|
19
<br />
<br />June 22nd, 1965
<br />
<br /> M~tion of Mr. Eastes to authorize the proper city officials to sign the option was
<br />adopted, wikhout dissenting vote.
<br />
<br /> 65-161 - "At the last meeting of the-CitF Council, it was requested that I report
<br />on the progress of Portsmouth Boulevard and the Westhaven-~aterview Causeway.
<br /> The Public Works Department has advised me that the causeway was scheduled
<br />to be opened on July 2; but due to the heavy rain of last week, there will probably be a week's delay. It
<br />will be open to traffic by this time: however, it will not be completed, as waterlines and gas lines will
<br />still have to be installed.
<br /> Regarding the Portsmouth Boulevard construction, I have met with the
<br />District Representatives of the Highway Department and discussed the various probIe~s of this construction.
<br />They have advised me that, at this time, the contract is approximately 20% ahead of schedule and that one
<br />side of the roadway should be open to traffic by the fifteenth of July, barring any bad weather.
<br /> I also discussed with them the report that equipment had been removed
<br />from the project, thereby delaying the construction. They advised me that the paving equipment was removed,
<br />but was in accordance with the plans and in no way affected their progress as they could do no paving work
<br />at that time. The paving equipment is scheduled to return to the project this week and the paving comq31eted
<br />on two lanes of the highway.
<br /> Regarding the time of construction, the contractor was authorized to
<br />proceed in March 1964 and allowed until November 1965 to complete theprgject. There was a delay of three
<br />months in the beginning of this project due to a change by the City in the utilit~ construction. In the
<br />original'bid advertised by the Highway Department, utilities were included, which were 100% cost to the City.
<br />We felt that the price bid for the utilities was too high, and requested that they be removed from the
<br />Highway Department bid. This was done and the utility work was readvertised by the City, which netted a
<br />savings of $73,294 to the City.
<br /> I am also attaching a memorandum to Mr. Douglas Fugate, received by him
<br />from the Director of Operations of the Highway Department."
<br />
<br /> Motion of ~. Knight to receive as information, was adopted, without dissenting vote.
<br />
<br /> 65-162 - Motion of Mr. Barnes that the request of John A. MacKenzie relative to a street
<br />closing be added to the agenda, was adopted, without dissenting vote.
<br />
<br /> The City Manager presented the following resolution and recommended its adoption:
<br />
<br /> "WHEREAS, Herbert E. Robertson, Ruth S. Robertsan, Barnard E. Beale, a~d Helen B. Beale
<br />have applied to vacate, close and discontinue that portion of Westmoreland Avenue extending from the northern
<br />line of Westmoreland Terrace northerly into the Western Branch of the Elizabeth River and it appearing that
<br />notice of the application and request for the appointment of viewers was duly oosted on the bulletin board
<br />of the Court of Hustings for the City of Portsmouth and at two other-public places at least ten days prior
<br />to this meeting:
<br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia,
<br />that Graydon D. Meginley, L. A. Clark, James V. McGehee, Frank N; Bilisoly, and Charles R. Lively be appointed
<br />viewers to view said street and report to this Coun.cil in writing whether in their opinion, any, and if any,
<br />what inconvenience would result from discontinuing the aforementioned street.
<br /> Adopted by the Council of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia, at a meeting held
<br />June 22, 1965."
<br />
<br />~ote.
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Barnes, and the five viewers named therein were appointed, without dissentin~
<br />
<br />UNFINISHED BUSINESS
<br />
<br />and read:
<br />
<br />and read:
<br />
<br />and read:
<br />
<br />~nd read:
<br />
<br />65-148 - The following ordinance, approved on first reading at last meeting, was taken up
<br />
<br /> "ZONING ~,~ND~NT ORDINanCE Z 65-15"
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Eastes, the ordinance was adopted, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br /> Ayes: Smith, 8ames, Dillon, Eastes, Johnson, Knight, Leery
<br /> Nays: None
<br />
<br />65-148 - The following ordinance, approved on first reading at last meeting was taken up
<br />
<br /> "ZONING AMHND~NT ORDINANCE Z 65-15"
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Leery, the ordinance was adopted, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br /> Ayes: Smith, Barnes, Dillon, Eastes, Johnson, Knight, Leery
<br /> Nays: None
<br />
<br />65-148 - The following ordinance, approved on first reading at last meeting, was taken up
<br />
<br /> "ZONING A~ND~NT ORDINANCE Z 65-16"
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Barnes, the ordinance was adopted, and by the followin~ vote:
<br />
<br /> Ayes: Smith, Barnes, Dillon, Eastes, Johnson, Knight, Leery
<br /> Nays: None
<br />
<br />65-150 - The following ordinance, approved on first reading at last meeting was taken up
<br />
<br />
<br />
|