Traffic (2006-2009)From 2006 Planning Commission Minutes:

1. March 27, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting: CUP: “Commissioner Carter stated that the Town requires businesses to build sidewalks and stated that on Republic Road she believed there should have been sidewalks due to the large number of people walking. Commissioner Carter stated that the Town should consider requiring developers to install sidewalks. Mr. Terpenny inquired if Commissioner Carter meant for all residential use or just multi-family use and Commissioner Carter stated that it could be based on the amount of traffic put onto a public street. Mr. Terpenny stated that the Town has considered this before and that it could be studied if Council would want it considered.”

2. June 5, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting: Mr. Semones stated the development has three general drafted conditions to prohibit construction traffic through Dow Street, to provide R-I type lots adjoining the existing
   Harman Forest Subdivision, and to provide two graded pocket parks.” … “Mr. Semones stated that the road that would connect Harkrader Street to Moose Drive would be costly to build, but that the traffic studies indicated that it would be good if it were built.” … “Vice-Chairperson Stipes inquired as to who the $1 00.00 fine for construction traffic using Dow Street would be payable to and Mr. Semones stated that he would ask the Town there opinion. … Commissioner Vanhoozier inquired as to where the construction traffic would enter the property and Mr. Semones responded that access would be off Harkrader Street.”

3. October 23, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting: Commissioner Carter stated that she had received a lot of negative calls opposed to the request and Chairperson Simmons stated that he had received a lot of positive calls in favor of the request. Commissioner Carter stated that many of the calls she had received cited traffic concerns and that several had mentioned concerns with children at play being near the Fire Department and Rescue Squad where vehicles leave quickly. Chairperson Simmons stated that most of the calls he received stated that callers would be glad to not have to drive to Roanoke or Floyd to play paintball.

From 2006 Town Council Minutes:

1. January 17, 2006 Town Council Meeting: (CUP) “Mr. Adam Cook, President of the homeowner’s association for the neighborhood, said apartments would generate a lot of noise with traffic and dumpsters. He supports single-story townhouse and duplex construction.”

2. February 21, 2006 Town Council Meeting: “Councilman Barber said that the Street Committee met again to review the request by Councilman Ballengee concerning the parking spaces in front of the Sheriff’s Department at the corner of North Franklin and First Street. The problem discussed would be eliminated with Phase I of the Downtown Revitalization Project; however, since Phase 1 of the project has been delayed because of over budget bids, the Street Committee discussed ways to eliminate or minimize the problem now. The Street Committee suggested either removing three or four of the parking spaces in front of the Sheriff’s Department, or limiting the parking times for these parking spaces, which will improve traffic flow and sight distance at the intersections of South Franklin and First Street, and South Franklin and Main Street. The intersections are most congested in the mornings between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M., and later afternoons. Councilman Ballengee spoke with the Sheriff about this concern and the Sheriff’s is aware that the parked vehicles create a traffic flow obstruction during heavy traffic hours. He is willing to give up the parking spaces to eliminate the problem. Attorney Kai Memmer said if Council chooses to limit the parking spaces to certain hours during the day, they must limit all the parking spaces on the block to reduce confusion. Mayor Linkous suggested the Town Manager speak with the Police Department regarding peak traffic hours for this section of Town, and turned the matter back over to the Street Committee for its recommendation based on a recommendation from the Police Department. Mayor Linkous commented that this issue has been brought before Town Council in the past and he realizes it has been a concern for several years.”

3. March 21, 2006 Town Council Meeting: Rezoning: “Mr. Greg Nagy asked who is responsible for road maintenance due to increased traffic created by a new subdivsion. Manager Terpenny said the Town is responsible, unless the developer offers to do some upgrades. Ms. Phyllis Neece, a neighboring resident, submitted to Council a signed petition in opposition to the rezoning request. The main concerns of the neighboring residents are high traffic volume, a high-density development, and inadequate roads.”

4. June 20, 2006 CUP: Mr. Semones said Mr. Fralin’s main concern was pulling traffic away from Harkrader Street during busy hours, such as before 8:00 A.M. and after 3:30 P.M. when the school buses run. The Harkrader Street entrance, which will be used by construction vehicles, is not past, or through, the existing residential areas in Town. Mr. Mike Miller of Harkrader Street is involved with County Government and understands the hardships associated with managing growth. He also understands the need for affordable housing, but believes the density of three hundred homes is too much for this area. He believes an entrance onto Route 11 is a necessity for the safety of Harkrader Street. Mr. Miller is also concerned because there are no buffers planned to divide the neighborhoods. He asked that Town Council table this request to consider the issues of buffers and entrances to the subdivision. Manager Terpenny said that Montgomery County is holding a joint Planning Commission meeting tomorrow night to discuss this Conditional Use Permit request.
   Councilman Barber said this matter has been extensively discussed and the developer has worked with the Town and the residents to ensure that each concern is addressed. The developer, he said, has made concessions above and beyond what is required, and he is against further delaying action, or placing any additional restrictions on the development.” … “Councilwoman Carter still has some traffic concerns, but agrees that Mr. Fralin has gone the extra mile to appease the concerns of both the Town Council and the nearby residents. Council voted on the motion to table the request as follows: AYES: Ballengee. NAYS: Ashworth, Barber, Carter, Huppert, and Wade. Councilman Ashworth made a motion to issue the Conditional Use Permit with proffers and four conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Councilman Wade seconded the motion and Council voted as follows: AYES: Ashworth, Ballengee, Barber, Carter, Huppert, and Wade. NAYS: None.”

5. October 3, 2006 Town Council Meeting: Citizen Hearing: “TACY NEWELL-FOUTZ updated Council on the Downtown Cluistiansburg Partners meeting held at the Christiansburg Library on August 21st and 24th. Facilitators of the meeting were Councilman Steve Huppert and Ms. Newell-Foutz. The purpose of this initial meeting was to bring together downtown business owners/operators to discuss their interests and ideas for the enhancement of our downtown area. Two key issues discussed by the twelve companies represented, were economic development, and traffic matters. Ms. Newell-Foutz said she is concerned by the “stagnation” of the downtown area and asked Council to allow the Central Business District Committee to become actively involved with the downtown business owners/operators, and the revitalization of the downtown area. She thanked Council for its attention and time.”

From 2006 Planning Commission Minutes:

1. February 6, 2007: CUP: “Mr. Terpenny stated he has received a letter from Hubble expressing concern regarding traffic and congestion. Mr. Nagy stated traffic had been discussed when the Swap Shop was considered. Mr. Nagy stated his customers enter and exit at the rear of the property and he has not encountered a problem in doing so.”

