Laserfiche WebLink
7 <br /> <br /> <br />nd <br />ORDINANCE <br />h. : Reenactment of Subdivision Ordinance (2 reading) <br /> <br />ORDINANCE <br />i. : “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE <br /> CONVEYANCE OF LAND AT THE INTERSECTION OF JEFFERSON PARK <br /> AVENUE AND LEE STREET, TO THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA FOR THE <br />nd <br /> CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CANCER CENTER BUILDING” 2 reading <br /> <br />ORDINANCE <br />j. : “AN ORDINANCE CLOSING, VACATING, AND <br /> DISCONTINUING A PORTION OF PALATINE AVENUE (UNIMPROVED)” <br />nd <br /> (2reading) <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING/RESOLUTION <br />: DESIGN OF RT. 250 BYPASS/MCINTIRE <br />ROAD INTERCHANGE <br /> <br /> Ms. Angela Tucker, Development Services Manager, asked that Council approve <br />the preferred interchange alternative as recommended by the Steering Committee. She <br />reviewed the meetings held by the Committee as well as public participation meetings. <br /> <br /> Mr. Owen Peery with RK&K, consultants for the interchange project, said that <br />four concepts were presented in March of 2006, 14 alternatives presented in June of <br />2006, after which five alternatives were developed in more detail. Alternatives C-1 and <br />G-1 were recommended as the two preferred alternatives in June/July of 2007, and C-1 is <br />being recommended by the Steering Committee following their March 2008 meeting. <br /> <br /> Mr. Eric Almquist with RK&K, reviewed the Section 106 process which is <br />required for federally funded projects. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Norris, Ms. Tucker said that the interchange <br />project is estimated to cost between $31 million and $35 million, and the City currently <br />has $27 million available in this and next fiscal year’s budget. <br /> <br /> Mr. Norris asked how that funding gap will be filled. <br /> <br /> Ms. Tucker said that the consultant can be directed to stay within that budget. <br />She said the estimate will be refined as they move forward with design. <br /> <br /> Mr. Taliaferro asked about the affect on the design of the interchange if the <br />consultants are directed to stay within the budget, and Ms. Tucker said that there are <br />minimal options on the bridge design. She said the amenities are very important, but they <br />could be phased. She said it is very important from a cost standpoint to make a decision <br />in a timely fashion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Peery said that it was never envisioned that the bridge would be a typical <br />interstate type bridge. <br /> <br /> The public hearing was opened. <br /> <br /> Mr. G. Edward White, 621 Park Street, suggested that the design is not congruous <br />with the goal of environmental sensitivity. He questioned why the interchange is coming <br />forward before the Parkway, and noted that having to use the federal funds within the <br />earmarked period is fueling the urgency of the matter. He said there is no definitive <br />finding on the impact on historic resources. He urged Council to consider the no build <br />option. <br /> <br /> Mr. John Cruickshank, 700 Spring Lake Drive, Earlysville, representing the <br />Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club, said that a petition is being circulated calling for <br />abandoning plans for the Meadowcreek Parkway and preserving McIntire Park. He said <br />funds should be used for pedestrian and bike access, to improve the traffic flow at the <br />intersection, and to expand transit. He supported the no build option. <br /> <br /> <br />