Traffic (2001-2005)

In progress:

From 2002 Planning Commission Minutes:

1. January 14, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting: Rezoning request: “Commissioner Carter inquired if traffic would be a problem. Mr. Terpenny stated Radford Street is scheduled for reconstruction, but that Underwood Street is narrow. Commissioner Carter asked how many housing units would be allowed on the property. Mr. Terpenny stated 10 units per acre, or a total of 81 apartments or townhomes. Chairperson Canada asked if Underwood Street could handle the increased traffic. Mr. Terpenny stated Christiansburg maintains Underwood Street and Christiansburg could widen the street in the future by repaving it.”
2. March 18, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting: Rezoning request: “Commissioner Carter stated the street committee recommended widening the street but that could increase traffic.” … “Chairperson Canada stated the property could accommodate 81 townhouses. Mr. Terpenny stated the development would increase the traffic flow to 320 trips a day. Chairperson Canada asked if the street could handle the increased traffic flow. Mr. Terpenny stated Underwood Street is 14 feet wide but could handle the traffic if improved. The maximum pavement without right of way acquisition is 22 feet. Mr. Terpenny stated the widening could go to 17 feet now without moving ditch lines.” … “Mr. Terpenny stated Town Council had denied the previous R-3 rezoning request. The property is scheduled as Residential. R-1 an R-2 possibilities may be cost prohibitive to the development due to street improvements. B-3 General Business could cause a traffic problem. A Planned Housing Development could address concerns and provide for cost efficient development.”
3. April 1, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting: Rezoning: “Chairperson Canada commented he is encouraged to see Planned Housing Developments and the preservation of open space in the developments. Chairperson Canada stated the residents of Forelmont Street were initially concerned about the types of businesses that could be located on the property and the amount of traffic businesses would attract on the street. The Planned Housing Development would eliminate businesses and restrict traffic.”  ..Mr. Lawless stated the extended cul-de-sac entry to the R-1 “gated community” type development would slow traffic and serve as a “traffic calming” feature. Commissioner Simmons asked if VDOT would have concerns with the one-way traffic through the development. Mr. Terpenny stated there had been no concerns shown by VDOT.” (vote to approve unanimous)
4. April 15, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting: CUP request: “Mr.  Harkrader  stated  the  Conditional  Use  Permit  application  asked  for  five employees, but the Planning Commission approval gave five employees per office. No conditions were included to add sidewalks, which is a hazard with commercial traffic coming out of the property.”
5. April 29, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting: CUP request: “Commissioner Stipes asked if  there would be one-way or two-way traffic on the street.  Mr. Smith stated there would be a two-way private street.    Mr. Terpenny stated the street would be thirty (30) feet of pavement with fifty (50) feet of right of way.  Mr. Terpenny asked if the street is considered common area.  Mr. Smith stated the street and any storm water management area would be common area.   Vice-Chairperson Wade stated thirty (30) feet  of  pavement  is required for public streets, but how could this street be private.  Mr. Terpenny stated the street could be private in a Planned Housing Development.”
6. November 4, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting: CUP request: “Ms. Ray stated speeding is a concern as well as the increase of truck traffic and   commercial traffic on Park Street.” … “Mr. Smith stated most of his traffic uses Depot Street.”

From 2002 Town Council Minutes:

