CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

Agenda Date: March 21, 2005

Action Required: Approval of VDOT Letter

Staff Contacts: James E. Tolbert, AICP, Director

Reviewed By: Gary O’Connell, City Manager

Title: Council Letter to VDOT referencing Meadow Creek Parkway Conditions

Background: In both 1999 and 2000, Council forwarded letters to the Virginia Department of Transportation regarding its position on the Meadow Creek Parkway. These twelve point letters have served as the basis for Council’s approval and direction that this project move forward. At your March 7, 2005 meeting, Council reviewed a new draft of the letter that provided an updated statement of the Council position and asked staff to make changes.

Discussion: Attached is an updated draft of the letter to VDOT. Several areas have been revised per Council discussion. They are as follows:

􀂃 Page One, second paragraph. Two alternative sets of language have been included in the letter for your consideration. The language in Alternative “A” would indicate that the points of this letter are conditions under which the City will move the project forward, thereby providing notice that without these conditions being met, the City will not support the project. Alternative “B” states that these are essential conditions that would allow the Council to support the project, but does not specifically state that they are conditions under which Council will move the project forward. Both of these positions were discussed by Council members at the March 7th meeting and two alternatives are provided so that Council can choose the tenor of the letter. City Council Agenda Memo Council Letter to VDOT

􀂃 Page Two, Section Four, (a) language has been added to state that any final design must include a grade separated interchange rather than a 17-lane at-grade interchange.

􀂃 Page Two, Section Four (b), language has been added that indicates Council desires to see a unified effort with the County and VDOT for a unified project that builds the interchange and the parkway at the same time.

􀂃 Page Four, Item 10. Language has been added indicating that the Council desires VDOT and the County to indicate their commitment to the eastern connector by providing funding for a location study that will be done within the next twelve months and indicates Council’s funding support for the location study. Additionally a second paragraph is added which stresses the importance of the southern parkway and asks for a commitment to funding for that project.

􀂃 Page Four, Item 11. The change here indicates that Council has appointed a Steering Committee to oversee the interchange project and that Council is desirous of expanding the responsibilities of this committee to include review of design issues associated with the entire Meadow Creek Parkway Project.

The other item that must be decided is the charge of the Committee. The two options are:

A. This committee will only be involved in the design of the interchange and its tie into the Meadow Creek Parkway.

B. The Committee will oversee the design of the interchange, but will also work to advise Council on design issues associated with the overall design of the parkway including the County section.

Budgetary Impact: None.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the letter be finalized so that design of the project can begin.

Attachments: Draft letter.

Mr. Phil Shucet
Mr. Leo Rutledge
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. City Council desires to see a unified effort with VDOT, Albemarle County, and the City working together to bring forth a singular project that includes the interchange , the City section, and the County section.

Alternative A. The comments below are intended to be conditions under which the City will move this project forward. While Council desires to construct the parkway, it believes that without satisfaction of all the conditions stated herein, the project will not improve traffic conditions in the City.

Alternative B. 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. 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).

This update and revision to the letter is based on action taken by the City Council on March 21, 2005 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, 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 approved the release of an RFP for engineering services for the design of this project.

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 Meadowcreek 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 believe 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 "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 Meadowcreek 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 is willing to help the County and VDOT with the funding of a location study for an Eastern Connector so that a route can be identified and reserved within the next 12 months.

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 multimodal 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 Steering Committee to work with the interchange design consultant and staff to achieve a compatible interchange design. We are also very interested in having this committee review and advise on the design issues related to the entire length of the parkway.

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