Minutes 06/11/1968 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

June:ll. i968 (c) "My purpose in writin~ is to request that you consider carefully the question of allowing the zoning to be changed for a shopping center (small or large) on Cedar Lane across from Merrifields. I live at the far end of River Shore Road, quite a distance from this proposed shopping center, and so would not be directly affected by it. Mowever, the Whole area north of the West Norfolk Road has a certain rural-suburban charm which I feel would be despoiled by allowing convenience stores to be dotted here and there. As Sou probably are aware, residents in the area generally are against the shopping center on Cedar Lane and I earnestly hope you will vote against it." (Signed Charlotte M, Turtle) (d) "As a registered voter and resid~mt of Merrifields, I object strongly to the proposed shopping center Porter Hard),, Jr. is planning for our area. So far~ the vicinity Merrifields remains predominately residential and we have been proud to live here. A new Junior High school will be erected near Herrifields soon and a shopping center so close to a school is abjectionable to most residents. Our needs are adequately filled at the Churchland Shopping Center area that is presently being expanded. At the last two Council and Planning Commission meetings, it was stated emphatically that the largest majority of Merrifields, Edgefield, Rivershore Rd. residents and others, are strongly opposed to the shopping center plans. I hope that the City Council of Portsmouth will not let a minority of scrunulous moneymakers over rule the majority of private citizens whose property and rights are in jeopardy. Thank you." (Signed Gall P. Turcotte) (e) "As you undoubtedly know I, along with the majority of Merrifields', ~dgefield's and Rivershore's residents, am opposed to the shopping center on Cedar Lane proposed by Porter Hardy, Jr. I had planned to appear before you at the public meeting and reiterate the well-kno~m reasons for opposing such a commercial venture in a residential neighborhood. I find I cannot attend the public meeting so am sending this letter instead. Be advised that I mm totally opposed to this plan that will create a hazard to my children, de- valuate our home and generally spoil the peace and quiet, and suburban atmosphere we were assured would remain inviolate when we bought our home. However, if you choose to override the voices of the citizens that you represent, and approve the shopping center, I request that Sou do so only with the following provisions: 1. A wall should be built, attractively landscaped and with a tall evergreen screen planted behind it, facing Cedar Lane and at the Cedar Lane edge of the property. 2. No illuminated or large signs permitted. Small shop signs may be placed near the doors of the shops if necessary. 3. Parking lot lights kept at a minimum and olaced in such a way to protect our property from glare. 4. Architecture of the center to be conservative, mall-type building similar to the Village Shopping Center in Churchland center. The above provisions would be minimum essentials to protect the existing homeowners from total de- grading of the neighborhood and help to reduce the litter and tresnassers from violating our property. Furthermore since this is to be a neighborhood convenience type center, promotion is not necessary and I assure you~ we are all well aware of its plan. A side walk built along Cedar Lane, in the city right-of-way on the residential ~roperties of Cedar Lane, financed by the shopping center sponsors and the city. This would held to protect the children living on Cedar Lane. At present they must walk in the street to visit each other. This certainly cannot be permitted in a business and commercial area that Cedar Lane would become. Access to the shopping center be limited to two entrance-exit areas, one located opposite Greenbrook Drive, and one opposite Rivershore Drive. This would help control the flow of traffic created by this venture and take a good deal of commercial t~affic from Cedar Lane which would ~reate a hazard. ~ 7. A traffic light be installed at Greenbrook Drive and Cedar Lane which would control the traffic from the development~, the shopping center~ the school, and the apartments to be built. I trust you will give these suggestions your immediate and full consideration. I ho~e that their use will not be necessary for it is my fervent prayer that this p~ject will be denied an~ that we remain a totally residential area. Thank you, (Signed Mrs. F. D. Hunter) On motion of Mr. Eastes, the following ordinance was approved on first reading, without dissenting vote: "ZONING A~ENDMENT ORDINANCE Z 68-15" Zoning ~eti~0n ~ 68,~6 . Hanover Refining Company Roy Kelley spoke.