1. January 15, 2002 Town Council Meeting: CUP request: “Virginia Riley informed Council that she owns two rental properties on Stone Street and is concerned with a business coming into a residential neighborhood. Traffic safety is her main concern due to the young families with  children living on Stone Street.” … “Margaret Ray, a property owner in this historic district, said her main concern is the facade of the building, which she believes should conform to the surrounding area. She is also concerned with traffic safety along Park Street and Stone Street.”
2. February 5, 2002 Town Council Meeting Town Manager Report: “Manager Terpenny reported that improvements are still under design to safely direct traffic away from College Street as part of the new middle school constructin. Upon Council’s request for a traffic study, VDOT determined that a signal light is justified at the intersection of Route 8 and Mudpike Road. The installation cost to the Town would be $2,500.00. Manager Terpenny asked if Council was in favor of installing the signal light, and if so, would the Town or the County be responsible for the costs? If  Council is in favor of the signal light, a formal request must be made to VDOT. Councilman Weaver questioned the necessity of the light, and Manager Terpenny said that the signal light is necessary for traffic safety along College Street. Splitting the cost with the County was suggested, but Councilman Ballengee said that since the Town has a vested interest in the middle school project, he thinks the Town should absorb the cost, but make the school board aware of their decision. Council agrees that the middle school project is, and should continue to be, a joint endeavor between the Town and County, and the County is paying for the cost of the road improvements along College Street. On motion by Councilman Ballengee, seconded by Councilwoman Carter, Council voted to request the installation of the signal light, pay the cost in fill, and inform the County of their decision. Council’s vote is as follows: AYES: Ashworth, Ballengee, Barber, Carter, Lester, and Weaver. NAYS: None.”
3. March 19, 2002 Town Council Meeting: Rezoning request: “Mike Conyers, representative of Hubbell Lighting on Electric Way, said Hubbell Lighting is continuously growing, generating heavy truck and employee traffic. He is concerned with the impact this rezoning will have on the business.” … RE: rezoning request: “Mr. Shane Lavender of Hillcrest Drive spoke in opposition to the Akers’ request in January, and is against this request as well. His property backs up to the property in the request, and he is concerned with the possible number of townhomes allowed on the property if rezoned (up to eighty allowed). He said many in the area are concerned because of the new middle school construction in the area and possible foot traffic generated by the townhomes and the new school … RE: rezoning: “Acting Chairman Stipes informed Council that the road condition of Underwood Street, and traffic safety, are the major concerns of the Planning Commission. Mr. Akers stated that he has met with the Street Committee, and has tried to address all of the Town’s concerns. He has agreed to pay the full cost of having the street widened, but did not proffer to do so because he was under the impression that this would be a requirement of the rezoning. He was unaware that the street condition was still a problem. Mr. Akers asked if he could have a representative present during the group site visit that was requested by the Planning Commission. Town Manager Terpenny reported that the Akers were present at the Street Committee meeting and expressed their willingness to pay the full cost of the street repairs. The Finance Committee met to discuss engineering estimates received for two widening options. The first would be to pave from ditch to ditch, approximately seventeen to twenty feet. The second option would be to use the full right-of-way width to widen the pavement to twenty to twenty-two feet. Both Committees agree that the road should be widened to the fullest extent and that the development costs should be borne by the land developer.”
4. April 2, 2002 Town Council Meeting: Rezoning request: “Mr. Miller said he is representing almost everyone on Forelmont Street, and it seems the main concerns of the residents along Forelmont are decreased property values, increased traffic volume, and the loss of the cul-de-sac at the end of the street.” … “Dave Kennedy said he concurs with what Mr. Miller said. He said the cul-de-sac keeps the traffic volume down on Forelmont Street and doesn’t want to lose the security the cul-de-sac provides the community.” … Sally Matney said that Traffic is her main concern, and possible townhouse property adjoining her property is also a concern for her.” … Rosa Ward of Forelmont Street questioned Mr. Altizer’s comment about “carefully” planning the neighborhood. She said this neighborhood will cause them to lose their cul-de-sac and will increase traffic volume.” … “Several residents continued to express their concerns with traffic and drainage issues. It was explained again that the cul-de-sac will not be obliterated, and that drainage issues will be addressed after rezoning approval by Council when engineering drawings are developed.”
5. April 16, 2002 Town Council Meeting: Rezoning: “Roger Woody clarified that this request is not the same Forelmont Street rezoning request addressed at the last Council meeting. However, concerning the Forelmont request, Mr. Woody said that he has decided to increase the size of the cul-de-sac and place a planter box in the center of the cul-de-sac, which will not only look attractive , but will also slow down traffic from both directions. He plans to heavily landscape the area.” … “Councilwoman Carter explained that the Planning Commission studied this request closely and, if passed, the Willow Oak Drive would divert some of the traffic from Cambria Street.” … RE Rezoning deferred from April 2 meeting: “… The Planning Commission met with the developer concerning ways to maintain the safety of the neighborhood and liked the developers idea to build a planter in the cul-de-sac, which will force traffic to decrease speed.”
