No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPRIL 23, 2002 AGENDACITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORE At-Large VICE MAYOR WILLIAM D. SESSOMS, JR., At-Large LINWOOD O. BRANCH, 111, 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 "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY HALL BUILDING I 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-9005 PHONE: (757) 427-4304 FAX: (757) 426-5669 EMAIL: Ctycncl@city. virginia-beach.va, us April 23, 2002 CITY COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP - Conference Room - FY 2002-2003 Resource Management Plan 1: 00PM II. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room - 3:00PM Ao Bo Jamestown 2007 Celebration C. Mac Rawls, Chair Vehicle Decals Patti Phillips, Director, Finance Department IH. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS IV. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS V. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 5:00PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION VI. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend Jack Smith First Church of the Nazarene C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Do Eo Fo Go Ho ELECTRONiC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSION AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION MAYOR'S PRESENTATION 1. PROCLAMATION a. Special Olympics Day - May 4, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING 1. Real Property Tax Increase proposed for Annual Assessments PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Personal Property Tax Increase Proposed Privately Owned Pleasure Boats 2. FY 2002-2003 Resource Management Plan - Operating Budget 3. FY 2002-2003 Resource Management Plan - Capital Budget 4. General Obligation Bonds Proposed Issuance 5. Water and Sewer Utility Revenue Bonds Proposed Issuance April 9, 2002 $ 59,300,000 $ 6,93O,OOO Ko L° PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD 1. 31st Street Project ORDINANCES 1. Ordinances to AMEND the City Code: a.. § 23-58 re commercial parking lots in Resort Tourist Districts c. §§ 6-16.1, 6-109, 6-110 and ADD § 6-121.2 re personal water craft Ordinance to AMEND the City's open air caf6 regulations increasing franchise fees based on caf6 category; and, to clarify and define physical and operational criteria for the cafes. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $25,000 grant from Lowe's Home Safety Council to the Fire Departments's FY 2001-2002 operating budget re new displays for the Virginia Marine Science Museum and estimated revenues be increased accordingly. M. RESOLUTIONS Resolution re proposed Amendments to §§ 111, 1501, 1511, and 1521 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) defining "Temporary Commercial Parking Lots"; establishing temporary commercial parking lots as a principal use in the RT- 1, RT-2 and RT-3 Resort Tourist Districts; and, the Planning Commission to make their recommendation to City Council within (60) sixty days. Resolution to AUTHORIZE and promulgate Amendment No. 6 to the Public Works' Specifications and Standards manual. o Resolution re use of alternative fuel vehicles and the Hampton Roads Clean Cities Coalition in it's regional efforts to promote the use of alternative fuels for transportation. N. PLANNING Application ofRJP, LLC. for a Conversion of a Non-Conforming Use to renovate the existing duplex into a single family home at 202 87th Street, containing 7,500 square feet. DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of JOHN C. ATKINSON for the enlargement of a non-conforming office use on Lot 12, Block 3, Ubemeer, at 5307 Atlantic Avenue, containing 6,625 square feet. DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN. Recommendation: APPROVAL o Application of SPRING BRANCH COMMUNITY CHURCH for a Conditional Use Permit for a church expansion on the east side of N. Great Neck Road, north of Harbor Lane (1500 N. Great Neck Road), containing 9.11 acres. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) Recommendation: APPROVAL RECONSIDERATION: Application of PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED for a Conditional Use Permit re a borrow pit on the south side of Sandbridge Road, east of Princess Anne Road, containing 64.911 acres. (PRINCESS ANNE - DISTRICT 7) Deferred: Withdrawn: January 22, 2002 March 26, 2002 Application of CHARLES F. BOWDEN for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-30 Residential District to Conditional R-20 Residential District on the west side of Wakefield Drive, south of Delray Drive on Parcel A, Section 8, Part 4, Thoroughgood. (DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) Recommendation: DENIAL o Application of BANBURY LAKE VILLAGE COMPANY, L.L.P., for a Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to A- 18 Apartment District, south of Old Providence Road containing 15,941.96 square feet. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Oo APPOINTMENTS: COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD EASTERN VIRGINIA MEDICAL SCHOOL VIRGINIA BEACH HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD P. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Qo NEW BUSINESS 1. ABSTRACT OF CIVIL CASES RESOLVED - March 2002 R. ADJOURNMENT If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call thc CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303 Hearing impaired, call: TDD only 427-4305 (TDD - Telephonic Device for thc Deaf) 04/18/02slb AGENDA\04/23/02 www.vbgov, com 2002-2003 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN SCHEDULE - BUDGET Council Workshop Reconciliation of outstanding resource issues Council Conference May 9th room 3 PM Adoption of FY 2002-2003 City Council Vote on Resource Management Plan Council Chamber May 14~h Resource Management 6 PM Plan (will include Public Hearing) Irorlamatiott Whereas: Special Olympics is an international program of sports training and competition which gives children andadults who are mentally chal~ed an opportunity to develop their physicalskills, display their abilities and, most importantly, fulfill their human potentiao and The Virginia $each Special Olympics provides mentally challenged citizens with the opportunity to participate in athletic training and competition as wellas other socialevents; and This year, the Area II Annual Track and q/ield games including Virginia $each Special Olympics will be held on Saturday, May 4, 2001 at Kellam 91igh School in Virginia ~Beach; and Whereas: This will be the eleventh year of the Virginia ~3each City Councips tradition of honoring Special Olympics: How, Therefore, I, Meyera B. Oberndo~, Mayor of the City of Virginia $each, Virginia, do hereby Proclaim May 4, 2002 Special olympics Day In Virginia $each, andl encourage allcitizens to support the games on May 4, 2002. I further encourage allcitizens to recognize the courage of SpecialOlympians, the spirit and adventure of SpecialOlympics, andthe contributions of mentally challengedcitizens to our community. In g4h'tness BI/hereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the OfficialSealof the city of Virginia $each, Virgin~ to be affixed this Twenty-third day of Apri6 Two Thousand 9ffeyera B. Obemdo~ 9ffayor CITY COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP - Conference Room - FY 2002-2003 Resource Management Plan 1: 00PM MAYOR'S PRESENTATION 1. PROCLAMATION a. Special Olympics Day - May 4, 2002 II. CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFINGS - Conference Room - mo Jamestown 2007 Celebration C. Mac Rawls, Chair Vehicle Decals Patti Phillips, Director, Finance Department 3:00PM III. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS IV. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS V. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 5:00PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION VI. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: Reverend Jack Smith First Church of the Nazarene C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Do ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION Fo MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSION April 9, 2002 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION PUBLIC HEARING 1. Real Property Tax Increase proposed for Annual Assessments NOTICE OF PROPOSED REAL PROPERTY TAX INCREASE AND PUBLIC HEARING Tax Increase Caused by Increase in Annual Assessmen! The City of Virginia Beach proposes to increase property tax levies. Assessment Increase: Total assessed value of real property, excluding additional assessments due to new construction or improvements to property, exceeds last year's total assessed value of real property by 6.12 percent. Lowered Rate Necessary to Offset Increased Assessment: The tax rate which would levy the same amount of real estate tax as last year, when multiplied by the new total assessed value of real estate with the exclusions mentioned above, would be $1.1496 per $100 of assessed value. This rate will be known as the "lowered tax rate." Effective Rate Increase: The City of Virginia Beach proposes to adopt a tax rate of $1.22 per $100 of assessed value. The difference between the lowered tax rate and the proposed rate would be $.0704 per $100, or 6.12 percent. This difference will be known as the "effective tax rate increase." Individual property taxes may, however, increase at a percentage greater than or less than the above percentage. Proposed Total Budget Increase: Based on the proposed real property tax rate and changes in other revenues, the total budget of the City of Virginia Beach will exceed last year's by 3.21 percent. NOTE: Although the FY 2002-2003 Operating Budget as submitted to Council does not propose an increase in the current real estate tax rate of $1.22 on each $100 of assessed valuation, the assessment for individual properties increased by an average of 6.12%. Since the increase is over 1.00%, the preceding information was provided pursuant to Section 58.1-3321 of the ..Code of Vir.qinia. Public Hearing A public hearing on the increase will be held on Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at 6:00 P.M. in Council Chamber on the second floor of the City Hall Building, Municipal Center, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Interested persons may appear at such time and place to present their views. Individuals desiring to provide oral or written comments may do so by contacting the City Clerk's office at 427- 4303. If you are physically disabled, or hearing or visually impaired, and you need assistance at this meeting, please call 427- 4305 Voice/TDD. Note: 1. Heading to be at least 18-point size. 2. Advertisement to appear in the Beacon on April 14~2002. 3. Ad size to be at least one-eighth page. 4. Ad is .not to be placed in that portion of the newspaper reserved for legal notices or classified advertisement. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Personal Property Tax Increase Proposed Privately Owned Pleasure Boats FY 2002-2003 Resource Management Plan - Operating Budget FY 2002-2003 Resource Management Plan - Capital Budget General Obligation Bonds Proposed Issuance Water and Sewer Utility Revenue Bonds Proposed Issuance 3. 4. 5. $ 59,300,000 $ 6,930,000 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Increase of Personal Property Tax on Privately Owned Pleasure Boats The City of Virginia Beach propOses to increase the tax rate on all privately owned pleasure boats and watercraft used for recreational purposes only, as described in Section 58.1-3506(A)(10),(A)(26),and (A)(27) of the Code of Virginia. The proposed new rate would be one dollar ($1.00) on each one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed valuation. If approved, the increase in the tax rate would go into effect January 1, 2003. The complete ordinance is available for examination by the public in the City Clerk's Office, the City Manager's Office, or the Department of Management Services, in the City Hall Building (Bldg. #1), 2401 Courthouse Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia. The public hearing will be conducted on Tuesday, April 23, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chamber on the second floor of the City Hall Building, Municipal Center, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Interested persons may appear at such time and place to present their views. Individuals desiring to provide oral or written comments may do so by contacting the City Clerk's office at 427-4303. If you are physically disabled, or hearing or visually impaired, and you need assistance at this meeting, please call 427-4305 Voice/TDD. h Hodges'Smith, MMC Note: 1. Advertisement to appear in the Beacon on: Sunday, April 7, and Sunday, April 14, 2002. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Thursday, April 18, 2002 - Frank W. Cox High School - 6:00 P.M. Tuesday, April 23, 2002 - Council Chamber/City Hall Building - 6:00 P.M. Pursuant to Section 5.07 of the City Charter and Section 2-197 of the City Code, the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia will hold public hearings as noted above, on the City Manager's Proposed Operating Budget for the fisca year beginning July 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2003, and on the six-year Capital Improvement Program including the 2002-2003 Capital Budget. A brief synopsis follows: PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 OPERATING BUDGET Summary of Expenditures BUSINESS AREA Cultural & Recreational Opportunities - Museums and Cultural Arts - Parks and Recreation Economic Vitality - Agriculture - Convention & Visitor Development - Economic Development - Housing and Neighborhood Preservation Family & Youth Opportunities - Comprehensive Services Act - Health - MH/MR/SA - Social Services Operational Support - Audit Services - City Real Estate Assessor - City Treasurer - Commissioner of the Revenue - Communications and Info Tech - Finance - General Services - Human Resources - Non Departmental-Operational Support Policy and Decision Support - City Manager $7,432,135 22,049,595 1,095,316 15,668,040 1,682,785 15,039,572 4,280,953 2,717,911 29,280,658 31,395,373 704,911 2,331,202 4,755,742 3,816,450 9,409,177 4,167,735 27,914,163 3,660,889 5,027,635 2,039,111 - General Registrar - Law - Legislative - Management Services - Non-Departmental Quality Education and Lifelong Learning - Education - Library Quality Physical Environment - Planning & Community Development - Public Utilities - Public Works Safe Community - Commonwealth's Attorney - Community Corrections - Courts and Court Support - Emergency Medical Services - Fire - Police - Sheriff and Corrections OTHER Capital Projects Debt Service Reserve for Contingencies TOTAL EXPENDITURES 981,985 2,998,476 965,812 1,343,286 1,836,221 581,888,186 12,944,959 10,225,802 59,080,562 67,5O6,5O7 4,913,448 516,045 5,787,120 2,907,429 29,586,592 63,344,181 20,420,155 36,460,846 104,524,706 29,O19,868 ~1,231,721,539 General Property Taxes Other Local Taxes Permits, Privilege Fees, and Regulatory Licenses Fines and Forfeitures Use of Money and Property Charges for Services Summary of Revenues $411,325,626 194,267,600 4,339,238 4,487,890 13,859,380 128,892,526 Miscellaneous Revenue From the Commonwealth From the Federal Government Non-Revenue Receipts Reserves TOTAL REVENUES 7,702,660 366,227,72O 83,698,164 4,264,428 12,656,307 $1,231,721,539 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND CAPITAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 BUSINESS AREA Cultural & Recreational Opportunities Economic Vitality Family & Youth Opportunities Operational Support Policy and Decision Support Quality Education and Lifelong Learning Quality Physical Environment Safe Community TOTALS FY 2002-2003 CAPITAL BUDGET SiX YEAR CAPITAL PROGRAM $25,635,000 $134,659,959 157,373,510 321,198,706 0 1,178,971 10,620,347 79,611,405 2,000,000 3,766,565 41,432,247 430, 516,853 55,905,689 627,644,339 18,319,785 143,960,390 $311 286 578 $1,742,537,18R MEANS OF FINANCING General Appropriations Local Bond Issues Fund Balance Storm Water Utility Fund Water and Sewer Fund Federal Contribution State Contribution Sale of Property Other Localities Proceeds of Lease-Purchase Agreements Other TOTALS $28,976,536 64,230,000 10,771,480 3,734,310 3,750,000 140,000 18,928,402 6,380,850 0 174,150,000 ~225 000 $311 286 578 $341,200,869 676,251,890 116,735,775 44,320,896 46,044,627 8,467,371 174,418,975 16,877,842 28,668,627 287,635,834 1,914,482 $1,742,537,188 The Proposed Operating Budget and Proposed Capital Improvement Program/Capital Budget documents are available at t Central Library and all branch libraries. Copies are also available for examination at the City Manager's Office, the City Clerk's Office, and the Department of Management Services between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. These documents can be viewed at the City's web page located at www. vbgov, corn. All hearings are open to the public, and all interested persons will have an opportunity to be heard. To provide an opportunity for all persons to be heard, speakers are asked to make oral comments within three minutes or such other reasonable time limit as shall be determined by City Council. Written comments may be presented at the hearing. Individuals desiring to provide oral or written comments may do so by contacting the City Clerk's office at 427-4303 or registering with the City Clerk's office on the second floor of the City Hall Building prior to the hearings. If you are physically disabled, hearing impaired, or visually impaired, and you need assistance at these hearings, please call 427- 4305 Voice/TDD Ad to appear in the Sunday, April 7, and Sunday April 14, 2002 Beacon NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Issuance of General Obligation Bonds in the Estimated Maximum Amount of $59,300,000 On Tuesday, April 23,2002, the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, will hold a public hearing on the proposed issuance by the City of general obligation bonds in the estimated maximum amount of $59,300,000. The purpose of the bonds is to finance various public facility and improvement projects, including Schools, Roadways, Coastal, Buildings, Economic and Tourism, Parks and Recreation, and other public facility and improvement projects. The public hearing will be conducted at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chamber on the second floor of the City Hall Building, Municipal Center, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Interested persons may appear at such time and place to present their views. Individuals desiring to provide oral or written comments may do so by contacting the City Clerk's office at 427-4303. If you are physically disabled, or hearing or visually impaired, and you need assistance at this meeting, please call 427-4305 Voice/TDD. Note: 1. Heading to be at least 18-point size. 2. Advertisement to appear in the ,Beacon on: Sunday, April 7 and Sunday, April 14, 2002. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Issuance of Water & Sewer Utility Revenue Bonds in the Estimated Maximum Amount of $6,930,000 On Tuesday, April 23, 2002, the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, will hold a public hearing on the proposed issuance by the City of water and sewer utility system revenue bonds in the estimated maximum amount of $6,930,000. The purpose of the bonds is to finance improvements and expansions to the City's water and sewer system. The public hearing will be conducted at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chamber on the second floor of the City Hall Building, Municipal Center, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Interested persons may appear at such time and place to present their views. Individuals desiring to provide oral or written comments may do so by contacting the City Clerk's office at 427-4303. If you are physically disabled, or hearing or visually impaired, and you need assistance at this meeting, please call 427-4305 Voice/TDD. Note: 1. Heading to be at least 18-point size. 2. Advertisement to appear in the Beacon on: Sunday, April 7 and Sunday, April 14, 2002. Ko PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD 1. 31st Street Project L. ORDINANCES 1. Ordinances to AMEND the City Code: a.. § 23-58 re commercial parking lots in Resort Tourist Districts c. §§ 6-16.1, 6-109, 6-110 and ADD § 6-121.2 re personal water craft Ordinance to AMEND the City's open air caf6 regulations increasing franchise fees based on caf6 category; and, to clarify and define physical and operational criteria for the cafes. Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $25,000 grant from Lowe's Home Safety Council to the Fire Departments's FY 2001-2002 operating budget re new displays for the Virginia Marine Science Museum and estimated revenues be increased accordingly. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager City of Virginia Beach, An Ordinance to Amend Section 23-58 of the City Code Pertaining to the Regulation of Commercial Parking Lots in Resort Tourist Zoning Districts MEETING DATE: April 23, 2002 Background: Concerned about the appearance of commercial parking lots in the Oceanfront Area and the behavior problems that occur in these lots, the City Council asked staff to draft ordinance amendments that address the situation. On April 24, 2001, the first draft was presented to the City Council. City Council referred the amendments to the Resort Advisory Commission (RAC) for review and comment. RAC held over 12 public meetings on the topic and many of these meetings were well attended by commercial parking lot owners. Significant public comment was heard at many of these public workshops. Since the ordinance was first circulated a year ago, numerous changes and improvements have been made as a result of this input. The attached version was requested by Councilman Branch and endorsed by the RAC. Considerations: A summary of the ordinance amendments follows - 1. Applies only to commercial parking lots in the RT- Resort Districts. 2. Minimum fine for violations is raised from $10 to $100. Maximum fine remains at $1000. 3. A site plan and sign plan must be submitted and approved. 4. The following is required for all commercial parking lots: Ao Co Paved surface and curbing in accordance with City Standards. As an exception, any lot legally operating prior to adoption of these amendments, may eliminate curbing. Where curbing is eliminated, City approved wheel stops must be installed. Concrete and asphalt wheel stops are permitted, however, railroad ties or timber wheel stops will not be permitted. The wheel stops must be permanently fixed in place. Perimeter landscaping adjacent to any public right-of-way or publicly owned property. This consists of a five-foot wide bed with street frontage plant material meeting City specifications. Any fence enclosing the parking lot shall have a maximum height of 4 feet and shall be composed of a maintenance free material such as black vinyl coated chain link, cast iron or a white vinyl picket fence. Additional landscaping is required at the end of all parking aisles not adjacent Attachments: Ordinance Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Submitting DepartmentJAg~ency: Planning Department/~,,,~ City Manager~~,,_~ ~~~_, Amendment to Section 23-58 of the City Code Commercial Parking Lots Page 2 Eo H. I. J. K. to a public right-of-way or public property. Such interior landscaping may consist of City approved plant containers. Lot entrances and exists must be secured when the lot is not in operation by a gate (not by a chain) consisting of maintenance free material such as black vinyl coated chain link, cast iron or a white picket fence. One trash receptacle for every 3,500 square feet. An attendant must be on duty during all hours of operation and for one-half hour after closing or until the last vehicle has left the lot. Any attendant shelter must be in good condition. The lot must be kept clean and orderly. Trash containers must be emptied at close of operation or as needed. The lot must comply with all other applicable requirements of federal, state and local law, including ADA requirements. Stormwater Management must be addressed. 5. Signage B. C. D. An entrance sign is required at each entrance. The entrance sign cannot exceed 9 square feet. These signs are in addition to the regular sign allowance for the site. Each entrance sign must contain the name of the establishment, hours of operation and the rates. All signs on the lot shall comply with the City sign regulations and with specifications for public signs in the Resort Area. Hours of Operation - No new vehicle may enter a commercial parking lot after 2:00 a.m. and all lots must be secured no later than 2:30 a.m. Lots must remain closed until 5:00 a.m. As an exception, any commercial parking lot that is also accessory to a business that remains open after 2:00 a.m. may remain open for use by patrons of the business only provided the lot is supervised. 7. No commercial parking lot permit shall be renewed unless an inspection by the City shows that all required improvements and landscaping are present and in good condition. 8. The City Manager or his designee may grant variances to the provisions. The RAC Design Committee will review all variance applications. The amendments pertaining to required improvements are effective on April 30, 2003. This effective date gives existing commercial parking lot owners one more season to operate before installing required pavement and landscaping. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the revised amendments. The revised ordinance forged during the past 12 months by Councilman Branch, RAC, public input and the staff, reduces the cost of required improvements and minimizes loss of parking spaces. Adoption will significantly improve the aesthetics of the Oceanfront Area and help control the behavior problems that are occurring in the lots after hours. These changes are in keeping with the public and private investments being made at the Oceanfront and are a necessary step in moving the Resort Area towards its full potential. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 23-58 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS IN RESORT TOURIST ZONING DISTRICTS SECTION AMENDED: 23-58 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Section 23-58 of the City Code is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 23-58. Commercial parking lots. i4~ (a) T~he provisions For purposes of this section,~--~ the term "commercial parking lot" as used in this section, s~hall apply to means any lot, or portion thereof, used principally for the parking of motor vehicles for a fee or other consideration~ and shall not apply to lots upon ................. o or ' ' w~ p~~ f mot vehicles zs accessory to the p~z..~p~ use u~ =~= premises but not including parking garages or similar structures. The provisions of this section shall apply to all commercial parking lots located in any Resort Tourist Zoning District. COMMENT The amendments to this subsection make it clear that whenever a parking lot, or any portion thereof, is used for the parking of motor vehicles for a fee, it shall be considered a "commercial parking lot" for purposes of this section, even if it is accessory to the principal use of the premises. The amendments also clarify that parking garages and similar structures are not included within the definition. The amendments also limit the application of the ordinance to commercial parking lots located within Resort Tourist Zoning Districts, which generally comprise the City's Resort Area. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 ~ (b) It shall be unlawful and a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than t~ one hundred dollars ($10.00) ($100.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for any person, firm, corporation or other entity to operate a commercial parking lot without a valid permit therefor or to operate a co~ercial parkin9 ~ in violation ef any ef the requirements previsions of this section. Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. In addition to any fine imposed hereunder, and not 38 in lieu thereof, the continuing violation of any of the provisions of 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 this section may be enjoined or restrained by injunction. COMMENT A fine of $10.00 provides little incentive for the owner or operator of a commercial parking lot to comply with the provisions of this section. Therefore, it is recommended that the minimum fine for a violation of this section be increased from $10.00 to $100.00. The language regarding the operation of a commercial parking lot without a valid permit is deleted since the permit requirement is addressed in subsection (a). (c) Any person, firm, corporation or other entity desiring Application for a permit required by this section shall ~ application =.===for be made to the c~=~ engineer City Manaqer or his desiqnee. Each application shall set forth the name and address of the applicant and, if different, the name and address of the owner of the property upon which the proposed commercial parking lot is to be located, and shall be accompanied by: (2) (3) A nonre fundable fee of one hundred dollars ($100.00);. and An approved site plan prepared in accordance with the Site Plan Ordinance and showing all elements required by this section; provided, however, that no co~,ercia I ..... '--' .... ' ' ~.~ lot ....... ,~,~ was in actual operation prior to the effective ..... of ~ 's u~c~ chi secti-- and--~: ~had not ceased operation for a period of more than two (2) years s~hall not be ............. to submit or · --- pi obtain approval of any ~u~.~ ....... ~= an, P~,~s ~ is enlarged, expanded, moved v.~~, and ~,OO0.~ ~,~ amount of one ~.~.~ ~ars per acre of~.~ ...... occupied or ~ion thereof,~' .... no less ~=~,~-- one ~.~uo~.u u~azs '* ............... ty ~,00O.~ ~. =~ event, ~=~ sure approved wy .... the ity ....... - ................. c attorney ~,~u conditioned up~ ~= u~=~'~ or operator's compliance --:~th all of the requirements of this section A siqn plan showinq the desiqn, size, 2 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 8O 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 9O 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 color and materials of all signs to be located on the lot. COMMENT The amendments to subsection (c): · Change the officer responsible for accepting permit applications from the City Engineer to the City Manager or his designee; · Delete the former "grandfathering" provision under which existing commercial parking lots were not subject to this section; · Delete the bond requirement; and · Add a requirement that a sign plan be filed with the permit application. (d) Notwithstandinq the provisions of subsection (c) hereof, an application for renewal of a valid permit issued on or after January 1, 2002, need not be accompanied by a new site plan unless the substantial improvements have been, or will be, made durinq the permit year. COMMENT This amendment provides that a new site plan is not required for a renewal application if no changes to the parking lot have been, or will be, made. ~aur (e) No permit issued pursuant to this section shall be valid for a period in excess of one year, ~v~=~, however, ' b ........... p ppli ti ................. p ' permits may e -=~=w=u, u on a ca on, ~v~ ~uu-~v.~ eriods not exceeding one year. m~_~= requirements for renewal applications be as o=t ....... ~n ~uu~ect~on {c) hereof, provided, however, ~ s~te p~ o~I be required to be~~ .................... ~=~ the ........... lot to be expanded, enlarged, moved or altered beyond December 31 ef the year in which it was issued or renewed. No such permit shall be renewed unless and until it has been determined, by inspection, that all required improvements and landscapinQ are present and in good condition and all other requirements ef this section have been met. COMMENT The amendment establishes a uniform expiration date for all commercial parking lot permits. It also provides that all required improvements and landscaping must be installed and in good condition and all other requirements of this section have been met before a permit is renewed. 3 105 106 (f) Upon approval of an application, the permittee shall be issued a self-adhesive sticker which shall serve as the permit and 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 shall be affixed to one of the entrance siqns required by subsection (i) of this section. COMMENT Requiring that a permit sticker be affixed to one of the parking lot's entrance signs will assist in the enforcement of the permit requirement. ~ (g) It shall be a condition of every permit issued hereunder that the city or its agents shall have the authority to enter upon the commercial parking lot and perform any acts required to bring the property into compliance with the provisions of this section in the event the owner or operator, after being given notice of, and a reasonable opportunity to correct, any condition of noncompliance shall fail to do so. ~-~) (h) Commercial parking lots shallw at all times, whether or not they are in operation: (1) Have an improved a paved surface, whic~h may consist of srx-inch aggregate or o~ u~=~ surface ~o may be approved by the city engineer inclusive ef all drive aisles, which meets the requirements of the Specifications and Standards ef the Department of Public Works and the Site Plan Ordinance; provided, that any commercial parking let in operation as of April 23, 2002 shall not be required to provide curbinq so lenq as wheel stops composed of concrete or asphalt are provided and maintained in qood condition and repair at all times; (2) Be completely enclosed, except at points of ingress meeting the requirements for fences set forth in the ...... landscaping ...................................... =- and specifications, or by landscaping meeting the requirements of ...... ~.= ~ty's parklll~ ...... lotl~l~ocapin~ 4 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 (5) specifications and standards pertaining to perimeter ................ ~ ........ at .... perimet--- screening, u~ o~ ~= u=~n~=u, ~= ~ thereof, by wheelstops. Contain perimeter landscaping meeting the requirements of section 5A of the Parking Lot Landscaping Specifications and Standards where adjacent to any public right-of-way or other publicly-owned property. The perimeter may also be enclosed by fencing meeting the requirements for fences set forth in Section 201(e) of the City Zoning Ordinance; provided, however, that such fencing shall not exceed four (4) feet in height and shall consist of materials, such as black vinyl-coated chain link, white vinyl picket or black wrought iron, which are generally recognized within the industry as maintenance - free. Wood split-rail fences shall not be permitted. Such fencing and landscaping shall at all times be maintained in good condition and repair; Contain additional landscaping, which may consist of city-approved plant containers, located at the end of all parking aisles not adjacent to a public right-of- way or other publicly-owned property and which shall be maintained in good condition and repair at all times; Be secured at all points of ingress and egress by a metal chain or gate, consisting of materials, such as black vinyl-coated chain link, white vinyl picket or black wrought iron, which are generally recognized within the industry as maintenance - free, except during hours of operation; Contain no less than one trash receptacle, plainly visible and marked as such, for every three thousand, five hundred (3,500) square feet of lot area or fraction thereof; 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 20O 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 ~ (6) Have upon the premises, during all hours of operation and for one-half hour after closinq or until the last (~) (7) vehicle has exited the lot, whichever is earlier, at least one attendant~ If any type of shelter is provided for attendants, such shelter shall at all times be maintained in qood condition and repair; and Be maintained in a clean and orderly condition at all times. Ail trash receptacles shall be emptied and the contents thereof properly disposed of at the close of operation daily and at such other times as receptacles become fullr; and (8) Be in compliance with all other applicable requirements of federal, state and local law includinq, without limitation, the handicapped parking space requirements Disabilities Act. COMMENT The amendments to this subsection: of the Americans With Require the surface of all commercial parking lots, including all drive aisles, to have a paved surface meeting the requirements of the Department of Public Works' Specifications and Standards and the Site Plan Ordinance. An exception is made for parking lots in operation prior to the date of adoption of the ordinance, so long as wheel stop made of asphalt or concrete are provided; Require perimeter landscaping in areas adjacent to public rights-of-way or other City property, and allow fencing made of maintenance-free materials in addition to required perimeter landscaping; Require interior landscaping and allow such landscaping to consist of City-approved landscaping planters; Require an attendant to be on the premises not only during all hours of operation, but also until the earlier of one-half hour after closing or the time the last vehicle leaves the lot; Require attendants' shelters and all landscaping and fencing to be maintained in good condition and repair; and Require compliance with all applicable federal, state and local law, including the requirements of the ADA regarding handicapped parking. t-g4-(i) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other ordinance or regulation, ........................... ~- ~~, ~u~ Izm~tatzon, section ~13~ of the~ Zoning Ordinance, no commercial parking lot~ shall have ~z~e--ti~ one 6 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 sign, not exceeding nine (9) square feet in surface area per face, pe~ at each principal entrance. Notwithstanding any contrary provisi~, ~ ~9~ exceed six (uj square feet per face in surface area. Each entrance sign shall contain the name of the establishment, if any, times of operation and rarest e~/n~ and shall otherwise comply with all applicable city sign regulations and specifications for public signs in the Resort Area. Entrance signs may contain removable numbers for purposes of displaying rates. The square footage of such entrance siqns shall not be counted against the maximum square footage allowed for commercial signs under the City Zoning Ordinance. COMMENT The amendments to this subsection increase the maximum allowable square footage of entrance signs and clarify that this limitation does not count against the maximum square footage for commercial signs allowed under the CZO. They also provide that signs must comply with the City's specifications for public signs at the Oceanfront and that signs may contain removable numbers for purposes of displaying rates. t-h~(j) Commercial parking lots shall be subject to inspection by the City Manager City Manager or his designee for purposes of determining compliance with the provisions of this section, and no person shall obstruct or interfere with such personnel as are authorized by the City Manager City Manager to enforce this section in the lawful discharge of their duties. COMMENT Theamendmentstothissubsectionarenotsubstant~einnature. t-i-~(k) During the period from April I to September 30, inclusive, Except where a commercial parking lot is accessory to a business which remains open after 2:00 a.m., is used solely by patrons ef such business, and is supervised by the operator of such business, no vehicle shall be permitted to enter any commercial parking lots~, in ...... ~ ~m 2 ......... 4 Res ' ' shall ~ ~ ~ ~, ~- , ~ ~ ~u ~ crt ...... ~~-~ Districts closed for business no ~ after 2:00 a.m.~ a~n~ Ail such lots shall be secured at all points ef ingress and egress, as required by subdivision (4) of subsection {f) {3) {h) of this section, 24B 244 24~ 246 247 248 249 2~0 2~1 2S2 2SB 2S4 2SS 2S? 2~8 2S9 260 261 262 264 268 269 270 271 272 27B as soon thereafter as possible, but in ~r~ve~r~ hereof, by no later than 2:30 a.m. and shall remain closed until no earlier than 5:00 a.m. COMMENT The amendments provide that commercial parking lots in the Resort Area must close by 2 a.m., be secured by no later than 2:30 a.m., and may not reopen until at least 5 a.m. In addition, the amendments make such closing requirements applicable during the entire year, rather than only between April 1 and September 30. The foregoing requirements do not apply to lots which are accessory to a business which is open after 2 a.m., is used solely by patrons of such business, and is supervised by the operator of the business. (j-~ (1) The provisions of this section shall be deemed to be severable, and if any of the provisions hereof are adjudged to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this section shall remain in full force and effect and its validity shall remain unimpaired. COMMENT This subsection is unchanged. (m) The City Manager or his desiqnee is authorized, upon application by the owner of a commercial parkinq lot, to qrant a variance from the provisions of this section when: (1) Strict application of the provisions of this section will effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property; or (2) The qrantinq of such variance will alleviate a clearly demonstrable hardship approachinq confiscation, as distinquished from a special privileqe. In qrantinq a variance, the City Manaqer or his desiqnee may impose such conditions as may be necessary in the public interest; provided, however, that the City Manaqer or his desiqnee shall not qrant a variance from any condition or requirement of a conditional use permit qranted by the City Council. 274 275 276 277 278 COMMENT Subsection (m) authorizes the City Manager or his designee to grant variances to the provisions of the ordinance under certain circumstances. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 8 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 That the amendments to subdivisions (1), (2) and (3) of subsection (h) and to subsection (i hereof shall not become effective until April 30, 2003. COMMENT This provision allows the paving and landscaping improvement required by subsection (h) and the signage required by subsection (i) to be delayed until April 30, 2003. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. CA-7735 wmmkordresk23-058ord.wpd March 27, 2002 R-17 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Plannin~fDepartment 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 A Resolution Referring To The Planning Commission Proposed Amendments to Sections 111, 1501 and 1511 of the City Zoning Ordinance, Pertaining to a Definition of "Temporary Commercial Parking Lot" and establishing Temporary Commercial Parking Lots as a Principal Use in the RT-1 and RT-2 Resort Tourist Districts. MEETING DATE: April 23, 2002 Background: This Resolution was requested by Councilmember Linwood Branch. With the passage of amendments to the Commercial Parking Lot ordinance, there is a need for temporary commercial parking lots at the Oceanfront. Currently, there is not a clear definition of temporary commercial parking lots and where they would be a principal use. Considerations: The Resolution refers to the Planning Commission proposed amendments to Sections 111, 1501 and 1511 of the City Zoning Ordinance. The amendments would add a definition of temporary commercial parking lot and establish them as a permitted use in the RT-1 and RT-2 Resort Tourist Districts. Temporary Commercial Parking Lots would have to be for a one year duration or less and would require landscaping along the public right-of-way. However, they would be allowed temporary surface treatment in accordance with the standards for temporary parking lots in the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual. The Resolution also directs the Planning Commission to transmit to the City Council its recommendation concerning the proposed amendments within 60 days of the date of adoption of the Resolution, thereby allowing the Planning Commission to act upon the amendments at either its May or June meeting. Public Information: If referred to the Planning Commission, the ordinance itself would be advertised in the manner of all planning items, both before the Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting. Alternatives: There is no requirement that the City Council adopt either the present Resolution or the ordinance which is the subject of the Resolution. By adopting the Resolution referring the ordinance to the Planning Commission, the City Council does not approve the ordinance, but only seeks the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Recommendations: Adoption of the attached Resolution. Attachments: Resolution. Recommended Action: Submitting Department/Agency: Councilmember Linwood Branch. City Manager: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 111, 1501 AND 1511 OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, PERTAINING TO A DEFINITION OF TEMPORARY COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS AND ESTABLISHING TEMPORARY COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS AS A PRINCIPAL USE IN THE RT-1 AND RT-2 RESORT TOURIST DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice so require; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: There is hereby referred to the Planning Commission, for its consideration and recommendation, proposed amendments to Sections 111, 1501 and 1511 of the City Zoning Ordinance, pertaining to a definition of temporary commercial parking lots and establishing temporary commercial parking lots as a principal use in the RT-1 and RT-2 Resort Tourist Districts. A true copy of such proposed amendments is hereto attached. