|
174
<br />
<br />2. Number of Lanes. Council requests that two (2) primary (north-south) motor vehicle
<br />travel lanes, rather than four (4), be constructed (between the 250 Byzpass and Rio
<br />Road). The footprint for the Parkway acquisition ~'~a --~-~; ..... ~---:--~
<br /> .... c:,. ..... ~ .... ?,~_~ must have a
<br />centerline, ~ curves, and size to match approximately the "study alignment" referred
<br />to in the Rieley Report..~,~a-~_ ~.~.~,,,~ · ~..~:.~.~..~ .~.~.. ~.,~.~,, v, f'~ ,r~j Divided. (4-D),. . pp. 4-5. tfand when a
<br />future City Council were to approve an additional two lanes, new primary travel lanes
<br />could then be conshmcted with a minimum of disruption to the Park, its landscape, and
<br />greenery and at lower costs, for the State .and the City.
<br />
<br />3. Sufficient Right-of-Way for Four. (4) Lanes. Rigt~t of way for four (4) lanes of motor
<br />vehicle travel should be acquired ~ at the outset as part of the current project.
<br />
<br />4. The Intersection at Route 250. Proper design of this imersection is critical if this
<br />project is to succeed without considerable damage to the Park. In-our opinio~ any final
<br />design has -to include a tightly drawn intersection with a relafivdy small footprint. The
<br />initial VDOT design is far too large: We believe that the total number of lanes created by
<br />the intersection should not exceed seventeen (17).
<br />
<br /> Access for pedestrians and bicycle travel to Mclntire Park through and around the
<br />proposed intersection from the south and east also must be accommodated at .grade in an
<br />effective manner~for the intersection to work as we desire. :*' c,., :.,~...~...;o ,,~ ,.~
<br />
<br />5. Bicycle and Ped. estrian~ Travel. Council endorses the construction of dedicated "on
<br />road" bicycle lanes on each side of the parkway's north-south travel lanes to serve high
<br />speed cyclists. In addition and in accord with the lVletropolitan Planni-ng Organi~tion
<br />(the MPO ) recommendation, Council also supports construction of a shared
<br />pedestrian/bicycle path much tike the one proposed by the VDOT design, but eight rather
<br />than frye feet in width.
<br />
<br />6. A. New Lake or .Pond for.the park. Combination of the storm water nmnagement
<br />facilities into one pond or "lake", as suggested in the Rietey report, makes sense to alt of
<br />us. The City will do everything within reason to expand this concept in cooperation with
<br />VDOT. Everyone will benefit, park and outdoors enthusiasts, and motorists using the
<br />Parkway.
<br />
<br />7. Addition. at Park Land. The City respectfully requests that VDOT acquire and donate to
<br />the City and County, as part of this project opportunity, the greatest amoum of additional
<br />land as is ,,,-.~o;h~,, ;..~,...u ........ :...~.~, .... :.~. ~:.~ .... ,-.,~4..,~ ...... .-,...,,~h o.,~
<br />south of Melbourne Road. Our objectives are several. These include replacing any park
<br />land losses resulting from this project, enhancing anc!. ~ expanding the northern and eastern
<br />sides of Mclntire Park, and joining with the County in seeing that park land north of
<br />Melbourne, through a linear park or otherwise, becomes a reality before acquisition of
<br />additional land in that location becomes occupied or too expensive. These acquisitions
<br />should be made easier through VDOT's use of money saved from the City's requested
<br />design change% including those seeking a reduced design speed, two rather than four
<br />lanes, and combination of the storm water detention fac'flifies.
<br />
<br />8. Celt Towers. To supplement its revenues, VDOT has begun leasing portions of the
<br />public rights-of-way that VDOT now "owns" - property originally acquh~ed solely for
<br />traditional road system purposes. Such leases transfer long term use of various sites to
<br />private companies who then construct wireless telecommunication towers ("Celt towers")
<br />on the sites along our highways.
<br />
<br /> Cell towers are just as unsightly as billboards, perhaps more so, because they are
<br />larger or taller or both. Yet, eonsLmction of- these tower~ continues to proliferate in
<br />Virginia. This new cell tower- highway program has occurred without any local
<br />government zoning or land use-oversight or permissbn, and' without any meaningfial
<br />oppommity for the public to participate in deciding where the next tower wilt appear. For
<br />these reasons, the City is opposed to any construction of such towers anywhere along
<br />Phase I of this project without the express permission of this Cmumil and the Board of
<br />Supervisors of Albemarle County. We wish to see VDOT's agreement, to this !oca. !
<br />
<br />
<br />
|