Laserfiche WebLink
88 <br /> <br />Metropolitan Planning Organization in December, and she proposed that the Council hold a <br />public heating on the CATS, of which MeadOwcreek Parkway is a part, in November <br /> <br /> Mr. Clyde Gouldman, City Attorney, provided an historical background for the <br />Parkway. In !967 the Parkway was proposed as a Virginia Department of Transportation <br />(VDOT) project, and it has been endorsed by Councils in the current proposed location at <br />least ten times. The Parkway is proposed to be limited to passenger vehicles and have a 35 <br />mph speed limit. In !983/84 federal fi~mds were. sought for the project but in 1995 VDOT <br />reclassified the project as funded 100% by state funds. Preliminary information estimates that <br />$!.159 million in federal funds have been spent to date on the project. State !aw states that <br />VDOT may ask that all state fund spent on the project be reimbursed by the locality if the <br />project does not go forward, but also states that such a requirement may be waived. Mr. <br />Gou!dman noted that some have indicated that VDOT would apply any reimbursement by the <br />locality as a credk for other projects. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Cox, Ms. Slaughter said that the County is funding <br />an environmental impact study in order to obtain primary road designation for their portion of <br />the project. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Cox, Mr. Gouldman said that opponents of federal <br />projects have cited situations where _highways have been divided into parts, or segmented, <br />using different monies for each in controversial projects. <br /> <br /> Ms.' Slaughter noted that the location hearing held by VDOT in approximately 1994 is <br />not included in the chronology of the project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox expressed concern about a letter from VDOT thanking the City for removing <br />the need for a 4f review, the most stringent law to protect parkland, and questioned why <br />VDOT has opposed conducting an environmental impact study. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter noted that there has been an environmental impact study conducted on <br />the proposed road. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano asked about the status of the design committee, and Ms. Slaughter said <br />that the design committee has recommended a condensed roadway, increased pedestrian and <br />bike access, retaining a speed limit of 35 mph, and they are working to resolve issues around <br />a storm water detention pond. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards added that major grading changes were also recommended by the <br />committee. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said that the road was always proposed to have a speed limit of 35 mph <br />and be restricted to trucks. Mr. Toscano said it is also his understanding that the design <br />commi~ee is working to improve access into Mclntire Park. <br /> <br />Mr. Cox said he thinks restricting the road to trucks is a weak promise by the City. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter noted that other roads in Virginia are successfully restricted to truck <br />traffic. <br /> <br />Ms. Slaughter opened the floor for public comment. <br /> <br /> Mr. Malcolm Cole, 1106 Park Street, said he is a proponent for the Parkway, noting <br />that he currently has difficulty exiting his driveway and Park Street is unsafe fbr pedestrian <br />crossing. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bob Summers, 613 Davis Avenue, said that the traffic on Park Street has tripled <br />since !971/72, and the Parkway should not wait for fatalities on Rio Road and Park Street. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bunton, 1005 Park Street, said that his neighborhood needs relief from traffic and <br />the current situation poses a danger to children, and supported the Parkway. <br /> <br /> <br />