x1)961 + .- . � l O E. mole at tea)1 1CtSerm 1 `0.1,441�0F • Ye∎ .� . .1, • 6 gN4TH 0�3 I. AWWI - I �O� 4c I I.04610901 4 YAM 0NCIN 116W KITS AMI X e Waal w SWIM=I D4 w HV1.IC ca Aaua4 y'' .__-.- E T. 9 L 46 m M w INS PIOW[0 9 DOI 4E 0106lOT .[OVUM - —__ 9 IWC9lEr 4 I[M6 AEA O W lf4S'C6}1 NO 747612 MO"XS NM CMGMUIL A -------- IOM 5461 71' 6DCOWr 919]6 ME MOM SNOW NOWA :� Si• 16:.K.SJN J ME NI$.vI MP2LMS-lW KNEW AM r W Mal MOW N, P IMO 4.111411,ON-9L R-N2 C-xL 0.1a mini r'9 6 Ml A . - ' .l4v A 4.•41/51611.4P10•0001 904, 1. taflW N9w MOWED 141 W.Cal MID 91Mt ET K CA W[QSW NO ASYOOES.•9l NO 1011. Christopher 8 4]kNiS 446 LOI11m RN Oa 1110 t)wart l9 mail 6 A MI IIOWI •N K)W c MO NM NM Yd ea Ila•wN.a 9411 M Nrt6 N nl0rg• - Is ODOPoEED PLAT OF 2014.012713:56:41-0500' - I.MIMES�NOM 51®RICE MAAS M pant)NC 104 s6W - s1NO Mat l REMAINDER OF PARCEL 079 tom SION I w�N 6 BASED 64 .new 4W-IX-vIL W.H}.1E-IDL 90010 GRANTED TO 9 9 C-503.0.61}.IA<67l THE CRY OF ROANOKE L MIrD9'>M at 010 fA5[SODf 90Aa MEN PM OEM n[WOWS PROPERTY OF "°1°M It MO C p6MEl COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA r.we ear m T IM l 94a 69 MW 9l rpWll 9 4E mS ]O 1S 0 ]0 m 90 n ,o 1130312 60 TIC` 01}iw Or 1 US sr la IN CI] TA% PARCELS 2130521 & 2130522 !!MCA Or mo.lclrl9. 5 wa ' 'e r[a 1. 100•1510115:}M'i41I CITY OF ROANOKE,VIRGINIA I29376079A I' //�� ANDERSON&ASSOCIATES,INC. (non 9: SCALE 1•=3a �""� 1 I AU�Q PmIe49iDn41 Design Services 44141:a•u D"Al'I : 9sn [) wlwan69ssoecom vau[e• nEC9D. c4N °` °R�}• wlae ail I I * _ � 6 __ The Roanoke Times delk Roanoke, Virginia Affidavit of Publication The Roanoke Times + I CITY OF ROANOKE TRANSPORTATION D I CITY OF ROANOKE TRANSPORTATION I located at 1522 10th 1802 COURTLAND ROAD, E I Street, N.W., Roanoke, ROANOKE VA 24012 Roanoke designated Tax Map No.2130522,to be used by I the City for park purposes. I The proposed conveyances :are subject to the approval REFERENCE : 80177631 I 1Stetry c.e , slincre 13561582 NOTICEOFPUBLICHEARIN I !Brown-Robertson Park was I Improved in part using federal monies which State of Virginia I permanently hbe park sed for City of Roanoke pa`Puprsua t NOTICE GF PUBLIC i requirements o f. NEARING 4515.2-1800 and) I, (the undersigned) an authorized representative 152-1813, of Virginia (1950)as ammenen ded,notice of the Times World Corporation, which corporation Is hereby given that the City The City of Roanoke Council of the City of is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily I approximateiyl13 acres of hearing oln the a above newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of I City-owned portion of Brown meeting to be be ha dlon Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was I corker situated igat 010th commencing M at 17,2014. published in said newspapers on the following Street, N.W., Roanoke,'' or as soon thereafter as the 1 Virginia and designated as matter may be heard,in the I portions of Roanoke Official Council Chambers, 4th dates : Tax Map Nos.2050402 and Floor. Noel C. Taylor I 2050307,to the Virginia Municipal Building, 215 Department o f Church Avenue. S.W., I Transportation("VDOT") Roanoke,Virginia,24011. and/or the Commonwealth Further Information is of Virginia as a right of way available from the Office of !:to VDOT in support of the the City Clerk for the City of 110th Street Improvement Roanoke at (540) Project 0000-128-V12 853-2541. City/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of 1 (uPC709), RW-2o2. In Citizens and other exchange for the persons and entitles who Virwi-nia. Sworn and subscribed before me this I conveyance,VDOT and/or have an interest in this `H7 the Commonwealth of matter shall have the �O day of MAR 2014 . Witness my hand and IVgishallconveytothe opportunity to be heard and City approximately 0.2891 express their opinions on Off lsral seal . ,peres property a povtlen of saidmatter. cres of equivalent ofI d you are a person with I greater value owned by the la disability who needs/ � �Af /• � Commonwealth of Virginia,, accommodations for this V / 1 I Notary Public I --- !hearing,please contact the 104/- 1. City Clerk's Office at(540) 853-25 before 12:00 Thursday,on Thursday,March xxtrrn a viii r, 13�GIVEN under my hand McENii this 3rd day of March, P. ........ FiA_ •i 2014. Q.••NOTARY C Stephanie M.Moon �' GP U. •'9 ,[City Clerk •PUBLISHED ON : 03/07 � �t ,yz 96q 1 *� BEG, #_„2 X1(13561582) * : MY COMMISSION : ¢5• =� . F ?IRE". 