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the Planning Commission be, and hereby is, directed to transmit to the City Council its recommendation concerning the aforesaid amendments no later than sixty(60) days after the date of adoption of this Resolution. COMMENT The Resolution refers to the Planning Commission proposed amendments to Sections 111, 1501 and 1511 of the City Zoning Ordinance. The amendments would add a definition of temporary commercial parking lot and establish them as a principal permitted use in the RT-1 and RT-2 Resort Tourist Districts with proper landscaping. The Resolution also directs the Planning Commission to transmit to the City Council its recommendation concerning the proposed amendments within 60 days of the date of adoption of the Resolution, thereby allowing the Planning Commission to act upon the amendments at either its May or June meeting. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. CA-8458 wmmkordres\commpkinglotres.wpd R-3 April 18, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT PlannSng Department / APPROVED ~AS TO LEGAL SUFF. ICIENCY: Law ~epar t~dn~ ' .... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO A DEFINITION OF TEMPORARY COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS AND ESTABLISHING TEMPORARY COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS AS A PRINCIPAL USE IN THE RT-1 AND RT-2 RESORT TOURIST DISTRICTS SECTIONS AMENDED: CZO ~§ 111, 1501 and 1511 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice so require; BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Sections 111, 1501 and 1511 of the of the City Zoning Ordinance are hereby amended and reordained, to read as follows: Sec. 111. Definitions. For the purpose of this ordinance, words used in the present tense shall include the future; words used in the singular number include the plural and the plural the singular; the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders; the word "shall" is mandatory; the word "may" is permissive; the word "land" includes only the area described as being above mean sea level; and the word "person" includes an individual, a partnership, association, or corporation. In addition, the following terms shall be defined as herein indicated: Parkinq lot, commercial, temporary. A commercial parking lot that operates for one (1) year or less. COMMENT This amendment establishes a definition for a temporary commercial parking lot as one that operates for one (1) year or less. Sec. 1501. Use regulations. [RT-1 - Resort Tourist District] (a) Principal uses and structures: 35 36 37 38 39 4O (7) Temporary commercial parkinq lots, provided that adjacent to any public riqht-of-way perimeter landscapinq meetinq the requirements of the City Code, Appendix C - Site Plan Ordinance, Section 5A and the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual shall be installed, and temporary surface treatment in accordance with the standards for 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 temporary parkinq lots in the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual shall be allowed. COMMENT This amendment establishes temporary commercial parking as a principal use in the RT-1 Resort Tourist District with perimeter landscaping. Temporary surface treatment shall be allowed. Sec. 1511. Use regulations. [RT-2 - Resort Tourist District] (a) Principal uses and structures: For parcels less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet in size, any one of the following is allowed; provided, however, that drive-through facilities shall not be permitted as a principal or accessory use: (17.5) Temporary commercial parkin~ lots, provided that adjacent to any public riqht-of-way perimeter landscapinq meeting the requirements of the City Code, Appendix C - Site Plan Ordinance, Section 5A and the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual shall be installed, and temporary surface treatment in accordance with the standards for 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 temporary parkinq lots in the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual shall be allowed. COMMENT This amendment establishes temporary commercial parking as a principal use in the RT-2 Resort Tourist District with perimeter landscaping. Temporary surface treatment shall be allowed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2002. 70 71 72 CA-8459 wmmkordre s \commpkinglotordin. wpd R-3 April 18, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: D~partme~ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Law Department CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Ordinance changes recommended in the Personal Watercraft Advisory Report MEETING DATE: April 23, 2002 Background: The Beaches and Waterways Advisory Commission accepted the Personal Watercraft Subcommittee's recommendations on May 15, 2001. On January 8, 2002, City Council adopted a resolution to accept the Personal Watercraft Advisory Report and requested the City Manager to effectuate the appropriate action. The report recommended four changes to the existing City Code. In Section 6-16.1, the Oceanfront should be designated, like the Bay beaches, as a "Recreational Area for Swimming" with the requirement that boats remain 100 feet clear of swimmers. Section 6-109 on "Muffling Devices for Boats," the vehicle exhaust regulations should revised for consistency and enhanced for enforceability. In Section 6-110 "Noise Created by Persons Aboard Boats or Other Watercraft," the language should be clarified to include noise generated by the boat or watercraft. Finally, the State Code section on "Reckless Operation of Personal Watercraft" should be incorporated into Chapter 6 of the City Code. Considerations: The City Code changes will improve boater safety and enhance the quality of life along our waterways. The City Code changes will also improve enforceability and allow fines for "reckless operation" to be retained by the City. Public Information: The Subcommittee held an advertised Public Workshop on April 19, 2001, which was attended by 20 interested citizens. The input received at this workshop was of great value and the public in attendance appeared to concur with or helped form the recommendations in this report. Alternatives: 1. Approve the ordinance 2. Refer the topic back with more specific guidance 3. No Action Recommendations: Adopt the attached ordinance changes. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Personal Watercraft Advisory Report Recommended Action: Approved Submitting De Public Works/Office of Beach Mana City Manager: 1 2 AN ORDINANCE AMEND THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO PERSONAL WATERCRAFT SECTIONS AMENDED: ~ 6-16.1, 6-109, AND 6-110 SECTION ADDED: ~ 6-121.2 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 8 9 10 That Section 6-121.2 is added, and Sections 6-16.1, 6-109, AND 6-110 of the City Code are hereby amended and reordained, to read as follows: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Sec. 6-16.1. Recreational area for swimming and other water activities. (a) The City of Virginia Beach hereby finds and declares that, due to the large number of adults and children who engage in swimming, wading, crabbing, fishing and other water activities in the waters adjacent to the sand beaches of the Chesapeake Bay Dnd the Atlantic Ocean, the operation of motorboats in such waters when close to shore presents a substantial danger to the public. By adoption of this section, it is the intent of the city to promote the public health, safety, welfare and good order by restricting the operation of motorboats in such waters, and thereby alleviating this danger. (b) During the period May 1 through October 15 of each year, from 10:00 a.m. until sunset, the area adjacent to the beaches of the Chesapeake Bay, extending one hundred (100) yards seaward from the shoreline, and extending eastward from the eastern boundary of the Little Creek Naval Amphibious Base to the western boundary of Ft. Story, alonq with the area adjacent to the beaches of the Atlantic Ocean, extendinq one hundred (100) yards seaward from th~ shoreline, and extendinq northward from the northern boundary ol the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuqe to the southern boundary ol Ft. Story, ar~ ~-~ hereby designated as ~ recreational area~ for swimraing, wading, crabbing, fishing and other water activities not involving the use of motorboats; provided, however, that the area~ so established shall not be deemed to include the navigable waters of the Lynnhaven Inlet. Within such designated area~, it shall be 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 unlawful for any person to operate any motorboat except when proceeding to or from the beach or an anchorage, at an angle perpendicular to the shoreline, at the minimum speed required to maintain steerage and headway, and while maintaining a distance of no less than one hundred (100) feet from any person or persons in the water. (c) Any person engaged in the business of the rental of motorboats, and any person who provides, for a fee, a ramp or other launching services for the launching of motorboats into waters accessible to the area~ designated in subsection (b) of this section, shall be required to post, in a clear, conspicuous and sufficient manner, a sign indicating that local law prohibits any person from operating a motorboat in such designated area~ from May 1 through October 15 of each year, except when proceeding to or from the beach or an anchorage, at an angle perpendicular to the shoreline, at the minimum speed required to maintain steerage and headway, and while maintaining a distance of no less than one hundred (100) feet from any person or persons in the water. COMM_ENT These amendments expand the designated recreational area ~r swimming to include the Atlantic Ocean coast, thereby controlling the operation of motor boats along the coast ~om May 1 to October 15. 59 6O 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Sec. 6-109. Muffling devices for motor boats. (a) The exhaust of every internal combustion engine used on any motor boat on the waters within the city shall be effectively muffled by equipment so constructed and used as to muffle the noise of the exhaust in a reasonable manner. The mufflinq device shall exhaust at or below the water line or it shall be equipped with mechanical baffles. The use of cutouts is prohibited, except as approved by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries or the U.S. Coast Guard. for motor ...... competing ~-- a regatta or ~v~= race =Fproved as p-vv~u=u -~ sectioii ~ . n~ -- -' for -- -~- r~iotor ' ..... ~,~-= u~ ~=~== runs, ~u=~ a F==~ not to exceed = ....... -'--'-~- '~' 2 7O 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 8O 81 82 motorboats --~-~ ~ ........ ~ .... ~-- lUlmU~lii~ such regatta or race. (b) Any person convicted of violating this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00). COMMEN~T These amendments regulate the positioning of the muffling device exhaust and provides that only the state Department of Game and Inland Fisheries of the U.S. Coast Guard can approve the use of cutouts. The maximum fine for a violation of this section is increased to $250. These amendments bring the City Code section into conformance with changes made to Code of Virginia § 29.1-737, the parallel state code provision. 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 9O 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 Sec. 6-110. Noise created by persons aboard boat or other water craft; boat operator responsible for noise create~] by operation of boat. (a) It shall be unlawful and a Class 4 misdemeanor for any person, while aboard any motor boat, vessel, barge or any other water craft, whether under way, drifting, berthed or at anchor, to make or create any loud, disturbing or unreasonable noise of such character, intensity or duration as to be detrimental to the health or life of any person or to unreasonably disturb or annoy the quiet, comfort or repose of any person. .(b) It shall be unlawful and a Class 4 misdemeanor for an~ person to operate any motor boat, vessel, barqe or any other wate~ craft, whether under way, driftinq, berthed or at anchor, in such a way as to make or create any loud, disturbinq or unreasonable noise of such character, intensity or duration as to be detrimental to the health or life of any person or to unreasonably disturb o~ annoy the quiet, comfort or repose of any person. COMMENT This amendment makes clear that the prohibition against loud, disturb~g or unreasonable noise applies to noise generated by boats or watercra~, and that the operator of the boat is responsible ~r such noise. 3 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 Sec. 6-121.2 Reckless operation of a personal watercraft. A person shall be quilty of reckless operation of a motorboat or vessel who operates any personal watercraft recklessly or at a speed or in such a manner so as to endanger the life, limb property of any person, which shall include, but not be limited to: 1. Weavinq throuqh vessels which are underway, stopped, moore~] or at anchor while exceedinq a reasonable speed under tho circumstances and traffic conditions existinq at the time; 2. Followinq another vessel or person on water skis or other similar device, crossinq the path of another vessel, or jumping the wake of another vessel more closely than is reasonable an~'] prudent, havinq due re~ard to the speed of both vessels and th~ traffic on and the condition of the waters at the time; 3. Crossin~ between the towin~ vessel and a person on watei skis or other device; or 4. Steerinq toward an object or person and turninq sharply in close proximity to such object or person in order to spray attempt to spray the object or person with the wash or jet spra~ of the personal watercraft. A person who violates this section shall be quilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor, and for a second or subsequent offense, the court shall order the person not to operate a personal watercraft which is underway upon the waters of the Commonwealth for a period ol twelve months. COMMENT This amendment incorporates into the City Code the state prohibition against reckless operation of a personal watercraft (Virginia Code § 29.1-738.03), thereby making it possible for citations for reckless operation of a personal watercraft to be written under local authority. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2002. CA-8437 DATA/ODIN/PROPOSED/06-16etalord.wpd Ri March 15, 2002 4 APPR' TO CONTENTS: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Department 5 City of Virginia Beach ~d Watemays M~so~ Commission Personal Watercraft Advisory Report May 2001 BACKGROUND: This report presents the Beaches and Waterways Advisory Commission's response to City Council's request of October 2000 for a review of the City's regulations and policies related to personal watercraft and recommendations to enhance boating safety. This task was subsequently expanded through Council Member and public coordination to include noise impacts for waterfront neighborhoods and to include all classes of vessels. While boating safety was the initial task, this referral appeared to have resulted from a petition signed by over 100 waterfront property owners in the Linkhorn Bay area seeking relief from boating safety .and noise impacts related to the proliferation of personal watercraft and loud vessels in general. The revisions to the task's scope appear to be more responsive to the community's request. In response to this assignment, the Commission formed a Personal Watercraft Subcommittee to perform research and public coordination and to form the basis for the Commission's recommendations. The Subcommittee was Chaired by Commissioner Garland Payne and included Commissioners Dan Brockwell and Whitt Sessoms. The Subcommittee met eight times, including a boat tour and a public workshop, with staff and interested members of the public to review the relevant regulations and discuss and evaluate potential recommendations for improvement. STAFF INPUT: The Subcommittee was supported in this task by the City Attorney's Office, the Police Department's Marine Patrol, General Service's Occupational Health and Safety, and the Departments of Public Works, Parks and Recreation and Emergency Services. City staff assisted by gathering the relevant regulations and participating in discussions related to operational and budgetary considerations of potential recommendations. PUBLIC INPUT: Interested members of the public were invited and encouraged to participate in all of the Subcommittee's meetings, except the boat tour due to space limitations. Representatives of the waterfront property owners who signed the original petition and personal watercraft industry members and enthusiasts regularly attended the Subcommittee's meetings and contributed to the discussions. An advertised Public Workshop was conducted by the Subcommittee on April 19, attended by approximately 20 interested citizens. The input received at the Public Workshop was of great value, and in general the public in attendance appeared to concur with or helped form the recommendations in this report. RECOMMENDATIONS: The following recommendations are separable into three parts: public education, code revisions and enforcement. Public Education: It is recommended that a brochure be produced and distributed to all City-registered boat owners, and be made available at ail public boat ramps and to the boating retail industry, seeking voluntary compliance with a request for minor behavior modifications. A map on the brochure would identify those waterway areas in our City where the width of the waterWay is not sufficient for 'open use' without impacting the quiet repose of the adjoining waterfront property owners. These areas would be designated as 'Courtesy Zones' where boaters would be asked to limit or modify their activities to allow the adjoining neighbors to safely use the waterway in unmotored craft and to enjoy reasonable noise levels. The message in the brochure should be clear that this is a voluntary program of behavior modification, seeking to ease the impacts on the adjoining neighborhoods, and that if a change does not result new regulations limiting the lawful use of the waterway may be necessary. The brochure audience should include all vessels, not just personal watercraft. It is recommended that the brochure also be distributed to waterfront property owners in the City, to assist them in understanding what activities are considered appropriate in the waterways, and to provide them with a easier method of contacting the Marine Patrol to report code violations and seek help in advancing the voluntary program. It is recommended that the Marine Patrol desk number be automatically transferred to the Police non-emergency number when unmanned so that a dispatcher can assure contact with the Marine Patrol. It is recommended that a volunteer waterway patrol program be explored, where personal watercraft and boating clubs would be encouraged to establish patrols to enhance compliance with the Courtesy Zone restrictions and general boating safety regulations. Code Revisions: It is recommended that City expand the bayfront swimming area designated in City Code 6- 16.1, Recreational Area for Swimming, to include the Atlantic Ocean coast, requiring the operation of all motorboats within 100 yards of the shoreline be subject to terms defined therein. It is recommended that City Code 6-16.1, Recreational Area for Swimming, be evaluated for potential changes to enhance enforceability of the requirement to remain 100-feet clear of swimmers. It is recommended that City Code 6-109, Muffling Devices for Motor Boats, be reviewed for consistency with vehicle exhaust regulations and modified to enhance enforceablility. It is recommended that City Code 6-110,' Noise Created By Persons Aboard Boat or Other Water Craft, be modified to clarify that the noise under regulation includes noise generated by the boat or watercraft. It is recommended that Section 29.1-738.03 of the Code of Virginia, Reckless OPeration o£ Personal Watercraft, be incorporated into Chapter 6 of the City Code to allow citations to be written under local authority. It is recommended that the City encourage the General Assembly to modify Section 29.1-74~. 1, Local Regulation of Personal Watercraft Distance From Shore, to allow a locality to enact a distance greater than the fifty feet currently provided. It is recommended that the City encourage the General Assembly t° enact a law allowing localities to create a new waterway designation, a Pass Through Zone, wherein boaters would be restricted to transiting the designated waterway at cruising speed, but would not allowed to loiter or maneuver for recreation. It is recommended that the City encourage the General Assembly to enact a law requiring the use of spill-proof fueling devices for personal watercraft. Enforcement: It is recommended that the Police Department be directed to temporarily reallocate staff at the beginning of each boating season to the Marine Patrol to bolster the patrol's presence and to set the tone for the season. The additional resources should assist with the dissemination of the brochures and message to the marine retail industry and at public boat ramps, work with the boating and personal watercraft clubs to establish courtesy patrols, and show a higher presence on the waterways to promote compliance with existing laws and with the voluntary behavior program. It is recommended that the Police Department be directed to limit the number of warnings issued for boating violations, and that more citations be issued to prOmote safety on our waterways. It is recommended that future issuance of conditional use permits for personal watercraft rental operations within Rudee Inlet be limited or curtailed. By and for the Virginia Beach, Beaches and Waterways Advisory Commission, May 15, 2001: G. Garland Payne ~/ Personal Watercraft Subcommittee Chairman Vhor~as E. Fraim( ' ~ Charrman, Beaches and Waterways Advisory Commission CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager An Ordinance to Amend the City's Open Air Caf~ Regulations MEETING DATE: April 23, 2002 Background: By resolution adopted November 25, 1985 (Resolution #85-1424), City Council, upon the recommendation of City staff and the Resort Advisory Commission, authorized the City Manager to promulgate Open Air Caf6 Regulations. Since that date, the Open Air Caf6 Regulations have been amended once by ordinance, dated May 4, 1993 (Ordinance #93- 2213B), to allow the open air caf6s to have live entertainment. Currently there are 44 caf6s in the Open Air Caf6 Program. Considerations: City staff, along with the Resort Advisory Commission, have revised and updated the Resort Open Air Caf6 Regulations to clarify and further define some of the physical and operational criteria for resort open air cafes. The current franchise fee of $3.25 per square foot is recommended to be increased over a four-year period, with a 3% annual increase thereafter, and with separate rates for the four different caf6 designations: Boardwalk Caf6, Connector Park Caf6, Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Caf6, and Atlantic Avenue Sidestreet Caf6. Public Information: This item was advertised in the same manner as other Council Agenda items are routinely advertised. In addition, all current franchisees have been notified of the proposed changes. Recommendations: Adoption of the ordinance. Attachments: Resort Open Air Caf6 Regulations, Revised 3~8~02 Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Convention & Visitor Development City Manage~c~.O '~_~ ~ ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY'S OPEN AIR CAF~ REGULATIONS TO INCREASE THE FRANCHISE FEES BASED ON CAF~ CATEGORY AND TO CLARIFY AND FURTHER DEFINE PHYSICAL AND OPERATIONAL CRITERIA FOR THE CAFES 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 WHEREAS, by resolution adopted November 15, 1985, City Council authorized the City Manager to promulgate Open Air Caf~ Regulations which had been drafted, reviewed, and approved by the Resort Advisory Commission (RAC); WHEREAS, the Regulations have been amended, from time to time, upon recommendation of the RAC, to address concerns and issues that have arisen during the development of the open air caf~ program; WHEREAS, the franchise fees set forth in the Regulations have not been revised since the program was established in 1985, but the resort area property values have increased over the past sixteen years; and WHEREAS, City staff along with the Resort Area Advisory Commission have recommended clarification and further definition of some of the physical and operational criteria for open air cafes; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: t. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to amend the Open Air Caf~ Regulations to increase the current franchise fee of $3.25 per square foot as follows: a. Boardwalk Caf~ square foot fees shall increase to $4.00 in 2002, $5.00 in 2003, $6.00 in 2004, and $7.00 in 2005; b. Connector Park Caf~ square foot fees shall increase to $4.00 in 2002, $4.75 in 2003, $5.50 in 2004; and $6.00 in 2005; 33 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 60 61 62 63 64 65 c. Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Caf~ square foot fees shall increase to $4.00 in 2002, $4.50 in 2003, and $5.00 in 2004; d. Atlantic Avenue Sidestreet Caf6 square foot fees shall increase to $4.00 in 2002; and e. The square foot franchise fees for all open air cafes shall increase at an annual rate of three percent (3%) beginning in 2006. 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to amend the Open Air Caf~ Regulations to clarify and further define the physical and operational criteria for open air cafes, including: a. Fast food establishments shall not be eligible for an open air caf~ franchise; b. No caf6s shall be allowed west of Pacific Avenue; c. Perimeter fences must be of a durable quality, and canopies must be of a soft top, temporary nature; d. If an applicant is required to demolish or remove a caf~ or any portion thereof, the applicant must submit approval plans to the Department of Planning for review; e. With respect to Boardwalk Cafes, a minimum setback of ten (10) feet from the western edge of the bicycle path shall be required; f. Holiday lights and ceiling fans shall be permitted; and g. Canopies shall be prohibited on Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Cafes. 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to amend the Open Air Caf~ Regulations to establish an administrative fee of one-hundred dollars ($100.00) for the processing of franchise applications. 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 4. That this amendment to the Open Air Caf~ Regulations shall become effective May 1, 2002. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. CA-8204 ORDINkNONCODEkopenairregs.wpd R-1 April 12, 2002 7776 ,APP~NTENT: 78 ~s 79 itor 80 Development ~/ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: City Attorney's Office REVISED RESORT OPEN AIR CAFI~ REGULATIONS SECTION 1. 1.1 SECTION 2. 2.1 GENERAL PURPOSE Rev. 3/8/02 The Resort Open Air Caf6 regulations are for the RT-1, RT-2, and RT-3 zoning districts located in the resort area specifically identified as adjacent to the Boardwalk, Connector Parks, Atlantic Avenue, or Atlantic Avenue side streets. The regulations are designed to encourage cafes where they are appropriate, and promote an ambiance conducive to public health, safety, general welfare, and would serve as a public amenity. These general goals include, among others, the following specific purposes: 1.1.A To promote cafes as visual amenities which improve the appearance and pedestrian ambience of the Boardwalk, Connector Parks, Atlantic Avenue sidewalks, and Atlantic Avenue side streets. 1.1.B To preserve and enhance the character of the resort area. 1.I.C To ensure that adequate clearance is maintained forpedestrians and bicyclists adjacent to cafes. 1.1.D To establish administrative and enforcement procedures for Open Air Cafes that are effective, efficient, and enforceable. 1.1.E To promote the construction of lightweight removable structures and the most desirable use of public property. Materials permitted for use in caf6 construction are indicated in Section 5, "Caf6 Requirements". The structure must be dismantled easily and not permanently attached to adjacent building. DEFINITIONS Resort Open Air Caf6 is an outdoor restaurant directly adjoining an existing restaurant facility in the RT-1, RT-2 or RT-3 Zoning District which is exempt from additional off-street parking requirements. Cafes are franchised to operate on public property and are required to provide waiter and waitress full table service in a specific semi-enclosed space as described herein. No portion of an Open Air Caf6 shall be used for any purpose other than dining or related circulation. Cafes must have direct access to the host restaurant. All cafes and the required adjacent/operating business will meet all ADA Standard disability access requirements (including rest room facilities). There are four types of cafes. SECTION 3. 3.1 SECTION 4. 4.1 Category A - Boardwalk Caf6. A resort open air/boardwalk caf6 is located on public property facing the boardwalk in the RT-1 zoning district. Category B - Connector Park Caf6. A resort connector park caf6 is to be located on public property in a Connector Park in the RT-1 zoning districts. The Caf6 is not to extend East of the building's property line. Category C - Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Caf6. An Atlantic Avenue sidewalk caf6 is to be located on the public sidewalk along Atlantic Avenue directly adjoining an existing restaurant facility in the RT-2 Zoning Districts. Cafes are not permitted between 15th and 24th Streets on Atlantic Avenue. Category D - Atlantic Avenue Side Street Caf6. A resort side street caf6 is to be directly adjoining an existing restaurant facility in the RT-2 or RT-3 zoning district; is to be located on public property; and is to be located on side streets only between Atlantic and Pacific Avenues. No cafes are authorized west of Pacific Avenue. RESTAURANTS NOT CONSIDERED FOR THE CAF~ PROGRAM Fast Food Establishments. An establishment franchised or otherwise that offers quick food service of items already prepared and held for service, or prepared, fried, griddled quickly or heated in a device such as a microwave oven. Orders are not generally taken at the customer's table and food is generally served from a counter in disposable wrapping or containers, exclusive of full waiter/waitress table service. Fast Food establishments will not be considered for outdoor cafes. ENTERTAINMENT/AMPLIFIED MUSIC Live or recorded entertainment is allowed under the following conditions in all outdoor cafes: 4.1.A During the hours 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 4.1.B Solo or duo live entertainment only. Connecting caf6 do not constitute more than one entertainment venue. 4.1.C All patrons of cafes shall be seated when being served in the caf6 area. 4.1.D The caf6 franchise agreement administrator/city officials shall have the sole discretion in determining if the music sound level emanating from the caf6 is considered loud or disturbing. Amplification of music shall be directed within caf6 area. 2 SECTION 5. 5.1 4.1.E Caf6 operators shall receive one written warning that the music is not complying to the caf6 regulations. Upon notice of a second violation, the caf~ will forfeit their entertainment within the cafe. Continued violations or disregard will be grounds to terminate the caf~ franchise agreement. CAFI~ REQUIREMENTS Category A - Boardwalk Caf6. A resort open air/boardwalk caf6 is located on public property facing the boardwalk in the RT-1 zoning district. 5.1.A Setbacks: Category A cafes shall have a minimum setback often (10) feet form the western edge of the bicycle path. Pending review of specific caf6 site plans, additional setbacks and clear path space may be required. 5.1.B Floor: Floor shall be a smooth clean permanent surface as required by the City of Virginia Beach Health Department. Footings, pavers and concrete flooring are permissible. 5.1.C Perimeter Fence: A perimeter fence shall be a minimum of thirty (30) inches in height and maximum 42" height. It shall be constructed of finished painted wood, factory-finished metal glass or masonry block, or a manufactured fiberglass or metal railing system. 5.1.D Canopy: Boardwalk Cafes shall have a soft top, temporary canopy constructed as specified herein. The canopy shall only cover the top of the Boardwalk Cafes, except that transparent vinyl or plastic curtains may be used on the sides as windbreaker. At no point shall the height of the canopy be lower than eight (8) feet above the floor of the Boardwalk Caf6. The valence of the awning shall not exceed twelve (12) inches in width. All canopies shall be constructed of fire resistant vinyl fabric or canvas as approved by the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department/Permits and Inspection Division, and shall meet all applicable Building, Structural, and Fire Codes. Supporting Structure shall be metal pipe or tube system not to exceed 2" in Diameter. Deviations shall be individually reviewed by the City. 5.1.E Fixtures: The furnishings of the interior of a resort open air caf6 shall consist solely of moveable tables and chairs and decorative accessories. In no event shall such objects penetrate the exterior perimeter boundary or the canopy. Planter boxes on caf6 railing are allowed. All movable objects required for operation of a resort caf6 shall be removed from the caf6 area and stored out of view during adverse weather conditions acclaimed by the City during, the 3 off-season, or when the caf6 is not in operation for more than a five (5) day period. These objects include tables, chairs, furnishings, and decorative fixtures. 5.1.F Planting: Planting shall be provided and properly maintained by the owner/applicant around the perimeter of the Boardwalk Caf6. Width of planting beds to be a minimum of five (5) feet. The City Landscape Services Department shall review and approve the applicants landscape plan prior to operating the caf6. 5.1.G Access: Only one well-defined entrance opening connected to an existing or new walkway system which connects to the boardwalk should be permitted. Access will meet all ADA Standard Disability Access requirements. 5.1.H Size: The overall size of the Boardwalk Caf6 is not to exceed 800 square feet. 5.1.1 Maintenance: Cleanup and necessary maintenance of the area of a Resort Open Air/Boardwalk Caf6 including landscape areas and City property adjacent to caf6 is the sole responsibility of the designated franchisee. 5.1.J Lighting: Only incandescent lighting, candles, Christmas lights, and ceiling fans are permitted on the interior of the Boardwalk Caf6. 5.1.K Storage: Storage of any kind is not permitted on public property; including trash or refuse. 5.1.L Signs: One (1) menu board is permitted within the perimeter of the resort open air cafes. The menu board shall not be larger than five (5) square feet. The name of the establishment may be painted or sewn in a single location on the valence of the canopy with a maximum of eight (8)-inch lettering. 5.1.M Bicycle Parking Area: Bicycle parking areas are recommended to be integrated with the caf6 improvements. The bicycle parking area will be approximately eight (8) feet by eleven (11) feet concrete, brick pavers, or similar paved area with a single load bicycle rack. This area will not be included in franchise caf6 area allowance, however, it should be made available for general public use. 5.2 Category B - Connector Park Caf6. A resort connector park caf6 is to be located on public property in a Connector Park in the RT-1 zoning districts. The Caf6 is not to extend East of the building's property line. 4 5.2.A Setbacks: Category B Cafes shall be a required to have minimum setback of ten (10) feet from the Atlantic Avenue curbline. The Caf6 is not to extend East of the building's property line. Pending review of specific caf6 site plans, additional setbacks and clear path space may be required. 5.2.B Floor: The existing paved park surface may be used. In addition to floor requirements, the floor shall be a smooth clean permanent surface as required by the City of Virginia Beach Health Department. Footings, pavers and concrete flooring are permissible. 5.2.C Perimeter Fence: A perimeter fence shall be a minimum of thirty (30) inches in height and maximum 42" height. It shall be constructed of finished painted wood, factory-finished metal glass or masonry block, or a manufactured fiberglass or metal railing system. 5.2.D Canopy: Canopies are permitted but not required. If specified, canopies for Category B Cafes (Connector Park Cafes) should have a soft top, temporary canopy constructed as specified herein. The canopy shall only cover the top of Category B Cafes (Connector Park Cafes), except that transparent vinyl or plastic curtains may be used on the sides as windbreaker. At no point shall the height of the canopy be lower than eight (8) feet above the floor of the Category B Caf6 (Connector Park Cafes). The valence of the awning shall not exceed twelve (12) inches in width. Umbrellas are permitted. All canopies shall be constructed of fire resistant vinyl fabric or canvas as approved by the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department/Permits and Inspection Division, and shall meet all applicable Building, Structural, and Fire Codes. Supporting Structure shall be metal pipe or tube system not to exceed 2" in Diameter. Deviations shall be individually reviewed by the City. 5.2.E Fixtures: The furnishings of the interior ora resort open air caf6 shall consist solely of moveable tables and chairs and decorative accessories. In no event shall such objects penetrate the exterior perimeter boundary or the canopy. Planter boxes on caf6 railing are allowed. All movable objects required for operation of a resort caf6 shall be removed from the caf6 area and stored out of view during adverse weather conditions acclaimed by the City during, the off-season, or when the caf6 is not in operation for more than a five (5) day period. These objects include tables, chairs, furnishings, and decorative fixtures. 5.2.F Planting: Additional planting may be required by City Staff for Category B Cafes (Connector Park Cafes). The City Landscape Services Department shall review and approve the applicants landscape plan. 5.2.G Access: One well-defined opening is required. Orientation of that opening will be reviewed by the City staff according to pedestrian safety and the aesthetic requirements of each location. Access will meet all ADA Standard Disability Access requirements. 5.2.H Size: The overall size of a Category B Caf6 (Connector Park Caf6) is not to exceed 800 square feet. 5.2.I Maintenance: Cleanup and necessary maintenance of the area of a Category B (Connector Park Caf6) including landscape areas and City property adjacent to caf6 is the sole responsibility of the designated franchisee. 5.2.J Lighting: Only incandescent lighting, candles, Christmas lights, and ceiling fans are permitted on the interior of the Category B Caf6 (Connector Park Caf6). 5.2.K Storage: Storage of any kind is not permitted on public property; including trash or refuse. 5.2.L Signs: One (1) menu board is permitted within the perimeter of the resort open air cafes. The menu board shall not be larger than five (5) square feet. The name of the establishment may be painted or sewn in a single location on the valence of the canopy with a maximum of eight (8)-inch lettering. If umbrellas are used the name of the caf6 may appear on the valence of each umbrella. 5.2.M Bicycle Parking Area: Bicycle parking areas are not allowed in the Connector Parks. Category B Cafes (Connector Park Cafes) must use existing parking racks. 5.3 Category C - Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Caf6. An Atlantic Avenue sidewalk caf6 is to be located on the public sidewalk along Atlantic Avenue directly adjoining an existing restaurant facility in the RT-2 Zoning Districts. Cafes are not permitted between 15th and 24th Streets on Atlantic Avenue. Canopies are not allowed for Category C cafes. However, awnings are permitted as defined in Section 5.3.D, Awnings. Category C Cafes are to be temporary in nature and designed so that all chairs, tables, planters, fences, etc. can be removed during periods of non-use. 5.3.A Setback: Category C Cafes are required to be setback a minimum of eight (8) feet from the curbline and all obstructions in the public right-of-way. Pending review of specific caf6 site plans, additional setbacks and clear path space may be required. The minimum distance shall be measured from the portion of the caf6 frontage which is nearest the obstruction. For the purpose of these guidelines obstructions shall be defined as vertical public infrastructure improvements such as traffic signal poles, sign poles, light poles, planting areas, trees, trash receptacles, benches, bike racks, parking meters, etc. 5.3.B Floor: Only the existing paving or sidewalk is to be used for placement of removable caf6 furnishings. Should the building be setback from the curb line, the development of new surfaces for seating may be permitted. 5.3.C Perimeter Fence: A perimeter fence shall be a minimum of thirty (30) inches in height and maximum 42" height. It shall be constructed of finished painted wood, factory-finished metal glass or masonry block, or a manufactured fiberglass or metal railing system. 5.3.D Awnings: Canopies are not allowed for Category C Cafes(Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Cafes), but awnings as allowed through the Resort Area Facade Program are permitted; awnings extending beyond the dimension permitted in the Resort Area Facade Program (3') may be permitted based on review by City staff and the Resort Advisory Commission (RAC). Umbrellas are permitted. If umbrellas are used the name of the caf6 may appear on the valence of each umbrella. 5.3.E Fixtures: The furnishings of the interior of a resort open air caf6 shall consist solely of moveable tables and chairs and decorative accessories. In no event shall such objects penetrate the exterior perimeter boundary or the canopy. Planter boxes on caf6 railing are allowed. All movable objects required for operation of a resort caf6 shall be removed from the caf6 area and stored out of view during adverse weather conditions acclaimed by the City during, the off-season, or when the caf6 is not in operation for more than a five (5) day period. These objects include tables, chairs, fumishings, and decorative fixtures. 