HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 19 1993 PC Minutes10-19-93
1
OCTOBER 19, 1993
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, October 19, 1993, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson,
Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr.
Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other
officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; and Mr. JuanDiego Wade,
Transportation Planner. Absent: County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the
October 5, 1993 (5:15 Work Session) were approved as
amended.
Meadow Creek Parkway (North „of Rio Road)
Mr. Cilimberg briefly introduced the topic. Mr. Wade
pointed out the consultant's recommended alignment of the
parkway (V2, G1, T1, Y1, W1, and W2). He noted that staff
is currently studying the impact of the new alignment for
the western bypass (recently proposed by VDOT) on this
alignment of the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Public Comment:
Ms. Lisa Glass, representing Piedmont Environmental Council:
She read a prepared statement. (See Attachment A.) Her
statement expressed support for the proposed route,
particularly Y1. Her statement concluded: "This route
should not be judged as a by-pass to aid through traffic,
but as a new major collector route designed to serve local
traffic. As such it will work best if it goes to, and from,
places that people work and live, and that is just what this
route does." Referring to the Y1 alignment, she recommended
that steps be taken to "preserve options to protect the
alignment for the two corridors so that if, in the future,
those residential communities would support such a
connector, the opportunity will be available." Though Ms.
Glass had purposely omitted a sentence from her statement,
Mr. Blue insisted on reading the sentence which was as
follows: "Combined with the western by --pass, it will
provide a direct link to the University of Virginia." Ms.
Glass explained she had omitted the statement because she
felt it "might be an overstatement" because of the
uncertainty of the location of the alignment and the number
of connectors. Ms. Glass answered various Commission
questions about her statement as follows:
--The study referred to in No. 3 is the CAT Study.
--The project recommendation referred to in No. 3
refers to an "alignment within this corridor," but not this
417
10-19-93 2
particular alignment. She clarified that the recommendation
of the CAT Study, VDOT staff, CTB, the City, UVA and the
County which she referred to was for a "parallel road in the
29 area that does make a connection, that is close enough in
that you can pick up the residential districts...."
Mr. Johnson attempted to clarify whether the PEC's statement
supported the alignment proposed by the consultant or
generally "another route to the north, not necessarily
this." Ms. Glass responded: "You asked me if I was
referring to two direct routes from the other plans. No.
As I said, we support the plan that's before you now.
Basically I feel that, all of the following, this one
certainly does what we are talking about it needs to do."
Mr. Blue noted it was his understanding that VDOT has not
supported this alignment, rather they have supported the
CATS plan which did connect to Profitt.
Mr. Nitchmann also noted that he was not aware of any
written support for this particular alignment by any of the
groups referred to in Ms. Glass' statement. Mr. Cilimberg
explained that the 4-party agreement (City/County/WA/VDOT)
"specifically identifies undertaking all the CATS projects,
including the full Meadow Creek Parkway. It doesn't pin it
down to an alignment; it simply supports the Meadow Creek
Parkway and that would actually be a priority of all the
CATS improvements before a western bypass would be built.
In addition, the CATS does show a Meadow Creek Parkway
alignment up to Rt. 29."
She confirmed that PEC supports this alignment "over" other
options discussed recently by the Commission, i.e.
improvements to Profitt Road and making a connection further
north and east.
Mr. Johnson noted that the CAT Study had recommended
"essentially, B1, going straight up and connecting with
T4... with a maximum of two spurs to the west area into the
Hollymead/Forest Lakes area." Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that
it had also shown a connection to Profitt Road.
Public comment continued.
Ms. Cynthia Hash, representing the Forest Lakes homeowners:
She presented a petition (signed by 94% of the Forest Lakes
homeowners) which supported the "W's instead of the T's."
[Mr. John MacDonald, President of Forest Lakes Homeowner's
Association, later referred to this petition and stated that
567 residents had signed in opposition to the Ti connector.
Only 6 residents had supported T1.] She asked the Commission
to require that, in the future, the possible locations of
future roads be shown on subdivision plats. Ms. Hash gave
a visual presentation which compared the proposed alignment
0V/0
10-19-93
3
with various options. She recommended that studies be
undertaken to establish an alignment that would follow the
Southern Railway, "all the way to 649, possibly to 600, and
which would encompass a larger geographical area."
