|
2O7
<br />
<br />,Tnn~a. ry 22: lq74
<br />
<br />74-5 The following ordinance, approved at last meeting, was taken up and read:
<br />
<br />(1) "AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA,
<br />1961, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 2-26 AND 10-31.1 THEREOF PERTAINING TO THE
<br />APPOINTMENT OF THE CITY AUDITOR AND THE DUTIES OF THE CITY AUDITOR."
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Johnson, the ordinance was adopted,
<br />and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Early, Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />The following ordinance, approved at last meeting, was taken up and read:
<br />
<br />(2) "AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS 3 AND 19 OF THE CLASSIFICATION AND
<br />PLAN OF THE CITY TO ESTABLISH A CLASSIFICATION FOR THE POSITION OF CITY
<br />AUDITOR."
<br />
<br />PAY
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Johnson, the ordinance was adopted, and
<br />by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Early, Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />NEW BUSINESS
<br />
<br />74-30 - The following letter received from the Director of Planning, was read:
<br />
<br /> "At its regular monthly meeting on January 15, 1974, the City Planning Commission
<br />resolved to recommend that the Lincoln Street Fire Station in S~uthside be ~ecla~dsurplus
<br />municipal property and disposed of at public auction. The lot in question ms zoned Re-
<br />sidential R-60.
<br />
<br /> The Southside General Neighborhood Renewal Plan-calls for future residential develop-
<br />ment at a density of 10-12 dwellings per acre. Lincoln Street will retain its 'collector"
<br />designation. Municipal facilities and activities would aggregated south of Lincoln Stree'
<br />in the so called Green Core area. Thus, the Commission concludes that there is no confli~
<br />involved in declaring this piece of municipal property as surplus.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. King and seconded by Mr. Johnson, the matter to be referred to the
<br />City Attorney for proper handling, was adopted by unanimous vote.
<br />
<br />74-51 The following letter received from the Director of Planning, was read:
<br />
<br /> "At its regular monthly meeting on January 15, 1974, the City Planning Commission
<br />reviewed the subdivision plat of "Southampton" which was recorded on January 14, 1974.
<br />The developers elected to name a new street in the subdivision "Raintree Lane", when the
<br />Planning staff refused to honor an extension of an existing paper stub street known as
<br />Riverside Lane.
<br />
<br /> The Planning Commission recommends that City Council pass an ordinance renaming this
<br />paper stub off River Shore Road "RAINTREE LANE" to eliminate any possible future con-
<br />fusion."
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. King and seconded by Mr. Wentz, to be referred to the City Attorney
<br />proper handling, was adopted by unanimous vote.
<br />
<br />74-32 - The following letter received from the Director of Planning, was read:
<br />
<br /> "At its regular monthly meeting on January 15, 1974, the City Planning Commission
<br />completed its favorable review of a proposed development to be known as Turnpike Garden
<br />Apartments, presented by the Gus Jones Realty Corporation. Attorney J. Stanley Livesay
<br />represents the applicant, who is also served by Architect Abbott Williams and Engineer
<br />Page Herbert.
<br />
<br /> Section 3-26 of the Zoning Ordinance provides an outline for group housing project
<br />review. There are four areas of finding to which the Commission must ~irect its attention
<br />
<br />a)
<br />
<br />The project's compatibility with its environment and other land uses and building
<br />in the surround area: Admittedly, since this site backs up to the Seaboard
<br />Railroad and fronts on busy Turnpike Road, it possesses limitations. No one
<br />would consider that this stretch of land between Turnpike Road and the Seaboard
<br />Railroad is conducive to construction of high priced housing. However, adjoining
<br />Kingman Heights neighborhood may be regarded as a~ell-kept, middle-income
<br />neighborhood of owner-occupied single-family dwellings. Nearby are lovely homes
<br />and a_beautiful church on large sites, To most people who look at the existing
<br />apartment building in this complex, it is not up to the general standard establi
<br />in the ~¢djoining residential area. Since the developer proposes to utilize high
<br />density R-60, he is injecting an element of incompatibility Which can be disrupti
<br />to established values. However, during months of review work, the site plan was
<br />improved to the mutual satisfacticn of all parties concerned.
<br />
<br />-e
<br />
<br />
<br />
|