2. May 1, 2007: “Vice-Chairperson Vanhoozier  stated he reviewed the Ordinances and how they pertain to this request.   Vice-Chairperson Vanhoozier stated there is no place for on-street  parking and the residence only has two off-street  parking spots, which leaves vehicles backing into the traffic.  Ms. Mirlohi asked if it would be better to not have customers come to the house.   Vice-Chairperson Vanhoozier explained the property had been rented previously and the neighborhood had issues with the parking.   Mr.  Terpenny  stated  the  Conditional  Use  Permit  has  a  condition  to disallow on-street  parking.   Commissioner  Carter  agreed on-street  parking is not possible.”

3. July 30, 2007: Noise Ordinance discussion: “Commissioner  Moore  stated  that  he would like  to  add an exemption  for  highway construction work which may not be an emergency,  but  should be done during nonpeak  traffic  hours.   Commissioner  Moore  inquired  if  the  Town  maintains  its  own bridges  and Mr.  Terpenny  responded  that  the  Town  does.   Commissioner  Moore stated that there may be a need to exempt bridge work with the highway work and the Planning  Commission  agreed.   Commissioner  Moore  stated  that  the  Planning Commission may want to consider an exemption for erosion and sediment control work that  may not  be an emergency,  but  that  needs to be cleaned up per  erosion and sediment control requirements. … Mr. Helms stated there may need to be a provision exempting house moving during off-peak traffic times.”

4. December 3, 2007: Rezoning: “Mr. Terpenny stated that utilities are an issue and that traffic will be brought up at the public hearing. …Vice-Chairperson Vanhoozier inquired as to the date for Virginia Route 114 construction to begin and Mr. Terpenny stated that Fall 2008 is the latest, but that this has been a moving date. Councilman Wade stated that he had spoken to Delegate Morgan Griffith, who is a Delegate for Salem City and part of Roanoke County, and he had stated that there should be additional funding for transportation for this area. Mr. Terpenny stated that he has a meeting with local Delegate Dave Nutter and Route 114 was going to be the focus and that hopefully some relief will come. … Steve Semones stated his firm was doing the design work and that John Travis, the proposed developer/builder, was present. Mr. Semones statedsthat they planned on using a pump system for property on the left (western) side of Stafford Drive and that they are considering a proffer of possibly no more than 35 units total. Mr. Semones stated that while Stafford Drive will be needed for access, traffic would have three options for entering and exiting off of Route 114 with Stafford Drive, Quin W. Stuart Boulevard that was built with the Villas at Peppers Ferry development, and Waiters Drive via Meadow Drive through the Staffords Farm and Belmont Estates Subdivisions. Commissioner Booth entered. Mr. Semones stated that they may proffer a time frame limiting the development to 15 units the first year. … Commissioner Booth asked that given the situation with the last rezoning request on Route 114 being denied by Town Council (on November 20, 2007) would or should that color what the Planning Commission does in terms of its recommendations to Town Council. Mr. Terpenny stated that the Planning Commission should make their recommendations based on land use as they see it. Mr. Terpenny stated that this request is different from the denied request in that there are more ways out and that there would be less traffic with the proffers that were mentioned, but that the Planning Commission must recommend what they think is best.”

5. December 18, 2007: Rezoning: “Commissioner Carter stated she had sewer mentioned to her and Mr. Terpenny stated that the developer would have to extend public sewer to serve all of the lots. Commissioner Moore inquired if the designer had looked at existing traffic counts and the percent change and Mr. Semones stated that the VDOT standard for residential use is 10 trips per day per unit and that this would be a relatively small change. Mr. Terpenny stated that the property would have three connections to Route 1 14, one of which would be within the first phase of the proposed VDOT Route 114 widening project. Commissioner Carter inquired if a VDOT traffic impact analysis would be required and Mr. Terpenny stated it would not as the property is not within 3,000 feet of a state maintained roadway. … Commissioner Byrd made a motion to recommend approval to Town Council. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. Commissioner Byrd stated that he believed a property owner has a right to develop and added that the traffic concerns may be a problem for Council, but that he believed it should not be for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Carter stated that she may not vote as she did not understand the issue and that she would like to see the request tabled. Commissioner Moore stated that there could be up to 39 lots with the rezoning and that there have already been several lots developed in this area. Commissioner Moore stated that the Town is looking at acquiring right-of-way and that this may resolve the problem.

From 2007 Town Council Minutes:

1. May 1, 2007 Town Council Meeting: CUP: “Ms. Irene Dowdy of Belmont Farms, presented a letter to Council on behalf of Ann Hess opposing the Conditional Use Permit request. In the letter, Ms. Hess, who was unable to attend the meeting, expressed her concern with traffic and parking, and questioned whether the business could qualify as a major home occupation in this area, according to Town Code. Ms. Dian King and Ms. Theresa Higgonbotham both expressed their opposition to the request because of traffic, parking, and the potential devaluation of property in the neighborhood.:

2. November 20, 2007 Town Council Meeting:  Rezoning: ” Mr. Waddell said he is not opposed to progress, but is concerned that Sage Lane may be used as the new egress/ingress for the new subdivision. He further said that Sage Lane is too narrow and crowded to accomodate the additional traffic for the new homes, and that enterance onto Route 114 from Sage Lane is already complicated by heavy traffic flow. Mr Waddell said these issues may impede emergency vehicles trying to access the neighborhoods. Mr. Keister further added that, due to limited parking space and conflicting work schedules, many residents park at least one vehicle along the street, which further narrows Sage Lane. he is also concerned that the safety of the children in the neighborhood may be jeopardized by increased traffic flow. Mr. Keister is opposed to Sage Lane being used as a connector road to the new subdivision and he believes there are better options for a through way. Mr. richard Cox of Sage Lane voiced his opposition and reiterated the concerns previously mentioned. Ms. Lorrie Albert of Albert Lane, adjacent to New River village, said she is opposed to the new subdivision because she believes the developer has not kept his word regarding the development of New River Village. She is also concerned with the heavy traffic flow in die area and believes this is an issue that needs to be addressed. … Mr. Fralin offered to address some of the concerns. He commented that, after studying Sage Lane, he does not believe that the safety of residents is jeopardized by using Sage Lane as an access road for the new subdivision. The Homeowner’s Association for New River Village has been proactive in controlling traffic by providing digital speedometers in the neighborhood, along with “Watch Children” signs. … Mayor Ballengee stated thatdevelopment of this property dates back to the year 2001 and at that time the Town did not know when to expect improvements to Route 114. Now, however, improvements to Route 114 are included in VDOT’s six year plan. … Councilman Huppert reported that, due to concerns he has regarding traffic along Route 114, he did a site visit at the corner of Route 114 and New Village Drive. However, he did not see any traffic problems and even revisited the site during “peak hours”, but still did not see any problems with the traffic flow in this area, or along Sage Lane.

