The URL can be used to link to this page

JUNE 8, 2004 AGENDA11 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH I "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E OBERNDORF. At -Large VICE MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES, Bayslde - District 4 HARRY E. DIEZEL, Kempsville- District 2 MARGARET L EURE, Centerville - District I REBAS. McCLANAN, Rove Hall - District RICHARDA. MADDOX, Bench - District 6 JIM REEVE, Princess Anne - District7 PETER W SCHMIDT, At -Large RONA. VILLANUEVA, M44rge ROSEMARY WILSON, At-L rge JAMES L WOOD, Lynnhaven -District 5 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JAMES K. SPORE. City Manger LESLIE L. LILLEY, City Attorney RUTH HODGES SMITH, MMCA, City Clerk 8 June 2004 I. CITY COUNCIL'S BRIEFING - Conference Room A. PRINCESS ANNE COMMONS - Sentara Status Report David Bernd, CEO II II. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS II III. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend David Howard Pastor, Brook Baptist Church CHY HALL BUILDING l 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIIE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-8005 PHONE: (757) 4274303 FAX (757) 426-5669 E MAIL:Ctycn(-I( ov.com 3:00 P.M. 4:30 P.M. 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 INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS June 1, 2004 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION H. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Special District Proposed Modification to the Boundaries at Town Center I. CONSENT AGENDA J. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTION 1. Ordinances to AMEND and REORDAIN the City Code: a. §§28-28, 28-29, 28-30, 28-31, 32.5-2, 32.5-4, 32.5-5, 32.5-6, 37-16, 37-53, and 37-54 re water, sewer and stormwater fees by revising provisions for billing, payment and interest on late payments b. §2-108 and 2-132 reprobation period of certain 9-1-1 Emergency Communication Employees 2. Resolution ESTABLISHING a policy re the connection of private utilities in rural areas for public water and sanitary sewer systems. DEFERRED: May 25, 2004 Ordinance to GRANT permits for area private, municipal and non-profit EMS organizations to operate in Virginia Beach: a. Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters b. Eastern Shore Ambulance c. Lifeline Ambulance Service, Inc d. Medical Transport e. Network Medical f. Nightingale Regional Air Ambulance 4. Resolution to support on Amendment to the State Budget re additional funding for Firefighters and fire safety 5. Ordinances re Town Center: a. AMEND the Special District and MODIFY the District Boundaries b. APPROPRIATE $338,553 additional property tax and $73,387 realized from use to the Special District Special Revenue Fund 6. Ordinance AUTHORIZE additional full-time positions and ELIMINATE part-time positions in the FY 2004-05 operating budget of the Library Department to reduce staff turnover at the Pungo-Blackwater Library 7. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE $7,890 from the Institute of Museum and Library Services re Conservation Assessment of the Adam Thoroughgood House 8. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $38,304 from various cost recovery sources and $4,505 in donations to the Fire Department's FY 2003-04 operating budget re reimbursement of expenses and to purchase equipment. 9. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE: a. $30,505 federal block grant to the FY 2003-04 operating budget of the Department of Juvenile Probation re multi -systemic therapy b. $47,937 to the Department Parks and Recreation for the Youth Opportunities office to expand the Transitional Jobs program for juvenile parolees c. TRANSFER $8,716 to the FY 2003-04 operating budget of the Department of Parks and Recreation to further expand their Transitional Jobs program. I:4 10. "Ordinance to TRANSFER $ 364,000 from the General Fund re contingencies to the FY 2003-04 operating budget re fully funding the Real Estate Tax Relief program PLANNING Variance re to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance for WAYNE T. and ANN M. BARNES and OPAL M. PONVERT to create five (5) parcels, including a Public Utilities Pumping Station at 3715 and 3713 Little Neck Point (DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 2. Application of SEAGATE DEVELOPMENT COROPORATION re Modification of a Noncon orminz use to demolish the current building, create a freestanding Dairy Queen, public restrooms and parking at 703 Atlantic Avenue (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) RECOMMENDATION: 3. Application of WDR PROPERTIES, INC. for a Modification of Conditions for a Conditional Use Permit approved by City Council November 25, 2003, for automobile sales and rental ()VDR Properties, Inc.), at 5657 Shore Drive (DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 4. Application of 21 FUN, L.L.C. DBA SHARX SPORTS for a Conditional Use Permit for an eating and drinking establishment at 211 21" Street and Pacific Avenue (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 5. Application of JESSUP CONSTRUCTION L.L.C. for a Chanze of Zoning from R40 Residential District to Conditional R-30 Residential District at 1017 Harris Road. (DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN) DEFERRED: RECOMMENDATION: MAY 25, 2004 APPROVAL 6. Application of BAYMARK CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION for a Change o Zoning District Classification from 0-2 Office District to Conditional A-36 ADartment District at Wildwood Drive, west of Stratford Drive. (DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN) 11 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL Application of COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 AG-2 Agricultural District and B-1 Neighborhood Business District with Historic and Cultural District Overlays to Conditional B-2 Communitv Business District with a Historic and Cultural District Overlay at Princess Anne Road and Nimmo Parkway. (DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 8. Application of DAVID A. PARKER for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-5S Residential Single Family District to RT-3 Resort Tourist District at 408 Winston Salem Avenue. (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 9. Application of the City to AMEND the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) §401 re bulk storage of earthen minerals as a conditional use in Agricultural Zoning (AG) Districts RECOMMENDATION: L. APPOINTMENTS ARTS and HUMANITIES COMMISSION HEALTH SERVICES BOARD HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS O. ADJOURNMENT r*rrrrrr**rrr*r 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: Too only 4274305 (TDD - Telephonic Device for the Deaf) ************** DENIAL Agenda 06/08/04\bb w vbeov.com �,NN�BE�HI i� CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain the City Code Pertaining to Water, Sewer and Stormwater Fees by Revising Provisions for Billing, Payment and Interest on Late Payments. MEETING DATE: June 8, 2004 ■ Background: Historically, the Department of Public Works and the Department of Public Utilities have separately billed for storm water management fees and water/sanitary sewer fees. When Public Utilities identified the need to move to an integrated customer information system, it presented an opportunity for the two departments to combine the billing of the storm water, water, and sanitary sewer fees. ■ Considerations: The proposed Code changes will provide for the combined billing of storm water, water, and sanitary sewer charges. There are also revisions to harmonize the City Code with the State Code and to recognize established business practices within the Department of Public Utilities. Benefits of the combined billing system will include cost savings to the City by eliminating printing, mailing and remitting separate storm water bills. Added conveniences for customers include fewer bills to track, fewer checks to write, and a consolidated call center to handle all billing inquiries related to storm water, water, and sanitary sewer. From a customer perspective, the most visible changes related to the combined billing include the following: Renters of single-family residences who do not currently receive a storm water bill will have this fee added to their Combined Services Statement. For an average residence, the storm water fee is currently $4.53 per month, or $9.06 for a typical 60-day billing cycle. The $20 fee now charged for re-establishing water service after disconnection for nonpayment will be replaced by a $20 delinquent service fee. The "Have you forgotten?" reminder notice will no longer be sent. Delinquent customers will receive only a final payment due notice. ■ Public Information: This ordinance has been advertised in the same manner as other items on Council's agenda. In addition, Public Utilities and Public Works have conducted an extensive public information campaign involving bill stuffers, media advertising, and posting information on the City's Web page. ■ Recommendations: Adoption of ordinance. ■ Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Public Utilities and Public Works City Manager: �.�� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO WATER, SEWER AND STORMWATER, FEES BY REVISING PROVISIONS FOR BILLING, PAYMENT AND INTEREST ON LATE PAYMENTS SECTIONS AMENDED: §§ 28-28, 28-29, 28-30, 28- 31, 32.5-2, 32.5-4, 32.5-5, 32.5-6, 37-16, 37- 53 AND 37-54 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 11 That Sections 28-28, 28-29, 28-30, 28-31, 32.5-2, 32.5-4, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 32.5-5, 32.5-6, 37-16, 37-53 and 37-54 of the City Code are hereby amended and reordained, to read as follows: Chapter 28 SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL Sec. 28-28. Billing. (a) The director of public utilities is hereby authorized to bill each customer, for charges due the city under this article, no 19 less frequently than on a bimonthly basis. If the customer also 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 receives water service from the city, charges provided for by this article may be included in the bill rendered &UrS=it to article along with stormwater management charges levied pursuant to Chapter 32.5: provided that all charges shall be separately stated. The combined bill shall be issued for one total amount. The director of public utilities is herebv authorized and directed to create policies and procedures for the efficient billing and collection of the combined bill, including a 28 policy for allocating payments to the separate charges stated on 29 the combined bill. 30 (b) The department of public utilities shall mail or deliver 31 all bills for charges prescribed by this article, but failure to 32 receive such bills shall not prevent the discontinuance of service, 33 if the amount due is not paid within the time limits set forth in 34 this article. 35 COMMENT 36 Currently, water and sewer charges are combined. The proposed change will also add 37 stormwater charges to this bi-monthly billing. The bill will list the amount due for each separate 38 utility service, with one total amount due. 39 Sec. 28-29. When due and payable; notice of and interest on 40 delinquency. 41 All bills for charges prescribed by this article shall be due 42 and payable t-en(18) thirty (30) days from the date of the bill-, 43 and All such bils shall be deemed delinquent if not paid in full 44 within such time. within thirt� k3e) der7s of the date of the bill. 45 A notice of such delinquency shall be mailed to the owner or 46 occupant of the premises, directing such owner or occupant to show 47 cause why the premises should not cease discharging sewage or 48 waste, directly or indirectly, into the public sewer system. 49 jjjte�est ull H unpaid, past due bills sha±1 ac=tte at tile TMte of 2 51 COMMENT 52 The language describing the period for payment of bills is modified to clarify when a bill is 53 delinquent. Finally, the interest provision is deleted. 54 Sec. 28-30. Discontinuing service and assessing penalty for 55 failure to pay. 56 (a) If, within two (2) months of the clue date of a bill 57 therefor, all charges ere st provided for in this article are 58 not paid, the water supply to the premises, if furnished by the 59 city, shall be disconnected pursuant to section i 15.2-2119 60 of the Code of Virginia, and such charges shall become a lien 61 against the property, ranking on a parity with liens for unpaid 62 taxes, and shall be collected according —to as provided by section 63 - 15.2-2119 of the Code of Virginia. If water service is so 64 disconnected, arrearage and a Rio, delinquent service fee 65 shall be paid in accordance with section 37-54 of this Code. 66 (b) if —a For premises ±s not supplied water by the city, the 67 sewer service to such premises shall be disconnected, if a bill for 68 charges and interest under this article is not paid within two (2) 69 months of the due date, and a penalty shall be assessed in the 70 amount of ten dollars ($10.00). If sewer service is so 71 disconnected, it shall not be reinstituted until payment is made to 72 the city for all arrearage, plus the actual cost to make the 73 reconnection, plus twenty-five (25) per cent percent (2596) of such 74 cost as an administrative charge. Such charges and penalty shall 75 become a lien on the property, ranking on a parity with liens for 3 76 unpaid taxes and shall be collected as provided by section 15.2- 77 2119 of the Code of Virginia. 78 COMMENT 79 The references to liens in (a) are revised to track the current language of the Virginia Code. 80 Subsection (b) is amended to impose a $10late payment penalty on delinquent sewer -service 81 only accounts. 82 Sec. 28-31. Account initiation and reestablishment charge. 83 (a) For each new account established for a 84 property not connected to city water, 85 there shall be charged a fee of 86 twenty dollars ($20.00) to cover costs connected with the 87 establishment of the account. 89 90 When the account is discontinued or a 91 service is inactivated for any reason there shall be a twenty 92 dollar ($20 00) charge for re-establishing the account or service. 93 COMMENT 94 The changes to (a) are for housekeeping purposes only. Section (b) is amended to establish a 95 charge to re-establish the account or service. P W- 97 Chapter 32.5 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY 98 Sec. 32.5-2. Definitions. 99 The following words and terms used in this section shall have 100 the following meanings: 101 102 (e) Developed residential property means a developed lot or 103 parcel containing at least one (1) but no more than four (4) 104 residences or dwelling units, and accessory uses related to but 105 subordinate to the purpose of providing permanent dwelling 106 facilities. Such property shall include houses, duplexes, 107 triplexes, gaadroplexes cuadruplexes, townhouses and mobile homes. W1 109 (1) Utility fees means the monthly service charges based upon 110 the ERU rate applied to property owners or occupants, includincx ill condominium unit owners or tenants (when the tenant or occupant is 112 the party to whom water and sewer service is billed), of developed 113 residential property, developed multifamily residential property 114 and developed nonresidential property, all as more fully described 115 in section 32.5.4. 116 117 5 INC COMMENT 119 The only substantive amendment to this section, in subsection (1), reflects the fact that not only 120 owners, but tenants or other occupants of a property as well, may be responsible for stormwater utility 121 fees. This change is consistent with Virginia Code § 15.2-2114(B). 122 Sec. 32.5-4. Imposition of utility fees. 123 Adequate revenues shall be generated to provide for a balanced 124 operating and capital improvement budget for maintenance of the 125 stormwater management system by setting sufficient levels of 126 utility fees. Income from utility fees shall not exceed actual 127 costs incurred in providing the services and facilities described 128 in section 32.5-3. , uUtility fees shall be 129 130 charged to owners of all however, where a tenant developed property in the city; provided, or occupant is the person to whom water or 131 sewer service or both are billed the utility fee may be charged 132 to such tenant or occupant. 133 . . • . 134 COMMENT 135 The amendment to this section provides that, where a tenant or occupant of a property, rather 136 than the owner, is billed for water or sewer service, or both, stormwater utility fees may be billed to 137 the tenant or occupant, instead of the owner. This change is consistent with Virginia Code § 15.2- 13 8 2114(B). 139 Sec. 32.5-5. Billing and payment, interest, liens. 140 (a) The utility fee is to be paid by the owner of each lot or 141 142 parcel tenant subject to or occupant the utility fee; provided is the person to whom water or however, where a sewer service, or 143 both are billed the utility fee may be charged to such tenant or n 144 occupant. In any case in which a tenant or occupant fails to pay 145 utility fees, the delinquent utility fees shall be collected from 146 the owner of the property. i .. 148 All properties, except undeveloped 149 property, shall be rendered bills or statements for stormwater 150 services Such bills or 151 statements may be combined with water and sewer bills levied 152 pursuant to Chapters 28 and 37, provided that all charges shall be 153 separately stated. The combined bill shall be issued for one total 154 amount. The director of public utilities is hereby authorized and 155 directed to create policies and procedures for the efficient 156 billing and collection of the combined bill, including a policy for 157 allocating payments to the separate charges stated on the combined 158 bill. 159 (b) The bills or statements shall include a date by which 160 payment shall be due. All _____ or state-_._:S _.__.___ be -..et__ed at 162 there=. All bills for charges prescribed by this article shall be 163 due and payable thirty (30) days from the date of the bill and 164 shall be deemed delinquent if not paid in full within such time. \IIII�Y.\�. �,L�l.tI�Ry�lll.11ti.) 7 167 fad Billing for the utility fee shall be rendered cr- 168 , in e, arrears to all chargeable property 169 owners persons and shall represent charges for each month daV of 170 the st=eedincj quarter preceding billing period of stormwater 171 service, and any unpaid balances and interest on an account. 172 fb j Any bill which has not been paid by the due date shall be 173 deemed delinquent, and the account shall be collected by tine 174 any means available to the city. Notice 175 to the owner shall be provided in every case when stormwater 176 charges incurred by a tenant or occupant become more than ninety 177 (90) days delinquent. All payments and interest due may be 178 recovered by action at law or suit in equity. Unpaid fees and 179 interest accrued shall constitute a lien against the property, 180 ranking on a parity with liens for unpaid taxes. Records of all 181 unpaid fees and interest indexed by the name of the record owner 182 of the real estate shall be maintained in the city treasurer's 183 office. 184 -(-ceL In the event charges are not paid when due, interest 185 thereon shall commence on the due date and accrue at the rate of 186 ten (±e) percent 10% per annum until such time as the overdue 187 payment and interest is paid. 188 {t}fj When developed properties are brought into the utility, 189 fees will accrue commencing with the release of the final plumbing 190 inspection for the property. In the absence of a plumbing 3 191 inspection, utility fees will accrue commencing with release of the 192 final building inspection for the property. A bill will be issued 193 in the next billing cycle and will be prorated for the number of 194 fall rumitim days in which service was provided. 195 -(-eg)_ In the event of alterations or additions to developed 196 multifamily property or developed nonresidential property which 197 alter the amount of impervious surface area, the utility fees will 198 be adjusted upon release of the final plumbing inspection. In the 199 absence of a plumbing inspection, utility fees will be adjusted 200 upon release of the final building inspection. A bill will be 201 issued in the next billing cycle and will be prorated for the 202 number of fall nnnths days in which service was provided. 203 COMMENT 204 The amendments effect the following changes to present billing procedures: 205 206 1. As authorized by Virginia Code § 15.2-2114 (B), provide that tenants or occupants of 207 property will be billed, rather than the owner, if the water and sewer service is billed 208 to the tenant or occupant. Furthermore, delinquent tenant or occupant accounts will 209 be collected from the owner. The Attorney General has held that property owners may 210 be held responsible for utility bills generated by tenants; see 1983-84 Report of the 211 Attorney General 470; 1980-81 Report of the Attorney General 407. 212 2. Provide that the stormwater utility fee be billed bi-monthly, in arrears, rather than 213 quarterly, in advance. 214 3. Allow for proration of bills on a per day, rather than a per month basis. 215 4. Currently, water and sewer charges are combined. The proposed changes add 216 stormwater charges to the bi-monthly billing. The bill will list the amount due for 217 each separate utility service, with one total amount due. 218 Sec. 32.5-6. Adjustment of fees, exemptions. 219 (a) Full waiver of the utility fee shall be provided to 220 properties owned by federal, state, and local government agencies W 221 when those agencies own and provide for maintenance of storm 222 drainage and stormwater control facilities. 223 (b) Any owner, tenant or occupant who has paid his utility 224 fees and who believes his utility fees to be incorrect may submit 225 an adjustment request to the city manager director of public works 226 or his designee. Adjustment requests shall be made in writing 227 setting forth, in detail, the grounds upon which relief is sought. 228 Response to such adjustment requests, whether providing an 229 adjustment or denying an adjustment, shall be made to the owner 230 recruestina person by the cite-mRnegcr director of public works or 231 his designee within sixty (60) days of receipt of the request for 232 adjustment. 233 COMMENT 234 The amendments to this section reflect the fact that not only owners, but tenants or other 235 occupants of a property as well, may be responsible for stormwater utility fees. This change is 236 consistent with Virginia Code § 15.2-2114. The process for requesting adjustments is modified to 237 provide that requests be made of the Public Works director, instead of the City Manager. 238 Chapter 37 239 WATER SUPPLY 240 Sec. 37-16. Account initiation and reestablishment charges. 241 (a) For each new account established, IPthere shall be a 242 twenty dollar ($20.00) fee charged to cover 243 administrative costs connected with establishing a water account 244 with the city. 10 245 (b) When the account is discontinued or a service is 246 inactivated for any reason, there shall be a twenty dollar ($20.00) 247 charge for re-establishing the account or services. 248 (bc) All owners or their authorized agents, after knowledge 249 that their premises have been vacated, shall promptly notify, ra 250 writing, the department of public utilities to shut off the 251 constxrrrer supply of water thereto. Upon receipt of such 252 notification, the department of public utilities shall effectually 253 shut off the water to such premises and at the same time record the 254 reading of the meter. when the service is so shut off, there shall 255 be a twenty dollar ($20.00) charge for restoring such service. 256 (cd) Any consumer customer may keep his water service intact 257 during the vacancy of any premises by paying the minimum meter 258 maintenance charges and minimum water usage charges set forth in 259 article II of this chapter. 260 (de) Where it is necessary to remove a meter, or where the 261 removal of a meter is requested by the owner of the premises or his 262 authorized agent, the charge for reinstallation of the meter shall 263 be twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for all meters up to two (2) inches 264 and, for all meters two (2) inches or greater, the charge shall 265 include the cost in labor, materials and equipment, plus 266 twenty-five (25) percent 25% . 267 (el) Whenever water service is abandoned, the charges for 268 reconnection of service shall be as provided for in section 37-7. 11 269 COMMENT 270 The section is revised to make clear that the fee is charged for new accounts, as well as ones 271 that are re-established . 272 Sec. 37-53. Frequency of billing; sewer and stormwater charges 273 may be included. 274 (a) The director of public utilities shall bill all consrnncrs 275 customers no less frequently than bimonthly, in accordance with 276 their location in the city, for water service rendered. 277 (b) The director of public utilities is authorized to send 278 one bill for water usage and meter maintenance charges, along with 279 charges for sewer system maintenance, to those customers who are 280 281 provided with both services and levied pursuant to Chapter 32 5• stormwater provided management charges however, that all 282 charges shall be separately stated The combined bill shall be 283 issued for one total amount The director of public utilities is 284 hereby authorized and directed to create policies and procedures 285 for the efficient billing and collection of the combined bill, 286 including a policy for allocating payments to the separate charges 287 stated on the combined bill. 288 COMMENT 289 Currently, water and sewer charges are combined. The proposed change will also add 290 stormwater charges to this bi-monthly billing. The bill will list the amount due for each separate 291 utility service, with one total amount due. 292 293 Sec. 37-54. When due and payable; delinquency. 294 (a) All bills for charges prescribed in by this article shall 295 be due and payable within tern(18) thirty (30) days from the date 12 296 of the bill-. and if such bill is =t paid mhen due, tile C=Mtuler 297 shall be deemed delinquent thirty (38) days afte= the date of the 298 hill if not paid in full within such time. The department of 299 public utilities shall notify the consumer customer, in writing, of 300 such delinquency, and shall direct the consumer customer to show 301 cause, within fifteen (15) days, why his water service should not 302 be discontinued. 303 (b) Failure to receive a bill for charges prescribed by this 304 article shall not prevent the discontinuance of service in accord 305 with the provisions of this section. 306 (c) If, within forty-five (45) days of the date of a bill, 307 all charges and interest provided for in this article are not paid, 308 a twenty dollar ($20.00) delinquent service fee shall be applied to 309 the account and the water supply to the premises shall be 310 disconnected. 311 (cd) When water service is discontinued pursuant to this 312 section, water shall not again be turned on until all arrearages 313 and charges have been paid, including -a charge the delinquent 314 service fee of twenty dollars ($20.00) for turning the water on, if 315 the premises are occupied by the same consumer customer who 316 incurred the bill; provided, that any consumer customer delinquent 317 or in arrears shall settle all past indebtedness, wherever 318 incurred, before again being served city water. 319 13 320 COMMENT 321 The language describing the period for the payment of bills is modified to clarify when a bill 322 is delinquent. The language addressing the charge for turning water is revised to establish a 323 delinquent service fee; the change reflects the fact that delinquent accounts create administrative costs 324 even if water service is not actually physically turned off. 325 326 327 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia 328 Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2004. CA-8943 H:\GG\ordres\PROPOSED\28-028etalsord.wpd R17 May 23, 2004 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: Publi Works Dellartment APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: 4 Public Utilities Department IV APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attor 's Of 'ce t CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN SECTIONS 2-108 AND 2-132 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO PROBATION PERIOD OF CERTAIN 9-1-1 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS EMPLOYEES MEETING DATE: June 8, 2004 ■ Background: Currently, the probation period for City employees other than sworn police and fire personnel is six months. Sworn police and fire personnel have a twelve-month probation period. This ordinance would extend the probation period of 9- 1-1 Emergency Communications officers (Communications Officer I, II, and III) and supervisors (Communications Supervisor) from six months to twelve months. Externally hired 9-1-1 Emergency Communications officers and supervisors must complete lengthy on-the-job training consisting of six separate training phases with a minimum of one month of direct supervision followed by one month of independent work for each of the six phases. Time is taken during the training academy and on-the-job instruction to ensure that the communications officers and supervisors are fully prepared for the responsibilities associated with their job. These responsibilities include citizen and officer safety, liability, understanding of 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Division and City-wide policies, and the use of specialty equipment and radios. Given the extensive training these employees must complete, the current six-month probationary period does not permit the 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Division adequate time to determine if a communications officer or supervisor is able to perform the essential functions of the job. This change will enhance public safety by ensuring that the 9-1-1 Center is staffed only by those employees who have demonstrated an ability to perform all aspects of their jobs. ■ Considerations: A survey of 9-1-1 centers across the state reveals that a probation period of more than six months is a common practice. For example, Norfolk, Chesapeake, Portsmouth, and Suffolk all have a twelve-month probation period for these employees. ■ Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. ■ Attachment: Ordinance. Recommended Action: Adoption Submitting Department/Agency: Communications and Information TechnologA64 City Manager: li'7Qvxt 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN 2 SECTIONS 2-108 AND 2-132 OF THE CITY 3 CODE PERTAINING TO THE PROBATION PERIOD 4 OF CERTAIN 9-1-1 EMERGENCY 5 COMMUNICATIONS EMPLOYEES 6 SECTIONS AMENDED: §§ 2-108 AND 2-132 7 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, 8 VIRGINIA: 9 That Sections 2-108 and 2-132 of the City Code are hereby 10 amended and reordained to read as follows: 11 Sec. 2-108. Probation period of employment. 12 The probation period for employees shall be defined as the 13 initial six (6) calendar months of employment following an original 14 employment or re-employment. The probation period for sworn police, 15 a+�d fire personnel, and 9-1-1 emergency communications officers and 16 supervisors shall be twelve (12) calendar months of employment 17 following an original employment or re-employment. However, the 18 probation period for all probation employees shall be extended one 19 (1) pay period for every fifteen (15) consecutive calendar days a 20 probation employee is on injury leave, suspension, leave without pay, 21 or sick leave status. Any salary change which may occur upon 22 completion of the probation period shall not become effective until 23 the first day of the pay period following such completion. 24 Comment: 25 This amendment will extend the probation period of 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Division 26 officers and supervisors from six months to twelve months. 27 Sec. 2-132. Eligibility to utilize grievance procedure. 28 (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), all city employees who are 29 members of the merit service, as defined in section 2-76, and 30 all employees of the constitutional offices (excluding elected 31 officials) by written consent of the elected official, shall be 32 eligible to utilize all phases of the grievance procedure set 33 forth herein. 34 (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), employees 35 (excluding elected officials) who are employed on a temporary, 36 probational, or seasonal basis shall be eligible to utilize such 37 procedure only up to and including step 3 (department director); 38 provided, however, that at no time shall an employee employed on 39 a temporary, probational, or seasonal basis be allowed to appeal 40 a dismissal. For the purpose of this subsection, a probational 41 employee shall be defined as an employee who has yet to complete 42 the initial six (6) months of employment with the city (or the 43 hourly equivalent for part-time employees), with the exception 44 of police, a-n7d fire, and 9-1-1 emergency communications 45 positions, as provided for in Section 2-108, in which designated 46 employees serve a one-year initial probationary period which 47 follows any original employment or re-employment. m 49 Comment: 50 This amendment cross-references the change in probation period for 9-1-1 Emergency 51 Communications Division officers and supervisors. 52 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 53 Virginia, on this day of June, 2004. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: A�M-K &t Communications a d Information Technology APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City At� s� ce CA-9263 R-3 May 18, 2004 GG/Agency Rep/Ords/Proposed/02-108ORD.doc oZ iF? � N�— s), CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Resolution Establishing a Policy Concerning the Connection of Private Utilities in the Rural Area of the City to the Public Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems MEETING DATE: June 8, 2004 ■ Background: Current City policy, as implemented by the Department of Public Utilities (DPU), is not to allow connections to the public water or sanitary sewer sytems by properties in the Rural Area (i.e., the portion of the City below the Green Line but not in the Princess Anne/Transition Area) under any circumstances. Recently, however, the failure or impending failure of septic systems on at least two properties in the Rural Area has given DPU occasion to review that policy in light of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, which recognizes that residents of rural areas "deserve reasonable response to basic health, safety and welfare concerns due to existing or longstanding conditions." ■ Considerations: The proposed Policy allows connections to the public water and sanitary sewer systems only under certain narrow circumstances, and only under strict controls. That Policy, which is contained in the section of the attached Policy Report entitled "Recommendations/Proposed Policy," and is set forth in the accompanying Resolution, would allow such connections only if all of the stated conditions are met. In essence, connections would be allowed only where the existing on -site facilities are failing or likely to fail and no other alternatives are available. In such cases, connections must be sized to serve only the development that is approved for connection to the public system. The proposed Policy would ensure that connections of property in the City's Rural Area to the City's water and sanitary sewer systems may only be for the purposes of alleviating a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the residents or occupants of the subject property and not a means of facilitating new or greatly expanded development. The Policy also requires a property owner to enter into an encroachment agreement with the City, which is intended to ensure that private utilites are maintained properly, located and sized correctly, and do not interfere with City operations. ■ Public Information: The proposed policy was the subject of a City Council briefing held on April 20, 2004. and a public hearing held on May 11, 2004. The proposed Resolution was deferred from the City Council's May 25 agenda . ■ Alternatives: The alternatives set forth in the Policy Report apply: 1. Retain the existing policy and do not allow the extension of Public Utilities into the Rural Area. This would include not allowing any property owner in the Rural Area to connect to the public system via private waterlines and/or force mains. 2. Do not extend public water and sanitary sewer into the Rural Area. However, modify the policy to allow property owners in the Rural Area to connect to the public system via private waterlines and/or force mains. 3. Do not extend public water and sanitary sewer into the Rural Area. However, modify the policy to allow property owners in the Rural Area to connect to the public system via private waterlines and/or force mains, subject to strict limitations based upon a bona -fide need and existing development. This is the recommended alternative and is the one adopted by the proposed Resolution. ■ Recommendations: Alternative #3 is recommended. ■ Attachments: Resolution, Policy Report Recommended Action: Adoption of Resolution Submitting Department/Agen y: Public Utilities Department City Manager: 1 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A POLICY 2 CONCERNING THE CONNECTION OF 3 PRIVATE UTILITIES IN THE RURAL 4 AREA OF THE CITY TO THE PUBLIC 5 WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS 6 7 WHEREAS, in accordance with City policy, the Department of 8 Public Utilities has consistently declined to allow connections 9 to the public water or sanitary sewer system in the portion of 10 the City referred to as the "Rural Area," such area consisting 11 of that portion of the City located below the Green Line and not 12 in the Princess Anne/Transition Area; and 13 WHEREAS, the 2003 Comprehensive Plan provides, in pertinent 14 part, that "residents of the city, whether urban or rural, 15 deserve reasonable response to basic health, safety and welfare 16 concerns due to existing or longstanding conditions;" and 17 WHEREAS, from time to time, circumstances arise in the 18 Rural Area in which the health, safety and welfare of the 19 inhabitants of property is endangered by reason of the 20 unavoidable failure of on -site utilities; and 21 WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council to respond 22 to such situations by allowing properties in the Rural Area to 23 connect to the public water or sanitary sewer system only under 24 strict conditions ensuring that such connections are made only 25 as a means of alleviating threats to the health, safety and 26 welfare of the residents or occupants of an existing home or 27 business and not to facilitate new or greatly expanded 28 development in the Rural Area; and 29 WHEREAS, the Department of Public Utilities has developed a 30 proposed policy governing connections to the public water or 31 sanitary sewer system in the Rural Area; and 32 WHEREAS, such policy strictly limits the circumstances in 33 which properties located in the Rural Area may connect to the 34 City's public water or sanitary sewer systems; 35 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 36 OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 37 FIRST: 38 That the Policy Report entitled "Private Utilities in the 39 Rural Area Connecting to the Public Water and Sanitary Sewer 40 System," which Policy Report is appended to this Resolution, is 41 hereby approved as a policy of the City of Virginia Beach; and 42 SECOND: 43 That as set forth in the aforesaid Policy Report, the 44 following provisions shall constitute the City's policy 45 governing connections to the public water and sanitary sewer 46 systems by properties in the City's Rural Area: 47 1. The Department of Public Utilities shall not extend 48 public water or sanitary sewer infrastructure into the 49 Rural Area. E 50 2. The Department of Public Utilities shall allow private 51 utilities in the public right-of-way that connect a 52 Rural Area property to the public water or sanitary 53 sewer system only if all of the following requirements 54 are met: 55 a. There is adequate capacity in the public system 56 at the point of connection to accommodate the 57 additional flow; 58 b. In the written opinion of the Virginia Department 59 of Health, the existing on -site utilities are 60 failing, or likely to fail, and there are no 61 alternatives that would be approved and permitted 62 by the Virginia Department of Health; 63 C. The principal use of the property served by the 64 existing on -site utilities is not changed; and 65 d. The extension is to serve (i) an existing 66 development; (ii) the reconstruction or expansion 67 of an existing commercial development resulting 68 in a total floor area no greater than double that 69 of the development prior to the expansion; (iii) 70 the reconstruction or expansion of an existing 71 residential development where no additional 72 dwelling units are constructed; or (iv) a 3 73 development which is the subject of an approved 74 site plan which remains valid as of the date of 75 adoption of this policy. 76 3. To the extent possible consistent with normal 77 engineering design principles, the private utilities 78 shall be sized to serve only the development approved 79 for connection to the public system. 80 4. The cost of the private utilities (i.e., construction 81 and operation and maintenance) shall be paid for by 82 the owner or occupant of the property served by such 83 utilities. 84 5. The owner and occupant of the property shall enter 85 into an encroachment agreement with the City, which 86 agreement shall be in form and substance acceptable to 87 the Director of Public Utilities and City Attorney and 88 shall, at a minimum, contain the following provisions: 89 (a) The property owner or occupant shall, at all 90 times, maintain the private facilities in good 91 working order. If the City concludes that the 92 property owner or occupant have not maintained 93 the private facilities in the public right-of-way 94 to the satisfaction of the City, the City may, 95 either singly or in combination: (i) order the T. 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 ill 112 113 114 115 116 117 owner or occupant to repair the private utilities, (ii) repair, or contract for the repair of, the private facilities and charge the costs to the property owner or occupant, or (iii) order the owner or occupant to remove the private utilities from the public right-of-way; b. If public utilities are extended to the property, the owner or occupant shall abandon the private facilities and connect to the public facilities in accordance with applicable City ordinances; C. The site plan for the proposed development shall be incorporated by reference into the agreement, which shall allow only that development shown on the approved site plan; and d. No future development of the property not expressly contemplated by the agreement shall be allowed unless expressly approved pursuant to this Policy. 6. The City may, at its discretion, and where feasible, require other property owners or occupants seeking to install private utilities in the public right-of-way to enter into a cooperative agreement to provide for 5 118 the construction and maintenance of a single, combined 119 private utility line. 120 7. All applicable connection fees and utility charges 121 shall be paid in accordance with normal City operating 122 practices and in any event, prior to the connection of 123 the property to the public system. 