Laserfiche WebLink
238 <br /> <br />coordinate with regard to the entrance corridors and would <br />designate the Technical Committee as the appropriate body to <br />discuss any issues which might surface in the process. <br /> <br /> On motion by Ms. Slaughter, seconded by Mr. Toscano, the <br />resolution designating the PACC Technical Committee as the <br />regional body responsible for reviewing and coordination <br />entrance corridor guidelines was unanimously approved. <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville(City), County of <br />Albemarle (County), and University of Virginia(University) <br />share a number of roadway corridors leading to places of <br />historic significance in the Region; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, the City, County and University have a common <br />interest in the visual quality and the consistency of <br />appearance of these corridors; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, the City, County and University each have <br />review mechanisms intended to promote and/or preserve the <br />visual quality and integrity of new development along these <br />corridors; <br /> <br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Technical Committee <br />of the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC Tech) requests <br />that the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) designate <br />PACC Tech as the regional body responsible for reviewing and <br />coordinating entrance corridor guidelines in the City, County <br />and University. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated that issues involving student housing <br />and the Real Estate Foundation will be considered at the <br />next PACC meeting and she welcomed Council's thoughts with <br />regard to these matters. <br /> <br />STAFF REPORT: HIGHWAY PROJECTS <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix explained that Council had asked for a <br />report reviewing the status and process of major highway <br />projects in the City. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bruce McNabb, Assistant Director of Public Works, <br />stated that money available for new construction has been <br />decreasing for the past two years and listed the status of <br />the following highway projects: Long Street/Free Bridge - <br />construction scheduled to begin in early July; Ridge Street <br />Bridge - design to be presented to the State Board in June; <br />9th Street/10th Street - design changes currently being <br />considered by the City~ and Meadowcreek Parkway - preliminary <br />engineering being reviewed by the City with funding for <br />additional engineering not available for three more years. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Ms. Slaughter, Mr. McNabb <br />stated that a location public hearing for the Meadowcreek <br />Parkway had been held by the Department of Transportation in <br />March of 1986, at which time the Mayor had spoken against the <br />proposed location. Mr. McNabb stated that since the project <br />will not receive additional funding until 1994-95 he felt <br />that further environmental studies would be needed because <br />the data collection would be out of date by then. Mr. McNabb <br />added that the only way for the City to speed up construction <br />of the Meadowcreek Parkway would be to change another highway <br />priority. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter questioned whether Council should take <br />action with regard to the location of Meadowcreek Parkway and <br />questioned what happens to funds when a project such as this <br />is delayed. <br /> <br /> Mr. McNabb stated that the funding, once allocated, <br />remains for a project. <br /> <br />Ms. Slaughter stated that she felt it would be good to <br /> <br /> <br />