2006-01-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

14 the precedent is his greatest concern. He questioned what could happen should the County feel the diverter is unreasonable and decide to put in its own diverter. He said he does not want to get to that point. He said he thinks the County has been remiss in addressing the problem. He said he has heard from three other neighborhoods that they would like to see a diverter, and he thinks this precedent could be dangerous, blocking roads and causing gridlock on main roads. He said the reasonableness of the solution depends on your perspective. He said he thinks the temporary diverter is effective for the time being, and we should see where we are in a year as the County moves forward. Ms. Hamilton said Mr. Lynch and Mr. Schilling did a good job of summarizing the situation. Ms. Hamilton said many of us cut through neighborhoods, but when we do so we should be considerate and drive slower. Ms. Hamilton thanked the County residents for reminding us of working across jurisdictional boundaries. She said she believes the diverter is working and we should keep it until there is a long-term solution. Mr. Caravati concurred with leaving the diverter in place, and said he has faith that we will find a creative solution. Mr. Caravati said he is frequently in that neighborhood and does not find the diverter to be inconvenient. He said we sometimes have to cut off roads as we did with Sunset Avenue several years ago. He said the problem on North Berkshire started with the proposal for Albemarle Place. Dr. Brown said he would like to see us move forward with a plan to address the cut through traffic and remove the diverter. Dr. Brown said he thinks we need a specific plan, and asked if the proposal is for one “porkchop” or for a series of “porkchops.” Mr. Tolbert said that his conversations with County staff included a series of “porkchops.” He said we could also look at extension of the median to go past Swanson Drive. Dr. Brown said he would like to see us move forward with plans for additional speed humps and “porkchops,” but we should also be very clear that these need to be seen as effective by the neighborhood. Dr. Brown said he would support investing in an origin and destination study and would hope that Albemarle County would help fund such a study. He said that if we ultimately feel cut through traffic continues to affect the neighborhood, he would go back and look at the diverter. Mr. Lynch made a motion to replace the diverter with “porkchops” at Cedar Hill and Swanson, unless the median strip is constructed beyond Swanson, with the hope that the County would do the same on their two streets. Mr. Lynch’s motion continued with the condition that until these “porkchops” are in place, the temporary diverter will remain in place. Mr. Lynch said he is fairly certain that the neighborhood will continue to see morning traffic after removal of the diverter, but he feels that most of the evening traffic should disappear. He said that if these measures do not solve the problem, then he would want to revisit the situation. Mr. Caravati seconded the motion. Mr. Schilling said he generally supports the motion, but is concerned that it may be overly specific should someone come up with something better. Mr. Caravati agreed and said he would be open for creative ideas. Mr. Caravati said that the Mayor should work with the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors on the issue. Mr. Lynch agreed that if something comes up that is better in a year, he could change his mind. Mr. Lynch’s motion was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Dr. Brown, Mr. Caravati, Ms. Hamilton, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Schilling. Noes: None. RESOLUTION : MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY PROGRAMMING RESOLUTION