|
December 26, 1967
<br />
<br /> 67-379 - "I submit the attached ordinance and recommend it be p~Aced on first reading. ~is
<br />appropriates $$1,~0S.70 to lend to the Portsmouth Port and Industrial Commission. Tt~ese funds
<br />are needed by the Commission to ~over invoices received on the Paceco Crane warehouses and
<br />railroad trackage. These funds will be reimbursed to the City in the very near future as the
<br />Commission has nearly completed their temporary financing."
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Eastes, the following ordinance was approved on first reading, without
<br />dissenting vote:
<br />
<br /> "AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $51,705.70 PROM T~ GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND FOR
<br /> A TEMPORARY LO,~I TO THE PORTS~,IOLrfH PORT k~D INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION."
<br />
<br /> 67-580 - "I submit the attached resolution and recommend its adoption. This amend~ the ~eaver
<br />Urban Renewal Project VA-40. This changes t~e screening treatment regulations on plant,nas
<br />from the depth ef 8 feet to a depth of 4 feet. The multi-family controls call for a s,creen consis~ting
<br />of plantings not less than 8 feet in depth when it abuts a public, semi-public, Commercial or
<br />industrial area use. Since this area abuts a public housing project and a c~urch, w~ich already
<br />~rovides screening, it is the feeling of the authority and the redeveloper that a 4 foot depth planting
<br />screen will be sufficient and achieve the asthetic and designed qualities desired by the LPA and the city.
<br /> This also changes the minimum spacing regulations between structures froTM 40 feet to 1S feet.
<br />The Ebenezer Non-Profit Corporation's architect in an effort to achieve the ultimate in design and
<br />to satisfy the sponsors' desire for dntch coloniai architecture cannot meet these controls.
<br />The plans have been reviewed by PNA and by the City of Portsmouth Building Officials and in no way
<br />does the existing 1S foot spacing regulations infringe on their regulations. The changes are
<br />not in violation of the local zoning ordinance and will not adversely affect the overall design0r character
<br />of the project."
<br />
<br /> On motion of b~r. Johnson, the following resolution was unanimously adopted:
<br />
<br /> "RESOLUTION OF THE COb~qCIL OF T}~ CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT
<br /> PLAN AS AMENDED BY ~X~EN~Eb~ NO. 3 FOR THE WEAVER PROJECT, NO. VA R-40.
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, by resolution adopted September 7, 1965, and amended by resolution on April 12, 1966,
<br />and further amended by resolution on May 9, 1967, the Council of the City o~ Portsmouth approved
<br />a Redevelopment Plan for the Weaver Project, designated as Project, Va. R-40.
<br /> WHEREAS, in accordance with Section E, page 19 of said Plan, it so provides t~at said
<br />Redevelopment Plan may be amended by the Portsmouth Redevelopment and Housing Authority with the consent
<br />of the City Council; and
<br /> ~EREAS~ the Portsmouth Redevelopment and Housing Authority in ttndertaking the execution of
<br />Project NO. Va. R-40 has found it necessary to make minor changes to said Redevelopment Plan,
<br />as amended~ by amendment No. 3.
<br /> WHERe, the Ports~uth Redevelopment and Housing Authority has approved the changes to the Redevelopmen~
<br />pt~n~%y3i*e~o!utionim~ihh~tan3~dated November, 1967, together withsaid resolution, has been
<br />referred to City Council for review and approval and the City Council has duly considered said
<br />Redevelopment Plan;
<br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF RItE CITY OF PORTSSIOUTH, VIRGINIA,
<br />as follows:
<br /> 1. That said Redevelopment Plan, as amended, dated November 1967~ for the project aforementioned,
<br />having been duly reviewed and considered, is hereby approved.
<br /> 2. That the City Clerk be and is hereby directed to file said copy of said Redevelopment Plan
<br />with the minutes of this meeting."
<br />
<br /> 67-381 - "I recommend that I be authorized to dispose of the John Marskall School to the Portsmouth
<br />Redevelopment and Housing Authority. This building is in the Northside Urban Renewal Project. The
<br />Housing Authority was prepared to pay the city $78,500.00 for this property; however, it has
<br />recently been gutted by fire. The Authority will now pay the difference between the $78,500.00 and
<br />the amount of insurance that will be collected."
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Barnes that the City Manager be authorized to dispose of the property was
<br />adopted, without dissenting vote.
<br />
<br /> 67-382 -"In the master plan for the development of the Weaver Urban Renewal Project, Va-40,
<br />it calls for the construction of a culdesac at the south end of Crabapple Street. This plan was
<br />established to allow ~he Riddick. Weaver School more land area. I recommend that the city dedicate 4,424
<br />square feet of land for the construction of this culdesac."
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. King to concur in the recommendation of the City Manager was adopted, without
<br />dissenting vote.
<br />
<br /> 67-565 - ,I am attaching herewith two ordinances prepared by the City Attorney, for the
<br />closing of Lancaster Avenue and Hanover Street~ At the Iast meeting of the City Council, a letter was
<br />received from the Planning Commission, recommending ~that Hanover Street, be closed between South Street
<br />and the railroad. It did not recommend that Lancaster, between South and Columbia Streets be
<br />closed. The City Council at the last meeting referred this to the City Attorney for the ordinances
<br />with the understanding that a public hearing will be held at this meeting as some citizens had
<br />expressed a desire to be heard concerning these street closings."
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Knight, the privilege of the floor was granted Dean Sword, Jr., of the Earl
<br />Dr~ Realty Corporation, ~nd F. D. Peters,
<br />
<br />Motion of Mr. King that Lancaster Avenue be left open was adopted, without dissenting vote.
<br />
<br /> an motion of Mr. Johnson, the following ordinance was approved on first reading without
<br />dissenting vote:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO CLOSE A PORTION OF iiANOVER AVENUE
<br />
<br />
<br />
|