6. May 21, 2002 Town Council Meeting: “Kathleen Page of Chestnut Drive addressed Council concerning a variance Roger Woody requested at the last Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. It is her understanding that the Town requested Mr. Woody build a new street through the Craig Mountain neighborhood in order for there to be an additional entrance into and out of the neighborhood. Ms. Page is concerned with the increased traffic flow onto Roanoke Street generated by this suggested new street. Her neighborhood is supportive of improvements to Arrowhead Trail, but is asking Council to consider alternate plans before deciding on a new additional road. Mayor Linkous turned her request over to the Street Committee for review and recommendation.”
7. July 2, 2002 Town Council Meeting: Mr Bob Poff  “addressed Council on behalf of the Wilderness Trail Festival. He explained that he wants to expand the festival down East Main Street to the intersection at Roanoke Street. A stage would be placed near Pepper Street,
   and the proposed gazebo will be used if constructed by that time. He spoke with Police Chief Brumfield concerning traffic control at the intersection of Main Street and North Franklin Street. Two possibilities are leaving the intersection open with pedestrian traffic going with the vehicle traffic, or using an off-duty police officer to direct traffic flow.”
8. July 16, 2002 Town Council Meeting: Street Committee “At the July 2, 2002 meeting, a resident of James Street brought several complaints to Council. Since that time, the Town street sweeper has cleaned up loose gravel, police have begun monitoring traffic speed, street shoulders have been straightened, and potholes filled.  Re Wilderness Days Festival: “..Councilwoman Carter explained that the Street Committee met with Manager Terpenny and the Police Chief regarding teh festival committee’s request to extend the distance of the festival along East Main Street. Th Street Committee decided against blocking Franklin Street, but to block Main Street and hire one police officer to work traffic control.”
9. August 6, 2002 Town Council Meeting: Rezoning request: “Deebie Miles addressed Council regarding this request. She presented a petition of 132 signatures from residents of Miller Street and adjacent streets opposing the rezoning for several reasons. … The increase in traffic as a result of this development will jeopardize the neighborhood’s safety and subject residents to increased traffic noise and pollution.” … “Mr. Perdue was unable to address the traffic concerns at this time.”
10. August 20, 2002 Town Council Meeting: CUP request for Planned Housing Development:  Mr. Doug Tice, developer:” … Targeted residents are the physically challenged, newly single individuals, and the elderly. Each building will contain four units, each with an attached garage. Pricing will be in the mid to upper one hundred thousands. Traffic if not typically an issue with this type of housing, since many of the residents do not drive during peak hours. .. He explained that the proposed boulevard will alleviate some of the traffic issues concerning Route 114.”
11. November 5, 2002 Town Council Meeting: Rezoning request: “… Art Ford of Howery Street commented that his concern is with the increase in traffic and the effect it will have on the children who live and play in the community. One neighborhood resident questioned the compatibility of the homes, ingress/egress to the property during construction, poor road conditions, and increased traffic. Mr. Steve Raff stated that he has the same concerns as those already voiced. …” RE CUP request: “Terry Nicholson’s main concern is traffic safety, such as speed and vehicle weight. … Gary Harkrader stated that this has been an ongoing problem, and that this is the chance for the Town to resolve the matter. He referenced the Town’s 1993 Comprehensive Plan and asked that the request be denied. Mr. Harkrader pointed out that Park Street has three bed and breakfast inns, a gun shop, and a lawyers office, which he believes are all in good keeping with this historical section of Town. He stated that many Town improvements are needed throughout this area such as signs prohibiting commercial traffic, and extended sidewalks. … Mr. Smith explained that he has been in business for seven years, and orginally began as a storage unit operation. Now he would like to expand his business to allow him to do vehicle repair and maintenance. His mother sold the adjacent lot to Best Foods distributing company and the company has plans to build a facility on the property for its operation. Mr. Smith said he has plans to landscape the property and stated that much of the large vechicle traffic along Park Street is a result of the stockyard located not far from his property.”
12. November 19,, 2002 Town Council Meeting: “Ms. Rebecca Arthur addressed Council concerning the Cullen Court subdivision plat before Council tonight. She is concerned that the currently exiting drainage problems will be increased with construction to the neighborhood. Increased traffic, lack of sidewalks, and no streetlights were other concerns she wanted addressed. Since the subdivision plat is the only information Council has on hand for this property,, which only creates lots. Mayor Linkous asked that Ms. Arthur give Manager Terpenny her list of concerns for him to address once he has had an opportunity to review the development plans. RE Deer problem: “…Manager Terpenny reported that according to traffic accident reports and reported property destruction, it is obvious that deer are becoming overpopulated in Town.”
13. December 17, 2002 Town Council Meeting: Rezoning request: “Mr. Mark Salmon, a resident of Stafford Drive, said that there has been much growth in that area over the past few years, and due to the growth, the road is not adequate for the volume of traffic that uses it daily. He suggested widening the road, adding a turn lane, and increasing police patrol. He also expressed concerns with the hazardous intersection on Route 114. … Susan Hood said her biggest concern is with entering on to Route 114. Mark Thurlow commented that the traffic issues with Route 114 need to be addressed before adding additional homes and traffic to the area. He asked Council to deny the request until the improvements have been made to Route 114.”

