January 18, 2006

Mr. Greg Whirley
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219-1939

Mr. Dennis Rooker
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901

RE: McIntire Road Extension (Meadow Creek Parkway)
VDOT Project U000-104-102:0631-002-128 City of Charlottesville

Gentlemen:

On December 11, 2000, Mayor Blake Caravati sent a letter to VDOT officials regarding the City’s stance on the Meadow Creek Parkway. This letter was in follow-up to a previous letter from the City dated July 20, 1999. While we are committed to a completed Meadow Creek Parkway as designed at this time, we are excited about the funding for the interchange project, which will greatly improve the function of the Parkway.

The conditions below are enumerated as essential conditions that will allow Council to support the project. Council desires to construct the project and believes adherence to the issues outlined below will lead to a better transportation network for our community. We do desire prior to bidding the project to review the final construction plans for compliance with all conditions below that are design specific. Set forth below using the same numbering system that was utilized initially are all 12 points of the City’s position, as revised (paragraphs that contain revisions when compared to the December 11th shown are shown in bold italics). Council acknowledges that VDOT has made substantial progress in meeting conditions outlined in the letter.

This update and revision to the letter is based on action taken by the City Council on January 17, 2006 to move this project forward.

1. Design Speed. Each and every member of Council opposes the roadway design speed proposed by VDOT of 70 km/hr. Instead, Council asks that the Meadow Creek Parkway be designed for a maximum speed of 60km/hr or 37.25 MPH. In conjunction with its suggestion to lower the road's design speed, Council also asks that the proposed road be sized and aligned in a manner consistent with the Rieley Report so that the road will be “blended as gracefully as possible into the existing land form." This should help to reduce the project’s impact on McIntire Park. (VDOT's amended plans have responded to this comment by lowering design speed).

2. Number of Lanes. Council requests that two (2) primary (north-south) motor vehicle travel lanes, rather than four (4), together with bike lanes and pedestrian paths, be constructed (between the 250 By-pass and Rio Road). The footprint for the Parkway acquisition must have a centerline, curves, and size to match approximately the "2-U Study Alignment" (2-Lane Undivided) identified on Page 6 in the first Rieley Report (dated April 27, 1999) entitled "Alternative Alignments and Profiles." VDOT’s amended plans comply with this request.

3. Sufficient Right-of-Way for Two (2) Lanes. Right of way for only two (2) lanes of motor vehicle travel, bike lanes and pedestrian paths should be acquired at the outset as part of the current project. Right-of-way plans show road right-of-way sufficient for two lanes only.

4. The Intersection at Route 250.

(a) Proper design of this intersection is critical if this project is to succeed without considerable damage to the Park. In our opinion, any final design has to include a grade separated interchange.

Access for pedestrians and bicycle travel to McIntire Park at the proposed intersection also must be accommodated in an effective manner for the intersection to work as we desire and in accord with the second Rieley Report (dated August 31, 2000). This is best achieved by a grade separated interchange.

(b) While the approval process, design and construction of the Parkway project goes forward, Council is committed to seeking VDOT funding and approval for a second project - one that results in a tight urban interchange which replaces the intersection described in section 4a. Council's commitment is based in part on recommendations contained in an October 2000 report of Rieley & Associates, and in part on a belief that such an interchange will operate more efficiently, allow for safe pedestrian and bicycle access to the Park, provide aesthetically pleasing access to the City, and help address long term traffic movement needs between the 250 by-pass and the Parkway. Council desires to work with VDOT and Albemarle County to pursue funds to construct the interchange at the same time as the Meadow Creek Parkway. To further underscore a desire on the City's part to facilitate this second project, the City is willing to perform design, bid, and construction phases of this second project - all within the required oversight parameters for this type of process. Council has engaged a firm for engineering services for the design of this project and thanks VDOT, the County Board of Supervisors, and especially Senator Warner for their efforts to secure funding for the interchange. We remain committed to this project as a necessary improvement to both the U. S. 250 Bypass and the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway.

