Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJUNE 11, 2002 AGENDAof Vir inia l each CITY COUNCIL MAYOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORF, At-Large VICE MAYOR WILLIAM D. SESSOMS, JR., At-Large LINWOOD O. BRANCH, Ill, 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 June 11, 2002 I. CITY COUNCIL'S BRIEFING - Conference Room - 3:00 PM Ao MAG LEV Vice-Mayor Sessoms and Council Lady Parker CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING - Conference Room - A° PRINCESS ANNE BALLFIELDS RELOCATION Steven T. Thompson - Chief Financial Officer REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS IV CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS V. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 5:00 PM Ao CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION VI. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00 PM Ao Co CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf INVOCATION: Reverend Jess Jackson Westwood Hill Baptist Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION F. MINUTES Go 1. INFORMAL A_ND FORMAL SESSIONS AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION June 4, 2002 H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. AGRICULTURAL RESERVE PROGRAM (ARP) 114.14 acres 17.98 acres more or less 56.37 acres more or less 64.94 acres more or less 59.7 acres more or less - Crags Causeway and West Gibbs Road - 6316 Crags Causeway - 2253 Vaughan Road - 2253 Vaughan Road - 2253 Vaughan Road 2. MASTER LEASE - 31st Street Parking Garage ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS Ordinances to AUTHORIZE the acquisition of Agricultural Reserve Preservation (ARP) easements and issuance of contract obligations: (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) a. John P. Lancaster 114.14 acres $335,201 Installment Purchase Agreement No. 2002-45 b. Margaret Patsel 17.98 acres more/less $55,738 Installment Purchase Agreement No. 2002-46 c. Robert P. and Edward L. Vaughan 56.37 acres $318,087 Installment Purchase Agreement No. 2002-47 d. Edward L. Vaughan 64.94 acres more/less $229,188 Installment Purchase Agreement No. 2002-48 e. Kathy Vaughan 59.7 acres more/less $268,767 Installment Purchase Agreement No. 2002-49 Ordinance to AMEND §§ 21-71 through 21-77, 21-79, 21-85, 21-86 and 21-364, 21- 75.1, 21-78, 21-80 through 21-84 and 21-87 of the City COde re DMV collection of local vehicle license fees. o Ordinance to AMEND §§ 21-424, 21-426 and 21-429 of the City Code re fees and access trips for towing of vehicles from private property. Ordinances re temporary encroachments into a portion the City's rights-of-way: ao London Bridge Creek by GEORGE J. AND MARSHA A. DANCIGERS re a pier, wharf and stone revetment at 2701 Cattayle Run. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) Easement at London Bridge Creek by L & S ASSOCIATES, LLC (WAWA) re a 300-foot canal at the rear of Parker Lane. (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $2,519,000 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Grant for upgrading citywide traffic signal system withVDOT funding. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $80,000 fi'om the General Fund for an Interest-Free loan to Kempsville Rescue Squad re ambulance replacement. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $23,350 revenues received through Wetlands and Coastal Primary Sand Dunes Zoning violations to the FY-2001-02 operating budget re Department of Agriculture. 8. Ordinances re COMPENSATION: a. City Manager b. City Attomey c. City Clerk d. City Assessor Resolution to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to make application for the proposed Green Sea Scenic Byway designation for certain roadways between Sandbridge, Newbridge and Sandfiddler Roads. 10. Resolution to ACCEPT the Shore Drive Transportation Study with its recommendations. 11. Resolution to AUTHORIZE reconstruction/relocation of a nonconforming duplex at 305 26 a/2 Street, subject to certain limitations. PLANNING MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS placed on the April 24, 2001, to extend the approved Conditional Use Permit for a borrow pit in behalf of MR. and MRS. MICHAEL L. CULLIPHER at 772 Princess Anne Road. (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of L.B.H., L.L.C. for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of the unimproved portion of Ferry Point Road south of Indian River Road, containing 2,383 square feet. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Applications of General Booth Storage, Inc., a Virginia corporation, on the west side of General Booth Boulevard. (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) Mod~cation qfConditions placed on the application for a conditional use permit for mini-warehouses on October 9, 2001, to allow this variance b. Variance re subdividing three lots into two Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of Robert E. Steinhilber for a Variance of the Subdivision Ordinance, located on the west side of Crags Causeway, south of Baum Road. (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application ofCharlie Falk Auto Wholesaler, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit re motor vehicle sales and service on the south side of Virginia Beach Boulevard, east of Groveland Road, (3237 Virginia Beach Boulevard), containing 1.549 acres. (DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL.) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of City of Virginia Beach, Virginia re the City's Comprehensive Plan amendment to add the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines. Recommendation: APPROVAL Lo No 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) Deferred: Staff Recommends: Planning Commission Recommends: April 23, 2002 APPROVAL DENIAL Application of SUDHAKAR J. LAVINGIA for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-10 Residential District to PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District - PUD, on the north side of Stumpy Lake Lane, containing 3.9 acres. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE). Recommendation: APPROVAL APPOINTMENTS MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL SPORTS AUTHORITY OF HAMPTON ROADS AIRPORT AUTHORITY BEACHES AND WATERWAYS COMMISSION HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION SHORE DRIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD TIDEWATER COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD TIDEWATER REGIONAL GROUP HOME COMMISSION TIDEWATER TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT COMMISSION UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 1. ABSTRACT OF CIVIL CASES RESOLVED - May 2002 ADJOURNMENT If you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 4274303 Hearing impaired, call: TDD only 4274305 (TDD - Telephonic Device for the Deaf) 06/06/02st AGENDA 06/11/02 www.vbgov.eom CITY COUNCIL'S BRIEFING - Conference Room - A. MAG LEV Vice-Mayor Sessoms and Council Lady Parker CITY MANAGER'S BRIEFING - Conference Room - A. PRINCESS ANNE BALLFIELDS RELOCATION Steven T. Thompson - Chief Financial Officer REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS 3:00 PM IV CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS V. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 5:00 PM 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 Jess Jackson Westwood Hill Baptist Church C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D. ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL E. CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSIONS June 4, 2002 G. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 'That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or considered by Virginia Beach City Council. H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. AGRICULTURAL RESERVE PROGRAM (ARP) ao 114.14 acres 17.98 acres more or less 56.37 acres more or less 64.94 acres more or less 59.7 acres more or less - Crags Causeway and West Gibbs Road - 6316 Crags Causeway - 2253 Vaughan Road - 2253 Vaughan Road - 2253 Vaughan Road 2. MASTER LEASE - 31 ~t Street Parking Garage THE BEACON Sunday, 'May 26, 2002 · THE BEAC01~ Su'n'.d~iy~ Iuh~ 2,'2002; NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING ON THE EXECUTION AND DEUVERY OF INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR THE ACQUISITIOBN ~ OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ON CERTAIN PROPERTY Y THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach. Virginia, will hold a public hearing with respect to the execution and delivery of Installment Purchase Agreements for the acquisition of agricultural land preservation easements with respect to lands located on Vaughan Road, Crags Causeway and West Gibbs Road, in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, pursuant to Ordinance No. 95-2319, known as the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance, which establishes an agricultural reserve program for the southern portion ol the City desig. hated to (a) promote and encourage the preservation of farmland. (b) preserve open spaces and the area's rural character. (c) conserve and protect environmentally sensitive resources, (d) reduce and defer the need for major infrastructure improvements and the expenditure of public funds for such improvements, and (e) assist in shaping the character, direction and tinting of com~nunity development. Such easements will be purchased pursuant to Installment Purchase Agreements for an a~regate estimated maximum pumhaee price of $1.206,981. The City's obligation to pay the purchase price under the Installment Purchase Agreements is a general obligation of the City, and the full faith and credit and the unlirnited taxing power ol the City will be irrevocably pledged to the punctual payment of the purchase price and the interest on the unpaid principal balance of the purchase price as and when the same respectively become due and payable. The public headng, which may be c(mtinued or adjourned, will be held by the Cily Council on June 11, 2002, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber located on the 2nd floor of tile City Hall Building, 2401 Courthouse Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Any person interested in this matter may appear and be beard. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. VIRGINIA Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC City Clerk Beacon May 26 and June 2. 2002 5830084 THE BEACON' Sunday; Juhe 2,'2002' PUBLIC HEARING LEASE OF CITY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PROPERTY The Virginia Beach City Council will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the granting of a Master Lease of approximately 26,000 s(luare feet of retail space an real property that is owned in part by the City and in part by the Authority, Tuesday. June 11. 2002, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 2nd Floor. City Hall, Building it 1, 2401 Courthouse Drive, Municipal Center, Virginia Beach. Virginia. The retail space is to be owned and constructed by the City of Virginia Beach and the Vir- ginia Beach Development Authority and is situated at the proposed 31st. Street Parking Garage in the Beach District of Virginia Beach. Pursuant to Section 15.2-2100 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the City and the Authority solicited bias for the development, managing and leasing of the retail space. The purpose o1' this hear- ing will be to obtain public comment to determine whether the City should enter into a Master Lease with the successful respondent. A map depicting the area of the subject property can be viewed in the Office of the Director of the Department of Public Works, Suite 340. Building 2. at the Municipal Center. Questions conceming this matter can be directed to Mr. Phillip Roehrs in the Department of Public Works at 427-4167. If you are physically or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, please call the City Clerk's Office at 427-4303. Hearing impaired, call TTY only at 427-4305 (TTY-Telephonic Device for the Deaf). Ruth Hodges Smith. MMC City Clerk ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS Ordinances to AUTHORIZE the acquisition of Agricultural Reserve Preservation (ARP) easements and issuance of contract obligations: (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) a. John P. Lancaster 114.14 acres $335,201 Installment Purchase Agreement No. 2002-45 bo Margaret Patsel 17.98 acres more/less Installment Purchase Agreement No. 2002-46 $55,738 c. Robert P. and Edward L. Vaughan 56.37 acres $318,087 Installment Purchase Agreement No. 2002-47 Edward L. Vaughan 64.94 acres more/less Installment Purchase Agreement No. 2002-48 $229,188 e. Kathy Vaughan 59.7 acres more/less $268,767 Installment Purchase Agreement No. 2002-49 Ordinance to AMEND §§ 21-71 through 21-77, 21-79, 21-85, 21-86 and 21-364, 21- 75.1, 21-78, 21-80 through 21-84 and 21-87 of the City Code re DMV collection of local vehicle license fees. o 10. 11. Ordinance to AMEND §§ 21-424, 21-426 and 21-429 of the City Code re fees and access trips for towing of vehicles from private property. Ordinances re temporary encroachments into a portion the City's rights-of-way: London Bridge Creek by GEORGE J. AND MARSHA A. DANCIGERS re a pier, wharf and stone revetment at 2701 Cattayle Run. (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) bo Easement at London Bridge Creek by L & S ASSOCIATES, LLC (WAWA) re a 300-foot canal at the rear of Parker Lane. (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) Ordinance to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a $2,519,000 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Grant for upgrading citywide traffic signal system withVDOT funding. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $80,000 from the General Fund for an Interest-Free loan to Kempsville Rescue Squad re ambulance replacement. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $23,350 revenues received through Wetlands and Coastal Primary Sand Dunes Zoning violations to the FY-2001-02 operating budget re Department of Agriculture. Ordinances re COMPENSATION: a. City Manager b. City Attorney c. City Clerk d. City Assessor Resolution to AUTHORIZE the City Manager to make application for the proposed Green Sea Scenic Byway designation for certain roadways between Sandbridge, Newbridge and Sandfiddler Roads. Resolution to ACCEPT the Shore Drive Transportation Study with its recommendations. Resolution to AUTHORIZE reconstruction/relocation of a nonconforming duplex at 305 26 ½ Street, subject to certain limitations. 0 0 (Dx C~ ~ 0 0 0 "-' ~ ~ ~ ('",1 O0 0 0 (',q u'~ 0 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager An Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of an Agricultural Land Preservation Easement and the Issuance by the City of its Contract Obligations in the Maximum Principal Amount of $335,201 (Property of John Lancaster) MEETING DATE: June 11,2002 Background: In May, 1995, the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance (the "Ordinance") was adopted by the City Council for the purpose of promoting and encouraging the preservation of farmland in the rural southern portion of the City. Under the Agricultural Reserve Program established by the Ordinance, the City purchases the development rights of eligible parcels of land, leaving the fee simple ownership of the land unchanged. These purchases are embodied by perpetual agricultural land preservation easements pursuant to which only agricultural uses, as defined in the Ordinance, are allowed on the land. The subject property has been appraised by an independent appraiser retained by the City. The appraiser has determined the fair market value of the property, based upon eighteen (18) comparable sales. From the fair market value, the value of the development rights has been determined by subtracting $900 per acre, which has previously been established as the farm value (i.e., value of the land restricted to agricultural uses) for land throughout the southern rural area of the City. The resulting amount is the value of the development rights of the property. All offers by the City to purchase the development rights to property are expressly made contingent upon the absence of any title defects or other conditions which, in the opinion of the City Attorney, may adversely affect the City's interests, and other standard contingencies. Considerations: The subject property consists of three (3) parcels of land having approximately 117.14 acres outside of marshland or swampland. It is owned by John P. Lancaster. Under current development regulations, there is a total development potential of thirteen (13) single-family dwelling building sites, one (1) of which would be reserved for future development. Thus, the preservation easement acquired by the City would cover approximately 114.14 acres. The site, which is shown on the attached Location Map, is located on Crags Causeway and West Gibbs Road, in the District of Princess Anne. The proposed purchase price, as stated in the ordinance, is $335,201. This price is the equivalent of approximately $2,937 per acre of easement acquired. The terms of the proposed acquisition are that the City would pay interest only for a period of 25 years, with the principal amount being due and payable 25 years from the date of closing. The interest rate to be paid by the City will be the greater of 4.25% per annum or the per annum rate which is equal to the yield on U.S. Treasury STRIPS purchased by the City to fund its principal obligation under the Installment Purchase Agreement, not to exceed 6.25% without the further approval of the City Council. The proposed terms and conditions of the purchase of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement, including the purchase price and manner of payment, are fair and reasonable and in furtherance of the purposes of the Ordinance. Recommended Action: Adoption Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Agriculture City Manage~ l~-- , Public Information: The ordinance has been advertised by publication in a newspaper having general circulation in the City once per week for two successive weeks. Alternatives: The City Council may decline to purchase the development rights to the property. Recommendations: Adoption of the ordinance and acquisition of the development rights, assuming all contingencies are met. Attachments: Summary of Material Terms of Installment Purchase Agreement (full Agreement is on file in the City Attomey's Office) Boundary Line Under Consideration /Lancaster 11; t 2 3 4 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION EASEMENT AND THE ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF ITS CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS IN THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $335,201 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 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance (the "Ordinance"), Appendix J of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach, there has been presented to the City Council a request for approval of an Installment Purchase Agreement (the form and standard provisions of which have been previously approved by the City Council, a summary of the material terms of which is hereto attached, and a true copy of which is on file in the City Attorney's Office) for the acquisition of the Development Rights (as defined in the Installment Purchase Agreement) on certain property located in the City and more fully described in Exhibit B of the Installment Purchase Agreement for a purchase price of $335,201; and WHEREAS, the aforesaid Development Rights shall be acquired through the acquisition of a perpetual agricultural land preservation easement, as defined in, and in compliance with, the requirements of the Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed terms and conditions of the purchase as evidenced by the Installment Purchase Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. The City Council hereby determines and finds that the proposed terms and conditions of the purchase of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement, including the purchase price and manner of payment, are fair and reasonable and in furtherance of the purposes of the Ordinance, and the City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to approve, upon or before the execution and delivery of the Installment Purchase Agreement, the rate of 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 interest to accrue on the unpaid principal balance of the purchase price set forth hereinabove as the greater of 4.25% per annum or the per annum rate which is equal to the yield on United States Treasury STRIPS purchased by the City to fund such unpaid principal balance; provided, however, that such rate of interest shall not exceed 6.25% unless the approval of the City Council by resolution duly adopted is first obtained. 2. The City Council hereby further- determines that funding is available for the acquisition of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth therein. 3. The City Council hereby expressly approves the Installment Purchase Agreement and, subject to the determination of the City Attorney that there are no defects in title to the property or other restrictions or encumbrances thereon which may, in the opinion of the City Attorney, adversely affect the City's interests, authorizes the City Manager or his designee to execute and deliver the Installment Purchase Agreement in substantially the same form and substance as approved hereby with such minor modifications, insertions, completions or omissions which do not materially alter the purchase price or manner of payment, as the City Manager or his designee shall approve. The City Council further directs the City Clerk to affix the seal of the City to, and attest same on, the Installment Purchase Agreement. The City Council expressly authorizes the incurrence of the indebtedness represented by the issuance and delivery of the Installment Purchase Agreement. 4. The City Council hereby elects to issue the indebtedness under the Charter of the City rather than pursuant to the Public Finance Act of 1991 and hereby constitutes the indebtedness a contractual obligation bearing the full faith and credit of the City. 2 68 69 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2002. 70 71 Adoption requires an affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the City Council. 72 73 74 75 CA8493 arppurchase/lancaster/lancasterord.wpd R-1 May 20, 2002 76 77 78 79 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Agric~ltore Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: 80 81 82 APPROVED AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Fi-h a~n~c ~- DeparTment AGRICULTURAL RESERVE PROGRAM INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT NO. 2002-45 SUMMARY OF MATERIAL TERMS SELLER: John P. Lancaster PROPERTY LOCATION: Crags Causeway and West Gibbs Road PURCHASE PRICE: $335,201 EASEMENT AREA: 114.14 acres more or less DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: 13 single-family dwelling sites (12 acquired, 1 reserved for future development) DURATION: Perpetual INTEREST RATE: Equal to yield on U.S. Treasury STRIPS acquired by City to fund purchase price, but not less than 4.25% (actual rate to be determined when STRIPS are purchased prior to execution of I~A). Rate may not exceed 6.25% without approval of City Council. TERMS: Interest only twice per year for 25 years, with payment of principal due 25 years from IPA date RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER: IPA ownership may not be transferred (except for Estate Settlement Transfer) for one (1) year following execution and delivery of CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager An Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of an Agricultural Land Preservation Easement and the Issuance by the City of its Contract Obligations in the Maximum Principal Amount of $55,738 (Property of Margaret Patsel) MEETING DATE: June 11,2002 Background: In May, 1995, the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance (the "Ordinance") was adopted by the City Council for the purpose of promoting and encouraging the preservation of farmland in the rural southern portion of the City. Under the Agricultural Reserve Program established by the Ordinance, the City purchases the development rights of eligible parcels of land, leaving the fee simple ownership of the land unchanged. These purchases are embodied by perpetual agricultural land preservation easements pursuant to which only agricultural uses, as defined in the Ordinance, are allowed on the land. The subject property has been appraised by an independent appraiser retained by the City. The appraiser has determined the fair market value of the property, based upon eighteen (18) comparable sales. From the fair market value, the value of the development rights has been determined by subtracting $900 per acre, which has previously been established as the farm value (i.e., value of the land restricted to agricultural uses) for land throughout the southern rural area of the City. The resulting amount is the value of the development rights of the property. All offers by the City to purchase the development rights to property are expressly made contingent upon the absence of any title defects or other conditions which, in the opinion of the City Attorney, may adversely affect the City's interests, and other standard contingencies. Considerations: The subject property consists of one (1) parcel of land having approximately 17.98 acres outside of marshland or swampland. It is owned by Margaret Patsel. Under current development regulations, there is a total development potential of two (2) single-family dwelling building sites, none of which would be reserved for future development. Thus, the preservation easement acquired by the City would cover approximately 17.98 acres. The site, which is shown on the attached Location Map, is located on 6316 Crags Causeway, in the District of Princess Anne. The proposed purchase price, as stated in the ordinance, is $55,738. This price is the equivalent of approximately $3,100 per acre of easement acquired. The terms of the proposed acquisition are that the City would pay interest only for a period of 25 years, with the principal amount being due and payable 25 years from the date of closing. The interest rate to be paid by the City will be the greater of 4.25% per annum or the per annum rate which is equal to the yield on U.S. Treasury STRIPS purchased by the City to fund its principal obligation under the Installment Purchase Agreement, not to exceed 6.25% without the further approval of the City Council. The proposed terms and conditions of the purchase of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement, including the purchase price and manner of payment, are fair and reasonable and in furtherance of the purposes of the Ordinance. Recommended Action: Adoption Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Agriculture City Manager~~-~-,c~..~ '~__ . ~ ~ Public Information: The ordinance has been advertised by publication in a newspaper having general circulation in the City once per week for two successive weeks. Alternatives: The City Council may decline to purchase the development rights to the property. Recommendations: Adoption of the ordinance and acquisition of the development rights, assuming all contingencies are met. Attachments: Summary of Material Terms of Installment Purchase Agreement (full Agreement is on file in the City Attorney's Office) Boundary Line Under Consideration ~ Patsel 1 2 3 4 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION EASEMENT AND THE ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF ITS CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS IN THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $55,738 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance (the "Ordinance"), Appendix J of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach, there has been presented to the City Council a request for approval of an Installment Purchase Agreement (the form and standard provisions of which have been previously approved by the City Council, a summary of the material terms of which is hereto attached, and a true copy of which is on file in the City Attorney's Office) for the acquisition of the Development Rights (as defined in the Installment Purchase Agreement) on certain property located in the City and more fully described in Exhibit B of the Installment Purchase Agreement for a purchase price of $55,738; and WHEREAS, the aforesaid Development Rights shall be acquired through the acquisition of a perpetual agricultural land preservation easement, as defined in, and in compliance with, the requirements of the Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed terms and conditions of the purchase as evidenced by the Installment Purchase Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. The City Council hereby determines and finds that the proposed terms and conditions of the purchase of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement, including the purchase price and manner of payment, are fair and reasonable and in furtherance of the purposes of the Ordinance, and the City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to approve, upon or before the execution and delivery of the Installment Purchase Agreement, the rate of 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 interest to accrue on the unpaid principal balance of the purchase price set forth hereinabove as the greater of 4.25% per annum or the per annum rate which is equal to the yield on United States Treasury STRIPS purchased by the City to fund such unpaid principal balance; provided, however, that such rate of interest shall not exceed 6.25% unless the approval of the City Council by resolution duly adopted is first obtained. 2. The City Council hereby further determines that funding is available for the acquisition of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth therein. 3. The City Council hereby expressly approves the Installment Purchase Agreement and, subject to the determination of the City Attorney that there are no defects in title to the property or other restrictions or encumbrances thereon which may, in the opinion of the City Attorney, adversely affect the City's interests, authorizes the City Manager or his designee to execute and deliver the Installment Purchase Agreement in substantially the same form and substance as approved hereby with such minor modifications, insertions, completions or omissions which do not materially alter the purchase price or manner of payment, as the City Manager or his designee shall approve. The City Council further directs the City Clerk to affix the seal of the City to, and attest same on, the Installment Purchase Agreement. The City Council expressly authorizes the incurrence of the indebtedness represented by the issuance and delivery of the Installment Purchase Agreement. 4. The City Council hereby elects to issue the indebtedness under the Charter of the City rather than pursuant to the Public Finance Act of 1991 and hereby constitutes the indebtedness a contractual obligation bearing the full faith and credit of the City. 2 68 69 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2002. 70 71 Adoption requires an affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the City Council. 72 73 74 75 CA8493 arppurchase/patsel/patselord.wpd R-1 May 20, 2002 76 77 78 79 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: L~fw D~artmen~ ~ ' -- 8O 81 82 APPROVED AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Finance- Department ~ 3 AGRICULTURAL RESERVE PROGRAM INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT NO. 2002-46 SUMMARY OF MATERIAL TERMS SELLER: Margaret Patsel PROPERTY LOCATION: 6316 Crags Causeway PURCHASE PR/CE: $55,738 EASEMENT AREA: 17.98 acres more or less DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: 2 single-family dwelling sites (2 acquired) DURATION: Perpetual INTEREST RATE: Equal to yield on U.S. Treasury STRIPS acquired by City to fund purchase price, but not less than 4.25% (actual rate to be determined when STRIPS are purchased prior to execution of IPA). Rate may not exceed 6.25% without approval of City Council. TERMS: Interest only twice per year for 25 years, with payment of principal due 25 years from IPA date RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER: IPA ownership may not be transferred (except for Estate Settlement Transfer) for one (1) year following execution and delivery of IPA. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager An Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of an Agricultural Land Preservation Easement and the Issuance by the City of its Contract Obligations in the Maximum Principal Amount of $318,087 (Property of Robert P. and Edward L. Vaughan) MEETING DATE: June 11,2002 Background: In May, 1995, the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance (the "Ordinance") was adopted by the City Council for the purpose of promoting and encouraging the preservation of farmland in the rural southern portion of the City. Under the Agricultural Reserve Program established by the Ordinance, the City purchases the development rights of eligible parcels of land, leaving the fee simple ownership of the land unchanged. These purchases are embodied by perpetual agricultural land preservation easements pursuant to which only agricultural uses, as defined in the Ordinance, are allowed on the land. The subject property has been appraised by an independent appraiser retained by the City. The appraiser has determined the fair market value of the property, based upon eighteen (18) comparable sales. From the fair market value, the value of the development rights has been determined by subtracting $900 per acre, which has previously been established as the farm value (i.e., value of the land restricted to agricultural uses)for land throughout the southern rural area of the City. The resulting amount is the value of the development rights of the property. All offers by the City to purchase the development rights to property are expressly made contingent upon the absence of any title defects or other conditions which, in the opinion of the City Attorney, may adversely affect the City's interests, and other standard contingencies. Considerations: The subject property consists of three (3) parcels of land having approximately 62.37 acres outside of marshland or swampland. It is owned by Robert P. and Edward L. Vaughan. Under current development regulations, there is a total development potential of five (5) single-family dwelling building sites, two (2) of which would be reserved for future development. Thus, the preservation easement acquired by the City would cover approximately 56.37 acres. The site, which is shown on the attached Location Map, is located on 2253 Vaughan Road, in the District of Princess Anne. The proposed purchase price, as stated in the ordinance, is $318,087. This price is the equivalent of approximately $5,643 per acre of easement acquired. The terms of the proposed acquisition are that the City would pay interest only for a period of 25 years, with the principal amount being due and payable 25 years from the date of closing. The interest rate to be paid by the City will be the greater of 4.25% per annum or the per annum rate which is equal to the yield on U.S. Treasury STRIPS purchased by the City to fund its principal obligation under the Installment Purchase Agreement, not to exceed 6.25% without the further approval of the City Council. The proposed terms and conditions of the purchase of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement, including the purchase price and manner of payment, are fair and reasonable and in furtherance of the purposes of the Ordinance. Recommended Action: Adoption Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Agriculture [ City Manager~~r~3 ~ ,~~ Public Information: The ordinance has been advertised by publication in a newspaper having general circulation in the City once per week for two successive weeks. Alternatives: The City Council may decline to purchase the development rights to the property. Recommendations: Adoption of the ordinance and acquisition of the development rights, assuming all contingencies are met. Attachments: Summary of Material Terms of Installment Purchase Agreement (full Agreement is on file in the City Attorney's Office) Boundary Line Under Consideration ughan 'ly 1 2 3 4 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION EASEMENT AND THE ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF ITS CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS IN THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $318,087 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance (the "Ordinance"), Appendix J of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach, there has been presented to the City Council a request for approval of an Installment Purchase Agreement (the form and standard provisions of which have been previously approved by the City Council, a summary of the material terms of which is hereto attached, and a true copy of which is on file in the City Attorney's Office) for the acquisition of the Development Rights (as defined in the Installment Purchase Agreement) on certain property located in the City and more fully described in Exhibit B of the Installment Purchase Agreement for a purchase price of $318,087; and WHEREAS, the aforesaid Development Rights shall be acquired through the acquisition of a perpetual agricultural land preservation easement, as defined in, and in compliance with, the requirements of the Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed terms and conditions of the purchase as evidenced by the Installment Purchase Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. The City Council hereby determines and finds that the proposed terms and conditions of the purchase of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement, including the purchase price and manner of payment, are fair and reasonable and in furtherance of the purposes of the Ordinance, and the City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to approve, upon or before the execution and delivery of the Installment Purchase Agreement, the rate of 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 interest to accrue on the unpaid principal balance of the purchase price set forth hereinabove as the greater of 4.25% per annum or the per annum rate which is equal to the yield on United States Treasury STRIPS purchased by the City to fund such unpaid principal balance; provided, however, that such rate of interest shall not exceed 6.25% unless the approval of the City Council by resolution duly adopted is first obtained. 2. The City Council hereby further' determines that funding is available for the acquisition of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth therein. 3. The City Council hereby expressly approves the Installment Purchase Agreement and, subject to the determination of the City Attorney that there are no defects in title to the property or other restrictions or encumbrances thereon which may, in the opinion of the City Attorney, adversely affect the City's interests, authorizes the City Manager or his designee to execute and deliver the Installment Purchase Agreement in substantially the same form and substance as approved hereby with such minor modifications, insertions, completions or omissions which do not materially alter the purchase price or manner of payment, as the City Manager or his designee shall approve. The City Council further directs the City Clerk to affix the seal of the City to, and attest same on, the Installment Purchase Agreement. The City Council expressly authorizes the incurrence of the indebtedness represented by the issuance and delivery of the Installment Purchase Agreement. 4. The City Council hereby elects to issue the indebtedness under the Charter of the City rather than pursuant to the Public Finance Act of 1991 and hereby constitutes the indebtedness a contractual obligation bearing the full faith and credit of the City. 2 68 69 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2002. 70 71 Adoption requires an affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the City Council. 72 73 74 75 CA8493 arppurchase/vaughan/vaughanord, wpd R-1 May 21, 2002 76 77 78 79 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Agriculture Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Law Departmeht 80 81 82 APPROVED AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: · ,': ".-' ~,, i,'x ? ~ b~'~',.~--'~''. Finah~e Department AGRICULTURAL RESERVE PROGRAM INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT NO. 2002-47 SUMMARY OF MATERIAL TERMS SELLER: Robert P. and Edward L. Vaughan PROPERTY LOCATION: 2253 Vaughan Road PURCHASE PRICE: $318,087 EASEMENT AREA: 56.37 acres more or less DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: 5 single-family dwelling sites (3 acquired, 2 reserved for future development) DURATION: Perpetual INTEREST RATE: Equal tO yield on U.S. Treasury STRIPS acquired by City to fund purchase price, but not less than 4.25% (actual rate to be determined when STRIPS are purchased prior to execution of IPA). Rate may not exceed 6.25% without approval of City Council. TERMS: Interest only twice per year for 25 years, with payment of principal due 25 years from PA date RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER: IPA ownership may not be transferred (except for Estate Settlement Transfer) for one (1) year following execution and delivery oflPA. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager An Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of an Agricultural Land Preservation Easement and the Issuance by the City of its Contract Obligations in the Maximum Principal Amount of $229,188 (Property of Edward L. Vaughan) MEETING DATE: June 11,2002 Background: In May, 1995, the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance (the "Ordinance") was adopted by the City Council for the purpose of promoting and encouraging the preservation of farmland in the rural southern portion of the City. Under the Agricultural Reserve Program established by the Ordinance, the City purchases the development rights of eligible parcels of land, leaving the fee simple ownership of the land unchanged. These purchases are embodied by perpetual agricultural land preservation easements pursuant to which only agricultural uses, as defined in the Ordinance, are allowed on the land. The subject property has been appraised by an independent appraiser retained by the City. The appraiser has determined the fair market value of the property, based upon eighteen (18) comparable sales. From the fair market value, the value of the development rights has been determined by subtracting $900 per acre, which has previously been established as the farm value (i.e., value of the land restricted to agricultural uses) for land throughout the southern rural area of the City. The resulting amount is the value of the development rights of the property. All offers by the City to purchase the development rights to property are expressly made contingent upon the absence of any title defects or other conditions which, in the opinion of the City Attorney, may adversely affect the City's interests, and other standard contingencies. Considerations: The subject property consists of four (4) parcels of land having approximately 64.94 acres outside of marshland or swampland. It is owned by Edward L. Vaughan. Under current development regulations, there is a total development potential of seven (7) single- family dwelling building sites, none of which would be reserved for future development. Thus, the preservation easement acquired by the City would cover approximately 64.94 acres. The site, which is shown on the attached Location Map, is located on 2253 Vaughan Road, in the District of Princess Anne. The proposed purchase price, as stated in the ordinance, is $229,188. This price is the equivalent of approximately $3,529 per acre of easement acquired. The terms of the proposed acquisition are that the City would pay interest only for a period of 25 years, with the principal amount being due and payable 25 years from the date of closing. The interest rate to be paid by the City will be the greater of 4.25% per annum or the per annum rate which is equal to the yield on U.S. Treasury STRIPS purchased by the City to fund its principal obligation under the Installment Purchase Agreement, not to exceed 6.25% without the further approval of the City Council. The proposed terms and conditions of the purchase of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement, including the purchase price and manner of payment, are fair and reasonable and in furtherance of the purposes of the Ordinance. Recommended Action: Adoption Submitting Department/Agency: Department of Agriculture City Mane! ~/..._,S )~ Public Information: The ordinance has been advertised by publication in a newspaper having general circulation' in the City once per week for two successive weeks. Alternatives: The City Council may decline to purchase the development rights to the property. Recommendations: Adoption of the ordinance and acquisition of the development rights, assuming all contingencies are met. Attachments: Summary of Material Terms of Installment Purchase Agreement (full Agreement is on file in the City Attorney's Office) Boundary Line Under Consideration ughan 'ly 1 2 3 4 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION EASEMENT AND THE ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF ITS CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS IN THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $229,188 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance (the "Ordinance"), Appendix J of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach, there has been presented to the City Council a request for approval of an Installment Purchase Agreement (the form and standard provisions of which have been previously approved by the City Council, a summary of the material terms of which is hereto attached, and a true copy of which is on file in the City Attorney's Office) for the acquisition of the Development Rights (as defined in the Installment Purchase Agreement) on certain property located in the City and more fully described in Exhibit B of the Installment Purchase Agreement $229,188; and WHEREAS, for a purchase price of the aforesaid Development Rights shall be acquired through the acquisition of a perpetual agricultural land preservation easement, as defined in, and in compliance with, the requirements of the Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed terms and conditions of the purchase as evidenced by the Installment Purchase Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. The City Council hereby determines and finds that the proposed terms and conditions of the purchase of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement, including the purchase price and manner of payment, are fair and reasonable and in furtherance of the purposes of the Ordinance, and the City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to approve, upon or before the execution and delivery of the Installment Purchase Agreement, the rate of 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 interest to accrue on the unpaid principal balance of the purchase price set forth hereinabove as the greater of 4.25% per annum or the per annum rate which is equal to the yield on United States Treasury STRIPS purchased by the City to fund such unpaid principal balance; provided, however, that such rate of interest shall not exceed 6.25% unless the approval of the City Council by resolution duly adopted is first obtained. 2. The City Council hereby further' determines that funding is available for the acquisition of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth, therein. 3. The City Council hereby expressly approves the Installment Purchase Agreement and, subject to the determination of the City Attorney that there are no defects in title to the property or other restrictions or encumbrances thereon which may, in the opinion of the City Attorney, adversely affect the City's interests, authorizes the City Manager or his designee to execute and deliver the Installment Purchase Agreement in substantially the same form and substance as approved hereby with such minor modifications, insertions, completions or omissions which do not materially alter the purchase price or manner of payment, as the City Manager or his designee shall approve. The City Council further directs the City Clerk to affix the seal of the City to, and attest same on, the Installment Purchase Agreement. The City Council expressly authorizes the incurrence of the indebtedness represented by the issuance and delivery of the Installment Purchase Agreement. 4. The City Council hereby elects to issue the indebtedness under the Charter of the City rather than pursuant to the Public Finance Act of 1991 and hereby constitutes the indebtedness a contractual obligation bearing the full faith and credit of the City. 68 69 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2002. 7O 71 Adoption requires an affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the City Council. 72 73 74 75 CA8497 arppurchase/vaughan,edward/vaughanEDord.wpd_ R-1 May 21, 2002 76 77 78 79 80 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Ag ~ i'cu~l ~u r e Departr~e~ APPROVED AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: L~ D-ePa r tmen~' '- 81 82 Finance Departmeht AGRICULTURAL RESERVE PROGRAM INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT NO. 2002-48 SUMMARY OF MATERIAL TERMS SELLER: Edward L. Vaughan PROPERTY LOCATION: 2253 Vaughan Road PURCHASE PRICE: $229,188 EASEMENT AREA: 64.94 acres more or less DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: 7 single-family dwelling sites (7 acquired) DURATION: Perpetual INTEREST RATE: Equal to yield on U.S. Treasury STRIPS acquired by City to fund purchase price, but not less than 4.25% (actual rate to be determined when STRIPS are purchased prior to execution of [PA). Rate may not exceed 6.25% without approval of City Council. TERMS: Interest only twice per year for 25 years, with payment o£principal due 25 years from [PA date RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER: [PA ownership may not be transferred (except for Estate Settlement Transfer) for one (1) year following execution and delivery of [PA. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager An Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of an Agricultural Land Preservation Easement and the Issuance by the City of its Contract Obligations in the Maximum Principal Amount of $268,767 (Property of Kathy M. Vaughan) MEETING DATE: June 11,2002 Background: In May, 1995, the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance (the "Ordinance") was adopted bythe City Council for the purpose of promoting and encouraging the preservation of farmland in the rural southern portion of the City. Under the Agricultural Reserve Program established by the Ordinance, the City purchases the development rights of eligible parcels of land, leaving the fee simple ownership of the land unchanged. These purchases are embodied by perpetual agricultural land preservation easements pursuant to which only agricultural uses, as defined in the Ordinance, are allowed on the land. The subject property has been appraised by an independent appraiser retained by the City. The appraiser has determined the fair market value of the property, based upon eighteen (18) comparable sales. From the fair market value, the value of the development rights has been determined by subtracting $900 per acre, which has previously been established as the farm value (i.e., value of the land restricted to agricultural uses)for land throughout the southern rural area of the City. The resulting amount is the value of the development rights of the property. All offers by the City to purchase the development rights to property are expressly made contingent upon the absence of any title defects or other conditions which, in the opinion of the City Attorney, may adversely affect the City's interests, and other standard contingencies. Considerations: The subject property consists of one (1) parcel of land having approximately 62.7 acres outside of marshland or swampland. It is owned by Kathy M. Vaughan. Under current development regulations, there is a total development potential of seven (7) single-family dwelling building sites, one (1) of which would be reserved for future development. Thus, the preservation easement acquired by the City would cover approximately 59.7 acres. The site, which is shown on the attached Location Map, is located on 2253 Vaughan Road, in the District of Princess Anne. The proposed purchase price, as stated in the ordinance, is $268,767. This price is the equivalent of approximately $4,502 per acre of easement acquired. The terms of the proposed acquisition are that the City would pay interest only for a period of 25 years, with the principal amount being due and payable 25 years from the date of closing. The interest rate to be paid by the City will be the greater of 4.25% per annum or the per annum rate which is equal to the yield on U.S. Treasury STRIPS purchased by the City to fund its principal obligation under the Installment Purchase Agreement, not to exceed 6.25% without the further approval of the City Council. The proposed terms and conditions of the purchase of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement, including the purchase price and manner of payment, are fair and reasonable and in furtherance of the purposes of the Ordinance. Recommended Action: Adoption Submitting Department/Agency: _Department of Agriculture City Manage~ ~y,_ , ~-'~ ~'v~-~. Public Information: The ordinance has been advertised by publication in a newspaper having general circulation in the City once per week for two successive weeks. Alternatives: The City Council may decline to purchase the development rights to the property. Recommendations: Adoption of the ordinance and acquisition of the development rights, assuming all contingencies are met. Attachments: Summary of Material Terms of Installment Purchase Agreement (full Agreement is on file in the City Attomey's Office) Boundary Line Under Consideration ghan rnil¥ 1 2 3 4 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION EASEMENT AND THE ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF ITS CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS IN THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $268,767 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 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agricultural Lands Preservation Ordinance (the "Ordinance"), Appendix J of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach, there has been presented to the City Council a request for approval cf an Installment Purchase Agreement (the form and standard provisions of which have been previously approved by the City Council, a summary of the material terms of which is hereto attached, and a true copy of which is on file in the City Attorney's Office) for the acquisition of the Development Rights (as defined in the Installment Purchase Agreement) on certain property located in the City and more fully described in Exhibit B of the Installment Purchase Agreement for a purchase price of $268,767; and WHEREAS, the aforesaid Development Rights shall be acquired through the acquisition of a perpetual agricultural land preservation easement, as defined in, and in compliance with, the requirements of the Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed terms and conditions of the purchase as evidenced by the Installment Purchase Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. The City Council hereby determines and finds that the proposed terms and conditions of the purchase of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement, including the purchase price and manner of payment, are fair and reasonable and in furtherance of the purposes of the Ordinance, and the City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to approve, upon or before the execution and delivery of the Installment Purchase Agreement, the rate of 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 66 67 interest to accrue on the unpaid principal balance of the purchase price set forth hereinabove as the greater of 4.25% per annum or the per annum rate which is equal to the yield on United States Treasury STRIPS purchased by the City to fund such unpaid principal balance; provided, however, that such rate of interest shall not exceed 6.25% unless the approval of the City Council by resolution duly adopted is first obtained. 2. The City Council hereby further determines that funding is available for the acquisition of the Development Rights pursuant to the Installment Purchase Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth therein. 3. The City Council hereby expressly approves the Installment Purchase Agreement and, subject to the determination of the City Attorney that there are no defects in title to the property or other restrictions or encumbrances thereon which may, in the opinion of the City Attorney, adversely affect the City's interests, authorizes the City Manager or his designee to execute and deliver the Installment Purchase Agreement in substantially the same form and substance as approved hereby with such minor modifications, insertions, completions or omissions which do not materially alter the purchase price or manner of payment, as the City Manager or his designee shall approve. The City Council further directs the City Clerk to affix the seal of the City to, and attest same on, the Installment Purchase Agreement. The City Council expressly authorizes the incurrence of the indebtedness represented by the issuance and delivery of the Installment Purchase Agreement. 4. The City Council hereby elects to issue the indebtedness under the Charter of the City rather than pursuant to the Public Finance Act of 1991 and hereby constitutes the indebtedness a contractual obligation bearing the full faith and credit of the City. 2 68 69 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2002. 7O 71 Adoption requires an affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the City Council. 72 73 74 75 CA8498 arppurchase/vaughan, kathy/vaughanKord, wpd R-1 May 21, 2002 76 77 78 79 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Agricu~%ure Department APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: L~w ~e~a rtme~t 80 81 82 APPROVED AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Finahce Department AGRICULTURAL RESERVE PROGRAM INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT NO. 2002-49 SUMMARY OF MATERIAL TERMS SELLER: Kathy M. Vaughan PROPERTY LOCATION: 2253 Vaughan Road PURCHASE PRICE: $268,767 EASEMENT AREA: 59.7 acres more or less DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: 7 single-family dwelling sites (6 acquired, 1 reserved for future development) DURATION: Perpetual INTEREST RATE: Equal to yield on U.S. Treasury STRIPS acquired by City to fund purchase price, but not less than 4.25% (actual rate to be determined when STRIPS are purchased prior to execution of [PA). Rate may not exceed 6.25% without approval of City Council. TERMS: Interest only twice per year for 25 years, with payment of principal due 25 years from [PA date RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER: [PA ownership may not be transferred (except for Estate Settlement Transfer) for one (1) year following execution and delivery of [PA. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Improving the Local Vehicle Registration Process MEETING DATE: June 11,2002 Background: The use of the decal to show that a vehicle is properly registered in Virginia Beach has been in place for many years and has undergone many process improvements. However, technology makes possible further improvements in ways not previously possible. By improving this process, the City hopes to accomplish the following objectiv es: 1. Create an easier, m ore considerate process for the citizens; 2. Achieve administrative efficiencies in the vehicle registration process; 3. Incur no negative budgetary impacts in order to maintain city services. On March 19, 2002, City Council was presented with three alternatives to improve this process. Questions that arose at this time were addressed at a second Council briefing on April 19 and the results of focus groups and telephone survey were reported. Of the three alternatives, staff recommended combining the local vehicle fee with the state vehicle registration process and eliminating the decal (Alternative II) as the alternative that best accomplishes the above objectives. Considerations: · The results of the focus groups and telephone survey revealed that while the vehicle decal was not the highest issue of concern for the participants, most would like to see it eliminated. · The majority (65%) of the residents interviewed advocated the elimination of the decal and the percentage remained over fifty percent when told the fee would not be eliminated. · Eliminating the local decal is a component of the alternative that combines the local fee with the state vehicle registration process. · This option also offers the most convenience to taxpayers: more locations, payment options, staggered due dates, and the lines at City Hall and satellite offices from decal sales will be gone. · Use of the Department of Motor Vehicles's Vehicle Registration Withholding Program (state tag hold) must be used to control personal property tax delinquencies in place of the decal. · The City Code will need to be modified to reflect this new procedure if adopted by City Council. Public Information: · Bonney and Company was retained to conduct four focus groups as well as a citizen survey regarding preferences and perceptions surrounding the decal. · The City Council received public comment at its meeting of May 28, 2002. Alternatives: The following alternativ es were presented to City Council for consideration: I. Combine the decal fee with the City's June 5 personal property tax bill; a. keep the decal b. eliminate the decal I1. Combine the local vehicle fee with the state vehicle registration process; eliminate the decal. II1. Increase the real estate tax; eliminate the decal and the decal fee. Recommendations: · It is recommended that City Council direct the City Manager to implement Alternative II, to combine the local vehicle fee with the state vehicle registration process and eliminate the decal, using the VRWP in its place. It is also recommended that the City Code be amended as needed to reflect the changes to the local vehicle registration process associated with the implementation of Alternative II above. Attachments: Ordinance IRecommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Finance City Manag~,l'~--~..-. '_\ ,/ ~, ~ F:~Da~TY~Ordin~NONCOl;~E~.License Fee Collection Process.arf. wpd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO LOCAL VEHICLE LICENSES TO ELIMINATE LICENSE DECALS AND PROVIDE FOR COLLECTION OF LICENSE FEES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES SECTIONS AMENDED: ~ 21-71, 21-72, 21-73, 21- 74, 21-75, 21-76, 21-77, 21-79, 21-85, 21-86 AND 21-364 SECTION ADDED: ~ 21-75.1 SECTIONS DELETED: ~ 21-78, 21-80, 21-81, 21- 82, 21-83, 21-84 and 21-87 WHEREAS, at the request of the City Council, City staff has studied the process by which the local vehicle license fee is collected; WHEREAS, City staff has identified a new process to accomplish City Council's objectives of providing increased convenience and administrative efficiencies in a manner that has no negative budgetary impact; and WHEREAS, this process would involve a system in which the local vehicle license fee would be collected by the state Department of Motor Vehicles at the same time the state vehicle registration fee is paid, with state vehicle registration being denied to persons with unpaid local vehicle license fees or delinquent personal property taxes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Manager is hereby directed to take all steps necessary to change from the current system, which utilizes the sale of vehicle license decals to receive the license fee and to collect delinquent personal property taxes, to implement a system in which local vehicle license fees will collected by the state Department of Motor Vehicles, and to amend or cancel the compact for mutual enforcement of local vehicle licenses that exists between Virginia Beach and other Hampton Roads localities. In making this transition, the City Manager is hereby authorized to employ local delinquent tax collectors, who may be persons employed 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 by the Finance Department, to assist in or assume the responsibility for collecting delinquent personal property taxes on motor vehicles, trailers or semitrailers, as authorized by Code of Virginia § 58.1-3934. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Council hereby requests the state Department of Motor Vehicles to collect motor vehicle, traile~ and semitrailer vehicle license fees beginning July 1, 2003, as authorized by Code of Virginia § 46.2-756. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Treasurer is hereby directed, pursuant to City Charter § 8.03, to enter in an agreement with the state Department of Motor Vehicles for it to refuse to issue or renew any vehicle registration to applicants with unpaid local vehicle license fees or delinquent taxes, as authorized by Code of Virginia § 46.2-752 (J) . BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Section 21-75.1 is hereby added, Sections 21-78, 21-80, 21-81, 21-82, 21-83, 21-84 and 21-87 are hereby deleted, and Sections 21-71, 21-72, 21-73, 21-74, 21-75, 21-76, 21-77, 21-79, 21-85, 21-86 and 21-364 of the City Code are hereby amended and reordained, to read as follows: Sec. 21-71. Local vehicle ~icense year term; definition. The license year for t~he licensing of motor vehicles, trailers and semitrailers under .... ~,,~s artzcle 0,,~ corc~,ence v,, the first day ...... · yr. of. January of each year=~= .......... ~=~= expzre ~ ~,= thzrt zzst~ .... of Detester of the same calendar year. (a) The term for the license for motor vehicles, trailers and semitrailers required by this article shall be one (1) year, which shall correspond to the identical period for the state vehicle 2 71 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 reqistration for that vehicle, trailer or semitrailer. Every local vehicle license term shall beqin durinq the month in which the vehicle, trailer or semitrailer is reqistered by the state department of motor vehicles, and shall expire at the same time the state reqistration expires, which is the last day of the twelfth month next succeedin~ the date of registration, as provided by Code of Virginia ~ 46.2-646. Every local vehicle license, unless otherwise provided, shall be renewed annually on application by the owner and by payment of the fees required by law, with the renewal to take effect on the first day of the succeedinq month. If the state department of motor vehicles offers a multi-year reqistration option and if the vehicle owner chooses this option, then the local vehicle license term shall match the term chosen by the owner for the state vehicle reqistration, with the annual fee multiplied by the number of years of the state registration. (b) As used in this article, "local vehicle license" shall mean the license authorized by Code of Virginia ~ 46.2-752 to be required for motor vehicles, trailers and semitrailers. The amendmem tothissecfion changestheterm ofthe registr~ionto a rot~g basis, m~chingthestatesystem used ~rre~strationofmotorvehicles. Sec. 21-72. General ze~--uiz~m&nts procedure. ~=j ito~ ~=~~ ~ =~ ~=~o~ ~o operate ~ motor vehicle, ......... ' .......... ' ~=~ or semi~ra~ after ~= fifteenth day of February · '-' I~=~o= tax of any license year, ............. ~=~.~= .~=~.~ .... paid .... =.~= requioite and -'~--~---~ ........ ' ..... ' ' ~.o~y~**~ ~**= current license ~**mo arti ..... ........ =~ .... ' trailer ...................... any ............. ~ ................ ~ pl yi ot~==t or ~** any~~' - ~,,~ lot, ,~,,~ .... ~s a ng such current license decal~,~=~ ...... be presumed to have been operated by its owner in violation of this section. ~ ~ person who violates any provision of .... section o~,=~ ~= ~=~3 of ~ Class 4 misdemeanor=~,u ..... each day'° continuance of such violation shall constitute a separate offense. Any person 3 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 ~=o~=~ to pay the fine~v= .... such violation prior to ......... =~,= ~=== set violation, o,,=== be requi=== ..... to ur~= ...... pro,f- that =- currenL Pursuant to a contractual arrangement with the city, the state Department of Motor Vehicles shall collect the local vehicle license fees required by this article, or portions thereof, for the city, as authorized by Code of Virginia ~ection 46.2-756. Local vehicle license fees shall be collected at the same time 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 state vehicle registration fees are remitted. Coincident with the ~tate's grace period, purchasers of new or used motor vehicles shall be allowed a t-e~ thirty-day grace period, beginning with the date of purchase, during which to pay the requisite license tax and ~o~ the ~=~ license~=~=~---~ ....... ~ ..... ~'- ~- .... ~-~- local vehicle license fee to the department of motor vehicles. (b)t~b- ........................ p~ovisions of o~ion 21 71.1 and of subsection (a) of .... ~,~o section, any vehicle pzoperlp licensed in ~ ~=~ j~o~~,~ ~ ~,= co~aonwealth =~=,-w= =~v,,, the requirements of th~s section ..... = u,~ ~.= expiration ==== ofo~ ...... =~=~,o=~--- or un~il the fifteenth~3 ..... of February next =,~=~==~ ~ operate ~n th~s~=~ any motor vehicle,~==~==---= .... cz bj ' semit .............. is su eot to .................... requirements any 3urisdictzon ~,~ is = ~=zt3 ~ith =~ ~=~ to = compact the ~,~===~ enforcement of loca'~ license ....... = ......... ~ .... --- ..... = ..... =~ ..... ~_._, ........... I' ~---' issued 1 jurisdiction. Any person who has reqistered or titled a vehicle in another Virqinia locality and moves to the city with this vehicle shall, as provided by Code of Virqinia section 46.2-606, notify the department of motor vehicles of this chanqe in address within thirty (30) days. No vehicle shall be subject to a local vehicle 4 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 license tax or fee in more than one jurisdiction for the same time period. (c) In any case in which a vehicle acquires situs in the city after beinq licensed in another jurisdiction and such license expires before the time that the state reqistration of the vehicle must be renewed, a prorated portion of the local vehicle license fee shall be required for the period from the time the local vehicle license expires throuqh the time the stats reqistration is renewed and an annual local vehicle license obtained. The prorated 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 fee shall be payable at the time the vehicle acquires situs in the city. (d) In any case in which a vehicle acquires situs in the city after a local license has been issued in another jurisdiction and the state reqistration for this vehicle expires before the existin~ license, then a prorated portion of the city local license fee shall be due when the state registration is renewed. 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 COMMENT The amendment to this section removes references to the previously required decal and the criminal provisions for operating a vehicle without obtaining the local vehicle license. The changes refer the new arrangement with the state Department of Motor Vehicles in which the DMV will collect local vehicle license fees for the City, as authorized by Code of Virginia § 46.2-756. Persons moving to Virginia Beach from other localities in Virginia who paid license fees in that jurisdiction will not be required to pay another license fee in Virginia Beach; however, such persons will have to pay a prorated license fee for any period of time between the expiration of the old license and the time that the vehicle registration of the vehicle must be renewed. 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 Sec. 21-73. Ex.~ptions. No person shall be required to pay the ~ local vehicle license fee prescribed by this article on any vehicle for which an annual registration certificate and license is not required by Code of Virginia, title 46.2, on any vehicle specifically exempt under the provisions of Code of Virginia, section 46.2-755, or on any vehicle owned solely by a person in active military service, who is in the city solely by reason of military orders and who has a legal residence in a state other than Virginia.;_ provided,' however, ...... ~,~t every person claiming an exemption under this section who owns and ' ' ' lly operates a motor .................... v=~,~=, ~=~ v~ sem~tzai~=~ .......... ~,~ is nozr~a 5 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 garaged ....... w~,~. the~v~,,~=~=o: .... v~ the city and who~v=o ............ w~.,~,,:-- the · ity ~ Upon presentation to the city treasure: commissioner of the revenue of proof that the ~ vehicle is exempted under this section_ the ~ commissioner of the revenue authori=ed to issue to such owner = city license plate or ~=~=~ foi identification purposes. "-~,~ feeo~=~ ........ ~= charged for s.~ issuance shall notify the state department of motor vehicles that no fee is required for such vehicle. In the event that the status of the owner of the vehicle changes so as to no longer qualify the vehicle for the exemption provided herein, the owner shall=~==~=~,~ remove .....= he ....... ...... I ..................................... fez- identification ...... =-' =,,u o~=~I ==~u=~ same to notify the c~ty treasurek commissioner of the revenue within ten (10) days of the date of such change in status, and shall comply with all other provisions of this article. The commissioner of the revenue shall notify the state department of motor vehicles of each such chanqe in status. COMMENT The amendments to this section do not change the exemptions; however, references to decals are removed and the responsibility for determining eligibility for exemptions is assigned to the Commissioner of the Revenue. 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 Sec. 21-74. Application. .................. license f ........... vehicle ............ semitrailer s,hall be made to the city treasurer on forms providing for .......................... applicant vehicle ....... : ..... ' ' ' ~ ..~,~ ~= license is to be issued .................. o~,~: be accompanied by ~ license tax imposed .... this ~:-~- The local vehicle license application shall be combined with the state vehicle reqistration application in a form satisfactory to the city manager and the state department of motor vehicles. Each local vehicle license fee shall be paid to the state department of 6 203 motor vehicles at the same time as the state vehicle reqistration 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 fee is collected, as authorized by Code of Virqinia section 46.2- 756. COMMENT The amendment to this section describes the new application process for the local vehicle license. All payments of this license fee shall be to the Department of Motor Vehicles. Sec. 21-75. License requir-ment; Imposition of ~ fee. (a) There is hereby imposed an annual license tax ~ requirement for a local vehicle license, for each ~=~=~= ~=== twelve-month term as established by this article, on motor vehicles, trailers and semitrailers, regularly kept in the city and used upon public roadways of the city~= ~he amount of the fee for w~ this license shall be as set forth in the following subsections of this section. (b) The license t-~x fee on a motor vehicle, designed and used for the transportation of passengers, which is self-propelled or designed for self-propulsion, shall be, except as otherwise specifically provided in this section, imposed in accordance with weighing four thousand (4,000) pounds or less--Twenty-five dollars ($25.00); (2) Motor vehicles weighing more than four thousand (4,000) pounds--Thirty dollars {$30.00); and (3) Motorcycle--Twenty-three dollars ($23.00). (c) The license ~ fee on a one- or two-wheel trailer of a cradle, flat bed or open pickup type which has a body width not greater than the width of the motor vehicle to which it is attached at any time of operation, which is pulled or towed by a passenger car or station wagon, or a pickup or panel truck having an actual gross weight not exceeding five thousand (5,000) pounds and used for carrying property not exceeding one thousand five hundred (1,500) pounds at any one time, and for all trailers designed exclusively to transport boats or horses, shall be seven dollars 7 the following schedule: (t) Motor vehicles 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 and fifty cents ($7.50). Notwithstanding the above provision, the license t~-x fee for each trailer or semitrailer designed for use as living quarters for human beings shall be twenty-five dollars ($25.00). (d) There is hereby imposed a license t-a~ fee, to be paid by the owner, upon each motor vehicle not designed and used for the transportation of passengers, whether operated under lease or not. The amount of license t~x fee shall be determined by the gross weight of the vehicle or combination of vehicles of which it is a part, when loaded to the maximum capacity for which it is registered and licensed by the state, according to the following schedule: Pounds Fee 4,000 or less ............. $24.00 4,001--16,000 ............. 16,001--17,000 ............. 17,001--18,000 ............. 18,001--19,000 ............. 19,001--20,000 ............. 20,001--21,000 ............. 21,001--22,000 ............. 22,001--23,000 ............. 23,001--24,000 ............. 24,001--25,000 ............. 25,001--26,000 ............. 26,001--27,000 ............. 27,001--28,000 ............. 28,001--29,000 ............. 29,001--30,000 ............. 30,001--31,000 ............. 31,001--32,000 ............. 32,001--33,000 ............. 33,001--34,000 ............. 29.00 30.80 32.10 33.40 34.70 36.00 37.30 38.60 39.90 41.20 42.50 43.80 45.10 46.40 47.70 49.00 50.30 51.60 52.90 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 34,001--35,000 ............. 35,001--36,000 ............. 36,001--37,000 ............. 37,001--38,000 ............. 38,001--39,000 ............. 39,001--40,000 ............. 40,001--41,000 ............. 41,001--42,000 ............. 42,001--43,000 ............. 43,001--44,000 ............. 44,001--45,000 ............. 45,001--46,000 ............. 46,001--47,000 ............. 47,001--48,000 ............. 48,001--49,000 ............. 49,001--50,000 ............. 50,001--51,000 ............. 51,001--52,000 ............. 52,001--53,000 ............. 53,001--54,000 ............. 54,001--55,000 ............. 55,001--56,000 ............. 56,001--56,800 ............. 58,801 and over ............. 54.20 55.50 56.80 58.10 59.40 60.70 62.00 63.30 64.60 65.90 67.20 68.50 69.80 71.10 72.40 73.70 75.00 76.30 77.60 78.90 80.20 81.50 82.80 85.00 (e) In the case of a combination of a truck or tractor truck and a trailer or semitrailer, each vehicle constituting a part of such combination shall be registered as a separate vehicle, and a separate local vehicle license ~a~ fee shall be imposed thereon, but, for the purpose of determining the gross weight group into which any such vehicle falls pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, the combination of vehicles of which such vehicle constitutes a part shall be considered a unit, and the aggregate 9 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 gross weight of the entire combination shall determine such gross weight group. The t-eot fee for the local vehicle license pzrat~ for a trailer or semitrailer constituting a part of such combination shall be eighteen dollars ($18.00). Provided, however, if such trailer or semitrailer exceeds a gross weight of four thousand (4;000) pounds, such ~ fee shall be twenty-seven dollars ($27.00). In determining the t~a~x fee to be paid for the local license ~ for a truck or tractor truck constituting a part of such combination, the ~ fee shall be assessed on the total gross weight of the combination when loaded to the maximum capacity for which its is registered and licensed. However, there shall be no deduction from this t-a¢~ fee for the license tax local vehicle license fee of the trailer or semitrailer in the combination. COMMENT The amendment to this section changes references from license "tax" to "local vehicle license ~e". Sec. 21-75.1 Transition period and schedule. (a) A transition period, with prorated license fees, will be necessary to adjust to a system in which the term of each local vehicle license conforms to state reqistration renewal periods. The transition period shall beqin on July 1, 2003, and end on June 30, 2005. (b) For the transition period, the local vehicle license term shall be modified from the twelve-month period, as necessary, to match the state renewal period for that vehicle. If a local vehicle license for license year 2003 is purchased prior to July 1, 2003, the license fee due during the transition period shall be multiplied by the number of years or fraction thereof that the vehicle is reqistered by the state. The director of the finance department shall prepare schedules to assist in calculatinc the proper amount of license fees due for renewals made durinq the 332 transition period. 10 333 COMMENT 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 The amendment to this section describes how the fee amount will be calculated during the transition period to match the state renewal period. As an example of how this proration would work, if a'citizen purchases a decal in February 2003 (under the old system) on a vehicle with a weight of 4,000 pounds or less, the fee is $25. If this citizen's state automobile license plate expires in July 2003, then the citizen would pay an additional $12.50 at that time (50% of the fee), which would extend the term of his local vehicle license through July 2004. At that time, the citizen would pay a $25.00 license fee, the term of which would run through June 30, 2005. The prorated fees during the transition period will range from $12.50 to $35.42, since the periods range from six months to seventeen months, but in no case would the amount paid per twelve month period exceed $25.00. 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 Sec. 21-76. Proration of ~ fee. ==~== is =oo==~ during the period beginning ~,, ~,,= first day of the ......... : ......... ==~ of Decez:/~er of ..... license however, that ~=~=o~,~ ~= ~ proration of anhual tax unless .... ~.,= owner of =~-~,= vehicle can show proof that hc the ~=~= on or =f===uu~y ...... first ~=- the license year or lly store or park .... vehicle~,,=-- thc not norma garage, ~= city ...... ~=~I on or after July first of the license year. Thc - sec uiOil proration provided ~n ~hio ....... o~==~ not apply to ~=~o= plats decals iso~=~ pursuant to section 21 78 for ~ license year ...... has not yet co~c~c, enced. If proration is necessary in any case, a license fee equal to one-twelfth of all fees required for that vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, multiplied by the number of months in the state registration period, shall be collected. shall be computed to the nearest cent. COMMENT The fee The amendment to this section describes how the local vehicle license fee will be prorated, if necessary. 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 Sec. 21-77. Payment of personal property taxes vehicle license fees prerequisite licensing; duties of city treasurer. and local to state ~-'-- --' ............... ppi ........ have ~= ~y ~=oo and ....... ~.~ c~= a icant for such~icense ~.~ ~=~=~=~ ........ =~ the city t==:o~=== .............................. o=t=sfactory =~=:,,~= tha= ~= ........... t===l== personal property ~o~=o upu~ the motor ............... v=..=~z=, or 11 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 semitrailer to~= ........... ~=~=~ have been paid=~ ..... satisfactory evidence' that any ............. ~=~ ............ ~=~== os semitrailer personal proper taxes owing have assessed or are assessable~o~ the applicant~3~-- the cit~. (a) Pursuant to Code of Virqinia section 46.2-752(J), the commissioner of the state department of motor vehicles shall not issue or renew any state vehicle reqistration of any applicant therefor who owes the city any local vehicle license fees or delinquent personal property tax. Before beinq issued any state vehicle reQistration or renewal of such license or reqistration by the commissioner of the state department of motor vehicles, the 381 382 383 applicant must first pay all such local vehicle license fees and delinquent personal property taxes and present satisfactory evidence that all such local vehicle license fees and delinquent 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 personal property taxes have been paid in full. (b) The treasurer shall have the duty of transmittinq all necessary information about unpaid delinquent personal property taxes to the state department of motor vehicles required to ensure that no license is issued to any person with delinquent persona] property taxes. If a license is denied by the department of motor vehicles due to unpaid personal property taxes, the treasurer shall update records of the Department of Motor Vehicles after such taxes 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 have been paid or exonerated by the commissioner of the revenue. COMMENT The amendment to this section describes the state Department of Motor Vehicles' Vehicle Registration Withholding Program, in which the state vehicle license is denied to persons with delinquent personal property taxes or unpaid local vehicle license fees. The Treasurer shah have the duty of notifying the DMV of unpaid personal property taxes, and updating DMV records once such taxes have been paid. ~ be ~l&c~d ~,, o=I= Reserved. ~w~ pa}~ent of the ........ tax ....................... : , ~=~'~= ~=o~=~ ~ ~o art~cIe an{i ity - ppi' = c treasurer -~-~ 2 ..... to ~ a icaAc ~ vehicle for ....... -~ the .......... 12 4O5 406 407 4O8 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 ................... pl -- - 1 ............. pl ....... f =~,~ l~cense yeas, on and ~f~=~ ...... ~,,= ~=rst~y of Janua~3 of the license year. COMMENT This section, which required the Treasurer to provide a decal as evidence of payment of the license tax, is deleted. Sec. 21-79. Issuancm ~-~ d=~=l-=- t~ Vehicle license at no charqe for members of volunteer fire companies or rescue squads, auxiliary police officers, volunteer police chaplains, auxiliary deputy sheriffs, disabled veterans and surviving spouses of disabled veterans. City automobile decalso~,=~I be issued to For members of the various volunteer fire companies and rescue squads, t~ auxiliary police officers~ ~d--t~ volunteer police chaplains of the city, t~ auxiliary deputy sheriffs, t~ disabled veterans as defined in Code of Virginia section 46.2-100, and t~ surviving spouses of such disabled veterans, wit,hour the payment of any tax o= fee there shall be no charqe for local vehicle licenses, in accord with the following provisions: (1) .... - ' · ~,= city treasuses~,~ ..... ~ssue ~ city~,,,~= ............. decal to No license fee shall be char~ed for one (1) vehicle owned by each active member of the various volunteer fire companies and rescue squads, ~ each active auxiliary police officer, ~ each active volunteer police chaplain, and ~ each active auxiliary deputy sheriff, and ~ each such volunteer who, although presently inactive, has completed ten (10) or more years of active service in the cityx= wh~ Such persons shall submit a letter to the commissioner of the revenue from the chief of his fire company or rescue squad or, in the case of auxiliary police officers and volunteer police chaplains, from the chief of police, or in the case of auxiliary deputy sheriffs, from the sheriff, stating that he is an active member of the company or squad or is an active auxiliary 13 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 45~ 458 459 460 461 462 463 4~4 465 466 467 468 469 470 police officer, volunteer police chaplain or auxiliary deputy sheriff, or that, if inactive, he has completed ten (10) or more years of active service. precedinq exemption from the license fee shall be ~ apply to active members of volunteer fire companies and rescue squads, and each active auxiliary police officer, volunteer police chaplain and auxiliary deputy sheriff, regardless of whether the volunteer owns or leases the vehicle for which the ~ exemption is requested. (2) Each such volunteer fire company or rescue squad member, auxiliary police officer, volunteer police chaplain and auxiliary deputy sheriff shall, at the time of issuance the license fee is exempted, agree with the treasure~ to T~tr~--t~ notify the tzeasuzez the issued to him commissioner of the revenue, if and when such volunteer becomes inactive prior to completing ten (10) or more years of active service. (3) The chief of each volunteer fire company and rescue squad, the chief of police, and the sheriff shall submit to the ~ commissioner of the revenue the names and length of active volunteer service of members, auxiliary police officers and police chaplains and auxiliary deputy sheriffs who become inactive. (4) ......................... ' ' ity o~ iSSue a c automobile ~ No local vehicle license fee shall be charqed for one (1) motor vehicle owned by any disabled veteran and ~ each surviving spouse of a disabled veteran who ~a-l-~ present~ certification of such status from the U. S. Veterans Administration to the commissioner of the revenue for qualification of such status. 