From 2003 Planning Commission Minutes:

1. January 21, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting: Zoning Amendment request (Bed & Breakfast): “Commissioner Carter stated she was not of opinion to change the ordinance. Vice- Chairperson Wade agreed stating the decision goes back to protection of neighborhoods with traffic and other concerns. Vice-Chairperson Wade stated the proposed definition and character presented itself more like a motel instead of a bed and breakfast.”
2. February 13, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting: Comprehensive Plan Review: “Chairperson Canada stated property along Route 1 14 is currently largely residential. Chairperson Canada stated the Mixed Use classification would require alternate routes through neighborhoods or otherwise the neighborhoods would be engulfed by commercial uses and traffic. Mr. Terpenny stated that there would be safeguards for residential areas including that the planned N. Franklin Street-Peppers Ferry Road Connector Route would be limited access and provide a 100-foot buffer and that the Mixed Use districts would require a Conditional Use Permit for commercial uses in order to ensure appropriate uses and buffering. Mr. Terpenny stated that the intent of the new Districts is to minimize the impact of commercial and industrial uses on residential areas and pointed out that it is uncertain as to the date the N. Franklin Street-Peppers Ferry Road Connector Route would be built.”
3. February 24, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting: Rezoning request: “Mr. Price stated a neighborhood meeting had been held and the tone very positive with the primary concerns being traffic. Mr. Price stated the meeting gave the neighbors an opportunity to provide ideas and suggestions. Vice-Chairperson Wade asked if anyone attended the meeting to represent Corning and Mr. Price stated no one represented Corning.”
4. September 16, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting: CUP “Commissioner Carter stated the entrance at Roanoke Street  could be a potential  for  traffic  hazard.   Commissioner  Lawless stated it is a busy street with limited sight distance.”
5. October 6, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting: CUP “Ms. Hylton stated there has been a  complaint  about  traffic  but  additional  traffic  will  be  added  with  the  new construction of  duplexes.  Mr. Terpenny stated he was under the impression the duplexes have access to Ellett Road.  Commissioner Stipes stated he would like to discuss  the  request.   Commissioner  Lawless  stated  he  visited  the  property. Commissioner  Stipes  asked  if  the  Town  had  received  any  complaints.   Mr. Terpenny stated there have been complaints regarding traffic and delivery trucks. Commissioner Lawless inquired to how long the business has been in operation. Mr. Terpenny stated the minor home occupation application was approved in 1999.”
6. October 7, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting: Rezoning: “Chairperson Canada stated a new turn lane has been installed on Stafford Drive increasing traffic and safety would be a concern.   Commissioner  Lawless stated traffic is a concern and if  there were some guarantee of the use he would be more comfortable with the rezoning.” CUP request (previously discussed on Oct.6) “Mr.  Terpenny  did  so. Commissioner  Carter  asked  if  the  request  were  disapproved,  what  would  be suitable to consider the operation scaled back.  Mr. Terpenny stated there would need to be decreased traffic  and the number  of  employees  would have to be verified.  Mr. Terpenny stated a motion to deny is on the floor. Commissioner Lawless seconded the motion, which passed 3-2, with Chairperson Canada and Commissioner Simmons voting nay.”
7. November 3, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting: CUP: “Chairperson Canada stated accidents occur  and adding more  traffic  crossing the  road is  dangerous.   Commissioner Carter stated accidents will happen in town.  Chairperson Canada stated he wants to find another solution.  Mr. Terpenny stated the applicant could put a doublewide on the lot as a sales office, without a conditional use permit and put a construction trailer on the site.   Chairperson Canada stated he is concerned about  creating a worse situation.  Mr. Terpenny stated it is not creating the situation, but having the opportunity to make the situation better.”
8. November 4, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting: CUP: “Mr. Terpenny stated the Peppers Ferry Road project is part of  the 6-year plan and is the Town’s number one priority.  Chairperson Canada asked for additional comments from the Planning Commission.  Commissioner Stipes stated he considered the request to be down zoning,  but  in this case a good use of  the property.   Commissioner  Stipes also stated he has concerns for the traffic safety.Commissioner Stipes made a motion to recommend approval to Town Council with conditions.  Vice-Chairperson Wade seconded the motion, which passed 6-0.
   Commissioner Carter stated there are many other things that could be placed on the property and this was the best use.”
9. December 2, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting: Rezoning: “Chairperson Canada introduced the request.  Commissioner Carter stated she has concerns about run-off.  Mr. Terpenny stated the run off would be diverted from the Hans  Meadows  residents  and  towards  Crab  Creek.   Commissioner  Carter requested clarification of  the entrance to be used.   Chairperson Canada stated traffic would enter from Hans Meadow Road and this will  help keep construction vehicles from the neighborhood. Commissioner Simmons made a motion to recommend approval to Town Council. Commissioner Dobson seconded the motion, which passed 6-0.”
10. December 15, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting: Rezoning request: “Chairperson Canada inquired about the development on Stafford Drive and how much traffic would be generated. Mr.  Keesee  stated  numbers  have  not  been  projected  for  generated  traffic. Chairperson Canada asked if  the new development  on Stafford Drive dedicated right  of  way,  noticing  this  development  has.   Mr.  Terpenny  stated  the  new development has also dedicated right-of-way and will connect to Walters Drive.”
11. December 16, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting: Rezoning request: “Vice-Chairperson Wade stated traffic would be his main concern.   Vice-Chairperson Wade asked if  2007 would be when the 114 widening project  is scheduled to begin.   Mr.  Terpenny stated that was correct that he had spoke to VDOT and it appears the project could be phased  in.   Mr.  Terpenny  stated  VDOT realizes  Christiansburg is  the third largest town in Virginia and that we are a rapidly growing community.   They also realize that the 114 corridor is a primary growth corridor for the Town.” … “Chairperson Canada stated land being dedicated for the widening of Stafford Drive, the development of Stafford Farms Subdivision, and the interconnection of Belmont Estates, traffic will be more manageable.  Commissioner Carter asked if the proffer includes the 10-foot  dedication along Stafford.   Mr. Terpenny stated the land is already dedicated with the subdivision plat, which is under review.”

