The URL can be used to link to this page

APRIL 26, 2005 AGENDACITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF, At -Large VICE MAYOR LOUIS R. JONES, Bayside -District 4 HARRY E. DIEZEL Kempsville - District 2 ROBERTM. DYER, Centerville -District 1 REBA S. MCCLANAN, Rose Hall - District 3 RICHARD A. MADDOX, Beach - District 6 JIM REEVE, Princess Anne - District 7 PETER W. SCHMIDT, At -Large RONA. VILMNUEVA, At -Large ROSEMARY WILSON, At -Large JAMES L. WOOD, Lynnhaven -District 5 CITY MANAGER - JAMES K. SPORE CITY ATTORNEY - LESLIE L. LILLEY C17-Y CLERK - RUTH HODGES SMITH, MMC CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 26 April 2005 CITY HALL BUILDING 2401 CO URTHO USE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-8005 PHONE: (757) 427-4303 FAX (757) 426-5669 E- M41L: Ctycncl@vbgov.com I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room - 1230PM A. WORKFORCE and AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Andrew Friedman, Director - Housing and Neighborhood Preservation B. CODE ENFORCEMENT RENTAL INSPECTION PROGRAM Andrew Friedman, Director - Housing and Neighborhood Preservation C. JOINT LAND USE STUDY (JLUS) Robert Scott, Director - Planning II. BUDGET WORKSHOP - Conference Room - 3:00PA1 A. ECONOMIC VITALITY B. CULTURAL and RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES C. FAMILY and YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES III. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS ORDINANCES Ordinance to AMEND the City Code §§ 1-2, 6-3, 6-30, 6-114 and 31-28 re the term "Resort Season", incorporate the term in certain ordinances and amend provisions of the City Code re prohibited beach activities during the Resort Season. 2. Ordinance to TRANSFER $335,000 from the FY 2004-2005 Operating Budget of the Department of Human Services and $100,000 from the Reserve for Contingencies -Juvenile Detention to the FY 2004-2005 Operating Budget of the Department of Juvenile Probation re Less Secure Detention Services. 3. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE acquisition of property in fee simple for the right-of-way for the Seaboard Road project and the acquisition of temporary and permanent easements, either by agreement or condemnation. 4. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE a temporary encroachment into a portion of the right -of way at Princess Anne Road and Nimmo Parkway by COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE, LLC to construct and maintain a monument sign. K. PLANNING Application of VICTORY CHAPEL for the Modification of Condition No. 3 on a Conditional Use Permit re a nonconforming sign approved by City Council on August 12, 2003 at 6644 Indian River Road. (DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE) RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL 2. Application of CSM, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from A-18 Apartment District to R-5S Residential Single Family District at Rosemont Road and Bancroft Drive. (DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL) RECOMMENDATION: INDEFINITE DEFERRAL 3. Application of BAY BREEZE CONDOMINIUMS, INC. for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Summerville Court. (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL L. APPOINTMENTS COMMUNITY POLICY AND MANAGEMENT TEAM — CSA AT RISK COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD FRANCIS LAND HOUSE BOARD OF GOVERNORS HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL OPEN SPACE SUBCOMMITTEE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PERFORMING ARTS THEATRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE PERSONNEL BOARD THE PLANNING COUNCIL SHORE DRIVE COMMITTEE TIDEWATER TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT COMMISSION TOWING ADVISORY BOARD M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS O. ADJOURNMENT If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 4274303 Hearing impaired, call: VIRGINIA RELAY at 1-800-828-1120 Agenda 04/26/05 slb www.vbgoy.com 2005-2006 RESOURCE MAIYAC=EMEIYT PLAN SCHEDULE EVENT TOPIC LOCATION DATE Reconciliation Council May 3, 2005 Workshop Conference Room Adoption of FY City Council Vote on Resource Council Chamber May 10, 2005 2005-2006 Management Plan 6: 00 P.M. Resource Management Plan I. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room - A. WORKFORCE and AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Andrew Friedman, Director - Housing and Neighborhood Preservation B. CODE ENFORCEMENT RENTAL INSPECTION PROGRAM Andrew Friedman, Director - Housing and Neighborhood Preservation C. JOINT LAND USE STUDY (JLUS) Robert Scott, Director - Planning >2:3OPAI N II. BUDGET WORKSHOP - Conference Room - 3:00 PAL I A. ECONOMIC VITALITY B. CULTURAL and RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES C. FAMILY and YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES V. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 500PAI A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION VI. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - A. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend Charles H. Williams Pastor, Morning Star Baptist Church 6.00PA1 C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS April 12, 2005 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION �05 O�C� Op OUR NPj% MIN CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia Law were discussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. PUBLIC HEARING GRANTING A PRESERVATION EASEMENT TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, BOARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES FOR THE ADAM THOROUGHGOOD HOUSE The Virginia Beach City Council, on April 26, 2005, at 6:00 PM, in the City Council Chamber, second floor, City Hall Building, 2401 Courthouse Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia, will hold a Pub- lic Hearing concerning the conveyance of a perpetual preserva- tion easement to the Virginia Board of Historic Resources on property located at 1636 Parish Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia (the Adam Thoroughgood House). The easement is a condition of a grant to the City of Virginia Beach from the United States Department of the Interior in the amount of $150,000 to provide for repairs, moisture mitigation and environmental improvements to the Adam Thoroughgood House. The terms of said easement are on file and available for inspection at the City Clerk's Office. second floor of the City Hall Building, 2401 Courthouse Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Interested persons may appear at the above -mentioned time and place to present their views. 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 Virginia Relay at 1-800-828-LUO. Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk Beacon Apr. 17, 2005 13054523 NOTICE OF PROPOSED REAL PROPERTY TAX INCREASE AND PUBLIC HEARING Tax Increase Caused by Increase in Annual Assessment The City of Virginia Beach proposes to increase property tax levies. 1. Assessment Increase: Total assessed value of real property, excluding additional assessments due to new construction or improvements to property, exceeds last years total assessed value of real property by 19.20 percent. 2. Lowered Rate Necessary to Offset Increased Assessment: The tax rate which would levy the same amount of real estate tax as last year, when multiplied by the new total assessed value of real estate with the exclusions mentioned above, would be $1.0037 per $100 of assessed value. This rate will be known as the "lowered tax rate" 3. Effective Rate Increase: The City of Virginia Beach proposes to adopt a tax rate of $1.1964 per $100 of assessed value. The difference between the lowered tax rate and the proposed rate would be $.1927 per $100, or 19.20 percent. This difference will be known as the "effective tax rate increase" Individual property taxes may, however, increase at a percentage greater than or less than the above percentage. 4. Proposed Total Budget Increase: Based on the proposed real property tax rate and changes in other revenues, the total budget of the City of Virginia Beach will exceed last year's by 10.62 percent. NOTE: Although the FY 2005-2006 Operating Budget as submitted to the City Council does not propose an increase in the current real estate tax rate of $1.1964 on each $100 of assessed valuation, the assessment for individual properties increased by an average of 19.20%. Funding has been reserved in the proposed budget to allow for up to a 10.7-cent reduction in the real estate tax rate. Since the increase in assessments is over 1.00%, the preceding information was provided pursuant to Code of Virginia § 58.13321. Public Hearing A public hearing on the increase will be held on Tuesday, April 26, 2005, at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chamber on the second floor of the City Hall Building (Building #1), 2401 Courthouse Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia. This hearing is open to the public, and all interested persons will have an opportunity to be heard. Individuals desiring to provide written comments may do so by contacting the City Clerk's office at 427-4303. If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call 427-4303. Hearing impaired, call Virginia Relay at 1-800-828-1120. Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC H. CONSENT AGENDA I. ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance to AMEND the City Code §§ 1-2, 6-3, 6-30, 6-114 and 31-28 re the term "Resort Season", incorporate the term in certain ordinances and amend provisions of the City Code re prohibited beach activities during the Resort Season. 2. Ordinance to TRANSFER $335,000 from the FY 2004-2005 Operating Budget of the Department of Human Services and $100,000 from the Reserve for Contingencies -Juvenile Detention to the FY 2004-2005 Operating Budget of the Department of Juvenile Probation re Less Secure Detention Services. 3. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE acquisition of property in fee simple for the right-of-way for the Seaboard Road project and the acquisition of temporary and permanent easements, either by agreement or condemnation. 4. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE a temporary encroachment into a portion of the right -of way at Princess Anne Road and Nimmo Parkway by COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE, LLC to construct and maintain a monument sign. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Amend Chapters 1-2, 6-3, 6-30, 6-114, and 31-28 of the City Code Pertaining to the Definition of Resort Season MEETING DATE: April 26, 2005 ■ Background: The resort season has traditionally been defined as Memorial Day to Labor Day. However, there are many sections of the City Code that have conflicting dates defining the resort season, which makes enforcement of each specific City Code section difficult and confusing for enforcement officials. Furthermore, over the past several resort seasons, two major developments have occurred, including the extension of the resort season and expansion of the beach. Recent occupancy studies have shown that more than 50% of all tourists visit the City during the months of September to May. This trend indicates the traditional "shoulder" seasons are becoming more popular for vacation travel, and the City is heading towards a more year-round travel destination. Operation Big Beach has also expanded the shoreline to a total of 300 feet. The expanded beach allows more visitors to enjoy normal beach activities such as sun bathing, swimming, throwing Frisbees and ball playing. ■ Considerations: Since the "shoulder" seasons are expanding and there is more room on the beach for traditional beach activities, the definition of resort season should be changed to May 1 to September 30. As a result, several code provisions that were enacted as public safety measures to restrict or limit use of the beach and resort area amenities need to be amended to reflect these new trends, as well as unifying the definition of resort season in the separate City Code sections. Provisions relating to playing ball and throwing Frisbees need to be relaxed while provisions regulating fishing, animals on the beach, and launching recreational vehicles need to be tightened to reflect the expanded resort season. ■ Public Information: In March 2004, this issue was reviewed with the Resort Advisory Commission and recommended to City Council for the following season. A comment was received by a resident concerned about the impact on residents with a shorter season in which dogs are allowed on the beach, and asking for installation of a dog park. Residents concerns that they do not want to be restricted for two additional months from having their dogs on the beach are understood. This item was deferred on several occasions to address these concerns. At this time, a final solution has not been found for providing a dog park in the area. However, staff would like to move forward with the other revisions. Therefore, the section of the ordinance pertaining to dogs on the beach is not being included in these revisions. ■ Alternatives: Create a new definition of resort season or do not adopt ordinance ■ Recommendations: Adopt Ordinance ■ Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval of Ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Convention and Visitors Bureau City Manager: �, ��6 ff-toZ 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE TO DEFINE 2 THE TERM "RESORT SEASON" AND INCORPORATE THE 3 TERM IN CERTAIN ORDINANCES AND TO AMEND 4 PROVISIONS OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO 5 PROHIBITED BEACH ACTIVITIES DURING THE RESORT 6 SEASON 7 8 SECTIONS AMENDED: City Code Sections 1-2, 6-3, 9 6-30, 6-114 and 31-28 10 11 12 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA 13 BEACH, VIRGINIA: 14 15 That Sections 1-2, 6-3, 6-30, 6-114 and 31-28 of the City Code 16 are hereby amended and reordained, to read as follows: 17 Sec. 1-2. Definitions and rules of construction. 18 In the interpretation and construction of this Code and of all 19 ordinances of the city, the following definitions and rules of 20 construction shall be observed, unless they are inconsistent with 21 the manifest intent of the council or the context clearly requires 22 otherwise: 23 . . . 24 Resort season. The term "resort season" shall mean the time 25 beginning May 1 and ending September 30 of each year. 26 COMMENT 27 This amendment defines "Resort Season" as the period between May 1$` and 28 September 30th of each year. 29 30 . . . . 31 Sec. 6-3. Playing ball, using frisbee, etc., ern in certain 32 areas prohibited. 33 34 (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in ball 35 playing or the use of a frisbee or any activity of like kind which 36 may endanger the safety of others on the sand ti-..,...e , the sandy 37 portion of the beach area between the surf and the area east of the 38 lifeguard stands, the boardwalk and the grassy area west of the 39 boardwalk to the property lines from Gamp PeR lete Rudee Inlet on 40 the south to 42nd Street on the north from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 41 weekdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekends and holidays met 42 Memei ial Day- Weekend reugh�6aber Day Weekend during the resort 43 season of eaeh year. Few the sanel beaeh area between g 44 Pendleten andRrelee-inlet, known as Greu;-an Beaeh, this see ten 51 Day: It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in ball playing 52 or the use of a frisbee or any activity of like kind which may 53 endanger the safety of others on the sand beach area between Camp 54 Pendleton and Rudee Inlet, known as Croatan Beach, -on weekends and 55 holidays 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. during the resort season. 56 (c) The city manager or his designee is authorized to 57 designate locations within the sand beach area set forth in 58 subsection (a) of this section where activities such as playing 59 ball or using a frisbee or any activity of like kind may be 60 allowed. Such areas shall be designated with appropriate markers. 2 61 COMMENT 62 63 This amendment: (1) incorporates the newly - defined term "resort season' into this section; and 64 (2) eliminates the restrictions on using frisbees, playing ball, etc. during the resort season on the portion 65 of the beach between the boardwalk and the lifeguard stands from Camp Pendleton on the south to 42nd 66 Street on the north. In addition, the provisions pertaining to Croatan Beach are relocated in the section. 67 68 . . . . 69 70 71 Sec. 6-30. Fishing from sand beaches. 72 73 It shall be unlawful to fish from the sand beaches of the city 74 from 42nd Street to Rudee Inlet between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 75 4:00 p.m. weekdays and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. weekends and 76 holidays ficefa Memerial Day Weekend threiagh 1:.aber Day Weekend "' during 77 the resort season. 78 Fe penes—ez this seetien, zefaeri Weekend shall 81 COMMENT 82 The amendments incorporate the term "resort season" into this section. 83 . . . . 84 Sec. 6-114. Restrictions on launching, landing, parking or 85 stationing recreational vessels in certain areas. 86 87 (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to launch or land a 88 sailboat, motorboat, motorized personal watercraft, canoe, rowboat, 89 flatboat, kayak, umiak, scull or any other similar recreational 90 vessel on the beach area north of Rudee Inlet to the center line of 91 42nd Street prolongated eastward, between z=emer a Day Weekend an 92 13abe�F Day during the resort season between the hours of Q 93 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. weekdays and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 94 weekends and holidays. The provisions of this subsection shall not 95 be applicable to any person who is awarded a contract, based upon 96 competitive procurement principles, to conduct an operation for the 97 rental of designated recreational vessel(s) or to any person who 98 rents a vessel from an authorized rental operator provided the 99 vessel(s) so rented is launched or landed within the area 100 designated in such contract. I-e:F-19urpeses of this sew=ems 101 Mefaeri-al Day Weekend shall bedeemed �menee-mot-- -09 p.m. 102 Friday befere Meffterial Day, and Laber Day Weekend shall he deefaed 103 te end at 6, 9 9 p.m. Labe Day. 104 COMMENT 105 The amendments incorporate the term "resort season" into this section. 106 . . . . 107 Sec. 31-28. Points of collection. 108 109 (b) Mobile containers in the resort collection zone may be 110 placed on the curb line of a city right-of-way by 6:00 a.m. on the ill day of collection. 112 The collection of refuse from any mobile or bulk container by 113 a private contractor in the resort collection zone between —April 5 114 Getzep,:5 during the resort season e£ eater shall be and 115 restricted to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. daily. 116 Any mobile container in the resort collection zone placed on the 117 curb line of a city right-of-way between ApL l 15 and Geteber 0 118 during the resort season must be removed from said right-of-way no 119 later than 10:00 a.m. If mobile containers are not removed by that 120 time, the city may remove them and take temporary custody of such 121 containers with posted written notice to the property owner as to 122 the location of the containers and the procedure for reclaiming 123 such containers. 