124 125 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 126 Virginia, on the day of 2004. CA-9162 H:\OID\ordres\6-8 utility policyres.doc R-3 June 2, 2004 APPRO D AS TO CONTENT: Public Utilities Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: /1L j/. City Attorney's Office 9 Policy Report Private Utilities in the Rural Area Connecting to the Public Water and Sanitary Sewer System June 8, 2004 Background: The purpose of this Policy Report is to propose a revision to the City's policy with respect to allowing private utilities located in the Rural Area of the City to connect to the public water or sanitary sewer system located north of the Green Line or in the Princess Anne/Transition Area. It is submitted for review and approval by City Council. From time to time, the Department of Public Utilities has been asked to approve the installation of privately -owned utility lines in the public right-of-way for the purpose of connecting a property to the public water or sanitary sewer system. Although this practice is discouraged, it is generally allowed north of the Green Line if there are no practical means to serve the property with the public system, and if the on -site systems are not providing an acceptable alternative. In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, and because of prior decisions of City Council involving the location of certain sanitary sewer lines, the Department of Public Utilities has not allowed or agreed to a connection to the public system if the property was south of the Green Line or not in the Princess Anne/Transition Area. However, in December 2003, the City adopted a new Comprehensive Plan that contains additional guidance with respect to urban/suburban infrastructure in the vicinity of the Green Line and Princess Anne/Transition Area boundaries. Recently, Public Utilities has been asked to approve the installation of private sanitary sewer force mains in the public right-of-way that would connect properties located in the Rural Area of the City to the public sanitary sewer system located in the Princess Anne/Transition Zone and north of the Green Line. The attached summary of the Sandbridge/Siebert Realty request to serve commercial activities is an example of one such request. In light of these requests and the revision to the Comprehensive Plan, staff from Public Utilities met with staff from Planning and the Law Department to discuss alternatives. Page 2 of 4 Considerations: In December of 2003, the City of Virginia Beach adopted a new Comprehensive Plan. As in prior versions, the plan reiterated the City's policy with respect to extending public infrastructure into the Rural Area of the City. The Rural Area is defined as properties south of the Green Line and not in the Princess Anne/Transition Area: It has been a long-standing policy of the city not to allow the extension of urban infrastructure into the rural area of the city. The Rural Preservation Plan allows reasonable levels of rural residential development to continue into the foreseeable future thus ensuring that demand placed on public facilities will remain at or below what is deemed acceptable for rural communities. City of Virginia Beach 2003 Comprehensive Plan, December 2003, page 165, (emphasis added). However, the revised plan also included guidance that indicates such a policy should not be absolute: ... residents of the city, whether urban or rural, deserve reasonable response to basic health, safety and welfare concerns due to existing or longstanding conditions, and the Green Line is not intended to prevent investment to remedy such concerns. Some of these concerns may be due to demand placed on facilities in the Transition Area or rural area that originate outside the area or outside the city. ]bid, page 33, (emphasis added). Public Information: The City's Comprehensive Plan review process provided extensive opportunity for public review and comment prior to adoption of the plan, including the language on page 33. In addition, this Policy Paper and the associated Council Agenda Request and Resolution have been advertised as part of the normal City Council Agenda process, and a public hearing was held on May 11. Alternative Courses of Action: Staff identified three alternatives: Retain the existing policy and do not allow the extension of Public Utilities into the Rural Area. This would include not allowing any property owner in the Rural Area to connect to the public system via private waterlines and/or force mains. 2. Do not extend public water and sanitary sewer into the Rural Area. However, modify the policy to allow property owners in the Rural Area to connect to the public system via private waterlines and/or force mains. 3. Do not extend public water and sanitary sewer into the Rural Area. However, modify the policy to allow property owners in the Rural Area to connect to the public system via private waterlines and/or force mains, subject to strict limitations based upon a bona -fide need and existing development or reasonable expansions thereof. Page 3 of 4 Alternative 1 would best preserve the Green Line and Princess Anne/Transition Area boundaries in accordance with the overall goal of preventing urban/suburban development from encroaching upon the Rural Area. However, it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which indicates that the Green Line and Princess Anne/Transition Area boundaries should not be absolute when circumstances involving hardships and existing development are present. Alternative 2 could result in requests for many private water lines and sanitary sewer force mains extending from the Rural Area across the Green Line and Princess Anne/Transition Area boundaries. It would result in the de facto extension of urban/suburban infrastructure into the Rural Area and could undermine the rural preservation objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Alternative 3 will likely result in some private utility extensions across the Green Line and Princess Anne/Transition Area boundaries. However, if the policy exceptions are strict enough, and properly enforced, there are likely to be few properties that would qualify and then, only due to bona fide hardships involving existing development or reasonable expansions thereof (i.e., no greater than double the floor area of the existing development). This would be consistent with the guidance provided by the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendations/Proposed Policy: 1. The Department of Public Utilities shall not extend public water or sanitary sewer infrastructure into the Rural Area. 2. The Department of Public Utilities shall allow private utilities in the public right-of-way that connect a Rural Area property to the public water or sanitary sewer system only if all of the following requirements are met: a. There is adequate capacity in the public system at the point of connection to accommodate the additional flow; b. In the written opinion of the Virginia Department of Health, the existing on -site utilities are failing, or likely to fail, and there are no alternatives that would be approved and permitted by the Virginia Department of Health; C. The principal use of the property served by the existing on -site utilities is not changed;and d. The extension is to serve (i) an existing development; (ii) the reconstruction or expansion of an existing commercial development resulting in a total floor area no greater than double that of the development prior to the expansion; (iii) the reconstruction or expansion of an existing residential development where no additional dwelling units are constructed; or (iv) a development which is the subject of an approved site plan which remains valid as of the date of adoption of this policy. 3. To the extent possible consistent with normal engineering design principles, the private utilities shall be sized to serve only the development approved for connection to the public system. 4. The cost of the private utilities (i.e., construction and operation and maintenance) shall be paid for by the owner or occupant of the property served by such utilities. 5. The owner and occupant of the property shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City, which agreement shall be in form and substance acceptable to the Director of Public Utilities and City Attorney and shall, at a minimum, contain the following provisions: a. The property owner or occupant shall, at all times, maintain the private facilities in good working order. If the City concludes that the property owner or occupant have not maintained the private facilities in the public right-of-way to the satisfaction of the City, the City may, either singly or in combination: (i) order the owner or occupant to repair the private utilities, (ii) repair, or contract for the repair of, the private facilities and charge the costs to the property owner or occupant, or (iii) order the owner or occupant to remove the private utilities from the public right-of-way; b. If public utilities are extended to the property, the owner or occupant shall abandon the private facilities and connect to the public facilities in accordance with applicable City ordinances; C. The site plan for the proposed development shall be incorporated by reference into the agreement, which shall allow only that development shown on the approved site plan; and d. No future development of the property not expressly contemplated by the agreement shall be allowed unless expressly approved pursuant to this Policy. 6. The City may, at its discretion, and where feasible, require other property owners or occupants seeking to install private utilities in the public right-of-way to enter into a cooperative agreement to provide for the construction and maintenance of a single, combined private utility line. All applicable connection fees and utility charges shall be paid in accordance with normal City operating practices and in any event, prior to the connection of the property to the public system. Review and Approval: Appro en�d as to Content: Director of Public Utilities Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: City Attorney's Office �-Z-o Date 6 -a-6v Date CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Annual Permit Renewal for Area Private, Municipal, and Non -Profit EMS Organizations MEETING DATE: June 8, 2004 ■ Background: Section 10.5-2 of the City code requires renewal of all existing Emergency Medical Services agency permits which are issued throughout the year to the area private, and non-profit organizations operating emergency medical services agencies or vehicles within the city limits. Annual renewal begins July 1 of each year and expires June 30 of the following year. Six emergency medical services agencies are requesting renewal to continue their operations within the City of Virginia Beach providing those levels of care currently authorized. ■ Considerations: The following applications have been received and processed by the Department of Emergency Medical Services for the operation of basic and advanced life support agencies: Eastern Shore Ambulance, Lifeline Ambulance Service, Inc., Children's Hospital of the Kings Daughters; Network Medical.; Nightingale Regional Air Ambulance; and Medical Transport. During the previous twelve months, the private ambulance agencies performed non -emergency interfacility transports which include both basic and advanced fife support calls. ■ Public Information: The public will be noted of the pending action via the Council Agenda as printed in the Beacon. ■ Alternatives: This is an annual administrative action. Failure to renew permits would halt all non -emergency medical transport services in the City. Dozens of patients daily would be without transportation. This is not a function provided by the City's volunteer rescue squads. ■ Recommendations: The Department of EMS recommends approval of all permit applications. ■ Attachments: Permit Applications. Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager: 1 AN ORDINANCE TO GRANT PERMITS ALLOWING 2 CERTAIN EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES 3 AGENCIES TO OPERATE IN THE CITY OF 4 VIRGINIA BEACH 5 6 7 8 9 10 WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Section 10.5-2, all existing 11 Emergency Medical Services agency permits which are issued 12 throughout the year to area private and non-profit organizations 13 operating emergency medical services agencies or vehicles within 14 the city must be renewed each year; 15 WHEREAS, applications for permit renewals have been received 16 by the following agencies: Eastern Shore Ambulance, Lifeline 17 Ambulance Service, Inc., Children's Hospital of the Kings 18 Daughters, Network Medical; Nightingale Regional Air Ambulance, and 19 Medical Transport, and 20 WHEREAS, the above listed private ambulance agencies perform 21 services not provided by the City's volunteer rescue squads, such 22 as non -emergency inter -facility transports, which includes both 23 basic and advance life support calls. 24 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 25 OF VIRGINIA BEACH; 26 1. That the City Council hereby grants Emergency Medical 27 Services permits to the following agencies: 28 Eastern Shore Ambulance, Lifeline Ambulance Service, Inc., 29 Children's Hospital of the Kings Daughters, Network Medical 30 Nightingale Regional Air Ambulance, and Medical Transport, 31 2. That these permits shall be effective from July 1, 2004 32 until June 30, 2005. 33 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 34 Virginia, on this 8th day of June, 2004. CA-9268 /ordres/proposed/10.5-2 ord.doc R2 - May 25, 2004 APPROVED 1AS TO CONTENTS: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Chief, Emergency Medical Svcs. Ci ttorn s fice N PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW SUMMARY Organization: Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters (Roger Vaughan, Manager) 601 Children's Lane Norfolk, VA 23507 L9� Recommend Approval ❑ Recommend Denial Comments: Organization: Eastern Shore Ambulance (Dennis Taylor, President) 8426 Sugarhill Lane Sanford, VA 23426 B-� Recommend Approval ❑ Recommend Denial Comments: Organization: Lifeline Ambulance Service, Inc. (James C. Jones, Jr., President) 310 Bell Road Christiansburg, VA 24073 PJ Recommend Approval ❑ Recommend Denial Comments: Organization: Medical Transport (Donald Jellig, President) 5792 Arrowhead Drive, Suite 200 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 l9' Recommend Approval ❑ Recommend Denial Comments: NAY 1 o Zuu4 DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW SUMMARY Organization: Network Medical (Norman Poole, President) 1533 Technology Drive Chesapeake, Va 23320 CT Recommend Approval ❑ Recommend Denial Comments: Organization: Nightingale Regional Air Ambulance (David Bernd, President) 600 Gresham Drive Norfolk, VA 23507 C� Recommend Approval ❑ Recommend Denial Comments: ❑ Approval ❑ Denial Comments: EMS Regulati & Enforcement Divisi n Chief I -Medical Director yid" Chief of of EMS FINAL DISPOSITION City Clerk 5-10-04: 1:56PM:'JA BEACH MEDICAL SER ;4257884 a 3/ 3 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES EMS AGENCY PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION AGENCY NAME: Network Medical VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: EXPIRES: VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSIFICATION: ALS Non -transport ADDRESS: 1533 Technology Drive Chesapeake, Va 23320 PHONE: 285 nu PRESIDENT: Norman Pool, Z S S - 32 3 (,c MANAGER: Torn H4enN 92-7--7as l NUMBER OF PERMITTED VEHICLES BY TYPE: COMMENTS: Does your agency comply with the minimum requirements as set forth in the Rules and Reufalatiom of the Board of Redth Cotamonwealth of Virgin% Governing Emierma Medical Services 1990 as amended? %5 YES o NO IZrru""T 4"l Date d d IdLOZ�ddS9'ON/90 1'. 15/to ll b00Z ll AdW(3 1) SN�iSH 'V�IQ3N MOhf13N [Q�� CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES EMS AGENCY PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION AGENCY NAME: Medical Transport VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSIFICATION: ADDRESS: 5792 Arrowhead Drive, Suite 200 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 PHONE: 671-9302 PRESIDENT: Donald Jellig MANAGER: Russell Blow 308 EXPIRES: ALS Ground Transport (Non -emergency -Unrestricted) and Emergency -Restricted) NUMBER OF PERMITTED VEHICLES BY TYPE: 'lI G Rom A+.�� •w. cGs COMMENTS: Does your agency comply with the minimum requirements as set forth in the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Health Commonwealth of Virginia Governin¢ Emergency Medical Services 1990 as amended? 9 YES ❑ NO � 7 7L v 7AP2 COY Name/Title 0 ElLA Ti0A-5 A%4-A10Jc e""- Date CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES EMS AGENCY PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION AGENCY NAME: Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: 315 EXPIRES: VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSIFICATION: ALS Ground Transport. (Inter -facility Emergency and Non -emergency) ADDRESS: 601 Children's Lane Norfolk, VA 23507 PHONE: 668-7453 MANAGER: Roger Vaughan NUMBER OF PERMITTED VEHICLES BY TYPE: COMMENTS: Does your agency comply with the minimum requirements as set forth in the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Health Commonwealth of Virginia Governing Emergency Medical Services 1990 as amended? VNES ❑ NO Na itl�c Date CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES EMSAGENCY PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION AGENCY NAME: Lifeline Ambulance Service, Inc. VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: qd l EXPIRES: 5�6iJ VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSIFICATION: ALS Ground Transport (Non -Emergency -Unrestricted and Emergency -Restricted) ADDRESS: 310 Bell Road Christiansburg, VA 24073 PHONE: 540-382-1044 PRESIDENT: James C. Jones, Jr. VICE PRESIDENT: G p D e'(<-44r- NUMBER OF PERMITTED VEHICLES BY TYPE: 30 — A-L S COMMENTS: /l/ot l ram/ �,sc.. /w�.. / `r• LA4 �yhk �.dcT Does your agency comply with the minimum requirements as set forth in the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Health Commonwealth of Virginia Governing Emergency Medical Services 1990 as amended? )(YES ❑ NO Nameftitle Date CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES EMS AGENCY PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION AGENCY NAME: Eastern Shore Ambulance VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: EXPIRES: VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSIFICATION: ALS Ground Transport (Non -Emergency -Unrestricted and Emergency -Restricted) ADDRESS: P.O. Box 6 8426 Sugarhill Lane Sanford, VA 23426 PHONE: 787-824-5858 PRESIDENT: Dennis Taylor VICE PRESIDENT: Margaret A. Taylor NUMBER OF PERMITTED VEHICLES BY TYPE: �Q0 COMMENTS: � cwuv„sf{y Does your agency comply with the minimum requirements as set forth in the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Health Commonwealth of Vireinia Governing Emergency Medical Services 1990 as amended? W! YES ❑ NO �elSIle Y Name/Titfe Date CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES EMS AGENCY PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION AGENCY NAME: Nightingale Regional Air Ambulance VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS AGENCY NUMBER: VIRGINIA BEACH AGENCY CLASSIFICATION: ADDRESS: 600 Gresham Drive Norfolk, VA 23507 PHONE: 668-2500 PRESIDENT: David Bernd MANAGER: Kathy Colantuono NUMBER OF PERMITTED VEHICLES BY TYPE: COMMENTS: 509 EXPIRES: Air Ambulance (Emergency -Restricted) Does your agency comply with the minimum requirements as set forth in the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Health Commonwealth of Virginia Governing Emergency Medical Services 1990 as amended? )( YES ❑ NO Name/Tide %ter! Date �+jg��F�, Ysl CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE STATE BUDGET TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO HIRE FIREFIGHTERS AND IMPROVE FIRE SAFETY MEETING DATE: June 8, 2004 ■ Background: Congress has enacted legislation, known as the "SAFER" Act, that authorizes federal grants to fund the hiring of up to 75,000 additional firefighters around the country. ■ Considerations: Governor Warner has proposed an amendment to the State budget that would provide local governments with matching funds required for the SAFER grants. The General Assembly will consider this amendment on June 16`h. The proposed resolution requests members of the City's General Assembly delegation to support the amendment. ■ Attachments: Resolution Recommended Action: N/A Submitting Department/Agency: City Council City Manager: 1 Requested by Counciimember Harry Diezel 2 3 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 4 STATE BUDGET TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING 5 TO HIRE FIREFIGHTERS AND IMPROVE FIRE SAFETY 6 7 WHEREAS, Congress has enacted legislation known as the 8 "SAFER" Act that authorizes federal grants to fund the hiring of 9 up to 75,000 additional firefighters; and 10 WHEREAS, Governor Mark Warner has announced that he 11 plans to amend the proposed State budget to provide :Localities 12 with matching funds for SAFER grants, and the General Assembly 13 will consider this change on June 16, 2004. 14 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE 15 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 16 17 1. That the City Council hereby expresses its support for 18 State efforts to provide additional funding for fire safety and 19 requests members of the local delegation to approve proposed 20 amendments to the State budget that will provide localities with 21 matching funds for SAFER grants. 22 2. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a 23 certified copy of this ordinance to the members of the City's 24 General Assembly delegation. 25 26 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 27 Virginia, on the day of , 2004. CA-9284 H:\GG\OrdRes\SAFER.res.doc R-1 June 2, 2004 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney's 16ffice CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Ordinances to Amend the Ordinance Establishing the Town Center Special Service District by Modifying its Boundaries and to Appropriate $338,533 in Additional Property Taxes Levied in the Town Center Special Service District and $73,387 Realized from the Use of Money and Property to Fund Annual Operations and Public Infrastructure Maintenance Expenses MEETING DATE: June 8, 2004 ■ Background: The City has had a long-term goal of developing the Town Center to improve the overall form and quality of the development within the Central Business District core area and transform mostly undeveloped or underdeveloped land into an attractive, high quality, intensive, pedestrian designed, mixed use town center. To that end on November 23, 1999, the City Council adopted the Central Business District - South Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District with the intent of entering into an agreement with a private developer and earmarking TIF revenues as a source of funding for public infrastructure. On February 8, 2000, the City Council approved a Development Agreement for the Town Center. While the TIF revenues serve as a source of funding for public infrastructure, a Special Service District was created on May 14, 2002 by City Council to fund the annual operations and maintenance expenses of the public parking facility as well as an enhanced level of maintenance of the public infrastructure (roads, sidewalks, streetscapes, etc.). The service -maintenance plan funds the annual operations and maintenance of the garage, and it will provide funding for street sweeping, pressure washing, landscaping services, refuse collection, and valet services, and special events. The annualized cost of these services equates to $.57 per $100 of assessed value. ■ Considerations: The Development Agreement recognizes that the boundaries of the special service district may be expanded to include new development as it is completed. Block 12 was completed in the spring of 2004, and blocks 3 and 8 will be completed in the first half of FY 2004-05; thus, these blocks will be receiving enhanced maintenance services. The modified boundaries are described on the accompanying map and are not applicable to other properties located within the Town Center TIF District. New assessment data and projections indicate that estimated revenue generated by the Special Tax District will increase by an additional $338,533 for FY 2004-05. Additionally, the Virginia Beach Development Authority has entered into an agreement with the Town Center Associates L.L.C. for the exclusive right to sublease parking and storage space to tenants within the Town Center. The parking lease permits the lease up to ten percent of the parking spaces located in the Block 4 garage, plus fifty spaces. The master lease allows for the rental of 10,196 square feet of standard/limited storage within the garage. The revenues ($73,387) from these leases will be used to offset the operating expenses of the garage. ■ Public Information: Public Information was provided through notices of public hearings published in The Beacon for three consecutive Sundays, beginning on May 9, 2004 and ending May 23, 2004. Other public information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. ■ Alternatives: The development agreement, which has been approved by Council, commits the City to the maintaining the Special Service District at the Town Center. ■ Recommendations: Approval of the Ordinances to modify the boundaries of the Town Center Special Service District and Appropriate Additional Revenue to the Town Center Special Service District. ■ Attachments: Ordinances and map Recommended Action: Approval �Q Submitting Department/Agency: Management Service `" City Manager: I 2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORDINANCE 3 CREATING THE TOWN CENTER SPECIAL 4 SERVICE DISTRICT BY MODIFYING THE 5 DISTRICT'S BOUNDARIES 6 7 WHEREAS, by ordinance adopted May 14, 2002 (Ordinance 8 #2699B), the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach 9 established the Town Center Special Service District to 10 provide an enhanced level of City services and maintenance 11 for public infrastructure at the Town Center; 12 WHEREAS, after conducting a public hearing, the City 13 Council has determined that it would be in the best 14 interests of the City and its citizens to expand the Town 15 Center Special Service District to provide additional, more 16 complete and more timely services to the public facilities 17 and areas in the Town Center, as described in the ordinance 18 adopted on May 14, 2002. 19 20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 21 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 22 That Ordinance #2699B, "An Ordinance Creating the Town 23 Center Special Service District," is hereby amended to 24 modify the boundaries of the Town Center Special Service 25 District, as follows: 26 2. Boundaries of District. The 91stEiet is=wed=te the 27 30 Street, then ateaing east aleeg Main—St-L=eet to the ; _ _,_ _ se 31 32 BEive te it-interseel men wi�al3GeIuRibias Street, then fftevinEj 36 (a) The District is bounded as follows: Beginning at 37 the southeast corner of the intersection of Virginia Beach 38 Boulevard and Market Street, moving south to the southeast 39 corner of the intersection of Potomac Street and Market 40 Street, then moving west along Potomac Street to the 41 southeast corner of the intersection of Independence 42 Boulevard and Potomac Street, then moving south along 43 Independence Boulevard to the northeast corner of the 44 intersection of Independence Boulevard and Southern 45 Boulevard, then moving east along Southern Boulevard to the 46 northeast corner of the intersection of Southern Boulevard 47 and Market Street, then moving to the north along Market 48 Street to the northeast corner of the intersection of 49 Columbus Street and Market Street, then moving to the east 50 along Columbus Street to the northwest corner of the 51 intersection of Columbus Street and Constitution Drive, then 52 moving to the north along Constitution Drive to the 53 southwest corner of the intersection of Constitution Drive 54 and Virginia Beach Boulevard, then to the west along 55 Virginia Beach Boulevard to the point of beginning. 56 57 (b) following Within the area, which boundaries described above, the will not receive enhanced maintenance 58 or services, shall be excluded from the District: beginning 59 at southwest corner of the intersection of Potomac Street 60 and Market Street, then moving west along Potomac Street to 61 the southeast corner of the intersection of Potomac Street 62 and Independence Street, then moving south along 63 Independence Boulevard to the northeast corner of the 64 intersection of Independence Boulevard and Columbus Street, 65 then moving east along Columbus Street to the southwest 66 corner of the intersection of Columbus Street and Town 67 Center Drive, then moving north on Town Center Drive to the 68 southwest corner of the intersection of Town Center Drive 69 and Main Street, then moving west on Main Street to the 70 southwest corner of the intersection of Main Street and 71 Central Park Avenue, then south on Central Park Avenue to 72 the northeast corner of the intersection of Central Park 73 Avenue and Commerce Street, then moving west along Commerce 74 Street to the southwest corner of the intersection of 75 Commerce Street and Market Street, then north along Market 76 Street to the point of beginning. 77 (c) The particular boundaries of the District, and the 78 excluded areas, are set forth in detail in the attached map, 79 labeled as "Exhibit A," which shall control in the event of 80 any discrepancy between the map and the description in the 81 preceding paragraphs. m 83 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 84 That this ordinance shall be effective on July 1, 2004. ,I 86 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 87 Virginia on the day of 2004. 88 m Approved as to Content Approved as to Legal Sufficiency Department of Management Services DepartmerWof Laws CA9282 R6 June 1, 2004 H:\PA\ORDRES\Town Cener Modified Bondaries.doc J� - - - - - - - --------- -- ------ ----------- ---- - - _�- - - -- �?�maxocuutcsxoo �_-- I' I I II � III ! II TOWN CENTER WYE 8 i I CENTRAL PARK AVENUE __________----------- __.___-_ ! __-_ __ _ _ ______ 4 ______ _______ ___ _______ __. _______ _------ ( - - -_------p _ ::__ _ __�_._ rL ----- L------- - -------- �....[--------- - lNDEPENDENCEBLVD. I 2 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $338,533 IN 3 ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TAX LEVIED IN TOWN 4 CENTER SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT AND 5 $73,387 REALIZED FROM THE USE OF MONEY 6 AND PROPERTY TO THE TOWN CENTER SPECIAL 7 SERVICE DISTRICT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND IN 8 THE FY 2004-05 OPERATING BUDGET TO 9 PROVIDE AN ENHANCED LEVEL OF OPERATIONS 10 AND MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE 11 12 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, 13 VIRGINIA: 14 1. That $338,533 of additional property taxes levied in 15 the Town Center Special Service District and $73,387 in funds 16 from the use of money and property are hereby appropriated to 17 the Town Center Special Service District Special Revenue Fund in 18 the FY 2004-05 Operating Budget to provide an enhanced level of 19 operations and maintenance of public infrastructure in the Town 20 Center Special Service District. 21 2. That property tax revenue is hereby increased by 22 $338,533 and revenue from use of the money and property 23 increased by $73,387 in the FY 2004-05 Operating Budget. 24 3. That this ordinance shall be effective on July 1, 2004. 25 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 26 Virginia on the day of , 2004. Approved as to Content _ Spa. � Management Services Approved as to Legal Sufficiency City Attorney's Office CA9280 R3 H:\PA\GG\ORDRES\Town Center Additional Revenue ORD.doc May 27, 2004 Wv. sue+. 4 1if CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Conversion of part-time to full-time positions for Pungo-Blackwater Library MEETING DATE: June 8, 2004 ■ Background: Maintaining hours of operation, increasing customer needs and difficulties in filling part- time positions at the Pungo-Blackwater Library have caused Library management to closely examine the efficiency and effectiveness of that Library's staffing structure. The Pungo-Blackwater Library is comprised of 2 full-time and 9 part-time positions. In the past two years, there have been 12 vacancies among the part-time positions, representing a turnover rate of 133%. All of the vacancies were the result of part-time staff members moving into full-time positions in other libraries. ■ Considerations: The continuous vacancies have placed a strain on maintaining customer services and hours of operation. New patron registrations at the Pungo-Blackwater Library are up 13% from last year and the number of visits and circulation is up 10%. The Library has closed the computer lab as a result of inadequate staffing to manage this service and the Library Manager is filling in at the service desk to support the evening and weekend shifts. To stabilize the staffing at this Library the Library Department is willing to relinquish 5 part-time Clerk 1 positions from other areas of the library system (2.50 FTE's), reduce the number of hours of a part-time Library Technician from 20 to 18 (.05 FTE's), and convert existing part-time LIS III and LIS I positions (1.45 FTE's) at the Pungo- Blackwater Library to full-time positions (Library Supervisor and Library Information Specialist 1). Over the five-year period from FY 2004-05 through FY 2008-09 the savings to the City from this conversion is expected to be approximately $14,000. ■ Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal City Council agenda process. ■ Alternatives: The Library Department has evaluated various options to bring stability to staffing at the Pungo-Blackwater Library and feels that this request to convert several part-time positions to two full-time positions represents the greatest benefit to the Library with the least impact on the remainder of the library system. ■ Recommendations: The Library Department recommends that City Council approve this request to convert part-time positions to full-time positions for the Pungo-Blackwater Library. ■ Attachments: Ordinance. Recommended Action: Submitting Department/Agency: Library Department City Manager: �`""Q"� � � '2�ovt I AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING TWO 2 ADDITIONAL FULL-TIME POSITIONS AND 3 ELIMINATING FOUR PART-TIME FTE's IN THE 4 FY 2004-05 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE 5 LIBRARY DEPARTMENT TO REDUCE STAFF 6 TURNOVER AT THE PUNGO-BLACKWATER 7 LIBRARY 8 9 WHEREAS, eliminating four part-time FTE's and adding two full-time FTE's will 10 reduce staff turnover at the Pungo-Blackwater Library and is expected to result in a savings to the City 11 of approximately $14,000 over 5 years. 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 13 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 14 1. That two full-time positions are hereby added to, and four part-time FTE's 15 eliminated from, the FY 2004-05 Operating Budget of the Library Department to reduce staff turnover 16 at the Pungo-Blackwater Library. 17 2. That this ordinance shall be effective on July 1, 2004. 18 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of 19 2004. 20 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: 21 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: 22 CD Q J, „1 � . 23 Management Services City Attorney's Office Pz! 25 CA9278 26 H:\PA\GG\ORDRES\ Library Conversion PB ORD.doc 27 R2 28 May 26, 2004 (SS t,A CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate a Grant in the Amount of $7,890 from the Institute of Museum and Library Services to provide for a Conservation Assessment of the Adam Thoroughgood House MEETING DATE: June 8, 2004 ■ Background: The City of Virginia Beach acquired the Adam Thoroughgood House, a 300 year -old National Historic Landmark, and its collection in September 2003. Staff identified a number of immediate needs including improvements to building systems and conservation and care of the collection. The Conservation Assessment Program ("CAP"), funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services ("IMLS"), provides for a professional architectural historian and a professional collections conservator to visit the site for a detailed assessment of the conditions and needs of the collection. These assessors will provide a written report with recommendations for establishing and maintaining the best possible environment for the care and display of these antique objects. Their visit is scheduled for July 28 and 29, 2004. ■ Considerations: The CAP grant from IMLS will provide $7,890 for the purpose of funding a conservation assessment for the Adam Thoroughgood House. The grant requires that the City fund a portion of the associated administrative fee. The City's portion of any expenses, estimated to be $1,270, will come from the 2003-04 Operating Budget of the Department of Museums and Cultural Arts. Grant funds will be used specifically for the fees for Heritage Preservation, a non-profit organization that administers the grant for IMLS, and the professional fees and expenses for the two assessors. ■ Public Information: A press release about the grant award has been distributed. Additional information will be disseminated to the public through the normal process involving the advertisement of the City Council agenda. ■ Alternatives: Not accept the grant and not appropriate funds. ■ Recommendations: Adoption of attached ordinance. ■ Attachments: Grant Award Letter Ordinance Recommended Action: Adoption Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Museums and Cultural Arts city Manager: v '16- 6 tell_ a 2 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE A 3 $7,890 GRANT FROM THE INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND 4 LIBRARY SERVICES TO THE FY 2003-04 OPERATING 5 BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MUSEUMS AND 6 CULTURAL ARTS TO PROVIDE FOR A CONSERVATION 7 ASSESSMENT OF THE ADAM THOROUGHGOOD HOUSE 8 9 10 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, 11 VIRGINIA: 12 13 1. That $7,890 is hereby accepted from the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences and 14 appropriated to the FY 2003-04 Operating Budget of the Department of Museums and Cultural 15 Arts to provide for a professional architectural historian and a professional collections conservator 16 to evaluate the Adam Thoroughgood House and its contents and prepare a detailed assessment of 17 the conditions and needs of the collection. 18 2. That estimated revenue from the federal government is hereby increased by $7,890, 19 3. That funding for this program is contingent upon the availability of the federal grant, 20 and if federal funding is reduced or eliminated, then the program may be reduced or eliminated 21 accordingly. 22 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 23 2004. 24 25 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO 215 SUFFICIENCY: 27 �N v �0 28 L 29 Management Services &tTty Attorney' ffice 30 31 CA-9274 32 H:\PA\GG\ORDRED\Adam Thoroughtood Ord.doc 33 R2 34 05/24/2004 1 day of LEGAL ULf 11l 1JJJ +U•UU rvr+.�+oroo rr 1410 LHIYU rTJUJG rwam uJ ty rJ VA U sg`y A, N W x � ♦��trB0.(•r'� I Institut4 of Museum and Library Services Official Award Notification for Grants and Cooperative Agreements Awardee Name and Address Adam Thoroughgood House 3131 Virginia Beach Boulevard Virginia Beach. VA 23452 Official Contact Mark Reed 3131 Virginia Beach Boulevard Virginla Beach, VA 23452 CFDA Number 45.304 Project Type Scope of Work and/or Special Condltlons Date of Award April 01, 2004 Award Number IA-00-04.0097-04 For Amendments, Original Award Award Period From May 01, 2004 To April 30, 2005 Award Amendments List 0410112004 $7,890.00 Original Award Granted This -grant shall be administered by the Project Director In accordance with 45 CFR 1180 Subpart C, Including any amendments in effect on the data of this, award. payment of this award will be issued approximately 7 days from receipt of the ACH Enrollment Form. Expenditure of funds under this award must be made as follows: Administrative Fee - $1,350 Conservator Professional Fee - varies Conservator7raval and On -Site E)Oanaes (including lodging and meals) - varies Questions concerning payment of this award should be directed to the IMLS Grants Administration Office, at (202) 21g-3684. or you may e-mail the Office at grantsadmin®Imis.gov. Questions concerning program coordination should be directed to Ms. Rory House in the Heritage Preservation's CAP Otfice,1625 K Sheet, NW, Suite 700. Washington, DC 20008, either by e-mail at rhouse(Mhedtegepreservation.org or by telephone at (202) 634-11422. IMLS Authorizing Official Name and Title Mary Estelle Kennelly S nature Associate Deputy Director for Museum Services gccounUng Code Date Posted Apr1101, 2004 621.4.850Z4100 Effective Date CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Fire Department Cost Recovery and Gift Fund Revenue Appropriation MEETING DATE: June 8, 2004 ■ Background: The Virginia Beach Fire Department receives income throughout the fiscal year for cost recovery of expenses mitigating hazardous materials incidents, use of training facilities and instructors, court ordered restitution for department expenses dealing with false calls and intentionally set fires, and gifts to the organization. Each of these specific types of unanticipated revenues are placed in itemized revenue accounts to facilitate correct appropriation back into operating budgets and historical evaluation of cost recovery efforts. ■ Considerations: In the current year, the department has received $3,391 in false call restitution, $18,352 from hazardous material incidents, and $16,561 for the use of the fire training center and instructors by outside agencies. The requested appropriation of cost recovery funds totaling $38,304 will be apportioned back into the Fire Department's Operating budgets for payroll, equipment/supplies and apparatus maintenanceffuel based on the average distribution of expenses for all affected events and incidents during the fiscal year. Gift fund donation revenues of $4,505 will be used to purchase items specifically designated for the Marine Incident Team and a number of equipment items designated for specific stations. Remaining undesignated gift funds are historically used to support Operation Smoke Detector and special projects of the Life Safety Education program. ■ Public Information: Public Information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. ■ Alternatives: Without appropriation of cost recovery funding, operating budgets cannot support specific activities such as educational partnerships in Training or would be forced to estimate revenues during the annual budget process. Cost recovery is not a steady revenue stream and does not lend itself to incorporation into the budget in that manner. Appropriation of donated funds in this manner maintains accountability as well as improves assurance that funds are used in a timely and appropriate manner. ■ Recommendations: Appropriate $38,304 from the designated cost recovery revenue sources into the Fire Department operating budgets. Appropriate $4,505 from the Fire Department gift fund to facilitate designated expenditures. ■ Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Fire Department City Manager: 1 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $38,304 FROM 2 VARIOUS COST RECOVERY SOURCES AND $4,505 IN 3 DONATIONS TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S FY 2003-04 4 OPERATING BUDGET FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 5 AND TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT 6 WHEREAS, the Fire Department has received unanticipated 7 revenue to offset expenses incurred as a result of false calls, 8 hazardous materials incidents, and the use of the fire training 9 center and departmental instructors; and 10 WHEREAS, the department also received monetary donations from 11 the public designated to fund the purchase of specific equipment. 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 13 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 14 1. That $38,304 in revenue from the sources set forth below is 15 hereby appropriated to the Fire Department's FY 2003-04 16 Operating Budget, with revenue increased accordingly: 17 (a) $3,391 of revenue received from false call 18 restitution; 19 (b) $18,352 received from hazardous materials incident 20 reimbursements; and 21 (c) $16,561 in reimbursements for the use of the fire 22 training center and departmental instructors. 23 2. That $4,505 in donations to the Fire Department's gift 24 fund is hereby accepted and appropriated to the Fire Department's 25 FY 2003-04 Operating Budget for the purchase of equipment, with 26 revenue increased accordingly. 27 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 28 Virginia, on the day of 1 2004. Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of the City Council. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT Saz�)a "J- Management Services APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENY City Att rn s Office CA 9275 H:\PA\GG\ORDRES\Fire Dept. Gift Fund ORD.doc R2 May 29, 2004 ..1, H to CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Acceptance and Appropriation of Juvenile Accountability Block Grant of $87,158 from the Department of Criminal Justice Services MEETING DATE: June 8, 2004 ■ Background: The City of Virginia Beach has been awarded an $87,158 grant in federal and local funds under the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program (JABG) from the State Department of Criminal Justice Services. Of the total grant, $30,505 will support Multi - Systemic Therapy (MST) provided by the Department of Human Services Mental Health/Mental Retardation/Substance Abuse (MH/MR/SA) Division to clients who go before the Juvenile Court; $47,953 will be used to expand the Transitional Jobs Project, and $8,700 will be used for administration. Multi -Systemic Therapy (MST): The Department of Juvenile Probation is entering its third year of partnership with MST through MH/MR/SA. The MST counselors provide services for 15 clients during a 4 month span, or approximately 45 clients a year. Juvenile Probation refers its most difficult clients to this program. Most clients have dual diagnoses, and have been in treatment for more than two years with minimal changes in behavior. Parents have not established consistent expectations or sanctions, may be ready to abdicate their role as parents, and/or may have psychiatric issues of their own. The MST addresses factors in the home that may contribute to criminal behavior. Parents are guided through a process to enhance family relationships and equip them with strategies to deal with inappropriate behavior. This model shifts emphasis from the child's behavior to the family working together to solve a family problem. Expectations are that the parents will learn to set sanctions and enforce them, the number of crisis calls to the probation officer will be reduced as will the number of violation charges filed, parent/child conflicts will be settled, and ultimately that the juvenile will be released from supervision. To date, this program has been partially funded with a grant through MH/MR/SA Division. To be successful, the program needs to be expanded to offer more complete services in the home. Using this grant to supplement the existing funding will enable full services to be offered to this difficult court population. Without it, the MST program might have to be discontinued. Transitional Jobs Project: The Youth Opportunities Coordinator will direct these grant funds to expand the Transitional Jobs Project (TJP), begun last year. According to Virginia's Director of Juvenile Justice, Jerrauld Jones, transitional services are the "weakest link" in the system. The goal of the TJP is to provide comprehensive services to out -of -school youth who are transitioning from correctional centers, with the expected outcomes of reduced recidivism, a safer community and taxpayer savings. The Youth Opportunities Office will contract with a community agency to provide services to youth referred by Probation and Parole. Juvenile Parolees most often return to the community without sufficient skills and knowledge to secure and maintain employment. Currently there is no mechanism in place for sustained assistance, support and follow-up with juvenile parolees in their job search and skill development upon release from a state correctional facility. Recidivism and/or lack of productivity are the result. Additionally, juvenile parolees have a number of barriers that prevent them from obtaining legal employment earning self- (and often family-) supporting wages. Transitional Job Projects usually operate by placing participants in subsidized employment at no monetary cost to the employer. However, the employer's commitment is to provide real work experience for six months to a year. Participants are then assisted with finding permanent employment. They receive a continuum of services and support during incarceration through their release including involvement in education, training and employment. Vocational training, counseling, job readiness, transportation and other services that remove barriers to success are provided. Success will be measured by reduced recidivism and the number of juvenile parolees who successfully complete the program by securing and sustaining permanent employment after receiving Transitional Jobs services as compared to those who do not. Administration: The Youth Opportunities Office will administer the grant to include monitoring and reporting. Funds will be used for travel, Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition (JCEC) activities (which could include contractual services), supplies, contracted manpower, marketing and special events related to the Transitional Jobs Project. ■ Considerations: This grant is comprised of $78,442 of federal funding, and requires a local match of $8,716, which is 10% of the total grant of $87,158. Of the total grant, $30,505 is to be appropriated to the Department of Juvenile Probation's FY2003-04 operating budget, and $56,653 appropriated in the Department of Parks and Recreation/Youth Opportunities Office FY 2003-04 operating budget. Neither department can absorb the cost of the local match in its FY 2003-04 operating budget. The matching funds are available in the Grant Consolidated Fund, Regular Reserves for Contingencies. If the grant funds are eliminated or reduced below the amount necessary to fully fund this program, then the programs will be reduced and/or eliminated accordingly. ■ Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council agenda notification process. ■ Alternatives: There are no alternative sources of funding available to provide these services. ■ Recommendations: Adoption of Ordinance. ■ Attachments: Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Statement of Award/Acceptance, Department of Criminal Justice Services. Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval of Ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Parks and Recreation City Manage.. U � `L I AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND 2 APPROPRIATE A $78,442 GRANT FROM THE 3 STATE AND TRANSFER $8,716 TO THE FY 4 2003-04 OPERATING BUDGETS OF THE 5 DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE PROBATION 6 AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND 7 RECREATION TO PROVIDE NEEDED 8 YOUTH SERVICES. 9 10 11 WHEREAS, under the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program, the City of Virginia Beach 12 has been awarded a $78,442 grant in federal funds from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice 13 Services, and the City must provide a 10% grant match for the period covered by the grant. 14 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 15 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 16 17 1. That $78,442 is hereby accepted from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services 18 and appropriated in the amounts and for the purposes as set forth below: 19 a. $30,505 to the FY 2003-04 Operating Budget of the Department of Juvenile Probation 20 to purchase multi -systemic therapy from the Department of Human Services for clients 21 who are before the Juvenile Court; and 22 b. $47,937 to the FY 2003-04 Operating Budget of the Department of Parks and 23 Recreation for the Youth Opportunities Office to expand a Transitional Jobs Program for 24 juvenile parolees who are released from state correctional facilities. 25 2. That local match funding in the amount of $8,716 is hereby transferred from the Grants 26 Consolidated Fund Reserve for Contingencies - Grant Match to the FY 2003-04 Operating Budget of the 27 Department of Parks and Recreation for the Youth Opportunities Office to use as funding for the 28 Transitional Jobs Program and grant administration. 29 3. That funding for these programs is contingent upon the availability of the federal block grant, 30 and if federal funding is reduced or eliminated the programs may be reduced or eliminated accordingly. 31 4. That estimated revenue from the federal government is hereby increased in the FY 2003-04 32 Operating Budget by $78,442. 33 34 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on June 1, 2004. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 CA-9276 H:\PA\GG\ORSUuvenile Block Grant Ord.doc R3 05/26/04 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Via.& Management Services APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: ity Attomey's Office �� ,,A Bq CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Transfer $364,000 from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies to the FY 2003-04 Operating Budget for Revenue Reimbursements to Fully Fund the Real Estate Tax Relief Program MEETING DATE: June 8, 2004 ■ Background: Since FY 1972-73, the City has offered real estate tax relief to qualified elderly and/or disabled citizens. In FY 1998-99, the City raised the income and net worth thresholds in two stages (one in FY 99 and again in FY 00), and adopted a policy to annually updated these thresholds in the same manner used by the Social Security Administration for determining the COLA payments to recipients. This procedure helped ensure that relief levels are indexed to inflation to maintain equity. In FY 2004-05, Council adopted a policy to increase the income and net worth thresholds by the rate at which residential appreciation was increasing rather than by the COLA. ■ Considerations: Actual participation and the corresponding expenditures in this program have been higher than projected since the FY 2003-04 budget estimate of $3,097,463 was developed and approved. Much of this increase can be attributed to the higher than forecasted appreciation in real estate. Staff has incorporated this increased cost, as well as the programmatic changed noted above, in the budget estimates for FY 2004-05. ■ Public Information: Public information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. ■ Alternatives: If additional funds are not appropriated, City Code § 35-67.2 provides that the amounts of tax relief available will be reduced for participants. ■ Recommendations: Approve the ordinance to transfer funds $364,000 from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies to the FY 2003-04 Operating Budget for Revenue Reimbursements to fully fund the Real Estate Tax Relief Program. ■ Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Management Services City Manager: IL-, N'x"� I AN ORDINANCE TO TRANSFER $364,000 FROM 2 THE GENERAL FUND RESERVE FOR 3 CONTINQENCIES TO THE REVENUE 4 REIMBURSEMENTS CATEGORY IN THE FY 2003-04 5 OPERATING BUDGET TO FULLY FUND THE REAL 6 ESTATE TAX RELIEF PROGRAM 7 8 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, 9 VIRGINIA: 10 That $364,000 from the General Fund Reserve for 11 Contingencies is hereby transferred to the Revenue 12 Reimbursements category in the FY 2003-04 Operating Budget to 13 fully fund the Real Estate Tax Relief Program. 14 15 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 16 Virginia on the day of , 2004. Approved as to Content Approved as to Legal Sufficiency Management Services City Attorn y's Office CA-9279 R2 H:\PA\GG\ORDRES\Tax Relief Program ORD.doc May 27, 2004 . ' .ram � C t • /�� r 0 V nf^,N�L Subdivision Variance i 3 �x CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Wayne T. & Ann M. Barnes and Opal M. Ponvert — Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: June 8, 2004 ■ Background: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Wayne T. & Ann M. Barnes and Opal M. Ponvert on property located at 3715 and 3713 Little Neck Point (GPINS 14895120300000; 14895101680000). DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN ■ Considerations: It is the intent of the applicant to create a total of five (5) parcels, two (2) of which will be additional home sites, two (2) lots for the existing dwellings, and one (1) 15,752 square foot site will be for a Department of Public Utilities Sewer Pump Station. There is an existing parcel that contains a graveyard. The property boundaries for that site will remain unchanged. Adequate buildable area has been depicted on the submitted plan outside of the Resource Protection for the two (2) new dwellings and the pump station. The existing two (2) dwellings will remain where they are currently located. The applicant will sell the City one of the lots created if this variance is granted (Lot 4), which will be developed with a pump station thereby eliminating potentially 330 single-family dwelling septic systems in the Sea Breeze and Little Neck neighborhoods. Through the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP 6- 030), the Department of Public Utilities has planned and secured funding for this project. Public Utilities Staff have determined that there are very few undeveloped parcels in the Little Neck peninsula that could be used as a pump station site. This is the last large neighborhood sanitary sewer project in the northern portion of the City. Lots 1, 2 and 3 will each have only 20 feet of frontage along a public right-of-way rather than the 125 feet required. The proposed pump station site (Lot 4) is proposed with 95 feet of frontage. Due to the required turnaround that will be installed, the pump station's location will necessitate a yard setback variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The proposed Lot 5 will have approximately 172 feet of frontage. The cemetery site will have zero lot width, which is consistent with the current configuration of this site. All lots will meet the minimum square footage requirement of 40,000 square feet except for the cemetery site (12,725 square feet) and the proposed pump station site (15,742 Barnes and Ponvert Page 2 of 2 square feet). The applicant will dedicate 9,604 square feet of property to the City to extend the right-of-way and to install the turnaround. This additional right-of- way will provide access to the three (3) residential parcels along the water/marsh and the proposed pump station site, albeit not the minimum frontage required. Staffs evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, does provide evidence of a hardship justifying the granting of a variance to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The existing parcels are of unusually large size and depth compared to those found in this area of Virginia Beach and as typically found in the R-40 District. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the request is consistent with the criteria for a variance presented in the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff recommended approval. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. The parcels shall be substantially subdivided and recorded as depicted on the Plat entitled, "Exhibit Plat Showing CBPA Lines & Setback Lines," prepared by Precision Measurements, Inc., dated March 1, 2004. 2. An easement shall be provided on the final subdivision plat for ingress/egress to the Keelings Graveyard site, indicated on the submitted plan identified above in Condition #1 as GPIN 1489500985. No building permits shall be issued for new homes until this condition is met and the easement recorded in the City of Virginia Beach Clerk's Office. 3. No development for either a principal structure or an accessory structure shall occur within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Resource Protection Area, which is delineated on the submitted plat identified in Condition #1 above. ■ 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 Manager:V.'�6ft G04-210-SVR-2004 WAYNE T. & ANN M. BARNES & OPAL M. PONVERT - Agenda Item # 5 May 12, 2004 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. Location and General Information 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 LOCATION: Property located at 3713 West Little Neck Road & 3715 West Little Neck Road M, ay G 4 W ne & Ann Barnes. O al .44. Ponvert / r lC'/ rJ ' ,r49, ��},,-J❑ l �� _,yam/.� \% ��, a ino,v,aon vnrsr..ncr GPIN: 14895120300000;14895101680000;14895009850000 COUNCIL ELECTION 5 — LYNNHAVEN BARNES AND PONVERT Agenda Item# 5 Page 1 DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 4.63 acres EXISTING LAND USE: Two (2) single family dwellings and one (1) graveyard SURROUNDING North: • Single-family dwellings / R-40 Residential District LAND USE AND South: • Single-family dwellings / R-40 Residential District ZONING: . Little Neck Road East: • Single-family dwellings / R-40 Residential District Lynnhaven River West: • Single-family dwellings / R-40 Residential District NATURAL The site is within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. A portion of the RESOURCE property lies within the Resource Protection Area (RPA), the more AND stringently regulated portion of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation CULTURAL Area. No new development is planned in the RPA. The existing lots FEATURES: are heavily wooded with tidal wetlands along the shoreline. There is an existing lot that has a graveyard (Keelings Graveyard). No additional development is planned on that site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. nAMM xr Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area of the city as being within the Primary Residential Area. The land use planning policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area. The established type, size, and relationship of land use, both residential and non- residential, in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future development. BARNES AND PONVERT Agenda Item # 5 Page 2 i0i.. Summary of Proposal Existing Lots: Two (2) of the three (3) existing lots meet the minimum square footage requirement of 40,000 square feet. Only one (1) of the three (3) lots meets the lot width requirement of 150 feet. The graveyard site has zero lot frontage and is only 12,725 square feet in size. Parcel B has approximately 28 feet of frontage and is 63,797 square feet. Parcel A has both adequate lot width (172 feet) and plenty of square footage at 125,394. Proposed Lots: It is the intent of the applicant to create a total of five (5) parcels, two (2) of which will be additional home sites, two (2) lots for the existing dwellings, and one (1) 15,752 square foot site will be for a Department of Public Utilities Sewer Pump Station. There is an existing parcel that contains a graveyard. The property boundaries for that site will remain unchanged. Adequate buildable area has been depicted on the submitted plan outside of the Resource Protection for the two (2) new dwellings and the pump station. The existing two (2) dwellings will remain where they are currently located. Lots 1, 2 and 3 will each have only 20 feet of frontage along a public right-of-way rather than the 125 feet required. The proposed pump station site (Lot 4) is proposed with 95 feet of frontage. Due to the required turnaround that will be installed, the pump station's location will necessitate a yard setback variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The proposed Lot 5 will have approximately 172 feet of frontage. The cemetery site will have zero lot width, which is consistent with the current configuration of this site. All lots will meet the minimum square footage requirement of 40,000 square feet except for the cemetery site (12,725 square feet) and the proposed pump station site (15,742 square feet). The applicant will dedicate 9,604 square feet of property to the City to extend the right-of-way and to install the turnaround. This additional right-of-way will provide access to the three (3) residential parcels along the water/marsh and the proposed pump station site, albeit not the minimum frontage required. Item "I� Lot 3 Lot L� L� Lot Width in feet 125 130* 95* 172 0* Lot Area in square feet 40,000 40,019 44,637 41,339 13,591* 40,001 12,725* * Variance required BARNES AND PONVERT Agenda Item # 5 Page 3 w Staff Eva] uation"� Staff recommends approval of this 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 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. Staffs evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, does provide evidence of a hardship justifying the granting of a variance to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The parcels are of unusually large size and depth compared to those found in this area of Virginia Beach and as typically found in the R-40 District. By granting this variance, the applicant will sell the City Lot 4, to be developed with a pump station thereby eliminating potentially 330 single-family dwelling septic systems in the Sea Breeze and Little Neck neighborhoods. Through the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP 6-030), the Department of Public Utilities has planned and secured funding for this project. Public Utilities Staff have determined that there are very few undeveloped parcels in the Little Neck peninsula that could be used as a pump station site. This is the last large neighborhood sanitary sewer project in the northern portion of the City. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision variance request based on the following findings: BARNES AND PONVERT Agenda Item # 5 Page 4 (1) The parcels are of unusual size and of unusual depth as compared to those typically configured in an R-40 Residential Zoning District as well as those lots currently existing in the surrounding area. All of the newly created lots will meet the minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet with the exception of Lot 4, the proposed sanitary sewer pump station site with only 15,742 square feet. This subdivision is similar to the several other unusually configured lots that have occurred in the surrounding area, either as a result of natural features, unusual environmental conditions or previous subdivisions platted around them. This variance request meets the general hardship criteria afforded to lots of unusual depth, configuration, and geographic location in the City where such are commonplace. (2) This development proposal is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's policies for the Primary Residential Area to preserve and protect the character, economic value, and environmental and aesthetic qualities of the adjacent neighborhoods. The proposed lot to accommodate a future City sanitary sewer pump station will reduce dependence on the existing marginal and failing septic systems, thereby minimizing negative impact on the water quality of the Lynnhaven River. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this request. Conditions The parcels shall be substantially subdivided and recorded as depicted on the Plat entitled, "Exhibit Plat Showing CBPA Lines & Setback Lines," prepared by Precision Measurements, Inc., dated March 1, 2004. An easement shall be provided on the final subdivision plat for ingress/egress to the Keelings Graveyard site, indicated on the submitted plan identified above in Condition #1 as GPIN 1489500985. No building permits shall be issued for new homes until this condition is met and the easement recorded in the City of Virginia Beach Clerk's Office. 3. No development for either a principal structure or an accessory structure shall occur within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Resource Protection Area which is delineated on the submitted plat identified in Condition #1 above. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. := BARNES AND PONVERT Agenda Item# 5 Page 5 45 r,g :arc ari"�� kSa � i, . Supplemental Infor.mation Zoning History # I DATE IREQUEST I ACTION 1 07-05-83 Subdivision Variance Denied Public Agency Comments Public Works Master Transportation Little Neck Point is a two (2) lane undivided residential Plan (MTP): street. There are no plans to upgrade this facility. BARNES AND PONVERT Agenda Item # 5 Page 6 Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Existing Land Use Little Neck 6,200 ADT — 20 ADT 500 ADT' Point Proposed Land Use 3— 40 ADT Average Daily Trips 'as defined by 2 existing single family dwellings 3as defined by a total of 4 single family dwellings Public Utilities Water: I There is an eight 8 inch City water main in West Little Neck Road. Sewer: This subdivision will connect to City sanitary sewer after the proposed vacuum system is completed with Capital Improvement Program Project 6-030. Construction completion is anticipated in the Fall of 2005. 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 strateciies as they pertain to this site. Fire and Rescue: All minimum requirements of the building code and fire code must be met. BARNES AND PONVERT Agenda Item # 5 Page 7 �w �o yaA��P oF�, Y G i�'z 8 _ 5 Ji199 Y IC'+�7 U/Y AS) F Nov y t6evnl avoy xo3N 37.un 1S3M Exhibit B Proposed Subdivision BARNES AND PONVERT Agenda Item # 5 Page 9 �w LL J N O U U) if Exhibit C Disclosure Statement 2 cSO ly oFo L C p rjpsi y r Z oil i psi.3 ` �a I1J O � oc O 9G_ C R RO Nc._, a;• 2R !A;p , Kid,iFd�ll )^yni =`N G�v f.00O .J ` 1"'i N q. W � C C ZO, O 4 _-.� � � > ZS C , n ply LF� N > Qppy ' L a �. ac c � � II 'nay .33 aon eaRm`� 's4 oa R I� sits a c ,1 l .o"sEom &Mahc o= .pm ES Ea a o o c.r"ryam '3 arvGN � 1 ( o Eo c�c ca'�iE `-'din o ra a.'T� Gw3D0 Y RY53©UUC T.r y' ry OaCCgLC Ua4WY FO%�C? - C BARNES AND PONVERT Agenda Item# 5 Page 10 Item #5 Wayne T. & Ann M. Barnes and Opal M. Ponvert Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard To certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance 3715 & 2713 Little Neck Point District 5 Lynnhaven May 12, 2004 CONSENT William Din: The next item is Item #5, Wayne T. & Ann M. Bames and Opal Ponvert. Is there a representative of this item? Mike McCarthy: Yes sir, I'm Mike McCarthy with the City's Department of Public Utilities. I'm a somewhat representative. William Din: There are three conditions on this item? Can you accept that for them? Bill Macali: No sir. The City really just represents the City in this matter. The applicant would really have to speak for themselves. William Din: We don't have anyone representing the applicant. Do we have to defer this? Bill Macali: No sir. The Commission can act on it. William Din: There are three conditions here. Are there any objections to placing this on consent? Yes, Mr. Scott? Robert Scott: Perhaps I can help with this comment. Each of the three conditions that are suggested, are conditions that are going to be imposed as part of subdivision review anyway. They're not above and beyond the normal routine of what is already required by law. So, just simply imposing them on your part does not put any burden on the applicant that isn't already there. William Din: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Knight, would like to discuss this one? Barry Knight: It is the intent of the applicant to create a total of five parcels, two of which will be additional home sites, 2 for the existing dwellings and one will be a site for the Department of Public Utilities Sewer Pump Station. There's an existing parcel that contains a graveyard. The property boundaries for that site will remain unchanged. Adequate buildable area has been depicted on the submitted plan. It's going to be outside the Resource Protection Area, the two new dwellings and the pump station. These existing two dwellings will remain where they're currently located. What it is that we have an applicant here that has two homes and they want to create lots for two more Item #5 Wayne T. & Ann M. Barnes and Opal M. Ponvert Page 2 homes, leaving the graveyard where it is. But, the City is going to get a pump station out of this also. This pump station is going to take 300 homes off of septic tanks and put them onto City sewer. That's going to be right at half of the homes remaining in this area that are on septic tanks now. So we view this as an acceptable use of this property and we recommend putting it on the consent agenda. William Din: Thank you Barry. Madame Chair, I would like to make a motion to approve this consent agenda item, Item #5, Wayne T. & Ann M. Barnes and Opal Ponvert located in the Lynnhaven District with three conditions. Dorothy Wood: Do I hear a second? Joseph Strange: I'll second it. Dorothy Wood: Our Vice Chair Will Din made the motion and seconded by Joe Strange. William Din: We're ready for the vote. AYE 11 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORLSEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 0 Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, this agenda item has been approved for consent. •� .a... v Supplemental Information Zoning History # I DATE REQUEST I ACTION 1 2/7/66 Conditional Use Permit (40 unit Hotel) Approved 9/8/69 Conditional Use Permit (Addition of 64 units) Approved 2/12/73 Conditional Use Permit (Dancing and Entertainment) Approved Public Agency Comments Public Works SEAGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Page 5 il'�•�'•• hH%1 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Seagate Development Corporation, Modification of a Nonconforming Use MEETING DATE: June 8, 2004 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Seagate Development Corporation for the Modification of a Nonconforming Use on property located at 703 Atlantic Avenue (GPIN 24272387830000). DISTRICT 6 — BEACH ■ Considerations: The site is currently used for a restaurant that has a minor connection to the adjoining hotel, but does not meet the zoning ordinance requirements for restaurants in conjunction with hotels. In the RT-1 Resort Tourist District restaurants must be located entirely within a hotel and cannot have a direct exterior entrance or exit. Freestanding restaurants are not allowed in the RT-1 District. Thus, the existing restaurant is non -conforming and any modifications must be approved by the City Council. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing restaurant and develop the site with a freestanding Dairy Queen restaurant, public restrooms and a new parking area. The proposed Dairy Queen will be similar in appearance to the applicant's existing Dairy Queen restaurant located at 17th Street and the Boardwalk. The applicant also proposes improvements to the 7th Street right-of-way that will provide an auto court area for visitors to pull in, off load beach items, and then proceed to the 9th Street Parking Garage, or other parking areas. Standard sidewalk improvements and street trees will be installed along Atlantic Avenue in front of this site and the Ramada Inn site to the south. Raised palm planters will be installed along both sides of 7th Street and along the Boardwalk, adjacent to this site and the Ramada Inn site. The existing "Marlin Palms" will be relocated to the centerline of 7th Street. The existing stage area within the 7th Street right-of- way will be enhanced with a new canopy and a general overhaul. ■ Recommendations: Pursuant to Section 105(e) of the City Zoning Ordinance, a nonconforming use may be modified only if the City Council finds that the proposed use, as modified, will be "equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than is the existing nonconformity." Staff recognizes that a cogent argument can be made against this proposal. Acknowledging the fact that restaurants are nonconforming in the RT-1 Resort Tourist District, reference to the overall goal for the Oceanfront Resort Area of Seagate Development Page 2 of 2 upgrading the quality of the product leads to the conclusion that a Diary Queen, though a fine complement to the array of Oceanfront businesses, may not further the overall goal as well as a full -service restaurant. However, the proposed modification, together with the accompanying improvements to the adjacent public right-of-way, minimizes the nonconformity and adds additional open space and amenities to the Oceanfront Resort Area. Staff concludes, therefore, that the proposed modification is reasonable and decreases the degree of nonconformity. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval.? Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager�_ '7altr,I�L r.^it1lA ^•+•++ r�' �Cyvv TE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION \. �A June 8, 2004 The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. Location and General Information REQUEST: Modification of a Non -Conforming Use — the site is currently used for a restaurant that does not meet the zoning ordinance requirements for restaurants in conjunction with hotels. Restaurants in the RT-1 Resort Tourist District must be located entirely within a hotel and cannot have a direct exterior entrance or exit. Although the existing restaurant does have a minor connection to the adjacent hotel, it is more oriented to the public at large and has direct entrances to the exterior. Thus, the existing restaurant is non -conforming and any modifications must be approved by the City Council. LOCATION: Property located at 703 Atlantic Avenue GPIN: 24272387830000 .,^'°➢.^' Seagate Develovment Co `1 4 R T � - s Rr Z,, a LAKE HOLLY mRTnsra:-- 22 Rr-1 Non{onlo.m Use SEAGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Page 1 COUNCIL 6 - BEACH ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14,985 square feet EXISTING LAND USE: Restaurant (Laverne's and Chix Cafe) SURROUNDING North: • Quality Inn Hotel / RT-1 Resort Tourist LAND USE AND . 7th Street ZONING: . Across 7th Street is The Ramada Inn and Mahi- South: Mahi Restaurant / RT-1 Resort Tourist East: • The Boardwalk and the Atlantic Ocean Atlantic Avenue Across Atlantic Avenue are retail and restaurant West: uses / RT-2 Resort Tourist NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL The site is directly adjacent to the Boardwalk, with an excellent vista FEATURES: to the Atlantic Ocean. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 65 to 70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The United States Navy's Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Program considers this facility compatible with airfield operations. Summary of Proposal The applicant proposes to demolish the existing restaurant (Laverne's and Chix Cafe) and to develop the site with a freestanding Dairy Queen restaurant, public restrooms and new parking area. The proposed Dairy Queen will be similar in appearance to the applicant's existing Dairy Queen restaurant located at 17th Street and the Boardwalk. As noted at the beginning of this report, restaurants must be contained within a hotel in the RT-1 Resort Tourist District and the existing restaurant is, therefore, non -conforming. The applicant also proposes improvements to the 7th Street right-of-way that will provide an auto court area for visitors to pull in, off load beach items, and then proceed to the 9th SEAGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Page 2 Street Parking Garage, or other parking areas. Standard sidewalk improvements and street trees will be installed along Atlantic Avenue in front of this site and the Ramada Inn site to the south. Raised palm planters will be installed along both sides of 7th Street and along the Boardwalk, adjacent to this site and the Ramada Inn site. The existing "Marlin Palms" will be relocated to the centerline of 7th Street. The existing stage area within the 7`h Street right-of-way will be enhanced with a new canopy and a general overhaul. According to the Tax Assessor's files, the building was constructed in 1963. The existing restaurant, Laverne's / Chix Cafe, has occupied the site for more than twenty years. Previous to that the Copper Kettle Restaurant occupied the site. The existing building is 5,931 square feet. The proposed Dairy Queen restaurant will be 1,691 square feet. The proposed restrooms will be 480 square feet. This will result in a reduction of 3,760 square feet of nonconforming restaurant space. The reduction in building area will also open a vista to the Boardwalk and the Atlantic Ocean. The nonconforming parking area will be replaced with conforming parking spaces. The existing restaurant development has 8000 square feet of paved parking area in the front, adjacent to Atlantic Avenue. The Dairy Queen proposal reduces this parking area to approximately 4,500 square feet, improving the appearance of the site from Atlantic Avenue. The two access points on Atlantic Avenue will be replaced with a single access from 7th Street. In conjunction with the proposed Dairy Queen, improvements are also being planned to the Ramada Inn to the south to include planting beds along Atlantic Avenue, a fountain feature along Atlantic Avenue, a new entrance feature or porte co-chere, reduction of an entrance on Atlantic Avenue and consolidation of access with the Dairy Queen from the proposed auto court. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area of the city as the Resort Area. The area is generally bounded by 42"d Street, the Atlantic Ocean, Rudee Inlet and Birdneck Road. The Comprehensive Plan states that we must continue to improve the quality of the resort area's physical environment by extending streetscape improvements along Atlantic Avenue and opening and improving vistas to the ocean. r Staff Evaluation SEAGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Page 3 Staff recommends approval of this request. Staff also recognizes that a cogent argument can be made against this proposal. Acknowledging the fact that restaurants are nonconforming in the RT-1 Resort Tourist District, reference to the overall goal for the Oceanfront Resort Area of upgrading the quality of the product leads to the conclusion that a Diary Queen, though a fine complement to the array of Oceanfront businesses, may not further the overall goal as well as a full -service restaurant. However, the proposed modification, together with the accompanying improvements to the adjacent public right-of-way, minimizes the nonconformity and adds additional open space and amenities to the Oceanfront Resort Area. Staff concludes, therefore, that the proposed modification is reasonable and decreases the degree of nonconformity. The request is acceptable subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions The site shall be developed substantially in accordance with the submitted plans titled 7th STREET PARK — CONCEPT PLAN", prepared by WPL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS / KINGDESIGN. Said plans are on file in the City of Virginia Beach Department of Planning. 2. The design of the exterior of the proposed building shall substantially conform to the existing Dairy Queen Restaurant located at 17th Street and the Boardwalk. Elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Director, or his designee, for review and approval as part of the site plan review. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable Cit Codes. SEAGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Page 4 Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Existing Land Use 81001 ADT 7,300 ADT - 912 Atlantic Avenue , , Proposed Land Use 3 — 2,148 'Average Daily Trips 'as defined by existing restaurant 3as defined by a fast food restaurant — does not account for any potential reduction due to pedestrian traffic Public Utilities Water: There is an existing 16-inch City water main in Atlantic Avenue. The site has an existing 5/8-inch meter that may be used if the water meter calculations support its use. Sewer: There is an existing 18-inch City gravity sewer in Atlantic Avenue. The site is connected to City sewer. 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 Rescue: There are no Fire Department concerns at this time Accessibility for fire equipment shall be addressed during detailed site plan review. SEAGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Page 6 _._�..�.Exhibits Exhibit A - 1 Aerial of Site Location SEAGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Page 7 Ll SEAGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Page 9 C 0 Exhibit B - 2 Proposed Site Plan �II i } i SEAGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Page 10 Exhibit B - 3 Proposed Site Plan SEAGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Page 11 G 1,5 c y r _ c u ' _ J c � } C _ _ F O ig G C„ 15 C L r C ` L _ L c n 5 _ c - L C G - ' = E = r 0 O N _ - C O_-✓ - c 0 c_ O -_ '_ 4 _ C G _ •_• J - V. Y _ 0 Exhibit C Disclosure Statement SEAGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Page 12 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL AIR STA?ION OCEANIA "50 TOMCAT BOULEVARD VIRGINIA BEACH. VIRGINIA 20460-2168 '-.S. Fa_Z.. .. _l5�:ic 3eac.. 9Dc_ zC.2 .._ Exhibit D Supplemental Information 1N RERLV .REFER TO 0014 January 12, 2004 ? .-,airy Cueen .... .,=__cam _.. -cd _... ..c ..-- 5 _ era:_... S. SEAGATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Page 13 1 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MODIFICATION OF 2 A NONCONFORMING USE ON PROPERTY OF SEAGATE 3 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LOCATED AT 703 4 ATLANTIC AVENUE 5 WHEREAS, Seagate Development Corporation (hereinafter 6 the "Applicant") has made application to the City Council for 7 authorization to modify a nonconforming use situated on certain 8 property having the address of 703 Atlantic Avenue, in the RT-1 9 Resort Tourist District; and 10 WHEREAS, more particularly, the Applicant desires to 11 replace a nonconforming restaurant with a new, smaller, 12 freestanding restaurant, public restrooms and parking area; and 13 WHEREAS, the said restaurant is a nonconforming use in 14 the RT-1 Resort Tourist District, as restaurants are only 15 allowed in conjunction with hotel and motels; and 16 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 105 of the City Zoning 17 Ordinance, the modification of a nonconforming use is permitted 18 only upon resolution of the City Council authorizing such action 19 upon a finding that the proposed use will be equally appropriate 20 or more appropriate to the zoning district than the existing 21 use; 22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE 23 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 24 That the City Council hereby finds that the proposed 25 structure, as modified, will be equally appropriate to the 26 district as is the existing structure. 27 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 28 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 29 That the proposed modification of the current 30 nonconforming restaurant is hereby authorized, upon the 31 following conditions: 32 1. The site shall be developed substantially in 33 accordance with the submitted plans titled "7th STREET PARK- 34 CONCEPT PLAN", prepared by WPL LANDSCAPE ARCHTECTS/KINGDESIGN. 35 Said design is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Department 36 of Planning. 37 2. The design of the exterior of the proposed 38 building shall substantially conform to the existing Dairy Queen 39 Restaurant located at 17th Street and the Boardwalk. Elevations 40 shall be submitted to the Planning Director, or his designee, 41 for review and approval as part of the site plan review. 42 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 43 Virginia, on the day of 2004. 2 CA-9273 OID/ordres/seagateres.doc R-2 May 25, 2004 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT Planning partment APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: zzg� Ci y Attorney's Office 1 11-25-0 12-8-69 2 4-11-83 Conditional Use Permit (Automobile Sales Rental) Conditional Use Permit (Gasoline Supply Station) Conditional Use Permit (Mini Warehouses) Approved Approved Approved ' .MM �4P�1g1 CC7 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: WDR Properties, Inc. — Modification of Conditions for a Conditional Use Permit approved by City Council on November 25, 2003 for automobile sales and rental (WDR Properties, Inc.) MEETING DATE: June 8, 2004 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of WDR Properties, Inc. for a Modification of Conditions for a Conditional Use Permit approved by City Council on November 25, 2003 for automobile sales and rental (WDR Properties, Inc.). Property is located at 5657 Shore Drive (GPIN 14691763140000). DISTRICT 4 — BAYSIDE ■ Considerations: A Conditional Use Permit permitting Automobile Sales and Rental for this applicant and this site was approved by the City Council on November 25, 2003 with ten (10) conditions. Condition 9 prohibits lighting fixtures that exceed 14 feet in height on the site. The purpose of limiting the height of lighting fixtures is so as not to disturb adjacent residential areas with excessive light spillover. The applicant is requesting a modification of this condition to allow fixture poles of 25 feet in height. The poles will have two sets of lights. One set of lights will be mounted at 25 feet, and the other set at 14 feet. The set of lights at the 25-foot height will be turned off between the hours of 9:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M., and the lights set at the 14-foot height will remain on for security purposes. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because it is an acceptable modification to the Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommended approval. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request with the following conditions: All conditions with the exception of Number 9 attached to the Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council on November 25, 2003 remain in affect. 2. Condition Number 9 of the November 25, 2003 Conditional Use Permit is deleted and replaced with the following: All outdoor lighting shall be shielded to direct light and glare onto the premises; said lighting and glare shall be deflected, shaded, and focused away from adjoining property. All lighting fixtures mounted above 14 feet in height on the light poles shall be on automatic timers that will shut off the lights between the hours of 9:00 pm and 7:00 am. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. /nI,• Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department*yam_ City Manager: `NJ'�` CO3-21 1 -MOD-2004 WDR PROPERIES, INC. Agenda Item # 11 May 12, 2004 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. REQUEST LOCATION GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: Location and General Information Modification of Conditions placed on a conditional use permit for Automobile Sales and Rental on November 25, 2003. Property located at 5657 Shore Drive 14691763140000 4 - BAYSIDE 38,491 square feet ( E WHMHVR P-1 WDR PROPERTIES Agenda Item # 11 Page 1 EXISTING A vacant Exxon Service Station and convenience store occupies the LAND USE: site. SURROUNDING North: . Shore Drive LAND USE AND . Across Shore Drive is the United States Navy Little ZONING: Creek Amphibious Base South: . Multiple -family dwellings / A-24 Apartment East: . Multiple -family dwellings / A-24 Apartment West: • Diamond Springs Road Across Diamond Springs Road is a Restaurant and Multiple -family dwellings / B-2 Business and A-24 Apartment NATURAL RESOURCE AND The site is mostly impervious with building, asphalt and concrete. CULTURAL Unkempt landscaping exists along Shore Drive and Diamond Springs FEATURES: Road. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. I {.. Summary of Proposa The Conditional Use Permit permitting Automobile Sales and Rental was approved by the City Council on November 25, 2003. The Conditional Use Permit has ten (10) conditions: The applicant shall submit a site plan for review and approval to the Department of Planning / Development Services Center before any development activity occurs on the site. The proposed site plan shall clearly depict the customer and employee parking and vehicle display areas and the proposed landscaping. No business license shall be approved until said site plan is reviewed and approved and a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the site. 2. The applicant shall eliminate the two existing curb cuts, one on Shore Drive and one on Diamond Springs Road that are located closest to the intersection of WDR PROPERTIES Agenda Item # 11 Page 2 Shore Drive and Diamond Springs Road. The site shall be improved with required street frontage landscaping and foundation planting as required in the Site Plan Ordinance, Section 5A. The applicant shall use plants specified in the Shore Drive Corridor Plan Appendices for the street frontage and foundation screening. Category IV Screening shall be required along the eastern and southern property lines. 4. The applicant shall remove the existing canopy. The applicant shall install a parapet, no less than 24 inches in height, to shield any roof top equipment from the rights -of -ways, if necessary. The building shall be painted an earth tone or neutral color. The building trim and accents may be painted with a primary color that the applicant uses with his business. Awnings or canopies shall be installed over the storefront windows and the main entry doors. The applicant shall submit elevations to the Department of Planning / Current Planning Division for review and approval. 5. The site shall be permitted a monument style freestanding sign, no more than eight (8) feet in height, and two building signs, to be approved by the Planning Director, in accordance with the City Zoning Ordinance. There shall be no other signs, neon signs or neon accents installed on any wall area of the exterior of the building, windows and / or doors, light poles, or any other portion of the site. 6. There shall be no pennants, streamers, balloons, portable signs or banners displayed on the site or the vehicles. 7. Vehicles shall be parked within the designated areas, and no vehicles shall be parked within any portion of the public right-of-way. No vehicles shall be displayed on ramps. Vehicles shall not be used as barriers to prevent ingress or egress of the site. Storage of vehicles awaiting sale shall not obstruct fire department access to the site. 8. No outside paging system shall be permitted. 9. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded to direct light and glare onto the premises; said lighting and glare shall be deflected, shaded, and focused away from adjoining property. Outdoor lighting fixtures shall not be erected any higher than 14 feet. 10. Hours of operation shall be between 9:OOam and 9:OOpm, Monday through Saturday, and 12:OOpm and 5:OOpm on Sunday. WDR PROPERTIES Agenda Item # 11 Page 3 Condition 9 prohibits lighting fixtures that exceed 14 feet in height on the site. The purpose of limiting the height of lighting fixtures is so as not to disturb adjacent residential areas with excessive light spillover. The applicant is requesting a modification of this condition to allow fixture poles of 25 feet in height. The poles will have two sets of lights. One set of lights will be mounted at 25 feet, and the other set at 12 feet. The set of lights at the 25-foot height will be turned off between the hours of 9:00 pm and 7:00 am, and the lights set at the 12-foot height will remain on for security purposes. Staff finds this to be a reasonable compromise. N9" ,f t Major Issues The following represents the significant issue identified by the staff concerning this request. Staffs evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which this issue is adequately addressed. Compatibility with the surrounding area. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area as Primary Residential Area. Limited commercial or institutional activities providing desired goods or services to residential neighborhoods may be considered acceptable uses on the edge of established neighborhoods provided effective measures are taken to ensure compatibility and non-proliferation of such activities. WDR PROPERTIES Agenda Item # 11 Page 4 Staff Evaluation "14 Staff recommends approval of this request. Staffs evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, adequately addresses the `Major Issue' identified above. The request is compatible with the surrounding residential uses. The applicant's plan to turn off the lights that are mounted at the 25 feet height during the hours of 9:00 pm to 7:00 am is reasonable and will help protect the adjacent residential uses from excessive light spillover. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this request. Conditions All conditions with the exception of Number 9 attached to the Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council on November 25, 2003 remain in affect. 2. Condition Number 9 of the November 25, 2003 Conditional Use Permit is deleted and replaced with the following: All outdoor lighting shall be shielded to direct light and glare onto the premises; said lighting and glare shall be deflected, shaded, and focused away from adjoining property. All lighting fixtures mounted above 12 feet in height on the light poles shall be on automatic timers that will shut off the lights between the hours of 9:00 pm and 7:00 am. 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(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. WDR PROPERTIES Agenda Item # 11 Page 2 4-11-83 Supplemental Information Zoning History 11-25-03 Conditional Use Permit (Automobile Sales 12-8-69 Rental) Conditional Use Permit (Gasoline Supply Station) Conditional Use Permit (Mini Warehouses) Approved Approved WDR PROPERTIES Agenda Item # 11 Page 6 Public Agency Comments Public Works Master Transportation Shore Drive in front of this site is a four lane divided Plan (MTP): minor suburban arterial. There is a Capital Improvement Program project (CIP #2-285.086) currently in the design phase for the intersection of Shore Drive and Diamond Springs Road. The plan calls for the entrances closest to the intersection on both Shore Drive and Diamond Springs Road to be closed. The project is expected to commence at the beginning of 2004. The applicant has worked with staff to determine adequate closure of the entrances pending commencement of the CIP project. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Shore Drive 29,000 28,200 Existing Land Use ADT' ADT' - 1,302 Diamond Springs 27,000 28,200 Proposed Road ADT' ADT' Sand Use - 32 'Average Daily Trips 'as defined by Gasoline Station with a Convenience Store 'as defined by Motor Vehicle Sales Public Utilities Water: There is a 12-inch water main in Shore Drive and a ten -inch water main in Diamond Springs Road. The site must connect to City water. Sewer: A 24-inch sanitary sewer force main exists in Shore Drive and a 20- inch sanitary sewer force main exists in Diamond Springs Road. The applicant must consult with Hampton Roads Sanitation District concerning connection to the force mains. WDR PROPERTIES Agenda Item # 11 Page 7 Public Safety In an effort to reduce opportunity for crime, the applicant should review and incorporate safety by design concepts and (design) strategies contained in the CVB Planning Department's, "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design - General Guidelines for Designing Safer Communities" booklet. A copy of this booklet can be obtained by contacting either the Planning Department or the Police Departments Crime Prevention Unit. Fire hydrants must be within 400 feet of a commercial structure. Storage of hazardous, flammable or combustible materials on site must be within the scope of the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code and NFPA. WDR PROPERTIES Agenda Item # 11 Page 8 • Exhibit A Aerial of Site Location WDR PROPERTIES Agenda Item # 11 Page 9 - x / \� »' \j\{= ig !Ei/ « ,! „4a Rig \,\ \! ; \)$(!tQ\§ G} / \\ ( ` &DR PROPERTIES Agenda Item fg Pm9# zt L t ii0 m OV�C G,_ jnN yry 0 3 V- y m j OLL.V m '4 ccmv m-- .3 RE m j p m m J G 9 3 i L`R RNtA 1J O GAO 'J 9�i m S E m m m c _a ._ °= u �, C v E O O'4 O T. _ _ �y ` NN`ga G�OLy QCpGL -V,C hL O O T V O E O O G yj O OL LJL VO> chi=j m2'GG^rt,c > t m 5 O 4 L G—p C r 5 ^ S _ !J ` _wog _ C L y 4 _ is - t � 3 any c r 'L Os ca m: c c > W NOI► V)IZddY SNOI�,IQNOD 10 NOI�,YiIdI00�I F Z W w 4 f- i- r y - �J � O � ' 'n tt N � C _ G n •- '? � �qag I ,sa I rZs .'.�,oa,� IILC mfi - _p9 -E m g �a Exhibit C Disclosure Statement WDR PROPERTIES Agenda Item # 11 Page 11 Item #11 WDR Properties, Inc. Modification of Conditions 5657 Shore Drive District 4 Bayside May 12, 2004 CONSENT William Din: The next item is Item #11 WDR Properties, Inc. It's a Modification of Conditions for a Conditional Use Permit that was previously approved by City Council on November 25, 2003 for automobile sales and rental. This is in the Bayside District. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mr. Din. For the record, Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney and I represent the applicant. I mentioned it this morning. I called and left a message for Faith on Monday when I reviewed the comments. There is, I believe to be a typo on the Condition. The lower light should be at 14 feet rather than 12 feet. It was always 14 feet. I think that is just a typographical error. I mentioned it to Mr. White earlier but I didn't realize that Faith was out all week. So, if you change that to 14 feet rather than 12 feet it is acceptable to us. _ William Din: Does the Commission have any problem with that change? Thank you. Is there any opposition to placing this item on consent? Hearing none. There are two conditions. Barry, would please explain this one? Barry Knight: The Conditional Use Permit permitting automobile sales and rentals was approved by City Council on November 25, 2003. The Conditional Use Permit has ten conditions. The applicant would like to revise Condition #9, which prohibits light fixtures that exceed 14 foot in height. The applicant is requesting a modification of this condition to allow fixture poles of 25 foot in height. The poles will have two sets of lights. One set of lights will be at 25 feet and the other set at 14 feet. The set of lights at the 25-foot height will be turned off from the hours of 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. So, we find this an exceptional use of this property. William Din: Thank you Barry. Madame Chair, I would like to make a motion to approve this consent agenda item, Item #11 WDR Properties, Inc. located in the Bayside District with two conditions. Dorothy Wood: Do I hear a second? Joseph Strange: I'll second it. Dorothy Wood: Our Vice Chair Will Din made the motion and seconded by Joe Strange. William Din: We're ready for the vote. Item #11 WDR Properties, Inc. Page 2 AYE 11 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, this agenda item has been approved for consent. f# I DATE I REQUEST I AL I SUN 1 01-14-03 Conditional Use Permit (eating & drinking Granted establishment) 2 11-28-00 Conditional Use Permit (outdoor recreation facility Granted — miniature golf) 3 06-13-00 Conditional Use Permit (outdoor recreational Granted facility) 4 02-23-99 Conditional Use Permit (outdoor recreational Granted facility) 5 03-10-98 Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use Granted 04 r � � 1 ) I CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: 21 Fun, L.L.C. DBA Sharx Sports — Conditional Use Permit for an eating and drinking establishment MEETING DATE: June 8, 2004 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of 21 Fun, L.L.C. DBA Sharx Sports for a Conditional Use Permit for an eating and drinking establishment where both of the following occur (i) alcoholic beverages are served; (ii) The establishment excludes persons on the basis of age during any part of the day on property located at 211 21 st Street (GPIN 24271825480000). DISTRICT 6 — BEACH ■ Considerations: The applicant is proposing to operate a 9,000 square foot "sports bar" on the first floor of an existing building located at the northeast corner of Pacific Avenue and 215t Street. The restaurant will having seating for 108 people with 12 pool tables, 20 video games, 2 bar games, and a 20 seat bar. The application states that it is the goal of the owners to attract local residents and tourists, while also catering to families and adults. The hours of operation are proposed as 8:00 A.M. to 1:00 A.M. in the summer and 12:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M. in the 'off-season." The Conditional Use Permit is required since both alcoholic beverages will be served and persons will be excluded on the basis of age during any part of the day, which in this case, will be after 9:00 P.M. The applicant is also seeking an encroachment agreement from the City for an outdoor sidewalk cafe. The sidewalk cafe will require review and approval from City Council. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the use is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and a good, thorough plan for the business was presented. Staff recommended approval with conditions. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10-0 with 1 abstention to approve this request with the following conditions: 1. There shall be no more than one (1) neon sign on the exterior of the building. 21 Fun Page 2 of 2 2. The Conditional Use Permit is approved for one (1) year, at which time, based on an administrative review, the Planning Director shall determine if the Use Permit shall be renewed for an additional year with annual review thereafter or referred to the City Council for further review. 3. All necessary permits, inspections, and approvals from the Planning Department, the Fire Department, and the Alcohol Beverage Control Board shall be obtained before occupancy of the expansion. A Certificate of Occupancy for the units shall be obtained from the Permits and Inspections Division of the Department of Planning. 4. The improvements to the exterior of the building shall be constructed and installed in substantial conformance with the submitted elevation entitled, "South Elevation — 215t Street, West Elevation — Pacific Avenue," prepared by Robin Thomas, Architect, which is on file in the Planning Department. 5. The identification check of patrons shall be conducted inside the structure. 6. The ability to exclude minors shall commence at 9:00 p.m. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Ag�ncy: Planning Departmen* city Manager: `-1.'C16 M06-218-CUP-2004 21 FUN, LLC DBA SHARX SPORTS Agenda Item # 3 May 12, 2004 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. Location and General Information REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for an eating and drinking establishment that serves alcohol and excludes persons on the basis of age during any part of the day. LOCATION GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: The property located on the first floor of the building located at 211 21st Street. 24271825480000 6 — BEACH May M-6 21 Fun LLC la Cr , ,e ,• � ��`` `�. P"1 � roa CUP - for Indoor Recreational Facility 21 FUN, L.L.C. Agenda Item # 3 Page 1 SITE SIZE: 10,500 square feet EXISTING A two-story building is located on the site. The unit where the LAND USE: applicant proposes to operate out of is currently vacant. There is an existing business operating as a bar in the second story of the building. SURROUNDING North: • Miniature golf / RT-2 Resort District LAND USE AND South: • 215t Street, parking lot / RT-2 Resort District ZONING: East: • Parking lot / RT-2 Resort District West: • Pacific Avenue, restaurant / RT-3 Resort District NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL There are no significant environmental features on the site as it is FEATURES: entirely impervious. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 65 to 70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. xO 1151 R, Major Issues The following represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request. Staffs evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these issues are adequately addressed. • Consistency with the Oceanfront Resort Area Concept Plan and City Council's goals for the Oceanfront Resort Area. • Compatibility with neighboring properties and uses. 21 FUN, L.L.C. Agenda Item # 3 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan designates this area of the City as the Resort Area. This area is generally bound by 42nd Street, the Atlantic Ocean, Rudee Inlet and Birdneck Road. The "Oceanfront Resort Area Concept Plan" and the "Creating An Old Beach District Center Plan" contain information and planning guidance with regard to creating an attractive, wholesome, family resort destination; establishing complementary resort activity centers; and, the need to ensure excellence and a quality image in all resort area development. Generally, this area is planned for resort uses including lodging, retail, entertainment, recreation, cultural, and other uses. n rz-r r3 �yjp{py�'. Summary of Proposal The applicant is proposing to operate a 9,000 square foot "sports bar" on the first floor of an existing building located at the northeast corner of Pacific Avenue and 215t Street. The restaurant will having seating for 108 people with 12 pool tables, 20 video games, 2 bar games, and a 20 seat bar. The application states that it is the goal of the owners to attract locals and tourists, while also catering to families and adults. The hours of operation are proposed as 8:00 A.M. to 1:00 A.M. in the summer and 12:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M. in the off- season. The Conditional Use Permit is required since both alcoholic beverages will be served and persons will be excluded on the basis of age during any part of the day, which in this case, will be after 9:00 P.M. The applicant is also seeking an encroachment agreement from the City for an outdoor sidewalk cafe. The sidewalk cafe will require review and approval from City Council. Staff Evaluation ` } Staffs evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, adequately addresses each of the 'Major Issues' identified at the beginning of this report. The proposal's strengths in addressing the 'Major Issues' are 21 FUN, L.L.C. Agenda Item # 3 Page 3 (1) In the mid 1980s the City of Virginia Beach embarked upon a mission to improve and enhance the appearance and appeal of the Oceanfront. A major goal of the revitalization of the Oceanfront was to transform Atlantic Avenue and the Boardwalk into a more family -oriented resort destination. A problem, however, was the patron behavior that pervaded the area known as "The Block", an area along Atlantic Avenue between 20`h and 22nd Streets. One of the critical issues identified was how to distinguish the difference between a restaurant and a bar. Two of the distinctions between a restaurant and a bar are the serving of alcohol and the exclusion of persons from the establishment based on their age. Part of the means of encouraging the transformation of the Oceanfront into a more family oriented resort was to require a conditional use permit for eating and drinking establishments that serve alcohol and exclude persons on the basis of age. This requirement was based on the fact that such a use may need additional control to ensure it is compatible to other uses in the area and is consistent with City goals and ordinances. The requirement applies to all new eating and drinking establishments and expansions to existing operations that serve alcohol and exclude persons during any part of the day on the basis of age. Although the applicant has indicated that they would rather not exclude persons based on age, they feel that it is best to have this control in place if the need arises after operation of the business is underway and the necessity can be evaluated. It should be noted that the proposed business can proceed as a permitted use in the RT-2 District without a use permit; the need for the use permit is necessitated only by the applicant's desire to have the opportunity available for excluding persons on the basis of age at 9:00 P.M. should the operation of the business dictate. Staff believes that the proposal, with the conditions recommended below as part of the use permit, is consistent with the goals for this area of the city as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan. (2) The Comprehensive Plan recommends uses that are compatible with a wholesome family resort destination and complementary to resort activity centers. The application states that the owners will be targeting families by offering age appropriate video games, food menu items and memorabilia along with the pool tables. The site is compatible with the surrounding resort oriented uses that include an outdoor recreational facility to the north (miniature golf) and nearby restaurants and bars. In addition, the applicant has presented their proposal to the Resort Area Commission (RAC) where it was determined, based on the RAC's criteria, that this request is appropriate. The exterior improvements, including the outdoor cafe, awnings, signage, are complementary to the surrounding uses and consistent with the theme of the public 21 FUN, L.L.C. Agenda Item # 3 Page 4 improvements in the Oceanfront Resort Area. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this request with the conditions below. Conditions 1. There shall be no more than one (1) neon sign on the exterior of the building. 2. The Conditional Use Permit is approved for one (1) year, at which time, based on an administrative review, the Planning Director shall determine if the Use Permit shall be renewed for an additional year with annual review thereafter or referred to the City Council for further review. 3. All necessary permits, inspections, and approvals from the Planning Department, the Fire Department, and the Alcohol Beverage Control Board shall be obtained before occupancy of the expansion. A Certificate of Occupancy for the units shall be obtained from the Permits and Inspections Division of the Department of Planning. 4. The improvements to the exterior of the building shall be constructed and installed in substantial conformance with the submitted elevation entitled, "South Elevation — 215' Street, West Elevation — Pacific Avenue," prepared by Robin Thomas, Architect, which is on file in the Planning Department. 5. The identification checks of patrons shall be conducted inside the structure. 6. The ability to exclude minors shall commence at 9:00 p.m. 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(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. 21 FUN, L.L.C. Agenda Item # 3 Page 5 Zoning History :roxv..W is r Supplemental I nformatio6 CUP - for Indoor Recreational Facility 1 01-14-03 Conditional Use Permit (eating & drinking Granted establishment) 2 11-28-00 Conditional Use Permit (outdoor recreation facility — Granted miniature golf) 3 06-13-00 Conditional Use Permit (outdoor recreational facility) Granted 21 FUN, L.L.C. Agenda Item # 3 Page,6 4 02-23-99 Conditional Use Permit (outdoor recreational facility) Granted 5 03-10-98 Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use Granted Public Agency Comments Public Utilities Water: There is an eight (8) inch water main in 21S Street and a 12 inch water main in Pacific Avenue. This site has an existing 1-inch water meter that may be use or upgraded. Sewer: There are eight (8) inch sanitary sewer mains in both 21't Street and Pacific Avenue. This site is already connected to City sanitary sewer. Public Safety Police: There were approximately 952 arrests for violation of liquor laws (open container, illegal possession, etc.), 490 arrests for public drunkenness, and 89 arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol in the Resort Area during the time frame of April 1, 2003 — September 2, 2003. In short, 1,131 arrests or 20 percent of all arrests were violations directly related to alcohol. 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 Rescue: Fire code permits may be required at the time of occupancy. 21 FUN, L.L.C. Agenda Item# 3 Page 7 22NO STREET Av O ~ 75.00 Lu o 4 Li\'�'.� _- .. rG I �i� I C LLI }y ; m r:. 27ST STREET Exhibit B -1 Proposed Site Layout 21 FUN, L.L.C. Agenda Item # 3 Page 9 O Ln oG'Io o O m J .. fi GI�IG /-7�cNVw Exhibit B - 2 Proposed Site Layout 21 FUN, L.L.C. Agenda Item# 3 Page 10 Exhibit C Building Fagade Improvements 21 FUN, L.L.C. Agenda Item# 3 Page 11 133d1S 1S 2 rr�r Ill.l G i�a Big I' is ME MIM L e a Exhibit D Interior Improvements 21 FUN, L.L.C. Agenda Item# 3 Page 12 a Z m 4 W O Eal C O r � �nfi i bw95 v�Cu i R C a Q �: 2S I✓ I I 1 a J O V r' W L t G .N . q 5 W?pot 4 P 2 O mSm .`A' wF.' �°aoom4�c8A sr,3c 4 Q Y Yl J 1 I tl Yl a 8 M � p 4 �fi ugi �'� C Ei59 r yr �C P $A°per ck• qen yy?? C IiiI y^ C9� �EOi p it 0 £{.0 4C Vt " 5;C J Lu C� RC �Ygg� V 9 r 0 a n cn� g C P P £ qVy —OO m 13 3 R p ? �. C i 'T� e Zo Exhibit E Disclosure Statement 21 FUN, L.L.C. Agenda Item # 3 Page 13 Item #3 21 Fun, L.LC. d/b/a Sharx Sports Conditional Use Permit 211 215` Street District 6 Beach May 12, 2004 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: The next item is the consent agenda. The Vice Chair, Mr. Din, would you please handle this portion of the agenda. William Din: Thank you Madame Chair. Just as a reminder, the consent rules are on page 3 of your agenda. Just as a reminder again, we will be voting on these as a lump vote. We're putting all the items that we believe to have no opposition and have favorable recommendation by the staff. As I call up your agenda item, would you please come up and state your name and the relationship to the application. You have conditions, state that you've read those and you agree with the conditions. Today we have 7 items on our consent agenda. The first item that I have is Item #3, which is 21 Fun, L.L.0 d/b/a Sharx Sports. Deborah Kassir: Good afternoon, my name is Deborah Kassir with 21 Fun, L.L.C. William Din: Thank you. You have six conditions. Have you read those and do you agree with them? Deborah Kassir: I have read them. I have one problem with one of the conditions. It's 10:00 o'clock time limit. I'd like to bring that down to 9:00 o'clock. William Din: Do you have to review that before we adjust that? Robert Scott: That's a change in the positive direction as I see it. They want to change it from 10:00 o'clock to 9:00 o'clock. We should be able to readily accommodate that. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Macali? Bill Macali: Yes ma'am. If the Commission is agreeable then it can be handled as part of the consent agenda just by changing that condition to 9:00 o'clock. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Ms. Kassir. We appreciate it. Deborah Kassir: Thank you very much. Item #3 21 Fun, L.L.C. d/b/a Sharx Sports Page 2 William Din: Okay. Is there any opposition to placing this item on the consent agenda with the change of condition? We normally have one of our Planning Commissioners explain why we have placed it on consent. Barry Knight is going to explain this item. Barry Knight: The applicant is proposing to operate a 9,000 square foot sports bar on the first floor of an existing building located on the northeast comer of Pacific Avenue and 21" Street. The Conditional Use Permit is required since both alcoholic beverages will be served and persons will be excluded on the basis of age during any part of the day, which in this case will be after 9:00 o'clock. The applicant is also seeking an encroachment agreement from the City for an outdoor sidewalk cafe. The sidewalk cafe will require review and approval from City Council. We view this as an acceptable use of this property. We put it on the consent agenda. William Din: Thank you Barry. Madame Chair, I would like to make a motion to approve this consent agenda item, Item #3, 21 Fun, L.L.C. d/b/a Sharx Sports located in the Beach District. Dorothy Wood: Do I hear a second? Joseph Strange: I'll second it. Dorothy Wood: Our Vice Chair Will Din made the motion and seconded by Joe Strange. I need to abstain on Item #3. I own a portion of JDW, Inc. and we have done some work on it. William Din: We're ready for the vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD ABS ABSENT 0 Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0, with the abstention noted, this agenda item has been approved for consent. O5/21/04 FRI 08:55 FAX 7574876225 WOLCOTr RIVERS WOLCOTT RIVERS P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW May 21, 2004 VIAFFAC_SI MILE 426.5669 Ruth Hodges Smith, City Clark City of Virginia Beach Municipal Center, Building 1 2401 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Re: Jessup Construction L.L.C. Application for a Change of Zoning Dear Ms. Smith: A TRADITION OF EXCELLENCE SINCE 1895 LESLIEIL WATSON A7TOMY AT LAW TELEPHONE: 757.497.6633 FAX 757.497,6221 EMAIL: W kTWj4*WMW.CM The above referenced matter which was unanimously recommended for approval by the Planning Commission is scheduled to be heard by Council on Tuesday, May 25, 2004. Due to scheduling issues, the applicant requests that the matter be deferred until the Council's meeting of June 8, 2004. The undersigned will notify the two speakers who appeared in opposition to the application before the Planning Commission. Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter. Very best regards, Leslie R. Watson LRW/glg LAwp1LRMRE1Jessup Cenetlsm)th )t re coundl mtg date,wpd ONE COLUMBUS CENTER, SUITE 1100 TELEPHONE (757) 497-6633 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23462.6765 FAX 17K7i WOLCOTT RIVERS P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW May 21, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE 426-5669 Ruth Hodges Smith, City Clerk City of Virginia Beach Municipal Center, Building 1 2401 Courthouse Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Re: Jessup Construction L.L.C. Application for a Change of Zoning Dear Ms. Smith: A TRADITION OF EXCELLENCE SINCE 1695 LESLIE R. WATSON ATTORNEY AT LAW TELEPHONE: 757.497.6633 FAX: 757.497.6225 EMAIL: WATSON(&,,WOLRTV.COM The above referenced matter which was unanimously recommended for approval by the Planning Commission is scheduled to be heard by Council on Tuesday, May 25, 2004. Due to scheduling issues, the applicant requests that the matter be deferred until the Council's meeting of June 8, 2004. The undersigned will notify the two speakers who appeared in opposition to the application before tho Punning Commission. Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter. Very best regards, Leslie R. Watson LRW/glg L:\wp\LRW\RE\Jessup Const\smith It re council mtg date.wpd ONE COLUMBUS CENTER, SUITE 1 100 TELEPHONE (757) 497-6633 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23462-6765 FAX (757) 497-7267 WWW, WOLCOTTRIVERS.COM f# I DATE I REQUEST AU I IUN I 1 5/28/91 Conditional Use Permit (church addition) Granted 6/27/95 Conditional Use Permit (church addition) Granted 2123199 Conditional Use Permit (church addition) Granted 10/14/97 Conditional Use Permit (communication tower) Denied 2 2/12179 R-1 Residential to R-3 Residential Granted 2/12/79 Conditional Use Permit (open space) Granted CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Jessup Construction, L.L.C. — Change of Zoning District Classification (R- 40 Residential District to Conditional R-30 Residential District) MEETING DATE: June 8, 2004 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Jessup Construction L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-40 Residential District to Conditional R-30 Residential District on property located at 1017 Harris Road (GPIN 14888503200000 — portion of). The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as being within the Primary Residential Area. DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN This item was deferred by the City Council on May 25 at the request of the applicant. ■ Considerations: The applicant is proposing to develop seven single-family home lots ranging in size between 30,000 to 37,000 square feet on a cul-de-sac street. The existing zoning of R-40 Residential District yields a density of five (5) homes allowed on this site. Under a "by -right" development scenario with R-40 zoning, each lot would front on.Harris Road with access directly on Harris Road. The applicant is requesting a change of zoning to Conditional R-30 Residential District to allow the construction of seven (7) homes on a cul-de-sac street. Staff concludes that the creation of a cul-de-sac street is more advantageous to the neighborhood than fronting the houses along Harris Road with individual driveways. The Comprehensive Plan encourages new neighborhoods to be designed with efficiently placed vehicular access. The applicant has proffered development conditions that will ensure that the homes will complement the existing homes bordering the property. These development conditions would not be required if the property was to develop as R-40 by right. This site is heavily wooded, and the applicant has proffered to maintain a 30-foot wide buffer of existing trees along all rear property lines. The applicant has also proffered an increased side yard setback from Harris Road and open fencing rather than privacy fencing along the roadway. These proffered conditions are consistent with the Community Appearance and Design Guidelines contained in the Comprehensive Plan, which encourage open space along roadways and protection of natural site resources. Jessup Construction Page 2 of 2 Staff recommended approval. There was opposition to the request. IN Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to approve this request, as proffered. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agenc y: Planning Department City Manager:`�—r )— U h( G05-212-CRZ-2004 JESSUP CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item # 3 April 14, 2004 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Barbara J. Duke The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. REQUEST: LOCATION: GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 'I G Location and General Informat an Change of Zoning District Classification from R-40 Residential District to Conditional R-30 Residential District. Property located at 1017 Harris Road 14888503200000 5-LYNNHAVEN •ram { �j%j '... ,.' 3 � V• 06 '1 JESSUP CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item # 3 Page 1 SITE SIZE: 5.711 acres EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant property SURROUNDING North: • Single-family homes / R-40 Residential District LAND USE AND South: • Vacant property / R-40 Residential District ZONING: East: • Single-family homes / R-30 Residential District West: • Single-family homes / R-40 Residential District NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: The site is heavily wooded. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. r 017 Summary of Proposal"R, The applicant is proposing to develop seven single-family home lots ranging in size between 30,000 to 37,000 square feet on a cul-de-sac street. 97 Major Issues' The following represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request. Staffs evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these issues are adequately addressed. Compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan JESSUP CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item # 3 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a Primary Residential Area. The land use planning policies and principles for the Primary Residential Area focus strongly on preserving and protecting the overall character, economic value and aesthetic quality of the stable neighborhoods located in this area. In a general sense, the established type, size, and relationship of land use, both residential and non-residential, located in and around these neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future development. MT Proffers' The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to 'offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER # 1 When development takes place upon the Property it shall be as a single family residential community of no more than seven (7) building lots substantially in conformity with the Exhibit filed with the application for Conditional Rezoning which is on file in with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan"), which is dated March 26, 2004 and entitled "Preliminary Resubdivision of Part of Property Parcel, Plat of Property of Lettie S. Brockwell, Map Book 80 page 23, Virginia Beach Virginia". JESSUP CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item # 3 Page 3 PROFFER # 2 Prior to the time the Property is developed, restrictive covenants will be recorded which shall provide in part the following: A. A wooded buffer thirty feet (30') in width shall be maintained along the rear of each lot in the subdivision. B. No fences shall be permitted nearer than ten (10) feet from the right of way line of Harris Road and no fence along Harris Road shall exceed four (4) feet in height. No stockade or solid fences shall be permitted along Harris Road; all fences shall be of an open picket style and shall be constructed of aluminum, iron or similar materials. C. The minimum side yard setback from Harris Road shall be thirty-five (35) feet. PROFFER # 3 Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City code requirements. Staff Evaluation of The proffers submitted by the applicant adequately Proffers: address the staff concerns identified. City Attorney's The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer Office: agreement dated March 30, 2004 and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Staff Evaluation Staff recommends approval of this request. Staffs evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials and the proffers, adequately addresses the 'Major Issues' identified above. The proposal's strengths in addressing the 'Major Issues' are JESSUP CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item #3 Page 4 (1) The existing zoning of R-40 Residential District yields a density of five (5) homes allowed on this site. The applicant is requesting a change of zoning to Conditional R-30 Residential District to allow the construction of seven (7) homes on a cul-de-sac street. Staff feels there is advantages to creating the cul-de-sac street in lieu of fronting the houses along Harris Road with individual driveways that is most likely the way the property would be developed under the existing zoning of R-40. The Comprehensive Plan encourages new neighborhoods to be designed with efficiently placed vehicular access. (2) The applicant has proffered development conditions that will ensure that the homes will complement the existing homes bordering the property. These development conditions would not be required if the property was to develop as R-40 by right. This site is heavily wooded. The applicant has proffered to maintain a 30-foot wide buffer of existing trees along all rear property lines. The applicant has proffered an increased side yard setback from Harris Road. Open fencing has also been proffered which will improve the aesthetics from Harris Road. These proffered conditions are consistent with the Community Appearance and Design Guidelines contained in the Comprehensive Plan that encourage open space along roadways and protection of natural site resources. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this request. 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. JESSUP CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item # 3 Page 5 Supplemental 'InformatronLim 1 5/28/91 Conditional Use Permit (church addition) 6/27/95 Conditional Use Permit (church addition) 2/23/99 Conditional Use Permit (church addition) 10/14/97 Conditional Use Permit (communication tower) 2 2/12/79 R-1 Residential to R-3 Residential 2/12/79 Conditional Use Permit (open space) Zoning History Granted Granted Denied Granted Granted JESSUP CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item # 3 Page 6 Public Agency Comments Public Works CIP 2.029.000 Project#: Title: Harris Road This project is currently under construction and will be completed within the next few months. The project will widen Harris Road from Little Neck Road to Kline Drive, a distance of approximately 3,800 feet. The project will result in a two-lane roadway with shoulders. Drainage improvements will eliminate the existing roadside ditches. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Existing Land Use - 46 Harris Road 3,676 ADT 6,200 ADT' Proposed Land Use 3_64 'Average Daily rnps ' as defined by R-40 zoning 'as defined by R-30 zoning Public Utilities Water: There is an existing 12-inch City water main in Harris Road. This subdivision must connect to City water. Plans and bonds are required for the water line construction. There is no gravity sewer fronting this site. This subdivision must connect to City sewer. Extension of sanitary sewer main to serve this development requires calculation and analysis for the receiving pump station 214. Plans and bonds are required for the sanitary JESSUP CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item# 3 Page 7 Public Schools School Current Enrollment Capacity Generation' Change z Kingston Elementary 852 854 2 1 L nnhaven Middle 1381 1388 1 0 First Colonial High 2030 1697 1 0 '.,generation" represents the number of students matins, aeveiopmenr will aoa ro uie sc1 mui 3 "change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students). 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 strateqies as they pertain to this site. Fire and Rescue: A fire hydrant must be within 500 feet of residences. JESSUP CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item #3 Page 8 Exhibit B Proposed Subdivision c Ob bJ!.ti JESSUP CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item # 3 Page 10 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Exhibit C - 1 Disclosure Statement APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the applicant name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) 2. List all businesses that have a that have a parent -subsidiary) or affiliated business entity' relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) ❑ Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Complete this section only if property owner is different from applicant. If the property owner is a corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization, complete the following: 1. List the property owner name followed by the names of all officers, members, trustees, partners, etc. below: (Attach list if necessary) 2. List all businesses that have a that have a parent -subsidiary' or affiliated business entity' relationship with the applicant: (Attach list if necessary) 2 Check here if the property owner is NOT corporation, partnership, firm, business, or other unincorporated organization. & " S next page for footnotes Ccndilional Rezoning APDF caticn Page 12 of 13 ReVmed 1WI,2003 JESSUP CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item# 3 Page 11 Exhibit C - 2 Disclosure Statement DISCLOSURE STATEMEN I _..... __..... _.. __........_.------ ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES List all known contractors or businesses that have or will provide services with respect to the requested property use, including but not limited to the providers of architectural services. real estate services, financial services, and legal services: (Attach list if necessary) '!v✓ Ct l� .f lri"rl �.YL;C.^'CYr fr C�w' "Parent -subsidiary relationship" means "a relationship that exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. 2 "Affiliated business entity relationship" means "a relationship, other than parent -subsidiary relationship, that exists when (i) one business entity has a controlling ownership interest in the other business entity, (ii) a controlling owner in one entity is also a controlling owner in the other entity, or (iii) there is shared management or control between the business entities. Factors that should be considered in determining the existence of an affiliated business entity relationship include that the same person or substantially the same person own or manage the two entities; there are common or commingled funds or assets; the business entities share the use of the same offices or employees or otherwise share activities, resources or personnel on a regular basis; or there is otherwise a close working relationship between the entities." See State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act, Va. Code § 2.2-3101. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that, upon receipt of notification (postcard) that the application has been scheduled for public hearing, I am responsible for obtaining and posting the required sign on the subject property at least 30 days prior to the scheduled public hearing according to the instructions in this package. i Applicants SignatuPrint Name Property Owner s Signature (if different than applicant) Print Name Conditnal Reeniny Anpliwtion '-'aye.,30t 3 Reviser, +p;1,200J JESSUP CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item# 3 Page 12 Item #3 Jessup Construction, L.L.C. Change of Zoning District Classification 1017 Harris Road District 5 Lynnhaven April 14, 2004 V1xeli-MA William Din: Joe. Joseph Strange: The next item is Item #3. The applicant is Jessup Construction, L.L.C. This is to rezone R-40 Residential District to Conditional R-30 Residential District. Les Watson: Mr. Din and members of the Commission, my name is Les Watson. I'm an employee of Wolcott Rivers. To me, this application is one that makes an enormous amount of sense. As this property is currently zoned and restricted it can be developed with five very long thin lots with five driveways coming out onto Harris Road and the property could be cleared to the lot lines. As we have submitted this application, again with the proffers, we contemplate one entrance onto Harris Road from a City dedicated street. We will have expanded setbacks, both to the rear and from Harris Road and we will maintain a 30 foot wooded buffer at the rear of all property lines. It seems to me that this is directly in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan which encourages efficient vehicular access to public streets and the proffers and conditions, I think are consistent with the community appearance design guidelines, which are contained in the plan because of the wooded buffers and the fact that we have restricted the kinds of fences that can be used on the property and particularly along Harris Road. I think it's an application that makes a great deal of sense. We're not asking for a tremendous increase from the current conditions and we believe that the development and the surrounding neighborhood will be better served than by having five driveways coming out onto Harris Road. I'll be happy to answer any questions. William Din: Thank you. Are there any questions of Mr. Watson? Thank you sir. Kathy. Kathy Katsias: The two lots that face Harris Road are the houses going to be facing Harris Road or are they going to be facing the cul-de-sac? Les Watson: The intent is to have them facing the cul-de-sac so that Harris Road would be their sideline but we have said we have the setback 35 feet from Harris Road and in addition to the 30 foot wooded buffer at the rear where it abuts the property of others. Yes sir. Ronald Ripley: Could you give us an idea of what these properties will sell for after they're developed? Item #3 Jessup Construction, L.L.C. Page 2 Les Watson: No, but my client Mr. Matter, who's the manager of Jessup Construction could. William Din: He would have to come up. Les Watson: More than $600,000, I would say. That's the kind of house that he builds. Mr. Matter has been building in Virginia Beach for 25 years and he builds high -end homes. He's a custom builder and in a strict sense of the word. William Din: Okay. Are there any other questions? Thank you. Les Watson: Yes sir. William Din: Opposition? Joseph Strange: Yes. We have one person in opposition and that is Andris Damsekaln. Could you please come up? William Din: Welcome Mr. Damsekaln. Andris Damsekaln: Good afternoon. William Din: Just for the record, say your name. Andris Damsekaln: My name is Andy Damsekaln. I live at 1249 Harris Road. I live about 3 or 4 blocks down from this site that is asking to be rezoned. William Din: Thank you. You have a comment you want to make? Andris Damsekaln: Yes I do, if I could? My opposition to this zoning is the change of zoning. This is going from R-40, which is what we have out there right now, one -acre lots to our R-30, which is somewhat less. The last time that this was done the R-30 was when Middle Plantation was built 20 years ago when I was living there at the time. That was done but Jan Summs had to offer up 11 acres for a park site so the density of the area wouldn't be changed. And that was done and that park is now on Lynnhaven Road. The second people that developed fairly large scale in that neighborhood was Hidden Point and that happened maybe 5 or 10 years ago. I don't know if there are zoning changing requirements for that but they did require, the City did for those people also to put money out for a park, which was done. The City decided that they didn't need a park. So, the money was used to build a concrete bike path between Stapleford Chase and Kline Drive, which was a significant improvement to the community also. So, my concern is that we're going from R-40 to R-30, which by itself would be my opposition. Now the other thing that I want to point out to the Planning Commission is that the neighborhood right behind us, which is referred to here as the 30-foot buffer in the back is called Lynnwood. Now, Lynnwood is an old neighborhood probably 50 years now. A lot of those homes in there are single family. They're all single family and they're all very small homes. It's not going to be very long before Item #3 Jessup Construction, L.L.C. Page 3 those homes are going to be worthwhile to be bulldozed and then you're going to see more zoning requirements and more density changes. The density changes are what I would be in opposition of. And I would say that is one of the pristine, nicest areas in Virginia Beach. I think you need too make an effort to keep it that way. And, that's my point for opposition. William Din: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Damsekiln? Thank you. Andris Damsekiln: I believe there was one other gentleman that wanted to speak. Joseph Strange: I didn't have anybody else in opposition signed up. William Din: If there is other opposition, please come up and identify yourself sir. Joseph Strange: Did you sign up? Robert Walter: No, I didn't. I just got here. I'm a little late. I apologize. My name is Robert Walter. I'm also a resident of Lynnwood and I hate to see this rezoning to take place for several reasons. First of all, it would change the character of the neighborhood. The second reason is that I feel it's a cascading effect. First we had Middle Plantation came in and it was changed to R-30. Then we had a large development Hidden Point came in and now were talking about this development. There are other large lots of land, which could be grouped together later on. The more we allow this to happen, the rezoning of a R-40 neighborhood the more it's going to happen. I really feel that this is really going to change the character of the neighborhood as well as the environment that we live in. Every year the number of trees, get less dense and less dense and the less trees there are the more they fall over from storms. And, I just would like to see the neighborhood maintained as it is right now. Robert Miller: You said there are large pieces of land that can be developed in this area? I don't think were familiar with that area. Robert Walter: That is correct. As you go down the end of Lynnwood Drive there are parcels in excess of 5 acres each. Robert Miller: Oh, 5 acres. Robert Walter: That is correct. They could be put together and made into even larger residential neighborhoods than the one under question today. I hate to see that happen. It's just going to be a cascading effect Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: I don't agree with you but thank you. William Din: Thank you Mr. Walter. Robert Walter: Thank you. William Din: Mr. Watson. Item #3 Jessup Construction, L.L.C. Page 4 Les Watson: Yes sir. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Miller, if there are other large pieces of property down there, I'm not able to find them on this quadrant map here. And, in terms of the cascading effect I'd like to point out to you that that this is Middle Plantation here, which is now zoned R-30. A lot of it is zoned R-20, particularly along Little Neck Road and back here in the rear. All of the yellow areas and I'll past this in if you like, all the yellow areas are zoned R-20. All the pink areas are already zoned R- 30. And, the blue is zoned A-12. We're not looking to put 24 units an acre here. We're looking to put two more upscale houses than you could put on there as a matter of right and what we're agreeing to do in return is not cut down the trees and increase the setbacks. And, do all that we can do to preserve the character of the neighborhood. We think that this does a lot more to preserve the character of the Little Neck than the alternative which would if you have to be almost required, you have to five long skinny lots in and clear them to the borders because you would be right on your setbacks on every house out there. They would be lined up. I am unable to find any other large pieces of property. There should exist that this is going to have any serious cascading effect. Again, it's not a tremendous change from that which already exists. William Din: Thank you. Bob. Robert Miller: Do you have a dedication requirement on Harris Road in order to be able to create this subdivision? Is there a requirement of right-of-way dedication? Les Watson: Yes sir. Robert Miller: Okay. Are you required to make improvements along Harris Road? Les Watson: No, we're not required to make improvements. It's not a current condition. I don't know what's going to happen when we go in for the permits but we're prepared to do whatever we need to do. When they bring the utilities in and we will be creating a street and dedicating it so as to create the one entrance onto Harris Road. Robert Miller: Maybe, I'll go back to Bob or staff and ask the question. What kind of improvements would we require on Harris Road? Does anybody know? Robert Scott: I don't think that we would require Harris Road to be through the efforts of this developer simply to comply with what's out there already. Anything above and beyond that on Harris Road is more generated by the general public and we have to address that. Robert Miller: Isn't there a City project to do some improvements on Harris Road? Les Watson: It's ongoing. This section and I think this section is already completed if I'm not mistaken and working farther on. Robert Miller: It may be. I was down there but I don't recall that. In any case, I think Item #3 Jessup Construction, L.L.C. Page 5 the purpose of the improvements of Harris Road and one of the major purposes was the safety factor with regard to the ditches and the width of the pavement. Is that correct? The cul-de-sac you would build and obviously it has one point of entrance into Harris Road and it would be controlled by a stop sign. Les Watson: It's controlled by a stop sign and it's a full width street. It's not five narrow driveways, which we think would be a horrible situation, and that is what would be required in the current zoning. All of the rest of this area that I'm able to see on this map is already divided into lots. This is the only large piece that we see. There was a question about a park dedication. Obviously, this is not large piece when you compare it to the original development in Middle Plantation or some place else. We're not in a position to dedicate a park. William Din: Okay. Are there any other questions or comments? Thank you Mr. Watson. We appreciate it. Are there other comments? Discussion? Robert Miller: Well, I'll continue with what I had said. I think the biggest point on this is the safety issue. There is a cost for putting in the road, which I think wasn't discussed exactly but there certainly is a cost to that. And, to allow this developer to end up with two more lots and whatever benefits he's getting out of those two lots is going to be not totally but partially assured by the cost of this road improvement. I think that having one entrance here, particularly as were getting closer to Little Neck Road and the amount of traffic that we have back there, the width of the road was set up as much more residential road, Harris Road years and years ago and the City improvements have been from the basis of safety. So, I'm completely in favor of the idea of going with what they've proposed. William Din: Yes Ron. Ronald Ripley: I also support it. I think the trade offs are such that it warrants that this be approved and I think that particularly with the buffers that he's provided where he not normally would not have to do the buffers. He's proffered to keep the wooded buffers. I think that should be assuring the neighbors that they would have this type of situation behind their houses. And also, I think and I agree with the entrance. That is what was really important to me. We spend a lot of time on applications trying to see that the entrances are consolidated and here is an opportunity to do that versus putting five individual driveways down on that road. There is a lot of traffic that is feeding from Little Neck back into the neighborhood. This is one way in helping to make it safe and I support it also. William Din: Thank you. No more comments. Do I hear a motion? Robert Miller: I'd move the approval of Item #3 Jessup Construction, L.L.C. Ronald Ripley: I'll second it. William Din: Thank you. Are we ready for the vote? Item #3 Jessup Construction, L.L.C. Page 6 AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 2 ANDERSON ABSENT CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD ABSENT Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-0, the application of Jessup Construction has been approved. William Din: Thank you. tTW4-3 Page 1 of 1 Stephen White - Jessup Construction #GOS-212-CRZ-2003 From: "Virginia Marsh" <virginia_marsh3@hotmail.com> To: <planadm@vbgov.com> Date: 4/12/2004 8:56 PM Subject: Jessup Construction #G05-212-CRZ-2003 To whom it may concern: We strongly oppose the rezoning of the property located at 1017 Harris Road (GPIN 14888503200000). We purchased the home on 1100 Lamorelle Court (Lot 5 - Subdivision of Lamorelle Arch) which directly abuts this property. At the time of purchase, we investigated the open property behind our lot. When we were informed that it was an R-40, we felt comfortable that the value of our property would not be diminshed by any possible future development. The change of this zoning to an R-30 will have a significant impact on our property value. Our neighborhood is R-40 as are the adjoining neighborhoods. Zoning should remain consistent. Thought should be given to property owners and not the welfare of the developer's profitability. We will make our best effort to attend the hearing on April 14, but may be unable due to work commitments. We appreciate your consideration in this matter and hope that this e-mail will serve to represent our interests as well as those of our neighbors. We hope that the resolution will be to leave the property in question as an R-40 zone. Sincerely, Virginia Marsh Wayne Ramos 1100 Lamorelle Court Va Beach, VA 23452 (757) 589-3729 (c) (757) 340-8225 (h) Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN Premium! http://join.msn.com/?page=features/mlb&pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200439ave/direcuOl/ file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\swhite\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00014.HTM 4/14/2004 # I DATE REQUES 1 I /Au I ivry 1 02-28-83 Change of Zoning (R-4 Residential District to 0-1 Granted Office District) 2 02-07-83 Change of Zoning (R-4 Residential District to 0-1 Granted Office District) 3 02-07-83 Change of Zoning (R-4 Residential District to A-1 Granted Apartment District) C) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Baymark Construction Corporation — Change of Zoning District Classification (0-2 Office District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District) MEETING DATE: June 8, 2004 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Baymark Construction Corporation for a Change of Zoning District Classification from 0-2 Office District to Conditional A- 36 Apartment District on property located on the north side of Wildwood Drive, approximately 70 feet west of Stratford Drive (GPIN 2408524317). The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as being within the Primary Residential Area. DISTRICT 5 — LYNNHAVEN ■ Considerations: This site was deemed excess public property by City Council in 2003. As such, City Council directed the Department of Public Works/Real Estate Office to advertise this site for public bid. The bids were reviewed and Baymark Construction Corporation was chosen based on the price offered and the overall quality of their proposal. As the property is currently zoned 0-2 Office District, a rezoning is necessary in order to construct the 10 buildings (20 duplex units in a condominium form of ownership) proposed in Baymark's bid and as shown on the submitted site plan. While the rezoning request is for Conditional A-36 Apartment District, the density proposed is in line with an A-12 Zoning District at only 10.3 units to the acre. The height of the units (35 feet) and lot coverage (58 percent) proposed are in line with the A-24 Zoning District. This request is consistent with the recommendations for the Primary Residential Area as described in the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Plan recommends that infill development such as this project occur in a manner and it an arrangement comparable to surrounding, existing land uses. This proposal is compatible with the existing adjacent and nearby uses in terms of density, building materials, height, setbacks, and yard areas. The surrounding zoning districts include 0-2 Office District, A-36 Apartment District, A-18 Apartment District, and A-12 Apartment District. Rezoning this site to the Apartment District is a reasonable redevelopment choice for this parcel. The building design and materials are superior in quality and reflect the expectations formulated through the public bid process. The exterior elevation is proffered as a Georgian style dwelling unit, with a primarily brick fagade and Baymark Construction Page 2 of 2 interesting Georgian style architectural details. All units will have architectural grade roof shingles and garages with driveways. The Site Plan depicts interior landscaping that will include ornamental trees, large deciduous trees, and evergreen shrubs. A brick and wrought iron style fence with evergreen shrubs is depicted along Wildwood Drive. Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because it is compatible with surrounding land uses and the quality of development will protect the integrity of the neighborhood. Staff recommended approval. There were emails in 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, as proffered. ■ 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 Manager. 5 �L � � S`—�` VVV J05-2120-CRZ-2004 K CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION Agenda Item # 18 May 12, 2004 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. REQUEST: LOCATION: GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: Location and General Information Change of Zoning District Classification from 0-2 Office District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District. Property located on Wildwood Drive, west of First Colonial Road 24085243170000 5 — LYNNHAVEN "°� �s • Ba mark Construction Coro. 0 Z ❑,,'_��I� 7� ��/`h\A2 Comh and 7,mzng Change from O 2 w Condi ma/A-18 BAYMARK CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item # 18 Page 1 SITE SIZE EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: 1.94 acres Vacant parcel North: South: East: West: • Townhouse condominiums / A-18 Apartment District • Wildwood Drive, apartments / A-12 Apartment District • Office, apartments / 0-2 Office District, A-36 Apartment District • Townhouse condominiums / A-18 Apartment District This site is located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and is currently vacant. There are no significant environmental features on the site as it was developed in the past with an office and associated parking. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 70 — 75 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Under the Interim AICUZ Guidelines, this request may move forward to the City Council to be considered on its merits. Major Issues The following represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request. Staffs evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these issues are adequately addressed. • Compatibility with surrounding land uses and zoning as well as consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. • Architectural design and building material level of quality. BAYMARK CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item #-18 Page 2 Comprehensive Flan' ` The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as a Primary Residential Area — an area where preserving the character of existing neighborhoods, protecting economic value of existing properties, and maintaining and/or enhancing the aesthetics of stable neighborhoods is essential. The Plan recommends that infill development occur in a manner and in an arrangement comparable to surrounding, existing land uses. This particular parcel is a good candidate for redevelopment in an effort to continue to improve the "quality physical environment of the area (page 89)." It further states that "Land uses proposed for infill sites as well as their density, material, height, setback, yard area and other design considerations should complement and reinforce the predominant physical character of the surrounding area." Summary olsa This site was deemed excess public property by City Council in 2003. As such, City Council directed the Department of Public Works/Real Estate Office to advertise this site for public bid. The bids were reviewed and Baymark Construction Corporation was chosen based on the price offered and the overall quality of their proposal. As the property is currently zoned 0-2 Office District, a rezoning is necessary in order to construct the 10 buildings (20 duplex units in a condominium form of ownership) proposed in Baymark's bid and as shown on the submitted site plan. While the rezoning request is for Conditional A-36 Apartment District, the density proposed is in line with an A-12 Zoning District at only 10.3 units to the acre. The height of the units (35 feet) and lot coverage (58 percent) proposed are in line with the A-24 Zoning District. BAYMARK CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item #-18 Page 3 aga Proffers , The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER # 1 When the property is developed, it shall be developed as residential condominium substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled, "CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT & LANDSCAPE PLAN OF WILDWOOD COMMONS, Wildwood Drive, Virginia Beach, VA.", prepared by MSA, P.C., dated 1/15/04, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan"). PROFFER # 2 The landscaping, entrance feature and fencing for the community shall be as depicted and described on the Site Plan. No on street parking will be permitted on the private street within the condominium. PROFFER # 3 The architectural design of the residential buildings will be as depicted on the exhibit entitled, 'Building Elevation, Wildwood Commons," dated 1/15/04, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. The predominant exterior building material shall be brick. The brick color used may vary from that on the exhibit. PROFFER # 4 The total number of living units permitted to be constructed within the residential condominium on the Property shall not exceed twenty (20). Staff Evaluation of While the rezoning request is for Conditional A-36 Proffers: Apartment District, the proffered site plan and elevation tie BAYMARK CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item# 18 Page 4 down the overall density (at 10.3 units per acre), the height of the units (35 feet), the design and building materials, and the lot coverage (58 percent) to standards that are atypical and superior to many "by right" projects on properties with the A-36 Apartment District zoning. The proffered site plan and elevation are in keeping with the materials presented to the City Council with the applicant's bid package. City Attorney's The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer Office: agreement dated April 26, 2004, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. 20 IN,, .a dX� 5. Psakxi '[:RadYC06R.OfiPWV6x.mittn.Ed.. Staff Evaluation Staff recommends approval of this request. Staffs evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials and the proffers, adequately addresses each of the 'Major Issues' identified at the beginning of this report. The proposal's strengths in addressing the 'Major Issues' are (1) This request is consistent with the recommendations for the Primary Residential Area as described in the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Plan recommends that infill development such as this project occur in a manner and it an arrangement comparable to surrounding, existing land uses. This proposal is compatible with the existing adjacent and nearby uses in terms of density, building materials, height, setbacks, and yard areas. The surrounding zoning districts include 0-2 Office District, A-36 Apartment District, A-18 Apartment District, and A-12 Apartment District. Rezoning this site to the Apartment District is a reasonable redevelopment choice for this parcel. (2) The building design and materials are superior in quality and reflect the expectations formulated through the public bid process. The exterior elevation is proffered as a Georgian style dwelling unit, with a primarily brick facade and interesting Georgian style architectural details. All units will have architectural grade roof shingles and garages with driveways. The Site Plan depicts interior landscaping that will include ornamental trees, large deciduous trees, and BAYMARK CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item # 18 Page 5 evergreen shrubs. A brick and wrought iron style fence with evergreen shrubs is depicted along Wildwood Drive. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of the Change of Zoning as proffered. 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. BAYMARK CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item # 18 Page 6 p .rev axm.'ii _'Ii t ti Y�. Supplemental Information 441 Zoning History I # I DATE I REQUEST I ACTION 1 02-28-83 Change of Zoning (R-4 Residential District to 0-1 Granted Office District) 2 02-07-83 Change of Zoning (R-4 Residential District to 0-1 Granted Office District) 3 02-07-83 Change of Zoning (R-4 Residential District to A-1 Granted Apartment District) Public Agency Comments BAYMARK CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item # 18 Page 7 Public Works Master Transportation Plan (MTP): Wildwood Drive is a two (2) lane collector roadway that connects to First Colonial Road at a signalized intersection. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic No Data 6,200 — Existing Land Use Wildwood Drive Available 6,900 ADT —252 ADT Proposed Land Use — 117 ADT n 'X uall �irya ' as defined by office use/medical clinic as defined by 20 condominium units Public Utilities Water: There is a 10-inch water main in Wildwood Drive. This site must connect to City water. Sewer: There is a 15-inch gravity sanitary sewer in Wildwood Drive. No � connection to City sewer can be made until construction of pump station #261 is com leted. This is antici ated in June 2005. Public Schools School Current Enrollment Capacity Generation' Change 2 Alanton Elementary634 693 3.1 3 L nnhaven Middle 1,381 1,388 1.2 1 First Colonial Hi h 2,030 1,697 1.3 1 "generation" represents the number of students that the development will add to the saiwi 3 "change" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students). Public Safety ------------ Police: The applicant is encouraged to contact and work with the BAYMARK CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item # 18 Page 8 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 Rescue: A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained prior to occupancy. All other necessary permits shall be obtained. BAYMARK CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item # 18 Page 9 Exhibits Exhibit A - 1 Aerial of Site Location BAYMARK CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item # 18 Page 10 Exhibit B Proposed Site Plan (2) 16• Gum oo Reman --^,� .; C Large Deciduous Shade Tree (typ.) Remove edsdng Trees as Required to ]nsod] 6' Ht Wooden Fence Ht Wooden Privacy Fence IS' Gum to Remain --, orrammNal Treas (typ•) vec�aw r withBrickColumns ith Medium Evergreen <<. \ {I Ip'• �, iu rz `" Shrubs rubs (wp') _ Y yYj SS'•»,• ;s.0 0- BAYMARK CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item # 18 Page 12 r srr . .F ^1ff�J4p�q� { I Si y i �' '3�� :E, �II�I�� iii► x: 3 n �IpililllUNllil�l Illllllilltll 6�IIViIIVVIlIOi fl 1 nr -� n _� hihlp��llil IGIBIill�lillllll' � IIP".'IIIIIIIII 19 I I�i; k�� "" ie �'llihllB IIV II II�� IIBNNI III II!Vllillll� Y i �— �IIIIr;IiNINI II ' N IIII I ��I IiIlf��i�Idllill! I ;; ! � I Illluhi �� (IIII IIV��lllll Ilh�if{ill��rlllil� � I� �i �. III n�l��l�iil 1- I ti lil;d Ih I II I 1' l 11 it Ifl� . it1i l! ILlI IIIII 1i Ilglq III � II Ilh III I II { IIII I I I n, � I �� g�� I �� I �€ I�hll I IL ditll IIIIIIII ! I��I a411I �Iii I � IIIIIII�III. �Ilil I I�f , i_ u V� I I I��I it IIIIIhIili�ll II I ,�, , I. �I I 4� � I Il llljlllll�jj ppllllu I��"� � ' � 7� 1 Q J W q W C Cj oz Exhibit C - 2 Proposed Building Elevation (Rear) BAYMARK CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item# 18 Page 14 NOUX10 ONINOM IVNOIIIGN03 W v� •"• I � G J L_ L G Cd O i '6Nc c E> 50 G GT�.. ' CCCCOC _Z 9� � 9Gq G6lCiX0 �-c R�J. JILL Gb yO� K 3EEC0 ��ER 6NA G�»UC�bN4N� Ecd vt'o� �� oRs c. z„mac v I H D p U J 0, C G L v n C 3 U O 7� aT n' C U DDT D X V 0 J OD '�T]3R=3 iJ Uh J Y o E d c �?'d u77 3>= z3oE3F€rS `v_. U C i 9 g L J £ V Z t 6 y 6 _• m� R _ ti pS c W q 2 2 OO DO ; 6 .Q EG uC O 4 •-• UO _ U 2X p _r �' Xkr a NOIHY )'1 0 ONIN0ZraJuu WN011IQN03 Exhibit D Disclosure Statement BAYMARK CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item # 18 Page 15 Exhibit E Supplemental Information DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY S , - 5126 Ser 33:'0084 February 10, 2004 .Ms. Carclyn A. K. SmiVil municipal Center Department of Planning 24:5 Courthouse Drive, Building 2 ^.iris Beac: tiP 23r56-90140 Dear Ms. Smith: _hank you for the opportunity to comment on the rezoning request by Saymark Construction Corpo7ation for } Proposed ldwoo d ":ommc: s c.or.dc..ie._uus. _he site is isca7ec, '.Lr NAS Oceana's decibel, day-nightaverage noise zone. As know, the Navy, s Air Installations Compatible Use 'Zones ;AiC'�Z1 'Program characterizes residential ::and use in tn_.s zc:n: a. :aconpacibl&. The Navy fully understands the landowners' leg,ztltlatc desirar [c develop their property; 1 ask you, however, to examine caref..l.].y the compatibility of this project with present no:'..se levels. ..-::,hough the proposed development "in -fills" an' ex. -sting residential area, I would like to emphasize the very significan_ level of average noise present: in the area and its impact on the health and welfare of affected citizens. Accordingly, I recommend tnat;compatible uses listed in Table 2 of the PIC'? instruction be thoroughly considered before approval of resident-;.'_ use. I?., due to demer;.straced c rmunity need t.na ,�:r.._ld heraise he met or the '_ar,'r a vi abiP alterr ,ti , det, l)y:ment options, yon determine :.pat the use .s:nouid be a. towed, strongly recoame_ci WL you mandate noise level reduction of at least 30 decibels be °_naciporated into the construction design and that fall disclosure single event noise levels be required. Thi..a wil.;. help mitigc!e .else impacts future res.-.dents will axperience. if you have any queswons, please contact: my �.,M lnlity ig .d.aisin Officer, Mr. ra,y Fir=. = at 15 ..33i'_58. and very respectfully, KnE 3Y p to U.J. Navy "om .dlro :ricer Copy to: _,Ch1NAVRP.G MTD1AN7 (`!0i\02B) a'sOr Meyera Oberndor_ ,irg:nia. Beac'. Cii.,y .ounc 1. Beach Plinn4ng,orn:nl:,:,icn BAYMARK CONSTRUCTION Agenda Item # 18 Page 16 Item #18 Baymark Construction Company Change of Zoning District Classification North side of Wildwood Drive District 5 Lynnhaven May 12, 2004 CONSENT William Din: The next item is Item #18, which we have placed on consent. This is Baymark Construction Corporation. It's a Change of Zoning District Classification from 0-2 Office District to Conditional A-36 Apartment District located in the Lynnhaven District. Yes sir. Eddie Bourdon: Again, Madame Chair, Eddie Bourdon, Virginia Beach attorney representing the applicant. It's a proffered rezoning. Obviously, all the conditions proffered we are in agreement with. We have met with the Great Neck Villa Condo Association, which we joined. They're very supportive of what we're trying to do. William Din: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Is there any opposition placing this on consent agenda? Yes, Mr. Scott. Robert Scott: I have a comment that is important to make on this but it's no opposition. William Din: Okay. Yes sir. Robert Scott: With regard to the Baymark Construction Corporation application, I think it's important to note that this is in the area affected by the AICUZ considerations and potentially the land use study. Our feeling is that this matter is eligible to move forward because it meets an important three-part test. It meets all parts of that three part test that are laid out. Number one, it is smaller then 10 acres in size. Number two, in our opinion, the existing zoning which is 0-2 is not reasonable on the property, and number three that the density or the classification that is sought as part of this rezoning is the lowest feasible zoning that could reasonably be assigned to this under the circumstances of the abutting properties around it. I think this application successfully meets all three of those tests and accordingly is eligible to move forward under Council's adopted Joint Land Use Study Guidelines. William Din: Thank you very much Mr. Scott. I would like to note that we did receive several emails this morning in opposition but evidently the people who sent these emails to the Planning staff are not available but our Commission has read those and I just wanted for the record note that they were received. There are four proffers associated with that item. Ron. Ronald Ripley: I've been asked to comment on this particular item. The Commission Item #18 Baymark Construction Company Page 2 felt that it ought to be on consent because it seemed to fit in our mind very well into the neighborhood. This is a surplus piece of land that the City owned. They put it out for bid to be sold. And, this applicant won the bid with the quality of development and I assume the price, although were not privy to that. The request for rezoning is from an 0-2 to a A-36, however, the proffers restrict this to only ten dwelling units to acre versus 36, which is the by -right use in the A-36 zoning classification. The property contains just under two -acres and it's sandwiched between two multi -family communities. The proffers we believe protect the neighborhood and ensure that it will be a high end product that will be sold to individual buyers. And, we believe that it's worthy to be on the consent agenda. That is why we're recommending that. William Din: Thank you Mr. Ripley. Madame Chair, I would like to make a motion to approve this consent agenda item, Item #18 Baymark Construction Corporation in the Lynnhaven District as a proffered item. Dorothy Wood: Do I hear a second? Joseph Strange: I'll second it. Dorothy Wood: Our Vice Chair Will Din made the motion and seconded by Joe Strange. Robert Miller: I need to abstain on Item #18, Baymark Construction Corporation. My firm is working on the project. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. William Din: We're ready for the vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 1 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER ABS RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT 0 Ed Weeden: By a vote of 10-0, with the abstention so noted, this agenda item has been approved for consent. Item #18 Baymark Construction Company Page 3 Dorothy Wood: We thank you all for coming and we'll wait a few minutes until everyone clears out. # I DATE IREQUEST ACTION 1 11/23/81 REZONING from AG-2 To B-1 Limited Business Approved 2 02/25/80 REZONING from AG-1 to B-1 Limited Business Approved 3 08/26/86 DOWNZONE to AG Denied 4 05/27/97 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (golf course) Approved 5 9/27/94 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (church) Approved 12/03/96 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (church) Approved 06/10/87 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (church) Approved 6 09/22/98 REZONING from AG-2 to B-2 Approved 7 09/25/90 REZONING from AG-2 to B-1 Approved 8 10/21/85 REZONING from AG-2 to B-1 Approved w CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Courthouse Marketplace, L.L.C. — Change of Zoning District Classification (AG-1 Agricultural District, AG-2 Agricultural District and B-1 Neighborhood Business District with Historic and Cultural District Overlays to Conditional B-2 Community Business District with a Historic and Cultural District Overlay) MEETING DATE: June 8, 2004 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Courthouse Marketplace, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 Agricultural District, AG-2 Agricultural District and B-1 Neighborhood Business District with Historic and Cultural District Overlays to Conditional B-2 Community Business District with a Historic and Cultural District Overlay on property located on the southwest corner of Princess Anne Road and Nimmo Parkway (GPINS 1494636417000; 1494634587000; 1494631439000; 1494633867000; 1494647111000). The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as being within Princess Anne (Transition Area). DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE ■ Considerations: The applicant is requesting a rezoning of this site in order to develop a 122,000 square foot retail center with several outparcels on this site. The western portion of the site will contain the main retail center oriented toward Nimmo Parkway and the eastern portion of the site will contain a cluster of four outparcels. The western portion of the site contains the main retail center and several freestanding buildings. This part of the center is designed following the grid pattern established within the existing municipal center complex. The main retail center is designed with projections and recesses and varying facades and rooflines that will invoke a "main street' atmosphere. There will be a wide sidewalk provided along the front of the main retail center that will include outdoor cafes, seating areas and landscaping. The walkway itself will be designed with brick paver accents to define cafe areas, store entrances, etc. The out buildings are oriented to front on Nimmo Parkway and along the sides of the main drive aisles. A thirty-foot wide landscape buffer that will include berms is planned along the entire frontage of Nimmo Parkway. The large parking area is broken up with linear landscape islands and a center walkway that will connect to the existing sidewalk along Nimmo Parkway. On -site sidewalks are also provided along the main drive aisles. Courthouse Marketplace Pag)2of3 The eastern outparcel cluster has been designed with open space around each building and includes a landscaped courtyard area that will serve as a focal point/gathering spot and that will provide a scenic vista into the site from Nimmo Parkway. The outparcels will be well buffered from Princess Anne Road. Landscaping in this area will be coordinated with the Princess Anne Road and Nimmo Parkway intersection roadway plans that are currently under design in Public Works. The landscaping planned with the roadway includes berms planted with a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees that will serve as a roadway buffer and formal entrance to the Municipal Center complex. The buffer width on Princess Anne Road will be fifty feet. In addition to the roadside buffer planned with the road project, the plan shows an on -site buffer between 30 to 70 feet in width along the Princess Anne Road frontage. Access to the site will be through two main entrances along Nimmo Parkway and one right -in only access from Princess Anne Road. The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis and access plan addressing the impacts of the proposed use. Public Works/Traffic Engineering reviewed the study. The applicant has agreed to coordinate with Public Works during the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) design process for Princess Anne Road to address the issues identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis. This site is located in the Courthouse Historic and Cultural District. The applicant has worked with the Historic Review Board for the past six months to coordinate the details shown on the proffered site plan and building elevations. However, additional review by the Historic Review Board is still required for the specific building elevations and materials, signage, site lighting and landscape plantings. This additional review will be coordinated with the site plan review through the Development Services Center should this rezoning be granted. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent because it is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended approval. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request, as proffered. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Courthouse Marketplace Page 3 of 3 Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmenr City Manager: Q C— •4� j� V OURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE LLC Agenda Item # 12 May 12, 2004 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Barbara Duke The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. Location and General information REQUEST: Change of Zoninq District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts with Historic/Cultural Overlay and B-1 Limited Business District with Historic/Cultural Overlay to Conditional B-2 Community Business District with Historic/Cultural Overlay LOCATION: Property located at the northwest comer of Princess Anne Road and Nimmo Parkway GPIN: 14946364170000;149463458700000;14946471110000; 14946314390000;14946338670000 COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 7 - PRINCESS ANNE COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE Agenda Item # 12 Page 1 SITE SIZE: 23 acres EXISTING There are some residential properties fronting on Princess Anne LAND USE: Road. The rear portion of the site contains grassy fields. SURROUNDING North: • Church / AG-1 & AG-2 Agricultural District LAND USE AND South: • Nimmo Parkway and Municipal Center ZONING: . Small offices and vacant properties / AG-2 East: Agricultural District; B-1 Limited Business District West: • TPC golf course / AG-1 Agricultural District NATURAL The site contains grassy fields divided by agricultural ditches that are RESOURCE lined with trees. The area along the western boundary line contains a AND healthy mature stand of trees that provide a good buffer for the golf CULTURAL course. There is also an area on the eastern portion of the site, near FEATURES: the existing residential properties that contains some scattered mature trees that are significant. There are no City -defined wetlands or floodplain areas on the subject site. The site is located within the Courthouse Historical and Cultural District. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Summary of Proposa The applicant is proposing to develop a 122,000 square foot retail center with several outparcels on this site. The western portion of the site will contain the main retail center oriented toward Nimmo Parkway and the eastern portion of the site will contain a cluster of four outparcels. The western portion of the site contains the main retail center and several freestanding buildings. This part of the center is designed following the grid pattern established within the existing municipal center complex. The main retail center is designed with projections and recesses and varying facades and rooflines that will invoke a "main street' atmosphere. There will be a wide sidewalk provided along the front of the main retail center that will include outdoor cafes, seating areas and landscaping. The COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE Agenda Item # 12 Page 2 walkway itself will be designed with brick paver accents to define cafe areas, store entrances, etc. The out buildings are oriented to front on Nimmo Parkway and along the sides of the main drive aisles. A thirty-foot wide landscape buffer that will include berms is planned along the entire frontage of Nimmo Parkway. The large parking area is broken up with linear landscape islands and a center walkway that will connect to the existing sidewalk along Nimmo Parkway. On -site sidewalks are also provided along the main drive aisles. The eastern outparcel cluster has been designed with open space around each building and includes a landscaped courtyard area that will serve as a focal point/gathering spot and that will provide a scenic vista into the site from Nimmo Parkway. The outparcels will be well buffered from Princess Anne Road. Landscaping in this area will be coordinated with the Princess Anne Road and Nimmo Parkway intersection roadway plans that are currently under design in Public Works. The landscaping planned with the roadway includes berms planted with a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees that will serve as a roadway buffer and formal entrance to the Municipal Center complex. The buffer width on Princess Anne Road will be fifty feet. In addition to the roadside buffer planned with the road project, the plan shows an on -site buffer between 30 to 70 feet in width along the Princess Anne Road frontage. Access to the site will be through two main entrances along Nimmo Parkway and one right -in only access from Princess Anne Road. The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis addressing the impacts of the proposed use and access plan. Public Works/Traffic Engineering reviewed the study. The applicant has agreed to coordinate with Public Works during the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) design process for Princess Anne Road to address the issues identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis. This site is located in the Courthouse Historic and Cultural District. The applicant has worked with the Historic Review Board for the past six months to coordinate the details shown on the proffered site plan and building elevations. However, additional review by the Historic Review Board is still required for the specific building elevations and materials, signage, site lighting and landscape plantings. This additional review will be coordinated with the site plan review through the Development Services Center should this rezoning be granted. Included at the end of this report is a letter stating the position of the Historic Review Board. COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE Agenda Item # 12 Page 3 Major Issues The following represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request. Staffs evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these issues are adequately addressed. The subject site is located in the Courthouse Historic and Cultural District and the Transition Area. The degree to which the proposal is compatible with the Courthouse Historic and Cultural District is important, as well as the degree to which the proposal meets Transition Area guidelines for non-residential development. The site access must be coordinated with the recommendations contained in the Princess Anne Corridor Study and the CIP project under design for widening Princess Anne Road to four lanes in this vicinity. Degree to which the development adheres to the Retail Design Guidelines contained in the City Zoning Ordinance. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan states that within the Princess Anne/Transition Area, developers "...are encouraged to employ the most creative planning and development techniques." (page 141) "Development in this area is to be a more limited typed of growth, with its own development standards suitable to the character of the area where greater integration of natural resources and more open space is planned. This limited type of growth will be primarily residential development with a confined amount of complementary non-residential land use. Non-residential or commercial development should be scaled to accommodate local neighborhood needs and incorporate special aesthetics and pedestrian friendly design techniques. When development is adjacent to Princess Anne Road it should be linked with the trail system of planned improvements for Princess Anne Road and existing sidewalks." COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE Agenda Item # 12 Page 4 "The site of the commercial land use should be designed according to its location, the characteristics of the land and the type of surrounding residential development. Commercial centers in the Princess Anne/Transition Area should not replicate the standard strip shopping centers characterized by one or two anchor stores set back behind large expansive parking lots and numerous, single -use out parcels spaced along the road in front of the commercial tract. Instead, the shopping areas should be arranged to complement the open space theme of the Transition Area, as viewed from the road, as part of the parking area and within the shopping center complex. Development within the Transition Area does not allow for big box commercial establishments." "Franchise stores, restaurants and other establishments should not employ their standard trademark architecture, but should make reasonable adjustments to conform to the community's design characteristics. They should be designed for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, commercial developments must be designed to connect to the Transition Area's existing and planned trail system." "The site and building design of office development within the Transition Area should be of exceptional quality and should serve to showcase the area within which they are located. Office and commercial developments in the vicinity of the Virginia Beach Municipal Center should respect the conservative, Neo- Georgian architecture and campus setting. The use of brick as the principal building material and the exceptional landscaped features unify the campus' mix of traditional structures and somewhat more contemporary architecture, as exemplified in the design of the Courthouse. A more formal landscaping is introduced throughout the campus along with wide sidewalks to encourage pedestrian activity. Future development in this part of the Transition Area should complement the fundamental building and site design characteristics of the Municipal Center." The Princess Anne Corridor Study, adopted by City Council on July 11, 2000, also contains land use, controlled access policies and aesthetic guidelines that apply to this site. The Study states that a Traffic Impact Analysis should be prepared by applicants requesting rezoning approval for any development proposed in the City of Virginia Beach that would generate more than 150 vehicle trips per day, according to the rates or equations published in the latest ITE Trip Generation and Informational Report. Traffic Impact Analysis, reviewed and approved by the Comprehensive Planning Division and City Traffic Engineer, should identify and the applicant should proffer related roadway and transportation improvements necessary to ensure that roadways will function at an acceptable level of service or restore the functioning of the road system to the same level of service as if the development were to occur under existing zoning. COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE Agenda Item # 12 Page 5 Along with the issue of the function of the Princess Anne Road is the need to prevent the addition of any unplanned accesses along the arterial parkways. The improvements to Princess Anne Road are based on its design as a controlled -access roadway that minimizes traffic disruption thus avoiding construction of additional travel lanes. w, EE ..; "Proffers The following are proffers submitted by the applicant as part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The applicant, consistent with Section 107(h) of the City Zoning Ordinance, has voluntarily submitted these proffers in an attempt to "offset identified problems to the extent that the proposed rezoning is acceptable," (§107(h)(1)). Should this application be approved, the proffers will be recorded at the Circuit Court and serve as conditions restricting the use of the property as proposed with this change of zoning. PROFFER # 1 When the Property is developed, the grocery store/retail facility shall be developed and landscaped substantially as shown on the exhibits entitled (a) COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE, dated 6/3103, prepared by Engineering Services, Inc., and (b) PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE, Virginia Beach, VA, dated June 3, 2003, prepared by HBA which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter referred to as the "Conceptual Site Plans"). A detailed landscape plan for the Property which is coordinated with the Grantee's landscaping plans for Nimmo Parkway and Ferrell Parkway/Princess Anne Road, must be approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. The landscape plan for the Property will require that at least thirty percent (30%) of the new trees to be planted will be "evergreen" trees. PROFFER # 2 The Conceptual Site Plan depicts outparcels and illustrates a possible development layout for each. In accordance with Section 1304 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO), a General Certificate of COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE Agenda Item# 12 Page 6 Appropriateness shall be obtained from the Department of Planning prior to development of the Property. The General Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued following review by the Historic Review Board of the architectural style and building materials of the structures, the location, size, number and character of the proposed signage, and the proposed exterior lighting arrangements. A site plan and rendering(s) for any building(s) to be constructed on each outparcel depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan must be approved by the Planning Director, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Planning Director shall determine that each building on an outparcel is appropriately oriented along the principal drive aisles in a manner that promotes a "main street" atmosphere. PROFFER # 3 The architectural design and building materials of the grocery store/retail structure to be constructed on the Property shall be substantially compatible with the architectural style and materials depicted on the two (2) exhibits entitled "PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE" dated June 3, 2003, prepared by HBA, which have been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and are on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter referred to as the "Elevation Plans"). PROFFER # 4 When the Property is developed, no internally illuminated, building mounted signage will be permitted. Outparcels, as depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan shall be restricted to building mounted signs only. The only freestanding signage permitted on the Property, shall be one along the frontage of Ferrell Parkway/Princess Anne Road and one along the frontage of Nimmo Parkway. PROFFER # 5 The following uses shall not be permitted on the Property: automobile repair facilities, automobile service stations, bingo halls, car wash facilities, flea markets, heliports and helistops, mini -warehouses, motor home sales and motor vehicle sales and rentals. In addition, on Outparcels designated "1" and "2" on the Conceptual Site Plan, no drive through uses shall be permitted. On the Outparcel designate "Y, no drive through associated with a restaurant shall be permitted. COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE Agenda Item # 12 Page 7 PROFFER # 6 When the Property is developed, a public use, ingress - egress easement shall be dedicated over the two drive aisles/access roads which traverse the Property perpendicular to Nimmo Parkway curb cuts on Nimmo Parkway to the northwestern boundary line of the Property, as depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan. The owner of the Property will agree to grant an appropriate ingress - egress easement to serve both "Lot 16" and "Lot 22A" as depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan, from the easternmost main drive aisle, subject to the owner(s) of Lot 16 and Lot 22A executing a reasonable shared maintenance agreement with the Party of the First Part which reflects a reasonable sharing of construction and maintenance costs for the drive aisles and associated landscaping. PROFFER # 7 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 of The proffers are acceptable. The proffers provide Proffers: assurance that the main retail center and future buildings will be developed in a coordinated fashion around a central theme. The proffers also provide for further review by the Historic Review Board of all structures, landscaping, lighting and materials to ensure that the project will reflect and enhance the historical integrity of the nearby municipal center complex. City Attorney's The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer Office: agreement dated June 1, 2003, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE Agenda Item# 12 Page 8 kY Staff Evaluation V i Staff recommends approval of this request. Staffs evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials and the proffers, adequately addresses each of the 'Major Issues' identified above. The proposal's strengths in addressing the'Major Issues' are (1) The subject site is located within the Courthouse Historic and Cultural District. The applicant has worked with the Historic Review Board to design the site to complement the existing Municipal Center complex. A conceptual site plan and architectural renderings acceptable to the Historic Review Board have been proffered. A letter outlining the Historic Review Board's comments is included at the end of this report. The site is also located within the Transition Area of the City. Within the Transition Area, commercial development is only encouraged on a neighborhood scale. The subject proposal is of a much larger scale. However, the large scale of this commercial development is appropriate given its location at the intersection of Princess Anne Road and Nimmo Parkway, adjacent to the Municipal Center. When the planned Capital Improvement Program projects noted in the Public Works section of this report are completed, Nimmo Parkway will extend from West Neck Parkway to Upton Drive and Princess Anne Road will be four lanes from Dam Neck Road to Nimmo Parkway. These two roadways will serve as major arterials for the Transition Area. In addition, the property is located in close proximity to the Municipal Center, a major employment complex that is underserved by supporting services. The applicant has incorporated green spaces into the plan and has proffered unique, non -prototype building designs for all structures in accordance with Comprehensive Plan guidelines. (2) The subject site is a combination of five parcels, all of which currently have individual accesses onto Princess Anne Road. All of the existing accesses to these parcels will be removed with this plan, and one "entrance only" driveway will be provided. The Traffic Impact Analysis states that this entrance will intercept traffic headed for the shopping center from the north prior to that traffic traversing, and thus impacting, the intersection at Princess Anne and Nimmo. In addition, the applicant has provided an alternative access roadway for the adjacent properties to the east and north that have current access on Princess Anne Road in accordance with the Corridor Study. This roadway is in the form of a public ingress/egress easement that will be dedicated over the easternmost COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE Agenda Item# 12 Page 9 entrance and drive aisle shown on the site plan and addressed in Proffer #6 above. (3) The applicant has designed the plan In accordance with the retail guidelines contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Pedestrian features have been included in the plan. A public green space and central gathering spot has been included in the plan in the southeastern quadrant. The architectural renderings include several voluntary elements recommended by the guidelines. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this request. 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. COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE Agenda Item # 12 Page.10 Supplemental Information Hen, Zoning History # I DATE REQUEST I ACTION 1 11/23/81 REZONING from AG-2 To B-1 Limited Business Approved 2 02/25/80 REZONING from AG-1 to B-1 Limited Business Approved 3 08/26/86 DOWNZONE to AG Denied 4 05/27/97 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (golf course) Approved 5 9/27/94 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (church) Approved 12/03/96 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (church) Approved 06/10/87 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (church) Approved 6 09/22/98 REZONING from AG-2 to B-2 Approved 7 09/25/90 REZONING from AG-2 to B-1 Approved 8 10/21/85 REZONING from AG-2 to B-1 Approved COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE Agenda Item # 12 Page 11 Public Agency Comments Public Works Plan (MTP): I is a two (2) lane undivided major suburban arterial. Princess Anne Road Phase IV (CIP 2.305) will improve this section of Princess Anne Road with construction of a four -lane parkway from Dam Neck Road to the intersection of Holland Road and Nimmo Parkway, a distance of approximately 2.6 miles. A 250 foot right-of-way will be acquired to provide for ultimate expansion to eight lanes in the future. Aesthetic treatments of landscaping, streetlighting, and signage will create a typical section that establishes a unique and identifiable roadway. This roadway improvement project, which is currently under design, will be administered by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Construction is scheduled to begin in the first half of 2006. Nimmo Parkway in the vicinity of this application is a four (4) lane divided roadway. Nimmo Parkway Phase VA (CIP 2.121) will extend Nimmo Parkway from Holland Road to General Booth Boulevard to the east. This roadway improvement project, which is currently under design, will be administered by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Construction is scheduled to begin in the first half of 2006. Nimmo Parkway will be a major east/west suburban arterial when this extension is completed. Public Works has reviewed the proposed plan to ensure coordination with these VDOT projects. Some adjustments to the plan may be necessary during COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE Agenda Item # 12 Page 12 Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Princess Anne 23,724 16,200 Existing Land Use Road ADT' ADT' - 3000 ADT Nimmo Parkway No available* No available* ?roLand u ave Use - 10,38380 ADT een con uc as o e ammo Parkway recently opens o ra me m une an no o iaa o cn printing time of this report 'Average Daily Trips 'as defined by agriculture and limited business 3 as defined by shopping center with outparcels Public Utilities Water: There is a 12-inch City waterline fronting the northwest corner of the proposed development. The proposed development must connect to City water. Sewer: There is no City sewer fronting these parcels. The proposed development is not within an existing service area. Pump station analysis for the potential receiving um station must be performed. 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 Rescue: Fire Department requirements will be addressed at detailed site plan review COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE Agenda Item # 12 Page 13 n ggs a G! U� EYhibit B ad Site Plan COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE Agenda Item# 12 Page 15 (' 2 � • . ' ro a 1SB3 � _ s z txy } i e Y �iTiri �J,y� q � v d 'S 1 k LM i #k 411, e { r C t MF 1YV1Wv011"Uv Vx%JULVLA.LV. a iov�►W+v+.vw. CS$ � 4YAW h � ��•� - 9 g qqq�oaEm�y�� € p �N nN - a jIg -N4 '-'Aaa.� ! I too—Pg. g�q� cW��Tp'��9g0 f �$?:p`>I L ca wig � a SINIo-p 5 56 QC �Q b �CPGEi W o Aq CCa�pjyp i''9qO� 8.$C mzg3 � 8 t4 pbf.0 CCm� Pa Hig. a 4 3 py}l;L11'1lll G��5.p$.! � ..E�bCgd �U-(y�i 0 6 OI m 0 3Z' it _9NWCt! IQ'-"{ I• 8 A a N Wts A'��`��qw �a 8g�8Wg 38 ap., a W IC jag W S „ y q yyyyyy T S5gFjFj CC33 �:s C2L6V�0Y .- 2 u ail 4 G��yi WaD @vdy2p; }H.a o_Sfrro � � Qfi� q •TQ•C� C (�� Q�p � �T>j �'gY@p� yG� � � � •tx gip p C N dO 54.. ?.p..b aWJ N i "II pCLpaL9yy i O GY6t' CW.�6AtJ l�Ilrn C�._N Npa a � Ov W9 J 03 d a o ,. 0. c m i 56 �C G G pp G Ip o 6'. O c� o a ° tt� W •�• o o z G ai In o �ld G pf �yr C,n Z 2 NOUV311ddnv, 9NINO2HI RNOUIGN03 Exhibit D -1 Disclosure Statement COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE Agenda Item # 12 Page 19 G V v a i w_ Iwb •� -� W �t F uJVi z P LL zz "a w Z C o �. '4 :] z _ a S2 7 w w 20 y 41 a 64 4.. N v `i . C w oz D Exhibit D - 2 Disclosure Statement NOU'X10 9NINOZE "MOUI IN03 t flH aJ^�' IL jj S. v1 " l EE Lp A'A ' a - 1' .t .�• Y oX COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE Agenda Item # 12 Page 20 Exhibit D.3 Disclosure Statement w(\ 2 \ �5 \ T\ : \ \ ` ® :! 2� COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE Agenda +r#2 Page 2 Z w 2 H N W a to 0 U N_ 6 Exhibit D - 4 Disclosure Statement � c l7 a a s d m o C o m o U '• U a 0 n U d Z iZ_ i U� W c n p2 I c $O _ 0 z 5 iO %=m n O~ Z oa N N o q� N �, m I 0 UJ Z G i 3 3 C0 •`....-* d K K c D o C K it 'n D l -. .. zm7z �mm _ mm J a g i s i =a V r o a oN y u n 4ti o`=� oZ» LL i2 NOI�,��TIdcI"� g�IIlO2 T�I�OI►�IQ�IO3 COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE Agenda Item# 12 Page 22 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING pq)a;5.�01(DIRECTOR) f 57) M13-1762 FAX Brian R. Lucas, Assistant Development Manager Armada Hoffler 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2100 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462 Exhibit E Supplemental Information City of Virginia Beacn OF'RAnoms AuB.DING, ROOM 115 2J 5 COURTWU5F. DRIVE MUNICIPA. CEIMR VIRGINIA BEACK VIRGINIA 2VSb4119 May 3, 2004 RE: Preliminary Certificate of Appropriateness *01-041b — Proposed Retail Development of Courthouse Marketplace — located on property at the northwest corner of Princess Anne Road and Nimmo Parkway Dear Mr Lucas: In accordance with the Historic Review Board's recommendation, your request for a Preliminary Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for development of a retail center (please see attachment) has been approved. The retail center will be located on the site at the intersection of the southwest comer of Princess Anne Road and Nimmo Parkway, on properties with the GPINs 1494�Wl11; 1494-63-6417, 1494-63.4587, 149"3-1439 and 149-633867. The approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the Courthouse Market Place and cutparcels is subject to final review by the Historical Review Board of the architectural renderings. buJding materials list, landscape, sgnage, exterior lighting fixtures and site plans and subject as well to final approval of the pending rezoning request by the City Council. Final review by the Historical Review Board and the Director of Planning is required before a building permit can be issued for any buildings to be located on this site. Each cuWarcel must obtain the same approval Prior to being developed. . A Certificate of Appropriateness W-04a, dated April 1, 2004, for the demolition or the existing structures located on the proposed development site of Courthouse Marketplace has already been approved subject to approval and final action by City Council on the applicant's rezoning request All future development activity on this site is also subject to approval of the necessary rezonings on the site by the City Council, and subject to proffered conditions that may be attached to such approvals. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Robert Davis of my staff at 427-8613 Sincerely, Roberto Planning Director c: Current Planning COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE Agenda Item # 12 Page 23 Item #12 Courthouse Marketplace, L.L.C. Change of Zoning District Classification Southwest corner of Princess Anne Road and Nimmo Parkway District 7 Princess Anne May 12, 2004 CONSENT William Din: The next item that I have on consent is Item #12. This is Courthouse Marketplace, L.L.C. This is a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 Agricultural District and AG-2 Agricultural District and B-I Neighborhood Business District with Historic and Cultural District Overlays to Conditional B-2 Community Business District with a Historic and Cultural District Overlay on property located at the southwest corner of Princess Anne Road and Nimmo Parkway. This is in the Princess Anne District. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you again and for the record, Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney. It's my privilege to represent this applicant. Mr. Tony Nero, one of the principals of the applicant is here as are Mr. Randy Royal with Engineering Services and representatives of HBA Design Group. On their behalf, I want to express their appreciation and thanks to Mr. Scott, Barbara Duke and all the members of the Historic Review Board with whom they have met for the last six months on three occasions and have worked tirelessly to bring to you all what we think is a very beautiful project. I appreciate being on the consent agenda. William Din: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. I believe that Barry is also going to explain this one. Barry Knight: The applicant is proposing to develop a 122,000 square foot retail center with several out parcels on the site. The western portion of the site will contain the main retail center oriented towards Nimmo Parkway. The eastern portion of the site will contain a cluster of four out parcels. As you can see from our slides up here, I know that the applicant has worked long and diligently with City staff. They've been at least three times to the Historical Review Board of this area. They're creating berms along Nimmo Parkway and landscape buffer. They have three gaps in the trees where you can look towards the grocery store and the shops. We've raised the bar on this just as we have over here at the old Kellam and Eaton, which is now going to be some community shops but you can tell from this elevation the landscaping is going to be in place. It's going to be Georgian style brick. It's going to have the nice design and structures. It's going to be in keeping with what we want down here and with the courthouse complex. It is a nice design. We think that it has raised the bar for this area, which is Princess Anne Commons. We think it's an exceptional use of this property so therefore we put it on the consent agenda. Item #12 Courthouse Marketplace, L.L.C. Page 2 William Din: Thank you Barry. Madame Chair, I would like to make a motion to approve this consent agenda item, Item #12 Courthouse Marketplace, L.L.C. located in the Princess Anne District as a proffered item. Dorothy Wood: Do I hear a second? Joseph Strange: I'll second it. Dorothy Wood: Our Vice Chair Will Din made the motion and seconded by Joe Strange. William Din: We're ready for the vote. AYE 11 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE ABS0 ABSENT Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, this agenda item has been approved for consent. # I DATE I REQUEST I AL I IUN 1 4-9-91 Conditional Use Permit (Marina) Approved 2 9-24-91 Street Closure Denied 9-25-90 Conditional Use Permit (Marina) Approved 6-26-89 Rezoning (R-5S Residential to RT-3 Resort Approved Tourist) °r �Y CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: David A. Parker — Change of Zoning District Classification (R-5S Residential Single Family District to RT-3 Resort Tourist District) MEETING DATE: June 8, 2004 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of David A. Parker for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-5S Residential Single Family District to RT-3 Resort Tourist District on property located at 408 Winston Salem Avenue (part of), (GPIN 24271294830000 — part of). The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as being within the Oceanfront Resort Area. DISTRICT 6 — BEACH ■ Considerations: The applicant is requesting to rezone a nonconforming R-5S Residential lot to RT-3 Resort Tourist District. Currently a single-family dwelling exists on Lots 4, 5, and 6. Lots 4 and 5 are zoned RT-3 Resort Tourist, and Lot 6 is zoned R-5S Residential. Lot 6 is nonconforming in that it is only 25 feet wide. The rezoning of Lot 6 is necessary for the applicant to improve the site for a parking area. At the present, the applicant plans to continue use of the property as a minimal service marina for the mooring of several small boats, and storage and repair facility for his existing personal watercraft business (jet skis) that he operates on the lot to the east behind Big Sam's restaurant. It is the applicant's intent to eventually develop the site with a full service marina and restaurant in the future. Presently, however, the applicant desires to improve the existing parking area. Ir order to make the improvements, the small sliver of the site (the non -conforming R-5S Residential) must be rezoned to RT-3 Resort Tourist District. Staff recommended approval. The applicant also was requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a marina; however, that request was indefinitely deferred by the Planning Commission at the request of the applicant. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request. ■ Attachments: David A. Parker Page 2 of 2 Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager: : Planning Department M07-213-REZ-2004 M07-213-CUP-2004 Agenda Items # 7 & # 8 May 12, 2004 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Faith Christie The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. REQUEST: 7. Change of Zoning District Classification from R-5S Residential District to RT-3 Resort Tourist District 8. Conditional Use Permit for a Marina and Personal Watercraft Rentals Location and General Information RT- David 0©6�� R T " 4 u 5� 5lo UDEE RT4 � DAVID A. PARKER Agenda Items # 7 & # 8 Page 1 LOCATION: Property located at 400 Winston Salem Avenue GPIN: 24271294830000;24272202570000 COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: 6 — BEACH SITE SIZE: 21,500 square feet total (5,375 square feet to be rezoned) EXISTING A gravel parking lot used for overflow parking for the adjacent LAND USE: restaurant, Big Sam's; a single-family dwelling, and a dock. SURROUNDING North: . Winston Salem Avenue LAND USE AND . Across Winston Salem Avenue are single-family ZONING: and duplex dwellings / R-5S Residential South: . Rudee Inlet East: . Big Sam's Restaurant and the applicant's existing personal watercraft rental operation (jet skis) / RT-3 Resort Tourist West: . Single-family dwelling / R-5S Residential NATURAL RESOURCE There are no significant natural resources or cultural features on the AND site. Lake Rudee is located to the south. The site possesses an CULTURAL excellent view of Lake Rudee's connection to the Rudee Inlet and the FEATURES: Atlantic Ocean. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of 70 to 75dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The United States Navy comments that the proposed use is generally compatible with airfield operations provided measures to achieve noise level reductions are incorporated into the design and construction of the buildings where the public is received. rr Summary Of PrOpOs l The applicant is requesting to rezone a nonconforming R-5S Residential lot to RT-3 Resort Tourist District. Currently a single-family dwelling exists on Lots 4, 5, and 6. Lots DAVID A. PARKER Agenda Items # 7 & # 8 Page, 2 4 and 5 are zoned RT-3 Resort Tourist, and Lot 6 is zoned R-5S Residential. Lot 6 is nonconforming in that it is only 25 feet wide. The rezoning is necessary for the applicant to develop the site as proposed. The applicant also wishes to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for a Marina on the site. li is the applicant's intent to eventually develop the site with a full service marina and restaurant. However, at the present, the applicant plans to continue use of the property as a minimal service marina for the mooring of several small boats, and storage and repair facility for his existing personal watercraft business Qet skis) that he operates on the lot to the east behind Big Sam's restaurant. aip Major Issues The following represent the significant issues identified by the staff concerning this request. Staffs evaluation of the request is largely based on the degree to which these issues are adequately addressed. • Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the area. • Compatibility with surrounding uses. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area of the city as the Resort Area. The Oceanfront Resort Concept Plan designates this site as part of Subarea L - Rudee Inlet / Winston-Salem area. The Oceanfront Resort Concept Plan recommends that marine based uses are appropriate for this area. Low -intensity commercial activities and attractively landscaped surface parking areas that are well screened from the Shadowlawn neighborhood ensure excellent compatibility with properties facing the north side of Winston-Salem Avenue. DAVID A. PARKER Agenda Items # 7 &.# 8 Page 3 Staff Evaluation Staff recommends approval of this request of the Rezoning request. Staffs evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, adequately addresses each of the 'Major Issues' identified above. The proposal's strengths in addressing the 'Major Issues' are 1. The current zoning of the lot is not consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for the area, specifically the Oceanfront Resort Concept Plan. 2. The 25-foot wide lot cannot reasonably support a single-family dwelling if developed as a single lot, and is not compatible with the surrounding uses on the south side of Winston-Salem Avenue. Staff also recommends approval of the request for a Conditional Use Permit. Staffs evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, adequately addresses each of the 'Major Issues' identified above. The proposal's strengths in addressing the 'Major Issues' are The request to operate a Marina on the site is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for the area, specifically the Oceanfront Resort Concept Plan. Marinas are compatible with the existing uses on the southern side of Winston-Salem Avenue. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of this Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit requests. Conditions The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department/Development Services Center for review and approval a re -subdivision plat that vacates all existing interior lot lines. The plat shall be submitted within 60 days of City Council approval of the requests. DAVID A. PARKER Agenda Items # 7 & # 8 Page 4 2. The site shall be developed substantially as shown on the submitted plan, entitled "Schematic Plan — Spruill Property," dated 15 May, 2003. The architectural design of the principal building on the site shall be submitted to the Director of Planning or his designee for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for the structure. 3. Personal watercraft vehicles (jet skis) shall not be launched or rented from the site. 4. If the applicant elects to delay improvement of the site as depicted on the plan described in Condition 2, the existing grass and gravel areas used for parking shall be improved prior to the property being used for a marina or for personal watercraft rentals. The parking areas shall be improved as follows: (a) Have a paved surface, inclusive of all drive aisles, which meets the requirements of the Specifications and Standards of the Department of Public Works and the Site Plan Ordinance; (b) Contain perimeter landscaping meeting the requirements of section 5A of the Parking Lot Landscaping Specifications and Standards where adjacent to any public right-of-way or other publicly owned property. The perimeter may also be enclosed by fencing meeting the requirements for fences set forth in section 201(e) of the City Zoning Ordinance; provided, however, that such fencing shall not exceed four (4) feet in height and shall consist of materials, such as black vinyl -coated chain link, white vinyl picket or black wrought iron, which are generally recognized within the industry as maintenance -free. Wood split -rail fences shall not be permitted. Such fencing and landscaping shall at all times be maintained in good condition and repair; (c) Be secured at all points of ingress and egress by a gate, consisting of materials, such as black vinyl -coated chain link, white vinyl picket or black wrought iron, which are generally recognized within the industry as maintenance -free, except during hours of operation; (d) Contain no less than one (1) trash receptacle, plainly visible and marked as such, for every three thousand five hundred (3,500) square feet of lot area or fraction thereof; and (e) Be in compliance with all other applicable requirements of federal, state and local law including, without limitation, the handicapped parking space requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act. NOTE. Further conditions maybe 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. DAVID A. PARKER Agenda Items # 7 & # 8 Page 5 Supplemental Information Zoning History 1 4-9-91 Conditional Use Permit (Marina) Approved 2 9-24-91 Street Closure Denied 9-25-90 Conditional Use Permit (Marina) Approved 6-26-89 Rezoning (R-5S Residential to RT-3 Resort Tourist) Approved DAVID A. PARKER Agenda Items # 7 & # 8 Page 6 Public Agency Comments Public Works Master Transportation Winston Salem Avenue in front of this site is an Plan (MTP): undivided two-lane residential / collector street. It was recently improved with the Capital Improvement Program 7.063.063 Drainage Project. Improvements included drainage upgrades, removal of roadside ditches, installation of curb and gutter, and pavement widening to allow for additional on -street parking. Traffic Calculations: street Name Present Volume Present Capacity Generated Traffic Existing Land Use Winston Salem 4,051 6,200 21 Avenue ADT ADT' Proposed Land Use Average Daily Trips as defined by Marina on a weekday 3 as defined by same, no change Public Utilities Water: There is a six-inch water main in Winston Salem Avenue in front of the site. The site is connected to City water. Sewer: There is an eight -inch sanitary sewer main in Winston Salem Avenue1 in front of the site. Analysis of Pump Station 120 and the sanitary sewer collection system us required to ensure that future flows can be accommodated. 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 Rescue:_ I There are no Fire Department concerns at this time. DAVID A. PARKER Agenda Items # 7 & # 8 Page 7 ABAIMS O[HdV I H 1 0 1 0 - cl . �01 U Exhibit B 8380Y 3110118 dO dM Site Survey 9L 'A0019V nblHI C S101 -AAV VMYS N018NN 901,UY -1 DAVID A. PARKER Agenda Items # 7 & # 8 Page 9 I Exhibit C Conceptual Master Plan DAVID A. PARKER Agenda Items # 7 & # 8 Page 10 w 10, Exhibit D Disclosure Statement 5 2 45- 71 DAVID A. PARKER Agenda Items # 7 & # 8 Page 11 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL AIR STATION OCEANA !750 70MCA7 POULEVAR0 VIRGINIA SPEACH VIRGINIA 23460-2168 a 'Deac.l. h- tv.T, Exhibit E Supplemental Information IN REPLY REItU, IQ, 2 C Ser --,2: 0172 April 6, 2004 ank vo-a for , e,e o , ppert-�n--.y c ra,th e he Pc=-- by -a`,id �. Parker ':;r a full scrvice mar-nt. � 4 ez 1;4ns-on-Salem nun. Q l..d in rhe oh7.. av a r a— fLan� Nz-,-Y' s Air :nsta- la-, c T-"s 2,cT.ratible use 'c)nas "' consider Is this Use gene n ly ,Grip-az e --c, achieve no --Ise leVel redJC7'01- Ml:,sr -e rr-;-41dircs L,saz-4 h. a cons -r vex ar---�ar�-as -0 7-e- jort.-, e n A a n have anv 0,�CF4 D -S, -pnninQ v v 7 n Cf- icer, 11-� Ra sinccre-'- and ver"! �X- T. : 71�1�-c: 7 me vera Cberndorf zi--v -13unc i Eeach ss - Ccn Fnn q, mc - Beach I,la17-- DAVID A. PARKER Agenda Items # 7 & # 8 Page 12 Item #7 David A. Parker Change of Zoning District Classification 408 Winston Salem Avenue District 6 Beach May 12, 2004 Dorothy Wood: Next item Mr. Strange. Joseph Strange: The next items are Items #7 & 8. Item #7 is David A. Parker. A Change of Zoning District Classification from R-5S Residential Single Family District to RT-3 Resort Tourist District on property located at 408 Winston Salem Avenue. Item #8 is a Conditional Use Permit for a marina and personal watercraft rentals on property on property located at 408 Winston Salem Avenue, District is the Beach and with four conditions. Dorothy Wood: Yes sir. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you, for the record, Madame Chair, Eddie Bourdon Virginia Beach attorney representing the applicant. First thing that I want to do and I don't know why this keeps appearing. I've had a number of conversations with the planner involved in this and I left her a message on Monday morning after I read your write up. This is the application, case #8 that I submitted with this application when it was filed. This is not an application for a Conditional Use Permit for jet -ski rentals. It is not now and has never been an application for a Conditional Use Permit for jet -ski rentals. The application clearly says that. What this is at this juncture is a situation where the City has urged, pushed, controlled and arm twisted for good cause to get these parking lots down at the resort area improved, paved and landscaped. My client owns this 21,000 square foot piece of property where parking has been utilized for a number of years. It is zoned RT-3 with the exception of this small strip of land here, which represents less than a quarter of the size of the parcel. The adjacent to this parcel is another piece of property that my client does not own and leases upon which he operates a jet -ski rental business, which is limited in terns of number of jet skis that can be rented there. What is occurring here is that we need to pave the parking lot. He does have a plan to improve the property. He does wish to create a marina on the property and to put a restaurant on the property. But all that is occurring now is we wish to pave the parking lot per the plans that you have seen that were submitted with the application and we can't do that with this strip that is zoned R-5S. And, there is currently a residence on the property, a residence that will be removed from the property this fall. But in the meantime, we're going to improve the parking and pave the parking lot but we can't go there and do demolition during the season. And the rezoning of this one strip upon which a portion of a house is located and the rest is non -conforming because the property is all one piece or it has all been one piece. Conditional one requires that it be resubdivided, which we certain agree to do, is Item #7 David A. Parker Page 2 so that we can go in and pave the parking lot. There is an existing pier on the property. That pier has been used for 6-7 years for jet -skis, which are stored there and worked on by hand, not anything mechanical and there are 2 or 3 small lead boats that are used for the jet -ski business that my client has moored there. The public does not use pier on this property. But we were told when we filed the application or rezone the strip to continue to use the pier for that limited purpose. We still needed the Manna Use Permit and that is what the permit is for. Not to expand. Not to do anything other than to use that existing pier for mooring the boats associated with his business and for some temporary storage of jet -skis. No public use. We have no problem with a restriction to not use that pier. We do expect and anticipate and the planner involved us and I've discussed this at length and we've been to the RDC and talked to them about it, that we will be doing a true marina, a public marina in the future. But that is going to be a need to dredge. It's going to need to involve new piers and that's a process that's going to take with all the regulatory approvals and the process it's going to take probably a year or more. That process is going to commence. And, we do recognize clearly. My client has just actually brought the property within the last 12 months that there are improvements that need to be made to it. That's a process that what's happening today will not give up any control of over that whatsoever. That control will remains totally intact. All were trying to do is get to a position where you can pave the parking lot, landscape the parking lot and when the plans are more formalize for doing a marina expansion of the existing pier that is there, that would have to go through the entire process including coming back here for modification of the Use Permit. I do apologize that if the plans that were submitted show a pier that is different than the pier that is actually located. It was intended to be the pier that is actually there. In the rush to file, they may have just drawn a pier that that is not actually what is there but it is intended to be what is there. Not an addition to that pier or expansion of that pier. I hope that helps to clarify some of the confusion. And, it is explicitly from my perspective and I did leave a message Monday morning and unfortunately I wasn't aware that Faith had a problem with her granddaughter that the conditions needed to be rewritten because there are not consistent with what we've been trying to do here. And, condition #3, if you look at condition #3, the first two conditions are perfectly fine. I don't think anyone has a problem with them. I hope not. Number #3, a sentence can be added to number three that no public use of the pier as a part of the adjacent jet -ski business shall be permitted. For numerous reasons, my client doesn't want the public on that pier and won't be allowing the public on that pier and hasn't for the last six years. The fourth condition, I think also needs to be modified. I think the word "even" should be inserted at the beginning. It would read even if the applicant elects to delay improvement of the site as depicted on the plan described in condition #2, which shows the restaurant, the existing grass and gravel areas used for parking shall be improved. I think there should be a period there. And, then the remaining of condition #4 is totally acceptable because that is what we're trying to achieve is what condition #4 is talking about. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Item #7 David A. Parker Page 3 Dorothy Wood: Are there any questions of Mr. Bourdon? Mr. Miller? Robert Miller: You cleared up the big one. But it's over the place, everywhere in here. Just like you point out in that sentence there, it was in the middle of it all. It's very confusing. And I understand. I'm not going to go over that point again. It's enough, like you said. The physical survey, which I think is what I'm looking at or topo survey on Page 9 and that's the picture of the existing site. Where is the parking that is going to be paved on that? I couldn't and I cannot identify. Can we get the existing site up on the screen please? Eddie Bourdon: Actually, I have another plan Robert Miller: I know there's a second plan that goes with that which shows a future situation but it was not one. Yeah. I was trying to figure where the and to what extent the improvements are that are being made to that? Eddie Bourdon: The future plan is actually what is going to be the end result of what will not be able to happen immediately is the demolition of the house. We already have contractors lined up and everybody lined up to do the partial paving of the front part of the parking lot immediately. The remainder will take place over the next winter. But what is paved and its all gravel now is in front of the home and along the side of the home. That is the part that's going to be paved immediately. By next summer the entire lot will be paved as you see in the schematic drawing. Robert Miller: When you say it's going to be paved, I guess that's a picture of it there in some form or another. I don't know. Eddie Bourdon: Right. What this area over here is going to be because a lot of it is gravel. It's going to be paved and landscaped per the plan. So, we're going to do part of it now and the remainder of it after the house is demolished. Robert Miller: The master plan is going to be implemented up to the front of the house? Eddie Bourdon: Correct. Robert Miller: That's what I was trying to understand. Eddie Bourdon: We've been doing it in pieces because we can get in there to do the demolition during the summer months because of the prohibition of doing work at the Oceanfront that might involve using the right-of-ways. So, the idea is to do it partially so they can continue to use the parking this summer and the remainder of it will take place over the course of next winter. The building however will not be constructed for sometime. Robert Miller: Mr. Scott, how is this handled? If you implement the master plan then Item #7 David A. Parker Page 4 you're going to cut off some of the parking he now has, at least I'm interpreting that from what I'm looking at in the back and all along the side of the house, if you did what is shown on the master plan. Is there an interim phase where we allow people to do a pavement of an area like this just to get the pavement in there? It seems kind of very expensive if we do that type of a process. Robert Scott: I don't know of any alternative but just to approach this with some degree of flexibility here. We're going to have to make some adjustments as we go along, trying the best as we can to stick to the intent of what is being done here. But this is not a well, organized application. There are a lot of loose ends here. Robert Miller: I think that's what we're struggling with some of that. I don't mean to be disrespectful. I was trying not to be but trying to put the two pictures together. Where are we at this process and when we end up at the end, that house, even though it may be scheduled to be taken down next year I don't know that anybody can warranty that at this point. Perhaps it stays there for a while longer if that would be the case. You tell me. I'll stop. Eddie Bourdon: I don't own the property but the intent and the permits that will be issued will be to improve the parking in front of the house per the plans that you have. And, then at the end of the summer the remainder of the property will be cleared and the remainder of the parking will be put in per the plan. As you noticed the building that is shown on the plan is all the way back on the waterfront. And, that in all likelihood what would wind up happening for the time being is that will either be additional parking or it will be grass. One or the other, but the intent is to create the parking rather than continue with what's been going on and that's parking everywhere on the site, which is very disorganized and rather disorderly and not very attractive. Robert Miller: I know you understand that we're approving the condition and like Bob described it, we're kind of going from in shades of gray going towards the final dark color or final product, which I understand is going to be there. Let me go to the doc for a second and not to pick on that but the final depiction on here of a marina to the extent that it is defined on the master plan on page 10, is the same as what is shown on the survey. I'm just struggling. Is that what the intent is because again, we're approving this and we don't have the Corp. of Engineers approval and abilities and things like that but our conditions more or less approve this picture. Eddie Bourdon: Maybe I added the confusion. What is in the picture that you see as the end result. It is the same thing that is on the physical survey that you also have. Okay? Now, therefore what I was submitting and what I think was submitted was a plan that shows absolutely no change whatsoever in the piers that are on the property. Now, unfortunately, I would have to agree with Jan's observation this morning that the pier you see there, which is the same pier that is on the physical survey with the seal is somewhat different. I don't know if it's larger or smaller. You can see it goes out further. I can't explain that pier and this pier don't seem to have the same geometric shape. Item #7 David A. Parker Page 5 Robert Miller: I understood that. Eddie Bourdon: If you approve this Use Permit for the manna it is only for that pier. That is what it should be for. Robert Miller: I understand that. That is what I was wondering about is there is no improvement shown for the manna facility. You're keeping the same exact alignment and I questioned that. I don't mean to question your permit. Eddie Bourdon: That is the intent so that you have control so we cannot change that marina. Robert Miller: Okay Eddie Bourdon: Without coming back through the process. That is the intent to give you all control so the manna won't change without coming back through the process because it is to be just that limited. The idea here was not to open up any opportunity for this to become anything more than it is just to create parking and then give you all control. Robert Miller: I was hoping that you wouldn't have to make such an adamant statement because I have a feeling that I'm going to see you in about a year and half as this marina changes configuration. But, I don't perceive this to be a good configuration for what I think of as a marina. But, I'm fine with it with what you're saying anyways. Eddie Bourdon: We're doing this and this isn't staff s fault. This should have been done a number of months ago. That's the reality. The need to pave the parking lot is one that everyone agrees that needs to happen so that is why we're here and looking at the situation the way it has come forward unfortunately it has been confused by some of the things that have been written was really intended to give the Commission and City control over the future appearance of this property even though we're doing a straight rezoning on a little 25 foot strip that under the Comprehensive Plan should be have been zoned RT-3 in the first place. This isn't a situation as we conditioned it to changes that will open the door happening on this piece of property other than improving it's appearance, putting in landscaping and parking. The remainder is all under the control of this process. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Bourdon, would you please answer Mr. Din's question? William Din: I really had the same question on the pier because the site plan. I was confused as to what is exactly there. But, just to and I'm still not sure. The existing site on page 9 is the actually the proposed pier. Correct? Eddie Bourdon: No. The one on page 9, that is intended to show what is there. Okay. That's the problem that I have. I've been there. It is very similar to what is there. The deck portion is there as is the pier that runs parallel to the shore. The pier that goes out Item #7 David A. Parker Page 6 from there is only one pier but here it shows them as two. I'm not really sure how that happened. I didn't study it while I was there but if you look at the platform, is what I call it, the large rectangular shape is actually there. It is just hidden by the building that you see on the adjacent property and the parallel pier that runs parallel to the shoreline is also there. You can see it right here. This is the deck area and the pier coming out. This is all consistent it what is shown there. This from the aerial view anyway appears to be one pier where on here is shown as two piers that are parallel. It's very, very much similar to this but it does seem too slightly different but not anything of any consequence. William Din: Now you mentioned that the improvements would only be in the parking lot area but when you go back to the photos of the actual waterfront where there are boats and other things on the shore, is that also a permitted by -right there now, the boat on the shore? Eddie Bourdon: The parking of the boat on the property? William Din: Was that part of the Conditional Use Permit for the marina? Eddie Bourdon: It's just a boat that's apparently sitting there on a trailer. It's going to go away. William Din: This part of the deck here is that part of the deck that you were saying is already existing? Eddie Bourdon: Yes sir. William Din: And that's not going to be improved at all along there? Eddie Bourdon: It all is going to be improved. It is not the intent to improve it in its current configuration. Again, all were doing with this application is attempting to able to pave the parking lot and use the existing pier as it is currently being used. We have no problem with restricting and having no one set foot on the deck other than the owner of the property. It is not for public use. When we come back with a plan for a marina then it will be all new and different. It won't look like this but it will look like this until we get those plans approved. You have control of that process with these conditions. That was the intent from the beginning. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Bourdon, would you please answer Jan's questions as you know she is the Beach District representative. I think she has several questions for you. Janice Anderson: Eddie, with the change in the zoning, there's no problem there. That allows you to do the parking lot. Eddie Bourdon: On the 25-foot strip rather than doing it on the other 70 feet Item #7 David A. Parker Page 7 Janice Anderson: With that change and with just that application you can do the parking lot. The parking lot isn't really a phase deal. That parking lot is being used right now. Right? Eddie Bourdon: And it has been. Janice Anderson: Okay. And that's overflow for the property next door, Sam's Restaurant. There's overflow parking there. Eddie Bourdon: As I understand it the businesses in that area are using that for overflow parking. Yes ma'am. Janice Anderson: So right now the improvements are for existing uses. This is in two phases. You want to get that done first. Eddie Bourdon: Well the phase part is the portion of the parking lot that is going to be improved immediately is in front of the existing house. Janice Anderson: Right. Where they're parking now. Eddie Bourdon: The second phase, which will also be parking is to tear the house down and bring the remainder of the parking lot back towards the water. That house is not where the building that is shown on the concept plan is located. Janice Anderson: Correct. Eddie Bourdon: Okay. Janice Anderson: The marina application and on that I don't believe the Use is a problem since it is stuck between marina since where this property is located on Rudee Inlet in between the piers and docks: I don't think a marina Use is improper there. But, I think if the City does grant it under a Conditional Use Permit there does need to be requirements in a timely fashion for improvements on the property. Can we go to the water view picture? I would like to see the requirement of the decking and actually the existing pier and it all seems to be in very poor condition just like that even though you're saying it's not going to be any public there, if a Conditional Use Permit is permitted on this property for a marina, I would like to see it as a condition that these improvements be made to the existing structure and just letting them sit there. And, also the bulkhead is just torn up and that's way past repair. And, I believe if a Conditional Use Permit be granted that would be one of the conditions that be repaired immediately to have improvements on that. And, also I would like to see another condition so far as the boat that Will Din just pointed out that they would not be allowed any maintenance or storage of boats on trailers on the property. But, it's all improvement on the property. I'm sure the gentleman has that planned if he was going to have a working marina but I would like to see it timely done and put in the conditions. Item #7 David A. Parker Page 8 Eddie Bourdon: Jan, the things that you're saying I don't have any disagreement with but the only part that I do is that improvements that you're absolutely correct need to be done and must be done. These are all improvements. The deck that is there is in all likelihood going to go away when we actually create the actual marina. This is a condition that has been the way it is for absolutely for many years. And, the intent of this application was simply to continue to permit him to use that pier for his own storage of his own equipment that's used next door. We were advised that needed this Use Permit. As long as he is able to do that temporary while he gets together his plans doesn't make any difference if the Use Permit. You can defer the Use Permit for the marina because we weren't trying to do anything other than being totally upfront and telling everybody what's been going on and why we're doing what we're doing. We were advised that we should provide a Use Permit application for a marina and restrict it just like we did and what the application says. It's merely to use that existing pier as it has been used for about 6 years, which is not that platform either. That's not even used. So, whether you all defer the Use Permit for the manna or to condition it such that it can only be used very strictly so there is no public use. He can't do anything else with it but come back here so you see what he is going to do. There are different ways of looking at it, I guess. The Use Permit for the manna is not intended to do anything other than permit him to use his pier for his own equipment and not to invite the public there. The interpretation from zoning was they needed a marina Use Permit. Janice Anderson: I understand that. I think if the City grants them a Use Permit to carry on his business then the City has the right to request that the gentleman conducts his business in a more pleasant fashion. If we are going to allow him to continue to put his jet -skis there and run a business or improvement his parking lots so he can rent it out for next door, I don't see why we can't request him to also improve his property so it's not like an eyesore right on Rudee Inlet, especially with the summer coming up. Eddie Bourdon: It's a valuable piece of property. It's under utilized. I don't have any disagreement with where you're going. That is actually where he intends to go. Janice Anderson: He definitely has some problem with putting some kind of condition in there that he would improve in such amount of time those things I was concerned about? Eddie Bourdon: If you want to talk about improving the bulkhead within a certain period of time and how do I put this? If it is not being used by the public, which is the intent. It's not to be used by the public. Then he's got liability issues on top of that. I don't know what kind of a time frame you're looking at? Twelve months? Eighteen months? I'm not sure. The intent is to tear it all out and put in a new facility. But that is going to require dredging permits that take time to acquire and permits for the piers that have to go through Wetland Board approval. I guess we could put in a period of time and come back and request an extension showing that we've done steps A-M but haven't gotten to Z. Maybe that is the way to do it. We're on the same page. I'm just not really sure how .. we set up these lines. It can't be done during the next 4 or 5 months. That's not possible. Item #7 David A. Parker Page 9 Janice Anderson: I agree with you. But I would like to put something in there that's a time frame that's not over his head that's in a timely manner but it does get cleaned up. I know it's connected to the other docks. These docks go across. Even though he said he's not having public through it. They do need to be improved. Eddie Bourdon: I think by putting a condition to that effect gives you some control. Janice Anderson: Right. There was something that was brought up with the drainage of the property. I guess this can come out of site plan but since you have listed in there with regard to the paving and the parking lot that it's slope and to make sure the drainage goes away from Rudee Inlet to wherever. The Watershed Partnership and everybody was out there last Saturday cleaning up in the Inlet. I just want to make sure that the drainage goes that way. Eddie Bourdon: That is what the City is trying to accomplish with this whole thing. Janice Anderson: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that was in there. Dorothy Wood: I think we do have some opposition. We can ask Eddie the rest of the questions after that? Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Madame Chairman, can I ask him my question now? Eddie, why are you doing this now? It seems like to me the whole plan is not together and we're trying to fit this all together and it's making it more complicated than it really should be. Eddie Bourdon: If he can continue to use the parking in the condition that it is in front of that house through the summer then we can defer this but the intent is to put in the landscaping and to improve the front of the site, which he has known about. This didn't just come about a couple of months ago. But the intent is to improve the appearance of the front of that property where it is and has been for some time been used for parking up to City standards and to improve the drainage and do some of the things that need to be done soon and I mean now. I don't mean 6 to 8 months from now. The only way we can make this happen is a two-part phase. We can't do that with that strip of land zoned R- 5S, which is something that they didn't realize. In other words, that came as a surprise this past winter when they were looking at getting the plans approved that we can't use that R-5S for a commercial parking lot. The rest of it we can. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Scott, is there anyway this can be used to grant a Use Permit for a parking lot like we do in the resort area even though you a residential piece of property next to a RT property also? Can that be done? Robert Scott: Can I take a minute to check with the zoning ordinance on that? Ronald Ripley: Would that make any sense? Item #7 David A. Parker Page 10 Robert Scott: Well? Ronald Ripley: I can see requiring the applicant to making all these improvements when he's going to have to tear them all up. If that is what his intent is and is that a problem. 1 can see what Jan said if you grant him the zoning. Eddie Bourdon: First of all we won't have to tear up. Ronald Ripley: I'm just talking about if you have to improve the waterfront improvements which I agree with you but on the other hand you don't seem to have a master plan. If you had a master plan as far as what he was going to improve he wouldn't be wasting money. Eddie Bourdon: I put this under the term of no good deed goes unpunished. The simple way to deal with this would have been just simply rezone that 25-foot strip like the rest of it. That solves the problem as far as the parking lot is concerned. But, because of the fact that the back does need some work and because the fact that he has been for years using it for his own use we believe and talking to staff that lets put it under the umbrella, the Use Permit tightly restricted so we have control of the site. That was the intent. If you just want to simply pass the zoning on the R-5S so we can do the parking lot improvements and you don't want to defer the Use Permit, defer the Use Permit. I'm not trying to make this difficult. That truly wasn't the intent to make it difficult. I thought we were doing something that would be beneficial. Just simply rezone that little strip so the whole piece is the same we will resubdivide and make it one parcel. There's no reason not to do that. We can do the parking lot improvements that everyone wants and that will help the water quality and will help everything down there. Dorothy Wood: Thanks Eddie. We want to go and hear the opposition. We have a lot of cases coming up. Joseph Strange: Speaking in opposition today is Tom Pritchard. Tom Pritchard: Chairperson, Board member of the Beach and Waterways Commission. I'm confused. Dorothy Wood: Would you please tell us your name sir? Tom Pritchard: I'm sorry. I'm Tom Pritchard. I live at 529 Virginia Dare Drive on Rudee Inlet. I've lived there for 18 years. I'm here because I read that it was a Conditional Use Permit for jet -skis. I wanted to make sure that at least that I pass onto you today that this document and make it a matter or record from the Beaches and Waterways Commission. Beach and Waterways Commission, which I'm a Commissioner serves the pleasure of Council. Council asked us in May and October of 2000 to review personal watercraft. And we did. Those recommendations are in this Item #7 David A. Parker Page 11 report. I just want to make it a matter of record because I realize now that it's not part of this application. Dorothy Wood: We appreciate you coming down and sharing that with us. Tom Pritchard: But if it had been or if it is in the future, I'd like for this to be part of it. Dorothy Wood: I guess you can give it to Ed. He'll make sure that it's part of the record. Tom Pritchard: Okay. Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. Are there any questions of Mr. Pritchard? Jan. Janice Anderson: I like to thank Tom for giving me a call on that and getting that over to me. Tom Pritchard: Thank you Jan. I appreciate it. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. Mr. Scott, are you going to find out about just the paving while Mr. Bourdon does his three -minute rebuttal. 1 Robert Scott: Yes. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. I appreciate it. Eddie Bourdon: Well, you all did see the application. John Waller: Dot, I got a question. I'm just trying to get the timing set up. He wants to get that parking lot and going for summer. Eddie Bourdon: The City wants that done as well. They wanted it improved. John Waller: They want it improved. Eddie Bourdon: They want it landscaped. John Waller: What is the time limit on it? Eddie Bourdon: He's got everybody lined up to do it. John Waller: Does he have his site plan approved? Eddie Bourdon: Yes. The City has an expedited process for these parking lots. It's already under review and they have the restriction you can't do work down there Item #7 David A. Parker Page 12 basically after Memorial Day or just before Memorial Day in the right-of-way. The whole idea is to get these improvements made immediately but that's being held up. John Waller: The site plan has gone through engineering. Eddie Bourdon: The site plan is a very expedited review and Joe Pulley handles these. There are a number of them down there. Most of them have been done during this past winter. John Waller: If we were to approve it and it goes to City Council at the end of June, if he has write up to City Council meeting he can go in there and start putting and by the time he's done by the end of summer. Dorothy Wood: He'll have his permit. That is what John was asking you. Eddie Bourdon: He will have one. That's the process. But the process is one that is expedited. They've done this for other Oceanfront parking lots to get them brought up to standards so they're not your gravel type lots. It's a very expedited process. John Waller: He'll be underway in June? Eddie Bourdon: Yes. He has people lined up to do the work in June. That's correct. Dorothy Wood: He could move that boat as Jan indicated? Eddie Bourdon: Oh sure. Moving the boat isn't a problem Dorothy Wood: Mr. Scott, you were going to answer. Robert Scott: We have a recommendation for you at this point. Dorothy Wood: Yes. I would appreciate that. Robert Scott: Listen to this. I think a lot needs to be clarified but at this point I think the best course of action is to go with the rezoning request only and to defer the Use Permit so we can work on it further. There's an awful that needs to be cleared up like for instance what the Use Permit is for. I think I need to say this. We know what all the paperwork says but the applicant comes into my planner's office and says I want to amend my application to include jet -ski rentals that is why we included jet -ski rentals. We need to clarify that among other things with the applicant and probably several of the other matters that have been brought up this afternoon as well. I think it can be brought back to you in a more orderly manner, better organized with just a little bit more work. Dorothy Wood: I appreciate that. Is that okay with you Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Absolutely. No problem with that whatsoever. Item #7 David A. Parker Page 13 Dorothy Wood: Do I hear a motion? Eugene Crabtree: I'd like to make a motion that we approve Item #7. Janice Anderson: I'll go ahead and second the motion on the rezoning of the 25-foot strip to RT-3. Dorothy Wood: We have a motion by Gene and seconded by Jan for the rezoning. Ronald Ripley: I'll ask the question for clarification. Gene, you said approve Item #7. Eugene Crabtree: Yeah. Approve the change of zoning District Classification from R-5S to RT-3 for the Residential Single Family in the District on property located 408 Winston Salem Avenue. Ronald Ripley: But not approve the Conditional Use Permit? Eugene Crabtree: I'll make another motion about that. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Is that right Mr. Scott? Robert Scott: Yes. Dorothy Wood: I think we would have to have a motion Mr. Macali to defer the other item? Bill Macali: As long as you made one motion and it's on the floor, you might as well just vote on that and handle the Use Permit separately. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. AYE 11 NAY 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE ABS0 ABSENT Item #7 David A. Parker Page 14 WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, Item #7 has been approved. Thomas L. Ackiss 2401 Lookout Court Virginia Beach, Virginia 23455 June 2, 2004 Via email Honorable Mayor and Members Virginia Beach City Council Virginia Beach, Virginia Re: Opposition to a proposed amendment to City Zoning Ordinance Allowing bulk storage of earthen material in Agricultural Districts Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: There has been drafted a proposed amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance which would allow the storage of "bulk earthen minerals" (gravel and similar materials) as a conditional use in Agricultural Districts, and I.understand the proposal will come before Council for your action at next Tuesday's Council meeting. I own property adjacent to the property owner most likely to seek this use if passed, and strongly oppose the amendment. The proposed use is currently limited to Industrial Districts, and is not generically linked to farming or other agricultural activity. It blurs the distinction between agricultural and industrial uses, which will lead to future difficulties in guiding the growth and development of the southern section of the city. With the increased growth pressure from residences and businesses in that area, clear and carefully planned development is essential. I respectfully request that you put the interest of the larger city community ahead of those of a single property owner and vote to deny the proposed amendment to the ordinance. Sincerely yours, Thomas L. Ackiss Thomas L. Ackiss file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\shthomps\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW)00009.HTM 6/2/2004 4.) t i CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: City of Virginia Beach, Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance MEETING DATE: June 8, 2004 ■ Background: An Ordinance to amend the City Zoning Ordinance to allow bulk storage of earthen minerals as a conditional use in Agricultural zoning districts. ■ Considerations: Current zoning regulations do not allow bulk storage as a principal or conditional use in Agricultural Zoning Districts. Councilmember Jim Reeve has requested that this situation be addressed through a zoning amendment that would allow the use,'with certain restrictions, with a conditional use permit. Currently, bulk storage is only allowed in the 1-1 and 1-2 Industrial Districts and the B-2 Community Business District. The use requires a conditional use permit in all districts except the 1-2 Industrial District where it is a permitted use. The proposed amendment would allow bulk storage of earthen minerals as a conditional use in the AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Zoning Districts. The amendments would prohibit on -site processing or disposal of such materials. Staff recommended approval, subject to the attached conditions. There was opposition to the request. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 9-0 to recommend to the City Council denial of this amendment. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Ordinance Minutes Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial. Planning Commission recommends denial. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manage1� I� k 7� l&k CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Agenda Item #7 April 14, 2004 Public Hearing The following report is prepared by the staff of the Virginia Beach Department of Planning to provide data, information, and professional land use recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist them in making a decision regarding this application. An Ordinance to amend the City Zoning Ordinance to allow bulk storage of earthen minerals as a conditional use in Agricultural zoning districts. Current zoning regulations do not allow bulk storage as a principal or conditional use in Agricultural Zoning Districts. Councilmember Jim Reeve has requested that this situation be addressed through a zoning amendment that would allow the use, with certain restrictions, with a conditional use permit. Currently, bulk storage is only allowed in the 1-1 and 1-2 Industrial Districts and the B-2 Community Business District. The use requires a conditional use permit in all districts except the 1-2 Industrial District where it is a permitted use. The proposed amendment would allow bulk storage of earthen minerals as a conditional use in the AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Zoning Districts. The amendments would prohibit on -site processing or disposal of such materials. Staff Evaluation-' Staff cannot recommend approval of this amendment. Bulk storage of earthen materials is a use typically associated with industrial areas and is not consistent with the vision for the Rural Area as provided for by the Comprehensive Plan. The City's Agricultural Advisory Commission has reviewed the proposed amendments and "the consensus position of the [commission was] that the zoning ordinance should not be amended to allow bulk storage, even as a Conditional Use, in agricultural districts," (from attached letter, date January 9, 2004). CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Agenda Item #7 Page 1 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Agenda Item #7 Page 2 r ic v It v 7%11 Zon in a Di,Iricts hi 7 p r,)h i'i �i, i-, itc p I,—, o r d i I lf S, I at CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Agenda Item #7 Page 3 A Ad CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Agenda Item #7 Page 4 c: Iz 1), al", 7 1M...Jrci Mcrc al rnp, [,,: L on ninn I rl4 I f..if- :'-L! �l L ll o 'was :on o !W.c r: sfinuid q3 n,w-o -i—, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Agenda Item #7 Page 5 Item #7 City of Virginia Beach — Bulk Storage in Agricultural Areas An Ordinance to amend the City Zoning Ordinance to allow bulk storage of earthen minerals as a Conditional Use in Agricultural Zoning Districts April 14, 2004 REGULAR Joseph Strange: The next item is Item #7, which is the City of Virginia Beach for an Ordinance to amend the City Zoning Ordinance to allow bulk storage of earthen minerals as a Conditional Use in Agricultural Zoning District. William Din: This is a City ordinance. Mr. Scott, do we have somebody to speak on this? Robert Scott: I'll do my best to outline the issue before you on behalf of the City. This issue was deferred at the request of the City Council. It had been reviewed before it came by Agricultural Advisory Commission, which is a group appointed by the City Council. Right now, the proposal, and I'll just read it to you, would allow as a Conditional Use in the Agricultural areas bulk storage of earthen minerals such as sand, gravel, crushed stone and quarry rock provided that no onsite processing or disposal shall be allowed. That material could be stored or could be gotten to and it's possible that material could be brought to the site by barge or by water way and stored in large quantities on the site. It would be trucked off to various sites, agricultural or not agricultural for whatever purpose throughout the City and throughout the region. So long as no onsite processing of that material took place. That's the knot of the application that is before you. The Agricultural Advisory Committee did review this matter and we have a letter from Mr. Whitney, who is the Director of the Agriculture Department and his report is that the Agricultural Advisory Commission has recommended against the application. The letter is your packet. You can make your own judgments on that letter. There are arguments for and against it. The arguments for it, I guess would be and I'm sure there will be speakers who will do a better job of outlining both sides of this. The arguments for it center around the need for it and the unique nature of the business and the unique nature of some of the sites down there. In fact, there appears to be to some extent to be a need for this sort of operation both in the agricultural areas specifically in the City general. Those opposed to it argue that it appears not to be compatible with the agricultural operations and businesses and other uses that are down there and that it would not seem to fit in with the purposes that we think are important for the agricultural area that would introduce things like large amounts of truck traffic on the road. That it does not appear to have a strong linkage to the agricultural industry itself. I don't want to go into detail on that. Mr. Whitney's letter does a much better job than I can of outlining some of those reasons. I think there are other speakers who could argue both pro and the con on this better than I can but it's an issue that has two sides to it. It's an issue that has people in favor of it and against it. It has been looked at by another agency, the Agricultural Advisory Commission. It is brought to you today with the recommendation against it by the Agricultural Advisory Committee and a recommendation against it from Planning staff. William Din: Thank you Mr. Scott. Did someone want Mr. Whitney? Was it you Don? Donald Horsley: I think it would be appropriate if Mr. Whitney highlighted the comments in the letter as to what the position of the Agricultural Advisory Commission took on this. Jack Whitney: Mr. Din, members of the Commission, it's a pleasure to be with you today. I've been asked to represent the Agricultural Advisory Commission's investigation into this issue. As summarized in a letter to Council Member Jim Reeve in January of this year, it is not the first time that the Agricultural Advisory Comrission has looked at the matter of allowing bulk storage of sand and gravel and other materials in the Agricultural District. They've looked at it two meetings of early 2002 as well. At that time, they also transmitted a letter to Mr. Scott detailing their concerns about it. In the most recent letter that you have in your packet written by me on behalf of the Agricultural Advisory Commission to Mr. Reeve outlining the brief history of the Agricultural Advisory Commission's considering of that matter. As I say, dating back to early 2002, we had a request from Mr. Reeve, Council member Reeve last summer to look at it again. We scheduled it on the next available quarterly Commission Agenda, which was in October of 2003. At that time, we felt that we needed to call a special workshop in December to become more thorough opportunity for discussing the various impacts of such an amendment to the zoning ordinance and at the conclusion of all of those deliberations enough concerns were named in the eyes of the commission that they felt it was not in the best interest of the Agricultural community to amend the zoning ordinance to allow that kind of use. Some of the key issues of concern as stated in the letter include, first of all the addition of heavy truck traffic on the rural road network. As you know, the rural road network characterized in the southern part of the City with some fairly narrow pavement width types, curves, ditches on the either side, limited shoulders, if shoulders at all in some cases and ridges. There was concern not only with the safety aspects of additional heavy truck traffic in that part of the City but the impact of those heavy vehicles on the rural infrastructure, pavement damage and other infrastructure damage associated with heavily loaded trucks. In addition, there was concern among the Commission of allowing this type of use which they feel is not agricultural in nature but more industrial in nature, could lead to requests for other types of non-agricultural bulk storage in that part of the City. It was the feeling of the Commission that sand and gravel storage is more of industrial type use than an agricultural use and such facilities ought to be located in the areas of the City zoned for that purpose and that would be industrial. There was no strong linkage identified between the operation of such a facility and agricultural activities otherwise allowed as either principal or Conditional Uses in the AG-1 and AG-2 Districts. That basically is a list of the concerns that lead the Commission to develop a consensus position, which is transmitted to you and to Council member Reeve recommending that this not be done. I'll be happy to answer any of your questions if you have any. William Din: Thank you. Ron. Z Ronald Ripley: Jack, question regarding the need for this in any parts of the lower part of our City, can you think of any instance where there is a need or may be a future need because we are talking about an ordinance change? We're not talking about a specific piece of property so that is what we're trying to focus on from a global point of view. Jack Whitney: There may be some limited need for sand and gravel for purposes of driveway repair and that kind of thing. But not particularly associated with normal agricultural activity. Ronald Ripley: So, the answer would be no? Jack Whitney: I think the final answer is no. William Din: Any other questions? Thank you Mr. Whitney? Jack Whitney: Thank you. William Din: We have a speaker I believe. Joseph Strange: Yeah. We actually have two speakers speaking in support. The first one is Bobby Vaughan. William Din: Mr. Vaughan. Bobby Vaughan: I'd ask that I be dropped down. William Din: Would you please come forward? Bobby Vaughan: Sure. Barry Knight: Chairman, I think the applicant needs to present his proposal first William Din: The City is the applicant. Bobby Vaughan: But you had some people address it in opposition. William Din: Would you please identify yourself sir? Bobby Vaughan: My name is Bobby Vaughan. I'm a resident of Virginia Beach of the Back Bay section, 1258 Princess Anne Road, four miles south of Pungo. I'm a farmer. My brother is a farmer. My folks have been farmers. I have three sons that are farmers. What I would like to say is that I've been away from politics of the City for a number of years now. This is the first time that I've been back in a long time. I'm here for one reason. I think it's a fairness issue. I think you need to look at it ladies and gentlemen as a fairness issue. Excuse but this has to happen too. William Din: I understand. Bobby Vaughan: Bulk storage of earthen materials. Mr. Salmons asked me but I hesitated at first but the more I thought about it the more I realized that I think it's the right thing to do. I don't know what is anymore compatible to the agriculture area than earthen materials. My golly, it comes under the soil. I'll tell you what is not compatible with agriculture area and that's called people. Us. I live on that main highway. The impact of traffic on that highway is so great from one year to the next that it exasperates me. This storage issue is something that I would address last. As far as traffic goes there will be less traffic. I've talked with Mr. Salmons, and I hope that he's convinced enough to convince me. He has built a deepwater facility. We only have two deepwater facilities in all of Virginia Beach. One of them is on Pretty Lake Avenue. You got to go down Shore Drive past Little Creek, go into the City of Norfolk, turn right and what do they have at that deep water terminal? Agricultural materials. You come down to the Intra- coastal Waterway at Pungo Ferry and that is the only deepwater channel we got in Virginia Beach. Mr. Salmons, right or wrong has gone ahead and deepened his canal and came up hoping for future potentials. I've taken a good look at it. He's assured me that he's going to haul everything in by barge. If that is the case, there will certainly be less traffic than what I'm seeing now. What I'm seeing now is traffic coming from Chesapeake and Norfolk impacting our major roads. We haven't got to many arteries that come to the agricultural community. These big trucks that are coming by there, if he's going to haul in the material by barge then that's less traffic impact. The biggest traffic impacts that we have are people. Don't be afraid of an ordinance. I mean an ordinance is the right way to proceed with this. Mr. Reeve's has requested it. It should be voted up or down. We've had to make changes since 1963, since the City became a city, the daily run on industry. We had to do it for mini -storage. Ed Weeden: You're time is about up. Bobby Vaughan: Thank you. The bottom line is that it is compatible. It is a fairness issue. As a