Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch asked if it makes sense to consider that interchange as part of the Rt. <br />29 interchange study, and Mr. And erson said he is sure the University's consultant will <br />consider other type intersections in the study. Mr. Anderson said the University is aware <br />of the City's position. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox asked if it would be appropriate to have a City representative in the <br />meetin g with the University and VDOT, and Mr. Anderson said he would be happy to <br />invite a City representative. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said it is important to have a thorough understanding of the impact <br />if we do not move the intersection up to the first phase. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said he is concerned that if we put it in we will have to find a way to pay <br />for it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said funding ultimately comes from the same pot of money. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said the University could be approached to see if they want to <br />abandon their work with VDOT and instead incorporate the interchange in phase I and <br />pay the additional cost. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said he thinks the suggestion to include that intersection in Phase I is <br />a good one. <br /> <br /> Mr. Anderson said that both at - grade and grade - separated will be loo ked at. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch made a motion to add a grade separated interchange at the North <br />Grounds connector to Phase I of the study, Mr. Caravati seconded the motion. The <br />motion was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Caravati, Mr. Lynch, Mr. <br />Schilling. Noes: Mr. Cox and Ms. Richards. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati suggested that the following goal be added to the scope of work: <br />"Respecting existing tax and fee revenue paid to respective jurisdictions." <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch made a motion to accept Mr. Caravati's addition, Mr. Caravati <br />seconded the motion, and it was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Caravati, <br />Mr. Cox, Mr. Lynch, Ms. Richards, Mr. Schilling. Noes: None. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati pointed out grammatical errors in the scope of work. He made a <br />motion to add "and include TIP projects in the base case." <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said he does not feel it will hurt to add that and seconded the motion. <br />The motion was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Caravati, Mr. Cox, Mr. <br />Lynch, Mr. Schilling. Noes: Ms. Richards. <br /> <br /> At t he suggestion of Mr. Lynch, it was agreed that the scope of work will start <br />with the 1988 study. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch suggested adding consideration of the extension of Hillsdale Drive if it <br />is not the subject of another study and adding a University of Virginia re presentative to <br />the steering committee. Councilors agreed with these suggestions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox asked if the matter will have to come back to Council if agreement <br />cannot be reached with the University, and Mr. Lynch said he thinks it should. <br /> <br /> On motion by M s. Richards, seconded by Mr. Caravati, the scope of study, as <br />amended, was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Caravati, Mr. Cox, Mr. <br />Lynch, Ms. Richards, Mr. Schilling. Noes: None. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brown presented a new draft resolution to Council which he said clarifies <br />rescinding the previous resolution, but continues opposition to the original VDOT design. <br />