Laserfiche WebLink
211 <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said what the City may gain is a different function of the land, with <br />walking paths and informal recreational purposes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said he would favor including acreage, and suggested 85 acres. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said she does not favor that. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said he would like to explore what functional use means to professional <br />consultants. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said he would tike to be specific that we are giving up attractive <br />parkland and a ball field and tbat should be replaced with flat land. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said that while it is not his vision to have ball fields on the new park <br />land, he would not exclude that as an option. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said ~ Councilors need to remember that the Parkway will be <br />limited access. Mr. Caravati said he favors striking "substantial." <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said that the amount of land needs to be qualified. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati noted that the City and County will be the ones buying the park land. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said Council needs to have further discussion with the County. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said that Council w~l have m sit down in negotiations with all <br />parties regarding purchase of park land. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said he supports leaving the language as he suggested. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox suggested using the term "comparable value" land. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said he is concerned that the suggested language will be used in the <br />future in an effort to stop the Parkway. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said he realizes that could happen. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said he could support the language with the removal of the word <br />"contingent" if he truly thought the language was not going to be used as leverage later <br />on~ <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said his position is no park, no road. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards expressed concern that. tying "contingent" and "substantial" leaves <br />the issue open. Ms. Richards said she agrees with making the road contingent on a park, <br />but feels the issue can escalate and escalate. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said he is not interested in just enhancing the view corridor for those <br />driving through. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati proposed leaving "contingem" and stntdng "substantial." <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards asked that "functional" be defined. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman expressed concern about the word "contingent," noting that VDOT <br /> is looking for approval to continue, and that word indicates that Council is not giving <br /> approval until something else happens in the next two or three years until negotiations <br /> happen. Mr. Gouldman said he sees a stalemate being created. <br /> <br /> M~. Camvati said "coatin4ent" means that the City will work with the consultant <br /> and VDOT and approve what they do. Mr. Caravati said he trusts the good faith of the <br /> County and VDOT. <br /> <br /> <br />