HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-10-15
1 I N A L
7:00 P.M.
AUDITORIUM
October 15. 1992
1) Call to Order.
2) Pledge of Allegiance.
3) Moment of Silence.
4) Joint Meeting with Planning Commission to discuss plans for the Meadow
Creek Parkway and receive public comments.
5) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
6) Adjourn.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
401 MciNTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901-4596
MEMO TO: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
v. Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Planning and Community
Development
FROM: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC ~~~~
DATE: October 16, 1992
SUBJECT: Board's Meeting of October 15, 1992
The Board met in joint session with the Planning Commission (Grimm,
Nitchmann, Anderson, Johnson, Blue) to hear a presentation from
Sverdrup Corp., consultants for the Meadow Creek Parkway. Comments
were then taken from the public, after which Mr. Bowerman noted
that the Planning Commission will be holding public work sessions
on the plans in the near future. He does not expect the Board to
receive the recommendation from the Planning Commission until the
end of 1992 or the beginning of 1993. At that time, the Board will
begin a series of public work sessions which will be announced to
the public.
At 8:30 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.
LEN:mme
cc: George R. St. John
File
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
P-u.blic.
(for
S~r~ic.~ A~~o-u.~c.~~~t
immediate release)
Meadow Creek Parkway Study Public Information Meeting
A public information meeting on the Meadow Creek Parkway Study
will be held on Thursday, October 15, 1992 at 7:00 in the County
Office Building Auditorium. The public is invited to join the
Albemarle County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for
this presentation of information by the study consultant.
The consultant will present updated maps and analysis for the
three segments of the study: Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road
to Route 29 North, Meadow Creek Parkway Extended from Route 29
North to Airport Road, and the Timberwood Connector.
Opportunity for questions and comments will follow the
presentation. Please be aware that this meeting is
informational. No decision regarding possible alignments will be
made on october 15.
Individuals requiring additional information may contact Juan
Wade of the Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community
Development at 296-5823.
'Wo,
1./ .,.
"\ ('2..,.,//',/0 .
, .
...
All emarle County, Virginia
M :ADOW CREEK PARKWA Y STUDY:
PRESENTATION TO
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND PLANNING COMMISSION
MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY
October 15, 1992
ALBEMARLE COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
AUDITORIUM
.:k' -:? ;;;:', c
. .''-' _~ c:L: FL.
~
" .
All emarle County, Virginia
M :ADOW CREEK PARKWA Y STUDY:
PURPOSE OF MEETING
Present Meadow Creek Parkway
Recommendations from Rio Road to
Route 29.
Present Meadow Creek Parkway Extended
(from Route 29 to Airport Road) Alternatives
and gather input for Meadow Creek Parkway
Extended.
Present Timberwood Connector Issues and
Options.
!
~
~
" .2
I
N
I
f
-'~
. '
I I
. '
" ;' ..(
1
,J
~~
<:s
)/
<v.<?::' ~ ,/~/
~.t-:/
/1
N'
AUGNMENTS
_ RECOMMENDED
zzm STlU UNDER CONSIDERATTON
NOT RECOMMENDED
ON EXISTTNG R.O.W.
-,
"
........:.'.
MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY STUDY
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES
Y.
I
1',
~ SCNL. I ". 2000'
ORIGINAL SIZE IN INCHES
.
I
i
f
" .2
I
N
I
f
i /
. ,
, ;' ..(
1
...r"p-
Lt-
{J~
-5>..z.. ...'"
.' -4J . X-
"""7",,, -i6:-,
"'<f /- "y
'" .,~"
"\-1
,'.
: }
1 :
,-:/
r/
)1
~~ /..;,('"F
~~--:;"
/1
I/'
PUBLIC
INFORMATION
MEETING
JUNE 24, 1992
MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY STUDY
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES
:t
=
'I>
I
2 SC/llE:
I Figure 1
o II,
0Q~,,,,,V c;"7~ ,~ fNrHF"C:
.
Albemarle County, Virginia
MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY STUDY
RESULTS OF THE
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
June 24, 1992
~ENERAL RESPONSES:
~TOTAL COMMENTS RECEIVED:
203
~GENERALLY POSITIVE ABOUT MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY
6
GENERALLY NEGATIVE ABOUT MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY
7
GENERALLY POSITIVE ABOUT TIMBERWOOD CONNECTOR
2
GENERALLY NEGATIVE ABOUT TIMBERWOOD CONNECTOR
156
. ,
.
Albemarle County, Virginia
MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY STUDY
RESULTS OF THE
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
June 24, 1992
SPECIFIC RESPONSES:
LOCATION IN FAVOR OPPOSED
81 6 4
82 3 3
G1 5 0
G2 1 1
G4 2 2
Y1 0 0
Y3 2 0
T1 0 8
T3 5 20
T4 16 2
Location of Rio Road
Interchange 0 5
ICONCLUSION:
OF THOSE WHO RESPONDED, THERE IS A STRONG CONSENSUS
AGAINST T1 AND T3.
..
{HARl
~~T
':::r--~ ~--
~.
(
7
~
I
I
MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY STUDY
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
PROPOSED ALIGNMENTS
,/,
SCNh '.2fXXJ'
ORIGINAL SIZe IN INCHeS
.
