|
284
<br />
<br /> May 14 1974
<br />
<br /> At an official and open public briefing at N.O.S. on April 23, 1974, U.S. Navy
<br />Admirals Anderson and Walton stated a goal of placing as much militaryrhousing as possibl(
<br />on the about.-~o-be abandoned St. Julien's Ammunition Depot. Since this could have an
<br />impact upon Portsmouth, the Commission expressed interest and resolved to follow the
<br />matter; e.g.., if segments of our roadway network s~puld prove to be inadequate to support
<br />such community expansion, Portsmouth would be well advised to seek assistance in the form
<br />of Federal military access highway funds.
<br />
<br /> Subsequently, the public media carried statements from officials of the City of
<br />Chesapeake indicating a possible move to exchange land. at St. Julien's for the site of
<br />the former Williams Court emergency wartime housing project located eh-85 acres of land
<br />at the intersection of George Washington Highway and Victory Boulevard. Obviously, this
<br />would have a serioue impact upon the City p~ Portsmouth which currently must support
<br />4,682 units of subsidized housing. Moreover, creation of more non-taxable land and de-
<br />velopment e×empt from municipal taxation is a crucial issue about which the U.S.Navy may
<br />not be fully informed. Lastly, the Commission awaits word from Federal officials regard-
<br />ing City Council's application of March 1973 for a surplus portion of St. Julien's on
<br />which recreational activities would be continued and expanded.
<br />
<br /> This letter is to inform you publicly that the Planning Commission is deply concerne<
<br />over these matters, and with your approval, will remain actively involved in resolving
<br />these issues.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Wentz, to be received as information, was
<br />adopted by unanimous vote.
<br />
<br /> 74-196 The following letter received from Director of Planning was read:
<br />
<br /> "The City Planning Commission, at its regular monthly meeting on May 7, 1974,
<br />completed it .~review, of the proposed Coach House Apartments group housing project, re-
<br />commending approval. Originally submitted to the Planning Commission in July or 1972,
<br />the site plan was granted preliminary approval on August 1st of that year, subject to
<br />certain conditions which were required to be met prior to submission to City Council.
<br />
<br /> After nearly ~wo years, the developer decided to proceed ~ith his original in-
<br />tentions; and the revised site plan was submitted in April 1974, meeting the previcus
<br />stipulations. The developer, "Coach House Aprtments, A Partnership", is represented by
<br />Architect Glenn Yates of the firm Yates and B~rkeley.
<br />
<br /> Section 4~g58 of the Zoning Ordinance provides an outline for g~oup housing prqject
<br /> review. This section notes four,areas of finding which must be addressed by the Planning
<br />Commission in its recommendations to the City Council:
<br />
<br /> (a) ~he project's compatibility ~ith its environment and other land uses and
<br />buildings existing in the surrounding area: This land lies in an emerging high
<br />density residential corridor flanking Portsmouth Boulevard and reinforced by similar
<br />velopment along Airline Boulevard. Connections between these t~o arterials'are pa¥,ing
<br />the way for an increasedin residential density in a pie-shaped sector of the city
<br />eminating outward fr~m Alexander's Corner. Portsmouth can expect to experienc.e pressure
<br />for more garden apartments and townhouses in this area and may profit therefrom if densit
<br />is controlled and good urban design promoted.
<br />
<br /> (b) The-quantity, quality, utility, size, and type of the project's open space and
<br /> landscaping improvements.: The proposed project appears~to adequately meet the require-
<br /> ments imposed by this section of the ordinance. Both active recreational £acilities and
<br /> passive recreational areas are provided in locations accessible to all units. Addition-
<br /> ally, the Department of'Housing and. Urban Development Project Engineer {RichmonA area off
<br /> indicates that the open slpace and recreational facilities me~t standards of both H.U.D.
<br /> and the ~ederal Housing Authority. Such standards are necessary for F.H.~. to participat(
<br /> in the project.
<br />
<br /> (c) Circulatory design has remained a most difficult issue throughout a period of
<br /> more than two years, during which this proposed project has been under m,.%rnicipal review.
<br /> Old county streets inherited in the 1960 annexation, coupled with an internal dog leg
<br /> tot pose a problem for both the city and the would-be developers. Powell Street has been
<br /> a municipal problem since January 1, 1960 -~ with its 12-foot right-of-way. Not only has
<br /> it been used ~y the g~y].an8 shown on City maps, but the city in 1968 ran a sanitary
<br /> sewer over its right-of-way. This group housing project would i~volve a subdivisAon plat
<br /> that would provide a standard city pavement within a widened right-of-way. The staff and
<br /> Commission would like to exact a full right-of-way to meet State specifications, but such
<br /> an unreasonable action would deprive the developer of a lot with sufficient depth for
<br /> development. The developer, at the Commission's public meeting: p~edged cooperation with
<br /> utilities such as VBPCO in placing street lights on adjacent, easements. The Commission
<br /> recognizes that Powell Street would remain incomplete, but this improvement of our dirt
<br /> lane must be recognized as a step forward Haysom Street represents the sole current
<br /> access to this area.and would be widened, improved, and supplied with a sidewalk connec-
<br /> ting Powell Street with the sidewalk along Portsmouth Boulevard. A "private street"
<br /> parallel to Powell Street over the City of Norfolk raw water line would be constructed
<br /> as part of the circula2ory system to connect-the.project with Haysom Street, and a housin
<br /> project "driveway" with 24 feet of payemenn would connect Powell Street and this private
<br /> street which would be known as Coach House Lane. The Commission does not feel that this
<br /> is an.id.eal solut-ion' but.under the circumstances, the Commission finds it adequate,
<br /> ao. nvenient and safe. The Commission is convinced from other rezoning inqu~rmes mn this
<br /> area that once street and utility improvements have been initiated, other property owAars
<br /> will move to convert single family dwelling lots and vacant land into multi-family use.
<br /> At that time, we can in our process of review strive to exact further circulatory system
<br />
<br />
<br />
|