2 Z �o ��WFgI?NCF � TOTAL COST: 387 . 60 1 FILED ON: 03/10/14 I + Authorized V Signature : b 0 I A If Billing Services Representative III • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Roanoke ("City") proposes to convey approximately 1.13 acres of City- owned property known as a portion of Brown-Robertson Neighborhood Park, situated at 0 10th Street, N.W., Roanoke, Virginia and designated as portions of Roanoke Official Tax Map Nos. 2050402 and 2050307, to the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") and/or the Commonwealth of Virginia as a right of way to VDOT in support of the 10th Street Improvement Project U000-128-V12 (UPC709), RW-202. In exchange for the conveyance, VDOT and/or the Commonwealth of Virginia shall convey to the City approximately 0.289 acres of a portion of property of equivalent or greater value owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia, located at 1522 10th Street, N.W., Roanoke, Virginia, designated as Roanoke Official Tax Map No. 2130522, to be used by the City for park purposes. The proposed conveyances are subject to the approval of the National Park Service, since Brown-Robertson Neighborhood Park was improved in part using federal monies which required the park to permanently be used for park purposes. Pursuant to the requirements of §§15.2-1800 and 15.2-1813, Code of Virginia (1950) as amended, notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a public hearing on the above matter at its regular meeting to be held on Monday, March 17, 2014, commencing at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chambers, 4th Floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, 24011. Further information is available from the Office of the City Clerk for the City of Roanoke at (540) 853-2541. Citizens and other persons and entities who have an interest in this matter shall have the opportunity to be heard and express their opinions on said matter. If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (540) 853-2541, before 12:00 noon on Thursday, March 13, 2014. GIVEN under my hand this 3rd day of March, 2014. Stephanie M. Moon City Clerk K:\David\Council Work\PH conveyance to VDOT-portion of Brown Robertson Park..doc 2/27/14 S Notice to Publisher: Publish once in the Roanoke Times on Friday, March 7, 2014: Send affidavit to; Send Bill to: Stephanie M. Moon, MMC, City Clerk Mark Jamison 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Transportation Manager Roanoke, VA 24011 1802 Court land Road, N .E. (540) 853-2541 Roanoke, Virginia 24012 (540) 853-5471 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK NOEL C.TAYLOR MUNICIPAL BUILDING 215 CHURCH AVENUE,S.W. SUITE 456 ROANOKE,VIRGINIA 24011K:\Notices\2014\March\NPH-Conveyanee to VDOT-portion of Brown Robertson Park..doc 3/4/14 S CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue,S.W., Suite 456 Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540)853.2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 STEPHANIE M.MOON,MMC E-mail: clerk @roanokeva.gov JONATHAN E.CRAFT,CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk March 17, 2014 Municipal Code Corporation P. O. Box 2235 Tallahassee, Florida 32316 Ladies and Gentlemen: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 39891-031714 amending and reordaining Section 19-74, Fortunetellers, and Section 19-82, Criminal penalty, of Article Ill, Special License Taxation, of Chapter 19, License Tax Code, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to lower the current amount of the business license tax that may be assessed against persons engaged in the business of fortunetelling to the maximum amount allowable under State law, and making certain other changes consistent with state law. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 17, 2014, and is in full force and effect retroactive to January 1, 2014. Sincerely, . a.,.