14 471 472 473 474 COMMENT References to the license "tax" and the decal are revised. The amendment to this section also transfers the responsibility to determining eligibility for these exemptions to the Commissioner of the Revenue. 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 plate -~ dmcal ...... ll-f Reserved A li~=,,o= ate =oo~=~ =,,==s =he provisions uf =~,=o front os sear of .... v ...... for ...... it was xoo~=u. issued ............ =~== ~o art~= .... shall be affixed =~=~== =t the upper edge of the center of ................. =~= ~=~u=~==~ cz h '' b ......... h d3 inspection st=~== ....... no more =~=.~ three {3}~w~.=~ from .... ~= bottom of ~,= ~o~,~=~ ~,~ no more than one quarter of ~~ ..... to the left or =~9.= of =~-=~= offi .... inspection COMMENT The requirements for displaying decals are removed. 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 th=t ........ ~ ---~-- ~oo~d Reserved. unlawful and a Class 4 misdemeanor for =.~] person ~o~3 ~= ~o= or permit to be~o~3=~ ............. any city license decal .... COMMENT The prohibition on displaying a decal on a vehicle for other than which it was purchased is removed. 496 497 498 499 5OO 501 502 503 ~ ~. D~o~l=z ~ e~ijxzed plate ~ decal. Reserved. it o~==~ ~= =~.~=~=~= for ~he ~-==~--= =- motor vehxcle, trailer or semitrailer to~oF~=z== ...... upon~=~. .............. ~=~.~= any~=~ o£ license F=~== ~ ~=~== ~==== =~,= fifteenth day o£ the end -= the license yeas for ........... ~ ~ violation of ~o sectiono~=~ ..... institute = misdemeanor 15 504 505 506 507 5O8 5O9 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 COMMENT The prohibition against displaying an expired decal is removed. oziginal lo~t, ~..util&ted, etc. Reserved. ~, ~= event ..... any l~cense ..... u~ ..... ~ ........ under .... : -' - ha .......... I d ..... b ........... th ~~= S ~ ~= ~ Or muti ate , or ~,~ ecome ~=~=, e person ..... ' ............ ppli ~ ~s =~=~===~ theretoo~==~ ..... make ~x~,ed~ate a cation for and obtain a ............ o~- ............ e therefor, ~nformat~on ~= ou~,, facts o==~of~ctory to =he city treasurer and upon payment of two ........ s '~ OO' to ...... ty treasurer COMMENT The process for obtaining decals to replace a lost or mutilated one is removed. Sec 21 ~4 Du ~cate d~=l ........... te .... = - o~ ~ ~ ,~h~l= Reserved. ~3 person who o=lls or =ransf==o ~,~o ~t~l= may present the~ d=~l .......... 'pt v~~=u rece~ for such~=~ ...... to the u=~z u= o=I=, =~=~= u= zegzstratzon or 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 COMMENT The procedure for providing decals for substitute vehicles is removed. Sec. 21-85. Disposition of ~-axes fees generally. the general fund of the city. Ail local vehicle license fees collected under this article by the state department of motor vehicles shall be deposited into a fiduciary account, held in trust for the city and not commingled with any other funds. Each month, such fees shall be delivered to the city treasurer, who shall credit such fees to the ceneral fund of the city. 16 533 53~ 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 COMMENT The amendment to this section describes how the local fees collected by the state will be transferred to the City. Sec. 21-86. Refund for unused portion of ~ax license fee. Any person ~holdlng who has paid a current license ~ ~ fee, who disposes of the vehicle for which it was ~ paid and does not purchase another vehicle, may surrender the license plate or decal to the city treasurer, with a statement that the .... : ................ pl ...... ' d ~ -' inform the state department of motor vehicles, and request a refund for the unused portion of the ~ license fee paid under this article. The ~ state department of motor vehicles shall refund to the applicant one-half of t~he tax so paid, if application ~ ~=~. ==~= ~ made ~ or before the f~zst day of Ju of the I~=~o= year. ~ refund~=~ ~= ~,~=~= ~=~ =~==wp=~cat~on therefor is made after the===o= ...... day of July of the license year a prorated portion, in six-month increments, of the local vehicle license fee, if application for the refund is made when six (6) or more months are remaininq in the license period, in the same manner as provided by Code of Virqinia ~ 46.2-688. 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 COMMENT The amendment to this section describes conditions under which a refund of a local vehicle license fee can occur and how it will be calculated. ........ fraudulent ~,~/ Any person who, ~.~, license decal issued by the city, forges Reserved. intent, alters any or counterfeits any license decal purporting to have been issued by t,he city, or who ,~o ~ uses any knowzng it ~o have been or forged, o~.a~ be guilty of a Class I -~sdemeanoz ........ pl ~ The owner of a ........ ~=~.~= who operates zt ...... ~= zt dzs ays ........... d .............. p ............. f =~. ====~=~ or forge ==~ o,~=== ~= resumed to have ~.~==~= o the alteration of forgery. 17 565 566 COMMENT This section is deleted since no decals will exist to alter or forge. 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 Sec. 21-364. General parking violation. prohibitions; penalties for (c) No person shall park on any street or highway, or on any city parking lot, any vehicle which fails to display one or more of the following: (1) ...................... license ....... required --- section 21-72. (~_1) A valid state vehicle safety inspection decal. (~) Valid state license plates. COMMENT The reference to the local vehicle license decal is removed. 58O 581 582 583 584 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the provisions in this ordinance amending, adding and reordaining sections of Article III and Article XI of Chapter 21 of the City Code shall take effect on July 1, 2003. 585 586 587 588 589 Adopted by the City Council of the City Beach, Virginia, on this day of CA-8486 DATA/ODIN/PROPOSED/21-071etalord2.1wpd Rll June 6, 2002 of Virginia · 2002. APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: Finance Depa'rtment w APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: bepartment--~aw N 18 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: Ordinance to Amend the City Code Pertaining Private Property MEETING DATE: June 11,2002 the Towing of Vehicles from Background: Virginia State Code §§ 46.2-1232 and 46.2-1233 provides that localities must appoint advisory boards to recommend towing fees to local governing bodies electing to regulate towing fees. Sections 21-424, 21-426, and 21-429 of the City Code were amended last July. City Council invited the Virginia Beach Towing Advisory Board to to resubmit recommendations not incorporated by the 2001 amendments. The Towing Advisory Board presented a report to City Council on May 28, 2002, recommending amendments to the City Code. Included in those proposed amendments are significant increases in certain fees. City Council held a Public Hearing to receive comment on the proposed amendments on June 4, 2002. Considerations: Staff has reviewed the recommendations of the Towing Advisory Board and taken into consideration in-put received from speakers and members of City Council during the June 4, 2002 Public Hearing. Public Information: A public briefing was presented to Council on May 28, 2002, and a Public Hearing was held on June 4, 2002. This item is advertised with the Agenda. Recommendations: Attachments: Recommended Action: Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager City Manage~ ~_ ,'~1~ ~ F:\Data~ATY~Ordin\NONCODE\towing cf Vehicles.agenda 1 2 3 4 5 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO THE TOWING OF VEHICLES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY SECTIONS AMENDED: 21-424, 21-426, and 21-429 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 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Sections 21-424, 21-426 and 21-429 of the City Code are hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 21-424. Release of vehicle to owner or custodian prior to towing. (a) If the owuer or custodian of any vehicle not authorized to be parked in a private parking area returns after a tow truck service has arrived but before the vehicle has been towed from the private parking area, he may reclaim the vehicle whether or not it is fully hooked up to the tow truck, and it shall be unlawful for the tow truck service or operator to refuse to release the vehicle. However, if the vehicle has been hooked up, or is in the process of being hooked up, the tow truck operator may charge a drop fee~ n~t to =~==~ =-=~3 dollazo ~=u.~ based on the vehicle's qross vehicle weiqht ratin~ (GVWR), before releasing the vehicle or discontinuing the towing process. V~hicles with a GVWR up to 11,000 pounds may be charqed a drop fee not to exceed $25.00; vehicles with a GVWR from 11,001 to 26,000 pounds may be char~ed a drop fee not to exceed $50.00; and vehicles with a GVWR of 26,001 pounds and above may be char~ed a drop fee not to exceed $75.00. The process of hooking up shall be defined as (i) the removal and/or unreeling of any towing equipment from the tow truck after the truck is positioned to effect the tow, whether or not the equipment has been attached to the vehicle, or (ii) the lowering of a hydraulically-operated lift in preparation for loading the vehicle. COMME~ This proposed amendment raises the fee of unhooking and releasing a vehicle prior to actual towing of the vehicle (drop fee) from $20 for all vehicles to $2~ for vehicles weighing less than 11,001 pounds, to $~0 for vehicles weighing 11,001 to 26,000 pounds, and $7S for vehicles weighing greater than 26,000 pounds. 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Sec. 21-426. Charges for towing and storage of vehicle; receipt required. (a) No tow truck service or operator operating within the city shall, at any time, charge a basic towing fee greater than the fees set forth below: Gross weight of ve,hicle Vehicle Weight Rating 11,000 pounds or less 11,001 pounds ~ to 26,000 26,001 or more Maximum fee $~+~e~ ~85.00 July ~, $250.00 .... ~ 301) $500.00 The basic fee shall be inclusive of any additional towing services such as the use of a dolly. This subsection shall apply only when a vehicle is moved or towed without the prior consent and agreement of the owner or custodian of the vehicle. COMMENT This proposed amendment increases the maximum allowable towing charges from $70 to $85 for vehicles weighing under 11,001 pounds; decreases charge from $285 to $250 for vehicles weighing 11,001 - 26,000 pounds, and establishes a maximum charge of $~00 for vehicles weighing 26,001 or more. 6O 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 (b) No tow truck service or operator shall assess any charges for storage for the initial twenty-four (24) hours, nor charge more than ~ ~wenty dollars ~=.u~ ($20.00) per twenty-four-hour pDriod thereafter, for any vehicle with a gzos$ weig~ht gVWR of 11,000 pounds or less removed from private property without the consent of the owner or custodian of the vehicle, whether such tow originates in this city or any other jurisdiction. For vehicles with a GVWR of 11,001 pounds to 26,000 pounds, a storage fee not to exceed twenty five dollars ($25.00) per twenty-four-hour period ma~ be assessed after the first twenty four (24) hours. For vehicles with a ~zoss ........ GVWR of moze ~,~ ~,000 .~6,001 pounds or more, a storage fee not to exceed ~ .thirty dollars ~.~ ($30.00) per twenty-four-hour period may be assessed after the first twenty-four (24) hours. Delays caused by storage yard personnel shall not be included when computing storage charges. 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 CO~~ This proposed amendment increases the tow storage fee after the initial 24-hour of storage~ from $12 to $20 for vehicles weighing 11,000 pounds or less, from $12 t° $25 for vehicles weighing from 11,001 to 26,000 pounds, and from $18 to $30 for vehicles weighing 26,001 or more. (c) If any vehicle is not redeemed within seven (7) days after it is towed, the tow truck service shall be entitled to recover an additional fee, not to exceed ~ fifty dollars ~=v.vu~ ($50.00), as payment for the cost of any search conducted to determine the registered owner and lien holder, if any, of the vehicle. COlVIlVIENT This proposed amendment increases the maximum authorized search fee from $40 to $50. Sec. 21-429. Miscellaneous prohibited acts by tow truck service or operator. Except when acting as an agent in the legal repossession of a vehicle, it shall be unlawful for any tow truck service or operator to: (3) Tow or otherwise move a vehicle from any private road or driveway, or from any other privately owned land or property within the city to a place out of the city without the consent of the owner or custodian of the vehicle; provided that, after a period of not less than twenty-four (24) hours following the initial towing of a vehicle, as recorded in the police dispatcher's log, any such vehicle may be moved to a storage area located outside of the city, with prior notification to and approval of the police department. Notwithstandinq the above, if a tow truck service or operator owns or leases a storage area located outside of the city, and such storage area is closer to the location from which a vehicle is towed than the closest in-city storaqe area owned or leased by the tow truck service or operator, such vehicle may be initially towed to the storaqe area located outside of the city, provided the to~, 3 108 109 110 111 truck service or operator is authorized to do business in both cities, charges a fee not greater than that fee authorized in' Virginia Beach and invoices the tow in Virginia Beach. 112 113 114 115 COMMENT This proposed amendment provides that a tow truck operator whose out-of-city storage facility is closer than their in-city storage facility may tow the vehicle to the out-of-city storage facility if the tow truck operator is licensed to do business in both cities and invoices the tow in Virginia Beach. 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 (11) During the initial twenty-four (24) hours after the vehicle is towed and ~pon request by any owner or custodian of a currently licensed vehicle, deny or prevent access to said vehicle for the purpose of removing personal items, whether or not the owner or custodian is then able to reclaim the vehicle. After the initial twenty-four (24) hours has expired and upon the request bk any owner or custodian of a currently licensed vehicle, deny of o', ~revent a limit of one (1) access trip to said vehicle between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. This proposed amendment aflows the owner/operator unlimited access ~ ~e towed v~icle during the initiM 2~hours after the vehicle is towed, but limits subseque~ access to one time per day and only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 129 130 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2002. CA-8413 DATA/ODIN/PROPOSED/21-424.426 & 429.ord 2.wpd R-2 March 12, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: City Manager's Office APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Cxty Attorr/ey*s Office CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Encroachment Request - Construct and maintain a proposed 6' X 30' pier, proposed 15' X 20'wharf, and proposed 5' X 55' stone revetment Applicant - George J. and Marsha A. Dancigers, husband and wife MEETING DATE: June 11, 2002 Background: George J. and Marsha A. Dancigers desire to construct and maintain a 6' X 30' pier, 15' X 20' wharf, and 5' X 55' stone revetment in the rear of their home, which is on a branch of the Lynnhaven River on London Bridge Creek. There is existing bulkheading on the Dancigers property and the 5' X 55' stone revetment will be fronting the bulkhead. Considerations: City staff has reviewed the request for 6' X 30' pier, 15' X 20' wharf, and the 5' X 55' stone revetment and has recommended approval of same. The Department of Public Works supports the utilization of "hardened slope stabilization" methods including bulkheading, grouted rip-rap and rip-rap with filter cloth to minimize and prevent soil loss along bank slopes associated with open drainage ditch, canal and lake systems. These methods are successful in areas with soil types classified as highly erodible, specifically during major rainfall events which create high velocities and wave action along bank slopes due to high winds. Public Information: Advertisement of City Council. Alternatives: Approve the encroachment as presented, deny the encroachment, or add conditions as desired by Council. Recommendations: Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. Attachments: Ordinance, Location Map, Agreement, Plat, and Pictures Recommended Action: Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager: I(~~ Approval of the ordinance Public Works .~ 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 Requested by Department of Public Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS INTO A PORTION OF CITY PROPERTY AT THE REAR OF 2701 CATTAYLE RUN ON LONDON BRIDGE CREEK BY GEORGE J. DANCIGERS AND MARSHA A. DANCIGERS, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, George J. Dancigers and Marsha A. Dancigers, desire to construct and maintain a 6' X 30' pier, 15' X 20' wharf, and 5' X 55' stone revetment into City property located at the rear of 2701 Cattayle Run on London Bridge Creek. WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to ~ 15.2- 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize a temporary encroachments upon the City's property subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in ~ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended George J. Dancigers and Marsha A. Dancigers their heirs, assigns and successors in title are authorized to construct and maintain a temporary encroachment for a 6' X 30' pier, 15' X 20' warf, and 5' X 55' stone revetment in the City's property as shown on the map entitled: "Proposed Revetment/Pier/Wharf E.Br. Of Lynnhaven River/London bridge Creek Location: Va. Beach, VA Applicant: George and Marsha Dancigars Date: 3-12-02," a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more particular description; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments are expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and George J. Dancigers and Marsha A. Dancigers, (the "Agreement") which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Manager or his authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such time as George J. Dancigers, Marsha A. Dancigers and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the Agreement. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. 43 44 45 46 CA-% gsalmons/dancigers/ord. R-1 PREPARED: 05.16.02 APP~O~ED i~ TO CONTENTS SIGNATURE SUFFICIEN~ ITE hi LOCATION /VlAP TOTEJ~ SCALE: 1" = 1,600' ©/ / // LIFT BRANCH OF LYNNHAVEN RIVER LONDON BRIDGE LOCATION MAP © © ~-- SHOWING ,~. ENCROACHMENT REQUESTED BY GEORGE AND MARSHA DANCIGERS INTO CITY AT 2701 RIGHT-OF-WAY THE REAR OF CATTAYLE RUN SCALE: 1" -- 100' C.A'rrAYLE.DGN MJ.S. PREPARED BY PAN ENG. CADD DEFT. 1S-MAY-2002 PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATrOKNEY~S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTIONS 58.1-811 (a)(3) AND 58.1-811 (c)(4) REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTION 25-249 THIS AGREEMENT, made this t%~'~ day of ~~.~ ,2002, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and GEORGE J. DANCIGERS AND MARSHA A. DANCIGERS, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one. WITNESSETH: That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as Lot "96" as shown on that certain plat entitled "SUBDIVISION OF CHESOPEIAN COLONY SECTION THREE LYNNHAVEN MAG. DIST. PRINCESS ANNE CO., VA. SCALE 1"=100' MAY 1957 FRANK D. TARRALL, JR. & ASSOCIATES SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS NORFOLK, VA. - VIRGINIA BEACH, VA.-PRINCESS ANNE COURT HOUSE, VA.," as recorded in M.B. 44, at page 18 and being further designated and described as 2701 Cattayle Run, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452; and That, WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a proposed 6' X 30' pier, proposed 15' X 20' wharf, and proposed 5' X 55' stone revetment, "Temporary Encroachmem", in the City of Virginia Beach; and WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachmem, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of existing City property at the rear of--2701 GPIN: 1497-58-8269 Cattayle Run, known as London Bridge Creek, "The Temporary Encroachment Area"; and the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary Encroachment within The Encroachment Area. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the Grantee permission to Use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of-constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth o fVirginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: A Temporary Encroachment described as" Proposed wharf and Pier" and "Encroachment of Proposed Stone revetment," as shown on that certain plat entitled: "Proposed RevetmentJPier/Wharf E. Br. Of Lymflmven River/London bridge Creek Location: Va. Beach, VA Applicant: George and Marsha Dancigars Date: 3-12-02," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more particular description. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days alter the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from ~nd against all claims, damages, losses and 2 expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to f-fie or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit from the Office of Development Services Center/Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within The Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that prior to issuance of a right of way permit, the Grantee must post sureties, in accordance with their Engineer's cost estimate, to the Office of Development Services Center/Planning Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance 3 policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or comingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of The Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreemem, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, George J. Dancigers and Marsha A. Dancigers, the said Grantee has caused this Agreemem to be executed by their signature and seal duly affixed. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreemem to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. 4 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH (SEAL) ATTEST: By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager City Clerk Marshal. D~mci~rs ~ - STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2002, by ., CITY MANAGER/AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER. My Commission Expires: Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrumem was acknowledged before me this VIRGINIA BEACH. day of 2002, by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF My Commission Expires: Notary Public STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF to-wit: The foregoing instrumem was acknowledged before me this ,2002, by George J. Dancigers and Marsha A. Dancigers. day of I w~s commissioned Rebecca K. Postel Deans My Commission Expires: - ~Notary Public APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CI'I~Y: ATT~E'Y' ~ APPROVED AS TO CONTENT CITY REAL ESTATE AGENT Exhibit "A" Branch of Lynnhaven River Lohdon Bridge Creek City of Virginia Beach - ~ na e Reserved Boat BasinlDrai g Easement Encroachment of Proposed Stone revetment Ebb Flood Scale 1.0" = 40.0' purpose: shoreline Stabilization Construction of Pier/Marginal Wharf Adjacent Owner,s Betty B. Herrmann Fenton C. Daughtrey Across Nancy G. 12lurst Plan view Proposed Revetmcnt~PicrAVharff Applicant: Gcorgc and Mar~ha Danqigats Proposed Rev et mcnt/Pier,q,~'har f E.Br. Of Lynnhaven River /London bridge Creek Location: Va. Beach. VA · Applicant: George and Marsha Dancigar' Date: 3-12-02 GEORGE J. AND MARSHA A. DANCIGERS 2701 CATTAYLE RUN Stone revetmem will be place in the from of the bulkhead where it curves. Adjacem property owners pier Pier directly across the canal Adjacem property owners pier Looking northwest at dock and pier April 10, 2OO1 ROBERT SCOTT' ! understands. Yes. I think there are two elements here. I just want to make sure everybody One is the setection of the plant material. The other is the issue of maturity of the material. It probably won't be in its full mature state. That's not a very healthy way to manage tandscapin§. You want to put in younger ptants and let them grow and let them mature into the type of visual screening that's §oin§ to be appropriate on this site, but we Can look at both of those things and see that those principtes are adhered to in the tandscapin§ that's §oin§ into this development. COUNCILMAN BRANCH: I think that's going to be very important, and particularly if the Lowe's property does develop next door to this. I'm hoping for a significant improvement, I think, as we all are in that area, not only of the aesthetics but of the environmental improvements to the surrounding areas as well. I hope that Wawa wiIl make this a showcase for their reputation in coming before this Body in the future. Having said that if any other Council Members have no further questions, I'm §oing to -- based on all the things that we've heard today, which seem to satisfy my concerns, Madam Mayor, I make a motion to approve. VICE MAYOR SESSONS: Second. And that's with the additional landscaping; is that correct? COUNCILHAN BRANCH: That's correct. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Any other discussion? for the question? Are we ready CITY CLERK: Incorporated. By a vote of 8 to 3, Your Honor, you have approved the Application of Wawa, 35 April 10, 2001 fact many of you are well aware that in the Northern part of the City ~s that developed 30 or 40 years ago, the operative principle was Bet the water off the site as fast as you can, which was done. But, to the detriment of water quality, which was in the mid 1970's we all start paying the price for. So, as we go back and re-develop these areas, one of the things we need to make sure we do is retrofit them with appropriate stormwater management techniques that intergrade, not just principtes of quality management, but water quality management as well. I think that is part of the agenda that we're planning out as att of these areas in the Northern part of the City re-develop over time. COUNCILMAN BRANCH: proposed? Are you satisfied with the stormwater mitigation efforts that this Applicant has ROBERT SCOTT: Let me say this: This is something that needs to be looked at during detailed site ptan review, but we have given it a cursory review at this point and see nothin§ in what has been proposed that §ives us cause for concern. We think that we are going to end up approving it, but I think with al1 the other aspects of the drainage of the site and the detailed engineering of the site it needs to be looked at in a thorough manner. COUNCILMAN BRANCH: But anything that's done wilt meet all our Ordinances, both the Chesapeake Bay Ordinance and the Stormwater Management Ordinance; is that correct? ROBERT SCOTT: Yes, sir. COUNCILMAN BRANCH: And about Mrs. Parker's concern about the landscaping buffer aIon§ the creek, I don't know if there's any way to proffer that there will be a visual screening from the creek of the improvements on the property, but can you represent that sufficient landscaping in addition to what's already going to remain there will keep that looking in a -- not only an improvement to what it currently is, but a nice visual screen? 34 April 10, 2001 particular facility, if you look at a ~opo§raphic map, it falls in the bend of the river and because we I have developed the way we have in the watershed, Lynnhaven Mall and other impervious area roads, we have allowed so much stormwater to come in during storm events, hurricanes and northeasters, et cetera, the water rushes down to the river. When you have a bend you have a natural tendency to migrate so with more water you have more erosion. COUNCILMAN BRANCH: Right. I understand. Thank you, sir. MAYOR OBERNDORF: dispenser units there? Then, Mr. Batsel, you would not oppose this Application if there were no gas KIRK BATSEL: Absolutely, because the convenient store -- I think that would be perfectly safe. It would reduce the risk. That is my primary concern. COUNCILMAN BRANCH: I also had a question of Mr. Scott, Madam Mayor. Mr. Scott, this area along the boulevard we have dealt with previously. The next door neighbor over here which is the potential Lowe's site -- and I think probably every Member of Council has had the chance to walk this area. Certainly all of us have driven by it many many times. Right now there's a lot of old uses and I guess we would even say undesirable uses, things we probably wouldn't approve today. Certainly not in the fashion that they are in right now. Do we have the ability, because I believe you're getting a lot of sheet flow off all of all that property as well as across this property into the waterway. Are we going to be able to coordinate when that property develops and improve the stormwater runoff from that property as well that runs into this creek7 ROBERT SCOTT: Wet1, yeah. The thing is that not only are there antiquated uses, but there are antiqUated methods of development that you see all along there. Modern-day techniques, in terms of drainage, have not been used. In April 10, 2001 anything, do you? KIRK BATSEL: Well, actualty from a fishery standpoint that is a good habitat. I mean, you do have some release of sediments which can cause probtems, but it also provides a hiding spot in the roots and it can support a lot of aquatic-like uses. But when you ptace on the shoreline a facitity that you have a concern about migration of the river towards, then, you atmost have to do something about the erosion. That woutd probably be best to be some material, riffraff or some other materiat and that's why I put that as a proposat to go to the Bay Board so that we can get fisheries' peopte and peopte knowtedgeabte of this and what is the best widget for that fix. I think that if it does go through, then we do need to harden that shoreline. Maybe we can have the best fix for it, but I think we need to have a forum of people who are knowledgeable. COUNCILHAN BRANCH' Increased landscaping and providing good root systems that seems to me would be.a good common-sense approach for bank stabilization. Would that be a correct statement? KIRK BATSEL' Yes, it will help. Any kind of vegetated cover or forested area that is preserved is going to decrease the rate of erosion. It's not going to stop it. I showed you some pictures where the trees are actually falling in. COUNCILNAN BRANCH: In all fairness, because I have been up and down this creek, this is not the only area along there that's got erosion problems? KIRK BATSEL: No, sir. COUNCILNAN BRANCH: We have erosion problems in many areas up and down this creek bin. KIRK BATSEL: Yes, sir. What you have here with this 32 April 10, 2001 All the ones with the X's on it you say have been corrected; is that ~ight? I KIRK BATSEL: Yes, sir. COUNCILMAN BRANCH: The ones with yellow triangles are still a problem7 KIRK BATSEL: It's somewhere in the course of being corrected. Yes, whether they are leaking or being fixed. COUNCILMAN BRANCH: Somebody has done a pretty good job of getting these things corrected? KIRK BATSEL: Absolutely. COUNCILMAN BRANCH: not a voluntary process? Okay. So, there is some system of monitoring, and once it's discovered it's It's a mandatory correction process7 KIRK BATSEL: endeavor. It is. And there has to have been State assistance, because it's such an expensive COUNCILMAN BRANCH' Right. KIRK BATSEL' released into the ground. The one thing that really doesn't necessarily get fixed is the fact that it is COUNCILMAN BRANCH: speaks a lot. I understand and we're paying for a lot of sins of the past here and I think that The second thing is, you had shown us pictures of the bank erosion. You kind of said that was good because it provides habitat for fish and crabs. But, then you described I think you expressed a concern about' the erosion. letting us know? Did you have a remedy for that or were you just I don't think you want to put riffraff down or 31 April 10, 2001 the existin§ development, but any additional landscaping will only ~§ain, help to retard any erosion if that should ever become a problem. That is a condition that we would §ladly a§ree to having included with the Use Permit that in addition to what is shown we will plant an additional screenin§ buffer in the RPA using plant material for the location. I just don't know whether it would be wax myrtles or some other form of material. COUNCIL LADY PARKER: Thank you, sir. EDDIE BOURDON: I also would like to, if I could, and I will be very brief. This property is in the hi§hest noise zone around Oceana. It's Zoned I-1 and B-2. The uses that are allowed by ri§hr in those zonin§ cate§ories are very intensive uses. There are intense uses there now. It is clearly a heavy commercial area. This is an appropriate use for this piece of property. An office buildin§ is not one that is goin§ to go in that location. I will be happy to answer anymore questions. think we've answered everything. I cut it short. I MAYOR OBERNDORF' Okay. Are we ready for a motion? COUNCILMAN BRANCH: Yes, Madam Mayor. quick questions. I just had a couple of MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Branch. COUNCILMAN BRANCH: The Vice Mayor told me he wants to stick around for a couple more hours. MAYOR OBERNDORF' We'll speak very slowly. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: And we ail believe that don't we? COUNCILMAN BRANCH' I just wanted to ask Mr. Batsel -- first I want to make sure you had given us this map. 30 April 10, 2001 you using in the way of screening? Can you think of something where ~f you're going a long you wouldn't even know it was there, unless you decided you wanted to jump out and grab a cup of coffee; but, most people would keep right on going. You woutdn't see it. The lights woutdn't be bothering you if you decided to go at night or during the day and the trees that are there are -- some of them are pretty sporadic if you clean out al1 the undergrowth, which you're going to probabty do anyway. EDDIE BOURDON: Actually, the planting that's going to go in here will be extensive. In terms of the plant material to put the total screen up, whether the appropriate plant material is wax myrtle -- I don't think red tips would be what you want, but we woutd really want to consult with the arborist, the folks on Staff with the City, as to the most appropriate screening that would grow up to a complete hedge. You have got a hedge out here on the Boulevard that -- you know if we can duplicate that along here, we are perfectly happy doing that as well. But in terms of plant material, we were going to allow the City to advise us as to what they thought is the best material. That's additional landscaping that we would put in so that we would create that entire area a total screen. So, if there is somebody in a canoe who doesn't want to know that there is a business up here, they won't know that it's there. We will be glad to do that. COUNCIL LADY PARKER: And it will atso act as a trap, too, for any debris that might be blowing around. EDDIE BOURDON: Certainly, as will the bayscape landscaping. COUNCIL LADY PARKER: No matter how good you try to be it's going to happen. EDDIE BOURDON: Atthough, the owner of the property, I spoke to him this morning. Mr. Siegle indicated he's owned the property 15 years and he says there's no erosion occurring. But if there is an erosion situation occurring, Kirk and I both are in agreement it's not something that is caused by this property. If there is any, it's not caused by this development or 29 April 10, 2001 guess that's good. Thank you. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you. Hrs. Parker. couNC:[£-"L~ADY PARKER: Just because you've raised an issue. think you've mentioned it prior to just a little while ago. You said that the underground fueling tanks are actually going to be on that Northeast corner. So, actually the underground storage tanks will be further away than. the Car Spa tanks had planned to be? EDDIE BOURDON: Yes, ma'am. I have their plan if you would like to see it. That is the subject of the variance that was approved. COUNCIL LADY PARKER: Okay. Just a little bit further North that's all. All right. If I recaIl correctly, just to follow-up on Margaret's, I think green is probabIy the predominant color of the wall. It's white with the green-seam roof and green on the canopies also. So, you're doing atypicaI, standard Wawa here? EDDIE BOURDON: Yes, ma'am. COUNCIL LADY PARKER: Where some of the others were site specific? EDDIE BOURDON: We did the one on Shore Drive -- after meeting with the Shore Drive Committee, they asked that it be done in drive-it. It's a little more "beachy appearance" than the heavy brick that this will be. COUNCIL LADY PARKER: Okay. That brings me to the last part, but you made reference to the fact that you were going to put in additional screening, because again when you walk along that water's edge -- I noticed there was going to be bayscape plantings that were going to go along with Again, I'm trying to think of someone who was going to be down on the creek in a canoe using that as part of our Outdoor Plan. What are 28 EDDIE BOURDON: April 10, 2001 is 80 feet in length and 35 feet wide? That's my understanding. COUNCIL LADY EURE: That's 160 feet of canopy. a lot to me. That sounds like EDDIE BOURDON: Well, actually let me take that back. I think what's on here -- actuaIly, you have 10G for four and we have six. So, you're reaIly onIy taIking about 155 to 160 feet of canopy. COUNCIL LADY EURE: One-hundred and sixty feet -- that's what I said. EDDIE BOURDON: Is that what you said7 I'm sorry. COUNCIL LADY EURE: The write-up says two, 80 foot by 35 foot slope, fueling canopies. EDDIE BOURDON: That's correct. COUNCIL LADY EURE' That seems like an awful lot of canopy to me for six fueIing stations. And my Iast question is, what does Wawa stand for7 EDDIE BOURDON: around. It is an Indian name for Canadian goose. It's actually in the handout that I passed MAYOR OBERNDORF: It's Lenape. EDDIE BOURDON: Yes, ma'am. The Lenni Lenape native American name for Canadian goose. COUNCIL LADY EURE: And it's Wawa? EDDIE BOURDON: Wawa. COUNCIL LADY EURE: And I can't say it without smiling, so I 27 COUNCILMAN MANDIG0: MAYOR OBERNDORF: April 10, 2001 Thank you, Hadam Mayor. Mrs. Eure, you had one more question. Mrs. Parker. Then, COUNCIL LADY EURE: with Wawa? I wanted to ask Mr. Bourdon if he has a rendering of the building. I'm not familiar EDDIE BOURDON: Yes, ma'am. COUNCIL LADY EURE: But not in color? EDDIE BOURDON: No, I do not. COUNCIL LADY EURE: I have seen that. COUNCIL LADY EURE' You don't have a color rendering? EDDIE BOURDON: No, I do not. It's brick -- COUNCIL LADY PARKER: It has a lot of green in it if I remember correctly. EDDIE BOURDON: Brick with a raised seam metal roof. We had one on the previous application, but it's actually drive-it, the one on Shore Drive. I do know the buildings are very attractive. It's an all brick building. Canadian goose is in drive-it and you have a raised seam metal roof. COUNCIL LADY EURE: Also, my other question was one of curiosity as welt. There are 180 feet of canopy for those six fueling stations, 35 by 80 feet, two of them. Is that not a lot of canopy cover? EDDIE BOURDON: equipment. You have got the canopy that is shown on the site plan that covers the fueling dispensin§ COUNCIL LADY EURE: And there are two of them and each of them 26 COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: EDDIE BOURDON: April 10, 2001 So the answer to that is they use equipment and detection equipment that is retiable? Absolutely. COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: Okay. And there hasn't been any undetected leaks that they know about? EDDIE BOURDON: That's absolutety correct._ COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: And what woutd happen if they detected a leak? EDDIE BOURDON: Under the process -- COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: Right now if somebody detected a teak and the atarm goes off. I guess it's atarmed. EDDIE BOURDON: As I understand it and unfortunately the engineer for Wawa couldn't be here. I don't know if, Greg, you can answer the question better than I can; but as I understand it, that particutar tank and pump is shut down unti.l it can be checked out. They have a procedure for immediately noting -- now depending upon the extent they notify the company people who send in company forks, if it's anything greater than that. They have the experience and they will also notify the focal Fire Marshal who will notify DEQ. COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: So, these underground tanks probably are subject to compression by the earth. We're not in a high seismic area. It is not likely there would be a catastrophic break in the tank. This would be something over time, a flaw in the manufacturer or some weak 1ink. That's the understandin§ that I have about all the tanks in this area. Again, I don't want to profess to be an engineer. I'm not. COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: Me neither. EDDIE BOURDON: I have a hard enough time being an attorney. April 10, 2001 COUNCILMAN NANDIGO: Okay. I think you've answered my question. KIRK BATSEL: ; One thing that I forgot to add that I put conditions in there that if should -- I mean if there's a decision to move on I would strongly recommend that those be considered too. I forgot to say that earlier. COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: Mr. Bourdon, for Wawa I know there are alarms on these tanks. I-know they have to be Permitted. I know that there are severaI different checks. Do they have a track record and an experience record with the brand of the tank or the detection equipment that shows that it's reliabIe or it's unreliabIe? EDDIE BOURDON: Absolutely. And their engineers have told me that they are constantIy monitoring and updating anything that's avaiIabIe. If what they are using is bettered by something else, they will instaIl it. But, there's one thing I failed to mention because I really didn't get a chance to rebut. They also install three on-site permanent monitoring wetls as well that monitor themselves on their own si-te, and I should have made that remark in response to Mr. Harrison's question earlier. In addition to what they put in the equipment, they have three on-site monitoring welIs that they monitor constantly. So, you know, they are checking and double checking it every way possible, because again you're talking about a private corporation with a tremendous value. There is no greater incentive then to avoid the risk, because this Body isn't the only body that deats with the Federal Laws, regulations, fines, penalties and punitives. COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: Well, this also isn't the only place in the country where you're going to have a gas station or there is a gas station next to a river. EDDIE BOURDON: We have got them in Virginia Beach and I can name them and we have marinas, too. April 10, 2001 from the Ptanning Commission, and I read this. Are you an employee of DEQ? Are you an engineer? !ayperson writes. I mean this is not something that a KIRK BATSEL: that's clear. I am an employee of DEQ, but I'm acting as a citizen. I need to make sure that COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: But you know a lot about environmentat engineering? KIRK BATSEL: Yes, sir, and I'm a degree fishery scientist as well. COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: storage tanks? And you probably coutd have answered our questions about Permitting underground gas KIRK BATSEL: Possibty. COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: And you think it's a serious probtem in this case? KIRK BATSEL: Yes, sir. I think-that once you -- I think the issue here is do we want to ptace it adjacent to the water body because there's no more protection from this facility than for two miles up the road. That's the problem that I have that I wanted to bring before you-all is, do we want to place this on the water body and increase that risk? Because they do leak. I mean, I'm not saying -- I know that they put state-of-the-art equipment in, but the state-of-the-art equipment that we put in ten years ago is leaking today in some cases. The tanks that we put in 50 years ago have leaked in some cases. That's the tegacy that Mr. Spore is talking about. We're dealing with that throughout the City, throughout the State and the country. Do we want to risk that potential7 You know it may never teak or it may teak a year from now. We just don't realty know, and we don't know for sure that the detection equipment wit1 constantty stay working properly. April 10, 2001 COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: That's a lot of spaces. More than the ~ ~ City -- usually we are accused of over requiring spaces, but this is more than double what we require. EDDIE BOURDON: Mrs. Henley, ail the Wawa's -- COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: Is there some reason why people are there so long? EDDIE BOURDON: certainly have. I will let Mr. Bruton answer that question. He has more experience in that than I ROBERT BRUTON: their cars and eat. I'm Robert Bruton, ma'am, with Wawa. Yes, people sit there and eat. They sit in I do it aII the time. We don't have inside dining facilities in a Wawa Store, in any Wawa store; but, we sell some wonderful food. So, people will typically go in and will get their food and they wilt §o out and they will sit in their car and eat their lunch or breakfast or whatever it might be. At noon time, especially, you see an awful lot of that. I do it all the time. The first Wawa Store in the Richmond area is about three miles from my house and that was no accident. I §o up there and have lunch and I sit in the parking lot. Of course, I have an ulterior motive. I like to sit and watch what's goin§ on because I learn from it. But, that's the reason that Wawa is very typically, virtually always requesting far more parkin§ spaces than required under any jurisdictional Ordinance that I am aware of. Every jurisdiction we operate in we have usually at least doubIe the required parking or more, and it's for our customers. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: Thank you. MAYOR OBERNDORF- COUNCILMAN MANDIGO: Thank you. Mr. Mandi§o. Well, I had a question for Mr. Batsel. I looked at what you said, the transcript April 10, 2001 When I lived in Chesapeake, we had an underground fuel tank for our ystem to heat the house. We converted that to electric and we had to get permission:to empty the tank, then fill it with sand and get a Permit to. have an above storage tank. So, these tanks are hi§hly re§ulated whether they are residential or commercial. I will tell you when we decided to sell the business that required these tanks, the State and DEQ as well -- we had to pay an oil equipment company to' come out and certify that we closed the tanks. I still, as recently as two years ago, had a questionnaire from the' State for proof that we had done this and thank goodness I don't throw things like that away. I had to go dig it out of the archives and produce, rather than to go through about a $600 to $1,000, expense to certify that the tank was properly closed. So, it's a highly regulated industry. It's not any different in Chesapeake than in Virginia Beach. If we don't have that in place -- I think you just heard 'the City Manager say what it cost us to bring ours into compliance. I cannot believe that we don't know this procedure exactly of getting Permits for tanks and not only installing them, but closing them. So, I really think it's much to do about nothing. regulated Permitting process. It's a highly MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. Henley then Mr. Mandigo. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: How many parking spaces is on your plat now? EDDIE BOURDON: Sixty-two, Hrs. Henley. COUNCIL LADY HENLEY: How many are required? many spaces? And why are there so EDDIE BOURDON: Twenty-nine. Wawa, because they are customer-service oriented and because they do a significant business, it is their requirement that there be the additional spaces for parking that will be utilized by their customers. 21 April 10, 2001 doesn't go into the water. Unlike anything that comes off the qroperty now, granted not petroleum is on the property now, it flows directly into the ;creek. It all goes into the double BMP's that we described. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I think I Bet the picture. EDDIE BOURDON: correct. better. know, need not hear the AppTication. So, there's nothing for the Bay Board to hear or to dea! with. Bob-is absotutety Not only is this substantially creater. It's clearly And that's the reason why the Chesapeake Bay Board, you I will be brief -- MAYOR OBERNDORF: I have two more Members of Councit. EDDIE BOURDON: I'm sorry. I never got a rebuttal, but that's okay. MAYOR OBERNDORF: If you don't mind. EDDIE BOURDON: I don't mind, Madam Mayor. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. Eure and Mrs. Hentey. COUNCIL LADY PARKER: And Mr. Mandigo. HAYOR OBERNDORF: Oh, my goodness. I'm sorry. COUNCIL LADY EURE: I just want to partially answer Mr. Harrison's question. We had commercial property that had a targe gasotine storage tank as well as diesel storage tank for trucks. They are controlled by DEQ as weft as the State. You have to get a Permit to install the tank in the first place. Then after that, it is routinety inspected. If there is any leakage or if you have an employee that complains, you know, he wants to get back, they wit1 calf and the man comes out and inspects. Then, the owner has to pay to have those tanks certified that they are not leaking. I have had that happen. It is very controtled. You just don't randomly put in a tank without State supervision as well as DEQ in addition to that. 20 April 10, 2001 Mr. Bourdon a question. ! a lot less triangles, and I wanted to ask How much heartburn would it be for Wawa to defer this to go before the Chesapeake Bay Board. EDDIE BOURDON: All right. The answer to that question I need to go into my rebuttal and I will be glad to answer that question after you hear the rebuttal, but you have a vested right and the right goes with the land. The approval' that the Bay Board gave runs with the land. That approval was for a Car Spa that had six -- dispensing equipment, bays where oil and other car fluids were changed, a car wash on site and had 15,000 square feet more impervious surface. You could take care of your car from A to Z. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Did it have the underground tanks? EDDIE BOURDON: It was closer to London Bridge Creek than the underground tanks on this plan are located. The only difference is that the dispensers of gasoline on the car spa were in -- you know paired up and the closest ones were 34 feet further from the creek than the closest one is with this Application. The tanks themselves where the product is stored on this Application are all the way up in the far northeast corner, whereas in Car Spa they were located right in front of the store closer. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Well, if you're going to give us the answer in your rebuttal, I certainly -- EDDIE BOURDON: The answer is, the variance that was granted by the Bay Board -- COUNCIL LADY WILSON' Runs with the land. EDDIE BOURDON: that one dispenser. spilla§e -- and we don't think there will be any, but any spillage -- goes with the land. And this is in every instance except for the location of Further, you know, it's better in any way. Any 19 April 10, 2001 there anything that we can do as a City to act upon those with some ype of enforcement? ' t CITY MANAGER: clean-up campaign. There's a State Law and the DEQ working with us enforces that. There's a massive I mean the City itself, in terms of our old tanks, has spent $6-Million correcting these deficiencies. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Well, I know between the City and the schooIs we have done a lot. CITY MANAGER: As we find those we order them cleaned up along with the State, and there's very careful records kept on those. COUNCIL LADY PARKER: What's the date on this thing? KIRK BATSEL' It was printed -- I want to say it was Friday. COUNCIL LADY PARKER: But what was the date it was compiled though? I'm sorry. Excuse me, Rosemary. KIRK BATSEL: Right up to date. 'Right up to last Friday. Ali week. Everything we have on record and the ones with the stars now remember they have been cleaned up. Okay. We're working on all of them. I don't want to give you-all the impression that the State isn't working on them. COUNCIL LADY WILSON' Is this a State action, then, that works on these or is it City? KIRK BATSEL. Yes, ma'am. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Okay. Well hopefuIIy -- KIRK BATSEL: It came from the DEQ data base and they are working on that. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Well, I hope next time we can see this with April 10, 2001 requirements that are followed if there were to be any spill. So, again everything they do is the industry Ieader and it's not disputed ~¥ anybody in -- if you ask any other peopIe in the business they wiII tell you the same thing. That's the way they operate. I have some other points of rebuttaI. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: my head when we have another gas application, because this has been very educational_. MAYOR OBERNDORF: I think I will just keep this in the back of Mrs. Wilson and then Mrs. Eure. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: I had a couple of things, but I did want to say that I'm familiar with the Wawa Stores. We travel from here to New York fairly frequently and I get to see your stores along the way and they are very very nice. I was concerned about this map too and I wanted to ask Kirk -- it looks likes some of those little triangles are where we don't have any gas stations. Are those private tanks? KIRK BATSEL: are gas stations, okay. Yes, ma'am. Some of those are other tanks other than a gas station. The bulk of them But, they are all leaking tanks and because I was trying to condense my presentation down, I wanted to show you this as a way to evidence the fact that tanks leak, even the best designed tanks. The best designed piping systems. Actually more often than not it happens where the connections are made and the pumps themselves -- the one that's setting right on that RPA line. You have leaks from other areas and the sensor units that they are talking about I'm sure are state-of-the-art, but they break and they don't work. We're talking about locating a gas station that's going to be there forever, for an indefinite period of time. So, 50 years from now can we assure that the monitor we put in today and the tanks that we put in today are not going to release to the river? That was my point. COUNCIL LADY WILSON: Well, I wanted to follow-up on that with these private tanks that are leaking. Is 17 April 10, 2001 inventory, computer analysis with what you're selling, you can tell whether you have lost any product as a double check. Third check, the supplier: They monitor how much is supplied to the site and they will triple check with the supplier the volume in the tank versus what was delivered to again verify the amount put in the tank at any given delivery date all the way through so you're monitoring every, you know, gallon of product that goes into that tank to make sure it goes in and it is only going out through the sate of the product to the consumer. Second, the State of Vir§inia can shut down any fuel-dispensing station whose product is leakin§ into the ground and they do. I have never seen what you were provided, but to suggest that the ability doesn't exist to close down and shut down the underground storage facitity and if anybody got that impression that's comptetely false. It can be done immediately. Wawa, because they are a substantial corporation, that they are a privateIy-owned corporation, a valuabIe corporation. They are not going to take any risks. That's why they are doing everything state-of-the-art on this facility. We are not concerned about any condition, because a condition isn't going to even approach the level of concern that they have with their financial self interest to make sure that they don't have any leakin§ products. That's why they have associates who work in the store who are specifically trained to deal with the petroleum issue separate and apart from the peopte who are dealing with the sale of the product in the store. You don't have somebody who is deaIin§ with the convenient store operation, you know, who atso is dealin§ with the saIe of §asoIine. You have someone there constantly who is in charge of one and one who is charge of the other. So, it's a long way from your typical 7-Eleven. It is not a 7-Eleven. That's covered. At feast I think it is in terms of any other conditions. Ctearty, if they have any probtem whatsoever, you know, they have a manual in each .store that is site specific that is connected with the local Fire Marshat and the Department of Environmentat Quatity in each store what their procedures are in the event there is discovery of any teak at att and reporting 16 April 10, 2001 check in terms of the pumps, the motors and the nozzles and att that to make sure that's operating. I believe there's a State Law that ! .requires testing on that. VICE NAYOR SESSONS: I'm having a senior moment. I apoto§ize. COUNCILNAN HARRISON: of these Apptications requires a Permit. requires a CUP. I guess what I'm driving at is, I _don't want to micro-manage this Application, but I'm just throwing out to the Council -- and maybe Mr. Bourdon has some suggestions on this. I know Wawa does have, you know, a reputation for being a quality company. How do you -- what is the standard in your client's industry? When do you check these things7 How can you assuage my concerns that you know the thing is leaking and it leaks for five years because you're not setling and you're not going to get a -- you wilt get a Phase I when you do your construction loan. You will be built and you won't get another Phase I or Phase II on that property until you refinance or sell the property, so how do we know that it's not Ieakin§ five years from now? But the question is, it's not -- every one It EDDIE BOURDON: There are two different ways to go at the same issue. We start with the double wall tanks and the monitoring that is in place. It will be in place on the day this operation goes into business. Ninety percent of the tanks that are installed in this country today are not double wall. You have them in California. You have them in Florida and we are getting them to a great extent in Virginia, but throughout the country that's not the norm. What you're seeing here is definitely not the norm. What Wawa does -- and it's in the information that I passed out. You have monitoring of the brine that exists between the tank and the second watt of the tank that monitors for any petroleum product that has come out of the main containment tank and has gotten into that brine that surrounds the tank. So, you have knowledge immediately of the leaka§e that takes place from the primary tank, the bottom tank. You also have double walls on all the piping as well. You also have moni'toring on the site of the petroleum in the tank. In other words the level of petroleum in the tank, which with 15 April 1O, 2001 Unfortunately, it's not always easy to tell where one is leaking and whether one is leaking, except by some intense evaluation. On a ! case-by-case basis. At that point I'm about at the time limit of my knowledge on the subject, so I don't want to go much further, but I will say that I'm aware of some leaking tanks that we have and that materiat when it does leak out often moves a considerable distance. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: How do we regulate that unless we know they are leaking? ROBERT SCOTT: Well, it comes to our attention most frequently when property is bought or sold when a Phase I Environmental Study is done and the presence of a tank like this shows up and a preliminary investigation is done. They say that it's either not leaking or that it is and some remedial action needs to take place. I think that is from a practical point of view, the one most potent source of information on leakin§ tanks that I'm aware of. COUNCILMAN HARRISON' Thank you. questions. Mr. Bourdon, I have a couple of VICE HAYOR SESSOHS: Can I follow-up? COUNCILMAN HARRISON: Sure. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Sessoms. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: We went through this some time ago. Council, a number of years ago -- and I think the Fire Department or someone came and spoke to us about this because there is some sort of testing that occurs at all stations, the older ones as well as the requirements of new tanks and so forth. There is some sort of policy, Jim, unless I'm just dreaming here that the Eity and the State have to abide by. I think it was the Fire Department that came and stated what had to occur. Does that ring a bell to you at all? CITY MANAGER: I think that must have been before my time. I don't know. The Fire Department does 14 April 10, 2001 Mr. Scott, in the Lynnhaven District, I counted five triangles and in the Beach District, formally part of the Lynnhaven District, nearby (his project there's one in the very vicinity. Several of the triangles are located in what appears to be my neighborhood on Atlantic Avenue. One appears to be near the 31st Street Corridor. I find it hard to believe that we have that many leaking underground storage tanks in the City of Virginia Beach. I would challenge this because I can't believe that it's true, and we are allowin§ it to happen, first. Secondly, if it is possible that these UST's are leaking and we have no control over them, then I would like to be able to put some condition in every gasoline's application that says if you teak you shut down until you stop leakin§ and quit filling your tank up so it leaks into the environment. We have never done that before, but it certainty seems if this information is true then we would insist that the crummy operators shut down and not continue to fill up their tanks and dig them up and reptace them and not wait for the DEQ to send us a map that shows these triangles. Again, I can't believe this is accurate. It's not documented as to what the date of this map is, and there is no source document to give it any credibility, but it is purported to be an accurate representation of leakin§ storage tanks. ROBERT SCOTT: I can shed some light on your comments, Mr. Harrison. First of all, I have not seen that information so I cannot really react to it. But, we do know that there are some leaking storage tanks in the City. Most of them are older, but when they do leak and when material does leak out of them' they sometimes move some considerable distance so you should not feel comforted by setting something back an extra 10 feet or even an extra 20 to 30 feet. That's really not getting to the issue. The issue is not how far back they are because the material when it teaks moves a long way. What I'm getting at is, making sure that they don't leak and the appropriate measures are used to see that property constructed and properly installed tanks are in place on each site. 13 April 10, 2OO1 storage -- and I walked the property also the other day just to make sure I got a good feeI for it. The idea is try to make sure that you don't have an above ground that you can see as weIl as underground, are we not getting cIoser to the water source with this one versus the top Ievel? What I'm looking for is, if we're going to zero what extra precautionary methods are we using that are well above what the standards are required now in today's -- because I .think double tanks are pretty much, from what I understand, a standard operating procedure. I think in all cases now. ROBERT SCOTT: common, yes. It's common, but I wouldn't say it's a standard procedure, but it is certainly Well, this is a Use Permit before you. The Chesapeake Bay Board is not the only Board that is entitled to establish conditions pertinent to these things. You can look at it and establish conditions that you think are appropriate as well. I think that they have done some things in addition. They have provided additional landscapin§ alon§ the West side in order to screen Wawa from the creek. That's not something that was in the Application before. They have done some things in our opinion to deal with that issue. We feel it's okay as permitted and as suggested to you today, but if you're uncomfortable permitting that you think that another Application is appropriate, we can certainly look at that. But, I am saying to you that I don't -- it's my view in lookin§ at what the Bay Board has already done that there is not much value in sending it back to the Bay Board. I think they have already looked at this Application. MAYOR OBERNDORF' Mr. Harrison. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: The last speaker presented us with some information. One piece of which was an area map which purports to identify UST's, underground storage tanks, which are currentIy discharging petroIeum. 12 April 10, 2001 will Brant a rezonin§ to somebody, a'conditional rezoning subject to ei§ht or nine proffered conditions. Well another property owner 'could come along, but that property owner is required to fall within · the same envelope of what the project is going to be like as the original developer did. It must comply with the same conditions. We applied that same reasonin§ here and we feel that it is appropriate and necessary that Wawa comply with the requirements and conditions set by the Chesapeake Bay Board and not. be in any way a more intensive use. We think that they passed that test and it is appropriate that the variance granted by the Chesapeake Bay Board continue to apply here. HAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. Parker. COUNCIL LADY PARKER: If I might follow-up on that. I asked the same question basicalIy and I was most concerned. I got this printout from Les LilIey who had worked with Kay Wilson on this project -- Kay Wilson did with the Staff I suppose. One of the things that I saw was a significant difference in distance of the fuel dispensers from the RPA. Apparently, they are going to be set the same on both of them, but one was going to be zero on the Wawa, where the other one was 34 feet away from the RPA. Apparently, they felt as though that -- I'm not sure if I am reading this correctly -- there was a difference in the buffer. The buffer was reduced due to an enlar§ement of the BMP's. Is that following the same track? Is that why it wasn't? ROBERT SCOTT- The Chesapeake Bay review is basically an exercise in establishing appropriate buffers along the waterways, appropriate remediaI actions or mitigating actions if necessary or BMP's if necessary. It does not compare exactIy in every detail, but on balance we think that it does and we think what you have in front of you is a less intensive Application than what the Board has already looked at. COUNCIL LADY PARKER: But if the concern is making sure that you don't have underground leaking 11 April 10, 2001 . Development of this site could be Iow impact, aesthetically appealing and of high value within the current zoning for the B-2. .A smarter growth decision can be made here. Please deny the currently requested change in zoning. In conclusion, I ask that you take the time to consider these comments and any additional citizen comments that you may have received via E-mail, mail, phone or however you received them and those that I made at the Planning Commission Hearing. You have a decision to make here today which will affect the future health of this tributary and the appearance of this natural resource and scenic waterway. Please, make it a good one. Thank you. HAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Batsel? COUNCIL LADY McCLANAN: No. I don't have a question of Mr. Batsel. I guess I want to know under what conditions the review by the Chesapeake Bay Board was bypassed. I don't know if that is Mr. Scott or Mr. Spore. ROBERT SCOTT: It wasn't bypassed. The Chesapeake Bay Board did review an application on this site and approved an application of a variance to the requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Act that included a more intense development than what we have here today. The Wawa Proposal that you have here is a less intense development than what they saw and they reviewed the Car Spa Application, which like this one included a convenient store -- so does this one. Fuel sales -- so does this one, but significantly more impervious cover than this one does and significantly less green space than this one does. So, we made what we think is a well-reasoned and quite frankly routine decision that they do fall within the variance that was already granted. In cases where we feel that someone is coming forward and not fitting within.the envelop~ that an another board looked at and maybe even the City Council -- let's say that in some cases the City Council 10 April 10, 2001 River, a tributary of the Chesapeake'Bay. important fish, crab and oyster nursery. i It is also a very · Recently, the City announced the partnership to restore oysteries in the Lynnhaven River system. This ambitious pro§ram is a part of a 1ar§er bay-wide effort and will cost lar§e amounts of capital resources and efforts. Do we want to increase the risk to the success of this and other programs designed to improve the health of Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries by decisions like this to site a fuel dispensing station directly adjacent to and in the buffer of this sensitive estuary and Chesapeake Bay Tributary. That's the question we have to ask. Do we want hi§h-volume §as stations on the banks of our scenic waterways? Okay. And lastly, smart growth: It is interesting that a trip down this same river provides for a textbook example of both aesthetically pleasin§ and unsi§htly repairing development. Reflections Office Park and the old HQ Headquarters buildin§ are what I call smart growth. The presence of these low-impact commercial structures blend into the natural setting of this river. At the same time they provide beautiful office views. This type of riparian development is a smarter growth decision. The Wawa proposed is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. That is why it is before you today, because they need a chan§e in the zoning to conditional. This plan did not intend for this parcel to be a Conditional B-2 Use. The Plan states that within the London Bridge Commercial area there is a need for the City to provide a range of commercial retail activities and services to meet the needs of al1 the citizens. It is equally important this be accomplished in harmony, with the concept of providing an attractive and well-maintained physical environment. That's Page 101. The development of a gas fueling station on the shore and adjacent to a scenic waterway is not in harmony with the concept of providing an attractive and well-maintained physical environment. It does not promote our collective interest and improvement in the health uses and aquatic life for the £hesapeake Bay, London Bridge Creek or the Lynnhaven River. ' 9 April 10, 2001 Second, on suitability. Three points here' And I have included two visual aids. The first is a handout and it s a graphical ' 'presentation to ~he Department of Environmental Quality leakin§ underground storage tank data base for' the City of Virginia Beach. would like to draw your attention to -- the triangles are currently leaking underground storage tanks. The X stars are tanks that have leaked and have been corrected and just from seeing that right there you can see that_ this is an issue and it's taking a considerable amount of time and effort to clean up problems and we have numerous, numerous leaks and environmental releases. Now, some of these releases were worse than others, but most of them are gas stations. History has shown that even the best designed tank and piping system will leak with time. It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of When. Also, with the station so close to the water intercepting a release would likely not be possible before pollutants are released to the scenic waterway. Second, I spoke of the eroding shoreline at this site during the Planning Commission Hearing. This erosion is difficult to see watking along the top of the bank, but it is very clear when you observe it from the water. Now I know -- I have talked to a coupte of Members here that did walk the site and I have too, and I agree you can't see it. But, those pictures -- I went out in my John Boat just this weekend and took those pictures and it's clear from those pictures that the shoreline is undercut and the roots are exposed which is an excellent fisheries' habitat. I'm a Degree Fishery Scientist. That is prime fishery habitat, crab habitat. But, if you're putting a gas station on the shore you have got to protect that buffer. Okay. Third, London Bridge Creek is a very beautiful natural river and bay tributary directly within the heart of populated Virginia Beach. This natural resource provides the beneficial uses of fishing, canoeing, John Boating, et cetera, associated with the natural Tidewater River system. It is the main-stem tributary of the Eastern Branch of the Lynnhaven 8 Aprit 10, 2001 Wawa fuel dispensing station. !Today there are ~hree primary concerns with this First is .procedural, second is suitability and the third I call smart growth. Okay. First, with the procedural, the current Application proposes to locate this high volume dispensing station directly on the bank and within the resource protection area buffer of the City-desi§nated scenic waterway, London Brid§e Creek. To be allowed this proposal required a review by City Plannin§ Staff and the Vir§inia Beach Plannin§ Commission for the requested chan§e of zoning district classification. Durin§ the Plannin§ Commission zoning change review, the Wawa Application did not under§o review by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board. The decision to bypass the review by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board was apparentIy a Staff decision. Further, the Planning Commission granted a conditional variance to the Chesapeake Bay Act RPA requirements for this Wawa. These conditions had previously been granted for a different Application, as Mr. Bourdon mentioned, the Car Spa. Now, the fuel dispensin§ was not the primary businesses of the previous application. In addition, there were other concerns and differences that were presented to the Planning Commission. Now, I can't even keep track of how many site plans -- and that's a problem for somebody to participate in a public forum, because as you make these changes things change, issues change and that creates a difficulty that I would like for you to be aware of. The current Application for this location is exactly the kind of request the citizens of Vir§inia Beach want and deserve to be adequately reviewed by Virginia Beach, Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Boa.rd. In fact, the Board was created by the City to ensure compliance with the 1991 Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance. Okay. So before approving this request, please allow the Virginia Beach [sic] Preservation Area Board the opportunity to properly evaluate and address issues concernin§ this specific Application in compliance with the Chesapeake Bay Act. 7 April 10, 2001 With that I'm sure you-all may have some questions now or you may choose to wait until later to ask them. That's up to you. I would, !like the opportudity to speak after Mr Batsel speaks ' MAYOR OBERNDORF: You're always given the chance for rebuttal. EDDIE BOURDON: Thank you, Madam Mayor. CITY CLERK: Kirk Batsel. KIRK BATSEL: I have a couple of handouts here that I would like to pass out. There is a copy of what I'm going to say -- I may add a tittle -- and a couple of visual aids to help you evaluate this project. VICE MAYOR SESSOMS: Is this what you said in front of the Plannin§ Commission? KIRK BATSEL: No, sir. As a matter of fact, I had to significantly reduce what I wanted to say here today because I was under the impression I have five minutes only, and I can't be as technical as maybe this project deserves'. I woutd welcome questions. I'm knowledgeable about this. I can discuss it with you. I had the opportunity to discuss it with some of the Council Members that I was able to §et in touch with or return their cart and I think that was helpful to have some interaction. There are not a whole tot of people waiting, but I understand that this is a five-minute rule thing. So that's what I designed my presentation to, to try to stay within, and it did lose some of its detail to do that. Okay. Does everybody have the handout? All right. With that I would like to thank Mayor Oberndorf and the rest of City Council for atlowin§ me to participate in this public forum concerning the subject issue. Like I mentioned I know I have five minutes, so I will try to be brief. My name is Kirk Batsel and I am speaking as a Virginia Beach resident concerned with the current zoning variance request for the 6 April 10, 2001. double wall containers, the monitori'ng of the brine, it's very detailed information. I'm not going to go into it unless you-all !have specific questions. The Engineers for Wawa have also advised and want me to advise you the best avaiIable technology has been included in ali of their proposals. That includes the nozzles at the pump and the cutoffs that prevent spiIlage or leakage at the pump. Atso, we would be glad to entertain any and review any suggestions that Kirk may have with regard to that type of technoIogy if he's got something else that's' on the market that we are not aware of. The only suggestion from Hr. Batsel that is not included in this proposal is the Stage II Vapor Recovery System for vapors emitted when gas is being pumped into the gas tank of a vehicle, and that is something that is used in areas that are in non-attainment or air pollution. It's something that the State of Virginia has the ability to impose upon all fuel dispensing operations if they should choose to do so. Wawa, all of their in-ground infrastructure is ali Stage II Vapor Recovery ready. So if it ever becomes a requirement of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Wawa wilt be the first to comply. There will be nothing that will be needed to be done underground to make the system activated. It will be money that will have to be expended, significant money above ground and they will certainly comply if it becomes a mandate. In conclusion all of the conditions that have been recommended with this Application are acceptable. We have agreed, as I have indicated earlier in the presentation, to plant a hedge row along the entire RPA buffer and we also have a significant number of years of tree preservation that are shown on the plans. See them out here along the Boulevard and also over here along the creek bank. Wawa will also put fencing up around those trees prior to the commencement of construction to ensure to the best of our ability that there will be no damage done to those trees during the clearing and construction on the premises -- again, the best means available to keep there from being any damage to those trees. 5 April 10, 2001. entire border with London Bridge Creek. !That is in respohse to my friend Kirk Batse! s concern that canoes in the creek will be able to see this facility. And, again, in addition to what you see there we are also wilIing to pIant a continuous row of landscape screening in the RPA buffer. Now, you will also notice the storage tanks are located here in the far Northeast corner of the site, 285 to 290 feet from London Bridge Creek. The nearest dispenser of petroleum products here at the edge of the RPA, which is still 125 feet from the creek, because there's a significant run to the top of the bank on that section of the site. Apparently, there may have been some confusion at some point about the variance that was granted by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board for a Car Spa on this site. Hopefully, that's been cleared up to your satisfaction, but ! want to list a couple of things. Car Spa was approved for a variance simiIar to this, but in about 86,000 square feet of impervious surface, not 71,000 square feet that Wawa is proposing. Car Spa, like Wawa, had six fuel dispensing stations on site. TheY just had theirs in dual islands. They also had a car wash, lube oil change facilities. We have none of the above. We also have no dumpster located outside the site. All of that is handled inside the building. We don't have an outside dumpster so trash can blow away and get into the body of water. The variance that Car Spa received clearly applies to the land and this Application, not only is it substantially similar but it is far better than the Car Spa Variance Application and that's not before this Body. That's the Chesapeake Bay Board's purview. At the Planning Commission, Mr. Batsel made a number of very constructive recommendations for safety features to be incIuded on this site if this AppIication were approved as it has been recommended. I'm happy to report that with one exception ail of those recommendations are standard operating procedures for Wawa ~ · Those are included in the material that I have handed out to you, if you had a chance to take a look at it -.- the double wall pipes, the 4 April 10, 2001 existing improvements directly into the creek right down the bank !without any BMP and without any treatment. If you will put the site pIan back up pIease. It's hard to see on here. You can actuatIy see it on what I'm passing around, but again it's not that easy. The existing impervious surface where you see all the bayscape landscaping that will be put in and the new BMP, that is alt impervious surface now. It goes att the way out to where the top of the bank is in this area here. That will alt, with this proposal if it is approved, be puIted back and taken out. In its place we wiIl have the bayscape landscaping including 50 trees and other landscape materials and BMP's that wilt be instalied. We are talking about installing two BMP's. They will both treat the same stormwater. The first is called, a Vortechnix [sic] System. I've got all the information on it. There are actuatIy two of these types of BMP's that are approved by the City. They are, again, state-of-the-art. They are both welt water separators and BMP's. They treat the potential for any petroleum products being in any of the stormwater as welt as sediment. Once they §o through this system, it then goes into the structural BMP on site, where again the water seeps into the ground, sediment falls out and eventually some wilt make its way into London Bridge Creek, but we are treating bOth for quantity and quality with this proposal whereas there is no treatment taking place. This proposaI involves only 71,000 square feet of impervious surface. Currently there is 66,000 square feet of impervious surface. We're talking about merely an 8% increase in impervious surface on site, and there is 120,000 square feet plus of area above the top of the bank on the site. We are taIking about 59% coverage, 41% will remain impervious measured to the top of the bank. If you measure it to the edge of the creek it's closer to 50/50. The impervious surface on the Wawa ProposaI is a minimum of 60 feet landward on the top of the bank, 70 feet minimum from the edge of London Bridge Creek.? Now, my cIients have authorized me today to a§ree in addition to the Iandscaping you see on the pIan, that they wilt also instatI a row of appropriate Iandscape screening across the Aprit 10, 2001 rezoning. The site involved is 2.95 acres or three acres in size for !all intents and purposes. Currently it has split zoning, as you can ~ .see on the zoning map up -- 1.6 acres of the property is Zoned I-1 'industrial use, 1.77 acres is Zoned B-2 commerciat use. The entire parcel is requested to be zoned Conditional B-2 with the proper site plan, tandscape plan, store and canopy elevations, materials and colors for a Wawa Market with §asoline sales. Now, I'm going to pass around the coloring rather-than to put it up here. You have got one up here as well if you want to go up and s~e it more closely. The second Application is a Conditional Use Permit, which is necessary for the §asoline sales in conjunction with the convenience store. These Applications come before you today with a recommendation for approval from your Professional Staff and a unanimous recommendation from your Planning Commission. In addition to the proffers that I have touched on, there are eight conditions attached to the recommendation for approval from your Staff and Planning Commission. A1l of which are fully acceptable and embraced by my client. The subject property: It's located on Virginia Beach Boulevard just to the West of London Bridge. It is located on the East side of Parker Lane -- excuse me. West side of Parker Lane -- Parker Lane is our Eastern boundary. Behind our property to the South is the Sandler Materials Cement Ptant that has been there for many, many years. Proposed adjacent to us, which will be to the East, will be the Lowe's Super Store or Lowe's Center. Across Virginia Beach Boulevard from the site is the Beach Robo Citco and Pep Boys. To our West is the London Bridge Creek, which is an environmental feature or environmental asset. The property currently has on it existin§ development that was formerty used by the United States Postal Service Mail Handlin§ Annex. There is 66,195 square feet of impervious surface with no stormwater treatment, because it was built Ion§ before we had a Stormwater Management Ordinance. That impervious surface extends the way to the top of the bank in some places and flows from those CITY CLERK: · MAYOR OBERNDORF: : April 10, 2001 Tile next item, Your Honor? Next item. CITY CLERK: Wawa, Incorporated, on Virginia Beach Boulevard and Parker Lane in District 6. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Planning Items. Ladies and Gentlemen, the Applicants for Wawa wish to be heard. We are on our CITY CLERK: Mr. Eddie Bourdon is representing the Applicant. EDDIE BOURDON: For the record, Madam Mayor, Mister Vice Mayor, Members of the City Council, my name is Eddie Bourdon. I'm a Virginia Beach Attorney as you-ali are aware. With me today I have got Mr. Bob Bruton from Wawa, Incorporated, as welt as Mr. Grog Hayes and this is Mike Perry with Miller-Stephen and Associates, the Engineers on this proposed project. It is truIy a privilege to come before you to represent Wawa with these Applications. This is the first time I have actually had the opportunity to speak to the entire body on a Wawa Application. Yet, this is the fourth proposed store in the City. The previous three, all having been approved on your Consent Agenda, is a testament to the reputation that Wawa was ctearly the industry Ieader in the convenience market place. One of the reasons they have that distinction, which is unsaIable, is the quatity of their products, both the dairy products that are both produced by Wawa and their famous hoagies, sandwiches and also because of the training of their employees and retainage of their employees. They have the best retainage rate and give the best training to their employees. That training includes training with regard to emergency situations. We can talk about that if there are any questions about that as we §o along. These two Applications before you today, first is a conditional Virginia Beach City Council April 10th, 2001 2:00 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 Borough District i - Centerville District 5 - Lynnhaven District 7 - Princess Anne District 4 - Bayside District 2 - Kempsvitle District 3 - Rose Hart At Large At Large CITY HANAGER: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CLERK: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Smith, CMC/AAE Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM: Plannin§ Application of Wawa, Incorporated Item V-~.2. - 31 - ! PL,4NNING ~ ITEM # 48023 (Continued) Voting: 8-3 Council Members Voting Aye: Linwood O. Branch, ILr, Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. and Rosemary Wilson Council Members Voting Nay.