Referring to Ms. Hash's support for the W's, Mr. Johnson
felt it was inconceivable to believe that Forest Lakes
residents would use the W's to cross Rt. 29 and then connect
to 29 later at a point farther south. Ms. Hash explained:
"If the insistence is to connect us to Meadow Creek Parkway,
then we would prefer it be by the W's because of the lesser
impact. She agreed that if the alignment were to follow
along the Southern Railroad and connect to 649, fewer Forest
Lakes residents would use the W's. She felt the relation of
the W's to a western bypass was a separate issue.
Other Forest Lakes and Hollymead residents who expressed
opposition to the consultant's alignment and a road over the
dam were as follows: Mr. Eric Caplan; Mr. Jeff Anchor; John
MacDonald (President of Forest Lakes Homeowner's
Association); Mr. Michael Guild and Ms. Sue Stebbins.
Comments included the following:
--Forest Lakes already connects to Profitt, though it
is not a "direct" connection.
--Could "external" traffic be prohibited from using
Worth Crossing and Profitt Road? (Mr. Blue did not think
this would be an attractive route for persons coming from
the North to connect to the Meadow Creek Parkway.)
--If this alignment is built, can the Commission
require that bike and pedestrian pathways be included?
--Residents of Forest Lakes North are "overwhelmingly"
against a road connecting the neighborhoods. They believe a
connecting road will triple or quadruple traffic on their
residential streets.
--Can action be taken now to prevent the construction
of TI from ever taking place?
Ms. Lynn Reon, a resident of Dunlora Subdivision, expressed
opposition to the B2 alignment (which runs through the
Donlora entrance). In response to Mr. Blue's question, she
confirmed that she would not object if the portion of the
Parkway south of Dunlora (towards Charlottesville) ended at
the Vo-Tech School and tied into the already approved Rio
Road. Mr. Blue noted that any alignment of the northern
section of the Parkway would effect Dunlora, but the
southern section could be tied in at the Vo-Tech School
without effecting Dunlora.
In response to Mr. Johnson's request, Mr. Cilimberg
described how the northern section of the Parkway would
effect Dunlora. Mr. Johnson concluded that the
"interference" was exclusively at the entrance, and would
not go through Dunlora property "per se."
10-19-93
4
Ms. Margaret Fowler, whose property adjoins Dunlora,
addressed the Commission. She expressed frustration with
the fact that discussion of this Parkway for the last 20
years has been a "threat" to plans for the future of her
property. She questioned the need for this multi -million
dollar road which is projected to serve only 8,000 vt/day by
the year 2015. She felt the widening of 29 North would
accommodate the traffic generated by the businesses.
Ms. Sue Wilson, a resident of Dunlora, addressed the
Commission. She explained how the threat of the Parkway has
adversely effected her attempts to sell her home.
Ms. MaryAnn Kasevitch (?), a Dunlora resident, pointed out
that while only the entrance and tennis courts may be
directly impacted, there are homes only a couple of hundred
yards from the entrance. She stressed that the noise would
have a profound impact on those homes.
Mr. Don Wagner, representing the North Charlottesville
Business Council, addressed the Commission. He stated the
Council was in favor of the Meadow Creek Parkway. "While we
have been, and still are, in favor of the Meadow Creek
Parkway as an alternate way to get people in and out of
town, we have not taken a similar position on the various
feeder roads. ... The Business Council, in affirming our
support of the Meadow Creek Parkway, is not in any way
affirming its support of the roads in the neighborhoods
where the neighbors are fighting it." Mr. Wagner expressed
no fear of an alignment farther to the east because he was
of the opinion that such a road would not hurt the 29
businesses because people who want to shop on Rt. 29 will
continue to do so. Mr. Johnson asked if Mr. Wagner's
support for a Meadow Creek Parkway was actually support for
"an access to the North parallel to 29 but not necessarily
this configuration." Mr. Wagner replied: "Yes." Mr. Wagner
confirmed that he was not taking any position on a B2, G1,
Y1 configuration.
