|
March 19. 1973
<br />
<br /> "Since the public hearing mas held upon the ~bove captioned rezoning alopt'ication~ I have
<br />'~earned that a ~r~Margaret ~arren has presented to the~i~y Cte~k~'aoe~iTion~purportedly in
<br /> bpposition to thi~ zonin~ application. She has al~e~ed':~fn th~ petition thaf t~e rezoning of
<br /> the property would have adverse effects to the Armistead Forest development by depreciating
<br /> the value of the present homes, would create extra traffic upon the streets serving the
<br /> neighborhoo'd, and would create a drainage problem to the residential subdivision.
<br />
<br /> Initially it should be pointed out that the rezoning of this property is subject to
<br />approval by the Planning Commission of a site plan which would adequately protect the utili-
<br />ties of the existing subdivision, would require extension of sewerage which would benefit
<br />the existing subdivision, and would require full drainage. This would be required whether
<br />the property was used for multi-family dwellings or single-family development. The site plan
<br />further must make adequate provisions for the widening of streets that would permit access
<br />to the site. The developer-applicant has indicated that he proposes to develop a street to
<br />lead into College Drive and open up his remaining property in the Nansemond area. This ad-
<br />equately provides street access to the site. There is no question that the housing in the
<br />area is of good quality. The.developer is further developing single-family residents and
<br />will continue to do so. His ~nvestment in adjacent land for this purpose ms extensive and
<br />is programed%over the next ten (10) years on a scale comparable to that which has existed
<br />in the past. It is inconceivable that the developer-applicant would, or could, depreciate
<br />existing housing. The contrary is more likely to occur.
<br />
<br /> No opposition has developed at either of the s~heduled public hearings before the City
<br />Council and the only person that has appeared before the Planning Commission has indicated
<br />that the pre-annexation subdivision Conditions for the existing residential areas required
<br />better drainage facilities. The present subdivision ordinances in the City provide relief
<br />in this regard for all future developments.
<br />
<br /> t should appreciate each of the Councilmen being
<br />the position of the developer and that the City Clerk
<br />Mrs. Warren's communication."
<br />
<br />given a copy of this letter, indicating
<br />be directed to read same as a reply to
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. King, the ordinance was adopted as R-75, and
<br />by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Holl~y, King, Smith, Barnes
<br />Nays: Early, Johnson, Wentz
<br />
<br /> 73-45 - The following ordinance, approved at Council me'eting of February 27, 1973,
<br />was taken up and read:
<br />
<br />"ZONING AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Z 73-2"
<br />
<br /> The following request to speak was rece&ved from Raymond E. Overman, 5712 West Norfolk
<br />Road:
<br />
<br /> "I hereby request that I be given the opportunity to speak at the next council meeting
<br />of Monday, March 19, 1973, on zoning amendment ordinance Z 73-2, petition of Messrs. Doggett
<br />and Lovern for the rezoning of property on West Norfolk Road."
<br />
<br />Mr. Overman spoke against the rezoning.
<br />
<br />The following request to speak was received from T. L. Will2s, 5708 West Norfolk Road:
<br />
<br /> n-~ms requested that I be given an opportunity to speak at
<br />on Monday, March 19, 1973, on zoning amendment ordinance Z 73-2,
<br />and Lovern for the rezoning of property on West Norfolk RoRd."
<br />
<br />the nex~ council meeting
<br />petition of Messrs. Doggett
<br />
<br />Mr. Willis spoke against the rezoning.
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Jbhnson, the ordinance was adopted as R-?5,
<br />and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Early, Johnson, Smith, Barnes
<br />Nays: Holley, King, Wentz
<br />
<br />73-66 - The following ordinance, approved at last meeting, was taksn
<br />
<br />up and read:
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1961,
<br />~Y ADDING THERETO SECTIONS 19-90, 19-91, 19-92, 19-93, 19-94, 19-95, 19-96,
<br />19-9[%-I9-~8--R~D 19-99 PERTAINING TO COMMERCIAL TABLE TOP RECREATION CENTERS
<br />AND THE REGULATION THEREOF."
<br />
<br />~ _~ O~ motion of Mr. King and seconded by Mr. Smith, the ordinance ~.~. ~d~g~d..
<br /> Motion of Mr. Johnson and seconRe8 by Mr. Early to amend the ordinance that "gzand-
<br />father" clause be~ i~nsta~l.%ed p~t-a.~in~ing-to~ See~. '19z98(~0 which ~ill allow current owners
<br />to continue wire,the operat~ion, but any new operators to construct their building to comply
<br />with the ordinance, was defeated by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Early
<br />Nays: Holl~y, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz, Barnes
<br />
<br />
<br />
|