All emarJe County, Virginia
M DOW CREEK PARKWA Y STUDY:
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY
A TERNATIVE B1 vs. B2
R commendation: B2
vanta es of B2:
o Better Rivanna River Bridge crossing site.
o Fewer local roads and streams crossed.
o Less recreational and residential impacts.
o Less floodplain crossed.
o Less highly erodible soil crossed.
o More scenic route.
Di advanta es of 82:
o Closer to 8entivar residential area.
o Does not use existing transportation
corridor of Railroad.
o Impacts more woodlands.
Di cussion:
The lower construction cost and the scenic
route of B2 outweigh the advantage of
running parallel to the railroad, therefore,
Alternative 82 is recommended.
AI. emarle County, Virginia
M :ADOW CREEK PARKWA Y STUDY:
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY
A TERNA TIVE G 1 G2 and G4
R commendation: G1
vanta es of G1:
o Shortest length.
o Minimum residential impacts.
o Less impact to Bentivar compared to G4.
o Lower elevation generally less obtrusive.
o Ridge available for other land uses.
Di advanta es of G 1 :
o May cross slightly more floodplain.
Di cussion:
The differences between G 1 and G2 are
marginal at best. G 1 would be a shorter and
less obtrusive facility with better access to
the Future River Greenway if desired.
A emarle County, Virginia
DOW CREEK PARKWA Y STUDY:
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY
ALTERNATIVE Y1 vs. Y3
R commendation: Y1
vanta es of Y1 :
o Less stream crossings.
o Less residential impacts.
o Y1 interchange does not conflict with
planned entrance to Forest Lakes South.
Disadvanta es of Y1:
o Crosses flood plain boundary.
Di cussion:
The floodplain crossed by Y1 is very small
and is not a significant factor. The costs of
the two alternatives and the type of terrain
they cross are similar.
All emarle County, Virginia
M :ADOW CREEK PARKWA Y STUDY:
LTERNATIVE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Timberwood Connector "NO BUILD"
o No environmental or residential impact
o No cost.
o No potential for through traffic to enter
residential areas.
Di advanta es:
No direct access to Meadowcreek Parkway for
Hollymead, Forest Lakes, Forest Lakes South or
other residential areas.
Increases traffic on US Route 29
No bike access to Meadow Creek Parkway
Bikeway and Future River Greenway.
A!J emarle County, Virginia
M :ADOW CREEK PARKWA Y STUDY:
LTERNATIVE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Timberwood Connector liT 1 II
A vanta es:
o Direct access to Meadow Creek Parkway
provided for Forest Lakes, Hollymead and future
Forest Lakes South residents.
Bike access to Meadow Creek Parkway Bikeway
and Future River Greenway.
Decreased traffic on US 29.
More efficient traffic patterns in Forest Lakes
and Hollymead (interconnection of
neighborhoods) .
Limited environmental impact (as compared to
T3 and T 4). No residential takings.
Less cost than T3 and T 4.
A/~ emarle County, Virginia
Mfo:ADOW CREEK PARKWAY STUDY:
ALTERNATIVE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Timberwood Connector "T1" (Continued)
Di sadvantaaes:
o Changes in current traffic patterns in Forest
lakes and Hollymead.
p Increase traffic in front of school(s).
o Potential to enter residential areas for through
traffic.
A!J emarle County, Virginia
M :ADOW CREEK PARKWA Y STUDY:
LTERNATIVE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Timberwood Connector "T3"
A vanta es:
o Direct access to Meadow Creek Parkway
provided for Forest Lakes and Hollymead
residents.
o Bike access to Meadow Creek Parkway Bikeway
and Future River Greenway.
o Decreased traffic on US 29.
More efficient traffic patterns in Forest Lakes
and Hollymead.
Less environmental impact than T 4. No
residential takings.
Less cost than T 4.
A!J emarle County, Virginia
M :ADOW CREEK PARKWA Y STUDY:
LTERNATIVE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Timberwood Connector "T3" (Continued)
Di advanta es:
o Changes in current traffic patterns in Forest
lakes and Hollymead.
o Increase traffic in front of school(s). *
Potential to enter residential areas for through
traffic.
*
ote:
Not as significant as T1 without interconnection
between Forest lakes and Hollymead.
All emarle County, Virginia
M DOW CREEK PARKWA Y STUDY:
ALTERNATIVE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
A
Timberwood Connector "T4"
es:
Route 649 traffic will have direct access to
Meadow Creek Parkway.
Greatest decrease in traffic load on Route 29
compared to T1 & T3.
No potential for through traffic to enter
residential areas.
Di advanta es:
Greater environmental and residential impacts.
9 residential takings.
Route 649 may need to be upgraded.
Greatest cost.
No direct access to Meadow Creek Parkway for
Hollymead, Forest Lakes South or other
residential areas.
All emarle County, Virginia
M :ADOW CREEK PARKWA Y STUDY:
A
LTERNATIVE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Meadow Creek Parkway Extended "NO BUILD"
No environmental or residential impact.
No cost.
Di advanta es:
No direct access to Meadowcreek Parkway for
residents and future development along US 29.
No connection from Route 606 to Meadow
Creek Parkway.
Provides no traffic relief on US 29.
