Laserfiche WebLink
210 <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said he. is not sure enough additional parkland is requked at tjfis point, <br />and said the language is not clear what we are asking for in terms of replacement. Mr, <br />Lynch said we should be talking about functional use of the land, and he feels it is <br />appropriate to ask for a greater park to be added to the north, creating an amenity for City <br />and County residents. M~r~. Lynch said the question is what is the appropriate language to <br />assure we get the appropriate amomnt of land. Mr. Lynch read language that he would <br />support: "The City's approval for the Meadowcreek Parkway design shall be contingent <br />upon the acquisition of substantial replacement parkland by the City, the County, and <br />VDOT totaling enou~ land to allow for the establishment ora regional park for the. use <br />of our citizens and confirm the status of this new road as a tree Parkway. Tbfis nevi park <br />land is intended to replace the functional use of the land lost to the Parkway in the City, <br />to serve as a community park asset for Park/Rio and its environs, and to protect the view <br />shed surrounding the Parkway and Park/Rio Road." Mr. Lynch said he is unsettled about <br />not asking for a specific amount of land. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano asked if the majority of Council wants to tinker with the wording of <br />the letter to VDOT. <br /> <br /> ~. Cox said he supports addkiona] language as he thinks some new things have <br />happened, including the bill allowing ¥~DOT to use fiands to purchase prope~y and the <br />hiring of a consultant by the County, instruments that will now allow it to happen. Ivlr. <br />Cox said he supports a s3mabolic regional park. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said she does not favor the suggested revision and does not think the <br />language is ambiguous as it ,now stands. Ms. Richards said she wood like to see a linear <br />park that relates to the design recommended by the consultant. Ms. Richards asked what <br />is meant by regional park. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said a regional park would serve people from the region, not just the <br />adjacent neighborhood. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards expressed concerns about the regional implications, and said she <br />envisions parkland adjacent to both sides of the Parkway with trails, bicycling, and <br />informal recreation. Ms. Richards said she would favo.r changing the language if it was <br />more consistent with that idea. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said he resists stating a particular amount of land, and said that while <br />he favors changing the language, he is still struggling with the word "substantial." <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said that given that there are four votes to change the language, he <br />suggested changing it as little as poss~le, and suggested adding "approval is contingent <br />on the greatest amount of land as possible be added." Mr. Toscano said that "substantial" <br />and "functional" are subject to interpretation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said he is looking for comparable or an equal value of land to w hat is <br />being taken. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati noted that it is more a commitment on the part of the City and <br />County to do that. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said he thinks the last sentence is very important as the adjacent residents <br />will be impacted by noise and congestion. Mr. Cox asked who will establish the value of <br />the land. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman said that VDOT will make an offer to the City regarding the sales <br />price of the land. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch noted that the CSX property was valued at $60,000 per acre. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman said the property is currently assessed at $55,000 per acre. <br /> <br /> <br />