Laserfiche WebLink
162 <br /> <br />design speed than 35 mph. Mr. Toscano said he could- support a design speed of 35 mph. <br />and posting at 25 mph. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said 25 mph. would reduce the level of noise; increase the carrying <br />capacity, and increase the enjoyment of the park. <br /> <br /> Ms~ Richards expressed concern that 25 mph. does not provide a more favorable <br />road than Park Street. Ms. Richards said the goal is to create an attractive alternative to <br />Park Street so that people will use the Parkway instead of it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rieley said that the speed .limits recommended by most traffic engineers is 30 <br />mph. <br /> <br />Mr. Cox said Council s~ be thinking about the safety of people in the park. <br /> <br /> The majority of Council agreed with leaving the design speed at 60 km and <br />possibly posting a speed limit of 30 mph. <br /> <br />Trucks <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said that the City has consistently said for some time that no trucks <br />will be allowed on the Parkway. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman noted that the definition of trucks in the ordinance needs to be <br />looked at and possibly modified, 'but noted that this is not a design issue, but one that can <br />be decided later. <br /> <br />Related. Issues <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano suggested that Council not only request replacement of the parkland <br />taken, but request additional land be added, and proposed that Council request that <br />VDOT take the savings from the new two-lane design and use it for either the proposed <br />take or for the acquisition of parkland in conjunction with the County so more parkland <br />will exist in the end. Mr. Toscano said that grants may also be available to use for this <br />purpose and it may be possible to create a genuine parkway in the future. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravafi suggested making construction of the road contingent upon using~tl-~e <br />savings from four to two- lanes as suggested by Mr. Toscano. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said he would favor putting the suggestion in the letter, but is leery <br />of making the road conditional .on a County decision or on something that VDOT might <br />not agree to. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said that if the County does not buy into theqdea then they do not get the <br />road. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati proposed purchasing the entire 76 acres adjacem to the proposed <br />road and making a real park out of it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rieteysaid there are many precedents based on VDOT acquiring property <br />and donating back the excess to the locality, <br /> <br /> Ms, Richards said she will commit to patting the request in the letter and <br />approaching the County as well. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Caravati, Ms. Hannah Twaddetl, Planner with <br />the Metropolitan Planning Organization, said that the Parkway is proposed to be limited <br />access except at Melbourne and Rio Road. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati asked if Mr. Gouldman and Mr. Rietey couId arrive at a value of the <br />parkland to be lost by the roads Mr, Caravati said that if the road is a limited access road, <br /> <br /> <br />