> Stephanie M. Moon, MMC City Clerk SMM:jec Enclosure pc: The Honorable Sherman A. Holland, Commissioner of the Revenue The Honorable Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth Attorney The Honorable Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk, Circuit Court Christopher P. Morrill, City Manager Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance Rick S. Kahl, Clerk, General District Court • Municipal Code Corporation March 17, 2014 Page 2 pc: David C. Wells, Clerk, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Chief Magistrate, Office of the Magistrate Joey Klein, Law Librarian Christopher Perkins, Chief of Police Tracey Lockwood, 730 Windsor Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 17th day of March, 2014. NO. 39891-031714. AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Section 19-74, Fortunetellers, and Section 19-82, Criminal penalty, of Article III, Special License Taxation, of Chapter 19, License Tax Code, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to lower the current amount of the business license tax that may be assessed against persons engaged in the business of fortunetelling to the maximum amount allowable under state law, and making certain other changes consistent with state law; providing for an effective date; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Chapter 19, License Tax Code, §19-74, Fortunetellers, and §19-82, Criminal Penalty, Article III, Special License Taxation, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is hereby amended to read and provide as follows: * * * Sec. 19-74. Fortunetellers Fortune-Tellers. Effective January 1, 1980January 1, 2014, there is imposed upon every person doing business in this city as a fortunetcllerfortune-teller (as ` = - " a license tax of twe, a d dollars ($1,200.00) three hundred dollars ($300.00) per year.of purposes of this license tax, the term "fortune-teller" is defined as any person, who for compensation, shall pretend to tell fortunes, assume to act as clairvoyant, or to practice palmistry or phrenology. This license shall not be transferable. S Sec. 19-82. Criminal penalty. Any person violating any provision of this article shall, upon conviction, shall be guilty of a Class 33 misdemeanor and subject to the penalties set forth in Section 18.2-11(4c), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. 2. Pursuant to Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. 3. This Ordinance shall become effective and be retroactive to January 1, 2014, upon its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. 2 CITY OF ROANOKE 1 141 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Timothy R. Spencer 464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 215 CHURCH AVENUE, SW Steven J. Talevi ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011.1595 David L. Collins Heather P. Ferguson Daniel J. Callaghan TELEPHONE 540-853-2431 Laura M. Carini City Attorney FAX 540-853-1221 Assistant City Attorneys EMAIL: ciryatry@roanokeva.gov March 17, 2014 The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council Re: Revisions to Sections 19-74 and 19-82 of the City Code Dear Mayor Bowers and Council Members: Background This matter came before City Council at its regular session on March 3, 2014 with the recommendation that City Council amend certain sections of City Code regarding the imposition of a special business license tax on fortune-tellers. Current City Code Section 32-76 imposes an annual special business license tax on fortune-tellers in the amount of$1,200. This special business license tax is a flat tax that is not determined by the amount of business generated by the fortune-teller, and is paid in lieu of, and not in addition to, the standard business license tax. The recommended amendments would (i) reduce the annual tax to $1,000; and (ii)reduce the criminal penalty to a Class 3 misdemeanor. During the consideration of this matter on March 3, 2014, Tracey Lockwood, a medium who is subject to the special business license tax imposed on fortune-tellers, appeared before City Council to advocate for the elimination of the special business license tax for fortune-telling, and impose the general business license tax imposed on providers of services (a business license tax calculated on the amount of gross receipts generated by the business). Alternatively, Ms. Lockwood asked that City Council impose a special business license tax at a fixed amount lower than the proposed $1,000. At this session, the City Attorney advised City Council that other localities within the region, namely, Salem, Roanoke County, Charlottesville, and Lynchburg each impose a special business license tax of$1,000 on fortune-tellers operating within those localities. Ms. Lockwood advised City Council that Chesterfield County imposes an annual special business license tax at the lower