Minutes 06/26/1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

243 June 26, 1979 79-190 "Consideration of an ordinance on first and final reading to amend the code providing for uniform fines for traffic infraction." Following letter received from the City Attorney: "You recall that the City Council adopted an Ordinance pertaining to an increased punish- ment for those persons, not handicapped, parking in those parking places designated for handi- capped persons. It has been determined that the punishment for 'minor' traffic infraction has been con- solidated into ~ uniform state policy. That policy is presently reflected in Sec.16.1-69.40 Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Accordingly, the attached Ordinance pertaining to punish- ment for violations of Chapter 23 of the City Code, Motor Vehicle and Traffic, has been amende to incorporate by reference said Sec. 16.1-69.40:1 of the State Code. Other traffic offenses shall be punished in a similar manner that they have been in th~ past. This Ordinance will place the punishment for traffic offenses ix compliance with State law." On motion of Mr. Early and seconded by Mr. Gray, the following ordinance was adopted on first and final reading, and by the following vote: "AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 23 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, BY AMENDING SECTION 23-1.1 THEREOF, AND REPEALING SECTION 23-204.1 THEREOF." Ayes: Barnes, Early, Elliott, Gray, Holley, Oast, Davis Nays: None 78-427(c) Deferred from Page 241 Z 78-22 Letter from the City Manager "As you will recall Council deferred action on two related items on your June 4, 1979 public hearing regarding 1 (the changing of a portion of the Southside Land Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan and 2) a rezo~ing application (g 78-22) seeking to change a parcel within the above referenced portion from Residential R-60 to Commercial C-1. This application conflicts with the Southside Land Use Plan in its present form. As a result of the aforementioned and in response to negative recommendations from the Newtown Development Committee-and the City and Portsmouth Redevelopment and Housing Authority staffs, the Plannin~ Commission has on two occasions recommended that the Plan not be changed at present and that the application in question be denied. Pursuant to your request I have reviewed this matter with members of my st~-ff and PRHA, and I shall attempt to outline their opposition to this application. The key points of view are listed below: 1-._..To .change the Southside Land Use Plan in order to accommodate a ~ingle rezoning application, which conflicts with the present comprehensive plan is spot zoning and should be avoided if possible. The property in question is within an area referred to by the Staff as Southside V on the presumption that this remaining area of Southside not presently under a redevelopment plan will be so designed within the very near future. When that time arrives in all likelihood the property in question will be purchased or marketed by PRHA in conjunction with the Southside V Redevelopment Plan which is soon to be developed. Therefore, it is considered premature to authorize plan and zoning changes which will lead to spot commercial development in an area presently not designated for such activities. 3. The PRHA Commission has just recently met to review a proposal fromarelocated Southside businessman of thirty years who is planning to invest approximately $100,000 in a neighborhood convenience store operation just a few blocks away from the application in question. Therefore, this application is additionaly seen as competing with a local neighborhood business being relocated partially at public expense and in concert with acouncil approved redevelopment plan. 4. T~e matter of whether or not the parcel in question should be rezoned commercial or whether its developmetn could preclude a higher and better use can not be answered at this time because of two development factors which are proceeding in concert with the Plan and which will ultimately determine how much property in ~ th~ area of the application should be rezoned if at all. These two faqtors are the industrial development activities presently taking place in Southside II and IV and an UMTA Urban Incentive grant that we are hopeful will fund a joint trans- portation/commercial facility in Southside V, which will address the growing v_.'/:~anking needs_~f the Norfolk Naval Shipyard and the developing industrial activities in Southside II and IV. While'i'I-]gree in the above observations, and recommend that you concur with the Planning Commission, I also recognize that it is difficult to deny an application offering new economic development in an area that has been devoid of such positive activities for so long. However, I feel that it is in the best interest of all concerned to await the outcome of de~elopA~n~s having a significant planning impact on this area before making any substantial departure from the present plan. In view of the above and the proximity of this area to definite and growing redevelopment activity, my recommendation is to concur with the Planning Commission on both matters."