WELCOME

  • Charlottesville Tomorrow
    News Center

    The articles on this blog were published during 2005-2012. All of this content has been moved to our new website at www.cvilletomorrow.org
    © 2005-12 Charlottesville Tomorrow
    Our photos have some rights reserved.

Categories

« Rooker names engineer to County Planning Commission | Main | Planners endorse amendments for architectural review process »

December 11, 2009

Council approves Meadowcreek Parkway interchange; mitigation letters awaiting signatures

Reader comments (0)

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, December 11, 2009

On Monday, the Charlottesville City Council voted 3-2 to approve a design for an interchange to connect the Meadowcreek Parkway with Route 250 and McIntire Road, despite concerns from some in the community that it does not provide grade-separated pedestrian and bike access to McIntire Park.

The project will move forward after a memorandum of agreement is signed which lists how impacts to the park and other historic resources will be mitigated, and after the project is fully designed.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20091207-CC-MCP-Interchange

Council signs off on interchange after design tweaks

Since Council’s last meeting on the topic, several aspects of the design have been changed to satisfy their wishes. These changes include:

  • Addition of an north-south trail on the eastern side of the McIntire Road that will pass through skate park and Charlottesville Albemarle Rescue Squad.
  • A right-turn lane from south-bound Meadowcreek Parkway to west-bound 250 will be eliminated removing 11 feet of asphalt, reducing the amount of space that will need to be crossed. However, he lane may be built in the future if necessary.

Other requests were analyzed but not integrated into the design. In November, Council directed staff and project consultant RK&K to investigate two other ways to make the interchange safer for pedestrians.

20091209-MCP-Picture1 Conceptual drawing showing what the interchange might look like looking south (Click for larger image)

One was a possible tunnel underneath the on-ramps leading to Route 250. Jim Tolbert, the City’s Director of Neighborhood Development, said the idea is not feasible because such a structure would be too long and potentially unsafe.

The other way was to build a pedestrian bridge north of the interchange that would allow people to walk across the parkway. Citing research from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Tolbert explained that staff feels not enough pedestrians would use it to justify building it at this time. However, he said the project would be addressed in the McIntire Park master planning process.

“As we do the master plan and look towards where the trail systems might go, there might very well be a good location to cross the parkway,” Tolbert said.

20091209-MCP-HarrisConceptual drawing for Harris Street intersection, which has not been fully designed yet (Source: RK&K)

Another issue to be resolved is a design for a new intersection of Harris Street and McIntire Road. Tolbert said the new design must reduce the amount of asphalt at the intersections. Norris said he would have preferred those improvements to be considered along with interchange. Tolbert said that Council will see those plans as soon as they are developed.

The Charlottesville Albemarle Rescue Squad will be able to control the traffic signals to allow their emergency vehicles to access the interchange. If that solution does not work, Peery said a special emergency-only vehicle exit could be constructed at a later date.

Public comment

The public hearing on the interchange was held on October 29, 2009, so those who wanted to comment had to speak during Council’s general public comment opportunity.

James Schisler said the Meadowcreek Parkway is necessary to provide relieve to a congested Park Street and Rio Road.

City resident Patricia Napoleon called for a referendum on the entire project. County resident David Steinberg said there was no need to build more infrastructure for cars because the era of the automobile was coming to a close.

City resident and transportation activists called for an interchange that would clearly separate cars from bikes and pedestrians. City resident Randy Salzman said doing so would encourage more people to use alternative forms of transportation.

Daniel Bluestone, whose home is near the interchange, claimed that the design would not be accepted by federal highway officials. Colette Hall, president of the North Downtown Residents Association, said the price of the project was going to be well over $33 million, and that figure would not include the cost of mitigating the project’s impacts on historic resources.

Questions remain regarding mitigation to historic resources

At Monday’s meeting, critics of the plan argued that Council should not approve the interchange until the public has a chance to scrutinize a document that will lay out how the project’s impacts to McIntire Park and other historic resources will be mitigated. A memorandum of agreement (MOA) listing specific actions has not yet been signed by the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR).

“Isn’t it premature for us to approve a design before the MOA has been finalized and we know what the mitigation costs will be?” asked Mayor Dave Norris.

20091209-Peery Owen Peery appears before Council

Owen Peery, project manager for RK&K, said that the MOA is in final draft, which means that all the federal and state oversight bodies agree on the various mitigating steps. Council will have to approve the MOA before the project can go to bid. 

Charlottesville Tomorrow has obtained a copy of the draft MOA from July 2009, as well as letters from the ACHP and VHDR giving their feedback.

The following is a summary of recommended mitigation techniques which will be overseen by the Federal Highway Administration.