There was considerable dicussion at various times throughout
the hearing on a connection between the Forest Lakes and
Hollymead neighborhoods and the construction of a road
crossing the dam. Mr. Grimm read a letter from Mr. Stephen
Runkle (representing Mr. Frank Kessler, developer of Forest
Lakes), in which the developer expressed support of the
connection between the residential areas and offered to
build the "road that makes the connection from Forest Lakes
North to Hollymead, provided the County assume the
responsibility for the dam in the event of failure." The
developer's proposal was "to build two lanes only and to
make no connection external to the Forest Lakes or Hollymead
area." (Though Ms. Hash agreed this would have less of an
impact than T1 or T3, she indicated the neighborhoods were
not in favor of this connection.) Mr. Steve Runkle was
g620
10-19-93 5
present and reiterated the offer made in his letter. He
explained the history of the road across the dam. He
pointed out that a connector road between the neighborhoods
would allow residents to get to the schools and to shopping
areas without having to go onto Rt. 29. (In response to a
question from a member of the public, he also admitted,
later in the meeting, that a connection between the
neighborhoods would be of benefit to the developer because
it would provide access to amenities in both sections of
Forest Lakes. He also thought there was an advantage in
separating long -trip from short -trip traffic.) He agreed
that Ms. Hash's suggestion of an alignment along the
Southern Railroad was sensible, depending on the
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for growth area
expansion.
Mr. Jim Murray, representing the Charlottesville -Albemarle
Transportation Coalition, addressed the Commission. He
explained that CATCO has attempted to address the problem of
Rt. 29 which is supposed to be a major north -south route for
the State. He concluded: "We are thoroughly convinced that
the way to solve the 29 problem is through the sequence that
has been developed by these studies that you are familiar
with, namely the development of something like the Meadow
Creek Parkway --we are not involved at all in the final
determination of these feeder routes, etc. --but we
thoroughly endorse the idea of a Meadow Creek Parkway as the
first solution to the 29 problem after the highway is
widened. It would, in addition to that, provide for all
these residents in that northern area direct access to the
City. The City and the County are intertwined in their
welfare and you have to, in your decision making, consider
the welfare of the City as well as the County. This would
bring traffic into the City and, perhaps, help to revive it
from that point of view."
Mr. Grimm noted that the Commission is struggling with the
issue of whether or not the projected traffic counts (8,000
vtpd) justify the amount of money that will be spent on the
road.
Mr. Murray responded: "If that figure is correct your
decision may be, obviously, to eliminate that northern part.
(But) I really feel that something has to serve that
northern area to get traffic off 29."
Mr. Blue pointed out that the consultant's report states
very clearly that the "main objective is not to get traffic
off 29; it's to serve the residents of Forest Lakes,
Hollymead, Forest Lakes South and points south." He
pointed out that the residents of those neighborhoods are
90$ opposed to the road. H2 felt that building the road
without the neighborhood connectors would take very little
traffic off Rt. 29. Mr. Blue concluded: "I think,
.4 al
10-19-93 6
perhaps, there may be a better solution in terms of getting
traffic into town other than that northern section of the
Meadow Creek Parkway.... Based on the consultant's cost
figures and traffic projections, and the design that he made
to serve these people that don't want to be served, it seems
to me it would be irresponsible for the Planning Commission
and the Board of Supervisors to approve it as it is now,
although that doesn't eliminate the 29 problem...." [Mr.
Cilimberg pointed out that the Executive Summary of the
Consultant's report describes the primary purpose of the
Parkway to be "to serve local commuting, shopping and
recreational traffic. It does not limit itself to just
traffic generated out of those particular neighborhoods."]
Mr. Grimm noted another issue, i.e. few persons wishing to
shop on Rt. 29 North will take the Meadow Creek Parkway from
points north to Rio Road.
Mr. Johnson drew the following conclusions from the public
comments which had been made: "I get the feeling that the
term 'Meadow Creek Parkway' is being used somewhat
indiscriminately. We, tonight, are considering a particular
proposed configuration and if I understand (Mr. Murray's)
statement, the Coalition is in support of an alternate
access to the North, somewhat parallel to 29, but without
going into the details and determining where exactly it
ought to be." Mr. Murray confirmed that Mr. Johnson's
understanding of the Coalition's position was accurate.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Ms. Huckle expressed her sympathy for the concerns expressed
by the public, but noted that the Commission must consider
the welfare of the entire county. She felt the Meadow Creek
Parkway "is an essential part of a road network designed to
make the improvements on Rt. 29 work properly --it is just
one part of a package." She asked what would happen to the
"rest of the package" if the County "reneges" on its part of
the 4-party agreement. She felt all the people who will
suffer during the improvements to Rt. 29 will have suffered
"to no avail because the package isn't going to work --the
traffic isn't going to move." She was in favor of the
Commission approving the Meadow Creek Parkway, consisting of
B2, G1 and Y1, but "not speak to any of the connectors and
the T roads." She felt they could be built later if needed,
but "there is no point in trying to force them on people who
don't want them."