rate of $300. Subsequent to this session of City Council, Ms. Lockwood provided information for other localities, and noted that Bedford County eliminated the special business license tax, and that several other localities imposed a special business license tax in amounts less than $1,000. City Council directed the City Attorney to research existing state law and provide City Council with the parameters within which City Council may address the matter of business license taxes imposed on fortune-tellers. City Council tabled further discussion of this matter until its regular session to be held at 7:00 p.m. on March 17, 2014. Discussion Section 58.1-3703 (A), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, enables localities to assess and collect business license taxes based upon gross receipts generated by the business. Section 58.1-3706 (A), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, imposes limitations on the rate of business license taxes that can be assessed and collected by localities. This section of state code separates businesses into four (4) general %categories: (i) construction contracting; (ii) retail sales; (iii) financial, real estate, and professional services; and (iv) repair, personal and business services, and all other businesses not specifically listed or excepted in section 58.1-3706 (A). This section also provides: "the rate limitations prescribed in this section shall not be applicable to license taxes on ... (iv) fortune-tellers, which shall be governed by § 58.1-3726...." Section 58.1-3726, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, provides, in part: "No license tax on fortune-tellers imposed pursuant to this chapter shall exceed $1,000 per year." Based on the foregoing, City Council may impose a special business license tax on fortune-tellers, provided that the maximum amount cannot exceed $1,000. State code is silent as to the methodology that a locality may employ in determining the amount of the tax. For example, a locality could impose a flat business license tax at the maximum amount permitted or at some smaller amount. A locality may consider imposing the business license tax on some scale, based on the amount of gross receipts generated by the business. This latter alternative will present some administrative challenges to the Commissioner of the Revenue in establishing appropriate mechanisms to assess and collect the appropriate license tax and stay within the cap. Whatever methodology is selected, the locality must ensure that the license tax not exceed the amount of$1,000. While the rates imposed on most businesses are not subject to any cap other than the amount of gross revenues generated by the particular business, the business license tax that can be assessed and collected from a fortune-telling business is subject to a cap, irrespective of the amount of gross revenues generated. Recommendation City Council should, at a minimum, adopt the proposed amendments to Sections 19-74 and 19-82 of the City Code to reduce the special business license tax to $1,000 and lower the criminal penalty to be consistent with state law. Based on the presentation of Ms. Lockwood, Council may consider reducing the amount of the special business license tax to a set amount. In considering any further reduction, Council should be cognizant that several localities in the area uniformly assess and collect the maximum amount permitted under state code. In considering a reduction in the special business license tax from the maximum level of$1,000, City Council should balance the concerns raised by Ms. Lockwood with the need to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. In addition, City Council should also acknowledge that the amount set will be the only amount assessed to, and paid by, a fortune- teller for a business license. While City Council may consider adopting a methodology, other than a flat fee, to assess this special business license tax, including a rate based upon gross receipts, such an alternative is not recommended because such alternative methodologies will impose administrative challenges and costs on the office of the Commissioner of the Revenue that is responsible for the assessment and collection of the tax. Sincerely, L Daniel J. allagh City Attorney DJC/lsc c: Christopher P. Mon-ill, City Manager, R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Sherman