2000-12-06(II) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

264 reduce the project's impact on Mclntire Park. (VDOT's 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 shouM 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). Access for pedestrians and bicycle travel to Mclntire Park at the proposed intersection also must be accommodated in an effective manner for the intersection to work as we desire and in accord with the second Rieley Report (dated August 31, 2000, copy of which is enclosed). (b) While the approval process, design and construction of the Parkway project goes forward, Council is committed to seeking VDOT funding and approval for a second project - one that results in a tight urban interchange which replaces the intersection described in section 4a. Council's commitment is based in part on recommendations contained in an October 2000 report of Rieley & Associates (copy of which is enclosed), and in part on a belief that such an interchange will operate more efficiently, allow for safe pedestrian and bicycle access to the Park provide aesthetically pleasing access to the City, and help address long term traffic movement needs between the 250 by-pass and the Parkway. To further underscore a desire on the City's part to facilitate this second project, the City is willing to perform design, bid, and construction phases of this second project - all within the required oversight parameters for this type of process. 5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel. Council endorses the construction of dedicated "on road" bicycle lanes on each side o£the Parkway's north-south travel lanes to serve high speed cyclists. In addition and in accord with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (the MPO) recommendation, Council also supports construction of a shared pedestrian/bicycle path much like the one proposed by the VDOT design, but eight rather than five feet in widtk 6. A New Lake or Pond for the Park. Combination of the storm water management facilities into one pond or "lake", as in the Rieley report, is essential. The City will do everything within reason to expand this concept in cooperation with VDOT. Everyone will benefit, park and outdoors enthusiasts, and motorists using the Parkway. 7. Additional Park Land. The City's approval for the Meadowcreek Parkway design shall be and is contingent upon the acquisition of replacement parkland and green space by the City, the County, and VDOT to create a greater contiguous Park, for the use of our citizens throughout the region and confirm the status of this new road as a true Parkway. This new park land and green space is intended to replace the land lost to the Parkway as well as the loss of use imposed on some of the remaining portions of Mclntire Park. It is also intended to serve as a community asset for Park/Rio and its environs, and to protect the view shed surrounding the Parkway and Park/Rio Road. While an expert evaluation could be provided by a third party, such as the Vtt Department of Conservation and Recreation, we suggest that 50 acres of land, contiguous to the existing park would be an appropriate replacement amount.