3. December 18, 2007 Town Council Meeting: CUP: “Mr. Steve Semones of Balzer & Associates is working with the property owner and the developer in planning this subdivision. He pointed out that this section of Town is identified as residential in the Christiansburg Comprehensive Plan, which means that the Town intends for the property to be developed residential. The thirty-nine lots proffered is very low density for this acreage. He also mentioned that Stafford Drive is built to Town standards and that there are three connections to Route 114. Mr. Semones commented tlat it is important to be able to work with landowners and developers and he doesn’t want to see traffic be a factor in approving or denying requests. Mr. L.J. White, a resident of Stafford Drive since 1973, said
   he has seen much growth along Stafford Drive over the years. He is not against developing the property. but he does believe that Stafford Drive needs to be upgraded before adding additional daily traffic. He suggested creating a “round about” as a means to control traffic. Mr. Jackie Davis of Stafford Drive said he took measurements of the road and in areas it is only 17.6′ to 18′ wide, which, in his opinion, creates a hazard when two vehicles are passing one another. Ms. Hise agreed tlat Stafford Drive needs to be improved, and pointed out that the tax base from this subdivision could provide for the improvements.”

From 2008 Planning Commission Minutes:

1. March 4, 2008  Planning Commission Meeting: CUP: “Mr. John Neel addressed the Planning Commission stating the development is laid out  the way it  is because of  the lot  size and topography.   Mr. Neel  added the developer  would accept  a condition for  screening along Cambria Street  and the cabinet  shop in front  of  the property.   Ms. Dorsett  stated she would like to see screening and visual  details that  fit  in instead of  cookie cutter  townhomes.   Ms. Dorsett also presented issues with storm water management and traffic.”

From 2008 Town Council Minutes:

1. January 15, 2008 Town Council Meeting: Rezoning: “Councilman Canada said he was outspoken about the request to further develop New River Village because of traffic issues, and ingress and egress to the property. He views the development on Stafford Drivc differently because there are three entrances onto Route 114 from the project. He has also considered the fact that, when asked, many of the folks along Stafford Drive showed no interest in granting right-of-way to the Town, so that the road could be widened. Councilman Canada has also considered the Town’s comprehensive plan, which calls for residential development in this area; he is concerned about turning down “a good plan in line with the Town’s comprehensive plan”. He also visited Stafford Drive to get ideas for ways to control traffic. Councilman Canada said it is also important to consider the fairness to landowners and developers. Mayor
   Ballengee said, in the past, he has voted against development along Route 114 because of traffic concerns. Now, however, there is some hope that VDOT will begin upgrades to sections of Route 114 within the next year. Mayor Ballengee also commented that he, too, is concerned with voting against the Town’s comprehensive plan, which was recently revised by the Planning Commission and adopted by Council. Councilman Wade said that he and Councilman Stipes are working with Delegate Nutter on the possibility of receiving special funding for road projects through the General Assembly, much like the funding received for the Toms Creek underpass in Blacksburg. While not guaranteed, this possibility is hopeful enough that Councilman Wade is comfortable supporting the rezoning request. Councilman Stipes said he is concerned because there are no guarantees that the properly will be developed as proposed, or that it will even be developed by the named developer. Once rezoned the property can be developed much denser than what is proposed, and would allow development in the designated conservation area of the property. He would like to see a committed site plan from the developer.”

2. March 18, 2008 Town Council Meeting: Rezoning: “Mr. Dennis Lytton owns adjoining property and he voiced his concerns with additional traffic, and with the current unkempt condition of the property. He asked that this request not be approved until Route 114 has been widened.”

3. May 20, 2008 Town Council Meeting: CUP: “According to Ms. Gina Hurst, Assistant Manager of Country Cookin’, the restaurant’s opposition is due to increased volume in traffic, and the potential for its parking lot to become overflow parking for the auction.  Traffic flow is already heavy in this area due to restaurant business and Hubble Lighting business.   A letter from Hubble Lighting in opposition of the request, was received by the Town.  Mr. West commented that in 2007, Mr. Nagy intended on this site being temporary until he could find a permanent, more suitable site for an auto auction.  Mr. Greg Nagy addressed Council saying that an auto auction would be great for this area, which is why he began planning for one several years ago.  Mr. Nagy said he thought this site would work temporarily, but was wrong, and voluntarily withdrew the CUP he was granted by the Town in 2007.  At that time, he made it clear that he intended to continue with his plans for an auto auction, only at a more appropriate site.  He has since begun building an auto auction on a twelve acre site in the Christiansburg Industrial  Park, which is appropriately zoned for this type of business, and will be ready for operation in ninety days.  He asked that  Council deny the request by L & R Burch Properties, LLC.”

4. June 17, 2008 Town Council Meeting: CUP: “Ms.  Debbie Phillips expressed her concern about the probable increase in traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, in the small parking lot. Mr.  Jason Adkins agreed,  commenting that  there are approximately twenty-five units and fifty parking spaces.   He is against  this  request  because of  the potential  traffic issues.   One elderly resident  complained that  the subdivision has stormwater  maintenance  problems  that  affects  her  property,  and  also  that  the  ground  has  been  damaged  by  heavy equipment use.   Mr. Adam Edwards commented that it is appropriate to use a model home as a sales office during the development of a subdivision.  However, his concern is the lack of a viable stormwater run-off plan, which has resulted in stormwater  run-off  in his front yard.   Britney Seagal  commented that  she has spoken with many of the residents and understands that traffic is a big concern.  She reassured them that there will be no House Smart traffic to the model home; it  will only be used as a sales office.”

5. July 15, 2008 Town Council Meeting: CUP: “Town Manager Terpenny said he has received three correspondences from neighboring property owners (two letters, one email) James David, Judith Mann, and Mr. Gentry.   The two letters were in support of the request, but Mr. Gentry’s email was adamantly opposed because of trucks, trailers, and equipment storage on the property and employee vehicle traffic.  … There is also some traffic generated by Mr. Young’s employees.”

6. August 5, 2008 Town Council Meeting: Citizen Comments: “MS. TACY NEWELL-FOUTZ complained to Council that mini-bikes and pocket-rockets are being ridden at high speeds along Kiwanis Lane in Christiansburg.  She has contacted the Police Department numerous times with this complaint, to no avail.  Ms. Newell-Foutz said she understands this property is privately owned, but because of her concern for public safety, she suggested the Town place speed bumps along the lane to slow down traffic.   She said the bikes  are a nuisance.   Mayor  Ballengee questioned the Town’s authority to force speed bumps on privately owned property, but will study the matter.”