Mr. Blue disagreed with Ms. Huckle's recommendation. He
pointed out that the route described by Ms. Huckle, without
the connectors, would cost Y712,000,000 and serve only 8,000
vtpd. He felt this was a tremendous waste of taxpayers'
money and "utterly ridiculous." He also did not think VDOT
=A
10-19-93 7
would support the road without the connections. He felt the
southern section of the Parkway, plus the improvements to
Rt. 29, "are going to take care of the problems for a long
time." He felt the ultimate solution would be some type of
"circumferential" road with some of the existing connections
being made use of for a while to come. He suggested the
possibility of improvements to 643, east to 649 and then 649
to Rt. 20.
Mr. Johnson felt the biggest problem was one of
"terminology." He explained: "I have yet to hear anybody,
that I can identify, who supports --they all support the
Meadow Creek Parkway with the exception of the residents
addressing the particular configuration before us. But in
every case, from Mr. Murray and on through everyone that I
asked, said 'Well, we support the Meadow Creek Parkway,
including the CATS Study and all the activities identified
under the Piedmont Environmental Council,' it all is a
support for a generic term 'Meadow Creek Parkway,' meaning
an alternate access from Rio Road, north. For some reason
or other, best known to them, the Board determined that they
wanted a study of some kind of a configuration like this,
and, as identified by the Chairman, the purpose was to serve
local, commuting, shopping and recreational traffic, and
that is exactly what this configuration does. It serves no
more and it has really almost zero potential of expansion
and increasing the area which it would serve and those that
are potentially being served by this are adamantly against
it. So it would serve no useful purpose ... and would cost
between seventy and one hundred million dollars. I think
this should be considered, and it is amazing to me that they
got as far as they did during a time when money is short,
etc., that somebody would have visualized this some time ago
and cut off the consultant. But I believe that we do need,
and recognizing that VDOT is the controlling aspect, a
serious meeting with them and discussion with them, pro and
con, to see what they would propose, to see what we can do
to identify another (route) going north. If we can't
justify it to them, how can we justify an expenditure of
money to the public? I think this is completely out of
order as currently defined. With respect to the W1 an W2
proposal, to my satisfaction, I have identified that that is
essentially a fallback position taken by the residents of
the northern area to try to combat these particular
configurations of the Meadow Creek Parkway, and if we
eliminated all those, they wouldn't be in there. So, I
would suggest, if we want to make a recommendation, the
recommendation be that W2, less W1, would be a reasonable
recommendation. This would, in turn, have effect on 606 and
649 around the airport, the airport intersection. It would,
perhaps, allow the VDOT to see where they could allow the
Deerfield (Deerwood) Subdivision outlet, because it *could
potentially take traffic off of 649. ... As currently
configured, this serves nobody except the two areas."
�?3
10-19-93
s
Mr. Grimm attempted to bring the discussion back to "that
which we know to be the Meadow Creek Parkway primary
proposal."
Mr. Johnson noted that there was a recommendation to study
further the W1 and W2 in this same request, thus he did not
think comment on Wl and W2 should be avoided.
Referring to Ms. Huckle's earlier comments on the 4-party
agreement, Mr. Blue commented: "I, personnally, don't
believe that the University and the City have any real
interest in the Meadow Creek Parkway north of Rio Road." He
did not think deletion of this part of the parkway would
have any effect on the rest of the 4-party agreement.
Mr. Johnson again brought up "semantics." He explained:
"If we vote against this we are not voting against a Meadow
Creek Parkway. We are only voting against this particular
configuration of a road. The Meadow Creek Parkway can still
stand and I am not certain the tri-party (four -party)
agreement addressed this particular configuration and,
perhaps, it address what has been identified here tonight as
an alternate access to the north and we call it the Meadow
Creek Parkway."
