Laserfiche WebLink
14 <br />Whereas <br /> , the study recommends solutions to resolve traffic issues in the corridor, <br />including projects currently either underway (signal coordination) or in preliminary <br />engineering (Hillsdale Drive); <br /> <br /> Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Charlottesville as <br />follows: <br /> <br />1. That the City Council expresses i ts appreciation to the TJPDC and staff team <br />that prepared the study. <br /> <br />2. That the City Council accepts the findings of the study as raising stimulating <br />ideas and novel approaches to resolve the traffic problems in this area, that <br />with further study and engine ering may resolve the traffic issues for the <br />community in this corridor. <br /> <br />3. That the City Council acknowledges the recommendation to proceed with the <br />City's first priority project, Hillsdale Drive, and requests the Commonwealth <br />Transportation Board to expedi te this project. <br /> <br />4. That the Commonwealth Transportation Board fund the next phase of this <br />study to include the "Targeted Next Phase" and the "Full Corridor Study" as <br />identified on pages 89 - 90 of the report. These next steps will provide the <br />detail not cont ained in this report that can lead to the much needed <br />improvements in the corridor in a way that resolves traffic problems, retains <br />economic vitality and creates new economic opportunity. <br /> <br />5. This request for additional study of the U. S. Route 29/Hydraulic R oad/Route <br />250 Bypass Intersections, and other key intersections along Route 29 North, <br />should not be considered as an endorsement or statement of support by City <br />Council of any particular design or traffic solution that may be considered as <br />part of the stud y, especially to the extent that it may impact any existing or <br />future development in the City. <br /> <br />RESOLUTION <br />: AMENDING FY 03 - 94 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK <br />GRANT PROGRAM <br /> <br /> Mr. O'Connell explained that the CDBG Task Force discussed Council's <br />recommendation t o provide funding for the Mountainside facility, but did not recommend <br />it outside of their budget process. He said that State funding was reinstated for the Drug <br />Court, so that funding can be used for other purposes. He said funding was <br />recommended by th e Task Force for Rose Hill neighborhood rehabilitation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling asked if the resolution before Council reflects the CDBG Task <br />Force recommendation against funding Mountainside, and Mr. O'Connell said the <br />resolution includes funding for Mountainside . <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Schilling about the process, Ms. Claudette <br />Grant, Planning in Neighborhood Development Services, said that Task Force members <br />felt that the process begins in the fall and Mountainside was not part of that process, so <br />t hey voted against funding. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Cox, Ms. Grant said that funding outside of <br />the regular process occurs almost every year. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said he feels this will happen more as the State continues to <br />withdraw funding. Mr. Car avati said he feels it is warranted to use CDBG funds for <br />Mountainside as elderly low income residents are involved. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said he can understand the Task Force wanting to go through a <br />process, and asked if there is another alternative for funds. He said it would not be good <br />to just let the facility go. <br /> <br />