5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel. Council endorses the construction of dedicated "on road" bicycle lanes on each side of the Parkway's north-south travel lanes to serve high speed cyclists. In addition and in accord with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (the MPO) recommendation, Council also supports construction of a shared pedestrian/bicycle path much like the one proposed by the VDOT design, but eight rather than five feet in width. Current plans show a five foot shared pedestrian/bike path. This should be eight feet.

6. A New Lake or Pond for the Park. Combination of the storm water management facilities into one pond or "lake", as in the Rieley report, is essential. The City will do everything within reason to expand this concept in cooperation with VDOT. Everyone will benefit, park and outdoors enthusiasts, and motorists using the Parkway. The current pond design is acceptable to the City.

7. Additional Park Land. The City's approval for the Meadow Creek Parkway design shall be and is contingent upon the acquisition of replacement parkland and green space by the City , the County, and VDOT to create a greater contiguous Park, for the use of our citizens throughout the region and confirm the status of this new road as a true Parkway. This new park land and green space is intended to replace the land lost to the Parkway as well as the loss of use imposed on some of the remaining portions of McIntire Park. It is also intended to serve as a community asset for Park/Rio and its environs, and to protect the view shed surrounding the Parkway and Park/Rio Road. While an expert evaluation could be provided by a third party, such as the Va. Department of Conservation and Recreation, we suggest that 50 acres of land, contiguous to the existing park would be an appropriate replacement amount. The City believes the park acquisition plan shown on the attached drawing (Exhibit “A”) meets this requirement and will only support the project with this land acquisition proposal and a commitment from the County to begin acquisition.

8. Cell Towers. To supplement its revenues, VDOT has begun leasing portions of the public rights-of-way that VDOT now "owns" - property originally acquired solely for traditional road system purposes. Such leases transfer long term use of various sites to private companies who then construct wireless telecommunication towers ("Cell towers") on the sites along our highways.

Cell towers are just as unsightly as billboards, perhaps more so, because they are larger or taller or both. Yet, construction of these towers continues to proliferate in Virginia. This new cell tower- highway program has occurred without any local government zoning or land use oversight or permission, and without any meaningful opportunity for the public to participate in deciding where the next tower will appear. For these reasons, the City is opposed to any construction of such towers anywhere along Phase I of this project without the express permission of this Council and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County. We wish to see VDOT's agreement to this local government involvement memorialized in a formal document as the project moves forward. No change in our position.

9. Limited Access. Council endorses the concept of a limited access Parkway for this road for its entire length, from the 250 bypass to Rio Road, except for the single intersection of Melbourne Road. It should be engineered for passenger traffic only, and signed to prevent truck traffic. Council chooses not to recommend fencing the right of way as is conventional in many limited access highways. As the Rieley Report indicates, "with the lower speed design and the objective of making this roadway as much a part of the park as is possible" fencing is not "necessary or desirable". The plans address this concern.

10. Regional Transportation and the Eastern Connector. While the Council supports construction of a two lane version of the Meadow Creek Parkway as described in this letter, Council has no interest in this Parkway's becoming a de facto "eastern connector", i.e. , being used by the public to travel from Route 29 North to Pantops-Route 20 North. The Parkway should be viewed as only one small part of the regional transportation solution. To this end, the City's approval of the Meadow Creek Parkway is contingent upon receipt of a commitment within six months from the date of this resolution from Albemarle County and the University of Virginia, in cooperation with the MPO and VDOT, to develop a new regional transportation network plan which, among other things, will minimize increases in automobile traffic in City and County neighborhoods through the year 2015. Development of this plan shall include focus on reviewing all data that has been created. The goal of the plan shall be to develop new regional solutions to our current and future traffic problems, without adversely impacting existing City and County residents or businesses or overly depleting our region's natural resources. The recently approved CHART plan provides the planning framework for this regional network. City Council is now desirous that the County and VDOT demonstrate a firm commitment to the Eastern Connector. Specifically, the City has committed $250,000 towards funding a location study as has the Board of Supervisors. An RFP is being developed so this study can proceed.