A emarle County, Virginia
'EADOW CREEK PARKWA Y STUDY:
LTERNATIVE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Meadow Creek Parkway Extended "W1"
o Direct access to Meadow Creek Parkway
provided for residents and development west of
Route 29 and Forest lakes residents.
o Alternative route to the airport from
Charlottesville.
o Decreased traffic on Route 29.
o Provides traffic service for future development
of designated growth areas.
Di advanta es:
Environmental and residential impact.
Construction cost.
All emarle County, Virginia
M DOW CREEK PARKWA Y STUDY:
L TERNA TIVE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
A
Meadow Creek Parkway Extended "W2"
Greater access to Meadow Creek Parkway than
W1 alone.
Alternative route to the airport from
Charlottesville.
Decreased traffic load on Route 29.
Provides for future expansion of Industrial Park
and residential zones.
Di advanta es:
Greater environmental and residential impact
than W1 .
Construction cost.
.
All ~emarle County, Virginia
M~ADOW CREEK PARKWA Y STUDY:
STEPS AHEAD
o Gather public input
o Board of Supervisors Selection
of Alternatives
o Preliminary engineering on
chosen alignment
p Detailed Environmental Assessment
p Environmental Report
t> Final Presentation to Board of Supervisors
.
>-
g
....
U)
>-
ct
~
laC
." ~
.ii! Q,
~laC
.- 141
:"141
~rz:
~O
ll~
.:to
~ ~
J:14I
~~
c ...
. CD
E
r:
.21
C(
:t:::
r:
::l
~
o
ct
Q,
~
....
o
>-
g
....
U)
~
i:
i
Q,
~
o
o
OJ
E
~
~
o
C
.
>
.E
~
OCDOO__
o
~
04000...
o
f!
o ll) II) 0 CII
o
t=!
011)0100
o
~
0... 0 0 0
o
~
0... 0 0 0
o
>
o ~ It) 0 0
o
.,
(!l
o (I) ~ 0 .-
...
CII
(!l
Ot') ",:0 0
...
(!l
00",:00
...
CII
CD
CII II) "': 0 ...
...
NW)..-o...
<'i
U5U5~U5U5
o
c(
r:
.
...
~
.
. :t:::
:t:::0
0'ii
.!!"ii:Q
'E .~:~
~O.
.c-2(s.
_vu .: i .! .! 'E
.2.~e.!!....
il-~c(2';::-
....S!a:r:
1i~'ii.2"ii:2
.c'ii'iio!!Co'i
" U ~ .-
~....til!7ii.
lil.2~~i
uii~.S!.S!
j~1i.s.s
~~~~~:f
.
.
u
~
:
a:
oooco
It)
oooco
...
--(I!
CII
o ... 0 l3
0... 0 0
40
00040
CII
000 It)
o ...... 0 CD
...
o ... ... (I')
...
oooco
... ... 0 CO
CII
... 0 0 It)
40
...
c(c(c(c(
WWWW
"i"i
l!! l!!
. ~
~ !
.;::;.. .!
III OIl 'E
~jj ~
~.8'" .8~i
E~~Ol~
- QI.....
:! '~'. . .
.. C C u u
li8'"iii
~:;2:2:2
.'x.!!SlIl
a: WlLa: a:
0-0...00
o
0...0000
o
o CII 0 t') ... 0
o
0...0000
o
0000 ... t')
o
000000
o
000000
o
000000
o
000000
o
000000
o
O-_N_O
o
0... ... N ... 0
o
c(c(c(c(c(w
WWWWWa:
o
c(
.!!
'E
~
...
r:
i ~
E .!!:
~ 'E'!!.
"> =eJ1 r:
r: ~'~.,E':
~r:r:---~.s
"O":.2~c:-~
.~'iOl~i.
gl.!~:t:::g.
· .... .;: &l Il ~ Q.
~-e-e.2"fiOO
-EE:Q!:ioO
5~~~<3~~
ao'O.....OOIOO
o<'io <Do
t')
t')
'~::~O~~
;;;
., ,
t')
o
~~~O~~
t')
~~~O;:;~
CII
~~~O~~
...
CII'OOOOOlO
000 00
_IIt)OOOCOO
o 0 0 0 0
.:;~~o~~
CII
CII
=~~o:~
...
'=~~O~~
...
CII~=~~O:~
.... t')
N~;d
...
00
o
... "':
..t ...
CII
c(LLWWWc(WW
W...J a: a: a:W a: a:
000 00
c(c(c( c(c(
c
.
E "i
8 ..
.!:: OIl
> 0
.Ii u
.. E
~ 01
.. !
ztii
~
>
ii:
II
r:
01
:~
a:
III
III
2
o
01
.~ .~ ..
~:g. ~
m g :;
oLL-g ~
€o..!!o
8'IIEII
G ! is C)
...Jc(LL.<
Sl .!!
:t::: '0
OIl III
.s .
<II :0
II 'ii
~ 0
OIl .. ...
:1-gw
.g .!! .S
... -g III
S g !
J:~:J.
o 000 I
o 0 0
t') CII It)
iii c?
...
0000 '
o 0 0
t') CII 0
c? c?