124 COMMENT 125 126 The amendments incorporate the term "resort season" into this section. 127 128 129 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 130 Virginia, on this day of CA-8773 wmm\ordres\resortseasondefordin.doc R-11 March 3, 2005 Approved as to Content: ity Manager's f ce 2005. Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: -J� / " ;40/1 City Attorney's Of ice 5 ��G�Int�n,OMEt�~• t� L A CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: An Ordinance to Transfer $335,000 from the FY 2004-05 Operating Budget of the Department of Human Services and $100,000 from the Reserve for Contingencies — Juvenile Detention to the FY 2004-05 Operating Budget of the Department of Juvenile Probation for Less Secure Detention Services MEETING DATE: April 26, 2005 ■ Background: The Virginia Beach Court Service Unit, also known as the Department of Juvenile Probation, is responsible for providing funding for juveniles held in Secure Detention outside the City of Virginia Beach and all other pre-dispositional services including Less Secure Shelter Care services and Detention Outreach and Electronic Monitoring services ordered by the Juvenile Court. The Court controls usage of these services, and may order a child placed into any of these programs with the cost of these services being borne by the locality. Over the past several years there has been a strong push to limit Secure Detention to those juveniles who pose the greatest threat to the community. This has resulted in an increased demand for Less Secure Detention alternatives, such as Less Secure Detention facilities and Detention Outreach with electronic monitoring. With a limited number of beds available in less secure facilities, Detention Outreach and electronic monitoring are being utilized in greater numbers. The cost of Detention Outreach with electronic monitoring is about one third the cost of a bed in a less secure facility, and since the Judges feel Outreach Detention has been so successful, the Courts have been placing greater numbers of juveniles back in their homes under the Outreach Program. There is a constant struggle to strike a balance between budgetary constraints and the Court's primary goal of maintaining a safe community. As shown in the table below, the Court's use of Less Secure Detention alternatives was relatively stable up until recently. With the increased emphasis on reducing the number of juveniles in Secure Detention, there has been a significant increase in the use of Less Secure Detention alternatives in the past two years. The average length of stay in a Less Secure facility has decreased from 22.8 days to 21.2 days while use of these facilities remains virtually the same as last year. The average length of stay for Detention Outreach and Electronic Monitoring has also decreased from an average of almost 47.5 days last year to less than 42.9 days in the current year. However, this has been offset by a 71 % increase in usage, which has created a significant increase in expenditures. Use of Non -Secure and Outreach Detention By the Virginia Beach Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court 2004-05 Thru Projected Fiscal Year 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 January 2004-05 Less secure 7,013 6,747 5,353 6,671 3,788 6,494 Days Less Secure 289 281 287 293 179 307 Admissions Ave. Length 24.3 days 24.0 days 18.7 days 22.8 days 21.2 days 21.2 days of Stay Outreach & Electronic 16,181 10,465 11,635 21,472 17,407 29,841 Monitoring Days Outreach & EM 382 264 282 452 406 696 Admissions Ave. Length 42.4 days 39.6 days 41.3 days 47.5 days 42.9 days 42.9 days of Stay Change in Outreach & -25_8% +11.2% +84.5% +71.4% EM Days Utilized Local $ 754,636 $ 747,403 $ 664,871 $1,109,999 $ 976,404 $1,673,835 Expenditures State Block Grant $2,471,013 $1,214,823 $1,214,013 $1,214,013 $ 688,260 $ 1,214,013 Expenditures ■ Considerations: The over utilization of Secure Detention has been a topic of interest with the State for several years and stricter guidelines have been developed, along with a Detention Risk Assessment instrument which must be utilized when determining whether a juvenile is placed in Secure Detention or in a Less Secure facility or Detention Outreach with Electronic Monitoring. This caused a tremendous increase in the utilization of these alternative programs in FY 2003-04 and an even greater spike this fiscal year. It is anticipated there will be a shortfall of $510,000 in the current budget year for Detention Outreach and Electronic Monitoring services. It is anticipated there will be approximately $75,000 surplus in Secure Detention expenditures, which will offset the Detention Outreach shortfall by like amount. The Virginia Beach Juvenile Court Services Unit is requesting a total of $435,000 in additional appropriations to cover the increased utilization of court -ordered Less Secure Detention and Detention Outreach and Electronic Monitoring programs. $100,000 will be transferred from a dedicated reserve for Juvenile Detention and $335,000 will be transferred from the FY 2004-05 Operating Budget of the Department of Human Services. ■ Public Information: Information will be disseminated to the public through the normal Council agenda process involving the advertisement of City Council agenda. ■ Alternatives: No alternative sources of funding within the Department of Juvenile Probation are available to provide funding for these mandated services. ■ Recommendations: It is recommended that $435,000 be transferred to the Virginia Beach Court Services Unit's Operating Budget for FY 2004-05 to cover the increased usage for Less Secure, Outreach Detention and Electronic Monitoring services for juveniles under their supervision as ordered by the Court. ■ Attachments: An Ordinance to Transfer $335,000 from the FY 2004-05 Operating Budget of the Department of Human Services and $100,000 from the Reserves for Contingencies — Juvenile Detention to the FY 2004-05 Operating Budget of the Department of Juvenile Probation for Less Secure Detention Services. Recommended Action: Adoption of ordinance Submitting Department/Agency: Virginia Beach Court Service Unit City Manager: � , r 1 AN ORDINANCE TO TRANSFER $435,000 TO THE FY 2 2004-05 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 3 JUVENILE PROBATION FOR LESS -SECURE DETENTION 4 SERVICES 5 6 WHEREAS, there has been a significant increase in the number of 7 Court ordered less -secure detention services, such as Detention 8 Outreach and Electronic Monitoring for juveniles, resulting in 9 increased costs for detention services. 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 11 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 12 That $335,000 is hereby transferred from the FY 2004-05 13 Operating Budget of the Department of Human Services and $100,000 is 14 hereby transferred from the FY 2004-05 Reserve for Contingencies - 15 Juvenile Detention to the FY 2004-05 Operating Budget of the 16 Department of Juvenile Probation for court ordered less -secure 17 detention services. 18 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia 19 on the day of 1 2005. Approved as to Content 1 Management Services CA9594 Ord&Res/Dentention Services ORD April 12, 2005 R-1 Approved as to Legal Sufficiency MA� / . No"ll /. City Attorney's Office n st ro .9p>y CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Seaboard Road Project CIP 2-107 - Authority to Acquire Right of Way and Easements (temporary and permanent) by Agreement or Condemnation MEETING DATE: April 26, 2005 ■ Background: The proposed Seaboard Road Project will widen the existing roadway from two sub -standard lanes to a three -lane roadway (including a center turn lane) from Princess Anne Road north to the future Nimmo Parkway. This project will include an upgrade to the intersection of Princess Anne Road and Seaboard Road to include new turn lanes, traffic signal improvements, and a realignment of Seaboard Road at the intersection. Seaboard Road will have a posted speed of 35 mph. The roadway will provide a paved path on each side of the street, storm drainage improvements, streetscaping and street lighting. Approximately 50 properties will be affected by the road widening. ■ Considerations: Seaboard Road is part of the Transition Area plan for an overall transportation circulation system. This transportation link is vital to the Master Transportation Plan because it reduces the demand on Princess Anne Road by providing an alternative access to the proposed Nimmo Parkway. It also supports previous initiatives aimed at reducing thru traffic in the City of Virginia Beach's Historic District along Princess Anne Road. Additional right of way and easements must be acquired before construction can begin on this project. Therefore, it is requested that City Council grant the authority to acquire, by agreement or condemnation, all right of way and easements (both temporary and permanent) in order to construct Seaboard Road Project, CIP 2-107. ■ Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda ■ Alternatives: Deny the request for authority to acquire, by agreement or condemnation, the right of way and easements (temporary and permanent) needed for the construction of Seaboard Road Project CIP 2-107. ■ Recommendations: Approve the request for authority to acquire, by agreement or condemnation, the right of way and easements (temporary and permanent) needed for the construction of Seaboard Road Project CIP 2-107. ■ Attachments: Ordinance, Location Map Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Aggncy: Public Works/Real Estate �fy City Manage • 1L N�" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY IN FEE SIMPLE FOR RIGHT OF WAY FOR SEABOARD ROAD PROJECT (CIP 2-107) AND THE ACQUISITION OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EASEMENTS, EITHER BY AGREEMENT OR CONDEMNATION WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, a public necessity exists for the construction of this important roadway project to improve transportation within the City and for other public purposes for the preservation of the safety, health, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, and for the welfare of the people in the City of Virginia Beach: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: Section 1. That the City Council authorizes the acquisition by purchase or condemnation pursuant to Sections 15.2-1901, et seq., Section 33.1-89, et seq., and Title 25.1 Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, of all that certain real property in fee simple, including temporary and permanent easements (the "Property") as shown on the plans entitled "SEABOARD ROAD (CIP NO. 2-107)", (the "Project") and more specifically described on the acquisition plats for the Project (collectively the "Plans"), the Plans being on file in the Engineering Division, Department of Public Works, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to make or cause to be made on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach, to the extent that funds are available, a reasonable offer to the owners or persons having an interest in said Property. If refused, the City Attorney is hereby authorized to institute proceedings to condemn said property. 28 ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day 29 Of 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 2005. APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS qQMU C- D S SW,NATURE PW XNI DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM CA-9072 PREPARED: March 28, 2005 F:\Data\ATY\OID\REAL ESTATE\AcquisitionsMORKING - COND\Acquisition Ordinances\CA9072.DOC.2005.rtf U 1494-64-6109 J ry 1494-63-5606 .o � ♦ J C'< j LOCATION APPROXIMATE - LOCATION OF MONUMENT SIGN 0 1494-73-1904 j•1 , I (Z MAP ENCROACHMENT REQUEST BY COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE, L.L.C. FOR A MONUMENT SIGN GPIN 1494-63-5606 �� '• SCALE: 1" = 200' ' COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE.DGN M.J.S. PREPARED BY P/W ENG. CADD DEPT. MARCH 28, 2005 Nu se+c'. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Encroachment Request to construct and maintain a monument sign for Courthouse Marketplace. MEETING DATE: April 26, 2005 ■ Background: Courthouse Marketplace, L.L.C. has requested permission to encroach into the City right-of-way on Princess Anne Road for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a monument sign for Courthouse Marketplace shopping center. ■ Considerations: City staff has reviewed this request for the encroachment and has recommended approval of same, subject to certain conditions outlined in the agreement, including relocation of the encroachment when Princess Anne Road is widened. ■ Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda. ■ Alternatives: Approve the encroachment as presented, deny the encroachment, or add conditions as desired by Council. ■ Recommendations: Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. ■ Attachments: Ordinance, Location Map, Agreement and Drawings of Sign Recommended Action: Approval of the ordinance r Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works / Real Estate q C�' V City Manager: IL, 1 Requested by Department of Public Works 2 3 AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A 4 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT INTO 5 A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY 6 LOCATED ON PRINCESS ANNE 7 ROAD, NORTH OF ITS 8 INTERSECTION WITH NIMMO 9 PARKWAY BY COURTHOUSE 10 MARKETPLACE, LLC, ITS HEIRS, 11 ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN 12 TITLE 13 14 WHEREAS, Courthouse Marketplace, LLC desires to construct and maintain a 15 monument sign within the City's right-of-way located on Princess Anne Road, about 16 315+- feet north of its intersection with Nimmo Parkway. 17 WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, 18 Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize temporary encroachments upon the 19 City's right-of-way subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. 20 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 21 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 22 That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in §§ 15.2- 23 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Courthouse Marketplace, 24 LLC, its heirs, assigns and successors in title are authorized to construct and maintain a 25 temporary encroachment for a monument sign in the City's right-of-way as shown on 26 the map entitled: "ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE 27 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA," Scale: 1"=50', dated March 28, 2005, a copy of which is 28 on file in the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more 29 particular description; and 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachment is expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and Courthouse Marketplace, LLC (the "Agreement"), which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Manager or his authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such time as Courthouse Marketplace, LLC and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the Agreement. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 40 day of , 2005. 41 42 PROVED AS TO CONTENTS 43-rs 44 tIdNATURE 45 PM Rol 46 DEPARTMENT 47 48 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL 49 SUFFICIENCY AND FORM 50 �.- 51 CITY AT ORNEY 52 53 CA-9517 54 PREPARED:417/05 55 F:\Data\ATY\Ordin\NONCODE\PW ORDIN\CA9517 Courthouse Marketplace, LLC.doc PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTION 58.1-811(c) (3) THIS AGREEMENT, made this 7 +h day of M zr c-h , 2001 by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE, L.L.C., ITS HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one. WITNESSETH: That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as "PARCEL A 21.072 ACRES" on that plat entitled, "RESUBDIVISION PLAT OF COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA" Scale 1 "=50', dated September 24, 2004 and being further designated and described as GPIN 1494-63-5606. WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a monument sign, "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of an existing City right of way known as Princess Anne Road "The Encroachment Area"; and WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary Encroachment within The Encroachment Area. GPIN 1494-63-5606 1 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the Grantee permission to use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment Area as shown on that certain plat entitled: "ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more particular description. Providing however, nothing herein shall prohibit the City from immediately removing, or ordering the Grantee to remove, all or any part of the Temporary Encroachment from The Encroachment Area in the event of an emergency or public necessity. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will meet all relevant provisions of the City Zoning Ordinance regarding signs, including landscaping, meeting or exceeding the requirements of Section 214(c). 2 It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee will adhere to all applicable provisions of the proffers attached to the rezoning application of this site by Courthouse Marketplace, L.L.C. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee will relocate the Temporary Encroachment, including all utilities and landscaping, at the Grantee's expense at such time that the Grantor notifies the Grantee the right-of-way is required due to the imminent construction of CIP 2-035, Princess Anne Road Phase IV (Ferrell -Phase II) and that said construction, including utility relocations, may begin as early as in 2005. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit and have approved a traffic control plan before commencing work in The Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees that no open cut of the public roadway will be allowed except under extreme circumstances. Requests for 9 exceptions must be submitted to the Highway Operations Division, Department of Public Works, for final approval. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit from the Office of Development Services Center/Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within The Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that prior to issuance of a right of way permit, the Grantee must post a bond or other security, in accordance with their engineer's cost estimate, to the Office of Development Services Center/Planning Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee connect with sanitary sewer facilities when they become available, within the time stipulated by the City and that plans must be submitted to the Department of Public Utilities for review. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment must conform to the minimum setbacks requirements, as established by the City. M It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of The Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Courthouse Marketplace, L.L.C. has caused this agreement to be executed by David Y. Faggert, Manager of Courthouse Marketplace, L.L.0 a Virginia limited liability company, with due authority to bind said limited liability company. Further, that the City of Virginia has caused this agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager G STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2005, by , CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. Notary Public My Commission Expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2005, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. Notary Public My Commission Expires: STATE OF CITY/COUPPP; OF V1 R(7 I N i A [3FACIJ)to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this i th day of tG , 2005, by David Y. Faggert, Manager on behalf of Courthouse Marketplace, L.L.C. My Commission Expires: a n .3 41 62009 I APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS C� o DINT ATURE N A4 DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FORM N ti EXHIBIT „,A 6 D�O�g'yI ER�� M NOw ORS O S`1PO p GV N rn . 5p� � PO rn �E09 � � o h #��9 GON N 0 0 _L N �84•p1' � � w 225g'e2 N MONUMENT W N SIGN m '�^ ^ Z CL 0 I..L . wM 1'^J m \ /`/ K; V EXISTING 20' PUBLIC UTILITY EAS EM ENT00 Q (INSTRUMENT (� N m #200412220199793) W o; Z °- 0 PARCEL A w to N (INSTRUMENT Q, o N #200412220199793) w W " ro m U Z L N 00 Cfl ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA engineering services, inc. Civil Engineering — Land Surveying 3351 Stoneshore Road, Virginia Beach, VA. 23452 (757) 468-6800 FAX (757) 468-4966 E—mail: email@esiofva.com Date Project Scale: Drawn By Page: Drawing Name 03/28/05 02300 1 "=50' DMV 1 OF 1 Surveys\02300Ex1.dwg M:\02\300\Surveys\02300Ex1.dwg, 3/31/2005 S:06:55 AM, 1:1 \ ` , 5(. LUZz 9#\ $) )5E \ / D4( \}\ )f oz< 0\ w (` g \\ =\k e /�yo /a :<; 99 §\ _( $§a 3\ //}2 }G $p \2 \2 }ƒ} \\ LU �( \ \\ \(\ \� (k � «§/w (\/ 2/ &\ gwa <= w<®o=oI 8 =j < )® ± °\7 . %+ w§ < < >3Lu < =u \}� U$W:2 ��o6o°tee 5 7c )< - #=sew@>= 0 �»w,w � w > � 2 W � � LU U 2 O U 2 � 7 � 2 LU � � 2 O :2 LL cs )o # §,i ? /\ \ \\ Q 3; (2 b ] \ §r 2 \@ $ k § \§ / \ )j \W CL f \ 3] i E \ �) \ \ = f \2 (/ _ \° Sƒ \! LU/f < \! \ k) u oa LU b f 0| §o --I < I / 55 0 u < ■! < \ k §! C� 0 < _r % z )| < 0 # b E£ E k �j \ CL < 2, It o, �\§ k �\ \/ n §� t \ �\ \ } /t *o t 2 \f \! > E/ \j p /5)2 ƒ §) S� � 0 ) { k/ �® k/ w STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION Richmond, Apii(25, 2003 This is to certify that the certificate of organization of Courthouse Marketplace, L.L.C. was this day issued and admitted to record in this office and that the said Limited liability company is authorized to transact its business subject to all Virginia laws applicable to the company and its business. Effective date. April25, 2003 QState Corporation CommissioR - o� • \d p� iYY aR� [►� �� / A _ 1903 CIS0313 ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION OF COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE, L.L.C. Pursuant to Chapter 12 of Title 13.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the undersigned states as follows: 1. The name of the limited liability company is Courthouse Marketplace, L.L.C. 2. The address of the initial registered office in Virginia is 1435 Crossways Boulevard, Suite 200, Chesapeake, Virginia 23320. Such office is located in the City of Chesapeake, Virginia. 3. The registered agent's name is David Y. Faggert, whose business address is identical with the registered office. The registered agent is an individual who is a resident of Virginia and a member of the Virginia State Bar. 4. The post office address of the principal office where the records will be maintained pursuant to Virginia Code Section 13.1-1028 is c/o Courthouse Marketplace, L.L.C., 1435 Crossways Boulevard, Suite 300, Chesapeake, Virginia 23320. 5. The period of the limited liability company's duration is perpetual. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, this 23rd day of April, 2003. /1 _ G:\Temp\courthouse-ao.doc OPERATING AGREEMENT OF COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE, L.L.C. THIS OPERATING AGREEMENT (the "Agreement"), dated as of April 25, 2003, is made by and between DAVID Y. FAGGERT ("Faggert") and JOANN B. FAGGERT ("J. Faggert"). ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS "Capital Account" means the capital account maintained for each Member in accordance with Section 704 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "IRC"). "Capital Transaction" means any sale, exchange, refinancing, condemnation or other disposition of any portion of the LLC's assets. "Manager" means Faggert. "Members" means Faggert and J. Faggert and any parties who execute an agreement agreeing to be bound by the terms hereof and any additional or substitute member. "Net Cash Flow from Operations" means the LLC's cash operating revenues less cash operating expenses and reserves determined by the Manager. "Net Proceeds from a Financing" means the excess net cash proceeds from a borrowing less all costs and reserves determined by the Manager. "LLC" means Courthouse Marketplace, L.L.C. "Ownership Interests" means the percentage interest of a Member in the LLC. The initial Ownership Interests are the amounts of cash or the property as agreed upon with the Manager on the date such Member executed this Agreement. "Prime Rate" means the prime rate of Bank of America, N.A. in effect from time to time. "Property" means those certain parcels of real estate situated in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia which are more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. "Pro Rata" means an allocation based upon Ownership Interests. 1 ARTICLE 2 FORMATION OF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY The Members hereby form a limited liability company (the "LLC") pursuant to the Virginia Limited Liability Company Act, (the "Act") Section 13.1-1000, et seq., of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Va. Code"). ARTICLE 3 NAME AND ADDRESS OF BUSINESS, REGISTERED AGENT AND MANAGER The name of the LLC is Courthouse Marketplace, L.L.C. and its principal place of business is 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1300, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462. The registered agent and Manager of the LLC is David Y. Faggert, 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1300, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462. ARTICLE 4 PURPOSE The LLC's business and purpose shall consist solely of the following: (i) To own, operate and manage the Property pursuant to and in accordance with this Agreement; and (ii) To engage in such other lawful activities necessary or convenient to the conduct, promotion or attainment of the business or purposes otherwise set forth in this Agreement. ARTICLE 5 TERM OF LLC The term of the LLC shall be perpetual unless sooner termi- nated pursuant to the terms hereof. 0 ARTICLE 6 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND ADVANCES Each Member shall contribute to the initial capital of the LLC the amount of cash or the property as agreed upon with the Manager on the date such Member executed this Agreement. No interest shall be paid on any capital contribution and no Member may withdraw any capital contribution without the consent of the Manager. No Member shall be obligated to make any capital contribution in excess of those initially required by this Agreement and any advance of money by a Member to the LLC, unless otherwise agreed, shall be a loan repayable on demand, bearing K11 interest at a fluctuating annual rate of two percent (2%) above the Prime Rate. ARTICLE 7 DISTRIBUTIONS 1. No Member shall have the right to demand the return of his capital contributions prior to the termination of the LLC, unless agreed to by the Manager. 2. Net Cash Flow from Operations shall be distributed to the Members in accordance with the Members' Ownership Interests not less frequently than annually. 3. Net Proceeds from a Financing or a Capital Transaction to the extent not otherwise reasonably required for the operation of the business of the LLC or for LLC reserves, and any cash arising from the reduction of LLC reserves that were previously funded from proceeds of Capital Transactions, shall be distributed to the Members in accordance with the Members' Ownership Interests. ARTICLE 8 PROFITS AND LOSSES Income and loss and all items of tax credit shall be allocated Pro Rata to the Members. ARTICLE 9 THIRD PARTIES No person or entity shall be considered a Member unless named in this Agreement, or unless admitted to the LLC as a Member as herein provided. No Member other than the Manager shall have the authority to bind the LLC except as provided for in this Agreement or unless he is specifically authorized in writing to do so by the Manager. If any Member shall, without authority, bind or attempt to bind, the LLC, he shall indemnify the LLC and/or the other Members for any loss suffered or expense incurred by the LLC in connection therewith. 3 ARTICLE 10 The Manager shall maintain or cause to be maintained at the principal office of the LLC the information and records required by Section 13.1-1028 of the Va. Code. ARTICLE 11 MANAGEMENT AND RIGHTS, DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERS A. The Manager shall have complete power and authority for the management and operation of the LLC's assets and business (including the borrowing of money and the incurring of indebtedness and the sale, encumbrance or other disposition of any or all of the LLC's assets, including real property), and may delegate any aspect of his authority to one or more persons. B. The LLC shall have such agents, officers and other representatives as the Manager shall determine. The selection, removal, compensation, duties, terms and all other matters relating to such agents, officers and representatives shall be within the sole power and authority of the Manager. C. The Manager, while acting on behalf of the LLC, shall not be liable for any act or omission performed or omitted by it in good faith. The Manager shall be liable for action on behalf of the LLC only for fraud or willful misconduct. To the extent of the net assets of the LLC, the LLC shall indemnify and save harmless the Manager from any loss or damage incurred by it by reason of its acts or omissions performed or omitted in good faith for or on behalf of the LLC. D. Only the signature of the Manager is required to execute and deliver on behalf of the LLC any instrument, including, but not limited to, any deed, deed of trust, bill of sale, promissory note, lease agreement, financing statement, contract of sale, or other instrument purporting to convey or encumber, in whole or in part, any or all of the assets, including real property, of the LLC, or at any time held in its name. No other signatures shall be required. E. Any Member may engage in or possess an interest in other business ventures of every nature and description, independently or with others, including, but not limited to, the ownership, financing, leasing, operating, managing, or developing of real property, whether or not such real property is in competition with the business of the LLC. Neither the LLC nor the any of the Members shall have any rights by virtue of this Agreement in or to such independent ventures. 4 F. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to prohibit the LLC from entering into a contract with any Member, or an affiliate of any Member, for the sale of goods to, or the performance of services for, the LLC, if (and only if) the compensation paid for such goods or services is at a commercially reasonable and competitive rate and the other terms of the contract are at least as favorable to the LLC as would be obtainable in an arms -length transaction. As used in this Article 11, "affiliate" shall mean any person or entity who directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a Member. ARTICLE 12 WITHDRAWAL, DISSOLUTION AND WINDING UP A. No Member shall have the right or power to (i) cause the dissolution and winding up of the LLC by court decree or otherwise, (ii) withdraw or resign from the LLC, or (iii) require a partition of the LLC's assets or the redemption of its interest in the LLC. B. The LLC shall be dissolved and wound up upon the occur- rence of any one of the following events: ( i ) the sale of all or substantially all of the LLC 's property, real and personal; (ii) the expiration of the term set forth in this Agreement or (iii) the occurrence of an event causing dissolution under the Act unless the remaining Members holding a majority -in -interest of the interests of the LLC elect to continue the business of the LLC. ARTICLE 13 ASSIGNABILITY OF MEMBERS' RIGHTS AND INTERESTS No Member may assign, sell, encumber, transfer or otherwise dispose of all or any portion of his interest in the LLC without the prior written consent of the Manager. All costs and expenses relating to any permitted transfer shall be paid by the assignor and may be offset against any LLC distribution. Any permitted assignee shall only become a substituted Member after paying all costs and expenses of the substitution, agreeing to be bound by the terms of this Agreement, and upon the agreement -of the Members owning at least a majority of the Ownership Interests of the LLC. The transfer of an interest shall not release the assignor from any liability to the LLC. 5 ARTICLE 14 61 N ►1061DI►Y !� Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement may be amended by the Members in any manner with the approval of the Manager and of Members owning a majority -in -interest of the Ownership Interests in the LLC; provided, however, that any amendment to this Agreement that would adversely affect the federal income tax treatment to be afforded a Member, adversely affect the liabilities of a Member, modify any consent and approval rights reserved by the Members or change the method of allocation of income, loss, gain, deduction, credit, liabilities or the distribution of funds available for distribution, shall require the approval of the Member affected. For the purpose of complying with this Agreement, each Member (and substituted Member) does hereby constitute and appoint the Manager, with full power of substitution as his irrevocable true and lawful attorney -in -fact coupled with an interest, for him and in his name, and on his behalf, to sign, and/or swear under oath and/or acknowledge (i) any amendment to this Agreement for the purpose of admitting any new Member (ii) to execute any instruments necessary to admit a new Member or to transfer an Ownership Interest, (iii) to carry out any purpose of this Agreement and (iv) such other instruments as the Manager deems advisable. ARTICLE 15 MISCELLANEOUS A. Any notice provided hereunder shall be deemed given when delivered or two (2) days after being sent by registered or certified mail to a Member at his address shown on the documents which each Member executes in order to become a Member of the LLC, or at such other address as may be specified in writing to the LLC at its principal office in accordance with this paragraph. B. This Agreement constitutes the entire operating agreement of the LLC and supersedes any prior agreements, whether written or oral, respecting the subject matter hereof. C. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect. D. This Agreement is made in and shall be governed, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 11 E. When the context in which the words used in this Agreement indicate that such is the intent, words in the singular number shall include the plural and vice versa, and words in the masculine gender shall include the feminine and neuter genders and vice versa. F. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Members, and, if and when assigned in accordance with the provisions hereof, their respective assigns, successors, representatives, estates, heirs or legatees. WITNESS the following signatures And seals: Da 7 (SEAL) AL) EXHIBIT "A" TO OPERATING AGREEMENT DATED APRIL 25, 2003 OF COURTHOUSE MARKETPLACE, L.L.C. Members David Y. Faggert 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1300 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 JoAnn B. Faggert 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 1300 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Initial Cash Capital Contribution $ 99.00 1.00 $100.00 S:\Clients\5111\002\OPERATING AGREEMENT-09-09-04.doc 8 Percentaae Interest 99.096 1.0% 100.0% EXHIBIT "A" PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PARCEL ONE PARCELS A and C: ALL THOSE certain lots, pieces or parcels of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate, lying and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as PARCEL "A" and PARCEL "C" as shown on the plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY OF JOHN M. BURGESS, PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated July 30, 1969 and made by W.B. Gallup, Surveyor, which said plat is duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 80 at page 53. PARCEL B: ALL THAT certain tract, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the Princess Anne Borough of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and being more particularly designated as Parcel "B" 1.48 acres on the certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY OF JOHN M. BURGESS, PRINCESS ANNE BOROUGH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA," which plat is dated July 30, 1969, and recorded in Map Book 80, at page 53, and was made by W.B. Gallup, Surveyor, and which property is more particularly bounded and described according to said plat as follows: BEGINNING at a pin on the Western edge of the right-of-way of Princess Anne Road, which pin is located .65 miles more or less from the intersection of said Princess Anne Road with North Landing Road, and from said pin running thence S 30 ° 49' W. 609.47 feet to a pipe; thence turning and running N 40 27' W. 41.24 feet to a pipe; thence continuing and running N 40 27' W 69.28 feet to a point; thence turning and running N 30 ° 22' E 600.46 feet to a pipe at the Western edge of Princess Anne Road; thence turning and running S 45 ° 35' E 112.54 feet to a pipe; being the point of beginning, less and except that certain piece or parcel dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia for road purposes. PARCEL TWO ALL THAT certain tract, piece or parcel of land, with the improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, situate, lying and being in Seaboard Magisterial District, Virginia Beach, formerly Princess Anne County, Virginia, at or near Princess Anne Courthouse consisting of Parcel No. 1 and the eastern part of Parcel No. 2, shown and designated on a certain plat and survey thereof, made by Frank D. Tarrall, Jr. & Associates, Surveyor, June 15, 1948 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia in Map Book 23 at page 3, by which the said property is more particularly bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point in the Southern line of the right of way of the highway for Norfolk to Princess Anne Courthouse in the dividing line between Parcels One (1) and Two (2) as shown on said plat and from said point extending along the right of way of said highway South 45 degrees 35 minutes 10 seconds East 149.90 feet to a point in the line