The City also expects to see a funding commitment for the Southern Parkway by VDOT and/or the County by 2008 before construction begins on the parkway. This is another important road that is needed to further complete the area road network.

11. The MPO Meadow Creek Parkway Design Advisory Committee. This Committee is commended by Council for its extensive work on the preliminary Parkway designs heretofore put forward by VDOT. We urge VDOT to continue to work with this Committee to ensure "that the road is compatible with the community’s natural and built environment, and enhances the multi-modal mobility for area residents". To the extent that the Advisory Committee needs assistance in the future from the City in these continuing efforts, the City may hire a technical consultant to monitor design and construction, and seeks VDOT cooperation in addressing legitimate concerns of this Council and City staff as the process moves forward. The Committee participated in this effort and achieved a successful design of the project. Council has developed a new Steering Committee to work with the interchange design consultant and staff to achieve a compatible interchange design.

12. Vietnam War Memorial. As final design plans evolve, proper measures must be taken by VDOT in cooperation with the City to protect, preserve, and care for the War Memorial which currently is located on a hill in McIntire Park near the proposed intersection of the Parkway and the 250 By-Pass. No change in our concern.

The foregoing items - one by one - are each in their own right important, crucial, elements in any final design that the City and this Council will support. These components were coupled together in order for Council to build a consensus. To the extent that the City has any right, by law or practice, to approve the final design, we ask and expect that VDOT will remember this linkage.

Finally, if there are questions that VDOT or the County have about Council's position as stated in this letter, please let us know, through contact with City staff or with me. We stand ready to cooperate in moving this project from the proverbial drawing board to construction.

Sincerely yours,

David E. Brown
Mayor

cc: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
John J. Davies, III

DESIGN PUBLIC HEARING APPROVAL RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, a Design Public Hearing was conducted on May 27, 1999 in the City of Charlottesville by representatives of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation after due and proper notice for the purpose of considering the proposed design of the McIntire Road Project #U000-104-V02, C501 in the City of Charlottesville, at which hearing aerial photographs, drawings and other pertinent information were made available for public inspection in accordance with state and federal requirements; and

WHEREAS, all persons and parties in attendance were afforded full opportunity to participate in said public hearing; and

WHEREAS, representatives of the City of Charlottesville were present and participated in said hearing; and

WHEREAS, the Council had previously requested the Virginia Department of Transportation to program this project; and

WHEREAS, following the Design Public Hearing the City of Charlottesville, through its City Council, and the Commonwealth of Virginia, through its Department of Transportation, agreed to changes in the design as presented at the public hearing, which changes reduced the scope of the Project in order to minimize its impact on McIntire Park, and

WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has previously expressed its conditional support for this Project in letters to the Virginia Department of Transportation dated July 20, 1999 and December 11, 2000, and

WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville now reaffirms its previously-stated position that the Meadow Creek Parkway should only be built under certain conditions, which conditions are set forth in the attached letter from Mayor David Brown to Greg Whirley of the Virginia Department of Transportation and Dennis Rooker of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors dated January 18, 2006 and attached hereto as Exhibit A; and

WHEREAS, it now appears that adequate funding will be available to fulfill the condition stated in paragraph 4 of Exhibit A, regarding the design and construction of a separate project at the intersection of U.S. Route 250, McIntire Road and the Meadow Creek Parkway; and

WHEREAS, in light of the progress made toward the fulfillment of the conditions stated in Exhibit A, the City of Charlottesville is willing to approve the agreed-upon design and request the Department of Transportation to proceed with acquisition of the right-of-way necessary for the Project, and