From 2003 Town Council Minutes:

1. January 7, 2003 Town Council Meeting: RE rezoning request: “Councilman Barber commended the Planning Commission on its review of the information provided concerning this request; however, the information provided was not enough for him to feel comfortable supporting this rezoning, and he is not convinced creating a third lane will alleviate the traffic issues. Councilman Ballengee stated that with this road being one of the most dangerous in town, and since VDOT’s improvements to the road are not in the near future, he also is unable to support the rezoning at this time. … (from Councilwoman Carter) The Planning Commission, she said, diligently studied the availabel information and believes the third land will help temporarily until VDOT’s improvements are completed. (Rezoning passed with AYES: Ashworth, Carter, Lester, and Weaver; NAYS: Ballengee, and Barber.) … In light of the discussion and vote by Council regarding the rezoning request for Stafford Drive, Councilman Weaver made a motion to approve the Town constructing a third lane on Stafford Drive at Route 1 14. Councilman Barber asked if the extra lane could be constructed on Route 1 14, instead of on Stafford Drive. Manager Terpenny responded that there is currently a turning lane at this intersection on Route 114. The third lane, a turning lane, should prevent traffic from backing up on Stafford Drive. Council voted as follows: AYES: Ashworth, Ballengee, Barber, Carter, Lester, and Weaver. NAYS: None.”
2. February 4, 2003 Town Council Meeting: CUP: “this type of business is allowed in this zoning, Manager Terpemy recommended he request a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Lawson spoke with adjoining landowners and they are comfortable with the plans presented for the property. Normal business hours will be 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. The shop will employ six to eight full time employees. The business will not generate much traffic along Cambria Street.”
3. March 4, 2003 Town Council Meeting: (TM Report) “MANAGER TERPENNY reported that the Town has received a request to do a traffic study for a traffic light at Miller Street and Roanoke Street. In order to do a traffic study, two town employees must monitor traffic at the intersection for a continuous twelve hours. VDOT will provide the traffic counting equipment. Council advised Manager Terpenny to proceed with the traffic study.”
4. May 6, 2003 Town Council Meeting: CUP: “Conditional Use Pennit request by Jennings Construction for residential use at 215 Freestone Drive (tax parcels 406- ((5))-5A and 6) in the B-3 General Business District. Residents of Freestone Drive Nancy Jennelle, Rhonda Vaught, and Natalie Moore all spoke in opposition of the request due to increased noise, traffic, and potential water drainage problems.”
5. July 1, 2003 Town Council Meeting: Ordinance amending Chap. 30 Zoning: “Shirley Phillips, a Third Street resident, said he is opposed to the request because the area is zoned residential. It is a quiet neighborhood and he believes a business will create additional traffic and noise.”
6. July 1, 2003 Town Council Meeting: “Resolution Addressing Freight/Passenger Railway – The idea of this resolution was brought before Council by Michael Abraham at the June 17, 2003 meeting. Manager Terpenny said that the intent for the freight/passenger railway project is to alleviate some of the freight and passenger traffic from Interstate 81.
7. August 5, 2003: “Christiansburg’s top four priority projects from the projects identified in the 2020 plan. Manager Terpenny explained that this does not include projects in the current 6-year plan, such as Route 114. The projects in the 2020 plan are: Installation of a traffic signal at Cambria Street/Ellett Road; installation of traffic signals at Route 8 and 1-8 1 ramps; re-alignment of W. Main/Phlegar/Radford Streets; extension of Parkway Drive to S. Franklin Street; Peppers Ferry/N. Franklin connector; urban rebuild of Radford Road; and additional approacheslpedestrian signals/sidewalks at Peppers FerryN. Franklin intersection. After much discussion by Council, Council decided on the following four projects: Peppers Ferry/N. Franklin connector road; urban rebuild of Radford Road; realignment of W. Main/Phlegar/Radford streets; and extension of Parkway Drive to S. Franklin Street.”
8. September 16, 2003 Town Council Meeting: CUP: Ms. Wanda Jones owns adjoining property and is concerned that allowing this business may decrease the value of her property. She is also concerned with additional traffic, noise, trash/debris, and times of operation.”
9. October 7, 2003 Town Council Meeting: CUP: “Mr. Larry Jennelle of Rigby Street said that there are already three duplexes on Rigby Street and the road is not big enough to handle the high traffic volume or the large trucks used by the cabinet shop. He commented that there is only one fire hydrant located on Rigby Street. … James Graham believes he is being discriminated against by the Town because this cabinet shop is allowed in a residential neighborhood.”
10. November 4, 2003 Town Council Meeting: CUP: “Mr. Dennis Davis of Massey Drive asked where the subdivision outlet would be, and one resident questioned drainage on the low-lying areas of the property to be developed. Mr. Keesee explained that an area has been reserved for the stormwater management system, and he stated that the system would handle any additional run-eated by development of the property. Access to the development will be Route 114. One resident said this access plan is unsafe due to high traffic volume on Route 114, and suggested a stoplight be part of the development. Manager Terpemy responded that VDOT controls stoplights along Route 114, and it has strict standards governing stoplight placement. VDOT will do a traffic study at the Town’s request. Mr. Mark Thurlow stated that he has fought development along Route 114 for years, and he commented that Route 114 has been on VDOT’s upgrade list for years and remains on that list. He commented that there are many accidents along Route 114 due to overcrowding, and he said that VDOT has done a traffic study and found a stoplight unwarranted, even with continued development. He also voiced concerns about property values. He criticized the Town, Town maintenance, and enforcement of Town Codes. He asked that the request be denied. Mayor Linkous stated that every year the Town requests improvements to Route 114/Peppers Ferry Road to VDOT, and the best it has done is to get the road improvements placed in the 6-Year Plan.
11. December 16, 2003: Town Council Meeting: Rezoning request: “Mr Keesee replied that, as part of this development, a fifty-foot right-of-way is provided along the Halberstadt’s side for the widening of Stafford Dreive. Mr. Keessee agrees that some widening will be necessary to accommodate additional traffic.” … (Right-of-way vacation request) Mr. Jesse Richardson asked why traffic created by the new townhomes isn’t run through Ellett Road since Rigby Street is already overcrowded. Manager Terpenny replied that the property owner did not own property out to Ellett Road at the time the “T” was dedicated. Manager Terpenny also commented that the developer is responsible for any and all necessary street improvements. Mr. Clarence Richardson believes the narrow road is very dangerous due to the heavy traffic volume. He commented that the problems are easy to see just by visiting the neighborhood. Mr. Terry Thomas said that the cabinet shop located on Rigby Street is still a problem, and he complained that the shop is not being monitored by the Town. Several other Rigby Street residents expressed their opposition to this request.