of the property of Nicholson; thence along the center line of a ditch separating this property from property of Nicholson South 30 degrees 15 minutes 50 seconds West 629.43 feet to a point; thence North 39 degrees 32 minutes 30 seconds West 36.13 feet to a point in the center line of another ditch; thence along the center line of the last mentioned ditch South 46 degrees 39 minutes 40 seconds West 1061.50 feet to a point in the center line of an intersecting ditch separating this property from the property of Saneca; thence along the line of the property of Saneca North 55 degrees 38 minutes 50 seconds West 163 feet, more or less, to the center line of a ditch running Northeasterly through the above parcel of land; thence Northeasterly along the center line of the last mentioned ditch North 46 degrees 39 minutes 40 seconds East to a point in the center line of a ditch running North 39 degrees 32 minutes 30 seconds West from the angle shown on the said plat in the Eastern line of the property hereby conveyed, the distance of said angle being shown as 36.13 feet; thence South 39 degrees 32 minutes 30 seconds East to a point intersecting the line running South 30 degrees 22 minutes 00 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 30 degrees 22 minutes 00 seconds East to the Southwest corner of Parcel No. One (1) shown on the aforesaid plat, and continuing North 30 degrees 22 minutes 00 seconds East along a ditch forming the Western boundary of Parcel No. One (1) as shown on said plat 350 feet to the point of beginning. LESS, SAVE AND EXCEPT 0.065 acres conveyed to the City of Virginia Beach by Deed dated August 18, 1992 and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 3133 at page 1312. PARCEL THREE ALL THAT certain tract, piece or parcel of land, with the improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying, situate and being in Princess Anne Borough in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, consisting of the western part of Parcel No. 2 as shown on that certain plat entitled, "Physical Survey of Property of William A. Cooper," made by Frank D. Tarrall, Jr. and Associates, June 15, 1948 and recorded in Map Book 23 at page 3 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and more particularly bounded and described as follows, to -wit: 10 Beginning at a point in the southern line of the right of way of the highway from Norfolk to Princess Anne Courthouse in the western line of Parcel 2, as shown on the aforesaid plat, and in the eastern line of the property of Hicks in the center line of a ditch, and from said point extending along the center line of said ditch South 29 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds West 615.38 feet to a point in an intersecting ditch; thence along the center line of the last mentioned ditch North 40 degrees 19 minutes West 59.48 feet to a point in the center line of another ditch; thence continuing along the center line of the last mentioned ditch separating the property hereby conveyed from the property of Hicks South 46 degrees 29 minutes 10 seconds West 1136.75 feet to a point in the center line of another ditch separating the property hereby conveyed from the property of Seneca; thence along the center line of the last mentioned ditch separating the property hereby conveyed from the property of Seneca South 55 degrees 38 minutes 50 seconds East 164.22 feet, more or less, to the center line of a ditch separating the property hereby conveyed from the property conveyed by William A. Cooper and wife to Horace W. Kea and wife, by deed dated April 24, 1950, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach (formerly Princess Anne County); thence northeasterly along the center line of the ditch separating the property hereby conveyed from the property heretofore conveyed to Kea as aforesaid North 46 degrees 39 minutes 40 seconds East to a point in the center line of a ditch running North 39 degrees 32 minutes 30 seconds West from the angle shown on the said plat in the Eastern line of the property conveyed by William A. Cooper and wife to Kea as aforesaid; thence South 39 degrees 32 minutes 30 seconds East to a point intersecting a line running South 30 degrees 22 minutes 00 seconds West from the dividing line between Parcels 1 and 2 as shown on the said plat, which dividing line commences at the edge of the aforesaid highway; thence North 30 degrees 22 minutes 00 seconds East continuing along the dividing line between the property hereby conveyed and the property conveyed by William A. Cooper and wife to Kea as aforesaid to the southwest corner of Parcel 1, as shown on the aforesaid plat, and continuing along the Western boundary of said Parcel 1, which is the western boundary of the line of the property conveyed by William A. Cooper and wife, to Kea as aforesaid, North 30 degrees 22 minutes 00 seconds East along a ditch forming the western boundary of said Parcel 1 350 feet to the edge of the highway from Norfolk to Princess Anne Courthouse; thence along the edge of the right of way of said highway North 45 degrees 35 minutes 10 seconds West 157.05 feet to the point of beginning; being the Western part of Parcel No. 2 as shown on said plat. LESS, SAVE AND EXCEPT 0.041 acres acquired by the City of Virginia Beach in Certificate No. 1277 as described in Deed Book 3116 at page 411 and in Order recorded in Deed Book 3245 at page 949. M �,z r City of Virginia Beach r • 0 a op uuq �ro� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING (757) 427.4621 (757) 426.5N1(DIRECTOR) (7$7) 563-1762 FAX September 30, 2004 Briars R. Lucas, Assistant Development Manager Armada Hoflier 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2100 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462 OPERATIONS BUILDING, ROOM 115 2405 COURTHOUSE DRIVE MUNICIPAL CENTER VBLGR41A BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-9019 RE: Certificate of Appropriateness #01-04b — Proposed Retail Development of Courthouse Marketplace — located on property at the northwest comer of Princess Anne Road and Nimmo Parkway Dear Mr. Lucas: In accordance with the Historic Review Board's recommendation, your request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for development of a retail center (please see attachment) has been approved. The retail enter will be located at the intersection of the northwest comer of Princess Anne Road and Nimmo Parkway, on properties with GPINs 1494-64-7111; 149433-6417,1494-63-4587,1494-63-1439 and 149-63-3W7. The approval applies to the following attached exhibits: Building Materials: • The brick will complement the Municipal Center in color, texture and coursing. • The Clapboard will be selectively used throughout the development to breakup large expanses of brick and will be of a material similar in quality as Hardiplank. • The wood, faux wood, reinforced fiberglass panels and EIFS detailing for the building cornices, balusters, window sills/head, dentil moldings, columns and other features will be of similar color and style to the Municipal Center. • Shingles will be architectural roofing shingles as used on the City's Juvenile Detention Building. • Windows will have applied muntins used with patterns similar to the Municipal Center in keeping with the architectural style and design presented in the submitted rendering. LETTER: Brian Lucas September 30, 2004 Building Mounted Signage: • All signs are to be externally lit. No neon shall be visible from the exterior. • Sign letters will be individually fastened to the structure. • Emblems or logos may be used in conjunction with the sign letters. • Signage panels shall be synthetic material to simulate wood. • Paint colors will be from the Benjamin Moore Historic Color palette Monument Entrance Signs: Page 2 Exterior material will be high -density urethane with a polyarmour hardcoat surface, painted off- white to match the retail center buildings. • Paint colors will be from the Benjamin Moore Historic Color palette Light Fixtures: The exterior lighting fixtures from the WLS Lighting Systems, 748 series with a decorative arm and a black finish. Landscape Plan: • 10 additional American Holly trees shall be added to the landscaping in the front promenade. Each outparcel for this site is also subject to review and approval by the Historical Review Board and the Director of Planning fior al future development activity before a building permit can be issued. A Certificate of Appropriateness #t01-04a, dated April 1, 2004, for the demolition of the existing structures looted on the proposed development site of C xthouse Marketplace has already been approved and its conditions met. This COA replaces the Preliminary COA issued May 3, 2004 for this project. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Robert Davis of my staff at 427-8613. Sincerely, Robert J. Scott Planning Director c: Current Planning Ron Frink, DSC K. PLANNING l . Application of VICTORY CHAPEL for the Modification of Condition No. 3 on a Conditional Use Permit re a nonconforming sign approved by City Council on August 12, 2003 at 6644 Indian River Road. (DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE) RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL 2. Application of CSM, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from A-18 Apartment District to R-5S Residential Single Family District at Rosemont Road and Bancroft Drive. (DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL) RECOMMENDATION: INDEFINITE DEFERRAL 3. Application of BAY BREEZE CONDOMINIUMS, INC. for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Summerville Court. (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Virginia Beach City Council will meet in the Chamber at City Hall, Municipal Center, 2401 Courthouse Drive, Tuesday, April 26, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. The following applications will be heard: DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE 1. Victory Chapel Application: Modification of Conditions for a Condi- tional Use Permit approved by City Council on August.12, 2003 at 6644 Indian River Road (GPIN 14560509420000). DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL 2. CSM, L.L.C. Application: Change of Zoning District Classification from A-18 Apartment to R-5S Residential Single Family on the east side of Rosemont Road. (GPIN 14866802900000). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being part of the.Primary Residential Area, suitable for appropriately located suburban residential and non-resi- dential uses consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the zoning change is to develop the site with a dwell- ing. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH 3. Bay Breeze Condominiums, Inc. Application: Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Summerville Court. All interested parties are invited to attend. Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk Copies of the proposed ordinances, resolutions and amendments are on file and may be examined in the Department of Planning. For information call 427-4621. If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assis- tance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303. Hearing impaired, call: Virginia Relay at1-800-828.120. The Planning Commission Agenda is available through the City.'s Inter- net Home Page at httr)://www.vb�ov.com/i)lanning_commission Beacon Apr. 10 & 17, 2005 12964044 -58- Item V-M.7. PLANNING ITEM # 51544 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Maddox, City Council ADOPTED an Ordinance upon application of VICTORY CHAPEL for a Conditional Use Permit: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF VICTORY CHAPEL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHURCH R080331118 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of Victory Chapel for a Conditional Use Permit for a church on property located at 6644 Indian River Road (GPIN 1456050942) DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE The following conditions shall be required I The asphalt area shall be resurfaced and remarked for standard parking spaces, with at least one (1) van accessible handicap spaceproperly marked 2 The exterior of the building shall be painted an off-white color 3 The existing nonconforming sign shall be removed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Any new freestanding sign shall be monument style with a brick base All new signage shall adhere to all applicable requirements within the City Zoning Ordinance 4 A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained from the Building Official's Ojfice prior to occupancy of the church 5 The maximum attendance at the church at any one time shall be 190 6 The Use Permit shall be administratively reviewed on an annual basis 7 Foundation landscaping shall be installed along at least fifty (50) percent of the faVade facing Indian River Road This requirement maybe met with the use of large planters This Ordinance shall be effective in accordance with Section 107 69 of the Zoning Ordinance Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the Twelfth of August, Two Thousand Three August 12, 2003 - 59 - Item V-M.7. PLANNING ITEM # 51544 (Continued) Voting 10-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye Harry E Diezel, Margaret Eure, Reba S McClanan, Richard A Maddox, Mayor Meyera E Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W Schmidt, Ron A Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay None Council Members Abstaining Vice Mayor Louts R Jones Council Members Absent None Vice Mayor Jones VERBALLYABSTAINED on Item M 7 (VICTORY CHAPEL), as his funeral home at 6568Indian River Road is adjacent to the applicant's property August 12, 2003 Gpin 1456-05-0942 rrpG�v`'B�C v�: y �L r CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Victory Chapel — Modification of a Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: April 26, 2005 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Victory Chapel for the Modification of Conditions for a Conditional Use Permit approved by City Council on August 12, 2003. Property is located at 6644 Indian River Road (GPIN 14560509420000). DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE ■ Considerations: A Conditional Use Permit allowing Victory Chapel church to operate at this location was approved by the'City Council on August 12, 2003. That Conditional Use Permit has seven (7) conditions. Condition 3 requires the removal of an existing nonconforming sign located on the site. The free-standing sign on the site exceeds the maximum height allowed by the City Zoning Ordinance. The applicant (the church) has made a number of improvements to the site and building, consistent with the other conditions of the 2003 Use Permit; however, the applicant indicates that the property owner will not allow the sign to be removed (the church is leasing the building situated on the property). The property owner's representative has stated to Staff their position is that the sign is valuable in terms of their ability to market the property in the future. As a result of the refusal of the property owner to allow the removal of the sign, the church is requesting that Condition 3 be reconsidered. Staff concludes that while the church is not the property owner `and not in control of the existing sign, the policy to remove unsightly and nonconforming signs should be consistently and uniformly applied regardless of the proposed use or zoning. Over the last decade, City Council has, with great success, consistently added as a condition to use permits a requirement that nonconforming signs be removed. Staff's goal is to continue to work to eliminate nonconforming signs, particularly those with this degree of nonconformity. ■ Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 8-3 to deny this request. Victory Chapel Page 2of2 ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial. Planning Commission recommends denial. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manager: It . VICTORY CHAPEL Agenda Item # 9 March 9, 2005 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Carolyn A.K. Smith REQUEST: Modification of the Conditional Use Permit approved by the City Council on August 12, 2003 for a church. 0 a ♦ V 0!Qi' p '�1�4a��a r w • r � - 1 •• nth r�� , '' . �� Gpin 1456454942 ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located 6644 Indian River Road. GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 14560509420000 1 - CENTERVILLE 18,576 square feet The Conditional Use Permit permitting the church was SUMMARY OF REQUEST approved by the City Council on August 12, 2003. The Conditional Use Permit has seven (7) conditions: 1. The asphalt area shall be resurfaced and remarked for standard parking spaces, with at least one van accessible handicap space marked. 2. The exterior of the building shall be painted an off-white color. 3. The existing nonconforming sign shall be removed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Any new freestanding sign shall be monument style with a brick base. All new signage shall adhere to all applicable requirements within the City of Virginia Beach Zoning Ordinance. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained from the Building Official's Office prior to occupancy of the church. 5. The maximum attendance at the church at any one time shall be 190. 6. The Use Permit shall be administratively reviewed on an annual basis. 7. Foundation landscaping shall be installed along at least 50 percent the fagade facing Indian River Road. This requirement may be met with the use of large planters. Condition 3 requires the removal of the existing, unsightly, nonconforming sign. The applicant has provided documentation that the owner of the property, who is not associated with the church, refuses to remove the existing sign. As such, the church is requesting that condition 3 be reconsidered. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: The church is currently operating on the premises within a one-story building on the site, approximately 1,800 square feet, surrounded by asphalt pavement for parking. The church, however, is in violation of its use permit since Condition 3 has not been met. SURROUNDING LAND North: . Office, single-family dwellings / B-2 Community Business USE AND ZONING: District, R-10 Residential District South: . Indian River Road, mixed retail / B-2 Community Business District East: . Office, mixed retail / B-2 Community Business District West: . Sandra Lane, bowling alley / B-2 Community Business District NATURAL RESOURCE AND The property is located within the Chesapeake Bay watershed; however, CULTURAL FEATURES: there are no significant environmental resources on the site as it is entirely impervious. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. The Comprehensive Plan designates this parcel as within the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Primary Residential Area. The City's Comprehensive Plan states that the objective of the Primary Residential Area is to protect the predominantly suburban character that is defined, in large measure, by the stable neighborhoods of the Primary Residential Area. The plan also reinforces the suburban characteristics of commercial centers and other non-residential areas that make up part of the Primary Residential Area. Staff recommends denial of this EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION request. The applicant (the church) has demonstrated a willingness to upgrade the property as much as they can, within their control. Unfortunately, the property owner's representative has stated to Staff their position is that the sign is valuable in terms of their ability to market the property in the future. f� In the 2003 Planning Commission report, Staff has noted that the 18,576 square foot site is significantly less than the three -acre site size required by the Zoning Ordinance for free-standing churches; however, as provided for in the Zoning Ordinance (Section 221(e)), the conditions recommended for approval of the application would offset the negative effects inherent in the area deficiency, including a condition that the existing nonconforming sign be removed. It has been a policy of Staff, the Planning Commission and City Council to require removal of nonconforming signs through the rezoning and conditional use permit process, when possible and reasonable. Staff concludes that while the church is not the property owner and not in control of the existing sign, the policy to remove unsightly and nonconforming signs should be applied consistently and uniformly regardless of the proposed use or zoning. Today's Zoning Ordinance would not permit a sign of this size. The reasoning for requiring the removal of nonconforming signs is sound, particularly if one compares aesthetically this portion of Indian River Road to another corridor, such as General Booth Boulevard, that developed largely under the current signage rules. Staff's goal is to continue to work to eliminate nonconforming signs, particularly those with this degree of nonconforming. The request for elimination of Condition 3, therefore, cannot be supported. 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. 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. VI 6644 Indian River Road.. (Lot Size 22,50© SF,1 _0.52- acre) • r,�a. aa• OLD PIN o.-A` o. Jr* rave.. eve O.'r ccv tJN oOIWZ Pfir Brut .5, It ::fDAi. 1�i.V, Ml1J . AD Or• QY£tNtCfs �',3�T dP LJ .` IL1' - .tltllf0 rttiUt. "V J ITY. 8L- `asrfutrJr -44 V a,rIr Nit Y ' 34f' •• ' JFlpO DEfK w a � v 0 t' L JlbX diFtf !!CO PJN , 7A7r# -WW J.f OLO HA! b "P.�E'SENT -R/ltI 1., - dLD Pbt% N m*3fl'1r- OAT 0"XJ, ZL• 00 . .. . A.tft 'tdNYfTfD Td-J.?0 dD' ° .. ' ..• ' CJ1Y "dF !!lI6,GSJJA xYFAtN,` ._ - tJJR61AlJ.f,Z64 Q a H CO VI ;HAPEL len 9 Page 6 Gpin 1456-05-0942 #1 08/12/03 Conditional Use Permit (church) #2 10/02/01 Conditional Use Permit (child care) #3 05/22/01 Conditional Use Permit (child care & 01/27/98 church expansion) Conditional Use Permit (church & school) #4 09/08/98 Conditional Use Permit (mini warehouse) #5 08/22/95 Conditional Use Permit (motor vehicle rentals) #6 08/10/87 Conditional Use Permit (home occupation — beauty salon) #7 03/11/85 Street Closure #8 05/14/84 Change of Zoning (B-2 Community Business District to A-2 Apartment District) Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Denied Granted Granted N H M 3„ §4 NOUV'JiTddV Lim-dd �SIIIVKOIJdMIU3 45 a j t� 12, ) ilia M r c us iujC 107 ;Q.� C t? O a t7�x 0. O �¢ Z 2 H CO 0 Item #9 Victory Chapel Modification of Conditions 6644 Indian River Road District 2 Kempsville March 9, 2005 REGULAR Joseph Strange: The next application is Item #9, Victory Chapel. An ordinance for application of Victory Chapel for the Modification of Conditions for a Conditional Use Permit approved by City Council on August 12, 2003. Property is located at 6644 Indian River Road, District 2, Kempsville. Jason Blay: Good afternoon Madame Chair, ladies and gentleman of the Commission, my name is Jason Blay. I'm the pastor of Victory Chapel Christian Fellowship Church. I appreciate this opportunity today to come before you and speak on this matter. We initially came in August 2003 to apply for our Conditional Use Permit and it was granted with stipulations on that, and we have read those. We understand those and we've come to discuss one in particular today only and that is with the sign. This is Mr. Rob Riddle, he is the realtor that represents the owner of the property, which we are currently leasing the property through Mr. Riddle's real estate company. So, we just wanted to come before the Commission this afternoon and ask for a reconsideration of that one portion of the addendums with the sign. When we first had the initial meeting in August 2003, I was unaware of the economic impact that this sign had on the building. You have to forgive me. I had never done anything like this before so my ignorance was obviously coming out Amen. But I just want to let you know that we have discussed this with the realtor and we've discussed it with him. He has explained that since to me about the signage. When we first saw the building, looked at it, and agreed to rent the property, we looked forward using that sign, and so that is why we're here today to discuss that with you. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Pastor. Rob Riddle: Madame Chairwoman, nice to see you and the rest of the members. Jason well done, you said it better than I could. Dorothy Wood: Would you please introduce yourself Mr. Riddle? Rob Riddle: My name is Robert Riddle with Riddle Associates. I'm a commercial real estate broker and I represent the property owner Mrs. Mansole, who is here if she could stand. Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Nice to have you here with us. Item #9 Victory Chapel Page 2 . Rob Riddle: Thank you, nice to be here, and you're right, this is a short agenda. I hope we can all have lunch today. The signage is an issue. When I was hired a little over two years ago to lease this property, I had a variety of tenants to choose from thankfully. Two of them were actually gun shops that wanted to go there because there had been an existing gun shop for I think about 20 years. Mr. Blay explained what his needs were and we ended up deciding to go with the church, and we've been in that lease now for almost two years. Unbeknown to us until later, and with Jason since he had not done this before, he had come before you and Council and proffered to do certain things without the landlord's knowledge. The landlord would have been and is agreeable to all these items except the modification of the signage. I'm not sure if you're familiar with that street but there are varieties of signage down that street consistent and similar to ours. I certainly don't' thing ours is unique or unusual except it could probably use some paint and it would be nice to see the word "guns" taken off of there. It may be a footnote that if we would have gone with the gun shop, they could have used the existing signage there with no modifications that would have been required. I believe it was grand fathered at that time that a gun shop could have gone in there. But nonetheless, if we do remove this sign and modify it, other than modifications it would become an economic hardship for us trying to release it. We would not be able to get as nearly as much as we do presently. That is our reason for wanting that to be reconsidered. I might also point out there is some interesting signage along this road. For instance, there was B&P at the corner of Indian River Road and Military Highway. Interestingly, they removed the building but they left the sign. The sign is significantly larger than ours. Immediately across the street, Jason actually took some pictures. I think if you can share. Immediately across the street from that is another gas station. I don't know what to describe it except it is like an exploding light show. It's a large, how would you describe it, something that is like a planet with a lot of lights. Jason Blay: They turn it on in the evening. I guess it is just to attract attention. It's kind of like a neon light that shoots out lights and different things. There are some pictures of that and other pictures also. Rob Riddle: I believe if you would reconsider this sign and allow us to paint to this sign, change the facial boards inside the sign, which is significantly less expensive then trying to replace the sign, I think we would have much more favorable results, and certainly being consistent with what's in the neighborhood, and we too, I think as property owners are anxious to see the word "guns" removed from it. Mrs. Mansole herself still lives about two blocks from the property. She drives by there everyday and is part of that community. So, in also sensing no opposition to the signage, I think, I would like for you to take that into consideration. Jason Blay: I do have a copy of the sign company that has given us a proposal on what they are going to do and what we plan on doing to the sign. If you would like to see that, I have a copy of it so you can look at. Dorothy Wood: Maybe you could wait a minute. We have a discussion. Item #9 Victory Chapel Page 3 Jason Blay: Okay. Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Thank you both for coming down today. Would you please answer questions from any of the Commissioners? Rob Riddle: Yes ma'am. Robert Miller: I would like to see sign proposal. Jason Blay: Yes sir. That shows what the new plaquers would look like on both sides, and also the entire frame would be treated and painted solid black color. Dorothy Wood: Yes sir. Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: A question for Mr. Riddle. Rob Riddle: Yes sir. Ronald Ripley: Why would the property be worth less if the sign is not there and other signs are placed and built according to the coding today, monument sign. How you are going to do it? They are very attractive. What quality of that is going to degrade the value? Rob Riddle: Based on my experience from a marketing standpoint, philologically too, with the new sign ordinance and putting signs closer to the ground, I think it interferes with traffic, particularly this corner since it is a corner where there is school back behind there and a lot of traffic. The existing sign up had better visibility from that standpoint. The people we market it to find that much more attractive than the new sign standards that are much lower to the ground, and also I think our traffic interference. Jason Blay: If I could add to that sir. As the traffic is coming out and merging on to Indian River Road, whether they are going right or left with the base of that sign being thin as it is, our sign there for our meeting, that is obviously going to be taken down after today. But with that thin base, it allows easier visibility for folks pulling out, which you might consider a safety hazard for folks if there was a monument sign there, it would be more difficult for them to look around and see oncoming because there is no traffic light there at that intersection. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Miller has another question sir. Robert Miller: Well, I think we just have to get right to it here. This is where we are. The church is welcome. It's a use. And we certainly would like for them to be there if they want to be there. But, our ordinances say, and we have done this consistently that this sign has to change. And that is really the bottom line. The other signs that may be in the area, if they're in violation, we'll have staff look into that to make sure they're not in Item #9 Victory Chapel Page 4 violation, and they could be followed up. This sign needs to be changed. Unfortunately, there is a choice there and that is the choice of the other. I'm not trying to make this harder or better for anybody but that's the way we've done our business consistently and we're going to, in my opinion, will continue to agree with that. Dorothy Wood: Ms. Anderson. Janice Anderson: I would kind of like to back up with what Mr. Miller said. I don't believe it's a non -conforming sign if you make it look better it's going to be conforming or put your name on it. I believe it is still going to be non -conforming. And just because there might be other violations, doesn't mean that we should ignore this one, which is proven to be non -conforming. So, I would agree it would have to conform. Rob Riddle: Okay. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Macali. Bill Macali: There is a provision in the code, which says, that a sign, which advertises goods and is no longer sold on the premises are illegal. That really defers to the face of the sun. Theoretically, they could to ahead and take parts of the signs that advertise something besides the church out. That does not change the fact that it is much too tall and much too large. Even if they could do that then the considerations that Mr. Miller and Ms. Andersons have mentioned would still be applicable. So, probably just by a straight denial of this application, the Planning Commission would be acting in accordance with the code and the custom and the policy, which the City Council has done before. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Din. William Din: Is there any use in this building that allows the sign to be used? Bill Macali: A gun shop. William Din: A gun shop. Bill Macali: I'll read the code provision. Illegal signs included, etc, etc, signs which advertise an activity, business product or service no longer produced or conducted on the premises upon which the sign is referenced. For that reason, if they removed any references to some product guns that are no longer sold on the property, the sign would no longer be in violation of that provision. But, it would still be much, much too tall, under our code, which limits it to twelve feet, and probably quite a bit too large as well, in terms of square footage of this signage. So, therefore even if this sign were not advertising guns, the policy that the Council has set of requiring a Conditional Use Permit applications that non -conforming signs be conformed would still apply but I guess supposedly they could sell guns out of there. They would at least have some kind of Item #9 Victory Chapel Page 5 argument although it's a very strange situation, which you have to think about it a little more. Probably if another gun shop went in there that sign would be alright. William Din: In other words, if there were any other Conditional Use in this building, that sign would still have to come down? Bill Macali: Sure. If Council concluded that as a condition of the Use Permit and they always do. William Din: Are there any by -right uses that allow the use of the sign? Bill Macali: I guess just the church. The church could have the sign that says Victory Chapel all that kind of thing but again. I'm sorry. The church is a Conditional not of right. I guess if guns were sold on the premises that particular provision I read would not be implicated. The confusing thing is that we do distinguish between the face of a sign and the structure aspects of the sign. A sign face can go in and out. It could be swept in and out of the structure but here the problem is that the structure itself is much, much to big. William Din: I think that is my point here. The sign structure itself is what is out of ordinance here. Any kind of use at all which you would allow there the sign would still have to be modified. Bill Macali: Let me put it this way. If there was a gun shop and the gun shop had changed to some other permitted principle use say a shoe store. They could have slid out, and I guess that is not a structural aspect of the sign. I'm not really sure. Assuming that where it says guns is just like a plastic face in a structural frame, they could slip out guns and put in shoes, and that would have been legal. But, because the church is a Conditional Use and needing a Conditional Use Permit, and because the City Council does in all instances, almost require that non -conforming signs be replaced by conforming signs as a condition of the Use Permit that is what happened. But when a business having a non -conforming sign is replaced by another business which does not meet Council approval so long as the sign is not structurally altered or enlarged or something but instead you may slip a "Shell" out and put "Texaco" in, something like that is permitted. William Din: I think that is what we need you to understand. It's not that we are against the church moving in there it is the sign by the Conditional Use side of it, you have been removing non -conforming signs that result so that we can allow this use to occur. Rob Riddle: So for clarification purposes, if we put a shoe store in we can change the word from "guns" to "shoe"? Bill Macali: No, because you're in violation of the condition right now. The Council imposed a condition, which was not complied with. Item #9 Victory Chapel Page 6 Rod Riddle: Thank you for clarifying that. Dorothy Wood: They mentioned they liked the sign because of the height and traffic and impeding the traffic with a lower sign. I guess there is someway we can work with it so it wouldn't impede traffic? Bill Macali: There is no requirement that the sign has to go up in that exact same location. If we put in a conforming sign there is a required setback and as everybody on Planning Commission knows, Council knows the signs, which the City allows right now are whole great big improvement. We haven't really had any kind of complaints about any kind of traffic visibility problems. I think there is a seven -foot setback, some required setback from the right-of-way of course from the pavement it's even more. So, probably that is not a real problem here. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Just a minute Mr. Waller. John Waller: I'm not quite clear of what so said about it. If he were to rent that building to a shoe store, if he doesn't change the use of it, and he doesn't even have to come and ask for a change of zoning. Bill Macali: If the gun shop had stopped and within a certain period of time another use, which was not a conditional use. Did not require a Use Permit went in there. John Waller: Like a shoe store? Bill Macali: Let's assume a shoe store. John Waller: Let's just assume that. Bill Macali: Then that sign is legally non -conforming. And, so on as long as it is not structurally altered, enlarged, moved or something like that, the face of the sign can be changed. Now when I say the face of that sign, I'm pointing to the part that says guns. I'm assuming that is a non-structural aspect of that sign. Generally, there would be a metal frame with that shape, and the "guns" is just on a plastic plate that slides in and slides out. If that is the case and we're assuming that it is, then that sign could have changed the name of the business. It could have said Joe's Hamburgers or Teddy's Shoes, whatever, and it would be legal so long as the alteration is non-structural. But, why we're here is because City Council has a policy of requiring non -conforming signs to be replaced with conforming signs whenever it grants a Conditional Use Permit for a new use in a business. John Waller: Would a shoe store be a Conditional Use? Bill Macali: No. I don't think so. Item #9 Victory Chapel Page 7 John Waller: If he wanted to rent it to a shoe store he could put up "big shoes, little shoes, men shoes", like the rest of it. Kathy Katsias: It's too late. John Waller: I'm just trying to understand. Bill Macali: If the church if not been involved in this and if the gun shop had closed a new shoe store or some other permitted use in the B-2 District had gone in there, yes, the sign would not have to come down. Correct. It happens a lot. John Waller: That is why he doesn't want to take it down because the church might go into business and he is going to rent it to a shoe store. And the store wants a big sign. Is that what he is saying? Bill Macali: No. When the church got the Use Permit the Use Permit required the sign to be conformed, and right now it is in violation of the Use Permit. John Waller: I'm just trying to understand why he doesn't want to take the sign down. He doesn't want to take it down because if the church goes out of business he is going to rent it to somebody else. This somebody else might like the sign. Is that right? Rob Riddle: Yes. If I may offer too, it was unbeknown to the property owner that they would have to take down the sign. Mr. Blay, who has not done this before agreed to these conditions without our knowledge. We found that subsequent when we learned from him that he agreed to these proffers. And, we were not given the opportunity to say, "no, we can't agree to that" because they financial, economic impact that sign has on that piece of property in our opinion, particularly when most of our competition across the street and down the street has similar signs. And, that was our objection. And, we did turn down a gun shop just as recently as this Monday, I had a gun shop calling me and asking me if that lease had expired yet because they had wanted to go in there. But we had other uses too not just the gun shop. We had two gun shops that wanted to go there two years ago because it had been a gun shop for so long. Probably to this day, people still come and knock on doors trying to see if they could have their guns repaired there. That happened while I was leasing it for about 30 days. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Macali, they could put a gun shop there. That is the only thing they can put there to keep the sign. Is that correct? Bill Macali: I think it is too late because the church has gone in there and the conditional was imposed. Dorothy Wood: He didn't realize when you came to Planning Commission and also to City Council. Item #9 Victory Chapel Page 8 Kathy Katsias: The landlord signed it. Ronald Ripley: The owner signs the application as well as the applicant. The owner chose not to be present during the hearing. That was the owner's choice. He or she should have been here, and if they had objection they should have voiced it at that point. Rob Riddle: Well, my owner is elderly. Maybe the owner needs to have that opportunity to sign off for something if it is going to have an economic impact on it. Kathy Katsias: She did. Rob Riddle: No. It was after the fact. She signed that, which gave him the right to come before you to make the application. She did not give her permission to agree to whatever the terms the tenant desires on that property, particularly the short term lease. And, I'm not a lawyer certainly but maybe that is something that we need to refer to but is it right that a tenant on a short-term lease can take away the property owner's rights? I don't know the answer to that but it is profound perhaps. Dorothy Wood: It sounds like a legal problem to me. Rob Riddle: Absolutely. That may require our next steps. Robert Miller: I'm ready to make a motion. Dorothy Wood: Yes sir. Robert Miller: I'm sorry but my mind is still top lined. I make a motion that we deny the request. Janice Anderson: I'll second it. Dorothy Wood: I'm really sorry this happens. I wish there was some other way because I know that when you came you certainly came in the very best of intentions. It's unfortunate that when you did come that you perhaps you can work it out. Joseph Strange: I'll like to make a comment that we're not the final arbitrary. I like the site personally because being a property owner myself. We're not the final judge. Rob Riddle: Thank you very much. Thank you for your time and consideration. Eugene Crabtree: I just got one comment. Mr. Macali, since the owner did not have an opportunity to make a comment on this when City Council does the ruling a couple of years ago it was not to her knowledge, is there a legal ramification to that now since someone else did it not in her name? Item #9 Victory Chapel Page 9 Bill Macali: I think probably the owner did have the opportunity if the owner had been keeping up the application. Eugene Crabtree: But this would be something that would have to be straightened out from a legal standpoint. Bill Macali: As far as the City is concerned, the condition is binding. And, if the owner wants to take some kind of legal action against the tenant for doing that that's something that the City is not going to be involved in of course but, we do feel like the application has been presumably properly advertised, and gone through the process properly. We feel that condition is absolutely valid. Rob Riddle: Rob, your client wanted to say something. Katrina Jackson: She just wanted to say that she had a stroke, I think. Dorothy Wood: I'm sorry but you can't talk from back there. Come up here and introduce yourself. I'm sorry. Katrina Jackson: My name is Katrina Jackson. I'm Gloria Mansole's daughter, the owner of the property. She wasn't able to look over any of the information so we had no idea that there would ever be an issue with the sign. She had a stroke in January 2003, a massive stroke. So, I'm not sure exactly when all the paperwork was signed. Things were confusing but if we had any idea anybody would be wanting us to take down the sign, we wouldn't have agreed to anything. So, I don't know if you all can take that into account that she wasn't able to read it nor actually physically sign the piece of paper. I don't know if that would help you all change your decision because we would like to keep the sign exactly the way it is. As you can see there was a smaller sign there. We actually had to take that out because it does obstruct traffic when all the kids are leaving that school. As a matter of fact, there is a sheriff that has to stay on that road everyday during the school year because traffic is so bad. Any type of signage in front of that they've had nothing but problems with. Nothing. Because it is so elevated the way it is now, all vehicles can be seen any part of the intersection there is. I just wanted to let you all know that. They're having a lot of problems there, which is why that small sign is now empty. Okay. Thank you so much for your time. Rob Riddle: If I may, add one more piece of advice? I think it would be prudent if a tenant or someone makes proffers that the property owner be notified, certainly by certified mail or some other method. Robert Miller: You're involved in the leasing right? Rob Riddle: Yes sir. Item #9 Victory Chapel Page 10 Robert Miller: Okay. Why don't you pay attention to how your lease is being done and what your Lessee is proposing to do. I think that is what needs to be done here. We have ordinances that are well published and they're not something. This is not a brand new, first time situation so if you pay attention to that end of it, I think you'll find both ends of this being covered. Rob Riddle: Well, I will certainly look into that. Thank you for the advice. Thank you. Dorothy Wood: A motion by Mr. Miller, seconded by Ms. Anderson. AYE 8 NAY 3 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE NAY DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE NAY WALLER AYE WOOD NAY Ed Weeden: By a vote of 8-3 the application of Victory Chapel has been denied. Zoning Change from A-18 to R5-S CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: CSM, L.L.C. — Change of Zoning District Classification MEETING DATE: April 26, 2005 ■ Background: An Ordinance upon Application of CSM, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from A-18 Apartment District to R-5S Residential Single Family District on property located on the east side of Rosemont Road, 295 feet south of Bancroft Drive (GPIN 14866502900000). The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as being part of the Primary Residential Area, suitable for appropriately located suburban residential and non-residential uses consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the zoning change is to develop the site with a dwelling. DISTRICT 3 — ROSE HALL ■ Considerations: The applicant requests that the City Council indefinitely defer this application. Staff is agreeable to this request. The applicant proposes to rezone the existing lot from A-18 Apartment District to R-5S Residential Single -Family District to allow the construction of one single- family dwelling. The lot is substandard in area and lot width for both the existing A-18 District zoning as well as the proposed R-5S District zoning. The neighborhood surrounding the property is a mixture of duplexes and single-family homes. The subject lot, as well as the lots in the surrounding area, was platted at 25 feet wide in 1925. Several of the lots have since been combined; however, the subject site still exists as originally platted. ■ Recommendations: Planning Department staff recommended approval of the request. The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 8-3 to deny this request. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Location Map CSM, L.L.C. Page 2 of 2 Recommended Action: Indefinite deferral. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen City Manager: �-' CSM, LLC Agenda Item # 12 April 13, 2005 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Barbara Duke REQUEST: Change of Zoning District Classification from A- 18 Apartment District to R-5S Residential Single -Family District. ADDRESS / DESCRIPTION: Property located on the east side of Rosemont Road, 295 feet south of Bancroft Avenue GPIN: COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 1486-65-0290 3 — ROSE HALL 2,118 square feet The applicant proposes to rezone the existing lot from A-18 SUMMARY OF REQUEST Apartment District to R-5S Residential Single -Family District to allow the construction of one single-family dwelling. The lot is substandard in lot area and lot width for both the existing A-18 District zoning as well as the proposed R- 5S District zoning. The neighborhood surrounding the property is a mixture of duplexes and single-family homes. The subject lot, as well as the lots in the surrounding area, was platted at 25 feet wide in 1925. Several of the lots have since been combined; however, the subject site still exists as originally platted. LAND USE AND ZONING INFORMATION EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped vacant site SURROUNDING LAND North: USE AND ZONING: South: East: West: NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: • Office / 0-2 Office District • Single-family home / A-18 Apartment District • Single-family homes / R-5S Residential District • Duplex home / A-18 Apartment District There are some scattered mature trees on the site that will require removal to construct a building on the site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES The requested rezoning will have no measurable impact on City services. MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN Rosemont Road is shown with an ultimate width of between 100 feet and 165 feet for the section between Holland Road and 1-264 on the Master Transportation Plan. The existing width along the frontage of the subject site is 70 feet. There is no CIP Project or funding identified for this road widening; however, it has been included in the Long -Range Regional Plan produced by the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as "Primary COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 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 uses, residential and non-residential, located in and around neighborhoods should serve as a guide when considering future development. Staff recommends approval of this EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION request with no proffers attached. The lot is very small, measuring only 2,118 square feet in area and 25 feet in width. This existing substandard lot is below the minimum requirements for all residential and apartment zoning categories in the zoning ordinance. Section 107(i) of the zoning ordinance states that any "petition for which the parcel involved does not meet the minimum area or dimensional requirements shall be processed nevertheless, but shall not be approved by council unless it finds that either special circumstances pertinent to the site or special conditions attached to the petition... satisfactorily offset the negative effects inherent in the area or dimensional deficiency." Under the current A-18 Apartment District zoning, the applicant could develop a duplex on this lot, but not a single-family home. The requested rezoning to R-5S Residential District will allow the development of one single-family home which is a more reasonable option than a duplex dwelling for this small site. The proposal, therefore, is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area. 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. 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. ROSEA40N ' ROAD (50' R., W) (M a 7, Pc. 70) IV TEX. �----- PIA T=295' OMI --y- :-25.AQ' . o pfiWmy . CLEAR OF CI EAR OF RE TN CCINCR£T£ ' Olt .i 1D' 12.50 p A LOT-14 b LDT-18 726 w�A+Yl CONC. CURB 2-STY. OFR. � w VINYL l MaUNG 7r" {FOOD FENCE FRAW OA8" INSIDE OF It 2-SrORY, PROPOSED � 48' CFWIN LINK FENCE �... 0.9V INSIDE OF r p CONC. 134' L� GEAR OF R +� BLKM-T4 25 iy/ry%rj N oMo��y LOr-42' r LDT-43 LOT-44 W CMN LINK FENCE 0.78' INSIDE OF �- 2 3 4 5 6 Zoning Change from A-18 to R5-S 10/24/77 REZ A-18 Apartment to 0-2 Office 12/03/96 REZ A-18 Apartment to R-5S Residential 04/23/96 REZ A-18 Apartment to R-5S Residential 01/09/96 REZ A-18 Apartment to R-5S Residential 11/02/87 REZ A-18 Apartment to 0-2 Office 06/08/81 CUP gas and car wash Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Granted Ill Fq cl IS P'NORSG% z�MP1a11 11m oar ( sum EMU HI_ 1111'° MCA i! S. SACOM s � � i t �, ( � � ;- 9oi�EE m - m ss .E 9 4i6 �Who � ��`• Iloll m�aom��.- m allHIMISIM Mill JAZIMISM, Hs I HIS fill-11 -i I G C 1 ap Lei Is to T rf-Uyl�� .v, - +o y R a 'gem " o M1. Eve" 1 a`t Ace .4 3 118,15 H4 M m a sx > m>i2 Mod Ql1MEW i L u m3 ! � .,tea I ty c ca n•� mC w? G v i a ,� CV ; �_a Big_ c1 10 . rdw Item #12 CSM, L.L.C. Change of Zoning District Classification East side of Rosemont Road District 3 Rose Hall April 13, 2005 REGULAR Joseph Strange: The next item is Item #12, CSM, L.L.C. This is for an Ordinance upon Application of CSM, L.L.C. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from A-18 Apartment District to R-5S Residential Single Family District on property located on the east side of Rosemont Road, 295 feet south of Bancroft Drive, District 3, Rose Hall. Dorothy Wood: I hope you don't mind being moved up Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: No, I don't mind at all. Thank you very much. For the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon. I'm a Virginia Beach attorney representing the applicant. Let me start by saying that this is clearly not a situation that any of us would have a desire to create or would try to create today. However, we need to keep in mind what our tasks are where we are dealing here with a 25-foot platted legal lot. It was created going on a century ago. I guess about 80 something years ago. This property is zoned A-18. That is it can be developed as multi family residential. A duplex is the least dense use that this property as it is zoned can be developed. This is a down zoning. Captain Keeley, if you're watching, it is a down zoning. The maximum with this rezoning that you can put on this property is one single family home as opposed to two single-family homes. Frankly, this is something that should have probably been done, if it had been brought to anyone's attention with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. This lot, I checked it while we've been waiting. I had my title examiner do a quick check. At least since 1961, this lot has been separate and apart from the lots on either side of it. Not that it really matters but in case anyone had any inquiry along those lines, it is at least since 1961, if not prior to that time, it's been separate and apart from the lot. To the south or the lot to the north. To the north is an office building, a parking lot to the south is a building that I would assume to be a duplex or a triplex or a non -conforming single-family, since it is also zoned multi family residential. The house to the south is just slightly over 14 feet from the property line that it shares with this lot. With the proposal that would have to get a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals, if it is approved, as we are seeking it from the Board of Zoning Appeals, there would be a separation of over 17 feet. The Board of Zoning Appeals may well say that our setback needs to be a little bit more, but as far as the distance between the existing dwelling and this dwelling, it is more than exist, in a lot of areas in a lot of neighborhoods. And, to deny this property owner the right to develop the property as a single family using the R-5S, which is the most appropriate zoning available would be denying him a Item #12 CSM, L.L.C. Page 2 more reasonable use of the property or telling him to build two units there. I don't think that anyone would argue that this makes more sense. I do have a survey that shows that this is between the proposed building and the existing building to the south, and also a rendering of the elevation showing what the house would look like. We also create the fact that we are putting a garage here, and we will certainly be designing it, I think the driveway will be slightly modified. We will certainly have a situation where one can turn a vehicle around on the site, and go out rather than back out. You can go out forward as opposed to backing out into Rosemont Road. There are other residential dwellings that abut Rosemont Road as we are well aware. Again, this is one of those situations where it is one of those duties we have to do. This is the best that can occur with this piece of property short of taking the property. If someone wants to do that that is someone else's decision. Not this body's decision. Staff has recommended approval. I think it is the only prudent and reasonable course no matter how many may not think it is a great idea to have a house there. It's the only thing that makes sense there. It's adjacent to R-5S as well behind it. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Dorothy Wood: Let's start down. Do you have any questions Ms. Katsias? Kathy Katsias: I'm just glad that you addressed the parking. Eddie Bourdon: Practically speaking, we are going to have to pave all the way to the north with an area where you can back out of the garage, and then go out. That is what we'll have to do. John Waller: You have to back out into Rosemont right? Eddie Bourdon: No. Back out on site. You have to come out of the garage backing out in this direction and then coming out. So, we're going to have to widen the driveway on each side to create a turning space so you can turn on the site. You certainly are going to make every effort to do that anyway. That is what we are going to have to try and do. John Waller: When you back out of the garage over to the side of the property line, there isn't enough space Eddie. You can't do it. Eddie Bourdon: It all depends on what you're driving Mr. Waller. John Waller: You can't do it in a H-2 Eddie Bourdon: I can't do it in my wife's vehicle but I guarantee I can do it in a number of vehicles that are on the market today. You couldn't do it in the H-2. You're right about that. Item #12 CSM, L.L.C. Page 3 Dorothy Wood: Mr. Bourdon, now the way it is he could only go five feet. Is that correct? Eddie Bourdon: Anyway you cut it, whether it's the present zoning or the change of zoning, you have to get a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The question is what is the minimum relief necessary? I think the law is real clear that in this case you have a taking. You have to grant some relief and the problem that you have is that if we go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a duplex, it's going to make the situation even worse. How do you create enough parking on this site? It's basically zoned in a way that there is no reasonable use of the property as it is zoned. It's a taking as it is. That is why the zoning change is to allow R-5S, which will at least permit it to be developed. When you start to give variances but at least there is an ability to do so instead of taking. You can't deny a reasonable use of the property. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Mr. Knight and then Mr. Crabtree. Barry Knight: I'll defer to Mr. Crabtree. Eugene Crabtree: Let's go back to the picture that shows the existing building beside it. The one that shows a vehicle parked beside it. That one. As narrow as this lot is and the way that vehicle is, you say there is only 17 feet between the two buildings if you build it. That vehicle is probably a good 8-9 wide. That puts it real close to the proposed building does it not? The way that vehicle is parked in that driveway exists there? Eddie Bourdon: I do not know Mr. Crabtree the distance between the vehicle and the building as it is parked here. I would agree with you that the width of that particular vehicle is probably about 8 feet wide. So if you assume that the vehicle is three feet off the building or four feet off the building then you're talking about 1I- 12 feet off the building. There is another foot or two before you get to the lot that is what we will be seeking with the Board of Zoning Appeals, the house would then be another three feet from there. The house would probably be, and I'll guess and that picture and its shadowy. It's hard to tell but I would say five feet from that vehicle. Eugene Crabtree: Another question. If the existing homeowner of the house that exists there were to decide to put a fence along his property line and the proposed building goes up, how are you even going to get a wheel barrel down beside that house into the backyard? You can't get any trashcans, you can't even get wheel barrel through there, if a fence were to be put up. Eddie Bourdon: I'm trying to think to about my trashcans. Eugene Crabtree: They are about four feet wide. The city trashcan is about four feet wide. Item #12 CSM, L.L.C. Page 4 Eddie Bourdon: The extent to which a variance is granted in terms of minimal relief necessary from the Board of Zoning Appeals whether they're grant a three feet or a four feet at all remains to be determined. It may not be three feet wide. This body is not approving the setback. Eugene Crabtree: I realize that. Eddie Bourdon: There are in the city a number of situations where we've got homes that are separated from each other by 6-8 feet. That's again, not optimal. What we certainly would hope to have happen is that the property owners adjoin each other would cooperate in making sure there is adequate access between the buildings or between the units. The Board of Zoning Appeals would the determination as to whether the appropriate setback is five on that side or four feet. Whatever. What this is doing is telling you that what we're proposing to do is to change the zoning so it's a single-family residential zoning as opposed to a multi -family or duplex zoning. Eugene Crabtree: I rather see one there instead of two because even with the vehicular traffic it makes it better. Eddie Bourdon: I don't disagree with you. There is no debating. I wouldn't begin to debate you that it is awful there because it is. There are no two ways about it. Dorothy Wood: Are there other comments? Ms. Anderson and then Ms. Katsias. Janice Anderson: If anybody has any other questions, I just have comments. Kathy Katsias: I would assume they would be moving the fire hydrant. Eddie Bourdon: They're going to have to move that. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. We appreciate it. Janice Anderson: Okay. I think Mr. Bourdon gives a good presentation but I just can't support this application. I don't believe that by denying it I'm taking anybody's property. This gentleman purchased this property or acquired the property with the current zoning on it. So, I'm not doing anything. I don't believe in taking the purchased with this present zoning on it so with the qualifications he can do with the property or not do with the property. That's not really our position. I think just being realistic and full of common sense trying to squeeze in a single- family home down that, what it looked like it was an alleyway when we pulled up on it. I thought it was like a street. It's not even the width of a street. As I don't think it is appropriate and I don't think it is going to add anything to the surrounding area or the neighborhood around. I think that is what we need to look at. If its compatible to the zoning, it would be compatible to the neighborhood and surrounding neighborhood in keep up the values. I don't believe putting this Item #12 CSM, L.L.C. Page 5 structure there is going to do it. They have to go through more hoops to have the theory well, it is better to have one then two. I don't think that is always a smart philosophy to follow. Some things are bad, and you're going to go with it because there is something that could be worse? I'm just not supportive of the zoning change. I believe there are other things they could proceed with on the property that they own but that is not our place. I'm not in support of the changing of the zoning. It's just a little spot zoning if we really want to get into it. I'm just doing this little area to a R-5 to accommodate this situation. So, I would be in favor of denial of the change. Dorothy Wood: Is that in the form of a motion ma'am? Janice Anderson: Yes. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Do I hear a second to Ms. Anderson's motion? John Waller: I'll second it. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. We're open to other discussion. Mr. Din then Mr. Miller and then Mr. Ripley. William Din: I also am not in favor of making any kind of change on this piece of property. To me, it doesn't make any sense to build anything on this lot. If I had my choice of approving a zone change or not approving a zone change, I would go with not approving the zone change. Because approving the zone change in this situation would sort of giving it an approval in my opinion that we would allow a single unit being built on this site. I'm basically agreeing with Ms. Anderson in this situation from a land use perspective. It doesn't make any sense to build whether it's a duplex or a single-family in this situation. So, I would prefer to deny the zoning change here as my disapproval of building anything on this site. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. William Din: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Either Mr. Miller or Mr. Ripley first, whichever. Robert Miller: I'm going to speak in the opposite direction. I think the owner has a right to go to BZA with the existing zoning and ask for a variance. It would be a similar hardship. The only difference would be that it would be for a two unit building versus a one unit building. As far as other zoning adjacent in looking at R- 5S right behind it and I think that is compatible to the extent it can be. Unfortunately, lots like this whether you like it or not exist not only in this area but other parts of the city. We have had to deal with them before, and BZA has dealt with side yard with three feet before. I know for a fact they have. They dealt with units, if I remember were maybe as narrow as fourteen feet. I don't think that is Item #12 CSM, L.L.C. Page 6 something that is the best solution every time. It would be great if this was combined with another piece of land but the fact is that this person can go to BZA right now, with the existing zoning with two units on there, which seems absolutely the wrong direction. I don't think we grant approval and require BZA to approve anything whether it would be the existing zoning going to them or the change of zoning. So, I'm going to be in favor of changing the zoning. Dorothy Wood: I think Mr. Miller if it went to BZA with the present zoning, the BZA would have to give them a much larger variance. Is that correct? Robert Miller: They would have to get a variance period. I think a variance is a variance. I don't know how BZA looks at it but I would assume with my experience with them they would look at it as a variance. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Mr. Ripley. Ronald Ripley: Could you put the photograph up again please? When we went out there, I first was thinking, as Jan made a motion, I was thinking as I was looking at it that it could cause a real hardship to the property on the right of that photograph. But I didn't realize that the distance was not three feet it was 17 feet between the property lines, and that makes a difference in my thinking because I think I don't like the idea of seeing such a small residence in there. On the other hand, I think it's not going to be incompatible with the area. It is going to be and I don't think you can deny a reasonable use of the property. I think, as Mr. Miller points out, it's an excellent point. There is nothing stopping any applicant or any owner of the property to ask for a variance no matter what your zoning is, and there are variances that are granted in many, many cases. So, having a single family home in here. At first, I looked at this and had mixed feelings on this but after thinking about it and looking at it from another point of view, I think it makes sense to approve this, so I will be voting against denial. Dorothy Wood: Is there anyone else? Mr. Knight please? Barry Knight: I see what Mr. Miller says on the R-5 being behind the 25 width lot behind it but it is going to be backing off on to a little secondary street where it possibly could pull in and back out. That's an absolute different case on Rosemont Road. It is going to have a real hardship pulling back out, like Mr. Waller said, turning a suburban around in there or a van or some other vehicle, that's not going to be cars either. I'm going to have to go along with the denial. I'm going to vote for denial because like Mr. Din says, I think it does send a little bit of a message to BZA if we approve this. I'm not willing to stamp my name on this and see all the residents to know that I had some form of approval process in this. I don't think that it is right for this piece of property so obviously I'll be supporting the denial. Dorothy Wood: Ms. Katsias. Item #12 CSM, L.L.C. Page 7 Kathy Katsias: I concur with my fellow commissioners. I just cannot approve this zoning whether it is single-family or duplex. I think it is too narrow a lot and my concern is Rosemont Road, and turning a suburban around and backing out. So, I'm in favor of the denial. Dorothy Wood: Is there anyone else? I'm sorry Mr. Waller. John Waller: I got a question and maybe Bob you can answer this. For a duplex lot, to get it through site plan, don't you have to have four automobiles for parking? Robert Miller: I don't think it is four. Faith Christie: Two per unit. John Waller: Two? Robert Miller: It's four like you said. John Waller: Yeah. Four cars. I don't believe you can get four cars on that site if there wasn't anything there, not suburbans anyway. Dorothy Wood: Rather than talk about suburbans, I guess we talk about pick up trucks. Have I missed anyone who has anything to say? We're voting to deny? AYE 8 NAY 3 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY NAY KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER NAY RIPLEY NAY STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 8-3, the application of CSM, L.L.C. has been denied. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Thank you Mr. Bourdon. -31- Item V-L.1. PLANNING ITEM # 52522 Upon motion by Vice Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Reeve, City Council ADOPTED Ordinance upon application of BAY BREEZE CONDOMINIUMS for discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Summerville Court at Carver Avenue re development of condominiums: Ordinance upon Application ofBay Breeze Condominiums, Inc. for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment ofa portion of Summerville Court beginning at a point 270 feet north of its intersection with Carver Avenue and running 26.99 feet in a northerly direction. DISTRICT 6 — BEACH The following conditions shall be required. - The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The applicant shall dedicate certain right-of-way to the City for a turn space at the new terminus of Summerville Court. The net area ofright-of-way being closed and vacated by the City, in excess of the area of right-of-way being dedicated to the City by the applicant, will be purchased from the City. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the `Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures, " approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant is required to construct a turn space at the new terminus of Summerville Court at no cost to the City of Virginia Beach. A construction plan for the turn space must be approved and bonded through the Development Services Center of the Planning Department prior to recordation of the street closure plat. The construction plan shall include a row of evergreen shrubs (3 to 4 feet in height) to be planted along the northern and western edge of the turn space to provide a screen for the proposed condominiums. 3. The applicant is required to resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoiningparcels. Theplat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 4. The applicant is required to verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure and an easement satisfactory to the utility company must be provided. April 27, 2004 -32- Item V-L.1. PLANNING ITEM # 52522 (Continued) 5. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval (April 26, 2005) by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way, this approval shall be considered null and void Voting: I 1-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Harry E. Diezel, Margaret L. Eure, Vice Mayor Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Richard A. Maddox, MayorMeyera E. Oberndorf, Jim Reeve, Peter W. Schmidt, Ron A. Villanueva, Rosemary Wilson and James L. Wood Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: None April 27, 2004 "`' Supplemental In ation Zoninq History Mn,h if 0 • • � { NMI II lL•��r �- 005 RMm ■ i '�� •7Y11/ _ _ Street Closure # I DATE REQUEST ACTION 1 11/28/88 Zoning Change (Al2 to B2) Withdrawn 1 11/28/88 Use Permit (Carwash) Withdrawn 2 04/09/91 Non Conforming Use Granted 3 07/07/92 Expansion of a Non Conforming Use Granted 4 01/11/94 Zoning Change (A-12 to R-20)... Granted 5 06/28/94 Conditional Use Permit (Group Home) Withdrawn 6 05/23/95 Zoning Change (A-12 to R-5S) Granted 7 02/10/98 Zoning Change (A-12 to R-5S) Granted BAY BREEZE CON D"NIUMS, INC. Agenda Item .1 Page,. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM ITEM: Bay Breeze Condominiums, Inc. — Street Closure MEETING DATE: April 26, 2005 ■ Background: Application for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Summerville Court beginning at a point 250 feet north of its intersection with Carver Avenue and running 46.99 feet in a northerly direction. ■ Considerations: This item was approved by City Council on April 27, 2004 with the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney's Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The applicant shall dedicate certain right-of- way to the City for a turn space at the new terminus of Summerville Court. The net area of right-of-way being closed and vacated by the City, in excess of the area of right-of-way being dedicated to the City by the applicant, will be purchased from the City. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures." 2. The applicant is required to construct a turn space at the new terminus of Summerville Court at no cost to the City of Virginia Beach. A construction plan for the turn space must be approved and bonded through the Development Services Center of the Planning Department prior to recordation of the street closure plat. The construction plan shall include a row of evergreen shrubs (3 to 4 feet in height) to be planted along the northern and western edge of the turn space to provide a screen for the proposed condominiums. 3. The applicant is required to resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 4. The applicant is required to verify that no private utilities exist within the right- of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure and an easement satisfactory to the utility company must be provided. 5. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contigent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not Bay Breeze Condominiums Page 2of2 approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. The applicant is requesting an extension of the time period specified in Condition #5 above to record the street closure plat. The construction plan for the turn space is currently under review in the Development Services Center. ■ Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the extension for a period of 90 days, to expire on July 24, 2005. ■ Attachments: Staff Review Disclosure Statement Planning Commission Minutes Ordinance Location Map Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmen� City Managers:�--r)c.--Mvn' ORDINANCE NO. 2 AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE DATE FOR 3 SATISFYING CONDITIONS IN THE MATTER OF 4 THE CLOSING, VACATING AND 5 DISCONTINUING OF A PORTION OF 6 SUMMERVILLE COURT, UPON THE 7 APPLICATION OF BAY BREEZE 8 CONDOMINIUMS, INC. 9 WHEREAS, on April 27, 2004, the Council of the City of Virginia Beach acted upon the 10 application of the Bay Breeze Condominiums, Inc. for the closure of portion of Summerville Court; 11 WHEREAS, on April 27, 2004 the Council adopted an Ordinance to close the aforesaid 12 street, subject to certain conditions being met on or before April 26, 2005; and 13 WHEREAS, on April 5, 2005, the applicant requested that they be granted an extension of 14 time to satisfy the conditions attached to the aforesaid street closure. 