...
gg
., t')
ci
...
gg ,
... 0
CII"
o 000 '
o 0 0
o It) 0
...: ci
o 0 0 0
o
.,
40-
o 000
o 0
., ...
c?
o 000
o 0
CI!,...
.,
00000
011)00 It)
C\I (I') ...... II) (I')
...: ci
00000
~~~8~
iii ci
CII
"
u
q
It)
...
00000
o It) 0 0 It)
01 t') ... 0 t')
It)" ci
o 000 '
o 0 0
o CII 40
ci iii
...
o 000 I
8 ~ ~ ~
ci ci
...
LLLLLLLLLL
...J...J...J...J...J
l: .
o Cl
IlIII~:g
~..5.Q
.;: ~ III 'i
CD .... g g
~r:~jjj~
..!!~~0~
c_....Q...
-.s8'8'I8'
I: 0 COCD_IID
WI-...J...JOO...J
o
~
:>
z
U
:::E
.
.
>-
g
....
(/)
>-
~
qr3t
-~
.sa:
~~
~a.
~~
1:tH
:::I a:
80
.!3t
~o
ca
~~
~~
en
z
o
-
t-
O
W
~
o
a:
D-
O
-
lL
lL
<C
a:
t-
O
,..
o
N
a:
<C
w
>
w~
en en
<CD
m""
~~
~....
.... 3=
I-
~
c
<
w ~
> ~ ....
I- ~
i= ;>
<
z
a:
w
~
<
....
3=
Q. >
(J ....
::i~
c
o :::!
Z ;:j
ca
~
...
o
ZLL
0-5
i= :I
< 0 ...
o en CD
o @) .~
..JCDa:
N as
CD c
_ C
:J as
o .~
a: a:
~
I-
C")
I::::
....
I-
o
o
q
CW)
oq-
~
Clef
....
3=
o
o
o
..
It)
oq-
o
o
q
It)
oq-
o
o
It)..
co
oq-
o
o
co
.......
It)
o
o
It)
..;-
CW)
o
o
CD
..
.....
CW)
o
o
N
..
N
oq-
o
o
.....
..
N
oq-
o
o
,...
..
N
CW)
o
o
CD
..
co
CW)
o
o
CD
..
o
oq-
o
o
.....
..
CW)
oq-
o
o
,...
oq-"
oq-
"
C'lS
CD
E G1
~ >
- .-
o a:
::J:-5as
@)52
CD en ~
N @) 0_
CD a:
-a..~
:I (,) ...
o ~ 0
a: eLL
o
o
N
...:
N
o
o
CD
..
It)
CW)
o
o
It)
cD
CW)
o
o
en
v)
oq-
o
o
(W)
...:
o
o
N
..
CD
o
o
o
..
en
,...
o
o
N
..
co
o
o
oq-
.......
o
o
CD
..
N
,...
o
o
CW)
...:
a..
(,)
:E
@)
CW)
I-
olS
,...
~
o
o
.....
..
~
o
o
~
~
Q.
(,)
:E
@)
oq-
~
o
o
co
..
co
,...
o
o
CW)
..
o
,...
Q.
(,)
:E
@)
,...
3:
o
o
CD
o
,...
Q.
(,)
:E
@)
N
3:
olS
,...
3:
o
o
~
.....
,...
o
o
at
,...
,...
o
o
CD
..
.....
,...
>-
;
~
...
as
Q.
~
CD
CD
...
(,)
~
o
"
as
CD
:E
Q.
(,)
:E
..
CD
-
o
Z
.
en w
Z (/)
0 <
m
-. v
I- ....
0 ~
,....
W ~
J ~
o. ~
,....
0: ....C')
1:::.
a. ,....
.... Q)
0 ~ >
~
,....
- ~
LL c:
~
LL v Q)
.... +-'
<3:: ~<
0:00 ~
,....
I- ~
0 ,....
,... 0') ~
ON ~
C\JQ) z
...... 0
O::J a.
<3::0 cU
We: ...J~
::>
>- m
0
z
o
<0
o
LO
o
v
o
C')
o
C'J
o
,....
o
(spuesn04JJ
OlueJl ^Uea SOeJSA't
.~
./ ,'(
.. I
"
j
? ,....-c:<
'Z-
1-.
T Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
F Cynthia Hash
2065 Whispering Woods Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901-7203
978-1821
October 15, 1992 (verbally addressing the Board)
Hello, I am Cynthia Hash, a resident of Forest Lakes
bdivision. As you may know, I organized the informational output
in our area, wh i ch began the overwhe 1 m i ng oppos it i c.n to the "T"
c nnec tor roa.ds of the Meadow Creek Par'kway. I am a.l so the
c airperson of the Meadow Creek Parkway sub-committee endorsed by
t e Board of Directors of the Forest Lakes Community Association.
Hav i ng consul ted wi th my commi ttee, I am here for three
asons. The first is to r~it~~at~ the petition that we presented
Mr. Martin on August 24th, which adamantly opposes any of the
connector roads and a~ks that we remain a "contained
e vironment" without any conn~ction to Proffit Road, Hollymead, or
t e Meadow CreeK Parkway. We feel that any of these connections
vJill encourage non-residentia.l, "thoroughfare" and "short-cut"
t affic, thereby risking the safety of our pedestrians and cutting
off from our recreational facil ities. "T4", which is supposed
minimize that problem, requires the taKing of approximately
s ven residences, according to your studies. As you have seen, we
quired 541 signatures out of 378 total residences. Out of the
y. contacted, 97Y. eaQerly signed the petition. We only hope that
lose voices were heard and wil I be properly responded to by a vote
'()m each of you against the "T" connector' roads, when the time
c mes, w<- ~ .~I~~.