From 2004 Planning Commission Minutes:

1. March 1, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting: Rezoning: “Howard Fleenor addressed the Planning Commission stating he would not like the property rezoned to R-3. Mr. Fleenor presented a petition signed by the residents of  Hemlock Street in opposition to the rezoning. Commissioner Carter asked for any suggestions for the use of the property other than R-3. Mr. Fleenor stated the major concern was R-3 due to traffic and noise.” … “Michael Byrd, trustee for the Huff Family, stated he didn’t believe traffic is the real issue. Mr. Byrd stated that the elementary school and industria1,park traffic originally used Falling Branch Road.”
2. March 29, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting: Rezoning: “Chairperson Wade introduced the request. Commissioner Canada clarified the initial request had been for a rezoning without a proffer and that the initial request could have accommodated 1 17 units, for which he felt the amount of traffic would have been an issue.”
3. April 30, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting: Rezoning: “Chairperson Wade stated that miniwarehouses do not generate much traffic and that people like having storage close to their homes.”
4. December 27, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting: CUP: “Vice-Chairperson Simmons stated that traffic is obviously a major concern. Commissioner Simmons made a motion to recommend denial to Town Council. Commissioner Wayne seconded the motion, which passed 5-0.”

From 2004 Town Council Minutes:

1. January 6, 2004: Rezoning request: “Councilman Ballengee commented that Council has heard fiom residents on numerous occasions about the traffic dangers along Peppers Ferry Road. He agrees that additional growth along Peppers Ferry Road is not wise until road improvements have been made by VDOT, and he can not support the request at this time. Manager Terpemy reported that in speaking with VDOT’s new urban engineer, he learned that Christiansburg has the option to phase-in the Peppers Ferry Road improvement project, which will allow improvements to begin sooner than currently planned.
   Enough money will be available to begin the phase-in project in June of 2006. The Town would have to decide which end of Peppers Ferry Road to begin improvements. Beginning on the West end will cover entrances to both Belmont Farms and Belmont Estates. VDOT’s engineer agrees improvements should begin on the West end and has asked for formal action fiom Council concerning the phase-in project. Councilman Weaver made a motion to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the rezoning, seconded by Councilman Lester. Council voted as follows: AYES: Ashworth, Barber, Lester, and Weaver. NAYS: Ballengee.”
2. March 16, 2004 Town Council Meeting: Statement by Councilman Ballengee regarding condition of streets in downtown area: “Sewer line replacement, improved parking and pedestrian walkways, and new traffic signals and streetlights are included in the revitalization plan. The Town hopes downtown business owners will be encouraged to renovate their downtown buildings. The entire revitalization process will be done in six (6) phases over the span of several years. The Town is currently in Phase I, which will be completed this calendar year. Mayor Linkous stated that the Town receives grant funds for the project.”
3. April 6, 2004 Town Council Meeting: Rezoning request: “Mr. Tim Wimmer of 595 Hemlock Street, has concerns with this R-3 Multi-Family Residential rezoning request. He is in support of an R-2 Two-Family Residential zoning with proffers. He asked to see a design of the proposed subdivision. He believes that rental property is saturated in Montgomery County and is concerned that if rental units are not in demand that the development might become low-income housing. He is also concerned with additional traffic using the entranceways to the neighborhood. “
4. September 7, 2004 Town Council Meeting: Ordinance amending Advertising and Zoning chapters of Code (Mixed Use Zone and other miscellaneous provisions): “Mrs. Hess made several recommendations regarding the amendments. She would like to see a statement of intent for the new mixed-use districts. She also wants major roadways such as Route 11 and Route 114 protected from additional development and traffic volume. Mr. J.E. Hearn concurred with Mrs. Hess. He welcomes businesses to the area, but realizes that the major roadways can not accommodate the heavy traffic volume. Councilman Lester commended the Planninig Commission and Town staff on the development of these ordinance amendments.”
5. September 21, 2004 Town Council Meeting: Rezoning request: “the properly, which was originally developed with plans for the ultimate build out of thc park. Councilman Hluppcrt also asked if there were any concerns regarding additional traffic through the school zone. Mr. Hamilton said the speed limit is 25 m.p.h. through the school zone and will remain so. Councilman Ballengee said it is a concern anytime there is an industrial park located near a school. Mr. Ballengee questioned thc existance of a natural gas line on the property. He said there are flags indicating a line on the property, however, it is not indicated on the map Mr. Hamilton provided. Mr. Hamilton does not believe there is a natural gas line on the property and Mr. Teel said he is not aware of a gas line on the property.”
6. November 16, 2004 Town Council Meeting: Vacate portion of Berkshire Drive: “Request by Windsor Development, L.P. to vacate a portion of  Berkshire Drive (a 266 square foot traffic island 8 feet in width by 35 feet in length) located west off of Gibson Drive between tax parccls 465 – ((36)) – 1 and 2). Mr. Steve Semones of Balzer and Associates, representative for Windsor Devclopmcnt, L.P., addressed Council regarding this request. The vacated portion would be landscaped and given to the Berkshire Drive Homeowner’s Association for development and future maintenance. There were no questions regarding this request.:
7. December 7, 2004 Town Council Meeting: CUP: “Mr. David Hill of Haymaker Street spoke in opposition to a taxi cab service in the R-d Multi-Family Residential District. He questioned how many vehicles would be in use, and how many trips in and out of the neighborhood daily the taxi’s would have to make to be a viable business operation. He said the street is twenty-four feet wide with no curbing. The street is already congested with existing traffic flow. … Mr. Robert Vaughn, owner of the taxi cab company, said there is no way to predict the number of trips in and out of the neighborhood each day.”

From 2005 Planning Commission Minutes:

