|
August 13th, 1957.
<br />
<br />57~256 - The fdllowing ordinance, placed o n'first reading at last meeting,was taken up
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND RE-ORDAIN SECTION 30-142.3 OF ARTICLE VII, CHAPTER 30,
<br />OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, 1951, RELATING TO ONE-WAY STREETS"
<br />
<br /> MotioA of Mr. Hinton to lay on table pending a conference of the Council, was adopted.
<br />
<br /> 57-260 - An appropriation of $5,000~00 ~ defray the cost of annexation, placed on first
<br />reading at lazt meeting, was taken up.
<br />
<br />following vote:
<br />
<br />Motion of Mr, Scott 5o appropriate $5,000.00 for said purpose, was adopted, and by the
<br />
<br />Ayes: Baker, Hinton, Kirby, Scott, Smith, Weiseman
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />taken~up:
<br />
<br />57-248
<br />
<br /> 1.
<br />
<br />- The following zoning applications, placed on firsE reading at last meeting, were
<br />
<br />W.C. Osborne to rezone property located on the northwest corner of King St.
<br />and Not,away Ave., fronting,180 ft. on KiMg St. by 135 ft. deep on Nottaway
<br />Ave., I6t 2 and parts of lots 4, 6, 8, l0 and 12 of block 134.
<br />Application ~d rezone from 'C' Two Family District to 'F' Local Business
<br />District.
<br />
<br />~irs. Elizs White to rezone property located on the northeast corner of
<br />Queen St. and Florida Ave., fronting 60 ft. on Florfda Ave. by ll0 ft. deep
<br />on Queen St. ~-
<br />Application to rezone from 'B' Single Family Dwelling District 5o 'D'
<br />Multiple Family Dwelling District.
<br />
<br /> 3.~ Laura V. Brown to rezone property located on th~ northwest corner of
<br /> ' Fourth St. ~nd Nelson St., fronting 30 Tee, o~ Fourth St. by 74 ft. deep
<br /> on Nelson St.
<br /> Application to rezone from 'D' Multiple Family Dwelling District 5o 'G'
<br /> Commercial District.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Baker to approve on second reading the application of W.C. Osborne, was
<br />adopted and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Baker, Hi,ton, 'Kirby, Scott, Smith, Weiseman
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Hinton ro concur in thB recom~endation of the Planning Commission to deny
<br />the application of Mrs. Eliza White, was adopted.
<br />
<br /> Motion of, Mr. Smith to approve 'on second reading the application of Laura V. Brown for
<br />rezoning to F Loca~BUsiness', was adopted, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />~yes: Bal~e~, H~nton~, Kirby, Scott, Smith, Weiseman
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />57-282 - The following letter from the Planning Commission was read:
<br />
<br /> "We are informed that at a meeting of City Council on July 23, 1957, the following was
<br />referredto the Planning Commission for investigation and report: the opening of County Street across the Belt
<br />Line Railroad tracks.
<br /> The extension of County St. from the point where it now ends a% the Belt Lihe through ~o
<br />Airline Boulevard is shown on the major s~reet plan adopted by City Council in 1953 and is also shown on the
<br />tentative masor street plan developed by the Planning Commission du~ing the past two years.
<br /> In the research study' for a Capital Improvement Program recently submitted to ~ity Coun-
<br />cil, there is a tentative list of major highway construction projects suggested for the six-year period commenciz
<br />July l, 1957. The projects in this list as it now stands were selected 5o make maximum use of federal and state
<br />highway matching funds; that is, each project can qualify un~er the federal urban highway system with the city
<br />paying 25 per cent of the cos~.
<br /> The extension of County St, was no5 included for the reason that the state has thus far
<br />refused to include this as part of either the state or Federal urban system. ~
<br /> Uhless there should be a change of opinion on the part of the state highway department in
<br />the future, the County St. extension, if it is to be built, must be financed entirely by the City. The estimate~
<br />cost for the acquisf~io~ of the necessary right of way and construction is $397,000.00. This is ba~ed on an 80 ft.
<br />~ight of way and 56 foot pavement (similar ~o Gosport Ro~d~. The above estimate does not include a grade separa-
<br />tion structure at the Belt Line.
<br /> A possibility which might be considered is that the County St. extension might be con -
<br />strncted as part of an urban renewal project as proposed in the urba~ renewal survey presented to City Council
<br />on October 16, 1956."
<br />
<br />On motion filed.
<br />
<br />57-283 -- The following letter from the Co~missioner of Revenue was read:
<br />
<br /> "Please be advised that James E. Brown was doubly assessed for tangible personal proper,
<br />in 1955 valued at $100.00 with taxes amounting ~o $2.~5o The taxpayer has paid the original tax bill plus pen-
<br />alty and interest as shown by his receipted tax notice #18334. As this is definitely an erroneous assessment, we
<br />sincerely request that a refund in the amount of $3.12 he made to the taxpayer."
<br />
<br />
<br />
|