2006-01-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

15 Mr. O’Connell explained that in order for VDOT to begin to acquire right-of-way for the Meadowcreek Parkway Council must approve the programming resolution. Mr. Tolbert said that the resolution is also required by VDOT so that they can finalize plans for the Parkway. Mr. Tolbert asked that Council authorize sending the proposed letter to VDOT, which indicates that VDOT has essentially met conditions of the former letter. Mr. Caravati noted comments made earlier by a member of the public regarding the interchange, and asked is it not true that the interchange has not been committed to because it is not yet designed. Mr. Tolbert said that is correct, and noted that the design will be presented to Council before it moves forward. Responding to question from Mr. Caravati, Mr. Tolbert said that the interchange and Parkway are severable. Mr. Tolbert said he is not familiar with an environmental study on the City’s portion of the Parkway. Mr. Tolbert said that the timetable for the project depends on money being available at the right time. He said it is now programmed for 2008. He said Albemarle County has already approved the programming resolution. Mr. Lynch said we should nail down when the easement for replacement parkland will be transferred. Ms. Hamilton asked if there has been discussion of segmentation of the projects, and Mr. Brown said he is not familiar with that term. He said federal funding will trigger environmental requirements. He said there has been a desire to keep the interchange and Parkway as separate projects and to restrict federal funds to the interchange. Dr. Brown asked about agreement by VDOT concerning the condition regarding no cell towers on the Parkway, and Mr. Tolbert said there has been no agreement, but he can ask VDOT to respond to this. He noted that the City Code prohibits cell towers in that location. Ms. Hamilton said she would like to respond to comments made by the public about this letter coming out of the blue, and asked is this not the same letter that Council discussed six month ago. Mr. Tolbert said yes, it is the same letter, and said it needs to be approved in order to keep on the timeline. Mr. Lynch said that segmentation typically refers to large projects that are broken up into smaller projects that do not trigger the need for environmental impact studies. He said he thinks both the interchange and Parkway could stand on their own, and said that, in fact, he would be happy with just the interchange. He noted that the replacement parkland amounts to 48.7 acres total, most of which could be developable. Mr. Lynch said he feels people read too much into the letter. He said the resolution makes it clear that we are acknowledging that progress has been made on conditions, but we are not saying they have been met, and we reserve the right to stop the project if they are not met. He said the conditions outstanding involve the replacement parkland, interchange, and regional network of roads. He said the downside risk is having to pay back for the almost 50 acres of parkland, but said he is willing to take that risk. He said he would like to tweak the language in the letter to say the conditions have been largely addressed. Mr. Caravati said he would like to add to item #7 in the letter “only” support, and in item #10, would like to say that the City expects to see a funding commitment for the Southern Parkway by 2008 before construction begins on the parkway. Ms. Hamilton said she feels this condition is reasonable given the MPO’s schedule. Mr. Caravati said the word “expects” gives us a lot of latitude.