7. December 16, 2008 Town Council Meeting: Boundary Line Adjustment Agreement: “Tacy Newell-Foutz spoke of her concerns regarding the traffic system at the nearby middle school, lack of sidewalks in the area, and hazardous deep ditches along the side of the road leading to the middle school.”

From 2009 Planning Commission Minutes:

1. There were no discussions where ‘traffic’ was found in any of the available minutes.

From 2009 Town Council Minutes:

1. January 20, 2009 Town Council Meeting: CUP: “Mr. Ayers stated his concerns are: (1) The realtor who sold him his property promised him the adjoining property would remain greenspace; (2) Noise, activity, and mess during construction; (3) Mixing of rental property with single-family residential; (4) Additional traffic, especially along the already congested Peppers Ferry Road.  Mr. Ayers thanked Council for its consideration.  Ms. Dorothy Blanchard of Slate Creek Commons addressed her concern with the increase in traffic the new development would create, especially along Peppers Ferry Road.”

2. May 5, 2009 Town Council Meeting: CUP: “Manager  Terpenny presented a letter from Hubble Lighting expressing concerns with traffic congestion on auction days.  Ms. Carol Lindstrom recommended Town Council request a staff review of traffic flow in this area before making a decision on this request.” (Citizen Hearings) “Councilman Barber pointed out that establishing a “quiet zone” at railroad crossings increases the danger for vehicular traffic,  and there is a concern for school bus safety at the Chrisman Mill  crossing.   Mr.  Thornton said he understands the concerns,  but  that  an audio technician from Virginia  Tech did audio recordings  of trains passing through the Chrisman Mill crossing and the noise level far exceeded the safety limit of eighty (80) decibels.  Manager Terpenny will review this matter with his assistant tomorrow. … Mr. Fred Hodges, Independence Boulevard, said he has contacted the Police Department about providing speed checks along Independence Boulevard to control the increased speeding and reckless driving through this area.   The traffic checks do not seem to be enough to control  the traffic and he is  asking for  Council’s  assistance.   Independence Boulevard is hilly and curvy, and now, is used as a short-cut to Pepper’s Ferry Road.  Christiansburg High School and the VASAP office are located on this road, which adds to the heavy volume of traffic. … Ms.  Maureen Fowler,  Independence Boulevard,  asked the Town to provide a study to consider  the feasibility of a walking path along Independence Boulevard, due to the heavy volume of both foot traffic and vehicular traffic.  Ms. Fowler agreed with Mr. Hodges that the traffic through this area is often speeding and reckless.  The layout of the road also jeopardizes the safety for walkers and drivers.  Councilman Showalter agreed that this is a heavily traveled road, and pointed out that Cambria Street, on the other side of the same neighborhood, has the same problems.  He agreed this is something that needs to be addressed this year.  Councilman Vanhoozier previously proposed a study to determine the feasibility of a walking path along Cambria Street.  Councilman Stipes commented that Independence Boulevard and Cambria Street are primary arteries for the Town, and foot traffic safety needs consideration.  Councilman Barber commented that numerous neighborhoods in town have traffic issues and it would be difficult to provide funding for one over another.  Councilman Vanhoozier said the solution is to devise a proper plan of action.  Councilman Showalter said  the  pathways  can  be  considered  Capital  Improvements  and  funding  can  be  drawn  from  Town  reserves. Councilman Wade suggested discussing this at length at Council’s proposed fall retreat.”

3. May 19, 2009 Town Council Meeting: Rezoning: “Mr. Larry Waddell, Sage Lane, spoke in opposition to the request.  He said that, even with the proffers, the basic concerns of the residents of Sage Lane have not been addressed and still remain; the biggest concern being the inadequacy of Sage Lane to handle increased traffic. … Ms. Tracie Smith, Sage Lane, said she brought a signed petition to Council at the previous Public Hearing for rezoning of
   this property.  The petition was in opposition to the request, and she believes it applies to this request, as well.  She is concerned that the increase in traffic will create a hazardous condition for the residents of Sage Lane.  She gave examples of traffic congestion seen one weekend during a community yard sale on Sage Lane.  She asked Town Council to deny the request, saying it is not in the best interest of the residents of Sage Lane. … Mr. Richard White asked Council to deny the request in consideration of the hundreds of children who live in New River Village.  Mr. Wayne Purcell, Sage Lane, spoke in opposition of the rezoning due to increased traffic through the neighborhood.  He asked Council to consider that there are no streetlights or sidewalks, and that most driveways are singlecar, forcing families to park cars along both sides of the street.  He believes that to rezone will compromise the safety of the neighborhood. … Liz Edwards, Sage Lane, said she frequently walks the neighborhood and sees the dangers that exist without increased
   traffic.  She believes that to approve the request is to compromise the safety of the neighborhood and those who live there.  She asked that Town Council deny the request out of consideration for the safety of those living along Sage Lane.  She asked that another access route be found before development is allowed on this property.  Ms. Edwards said she feels her and her neighbors’ concerns about safety haven’t been addressed. … Mr. Steve Semones of Balzer and Associates spoke on behalf of Robert Fralin, developer.  Mr. Semones reminded Council that this request was first brought before them in 2007, but was denied because of Route 114 traffic concerns.  The request was brought back a second time, one year later when Route 114 widening plans were more definitive.  The request was withdrawn by the applicant because of residents’ concerns. … Mr. David Lawless said he doesn’t live on Sage Lane, but walks his dog through the New River Village neighborhood.  He said he believes traffic will be a main concern if Sage Lane is opened as a throughway to the property; he asked that a second access point be secured before Town Council allows this rezoning.” (CUP) “According to Mr. Burch, a police officer informed him that placement of temporary signs is illegal; however, Councilwoman Carter, noting a letter the Town received from Hubble Lighting, is concerned that the Town will not be honoring Hubble Lighting’s traffic concerns if “no parking” is not enforced during auction hours.  Councilwoman Carter said she is not opposed to the auto auctions or the requested extended hours of operation, but if placement of “No Parking” signs along Hubble Drive during auction hours is not included as a condition of the permit, then she is unable to support the request.  After Council discussion, Councilman Wade amended his motion to approve to include the condition requiring placement of temporary “No Parking” signs along Hubble Drive during auction hours.  Councilman Barber seconded the amended motion and Council voted as follows:  AYES:  Barber, Carter, Showalter, Stipes, Vanhoozier, Wade.  NAYS:  None.”

4. July 7, 2009 Town Council Meeting: Town Manager Report: “MANAGER TERPENNY presented to Council a request from Warren Smith of LaPlateau Subdivision, for a three way stop at Majestic Drive and Somerset Drive, or placement of speed humps, to control traffic through this neighborhood.  Manager Terpenny noted that this area has seen increased traffic over time, and the Town has received several requests for traffic control through this neighborhood.  Mayor Ballengee referred this request to the Street Committee for review and recommendation.”

