The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMARCH 26, 2002 AGENDACITY COUNCIL MEYERA E. OBERNDORF, At-Large VICE MAYOR WILLIAM D. SESSOMS, JR., At-Large LINWOOD O. BRANCH, II1, Beach - District 6 MARGARET L. EURE, Centerville - District 1 WILLIAM W. HARRISON, JR., Lynnhaven - District 5 BARBARA M. HENLEY, Princess Anne - District 7 LOUIS R. JONES, Bayside - District 4 REBA S. McCLANAN, Rose Hall - District 3 ROBERT C. MANDIGO, JR., Kempsville - District 2 NANCY K. PARKER, At-Large ROSEMARY WILSON, At-Large JAMES K. SPORE, City Manager LESLIE L LILLEY, City Attorney RUTH HODGES-SMITH, MMC, City Clerk of Vir nia F each "COMMUNITY FOR A LIi;EIiME" CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY HALL BUILDING 1 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH. VIRGINIA 23456-9005 PHONE: (757) 427-4304 FAX: (757) 426-5669 EMAIL: Ctycncl ~ city. virg inia-beach, va.us March 26, 2002 CITY COUNCIL'S BRIEFING - Conference Room - A. VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Debt Status Robert G. Jones, Chairman, Virginia Beach Development Authority 3:00PM Il. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS III. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 4:00PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend James R. Wolfcale Atlantic Shores Baptist Church 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 _ March 12, 2002 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION PRESENTATION 1. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN - FY 2002 - 2003 - Budget Capital Improvement Program - FY 2002/03 - 2007/08 PUBLIC HEARING 1. LEASE OF CITY PROPERTY (Elbow Road Extended) - Princess Anne Little League 2. LEASES OF CITY PROPERTY - Caf6 Franchise Agreements Jo ORDINANCES/RESOLUTION Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute a lease between the City and PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE, INC. f/k/a GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE re construction ora youth baseball facility. (PRINCESS ANNE - DISTRICT 7) 2. Ordinance granting operation of Open Air Cafes in the Resort Area: a. NEW FRANCHISES (1) Colonial Inn, Inc. t/a Angelo's Restaurant Boardwalk Caf6 2809 Atlantic Avenue (2) Sandcastle Oceanfront Motel, I. nc t/a SeaSide Galley Boardwalk Caf6 14th and Atlantic Avenue b. RENEWAL FRANCHISES (1) Atlantic Resort Associates t/a 11 ~ St. Oceanfront Diner Boardwalk Caf6 1101 Atlantic Avenue (2) HWC Investments, Inc t/a Stacey's Boardwalk Caf6 3301 Atlantic Avenue (3) Tampico Enterprises Inc., t/a Abbey Road Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Caf6 203 22"d Street (4) Colonial Inn, Inc. t/a Carey's Restaurant Boardwalk Caf6 2809 Atlantic Avenue (5) Island Republic, Inc. Boardwalk Caf6 t/a Island Republic 1905 Atlantic Avenue (6) Ocean Sands Resort, LLC t/a Casablanca Bistro Boardwalk Caf6 2207 Atlantic Avenue (7) Barclay Restaurant t/a London Pavilion Boardwalk Caf6 809 Atlantic Avenue (8) Days Inn Oceanfront t/a Timbuktu Caf6 Boardwalk Caf6 3107 Atlantic Avenue (9) Marianna Enterprises t/a Little Feets Boardwalk Caf6 2613 Atlantic Avenue (10) Atlantic Enterprises t/a Ellington's (11) (12) (13) (14) Burlage Hotel Associates t/a LaVeme's Chix Caf6 Resorts of Virginia Beach, Inc. t/a Peppers Ramada on the Beach, L.C. t/a Mahi Mah's Ramada on the Beach, L.C. t/a Mahi Mah's (15) BBH Corporation t/a T-Bird Caf6 (16) (17) (18) DAP, Inc t/a 22"a Street Raw & Grill Clearwater Investments Assoc., L.P. t/a Dolphin Watch Caf6 Megabytes, L.L.C. t/a Salsa's Restaurant (19) Ahata, Inc. t/a Pier 23 Restaurant Boardwalk Caf6 2901 Atlantic Avenue Boardwalk Caf~ 701 Atlantic Avenue Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Caf6 225 17th Street Boardwalk Cafb 615 Atlantic Avenue Connector Park Caf6 615 Atlantic Avenue Boardwalk Caf~ 3410 Atlantic Avenue Atlantic Avenue Side Street Caf6 202 22"d Street Boardwalk Caf6 3501 Atlantic Avenue Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Caf6 812 Atlantic Avenue Atlantic Avenue Side Street Caf~ 2224 Atlantic Avenue 3. Resolutions re Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT): Add 15.02 lane miles of new streets eligible for urban maintenance effective July 1, 2002; and, increase applicable revenue of $133,318.16 per year. Increase 4.66 lane miles of local/collector streets inventory; and, increase applicable revenue of $61,240.28 per year. PLANNING Apphcations of WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC. at the northeast comer of West Neck and Indian River Roads (3132 West Neck Road), containing 87.215 acres. (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) (a) Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance re the thirty (30)-foot minimum pavement width for interior streets (1) Change qfZoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional R-15 Residential (c) Conditional Use Permit re Open Space Promotion Deferred: January 22, 2002 February 5, 2002 March 5, 2002 Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of MAXINE JOHNSON for a Variance to §4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance which requires all newly created lots meet all requirements of thc City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) at 1648 WaffRoad. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) Recommendation: APPROVAL o Application of ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST CHURCH for a Conditional Use Permit for a church expansion on Kempsville Road east of Centerville Turnpike (1861 Kempsville Road), containing 14.67 acres. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED for a Conditional Use Permit re a borrow pit on the south side of Sandbridge Road, 720 feet east of Princess Anne Road, containing 64.911 acres. (PRINCESS ANNE - DISTRICT 7) Deferred: Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission: January 22, 2002 INDEFINITE DEFERRAL APPROVAL/add condition #9 Application of PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE f/k/a GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE, for a Conditional Use Permit for recreation facilities of an outdoor nature on the east side of Lisban Road, south of Elbow Road Extended, containing 28.4 acres. (PRINCESS ANNE - DISTRICT 7) Recommendation: APPROVAL L. APPOINTMENTS ARTS AND HUMANITIES COMMISSION COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION SHORE DRIVE ADVISORY COMMISSION TIDEWATER REGIONAL GROUP HOME COMMISSION THE PLANNING COUNCIL VIRGINIA BEACH HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS 1. ABSTRACT OF CWIL CASES RESOLVED - February 2002 ADJOURNMENT If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303 Hearing impaired, call: TDD only 427-4305 (TDD - Telephonic Device for the Deaf) 03/21/02 slb AGENDA\03/26/02 x~,vw.vbgov.corn 2002-2003 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN SCHEDULE - FINAL EVENT II TOPIC Il LOCATION II DATE Council Workshop Cultural & Recreational Opportunities, Family & Youth Council Conference April 2nd Opportunities room Council Workshop Quality Education for Lifetime Learning Council Conference April 9th room Council Workshop Quality Physical Environment & Operational Support Council Conference April 16th room Public Hearing Public Comment on Proposed FY 2002-2003 Resource Management Frank W. Cox High April lgt~ Plan School 6 PM Council Workshop Safe Community Family and Youth Opportunities Council Conference April 23rd room Public Hearing Public Comment on Proposed FY 2002-2003 Resource Management Council Chamber April 23rd Plan 6 PM Council Workshop Reconciliation of outstanding resource issues Council Conference May 9ta room 3 PM Adoption of FY 2002-2003 City Council Vote on Resource Management Plan Council Chamber May 14t~ Resource Management 6 PM Plan (will include Public Hearing) March 26, 2002 CITY COUNCIL'S BRIEFING - Conference Room - A. VIRGINIA BEACH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Debt Status Robert G. Jones, Chairman, Virginia Beach Development Authority 3:00PM Il. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 4:00PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdor£ B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend James R. Wolfcale Atlantic Shores Baptist Church 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 March 12, 2002 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION Besolutio 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 2.1-344.1 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. PRESENTATION 1. P,_ESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN - FY 2002 - 2003 - Budget Capital Improvement Program - FY 2002/03 - 2007/08 PUBLIC HEARING 1. LEASE OF CITY PROPERTY (Elbow Road Extended) - Princess Anne Little League 2. LEASES OF CITY PROPERTY - Caf6 Franchise Agreements TEE VtRG~.P[LOT Stmday, M~ch 17, 2002 CITY O; ¥1FI;INIk BEACH NI}11~E I}F PIIBLt¢ #EARIN9 LEA~E nF CffY PROPEJITT Al Interested pepsins am hereby advJsntl t~at t~e Yb;ini; Ben~,~ City C~Jncit wfl~ holda pub.qc hearktg om Tuesdal, Pi/ach 26, ~3(]2at 6:00 p.m. In ttle City COUlT. II Chambers of ~e AclmLnlstmtim B~tdt, rt[ (Bfdg it/) to obteh public comme~ r~galding the leese o! +:Z9.$9 acm. s of CI~ owned pfopelty on E3~ow Road Extended Jn the* Ne,wcaarle - Pdlc- eta area to Pdfce. ss Anne Utile-League,, irK:., f/*k/8 Grew Run Little f. eaEue. A~¥ o, ue~tlon$ c~ncemin8 t~is maA~ s~uld be dbected ~ M;. Cha~y,Par~ & Re;;eatlort C~rdlmt~n I~ I~rson irt Buildlr~ ~1 ;r the VirBi~J8 Bead~ Municlpad CeMel or I:y phone ~y ca~lTng 5631100. If you are physicalJy disabled, hea~ng or visually impaired alxt need as~stance ~t mis meeUfll, plase call the City Clerk's Office at 42T-4305 ¥OrCE or led by Rfday. Mam~ 2:2. 2002. Rutl~ Hoe'ges Smi~, MMC City Cleft THE BEACON Sunday, March 17, 2002 PUBLIC NOTICE LEASF~ OF CITY PROPERTY The Virginia Beach City Council will hold a PUBLIC HEARING'at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 26, 2002, in the City Council chambers regarding the proposed caf~ franchise lease agreements of City-owned prope~'y, as defined below: Atlantic Resort Assoclaten t/a 11th St. Omnlmnt Ol.e~ (t101 Atlantic Avenue) HWC Investmests, lng. t/a Stacey'a (3301 Atlantic Avenue) Tampico Enteq).-iues Inc., t/a Abbey Road (203 23nd Street) Colonial !mt, =. t/a ?amy.'s Restaurant (2809 Atlantic Avmtue) Colonial lint, . t/a Angem's Restaurant (2809 Athntlc Avenue) Island Republic, Inc. t/a Island Republic (190S Atlantic Avenuel Ocean Sands Resort, tLC t/a Casablanca Bistro (2201 Atlantic Ave.) ~Darclay Restaurant t/a Lnndofl Pavilion (809 Atlantic Avenue) ap Inn Oceanflmtt t/a Timbuktu Caf6 (3107 Atlantic Avenue) Maflmma Enteq)fbes t/a Little Feets (26/3 Atlantic Avenue) Atlantic Entecpdsea t/a EalnL, ton's 12901 Atlantic Avenue) guriage Hotel Associates t/a LaVeme's CMx Caf6 (703. Atlantic Ave) Resofls of VirgJflb Beach, Inc. t/a Peppers (23S 1?th Street) Ramada on the Beach, LC. t/a MObl Mah's (61S Atlantic Avenue) [boardwalk cef~! Ramada on the Beach, LC. t/e Mahi Mah'a (61S Atlentk: Avenue) (connector park cafe) BBH ¢orperatJon t/a T43ird Ca~6 (3410 Aflnnt~ Avenue) DAP, Inc. t/a 22nd Street Raw & Grig (202 22nd Street) Cleamater Investments Associates, LP. t/l Dolphin Watch carl (3S01 Atlantic Ave.) Megabytes, L.LC. t/& Salsa'a Restaurant (812 MLuetlc Avenue) hata, Inc. t/a Pier 23 Restaurant (2224 AtJamtlc Avmt~e) andcastles Oceanfront Motel, Inc. t/a SeaSide Galley (3.4th and Atlantic Avenue) The purpose of this public hearing will be to obtain public comment off these leases of City property. Any questions concerning these mat. tars should be directed to Mike Eason, Resort Coordinator, Depart- meet of Convention and Visitor Development, by calling (767) 437-4800. if you are physically disabled, or hearing or visually impaired, and you need assistance at this meeUng, please call 4:27-4305 Voice/TDD. Ruth Hodges Smith. MMC City Clerk Jo ORDINANCES/RESOLUTION Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to execute a lease between the City and PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE, INC. f/k/a GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE re construction of a youth baseball facility. (PRINCESS ANNE - DISTRICT 7) 2. Ordinance granting operation of Open Air Cafes in the Resort Area: a. NEW FRANCHISES (1) Colonial Inn, Inc. Ua Angelo's Restaurant Boardwalk Caf6 2809 Atlantic Avenue (2) Sandcastle Oceanfront Motel, Inc t/a SeaSide Galley Boardwalk Caf6 14th and Atlantic Avenue b. RENEWAL FRANCHISES (1) Atlantic Resort Associates t/a 11a St. Oceanfront Diner Boardwalk Caf~ 1101 Atlantic Avenue (2) HWC Investments, Lnc t/a Stacey's Boardwalk Caf6 3301 Atlantic Avenue (3) Tampico Enterprises Inc., t/a Abbey Road Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Caf6 203 22''d Street (4) Colonial Inn, Inc. t/a Carey's Restaurant Boardwalk Caf6 2809 Atlantic Avenue (5) Island Republic, Inc. t/a Island Republic Boardwalk Caf6 1905 Atlantic Avenue (6) Ocean Sands Resort, LLC t/a Casablanca Bistro Boardwalk Caf6 2207 Atlantic Avenue (7) Barclay Restaurant t/a London Pavilion Boardwalk Caf6 809 Atlantic Avenue (8) Days Inn Oceanfront t/a Timbuktu Caf6 Boardwalk Caf6 3107 Atlantic Avenue (9) Marianna Enterprises t/a Little Feets Boardwalk Caf6 2613 Atlantic Avenue (10) Atlantic Enterprises t/a Ellington's (11) (12) (13) Burlage Hotel Associates tYa LaVeme's Chix Caf6 Resorts of Virginia Beach, Inc. t/a Peppers Ramada on the Beach, L.C. t/a Mahi Mah's Boardwalk Caf6 2901 Atlantic Avenue Boardwalk Caf6 701 Atlantic Avenue Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Caf6 225 17th Street Boardwalk Caf6 615 Atlantic Avenue (14) Ramada on the Beach, L.C. t/a Mahi Mah's (15) BBH Corporation t/a T-Bird Card (16) (17) (18) DAP, Inc t/a 22na Street Raw & Grill Clearwater Investments Assoc., L.P. t/a Dolphin Watch Caf6 Megabytes, L.L.C. t/a Salsa's Restaurant (19) Ahata, Inc. t/a Pier 23 Restaurant Connector Park Caf6 615 Atlantic Avenue Boardwalk Caf6 3410 Atlantic Avenue Atlantic Avenue Side Street Caf6 202 22nd Street Boardwalk Caf6 3501 Atlantic Avenue Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Caf6 812 Atlantic Avenue Atlantic Avenue Side Street Caf6 2224 Atlantic Avenue Resolutions re Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT): a. Add 15.02 lane miles of new streets eligible for urban maintenance effective July 1, 2002; and, increase applicable revenue of $133,318.16 per year. b. Increase 4.66 lane miles of local/collector streets inventory; and, increase applicable revenue of $61,240.28 per year. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: MEETING DATE: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Ordinance to approve a five year lease between the City of Virginia Beach and Princess Anne Little League, Inc., f/lEa Green Run Little League March 26, 2002 Background: At the direction of City Council, Department of Parks and Recreation staff have been working with the officers of the Green Run Little League for two years to develop a master design plan fora new youth baseball league facility on Elbow Road Extended in the Princess Anne Voting District. The final master design plan on _+ 28.58 acres of City property on Elbow Road Extended was presented to City Council by Department of Parks and Recreation staff on January 15, 2002. City Council's approval of the attached ordinance will authorize the City Manager to execute a five year lease with Princess Anne Little League, Inc., f/k/a Green Run Little League to construct and operate their youth baseball league facility for the period of May 1, 2002 thru December 31,2006, subject to the condition that the league complies with all the terms and conditions of the lease. Considerations: Section 15.2-1800 of the Code of Virginia requires the City Council to hold a public hearing to obtain public comment regarding all leases of City property prior to the approval of such leases. The required public hearing has been scheduled and advertised for this City Council meeting by the City Clerk. Public Information: On November 14, 2001, Department of Parks and Recreation staff met with the residents of the New Castle - Princeton Civic League to thoroughly review and discuss the preliminary site design and building design plans for the proposed youth baseball league facility. On February 21,2002 Department of Parks and Recreation staff met with the residents of the civic league for a second time to thoroughly review and discuss the final site design and building design plans as well as the terms and conditions of the new lease. Following the February meeting, the residents of the Newcastle- Princeton Civic League formally voted to unanimously support the new lease, with conditions, between the City and Princess Anne Little League, Inc., f/k/a Green Run Little League (See Exhibit G). Recommendations: City staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance. Attachments: 1. Summary of proposed lease terms and conditions. Letter from Norma Moore, President of the New Castle - Princeton Civic League indicating the unanimous support of area residents, with conditions, for the lease of City property to Princess Anne Little League, Inc., f/k/a Green Run Little League (See Exhibit G). 3. City Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute the new lease. IRecommended Action: Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager:~' J(-- · ~Y~ Approval Department of Parks and Recreation Approval 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LEASE BETWEEN THE ClTYAND PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE, INC. flk/a GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach ("City") is the owner of a certain parcel of land located on Elbow Road Extended in the Princess Anne Voting District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia containing approximately 28.58 acres (the "property") shown and described on that certain plat entitled: PLAT SHOWING PROPERTY TO BE LEASED BY PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE INC., FROM THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, SURVEY BUREAU, ENGINEERING DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, DATE: February 18, 2002, SCALE: 1" = 200'. A copy of said plat is attached hereto and marked "Exhibit A"; and WHEREAS, Princess Anne Little League, Inc., f/k/a Green Run Little League desires to lease the property for the operation of their youth baseball league; and WHEREAS, City staff recommends approval of the execution of a lease to Princess Anne Little League, Inc., f/k/a Green Run Little League for the operation of their youth baseball league for the period of May 1, 2002 thru December 31, 2006. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a lease between the City and Princess Anne Little League, Inc., f/ida Green Run Little League in accordance with the Summary of Terms attached hereto, and containing such other terms as are acceptable to the City Manager and approved by the City Attorney. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the 26th day of March, 2002. APP~NT: Department of Par~and Recreation APPROVED AS TO LEGAL I~epartment of Law ~ SUMMARY OF TERMS PROPOSED LEASE FOR PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE INC. F/K/A GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE LESSOR: City of Virginia Beach LESSEE: Princess Anne Little League, Inc f/k/a Green Run Little League. TERM: The initial Lease term is May1, 2002 through December 31, 2002. The Lease term will be automatically extended for four additional one year terms to terminate December 31, 2006 unless the Lease is terminated by either party with prior written notice. RENT: The property will be leased to Princess Anne Little League, Inc. at no cost to the league. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE, INC.: Will use the leased premises only for the purpose of operating the Princess Anne Little League, Inc. youth baseball league. Will pay for all utilities, trash removal, and all other services necessary to the operation, maintenance, and repair of the leased premises. Will annually repair all damages to the grounds of the leased premises. Will allow the City use and access to the leased premises Will indemnify and hold harmless the City from any and all liability, claims, actions, damages, expenses and losses incurred by the City as a result of Lessee's use of the leased premises. Will comply with all term and conditions related to: (i) the construction, installation, maintenance and repair of all baseball fields, dugouts, parking areas, buildings, walkways, fencing, landscaping and picnic shelters; (ii) the authorized days and hours of use of the leased premises;(iii) the temporary display of corporate sponsorship banners; (iv) the installation and use of electronic scoreboards; and (v) the limited use of temporary, portable loudspeakers. Will maintain general liability insurance, including products liability coverage, at a minimum of $1,000,000 combined single limits (CSL). RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY: Will meet with Lessee annually to review the provisions of the Lease. TERMINATION: Lessor may terminate for default or abandonment with 10 days written notice. ITl I '-13 r ,-.q ~ ::: ~ ............................................. ~: ',', , ~ · ~ m ~_ :ira ,, I1~~~ ~ ,,~ ~ ~;~ZSL~ · ~ .... ~ ~!~ .' ,,~~ THOMPSON ANO W~IOHT,A~CHITECTS,LTD. ' ~iNCESS ANNE UTTLE LEAOUE ~RG~IA BEACH. VIRGIN~ SOS-C Cedar Road Chesapeake. Virginia 25322 (757) 436-0861 t llll ~ THOMPSON AND WRIGHT,ARCNITECTS,LTD. PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE VlI~IW~ 6[&CH. ¥1R~INIA ~ 505-C Cedar Rood - Chesopeot~e, Virginia 2.T322 (757) 456-0861 eeO,eO~EO n. ooe rt~ ~ E~.E'V,,,TI(~ I I E ~ THOMPSON AND WRIGHT,ARCHITECTS,LTD. j~ ~ PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE m ~"~'), ~ 505-C Ceda~ Roa~ , ~ ChesoDeake, Virginio 23~22 (757) 4~6-0861 I ~ ~-- Tooo ' . ~ :~ j ~, I ~ 'r~~ ~ ~ ........................ z I m r E ) THO~PSO~ AND ~RIGHT,ARCHITECTS,LTD. ~ PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE ~ ~-~ (edor Rood - Chesopeake, virgiflio 23522 (7S7) 436-0861 ~oe~o F~ P~ I t I000 O0 r'ri ' I"!'i I THOUPSON AND WRIGHT,ARCHITECTS,LTD. m PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE J 505-C Cedar Road Chesapeake, Virginia 23322 (757) 436-0861 PeOP~D ~lC~ ~A~ I ir] WRIGHT,ARCHITECTS,LT~~ Newcastle-Princeton Civic League 2140 Southcross Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23456 (757) 427-0204 February29,2002 1~. Doug Cnm~ cit of Vh iuia Beach Parks and ~on Department Mumcipal Center, Building 6 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 Dear Mr. Chm'ry: This letter is to inform you of the outcome of a vote taken bv the members of the Newca~e Princeton Civic League on the proposed construction of the'Princess Anne Little League facility. First, please allow me, on behalf of our entire orgamTation, to express our sine, em appreciation for the manner in which you have assisted us throughout the resolution of this matter. As you know, the construction of the proposed facility is a matter of great concern for our members. We appreciate your willingness to work with us and make sure that our concerns were heard and considered by both the City. and the Princess Anne Little League (PAl .1 .). We are sure that it required a great deal of patience and perseverance on your pan and you demonstrated abundant quantities of both! We thank you for a job well done. The members unanimously approved the construction of the Facility, under the following conditions: The City take action to relieve the probable traffic congestion that will occur on Elbow Road and on the residential streets when the facility is in use. As we have explained in the past, we foresee a very. serious and dangerous traffic sW,,,'on when both the Soccer Facilitv and the PALL Facility are in use. We strongly recommend that Lisbon Road be extendeci to connect to Salem Road before the PALL Facility is placed into operation. The Lisbon Road - Salem Road conne~on should be left in place until such time as Elbow Road is connected to Landstown Road, as described in the City's plan. If Lisbon Road cannot be extended to Salem, then we recommend that the City expedite the extension of Elbow to Lancistown Road. We are opposed to the installation of a temporary stop light at the Elbow Road - Salem Road intersection. We feel that this will result in more uaflic using the residential streets as outlets. We would apprec/a~ any assistance you might provide in facilitating a meeting w/th the apl~O~ City departm~ so that we can fully discuss our concerns and the possible solutions. We are very concerned about the dungers that will result if the City does not take steps tn alleviate the traffic on Elbow Road. The City should immediately install "NO P&RKING" aims on Elbow Road and the xt areas surround/nc, the Newcastle Elementary School and borderina Elbow Road. We want to prevent destruction of City property, and ensure that the bike path is preserved for our use. The Citv should immediatelv re uire the Ham ton Roads SoCcer Council to sro directin ~he Newcastle El____ementarv School. We believe thai the Council actively encourages parking at the School on its promotional literature and throu~.h the placement of temporary, signs directing patrons to the School. We believe th/~ pragtic~ adds to the traffic and parking problems and will get much worse as use of these two facilities increases in the future. The C~ should conmder asmmn e PALL wnh the crcalJon ofam~..~_ effect/ye sound hamer between the PALL Faciliw and the Newcastle nei borhood. We believe that this assislance should take two forms. First, the City should provide the PALL with financial assistance to construct a berm of five or six feet in height, on which a stand of trees can be planted. This be,,,, would be located on the north boundary of the Facility. Second, the City should consider purchasing the parcel of land containing the stand of~rees and bordering the southern portion of the Newcastle neighborhood, adjacent to Southcross Drive and Southcross Court. This would be consistent with the City's policy of creating green belts and open spaces between neighborhoods and could reduce the noise and light thai may spill into the neighborhood. We reserve the ri~,ht to provide input to the City when the annual, amorn~atic PALL leas~ ex-tensions are bein~ considered. This would provide us with an excellent oppommity t° comment on the operation of the Facititw and its actual impact on the residents. If you have any questions about this matter or need any additional information, please contact me. Again, please accept our thanks for the efforts you expended on our behalf. Sincerely, Noinna Mo{re President Newcastle - Princeton Civic Lea_mae CC: Mrs. Sara L. Hensley, CLP City of Virginia Beach Parka and Recreation Department Mrs. Barbara Henlev City Council CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Ordinance Granting Franchises for the Operation of Open Air Caf6 in the Resort Area (New Franchises) MEETING DATE: March 26, 2002 Background: Since its initial development and implementation, the Open Air Caf6 Program has been very successful and forty-one (41)cafes have been established in the Resort Area. The City's policy and practice has been to grant the initial franchise for a term of one (1) year. Thereafter, if the corporation/company to which a franchise is granted successfully operates an open air caf6 during the initial one-year term, the City renews the franchise for a term of five (5) years. Staff is currently finalizing proposed revisions to the Open Air Caf6 Regulations which will come to Council in April for consideration. All of the applicants under consideration are aware of changes that will be proposed with the new standards and have been notified of the proposed new fees. Agreement on the proposed new fees were also noted at that time. Caf6 owners indicating interest appeared before a RAC subcommittee to agree to a phased in fee proposal which will be presented in April. Considerations: Each of the following corporations/companies (hereinafter "Grantees") has submitted an application for the operation of an open air caf6 in the Resort Area: Colonial Inn, Inc. t/a Angelo's Restaurant (2809 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Cafe; and Sandcastle Oceanfront Motel, Inc. t/a SeaSide Galley (14th and Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Caf~ The Department of Convention and Visitor Development and the Resort Advisory Commission have reviewed each application and recommend the grant of a franchise to each Grantee for a term of one (1) year, commencing May 1,2002, and ending April 30, 2003. If City council approves the attached Ordinance, the granting of the franchises will be contingent upon each Grantee's provision of an approved final site plan, liability insurance coverage, a secudty bond and applicable franchise fee, and on compliance with the terms and conditions of the Franchise Agreement. Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Depa~ment/Agenc~nvention and Visitor Development City Manager:~~.~ ~'~~.,~ Sam/wo~tr~anchise/newa rf,wpd 1 2 3 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING FRANCHISES FOR THE OPERATION OF OPEN AIR CAFES IN THE RESORT AREA (NEW FRANCHISES) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 WHEREAS, the City has adopted, and incorporated into a Franchise Agreement, regulations for the operation of open air cafes on public property in the Resort Area; WHEREAS, each of the following corporations/companies (hereinafter referred to as "Grantees")has submitted an application for the operation of an open air caf~ at the location indicated, and has paid the required application fee: 1. Colonial Inn, Inc. t/a Angelo's Restaurant (2809 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Cafe; and 2. Sandcastle Oceanfront Motel, Inc. t/a SeaSide Galley (14th and Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Cafe. WHEREAS, the representations made in the applications comply with the aforementioned regulations; and WHEREAS, the Department of Convention and Visitor Development and the Resort Advisory Commission have reviewed the applications and determined that the proposed cafes will have no detrimental effect on the public health, safety, welfare, or interest, and will enhance the festive atmosphere in the Resort Area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That a franchise is hereby granted to each of the above-listed Grantees to operate an open air caf~ at the address indicated herein from May t, 2002, to April 30, 2003, conditioned on provision by each Grantee of an approved final site plan, liability insurance coverage, a security bond and applicable franchise fee, and on compliance with all of the terms and conditions of the Franchise Agreement; and 32 33 34 2. That the City Manager, or his duly authorized designee, is hereby authorized to enter into a Franchise Agreement with each Grantee. 35 36 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 CA-8423 Sam/work/franchise/neword.wpd March 4, 2002 RI APPROVE~S TO CONTENT: '~'- ~-'- I1 ~e~tion & V~±t Development APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney's Office CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Ordinance Granting Franchises for the Operation of Open Air Caf~ in the Resort Area (Franchise Renewals) MEETING DATE: March 26, 2002 Background: Since its initial development and implementation, the Open Air Caf6 Program has been very successful and forty-one (41) cafes have been established in the Resort Area. The City's policy and practice has been to grant the initial franchise for a term of one (1) year. Thereafter, if the corporation/company to which a franchise is granted successfully operates an open air cafb during the initial one-year term, the City renews the franchise for terms of five (5) years. Staff is currently finalizing proposed revisions to the Open Air Caf~ Regulations which will come to Council in April for consideration. All of the applicants under consideration are aware of changes that will be proposed with the new standards and have been notified of the proposed new fees. Agreement on the proposed new fees were also noted at that time. Caf~ owners indicating interest appeared before a RAC subcommittee to agree to a phased in fee proposal which will be presented in April. Considerations: Each of the following corporations/companies (hereinafter "Grantees") has operated an open air cafb in the Resort Area during the past year, and has applied for renewal of its franchise for a term of five (5) years: 1. Atlantic Resort Associates t/a 11th St. Oceanfront Diner (1101 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Caf6; 2. HWC Investments, Inc. t/a Stacey's (3301 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Cafe; 3. Tampico Enterprises Inc., t/a Abbey Road (203 22nd Street) Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Cafb; 4. Colonial Inn, Inc. t/a Carey's Restaurant (2809 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Cafe; ; 5. Island Republic, Inc. tJa Island Republic (1905 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Caf6; 6. Ocean Sands Resort, LLC t/a Casablanca Bistro (2207 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Cafe; 7. Barclay Restaurant t/a London Pavilion (809 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Caf6; 8. Days Inn Oceanfront t/a Timbuktu Caf~ (3107 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Cafe; Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Convention and Visitor Development City Manager: ~ i/,/' ~'J ~ Sa m/work/fra~so/renewalarf.wpd Considerations (continued) 9. Marianna Enterprises t/a Little Feets (2613 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Caf6; 10. Atlantic Enterprises t/a Ellington's (2901 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Caf6; 11. Burlage Hotel Associates t/a LaVerne's Chix Cafb (701 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Cafe; 12. Resorts of Virginia Beach, Inc. t/a Peppers (225 17th Street) Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafe; 13. Ramada on the Beach, L.C. t/a Mahi Mah's (615 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Cafe; 14. Ramada on the Beach, L.C. t/a Mahi Mah's (615 Atlantic Avenue) Connector Park Caf6; 15. BBH Corporation t/a T-Bird Cafb (3410 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Cafe; 16. DAP, Inc. t/a 22"d Street Raw & Grill (202 22® Street) Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafe; 17. Clearwater Investments Associates, L.P. t/a Dolphin Watch Caf~ (3501 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Caf6; 18. Megabytes, L.L.C. t/a Salsa's Restaurant (812 Atlantic Avenue) Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Cafe; and 19. Ahata, Inc. t/a Pier 23 Restaurant (2224 Atlantic Avenue) Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafe. Recommendations: Based on each Grantee's successful operation of an open air caf~ during the past year, the Department of Convention and Visitor Development recommends that the Grantees' respective franchises be renewed for a term of five (5) years, commencing May 1,2002, and ending April 30, 2007. If City Council approves the attached ordinance, the granting of the franchises will be contingent upon the respective Grantees' execution of an Open Air Cafb Franchise Agreement, and compliance with the terms and conditions thereof. Attachments: Ordinance 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING FRANCHISES FOR THE OPERATION OF OPEN AIR CAFES IN THE RESORT AREA (FRANCHISE RENEWALS) WHEREAS, each of the following corporations/companies (hereinafter referred to as "Grantees")has requested renewal of its franchise for the operation of an open air caf~ at the location indicated: 1. Atlantic Resort Associates t/a !1th St. Oceanfront Diner (1101 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Cafe; 2. HWC Investments, Inc. t/a Stacey's (3301 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Cafe; 3. Tampico Enterprises Inc., t/a Abbey Road (203 22n~ Street) Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Cafe; 4. Colonial Inn, Inc. t/a Carey's Restaurant (2809 Atlantic Avenue Boardwalk Cafe; 5. Island Republic, Inc. t/a Island Republic 1905 Atlantic Avenue' Boardwalk Cafe; 6. Ocean Sands Resort, LLC t/a Casablanca Bistro 2207 Atlantic Avenue Boardwalk Cafe; 7. Barclay Restaurant t/a London Pavilion (809 Atlantic Avenue Boardwalk Cafe; 8. Days Inn Oceanfront t/a Timbuktu Caf~ 3107 Atlantic Avenue Boardwalk Cafe; 9. Marianna Enterprises t/a Little Feets (2613 Atlantic Avenue Boardwalk Cafe; 10. Atlantic Enterprises t/a Ellington's (2901 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Cafe; 11. Burlage Hotel Associates t/a LaVerne's Chix Caf~ (701 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Cafe; 12. Resorts of Virginia Beach, Inc. t/a Peppers (225 17th Street) Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafe; 13. Ramada on the Beach, L.C. t/a Mahi Mah's (615 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Cafe; 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 62 63 64 65 14. Ramada on the Beach, L.C. t/a Mahi Mah's (615 Atlantic Avenue) Connector Park Cafe; 15. BBH Corporation t/a T-Bird Caf6 (3410 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Caf6; 16. DAP, Inc. t/a 22nd Street Raw & Grill (202 22nd Street) Atlantic Avenue Side Street Caf6; 17. Clearwater Investments Associates, L.P. t/a Dolphin Watch Caf6 (3501 Atlantic Avenue) Boardwalk Cafe; 18. Megabytes, L.L.C. t/a Salsa's Restaurant (812 Atlantic Avenue) Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Caf6; and 19. Ahata, Inc. t/a Pier 23 Restaurant (2224 Atlantic Avenue) Atlantic Avenue Side Street Caf6. WHEREAS, the City has developed a Franchise Agreemen~ for the regulation of open air caf6s which each of the above-listed Grantees will be required to execute as a condition of franchise renewal; and WHEREAS, based upon each Grantee's successful operation of an open air caf6 pursuant to a franchise during the past year, the Department of Convention and Visitor Development recommends a five-year renewal of the franchise of each of the foregoing Grantees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That a franchise is hereby granted to each of the above-listed Grantees to operate an open air caf6 at the address indicated herein from May 1, 2002, to April 30, 2007, conditioned on each Grantee's execution of the above-referenced Franchise Agreement and compliance with all of the terms and conditions thereof; and 2. That the City Manager, or his duly authorized designee, is hereby authorized to enter into a Franchise Agreement with each Grantee subject to the aforementioned conditions. 