The URL can be used to link to this page

APRIL 8, 2003 AGENDA11 CITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF, At -Large VICE MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES, Bayside -District 4 HARRY E. DIEZ,EL, Kempsville - District 2 MARGARET L. EURE, Centerville - District 1 REBA S. McCLANAN, Rose Hall - District 3 RICHARD A. MADDOX, Beach - District 6 JIM REEVE, Princess Anne - District 7 PETER W SCHMIDT, At -Large RON A. VILLANUEVA, At -Large ROSEMARY WILSON, At -Large JAMES L. WOOD, Lynnhaven -District 5 JAMES K. SPORE, City Manager LESLIE L. LILLEY, City Attorney RUTH HODGES SMITH, MMC, City Clerk CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 8 April 2003 CITY HALL BUILDING 1 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-8005 PHONE: (757) 427-4303 FAX (75 7) 426-5669 EMAIL: Ctycncl@vbgov. com I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS -Conference Room - 2:00 PM A. CITIZEN SURVEY RESULTS Catheryn Whitesell, Director, Department of Management Services Nancy Glassman, President, Continental Research B. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 City's Proposed Operating Budget - "Community For a Lifetime" 1. Economic Vitality 2. Cultural and Recreational Opportunities 111. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS III. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS II IV. INFORMAL SESSION A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION D. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION -Conference Room - 5:00 PM II V. CITY COUNCIL INFORMAL DISCUSSION II VI. FORMAL SESSION A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyers E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend David Householder Providence Friends Church - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS April 1, 2003 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. CONSENT AGENDA I. PUBLIC HEARING 1. LEASE OF CITY PROPERTY - Cafe Franchise Agreements J. PUBLIC COMMENT 1. RED LIGHT PHOTOGRAPHY SURVEILLANCE K. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTION 1. Resolution DECLARING Citizen's Appreciation Day to be observed on Wednesdays during the 2003 Resort Season and establishing a program to allow parking without charge in certain City lots in the Resort Area on Wednesdays. 2. Ordinances re Open Air Cafes: a. REVISE regulations on scope of improvements on city property and operation re permitted landscaping, waiter service windows, entertainment hours, dispensing of alcohol and solicitation of any type b. GRANT new Franchise Agreements: 1. Atlantic Bistro - 910 Atlantic Avenue 2. Baja Cantina - 206 23`d Street C. RENEW Franchise Agreements 1. Angelo's by the Sea - 2809 Atlantic Avenue a. Boardwalk Cafe b. Connector Park Cafe 2. Fish Bones Restaurant - 1211 Atlantic Avenue 3. Guadalaara's - 200 21' Street 4. Latitudes and Attitudes - 2101 Atlantic Avenue 5. Rockfish Boardwalk Bar And Sea Grill - 1601 Atlantic Avenue 6. Seaside Galley - 1401 Atlantic Avenue 7. Waterman's Cafe - 415 Atlantic Avenue 3. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $81,630 from the Virginia Marine Science Museum Foundation to the FY 2002-03 Department of Cultural Arts operating budget re the VMSM Stranding Program. 4. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $2,075,000 in State and Federal Funds to mandated programs administered by the Department of Social Services re adoption assistance for special needs families, child care subsidies for eligible families and maintenance payments for foster children. 5. Ordinance to TRANSFER $2,300,000 from the Instructional Category of the FY 2002-03 School Operating Budget to the Transportation Category for purchase of buses prior to May First. 6. Ordinance to RATIFY amendments to the By -Laws of the Community Services Board (CSB) re committee structure. 7. AUTHORIZE the City Manager to advise the lender, TowneBank, re 31" Street: a. The City intends to complete Laskin Road Gateway b. The City extends its commitment NOT to promote a hotel at Rudee Loop until the opening of the 31St Street hotel on or about June 30, 2005 L. PLANNING 1. RECONSIDERATION: Application of LYNNDUNES, INC. for a Chan e�OfZonin'a from B-4 (SD) Resort Commercial with a Shore Drive Corridor Overlay to A-24 Apartment with a PD -H 2 Overlay on the south side of Page Avenue west of Jade Street (3232 Page Avenue), containing 38,986 square feet. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) Denied: January 14, 2003 Recommendation: APPROVAL 2. Petition for a Variance to Section 4.4 (b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) for BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING, LLC on the east side of Watersedge Drive north of Kline Drive, containing 5.10 acres. (DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN) Recommendation: APPROVAL 3. Petition for a Variance to Section 4.4 (b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) for JOSEPH and CORRINE BENEDETTO, at 4183 White Acres Road, containing 17.13 acres. (DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) Recommendation: APPROVAL 4. Petition for a Variance to Section 4.4 (b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) for SHORE VENTURES, LLC, at Cullen Road and Independence Boulevard. (DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE) Recommendation: APPROVAL 5. Application of CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF RICHMOND for a MODIFICATION of the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Arctic Crescent, by reducing the area from 7,405.20 to 2,304 square feet. (DISTRICT 1 - BEACH) Approved by Council: July 9, 2002 Recommendation: APPROVAL 6. Application of ROBERT K. and LANG X. BELL for a MODIFICATION of Proffer No. 1 of a Conditional Zoning re the site plan for additional entrances to the site at 6041 Indian River Road. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) Approved by City Council: July 2, 2002 Recommendation: APPROVAL 7. Application of OSCAR L. EVERETT, III for a MODIFICATION of Condition No. 1 of the Use Permit re a freestanding sign for the car wash at 2530 Lynnhaven Parkway, containing 3.124 acres. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) Approved by City Council; April 10, 2001 Recommendation: APPROVAL 8. Application of ST. NICHOLAS CATHOLIC CHURCH for a Conditional Use Permit re a wall mounted columbarium at 712 Little Neck Road, containing 11.959 acres. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) Recommendation: APPROVAL 9. Application of COURTHOUSE COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH for a Conditional Use Permit re church expansion at 2708 Princess Anne Road, containing 6.33 acres. (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) Recommendation: APPROVAL M. APPOINTMENTS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION THE PLANNING COUNCIL VIRGINIA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (VBCDC) N. UNFINISHED BUSINESS O. NEW BUSINESS P. ADJOURNMENT 2003 Time Resource Management Schedule April 8 April 15 3:00 pm to 6:00pm April 22 April 24 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm April 24 6:00 pm April 29 May 1 2:00 to 5:00 pm May 1 6:00 pm May 6 May 13 6:00 pm Economic Vitality and Cultural and Recreational Opportunities RMP Workshop Quality Education and Lifelong Learning RMP Workshop Quality Organization RMP Workshop Safe Community RMP Workshop Public Hearing - Proposed FY 2003-04 Resort Management Planning - Kellam High School - 6:00 P.M. Quality Physical Environment Family and Youth opportunities RMP Workshop Public Hearing -Proposed FY Resort Management Planning - City Council Chamber - 6:00 P.M. Reconciliation Workshop City Council ADOPTION FY 2003-04 Resort Management Plan If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303 Hearing impaired, call: TDD only 427-4305 (TDD - Telephonic Device for the Deaf) ********** Agenda 04/08/03 A www.vbp,ov.com City Council, in trying to be more responsive to the needs of citizens who attend the meetings, has adopted the following time limits for future Formal Sessions: Applicant or Applicant's Representative 10 Minutes Attorney or Representative for Opposition 10 Minutes Other Speakers - each 3 Minutes Applicant's Rebuttal 3 Minutes THESE TIMES WILL BE STRICTLY ADHERED TO. If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303 Hearing impaired, call: TDD only 427-4305 (TDD - Telephonic Device for the Deaf) ********** Agenda 04/08/03 A www.vbp,ov.com THS 3EACQN y9dgy, March 30, 2003 PUBLIC NOTICE LEASES OF CITY PROPERTY The Virginia Beach City Council will hold a PUBLIC HEARING at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 8, 2003, In the City Council chambers regard- ing the proposed cafe franchise lease agreements of City -owned prop- erty to the entities listed below: Angelo's by the Sea (2809 Atlantic Avenue), boardwalk cafe; Angelo's by -the Sea (2809 Atiantie AWftV6Y,—C~0tt0 park cafe; - Fish Bones Restaurant (1211 Atlantic Avenue), boardwalk cafe; Gaudalahara's (200 21st Street), Atlantic Avenue side street; Latitudes and Attitudes (formerly Jonah's) (2101 Atlantic Avenue), boardwalk cafe; Rockfish Boardwalk Bar And Sea Grill (1601'Atiantic Avenue), boardwalk cafe; Seaside Galley (1401 Atlantic Avenue), boardwalk cafe; Waterman's Cafe (415 Atlantic Avenue), boardwalk cafe; Atlantic Bistro (910 Atlantic Avenue), Atlantic Avenue sidewalk cafe; and Bajo Cantina (206 23rd Street), Atlantic Avenue side street. The purpose of this public hearing will be to obtain public comment on these leases of City property. Any questions concerning these mat - iters should be directed to Mike Eason, Resort Coordinator, Depart- ment of Convention and Visitor Development, by calling (757) 437-4800. Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk Beacon March 30, 2003 10233701 .. �7tA•BE t 04' � Y) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend the City's Open Air Cafe Regulations MEETING DATE: April 8, 2003 ■ Background: By resolution adopted November 25, 1985 (Resolution #85-1424), City Council, upon the recommendation of City staff and the Resort Advisory Commission, authorized the City Manager to promulgate Open Air Regulations. Since then, additional revisions to the regulations have been made as the cafe have continued to evolve and grow as an amenity in the resort area. Currently there are 43 cafes in the Open Air Cafe Program. ■ Considerations: City staff, in consultation with the Resort Advisory Commission, have revised and updated the Resort Open Air Cafe Regulations. One proposed change would be to clarify that scope of improvements on city property allowed by the franchise agreement is limited to limited to a cafe (maximum 800 sq. ft.), one five (5) foot planting bed, and one five (5) foot walkway. Other changes relate to the operation of the cafes. One proposal would allow waiter service windows in connector park cafes only. Another would extend the hours of entertainment allowed in cafes to 11:00 p.m. (currently the limit is 10:00 p.m.) Finally, the proposed changes would provide that the following activities will not be allowed within the cafes: (i) no bar(s) or dispensing of alcohol will be allowed within any Category A, B, C, or D cafe; and (ii) solicitation of any type, as described in Section 26-3 of the City Code, from any cafe will result in immediate termination of franchise agreement. Changes have been reviewed and recommended by both the Resort Advisory Commission (RAC) and the staff -level Resort Area Process Management Group. Changes to the greenbelt policy and landscaping requirements for cafes are expected during the franchise period. Existing franchises are not exempt from changes to these requirements. ■ Public Information This item will be publicized as part of the City Council's agenda. ■ Recommendation: Approval of Ordinance ■ Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Convention and Visitor Development City Manager: � r , F:\Data\ATY\Ordin\NONCODE\caferegarf.wpd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY' S OPEN AIR CAFE REGULATIONS REGARDING PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS AND OPERATIONS WHEREAS, by resolution adopted November 15, 1985, City Council authorized the City Manager to promulgate Open Air Cafe Regulations, which were drafted, reviewed, and endorsed by the Resort Advisory Commission ("RAC"); WHEREAS, the Regulations have been amended, from time to time, upon recommendation of the RAC, to address concerns and issues that have arisen during the development of the open air program; and WHEREAS, City staff have recommended clarification in the level of physical improvements permitted at open air cafes, as well as minor changes regarding the operation of these cafes, and these proposals have been presented to and endorsed by the RAC. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to amend the Open Air Cafe Regulations to clarify that improvements on City property allowed by the franchise agreement are limited as follows: Improvements on the public property are limited to a cafe (maximum 800 sq. ft.), one five ( 5 ) foot planting bed, and one five ( 5 ) foot walkway. 25 2. That the City Manger is hereby authorized to amend 26 the Open Air Cafe Regulations regarding the operation of open air 27 cafes as follows: 28 a. To allow waiter service windows in eligible 29 connector parks only; 30 b. To extend the hours of entertainment allowed 31 in cafes to 11:00 p.m.; 32 C. To provide that the following activities are 33 not allowed in cafes: 34 (i) no bar(s) or dispensing of alcohol will 35 be allowed within any Category A, B, C, 36 or D cafe; and 37 (ii) solicitation of any type, as described in 38 Section 26-3 of the City Code, from any 39 cafe will result in immediate termination 40 of franchise agreement. 41 3. That these amendments to the Open Air Cafe 42 Regulations shall become effective May 1, 2003. 43 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 44 Virginia, on the day of , 2003. 2 CA -8818 ORLIN\NONCODE\openairregsord.wpd R-3 - March 28, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: r &Vve-nt:1-on & Visitor velopment APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Law Departmen 3 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Ordinances Granting Franchises for the Operation of Open Air Cafe in the Resort Area and Renewing Existing Franchises MEETING DATE: April 8, 2003 ■ Background: Since its initial development and implementation, the Open Air Cafe Program has been very successful, and a number of cafes have been established in the Resort Area. The City's policy and practice has been to grant the initial franchise for a term of one (1) year. If the open air cafe is operated successfully during the initial one-year term, the City then renews the franchise for terms of five (5) years. ■ Considerations: Renewals The following entities have operated open air cafes in the Resort Area during the past year and have applied for renewals for a five (5) year term: 1. Angelo's by the Sea (2809 Atlantic Avenue), boardwalk cafe; 2. Angelo's by the Sea (2809 Atlantic Avenue), connector park cafe; 3. Fish Bones Restaurant (1211 Atlantic Avenue), boardwalk cafe; 4. Guadalaara's (200 21 st Street), Atlantic Avenue side street; 5. Latitudes and Attitudes (formerly Jonah's) (2101 Atlantic Avenue), boardwalk cafe; 6. Rockfish Boardwalk Bar And Sea Grill (1601 Atlantic Avenue), boardwalk cafe; 7. Seaside Galley (1401 Atlantic Avenue), boardwalk cafe; and 8. Waterman's Cafe (415 Atlantic Avenue), boardwalk cafe. New Franchises These are the new cafes requiring a one-year Franchise Agreement: 1. Atlantic Bistro (910 Atlantic Avenue), Atlantic Avenue sidewalk; and 2. Baja Cantina (206 23rd Street), Atlantic Avenue side street. ■ Recommendation: Approval of Ordinances. If City Council approves the attached ordinances, the granting of the franchises will be contingent upon the respective Grantees' execution of an Open Air Cafe Franchise Agreement, and compliance with the terms and conditions thereof. ■ Attachments: Ordinances Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Convention and Visitor Development City Manager:, rert._ F:\Data\ATY\Ordin\NONCODE\openairrenewarf.wpd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TI AN ORDINANCE TO GRANT TWO NEW FRANCHISES FOR THE OPERATION OF OPEN AIR CAFES IN THE RESORT AREA WHEREAS, the following corporations/companies (hereinafter "Grantees") have requested a franchise for the operation of an open air cafe at the oceanfront: 1. Atlantic Bistro (910 Atlantic Avenue) Atlantic Avenue sidewalk cafe; and 2. Baja Cantina (206 23rd Street) Atlantic Avenue side street. WHEREAS, the City has developed a franchise agreement for the regulation of open air cafes that each of the above -listed Grantees will be required to execute as a condition of the grant of this franchise. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That a franchise is hereby granted to each of the above -listed Grantees to operate an open air cafe at the address indicated herein from May 1, 2003, to April 30, 2004, conditioned on each Grantee's execution of a franchise agreement and compliance with all of the terms and conditions thereof. 2. That the City Manager, or his duly authorized designee, is hereby authorized to enter into a one year franchise agreement with each Grantee. 25 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 26 Virginia, on the day of , 2003. CA -8819 ORDIN\NONCODE\openairneword.wpd R-2 - March 27, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: qv ention & Visitorlopment APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Law Department 2 1 AN ORDINANCE TO RENEW EIGHT EXISTING 2 FRANCHISES FOR THE OPERATION OF OPEN 3 AIR CAFES IN THE RESORT AREA 4 WHEREAS, the following corporations/companies 5 (hereinafter "Grantees") wish to renew existing franchise 6 agreements for the operation of open air cafes at the oceanfront: 7 1. Angelo's by the Sea (2809 Atlantic Avenue) 8 boardwalk cafe; 9 2. Angelo's by the Sea (2809 Atlantic Avenue) 10 connector park cafe; 11 3. Fish Bones Restaurant (1211 Atlantic Avenue) 12 boardwalk cafe; 13 4. Guadalahara's (200 21St Street) Atlantic Avenue side 14 street; 15 5. Latitudes and Attitudes (formerly Jonah's) (2101 16 Atlantic Avenue) boardwalk cafe; 17 6. Rockfish Boardwalk Bar And Sea Grill (1601 Atlantic 18 Avenue) boardwalk cafe; 19 7. Seaside Galley (1401 Atlantic Avenue) boardwalk 20 cafe; and 21 8. Waterman's Cafe (415 Atlantic Avenue) boardwalk 22 cafe. 23 WHEREAS, the City has developed a franchise agreement for 24 the regulation of open air cafes that each of the above -listed 25 Grantees will be required to execute as a condition of franchise 26 renewal; and J-LO-VIJ � J I CF'IV � 27 WHEREAS, based upon each Grantee's successful operation 28 of an open air caf6 pursuant to a franchise during the past year, 29 the Department of Convention and Visitor Development recommends a 30 five-year renewal of the franchise of each of the foregoing 31 Grantees. 32 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 33 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 34 1. That a franchise is hereby granted to each of the 35 above -listed Grantees to operate an open air cafd at the address 36 indicated herein from May 1, 2003, to April 30, 2008, conditioned 37 on each Grantee's execution of a franchise agreement and compliance 38 with all of the terms and conditions thereof. 39 2. That the City Manager, or his duly authorized 40 designee, is hereby authorized to enter into a five year franchise 41 agreement with each Grantee. 42 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 43 Virginia, on the day of 2003. CA -8809 ORDIN\NONCODE\openairord.wpd R--2 - March 27, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: ZA -ention & isitor Law Departme D elopment 2 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Appropriate $81,630 of Additional Revenue From the Virginia Marine Science Museum Foundation to the FY 2002-03 Department of Cultural Arts Operating Budget and Create Two Full -Time Equivalent Positions for the Virginia Marine Science Museum Stranding Program MEETING DATE: April 8, 2003 ■ Background: The Virginia Marine Science Museum Foundation has been awarded an $181,950 grantfrom the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) through the John Prescott Marine Mammal Stranding Grant Program. This grant project will expand the Virginia Marine Science Museum Stranding Program's (VMSM-SP) ability to respond to and provide medical care, holding facilities and transport for live marine mammal strandings in Virginia and adjacent areas. It will also enhance the ability of the VMSM-SP to evaluate marine mammal strandings by improving carcass retrieval, necropsy, tissue sampling, animal storage and disposal techniques, and upgrading data collection and management systems. The Foundation is required and agrees to match this award with $60,650 in personnel, supplies and equipment. VMSM-SP staff, volunteers and cooperators respond to more than 400 marine mammal and sea turtle strandings occurring along the ocean coast and in the Chesapeake Bay each year. ■ Considerations: The Virginia Marine Science Museum Stranding Program is permitted by the National Marine Fisheries Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service and the State as the agency to manage the marine mammal stranding network, as well as respond to marine mammal and sea turtle strandings in Virginia. Their mission is to promote conservation of marine animal species through research, rescue, rehabilitation and education. The VMSM- SP conservation message is presented at schools, to groups such as girl and boy scouts, to civic organizations and at conferences and special events. Each stranding event is viewed as an opportunity to educate the public about Virginia's protected marine mammals and sea turtles. This project funds the salaries of two full-time FTE's for a period of one year. One position is a Stranding Program Coordinator who will be responsible for managing the daily operation of the stranding program. This individual will be a senior scientist for stranding program research, and will coordinate marine mammal and sea turtle stranding response, facility and equipment maintenance, database management and volunteer organization. The second position, a Stranding Program Veterinary Technician, will develop and implement daily animal care plans and manage the care of stranded marine mammals and sea turtles. The two additional full-time FTE's will be fully funded by the VMSM Foundation. This request represents no additional cost to the City. If this grant is not awarded in subsequent years, the Foundation will either find alternative funding sources, or terminate the positions. ■ Public Information: Information will be disseminated to the public through the normal Council agenda process involving the advertisement of City Council agenda and public hearings. ■ Alternatives: Not accept the funding from the Virginia Marine Science Museum Foundation and not hire the additional FTEs. ■ Recommendations: Adoption of Attached Ordinance ■ Attachments: Grant Award Letter and Ordinance Recommended Action: Adoption of Attached Ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Museums and Cultural Arts. City Manager: '< F:\Data\ATY\Ordin\NONCODE\vmsmarf.wpd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $81,630 OF ADDITIONAL REVENUE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MUSEUMS AND CULTURAL ARTS FY 2002-03 OPERATING BUDGET AND CREATE TWO FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS FOR THE VIRGINIA MARINE SCIENCE MUSEUM'S STRANDING PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Virginia Marine Science Museum Foundation has received $181, 950 in grant funding from the National Marine Fishery Service for the operations of the Virginia Marine Science Museum Stranding Program, and the Foundation will provide $81,630 of this funding to the Department of Museums and Cultural Arts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 14 1. That $81,630 of funding is hereby accepted from the 15 Virginia Marine Science Museum Foundation and appropriated to the 16 FY 2002-03 Operating Budget of the Department of Museums and 17 Cultural Arts for operations of the Virginia Marine Science 18 Museum's stranding program, with revenue from local sources 19 increased accordingly. 20 2. That two full-time equivalent positions are hereby 21 created in the FY 2002-03 Operating Budget of the Department of 22 Museums and Cultural Arts; however, these positions may be 23 eliminated after the additional revenue from the Foundation has 24 been expended. 25 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the 26 day of , 2003. 27 CA -8821 28 Ordin/Noncode/VMSMord.wpd 29 R4 - March 31, 2003 30 Approved as to Content: Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: '?, 31 6Cy 32 anagem t S vices Department of Law v/ IN OF C i► ,4 *� UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE .`f National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 'OfrfESOfP OFFICE OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION GRANTS MANAGEMENT DIVISION 1325 EAST -WEST HIGHWAY SSMC2 - OFA62 - NINTH FLOOR SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND 20910-3283 JAN 31 &3 Ms. Lynn Clements Virginia Museum of Marine Sciences Foundation 717 General Booth Boulevard Virginia Beach, VA 23451 Reference: NOAA Award No. NA03NMF4390038 Amendment No. 0 Federal Share $99,000 Dear Ms. Clements: Enclosed for your review and approval are three originals of the referenced NOAA award. If you concur, sign each of the three originals and return two originals to the address above within 30 days. The copy marked "Recipient Copy" is for your files. Please note that we are unable to ascertain the financial stability of your organization through our credit reporting agency Dun & Bradstreet (D&B). Therefore you will not be able to draw down funds through the Department of Treasury's Automated Standard Application for Payment (ASAP) system. You must submit a SF - 270 Request for Advance or Reimbursement for payment. However, before we can approve any payments, you must submit the appropriate financial records to D&B to obtain a credit rating. Once we have reviewed your financial management capabilities, we can then begin to approve payments and consider a request to be placed on ASAP. Please refer to the reporting requirements for this award, which are outlined in Attachment B, NOAA Administrative Special Award Conditions. In an effort to provide better service to our Recipients through electronic commerce, we ask that you please provide us with an internet email address for your financial reports point of contact (i.e., person who signs the SF -269s and SF -272s). As part of NOAA's diversity program, you are reminded that in accordance with Section J.04 of the Department of Commerce Standard Terms and Conditions, which are incorporated into this award, Recipients are encouraged to utilize minority and women -owned firms and enterprises in contracts under financial assistance awards. ® Printed on Recycled Paper Copies of the applicable OMB Circulars and regulations, which have been incorporated into this award by reference, are available from this office upon request and can be found on our website. if you have any grants management questions concerning policy and interpretation, please contact the NOAA Grants Management Specialist, Michelle Brown at 301-713-0922 [Internet: Michelle. T. Brown@noaa. gov]; for technical questions contact the Federal Program Officer, Teri Rowles at 301-713-2322 [Internet: Teri. Rowles a@noaa.gov]. Sincerely, Emmanuel E. Atsalinos Grants Officer Enclosures cc: Teri Rowles - F/PR2 ORM CD -4.f' 0 REV 1019ei U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE GRANT ❑ COOPERATIVE AGREEMEN CCOUNTING CODE t* FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AWARD ECIPIENT NAME WARD NUMBER IRGINIA MUSEUM OF MARINE SCIENCES FOUROAIMT COPY RET IWWNMF4390038 TREET ADDRESS FEDERAL SHARE OF COST 17 GENERAL BOOTH BOULEVARD $991000 ITY, STATE, ZIP CODE RECIPIENT SHARE OF COST IRGINIA BEACH, VA 23451 $33,000 WARD PERIOD TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 9/01/2002-08/31/2003 $1329000 UTHORITY 16 USC 1361 et seq.; 16 USC 1421f-1 r.FDA NO. AND PROJECT TITLE Improving Response to and Assessments of Dead Marine Mammal Strandings in 11.439 Virginia This Award approved by the Grants Officer is issued in triplicate and constitutes an obligation of Federal funding. By signing the three documents, the Recipient agrees to comply with the Award provisions checked below and attached. Upon acceptance by the Recipient, two signed Award documents shall be returned to the Grants Officer and the third document shall be retained by the Recipient. if not signed and returned without modificiation by the Recipient within 30 days of receipt, the Grants Officer may unilaterally terminate this Award. Department of Commerce Financial Assistance Standard Terms and Conditions Special Award Conditions (Attachment B) Line Item Budget (Attachment A) 15 CFR Part 14, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, Other Non -Profit, and Commercial Organizations ❑ 15 CFR Part 24, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements to State and Local Governments ❑ OMB Circular A-21, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions ❑ OMB Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments I? OMB Circular A-122, Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations ❑ 48 CFR Part 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures EA OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations Other(s) Department of Commerce Pre -Award Notification requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements, 66 FR 49917 as amended by the Federal Register notice published on October 30, 2002 (67 FR 66109) 67 FR (01/14/02)1720 SIGNATURE OF ARTMENT OF COMOFFICER TITLE DATE TE =R NOAA GRANTS OFFICER //TYPED NAME AND .IGNATURE OF AUT RIZED RECIPIENT OFFICIAL C TITLE_ DATE 8 %003 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OFFICE OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION GRANTS MANAGEMENT DIVISION 1325 EAST -WEST HIGHWAY SSMC2 - OFA62 - NINTH FLOOR SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND 20910-3283 Ms Lynn Clements Virginia Marine Sciences Museum Foundation 717 General Booth Boulevard Virginia Beach, VA 23451 Reference: NOAA Award No. NA03NMF4390002 Amendment No. 0 Federal Share $829950 Dear Ms Clements: Enclosed for your review and approval are three originals of the above referenced NOAA award. If you concur, sign each of the three originals and return two originals to the address above within 30 days. The copy marked "Recipient Copy" is for your files. Award payments will be made through electronic funds transfer, using the Department of Treasury's Automated Standard Application for Payment (ASAP) system, and in accordance with the requirements of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. The ASAP payment system allows grant and cooperative agreement recipients to withdraw funding directly from an established ASAP account for each award. ASAP is an all -electronic payment and information system developed jointly by the Financial Management Service (FMS) and the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. The latter, in its capacity as Treasury's fiscal agent, operates the system. ASAP is a system through which grantee organizations receiving Federal Funds can draw from accounts pre - authorized by Federal Agencies. The following information is required when making withdraws for this award: (1) ASAP account identification (id) = award number found on the cover sheet of this award; (2) Agency Location Code (ALC) = 13140001; and (3) Region Code = 01. If you are not enrolled as an ASAP recipient organization you must complete the enrollment process with your Federal Reserve Bank, Regional Finance Center. Enrollment application and information can be found at hftl2://www.fms.treas.gov/asal2/handbgl2k.html ® Printed on Recycled Paper Please refer to the reporting requirements for this award, which are outlined in Attachment B, NOAA Administrative Special Award Conditions. In an effort to provide better services to our Recipients through electronic commerce, we ask that when you submit your financial reports, please provide us with an internet email address for your financial reports point of contact (i.e., person who signs the SF -269s and SF -272s). As part of NOAA's diversity program, you are reminded that in accordance with Section J.05 of the Department of Commerce Standard Terms and Conditions, which are incorporated into this award, Recipients are encouraged to utilize minority and women -owned firms and enterprises in contracts under financial assistance awards. Copies of the applicable OMB Circulars and Department of Commerce regulations which have been incorporated into this award by reference, are available from this office upon request and can be found on our website. If you have any grants management questions concerning policy and interpretation, please contact the NOAA Grants Management Specialist, Carol. J. Pendletona@noaa.gov at 301-713-0923 Ext 178 for technical questions contact the Federal Program Officer, via email at Teri. Rowles@noaa.gov or telephone at 301-713-2322 Ext 178. Sincerely, Emmanuel E. Atsalinos Grants Officer Enclosures cc: TERI ROWLES, F/PR2 REUIPIhN I vUrY MC i<INIn FORM CD450 (REV 10/98) U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE GRANT ® COOPERATIVE AGREEMEN ACCOUNTING CODE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AWARD N/A NAME AWARD NUMBER RGINIA MARINE SCIENCES MUSEUM FOUNDATION NA03NMF4390002 REET ADDRESS FEDERAL SHARE OF COST [ECIPIENT 7 GENERAL BOOTH BOULEVARD $82,950 Y, STATE, ZIP CODE RECIPIENT SHARE OF COST RGINIA BEACH, VA 23451$27,650 ARD PERIOD TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 0112002-08/31/2003 $110,600 AUTHORITY 16 U.S.C. 1461f-1 FDA NO. AND PROJECT TITLE Improving Triage and Treatment of Live Stranded Marine Mammals in Virginia 11.439 This Award approved by the Grants Officer Is issued in triplicate and constitutes an obligation of Federal funding. By signing the three documents, the Recipient agrees to comply with the Award provisions checked below and attached. Upon acceptance by the Recipient, two signed Award documents shall be returned to the Grants Officer and the third document shall be retained by the Recipient. If not signed and returned without modificlation by the Recipient within 30 days of receipt, the Grants Officer may unilaterally terminate this Award. ❑ Department of Commerce Financial Assistance Standard Terms and Conditions Special Award Conditions (Attachment B) Line Item Budget (Attachment A) ® 15 CFR Part 14, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, Other Non -Profit, and Commercial Organizations ❑ 15 CFR Part 24, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements to State and Local Governments ❑ OMB Circular A-21, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions ❑ OMB Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments ® OMB Circular A-122, Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations ❑ 48 CFR Part 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures ® OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations ® Other(s) Department of Commerce Pre -Award Notification requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements, 66 FR 49917 as amended by the Federal Register notice published on October 30, 2002 (67 FR 66109) 67 FR 1720 (01/14/02); 67 FR 13602 (03/25/02) MRCE GRANTS OFFICER IG URE OF DEP7NAITU TdAUTMffEQ4MED TITLE DATE ` NOAA GRANTS OFFICER PED NAM AND SSRECIPIEbjT OFFICIAL TITLE DATE i r' C. / ntew f5 a3 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Adoptions and Child Care MEETING DATE: April 8, 2003 ■ Background: The Department of Social Services administers several programs that are mandated by Federal and/or State law. Expenditures for the current fiscal year have increased by 24% in the following three mandated programs: 1) Adoption assistance for families who adopt children with special needs - The number of children in foster care with special needs has increased dramatically over the past several years. This same trend is reflected in children being adopted with the number of subsidized adoptions increasing from 186 (FY 2001-02) to 233 (FY 2002-03). 2) Child Care subsidies to support employment if the family is income eligible - The increase in child care expenditures is due to the number of children eligible for care and an increase in the cost of care. The number of children receiving subsidized care increased by 1,899 in FY 2002 to 2,205 in FY 2003 and the monthly cost per child increased 8.5%. There are six different child care options with specific regulations, all of which are income based and most contain a client co -pay. 3) Maintenance payments for foster children who are eligible under Title IV -E of the Social Security Act - The number of children eligible for this federal program has increased because of changes in federal regulations. Children normally funded through the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) which requires a 35.69% local match rate are now eligible for this federal program which does not require a local match. ■ Considerations: The State Department of Social Services has appropriated the additional funds necessary to continue these programs and no local match is required. Funding will be from Federal and State sources. ■ Public Information: Public Information will be handled through the normal council agenda process 0 Alternatives: None - The State mandates the provision of these services. ■ Recommendations: Receive and appropriate $2,075,000 in Federal and State funds. ■ Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Social Services City Ma a e n r: S Y-, . -Z�8 �z g F:\Data\ATY\Ordin\NONCODE\socservarf.wpd 1 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE 2 $21075,000 IN STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDS FOR 3 VARIOUS PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY THE 4 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 5 6 WHEREAS, the State Department of Social Services has made 7 $2,075,000 in federal and state funds available that are necessary 8 to continue three mandated programs: adoption assistance for 9 families with special needs, child care subsidies to support 10 employment for income eligible families, and maintenance payments 11 for foster children eligible under Title IV -E of the Social 12 Security Act. 13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 14 VIRGINIA BEACH, Virginia: 15 1. That $2,075,000 of federal and state funds is hereby 16 accepted from the State Department of Social Services and 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 appropriated to the FY 2002-03 Operating Budget of the Department of Social Services to continue mandated programs. 2. That estimated revenues from the federal and state government in the FY 2002-03 Operating Budget are hereby increased by $1,076,648 and $998,352, respectively. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of , 2003. CA -8822 Ordin/Noncode/socservord.wpd R-1 - March 27, 2003 Approved as to Content: y- C Managhme4 Services Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: ,14 epartment of L CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Request for Categorical Transfer in School Operating Budget MEETING DATE: April 8, 2003 ■ Background: The FY 2002/03 School Operating Budget was categorically appropriated. Additional Operating Budget funds are available from the Summer School program that ended in August 2002, the Early Retirement Incentive Program (ERIP), the funds set aside for Lifelong Education for Advanced Degrees (LEAD) and elementary teaching positions, which were unallocated due to the decline in enrollment. On March 18, 2003, the School Board adopted a resolution to request City Council to approve a transfer of $2,300,000 from the Instructional category to the Transportation category. ■ Considerations: The ability to order buses prior to May 1, 2003 will enable the school division to receive the buses prior to the beginning of the FY 2003/04 school year, and the transfer of the funds may reduce the per-unit cost due to VBCPS requesting the purchase before other school systems enter the market at the end of the fiscal year. ■ Public Information: Public Information will be handled through the normal Council Agenda notification process. ■ Alternatives: These funds could "revert" to the City and be reappropriated per council policy for the purchase of replacement buses. However, these funds would not be available for the school division to purchase buses prior to mid-September 2003, and this delay would result in receipt of the buses in the winter or early spring of 2004. This time frame for placing of the order would also not allow the division to purchase buses at the current prices and would put the bus order on a waiting list for production with all other school divisions seeking to purchase buses at the end of the school year. ■ Recommendations: That the City Council approve the transfer of $2,300,000 in the School Operating Budget from the Instructional category to the Transportation category. ■ Attachments: School Board Resolution dated March 18, 2003 and Ordinance. Recommended Action: Approve Ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Virginia Beach Schools City Manager: Qrt_, F:\DataXATY\Ordin\NONCODE\schoolsarfwpd 1 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE THE TRANSFER OF 2 $2,300,000 FROM THE INSTRUCTIONAL CATEGORY TO 3 THE PUPIL TRANSPORTATION CATEGORY WITHIN THE 4 FY 2002-03 SCHOOL BOARD OPERATING BUDGET 5 WHEREAS, funds in the School Board FY 2002-03 Operating 6 Budget are available in the Instructional Category to permit the 7 purchase of sufficient replacement buses to meet the State - 8 recommended replacement cycle of 12 years; 9 WHEREAS, placing orders for buses before May 1, 2003 10 would allow the school system to receive these buses at the 11 beginning of the school year; and 12 WHEREAS, by resolution dated March 18, 2003, the School 13 Board has adopted a resolution recommending a transfer of funds 14 from the Instructional Category to the Pupil Transportation 15 Category. 