|
March 14, 1967
<br />
<br />thence east along said cent~rline to the point of origin;-from Commercial C-2 to Commercial C-1.
<br /> Area 4: Beginning at the intersection of the centerlines of Interstate 264 and Effingham Street;
<br />thenc~ southwest along the centerline of Interstate 264 220 feet to an existing zoning boundary; thence~
<br />north to a point 150 feet north of the centerline of South Street; thence east 200 feet to the centerline
<br />of Effingham Street; thence south along said centerline Go the point of origin; from Residential R-60
<br />to Commercial C-I."
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Eastes to refer to the City Clerk for advertising for public hearing on April 11, 1967,
<br />was adopted, without dissenting vote.
<br />
<br /> 67-67 - The following letter from the Director of Planning was read:
<br /> "At its regular monthly meeting on Tuesday, March 7, 196~, the City Planning Commission publicly
<br />heard and acted upon the following application for a .use permit:
<br /> Petition of Attorney Robert F. Babb for a Use Permit to erect and operate in Commercial C-I
<br />an automotive service'station located on the following property: Beginning at the southwest corner of
<br />El~nhurst Lan6 and Portsmouth Boulevard; thence south along Elmfnurst Lane approximately 335 feet; thence
<br />west 284.89 feet to a point; thence mo~thwest 364.20 feet to a point; thence north 87.16 feet to '
<br />Portsmouth Boulevard; thence east along Portsmouth Boulevard approximately 545 feet to the point of origin.
<br /> The Planning Commission resolved to recommend denial of this application because it was felt
<br />that neither demunstrated need nor neighborhood endorsement supported this request; that the proposed
<br />facility by itself would not be in keeping with its immediate environs; and that inclusion of use permits
<br />for automotive service stations (Zoning Ordinance Amendment of three years ago) in "neighborhood"
<br />C-1 Commercial zoning districts was intended more to alleviate hardship experienced by existing gas
<br />stations along modernized Portsmouth Boulevard than to encourage introduction of additional facilities?
<br /> On motion of Mr. King, referred to the City Clerk for advertising to be heard on April 11, 1967.
<br />
<br /> 67-68 - The following letter from the Director of Planning was read:
<br /> "At its regular monthly meeting on March 7~ 1967, the City Planning Commission resolved to
<br />recommend approval of the following two street closure applications, subject to r~tention of any
<br />drainage or utility easements deemed necessary:
<br /> S-67-$: Application by Attorney Loui~ Brenner for Lois and Chester Daniels of 1305 ;~elia
<br />Avenue to close SCOTT STP~ET east from Am. elia .&venue to a city drain ever a distance of approximately
<br />65 feet.
<br /> S-67-5: Application by Attorney George Pilcher for Brooks and Mildred Taylor of 88 Cushing
<br />Street, Oscar and Marjorie Rice of 54 Channing Avenue and the Edward Lockstampfors of 56 Channing
<br />Avenue to close andALLEY 12 feet in width along the rear lot line of Channing Avenue 92 feet in length
<br />as measured east of Cushing Street."
<br />
<br />Motion of Mr. Barnes to refer to the City Attorney was adopted, without dissenting vote.
<br />
<br /> 67-69 - The following letter from the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Virginia State Legislative
<br />Board, was read:
<br /> "I wish to direct ydur attention to a hearing before the State Corporation Commission, scheduled
<br />for 10:00 A.M., March 16, 1967 on Docket No. 18272, a petition from the Norfolk & Western Railway Company
<br />and the Atlantic Coast Lfne Railroad Company to consolidate and discontinue operation of certain trains.
<br /> If this petition before the S.C.C., is granted, this will leave two (2) trains westbound
<br />daily out of Norfolk, Train No. 3 leaving at 1:~0 P.M. and Train No. 15/25 leaving at 10:05 P.M., both pro-
<br />viding through service between Norfolk, Va., and Cincinnati, Ohio~ Also two(2) trRins eastbound from
<br />Cincinnati, Ohio ~o Norfolk, Va., train No. 16/26 arriving at 4:45 A.M., and Train No. 4 arriving at 5:30 P.M.
<br />This will eliminate trains 21 and 22 between Norfolk, Richmond and points north, and Trains 25 and 26
<br />between Norfolk and Cincinnati, Ohio.
<br /> This elimination of trains will also effect mail and express service to and from the n~.zrthern
<br />areas.
<br /> A spokesman ~or the U. S. Postal Department recently said, the number of t:ains carrying
<br />mail - almost all passenger trains - dwindled from 2627 in 1955 to 933 in 1965. He said; the
<br />discontinuances of mail carrying in nearly 70 per centof the cases was initiated by the railroads
<br />which had asked either to discontinue transporting mail on their trains or had sought discontinuance of
<br />the ~rains. Mail contra~ts account for about $0 per cent of total passenger train revenues.
<br /> With the petition of the Chesapeake & 8bio Railway Co., before the I~terstate Commerce
<br />Commission, Finance Docket No. 24455, to eliminate service between Norfolk, Portsmouth, Ne~ort News,
<br />Williamsburg, Richmond and Charlottesville, ~y discontuance of trains 43 and 46, between those points,
<br />should certainly bring greater concern for this petition of the Norfolk & Western Railway Co.,
<br />and the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, because it could leave this area with a very limited rail service.
<br /> The direct North=South service between Norfolk, Richmond, Washington, D.C. and New York City
<br />through the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad connection at Petersburg, Va.~ will be discontinued. This will
<br />leave this rapidly growing Metropolitan Tidewater area without the highly important link with those
<br />northern cities.
<br /> As we become m~re urban, we are recognizing the need of improved means of mass transportation
<br />in this State, and our Nation. Already pressure for better and faster ways of mo~ing people and
<br />goods is increasing more rapidly than we can meet the demand. There is increasing concern over both the
<br />quality of the railroad passenger service and the possibility of further deteration through lose of existing
<br />service.
<br /> Your most serious consideration should be given to this petition now before the State
<br />Corporation Commission, with the thought in mind, is it good for our area, our State, and our Nation.
<br /> I am respectfully requesting you to please consider requesting the State Corporation Commission
<br />to deny this petition.
<br /> I would be' pleased to hear from you regarding your position, relative to this petition to eliminate
<br />these trains."
<br />
<br />Motion of Mr. Bar~es to suspend the rn~les to hear from interested persons, was adopted.
<br />N. J. Sprinkle, State Legislative Representative, Brotherhood of Railroad Traimmen, and
<br /> spoke, supporting the request ~ the Brotherhood.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|