Minutes 05/14/1974 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

285 improvements through dedication of additional right-of~way and pavement widening. (d) The quantity, quality, utility, and type of the project,s community facilities: Sub-paragraph (b) ~as i~dicated that recreational facilities are adsquate and~ present no obstacles. There zs to be centrally located a laundry to serve-all units~ and an adjacent office will administer to the needs of the residents as well as performing necessary operational functions. The storage area presently appears to present no problems as the architect has indicated sucha a facility wilt be provided in each unit. Lastly, three dumpsters, spaced evenly throughout th~ project, will provide for trash collection. Con- sequently, the proposed project offers sufficient community facilities as required per Section 40-55 of the -Zonong Ordinance. The Commission has been informed that this developer will be able to resolve off-site drainage issues and that municipal departments i~v~lved have this matter well ~n hand. Though the project will not meet specifications of the City of Portsmouth's Sub- division Ordinance when Powell Street ~s platted, it is the opinion of the Planning Com- mission that the Coach House group housing project and its related access improvements will be beneficial to the City of Portsmouth. Consequently, approval of the site plan is recommended." Motion Manager and ~ote. of Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Wentz, the matter to be referred to the City let him have it reviewed by any department necessary, was adopted by unanimous 74-197 The following letter received from Chairman of Planning Commission was read: "On April 16, 1974, the City Planning Commission resolved to endorse a proposed "Transportation Terminal" on Interstate 264 at its interchange with Greenwood Drive. Thi~ matter was initiated with Federal and State Highway officials during sessions of the Con- tinuing Transportation Study Technical Committee. We have been advised that Virginia ward rapidly on these plans which would City of Portsmouth. Department of Highway utilize' an eight-acre officials are pushing for- tract of land owned by the On April 17, 1974, I forwarded to City Manager Herton views of the City Planning Commission. Since these are technical and/or administrative in nature, he will have our observations and opinions during negotiations with officials from the Federal Highway Administration, the Virginia Department of Highways, and the Tidewater ~ran~portation 'District. Suffice is to say that the Flanning Commission feels the City of Portsmouth should pledge its land for this "transportation terminal" which will relate to energy- saving programs, transit and car-pooling. If transportation terminal plans materialize, the Commission feels that this is the best possible use for this la~d." Motion of Mr. Wentz and seconded by Mrl Smith, the matter to be referred to the Tidewater Transportation District Commission, was adopted by unanimous vote. 74-198 The following letter received from Chairman of Planning Commission was read: "At its regular monthly meeting on May 7, 1974, the Cft~ Planning Commission returned to consideration of an earlier proposal by Federal and State officials that the Craney Island fill area eventually be extended to the west ~oward Pig Point and the campus of Tidewater Community College. On September tO, 1970, and again on June 1, 1972, on instructions of this Commission, Direg+tor of City Planning J. Brewer Moore appeared before public hearings conducted by the U.S. Corps of Hngineers to present reasons for our determined opposition against any west- ward extension of the Craney Island fill area. His public statements~are part of the re- cord of those hearings and were forwarded to City Council after review and approval by this Commission. During the lat~er part of the 1974 session of the Virginia G~neral Assembly, House Document No. 3 titled "HAMPTON ROAD5 AREA FUTURE DREDGH DISPOSAL SITE" was unveiled by the Virginia Port Authority. This report fails to refleet the serious problems of Portsmouth as the smallest city (land area) in ~etropolitan Hampton Roads; as a city completely sur- rounded by other cities; as a core czty seriously afflict'ed by socio-economic problems stemming from urban blight and poverty. The Commission is disappointed that Commonwealth of Virginia officials failed to confer with municipal officials in preparing the endorsing such a document. The Commission continues possible, resist any effort t~ shall continue our efforts." to feel that the City of Portsmouth must, in every way extend Craney Island to the west. With your approval, we Motion of Mr. W~ntz and seconded by Mr. Early, that the Flanning Commission be encouraged to continue their efforts to resist the western extension of'~raney Island land fill; a~d further that the matter of the impact of the economy of the City of Portsmouth be referred to the Craney Island Study Commission, to report back at the first meeting in July, was adopted by unanimous vote. Motion of Mr. Early and seconded by resolution for the proper authorities be unanimous vote. Mr. Wentz, that ~he City Attorney prepare proper notified as to the objections, was adopted by