|
October 13, 1980
<br />
<br />passing through the existing Merrifields' streets. This site is not down the road, across the
<br />street, or a mile away, but in the heart of Merrifields.
<br />
<br /> Our arguments that this site was not suitable for group housing or apartments have been
<br />endorsed by the Comprehensive Plan Studies and by denial of group housing applications both
<br />by the Planning Commission and City Council.
<br />
<br /> The rezoning before you tonight will once and for all end the uncertainty both for resi-
<br />dents and developers as to the future development of this site.
<br />
<br /> I would also like to address two recent events that again focuses on this North Churchlanc
<br />site. First, was an announcement by HUD that a proposal had been received to place a sub-
<br />sidized apartment project at this location. Ail arguments presented and endorsed to date,
<br />including the ComprehenSive Plan, clearly point out that this site is not suitable for apart-
<br />ments regardless of w~o builds them or whether they are for high or low income tenants or
<br />whether they are subsidized or not subsidized
<br />
<br /> A second recent, development~ig the strong possibility of large volume rail traffic to
<br />support the proposed coal pier. The proposed West Norfolk Road rail route or an alternate
<br />route.along the Western Freeway each will severely limit access to North Churchland unless
<br />overposses are quickly constructed. This restricted access argues that remaining development
<br />in North Churchland should be of minimum desity and over as long a time period as possible to
<br />minimize vehicular traffic.
<br />
<br /> Tonight we strongly endorse the recommendation of the Planning Commission to rezone this
<br />tract of land along the southern edge of Merrifields to R100."
<br />
<br /> James E. Bridgeford, 1220 W. Jamal Lane, repZ6senting United Civic League of Cavalier
<br />Manor, spoke against the petition.
<br />
<br /> Donald C. Kilgore, Attorney, representing the fee simple owner of approximately half of
<br />the site under consideration, and that the property to remain in a R-78 classification; it
<br />borders M-1-R and is also adjacent to the area that is somehow going to be used to dispense
<br />coat dust in the area. ,~
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mrs. Webb and seconded by Mr. Oast, to concur in the recommendation of the
<br />Planning Commission, the following ordinance was approved on first reading, and by 5-1 (Nay-
<br />Reamer) vote:
<br />
<br />"ZONING AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Z 80~14''
<br />
<br /> (f) Zoning Petition Z 80-15 - Petition of the City Planning Commission.
<br /> Attorney,
<br /> Gordon B. T~ytoe, P.~O. Box 1275, representing Homer Armistead Estate, spoke for the
<br />petitioner and presented the following proffer:
<br />
<br /> "Pursuant to Section 15.1-491.1, et seq., Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, the Horace
<br />Armistead Estate proffers to the Council of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia, the following
<br />condition in consideration of the Council changing the zoning classification of the area from
<br />R-TS to 78-C.
<br />
<br /> That the development will consist of a maximum of 116 duplexes and townhouses for sale
<br />constructed in compliance with the provisions controlling zoning classification R-75."
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Oast
<br />Planning Commission for
<br />unanimous vote.
<br />
<br />and seconded by Mr. Gray, that Z 80-15 to be referred back to the
<br />consideration of the proffer by Mr. Taytoe, and was adopted by
<br />
<br /> (c) Zoning Amendment Z 80-12 Previously presented.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Gray and seconded by Mrs. Webb, request of Mr.
<br />deferred until October 28, 1980, was adopted by unanimous vote.
<br />
<br />Kilgore that Z 80-12 be
<br />
<br /> (g) Zoning Petition Z 80-16 - Petition of the City Planning Commission.
<br />
<br /> Albert L. Johnson, 1656 Portsmouth Boulevard, spoke against the rezoning.
<br /> John L. Smith, 2905 Magnolia Street, representing Smith's Fuel, spoke against the
<br />rezoning.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Reamer and seconded by Mrs. Webb, that the Planning Commission recommenda-
<br />tion be denied, and Z 80-16 was denied and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Beamer, Gray, Oast, Webb, l~itlow, Johansen
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />(h) Zoning Petition Z 80-17 Petition of the City Planning Commission.
<br />
<br /> On motion of Mr. Gray and seconded by Mr. Reamer, to concur in the recommendation of the
<br />Planning Commission, and the following ordinance was approved on first reading by unanimous
<br />vote:
<br />
<br />"ZONING AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Z 80-17"
<br />
<br />
<br />
|