The second reason that I am here is to reiterate the
nclusion of Au ust 24th/s meetin with Mr. Martin and members of
e Planning Department. It was very clear that the overwhelming
m jority of the over 200 citizens present at that meeting opposed
alyof the "T" connectors. The one concern that remained, though,
w s how to provide some rel ief off of Hollymead Drive, somewhat due
t the current elementary school traffic and the middle school
t 'affic that is expected to open September 1994, wi thout any Meadow
C eek Parkway connection or Forest Lakes and Hollymead connection.
This brings me to the third reason I am here, which is to ask
t Ie PI ann i ng Depar tmen t to commun i ca te to the peop 1 e here ton i gh t
s me information that they have communicated to me, which may very
w 11 satisf the requests voiced on August 24th. 1,..,lould someone
f om the Planning Department please point out on a map where the
F rest Lakes South entr'ance is off of Route 29 and v..Iher'e Pm...Jell
C'eek Drive will be extended into Forest Lakes South? Thank you.
N M, according to the Planning Department, this road configuration
i ' ,"" "d 0 n e de d, 1 ", ,~,m I r' i 9 h t ,;.
.
If :-0, then I VJOU 1 d 1 i ke to cone 1 ude V,I i th three good r-easons
wty we bel ieve that the "T" connectors are entirely unnecessary:
) The Forest Lakes South
a,[ d Rou t e 29 VJ ill r e 1 i e t) e
L kes South development,
s( hedu 1 ed to beg in before
K~ :-sler Group.
and Hollymead connection to each other
some Hcdlymead Dr-ive tra,ffic. For'est
including its roads, is tentativel>'
the end of this year, according to the
(b) The expans i on of Rou te 2<;' to six 1 anes from the Shera ton to
A rpor-t Road 1,',1ill relieve some traffic congestion. This
c~'nstruction is tentatively scheduled to begin mid-1995, according
t(b the Virginia Department of Transportion.
(.S) The poss i b i 1 i ty of <:t_ t1ea,dow Creek F'a_r-Kway Ex tended to the west
o Route 29 will rel ieve some traffic congestion, as well. This
cpnstr-uction, once the money is allocated, is tentatively scheduled
t D begi n somet ime after' the :;r'eaT 2000.> ~ ,t.i d f'~ ~.
Gi ven these r'easons, we feel tha_t the "T" connector:, a,re
e ,p e cia 1 1 :;r' un n e c e ssar' y an d '--',Ie -, imp 1 or e e ac h c.f >'ou to v 0 t e a,ga i n:- t
t .em when the time comes.,y ~, '~ '::':':;;'4-.
In the interp~t of timp tr 8. - ,
tti. t " - ~ " "I.," Ie o<:l.r'd of ::luper-I} I sor.:- today asKed
t~~, hr~o ~th~r comments r-egar'ding the "T" connectors be made
C PI I ; ,I t ? Ie c <:I. Use the :;r-- ,a r' e be c om i n g al)J a r- e 0 f the de p tho -+ 0 U r
p 0 ~ I I c.n . Ins t e ad I VJOU 1 d l' k- t ' -
toni tit h ' ' I,e .0 In',.'lte those citizens here
gl. ~ 0 aQree WI th what I hav~ just p~esented to ple-~e st d
up Thl~ c- t '11 - , <:I.~ ,~_n
-i -' ,-,un. l~1 gl'y'e the Count:;r-- Official:, an idE-a of the
vp~me of oppo:./tlon to the "T" connector':_. Tha,nk ~P"o~ all for'
~pm~~g~ The att~ndance is smaller than it could be du~ to ~evera1
f~~_rt<:l.nt ~ommunlty events that were scheduled toniQht Thank you
:Jr- >'ou r t I me . - .. -, ,-
+
FOREST.LAKES
September 21, 1992
arles S. Martin
emarle County Board of Supervisors
1 McIntire Road
arlottesville, VA 22902
~he Forest Lakes Community Association Board of Directors would like to
ke this opportunity to express our support for the residents of Forest
es in their opposition to the Meadowcreek Parkway "T" connectors as
der study by the consultant to the County of Albemarle.
As is evident with the recent presentation (to both the Planning
partment and the Board of Supervisors) of the petitions against these
c nnectors, an overwhelming majority of Forest Lakes residents oppose the
ternative "T" connector roads under study. OUt of a total of 378
sidents in Forest Lakes, 329 were successfully contacted; 97% of those
sidents contacted signed the petitions expressing opposition to the "T"
c nnectors.
Thank you for your continued support. We look forward to further
mmunication with both the Planning Department and the Board of
pervisors concerning the Meadowcreek Parkway "T" connectors. In view of
is overwhelming majority who reject any and all forms of "T" connectors,
urge the Board of Supervisors to not approve the construction of said
c nnector roads.
