|
292
<br />
<br />September 18, 1979 _
<br />
<br />At a regular meeting of the City Council held on September 18, 1979, there were present:
<br />
<br />Richard J. Davis, Jack P. Barnes, Ben A. Beamer, Sr., E. Saunders Early, Jr.,
<br />J. Robert Gray, James W. Holley, [II, Edward L. Oast, Jr., Robert T. Williams,
<br />City Manager, Gordon B. Tayloe, Jr., City Attorney.
<br />
<br /> The Rev. Frederick Heckel, Pastor, Church of the Resurrection, opened the meeting with
<br />prayer, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, to the Flag.
<br />
<br />Mayor Davis welcomed all Visitors in attendance.
<br />
<br /> Motion or. Mr. Gray and seconded by Mr. Beamer, minutes of
<br />1%~. 1979; ~inutes of the regular meeting of September 11, 1979,
<br />and was adopted by unanimous vote.
<br />
<br />the called meeting of Septembe~
<br />to be approved as received,
<br />
<br />UNFINISHED BUSINESS
<br />
<br /> 79-338 - The following ordinance approved on first reading at the ~egular meeting of
<br />September II, 1979, was taken up and read:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $23,000 FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND FOR
<br />CANOPY AND FOUNDATION SUPPORTS FOR THE GAS STATION AT THE CITY GARAGE."
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Barnes and seconded by Mr. Oast, the ordinance was adopted, and by the
<br />following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Barnes, Beamer, Early, Gray, Holley, Oast, Davis
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 79-340 The following ordinance deferred from the meeting of September 11, 1979, was
<br />taken up and read:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE CLOSING A PORTION OF FAIRFAX AVENUE"
<br />
<br />The following letter was submitted:
<br />
<br /> "At the September 11, 1979 meeting, City Council deferred the ordinance to close a portion
<br />of Fairfax Avenue, pending a report on parking and access to the Westhaven softball field. My
<br />recommendation is that this portion of Fairfax Avenue be closed, as recommended by the Plan-
<br />ning Commission and the viewers.
<br />
<br /> This portion of Fairfax Avenue, approximately 250 feet.is currently
<br />several large trees and underbrush. A rough estimate for construction of
<br />which I do not feel can be ju~tified in terms of the limited improvement
<br />to the softball field.
<br />
<br />a paper street, with
<br />the street is $25,000!,
<br />in parking or accessi
<br />
<br /> The parking and access problems result primarily from use of the field for city-wide
<br />events. As a general rule, city-wide softball and other games are lo~ated at ma3or sports con
<br />plexes, such as schools and parks, where parking and access are sufficient. However, due to
<br />the rapid expansion of softball, both girls and boys leagues, this field ~s used for city-wide
<br />girls softball. Rather than expend money to increase parking and access to this ball field,
<br />I would prppose that every effort be made to relocate city-wide softball to a more desirable
<br />location. This field would then become used primarily for community-based activities, for
<br />which both parking and access should be sufficient. Within the ball field area, there is spac!e
<br />for at least 50 cars, if properly aligned.
<br />
<br /> If additional parking were still needed, then I
<br />railraad right-of-way adjacent to the field, rather
<br />Bart and South Streets."
<br />
<br />would recommend consideration of the
<br />than constructing Fairfax Avenue between
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr..Early and seconded by Mr. Gray, t~ concur in the recommendation, the
<br />ordinance was adopted, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Barnes, Beamer, Early, Gray, Holley, Oast, D~vis
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 79-325 The following reportswas submitted concerning curbs and gutters for the 800
<br />blocks of Vermont and Potomac Avenues:
<br />
<br /> "As you will recall an an interim report (a~tached) concerning curbs and gutters for the
<br />800 blocks of Vermont and Potomac Avenues was provided you for your August 28, 1979 Council
<br />meeting. I had indicated in this report that we wished to be certain that such cases were
<br />not isolated and had been fully addressed in the initial survey upon which the original lists
<br />were established.
<br />
<br /> Our re¥~ew of this matter indicates that both isolated street and drainage needs were
<br />properly assessed during the initial engineering review. These cases were~included generall
<br />as part of the closest street or drainage priority within appropriate geographical area.
<br />
<br /> In order to confirm this as fact, we assessed this area using the street improvement
<br />criteria so that this area could be reviewed on its own merits separate from the drainage
<br />considerations of the surrounding area. The assessment produced a raw score of 10 points
<br />~hich would have placed the project no higher on the existing priority than priority number
<br />31. The area's present priority is drainage priority number 24. Therefore, the residents
<br />of this area are in a better position under the existing system as opposed to an individual
<br />rating system.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|