Mr. Grimm agreed that the discussion should be addressing
the route recommended by the consultant's study and whether
or not "we want to accept that recommendation made by the
consultants or do we not want to make a recommendation for
that."
Ms. Huckle noted that though a route "further east and north
to Rt. 649" might be preferable, such a route would
similarly effect other subdivisions and Rt. 649 would need
to be upgraded considerably. She concluded: "Maybe as much
as we think this could be improved, maybe this is the answer
to this."
Mr. Grimm noted that during the years this concept has been
discussed, Rt. 29 north has been developed to where it is a
major shopping corridor for the entire area, and most people
will take Rt. 29 to conduct the major portion of their
shopping. He felt people living in the 29 north area will
continue to take Rt. 29 to reach employment in town. Though
they might take the new bypass, he did not think they would
use the Meadow Creek Parkway. They will also return home
via Rt. 29 north so they will be able to take advantage of
the shopping opportunities on their way home. He felt that
at the time the Meadow Creek Parkway was first conceived the
"big attraction" of Rt. 29 may not have been envisioned.
He concluded: "I'm having a hard time recommending approval
of the Meadow Creek north of Rio. I really like the part
south of Rio and that is the part the City really likes,
too." He noted that Rio Road has been improved and he
=A
10-19-93 9
agreed with Mr. Blue "that that's the route and I think it
would serve us."
Ms. Huckle recalled that Mr. Wagner had indicated that he
felt "too much traffic was counter -productive to good
commerce (because) people who might like to shop there will
avoid that road."
Mr. Johnson summarized: "I venture to say that this is all
much ado about nothing. As recently as a year and a half
ago, VDOT has apparently taken the position that this
configuration is unacceptable to them, so unless we can
figure out where we are going to get seventy or one hundred
million dollars ... it isn't going to happen unless VDOT
approves and they have indicated, according to Mr. Runkle,
that they won't."
Referring to a recent presentation to the Board by VDOT on
the Western Bypass, Mr. Cilimberg explained: "It was
specifically noted that they were bringing the bypass in at
the location of the Meadow Creek Parkway as proposed by the
County's Comprehensive Plan. They didn't commit to fund any
of Meadow Creek, and I don't think you're going to get that
very quickly, but they did recognize that location and they
are obviously, right now, deferring to what the County and,
ultimately, what the CATS plan says about the Meadow Creek
Parkway. They are recognizing that that location exists,
coming west below Forest Lakes, and they have made a bypass
connection there and stated that that bypass connection was
to be at a point where Meadow Creek would also intersect
29."
Mr. Jenkins felt there was no question that a road, and a
good plan, was needed. He felt that Mr. Blue's suggestion
for a road further out "would give people a choice" and once
it is learned that congestion can be avoided, "those things
work." However, he concluded that he could not support the
consultant's proposal because of the limited benefit for a
large expenditure.
Mr. Nitchmann felt the negatives of this proposed alignment
far outweighed the positives. He concluded: "The costs do
not equal the benefits neither from a local standpoint
(local meaning the residents of that area) nor for the rest
of the County. I also feel the opposition of all the
residents has to be taken into consideration, and the safety
issues that go along with that." He indicated he agreed
with Mr. Blue's position and also with Mr. Johnson's
comments, i.e. "The Meadow Creek Parkway is just the name
for a concept and not necessarily 'this is where it's going
to be."' He felt the idea has "gotten this far because
maybe it has been pushed years ago by people who want to
protect the western part of the County from having a bypass
through their land vs. having it over here, and maybe that's
10-19-93 10
still true today, I don't know." He concluded: "It would
appear to me, from a cost benefit standpoint, that we need
to be looking at something that maybe moves out a little bit
farther east and maybe something like Cynthia Hash's
recommendation to go farther north. It also points out one
thing: We are moving into a Comprehensive Plan Review and
maybe we should be taking a lot of time in considering where
we can put a road with the least amount of impact on the
citizens of the County before we start looking at where the
growth areas areas are going to be 40 or 50 years from now.
Maybe if we had done that this wouldn't have occurred. ...
But I cannot support this concept of the Meadow Creek
Parkway north of Rio Road."