Sincerely,
of interest)
President
J~ ~a~irector
/' 7
/-;//1::.. ../1. _
'J{/j'j { (,; ,~. (L L Iv ( '>/
Kathy Bartkus, Director
c: ~David P. Bowerman, Chair
EdwardH. Bain, Jr.
Charlotte Hurnphris
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Walter F. Perkins
Wayne Ci1imberg, Albemarle
Community
.. \. ~.
r"~ ,"- ~.
:_: ;~
. ~ "~'" ;-~, { ;
, \.- '-
',.... 1
. : ~ i
, . '. ; ~ ~
County Planning &
Development
19\'2
" ; J
, .
\..
- ':,) i
.~.l '--____i
", I; .
:, r.. ~. ~:: - \ F-." j.'\, V ~~, () q~,
Box 7432. Charlottesville, Virginia 22906 (804) 973.7222
October 12, 1992
Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mc Intire Rd
Charlottesville, VA 22902
.,' .....i
Dear Mr. Bowerman:
--'~(-)l.I" .
:..... .! ':"
<: '
Due to a conflict in my schedule, I will be unable to attend the Board meeting on October 15th which will
address the MeadowCreek Parkway issue.
I would like to take the opportunity to once more emphasize my negative feelings concerning the building
of collector/connector roads through or near Forest Lakes Subdivision. As I have impressed upon Charles
Martin, both through letters and by attending an informational meeting last month, I am vehemently
opposed to the building of any of the "T" Connector roads.
My earlier letters to Mr. Martin and the other Board members cited the following problems that I found
with the addition of connector roads:
1. increases traffic unnecessarily through a quiet neighborhood
2. compromises the safety and security inherent in living in a "one entrance/one exit" area
3. increases noise and pollution
4, threatens the actual physical structure that I call "home", or in a worse case scenario,
destroys my resale value because I have a major thoroughfare running through my
backyard.
I hope that you will join Charles Martin in voting "NO" for the T Connector roads that have been
proPQ in conjunction with the building of the Meadowcreek Parkway. As always, feel free to contact
me' yo need further comments. Thank you for you time.
cc: Charles S. Martin
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr
Walter F. Perkins
Charlotte Humphries
Edward H. Bain, Jr
Cynthia Hash
r. David P. Bowerman
lbemarle County Board of Supervisors
01 McIntire Road
harlottesville, VA 22902
1829 Steeplechase Run
Charlottesville, VA 22901
October 8, 1992
..
{j
h),::
;, , ' I'
I._Ii
;,. t_~. ;<:VJSO~~lS
'..
e: Meadow Creek Parkway Connector Roads
ear Mr. Bowerman:
live in Forest Lakes and I do not want the Forest Lakes
ubdivision directly connected to the Meadow Creek Parkway. When
he proposal(s) come up for a vote, I urge you to vote against the
roposed "T" connector roads which do this. One of the reasons
hy my spouse and I bought our home in Forest Lakes is that it is
elatively isolated from the more congested areas around
harlottesville. I believe connecting Forest Lakes to the Meadow
reek Parkway would increase traffic through our community.
Cordially,
(~~ a~"0J1
Catherine Y. Steiner
804-973-0325 (H)
, h :.'t!
i\':,' /-:., J,,' L t,
".....1
1'77)
, "
i 1;1
, I:'
i ' II
iLl
1829 Steeplechase Run
Charlottesville, VA 22901
October ,8, ,1992
""'i
1.,'
'i l)i~~
~r. David P. Bowerman
~lbemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
~harlottesville, VA 22902
!; : i
/: ; ~
; ~. /.:-'..f.,;-....~~r ( I;
Ir..._ I.~ L-' L~J I --j
Uf SUP[J(VfSU~-S
11\)/\11'1..1
~e: Meadow Creek Parkway Connector Roads
pear Mr. Bowerman:
~ live in Forest Lakes and I do not want the Forest Lakes
~ubdivision directly connected to the Meadow Creek Parkway. When
,~he proposal(s) come up for a vote, I urge you to vote against the
proposed "T" connector roads which do this. One of the reasons why
Iny spouse and I bought our home in Forest Lakes is that it is
relatively isolated from the more congested areas around
bharlottesville. I believe connecting Forest Lakes to the Meadow
~reek Parkway would increase traffic through our community.
Cordially,
(Q(k ~ri--
~ v~~__ ,
Richard W. Steiner
804-977-3553 (W)
804-973-0325 (H)
K., J)I1VID p, f:,OW<::'K..IVl~ ~
n., CfM1L~ S. MV1<-n"-.J
~ltL. f=b)t.JL<:-<;;.f JZ. 1\,1mc..SJ)1JLL- 0/L .
MK.- . ~I)L~J'- F. f<:'>Lk.ltJS.
1t1)Ls. Cf PJx.u::rm,: Bv.V1.rH~-I~-3..
M K., (?))VVOJLD J-J. f>~t-.JJ '~fl- .
/1L,- 5t.~W I)s i.
A LJ6<.cMl)JtLE c</V1J1Y J!xJ/)7V::> Of- SLf'(-K-V'S~
J)l'1)K.. S(fL. fMt')p~
.,
"
i 9 {o IS f)Jd(CAJ GvtL r-
eI ffl1LLG1R--SV'u..~ v~ Ll.iCJ I
OC~-?L.. <1 I '9 Gf L
t, (), I., , r, . .