66 67 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 CA-8424 Sam/work/franchise/renewalord.wpd March 4, 2002 RI APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Conv~nti-~ ~ Visi~r Development t) APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney's~Office 3 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Acceptance of Streets for Urban Maintenance Payments (accepting additional streets & corrections/deletions to the revised road inventory for maintenance payments.) MEETING DATE: March 26, 2002 Background: The 1985 General Assembly established legislation requiring City Council resolutions for all new streets to be submitted to the Virginia Department of Transportation for Urban Maintenance payments and for all corrections to the road inventory. Considerations: The first resolution requests the addition of 15.02 lane miles of new streets which will be eligible for urban maintenance funds beginning July 1, 2002. Of this, 3.56 lane miles are classified as arterial streets. At the present rate of $12,958 per lane mile, the city will receive $46,130.48. The remaining11.46 lane miles are classified as local/collector streets. At the present rate of $7,608 per lane mile, the city will receive $87,197.68. The combined total for additional urban maintenance funding is $133,318.16 per year based on the current VDOT reimbursement rates. The second resolution reflects a net increase of 4.66 lane miles of arterial and local/collector streets in the urban streets inventory. This increase is the result of the reconstruction of streets to add lanes and/or to lengthen and the deletion of streets. Of this, 4.82 lane miles are classified as arterial streets that are being added/replaced to the streets inventory. At the present rate of $12,958, the city will receive an additional $62,457.56 per year. Also, .16 lane miles of local/collector streets are being deleted from the streets inventory. At the present rate of $7,608 per lane mile, the city will lose $1,217.28. The combined total for additional lanes and/or lengthened and deleted lanes is $61,240.28 per year based on the current VDOT reimbursement rates. Based on the current VDOT rates, the city will net an increase of $194,558.44 in revenue for urban maintenance funding beginning July 1, 2002, as a result of the above changes. A list of streets is attached. Recommendations: Approval Attachments: Resolutions (2) Form U-1 (street inventory) Recommended Action: Approve Resolutions ,x ~/t/~, Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works City Manager~-.~5 \/,.., ~) L~,~ A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO ACCEPT ADDITIONAL STREETS FOR URBAN MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation requires a Council resolution prior to accepting additional streets for urban maintenance payments; WHEREAS, the streets listed on Exhibit A (attached) have been constructed in accordance with standards established by the Virginia Department of Transportation; streets; and WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach has accepted and agreed to maintain these WHEREAS, a representative from the Virginia Department of Transportation has inspected and approved these streets. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That City Council hereby requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to accept the streets listed on Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, and to begin paying urban maintenance payments to the City of Virginia Beach based on the established rate. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of ,2002. Approved as to Content: Public Works Approved as to Legal Sufficiency ~City Attorney EXHIBIT A I- o ro I UJ----.W 0 I-- Z uJ 0 m ~ Z 2:," '~ g o ~ ~ z o ~ ~ z ~o g .> o o o o Z I,LI O_ UJ LU LL 5 Z n~ in,, ~n Z Z n ILl Z W z ~3 Z <~ Z 0 -J 0 LU Z 0 z o3 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO ACCEPT CORRECTIONS TO THE REVISED ROAD INVENTORY FOR URBAN MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation requires a Council resolution prior to accepting corrections/deletions to the revised road inventory for urban maintenance payments; WHEREAS, City personnel have reviewed the revised road inventory prepared by the Virginia Department of Transportation and have determined that some inaccuracies exist; WHEREAS, corrections to the revised road inventory have been made as shown on Exhibit A (attached); and WHEREAS, a representative from the Virginia Department of Transportation has inspected and approved these corrections. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That City Council hereby requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to accept the corrections listed on Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, and to begin paying urban maintenance payments to the City of Virginia Beach based on the established rate. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of ,2002. Approved as to Content: Public W~rks - Approved as to Legal Sufficiency ~C'~t-y Attomey EXHIBIT A Z W o LU 5 UJ ~ 0 ~: · uJ I-- Z n~ UJ LU Z Z Z LULU ~.Ot.-o LU --~ 00 UJ Z uJ U,J n z z 0 _.1 0 03 z 0 iw Z C~ UJ 5 ,.W Z Z 5~ Z LLI Z 0 ILl ~W [0 I~J Z I-- Z n," IJ.I IJJ :LLI O 5 0 F- Z z 0 0 I-,- z z z ILl w z z 0 0 rr Z n~ UJ Z z z _j IJ.I 0 7 0 Lt. Ko PLANNING Applications of WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC. at the northeast comer of West Neck and Indian River Roads (3132 West Neck Road), containing 87.215 acres. (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) (a) Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance re the thirty (30)-foot minimum pavement width for interior streets (1) Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional R-15 Residential (c) Conditional Use Permit re Open Space Promotion Deferred: January 22, 2002 February 5, 2002 March 5, 2002 Application of MAXINE JOHNSON for a Variance to §4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance which requires all newly created lots meet all requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) at 1648 Waft Road. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) o Application of ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST CHURCH for a Conditional Use Permit for a church expansion on Kempsville Road east of Centerville Turnpike (1861 Kempsville Road), containing 14.67 acres. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) Application of PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED for a Conditional Use Permit re a borrow pit on the south side of Sandbridge Road, 720 feet east of Princess Anne Road, containing 64.911 acres. (PRINCESS ANNE - DISTRICT 7) Deferred: Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission: January 22, 2002 INDEFINITE DEFERRAL APPROVAL/add condition #9 o Application of PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE f/k/a GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE, for a Conditional Use Permit for recreation facilities of an outdoor nature on the east side of Lisban Road, south of Elbow Road Extended, containing 28.4 acres. (PRINCESS ANNE - DISTRICT 7) March 5, 2002 We are certainly not going to be able to resolve -- and we wouldn't want to -- this Body of responsibility. This is where the ultimate responsibility is, but I do think that we can give a much better direction and so that we can be closer than I think maybe we are at this point. If there are no other comments, I would move that we defer the Application until March 26th with the expectation of a Workshop on March 19th. COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: Second. PU%YOR OBEP. NDORF: Are we ready for the question? CITY CLERK: With Mrs. McClanan and Mr. Sessoms being absent, the vote is 9 to 0 to defer the Application until March 26th with a Workshop scheduled on the 19th. ~3%YOR OBERNDORF: Thank you. Mrs. Parker. COUNCIL LADY PARKER: last time. If I might just note, Mrs. Smith, I think it shows that I voted against the deferral the CITY CLERK: Uh-huh. COUNCIL LADY PARKER: And I think I voted for the deferral. I'm not sure who the other person was, but I think I seconded the motion. Just for the record. ~3~YOR OBERNDORF: Okay. CITY CLERK: We will double-check it. COUNCIL LADY P~KER: Thank you, Madam. ~3%YOR OBERNDORF: Well, I now close the Public Hearing on the Planning Item. 13 March 5, 2002 applying this ranking standard and saying we approve this density based on this ranking and the Applicant has requested a higher density. Therefore, our recommendation is negative or the Applicant has requested an amount of density that we can support based on the ranking system and; therefore, all other factors being equal, we recommend approval. It's still going to be up to this Body to either accept our recommendation or not. So when you, Mrs. Henley, are talking about the process I don't see the process changing much. What I would like to see is I would like to see you amend your recommendation as to this Application that's in this write-up and when this thing matures on March 26th with your statement we continue to recommend it at this density or we recommend it at a lower density based on the ranking. I think the discussion in the Workshop is going to be helpful, but it ultimately comes down to, I think, we can't let the monkey get off your back. You're still going to have to make a recommendation in each and every one of these Applications to the Council as you have in every other Zoning Application. ROBERT SCOTT: And so is subjectivity. I can't think of a Rezoning Application or a Use Permit that doesn't involve some element of subjectivity. COUNCIL~ HARRISON: Absolutely. ROBERT SCOTT: We're all used to that. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: And if I may continue. And what Mr. Harrison said, too, about the ultimate decision still rests with the City Council. You are going to be applying your subjectivity, but then we may also say, maybe you have ranked it too high or we disagree. There's still going to be that element, because it's still a fact that this is the Body that is the decision-making Body and your Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending Bodies and, you know, the buck stops here. 12 March 5, 2002 So, I think that in the near future my suggestion would be that we walk the Council through an Application, perhaps, the one that's before us tonight but in a different setting and then ask for your feedback back on whether this is the type of thing that you are looking for. There is one thing I can promise and one thing I can't promise. I can't promise that if we do it right this is going to work better. think we are seeing signs already, but I cannot promise that if we eliminate this agreement -- there are still going to be reasonable people who look at a single amenity and see two different things or look at the same design and see two different things. It will not eliminate that, but it will at least provide some framework for discussing those differences should they exist and I think that's important. I COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: I know Mr. Harrison does want to make a comment. My concern was that this March 26th date that the Applicant has asked for a deferral, are you comfortable that we are going to have the time to accomplish those things by the March 26th date? ROBERT SCOTT: I see no reason why not. COUNCIL I2%DY HENLEY: Okay. CITY MAAL~GE R: It would be my hope to be able to schedule some time at your Workshop on the 19th. PI~YOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Harrison. COUNCILMAlq HARRISON: subjective process. Mr. Scott, I appreciate your last few remarks because it is still going to be a The whole Council may agree with this ranking process, but when it gets right down to it, your Staff as part of our package in the next Application in this Transition Zone. I gather you plan to be 11 March 5, 2002 So, I just came up with a lot of questions and I don't know if Mr. Scott is prepared to address any of this tonight, but I wanted to share with the rest of the Council some of what my concerns were and what I was looking for. I didn't know if you-all were bothered by the same things or not because I really think that the staff needs some direction from Council or we need to come to some agreement so when these property owners come before us they know what we are looking for too. It is a little unfair for them to have to stand before us and not know what we have got on our minds. So, I think it's important that we come to a meeting of the minds on this so that we, you know, have established the perimeters and we get here all thinking the same thing or at least fairly close to the same thing and the Applicant knows what to expect as well. I don't know if -- Mr. Scott, do you feel like you need some direction from Council as to really where to go with this? ROBERT SCOTT: Well, ultimately you said two important things that I just want to capitalize. I think there are two things needed. I think the best way to convey to the Council how we are going about it is to actually walk the Council through one example. We are prepared to do it tonight, but frankly in the interest of fairness to the Applicant who is not here, perhaps, it is best that we not do it until we talk to him. He has indicated the desire to talk to us further. We have worked this particular project through and arrived at a number. You need from us an understanding of how that was arrived at and we need from you feedback or guidance on whether that meets your preferences. Hopefully, this method of using this will draw us all together a little further in terms of looking for the same thing when we want to look at an Application. It's pretty clear we are not there at this point. In our preliminary discussions with Applicants who have items pending or thinking of having items pending in this area, we have found some trouble already in terms of providing some more specific guidance on what's needed and we would like to continue that. 10 March 5, 2002 the one-lot per acre that the Applicant would get, and those items being the quality of the design and how it fits in with the rural area, how well the Applicant works with the natural resources in the area and incorporates the development into the natural resources and the quality of the amenity. So, in effect if we're talking about one-lot per acre being the ultimate that we can get, we're really thinking about essentially R-40 Zoning; but in a situation like the one we have before us, we don't really determine how many lots could be gotten on that property if it were developed at R-40. When we have a difficult property like this one, my concern is that we probably couldn't get that to begin with. So, then where are we working down from and what is the right number of lots? I know there's a number that's the right number of lots, but in my mind I'm not able to get there. I don't understand how we are going to be getting there. It's such an important issue because this is going to be a precedent that we establish for the entire Transition Area. So, we are not talking about 87 acres. We're talking about -- I don't know how many thousands of acres. I have heard 6,500, or something like that, as being the number of acres in the Transition Area. So, we are really talking about a major question and if we are going to allow as in this case the Applicant to drop the density from that 40,000 square feet per acre which would be R-40 down to in this case some lots less than 11,000 square feet, I feel that I need to know what the justification is for allowing that difference and what the trade-off is. I certainly could defend the smaller lots if there was a very good reason for it and I know that the Planning Staff had a preliminary shot at determining how many lots this Applicant should get. I think they came up with 64 lots, rather than the 66 that were proposed; but in this particular Application, I'm not clear on what the amenity is. I mean, I know that they are going to be giving the City open space, but is that all that we are requiring that there just be a dedication of the land and not a building of an amenity? 9 COUNCILMAIq. HARRISON: March 5, 2002 Right. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: And then we say, well, that was a good ranking or I totally disagree. I think you know that's where I think we need to weigh in. COUNCII/~AN HARRISON: Yes, ma'am. PLkYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Thank you very much. FORMAL SESSION MAYOR OBERNDORF: We will now move to the Planning Items. Mrs. Henley, I'm going to turn to you. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: The Application of West Neck Properties for a rezoning from Agriculture to R-15 and a Conditional Use Permit with the open space promotion as well as the variance to street widths, when we had this on the Agenda a few weeks ago it was deferred for 30 days. So, it's back on our Agenda tonight. The Applicant's attorney has asked that it be deferred, not only because he was not clear that tonight was the night but also because of his desire to meet with the Staff for a little bit more evaluation or interpretation of the evaluation process and so forth. I am glad that that was his request, because I was not comfortable that we were at a point of really understanding what our procedure was going to be. And just to make a couple of comments to follow-up on what we said in the Informal Session, our question is, really, how do we determine how many lots are going to be approved on a property and we seem to not be sure how we are going to get to that level. When we had the Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission, Mr. Scott made a Presentation of which I thought had merit that we start with some base amount and then an evaluation on three particular items, determine whether the Applicant -- how much additional density up to 8 COUNCIL LADY EURE: March 5, 2002 And they are two foot now? STEPHEN WHITE: Right. You use the subdivision variance for the roadway. So, there's a discussion that they still want to have on that issue. I think we can have that meeting, Linwood, as soon as possible to hear what they want to say, get to the Council on the 19th and discuss with you and then have another meeting after that, but it's going to come back on the 26th and all of those issues may not be resolved. It all depends. There are a lot of unknowns here. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Mr. Harrison. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: I'm sorry. Isn't it fair to ask the staff to -- I mean, we were .96 per acre, units per acre, which is very near the highest you could get and we asked the staff to show us how the ranking was going to justify that. Don't we need them to do that? I mean, isn't that what we need to actually hear? I know we have heard the proposal from Mr. Scott, but he hasn't related that proposal to this Application. Isn't that what we really need to hear? COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: I think so, yes. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: And if you can't do it, then he needs to either -- the Staff I would think has to change its recommendation in the book here or they need to show us that they believe that the ranking process does justify this outcome, but I hear that you want the Council to weigh in, Mrs. Henley, but I really think -- I want the Staff. I want the professionals to apply this ranking standard to this set of facts and I want to see the answer and then I will weigh in as to whether I agree with them or not. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: That's exactly what I meant. I mean, I think we need to hear what their proposal is and specifically. Now we have this one to apply it to. 7 MAYOR OBERNDORF: March 5, 2002 Mr. Branch. COUNCILMAN BRANCH: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Stephen, the Applicant's attorney makes reference to a couple of issues they would like to discuss with the staff. STEPHEN WHITE: Yes, sir. COUNCILMAN BRANCH: Road size and lot size STEPHEN WHITE: Uh-huh. COUNCILMAN BRANCH: I understand we are waiting for Mr. Arendt for a meeting, but I hope we are also, you know, working on these issues. I would hate to think that we have these deferrals and end up with really nothing new during that time. STEPHEN WHITE: I got this letter today. As soon as I got it I talked to Bob Scott about it and we are in the process of getting this Meeting scheduled so we can talk to the Applicant about those issues. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: But unless you really know what the Council's feeling is, how are you going to know what to say to the Applicant? I mean, I think the Council needs to be able to weigh in because the Council is supposed to be setting the policy. STEPHEN WHITE: really speak to that one. I'm not really sure what the issue is on that one. he mentions here in the letter. In terms of the lot size issue, you can't At this point, That's something On the road issue, that deals with the issue of swales, which the current Application has and which the Comprehensive Plan recommends versus the use of curb and gutter and there seems to be a discussion still ongoing about which.to use. March 5, 2002 This Applicant now has asked for March 26th and I think that we ought to get our stuff together before March '26th and go on with it, but I was in favor of a 30-day deferral but I'm not in favor of an indefinite deferral and I think it's unfair -- we have carried on too far. I was trying to be fair on the other side to make sure we had a system in place and I hope we can. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Mrs. Henley. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: Well, we will discuss it more in the Open Session and determine how we might act, but if we could have some suggestions for when we would have opportunities between now and that time or at what time to talk about this proposed ranking procedure because I think -- you know if that's what's on the table at this point and that's what we are considering at this point -- you know I think Mr. Scott's suggestions were how the development treated it's natural resource areas, what the design of the project was and how uniquely designed the project was and, then, the ranking of the amenity. In looking at those three things I guess everybody -- we don't know what the ranking system is and so that makes it hard, because I was very hard-pressed to rank this one in the area of design or amenity. I would really like to hear from the Staff what you think might be the ranking procedure and at what point we can -- you know if this is what we're going to adopt or be comfortable with to know how we're going to consider it. You know I think the Applicants need to know it and I think we need to know it. CITY MA/qAGER: good time. We could do that at Council's pleasure on the Workshop on the 19th if that would be a COL~NCIL LADY HENLEY: Okay. Maybe we can talk about it a little more, because I think it's important that they hear what all of our concerns are so they know what to come back with. Okay. 5 March 5, 2002 COUNCIL LADY PARKER: Okay. Mr. Spore, could you follow-up on that please and find out what's happening and why we haven't -- because I thought I heard the Council say they would really like to work with him and see what's going on. Not just the Council but people within the business community themselves so everybody is kind of on the same page with this. CITY MANAGER: We have put together a mailing list of those that would be invited to the Session whenever we are able to get the date set up and the location pegged. So, I will be glad to share that with you. I'm fine if you have suggestions of people you want to make sure are invited. If you would let us know, we will make sure they get an invitation. COUNCIL LADY PARKER: Ail right. As open as possible to as many folks who have a real interest in this. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Harrison. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would just like to remind the Council that back in February when we heard this Application we were relying on a Presentation made by Mr. Scott in the Informal Session just a few hours before our Meeting and in that Session he had been quite explicit that he could get back, get the information, get the recommendations of the Planning Department and do it all in 30 days time. I think there was a sentiment among Members of the Council, myself included, that -- some didn't want to wait at all. Some wanted to go ahead and hear the Application and vote on it. I think perhaps Mr. Sessoms was one of those people and I think we urged him to go along with Mrs. Henley's motion to defer for 30 days. I frankly can't go along with an indefinite deferral and I think that we're slowly losing our grip on the control of this situation with delaying it further for a Presentation by third parties whose schedules are not within our control. March 5, 2002 your pleasure what you want us to do at that point, whether you want a memo explaining where we are, if you-want another Presentation from Mr. Scott or what the case may be. The number we determined in here was preliminary based on where we were at that moment just so we would have something for today's discussion, if this was going to be discussed. So, we are at your will. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: Maybe we can take some time and discuss it out in the open. bIAYOR OBERNDORF: Yeah, at the Formal Session. Hrs. Parker. COUNCIL LADY PA1RKER: I'm sorry. Mr. White. STEPHEN WHITE: Yes. COUNCIL LADY PARIfER: him? Did you say, yes, you had contacted Hr. Randal Arendt or you have not contacted S TE PHEN WH I TE: anything. It's my understanding there's been some contact, but we haven't set a date or COUNCIL LADY PARKER: Because when I spoke with him at that meeting over in Chesapeake, he had like one or two weekdays open between now and April. So, I'm just wondering why we haven't gotten those two choices back at this moment in time. I saw his schedule and it was pretty full, so if we were going to make any in-roads into this process we would have had something back by now on that choice. STEPHEN WHITE: I'm not sure of the details. I would have to get back to you or have Mr. Scott get back to you on the schedule. 3 March 5, 2002 that's all we're going to require of any of these developers is that they dedicate raw land and leave the amenity up to the City, I don't think we are going to get much in the way of amenities. So, I just had a lot of questions about what our process is going to be and I think we really need to have some time to, you know, flush that out and develop it because I think that's one of the things that the attorney asked for in his letter requesting a deferral, that there be some clarification of this evaluation process and its interpretation of the general guidelines and I think the Applicant needs that and I certainly feel like I need that before I would be ready to act on any of these. So, is there a suggestion for how we might talk about it a little bit more? Well, I think we do need to defer it, but I didn't know whether March 26th was going to be time, if that was the appropriate time to defer it? COUNCILMAN JONES: That's what the attorney said. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: Right. But in making the motion tonight whether we were going to say March 26th as he has requested or if we are really going to need some more time. COUNCIL LADY EURE: But didn't I understand that in two weeks from Bob's Presentation, which would be the next week with one week gone by, that those answers he would have back? The packet that you-all sent me asked everyone to get back with him in two weeks with the suggestions for the criteria and I have got some people looking at those to see. And so far of what he has said, you know, they think it's fine. So, the two weeks is up by next Tuesday I think. Stephen, help me out here. STEPHEN WHITE: We are at the pleasure of the Council at this point. We were looking for comments from you on what Mr. Scott presented and then we will determine at 2 March 5, 2002 INFORMAL SESSION MAYOR OBERNDORF: Under Planning, Mrs. Henley. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: ready to act on this. March 26th. This Applicant has requested a deferral and I'm glad they requested it, because I wasn't I think they have asked for a deferral until I just wonder if we are going to be ready at that time. We had asked last week if we could set up a Presentation by Randall Arendt. Has that been scheduled? Does anyone know? CITY MANAGER: I believe Planning has contacted him. I don't know if a date has been selected yet or not. One of you mentioned that we try to do it by the end of March or early April. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: I think it's important that we let people know that we really are interested in doing something in that area and we are just not trying to put up road blocks, but it's getting the right thing and I don't know if you want to discuss this a little bit now or if you want to wait and discuss it in the Open Session so folks will think we really have a Meeting tonight. I just had several points. Well, it won't take five minutes. I didn't know if you needed an Executive Session. But I really think we need to develop this proposal or these suggestions that Mr. Scott presented to us about how we are going to rank the criteria in this area and, you know, Council heard that but we haven't said, yes or no, or what we think to the ranking and I really think we should be a part of it. It's just not -- because you know the buck does stop here and I'm not at all clear. I think they have tentatively come up with something like 64-units. I don't know how that many units was approved, because I really don't see an amenity other than simply dedicating the raw land and if Item V-K. 1. PLANNING - 29 - ITEM # 49390 Upon motion by Council Lady Henley, seconded by Councilman Mandigo, City Council DEFERRED to the City Council Session of March 26, 2002. applications of WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC. for a Variance to § 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance re the thirty (30)-foot minimum pavement width for interior streets, plus Ordinances for a Conditional Change of Zoning and Conditional Use Permit. This Deferral will allow scheduling of a Workshop on March 19, 2002, re clarification of the evaluation process and interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan's general guidelines for development proposals in the Transition area: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for West Neck Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation. Parcel is located at 3132 West Neck Road (GPIN #2403-21-1935; #2403-21-0241). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. AND, ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC., A VIRGINIA CORPORATION, FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG-1 AND AG-2 TO CONDITIONAL R-15 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT An Ordinance upon Application of West Neck Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation,for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and A G-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-15 Residential District at the northwest corner of West Neck Road and Indian River Road (GPIN #2403- 21-1935; #2403-21-0241). The proposed zoning classification to Conditional R-15 is for single family residential land use on lots no less than 15,000 square feet. This site is located in the Transition Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for appropriate growth opportunities, consistent with the economic vitality policies of Virginia Beach. Said parcel is located at 313 2 West Neck Road and contains 87.215 acres more or less. DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE. ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC., A VIRGINIA CORPORATION, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPEN SPACE PROMOTION Ordinance upon Application of West Neck Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation, for a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion at the northeast corner of West Neck Road and Indian River Road (GPIN #2403-21-1935; 142403-21-0241). Said parcel is located at 3132 West Neck Road and contains 87.215 acres. DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE. Voting: 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William YE. Harrison, Jr., Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mahdi#o, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker and Rosemary Wilson Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Reba S. McClanan and Vice Mayor William D. Sessorns, Jr. March 5, 2002 -9- AGENDA RE VIE W SESSION ITEM ~9366 Applications of WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC., at the northeast corner of West Neck and Indian River Roads (3132 West Neck Road), containing 87.215 acres. (PRINCESS ANNE - DISTRICT 7) a. Variance to ~ 4.4(3) of the Subdivision Ordinance re the thirty (30)-foot minimum pavement width for interior streets b. Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 andAG-2. Agricultural District to Conditional R-15 Residential District c. Conditional Use Permit re Open Space Promotion Council Lady Henley referenced Attorney Bourdon 's request for Deferral until the City Council Session of March 26, 2002. Attorney Bourdon requested staff's clarifications of the evaluation process and its interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan's general guidelines for development proposals in the Transition Area. Council Lady Henley requested this interpretation as well. Council Lady Henley inquired relative the scheduling of the City Council Conservation Design Workshop by Randall Arendt, (also to be attended by citizens and land developers). The City Council will be confronted with some major land use issues regarding the Transition Area. Council Lady Henley referenced the Joint Briefing (City Council and Planning Commission) re the Transition Area Guidelines, February 19, 2002. Mr. Scott referenced the criteria and ranking the development in the area: Natural Resources/Design and Amenities. Council Lady Henley did not believe the City is going to receive much in the way of amenity if the applicant is just required to dedicate the raw land. Council Lady Henley has many questions relative the process. Council Lady Henley found it difficult to rank this application in the area of design or amenity. The City Manager advised this ranking process could be discussed during the City Council Workshop of March 19, 2002. Relative the Design Workshop, Stephen White, Planning, advised Mr. Arendt had been contacted, but a time has not been scheduled. The City Manager advised a mailing list of proposed attendees to the Randall Arendt Workshop has been compiled. The City Manager requested City Council advise him of anyone they wish to invite. Councilman Harrison is in favor of a 30-day Deferral, but would not be in favor of an Indefinite Deferral. Counclman Harrison advised this application is .96 units per acre. The City Council needs to be advised of the staff ranking of this particular application. Councilman Branch advised the applicant's attorney wishes to discuss road and lot size with City staff Mr. White advised a meeting will be scheduled concerning these issues. Mr. White is not sure what the issue is relative lot size; however, the road issues involve the utilization of swales versus the use of curb and gutter. There is still discussion as to which to use. ITEM # 49367 BY CONSENSUS, the following shall compose the CONSENT AGENDA: ORDINANCES Ordinance to authorize the City Manager to lease spaces at the Virginia Beach Farmers' Market: (PRINCESS ANNE - DISTRICT 7) a. Cheryl Hummer, dfo/a "Cheryl 's Country Cookin ' - Space 26 b. Fred and Linda Jordan, dfo/a "The Nesting Box," - Space 2 c. Bill and Linda Slapper, d/b/a "Slapper's Produce, "- Space 9 Ordinance re conveyance of a permanent utility easement on City-owned property, known as Little Neck Neighborhood Park, to VERIZON VIRGINIA, INC.; and, authorize the City Manager to execute a Deed of Easement. (L YNNHA YEN - DISTRICT 5) March 5, 2002 Virginia Beach City Council March 5, 2002 3:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor W.D. Sessoms, Jr., Vice Mayor Linwood O. Branch, III Margaret L. Eure William W. Harrison, Jr. Barbara M. Henley Louis R. Jones Robert C. Mandigo Reba S. McClanan Nancy K. Parker Rosemary Wilson At Large At Large District 6 - Beach District 1 - Centerville District 5 - Lynnhaven District 7 - Princess Anne District 4 - Bayside District 2 - Kempsville District 3 - Rose Hall At Large At Large CITY PL~/q~GE R: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM Discussion regarding the West Neck Properties, Incorporated Item V-K. 1. PLANNING - 29- ITEM # 49390 Upon motion by Council Lady Henley, seconded by Councilman Mandigo, City Council DEFERRED to the City Council Session of March 26, 2002. applications of WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC. for a Variance to 3~ 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance re the thirty (30)-foot minimum pavement width for interior streets, plus Ordinances for a Conditional Change of Zoning and Conditional Use Permit. This Deferral will allow scheduling of a Workshop on March 19, 2002, re clarification of the evaluation process and interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan's general guidelines for development proposals in the Transition area: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for West Neck Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation. Parcel is located at 3132 West Neck Road (GPIN #2403-21-1935; #2403-21-0241). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. AND, ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC., A VIRGINIA CORPORATION, FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AG-1 AND AG-2 TO CONDITIONAL R- 15 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT An Ordinance upon Application of West Neck Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation, for a Change of Zoning District Classification from A G- 1 and A G-2 AgriculturalDistricts to ConditionalR-15 ResidentialDistrict at the northwest corner of West Neck Road and Indian River Road (GPIN #2403- 21-1935; #2403-21-0241). The proposed zoning classification to Conditional R-15 is for single family residential land use on lots no less than 15,000 square feet. This site is located in the Transition Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends us e of th is parcel for appropriate growth opportunities, consistent with th e economic vitality policies of Virginia Beach. Said parcel is located at 3132 West Neck Road and contains 87.215 acres more or less. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC., A VIRGINIA CORPORATION, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPEN SPACE PROMOTION Ordinance upon Application of West Neck Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation, for a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion at the northeast corner of West Neck Road and Indian River Road (GPIN #2403-21-1935; #2403-21-0241). Saidparcelislocatedat3132 WestNeck Road and contains 87.215 acres. DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE. Voting: 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William IV.. Harrison, Jr., Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker and Rosemary Wilson Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Reba S. McClanan and Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. March 5, 2002 West Neck Pro ' AG-2 AG-2 Gpin 2403-21-1935 0241 ZONING HISTORY la. Rezoning (A-R to M-13) & Conditional Use Permit (mobile home park); lb. Rezoning (A-R to C-G3) & Conditional Use Permit (gas station); lc. Rezoning (A-R to C-L3) All requests were Denied 5-15-72 2. Conditional Use Permit (indoor/outdoor recreation - gym, boxing rings & track) Withdrawn 4-23-84 3. Subdivision Variance Approved 7-7-92; Conditional Use Permit (single family homes) Approved 7-7-92 4. Modification of Proffers Approved 5-11-99; Rezoning (AG-2 Agricultural to R-20 Residential) Approved 1-4-94; Rezoning (AG-1 Agricultural to R-20 Residential) Approved 1-4-94; Rezoning (R-40 Residential to R-20 Residential) Approved 1-4-94; Conditional Use Permit (open space promotion) Withdrawn 1-4-94; Subdivision Variance Approved 1-4-94; Rezoning (R-10 Residential to AG-2 Agricultural) Approved 7-14-92; Rezoning (R-15 Residential to AG-2 Agricultural) Approved 7-14-92; Rezoning (R-20 Conditional Use Rezoning (AG-1 Rezoning (AG-1 Rezoning (AG-1 Conditional Use Residential to AG-2 Agricultural) Approved 7-14-92; Permit (golf course) Approved 7-14-92; and 2 Agricultural to R-10 Residential) Approved 4-9-91; and 2 Agricultural to R-15 Residential) Approved 4-9-91; and 2 Agricultural to R-20 Residential) Approved 4-9-91; Permit (golf course) Approved 4-9-91; CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager West Neck Properties, Inc., a VA corp., Change of Zoning District Classification, Conditional Use Permit, and Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: March 26, 2002 Background: (1) An Ordinance upon Application of West Neck Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation, for a Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-15 Residential District at the northwest corner of West Neck Road and Indian River Road (GPIN #2403-21-1935; #2403-21-0241). The proposed zoning classification to Conditional R-15 is for single family residential land use on lots no less than 15,000 square feet. This site is located in the Transition Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for appropriate growth opportunities, consistent with the economic vitality policies of Virginia Beach. Said parcel is located at 3132 West Neck Road and contains 87.215 acres more or less. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. (2) An Ordinance upon Application of West Neck Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation, for a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion at the northeast corner of West Neck Road and Indian River Road (GPIN #2403-21-1935; #2403-21-0241 ). Said parcel is located at 3132 West Neck Road and contains 87.215 acres. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. (3) Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for West Neck Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation. Parcel is located at 3132 West Neck Road (GPIN #2403-21-1935; #2403- 21-0241 ).' DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. This request was deferred at the January 22, 2002 meeting. The request was deferred for 30 days at the February 5, 2002 meeting to provide time for the Planning Commission, City Council, and City staff to discuss clarification of Transition Area policies. At the March 5, 2002 City Council meeting, the applicant requested a deferral until March 26, Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department'~ City Manager:~ ~.., ~ ¢¢~L- West Neck Properties, Inc., a VA corp. Page 2 as the work on the clarification of Transition Area policies was not yet completed. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a change of zoning from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-15 Residential District on this site. The R-15 zoning will be modified through an Open Space Promotion Use Permit, allowing the size of the lots to be reduced, thus providing additional open space area. The development consists of 66 lots and 37.66 acres of open space (not including City-defined wetlands). The applicant is also requesting a subdivision variance to the 30 foot minimum pavement width for interior streets. In order to reduce the overall amount of pavement, the applicant is proposing a 28 foot pavement width with side swales (ditches). The applicant's request is based on the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area to construct local roads with minimal pavement width, wide shoulders and side swales. Include a well planned pedestrian circulation system to connect neighborhoods, recreational areas and open spaces. Minimize through consolidation the number of street accesses to arterial roadways" (pp. 72-73, Policy Document). Due to the reduced width, the applicant has proffered that vehicular parking will be allowed on only one side of the streets. As noted above, this request was deferred at the February 5, 2002 meeting to provide time for the Planning Commission, City Council, and City staff to discuss clarification of Transition Area policies. Since that meeting, staff has developed a preliminary set of criteria for assessing a development's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan's policies for the Transition Area. On February 19, the Director of Planning presented staff's work on the policy clarification to a joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission. Staff is currently in the process of more fully developing the criteria presented on February 19. At the February 5 meeting, however, City Council requested that when this request was heard again, staff provide a general sense of the consistency of this development proposal with the criteria. Staff has conducted a preliminary assessment and found that the final rating of the proposal would allow a maximum of 64 dwelling units on the property. The current proposal shows 66. Recommendations: A motion was passed unanimously by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request subject to the following condition for the Open Space Promotion Conditional Use Permit: The subdivision shall be developed as depicted on the submitted subdivision plan entitled, "Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Eagles Nest for West Neck Properties, Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia," dated July 5, 2001 revised 11/18/01, prepared by Burgess and Niple, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 December 12, 2001 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: GPIN: (19) Change of Zoning District Classification from AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts to Conditional R-15 Residential District. (20) Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion. (21) Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance (minimum street pavement width). 3132 West Neck Road (Northeast comer of West Neck Road and Indian River Road). #2403-21-1935; #2403-21-0241 ELECTION DISTRICT: 7-PRINCESSANNE Planning Commission Agenda~.~.~_~'~li~,?! ~'~ '"' '~ December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page I SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: 87.215 acres more or less. Ashby Moss Major Issues: · Consistency with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. · Impact on City systems (transportation, utilities, schools). · Compatibility with the surrounding area in terms of land use. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoninq The property is currently developed with a single- family dwelling and various other outbuildings and structures including a stable, greenhouse, detached garage, pool, tennis court, and basketball court. The property is zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts. Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES ! # 19 - 21 Page 2 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: West: · Cultivated fields / AG-1 and 2 Agricultural Districts · Three single-family dwellings fronting Indian River Road / AG-2 Agricultural District · Across Indian River Road, farm with single-family dwelling (included in Agricultural Reserve Program) / AG-1 and 2 Agricultural Districts · Woodlands and wetlands (City-owned property) / AG-1 and 2 Agricultural Districts · Single-family subdivision (Indian River Plantation) ! Conditional R-20 Residential District Zoning and Land Use Statistics With Existing Zoning: The density provisions of Section 402 of the City Zoning Ordinance would allow four to five single-family dwellings by-right depending on the amount of Type 1 and 2 soils present. Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 3 With Proposed Zoning: The conditional zoning agreement limits the number of lots to 66 and requires the development design to follow the preliminary subdivision plan described below. A total of 46.74 acres of. mostly wetlands and some upland areas will be dedicated to the City. Another 10.75 acres of open space within the development will be owned by a Property Owners' Association. Zonin,q History A three-part rezoning request was denied on the subject property in 1972. The three parts to the rezoning request included: a comer parcel proposed for a gas station, the Indian River Road frontage proposed for commercial, and the remaining area proposed for a mobile home park. Twelve years later, a conditional use permit for a portion of the subject property was requested. That proposal, for indoor/outdoor recreation, including a gym, boxing rings, a track, and a lodge was withdrawn Apdl 23, 1984. East of the subject property across West Neck Road, a number of zoning actions have occurred for the Indian River Plantation development. In 1991, the property was rezoned from Agriculture to various residential districts with a conditional use permit for a golf course. In 1992, these zonings were changed back to Agriculture with another conditional use permit for a golf course. Finally, in 1994, most of this portion of the property was rezoned to Conditional R-20. The proffers were modified on part of this area in 1999, but the zoning remains Conditional R-20 Residential District. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana and NALF Fentress. The proposed use is compatible with this AICUZ. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The property contains both open fields, not under cultivation, and heavily wooded areas. While the wooded areas are mostly on the eastern side of the property, there are a number of mature hardwoods at the center of the property around the existing house. The existing driveway is also lined on both sides with tall evergreen trees. This has been incorporated in the proposed site plan as part of a multi-purpose trail. This land drains to West Neck Creek, located approximately 400 feet from the northeast corner of this property. Consequently, wetlands and floodplain comprise a large portion of the eastern and northern sides of this property. Soils on the site are a mixture, Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 4 dominated by Tomotley (poorly drained, hydric) and Dragston (somewhat poorly drained, non-hydric). Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer There is currently no City water or sanitary sewer available to this property. The plan, as proposed, cannot be developed without City sewer. However, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) lists projects for water and sewer extensions along West Neck Road to a point north of the proposed site. To extend water and sewer to the subject site, the developer would have to construct a pump station and extend sewer and water lines approximately 5,000 feet. It is the intent of the applicant to extend water and sewer to the site and discussions have been held with Public Utilities regarding this extension. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (ClP): West Neck Road in the vicinity of this application is currently a two lane undivided rural arterial, and Indian River Road in the vicinity of this application is currently a two lane undivided rural arterial. The MTP designates Indian River Road as a 100 foot divided roadway. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity West Neck Road 2,502 ADT 1 7,400 ADT ~ Potential Land Use z_ 90 ADT AveraoP. F)~ilv Trin~ Proposed Land Use3 - 660 ADT 2 as defined by 5 single-family dwellings 3 as defined by 66 single-family dwellings Schools School Name Current Capacity Generation Enrollment North Landing 503 666 19 Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 5 Elementary Princess Anne Middle 1,376 1,520 11 Kellam High 2,365 2,070 12 "generation" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students). Public Safety Police: Adequate. No further comments. Fire and Rescue: Adequate. If road widths are less than 30 feet, parking should only be permitted on one side of the road. Summary of Proposal Proposal · The proposed development consists of 66 lots and 37.66 acres of open space (not including City-defined wetlands). Density equals 0.96 lots per developable acre, and non-City-defined wetland open space equals 55 percent of the developable area. Lots range is size from 10,800 square feet to almost 30,000 square feet with an average lot size of 15,500 square feet. The proposal includes 46.74 acres of land to be dedicated to the City. This includes 18.46 acres of City-defined wetlands bordering West Neck Creek and 28.28 acres of upland adjacent to these wetlands and along West Neck Road and Indian River Road. The applicant is also requesting a subdivision variance to the 30 foot minimum pavement width for interior streets. In order to reduce the overall amount of pavement, the applicant is proposing a 28 foot pavement width with side swales. A very small amount of fill in the floodplain is necessary to reach some of the high, developable land on the property. The lost floodplain area will be miti~gated on site in an equal amount. A floodplain variance is not required as the area of-fill is only 0.2 percent of the total flood fringe area on the site. Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 6 Site Desi,qn · The plan shows a 66 lot subdivision served by a road with three cul-de-sacs and a Iccp. The area proposed for development is primarily located on the western half of the property. Much of the eastern half, which is primarily wetlands and floodplain, is proposed for dedication to the City, to be integrated into the City's West Neck Creek Linear Park property. Along both the West Neck Road and Indian River Road street frontage, 150 foot buffers are also proposed for dedication to the City. The street frontage buffer is interrupted at one point on Indian River Road where the development wraps around three existing houses. The central feature of this subdivision plan is a 10 foot wide multi-purpose trail that runs through the center of the site adjacent to the main interior road. This trail consists of the existing tree-lined asphalt driveway, which will be extended past its current terminus all the way to the wetlands at the back of the site. A 15 foot public access easement will sanction public access to and use of the trail. A 1.37 acre stormwater management facility is shown on the plan at the center of the site. The presence of the road swales may reduce the size or eliminate the need for this facility entirely. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access · The proposed subdivision's sole entrance is on West Neck Road, just south of the existing driveway for the property. The interior roads consist of a loop road and three cul-de-sacs. · The divided entrance includes two exit lanes and one entry lane. · Both right and left turn lanes are shown on West Neck Road. In addition to the ten foot paved multi-purpose trail within the development, an eight foot trail is proposed within the buffer along West Neck Road and Indian River Road. (This buffer is proposed for dedication to the City, so the trails will also be City- owned). · Sidewalks are shown along one side of the interior streets. · Another 15 foot public access easement is shown adjacent to lot 11, connecting the buffer trail on Indian River Road to the interior sidewalk system. Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES/# 19 - 21 Page 7 · Pressed concrete brick paver crosswalks are shown at four points where sidewalks/trails cross an interior street. · Parking for guests will be allowed on only one side of the streets due to the reduced width that is proposed. Architectural Desiqn · The applicant has proffered minimum house sizes of 2,600 square feet for one story houses and 2,800 square feet for two story houses. Each house will have a two car garage. In addition, at least 75 percent of the exterior building material must be brick, stone, stucco, or similar quality material. · A four foot high, eight foot wide brick monument style sign is shown on a one foot concrete base for the proposed community entrance sign. Landscape and Open Space · A total of 46.74 acres of open space is to be dedicated to the City. This includes the wetlands and floodplain on the eastern portion of the property which are proffered to become part of the West Neck Creek Linear Park. The150 foot buffers along West Neck Road and Indian River Road are also included in this figure. · Interior open space to be owned by a Property Owners' Association equals 10.75 acres. The total amount of open space that can be credited toward the 15 percent requirement for open space promotion is 37.66 acres or 55 percent of the developable land on the site. Landscaping proposed for the 150 foot buffers along West Neck Road and Indian River Road consists of a 50 to 70 foot wide berm along the interior part of the buffer. The berm area is to be reforested with at least 70 percent native species of shrubs and trees. On the street side of the berm, 30 by 50 foot landscape beds will be placed 200 to 250 feet apart, consisting of shrubs, ornamental grasses, and perennials. Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES ! # 19 - 21 Page 8 Proffers PROFFER # 1 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 2 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 3 Staff Evaluation: When development takes place upon that portion of the Property which is to be developed, it shall be as a single family residential community of no more than sixty-six (66) building lots substantially in conformance with the Exhibit entitled "PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN FOR EAGLES NEST FOR WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC. VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA," dated July 5, 2001 revised 11/18/01, prepared by Burgess and Niple, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan"). The proposed subdivision plan is acceptable. When the property is developed, approximately 46.74 acres of forested area and buffers along West Neck Road and Indian River Road lying outside the residential lots and roadways depicted on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to the Grantee as Public Open Space. An additional 10.75 acres of Open Space including an improved multi-purpose trail for use by the public shall be maintained by the Property Owners Association. This proffer is acceptable. The wetlands and adjacent uplands proposed for dedication adjoin several acres of City-owned land bordering West Neck Creek. This land will be a welcome addition to the West Neck Creek Linear Park. The entrance to the community and multi-purpose trail and the typical street section of future West Neck Road and the roads within the community shall be constructed and installed substantially in conformance with the detailed plans on page 2 of the Concept Plan. No on-street parking shall be permitted on one side of every road within the community. This proffer is acceptable. The interior roadway sections are just two feet shy of the standard 30 foot pavement Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES ! # 19 - 21 Page 9 PROFFER # 4 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 5 Staff Evaluation: section. The use of side swales is intended to avoid or mitigate the need for a large stormwater management facility, which would entail the removal of more trees. Restricting on-street parking to just one side of the street will ensure adequate paved width for emergency vehicles on the interior roads. When the Property is subdivided it shall be subject to a recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Deed Restrictions") administered by a Property Owners Association which shall be responsible for maintaining all common area easements, including the community owned open space and multi-purpose trail, the entrance signage and neighborhood park. This proffer is acceptable. The Deed Restrictions and Property Owners' Association will help promote and maintain the level of quality demonstrated in this proposal. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall have visible exterior surfaces, excluding roof, trim, windows, and doors, which is no less than seventy-five percent (75%) brick, stone, stucco or similar quality materials. Any one story dwelling shall contain no less than 2600 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and any two-story dwelling shall contain no less than 2800 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage ama. The front yards of all homes shall be sodded. The Deed Restrictions shall require each dwelling to have, at a minimum, a two (2) car garage and a driveway (including apron) with a minimum of four hundred ninety (490) square feet of hardened surface area. This proffer is acceptable. The size of the proposed homes, quality exterior building materials, and sodded front yards will all contribute to a high quality appearance for this subdivision. The two car garages and minimum sized driveways will alleviate the need for on-street parking because of the alternative design for the interior streets. Four hundred ninety (490) square feet is the equivalent of three 9 by 18 foot parking spaces. Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES ! # 19 - 21 Page 10 PROFFER # 6 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 7 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 8 When the Property is developed, every reasonable effort will be made to preserve as many of the existing trees on the site as practical and a tree preservation plan shall be submitted to the Grantee for review along with the Preliminary Subdivision Plan. This proffer is acceptable. Since most of the existing trees on the site are outside of the proposed development areas, preserving trees should be uncomplicated. The tree preservation plan will be most helpful on lots 38 thru 46 and the area of the stormwater management facility which are located behind the treeline. The Grantors recognize that the subject site is located within the Transition Area identified in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Virginia Beach, adopted on November 4, 1997. The Comprehensive Plan states that development taking place in this area should support the primary purpose of advancing open space and recreational uses. In addition to committing sixty-five percent (65%) of the Property to open space preservation, via the dedication of forty-six and seventy-four one hundredths (46.74) acres of the Property to Grantee as a part of West Neck Creek Linear Park, and ten and three quarter acres to the Property Owners Association as permanent open space the Grantors agree to contribute the sum of One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) per lot to Grantee to be utilized by the Grantee to acquire land for open space preservation pursuant to Grantee's Outdoors Plan. If the funds proffered by the Grantors in this paragraph are not used by the Grantee anytime within the next twenty (20) years for the purpose for which they are proffered, then any funds paid and unused may be used by the Grantee for any other public purpose. Grantors agree to make payment for each residential lot shown on any subdivision plat prior to recordation of that plat. This proffer is acceptable. The cash proffer of $1,250 per lot equates to a total of $82,500 for all 66 lots. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and / or Subdivision review and Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 11 Staff Evaluation: administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. Any references hereinabove to the R- 15 Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. This proffer reaffirms that all provisions of the City Codes will be met and that the rezoning proposal outlined above does not eliminate the applicant's responsibility to follow the adopted rules and regulations. City Attorney's Office: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated November 23, 2001, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for appropriate growth opportunities, consistent with the economic vitality policies of Virginia Beach in accordance with other Plan policies. This area, classified by the Plan as the Transition Area, serves as a land use buffer between the clearly urbanizing area of the north and the clearly rural area of the south. The Plan offers the following planning policy guidance for this area. After each policy statement, an assessment of the development proposal in terms of the statement is provided. Provision 1 "Residential development within the Transition Area should adhere to the following guidelines: (a) Create high quality neighborhoods through careful planning of land uses, transportation systems, landscape treatments and public improvements. (b) Design with nature, making a special effort to preserve and showcase significant environmental resources. Carefully integrate such natural features and use them as a basis, where possible, to enhance and define neighborhoods, recreation areas, open spaces, and views of special natural areas. Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 12 (c) Construct local roads with minimal pavement width, wide shoulders and side swales. Include a well planned pedestrian circulation system to connect neighborhoods, recreational areas and open spaces. Minimize through consolidation the number of street accesses to arterial roadways" (pp. 72-73, Policy Document). Staff Assessment: The proposed development meets this provision. The subdivision is designed to showcase the existing tree-lined driveway by preserving it for a mu/ti- purpose trail This trail connects to a network of trails and sidewalks leading to other open spaces within and surrounding the development, including a major City park. Lot size is reduced and lots and roads are p/aced in locations to avoid sensitive areas and most of the existing wooded areas.. A 150 foot reforested buffer with a berm is included along Indian River Road and West Neck Road, further integrating the development into the surrounding landscape, consistent with the character of the Transition Area as a movement in residential density and design from the urban north to the rural south. A tree preservation plan has been proffered to preserve trees where possible. The roadway is designed with less pavement than a standard urban street section. It should be noted that this would not be recommended for these relatively smaller sized lots without the provisions limiting parking to one side of the street and providing adequate space on the individual lots, which this subdivision design accomplishes. Provision 2 "The residential growth in the Transition Area is not to be considered as a continuation of growth in the north, but as a special type of growth, with its own development standards suitable to the atmosphere and character of the area, and associated where possible with significant open space and recreational amenity. The Transition Area is to be seen as an open space and recreational mecca with residential development present only to the extent it supports the primary purpose of advancing open space and recreational uses. Residential use not associated with this purpose is not encouraged" (p. 73). Staff Assessment: Depending on whether City-defined wetlands are included in the calculation, this development proposal includes either 55 or 65 percent open space. Either way, it is clear that the majority of the development consists of open space, most of which is accessible to the public through the trail system that is provided. Further, the applicant has proffered $1,250 per lot (a total of $82,500) to be used for the purchase of open space pursuant to the City's Outdoors Plan. Therefore, this proposal appears to qualify as one that will advance publicly accessible open space and recreational uses with the residential component as secondary. Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES ! # 19 - 21 Page 13 Provision 3 "Development that takes place in this area should be shown to be at the least fiscally neutral. Fiscally neutral means that development must both a) generate more in tax revenue than the public services cost to support it, and b) be of such a density that, when coupled with other existing and potential development in the area, it will not generate the need for substantial infrastructure improvement in advance of the City's ability to install it" (p. 74). Staff Assessment: Based on the quality materials for the houses and the value of the open space within and surrounding this development, these houses will have a value of at least $350,000. Further, the cost of extending water and sewer to this property will be paid by the applicant. Public Utilities already has plans to extend public water and sewer close to this area. The applicant would have to pay the cost of extending these services to the subject property. Provision 4 "As an altemative to fiscal neutrality, the use of cash proffers to offset negative fiscal impact can be considered" (p. 74). Staff Assessment: The applicant has offered $1,250 per lot (or a total of $82,500), but this has been designated for the purpose of purchasing open space. Based on the factors noted above in the Staff Assessment for Provision 3, staff concludes that the development is likely to be fiscally neutral. Provision 5 "The entire project should be developed at a density which is the lowest of the following: (a) The density that, in the opinion of the City Council, establishes the residential component as secondary; (b) The density that, in the opinion of the City Council, assures a character of the project in keeping with the character of the Transition Area; (c) The traffic equivalent of one dwelling unit per developable acre. (That is ten generated trips per developable acre)" (p. 74). "The density of the project will be governed by the overriding density requirement set forth here, as well as the degree to which it represents quality development and the degree to which it presents the recreation element and the supporting housing, as the primary focus of the project" (p. 75). Staff Assessment: Sixty-six lots on the 69 acres of developable land equates to a density of O. 96 lots per developable acre. Therefore, this proposal meets the traffic equivalent of one dwelling unit per developable acre, as noted in (c) above. Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES/Cf 19- 21 Page 14 Evaluation of Request The applicant's request for a change of zoning on this property from AG-1 and 2 Agricultural Districts to R-15 Residential District, for a conditional use permit for an open space promotion and for a subdivision variance is acceptable. Staff concludes that the applicant's proposal meets all applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area. The 57 acres of wetlands and open space plus the cash proffers designated for the purpose of open space clearly demonstrate the promotion of open space associated with this proposal. The proposed density is slightly less than the recommended maximum for the Transition Area. The design of the subdivision preserves sensitive areas and showcases environmental features by incorporating them as open space. This open space both surrounds and winds through the development, creating a very useable network of trails, all of which connect with the City's West Neck Creek Linear Park. Therefore, the requests are recommended for approval. Condition The subdivision shall be developed as depicted on the submitted subdivision plan entitled, "Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Eagles Nest for West Neck Properties, Inc. Virginia Beach, Virginia," dated July 5, 200'1 revised 11/18/01, prepared by Burgess and Niple, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The subdivision plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 15 Il Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES/# 19 - 21 Page 16 EXISTING SITE DATA: PROPOSED SITE DATA' I I I Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 17 LEGEND I! I, I II I Iil, ~1/1t II!11. IIiill IIIII1; l/l/Ill! III,I!! I!ttl i11111 v~lllll It {OAD (VARIABLE WIDTH Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 18 I Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES ! # 19 - 21 Page 19 Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 20 Z 0 c~ Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 21 ENTRANCE SIGN Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES / # 19 - 21 Page 22 Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 WEST NECK PROPERTIES ! # 19 - 21 Page 23 Item # 19 West Neck Properties Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers 3132 West Neck Road December 12, 2001 REGULAR AGENDA Robert Miller: Next items are items 19 through 21 for West Neck Properties. We don't have anybody signed up to speak for this one. Eddie Bourdon: For the record, Eddie Bourdon representing the application. Sorry I didn't sign up to speak. There are some adjacent property owners here and I have been discussing the application with them and I don't know that they are going to speak but I certainly want to afford them the opportunity to do so but I will address some of the other concerns that we talked about. I will keep it brief because I think that might have been the point of the note I am not touching on what you need to be touched on so please ask me questions. The - basically it is the 87 ½ acre piece of property at Indian River Road and West Neck Road more of the Urban Services boundary line which is Indian River Road. It is directly across West Neck Road from Indian River Plantation. The property is zoned by the Snyder family. There is a lengthy history to the property which I won't go into. It is a beautiful piece of property. We have been working with staff and want to express onset our appreciation for the difficulty of this site presented in some ways with regard to floodplain and other issues and we have worked with staff and appreciate their patience in working with us to come up with a plan and I think is a beautiful plan one that we certainly will be proud of. Out of this 87 ½ acres of total land area 65% of it is going to be dedicated open space either to the City of Virginia Beach or to the property owner association or community association. So you are talking about 35% of the site will be occupied by homes and roadway area. The density is less than one unit per acre as provided for in the transition area. The City receives 46 3/4 acres of land dedicated and the homeowners association will have 10 3/4 acres of land dedicated. In addition to that because the transition area discusses and calls for public open space, I think we probably meet the argument of criteria standing alone but we also proffered $82,500 in cash in the City of Virginia Beach. That is $1,250 per lot for open space acquisition for the outdoors plan. One of the things and your write-up is very extensive and I have no disagreement with anything in the write-up. It is very well done. I had enough time to go through all of this. One of the things that is not mentioned I thought was worthy of mentioning in addition to all of the 150 dedicated areas along West Neck and Indian River Road where there will be berms and reforested landscaping and trail that connects to this beautiful trail going down the current drive way that is wooded and very beautiful, that is going to be maintained as a trail. This area was not really touched on in the write-up and this is high land off Indian River Road that is adjacent to and will with this dedication become a part of the West Neck Creek linier park and provides an excellent opportunity to provide public access to the West Neck Creek Linier Park because this is outside of floodplain, outside of wetlands and is at one point, earlier on in the process we had shown some lots in here. This, again, is a very good opportunity down the road to provide public access to the park and to the West Ne:k Creek. West Neck Creek is not directly adjacent to it but all the City owned property of the park is. The application is for R-15 open space promotion. The open space promotion requires that we have Item # 19 West Neck Properties Page 2 15% of the properties open space. Developable portion of the property is open space. We have 55% of the developable portion of the property as dedicated open space so I think that 366% of the requirement certainly meets and exceeds the requirement. The proffers are very extensive but I won't go into them but they guarantee homes that are going to be $350,000 and above so it is clearly fiscal positive as far as what would be my perception of it. You have asked for conditional use - a variance I am sorry to the requirements for street width. We are proposing a 28 foot wide road versus 30 with swales versus curbs and gutters which again is consistent here with the intent here to minimize the size of the BMP and to have water infiltrate on the property as opposed to the channelized into a larger BMP which would involve clearing more trees and having less land available for enjoyable open space. But in reducing the size of the street by the two feet we have agreed to restrict parking to on-street parking to only one side of the road and we have added three car minimum parking spaces on each driveway proffer. We have also proffered that every house will have a minimum of a two car garage so that we are by those mechanisms, also, reducing the likelihood that there will be an issue of on street parking. We have provided right and left hand turn lanes that we will be constructing in West Neck Road which we have also provided dedicated right of way for West Neck Road and our understanding is that West Neck Road is going to be widened and made more safe and a CIP project that should be forth coming in the next few years. It is going to be widened as I understand it to four lane divided to the entrance north of here to the Signature of West Neck. At one point it was a discussion of it being four lane divided all the way down to Indian River Road and 17 believe that that has gone away - certainly hope it is gone away. Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense for transitioning to the rural area south of the urban services down Indian River Road. We believe there is enough right of way to do whatever you want to do with enough land being provided but hopefully it will still remain a two lane road but with wider shoulders and a little bit safer conditions. Having said that the issues that the folks that are here - Stephen if you could go to the plan that shows the adjoining properties. There are three existing home sites that are located on the north side of Indian River Road and we, again, got the open space berm coming up to here. Behind here is also open space. This is all City owned open space. This first house here there is a public access easement - the trail that will be coming here - we got a connection coming through here and then we got concrete marks with stamped concrete coming across to the sidewalk so that the people in the neighborhood will be a full route around. We have agreed to put a fence up here and across the back of these two lots or we may, if everyone is in agreement - the property owners and the developer, we may wind up doing something more of a landscape treatment but for the time being everyone is happy with us putting up a privacy fence along the back of here and here. And that is to shield potential street lights coming in to the back of their property. The folks who live here, similar - we have offered to put a fence up along the boundary here where they adjoin this lot if they would like that. The other issue that we discussed is that they wanted to determine that they have access to City water and City sewer which we are providing to this community as part of this development and we, again, indicated that City water and City sewer will be available here if the property does adjoin the public right of way and we are also willing to provide it by an easement down this property line to this property so those amenities will be made available to those existing homes as a p~art of this development proposal. And as staff has said the proposal meets with the criteria and 5~ the Item # 19 West Neck Properties Page 3 transition area and we certainly proffer a very high quality development and the only thing that I think you can compare it to in terms of comparable quality will be the Reserve at Great Neck which has some similarities in terms of all the open space preserved but it is far fewer homes. It is not nearly larger than the Reserve at Great Neck but it is similar quality community would be the result of what is on paper here today. Charlie Salle: Thank you. Do we have any questions? We didn't have anybody to sign up to speak at all so I guess if we allowed Eddie to speak we have got to allow everyone to speak. David Strueli: For the record I am David Strueli property owner at 2420 Indian River Road and I have a flooding problem there now and I am concerned about the flooding and the rain water problem that project might put onto my home. And I am the third one over, this one right here. And that is my biggest concern right now. When we bought the house, also, we bought it for privacy because we thought that was all too wet back in there for them to even fill 'back in there but that is my only concern that I wanted to bring up to your attention. I am. concerned about the flooding that can happen. On five occasions at least in the three years we have been there it has come up within about 6 feet of our house and this is mainly in the back yard right here in this comer right here. It comes down the side yard and we have a problem right here. We have two big sewers right here that have open grates on the top of them right next to Indian River Road. And when it rains hard, wherever that water is flowing, I guess it is going down here in the West Neck Creek whenever we have all these big storms last year, it wasn't flowing and it was flowing out the tops and right down my side yard and into my back yard and it would build up to about a foot deep in my whole comer of my yard. 'Not for a long period but for about 5 or six hours it would stay a foot deep. My dog would run back there and it would be bouncing off of his belly so I know it was a good foot deep and so that is my concern. I know you all are goi~'~g to be creating more drainage for this neighborhood but if it is not able to go where it is able to go then where is it going to go. Because right now we have those big drainage pipes that run across the front of our property but because it doesn't go where it is suppose to go it gets backed up and it comes out the tops of those grates and it floods my sidewalks. If it wasn't for it coming out of those grates, I don't think my side yard and my backyard would have flood. So, I have even put pavers over the top of those grates trying to keep the water down but when it comes up fast it spreads them and comes onto the sidewalks. That is my concern I wanted to get on record. Ronald Ripley: Have you investigated whether or not the pipes are clogged up or is it problem where the outfall is? David Strueli: My wife made some calls to the City but she didn't get anywhere and we didn't come down to get anything in writing which we need to do because it might be a problem just being clogged. Ronald Ripley: The City can run a camera through there if they so desire to do and they can see what is in there and what the problem is. Sometimes that is what the problem is. Just silt builds up in it and can't take it... Item # 19 West Neck Properties Page 4 David Stmeli: I had City people out around the property and they saw the pavers over top of the sewers and confronted me with it and I told them of the problem and that I called the City but we didn't do anything formally and I thought they would report it too and maybe they have done something I don't know. We need to check on it. We are very concerned. We are 'the lowest property out of the three in my whole front yard from the street from the upper left hand comer all the way back to the right hand rear comer we are sloped that way. So all the water runs towards my house and over to that comer. And this year I run my dump truck and deliver materials. I brought in about 8 loads of dirt in the back yard and my buddy graded it off to help raise up my grade in my backyard but like I said, the quantity of water that comes through there. It also crosses the road right over here it crosses the road at the Dolly Farm right in between my driveway, that is my driveway right there, right in between there and there it crosses the road. It is a big ditch across the street. It is across that road and there is a couple of heavy rains and it gets 20 foot section of the street. I was out watching it when it rained and it was flowing over the street and it gets 3 inches deep at a very high rate over into my side yard. That only happened one occasion out of all those rains we had where it crossed the street. Charlie Salle: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Eddie Bourdon: We are going to have him in contact with the engineers that will be doing the drainage for this project so we will be able to participate and see what is going to happen here. We think will certainly be neutral or positive. We are not going to be putting additional storm water onto his property which is in a Iow area. Be happy to answer any questions. Charlie Salle: Any questions? Any discussion, motions? John Baum: I move to approve. Charlie Salle: Motion by John Baum second by Cheryl Avery-Hargrove to approve the application. AYEll NAY0 ABS0 ABSENT0 ATKINSON AYE AVERY-HARGROVE AYE BAUM AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE AYE Item # 19 West Neck Properties Page 5 STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE Charlie Salle': By a vote of 1 ! to 0 you have approved the application of West Neck Properties for a change of zoning from AG-1 and AG-2 to R-15 conditional use permit for open space promotion and a variance regarding street pavement width. · --': ..- APPLICATION PAGE 4 OF 4 ....'.' ?!?i....i?: LOODPLAiN . VA .CE:. .' :' .:." CITY.OF VIRGINIA. BEACH ': Applicant's Name: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT West Neck Properties, Inc. a Virginia Corporation . List All Current Property Owners: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) t If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, finn, or other unincorporated organization. If tlte at~plicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) Robert D. Zirpoli, President If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list i. fnecessary) Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. C~T~CATION: ! certify, that the information contained herein is true and accurat~ Si~,nature Print NatiVe In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5423 DATE: January 24, 2002 TO: FROM: Leslie L. Lilley_...x B. Kay Wilson~ DEPT: DEPT: City Attorney City Attorney Conditional Zoning Application West Neck Properties, Inc. & M. Legare Snyder The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on February 5, 2002. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated November 23, 2001, and have determined it to be legally sufficient and in proper legal form. A copy of the agreement is attached. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. BKW Enclosure PREPARED BY: ISYI~E$. I~OUt~DON, AIIEt~N & LEVY. P.C. WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC., a Virginia corporation M. LEGARE SNYDER f/k/a MYRTLE W. SNYDER TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth Virginia of THIS AGREEMENT, made this 23rd day of November, 2001, by and between WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC., a Virginia corporation, Grantor, party of the first part; M. LEGARE SNYDER, Grantor, party of the second part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the third part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the party of the second part is the owner of three (3) certain parcels of property located in the Princess Anne District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing a total of approximately 87.55 acres and described as "Parcel One" "Parcel Two", and Parcel "Three" in Exhibit "A' attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said parcels are hereinafter referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the contract purchaser of the Property and has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classifications of the Property from AG-1 and AG-2 to Conditional R-15 Residential District with a Conditional Use Permit for Open Space Promotion; and GPIN: 2403-21-0241 2403-21-1935 RETURN TO: SYKES, BOURDON, AHERN & LEVY, P.C. PEMBROKE ONE BUILDING, THE FIFTH FLOOR VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462 PREPARED BY: I$YI~[$. [~Ot~RDON. AII[I~N & liVY. P.C. WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantors acknowledge that the competing and sometimes incompatible uses conflict and that in order to pea-mit differing uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change, and the need for various types of uses, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantors' rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantors have voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for the R-15 Zoning District by the existing overall Zoning Ordinance, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantors, for themselves, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenant and agree that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantors, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantee, and other successors in interest or title and which will not be required of the Grantors until the Property is developed: 1. When development takes place upon that portion of the Property which is to be developed, it shall be as a single family residential community of no more PREPARED BY: §YI~[$. [IOURI)ON. AIt[I~N & L~Y. P.E. than sixty-six (66) building lots substantially in confmmance with the Exhibit entitled "PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN FOR EAGLES NEST FOR WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC. VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA", dated July 5, 2001 revised 11/18/01, prepared by Burgess and Niple, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on fie with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning ("Concept Plan"). 2. When the property is developed, approximately 46.74 acres of forested area and buffers along West Neck Road and Indian River Road lying outside the residential lots and roadways depicted on the Concept Plan shall be dedicated to the Grantee as Public Open Space. An additional 10.75 acres of Open Space including an improved multi-purpose trail for use by the public shall be maintained by the Property Owners Association. 3. The entrance to the community and multi-purpose trail and the typical street section of future West Neck Road and the roads within the community shall be constructed and installed substantially in confmntance with the detailed plans on page 2 of the Concept Plan. No on-street parking shall be permitted on one side of every road within the community. 4. When the Property is subdivided it shall be subject to a recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Deed Restrictions") administered by a Property Owners Association which shall be responsible for maintaining all common areas easements, including the community owned open space and multi-purpose trail, the entrance signage and neighborhood park. 5. All residential dwellings constructed on the Property shall have visible exterior surfaces, excluding roof, trim, windows, and doors, which is no less than seventy-five percent (75%) brick, stone, stucco or similar quality materials. Any one story dwelling shall contain no less than 2600 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area and any two-story dwelling shall contain no less than 2800 square feet of enclosed living area excluding garage area. The front yards of all homes shall be sodded. The Deed Restrictions shall require each dwelling to have, at a minimum, a two (2) car garage and a driveway (including apron) with a minimum of four hundred ninety (490) square feet of hardened surface area. PREPARED BY: $Y1/[$. I~0UI~DON. AtlmN & [['VY. P.C 6. When the Property is developed, every reasonable effort will be made to preserve as many of the existing trees on the site as practical and a tree preservation plan shall be submitted to the Grantee for review along with the Preliminary Subdivision Plan. 7. The Grantors recognize that the subject site is located within the Transition Area identified in the Comprehensive Plan of the CiW of Virginia Beach, adopted on November 4, 1997. The Comprehensive Plan states that development taking place in this area should support the primary purpose of advancing open space and recreational uses. In addition to committing sixty-five percent (65%) of the Property to open space preservation, via the dedication of forty-six and seventy-four one-hundredths (46.74) acres of the Property to Grantee as a part of West Neck Creek Linear Park, and ten and three quarter acres to the Property Owners Association as permanent open space the Grantors agree to contribute the sum of One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) per lot to Grantee to be utilized by the Grantee to acquire land for open space preservation pursuant to Grantee's Outdoors Plan. If the funds proffered by the Grantors in this paragraph are not used by the Grantee anytime within the next twenty (20) years for the purpose for which they are proffered, then any funds paid and unused may be used by the Grantee for any other public purpose. Grantors agree to make payment for each residential lot shown on any subdivision plat prior to recordation of that plat. 8. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable CiW code requirements. Any references hereinabove to the R-15 Zoning District and to the requirements and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantors and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall PREPARED BY: iSYEEg. I~OtTRDON. AII[I~N & LIVY. P.C. continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied by written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent, and ff not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantors covenant and agree that: {1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with all necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (31 If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantors shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, PREPARED BY: SY[[S. I~OURDON. AIII-'I~N & [~ty, P.C and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantors and the Grantee. PREPARED BY: SI i(I,.S, lie }1 ~ltl)~ )N. x~lll..'l~N & LIVY. I).l:. WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: WEST NECK PROPERTIES, INC., a Virginia corporation Robert D. Zirpoli, STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 26th day of November, 2001, by Robert D. Zirpoli, President of West Neck Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation, Grantor. Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 31, 2002 PREPARED BY: SYK[$. t~OL~dDON. AII~N & LEVY. RC. WITNESS the following signature and seal: GRANTOR: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisbe__ day of November, 2001, M. Legare Snyder, Grantor. My Commission Expires: ~l/~~ PREPARED BY: SYi/[§. §OUI~DON. AIIERN & LEVY. P.C ALL THOSE certain pieces, parcels or tracts of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying, situate and being in the Borough of Princess Anne, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, as shown on that certain plat entitled "PLAT OF J.L. SIMMON'S LAND IN WEST NECK, PRINCESS ANNE COUNTY, VA., MADE AUGUST 3, 1911, BY JOSHUA G. MOORE, COUNTY SURVEYOR," and duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach (fo~'merly Princess Anne County), Virginia, in Map Book 6, at Page 3, and more particularly described as follows: PARCEL 1: Beginning at a post at the intersection of the West Neck Road and the Indian River Road (sometimes called Saw Dust Road) and running N. 9° 45' E. 1362.3 feet to a post, 8 feet South of Lead Ditch; thence S. 78° 50' E. 1361.25 feet to a post, 8 feet South of Lead Ditch; thence S. 38° E. 43.2 minutes (by plat 43.2 feet) post; S. 45° W. 138.6 feet pine stump; S. 53° 45' W., 182.8 feet pine stump; S. 1° 30' E., 102.3 feet maple; S. 1° E. 116.1 feet pine, a comer; thence N. 86° 45' E., 127.3 feet pine; S. 89° 15' E., 93.7 feet cypress; S. 88° 30' E., 219.7 feet beech; S. 33° 25' E., 121.5 feet gum; S. 38° 18' E. 82.75 feet oak; S. 15° 30' E. 55.66 feet pine; S. 29° 45' E. 91 feet pine; S. 17° E. 93.66 feet gum; S. 48° 15' E. 80 feet beech; S. 30° 51' E., 68.75 feet gum; S. 0° 55' E. 93.5 feet pine; S. 15° E. 76.5 feet maple; S. 13° 45' E. 97.1 feet gum; S. 38° 20' E, 65 feet gum; S. 37° 55' E. 99 feet gum; S. 52° 35' E. 52.75 feet cypress; S. 65° 26' E. 145.5 feet oak; N. 73° 35' E, 45.5 feet gum; S. 25° 9' W. 65.5 feet pine; S. 19° W., 62 feet post; S. 19° W. 9.5 feet beech; S. 11° 25' W. 58 feet pine; W. 9° 45' W. 103 feet pine; S. 8° 15' W. 70.5 feet beech; S. 9° 45' W. 43 feet gum; S. 11° 35' W. 54.6 feet maple; S. 11° W. 67 feet pine; S. 18° W. 99.5 feet pine; S. 17° 25'W. 104.5 feet gum, a corner; thence N. 71° 25'W. 154.16 feet gum; N. 67° 45' W. 149.3 feet gum; N. 57° 45' W. 327.9 feet pine; N. 57° 10' W. 283.5 feet pine; S. 75° 50' W. 80 feet post; N. 62° 15' W. 246.6 feet station on road; thence N. 65° 15' W. 1288.75 feet to post; the point of beginning, being "Plat A' and containing 72.32 acres. GPIN: 2403-21-1935 PARCEL 2: Beginning at a gum, at the Northeast corner of said tract and running thence N. 11° 15' E. 103. 6 feet ash; N. 11° 45' E. 117.4 feet gum; N. 15° 45' E. 110.2 feet gum; N. 6° E. 258.7 feet gum; N. 5° E. 145.8 feet gum; N. 12° 30' E. 128.7 feet gum; N. 19° E. 73.2 feet gum; N. 22° E. 250 feet beech; N. 23° 45.5 feet oak; S. 65° 25' E. 146.5 feet cypress; S. 52° 35' E. 52.75 feet gum; S. 37° 55' E. 99 feet gum; S. 38° 20' E. 65 feet gum; S. 13° 45' E. 97.1 feet maple; S. 15° E. 76.5 feet pine; S. 0° 55' E. feet gum; S. 30° 5' E. 68.75 feet beech; S. 48° 15' E. 80 feet gum; S. 17° E. PREPARED BY: AllERN & LEVY. 93.66 feet pine; S. 29° 45' E. 91 feet pine; S. 15° 30' E. 55.56 feet oak; S. 38° 15' E. 82.75 feet gum; S. 33° 25'E. 121.5 feet beech; a comer; thence S. 57° 45'W. 201.3 feet maple; S. 55° 30' W. 153.7 feet holly; S. 77° 30' W. 69.3 feet cypress; S. 85° W. 61.3 feet gum; S. 80° 45'W. 57.4 feet gum; S. 80° 15'W. 141.2 feet gum; S. 80° 15' W. 141.2 feet to a gum and thence S. 72° 10' W. 254.7 feet to the gum, the point of beginning, said tract being ~Plat B' and containing 17.45 acres. GPIN: 2403-21-1935 PARCEL 3: ALL that certain tract, piece and parcel of land containing 0.302 acre, lying, situate and being on the north side of Indian River Road in the Princess Anne Borough of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia and designated as Parcel ~B' 0.302 acre on that certain plat entitled 'Survey of Property of George S. Dawley Estate, Princess Anne Borough, Virginia Beach, Va.", dated December 22, 1976 and made by Gallup Surveying, Ltd., duly of record in the Clerk's Office Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Map Book 126, at Page 35-A, reference to which plat is hereby made. SAVE AND EXCEPT that property conveyed to Lankford D. Malbone and Jeanette W. Malbone recorded in Deed Book 954, at Page 470. GPIN: 2403-21-0241 CONDREZN/WSTNKPRP/PROFFER5 10 Map C-10 P~c Nc~ 'to Scale Ms. Maxine R-7o5 Gpin 1465-22-8934 ZONING HISTORY 1. This area has been zoned residential since before 1973. No subsequent zoning actions have occurred. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Ms. Maxine Johnson, Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: March 26, 2002 Background: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Ms. Ma×ine Johnson. Property is located at 1648 Waff Road (GPIN #1465-22-8934). DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. At the Planning Commission hearing, there was considerable discussion regarding the side yard setback of the existing house on proposed Lot 3 adjacent to proposed Lot 2. At the Planning Commission, the side yard setback was proposed as 3.57 feet. A 5 foot setback is required in this zoning district. The Planning Commission approved the request for a subdivision variance but directed the applicant to submit to staff prior to the City Council meeting a plan that shifts the property line between Lot 2 and Lot 3 five (5) feet further away from the existing house. The Planning Commission concluded that a 3.57 foot side yard was not sufficient and that a variance for a narrower lot width for the adjacent lot, Lot 2, was preferable. As a result of the Commission's request, the applicant has submitted a revised plan that shows the property line between Lots 2 and 3 so that the existing house now meets the side yard setback requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance, with a distance of 8.57 feet. However, the result is that in moving the line, Lot 2 now no longer meets the requirements for lot width. A lot width of 75 feet is required, and Lot 2 is now drawn at 70 feet. Lot 2 will have 8,991 square feet; the minimum is 7,500 square feet. Recommendations: A motion was passed unanimously by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request subject to the following conditions: Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Planning Commission recommends approval with conditions. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~ City Manager: (~~I/,._, ~tJ~ Maxine Johnson Page 2 The front yard variance is applicable only to the existing dwelling on Lot 3. If a new dwelling is constructed on Lot 3, the setbacks required by the City Zoning Ordinance must be adhered to. With the change in the plan by the applicant, Condition #2 is no longer necessary. MAXINE JOHNSON / # 7 February 13, 2002 REVISED: March 18, 2002 IThis report has been revised based on a new plan submitted by the applicant in response to concerns voiced by the Planning Commission at their February 13, 2002 public hearing. General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance Property is located at 1648 Waft Road. Ms. Maxine GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: APPLICATION HISTORY: Crpin 1465-22-8934 1465-22-8934 1 - CENTERVILLE 2.3 Acres Barbara Duke This subdivision variance request was deferred by Planning Commission in October 2001 to allow the applicant to meet with the neighborhood and address their concerns regarding the through street proposed. The applicant has met with the neighborhood and has revised the preliminary subdivision plat to show a cul-de-sac instead of a through street. Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 2002 (REVISED March 18, 2002) MAXlNE JOHNSON / # 7 Page I Major Issues: · Degree to which the proposal is compatible with the character of the neighborhood Site Plan / Preliminary Plat: Existing Lot: The existing lot is 2.3 acres and is recorded in Map Book 138 Page 1. There is an existing 30' wide public utility easement across the middle of this site that was dedicated with Map Book 138 Page 1. There are water and sewer lines within the easement that continue north down Waft Road and south down Legare Lane. The existing lot is developed with one single family home and is zoned R-7.5 Residential District. Proposed Lots: It is the intent of the applicant to subdivide the existing parcel into seven lots and construct a new cul-de-sac street to serve these lots. The new street's location is set by the alignment of existing Waft Road as well as the alignment of the existing public utility easement. The proposed subdivision appears to meet the required dimensions for lots in the R-7.5 Residential District. The applicant, however, desires to retain the existing house on proposed Lot 3. The existing house will not meet all of the required setbacks, as noted in the table below. Also, Lot 2, in order for the existing dwelling on Lot 3 to meet the side yard setback, has a lot width of only 70 feet, which is five feet short of the required 75 feet. A subdivision variance, therefore, is necessary for proposed Lot 2 and Lot 3. LOT 3 (existing house) LOT 2 * Variance Required Setback from new ROW Lot Width Required Proposed 30' 14.23' * 75' 70'* Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics Existin.q Land Use and Zoninq One single-family home is currently located on the site. The site is zoned R-7.5 Residential District. Planning Commission Agenda,. ,> E~ ISED March 18, ~.{~0,.) MAXlNE JOHNSON / # 7 February 13, 2002 (REVISED March 18, 2002) Page 2 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: West: · Single-Family Dwellings fronting on Waft Road / R-7.5 Residential District · Single-Family Dwellings fronting on Legare Lane / R-7.5 Residential District · Single Family Dwellings / R-7.5 Residential District · Tallwood High School/R-7.5 Residential District Zoning History The subject site and surrounding area have been zoned for residential use since before 1973. There have been no subsequent zoning actions in this area. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) This site is not impacted by AICUZ. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The site is primarily a grassy field with some perimeter trees. The existing house is located in the northwestern portion of the site. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is an 8 inch water line within the 30 foot wide public utility easement located on this property. This subdivision must connect to City water. There is an 8 inch sanitary sewer line within the 30 foot wide public utility easement located on this property. This subdivision must connect to City sewer. Traffic The Traffic Engineering Division of the Public Works Department notes that Waft Road should not extend through and connect with Legare Lane. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as a stable residential neighborhood. Evaluation of Request Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that: Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 2002 (REVISED March 18, 2002) MAXlNE JOHNSON / # 7 Page 3 A. Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self-inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. The existing dwelling on the subject site is located in the northwestern portion of the property on proposed Lot 3. The front of the existing dwelling faces north and the rear faces south. With the proposed subdivision, Waft Road will be extended along the eastern side of the existing dwelling. The location of the new road is set as a continuation of the current alignment of Waft Road and encompasses a 30 foot wide public utility easement. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the eastern side of the existing dwelling to be set back 14.23 feet from the new road. It is recognized that the public utility easement location is a confining factor limiting design options somewhat on this property. Therefore, it appears there may be a hardship that is not self-imposed for the front yard variance request. The creation of Lot 3 as proposed results in an awkward home site with virtually no back yard. In addition, the existing home will look "out of place" when the new homes are built, as it has a different orientation. All of the new homes will be fronting on the newly created street with a front yard set back of at least 30 feet. The home, however, technically meets the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance between Lots 2 and 3 as it is set back more than the five feet required for a side yard. In meeting the requirements of the ordinance for this side yard and due to the applicant's desire to obtain seven (7) lots through this subdivision, Lot 2 has a lot width of 70 feet, which is five (5) short of the requirement for this district. Conditions If approved, the following condition should be attached to the variance: The front yard variance is applicable only to the existing dwelling on Lot 3. If a new dwelling is constructed on Lot 3, the setbacks required by the City Zoning Ordinance must be adhered to. NOTE: Upon granting of a subdivision variance, a final subdivision plat must be submitted to the Development Services Center for approval and recordation. Further conditions mav be rec~uired durina the Planning Commission Agenda EVISED March ' 8, ',I(.0 !) MAXlNE JOHNSON / # 7 February 13, 2002 (REVISED March 18, 2002) Page 4 administration of applicable Cit~ Ordinances. Planning Commission Agenda EVlSED March ~ 8, MAXlNE JOHNSON / # 7 February 13, 2002 (REVISED March 18, 2002) Page 5 Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 2002 (REVISED March 18, 2002) MAXlNE JOHNSON / # 7 Page 6 Planning Commission Agenda EVISED March ' 8, ~:(;0:.)) MAXlNE JOHNSON / # 7 February 13, 2002 (REVISED March 18, 2002) Page 7 Item #7 Maxine Johnson Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers 1648 Waft Road District 1 Centerville February 13, 2002 REGULAR AGENDA Ronald Ripley: Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: The next item is number 7, Maxine Johnson. Hans Copeland: Mr. Chairman, my name is Hans Copeland, a local engineer in Virginia Beach, and I have here Ms. Maxine Johnson who's the applicant and her daughter is going to be my easel. What I am passing around is a close-up of the lot right here. I will begin talking about that in just a minute, you will see it more clearly. What we have is a typical in-fill situation, a development that is a piece of property that was left over by Mrs. Johnson's family. This house right here was built by Mr. Johnson -- I believe Mrs. Johnson's father. During investigation of the project, we looked at moving the house and the property is - this piece of house is difficult to move. It's masonry block with brick and we had expert house movers, the people who moved the lighthouse in Carolina, examine it and they said... John Baum: They're from Blackwater. Hans Copeland: They examined the house and said that it would be next to impossible to move. So we began to look at how this piece of property could be developed for Ms. Johnson. We originally had a connecting street and I think as you know that a little bit of neighborhood opposition, the City received some comments on that. We held a public meeting, met with the citizens and addressed that by design. The cul-de-sac did limit the traffic getting through - the potential traffic that would go through here. With that design, the homeowners in the adjacent community endorsed our project, including endorsing the request for a variance. The request for a variance is based on the existing conditions of the property. The existing conditions are there is a 30-foot utility easement that ties into this pump station that ties this subdivision over here. The easement is 30 feet wide and the sewer is about eight to ten feet deep. It's not something that can be readily relocated and it was installed 15 feet from the base of the house, which makes the sewer approximately 30 feet from the base of the house. We've engineered this so that we move the street as far away from the house as possible but keeping the sewer within the paved area, which would be the druthers of the utility department. There is a water main that runs down on the, must be the south side of that, so all of the utilities remain under the pavement and not under the curve. We feel that this has restricted our opportunities to build on this piece of property, and in addition to the inability to move the home, we've resulted in this type of layout. Item #7 Maxine Johnson Page 2 We respectfully request a variance to the subdivision on this and the side yard set back that the City has opposed to. What we're asking for is not a variance to the setback against the house it's against the stoop, an existing brick set of stairs on the stoop. The house is seven and half feet away from the property line. You have a house on this side, could be ten feet away, very similar in nature to the other houses. The stoop is about 2 ½ to 3 feet high which exceeds the requirement for - them is an exception in the zoning ordinance for steps being a certain number of feet above it in setbacks. So, but anyway, this stoop encroaches approximately 18 inches into the side yard setback. We' ve entertained everything the neighborhood has asked for with. We know of no opposition to our application. In addition, I think if we examine it from a precedence standpoint, this piece of property is the remaining property in this area to be developed. So, what were not asking for Board of Zoning Appeals variances obviously by the board, we're asking for a variance from Subdivision Ordinance, so with that we respectfully request it and that you approve our application. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Do you have any questions? Bob? Robert Vakos: Looking at the handout you gave and it shows the stoop. Above that, I'm not sure, I guess that's south. What is that -- it looks like concrete slab or pavement. Hans Copeland: Yeah, that's just a little apron that will come out during construction. Robert Vakos: That will come out? Hans Copeland: Yes sir. No Sir. Robert Vakos: Hans Copeland: So that is not part of the application? That's not infringing? No. It's going to be demolished. Robert Vakos: And that stoop is about - how wide is the stoop as far as - you're asking for a foot and half variance. Is that right? Hans Copeland: Yes. Robert Vakos: Okay. And that stoop takes up how much room? And you say seven feet, so it's about three feet? Hans Copeland: Yes. Robert Vakos: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Item #7 Maxine Johnson Page 3 Ronald Ripley: Will? William Din: I've got a couple of questions on this. First of all, I really don't agree that we should have two cul-de-sacs butting up like that against each other. I'm a firm believer of having cut-through streets that would tie neighborhoods together. My concern here is, now that we have two cul-de-sacs butting up to each other, what prevents a car from going over that curb? You know, you got traffic coming this way now and the middle of the night, you know, people are proceeding down this cul-de-sac and assume there is a street on the other side. Is there going to be something in there to, as a barricade or is there going to be something to block that or demonstrate something that the street stops? Hans Copeland: I think that would be handled in the normal review of the subdivision. The Traffic Engineering department will probably comment on the same thing you're thinking of. We've addressed that with the Home Association. What we would like to do is kind of restrict that to either pedestrians or if we have a sidewalk connecting neighborhoods here. There is no connection with the sidewalks over here. There are no existing sidewalks, so the best we're doing is providing sidewalk up to this apron for the pump station. So bikes would be able, maybe to go down there. What I have thought of in the design was to perhaps to put up a curb cut here and request the City to allow us to put a curb cut here and put a little pedestrian or bikeway, if you will, through here and construct, within City right a way, some sort of wooden, tastefully designed wooden barriers. Something like 8 by 8 or 12 by 12 posts that were wooden in nature. I think something similar has been installed in areas of Ocean Park where there are no connecting streets between them. I think it's Shady Oaks and the older Ocean Park Street, which is Aldemare. I don't know if you seen those designs. William Din: As long as that's under consideration. I think something there needs to demonstrate that the road ends. And maybe this is my second question here concerns that property line on the lot next to the house where you're requesting the variance there. Why is it that we can't move it over 18 inches, the property line? Hans Copeland: Well, that would reduce the front yard setbacks to less than the minimum required by the subdivision ordinance and that would mean that we would have either a 72, 73 foot or 75 foot wide lot. · If that' s your answer, would we have the minimum lot frontage according to the ordinance, application, strict application to the ordinance on this required 75 foot lot because it's R-7.5. The ditch here adds something. Each of these lots, exceed the density or the square footage requirement in the zoning ordinance. William Din: So you have just enough for the minimum width for up to two lots? Item #7 Maxine Johnson Page 4 Hans Copeland: Yes sir. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Miller has a question. Robert Miller: First of all, what is the young lady's name that is having to act like an easel? Maxine? You don't have to hold that much longer. You can put it down. Hans, I heard what you said about the sewer and that was something. The existing sewer runs underneath the grassed area, it's not in the pavement. Hans Copeland: That's right. Robert Miller: So obviously the City accepted that and maybe at the time reluctantly, but obviously they did accept it. Is it possible too -- I would like to see -- I think getting the seven lots is certainly something that's fair to Ms. Johnson. I think they have a right to know if these lots are obviously bigger than almost everything in that community. There're over the 7,500. Are they not? Hans Copeland: That's correct. Robert Miller: Are any of the right at 7,500? I can't read this small print. Hans Copeland: The smallest one is 8,517 square feet. That's the one that is on the bottom part of the cul-de-sac. Robert Miller: Then the exiting house is on how much? Hans Copeland: 18,329. Robert Miller: It looks like there ought to be a way to rearrange it slightly to still get the seven lots and then I guess what your problem is you have to ask for a variance for a front yard. Is that what your saying? I know you've through a lot on this thing versus what Mr. Din said. I think when the community came in before they were adamantly opposed to this connecting street and I, we've, listened to that and you have too. And that's to be respected. It just looks like there's a way to avoid. Honoring where the sewer is, it's not something that I'm feeling like it's a necessity without disrespect to our friends in Public Utilities. I know they will probably going to feel a lot different than I do. They're probably going to hear about this. I mean it will - almost looks like if you pull this cul-de-sac over, you could get better situation with these setbacks. And if there is a question with the front with the lot sizes being larger, I don't want deceive you that it would be approved by everybody but I certainly am willing to listen to something like that and it looks like you could avoid these setback issues, which seems to be the biggest part of the problem that were here discussing. Item #7 Maxine Johnson Page 5 Hans Copeland: We've done a number of layouts Mr. Miller. What your asking for is to shift the street over. Is that correct? Robert Miller: Yes. Well, I'm not trying... Hans Copeland: We have minimum requirements for turning radius and we have centerline radius and then you have to have a minimum of 100-foot segment and then it reverses back. And that was so we could run up with this street here. Robert Miller: It's not good for me to try and sit here and redesign it for you. I'm not going to do that and I don't have the right to do that. Hans Copeland: I mean, I've gone through lots of different iterations. Robert Miller: I certainly should respect that and I do. Obviously. Ronald Ripley: Betsy? Betsy Atkinson: First of all, I want to thank you for getting together with the neighbor. I remember when you guys were here before. I thought we were going to get into a little knockdown, drag out but, basically, the house is going - the back of the house is going to be 17 feet away from the back of the house on the other lot. Is that correct? Hans Copeland: It would be. Betsy Atkinson: I mean could you move the house on the other lot back three feet maybe? Hans Copeland: That is correct. It's potential, if you wanted to add a requirement for us to increase this setback. We would entertain that to make it so that we would have the same distance between this stoop and any. Betsy Atkinson: That? Hans Copeland: In other words, we would increase the setback by one and half to two feet on this side, so we would have a 12-foot setback versus a 10-foot setback. Betsy Atkinson: I think that would solve the problem. It would give that separation between the two houses. And I understand about your street and you've all worked really hard on this and I think even the neighbors we got - there's not opposition here today? Item #7 Maxine Johnson Page 6 Ronald Ripley: Oh, there was. Betsy Atkinson: Oh there is opposition? Ronald Ripley: We have two more speakers. Betsy Atkinson: Oh okay. We' ve got two more speakers. Ronald Ripley: We do have a question from previous. Betsy Atkinson: Yeah, if you would be willing to move that setback over. That would suit me. Hans Copeland: Sure. Ronald Ripley: John? John Baum: My question is for Bob. Bob, wouldn't it be better if they asked for a variance for the lot width of that next lot and move that lot line over? Bob Scott: It seems an awfully tight situation. John Baum: It does to me too. I mean if they got excess square footage anyway in the lot, I mean. Bob Scott: They're asking for a variance to the requirements that all lots meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Well, that is what we're talking about here. So, I think that everyone involved in this has got to weigh on one hand what's the pros and cons of having a lot line so close to a house? On the other hand what's the pros and cons of having a lot a little narrower? I guess we're talking about a couple of feet. It has to be weighed with the pros and cons of that being looked at. Hans Copeland: If I could address that from a planning standpoint. If were decreasing the side yard setback effectively, we're narrowing out the lot, which is a buildable area. Betsy Atkinson: Can that be done at site plan? Can we move this forward and then you'll can decide between now and City Council about that issue about whether the lot line is moved or the .... Bob Scott: I think you ought to decide here on how you want to go. Betsy Atkinson: Okay. Let's hear from the opposition. Item #7 Maxine Johnson Page 7 Ronald Ripley: We have two other speakers. Charles Salle': I just have one question. Ronald Ripley: Charles? Charles Salle': Bob, we could clear that up, are you saying essentially that in the matter in which this was advertised, we could, if that is what you decided to do is change the lot width here today? Bob Scott: Unless someone else has a reason of why not too. It seems to me that what we've advertised is a variance to Section 4.4B, having to do with the inability of certain lots to meet all the requirements of zoning ordinance. One of the things that we might be talking about is the width of one of those lots. Charles Salle': Okay, I might be more inclined. Bob Scott: I'm interested in case pending. Seems to me that like would be within the framework. Ronald Ripley: Let's move on and let Kay come back with an amendment. Okay. We have a - I don't know. We have a speaker. Hans Copeland: One more thing if you don't mind. Ronald Ripley: We will call you back up here in a second. Mr. James Vogel is signed up to speak. But I don't know if you're opposed or support? James Vogel: I was waiting to hear what he had to say. Ronald R/pley: Okay. Before you -~ are you opposing or supporting? James Vogel: I'm supporting. Ronald Ripley: Okay. James Vogel: My name is James Vogel. I live at 5461 MacQueen Drive. My property adjoins this proposition at the northeast comer. Hans, and the people who that he's been working with and Mrs. Johnson have been very patient and understanding and working with the community on both sides, Charlestown Lakes. I believe there's an area to the south and to the north side on Brigadoon. They worked really hard. They redesigned this entire thing several times and I'm in support of it because if Ms. Johnson is willing to live Item #7 Maxine Johnson Page 8 with her property line like, as far as I'm concerned, that's her business and she should be able to do that if she wants too. Because they went to a lot of trouble to try and make this fit in with the neighborhood and correct any problems or friction that there was with the community on both sides and I think they've done a good job with that. I'm in favor of this. Ronald Ripley: Very good. Any questions of Mr. Vogel? Thank you very much. Anybody else here wish to speak in support? Joe Miller: Yes, I filled out a card. Ronald Ripley: Yeah, are you? Joe Miller: Joe Miller? Ronald Ripley: I have that you're opposed? Joe Miller: I thought anybody speak? Ronald Ripley: No. Anybody in support? Joe Miller: Well, I'm not actually opposed. Ronald Ripley: Well, then come on up here then. Let's find out where you stand. Joe Miller: You didn't have a either in there or a neither. You had a for and opposed and I'm in the middle. Ronald Ripley: You got me there, right. Joe Miller: I think it was Mr. Din that brought up part of my concern. And I spoke with the Planning Department people today and this might very well be the last chance we, as a public, get to say something and I am Joe Miller and I'm 1709 Legare and right across the field from the back of Mrs. Johnson's house. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Miller you will get to speak to council if you wish. We're just recognizing you. Joe Miller: It came in stages. And Mrs. Atkins? Ronald Ripley: I won't argue that. Item #7 Maxine Johnson Page 9 Joe Miller: I want to point out that they weren't here in October, but that was part of why we were all upset. But they did have and have been very cooperative. They did have two meetings with the neighborhoods and I say neighborhoods because I think there's about 4 involved. And they did accommodate us by putting in a cul-de-sac as opposed to a through street and Mr. Din, I don't know if you were aware of it but it was in one of my original letters. A through street would in fact connect Indian Lakes, Indian River Road through Indian Lakes all the way down to Centerville Turnpike. And we didn't want that at all. It would be a small Lynnhaven Parkway. And I think some of you have addressed this already, and I was trying to keep notes. My two concerns are a bike path through the center of the cul-de-sac. A bike path/sidewalk connecting two center parts of the cul-de- sac and the other one was some physical barrier to prevent through vehicular traffic and an opening in that barrier for a sidewalk or a bike path to be small enough to let bikes through and not cars. And we already have. Whoever runs that thing, if you go to where the white car is and it's on page two in this thing, that is my white car and I parked it like that to try and preclude people who already think that is a through road. They drive right up over the curb, across that lane through Mrs. Johnson's field and, go right on down Waff Street. They don't care. The only thing that keeps them from doing is when we have enough rain they get stuck. And other than that, those are the only two concerns that I have. And Mr. Copeland, Mrs. Johnson and Mr. Wood have bent over backwards to try and accommodate all the homeowners concerns about what's going to go on this property and how it is going to be developed. I think they should all get your support. If you have any questions of me, I will be glad to answer them. Ronald Ripley: I have a question regarding the physical barrier? John Miller: Yes sir. Ronald Ripley: Would you be opposed to a physical barrier that in the event that fire protection and they could ride over that? It might break it up. At some point, that could be something that could occur. You're talking about a fence and some landscaping probably. John Miller: My original thought was a guardrail. Ronald Ripley: Guardrail? Joe Miller: They have some very nice looking guardrails on Indian River Road and the Elbow Road area and between Elbow Road and North Landing on Indian River Road. That was my original thought because that stops them. There's houses on the other side of the field now and we' ve got houses on this side, if we have a fire now, they come in from ever which way they need to come in to get there if there's an emergency. I have yet to see a fire truck have to drive across that field and so if they need to get to the new Item #7 Maxine Johnson Page 10 houses, I'm sure they could use Waft Street to get there. So, I don't think providing access to the emergency vehicles between the two cul-de-sacs would be required at all, or should be a concern. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. Joe Miller: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Is there anybody in opposition to this application? You're welcome to rebut but I don't think you need to rebut. Hans Copeland: We want to cooperate with them as much as possible. And with the Public Works Department will allow us to do, we'll do everything we can to put some type of barrier there and connect the two street for pedestrians and bicycles. Ronald Ripley: Okay. We open this up for discussion. Bob? Robert Vakos: We've talked about moving the lot line and what not. In reality, the house is seven feet away from the property line. Is that correct? What we're talking about is the stoop and I know it's more than a technicality but I think in practicality, it's kind of like splitting hairs and I just assume approve the application as it is written considering it's a stoop and it's not really a physical ...pardon... technically it is, but to me it's not. I won't make a motion at this point but I will allow anyone else to speak to comment on but I'm incline to approve it as rack and rolls stated. Ronald Ripley: Charles? Charles Salle': I don't have a problem either way to let it go. But if we did adjust the lot line and gave some more side yard, my thinking is that the amount, when it comes to maintenance of the house is generally painting is trying to put a ladder up and standing within the seven foot - you stay within your yard can create a problem. I don't have a problem either way about moving the lot line over 5 feet or so you can have some visual room so maintenance can go and so forth. It just seems better. But like I say, I agree either way. Ronald Ripley: Betsy? Betsy Atkinson: Kay, do you have a problem with us amending the lot line to say three feet or .... you do? Kay Wilson: Yes, I think it would need to be re-advertised and would need to come back in order to move the lot line. I think that we have provided verification to the Item #7 Maxine Johnson Page 11 neighborhood that we've changed the plan. It also shifts the variance from the lot where the home is now located to the lot next door and what you've done is created a variance on a different lot. Betsy Atkinson: And I'll second it. John B. aum: I hope they're good neighbors down in the country. We've let them put their ladder two feet over on the other department. Robert Vakos: You wouldn't get hit with the traffic? Ronald Ripley: Okay. Any other discussion? Somebody wish to? Bob? Robert Miller: What you're saying is we could not even, at this point, we couldn't approve it and recommend that change be made prior to council. That's not? Kay Wilson: You can approve it for what they have the application in here. If you want to make a comment to them that you might think it might be a better plan to move the lot line, they could then. Robert Miller: Do they have to come back? Kay Wilson: They intentionally do that before Council. Robert Miller: They don't have to come back to us? Kay Wilson: I'm going to go no. Robert Miller: Okay, then I'm going to go. I move that we move the lot line five feet and recommend approval. I recommend approval and that my comment is that the lot line should be moved five feet before it gets to City Council. Hans Copeland: Mr. Miller, as you know, my encroachment is only one and half feet and you ask us to move it a complete five feet, which would reduce that lot line frontage from 75 to 70 feet. I just want you to consider that. Is that what you had in mind? Robert Miller: Yes it is. Hans Copeland: Okay. Kay Wilson: Wait, do you got a second? Item #7 Maxine Johnson Page 12 Ronald Ripley: We have a motion. Robert Vakos: We got a motion, yeah. Ronald Ripley: Go ahead and repeat your motion. Robert Miller: I didn't do very good. I like to make a motion for approval and my comment is that I like for the applicant to consider moving the property line five feet before it goes to City Council. Is that what you say? Kay Wilson: That's fine. Ronald Ripley: Do we have a second to the motion? Charles Salle: I second it. Ronald Ripley: The motion is seconded. Any further discussion? Betsy? Betsy Atkinson: Can we say to a maximum of five feet so he can have a little bit of flexibility with the staff so that it only needs to be move two feet, two feet. Ronald Ripley: Do you accept that? Robert Miller: No. He can do whatever he wants to do because it is just a comment. I can't make him do anything. Robert Vakos: All he can do is consider it anyway right? Robert Miller: I want Ms. Johnson to be able to get the lots that she asked for. I think that is fair and reasonable. I'm just asking for them to consider this as an opportunity to resolve an issue that appears to be a big problem for some the other People, the staff. Betsy Atkinson: Well, my own comment was that it would be to a maximum of five feet. That gives them some flexibility. Robert Miller: They don't have to do anything. If they move it to three, they've done more than they done now. John Baum: Would you like to amend your comment? Betsy Atkinson: My comment would be? Item 4/7 Maxine Johnson Page 13 Ronald Ripley: Alright, alright, let's call for motion? Ed Weeden (recorder): Mr. Salle' seconded it? Ronald Ripley: Yes, that's correct. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0, we've approved the motion and the comment. Applicant's Name: ]'~,~, List All Current. Property Owners: . /ff~5, DISCLOSUR STATEMENT PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE ff the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list ifnecessa~.J If the property owner is a PARTNERSttlP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) ~ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, finn, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNER~ltlP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Print Name Map B ¢ 10 ~ap N-or ~o Sc:ale 2 R'5D Atlantic Shores Baptist Church Gpin 1455-83-4152 - 1455-g2-7645 ZONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Use Permit (borrow pit) - Granted 3/26/90; Modification of Conditions - Granted 11/26/96 2. Conditional Use Permit (fill borrow pit) - Granted 3/26/90; Reconsideration of Conditions - Granted 9/26/95 3. Conditional Use Permit (communication tower) - Granted 8/28/89; Granted 1/22/90 4. Conditional Use Permit (gas station) - Granted 12/15/80 5. Rezoning (R-8 Residential to O-1 Office) - Granted 8/21/78 6. Rezoning (R-6 Residential to B-2 Commercial) - Granted 11/10/75 7. Rezoning (R-8 Residential to B-2 Commercial) - Granted 9/11/78 8. Conditional Use Permit (church)- Granted 10/03/83; Conditional Use Permit (church expansion) - Granted 01/11/88; Conditional Use Permit (church parking lot) - Granted 09/28/99 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: Atlantic Shores Baptist Church, Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: March 26, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Atlantic Shores Baptist Church for a Conditional Use Permit for a church expansion on the north side of Kempsville Road, east of Centerville Turnpike (GPIN #1455-83-2449; #1455-82-7599). Said parcel is located at 1861 Kempsville Road and contains 14.67 acres. DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for the expar,sion of an existing church to include a new sanctuary, fellowship hall, family life center, office budding and a picnic area. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the requested use is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood, staff recommended approval and there was no opposition to the request. Recommendations: A motion was passed unanimously by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request subject to the following conditions: The site development shall be in accordance with the submitted site development plan exhibited to City Council and titled "CUP Application Atlantic Shores Baptist Church", dated 1/11/02 and prepared by PHR&A, PC, which is on file with the Department of Planning. The new sanctuary shall substantially adhere to the submitted elevation exhibited to City Council and titled "Atlantic Shores Baptist Church Future Sanctuary" prepared by Ivy Architectural Innovations, which is on file with the Department of Planning. ' The family life center, future office building and future education building shall substantially adhere to the submitted elevation exhibited to City Council and titled "Atlantic Shores Baptist Church New Family Life Center, Future Office Building, Future Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department City Manage~~_. , '~~ Atlantic Shores Baptist Church Page 2 Adult Classroom" prepared by Ivy Architectural Innovations, which is on file with the Department of Planning, except that all three buildings shall have brick (matching the front of the building) extended to the first floor level on both sides and the rear of the buildings. The landscaping along Centerville Turnpike shall substantially adhere to the rendering exhibited to City Council and titled "Centerville Turnpike, Atlantic Shores Baptist Church," which is on file with the Department of Planning. A resubdivision plat vacating all interior property lines shall be recorded prior to the release of any approved site plans. The applicant shall also execute a right-of-way reservation agreement for Centerville Turnpike with the City and submit the agreement with the final resubdivision plat for this development. 6. Phase One improvements shall include the following items: Family Life Center and parking lot. 1,570 square foot classroom addition to main sanctuary Category IV buffer north of Dylan Drive along the eastern property boundary. Installation of the 20 foot wide landscape buffer along Centerville Turnpike for a distance of 400 feet (starting at the area in front of the music ministry building and running along the new parking lot improvements). Installation of landscape plantings in the grassy area east of the Kempsville Road entrance that will sufficiently screen the portable trailers. Landscape plantings shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director. Entrance revisions to Centerville Turnpike as shown on the master plan, to include installation of right turn lanes. Removal of the two portable trailers fronting Centerville Turnpike. Removal of the trailers shall be accomplished prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued for the Family Life Center and/or the 1,570 square foot classroom addition. 7. Phase Two improvements will include the following items: New sanctuary and parking lot. Installation of a 30 foot wide landscape buffer along Kempsville Road, similar to the buffer provided on Centerville Turnpike. Landscape plantings will be subject to the approval by the Planning Director. Renovation of the existing sanctuary to accommodate additional classrooms. Removal of the four portable trailers on the east side of the sanctuary. Removal of the trailers shall be accomplished prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued for the new sanctuary or the renovations to the existing sanctuary. o Foundation landscape planting shall be provided for the church office building to be constructed as Phase Three. When the education building shown as Phase Four is constructed, Category IV landscaping along the eastern property line, south of Dylan Drive shall be installed where the subject property abuts residential use (a distance of approximately 150 feet). 10. A modification of this use permit will be required for any changes to the phasing of this development as outlined in conditions 6-9 above. Item #2 Atlantic Shores Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit for a Church Expansion 1861 Kempsville Road District 2 Kempsville February 13, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: Thank you Ron. This afternoon we have 4 items on the consent agenda. As I call the item, will you please step to the podium either the representative or the applicant. State your name and if you have read the conditions and you agree with them. The first item is Item #2, Atlantic Shores Baptist Church with 10 conditions. Kirk Burkheimer: Kirk Burkheimer of Patten, Harris, Rust and Associates. I represent the applicant. We've read the conditions and agree whole-heartedly. Dorothy Wood: Is there any opposition to this item? Ron Ripley: I would like to add, if there is opposition, anybody who has any opposition to any one of these items, all you simply have to is come up here and say your opposed - state your name and address and state that -- you oppose and it will be pulled off the agenda. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Ripley I would move to approve the 4 consent agenda items, number 2 with ten conditions, number 3 with eight conditions and number 6 and 11. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion and a second by Don Horsley to approve the items as so stated. Robert Miller: I need to abstain from item #6. My firm is working on the project. Ronald Ripley: So noted. Anybody else? Commissioner's ready to vote? AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE Ron Ripley: By a vote of 11-0, the motion carries noted? ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST / # 2 February 13, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Conditional Use Permit for a Church Expansion 1861 Kempsville Road M.p B c to .4tlantic Shores Hop Not ko ~° N Church R-50 8-2 C_~n 1455-83-4152- 1455-82-7645 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: 1455-83-2449;1455-82-7599 1 - CENTERVILLE 14.67 Acres Barbara Duke To obtain a conditional use permit for the expansion of the existing church to include a new sanctuary, fellowship hall, family life center, office building, and picnic area Major Issues: In 1999, a request for an expansion to build a new sanctuary and parking lot was heard by the Planning Commission and the City Council. City Council, however, granted approval for only the construction of the parking lot. The request for the new sanctuary was not approved at that time because of outstanding building code and zoning code issues related to the numerous Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 2002 ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST / # 2 Page 1 portable trailers on the site. Since 1999, the applicant has worked with the building permit office to correct the violations. Some of the trailers were removed from the site, leaving only six (6) remaining. The six remaining trailers have met all building code requirements and were issued certificates of occupancy for a temporary period. This temporary period of occupancy expired in January 2002. The applicant is now requesting to allow the use of six remaining portable trailers for a period of approximately six years, until completion of the new sanctuary. · The property has approximately 1,200 linear feet of frontage on Centerville Turnpike. Screening of the parking lot from Centerville Turnpike is important. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existinq Land Use and Zoning The property is zoned B-2 Commercial Business District and the church was established on this site in 1983. Surroundin,q Land Use and Zoning NoAh: South: East: West: · Post Office Facility / B-2 Community Business District · Convenience Store w/gas pumps / B-2 Community Business District · Farther to the south is the intersection of Kempsville Road and Centerville Turnpike. · Across this intersection are numerous mixed commercial uses / B-2 Community Business District · Single Family Homes / R-5D Residential District · Office / 0-2 Office District · Borrow Pit across Centerville Turnpike / B-2 Community Business District Zoninq History This site was rezoned from R-8 Residential District to B-2 Community Business District in 1978 (#7 on map). A conditional use permit for a church was granted in 1983. Subsequent conditional use permits for church and education center expansions were approved in 1988 and 1999 (#8 on the map). Various other zoning actions in the immediate area are shown on the map and are further described below. Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 2002 ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST ! # 2 Page 2 Map ~ c ~o Atlantic Shores Church 2 R-5D t 0-2 8-2 Crpin 1455-83-4152 - 1455-S2-7645 1. Conditional Use Permit (borrow pit) - Granted 3/26/90; Modification of Conditions - G ranted 11/26/96 2. Conditional Use Permit (fill borrow pit) - Granted 3/26/90; Reconsideration of Conditions- Granted 9/26/95 3. Conditional Use Permit (communication tower) - Granted 8/28/89; Granted 1/22/90 4. Conditional Use Permit (gas station) - Granted 12/15/80 5. Rezoning (R-8 Residential to O-1 Office) - Granted 8/21/78 6. Rezoning (R-6 Residential to B-2 Commercial) - Granted 11/10/75 7. Rezoning (R-8 Residential to B-2 Commercial) - Granted 9/11/78 8. Conditional Use Permit (church) - Granted 10/03/83; Conditional Use Permit (church expansion) - Granted 01/11/88; Conditional Use Permit (church parking lot) - Granted 09/28/99 Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The area of the site that is undeveloped is primarily grassy field with no significant natural resource or physical characteristics. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is an existing 12 inch water line in Centerville Turnpike There is an existing 8 inch gravity sewer line located southeast of the property The property is currently served by City water and sewer. Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 2002 ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST ! # 2 Page 3 Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Centerville Turnpike is considered a two lane undivided major urban arterial along the frontage of this site. It is designated on the Master Transportation Plan as an ultimate 120 foot wide divided right of way with bikeway. The applicant has provided a 30 foot reservation across the frontage of Centerville Turnpike to accommodate the 120 foot right of way. Public Works has noted that an ultimate 167 foot right of way is desired; however, there is no project for Centerville Turnpike included in the current CIP and the adopted MTP calls for 120 feet. Kempsville Road is designated on the Master Transportation Plan as an ultimate 100 foot right of way. Sufficient right of way exists. Improvements to the Kempsville Road and Centerville Turnpike intersection have recently been completed. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Centerville Turnpike 15,000 8,400 - ADT 15,300 ADT Existing Land Use 2_ 1,196 ADT Kempsville Road 31,000 17,300- Proposed Land Use 3_ 158 ADT ADT 31,700 ADT Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by existing square footage of church buildings as defined by additional square footage and additional proposed uses Public Safety Police: Adequate - no further comments. Fire and Rescue: Adequate - no further comments. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map recommends retail, service, office and other compatible uses The Plan's land use policies reflect the importance of neighborhood character. The Plan states that the policy is to preserve and protect the character of existing stable neighborhoods against inappropriate land use intrusions while recognizing the legitimate public need for a limited amount of compatible support activities. This request for a church expansion is compatible with the existing neighborhood and is in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Summary of Proposal Proposal The existing church is situated at a major commercial intersection. The surrounding land use to the south, west and north is predominantly commercial in nature and there is an existing borrow pit located across Centerville Turnpike from the subject site. A portion of the site abuts an existing residential neighborhood to the east. The church has been located Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 2002 ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST / # 2 Page 4 on this site for approximately 19 years. In 1999, a request for an expansion to build a new sanctuary and parking lot was requested. City Council granted approval for the parking lot construction only. The request for the new sanctuary was not approved at that time because of outstanding building code and zoning code issues related to the numerous portable trailers on the site. Since 1999, the applicant has worked with the building permit office to correct the violations. Some of the trailers were removed from the site, leaving only six (6) remaining. The six remaining trailers have met all building code requirements and were issued certificates of occupancy for a temporary period. This temporary period of occupancy expired in January 2002. Two of the six remaining trailers are located on the west side of the existing sanctuary fronting on Centerville Turnpike. The other four are located on the east side of the existing sanctuary. Although the four trailers on the east side are not fronting on Kempsville Road, they are visible from the roadway. The applicant is now requesting that the six remaining portable trailers be allowed to remain on site during the construction of Phase I and Phase II as outlined below, a period of five to six years. The applicant has submitted a master plan for the church property, showing construction in four phases. The church recently acquired an additional four acres on Centerville Turnpike and now owns approximately 14 acres of property. The removal of the temporary trailers is addressed with Phases I and II. PHASE ONE (target completion date 2003) - Construction of a 21,305 square foot Family Life Center, parking lot and a 1,570 square foot classroom addition to the existing education center/sanctuary. The two portable trailers located on the west side of the sanctuary facing Centerville Turnpike will be removed upon completion of the 1,570 square foot classroom addition to the existing education center/sanctuary. Entrance improvements on Centerville Turnpike are also included in Phase One. PHASE TWO (target completion date 2007) - Construction of a 28,652 square foot Sanctuary with 2,000 seats and parking lot. Renovation of the existing sanctuary to accommodate additional classrooms. The four portable trailers located on the west side of the sanctuary will be removed upon completion of the renovation of the existing sanctuary. PHASE THREE - Construction of a 4,803 square foot church office building. PHASE FOUR - Construction of a freestanding education building in the area where the four portable trailers are now located. A new fellowship hall and kitchen area within the existing sanctuary, a picnic shelter and a parking lot are also planned with this phase. Site Desiqn Phase I - The family life center will be a freestanding building located north of the existing sanctuary and music ministry building. The building will front on Centerville Turnpike. A parking lot is shown around three sides of the building. The stormwater management facility for these new improvements is located in the northeast corner of the site. A small addition to the existing Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 2002 ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST / # 2 Page 5 sanctuary on the west side facing Centerville Turnpike will accommodate additional classroom space. Phase II - The new sanctuary will be located in front of the existing sanctuary, facing Kempsville Road. A new parking lot with a stormwater management facility will be constructed in front of the new sanctuary. The parking required for the new sanctuary (2,000 seats) is 400 spaces. With the additional parking lots to be constructed in Phases I and II, this requirement will be met. Phase III - A small church office building will be constructed in the southwest corner of the site, facing Centerville Turnpike. Phase IV - A new parking lot and picnic shelter will be constructed at the northern end of the site. The picnic shelter will be located in the extreme northeastern side of the site, adjacent to the residential neighborhood. A new education building will be constructed in the area where the four portable trailers are located. After the education building is constructed, a new fellowship hall and kitchen area will be created in the existing sanctuary/education center. After the Phase IV parking lot is added, the church will have a total of 602 parking spaces to accommodate the congregation. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access The site currently has one access point off of Kempsville Road and three access points off of Centerville Turnpike. The master plan shows that two of the existing entrances on Centerville Turnpike will be closed and that one new entrance will be installed. The location of the new entrance is consistent with future plans to provide a median break at this location when Centerville Turnpike is widened. Right turn lanes at both the existing entrance that will remain and the new entrance have been shown on the site plan. All of the entrance changes shown on the site plan, to include installation of the right turn lanes, will be part of the Phase One construction. The site has been designed to provide a majority of the parking in close proximity to the sanctuary. However, due to the linear shape of the lot, some of the parking will be over 1,000 feet from the new sanctuary. Architectural Design The new sanctuary building will be brick with a metal roof to match the existing church. The submitted elevation specifies that all materials will match the existing sanctuary. The submitted design will compliment the existing sanctuary building. Elevations for the family life center, church office building and future education building show that all three of these buildings will be simple metal buildings with brick fronts. All colors will match the existing sanctuary building. The picnic shelter elevation shows that it will be constructed of brick with a shingle roof. Colors will match the existing sanctuary building. Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 2002 ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST / # 2 Page 6 Landscape and Open Space Desi,qn Along the Centerville Turnpike frontage, a detailed street front landscape plan has been submitted. A 20 foot wide buffer, twice the width of the required 10 foot wide buffer, has been provided for the area north of the existing sanctuary. The 20 foot wide buffer will extend across approximately 850 feet of the site's frontage on Centerville Turnpike. The landscape plan proposes intermittent bermed areas planted with a mix of large trees, small trees, shrubs and flowers. Along the Kempsville Road frontage, the master plan does not show all of the required landscaping. There is a 30 foot setback for the parking lot fronting on Kempsville Road. It is recommended by staff that the 30 foot buffer strip be designed and planted similar to what has been proposed for the Centerville Turnpike frontage. In addition, landscape plantings should be added to the grassy area east of the entrance to screen the view of the portable trailers from Kempsville Road. The site plan shows the required foundation plantings for some of the new buildings, but not all of them. The applicant has been advised that foundation planting in accordance with the site plan ordinance will be required during detailed plan review. The site plan shows that a Category IV buffer will be planted along the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to residential property, north of Dylan Drive. The applicant has been advised that a Category IV buffer will also be required along the eastern boundary south of Dylan Drive for a distance of approximately 150 feet. This area is behind the future education building to be built in Phase Four. Approximately one and a half acres of green space will be located between the Phase Four parking area and the picnic shelter. A stormwater management facility for the future parking areas will be located within this green space area. Evaluation of Request The request for a conditional use permit for a church expansion is acceptable. The applicant has worked with staff to bring the existing portable trailers into compliance with existing codes and has provided staff with a master plan that includes removal of the trailers within the first two phases of construction. The proposed landscape plantings along Centerville Turnpike will effectively screen the new parking areas running parallel to the roadway. If similar landscaping is added to the Kempsville Road frontage, the aesthetics of this site will improve, giving it the potential to become an appealing landmark at the major intersection of Kempsvilie Road and Centerville Turnpike. It is recommended that this request for a conditional use permit for a church expansion be approved with the conditions noted below. Conditions 1. The site development shall be in accordance with the submitted site development plan exhibited to City Council and titled "CUP Application Atlantic Shores Baptist Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 2002 ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST / # 2 Page 7 Church", dated 1/11/02 and prepared by PHR&A, PC, which is on file with the Department of Planning. The new sanctuary shall substantially adhere to the submitted elevation exhibited to City Council and titled "Atlantic Shores Baptist Church Future Sanctuary" prepared by Ivy Architectural Innovations, which is on file with the Department of Planning. The family life center, future office building-and future education building shall substantially adhere to the submitted elevation exhibited to City Council and titled "Atlantic Shores Baptist Church New Family Life Center, Future Office Building, Future Adult Classroom" prepared by Ivy Architectural Innovations, which is on file with the Department of Planning, except that all three buildings shall have brick (matching the front of the building) extended to the first floor level on both sides and the rear of the buildings. The landscaping along Centerville Turnpike shall substantially adhere to the rendering exhibited to City Council and titled "Centerville Turnpike, Atlantic Shores Baptist Church," which is on file with the Department of Planning. A resubdivision plat vacating all interior property lines shall be recorded prior to the release of any approved site plans. The applicant shall also execute a right of way reservation agreement for Centerville Turnpike with the City and submit the agreement with the final resubdivision plat for this development. 6. Phase One improvements shall include the following items: · Family Life Center and parking lot · 1,570 square foot classroom addition to main sanctuary · Category IV buffer north of Dylan Drive along the eastern property boundary. · Installation of the 20 foot wide landscape buffer along Centerville Turnpike for a distance of 400 feet (starting at the area in front of the music ministry building and running along the new parking lot improvements) · Installation of landscape plantings in the grassy area east of the Kempsville Road entrance that will sufficiently screen the portable trailers. Landscape plantings shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director. · Entrance revisions to Centerville Turnpike as shown on the master plan, to include installation of right turn lanes. · Removal of the two portable trailers fronting Centerville Turnpike. Removal of the trailers shall be accomplished prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued for the Family Life Center and/or the 1,570 square foot classroom addition. 7. Phase Two improvements will include the following items: · New sanctuary and parking lot. · Installation of a 30 foot wide landscape buffer along Kempsville Road, similar to the buffer provided on Centerville Turnpike. Landscape plantings will be subject to the approval by the Planning Director. · Renovation of the existing sanctuary to accommodate additional classrooms. · Removal of the four portable trailers on the east side of the sanctuary. Removal of the trailers shall be accomplished prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued for the new sanctuary or the renovations to the existing sanctuary. Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 2002 ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST / # 2 Page 8 8. Foundation landscape planting shall be provided for the church office building to be constructed as Phase Three. When the education building shown as Phase Four is constructed, Category IV landscaping along the eastern property line, south of Dylan Drive shall be installed where the subject property abuts residential use (a distance of approximately 150 feet). 10. A modification of this use permit will be required for any changes to the phasing of this development as outlined in conditions 6-9 above. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Counc# approval See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 2002 ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST / # 2 Page 9 Atlantic Shores Baptist (Site Plan) See Page 15 for Details See Page 14 for Details Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 2002 ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST / # 2 Page 10 ,t ~ L Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 2002 ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST / # 2 Page 11 Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 2002 ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST / # 2 Page 12 H22~nH ~ Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 2002 ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST ! # 2 Page 13 Planning Commission Agenda '~~~~ February 13, 2002 ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST / # 2 Page 14 Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 2002 ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST / # 2 Page 15 Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 2002 ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST / # 2 Page 16 Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 2002 ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST / # 2 Page 17 t NORTH Planning Commission Agenda February 13, 2002 ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST / # 2 Page18 Applicant's Name: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Atlantic Shores Baptist Church List All Current Property Owners: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) [~ Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. ' ~/,~'"~ Signature C..-'"' / / / Pril~t'Name ATLANTIC SHORES BAPTIST CHURCH BUSINESS MEETING December 16, 1998 The meeting was called to order at 7:25 PM by Pastor Jim Wolfcale. After some discussion regarding the office of Trustee (i.e. responsible for all legal matters regarding the church, protection of all legal documents and signers of any legally binding documents concerning the church), Pastor moved to elect two new Trustees to join Art Bates as our Board of Trustees. They are: William Clark and Barry Taylor. Motion was made by Dave Midgett and seconded by Hugh Doyle. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 7:45 PM. Submitted by: Frankie E. Conrod, Church Clerk January 22, 2002 COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: I would just like to reiterate my abstention on the Doczi Application because my family owns property adjacent. So, therefore, I am abstaining. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: question please. Thank you very much, Mrs. Henley. Any other comments or questions? I call for the CITY CLERK: By a vote of 10 to 0, you have adopted the Consent Agenda as read by the Vice Mayor with the exception of those abstentions to Number 6 on Planning by Mrs. Henley and Number 9 on the Ordinances with Vice Mayor Sessoms and the two nay votes on the Tax Exemption by Mrs. Parker and Mrs. McClanan. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: You did have me abstaining on Item Number 9; is that correct? CITY CLERK: Yes, I did. 7 VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: January 22, 2002 Thank you very much. Next. Thank you, sir. CITY CLERK: Okay. On Bil-Mar we have several speakers. We have three opposed. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Okay. We have several speakers on Bil-Mar? CITY CLERK: Yes, sir. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: How many speakers? CITY CLERK: There are three opposed and one in favor of Bil-Mar. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: Are the speakers in opposition opposed to a deferral to February the 12th? VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Speakers for Bil-Mar, speak up. I'm assuming not because I'm not hearing anything. So, Bil-Mar will be deferred until February 12th. CITY CLERK: VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: the deferral of March 26th? acceptable. On Princessboro we have one, two, three speakers opposed and one in favor. The representatives from Princessboro who are against, do they have any objection to Hearing none, I'm assuming March 26th is COUNCILMAN HARRISON: I renew my motion to approve. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Do I have a second? COUNCILMAN ~J%ND IGO: Second. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Mrs. Henley. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the Consent? Yes, January 22, 2002 Item Number 10, transfer $173,683 from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies to Fiscal Year 2001 to Operating Budget regarding revenue reimbursements to fully fund the Real Estate Tax Relief Program, for approval. Under Planning: Item Number 1 for approval, Robert A. Conaway. Item Number 3, West Neck Properties, Incorporated, for a deferral to the first Meeting in February. Item Number 4, Salt Meadow Bay, L.L.C. for approval noting a no vote by Mrs. Parker. Item Number 5, Bil-Mar Construction Limited, being deferred until February 12th. Item Number 6, Frank Doczi for approval. Item Number 8, Princessboro Development Company for deferral until March 26th, 2002; and Item Number 9, for approval for amending 1405 and 1605 of the City Zoning Ordinance regarding a Public Hearing procedure on permit applications for the Wetlands Zoning Ordinance and Coastal Primary Sand Dune Zoning Ordinance. Do I have a motion? COUNCII/W. AN HA~ISON: So moved. CITY CLERK: Your Honor, we have a speaker, Mr. Nausbaum, who is representing Beth Sholom. I'm sure he would like to have a Consent vote. Also, we have speakers opposed on the Planning Items for West Neck Properties and you have that one under Consent to be deferred. We have opposed speakers. Would you like clarify that? VICE ~I~YOR SESSOMS: How many speakers do we have from West Neck? CITY CLERK: One speaker in favor and one opposed. VICE ~YOR SESSOMS: Would the person in opposition to West Neck understand that this has been deferred and have any objection to that? GENTLEMA/q IN OPPOSITION: No. 5 January 22, 2002 FORMAL SESSION VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Council, I will now move to Resolutions, Ordinances and Planning by Consent. Madam Clerk, I'm going to ask that you keep a close eye, as I ask for this motion, if there are any people to speak who are in opposition on anything that might be on Consent. First of all, Item Number 1 under Resolutions, the Development Authorities Multifamily Residential Rental Housing Refunding Revenue Bonds for Silver Hill Mill Dam Associates. Item Number 2, the Tax Exempt Real Estate and Personal Property, Item Number A, American Environment Foundation for an indefinite deferral and Item Number B, Beth Sholom Terrace for approval noting a no vote by Mrs. McClanan and Mrs. Parker. Item Number 3, for approval of the endorsement to the Transportation Enhancement Funds. Item Number 4, for amending and adding to establish a technology zone. Item Number 5, amend the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance Regarding Variances in Public Notification to all adjacent property owners for approval. Item Number 6, to clarify an Ordinance adopted november 6, 2001, pertaining to property at the Lynnhaven Interchange at Great Neck Road, either by agreement or condemnation. Item Number 7, for approval! accept and appropriate $1,060,987 from the Commonwealth of Virginia Technology Trust Fund regarding purchasing of land records, document indexing and imaging system for the Clerk of the Circuit Court. Item Number 8, authorizing the City Manager to execute the Agreement between the City and the Virginia Housing Development Authority regarding Sponsoring Partnerships and Revitalizing Communities Home Ownership Program. Number 9, authorize the City Manager to execute a Consent to the Assignment of Ingenco's rights and obligations under the LFG Agreement regarding amended Landfill Gas Sale Agreement, noting that I will be abstaining on that. January 22, 2002 COUNCIL LADY PARER: I have a problem with that one. I'm sorry. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Okay. Reba is voting no. Do you want to? COUNCIL LADY P2%RKER: I want to vote no. VICE MAYOR SESSOM$: Okay. COUNCIL LADY PARER: Ten percent is not what I consider to be low income housing. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Okay. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Well, how much is designated in Westminster Canterbury and Atlantic Shores? COUNCIL LADY P~IfER: At Atlantic Shores they don't get any kind of discount. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Let me just say something real quick. This has been decided, but I think we are going to come back with a plan that will -- and I think this makes more sense than looking at a certain percentage of the rooms, but look at maybe.getting $1.50 return on the $1 that is subsidized. In other words, the private side would give $1.50 to $1. I would rather see something like that, than to get into percentages. The City Attorney's Office is working on these things as we speak. 3 January 22, 2002 INFORMAL SESSION MAYOR OBERNDORF: Let's go to the Agenda. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Mayor, here. Authority Bonds for Silver Hill. I'm feeling better about this one The Resolution for the Development Does anyone object to that? Moving onto the Tax Exemption, first of all, American Environment has asked for an indefinite deferral, which I don't think anyone will argue with. The second one I think we've been receiving information I'm going to recommend that it go on Consent. COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: I don't want to vote for it. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Okay. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Any other no votes? Okay. So, 2B will be on Consent, noting the one no vote. COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: this Session? Do we have anymore of these coming up before -- you know, to try to get through on VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: I wouldn't know the answer to that question. The City Attorney~'s Office might have a better handle on it than I do. COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: I think they have to have been filed. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: It would be a little late for them to tell them now. COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: They have deadlines for all the seasons. COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: Okay. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. Parker wants to say something. 2 Virginia Beach City Council January 22, 2002 4:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor W. D. Sessoms, Jr., Vice ~Mayor Linwood O. Branch, III Margaret L. Eure William W. Harrison, Jr. Barbara M. Henley Louis R. Jones Robert C. Mandigo Reba S. McClanan Nancy K. Parker Rosemary Wilson At Large At Large District 6 - Beach District 1 - Centerville District 5 - Lynnhaven District 7 - Princess Anne District 4 - Bayside District 2 - Kempsville District 3 - Rose Hall At Large At Large CITY MANAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC Dawne Franklin Meads VEPd~kTIM Planning A4Dplication of Princessboro Development Company, Inc. Item V-J.& - 46- PLANNING ITEM # 49229 Upon motion by Councilman Harrison, seconded by Councilman Mandigo, City Council DEFERRED to the City Council Session of March 26, 2002, Ordinance upon application of PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED re a Conditional Use Permit for ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Ordinance upon Application of Princessboro Development Company, Incorporated.for a Conditional Use Permit. for a borrow pit on the south side of Sandbridge Road, 720feet more or less east of Princess Anne Road (GPIN #2414-31-4249; #2414-22-4025). Saidparcel contains 64.911 acres. DISTRICT 7- PRINCESS ANNE. Voting: 10-0 (By Consent) Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, III, Margaret L. Eure, William W Harrison, Jr., Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Nancy K. Parker, Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Rosemary Wilson Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf January 22, 2002 Map K-L, I2 ~1~ No~ to Scole Devel. Co. AG'I R'I5 AG'2 AG'I AG"I Gpin 2414-31-4243 + 2414-22-4025 ZONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Use Permit (convenience store and gas pumps) - Recommended for Approval by Planning Commission, Pending Council on December 11,2001 2. Conditional Rezoning from B-2 Business District to A-12 Apartment District- Recommended for Approval by Planning Commission, Pending Council on December 11,2001 3. Conditional Use Permit (church) - Granted 3/26/90 4. Conditional Use Permit (church expansion) - Granted 8/28/93 5. AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional B-2 Business District - Granted 5/25/99 6. Downzone to AG-I/AG-2 - Denied 8/27/86 7. Downzone to AG-I/AG-2 Granted 8/27/96 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Princessboro Development Co., Inc., Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: March 26, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Princessboro Development Company, Incorporated for a Conditional Use Permit for a borrow pit on the south side of Sandbridge Road, 720 feet more or less east of Princess Anne Road (GPIN #2414-31-4249; #2414-22-4025). Said parcel contains 64.911 acres. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. This request was deferred by the City Council at the January 22, 2002 meeting at the request of the applicant. Considerations: The applicant is proposing to use 42 acres of a 57 acre site for a borrow pit (sand extraction). City staff has been in discussion with the applicant since the January 22 City Council meeting and several issues have yet to be resolved. The applicant has also met with civic leagues in the area. The applicant requests an indefinite deferral of this application in order to address the various issues raised by staff and by the surrounding community. Recommendations: The applicant has requested an indefinite deferral of this request. Staff concurs and recommends an indefinite deferral. Attachments: Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends an indefinite d~l. Submitting )artmen' Planning Department ~ City Mana¢ )~_. Map K-L, 12 Devel. Co. AG-I R-15 AG'g AG-I AG-I Cpi. 2414-31-4243 + 2414-22-4025 ZONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Use Permit (convenience store and gas pumps) - Recommended for Approval by Planning Commission, Pending Council on December 11,2001 2. Conditional Rezoning from B-2 Business District to A-12 Apartment District - Recommended for Approval by Planning Commission, Pending Council on December 11,2001 3. Conditional Use Permit (church) - Granted 3/26/90 4. Conditional Use Permit (church expansion) - Granted 8/28/93 5. AG-2 Agricultural to Conditional B-2 Business District - Granted 5/25/99 6. Downzone to AG-I/AG-2 - Denied 8/27/86 7. Downzone to AG-I/AG-2 Granted 8/27/96 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT / # 9 December 12, 2001 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Conditional Use Permit for a Borrow Pit South side of Sandbridge Road, 720 feet east of Princess Anne Road Ma~ K-L, 12 $c~te Princessboro DeveL Co. GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: Gpin 2414-31-4243 + 2414--22-4025 2414-31-4243 and 2414-22-4025 7- PRINCESS ANNE 57.25 acres Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT / # 9 Page 1 STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: Barbara Duke The applicant is proposing to use 42 acres of a 57 acre site for a borrow pit (sand extraction) Major Issues: Effect of the proposal on city streets in the area, including the factor of traffic safety · Impact from noise, dust and odor on surrounding properties · Effect of the proposal on groundwater supply and drainage in the area · Consistency with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the Transition Area Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existinq Land Use and Zoninq The property is zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District and is currently being used for agricultural crop production. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq North: · Shopping Center/B-2 Community Business District · across Sandbridge Road is Red Mill Elementary Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT / # 9 Page 2 South: East: West: School/R-15 Residential Red Mill Farm Park / B-2 Business District · church and school / R-20 Residential District · Farmland / AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District · Farmland / AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District · Across Princess Anne Road, farmland / AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District Zonin,q History This site was zoned RS-1 Residential until 1986. In 1986, the property was 'downzoned,' along with several other properties in the area, to AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District. A rezoning to B-2 north of the site occurred in 1999, to expand retail shops at the corner of Sandbridge Road and Princess Anne Road. There are three recent applications pending before either Planning Commission or City Council near this site. To the north of this site, at the northeast corner of Princess Anne Road and Upton Drive, there is a conditional use permit for a convenience store and gas pumps pending City Council hearing on December 11,2001. Adjacent to the north of the convenience store is a request for a rezoning from B-2 Business to A-12 Apartment to develop condominiums pending City Council hearing on December 11,2001. Directly east of this site, there is a request for a rezoning from AG-1 and AG-2 Agriculture to R-20 Residential (Open Space) and P-1 Preservation pending Planning Commission hearing. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ of 65 to 70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristic~ The site is an agricultural field with no treed areas. There is a small drainageway existing along the eastern boundary of the property, which has been identified as a southern watershed feature. A 50 foot wide buffer adjacent to the drainageway will be required in accordance with the Southern Watersheds Management Ordinance. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Thera is no City water in Sandbridge Road, fronting this parcel. Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT / # 9 Page 3 Sewer: Them is no City sewer available to this site. All of the properties surrounding this site to the east, south and west are exclusively on well water and septic systems. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP)/Capital Improvement Program (CIP): The Master Transportation Plan shows Sandbridge Road as a divided roadway with an ultimate 125 foot to 143 foot wide right of way and a bikeway. The existing Sandbridge Road right of way in this vicinity is approximately 30 feet in width but is variable at places. The Master Transportation Plan shows Princess Anne Road as a divided roadway with an ultimate 100 foot wide right of way. There are no projects in the CIP to improve Princess Anne Road south of the intersection with Sandbridge Road. Princess Anne Road in the vicinity of this application is currently a two lane undivided rural road. CIP #2-151 Sandbridqe Corridor Improvements This project will provide a four lane divided roadway for Princess Anne Road from the intersection of General Booth Boulevard to Sandbridge Road and for Sandbridge Road from Upton Drive to Atwoodtown Road, a distance of approximately 4.0 miles. A two-lane roadway for Nimmo Parkway from Upton Drive to Atwoodtown Road is also included. The intersections of Princess Anne Road/General Booth Boulevard, Princess Anne Road/Sandbridge Road, Sandbridge Road/Atwoodtown Road, Sandbridge Road/Flanagans Lane, and Sandbridge Road/Lotus Drive will be reconfigured and upgraded with this project. A conceptual design and alignment study should begin in FY 2001-02 with construction anticipated for January 2010 to December 2011. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Princess Anne Road 7,247 ADT 7,400 ADT Existing Land Use 2_ 0 (LOS C) Proposed Land Use 3_ 100 Sandbridge Road 11,340 ADT 16,200 ADT ~ Average Daily Trips Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT / # 9 Page 4 2 site under cultivation 3 as defined by borrow pit operation Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: Adequate - no further comments. Adequate - no further comments. Comprehensive Plan This site is located in the area identified as the Transition Area in the Comprehensive Plan. This area of the City serves as a land use buffer between the clearly urbanizing area of the north and the clearly rural area of the south. The Transition Area is to be seen as an open space and recreational 'mecca' with residential development present only to the extent it supports the primary purpose of advancing open space and recreational uses. Summary of Proposal proposal The subject site is a 57.25 acre parcel that has approximately 2,099 linear feet of frontage on Sandbridge Road and approximately 332 linear feet of frontage on Princess Anne Road. The applicant is proposing to use 42 acres of the parcel for a borrow pit for sand excavation. The borrow pit itself will be located east of the existing retail center at the southeast comer of Sandbridge Road and Princess Anne Road, and will run parallel to Sandbridge Road for approximately 1,900 linear feet. The remaining 15 acres, fronting on Princess Anne Road to the south of the existing retail center at the corner, will not be excavated. This area will be used for the access road, overburden area, parking and storage associated with the borrow pit operation. Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT / # 9 Page 5 The estimated excavation amount provided by the applicant is 1,759,800 cubic yards of material. The applicant has not provided any information on the intended customers or use that the excavated sand will be sold for other than to state that it is generally for road building and construction projects. The depth of the borrow pit is proposed at 50 feet below ground surface. Ground surface at the site is between 7 and 10 feet above mean sea level. The applicant has submitted a groundwater impact study that shows that the excavation will only occur within the water table (columbia) aquifer and will not penetrate the Yorktown confining layer. EAST The borrow pit will operate for a period of ten years. Operating hours proposed by the applicant are 8:00 am to 4:00 pm Monday through Friday. No Saturday or Sunday operating hours are proposed. The applicant is proposing to limit hauling traffic to use Princess Anne Road north to remove excavated material from the site. Hauling traffic shall be Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT / # 9 Page 6 permitted on Princess Anne Road south only to Indian River Road west. No truck traffic shall be permitted to use Seaboard Road or Sandbddge Road. Site Design and Vehicular Access The submitted site plan shows that the borrow pit area will be 42 acres in size. The entrance to the borrow pit will be from Princess Anne Road. An 850 foot long road will be constructed on-site to access the borrow pit. The site plan shows that right and left turn lanes meeting City standards will be provided at the new entrance on Princess Anne Road. Sufficient right of way for the turn lanes is provided on the plans. The site plan shows a 100 foot wide setback around the perimeter of the excavation in accordance with the conditional use permit standards for borrow pits as specified in Section 227(b)(3) of the City Zoning Ordinance. This buffer appears to be adequate for the east, south and west boundaries of excavation. The northern edge of the excavation runs parallel to Sandbridge Road. The 100 foot wide setback shown on the plan does not take into account the ultimate right of way for Sandbridge Road, which is 143 feet in width in accordance with the Master Transportation Plan. Section 201(b) of the zoning ordinance requires that all setbacks be measured from the ultimate right of way line established by the Master Transportation Plan. The proposed site plan, therefore, must be modified to show the area of excavation setback 100 feet from the ultimate 143 foot right of way along Sandbridge Road. The ultimate right of way could be less than 143; however, since the final right of way width is not determined at this time, the 143 foot width must be used. Overburden areas are shown in accordance with the zoning ordinance requirements. A parking and storage area is shown for the employees near the entrance to the pit. Landscape Design The applicant is proposing to provide a temporary berm measuring 7 foot high and 20 foot wide along Sandbridge Road. In addition to the berm, a 30 foot wide buffer of trees will be planted. The trees will be planted with a random Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT / # 9 Page 7 spacing pattern and will include pin oaks, sycamores, maples and cherries. The proposed plan indicates that the berm will be located approximately 50 from the existing right of way of Sandbridge Road, with the treed buffer behind it. As noted above, this is not in allowed under the zoning ordinance, which notes that setbacks are to be measured from the ultimate right of way. In order to comply with all of the provisions of the ordinance, the edge of the excavation must be setback at least 100 feet from the ultimate right of way for Sandbridge Road. The berm and the proposed landscaping may be located between the edge of the excavation and the ultimate right of way for Sandbridge Road, but may not be located within the ultimate right of way for Sandbridge Road. This is a requirement of the ordinance and cannot be modified by the Planning Commission or the City Council through this use permit. The treed buffer and berm will be extended along the eastern boundary of excavation and along the western boundary of excavation to the access road. Along the access road, a row of evergreen trees is proposed on each side of the road. Evergreen trees are also proposed along the western property line adjacent to a neighboring single-family home. There is no landscaping proposed along Princess Anne Road. A 4 foot high vinyl picket fence is shown for the length of the property fronting on Princess Anne Road, except at the entrance. · There is no landscaping proposed for the southern edge of excavation, which is adjacent to an agricultural field. Groundwater Recharqe Plan A draft groundwater impact study on existing and future borrow pits in this area was completed by the City's Department of Public Utilities in October 2001. The study discusses the degree of potential impacts. There are three existing borrow pits and a golf course within a two mile radius of the proposed pit. All of these existing operations are heavy users of groundwater. · The cumulative effect of the existing active borrow pits in this area along with groundwater withdrawal associated with the golf course at Heron's Ridge Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT / # 9 Page 8 have already lowered groundwater levels in both the water table and Upper Yorktown aquifers. As a general rule, the impact of borrow pit dewatering in the water table aquifer would not extend much beyond 3,500 to 5,000 feet from the edge of the pit. Therefore, when borrow pits are separated by distances of one to two miles, there is little chance for cumulative effects to occur. This proposed pit does not meet this criteria, as it is less than a mile from an existing pit that is located on the west side of Princess Anne Road. One of the factors affecting amount of impact to groundwater is whether or not a groundwater recharge system is in place for a borrow pit operation. The existing borrow pits do not have extensive groundwater recharge systems, the groundwater is pumped to a sediment basin then to an outfall ditch and discharged downstream. In the Public Utilities study, the consultant indicates that if most of the water removed from a borrow pit is recharged back into the water table aquifer via an infiltration ditch around the borrow pit, then the groundwater impacts can be reduced to very Iow levels. The applicant has proposed such a groundwater recharge system for the new pit using an infiltration perimeter ditch along the northern, western and eastem limits of excavation. In addition, a groundwater recharge pond has been proposed that will also be used for infiltration at the western edge of the borrow pit. The applicant has submitted a detailed groundwater study that takes into account the existing groundwater usage by the other existing borrow pits in the area, as well as the Heron's Ridge golf course. The study concludes that as long as the proposed dewatering operation utilizes the perimeter recharge ditch and pond, and keeps sedimentation in check, no significant adverse impact to shallow area wells is anticipated as a result of the proposed borrow pit's dewatering/infiltration operation. Reclamation Plan The land use that has been proposed for this property after excavation is complete is shown as a public park and regional stormwater facility on 42 acres. There is no land use shown for the 15 acres fronting on Princess Anne Road and where the entrance road to the pit is located. The applicant has submitted a conceptual end use plan which shows that the borrow pit will be partially filled in after excavation to accommodate area for recreation. The end use plan states that the access road will be removed and Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT / # 9 Page 9 does not show any future access for the park. · The applicant has stated a desire to dedicate the 42 acre park and regional stormwater facility site to the City upon completion. The proposed end use as a park and regional stormwater facility is in keeping with the Transition Area guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan. However, the decision on whether the City would take over ownership and maintenance is premature. The applicant will need to apply for a separate conditional use permit in order to fill the pit as shown on the plan, and at that time, the decision on ownership of the park should be determined. In addition, the use of the lake as a regional stormwater facility is limited due to the drainage patterns in this area. Most of the surrounding property south of Sandbridge Road drains to the south and east, towards Back Bay. Evaluation of Request The request for a conditional use permit for a borrow pit is acceptable with the conditions below. The applicant has addressed the effects of traffic, impact from noise, dust and odor and effects on groundwater with a comprehensive plan for this project. The applicant has limited operating hours to 8:00 to 4:00 Monday through Friday, and has installed turn lanes at the entrance on Princess Anne Road. There will be no Saturday or Sunday operations. The applicant has proposed an infiltration system that, if well monitored, can limit the effects on groundwater. The landscape buffers proposed will screen the operations from the adjacent roadways and commercial areas. Overall, the applicant has done a good job of identifying and addressing the impacts and has provided a vision for the future use of this property that is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. However, the cumulative impacts from this use (noise, dust, truck traffic and groundwater) on the surrounding property cannot be fully mitigated. Although borrow pits are considered compatible in agricultural areas, they are a temporary intensive use that can be somewhat industrial in nature. There are already three existing borrow pits within two miles of the proposed pit. As in the past, the potential for future requests for additional borrow pits within this area along the "Pungo Ridge" is high, due to the geological characteristics of large sand deposits and the fact that several new road projects are located north of the Transition Area, in the Courthouse/Sandbridge Planning Area. One of the goals of the Transition Area is that open space and recreational opportunities will be primary uses. The industrial nature of a borrow pit Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT / # 9 Page 10 could be considered inconsistent with that goal. However, the need for sand for future growth that is planned through construction and road projects should be carefully weighed against the cumulative impacts associated with this use that cannot be mitigated. If approved, the following conditions are recommended. Conditions o o No excavation of the borrow pit shall be allowed without first obtaining any necessary permits from the appropriate Federal, State and Local agencies. In addition, the applicant shall obtain a Non-Metallic Mineral Mining General Permit from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. No excavation of the borrow pit shall commence until such time that a site plan has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Department / Development Services Center. The site plan must include a specific street and highway contingency plan that addresses the repair and replacement of damaged roadWay surfaces associated with the borrow pit operation. No access to or from Sandbridge Road shall be allowed for the borrow pit operation. No truck traffic from the borrow pit operation shall be allowed on Sandbridge Road or Seaboard Road. Hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. Undrained pockets and stagnant pools resulting from surface drainage shall be sprayed in accordance with requirements of the state board of health to eliminate breeding places for mosquitos and other insects. The reclamation plan submitted with this borrow pit application is not approved as part of the use permit. A separate conditional use permit will be required for any filling of the borrow pit after completion of excavation. The operator of the borrow pit shall be responsible for continuous water service for private wells up to 1,000 feet from the pit if proved to be negatively impacted by this operation. Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT / # 9 Page 11 10. Stockpiles, including overburden areas outside of the excavation area, shall not exceed eight feet in height. 11 .The borrow pit shall be excavated and operated as provided for on the site plan exhibited to City Council and titled "Plan of Operation for Princessboro Park" prepared by Miller Stephenson Associates, P.C. and dated November 9, 2001, except that the following item must be revised: The site plan shall be revised to show a 100 foot setback along the northern boundary of excavation, adjacent to Sandbridge Road, to be measured from the ultimate 143 foot fight of way as depicted on the Master Transportation Plan. This is a requirement of the City Zoning Ordinance (sections 201(b) and 227(b)(3)). 12. No direct groundwater discharge from the site shall be allowed. A dewatering/infiltration system shall be provided as indicated on the site plan to recharge groundwater on-site. 13.A long term monitoring plan prepared by a professional engineer licensed in Virginia, which includes groundwater pumpage, groundwater quality and meteorological data, shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of a borrow pit permit by the Planning Department / Development Services Center. The plan shall incorporate bona fide triggers that can be used to limit or terminate groundwater withdrawals if the data warrants it. 14.A semi-annual report, certified by a professional engineer licensed in Virginia, on the status of the monitoring shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator on February 15 and August 15. If the Zoning Administrator, in consultation with appropriate City staff, determines that the data merits limitation or termination of groundwater withdrawals, the Zoning Administrator shall issue an order that the borrow pit must cease or reduce operations to a level specified by the Zoning Administrator. If the applicant fails to comply with order, the Zoning Administrator shall forward the conditional use permit to City Council for possible revocation. 15.This conditional use permit is limited to a period of 10 years and shall expire on January 11, 2012. 6.The site plan submitted to the Development Services Center must indicate the sequence of construction for maintaining 3:1 side slopes on the borrow pit within 60 days after excavation is complete. Planning Commission Agenda ~j, December 12, 2001 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT I # 9 Page 12 17. The landscape berm and tree plantings must be installed within 60 days of start of excavation. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all appficable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval. See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT ! # 9 Page 13 il Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT / # 9 Page 14 ~.~}~ December 12, 2001 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT / # 9 Page 15 Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT / # 9 Page 16 Item #9 Princessboro Development Conditional Use Permit 720 feet more or less of Princess Anne Road District 7 Princess Anne December 12, 2001 CONSENT AGENDA Charlie Salle: That brings us to the consent agenda and Cheryl Avery-Hargrove will handle that portion of the meeting. Cheryl Avery-Hargrove: We have seven items on the consent agenda today and as I call your name would the applicant or the applicant representative make your way toward the podium and state your name for the record and also if you have read the consent conditions to the consent item and if in fact you agree with those items. I will start with item #9, that is Princessboro Development. Conditional use permit for a borrow pit in district 7, Princess Anne. Eddie Bourdon: For the record, Eddie Bourdon representing the applicants. We have reviewed all the conditions including the revisions to those conditions and they are all acceptable. Cheryl Avery-Hargrove: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. And is there any opposition to this consent agenda item? There is one opposition to... two oppositions, therefore, we will have to drop that in its normal course of hearing. REGULAR AGENDA Robert Miller: Mr. Bourdon can I have a moment of privilege here. We seem to have items on our consent agenda, item #13 Gary Weiler which we did vote on and there appears to be someone in opposition and I think Stephen got Mr. Nutter back in here. I guess we will go to item #9, Princessboro Development. Eddie Bourdon: Mr. Miller and Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, for the record my name is Eddie Bourdon, Virginia Beach attorney representing the applicants. It is certainly a privilege to represent these fine gentlemen who have owned this piece of property at the southeast comer or proximity of the southeast comer of Princess Anne Road and Sandbridge Road and they have owned property for half a century. The property at one time before the down zoning which occurred a couple of decades ago was zoned for residential development. This was an application for a borrow pit. A relatively small borrow pit as borrow pits go and it is also a very unique application as far as borrow pits go. I have done a few of them before and most of you all are familiar with the process. The unique aspects to this application are two-fold. One, there has been a groundwater study, an extensive groundwater study that has been done as part of the application submitted to the professional staff at the City of Virginia Beach and reviewed by Item #9 Princessboro Development Page 2 their professionals including as I understand it, Tom Leahy who has reviewed the last expansion of a pit that was approved for Bonney Bright back a little over a year ago and they signed off on that groundwater study. The reason that it is unique here as you all are aware, them are in existence today on Pungo Ridge in this general area three other active pits all of which are nearing the end of their useful life and don't have a lot of material left in them and those of the Balio Pit, the Gunther Pit and the Williams Pit. There also are a couple of pits that are no longer, they have already been mined and they are now lakes to the north, the main one being the Reasor Pit. All of those pits have existed, been mined and substantially have been significantly mined from decades and there have not been any problems with the aquifer or with saltwater intrusion from any of those pits and no groundwater studies as a commission as part of those pits. Second thing that is unique about this is the study has been done and passed on that is not going to create a problem with the limitations contained in these extensive number of conditions. The second thing that is unique to this proposal that is unlike any of these other pits is that this pit will have a water recharge system associated with it which is a part of the condition. We will not be pumping the groundwater directly into a drainage way, directly into the North Landing River Watershed as is the case with those other pits that I am already referred to when they were operating. Al1 of them pumped their water offsite and in the case of the Williams pit which I am very much familiar with that was a considerable, large and is large amount of water that is pumped out of that pit and again have not been groundwater problems to my knowledge. Williams was responsible and still is responsible for any wells that may have been impacted by or may be impacted by their operation. The same conditions contained here. We will be responsible for any wells that may be impacted by this pit, however, with this particular pit, it is very unlikely to happen because of the recharging on site that will be done as a part of this application - as a part of this use if it is approved. Another part of the rationale that supports granting the use permit for this pit is the significant number of road projects and public projects that are anticipated and that will inevitably be taking place over the course of the next decade in this area. One is Nimmo Parkway, another is Holland Road. Princess Anne Road right here from Dam Neck Road south to where we are today. London Bridge Road from Dam Neck Road north to Potters Road. West Neck Road to our west. Sandbridge Road and maybe even the beginning of the Southeastern Parkway and Greenbelt if we are lucky. There is also a new elementary school that is going to be built in this area and other commercial development in this area. All of which will need select fill sand borrow material and it certainly makes sense that a source or a source - a competitive source and that is what we need is competition so that the tax payers don't pay as much for sand for these projects and these projects don't cost as much - we need competition. We need sources of material. Sources that are close to the project involve less cost and involve a lot less travel on our roadway system by trucks. The reality is that out there, there is not a lot of sources for select borrow material. Some of the projects -- it is ccming from North Carolina. Bonney Bright is almost down to Knotts Island is a significant source of sand as well as the pits that I have already referenced. This is a perfect location as locations go. I mean no one likes a borrow pit. We all understand that but in terms of being in a position to provide the material that will be needed in a cost effective manner with as little impact on the roads of the Item #9 Princessboro Development Page 3 City this is the fight location to grant one and it is in a position where sand is located. The other thing that is unique about this unlike any of those other pits that I referenced, this applicant has presented an after the fact of what will happen when the pit is gone where the Williams houses were shown. I am not (inaudible) requirement. But we are not talking about building houses or building anything. We are proposed and I understand that if you all are not in the position to approve it today, we don't have any objection to that but we are proposing, and put it on the record, that after the fact we will dedicate the entire 42 acres to the City after coming in and getting a use permit to do some filling but not to create a landfill but simply to do the contour and create a lake and a park around it. We communicated that fact to the neighboring communities with whom my clients have met and that has been very well received as a part of this proposal. We understand that you all are not in a position to be able to accept that today but the alternative would be houses or offices or some other use around this property and we certainly would think a lake and a regional BMP and a park would be a nice thing to have here and that offer is on the table and will stay on the table. That has not been done before and once that lake is there and once the portions are reclaimed and even if they are not, you still have a valuable amenity to build houses around or office buildings around so it is not an offer to give you something or give the City something that has no value. It clearly does have value. We have some beautiful neighborhoods built around former borrow pits. Lake James being one and Birdneck Lake being another and Sylvan Lake and many more I am forgetting offthe top of my head. Back to the proposal itself, there is over 2000 feet of frontage of the proposed pit area on Sandbridge Road and we are going to set the pit back the required 100 foot setback from the ultimate right of way width. There is one thing I want to clarify and make clear. The current right of way with the Sandbridge Road is basically 50 feet. It is wider down here towards the east end of the property because of the old alignment that is being re-aligned. As long as that is measured along the center line of the right of way that would add additional 46 ½ feet of right of way on our side to get the ultimate of 143 width of right of way width and that is my understanding of the way that will be calculated and based upon that, the 100 foot setback will go from there and we can live with that but we will not be agreeable to have the entire right of way on our side for the purpose of calculating where the setback would begin and then where the pit would be dug. Then ultimately all the land can belong to the City for nothing so the right of way can be put wherever the City wants it but for purposes of measuring the setback it would be 100 feet off the ultimate right of way which is measured from the center line of the current right of way because again, we want to be able to mine the sand and that is where the best sand is located. The buffer will include a large berm 7 feet in height, 20 feet in width and behind that a heavily treed forested buffer, which was explained and very well so in the evaluation and the conditions. Far, far in excess than anything that has been required previously including the buffer on Bonney Bright's pit which is, I think, is the best one to date. It is far greater than that in terms of its width and its scope. And ultimately when the road is built, that is Sandbridge Road is built, when this pit is done in 10 years or less, the berm will be raked out and you won't have the berm and you will just have the forested area which would be on the edge or the outside of the ultimate Sandbridge Road right of way so you are creating a beautiful landscape buffer, a Item #9 Princessboro Development Page 4 heavily treated wooded area along Sandbridge Road and its ultimate right of way width. The, again, no access whatsoever to Sandbridge Road. The access to the pit will be fiom Princess Anne Road 800 feet south of the intersection of Sandbridge Road where we will be installing turn lanes, both right and left hand turn lanes coming up and picket fence along Princess Anne Road and the pit itself is 800 feet to the east and with landscaped trees and vegetation all along there as well as the pit with landscaping and vegetation. When the pit is complete within the 10 year period and if it is dedicated to the City for a park and the City accepts at that point, the access to that park would not come from Princess Anne Road, although it could, I mean I am not going to tell you it won't happen but the anticipation would be if it is accepted because of the park across the street you could have access jointly there with the two parks. Similarly this area is owned by the City and this old curve here, ,the City owns all that area. That could be incorporated here as an access and an additional parking area for the park. There are a number of options that would exist at that time as far as access to the park if that is what it becomes. And that is what, again, we would offer that it would become. The conditions, there are I think 17 of them. They are all acceptable. The one thing I want to touch on that was mentioned this morning as far as truck traffic. Seeing that these projects that we need the sand for are going to come from pits that are in this area or pits that are further south. They are going to come up Princess Anne Road and they are going to go through this area under any circumstance. So, again, we believe that this is a much lesser burden on the driving public and on the tax payers to get this sand and material to where the sand is needed for these projects, these economic development projects. The discussion about, we agreed to the limitation on the hours and theirs is restricted or more restricted than any of the other pits. No operations on Saturdays and Sunday and 8 am to 4 pm during the week. The idea of attempting to limit the number of track trips per day based on a tonnage mine from the pit. It is something that we can agree to however we think it defeats the purpose. Our intention is really to be out of here in less than 10 years and we think that is likely to be the case. And, again, the sand is going to be used for projects in Virginia Beach - for projects that Virginia Beach wants and needs and to create an impediment - an artificial impediment to our mining the sand, providing it at a reasonable cost and again, because we have that short window we are going to be competitive with our prices. Unlike Williams whose pit - they are not necessarily competitive with .their pricing. Lets put it that way. Because they are going to price it for their job and not for others. So we think the City and the tax payers benefit significantly for having multiple sources reasonably available for the borrow material that is needed for the projects that are in our capital improvement plan. With that, I do have some other remarks but I am going to save those unless you have some questions that are on the consent agenda and allow the opposition to speak and then I will be glad to come back. Robert Vakos: Eddie, I know we talked about that last condition about the tonnage. Did we put that in here. Eddie Bourdon: No, its not. I want to let you all know that we are not adverse to going down that road. We just didn't think that it was necessarily logical with what we - it is the balancing. Item #9 Princessboro Development Page 5 We think that the better practices to allow us to price this competitively and get in and out as quickly as possible but we will definitely live within those hours of operation. John Baum: Two things. The future is not clear after you finish but you gave two attractive uses but I wanted to avoid and you do need some of these, is a borrow pit surrounded by woods that you dump concrete and everything in. And your condition eight takes care of that. It can't be done unless Council permits and the other thing - bringing sand from a distance is bad news. We have an example in Blackwater ora borrow pit that was just across the line in Chesapeake. The opposition was tremendous. And they turned it down and the people were opposing - had all the traffic from Moyock coming right by them and if they did that in the future and came across North Landing Bridge they would have to come right on through the country, cross Pungo's railroad and then go north. That makes no sense to me of course we get no sand tax that way either. Eddie Bourdon: John, I couldn't agree with you more and the staff has protected the City's interest with these conditions. There will not be any filling of this pit done without coming back to the Planning Commission and Council and really there is not any intention or my clients desire to create a landfill at all. It is simply to come in and make sure the slopes are three to one and if Parks & Rec's wants the property, we can create some additional space by doing some filling. The over burden that is on the property, now and it was also talked about at the informal, that is going to be used to put up the extensive and large berm on the property and the other over burden will be utilized on site - stored on site per the condition. We think all of the basis had been covered and we are obviously open to discussion th.at the Commission or Council ultimately feels are also worth looking at. Betsy Atkinson: Eddie I had two questions. Will they be watering the pit like if it is really dry and lately it has been really dry. And it seems to me I remember this with Seaboard Road- Gunther project that we required, you know, if it gets really dry that the dust doesn>t go back into the Fox Hall... Eddie Bourdon: You have a couple of different issues. One is the haul road or haul road coming in and out and if, I am not certain to tell you the truth, whether we are planning on paving that or what it is going to be hard packed, but if it hard packed we will have to keep it dust free. That is a requirement of a condition and you will have to water that. As far as the, you know, the pit itself, it really isn't any way that you can sprinkle the pit and that is just not do-able but what you have is by having the berm and the trees you know the dust situation that might exist that is what they are there to help alleviate as well as the visual issue. There are no homes with the exception of one down here in the corner which is kind of a home office type of situation for that particular owner but there aren't any homes that are nearby. To the south of us it is just open agriculture fields as well as again, a couple of houses on Princess Anne Road. Item #9 Princessboro Development Page 6 Betsy Atkinson: They are planning to build houses to the south there so... yeah, Mr. Bourdon. You don't see the dust as a problem... Is there anything that you can do to minimize? Eddie Bourdon: We will do the watering and having the water recharge onsite will help to some degree because you, again, dealing with the situation where the moisture level of the soil around the pit will not be that impacted. Mr. Baum mentioned this morning the fact that the over burden in this area is not sandy soil but is in fact a little less well drained soil and the sand is still below it. Again, adding that water in there and that soil not being sandy will also help in terms of alleviating dust. Also, we will certainly try to keep it vegetated on the areas that are not being mined but down in the pit itself there isn't anyway you can do anything to minimize - it has got to be a fairly dry environment to get the sand out. Betsy Atkinson: One other question. The trucks. I mean I know right now I live close to the Beach and all night long it is beep, beep, beep, beep, you know when they are redoing the sand on the beach. How - I assume these trucks will be backing up and beeping, is there. I am just thinking about the new houses and people at church on Sunday morning or... Eddie Bourdon: We are not open on Saturday or Sunday. There is no Saturday or Sunday operation. OSHA and their safety requirements, the beeping has to happen. There is no way we can turn off the beepers. That is federal regulation. There really - they also, Betsy, what you referred to earlier there may be something going on south of this property - directly south of this property. I am not aware of, it really is not adjacent to this property. It is further to the south but the beeping during the hours of operation of trucks backing up because it is a requirement that is inevitable. There is nothing that can be done about that other than turning down the volume. Betsy Atkinson: Well, that is what I was hoping that by making the comment they could turn the volume down a little bit. Eddie Bourdon: I don't have any knowledge on how that process would work. Charlie Salle: Any other questions? Ron? Ronald Ripley: Eddie, I think I read it in here, but the area that you are suggesting that you would consider giving to the City when they are finish with this -- would you flip that over, is it the dark area, the blue area or what? Eddie Bourdon: It is the entire... Ronald Ripley: Green area? Item #9 Princessboro Development Page 7 Eddie Bourdon: The green area. Ronald Ripley: The darker area. area. The darker area. I just want to be clear. Which is on page 15. It is not the other Eddie Bourdon: No, this would be pertained, and again, what we would anticipate - somewhere on Sandbridge Road. If it is something - obviously, if the City doesn't want it and at some point, if we get that answer - I am not suggesting that is the answer but if that answer is ever given then the potential would exist to develop it with the use permit to do the necessary filling which would be required either homes or offices around it but we believe it would be a wonderful area for a park, recreational area. Again, you got one across the street w/th some ballfields and we think there is a multitude o£potential beneficial use that the City could make of that large track of land. Donald Horsleyl I may not need to ask Stephen this question. Stephen, condition #4 - I can see where Seaboard Road needs to be in there but why do you have Sandbridge Road in there? I mean, suppose they need to do a project on Sandbridge Road. According to this condition they can't go on Sandbridge Road. Stephen White: Actually, it was my understanding that was volunteered from the applicant. They intended the truck traffic route to be Princess Anne Road and not Sandbridge Road to cause the problems with the neighborhoods that are adjacent to Sandbridge Road. Donald Horsley: Well, I can't see where they need to go anywhere on Sandbridge Road unless they were working on Sandbridge Road. Eddie Bourdon: And I don't know if any - Bob may know, but it has always been my understanding that the haul road designations that -- if the City has a project that necessitates sand to get to that project whether it be the Beach at Sandbridge or some improvements to Sandbridge Road, I would believe that would be a condition that you would have to be able to make an exception for. I guess we would have to come back and have it modified. The idea is that there - and Sandbridge Road... we wouldn't be going down Sandbridge Road for any private sand delivery. We can not do that. But if it is a public project that is going'to be bid on by others and that is the only way to get to that project I would think that is would be waived because I don't know if any other... Donald Horsley: Is that the way it would work Bob? Bob Scott: Lets say that someday we were building Sandbridge Road. One thing we know is that there will be trucks filled with sand driving down the road. It may as well come from this site and we would consider making the adjustment in that case. Item #9 Princessboro Development Page 8 Eddie Bourdon: We just want to assure the neighbors we have no intention of using Sandbridge Road for anything unless it is a city project that is on Sandbridge Road. Donald Horsley: Okay. Charlie Salle: Any other questions? We have opposition, Ms. Munden? Janice Munden: Thank you for your time and I could probably answer all of your questions about what it is like to live across the sand pit. There are homes there at Princess Anne Road where the entrance for all the trucks will be coming in. I live at 2064 Princess Anne Road which is three houses behind the Food Lion. I am Jan Munden. My family, also Phyllis Munden owns the property that joins the property that they are speaking of putting a sand pit. We have two homes built there and own the 75 acres of land that join the property. I am opposed and probably not for the reason that you are going to think of all the many reasons I could be opposed if the City wanted to put a sand pit there for the benefit of the City I could live with the dirt the trucks, the noise, the devalue in my property but what I can't live without is water and heat. And I know their attorney stated he didn't think there had been any problems before but we have been fighting with E.V. Williams for the sand pit for years. This year my mother-in-law just went without water for 11 days. My husband went down to the City Attorney's office and the City Attorney's office helped us out. They finally told them it is in your paperwork. You have got to do something. They still don't do anything. They just blame it on something else even after the City told them to do it. It took them another four days. So we have an 80 year old woman living without water. Myself, personally, my home that is next door to that and I have a nice home. I have done without water and heat - I have a heat to air heat pump. So not only sometimes am I without water for over a week I am without heat, I am without air conditioning. You go to E.V. Williams, they will blame it on something else. One incident that I had no water, they say it is your fault. It is your own pump. Well the reason the pump burned out is that they sucked all the water out of the ground so we go to our expense buy another jacuzzi pump, two days later, that goes out. When you have replaced everything that you can replace, then they will finally say well, it is the well. They will dig another well and go deeper. I have had the well people tell me it is never going to end. It is going to continue. My heat goes out, I replace - almost a $1000 almost get a new heating system, finally they will say it is a well. They put in another well. They put in well after well for and it is continuous and I can't tell you what it is like to have to go to someone's house to take a shower when I have to get up in the morning to go to work or live without heat and go buy a kerosene heater. Not have air conditioning and go to McDonald's to go to the bathroom. Or then we have even moved out of our house so if you would make it a condition on Princessboro to -- at one point we couldn't have City water because we were on the wrong side of the Green Line but as you know that has since changed because the City allowed Food Lion all of the shops up there to have City water. We are a hop, skip and a jump behind Food Lion for the City to give us City water and value our quality of life so we can live with heat and water like normal people or even require them to pay the City the money to run the - extend Item #9 Princessboro Development Page 9 the line from Food Lion and give us City water so we don't have to live under these circumstances. I can't really personally understand why the City would want to approve it with the beautification project and that being the gateway into Pungo and Sandbridge because it is dusty, it is dirty, its noisy and its ugly. I can live with all that but I can't live without water and heat so if you could at least bear with my problem and try to help me out that whatever you do, if you want to approve it, fine, but please give me City water so that I don't have to fight with the sand pits. Because now with two, the new people are going to say, well we are going to pump water back in to the ground so they are going to say its E.V. Williams fault. E.V. Williams is going to say, no, since they are closer it is their fault. And believe me it will be just one big fight for the next 10 years and I thought it was getting ready to end but, if you could just help us out on the water situation, if that is what you want to do, it is the best interest for the City. It is my City too and I love Virginia Beach but just give me some water so we don't have to contend with the water issue. And I appreciate your time, thank you. Charlie Salle: Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Munden? Robert Vakos: Could you point out where you live? Janice Munden: I am not a good map person but I will do the best I can. Redmill Elementary School and Sandbridge Road? Okay. There is the comer and here is the Food Lion and all of that here. Okay. I am right, I don't know mileage, but say the Food Lion is right there, soon as you turn the corner Mrs. Munden, Phyllis Munden, is the second house on the left I am the third house on the left. And where the people will be coming in with all the trucks you could probably take a rock and throw it at our house so we are right... Robert Vakos: You are right at the entrance? Janice Munden: Right. I can't judge what you have here. Here is my mother-in-law's house the one who was without water for 11 days a few months ago. The City Attorney's office had to help us out with. There is not much distance there believe me. This is my mother-in-law's house and this is my house. And like I said, I can live with all the other things that I really don't like but I really hope you will help us with the water situation because it is unbearable and it happens over and over again. Donald Horsley: How many wells have you had put in? Janice Munden: Four lately that I can remember and then we had to replace other pumps that we got so tired of fighting with them that we actually had to replace pumps ourselves. My last heat pump I ended up spending over $1000 before and fighting with the company and E.V. Williams and a real nice man from Counter Mine or something. We contacted all kinds of organizations to try to help us fight E.V. Williams and probably the City Attorney's office has been very nice. Item #9 Princessboro Development Page 10 We have even written a letter to the Mayor asking for City water and actually she turned it over because the condition of our water is poor even though we have Culligan and she turned it over to another office that came out and tested our water and they were going to get back with us and honestly we kept calling them and they said, basically we will get you back when we hear something and honestly no one ever got back with us. And in the meantime, the well went out again. They had to drill down deeper so then we stopped bugging the City because the test they took didn't matter anyway because now it was a different well. It is constant and the bad part is that I know they - you could put it in the contract that they are suppose to - when something goes wrong they are suppose to fix it but - they are big business, they don't care about your home or your home and you are going through that and didn't have water. Really nobody really cares but you and they don't care if it takes them a week. They don't answer your phone calls and even if you say that they have to do something, I have documentation at home, which I only found about this last night, because we didn't pick up our letter from the post office in time. But I can show you documentation where we had to replace things, and pumps and complained and written letters and the only way to help us is to give us some City water so we don't have to go through that. At least the three houses right there behind the Food Lion where it is going to affect because it is going to affect us. They can say they pump water back into the ground but we are fighting with them and I know what that is going to be like. So, any help that you can give us I would really appreciate it. Charlie Salle: Any other questions for Ms. Munden? Thank you. I also have Ms. Butts. Eve Butts: Hello I am Eve Estes Butts. I am the executive director of the Back Bay Restoration Foundation. We have over 1400 members. We were established back in 1984. Our mission is to preserve, protect and enhance the Back Bay and the Back Bay watershed and I really have a problem with this pit going in so close to Back Bay. I am just worried about how it is going to impact the Bay. I am worried about also how it will impact the water table. Them are already existing pits there and a golf course that has a heavy impact on the water table. I am worried about who is going to police these people. I mean, once you have something like saltwater intrusion or something like that to happen you can't reverse those effects. And it was my understanding that the Planning Commission requested that the Bonney Bright Borrow Pit not be expanded. You all didn't do that? Robert Vakos: No, I think we approved it. Eve Butts: You all approve it? I am sorry maybe it was a study done for the City that required the pit that said the pit negatively impacted the water tables and problems would be - problems with salt water intrusion. I have a big concern about that. I have concerns about runoff from the borrow pit going into Back Bay and adding to the pollution that is there. Back Bay use to be a very pristine beautiful area and with all the development and all the different things that have gone on around it, the water quality has been diminished and what we are trying to do is to try to Item #9 Princessboro Development Page 11 help to bring the water quality back in Back Bay. And a pit is a very detrimental thing on the environment. All the dust and the dirt, the noise and that is such a beautiful area. It is the entrance to Sandbridge, it is the entrance to Pungo. I am surprised that it is even being considered and I hope you will consider denying it. Charlie Salle: Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Butts? Thank you very much. That is all the speakers we have in opposition. Eddie Bourdon: Chairman I will be brief. I will start with the last young lady. First of all, there is no impervious surface that is being proposed here so there won't be any runoff associated with the borrow pit and again the water is all recharged onsite. The property is not in close proximity to Back Bay at all. It is certainly within the watershed but it is not close to Back Bay. A study has been done, an extensive study has been done of the aquifer and the impacts, the potential impacts of water and I have laid all that out in my presentation. It is really a bogey man that is being tossed out there in terms of the concern of saltwater intrusion. The, as it existed on the pits that were much larger and much deeper and were not regulated to the extent that this was regulated and studies have been done and no recharge system has been required and it has not been a problem and those were in closer proximity to Back Bay than this. Now, with regard to Mr. Bright's pit which was approved by City Council for expansion over a little ora year ago, that pit actually used in much closer proximity to Back Bay than this and that pit was approved but with monitoring wells, just like we are going to be monitoring this one and with the similar safe guards that are in this application and in the conditions that you have in front you. So, this is a situation where we have - I am not going to suggest that there is a risk because I don't think there is one. It has been demonstrated but we are going to make sure. We are going the extra mile as the City has required. We are taking every precaution to make sure that there is not a problem with saltwat&r intrusion as with the case with the Bright pit and there hasn't been any problem there either. With regard to Jan Munden's situation, I guess we are going to suffer the sins of others. It is certainly obvious from she has described that there is a problem with what she has with the operation of the Williams pit. I don't know the timing of it. Obviously E.V.'s folks they have sold the property a number of years ago. Actually I think at one point Ms. Munden's relatives were involved with the ownership of that pit. My understanding on that, and I am pretty sure that I am correct is that if they have a specific condition and I think the City is in the position to pull their use permit immediately or cease to have them cease mining and if they do not replace a well that fails and clearly if she has got a history there that has got to be the cause of her well failing, we are not in a position to be able to extend City water to her but we certainly will be happy to discuss options providing - I don't know what we can do to provide her with water but clearly that is a problem she has today not a problem that we have created. From the last expansion that I was involved in when E.V. owned the