  • The City must document the existing conditions at the landscape of the former Rock Hill Academy as well as the portions of McIntire Park.
  • The City will provide interpretive signs explaining the history of the park and the academy at a cost not to exceed $12,000.
  • City must develop landscape design plans for the McIntire Park and the Dogwood Vietnam Memorial (up to $150,000) and the Rock Hill landscape (up to $25,000) as well as a plan to plant screening vegetation at CARS as well as at 501 and 502 Park Hill.
  • City shall develop an archaeological treatment plan for the Rock Hill landscape (up to $25,000).
  • Interchange design should keep pedestrian trail on western side of McIntire Road to allow for shorter bridge, bridge should be lowered, and retaining wall should be built in front of Dogwood Vietnam Memorial.
  • If a previously unknown archaeological resource is found, City must require contractor to halt construction in area of discovery. Federal and state officials must be notified and further mitigating steps will need to be recommended.

The ACHP in a letter dated October 30, 2009 called for the following steps to be added to the MOA:

  • Future of McIntire Golf Course to be made within City planning process.
  • City should minimize impact to Rock Hill landscape to fullest extent possible, avoiding direct impacts to terraced gardens. Contractor must be educated about importance of Rock Hill landscape.
  • Public access to Rock Hill landscape should be considered.
  • City should work with MACAA to develop partnership to rehabilitate and restore Rock Hill landscape.
  • More details on screening vegetation should be in MOA.

VDHR has agreed with the recommendations made by ACHP. A final draft MOA which incorporates feedback from the ACHP and the VHDR is in development but has not yet been obtained by Charlottesville Tomorrow.

Download Download the July 2009 Draft Memorandum of Agreement

Download Download the October 30, 2009 letter from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Download Download the November 16, 2009 letter from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources

Council approves interchange; Norris seeks more answers

20091207-Norris

Mayor Dave Norris

Council approved the interchange design on a 3-2 vote with Norris and Councilor Holly Edwards voting against. However, Norris acknowledged that the interchange will provide better access to McIntire Park for pedestrians and cyclists.

Councilor Satyendra Huja said the project has been discussed and designed for over 40 years.

“Given the need has been identified, I think this is the best we could do right now,” Huja said.

After the vote, parkway opponent Peter Kleeman said he was concerned that the project was not fully funded. He said there was a least a $1 million shortfall that he said could climb higher when all of the mitigation steps are fully identified.

“It appears to me that the material that has been presented to you is a bit rosy in saying that all of these loose ends have been tied together,” Kleeman said.

Council’s resolution on Monday authorized City Manager Gary O’Connell to sign the MOA when it is finished. Signatures by the various consulting parties (including Kleeman’s, Hall’s and Bluestone’s who are consulting parties) are not required for the MOA to go into effect.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Norris asked staff to report back on the status of the memorandum of understanding as well as the alleged $1 million funding gap.

In an interview Wednesday with Charlottesville Tomorrow, Tolbert said when the entire federal earmark of $27 million is factored in with revenue sharing money from VDOT, the project’s fund balance is $700,000 over the cost estimate. He said the City has applied for revenue sharing money from VDOT that has also helped fund the project.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

  • 01:00 - Public comment from Jim Schisler in favor of the interchange and Meadowcreek Parkway
  • 03:00 - Public comment from Pat Napoleon against the interchange and Meadowcreek Parkway
  • 04:40 - Public comment from David Steinberg against the interchange and Meadowcreek Parkway
  • 07:50 - Public comment from Randy Salzman calling for interchange to have grade-separated trails 
  • 10:30 - Public comment from Colette Hall against the interchange and Meadowcreek Parkway
  • 14:10 - Public comment from Daniel Bluestone against the against the interchange and Meadowcreek Parkway
  • 17:45 - Presentation from Jim Tolbert, Director of Neighborhood Development Services
  • 22:45 - Tolbert explains why a tunnel is not necessary
  • 24:45 - Tolbert says the intersection of McIntire and Harris has not yet been redesigned 
  • 28:40 - Tolbert explains why staff feels the pedestrian bridge will not be used
  • 31:15 - Tolbert describes the resolution that is under
  • 32:20 - Councilor Brown asks for clarification for which design the resolution addresses
  • 34:15 - Councilor Brown asks Tolbert how far away from the road certain ramps will be
  • 37:45 - Mayor Dave Norris asks if it is premature to approve interchange before the Section 106 process is complete
  • 37:20 - Owen Peery of RK&K updates Council on the Section 106 process
  • 39:30 - Norris asks Peery about how CARS will access the interchange
  • 42:45 - Norris asks Peery if a turn lane from north-bound McIntire Road to east-bound Route 250 can be removed
  • 46:55 - Norris says Harris Street improvements
  • 50:45 - Resolution received first and second, and then approved on a 3-2 vote
  • 54:40 - Councilor Satyendra Huja makes statement about project
  • 55:20 - Public comment from Peter Kleeman
  • 59:30 - Public comment from Sonia Ingram from Preservation Virginia
  • 1:01:00 - Norris says he is "troubled" by Kleeman and Ingram's comments and asks staff to report back on memoranda of agreements and funding

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834519bec69e20120a73fe9ed970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Council approves Meadowcreek Parkway interchange; mitigation letters awaiting signatures:

Comments

Comment policy: First and last names are both required and anonymous comments are not allowed. Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this website until the editor has approved them.