|
August 8. 1972
<br />
<br /> 72-303 - The following ordinance, approved at last meeting, was taken up and read:
<br />
<br /> "AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $3,750.00 FROM THE GBNBRAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
<br /> FUND FOR THE .1972 SUMMER YOUTH TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM."
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. smith, the ordinance was adopted, and by
<br />the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 72-304 - The following ordinance, approved at last meeting, was taken up and read:
<br />
<br /> "AN ORDINANCB TO APPROPRIATE $44,821.00 FROM THE GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVBMHNT
<br /> FUND FOR THH CONTINUATION OF THE POLICB CO~UNITY RELATIONS GRANT."
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Johnson, the ordinance was adopted, and by
<br />the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Holley, J'hnson, King, Smith, Wentz
<br />Nays: Nons
<br />
<br />72-395 The following ordinance, approved at last meeting, was taken up and read:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO APPRPRIATE $32,301.00 FROM THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE OPERATION
<br />OF THE PORTSMOUTH PARKING AUTHORITY."
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Smith, the ordinance was adopted, and by
<br />following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Hollsy, Johnson, Ming, Smith, Wentz
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />the
<br />
<br /> 72-306 The following ordinance, approved at last meeting, was taken up and read:
<br />
<br /> "AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $24,282.00 FROM THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE OPERATION
<br /> OF A FOOD STAMP SALES PROGRAM THROUGH CONTRACT WITH THE SOCIAl SERVICE DEPART~ENT."
<br />
<br />On mo-tio.n of Mr. J.6hnson and seconded by Mr. Smith, the ordinance was adopt.ed, and by
<br />following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Holley, Johnson, Ming, Smith, Wentz
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 72-216 - The following zoning amendment ordinance, approved at last meeting, was taken
<br />up and read:
<br />
<br />"ZONING AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Z 72-39"
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Johnson, the ordinance was adopted, and by
<br />the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 72-216
<br />
<br /> "At its
<br />to recommend
<br />facts.
<br />
<br /> The following letter received from Director of Planning was read: Re: Z-72-27
<br />
<br />regular monthly meeting on ~1 August 1972, the City Plannigg Commission resolved
<br />that the residue of rezoning petition Z-72-27 be denied, based upon the followin
<br />
<br />Before the regBlar public hearing on 2 May 1972, a staff recommendation was
<br />against approval of Z-72-27. However, at the public hearing, a majority of
<br />tbs Planning Commission disagreed and on a split vote the matter went to
<br />City Council. On June 12th City Council passed Z-72-27 on first reading in
<br />agreement with the Planning Commission recommendation. On June 27th two 6f
<br />the three parties to this application appeared before City Council with
<br />strenuous objections and requested that the matter be withdra~. City Council
<br />referred Z-72-27 back to the Planning Commission.
<br />
<br />On July 18th the Planning Commission accepted withdrawal of two of the three
<br />segments and ordered a full staff report for the next public meeting on
<br />August 1, 1972.
<br />
<br />Attached is a map document showing the application residue, property of
<br />L. Askew.
<br />
<br />The Office of City Planning recommended that
<br />that City Council deny this application,~and
<br />to agree for the following reasons:
<br />
<br />the City Planning Commission suggest
<br />the Commission unanimously resolved
<br />
<br />This will be an undesirable extension of strip commercial into a stable
<br />resident~ial area and thus result in an incomparable land use pattern.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|