16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 17 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 18 That the School Board's transfer of $2,300,000 in 19 appropriations to the Pupil Transportation Category from the 20 Instructional Category in its FY 2002-03 Operating Budget is hereby 21 approved. 22 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 23 Virginia on the day of 2003. CA -8816 Ordin/Noncode/schoolsord.wpd R-2 March 26, 2003 Approved as to Content: ,9" q, &adyj� Management Services Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: s -i Law Department 2 SCHOOLBOARD Daniel D. Edwards Chairman District 1 - Centerville 1513 Beachview Drive VA Beach, VA 23464 495-3551 (h) - 717-0259 (cell) Neil L. Rose Vice Chairman At -Large 1337 Harris Road VA Beach, VA 23452 463-3823 (h) - 497-6633 (w) Jane S. Brooks District 6 - Beach 721 Hilltop Road VA Beach, VA 23454 425-1597 (h) Emma L "Em" Davis District 5 - Lynnhaven 1125 Michaelwood Drive VA Beach, VA 23452 340-8911(h) A. James "Jim" DeBellis District 2 — Kempsville 4545 Bob Jones Drive VA Beach, VA 23462 467-2457(h) Dan R. Lowe District 4 - Bayside 4617 Red Coat Road VA Beach, VA 23455 490-3681(h) Sandra Smith -Jones At -Large 705 Rock Creek Court VA Beach, VA 23462 490-8167 (h) Michael W. Stewart District 3 - Rose Hall 105 Brentwood Court VA Beach, VA 23452 498-4303 (h) - 445-4637 (w) Arthur T. Tate At -Large 1709 Ladysmith Mews VA Beach, VA 23455 460-5451(h) Carolyn D. Weems At -Large 1420 Claudia Drive VA Bexh, VA 23455 4646674 (h) Lois S. Williams, Ph.D. District 7 — Princess Anne 2532 Las Corrales Court VA Beach, VA 23456 233-0891(w) SUPERINTENDENT Timothy R. Jenney, Ph.D. 2512 George Mason Drive VA Beach, VA 23455 427-4326 BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS A H E A D O F T H E C U RV E A REQUEST OF THE VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL TO TRANSFER CERTAIN FUNDS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the MISSION OF THE Virginia Beach City Public Schools, in partnership with our entire community, is to ensure that each student is empowered with the knowledge and skills necessary to meet the challenges of the future; and WHEREAS, budgetary constraints have precluded the inclusion of funds in the Operating Budget for the purchase of sufficient replacement buses to meet the State recommended replacement cycle of 12 years; and WHEREAS, beginning in FY 1999-2000, the School Board budgeted within it's annual operating budget and amount sufficient to fund one-half of the number of buses required to maintain a 14 -year replacement cycle on the bus fleet; and WHEREAS, the ability to place orders for school buses before May 1, 2003 will allow the school system to receive these buses at the beginning of the school year rather; and WHEREAS, the ability to place orders for buses before May 1, 2003 will permit the placement of the order prior to the peak purchasing season for buses and may save significant dollars in the per unit costs; and WHEREAS, the prudent management of funds and the orderly manner in which replacement funding has been managed has resulted in the average age of buses within the fleet being reduced from over 9 years of age to 7.4 years of age; and WHEREAS, additional Operating Budget funds are available from the Summer School program that ended in August 2002, the ERIP program, the funds set aside for LEAD and elementary teaching positions, which were unallocated due to the decline in the enrollment; now therefore be it RESOLVED: That the Board requests the City Council approve a categorical transfer in the amount of $2,300,000 from the Instructional Category to the Pupil Transportation Category; and be it further - RESOLVED: That a copy of this resolution be spread across the official minutes of this Board, and the Clerk of the Board is directed to deliver a copy of this resolution to the Mayor, each member of City Council, the City Manager, and the City Clerk. Adopted by the School Board of the City of Virginia Beach this 18`I' day of March 2003. Attest: Dianne P. Alexander, Clerk of the Board CERTIFIED TO K A TkUE AND CORRECCOPY 70 Ah:. a Clerk, Sch My of % School Administration Building - 2512 George Mason Drive • P. 0. Box 6038 • Virginia Beach, VA 23456-0038 ITEM: MEETING DATE: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM Approval of CSB By -Laws April 8, 2003 ■ Background: The Community Services Board regularly reviews its by-laws as required by the State Performance Contract which is approved annually by City Council. ■ Considerations: The revised by-laws meet state code requirements and have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's Office. The Board recently appointed a committee to review the by-laws; after several months of discussion, the recommendation from the committee was to change the Board's committee structure. Two committees were merged and several were eliminated. The Board unanimously approved the changes at the December 19, 2002 meeting and is submitting them for approval by City Council. ■ Public Information: The discussion of the changes in the by-laws occurred during several public meetings of the Board last fall. ■ Alternatives: While the by-laws could remain unchanged, the proposed revisions improve the efficiency of the organization and reduce the amount of staff time needed for administrative support. ■ Recommendation: Approval ■ Attachments: The revised by-laws (including highlighted revisions) are attached. Recommended Action: Submitting Department/Agency: r City Manage Z - F:\bataU4ty\Ordin\Noncodelcsbbylawsarf.wpd 1 AN ORDINANCE TO RATIFY RECENT 2 AMENDMENTS TO THE BYLAWS OF THE 3 COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD 4 WHEREAS, the Community Services Board recently completed 5 a comprehensive review of its bylaws; 6 WHEREAS, after considering the proposed changes, the 7 Board, at a meeting conducted on December 19, 2002, approved a 8 series of amendments to its bylaws; 9 WHEREAS, Article XII of the Board's bylaws provides that 10 amendments to the bylaws must be reviewed and ratified by City 11 Council; and 12 WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the recommended 13 amendments to the bylaws of the Community Services Board and finds 14 them to be acceptable. 15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 16 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 17 That City Council hereby ratifies the amendments to the 18 bylaws of the Community Services Board, as approved by the Board, 19 and attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 20 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 21 Virginia, on the day of 2003. CA -8820 ORDIN\NONCODE\csbbylawsord.wpd R-1 - March 27, 2003 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Communi y lter�v�ic4esBoard awDepartment EXHIBIT A As Approved at December 19, 2002 CSB Meeting BY- LAWS Virginia Beach Community Services Board ARTICLE I - NAME The name of this Board shall be the Virginia Beach Gbmmunity Services Board, hereinafter referred to as the 'Board." ARTICLE II - PURPOSE The purpose of this Board shall be to act as the agent ofthe City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in the establishment and operation of Community Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse prograrrs as provided for in Chapters 10 and 11 of Title 37.1 of the Code of Virginia. ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP Section 1. The membership of the Board shall consist of not less than six nor more than eighteen persons approved and appointed bythe City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, hereinater referred to as the "City Council". The membership shall be as broadly representative as possible of all lay and professional elements of the community. One-third of the appointments to the Board shall be identified consumers or family members of consumers, at least one of whom shall be a consumer receiving services. Members shall be appointed in accordance wth Section 37.1-195 of Chapter 10 of Title 37.1 of the Code of Virginia . Section 2. Vacancies shall be filled for unexpired terms in the same manner as original appointments. No person shall be eligible to serve more than two successive terms; provided that persons appointed to ill vacancies may serve two additional successive terms. No person shall be eligible to serve more than three full three-year terms. Any member of the Board may be removed by City Council for cause, after being given a written statement of the cause and an opportunityto be heard thereon. ARTICLE IV - POWERS AND DUTIES The Board, as an administrative policy board and agent, of the City of Virginia Beach shall be subject to the laws and regulations relating to such agencies ofthat government and shall have the general powers, duties and responsibilities of a Board as outlined in Title 37.1 of the Code of Virginia. Such powers and duties shall be: (a) Review and evaluate all existing and proposed public community mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse services and facilities available to serve the community and such private services and facilities as receive funds through the Board and advise the City Council as to its findings. (b) Submit to the City Council a program of community mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse services and facilities for its approval. (c) Within amounts appropriated therefor, execute such programs and maintain such services as may be authorized under such appropriations. (d) In accordance with its approved program, enter into contracts for rendition or operation of services or facilities. (e) Make rules or regulations concerning the rendition or operation ofservices and facilities under its direction or supervision, subject to applicable local, state and/or federal standards or regulations. (f) Participate with the City in the appointment of an executive director of community mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse services and prescribe said executive director's duties, according to minimum qualifications established by the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, hereinafter referred to as the "DMHMRSAS". The compensation of the executive director shall be fixed by the City in consultation with the Board within the amounts made available by appropriation therefor. The Board shall participate with the City in conducting an annual performance evaluation of its executive director. (g) Prescribe a reasonable schedule offees for services provided by personnel or facilities under the jurisdiction or supervision of the Board and collection of the same; provided, however, that all fees collected from Board administered programs shall be deposited with the treasurer, City of Virginia Beach provided, further, that such collected fees shall be used onlyfor community mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse purposes. The Board shall institute a reirrbursement system to maximize the collection of fees from persons receiving services under the jurisdiction or supervision of the Board and from responsible third -party payors. (h) Seek and accept funds through grants or foundations; provided, however, in accepting such grants, the Board shall not bind the City of Virginia Beach to any expenditures or conditions of acceptance without the prior approval of the City Council. (1) Have authority, not withstanding any provision of law to the contrary, to disburse funds appropriated to it in accordance with such regulations as may be established bythe City Council. (j) Apply for and accept loans as authorized bythe City Council. (k) Accept or refuse gifts, donations, bequests, or grants of money or property or other assistance from any source, public or private; utilize the same to carry out any of its purposes; and enter into anyagreement or contract regarding or relating to the acceptance or use or repayment of the same as authorized by City Council. (1) Develop joint annual written agreements consistent with policies and procedures established bythe State Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services Board with local school divisions; health departments; departments of social services; housing agencies; sheriffs; area agencies on aging and regional departments of rehabilitative services. The agreements shall specify what services will be provided to consumers. All participating agencies shall deNelop and implement the agreements and shall review the agreements annually. (m) Be responsible ibr carrying out other duties as enumerated in Section 37.1- 197 of the Code of Virginia. ARTICLE V - APPROVAL OF PROPOSED PERFORMANCE CONTRACT Under Section 37.1-198 of the Code of Virginia, the City of Virginia Beach, having established the Board and authorized it to administer the City's mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse ser\ices programs, may apply for State assistance by submitting annuallyto the DMHMRSAS the City's mental health, mental retardation or substance abuse proposed perbrmance contract for the next fiscal year together with the Board's recommendations thereon. This document will be available for public review and public comment for a period of thirty days prior to submitting it for the recommendations of City Council. ARTICLE VI - OFFICERS OF THE BOARD AND THEIR DUTIES Section 1. The officers of the Board shall consist of a Chair, Vice -Chair, Secretary and Treasurer who shall be elected at the December meeting of the Board and shall serve at the pleasure of the Board, beginning on January1 of the following year. Section 2. The duties of the Chair shall be: (a) To preside at all meetings of the full Board and Executive Committee, which is composed of officers of the Board. and Gheirs of the three disability (b) To appoint all committees (excluding the Nominating Committee, which is appointed by the Board) deemed necessary for the operation of the Board. The Finance Committee members will be appointed bythe Chair in consultation with the Treasurer. (c) To work closely with the Executive Director of the Community Services Board and the City Manager. 3 (d) To perform any other duties determined by the Board. (e) To ensure that all federal, state and local governments are informed as to the activities of the Board as requested. Section 3. The Vice -Chair shall, in the absence of the Chair, perform the duties of the Chair and any other duties assigned bythe Board or the Chair. Section 4. The Secretary shall ensure that accurate records of all meetings of the Board and Executive Committee are maintained. Upon conclusion of an Executive Session, the Secretary shall certify that business was conducted in accordance with the motion and shall record an indhAdual voice vote of all Board members present. The Secretary shall perform the duties of the Chair in the absence of the Chair and the Vice - Chair. Section 5. The Treasurer shall serve as Chair of the Finance Committee. The Treasurer shall perform the duties of the Chair in the absence of the Chair, Vice -Chair and Secretary. The Treasurer shall serve as the liaison of the Board regarding financial matters. ARTICLE VII - NOMINATIONS, ELECTIONS AND TERMS OF OFFICE Section 1. The Board shall elect its officers at the December meeting of each year, who shall begin their duties on January1 of the following year. A Nominating Committee shall be appointed bythe Board at its October meeting and shall bring forth a slate of officers at its November meeting. Section 2. The term of office shall be for one year commencing on the first day of the calendar year or until a successor is elected. No officer may serve more than three consecutive terms in the same office. The election shall be by ballot if there is more than one nominee for the same office. A quorum must be present and voting in order to constitute an election. Section 3. Any vacancy occurring in the officers of the Board shall be filled by the Board within 60 days of the vacancy. Duration of such appointments shall be limited to the unexpired term of office. ARTICLE VIII - MEETINGS Section 1. The regular monthly meetings shall be held at a time and place to be determined by the Board. If the Board chooses to cancel a regular rronthly meeting, a formal vote will be taken and adequate public notice wll be given. 4 Section 2. Special meetings of the Board may be called by the Chair or upon written request of three members. Section 3. The quorum for all Board meetings shall be the majority of the total appointed Board members. ARTICLE IX - STANDING COMMITTEES There shall be an Executive Committee, Finance Committee and other committees as appointed bythe Chair in accordance with Article VI, Section 2-b. 1. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE This Committee's duties include but are not limited to the following: a. Establishing Board agenda b. Acting on the Board's behalf when directed to do so C. Providing a report of recommendations of the Committee to the Board d. Preparation of Policy _guidance regarding Board member education and training in order to enhance duties and responsibilities. 2. FINANCE This Committee's duties include but are not limited to the following: a. Participating in the annual fiscal review of all programs directly or contractually operated by the Board. b. Reviewing policies related to the fiscal division of the Board, and which also directly affect contractual programs of the Board C. Advising the Board, as required, on all matters of a fiscal nature which affect directly and contractually operated programs d. Providing a report of recommendations of the Committee to the Board 5 .. I L9 . 1. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE This Committee's duties include but are not limited to the following: a. Establishing Board agenda b. Acting on the Board's behalf when directed to do so C. Providing a report of recommendations of the Committee to the Board d. Preparation of Policy _guidance regarding Board member education and training in order to enhance duties and responsibilities. 2. FINANCE This Committee's duties include but are not limited to the following: a. Participating in the annual fiscal review of all programs directly or contractually operated by the Board. b. Reviewing policies related to the fiscal division of the Board, and which also directly affect contractual programs of the Board C. Advising the Board, as required, on all matters of a fiscal nature which affect directly and contractually operated programs d. Providing a report of recommendations of the Committee to the Board 5 I In r • • OR -10 LWA k C6 _-YOWNIM* • • • • r ■ I I[-1�1•� 1 1 1 1 1 1 l i i-i-3-1� l' l� l-i-� 1 1 l•7 l� l' l -i'1' l tom. l l-� 1 l•1 � 1 1 I I 1 I i-i� � i•� � 1 l -i l•I 1 l•J'1'� 1 I l� ARTICLE X - OPERATING PROCEDURES The Board, in carrying out its powers and duties in accordance with Article IV of these By -Laws, shall utilize the following operating procedures: a. All employees of directly operated programs shall be subject to the personnel policies and procedures ofthe City of Virginia Beach. Additionally, the Board hereby adopts the City of Virginia Beach's grievance procedure. b. Pursuant to Section 37.1-195 ofthe Code of Virginia, legal services to the Board shall be provided by the City Attorney. c. The City Treasurer shall receive those funds designated to the Board. d. The City of Virginia Beach Director of Finance shall serve as the Board's fiscal agent. The City of Virginia Beach shall receive an independent annual audit of the total revenues, expenditures and data of the Board and its programs. e. The Board shall comply with the City of Virginia Beach policies and procedures for purchasing equipment and supplies. f. The Board may, following review by the City of Virginia Beach Director of Finance as to availability of funds and the City Attorney as to appropriate legal form, enter into such agreements and contracts as are necessaryto carry out its approved program. g. The Board shall be authorized to reuse its budget categories to meet program needs as provided in the budget ordinance ofthe City of Virginia Beach. When a budget revision is necessary, the Board Executive Director shall submit the request in writing to the City Finance Department prior to Board consideration on of the proposed change. The Rnance Department will review the request for conformance to the City's fiscal rules, regulations and budget ordinance and wll notify the Executive Director that the request is in compliance with these rules and regulations or, if not, why not and what procedures need to be followed to achieve compliance. h. The Board shall be authorized to allocate all agencyrevenues in accordance with DMHMRSAS guidelines and in compliance with the policies of the City of Virginia Beach. ARTICLE XI Roberts Rules of Order, Newly revised, shall govern the conduct of all Board proceedings unless inconsistent with these By -Laws in which case these By -Laws shall govern. ARTICLE XII The By -Laws may be amended at any regular meeting of the Board by two-thirds vote of the membership, notice having been submitted to each Board member in writing two weeks prior to the meeting. Such amendments shall then be reviewed and ratified by the City Council. Amendments Chronology. Adopted at a regular meeting of the Board by a vote of 8 in favor of to 0 not in favor. Date: January22, 1981 Ratified amendment by Virginia Beach City Council on March 23, 1981. Amended at a regular meeting of the Board by a vote of 12 in favor of to 1 not in favor. Date: December 12, 1985 Virginia Beach City Council deferred indefinitely an ordinance to amend By -Laws January 27, 1986. Amended at a regular meeting of the Board by a vote of 8 in favor of to 1 not in favor. Date: August 24, 1989 Board deferred making any changes and tabled anyfurther action. Amended at a regular meeting of the Board by a majority. Date: October 23, 1997 Ratified amendment by City Council on November 18, 1997. Amended at a special meeting of the Board by a vote of 6 in favor of to 3 not in favor and (6 absent from vote) Date: June 10, 1998 7 Amendments ratified by City Council on July 7, 1998. Amended at a regular meeting of the Board by a vote of 12 in favor of to 0 not in favor and (3 absent from vote) Date: December 19, 2002. 0 �ot `�.Z CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM , ITEM: Authorization for City Manager to Advise Lender on the 31" Street Project MEETING DATE: April 8, 2003 ■ Background: ■ Considerations: ■ Public Information: ■ Alternatives: ■ Recommendations: Authorization for City Manager to advise the lender on the 31" Street Project that: a. The City intends to complete CIP Project 2-076 Laskin Road Gateway in conjunction with the 31" Street Project. b. The City extends its commitment not to promote a hotel at the Rudee Loop site until the opening of the 31St Street hotel or June 30, 2005, whichever is earlier. ■ Attachments: Letter to Bruce L. Thompson from James K. Spore, City Manager City of Virginia Beach Capital Improvement Project 2-076 Budget Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: City Council City Manager: IcL S OF OUR NAT%ONS OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER (757)427-4242 FAX (757) 427-4135 TDD (757) 427-4305 City of Virgiriia F3each April 9, 2003 Thirty -First Street, L.C. c/o Mr. Bruce L. Thompson 932 Laskin Road Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451 Re: 31 st Street Hotel Project Dear Bruce: MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING 1 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23456-9001 As you know, the City of Virginia Beach is committed to taking its tourism and convention business to the next level. One of the means by which this vision can be achieved is by creating a first class resort environment at the Virginia Beach oceanfront. The Development Agreement for the 31 St Street Hotel Project is integral to these initiatives. We welcomed last week the exciting news that Thirty -First Street, L.C. has secured its franchise commitment from Hilton Hotels, its construction contractor (W.M. Jordan Company) and its construction lender. In that regard, I have been authorized by City Council to advise TowneBank, Mercantile Bank and the other members of the lending syndicate of the following: 1. The City of Virginia Beach will not promote any property owned or controlled by the City (or the Virginia Beach Development Authority) in the Rudee Loop project area for a hotel until the earlier of either (i) the date that the 31St Street hotel project (including the hotel, the public parking garage and the retail shop space located within the garage) opens for business or (ii) June 30, 2005. Please note that this is an extension of the December 31, 2003, time period contained in the Development Agreement. 2 April 9, 2003 2. The City of Virginia Beach is committed to complete the Laskin Road corridor improvements in conjunction with the completion of the 31 st Street Hotel. I am attaching a copy of the City's Capital Improvement Project budget that more accurately describes this work. I look forward to our continued work on this very exciting project. Very truly yours, James K. Spore City Manager Enclosure cc: City Council Donald L. Maxwell, Director of Economic Development Leslie L. Lilley, City Attorney E. Dean Block, Public Works Director FAData\ATY\Forms\Commercial Projects\3 I st Street\040103 letter to Bruce Thompson.doc Ll City of •Virginia Fiscal Years 2002-03 th• •h 2007-08 Capital ImprovementProgram Project # and Title: 2-076 Laskin Road Gateway Responsible De t.: Public Works I Business Area : Quality Physical Environment Total Total Budget Unappropriated Subsecouent Years Future Programmed Appropriations Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 1 1 Funding Funds To Date FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 Requirement 11,097,500 9,289,795 423,852 500,000 883,853 01 01 0 0 Description and Scope This project is for construction of two three -lane roadways with a bikeway from the proposed 30th/31 st Street split to Atlantic Avenue, a distance of approximately 0.3 mile. The project's first work will be a transportation corridor analysis (linked with Phase II by VDOT) for mobility, aesthetics, parking, and streetscape treatments. This project will provide streetscape enhancements to include undergrounding the existing aerial utilities. Purpose-. The existing road was designed to carry 22,800 vehicles per day, but carried 27,500 vehicles per day in 1999. It has a projected volume of 43,000 vehicles per day by the year 2020. This will complete the improvement of Laskin Road from First Colonial Road to the resort area. Without this project, the road will become more congested as development along this corridor continues and will make access to the oceanfront difficult. This project appears on the City's Master Transportation Plan, as well as the Regional Transportation Plan. History and Current Status The project appeared in the FY 1992-93 CIP, was deferred in the FY 1996-97 CIP to allocate funding for the Southeastern Parkway and Greenbelt, and was reintroduced in the FY 1999-00aCIP. In FY 02-03, total programmed costs were reduced to reflect revised acquisition requirements. Operating BudgetaryImpact Basis for Estimate FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 Maintenance based on cost per lane mile as 0 0 0 0 0 29,287 reported to VDOT. i ` � 'flo6 Activity From - To Amount y Design 06/00-06/06 750,000 Acquisition c uisition 07/00-12/04 3, q 000,000 ;. Private Utility Adjustments 09/05-05/06 2,400,000 Qo Construction 09/06-05/07 3,000 000 -Ci Street Lights 09/06-05/07 200,000 Landscaping 03/07-05/07 750,000 Contingencies 07/99-07/07 997,500 Total Budgetary Cost Estimate 11,097,500 Total Non -Programmed Costs 0 o, p Total Programmed Costs 11,097,500 Cb Means of Financing r AR _ Funding Source Amount 1999 Charter Bonds 2,296,673 moo 2000 Charter Bonds 4,909,269 } ! u 2001 Charter Bonds 2,083,853 -o� • 2002 Charter Bonds 423,852 2003 Charter Bonds 500,000 o, m 2004 Charter Bonds 883,853 Total Programmed Financing 11,097,500 Future Funding Requirements 0 °qo O ff. n Qa Fiscal Year 2002-03 4-62 Quality Physical Environment j'y•U __ � "': .:._` %obi r� CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Lynndunes, Inc. — Change of Zoning District Classification with a PD -H 2 Overlay — RECONSIDERATION of JANUARY 14, 2003 VOTE MEETING DATE: April 8, 2003 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Lynndunes, Inc. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from B-4 (SD) Resort Commercial District with a Shore Drive Corridor Overlay to A-24 Apartment District with a PD -H 2 Overlay on the south side of Page Avenue, 530 feet more or less west of Jade Street (GPIN 1489899316;1489899450;1489899457;1489890364;1489890350; 1489899298). Said parcel contains 38,986 square feet more or less. DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN. The purpose of this request is to develop the site with 18 townhouse style condominium units. This item is a reconsideration of a vote by the City Council on January 14, 2003. The application lost to a tie vote. ■ Considerations: The proposed zoning would allow the development of 18 townhouse style condominium units in accordance with the land use plan submitted by the applicant. The proposed density of 18 dwelling units is consistent with the requirements of the PD -1-12 zoning district for an underlying A-24 Apartment District (24 units per acre). The submitted plan depicts three groups of townhouse style units. A five unit building faces Shore Drive. A six unit building is located on the western side of the site. A seven unit building is located on the eastern side of the site. All of the buildings are staggered along the fronts to provide architectural relief in the project. The parking and drive aisle run through the middle of the site. Privacy fences are shown along the side property lines and between the units. Decorative fencing is depicted along both Shore Drive and Page Avenue. As recommended in the Shore Drive Design Guidelines and as suggested by staff, the applicant positioned the units along Shore Drive at the front yard setback. While the facades facing Shore Drive are not the true fronts of the units, the exteriors have been designed to mimic a front by including entrances and the Lynndunes Page 2 of 3 principal windows used on the front of the units. The end units on Page Avenue are positioned at the staff -suggested front yard setbacks and redesigned to face Page Avenue. Staff recommends approval. There was opposition to this request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the submitted preliminary site plan titled "REESE SMITH ASSOCIATES BAY BEACH CONDOMINIUMS", Sheet 1, dated 08/16/02, and latest revision date 11/08/02, prepared by Warner and Associates. Said plan is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. 2. The proposed buildings shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the submitted preliminary elevations titled "REESE SMITH ASSOCIATES BAY BEACH CONDOMINIUMS", Sheets A-2 and A-3, dated 08/16/02, and latest revision date 11/29/02, and Sheet A-4, 08/16/02, and latest revision date 11/08/02, prepared by Warner and Associates. Said plan is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. 3. The proposed landscaping of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted preliminary site plan titled "REESE SMITH ASSOCIATES BAY BEACH CONDOMINIUMS", Sheet 1, dated 08/16/02, and latest revision date 11/08/02, prepared by Winn Nursery of Virginia, W. Carter Winn. Said plan is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. 4. The Page Avenue entrance to the site shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted plan titled "PAGE AVENUE ENTRANCE", Sheet 2, "REESE SMITH ASSOCIATES BAY BEACH CONDOMINIUMS", dated 08/16/02, prepared by Warner and Associates. Said plan is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. 5. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the submitted preliminary site plan titled "REESE SMITH ASSOCIATES BAY BEACH CONDOMINIUMS", Sheet 1, dated 08/16/02, and latest revision date 11/08/02, prepared by Warner and Associates. Said plan is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. 6. The proposed buildings shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the submitted preliminary elevations titled "REESE SMITH ASSOCIATES BAY BEACH CONDOMINIUMS", Sheets A-2 and A-3, dated 08/16/02, and latest revision date 11/29/02, and Sheet A-4, Lynndunes Page 3of3 08/16/02, and latest revision date 11/08/02, prepared by Warner and Associates. Said plan is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. 7. The proposed landscaping of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted preliminary site plan titled "REESE SMITH ASSOCIATES BAY BEACH CONDOMINIUMS", Sheet 1, dated 08/16/02, and latest revision date 11/08/02, prepared by Winn Nursery of Virginia, W. Carter Winn. Said plan is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. 8. The Page Avenue entrance to the site shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted plan titled "PAGE AVENUE ENTRANCE", Sheet 2, "REESE SMITH ASSOCIATES BAY BEACH CONDOMINIUMS", dated 08/16/02, prepared by Warner and Associates. Said plan is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen Ar-- City Manager: er: ' LYNNDUNES, INC. / # 20 December 11, 2002 General Information: APPLICATION G03 -210 -PDH -2002 NUMBER: REQUEST: Chanqe of Zoning District Classification from B-4 (SD) Resort Commercial and Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District to A-24 Apartment District with a PD -1-12 Planned Unit Development District Overlay and Shore Drive Corridor Overlay ADDRESS: GPIN: The south side of Page Avenue, 530 feet west of Jade Street Gpin: See Application 1489899316;1489899450;1489899457;1489890364;1489890350; 1489899298 Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 LYNNDUNES, INC. /# 20 Page 1 ELECTION DISTRICT: 5 - LYNNHAVEN SITE SIZE: 38,986 square feet STAFF PLANNER: Faith Christie PURPOSE: To develop the site with 18 townhouse style condominium units. APPLICATION This request was deferred at the October 9, 2002 hearing at the HISTORY: request of the applicant. The request was deferred at the November 13, 2002 hearing at the request of staff. New plans were submitted the day before the hearing preventing staff from having adequate time to review the proposal. Major Issues: Consistency of the proposal with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Shore Drive Corridor Plan and the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines. Consistency with the Section 1124 of the City Zoning Ordinance requiring that the land use plan shall provide for development of the property within the PD -1-12 district in a manner compatible with the development and zoning of the land adjacent to the district. The land use plan should show how the proposed development of the property would differ from that which would be otherwise permitted in the underlying zoning district and the public benefit to be gained by developing the property in a PD - H2 District. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 LYNNDUNES, INC. /# 20 Page 2 The property is undeveloped, currently being used as the construction staging area for Lynnhaven Dunes Condominium, which is located across Page Avenue, to the north. The site is zoned B-4 Resort Commercial District with Shore Drive Corridor Overlay. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: . Page Avenue • Lynnhaven Dunes Condominium (72 units) / B- 4 (SD) Resort Commercial with Shore Drive Corridor Overlay South: • Shore Drive • Across Shore Drive is Lesner Villa Condominium / B-4 (SD) Resort Commercial with Shore Drive Corridor Overlay East: . Restaurant and a Condominium (12 units) / B- 4 (SD) Resort Commercial with Shore Drive Corridor Overlay West: . Harborview Condominium (23 units) / B-4 (SD) Resort Commercial with Shore Drive Corridor Overlay Zoning and Land Use Statistics With Existing Any of the uses permitted in the B-4 Resort Zoning: Commercial District, consistent with the additional requirements of the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District (SD), including commercial uses, lodging units, attached dwellings (townhouses), and multi -family dwellings. In accordance with the requirements of the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District (Section 1700 of the City Zoning Ordinance), residential dwelling density for this size lot could not exceed 24 units per acre. Based on the size of the lot, the applicant could build 21 multi -family dwelling units under the conditional use permit provision of the B-4 (SD) regulations. The applicant currently has an approved site development plan to develop 18 units in the same design as the Lynnhaven Dunes Condominium to the north of the site, across Page Avenue. The site Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 LYNNDUNES, INC. / # 20 Page 3 development plan was approved before the adoption of the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District and Guidelines. The approved site plan depicts two buildings, each nine units. The buildings are situated thirty (30) feet from Shore Drive and Page Avenue; eight (8) feet from the east property line, and approximately seventy-five (75) feet from the west property line. The parking is located between the buildings and the west property line. Forty parking spaces are depicted on the plan. With The proposed zoning would allow the development of Proposed 18 townhouse style condominium units in accordance Zoning: with the land use plan submitted by the applicant. The proposed density of 18 dwelling units is consistent with the requirements of the PD -H2 zoning district for an underlying A-24 Apartment District (24 units per acre). Zig History Before 1973, the site was zoned R -D 2 Residence Duplex and T-2 Motel, Tourist and Restaurant. The R -D 2 Residence Duplex portion of the site was rezoned to C -L 2 Limited Commercial in 1967. From 1973 to the present, the site has been zoned B-4 Resort Commercial. The Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District was adopted in October 1998. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The site is undeveloped. Consistent with its close proximity to the Chesapeake Bay shoreline, the site possesses sandy soil and mixed vegetative cover. The site is in the Resource Management Area of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 LYNNDUNES, INC. / # 20 Page 4 Water: There is a six (6) inch water main in Page Avenue fronting the north side of the site. A sixteen (16) inch water main exists in Shore Drive, fronting the south side of the property. The site must connect to City water. Sewer: There is a twelve (12) inch sanitary sewer main in Page Avenue fronting the north side of the site, and a ten (10) inch sanitary sewer main in Shore Drive on the south side of the site. A sixteen (16) inch force main exists in Shore Drive fronting the property. The site must connect to City sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Page Avenue in front of this site is a two lane undivided collector/ local roadway. Page Avenue is not designated on the Master Transportation Plan. Shore Drive fronting this site is designated on the Master Transportation Plan as a 150 foot wide divided roadway, with a bikeway. A right-of-way reservation along Shore Drive may be required during detailed site plan review. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Ca acit 6,200 ADT Existing Land Use 2 - 206 Page Avenue N/A ADT' (Level of Service Proposed Land Use 3 - 82 Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by use under B-4 Zoning 3 as defined by 18 Condominium Units Schools School population should not be noticeably affected by the development as proposed. Public Safety Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 LYNNDUNES, INC. /# 20 Page 5 Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Several comments received from the Police Department are provided for the applicant's information: • A lighting plan for the project will be required during detailed site plan review. The plan shall address location of light poles and tree canopy cover, and lighting fixtures for on site illumination purposes. • The landscape plan will be reviewed during detailed site plan review for plant species and location of plants around doors and windows. • The four parking spaces proposed for visitors / guests will be insufficient and will cause a problem with illegal parking, vehicles blocking driveways and drive aisles. Appropriate signage for designated parking areas is important. Fire and The indicated road width is not conducive to on -street parking; Rescue: therefore, appropriate signage prohibiting on -street parking is important. Fire hydrants must be spaced not more than 800 feet and must be maintained in compliance with applicable codes. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for resort uses, including lodging, retail, entertainment, and recreational, cultural and other uses in accordance with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Bayfront Planning Area's land use policies support well-planned and designed residential developments that promote economic vitality, community aesthetics and enhanced quality of life. The Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines are established to ensure that these qualities are achieved. Summary of Proposal Proposal Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 LYNNDUNES, INC. / # 20 Page 6 ��Nv'�BFAc • The purpose of this request is to rezone the site from B-4 (SD) Resort Commercial with the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay to A-24 Apartment District with a PD -H2 Planned Unit Development District Overlay and Shore Drive Corridor Overlay, and to develop 18 townhouse style condominium units on the site. The PD -H2 Planned Unit Development District Overlay allows the applicant to determine the regulations governing height, setback requirements, off-street parking requirements, and sign restrictions for the project. Additionally, according to the City Zoning Ordinance, the plan should address the location of the proposed open spaces, public sites, and recreational areas, nature of the recreational facilities proposed and means of maintenance. • The current zoning of the site, B-4 (SD) Resort Commercial with the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay, permits multiple -family residential development, such as the proposed plan, provided a conditional use permit is obtained. The density permitted under the current zoning is 24 units per acre. The required setbacks are thirty (30) feet from Shore Drive and Page Avenue; fifteen (15) feet from the side property lines with Category IV screening. The maximum lot coverage is 75 percent, including parking and drive aisles. The parking requirement is two (2) spaces per unit. Site Desiqn • The submitted plan depicts three groups of townhouse style units. A five unit building faces Shore Drive. A six unit building is located on the western side of the site. A seven unit building is located on the eastern side of the site. All of the buildings are staggered along the fronts to provide architectural relief in the project. The parking and drive aisle run through the middle of the site. • The five unit building facing Shore Drive is situated thirty feet from the property line along Shore Drive, twenty-five feet from the western property line, and twenty-two feet from the eastern property line. • The six unit building on the western portion of the lot is twenty feet from the property line along Page Avenue and ten feet, at its' closest point, from the western property line. • The seven unit building situated along the eastern portion of the site is depicted eight foot from the eastern property line and thirteen feet from the property line along Page Avenue. Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 LYNNDUNES, INC. / # 20 Page 7 • Privacy fences are shown along the side property lines and between the units. Decorative fencing is depicted along both Shore Drive and Page Avenue. • The site will have a minimum of 50% open space. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access • There is one entrance to the site from Page Avenue. A sidewalk exists along Page Avenue. Architectural Design The proposed buildings are three stories, constructed of CertainTeede or an equivalent vinyl cedar shake siding. The siding appears to be tan or sand color. The submitted elevations depict pitched gable roofs that are a `red brick' color of CertainTeede or equivalent roofing shingles. The windows, doors, porch railings, and corner boards are vinyl clad. Metal clad trim board provides a band course that provides relief in the siding at the second and third floors. The fronts of the eastern and western buildings face into the site, with the exception of the end units, which face Page Avenue. There are three fagade designs. The entry into the units is the same for each, a panel front door with a single sidelight window. The first fagade design incorporates porches on the second and third floor over the first floor garage. Doric style columns with vinyl -clad railing support the porches. Window treatments include paned sliding glass doors on the second and third floors, six over six paired windows on the second floor, and a single six over six window on the third floor. The second design proposes a third floor deck. Window treatments include a round window and six over six paired windows on the second floor, and paned sliding glass doors and a single six over six window on the third floor. The third fagade design depicts a second floor deck with decorative railing, and six over six paired windows. A shed roof covers the decking and windows. Six over six paired windows under a roof gable and a single six over six window is on the third floor. Decorative sunbursts grace the roof gables. The two units facing Page Avenue have a single French door with a sidelight as the entrance. Four single six over six windows are shown on the first floor. The window treatments on the second floor show two sets of six over six paired windows and a round window. A deck is shown on the third floor, with a single French door and a single six over six window. The rear of the units, facing the eastern and western property lines are depicted with paned sliding glass doors on the first floors, and six over six windows and glass block Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 LYNNDUNES, INC. / # 20 Page 8 windows on the second and third, floors. A trim board provides a band course that provides relief in the siding at the second and third floors. The building wall facing Shore Drive has incorporated two "false front" design types. The true front of the building is oriented into the lot. The first design depicts a single french door, covered by a gabled overhang, and a single six over six window on the first floor. Decorative fencing encloses the mechanical equipment. On the second floor a round window and single six over six window are depicted. On the third floor a deck with double French doors and a single six over six window is shown. A decorative gable covers the deck. The second design depicts a single French door covered by a shed roof overhang, and a single six over six window. Again decorative fencing encloses the mechanical equipment. On the second floor a round window and a single six over six window is shown. On the third floor a single and paired six over six windows are depicted. As in the first design the windows are framed with a decorative cornice supported by faux Doric pilasters. Trim board provides a band course, which provides relief in the siding at the second and third floors. A decorative sunburst is proposed in the intersecting roof gables. There is a garage for each unit. The Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines recommend that for medium and high density development such as this the following guidelines should be utilized: Front building facades should be located at the front yard setback; The street elevation of multiple -unit residential buildings should have at least one street oriented entrance and contain the principal windows of the front unit. Landscape and Open Space • The submitted landscape plan incorporates many of the recommended plants for the Shore Drive Corridor. Along both Shore Drive and Page Avenue a four -foot decorative vinyl fence is proposed. Behind the fence a continuous hedgerow of bayberry shrubs are proposed. Red Maple and Loblolly Pine trees are staggered behind the hedgerow in the front yard facing Shore Drive. Along Page Avenue Loblolly Pine trees and a Little Gem Magnolia are depicted behind the hedgerow. • Loblolly pine and crape myrtle trees are proposed along the interior drive aisle. Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 LYNNDUNES, INC. / # 20 Page 9 • Ground covers include Daylilies, Miscanthus grass, Liriope, and Dwarf Indian Hawthorne. • A six-foot privacy fence is proposed along the side property lines and between the units. Evaluation of Request The request to rezone the subject site from B-4 (SD) Resort Commercial and Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District to A-24 Apartment District with a PD -H2 Planned Unit Development District Overlay and Shore Drive Corridor Overlay is acceptable subject to the conditions listed below. The Shore Drive Design Guidelines recommend that a site layout should be similar to a courtyard with the true fronts of the buildings facing the rights of ways. When this zoning request was originally submitted, staff suggested to the applicant a redesign of the property to incorporate the desired courtyard setting and to provide open space as required by the PD -H2 Planned Unit Development District Overlay. Staff recommended a five unit building with the true fronts facing Shore Drive, and with rear loading garages, two three -unit buildings on the western side of the site, and a three -unit and a four -unit building on the eastern side of the site. A redesign of the end units adjacent to Page Avenue so that the true front of the units face Page Avenue was also recommended. Suggested setbacks included thirty feet from Shore Drive, fifteen feet from the western property line, ten feet from the eastern property line, and ten to twenty feet along Page Avenue. A reduction in the width of the interior drive aisle and a reduction in the number of guest parking spaces were suggested in an attempt to gain additional open space area. Staff met with the applicant and his representative several times regarding the application. The applicant eventually submitted plans that incorporate several of the staff suggestions and the recommendations of the Shore Drive Design Guidelines. The site was redesigned to emulate the courtyard style layout that is desired in the Shore Drive Corridor. As previously stated in the report, a five unit building faces Shore Drive, a six unit building is situated along the western portion of the site, and a seven unit building is positioned along the eastern side of the site, with the parking and the drive aisle in the center of the site. The redesign of the site did result in the reduction of one unit. Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 LYNNDUNES, INC. / # 20 Page 10 G1141A-Bgq J�0 � CyL F t � V 2 As recommended in the Shore Drive Design Guidelines and as suggested by staff, the applicant positioned the units along Shore Drive at the front yard setback. While the facades facing Shore Drive are not the true fronts of the units, the exteriors have been designed to mimic a front by including entrances and the principal windows used on the front of the units. The end units on Page Avenue are positioned at the staff -suggested front yard setbacks and redesigned to face Page Avenue. Although the applicant did not separate the buildings into groups of three or four units, the fronts of the buildings have been slightly staggered to provide architectural relief. The applicant reduced the interior drive aisle width slightly in order to gain additional setback area along the western portion of the site. The setback varies from ten feet at the closest point to nineteen feet, with an average setback of fourteen feet. As previously stated in the report the applicant indicates that a minimum of 50% open space exists on the site. An extensive landscape plan incorporating many of the plants recommended in the Shore Drive Corridor Plan was also submitted to staff. Considering the changes to the site layout and building design, staff recommends approval of the request for a change of zoning from B-4 Resort Commercial with the Shore Drive Corridor Overly to A-24 Apartment District with a PD -H2 Planned Unit Development District Overlay and Shore Drive Corridor Overlay subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the submitted preliminary site plan titled "REESE SMITH ASSOCIATES BAY BEACH CONDOMINIUMS", Sheet 1, dated 08/16/02, and latest revision date 11/08/02, prepared by Warner and Associates. Said plan is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. 2. The proposed buildings shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the submitted preliminary elevations titled "REESE SMITH ASSOCIATES BAY BEACH CONDOMINIUMS", Sheets A-2 and A-3, dated 08/16/02, and latest revision date 11/29/02, and Sheet A-4, 08/16/02, and latest revision date 11/08/02, prepared by Warner and Associates. Said plan is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. 3. The proposed landscaping of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted preliminary site plan titled "REESE SMITH ASSOCIATES BAY BEACH CONDOMINIUMS", Sheet 1, dated 08/16/02, and latest revision date Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 LYNNDUNES, INC. /# 20 Page 11 11/08/02, prepared by Winn Nursery of Virginia, W. Carter Winn. Said plan is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. 4. The Page Avenue entrance to the site shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted plan titled "PAGE AVENUE ENTRANCE", Sheet 2, "REESE SMITH ASSOCIATES BAY BEACH CONDOMINIUMS", dated 08/16/02, prepared by Warner and Associates. Said plan is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 LYNNDUNES, INC. /# 20 Page 12 4 A x bl! R •, WWW 3 d z y9 Az �7 ?.A 40 S A r S, tt£ Ci .. Lynndunes (PD -H Land Use Plan) �N1A-B Planning Commission Agenda;%r �z U D December 11, 2002 Y= LYNNDUNES, INC. / # 20 Page 13 AW t560-}Y£!14`j,),X 4 bt�s�s-�GY¢ izs.cl et i'f { ZzKz $x"64, ' c�ttucis� W; A S 6eAlmd 4,*.w ,#,A7 t'x$- .AV r�=T ttY �ti[�tr^�� a-1 - •�y-d1t-i�1.L.rM.�4.7il.ty{. �,.� S-iLY'!")C% Y f� aiJW A j�t�lr! ii:,1fi msz AD •row nawA�r err Sr,11AA714 �.�t,7S 11[l.� .it wAlMait il. x L �rl� Xy:.aY�y WMti 17Ii Y i C 2Id ik':aw yab%a s "4 YI«.� �A"H 'eYS{N� 1�AdM m1eh.« ifipA` 4 A x bl! R •, WWW 3 d z y9 Az �7 ?.A 40 S A r S, tt£ Ci .. Lynndunes (PD -H Land Use Plan) �N1A-B Planning Commission Agenda;%r �z U D December 11, 2002 Y= LYNNDUNES, INC. / # 20 Page 13 SOM SWRIVKrIA pec at°EE U3 '+ h �W A ii1S' 'td �d�+ cnA.MidY £.i�4'l..i.rl�a'�. Ski OUYA jj T .ssn». INOM S .ravNim Y -324d 31"KiAv 19 xAAN2AY M WJ iff h dunes (building (building ele' ations) ,`4G�Ntn`aFgcy Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 v== LYNNDUNES, INC. / # 20 Page 14 x� FZ �Z10 lot �r4 Y 31"KiAv 19 xAAN2AY M WJ iff h dunes (building (building ele' ations) ,`4G�Ntn`aFgcy Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 v== LYNNDUNES, INC. / # 20 Page 14 1#X -V gt-.N'IAV'3f A Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 LYNNDUNES, INC. /# 20 Page 15 rox:sxlPc,MK ISbkt-i.#£ t 5c--••i'8i%t1Yk t S - wtAFd .. fkl g.n ;{xpg txaC.tl i 1-'+"'S '+Sx�tMed aaetsproAl tlR ti;Iti'T hts> :: SH'��►.IROG <} 7 SWakl.t'.A311 -1ASMO -ININi'v t1tiF axc.-w r 1 H,—JV38 VH y. { 1#X -V gt-.N'IAV'3f A Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 LYNNDUNES, INC. /# 20 Page 15 4 3z: 0 0<< x < ut Z3.z 1 00 w W w Z X fo Lynndunes (building elevations) Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 LYNNDUNES, INC. / # 20 Page 16 ZGKIIrW, W» 9M6 "N V IUANUVAk 4KH I V I X)S. SIN HJV38 AVH jSjqN.w SNOUVkTrI f—V 4 3z: 0 0<< x < ut Z3.z 1 00 w W w Z X fo Lynndunes (building elevations) Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 LYNNDUNES, INC. / # 20 Page 16 Psi (Alk t Z- i -::vj "U.4r t'V c 7 .x.' -M ; ; 1 exai',a, >sa,i, au+� fGetia c ua's.{ ux „ j i i INC` L9i�e1�� 3 ..)b'.i� .. 3rzaty ��zro,o LynndOnes (Site Entrance Detail) A BS,— 4' Planning Commission Agenda� �z December 11 2002 LYNNDUNES INC./ # 20 Page 17 G IA-B@gCyL Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 LYNNDUNES, INC. / # 20 Page 18 APPLICA dON PAGE 4 OF 4 REZONING CITY OF VIRf`.iINIA. BEACH DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name. NtiJD tf uhf .art iC List All Current Property Owners. L NN UN 11 �C . PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers: of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessru.11) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZA`T'ION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (.Attach list if necessary) 0 Check here if the property towner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other Lillincog)orated organization. If the applicant is stat the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below. APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach fist if necessary) _:Z-. N rZ�jt Elf `# 5c �r Erc�Z If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Cl Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is trite and accurate. Signature Print Name Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 2002 LYNNDUNES, INC. I # 20 Page 19 Item #20 Lynndunes, Inc. Change of Zoning Classification South side of Page Avenue, 530 feet more or less West of Jade Street District 5 Lynnhaven December 12, 2002 REGULAR AGENDA Robert Miller: Item #20, Lynndunes, Inc. Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Chairman, again for the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon. I'm representing Lynndunes on this application. Before I get into that, we will certainly be happy to work with you and staff with another application on the condition. I'll be glad to do that. These are renderings of the proposal. I know you all, this morning in the informal, you had an opportunity to look at some of these. The piece of property is one that is a thru lot located on Shore Drive and on Page Avenue in the Lynnhaven District, just to the east side of the Lesner Bridge. The property is one that is in the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District. It is a piece of property in the area that is well over 90 percent developed. All up and down Shore Drive there is very few of these infill properties left. There are some. Up until the adoption of the Overlay District the density development was considerably higher than the current permitted density with the adoption of the Overlay District and the properties on either side of this property with the exception of the restaurant but the two condo properties were developed under the By Right B-4 zoning. The Overlay District in effect was an effort to remove a great deal of the by right development opportunities and to get before this body and the City Council new development, what little of it could come forward in this area, to come before these bodies and the infusorians of greater setbacks and lesser densities clearly involves some issues of regulatory takings, but an attempt to go in a reasonable fashion sort of you know, strike an equitable balance so that we can get a better quality development, that is what has happened in some instances along Shore Drive without being so confiscatory as to prompt litigation. So far it has worked. And, we think again it will work here. This application is a request that does not represent the maximum density allowed under the Overlay. It does not represent an increase in the density as far as number of units as were already permitted to be built by a previous plan that the applicant had approval. for, but for market reason and for quality reasons has determined that he would rather do a different type of unit, one that is more valuable than the units that would have been built in a larger, more bulky configuration previously. This is the plan up here on the pinpoint. The Shore Drive frontage to the south, Page Avenue to the north, roughly east side condominium here and then there's a restaurant parking lot here and the Harborview Condominium is located on a similar size parcel to the west. We've got between the pavement on Shore Drive and the front facades are the full front facades, of the units that face Shore Drive, a distance of 67 feet. We've got a 30 -foot setback from the right-of- way line itself with attractive fencing, this is actually the elevation on the frontage. The Item #20 Lynndunes, Inc. Page 2 fencing shown here is black, it is actually white, which is actually shown on one of the other exhibits. That's just an error. The fence will be a white wrought iron style fence with landscaping. My client has offered to landscape the setback consistent with a landscape plan for Shore Drive, if one is developed or one can be developed. He has offered to work with staff prior to beginning the development in order to implement that landscape plan if there is going to be a unified landscape plan along Shore Drive. The buildings again, are setback 30 feet. We had put bow faux with some very attractive architecture, doors, windows that appear to be windows that would be on the front of the building. We have offset the building so it's not a straight building across. We've got 31/2-4 foot offset. One of the other things that I wanted to note on here, because it's a flat rendering, you really can't tell this but the mechanical equipment and that's the case, not only here but with all the buildings the HVAC set back in out coves built in the building with decorative fences on the outside. So you do not see the HVAC. It's not sitting outside in the back of the unit or you know, back of the building. When you look at this because it's not three dimensional, you can't really tell what these little fences, if you will, are along there that's a fence that is flush with the building itself and is a out coves where the HVAC is set back and that's the case on the back of all the units. There's nothing in the yard so to speak. The staff, you know, in great detail in the write up, the architectural features and amenities, which we think are quite attractive for the units themselves. We are set back here from Harborview over 25 feet and on this side it's over 20 feet from the parking lot for the restaurant. The biggest complaint seems to be coming from Harborview, so I'm going concentrate more on the Harborview east side then I am on anywhere else but along our western boundary, you see we have a line. It's not a straight line, it's a line that comes in to a point then goes back out. The interesting thing to recognize when you see that is the first, and we have 240 feet of shared property line along our western boundary. Within that area, there is a 122 feet of building. That's this building here, that's 122 feet. Now we got another 30 plus feet here of this building. But the initial 100 feet of property on our west, the setback is 25 to the property line or there's no building at all. From there north, if you go up the Page Avenue end, here we got a 20 foot setback. If you come down this line, 65 feet again, we're 15 feet or more from the property line. It is only in this area here that's roughly 65 feet that the setback on this side varies from 15 feet down to 10.9 feet and back out to 12 feet. Interesting enough, I've got a picture and I'll pass a couple of these pictures around. If you look closely, these pictures show the adjacent Harborview Condominium. Because the line from them on ours, it's bowing out on there, so while they have an eight foot setback, both south end of their building and north end of their building, that's just one big building. It runs the entire length of their property. The setback in the middle is greater. I do not have their site plan so I can't tell you whether its 10 feet, 12 feet, but somewhere in that range, and you can see it in that fencing if you look closely at those pictures. So, at the point where our setback is the narrowest at 11 feet or 10.9 feet, their setback is the greatest. Instead of being eight feet, which it is along there, it will be greater than eight feet. So that in fact, the separation between our building and their building at the closest point will be and I'm quite certain 20 feet will be the separation. Because it's at the same point their building is straight across and it's an eight -foot setbacks at either end. We've designed this complex with a courtyard design, with open space that exceeds 50 Item #20 Lynndunes, Inc. Page 3 percent of the site. We've got garages. We have parking, in addition to that as well as a couple of guest parking spaces. The value of these units will be between $230,000 and $250,000 per unit for the proposed 18 units which is three less than the maximum you can build under the Overlay on this piece of property. The prior plan for this property, the units would of not have been expensive. They've been in the upper $100,000. But again, it's the prerogative of the landowner to choose to improve his product. Improve the not only the value but the appearance and as staff has indicated, this plan with these revisions, with this layout does represent an improvement, a compliance or almost 100 percent compliance. I don't know what the percentage is with the guidelines but the other plan had a commercial parking lot in front of the building. The issue that I read in all the letters that I've gone through is the folks to the west, not particularly liking the fact that their views are being impacted. But the reality is that the piece of property to the west is built under the old standards, built with higher density, built right up to the property line and there you see in those pictures, with HVAC behind the homes within the narrow setback. And, this clearly, in our estimation represents a significant improvement. Over that, we have worked diligently with staff in the layout design, in the design of the building. We'll still work with them in regard to landscaping. We've got a beautiful entrance feature on Page Avenue. We've got fronts facing Page Avenue and the faux fronts in the rear. I don't know really what else to tell you other than that this is a development that represents an increase in quality without an increase in density and one that clearly represents an increase in the compliance with the guidelines as promulgated under the Shore Drive Overlay District. And recognizing there needs to be a balance struck, we clearly believe that this does strike that balance in the terms of quality, economic benefit. Recognizing again, the folks that live next door in a four-story condominium that runs the complete length of the site, and I actually got a representative in getting the variance for that building from Page Avenue before that property was developed. There's no two ways about the fact that development and others like it are part of the reason why we have the Shore Drive Overlay District now. So, that you would have the ability, Council has the ability to look at proposed developments and try to see the quality and the appearance were elevated. We're not having a problem with values in that corridor. Values are there. The issue is dealing with quality of appearance. And these few infill developments that are left, I think that's exactly what you're getting. And that's exactly what this represents. I'm going to pass around some other pictures of some other developments in this area and when you compare those to the one on the other side to us, with this it's quite apparent that the Overlay District is succeeding in getting something of a much higher quality than the existing development for the most part that occurred under the old B-4 by right without the Overlay District. So, I'm not here to criticize the Overlay District but I think it's serving a purpose. I think as long as it's done equitably it will continue to serve a purpose. But, it clearly does represent an infusorians and to some degree a confiscation of property rights, but as long as it is done again, with a balanced approach then I think it will be successful in the end. We believe what you see here represents the best possible result in terms of getting an appropriate balance and in getting a higher quality development on this piece of property. I will be happy to answer any questions and honestly get our people here in opposition then I want to have the opportunity to speak in rebuttle too. Item #20 Lynndunes, Inc. Page 4 Ronald Ripley: Okay. Dot Wood has a question. Dorothy Wood: Eddie, I think it's a very attractive application. I think that Mr. Smith has done a wonderful job working with staff. I do have one concern because reading the letters from the people in Harborview, they said they were promised or was it Mr. Smith that made a promise to them or they said they wouldn't have anything? Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Smith did not develop Harborview. Dorothy Wood: He did not develop it? Eddie Bourdon: No. Dorothy Wood: Okay. Eddie Bourdon: He had nothing to do with the development of Harborview, and any such assumptions on their part or any such statements they may have been. Dorothy Wood: It was from their developer. Eddie Bourdon: Would have been from real estate agent or developer or from someone other than from Mr. Smith. Now, I also say that the plan that you, I eluded to in terms of that it's been approved, and Mr. Smith had site plan approval for, was different from this plan. But they have no contractual or other legal basis to rely on anything of that nature because it's the property owners right. It's not part of the Lynndunes Condominiums. Never was a part of the Lynndunes Condominium. It could have been added to as an expandable area that condominiums could have expanded on this piece of property but the market is such that these higher value units, more attractive units, are a better utilization of the property from the owner's perspective again, without increasing density. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Eddie, the plan that's been approved or was approved was a site plan approval? Eddie Bourdon: Site plan approval. It may have actually expired, I believe. Ronald Ripley: I think you said the setback was on the western side, the properties were set back. The building was set back. Eddie Bourdon: Well, the western property was where the commercial property was a parking lot. It was all a parking lot. The eastern side setback for the buildings is eight feet. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Item #20 Lynndunes, Inc. Page 5 Eddie Bourdon: The other setback for Shore Drive is 30 feet. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Alright. Any other questions of Mr. Bourdon? Okay. Robert Miller: Tom Curry. John Samuel: May I go first. He's our leadoff. We have two speakers from Harborview. Robert Miller: Are you John Samuel? John Samuel: My name is John Samuel. Yes sir, the President of the Harborview Condo Association. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you. Obviously, we disagree with Mr. Smith's representative. There will be two speakers from Harborview, and I'll just summarize general activities that we've been doing about this situation. And, Mr. Curry who's the secretary of the Association will deal with the details of our objections. What we've been doing as got together as Harborview and I can say that it's unanimous. All the owners of Harborview are opposed to the particulars of this plan. We have sent a letter to each of you. It clearly lays out the reasons supporting our objections. On the other hand, we've contacted and our discussion with owners of nearby condominiums. And, we've met quite of few of those, and they too realize the implications of this plan. And, everybody that we have spoken with has expressed their objection to the proposal as well. We have had some discussions with the representatives of Shore Drive Coalition. I have been attending their meetings, and I do believe they sent you a letter in opposition, and I think Mr. Solomon is here and will present their position on the proposal. Generally speaking, despite the pretty presentations here of the individual townhouses, the key I think is putting fake front doors on the back of townhouses kind of makes me raise my eyebrows. They're out of context and they're not in context. We strongly object to major particulars of the proposed plan and of course we oppose this request. I will hand it over to Mr. Tom Curry who is our secretary of association and he will give you more details of our opposition to this request. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Mr. Samuel. John Samuel: Thank you. Tom Curry: Hi. My name is Tom Curry. I'm a resident of the Harborview Condo Association. And, one thing you said Ms. Wood was that some of the letters said that Mr. Smith promised something. I think that may have been in the packet when they were opposing the three-story building next to them on the beach. Not our packet. I guess I can put my glasses on. We appreciate this opportunity to voice our serious exception to this proposal. We think this proposal disregards it's effects on the neighboring resident owners and the community in general. We note with interest the imbalance of the Virginia Beach Planning Department's report, which on page 11 says "staff recommends approval of request for change in zoning". While noting on page 2 that the request for zoning is not consistent, which in other words, it violates the Virginia Beach Item #20 Lynndunes, Inc. Page 6 Comprehensive Plan, the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District Plan approved in 1998. And the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines incorporated in the Shore Drive Transportation Study approved by Council earlier this year. So, that's sort of interesting. Our close examination of the zoning proposal shows all take and very little give by the petitioner. For example, Section 1124 of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a land use plan provide for the development within PD -H2 in a manner compatible with the development and zoning of the land adjacent to the district. All adjacent land is B-4 with low-rise condominiums. So, this proposal fails here. It ignores what is adjacent. Section 1124 of the Code also requires that PD -H2 land use plan show how the proposed development of the property will differ from that which would be otherwise permitted in the underlying zoning B-4. Nothing is presented here. Not even an already City approved 1998 plan for two nine unit condominium buildings which do conform to B-4 and most of the Shore Drive requirements which at least the ones that were in affect at the time it was published. Again, the proposal fails because he did not address the previously approved plan for B-4. There was a comment made by the petitioner's attorney that an owner of a property can build whatever he wants, within legal limits. We don't question that. We question the zoning change at this time. We're completely happy with the old zoning and the old plan. Section 1124 also requires the plan to show the public benefit to be gained by developing a property as a PD -H2. This proposal fails again. There is no public benefit to this submitted plan. You can argue architectural beauty but as far as what it does for any of the neighbors, there's nothing there. The City's Zoning Ordinance also requires proposals for PD -H2 to address the location of open spaces, public sites and recreational areas within the property. Again, this proposal fails. It does not address this legal requirement at all. The Planning Department report makes much of the details, real fronts, the sides, side entrances, full plasters, courtyards, planning, etc., but ignoring the basic fact that this lot is just too small for the construction of 18 townhouses, even though the small size they are. PD -H2 zoning is obviously meant for larger parcels then this irregularly shaped ninth tenths of an acre lot. I hate to say this. But who is Reese Smith? Firstly, all of Shore Drive development since the October 1998 ordinance have complied with the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District Plan for B-4 Zoning. Why not this property? Why not this developer? Then there's a bait and switch, which appears to contemplate by the City government on this Harborview Condominium owners. Six of Harborview's 23 units directly face the property in question. All three bedrooms, kitchen and break room windows, seven windows per unit, plus one lunai on each unit, total 42 windows and six lunai for glass sliding doors face the subject property. Harborviews outer walls are, essentially a wall of windows and I think you saw this picture in your packet. Our units were built and sold on the bases of the Lynndunes, May 26, 1998 City approved plan that places the last two buildings of that eight building development 75 feet from our eastern boundary line. I myself, own one of these units and I wouldn't have bought it if there were a string of townhouses right outside my window. I would have probably gone down the street someplace else still looking. So, note that the parking lot for this approved design is already built. And, Mr. Bourdon kept saying commercial. It's not commercial. It's the parking lots for the residents. Construction of a wall of townhouses forty-five feet high by a 156 feet long in total as close as ten feet from the fence opposite our wall of windows is destructive of our Item #20 Lynndunes, Inc Page 7 property values and our quality of life. I think the closeness can be seen here. The parking lot is already in place. This is his curve in the parking lot is ten feet from the line so, that picture is also in your packet. This proposal degrades community quality of life. No matter how nice the detailed design of the townhouse units, the rezoning proposal will present a tenant like density more often seen in the lower value parts of our City. This 9/10 of an acre plot will be mostly paved and built upon to accommodate the 18 townhouses. The 1998 City approved plan takes advantage of the lack of any west wall windows in the small condominium to the east. The old plan would face this blank wall in it's other building, which is also in our packet. So, to be close to that side is not such a detriment to the neighbors. The current plan jams a bunch of narrow 20 foot wide townhouses in to a small lot, lining the up as close as possible along both sides of the small plot, definitely achieving the appearance and values of this area. What it all boils down to is a callus disregard of the Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan and other documents and requirements " to promote community studies and enhance quality of life". So, in summary, if the City of Virginia Beach approves this rezoning, it will result in four things we see. The devaluation of our property, and those nearby by appraisal comparables, degradation of the visual aesthetics of Shore Drive with crowding and obvious fake fronts, they're not going to fool anybody. The bait and switch zoning operation perpetration on the owners of Harborview Condominium by having approved plan already when we bought. And the big question, where is the legally required "benefit to the neighborhood" for this zoning change to PD -H2. In conclusion, Harborview Condominium Association is adamantly against Lynndunes proposal for change in zoning. We will work with our professional advisors to determine the specifics of our investment and quality of life losses to do Mr. Smith's torrent life proposal. So, we're determined to fight this by any means legally possible and I thank you for your time and consideration. Any questions? Ronald Ripley: Any questions? Thank you very much. Robert Miller: Todd Solomon. Todd Solomon: Good afternoon again. You already pretty much heard the first part of my letter. This one is a little more specific. This one entails basically the whole process that I discussed earlier and this one does not. In order to get around your setback requirement, obviously came in with the new zoning request. It does not meet the Shore Drive Overlay District setback requirements. I believe the only thing that it meets for the Shore Drive Overlay District is the new guidelines, which were recently adopted. The quality is obviously but once again, the density issue. If you all believe that density is not unites per acre but is also setbacks and tightness of buildings, there again, this is not upholding the Overlay District's potential for reduction in density in the increased setbacks. So, once again our issue is that with four of these out there this one being the last one so far, that with each approval it whittles away at the Overlay District and anybody who has purchased property in this area with knowledge since 1998 that the setbacks were 15 feet recommended were pretty much, you know, this isn't goring to uphold any more. That now anybody that comes in and develops an area because they Item #20 Lynndunes, Inc. Page 8 want to get more money out of their property which by rights, I guess they have the potential to do, they will come out with a new rezoning for a setback variance request. So, I guess that slowly we have and I think since 1998 there's been about 30 variance requests along Shore Drive. Three of them have been requests for variance in the setback requirements and all three of them have been granted. So, it's not 10 percent of the variances are asking for setback and all 10 percent approved. But like I said in the last few months, we've had four that have had violations or non-compliance with the Overlay District setbacks. So, there is definitely a trend in our opinion. Granted it's good to see, like I said before that the architectural guidelines are being upheld which hopefully to produce property in that area and have people buy it. The quality should be there too. This is getting a little more consistent with the guidelines to have everything looking similar. And you have a better style for the whole area as a whole and combine it all together. And, I would like to close that if the old style was built on that property and they're going to be sold for $130,000, I think I will buy two of them because it. would be easy to sell them for a little more money that I bought them. Ronald Ripley: Any questions? Thank you very much. Any other speakers? Robert Miller: No sir. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: If I said $130,000, I meant to say $180,000-$190,000. I'll correct that. That was on the old plan. Just briefly Mr. Chairman. The rhetoric from the gentleman who spoke for Harborview and the exaggeration and harsh rhetoric is indicative of a situation where, you know, don' t look at my blemishes and we'll try, you know, change the direction to the other guy. It is truly the type and Harborview is a nice community. It's not an unattractive building but it is the intent of what the guidelines for the Shore Drive Corridor that have been adopted are looking to create. Unfortunately, it represents the majority of the type of architecture that's out there. And, there are very few infill development, the developable pieces of property that are left, so, the reality is if we're going to establish quality, we've got to do it in creative ways and that is what's being attempted to be done here. When the Overlay District was adopted it was clearly recognized that if it was going to succeed, no matter what, we were going to try and get things before this body and before City Council but there was going to have to be flexibility. Because to simply say 15 foot setbacks are what's going to be required on these few additional properties and everybody else is already at 8 feet, would and will if it became iron clad be challenged because it does represent a situation where people's property is being taken without any ability to compensate anyone with really any significant benefit when most of everything else is already developed. So, what's happening here is a give and take to try to make things better, clearly, this is not representing an increase in density in anyway shape or form. It's a better quality development, the same number of units. You don't have a commercial style parking lot sitting out in front of a couple large buildings that are setback eight feet from the property which is exactly what that approved plan had on the east side. What we have though we Item #20 Lynndunes, Inc. Page 9 have somebody else's, you know, gore ox feed and gored so they don't like it because the development coming closer to them but in fact, the majority of what's being proposed, the vast majority far exceed our setbacks the 15 foot requirements. Just that one small area where at our closest point we're basically eleven feet from the property line at the same point where their eight foot wall of windows is actually a little further then eight feet from the property. So, I don't think there's been any showing or could there be any showing that anyone with any legal responsibility to a person buying a unit in Harborview has baited and switched on them. We don't have any obligation to them other than to build something that is higher quality than what they have which is what we're doing. And the City certainly doesn't make any representation to a purchaser of a condominium as to what's going to be next to them. There are no scenic easements over this property. Never have been, so all of that hyperbolically doesn't amount to anything. We are making every effort to bring up the quality of Shore Drive. The value of these units does exceed significantly what would have been there with a different type of development and this is more in keeping with the guidelines then in previously approved plan. Thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Any other questions of Mr. Bourdon? Okay. Anybody else to speak on this matter? Alright. Let's open it up for discussion up here. Betsy? Betsy Atkinson: I know how hard the staff has worked with Mr. Smith to come up with a plan that'll work on this site and I think the plan is a good plan. And, I'd like to make a recommendation that we approve the application. Ronald Ripley: Is that a motion? Betsy Atkinson: Yes sir. With the four conditions. Ronald Ripley: So, we have a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Donald Horsley: I'll second the motion. I put a lot confidence in the staff's work on this plan and with the members of the Commission that worked on the Shore Advisory Task Force Commission or whatever you call it Advisory Group that they seem to be satisfied with this plan. I think they've done a good job. Ronald Ripley: I think that the residents next door raise some valid concerns. There concerns are, I think we've considered those concerns. And, I think that staff has probably tried to work with those concerns the best they can. I hadn't really considered the side yard setbacks with the building looking at the odd shape of that piece of land on how it goes in. I would imagine if the side yard setback was eight feet at either end of the building that something greater than eight in the middle. So, you're probably, I don't know if it's eight or ten or if it's ten or twelve feet but you got ten more feet which is the closest point where those two lines tend to intersect. It looks like to me that help mitigate some of the side yard issues that have been raised. I think that Todd raises a valid concern too. You have to be careful that you don't overdo the variances that occur in this Item #20 Lynndunes, Inc. Page 10 area but there are a lot of odd shape pieces of land out here, and I think the development in this case, as we heard this morning, believe has allowed for 59 percent open space which does help meet the intent of the PDH overlay. The Design Guidelines, like I said this morning, I was involved in that and I believe that this building does meet those guidelines pretty good. And, I do think we have an odd situation where I think what we've envisioned mostly and I think staff may have considered this too. I'm not really sure but I know I did looking at the review of the guidelines that we were really looking at properties that fronted on Shore Drive and we're really concerned about that. I'm really concerned about the fronts being on Shore Drive. In this case, you have the entrance coming off Page Avenue and I think the developer has dropped a unit:. He did have an extra unit, did he not along Shore Drive. In working with staff and the concerns of the neighbors, I think he reduced that to give it a little better scale. And I think he paid a great deal of attention to the back of them because the back is what we originally envisioned to be the front, so he kind of turns it around but he I think he's paid considerable attention to that and working with the elevations. I'm inclined to agree with it to. When we first saw it, it was a little bit too much. I think what he's done here has been considerable improvement and I think it will be beneficial and I think it will add to the area. And, I'm going to vote for it. Yes. Robert Miller: I think that bothers me in this whole process is that maybe a lack of recognition on our part for the difference we are facing and the changes in our community. This is to Faith and to Bob and to the other staff is obviously is getting to be a more urban type issue versus a more of the traditional things that we face and look at them. When you start talking about density we really do talk about quality much better when we talk about these pieces of land. It does bother me you're sitting there with windows that are going to look out at other units. It tremendously bothers me. But at the same time, I sitting here, trying to decide in an urban scenario how we're going to prevent this. And, I'm not sure if there's anyway to prevent it other than to be extremely farsighted and have perhaps no windows on Harborview, which seems like that doesn't accomplish anything. To absolutely protect your view forever and ever is pretty unlikely given developments anywhere in our City anymore, and I think this infill type idea and along Shore Drive and as Todd's pointed out several times, trying to hold the line of exactly of where quality is going to getting just as subjective as this process has been. I think we're to that point now that we're really dealing in issues that are again becoming a little different scale then what I have been hearing. It seems like in the past and that we are coming into a time where we're going to face a lot of these issues where we're going to have units literally the single family ones in Shadowlawn with the questions of how are you able to have property rights and be able to develop? We know we want to put open space everywhere or create the air of openness, and we did it with the Oceanfront with turning the hotels to be perpendicular to Atlantic Avenue to try to think that we'll be more open but it almost demands that you go higher and that the footprint becomes smaller and now you're going higher and smaller. Well, higher seems to get in somebody's way pretty soon, hopefully not the jets, but it does make me think that we have been and are still being a little naive as to how much of this is our future instead of just this one item here and there. I struggled with this thing just sitting here now and Item #20 Lynndunes, Inc. Page 11 listening to everybody and listening to the personal situations that are already there thinking Mr. Smith's investment and what his personal situation is also. And, I certainly think that what you've done, you've worked well to create quality, and I would congratulate you on that. I just think that we're in a different scenario and you know, we're eight feet apparently, I think on the east side were eight feet from the property line with these units. I believe on the east side were eight feet, if I heard him correctly. So, we've set up the next scenario. I mean we just set it up that what will be there and I don't even know what's there right this minute. Oh there is already a blank wall there. Well, that's excellent. Only on a small part of it as we at some point as we change out units again, we'll be fixed with this same exact decision as we move along and everywhere there's an infill project there's going to be a question of creating quality of life in there and not disturbing the quality on the exterior somehow adjacent. All that being said, I think you've done well to work through this. Ronald Ripley: Anybody else? Let's call for the question. We're ready to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. Okay. I think that's all the Planning items and I do want to thank John Baum for his dedication and all his contributions to this Commission, and Betsy. You've all been wonderful. I wish Bobby was here to hear it. Maybe he will get a tape to see it, but we're going to miss all three of you tremendously. And, Mr. Scott, thank you again for an excellent agenda. The staff is just excellent and very thorough. And this meeting is adjourned. Gpin 1498-09-4470 ZONING HISTORY 1. Subdivision Variance Withdrawn 11-23-99 2. Subdivision Variance Approved 9-12-95 3. Subdivision Variance Approved 5-24-94 4. Subdivision Variance Approved 9-17-84 Street Closure Approved 8-27-79 Change of Zoning (R-1 Residential to R-2 Residential) Withdrawn 5-21-79 5. Conditional Use Permit (horse stables) Approved 5-10-71 nSj't CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Bay Reflections Building, L.L.C. — Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: April 8, 2003 ■ Background: Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Bay Reflections Building, L.L.C. Property is located on the east side of Watersedge Drive, approximately 1200 feet north of Kline Drive (GPIN 1498094470) and contains 5.10 acres. DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN The purpose of this request is to create a total of three lots, two of which do not meet minimum lot width requirements (flag lots). ■ Considerations: The property is currently vacant and is zoned R-40 Residential District. The existing lot is a 5.10 acre waterfront parcel with a significant amount of wetlands. The lot could be subdivided into three conforming lots if not for the regulations of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance. A significant portion of the site is located within the Resource Protection Area (RPA) as defined by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance. The applicant was granted a variance from the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board December 23, 2002. It is the intent of the applicant to create three lots, two of which would be flag lots. The proposed flag lot design allows the buildable area of the lots to be located outside of the 50 -foot seaward portion of the Resource Protection Area (RPA). Staff recommended approval. There was opposition to the proposal. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request subject to the following conditions: Bay Reflections Building Page 2 of 2 1. The two flag lots shall share a minimum 18 -foot wide driveway constructed of an all weather surface approved by the Fire Marshall. Private reciprocal cross access easements shall be provided to accommodate the shared driveway. A maintenance agreement shall be provided for the shared private driveway. 2. A 15 -foot landscape buffer shall be provided along the southern border of the property from Watersedge Drive to the Resource Protection Area buffer. The landscape buffer shall consist of evergreen trees and shrubs. 3. The homes on each lot shall be constructed with the front facade, including the primary front entrance, facing Watersedge Drive. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen 64. - City Manager: K-, ' v'` BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING / # 6 March 12, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: H04 - 210 - SVR - 2002 REQUEST: Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance ADDRESS: East side of Watersedge Drive, 1200 feet north of Kline Drive neap u-4 Mac Not -.o :7cnle 0§oi ' ions Bide, LLC R- l 10 '�� 4�" 0 1d§,r4 094? 1 G PI N : 14980944700000 Gpin 1498-09-4470 Planning Commission Agenda %\ _ U�u.. March 12, 2003 BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING / # 6 Page 1 ELECTION DISTRICT: 5 — LYNNHAVEN SITE SIZE: 5.10 acres (3.81 acres above water, marsh and wetlands) STAFF PLANNER: Ashby Moss PURPOSE: To create a total of three lots, two of which do not meet minimum lot width requirements (flag lots). Major Issues: • Presence of a hardship justifying the variance to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. • Environmental constraints on property associated with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance regulations. Site Plan / Preliminary Plat: Existing Lot: The existing lot is a 5.10 acre waterfront parcel with a significant amount of wetlands. The lot could be subdivided into three conforming lots if not for the regulations of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance. Proposed Lots: It is the intent of the applicant to create three lots, two of which would be flag lots. The proposed flag lot design allows the buildable area of the lots to be located outside of the 50 -foot seaward portion of the Resource Protection Area (RPA). I em Required Lot A Lot B Lot C Lot Width in feet 125 345 *20 *20 Lot Area in square feet 40,000 49,122 64,981 87,810 Lot Area outside water, marsh, or wetlands in square feet 24,000 49,122 58,018 589644 Buildable area in square feet (estimated based on figure shown on preliminary plat less additional buffer required on each lot by CBPA Variance) N/A 11,000 15,000 11,500 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING / # 6 Page 2 IA`B_ 4"1 *Variance required Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics Existing Land Use and Zoning The property is currently vacant and is zoned R-40 Residential District. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning The property is surrounded by low density single-family homes, many of which are located on waterfront properties. All of the surrounding zoning in this area is R-40 Residential District. Zoning History A Subdivision Variance on the subject site was requested but later withdrawn in 1999. The request was for a very similar layout for a total of three lots, two of which were flag lots. The application was approved by the Planning Commission, but withdrawn at the request of the applicant at the City Council hearing. The adjoining site to the south was granted Subdivision Variances to minimum lot width and a shorter than required cul-de-sac in 1995. Another property to the east received a Subdivision Variance in 1994. Lastly, in 1984, a property west of the subject site on Harris Road received a Subdivision Variance for two flag lots. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Environmental/Physical Characteristics A significant portion of the site is located within the Resource Protection Area (RPA) as defined by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance. The applicant was granted a variance from the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board December 23, 2002. Conditions of the variance are as follows: 1. An on-site preconstruction meeting shall be held with Civil Inspections prior to any land disturbance. �N1A-B� Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING / # 6 Page 3 2. No less than 20 trees shall be installed, per lot, within the open pasture/field area, post construction. 3. An additional 30 feet of naturalized buffer shall be retained/established for the northern portion of Lot A and an additional 50 feet for Lot B. No turf or construction activity will be permitted within buffer zones. Said condition shall be noted on the site plan and final subdivision plat. 4. For Lot C, no development activity, inclusive of limits of construction, shall be permitted within 110' of any adjoining wetland feature to the east. 5. All area devoted to RPA and additional buffer zones referenced in the aforementioned condition #2 shall be left in a natural state inclusive of the forest floor, leaf litter left intact. Said condition shall be noted on all site plans. 6. Dual erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be installed channelward of the project. Construction limits shall lie a maximum of 15 feet outboard of improvements. 7. As offered by the applicant, payment into the Lynnhaven River Oyster Heritage Program for 25% of proposed impervious cover associated with Lot C, shall be made prior to or concurrent with approval of the site plan. The formula for payment is 25% of impervious cover divided by 27 = cubic yards times 15 (number of bushels per cubic yard) times $1.65 (price of oyster shells installed). 8. Stormwater runoff from proposed impervious cover, associated with all three lots, shall be conveyed to structural stormwater management facilities. 9. If and when the shoreline is hardened for any of the subject lots, riprap revetment structures shall be installed in lieu of vertical retaining structures such as timber bulkheads. Said condition shall be so noted on the site plans. 10. A revised site plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning, Development Services Center for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. For proposed Lot C, development shall be in substantial compliance with the submitted site plan dated November 16, 2002, prepared by Kellam-Gerwitz Engineering Inc. (Project V02075). Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer There is an eight -inch water main and an eight -inch sanitary sewer main in Watersedge Drive fronting the property. This subdivision must connect to City water and sewer. Sewer and pump station analysis is required to determine if flows can be accommodated. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Watersedge Drive is a dead end residential two-lane road with a right-of-way width of approximately 30 feet. A ten foot right-of-way dedication is proposed with this application. This road is not identified on the MTP or scheduled for any improvements in the CIP. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING / # 6 Page 4 a`QG\NlA S£q�.y O'er-, 'PGS Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Watersedge 350 ADT' 6,200 ADT Potential Land Use — 20 ADT Drive Proposed Land Use 3- 30 ADT 'Average Daily Trips (Present volume estimated based on existing dwellings in area) 2 as defined by two single-family dwellings 3 as defined by three single-family dwellings Public Safetv Police: No comments. Fire and • Any structure built on this property must be within 200 Rescue: feet of a City street or provide Department of Transportation approved all-weather road surface for emergency vehicle access. • The minimum fire lane width must be no less than 18 feet. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends low density residential land use below 3.5 units per acre for this area. Evaluation of Request Staff evaluation of a subdivision variance is based on several factors, including the degree of compliance with City ordinances and regulations, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and adherence to good accepted land use and development practices and theory. Personal hardship does not enter into the Staff's evaluation. Above all, Staff's evaluation is based on Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance, which addresses variances to the ordinance. Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that: Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING / # 6 Page 5 A. Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. B. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. C. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. D. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self-inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance. E. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. The applicant's request for a Subdivision Variance is acceptable. The physical character of the property generates the need for the variance. The proposed flag lot configuration simply creates more buildable area for the three lots outside of the most sensitive portion of the Resource Protection Area; it does not yield any more lots than could otherwise be created were it not for the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area regulations. Staff also does not believe that the variance would be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or would adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. Therefore, this application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions 1. The two flag lots shall share a minimum 18 -foot wide driveway constructed of an all weather surface approved by the Fire Marshall. Private reciprocal cross access easements shall be provided to accommodate the shared driveway. A maintenance agreement shall be provided for the shared private driveway. 2. A 15 -foot landscape buffer shall be provided along the southern border of the property from Watersedge Drive to the Resource Protection Area buffer. The landscape buffer shall consist of evergreen trees and shrubs. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING / # 6 Page 6 NOTE: Upon granting of a subdivision variance, a final subdivision plat must be submitted to the Development Services Center for approval and recordation. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING / # 6 Page 7 �N1A'6Eq Jens cy 90 'P U1-� • � I iWIM: GRAPHIC SCALE $;air €� sae �� .roar c:Si�x rem a crr �� __j Sk ff rAta EV Off Sri, sty xasm tatUWAM FEET ,I n s cr wSt �r� r iJ 1 INCH 40 FEES � as .knavrt.)at a%triri t:[; teat lliRRr V i111 t fit* my (V Mot DAY uvw*xT "ru m *(Am ov v*" FAQ „s ff r A AM4MT My. SOO 41 _ - O. - Ile /`Wam t 41 nu war 14 Aril b XC r r ` `ot 'b . �1.100MANWWWWOSVOWSIMM s w�tr.�t � � � �r rte;► �. RfkV TRM TO fw� REPACR):AIAi.#RA7 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING / # 6 Page 8 1r11A'BE:q e,. IA -B o�rrti.. cy pC� Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 ,`tu BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING / # 6 Page 9 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 14 Applicant's Name: 'b,, List All Current Property Owners: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if ne-cessarv)— If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) 13 Check here if the properly owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. ff Vw appR"nt is not the tic ffent owner of Vi* pvpw�y, camp` ge ft Applicant MW"ure suction below. APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation bb4ow: (Affach list ff necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessafy'A TLl?, 44 0 Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporationi partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CIE"FICATION: I cerft that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Signature 4 W- Pjint Name Subdivision Variance Application Page 9 of 13 Moffled: 10.1,62002 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 BAY REFLECTIONS BUILDING / # 6 Page 10 Item #6 Bay Reflections Building, L.L.C. Decisions of Administrative Officers in regards to Certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance East side of Watersedge Drive District 5 Lynnhaven March 12, 2003 REGULAR Ronald Ripley: Okay. Now we're going to begin our regular agenda. Items that were not withdrawn or deferred or consented are going to be heard in the order in which they appear in the agenda. So, before we do that, I just want to remind you of our timing. We want to try and stick with that. We have quite a few items that have been moved over to be heard so, please be respectful of that. When you hear the bell go off, conclude your remarks and allow the next person to come up. Mr. Miller, would you please call the first item. Robert Miller: The first item is Item #6, Bay Reflections Building. Scott Alperin: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Scott Alperin. I'm an attorney for the law firm Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern and Levy with offices on the fifth floor of Pembroke One Building in Virginia Beach. We're here representing the applicant today Bay Reflections Building, L.L.C. And, in this application we're requesting a variance from the lot width requirements of the subdivision ordinance to allow for the creation of three lots on a 5.1 -acre parcel, two of which lots will be flag lots. The property fronts on Watersedge Drive, which is just north of Pine Drive in Little Neck. It carries a R-40 zoning classification and but before the Chesapeake Bay Preservation area Ordinance, it can be subdivided into three conforming lots. We received variance approval from the CBPA Ordinance in December 2002. And, we're here requesting a subdivision variance for the creation of flag lots for two of the three lots. There are a number of properties in the vicinity of the subject property that has received subdivision variances over the past few years. And, there are multiple properties in Little Neck that are flag lots as well. In fact, the Planning Commission previously approved a similar application for this property back in 1999 but it was withdrawn before it reached City Council. We believe that we have a clear case of hardship in this case that's created by the buffer that's required by the Chesapeake Preservation Ordinance. And, if not for the Ordinance, we could create three conforming lots on this parcel. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the neighboring properties because the lots will still be larger than those that are required by the minimal lot size requirements of the R-40 zone. The variance certainly won't change the character of the neighborhood because there are many existing flag lots in Little Neck, as I mentioned, and the houses to be constructed on this site will be compliable to the dwellings in the vicinity. We're also requesting the minimum relief necessary to accomplish the goal of the minimizing the impacts on the Bay. All the houses will be at least 200-300 feet from the water and we're not increasing Item #6 Bay Reflections Building. L.L.C. Page 2 the density all beyond what will already be created if not for the Ordinance. In addition to satisfying the requirements of granting the variance, we're also agreeing to the conditions that will provide some additional benefits for this property. That includes our agreement to a single 20 foot driveway rather than the shared ingress/egress routing of two separate driveways that would otherwise increase the impervious surface area. We're also agreeing to install a 15 -foot landscape buffer along the southern boundary line of the property. And, for these reasons we would ask you to approve the variance. Ronald Ripley: Any questions of Mr. Alperin? Mr. Din has a question? William Din: Mr. Alperin, I understand that there is a concern about the house on the first lot, Lot A? The positioning of that house, can you can describe what the positioning of that house is going to be? Scott Alperin: What we've been discussing with the neighboring property owners and some various and different ways of placing the lots along the site, most recently we discussed actually orienting the house so it faces on the roadway rather than bring it that it goes along the flag area of the lot. William Din: So the house will be facing Watersedge there? Scott Alperin: We are agreeable to be considering that. It's not one of the conditions but in discussing with the neighbors we've certainly been open to that. Ronald Ripley: How about the orientation of the houses on the Lots B & C to the back part of the property? Will they be oriented towards the driveway? Scott Alperin: Again, we hadn't really made any decisions concretely about that yet but, we certainly are willing to work with the neighbors to determine what they would like to see. I think what we've been discussing was having them all them orient toward the road, all three of them but, maybe just the front will orient better than where the others would be facing out. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Anybody else in support? Robert Miller: No. We have a person in opposition. Mr. William West, III. William West: Ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. Good afternoon. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter and I'll try to keep my comments brief for you. I know your time is important. My name is Bill West. I live at 3100 Watersedge Court. My house is Lot 2, Watersedge Court, the house immediately in front of Lot C, Flag Lot C, the most egregious lot in the subdivision. And, as such my neighbors have asked me to voice overwhelming opposition to the proposed variance. Before I begin, I want to ensure everybody here that as a neighborhood we are not opposed to development. We seek only to make sure that the development of this track is Item #6 Bay Reflections Building. L.L.C. Page 3 cohesive with our neighborhood. And protects our quality of life and our property values. Keeping this mind, our grievances are really just three fold. There are no flag lots in our neighborhood. Not on Kline, not on Watersedge Drive, not on Watersedge Court. We don't want any. The Planning staff recently posted an opinion on the website stating that the proposed variance is not providing more lots than would otherwise be created for if it was not for the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Bay Ordinance. This simply isn't true. As you know, our neighborhood is zoned R-40. Everyone in our neighborhood adheres to the zoning and enjoys the quality of life that R-40 provides. There are no variances on our streets. R-40 requires a minimum of 125 feet of road frontage while this parcel does 370 feet. It's five feet short. Clearly, it supports two lots, not three. In short, the proposal does not conform to the standards that we all bought into as a neighborhood and pay taxes to sustain. Second, and perhaps most importantly the proposed variance will significantly reduce the property values of the adjacent property owners. Again, I take issue with the opinion posted on the Planning staff's website suggesting that the variance would not be a substantial detriment to the adjacent property or adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. I can't disagree more passionately. My own home will be no more than 60-80 feet from the beginning of the lot my back door of my home, 60-80 feet and that of the new neighbor about to move in close to 700,000 on Lot 1 to of a proposed front door or a front of the lot with the front door staring at us. Nowhere in our neighborhood are homes stacked on top of each other like this. We all spent handsome sums of money to move into a neighborhood. We we're not looking into our neighbors back doors, Jacuzzi tubs, back patios and family life. My neighbors on Watersedge Drive are confronted with the possibility, I believe of 2 or 3 consecutive 25 -foot wide gravel driveways. I'm glad to hear that they skipped that down to a ingress/egress. That will make our life easier. At a minimum however, there are still folks with the possibility of three mailboxes staring at them in the face. Anywhere from three to nine trash cans lump together on every Wednesday. And, all of this without a single house facing Watersedge Drive. That is not cohesive. That is not what our neighborhood looks like now. It's not what we want to look like now. Lastly, we take issue with the pretense under which the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Bay Ordinance was granted. Several of my neighbors attended this meeting and it's our understanding that a variance was granted in large part to reflect some strong ecological reputation. And in proactive effort, we met with Mr. Rick Gregor and one of his associates from Bay Reflections. To date, I can honestly dictate and he was very candid with this and he can't guarantee us that he would build all three homes. Nor can he guarantee us he will even built the first home. We have no idea or guarantees on which way these houses will face. And, the question is simply if he's not going to build all three houses and we have no assurances, how can than the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance be assured that any buildings is going to go over in a ecological sensitive manner. I'm just about done. In closing, again, I want to thank you for your time. I want to remind everybody here that our neighborhood resolved this strong and unanimously. We have a petition here. Every single landowner on Watersedge Drive or Watersedge Court, who's been approached, has signed this willingly and enthusiastically. We employ you protect the quality and the value of life on Watersedge Drive and Court. Please zone it for two parcels not three. Thank you. Item #6 Bay Reflections Building. L.L.C. Page 4 Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Any questions? Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: Mr. West, use the pointer there and show us where your house is on the map please. William West: Absolutely. Robert Miller: Hold on. You can use that, soon as we get back to the map. There you go. William West: Here's Lot 1, I'm right there. Robert Miller: Okay. William West: The new house on Lot 1 sits right about there. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. William West: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Kathy Katsias has a question. Kathy Katsias: Mr. West, Lot A, if the house were facing Watersedge Drive, would you have objection to that as opposed? William West: Yes ma'am. Kathy Katsias: You would. So, regardless of where the house is. William West: Okay. If it faces Lot A, that goes a long way in helping the aesthetics of the neighborhood. It does nothing for 1440 Watersedge Drive. Robert Miller: Mr. West? You need to speak into the mic. William West: My apologies. If Lot A is facing the street, it goes a long way to helping the aesthetics along Watersedge Drive. It does nothing to address 1440, Lot 1 or Lot 2 on Watersedge Court with having front doors looking into our back doors. Every house on Watersedge Drive or Watersedge Court faces its respective street. Kathy Katsias: Right. William West: We have no guarantees or assurances from the builder that he intends to build all three houses or let alone the first. Economics rule there and we all understand that. If another builder comes in and buys that lot we have no assurances that it will face Item #6 Bay Reflections Building. L.L.C. Page 5 forward. That one lot that does face forward it does help. It does not alleviate Lots B & C, having front doors facing the back doors of our neighbors. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Janice Anderson: I have one question. Ronald Ripley: Oh yes. Janice Anderson: If B & C if they were, would that alleviate the use of the front doors not facing into you. William West: It would help and there would have to be a large landscape buffer. Right now we got a beautiful stand of hardwoods back there and it was my understanding since I live with a RPA line in my backyard, that there could be no permanent non -conforming foundations behind us. I don't understand how they can build a house there and I can't put a swimming pool or a patio extension in my backyard. We bought that lot under the assumption and the pretense from the developer that was non tidal wetlands. It could not be developed. Janice Anderson: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Any other questions? Thank you very much. William West: Thank you. Robert Miller: Mr. Alperin. Scott Alperin: I thank you. First of all, we would dispute the notion that there are no flag lots in Little Neck. I don't have any specifics with me now but based on personal knowledge, I believe that there are many in the neighborhood. We also will meet the minimum lot size requirements. The overall square footage of each of these lots will exceed the 40,000 square foot minimum lot size on each of the properties. We are willing to make it a condition to have all three lots or three houses oriented towards Watersedge Drive, if that would help Mr. Adams and his neighbors. Other than that, we still think we've met those standards of granting the variance and we ask for your approval. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Any questions here? Yes. Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: You mentioned the fact there were other flag lots. Ashby, can you help us with where there might be flag lots or non -conforming lots. Let me use a broader term. Mr. West said there were no non -conforming lots and I believe I'm looking at a couple. In his cul-de-sac, that's R-40 zoning, are they non -conforming? Item #6 Bay Reflections Building. L.L.C. Page 6 Ashby Moss: Well, that one on the end, at the very end of the center does appear to be. Robert Miller: Both of those at the end appear to me to be. Ashby Moss: I wasn't aware of any on Watersedge Drive specifically. But, there are several in the Little Neck neighborhood. Robert Miller: Okay. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Scott Alperin: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Okay. We'll open it up for discussion amongst the Commissioners. Barry do you have a comment? Barry Knight: Yeah. Ashby, can you explain to me the landscape buffer. This is going to be on the southern edge of that property, so to kind of alleviate one person's front door, side door looking into the adjacent property owners? Ashby Moss: Yes. Condition #2 requires a 15 -foot landscape buffer along the southern border of the property. That would lead from Watersedge Drive all the way to where the Resource Protection Area buffer ends. And, it is shown on the plan. The buffer is not shown on the plan but the RPA line is on Page 8. And, at that point where the RPA buffer comes across, it coincides with the existing tree line. Barry Knight: When you say 15 foot, you mean 15 foot in height? Ashby Moss: Fifteen foot in width. Barry Knight: In width? What would be the height? Ashby Moss: Well, the condition just specifies evergreen trees and shrubs. The idea there would be consistent with say like a Category 4. Ultimate height of the shrubs gets to maybe 15 feet providing an alternating top along there. Barry Knight: The point I was trying to get to is there's going to be a buffer there? Ashby Moss: Yes. Barry Knight: And it won't be where they can just see straight over there. There will be a buffer and hopefully it will fill in. Ashby Moss: Right. Item #6 Bay Reflections Building. L.L.C. Page 7 Ronald Ripley: Does anybody else have any comments? Does anybody wish to make a motion or a motion with amendments? Robert Miller: Let me make a couple of comments. If I understood Mr. Alperin correctly, you had said, at least he stated that the three houses would face Watersedge. There would be a common driveway at least for two of those. I thought sure Ashby if it was for three or for just the two. Ashby Moss: It was just for the two. Robert Miller: For the flag lots? And, there would be a second driveway for the other lot. There would be a 15 -foot landscape buffer along the south side of the property, which would mean that 20 foot ingress/egress easement would move further to the north I presume because the buffer would have to all the way along that whole line. Right? I think to the extent possible, I think this answers the questions that Mr. West had brought up is point to the regard to the fact that there were no other variances in the neighborhood. I believe on your cul-de-sac there are some. The lot widths on the end of the cul-de-sac themselves don't look like they're in conformance to the normal lot widths but I may be wrong. I'm just saying that from looking at the map. And, with all of that, I would move for approval of the item. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Charlie Salle': I was going to second it and ask if we can include as an additional condition that those houses face Watersedge Drive. And, I agree with Bob. It looks like the lots at the end of the cul-de-sac there are non -conforming in the history that we have shows the subdivision variances were granted in 1995 and in a similar area in 1994. So, I think that this indicates it's not something unusual in the neighborhood. Ronald Ripley: So, we have a motion and a second. We have an additional amendment, a third condition added to orient all homes towards Watersedge Drive. Is there any further discussion? Donald Horsley: I'll just make a comment that we alleviated Mr. West's problem but the people that buy these houses are probably going to have the same concerns that: he does eventually, because there front doors are going to be looking in the backdoors of the one in front of them and if the applicant is willing to do that, I would support the motion. Ronald Ripley: Okay. We call for the question. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE Item #6 Bay Reflections Building. L.L.C. Page 8 HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0, the motion passes. Gpin: See Application ZONING HISTORY 1. Rezoning (B-4 (SD) Resort Commercial — Shore Drive Overlay District to A-24 Apartment with a PD -1-12 Overlay District) — Pending Shore Drive Overlay District — Approved 10-13-98 Rezoning (R -D 2 Residence Duplex to C -L 2 Limited Commercial) — Approved 2-13-67 2. Conditional Use Permit (Rooftop Unmanned Communication Facility) — Approved 7-9-96 3. Conditional Use Permit (Rooftop Unmanned Communication Facility) — Approved 1-23-96 4. Change to a Nonconforming Use — Approved 4-9-91 5. Conditional Use Permit (Motor Vehicle Rental) — Withdrawn 9-12-95 6. Conditional Use Permit (Carwash) — Withdrawn 4-25-88 Conditional Use Permit (Carwash) — Withdrawn 4-30-90 Bim, ,a�4s' w '►.aiCy'� ?S R 4 ) � t1 JJ1- CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Joseph Benedetto and Corrine Benedetto — Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: April 8, 2003 ■ Background: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Joseph Benedetto and Corrine Benedetto. Property is located at 4183 White Acres Road (GPIN 1478894544; 1478891213). Parcels contain 17.13 acres. DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE The purpose of this request is to create a large waterfront lot with 30 feet of direct frontage along a public right-of-way. ■ Considerations: The existing two (2) lots consist of approximately 17 acres with a little more than 12 acres above water and marsh. The property is zoned R-40 Residential District, which requires lots to be at least 40,000 square feet. On July 22, 2002, the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board reviewed and approved a proposal to create a seven (7) lot subdivision from this site, subject to fourteen (14) conditions. Granting this request would allow the applicant to create a seven (7) lot subdivision as depicted with one parcel (Lot 7) deficient in the required amount of direct frontage along a right-of-way. A single-family dwelling currently exists on the proposed Lot 7. The entire 17 acre site is zoned R-40 Residential District which permits single-family dwellings on parcels with a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet, of which 24,000 square feet of lot area must be above the marsh and water. The square footage of Lot 7, the particular lot under review for the subdivision variance, has a total of 272,161 square feet and is well above the minimum square footage required for this zoning district. In addition, the parcel will have 137,223 square feet above the marsh and wetlands. The physical characteristics of this site and the location of the existing house far back on the site create a situation unique to this property. Staff concludes that the granting of this variance will not be of "substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected." The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the physical Benedetto Page 2 of 2 characteristics of the lots limit their development potential. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 with 1 abstention to approve this request subject to the following condition: 1. The property shall be developed in substantial adherence to the submitted plan entitled "SUBIVISION OF `WHITE ACRES,' Virginia Beach, Virginia," prepared by TES, Inc. Said plan has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. 64--... Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: rv�. wt� I JOSEPH & CORRINE BENEDETTO / # 10 1 March 12, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: F04 -210 -SVR -2003 REQUEST: Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance ADDRESS: 4138 White Acres Road a 0. I 1 • + C3, C3 C3 • Gpin 1478-89-4544 + 1213 GPIN: 14788945440000;14788912130000 ELECTION DISTRICT: 3 - BAYSIDE SITE SIZE: 17.13 acres �N1A 8p Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003:, JOSEPH & CORRINE BENEDETTO / # 10 Page 1 STAFF PLANNER: Carolyn A.K. Smith PURPOSE: To create a large waterfront lot with 30 feet of direct frontage along a public right-of-way. Major Issues: • Degree to which the proposed lot is compatible with the surrounding lot sizes and injurious to the neighborhood. Site Plan / Preliminary Plat: Existing Lot: The existing two (2) lots consist of approximately 17 acres with a little more than 12 acres above water and marsh. The property is zoned R-40 Residential District, which requires lots to be at least 40,000 square feet. On July 22, 2002, the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board reviewed and approved a proposal to create a seven (7) lot subdivision from this site. The following 14 conditions were attached to the approval: 1. For proposed Lots 2 and 3, no portion of the pool shall be located within the 50' seaward portion of the buffer. The proposed pool for Lot 7 shall lay a maximum of 15 feet east of proposed improvements to the existing dwelling. In addition, said pool for Lot 7 shall lay equidistant of the top -of -banks. 2. For proposed Lot 5, no portion of any improvement (impervious cover) shall lie within the 100 foot buffer as shown on the revised site plan dated July 12, 2002 prepared by TES Inc. In addition, the driveway extension for said residence / Lot 5, shall be crush in run or equivalent. Said driveway shall be circuitous in nature within the White Acre Lane right-of-way so as to minimize the removal of any mature trees. 3. Seaward construction limits, for all proposed lots, shall lay a maximum of 15' seaward of improvements. No portion of any existing riparian forest and associated forest floor, shall be removed seaward of said construction limits. Said condition shall be noted on each site plan. 4. Tree compensation shall be at a 1 to 1 ratio for proposed Lots 1 through 3 and 5. Compensation shall be at a 3:1 ratio for proposed lots 4, 6, and 7. 5. Improvements for proposed Lot 6, inclusive of the swimming pool, shall be re -located no less than 35' to the south. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 JOSEPH & CORRINE BENEDETTO / # 10 Page 2 6. No portion of any improvement associated with proposed Lot 7, inclusive of the swimming pool, shall lie within 50 feet of the toe -of -slope. 7. All swimming pools shall be installed prior to or concurrent with construction of the primary residences. 8. If and when the shoreline is hardened for any proposed lot, a riprap revetment shall be installed in lieu of a vertical retaining structure. 9. Buffer restoration, equal to 1 2 times proposed impervious cover, shall be provided for Lots 4, 6, and 7. A separate buffer restoration / landscape plan shall accompany said site plans. Existing forest cannot be counted towards required restoration. Restoration shall occur within those areas currently devoted to turf. Said restoration shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 10. A temporary chain link fence shall be provided adjacent to the northern and southern limits of construction associated with proposed Lot 7. 11. Payment into the Lynnhaven River Oyster Heritage Fund for an area equal in size to 25% of any impervious cover encroachment into the buffer associated with the proposed lots. Payment is designed to establish the equivalent of a 12 inch deep oyster shell plant within the Lynnhaven River Basin for the 25% of displaced buffer. The formula for payment shall be total impervious cover divided by 27 = cubic yards X 15 (bushels per cubic yard) X $1.65 (cost per bushel installed). Said payment shall be made prior to approval of any site plan. 12. All stormwater from new impervious cover shall be conveyed to structural stormwater management facilities. For Lot 7 — all stormwater from existing and proposed improvements shall be conveyed to structural stormwater management facilities. 13. The size of homes and pools shall be in substantial compliance with that which was provided on the site plan dated July 12, 2002, prepared by TES, Inc. 14. A revised site plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning, Development Services Center for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Proposed Lots: It is the intent of the applicant to create a total of seven (7) lots on this 17.13 acre parcel. One (1) of the lots does not have the required amount of direct frontage along a right-of-way. Item R it Lot 7 Lot Width in feet 125 30.07* 1 Lot Area in square feet 40,000 272,161 *Variance required Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 JOSEPH & CORRINE BENEDETTO / # 10 Page 3 Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics Existing Land Use and Zoning There is an existing single family dwelling on the two (2) existing parcels currently zoned R-40 Residential District. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: . Single-family dwellings • Western Branch of Lynnhaven River/ R-40 Residential District South: . Vacant, wooded site • Single-family dwellings • Western Branch of Lynnhaven River/ R-40 Residential District East: . Western Branch of Lynnhaven River West: • Unimproved White Acre Road • Single-family dwellings / R-40 Residential District Zoning History Two (2) subdivision variances have been granted by City Council for property along White Acres Road. Other activity in the vicinity includes requests for rezonings to slightly increase density above the existing zoning. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 JOSEPH & CORRINE BENEDETTO / # 10 Page 4 Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer There is an eight (8) inch water main in White Acres Road that ends at the south tip of the property's lot line. The subdivision must connect to City water. Water analysis, plans and bonds are required for the construction of the water system. There is an eight (8) inch sanitary sewer main and a six (6) inch sanitary sewer force main that terminate approximately 70 feet south property line in White Acres Lane. The subdivision must connect to City sewer. Sewer analysis, plans and bonds are required for the construction of the sewer system. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends this property for residential uses at or below a density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre. Evaluation of Request Staff evaluation of a subdivision variance is based on several factors, including the degree of compliance with City ordinances and regulations, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and adherence to good accepted land use and development practices and theory. Personal hardship does not enter into the Staff's evaluation. Above all, Staff's evaluation is based on Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance, which addresses variances to the ordinance. Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that: A. Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. B. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. C. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. ♦NLh B� Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 JOSEPH & CORRINE BENEDETTO / # 10 Page 5 D. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self-inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance. E. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. Granting this request would allow the applicant to create a seven (7) lot subdivision as depicted with one parcel (Lot 7) deficient in the required amount of direct frontage along a right-of-way. A single-family dwelling currently exists on the proposed Lot 7. The entire 17 acre site is zoned R-40 Residential District which permits single-family dwellings on parcels with a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet, of which 24,000 square feet of lot area must be above the marsh and water. The square footage of Lot 7, the particular lot under review for the subdivision variance, has a total of 272,161 square feet and is well above the minimum square footage required for this zoning district. In addition, the parcel will have 137,223 square feet above the marsh and wetlands. The physical characteristics of this site and the location of the existing house far back on the site create a situation unique to this property. Staff concludes that the granting of this variance will not be of "substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected." Approval of the variance is recommended subject to the conditions below. Conditions 1. The property shall be developed in substantial adherence to the submitted plan entitled "SUBIVISION OF `WHITE ACRES,' Virginia Beach, Virginia," prepared by TES, Inc. Said plan has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. NOTE: Upon granting of a subdivision variance, a final subdivision plat must be submitted to the Development Services Center for approval and recordation. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 JOSEPH & CORRINE BENEDETTO / # 10 Page 6 PRANCH LYNNHOFT' Pr'o*'[R MV4�� 44141 X 0 ez Lj T At % ZZ PIR jq J \ton A -f 7, fo It C6 W tz IN, to wt. (M/H,09')(11V08 3�JDV J11HM Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 JOSEPH & CORRINE BENEDETTO / # 10 Page 7 Planninn Cnmmicainn Ant: USEPH & (;UHHINE BENEDETTO / A Pac DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name:._.____. Joseph Benedetto & Corrine Benedetto List All Current Property Owners: _Iustk� Benedetto_. __CQr ri.zLQm. detj-Q_.-------------- PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach fist if necessary) 10 Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) 0 Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true n. urato. i (7_7 CN .Joseph ;Benedetto C;orr:i, e BenedeLto Signature Print Name Subdivision Variance Application Page 9 of 13 Modified: 10,16,2002 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 JOSEPH & CORRINE BENEDETTO / # 10 Page 9 ,`4G1N1ABpACy try i e� Item #10 Joseph Benedetto & Corrine Benedetto Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to Certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance 4183 White Acres Road District 4 Bayside March 12, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #10, which, is Joseph Benedetto and Corrine Benedetto. It is an Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance for Joseph Benedetto and Corrine Benedetto. The property is located on White Acres Road in the Bayside District and we do have one condition. Scott Alperin: Good afternoon. Scott Alperin again for the applicant. We agree with the condition recommended by staff. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any opposition to Item #10, Joseph Benedetto and Corrine Benedetto, appeal to the decisions of the administrative officers of the subdivision? Robert Miller: Can I read into the record of statement that was given to me? We have a letter from Mr. David Plume. Dorothy Wood: Yes sir. Robert Miller: I'm going to go ahead and read this into the record. This is a note from staff. It's a copy of the DSC letter on the preliminary subdivision plan attached. The DSC, have not yet addressed the issues with Mr. Plume that he has raised and will address them during the full subdivision review process. Mr. Plume's letter will be forwarded to the DSC and he will be asked to contact them and to go over the :issues that he has stated in his letter with the project manager, which is said here to be Tara Drake. Thank you. Mr. Horsley, would you please comment on this item? Donald Horsley: Yes ma'am. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Donald Horsley: Item #10, Joseph and Corrine Benedetto, I messed that up good didn't I? It's a subdivision variance. Mainly the variance is for the lot width on Lot #7 and in these cases we look for hardship and we feel like the physical characteristics of the property itself warrants this approval of this variance. And, we feel that this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan so we recommended approval and put it on the consent Item #10 Joseph Benedetto & Corrine Benedetto Page 2 agenda. Thank you Mr. Horsley. Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve this consent item. Number 10 is Joseph Benedetto and Corrine Benedetto with one condition. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve this consent agenda item as read. Do we have a second? Charlie Salle': Second. Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Charlie Salle'. Motion made by Dot Wood. Any discussion? I'm going to abstain from Item #10. My house is adjacent to this although it's across the creek from it if you will. But, I received notice that I'm an adjacent landowner so I'm going to abstain. Are there any other abstentions? We're ready to vote. AYE 10 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE NAY 0 ABS 1 ABS ABSENT 0 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0 with the abstention so noted, the motion passes. Upin 147If-,NY-4544 + IZIJ ZONING HISTORY 1. Change of Zoning (R-30 Residential District to Conditional R-20 Residential District) — Granted 6-11-02 Change of Zoning (R-30 Residential District to Conditional R-20 Residential District) — Withdrawn 7-11-00 2. Subdivision Variance — Granted 8-22-95 3. Change of Zoning (R-40 Residential District to R-30 Residential District) — G ranted 7-3-89 4. Subdivision Variance — Granted 5-8-89 5. Change of Zoning (R-1 Residential District to R-2 Residential District) — G ranted 12-17-84 fop x CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Shore Ventures, L.L.C. — Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: April 8, 2003 ■ Background: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Shore Ventures, L.L.C. Property is located at the Southeast corner of Cullen Road and Independence Boulevard (GPIN 1479327191). DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE The purpose of this request is to resubdivide two existing parcels, both of which are nonconforming to R-7.5 Residential District zoning requirements. The proposed reconfiguration will provide more uniform dimensions for the two lots. A subdivision variance is necessary because the proposed reconfiguration of the property lines on the plat shows that both of the new parcels will be insufficient in lot area and lot width for the R-7.5 Residential District. ■ Considerations: The existing lots were platted in 1926, prior to the creation of the Independence Boulevard right of way and the Cullen Road right of way, both of which, when developed, reduced lot area and lot width on the two existing lots, creating a hardship that is not self-imposed. The two existing lots are currently non- conforming as to dimensional requirements of the R-7.5 Residential District. The proposed resubdivision will create two new home sites that will be slightly more non -conforming than what exists. However, the configuration of the new lots is more uniform and will be more compatible with the dominant development pattern of the neighborhood directly north of the site, across Cullen Road. The proposed homes shown on the plat meet all required setbacks in the R-7.5 Residential District. In addition, the new lots will both be oriented toward Cullen Road, instead of Independence Boulevard. Staff recommended approval. There was opposition to the proposal. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-1 to approve this request subject to the following conditions: Shore Ventures Page 2 of 2 1. A no ingress/egress easement must be platted along Independence Boulevard on Lot 2A. 2. All setbacks on Lot 2A must be measured from the ultimate right of way width of 150 feet for Independence Boulevard as shown on the Master Transportation Plan. 3. The principal structure built on Lot 2A shall be ten (10) feet from the southern property line. 4. Any structure built on Lot 2A shall be situated on the lot so the side of the structure facing Independence Boulevard shall not be closer to Independence Boulevard than the main portion of the house located on the parcel to the south. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manag : T4",� SHORE VENTURES, L.L.C. / # 16 March 12, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: REQUEST: Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance ADDRESS: Southeast corner of Cullen Road and Independence Boulevard Man F_.-4 r. V Map Not to `=tale GPIN: 14793271910000 ELECTION DISTRICT: 4-BAYSIDE anore ve °u D �C �/ -7• V. OS LLU 77 .. \ � I Z 7?I Q �\/> 11 / s i / •\ C2l jj O � fi i--.' � � •� �/��111 111 � i 1`.`, .�`: / •.f% / Gpin 1479-32-7191 �zl �1N1A•BEe_ _ Planning Commission Agenda ��:•. March 12, 2003 e SHORE VENTURES, L.L.C. / # 16 •• °"`•° Page 1 SITE SIZE: 13,168 square feet STAFF PLANNER: Barbara Duke PURPOSE: To resubdivide two existing parcels, both of which are nonconforming to R-7.5 Residential District zoning requirements. The proposed reconfiguration will provide more uniform dimensions for the two lots. A subdivision variance is necessary because the proposed reconfiguration of the property lines on the plat shows that both of the new parcels will be insufficient in lot area and lot width for the R-7.5 Residential District. This application was deferred in January 2003 at the request of the applicant. Planning Commission Agenda = z March 12, 2003.. SHORE VENTURES, L.L.C. / # 16 •• °'` Page 2 {. Major Issues: °�� . .... ..... . ...... . . ...... 0 Presence of a hardship as justifying the variance from Subdivision Ordinance requirements. edOWAC • Compatibility with surrounding established ' neighborhood` 3 € Mei rte' `F Site Plan / Preliminary Plat: AW Existing Lots: ;* 44 The subject site currently contains two lots that are zoned R- r'' s ass 7.5 Residential District, which requires a minimum lot width z I of 75 feet and a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet. .. . t Existing Lot 2 is 4,345 square feet and only 23 feet wide. 41 Existing Lot 2 is deficient in lot area and lot width. Existing Lot 3 is 8,825 square feet and 40 feet wide." f.� Existing Lot 3 is deficient in lot width but does conform to the lot area requirement of R-7.5 Residential District. R Planning Commission Agenda = z March 12, 2003.. SHORE VENTURES, L.L.C. / # 16 •• °'` Page 2 Proposed Lots: It is the intent of the applicant to resubdivide the two existing lots to create two lots more equal in size and dimension as noted below. Please note that both of the two new lots being proposed will be deficient in lot area and lot width, so that there will be a slight increase in the total degree of non -conformity over what currently exists. ItemRequired Lot 2A Lot 3A Lot Width in feet 75 60* 63* Lot Area in square feet 7,500 6,599* 6,571 * J *Variance required Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics Existing Land Use and Zoning The existing lots are vacant and the site is zoned R-7.5 Residential District Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: . Cullen Road South: . Single -Family homes / R-7.5 Residential District East: • Vacant property / R-7.5 Residential District West: . Independence Boulevard Zoning History On the north side of Cullen Road, directly across the street from the subject site, a similar subdivision variance was granted in 1999. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The site is level with scattered trees. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 SHORE VENTURES, L.L.C. / # 16 Page 3 Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer The proposed lots must connect to City water and sewer. Master Transportation Plan Independence Boulevard in the vicinity of the subject site is a divided arterial with a proposed ultimate 150 -foot right of way with bikeway. The project is listed as Independence Boulevard Phase V-A, CIP 2.050, requested but not funded in the 2002- 2003 Capital Improvement Program document. The current right of way in the vicinity of the subject site measures 110 feet wide. Therefore, a reservation of 20 feet will be required along the frontage of Lot 2A and all setbacks must be measured from this ultimate right of way line. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map recognizes this area as a stable residential area. Evaluation of Request Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that: A. Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. B. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. C. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. D. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self-inflicted hardship shall not gNu+ Bea Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 SHORE VENTURES, L.L.C. / # 16 Page 4 be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance. E. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. The existing lots were platted in 1926, prior to the creation of the Independence Boulevard right of way and the Cullen Road right of way, both of which, when developed, reduced lot area and lot width on the two existing lots, creating a hardship that is not self-imposed. The two existing lots are currently non -conforming to dimensional requirements of the R-7.5 Residential District. The proposed resubdivision will create two new home sites that will be slightly more non -conforming than what exists, as noted above in the Site Plan/Preliminary Plat section of this report. However, the configuration of the new lots is more uniform and will be more compatible with the dominant development pattern of the neighborhood directly north of the site, across Cullen Road. The proposed homes shown on the plat meet all required setbacks in the R-7.5 Residential District. In addition, the new lots will both be oriented toward Cullen Road, instead of Independence Boulevard. It is recommended that the conditions below be attached to the approval of this variance. Conditions 1. A no ingress/egress easement must be platted along Independence Boulevard on Lot 2A. 2. All setbacks on Lot 2A must be measured from the ultimate right of way width of 150 feet for Independence Boulevard as shown on the Master Transportation Plan. NOTE: Upon granting of a subdivision variance, a final subdivision plat must be submitted to the Development Services Center for approval and recordation. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 SHORE VENTURES, L.L.C. / # 16 Page 5 fAoaw A-2t9V' /A 010 zp "X* - --- k D V74 IUAW '15Y a4Y R.202) SHOR47 Iv 1D A lDfr r%'ET PLAT OF LAh ,`4GN1A'BEgCy Planning Commission Agenda -q- March 12, 2003 SHORE VENTURES, L.L.C. / # 16 Page 6 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 SHORE VENTURES, L.L.C. / # 16 Page 7 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name: List All Current PropertyOwners; � ._... _ __..._. �•�!�e._.. � .._._........... . _._..._...... .._......... __._._..... ..... If the property towner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below- (Attach list if nec:essaru) If the property owner is a PARTNLRSIII:P, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION. list all members or partners in tie organization below: (Attach Zest if necessary) . .. .......... . ... ............ .. . . . . ............ . . . ...... . --- - ---------- . .......... . ..... --- ... . ...... Check here if the property owner is N()T a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorpotateti organization. If the appticanl is not the current owner of'the pro)aerty, comptere the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DxsCLOSURE If theppliic:ant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: ( aach list if nec�ers ty) -4—c Ain� PR651 . . . ............... I.f the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, EIP, FIRM, or other C.Ii' lNi'.CiltPORA:i'i:D ORGANIZATION, Iist all members or partners in the organization below: (All ach list if necessary) Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated or.ganrzation. C,CRTIFICA110N. 1 certify that the irtfrrni atimi coitttabied herein istrue and accurate. ,r d f r-1 Signature __..__....._._._ .___. .. .............. Print Narne Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 SHORE VENTURES, L.L.C. / # 16 Page 8 Item #16 Shore Ventures, L.L.C. Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Offices in regard to Certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance Southeast corner of Cullen Road and Independence Boulevard District 4 Bayside March 12, 2003 REGULAR Ronald Ripley: Mr. Miller? Robert Miller: The next item is Item #16, Shore Ventures, L.L.C. R.J. Nutter: Thank you very much. Secretary, Chairman, members of the Commission, for the record my name is R.J. Nutter. I'm an attorney. I'm happy to be here today and represent this application to you. I did hear and by talking to staff I wasn't able to attend this morning's meeting but I did talk to staff about many of the issues that you discussed on the site. I'll try to go to those and briefly say a little bit of hardship here. As you know, this is a situation where we have two existing lots, both lots are to one degree or another are non -conforming today. We want to come away with from the application. We're still two lots but we would reorient them in a way, frankly coincides to what the City has asked the property owners along there to do which is orient their frontage away from Independence Boulevard and onto Cullen Road. So, the net effect is that we come away with no more than the same number of lots that are there today. They will be there tomorrow. Those lots will be conform in size that staff points out to you. And, the access to those lots will be off Cullen Road in lieu of Independence Boulevard. The other nice part about this is that these lots unlike many of the cases we've heard or heard eluded to today really do coincide with the orientation of the lots and the number of lots throughout that of the neighborhood. If I could ask you to go back that showed the neighborhood Steve, if you will note and this is Cullen Road right here. And, you probably remember this from your van trip but as you can see very clearly all along Cullen there are two lots within each block along this section of the roadway, so that on each side there are two homes here, two homes with an exception along here. Two homes here, actually there are three on this one. And, two homes on this block. If you were to go down to the next street you will find almost the identical situation. But, I can tell you that the fact there will be two lots and two homes here facing both facing Cullen, which is going to be consistent with the neighborhood rather than inconsistent. So, that's the situation we find ourselves in. I can tell you that my client did meet with the adjacent property owner who is the owner of the property just to the south of our lot. And, frankly we understand some of their concerns. Mainly the fact there is a five-foot setback between these homes and their lot. That is the required side yard set back. And, we did hear that there was some concern, Commission and maybe some interest in us seeking a variance to the Board of Zoning Appeals. We have no objection at all in trying to do that. We were asked to propose homes on the lots that could conform to the zoning ordinance. Item #16 Shore Ventures, L.L.C. Page 2 And, I can tell you that we can do that. But, we would have no objection to having a greater setback on that side to alleviate the concerns of the neighborhood. We understand that. In large measure what's happened here is the desires by the City not to have access on Independence and the desires for a very large widening. They asked us to measure our home 20 feet back and that's just for reservation, 20 feet along right here. Normally, our setback from this portion would be 30 feet, which is to right about here. They've asked us instead to look at a 20 -foot reservation and measure our setback from that which makes us setback some 50 feet. The nice part about that however, is that the adjacent home is located somewhere up in here frontage wise. It's front would be forward of this home. But, if you look at it fairly, I would tell you I'm not so sure that the City is going to be prepared to go in there and wipe out all these homes along but we have been asked to make that reservation. We're willing to do it. We have no objection to it. So, my sense there is a hardship and your staff has acknowledged that. Resulting not from our actions but from actions of the City. We are only about 2000 square feet deficient in this case. The City has taken over 8000 square feet of properties not counting the 20 -foot reservation that they're requesting here on Princess Anne Road. So, we're here not of our making but we are happy to seek some approvals through the Board of Zoning Appeals to increase that setback. I would ask that you not make that a condition because we have no way of knowing if that Board would grant that setback. But, I would tell you if you want to make a condition that we seek a setback variance from the Board, we're happy to do that. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much Mr. Nutter. Ms. Wood has a question. R.J. Nutter: Certainly. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Nutter, would you be willing if it was the will of the Commission to defer your application until you seek the approval from the BZA? R.J. Nutter: Well, there's this growing debate at the BZA of whether or not they will let us go to them for variances prior to the time of Council has acted for that. Dorothy Wood: I didn't know that. R.J. Nutter: And, that may be a little bit of a problem. We had a case for a matter of a church last month as a matter fact where we were asked to go the BZA first and we did that. And, they said you're not able to do that until after Council authorizes that situation. So, that's the situation we may find ourselves in. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. R.J. Nutter: I do know many of the board members personally. I think they might view this favorably if that's any assistance to you. They understand situations like this and we would have no problem applying whatsoever. Item #16 Shore Ventures, L.L.C. Page 3 Ronald Ripley: Any other questions of Mr. Nutter? Thank you. We have opposition. R.J. Nutter: Yes sir, I understand. Robert Miller: Geneva Dickens McKinney. Geneva McKinney: My name is Geneva Dickens McKinney and I live at 1492 Independence Boulevard. And, I'm adjacent to the property that's up now for a variance. And, I would like to read this to you. I've written letters to everyone. And, I've written letters to the City Council also. And, I enclose the first letter that I wrote about this variance along with the last one that I wrote. I don't believe that the applicant's hardship is greater than or supersede any of the hardship that I would endure. The hardship was in place when Lots 2 & 3, were purchased. When the City of Virginia Beach constructed Cullen Road and acquired part of Lot 2, construction of the road was when the hardship was born. When they went through and did this. Since the City created this problem, they should allow the applicant to move the dwelling five feet forward, thus allowing the applicant a 25 -foot setback from Cullen Road. I can't fathom anyone going in there and purchasing those lots as they were and have the idea that they wanted to put dwellings on them didn't know that they would have to come before someone for a variance. And, that it would have an unfavorable impact on the person that is living there. I strongly oppose this variance to subdivide the two lots so two dwellings can be constructed. I envision that if the variance is approved as submitted with the current visions of the dwellings. One of the dwellings would tower over my home and encroach within five feet of my property line. I am asking for a 10 -foot setback from my property line and the dwelling be in line with the front of my garage or no more than five feet beyond the front of my garage. And, no construction, including a fence not extend beyond my garage. I envision this applicant's goal is to construct two dwellings, sell them, move on to the next project, leaving me a resident at the present location for a half -century. I've been there a half -century, to deal with any and all unpleasantness that will come into play. And, they will. I strongly oppose this variance as submitted. I employ you to deny the application that has been submitted to you in this present form. However, if the above changes that I've submitted are accepted, I would be willing to support the applicant's request for a variance on the above lot. I would also like to mention if I have a few minutes that what he showed about the homes across Cullen Road has no bearing with the homes on the other side Cullen Road. My parents moved out here in 1946 and built the house in the latter part. They built in that spot. And, when I built my home in 1966, I built it in the same spot. VDOT came through and took part of my front, my well and everything to widen Independence Boulevard. And, because now the footage is 30 feet from Independence and I'm beyond 30 feet from Independence and he can come and put his house 30 feet that's going to be beyond my house, I don't think that's right. I don't think he should be able to do that. He should come back close to my property. Ronald Ripley: Ms. McKinney? Geneva McKinney: Yes. Item #16 Shore Ventures, L.L.C. Page 4 Ronald Ripley: Can I ask you a question? Geneva McKinney: Sure. Ronald Ripley: I thought the attorney said that your house would be forward of the side of his house. Geneva McKinney: Let me see where this is. Ronald Ripley: Go to the site plan. Geneva McKinney: He's incorrect about where my house is. Ronald Ripley: The side of the house that's proposed that's closest to Independence Boulevard. Geneva McKinney: I'm not getting anything. Ronald Ripley: Can you push the button? Geneva McKinney: Oh, push the button. Sorry. Okay. This is his side. I'm back here. And, if you would bring up the houses on Cullen Road, I can show you. Ronald Ripley: Will that do it? Geneva McKinney: Okay. Here I am right here. I'm back further than those houses and they're suppose to be 30 -feet from Independence. I'm back further than that. Been back there for years. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Geneva McKinney: And the reason why it was put back there in the latter part of the 40's as to anticipate it was a two lane dirt road in there. And, we were considered as one of the 12 target areas. When the City of Virginia Beach came through, 1st Street and 2nd Street is on the plot plan to be developed for that community. It would run out: to South Street. That would give us to ends, Weldon Road and South Street. The City did not do that. The City decided to buy lots from the two lots at Cullen Road. They bought part of the lot and made Cullen Road. Cullen Road ended on Independence on the other side. On this side of Independence where I live it was nothing. No streets, no nothing. Ronald Ripley: Understand. Geneva McKinney: The City came in there and made a street. So, when these individuals purchased that land they knew that was a problem. And, I don't think they get it. Item #16 Shore Ventures, L.L.C. Page 5 Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions? Robert Miller: Vernon Lee Dickens. Vernon Dickens: Good evening. I'm going to come up before just like my sister was. This man said that they wanted to build houses on those lots. They would be comfortable in that area, which is not true. I can't imagine any house in that community that is 20 feet wide. There's a picture that you can see by where our house sits at, we were made to set our house back in the area. I've been in my house with my sister since 1964. And, I was requested by the City to set the house back there. We have 50 feet of our property sitting in the middle of Independence Boulevard at this present time. I really object to what you want to put there but I recognize there has to be a compromise somewhere. And, I don't mind the man building a house, just stay away from the property. And, she had requested 10 feet away from mine and line up with her property. At the present time the site plan that is drawn up is incorrect because I own property in the back. And, we were required to give up 10 feet of the property on the back in order that 1St Street could be developed. This property that I'm talking about, he is not required to do the same thing. He say's he'll give 30 feet from 1st Street but we were required to be forty feet. That was my son- in-law. I gave him some land in the back and everything. And, I think that City and the property owners is taking advantage of this community because we have suffered enough for people to come along and take land and doing exactly what they're going to do. I own land in the back. The people come right on your property doing what they want to do not putting a little screen around your property and just building the houses. And, they build houses there and they're building a garage house right five feet. And, as you know, we do most of our work in my garage so that's where you need the space on the side of your house. Robert Miller: For the record, could you state your name sir. Vernon Dickens: My name is Vernon Lee Dickens, Sr. Ronald Ripley: Your house is you located on the other side of your sister's house? Vernon Dickens: Yeah. The last three houses that were built on it other than way down the street was built right in line next to each other, right in line with each other, and, starting with my house in 1964. Then my sister came along. As we have built our house at 30 feet would have been gone. Independence wiped out all of our neighbors. The houses across the street weren't in existence when all these other houses were built. But they didn't go on that side they came to wipe us all out. It feels like they're trying coming after us again. If you're incline to let the man build a house in there, I request that no lot lines be vacated and that the property goes just like it is. That he can build one house on it. Because that is what he said that he could build one house. Make it no lot line and he build a house there and he can bring it up five feet because he is going to be in the back of us anyway. It really doesn't matter. But, I'm trying to help the situation and trying to fix it to that he can build. I'm not going to argue about the 10 feet. If you Item #16 Shore Ventures, L.L.C. Page 6 give him permission, I won't argue about the 10 feet. I'll be glad if you come along. We own property on both sides. I'll be glad to give up 10 feet on the side in order for him to get his house in there. If you look at the thing, they're saying that the front of the house on 1St Street. If I hadn't kept the road up, my son-in-law hadn't built a house there it would be all woods there. Could you call that that the front of the street there? No. So, he's taking advantage of the situation to me because he hooking up smoked mirrors and they said that 1St Street is in front of his house. And, that is all that I have to say. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Are there any other speakers Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: No sir. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Nutter, would you like to readdress? R.J. Nutter: Will be very happy to. I did check with staff to see if what they thought that BZA would accept an application in advance and they didn't think that they would. We have no objection going to BZA to try to get a 10 -foot yard between us, and Mrs. McKinney. We have no objection to that whatsoever. We're seeking that. But, I would tell you and I don't want to certainly rebuke what they're saying regarding the location of their home. I can tell you what I did do is we taped out the distance from the top of the curb and where the side of this yard would be. It's about 50 feet based on the survey from the top of the curb, which would be behind where her current home is located. Behind her home, but its hard to tell but were at least within 10 feet where her home would be. So, were not going to be intruding forward of her home. It's provided that we make this reservation that the City wants us to measure. So, I don't think we'll have that problem with them. I do understand their concern about the side yard setback being five feet. But, I would tell you that these are consistent with the homes in the area. In fact, we granted a variance to the home that is right across the lot just across the street from Cullen just a few years ago as your write up correctly points out. So, this is in keeping with what this Commission and Council have recognized for years as a hardship. But, we have no objection seeking a variance to increase that setback. And, we'll pursue that regardless whatever you want us to do. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Miller has a question. R.J. Nutter: Yes sir. Robert Miller: Mr. Nutter? R.J. Nutter: Yes. Robert Miller: It seems like some of this perhaps by the documentation that's been presented isn't easily understood by Ms. McKinney or Mr. Dickens. And, I think that's something that is not their fault. It's because we don't have all the information on these drawings. The other this is the other two houses on the other side of Cullen Road. I Item #16 Shore Ventures, L.L.C. Page 7 believe and it reminded me from the pictures actually one faces Independence, the other faces 1St, even though their accessed off of Cullen Road. R.J. Nutter: Correct. We have even looked at that possibility as well. Robert Miller: I understand that. And, I think what Mrs. McKinney asked for was the increase of the 10 feet and setting back the houses. It sounds like the house is apparently in the right position but I don't think she can identify that nor can you absolute verify it from the information we got. Would you accept a deferral and work out some of these details with those folks so we can come back together? I know you cannot do anything. It's very difficult for us, if you understand and Council will tell me in a minute that we can't put but so much. If we put a lot of teeth into this 10 feet, which I'm almost wanting to do, it puts you in a very precarious position to go in front of BZA and try to get a variance if your not successful, then you're not successful at all. But, it does make me very concern right this minute to try to react to this without having everybody on the same sheet and I don't mean to be unkind to you or your client. R.J. Nutter: I understand. I don't know what I can do. I'll be happy to meet with anyone, as you know. Robert Miller: I know you do. R.J. Nutter: But, I think the problem is and unless we can get a variance, it's impossible and that's what they want. And, we have no objection because we want the same thing. suspect Bob and staff would probably recommend an approval of a variance in there. And, which as you know makes a big different to the BZA. But, based on the other decisions that have been made in some recent cases, I don't think they would accept our application. Robert Miller: And, I'm not suggesting that process be changed. I'm saying that first of all, I feel there does need to be a discussion. And, I know you said that you would meet with Ms. McKinney and Mr. Dickens. And, that would be very helpful. I think that would at least begin so they can be assured of what information is being presented and know so that the information that is not being shown you can identify that and they would either agree with it or not agree with it. I don't think the request is unreasonable as far as the backyard and I'm the one who said something about that this morning about being 10 feet. That seems very reasonable to me. R.J. Nutter: And, I don't disagree. When I asked this in lieu and that is if I could ask the Commission to pass this on to Council and you can impose a recommendation that there be a setback of 10 feet and that we seek a variance for that purpose. I'd be happy to go with staff and the BZA about the possibility of trying to file an advance of going to Council. And, I don't mind that. I just don't know if we'll be able to do that but we would be happy to do that and then meet with them during the interim period. How would you feel about that? Item #16 Shore Ventures, L.L.C. Page 8 Robert Miller: First of all, I don't know if we could make a decision about that process. I think that process is set by the Council itself or by other legislative means that I don't have way of knowing. I think the difficulty here is that people are agreeing and you're agreeing that the 10 feet is not something that you would not want to go ahead and try to get. Mr. Dickens and Ms. McKinney would like to have that happen. The location of the house with regard to Independence Boulevard and Ms. McKinney's house would be nice to verify that and make sure that you all were on the same page there. And, Mr. Dickens, I'll support you in just a second. I almost feel like we have to say go get the variance and I'm really struggling right now because if we say go try to get one and you end up with 5.63 feet, I don't think we accomplished what we all seem to agree is a fair assumption here. And, I can't take away and I'm confident that I can't take away the authority of the BZA by anything that I do. Ronald Ripley: And, it appears that all the parties are at the table right now. Per agreement, they're going to try and work it out but you don't have the BZA at the table. Robert Miller: The details and location of Ms. McKinney's house are not quite as clear as we would like them to be. And, I think that can be done by Mr. Nutter for Mrs. McKinney. R.J. Nutter: Right now unless the City removes this reservation requirement we are where we are because the City wants us there. But, I can tell you that we would be happy meet with her to confirm exactly where her home is in relationship to ours. I'm always in a favor of a deferral if it will serve the purpose. But, my problem here is we can't go to the BZA during this time period more than we did if we went to Council. And, that might even delay us going to the BZA even further if we defer. That's my pure problem. So, I am trying to figure out what can I do to solve that problem. Robert Miller: That is why I wanted you to defer so you can figure it out. R.J. Nutter: Right now, even what staff tells me they don't think BZA would accept. Robert Miller: I'm asking you to defer this item until next month so that everybody can sit down somewhere and resolve some of the physical issues and then also decide on some of these legal issues that I can't answer. You can't answer either. R.J. Nutter: Well, let me check with my client first of all. But ponder this which is how and Bob you happen to be out of the room when this occurred but, we have a situation where we would like to increase the setback, reduce the required setback on Cullen Road, which is currently 30 feet because of the side yard adjacent to the street. The adjacent property owner would like a 10 foot side yard between our property, our lot and that would allow us to get a 25 foot setback on Cullen with a five foot variance. We have no objection seeking that variance. We are of the belief that the BZA would not accept a variance application pending an action by Council. Now, what I was proposing and I said perhaps staff would agree with that and the neighbors want that. And, the City I Item #16 Shore Ventures, L.L.C. Page 9 don't think would be opposed to that setback. My problem is that I don't know what I can do until I can get to the BZA to actually verify that's the case. Robert Scott: Is this a sequence issue? R.J. Nutter: Perhaps yes. Robert Scott: Well, let me tell you what my thought is on that. And, Mr. Nutter has raised this issue before in respect to this application. I think if the Planning Commission were to express it's strong desire to have the sequence unfold a certain way and if we were to convey that understanding to the BZA, I am sure that the BZA would listen with the end in mind that we want to be productive and make sure that the right thing comes out for everybody. Quite frankly, I'm not sure of the same sequence is the right sequence every time you do it. Certainly, the circumstances are different from case to case. And, we have some unusual circumstances here. It appears that this would be the better sequence to do it in. And, if the Planning Commission agrees and Mr. Nutter agrees, the staff would be willing to speak for this particular idea procedurally that it needs to be in this sequence and I feel confident that we can count on the BZA to listen to us when we describe it that way. Kay Wilson: Mr. Scott? Are we talking actually having this heard by the BZA prior to these lots being created? I mean, these lots won't be created until he gets a subdivision variance so the question becomes a BZA variance runs with the land and so you're creating a BZA variance on something that doesn't exist, much like when you rezone property, that's the problem that we have that those BZA variances have to be done after the rezoning. That would be my concern. If he wants to apply at the BZA prior to Council, I think the BZA would be more than happy to accept his application. He probably won't be heard until after City Council. R.J. Nutter: I tried. Would you consider a recommendation that there be a minimum setback of 10 feet between that? Why don't we consider that and let us then go before the BZA. Robert Miller: It's going to trap you into a situation. R.J. Nutter: At least if we go forward it gets what they want and what they want. And, if worse comes to worse, we may have to come back to revise. At least we go forward and we get where everyone wants to be. Robert Miller: There's another gentleman in the back of the room that has not spoken who has had his hand up. I presume he would like to come up and speak about this. Would you mind Mr. Nutter if I sponsor him. Ronald Ripley: Do you have new information? Item #16 Shore Ventures, L.L.C. Page 10 Fred McKinney: No, I just wanted to voice my opinion on the issue. I filled out a card. Robert Miller: You did? Ronald Ripley: You did fill out a card? Fred McKinney: I did, but I didn't have the correct information as far as which item I was going to speak on. Robert Miller: Then let him come up. Ronald Ripley: Please come up. Good afternoon everyone. My name is Fred McKinney. And, I'm a former resident of Independence Boulevard. My relation to the two people who spoke, Mr. Vernon Dickens is my uncle and Mrs. McKinney is my mother. Robert Miller: What item did you sign up for so I could I pull you out of that one. I'll find it. Fred McKinney: On the card I put Cullen Road/Independence Boulevard on the top. Robert Miller: I'll find it. Thank you. Fred McKinney: Currently, I'm a resident of the City of Virginia Beach. I live at Red Duck Court, which is Valley Brook Drive off of Bonney Road. And, my viewpoint on this issue is this variance. The proposal for variance for the existing that would be closed to Independence Boulevard is non -conforming with all dwellings on Independence Boulevard going southbound. All dwellings from Bayside Presbyterian Church to Independence Boulevard/Pleasure House Road corner face Independence Boulevard. The proposal has one house closest to Independence Boulevard facing Cullen Road. And, that's the first house in question. I oppose this in the fact that it would be out of line and even though it is one home it's still one home nevertheless. It also has come to my attention that VDOT may expand Independence Boulevard to three lanes in this particular area. Those of us who have lived in the City for the last 20-30 years know that VDOT has come down from the Pembroke Mall area and have appropriated homes from there to the Aragona area and have done so again appropriating business land from the Aragona area on down to the Haygood area. And, it is my understanding or my belief from talking to current and former residents of Independence Boulevard that the next phase is for them to come down through the 1400-1500 block of Independence Boulevard. And, if they do so, we must consider this? How much land or how much space will be taken not from only the houses that exist on the 1400 block but the house that is in question and those houses that have been recently built on the 1500 block. From what I understand, those houses that are built on the 1500 block that sit in the Bridgetown Subdivision are closest to the road than any other houses. And, we all know that if VDOT comes through with Item #16 Shore Ventures, L.L.C. Page 11 three lanes northbound and three lanes southbound, those houses probably 9 times out of 10 will be appropriated, and those houses have not existed in the City of Virginia Beach no more than 5-10 years at the most. And last point that I would like to make is this. One of the issues that confronted the General Assembly this past session is sprawl. The Commission has the opportunity to stop unnecessary development, which I believe this will be. Maybe you might want to consider and I know it's been talked about back and forth placing one dwelling on Cullen Road as opposed to two dwellings. One close to Independence and one further back from Independence. As a 1986 graduate of public school systems, there were hardly any portable classrooms that existed in the City. Right now, over half of all public schools have portable classrooms, too many. Ed Weeden: Mr. McKinney, could you speed it up please. Fred McKinney: Sure, I'm coming to the end. It is my belief that this building has provided a undue strain on the City and emergency services. And, it also has brought about a decrease in the quality of life. I can remember the times of being able to play in the front, side and backyard. Now, houses or homes that are built you can't play anywhere. Basically, you play in the street or you walk to the park. Well, that is my conclusion. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: Mr. McKinney, I need to apologize to you. Somebody did write number 16 but it was in the wrong location. I apologize that it was in the wrong location. Fred McKinney: Alright. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you for speaking. Mr. Nutter, do you need to readdress that? R.J. Nutter: I don't think so. Just one thing that I did want you to know is that the only reason the lots on homes to the south do front on Independence is because access to Independence was allowed earlier. And, access to Independence now is not going to be allowed. But now they are facing us to Cullen, which is fine and we understand that and we accept it. But, I just wanted to draw that distinction that we're facing the way we are because of the City's desire to reduce impact on Independence Boulevard not because of our desire to change the neighborhood. But, other than that I think we're fine. Ronald Ripley: I think Mr. Dickens has been trying to get my attention. And, do you have new information for us? Could you be real brief please? Vernon Dickens: All that I wanted to show was that the survey that I had done and the question was about what was the setback from my sister's house to the front of the road compared to what we just discussed. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you very much. Item #16 Shore Ventures, L.L.C. Page 12 Vernon Dickens: Her house is just about even with mine and that was the survey done a long time ago, 57 feet. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Janice Anderson: Was this taken before or after the take. Vernon Dickens: That's after the take. Janice Anderson: This is after the widening? Vernon Dickens: We were over 100 feet from the center of the highway and that's after it was taken. I think you have the date on it. You can see that it was taken after Independence Boulevard improvements. Robert Miller: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. You want this back don't you? Vernon Dickens: Yes sir. Ronald Ripley: Alright. Okay. Alright. Open it up for discussion. Gene, do you have a comment? Eugene Crabtree: Yes Mr. Ripley. Under the current way this application is applied for, unless we can comply with Mrs. McKinney's wishes, I unfortunately can't support that application. If it can be voted into the confirmation where it will comply with her wishes, I think that they have taken enough of her property and they infringed on her enough over the last 50years and we don't need to compound it at this point. So, if we can bring it into compliance with her wishes, I'll support it. If we can't bring it into compliance with her wishes, I'm sorry, I can't support it. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Jan. Janice Anderson: Thank you. I also have a problem with the application. And, Mr. Nutter said he would widen it backyard but actually what they've done is that they have used the five foot side back on the side yard but they flipped the lots. And, that five foot side yard setback is the backyard that is in compliance. They are using the old setbacks but rearranging the lots. And, I think that causes a problem. And, I believe the other issue that I have a problem with actually where the house sits back from Independence. And, I believe it's going to be rather close to where you have it now. The conditions don't say, I believe the building is a 30 -foot setback. They have placed it 20 feet behind that so it is 50. So, I think if that could be worked out about five more feet, those are the problems that I have with it right now. I think it could be workable but as in this position, I have some problems with it. Item #16 Shore Ventures, L.L.C. Page 13 Ronald Ripley: Thank you Jan. Charlie? Charlie Salle': I think this is another situation like we faced on the other side of Cullen Road and we addressed with a variance. We got these lots that are fronting on Independence Boulevard. We don't want people to build in such a way that they would have access to Independence Boulevard and so the only logical conclusion is to re - subdivide so that they face on the streets that come off of Independence. And, so I think what is proposed is a lot better as far as development is concerned then what exists now. I recognize Ms. McKinney's situation and I would propose and make a motion that we approve the application with additional condition that no structure be built on proposed Lot 2A within 10 feet of the southern property line. And, that would create a condition which could not be fulfilled unless the applicant obtained a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals or came back, presume if Council should approve it in that fashion, came back from the Planning Commission and City Council relief from that condition. Ronald Ripley: Is that a motion Charlie? Charlie Salle': That was a motion. Ronald Ripley: A motion by Charlie Salle' to approve the application with an additional condition and a second by Dot Wood. Any discussion for the motion. Eugene Crabtree: Question. That will bring it in compliance with what Ms. McKinney wants. Will it not? Ronald Ripley: Yes. Yes it would. Mr. Miller? Robert Miller: I don't think it will bring it quite into compliance. She also asked if the house be back further than her existing house. And, her house is 57 feet back. This would be 50 feet back if I'm correct in looking at the information. Ronald Ripley: Will the edge of this house that we have on Independence, will that be back the same distance as the house across Cullen Street? Robert Miller: It will be further back than the ones that I think from what we understood. I don't have plats on the other so we don't for sure, unless staff knows something that could help. R.J. Nutter: My client has no objection to saying that it would at least be where she is in frontage, but it will be the same distance back where she is. We're not sure if that's correct, obviously but I really don't know that it is. But, by the same token we have no objection saying we will not protrude further of her home then where she's sitting. Kathy Katsias: The side of the house. Item #16 Shore Ventures, L.L.C. Page 14 R.J. Nutter: It depends on which one. But whatever portion of our structure that's closes to Independence Boulevard will not be closer to Independence than her home. Ronald Ripley: Charlie, would you want to accept that.) Charlie Salle': Yeah. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Nutter, thank you. R.J. Nutter: Yes sir. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Well, is the Commission satisfied with that? Are we ready to vote? Robert Miller: Mr. Nutter, I'm still struggling with this thing. Mr. Nutter is going to kill me for feeling this way, but this facing of Cullen instead of facing Independence and 1st Street. It's troublesome. It doesn't feel like we're accomplishing for that neighborhood what we were going to accomplish. And, I'm trying to listen to what Ms. McKinney said that she's very cooperative from what I can hear and Mr. Dickens too. They would cooperate with this 10 -foot setback. And, with the building being back far enough. It does feel very awkward. And, I don't know how if you try to turn the house in a different direction you change the whole house design. We're going to violate the side yard setback on Cullen. I'm just discussing this with myself right now because I can't figure out what I want to say. I don't want to go on any longer so go ahead and just vote. Dorothy Wood: I'll sponsor Ms. McKinney if she has additional information. Geneva McKinney: Can I point out one thing from what he just told you? Ronald Ripley: If you're going to speak you need to come up. Geneva McKinney: He said that he would not put his dwelling. Ronald Ripley: They can't hear you. Geneva McKinney: He said that he would not put his dwelling beyond where my begins. When I spoke to Mr. Maggel, I believe his name is, he informed me and that is why I want to clear this up. This is my house right here. And, you see that little tip right there, now I'm saying by fair and I'm thinking they are saying right there because when I mentioned to Mr. Maggel on the phone that I wanted to start at the end of my garage, he told me that he could not do that. He would start it from the end of the front of my house and they're calling this right here the front of my house. I'm calling this area here from the garage to my entrance the front of my house and he comes along and says, okay, we'll build in line with the house. He will still be beyond the garage. I'm still going to have that problem. They can still put a storage house or whatever over that side. Once Item #16 Shore Ventures, L.L.C. Page 15 he builds and sells the people that buy and come in, I don't have any control over that. That's where I see the unpleasantness and the problem would come in with me dealing with whoever moves in there. And, I still say and you say you don't have clear plans, but I can see from here. This is my house. Across Cullen, that is the house on that: side. They are above my house where my house is. You say that no houses have entrance from Independence Boulevard that are being built on Independence Boulevard. No entrance drive. All of the houses on Independence Boulevard to my knowledge, except that one entrance come on Independence. Ronald Ripley: We're well aware of that. Ms. McKinney, I think if the City had to do it over again, they would design it a little different probably. But, we appreciate your comments but it's not uncommon to have the face of the house whatever the farther face the house would be the distance in which he would line up his house as I see it. To step it back away from the porch or whatever part of that house is, it's not uncommon to line up with whatever portion of the house is the closest to the street. It's typical. Okay. Charlie, do you want to try and restate your motion there? Please. Charlie Salle': Okay. My motion was to approve with the condition that no structure be built on Lot 2A within 10 feet of the southern property line. And, that any structure built on that lot be setback from Independence Boulevard a distance that would be equally to the residents located on the lot immediately to the south of Lot 2A. Ronald Ripley: Okay. That's the motion. Does the second agree with that? Dorothy Wood: That is on the main portion of her house, not the garage? We're talking about the main portion. Ronald Ripley: We have another question. Yes, Kathy? Kathy Katsias: She asked that it be starting at the garage and going back and not at the main portion of the house. Am I correct? Ronald Ripley: But that's not his motion. Kathy Katsias: Right. I was just confirming Dot. Also, the brother's house, which is next door is measured from Independence Boulevard back and according to this plat, they both are in line together. Correct? So, when Mrs. McKinney said the front of her garage to coincide with all the other homes was incorrect. Vernon Dickens: We both have an extension. If you look at the pictures I gave you, we both have an extension out. Kathy Katsais: Okay. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Item #16 Shore Ventures, L.L.C. Page 16 Kathy Katsias: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: I think we're ready to vote unless somebody has any other comments. I don't see any. We're ready. AYE 10 NAY 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER NAY RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote a 10-1, the motion passes. ABS 0 ABSENT 0 Map E-4 Gpin 1479-32-7191 ZONING HISTORY 1. Subdivision Variance (insufficient lot area) —Approved 1/26/99 ' Lk,BEq �r 0 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Catholic Diocese of Richmond — Street Closure MEETING DATE: April 8, 2003 ■ Background: Closure of Arctic Crescent beginning at the western boundary of Lot J and running east approximately 125 feet. Said parcel contains 2,304 feet. DISTRICT 6 — BEACH. ■ Considerations: On July 9, 2002, City Council approved the closure of a portion of Arctic Crescent with the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The applicant shall dedicate certain right- of-way to the City for Arctic Crescent as depicted on the Exhibits filed with the application. The net area of right-of-way being closed and vacated by the City, in excess of the area of right-of-way being dedicated to the City by the applicant will be purchased from the City. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant is required to re -subdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 3. The applicant is required to construct a cul-de-sac at the new terminus of Arctic Crescent at the western boundary of Lot J, and at the new terminus of Arctic Crescent, Arctic Circle and 14th Street at no cost to the City of Virginia Beach. A construction plan must be approved and bonded through the Development Services Center of the Planning Department prior to recordation of the street closure plat. 4. The applicant is required to verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are private utilities (Virginia Power and Virginia Natural Gas) within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company must be provided. Catholic Diocese of Richmond Page 2 of 2 5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a conditional use permit for a church for this area prior to recordation of the street closure plat. 6. A 20 -foot drainage easement is required along the northern portion of 14th Street and Arctic Crescent for the existing storm drainage pipe system. 7. A 20 -foot Public Utility easement shall be dedicated for each utility located within the proposed street closures. The existing utilities are a 6 inch water main and 24 inch gravity sanitary sewer. 8. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way, this approval shall be considered null and void. Since the time of the granting of that closure, the applicant has requested that area of closure be modified to the 2,304 square feet as depicted on the attached plat. The area to be closed is less than that previously approved, but the affect of the closure and the conditions of closure remain the same with the exception of Condition 3 which is modified to reflect the reduced area of closure. The revised Condition 3 is as follows: 3. The applicant is required to construct a cul-de-sac at the new terminus of Arctic Crescent, Arctic Circle and 14th Street at no cost to the City of Virginia Beach. A construction plan must be approved and bonded through the Development Services Center of the Planning Department prior to recordation of the street closure plat. ■ Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the modification. ■ Attachments: Ordinance Plat Location map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Submitting Depart ment/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: er: 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2 IN THE MATTER OF CLOSING, VACATING AND 3 DISCONTINUING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN 4 STREET KNOWN AS ARCTIC CRESCENT AS SHOWN 5 ON THAT CERTAIN PLAT ENTITLED: "PLAT 6 SHOWING PORTION OF ARCTIC CRESCENT TO BE 7 CLOSED & VACATED BY CITY COUNCIL OF 8 VIRGINIA BEACH." 9 10 WHEREAS, on July 9, 2002, Catholic Diocese of Richmond, applied to the Council 11 of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to have the hereinafter described street discontinued, closed, 12 and vacated; 13 ALL THAT certain piece or parcel of land situate, 14 lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, 15 Virginia, designated and described as "AREA OF 16 STREET CLOSURE, AREA OF CLOSURE -5.373 17 SQ. FT./ 0/123 ACRES" shown as the cross -hatched 18 area on that certain plat entitled: "PLAT SHOWING 19 PORTION OF ARCTIC CRESCENT TO BE 20 CLOSED & VACATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL 21 OF VIRGINIA BEACH" Scale: V = 40', dated May 22 14, 2002, prepared by Gallup Surveyors a copy of 23 which was attached as Exhibit A. 24 WHEREAS, it was the judgment of the Council that said street be discontinued, 25 closed, and vacated, subject to certain conditions being met on or before July 8, 2003; 26 WHEREAS, it is requested that the area of Arctic Crescent to be closed be modified 27 as follows: 28 ALL THAT certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in 29 the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated as "AREA TO BE 30 CLOSED 2,304 SQ. FT. (0.053 AC) shown as the hatched area on 31 that certain plat entitled: "PLAT SHOWING PORTION OF ARCTIC 32 CRESCENT TO BE CLOSED & VACATED BY THE CITY 33 COUNCIL OF VIRGINIA BEACH" a copy of which is attached 34 hereto as Exhibit 'A'. 35 WHEREAS, said request appears reasonable and is recommended for approval. 36 GPIN: (Parcel adjacent to these portions of street) 2427-16-5054-0000, 2427-15-5854-0000, 2417- 37 15-5054-0000 S 39 Me 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, that the hereinabove Ordinance be modified to discontinue, close and vacate the hereinabove street as follows: ALL THAT certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, designated as "PROPOSED R/W DEDICATION AREA 4,216.47 SQ. FT. (0.097 AC) shown as the crossed -hatched area on that certain plat entitled: "PLAT SHOWING PORTION OF ARCTIC CRESCENT TO BE CLOSED & VACATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF VIRGINIA BEACH" a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 'A'. Condition # 3 has been modified as follows: The applicant is required to construct a cul-de-sac at the new terminus of Arctic Crescent, Arctic Circle and 14' Street at no cost to the City of Virginia Beach. A construction plan must be approved and bonded through the Development Services Center of the Planning Department prior to recordation of the street closure plat. Conditions #1,2,4-8 of Ordinance #2715B approved by City Council on July 9, 2002 remain in effect. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this of , 2003. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: City Attorney Planning Ddpartment CA -8740 March 19, 2003 C:\Documents and Settings\jmsmith\Local Settings\Temp\ca8740.modification2 street.ord.wpd day st! $ LSC) ISYCL vMlgtln 'Igv3B YINptIN '011 otl� 3 SMOA3�MIK dfll IV COZ 'd 1 •B'n ZOOZ 'LZ MORMON --00-964"09— NOW WV38 VINIMM d0 WNnW JLLp 3HL M MLYOVA i 03S010 38 QL 1N30S3W 0OW �M ANON 7Mrl jo NOLLHOd 9NVAOHS 1V1d a 191 aNIAavd IIvNdsIo ' i i 'd l 'e•n 9K 'd 991 1'0 ^ �+ 9419-91-4xYia3do H0YM YL41MM JO Allo u d oix v 13a z i rlw - a+9n •. a 33=3Nn � "'/a lot aiaaia aitaav 3 y 6Y11-9l-CLIC l 3 Box •d •B•n rYmr.' P "+-� oL YTO1B 9l-LZYx v Ol 7 6 9 'L SLOT v 1Y 'd OLZ ' 7t 4 p LY19-91-4LYZ •1Nd0 B 13OW i�y - tl M .91.01 N t + + $ lY 'd OZZ '9'n .90'91 - 01;3OWd (•d4)031 r,a Y tll zoi,'a BOL d 1 Bn 'd OZZ a v7qD YoiYw OrloHLvo 1'f Y IS !D A1N3dOtld a w w+ O rlo9 Y 91xY . v3W NOMVOg30 Q350dOW SMONN ^ i l d l Id S 'B'n BOL 'dl BN 'uv. d9 lsm d �� } 1�d ...aa r9ow-u 9c .a'z M✓a .09 l J - 3UM13 !o v3W '3AV OILOVY MUM 133915 Ind !0 Y3W S3LON30 J 34 a Yr. c is u YCf d 49 90 '99 ♦ ss o d a Id 9n '011 d L 9n "053'NkMN '0'M 'M 101 30 1Wd 0N[3B '999 d d OH 9O NI 0 A M SCpus A Pry 3O9003tl AY'tl3NWLL SNYO SA" 3 SA" A1v3dOtld i -VI i30Wd 30 LWd AO 6z" 'd 999t 'I'Dd 19Ll 90 'EgLOI d OSC 90 K (1L d 9 B" '1N3"dOly.30 1gv3e *VA 'S 'ON dVN 'B 71J019 7l-9 5101 Altl3nW!) •ONS '521010Va1N00 ou d L on '*OS3 'mdmn •o•M !o Alviand !o Gong 7 • •9 r 5 'B Y Slol HOY39 VWHIA '999 d '201 00 'lx 'd 9 an' 00 LNdndoT3A30 1ov39 *VA SD" dvn 9 wol9 S 101 AW31Ytl03 W MO" .1 'd 9 an '"03 1N3"dO-G&W HOV30 VA'GVN dvn'v NOO1BU-1 SL01 ash S3313v313v !o lsn ,u-^ A,_ .4 , Catholic Diocese of Richmond ZONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Use Permit (Church / Additions) — Approved 4-12-94 Rezoning (R -5S Residential to RT -3 Resort Tourist) — Approved 6-9-92 Street Closure — Approved 3-10-92 2. Conditional Use Permit (Church / School Expansion) — Approved 5-9-95 Conditional Use Permit (School) — Approved 9-25-90 3. Conditional Use Permit (Parking Lot) — Approved 8-14-01 Conditional Use Permit (50 unit Motel) — Approved 11-8-65 Rezoning (R-3 Multiple Family Residence to M -H Motel -Hotel) and Conditional Use Permit (36 unit Motel) — Approved 8-10-64 4. Conditional Use Permit (Recreational Facility of an Outdoor Nature) — Approved 4-11-00 5. Conditional Use Permit (Recreational Facility of an Outdoor Nature) — Approved 1-26-93 6. Conditional Use Permit (Parking Lot) — Approved 2-14-95 7. Street Closure — Approved 3-10-98 8. Conditional Use Permit (Recreational Facility of an Outdoor Nature) — Approved 5-26-92 9. Street Closure — Approved 5-8-01 >A 6 ►• ori a4¢^^.i CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Robert K. Bell and Lang X. Bell — Modification of Conditions MEETING DATE: April 8, 2003 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Robert K. Bell and Lang X. Bell for a Modification of Conditions for a Conditional Rezoning approved by City Council on July 2, 2002. Property is located at 6041 Indian River Road (GPIN 1456523841). DISTRICT 1 — CENTERVILLE The purpose of this request is to modify the proffer regarding the site plan for the property. ■ Considerations: The property is currently developed with a single-family residential dwelling and is zoned R -5D Residential District. The applicants previously requested a change to commercial zoning so that the existing dwelling could be converted to an optician's office. The B-1 Neighborhood Business District was chosen as a zoning category over an Office classification because the owners also wanted a retail store for eyeglasses and accessories. The previous plan showed no additional building entrances for the former dwelling. Now, the applicants also want to include a gift shop in the building in addition to the optician's office and eyeglass sales area. Therefore, the proffer regarding the site plan must be modified to show the proposed additional front entrances. Proffer #1 specifies a particular site plan submitted with the previous change of zoning request. The site plan shows only one entrance at the front of the building. The applicant is now requesting two additional entrances at the front, and therefore, must modify this proffer. The modification reads: When the Property is re -developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "LANG OPTICAL — REZONING EXHIBIT," prepared by Lewis White and Associates, dated 9/24/02, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan"). Robert K and Lang X. Bell Page 2 of 2 The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the proposed uses are consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and adapts an existing structure to uses compatible with the surrounding area. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agecy: Planning Co City Manager: L' ��' ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL / # 4 March 12, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: B09 - 210 - MOD - 2003 REQUEST: Modification of Proffers placed on a conditional rezoning from R -5D Residential District to conditional B-1 Neighborhood Business District on July 2, 2002. ADDRESS: 6041 Indian River Road to Scale Aobert & Lan !► . .��g ft LS1■ r Ivar■ �at.i � I �� ■ � i��iaa J I' f ■� Ar1 1 i;'��r■ni}.1.1� I moi,.- S-1010 �NUgr■ �y 11• �� ill�M � V� • ■ �I 1A Br, Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 `= ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL /# 4 °•' Page 1 GPIN: 14565238410000 ELECTION DISTRICT: 1 - CENTERVILLE SITE SIZE: 0.42 acres STAFF PLANNER: Ashby Moss PURPOSE: To modify the proffer regarding the site plan for the property. The applicants previously requested a change to commercial zoning so that the existing dwelling could be converted to an optician's office. The B-1 Neighborhood Business District was chosen as a zoning category over an Office classification because the owners also wanted a retail store for eyeglasses and accessories. Accordingly, the previous plan showed no additional building entrances for the former dwelling. Now, the applicants also want to include a gift shop in the building in addition to the optician's office and eyeglass sales area. Therefore, the proffer regarding the site plan must be modified to show the proposed additional front entrances. In addition, the previous plan showed a 15 -foot landscape buffer around the property in which existing landscaping was to be retained. However, this buffer area was completely cleared. The applicants have agreed to a Category IV buffer and an additional landscape bed in front of the building to compensate for this violation. This buffer and additional landscaping are shown on the new plan. Major Issues: • Degree to which the proposed limited office and retail uses are compatible with the surrounding land uses and appropriate for the limited size of the site. ,14iA BE Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL /# 4 Page 2 Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The property is currently developed with a single-family residential dwelling and is zoned R -5D Residential District. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: • Across Indian River Road, gas stations and mixed office and retail uses / B-2 Community Business District East: • Very small piece of vacant land at the northwest corner of Indian River Road and Level Green Boulevard / R -5D Residential District • Across Level Green Boulevard, gas station / B-2 Community Business District South & Church / R -5D Residential District West: Zoning History The applicants were granted a change of zoning request on the subject property from R -5D Residential to conditional B-1 Neighborhood Business District July 2, 2002. One of the proffers associated with this conditional rezoning is the subject of the current Modification request. In addition, a number of auto -related businesses have received Conditional Use Permits in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. These include two gas stations across Indian River Road and one across Level Green Boulevard from the subject site. While the church immediately adjacent to the subject property seems to pre -date the requirement for a use permit, two other churches have been approved in recent years west of the site. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL / # 4 Page 3 Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer There is a 12 -inch water main in Indian River Road fronting the property and an 8 -inch water main in Level Green Boulevard at the southeast corner of the property. This site has a 5/8 -inch meter that may be utilized. There is an 8 -inch sanitary sewer force main in Indian River Road fronting the property and a 10 -inch sanitary sewer main in Level Green Boulevard at the southeast corner of the property. This site must connect to City sewer. Transportation Indian River Road in the vicinity of this application is currently a six lane divided major urban arterial. The MTP designates this roadway as a 150 foot divided right-of-way with controlled access. No further improvements are scheduled for this portion of Indian River Road in the current adopted CIP. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity 26,300— Existing Land Use — 12 ADT Indian River Road ADT' 48,200 ADT' s Proposed Land Use — 38 ADT Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by one dwelling unit 3 as defined by proposed office and accessory retail use Public Safety Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Fire and All building permits must be obtained for all construction Rescue: related to this project. All fire protection requirements will be required during the building permit process. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained prior to occupancy. 1A B_ Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL / # 4 Page 4 Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map recommends medium and high density (above 3.5 dwelling units per acre) suburban residential land use for this property. One of the Citywide policies lauded in the Plan is "Improved land use relationships." This policy supports "readapted development that carefully integrate(s) residential, commercial, employment and other acceptable uses for the purpose of achieving a complementary, well -organized, efficient and attractive arrangement of land uses. (p. 52) Summary of Proposal Proposal The Conditional Rezoning from R -5D Residential District to conditional B-1 Neighborhood Business District was approved by the City Council on July 2, 2002. The Conditional Rezoning has six proffers: 1. When the Property is re -developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "CONCEPT PLAN, LANG OPTICAL," prepared by Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Ltd., dated 14 FEB. 2002, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan"). 2. The freestanding monument style sign designated on the Site Plan shall be brick based monument style sign no greater than eight feet (8') in height. 3. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct light down onto the premises and away from adjoining property. 4. Category II Landscaping, as described in the Landscaping, Screening and Buffering Specifications and Standards of the City of Virginia Beach, will be provided adjacent to the sides and rear boundary of the Property as depicted on the Site Plan. 5. Only the following uses will be permitted on the Property: a) Business studios, office and clinics; b) Florists, gift shops and stationery stores; or c) Medical and dental offices and clinics; d) Optician with retail sales of eyewear. 6. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. Proffer #1 specifies a particular site plan submitted with the previous change of zoning request. The site plan shows only one entrance at the front of the building. The applicant is now requesting two additional entrances at the front, and therefore, must modify this proffer. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL / # 4 Page 5 Proffers PROFFER # 1 When the Property is re -developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "LANG OPTICAL — REZONING EXHIBIT," prepared by Lewis White and Associates, dated 9/24/02, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan"). Staff Evaluation: This proffer is acceptable. The new site plan shows the two additional front entrances requested by the applicant. The entrance to the west is for the gift shop and the entrance on the eastern corner is for a handicapped accessible entrance for the building. In addition, the plan has been revised to accurately reflect landscaping for the site. On the previous plan, the existing vegetation was to be preserved in the buffer area on the south, east, and west sides. However, once the previous rezoning was approved, the entire site was cleared. The revised plan shows a Category IV landscape buffer around the perimeter and an additional planting bed in front of the building, which were agreed upon as mitigation for the loss of existing vegetation. PROFFER # 2 The freestanding monument style sign designated on the Site Plan shall be brick based monument style sign no greater than eight feet (8') in height. Staff Evaluation: This proffer has not been modified. PROFFER # 3 All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct light down onto the premises and away from adjoining property. Staff Evaluation: This proffer has not been modified. PROFFER # 4 Category II Landscaping, as described in the Landscaping, Screening and Buffering Specifications and Standards of the City of Virginia Beach, will be provided adjacent to the sides and rear boundary of the Property as depicted on the Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL /# 4 Page 6 Site Plan. Staff Evaluation: This proffer has not been modified. PROFFER # 5 Only the following uses will be permitted on the Property: a) Business studios, office and clinics; b) Florists, gift shops and stationery stores; or c) Medical and dental offices and clinics; d) Optician with retail sales of eyewear. Staff Evaluation: This proffer has not been modified. PROFFER # 6 Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. Staff Evaluation: This proffer has not been modified. City Attorney's The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer Office: agreement dated January 14, 2003 and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Evaluation of Request The modification to Proffer #1 is reasonable and is recommended for approval. The new site plan accurately reflects proposed changes to the site. The applicant intends to have two separate businesses in the former dwelling: an optician's office with an accessory retail sales area and a gift shop. Despite the limited size of the site, the proposed uses are suitable for this property. Due to the site's isolation, the proposed uses will not impact neighboring properties. The eleven parking spaces exceed the parking requirement for the proposed uses. Even if the entire building were converted to a retail use, which requires the most parking of the permitted uses outlined in Proffer #5, the eleven parking spaces would exceed the parking requirement by one space. Therefore, this request is recommended for approval. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL /# 4 Page 7 NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL / # 4 Page 8 AINO ONINOZ3N IVNOIIICNO'3 80-4 .... .... ...... - - - -- - - - - - - - - A - JI JLIJ f7 - . . ......... ev L 110 1/ 4 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL / # 4 Page 9 35— 4 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL / # 4 Page 10 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL / # 4 Page 11 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name: ___._Robert_K. Bell & La��E_X. Bell _______Y________w___ List .All Current Property Owners: Robert K. Bell & Lang X. YBel.l.,, ,husband and w L.fe PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or ether unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) --------------------------------------------------------------------- If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Q Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: l certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Robert K. Bell Si fiature Print Name Lang K. Bell.. Modification of Conditions Application Page 9 of 13 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL / # 4 Page 12 Item #4 Robert K. Bell and Lang X. Bell Modification of Conditions 6041 Indian River Road District 1 Centerville March 12, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #4 which is the application of Robert K. Bell and Lang X. Bell for an ordinance upon application of Robert Bell and Lang Bell for Modifications of Conditions for a Conditional Rezoning approved by City Council July 2, 2002. The property is located on Indian River Road in the Centerville District. There are six proffers on there and with no conditions. Is there anyone here representing Robert Bell? Scott Alperin: Good afternoon. Scott Alperin once again, I'm here for Mr. Bourdon today. I'm sure you all figured that out. And, we agree with all the conditions. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Alperin. Scott Alperin: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Is there anyone here opposed to Item #4? Hearing none. Mr. Strange would you please comment on this item? Joseph Strange: Item #4 is a modification of proffers on a conditional rezoning from R-5 Residential District to a Conditional B-1. This has come before us before and it was modified for an Office variance there but since then they decided they want to add a gift shop to the optical business that they had there so this had to come back before us to change the proffers that it would comply with the B-1 zoning there for them. So the Comprehensive Plan recommends that we improve land use relationship and this policy supports that we adapt the development that carefully integrates residential commercial format and other acceptable uses for the purpose of achieving a complimentary, well - organized efficient and attractive arrangement of land uses. The applicant intends to have two separate businesses in the former dwelling. An optician's office with an accessory retail sales area and gift shop and the proposed uses are suitable for this property due to the site isolation. We feel that the proposed uses will not impact the neighboring properties and there is no opposition on this also. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Strange. Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve the consent item. Number 4 is Robert Bell and Lang Bell with six proffers. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve this consent agenda item as read. Do we have a second? Item #4 Robert K. Bell and Lang X. Bell Page 2 Charlie Salle': Second. Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Charlie Salle'. Motion made by Dot Wood. Any discussion? We're ready to vote. AYE 11 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 0 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0, the motion passes. FORM NO. P.S. 1B B�Ac�' UW. > 9 OF OUR No 'Otis City Of Virgin is Beac a In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF -5702 TO: Leslie L. Lilley FROM: B. Kay Wilson INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE RE: Conditional Zoning Application Robert K. Bell and Lang X. Bell DATE: March 26, 2003 DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney The above -referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on April 8, 2003. I have reviewed the subj ect proffer agreement, dated January 149 2003, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW Enclosure PREPARED BY: =SYK£S. BOURDON. £RN & LEVY. P.C. ROBERT K. and LANG X. BELL, husband and wife FIRST AMENDMENT TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH THIS AGREEMENT, made this 14th day of January, 2003, by and between I ROBERT K. BELL and LANG X. BELL, husband and wife, parties of the first part, Grantors; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the second part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors are the owners of a certain parcel of property located in the Centerville District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, containing approximately 0.42 acres as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached thereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property is subject to "Proffered Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions" dated March 10, 2002 accepted by the Grantee and recorded on July 15, 2002 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia as Instrument Number 200207153001008 ("Proffers"); and WHEREAS, the Grantors have initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to modify, in part, the previously proffered Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions governing development of the Property; and WHEREAS, the Grantors have requested the Grantee accept a modification to J Proffers numbered 1 as contained in the Proffers; and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and GPIN: 1456-52-3841 1 PREPARED BY: SYKKS, ROURDON. AHERN & LEVY, P.C. WHEREAS, the Grantors acknowledge that the competing and sometimes incompatible development of various types of uses conflict and that in order to permit differing types of uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change that will be created by the Grantors' proposed rezoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to resolve the situation to which the Grantors' rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantors have voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map with respect to the Property, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantors, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby makes the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantors, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in interest or title: 1. When the Property is re -developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "LANG OPTICAL - REZONING EXHIBIT", prepared by Lewis White and Associates, dated 9/24/02, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan") . K PREPARED BY: SYK£S. ROURDON. t HERN & LEVY. P.C. 2. The freestanding monument style sign designated on the Site Plan shall be brick based monument style sign no greater than eight feet (81 in height. 3. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct light down onto the premises and away from adjoining property. 4. Category II Landscaping, as described in the Landscaping, Screening and Buffering Specifications and Standards of the City of Virginia Beach, will be provided adjacent to the sides and rear boundary of the Property as depicted on the Site Plan. 5. Only the following uses will be permitted on the Property: a) Business studios, office and clinics; b) Florists, gift shops and stationery stores; or c) Medical and dental offices and clinics; d) Optician with retail sales of eyewear. 6. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site I Plan review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. All references hereinabove to B-1 District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantors and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing 3 PREPARED BY: =SYKPS. ROL'RDON. I£RN & LEVY, P.C. as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and if not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantors covenant and agree that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantors shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantors and the Grantee. M PREPARED BY: MSMS. BOURDON. URN & LEVY, P.C. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: GRANTORS; L,JI fi (SEAL) Robert K. Bell r SEAL) Lang Bell STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 14th day of January, 2003, by Robert K. Bell and Lang X. Bell, husband and wife, Grantors. My Commission Expires: August 31, 2006 5 Notary Public EXHIBIT "A" All that certain piece or parcel of land lying, situate and being in the Centerville District of the City of Virginia Beach, being described as beginning at a point in the southern line of the right of way of the Indian River Road at its intersection Nvith the dividing line between the property above described and the property of Roland E. Russell, and running thence southerly along said Russell's western line 150 feet, more or less, to an iron pin; thence N. 83° 21' W. 114 feet, more or less, to another iron pin; thence N. 01 ° 27' E. 223 feet, more or less, to an iron pin in the southern line of the right of way of Indian River Road; thence along said right of way line S. 52° 30'E. 142 feet to the point of beginning. Less and except that portion of the property conveyed to the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by Warranty Deed dated January 23, 1975 as recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach in Deed Book 1467, at Page 656. Said parcel containing approximately 0.422 acres is depicted on that plat recorded in the afore referenced Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1459, at Page 120. GPIN: 1456-52-3841 MODCONDITIONS/BELL/ PROFFER PREPARED 9Y: Ma SYK£S. $OURDON. AH£RN & LEVY, P.C. 0 Map DL40 f1 coirir T KryloMoff TIT OUR f `'I .. ,,,•I__'-� �, � . =� HOW" 0110��,,r ftWPRE �/% fill lop Gpin 1465-83-3 733 ZONING HISTORY 1. 7/11/83 — REZONING from A-1 Apartment District to B-2 Community Business District - DENIED 5/29/90 — REZONING from A-12 Apartment District to Conditional B-2 Business District -APPROVED 5/29/90 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for gas pumps - APPROVED 4/23/91 - RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS for gas pumps - APPROVED 4/10/01 — MODIFICATION OF PROFFERS - APPROVED 4/10/01 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for car wash -APPROVED 2. 01/08/02 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for senior housing -APPROVED -38 - Item 38 - Item V J. S. PLANNING ITEM # 48026 (Continued) Voting: 6-4 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Rosemary Wilson Council Members Voting Nay: Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Barbara M. Henley, Reba S. McClanan and Nancy K. Parker Council Members Absent: William W. Harrison, Jr. April 10, 2001 -37 - Item V -J.5. PLANNING ITEM # 48026 Attorney Edward Bourdon represented the applicant Upon motion by Council Lady Eure, seconded by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council MODIFIED the OSCAR L. EVERETT, III, CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT (Oil Equipment Properties, Approved April 23, 1992) and, ADOPTED an Ordinance for a Conditional Use Permit: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF OSCAR L. EVERETT, III, MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT (Oil Equipment Properties, Approved April 23, 1991) and FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CAR WASH R04013044 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of Oscar L. Everett, III, for modification of Conditional Zoning Agreement for Oil Equipment Properties recorded on April 29, 1991, in Deed Book 2982, Page 1236, and approved by City Council on April 23, 1991 and for a Conditional Use Permit for a car wash. Property is located at 2530 Lynnhaven Parkway (GPIN #1465-83- 3733) and contains 3.124 acres. CENTERVILLE - DISTRICT I The following conditions shall be required: 1. One monument -style free-standing sign may be installed on the parcel as indicated on the submitted site plan. There shall be no signs installed on the building. 2. An on-site manager must be present during hours of 8: 00 a. m. to 5: 00 p. m. 3. No outside speakers will be allowed. 4. Approval for encroachment into the existing drainage easement for the vacuum spaces in the rear of the site must be granted by City Council 5. Hours of operation for the car wash shall be 6: 00 a. m. to 10: 00 p.m. as provided for in the Conditional Zoning Agreement for this property recorded in the Clerk's Office of'the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach. 6. The site layout and overall design, landscaping, and building appearance shall be as provided for in the Conditional Zoning Agreement for this property recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach. This Ordinance shall be effective in accordance with Section 107 (f) of the Zoning Ordinance. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the Tenth ofApril, Two Thousand One April 10, 2001 4 1p�{O wx .1 To CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Oscar L. Everett, III — Modification of a Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: April 8, 2003 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Oscar L. Everett, III for a Modification of a Conditional Use Permit for a car wash approved by City Council on April 10, 2001. Property is located at 2530 Lynnhaven Parkway and contains 3.124 acres (GPIN 1465833733). DISTRICT 1 — CENTERVILLE The purpose of this request is to modify the condition regarding signage for the car wash operation. ■ Considerations: There is an existing convenience store with gas pumps on the northern portion of this site, at the corner of Lynnhaven Parkway and Indian River Road. There is a recently constructed car wash building located on the southern portion of the site. The site is zoned Conditional B-2 subject to proffers. Those proffer agreements tie the development of the site to a specific site plan with the specific uses of gas station, convenience store and car wash, govern hours of operation and preclude certain other uses on the property. The applicant's request is not in conflict with the proffer agreement. The request is focused on the car wash operation and the conditions associated with the Conditional Use Permit granted for the car wash. The Conditional Use Permit permitting the car wash was approved by the City Council on April 10, 2001. Condition #1., to be modified, reads as follows: 1. One monument—style freestanding sign may be installed on the parcel as indicated on the submitted site plan. There shall be no signs installed on the building. The applicant is requesting a modification of condition #1 to allow signage on the building in lieu of a freestanding sign. The applicant's preference when requesting the original Conditional Use Permit for the car wash was for a freestanding sign in lieu of a building sign. The applicant is now requesting a sign on the building instead. Oscar Everett, III Page 2 of 2 The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because it is a modification to an existing use. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the proposal. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request subject to the following conditions: 1. No freestanding sign, other than the existing monument sign at the corner of Lynnhaven Parkway and Indian River road, will be allowed on this site. Signage may be placed on the car wash building in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. An on-site manager must be present during hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 3. No outside speakers will be allowed. 4. Approval for encroachment into the existing drainage easement for the vacuum spaces in the rear of the site must be granted by City Council. 5. Hours of operation for the car wash shall be 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., as provided for in the Conditional Zoning Agreements for this property recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach in Deed Book 2913 Page 0526 and Deed Book 4396 Page 2044. 6. The site layout and overall design, landscaping, and building appearance shall be as provided for in the Conditional Zoning Agreements for this property recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach in Deed Book 2913 Page 0526 and Deed Book 4396 Page 2044. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/A ency: Planning Departme *WI4__ City Manager: S' OSCAR L. EVERETT, III / # 12 March 12, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: D10 -210 -MOD -2003 REQUEST: Modification of Conditions placed on a Conditional Use Permit for a car wash on April 10, 2001. ADDRESS: 2530 Lynnhaven Parkway Ax__ GPIN: 14658337330000 ELECTION DISTRICT: 1 — CENTERVILLE Gpin 1465-83-3733 IAB F Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 U OSCAR L. EVERETT, III / # 12 o� Page 1 E IF .•., ez��,/ I. AN= niitl /1I F 4i. .r GPIN: 14658337330000 ELECTION DISTRICT: 1 — CENTERVILLE Gpin 1465-83-3733 IAB F Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 U OSCAR L. EVERETT, III / # 12 o� Page 1 SITE SIZE: 3.124 acres STAFF PLANNER: Barbara J. Duke PURPOSE: To modify the condition regarding signage for the car wash operation. Major Issues: • The change in signage requested must result in the same level of quality as the original proposal Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning There is an existing convenience store with gas pumps on the northern portion of this site, at the corner of Lynnhaven Parkway and Indian River Road. There is a recently constructed car wash building located on the southern portion of the site. The site is zoned Conditional B-2 subject to proffers recorded in Deed Book 2913 Page 0526 and Deed Book 4396 Page 2044. Surrounding Land Use and Zoninci North: . Townhouses / A-12 Apartment District. South: . Lake (stormwater facility) / R-10 Residential District East: • Single -Family Homes / R -5D Residential District West: . Open Space / P-1 Preservation District and R-7.5 Residential District Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 OSCAR L. EVERETT, III / # 12 Page 2 Zoning History Listed below are the zoning actions on the subject property: 7/11/83 — REZONING from A-1 Apartment District to B-2 Community Business District — DENIED 5/29/90 — CONDITIONAL REZONING from A-12 Apartment District to Conditional B-2 Business District - APPROVED 5/29/90 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for gas pumps — APPROVED 4/23/91 - RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS for gas pumps - APPROVED 4/10/01 — MODIFICATION OF PROFFERS - APPROVED 4/10/01 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for car wash - APPROVED Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of 65 to 70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for retail, service, and other compatible uses within commercial centers servicing surrounding neighborhoods and communities. Summary of Proposal Proposal The subject site is zoned Conditional B-2 Community Business District and development on the site must comply with the proffer agreements recorded in Deed Book 2913 Page 0526 and Deed Book 4396 Page 2044. Those proffer agreements tie the development of the site to a specific site plan with the specific uses of gas station, convenience store and car wash, govern hours of operation and preclude certain other uses on the property. The applicant's request is not in conflict with the proffer agreements. The request is focused on the car wash operation and the conditions associated with the Conditional Use Permit granted for the car wash. The Conditional Use Permit permitting the car wash was approved by the City Council on April 10, 2001. The Conditional Use Permit has six conditions: Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 OSCAR L. EVERETT, III / # 12 Page 3 1. One monument—style freestanding sign may be installed on the parcel as indicated on the submitted site plan. There shall be no signs installed on the building. 2. An on-site manager must be present during hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 3. No outside speakers will be allowed. 4. Approval for encroachment into the existing drainage easement for the vacuum spaces in the rear of the site must be granted by City Council. 5. Hours of operation for the car wash shall be 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. as provided for in the Conditional Zoning Agreement for this property recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach. 6. The site layout and overall design, landscaping, and building appearance shall be as provided for in the Conditional Zoning Agreement for this property recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the city of Virginia Beach. The applicant is requesting a modification of condition #1 to allow signage on the building in lieu of a freestanding sign. Evaluation of Request The modification to Condition #1 appears to be reasonable and is recommended for approval. The original condition was placed on the application because there was a concern that with the multiple uses on the site, multiple signage could compromise the aesthetics of the site. There is already an existing monument style sign at the corner of Lynnhaven Parkway and Indian River Road advertising the gas station and convenience store. The applicant's preference when requesting the Conditional Use Permit for the car wash was for a freestanding sign in lieu of a building sign. Due to the cost involved in formally subdividing the car wash site from the total parcel to allow the second freestanding sign, the applicant has now decided to forego the freestanding sign and use signage on the building. This request is acceptable to staff as the goal is to have building signage or a freestanding sign, but not both. The request is recommended for approval subject to the conditions below. Conditions 2 through 6 were attached to the original Conditional Use Permit. Conditions 1. No freestanding sign, other than the existing monument sign at the corner of Lynnhaven Parkway and Indian River road, will be allowed on this site. Signage may be placed on the car wash building in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. An on-site manager must be present during hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. �N1A'BEA Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 OSCAR L. EVERETT, III / # 12 Page 4 3. No outside speakers will be allowed. 4. Approval for encroachment into the existing drainage easement for the vacuum spaces in the rear of the site must be granted by City Council. 5. Hours of operation for the car wash shall be 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., as provided for in the Conditional Zoning Agreements for this property recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach in Deed Book 2913 Page 0526 and Deed Book 4396 Page 2044. 6. The site layout and overall design, landscaping, and building appearance shall be as provided for in the Conditional Zoning Agreements for this property recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach in Deed Book 2913 Page 0526 and Deed Book 4396 Page 2044. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See Section 220(8) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 OSCAR L. EVERETT, III / # 12 Page 5 Ale . IV - fl � K_ :" ro ar nvo , :�d a p � reek BlvC v U.�r@To'lK Ore !To M iTi DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name: Oscar L. -Everett. III _______________-____r_______--- List All Current Property Owners: - Oscar L. _Everett. .-III --------------------------- PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) ------------------------------------------------ --------------- - ----------------------- ---------------------------------------- If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) — ----------------------------------------------- — -------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 0 Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) — ------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------- --------------------------------------- — ---- If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list If n-ecessary) ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ — --------- — ------------------------------- B Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify 1*91t�fie information contained herein is true acid ceccu,7,,te. -1, Oscar L. Everett, III Sign u'r e Print Name Modification of Conditions Application Page 9 of 13 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 OSCAR L. EVERETT, III / # 12 Page 7 9 Item #12 Oscar L. Everett, III Modification of a Conditional Use Permit 2530 Lynnhaven Parkway District 1 Centerville March 12, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #12. An application of Oscar Everett for a Modification of a Conditional Use Permit for a car wash approved by City Council April 101) 2001. This is located on Lynnhaven Parkway in the Centerville District and it has six conditions. Is Mr. Everett here or anyone representing him? Mr. Bourdon, sorry Mr. Alperin? Scott Alperin: Same height just different names. Scott Alperin, attorney for Mr. Everett. We agree with the conditions. Dorothy Wood: Is there any opposition to Oscar L. Everett, application for a modification of a Conditional Use Permit for a car wash? Hearing none. Mr. Horsley, would you please comment on this item? Donald Horsley: Yes ma'am. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Donald Horsley: Item #12, the car wash. It's just a modification of conditions that were on the previous application and it's just a signage issue. What this is doing is allowing for a sign to be placed on the building. In the former conditions it was not allowed so we modified condition #1 and also we want to emphases that we have had some comment from some of the neighbors that maybe the hours haven't been adhered to as they should have been in our condition #5, so we would like to bring that to the applicant's attention that there are people out there watching those hours and will be forwarded on the appropriate staff, so we feel like there is no opposition other than the concern about the hours so we felt like that deserved consent agenda status also. Thank you ma'am. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Horsley. Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve this consent item. Number 12 is Oscar Everett, application for a Use Permit for a car wash with six conditions. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda item as read. Do we have a second? Charlie Salle': Second. Item #12 Oscar L. Everett, III Page 2 Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Charlie Salle'. Motion made by Dot Wood. Any discussion? We're ready to vote. AYE 11 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 0 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0, the motion passes. Gpin 1456-52-3841 ZONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Rezoning (A-12 Apartment District to cond. B-2 Business District) Approved 4-26-94 2. Conditional Use Permit (gas/ wash/ food) Approved 8-8-88 Conditional Use Permit (auto repair shop) Approved 4-20-81 Conditional Use Permit (bulk storage yard) Withdrawn 1-14-80 Rezoning (B-2 Business to 1-1 Industrial) Withdrawn 1-14-80 3. Conditional Use Permit (church) Approved 1-27-98 Conditional Use Permit (small engine repair) Approved 4-14-98 4. Conditional Use Permit (church) Approved 10-10-00 5. Conditional Use Permit (gas & car wash) Approved 10-27-86 6. Rezoning (A-1 Apartment to B-2 Business) Approved 5-12-86 7. Conditional Use Permit (car wash) Approved 12-12-83 8. Conditional Use Permit (gas station / conv. store) Approved 2-13-84 9. Conditional Use Permit (microwave link) Approved 10-18-82 Rezoning (A-1 Apartment to B-2 Business) Approved 12-14-81 10. Conditional Use Permit (mini -warehouses) Approved 2-27-78 11. Conditional Use Permit (mini -warehouses) Approved 7-10-78 12. Street Closure Approved 8-19-74 Conditional Use Permit (gas station) Approved 12-15-80 13. Rezoning (R -5D Residential to conditional B-1 Business) Approved 7-2-02 o k j CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: St. Nicholas Catholic Church — Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: April 8, 2003 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of St. Nicholas Catholic Church for a Conditional Use Permit for a columbarium at 712 Little Neck Road (GPIN 1488805079). Parcel contains 11.959 acres. DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN The purpose of this request is to construct a wall mounted columbarium, associated with the existing church on the property, containing 100 niches for the internment of human cremains. ■ Considerations: The almost 12 acre site is currently zoned R-10 Residential District. There is an existing church, asphalt parking lot, and a home for boys. The site plan depicts the existing church and asphalt parking lot and the home for boys. The proposed columbarium is shown on the northwest corner of the existing church building. The exterior curved wall, the wall facing the parking lot, will be constructed of brick to match that of the existing church. The wall is proposed at six (6) feet nine (9) inches high with a length of 17 feet. The elevation depicts a white brick or EFIS cap at the top of the wall. The fagade facing the church will have a granite face niches with brick columns spaced intermittently. A brick foundation is planned to the water table. Brick pavers are proposed in the small courtyard adjacent to the columbarium. The area proposed for the columbarium is currently landscaped, thereby providing an attractive area for visitors. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because it is an extension of an existing use and is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended approval. There was no opposition to the request. St. Nicholas Catholic Church Page 2 of 2 ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The conditions attached to the original Conditional Use Permit and the three (3) subsequent permits granted by City Council shall remain in effect with the addition of the columbarium to the site. 2. The columbarium shall be located in the area shown on the submitted site plan entitled "Saint Nicholas Catholic Church Columbarium," prepared by COMPO Construction Company, dated January 13,2003. 3. The wall shall be constructed of brick and mortar with all niches facing the church building as depicted on the submitted elevation entitled, "Columbarium for St. Nicholas Catholic Church, Virginia Beach, Virginia," prepared by Barnes Design Group, with dimensions not to exceed seven (7) feet in height and eighteen (18) feet in length. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen City Manager:�L, ST. NICHOLAS CATHOLIC CHURCH / #i General Information: APPLICATION NUMBER: G06 -210 -CUP -2003 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a columbarium. ADDRESS: 712 Little Neck Road March 12, 2003 t. Nicholas Catholic C ,i —10 / 00O� 092 G PI N : 14888050790000 ELECTION DISTRICT: 5 - LYNNHAVEN s� 021 Gpin 1488-80-5079 501 Noll 3, KINGS G:t4NT R -10%— T ELEMENTGR" SCHOOL 0 os NIA'Bfq Planning Commission Agendqj a'i� 2 March 12, 2003 ST. NICHOLAS CATHOLIC CHURCH / # 8;. Page 1 SITE SIZE: 11.96 acres STAFF PLANNER: Carolyn A.K. Smith PURPOSE: To construct a wall mounted columbarium, associated with the existing church on the property, containing 100 niches for the internment of human cremains. Major Issues: • Degree to which the proposal is complementary to the existing church uses and compatible with the surrounding uses. • Visibility of structure to neighboring properties and from the public street. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existina Land Use and Zonina The almost 12 acre site is currently zoned R-10 Residential District. There is an existing church, asphalt parking lot, and a home for boys. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: • Single-family dwellings / R-10 Residential District South: . North Lynnhaven Road, single-family dwellings / R-10 Residential District East: . Kings Grant Elementary School and single-family dwellings / R-10 Residential District West: . Little Neck Road • Duplex residential units / R -5D Residential District 1N1A'B£q Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 ST. NICHOLAS CATHOLIC CHURCH / # 8 Page 2 Zig History The original Conditional Use Permit for the existing church (and also a school) was granted by City Council on June 12, 1961. Only one condition was attached that required at least one parking space for each four (4) seats in the sanctuary. Since that time, three (3) other Conditional Use Permits were granted on this property: a day care for the elderly in 1995, an addition to the church in 1987, and a group home for children in 1984. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer This site is already connected to City water and sewer. Transportation Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Existing Land Use - 330 ADT Little Neck Road 16,775 ADT' 28,200 ADT' weekday 1,327 ADT Sunday North Lynnhaven Road 4,350 ADT' 6,200 ADT' Proposed Land Use 3— No traffic data exists for columbarium use 'Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by existing church 3 The additional traffic is not anticipated to significantly impact the existing roadway Public Safety Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and strategies as Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 ST. NICHOLAS CATHOLIC CHURCH I # 8 Page 3 they pertain to this site. Fire and Adequate — no further comments. Rescue: Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map recommends medium density suburban residential development for this site. Summary of Proposal Proposal • To construct a wall mounted columbarium that will contain three (3) columbarium units with 100 niches (eight inches by eight inches) for the internment of human cremains. Site Design • The site plan depicts the existing church and asphalt parking lot and the home for boys. The proposed columbarium is shown on the northwest corner of the existing church building. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access • Pedestrian access within the site appears to be adequate. • Vehicular traffic currently enters and exits the site via Little Neck Road and North Landing Road. Access to the columbarium will be via these rights-of- way. Architectural Design • The exterior curved wall, the wall facing the parking lot, will be constructed of brick to match that of the existing church. The wall is proposed at six (6) feet Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 ST. NICHOLAS CATHOLIC CHURCH / # 8 Page 4 nine (9) inches high with a length of 17 feet. The elevation depicts a white brick or EFIS cap at the top of the wall. The fagade facing the church will have a granite face niches with brick columns spaced intermittently. A brick foundation is planned to the water table. • Brick pavers are proposed in the small courtyard adjacent to the columbarium. Landscape and Open Space Design • The area proposed for the columbarium is currently landscaped, thereby providing an attractive area for visitors. • No landscaping is proposed along the exterior wall; however, it does not appear that plant material is necessary to screen the structure as it is not unattractive and will not be highly visible from either public right-of-way. Evaluation of Request The applicant's request to have a columbarium on the subject site is acceptable. The proposed use will generate little activity beyond what is normally associated with a church. The actual structure for the columbarium is attractively designed and will not be highly visible from the street. Therefore, this application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions 1. The conditions attached to the original Conditional Use Permit and the three (3) subsequent permits granted by City Council shall remain in effect with the Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 ST. NICHOLAS CATHOLIC CHURCH / # 8 Page 5 addition of the columbarium to the site. 2. The columbarium shall be located in the area shown on the submitted site plan entitled "Saint Nicholas Catholic Church Columbarium," prepared by COMPO Construction Company, dated January 13,2003. 3. The wall shall be constructed of brick and mortar with all niches facing the church building as depicted on the submitted elevation entitled, "Columbarium for St. Nicholas Catholic Church, Virginia Beach, Virginia," prepared by Barnes Design Group, with dimensions not to exceed seven (7) feet in height and eighteen (18) feet in length. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See Section 220(8) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 ST. NICHOLAS CATHOLIC CHURCH / # 8 Page 6 Planning Commission Agenda�� = 2 March 12 2003 "~ ST. NICHOLAS CATHOLIC CHURCH8 # a _x / Page 7 �N1A'BPq Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 ST. NICHOLAS CATHOLIC CHURCH / # 8 Page 8 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 ST. NICHOLAS CATHOLIC CHURCH / # 8 Page 9 Aft AM DI LOSURE STATEMEN2q Applicant's Name:.., Z, List All Current Property Owners: Z/ t ----Z 10�4 A 6Z /C 4 APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) heck here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Property Owner Disclosure section below. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) 6�Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Signature Print Name Conditional Use Permit Application Page 8 of 12 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 ST. NICHOLAS CATHOLIC CHURCH / # 8 Page 11 V71 Item #8 St. Nicholas Catholic Church Conditional Use Permit 176-182 South Birdneck Road District 6 Beach March 12, 2003 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #8, St. Nicholas Catholic Church. It's an Ordinance upon Application of St. Nicholas Catholic Church for a Conditional Use Permit for columbarium on Little Neck Road. This is in the Lynnhaven District and has three conditions. Is there anyone here representing St. Nicholas Catholic Church? Gerald Riendeau: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman. Members. I'm Jerry Riendeau. I am Chairman of the Columbarium Committee at St. Nicholas Catholic Church. I have read the conditions and I think, fairly stated, and have no objections to them. There is one street misidentification. Is that correct to bring that up now? Ronald Ripley: If it's material, sure. Gerald Riendeau: On vehicular pedestrian access we have North Landing Road. It's North Lynnhaven Road. I understand the proximately to North Landing but it is North Lynnhaven. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. Ronald Ripley: Okay. We'll get that. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any objection to the columbarium at St. Nicholas Catholic Church, item #8? Hearing none. Mr. Horsley, would you please comment on this item? Donald Horsley: Yes ma'am. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Donald Horsley: Item #8, St. Nicholas Catholic Church the request for a columbarium. We feel like this is going to generate very little activity over what is normally projected at the church. And, it has been designed to be an attractive addition to the church so with no objection, there are three conditions and the applicant has willingly accepted those so we feel like that deserves consent agenda status. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Horsley. Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve this consent item. Number 8 is St. Nicholas Catholic Church with three conditions. Item #8 St. Nicholas Catholic Church Page 2 Ronald Ripley: We have a motion to approve this consent agenda item as read. Do we have a second? Charlie Salle': Second. Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Charlie Salle'. Motion made by Dot Wood. Any discussion? We're ready to vote. AYE 11 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 0 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0, the motion passes. �l• �•.h 1 ! 1 �7 r� 7 I1 • � 7 • 7 � � 7 7 • t• y y ZONING HISTORY 1. Rezoning (AG -2 Agricultural to R-5 Residential) Approved 2-10-86 Conditional Use Permit (church) Approved 6-1-87 Conditional Use Permit (church) Approved 12-14-87 Conditional Use Permit (preschool) Approved 6-14-94 Conditional Use Permit (church expansion) Approved 9-24-96 Conditional Use Permit (church expansion -renewal) Approved 10-2-01 2. Subdivision Variance Approved 10-13-92 3. Rezoning (AG -1&2 Agricultural to R-5 Residential) Approved 2-10-86 4. Rezoning (AG -1 &2 Agricultural to R-5 Residential) Approved 10-19-87 5. Rezoning (AG -1 Agricultural to B-2 Business) Withdrawn 2-10-86 6. Rezoning (AG -1 Agricultural to R-5 Residential) Approved 7-8-85 7. AG -1 &2 Agricultural to R-5 Residential) Approved 9-14-87 J� r esiy�'y'1 r x.i CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Courthouse Community United Methodist Church — Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: April 8, 2003 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Courthouse Community United Methodist Church for a Conditional Use Permit for a church expansion on property located at 2708 Princess Anne Road (GPIN 1494557644; 1494557657). Parcel contains 6.33 acres. DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE The purpose of this request is to expand the building by 5,570 square feet for additional classroom space and create additional parking areas. ■ Considerations: The property is currently in use for a church and preschool. The property is zoned R-10 Residential District. The church proposes to construct a 5,570 square foot building addition, which will increase the total floor area to 17,130 square feet. The building addition is for office and classroom space and does not include an addition to the sanctuary. A parking lot expansion is also proposed increasing the total number of spaces from 36 to 154. The area on the southwestern side of the property is being reserved for a potential future expansion of the sanctuary. The "Future Parking" and "Future Sanctuary" shown on the plan is shown for demonstration purposes only and is not approved with this Conditional Use Permit. This much needed addition will allow for the removal of the two modular units placed on the site over six years ago. The site plan accommodates potential entrance relocations planned with projects for improving Princess Anne Road. The additions will match the existing church design and the site will be landscaped to ensure adequate buffering for the neighborhood to the north. Staff recommended approval. There was opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: Courthouse Community United Methodist Church Page 2 of 2 The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed as depicted in the submitted site plan entitled, "Courthouse Community United Methodist Church, Virginia Beach, Virginia" dated November 11, 2002 by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., and as conditioned below. The "Future Parking" and "Future Sanctuary" shown on the plan is not included with this Conditional Use Permit. 2. The building addition shall be constructed as depicted in the submitted elevations entitled, "Alterations and Addition to Courthouse Community UMC, Virginia Beach, Virginia" dated November 27, 2002 by Lyall Design Architects. 3. The modular units shall be removed from the property prior to issuing the Certificate of Occupancy for the expansion. 4. A Category IV landscape buffer shall be installed along the northeastern property line between the proposed improvements and the adjacent residential area. 5. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded to direct light and glare onto the property; said lighting and glare shall be deflected, shaded, and focused away from adjoining property. Any outdoor lighting fixtures shall not be erected any higher than 14 feet. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen .�--� City Manager:rL ' COURTHOUSE COMMUNITY UNITED I METHODIST CHURCH / # 7 March 12, 2003 General Information: APPLICATION 112 -210 -CUP -2002 NUMBER: REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a church expansion ADDRESS: 2708 Princess Anne Road Mq , -,0 MInc sccl Courthouse Communitv United Methodist Church EW C > 3133 \v / AG -2(64 l Q -10 CrA c Gpin 1494-55-7644 & 7657 GPIN: 14945576440000 and 14945576570000 (taxed portion) NtA•BFy Planning Commission Agenda u March 12, 2003 COURTHOUSE COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 7 Page 1 ELECTION DISTRICT: 7 - PRINCESS ANNE SITE SIZE: 6.328 acres STAFF PLANNER: Ashby Moss PURPOSE: To expand the building by 5,570 square feet for additional classroom space and create additional parking areas. Major Issues: • Degree to which the proposal is compatible with neighboring properties. • Site adaptability to location of new entrances planned with the Virginia Department of Transportation's Princess Anne Road improvements and the Princess Anne Corridor Study. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The property is currently in use for a church and preschool. The property is zoned R-10 Residential District. Surrounding Land Use and Zonin North & East: • Single-family dwellings (Courthouse Farms subdivision) / R-10 Residential District South: . (Across Princess Anne Road) Single-family 1A -B Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 a;`= COURTHOUSE COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 7 Page 2 dwellings / AG -2 Agricultural District West: • Wooded land / AG -2 Agricultural District Zoning History A Change of Zoning from AG -2 Agricultural District to R-5 (later converted to R-10) Residential District was approved on the subject site in 1986. Two Conditional Use Permits for a church were approved in 1987 for two different portions of the property. The June 1, 1987 approval included property north of the church all the way back to a Virginia Power right-of-way but did not include much of the existing church property on the eastern side. One of the conditions of this approval was that only temporary access be permitted on Princess Anne Road. Later that year on December 14, 1987, the northern part of the property was removed from the Use Permit and the existing eastern portion of the property was included. A similar condition was included with the Conditional Use Permit forbidding any permanent access on Princess Anne Road. Access was planned to be from London Bridge Road Extended, which was anticipated to run immediately adjacent to the northwestern side of the church site. The alignment of this roadway, however, has since shifted further to the northwest away from the church site. This makes it difficult to currently require that there be no access to Princess Anne Road, since the only way to gain access to the site would be through the property to the west, which is in private ownership. The map on page 11 of this report, which is from the Princess Anne Corridor Study, shows the eventual concept for accessing this property when the full roadway system is built out. This issue is discussed further in the Vehicular and Pedestrian Access portion of this report. In 1994, a Conditional Use Permit for a preschool at the church was approved. On September 24, 1996, a Conditional Use Permit was approved to place modular units on the site. This Use Permit contained a specific condition that the modular units be removed within four years of the approval or that the applicant pursue a new Conditional Use Permit. The applicant pursued the second option, and another Conditional Use Permit was approved October 2, 2001 extending the time limit for the modular units for another two years. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of 65 to 70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 COURTHOUSE COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 7 Page 3 WB i=i++ Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer This site is already connected to City water and sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Princess Anne Road in the vicinity of this application is currently a two lane undivided major suburban arterial. The roadway facility is designated on the MTP as a 250 -foot parkway. There is currently a Virginia Department of Transportation project programmed in the CIP (#2-305) to improve this facility to a four lane divided facility with landscaping and aesthetic treatments associated with the Princess Anne Corridor Plan. The project design is approximately 65 percent complete, and a Design Public Hearing is anticipated in the late spring of 2003. Traffic Calculations: Street Present Present Generated Traffic Name Volume Ca acit Princess 22,600 ADT 18,400 ADT Level of No change in traffic generation is Anne Road Service E anticipated with the expansion request. 'Average Daily Trips Public Safety Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the Crime Prevention Office within the Police Department for crime prevention techniques and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (OPTED) concepts and strategies as they pertain to this site. Fire and Fire Department concerns will be addressed during the building Rescue: permit process. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 COURTHOUSE COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 7 Page 4 Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area for low-density suburban residential uses at or below 3.5 dwelling units per acre. Churches are recognized in the Comprehensive Plan as legitimate support uses compatible with residential land uses. Summary of Proposal Proposal • The church proposes to construct a 5,570 square foot building addition, which will increase the total floor area to 17,130 square feet. The building addition is for office and classroom space and does not include an addition to the sanctuary. A parking lot expansion is also proposed increasing the total number of spaces from 36 to 154. Site Design • The existing church is an L-shaped one-story brick and frame building with parking on the north and west sides of the building. • The 5,570 square foot expansion is proposed on the northeast side of the building. The new parking area is shown north of the building in the area of the existing paved parking lot. A stormwater management facility is shown in the far northern corner of the property. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 COURTHOUSE COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 7 Page 5 I yt aa2 laa 1?lGt.f &jcy VIIB � March 12, 2003 V L =` COURTHOUSE COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH # 7 / '� •��°�'°°°j Page 6 f 1 ,� VL.. XMO..aYIYMDa4 Y! «we f2, �►,' s` ry °"w'°` �,a ear.,._._. t �1 tl t _ ....................... ♦ �MIM[eftaMM '� i cla� use pa • The area on the east side of the building is an open grassed field that abuts the rear yards of a number of single-family homes in the Courthouse Farms neighborhood. • The area on the southwestern side of the property is being reserved for a potential future expansion of the sanctuary. The "Future Parking" and "Future Sanctuary" shown on the plan is shown for demonstration purposes only and is not approved with this Conditional Use Permit. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access • The property is served by a single access point off of Princess Anne Road. Although there is a one -foot no ingress/egress easement along the frontage of the property, the easement includes a note allowing "one temporary entrance for Parcel 3A (the church parcel) and Parcel 3B (the Curry Comb Court parcel)." &jcy Planning Commission Agenda � March 12, 2003 V L =` COURTHOUSE COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH # 7 / '� •��°�'°°°j Page 6 • The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has designed a roadway expansion for this section of Princess Anne Road (CIP 2-305, Princess Anne Road — Phase IV). The expansion will widen this section from a two-lane undivided facility to a four -lane divided facility. The plans include relocating the entrance for the church approximately 100 feet west on Princess Anne Road. This allows for a properly designed right turn lane and eliminates potential conflicts with the Curry Comb Court intersection. • Right and left turn lanes are currently present, but only a right turn lane is included in VDOT's planned improvements for Princess Anne Road. A left turn lane and median break is shown for Curry Comb Court, so traffic on eastbound lanes of Princess Anne Road will have to U-turn at this intersection to enter the church property. • The Princess Anne Corridor Study recommends this section of Princess Anne Road be a controlled access roadway to improve traffic flow. When feasible, the Study proposes to remove existing accesses onto Princess Anne Road. In order to accommodate the church (as well as portions of Christopher Farms and Courthouse Farms), the Study has suggested a reverse frontage access road which would lead from proposed London Bridge Road extended to Cantwell Drive and to a point on the northwestern side of the church property. The church's current expansion plans allow for this potential future connection should it become a reality. Architectural Design • The existing building is red brick with a fiberglass shingle roof. The traditional church design includes a gabled roofline with smaller gable dormers over window sections around the building. The proposed building additions match the design, colors, and building materials of the existing building. Landscape and Open Space Design • The plan shows interior parking lot landscaping and some foundation planting around the proposed building addition. • A Category IV landscape buffer is recommended along the northeastern property line between the proposed improvements and the existing residential lots. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 COURTHOUSE COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 7 Page 7 Evaluation of Request The applicant's request for a building expansion is acceptable. This much needed addition will allow for the removal of the two modular units placed on the site over six years ago. The site plan accommodates potential entrance relocations planned with projects for improving Princess Anne Road. The additions will match the existing church design and the site will be landscaped, if approved as conditioned below, to ensure adequate buffering for the neighborhood to the north. Therefore, this application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions 1. The site shall be developed as depicted in the submitted site plan entitled, "Courthouse Community United Methodist Church, Virginia Beach, Virginia" dated November 11, 2002 by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., and as conditioned below. The "Future Parking" and "Future Sanctuary" shown on the plan is not included with this Conditional Use Permit. 2. The building addition shall be constructed as depicted in the submitted elevations entitled, "Alterations and Addition to Courthouse Community UMC, Virginia Beach, Virginia" dated November 27, 2002 by Lyall Design Architects. 3. The modular units shall be removed from the property prior to issuing the Certificate of Occupancy for the expansion. 4. A Category IV landscape buffer shall be installed along the northeastern property line between the proposed improvements and the adjacent residential area. 5. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded to direct light and glare onto the property; said lighting and glare shall be deflected, shaded, and focused away from adjoining property. Any outdoor lighting fixtures shall not be erected any higher than 14 feet. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this Conditional Use Permit may require Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 COURTHOUSE COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 7 Page 8 revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional Use Permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See Section 220(8) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 COURTHOUSE COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 7 Page 9 n O m / C//� V/ m 0 O C _Z C Z m M m ' 2 v o y = n N C '- 3. = IV O m 3 j O CL O-ICA) 2) CITY.0 • �rXKs+y •c/""a"` • VIN�`��i W*A*AAW FUTLRE CONNECTION Y BY OTHERS PER re atwe+e � /✓ , A i � a rlot A COOMOOR STUDY—N . I 3 FUTUR a .•_ }+ k4l" tr �i,.. SANCTLARY `.r ,f ^? iii v ��• W*A*AAW �AbiP#tiC 9k:A1.& t UWW ruse Pawk siw FUM C-1 3f3it.bR txtrtxrp FUTLRE CONNECTION Y BY OTHERS PER re atwe+e � /✓ , A i � a A COOMOOR STUDY—N . I 3 FUTUR a .•_ }+ k4l" tr �i,.. SANCTLARY `.r ,f ^? iii v ��• A!r Ate'• y i , , { L4 + Y '' A �' '' SY' w E y \ p�;� t" PARKIN, V" �AbiP#tiC 9k:A1.& t UWW ruse Pawk siw FUM C-1 3f3it.bR txtrtxrp TPC Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 COURTHOUSE COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 7 Page 11 0 0 C 0 c cn m 0 0 c z C z m wo m 0 0 a 0 0 C33 m -0 0 > 0) x- cIa (a 0 CL K) -4 CA) 0) EAST ELEVATION (RFFEPZ-WE W-t6HTS DMeD ON FlNi$ki FLOOR OF EAWIM& WLPfWj) 0.2 a 3 - F.. i. ... ... ... . 5�MTH ffl-EVATIONWW5+n'5 BA5W ON P�W-44 FLOOR Or- E46TIN& WLPN-% 01-411) , — . ...... . -- ............ .. ... v&� A. -W-W Aff, WSW rA"NORTH E-LI!VATION W,3gm IS fW*V 04 Flamm .JOLOOR. OF CAST))* Mu. N& 0'-o') n O c m O c cn m n O c z c z m M v a� � 3 M 3 = O O 0 00) N c �. 3 M 0Nn V Q O CL W-ICA) 2) PqmsT r=LMVA I a {' .j . _R OF EXISTIN6 WILD$6 am -00) STATEME Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: se.v- C�-Wxr-44 PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) It the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) 0 Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. It the applicant Is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) 13 Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true j and accurate. Signature Print Name Conditional Use Permit Application Page 8 of 12 Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 COURTHOUSE COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 7 Page 14 Board of Trustees- Courthouse Community United Methodist Church Marsha Witcher (Chair) 2260 Windy Pines Bend Virginia Beach, VA 23456 4227-9537 Dale Johnson 949 Culver Lane Virginia Beach, VA 23454 721-7081 Lois McDonald 3201 Honaker Circle Virginia Beach, VA 23453 468-10221 Donn Lee 2729 Cantwell Road Virginia Beach, VA 23453 430-3558 Jeff Albert 1711 Woodgrove Street Chesapeake, VA 23320 549-5150 Dennis Harvey 2005 Red Rooster Court Virginia Beach, VA 23453 430-0649 Janice Heflin 1717 St Charles Avenue Virginia Beach, VA. 23453 430-8476 John Mangiaracina 2125 Agecroft Road Virginia Beach, VA 23454 427-'2782 Donald Nash 2837 Saville Garden Way Virginia Beach, VA 23453 468-1030 IA -BEA Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2003 COURTHOUSE COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 7 Page 15 Item #7 Courthouse Community United Methodist Church Conditional Use Permit 2708 Princess Anne Road District 7 Princess Anne March 12, 2003 REGULAR Ronald Ripley: Mr. Miller, would you please call our next item. Robert Miller: The next item is Item #7, Courthouse Community United Methodist Church. Donald Lee: Good afternoon. I'm Don Lee. I'm Chair of the building Committee for Courthouse Community United Methodist Church. Our application before you is for a Conditional Use extension of our current property. It's an approximately 5500 square foot extension of our current building. We were here before you two years ago for a Conditional Use Permit extension on our modular classroom units we have on the property. Essentially, this project will replace those modular units temporary space with permanent space. There are several conditions on the application. Two of them address the architectural standards and the site plan. And, all conditions are acceptable to us. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Do we have opposition? Robert Miller: Yes. We have Hattie Setzer. Hattie Setzer: Good afternoon. Ronald Ripley: Good afternoon to you. Hattie Setzer: Mr. Chairman and members of the Virginia Beach Planning Commission, my name is Hattie M. Setzer and I reside at 2424 Rock Creek Drive in Chesapeake, 2325- 4610. My interest here is in the five -acre parcel of land adjacent to Courthouse Community United Methodist Church. And, I would like to point out if I may the land that belongs to my husband and I. Ronald Ripley: There's a pointer right there. Hattie Setzer: This? Ronald Ripley: Yes. Hattie Setzer: Alright. Item #7 Courthouse Community United Methodist Church Page 2 Ronald Ripley: Just pick it up. Hattie Setzer: Thank you. This is our piece of land right here, the five -acre piece that we own. I come before you today to state for the record that our property, property that my husband and I have owned for over 46 years, property, which has been in our family for over 100 years. It is our hope that the land will not be carved up and used by the church as an alternate access. We are quite frankly tired of seeing people drawing maps and printing maps like the one that appears on Page 11 of your write up. A map that shows a road, actually two roads through our property, a road that carves up our land in order to give the church an alternate access and the continued depiction of this non-existent, unacceptable alternate access road across our property is offensive and serves to devalue our property. We have not interfered with the church's enjoyment of its property and we respectfully request that the church, Planning and the citizens of Virginia Beach not participate in any efforts to devalue or destroy our enjoyment of our property. I leave you with the thought that every time we enter these Chambers we stand to Pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. It is my affirmative hope that we remember and practice the last eleven words of that pledge. "One Nation Under God, Indivisible with Liberty and Justice" and hear I say, "With Justice for All." I thank you. Ronald Ripley: Ms. Setzer, thank you very much. Mr. Miller has a question. Hattie Setzer: Certainly. Robert Miller: I don't have a question. I just wanted to reassure you that your last statement there. I don't know how Mr. Lee is going to respond but none of us are here for any other purpose. And, you were very right in reminding us of that. I think that the map we were looking at a moment ago was not generated by the church but to let you know, it was generated by the City and the Planning staff as you alluded to. I think that's what you said. And, certainly that is something that we all need to be aware. This area has been identified, if I recall correctly as one of the areas that we would like to see some form of future development in that area. But, that certainly is up to you and your choice as to when you sell the property or deal with someone to be able to develop the property. No one is coming in saying they're going to put, I don't think we are, that we have a right to come in and say we're going to put a road right through the middle of your property. Those concept plans sometimes come up because people are trying to think about eventual situations and certainly you're very right to come and speak and oppose to that. And, you'll have many more opportunities were that ever to become about and come down here and remind us, again or our responsibility to do right. Hattie Setzer: I really appreciate your remarks Mr. Miller. And, I would like to end by saying nobody on this podium can guess how many times we have come down here to find out how the widening of Princess Anne Road was progressing and then shown different maps. We've been told that sanitary sewers were going to be constructed on our property to serve the Lake Ridge Property. We have seen road maps, I presumed drawn just for us, like snakes wiggling through our five -acre piece of land. And, it is upsetting. Item #7 Courthouse Community United Methodist Church Page 3 And, I do hope that somebody on this podium will put an end to that. And, I thank you again. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Are there any other speakers? Robert Miller: No sir. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Robert Miller: Mr. Lee? Donald Lee: Don Lee again. In 1987 the church was granted temporary access as you see in the zoning history report to our property. And, that's the current entrance that the church is using. We're perfectly content to continue to use that entrance as long as we're allowed to do that. In the application process of this project we were informed of two things. One, which we were above and we were actually aware of. One, our access on Princess Anne would have to be relocated because of VDOT decision, which collates with the expansion of Princess Anne Road when that happens, But, also we were told by staff that we needed to incorporate access to, which at one time was called London Bridge Extension, another time, Knight Boulevard, as an alternative access to the side of the property, which addresses the property that Ms. Setzer just represented. So, we put those on the site plan as we were instructed. But, our intension is to use whatever access were given and certainly as long as Princess Anne is open that would be the most appropriate because it's direct access to the main. But, when that changes, we'll address and respond anyway we need to. But, our intention was not to influence any other access. We're just addressing staff's concern and place those on there merely because they wanted us to understand those were potential access issues in the future. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Mr. Miller? Robert Miller: I do think you do understand Mrs. Setzer is not going to allow you to come across her property so you better keep that entrance on Princess Anne Road. Donald Lee: But we would be happy too. Our actual interest would be keeping it right where it is. But, we understand that with the development of Princess Anne Road, others would disagree with that access. And, since there are houses on other two sides, those are the only two remaining options. The current one and the existing one to the side of our property, so, we'll be happy to use whatever access we're granted, but currently we're happy with what we have. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Donald Lee: You're welcome. Item #7 Courthouse Community United Methodist Church Page 4 Ronald Ripley: Mr. Scott, did you want to comment. I mean, it's a hypothetical plan, if I understood it. Robert Scott: It is but I do think I need to comment. Ronald Ripley: Please do. Robert Scott: Let's pick it up where Mr. Miller left off. We're all bound by not just the words of the Pledge of Allegiance we're also bound by the Constitution here, which includes the 5th Amendment, which includes the Prohibition Against the Taking of Private Property without just compensation. Nobody has any ideas to the contrary. But, there are people along Princess Anne Road, Ms. Setzer included that have hopes to developing their property some day. And, there's nothing that's going on here that's going to devalue anybody's property, quite to the contrary. The installation of a much wider and much more beautiful Princess Anne Road and with the installation of these water and sewer lines that were mentioned, it's going to be nothing but to increase the value of property. And, increase the ability of people who own land along that road to prosper and prosper quite well. In order to do this in an orderly and reasonable matter, we can't take unlimited advantage of the presence of these facilities. It has to be done in an organized and properly controlled manner to magnify the benefit to the public as a whole. So, reasonable combinations have got to be made among property owners. To see that all things are going to happen in an orderly way and in accordance, as best as possible their individual plans and desires. But, I hardly think that anything that's going to happen is going to devalue property of the five people on that property rights. I can guarantee you that absolutely can or could happen that would constitute of taking of property in an inappropriate way. As principle we all stand behind the property. I feel really confident, that as the future unfolds for this area that all the property owners are going to be very pleasantly surprised on how well things turn out. But, it takes cooperation among the individuals out there to make that come about. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Mr. Scott. Ms. Setzer, thank you for you coming down. We appreciate you bringing that to our attention. Could we have a motion to either approve or disapprove this application? Barry? Barry Knight: Ms. Setzer, we hear you loud and clear. I think the church had to put this on their site plan on behalf of the City. So, it's good that you come down here and protect your property rights. I'm hoping that Princess Anne Road is widened and is made to look like a very nice road. I'm hoping that the church does a wonderful expansion. It increases the property values, and you get twice, as much money for your land if you decide to sell it as you're going to get today. But, it wasn't the church, I don't think has any hidden agenda whatsoever, but I understand you coming down here. With that said, I would like to make a motion to approve subject to conditions the Conditional Use Permit, Courthouse Community United Methodist Church. Item #7 Courthouse Community United Methodist Church Page 5 Ronald Ripley: We got a motion by Barry Knight to approve. Do I have a second? Seconded by Jan Anderson to approve the motion as read. We're ready to vote. AYE 11 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 0 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0, the motion passes. Gpin 1488-80-5079 ZONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Use Permit (day care for the elderly) —Granted 11-28-95 Conditional Use Permit (addition) — Granted 7-13-87 Conditional Use Permit (group home for children) — Granted 2-6-84 Conditional Use Permit (church & school) — Granted 6-12-61