Minutes 07/18/1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jul 1978 conservations with residents of Mayflower and Hodges Ferry Roads this is no longer deemed necessary and will not be implemented. [$) Restriction of no left turn at the intersection of Melvin Drive and Portsmouth Boulevard. "This ch'ange has b~n approved. It is necessitated by the construction of the new Hodges Ferry Bridge, the approach to which is a graded elevation from the Bridge to Melvin Drive. Due to the new four lane bridge and higher traffic ~:i:~ speeds, left turns at Melvin Drive would create a traffic hazzard. All other movements to and from Melvin Drive will not be effected. (4) Improvement of Hodges Ferry Road from Cherokee Roa~ north to Logan Drive. This change has been comtemplated as previously discussed. While a recommendation i to improve Hodges Ferry Road in lieu of Etmhurst Lane is likely, it is.presently '~ held in abeyance until the completion of a report on the two alternatives being conducted by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. This report is expected to be completed by the end of August 1978. A final recommendation will be made by this office shortly after reviewing the study. The above represents a complete status report concerning all traffic circulation changes considered for the area in question. If I can provide you additional information concerning any of the above mentioned items, please call me." Mr. Terry Rivenbark, 215 Mayflower Road, representing residents of Mayflower Road,spoke regarding Mayflower Road and stated that Mayflower Road~g~s~R~&~e~-~b~eing used as a thoroughfare and suggested that both roads be made one way - going in the opposite direction. Mr. Rivenbark was in support of the proposed changes. Motion of b{r. Early and seconded by Mr. Barnes, that ~he light not to be turned on until the report is received from the Department of Highways, and was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Barne~s, Early, Elliott, Gray, Holley, Oast Nays: Davis 78-65(c) - Z 78-2 - Petition of ConstrUction Associates, Inc., deferred from regular meeting of April 25, 1978, was presented; The following letter from~lke%C~y Manager was submitted: "This letter is in reference to the correspondence from Mr. Donald C. Kilgore, April 19, 1978, addressed to me and copies to the members of CoUncil regarding the proposed mobile home park at Gust Lane and Beechdale Road, Z 78-2 (Agenda Item No. 78-65(c) ). In his letter, Mr. Kilgore took exception to several items contained in my earlier report to Council. The principle items objected to were: the figures presented to project the number of children the proposed project would generate, the median value of the mobile units, and the p~ential cost to the City. In the report submitted to Council, I indicated that the projected number of children would be 1.279 children per dwelling unit. This was confirmed by the Portsmouth gChool Board. The 1.279 ratio takes into consideration that the type of £mmilies most likely to reside in the mobile home park will be relatively young and largely transient in nature, due to the close proximity to military activity. My staff contacted an author of a book on fiscal impact on housing development, who agreed that the proximity of the development to a large military base would likely create a larger influx of children.~ This is consistent with Virginia Beach' experience with developments of similar design and location. In my report to Council, comparisons were made between three types of housing; mobile, R-60 and $-75s three bedroom~!:~nits. Due to the anticipated family size of the purchasers, staff!felt that the three bedroom variety was the best test for the purpose of the study. Interestingly enough, the table included in Mr. Kilgore's correspondence reflects roughly the same ration for three bedroom mobile homes as was indicated in my report. Another objection involved the median value of $10,500 per mobile home unit. Mr. Kilgor~ indicated that he felt an average unit cost of $12,9S0 would be more accurate. The $10,S00 figure waS~arrived at in consultation with one of the area's largest mebile home dealerships and it takes into account that not all of the units are likely to be new. It should also be pointed'out that even though the R-MH is taxed as real property it depreciates unlike the value of R-60 and R-TSs. Concerning. the reference in Mr. Kilgore's correspondence that my report did not consider potential revenues to be generated from the related commercial development and land improve- ments, I wish to point out that this was acknowledged in the original report. It was felt that some commercial development woUld likely occur regardless of the kind of housing that might be built. Since the impact of the commercial development was not considered for the R-60 and R-TSs housing, the outcome of the comparisons was not affected. It should be mentioned that my original report conceded Mr. Kilgore's point that not all school children in the mobile home park would be new to the Portsmouth Public School System. However, for purposes of comparison, the total financial impact of schoo~ children Was in- dicated for the mobile home park, as it was for the hypothetical R-60 and R-TSs housing. Similarly, it should be mentioned that the difference in the two reports concerning children per dwelling resulted from Mr. Kilgore's using only school age children whereas my staff used figures for all Children under the age of 18 in all three comparisons.