5. October 6, 2009 Town Council Meeting: Rezoning: “Mr. Mike Miller addressed his concerns to Council regarding the proposed density and the additional traffic new
   development will create.  Living in this area, he is aware of only two entrances into the large neighborhood, which is made up of several subdivisions.  One entrance leads onto Mudpike Road and the other onto Radford Road.  Mr. Miller expressed his concern with the impact a high density development will have on his neighboring low density neighborhood.  A portion of the property in this request is located in Montgomery County, and Mr. Miller is concerned that the County may not have considered safety issues when it rezoned a portion of the property to R-3 Multi-Family Residential. … Mr. Ray Thurman said he recently purchased a home on Diana Drive and is now concerned with poor lighting in the neighborhood and increased traffic that new development will bring.  Mr. Thurman supports development, but believes the proposed density is too high for this area.  Water pressure is also a concern as it seems to be inadequate at times. … Mr. Steve Semones responded that a traffic study was done on the property in this request and there are five access routes onto the site.  Bishop Road and Diana Drive will be paved within the next twelve months or so.  Mr. Semones said that Fair Housing Standards have been reviewed and the developer is comfortable with the legality of tenant age restriction for the units.  Mr. Semones noted the proposed landscape buffer that will provide a division between the low density and high density developments.” (CUP) “Ms. Nicole Martin of Dee Dee Drive said her property abuts the Ratcliffe’s property and she has several concerns about this request.  Traffic and noise concern her, as well as the indication from Ms. Ratcliffe’s website that she is currently in violation by keeping more than five children.  Also, according to Ms. Martin, Ms. Ratcliffe did not obtain building permits for the numerous storage buildings on her property. … Ms. Lana Criner of Dee Dee Drive voiced numerous complaints against Ms. Davidson-Ratcliffe, including the fact that she only rents the property and often burns trash and debris on the property.  Ms. Criner believes the out-buildings on the property are in violation of setback requirements and she doesn’t think building permits were issued for the buildings.  Ms. Criner is concerned with repeated non-compliance noting the pictures on Ms. Ratcliffe’s website indicating more than the allowable five children.  She is also concerned with noise, traffic, and possible decrease in property values if this request is approved.” (Zoning Permit request by Boxley Concrete) “Mr. Timothy Richie said he recently bought a lot in the Walnut Creek subdivision which adjoins the CIP.  Mr. Richie said it is his understanding that the CIP is reserved for light-industrial and a concrete plant is not an appropriate business for this area.  Heavy traffic along Roanoke Street is a concern of his, and he is concerned that there could be serious traffic concerns if cement trucks are pulling onto Roanoke Street throughout the day.” … ” Air Gas of America supports Boxley’s request to locate in the CIP.  Their only concern is with the high traffic volume on Roanoke Street and the impact of adding cement trucks.” … “Mr. James Stewart of Brilliant Drive submitted a petition of two hundred twenty-five signatures opposing Boxley Concrete Product’s request to locate in the CIP.  The concerns associated with the request are:  1) Environmental due to dust, traffic, and noise and the impact of such on neighboring restaurants and homes.  2) Possibility of unusual hours of operation creating disturbances for nearby restaurants and homes.  3) The economy and reduced demand for concrete products.  Two local concrete plants, Konorock and Marshall, are operating on reduced hours and have experienced recent employee layoffs.  A third concrete plant will further dilute the concrete demand.  Mr. Stewart said it is important to note that Boxley intends to use materials from Roanoke rather than the New River Valley.  4) Traffic safety along Roanoke Street and the roads within the CIP.” … “Councilman Vanhoozier commented that traffic issues noted during the Public Hearing are a concern for him, as well.  Councilman Showalter asked if there were any restricting covenants for the Industrial Park that would disallow a concrete plant.  Manager Terpenny replied that there are no “restricting” covenants in place, but the Town uses close scrutiny with businesses wanting to locate in the Industrial Park.  Zoning Guidelines are used, but provide that an “allowable” business can be denied if deemed to potentially have an adverse affect on neighboring property owners.  Councilman Showalter commented that Boxley Concrete Products is a good company and is an ideal business for the Christiansburg Industrial Park.  Each Council Member agreed that Boxley Concrete Products is an upstanding business and the integrity of the company is not at issue.  Vice-Mayor Carter called for a poll of Council on the motion and second to deny the request.  Town Clerk Stipes polled Council as follows:  Barber – AYE; Showalter – NAY; Stipes – AYE; Vanhoozier – AYE; Wade – AYE.  The request is denied.  Mr. Bullock thanked Town Council for its time and consideration.”

6. December 1, 2009 Town Council Meeting: Rezoning: “Mr. John Neel of Gay and Neel, Inc. addressed Council on behalf of the developer, Bryan Rice.  Mr. Neel reviewed the proffers offered by Mr. Rice as follows:  1) Maximum of seventeen detached, single-family homes; 2) Property is to be developed in general conformance of the submitted drawing; 3) The developer will place a paved walking path between the development and the nearby Christiansburg Middle School property.  The developer will also install a gate between the school property and the development; 4) A Homeowner’s Association will be established; 5) All streets will be paved before construction commences.  Mr. Neel further explained that Gay and Neel, Inc. performed a limited traffic study in the vicinity of the property and was satisfied that traffic is not a burden in this general area.  Addressing a question of property access, Mr. Neel commented that there is no practical access onto the property outside of Melody Drive.  Councilman Stipes questioned the adequacy of the dedicated greenspace.  Mr. Neel replied that ten percent of the property is dedicated to greenspace and that it is the same ten percent being dedicated to stormwater management.  Mr. Neel noted that the property to be developed is adjacent to recreation areas provided by Christiansburg Middle School.” … “Vie Dupree, President of the Homeowner’s Association for Windsong Heights, submitted a petition signed by homeowners in the Windsong Heights subdivision and homeowners along Underwood Street, opposing the use of Melody Drive and Underwood Street as access routes onto the property in this request.  She asked that a cul-de-sac be built at the end of Melody Drive to prevent extension now, or in the future.  Many of the residents of Windsong Heights and the surrounding vicinity were present to support the petition.  Mr. David Goodyear addressed Council with his concern regarding the increase in traffic that will result from future development in the area.”

From Town Charter:

1. § 4.07. The town council shall have the power and authority to make and enforce ordinances to secure the safe and expeditious use of the streets and alleys of the town, and to regulate traffic and parking thereon, and for the protection of persons and property thereon or near thereto. (1 954, c. 240)

From Town Code:

1. Sec. 3-44. Certain advertisements or structures prohibited. No advertisement or advertising structure shall be erected, maintained or operated: … (8) At or near any curve in a street in such a manner as to obstruct the clear vision of traffic from any one point on such curve to any other point on such curve or to any other point not more than 400 feet apart, as measured between each point from the nearest edge of the pavement.