Stovall, Assistant City Manager for Operations Stephanie Moon, City Clerk Vuevesk Ac-60416/ ted Greetings Honorable Mayor Bowers... Esteemed Members of Council... Thank you again for allowing me to address this issue before you... This morning on my facebook page... a friend posted: "We should all be able to do more than "hope"for equal treatment. It's our constitutional "right"to be treated equally." And the Supreme Court of California agrees... They ruled that "fortune-tellers" ....have the same constitutionally protected right to express and charge for their opinions... as other mainstream forecasters. (Spiritual Psychic Science Church of Truth, Inc., et. al. v City of Azusa L.A. 31926) ...and that it's "a category of speech... protected by our Constitution." ...under the 1st Amendment... regarding free speech (201 Cal.Rptr.852(Cal.App.2Dist. 1984) Courts around the Country(Louisiana, Maryland, California)are ruling in favor of psychics and astrologers... lifting bans on their practices and equalizing unlawful and punitive fees... Six localities... immediately around us... including the Town of Blacksburg... assess fees for businesses like mine... just like those of any other business... To ask for a Business License Fee of more than $50/year is, in reality... an attempt to ban my business.... "Differential taxation" is a violation of our 14th Amendment ... This amendment ensures that citizens are to be treated equally under the Law.... Fees for consulting businesses and counselors should be the same for everyone. 1 in 7 people in America use the services of Psychics (Pew Research Center's Religion and Public Life Project) ... I myself have given over 400 readings since the start of my business in 2013.... And my clients are happy... and they come back... and they refer their friends and family.... There is a need for services like mine... and a fee that exceeds $50/year is unfair... and an undue hardship on my particular business... but it's not about my opinion.. or yours... as to what's "right"... it's the law... Treat me equally... and reduce the rate of taxation to $50/year. I'd like to ask those that took the time to come this evening... in support of this equalization of business license tax for fortunetellers... to please quietly stand... Thank you, you may be seated... Thank you Mayor... Council... for allowing me to speak. • Business License Fees for Psychics, Astrologers & Tarot Readers in Virginia Bedford County 0* (*2012 Council made decision to equalize the fee for readers) Craig County 0 Floyd County 0 Montgomery County 0 Town of Troutville 0 Fairfax `County 0 Town of Blacksburg same* (*equal to other businesses) Franklin County same Lexington 250 Vinton 250 Chesterfield 300 Arlington County 500 Botetourt County 500 Farmville 500 Galax 500 Rocky Mount 500 Leesburg 500 Christiansburg 700 Lexington 750 Newport News 780 Alexandria 1000 Charlottesville 1000 Hampton 1000 Lynchburg 1000 Richmond 1000 Roanoke County 1000 Salem 1000 Staunton 1000 Roanoke 1200 Town of Bedford unlawful* (*they are in violation of the first amendment) 2010 MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS - Judgment: in Favor of Fortunetellers: "While we recognize that some fortunetellers may make fraudulent statements, just as some lawyers or journalists may, we see nothing in the record to suggest that fortunetelling always involves fraudulent statements. " �- / � God evening Mayor, city council distinguished guests and citizens of Roanoke. My name is Alexandria Pederson. I will be honest and admit that I had never been to a city council meeting until two weeks ago. I came to support my friend Tracey Lockwood. And, much to my surprise, I enjoyed my. I don't know what I expected... and really was impressed with the proceedings and the way you each conducted yourselves. I was glad to be a party of honoring the firemen who saved so many lives. I was surprised that the meeting was opened with the pledge of allegiance. It's been a long time since I served in the military (honorably) and there are few opportunities to say the pledge outside of baseball games and the military... or so it seems to me. And as I said the pledge of allegiance, I feel the last sentence really applies to these proceedings... with LIBERTY and JUSTICE FOR ALL. If we apply the word LIBERTY (which to me really means FREEDOM) and JUSTICE as they apply to this specific