2000_Resolutions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

assurances given by VDOT and Albemarle County to comply fully with the comments contained • in this letter. The specific or technical design revisions which the City thinks are still needed in order to achieve a true parkway concept are attached hereto as Exhibit A. The City will not endorse or approve any design activity for the Parkway which deviates from the guidelines set forth in Exhibit A. REVISED COMMENTS FROM CITY COUNCIL In addition to asking that VDOT make proposed technical revisions described in Appendix A to the current VDOT plans for this project, the City Council by majority vote also submits herewith comments which effectively revise portions of the City position stated in Mayor Daugherty's letter of July 20, 1999. Set forth below using the same numbering system that was utilized initially are all 12 points of the City's position, as revised (paragraphs that contain revisions when compared to the July 201h letter are shown in italics). 1. Design Speed. Each and every member of Council opposes the roadway design speed proposed by VDOT of 70 km/hr. Instead, Council asks that the Meadow Creek Parkway be designed for a maximum speed of 60km/hr or 37.25 MPH. In conjunction with its suggestion to lower the road's design speed, Council also asks that the proposed road be sized and aligned in a manner consistent with the Rieley Report so that the road will be "blended as gracefully as possible into the existing land form." This should help to reduce the project's impact on McIntire Park. (VDOT' amended plans have responded in part to this comment by lowering design speed). • 2. Number of Lanes. Council requests that two (2) primary (north -south) motor vehicle travel lanes, rather than four (4), together with bike lanes and pedestrian paths, be constructed (between the 250 By-pass and Rio Road). The footprint for the Parkway acquisition must have a centerline, curves, and size to match approximately the 2-U Study Alignment " (2 -Lane Undivided) identified on Page 6 in the first Rieley Report (dated April 27, 1999) entitled "Alternative Alignments and Profiles. " 3. Sufficient Right -of -Way for Two (2) Lanes. Right of way for only two (2) lanes of motor vehicle travel, bike lanes and pedestrian paths should be acquired at the outset as part of the current project. 4. The Intersection at Route 250. (a) Proper design of this intersection is critical if this project is to succeed without considerable damage to the Park. In our opinion, any final design has to include a tightly drawn intersection with a relatively small footprint. The initial VDOT design is far too large. We believe that the total number of lanes created by the intersection should not exceed seventeen (17). Page 2 of 8