|
January 14, 1964
<br />
<br />March .t5,:,t963, co~aduct ~a field inspection ~of ~he entire fr~tage .from ,Atex~ud'er's Corner to .the Hedges Ferry
<br />Bridge, .~a~d produced in connection ~th~rewLt~.a .majo~-stud~ Which b~s been submitted and:{~s, avsilable 5o City
<br />Council. The ~ls~nling Commission f~els snrongly Ghat the City should be ex~remet~ ~electivein guiding development
<br />along this zmprbved highway andt~at any speculative zoning for.intems~ve commercia~ uses would neithe~ benefit
<br />the neighborhoods along this highway nor the City of Portsmauth.
<br /> Z-64-3 Petition of James ~. Psimas, M.. D.~ to,rezone fou~ tot~ on County S~reet between Cumberland
<br />and Halifax Avenues; from~Residential R-60-A ~o Commercial C-2~ The Planning Commission resolved unanimously not
<br />5o recommend this application because it represents spot zoning, is entirely unwarranned, and is conzrary to
<br />the transitional zoning pattern which is prov{ng effective i~ ~hi~ part-of the city.: At the public hearing, the
<br />Planning Commiss~ion neted a defect in th~ legal ad which referred ~o this property ss classified Residential R-75
<br />when in reslit~ it is pres~ntl~ classified Residential R-60~A~
<br /> Z-64-4 Petition of~Walter.~. &, Bet~y R. Philbrick to rezone the southeast corner of Portsmouth .
<br />Boulevsrd and City Psrk Avenue;_ from Residential R-g~ to Commercial C-~. The Planning Commission unanimously
<br />and strongly urges disapproval of this spplication ~whic~w~s {~j~ected in 19B3. T-he Planni~ng'Commisslon does no5
<br />feel that Commercial C~ on this corner is warranted and agrees w~h neighbors that t'his heating-plumbing shop
<br />in the past has been impropemly~lQcated and unsightly. Once again,- the Planning Commission respectfully refers
<br />City Council to its field inspection of Por_tsmouth Boulevard from A{exander's Corner 5o the Hedges Ferry Bridge
<br />made on March 15 and the lengthy research report made.thereon'~n connection with the contemplated 1964 h~ghway
<br />improvement~prog~a~.
<br /> ZL6~ifi Petition of Leonard L. Cotton and Mifi~ie I. Lewter 5o rezone the northwest corner of
<br />Victory Bouleva~Military ~Road., ~ronting 36~',on~ Victory Bdulevard;- ~rom Reside~tia~ R~75 b6 Commercial C-2.
<br />The Planning Com~ission resolved not 5o recommend approval of .this application, ssi it woul~ no5 contribute [o the
<br />welfare of adj scent residentisl suhdiv~siorzs.
<br /> Z-6~r6 Petition .of:W~oodrow & F10~renc~ Branch 50 rezone 528 ~cres-of land apprexima'tely 440' south
<br />of Airline Boulevard along an unnamed d~rt road; from Industria~ M-1 to I,ndus~rial M-2, The ~lanning Commission
<br />unanimous!-y r~sol~ed t~-~'~ecommend approvsl of this spplication~.he, cause of. the size of this ~rsc~, its proximity 5o
<br />a railroad, its location~in splayed industrial~ ~res~ snd.its~istanee removed f~om. the highway where an M-1
<br />buffer strip would be maintained. In connection with this decision, the Planning Commission mad~ a careful s~udy
<br />of permitted M-2 uses'and does a~% feelS-that ~this re~oning couid i~ -any waff be detrime~tsl to- residential values
<br />in southwest Portsmouth.
<br /> Z-64-7 Petition of-Agen~ George C. Norri~ to rezonethe southwest ~orner-~of Portsmouth Boulevard
<br />snd.Msin Btre~t; from~Residential R~75 to Commercial C-~2. The ~tanning'Commission resolved to ~6eormaend approval
<br />of this ~pplication after a study of~the probable fature impac5 of the P~tsmouth Bo~levamd-Int~rstste 264
<br />Interchange."
<br />
<br /> In this connection the following letter f. rom C~Roy Keil~y~Rea~ty an~ In~urance~Company was read:
<br />
<br /> "On J~nuary 7, 19~4, Paut~ Ayers or-my, firm:repfesente~.Mr~ Leonard L. · Cotton and' Mfrs. Minnie [.