Ms. Andersen suggested that during the Comprehensive Plan
review "we put some teeth into either putting moratoriums on
developments where we put roads or something like that,
otherwise I see us doing exactly the same thing which we've
done now --we'll take 20 years to make a plan and come time
to have the road constructed, we'll be faced with the
identical situation that we have now. So we either have to
say to ourselves 'A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush'
and seize the moment and go for this because it has taken 20
years to get here, or we have to really focus on how we are
going to do something that will prevent a repeat of this
again."
Ms. Huckle pointed out that the roads through the
subdivisions had been plated and dedicated, though they
weren't built when they should have been. Mr. Blue added
that the road through Forest Lakes and Hollymead was planned
and dedicated. He continued: "It turns out the residents
just don't want it. ... In fact, the Forest Lakes Road was
built even with more base than needed because they knew it
would be used for a through road in the future." Ms. Huckle
also noted that the developer of Dunlora had known of the
impact of the Meadow Creek Parkway.
The Commission invited comment from Mr. Dan Roosevelt,
representing VDOT.
Mr. Roosevelt addressed the Commission. His comments and
answers to Commission questions included the following:
--The reason VDOT had not allowed Forest Lakes South to
show "connections" on their plan was because VDOT "said
their plan should reflect lines that were currently approved
and the line that is currently approved, as shown in the
CATS plan, runs up Forest Lakes South and up through Forest
Lakes North. We said that is the line that should be shown
on any plat or plan."
--"We're not saying that we were opposed, or had any
feelings one way or the other, about this line that would
run between Forest Lakes South and the Rivanna River. What
V46
10-19-93 11
we're saying is that that line is not on any approved plan
and we didn't feel that it should be reflected on the Forest
Lakes South plan. I think our judgment appears to have been
proper since it appears that you are going to reject this
line. "
--"If the CATS plan is eventually revised to show a new
alignment for the Meadow Creek Parkway, certainly the
department would be a part of that decision since we have
one vote in five on the MPO that would make that decision.
We would then have to support that line as something that we
would either participate in building or certainly maintain
once it was built."
--"Concerning the Meadow Creek Parkway current
alignment, we have said that under certain conditions the
department would agree to fund that roadway. Those
conditions are basically that it be built to give preference
to through traffic rather than local traffic. In fact the
section that has been built through Forest Lakes North has
been built to that concept. It has intersections that are
widely spaced and there are no individual lots that have
direct access to that right -of --way. We have agreed and
anticipate that when that section through Forest Lakes North
was built to the ultimate standard, that the department
would be the one that would finance the additional
construction."
--In response to Mr. Blue's question as to whether or
not the CATS plan should have been revised rather than
hiring a consultant, Mr. Roosevelt stated: "I was under the
impression this was a step in that process. It would go
through you to the Board of Supervisors. If they agreed on
an alignment that they would then take it to the MPO, which
represents both jurisdictions, City and County, and the
department, and ultimately a request would be made to the
MPO to provide the money." [Mr. Blue felt the "Only thing
different about this" was "this is one of the first
situations, locally, where the County has invested a good
bit of its own money in hiring a consultant to do a design
like this."]
--In response to Mr. Blue's question as to whether or
not VDOT would participate in a road with this kind of cost
to serve the traffic it is projected to serve (8,000 vtpd),
Mr. Roosevelt declined to comment.
--In response to Mr. Blue's question as to VDOT's
support for the concept of the Meadow Creek Parkway, Mr.
Roosevelt stated: "I think at this moment the department
supports some line in the Meadow Creek Corridor, basically
from Rio Road to 29 north of the south fork of the Rivanna,
which is what I consider to be the Meadow Creek Corridor. I
don't have access to all the information that has been
generated, even to this point, much less additional
information as to effects on other roads that if you drop
some of these Sines --I think all that would have to be
studied by the department."
o
10-19-93 12
--In response to Mr. Johnson's question as to an
anticipated date for the revision of the CAT Study, VDOT's
official representative on the MPO stated that the entire
plan is to be revised by October -November 1994.
---In response to Ms. Huckle's question regarding which
alignments will be considered (the consultant's or one
farther east and north), Mr. Roosevelt stated that the
department will consider what the MPO directs it to
consider. He confirmed that "any group" can make any
recommendations to the MPO for modifications to the plan (by
following the proper process).