- Barbara M. Henley, Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf Nancy K. Parker Council Me~nbers Absent: None April 10, 2001 Item V-J.2. - 30- PLANNING ITEM # 48023 (Continued) Conditions applicable from the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board: Dual erosion and sedimentation controls shah be installed prior to any land disturbance and shaH be maintained until such a time as vegetative cover is established. The silt fence along the west side of the property shah be installed with five feet (or as close as reasonable possible) of the existing pavement. When this pavement is removed and the stormwater management facility excavated, an additional silt fence shah be installed along the edge of the channelward side of the facility to minimize both additional compaction of the soil and access to the buffer restoration area. The stormwater management facility must be sized to accommodate both quantity and quality treatment of all stormwater runoff on this site. At a minimum, buffer restoration shah include aH plant material depicted on the BayScape Landscape Plan prepared by MSA and dated March 24, 2000. This plan includes 50 trees within the buffer, plus 27 trees and 155 shrubs around theparking lot. The buffer restoration shall include at a minimum, four inches of mulch. A revised site plan shall be submitted to the Department of Pla. nning, Development Services Center, for review and approval prior to the issuance ora building permit. The following conditions shall be required: A ~ninimum of one oil~water separator shall be installed on the site to prevent sediments from being discharged into the stormwater management facility. This conditional use permit is approved for six (6)fuel dispensers only. The freestanding sign, proposed along Virginia Beach Boulevard, shall be monument style with a brick base. The sign shall resemble the colors of and shall be constructed of materials similar to that of the primary structure. Signs for the site shah be limited to traffic control signs, the monument style sign addressed above in condition #3, and signs depicted on the submitted building elevations. No signs shah be installed on any other wall area of the building or on the roof of the building. ,4 licant will install a screen o landsca e lantin salon the western ed e o the ro er ad'acent to the creek or the ur ose o screenin the view o the site rom the creek. S~ ecies aanndd size o ants to be determined at detailed site lan review approved by the Planning Director. These Ordinances shall be effective in accordance with Section 107 09 of the Zoning Ordinance. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the Tenth of April, Two Thousand On~ April 10, 2001 Item V-~.2. - 29 - PLANNING ~ ITEM # 48023 Attorney Edward Bourdon represented the applicant Kirk A. Batsel, 326 Cripple Creek Court, Phone: 431-0676, spoke in OPPO&rTION Upon motion by Councilman Branch, seconded by Vice Mayor Sessoms, City Council ADOPTED Ordinances upon application of ~FA ff/~4, INC. for a Conditional Change of Zoning and a Conditional Use Permit: Ot~INANCE UPoN APPLICATION OF WAWA, INC. FOR A CONDITIONAL CHANGE OF ZONING FROM B-2 AND I-1 TO CONDITIONAL B-2 Z040111998 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of Wawa, [nc. for a Change of Zoning District Classification from B-2 Community Business District and I-1 Light Industrial District to Conditional B-2 Community Business District on the following parcels: Parcel 1: From B-2 to Conditional B-2 at the southwest intersection of Virginia Beach Boulevard and Parker Lane. .Parcel 2: From I-1 to Conditional B-2 on the west side of Parker Lane beginning at a point 150 feet more or less south of Virginia Beach Boulevard (GPIN #1497-74-9817; #1497-74-9731; #1477-84-0956 The proposed zoning classification change to Conditional B-2 is for commercial land use. The Comprehensive plan recommends use of these parcels for commercial use for retail, office and employment uses in accordance with other Plan policies. Saidparcel contains 2.95 acres more or less. BEACH- DISTRICT 6. AND, ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF WAWA, INC. FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTOMOBILE SER VICES (FUEL SALES) IN CONJUNCTION WITHA CONVENIENCE STORE R04013042 BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA Ordinance upon application of Wawa, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit for autom obileservices (fuel sales) in conjunction with a convenience store on the following parcels: .Parcel 1: From B-2 to Conditional B-2 at the southwest intersection of Virginia Beach Boulevard and Parker Lane. Parcel 2: From I-1 to Conditional B-2 on the west side of Parker Lane beginning at a point 150 feet more or less south of Virginia Beach Boulevard (GPIN #1497-74-9817; #1497-74-9731; #1477-84-0956 The proposed zoning classification change to Conditional B-2 is for commercial land use. The Co~nprehensive plan recommends use of these parcels fqr commercial use for retail, office and employment uses in accordance with other Plan policies. Said parcel contains 2.95 acres more or less. BEACH- DISTRICT 6. April 10, 2001 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Encroachment Request to construct and maintain a BMP, Landscaping, Curb, Fence, and Underground Irrigation System Applicant -'L & S Associates, LLC and WAWA, Inc. MEETING DATE: June 11, 2002 Background: L & S Associates, LLC and WAWA, Inc. desire to construct and maintain a BMP, Landscaping, Curb, Fence, and Underground Irrigation System at Virginia Beach Boulevard and Parker Lane along London Bridge Creek in a 300' canal easement. Considerations: City staff has reviewed the request for the encroachment and has recommended approval of same, subject to certain conditions outlined in the agreement. Since the canal easement was purchased with federal funding, Council approval is required. There are similar encroachments along London Bridge Creek. Public Information: Advertisement of City Council. Alternatives: Approve the encroachment as presented, deny the encroachment, or add conditions as desired by Council. Recommendations: agreement. Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions of the Attachments: Ordinance, Location Map, Agreement, and Plat Recommended Action: Submitting Department/Agency: Approval of the ordinance Public Works ~ 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 3O 31 32 Requested by Department of Public Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS INTO A PORTION OF A 300' CANAL EASEMENT AT THE REAR OF PARKER LAiqE AT GPIN ~1497-84-0748 BY L & S ASSOCIATES, LLC AND WAWA, INC, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, L & S Associates, LLC, and WAWA, Inc.,desire to construct and maintain a BMP, landscaping, curb, fence, and underground irrigation system into the City's 300' canal easement at Parker Lane along London Bridge Creek. WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2- 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize a temporary encroachments upon the City's 300' canal easement subject to such terms and conditions as Council may prescribe. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to the authority and to the extent thereof contained in §~ 15.2-2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended L & S Associates, LLC and WAWA, Inc., assigns and successors in title are authorized to construct and maintain a temporary encroachment for a BMP, landscaping, curb, fence, and underground irrigation system in the City's 300' canal easement as shown on the map entitled: "ENCROACHMENT PLAT OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS INTO 300' CANAL EASEMENT FOR L & S ASSOCIATES, LLC PARCEL X GPIN 1497-84-0748 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA MSA, P.C. Landscape Architecture · Planning Surveying · Engineering Environmental Sciences 5033 ROUSE DRIVE, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23462-3708 PHONE (757)490-9264 · FAX (757)490-0634," a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public Works and to which reference is made for a more particular description; and 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachments are expressly subject to those terms, conditions and criteria contained in the Agreement between the City of Virginia Beach and L & S Associates, LLC and WAWA, Inc., (the "Agreement") which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Manager or his authorized designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall not be in effect until such time as L & S Associates, LLC, WAWA, Inc., and the City Manager or his authorized designee execute the Agreement. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. 45 46 47 48 CA-% gsalmons/L&S/ord. R-1 PREPARED: 05.06.02 /AS. TO CONTENTS DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL NCY RM SITE LOCATION MAP SC. ALE: 1" - 1,600' 7-85-22% · viRGINIA BEACH BLVO. / ELEVATOR ~ ~' = = = ~ ELEVATOR~ ELEVATOR ~ ~ bOCATION MAP SHOWING [NCROACHM[NI R[QU[SI[D k~S ASSOCIAI[S, kkC I~10 CI~ RIGHI-O[-WAY PARK[R ~~[ A~D VIRGiniA B[ACH BOULEVARD MJ.S. GAlL SAL~ONS PAR~EDGN 1497-84-3948 14c~7-84-3855 BY SC. ALE: 1" = 100' P~._PARED BY P/W ENG. DRAFT. MARCH 19, 2002 PREPARED BY WILLIAMS MULLEN SAMUEL M. KROLL EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UNDER SECTIONS 58.1-81 l(a)(3) AND 58.1-811(c)(4) REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTION 25-249 __ day of April, 2002, by and between the THIS AGREEMENT, made this 2o CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, "City", Grantor and L & S ASSOCIATES, LLC, "Owner", grantee for purposes of indexing and WAWA, INC, a New Jersey corporation, "Grantee." WlTNESSETH: That, WHEREAS, the Owner is the owner and the Grantee is the lessee of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as "PARCEL X AREA=127,548 SF OR 2.928 AC GPIN:1497-84-0748" as shown on "RESUBDIVISION PLAT OF: PARCEL P-l, PARCEL A AND AN UNNAMED PARCEL AS SHOWN ON "COMPOSITE PLAT OF PROPERTY OF GEORGE J. PARKER et. al. (MB 98, PG 44) AND PORTION OF PROPERTY AS DELINEATED ON SHEETS 5lA & 5 IF, PLANS FOR ROUTE 58, STATE HIGHWAY PROJECT 0058-134-101, RW-203 (DB 2576, PG 2065) (SHPB 7, PG 120-120F) AND PROPERTY DESIGNATED AS GPIN NO. 1497-84-0956, 0.248 ACRES (MB 202, PG 56) VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA JULY 24, 2001" recorded in M.B. 301, at pages 23' and 24 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach and being further designated and described as GPIN 1497-84-0748 and GPIN 1497-84-0748 · BMP, That, WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a Landscaping, Curb, Fence, and UndergroUnd Irrigation System, "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; and WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of an existing 300' wide City owned canal easement, along the eastern side of London Bridge Creek, "The Encroachment Area"; and the Grantee has requested that the City permit a Temporary Encroachment within The Encroachment Area. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises anal of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the Grantee and for the further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in[ hand paid to the City, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to thet Grantee permission to use The Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and1 maintaining the Temporary Encroachment. [ It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be i~ffs~t~t~rdgi~iini~iaiehl i~dai~°ar~c~ean~ i~ hwtii~ i~ ~i :~ ip~fi cmai~o~ialtan~ ~i ~i~iaii~nadn~ I more particularly described as follows, to wit: A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment Area as shown on that certain plat entitled: "ENCROACHMENT PLAT OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS INTO 300' CANAL EASEMENT FOR L & S ~ ASSOCIATES, LLC PARCEL X GPIN 1497-84-0748 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and to which reference is made for a more particular description. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized terminates upon notice by the City' to the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) 2 days after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and ithat the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file or defend an action arising out of the location or existence of the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enlarge the permission and authority to permit the maintenance or construction of any encroachment other than that specified herein and to the limited extent specified herein, nor to permit the maintenance and construction of any encroachment by anyone other than the Grantee. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees to maintain the Temporary Encroachment so as not to become unsightly or a hazard. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must submit and have approved a traffic control plan before commencing work in The Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit from the Office of Development Services Center/Planning Department prior to commencing. any construction within The Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that prior to issuance of a right of, way permit, the Grantee must post sureties, in accordance with their Engineer's cost estimate,~ to the Office of Development Services Center/Planning Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability or such insurance as is deemed necessary by the City, and all insurance policies must name the City as additional named insured or loss payee, as applicable. The Grantee also agrees to carry comprehensive general. liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insurance policy or policies. The Grantee will provide endorsements providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the cancellation or termination of, or material change to, any of the insurance policies. The Grantee assumes all responsibilities and liabilities, vested or contingent, with relation to the Temporary Encroachment. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of The Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of Onei Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment isI allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, L & S Associates, LLC, owner, hereby joins in andl agrees to the terms of this agreement and has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name on its behalf by Lawrence R. Siegel, Manager, with due authority to bind said limited liability 4 company and WAWA, Inc. hereby joins in and agrees to the terms of this Agreement and has caused this Agreement to be executed in ~its name and on its behalf by Joseph C. Losak, .with due authority to bind said corporation. Further, that the City of Virginia Beach has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf by its City Manager and its seal be hereunto affixed and attested by its City Clerk. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH (SEAL) ATTEST: By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager City Clerk L & S ASSOCIATES, LLC BYL~nager WAWA, INC. (/,_~o~ep~. Los~V~e President STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of ,2002, by , City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager. ' Notary Public My Commission Expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ ,2002, by Ruth Hodges Smith, City Clerk for the City of Virginia Beach. day of My Commission Expires: Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF ~[~ lf~--.g-C~ , to-wit: ..,/ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ,~ pqA day of t-~0oC~ ,2002, by Lawrence R. Siegel, Manager on behalf of L & S Associates, LLC. Notary Publi~ ~ My Commission Expires: STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF t~:2£g...4 rv',q, ff~; , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~../,r~ day of ,2002, by Joseph C. Losak, Vice President on .beha~of WaWa, Inc. Notary Public NOTARIAL $£~L ' ' 'l P, ELEN E. SUMMERS lM, odla, Dol~w~Ir:~ County Co,"am. lsslon Exp!res May ~, 2003 My Commission Expires: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY ~I~ATTORNEY ~'- ?' ~ ~\bal\4413\WawaWa Beach Blvd and Parker La\Docs\Encroachment Agreement-2.doc APPROVED AS TO CONTENT C~4"fY REAL ESTATE AGENT fSO' ~/ '. Id, '~ L & S ASSOCIATES, LLC PARCEL X GPIN: 1497-84-0748 (MB 501, PO 25) SHEET 1 OF 4 JOB# 99203F EASTERN EDGE OF 300' CANAL EASEMENT (DS 60~, PC (M8 7~, PC ~) Exhibit "A" 1 ~ ~ N 12'30'52" W _~ ~:66 ¢ ~ ' - I ..... -~% ' d.~ ~' --TfRRIDGE o~c~" JOSEPH ~ ~A ~ ., ON~U~. ~ ~ cwz z ~ r~o~ EBB 1497- / ~-55~6 FO~ V 2306 PARCEL X" gPIN 1497-84-0748 2/18/02 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA MSA, P.C.. Landscape Architecture · Planning SUrveying. Engineering Environmental Sciences 5033 ROUSE DRIYF~ VIRGINIA BE,%CH, VA 23462-3708 PI-IONE (757) 490.9264 · FAX (757) 490-0634 SCALE: 1"=60' DWN BY: MAS PLAT RECORDED IN MB 301, PO 23 & 24 N / / ~R~INIA ~EA CH BOULEVARD I I 1' N 74'24'26" E ' ~_3'25" E 32.48,_~-~_ DOUBLE SI'LT FENCE 0.5' CONCRETE CURB -DROP IN~ET TOP /F BANK / 48" CHAIN LINK FENCE COATED WITH GREEN VINYL PROPOSED BMP JOSEPH I-I JR. 8c GAlL Z IYA I'SON (MS a4, P G 47) GPIN: 1457- 7~-5556 ZONED B-2 SHEET 2 OF 4 CONCRETE SWALE ,JOB# 99203F L &: S ASSOCIATES, LLC PARCEL X GPIN 1497-84-0748 (MB 301, PG 25) MSA, P.C. Landscape Architecture · Planning Surveying. Engineering Environmental Sciences ~ II I.a-I'~' I I I 50.13 ROUSE DRIVE, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23462-3708 PHONE (757) 490-9264. FAX (757) 490-0634 PLAT RECORDED IN EASTERN EDGE OF CANAL EASEMENT (D8 ~0~, PC ~ 7~,, PG 26) S 80'03'48" W~_~ I'/ \DO/UBLE/ SILT FENCE FOR L &: S ASSOCIATES, LLC PARCEL X GPIN 1497-84-0748 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA ~RGINIA BEACH BOUL~'VARD N 74'24'26" E 232.48' N/F JOSEPH H. tAIL Z MIA TSON (MB 64, PC 47) CP/N: /497-74-55~5 ZONED i SHEET 3 OF 4 JOB# 99203F I 2/18/02 0.5' CONCRETE CURB ? / UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM · 5" OFF VALVE (TYP) L & S ASSOCIATES, LLC PARCEL X GPIN 1497-84-0748 (MB ,301, PO 25) EASTERN EDGE OF CANAL EA SEMEN T (DB GO/, PG 2/OG) (Ma 7~, PC 2G) 80'03'48" ENCROACHMENT PLAT OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS INTO 300' CANAL EASEMENT FOR L & S ASSOCIATES, LLC PARCEL X GPIN 1497-84-0748 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA MSA, P.C. L~ndscape Architecture. Planning Surveying- Engineering Environmental Sciences 5033 ROUSE DRIVE. YJRGINIA BEACH, 'VA 23462-3708 PHONE (757) 490-9264 · FAX (757) 490-0634 PLAT RECORDED IN MB 301, PG 23 & 24 CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT CHORD BEARING DELTA Cl 225.00 106.80 54.43 105.80 S27'01'26"E 27'11'49" C2 175.0.3 104-.65 53.94- 10,3.10 S23'58'55"E .34-'15'27" C3 68.75 107.50 68.26 96.88, S55'37'58"E 89'35'22" /-REE' L~-GEIVD S1 GRAY DOGWOOD T1 RED MAPLE T 2 HA CKBf-IFR Y T3 AMERICAN HOLI Y T 4- RED CEDAR T5 T~ILIP POPLAR T 6 BL ACK GUM T7 ARIZONA CYPRESS T8 SYCAMORE T9 JA PA AIESE ZEL KO VA SHEET 4- OF 4- JOB# 99203F 2/18/02 ENCROACHMENT PLAT OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS INTO 300' CANAL EASEMENT FOR L &: S ASSOCIATES, LLC PARCEL X GPIN 1497-84-0748 VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA MSA, P.C. Landscape .Architecture · Planning Surveying. Engineering Environmental Sciences 5033 ROUSE DRIYE. '%qRGINIA BEACH, VA 23462-3708 PHONE (757) 490-9264. FAX (757) 490-0634 SCALE: N/A DWN BY: MAS I I I.~..m~l I I PLAT RECORDED IN MB 301, PG 23 & 24 L & S ASSOCIATES, LLC AND WAWA, INC STANDING AT CENTER OF LOT, FACING WEST, TOWARDS EASEMENT. EX'ISTING TREES TO RE~'VLMN UNDISTURBED. L & S ASSOCIATES, LLC AND WAWA, INC STANDING AT ~ SOUTH SIDE OF LOT, FACING NORTH, SHOWING EXISTING ASPHALT ENCROA~G INTO EASEMENT. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: Acceptance and Appropriation of a CMAQ Grant of $2,519,000 to CIP #2-039, Computerized Traffic Signal System Upgrade/Replacement MEETING DATE: June 11,2002 Background: In July 1998, at the City's request, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) originally established three intelligent transportation system (ITS) related capital projects for Virginia Beach: Resort Area Variable Message Signs, Shore Drive Improvement (Atlantic Avenue to Diamond Spdngs Road), and City-State Fiber Optic projects in the Virginia Transportation Development Plan. The VDOT Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program has $2,519,000 available for the City's ITS program from the three earlier projects: $1,899,000 from the Resort Area Variable Message Sign project; $495,000 from the Shore Drive Improvement project (traffic signal interconnect cable on Shore Drive between Atlantic Avenue and Diamond Springs Road); and $125,000 from the City -State Fiber Optic Cable project. These projects were all ITS related and need to be programmed and incorporated into the existing citywide ITS capital project, Computerized Traffic Signal System Upgrade/Replacement (#2-039), which will then be used to implement projects included in the City of Virginia Beach ITS Master Plan. The MPO Transportation Technical Committee has voted in favor of grouping these projects into a single "Citywide ITS Project." This was subsequently approved by the MPO at its meeting on May 15, 2002. Note: No further expenditures will be made for variable message signs. Considerations: The existing computerized traffic signal control system for the City of Virginia Beach is more than twenty years old. The overall system is nearing the end of its useful life, and replacement parts are in some cases no longer available. Further, the state of the art in traffic management has advanced beyond significantly the capabilities of the current systems. In order to utilize the CMAQ funding, it is necessary for to appropriate the revised grant. No City funding is required to provide a grant match. These funds, coupled with the $2,800,000 already appropriated, will provide $5,319,000 (of the total estimated project cost of $15 million) which will allow us to proceed with the initial phase (see "a" and "b" below) of our ITS project. The availability of these funds will reduce the need for future City commitments. It is expected that future CMAQ grants will be obtained and used to fund the remainder of the program. ITS program implementation will occur in 4 major activities over seven years (2002- 2008) and includes: a. Project design (commence September 2002) funded. Construction of traffic control system improvements (commence March 2003 - partially funded with this request) including: replacement of the central computer system and signal cabinets, and vehicle pre-emption. (Work to be done in phases). c. Additional Safety enhancement projects. d. Traveler information system and information sharing and coordination projects. Public Information: Information will be disseminated to the public through the normal Council agenda process involving the advertisement of City Council agenda. Alternatives: Appropriate the Grant funds and get an early start on improving our traffic control systems or not appropriate the Grant allowing the existing system to deteriorate and possibly lose the CMAQ Grant earmarked for Virginia Beach. (Continued on next page) Agenda Request continued Recommendations: Approval of attached ordinance. It should be noted that the appropriation ordinance also authorizes the City Manager to enter into all agreements with VDOT as necessary to complete the project. Attachment: Appropriation Ordinance Recommended Action: Approve the ordinance authorizing appropriation. Submitting Department/Agency: Public Works/Traffic Engineering City Manager: ~ '~._..~Oy~ O:\FH I CKMAN\Traffic th Pa~e 2 of 2 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 ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE A $2,519,000 CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY GRANT FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO CAPITAL PROJECT #2- 039, COMPUTERIZED TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM UPGRADE/REPLACEMENT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF UPGRADING THE CITYWIDE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM WHEREAS, the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission awarded a $2,519,000 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grant to the City to upgrade the citywide signal system through capital project #2-039, Computerized Traffic Signal System Upgrade/Replacement, and this funding is included in the Virginia Department of Transportation Virginia Transportation Development Plan which does not require city matching funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: !. That a $2,519,000 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grant is hereby accepted from the Virginia Department of Transportation and appropriated to capital project #2-039, Computerized Traffic Signal System Upgrade/Replacement. 2. That estimated revenue from the federal government is hereby increased by $2,519,000. 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into all agreements with VDOT required to complete this project, subject to the approval of such agreements by the City Attorney. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. CA-7803 OrdinkNoncode\Traffic Signal Revised. Ord R4 May 22, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: CiTY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: No Interest Loan to Kempsville Volunteer Rescue Squad MEETING DATE: June 11, 2002 Background: For nearly 30 years the City of Virginia Beach has financially assisted the Volunteer Rescue Squads utilizing several different programs. In addition to providing support for continuing expenses such as fuel, insurance and small monthly stipends to offset operating expenses, the City has provided no interest loans for the purchase of ambulances and squad trucks. Under the loan program the rescue squads repay the City on a regular time table based on the amount of the loan and their ability to repay based on fund drive yields. Considerations: The Kempsville Volunteer Rescue Squad is requesting a no interest loan in the amount of $80,000.00 for the purpose of purchasing a replacement ambulance. High maintenance costs and decreased reliability have dictated their decision. Kempsville Volunteer Rescue Squad would like to repay the loan over a 5 year period of equal installments of $16,00.00 per year beginning one year after the receipt of securing the loan. Public Information: Historically this has been considered established public policy for assisting the volunteer rescue squads. The public will be routinely notified via publications of the City Council agenda. Alternatives: The alternative to the no-interest city loan is the squad's acquisition of a commercial loan at a high interest rate. Recommendations: The Department of EMS fully supports this request. We deem the proposed terms acceptable and certainly in line with other loans made from the Loans to Rescue Squads Program. Attachments: Correspondence from Kempsville Volunteer Rescue Squad Recommended Action:Approval ~ ",, -c'~ Submitting DepartmenUAgency: I~ ~,~J/, ~ ~,,"/,~,~~..~,Z~.~.~ City Manage~ 1/_,~'~EMI=[R~EN-c~' ME~DI~AL~sERVICES 1 2 3 4 5 6 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $80,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND, FUND BALANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING AN INTEREST-FREE LOAN TO THE KEMPSVILLE VOLUNTEER RESCUE SQUAD FOR THE PURCHASE OF A REPLACEMENT AMBULANCE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 WHEREAS, the Kempsville Volunteer Rescue Squad has determined that it is not feasible to continue to use one of its current ambulances, given its high maintenance cost and reliability problems; and WHEREAS, the Rescue Squad does not presently have adequate funds to purchase a replacement ambulance, but has represented that fund-raising efforts will provide sufficient funds to repay an interest-free loan from the City of Virginia Beach in the amount of $80,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That funds in the amount of $80,000 are hereby appropriated from fund balance in the General Fund for the purpose of providing an interest-free loan to the Kempsville Volunteer Rescue Squad so that it may purchase a replacement ambulance. 2. That this loan is to be repaid in (5) equal annual installments of $16,000 due on the 15th day of July each year, with the first payment to be made on or before July 15, 2003, and the last payment to be made on or before July 15, 2007. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the members of the City Council. CA-8510 Noncode/Kempsville vol rescue squad loan.ord May 29. 2002 R1 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT Management Services APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFF I C I ENCY City Attorn~ Offic~ KEMPSVI 'P.O. BOX LLE R,=SCUE SQUAD I 62345 · VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. 23466 757-340-KVRS NC To: Bruce Edwards Director of EMS, City From: Richard E. Baker Squad Commander, Subject: No interest o f Vu'gu-a~ ~..a~e: May 15, 2002 Dear Bruce, current unit 927. Kempsville loan. Payments wo~ payment becoming due back ov/~r a period of five appreciated. If you need hesitate to contact me. for the old and as accumul~;ted to rise as well able of alterations. mount of said with,he. ~mt ,~xpect to pay the loan matter is greatly matter further, please do not E. Baker Squad Commander, KVRS CITY OF VIRGINIA BEA CH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Appropriation of Wetlands/Dunes Civil Charges MEETING DA TE: June 11, 2002 Background: Civil charges are collected from violations of the City's Wetlands and Coastal Dune Ordinance. These charges are used to fund various restoration and enhancement projects to the City's wetlands and coastal dunes. These projects are coordinated and implemented by the Habitat Enhancement Committee which was officially established by City Council in August, 199#. Considerations: As of May 20, 2002, the Wetlands Board of Virginia Beach has imposed civil charges in the amount of $23,350 to various individuals for violating the provisions of the Wet/ands Zoning Ordinance during FY 2001-2002. These funds are used to enhance the city's natural environment specifically through coastal sand dune stabilization, and tidal wetlands restoration. The Department of Agriculture requests that $23,350 be appropriated to the Wetlands/Dunes Restoration Fund to be used by the Habitat Enhancement Committee for various projects. Recent projects have included: · Lynnhaven Boat Ramp Wetlands and Dune Stabilization · .Upper Woifsnare Plantation Habitat · Mount Trashmore Wetlands · Oyster Reef Construction Recommendations: Approval of attached ordinance. Attachments: Ordinance RecommendedAction:Approva, ~\\\\\~1~., J. Submitting Department/Agency: Agriculture CityManager:~.4,~.~Cr~i F:IDRJbtA TY~OrdinINONCODEtwetlandsfyO2arf. wpd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $23,350 IN CIVIL CHARGES COLLECTED FROM WETLANDS AND COASTAL PRIMARY SAND DUNES ZONING ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS TO THE FY 2001-02 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR WETLANDS AND COASTAL SAND DUNE RESTORATION ANDENHANCEMENT PROJECTS WHEREAS, $23,350 in civil charges from violations of the Virginia Beach Wetlands and Coastal Primary Sand Dune Zoning Ordinance has been paid to the City during FY 2001-02 through May 20, 2002, and these funds can be expended to restore and enhance the City's wetlands and coastal primary dunes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That $23,350 in civil charges paid from violations of the Virginia Beach Wetlands and Coastal Primary Sand Dune Zoning Ordinance are hereby appropriated to the FY 2001-02 operating budget of the Department of Agriculture for wetlands and coastal primary sand dune restoration and enhancement projects. 2. That estimated revenue from Virginia Beach Wetlands and Coastal Primary Sand Dunes Zoning Ordinance civil charges is increased by $23,350. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the llth day of June , 2002. Requires an affirmative vote by a majority of members of City Council. CA-8505 Ordin/Noncode/wet 1 ands fy02 ord. wpd R-2 May 23, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~anagem~nt ~ Services APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Czty 2[ttorny's of/fire CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Ordinances Pertaining to the Compensation of the City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk and City Real Estate Assessor MEETING DATE: June 11,2002 Background: Pursuant to § 2-89 of the City Code, the direct appointees of City Council (Le., the City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Real Estate Assessor) "shall have their salaries and benefits determined annually by action of city council." Section 2-89 further provides that "[t]he effective date of such salaries and benefits shall be determined by the council." Considerations: The attached four (4) ordinances increase the salaries of the City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Real Estate Assessor, with such increases becoming effective as of their respective anniversary dates. Attachments: Ordinances (4) pertaining to the compensation of the City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Real Estate Assessor. Recommended Action: N/A Submitting Department/Agency: City Manager: City Council F:\Data~TY~Ordin\NONCODE\com pensationarf.wpd 1 2 3 4 AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE COMPENSATION OF THE CITY REAL ESTATE ASSESSOR 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 WHEREAS, City Council has evaluated the performance of the City Real Estate Assessor; and WHEREAS, based upon this evaluation, City Council has determined that an increase in the City Real Estate Assessor's compensation would be appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That effective March 1, 2003, the salary of the City Real Estate Assessor is hereby increased by 3 h percent from $88,198.08 annually to $91,285.00 annually. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. 17 18 19 20 21 CA-8525 ORDIN\NONCODE\salaryassessor.wpd R-1 June 5, 2002 R2 AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE COMPENSATION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 WHEREAS, City Council has evaluated t~e performance of the City Attorney; and WHEREAS, based upon this evaluation, City Council has determined that an increase in the City Attorney's compensation would be appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That effective November 1, 2002, the salary of the City Attorney is hereby increased by 3 h percent from $151,525.20 annually to $156,828.00 annually, and that, effective July 1, 2002, the City's contribution to the City Attorney's deferred compensation plan is hereby increased from $8,500 annually to $11,000 annually, and the car allowance of the City Attorney is increased from $4,200 to $6,000 annually. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. 20 21 22 23 CA-8526 ORDIN\NONCODE\salaryattorney.wpd June 5, 2002 RI 1 2 3 AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO COMPENSATION OF THE CITY CLERK THE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 WHEREAS, City Council has evaluated the performance of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, based upon this evaluation, City Council has determined that an increase in the City Clerk's compensation would be appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That effective November 16, 2002, the salary of the City Clerk is hereby increased by 3 h percent from $73,150.08 annually to $75,710.00 annually, and the City Clerk shall receive a car allowance in the amount of $4,200.00 annually. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. 17 18 19 20 CA-8527 ORDIN\NONCODE\salaryclerk. wpd June 5, 2002 RI 1 2 AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE COMPENSATION OF THE CITY MANAGER 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 WHEREAS, City Council has evaluated t~e performance of the City Manager; and WHEREAS, based upon this evaluation, City Council has determined that an increase in the City Manager's compensation would be appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That effective December 1, 2002, the salary of the City Manager is hereby increased by 3 h percent from $167,200.08 annually to $173,052.00 annually, and that, effective July 1, 2002, the City's contribution to the City Manager's deferred compensation plan is hereby increased from $8,500 annually to $11,000 annually, and the car allowance of the City Manager is increased from $6,000 annually to $10,000 annually. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. 2O 21 22 23 CA-8528 ORDINkNONCODEksalarymanager.wpd June 5, 2002 R1 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K Spore, City Manager Resolution requesting State Designation of Green Sea Scenic Byway as a Virginia Byway MEETING DATE: June 11, 2002 Background: The City Council adopted a resolution on February 27, 2001 requesting that the City Manager make application to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for the designation of the segment of Sandbridge Road between New Bridge Road and Sandfiddler Road as a Virginia Byway. The City was advised by letter on June 8, 2001 that the requested portion of Sandbridge Road did not qualify. However, the City was advised that an alternative proposal which encompassed a more complete corridor would be worthy of reconsideration by the Board. Accordingly, Planning Department staff have been working to develop a revised proposal that meets Virginia Byway designation criteria, as well as accomplishes other multiple objectives which are beneficial to the City. Considerations: The Planning staff have worked to develop a revised proposal which brings together several key concepts under one designation. The first is the concept of a Greenway Corridor connecting Stumpy Lake to Back Bay, located along the Indian River Road corridor. The second conceptwould provide the City's southern portion of the travel mute connecting sites being designated by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries as a Birding Trail. The third concept would provide an alternative and more scenic route connecting Back Bay and Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuges to other refuges in Southeastern Virginia and Northeastern North Carolina, along a corridor nationally recognized as the Charles Kuralt Trail. In pulling these three concepts together as a Virginia Byway, staff considered the potential for increased funding as a result of designation under the Transportation Enhancement Grants program as a major opportunity. Without designation as a Virginia Byway, this funding stream for recreational amenities, scenic pullouts and other enhancements would not be available for high consideration in the future. This concept was also examined and found to be fully in compliance with the adopted goals in the Comprehensive Plan and the recommendations in the Outdoors Plan 200 Update. Public Information: The draft Green Sea Scenic Byway concept has been presented to a wide assortment of groups and individuals for public review and comment. These groups included the Open Space Subcommittee, the Planning Commission, the Agricultural Advisory Committee, and Councilwoman Henley's Princess Anne District Forum. Comments received were supportive of the concept, with no negative comments received at any of the briefings. Alternatives: Alternatives to this approach considered by staff included a No Action Alternative and several more Scenic Byway alternatives, each of them more limited in extent. These alternatives were deemed to not accomplish the intent of the preferred desig nation, inasmuch as they were less likely to garner support for nomination at the State level, or because they did not allow for accomplishing multiple outcomes as would be possible with the preferred alternative. In particular, the preferred alterative will allow for multiple designation of the alignment as the preferred route for the Stumpy Lake to Back Bay Greenway, the Coastal Birding Trail and the Charles Kuralt Trail within the City. Recommendations: Approval of the Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Submit Green Sea Scenic Byway Nomination to the Commonwealth for Consideration on Behalf of the City. Attachments: Resolution Map Route and Mileage Table Recommended Action: Approval Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Requested by Councilwoman Barbara M. Henley 1 2 3 4 5 6 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE APPLICATION TO THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR THE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN ROADWAYS AS COMPRISING THE PROPOSED GREEN SEA SCENIC BYWAY, A VIRGINIA BYWAY 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 WHEREAS, by Resolution adopted on February 27, 2001, the City Council declared its intention that the City Manager make application to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for the designation of the segment of Sandbridge Road between New Bridge Road and Sandfiddler Road as a Virginia Byway; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has evaluated the application for the designation of the segment of Sandbridge Road between New Bridge Road and Sandfiddler Road as a Virginia Byway, and determined that the segment does not satisfy the criteria for designation as a Virginia Byway due to its minimal length; and WHEREAS, the City has indicated its support for a proposed scenic corridor linking Stumpy Lake to Back Bay, for the Charles Kuralt Trail linking Back Bay and Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge to other refuges in Virginia and North Carolina, and for the proposed Coastal Birding Trail being developed by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries; WHEREAS, the City has identified certain roadways on the attached map and table as the proposed Green Sea Scenic Byway in order to complement and accommodate the Stumpy Lake to Back Bay scenic corridor, the Charles Kuralt Trail route and the Coastal Birding Trail route; and WHEREAS, Virginia Code Section 33.1-63 defines the term "Virginia Byway" as "a road having relatively high aesthetic or cultural value, leading to or within areas of historical, natural or recreational significance;" and 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 WHEREAS, to be considered for designation as a Virginia Byway, a segment of road must substantially meet certain criteria, to-wit: (1 The route provides important scenic values and experience; (2 There is a diversity of experiences, as in transition from one landscape scene to another; 3 The route links together or provides access to scenic, historic, recreational, cultural, natural and archaeological elements; 4 The route bypasses major roads or provides opportunity to leave high-speed routes for variety and leisure in motoring; 5) Landscape control or management along the route is feasible; 6) The route allows for additional features that will enhance the motorist's experience and will improve safety; and 7) The local government has initiated zoning or other land- use controls, so as to reasonably protect the aesthetic and cultural values of the highway; and WHEREAS, it is the sense of the City Council that the roadways herein identified as the proposed Green Sea Scenic Byway should be identified as a Virginia Byway; NOW THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Manager be, and hereby is, authorized and directed to make application to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for designation of the roadways herein identified as the proposed Green Sea Scenic Byway as a Virginia Byway, and to transmit a copy of such application to the Director of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. 2 64 65 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. 