|
~r 1~ 1977
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, the surrounding park like setting is of particular enhancement to the City
<br />of Portsmouth as an important civic design element; and
<br />
<br /> I¥HEREAS, the building and setting are presently included in the State and Federal re '
<br />try of Historic structures; and g~s._j
<br /> WHEREAS, the preservation and use of such courthouse is highly desirable and of benefit
<br />to the City of Portsmouth.
<br />
<br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in order to preserve this tangible reminder of
<br />the past for the future enjoyment of the citizens of Portsmouth, the Council of the City
<br />of Portsmouth hereby strongly endorses all efforts to preserve and protect said courthouse
<br />and it's surrounding properties.
<br />
<br /> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Portsmouth strongly encourages
<br />the use o'f such building and property as a cultural and fine arts ~center for the City.
<br />
<br /> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Portsmouth hereby directs the
<br />Museum and Fine Arts Commission to explore and utilize all possible methods of preserving
<br />and using said courthouse in the manner and for the purposes hereinabove stated."
<br />
<br /> Ayes: Early, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz, Barnes
<br /> Nays: Holley
<br />
<br />NEW BUSINESS
<br />
<br />72-382 - The following letter from Director of Planning was =ead:
<br />
<br /> "At its regular monthly meeting on 5 September 1972, the Planning Commission resolved
<br />to recommend approval of a street closure proposed by Ms. Pearl G. Spivey of 2702 Neal
<br />Street, Hampton, Virginia 23361, and Ms. Hortense Hathaway of 5820 West Norfolk Road, Ports-
<br />mouth, Virginia 23703 through their Attorney J. Stanley Livesay. The petition describes
<br />an unnamed sixteen (16') foot alley extending eastward 185 feet from Tyre Neck Road between
<br />West Norfolk Road and Arden Street. The alley is considered to be a "paper"~'street and
<br />contains no known improvements, nor has there been any request to retain utility easements.
<br />The Commission recommends approval of this petition."
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. King, the matter to be referred to the City
<br />Attorney for proper handling, was adopted by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Early, Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 72-383 The following report received from W. T. Goode, Jr., Chairman, Planning
<br />Commission, was presented:
<br />
<br /> "During fiscal 1971-72, Planning was able, in spite of staff turnover problems, to move
<br />toward an improved format for Capital Budget review and revison. The School Plant Inventory
<br />was republished and improved tremendously, our five year Municipal Plan Investments Prosposal
<br />Capital Budget underwent its first major update process satisfactorily, and work was essenti-
<br />ally completed on a Municipal Plant Inventory of all non-school, non-road city properties.
<br />In concert, these three municipal management tools can be used to improve administration of
<br />city policies. This approach is patterned to our local needs, as we see them, and se~ms to
<br />be attracting favorable interest from other cities.
<br />
<br /> Personnel turnover was our major Planning problem, as 50% of the office staff had to
<br />be replaced. We were honored when Urban Coordinator Crosby advanced to a higher position
<br />at Regional Plan. Graphic Illustrators Jackson and Johnston accepted advanced positions with
<br />private firms; each had started with us as an Industrial Cooperative Training (I.C.T.) pro-
<br />gram Draftsman Intern years ago. Credit must be given to our office staff for its devotion
<br />to in-service training, but at 50% turnover rate is a critical factor for the smallest
<br />municipal Planning office in metropolitan Hampton Roads.
<br />
<br /> Indeed, figures from the American Society of Planning Officials list current per capita
<br />budgetary allotments: Chesapeake, $1.20; Hampton, $1.20; Newport News, 996; Norfolk, 91{;
<br />Portsmouth, 73¢; and Virginia Beach, $1.07. Budget reduction for 1972-73 will curtail our
<br />program geared to staff activity. The Commission concurs with our Director of City Planning
<br />that we cannot continue to shoulder some responsibilities assumed in the last few years.
<br />We trust, in your review of this report of Planning activities, that our position is clearly
<br />documented on the use of budgetary resources allocated."
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Smith, to be received as information and the
<br />letter as budgetary consideration be referred to upcoming budget conference~ that the matter
<br />be referred to the AD HOC Committee for their comments, was adopted by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Early, Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz, Barnes
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 72-384 The following letter receive'd from the Gier~ ~£~'~he Schobl Boafd,
<br />
<br /> "At a special meeting on August 31, 1972, the School Board of the City of
<br />adopted the following resolution:
<br />
<br /> was read:
<br />
<br />Portsmouth
<br />
<br />'RESOLVED THAT the School Board of the City of Portsmouth request City Council to
<br />
<br />
<br />
|