|
the construction of a ten (10) room school at Prentis Park to Robert R. Marquis, for the sum of $340,267.,suBject
<br /> to the approval of the City Council and the proper Federal authorities.
<br /> On the same date, the Board awarded the contract for the construction of a twelve
<br /> (1~) room' school at Ann Street to Robert R. hiarqui~, fcr the sum of $358~0 3.., s~bject to the approval of the City
<br /> Council. We, therefore, request that the City Council officially approve the awarding of these contracts."
<br /> Motion of Mr. Weise~an to concur in the awarding of these contracts for the construc-~
<br /> tion of the two schools, to Robert R.Marquis, was adopted.
<br /> 56-349 - The following letter from the City Attorney was read:
<br /> "In connection :with the application of Thomas Fo Culpepper to rezone a parcel of
<br />~L~f~ laud on Rodmmn Aven~e, was referred to me for St-ady and report. I find that the application first came before the
<br /> City Council on August 14, 1956, on report of the Planning Co~sion after notice of a public hearing. The Coun-
<br /> cil recordS show the repo~t of the Planning commission as.~oll
<br /> 'The Irlanning Co~nnissi°n~ ¥oted ~rnanimotfsly that the ~ollowing petition he denied:
<br /> 1. Thomas F. Culpepper, to rezone' prop~erty on the e~st side of Rodman Ave.,
<br /> commencing K~8.5 ~ feet south of Brighton St., fronting 54.25 feet on Eodmau
<br /> Ave., by 120 ft. d~ep, part of lot~s No. 18, 20, 22, ~2~ block 112.
<br /> Application ~o rezone from 'C' Two Family Dwelling District to 'F'
<br /> Local Business District
<br /> The recordS furzher show that several perS~ons spoke for and against
<br /> the appli0ation and that petitionS opposing the .~pl~lica~ion were filed
<br /> by Mr. and Mrs. Even W. Lewis and numerous others and by the Westhaven
<br /> Le ague o
<br /> On motion the matter was laid on the table to the next meeting.
<br /> At the mss'ting of the City Council on August 28, 1956-, the matter was
<br /> again taken up and persons stroke for and againSt the application. The
<br /> Council records then show the following:
<br /> 'Motion of Mr. Baker ~o re, er this matter~ back to the Planning commission
<br /> to study the rezoning of the' whole block ~vas lost, and hy the following vote:
<br /> Ayes: Duke, Baker, ~rimes, Hawks.
<br /> Nays: Howard, S~ith, Sturte~an~ Warren, Wilson.
<br /> The Chair ruled that stride the petitio~ had b~en presented and there was nos
<br /> a three fourths majority vo~e to overrule the planning Commission, the recom -
<br /> mendation of the Planning Commission stands.'
<br />
<br /> You may no~e that no mbtion was made to rezone the property and the presiding
<br /> esr evidently took the position that the refusal o~ the Council no concur in the recommendation of the Planning
<br /> Commission by i~k_~lination, constituted an approval of the application, except for the fact a ~hree-fourths vote
<br /> was nebessary for the approval and alive to four vote' was insn£ficient~. Itwas later discovered that the pemi--
<br /> tions presented against the application were not in the ~orm prescribed by 'the city ordinance and only a majority
<br /> vote was necessary to approve the rezor~ing.~ The City Council ~ a resolution adopted on October 9, 1956, acknow-
<br /> ledged a ~ajority vote only ~vas necessary. - - ' n of~ ~P~loa
<br /> The question in my mind is whether the re3ectmon of the. recommend~at~.o he
<br /> ning CommiSsion ~utomaticaily approved the application to rezone the property. If mt does, I ~e~zeve ~e ~ r-
<br /> ty is rezoned. However, if it does not I believe it is not resorted and the matter is still b~£ore the Council,
<br /> not to approve or disapprove the action of the Presidihg Officer, but to pass on the application. As the matter
<br /> has incited considerable controversy~ I s~ggest it Be ~laced on the agenda of the Council for the next meeting
<br /> to pass upon zoning applications, and it Be included in ~he~ newspaper notices concerning zoning."
<br /> Me, ion of ~lr. Scott to refer the application~ back to the Planning Connnission, was
<br /> adopted.
<br /> 56-350 - The following le~cter fro~ the Planning Commission was read:
<br />
<br /> "At 'a meeting with City Council on October 16, 1956, the Planning Commission was
<br />requested to recommend a priority for urbau renewal areas.
<br /> At a special meeting on N~vember 12, the Plarming Commissio~ by motion made the
<br />following recommendation: That the l~de~el~opment and Housing Autherity be requested to audit an application
<br />for a plam~iag advance looking toward an urban renewal project withi~ the area generally bounded as follows:
<br />on the wes~ by Cedar Grove Cemetery and Fort La~e, oh the north by the Naval Hospital~ on the east by WaShington
<br />St. and on the south by North St.
<br /> The Planning Commission recommends that ~lJkeeabove ~tte~ be given ~mmediate consi-
<br />deration. In addition, the Planning Commission recommends that the Redevelopment and Housing Authority be re -
<br />quested to apply for a planning advance ~o survey a l~rge area designated on the map s~bmitted herewith, l~niS
<br />area includes most of the substandard d~velling units ~Within the city as well as neighborhoods which shbw some
<br />Signs of deterioration. It is to be emphasized tha~ thiS large area contains very many Blocks as well as entire
<br />neighborhoods whore improvement will depend primarily~on enforcement of a bity housing occupancy ordinance and
<br />on a concentrated ~fight-blight' effort on the part of residents and property owners. The purpose of~ the pro -
<br />posed survey is to develop better information to assist this type of improvement as well as ~o define smaller
<br />areas where urban renewal involving some degree of land clearance and replatting of streets is desirable and
<br />economically practicable
<br /> It is believed tkal;hthiS city-wide approach will result in the residents and
<br /> proper~y owners being afforded Better information and ~saderstanding~ of improvement programs affecting their
<br /> neighborhoods, at th~ same time giving them an opportunity to participate in the planning and action phases of
<br /> urban renewal and neighborhood improvement.
<br /> A draft of 'A Workable Program for Urban Renewal, Portsmouth, Virginia' h~s been
<br /> completed, As soon as this is mimeographed a copy will be furnished to each member of City Council."
<br /> Motion of Mr. Kirby that the Council' approve the recommendation of the Planning
<br /> commission and that the Portsmouth Redevelopment and Housing ~gathority be requested to submit an application to
<br /> the Federal Government for funds for these projects, was adopted.
<br /> 56-351 - Motion of Mr. Smith that the City employees he allowed the same privi
<br />leges on Friday, November 16th, as gran{ed pn previous Home Comz~ Days (Woedrow Wilson), subjedt to the discre-
<br />
<br />
<br />
|