Minutes 02/26/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

389 February,',26, 1980 Beginning at the northwest corner of Apple Street and County Street; thence west along the north right-of-way of County Street to the east right-of- way of Phoebus Street; thence north along said right-of-way to the south right- of-way of King Street; thence east along said right-of-way to the west right-of- way of Apple Street; thence south along said right-of-way to County Street, the point of origin. (3) This use permit ~s approved subject to the following condition: (1) The use permit would be considered revoked unless building permits are issued and construction under way within one (1) year. Ayes: Barnes, Beamer, Early, Gray, Holley, Oast, Davis Nays: None 80-52 The following ordinance approved on first reading at the Public Hearing of February 11, 1980, was taken up and read: (f) "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 40-95(b) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1973, PERTAINING TO APPOINTMENTS TO THE COMMISSION OF ARCHITECTURAl REVIEW." On motion of Mr. Gray and seconded by Mr. Barnes, the ordinance was adopted, and by the following vote: Ayes: Barnes, Beamer, Early, Gray, Holley, Oast, Davis Nays: None 80-52 - SEABOARD RIGHT-OF-WAY PRELIMINARY UTILIZATION PLAN, deferred from the Public Hearing of February 11, 1980: (h) The City Manager submitted the following report: "As you are aware]agenda item 80-52(h) was referred from ynur February 11, 1980 public hearing so that you might be briefed ~n greater detail on this matter. This was accomplished on February 12, 1980 and for that reason this item is again before you. The use a~d disposition of the former railroad right-of-way is not a simple matter. There is the problem of Norfolk's water main, parcels which no one will acquire and access thereto, drainage easements, future public improvement requirements, etc. For this reason we have moved very deliberately to resolve the larger issues first. While I do not normally make recommendations-on public hearing matters, this item was considered by the Planning Commission at my request in order to assure that interested citizens had a forum in. which to state their ideas and concerns with regard to possible uses~ for the former railroad right-of-way. This having been accomplished and the Commission's report submitted, I feel that a recommendation from this office is warranted. It is my recommendation that the nine specific uses and three larger one endorsed by the Planning Commission be approved. It should be understood that their recommendation and mine is only to retain portions of the right-of-way until the purpose for which they are being held is either approved or rejected by City Council as a part of the CIP process. All other property will be disposed of with the above mentioned restraints in mind as soon as possible. As I stated during your brie£ing none of the recommendations embraces the concept of a marina au Bruce Station with the right-of-way serving as access for a foot or bike trail. In fact our intention has always been to demGlish our portion of the existing structure at Bruce Station in conjunction with the railroad's demolition contract. However, the Planning did agree to include within their report the fact that the Olive Branch forum was attempting to ascertain whether there was area interest in such a recreational facility. The Planning Commission after hearing many citizens on this issue has not seen fit to recommend such facilities. To date the only significant expression we have received concerning this matter has be~n one of disapproval. In vmew of such opposition from those who wouId seemingly be the bene- ficiaries of such a facility, I would suggest that this matter be resolved as quickly as possible. In my opinion, even in the absence of firm neighborhood opposition, there appears to be little justification to'warrant continued unrest over this issue. Therefore, it is my recommendation that City Council receive the Planning Commission's report as information and instruct me to move forward as soon as possible with the disposition of all~other right-of- way not mentioned in their report, including that area west of Elmhurst Lane not needed for future public improvements. From time to time during the past year it has been City needlessly paid for the railroad right-of-way when property to the City. alleged by some parties that the the railroad was willing to give the This matter was initially discussed with the railroad, but in this case mortgage payoff requirements were far in e~cess of any tax advantage gained through donation for public use. Therefore, the railroad had to receive a s~bstantial sum of money for the property or to secure the property through other liquid assets from which no tax credit could be derived, It is my understanding that this has been the case in most railroad right-of-way abandonment situations.