2. Sec. 10-11. Penalties, injunctions and other legal actions. {below paragraph under (e)}… Sediment or debris transported onto paved public road by vehicular traffic or runoff. . . $100.00 per violation per day {please read in full for thorough understanding – available on Town website.}

3. Sec. 26-1. Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to establish certain subdivision standards and procedures for the Town and such of its environs as come under the jurisdiction of the governing body as provided for by the Code of Virginia, as amended, and Section 4.01 of the Town Charter. These are part of a long range plan to guide and facilitate the orderly beneficial growth of the community and to promote the public health, safety, convenience, comfort, prosperity and general welfare. More specifically to provide for the harmonious and economic development of the Town, in conformity with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town; for coordination of streets, alleys, and parkways and other public areas within the subdivision with other existing and planned streets, alleys and public areas within the Town; for adequate open spaces for traffic, recreation, light and air, [and] the width, grading, elevation, drainage and paving of such areas; the planting of trees and shrubs; the construction of sidewalks, curbs and gutters; the provision for laying and maintaining gas, sewer, water, electric and telephone lines, works, pipes and easements and for a distribution of the population and traffic which will tend to create conditions favorable to health, safety, convenience, prosperity and the general welfare of the citizenry of the Town. (Code 1972,g 26-1)

4. Sec. 30-8: Conditional Use Permits. … {Second Paragraph} … In determining the conditions to be imposed, the Town Council shall take into consideration the intent of this chapter and may impose reasonable conditions that: abate or restrict noise, smoke, dust, or other elements that may affect surrounding property; establish setback requirements necessary for orderly expansion; prevent or alleviate traffic congestion; provide for adequate parking and ingress and egress to public streets or roads; provide adjoining property with a buffer or shield from view of the proposed use if such use is considered to be detrimental to adjoining property; tend to prevent such use from changing the character and established pattern of development of the community.

5. Sec. 30-105. Statement of intent. {Re: Limited Industrial District I-1} This district is intended to provide for a variety of light manufacturing, fabricating, processing, wholesale distributing and warehousing uses appropriately located for access by highways and providing a controlled environment within which signing is limited, uses are to be conducted generally within completely enclosed buildings or within screened areas, and a moderate amount of landscaping is required. In order to preserve the land for industry, to reduce extraneous traffic, and avoid future conflicts between industry and other uses, business and service uses are limited primarily to those which will be useful to employees in the district and future residential uses are restricted. (Code 1972, § 30-83; Ord. 2004-4 of 9-7-04, § 30-83)

6. Sec. 30-113. Statement of intent. {Re: General Industrial District I-2} The purpose of this district is to provide for a wide variety of industrial operations, including open storage of products, supplies and equipment, but to restrict or prohibit those industries which have characteristics likely to produce serious adverse effects within or beyond the limits of the district. Certain potentially hazardous industries are permitted only after public hearings and review to assure protection of the public interest and surrounding property and persons. In order to preserve the land for industry, to reduce extraneous traffic, and avoid future conflicts between industry and other uses, business and service uses are limited primarily to those which will be useful to employees in the district and future residential uses are restricted. (Code 1972, § 30-91; Ord. 2004-4 of 9-7-04, § 30-91)

7. Article XXI. SITE PLAN REVIEW — Sec. 30-186. Procedures, administrative site plan review. — (a) When these regulations require site plan review for certain uses for which Town Council action is not required, five copies of a preliminary site plan for any of the specified uses shall be submitted to the Administrator for review of the plans for compliance with these regulations and the requirements for preliminary site plans. The Administrator shall transmit said plans to such other staff and agencies as he may consider necessary for the review. The applicant is advised to review his plans in general or sketch form with the Administrator prior to drafting for submittal. — (b) The Administrator shall examine the proposed site plan with respect to the requirements of this chapter, with respect to the traffic and circulation patterns, internal and external, relation to major thoroughfares, utilities, drainage and community facilities, existing or proposed, surrounding development, existing or future, considerations of topography, floodplains, and the natural environment, the preservation of trees or historic sites, provision for open space, and in general with the objective of insuring a durable, harmonious, and appropriate use of the land in accord with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The plans shall be returned to the applicant within twenty working days following the submittal, or within twenty working days of a recommendation by the Town Council or Planning Commission as set forth in subsection (d) below, as approved, approved subject to conditions, or disapproved. Unless otherwise specified, approval shall be valid for a period of one year prior to issuance of building permits.

From the Comprehensive Plan:

1. (p.62) The Town also constructed the College Street Downtown Trail in 2002. The Town of Christiansburg maintains its sidewalk system, which is a continuing function. The Town sidewalk system supplements the Town trails. While the Town’s trails are primarily used for recreational purposes, sidewalk pedestrian traffic is heavy, particularly in the downtown area.

2. (p.68) In 1982, the Christiansburg Chamber of Commerce commissioned the Architectural Design Group of Roanoke to prepare a comprehensive study of Downtown Christiansburg. The study was funded by downtown business owners and the Town and focused on revitalization of the downtown area through facade improvements, streetscaping, increasing recreational opportunities, and improving the traffic circulation through this area. The final report, which made recommendations on physical design improvements and renovations, was presented to the Town and Montgomery County.

3. (p.70) The Town of Christiansburg is well served by rail, air, and highway systems for both commercial shipping and commuting purposes. However, due in part to the Town’s central location between Radford, Blacksburg, and Roanoke, the local road network has been subject to high volumes of traffic, which will continue to tax its capacity. While destinations of much of this traffic are employment and commerce centers within Town, large volumes pass through the corporate limits en route elsewhere. Providing and maintaining a high-quality transportation network will be a challenge for Christiansburg in the future as intensified commercial and residential growth occurs. Nonetheless, efficient transportation system design will contribute greatly to the Town’s economic vitality and provide an essential service to its residents.

4. (p.71) With the completion of the Bypass, Business Route 460 is subject to more locally oriented travel to commercial/retail and residential destinations. Concerns are warranted that the Bypass will have a negative effect on the commercial/retail establishments that rely on the former traffic pattern. While the Bypass did reroute much traffic away from the commercial districts in the downtown, Christiansburg’s high concentration of retail/commercial services will continue to be a major destination of Bypass travelers and the vitality of this area will be reinforced with the elimination of congested conditions.