1. June 7, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting Rezoning request: Commissioner Canada stated the traffic and odor problems would need to be rectified no matter what the use of the property. Commissioner Canada stated that a decision needed to be made as to whether Residential or Industrial is the better use of the property and added that he thought the property would be utilized either way.” … “Mr. Cloe stated traffic is still a factor and Mrs. Cloe inquired about emergency evacuation plans. Mr. Terpenny stated the Emergency Operations Plan was updated last year and that the same situation exist all across the country. Mrs. Cloe stated that with these potential units and Mr. Woody’s continued development, the sewer odor situation could get worse and Mr. Terpenny stated that the sewer line was designed for maximum build-out. Mrs. Cloe stated with an emergency now, someone could die and Mr. Terpenny stated that could happen anywhere in the state.” … Mr. Cloe stated where he live he cannot get out due to traffic and Vice-Chairperson Stipes stated he has lived there for 11 years without too much difficulty.”
2. July 1, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting: CUP: “Councilman Barber suggested painting the curb yellow. Mr. Neel stated utilizing narrow pavement widths has a traffic calming effect forcing people to slow down. Mr. Terpenny stated utilizing bump outs every few spaces will have a funneling effect forcing traffic to slow down. Mr. Neel stated that Vinton has utilized this method. Commissioner Canada inquired about the success and Mr. Neel stated the problem is the street in Vinton is an arterial street.”
3. July 5, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting: CUP: “Mr. Terpenny provided the traffic counts for Cambria Street from the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO): 5,115 for 1999 and 5,281 for 2004. Mr. Cloe asked if the day the count was taken was provided and Mr. Terpenny stated that it was not provided. Mr. Cloe asked if the count was an average and Mr. Terpenny stated he was not sure. Mr. Wingfield stated the count was probably an average of at least a 2 to 4 day period. Mr. Terpenny stated the count would have been taken on weekdays during a standard week.”
4. July 12, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting: CUP: “Commissioner Canada stated that he had concerns regarding the streets and pedestrian traffic and stated that there was a time when speed bumps where used to slow automobiles down. Commissioner Canada stated that the development proposed to use narrower pavement width than is allowed under standard regulations. Mr. Wingfield stated that 30 feet of pavement could be used and that 40 feet of pavement is required with curb and gutter under standard requirements. Mr. Rutledge stated that the developer was proposing to use rolled curb with reduced street widths. Mr. Terpenny stated that a 30 foot width is allowed with rolled curb under standard requirements. Mr. Rutledge stated that the reduced pavement width would mean four feet less pavement and that the use would be subject to approval from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to ensure that the Town would still receive maintenance money.” … “Mr. Neel stated that a car could park at a bump out and that the rolled curb could be marked as a no parking area if necessary. Mr. Neel stated there would be 7 to 9 foot grass strip, 26 feet of pavement, and 3 feet for the rolled curb. Mr. Conner stated that
   the grass strip is 9 feet around the one-way street. Mrs. Cloe stated that Red Leaf Court is crowded at night with cars on both sides of the street and that she has a concern with traffic being able to get through. Mr. Neel inquired as to what the width of Red Leaf Court is and Mr. Terpenny stated that there is 30 feet of pavement and 50 feet of right-of-way. Commissioner Poff stated that the width of the pavement is not specified in the proposed conditions and Mr. Neel responded that if approval for varied width is not given, then the developer must use standard road sections. Mr. Rutledge stated that they did not want to put the reduced road widths in the proposed conditions as they were not sure what would be acceptable. Commissioner Canada stated that he was not sure if approval should be given without knowing whether the street width approval would be given. Mr. Conner responded that number 5 under the additional conditions at the rear of the proposed conditions states that the pavement and right-of- way widths require approval from VDOT and the Town staff.” … “Mr. Terpenny stated that when he visited Colonial Heights, he drove 15 miles per hour and had to slow down when he came to on-coming traffic. Mr. Terpenny stated some things may work in one place and not another and that there is no one size fits all.” … (CUP industrialized building units) “Mr. Terpenny read the six drafted conditions: (1) The driveway width shall meet or exceed VDOT standards and ensure ease of entrance and exit of units. (2) Units will be moved on and off the highway only during non-peak traffic hours. Peak traffic hours shall be considered 6:30-9:00 a.m. and 3:OO-6:00 p.m.. (3) No used units will be stored on the property. (4) There shall be substantial compliance with a submitted schematic of the site to be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission as well as meet all requirements of the B-3 General Business District. (5) No repairs, maintenance, and/or restoration of sold units shall be done on site. Repairs, maintenance, andlor restoration on site shall be limited to the office and display units. (6) There shall be at least 20 feet between display units.”
5. August 29, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting: (note the header date shows July 12 although front page and numbering is consistent with the August 29, 2005 date and information on the two are different): CUP: “Mr. Conner stated that he believed the construction of the first phase had brought much less disruption to traffic than most developments. Chairperson Simmons inquired if there would be a traffic signal at the intersection of Peppers Ferry Road, NW and Quin W. Stuart Boulevard and Mr. Conner stated that the traffic counts from Phase 1 and 2 would not meet the warrants to install a traffic signal and added that the total development is planned to be between 72 to 76 units.” … “Mr. Terpenny stated that there will eventually be a traffic signal at the intersection with Peppers Ferry Road, and that it could be done during the Peppers Ferry Road widening project. Mr. Terpenny stated that the Town could potentially have liability for rear end collisions if a traffic signal were installed without the warrants being met. Mr. Terpenny added that there are 8 or 9 warrants for the installation of traffic signals in Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) guidelines. Mr. Terpenny stated that Route 114 carries a lot of traffic, but that the side streets must also have enough traffic volume to justify a signal. Mr. Terpenny stated that Independence Boulevard’s intersection with N. Franklin Street took 3 or4 traffic studies to meet the warrants. Mr. Terpenny stated that VDOT would allow the Town to install a traffic signal, but there may be liability if there is an accident.” … “Vice-Chairperson Stipes stated that the public hearing would be next Tuesday and that traffic safety will be one of the main concerns.”
6. October 3, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting: CUP: “Terpenny stated that there is a section that allows a property owner to pay a license tax of $360.00 per year to maintain an inoperative motor vehicle on their property and that there are provisions in the Traffic and Motor Vehicle Chapter.
7. October 31, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting: Rezoning request: “Commissioner Carter inquired about possible traffic problems. Mr. Terpenny stated sight distance has not been looked at and that he is aware there is a problem with speeding. Mr. Terpenny stated the speeding is not an issue Mr. Price can control and the engineers would look at the sight distance.”
8. November 1, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting: rezoning request: “Commissioner Booth made a motion to recommend approval to Town Council. Commissioner Vanhoozier seconded the motion which passed 6-0. Mrs. Cloe inquired to why the Planning Commission would make a recommendation without a traffic count. Chairperson Simmons stated the request is a land use issue.”
9. December 5, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting: CUP: “Chairperson Simmons inquired if the neighbors voiced any concerns and Ms. Sheppard stated that several had mentioned the pool and traffic.”

From 2005 Town Council Minutes:

