Minutes 12/09/1969 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

December 9. 1969 "RESOLUTION .REQUESTING THE GENERAL ASSE},FBLY ~)F VIRGINIA TO GRAN~F TO THE CITY OF PORTS~!ObTH A NE~ CHARTER" Ayes: Barnes, Eastes, Johnson, King, Smith Nays: Holley, Turner The following reports from the City Manager were read: 69-396 - "I submit the attac~hed ordinance and recommend it be placed on first reading. This closes an unnamed lame on the ~erly side of Airline Boulevard. This closing has been requested by the Sweetbriar Development Corporation in order that the surrounding land can be properly ae~zeloped. This is a paper lane that has never been opened and th,e Planning Commission has r~commended its closing. There is also attached the report of the viewers." On motion of ~,ir. Smith, the following ordinance was approved on first reading, without dissenting vote: "kN ORDINkNCE TO CLOSE ~N O?{N~ED L~NE ON THE BAST5RLY SIDE OF AIRLINE BOULEVARD." 69-397 - "I submit the attached ordinance and recommend it be placed on first reading. This appropriates $1,500 as the City of Portsmouth's share in the participation of a study of the area-wide water needs and r~sourees. ~%is study is being hmndled ~hrough the Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission with all the political sffo-divisions participating. ~e total cost of the project is $11,000 and the cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth and Virginia BeaCh are requested to pay $1,500 each; ~d the cities of Franklin~ Suffolk, and the counties of Isle of Wight, Nansemond and Southampton are requested to pay $1,000 each. This study will be made by the firm of Henningson, Durham and Pi~nardson and the>' will advise the political sub-divisions as to the availgDilty of additional water supplies and the approximate cost per thousand gallons for this On motion of ~r. Holtey, the ~ ] ' ~ol~owmng ordinance was approved on first reading, without dissenting vote: "~N OP~DINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $1,500.00 FROM TME 1%~ATER FUND kB THE CITY'S PRO-RATA SHAPE OF THE COST OF A WATER FEASIBILITY S~DY BY %HE SOUTHEASTE~q VIRGINIA PLBJ~NING DISTRICT CO~'~ISSI ON." 6~-~98 "At.the last meeting of the City Council, a letter was received from tJ~e Cradock ~roperty ~ners' Association requesting certain improvements in the Cradock area. This letter was referred to the City ~.4anager for a report. /]~e letter of the Property ~ners' Association requested c~r~ain street improvements such as widening of Channing Avenue~ I~,;in Street and Harris Road; also., iz[provements to ~he drainage system, curbs and guttering, mhd the lowering of the high crowns in the streets. This was referred to ~l~e Public Works Department and the following information was received. At the present time, there are 3.52 miles of streets in the Cradock area whic]~ do not have curd and gutter, amd 2175 miles of streets which have higher than normal crowns. Of the above uncurbed streets, 0.93 miles are in the area requested in the letter. The estimated cost of this curb and gutter improvement is approximately $184,000. To lower the high street c~o%~ia as requested would call for the expenditure of approximately $158,000. qqais estimate does not include any relocation of utiliti6s may be necessary when the streets are lowered. To cu~o mud gutter the remaining 2.59 miles of streets will require an expenditure of $506,065. ~%%ile it is true that the high street cm~ns are inconvenient, these property owners have curb and gutter ~nd positive i drainage. At the present time, the Public Works Department has a backlog of curd and gutter plans for the 1948 Annexation Area which will cost approximately $881,S70 to complete. %~e letter further refers to the ex?ansion of the Cradock Community Center where no action has be,eh taken. In our previous budget, an apprpriation was made in the amount of $4~800 for an addition to the CradocK Recrea- tion Center. Approximately one year ago, bids were received for this addition and the lowest bid was in excess of $8,950. Since the bid was approximately double the appropriation, the contract was not 'awarded~ Attempts ha~e been made to get other bids for this addition but without success, l~Te can re-bid the ids and ask for additional appropriations or reconsider the feasibility of enlarging the center on the basis of the cost in- volved. It ;~as ~urthcr requested in the letter that improvements be made to the wading, pool in George '?7ashing- ton Park. We dld recemve one estimate for repamr~ng the pool at a cost of $,86,. We felt mt would be petter to build a ~v ~adinglpaoi ~att~6'r than expend this amount of money on repairing the present pool. ~{e are at- te~ting to get additional ~rices for repairs to this pool and have been advised by one firm that they will submit an estimate of cost within a week. ~ne Property ~ners' letter also suggested moving the shrubbery at the corner of George Washington Highway and Bainbridge Boulevard as it consiitutes a traffic hazard. The Parks and Beautification Department has in- spected this along with the Traffic Engineering Department and has recommended that flee large old shrubs be removed and replaced w~th safer and more desirable plantings. This will be done." On motion of Mr. Turner referred to a conference, without dissenting vote. 69-399 - "At the last meeting of the City Cotmcil, I wa~ requested to make a report on the installation of storm drainage at the intersection of Taft Drive and Bunche Boulevard. This was submitted to the Public Works Department end I Wish to submit the following information. The problem at this intersection has existed since prior to the 1960 annexation when we inherited it. At that time, there was an open ditch existing from the south side of the intersection to the railraod ditch in back of the homes on the south side of Taft Drive. ~nis is a 15-inch concrete pipe mhd is st{ll in place. It has been sealed on both ends. This was done when we learned that rainwater accumulating in the railroad ditch would collect in su~ volume that it rises in elevation and will back up through this 15-inch pipe into