|
February 14, 1954
<br />
<br />and sign ordinances, Ss well as compatibility with surrounding architectural design
<br />is urged in this review process.
<br />
<br />Parking requirements should remain as currently required, i.e., one (1) off-street
<br />space per four (4) pew seats with ~rovisions for the church to contract for additional
<br />parking on adjacent property designed for that purpose, if necessary.
<br />
<br />To examine use of all Church-owned property to determine appropriateness of tax exempt
<br />status in conformity with State Code. (State Code grants tax exempt status to buil
<br />and land exclusively used for religious worship and the house occupied by the Church
<br />Minister.)
<br />
<br /> Robert L. Baker, 1520 Carson Crescent, Chairman of Study Committee on Church Properties,
<br />stated that the Committee concurred with the over-all purpose of the City Council to control
<br />t~numbe~' of churches coming up in the city, thereby increasing the tax property in the city.
<br />His reason for giving a minority report is that he is not in full agreement with Item 1 of the
<br />Committee's report and requested that the report be sent back to the Committee for further
<br />study.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Whitlow and second,mi by Mrs. Webb, that the report from the Study Committee
<br />on Church Properties be accepted and recommendations be referred to the Planning Commission
<br />and ask the Planning Staff and Planning Commission to consider the recommendations and a re~orl
<br />be furnished in about ~ix months, a~ requesting the City Manager to look into Item 4 and r~-
<br />port by what method could possibly/~amin~whether or not the church properties are in compli-
<br />ance with the State Code, and was adopted by mnanimous vote.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Holley that the Committee~survey the churches to see What voluntary payment~
<br />they might be willing to make for services rendered, died due to the lack of a second·
<br />
<br />84=46-Public Hearin~ on rezoning and use permit applications, and proposed amendments
<br /> to the city Code:
<br />
<br />(a) Z 84-1
<br />
<br />Rezoning application of the City Planning Commission, by Planning
<br />Director James M. Bray~ to rezone an area of Park View generall described
<br />as follows: Parkview Avenue and Fort Lane on the east; Blair Street
<br />on the south; Elm Avenue on the west; and the U. S. Naval Hospital pro-
<br />perty on the north; from Residential R-60 and R-60-A to Historic Residen~
<br />rial and Historic Limited Office HLO.
<br />
<br /> Jay Casper,
<br />support of the rezoning and asked
<br />Creek area.
<br />
<br /> Lloyd J~ Parker, Jr, (Dick), 174 Webst
<br />spoke in support of Z 84-1.
<br />
<br />58 Parkview Avenue, representing Park View Preservation League, spoke in
<br /> to lo~k into improving the waterfront around the Scott's
<br />
<br /> Richard Branch, 1022 Holliday Street,
<br />appreciation of the City Council and others
<br />of the rezoning, and asked that the Scott'
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Barnes and seconded by
<br />Planning Commission to rezone area of Park
<br />Residential an and Historic Limited
<br />first reading by Unanimous vote:
<br />
<br />~r Avenue, representing Park View Civic League,
<br />
<br />'resident of Park View Civic League,
<br /> attending the "Trolley Tour", spoke
<br /> Creek area be cleaned up.
<br />
<br />expressed
<br />in support
<br />
<br /> '. Beamer, to concur in the recommendation of the
<br /> 7iew, from Residential R-60 and R-60-A to Historic
<br />Office HLO, and the following ordinance was approved on
<br />
<br />"ZONING AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Z 84-1"
<br />
<br />(b)
<br />
<br />CA 84-1 - A proposal to amend Section 40 by creating a new historic district for
<br /> the Park View area of the city.
<br />
<br /> Mo.tion of Mrs. Webb and seconded by Mr. Gray, ~o Concur in the recommendation of the
<br />Planning Commission, and CA 84¢1 was approved on first reading, and was adopted by unanimous
<br />vote.
<br />
<br />~c) CA 84-2
<br />
<br />A proposal to amend Section 40 by creating two equal architectural boards
<br />i.e., the Commission of Architectural Review for Olde Towne, Cradock and
<br />Truxtun; and the Commission of Architectural Review for Port Norfolk
<br />and Park View~
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Gray and seconded by Hr. Beamer, to concur in the recommendation of the
<br />Planning Commission, and CA 84-2 was approved on first reading, and was adopted by unanimous
<br />vote.
<br />
<br />(d) Use Permit UP 84-1 - Use permit application o£ Gladys Rivers for a family care home
<br /> ' '~ at 231 Webster Avenue·
<br />
<br /> Richard Branch, 1022 Holliday Street, requested that the use permit be denied because
<br />the property is not kept in proper Condition.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Gray and seconded by Mrs. Webb, that UP 84-1 be denied, as recommended by
<br />the Planning Commission, and was adopted by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Barnes, Beamer, Gray, Holley, Webb, Whitlow, Johansen
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />
<br />
|