\.. ,II.. ! ' , , ..
:~--\ L '\.''f }~, ,'--); t
{',~:" (--.. '
i ; -' ; r-'-~ rJ_'~~
4 I J; ,y,r-.A
f'l .
1,::',.1 ",
, 'J.1 . "l .
i 1'1 ! \" '."
, .1.' ,': ,
~\ .'; I
" /';'1;!
j ;" I
I :
,/ I .1
, ,'~ '- ""
'- '...-'-; '..:.....
1- ~
~, .
, . -, ..~
. "-.-
'. I;
" 0
n1"1 WI )~ f)1vD ..I j ~" JS~ l. --?V )t..<":':7).o <.: 7vJS '
cf- -j)~ ~S.5 ~~ CGv1t'1Urv'\JY FoK. 1lhl.l~- Y<.:1)1<.s
\A.\.~ \~ ~JJDCCD boN .R!bLlc "VFC1VVf~
1\A(/{,-Jjtv'G--S )U.:Zr-f)1LDltJG- J/Jtc" f\,1t<f)vo\I\Jcft..(,~-t<... Y~W1.r-(
I' If
/)7vD]l~ T CalNl-'Z-JVK.-S .
\M( ~ <SjL\-nJl--Y l)lSTVjSlbt'"1':) )))QJ)J)e Ylt..d -
fOS\:'D "T't CCNNI.::X_TcK_:S br s<:-z.j OUt. ~-s.T ~~ .
LCt/t.1MUN' fTY (jlvv \A...',,-- &~'LI<"'-\"'\"'- )])7)) 111(-Y VJOUL-{:>
f},.,,\,: f7 f\v:(-G--tJ)l\.-\.- )tV)Fl)cT Ci'--i C)L'iz..... CCL-t.1(i..iC'f\v1i')'-
) \
I
f)JO 0:.vl--N J1){! S/)}~.JY vr- OVVL CI+I L-Df(.<-~ .
W<; (jy(.\( S pLCItJ G-c Y PyG-tJ1 tv's-( J1K CcNC.l:Y:J
~ 1-j<../f}VlL-( J)~l-LJ.:D JW/})Js bel rv<r ItVS17Jt-LL~~
1\-1X.()UG1~ l::~ 1l')b L\ S H (:'1::> C CM.1 ",",UN' ( 11 ~ -s . ~ l)J\s IS CJN-
11-c.,,/)lfY}b~ Jb r\-10::;j ern z.e1\JS UAlO .f-,N[) () J)(F'\4C.vLT
)D V1vP<::1ts17)1vP t.Vtf-( J)lsVl~~L~ TJrvP JlaJiJs C/JMvtsj
~ p~k.JL--'D }D Co -(:J\ (SI '5<--7I)1~"LY -
~ ;J}L(i::~t to..) )0 VdR: f)t::rm/JsJ }JJ\;
YJt.c(d~1J "T'" Cc:A-JN~Z}q05> .. ~IJrt\( VL1(..Y' WILCjtJG-
~ u~ tcv1\1'" Z-CC t)s f) cuVN<.::C..)C(L TO JJ}(:-- Y~U(.tNW\..("
--
f)1v1J lA.-\c y~<. <L. Jlftn- M~ ~~T ~s JZB \P~J'S -
.1tI
w\\..<... "fuJ})1's jrJ f)1v~ cf)~~- ~<.~~ Cf J1~ N((C.\~S'JY
jZ) M~c )SVS(qJ~'5S sJ"CI\?S 6<..1~ VS/~])J\~ Y!)1<"~
'\ rl
]'a ~ j)::rvJt-JTb~ .
'f 0lA'L-s> Vc... -7l -( J]1.{.;L '-( J
~'O~~~
L1J GJjt-.J ]) > M t)"C.-DO ~)J
&tt& U/ ;7Jlacd&i<A-f' ~e
>S<..-'1}JJL. t c..c...C MOC- DO~)-:J '
. ... .
..
I I I
RH R E PUB L I C H 0 M E S
Mr. David D. Metcalx
ProJect Manager
Sve drup Corp.
779 Leesburg Pike
Sui e 700 South Tower
Fal s Church, VA 22043
October 12, 1992
"~I :".\: ~_
I' f' I
1~:~
RE: Meadowcreek Parkway and Dunlora
res
it
is
Cha
Dun
app
Mea
inc
poo
to
inc
app
wil
I x
pla
wee
how
exx
see ,
out.
ent
Mr. Metcalx:
My name is Scott Williams and I work xor one oX Albemarle's
est builders/developers, Republic Homes. My primary
onsibility at Republic is to manage our development work, and
s with this in mind that I write to you. Dunlora subdivision
an up-scale neighborhood located across xrom the
lottesville/Albemarle Technical Education Center (CATEC).
ora has a very elaborate brick entrance on Rio road that
ars to be in Jeopardy because ox the alignment xor the
owcreek Parkway. The recreation area xor Dunlora, which
udes two lighted tennis courts already built and a pool and
house to be built within two years, is also in Jeopardy due
the Parkway. Dunlora is divided into two phases: Phase I
udes the area currently being developed, and it has been
oved xor 156 homes; Phase II, which has also been approved,
consist ox at least 118 homes. Republic Homes manages Phase
r the owner and is buying Phase II to develop ,ourselves. We
to begin construction xor Phase II within the next eight
As you can see, Republic Homes has a vested interest in
Meadowcreek Parkway will exxect both phases OX Dunlora.