situation... I feel it would be fair and just for the $50 flat fee (for a business license) to be applied to Tracey Lockwood. I am a minister and I have had the pleasure to serve on the platform with her. I have known Tracey for many years... and I know that she is a kind and wonderful person. I know that she believes in what she does. I have seen the encouragement she gives to others. And I have seen the credibility and professionalism with which she conducts herself. I know that what she does is not a standard job. And... I know she has had a lot of training in this area... I have met many who she has helped. Also... there was a time that I did not believe in what she does. Just because I didn't believe it... did not make it true or untrue. And, my perspective has changed over the years. I feel it would be fair for you to reduce the business license fee to $50 and treat her as you would any business in the Roanoke area. Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter... CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue,S.W.,Suite 456 Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov JONATHAN E.CRAFT,CMC STEPHANIE M.MOON,MMC Deputy City Clerk City Clerk CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk March 19, 2014 Christopher P. Morrill City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Morrill: The matter with regard to an amendment of the City code to include skateboards as a mode of wheeled transportation and to govern the operation of wheeled transportation within public parks and plazas was before the Council at its regular meeting held on Monday, March 17, 2014. Without objection and Pursuant to Section 24-87, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the matter will be addressed by administrative rules/regulations for parks. Sincerely, Stephanie M. Moon, MMC City Clerk Enclosure pc: Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance Sherry D. Lucas, 1202 14th Street, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Cindy Pasternak, 2606 Highland Road, Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Mark Powell, 655 Highland Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Rena Cromer, 543 Day Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USE OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE'S PARKS AND GREENWAYS In accordance with City Code § 24 -87, the City Manager for the City of Roanoke, does hereby impose the following rules and regulations regarding the use of the parks and greenways within the City of Roanoke. As designated by City Council, all greemvays within the City of Roanoke are linear parks. (See Resolution No. 34579 - 120699) These rules and regulations are necessary for proper conduct and use of our parks and greemvays within the City's Parks and Recreation system. • Park and greemvay normal hours of operation are 6 AM until 1 I PM. • Unless otherwise specifically provided all parks and greemvays are closed between the (tours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. • Persons or motorized vehicles are not allowed in any park or greemvay after such park or greemvay is closed. This restriction shall not prohibit a person or motor vehicle from passing through a public park or greemvay on a public thoroughfare. • The carry of concealed firearms and/or weapons is prohibited unless a proper permit has been lawfully obtained and maintained. • Littering is prohibited. Citizens are encouraged to properly dispose of all trash. • Destruction or vandalism of City property is prohibited. • Display front and rear lights at night as required by law. • The possession of and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages while in a City park or greemvay is prohibited, unless a permit has been issued in accordance with City Code § 24 -97. • All pets must be on a leash & controlled by their owner, unless within a dog park designated by the City. • Pet waste must be immediately & properly disposed of • No camping in any City owned or maintained park or greemvay unless an individual has obtained a permit pursuant to City Code §24 -92: Camping is defined as the use of any city designated park, or any portion thereof, for living accommodation activities such as sleeping, or making preparations to sleep (including the laying down of bedding for the purpose of sleeping) or storing personal belongings or making any fire or using any