|
~ 12, 1~70
<br />
<br /> 70-199 - ~ne City Manager advised'that he had received the cost estimate for the construction of
<br />restrooms at Twin Pines Recreation Center mhd would submit an ordinance at the next council meeting.
<br />
<br />- UNFINISHED BUSINESS
<br />
<br />70-161 - ~ne following ordinance, approved om first reading at last meeting, was taken up and read:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDIN?uNCE TO REVISE, REAR~qqGE, AV~ND AND RE-CODIFY THE GENERAL LA]{JS OF PORTSMOUTH RELATING
<br />TO SUBDIVISIONS; TO THAT END TO P~PEAL ;~q ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE TO REGULATE AND ASSURE
<br />THE ORDERLY SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOP>~NT OF LgND WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF Tile CITY OF
<br />PORTSMOUTH, AND WITHIN A DISTANCE OF THREE NILES THEREFROM, /~aND TO REQUIRE THE PLATTING AND RE-
<br />CORDATION OF SUCH SUBDIVISIONS," ADOPTED MARCH 27, 1956, AND ALL ORDINANCES N4ENDATORY THEREOF:
<br />TO ;¢~ND THE CODE OF ~{E CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1961, BY ADDING THERETO IN LIEU OF THE
<br />FOPJSGOING ORDINANCES Pd~PEALED BY THIS ORDINgNCE, A NEW CHAPTER NU~.f3ERED 32, l~llOt NEW CSIAPTER
<br />INCLUDES NEW ARTICLES Nb~4BERED I TO V, tNCLUSI¥~, ;J~D NEW SECTIONS NUmbERED 32-1 TO 32-21, IN-
<br />CLUSIVE, RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS, SUBDIVISION PLATS, SUBDIVISION SPECIFICATIONS, RESPONSIBILITIES
<br />OF DEVELOPERS~ VARI~{CES, AND FEES ~ND PENALTIES."
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Holte~, the ordinance was adopted and by the~foll~ving vote:
<br />
<br /> Ayes: Barnes, Eastes, Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Turner
<br /> Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 70-161 - The following ordinance, approved on first reading at last meeting, was taken up and read:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINP2.ICE TO PA~ND SECTION 3-2 OF THE %ONINB ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, 1961,
<br /> SO AS TO DEFINE RESPECTIVELY: JUNK, JUNKYARDS, OPEN BUIhNING PJqD SCR~ PRO~SSOR."
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Turner, the ordinance was adopted and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Barnes, Eastes, Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Turner
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />70-161 - ~ne following ordinance, approved on first reading at last meeting, was taken up and read:
<br />
<br />"~N 0RDIN~CE TO ;2~ND SECTION 4-4 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, 1961,
<br />PERTAINING T03JNKYARDS ~qD SCRAP PROCESSOK~."
<br />
<br />Motion of Mr. Eastes to adopt.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. King to amend the ordinance by inserting ~he following words after the phrase "eight
<br />foot in height" in the descriptions of junkyards and scrap processors: "or any equal or adequate natural
<br />barrie~7~
<br />
<br />Vote being taken, the amended ordinance was adopted, mud by the following vote:
<br />
<br />A) es. Barnes, Eastes, Johnson, King~ Smith, Turner
<br />Nays: ~olSey
<br />
<br />70-162 - ~ne follm~ing ordinance, approved on first reading at last meeting, was taken up and read:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL ~ECTION 18-93 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1961,
<br />TO MAKE COb~TY STREET BETWEEN WASHINGTON STP~ET AND HARBOR DRIVE A TWO-WAY STREET."
<br />
<br />motion of Mr. King, the ordinance was adopted, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Barnes, Eastes, Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Turner
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />70-163 - Zne following ordinance, approved on first reading at last meeting, was taken up and read:
<br />
<br />";~q ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $1,500.00 FROM THE GENERAL CAPITAL I~,~oROVE~NW FUND FOR
<br />CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW FIPd~ STATION ON ELM AVENUE."
<br />
<br />Motion of Mr. ~m~tn to adopt the ordinance.
<br />
<br />The following letter from Brighton School ParentTeacher Association was read:
<br />
<br /> "The Brighton School Parent Teacher Association is most stronglylagainst the proposed location of a fire
<br />stat~p~ at the intersection of Portsmouth NDulevard and Elm Avenue. W'e concur wholeheartedly in the need f6r
<br />a new facility to serve this area of our city.
<br />
<br /> However, the safety of several hundred school children who would have to cross this intersection and walk
<br />directly in front of the fire station on their way to and from Brighton School raises a serious doubt in our
<br />minds about the prudence of this location. We implore Council to reconsider very carefully this site in view
<br />of this very. real potential safety hazard to these children.
<br />
<br /> /~.e effect of a fire station so nearby on the orderly operation of the school is also a thought you should
<br />weigh heavily. Fire bells ringing, sirens blaring, and heavy machinery moving in and out at all hours during
<br />the school day will be a disturbing factor with the two facilities in such close proximity.
<br />
<br /> Additionally, the school site as now constituted is deficient in land area by about seven acres. The
<br />s~nool administration has informed us that even if the area from the school on Jefferson Street to Elm Avenue,
<br />and from Elm AvenBe to Portsmouth Boulevard, including the entire plot proposed for the fire station, could be
<br />
<br />
<br />
|