15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 16 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 17 That the date for meeting conditions of closure as stated in the Ordinance adopted on Apri 1 18 27, 2004, upon application of the Bay Breeze Condominiums, Inc., is extended to July 26, 2005. 19 GPIN:1455-68-3796-0000 20 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of 21 2005. 22 CA-9524 23 H:\OfD\REAL ESTATE\Street Closure\Bay Breeze ca9524.ext.ord.doc 24 Date:4/18/05 25 R1 26 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: 27 28 Planning Department 29 APPROVED ATOIEGDAL SUFFICIENCY: 30 Utk_" 31 City Attorney's Office CARVER A VENUE (FORMERLY UNNAMED STREET) (30' RI W) (Mg. 18, PG. 39) NOTE THIS Pt T WAS PREPARED W1 THOU THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT AND MAY NOT SHOW ANY/ALL EASEMENTS OR RESTRICTIONS THA T MA Y AFFECT SAID PROPERTY AS SHOWN. CROSSHATCHED AREA REPRESEN , o AREA OF SUMMERWLLE COURT TO BE CLOSED BY THE wRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL AREA=810 SF. OR 0.019 ACRE SHADED AREA REPRESENTS AREA TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA FOR R/W PURPOSES AREA=398 SF. OR 0.009 ACRE EXHIBIT "A" EXHIBIT A' I PLA T SHOWING PORT/ON OF SUMMERWLE COURT TO BE CLOSED BY THE g g WGINIA BEACH CITY c N COUNCIL N WRGINIA BEACH, W9RGINIA BL OCK 1 (M. B. 18, PG. 39) LOT 8 PT. GPIN.• 2417-56-3442 PROPOSED R/W LIVE LOT 7 3 PT. GPIN.• 2417-56-3442 O O N O O PORTION OF SUMMER14LLE COURT TO BE CLOSED BY THE 19RGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL 3 ROOD &SMITH. P.C. %y LAND SURVEYORS 0 0 N 74'49'51 " 30.15' 30.15' S 74'49'51 " BLOCK 2 (A.f. B. 18, PG. 39) LOT 8 GPIN.• 2417-56-1434 N 7449151' W AREA TO BE DEDICA TED TO THE CITY o`:::: :: ; o • OF WRGIN/A o BEACH, VA. FOR R/W : PROPOSED RIW LINE rn iv N 74 4951" W LOT 9 2 GPIN.• 2417-56-1520 EXIST. R/W LINE (M. B. 18, PG. 39) PARCEL 1 (M.B. 202, PG. 47) REVISED:02/27/04 GPIN.• 2417-56-2566 REVISED:02/26/04 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 10 20 40 60 SCALE: 1" =20' IDRAWN BY: W.W.L. S737 BARTEE STREET TEL:757.466.1111 DATE: 10 14 0.5 10-09-03 56975.RAW NORFOLK,VA 23502 FAX: 757.466.9384 REF: M.B. 18, PG. 39 56,975B L06-217-STC-2004 3a AY BREEZE CONDOMINIUMS, INC. Agenda Item # 1 March 10, 2004 Public Hearing Staff Planner: Karen Prochilo 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: Street closure of a portion of Summerville Court. LOCATION: Property located on a portion of Summerville Court beginning at a point 270 feet north of its intersection with Carver Avenue. COUNCIL ELECTION DISTRICT: SIZE: Bay Breeze Condominiums rr �rll DISTRICT 6 - BEACH 600 square feet BAY BREEZE CON iM;INIUMS, lgenda Itei P, SURROUNDING North: . Condominiums under construction / A-12 LAND USE AND Apartment District ZONING: South: • Summerville Court East: . Condominiums under construction / A-12 Apartment District West: . Condominiums under construction / A-12 Apartment District NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES: There are no significant features on this site. AICUZ: The site is in an AICUZ of greater than 75 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Summary of •• The applicant is requesting to close 600 square feet of Summerville Court to be incorporated into the adjacent Lots 7 and 9 and Parcel 1. These parcels are currently under development for a residential condominium project. 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. • Current and/or future need for this right-of-way for vehicular and public infrastructure. BAY BREEZE C • Consistency of the proposed development for the property with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan } Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as part of the Primary Residential Area. �.-�y a,. < S ir4 M' Staff r .+ Staffs evaluation of this request reveals the proposal, through the submitted materials, adequately addresses the `Major Issue' above. The proposal's strengths in addressing the 'Major Issue' are (1) The City has no future need for this portion of right-of-way. (2) The proposed residential use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Viewers Committee and staff, therefore, recommend approval of this request subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1. The City Attorneys Office will make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The applicant shall dedicate certain right-of-way to the City for a turn space at the new terminus of Summerville Court. The net area of right- of-way being closed and vacated by the City, in excess of the area of right-of-way being dedicated to the City by the applicant, will be purchased from the City. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. BAY BREEZE CONDOMINIUMS, l Agenda Itern. Page 3 2. The applicant is required to construct a turn space at the new terminus of Summerville Court at no cost to the City of Virginia Beach. A construction plan for the turn space must be approved and bonded through the Development Services Center of the Planning Department prior to recordation of the street closure plat. The construction plan shall include a row of evergreen shrubs (3 to 4 feet in height) to be planted along the northern and western edge of the turn space to provide a screen for the proposed condominiums. 3. The applicant is required to resubdivide the property and vacate internal lot lines to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat must be submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. 4. The applicant is required to verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of- way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure and an easement satisfactory to the utility company must be provided. 5. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. BAY BREEZE Supplemental Information q Zoning History Street Closure # I DATE REQUEST ACTION 1 11/28/88 Zoning Change (Al2 to B2) Withdrawn 1 11/28/88 Use Permit (Carwash) Withdrawn 2 04/09/91 Non Conforming Use Granted 3 07/07/92 Expansion of a Non Conforming Use Granted 4 01/11/94 Zoning Change (A-12 to R-20).. Granted 5 06/28/94 Conditional Use Permit (Group Home) Withdrawn 6 05/23/95 Zoning Change (A-12 to R-5S) Granted 7 02/10/98 Zoning Change (A-12 to R-5S) Granted BAY BREEZE CON Public Agency Comments Public Works There are no Public Works structures in the area of the proposed street closure. Public Utilities Water and A 4 inch water main (with blow valve) and an 8 inch sanitary sewer Sewer: (with manhole) are located in close proximity to the proposed street closure. A twenty -foot wide public utility easement may be required for the City maintenance and operation. No encroachments will be permitted within the utility easement. Private Utility Comments Virginia Natural Gas has no objections to the proposed closure for the portion of Summerville Court. The closure of a portion of Summerville Court does not affect Hampton Roads Sanitation District. Virginia Power indicates that there are facilities within the right-of-way of Summerville Court that must be accessed to maintain. BAY BREEZE CON ►NJN1l agend Caoe .p y pirWAR 7,- {{ if-4a�„�Y `.L `§- s'>s; �,�•��atlltnta ut--�5� i isg.�Cuow.teH 71 ti } r'fflf�e X 3 9P ♦, CP0S$HATONED AREA REPRESENTS AREA OF SL.;t11AEI WIF COURT 70 8E CLOSED SY THE ORG:VIA BEACH C,'TY COUNCIL A� AREA=810 Sr. OR 0.019 ACRE CAR VEp A VENUE c:•;;. ' >''^ .;.. : ;: SHADED AREA REPP,ESENTS AREA M BE (FOP�M-Pt UNNAMED STREFT) DED/GATED TO THE C.'Ts OF N,RGJ/:iA (30' R14Y) <''.':;z<' '<::j` BEA CAI, N,RGINIA FOR R/W PURPOSES ,(iY! 8. 18, PG. 39J AREA=398 SF OR OCG9 AC.KL., j T .13 PLAT' VIA PREPARED W, 77VU 77l: BENEFIT OF A •REPORT T,T7_E AND MAY NOT S'lOW ANY/ALL `ASEMENT5 p OR RES'P,ICTIOtJS PRAT MAY y � 7:r }ECT SA PROPERTY A.5 EIM8I r A4 PLAT SHOWNG POR770W OF �- 41 SUMMERWLLE COURT TO BE CLOSED BY THE $ W o W/RGINIA BEACH CITY N N CJ COUNCIL WIRGINIA -REACH, WlRG/NIA 4- J 13L OCK 1 p� a le, PO 39j p LOT 8 �2•`` PT GRAN: 2477-56-3442 3 PROPOSED R/W LINE -} 1 0 T 7 3 1' PT. GPIN.- 2417- 5$-3442 CO � Os O i LOCK 2 NAB. is PG. 39) LOT 8 2417-56- '4,34 0 rNi N 744931' W __ •..__ __ AREA TO 8E �F.o:.:_,r',rQ: ee r.: o'•.< <:.:. ' " DEDICATED TO THE CITY 74149 51 W OF l4RGINIA 30.15' SEA C'H,, VA. ' z FOR RIW _ p PROPOSED R/W LINE ch N 74 4951 " W N p Lam! 9 52MM- 2417-5ti-1520 30.15� t EXIST R/f✓ LING PORTION OF SUMMERNLLE COURT S 74¢ 49'51" E� 'IA.B. 18, PG 39j TO BE CLOSED BY THE WIRGINIA BEACH PARCEL I CITY COUNCIL (M.S. 2C2, PC, 47; REVISED: 02 /27 04 GPIM 2417-56-2556 / REVISED:02./26jGA GRAPHIC SCALE BLANDROOD & SMITH P.C. � t� 2v <0 60 SURVEYORS SCALE: 1' =20' GRA+vN BY: W.'N.!. 57378ARTEESTREET TEL: 757.466. 1111 DATA: 10 `i4/�3 1D-09-D3 5iiy7��.RA.iv NORFOLK.VA23502 FAX:757.466.9384 REF: M.B. 118, PG._ 39 56,9758 Exhibit B Survey of Area to be Closed E NOIZVI'IddV HTISOD 12ISMIS o� to m L 0.,0� G o `npi C V A m 2 9 n8z��s u� a'02 m fl =$ G mCs,Vy'.'n. io E} O At 0'L c a J p c ti p fl m G S p y k c c O0 �a 2 atn3 m>fl Ems o�.c O o �.K ;��$p3 9S m W m t3 m°mko C.. � pig 07 c C .•s N n�. �._ pG r4 m m� m SCa OE..a 20 E 8 m ^�OOmt�v Ri. 4 - o mm i Cp p t7�ELf G r ! � a4�i , 5 9 O O t L 'a m m c c }Q c O ` ' ,= o. S � N � t'vpomp L qg V�ffim es � is b p 1 f k I C m = N m C Iz y w n 8 s (a a n l s `- y E�>:` • 20 o N .'n 0 w U E 'cam` u Z`. m.. ncc`�' O b ._ y �m ti II! �'• aTo CC4 va per+ i m &7g O M N " p 3 o aCm $ u ( m 0•2 qS3 1 tG•O,fl J '.^. PLCC i i �.� "M^?'m aQ v �_ 7 p C. CEO i i �r�•` Y �ma a:3 S J m Cho x. NOLL"TiMUCTLY �2IRS0'I� I��2IZS BAY BREEZE CO Exhibit E Disclosure Statement Item #1 Bay Breeze Condominiums, Inc. Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Summerville Court District 6 Beach March 10, 2004 CONSENT Dorothy Wood: Our next order of business as Mr. Crabtree mentioned to us will be our consent agenda. Our Vice Chair is handling that for us. William Din: Thank you Dot. Today we have two items that we have included on our consent agenda today. As I call your item, will the applicant or representative please come up, state your name, your relationship to the application and if there are conditions associated with it, if you agree with those conditions. The first item that I have is Bay Breeze Condominiums, Inc. This is a discontinuance, closure and abandonment of a portion of Summerville Court beginning at a point 250 north of the intersection with Carver Avenue running approximately 46.99 feet in a northerly direction. Jeff Maynard: Good afternoon Mr. Din, Madame Chairwoman. My name is Jeff Maynard. I'm the attorney for the applicant. My business address is 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000. As I mentioned, I represent the applicant and will stand by him. William Din: There are five conditions with this. Jeff Maynard: Yes. Those are acceptable. William Din: To explain why we have placed this on a consent agenda, Mr. Ripley Would you please? Ronald Ripley: Yes. The Planning Commission looked this item over and it's a small portion of the north end of Summerville Court that the applicant's requesting a closure. He's tying this in to a development that he's doing on Americus Avenue. It's a small condominium community that's going in there. The applicant owns the property on either side. He either owns or has it under contract so this would fit in nicely. He's also agreed to expand the remaining portion of the end of this road so a cul-de-sac or a turning lane area would be appropriate for the people using that street. The Planning staff recommends this approval. The viewers have looked at it and they recommended approval. There is no need for it. The Planning Commission felt that it ought to be on consent. William Din: I apologize. I probably should have asked if there were any opposition to putting this on the consent agenda prior to that explanation. Is there any opposition? Item #1 Bay Breeze Condominiums, Inc. Page 2 Thank you. Ms. Wood, I'd like to make a motion to approve Item #1 Bay Breeze Condominiums, Inc. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Do I hear a second? Robert Miller: Second. Dorothy Wood: With the motion by Mr. Din, seconded by Mr. Miller we have approved the consent item. The voting is open. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ANDERSON AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE KATSIAS AYE KNIGHT AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE STRANGE AYE WALLER AYE WOOD AYE Ed Weeden: By a vote of 11-0, this item has been approved for consent. K. APPOINTMENTS COMMUNITY POLICY AND MANAGEMENT TEAM - CSA AT RISK COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD FRANCIS LAND HOUSE BOARD OF GOVERNORS HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL OPEN SPACE SUBCOMMITTEE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PERFORMING ARTS THEATRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE PERSONNEL BOARD THE PLANNING COUNCIL SHORE DRIVE COMMITTEE TIDEWATER TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT COMMISSION TOWING ADVISORY BOARD A UNFINISHED BUSINESS CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V 0 I M B L DATE: April 12, 2005 C E S L D C M R C A W I J L A N R H N I E D 0 A D D E M U L W Z Y N N D 0 E I E S 0 AGENDA E E E A 0 R V D V 0 0 ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L R S N X F E T A N D I BRIEFINGS: A-1 DEBT/FINANCIAL CAPACITY Phillips, Director - Finance Catheryn Whitesell, Director - Management 2 Services CITYVIEW/RIGHT/OF/WAY Robert Scott, ALIGNMENT FOR CONSTITUTION Director - Planning DRIVE EXTENSTION B II BUDGET WORKSHOP BUDGET OVERVIEW Catheryn Whitesell, Director - Management Services LYNNHAVEN 2007 Charlie Meyer, Chief Operating Officer STORM WATER PROGRAM Dean Block, Director - Public Works IIMVN/ CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED Certified 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y VI-E SESSION F-1 MINUTES SPECIAL FORMAL SESSION Approved 7-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y A A A March 29, 2005 B B B B S S S S T T T T A A A A I I I I N N N N E E E E D D D D INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS Approved 10-1 Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y April 5, 2005 G/H/I MAYORS PRESENTATATIONS 1. PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION April 2005 National Records/Information Management Month Withdrawn to be presented in more Informal setting April 10 -16, 2005 2. PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION National Library Week Mr. Clifton described Tournament for first Tee and presented Golf Cops to City 3. Virginia Beach Open Golf Tournament Tim Miller Council et al Foundation CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V O I M B L DATE: April 12, 2005 C E S L D C M R C A W I J L A N R H N I E D O A D D E M U L W Z Y N N D O E I E S O AGENDA E L E R E S A N O X R F V E D T V A O N O D ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE J-1 Ordinance to AMEND City Code ADDING Proposed Revised 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y §§ 7-71/ 7-72/7-73 re Surreys in Resort Ordinances/Agenda Area Item Deferred to May 24, 2005 2 Ordinance to ACCEPT /APPROPRIATE ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y $5,316 to Fire from Virginia Emergency CONSENT Management as reimbursement for "Determined Promise" exercise 3 Ordinance AUTHORIZING reimbursement ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y of legal fees/expenses by Sheriff s Deputy in CONSENT criminal charge dismissed 4. Resolution re Constitution Drive Extended: Removed from 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Agenda/Staff to take Comprehensive look at all options re Constitution Drive and suggested fl overs 5. Resolution (MOU) with Virginia Aquarium ADOPTED BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Foundation/Inc. Virginia Wesleyan College CONSENT re Research Vessel 6. Resolution AUTHORIZING first ADOPTED, BY 10-1' Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Supplemental Support Agreement between CONSENT (VBDA)/City/ AUTHORIZING financing documents 7. Resolution APPOINTING JAMIE EX ADOPTED, BY 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y TYLER/AIMEE E. KNAPP/NELL FORD CONSENT as Assistant City Attorneys K-la Variance to §4.4 (b) Subdivision Ordinance APPOVED AS 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y that all lots meet (CZO) for JOHN CJ MARY CONDITIONED, VOGEL TRUST to subdivide a familyparcel BY CONSENT at 2388 2400 London Bridge Road(DISTRICT 7 — PRINCESS ANNE 2. ENOCH BAPTIST CHURCH MODIFIED/ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Modificadon of CUP (December 16, CONDITIONED, 1997/August 28, 2001) to allow a child BY CONSENT care center with church. at 5641 Herbert Moore Road (DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE 3 GOOD SAMARITAN EPISCOPAL MODIFIED/ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y CHURCH Modification ofCondition Number CONDITIONED, 5 of CUP (approved December 13, BY CONSENT 1976/November 9, 2004) re r-o-w at 848 Baker Road DISTRICT 2 — KEMPSVILLE 4. LAND & BUILDING IV. L.C. MODIFIED AS 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Modification of Proffer Number 1 re PROFFERED, BY Conditional CoZ (March 28, 2000 Troy A. CONSENT Titus), re strip mall at 5221 Indian River Road DISTRICT 1 — CENTERVILLE 5. MICHAEL J/HELEN V. STANDING APPROVED AS /FOGGS SEAFOOD CORP re CONDITIONED, enlargement of Nonconforming Use to BY CONSENT enlarge existing free standing restaurant at 415 Atlantic Avenue (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) 6. RICK GRAHAM CUP re auto repair in APPROVED/ 11-0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y the Owls Creek Commerce Center at 1228 CONDITIONED, Jensen Drive (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) BY CONSENT DA(_C Z CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS V O I M B L DATE: April 12, 2005 C E S L D C M R C A W I J L A N R H N I E D O A D D E M U L W Z Y N N D O E I E S O AGENDA E E E A O R V D V O O ITEM # SUBJECT MOTION VOTE L R S N X F E T A N D 7. JAMES E. MILLER CUPre bulk APPROVED/ storage yard at 593 South Birdneck Road CONDITIONED, (DISTRICT 6 — BEACH) BY CONSENT L. APPOINTMENTS: RESCHEDULED B Y C O N S E N S U S Community Policy and Management Team — CSA At Risk Community Services Board Francis Land House Board of Governors Health Services Advisory Board Human Rights Commission Investment Partnership Advisory Committee Minority Business Council Open Space Subcommittee Parks and Recreation Commission Performing Arts Theatre Advisory Committee Personnel Board The Planning Council Towing Advisory Board M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS O. ADJOURNMENT: 7:21 P.M. 2005-2006 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN SCHEDULE EVENT TOPIC LOCATION DATE Workshop Safe Community and Quality Organization Council Conference Room April 14, 2005 Workshop Quality Education & Lifelong Learning,- Constitutional Officers Council Conference Room Aril 19, 2005 Public Hearing Bayside High School April 21, 2005 6:00 PM Workshop Economic Vitality, Cultural and Recreational Opportunities: Council Conference Room April 26, 2005 Family and Youth Opportunities Public Hearing Council Chamber April 26, 2005 6:00 P.M. Reconciliation Council Conference Room May 3, 2005 Workshop Adoption ofFY2005- City Council Vote on Resource Management Plan Council Chamber May 10, 2005 2006 Resource 6: 00 P.M. Mang ement Plan