tent or shelter or other structure or vehicle for sleeping or doing any digging or earth breaking or carrying on cooking activities. • No person shall use any sidewalk, walkway or hardscape within Elmwood Park or its amphitheater for roller skating, skateboarding, roller blading, ice skating, sleighing, or any other similar toy or device on wheels or runners, except within those areas specifically designated for such use by signage posted by the City. For the purposes of this subsection hardscape shall be defined as any sidewalk, walkway, bench, bleacher, ramp, stage wall, terrace, railing, stairs or staircase located within a public park, amphitheater or plaza. A violation of these rules shall constitute a Class 4 misdemeanor in accordance with City Code § 24 -88. The above rules arc set forth under my authorization as City Manager for the City of Roanoke, Virginia and shall become effective on April 1, 2014. CITY OF ROANOKE B A Christopher Morrill, City Manager CITY OF ROANOKE ww,.-44 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue,S.W.,Suite 456 Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 STEPHANIE M.MOON,MMC E-mail: elerk@roanokeva.gov JONATHAN E.CRAFT,CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk January 23, 2014 Christopher P. Morrill City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Morrill: Your communication recommending an amendment to the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to include skateboards as a mode of wheeled transportation and to govern the operation of wheeled transportation within public parks or plazas, effective March 31, 2014, was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at its regular meeting held on Tuesday, January 21, 2014. On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the matter was tabled until March 17, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. Sincerely, Stephanie M. Moon, M Clerk Enclosure pc: Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance \0a •.•0 -4+ ,Q). •>›No ->r ‘ _N4># 4f6 \4\ C1\79 ■440 • • df '41) 1) ‘,)> k„V) BACKGROUND • Identification of damage at Elmwood Park attributed to skateboarding • Initial response - January • Chapter 30: City Code/Streets and Sidewalks • City Council requested additional review CONSIDERATIONS • Response to address Elmwood Park damage • Context of skateboarding within policy framework • Parks and Rec Master Plan • Capital Improvement Plan • Near and long term planning RESPONSE TO DAMAGE AT ELMWOOD PARK • Focused to Elmwood specifically • Sec 24-87 of City Code • Administrative rules/regulations for parks • Approach supported by PRAB • No amendment to City Code related to streets and sidewalks SKATEBOARD :• POLICY CONTEXT 2013 PARK AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN Q16. Actions Households Would Be Most Willing to Fund With Their Tax Dollars by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top four choices Upgrade existing neighborhood and community parks ■__ 41% Acquire open space for passive activities 34% Develop additional trails/connectivity of trails MN 30% Upgrade existing trails 9% Renovate Carvin's Cove Natural Reserve 9% Upgrade existing outdoor pools 1 % Upgrade/expand existing community centers 1 % Upgrade existing youth/athletic fields 16' Acquire open space for active activities 16°f Improve Rivers Edge Sports Complex - North 15% Repurpose inactive parks/amenities ■. 15% Upgrade fishing and boating access % None chosen 25% 0% 10% 209'o 30% 40% 50% •Most Willing 02nd Most Willing [J3rd Most Willing i•4th Most Willing Source: Leisure V'isionfETC Institute(January 2013) 2013 PARK AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN 06. Parks and Recreation Facilities That Households Have a Need For by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made) Walking and hiking trails 550/4 Paved greenway trails 54% Small neighborhood parks (1-10 acres) 52% Natural areas/wildlife habitats 43% Large community parks (10-100 acres) 41% Playgrounds 40% Outdoor amphitheater 35% Large regional parks 33% Indoor fitness and exercise facilities 32% Indoor swimming pools 31% Indoor walking and running tracks 30% Mountain bike trails 26% Community centers 264 Dog parks 24% Outdoor pools water parks 24% Fishing areas 22% Outdoor adventure park 22% Outdoor basketball courts ;19% Boating areas :19% Outdoor tennis courts 1T% Indoor volleyball and