Ms. Andersen asked: "How did we arrive at stating the
purpose for the study that was done, knowing VDOT's position
regarding through traffic?" Mr. Cilimberg responded: "It
was the decision of the Board of Supervisors in 1989 to tie
the Meadow Creek Parkway in further south and establish that
as the Comprehensive Plan route with the connections to
residential areas. And when that occurred, the purpose, so
to speak, what would be the Meadow Creek and those
connectors, was to try to relieve 29 by taking the commuting
traffic, the local traffic, and bringing it down in the
city, and points north of the city, rather than having it
use 29. So, the consultant's charge was based on that kind
of function. It will still have the obvious possibility of
having some through traffic, but the idea was that the
Meadow Creek Parkway was not a through traffic route in the
sense that you were trying to take traffic from the north
and take it east and south of the city. It was considered
to be more of a localized road that would take the commuter
traffic and other local traffic. In that sense, it's
through traffic if you're sitting in Forest Lakes or if you
are sitting in any residential area between 29 and
downtown."
Mr. Blue: "It was a good idea. But over the past year we
have heard nothing but negative comments about that proposed
route from the people that it was designed to serve."
MOTION: Mr. Blue moved that it be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors that this alignment of the Meadow Creek
Parkway, north of Rio Road to Rt. 29, including the T
connectors, be "taken out of consideration completely."
(Mr. Blue added: "That's not to say that we're opposed to a
route parallel to Rt. 29 in the Meadow Creek Corridor area.)
Mr. Blue confirmed that his motion was to recommend against
the consultant's route, the B2, G1, Y1 out to 29, including
the T connectors, and the W's.
Mr. Blues confirmed his motion included the w's.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.
10-19-93
13
Discussion:
BLUE: "From what I've heard, and what I've seen, I don't
believe that the Meadow Creek Parkway in any location there
is going to achieve what we want it to do. I still think
that we have got a radial route into town with Rt. 29 and
the improved Rio Road, south, and improvements to 29, and
what MPO, VDOT and other interested parties should be
considering is a circumferential to take through traffic
around the metropolitan area and the Meadow Creek Parkway is
not needed."
There was a brief discussion of the W's. Mr. Grimm felt:
"The W which runs east to west (from 606 out to 29)
is an important road." Mr. Blue agreed. Ms. Huckle noted
that a developer (Mr. Wendall Wood) is supposed to build
that road. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out: "Those W's would
align at two existing signalized intersections and are not
altogether on his property." Mr. Blue felt the W's would be
"worthy of consideration" if the Meadow Creek Parkway were
to be approved, but right now, he felt the W's were a
separate issue. Mr. Nitchmann asked: "Wouldn't it appear
that if VDOT is going to fund a Western Bypass that they
would just pick it up and build it up a little farther north
and build W1? It makes good sense to me."
Mr. Johnson commented: "The limited service and negligible
growth potential do not justify the cost or location of any
of the identified configurations."
Ms. Andersen stated she "hated to see all this go down the
drain."
The previously stated motion to recommend against the
consultant's alignment passed (5:2) with Commissioners
Huckle and Andersen casting the dissenting votes.
Mr. Cilimberg attempted to clarify the Commission's action:
"I understood when Mr. Blue made his motion he indicated
that your motion is speaking particularly to the proposals
of the consultant and that it was not necessarily saying
that the concept of the Meadow Creek Parkway is not
appropriate." Mr. Grimm: "We are not opposed to some kind
of a parallel route going up there." Mr. Blue: "I think
that's right, but I would like to add I personally believe
that if we were to propose a Meadow Creek Parkway that ran
right along the Southern Railway track and stayed completely
in their right-of-way, we would still get a lot of
opposition."
MISCELLANEOUS
V-,q-9
10-19-93
14
Mr. Johnson inquired as to the status of the Commission's
recommendation to the Board for a Task Force on Education
and Training. He recalled that the Commission had made a
unanimous recommendation on June 8, 1993. He stated: "I
think the position of the Commission ought to be to
recommend to the Board that this proceed in an expeditious
manner." (There was no comment from other Commissioners.)
-----------------
Mr. Johnson asked for a status report on the study of Zoning
regulations which cause barriers to affordable housing.
(Mr. Cilimberg reported that meetings are occurring, but he
was uncertain as to when a final report would be ready.)
-----------------
Mr. Cilimberg distributed a sample of questions which will
be covered in the City and County survey.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:20 p.m.
V. Wayne ili er secret ry
DB
W