WHEREAS, the Council considered all such matters; now

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Charlottesville hereby approves the major design features of the proposed project presented at the Public Hearing, as subsequently modified by mutual agreement between the City and the Commonwealth; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Charlottesville will acquire and/or furnish all City right-of-way necessary for this project and certify same to the Department at the appropriate time.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Charlottesville requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to acquire all rights of way necessary for this project conveying said right-of-way to the City at the appropriate time.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City of Charlottesville, all necessary railroad and utility agreements required in conjunction with acquiring such rights of way, and, upon written confirmation from the City to the Commonwealth that all agreed-upon conditions for constructing the Meadow Creek Parkway as set forth in the attached Exhibit A have been substantially fulfilled, the City Manager shall be authorized to execute all other associated standard agreements for construction activities.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that actual construction of the McIntire Road Project #U000-104-V02, C501 in the City of Charlottesville should not proceed if any of the conditions stated in Exhibit A are unfulfilled due to factors beyond the control of the City.

If you are opposed to moving this project forward, this is a critical time for you to let your voice be heard by council. Your last option for comment may be at the 7:00 pm "Matters from the Public" opportunity at city council chambers on January 17, 2006.

CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

Agenda Date: January 17, 2006
Action Required: Approval of Resolution
Staff Contacts: James E. Tolbert, AICP, Director
Reviewed By: Gary O’Connell, City Manager
Title: Meadow Creek Parkway Programming Resolution

Background: For many years the City Council has been working with VDOT to move forward the Meadow Creek Parkway project. In 2000, the City Council gave a letter to VDOT outlining the conditions by which the project could move forward. At this point those conditions have substantially been met and it is necessary for City Council to pass a resolution asking VDOT to continue with the project.

Additionally there is a letter attached which updates the 2001 letter to VDOT and clearly articulates the City position regarding the relationship of the interchange to the Parkway.

Discussion: The attached resolution will authorize VDOT to begin property acquisition and utility relocation in an attempt to get the project under construction on schedule in 2008. They are not authorized to proceed with right-of-way acquisition until they receive a copy of the resolution. This project is being done independently of the Meadow Creek Parkway Interchange and in order to stay on its schedule, the process for right-of-way acquisition must begin as soon as possible.

Budgetary Impact: The City share of this project cost is 2% and is budgeted.

Recommendations: Staff recommends the passage of the resolution so the project can proceed. The letter which outlines our intentions should also be authorized.

Attachments: Resolution; Letter

Mr. Greg Whirley
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219-1939

Mr. Dennis Rooker
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901

RE: McIntire Road Extension (Meadow Creek Parkway) VDOT Project U000-104-102:0631-002-128 City of Charlottesville

Gentlemen:

On December 11, 2000, Mayor Blake Caravati sent a letter to VDOT officials regarding the City’s stance on the Meadow Creek Parkway. This letter was in follow-up to a previous letter from the City dated July 20, 1999. While we are committed to a completed Meadow Creek Parkway as designed at this time, we are excited about the funding for the interchange project, which will greatly improve the function of the Parkway.

The conditions below are enumerated as essential conditions that will allow Council to support the project. Council desires to construct the project and believes adherence to the issues outlined below will lead to a better transportation network for our community. We do desire to review the final construction plans for compliance with all conditions below that are design specific. Set forth below using the same numbering system that was utilized initially are all 12 points of the City’s position, as revised (paragraphs that contain revisions when compared to the December 11th shown are shown in bold italics). Council acknowledges that all conditions outlined in the letter have, or are close to being addressed.

This update and revision to the letter is based on action taken by the City Council on January 17, 2006 to move this project forward.

1. Design Speed. Each and every member of Council opposes the roadway design speed proposed by VDOT of 70 km/hr. Instead, Council asks that the Meadow Creek Parkway be designed for a maximum speed of 60km/hr or 37.25 MPH. In conjunction with its suggestion to lower the road's design speed, Council also asks that the proposed road be sized and aligned in a manner consistent with the Rieley Report so that the road will be “blended as gracefully as possible into the existing land form." This should help to reduce the project’s impact on McIntire Park. (VDOT's amended plans have responded to this comment by lowering design speed).