5.3.F Planting: Perimeter planting in planters or planter boxes will be required; selection of planting will be determined by City staff. All such planters or plantings shall be on or within the caf6. 5.3.G Access: Onlyone well-defined entrance opening is permitted to the caf6 area; the caf6 area must be connected to the corresponding business entrance. Orientation of that opening will be reviewed by the City staff according to pedestrian safety and the aesthetic requirements of each location. Access will 7 meet all ADA Standard Disability Access requirements. 5.3.H Size: Category C Cafes may not cover more than the front face of the operating business building. In addition, the scale, proportion, and overall design of the caf6 shall be reviewed by City staff to ensure the caf6 is compatible with the adjacent building, the street block face, and the overall goals of the Resort Area Facade Program and the Resort Streetscape Improvements. 5.3.I Maintenance/Operation: The Category C Caf6 operator will be responsible to maintain an attractive and clean caf6 area at all times. 5.3.J Lighting: Only incandescent lighting, candles, and Christmas lights are permitted on the interior of the Category C Caf6 (Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Caf6). 5.3.K Storage: Storage of any kind is not permitted on public property; including trash or refuse. 5.3.L Signs: One (1) menu board is permitted within the perimeter of the resort open air cafes. The menu board shall not be larger than five (15) square feet. If umbrellas are used the name of the caf6 may appear on the valence of each umbrella. 5.3.M Bicycle Parking Area: Bicycle parking areas are not allowed to be installed on City Property. Category C Cafes (Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Cafes) must use existing bike racks. 5.4 Category D - Atlantic Avenue Side Street Caf& A Category D Caf6 (Atlantic Avenue Side Street Caf6) is to be directly adjoining an existing restaurant facility in the RT-2 or RT-3 zoning district; is to be located on public property; and is to be located on side streets only between Atlantic and Pacific Avenues. No cafes are authorized west of Pacific Avenue. Category D Cafes are to be temporary in nature and designed so that all chairs, tables, planters, fences, etc. can be removed during periods of non-use. Canopies are allowed for Category D cafes but not required. 5.4.A Setback: Category D Cafes (Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafes) are recommended to be setback eight (8) feet, but a minimum distance of(6) feet clear sidewalk width, free from obstruction, is required for all Category D Cafes. Pending review of specific caf6 site plans, additional setbacks and clear path space may be required. The minimum distance shall be measured from the portion of the caf6 frontage which is nearest the obstruction. For the purpose of these guidelines obstructions shall be defined as vertical public infrastructure improvements such as traffic signal poles, sign poles, light poles, planting areas, trees, trash receptacles, benches, bike racks, parking meters, etc. $.4.B Floor: Only the existing paving or sidewalk is to be used for placement of removable caf6 furnishings. Should the building be setback from the curb line, the development of new surfaces for seating may be permitted. 5.4.C Perimeter Fence: A perimeter fence shall be a minimum of thirty (30) inches in height and maximum 42" height. It shall be constructed of finished painted wood, factory-finished metal glass or masonry block, or a manufactured fiberglass or metal railing system. 5.4.D Canopy: Canopies are permitted but not required. If specified, a Category D Cafe (Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafe) shall have a soft top, temporary canopy constructed as specified herein. The canopy shall only cover the top of Category D Cafes ( Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafes), except that transparent vinyl or plastic curtains may be used on the sides as windbreaker. At no point shall the height of the canopy be lower than eight (8) feet above the floor of the Category D Caf6 (Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafes). The valence of the awning shall not exceed twelve (12) inches in width. Umbrellas are permitted. If umbrellas are used the name of the caf6 may appear on the valence of each umbrella. All canopies shall be constructed of fire resistant vinyl fabric or canvas as approved by the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department/Permits and Inspection Division, and shall meet all applicable Building, Structural, and Fire Codes. Supporting Structure shall be metal pipe or tube system not to exceed 2" in Diameter. Deviations shall be individually reviewed by the City. 5.4.E Fixtures: The fumishings of the interior of a resort open air caf6 shall consist solely of moveable tables and chairs and decorative accessories. In no event shall such objects penetrate the exterior perimeter boundary or the canopy. Planter boxes on caf6 railing are allowed. All movable objects required for operation of a resort caf6 shall be removed from the caf6 area and stored out of view during adverse weather conditions acclaimed by the City during, the off-season, or when the caf6 is not in operation for more than a five (5) day period. These objects include tables, chairs, furnishings, and decorative fixtures. 5.4.F Planting: Perimeter planting in planters or planter boxes will be required; selection of planting will be determined by City staff. All such planters or plantings shall be on or within the caf6. 5.4.G Access: Only one well-de~ined entrance Opening is permitted to the caf6 area; the caf6 area must be connected to the corresponding business entrance. Orientation of that opening will be reviewed by the City staff according to pedestrian safety and the aesthetic requirements of each location. Access will meet all ADA Standard Disability Access requirements. 5.4.H Size: A Category D Caf6 (Atlantic Avenue Side Street Caf6) may not cover more than the front face of the operating business building. In addition, the scale, proportion, and overall design of the caf6 shall be reviewed by City staff to ensure the caf6 is compatible with the adjacent building, the street block face, and the overall goals of the Resort Area Facade Program and the Resort Streetscape Improvements. 5.4.I Maintenance: The Category D Caf6 operator will be responsible to maintain an attractive and clean caf6 area at all times. 5.4.J Lighting: Only incandescent lighting, candles, Christmas lights and ceiling fans are permitted on the interior of the Category D Caf6 (Atlantic Avenue Side Street Caf6). 5.4.K Storage: Storage of any kind is not permitted on public property; including trash or refuse. 5.4.L Signs: One (1) menu board is permitted within the perimeter of the resort open air cafes. The menu board shall not be larger than five (5) square feet. The name of the establishment may be painted or sewn in a single location on the valence of the canopy with a maximum of eight (8)-inch lettering. If umbrellas are used the name of the caf6 may appear on the valence of each umbrella. 5.4.M Bicycle Parking Area: Bicycle parking areas are not allowed to be installed on City Property, Category D Cafes (Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Cafes) must use existing bike racks. 10 SECTION 6. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT 6.1 Requirements for Application In order to create a Resort Open Air Caf6, the granting of a franchise agreement will be required. Applications (per Section 6.2) will be made to the Office of the City Manager or his designated representative, the Department of Convention and Visitor Development/Resort Management Office and the Design & Planning Committee of the Resort Advisory Commission, and shall ensure continued compliance with applicable policies and guidelines in addition to those specifically stated herein. These requests will be reviewed by the Office of the City Manager or his designated representative, the Department of Convention and Visitor Development (Resort Management Office), with recommendation for approval/disapproval from the Resort Advisory Commission, and will be reviewed and acted upon by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach. The regulations herein are intended to establish the necessary criteria with which the Resort Open Air Cafes shall first comply in order to be eligible for consideration for such a franchise agreement. Request for a variance to any of the following regulations may be reviewed by staff and the Resort Advisory Commission. Such consideration shall apply only to conditions relevant to the site and placement of the caf6, NOT construction material. Approval of the City of Virginia Beach Health Department and (when applicable) the State of Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board is required for operation of Resort Open Air Cafes. A fee of one-hundred dollars ($100.00) shall be paid to the City for the processing of an application for a franchise. The City Manager or his designated representative shall not accept any application unless such fee be paid at the time application is filed. Applications for caf6 franchises to be received no later than March 1, proceeding summer season of anticipated construction and operation. No application shall be processed for the year in question that fails to meet the application deadline. The City Manager or his designated representative, is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and adopt a procedure for the processing of such applications and the reporting to City Council of any detrimental effect which requested franchise may have on the public health, safety, welfare, and interest. City Council may deny or grant a franchise subject to such terms and conditions as City Council may, in its discretion deem proper. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, City Council shall deny any franchise request it determines, in its 11 discretion, to be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or interest. 6.2 Documents and Review Required for Application Three (3) copies of a preliminary site development plan, including a current physical survey, no older than 90 days, from building to the curb line, finish schedule, a landscape plan, and elevation drawings showing canopies and their relationship to the support buildings. Engineering/Site Plan review will be necessary for cafes requiring construction of a concrete slab and/or temporary improvements in the public right-of-way. Fifteen (15) copies of the final site plan will be required and should be submitted to the Development Services Center, Room 180, at the Municipal Center Operations Building (Building #2). Photographs of the proposed caf6 site and building facade. R_AC - Design Committee review and recommendation for approval/denial. Plan Content: Plans shall be prepared using a minimum scale of 1" = 10'0" and shall show by name and dimension all existing property lines, easements, buildings, and other structures, vehicular use areas (including parking stalls, driveways, service areas, etc.), proposed and existing walkway systems, and proposed Open Air Caf6. Physical survey by land surveyor showing clear path and all obstructions. Elevations: Elevation drawings shall be prepared using a minimum scale of 1" = 10'0" and shall show all existing and proposed structures directly adjoining the proposed caf6 structures. Two elevations are required: one front elevation and one side elevation and/or section drawing. Finish Schedule: Finish schedule shall include all finish materials proposed for the Open Air Caf6 construction including a landscape plan. Blueprints/Copies: All drawings shall be in reproduced form, no originals shall be accepted. 6.3 Insurance and Fees Applicant will provide liability insurance coverage not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) for personal injury and property damage as required. The franchise fee is to be determined on a gross square foot basis/per year, payable to the City of Virginia Beach no later than May of the year in affect. The fees are as follows: 12 Category A: Category B: Category C: Category D: Boardwalk Caf6 Connector Park Caf6 Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Caf6 Atlantic Avenue Sidestreet Caf6. 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Category A 3.25 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 3% ** Category B 3.25 4.00 4.75 5.50 6.00 3% ** Category C 3.25 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.00 3% ** Category I} 3.25 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3% ** Prior to commencement of operations the Grantee must execute a bond or letter of credit in favor of the City of Virginia Beach in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as determined by the Public Works Department and the Resort Management Office. 6.4 Enforcement The franchise period shall be for one (1) year for the first year of operation. Based upon compliance with these regulations and the Council's desire to continue to allow Open Air Cafes, an extension of the franchise may be authorized by the City Council for up to an additional five (5) year period. During the period in which the franchise is in effect, the Office of the City Manager or his designated representative is to enforce the provisions of the franchise agreement, and is authorized to suspend the agreement if there is a violation of the agreement. In the event the City determines that the Grantee has failed to properly comply with any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, Grantee shall be given a minimum of twenty-four (24) hours and a maximum of ten (10) calendar days to remedy its non-conformance. The amount of time that Grantee shall be permitted to gain compliance shall be determined in the sole discretion of the City, by its authorized officer, agent, or employee. However, such time shall be reasonable and shall be based upon the level of severity of the noncompliance. If Grantee fails to effect compliance within the time allowed, the City shall have the right to suspend Grantee's operation, in whole or in part, until such time as Grantee shall remedy its non-compliance. No portion of the open air/boardwalk cafes shall open or project beyond the designated perimeters of the caf6 area. 13 SECTION 7. DEMOLITION If applicant is required to demolish or remove caf6 or any portion thereof, the applicant must submit approval plans to the Department of Planning for review. 14 REDLINE COMPARISON OF OPEN AIR CAFI~ REGULATIONS SECTION 1. GENERAL PURPOSE 1.1 The Resort Open Air Caf6 regulations are for the RT-1, RT-2, and RT-3 zoning districts located in the resort area specifically identified ami as adjacent to the bBoardwalk, eConnector l~Parks, Atlantic Avenue or Atlantic Avenue side streets. The regulations are designed to encourage cafes where they are appropriate, and promote ~ an ambiance conductive to public health, safety, general welfare, and would serve as a public amenity. These general goals include, among others, the following specific purposes: To promote cafes as visual amenities which improve the appearance and pedestrian ambience of the bBoardwalk, eConnector pParks, and Atlantic Avenue side streets. br. 1.I.B To preserve and enhance the character of the resort center area. er. 1.1.C To ensure adequate space clearance is maintained for pedestrians and bicyclists adjacent to cafes. dr. 1.1.D To establish administrative and enforcement procedures for Open Air Cafes that are effective, efficient, and enforceable. To promote the construction of lightweight removable structures and the most d i bl f'----'---'" .............. ' ..... ' .... ~"----'----"----"-'-' .... bi' property. Materials permitted for use in caf& construction are indicated in Section 5, "Caf& Requirements". The structure must be dismantled easily and not permanently attached to adjacent building. SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 A Resort Open Air Caf6 is an outdoor restaurant directly adjoining an existing restaurant facility in the RT-1, RT-2 or RT-3 Zoning District which is exempt from additional off-street parking requirements. Cafes are franchised to operate , is located on public property;, and are required to provides waiter and waitress full table service in a specific semi-enclosed space as described herein. No portion of an Open Air Caf6 shall be used for any purpose other than dining or circulation. Cafes must have direct access to the host restaurant. All cafes and the required adjacent/operating business will meet all ADA Standard disability access requirements (including rest room facilities). There are four types of cafes. Category_ A - Resort Op¢ii Air/Boardwalk Caf& A resort open air/boardwalk caf6 is located on public property facing the boardwalk in the RT-1 zoning district. Category_ B - ~¢3oit Gl>cia Air Connector Park Caf& A resort Connector Park caf6 is to be located on public property in a Connector Park in the RT-1 zoning districts. The Caf6 is not to extend East of the building's property line. LggilUpIUB ~LIU llUt Category C - Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Caf6. An Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk caf6 is to be located on the public sidewalk along Atlantic Avenue directly adjoining an existing restaurant facility in the RT-I ox RT-2 Zoning Districts?_. Cafes are not permitted except between 15th and 24th Streets wttere o._~n Atlantic Avenue Cal'~s Category_ D - Resor~ O_,pea Air Atlantic Avenue Side Street Caf6. A Resort Side Street Caf6 is to be directly adjoining an existing restaurant facility in the RT-2 or RT-3 zoning district; is to be located on public property; and is to be located on side streets only between Atlantic and Pacific Avenues. No cafes are authorized west of Pacific Avenue. SECTION 3. RESTAURANTS NOT CONSIDERED FOR THE CAFl~ PROGRAM 3.1 Fast Food Establishments. An establishment franchised or otherwise that offers quick food service of items already prepared and held for service, or prepared, fried, griddled quickly or heated in a device such as a microwave oven. Orders are not generally taken at the customer's table and food is generally served from a counter in disposable wrapping or containers, exclusive of full waiter/waitress table service. Fast Food establishments will not be considered for outdoor cafes. SECTION 4. ENTERTAINMENT / AMPLIFIED MUSIC Live or recorded entertainment is allowed under the following conditions in all outdoor cafes: 4.1.A Emtert~nme~ During the hours 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 4.1.B Solo or duo entertainment only. Connecting caf6 do not constitute more than one entertainment venue. 4.1.C All patrons of cafes shall be seated diMng cntcrtaiiiincnt aiid when being served in the caf6 area. 4.1.D The caf~ franchise agreement administrator/city officials shall have the sole discretion in determining if the music sound level emanating from the caf~ is considered disturbing. Amplification of music shall be directed within caf~ area. SECTION 5. 5.1 4. I.E Caf6 operators shall receive one written waming that the music is not complying to the caf6 regulations. Upon notice of a second violation, the caf6 will forfeit their entertainment within the cafu~:~'~mmmths. Continued violations or disregard will be grounds to terminate the caf6 franchise agreement. CAFl~ REQUIREMENTS Category_ A- ,1,~,,,." ..... · Open Ah-/Boardwalk,~,u-- ~ Coihiector ~"--'-~,~ ~,~--~-- =,,,-'--" be a ~-~ ~ ~ =,~ ~,~s. A resoa open air~o~dwalk caf~ is located on public prope~y being the bo~dwalk in the RT-1 zoning district. 3 $.I.A Setbacks: Category_ A cafes shall have a minimum setback often (10) feet from the western edge of the bicycle path. Pending review of specific caf6 site plans, additional setbacks and clear path space may be required. 5.1.B Floor: Floor shall be a smooth clean permanent surface as required by the City of Virginia Beach Health Department. Footings, pavers and concrete flooring are permissible. 5.1.C Perimeter Fence: erimeter fence shall be ~,, ~,,, o~,,,,~ ~ ..,, a mlmmum ofthi~y (30) inches in height ~d m~imum 42" height. It shall be cons~cted of finished painted wood, factor-finished metal glass or maso~ block, or a manufactured fiberglas or metal railing system. ~,~,.~,~ ~ ,,,~ ~.~ ,~ w ~ ~,~ oy ~, ~w-,,,~ ,,, th 5.1.D Canopy: ~,, R¢~,5ii~ ,-,t,~,, Air/Boardwalk Cafes shall have a soft top, temporary_ canopy constructed as specified herein. The canopy shall only cover thc top of the ..~,,,L ~,t,~,, Air/Boardwalk Cafes, except that transparent vinyl or plastic curtains a~ approved ' .... ,__ L_.,, J_.__ _ · may be used as windbreaker. At no point shall the height of the canopy be lower than eight (8) feet above the floor of the R¢$6~ Oibeii Air/Boardwalk Caf& The valence of the awning shall not exceed twelve (12) inches in width. All mm:rp~ canopies shall be constructed of fire resistant vinyl fabric or canvas as approved by City of Virginia Beach Building Dcpai-~nicnt Planning Department/Permits and Inspection Division, and shall meet all applicable Building, Structural, and Fire Codes. Supporting Structure shall be metal pipe or tube system may to exceed 2" in Diameter. Deviations shall be individually reviewed by the City. , ,t~ t.~l,tSlay OUlJF,,o~ t ............. J .... ~" ~y~t~lll ~llilll u~ I~UII.'~LII~t~LUU UI lllU,fll }.)I~./U k/lily. 4 5.1.E Fixtures: The furnishings of the interior of a resort open air caf6 shall consist solely of moveable tables and chairs and decorative accessories· In no event shall such objects penetrate the exterior perimeter boundary or the canopy-or lllqa~uv ti-faiispai-eii¢~y- as -- nl utv~v · ,,u--~ regulations. Planter boxes on caf6 railing are allowed. All movable objects required for operation of a resort caf6 shall be removed from the caf6 area and stored out of view during adverse weather conditions acclaimed by the City, during the off-season, or when the caf6 is not in operation for more than a five (5) day period. These objects include tables, chairs, furnishings, and decorative fixtures. 5.1.F Planting: Planting shall be provided and maintained by the franehis~ owner/operator around the perimeter of the Re$o~ Open Air/Boardwalk Cafe. Width of planting beds to be a minimum of five (5) feet. The City Landscape Services Department shall review and approve the applicants landscape plan prior to operating the cafe. 5.1.G Access: Only one well-defined entrance opening connected to an existing or new walkway system which connects to the boardwalk should be permitted. Access will meet all ADA Standard Disability Access requirements. 5.1.H Size: The overall size of the Pxcsort Open Aii-/Boardwalk Caf6 is not to exceed 800 square feet Fer-restam'm~. t:. 5.1.I Maintenance: Cleanup and necessary maintenance of the area of a Resort Open Air/Boardwalk Caf6 (including landscape areas) and City property adjacent to caf6 is the sole responsibility of the designated franchisee operator. rm. 5.1.J Lighting: Only incandescent lighting and candles are permitted on the interior of the Resort Open Air/Boardwalk Cafe. fr. 5.1.K Refuse Storage: ~.~ storage ~..~.~ may be u.l Storage of any kind is not permitted on public property; including trash or refuse. er. 5.1.L Signs: One (1) menu board is permitted within the perimeter of the resort open air cafes. The menu board shall not be larger than five (5) square feet. The name of the establishment may appear painted or sewn in a single location on the valence of the canopy iii ul~t~ IU*O. UUl, with a maximum of eight (8)-inch lettering. 5 I~ILLDILlllIllLLU;IIL llktlll~) l/.;.,IYtY IY.lll. LU l~Y.IYlY IJ.lll. Solo or duc, ...... ~,IIL~,I L~.IIIIIISIIL Ulll.y. All patrons of ~,~'n 11,.,, Ltly~.,l ,n L~./I ~ ~11o~11 /. r~k,,,~l ¥ IG ~,/11~ VY I 1 LL~II ~ OJ. 11111,~ LIIO. L LII%.,, 111 I1~1%.~ 1~) llIJ L ~k/llllJl.ylll~ L'O LIID ~,gll~ I~LI.I~LLI[JII~. ~/tJtJil ll%jLl~ ~ji o~ ~.~g~t,/llLl ¥1~JltaLl,OIl~ m 5.1.M __ Bicycle Parking Area: Bicycle parking areas are recommended to be integrated with the caf6 improvements. The bicycle parking area will be approximately eight (8) feet by eleven (11) feet concrete, brick pavers, or similar paved area with a single load bicycle rack. This area will not be included in franchise caf6 area allowance, however, it should be made available for general public use. 5.2 Category_ B - Connector Park Caf6. A resort connector park caf6 is to be located on public property in a Connector Park in the RT-1 zoning districts. The Caf6 is not to extend East of the building's property line. 5.2.A Setbacks: Category B Cafes shall be required to have minimum setback of ten (10) feet from the Atlantic Avenue curbline. The Caf6 is not to extend East of the bu8ildin's property line. Pending review of specific caf6 site plans, additional setbacks and clear path space may be required. 5.2.B Floor: The speeiftm~ existing paved park surface may be used-for-the ~,,,,~..~,,~ ~,~ ,~,.,, v,~,,~ ~.,~. o ,,,,~ ~,~,,~. In addition to floor requirements, the floor shall be a smooth clean permanent surface as required by the City of Virginia Beach Health Department. Footings, paves and concrete flooring are permissible. 5.2.C Perimeter Fence: A perimeter fence parinictcr~/1%.~1%~D------1 ........ Lil ~ ~--11 1~/~ ....... ~'___ J "- "'--" ..... --" --'~ ......... -'-' ..... ' .......... :'-' .... ......... ="---" h 11 b Ill LII~ IUIIII UI 3~,,II-3LI. luIIJUItlII[ IYlfllltSlOm l~{,lllll[Om tmiitl/Ui 1511k~[;;3. Sa e a minimum of thirty (30) inches in height and maximum 42" height. It shall be constructed of finished painted wood, facto _fy-finished metal glass or masonry_ block, or a manufactured fiberglass or metal railing system, 5.2.D recphred. Canopies are permitted but not required. If specified, canopies for Category_ B Cafes (Connector Park Cafes) should have a soft top, temporary_ canopy constructed as specified herein. The canopy shall only cover the top of Category_ B Cafes (Connector Park Cafes_, except that transparent vinyl or plastic curtains may be used on the sides as windbreaker. At no point shall the height of the canopy be lower than eight (8) feet above the floor of the Category_ B Caf6 (Connector Park Cafes). The valence of the awning shall not exceed twelve (12) inches in width. Umbrellas are permitted, tf All canopies shall be constructed of fire resistant vinyl fabric or canvas as approved by City of Virginia Beach Planning Department/Permits and Inspection Division, and shall meet all applicable Building, Structural, and Fire codes. Supporting Structure shall be metal pipe or tube system may to exceed 2" in Diameter. Deviations shall be individually reviewed by the City. l'liJltli Olllliik[; Il I;lll. lill;ill,, I Illllt) l~lO.i};)~ d/tlll{~l(ll i.U. II) I.~IllI.7~L~ pllll, lUlllli~, UI 5.2.E Fixtures: The furnishings of the interior of a resort open air caf6 shall consist solely of moveable tables and chairs and decorative accessories. In no event shall such objects penetrate the exterior perimeter boundary or the canopy. Planter boxes on caf6 railing are allowed. All movable objects required for operation of a resort caf6 shall be removed from the caf6 area and stored out of view during adverse weather conditions acclaimed by the City, during the off-season, or when the caf6 is not in operation for more than a five (5) day period. These objects include tables, chairs, furnishings, and decorative fixtures. 5.2.F Planting: Additional planting may be required by City Staff fo~ Air '" ........... "---'- . ,..,,,,,~,~Lu,, ,,,,. Cafe~ Catego~ B Cafes (Connector Park Cafes). The City Landscaping Services Department shall review and approve the applicant's landscape plan. 5.2.G Access: One well defined opening to a Resort, "' ..... · ~'-- ~'~ .............. 1- a~_ I~Z is required. Orientation of that opening will be detemained reviewed by the City staff according to pedestrian safety and the aesthetic requirements of each location. Access will meet all ADA Standard Disability Access requirements. 5.2.H Size: The overall size of a Category_ B Caf6 (Connector Park Caf6) is not to exceed 800 square feet. 5.2.I Maintenance: Cleanup and necessary maintenance of the area of a Resvrt Open-A~ Category_ B l~Connector Park Caf6) (including landscape areas) and City property adjacent to the caf6 is the sole responsibility of the designated franchisee operator. 7 5.2.J Lighting: Only incandescent lighting and candles, Christmas lights, and ceiling fans are permitted on the interior of the Category B Caf6 (connector Park Caf6). 5.2.K Storage: Storage of any kind is not permitted on public property; including trash or refuse. 5.2.L Signs: One (1) menu board is permitted within the perimeter of the resort open air cafes. The menu board shall not bc larger than five (5) square feet. The name of the establishment may appear painted or sewn in a single location on the valence of the canopy-with a maximum of eight (8)-inch lettering. If umbrellas are used, the name of thc caf6 may appear on the valence of each umbrella. 5.2.M Bicycle Parking Area: Bicycle parking areas are not allowed in the Connector Parks. Category_ B Cafes (Connector Park Cafes) must use existing parking racks. 5.3 Category_ C - Atlantic Avenue sidewalk Caf6. An Atlantic Avenue sidewalk caf6 is to be located on the public sidewalk along Atlantic Avenue directly adjoining an existing restaurant facility in the RT-2 Zoning districts. Cafes are not permitted between 15th and 24th Streets on Atlantic Avenue. Canopies are not allowed for Category_ C cafes. However, awnings are permitted as defined in Section 5.3.D, Awnings. Catego~ C Cafes are to be temporary in nature and designed so that all chairs, tables, planters, fences, etc. can be removed du_ring periods of non-use. 5.3.A Setback: '" '" .... ,_ · ........._.4 ..... "-'~-' ................ '-~'-b a~tLFgg%.,lk ~1. lillllllll~ll UI ~l~llt [0] I~L IIUIII GII OO~tl ~LLUII~ 111 tl15 ~UUiI~ 1 l~lt- ~,, ~u~..~.~,,~., .,~ p.o,,~ .~,~-~-~y. Catego Cafes are required to 8 be setback a minimum of eight (8) feet from the curbline and all obstructions in the public right-of-way. Pending review of specific caf6 site plans, additional setbacks and clear path space may be required. The minimum distance shall be measured from the portion of the caf6 frontage which is nearest the obstruction. For the purpose of these guidelines, obstructions shall be defined as vertical public infrastructure improvements such as traffic signal poles, sign poles, light poles, planting areas, trees, trash receptacles, benches, bike racks, parking meters, etc. 5.3.B Floor: Only the existing paving or sidewalk is to be used for placement of removable caf6 furnishings. Should the ogerafing building be setback from the ~ curb line, the development of new surfaces for seating may be permitted. 5.3.C Perimeter Fence: A perimeter fence shall be a minimum of~ IJ511111~.,%~.~1 1~,11~.~., UIIt~IU~LIlS~ i~lltall IJL~ I~,~lLIIIS~I. 111 I, ll~, liJllll ~Jl ~UII'~LI. IJIJUILIII~ IJlOaitu~,, tmin,/fi~, oa~uut ~'eiiCe$. thirty (30) inches in height and maximum 42" height. It shall be constructed of finished painted wood, factory-finished metal glass or masonry block, or a manufactured fiberglass or metal railing system. 5.3.D ~ Awnings: Canopies are not allowed for Category_ C Cafes (Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Cafes), but ~awnings m---eancrl~XS as allowed through the Resort Area Facade Program are permitted; awnings~m:rg~ extending beyond the dimension permitted in the Resort Area Facade Program (3') may be permitted based on review by City staff and the Resort (RAC) ........... '-- AdvisoryCommission . . t,, ,~.l~u.u ,.,~ canopy is gl, LlJglL~KtllL L/LIIILIlII~ {lllLl LIIU ~LIUUL I. Jl~l~lx- lOUr~.~, O. IIU~ gllU ~,O, ll~J~/,y l~ IIUL OLI.}JI, J~./I LULl ., ,.u [,~,~,,iu ,,s.L-~,.-,.,,,y. Umbrellas are permitted. If umbrellas are used, the name of the caf6 may appear on the valence of each umbrella. 5.3.E Fixtures: The furnishings of the interior of a resort open air caf6 shall consist solely of moveable tables and chairs and decorative accessories. In no event shall such objects penetrate the exterior perimeter boundary_ or the canopy. Planter boxes on caf6 railing are allowed. All movable objects required for operation of a resort caf6 shall be removed from the caf6 area and stored out 5.3.F of view during adverse weather conditions acclaimed by the City, during the off-season, or when the caf6 is not in operation for more than a five (5) day period. These objects include tables, chairs, furnishings, and decorative fixtures. Planting: Perimeter planting in planters or planter boxes will be required; selection of planting will be determined by City staff. All such planters or plantings shall be on or within the caf6. 9 5.3.G Access: Only one well defined entrance opening is permitted to the cafe area; the cafe area must be connected to the corresponding business entrance. Orientation of that opening will be reviewed by the City staff according to pedestrian safety and the aesthetic requirements of each location. Access will meet all ADA Standard Disability Access requirements. 5.3.H Size: Thc Sidewalk Caf~ Catego _ry C Cafes may not cover more than the front face of the operating business building. In addition, the scale, proportion, and overall design of the cafe shall be reviewed by City staffto ensure the cafe is compatible with the adjacent building, the street block face, and the overall goals of the Resort Area Facade Program and the Resort Streetscape Improvements. 5.3.I Maintenance/Operation: The S/d~udteEa~ Category_ C Cafe operator will be responsible to maintain an attractive and clean cafe area at all times. 5.3.J Lighting: Only incandescent lighting, candles, and Christmas lights are permitted on the interior of the Category C Cafe (Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Cafe). 5.3.K Storage: Storage of any kind is not permitted on public property; including trash or refuse. 5.3.L t~naa-l~eards Signs: One (1) menu board is permitted within the perimeter of the resort open air cafes. '"'--'-' ..... -' '-'--"- ' ..... -' ....... '- --'---, ~YILilIII Lil~ ~illli%~L~l UI LII~ ~,~alg ~Ylli b~ ........ "~a- J ~,,,,,,~,~. The menu board ~ r~ shall not be larger than five (5) square feet. If umbrellas are used, the name of the cafe may appear on the valence of each umbrel{~= tws,,pusas.y xi.,-_tm,~e,, ss,o p¢i-iiifiii~ii[ -' ....................... 10 5.3.M Bicycle Parking Area. Bicycle parking areas are not allowed to be installed on City Property. Catego _ry C Cafes (Atlantic Avenue sidewalk Cafes) must use existing bike racks. 5.4 Category D - Atlantic Avenue Side Street Caf& A Category_ D Caf6 (Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cart) is to be directly adjoining an existing restaurant facility in the RT-2 or RT-3 zoning district; is to be located on public property_; and is to be located on side streets only between Atlantic and Pacific Avenues. No cafes are authorized west of Pacific Avenue. Category_ D Cafes are to be temporary_ in nature and designed so that all chairs, tables, planters, fences, etc. can be removed during periods of non-use. Canopies are allowed for Category_ D cafes but not required. 5.4.A Setback: Category D Cafes (Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafes) are recommended to be setback eight (8) feet, but a minimum distance of(6) feet clear sidewalk width, free from obstruction, is required for all Category_ D Cafes. Pending review of specific caf6 site plans, additional setbacks and clear path space may be required. The minimum distance shall be measured from the portion of the caf6 frontage which is nearest the obstruction. For the purpose of these guidelines obstructions shall be defined as vertical public infrastructure improvements such as traffic signal poles, sign poles, light poles, planting areas, trees, trash receptacles, benches, bike racks, parking meters, etc. 5.4.B Floor: Only the existing paving or sidewalk is to be used for placement of removable caf6 furnishings. Should the building be setback from the curb line, the development of new surfaces for seating may be permitted. 5.4.C Perimeter Fence: A perimeter fence shall be a minimum of thirty (30) inches in height and maximum 42" height. It shall be constructed of finishecl painted wood, facto_ry-finished metal glass or masonry_ block, or a manufactured fiberglass or metal railing system. 5.4.D Canopy: Canopies are permitted but not required. If specified, a Category_ D Caf6 (Atlantic Avenue Side Street Caf6) shall have a soft top, temporary_ canopy constructed as specified herein. The canopy shall only cover the top of Category D Cafes ( Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafes), except that transparent vinyl or plastic curtains maybe used on the sides as windbreaker~ At no point shall the height of the canopy be lower than eight (8) feet above the floor of the Category D Caf6 (Atlantic Avenue Side Street Cafes). The valence of the awning shall not exceed twelve (12) inches in width. Umbrellas are permitted. If umbrellas are used the name of the caf6 may appear on the valence of each umbrella_ All canopies shall be constructed of fire resistant vinyl fabric or canvas approved by the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department/Permits and 11 Inspection Division, and shall meet all applicable Building, Structural, and Fire Codes. Supporting Structure shall be metal pipe or tube system not to exceed 2" in Diameter. Deviations shall be individually reviewed by the Ci _ty. 5.4.E Fixtures: The furnishings of the interior 0fa resort open air caf6 shall consist solely of moveable tables and chairs and decorative accessories. In no event shall such objects penetrate the exterior perimeter boundary_ or the canopy. Planter boxes on caf6 railing are allowed. All movable objects required for operation of a resort caf6 shall be removed from the caf6 area and stored out of view during adverse weather conditions acclaimed by the City during, the off-season, or when the caf6 is not in operation for more than a five (5) day period. These objects include tables, chairs, furnishings, and decorative fixtures. 5.4.F Planting: Perimeter planting in planters or planter boxes will be required; selection of planting will be determined by City staff. All such planters or plantings shall be on or within the caf6. 5.4.G Access: Only one well-defined entrance opening is permitted to the caf6 area; the caf6 area must be connected to the corresponding business entrance. Orientation of that opening will be reviewed by the Ci_ty staff according to pedestrian safety and the aesthetic requirements of each location. Access will meet all ADA Standard Disability Access requirements. 5.4.H Size: A Category. D Caf6 (Atlantic Avenue Side Street Caf6) may not cover more than the front face of the operating business building. In addition, the scale, proportion, and overall design of the caf6 shall be reviewed by City staff to ensure the caf6 is compatible with the adjacent building, the street block face, and the overall goals of the Resort Area Facade Program and the Resort Streetscape Improvements. 5.4.I Maintenance: The Category_ D Caf6 operator will be responsible to maintain an attractive and clean caf6 area at all times. 5.4.J Lightine: Only incandescent lighting, candles, Christmas lights and ceiling fans are permitted on the interior of the Category_ D Caf6 (Atlantic Avenue. Side Street Caf6). 5.4.K Stora_ee: Storage of any kind is not permitted on public property; including. trash or refuse.. 5.4.L Si_ens: One (1) menu board is permitted within the perimeter of the resort open air cafes. The menu board shall not be larger than five (5) square feet. The name of the establishment may be painted or sewn in a single location on the valence of the canopy with a maximum of eight {8)-inch lettering. If 12 umbrellas are used the name of the caf6 may appear on the valence of each umbrella. 5.4.M Bicycle Parking Area: Bicycle parking areas are not allowed to be installed on CiW Property, Catego _ry D Cafes (Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Cafes} must use existing bike racks. 9:. SECTION 6. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT aw. 6.1 Requirements for Application -1- In order to create a Resort Open Air Caf6, the granting of a franchise agreement will be required. Applications (per Section 6.2) will be made to the Office of the City Manager or his designated representative, the Department of Convention and Visitor Development/Resort Management Office and the Design & Planning Committee of the Resort Advisory Commission, and shall ensure continued compliance with applicable policies and guidelines in addition to those specifically stated herein. These requests will be reviewed by the Office of the City Manager or his designated representative, the Department of Convention and Visitor Development (Resort Management Office), with recommendation for approval/disapproval from the Resort Advisory Commission, and will be reviewed and acted upon by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach. The regulations herein are intended to establish the necessary criteria with which the Resort Open Air Cafes shall fh'st comply in order to be eligible for consideration for such a franchise agreement. Request for a variance to any of the following regulations may be reviewed by staff and the Resort Advisory Commission. Such consideration shall apply only to conditions relevant to the site and placement of the caf6, NOT construction material Approval of the City of Virginia Beach Health Department and (when applicable) the State of Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board is required for operation of Resort Open Air Cafes. A fee of one-hundred dollars ($100.00) shall be paid to the City for the processing of an application for a franchise. The City Manager or his designated representative shall not accept any application unless such fee be paid at the time application is filed. Applications for caf6 franchises to be received no later than March 1, 13 proceeding summer season of anticipated construction and operation. No application shall be processed for the year in question that fails to meet the application deadline. The City Manager or his designated representative, is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and adopt a procedure for the processing of such applications and the reporting to City Council of any detrimental effect which requested franchise may have on the public health, safety, welfare, and interest. City Council may deny or grant a franchise subject to such terms and conditions as City Council may, in its discretion deem proper. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, City Council shall deny any franchise request it determines, in its discretion, to be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or interest. br. 6.2 Additional Documents and Review Required for Application Three (3) copies of a preliminary site development plan, including a current physical survey, no older than 90 days, from building to the curb line, finish schedule, a landscape plan, and elevation drawings showing canopies and their relationship to the support buildings. Engineering/Site Plan review will be necessary for cafes requiring construction of a concrete slab and/or pem'mnem temporary_ improvements in the public right-of-way. Fifteen (15) copies of the final site plan will be required and should be submitted to the Development Services Center, Room 180, at the Municipal Center Operations Building (Building #2). Photographs of the proposed caf6 site and building facade. RAC - Design Committee review and recommendation for approval/denial. Plan Content: Plans shall be prepared using a minimum scale of 1" = 10'0" and shall show by name and dimension all existing property lines, easements, buildings, and other structures, vehicular use areas (including parking stalls, driveways, service areas, etc.), proposed and existing walkway systems, and proposed Open Air Caf6. Physical survey by land surveyor showing clear path and all obstructions. Elevations: Elevation drawings shall be prepared using a minimum scale of 1" = 10'0" and shall show all existing and proposed structures directly adjoining the proposed caf6 structures. Two elevations are required: one front elevation and one side elevation and/or section drawing. Finish Schedule: Finish schedule shall include all finish materials proposed for the Open Air Caf6 construction including a landscape plan. Blueprints/Copies: All drawings shall be in reproduced form, no originals shall be accepted. 