would like to begin with how the Parkway could adversely
Phase I OX Dunlora. Based on all o~ the alignments I have
the xront entrance and the recreation area will be wiped
In addition to having a great deal oX money invested in the
ance and recreation area, should the recreation area be
emned, there is no suitable location in Phase I to relocate
All ox the proposed accesses illustrated in Interchange
epts A,B, and C are unacceptable to us because they will
ge the character OX Dunlora. The dramatic brick entrance and
scaped beds help dexine Dunlora as a neighborhood o~ elegant
s, and I xeel that i~ the entrance is altered at all, the
unity will suxxer. There are currently several plated lots
many more unplated lots that are and will be virtually
leable because o~ the impact o~ the Parkway. That places the
loper and two homeowners in a very difficult and unenviable
tion.
. 2788 Hydraulic Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 . (804) 973-3377 I
.
I do, however, have a ~ew ideas that could lessen the impact
tha the Parkway will have on Phase I. There currently is a ~air
amo nt o~ undeveloped and unplanned land to the northwest o~ the
Dun ora entrance. I believe it would be pretty easy to shi~t the
int rsection with Rio Road away ~rom the Dunlora entrance. The
Par way takes an unnatural bend around CATEC, and this e~~ects
bot the City's and County's portion. I would suggest that the
Par way could be straightened so as to not adversely e~~ect
Dun ora's entrance and recreation area. It would seem to me that
sub tantial savings could be realized ~rom straightening out the
Par way and not having to purchase the land, recreation
~ac lities and entrance ~rom Phase I.
The impact the Parkway will have on Phase II o~ Dunlora
d be equally as disruptive as it will be to Phase I. Phase
s accessed through Phase I, so they will both be hurt by the
o~ the existing entrance. Alignment Alternative 82 crosses
e II towards the back o~ the property. For this reason and
I believe Alignment Alternative 82 is not the best
ceo In addition to crossing Phase II, Alternative 82 also
through the middle o~ a 200+ acre tract o~ undeveloped
pro erty that is currently zoned ~or medium density residential
dev lopment.
As with Phase I, I have some thoughts about how to lessen
the Parkway's impact on Phase II. Alternative 81 not only by-
pas es Phase II, but it also has less of an impact on the
und veloped land around Dunlora because it runs along the
rai road tracks. I think it is prudent planning to have the
Par way run along the railroad as much as possible so that they
are confined to one transportation corridor. Albemarle County
has pushed to concentrate growth in "designated growth areas,"
and in view of this goal , it would seem to me that an alignment
tha disrupts the least amount of developable land within a
"de ignated growth area" would be preferable. From the charts
and tables provided in the Meadowcreek Parkway StUdy, dated June
24, 1992, it would appear that Alternative 81 will be less
exp nsive to build than 82. 81 traverses no planned neighborhoods
whi e 82 traverses 1, and 81 has 2,800 If. of steep slope
truction compared to 6,600 If. for 82.
To conclude, I would like to commend both Sverdrup and
marle County for involving the public by seeking their input.
rongly request that Alternative 81 be chosen over Alternative
I would also request that a study be done to look into
igning the Parkway so that it does not have to bend around
C, but rather go through it. Lastly, I will ask that i~
e are any ~uture meetings between Sverdrup and Albemarle
ty, that we be allowed to participate in some fashion. I
to see you at the October 15 meeting so that we can discuss
e items in more detail.
.
I thank you xor your time,
response.
and look xorward to your
Sincerely,
ir4: lJ~
Scott A. Williams
Assistant ProJect Manager
SAW/pam
CCI Wayne Cilimberg
Bob Tucker
David Bowerman
Charles Martin
Scott Havelock
Juandiego Wade
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
1895 Cove Pointe Road
g~~~~~;t~;~ii~~i~f;-Y~" L~290f~C..::\.,\lU
, ,..!,r; !";:'~';: ,I /1
lW, ,ill'
, ;
} ~
.\'
.',
, I
!II
'./; ~.~:..J
Attn: Mr. David P. Bowerman
Chairman
Dear Mr. Bowerman:
As a resident of Forest Lake, we would like to take this
opportunity to express to you our concerns on the proposed "T"
Connector Roads of the Meadow Creek Parkway. As a family, a home-
owner, and members of a neighborhood, we violently oppose
these roads running through our subdivision.
We moved into this area because we felt it would be a safe
place in which to raise our family. We wanted our children to
be able to play outside, ride their bikes, etc. without the
threat of heavy traffic.
These connector roads will destroy our way of life, exposing
us to crime when our community is opened up to the downtown area.
We have been told that it would only have a thirty-five ~i1e per hour
speed limit. We also know that it will take afull-time'police officer
to enforce this limit and that the connector roads will become a
cut-thru or short cut for people coming into Charlottesville.
We ask and plead that these connector roads not run thru
and destroy our community.
Sincerely,
1!l./L- ; l17J/y~fJ,de~ *
Mr. and Mrs. Charles Folger