pit they had only had one situation at that time and that has been many, many years ago where they had to replace it and even had a complaint and that they replaced a well. I was not aware that they ever caused anybody a problem and in fact, Rick Boler told me anytime anyone complained they would just Item #9 Princessboro Development Page 12 check it and make sure that it was in fact a failure and not a pump problem and immediately replace it which happened once. I don't have any connection with the current operators out of Roanoke who owned the properties so I don't know if I can help in that regard. We are not in a position to be able to alleviate her existing problem by extending City water to the property but we would be happy to talk to her to see if there is another means that we will be able to assist her in dealing with issue. But again, the use is an appropriate use. It is a temporary use and it is a very, very necessary use and it will save the taxpayers money in the long run and it will not be a long run use and it will be a beautiful park - we hope which will be a wonderful amenity on Sandbridge Road as being the gateway to Sandbridge. And that is what we propose and think it will happen more quickly than 10 years. Robert Vakos: Eddie and I know condition #9 on surface takes care of any problems Ms. Munden may have. I can understand her frustration of 4 days later or a week later. That is really... Eddie Bourdon: One day is too long. Robert Vakos: One day is too long. Eddie Bourdon: I couldn't agree with you more. Robert Vakos: Would you have any problem, and I am not sure because it is an enforcement issue but if there was some language in there that the response time can be delineated within 24 hours of a complaint that there at least be a response. Eddie Bourdon: I have no problem with that whatsoever. Robert Vakos: Again, it is an enforcement issue that just adds onto whether or not the City needs to act or not. Eddie Bourdon: The situation she described is totally unacceptable. If E.V. and Rick Boler and the folks that I work for and E.V. Williams still own that pit, and I will call them when I get back to the office - but I know they don't, but if there is anything that they can do I certainly believe they will do it. Robert Vakos: But in this case, if that were the case, the conditions would go with the property and not who owns in case this is sold. Eddie Bourdon: Correct. I have no objection and I am sure my client would not because there is no valid basis to object to a condition that requires immediate response. Item #9 Princessboro Development Page 13 Robert Vakos: And I would just add that we attach it to #9 if the rest of the Commission is in agreement that there be a response time within 24 hours or something of that nature. That was my comment. John Baurn: For future things I think the City needs to put test wells in and be monitored. The records should be kept. I use to do this on my own farm. If you find a draw down to occur and record what it is doing. Because so many people bring this up. One case they in Council one time the man came home and found out that (inaudible) the ice box... (inaudible). They have agreed to replace anything in his house. If they could find any records of this stuff going on they can do it with the monitoring wells and I think they ought to find some method to be able to reassure people in most cases but the extra thing here is you can put water back into the ground, as I said, and you are going to have to have contact with the sand layer (inaudible). Eddie Bourdon: And in this case we are going to have the monitoring wells. We are going to have the base line information and we will put the water back into the ground but what Ms. Munden describes is something that I will certainly and any reasonable person would find totally unacceptable and I certainly will make some phone calls to the Williams folks but as far as this application we have no objection to modifying condition #9. William Din: Your application includes a recharge pond. Do we have any recharge ponds that are currently used in this area or what kind of experience do we have that demonstrates that recharge ponds will work? Eddie Bourdon: Well it is not just recharge ponds we also have a disk that will go around the entire perimeter of the property where water will be pumped into so we constantly have water being put in there. The only other pit that was required to recharge was Bonney Bright with his expansion that was approved over a year ago. The other ones do not, to my knowledge, recharge or at least they are not required to and haven't been required to. I am certain that Williams doesn't recharge and I am fairly confident that Gunther doesn't. I am not that familiar with (inaudible). William Din: How is this recharge pond going to work? Eddie Bourdon: The water that you are pumping out as you dewater to create the dry conditions that mine the sand goes into the pond and then pumps from the pond and pumps through the ditches that are on the site. So that you have the water there being maintained on site and pumped back around the pit into the ditch. William Din: So the infiltration from the ditches will allow the water to go back into the... Eddie Bourdon: So your surface area doesn't dry up and so you constantly having the water go Item #9 Princessboro Development Page 14 back into the ground. What you have is a situation.., you are pulling the water down. It is pressure grading that is involved and if engineers can describe it better than I can but what you do is maintain the pressure. You don't have the vacuuming effect of pulling up the water from the aquifer below and risk of the saltwater intrusion. Betsy Atkinson: Mr. Scott, how much would it cost to run a line from the Food Line? What are we talking, 300 feet? How much would it cost to run a water line down to her property? I really feel sorry for Ms. Munden. I am just trying to solve her problem that obviously there is no solution to. I think she is right, she is going to call up these folks and they are going to say, well, we put the water back in the ground. It is probably E.V. Williams and then she is going to be back with E.V. Williams and then she.., if it is going to cost $10,000 to get water to her site maybe there is something that can be worked out here. Bob Scott: I don't think... I think it is a whole lot more than that. I will. have our Public Utilities people look at it. I wouldn't want to hazard a yes to be honest with you. it is not a number as small as $10,000. Janice Munden: I would be willing to do my share. I just (away from microphone). John Baum: Does David Hill have water? Eddie Bourdon: I believe he does but what I would really like and I will guarantee and I will talk with Ms. Munden and I will make some inquiries of the Williams people because it is their- obviously we are not causing the problem she is experiencing. We will get with staff and get a solution so I will not be accused of creating a problem once they are operating if they are approved to operate. They don't want to be in the middle of that either. Betsy Atkinson: And I understand this but this is the perfect forum for someone like Mrs. Munden to come in and say, hey, years ago you all approved an application now the land has been sold to somebody else and there is another operator that doesn't remember the promises that have been made in good faith by Mr. Williams. Eddie Bom'don: It is more than promise. It is in their use permit. Betsy Atkinson: Well, if they are outside the area then maybe they don't care as much as Mrs. Williams might, but I just want to make sure that she has got some kind of... are you still on water to air heat pump so you could go to just a regular heat pump though. Charlie Salle: Ms. Munden you need to come up here. Betsy Atkinson: That is alright. Mr. Scott maybe if Mr. Hill has it he could run a line across the Item #9 Princessboro Development Page 15 street. Ronald Ripley: My question was, the Williams pit is that being mined still or is it filled with water. Eddie Bourdon: No, it is being mined. Ronald Ripley: Do you know how long it has been... Eddie Bourdon: I don't represent the folks who bought it a number of years ago so I am not that familiar but what I do understand they don't have a great deal of mining capacity left in the area that they have been approved to mine because as I understand it anyway, they are only using the sand out of that pit for their own jobs. They are not allowing that sand to be used as I understand it. They are not using it for any other job other than the one that they may get. I am not suggesting I know. Ronald Ripley: Picking up on what Betsy is talking about putting a water line down, did you say a water line is close, is that what you think - across the street? Eddie Bourdon: I don't know. David Hill's water is across the street and he has got a well. To my knowledge there is no City water line other than at Sandbridge Road. Ronald Ripley: It looks like it is a couple of thousand feet. Eddie Bourdon: It is it is 800 feet just to our entrance - to Mrs. Munden's mother or mother-in- law's house is probably about - looks to me about 1200 to 1300 feet. Her house is probably a couple of thousand or more. Ronald Ripley: A private line might be cheaper but it is not going to be cheap to put a line down. Eddie Bourdon: All I can tell you is that I would be more than happy to work with City staff and get in touch with the folks, the appropriate people of Williams and see if there might be a solution to the problem but this is the first I have known of the problem, certainly my clients haven't known anything of the problem. So, we are willing to try to see and I do agree that it is an unacceptable situation. It is an unique... Ronald Ripley: Are you suggesting that the Williams are willing to share in some of that - that your client might also. Eddie Bourdon: I don't know. Because my client hasn't created the problem. But in terms of looking for a solution we are certainly willing to look for a solution because I do agree with the Item #9 Princessboro Development Page 16 characterization - I wouldn't find it acceptable to have my well going out on a regular basis if that is what she has been experiencing and not getting a response. Betsy Atkinson: Mr. Bourdon could you find out maybe before Council what the close date of the borrow pit would be across the street. You said you thought they were just about finish mining it. Eddie Bourdon: There is no close date like this use permit has a drop dead it is done in 10 years regardless. Their's does not have a such condition that they could only be there for a specific period of time. It is really just based on buying the sand that is still located in the portion of the property that is approved for mining. I don't know if I can get that information. I am certain I can get some anecdotal information that is probably general in terms b~t not specific. Betsy Atkinson: So you think they are'about finish over there. Eddie Bourdon: My understanding is that they do not have a lot of sand left and they won't be operating for 10 years over there without coming back to expand unless they just basically sit ' tight and don't do anything with the property for some period o£time which is their prerogative. They don't have to mine their sand. They don't have any time limit which this will provide. It does the time limits provides, again, bare potential for lower price sand for these projects and that is something that can not be overlooked or emphasized enough. That saves everybody money in terms of having the source available that must sell in a short period of time that is closest to the project that needs the sand. Charlie Salle: Any other questions? Have any discussion... Bob? Bob Scott: Wonders of modem technology we determine that the nearest water line is at the entrance of the Food Lion with a distance of 880 feet. You can see it there on the map. John Baum: What are the transition areas going to do about sending water through it. They are not going to have a policy of two or three houses putting a line (inaudible). Charlie Salle: If you went and asked permission to run a line down there it would have to be an 8 inch line. Any other discussion, comments, motions? Robert Vakos: I will move to approve the application in noting the discussion about the City water line and also if we could modify the condition #9 that which the applicant has expressed a willingness to do to put some language in their that we would expect the response time to be within 24 hours of a complaint that he may receive from any neighbors about their water capacity with their private wells. Item #9 Princessboro Development Page 17 Charlie Salle: Motion by Bobby Vakos seconded by Don Horsley to approve the application with the addition to condition #9, a provision that would require a response time within 24 hours of any complaint related to a negatively impacted well system. Robert Miller: I need to abstain, my firm is working on the project. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 1 ABSENT 0 ATKINSON AYE AVERY-HARGROVE AYE BAUM AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE ABS Charlie Salle" By a vote of 10 for and Mr. Miller abstaining, you have approved the application of Princessboro Development for a conditional use permit for a borrow pit on the south side of Sandbridge Road. · "· APPLICATION PAGE 4 OF 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Princessboro Development Company, Incorporated, a Virginia corporation Same As Applicant PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) C. Michael Fisher, President David E. Kellam, Secretary If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the A£plicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Pr±ncessboro Development Co.mpany, Incorporated - ' / / Signature C. Michael Fisher, President Print Name Rev. 91t5/9R M.p ~,~ - ~2 Princess ~tnne Little Not to Stole ,'1 AG-I AG- relocetec1 AG-I £ AG-2 Crpin: See Application ZONING HISTORY Change of Zoning (O-2, B-l, R-10, P-l, H-1 Districts to AG-1 Agricultural District) - Granted 5-27-97 Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to R-10 Residential District) - Granted 5-28-91 Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to R-6 Residential District) - Denied 9-24-84 Conditional Use Permit (church) - Granted 10-25-94 Conditional Use Permit (church & school) - Granted 11-27-90 Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to R-7.5 Residential District) - Granted 9-18-89 Conditional Use Permit (church)- Granted 1-9-89 Conditional Use Permit - Granted 7-2-84 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Princess Anne Little League (f.k.a. Green Run Little League), Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: March 26, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Princess Anne Little League for a Conditional Use Permit for recreation facilities of an outdoor nature on certain property located on the east side of Lisban Road, 1100 feet more or less south of Elbow Road Extended (GPIN #1484-36-6856; #1484-35-3250; #1484-25-0076). Said parcel contains 28.4 acres. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct and operate two T-ball fields, four little league fields (ages 7 to 12 years) and two senior fields (ages 13 to 17 years) on approximately 28 acres of City-owned property within the Princess Anne Commons area. Recommendations: A motion was passed unanimously by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request subject to the following conditions: The development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the site plan prepared by Engineering Services, Inc., dated March 1, 2002, and presented to City Council and which is on file in the Department of Planning. The final design of the players' dugouts, the headquarters building, and the press box/concession buildings shall be in substantial conformance with the drawings entitled, Exhibit C, Exhibit D-l, Exhibit D-2, Exhibit E-3, Prepared by Thompson and Wright, Architects, LTD., dated February 16, 2002, and presented to City Council and which are on file in the Department of Planning. 3. No fill shall be permitted within the depicted limits of the100 year floodplain. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~ City Manag~'~ ~ ~ Princess Anne Little League Page 2 4. No structures, other than the culvert for the 10 foot wide accessway depicted on the concept plan, shall be permitted within the limits of the 100 year floodplain. No encroachment other than (1) the proposed culvert described above in condition #4 and (2) the 10 foot wide accessway depicted on the concept plan shall be permitted within the 50 foot Southern Watersheds Management Area buffer. All signage and lighting shall substantially adhere to the Princess Anne Commons Design Guidelines. Details of all signage and lighting shall be submitted with the final site plan and reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the approval of the site plan. At a minimum, twenty (20) foot wide 1Suffer/filter strips shall be installed adjacent to the ball fields identified on the plan as "senior league" as they will drain directly to the wetland/wooded area depicted on the site plan. At a minimum, ten (10) foot wide buffer/filter strips shall be installed adjacent to the outfields of all other ball fields that will not drain into a stormwater management facility. Said filter strips shall be designed based on standards within the Best Management Practices Design Guidance Manual for Hampton Roads, HRPDC, December 1991. 8. The window trim, vinyl siding, and Palladian style inset above the entry of the headquarters building shall white in color. March 13, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Conditional Use Permit for recreation facilities of an outdoor nature Property located on the east side of Lisban Road (private road), 1100 feet more or less south of Elbow Road Extended .Map F,G - 12 .~oN .... sco~. Princess Anne Little / Crp~n: See Al~lication GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: #1484-36-6856; #1484-35-3250; #1484-25-0076 7 - PRINCESS ANNE 28.4 acres Carolyn A. K. Smith The Princess Anne Little League (formerly the Green Run Little League) is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct and to operate two T-ball fields, four little league fields (ages 7 to 12 years) and two senior fields (ages 13 to 17 years) on approximately 28 acres of City-owned property within the Princess Anne Commons area. A Conditional Use Permit is required for all recreation facilities of an outdoor nature. Major Issues: Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE INC., F.K.A. GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE / # 5 Page 1 Degree to which the proposed project is compatible to the surrounding land uses. Traffic generation and its potential impact on the existing roadways. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existinq Land Use and Zonin,q The vacant parcel is formerly farmed land that is not currently under cultivation. The property is zoned AG-1 Agricultural District. Surrounding Land Use and Zoninq North: South: East: West: · Landscape Services operations center, City of Virginia Beach / AG-1 Agricultural District · Single-family dwelling, farm / AG-2 Agricultural District · Agricultural field / AG-1 Agricultural District · Agricultural field, church, trailer- dwelling / R-15 Residential District and AG-1 Agricultural District Zoninq History There have been several conditional use permits (CUP) granted in the vicinity of this project. All of these CUPs were for churches. Two large tracts to the north were rezoned from agricultural uses to residential districts; however, the property adjacent to the north was never developed as residential. Change of Zoning (O- 2, B-l, R-10, P-l, H-1 Districts to AG-1 Agricultural District)- Granted 5-27-97 Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to R-10 Residential District)- Granted 5-28-91 Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to R-6 Residential District)- Denied 9-24-84 M.~ F,~ - ~ Princess Anne Little ~,G' C~ir~. See Application 2. Conditional Use Permit (church) - Granted 10-25-94 3. Conditional Use Permit (church & school) - Granted 11-27-90 Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE INC., F.K.A. GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE/# 5 Page 2 Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural District to R-7.5 Residential District) - Granted 9-18-89 Conditional Use Permit (church) - Granted 1-9-89 Conditional Use Permit- Granted 7-2-84 Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics This property is located in the Southern Watersheds Management Area. There are some wetlands that bisect the property. Most of the property is cleared as it was under cultivation for many years. The soils are predominately Acredale (poorly drained, hydric). The wooded area appears to contain jurisdictional non-tidal wetlands, especially at elevations below 8 feet. No disturbance of these wetlands is proposed other than a 10 foot wide access road that will utilize a culvert crossing. The site also contains 100 year floodplain associated with Salem Canal (canal #4). According to the conceptual plan, at least three of the ball fields are within this floodplain area. However, there will be no fill involved in the development of the ball fields as required by the Site Plan Ordinance for floodplains in this area of the city. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is a 12 inch water main in Salem Road. There is a 12 inch water main in Elbow Road fronting a portion of the northwest side of the property. This site must connect to City water. There is a six inch vacuum sewer main and a four inch sewer force main in Salem Road. This site may connect to City vacuum sewer. The Public Utilities/Engineering Division has requested that they be contacted prior to site plan submittal. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Elbow Road Extended in the vicinity of this site is considered a two (2) lane undivided minor suburban collector. It is presently being used as an access to the landscape Services Building and New Castle Elementary School. Elbow Road is shown on the Master Transportation Plan (MTP) as a 100 foot wide right-of-way. It is identified within the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and is scheduled for enhancement to a four lane divided facility with bikeway and a 15 foot scenic easement. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2004. The CIP states that these improvements will be completed within two years of commencement. The alignment for the proposed Southeastern Parkway and Greenbelt (SEP&G) borders this site on the south. The SEP&G is designated on the MTP as a parkway with a 350 foot wide right-of-way including high occupancy vehicle lanes. The site for the Little League fields has been configured to ensure that sufficient right-of-way is available for the development of the SEP&G consistent with the recommendations of the MTP, the 1999 "Southeastern Parkway and Greenbelt Roadway Aesthetics Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE INC., F.K.A. GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE / # 5 Page 3 Conceptual Study," and the latest alignment information from the Virginia Department of Transportation. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing Land Use z_ 50 ADT Elbow Road extended 5,000* ADT~ 6,200* ADT ~ Proposed Land Use 3_ 2,500 ADT Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by AG-2 Agricultural District zoning 3 as defined by multi-recreation center *Between Round Hill and Indian River Roads. There are no counts for the section of Elbow Road Extended in the area of this proposal. Public Safety Police: The Police Department recommends that high security locking devices be installed on all doors. Fire and Rescue: Adequate - no further comments. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends this site for Iow density, suburban residential development. The site, however, is also part of the City-owned property that stretches from this location on the western end to the West Neck Creek Property at Indian River Road on the eastern end. This area is referred to as Princess Anne Commons, and is intended to be primarily devoted to recreational and open space uses. This request is compatible to this overall concept. The area immediately to the northeast of the subject site is designated for development of a tournament- quality softball fields as part of the proposed relocation of the Princess Anne Park. There exists the potential for interaction between the softball fields and the Little League fields proposed with this conditional use permit request. The map below shows the proposed site in relationship to the surrounding portions of the Princess Anne Commons. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE INC., F.K.A. GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE / # 5 Page 4 Summary of Proposal Proposal The Princess Anne Little League is proposing to lease approximately 28 acres from the City of Virginia Beach to construct seven ball fields, 304 parking spaces, two concession/press boxes, a headquarters building for the League, a storage building and two picnic shelters. Site Desi,qn A gated entrance to the facility is proposed from Elbow Road Extended, through the City's Landscape Services facility situated to the north, which fronts on Elbow Road Extended. No access will be provided from Salem Road or Lisban Road. Asphalt parking is proposed for 304 cars. This number was determined adequate by the League representatives and was modeled after a similar facility in the City of Chesapeake. There is no parking requirement for outdoor recreation facilities in the City Zoning Ordinance. The facility will be enclosed by an eight (8) foot high, chain link fence and will remain locked while not in use. An administrative building and a storage building are proposed at the southwest corner of the property. Two (2) T-ball fields, four (4) little league fields (ages 7 to12 years) and two (2) senior fields (ages 13 to 17 years) are proposed. Two (2) 44 feet by 44 feet concession/press boxes are proposed, one to serve the Little League fields and one to serve the Senior fields. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access Access will be provided from Elbow Road extended, through the City's Landscape Services access road. The existing access road on the Landscape Services property will need to be extended approximately 600 linear feet to the lease area. The construction of the road extension as well as all improvements on the leased property will be the responsibility of Princess Anne Little League. No access will be provided via Salem Road. A 10 foot wide, paved pedestrian access path is proposed along the north property line. The Senior fields will be accessible by emergency apparatus via this pedestrian access. Architectural Design The front elevation of the headquarters building depicts a red brick veneer one story building built on a slab with white vinyl siding on the two (2) over sized "pediments" centered on the entrance. The entry feature extends approximately ten (10) feet from the building and has brick columns that mimic the design on the faCade. Double soldier courses are depicted at the water table and along the roof that transitions to the white vinyl. The roof will be constructed of gray asphalt shingles. A semi circle of exterior finishing insulation system (EIFS) is shown above the entrance as a design accent. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE INC., F.K.A. GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE / # 5 Page 5 Two (2) windows are proposed on each side of the entry door. The brick veneer will be installed on all sides of the building and the soldier courses will continue around as well. The elevation of the storage building depicts an all metal, tan color building built on a slab with two (2) metal roll-up doors and two (2) metal access doors. Trim on the building will be white metal. The press box/concession buildings will be constructed with red brick veneer to match the headquarters building. This building will be built on slab with gray doors and a gray asphalt shingle roof. The concession windows on the first floor with have metal roll-up "doors," gray in color. The second floor windows for the press boxes will also have gray roll-up metal "doors." A white EFIS semi-circle is planned above each second story window as an architectural accent. The foundation level of the dugouts is designed with red brick to match that of the other structures on the property. Landscape and Open Space Design Conceptual landscape elements are depicted on the site plan. Live oaks are proposed within the perimeter chain link fence. The required parking lot landscaping is not shown, but must be depicted on the final landscape plan, which will be submitted during site plan review. Dense woods and wetland areas bisect the property. Some of the wooded areas will be cleared to accommodate the facility. Two (2) picnic shelters are proposed near the Senior league fields. Evaluation of Request This conditional use permit request is recommended for approval subject to conditions. The Princess Anne Little League is proposing to lease approximately 28 acres from the City of Virginia Beach to construct and operate two T-ball fields, four little league fields (ages 7 to 12 years) and two senior fields (ages 13 to 17 years) on approximately 28 acres of City-owned property within the Princess Anne Commons area. The City Zoning Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor recreational facilities such as this. The Department of Parks and Recreation and the City Attorney's Office are working with the applicant to finalize the lease scheduled to begin in May 2002. The lease area is an odd shape. Further challenging the site are environmental constraints and the proposed alignment of the Southeastern Parkway and Greenbelt. The preferred alignment option for this roadway places the parkway along the southern boundary line, adjacent to the ball fields. The site layout has attempted to minimize intrusion into the 100 year floodplain, the Southern Watershed Management Area, wetlands and large, mature trees. Special attention was given to the design of the site, and especially the buildings, in order to meet the level of quality desired for the Princess Anne Commons corridor. The structures proposed on the property meet the "Design Guidelines for Princess Anne Commons." A condition is recommended that all signage and lighting also meet the design guidelines. The Department of Parks and Recreation notes that the current plans for the relocation and expansion of Princess Anne Park include a significant area of "chambered" parking Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE INC., F.K.A. GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE / # 5 Page 6 to the immediate north of the two senior league fields. The concept is that the park and the Little League fields will be able to share the parking if needed. Also, the proposed lease allows overflow parking into the Landscape Services area. Additional access points into the facility (gates) as well as pedestrian pathways should be considered by the League if these off site parking areas will be utilized. The applicant is encouraged to explore vegetative means to capture and filter stormwater from the parking lot and the ball fields - for example, no curb and gutter (a waiver would be required), a shallow, vegetated stormwater management facility, swales, etc. One of the recommended conditions addresses this issue. The application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions o The development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the site plan prepared by Engineering Services, Inc., dated March 1, 2002, and presented to City Council and which is on file in the Department of Planning. The final design of the players' dugouts, the headquarters building, and the press box/concession buildings shall be in substantial conformance with the drawings entitled, Exhibit C, Exhibit D-l, Exhibit D-2, Exhibit E-3, Prepared by Thompson and Wright, Architects, LTD., dated February 16, 2002, and presented to City Council and which are on file in the Department of Planning. No fill shall be permitted within the depicted limits of the100 year floodplain. No structures, other than the culvert for the 10 foot wide accessway depicted on the concept plan, shall be permitted within the limits of the 100 year floodplain. No encroachment other than (1) the proposed culvert described above in condition #4 and (2) the 10 foot wide accessway depicted on the concept plan shall be permitted within the 50 foot Southern Watersheds Management Area buffer. All signage and lighting shall substantially adhere to the Princess Anne Commons Design Guidelines. Details of all signage and lighting shall be submitted with the final site plan and reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the approval of the site plan. At a minimum, twenty (20) foot wide buffer/filter strips shall be installed adjacent to the ball fields identified on the plan as "senior league" as they will drain directly to the wetland/wooded area depicted on the site plan. At a minimum, ten (10) foot wide buffer/filter strips shall be installed adjacent to the outfields of all other ball fields that will not drain into a stormwater management facility. Said filter strips shall be designed based on standards within the Best Management Practices Design Guidance Manual for Hampton Roads, HRPDC, December 1991. The window trim, vinyl siding, and Palladian style inset above the entry of the headquarters building shall be white in color. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use I~ermit mav reauire Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE INC., F.K.A. GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE / # 5 Page 7 revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE INC., F.K.A. GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE / # 5 Page 8 Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE INC., F.K.A. GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE / # 5 Page 9 , ! i Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE INC., F.K.A. GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE / # 5 Page 10 Headquarters building elevations Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE INC., F.K.A. GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE / # 5 Page 11 Concession ! Press Box elevations Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE INC., F.K.A. GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE / # 5 Page 12 Concession / ~ess Box plans Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE INC., F.K.A. GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE / # 5 Page 13 MaintE Buildinc~ lance plans Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE INC., F.K.A. GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE / # 5 Page 14 ~ Z Dugout plans Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE INC., F.K.A. GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE / # 5 Page 15 Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 PRINCESS ANNE LITTLE LEAGUE INC., F.K.A. GREEN RUN LITTLE LEAGUE / # 5 Page 16 Item #5 Princess Anne Little League Conditional Use Permit for Recreation Facilities East Side of Lisban Road, South of Elbow Road Extended District 7 Princess Anne CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #5, Princess Anne Little League. It is a Conditional Use Permit for Recreation Facilities of an outdoor nature on property located on east side of Lisban Road south of Elbow Road Extended. It is in District 7, Princess Anne District. Randy Royal: Hi. I'm Randy Royal. My business is Engineering Services representing Princess Anne Little League. Read the conditions and we agree with all of them. Dorothy Wood: Thank you M. Royal. There were eight conditions to this application. Randy Royal: Yes ma'am. Dorothy Wood: Is there any opposition to this item? There being none. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABSENT 0 ABS 0 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0 with the abstention so noted, the motion passes. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name: Princess Anne Little League List All Current Property Owners: City of Virginia Beach PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: Sara Hensley- City of Virginia Beach, Parks & Recreation (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) Brian Lynn - President Raul Rodriguez- Vice President Kathy Helderman - Secretary Theresa Ferguson - Treasurer If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: · certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Signature Brian Lynn Print Name James g. Spore _, City_ lUlan _aqer Print Name Rev. 9/15/98 Lo APPOINTMENTS ARTS AND HUMANITIES COMMISSION COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION SHORE DRIVE ADVISORY COMMISSION TIDEWATER REGIONAL GROUP HOME COMMISSION THE PLANNING COUNCIL VIRGINIA BEACH HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 1. ABSTRACT OF CIVIL CASES RESOLVED - February 2002 CIVIL LAWSUITS RESOLVED DURING THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2002 Barbara S. Jones v. Paul Sparrow, Jr.; U.S. Internal Revenue Service; City of Virginia Beach; Bell Atlantic Telephone Company; Commonwealth of Virginia; Julius .i. Snyder, M.D. and Associates; Virginia Beach General Hospital, Inc.; Sentara Hospitals, Norfolk; Catherine Williams; and Any U~zknown Heirs of Louise Askew, James Askew, Mary Uzzle, Ester Carter, Lawrence Askew, Eugene Askew, and Harriet Simmons - enforcement of City lien. Linh Mong Tran, an infant who sues by her father and next fi-iend, Cuong P. Tran, and Cuong P. Tran, individually, v. City of Virginia Beach - negligence. Shana Kellam v. Bruce Bernheim and City of Virginia Beach - negligence.. Note: Disposition details available on request from the City Attorney's Office O. ADJOURNMENT 2002-2003 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN SCHEDULE - FINAL Council Workshop Cultural & Recreational Opportunities~ Family & Youth Council Conference April 2nd Opportunities room Council Workshop Quail ,ty Education for Lifetime Learninff Council Conference April 9th room Council Workshop Quail ,ty Physical Environment & Operational Support Council Conference April 16th too m Public Hearino Public Comment on Proposed FY 2002-2003 Resource Management Frank W. Cox High April 18t~ Plan School 6 PM Council Workshop Safe Communi ,ty Family and Youth Opportuniti~ Council Conference April 23rd room Public Hearing Public Comment on Proposed FY 2002-2003 Resource MnnngemPn_t Council Chamber April 23rd Plan 6 PM .Council Workshop Reconciliation of outstanding resource issues Council Conference May 9t~ ,,, room 3 PM Adoption of FY 2002-2003 City Council Vote on Resource Management Plan Council Chamber May 14'h Resource Management Plan (will include Public 6 PM Hearing)