14 Insurance and Fees 6.3 -1-: Applicant will provide liability insurance coverage not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) for personal injury and property damage as required. The franchise fee is to be determined on a gross Square foot basis/per year, payable to the City of Virginia Beach no later than May of the year in affect. voay ywoaty, uaw l~ l~ ~utiwm. iy auju*[wu a[ ,~.J.,~o u.z. ~ui x:~:~'-ry. The fees are as follows: Category_ A: Category_ B: Category_ C: Category_ D: Boardwalk Caf6 Connector Park Caf6 Atlantic Avenue Sidewalk Caf6 Atlantic Avenue Sidestreet Caf6 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Category A 3.25 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 3% ** Category B 3.25 4.00 4.75 5.50 6.00 3% ** Cateltorv C 3.25 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.00 3% ** Cateuorv D 3.25 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3% ** 6.4 Prior to commencement of operations the Grantee must execute a bond or letter of credit in favor of the City of Virginia Beach in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as determined by the Public Works Department and the Resort Management Office. Enforcement The franchise period shall be for one (1) year for the first year of operation. Based upon compliance with these regulations and the Council's desire to continue to allow Open Air Cafes, an extension of the franchise --'-'"~,,,,, ........ ,,~,, ,~,,,~,~,['" ..... niodifications may be authorized by the City Council for up to an additional five (5) year period. During the period in which the franchise is in effect, the Office of the City Manager or his designated representative is to enforce the provisions of the franchise agreement, and is authorized to suspend the agreement if there is a violation of the agreement. 15 In the event the City determines that the Grantee has failed to properly comply with any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, Grantee shall be given a minimum of twenty-four (24) hours and a maximum often (10) calendar days to remedy its non-conformance. The amount of time that Grantee shall be permitted to gain compliance shall be determined in the sole discretion of the City, by its authorized officer, agent, or employee. However, such time shall be reasonable and shall be based upon the level of severity of the noncompliance. If Grantee fails to effect compliance within the time allowed, the City shall have the right to suspend Grantee's operation, in whole or in part, until such time as Grantee shall remedy its non-compliance. No portion of the open air/boardwalk cafes shall open or project beyond the designated perimeters of the caf6 area. .ti, il 'L. IIII; ti.J/Flit, lli. ion. O.lJ, I;I.t, il l'~,.I;;[JUll I;111[;!11,~ IJXUGIJIilI{.i:)I I..~UI.]IG"). l"tll UI Ilt'Y lli{~D Dill:l. ll UG Ill IGIJIUULIGGU IUIIII, IIU UXX[IIIaF) ~,llall uG aL~L~GIJI, GU. SECTION 7. DEMOLITION If applicant is required to demolish or remove caf~ or any portion thereof, the applicant must submit approval plans to the Department of Planning for review. F:\UserskRIngram\WP\WORK\Ordinances\Open Air Caf6 Regulations~regcompare.wpd 16 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Lowe's Home Safety Council Grant MEETING DATE: April 23, 2002 Background: Lowe's Home Safety Council, the Grantor, is a private charitable organization that strives to empower individuals, families and communities to make their homes safer places. A $25,000 grant has been awarded to fund a joint effort between the Fire Department, "the lead agency", and the Department of Museums and Cultural Arts, the "project coordinating agency", to create new exhibits in the Virginia Marine Science Museum's Weather Room. This project is built on a partnership between FEMA's Project Impact, a grant program designed to help Virginia Beach become a disaster resistant community, and the museum. The intent of the project is to help educate the citizens about hurricane awareness and home safety. In the three years Project Impact has existed, many private and public partnerships have been developed to strengthen the business and residential community's abilityto survive a natural disaster. As Project Impact draws to a close, this final partnership will create a lasting exhibit at the VMSM that will reach over half a million people a year. The exhibits, scheduled for a mid-summer official opening, will revitalize one of the oldest exhibit areas of the Virginia Marine Science Museum. The grant will provide for creation of interactive displays that entertain visitors and educate them about hurricanes, emergency preparedness, and improving the resistance of homes to the destructive effects of natural disasters. A companion on- line exhibit will be developed for the VMSM's Web Site to reach an even greater audience. Brochures will also be on hand to reinforce the emergency preparedness messages. Considerations: This grant does not require a match. Project Impact has provided some "seed" funding to begin exhibit design and development. The grant will be managed by the Fire Department's Emergency Management division in close cooperation with the VMSM staff. Responsibility for ongoing maintenance and expenses of the exhibit itself after the grant period has expired will be absorbed by the VMSM. Public Information: Public Information will be handled through the normal Council agenda process. Alternatives: Without acceptance of this grant, the displays would not be possible for the Virginia Marine Science Museum. Recommendations: Approve ordinance to accept the grant from the Lowe's Home Safety Council, and appropriate the $25,000 to develop and create hurricane awareness exhibits at the Virginia Marine Science Museum. Attachments: Program Services Agreement between City of Va. Beach and Lowe's Home Safety Council. Recommended Action: Approve the grant and appropriate funds in the amount of $25,000. Submitting Fire Department Department/Age~_cy: ~ODE\lowesarf.wpd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE A $25,000 GRANT FROM LOWE'S HOME SAFETY COUNCIL TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S FY 2001-02 OPERATING BUDGET TO FUND NEW DISPLAYS FOR THE MARINE SCIENCE MUSEUM WHEREAS, the City of Virginia Beach's Fire Department has been awarded a $25,000 grant from Lowe's Home Safety Council to construct new displays for the Virginia Marine Science Museum's Weather Room, and this grant requires no matching funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That a $25,000 grant from Lowe's Home Safety Council is hereby accepted and appropriated to the Fire Department's FY 2001-02 Operating Budget to fund additional displays at the Virginia Marine Science Museum, and estimated revenues are hereby increased accordingly. 18 19 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002, 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 CA-8457 Ordin/Noncode/lowesord.wpd R-1 April 4, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Department of Ma~a APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Department o ~,~w LOWE'S HOM SAFETY COUNCIL. blarch 12, 2002 Battalion Chief Donna Brehm City. of Virginia Beach Fire Department 2408 Courthouse Drive, Municipal Center, Budding Virgima Beach, VA 234:56-9065 Dear Chief Brehm: This letter comes to you as the formal confirmation of the Lowe's Home Safety Council's ("LHSC') gram to the City of Virginia Beach Fire Depa,h,ent ("Grantee"). The grant, in the mount of $25,000, is to be used by Grantee for the creation, construction and promotion of a hurricane preparedness exhibit at the Virginia Marine Science Museum ("the Program"), beginning March 2002 and ending January. 2003. This amount is to cover out-of-pocket costs and expenses incurred during the Program. Included with this grant letter is the Program Services Agreement. Please note that this grant is contingent upon Grantee signing the Program Services Agreement and returning it to LHSC along with Grantee's Certificate of Insurance evidencing the insurance requirements set forth in the Agreement. Sincerely yours, David J. Oliver Executive Director . Lowe's Home Safety Council Elana E. Meats Program Manager Lowe's Home Saf~y Council PROGRAM SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS PROGRAM SERVICES AGREEMENT, (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") hcrebv made this 12th day of March, 2002 ("Effective Date"), by and between Lowe's Home Safety Council CLHSC") with offices located at 1605 Curtis Bridge Road, Wiikesboro, North Carolina 2~697 and Virginia Beach Fire Department ("Grantee") with a mailing address of 2408 Courthouse Drive. Municipal Center, Building 21, Virginia Beach. VA 23456-9065. WHEREAS, LHSC is a charitable organization which strives to empower individuals, families and communities to make their homes safer places; and WHEREAS, Grantee is a customer service organization partnering with communities, members, citizens and visitors to foster the feeling of safety any place, any time through plannmg~ 'mitigation, response and restoration; and WHEREAS, In March 1999 the City of Virginia Beach was named a FEMA Project Impact City focusing on "Building a Disaster Resistant Community;" and WHEREAS, The VBFD and Project Impact have partnerships following groups: AARP, American Red Cross, International Association National Fire Protection Association and the National Safety Council. or memberships with the of Emergency Managers, WHEREAS, Lowe's is al~o a National Parmcr in FEMA's Project Impact; and WHEREAS, In 2000, Virginia Marine Science Museum (VMSM) joined the Project Impa~ team to help educate the public on how to prepare for disasters - the VMSM opened June 15, 1986 and immediately became the highest attended museum in the state; and WHEREAS, VSMS's mission is to increase the public's knowledge and appreciation of Virginia's marine environment and inspire commitment to preserve its existence and hah an annual attendance of 600,000; and WHE~, Grantee desires to parmer with Lowe's Home Safety Council on a Disaster Preparedness Exhibit; and WHE~, LI-ISC and Grantee have agreed to set forth the ~erms and conditions a~sociated with the services provided by Cnantee through thc Program. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and premises set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, including the monetary grant from LHSC to Cnantce, the receipt and sufficiency of which am hereby acknowledged, the parties, int~n~ to be lesally bound do hereby agree as follows: 1. $~rvic~s to be Performed by (~r~ntc--, Services to be performed by Grantee through thc Program are set forth on Exhibit "A; allachcd hcr~ and made a pan hcrcof ('Services"). 2. Term of A~-ee_m_~,~_, This ~c'nt shall commence and terminate_ on th~ dates thc grant letter. 3. Prom'am Go~ls; O~l-tifi-hle Obiectiv~ The lYarties have agnmd to certain program goals and quanfif-mbic objectives th~,t ar~ forth on Exlfibit "A'. 4. Grant Payment Schedule and Proiect Timeline. LHSC will remit payment of the grant via multiple checks to Grantee upon receipt of written invoices from Grantee. Initial pa.vment will be made upon LHSC's receipt of the signed Agreement and Grantee's Certificate of Insurance. Invoices should be mailed to Lowe's Home Safety Council, 1605 Curtis Bridge Road, Wilkesboro, North Carolina 28697, attention LHSC Grants Program. The Project timeline is seC forth in Exhibit "A". 5. Amendment of Exhibits and Schedules All Exhibits and Schedules attached to this Agreement shall be governed by the terms thereof. However, any Exhibit or Schedule may be replaced or amended by written agreement of the parties hereto and such replacement or amendment shall in no wav invalidate, void or cause the termination of this Agreement. If the terms of the Exhibits or Schedules ~onflict with this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall control. 6. Ownership of Materials be the property of LHSC. Ail materials developed and used during the course of the Program will 7.1. Any information, including but not limited to customer identities, customer profiles, markec research data, sales information, or any other business information of any kind, communicated by either party to the other party in the course of performance under this Agreement shall be considered confidential and proprietary information under the terms of this Section. The parties shall take reasonable steps to protect the confidentiality thereof and to prewent its disclosure to any third parties. The parties shall use all such information only for purposes of performance under this Agreement, and not for any other purpose whatsoever. The obligations of this Section shall survive the termination of thin Agreement. - 7.2. Information communicated pursuant to this Agreement shall not be considered confidential and shall not bc subject to thc provisions of Section 7.1 if thc information: 7.2.1 has become known to the public through no fault, act or omission of the receiving party; 7.2.2 was already known to the receiving party at the time of disclosure as proved by prior documents or records; 7.2.3 was disclosed to thc receiving party by a third-party who has no obligation to maintain the information in confidcnce; 7.2.4 is ordered to be released pursuant to a court order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction or otherwise legally required to be disclosed, but in such case the party so ordered or required to disclose shall notify the other party of such order or requirement prior to disclosure; or 7.2.5 is the subject of an express agreement in writing by thc orJ_aln~fi.~ party to release such information from the terms of this AgrcemenL 8. PubHcitT. or ~e~Ll~St C shall not, .without Grantee's prior written approval, use Grantee's name, service marks or any marketing, advertising, sales or promotional purpose. 8.2. Grantee shall not, without LHSC's'prior written approval, use LHSC's name, service marks or trademarks for any marketing, advertising, sales or promotional purpose. 9. Relationship of Parti,~. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as creating an employment relationship, partnership or joint venture between Grantee and LHSC. 10. No Authorit'v to Bind LHSC. Grantee has no authority to enter into contracts or agreements on behalf of LHS C. ' 11. Declaration bv Grante~-. Grantee declares that Grantee has complied or will comply with all federal, state and local laws regarding business permits and licenses that may be required to carry out its obligations under this Agreement. 12. Notices. Any notices, authorizations, consents or approvals called for hereunder shall be in ming. All written notices are to be delivered personally or sent by overnight delivery service or certified mail, return receipt requested, and shall bc sent to thc parties at their respective offices located at their addresses set forth below. Any notice will be deemed to have been received by a party, the next day if sent by overnight delivery, and within 3 (three) days bom thc date sent ff given by certified mail, return receipt requested. For LHSC: Lowe's Home Safety Council 1605 Curtis Bridge Road Wilkesboro, NC 28697 Arm: Elana Meats, Grants Program Manager For Grantee: City of Virginia Beach 2408 Courthouse Drive, Municipal Center, Building 21 Virginia Beach, VA 23456-9065 Attn: Battalion Chief Donna Brehm 13. ~. This Agreement may not be assigned, in whole or in part, by either party without thc other party's prior written consent. This Agreement shall bc binding upon and shall inure to thc benefit of LHSC, Grantee and their respective successors and permitted .assignees. 14. Indemnification_ Grantee will indemnify, defend and hold LHSC free and hamaless against any suit, claim, loss, liability or expense (including reasonable attorney's fees) to the extent arising out of or as a result of C. nantee's perfornmn~ or mn-performance of Services pm to this Agreement. 15. Choice of Law. This Agreement .nh.nil be governed with respect to all issues of formation, construction, performance and breach by the substantive laws of the State of North Carolina. applied without regard to its choice of law rules. 16. ~ The Section and Subsectien headings of this A~.ment are solely for the purpose of reference and si-mil not in any way affect the meaning or inlm~retation of this Agreeing. 17. Non-Waiver. Either party's delay in or failure to enforce any right, oblismion or remedy hereunder shall not constitute a waiver of any later enforcement of that same ri~h~ obligation or remedy or of any other ~ obli?~on or remedy under thi_, Agreement 18..~:If~i~. If any part of this Agreement shall be held unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement will nevertheless remain in full force and effect. 19. ,Entire A~!reement. This is thc entire agreement of the parties and cannot be changed or modified orally: rather any modification to this Agreement will be binding on the parties only if' in writing and approved by both panics. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the panics, intending to be legally bound hereby, have caused this Agreement to be executed and do each herebv warrant and represent that their respective si~matorv whose signature appears below has been and is on ~e date s~t forth below, duly authorized, by all necessary and appropriate action, to execute this Agreement. ' ' - LOWE'S HOME SAFETY COUNCIL By: David J. Oliver Its: ..Executive Director (Title) ~ Date: / 'l.hmes Spore Its: (Title), .Exhibit A Services to be Provided by Grantee through the Pro~ram. · Grantee will provide LHSC with detailed specs for the proposed exhibit at VMSM. No construction, computer programming or brochure printing will commence until LHSC has approved the exhibit plan. · Grantee will develop a brochure for the exhibit OR will include LHSC information on existing brochure - grantee will work with LHSC to make decision. LHSC will provide access to low-cost printing options. · Grantee will only use LHSC grant money for design, construction and printed materials for the hurricane preparedness exhibit. · Grantee will create an online "LHSC/VMSM Disaster Preparedness E,xhibit" that would be hosted by both the VMSM and bv LHSC. · Grantee will mention exhibit in t~vo public programs during the months of August through October 2002. These programs would include VMSM, Va. Beach Emergency Management and VBFD Life Sar-et3,' Education. · Grantee will provide monthly activity, reports to LHSC (via e-mail to elana, e.mears,~lloweshomesafet~-.or~) by the 5'" of each month, detailing the previous month's activity.. - ' - · Grantee will design and construct a permanent plaque at the exhibit to reco?ize LHSC's involvement in the project. Plaque face should measure no less than 8 x l0 inches and be durably constructed. Plaque must be approved by LHSC. · Grantee will complete a final report by January 2004 that shows how successful the grantee was at achieving the quantifiable objectives below. (Virginia Marine Science Museum will be responsible for survey administration and follow up, as well as formulation of those evaluation results.) II, Ouantifiable Objectives, · Create an interactive disaster preparedness exhibit at VMSM. · Create a co-branded disaster preparedness brochure. · Distnl}ute 10,000 brochures from June 2002 until December 2002. · Conduct exit interviews of at least I00 people over a four-day period (total interviews of 100400 people) between August I and September 30, 2002. · Exit interviews will show that 50 percent of attendees learned something that they can use to protect their home or themselves; survey will specifi~y ask respondents to list 1-3 lessons they plan to implement at home (this information will be used during 'follow-up calls). · Follow-up phone calls with surveyed ~__~_~dees (to take place no sooner than three weeks and no more than three months after attendee's visit to VI~L~ will show that at least 50 percent of attcndees who learned something at the exhibit implemented the lesson(s) learned since their' · gross hUmOr, escape rou e w/famay, C..~ an omme prcsenc.e for ~ exlfibit and L/tSC at VMSM's Web site. · o.cct a total ~00,000 hits (unique page views) em the onli,,e cxln'oit description page on VMSM's Web site. HI. Project Timeline: Grn,t_ee Deliverables and Grant Payment Schedule, LHSC will remit payment via multiple bank checks to Grantee upon receipt of written invoices from Grantee. Initial payment will be sent automatically upon receipt of signed agreement. Subsequent payments will require invoice from Grantee as indicated below. Signed letter of agreement and invoices should be mailed to Lowe's Home Safety Council, 1605 Curtis Bridge Road, Wilkesboro, N.C., 28697, attn: LHSC Grants Program. The fi _~__1 report should be received no later than January 3 l, 2003. "'G~a~e d~vtrable Spr 02 Sum 02 Fall 02 Win 02 Jan 03 Sign ~i~ of ar~.~¢=t nnd receive ["wa/ Mar 28 payment ($S,000) St~,~t sugg~ed ~Chu~ to LHSC (if Apr 15 developing one, it is due April 15) Sub~tli exhibit floor p'~ and Pror~,,,~g Apr 8 .. details to LHSC for approval If nec~my, su~i o~t~d e~ibit plans to Apr LHSC for approval. 30 /Vlafl i~vuice for $18,000 (to be paid upon X LHSC approval of plans) Exhibit cO~huciion X X File monthly pro~e~ ~epoii~ X X X X Pro~u~ cval, _mt_~ion/smvcy follow up X X Submit f'mai ~eport ,vlii, ~vo~ce for f'mal $2,000 Jan 31 Please sign and r~tum this document- your first payment will be processed upon approval of these forms. Lowe's Home Safety Council, 1605 Curtis Bridge Road, Wiikesboro, N.C., 28697, attn: LHSC Grants Program. Agreed: Lowe s Hdm~ Safety Council ~ity of JVirgi~'nin Beach Battalion CbiefDonn~ Brehm~ Fire Chief City of Vhginia Beach Fire Depamnent By: Head Curator Head Curator, V' ~n'ginia Marine Science Museum Date: a/,~ ~"_ o 2. Date- Date: Date: VIRGINIA BEACH Dcparlrncm ,)1' ,%luscums and Cultural .-~.r~ s 717 G~nural ~ooth Boulevard Virginia Beach, VA 2~451 (757) 437-4949 FAX (757) 437.4976 September 7, 2001 Chief Gregory. Cade Fire Department City o f Virginia Beach Dear Greg, Paul Harris of Management Services has asked me to write you this letter which acknowledges the joint effort between the Fire Department and the Department of Museums and Cultural Arts in applying for a grant fi.om the Lowe's Home Safety Council. The Fire Department is the lead org~i?ation for this grant application. The money fi.om this grant is intended for exl~'bits located in the museum's Weather Room. The museum will be responsible for the operation and maintenance o f the extu'bits at, er they are ir~alled in the museum. I look forward to our working together on this important and worthy project. Sincerely, C. Mac Pawls M. RESOLUTIONS Resolution re proposed Amendments to §§ 111, 1501, 1511, and 1521 of the City Zoning Ordinance (CZO) defining "Temporary Commercial Parking Lots"; establishing temporary commercial parking lots as a principal use in the RT-1, RT-2 and RT-3 Resort Tourist Districts; and, the planning Commission to make their recommendation to City Council within (60) sixty days. Resolution to AUTHORIZE and promulgate Amendment No. 6 to the Public Works Specifications and Standards manual. Resolution supporting the use of alternative fuel vehicles and the Hampton Roads Clean Cities Coalition in it's regional efforts to promote the use of alternative fuels for transportation. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager A Resolution Referring To The Planning Commission Proposed Amendments to Sections 111,1501,1511 and 1521 of the City Zoning Ordinance, Pertaining to a Definition of "Temporary Commemial Parking Lot" and establishing Temporary Commercial Parking Lots as a Principal Use in the RT-1, RT-2 and RT-3 Resort Tourist Districts. MEETING DATE: April 23, 2002 Background: This Resolution was requested by Councilmember Linwood Branch. With the passage of amendments to the Commercial Parking Lot ordinance, there is a need for temporary commercial parking lots at the Oceanfront. Currently, there is not a clear definition of temporary commercial parking lots and where they would be a principal use. Considerations: The Resolution refers to the Planning Commission proposed amendments to Sections 111, 1501, 1511 and 1521 of the City Zoning Ordinance. The amendments would add a definition of temporary commercial parking lot and establish them as a permitted use in the RT- l, RT-2 and RT-3 Tourist Districts. Temporary Commercial Parking Lots would have to be for a one year duration or less and would require landscaping along the public right-of-way. However, they would be allowed temporary surface treatment in accordance with the standards for temporary parking lots in the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual. The Resolution also directs the Planning Commission to transmit to the City Council its recommendation concerning the proposed amendments within 60 days of the date of adoption of the Resolution, thereby allowing the Planning Commission to act upon the amendments at either its May or June meeting. Public Information: If referred to the Planning Commission, the ordinance itself would be advertised in the manner of all planning items, both before the Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting. Alternatives: There is no requirement that the City Council adopt either the present Resolution or the ordinance which is the subject of the Resolution. By adopting the Resolution referring the ordinance to the Planning Commission, the City Council does not approve the ordinance, but only seeks the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Recommendations: Adoption of the attached Resolution. Attachments: Resolution. Recommended Action: Submitting Department/Agency; Councilmember City Manager: ~~ ,~~(. Linwood Branch. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 111, 1501, 1511 and 1521 OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, PERTAINING TO A DEFINITION OF TEMPORARY COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS AND ESTABLISHING TEMPORARY COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS AS A PRINCIPAL USE IN THE RT-1, RT-2 AND RT-3 RESORT TOURIST DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice so require; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: There is hereby referred to the Planning Commission, for its consideration and recommendation, proposed amendments to Sections 111, 1501, 1511 and 1521 of the City Zoning Ordinance, pertaining to a definition of temporary commercial parking lots and establishing temporary commercial parking lots as a principal use in the RT-1, RT-2 and RT-3 Resort Tourist Districts. A true copy of such proposed amendments is hereto attached. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the Planning Commission be, and hereby is, directed to transmit to the City Council its recommendation concerning the aforesaid amendments no later than sixty(60) days after the date of adoption of this Resolution. COMMENT The R~olufion re~rs to the Planning Commission proposed amendmen~ to Sectio~ 111, 1501, 1511 and 1521 of ~e Ci~ Zo~ng Ordinance. The amendmen~ would add a deflation of ~mpora~ commercial parking lot and establish them as a principal use in ~e RT-1, RT-2 and RT-3 Tou~st Dist~c~ wi~ proper landscaping. The Resolution ~so direc~ ~e Planning Commission to transmit to the City Council ia recommendation concerning the proposed amendmen~ within 60 days of the dam of adoption of the Resolution, thereby allowing the Planning Commission to act upon the amendmen~ at either i~ May or June meeting. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. CA-8458 Ordin/Noncode/referralres.wpd R-2 -April 11, 2002 APPRovE AS TO Planning~epartment APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Law Department 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO A DEFINITION OF TEMPORARY COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS AND ESTABLISHING TEMPORARY COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS AS A PRINCIPAL USE IN THE RT-1, RT-2 AND RT-3 RESORT TOURIST DISTRICTS SECTIONS AMENDED: CZO ~ 111, 1501,1511 & 1521 WHEREAS, the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice so require; BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Sections 111, 1501, 1511 and 1521 of the of the City Zoning Ordinance are hereby amended and reordained, to read as follows: Sec. 111. Definitions. For the purpose of this ordinance, words used in the present tense shall include the future; words used in the singular number include the plural and the plural the singular; the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders; the word "shall" is mandatory; the word "may" is permissive; the word "land" includes only the area described as being above mean sea level; and the word "person" includes an individual, a partnership, association, or corporation. In addition, the following terms shall be defined as herein indicated: Parkinq lot, commercial, temporary. A commercial parkinq ~hat operates for one (1) year or less. COMMEN____~T This amendment establishes a definition for a temporary commercial parking lot as one that operates for one (1) year or less. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 Sec. 1501. (al (7) Use regulations. [RT-1 - Resort Tourist District] Principal uses and structures: Temporary commercial parking lots, provided that adjacent to any public right-of-way perimeter landscaping meeting the requirements of the City Code, Appendix C - Site Plan Ordinance, Section 5A and the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual shall be installed, and temporary surface treatment in accordance with the standards for 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 temporary parking lots in the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual shall be allowed. COMMENT This amendment establishes temporary commercial parking as a principal use in the RT-1 Resort Tourist District with perimeter landscaping. Temporary surface treatment shall be allowed. Sec. 1511. Use regulations. [RT-2 - Resort Tourist District] (a) Principal uses and structures: For parcels less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet in size, any one of the following is allowed; provided, however, that drive-through facilities shall not be permitted as a principal or accessory use: (17.5) Temporary commercial parking lots, provided that adjacent to any public right-of-way perimeter landscaping meetin~ the requirements of the City Code, Appendix C - Site Plat, Ordinance, Section 5A and the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual shall be installed, and temporary surface treatment in accordance with the standards fo'r .temporary parking lots in the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual shall be allowed. 2 65 COMMENT 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 This amendment establishes temporary commercial parking as a principal use in the RT-2 Resort Tourist District with perimeter landscaping. Temporary surface treatment shall be allowed. Sec. 1521. Use regulations. (a) Principal uses and structures: For parcels twenty thousand (20,000) square feet in size, any one [RT-3 Resort Tourist District] less than (1) of the following is allowed; provided, however, that except as provided in subdivision (5.5) of subsection (c), drive-through facilities shall not be permitted in any portion of the district: (18.5) Temporary cormnercial parking lots, provided that adjacent to any public riqht-of-way perimeter landscapinq meetin~ the requirements of the City Code, Appendix C - Site Plan Ordinance, Section 5A and the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual shall be installed, and temporary surface treatment in accordance with the standards for 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 temporary parkinq lots in the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual shall be allowed. COMMENT This amendment establishes temporary commercial parking as a principal use in the RT-3 Resort Tourist District with perimeter landscaping. Temporary surface treatment shall be allowed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2002. CA-8459 DATA/ODIN/PROPOSED/czolll,1501etalord.wpd R2 April 11, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Plannl~epar~t%m%e~t Law ' ~epartment CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual, Amendment #6 MEETING DATE: April 23, 2002 Background: The Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual was adopted by City Council on June 14, 1994 with the provision that all amendments shall be forwarded to City Council for adoption. Considerations: Amendment #6 includes a compilation of proposed revisions to the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual. These revisions address items requiring clarification and supplemental information identified during the last two years associated with the use of the manual. This revision also includes substantial rewriting of the manual to provide a more consistent style and format, to correct grammatical errors, to reduce redundancy and conflicting information, and to improve cross-referencing. Most of the manual was revised in Amendment #5. In this amendment, Chapters 1,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12, 15 and Appendix E were revised for reformatting and editing in a similar fashion. A new Chapter 18 - North Beach Street and Unimproved Street Improvements and Appendix G - Manuals and Publications were developed. Various technical changes were made to Chapters 2,3,8,10, and 18, and a summary of these changes is attached. The amendment has been compiled and reviewed by City staff. Since the adoption of the manual in 1994, City staff has brought amendments to City Council for approval with a report of waivers and variances granted. The 1999-2001 reports are attached. Highlights of this amendment are summarized in the attached summary. Alternatives: Adopt or Not Adopt the changes to the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual. Recommendations: Public Works recommends adoption of Amendment #6. Attachment: Letter from Tidewater Builders Association Resolution to Adopt Amendment Number 6 of the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual 1999-2001 Approved Variances List Summary of Changes to the Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual (February 2002) Recommended Action: Adopt Amendment #6 to Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual. _.../Z. Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works~/~l) City Manager: James K. Spor~. ~/__., ~~ A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION AND PROMULGATION OF AMENDMENT NUMBER 6 TO THE PUBLIC WORKS SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS 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 34 35 36 WHEREAS, there exists a requirement for the published engineering standards to be maintained as current and to provide and promulgate technical design criteria, policy interpretations and ordinance application to be utilized by City staff and the engineering consulting community in the preparation, review and approval of all development related plans throughout the City, for the design of all engineering projects by the city, and to promulgate these criteria for contracts awarded by the City and for Public Works infrastructure accepted by the City; WHEREAS, by resolution adopted June 14, 1994, City authorized the adoption and promulgation of the Council Specifications and Standards Manual ("Manual") developed by the Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1.2 of the Manual, all amendments to the Manual must be presented to City Council for formal adoption; WHEREAS, since its original adoption and promulgation in 1994, the Manual has undergone five (5) Council-approved annual amendments as follows: Amendment Number 1, approved March 14, 1995; Amendment Number 2, approved April 23, 1996; Amendment Number 3, approved April 1, 1997; Amendment Number 4, approved March 3, 1998; and Amendment Number 5, approved April 27, 1999; and WHEREAS, over the past year, employees of the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division have developed revisions and updates to all existing engineering materials, details, and technical requirements relating to the Manual and have compiled an Amendment Number 6 to be inserted into the working document consisting of the following additions or revisions: (1), Chapter 2, (2) Chapter 3; (3) Chapter 4; (4) Chapter 5; (5) Chapter 6; (6} Chapter 7; (7) Chapter 8; (8) Chapter 10; (9) Chapter 11; (10) Chapter 15; (11) Chapter 18; (12) Appendix E; and (13) Appendix G. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the Council approves and authorizes the adoption and promulgation of the Amendment Number 6 of the Specifications and Standards Manual developed by the Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works as identified herein and whose summary of changes is attached hereto. A complete copy of all the changes is on file in the Department of Public Works. 46 47 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2002. 48 49 5O 51 CA-8440 Ordin/Noncode / specres, wpd R-2 March 28, 2002 52 53 54 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: LaQ ' De~ment - 2 Robert A. John C, Nm~llt~no ~ vi~ ~r~ John M. J~n W. lumra~ rm~mr ~nlng ~ ~ilder William B. S~ L Bmn~ R John ~ J. Gm~o~y 0odd J, ~n Rm~ Jn CIemn~ E. ~a~ B. Tnu~ond ~n B. %n L~ H, Mac Wem~r I, ~dwmrd ~. Yoder Jooeon C. Wigan L Julian a~s~k'nd H~ard ~. ~re~ J. Nm~l~no NAHB ~e E~a~ ~ 8~gmn Fr~e~ J. Na;~!tmno ~t · Nao~o Mi~el O. N~me Judah R~klnd Micheei ~. ~$kdnd Wendell A. ~AV P~ ~ Dm~d A. H~ (d~ r~d~ J. V~ A NopoTiano Oouglm W. Tm~ S~t~Wem~ Ooyie E. ~,JIl Match 4, 2002 lidemer Bail, Mr. Pbillip D. PuLlen Dept, of Public Works Municipal Center, Bldg. 2 2405 Courthouse Drive Va. Beach, VA 23456-903 Dear Mz. Pullen: On behalf of the Virgima Beach Municipal Affaizs Committee of the Tidewater Builders Association, I want to thank the staff, for the opportunities for file indusixy and the consultant community to review the rtw/sions to the 2002 l~ublic Works Specifications and Standards. As of this date, we have no conc~ms with these teclmic.~I amcadm~nts. As always, we will notify the ci.w wi. th. any coi~iients/concer:~s, wlticb could come up in the year to come for evaluation, if matters appear. Again. we want to thank the city for taking time to solicit the input from the regulated co,,~mity. Sincere]y, John AinslJe Clmirman Va. B~nch Municipal AffaJ~ Commi~c 2117 Smlth Avenue, Chesmpealm, VA23320-2S15 * Phon~. (757) 420.2434 * Fax:(757i424.~M · www. tb~ aemt A~fffllmted vWth the Home ~ uilders Asm~a~on of Y~la mnd the NmtfonaI A~sc~' elfon o{ Hon 'uilc~. Variances Approved During 1999 All Saint's Episcopal Church (July 22, 1999) Deferral of handicapped ramp installations is approved by the Planning Department. Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual, Chapter 6, Section 6.3.3 (a-i) requirements were deferred until the sidewalks are constructed along Woodside Lane. At that time, the church will install the handicap ramps as required. Merritt Office Building (May 18, 1999) Stormwater management facility (SWMF) setback variance was approved by the Planning Department from fifteen feet (15') to four feet (4') at the southern portion of the pond adjacent to the nearest property line only. Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual, Chapter 8, Section 8.12 (a-d). Oil Equipment Properties (Car Wash) November 19, 1999 Stormwater management facility (SWMF) variance was approved by the Planning Department to allow an eight-foot (8') setback from the right-of-way line provided that landscaping is installed as shown on the preliminary site plan approved by City Council. Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual, Chapter 8, Section 8.12 (a-d). South Lynnhaven Office Building for Waller Enterprises (December 2, 1999) Detention facility setback variance from 15 feet to 10 feet from Robert Jackson Drive was approved by the Planning Department. Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual, Chapter 8, Section 8.12 (a-d). Variances Approved During 2000 None Variances Approved During 2001 Buckner Farms Phase IV (December 7, 2001) Waiver of piping ditch, greater than 18" deep, approved by the Planning Department Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual, Chapter 8, Section 8.8. Walgreen's Pharmacy, Virginia Beach Blvd. (June 1, 2001) Variances to the 1 O-vehicle stacking requirement approved by the Planning Department Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual, Chapter 11, Section 11.11.c. S-Turn Condos, Sandpiper Road (March 7, 2001} Variance from required right-of-way improvements approved by the Planning Department. Villages at West Neck, Village E (December 18, 2001) Waiver of piping a ditch greater than 18" deep approved by the Planning Department, Public Works Specifications and Standards Manual, Chapter 8, Section 8.8. Glenwood Links (March 19, 2001) Waiver of the 2-foot cover over storm drain pipe approved by the Planning Department. Summary of Changes to the Public Works Engineering Specifications and Standards Manual February 2002 Several chapters of the Manual were rewritten to provide a more consistent style and format, to correct grammatical errors, to reduce redundancy and conflicting information and to improve cross referencing. They include Chapters 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15 and Appendix E. Various technical changes were made to specific chapters as follows: CHAPTER 2 Section 2.2.1 - Allowable Pipes Section 2.2.2 - Pipe Joints Section 2.2.7 - Pipe Cover Section 2.4 - Permanent Monuments Ductile Iron Pipe was added as an allowable pipe. The stipulation that storm sewer pipe joints must be soil tight was added. Also, the requirement for sealing and wrapping the pipe .joints was revised. A requirement was added for concrete pipe to be installed with minimum 3.0 feet of cover (during construction) and 2.0 feet (finished). If2.0 feet of cover cannot be provided, ductile iron pipe can be used if approved by the Director of Public Works. The detail for permanent monuments was revised. CHAPTER 3 Section 3.8 Streets and Alleys Section 3.8.1 - General The criteria for the design of roadways relative to flooding, was revised to state that all roads in the City of Virginia Beach shall be designed such that they are "passable" for the 100-year static storm elevation and the 100-year peak water surface elevation of the SWMF which serves the roadway (See Ch. 8 - Storm Water Management). Section 3.8.9 - Right-of-Way Permit Specifications Section 3.8.11 - Unimproved Street Improvements Section 3.8.14 - North Beach Improvements A guideline was added stating that no permit shall be issued for any mailbox or other, structure which is considered an obstruction to traffic. A specification regarding above-ground utilities was added which requires Virginia Power be contacted and be present on-site when working within 10 feet of an overhead electrical line. This section was revised to refer the reader to the newly created Section 18. This section was revised to remove the requirement for the developer to record an agreement confirming he will pay 100% of the cost for standard right of way improvements. Also, this section was revised to refer the reader to the newly created Section 18. CHAPTER 8 This chapter was revised in its entirety. The main revision was a re-organization of storm water requirements that were found throughout the Manual, were taken from other chapters and consolidated in Chapter 8. The main technical changes are as follows: 1. A requirement was added that all roads in the City of Virginia Beach shall be designed such that they are "passable" at both the 100-year static storm elevation and the 100-year peak water surface elevation which serves the rOadway. 