public official you need to address those fairness issues. As a former city official, the fairness issue is one that I looked at with high regard. Thank you very much. William Din: Thank you Mr. Vaughan. Are there any questions for Mr. Vaughan? Okay. Joseph Strange: Also speaking in support is Nelson Morris. William Din: Mr. Moms. Welcome. Nelson Moms: My name is Nelson Morris. I live at 1884 Pleasant Ridge Road. I've been there for 63 years. I've been in this area all of my life. I also and like Mr. Vaughan, I think that this rock storage facility that Mr. Salmons is proposing is an asset to the City of Virginia Beach. We have a way of getting more quantities of this material down to the lower end of the county or city. The traffic will be only one way out. It's coming in by barge and it's going out by truck. There would be less traffic. The materials do have to come down some type of way so by coming in by barge you eliminate some of the traffic. And, I think it helps the city. It would create jobs. It would create taxes from the truck drivers from the salaries and different things. I'd like to see it taken up the next level. Thank you. William Din: Are there any questions of Mr. Morris? Thank you sir. Joseph Strange: Speaking in opposition and we have two speakers. The first one is Douglas Brown. Douglas Brown: Actually, Mike is going to speak first. Is that alright? Does it make any difference? William Din: Fine. Are there any other speakers in support of this? Douglas Brown: I'd like to go last if possible. Joseph Strange: Are you in support? Did you sign up? Eric Hauser: Yes sir. Eric Hauser. Ed Weeden: He signed up. William Din: We normally take our speakers in support then the opposition. Then we'll have a discussion after that. The gentleman in the back, are you in support of this sir? Please come forward. Rufus White: Good afternoon, my name is Rufus White. I'm a life long resident of the Blackwater area, all 70 years of my life. I guess that's pretty well life long. I've been farming for the past 30 years or so. I'm in support of this because I feel it's compatible to the area much more than a lot of these houses and things that are going up that putting heavy traffic on our roads and so forth. I feel that it could be real beneficial to our area and to the agriculture people and others there also. And by having this in this area I can't see that it would bring any more traffic because it's already been stated. They'll be bringing it in by barge and it will just be going out one way. Now, if you order some of it or you go get it you have to drive from that area to where you want to pick up the material and drive back. So, you got two ways of traffic coming there. I don't know but to me it is compatible to the area and I see that we already got borrow pits down in the general area. Right across from where he is located there's a big pile of sand there. I don't know what's being done with that or what it is but evidently it's stored or something because it is there. So, what the use of it is I don't really know. But he's got a lot of it. Thank you. William Din: Thank you Mr. White. Are there any questions? Thank you sir Joseph Strange: Any other speakers in support? William Din: Are there any more speakers in support? Mr. Hauser, I believe. Eric Hauser: I'd like to put a chart up if I can do that? William Din: Sure. There's a stand right over here if you want to use that? The easel is right over here. Can you please come to the podium and introduce yourself sir? Eric Hauser: I don't want to use my time up while I'm putting this up. William Din: Can you move it a little bit so Mr. Knight can see that? Thank you. Eric Hauser: Can everyone see it? My name is Eric Hauser. I'm an attorney. I'm representing Salmons Farm and Jim Salmons. As most of you probably know, this amendment was brought forward by Jim Reeve basically at the request of Jim Salmons, because of a unique situation that his property enjoys. I'd hoped to be able to speak almost as if we had a little more time than three minutes but since we're limited to that I'm going to stick to some major points. The truck traffic in the county has seems to be the major concern for almost everyone. What I want to do is show you the existing routes that the truck traffic that goes on right now. There has been an approval of 800- home subdivision on Flanagan's Lane, which is right here. There has been approval by the City of a school to be constructed in the Transition Zone. Eventually, the Southeastern Expressway will be constructed. There are needs that will exist for stone and gravel in the agricultural district that are not necessarily directly related to agriculture. They will only exist of course if City Council approves those uses. So, we are going to have some needs. Those are current needs that I mentioned to you. They will satisfy the needs for those rock and gravel. I want to show you how it is being brought it so that you see when folks say we think there will be less traffic, I want to show you actually what we're talking about. I don't know if you can still hear me but this is the route that Indian River basically that the trucks will use if rock and gravel was brought in from Sadler materials, which is now as TCM. From the City line to Flanagan's Lane, which is the 800, this is an example. The 800 home subdivision has been approved is 15 miles. This is the route that would be taken from Vulcan materials in Norfolk. Sadler is in Chesapeake and Vulcan is in Norfolk. This comes down and puts trucks on I-264. They come to Oceana. They come down General Booth and they come down Princess Anne Road to Flanagan. This is the site for Jim Salmons and the Salmons Farm. This is the Infra -coastal waterway. This is the spur that comes off and gives him deepwater access. From this site, to again our example here is 71/2 miles. You'll see there's a huge difference in the total miles being brought. So anyone who wants to get gravel in this site, they're going to go essentially, a truck is going to come in all likelihood it will come in full, dump it and they'll probably back haul the overburden from this site back out to another location. So, they're coming in full and out full. We think because of the unique situation of the Salmons site, you're going to be bringing it in by barge and it will be a one way filled truck. So, we feel like that in the long run this is going to reduce the number of trips or at least the length of their trips and it will also reduce the impact on the roadways. Now as far as incompatibility, you've heard the speakers already. They did a good job of expressing their views. I want to pass out to you a petition that was signed by 31 farmers in the Agricultural District, which is not all of the farmers it is certainly most of the farmers that exist in the City of Virginia Beach. They state, "that we the farmers in the City of Virginia Beach would like to see a new ordinance put in place to allow for bulk storage of earthen materials and agricultural zoning as a Conditional Use". What we have here on the front page is a typed listing of all the signatures and the actual signatures on the back page just in case you couldn't read the signatures. We don't think it's incompatible. The farmers who signed that petition don't think it's incompatible. The residents who you heard from don't think that. In this district, it allows for borrow pits. It allows for bulk storage of grain. It allows for firewood processing facility with a Conditional Use. We don't think that any of those are anymore industrial than this situation. We're only talking about storage of earthen materials. So, that was carefully crafted to eliminate the possibility of anything else. The language prohibits processing or disposal. So, for that reason, we feel that it would result in a compatible use. I'll be happy to answer any questions. William Din: Are there any questions? Donald Horsley: I got one question. You mention bringing in and it came in from the City line and it came in to Flanagan's Lane for instance, haul in rock and haul out the overburden. Right? Possibly? Eric Hauser: Possibly. Donald Horsley: If we go in with rock from the south end whose going to haul that overburden? Eric Hauser: Well, it won't go back down to that site. Donald Horsley: So, we're still going to have trucks going somewhere hauling that overburden? Eric Hauser: At least we'll have to go north because they can't go back south again. Donald Horsley: So, really we haven't helped the truck traffic? Eric Hauser: I would think you had. You only have a 7i/z-mile run up to Flanagan's Lane as opposed to a 15-18 mile into Flanagan's Lane. Donald Horsley: Evidently, you didn't understand what I was saying. Eric Hauser: I understand that you will have a 7i/z plus 15 as opposed to 15 plus 15. Donald Horsley: Well, the trucks got to get in there and load the overburden and get back out. I doubt if you're going to use that scenario that you brought up. That's what I'm getting at. We don't have disposal sites down south. John Waller: That stone that comes in is it already crushed or do you crush it on site? Eric Hauser: No. There will be no processing. It will have to be processed to whatever condition is going to be when it's brought into the site. No processing on the site. William Din: Are there any other questions? Ron. Ronald Ripley: You mentioned the overburden. It looked like he was sifting dirt or something. We were back there last week. It looked like he was sifting dirt, getting routes out of it and creating some sort of dirt that he could sell, I guess. Eric Hauser: I'm glad you asked that. Ronald Ripley: What is that? Eric Hauser: That is the spoil from the dredging from the canal. We had an Army Corp. permit to dredge it and throw the spoil on to the site. He has a City permit to do that so all of that dirt that you saw that was processed had been flown up there from late 1985 forward. He had another permit to re -dredge. He has permits to put that dirt on the site and it's been basically has to lie up there and drain out so it can be dried out. Then processed and taking that process just sift it and to put it on trucks and taken out. Ronald Ripley: The other question that I asked Jack was it that what's in front of us is an ordinance change. It's not Mr. Salmons' application. My question is are there any other areas of the City that you can anticipate or you would think that this Conditional Use would be applicable. I'm talking about the rural part of the City. Eric Hauser: Well, I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think there would be any other deepwater access sites as Mr. Vaughan had indicated. And, I think the fact that is has a deepwater access is really the only thing that makes this site commercially feasible as a rock yard. The instance, if that's the case should be we adopt the amendment that may only apply to just one piece of property. There is a precedent for that. The Virginia Beach Resort and Conference Center had a bad situation there where they amended the residential zoning ordinance to allow off -site parking at the Virginia Beach Racquet Club, which then allowed for a business use, which then allowed the Resort and Conference Center to come in and apply for a Conditional Use to allow off -site parking. So, that was the precedent for an ordinance amendment for basically for a particular bad situation. Ronald Ripley: When I'm looking at this ordinance it doesn't really speak to the way the material is delivered, in this case it's by barge. It really just talks about allowing bulk storage of earthen materials such as sand, gravel, crushed stone and quarry rock provided that no on -site processing or disposal shall be allowed. So, my question, I guess is are there other pieces of land or locations of other pieces of land that this would be appropriate or do you believe that there would be a need? This is what I'm trying to understand. Eric Hauser: I hear that. The language that you have there was really a result of the request of Agriculture Advisory Commission. In the language they first saw had a restriction that it only be brought in by water born transportation. They looked at it and some of their comments were, "we'd like to see it brought in case some other sites in the Agriculture District would want to use it. So, the language was broadened. I wasn't there but that is my understanding. So, the language was broadened to allow storage of earthen materials and take out the restriction of water bom transportation. Ronald Ripley: That's actually the way I read it also. But then I see this letter from the City that the Agriculture Committee is not in favor of this. Eric Hauser: I understand that. They reviewed it and we disagree with their positions and their conclusions and unfortunately, I don't have the time to rebut each one although I'm prepared to do that. I don't have the time to rebut each one but one of the main conclusions is that it's incompatible. We've seen from the residents and the farmers feel they don't that it is incompatible. Ronald Ripley: Okay. William Din: Bob. Robert Miller: I guess I'm going to give you a chance to rebut one or two of them. At least on the idea of the truck traffic because I'm sitting here trying to think of there were no facility in the southern part of the City, there would be no truck traffic on the roads on the southern part of the City using your Flanagan's Lane development scenario except for traffic that would be coming to the southern part of the City for driveways and things like that. So, I think, I need for you to help me understand. They're saying that the Agricultural Commission is saying that heavy truck traffic would be created that would not normally be there. Even though it may be leaving this site going to another part of the City, it would not normally be on Princess Anne Road. I would like to hear your explanation. Eric Hauser: Well, in the Transition zone, there would be other development. I'm assuming Council will approve other development. So, that will be generating other need. The Agricultural Advisory Commission is charged with dealing with their district. I believe the Planning Commission is charged to take a larger view of this situation not just what goes on one road in the City. If you look at that example there, you will see the roads in the City are being impacted in a much larger area by the truck routes that are going in their now. Now, if a small yard is to be allowed up and down on Princess Anne Road, it's not going to be large enough to service the whole area. I'll tell you why. There is competition. The yards that are selling this rock, say, Salmons operation are not going to price it in a way that if he starts to compete with them outside of a very small radius down here that is underserved, which they don't want to come to anyway because it's far a drive for them. If he starts trying to expand and compete with them up here, they're going to price him out of business. And so, the very economics of the situation will in fact limit him to this area right here, which means that as one of the gentleman said to me if I want a load of gravel, I don't have to drive all over town to get it. There's no place in town right where you can get it other than Vulcan, which I think has a small site at Oceana that they're trucking in some gravel too. But they're going to close that very soon. So, there won't be any place in town, any site in town to obtain. William Din: Don? Donald Horsley: I just want to jump in. The Agricultural Advisory Commission does look at more than one road in the City by the way. We look at the whole agriculture community in the City. I was at the meeting when this was discussed. We did say we would support it if you change the thing, we said we didn't like an amendment aimed at one property in the City. We could not support anything that was amendment change just for one property in the City. The way the amendment was worded, which is in this letter it was appointed to one property. The Agricultural Advisory Committee would not support that. We didn't direct anybody to change anything that we would support. It was changed to try and garnish support. So, that clears the record on that. You were not at the meeting but that's point blank on what and Mr. Whitney was at the meeting and Mr. Knight was at the meeting. I think they will attest to that. So, the thing that I'm getting at is it appears that somebody thinks it's a big need for rock in the southern end of the City. And, as we discussed various ones of us is we're building possibly between 30-40 houses in the southern end of the City a year. I can't see that's going to take a large amount of rock that needs to be worried about being barged in. People that are eyeing this is looking for something much bigger than greater than serving the southern end of the City. Truck traffic is a true issue. Regardless of what any type of scenario you could bring the truck traffic is a true issue. If you're going to be hauling rock north and coming back empty you still got trucks on the road. Whether it is Princess Anne Road or whatever road it is, you still got trucks on the road. So, I don't think we need to down play the truck issue. I don't think that we need to say that there's a large need for a lot of gravel in the southern end of the City. Everybody knows that if rock comes in at a location down there, whether it be this one or any other one, it's going to go to north for a while. There are some small developments occurring down there but not to need any rock to the magnitude that you're all presenting that you need to bring. I'm just trying to keep up with some of the comments that have been made for the use of the rock and the truck traffic. Eric Hauser: Yes sir. I'd like to respond if I could? The point that I was going to make is that you pointed out the fact that there is no need now. There may be need maybe although we think there is a need right now. There may be a need in the future. So, when that future need occurs by having the ability to grant the Conditional Use, the City then has the tool to do that. And, they also at that time when they consider a particular Conditional Use application then they can craft whatever kind of restrictions they feel are necessary to limit the operation of that rock yard to satisfy the need that they perceive to be there. But if we don't have the amendment then we don't even have the tool for the City to use. William Din: Thank you. Bob. Robert Miller: Yeah Eric, go back to the economics that I was thinking at the time. I forgot to ask the last question. Pure economics that the pricing will be such that it will limit any operation to any specific area i.e., the southern part of the City, very much Indian River Road and south and maybe a little further up when you're indicating Flanagan's Lane. The economics also tell that there is a specific volume. Is there a measure of how much material we're talking about and how many trucks per day? We've talked about it not a big operation. Big and small become those words that we'd like to have a better definition of. How many trucks per day are we talking on this? Eric Hauser: Again, since this is not a particular Conditional Use application by Mr. Salmons, he doesn't have that right today. I don't think I can answer that. I don't think Jim can answer that because we don't know what it actually would be but as with a borrow pit, when you make an application for a borrow pit, you have to come in and tell amount of excavation that it will need. You have to set forth hours of operation. All of those are conditions that can be imposed with a borrow pit. And the same thing would be applied with this Conditional Use permit process should it be allowed. You can impose any number of limits. William Din: Do we have any other speakers? Eric Hauser: Thank you. William Din: Thank you Mr. Hauser. Joseph Strange: Any one speaking in support? Did you sign up? What's your name? Jim Salmons: Jim Salmons. Joseph Strange: Jim Salmons. Okay. Jim Salmons: My name is Jim Salmons. I've heard quite a few things just sitting back listening to everybody that I'd like to clarify a little bit. Mr. Horsley just out and about that we were trying to do this for rock in the lower end of the City. Donald Horsley: Mr. Hauser said that. Jim Salmons: I wanted to address that. Okay? I don't want to mislead anybody. This facility is not here today for stuff south of me. The thing here at this transition zone is what this yard is most suited for today. It is economically wide to provide in this area because of the distances. These are just distances here in Virginia Beach that it travels. Sadler is a total of 21 miles. Vulcan was a total of 23 miles. And, to tell you that this is where all of it is, no, this is not where it's all. This is where it's at in this area. And, the people down here have suggested that it would put more trucks on the highway here. William Din: Mr. Salmons, can you move to the microphone? Jim Salmons: Yes sir. You suggested that it would put more trucks down in the lower part of Indian River Road. Yes, you're exactly right. It will. There's no question about that. But, it's a much more economical scenario to bring them in by barge and go that 71/z miles so to speak to the transition zone. Lets look up here. Here is Centerville. You can see how congested that is and you can certainly imagine and you all know what the roads are like up there. You can certainly imagine what those people think when there's an option to come down here. Most people are not going to be interested in. The people up here, they're certainly not interested in it coming through their area to come here. Nobody is interested in a truck. We all know that. And, this is the most economical way to get there. It's also a one of kind site in the City. And, I feel like it should be utilized in that matter. People suggest if this is approved it's going to take and open up the floodgate for other things. That has to come by you folks. That's not something I do. I'm not creating any demand for anything. I'm only trying to satisfy. And, Mr. Whitney suggested a while that this site should be in an industrial area. Ed Weeden: Mr. Salmons, you're out of time. Jim Salmons: Yes. Yet, our industrial areas have no water. We feel like we had that plus and we would like your consideration in the matter. Thank you. William Din: Okay. I guess it's appropriate for the City or Jack Whitney to rebut on this. Joseph Strange: We have some opposition. William Din: Oh, we have some opposition. Okay. I'm sorry. Joseph Strange: We have the first speaker will be Jane Cullipher. Jane Cullipher: Good afternoon. William Din: Welcome. Jane Cullipher: My name is Jane Cullipher. I would like to defer to my husband. We discussed this quite a bit. I live at 2088 Jarvis Road in Virginia Beach. We also own property directly across from Salmons property. William Din: Okay. Joseph Strange: The next speaker will be Mike Cullipher. Mike Cullipher: Good afternoon. My name is Michael Cullipher. As my wife, we reside at 2088 Jarvis Road. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this afternoon. I'll try not to be redundant and repeat some of the points that have been made by Mr. Horsley and Mr. Whitney and stated by Mr. Scott. If you bear with me, I'm a little bit nervous. First one that I would like to make is that as you are all well aware, City staff spent a great deal of time as well as yourselves recently in the past year 2002-2003 and gathering information and input from citizens regarding the Comprehensive Plan which you recently adopted and City Council did in the fall of 2003. And, to my findings there was nothing mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan to address an issue such as this. And, its our thoughts and beliefs that if there was such a great need and desire then it certainly should have been included in the Comprehensive Plan either in the input gathering and during the public hearings to review the draft of that Comprehensive Plan. As noted in your package that Mr. Harrison's law firm, which represented Mr. Salmons sent a letter to Councilman Reeve in July 31, 2003 to bring this issue up before review by the City and it's our feeling there was adequate time from that time frame to the final adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. This should have been brought and mentioned. With the vision that the Comprehensive Plan addressed for the southern part of the City and of course your adoption and the City's adoption of that it is our fault that it is not compatible with the City's vision for this area. The City's vision is more emphasis on rural residential type developments as you are all well aware and we have several going on now in the rural part of the City along with the agriculture community. It's our thoughts that this does not meet with that. As noted earlier, there are several other areas in the city that is currently zoned for this type of activity that may not be quite as economically beneficial to Mr. Salmons but there are opportunities available. Everybody doesn't always get to pick and choose where they work or where their place of business is. Ed Weeden: Mr. Cullipher, you're just about out of time. Mike Cullipher: Even with my wife's time? Ed Weeden: Three minutes. Mike Cullipher: Thank you. As noted, Mr. Hauser said that a precedent has been set but if this ordinance is truly a City ordinance then it seems specified to Mr. Salmons property that you're all well aware the rural part of the City is changing. More residents, more vehicular traffic, car traffic as noted by the speakers. The reason why people are moving to the rural part of the City as Mr. Reeve stated in City Council in the past is for the piece of the country, to enjoy the outdoors and to have their yard, horses, large gardens or what have you. Those uses, if this is truly a City ordinance, then anyone that owns AG-1 or AG-2 property has the potential and has a right. Certainly, you have to grant approval and Council does to but the vision or the picture that you can have $400,000-600,000 houses on 5-7 acre lots adjacent to a bulk storage yard, in our vision doesn't seem compatible. Ed Weeden: Mr. Cullipher, your time is up. Mike Cullipher: Thank you. William Din: Thank you Mr. Cullipher. Are there any questions for Mr. Cullipher? Mrs. Cullipher? Jane Cullipher: We looked at the Comprehensive Plan. We own two hundred fifty acres across the road from Mr. Salmons. When we bought that property we didn't buy it with the thought of building a great house on it and looking out at a rock plant. It wasn't in the Comprehensive Plan. You don't see it anywhere near there. You kept in one area of the City and so we didn't buy there. It's hard to believe that it wasn't mentioned anywhere that would happen. We invested a great deal of money believing in the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you all. William Din: Thank you Mrs. Cullipher. Do we have another speaker? Joseph Strange: Speaking also in opposition is Douglas Brown. Douglas Brown: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Douglas Brown. Are we speaking today about an amendment to the Code of Virginia Beach or are we talking about a specific piece of property for special privileged or special people with no competition? What shall I direct my remarks too? William Din: You're right. This is an ordinance change to the Virginia Beach ordinance. This is a zoning ordinance change. Douglas Brown: All the arguments that I've heard have been based on one piece of property in one location, one situation. Bring it in by boats and you don't have any traffic but somebody is getting ready to approve or disapprove a change to the Code for Virginia Beach. Not necessarily that piece of property. But anyway, let me talk about that piece of property. I own home in Backbay. I'm sure that all of you have been down there. Just for the record, let me tell you about Backbay. If you leave here and you're going towards Knot's Island you go on Princess Anne Road and then you go down nine miles before you get to the Carolina line, you look on your right and there's a post office that says Backbay Substation Post Office. Right beside it is a big farm field. Next to that is a big farm field. Across the street from it there's a big farm field. You cross the next road and there's a big farm field. There's a local automobile repair shop locally owned on one side. Right behind that is a farm field. On the other side isa grocery store locally owned, farm field. The next house on the left hand side has goats in their front yard. Now, were talking about a farm community. As you go a little bit further you got houses on both sides with farm fields behind them. On the left side you get to a school, Creed's Grammar School. Three hundred kids right on Princess Anne Road, next to a library, next to a police station. You're still going south and your still in Backbay. You got two dead-end streets with cul-de-sacs on your right. From there, right on down to the next street are farm fields, farm fields and more farm fields. We're talking about a farm community. Can we think about putting an industrial plant and industrial project in the middle of this, less than a half mile away from a school that has 300 kids in it? Ed Weeden: Sir, you got about 45 seconds Douglas Brown: Okay. Can you think about putting more trucks on the streets? Now, the Agricultural Advisory Committee said no. The Planning Department said no. I'm going to make this quick. There's a plan in the City of Virginia Beach called the ARP plan, the Agriculture Reserve Program. Their goal is to put 20,000 acres of farmland, guaranteed that it will be farmland forever. Right now, they have 6,775 acres in the program with 443 acres under review, less than a half -mile away from this piece of property. One arm of the City is dealing with a farmer. To purchase the rights of his land while another farmer who is already zoned Agriculture wants his zoned so he can put in an industrial site. Somehow, I can't understand that. I'd talk to each one of you before. You know how I feel. I don't need to carry this on any further. Thank you. William Din: Thank you Mr. Brown. Are there any comments or questions? I guess Mr. Brown is correct and this is an ordinance amendment that will affect all AG-1 and AG-2 agricultural zoning districts, which primarily reside in the southern part of the City. I think that staff has recommended that they could not support this and I'd like to hear from the Commissioners. Any comments? Gene. Eugene Crabtree: I'll go first. I agree with some of the speakers and all that it is not our purview to look at a zoning change that is to the interest of one group or one small individual one site in the City. We have to look at an overall thing. There is no indication that this ordinance change is going to aid or do anything or anyone except just one small group and one individual. And, and when we're looking at the entire city as whole, the north end, south end, the tourist area, the whole works, I don't see where this ordinance change is going to benefit that entire group. I just can't see it. Therefore, for that reason alone I can't support the ordinance change. William Din: Thank you Gene. Mr. Knight. Barry Knight: I guess I'll weigh in. I'd like to preference my remarks by saying that I know every single one of the speakers personally. They are all of the up most integrity that makes it extremely hard on me because they're very passionate on both sides. I do see both sides of the story. I really do. I'd just to answer a couple of questions. One, lets talk about this large deepwater canal. It is. It's a very unique property. It's a deepwater canal. It's going to be a great advantage to this property. This canal was dug specifically for agricultural services. It wasn't for anything proposed in the future. Not anything specific for agriculture. As far as the need for the rock, there is a need for the rock in the transition zone. There is not a need for rock in the rural end, south of the Princess Anne stoplight. They have no large road projects on board. No large city buildings south of Pungo stop light. They are building about 30 homes a year for the last 20 years or so down there. They don't constitute a great need of rock. It will generate more truck traffic because the truck traffic is going to originate from down here. The rock will originate from here by virtue of coming in by the waterway. But the truck traffic where the sand is being hauled out originates down near the state line. There is a lot of truck traffic as we saw on our Planning Commission tour down there. I think some people were surprised by the truck traffic. It's a narrow two-lane road. Most anybody can tell you a horror story or two about a truck turning over in front of them. That's not Mr. Salmons' problem and we recognize that. I think maybe some of the residents and some of the staff recognized that maybe that sand pit is in the wrong location. But it's already there. If it's there it's going to stay. But, maybe now we recognize that sandpit is wrong. Two wrongs don't make it right. I do agree with Mr. Hauser that probably, maybe a need in the future for this particular property to be a rock facility. It may be in the future. I don't know. I don't have a crystal ball. But, the Comprehensive Plan that we just got done with and we are authors of that plan. We did not make any provisions for anything industrial of this size or scope down there even though this particular project was being discussed they didn't bring it to us while we were discussing the Comprehensive Plan. We did discuss some unique properties when we were discussing the Comprehensive Plan such as the Spence Farm with a five miles stretch, the rock farm over near Lake Smith. We did discuss it. I think that very possibly update this plan every five years. If, this thought is a unique property for a unique purpose when we come up for our next Comprehensive Plan it ought to be approached then when we have all of these public hearings where we meet at all the elementary schools right here. That's the time. This is a little obscure agenda item in our package. There's no orange sign stuck on a piece of property anywhere. The people that are for it they absolutely know about it. The people that are against it a lot of them don't know. The word travels fast in our neck of the woods. The word is traveling fast. And, they have a petition signed by farmers. I know every single farmers name on there. They are wonderful people down there. But, also as we discussed earlier with Mr. Hauser, a lot of people sign a petition for various reasons but it counts and carries more weight when you actually make phone calls, personal visits and come here before us. I kept a tally. I've had three people personally contact me by the telephone or in person that are in favor. There are 3 or 4 more that has personally contacted me today by virtue of them being here. I've had 22 personal contacts against. The staff recommended no. The Agricultural Advisory recommended no. It was asked to just reaffirm that at their last Advisory meeting if anybody had any change of heart. Nobody says that they did. That was reaffirmed. The Comprehensive Plan makes no provisions in there for it. And by my straw poll count the majority of the residents down there are voting no. The one's that know about. William Din: Thank you Barry. Are there any other comments? Don. Donald Horsley: Okay. I've been in on every one of these discussions dating back I guess it was 2000. The first one I think was held in the School Board building. Anyway, about this property and as what Mr. Brown brought out, we're talking about a change in the ordinance. We keep getting told that there is a need for rock. These people that had these projects approved in the transition area, they didn't say we want to approve this piece of property assuming that we're going to be able to get rock to build our roads or whatever. They know they're going to get the rock. I don't think those developers up there are really worried about. They're going to find the rock somewhere. So, the rock will be there when the development comes. It's gotten to be where rock is about sacred as water was a few years ago before we had Lake Gaston. As far as the petition goes, I appreciate the efforts to get support. I've talked to some of the people that have signed the petitions and once they really understood what was taken place they said they wish they would have not signed the petition. I think Mr. Knight and I both have had that conversation with a few people because they really weren't in support of doing what's here. So, when you get down the crux of the matter is the City has the Agriculture Reserve Program. The City has invested money into that program trying to preserve an industry of agriculture for people who desire to do it on their own free will. Also, they also have an alternate residential guidelines down there for people who don't want to participate in agriculture reserve program but want to receive some benefits from their property they owned for many decades or whatever. They can develop their property in that manner. Those two ways have been deemed in years past, several years now that those developments can live and co -exist with agriculture community even though it gets very trying, as some of our speakers have said. People in agriculture just don't seem to get along sometime. But it was deemed several years ago that it would work for this amount of development to occur down there. Since the agriculture program has come in this amount of development has decreased the potential. I think there is an underlying factor here is that people feel that shortly were going to open up the whole south end of the City for development and we want to be in place to be able to supply the needs for development, which I don't think the majority of people agree with that. The Agricultural Advisory Commission has looked at this ordinance amendment two or three times. I loose count. The staff has looked at it and were here today looking at it. I just haven't seen anything, as I've told Mr. Hauser, a few moments ago when we talked about it, I haven't seen anything to sway my opinion that we need to allow for bulk storage of earthen materials or whatever down in the southern end of the City. And so far as borrow pits go, in relation to this, there is some collation but borrow pits, you know your reaping benefits from the property where gravel your hauling in a product, you're not mining that product on the property so really there are differences there and this Conditional Use Permit process for borrow pits dates back, many, many, many years ago. So, I don't have a problem with borrow pit. Even though I do have a problem with truck traffic in certain incidents. So, anyway, we will go ahead. In my opinion, I'm going to stick with the recommendation that preceded us with various groups and not support this ordinance today. William Din: Mr. Strange, do you have a comment? Joseph Strange: Yes. Since I don't live in the southern end of the City and I don't know any of the people involved personally, I'm looking at it strictly as a Planning Commissioner and I'm looking at the Comprehensive Plan and the trouble that we went through to make sure that this area maintained its rural nature. To me, the burden since the people who are supporting this would be to show that this was not going to change rural nature. I came here with an open mind because I can see that this is going to be transported in there by barge that to some degree would alleviate some traffic but after hearing both sides today, I didn't really come to a conclusion that this was going to be change this traffic on the northern end. That all this was going to do was add more traffic on the roads. Having spend a little bit of time down there during the van trip and saw the impact that these big trucks had on those small roads, I come back to say that I think the burden of proof is on the people who support this and say that it wouldn't change it. I wasn't swayed by that today so I'm going to be in opposition to it. William Din: Thank you Mr. Strange. Mr. Ripley has a comment. Ronald Ripley: The first time that we heard this matter it was a rezoning and we heard it and I don't believe it passed and it went on to Council and it probably failed too. I've had several phone calls to me about this and my comment to everybody was that this is not a specific rezoning. This is a change in the zoning ordinance. So, my concern is this an application that would be useful or compatible with this area of the City and in other areas? Is this something that we need in our toolbox so to speak. I've asked almost everybody that has come up here some type of questions on several people. Mr. Scott, if you don't mind, would you address or are you receiving any other applications or do you know of any other areas of this part of the City that this change of the ordinance would be useful or possibly fit in to the compatibility issue? Robert Scott: I mean it's conceivable that is this were allowed in the code, someone would come forward of using their property for an addition to the one you already know about. But by enlarge, no. I don't think so. Ronald Ripley: In our Comprehensive Plan and it's been pointed out that the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan for the rural part of our City is to preserve it and to protect it. We do have a line in the Comprehensive Plan that does say industrial uses will generally be those that are related to independent on natural resources such as agriculture, timber and minerals. I guess interpretation of that, in my point of view is that natural resources in that area, would you say, nothing coming in from the outside? Would you agree with that or what's your interpretation of that? Robert Scott: Can you say that again? Ronald Ripley: The operative word is industrial. Let me read it again. Industrial uses will generally be those that are related to and independent on natural resources such as agriculture, timber or minerals. Robert Scott: Well, the rural part of the City is not well set up to serve. And I characterize what you having described to you today is a quazi industrial use. There is big equipment involved. There are a lot of trucks involved. It's a quazi industrial use. The rural part of the City is not well set up to serve as a site for quazi industrial uses set up to serve the entire City or the entire region. Largely because of the volume of truck traffic involved and the nature of the roads they will be traveled. The competition that you already have on those roads between vehicles that are not liked very much and if there is a need in the community or intensive industrial use per quazi industrial uses there better located elsewhere. So, I don't think looking at the big picture and I hope this is responsible to your question. I don't think that the rural area of the City is a very good place or a very good area to site big quazi industrial uses because of the truck traffic. I know that we can also argue that a lot of agricultural operations are quazi industrial as well because of the intensity and the trucks and the intensity of their use but that's unavoidable. You can't do anything else than what you're doing. It's the nature of the agricultural community. Ronald Ripley: I think that fits your definition. It talks about agriculture and natural resources and minerals. I was trying to find and one of the speakers mentioned earthen material being a natural resource and I hadn't really thought in those terms. You could, if you stretched it could fall into that category also. I guess on the plus side of the propose ordinance is it is a conditionally controlled ordinance and that's one of the reasons and I really needed to think about this one. I'm like Joe and I wasn't sure what I was going to do coming in here. I was really looking for areas of this part of the City that would make some sense with a compatibility point of view. Given the discussion on needs and given the discussions and I'm not sure that I agreed with the needs, the road safety and the compatibility those weigh very heavily on me. On the other side, the size and scale of the farming operation that is out front is really huge. It's off the road but it is a huge size in scale and it kind of dwarfs of what is going on behind it to some extent. That's not the problem I guess. The problem really is what comes out onto on roads and the traffic that's going to be generated from it. So, I voted against this back the first time and I was looking for a reason to vote for it but I think I'm going to vote denial. William Din: Okay. Thank you. Gene. Eugene Crabtree: I'll make a motion that we deny the ordinance change. John Waller: Second. William Din: Seconded by Mr. Waller. Are we ready for the vote? John Waller: I voted the wrong way. Can I back it out? Bill Macali: He indicated that he votes in favor of the motion. AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 2 ANDERSON ABSENT CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD ABSENT Ed Weeden: By a vote of 9-0, the application of bulk storage in Agricultural Districts has been denied. William Din: Thank you.