<br />Lewter (Public Hearing~No, Z-64-5) in our petition to rezonm tt~e northwest corner of Victory Boulevard and
<br />Military Road~ fronting '360 fe~t on Victory Boulevard, from Residential R-~5 to Co~e~eial ~-2. This reques~ was
<br />deni~ by the Pla~ing Co~ission. I ~ould like 5o red,est that the City Ca,nell either grant our reques~ for
<br />rezon~g om refer the petition back to t. he Pla~ing CommissioR~for .i~s he~i~ o~ February 18, 1964~ At that time
<br />we will sub~t further argumeng for ;the rezoning and sketches of possible~development* of.th~ proper~y.
<br /> -At the~.~time of presentment or. the petitioR no objections were raised'a~d we felt certain that the
<br />Planning Co~ission would~ gr~nt their.=consen~ tel the rezoni~.. After the ~meeti~g, Mr~ ~bre sbat~ thalt he was
<br />su~pmised thst the petition was ~nied~ A~member of' the'Plm~ning C~iss~on stated~thaz the petition was denied
<br />for s.everal reasons, but did no~ give a~y-speeifi~ ~eason for the denist.
<br /> It zs my ~eeling that ~he bes~ interest of the city -will be served by rezoning this prope~y. Ail
<br />of the properzy on the~oqposite side o}~Vict~y Boulevard from the property in question is zoned M-l, for limited
<br />industrial use. The property a~join~g the proper~y in question on tk~ west side has ce~ercial usage. Rezoning
<br />of the pro~r~y in question would in'-no way~ afflict ~E ~.ep~e~iaie~resid. ential pr~-per~y i~ the ares because ~e
<br />pro~er~y is s~rounded by commercial usage. It is a known fsc~ that Victo'ry Bo6tevard~ is rapidly becoming one of
<br />the m'ain co~ercial boulevards in our city. In fac~, ~is particular proper~y has-been on the market for sale for
<br />many mo~ths %and every prospective purchaser has~ ~$d~ to consider the pFoperny ~n~ss it~ is rezoned. The
<br />prop~ty cannot be used for residential develo~eR~t~b~aase of the s.~mple fact that lending institutions will
<br />make a favorable resideRti~l loan on ~op~y i~ s commercial area.~ ~The proper~y is ideally located for several
<br />~y~s of businesses but is~ very poorly located ~or-shy ~ype eT residential use.
<br /> I feel certain that the_City~Counei:l wishes to~ee all real prop~'r~y in, our city obtain its highesz
<br />and best use, and it s~ obvious ~o me that the 'highest and~ best uae of this proper~y is for co~ercisl use.
<br /> ~ respectf-ul]y~equesr that the rec~endation: of the PI'arming Co~ission be'~overruled or that this
<br />matter be resubmitted to the Planning Commission."
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Barnes that the City Clerk be m~thorized Eo advertise the petitions for hearing a~
<br />the regular meeting of City Council on February 11 was adopted, without dissenting yore.
<br />
<br /> 64~8 - The report ~rom t. he Depar~merz~ of Web,are and I~s~t~tions on the~loc~p of the City of
<br />Portsmouth was presented, an6 on motion of Mr. ~ight,. received as ~i~ormation.
<br />
<br /> 64-9 - The ~'~pd~t :of-t~e Depar~meal o~ <Welfar~ ~d Institutions on the City Jail was presented and
<br />on me,ion of 'Mr. Leery, ~rece-~?fed as inf~r~atio~
<br />
<br /> 64-10 - The following communication' from the Rortsmou~b Recrea~tion A~visory Bo~ ~was read and on
<br />motion of M~. Eastes, received as information:
<br />
<br /> At the Decembe meeting of the ov~smo.uth R~creatlon .Adv~sor~ Board She membership endorsed a
<br />.p~opo~%t'by the Por~u~ Ja~ce~s to" co~strudt' a mi~af~ '~Y~ ~d "~k~ a~ ~C~ ~ark for ~h~ youag people of
<br />
<br /> . ~ ~The Board~ ~ppoint~ a.committge ~e~p~sed ~o~. Carrol l~,.Msson, cha:i~m~ln~, MV~e T. C~ Mingis mhd
<br />R. E. Brlnson to work with Directo~ Recreation John S ~pbetl,: Jr% ~ .~ill ~aVe 'fin~ authority on the
<br />various phases of this undertaking-.
<br /> While the project ~is still in the planning s~ages, I am submitting the above ~or your information
<br />
<br /> On motion adjourned.
<br />
<br />Approved
<br />
<br />President
<br />
<br />City Clerk
<br />
<br />
<br />
|