5. (p.71) Virginia Route 111 follows Depot Street, NE and Cambria Street, NE from Roanoke Street (U.S. Route 460 Business/U.S. Route 11) to N. Franklin Street (U.S. Route 460 Business). This route carries a good deal of residential and commercial traffic to and through the Cambria area of Christiansburg.

6. (p.71) Virginia Route 114 stretches from N. Franklin Street (U.S. Route 460 Business) to the western Christiansburg corporate limits before terminating in Radford at U.S. Route 11. This route carries a good deal of commuter traffic particularly from more rural residential areas to more urbanized Christiansburg, Blacksburg, and Radford.

7. (p.73 - contains a table of 24-Hour Traffic Volumes which is based upon 2002 counts. This was not updated in 2008 when the Comprehensive was passed as being fine the way it was when it originally passed in 2003.) ….{an excerpt from that data}: Virginia Rt. 114 (Peppers Ferry Road NW, From Western Corporation Limits — To Rt. 460 (N. Franklin Street) — Segment Length 1.44 — Volume (ADT) 13,000. {Additional note: it appears that the actual traffic counter could be placed at any spot along that roadway. Where it is placed could cause significant variations in count.}

8. (p.74) Christiansburg’s 4.67 miles of Interstate had an Average 24 Hour Traffic per Mile of Route of 43,437 vehicles and the Town’s 16.07 miles of Primary had an Average 24 Hour Traffic per Mile of Route of 16,303 vehicles. The Town’s combined 20.74 miles of Primary and Interstate had an Average 24 Hour Traffic per Mile of Route of 22,413 vehicles. Please visit “www.VirginiaDOT.org” on the Internet for the Virginia Department of Transportation homepage, which maintains up-to-date counts and provides other information.

9. (p.75) As indicated by the Montgomery County Comprehensive Plan, the surrounding County areas between Blacksburg and Christiansburg and to the west of Christiansburg are designated as the “Mid-County Growth Area.” The region near the Route 460/114 interchange has been recognized as the new “regional downtown.” Data indicate that the traffic load carried by U.S. Route 460 is the highest in all of Montgomery County.

10. (p.75) In response to high volumes of traffic and the poor level of service experienced along Routes 460 and 114, several studies were undertaken aimed at alleviating congestion problems. In 1988, VDOT began a Route 460 Corridor Study to evaluate improvements to Route 460 and to examine the possibility of a more direct route to Blacksburg from I-81. Because the Christiansburg Bypass is heavily traveled by traffic to Blacksburg and other points north, congested conditions are experienced between the I-81 interchange and the 460 By-Pass in the southeastern part of town. While VDOT was examining possible solutions to this situation, the Route 460/114 Corridor Advisory Planning Council was formed in fulfillment of the Annexation agreement between Montgomery County and Christiansburg. Comprised of representatives of the County, Christiansburg, and Blacksburg, the Council was charged with developing a Corridor Plan addressing current and future land use, development standards to guide growth, and implementation strategies.

11. (p.76) Interstate 81 – Lighting (a 5.412 km safety/traffic operations/transportation system management project from 3.5 km south of U.S. Route 460/11 to 1.9 km north of U.S. Route 460/11) at an estimated $4,348,000 for construction in previously allocated funding. This project is scheduled in FY 2004.

12. (p.76) Route 8 (W. Main Street) – Traffic signal at an estimated $162,000 ($27,000 in preliminary engineering and $135,000 in construction) ($140,000 in previously allocated funding and $22,000 in FY 04 funding). This project is underway and scheduled for completion in FY 2004.

13. (p.77) The “Smart Road” is a joint project of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and its Transportation Research Council, Virginia Tech’s Center for Transportation Research (one of the country’s three Intelligent Transportation Systems Research Centers of Excellence), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Smart Road is proposed to be a 5.7-mile stretch of I-73 linking Blacksburg directly to I-81. The first phase was completed in Fall 1999 and officially opened in March 2000. It extends 1.7 miles and cost $32.7 million and also features the highest bridge in Virginia and some of the latest in highway and vehicle technology. Engineers are testing on this part of the road with built-in sensors, an all-weather test section with 72 snowmaking towers to develop better methods of snow and ice control, and various other devices. The Smart Road will be opened to traffic in the future.

14. (p.77) N. Franklin Street/ Peppers Ferry Road Western Connector Route Project The Christiansburg Town Council adopted a resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation to include a N. Franklin Street/Peppers Ferry Road NW western connector road in its Six-Year Plan. Though not funded at this time, the connector is a priority locally and will assist in the alleviation of traffic congestion on both heavily traveled commercial corridors. The four-lane new alignment connector would provide bicycle lanes and sidewalks. Preliminary engineering for the project has previously been conducted.

15. (p.78) Implications of the road improvements outlined above include improved circulation within the Town limits as well as opportunities for further growth. The Peppers Ferry Road widening will accommodate existing and future volumes of traffic in the northern part of Town.

16. (p.80) The Town of Christiansburg maintains its sidewalk system, which covers a good deal of the Town’s primary street frontage, particularly in the commercial districts. The Town sidewalk system supplements the Town trails. While the Town’s trails are primarily used for recreational purposes, sidewalk pedestrian traffic is heavy, particularly in the downtown area.

17. (p.102) Route 460 Bypass extension provides a direct route from the Blacksburg Bypass southward to I-81, and has helped relieve bottlenecks at Routes 460/114 and west of the Route 460/I-81 interchange. Circulation in the downtown area has been aided by the extension and widening of Depot Street on the western side of N. Franklin Street. The planned widening of Peppers Ferry Road, which has been necessitated by westward residential growth, will facilitate western travel. Until proposed road projects are completed, however, existing traffic flow will continue to be severely congested. Due to the completion of the Route 460 Bypass extension, the Town should consider a future boundary line adjustment to take advantage of the potential for eastward growth afforded by the realigned road.

18. (p.104) The residential designation generally reflects the existing residential land use patterns. Eastward expansion of sewer service lines will facilitate new residential development east of the 460/I-81 interchange. Low-density residential would be appropriate in these areas. Lands designated for residential development in the more urbanizing areas of Town (near the Peppers Ferry Road/North Franklin Street commercial district; near the Cambria downtown area; south of the Central Business District; and near the eastern industrial/ commercial areas) might develop as higher density residential uses such as apartments, townhouses, or condominiums. Promotion of the location of nursing homes and eldercare facilities in these areas would be appropriate due in part to accessibility to services. Higher density residential development should maintain a closer proximity to commercial/industrial functions for both services and employment. Such developments must locate in proximity to major arterials and collector streets to minimize traffic impacts on lower density residential environments.

19. (p.104) Commercial development has been the most rapidly growing land use category in Christiansburg. As dictated by the current road network, commercial uses at the entrances to the Town from major highways are generally automobile oriented, capitalizing on the large volumes of traffic.