2. Number of Lanes. Council requests that two (2) primary (north-south) motor vehicle travel lanes, rather than four (4), together with bike lanes and pedestrian paths, be constructed (between the 250 By-pass and Rio Road). The footprint for the Parkway acquisition must have a centerline, curves, and size to match approximately the "2-U Study Alignment" (2-Lane Undivided) identified on Page 6 in the first Rieley Report (dated April 27, 1999) entitled "Alternative Alignments and Profiles." VDOT’s amended plans c omply with this request.

3. Sufficient Right-of-Way for Two (2) Lanes. Right of way for only two (2) lanes of motor vehicle travel, bike lanes and pedestrian paths should be acquired at the outset as part of the current project. Right-of-way plans show road right-of-way sufficient for two lanes only.

4 . The Intersection at Route 250.

(a) Proper design of this intersection is critical if this project is to succeed without considerable damage to the Park. In our opinion, any final design has to include a grade separate d interchange.

Access for pedestrians and bicycle travel to McIntire Park at the proposed intersection also must be accommodated in an effective manner for the intersection to work as we desire and in accord with the second Rieley Report (dated August 31, 2000, copy of which is enclosed). This is best achieved by a grade separated interchange.

(b) While the approval process, design and construction of the Parkway project goes forward, Council is committed to seeking VDOT funding and approval for a second project - one that results in a tight urban interchange which replaces the intersection described in section 4a. Council's commitment is based in part on recommendations contained in an October 2000 report of Rieley & Associates, and in part on a belief that such an interchange will operate more efficiently, allow for safe pedestrian and bicycle access to the Park, provide aesthetically pleasing access to the City, and help address long term traffic movement needs between the 250 by-pass and the Parkway. Council desires to work with VDOT and Albemarle County to pursue funds to construct the interchange at the same time as the Meadow Creek Parkway. To further underscore a desire on the City's part to facilitate this second project, the City is willing to perform design, bid, and construction phases of this second project - all within the required oversight parameters for this type of process. Council has engaged a firm for engineering services for the design of this project and thanks VDOT, the County Board of Supervisors, and especially Senator Warner for their efforts to secure funding for the interchange. We remain committed to this project as a necessary improvement to both the U. S. 250 Bypass and the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway.

5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel. Council endorses the construction of dedicated "on road" bicycle lanes on each side of the Parkway's north-south travel lanes to serve high speed cyclists. In addition and in accord with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (the MPO) recommendation, Council also supports construction of a shared pedestrian/bicycle path much like the one proposed by the VDOT design, but eight rather than five feet in width. Current plans show a five foot shared pedestrian/bike path. This should be eight feet.

6. A New Lake or Pond for the Park. Combination of the storm water management facilities into one pond or "lake", as in the Rieley report, is essential. The City will do everything within reason to expand this concept in cooperation with VDOT. Everyone will benefit, park and outdoors enthusiasts, and motorists using the Parkway. The current pond design is acceptable to the City.

7. Additional Park Land. The City's approval for the Meadow Creek Parkway design shall be and is contingent upon the acquisition of replacement parkland and green space by the City , the County, and VDOT to create a greater contiguous Park, for the use of our citizens throughout the region and confirm the status of this new road as a true Parkway. This new park land and green space is intended to replace the land lost to the Parkway as well as the loss of use imposed on some of the remaining portions of McIntire Park. It is also intended to serve as a community asset for Park/Rio and its environs, and to protect the view shed surrounding the Parkway and Park/Rio Road. While an expert evaluation could be provided by a third party, such as the Va. Department of Conservation and Recreation, we suggest that 50 acres of land, contiguous to the existing park would be an appropriate replacement amount. The City believes the park acquisition plan shown on the attached drawing (Exhibit “A”) meets this requirement and will support the project with this land acquisition proposal and a commitment from the County to begin acquisition.

