Minutes 09/06/1955 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

23- adopted. 55-187 - The fellowing ordinance, l~id on table from last meeting, was taken up and read: "AN ORDINANCE TO A~END THE CODE OF l~i~ CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1951, BY ADDING THERETO A NEW SECTION 17-17.2, RET.a~ING ~TO BURNING AUTOMOBI{,~ AND SALVAGE NATERIALS" . Metien of Mr. Lawrence te suspend the rules re hear fram anyone interested, was Jehu A. ~cKenzie and A. A. Rangel s!0~ke in reference te this ordinance. Moti6~ of Mr. Wilson te lay on table until nex~ regular meeting, was adopted. 55-231 - The fe/Ie~ing letter from the City Attorney was read: "At your last meeting~ you referred t~me the communication from the Beard ef SupeKvisers ef Norfolk County advising that it had ~isapproved the subdivision ordinance submitted to it under the provisiens ef Section 15v786 ef the C~de of Virginia.' Sectien 15-786 provides that the governing body of any city may adept subdivisions regulatiens which shall be effective ho~h within the corporate limits of the City and three miles beyond its jur- isdiction. It also provides that n~ such regulations shall be adopted until the governing body of the County in which the thre~ mile area ~s iacated has. been notified in writing and requested ta re'Yew and approve er disapprove the regulations contained in the ordinance. It also p~ovides: 'If uny such county fails to notify the ge~rning suchb°dy planer the municipali~Yshall be cor~s~dezed°f i~Sapproved~.disappr°val of such ~an within forty-five days after the giving ef such notice, Section 17-TS? of the Cede Provides that the governing body of any county may ad°pt~subdivision regulatio ns in ~J~e ~ty, but whenever any County desires to adepi any regulations in the area in which the municipality has j~risdiction, it must first give n~t~ce to the governing body of the City with the request to review and approve er disapprove the regulatiens, and if the municipality fails te approve or disapprove the same within forty-five days~ the s~me-shall stand approved. Section 1S-788 provides: 'In either event when a disagreement arises between the county and m~uicipality as te what regulations should he adepted for the area, an~ s~chdif~erence can net be amicably settled, then after ten days prior written notice by .either te the ether, either or both parties may pe- tition the circuit court of the oeunty~erein the area er~ajor part lies to decide v~nat regulations are tn be adopted. The court shall hear the matter and enter an appropriate order.' The Beard of Supervisors adopted a subdivision ordinance which was submitted te the City Council of Portsmenth about eno year age, and concerning which the City Council took no action. There- fore, it became approve~ under the terms of Section 18--787. The City C~Uncil may adopt the ordinance which was placed on its first reading and ~hich w~uld beeffeczive within the corporate limits ef the City. The Cede sec- tions are silent as to the effect ef the ordinance in a case where the County E~ard of Supervisors has disapproved it, but in my opinion, iC would nor be effective in Norfolk County. However, to avoid confusion, it might be well for the ordinance to be referred hack to the City Nanager before its final passage te determine whether there is any serious conflict between it and the County ordinance." Motion of Nr. Hawks. ~o refer re the City~mnagerand City Attorney, to compare the City's subdivision ordinance with that out Norfolk County, was adopted. 55-232 - Tko following letter fr~m the Planning Commission was read: "Subsequent re the joint meeting of City Council and the Planning Commission en August 30th, it has come ~o our attention that advertisement of bids fer construction of quarters in the southwest corner of the Naval Hospital grounds is intended in the near future. At a meeting on September l, 1955, the Planning Cemm~.SSion further discussed poasible tunnel locations and street c~nnoctions thereto. These matters of course stand unresolved. However, it in apparent that the construction proposed for the southwest corner of the hospital greumda would block one possible street counectiun which could be extremely important r~ certain of the proposed tunnel locations discussion. It is not the desire of the Planning Commission to interfere ~ the internal development ef the Hospital grounds. After a study of this particular situation we do believe that the hospital authorities have a con~iderahle interest in the matter of location of a second tunmel and related s~reets. We be- lieve that it will be possible, ttureugh co-ordinated planming, te develop ~ street lmy-out which will meet the needs of the City of Portsmouth and at the same time bo e£ benefit to the hospital and bring improved possibili- ties for the development of hospital fmcilities. Accordingly, an September 1, 1955, the Planning Cemmis~en passed the following resolution, hereby~ubmitted for yeur censideratien: 'Resolved, that City Ceuncil be requested to negotiate with the proper authorities of the Federal Government loeking ~ev~ard a solu- tion of the problems pertaining te the locatien of officers' quar=ers and street entrance into the Naval Hospital.'" ~etien ef ~tr. Smith Zo refer te the City Fmnager~ was adopted. 55-~ - The ~ellowing letter from the Planning Commission w~s read: "Pursuant to action by City Council ~n August, 1985, the Planning Commission was directed Ze study and report on elf-street parking for the Portsmouth~entral business district. It is generally recognized that Portsmouth has a parking p~blem: this has been discussed from time te time and several reports have been issued over m period ef years. The Planning Commission staff has reviewed these reports and aloe exam- ined parking and traffic studies which have been made in ether cities. The Planning Commission is ~f the opinion that a short cur to conclusions and recommendations without the benefit ef adequate factual data might be false ecenemy. The Planning CommisSion be - lieves that the best approach tea solution of the parking Preblem is by means of a thoreugh survey to determine accurately parkinE demand by type and lecatien, and that the specialized services of a competent traffic consu~lt- ant should be used. A clesely related preblem: again a traffic engineerinE problem, is that of