basketball courts 11% Outdoor spray parks 16% Soccer fields 15°4 Football/lacrosse fields 14%' Adult softball fields 14% Youth baseball and softball fields 12% Skateboard park 12% Outdoor sand volleyball courts 10% 0°'0 10% 20°o 30% 40°c 50% 60°o 70% Source: Leisure VisionrETC Institute(January 2013) 2013 PARK AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN Q2. Has Your Household Visited Any of the City of Roanoke's Park and Recreation Facilities During the Past Year? by percentage of respondents No Q2b. Parks and Recreation Facilities 31% ----__ ____ That Households Use Most Often (3 choices could be made} Paved trails/greenways MINI1111111.111 3 % Neighborhood park 111110 31% Nature trailslgreenways 111111111111111111 23% Regional parks: Mill Mtn., Rivers Edge 21% Community park MUM 13% Elmwood amphitheater MUM 12% Yes Playgrounds 1. 11% Regional parks U 9% 00 o�° Soccer fields 111 6% Boating areas 11♦ 6% Adult softball fields III 5% Dog parks II 5% Outdoor basketball courts II 5% Fishing areas 11 4% Community centers •1 4% Youth baseball and softball fields _II 4% Outdoor pools ii 3% Outdoor tennis courts it 3% Football/lacrosse fields 11 3% Nature preserves/wildlife habitats 1 3% Mid-size community parks 1 2% Indoor basketball/volleyball courts I 2% Indoor fitness and exercise facilities _'I 2% Skateboard park i 1% Other II 2% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% • Most Often .2nd Most Often 03rd Most Often Source: Leisure Vision,ETC Institute(January 2013) NEAR AND LONG TERM PLANNING • Review of existing parks for opportunities when improvements/renovations planned 7 , , �y P 5 Wg / /14 i , o 4, ,,44 / N> NNoIM NEAR AND LONG TERM PLANNING • Continuation of regional focused efforts on feasibility of skate park. • Incorporation with other regional initiatives • Support of other localities • Support of regional groups and organizations. • Financial Planning • Priority identification and • Fiscal capacity cs2o T Honorable Mayor and Council members, I, and Bert Boyd are here tonight to speak on a couple of issues concerning our neighborhood. I will start with something I spoke on in Dec, that is the incorporating into Huff Lane Park of what is the ext of Avalon Ave NW whicj=h is the paper street running between the park and the IHOP. I have been inquiring of City Manager Mr Morrill as to the progress of such and have yet to receive a response. We in the neighborhood desire this abandonment be done to ensure the park boundary is truly as it seems and to protect the neighborhood from further encroachment by the Valley View commercial area. We are desirous of making improvements in this right of way area (fencing) but are not will to do so with Park improvement funds. It is still a street. Mr. Morrill has stated the City's desire to have a pathway in this area and despite reservations by some of the residents, we have acquiesced. Albeit without unanimity. A problem that needs immediate attention in allowing access to Valley View along this right of way is many of the people doing so are on their way to shop at locations across Valley View Blvd. and there is not a crosswalk located there, nor a sidewalk along the road to the crosswalk at the stoplight near Chick-Fil-A. This path once improved upon will encourage more pedestrian traffic (and mopeds/scooters/bicycles) in this location and increase the chances someone will be struck by a vehicle crossing the road. We request that motorized bicycles/scooters/mopeds not be allowed on the pathway. J — 4)1-/L/gd Pj , ‘ 7 . 4...,_ t.,..- 1 , ". .C i - K; xA7 vny 111/' J a.+ .. s * t': T *M! IS :, i ♦ <' w b he ° c ._ • ...„---\\ ., +.<„�."'' r '^^ �,Y'� ” J ell..„ ay e M, F 4. . . . ... .., , , . y \ l' � 4 °^ f c:°" ..._ ...: \•' r. _ rr 'c . }y L4 �,.. . ,'i • r ate, •'� • \1 .. ,+ k0 C ti oU lty�i.. t S '`'>h sue+ ,�' ,.' t t w awA ,�c e!'. "*b - 'p wt •r "lxlA` ten _ _� • R1 �' , i '+ f� iil w ^'L r '° Al ' , :, �`� .` it 2. ?a , * . .- \.,p1 27 ... , ; .. ,..„,. , w � ?. C� dlip( 7fSaJ7 0 / COMMITTEE VACANCIES/REAPPOINTMENTS March 17, 2014 VACANCIES: Unexpired term on the Fair Housing Board ending March 31, 2016. Unexpired term on the Roanoke Public Library Board ending June 30, 2014. Unexpired term on the Roanoke Neighborhood Advocates ending June 30, 2015. Three terms of office on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board ending March 31, 2017.