2. No BMP's are allowed in the floodplain. 3. A requirement was added mandating designers check the City's Storm Water Management Study regarding tailwater elevation, and other criteria. CHAPTER 10 Section 10.14 Plat Plan Requirements Specific changes were made relative to the requirement for monuments. CHAPTER 18 This chapter was created by taking the current "North Beach Street Improvement" Section out of Chapter 6 and adding a new "Unimproved Street Improvement" Section. These two sections provide guidelines for improving rights-of-way using a cost participation procedure. The "North Beach Street Improvement" Section was revised to reflect the adoption of a recent "Parking in Public Right-of-Way" Policy. The basic change is a requirement for parking pads to be constructed as much as practical on private property. Also, the Cost Participation Section was revised to reflect a straight pro-rata share based on property frontage. APPENDIX E Several tables listing product information including manufacturer's name, description, etc., were deleted because they were outdated or no longer used. APPENDIX G This appendix was created by taking the manual and publication references from Chapter 1 - Introduction and inserting them here. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager A resolution supporting the use of alternative fuel vehicles and the Hampton Roads Clean Cities Coalition in its regional efforts to promote the use of alternative fuels for transportation. MEETING DATE: April 23, 2002 Background: In order to improve the natural environment, it is important to regularly look for ways to reduce our use of fossil fuels. One way to do that is through the use of Alternative Fuel Vehicles [AFV] such as those using Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). Although we have a few in the fleet now, we should to encourage all departments to systematically assess the feasibility of using AFVs and alternative fuel when developing vehicle replacement or new vehicle requests. There are also funding opportunities available through grants form the Federal Government to pay for the incremental additional cost of AFVs. The Hampton Roads Clean Cities Coalition has been acting as a clearinghouse for information on the alternative fuel vehicles and grant opportunities for jurisdictions and private citizens in Hampton Roads. We need to make certain that we are fully utilizing these resources to help protect our natural environment. Recommendations: It is recommended that City Council approve the attached resolution which expresses Council's desire to support the use of alternative fuel vehicles and the Hampton Roads Clean Cities Coalition as the resource to determine appropriate and feasible opportunities to acquire vehicles capable of operating on alternative fuels and to operate these vehicles on alternative fuels. Recommended Action: Submitting Department/Agency: Adoption of Resolution Councilmembers Barbara Henley and Nancy Parker A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND THE HAMPTON ROADS CLEAN CITIES COALITION IN ITS REGIONAL EFFORTS TO PROMOTE THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS FOR TRANSPORTATION. WHEREAS, the use of alternative, domestically-produced fuels for transportation increases the energy independence and energy security of the United States; and WHEREAS, the use of alternative fuels in on-road vehicles reduces emissions of ozone-forming compounds and compounds that have been shown to be toxic to human health; and WHEREAS, because of its air quality maintenance area designation, the Hampton Roads area needs to do everything possible to improve its air quality, such as the use of alternative fuel vehicles; and WHEREAS, the use of domestically-produced alternative fuels directly reduces the U.S. annual trade deficit; and WHEREAS, the Hampton Roads Clean Cities Coalition has been acting as a clearing house for information on the alternative fuel vehicles and grant opportunities for jurisdictions and private citizens in Hampton Roads. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council encourages all City Departments to consider alternative fuel vehicles when making purchasing decisions and to work with the Coalition in determining appropriate and feasible opportunities to acquire vehicles capable of operating on alternative fuels, and to operate these vehicles on alternative fuels. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Hampton Roads Transportation District Commission is requested to also consider the use of alternative fuel vehicles when making purchasing decisions; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Hampton Roads Clean Cities Coalition is to be congratulated on its efforts in increasing the use of alternative fuel and finding funding opportunities for localities and other governmental and private industries for the use of such fuels. day of ,2002. CA-8463 ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, this APPROVED AS TO / N. PLANNING Application ofRJP, LLC. for a Conversion o_fa Non-Conforming Use to renovate the existing duplex into a single family home at 202 87th Street, containing 7,500 square feet. DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN Application of JOHN C. ATKINSON for the enlargement of a non-conforming office use on Lot 12, Block 3, Ubemeer, at 5307 Atlantic Avenue, containing 6,625 square feet. DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN. Application of SPRING BRANCH COMMUNITY CHURCH for a Conditional Use Permit for a church expansion on the east side of N. Great Neck Road, north of Harbor Lane (1500 N. Great Neck Road), containing 9.11 acres. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) RECONSIDERATION: Application of PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED for a Conditional Use Permit re a borrow pit on the south side of Sandbridge Road, east of Princess Anne Road, containing 64.911 acres. (PRINCESS ANNE - DISTRICT 7) Deferred: Withdrawn: January 22, 2002 March 26, 2002 o Application of CHARLES F. BOWDEN for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-30 Residential District to Conditional R-20 Residential District on the west side of Wakefield Drive, south of Delray Drive on Parcel A, Section 8, Part 4, Thoroughgood. (DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) o Application of BANBURY LAKE VILLAGE COMPANY, L.L.P., for a Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to A-18 Apartment District, south of Old Providence Road containing 15,941.96 square feet. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager RJP, L.L.C., Conversion of a Non-Conforming Use MEETING DATE: April 23, 2002 Background: A Resolution authorizing the conversion of a nonconforming use on certain property located at 202 87th Street. Said parcel contains 7,500 square feet (GPIN #2510-51-1165). DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN. Consideration: A detached single-family dwelling and a duplex occupy the site. The applicant proposes to convert the duplex into a single-family dwelling, which will result in two detached single- family dwellings on the lot, which is not permitted in the R-5R zoning district, resulting in the nonconformity. However, should this request be approved, there will be two dwellings on the parcel, which is one less than what currently exists. The applicant proposes to renovate the existing duplex into a single-family dwelling. The condominium documents that have been executed and recorded in the Clerk of Circuit Court office depict the following: A living room, kitchen, bath, and two (2) bedrooms on the first floor; Two (2) bedrooms and two (2) baths on the second floor. The structure is 1,280 square feet. It is situated to the rear of the lot, 18.6 feet from the property line along 87th Street, 15.0 feet from the rear property line, 6.1 feet from the side property line, and 36 feet from the single family dwelling. There were no exterior elevations submitted with the request, however the applicant has indicated that the first floor exterior will be painted an earth tone color and the second floor exterior will be finished with faux cedar shake siding. A new roof and new windows have already been installed. Recommendations: Staff concludes that the proposed alteration is reasonable, will have a minimal impact, and Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval with,._co,~./ditions. Submitting Department/Ag~enc~.~Planning Department~/~ City Manage~ ~._, ~/..~ RJP - Non-Conforming Use Page 2 should be as appropriate or more appropriate to the district as the existing duplex. The elimination of the additional unit will make the site more conforming than what currently exists. The request to eliminate one of the units will make the site more conforming and is more in keeping with the surrounding properties. Approval of the request is recommended with the following conditions: 1. Two (2) 9' x 18' parking spaces shall be installed on the site. The spaces may be asphalt, concrete, or pavers. 2. There shall be no further additions and / or alterations to the structure without the approval of the City Council. The second floor exterior shall be faux cedar shake siding in a 'neutral' color and / or earth tones. The first floor exterior shall be painted to match the color of the siding. There shall be no further additions to the site, such as accessory structures, without the approval of the City Council. RJP, L.L.C. April 23, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Alteration to a Non-Conforming Use - Conversion of a Nonconforming Duplex to a Single Family Dwelling 202 87th Street Map L-2 R L L C GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: Gpin 2510-51-1165 2510-51-1165-0202 5 - LYNNHAVEN 7,500 square feet Faith Christie Currently a detached single-family dwelling and a duplex occupy the site. The applicant wishes to convert the duplex into a single- family dwelling, thus having two detached single-family dwellings on the lot. Major Issues: Insuring that the proposed change is no more detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood, and is as appropriate to the district, as the existing structure. Change to a Non-Conforming Use RJP, L.L.C. Page I Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existinq Land Use and Zonin,a A single-family dwelling and a duplex dwelling occupy the property. The site is zoned R-5R Resort Residential District. Surroundin.q Land Use and Zoninq North: South: East: West: · 87th Street · Across 87th Street, single-family dwellings / R-5R Resort Residential District · Single-family dwelling and detached cottage / R-5R Resort Residential District · Atlantic Avenue · Single-family dwelling / R-5R Resort Residential District Zoninq History There is little zoning history to report for the site and surrounding area. The subject structure was constructed sometime in the 1950s; the existing single-family dwelling was constructed in 1985. In February 1984, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance to the required side yard setback adjacent to 87th Street for the single-family dwelling. The surrounding area is well established with single-family dwellings that have detached cottages and / or garage apartments constructed in the 1940s and 1950s. 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 A single-family dwelling, duplex, two (2) sheds, and a concrete parking area occupy the site. The site is landscaped with mature trees and shrubs. The site is in the Resource Management Area of the Chesapeake Bay Protection Area. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: The site is connected to City water. The site is connected to City sewer. Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~~~..%~='~ RJP, L.L.C. Page 2 Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP)/Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Atlantic Avenue near this site is a minor collector street. There are currently no plans to improve the roadway. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity 26,300 ADT ~ Existing Land Use =- 20 Service level Atlantic Avenue N/A ADT ~ "C" Proposed Land Use 3. No ~,_:,..-~_:__ Change erage Daily Trips 2 as defined by Two Single Family Dwellings 3 as defined by No Change Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: No comments at this time. No comments at this time. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan map designates this area as Suburban Residential/Medium and High Density, an area planned for residential uses above 3.5 dwelling units per acre. Summary of Proposal · The applicant proposes to renovate the existing duplex into a single-family dwelling. The condominium documents that have been executed and recorded in the Clerk of Circuit Court office depict the following: A living room, kitchen, bath, and two (2) bedrooms on the first floor; Two (2) bedrooms and two (2) baths on the second floor. The structure is 1,280 square feet. It is situated to the rear of the lot, 18.6 feet from the property line along 87th Street, 15.0 feet from the rear property line, 6.1 feet from the side property line, and 36 feet from the single family dwelling. Two (2) sheds exist on the site. The applicant has offered to remove the shed that exists between the two structures. There were no exterior elevations submitted with the request, however the applicant has indicated that the first floor exterior will be painted an earth tone color and the second floor exterior will be finished with faux cedar shake siding. A new roof and new windows have already been installed. Evaluation of Request Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~~%~'~ RJP, L.L.C. Page 3 Staff concludes that the proposed alteration is reasonable, will have a minimal impact, and should be as appropriate or more appropriate to the district as the existing duplex. The elimination of the additional unit will make the site more conforming than what currently exists. The request to eliminate one of the units will make the site more conforming and is more in keeping with the surrounding properties. The request, therefore, is acceptable as submitted subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions 1. Two (2) 9' x 18' parking spaces shall be installed on the site. The spaces may be asphalt, concrete, or pavers. 2. There shall be no further additions and / or alterations to the structure without the approval of the City Council. The second floor exterior shall be faux cedar shake siding in a 'neutral' color and / or earth tones. The first floor exterior shall be painted to match the color of the siding. 4. There shall be no further additions to the site, such as accessory structures, without the approval of the City Council. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes, Change to a Non-Conforming Use RJP, L.L.C. Page 4 !' 87th, ST. ; Change to a Non-Conforming Use RJP, L.L.C. Page Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~ RJP, L.L.C. Page 6 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ALTERATION OF A NONCONFORMING USE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 202 87TM STREET, IN THE DISTRICT OF LYNNHAVEN 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 30 31 32 33 WHEREAS, RJP, L.L.C., (hereinafter the "Applicant") has made application to the City Council for authorization to alter a duplex structure to a nonconforming single family dwelling situated on a certain lot or parcel of land having the address of 202 87th Street, in the R-5R Residential Resort District; WHEREAS, the said duplex structure is not allowed in the R-5R Zoning District and the proposed single family dwelling is a nonconforming use, in that two single family dwellings will occupy the same parcel; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 105 of the City Zoning Ordinance, the alteration of a nonconforming structure is unlawful in the absence of a resolution of the City Council authorizing such action upon a finding that the proposed structure, as altered, will be equally appropriate or more appropriate to the zoning district than is the existing structure; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Council hereby finds that the proposed structure, as altered, will be equally appropriate to the district as is the existing structure. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the proposed alteration of the Applicant's duplex structure to a single family dwelling is hereby authorized, upon the following conditions: 1. Two {2) 9' x 18' parking spaces shall be installed on the site. The spaces may be asphalt, concrete or pavers. 2. There shall be no further additions and/or alterations to the structure without the approval of the City Council. 34 35 36 37 38 39 3. The second floor exterior shall be faux cedar shake siding in a 'neutral' color and/or earth tones. The first floor exterior shall be painted to match the color of the siding. 4. There shall be no further additions to the site, such as accessory structures, without the approval of the City Council. 40 41 42 43 44 45 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. CA-8461 bkw/work/nonconRJP, wpd R-1 April 12, 2002 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Dep~rtm~nt of Law CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager John Claiborne Atkinson, Enlargement and Conversion of a Non- Conforming Use MEETING DATE: April 23, 2002 Background: A Resolution authorizing the enlargement of a non-conforming use on Lot 12, Block 3, Ubermeer. Said parcel is located at 5307 Atlantic Avenue and contains 6,625 square feet (GPIN #2418-89-3869). DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN. Consideration: The site is the original location of the sales office, established in 1927, for the sale of lots at the North End of the Virginia Beach Oceanfront. The applicant proposes an addition of 326 square feet to the existing nonconforming real estate office. The applicant notes that the objective is to create a more functionally efficient office and provide a restroom compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The exterior will be covered with faux cedar shake siding in neutral earth tones. Wooden awnings accent the windows. Although the addition does not require additional parking, there is a serious traffic risk involved with the exiting parking configuration. Currently office staff and customers have to maneuver directly into Atlantic Avenue when existing the site. Public Works / Traffic Engineering Division notes "the existing access has characteristics that may cause vehicles to back into the roadway to enter traffic." This creates an unsafe situation that needs to be remedied. Recommendations: The use of this site for an office within this predominantly residential area is not consistent with good land use practices. The appropriate use of this site is residential. The City Zoning Ordinance identifies uses, structures, and situations such as this one as nonconformities for the purpose of encouraging them to eventually convert to a use consistent with the surrounding land use and as allowed within the zoning district. This use at this location represents an obvious nonconformity and should, in theory, be encouraged to locate elsewhere, allowing this property to be used for residential purposes. Attachments: Staff Report Resolution City Manager:~,vv~ ~', ~~ Atkinson - Non-Conforming Use Page 2 However, the City Zoning Ordinance, through City Council action, which the applicant has applied for, does provide for changes to nonconformities if the City Council finds that "the proposed use is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than is the existing nonconforming use." In this case, the real estate office has existed on the site since the late 1920s and has become a 'fixture' in this community. With the exception of the freestanding sign, the parking arrangement and the lack of landscaping, the site is not intrusive on the neighborhood and the building 'fits' the area in terms of architectural scale. The proposed increase in floor area should provide a more functionally efficient building that more fully complies with Federal regulations regarding building standards for individuals with disabilities. The changes to the building should not adversely affect the surrounding residential area. ']'he improvements will be in keeping with the character of the existing homes located in the area and will enhance the architectural appeal of the existing structure. Planning Department Staff concurs with Public Works / Traffic Engineering in their assessment that the existing parking situation creates a traffic hazard and should be remedied. The parking area for the site should be moved to the southern portion of the site, providing adequate on-site maneuvering for customers and staff and providing for a single access to Atlantic Avenue. City Staff has concluded that the access to the parking lot should be from Atlantic Avenue and not from one of the 'side streets' as access from 54th Street or the alley will result in an intrusive situation for the neighboring properties. Staff concludes that the proposed enlargement, with the conditions listed below, is reasonable, should have a minimal impact on the area, and will improve the aesthetics of this long-time 'icon' for this area of the city~ as well as increase the safety of vehicle access to Atlantic Avenue. 1. The proposed addition to the existing structure is limited to the addition depicted on the submitted site plan entitled "CONCEPT PLAN FOR ERA ATKINSON REALTY, INC., OFFICE ADDITION, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA." prepared by Gallup Surveyors and Engineers, Ltd, dated 19 March 2002. Said plan is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. 2. The exterior materials for the structure shall be faux cedar shake siding in neutral earth tones. The awnings shall be pastel colors. The three (3) existing parking spaces shall be re-located to the southern portion of the site to include a minimum drive aisle as required by the City Zoning Ordinance, Section 203(b)(2). A ten (10) foot landscape bed shall be installed along the eastern, southern, and western property lines abutting the parking area (spaces and drive aisles). The landscaping along the eastern and southern property lines shall be Category IV screening. The landscaping along the western property line adjacent to Atlantic Avenue shall be Iow growing, a minimum of eighteen (18) inches in height at planting and no more than thirty (30) inches in height at maturity, to provide for adequate site distance when exiting the site. A maximum twenty (20) foot wide driveway apron shall be installed at the entrance to the new parking area; the location shall be determined by Public Works / Traffic Engineering. The "existing paved parking area" along Atlantic Avenue and 54th Street shall be removed to accommodate a minimum five (5) foot landscape bed in those areas. The landscaping shall be Iow growing, a minimum of eighteen (18) inches in height at planting and no more than thirty (30) inches in height at maturity. The existing shed (on skids) may be relocated on the site to provide for the installation of the parking area. The shed shall meet a minimum twenty (20) foot setback form the property lines along Atlantic Avenue and 54th Street, and a minimum ten (10) foot setback from the eastern and southern property lines. JOHN CLAIBORNE ATKINSON April 23, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Enlargement of a Non-Conforming Use 5307 Atlantic Avenue Map L-4 ~ kot to Stole C. Atkinson GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: Gpin 2418--89-3869 2418-89-3869 5 - LYNNHAVEN 6,625 square feet Faith Christie and Stephen J. White The applicant desires to add 326 square feet to the existing nonconforming real estate office. Major Issues: Compatibility of a business type use with the surrounding residential uses. Insuring that the proposed addition and alteration to the nonconforming real estate office is no more detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood, and is as appropriate to the district, as the existing structure. Change to a Non-Conforming Use~~~~ JOHN CLAIBORNE ATKINSON~~i~ Page I ~ Customer and staff vehicles maneuvering directly into the Atlantic Avenue right-of-way upon exiting the site. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning A real estate office, parking area, and a shed occupy the property. The site is zoned R-5R Resort Residential. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: West: 54th Street · Across 54th Street, a single-family dwelling / R-5R Resort Residential District · An Alley · Across the alley, a single-family dwelling / R-5R Resort Residential District · Single-family dwelling / R-5R Resort Residential District · Atlantic Avenue Zoning Historv The site is the original location of the sales office for the sale of lots at the north end of beach, established in 1927. The site has been zoned single family or duplex since the adoption of the first Princess Anne County Zoning Ordinance in 1954. Several applications for enlargement and alterations to nonconforming residential uses have recently been approved in the immediate area. Directly east of this site at 114 54th Street an application for additions and alterations to a nonconforming single family dwelling were approved by City Council in February 2002; across the street at 113 54th Street additions to a nonconforming garage apartment were approved by City Council in August 2001. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of 65-70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics A 530 square foot office building, a shed, and a paved area for parking occupy the site. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: There are six (6) inch and ten (10) inch water mains in Atlantic Avenue fronting the site; a twelve (12)inch water main exists in Atlantic Avenue on the west side of the median. The site has an existing 5/8-inch meter that may be used. Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~~~ JOHN CLAIBORNE ATKINSON Page 2 Sewer: There is an eight (8) inch sanitary sewer main in 54th Street fronting the northeast corner of the site, and a sixteen (16) inch HRSD force main on the west side of Atlantic Avenue. The site is connected to City sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Atlantic Avenue in the front of this is a major urban arterial facility. There are no plans in the current CIP to upgrade the roadway. In accordance with the Driveway Policies for Resort and Beach areas, the driveway, or the entrance to the site from the public right-of-way is limited to twenty (20) feet in width. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity 26,300 ADT ~ Atlantic Avenue 23,300 Service Level Existing Land Use 2.50 ADT 1 "C" Proposed Land Use 3.88 Average Daily Trips as defined by 500 square foot office as defined by an additional 325 square feet of office area Public Works / Traffic Engineering Division comments that "the existing access has characteristics that may cause vehicles to back into the roadway to enter traffic." This creates an unsafe situation. Traffic Engineering is opposed to any increase in traffic the proposed addition may create. Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~.'~,/~'~ JOHN CLAIBORNE ATKINSON Page 3 Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: No comments at this time. No comments at this time. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan map designates this area as Suburban Residential/Medium and High Density, an area planned for residential uses above 3,5 dwelling units per acre. Summary of Proposal · The applicant proposes an addition of 326 square feet to the existing nonconforming real estate office. The applicant states that their objective is to create a more functionally efficient office and provide a restroom compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The exterior will be covered with faux cedar shake siding in neutral earth tones. Wooden awnings accent the windows. Although the addition does not require additional parking, there is a serious traffic risk involved with the exiting parking configuration. Currently office staff and customers have to maneuver directly into Atlantic Avenue when existing the site. Public Works / Traffic Engineering Division notes that "the existing access has characteristics that may cause vehicles to back into the roadway to enter traffic." This creates an unsafe situation that needs to be remedied. Evaluation of Request The use of this site for an office within this predominantly residential area is not consistent with good land use practices. The appropriate use of this site is residential. The City Zoning Ordinance identifies uses, structures, and situations such as this one as nonconformities for the purpose of encouraging them to eventually convert to a use consistent with the surrounding land use and as allowed within the zoning district. This use at this location represents an obvious nonconformity and should, in theory, be encouraged to locate elsewhere, allowing this property to be used for residential purposes. However, the City Zoning Ordinance, through City Council action, which the applicant has applied for, does provide for changes to nonconformities if the City Council finds that "the proposed use is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than is the existing nonconforming use." In this case, the real estate office has existed on the site since the late 1920s and has become a 'fixture' in this community. With the exception of the freestanding sign, the parking arrangement and the lack of landscaping, the site is not intrusive on the neighborhood and the building 'fits' the area in terms of architectural scale. The proposed increase in floor area should provide a more functionally efficient building that more fully complies with Federal regulations regarding building standards for individuals with disabilities. The changes to the building should not adversely affect the surrounding residential area. The improvements will be in keeping with the character of the existing homes located in the area and will enhance the architectural appeal of the existing structure. Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~~~ JOHN CLAIBORNE ATKINSON Page 4 Planning Department Staff concurs with Public Works / Traffic Engineering in their assessment that the existing parking situation creates a traffic hazard and should be remedied. The parking area for the site should be moved to the southern portion of the site, providing adequate on-site maneuvering for customers and staff and providing for a single access to Atlantic Avenue. City Staff has concluded that the access to the parking lot should be from Atlantic Avenue and not from one of the 'side streets' as access from 54th Street or the alley will result in an intrusive situation for the neighboring properties. Staff concludes that the proposed enlargement, with the conditions listed below, is reasonable, should have a minimal impact on the area, and will improve the aesthetics of this long-time 'icon' for this area of the city. Conditions The proposed addition to the existing structure is limited to the addition depicted on the submitted site plan entitled "CONCEPT PLAN FOR ERA ATKINSON REALTY, INC., OFFICE ADDITION, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA." prepared by Gallup Surveyors and Engineers, Ltd, dated 19 March 2002. Said plan is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. The exterior materials for the structure shall be faux cedar shake siding in neutral earth tones. The awnings shall be pastel colors. The three (3) existing parking spaces shall be re-located to the southern portion of the site to include a minimum drive aisle as required by the City Zoning Ordinance, Section 203(b)(2). A ten (10) foot landscape bed shall be installed along the eastern, southern, and western property lines abutting the parking area (spaces and drive aisles). The landscaping along the eastern and southern property lines shall be Category IV screening. The landscaping along the western property line adjacent to Atlantic Avenue shall be Iow growing, a minimum of eighteen (18) inches in height at planting and no more than thirty (30) inches in height at maturity, to provide for adequate site distance when exiting the site. A maximum twenty (20) foot wide driveway apron shall be installed at the entrance to the new parking area; the location shall be determined by Public Works / Traffic Engineering. The "existing paved parking area" along Atlantic Avenue and 54th Street shall be removed to accommodate a minimum five (5) foot landscape bed in those areas. The landscaping shall be Iow growing, a minimum of eighteen (18) inches in height at planting and no more than thirty (30) inches in height at maturity. The existing shed (on skids) may be relocated on the site to provide for the installation of the parking area. The shed shall meet a minimum twenty (20) foot setback form the property lines along Atlantic Avenue and 54th Street, and a minimum ten (10) foot setback from the eastern and southern property lines. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the ' administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this application may require revision during detailed site [~lan review to meet all a[~plicable City Codes. Change to a Non-Conforming Use JOHN CLAIBORNE ATKINSON Page 5 PRO;POSED 288 SF BUILDING ADDITION PROPOSED 37.4 SF BUILDING ADDITION ALLEY EXISTING PAVED PARKING AREA 54th. STREET 40' R/W CONCEPT PLAN ERA AIKINS~ RIrALTY, OFFICE ADDITION Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~~'~ JOHN CLAIBORNE ATKINSON Page 6 Change to a Non-Conforming Use ~~~ JOHN CLAIBORNE ATKINSON Page 7 1 2 3 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ENLARGEMENT OF A NONCONFORMING USE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5307 ATLANTIC AVENUE, IN THE DISTRICT OF LYNNHAVEN 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 30 31 32 33 WHEREAS, John Claiborne Atkinson, (hereinafter the "Applicant") has made application to the City Council for authorization to enlarge a nonconforming use on a certain lot or parcel of land having the address of 5307 Atlantic Avenue, in the R-5R Residential Resort District; WHEREAS, the said structure is not allowed to be used as a commercial structure in the R-5R Zoning District and is therefore a nonconforming use in the R-5R Zoning District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 105 of the City Zoning Ordinance, the enlargement of a nonconforming use is unlawful in the absence of a resolution of the City Council authorizing such action upon a finding that the proposed use, as enlarged, will be equally appropriate or more appropriate to the zoning district than is the existing use; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Council hereby finds that the proposed use, as enlarged, will be equally appropriate to the district as is the existing use. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the proposed enlargement of the Applicant's nonconforming use, commercial structure, is hereby authorized, upon the following conditions: 1. The proposed additions to the existing structure are limited to those additions depicted on the submitted site plan entitled "CONCEPT PLAN FOR ERA ATKINSON REALTY, INC., OFFICE ADDITION, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA." prepared by Gallup Surveyors and Engineers, Ltd., dated 19 March 2002. Said plan is on file in the City of Virginia Beach Planning Department. 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 faux shake siding in neutral earth tones. pastel colors. 3. The exterior materials for the structure shall be The awnings shall be The three (3) existing parking spaces shall be re- located to the southern portion of the site to include a minimum drive aisle as required by the City Zoning Ordinance, Section 203 (b) (2). A ten (10) foot landscape bed shall be installed along the eastern, southern and western property lines abutting the parking area (spaces and drive aisle). The landscaping along the eastern and southern property lines shall be Category IV screening. The landscaping along the western property line adjacent to Atlantic Avenue shall be low growing, a minimum of eighteen (18) inches in height at planting and no more than thirty (30) inches in height at maturity, to provide for adequate site distance when exiting the site. 4. A maximum twenty (20) foot wide driveway apron shall be installed at the entrance to the new parking area; the location shall be determined by Public Works/Traffic Engineering. 5. The "existing paved parking area" along Atlantic Avenue and 54th Street shall be removed to accommodate a minimum five (5) foot landscape bed in those areas. be low growing, a minimum of eighteen (18) The landscaping shall inches in height at planting and no more than thirty (30) inches in height at maturity. 6. The existing shed (on skids) may be relocated on the site to provide for the installation of the parking area. The shed shall meet a minimum twenty (20) foot setback from the property lines along Atlantic Avenue and 54th Street, and a minimum ten (10) foot setback from the eastern and southern property lines. 2 62 63 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the day of , 2002. 64 65 66 67 CA-8462 bkw/wor k/nonconat kinson, wpd R-1 April 12, 2002 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Department of Law Map J-4 ot to Spring Branch Community Church Gpin 2409-10-2222 ZONING HISTORY Conditional Use Permit (church) Approved 4-13-99 Conditional Use Permit (church) Approved 8-25-98 Conditional Use Permit (church) Approved 1-28-97 Rezoning (R-20 Residential to conditional R-15 Residential) Approved 3-24- 98 Conditional Use Permit (open space promotion) Approved 3-24-98 Conditional Use Permit (church addition) Approved 12-12-00 Conditional Use Permit (child care) Approved 12-19-89 Conditional Use Permit (church) Approved 8-3-66 Conditional Use Permit (small engine repair) Approved 7-13-87 Conditional Use Permit (outside storage) Approved 12-21-81 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Spring Branch Community Church, Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: April 23, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Spring Branch Community Church for a Conditional Use Permit for a church expansion on the east side of N. Great Neck Road beginning at a point 104.09 feet north of Harbor Lane (GPIN #2409-10-2222). Said parcel is located at 1500 N. Great Neck Road and contains 9.11 acres. DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a church expansion in order to add one modular unit for classroom space. The unit will be located in the parking lot behind the building on a temporary basis during the expansion of the existing education wing (the expansion of the existing education wing was approved as part of the previous use permits issued for this church). The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the requested use is temporary, 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: One modular unit may be added behind the existing church building in the area of the parking lot shown on the submitted site plan entitled "Overall Index Plan of Spring Branch Community Church" by MSA, P.O., dated 7/29/99. This unit shall be removed within two years of the approval date of this Conditional Use Permit. Large planters shall be placed on the north and south sides of the trailer with evergreen shrubs planted at a minimum height of six feet from the ground to screen the building from adjacent properties. The type of planter and plant material shall be approved by the Planning Director or his Designee prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. ~ ~i~ Submitting Planning Departmen . City Mana¢ ~ Spring Branch Community Church Page 2 The area of the parking lot currently graveled and designated as "Phase I1" on the site plan approved by the Development Services Center on August 23, 1999, shall be improved to meet City Code requirements within two years of the approval date of this Conditional Use Permit. General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: March 13, 2002 Conditional Use Permit for church expansion (temporary trailer) 1500 North Great Neck Road ,u.pNo, ]-.4s:o~ Spring Branch Community Church GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: Gpin 2409-10-2222 2409-10-2222 5-LYNNHAVEN 9.11 ACRES Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 SPRING BRANCH COMMUNITY CHURCH / # 6 Page 1 STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: Ashby Moss To add one modular unit for classroom space on a temporary basis during the expansion of the existing education wing. The church's education wing located at the back of the building was originally designed and approved for three stories. Only the first story was constructed as it was anticipated that this space would accommodate initial classroom needs. However, membership has expanded beyond expectations, and classroom space is now overcrowded. Fundraising is currently underway to construct the additional floors, and the building is expected to be complete within two years. Major Issues: · Visibility of modular unit from neighboring properties. · Temporary nature of unit during expansion. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The property is currently used as a church and is zoned R- 20 Residential District. Surrounding Land Use and Zoninq North: · Single-family homes/R-15 Residential District with Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 SPRING BRANCH COMMUNITY CHURCH / # 6 Page 2 South: East: West: Open Space Promotion Single-family homes/R-10 Residential District One single-family dwelling on remaining portion of church property / R-20 Residential District · Across N. Great Neck Road, single-family homes / R-10 Residential District ZoninR History The recently constructed church on the subject property (# 1 on map) has been to City Council on three occasions for conditional use permits: first on January 28, 1997; then August 25, 1998, and most recently April 13, 1999. The latest request simply involved changes in the previously approved site plan. Also recently constructed, the neighboring property to the north (# 2) received rezoning approval from R-20 Residential District to R-15 Residential District with Open Space Promotion on March 25, 1998. Finally, Wycliff church across Great Neck Road to the west (# 3) was Spring Branch Community Church approved for a church expansion December 12, 2000 and for specialized day care on December 19, 1989. The original church was approved in 1966. Conditional Use Permit (church)Approved 4-13-99 Conditional Use Permit (church) Approved 8-25-98 Conditional Use Permit (church) Approved 1-28-97 Rezoning (R-20 Residential to conditional R-15 Residential) Approved 3-24-98 Conditional Use Permit (open space promotion) Approved 3-24-98 Conditional Use Permit (church addition) Approved 12-12-00 Conditional Use Permit (child care) Approved 12-19-89 Conditional Use Permit (church) Approved 8-3-66 Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 SPRING BRANCH COMMUNITY CHURCH / # 6 Page 3 Conditional Use Permit (small engine repair) Approved 7-13-87 Conditional Use Permit (outside storage) Approved 12-21-81 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 There are no significant natural resource features on the church property. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is a 16-inch water main in Great Neck Road fronting the property. This site has an existing one-inch water meter which may be utilized. Them is an 8-inch sanitary sewer main and a 16-inch force main in Great Neck Road fronting the property. This site has an existing sewer connection which may be utilized. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Great Neck Road in the vicinity of this application is a six-lane divided major arterial facility. Them are no plans to improve this roadway on the MTP. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Great Neck Road 46,800 42,100 - Existing Land Use z_ 296 ADT ADT ~ 48,200 ADT 1 Proposed Land Use 3_ 305 ADT Average Daily Trips as defined by 32,000 sq. ft. church as defined by 32,960 sq. ft. church Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 SPRING BRANCH COMMUNITY CHURCH / # 6 Page 4 Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: Adequate -Additional security measures should be implemented for the trailer, including a secondary locking device for the door, additional lighting, and an enclosure around the trailer's base to prevent access to the area underneath the trailer. Adequate - no further comments. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area of the city as Suburban Residential/Low Density, an area planned for residential uses at or below 3.5 dwelling units per acre. Churches are noted by the Plan as being a use suitable for and complementary to residential areas. Summary of Proposal Proposal The additional classroom space is necessary due to unanticipated growth in the church's membership during its first two years at this location. The church's education wing located at the back of the building was originally designed and approved for three stories. Only the first story was constructed as it was anticipated that this space would accommodate initial classroom needs. However, membership has expanded beyond expectations, and classroom space is now overcrowded. Fundraising is currently underway to construct the additional floors, and the building is expected to be complete within two years. Site Design The church is located on the front half of the property. A stormwater management facility fronts Great Neck Road. A small parking area lies between the stormwater management facility and the front of the building (on Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 SPRING BRANCH COMMUNITY CHURCH / # 6 Page 5 the western side), while the majority of parking is located behind the building on the eastern side. The proposed modular unit is shown on the site plan in an area of the parking lot just behind (east of) the existing education wing of the building. The unit will occupy approximately 12 of the parking spaces. Although only 200 parking spaces are required, there are a total of 296 paved parking spaces and 195 gravel spaces. The gravel spaces, located at the back of the property, were shown as "Phase I1" on the site plan. Again, unexpectedly rapid membership expansion necessitated use of the remaining parking area sooner than anticipated. Condition #3 below requires this parking area to be paved within two years of approval of this conditional use permit. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access There is one vehicular access point serving the property from Great Neck Road. Great Neck Road has a median preventing southbound traffic from entering the property. A right turn lane is provided for northbound traffic entering the property. Architectural Design · The existing church is a contemporary style brick building with a green standing seam metal roof. · The modular unit is a white metal trailer with a white skirt around the base. Landscape and Open Space Design In addition to standard required landscaping, the church property has vegetated buffers along both the northern and southern property lines abutting residential developments. Since it was only recently planted, it will be a few years before this plant material matures enough to provide sufficient screening. Therefore, condition #2 requires additional shrubs in planters on the north and south sides of the modular unit. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 SPRING BRANCH COMMUNITY CHURCH / # 6 Page 6 Evaluation of Request The applicant's request to add a temporary modular classroom unit behind the church building is acceptable. The need for additional classroom space resulted from unexpectedly rapid growth in church membership. The modular unit will only be permitted to remain for two years during the construction of the remaining floors of the education wing. The proposed location for the modular unit is not visible from the public street. In addition to existing vegetative buffers on both sides of the property, planters with evergreen shrubs, as recommended in Condition #2, will soften the building's appearance from neighboring residential properties. Therefore, this request is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions One modular unit may be added behind the existing church building in the area of the parking lot shown on the submitted site plan entitled "Overall Index Plan of Spring Branch Community Church" by MSA, P.C., dated 7/29/99. This unit shall be removed within two years of the approval date of this Conditional Use Permit. Large planters with evergreen shrubs at a minimum height of six feet from the ground shall be placed on the north and south sides of the trailer to screen the building from adjacent properties. The type of planter and plant material shall be approved by the Planning Director or his Designee prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The remaining area of the parking lot (currently graveled and designated as "Phase I1" on the site plan approved by the Development Services Center on August 23, 1999) shall be improved to meet City Code requirements within two years of the approval date of this Conditional Use Permit. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Council approval See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 SPRING BRANCH COMMUNITY CHURCH / # 6 Page 7 J I I I i I t ! ! I I I I I i I t I Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 SPRING BRANCH COMMUNITY CHURCH / # 6 Page 8 Z Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 SPRING BRANCH COMMUNITY CHURCH / # 6 Page 9 Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 SPRING BRANCH COMMUNITY CHURCH / # 6 Page 10 Spring Branch (trailer type) Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 SPRING BRANCH COMMUNITY CHURCH / # 6 Page 11 Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 SPRING BRANCH COMMUNITY CHURCH / # 6 Page 12 Item #6 Spring Branch Community Church Conditional Use Permit for Church Expansion 1500 N. Great Neck Road District 5 Lynnhaven March 13,202 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: The next item is Spring Branch Community Church. It's a conditional use permit for a church expansion on east side of N. Great Neck Road, beginning at a point 104 north of Harbor Lane. It is located at 1500 N. Great Neck Road and contains 9 acres and it's District 5, Lynnhaven and it has three conditions. Dennis Strickland: I'm Dennis Strickland. I'm representing the church. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Strickland, do you agree with the conditions sir? Dennis Strickland: Yes I do. Dorothy Wood: Okay. Is there any opposition to this item located at 1500 N. Great Neck Road? Thank you. Mr. Ripley, I would like to approve the four consent agenda items. Number 4 with no conditions; number 5 with eight conditions; number 6 with three conditions and number 15 with no conditions. I would like to move to approve this. Donald Horsley: Second. Ronald Ripley: Robert Miller: We have a motion by Dot Wood and a second by Don Horsley. And I need abstain from Item//6. My firm is working on that. Ronald Ripley: So noted. Any other comments? So we call for the question? AYE 10 NAY 0 ABSENT 0 ABS 1 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE ABS Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0 with the abstention so noted, the motion passes. Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: Sprinq Branch Community Church Trustees: Robert A. Widener Scott Riqell F. Bennett S~rickland PROPERTy OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) ff 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 con)oration, 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 office'rs 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 corporatign, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Signature F. Bennett Strickland Print Name Rev. 9/15/98 THE BEACON Sunday, April 7, 2002 THE BEACON Sunday, April 14, 2002 At 6:00 PM, Tuesday, April 23, 2002, the Virginia Beach City Council will RECONSIDER the application of PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED, re a Conditional Use Permit I'or a borrow pit on the south side of Sandbridge Road, 720 feet east of Princess Anne Road, containing 64.911 acres * PRINCESS ANNE - DISI'RICT 7. {This application was withdrawn on March 26, 2002'and RECONSID ERATION has been authorized.) Interested citizens are invited to attend. Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assis* tance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303; Hearing impaired, call TOD only 427.4305 ([DD * Tele- phonic Device for the Deaf). BEACON: April 7 and April 14, 2002 3434830 Item V-K. 4. PLANNING - 35 - ITEM#49456 Upon motion by Councilman Harrison, seconded by Councilman Mandigo, City Council ALLOWED WITHDRAWAL of an Ordinance upon application of PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED for a _Conditional Use Permit re a borrow pit: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,, INCORPORA TED FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A BORROW PIT 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; 112414-22-4025). Said parcel contains 64.911 acres. DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. Voting: 10-0 (By ConsenO 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 March 26, 2002 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 VERBATIM Planning Application of Princessboro Development Company, Inc. 1 January 22, 2002 INFORMAL SESSION MAYOR OBERNDORF: Let's go to the Agenda. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Mayor, I'm feeling better about this one here. The Resolution for the Development Authority Bonds for Silver Hill. 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 MAND IGO: 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. COUNCIL LADY PARKER: VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: January 22, 2002 I have a problem with that one. I'm sorry. Okay. Reba is voting no. Do you want to? COUNCIL LADY PARKER: I want to vote no. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Okay. COUNCIL LADY PARKER: 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 PARKER: 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. 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 ~ovember 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 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/~ 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 Con~ent to be deferred. We have opposed speakers. Would you like clarify that? VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: How many speakers do we have from West Neck? CITY CLERK: One speaker in favor and one opposed. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Would the person in opposition to West Neck understand that this has been deferred and have any objection to that? GENTLEMAN IN OPPOSITION: No. 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. COUNCII24AN 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: On Princessboro we have one, two, three speakers opposed and one in favor. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: The representatives from Princessboro who are against, do ~hey have any objection to the deferral of March 26th? Hearing none, I'm assuming March 26th is acceptable. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: I renew my motion to approve. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Do I have a second? COUNCI I24AN MAND IGO: Second. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Mrs. Henley. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the Consent? Yes, 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. 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: January 22, 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. Considerations: The applicant is proposing to use 42 acres of a 57 acre site for a borrow pit (sand extraction). Additional discussion among City staff since the Planning Commission hearing has raised several outstanding issues concerning this proposal that will require time to address with the applicant. A deferral of this item to the February 12, 2002 City Council meeting is recommended. Recommendations: A motion was passed by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 10 for the motion with I abstention to approve this request subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. No excavation of the borrow pit shall commence until such time that a site plan has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Depart~..nent / 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. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends deferral to the February 12, 2002 meeting. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Departmentd-~,~ City Manag ~.. ~ Pdncessboro Development Co., Inc. Page 2 m o o gm 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 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 Sandbddge 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. The operator shall investigate and respond to a notification of impact within 24 hours of such notification. Stockpiles, including overburden areas outside of the excavation area, shall not exceed eight feet in height. 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 right 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)). 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. 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 ,ssuance 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. 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. Princessboro Development Co., Inc. Page 3 15. 16. 17. This conditional use permit is limited to a period of 10 years and shall expire on January 11,2012. 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. The landscape berm and tree plantings must be installed within 60 days of start of excavation. 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 Not. %o Stele Princessboro De. eL 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 I 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 th® 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 Zonin(~ The property is zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural District and is currently being used for agricultural crop production. Surrounding Land Use and Zonin(~ 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 Historv 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 comer 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 Characteristics 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 Southem Watersheds Management Ordinance. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: There is no City water in Sandbridge Road, fronting this parcel. Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT / # 9 Page 3 Sewer: There 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 ClP 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 Sandbrid.qe 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 Ddve 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 (LOS C) Existing Land Use 2_ 0 Proposed Land Use 3_ 100 Sandbridge Road 11,340 ADT 16,200 ADT ~ &~z6r~r~ F4~ih~ Trifle. ge y 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: Adequate - no further comments. Fire and Rescue: 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 comer, 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 matedal 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 Sandbridge Road. Site Desiqn 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 tum 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 pattem 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 eastem 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. Them 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 Recharge 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 northem, westem and eastem limits of excavation. In addition, a groundwater recharge pond has been proposed that will also be used for infiltration at the westem 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 I # 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 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 I # 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. ^ dewatefing/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. 16.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. Pl~mission Agenda 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 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 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT I # 9 Page 13 !i !l J~ ll!d Planning Commission Agenda ~.~.~~~'~ December 12, 2001 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT / # 9 Page 14 Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT ! # 9 Page15 Planning Commission Agenda December 12, 2001 PRINCESSBORO DEVELOPMENT ! # 9 Page16 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. REGULARAGENDA 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 6wned 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, there 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 pan 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. All of them pumped their water off site 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 k 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 tracks. The reality is that out there, there is not a lot of sources for select borrow material. Some of the projects -- it is coming 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 right 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 off the 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 from 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 truck 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 of a 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 comer 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 tuming 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. The darker area. Ronald Ripley: The darker area. I just want to be clear. area. 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 with some ballfields and we think there is a multitude of potential beneficial use that the City could make of that large track of land. Donald Horsley; 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 mack 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, aiso 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 the. m 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 fight there, soon as you turn the comer Mrs. Munden, Phyllis Munden, is the second house on the left I am the th/rd 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 fight 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 ! 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. There 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 bogeyman 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 of a 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 saltwater 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 ifI 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. IfE.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 Baum: 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 stuffgoing 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 ha,~e 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 Bourdon: 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 mn 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 ifI can get that information. I am certain I can get some anecdotal information that is probably general in terms bt~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 of 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 mn 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 Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: Princessboro Development Same As Applicant Company, Incorporated, a Virginia corporation PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE ff the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) 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) I~ 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 AFpli. cant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a I~ORPORATION, 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. Princessboro Development Co.mpany, Incorporated ' / Signature C. Michael Fisher, President Print Name Reu 011 ~/9,~ ~ Ma~ ~-4 Charles F. Bowden ,lc~p Not. to ,~ce~le Crpin 1479-60-5795 ZONING HISTORY 1. Rezoning from R-1 Residential District to R-3 Residential District- Denied 6/12/78 Rezoning from R-1 Residential District to R-2 Residential District - Granted 9/3O/95 2. Rezoning from R-2 Residential District to R-3 Residential District - Denied 7/5/77 3. Rezoning from R-30 Residential District to R-20 Residential District - Withdrawn 7/11/00 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Charles F. Bowden, Conditional Change of Zoning MEETING DATE: April 23, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Charles F. Bowden for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-30 Residential District to Conditional R-20 Residential District on certain property located on the west side of Wakefield Drive, south of Delray Drive on Parcel A, Section 8, Part 4, Thoroughgood (GPIN #1479-60-5795). DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a change of zoning from R-30 Residential District to Conditional R-20 Residential District in order to create an eighteen (18) lot subdivision. The applicant's representative, by letter to Councilman Jones and the Planrling Director dated March 22, requested that the City Council refer this matter back to the Planql.qg Commission. The applicant has revised the proposed subdivision layout in an attempt io "address some of the concerns raised by members of the Planning Commission, Planning staff and neighboring residents." Recommendations: A motion was passed by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 9-2 to deny this request. The Planning Commission concluded that the proposed lot sizes were not in keeping with the surrounding area and should be larger. Attachments: Letter from Applicant requesting Referral back to the Planning Commission Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial. Planning Commission recommends denial. Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department~//,//J City Manage~.~ '~_, ~15-¢,~ ,/¢//'' PEMBROKE OFFICE PARK 281 INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD FIFTH FLOOR VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462-2989 TELEPHONE: 757-499-8971 FACSIMILE; 757-456-5445 Att[RS & LEV , P.e. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW Councilman Louis R. Jones 1008 Witch Point Trail Virginia Beach, Virginia 23455 Robert J. Scott, Director Department of Planning Building 2, Room 115 Municipal Center Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456 March 22, 2002 JON M. AHERN SCOTT N. ALPERIN R. EDWARD BOURDON, JR. JAMES T. CRQMWELL L. STEVEN EMMERT DAVID S. HOLLAND KIRK B, LEVY JENNIFER D. ORAM-SMITH HOWARD R, SYKES, JR. Application of Charles F. Bowden for Rezoning from R- 30 Residential to Conditional R-20 Residential District; 10.588 Acre Parcel westside of Wakefield Road south of Delray Drive, Bayside District Dear Councilman Jones and Planning Director Scott: Please be advised that I have just this day been retained by Mr. Charles F. Bowden and the family of Ms. Jacqueline L. Bowdoin to represent their interest in seeking the above referenced rezoning which I understand is scheduled to be heard by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach at its public hearing on Tuesday, April 23, 2002. Based upon my review of their application (18 lot subdivision) and our discussion of the extensive history surrounding the family's efforts to develop the property (prior 19 lot subdivision recommended for approval by Planing staff and Planning Commission), I am formally requesting that this pending rezoning request be referred back to the Virginia Beach Planning Commission for the purpose of having both the Planning staff and the Planning Commission review a revised and modified Subdivision Plan which we are preparing. This Plan will attempt to address some of the concerns raJ.,ed by members of the Planning Commission, Planning staff and ~,eighboring residents. We are looking at two (2) possible options for creating a seventeen (17) lot subdivision around a cul-de-sac with larger lots on the north side and 20,000+ square foot lots on the south side. We are also preparing a thirteen (13) lot subdivision plat in keeping with the current zoning and subdivision ordinance (by right development) on a through street. Councilman Louis R. Jones Robert J. Scott, Director Mm-ch 22, 2002 Page 2 SYI tiS. ] OURDON, AIt tlN & LEWY, P,C. Once I have received the revised plans which are being drawn up by my client's engineer, I will meet with the professional staff of the Planning Department to review them and seek their input. Based upon my reading of staffs prior evaluations, I am optimistic that we can receive staff support for one or both of the revised seventeen (17) lot plans. Subsequently, I will gladly present the revised plan to the Thoroughgood Civic League for their review prior to this application being reconsidered by the Planning Commission (May 2002 Planning Commission Agenda). Finally, I want to assure both of you that this will be both a good faith effort and a final effort to achieve a reasonable and balanced solution to what has evolved into an unnecessarily lengthy and difficult situation. If either of you objects to this proposed course of action (i.e. referral of the pending application back to Planning Commission for the purpose of receiving, reviewing and making recommendation on a revised Plan), I would appreciate being so advised at your earliest possible opportunity. With kind regards, I am Very truly yours, R. Edward Bourdon, ,Jr. REBjr/arhm cc: Charlie F. Bowden ~Jacqueline L. Bowdoin ¢/o Richard L. & Diane ,Johnson Ronald C. Ripley CONDREZN / BOWDEN/dONES 1 CHARLES F. BOWDEN/# 3 March 13, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: Change of Zoning District from R-30 Residential District to Conditional R-20 Residential District ADDRESS: West side of Wakefield Drive, south of Delray Drive, subdivision of Thoroughgood, Section 8, Part 4 Map F-4 Crpin 1479-60-5795 Charles F. Bowden GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 1479-60-5795 4 - BAYSIDE 10.588 acres Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 CHARLES F. BOWDEN/# 3 Page 1 STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: Barbara Duke To create an eighteen (18) lot subdivision with minimum lot sizes as shown on the proffered plan, which range from 26,914 to 20,003 square feet. The property as currently zoned could be developed as a thirteen (13) lot subdivision with minimum lot sizes of 30,000 square feet. The number of additional lots requested beyond what the existing zoning allows is five (5). Major Issues: · Degree to which the proposed development will be compatible with the character of the existing neighborhood Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The property is zoned R-30 Residential District and is vacant. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: West: · Single Family Homes / R-30 Residential District · Single Family Homes / R-20 Residential District · Single Family Homes / R-40 Residential District · Single Family Homes / R-30 and R-20 Residential District Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 CHARLES F. BOWDEN/# 3 Page 2 Zoning and Land Use Statistics With Existing The property could be subdivided into 13 single-family Zoning: dwelling lots of 30,000 square feet each. With Proposed Zoning: The property could be developed as shown with 18 single-family lots. Lots fronting on the north side of the proposed cul-de-sac would have lot sizes ranging from 25,549 square feet to 26,914 square feet. Lots fronting on the south side of the proposed cul-de-sac would have lot sizes ranging from 20,003 square feet to 20,255 square feet. Zoning History A rezoning request on the subject site from R-2 Residential District (30,000 square foot lots) to R-3 Residential District (20,000 square foot lots) was denied by City Council on July 5, 1977. This proposal was for 20 lots. The records reflect there was neighborhood opposition to this request in 1977. Ma~ Gpin 1479-60-5795 Charles F. Bowden In 2000, the applicant submitted an updated request for a conditional rezoning from R-30 (30,000 square foot lots) to Conditional R-20 (20,000 square foot lots). This request differed from the 1977 request because it included a proffered plan showing all of the proposed lots were larger than the minimum 20,000 square foot requirement as well as proffers related to the minimum square footage of the homes and building materials. This request was Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 CHARLES F. BOWDEN/# 3 Page 3 recommended for approval by the Planning Commission but was withdrawn at City Council on July 11, 2000 due to neighborhood opposition. This proposal was for 19 lots. 1. Rezoning from R-1 Residential District to R-3 Residential District - Denied 6/12/78 Rezoning from R-1 Residential District to R-2 Residential District - Granted 9/30/95 2. Rezoning from R-2 Residential District to R-3 Residential District- Denied 7/5/77 3. Rezoning from R-30 Residential District to R-20 Residential District- Withdrawn 7/11/00 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 The site is heavily wooded and generally slopes eastward, from an elevation of 28 feet near the western property line to an elevation of 21 feet at the eastern property line, adjacent to Wakefield Drive. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: An 8 inch water main fronts the subject site on Wakefield Drive. The proposed subdivision must connect to City water. Plans and bonds for the construction of an extended water line must be provided. Sewer: An 8 inch gravity sewer fronts the subject site on Wakefield Drive. The proposed subdivision must connect to City sewer. Plans, complete with projected sewer flows and pump station calculations and bonds must be provided. Any needed upgrades to the pump station will be at the expense of the developer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): None of the roadways that abut the subject site or located in the immediate area are identified on the Master Transportation Plan. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 CHARLES F. BOWDEN/# 3 Page 4 Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing Land Use z_ 159 ADT Wakefield Drive 3400ADT 1 6,200 ADT ~ Proposed Land Use 3_ 214 ADT Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by 13 single-family homes 3 as defined by 18 single-family homes Present Volume Count Year is 2000. Please note that the number of trips generated for existing and proposed homes differs from the July 2000 report to City Council due to a change in calculation programs. The new program produces a more accurate count. Schools School Name Current Capacity Generation Enrollment Thoroughgood 600 665 2 Elementary School Independence Middle 1485 1670 1 School Princess Anne High 2248 2020 2 School "generation" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zomng and under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students). Public Safety Police: Adequate Fire and Adequate Rescue: Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends the use of this parcel for suburban residential/Iow density at densities compatible with single-family use in accordance with Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 CHARLES F. BOWDEN/# 3 Page 5 other Plan policies. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan recognizes this site as being in an area planned for residential development at or below $.5 dwelling units per acre. The density proposed by the applicant is 1.7 dwelling units per acre. Summary of Proposal Settin.q · The proposed subdivision is the last remaining tract of undeveloped land in the Thoroughgood neighborhood. The property is heavily wooded and is bounded on all sides by existing single-family homes. A dedicated "stub" street is located at the westernmost end of the property at Ewell Road. The dedicated "stub" street is a paper street and is not improved at this time. The homes located on either side of the paper street are using this right of way for access. The existing right of way was platted at a 70° angle at the intersection with Ewell Road. The minimum standard in the subdivision ordinance for an intersection of this type is a 60° angle, with the optimal angle being at 90°. Additional right-of- way would need to be acquired at the intersection to obtain an angle closer to 90°. Site Desi.~n · The submitted plan shows the development of eighteen (18) single-family homes on a cul-de-sac street. The lots range in size from just over 20,000 square feet to ; / Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 CHARLES F. BOWDEN/# 3 Page 6 26,914 square feet. The lots on the north side of the proposed cul-de-sac (abutting the existing R-30 district) are larger lots. Stormwater will be handled by a series of roadside infiltration swales. The cul-de-sac street that is proposed with this development is approximately 1,070 linear feet. It is within the design requirements set forth in the subdivision ordinance which states cul-de-sac streets shall not exceed 1,500 linear feet. The submitted plan shows increased rear yard setbacks for all lots. The City Zoning Ordinance states that the minimum rear yard setback is 20 feet. The proposed plan shows a 30 foot minimum setback for Lots 9,10, and 11 and a 40 foot minimum rear yard setback on the remainder of the lots. The submitted plan also depicts that a landscaped median will be located at the entrance on Wakefield Drive. The right-of-way will be approximately sixty (60) feet at the entrance and will allow one lane for entrance into the project and two lanes by which cars may turn either left of right out of the subdivision. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access · The existing street system in the Thoroughgood neighborhood provides a very good circulation and distribution pattern. There are three main roads used for access from Independence Boulevard to the neighborhood: Five Forks Road, Wakefield Drive, and Ewell Road. There is a traffic signal at Ewell Road and Independence Boulevard. · The proposed five (5) additional houses will generate a very small increase in traffic in the neighborhood as a whole. When staff reviewed this request in 2000, the staff recommended that the applicant put in the through street in lieu of the cul-de-sac. The applicant prefers to develop the lots with a cul-de-sac that will be designed to follow existing drainage patterns so that more of the existing mature trees can be preserved during construction. Based on the very good existing street system and the fact that the increase in traffic generated by the five (5) additional houses is minimal, the issue of whether a cul-de- sac street or a through street is provided with this development is not seen by staff as a critical issue. · Sidewalks for this development will be required along Wakefield Drive. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 CHARLES F. BOWDEN/# 3 Page 7 Architectural Design · The applicant has proffered architectural standards that include minimum square footage for the dwellings and building materials that will ensure compatibility with the surrounding homes. The specific proffers are noted in the Proffers section of this report. Landscape and Open Space. · A landscape plan was not submitted with the application; however, it should be noted that the site is heavily wooded and the applicant has stated that trees will be saved on the site to the maximum extent possible. The applicant has agreed to address concerns of the adjacent property owners by establishing a twenty-foot (20') forested buffer along the rear of all proposed lots. All existing trees would be retained within this area. Open space or park sites have not been indicated on the submitted plan. The open space and park site requirement for this development is calculated at 6% of the overall acreage for the site. The staff of Parks and Recreation has indicated that the "cash in lieu of park site dedication" option allowed by the Subdivision Ordinance would be the preferred option for this development; therefore, no park site area is shown on the plan. Proffers PROFFER # 1 Staff Evaluation: The Property shall be developed into eighteen (18) zoned R-20, conditional, Residential lots laid out substantially as depicted in the plan entitled "Rezoning and Preliminary Subdivision Plan of Parcel A, Thoroughgood, Section 8, Part 4 for Charles F. Bowden," prepared by John E. Sirine & Associates, Ltd, dated January 2, 2002, which plan has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Planning Department of the City of Virginia Beach (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"). The proffer indicates that the property will be developed in the manner represented on the referenced plan. While this proffered plan represents an improvement over the plan submitted in 2000 due to the reduction in the number of proposed lots, staff concludes the plan does not yet offer the optimum solution to the development of the property that is sensitive to the existing residential neighborhood. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 CHARLES F. BOWDEN/# 3 Page 8 PROFFER # 2 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 3 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 4 Staff Evaluation: This is discussed further in the Evaluation section below. All storm drainage shall be directed to infiltration swales as shown on the plan. The proffer reflects the method of handling storm drainage from the site. The proposed swales are in keeping with the existing storm system in the Thoroughgood area, which is mostly an open ditch system. The proffer is acceptable. All dwellings shall have a minimum of 2,800 square feet of living area excluding garages. The proffer establishes a minimum living area square footage for the new homes that will ensure compatibility with the surrounding homes. The proffer is acceptable. All dwellings shall have brick veneer on the front, side, and rear of the outside walls, compatible with the homes on Delray Drive. The proffer establishes that the building materials used will be compatible with the surrounding homes. The proffer is acceptable. City Attorney's Office: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated January 16, 2002 and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Evaluation of Request Staff cannot support the applicant's request for a rezoning from R-30 Residential District to Conditional R-20 Residential District as currently configured. In some respects, the proffered plan ensures compatibility with the existing Thoroughgood neighborhood. The request is below the recommended density in the Comprehensive Plan for this area. As proffered, the proposed homes for this development are likely to be equal in quality and value to the existing homes in the immediate area. The estimated value (+ $300,000 each) of the proposed homes ensures the development will be tax neutral or positive. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 CHARLES F. BOWDEN/# 3 Page 9 The plan shows lot sizes ranging from 26,914 square feet to just over 20,000 square feet. Larger rear yard setbacks and a 20 foot wide forested buffer adjacent to the existing houses on both sides are also part of the proffered plan. As the city continues to grow and mature, infill developments such as this will become more commonplace. As the property is located between a developed area of R-20 zoning and R-30 zoning, the proffered subdivision plan represents one seemingly reasonable method for development of this parcel. The proposed method of development would change the zoning on the entire parcel to the R-20 category, but the proposed lots adjacent to the R-30 zoning would be larger than the 20,000 square foot minimum. The lots adjacent to the R-30 zoning range from 25,594 square feet to 26,914 square feet. However, by eliminating one (1) lot from this side of the street, all of the lots on this side could reach a minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet. Elimination of this lot could provide for a method of developing the property wherein the side of the street adjacent to the existing developed R-30 zoning could retain the R-30 zoning while the southern side of the street, adjacent to the existing developed R-20 zoning, could be rezoned to R-20 with lot sizes compatible to the existing developed R-20 area. Staff concludes that this is the more reasonable development scenario for this property that would ensure compatibility with this neighborhood consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Thus, staff cannot support the request as currently proffered. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable Cit~ Codes. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 CHARLES F. BOWDEN/# 3 Page 10 -F " Charles F. BOWden (proposed subdivision) Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 CHARLES F. BOWDEN/# 3 Page 11 Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 CHARLES F. BOWDEN/# 3 Page 12 Item 4/3 Charles F. Bowden Change of Zoning District Classification West Side of Wakefield Drive, South of Delray Drive Subdivision of Thoroughgood, Section 8, Part 4 District 4 Bayside March 13, 2002 REGULAR AGENDA Robert Miller: The first item that we will hear today is Item 4/3, Charles F. Bowden. Charles Bowden: Good evening Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. I am Charles Bowden representing my interest. There's no need to waste your time. Because it is the same as in Mr. Sonny Stalling's statement in the June 14, 2000 hearing except there are 18 lots instead of 19 lots that were approved. And the road is 50-feet wide instead of 40-feet as the opportunity of the plan chosed. The new plan had 7 lots on the north side which is one lot less than the eight lots that Jim Chapman told Mr. Robert Miller that he was happy with in the commission hearing of June 4, 2000. I believe there are people here that wish to speak in support of this application. I wish to be excused of any questions due to I am not an attorney. Thank you very much. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Charlie. Charles Bowden: I would like Mr. Johnson to be the spokesman to call people up for this problem. Ronald Ripley: Okay, before you leave, is there any question of Mr. Bowden? Charles Bowden: I wish to be excused of any questions due to I am not an attorney. John Baum: That's in your favor. Robert Vakos: Yes. Neither are we though. Charles Bowden: Thank you. Robert Miller: Mr. Johnson? You want Mr. Johnson to come forward? Charles Bowden: Mr. Johnson. Spokesman. Richard Johnson: Mr. Chairman. Planning Commission Commissioners. My name is Richard Johnson. My mother-in-law owns part of this property. I have been looking out for her interest since my father-in-law passed away. And I'm not going to present Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 2 anything anymore than what Charlie just did because we have a feeling that you do know what is going on with this property but we would like to have some of these people who live in this area, back up to the property. And I do live in Thoroughgood myself. I've been there since 1972. And I did build some of the houses backing up for this. And I would like to start or have your permission to start calling some of the people up that support this. Do you have any questions for me? Ronald Ripley: But we have some people here that have signed up. Richard Johnson: Okay. Robert Miller: You call the people you want in the order? Is that what you want to do. Is there some order? Richard Johnson: Well, I do have one person that I would like to go first because she has another appointment. Ronald Ripley: Okay, that's fine. Richard Johnson: And that would be Mrs. Lois Wootton. Ronald Ripley: That's fine. Richard Johnson: Thank you. Lois Wootton. Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission. My name is Lois Wootton. My husband and I live at 1468 Wakefield Drive on an acm lot directly across from Mr. Bowden's property. My husband and I both strongly favor his plan. We have been there since 1970. We have seen this property become a city dump. Them have been, we don't know what kind of activity that occurs within this property. Children, youth, male and female, entering the property at all hours. Cars parked along in front of our house adjacent to this property. The police have told us to call them when we feel uneasy. We have done that numerous times, however, the last time we were informed by two young policemen that they have a right to enter the property and walk where they like so we have of course not done that anymore. But we know the quality of homes that the Bowden's build and we think this would be an asset to have homes in there rather than the existing looks of that area. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Why don't we call? Robert Miller: Okay. Frank Wootton, Jr? Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 3 Frank Wootton: Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission. I would like to support Charlie Bowden's proposal today for the development of the eighteen lots. The last time this plan came before you, you all approved it 10-0 and it had nineteen lots and he has increased the road and taken away one lot today. I would like to ask you one question. That is, what regulation what laws have changed today since the last time the plan came before you? Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Jean Bowden? Jean Bowden: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, I'm Mrs. Charles Bowden. I have been writing a tax payment check from the property for over 45 years. They come to you every six months and they're getting higher every year. If the City's staff and the City's followers don't want this property developed why doesn't the City take Sylvia Routon's advice and turn this property into a wild life sanctuary? And Mrs. Routon sent this message into the Commission when we had our last meeting. And she said that she could understand maybe five or six homes considering the amount of land, but eleven seems a lot and nineteen is ridiculous. I am a young adult, and I have lived in Thoroughgood for my entire life. I enjoy the trees and green grass and the peace and quiet of our neighborhood, which has become something of a rarity of Virginia Beach as of late. How dare Mr. Bowden disrupt our quiet neighborhood with high-density development! What about the people whose backyards run up to this land? How do you think they feel? What about the possibility of increased traffic not to mention the destruction of the natural habitat of wild life? What's next, a gas station and a four-lane highway? I know that sound ridiculous but sometimes I wonder what else the City has in mind in its never ending but never satisfied search for the other green stuff. I wrote this in the hopes that you will be understanding and gracious and possibly suggest that Mr. Bowden build his home somewhere else. Thank you. And I would like to give you a copy of this. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Ms. Bowden. Robert Miller: Tina Simmons. Tina Simmons: Good afternoon. My name is Tina Simmons and I am here to support Mr. Bowden's request. Ronald Ripley: Would you state your address please? Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 4 Tina Simmons: Oh, 4536 Church Point Place. Hereto support Mr. Bowden's request to build on this land. My interest is that I would like to purchase one of these lots. I don't feel that the lot size would be a detriment to the community. I live in the new section of Church Point and those lots are smaller than what Mr. Bowden is proposing and I don't feel that those size lots have been a detriment to the Church Point community. So I respectfully ask that you approve his request. Thank you for your time. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Robert Miller: Forrest Brann? Forrest Brann: Good afternoon, Forrest Brann. I'm a resident in Thoroughgood. I guess three years or more ago when I learned that Mr. Bowden had this land I had hopes of buying a lot and building a Bowden built home in there and I am still patiently waiting. When this land was zoned R-30, I don:t know when it was zoned but, I understand as Mr. Bowden just said that they have been paying taxes for 45 years. I don't think anybody could have realized the value of property in Virginia Beach, particularly the area of Thoroughgood would eventually arise to and the way I see it is that with the current zoning, there is no way that I would be able to afford a lot less build a home on it and so I think with that in mind, I think it is only reasonable to expect that, since there is not much undeveloped land left in this area of Virginia Beach. That it is perfectly reasonable to have R-20 and R-25 lots in there and by no means would that be a crowded part of the neighborhood when there are a lot of lots in Thoroughgood now that are smaller than that and I think it would be a very manageable size lot still with plenty of room and also to make it affordable for somebody, for a buyer to want to buy a home or a lot in there. And I think it really comes down to fairness. That is the way I see it. And that is the only reason why I am here right now which is because it is all about fairness. I don't think the request is unreasonable. Again, because the lot sizes, you know I think the perception is there is going to be all cramming in there when I don't think that is the case. I think you have a nice neighborhood. You have well-constructed homes. It will do nothing but benefit the Thoroughgood neighborhood. It will benefit the City of Virginia Beach as well. And that is all that I have to say and that is the way I feel about it. Thank you for your time. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Mr. Brann. Any questions of Mr. Brann? Robert Miller: Ken Scholl? Ken Scholl: Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission? My name is Kenneth Scholl. I live at 4305 Ewell Road in a house that Charlie Bowden built for me 35 years ago. It's a great house like all the houses that he's built in Thoroughgood. He's built probably the Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 5 best houses that we have. I got involved supporting Charlie here about two years when an unsigned letter was put in my mailbox which intended to incite people in opposition to Charlie. There were questions it raised with the fact that said that lots in Thoroughgood were all three-quarters of an acre or larger. This was not true. I have a chart that shows at least half of the lots in Thoroughgood are less than three quarters of an acre including some of those in the more prestigious sections. It addressed a pond which was to catch rain water. This has since been taken out of the plan. It's not a consideration. And from what I noticed, each time one of these things has been done to accommodate these people in opposition is that they come up with something else. The school buses can't get down the cul-de-sac. Well, school buses don't stop at every house and they don't go down cul- de-sacs. They stop at the comer. How many people are going to drive down Dunstan Lane and increase the traffic flow there? We're talking about eight or nine houses more than what Charlie could build under the current zoning. So what is the big deal? I don't see it. But you're going to hear people come up today and give you all kinds of arguments. In my opinion, they're not valid. I've watched this thing develop and I've seen that there are just really less than a handful of people who truly oppose the rezoning. Unfortunately, they were able to incite people and put out misinformation and cause Mr. Bowden all this trouble he's had for the last three years to prevent rezoning. You have to look at the history of Thoroughgood. When Charlie first started building here, to build a house all he had to have was a road. That road, all he had to do was throw a little crush run down and some asphalt on top of it and you could build a house in there. Today, he has to go in, he has put curbs, gutters, drainage, I guess water lines and sewer lines because of the developing. So the trend today, you know as well as I do, the trend of Virginia Beach is to go for smaller lots. The things that are more practical as far as financially practical and for that reason I support Charlie. I know that he will build good houses and they will be an asset to the community. They may make the people living there behind them unhappy because they can't dump their grass clippings back there in the wooded land but overall for the people of Thoroughgood. More than 1000 people live in Thoroughgood, 1000 houses and families. It is going to asset for those people. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you Mr. Scholl. Mr. Scholl we have a question here? Betsy Atkinson: This may not be a question for you but maybe someone or maybe Mr. Bowden can answer this. What would be the cost difference between lots sold to a builder or to a private person wanting to buy a lot for a 30,000 square foot lot versus a 20,000 square foot lot? Okay. As a real estate practitioner, I realize there is a certain upper value that you can put on a house and a lot in a neighborhood and I was wondering if the 30,000 square foot lot would exceed a house being put on it around the surrounding neighborhood? It was just a question. Item//3 Charles F. Bowden Page 6 Kenneth Scholl: Well the houses that Charlie plans to put on from what he's told me and I trust Charlie Bowden. When I made the deal with him I gave him a check for my down payment we shook hands. There was no contract. That was 35 years ago. I don't think I would do it today. I might with Charlie but some other people I wouldn't. But he is going to build nice houses. They are going to be brick houses. Brick on four sides. He is not going to put brick in the front and plastic on three other sides. And they are going to be assets to the neighborhood. What are they 2,700 square feet Charlie? Charlie Bowden: I wish to be excused from any questions for I am not an attorney. Kenneth Scholl: Okay. He told me 2,700-2,800 square feet as a minimum. And some of these lots are not going to be a half-acre. Some of the lots are going to be very close to three quarters of an acre. Betsy Atkinson: Thank you sir. Kenneth Scholl: The lots that are a half-acre will probably adjoin those in Thoroughgood Estates which mostly hard hat people want. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: Mr. Johnson, we do not have anybody else listed in support. Do you know of anyone else since you were directed to be the leader of this? Kenneth Scholl: I don't think so. Robert Miller: Okay. Thank you. We also have to speak in opposition. Cheryl Benn? Is there an order of people that just want... Betty Ridgeway: Let me come and talk. Robert Miller: Wait a minute. Betty Ridgeway: I'm a little late. How was lunch? I'm Betty Ridgeway and I live on Ewell Road, which is not very far from this site. We've been there 30 years and I'm going to speak for this. I'm going to speak for Charlie Bowden. I am in real estate to somewhat. I have a broker's license that has nothing to do with this at all. Charlie is my friend. He is a friend of my family. We have known him for years and I am up here strictly as a friendship. I have a hard time understanding, being in the business, why half of Thoroughgood are not, well not half, but part of Thoroughgood has been zoned for townhouses. Other parts have been zoned for 20,000 square foot lots some 30 and some an acre. And I really have a hard time why this is a real issue when he's trying to present Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 7 a very nice last street in Thoroughgood which is not going to harm any one in anyway. And a lot of the people that I've seen opposed to this are not living in the immediate vicinity. There is a couple that will back up to the 20,000 square foot lots, which 20,000, goes from 20,000-25,000, so your not off that much worse than 30,000 square foot lot and I don't see in the quote real estate or the quote the business world where this one lot would make that bit of a difference and would it do something to the neighborhood which it would not. And I'm having a hard time with that. So that's it. Any questions? Ronald Ripley: I've got a question. Jean Bowden: Mr. Coffey would like to speak. Ronald Ripley: My question is having lived there for the time, is there anything changed that really constitutes the rezoning? Is there anything changed in the neighborhood that really mandates that this be rezoned? Betty Ridgeway: Well, you can go up to where the townhouses are. That was a change. Ronald Ripley: I mean around this property. This property itself? Betty Ridgeway: This property itself, which we normally start with off Independence Boulevard and you turn in you got your townhouses and they came and developed another section which has the 20,000 square foot lots. And that didn't effect anybody then. It didn't effect us. I'm on an acre lot and it didn't effect me because they went up there and put townhouses in versus the 20,000, so the answer to your question. Where I live is like just around the corner from, if you come out Ewell and go down XVakefield you'll see Dunstan and then you'll see the property. So you know, answer to your question, the only thing that I can say is what happened up in the very first part closer to Independence Boulevard that was a change and it didn't effect us in any means in any way. Ronald Ripley: Yes Bob? Robert Vakos: I'm going to ask Betsy's question since you are in real estate, I assume you've done some sales in this area. What is the difference in the value or the sale value of the house that sits on the 20,000 square-lot as opposed to one that sits on a 30? Is there a dollar figure or is it the quality of the house, the size of the house or? Betty Ridgeway: The quality of the house would not be any different. You might put maybe a little, not smaller of a house. He starts at 2,800 living square feet. I'm building and I am also a builder and I've built 2,800 square foot. They don't always stay there. They go up to 3,500 to 4,000 and whatever. So not avoiding your question, I can take the Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 8 same 2,800 living square foot house and charge ex amount of dollars whether its on that lot or not, and somebody come in and add another 15-20,000 to that same house, then the price would change. Robert Vakos: Alright, but then... Betty Ridgeway: Value wise of it or the land, it may not be but 10,000, I don't know. I have no idea. Robert Vakos: Okay. And I guess, more specifically on this particular site on one side there's 20,000 square foot lots with houses and the other side there's 30. Betty Ridgeway: Correct. Robert Vakos: What is the difference in the cost of those existing houses right now? The marketability of them, the cost I guess. Betty Ridgeway: Actually if I was to sell for the resale. You see, I haven't been in it for quite a while far as marketing analysis. Robert Vakos: Okay Betty Ridgeway: So it would be very unfair for me to give you an answer to that. You can say on a 30, 000 square foot lot, there could be a house that is not as large as one on a 20,000 square foot lot. Robert Vakos: I understand that. Betty Ridgeway: And the price would be the same. Robert Vakos: In this neighborhood, right here. It's clearly a dividing line between one side that has 20,000 square foot lots and the other that has 30. This sits right in the middle of it. Betty Ridgeway: I couldn't be honest. Robert Vakos: Okay. Betty Ridgeway: I couldn't honestly be fair and give you an honest answer. Robert Vakos: Okay, that's fine. That's fine. Alright. Thank you. Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 9 Betty Ridgeway: Okay? Jean Bowden: Mr. Coffey would like to speak now. Robert Miller: Mr. Carleton would like to speak in support of this? Is there anyone else that would like to speak in support so we would know that? Ronald Ripley: We would like to keep your remarks as brief as you can because we're running. Robert Coffey: My name is Bob Coffey. I live at 4320 Delray Drive. Mr. Bowden built my house 1968. We've lived in it for 17 years. About a week after we moved in, we moved here from Sherwin Oaks, Mr. Bowden called my wife and wanted to know if everything in that house was okay. It been built there, like I said 1968. I think Mr. Bowden has bent over backwards in meeting all the conditions of the people who have opposed the rezoning. I think he's met every condition that has been proposed and I hope that the Commission will approve this application. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Robert Miller: We'll now go to the opposition and I have Cheryl Benn and I will offer you the same opportunity. If there is someone who wants to lead this and tell us how you would like to present this we will do that. Cheryl, otherwise, just come on up. Chery Benn: Good afternoon. My name is Cheryl Benn. I didn't necessarily come here as part of the contingence, although I understand that there are others here who are in agreement with me. A lot of the conversation I heard here this morning is obviously talking about lot size and there is, if you go out to the - I live on Dunstan, 1377 Dunstan. My lot backs on to which is currently a forest. The lots on my side of Dunstan are according to the map zoned at 20,000 feet. Howsoever, I'd be surprised if there was any lot on that street that was 20,000 feet. I know my lot is 25,000 feet and it's not the biggest lot. So the dividing line, if you go out there and look at the dividing is not behind my house it's front of my house. On a southern side of Dunstan there are much smaller lots with sidewalks. On my side of Dunstan there are no sidewalks and the lots are at least, like you said mine is 25,000. My concern is that by building 18 houses in this cul- de-sac, he's going to be putting a little island in there of small houses in what is a large area of bigger lots and the thing that make Thoroughgood so desirable is not the $350,000 houses. I'm not surrounded by houses like that. What makes Thoroughgood the desirable neighborhood that it is, is the lot that those houses sit on. They're treed, there big and that is what makes them so nice. That's one of the reasons why we bought the house that we did. So my concern is that where is on paper it looks likes your putting houses, especially on the southern side which are all 21,000 feet, you're putting lots in Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 10 there that are more consistent with what's on paper but if you go out there and actually look at the neighborhood, they're aren't any 20,000 square foot lots on that section of Dunstan. In the proposal on the map you can see there are at least ten houses proposed on the southern side where as there are nine houses already existing on the backside of Dunstan. So, that's already more houses. Now, I don't want to take issue with Mr. Bowden's right to develop his lot, however, it seems to me that thirteen houses is enough, righteen houses is to many. Great. They're great houses. I don't mind. I can see that, you know, development is probably is inevitable. I just think there shouldn't be so many houses. My other concern is, concerns the streets. It's a cul-de-sac. There are eighteen houses. You know you can do the traffic situation. The point is there are three points of egress on Independence Boulevard. We feel that Wakefield, Ewell and Five Forks only one of those has a traffic light. So if any traffic that's going North on Independence given, south on Independence, excuse me, given the condition of the traffic on Independence which, is very often heavy, they all go out to the light. All those people are going to circle around coming out of that proposed development and come up Dunstan, which is a wide straight street with schools at either end, rather than circling around the other way and going to the curvier narrow street at Delray to come out at the light at Ewell. So when people say there will not be more traffic on Dunstan because of this I really don't agree with that. I don't think that's the way it's going to be. As I said, thirteen houses, you know that's okay for zoning, but eighteen's to many. And that's the way I feel about it. Ronald Ripley: We thank you very much. Any questions? Thank you Mrs. Benn. Cheryl Benn: Uh hmm. Robert Miller: I believe the next name. Oh excuse me. Betsy? Betsy Atkinson: This is for staff. Bob, is there any way we could get the information that she just shared with us that the lots sizes actually along Dunstan on that side of the street are larger? All we have is her word. I mean, I really. Cheryl Benn: I have my deed here. Betsy Atkinson: That's just one piece. Ronald Ripley: Betsy, if you look at the map you probably can see. Robert Scott: The lot at the very end of Dunstan Circle is, I mean, I'm just doing this visual Betsy Ronald Ripley: That's all. Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 11 Robert Scott: But that looks as big as or bigger than the lots along Delray Drive. Unknown Person: Excuse me. I have a plat here. Ronald Ripley: Sir, we're out of order here. We have to stay with this agenda. Yes. Bob? Robert Scott: I was going to say just visually, if you look at the lot at the end of Dunstan Circle, Betsy Atkinson: Ah huh. Bob Scott: That's equal to or bigger to my eye at least then the lots along Delray Drive which are zoned R-30. And there's another lot on that street right where the 20 is, an R- 20 Betsy Atkinson: Ah huh. Robert Scott: That looks possibly as big as or bigger than that. Visually it does looks like some factor. Betsy Atkinson: Can we get you to show us which property is yours up there? Cheryl Benn: Sure. Betsy Atkinson: I'm sorry. That one. Okay. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Okay. John Baum: One other thing. Ronald Ripley: Yes. John Baum: Since we keep guessing why don't someone get assessor records of the R- 20's and the R-30's. What size houses they got and what value they got on them. Everybody is just guessing. Robert Miller: Daniel Sykes: Sykes. Next to speak in opposition, I believe this is Danial Sykes? If you don't mind, Mr. Peters would like to go before me. I'm Danial Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 12 Robert Miller: Danial. I'm sorry. Who wants to go before you? I've asked that before. Larry LaRue: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission. My name is Larry LaRue. We've had a little order of speaking we've created back there if you will just give us some leeway. I'm the President of the Thoroughgood Civic League and I come here today to represent the residents of Thoroughgood, and again opposing the rezoning request made by Mr. Bowden. Many of the residents of Thoroughgood are here as you already know and you will hear from probably each one of them as the afternoon goes on. I said to again oppose because we were here in July of 2000 to speak on the same subject. And, I guess in fact the first recorded denial of the rezoning was back in the 1977. Unfortunately, his request has not changed very much since that time. Now the parcel in question was originally zoned in 1956 when the initial Thoroughgood development began, and in fact, the parcel in question is the key to the transition between the R-20 properties and the R-30 and R-40 properties that bound the parcel on three sides. This is perhaps why the parcel has not been developed until today. Clearly the owners of the properties, which were the parcel in question, were aware of the zoning classification when they made their decisions to purchase their homes. Now their neighborhood and perhaps their property values are being threatened by an effort to increase the density levels and profit margins. In response to the July 2000 request to rezone the property, the Thoroughgood Civic League had a special meeting of not just the membership, but all the residents of Thoroughgood to discuss the issue. At that meeting, a record crowd voted 77% to oppose the rezoning request and 6% abstained. As you can see 83% opposition compelling illustrates the level of concern felt by the residents of Thoroughgood. Rezoning the R-20 provides no benefit to either the residents of Thoroughgood or the City of Virginia Beach. The current R-30 zoning permits approximately 13 homes to be built and achieves the original intent, which is to provide a transition zone between the R-20 properties and the R30's and 40's to the north of the parcel. Please support the residents of Thoroughgood and maintain the character and quality of our neighborhood and deny the request. Thank you. Any questions? Ronald Ripley: Any questions of Mr. LaRue? Robert Miller: I assume you will direct who comes next? Larry LaRue: Yes, I believe. Dot? Dorothy Wood: Excuse me Larry. In one of the letters we received said some of the people were not allowed to vote at the civic league. Was that tree or? Larry LaRue: Normally at civic league means only members are allowed to vote in this case everyone was allowed to vote. Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 13 Dorothy Wood: They were all allowed? Unknown Person: That's not true. That is not true. I was at that meeting. Dorothy Wood: I'm sorry. Ronald Ripley: We need - we need order here. Unknown Person: I did not vote. Ronald Ripley: Yes. Any other questions? Robert Miller: Who will be speaking next sir? Larry LaRue: Mr. Powell Peters. Powell Peters: Good afternoon. Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission for allowing us to speak to you today about this issue. My name is Powell Peters and I live in Thoroughgood. I live at 1608 Keeling Landing Road which is not right next to the property but I am a prior President of the Civic League and I have been asked to be involved with this issue since it came up last time. I want to respond to a few of the comments that were made previously. Other people were talking about the technical aspects of this application and what have you. First let me say that the people who spoke in support of Mr. Bowden are neighbors. And as neighbors we are very fond of them we just happen a difference of opinion. I was impressed by a number of the buildings that Mr. Bowden has built over the years. He's built some beautiful houses. He does do good work. The senior partner at my firm had Mr. Bowden custom build a home for him and was delighted with the product that he built. Mr. Bowden is an excellent builder so is his sister-in-law's, I guess Mr. Johnson. And these are nice people. And it's logical that people have a difference of opinion. That is why we come down to your group to be an arbitrator for these issues. I'd like to point out a few things that were said earlier and perhaps correct the record. One of the things that was pointed out earlier is that, this would be all brick houses. That is not the case in the current proffers. They would be brick in the front, the back and the proffers that were made eighteen months ago it would be 75% brick. So it is changed a little bit since the last proffer in terms of that aspect and the development. Another aspect that was drawn to your attention, which was you voted in favor of this proposal the last time Mr. Bowden brought it. But actually I have the minutes of that meeting and I will respond by reading what the motion was and the motion was made by Mr. Ripley. I will make this motion again. I am going to make a motion that we approve the application with the lots not to exceed the proposed number of lots and the proposed street to be extended from Wakefield through Ewell. So it is not actually the same proposal you're looking at today. Item//3 Charles F. Bowden Page 14 It was a proposal that you as a group made, and you voted unanimously for that to approve it with a through street because the Civic League took the opinion that the density was too great and it needed to be a through street. You responded in support of the street element of it and the additional proffers you found to be acceptable at that time. So I do want to refresh your memory that you didn't approve it as perhaps it maybe was told to you and your minutes reflect that as well. I do want to address the issue. One gentleman says he would like to purchase a house and that houses - that the lots would not be too small and the house would not be too big on the lots. One individual indicated earlier they're from Church Point and live in the Mews section. At the last presentation, the Mews were used as an example. So was the Reserve over in Great Neck. We're Thoroughgood. We're not the Reserve. We're not on a high traffic street such as Great Neck. We're back away from Independence. We're separated by Thoroughgood Estates. Thoroughgood Estates was developed later after the Thoroughgood neighborhood, I believe by the Gilbert Family, was not developed by the Collier Family, was not part of the original project and that is why you see this zoning progressed back. That zoning was in place in 1956. In 1957, Mr. Bowden bought the property knowing what the current zoning wasl He attempted to have the zoning changed in 1977. It was denied at Council. It's a long history of these neighborhoods opposition to that issue. We welcome this property to be developed. We look forward to Mr. Bowden building those houses because he and his family can profit more from building the houses then selling lots. We want this not to be treason. Whoever said they wanted it to be a bird sanctuary did not reflect the neighborhood when they were at the Civic League meeting and I was there when that vote was taken. And that vote was taken of all the people in attendance. There were a number of people who didn't like what they heard and walked out of the room. I'm not sure if these people that are saying they were not allowed to vote were in that category or not, I was there when the vote was taken. If someone doesn't believe that was the case then we can step outside and talk about it. I don't remember it that way. Now, again there are a lot of nice people here in support of this application but I do want to draw your attention to a number of things. There is a fairness issue to the people who bought and anticipated that the City would continue to support the zoning that was there. I understand the fairness to the property owners who paid taxes for 45 years. He's a private land-owner and we should respect that private land owner and help him to develop that property. I hope he will develop that property. Because they cut the property which is located here out in 1990 and sold it, it made it more difficult to have a through street. That was Mr. Bowden's decision. Perhaps it was an enhancement he thought to their role opportunities for the property. It is a beautiful house that he built, but it did make it more problematic now that there is not the easy way to put a through street. I want to also point to you there is a person made a comment about the cul-de-sac being a problem and not being a problem. This cul-de-sac would be the equivalent of four football fields in length. That is fairly long. It is within the zoning that the City will allow, I may be using the wrong terms, although I'm a lawyer, I'm not a real estate attorney and I don't do this for a living, I do this as volunteer. But four football fields is a Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 15 pretty long cul-de-sac if you don't have to have that. That piece of property, at least the little flag street that I've seen is actually dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach on the plat that was recorded. Now, rather that was the case or not I do not know. I've been unable to ascertain that at this point. There was a couple of other comments made that I would like to draw to your attention. There was a question about the affordability of these houses versus the non-affordability. I appreciate the people that would like to move into this neighborhood. This is a desirable neighborhood. I think this neighborhood has the feel similar to a Lake Smith maybe Alanton, large lots, mature trees, gracious yards and that is part of the beauty of Thoroughgood. And the beauty will not be enhanced by having a high density Ghent in the square kind of look that the City of Virginia Beach has always tried to run away from Norfolk on. We don't want to become Norfolk we want to continue to be the beautiful City of Virginia Beach that is evolved from Princess Anne and become today. Let me conclude by saying that following me will be a couple of members of our neighborhood who live near the property and I believe Mr. Sykes will speak next. Thank you for your attention and your time. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Danial Sykes: Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission. My name is Dan Sykes and I live the second lot in on Delray adjacent to the property. I also live in a Bowden built home and they are wonderful homes. I do not dispute any of the arguments or the positions made that Bowden will build an inferior home and I suspect he will do everything that he has mentioned in his proffers and frankly probably more. He builds a wonderful house. However, I did buy in two years ago. I moved from another lot in Thoroughgood a few blocks away to the present property. And it was known to me that the zoning was R-30 and I guess the arguments already been made and I will move through it pretty well. Intermittent to my decision, I believe the street is very nice and I think the proposal, if it remained R-30, would also be very nice. I also believe there would be 12-13 folks who could buy the houses, so I don't think we need 18 in order to market the land as is. With that said, I would like to see the property develop as is, but I have been involved with meetings with Mr. Bowden and frankly the meetings have been helpful. We started here over two years ago and we had a drainage retention pond. I have three little kids along with my neighbors and that just shocked us. And a lot of folks who are now speaking in support of Mr. Bowden spoke in opposition with me on that issue. However, the issue of the number of homes, we've never been able to find a compromise and I'm sorry that it has to come here 18 months later and act in some type of mediation. I'm not sure this is the forum for that because I thought the meetings were going some place. But I do commend the staff at this point for not recommending. I would ask the Planning Commission to push it back and ask the developer to continue to try to meet with a few of us residents. I think we're close and I am just sorry to see it still come back up here for so many homes in this proposal. Thank you. Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 16 Ronald Ripley: Thank you. We have a question Mr. Sykes. Robert Vakos: Mr. Sykes. Two things. Is your willingness to negotiate a lesser number or - we know it the R-30 will support 13 but is the neighborhood, and I guess you can't speak for the neighborhood, but the people that you have been negotiating as a part of, are you willing to go higher than that? Danial Sykes: I'm personally willing to go higher than that. Robert Vakos: And then the second question is, and it has come up a couple times, is the thoroughfare or the road going through the property? Is that important? I know that we're at a cul-de-sac. Staff doesn't seem to have a problem with the cul-de-sac now but if I do remember that last time we heard this, the Commission was very adamant that we wanted that street going all the way through. Is that important to the neighborhood? Danial Sykes: It is important to the neighborhood at a higher density. Robert Vakos: Okay. Danial Sykes: And I believe a lot of us made that point that 17, 18, 19 homes, we believe the road should go through. However, if it fell back to a more reasonable density, I believe, like in anything you have to find some compromise and I think the court becomes less of an issue. Robert Vakos: Okay. Danial Sykes: Because of the higher density, I think it is a critical issue. Robert Vakos: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Danial Sykes: Thank you. Robert Miller: Do you know who is next Mr. Sykes? Danial Sykes: Mr. Chapman. Jim Chapman: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission. My name is Jim Chapman and I am an adjacent property owner. I live at 4317 Delray which is roughly in about the middle of Delray between Ewell and Wakefield. Since my name was the only one that' s been previously mentioned during the presentation, I will just tell a little bit about the background and let me just echo a couple of things that Mr. Sykes said. We have met with Mr. Bowden. Most recently, I think about 9 or 10 months ago, Item//3 Charles F. Bowden Page 17 because we were attempting to achieve some sort of compromise position. I think that those are good questions. Those are important things. Because I personally would also like to see that property develop. I think Ms. Wootton, Mr. & Mrs. Wootton both spoke to that issue that there have been a lot of problems with kids back in there doing who knows what. I hear them right behind my house. I know, that for example they are playing paint ball back there. There's been some sheds of adjoining property owners that now have big paint sploshes on the back side of them because of that and we very much would like to see that property developed. The issue has been, really two-fold. One, I think primarily the density level. And I would tell you very candidly that Mr. Bowden, in his latest proposal has satisfied my personal concern, that is, in terms of the lots on the north side, I think as it is currently zoned, he can put in six on either side for a total of 12, maybe one on the end for a total of 13. I said Charlie if you would do seven, I am fine with that and I am fine with that because that is where his proposal is but there is still this sort of coral area issue in terms of overall density because what your looking at is very long cul-de-sac, all of that traffic emptying out onto Wakefield Drive and I will tell that there is a number of people primarily that live on Dunstan although a couple of neighbors that live on Delray that are concerned about the traffic having to then go around the block one way or the other to get to Ewell or get to other points in Thoroughgood rather than being able to exit out on the end. I would also tell you that I'm sure that the people that live on the stub street - can you put that view back up... Stephen White: Not at the moment. Jim Chapman: The people that live on that little stub street that has been dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach don't want a through street and that is certainly understandable. They feel like they got a little privacy there. I believe that I'm correct in saying that Mr. Bowden has probably assured them that he would not built a through street there. I would also be concerned if I was the guy living on the other side of Ewell in terms of all the traffic coming out right in my front yard if you will. So, you got those sort of competing concerns and that's where we have endeavored to try and negotiate a resolution. Where you are right now in terms of the proffers, seven lots on one side, basically ten on the other and one on the very end of the proposed cul-de-sac. You got a density issue. You got a little bit of a balance issue. I haven't heard anybody raise that at this point but I will tell you very candidly that when we were talking to Mr. Bowden, we were talking about fifteen maybe sixteen, but not eighteen and we are clearly not at nineten and now he has offered eighteen. I will tell you that I cannot speak ,~n behalf of all the other people that live around there but I have talked to an awful lot them and when you get the density down to the right numbers, most people are comfortable with the idea of it being a cul-de-sac. We're still going to have some people that are not in favor of it. But I think that's the type of consideration that this Planning Commission needs to take in account and I would ask that as presently proposed that you vote against it. I would also encourage you at the same time to see if you can't send us back to sort of to the Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 18 drawing board and give some guidance or direction for that to happen as well. Because, I think there is a way to negotiate a resolution of this thing in which, it' s basically a win- win proposition. My neighbors that all live around and a lot of them have come up and spoken on Mr. Bowden's behalf. They're wonderful people and I think they have the best interest of the neighborhood at heart as well, but I think that there are a Couple of divergent views and I would just ask that you take those into account. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Ronald Ripley: Any questions? Jim Chapman: And I thank you very much. Robert Miller: Jim Chapman: Are you orchestrating the next person to speak Mr. Chapman? I don't know there is another person who is registered. Robert Miller: I believe there is? Jim Chapman: Is there? Robert Miller: Yes. Mr. - Ms. Kralowetz? I'm sorry. Jim Chapman: Okay. Alright. Ronald Ripley: Thanks. Johanna Kralowetz: Chairman. Member of the Commission. My name is Johanna Kralowetz. I live at 1404 Dunstan Circle. My property is directly backing up to this development. My lot size and we have talked about lot size before, the size of my lot is close to one acre. It is a bit of an awkward shape. It is already surrounded by five neighbors, and what I want to say is that when I bought this property in 1984, I had done an extensive house hunting search through Virginia Beach and Chesapeake and I decided for this property because of the density of the houses in the neighborhood and the size of my house. My house has 4,900 square feet living space, even so it is on this house of that development. So you may have seen that the zoning is R-20 but my property is certainly not that small. So for me it is very detrimental to have and see houses planned to be so close together on small lots and also to have two separate lots adjacent to this one property line so obviously nobody picked the separation of the properties as you go around this development and maybe pick up the fence line from the other neighbors and the backyard. So I'm opposed for that reason because it does not fit in the neighborhood. It does not fit size wise to the homes that are on Dunstan Circle. Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 19 Ronald Ripley: Okay. Thank you very much. Robert Miller: As we asked before, is there anyone else is opposition? Dr. Voshell: I'm not registered but I live at 1401 Dunstan. Ronald Ripley: Would you state your name too please. Dr. Voshell: Dr. Voshell. V-0-S-H-E-L-L. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Dr. Voshell: About the traffic situation? Down on Wakefield when you come off of Independence there is a road to the right that you can get over into before you make the right hand turn into Wakefield. Up at Ewell Road there is no such road and I've seen big semi's come up there and try to make that right turn. In fact, one of them broke the curb and one night my wife was one me about making the turn and I made a turn and tore up a tire on that broken curb. But really, when they put - Wakefield is a two-lane street in front of Lois and Frank's house. It seems to me, logical, you would logically wiclen Wakefield to another lane or so in order to handle the traffic going through there and then you have school buses going to the school coming down Dunstan and then off of Independence Boulevard. The other thing is a 1,200 cul-de-sac means that there are going to be a lot of people who don't want to go all the way down the end of the cul-de- sac pulling into somebody's driveway to turn their car around. I don't think that it is going to look as good after it's all done as it sounds on paper but I just thought I would make these remarks because my house is a good way from the back of my lot and I don't think they are going to build anything in back of my lot that is going to intefer with my house. I heard something at the Planning Division meeting this morning about lots being 150 feet wide. I'm wondering how deep they're going to be between the street and the back of my lot. I can't visualize that. The small lot, are they are going to be 150 feet wide and sounds to me like that it is going to be a long wide lot and kind of narrow from the street to the back. But I think that somebody ought to really take a look at the 1,200 foot. Ronald Ripley: I really don't think it's that long sir. I think it's about 1,050 or something. Dr. Voshell: Even that. The thing is how big is the cul-de-sac at the end going to be to. In other words, are you going to be able to drive in them and u-turn your car easily or... Ronald Ripley: It will be a standard cul-de-sac. Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 20 Dr. Voshell: Hmm? Ronald Ripley: Yes sir. It will be a standard cul-de-sac. I'm sure it'll meet VDOT's requirements. Dr. Voshell: We live on a cul-de-sac off of Dunstan. But there really aren't - people do pull in there, I don't know why they pull in and decide that they made a mistake and turn around but they don't come up our driveway. But I know a lot of places where I've seen long cul-de-sac's people pull in driveways and I will tell you the truth, I hate to have somebody come in my driveway at night with their headlights on and shining in my house and all that. Just something to think about but. Ronald Ripley: Thank you very much. Dr. Voshell: Right. Robert Miller: Mr. Bowden has excused himself so Mr. Johnson, are speaking in answer to these? Richard Johnson: Sure. Robert Miller: Thank you. Richard Johnson: You all have heard the opposition come up and say quite a few things. Number one and what I would like to address and I see he's taken the plan off because I would like to address the lot size. Robert Miller: I think the electricity took the plan off. Ronald Ripley: I think that was a technical problem. Richard Johnson: Okay, I will just explain this. I know some of you all saw it as the zoning went from R-30 to R-20 to R-15. Right across the street from these people that is a transition of great proportion. Okay, there we have it. Here is your R-307 There is R- 40 back this away. Alright. You drop here R-20. The only reason, if you look at this that lot is that big, that big. How much are you going to divide that piece of property up? It happens all the time. It's in Thoroughgood everywhere. I have the complete plot of the old Thoroughgood starting from the entrance on back. Ronald Ripley: Can you speak there please? Item//3 Charles F. Bowden Page 21 Richard Johnson: Okay. So you can see the transition. And this has happened all over Thoroughgood. It starts in the front, there's lots up that are only 15,000 square feet and work all the way back. This notion that all the lots in Thoroughgood are three quarters an acre to an acre is not true. Okay. Lets move on to the Thoroughgood meeting that was called for all the people in Thoroughgood. Unknown person: inaudible. Richard Johnson: That may be so, but I don't believe it. There were eighty-two people at that meeting. I was told this by the person that took notes that night for the secretary, that could'nt be there. Eighty-two people. Now there are 1000 homes in Thoroughgood. Eighty-two people, and I heard today and only 77% of them supported it out of 82? And then also, you've already heard people voice their opinions that are here that said no that was not true. We did not get to vote those people did. Let me put my glasses back. I've must have written too small. Mr. Ripley, you just addressed the cul-de-sac when it was already brought up that it was four football fields and we won't get into that because it's only 1,025 feet. There are cul-de-sacs in the City of Virginia Beach twice as long as that and there are some that have been put in there recently. Alright. We'll move on to the traffic. When we were in here before about the cul-de-sac, about putting the street through, and you all allowed that to happen, the traffic division had already come up with a number and said that this is not overly bearing that road or any other. And of course, if they are going to give us those figures then we have to go by them. That's what you all go by. That's what the Planning staff goes by and that's what was presented. But I noticed that no one - they all asked about the size of the lots and worrying about how much they were going to cost and what's the effect on that? What about the City's Comprehensive Zoning Plan? It says that the density for that area can be 3.5. ~['hat is what it says. That's the top. We're at 1.7. That's half on what the density says fo~ that area. No one has brought that up and I just want to let you know. I'm not saying what it is suppose to be. This is what the City has given and that is what is written down. I would like to bring this up. When we had some meetings, 8, 9, 10 months ago with some of these people we did present different plans. We tried to get along with these people and we have spent a lot of money on changing plans with our engineer, back and forth, back and forth. Every time we would come up with something they wanted something else. And I will not bring up names and I'm not going to do that but the same people are here today. We never said one time that we would accept fifteen or sixteen and did not draw up a plan for that. We did bring in a seventeen lot plan and it was rejected by all but one person and I see he is not here today because he told me that day when we left the engineer's office that he could not understand why these people could not come together and agree on this. And here we are 8, 9, 10-11 months later and we're back to almost the same position. And these people, I don't care what we do unless we go in there and just put in thirteen is the only way they will understand that we will be able to develop this land. Yes ma'am? Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 22 Betsy Atkinson: Are you saying you will absolutely not agree to sixteen lots? Richard Johnson: I can't answer that question right now. Dorothy Wood: Couldn't Mr. Bowden answer of course? Richard Johnson: I don't think he will. Dorothy Wood: Mathelically. Ronald Ripley: I think the if you could -- I know you have tried to meet with the residents - have met with the residents. Richard Johnson: More than once. Ronald Ripley: I know that. But this time coming through, there was really no attempt to do that. I don't believe. Am I correct? I mean this is just bring the application in and we see where we go? I think. Richard Johnson: I think this is going to be it. Ronald Ripley: Yeah. Is there any opportunity for you to meet with them? I mean, because you know what we have here. It's a conditional use permit basically. It's conditioned. And it's an opportunity to - the purpose of this is to have the residents and the developer to hopefully, come to some sort of meeting of the minds, the land use that blends in with the neighborhood. And I think if you, certainly the vote and go here and I don't know how the vote is going to go but I mean if we get to the point and call for a vote it's going to go one-way or the other. You know, I was hoping to come in here today, that the sixteen number was a number that hopefully you consider getting to and how we got there was just essentially was you kind of described it. You started with a plan of nineteen and then you called a meeting and you had the residents comein and show the plan of seventeen. Just let me finish. And then you have a plan here today at eighteen. And I can't speak for the residence as how the neighborhood would react to it but it looked like to me, because you asked me to come to one of those meetings that if you got to that sixteen number you probably had something that you could work with. And I can't speak to you your economics or whatever you have to have as far as to make this project feasible, but if there was an opportunity to meet with them, perhaps you wouldn't have a problem getting this thing through. Richard Johnson: We've been doing this now, two years. Matter of fact, I've started in May 99 when I first got the first plan that we worked with City staffers and met with them and went over and said what would be acceptable in this area. We started off with a Item 4/3 Charles F. Bowden Page 23 20-lot plan, with two BMP's on two of those lots. So that meant that you ended up with eighteen. This was in May of '99. I went around and talked to every house that backed up to this property. One year later, we've finally ended up coming here and one meeting that we had with one of the staffers at our engineer's office, the BMP's were removed, just like that just because everyone - we don't want them. We didn't want them either. They had people scared to death that their children were going to drown in them. So one person eliminated that after I was told for a year that it was a state and a federal law that we had to have them in. So, then we worked our way on down to when we came before you all. What we're trying to say is and you know I've talked to you about it, that every time we try to do something we get it changed then we try to present it and then something else changes. This eighteen lot plan has been working since December. We've been through the staff with this and at the last second we are told that we're not being supported after we have been supported for about 3 V2 months and now we're coming in here and supposed to accept a lesser. I think the whole thing -- what is happening here -- all were doing is just coming back and forth, back and forth. There is no in between. And there is no in between in trying to work with the people. Evidently, because there's only about three of them that are really concerned about it and every time we would bring in something else, oh no, we don't want that we want something else. So the whole thing was about it and you're right, they want fifteen or sixteen lots in there, so why not put thirteen? Ronald Ripley: Well. We have a question? Richard Johnson: Because, you finally get to that point. You're saying we can't do anything that they want. Ronald Ripley: Bob? Robert Miller: Mr. Johnson. Richard Johnson: Yes sir. Robert Miller: You can help a little bit here. You all have a little more history intact by the various people that have spoken and I am certainly glad to hear all the neighbors still like each other. Only in America can that happen and I am very glad were here. It sounds like in some cases the opposition is very close to resolution of most of the issues and it sounds like you had come to a point where you felt like that resolution had also been reached. I'm curious about a history. When you were here last time and you left here, you left with our approval, our recommendation for approval and you left with a street that went through to Ewell. Richard Johnson: That's right. Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 24 Robert Miller: By our interpretation. What changed in that and again, if you excuse me, then I have some other questions after this but if you just describe what changed. I'm not saying that I'm pushing back that way, I'm just trying to find a little bit of, maybe some continuity to this understanding of what you've all been through and I do agree that you've been through a long process and certainly no one would say any differently. What happened to our recommendation that stopped that process prior going to Council, I suspect? I don't think it went to Council? Ronald Ripley: It did go to Council. Robert Miller: But it was it withdrawn? Did you withdraw it? Okay. Richard Johnson: Can you excuse me for just a minute? Robert Miller: Yes sir. I would have asked Mr. Bowden but he has removed himself. Richard Johnson: I just wanted to clear something with him, because I was going to say it anyway. Robert Miller: Please do. Richard Johnson: When we went to City Council with your proposal, well a few days before that, we met on the property with Mr. Jones, our City Councilman in the Bayside area and we were told that street would never go through. Robert Miller: Okay. Richard Johnson: Not once but three times. Our attorney advised us that Mr. Jones says it's not going through it's not going through. You better do what he says? And that's why we presented it as it was. Robert Miller: Okay. Good. Let me ask a few other questions of you please. Richard Johnson: Yes sir. Robert Miller: Our report indicates obviously that the issue with regard to traffic and circulation, at least by our engineering staff, doesn't seem to be a major issue. In the discussions with the community, I've heard several people from Dunstan say that perhaps it is on that street but I haven't heard the other people say that there is an issue with regard to traffic. Did you all discuss that as an item within your discussion amongst the opposition? Richard Johnson: No. That wasn't really brought up at all. Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 25 Robert Miller: Okay, just a curiosity. And, then I think what was asked just a moment ago, was the staff has recommended not to go to sixteen. I don't know where that number came from, but to go to seventeen lots if, I'm understanding what's here? Is that right? Ronald Ripley: I think that is what they're suggesting. Robert Miller: Okay. But we had started talking about sixteen and what your saying is that your... Richard Johnson: I just brought it up because one of the people that were up here was saying that they were thinking more of fifteen or sixteen. Robert Miller: I see. Richard Johnson: They may have been thinking that but we never suggested any of that. Robert Miller: Okay. That's all then. Okay. Ronald Ripley: Any other questions? Eugene? Eugene Crabtree: I'm wondering. Since you can't reach a compromise, is seventeen lots with the through street be agreeable between Mr. Bowden and the community since so many people are judging to the cul-de-sac and the number of lots. If you eliminated the one lot on the end and went ahead with a through street could you get an agreement with the community by doing that? I know we're back to City Council but the... Richard Johnson: We're back to that again. And it looks - in other words, you're going to give me that and we're going to put it in and then we're going to be turned down again because that street is not going through. Eugene Crabtree: You would think one member of City Council could sway the other ten? John Baum: It's been know to happen. Richard Johnson: I refuse to answer that. time. I'm going to be working with them a long Ronald Ripley: Any other questions? Yes, Don? Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 26 Donald Horsley: I have a question. Ronald Ripley: Yes, Don? Donald Horsley: My question is Bob. Bob would you address this cul-de-sac deal? Wouldn't we really recommend, I mean as long as this street is and got to make that one small connection. If I remember last meeting, that was that recommendation, and is that not a good recommendation to make? Robert Scott: A pattern like this, you know a through street is probably better than a cul- de-sac but a cul-de-sac will work and it's not particularly a long cul-de-sac. Donald Horsley: It's not. Robert Scott: A thousand, a little over a 1000 feet. It meets our standard and our standard is. It's not too long a cul-de-sac. There's not too many lots out in even if the maximum was over potential. A through street would always work better, I think but either one can be made to work. Donald Horsley: So the issue is density? Robert Scott: Habability. Donald Horsley: Right. Okay. Ronald Ripley: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Richard Johnson: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Okay, anybody want to discuss this further? Yes. Robert Miller: I will. First of all, I do think that the point about the transitions that Mr. Johnson made was something I had picked up on also that they are on the other side of Dunstan. We were talking R-15 and as I drive through this neighborhood I did not sense the tremendous differential which is being implied here as far as the value of properties and the different people that lived in there and I think that is a wonderful thing again about this particular community and something that we want to encourage in all of our communities. I also don't see that five more houses from our traffic engineers point of view is not going to cause a traffic problem that is not perhaps already there and I wish we could relieve all traffic problems but we're not going to be successful in doing that. I think that's been taken properly into consideration. And I think that is the right thing to do. The only other thing that would remain is the question of seventeen or eighteen lots Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 27 and I see that somewhere in here it was written that the value of these houses was to be in the range of $300,000, which doesn't necessarily mean that - was that a proffer? I'm almost asking myselfi Anyway, I saw it here, it was in the evaluation - excuse me. Betsy Atkinson: Page 9. Robert Miller: It's in the evaluation as $300,000 and I think that certainly is in conformance to what the other housing is in that community for new construction. So I have less a problems with how big a front yard is and how wide a lot is. I think once you get into a community like this, depending on the shape of the house, the type of house, one-story houses covers a lot of land, two-story houses are smaller and would maybe imply a bigger yard but that is not always the way things are in our communities. I think people use the lots and take advantage of them in the shapes there given to them. The one's on Dunstan that are R-20, as again, was stated by Mr. Johnson, is correct that the way that piece of land was shaped which many times the shape of a property is where you'll end up coming to the conclusion of what size a lot may end up being as not having the amount of frontage that you need and perhaps not able to getting a variance or not desiring to go out after a variance so, I'm in support of supporting this and sending it forward to Council and at the appropriate time I will, if you wish make a motion. Ronald Ripley: Anyone else wish to speak? Bob? Robert Vakos: I'm going to take a different point of view. I'm looking at this and I vividly remember it last time when it came before us and I thought we all thought that through street was a pretty good idea and I still think it's a good idea. And how that plays into the ultimate approval or disapproval, I'm not going to comment on it but in looking at this and listening to the staff and I think Bob made the comment at the earlier meeting and he made it again today. It' s more to do with the compatibility of the neighborhood as opposed to the actual number of houses. And I think what I took off of is, as your looking at these houses, and I quite honestly don't know the difference between a 20,000 and 30,000, except I was expecting that a 30,000 that the house may be a little bit bigger and of course you obviously you got more open lot there. But, the other thing that I had to take into consideration is that, and I think one of the people in opposition spoke about it, that R-20 that is just south of the lot those are not really R-20 lots. I mean they are much bigger than R-20, maybe one or two of them are R-20. The one's on the north of it obviously are R-30 or greater. And looking at the sketch on page 6, and maybe that is not accurate, maybe that is not a true depiction of it, that looks like a lot of house on a small lot and so in that regard, both what the staff has recommended to us as well as what the neighbors are saying and stressing what I consider the compatibility with the neighborhood, I'm going to vote against it. I would like to see some more negotiation going on obviously, but that doesn't sound like that is going to Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 28 happen. Maybe it will happen between now and Council, whatever we do. But I can't support the application as it is written. Ronald Ripley: Anybody else? John? John Baum: I wish there would be a compromise too. The opposition has spoken in terms of meeting and trying to compromise and I think that was the right approach. I'm afraid Mr. Bowden is going to end up with the right to build thirteen if they can't compromise more than they are trying to. But, some things about past history since I was in the position a long time ago to see people come in and oppose changing farm land and woodland into houses, even though that's what happens where they were living. And of course at that time, we were sympathetic to that but also remember as far as past history of Thoroughgood, as I recall Mr. Colley had about ten acres over there with some tall pine trees and there was one place for egress. And anytime if anything was said about developing that ten acres, there was a lot in Thoroughgood who rose in horror. Strolling along like Fred Die. When they got so they couldn't enjoy the yards and their cookouts and birds sort of dropping in on them, you might say, they all changed their minds. So, I'm inclined to agree with Bob. The man, has an excellent reputation and I'm sorry it's gotten to this personality conflict but it doesn't make any sense, you might say for the wildlife family and their kids and I don't think you want it happening anymore so he'll be better off developing if Bob is going to make a motion, I'll support it. Ronald Ripley: Any questions? Any other? I want to make a comment. I wouldn't support that either. I wouldn't support approval of the way it's written. I was really hopeful that the applicant would consider meeting further with the residents. And I think the pattern in density that you have there, I think if you look at Dunstan, I thi ak those lots are effectively larger than an R-20 and I think that the transition starts there. It doesn't start on this property and I think that two things that could - two issues here and to me, I think the recommendation that staff has made about rezoning one side R-20 and the other side R-30 is wrong. And I think the solution is really to balance these lots out so that you have a balanced neighborhood not lots that are smaller on one side and larger on the other side. I mean, we're talking about, I think I mentioned this in the informal meeting, we're looking at about a 3,000-4,000 square foot difference between the lots that are shown on this proposal on the north side of this proposed project but when you get on the south side your have about a 10,000 square foot difference between the R-30 and what is proposed, you're getting down to a 20,000 square foot lot. And I think that needs to be, I think the neighborhood is correct in wanting to see less units in there and I think the way it's written I would oppose it. So I would like to have a motion. I don't think I can make a motion. Robert Miller: I am going to make a motion that we approve it as submitted and recommend approval to Council. Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 29 John Baum: I'll second it. Ronald Ripley: So we have a motion made by Bob Scott, I mean Bob Miller. Sorry Bob. Sure you wanted to make a motion? Seconded by John Baum to approve the application. Yes? Charlie? Charles Salle': I would like to make a substitute motion that we deny the application and I feel the same way that Bobby does. That the real transition on this property is, between this property and the R-30 is that property north of Dunstan Lane in reality the lots in excess of 20,000 square feet and to me putting the R-20 as shown on the proposed subdivision plan is not compatible with the lots on either side of it. They are essentially smaller. They are smaller than the lots on either side and they just don't fit in. It's one of those close cases. I don't think what the developer is asking for is unreasonable but I think it's more reasonable to maintain the status that has existed out there for 30 or 40 years and that it's been zoned R-30 and the people that relied upon it for all these years and I see no, compelling reason to change it. Ronald Ripley: So we have a substitute motion. I think we need a second? Robert Vakos: Second. Ronald Ripley: We have a substitute motion made by Chaflie Salle' to deny and a second made by Bob Vakos. Discussion? Robert Miller: If you remember, again, and I will remind all of us that we did recommend approval of this before. The only difference being that we had actually said it would be a through street and obviously that became not a point of contention, a point of lack of discussion. I don't know how I should say it? That was not an appropriate recommendation evidently. So I don't think what were seeing today is any different than what we recommended approval for before with the exception of the fact that thc street is not extended through to Ewell which he was told it would not be allowed. And I think that we're seeing the same, again, the same presentation basically that we saw at that time. It's hard for me to understand how we wouldn't recommend approval. Looking back at that, how did we approve that? And then now we're saying that were not going to approve this today. Robert Vakos: Maybe we were smarter than we were. Robert Miller: Maybe we got a lot smarter. Some of us didn't. Ronald Ripley: Any other discussion? Yes. Item #3 Charles F. Bowden Page 30 Betsy Atkinson: I was just going to say that I support the substitute motion and not because I don't think there should be more lots than thirteen but I think the present configuration of eighteen is too many. I would like to see either 16 or 17 and I think the cul-de-sac is a great idea and I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with anything else. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Could we call for the substitute? Call for the question of the substitute motion? Ed Weeden: Mr. Salle' and Mr. Vakos? Ronald Ripley: That's correct. AYE 9 NAY 2 ABSENT 0 ABS 0 ATKINSON AYE BAUM CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE NAY NAY Ronald Ripley: This is a substitute motion. By a vote of, what do we have up there? Nine to two, excuse me, the substitute motion passes. APPLICATION. PAGE 4 OF 4 REZONING Applicant's Name: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Charles F. Bowden List All Current Property Owners: Charles F. Borden Jean L. Bowden ~ueline L. Sowden PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE ff 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) [~heck 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) I~ Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the infortnation contained herein is true and accurate. Signature Print Name Rev. 9// 5/9l~' F'©~M NO. P.S. INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5537 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: April 11, 2002 City Attorney City Attorney Leslie L. Lilley~ a ~,..~ DEPT: B. Kay Wilson DEPT: Conditional Zoning Application Charles F. Bowden, Jean L. Bowden and Jacqueline L. Bowdoin The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on April 23, 2002. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated January 16, 2002, 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 THIS AGREEMENT, made this 16th day of January, 2002 by and between CHARLES F. BOWDEN, JEAN L. BOWDEN AND JACQUELINE L. BOWDOIN, owners of the property described herein (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor"); and the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a Municipal Corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantor has initiated an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee, so as to change the classification of the Grantor's property from R-30 (Residential) to R-20 Conditional (Residential) on certain property which contains a total of 10.588 acres, more or less, located in the Bayside Election District of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, more particularly described as Parcel A, Subdivision of Thoroughgood, Section 8, Part 4 (Plat recorded in D.B. 2580, P. 2157) (hereinafter the Property); further described in Exhibit "A" see attachement, and WHEREAS, the Grantee's policy is to provide only for the orderly development of land for various purposes, through zoning and other land development legislation; and WHEREAS, the Grantor acknowledges that the competing and sometimes incompatible zonings conflict, and that in order to permit differing zoning in the area of the subject Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of the change and the need for various types of zoning, including those listed above, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned R-20 are needed to cope with the situation to which the Grantor's rezoning application give rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantor has voluntarily proffered in writing, in advance of, and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as part of the proposed conditional amendment to the Zoning Map, in addition to the regulations provided for in the existing R-20 zoning district by the existing City's Zoning Ordinance (CZO), the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the new Zoning Map relative to the Property, all of which have a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning; and Prepared By: CHERYL S. THOMAS, ESQ. 1060 Lasldn Road, Suite 14B Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451 Phone No.: 428-8486 GPIN# 1479-60-5795 - Page 1 - WHEREAS, said conditions having been proffered by the Grantor and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, such conditions shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning on the Property covered by such conditions; provided, however, that such conditions shall continue, despite a subsequent amendment if the subsequent amendment is part of the comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance, unless, notwithstanding the foregoing, these conditions are 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 subject Property at the time of recordation of such instrument; provided, further, that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing as evidenced by a certified copy of ordinance or resolution adopted by the governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee advertised pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2- 2204, which said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said instrument as conclusive evidence of such consent. NOW THEREFORE, the Grantor, for itself, its successors, 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 of quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, buiMing 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 these Proffers shall constitute covenants running with the said Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantor, their heirs, personal representatives, assigns, grantees and other successors in interest or title, namely: 1. The Property shall be developed into eighteen (18) zoned R-20, conditional, Residential lots laid out substantially as depicted in the plan entitled "Rezoning and Preliminary Subdivision Plan of Parcel A, Thoroughgood, Section 8, Part 4 for Charles F. Bowden," prepared by John E. Sirine & Associates, Ltd., dated January 2, 2002, which plan has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Planning Department of the City of Virginia Beach (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"). All storm drainage shall be directed to infiltration swales as shown on the plan. All dwellings shall have a minimum of 2,800 square feet of living area excluding 3. garages. 4. All dwellings shall have brick veneer on the front, side, and rear of the outside walls, compatible with the homes on Delray Drive. Further reasonable conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Development Plan and/or Subdivision review and administration of applicable City Codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City Code requirements. All references hereinabove to zoning districts and to regulations applicable thereto, refer - Page 2 - to the City Zoning Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date the conditional zoning amendment is approved by the Grantee. The Grantor covenants and agrees 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, including (i) the ordering in writing of the remedying of any noncompliance with such conditions, and (ii) the bringing of the legal action or suit to ensure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages or other appropriate action, suit or proceedings; (2) the failure to meet all conditions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) if aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator made pursuant to the provisions of the City Code, the CZO or this Agreement, the Grantors shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) the Zoning Map shown by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the subject Property on the map, and that the ordinance and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator, and in the Planning Department, and that they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the name of the Grantors and Grantee. WITNESS THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES AND SEALS, CHARLES F. BOWDEN ~-/ JEAN L.' BORDEN / JA~ELINE L. BO~DOIN DATE DATE DATE Sworn to and sub.scribed before me. in my presence this_~_J_day oI~;Z,J.~14..,~ . 200~3_. A Virginia No, fy Public. Ins0d lot the"S{~t~ 9t Large.. - Page 3 - State of Virginia City of Virginia Beach, to wit The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ ~ ~ day of ~, 2002 by CHARLES F. BOWDEN, JEAN L. BOWDEN AND JACQUELINE L. BOWDOIN as owners of Parcel A, Subdivision of Thoroughgood, Section 8, Part 4. My Commission Expires Approved By: 'bO. Date: J I I - Page 4 - EXHIBIT "A" A1.L THAT certain lot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, lying, situate and being in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and being known, numbered and designated as Parcel A, as shown on that certain plat entitled "Subdivision of Thoroughgood, Section 8, Part 4, Bayside Borough, Virginia Beach, Virginia" which said plat is dully recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in Deed Book 2580, at Page 2157. - Page 5 - Map B-9 h!~ ~ot to $co~e Ranbu Lake Co. 37A Gpin 1456-33-4300 ZONING HISTORY 1. Rezoning from R-D1 (Residential Duplex) to R-S4 (Residential Suburban), R-M (Multifamily) and C-L2 (Limited Commercial) - Granted 7/11/66 2. Conditional Use Permit (Apartments) -Granted 6/8/70 3. Street Closure (Old Providence Road) - Granted 6/26/78 4. Street Closure (Old Providence Road) - Granted 01/08/02 5. Conditional Use Permit (auto sales) - Granted 4/27/93 Conditional Use Permit (auto repair) - Granted 8/11/98 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Banbury Lake Village Company, LLP, Change of Zoning MEETING DATE: April 23, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Banbury Lake Village Company, L.L.P., for a Change of Zonin.q District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to A-18 Apartment District on certain property located 65.34 feet south of Old Providence Road beginning at a point 750 feet more or less west from the eastern terminus of Old Providence Road (GPIN #1456-33- 3430). Said parcel contains 15,941.96 square feet. DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a change of zoning from B-2 Community Business District to A-18 Apartment District to correct a situation on a parcel that contains 29 parking spaces for the existing apartment complex to the west. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because this will correct a nonconforming situation, staff recommended approval and there was no opposition to the request. Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion unanimously by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosu re Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. ~ i~ n~iattni ;~ .~ eD~ [~n,c~a~,~g Departmen~/~.~ BANBURY LAKE VILLAGE COMPANY, LLP / # 4 March 13, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Change of zoning from B-2 Community Business District to A-18 Apartment District Property is located 65.34 feet south of Old Providence Road beginning at a point 750' west of the eastern terminus of Old Providence Road M.p ]~-9 Lake Co. G~in 1456-33-4300 GPIN: 1456-33-3430 Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 BANBURY LAKE VILLAGE COMPANY, LLP / # 4 Page 1 ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: URPOSE: Centerville 0.366 acre Barbara Duke To correct a nonconforming situation on a parcel that contains twenty-nine parking spaces for the existing apartment complex to the west. Banbury Lake Village Company LLP acquired a tract of land, west of the subject site from Coleman Farms in 1971. The site was developed with 187 multifamily units on 11.425 acres. In 1976, the same ownership acquired the subject site, a 0.366 acre strip, and constructed an additional twenty-nine parking spaces for the exclusive use of the apartment residents. The property at that time was zoned B-2. Upon recent refinancing of the apartment community, the Lender has requested the owners to seek rezoning for the 0.366 acre parcel. Major Issues: · Consistency of the request with City plans, policies, and ordinances. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The property currently contains twenty-nine parking spaces for the Banbury Lake Village Apartments and is zoned B-2. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 BANBURY LAKE VILLAGE COMPANY, LLP / # 4 Page 2 Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: West: Vacant property / B-2 Community Business District Church / B-2 Community Business District Vacant property / B-2 Community Business District Banbury Lake Village Apartments / A-18 Apartment District Zoning and Land Use Statistics With Existing Zoning: Parking lot as currently developed, or the property could be combined with adjacent property to the east for commercial development With Proposed Zoning: Parking lot to serve Banbury Lake Village Apartments Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 BANBURY LAKE VILLAGE COMPANY, LLP / # 4 Page 3 Zoninq History This site was part of a comprehensive rezoning in 1966 that created the College Park neighborhood. A conditional use permit for apartments was granted on the site to the west (# 2), known as Banbury Lake Village Apartments, in 1970. Map B-9 Mmp Not to $cmle Rezoning from R-D1 (Residential Duplex) to R-S4 (Residential Suburban), R-M (Multifamily) and C-L2 (Limited Commercial)- Granted 7/11/66 Conditional Use Permit (Apartments) - Granted 6/8/70 Lake Gpin 1456-33-4300 3. Street Closure (Old Providence Road) - Granted 6/26/78 4. Street Closure (Old Providence Road) - Granted 01/08/02 5. Conditional Use Permit (auto sales) - Granted 4/27/93 Conditional Use Permit (auto repair) - Granted 8/11/98 Coe Public Facilities and Services This rezoning will have no impact on water, sewer, schools, roads or police and fire operations. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area for development consistent with current zoning. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 BANBURY LAKE VILLAGE COMPANY, LLP / # 4 Page 4 Evaluation of Request This request to rezone 0.366 acres from B-2 Community Business District to A-18 Apartment District will correct a currently nonconforming situation. The applicant has stated that the property line between the apartment site and the 0.366 acre parcel will be vacated by recorded plat. The rezoning from B-2 Community Business District to A- 18 Apartment District is recommended for approval. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 BANBURY LAKE VILLAGE COMPANY, LLP / # 4 Page 5 Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 BANBURY LAKE VILLAGE COMPANY, LLP / # 4 Page 6 Item #4 Baybury Lake Village Company Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to A- 18 Apartment District 65.34 Feet South of Old Providence Road District 1 Centerville March 13, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Ronald Ripley: Now, the next order of business is the Consent Agenda. Dot, will please take care of this? Dorothy Wood: Thank you Ron. This afternoon we have six items on our Consent Agenda. As I call the item, will you please step to the podium, state your name, if you read the conditions and agree with them. The first item is Banbury Lake Village Company. Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District to A-18 Apartment District, located on Old Providence Road beginning at a point 750 feet more or less west from the eastern terminus of Old Providence Road. It is District 1 Centerville. Bill Berger: I agree with all the conditions as outlined. Dot Wood: Can you? Ronald Ripley: Would you? Bill Berger: I'm sorry. I'm Bill Berger representing Baybury Lake Village Company, LLP and per the request, it was just an oversight that was made quite some time ago, initially back in the 70's and actually in a refinancing situation was brought to our attention that it was an inconsistency in the zoning so we're just looking to have that B-2 site rezoned to match the zoning for the apartments A- 18. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any opposition to this item? Ronald Ripley: May I interrupt? These items are being placed on a Consent Agenda and will be passed on and once there passed. If you have an opposition in any way whatsoever, you need come up and say it and we'll pull it off the agenda and you'll hear it at its regular time. I just wanted to remind everybody that. Dorothy Wood: And again this is located in Centerville. Thank you. Bill Berger: Thank you. Item #4 Baybury Lake Village Company Page 2 Dorothy Wood: Mr. Ripley, I would like to approve the four consent agenda items. Number 4 with no conditions; number 5 with eight conditions; number 6 with three conditions and number 15 with no conditions. I would like to move to approve this. Donald Horsley: Second. ROnald Ripley: Ronald Ripley: We have a motion by Dot Wood and a second by Don Horsley. So noted. Any other comments? So we call for the question? 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, the motion passes. Applicant,s Name: List All Current Property Owners: Banbury Lake Village Company, L.L.C. See ExhibitA - Banbury Lake Village Company, L.L.P. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach li~t if necessary) Lr the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) S_~ee Exhibit A - Banbury Lake Village Company L.L.p. ~ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, pannership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. ' If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE l..f the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if'necessary) U the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list ifn'eces, ary) CERTIFICATION: I certify that the informally.. Check here it' the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. :d herf~(F4_~ true armb~¢ura ~. re. LawrenC~ng Partner EXHIBIT A BANBURY LAKE VILLAGE COMPANY, L.L.P 6477 College Park Square, Suite 306 Virginia Beach, VA 23464 FHA Project #: 051-35077-PM ...ORGANIZATION: BANBURY LAKE VILLAGE COMPANY, L.L,p was organized as a general partnership on October 15, 1971 pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The partnership _w_as conv, erted t.o a li.m_ited liability partnership (LLP) effective June 30, . , owns ano operates a 1 ~7 unit _ . .200.0. The partnershi Road, Virginia Beach, VirginiaaP.artment complex known as Banbury Lake Village, Providenc~ PARTNERS: Lawrence J. Goldrich, Managing Partner I. William Berger Gall C. Berger John L. Frost Daniel Paul Snyder E. Thomas Snyder Joan Snyder Thomas F. White Liuba Firman, Trustee (u/w/o: Jay I. Firman (f/b/o: Liuba Firman) Diane Alson James P. Firman Mathew Firman M.A. Margaronis MANAGER: TOTAL: % INTERESTS 20.000 % 10.000 10.000 18.500 7.400 7.400 3.700 4.000 7.125 2.375 2.375 2.375 ..4.750 100.000 % Elizabeth Jo Hage - 420-3529 COUNSEL: Kaufman & Canoles - Mike Barney P.O. Box 3037 Norfolk, VA 23514-3037 (757) 624-3101 ACCOUNTANTS: Fax: 624-3169 Wilfore & Wynn, P.C. - Rick Wynn 4530 Professional Circle Virginia Beach, VA 23455 (757) 456-0111 TAX I.D. #: 54-6104832 Fax: 473-1095 TAX YEAR: Calendar Year Revised 8-8-00 APPOINTMENTS: COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD EASTERN VIRGINIA MEDICAL SCHOOL VIRGINIA BEACH HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD P. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Qo NEW BUSINESS 1. ABSTRACT OF CIVIL CASES RESOLVED - March 2002 R. ADJOURNMENT