8. Cell Towers. To supplement its revenues, VDOT has begun leasing portions of the public rights-of-way that VDOT now "owns" - property originally acquired solely for traditional road system purposes. Such leases transfer long term use of various sites to private companies who then construct wireless telecommunication towers ("Cell towers") on the sites along our highways. Cell towers are just as unsightly as billboards, perhaps more so, because they are larger or taller or both. Yet, construction of these towers continues to proliferate in Virginia. This new cell tower- highway program has occurred without any local government zoning or land use oversight or permission, and without any meaningful opportunity for the public to participate in deciding where the next tower will appear. For these reasons, the City is opposed to any construction of such towers anywhere along Phase I of this project without the express permission of this Council and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County. We wish to see VDOT's agreement to this local government involvement memorialized in a formal document as the project moves forward. No change in our position.

9. Limited Access. Council endorses the concept of a limited access Parkway for this road for its entire length, from the 250 bypass to Rio Road, except for the single intersection of Melbourne Road. It should be engineered for passenger traffic only, and signed to prevent truck traffic. Council chooses not to recommend fencing the right of way as is conventional in many limited access highways. As the Rieley Report indicates, "with the lower speed design and the objective of making this roadway as much a part of the park as is possible" fencing is not "necess ary or desirable". The plans address this concern.

10. Regional Transportation and the Eastern Connector. While the Council supports construction of a two lane version of the Meadow Creek Parkway as described in this letter, Council has no interest in this Parkway's becoming a de facto "eastern connector", i.e., being used by the public to travel from Route 29 North to Pantops-Route 20 North. The Parkway should be viewed as only one small part of the regional transportation solution. To this end, the City's approval of the Meadow Creek Parkway is contingent upon receipt of a commitment within six months from the date of this resolution from Albemarle County and the University of Virginia, in cooperation with the MPO and VDOT, to develop a new regional transportation network plan which, among other things, will minimize increases in automobile traffic in City and County neighborhoods through the year 2015. Development of this plan shall include focus on reviewing all data that has been created. The goal of the plan shall be to develop new regional solutions to our current and future traffic problems, without adversely impacting existing City and County residents or businesses or overly depleting our region's natural resources. The recently approved CHART plan provides the planning framework for this regional network. City Council is now desirous that the County and VDOT demonstrate a firm commitment to the Eastern Connector. Specifically, the City has committed $250,000 towards funding a location study as has the Board of Supervisors. An RFP is being developed so this study can proceed.

The City also expects to see a funding commitment for the Southern Parkway by VDOT and/or the County. This is another incredibly important road that is needed to further complete the area road network.

11. The MPO Meadow Creek Parkway Design Advisory Committee. This Committee is commended by Council for its extensive work on the preliminary Parkway designs heretofore put forward by VDOT. We urge VDOT to continue to work with this Committee to ensure "that the road is compatible with the community’s natural and built environment, and enhances the multi-modal mobility for area residents". To the extent that the Advisory Committee needs assistance in the future from the City in these continuing efforts, the City may hire a technical consultant to monitor design and construction, and seeks VDOT cooperation in addressing legitimate concerns of this Council and City staff as the process moves forward. The Committee participated in this effort and achieved a successful design of the project. Council has developed a new Steering Committee to work with the interchange design consultant and staff to achieve a compatible interchange design.

12. Vietnam War Memorial. As final design plans evolve, proper measures must be taken by VDOT in cooperation with the City to protect, preserve, and care for the War Memorial which currently is located on a hill in McIntire Park near the proposed intersection of the Parkway and the 250 By-Pass. No change in our concern.

The foregoing items - one by one - are each in their own right important, crucial, elements in any final design that the City and this Council will support. These components were coupled together in order for Council to build a consensus. To the extent that the City has any right, by law or practice, to approve the final design, we ask and expect that VDOT will remember this linkage.

Finally, if there are questions that VDOT or the County have about Council's position as stated in this letter, please let us know, through contact with City staff or with me. We stand ready to cooperate in moving this project from the proverbial drawing board to construction.

Sincerely yours,

David Brown
Mayor

cc: Board of Supervisors