1. June 7, 2005 Town Council Meeting: CUP: ” Several residents expressed concern of additional traffic. Mr. Rutledge explained that the development will increase the traffic flow at the Cambria/North Franklin intersection, but that the proposed connector road will alleviate much of the congestion. Jeannie Cloe, a resident of Henley Drive, asked Council to deny the request due to two existing problems. She explained that the residents of Henley Drive have experienced a sewer odor for years. She asked that this problem be fixed before more homes are added to the neighborhood. The Town has tried several methods to correct the odor problem to no avail. Manager Terpenny explained that the sewage system doesn’t use the force main until the wet well fills up. Because of low usage the sewage is in the wet well long enough to create an odor. The Town plans to inject the system with hydrogen peroxide, which it hopes will eliminate the odor problem. Mrs. Cloe is also concerned with the heavy volume of traffic along Cambria Street and in Windmill Hills Subdivision. She believes that in the case of an emergency evacuation, Windmill Hills will not be able to evacuate in a timely manner. She said there are not an adequate number of exits for the neighborhood and asked Council to study this matter before approving the rezoning request. Mr. Cloe is also concerned with the frequent sewer odor and is grateful that the Town is trying to eliminate the problem. Other concerns he expressed are increased traffic flow, density of the homes, and the layout of greenspace. He asked that existing problems be addressed before continuing with this housing development. Mr. Dave Hurlica expressed the same concerns as the Cloes’, and asked that a traffic count be done along Cambria Street. Mr. John Neel said it seems the concerns are more with the engineering rather than land use and those concerns would be present no matter what the land use. Mr. Neel said he is in the process of contacting VDOT regarding a traffic count along Cambria Street.” … (CUP) Councilman Huppert said he supports the conditional rezoning, but is concerned with the high volume of traffic on Cambria Street. He proposed that a study be done for improvements to the street. Councilman Ballengee said that approving the connector road realignment opened the door for this request. He voted against realigning the connector road at this time; however, to vote against this conditional rezoning would be to vote against the comprehensive plan. He will, therefore, support the conditional rezoning request. Councilman Barber suggested holding developers responsible for road improvements and upgrades along their developments. Councilwoman Carter said the first step to addressing traffic concerns is to do a traffic count and she suggested VDOT be contacted as soon as possible to do a traffic count. Council voted on the motion as follows: AYES: Ashworth, Ballengee, Barber, Carter, Huppert, and Wade. NAYS: None.
2. July 5, 2005 Town Council Meeting: CUP: “Mr. Cloe is also concerned about the proposed entrance to the development because of the limited sight distance when pulling out onto Cambria Street. He questioned the Homeowner’s Association regulations, placement of the Huckleberry Trail (which is proposed to run through this property), and again requested a traffic count be done along Cambria Street by VDOT (he first requested a traffic count along Cambria Street at the June 7, 2005 meeting).”
3. August 8, 2005 Town Council Meeting: Citizen Hearing: “MR. AL HESLIP addressed Council regarding a dispute he has had with a neighbor for four years. The dispute is due to the closing of an alleyway along his property. Mr. Heslip said that four years ago the Town denied his request to vacate the paper street, but determined that it had no plans to develop the street and gave him ‘No Through Traffic” signs to place at each end of the alley to effectively close the alleyway. This property is located along Nursery Lane. Apparently, a neighbor notified a department within the Town about the signs and the signs were removed. Law enforcement became involved and, according to Mr. Heslip, he was told that the street is public property and that he would need to remove his trailer and vehicles from the alleyway, or face further legal action. Mr. Heslip asked the Town to re-post the ‘No Through Traffic” signs. Town Manager Terpenny said he was unaware of these events and that he would investigate the matter tomorrow.”
4. August 16, 2005 Town Council Meeting: Citizen Hearing: “MR. AL HESLIP addressed Council concerning a complaint he brought before Council at the August 2, 2005 meeting regardi his wish to block an alleyway that runs along hisproperty. Town Manager Terpenny researched the mailer and reported that the “No Tlhru Traffic” signs will be reposted at the entranceways to the alley, in affect closing the alley to traffic. The police officer involved with removing the signs was unaware that the Town had allowed the closing of the alley several years ago. Mr. Heslip thanked Council and the Town Manager for the attention this matter received.”
5. September 6, 2005 Town Council Meeting: Rezoning request: “He is concerned about the affect the added homes will have on the water pressure in the area, but his main concern is with the increased traffic flow. Mr. Myers suggested opening up a second entrance into the community to help control traffic flow.”
6. November 1, 2005 Town Council Meeting: Rezoning request: “Councilman Huppert expressed his concern for the strain on the school system additional homes creates, as well as the heavy traffic flow at the intersection of Cambria Street and North Franklin Street. Mr. Woody commented that the biggest impact on the mentioned intersection is the bypass and the connector road should alleviate some traffic from this area. Ms. Caroline Walters of Orange Leaf Drive asked if a traffic count has been performed recently for this area and if Cambria Street is up to code as a collector road. Councilman Huppert replied that he performed an unofficial traffic count along Cambria Street near Sleepy Hollow several months ago. He reported no traffic back ups and a low volume of traffic. Manager Terpenny told Ms. Walters that Cambria Street is in compliance with collector road guidelines. Mr. Jim Cloe of Henley Drive is also concerned with traffic volume and worries that additional growth will increase the traffic flow. He suggested the Town require developers to help with road maintenance. Mrs. Jeannie Cloe insisted to Council that now is the time for an official traffic count along Cambria Street as well as on Route 114, which will be affected by the connector road. She also would like to see a count of the children in the area. which will impact the school system. Manager Terpenny commented that the four lane connector road is a future phase of the bypass to alleviate trafic from Route 11 4 and the intersection at Cambria Street and North Franklin Street.” … “Councilman Huppert expressed his continued concern with increased student enrollment in Christiansburg schools and increased traffic along Cambria Street. He suggested performing a traffic count at the intersection of Cambria Street and North Franklin Street and recommended tabling the request for further review. Councilman Ballengee agreed that traffic flow along Cambria Street is a concern for many residents; however, he believes a traffic count will be more accurate once the connector road is complete. Manager Terpenny said that the Town has the devices needed to perform a MIC count and can ask VDOT to apply their criteria for an accurate count. A traffic count can be completed by the next regular Council meeting. Councilwoman Carter commented that this is a land use motion and it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between land use and other issues. Council voted on the motion {to approve} as follows: AYES: Ashworth, Ballengee, Barber, Carter, Huppert, and Wade. NAYS: None.
7. December 6, 2005 Town Council Meeting: CUP: ” Ms. Doreen Sheppard, the applicant, explained that for the past six years she las kept up to five children in her home. Currently, she has four children, two of whlch are part-time care. Providing part-time care is her main focus, but the income generated by part-time care is not enough to support her family. She is requesting she be allowed up to eight children. To control potential traffic problems, she will meet the children at their car at drop off and will escort them to their car at pick up.”

(See Traffic 2006-2009 on separate page)