20. (p.105) The downtown area’s commercial uses are characterized by professional services, retail, and restaurants, which serve the concentration of government offices. Sidewalks, parking and overall curb appeal will be highlighted for investment by the Town in the areas of publicly owned property in order to create more opportunities for pedestrian traffic in the downtown.

21. (p.106) The Christiansburg CBD Revitalization Plan contains many examples of desirable downtown redevelopment. Of particular importance are the potentials for tourism, landscaping/streetscaping, signage for the downtown area, appearance of gateways to the downtown area, encouragement of pedestrian traffic, adaptive re-use of old structures, and allowances for residential opportunities.

22. (p.106) Industrial development is encouraged within the Christiansburg Industrial Park and Montgomery County’s Falling Branch Corporate Park. Road development around the Falling Branch Corporate Park and improvements to Route 114 and the Route 460 Bypass will create greater opportunities for locating industrial uses. In this way, traffic can be supported within and around the Town, causing limited impacts on residential areas. Care must be taken to ensure appropriate utilization of the limited industrial land available within the Town. Town cooperative support of County and regional initiatives is critical to attracting large-scale industrial and specialized developments for the benefit of the Town and its citizens.

23. (p.107) The proposed N. Franklin Street-Peppers Ferry Road Connector Route would affect both mixed use designations due to its location through large undeveloped areas as well as its anticipated traffic load.

24. (p.112) U.S. Route 460 Business through Christiansburg is the most heavily traveled road in Montgomery County. Congestion is greatest near the Peppers Ferry Road/North Franklin Street commercial district and along the eastern stretch from the existing I-81 intersection to the Bypass. The Downtown is currently experiencing circulation problems stemming from commuters traveling to and from Radford and Floyd via Routes 8 and 11. The convergence of these two roads in the center of the Downtown district represents one of the Town’s most pressing traffic problems. Peppers Ferry Road also serves as a major Route to Radford. Development along this route in both the Town and Montgomery County has contributed to the increased use of this road and resulting curtailment of traffic flow at peak hours.

25. (p.112) The Comprehensive Plan highlights roads falling into four categories: interstate roads, major arterial (4 lanes or more), minor arterial (two lanes), and collector streets. Arterial roads carry high volumes of traffic for both local and through destinations. Collector streets are intended to distribute traffic from local neighborhood roads onto arterial streets. Rights-of-way for arterial streets are 80 feet or more depending upon the physical design demands of a location. Collector streets are generally two lanes with parking on both sides. Right-of-way widths are typically from 60 to 80 feet. All other roads should reserve a 50 foot right-of-way and intended primarily to serve individual properties rather than through traffic.

26. (p.113) The location of the planned Interstate 73 as well as the “Smart Road” will impact Christiansburg. Interstate 73 (I-73) is proposed to run from Detroit, Michigan to Charleston, South Carolina. Another Interstate class highway will no doubt increase traffic through the area. The result may be accompanying development and both direct and indirect increased demand on other transportation systems. The “Smart Road” may be utilized as a portion of the proposed Interstate 73 corridor.

27. (p.113) Scheduled to begin in 2007, the Virginia Route 114/Peppers Ferry Road project will four-lane the entire portion in Town and continue outside the corporate limits to Dominion Drive. The project will provide sidewalks, landscaped medians, turn lanes, two storm water management facilities, crosswalks, and roadside landscaping. Implications of these road improvements include improved circulation within the Town limits as well as opportunities for further growth. The Peppers Ferry Road widening will accommodate existing and future volumes of traffic in the northern part of Town.

28. (p.113) The Christiansburg Town Council adopted a resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation to include a N. Franklin Street/Peppers Ferry Road NW western connector road in its Six-Year Plan. Though not funded at this time, the connector is a priority locally and will assist in the alleviation of traffic congestion both heavily traveled commercial corridors. The four-lane new alignment connector would provide bicycle lanes and sidewalks. Preliminary engineering for the project has previously been conducted.

29. (p.114) Montgomery County’s designation of the Falling Branch area as an Urban Expansion Zone sets the stage for potentially intense development in both Christiansburg and the County. Due to this potential, future transportation plans must consider the ability of Falling Branch Road to accommodate increased traffic levels. The Town and Montgomery County should seek full funding of this project through VDOT standard procedures. As development in this area intensifies, additional road improvements will become a long-range necessity to be considered by both Town and County governments.

30. (p.120) 4. Review and assess appropriateness of land use patterns within the Town. Strategies: a. Support a system of controlled land use development within and around the Town. b. Coordinate with Blacksburg and Montgomery County regarding development impacts at Town boundaries. c. Coordinate the future expansion and maintenance of public services with each land use decision. d. Assess and consider traffic flow impacts when determining land uses within and around the Town. e. Continue to provide allowances for the potential use of nonconforming parcels within the Town. f. Encourage higher density residential development where appropriate. g. Encourage development that renovates existing properties and/or provides infill development.

31. (p.124) 7. Identify and encourage services that assist economic development within the Town. Strategies: a. Cooperate in transit services to reduce traffic congestion in and around the Town. b. Support the New River Valley Airport and its Foreign Trade Zone and United States Customs Point of Entry efforts on behalf of the region. 8. Support a strategy for creation of a local civic center within the area. Strategy: Encourage funding from local, regional, and state partners to build a viable civic center to serve the Town.

32. (p.124) Goal: Provide for a system of streets, sidewalks, parking areas, traffic controls and other related facilities, which will provide safe, convenient and reliable movement of people and goods.

33. (p.124) 1. Provide for adequate highway service to maintain and improve communications with areas outside of Town and to accommodate through traffic with minimum impact on the Town’s street network.

34. (p.125) 2. Provide for an adequate street network, which will facilitate the flow of traffic to and from the residential, commercial and industrial areas while minimizing non-local traffic flow through residential neighborhoods.

35. (p.125) 2. Provide for an adequate street network, which will facilitate the flow of traffic to and from the residential, commercial and industrial areas while minimizing non-local traffic flow through residential neighborhoods. Strategies: a. Encourage the County and VDOT to have all new streets connecting to Town streets brought up to established VDOT urban standards. b. Plan new routes to alleviate traffic congestion and vehicular conflicts, and stimulate residential, mixed use, light industrial and commercial development. c. Ensure interconnectivity of streets for general traffic flow and emergency services purposes.

36. (p.125) 3. Provide for adequate parking and periodically review Codes to ensure appropriate requirements. Strategies: a. Promote retention and construction of off-street parking in the downtown business area during new construction. b. Enforce the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance parking provisions for new construction. c. Review the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance parking provisions periodically to ensure that they meet traffic and parking needs.

All for now:)