66 67 68 69 CA-8511 bkw/work/greensea Ri May 30, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: pl~nni~ng D~rtment APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: 3 Proposed Scenic Byway Alternative 1 ~/'Alternative 2 3 0 3 6 Miles Proposed Green Sea Scenic Byway Route and Mileage Table 1 Indian River Road Elbow Road New Bridge Road 10.26 2 Indian River Road New Bridge Road Muddy Creek Road 0.56 3 Muddy Creek Road Indian River Road Nawney Creek Road 3.88 4 Nawney Creek Road Muddy Creek Road Mill Landing Road 1.51 5 Mill Landing Road Nawney Creek Road Morris Neck Road 0.82 6 Morris Neck Road Mil Landing Road Princess Anne Road 3.32 7 Princess Anne Road Morris Neck Road Pungo Ferry Road 1.09 8 Pungo Ferry Road Princess Anne Road Blackwater Road 4.08 ALfERNATIVE Blackwater Road Pungo Ferry Road Indian Creek Road 1.92 1-1 ALTERNATIVE Indian Creek Road Blackwater Road Chesapeake Line 2.44 1-2 ALTERNATIVE Blackwater Road Pungo Ferry Road Head River Road 0.74 2-1 ALTERNATIVE Head River Road Blackwater Road Chesapeake Line 2.06 2-2 SPUR 1 -1 New Bridge Road Indian River Road Sandbridge Road 1.29 SPUR 1-2 Sandbridge Road New Bridge Road Sandpiper Road 3.18 SPUR 2 Princess Anne Road Morris Neck Road State Line 4.38 TOTAL 1-8 1-8 Chesterbrook Drive Blackwater Road 26.35 TOTAL SPUR 1 1-1 & 1-2 New Bridge Road Sandpiper Road 4.47 TOTAL SPUR 2 Princess Anne Road State Line 4.38 TOTAL ALTERNATIVE 4.36 1 TOTAL ALTERNATIVE 2.80 2 TOTAL 1-8, SPUR 1 & SPUR 34.37 2 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: Shore Drive Transportation Study CIP 2-114 MEETING DATE: June 11,2002 Background: The Shore Drive Transportation Study was initiated in August, 2000 to determine current and future projected transportation needs, establish landscaping guidelines, and recommend improvements to improve traffic capacity while aesthetically enhancing the roadway corridor. The limits of the study were established from Northampton Boulevard to North Great Neck Road. A vital element of the study process was public involvement. Throughout the development of the study, staff on numerous occasions met with various stakeholders, concerned citizens, and business owners, as well as the Shore Drive Advisory Committee and the Shore Drive Community Coalition to discuss the study's purpose, need, and content. In July 2001, a Citizens Information Meeting was held. Approximately four hundred fifty (450) people were in attendance. Two alternatives were presented at this meeting: 1 ) expansion of Shore Drive from four lanes to six lanes with aesthetic enhancements, and 2) maintain the four-lane roadway while preserving future policy options. As a result of public input, and the need for roadway capacity improvements while maintaining four lanes of traffic, the majority opinion favored option number two. On January 8, 2002, the study was distributed and presented to City Council. To pursue option two, three projects were proposed. Shore Drive Intersections - Demonstration Project - This project proposes geometric improvements (additional turn lanes) to the intersections of Shore Drive/First Court Road and Shore Drive/Marlin Bay Drive. This project also includes appropriate land acquisition, bike trails, sidewalks, traffic signal upgrades, and aesthetic enhancements at these intersections. This project is included in the approved FY 2002/2003 CIP at 100% City cost of $3,071,000. Lesner Bridge Replacement - This project would replace the Lesner Bridge with a new signature bridge. The bridge would be constructed to accommodate future capacity needs of six lanes, however, it would initially be stdped for four lanes of traffic. The bridge would include a bike trail, sidewalk, and aesthetic enhancements. This project would also include intersection improvements/enhancements at East Stratford Road and at Vista Circle. This project was proposed as a VDOT funded project and is included in the Requested But Not Funded section of the approved FY 2002/2003 CIP at an estimated cost of $41,030,000. Northampton Boulevard/Shore Drive Interchange Replacement- This project would replace the existing interchange with a Single Point Urban Interchange. The project would also include a bike trail, sidewalk, traffic signal upgrades, and aesthetic enhancements. This project is proposed as a VDOT funded project and is included in the Requested But Not Funded section of the approved FY 2002/2003 CIP at an estimated cost of $13,170,000. Considerations: Development of the Shore Drive Transportation Study was coordinated with and presented to the Shore Drive Advisory Committee. As reported by Mr. Robert Stanton, Chairman, at the June 4, 2002 City Council Public Hearing, the Shore Drive Transportation Study has been unanimously endorsed by the Shore Drive Advisory Committee. The total budgetary cost (100% City) for the Shore Drive Intersections - Demonstration Project is $3,071,000. Sufficient funds to begin design are available in CIP 2-115 Shore Drive Intersections - Demonstration Project. The two proposed VDOT projects were originally requested for inclusion in the Virginia Transportation Development Plan (V FDP) in FY 2001. Neither project is included in the FY 2003-2008 VTDP due to funding limitations. Shore Ddve Transportation Study CIP 2-114 James K. Spore, City Manager June 11,2002 Page 2 Alternatives: Do not adopt the Shore Drive Transportation Study. Without this study, future planning efforts will not have a proper foundation in which to insure an aesthetically enhanced corridor which does not inhibit future transportation options. Recommendations: Adopt resolution to approve the Shore Drive Transportation Study. Attachments: Location Map Resolution Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution to approve the Shore Drive Transportation Study. Submitting Department/Agertt=y: Public Works/Engineering City Manager: ~ ~ ,,, '~:~,~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE SHORE DRIVE TRANSPORTATION STUDY AND ADOPT ITS RECOMMENDATIONS WHEREAS, the Shore Drive Transportation Study ("Study"), a comprehensive review of transportation issues in the corridor from Northampton Boulevard to North Great Neck Road, was initiated in August 2000, and the completed Study was presented to the City Council on January 8, and May 28, 2002; and WHEREAS, based on the Study and the City Council's review and consideration, the Council desires to accept the Study and adopt its recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Council hereby accepts the Shore Drive Transportation Study, which was presented to the City Council on January 8, and May 28, 2002, and a copy filed with the City Clerk, and adopts its recommendations as the Council's policy on this issue. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. CA-8372 ORDINkNONCODEkShore Drive Transportation Study. res.wpd MAY 21, 2002 R-3 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Publfc' Works APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: /? City ~~~++orn~ ~-~ A TI-ANTIC OCEAN LOCATION FOR MAP SHORE DRIVE TRANSPORTATION STUDY CIP #2-114 SCALE: 1" = 3,200' PREPARED BY PAN ENG. DRAFT. 04--JUN-2002 M~ Not ~co Sunkist C. Farrelli Gpin 2428-00-5543 ZONING HISTORY 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Conditional Use Permit (bungee jumping) Denied 4-28-92 Conditional Use Permit (motel units) Denied 9-12-83 Conditional Use Permit (temporary commercial parking lot) Approved 4-12-94 Conversion of Nonconforming Use Approved 12-17-96 . Conditional Use Permit (housing for the elderly) Approved 4-23-96 Conditional Use Permit (garage apartment) Approved 6-11-84 Conditional Use Permit (bike rentals) Approved 3-19-79 Rezoning (R-1 Residential to R-3 Residential) Approved 10-15-73 Rezoning (B-1 Business to M-H Motel-Hotel) Approved 12-13-71 Conditional Use Permit (34 unit motel) Approved 12-13-71 Rezoning (B-1 Business to M-H Motel-Hotel)Approved 12-9-68 Conditional Use Permit (45 motel efficiency units) Approved 12-9-68 Rezoning (R-3 Residential to B-1 Business) Approved 3-20-68 Conditional Use Permit (apartments) Approved 7-8-63 Conditional Use Permit (apartments) Approved 4-27-70 Conditional Use Permit (6 apartment units) Approved 4-14-69 Conditional Use Permit (apartments) Approved 7-14-69 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM' The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Sunkist C. Farrelli, Relocation and Reconstruction of a Non-Conforming Use MEETING DATE: June 11,2002 Background: A Resolution authorizing the relocation and reconstruction of a nonconforming use on property located at 305 26~ Street (GPIN #2428-00-5543). Said parcel contains 2,450 square feet. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH. This request was deferred at the May 28 City Council meeting to provide time for the applicant and staff to discuss several outstanding issues. Consideration: The applicant has an existing duplex structure on a 2,450 square foot pamel. While the regulations for the RT-3 District do not permit new duplex dwellings, additions to duplexes are allowed. However, in this case, the existing structure does not meet setbacks or lot coverage requirements for the RT-3 District and is thus non-conforming. Moreover, the applicant desires to demolish and reconstruct the duplex. The applicant has submitted preliminary plans for the replacement of the existing structure with a 31 foot by 41 foot structure. The living area of the structure is proposed to be elevated from the ground level, which is subject to periodic flooding, with parking areas underneath the building. The submitted elevations and floor plans show two floors of living area with a rooftop deck. The subject lot is 50 feet wide by 49 feet deep, which equates to a total lot area of 2,450 square feet. In 1946, the lot was subdivided by deed from the front portion of the original lot adjacent to 27th Street. Although no plat was recorded for the lot, this is a legal subdivision since it occurred prior to the adoption of the Subdivision Ordinance in 1953. It is staff's position that this proposed change will be more appropriate to the district than the existing nonconforming use. This proposal does not represent, an increase in density. The footprint, and hence the lot coverage, will remain the same or will be slightly smaller. The new location will allow the structure to meet both side yard setbacks of eight feet. The proposed new structure will enhance the area by maintaining the beach cottage theme Attachments: Resolution Staff Report Disclosure Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Submitting De Planning Department City Manager: Farrelli- Non-Conforming Use Page 2 while rectifying damage and maintenance problems with the existing building. While the plans submitted by the applicant do not reflect this style structure, Condition 4, recommended below, requires that the applicant develop architectural plans that are of this style, satisfactory to the Director of Planning or his designee. Recommendations: Approval of this relocation and reconstruction of this non-conforming use is recommended subject to the following conditions: The footprint of the new duplex shall not exceed 1,080- square feet. The structure shall be located at least eight feet from each side property line and eight feet from the front property line. 2. The building shall be elevated to a height sufficient for parking vehicles underneath it. 3. The height of the building shall not exceed 35 feet. The building shall have a traditional "beach cottage" architectural style. Building plans and elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Director or his Designee for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. o The exterior siding on all sides of the building shall be cedar shake or simulated cedar shake. Colors shall be white, earth tone, or pastel. The ground floor level of the building shall be enclosed with the same siding as used for the exterior of the main floors of the structure or with a complementary latticework structure, except for necessary openings for vehicle and pedestrian entry. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RECONSTRUCTION AND RELOCATION OF A NONCONFORMING DUPLEX DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 305 26 ~ STREET, IN THE BEACH DISTRICT WHEREAS, Sunkist C. Farrelti, (hereinafter the "Applicant") has made application to the City Council for authorization to reconstruct and relocate a nonconforming duplex dwelling situated on a certain lot or parcel of land having the address of 305 26 h Street, in the RT-3 Resort Tourist Zoning District; coverage requirements and duplex structures are no longer allowed in the RT-3 Resort Tourist Zoning District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 105 of the City Zoning Ordinance, the reconstruction or relocation 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 reconstructed and relocated, 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 reconstructed and relocated, 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 reconstruction and relocation of the Applicant's duplex dwelling is hereby authorized, upon the following conditions: 1. The footprint of the new duplex shall not exceed 1,080 square feet. The structure shall be located at least eight feet from each side property line and eight feet from the front property line. WHEREAS, the said duplex dwelling is a nonconforming structure, in that the dwelling does not meet setback or lot 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 2. The building shall be elevated to a height sufficient for parking vehicles underneath it. 3. The height of the building shall not exceed 35 feet. 4. The building shall have a traditional "beach cottage" architectural style. Building plans and elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Director or his designee for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. The exterior siding on all sides of the ~uilding shall be cedar shake or simulated cedar shake. Colors shall be white, earth tone or pastel. 6. The ground floor level of the building shall be enclosed with the same siding as used for the exterior of the main floors of the structure or with a complementary latticework structure, except for necessary openings for vehicle or pedestrian entry. 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach on the day of , 2002. CA-8512 bkw/work/nonconfarrelli .wpd R-1 June 3, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Pl-an'n Jng /--~ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL S UFFICIENCY:/~_/~~~, ~~~ Department of Law 2 SUNKIST C. FARRELLI June 11, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Alteration and addition to a Non-Conforming Use 305 26 Y2 Street Sunkist C. Farrelli GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: Crpin 2428-00-$545 2428-00-5543 6-BEACH 2,450 square feet Ashby Moss The applicant has an existing duplex structure on a 2,450 square foot parcel. While the regulations for the RT-3 District do not permit new duplex dwellings, additions to duplexes are allowed. However, in this case, the existing structure does not meet setbacks or lot coverage requirements for the RT-3 District and is thus non-conforming. Moreover, the applicant desires to demolish and reconstruct the duplex. The applicant has submitted preliminary plans for the replacement of the existing structure with a 31 foot by 41 foot structure. The living area of the structure is proposed to be elevated from the ground level, which is subject to periodic flooding, with parking areas underneath the building. The submitted elevations and floor plans show two floors of living area with a rooftop deck. Non-Conforming Use SUNKIST C. FARRELLI June 11, 2002 Page I Major Issues: Ensuring that the proposed reconstruction and relocation of the nonconforming duplex structure is no more detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and is as appropriate to the district as the existing structure. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existin,q Land Use and Zoning A duplex dwelling currently occupies the property. The site is zoned RT-3 Resort Tourist District. I~ . Surroundinq Land Use and Zonin,q North: South: East: West: · A duplex structure with a detached apartment on a 4,550 square foot lot / RT-3 Resort Tourist District · 26 ~ Street (alley) · Directly across the alley are two detached two- story dwellings / RT-3 Resort Tourist District · 7-11 Convenience Store / RT-3 Resort Tourist District · Single-family dwelling fronting on 27th Street / A- 12 Apartment District Zoninq History A number of zoning actions have occurred in the immediate vicinity of this application, but most of these took place a number of years ago. Most of the early actions were conditional use permits for apartment buildings and motels. However, a similar request Non-Conforming Use SUNKIST C. FARRELLI, June 11,2002 Page 2 to the subject application was approved in 1996 for a property on the south side of 27th Street, in the block west of Arctic Avenue. The property had two existing single-family structures, and the property owner requested to convert the rear structure into a garage apartment. The application was approved on the basis that the density would not increase, the dilapidated structure would be replaced with a more attractive structure, and the new structure would meet requirements for lot coverage, setbacks, parking, and height limitations. 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 two-story frame duplex dwelling and parking areas occupy the site. The eastern 15- 20 feet is partially grassed and partially used as a driveway. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Both units on this property are already connected to City water and sewer. Capital Improvement Project 7-145 "Arctic Avenue- Baltic Avenue Drainage"has been funded to identify and analyze the existing drainage system in the general area of Arctic Avenue and Baltic Avenue from 27th Street to 21st Street. The project will also provide for the design and construction of necessary and feasible improvements for drainage in the area identified above. Construction is estimated to begin in June or July 2002 beginning at 26 ~ Street. In addition, the gravity sanitary sewer in 26 ~ Street was recently replaced with a new eight-inch sewer line. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Pacific Avenue in the vicinity of this application is a major four-lane urban arterial roadway. It is designated on the MTP as a 70 foot undivided right-of-way. No further improvements are scheduled for this road in the current adopted CIP. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Pacific Avenue 18,210 ADT~ 27,300 ADT Existing: 12 ADT ....... r~;,.. -r.=~ (Level of Service "D") Proposed: No Chan~]e .~rage Daily Trips Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: No comments. No concerns. Building permits must be obtained for all construction related to this project. All fire protection requirements will be assessed during the building permit process. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained from the Building Official prior to occupancy of the new structure. Non-Conforming Use SUNKIST C. FARRELLI June 11, 2002 Page 3 Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area of the city as the Resort Area, an area planned for resort uses including lodging, retail, entertainment, recreational, cultural, and other uses. One of the key strategic goals listed in the Comprehensive Plan for the Oceanfront Planning Area is to "attain the highest possible standards regarding the use and design of all private development and public improvements." In addition, the Oceanfront Resort Area Concept Plan identifies the area between 22nd Street and 27th Street as a stable residential neighborhood. Enhancement of residential properties in this area will support the Plan's goal to maintain the stability of the neighborhood. The renovation design and materials should be complementary to the surrounding area and development. Background The subject lot is 50 feet wide by 49 feet deep, which equates to a total lot area of 2,450 square feet. In 1946, the lot was subdivided by deed from the front portion of the original lot adjacent to 27th Street. Although no plat was recorded for the lot, this is a legal subdivision since it occurred prior to the adoption of the Subdivision Ordinance in 1953. City records estimate that the building was constructed around 1925. The existing structure is a two-story building approximately 30 feet wide by 36 feet deep. Although it is in obvious need of repair, the original architecture and building materials are consistent with a traditional "beach cottage" style. The building has a front porch (now partially enclosed), gable roof and white painted cedar shingles. The duplex is divided into an upstairs unit and a downstairs unit. The existing structure is very close to the front and western lot lines (see table below). The lot is located at one of the lowest elevations, if not the lowest elevation, in the immediate area. As a result, flooding has occurred on numerous occasions causing extensive damage to the building. As mentioned above, CIP Project 7-145 is underway to rectify this problem to the greatest extent possible. Summary of Proposal The applicant has submitted preliminary plans for a 31 foot by 41 foot structure. The living area of the structure is proposed to be elevated from the ground, with parking areas underneath the building. The submitted elevations and floorplans show two floors of living area with a rooftop deck. The proposed location of the structure on the lot has not been identified. Staff proposes a smaller sized structure equal in area to the footprint of the existing building, and therefore equal in lot coverage as the existing building. In order to more closely meet the required setbacks, staff proposes an approximately 34 foot wide by 31 foot deep structure, which would be slightly smaller in area than the existing footprint. This sized building could be situated at the center of the lot with an approximate eight foot setback on all sides. Section 1522(d) lists the setback and lot coverage requirements for existing single- family, duplex, and semi-detached dwellings in the RT-3 Resort Tourist District. The required, existing, and proposed figures are listed in the table below: Required by City Zoning Ordinance Existing I Proposed Conditions by Applicant Proposed by Staff Non-Conforming Use SUNKIST C. FARRELLI June 11, 2002 Page 4 Front (in feet) 30 2 Not 8 specified East Side (in 8 16 Not 8 feet) specified West Side (in 8 3.5 Not 8 feet) specified Rear (in feet) 20 11 Not 8+ specified Footprint (in No requirement 1,080 1,271 1,054 square feet) Maximum Lot 35% 44% 52% 43% Coverage Evaluation of Request This request to reconstruct and relocate an existing duplex dwelling is acceptable. Section 105(d) of the City Zoning Ordinance states that a nonconforming structure may be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, etc. only if the City Council finds that the proposed structure will be "equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than is the existing nonconformity." It is staff's position that this proposed change will be more appropriate to the district than the existing nonconforming use. This proposal does not represent an increase in density. The footprint, and hence the lot coverage, will remain the same or will be slightly smaller. The new location will allow the structure to meet both side yard setbacks of eight feet. While it would be impossible to meet the front and rear yard setbacks based on the limited depth of the lot, the structure will encroach less in the front yard (by six feet), but slightly more in the rear yard (by 2-3 feet). (A variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals may be required to encroach farther into the rear yard setback.) Further, the elevated living area design will mitigate any potential future flood damage if it occurs. This design will also provide for on-site parking which is critical in this area. The Old Beach neighborhood contains the full range of residential uses and some motel uses. The zoning in this area also reflects this variety. A large pementage of these uses are nonconforming in either their setbacks or number of dwelling units on a lot. Most of the remaining older structures, including the subject structure, have a traditional "beach cottage" architectural style. The proposed new structure will enhance the area by maintaining the beach cottage theme while rectifying damage and maintenance problems with the existing building. While the plans submitted by the applicant do not reflect this style structure, Condition 4, recommended below, requires that the applicant develop architectural plans that are of this style, satisfactory to the Director of Planning or his designee. The request, therefore, is recommended for approval, subject to the recommended conditions below. Conditions The footprint of the new duplex shall not exceed 1,080 square feet. The structure shall be located at least eight feet from each side property line and eight feet from the front property line. Non-Conforming Use SUNKIST C. FARRELLI June 11, 2002 Page 5 The building shall be elevated to a height sufficient for parking vehicles underneath it. The height of the building shall not exceed 35 feet. The building shall have a traditional "beach cottage" architectural style. Building plans and elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Director or his Designee for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The exterior siding on all sides of the building shall be cedar shake or simulated cedar shake. Colors shall be white, earth tone, or pastel. The ground floor level of the building shall be enclosed with the same siding as used for the exterior of the main floors of the structure or with a complementary latticework structure, except for necessary openings for vehicle and pedestrian entry. NO TF_: Fut~her 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. Non-Conforming Use SUNKIST C. FARRELLI June 11, 2002 Page 6 P~T OF LOT 13 90'00'00" PIN (F) 50.00' ON LiNE 26~.S~EET FORMERLY 20" A~Y PiN ~' 0.8" ~. 12 .1,0' PiN (F) 100.00' TO PACIFIC A~UE IEXISTING SITE LAYOUT Non-Conforming Use SUNKIST C. FARRELLI June 11, 2002 Page 7 IPROPOSED BUILDING TYPE Non-Conforming Use SUNKIST C. FARRELLI June 11, 2002 Page 8 Non-Conforming Use ° SUNKIST C. FARRELLI June 11, 2002 ........ Page 9 CHANGE IN. NONC ONFORMiN USE DISCLOSU STATEMENT List Ail Current Prope~ Owners: .. ~~ ~ PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSU~ ~the prop~y o~er is a CO.OPTION, list ~! officers of the Corporation below: (~ach lis~ If the prope~y owner is a PARTNERSH~, FI~, or other UNINCO~O~TED ORGAN~ATION, list ~l members or pa~ncrs in thc org~zation below: (~ttach l/st ~ Check here if the prope~y owner is NOT a corpora~on, pa~ners~p, firm, or other u~ncorporated org~zation. If the applicant is not the cu~ent owner of the properS, co~lete the ~pplicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CO.OPTION, list all o~cers of the Co~oration below: (~ttach ltst ~necessa~) Itthe applicant is a PARTNERSH~, F~, or other UN~CO~O~TED ORGAN~ATION, list ~l members or pa~ners in the org~zation below: (~ach lis~ ~ Check here itthe applic~t is NOT a corporation, pa~ners~p, fi~, or other u~nco~orated orga~zation. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein ~ ~ue and accurata Signature Pdnt Name Farrelli- Non-Conforming Use Page 2 [C PLANNING MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS placed on the April 24, 2001, to extend the approved Conditional Use Permit for a borrow pit in behalf of MR. and MRS. MICHAEL L. CULLIPHER at 772 Princess Anne Road. (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application ofL.B.H., L.L.C. for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of the unimproved portion of Ferry Point Road south of Indian River Road, containing 2,383 square feet. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Applications of General Booth Storage, Inc., a Virginia corporation, on the west side of General Booth Boulevard. (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) ao Modification of Conditions placed on the application for a conditional use permit for mini-warehouses on October 9, 2001, to allow this variance b. Variance re subdividing three lots into two Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of Robert E. Steinhiiber for a Variance of the Subdivision Ordinance, located on the west side of Crags Causeway, south of Baum Road. (DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of Charlie Falk Auto Wholesaler, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit re motor vehicle sales and service on the south side of Virginia Beach Boulevard, east of Groveland Road, (3237 Virginia Beach Boulevard), containing 1.549 acres. (DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL.) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of City of Virginia Beach, Virginia re the City's Comprehensive Plan amendment to add the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines. Recommendation: APPROVAL 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) Deferred: StaffRecommends: Planning Commission Recommends: April 23, 2002 APPROVAL DENIAL Application of SUDHAKAR J. LAVINGIA for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-10 Residential District to PD-H2 Planned Unit Development District - PUD, on the north side of Stumpy Lake Lane, containing 3.9 acres. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE). Recommendation: APPROVAL Mr. ~ Mrs. Michael Cu AG-I AG'I AG'I Crpin 2309-67-3343 ZONING HISTORY Conditional, Use Permit (borrow pit) Approved 4-24-01 Rezoning (AG-I&2 Agricultural to Conditional I-2 Industrial) Denied 10-10-00 Conditional Use Permit (single family dwelling) Approved 1-9-01 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: Mr. & Mrs. Michael L. Cullipher, Modification of Conditions MEETING DATE June 25, 2002 Background: Application of Mr. & Mrs. Michael L. Cullipher for the reconsideration of conditions placed on the application for a borrow pit on April 24, 2001. Property is located at 772 Princess Anne Road. District 7 - Princess Anne. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a modification of conditions placed on the conditional use permit for a borrow pit approved April 24, 2001. The applicants were originally granted a conditional use permit on April 24, 2001 for a borrow pit to construct an irrigation water source for agricultural purposes. Approximately 65 percent (10,735 cubic yards) of the excavated material was to be hauled off site within 120 days after excavation began. Due to unanticipated delays and the sluggish economy, the applicants have been unable to remove the excavated material in the allotted time. They now request an extension of the Conditional Use Permit to March 1,2003. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because due to an unanticipated delay, activities could not be completed within 120 days, 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 subject to the following conditions: The location and dimensions of the excavation area shall be in accordance with the plan entitled "Mike Cullipher Irrigation," by U.S. Department o! Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file with the Planning Department. 2. MODIFICATION TO APRIL 24, 2001 CUP: The completion of restoration activities shall occur by March 1,2003. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission recommends approval. Submitting DepartmentJAger~cy: Planning Department '~'~ City Manager . ~ 0¥~. Mr. & Mrs. Michael L. Cullipher Page 2 10. Operating hours shall be 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. No Sunday operating shall be permitted. No excavation or restoration of the borrow pit shall be allowed without first obtaining any necessary permits from the appropriate federal, state and local agencies. No excavation of the borrow pit shall commence until such time that a site plan and excavation permit have been reviewed and approved by the Development Services Center. Any approved site plan, issued by the Development Services Center, shall include a specific street and highway contingency plan that addresses the repair and replacement of any damaged roadway surfaces associated with the borrow pit operation. Prior to commencement of excavation activity, "Construction Entrance Ahead" signs must be placed on Princess Anne Road 1000 feet from the entrance in both directions and "Trucks Entering Highway" signs must be placed 500 feet from the entrance in both directions. The excavation area and the access roads on site will be operated and maintained in a dust free manner. 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 mosquitoes and other insects. Once excavation is complete, the excavated area shall be used and maintained as an irrigation pond. MR. & MRS. MICHAEL L. CULLIPHER #13 May 8, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: Modification of condition placed on the Conditional Use Permit for a borrow pit approved 4/24/01 ADDRESS: 772 Princess Anne Road (East side of Princess Anne Road, 2765 feet north of Old Pungo Ferry Road) ~o~ .o-~ ~o,; Mr.& Mrs. Michael GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: GPIN #2309-67-3343 7 - PRINCESS ANNE AG-I Gpin 2309-67-3343 Planning Commission Agenda MR. & MRS. MICHAEL L. CULLIPHER/ Page I SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: 138.413 acres Ashby Moss The applicants were originally granted a conditional use permit on April 24, 2001 for a borrow pit to construct an irrigation water source for agricultural purposes. Approximately 65 percent (10,735 cubic yards) of the excavated material was to be hauled off site within 120 days after excavation began. Due to unanticipated delays and the sluggish economy, the applicants have been unable to remove the excavated material in the allotted time. They now request an extension of the Conditional Use Permit to March 1,2003. Major Issues: · Impact of extending time period for restoration activities to neighboring properties. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existin,q Land Use and Zoning The property is currently used for agricultural purposes and is zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts. There is also a single-family dwelling on site that is currently not occupied. Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 MR. & MRS. MICHAEL L. CULLIPHER / # 13 Page 2 Surroundin,q Land Use and Zoning Land use surrounding the subject property consists mostly of cultivated farmland in addition to some single-family dwellings located along Princess Anne Road. The entire area around this site is zoned AG-1 & 2 Agricultural Districts. Zonin,q History The applicant received approval on the original conditional use permit for a borrow pit April 24, 2001. The use permit included a condition limiting the duration of activity related to the borrow pit to 120 days. The applicants are now requesting to extend this time limit with this Modification of Conditions request. Other zoning actions in the vicinity of this application include a request to rezone the property west of the subject site across Princess Anne Road to conditional I-2 Industrial zoning. This request was denied in October 2000. South of the subject property, at the intersection with Pungo Ferry Road, a conditional use permit for alternative residential development was approved in January 2001. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of 65 to 70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The front portion of the subject site is a cultivated field with several farm ditches leading to an ouffall ditch on the northern property line. The rear portion of the site is wooded. Soil types in the proposed excavation area are Nimmo and Portsmouth. Public Facilities and Services Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Princess Anne Road in the vicinity of this application is a two lane rural highway. It is designated on the Master Transportation Plan to be a four lane divided highway within a 100 foot right-of-way. No improvements are scheduled for this portion of Princess Anne Road in the current adopted CIP. Planning Commission Agenda .,~,! May 8, 2002 ~ #13 ' '"~" MR. & MRS. MICHAEL L. CULLIPHER / Page 3 Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity 7,400 ADT ~ Existing Land Use z_ 30 ADT Princess Anne Road 4,074 ADT ~ Level of Service C Proposed Land Use - No , ~ ....... r~..;,..-r...~.. Change ~rage Daily Trips 2 as defined by based on 15 trucks per day (except Sunday) Public Safety Police: Adequate - no further comments. Fire and Rescue: Adequate - no further comments. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends farming, forestry, rural residential or other rurally compatible land uses in this area of the City. Summary of Proposal Proposal · The applicants request an extension to March 1, 2003 to complete removal of the stockpiled material and complete restoration activities. Site Desiqn The excavated area, which is now filled with water, is approximately 1,250 feet from Princess Anne Road and 300 feet from the northern property line. The pile of sand sits immediately east of the pond. The dimensions of the pond are 120' x 363' x 9' maximum depth. Approximately 16,515 cubic yards of material were excavated from the pond. Approximately 7,500 cubic yards were used on site, and approximately 9000 Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002~13 MR. & MRS. MICHAEL L. CULLIPHER ! Page 4 cubic yards remain. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access Trucks access the property via the existing ddveway that leads to the dwelling on the site. The entrance was improved with stone in accordance with erosion control standards for construction entrances. · Traffic control signs have been installed on Princess Anne Road to alert drivers to truck traffic as required by Public Works Traffic Engineering. Landscape and Open Space Design In accordance with the original restoration plan, the northern and western sides of the pond have been covered with topsoil, graded, and vegetated. The southern and eastern sides will be treated similarly once the excavated material has been removed from site. Evaluation of Request The applicants' request to modify the Conditional Use Permit approved April 24, 2001 is acceptable. The previous approval included a condition that excavation and restoration activities be completed within 120 days, which would have been August 2001. Unfortunately, due to unanticipated delays in the review and permitting process, the original contract for purchase of the sand fell through. Due to the economic slowdown, the applicants have been unable to find a buyer until recently. The applicants have been identified as the Iow bidder on a City project, but due to the project's scheduling, the sand will not be removed until early next year. Staff finds the deadline extension acceptable. The stockpile is located approximately 1,350 feet from Princess Anne Road and 300 feet from the nearest adjacent property (located to the north). The Zoning Enforcement office has received no complaints regarding the borrow pit or the stockpile. Therefore, the requested modification is recommended for approval. Conditions of the previous use permit remain intact, with condition #2 modified as shown below. o~,~. Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 ;'~- ..? # 13 MR. & MRS. MICHAEL L. CULLIPHER / Page 5 Conditions The location and dimensions of the excavation area shall be in accordance with the plan entitled "Mike Cullipher Irrigation," by U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, which has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file with the Planning Department. 2. MODIFICATiON TO APRIL 24, 2001 CUP: The completion of restoration activities shall occur by March 1,2003. 3. Operating hours shall be 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. No Sunday operating shall be permitted. No excavation or restoration of the borrow pit shall be allowed without first obtaining any necessary permits from the appropriate federal, state and local agencies. o No excavation of the borrow pit shall commence until such time that a site plan and excavation permit have been reviewed and approved by the Development Services Center. Any approved site plan, issued by the Development Services Center, shall include a specific street and highway contingency plan that addresses the repair and replacement of any damaged roadway surfaces associated with the borrow pit operation. Prior to commencement of excavation activity, "Construction Entrance Ahead" signs must ..be placed on Princess Anne Road 1000 feet from the entrance in both directioils and "Trucks Entering Highway" signs must be placed 500 feet from the entrance in both directions. 8. The excavation area and the access roads on site will be operated and maintained in a dust free manner. 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 mosquitoes and other insects. 10. Once excavation is complete, the excavated area shall be used and maintained Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 #13 MR. & MRS. MICHAEL L. CULLIPHER / Page 6 as an irrigation pond. '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 May 8, 2002 #13 MR. & MRS. MICHAEL L. CULLIPHER / Page 7 EXCAVATED PON D PLAN LA. YO UT Normal Water Level__ "~ S~DE V~E W C. ON S TR U CTI 0 N Cle~rtng on~l Grubbing £orth E~covation ond Disposol QUANTI TIES SOURCE OF WATER Underground Seepage Drain v"' Spring .___ Surfoce runoff _~ Soil Type ~P~CITY (Full) ,,,~,~ ~c. ~ ~ols. Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 #13 MR. & MRS. MICHAEL L. CULLIPHER / Page 8 Item #13 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Cullipher Modification of conditions placed on the application for a borrow pit 772 Princess Anne Road District 7 Princess Anne May 8, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: Next item is #14. I'm sorry, number 13. The Diamond Springs Baptist Church. Robert Vakos: Cullipher? Dorothy Wood: Alright. Long night. Mr. & Mrs. Michael Cullipher. The modification of conditions placed on the application for a borrow pit. The property's located on Princess Anne Road in the Princess Anne District. Mr. Cullipher? Michael and I've Dorothy Cullipher: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm Michael Cullipher read the conditions and they are acceptable. Wood: Thank you Mr. Cullipher. Michael Cullipher: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Again, this is a modification of conditions placed on the application for a borrow pit in the Princess Anne borough. Is there any objection to this? Thank you. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion. Do we have a second to that? Charlie Salle': Second. Ronald Ripley: A motion by Dot Wood. Seconded by Charlie Salle'. Any further discussion? Hearing none, we'd like to vote. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0, the motion passes. ~PLICATION~ :;~ PAGE 4 OF 4 Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ~t,. ~;&., ~ t_, to{I,!h.r PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) [~ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in .~he organization below: (Attach list if necessary) ~ Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Signature Print Name Rev. 9/15/98 Map C-9 L B H., LLC Hop Not. t.o CJc~[e · · '1 Street Closure - Portion of Ferry Point R~L ZONING HISTORY Conditional Use Permit (Open Space Promotion)- Approved 12-8-80 Conditional Use Permit (Borrow Pit) - Approved 6-5-78 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: L.B.H., L.L.C., Street Closure MEETING DATE June 11,2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of L.B.H., L.L.C. for the discontinuance, closure and abandonment of the unimproved portion of Ferry Point Road, beginning at a point 350 feet south of Indian River Road and running in a southerly direction a distance of 84.33 feet along the eastern property line and 70 feet along the western property line. Said street is 30 feet in width and contains 2,383 square feet (GPIN #1465-08-8453). DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE. Considerations: The applicant is requesting closure of a portion of Ferry Point Road. The site is part of a six-lot subdivision and it is the intent of the applicant to incorporate the closure area into Lot Six. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the site is not needed for public purposes, the Viewers recommended approval and there was no opposition to the request. Recommendations: A motion was passed unanimously by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request subject to the following conditions: The City Attorney's Office shall make the final determination regarding ownershiP of the underlying fee. The purchase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. 2. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate any interrlal lot lines as necessary to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining parcels. The plat shall be Attachments: Staff Review Ordinance Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: recommends approval. Submitting DepartmentJAge.ncy: City Uanager~ ~_~o Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission Planning Department L.B.H., L.L.C. Page 2 submitted and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company must be provided. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. LBH, LI .C./# 14 May 8, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: Street Closure ADDRESS: Portion of Ferry Point Road beginning approximately 350 feet south of Indian River Road, running southerly a distance of 84.33 feet along the eastern property line and 70 feet along the western property line. Map C-9 L.B.H., LLC ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: Street Closure - Portion of Ferry Point 1 - CENTERVILLE 2,383 square feet Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 L.B.H., L.L.C. / ~ 14 Page 1 PURPOSE: STAFF PLANNER: To close an unimproved section of Ferry Point Road. The site is part of a six-lot subdivision recently approved in the Development Services Center of the Planning Department. It is the intent of the applicant to incorporate the closure area into Lot Six. Faith Christie Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existinq Land Use and Zoning Undeveloped property that is zoned R-5D Residential District. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning NoAh: South: East: West: · Ferry Point Road · Across Ferry Point Road are single family dwellings / R-5D Residential District · Lake James Open Space area / R-10 (OP) Residential/Open Space · Lake James Open Space area / R-10 (OP) Residential/Open Space · Developing single family dwellings / R-5D Residential District Zoning History There is very little zoning activity to report in the immediate area. Conditional use permits for a borrow pit, in 1978, and open space promotion, in 1980, were approved in the Lake James subdivision adjacent to the site. The area has been zoned residential Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 L.B.H., L.L.C. / # 14 Page 2 single family or duplex since the adoption of the Princess Anne County Zoning Ordinance in 1954. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer There is a 6 inch water main within the Ferry Point Road right-of- way outside the area of closure. There is an 8 inch sewer force main within the area of closure. A public utility easement must be dedicated for the existing sewer. Public Works There are no stormwater drainage facilities in the right-of-way proposed for closure. Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: No comments at this time. No comments at this time. Private Utilities Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD): There are no HRSD facilities located in the right of way. No comments at this time. Virginia Natural Gas: There are no gas facilities located in the right of way. No comments at this time. Dominion Virginia Power: There are no electric facilities located in the right of way. No comments at this time. Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 L.B.H., L. LC./# 14 Page 3 Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the area as Suburban Residential / Medium and High Density, which is an area planned for residential uses above 3.5 dwelling units per acre. Evaluation of Request The viewers met on April 24, 2002, and determined that the proposed street closure will not result in a public inconvenience; therefore, closure of the right-of-way is recommended for approval. The site is part of a six-lot subdivision recently approved in the Development Services Center of the Planning Department. It is the intent of the applicant to incorporate the closure area into Lot Six. The adjacent Lake James Homeowners Association is not opposed to the request. It is recommended that the street closure request be approved with the conditions below. Conditions The City Attorney's Office shall make the final determination regarding ownership of the underlying fee. The pumhase price to be paid to the City shall be determined according to the "Policy Regarding Purchase of City's Interest in Streets Pursuant to Street Closures," approved by City Council. Copies of the policy are available in the Planning Department. The applicant shall resubdivide the property and vacate any internal lot lines as necessary to incorporate the closed area into the adjoining pamels. The plat shall be submitted.and approved for recordation prior to final street closure approval. The applicant shall verify that no private utilities exist within the right-of-way proposed for closure. Preliminary comments from the utility companies indicate that there are no private utilities within the right-of-way proposed for closure. If private utilities do exist, easements satisfactory to the utility company must be provided. Closure of the right-of-way shall be contingent upon compliance with the above stated conditions within 365 days of approval by City Council. If the conditions noted above are not accomplished and the final plat is not approved within one Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 L.B.H., L.L.C. / # 14 Page 4 year of the City Council vote to close the right-of-way this approval shall be considered null and void. I,NO I~: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 ;~' : L.B.H., L.L.C. /# 14 ~'~ Page 5 Planning Commission Agenda ~~ May 8, 2002 ~'==~ '~~,~,' ~ L.B.H., L.L.C. / # 14 ~.-~.~ Page 6 Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 L.B.H., L.L.C. / # 14 Page 7 Item #14 L.B.H., L.L.C. Discontinuance, closure and abandonment District 1 Centerville May 8, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: Now the next one is? Number 14. This is L.B.H., Limited Liability Corporation. Discontinuance, closure and abandonment of an unimproved portion of Ferry Point Road, 350 feet south of Indian River Road in a southerly direction. It's 30 feet in width and it's in the Centerville District and number 14 has four conditions. Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mrs. Wood. Eddie Bourdon, a Virginia Beach attorney representing the applicant. The conditions are acceptable with the clarification that was indicated to you all in the informal session that the intent will be to re-subdivide this parcel into two lots that meet the same dimensional requirements as the lots that are adjoining. That doesn't affect the conditions it's just a write up. Dorothy Wood: Is there any objection to this? Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion. Do we have a second to that? Charlie Salle': Second. Ronald Ripley: A motion by Dot Wood. Seconded by Charlie Salle'. Any further discussion? Hearing none, we'd like to vote. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0, the motion passes. APPLICATION STREET CLOSURE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH PA GE 4 OF 4 Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT T,_R.~_: T._T._ C. L.B.H.: L.L..C. PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property oxvner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: necessary) (Attach list if If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list alt members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) lftheapplicantisa PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, orotherUNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, iistall membersorpartnersintheorganizationbelow: ~ttachlist~necessa~) Robert L. Prodan, Jr. (Member) Arnhold Marketinq Services, Inc. (Member) James M. Arnhold, President/Sole Stockholder of Arnhold Marketing Services Inc. ~ Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the htformation cotttaitted herein is true and accurate. keting Se~ices, James ~r~ol~, President ~/ Print Name Inc. Rev. 9/15/98 General Booth R-§O Gpin See Application 7ONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Use Permit (Mini-Warehouses) - Granted 10/09/01 2. Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural to B-2 Community Business) - Granted 2/24/86 3. Conditional Use Permit (Communication Towers) - Granted 11/22/94; 2/13/96; 3/24/98 4. Subdivision.~ariance (no direct access to a public street) - Granted 1/22/02 5. Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural to B-2 Community Business) - Granted 5/12/80 Conditional Use Permit (gas station) - Granted 2/11/85 Conditional Use Permit (miniwarehouses) - Granted 10/21/85 Conditional Conditional Conditional Subdivision Conditional Conditional Conditional 11/10/92 Conditional Use Permit (bulk storage) - Denied 7/13/87 Use Permit (tire installation) -Denied 12/7/87 Use Permit (truck rental) - Withdrawn 6/27/88 Variance (lot width) - Granted 3/26/90 Use Permit (bulk storage) - Granted 6/25/90 Use Permit (table top recreation) - Granted 6/11/90 Use Permit (bulk storage for recreational vehicles) - Granted Use Permit (church) - Granted 5/11/93 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager General Booth Storage, Inc., Modification of Conditions and Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: June 11,2002 Background: (a) Application of General Booth Storage, Inc., a Virginia corporation for a Modification of Conditions placed on the application for a conditional use permit for mini-warehouses on October 9, 2001. Property is located on the west side of General Booth Boulevard, 550 feet north of Dam Neck Road. DISTRICT 6 - BEACH. (b) Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for General Booth Storage, Inc., a Virginia corporation. Property is located on the west side of General Booth Boulevard, 550 feet north of Dam Neck Road (GPIN #2415-46-3163; #2415-46-4253; #2415-46-8154; #2415-46-9010). DISTRICT 6 - BEACH. Considerations: The 5.609 acre site is currently comprised of three separate lots. Two of these pamels are 'flag lots' that are nonconforming as to lot width. The applicant wishes to resubdivide the 5.609 acre site to reduce the total number of lots to two: one lot of one acre in size and another lot of 4.6 acres in size. The 4.6 acre lot will be developed with mini-warehouses, consistent with the Conditional Use Permit granted on October 9, 2001. The remaining 1.0 acre lot will be sold for future commercial development. The proposed 4.6 acre lot does not meet the lot width requirement due to the fact that the frontage on General Booth Boulevard consists of 10'feet. A subdivision variance is necessary for the 4.6 acre lot. Condition # 5 of the use permit for mini- warehouses granted on October 9, 2001 states "the existing property lines w,thin the site must be vacated and the property consolidated into one (1) parcel." In order to create two parcels as proposed, a modification to this condition is also necessary. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the proposal to resubdivide will result in a more orderly development of the site, and there was no opposition to the request. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. recommends approval. Submitting DepartmentJAgency.~lanning Department City Manager:~ ~(._., Planning Commission General Booth Storage, Inc. Page 2 Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion unanimously by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve the requests, su__q.~b'ect to the following conditions as_~_part of the C.__.__onditional U___se Permit: 1. All conditions with the exception of Number 5 attached to the Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council on October 9, 2001 remain in affect. 2. Condition Number 5 of the October 9, 2001 Conditional Use Permit is deleted and replaced with the following: The existing property lines within the site must be vacated and the property consolidated into no more than two (2) parcels. 3. A no ingress/egress easement must be dedicated along the entire frontage of 154 feet along General Booth Boulevard. 4. Appropriate ingress/egress, water, sewer and drainage easements must be provided for both parcels on the final plat. There shall be no freestanding sign installed on proposed Parcel W-2. A deed restriction shall be recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court for proposed Parcel W-2 indicating that there shall be no freestanding sign located on the parcel. A copy of the deed restriction shall be provided to the Director of Planning after recordation to be included as part of the Conditional Use Permit file. To construct a freestanding sign on Parcel W-l, the style and design of which is described in Condition # 9 of the October 9, 2001 Conditional Use Permit, the applicant shall obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. GENERAL BOOTH STORAGE / # 2 & 3 May 8, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: 2) Modification of Conditions placed on a conditional use permit for mini-warehouses on October 9, 2001. 3) Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4b of the subdivision ordinance pertaining to lot width. ADDRESS: West side of General Booth Boulevard, beginning at a point 550 feet. more or less north of Dam Neck Road ,'Hop L-10 NO' tO Scale General Booth Gpin See Application Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 GENERAL BOOTH STORAGE/-# 2 & 3 Page 1 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: 2415-46-3163; 2415-46-4253; 2415-46-8154; 2415-46-9010 6 - BEACH 5.609 acres Barbara J. Duke The 5.609 acre site is currently comprised of three separate lots. Two of these parcels are 'flag lots' that are nonconforming as to lot width. The applicant wishes to resubdivide the 5.609 acre site to reduce the total number of lots to two: one lot of one acre in size and another lot of 4.6 acres in size. The 4.6 acre lot will be developed with mini-warehouses, consistent with the Conditional Use Permit granted on October 9, 2001. The remaining 1.0 acre lot will be sold for future commercial development. The 4.6 acre lot proposed does not meet the lot width requirement due to the fact that the frontage on General Booth Boulevard consists of 10 feet. A subdivision variance is necessary for the 4.6 acre lot. Condition # 5 of the use permit for mini-warehouses granted on October 9, 2001 states "the existing property lines within the site must be vacated and the property consolidated into one (1) parcel." In order to create two parcels as proposed, a modification to this condition is also necessary. Major Issues: · Orderly ~)~evelopment of the site consistent with City development ordinances and the October 9, 2001 Conditional Use Permit. Preliminary Plat: Existing Parcel: The existing parcel is comprised of three lots, two of which are flag lots. The two flag lots have frontage (lot width) on General Booth Boulevard of 20 feet each. The remaining lot has frontage (lot width) on General Booth Boulevard of 114 feet. The existing parcel is recorded in Map Book 56 at Page 11. Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 GENERAL BOOTH STORAGE/~# 2 & 3 Page 2 Proposed Lots: It is the intent of the applicant to resubdivide the parcel and reduce the total number of lots from three to two, the two new lots having the following dimensions: Item Reouired Parcel W-1 Parcel W-2 Lot Width in feet 100 10' 144 Lot Area in square feet 20,000 200,376 43,560 Variance required Land Use, Zoning, and Site C h a racte ri st ics: Existin,q Land Use and Zoning The site is zoned B-2 Community Business District and the mini- warehouse complex is currently under construction on the site. Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 GENERAL BOOTH STORAGE / if 2 & 3 Page 3 Surroundin,q Land Use and Zoning North: · Golden Corral Restaurant and Communication Towers / B-2 Community Business District South: · Shopping Center/B-2 Community Business District East: · Across General Booth Boulevard, there is a variety of uses consistent with the underlying zoning / B-2 Community Business District. West: · City Neighborhood Park/R-5D Residential District Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of greater than 75dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Zonina History This site was part of a larger parcel to the north (that includes the property currently developed as a Golden Corral Restaurant) that was rezoned from AG-1 Agricultural District to B-2 Community Business District on February 24, 1986 with the two conditions listed below. 1. Dedication of appropriately sized scenic and controlled access easements along the frontage on General Booth Boulevard. 2. Trees shall remain as a buffer along rear of said property. On October 9, 2001, a conditional use permit for mini-warehouses was approved by City Council with the ten conditions listed below (condition requested for modification is in bold type). The site shall be substantially developed as shown on the plan entitled, "Layout and Landscape Plan of Mini Price Self Storage - General Booth Boulevard," dated 7-6-01-~.prepared by Site Improvement Associates, which has been exhibited to City Council and is on file with the Planning Department. No direct access to General Booth Boulevard will be allowed. Access must be gained through the existing private ingress/egress easement located on the adjacent property to the north (presently a Golden Corral Restaurant). The entrance drive aisle as shown on the submitted site plan must be designed to show the access from the adjacent parcel to the north and it must meet the required radius for truck traffic that. will be associated with this use. 2. The buildings shall be constructed as shown on the submitted elevation entitled "Mini Price Self Storage - General Booth Boulevard" by Martin and Martin Planning Commission Agenda May 8, GENERAL BOOTH STORAGE/-~ 2 & 3 Page 4 o Architecture, Inc., which has been exhibited to City Council and is on file with the Planning Department. Landscaping shall be installed as depicted on the site plan entitled "Mini Price Self Storage Facility at General Booth Boulevard" dated 7-6-01, prepared by Site Improvement Associates, which has been exhibited to City Council and is on file with the Planning Department. However, the following revisions shall be made to the plan prior to site plan submittal: ao The site plan must be modified to show a fifteen foot buffer along the rear property line and retention of existing trees within the buffer in accordance with the condition of the February 24, 1986 rezoning to B-2 on this property. The applicant must make efforts to preserve existing trees within the fifteen foot buffer along the south side of Building Four, adjacent to Dam Neck Square Apartments. These existing trees can be supplemented with new plant material as necessary to form a solid screen. An encroachment agreement must be obtained for the improvements shown within the 55 foot wide drainage easement. Access points for the easement area need to be identified on the detailed site plan. The existing property lines within the site must be vacated and the property consolidated into one (1) parcel. 6. Any outdoor lighting fixtures shall not be erected any higher than 14 feet. Consistent with Section 237 of the City Zoning Ordinance, all outdoor lights shall be shielded to direct light and glare onto the mini-warehouse premises; said lighting and glare shall be deflected, shaded and focused away from all adjoining property. 7. There shall be no electric or diesel power generator or generator fueled by any other source of energy located outside of any building. 8. The storage units shall be used for the storage of goods. 'The units shall not be used for office purposes, band rehearsals, residential dwellings, or any other purpose not consistent with the storage of goods. o The freestanding sign must be a monument style sign, no greater than eight feet in height with a base to match the buildings. There shall be no business identification signage on the walls or roof of the buildings in the facility or on the fence installed around the facility. Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 GENERAL BOOTH STORAGE/'# 2 & 3 Page 5 10. The fencing and gate enclosing the site must be as provided for on the site plan. No barbed wire, razor wire, or any other fencing devices shall be installed on the. roof or walls of the buildings or on any other fence enclosing the property. Evaluation of Request- Modification of Condition #5 Condition #5 of the use permit for mini-warehouses granted on October 9, 2001 states "The existing property lines within the site must be vacated and the property consolidated into one parcel." The applicant is requesting to modify this condition to allow consolidation of the property into two parcels instead of one. The site plan approved with the use permit shows the one acre outparcel reserved for future development. The intent of the applicant at the time of the review and approval of the use permit was to lease this outparcel; therefore, the applicant was originally agreeable to Condition # 5. The applicant now wants the opportunity to sell the one acre outparcel. The two proposed parcels would not have direct access to General Booth Boulevard based on an access agreement required by the 1986 rezoning. Access to the two proposed parcels will be through the adjacent entrance located on the Golden Corral restaurant site. In addition, based on the total frontage of the two proposed parcels, the applicant is allowed only one free-standing sign on General Booth Boulevard. Because these access and signage restrictions are already in place, the request for one additional lot does not have any functional or visual impact on the development of this property. The request to modify condition #5 is acceptable subject to the conditions listed at the end of this report. Evaluation of Request- Subdivision Variance Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that: Co Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 GENERAL BOOTH STORAGE ! # 2 & 3 Page 6 D. The hardship created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by the use or development of. the property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self-inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance. E. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time of the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. The applicant's proposal to resubdivide the 5.609 acre lot into Parcel W-1 (4.6 acres) and Parcel W-2 (1 acre) will result in a more orderly development of the site than what exists with the current lot configuration. Access to the site is limited by the 1986 rezoning. The applicant has requested to retain 10 feet of frontage on General Booth Boulevard for Parcel W-l, which will contain the mini-warehouses. The frontage is desired in order to have the opportunity for a free-standing sign advertising the mini- warehouses. However, in order to have a free-standing sign, a lot must have at least 100 feet of frontage in the B-2 Community Business District; the proposed lot has 10 feet. Therefore, the applicant must apply to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance to allow the sign for Parcel W-I. The applicant has noted that the freestanding sign for Parcel W-1 would be in lieu of placing a freestanding sign on Parcel W-2. A condition is recommended below that addresses this issue. Conditions 1. All conditions with the exception of Number 5 attached to the Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council on October 9, 2001 remain in affect. 2. Condition Number 5 of the October 9, 2001 Conditional Use Permit is deleted and replaced with the following: The existing property lines within the site must be vacated and the property consolidated into no more than two (2) parcels. A no ingress/egress easement must be dedicated along the entire frontage of 154 feet along General Booth Boulevard. Appropriate ingress/egress, water, sewer and drainage easements must be provided for both parcels on the final plat. Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 '-.~.~': ~': GENERAL BOOTH STORAGE/# 2 & 3 Page 7 Them shall be no freestanding sign installed on proposed Parcel W-2. A deed restriction shall be recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court for proposed Parcel W-2 indicating that there shall be no freestanding sign located on the parcel. To construct a freestanding sign on Parcel W-l, the style and design of which is described in Condition # 9 of the October 9, 2001 Conditional Use Permit, the applicant shall obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. 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 ,~'~~ May 8, 2002 GENERAL BOOTH STORAGE/# 2 & 3 Page 8 I Planning Commission Agenda ~°~~~ May 8, 2002 GENERAL BOOTH STORAGE/# 2 & 3 Page 9 Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 GENERAL BOOTH STORAGE/~# 2 & 3 Page 10 Item #2 & 3 General Booth Storage, Inc. Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers Modifications of Conditions place on the application for a Conditional Use Permit for mini-warehouses West side of General Booth Boulevard District 6 Beach May 8, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Ronald Ripley: Now, we move into our Consent agenda. And just-to remind you the Consent agenda, we're going to read items that we believe - we deem them that they should be approved, unless somebody in this room has any objection to any of these items. So if you hear the item called and you any objection whatsoever, please come forward, state your name and tell us that you object and we will drop it down on its regular part of the agenda. And we're calling Vice Chair person Dot Wood. And by the way, I would like to congratulate her on her son's election yesterday. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Ron. This afternoon, we have ten items on the Consent agenda. As I call the item, please step to the podium, either the applicant or his representative and state your name and if you have read the conditions and agree with them. The first item is Item #2 & 3. It is General Booth Storage and it's located on the west side of General Booth Boulevard, north Dam Neck Road, District 6, Beach District. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you. Eddie Bourdon representing the applicant. We are in agreement with the proposed conditions on Items 2 & 3. Dorothy Wood: It has six conditions Mr. Bourdon. Eddie Bourdon: They're all acceptable. Dorothy Wood: Ronald Ripley: Is there any opposition to this Consent item? Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second to that? Charlie Salle'- Second. Ronald Ripley: A motion by Dot Wood. Seconded by Charlie Salle'. Any further discussion? Hearing none, we'd like to vote. AYE 11 NAY 0 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE ABS 0 ABSENT 0 Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0, the motion passes. APPLICATION PAGE 4 OF 4 S DIVISION VA NCE Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT General Booth Storage, Inc., a Virginia corporati, Qn General Booth Storage, Inc., a Virginia corporation PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) blichael D. Sifen~ President Larry K. Sifen, Secretary/Treasurer If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) [~ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, parmership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. General Booth Storage, Inc. ~ignature Michael D. Sifen, President Print Name Conditional Use Permit (indoor recreation - batting cage) - Granted 2/13/96 Conditional Use Permit (truck rentals) - Granted 09/09/01 6. Change of Zoning (A-12 Apartment to Conditional B-2 Community Business) - Granted 6/14/94 7. Conditional Use Permit (gas sales and convenience store) - Granted 6/08/01 8. Change of Zoning (AG-1Agricultural to B-2 Community Business) -- Granted 6/08/81 Conditional Use Permit (auto repair)- Granted 2/12/91 9. Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural to B-2 Community Business) - Granted 3/13/78 10. Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural to PDH Planned Development) - Granted 4/14/80 11. Change of Zoning (AG-1 Agricultural to R-8 Residential) - Granted 4/14/80 Ma~ - ~,~ ~ Robert ~. Steinhilbe Hop Not. t.o $cole AG-2 -/ ...... ~ .......... ~ A~F ANP ARP ARP ARP ARP ARP AR~P~Rp A Z / / ~~'~'~ P~PARPARPARPARPARPARPARPARPARPAI ~AN~A p ' PARPA ARP ARP ARP ARP ARP ARP ARp A ARP A~PARP ARP ARF ~ RP ARPA] ........... ,, ~ RPAI ARP ' ARP ARPARPARPARPARPAN~ARPARPA "P ARPARP AF,pARp ARp AR~ D AHP ARP ARPARP ARP ARP ARP ARP ARP ARP ARPA " ARP ARP ARPARPARP ARPAR ARPARPARP / ~ ' ~'~~ ......... ~ RPARPARPARPARPARPAR A Gpin 1387~0-5514 ZONING HISTORY Conditional Use.~Permit (single-family dwelling)- Granted, 6-12-89 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: Robert E. Steinhilber, Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE June 11,2002 Background: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Robert E. Steinhilber. Property is located on the west side of Crags Causeway, 3525.50 feet south of Baum Road (GPIN #1387-80-5514). DISTRICT 7 - PRINCESS ANNE. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to subdivide two three (3) acre lots out of an existing 107 acre parcel. The acreage outside of the area devoted to these two proposed lots is part of the Agricultural Reserve Program (ARP). The area for the two three (3) acre parcels was left out as 'exception areas' when the remaining property entered the ARP in 1997. Due to limited street frontage and the presence of a large ditch, one of the two proposed parcels (Parcel 1) does not meet requirements for lot width and street frontage. The applicant is seeking a variance to these requirements. Recommendations: The Planning Commission passed a motion by a recorded vote of 10 for the motion with 1 abstention to approve this request. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. Planning Commlssion recommends approval. Submitting Department/Ag~c,y: Planning Department City Manac ROBERT E. STEINHILBER/# I May 8, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance ADDRESS: Property is located on the west side of Crags Causeway, 3,525.5 feet south of Baum Road MaD N~.~t Robert E. Steinhilber AG-2 AG-2~ GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 1387-8O-5514 7 - PRINCESS ANNE 3.1085 acres Gpin 1587-80-5514 Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 ;~ ' ~; ROBERT E. STEINHILBER / # 1 Page I STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: Ashby Moss To subdivide two three (3) acre lots out of a 107 acre parcel. The acreage outside of the area devoted to these two lots is part of the Agricultural Reserve Program (ARP). The area for the two three (3) acre parcels was left out as 'exception areas' when the remaining property entered the ARP in 1997. Due to limited street frontage and the presence of a large ditch, one of the two proposed parcels (Parcel 1) does not meet requirements for lot width and street frontage. The applicant is seeking a variance to these requirements. Major Issues: · Presence of a hardship justifying the variances to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Site Plan ! Preliminary Plat: Existing Lot: The existing lot is 107.35 acres. Proposed Lots: The applicant intends to subdivide two lots slightly over three acres in size from the existing parcel. The remainder of the parcel is included in the ARP. The two proposed lots were left out as 'exception areas' when the property entered the ARP. The entire property has since been sold, and the current owner wants to sell the two exception areas. A subdivision is required in order to sell these areas and develop the lots with houses. The proposed rear lot lines actually encroach 15 to 20 feet into the ARP easement area. The lot lines were moved back to accommodate a 10 foot right-of-way dedication required for Crags Causeway. This will not present a conflict with the ARP easement as long as the houses and accessory structures are kept outside of the easement. Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 ROBERT E. STEINHILBER ! # 1 Page 2 Itel~ Reouired Lot I Lot 2 Lot Width in feet (Sec. 402(a)(2) and Sec. 200(b)(3) of CZO) 150 95* 160 Minimum percentage of lot width on public ROW (Sec. 200(b)(1)(ii) of CZO) 80% 33%* 100% Lot Area in acres 1 3.1085 3.1283 CRAG8 CAUSEWAY PN~.. 2 Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 ROBERT E. STEINHILBER / # 1 Page 3 Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics Existin,q Land Use and Zoninq The site is vacant agricultural land zoned AG-1 and AG-2 Agricultural Districts, Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq North: South: East: West: · Agricultural land / AG-I&2 Agricultural Districts · Agricultural land under ARP/AG-I&2 Agricultural Districts · Single family homes and agricultural land, much of which is under ARP / AG-I&2 Agricultural Districts · Agricultural land / AG-I&2 Agricultural Districts Zoninq History A conditional use permit for a single-family dwelling was approved in 1989 for the property west of the subject site. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana and NALF Fentress. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics A large ditch (approximately 10 to 15 feet wide) cuts across the front portion of the property near Crags Causeway. This is considered 100 year floodplain according to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The ditch may also qualify as a feature regulated by the City's Southern Watersheds Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 ROBERT E. STEINHILBER / # 1 Page 4 Management Ordinance. If it is determined that the ditch is a perennial stream, i.e. that the ditch remains wet throughout the year, 50 foot buffers will be required on either side. The area north of the ditch contains several mature trees but seems to have been cleared of underbrush. The remaining area south of the ditch is vacant and appears to be cultivated. Soils on the property are poorly drained with primarily Augusta loam, Tomotley loam, and Acredale silt loam soil types. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer No City water or sewer is available in this area. Health Department approval is required for wells and septic systems. The Health Department is currently reviewing plans for land management on-site sewage disposal systems and private wells for the two proposed lots. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends forestry, farming, rural residential, and other rurally compatible land uses for this area. Evaluation of Request Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that: Ao Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 ROBERT E. STEINHILBER / # 1 Page 5 Eo immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self-inflicted hardship shall not be considered as grounds for the issuance of a variance. The hardship is created by the requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located at the time the variance is authorized whenever such variance pertains to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance incorporated by reference in this ordinance. The subject property is an irregularly shaped lot similar to a flag lot due to the limited amount of actual street frontage. The City Zoning Ordinance requires the width of actual street frontage to be at least 80 percent of the required minimum lot width. Parcel 1 has only 50 feet of street frontage, which equals 33 percent of the minimum lot width. The presence of the lead ditch across the front of the property also creates a problem with the lot meeting minimum lot width requirements. Since the ditch is considered part of the 100 year floodplain and since floodplain cannot count towards minimum lot requirements, the lot falls short of the 150 foot minimum lot width. Staff's opinion is that the presence of the ditch and the irregular shape of the original property qualify as a hardship in subdividing these two lots. The proposed lot design actually conserves the maximum amount of farmland and will not detract from the rural development pattern on Crags Causeway. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the subdivision variance. NOTE: Upon granting of a subdivision variance, a final subdivision plat must be submitted to the Development Services Center for approval and recordation. Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 ROBERT E. STEINHILBER / # 1 Page 6 Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 ROBERT E. STEINHILBER / # 1 Page 7 Item #1 Robert E. Steinhilber Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of Subdivision Ordinance West side of Crags Causeway District 7 Princess Anne May 8, 2002 REGULAR AGENDA John Baum? I've been advised by the City Attorney's office that Item #1, Steinhilber, that I should abstain because we own the property admiringly adjoining to the west. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Let's move into our Regular agenda. We have, looks to me, effectively six items to deal here with today looks like. The first item is Item #1 and Mr. Scott. I mean Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: Long night. Ronald Ripley: Yeah. Robert Miller: Robert Steinhilber. Item #1, Robert Steinhilber. Someone to make a presentation? Rodney's going to do that. Rodney Foster: Good afternoon. I'm Rodney Foster. I'm one of the owners of this lot. I believe staff and Commission is aware that this was a lot that was cut out of 100 acres or more of the APR program some time ago. And the 3-acre lot,. which is required a ten foot right-of-way was over looked by either the surveyor, Langley McDonald or the City at the time it was recorded. In order to make it a legal lot, it has to be or needs to be moved back into the APR Section to make it in compliance with your ordinance. And that is why we're asking for this variance to be able to use this lot that was reserved. When the ARP accepted it or when the City accepted it. Ronald Ripley: Is there any questions? Okay. Robert Miller: Ronnie, the question that I have was - is you have to have 3-acres for land management. And from what I was looking at on the plat, it didn't look like the property really needed to be involved and we were talking about that this morning. There' s a tenth of an acre in each one of the lots that seems to be more than 3-acres, which is what is needed for the land management, at least that is what the staff has said. Do you actually need to be into the ARP property or is it possible to stay out of it so that we wouldn't need - it's just a question of mechanics. I don't think we've ever had a lot that we, at least I don't remember one. Don and John would know better. That we cut out a portion of the ARP resolve easement area, to include in the lot, in order to get... Rodney Foster: I think I need to ask Mr. Scott a little bit about that. Because Planning Department, I believe, was going to draw to their attention that in order ~o move it back an eighth in the APR, in order to get the 10 foot right-of-way required for the City, that is was necessary. I think Mr. Scott could probably help add in answering those. Robert Scott: Well, there is a process in the ordinance for substituting other land. In other words, you could - felt you needed to do that, you could take land out of the ARP land substitute other land for it to a certain degree and probably (inaudible). We're advised that you don't really need to do that. That yes, this would be a lot that encroached a little bit into the easement area but it does not conflict with the easement. In other words, it's a problem with paper only. Robert Miller: Now, what I was struggling with was direction to find out if we needed to actually encroach into it, but I can accept the situation to the extent that... Ronald Ripley: Any other questions or concerns? Item #1 Robert E. Steinhilber Page 2 Robert Vakos: I also raised this question this morning for the record. And Kay, I'll look to you just so I will understand. When these lots go to record, these easements will be recorded as part of the ARP program. And they'll be perpetual with these lots as long as ARP is still applicable. Is that correct? Kay Wilson: Yes. The ARP is recorded and it is an easement encroachment. Robert Vakos: Okay. Okay, I just want to make sure that is on the record. Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Donald Horsley: Ron. Ron, I think I can clear up that question you got. When it was surveyed, the 10-foot dedication was put in to the 3-acres and when they found out they had to make a 10-foot dedication to make it remain a legal lot, if that dedication is ever taken, they need to extend the lot line on the rear. I think that's the whole crux of the situation. Rodney Foster: I think if that had been caught up front, we wouldn't be here today. Donald Horsley: It would have been there anyway. Rodney Foster: This was all new in the beginning, the APR program. Robert Miller: Well, maybe the clarification then for me, and Ashby, is the fact that plat that we saw in our- and the one that is one screen right, does not show the 10-foot dedication? Maybe that's prior to that dedication? Rodney Foster: I don't believe it does. See, if it does, I have ... Ashby Moss: No that should show the dedication. Rodney Foster: It does. Ashby Moss: Yeah. The dedication has been taken out of the lot area. Robert Miller: Well, I was hoping you were going to say it didn't. I'll still be alright. Ronald Ripley: Alright. Robert Miller: We do have opposition. Mr. Steve Dunn? Steve Dunn: Mr. Chairman. Commissioners? My name is Steve Dunn and I live just to east of this property in question. You've seen my wife's letter so you know her feelings on this matter. I won't need to comment further on that one. I do believe strongly that this property owner should be able to do what they want with their property, within the guidelines laid out by the City. My question today is not so much for the ARP. but with the road frontage. Putting two lots on this land goes against the spirit of these guidelines for road frontage. As I understand it, 150 feet of road frontage is required per lot. These two parcels barely exceed that combined. Someone in Planning said it's almost a flag lot with barely enough frontage, for a driveway and that's about all it is. This is not what has been stated as the intention of the City Council and Planners for the rural areas. Please be consistent with the state of intentions and deny the application for the two houses on this property. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Does anybody have any questions of Mr. Dunn? Mr. Miller? Robert Miller: So your whole point here is that there is not enough road frontage for these two lots, not the acreage of the lots obviously? Steve Dunn: Right. Item #1 Robert E. Steinhilber Page 3 Robert Miller: That's the question that you have? Steve Dunn: I haven't seen this up close but I don't think there's more than 150 feet or so for the two combined. So I wouldn't oppose having one house there but two? Ronald Ripley: Bob Vakos has a question. Robert Vakos: Yeah and I'm going to ask staff because I don't read it that way. I'm looking on Page 3 and less I'm correct - incorrect, the requirement of each lot is 150 feet. Lot one would be 95 feet and lot two would be 160. Is that what I'm reading Ashby? Ashby Moss: Yes. That's the lot width. But it's not measured actually at the frontage. Lot width... Robert Vakos: So that's not - okay - so that would not be - okay, because that's ... Ashby, what would the actual width of those lots, the frontage be? Is that on here somewhere? Ashby Moss: The frontage of Lot - Parcel one, which is the one that needs the variance... Robert Vakos: Right. Ashby Moss: Is 50 feet, which is just 33 percent. There's another requirement that you have to have 80 percent of your required lot width on the actual street frov. tage. And that is another thing they need to have a variance for because they only have 50 feet that's on the frontage. And that only equals 33 percent of the minimum lot width. Robert Vakos: Okay. But the other lot meets the requirements? Ashby Moss: Yes. Parcel two, fully meets the requirements. Robert Vakos: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Steve Dunn: Ashby Moss: Steve Dunn: Ashby Moss: 150 feet. Is the requirement still 150 feet? I'm sorry? Is the requirement 150 feet? The lot width requirement is 150 feet. The frontage has to be 80 percent of Steve Dunn: Well, you can see there, they're saying 150 feet and a good part of that is the ditch. So, there's only room for a driveway is all. Ronald Ripley: Betsy, you have a question? Betsy Atkinson: Bob, is this new to Parcel A -- 1 & 2 or were they originally parcels that were platted in the beginning? I was going to ask this.., is this the whole thing. They're coming in take one parcel and divided it into two? Robert Scott: As I understand it... Betsy Atkinson: But it's always been two? Robert Scott: As I understand it, It was one bigger piece. Of which most of it was put into the ARP Program but enough land was left out for what they expected was going to be two lots. Now, when we go through the subdivision review process, we find out they Item #1 Robert E. Steinhilber Page 4 do have enough area for the two lots, but it doesn't meet the lot width requirement, which by the way is not measured at the street line. It's measured, what, 50 feet... Robert Scott: Fifty feet back from the street... Ashby Moss: The distance of the setback. Robert Scott: That is what the difference is that you're hearing between the frontage and the width. So, there is enough area in square footage or acreage if you want there, but there isn't enough width. Yes, I agree to what was said earlier. You know, if this was known at the time that the ARP transaction was entered into, we co. uld have probably straightened it out then but, it wasn't. Betsy Atkinson: Would you still have enough - if you would have known then what you know now, would you have had enough frontage on the street and that's Mr. Dunn's major objection is - is the frontage on the street. Robert Scott: Well, I would have advised .... Betsy Atkinson: It would have been reconfigured that way or maybe move the lot down or... Robert Scott: I would have advised if they had the time to configure the part that they're holding out differently, so that they had the opportunity to meet the zoning ordinance requirements in all respects. But that didn't happen. Betsy Atkinson: So really, the intent was, at that time, was to hold out two lots to be developed in two separate houses? Robert Scott: Right. Betsy Atkinson: And so the only reason why we're really here today is because either a mistake the surveyor did or something that happened way back when... Robert Scott: I would say... Betsy Atkinson: It was always suppose to be two houses? I think that is another one of Mr. Dunn's concerns is that there's going to be two houses there instead of one. It was always going to be two? Robert Scott: Let me see if I can - it depends on who is doing the expecting here. I think the property owner involved here respectively thought there were two lots held out in the transaction over the ARP easement was configured accordingly. Now property owners in the areas may have looked at that piece and said that looks like one housing site to me. So there may be two expectations. But, when the ARP easement was bought by the City, the expectation at that point, I think was that, there was enough land held out for two building sites. Robert Miller: I got one other question. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Yes, Mr. Miller? Robert Miller: Ashby, and looking at these two numbers - the 160 foot on Lot 2 and 95 on Lot 1 and they're both at the 50 foot setback, there's obviously or appears to be more than enough room there to each one of these lots could have met the 120 foot requirement. And there's just the way that someone wanted to configure it? Am I misunderstanding something? Ashby Moss: No. I believe, because of where the ditch comes in... Robert Miller: Right. Item #1 Robert E. Steinhilber Page 5 Ashby Moss: Comes across, the lot width - actually go back 50 feet and measure across. It would be greater than 150 feet were it not for the ditch. But because the ditch is there you can't count that ditch, because it's considered flood plain, towards meeting your lot requirements. Therefore, it's interpreted that's why it needs the variance. Ronald Ripley: Any other questions? Mr. Dunn, thank you very much. Is there anybody else in opposition? Would you like to come back up? Do you have any rebuttle that you would like to say? Rodney Foster: I really don't know anything about rebuttle. All I know is that I was in the APR Program before and I know that you reserve lots for future building dates for children, grandchildren, whatever. In his case, Mr. Evans, who is in his 70's needed to sell some of his real estate off and that is why we purchased it, that the understanding they were acceptable lots. They were reserved for building sites and this error has come to our knowledge in the last few weeks. That is why we are here asking for the correction or assistance in making these lots legal as they were asked for at the time they were reserved by the City and were not purchased. Ronald Ripley: Alright. Thank you. Yes. Don Horsley, do you have a question of the applicant? Donald Horsley: No. I just want to make a comment that - you know, in fact, I'm going to disclose that I actually farmed the farm land that on the other side of that ditch there, that's going to incorporate part of these lots. And, I've been told that it's not any conflict for me discussing or voting. But, you know, under ARP, when ARP Program, you know, this piece of property, 107 acres, I think it is, could have been had ten houses. It had the potential of having ten homes on it. And with the ARP Program, the City has essentially bought the rights to build eight houses. So when the owner decided, the owners at that time decided to keep two building sites. And that's how all of this occurred. And whether it be for children or sale or whatever, we found out that sometime you have things for children that don't last very long and the sale sign goes up but, in regardless - I think this is a very legitimate request for the variance and I very well understand Mr. Dunn's situation. Is not very many people in the Blackwater section in particular who probably don't feel the same way but we also think that the property owners ha~e certain rights and the this property owners sure does have certain rights and the only consolation that I can give Mr. Dunn is to know that if these two build, there won't be anymore built. I think the rest of the farm on the other side of you, which is in part of his family, I think, is in ARP Programs, so that's the only kind of consolation that I can give him. There won't be any more built close to you Steve and I hope you won't hold any problems against us but I think these are all legitimate requests and at this time I would like to make a motion that the application be approved as submitted. Ronald Ripley: Motion by Don Horsley to approve. Second? Eugene Crabtree: I'll second. Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Gene Crabtree. Any further discussion? We're ready to vote? AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 1 ABSENT 0 ATKINSON AYE BAUM CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE ABS Item gl Robert E. Steinhilber Page 6 STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, with John Baum abstaining, the motion passes. Robert Miller: The next item... John Baum: I would like to mention one thing. This happens often. The north arrow bound points south. It's really hard to read a map when you got it upside down . - --, APPLICATION;,-~ PAGE 4 OF 4 Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list ifnecessa~.) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) ~]/Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, parmership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) ~Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, parmership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate, % Signature Print Name Rev. 9/15/98 M~ ~-~ Charlie Falk Auto Wholesaler, Inc. Hop Not. t.o Gpi~ 1487-95-9033 + 1497-05-0151 ZONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Use Permit 2. Conditional Use Permit 3. Conditional Use Permit 4. Conditional Use Permit 5. Conditional Use Permit 6. Conditional..Use Permit Conditional Lise Permit (communication tower) Approved 4-24-89 (car rentals) Approved 6-13-00 (auto sales) Withdrawn 8-14-90 (auto sales) Approved 2-27-01 (motor vehicle sales & service) Approved 10-14-97 (motor vehicle sales & service) Approved 9-14-99 (auto sales) Approved 6-12-89 7. Conditional Use Permit (auto service) Approved 1-23-01 8. Rezoning (B-2 Community Business District to A-2 Apartment District) Approved 1-10-83 Conditional Use Permit (church) Approved 1-16-78 9. Rezoning (B-2 Community Business District to R-6 Residential District) Approved 9-9-85 Conditional Use Permit (group home) Approved 9-9-85 10. Conditional Use Permit (auto repair) Denied 8-26-85 11. Rezoning (A-1 Apartment District to O-1 Office District) Approved 9-27-82 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Charlie Falk Auto Wholesalers, Inc., Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: June 11,2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Charlie Falk Auto Wholesaler, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales and service on the south side of Virginia Beach Boulevard, 100 feet east of Groveland Road (GPIN #1487-95-9033; #1497-05-0151). Said parcel is located at 3237 Virginia Beach Boulevard and contains 1.549 acres. DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to display automobiles, primarily repossessed vehicles, for sale on the subject property. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the additional landscaping will improve the appearance of the site, staff recommended approval and there was no opposition to the request. Recommendations: A motion was passed unanimously by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request subject to the following conditions: The site shall be developed as depicted on the site plan entitled, "Conditional Use Permit Site Plan of 3237 Virginia Beach Boulevard for Charles E. Falk, Sr. & Kathryn Falk" dated February 11,2002 by John E. Sirine and Associates, Ltd. Landscaping shall be provided as depicted on the plan. Deed restrictions shall be recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court for both parcels on the subject property (GPINs 1497-05-0151 and 1487-95-9033) indicating that the conditional use permit for auto sales shall become null and void and that all buildings shall be reviewed for compliance with the Uniform Statewide Building Code in the Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: recommends approval. SC i~ n~itatni ~gg eDr :~~ n ~_ Staff recommends approval. Planning Commission Planning Department Charlie Falk Auto Wholesalers, Inc. Page 2 event either parcel is sold separately to another party. A copy of the recorded deed' restrictions shall be provided to the Director of Planning to be made part of the Conditional Use Permit file. The existing freestanding sign on the site shall be either removed and replaced with a monument style sign or altered to create a monument style sign. All signage on the site must be in accordance with sign regulations outlined in the City Zoning Ordinance. 4. All lighting on the property shall be directed toward the interior of the site and away from adjoining properties. No additional site lighting is permitted beyond that needed for site security, all of which shall be directed internally. Any new lighting proposed on the site shall be subject to approval of the Planning Director or his or her designee. 5. No more than 34 vehicles for sale are permitted on the property. No vehicles shall be parked within any portion of the public right-of-way or within the vehicular entrances to the property. Vehicles for display shall be at least ten feet from the right-of-way and shall be parked in the designated display areas only. Vehicles shall not be displayed on ramps, berms, or other elevating devices. No balloons, banners, or pennants shall be displayed from light poles or vehicles. 6. No outside storage of parts, equipment, materials or wrecked or inoperative vehicles shall be permitted. Vehicle service and repair shall be limited to washing, detailing, and routine maintenance of vehicles for sale only. All of this service activity shall take place inside the building. 8. No outside paging system shall be permitted. The curb at the back of the property shall be restored and a permanent barrier shall be placed to eliminate vehicular traffic from crossing to the adjacent property at the southwestern corner of the site. 10. The fence along the southern property line shall be repaired and extended if necessary to create a continuous six foot solid fence in accordance with Section 239(d) of the City Zoning Ordinance. CHARLIE FALK AUTO WHOLESALERS, INC./# 2' General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: May 8, 2002 Conditional Use Permit (motor vehicle sales _and service) 3237 Virginia Beach Boulevard ~ R-7 Charlie Falk vtuto Wholesaler, Inc. Hop Not. ~.o $cole GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: Crpin 1487-95-9033 + 1487-95-9033 and 1497-05-0151 3 - ROSE HALL 1.549 acres 1497-05-0151 Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 CHARLIE FALK AUTO WHOLESALERS, INC. / # 27 -Page1 STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: APPLICATION HISTORY: Ashby Moss To display automobiles for sale on the subject property. The applicant currently uses the building as an office and lending institution. The limited number of automobiles for sale on this property would primarily be repossessed vehicles. This application was deferred at the April 10, 2002 Planning Commission hearing to allow staff and the applicant to revise condition #2 regarding vacation of internal lot lines. The condition has been revised to avoid the foreseen potential problems of the nonconforming lot without actually eliminating the nonconforming lot. One foreseen potential problem would arise if the nonconforming lot were sold to another owner and the auto sales use continued on the conforming lot. The conforming lot would not be able to provide the required amount of parking and have any vehicle display area. If the display area were converted back to regular parking, the conforming lot would meet the minimum parking requirement for an office use. Any new use on the nonconforming lot would be subject to zoning requirements at that time. Another potential problem would arise if a new building were proposed on the shared property line. The second story overhang on the existing building already abuts the shared property line between the two lots. Although there is no side yard setback required by the City Zoning Ordinance in the B-2 Community Business District, the Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) requires certain separation distances between buildings based on the use group of the buildings and the type of building materials used. If another building were constructed on the nonconforming lot, both buildings must be reviewed to ensure compliance with the USBC. In addition to the revision of condition #2, condition #4 has been revised and conditions #9 and #10 have been added since the last public hearing. On the day of the April 10 public hearing, a neighboring property owner contacted staff with additional concerns regarding cut-through traffic at the back of Planning Commission Agenda ~'~~~ May 8, 2002 CHARLIE FALK AUTO WHOLESALERS, INC. / # 27 Page 2 the property, site lighting, and the condition of the fence at the rear of the property. The conditions have been revised to address these concerns. Major Issues: · Compatibility of auto sales with surrounding land uses. · Site's ability to support both office and auto sales uses on this property. · Quality of site and building design of the property. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existinq Land Use and Zoning Geico Insurance Company formerly occupied this building. The building currently houses offices for 55 employees of the applicant's auto sales business and other financial companies owned by the applicant. The property is zoned B-2 Community Business District. Surroundin,q Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: · Across Virginia Beach Boulevard, auto sales facilities and mixed retail uses / B-2 Community Business District · Townhouses / A-18 Apartment District · Office, personal service, and retail uses, church / B-2 Community Business District Planning Commission Agenda CHARLIE FALK AUTO WHOLESALERS, INC. / # 27 Page 3 West: · Copy and printing services / B-2 Community Business District Zoning History Zoning actions in the immediate vicinity include the approval of several automobile related businesses, particularly auto sales and service. A request for auto repair was denied in 1985 for the eastern portion of the subject site. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of 65 to 70dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristic~ The property is completely impervious with the exception of the existing landscape islands within the parking lot. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: Thero is a 16-inch water main in the south side of Virginia Beach Boulevard fronting the property and a 20-inch water main on the north side of the median strip in Virginia Beach Boulevard. This site has an existing 1 ~-inch water meter, which may be utilized. There is a 24-inch force main on the north side of the median strip in Virginia Beach BOulevard and an 8-inch sanitary sewer main in Rosegate Court behind the south side of the property with a stub at the southeast corner of the property. This site is already connected to City sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP)/Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Virginia Beach Boulevard in the vicinity of this application is an eight lane divided major arterial. The MTP designates this roadway as a 150 foot divided right-of-way. Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 CHARLIE FALK AUTO WHOLESALERS, INC. / tf 27 Page 4 There are no scheduled improvements for Virginia Beach Boulevard in the current adopted CIP. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity 45,700 Virginia Beach Boulevard ADT ~ Existing Land Use 2- 362 ADT Level of 56,240 ADT ~ Service D Proposed Land Use 3_ 740 ADT Average Daily Tri~)s ~ as defined by 19,735 sq. ft. office building as defined by car sales facility Public Safety Police: Adequate - no further comments. Fire and Rescue: Adequate - Once vehicle inventory is on site, the Fire Marshall's office will determine if any fire lanes are required. The occupant must contact the Fire Marshall's office if any flammable, combustible, or hazardous materials are stored or handled on site. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained from the Building Official for the appropriate use group(s) before occupying the building. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as suitable for a vadety of employment uses, including business parks, offices, appropriately located industrial uses, and employment suppo~ uses. Summary of Proposal proposal The applicant currently occupies the building for office space. This use permit request is to display vehicles for sale at the front and on the eastern side of the building. Planning Commission Agenda ,~ May 8, 2002 CHARLIE FALK AUTO WHOLESALERS, INC. /# 27 ........ Page 5 No auto repair is proposed for this site other than vehicle washing, detailing, and maintenance performed before the cars are sold. All of the auto service will be performed inside of the building. Site Desiqn The existing building is situated at the center of the site with parking in front, in the rear, and on the eastern side of the building. The site plan shows vehicle display areas in front of the building in place of all existing parking spaces and along the eastern side. A total of 5,962 square feet of display area is proposed. This is the equivalent of approximately 34 cars. A total of 73 parking spaces remain for customers and employees. This matches the minimum requirement for the 19,735 square foot office building. The rear property line has an existing six foot wooden privacy fence, which meets the requirement for auto sales operations abutting a residential or apartment zoning district. The fence is broken in some places and must be repaired as a condition of approval. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access There are currently three access points for this property on Virginia Beach Boulevard. The applicant proposes to close the middle entrance, leaving two access points at either end of the property. There is'currently a sidewalk along the frontage of Virginia Beach Boulevard. The site plan proposes a pedestrian link leading from the west side of the westernmost access at Virginia Beach Boulevard to the western edge of the building. The pedestrian path extends across the entire front of the building, and then turns back to Virginia Beach Boulevard at the easternmost entrance. Since the site is already paved, the applicant has proposed a brick pattern painted onto the asphalt (referenced on the site plan as "brick asphalt pavers"). Although not as attractive as stamped concrete or actual brick pavers, this option is preferable to standard white pedestrian striping. Planning Commission Agenda ~,~%~, May 8, 2002 ~~ CHARLIE FALK AUTO WHOLESALERS, INC. / # 27 Page 6 Architectural Desi,qn The existing building is a white two-story rectangular masonry building. Tinted windows line the front of the building and act as the building's dominant feature. The second story overhangs on either side, creating a covered area through which vehicles can pass. There is also an overhang over the eastern half of the building's front creating a covered walkway at the building's main entrance. There is a "drive-thru" garage area at the back of the building with three bay doors on either side. This is the area in which all auto detailing and servicing will take place. · No exterior changes to the building are proposed. Landscape and Open Space Desiqn The proposed additional landscaping shown on the site plan brings the site into compliance with current landscaping regulations. Street frontage landscaping has been widened so that it is ten feet in width across the entire front. Currently, over half of the site has only about a four foot strip of landscaping across the front. Display area landscaping exceeds the 12 percent requirement of the ordinance. An existing hedge along the eastem property line counts toward this calculation. Interior parking lot landscaping has been added to meet the 30 square feet per space requirement of the ordinance. Eighteen new trees are proposed within the display and interior parking lot landscaping. Finally, the existing foundation landscaping beds, which already exceed requirements of the ordinance, will be planted with new landscaping. Evaluation of Request The applicant's request for motor vehicle sales on the subject site is acceptable. The request is for a small number of cars (34) to be placed on display for sale at the front Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 CHARLIE FALK AUTO WHOLESALERS, INC. / # 27 ~Page 7 and on the eastern side of the property. The remaining parking spaces will serve the needs of the office building. This conditional use permit request presents an opportunity to retrofit this developed site to meet current landscaping requirements. The additional landscaping will greatly improve the appearance of the site. Auto sales is not an uncommon use in this area of the City and therefore is compatible with other land uses along the Virginia Beach Boulevard corridor. Although this site does abut a townhouse development along the rear property line, all of the auto sales activity is concentrated at the front of the site. Therefore, the activity at the rear of the site will remain largely unchanged. In addition, the privacy fence along the rear property line and existing vegetation behind it provide adequate screening for the townhouses. Broken sections of the fence must be repaired to comply with screening requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance for motor vehicle sales uses. The conditions recommended below further ensure that the applicant's proposal will be an improvement to the property and will be compatible with neighboring land uses. Therefore, this application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions The site shall be developed as depicted on the site plan entitled, "Conditional Use Permit Site Plan of 3237 Virginia Beach Boulevard for Charles E. Falk, Sr. & Kathryn Falk" dated February 11,2002 by John E. Sirine and Associates, Ltd. Landscaping shall be provided as depicted on the plan. Deed restrictions shall be recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court for both parcels on the subject property (GPINs 1497-05-0151 and 1487-95-9033) indicating that the conditional use permit for auto sales shall become null and void and that'all buildings shall be reviewed for compliance with the Uniform Statewide Building Code in the event either parcel is sold separately to another party. The existing freestanding sign on the site shall be either removed and replaced with a monument style sign or altered to create a monument style sign. All signage on the site must be in accordance with sign regulations outlined in the City Zoning Ordinance. Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 CHARLIE FALK AUTO WHOLESALERS, INC. / # 27 Page 8 All lighting on the property shall be directed toward the interior of the site and away from adjoining properties. No additional site lighting is permitted beyond that needed for site security, all of which shall be directed internally. Any new lighting proposed on the site shall be subject to approval of the Planning Director' or his or her designee. o No more than 34 vehicles for sale are permitted on the property. No vehicles shall be parked within any portion of the public right-of-way or within the vehicular entrances to the property. Vehicles for display shall be at least ten feet from the right-of-way and shall be parked in the designated display areas only. Vehicles shall not be displayed on ramps, berms, or other elevating devices. No balloons, banners, or pennants shall be displayed from light poles or vehicles. No outside storage of parts, equipment, materials or wrecked or inoperative vehicles shall be permitted. Vehicle service and repair shall be limited to washing, detailing, and routine maintenance of vehicles for sale only. All of this service activity shall take place inside the building. 8. No outside paging system shall be permitted. g° The curb at the back of the property shall be restored and a permanent barrier shall be placed to eliminate vehicular traffic from crossing to the adjacent property at the southwestern comer of the site. 10. The fence along the southern property line shall be repaired and extended if necessary to create a continuous six foot solid fence in accordance with Section 239(d) of the City Zoning Ordinance. NOTE: F~rther 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 May 8, 2002 CHARLIE FALK AUTO WHOLESALERS, INC. / # 27 Page 9 o; iij ~'1 11 II II Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 CHARLIE FALK AUTO WHOLESALERS, INC. / # 27 Page 10 Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 CHARLIE FALK AUTO WHOLESALERS, INC. / # 27 Page 11 Item #27 Charlie Falk Auto Wholesalers, Inc. Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales And service South side of Virginia Beach Boulevard, 100 feet Of Groveland Road District 3 Rose Hall May 8, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: The next item is 27, Charlie Falk Auto Wholesaler. It's a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales. It's on Virginia Beach Boulevard, east of Groveland Road in the Rose Hall District. And it has ten conditions. Billy Garrington: Thank you Mrs. Wood. Mr. Ripley, ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission, for the record, I'm Billy Garrington here on behalf of the applicant Mr. Charlie Falk, Charlie Falk Auto Wholesalers. Ten conditions in regard to this matter, all ten are 100 percent in agreement and I would like to personally thank Mr. Scott and his staff, for the additional time they put in on condition number 2, which was the reason why we had to defer this last month, which has to do with the two parcels of land that are there. And I just wanted to thank them for the time they put into that, so we could stand here and say we're in agreement. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Garrington. Billy Garrington: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Dorothy Wood: Again, that is Charlie Falk Auto Wholesalers for a Conditional Use Permit, 100 feet east of Groveland Road. Is there any objection to this? Hearing no objections. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion. Do we have a second to that? Charlie Salle': Second. Ronald Ripley: A motion by Dot Wood. Seconded by Charlie Salle'. Any further discussion? Hearing none, we'd like to vote. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0, the motion passes. Item #12 Charlie Falk Auto Wholesalers, Inc. Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales and Service on the south side of Virginia Beach Boulevard 3237 Virginia Beach Boulevard District 3 Rose Hall April 10, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: Go to Item #12, which is Charlie Falk Auto Wholesalers. A Conditional Use Permit for a motor vehicle sales and service on the south side of Virginia Beach Boulevard, 100 feet east of Groveland Road. It is at 3237 Virgini~ Beach Boulevard in the Rose Hall District and there are eight conditions. Mr. Garrington? Billy Garrington: Thank you Ms. Wood. Mr. Ripley. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission. Billy Garrington here today on behalf of Charlie Falk. However, I am unfortunate to inform you that one of the conditions is not agreeable to the owner so we would like for this to be heard. Dorothy Wood: We'll put it down. Thank you Mr. Garrington. Billy Garrington: Thank you very much. LATER REGULAR AGENDA Ronald Ripley: And the last time on the agenda I believe. Robert Miller: Item #12, Charlie Falk Auto Wholesalers, Inc. Billy Garrington: Thank you Mr. Chairman and again, ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. For the record my name is Billy Garrington. I'm here today on behalf of the applicant Charlie Falk Auto Wholesalers. We request Your permission on this approval for a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicular sales on Virginia Beach Boulevard. Let me first explain to you. I'm sure you saw it when you went on your site visit, but it's the old GEICO office building on Virginia Beach Boulevard. I think it has been there since some time in the 60's. It's been there for a considerable length of time. Mr. Falk, as you can see, has already taken over the building. His auto dealership business office is in there, one of his finance company's and even a holding company. And I still can't figure out what the holding company is but I am sure he has a valid reason for it. Robert Vakos: Hold A lot Finance. Item #12 Charlie Falk Auto Wholesalers, Inc. Page 2 Billy Garrington: What he is asking for you today is to have permission to have motor vehicle sales there. And there is any limited number of vehicle and it will be vehicles that his dealership has sold and has repossessed and he is putting them back on the market. There is detailed areas on the site plan that the only places where vehicles will be for sale. You have a display area here, here and along side over here. One of the other things that will be happening at this piece of property, there are currently three curb cuts along Virginia Beach Boulevard. The third middle curb cut here, will be done away with, will be curbed over so you will only have two curb cuts and there won't be quite as much traffic congestion as you have out there tight now. Where the road comes in at, is in your staff write-up, there are eight conditions. In Mr. Falk's opinion, seven of those conditions have to do with Conditional Use Permit requirements that are there to make sure that this business does not do detrimental harm to the surrounding properties. Condition number 2 doesn't meet that standard according to the applicant and he is not in approval of that condition. That condition has to do with a separate, non-conforming lot that is also part of the property but is on the eastern end of the property here. It is legally known as the remains of Lot D. And the reason why it is the remains of Lot D is a portion of it was taken by the City of Virginia Beach when Virginia Beach Boulevard was widened recently. At the time the plat was put to record back in 1948, it was 19,906 square feet. It doesn't meet the minimum 20,000 square foot that you have on your ordinance today, for it being too wide, but keep in mind it was put to record in 1948 when it wasn't even the City of Virginia Beach. It was still Princess Anne County. So what you have is a legally non-conforming lot on the property that is also a part of this operation. In the staff write-up, they are requiting that lot line be vacated. Well the problem that you have with that is number one, it's an expensive piece of property on Virginia Beach Boulevard. The current City assessment is over a quarter of a million dollars on it right now. To do away with that lot is one thing. That's expensive process enough as it is and if he ever came back wanted to reestablish it and have two buildable sites there, it creates a major problem because that property line runs fight along the side of the building. To make the lot to where it meets the 20,000 square feet, it would have to be wider than it is now which would require that a portion of the building would have to be tom down. So that is the mb with taking that lot line and vacating it and making it all one parcel of property. That should be a detailed site plan review item. It shouldn't be a use permit item in the applicant's point of view and for that reason we have objected to that condition and that condition only. And I will be glad to answer any questions that you may have. Ronald Ripley: Any questions of the .... yes? Robert Vakos: I got a question for Mr. Scott. And Mr. Garrington made a good point. In site plan review would this be a condition of site plan approval? Robert Scott: He does make a good point. He made a couple of good points. But I think we do need to be doing away with those non-conforming lots. The issue is that lot can't be reasonably developed with the existing building on there. There is no way. It's too close to the building. I think that property could have two developable lots some day in Item #12 Charlie Falk Auto Wholesalers, Inc. Page 3 the future, but that building as it exists, and I think he's right, I think it's been there for 30 or 40 years now, create some real problems. I think we need to preserve the opportunity to develop or have two developable lots on that property but it doesn't work with the existing building on it. So I think that we need to try to do away with these non- conforming lots because they don't lend themselves the reasonable and orderly development pattern. Robert Vakos: But in site plan approval, would that be a condition of the site plan? Robert Scott: I think we would require it. Robert Vakos: Okay. Robert Scott: It would be a requirement. Robert Vakos: So the question is, are we being redundant here in requiring this as part of the Conditional Use Permit? Robert Scott: You know, we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. Robert Vakos: Yeah, I know. Robert Scott: Because we go through site plan review and this thing brings up. We always hear, well you never told us. Robert Vakos: We told them now. Robert Scott: We try -- I guess what e re just trying to do is tell people that in advance, that if you want to say to the staff, we think you ought to impose it at site plan review instead as a Conditional Use Permit, I'm okay with that. I really am. I just want to put this issue out there. Something that needs to be addressed during the development creating process whether it's here or later at site plan review. It really doesn't make that much difference to us. But I do want everybody to know that it's a concern of ours and I do think we need to address it. Robert Vakos: Mr. Garrington. Are you in site plan review right now? Billy Garrington: No sir. And on this piece of property, I don't think it will go through site plan review for the simple fact that you're not changing anything on the site plan and I think that is the reason why it is here today. I think the staff realizes that this probably won't go through site plan review so that's the reason why it was made a condition of the Conditional Use Permit. The only additional thing that you're doing out there now is adding additional landscaping because of the street front landscaping that you have. I don't believe this property will go through detail site plan review. Item #12 Charlie Falk Auto Wholesalers, Inc. Page 4 Robert Vakos: So when the renovation of the building occurred, there was no site plan review because it was already existing. Billy Garrington: I don't think there was any renovation to the building that took place. Robert Vakos: Well, there was some. It is no longer GEICO. Billy Garfington: Correct. Probably would have been interior renovations. Robert Vakos: Okay, but still, that's a process. Billy Garrington: And I think it's also worthy to note that the GEICO building does not encroach onto the additional lot which is Lot D. It goes right up to the property line. I think it's about a foot or foot and a half separation, but in B-2 zoning you have no side yard set back. You have a front yard setback but you have no side yard setback if you got B-2 property adjoining B-2. And no matter which way you look at, he's got a very valuable piece of property now that's worth over a quarter of a million dollars now. What is it going to be worth 25 years from now when he's ready to retire and somebody comes along and wants to buy this as a separate out parcel. It's an expensive piece of property. Now I will admit to this, there is a concern because some of the required parking for all of this building is on that separate parcel of land. And what we had said is that on the plat, we will call this a lease line and we will note on the plan that the property could never be sold separately as long as this Use Permit is in effect because it is part of the required parking. We can put a Deed to Record. That way the owner knows that, that separate parcel of land has to be in conjunction with this Conditional Use Permit and if he ever agrees that he wants to sell that parcel separately his Use Permit is then null and void. Robert Vakos: Okay. Billy Garrington: I'm just trying to look out for the man's -- property on Virginia Beach Boulevard is very expensive now and if you can transpose 25 years or 15 years from now when he is ready to retire, it's an expensive piece of property. Ronald Ripley: Bob? Robert Miller: Many years ago, somebody told me your opinion is opinion, my opinion is fact. So let me ask the staff. Is he going to have to go through site plan review on this project instead of my interpretation or Mr. Garrington's interpretation? Faith Christie: He probably won't. Robert Miller: He will not go through site plan review even with renovation to the parking lot, the closing off of the entrance, new curb, new landscaping? That does not go through site plan review? Item #12 Charlie Falk Auto Wholesalers, Inc. Page 5 Faith Christie: He's not adding any additional impervious, in fact he's taking away, so they probably won't make him go through site plan review unless you make it a condition. Robert Miller: No. Billy Garrington: That'll be just one more we object to. Robert Vakos: I'm confused too. Because he's doing work in the right-of-way, which he's got to do to close that drive out. Correct? Faith Christie: Robert Vakos: everyday. Then they just give him a right-of-way permit to do that. And he can do that without a site plan review? You learn something new Ronald Ripley: I'm straggling with the argument that Mr. Garrington has made from the owner's point of view. And I am also straggling from the point of view of staff in the policy that they want to try us to see happen on parcels like this. Bob, I would really like for you to maybe take another stab at this. I really don't understand the logic behind it because he's making a very, very valid point regarding the value of the property and the fact that it is a legal lot and maybe, I don't know if you could also throw into the mix, if you were to - even not even considering this use permit, but if you were to separate the parcels would he have enough parking for existing structure there and it's current use? Or would he be lacking parking? Could he actually legally do that? Robert Scott: The issue of non-conforming lots is if you own a non-conforming lot, you've got the right to develop it in a way that it doesn't conform to the City's standards. What you have to ask yourself is to what degree do we think that's a good idea? The recognition of non-conforming lots is for the purpose of avoiding confiscating property. Confiscating means reducing the value to almost to zero or close to zero. This property has value combined with the property that's next to it because it is a - is and always, as far as I know, always has been, one site developed as a business. But with GEICO or, I don't know what it was, if it was anything before that but it is 30 or more years old enterprise. I would not say that this property forevermore has no opportunity to be two building sites, but the positioning of the building on the site puts real limitations on the orderly development on those two separate parcels. Two separate enterprises, two separate owners and two separate businesses. It could be done in the future, 25 years from now has been suggested. But I don't think it can be reasonably done with that building in place. It's really one piece of property. It's one business. Always has been. Ronald Ripley: Maybe Ashby will be able to answer this? Is the current parking ratio to the bare minimum? Ashby Moss: Yes. Item #12 Charlie Falk Auto Wholesalers, Inc. Page 6 Billy Garrington: I can answer that for you Mr. Chairman. That is correct. Ronald Ripley: So if we remove this parcel, you would remove parking? Billy Garrington: Some of the required parking. And again, that's the reason why we said we would put a deed to record or call it a lease line so that that owner knows that property could never be sold separately because it contains required parking for the building which is next door. But again, if you look to the future, and at some point in time if he's ready to cease that operation, and he fully understands that, he has two separate buildable sites that he can put on the market and sell at the fair market value. Ronald Ripley: There's no proffer or anything to that effect - or anything like that? Billy Garrington: No sir. We had talked to him about that but the staff just said no, that's not our - we want the lot line vacated. And I had emailed them and told them in meeting that we have with him that we would be willing to do it anyway, you know, we could do it as a deed, deed of recordation in the Clerk of Court's Office, put a notation on the plat called the Lease Line, whatever, as long as it doesn't require the vacating of that lot line and making it all of one parcel of land. And you know, we will work with the staff. Any type of verbage or any way they want it. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Billy Garrington: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Baum? John Baum: Can you run your red marker down the lot line? Billy Garrington: Sure. John Baum: The red marker would do better. Billy Garrington: Mr. Baum, the property line is here, goes to here, over to here and this is the drive thru that goes to the back of the building. It just misses that drive thru and comes back out to Virginia Beach Boulevard. Ronald Ripley: Okay. John Baum: In the future, it would help us if it were on our maps. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Billy Garrington: I apologize Mr. Ripley. I have a copy of the site plan that shows exactly where the lot line is. Item # 12 Charlie Falk Auto Wholesalers, Inc. Page 7 Robert Vakos: So there is site plan? Billy Garrington: Yes sir. There is a conceptual plan (inaudible). The landscaping. Here is your property line and as you can see it runs just inside this drive thru right up here, 19,000 square feet now and at one time it was 19,906 square feet but that was reduced because the lot (inaudible). Ronald Ripley: Okay? Betsy? Betsy Atkinson: Is the required parking a function of the size of the building, like if you did away with the used car and just had an office building? Billy Garrington: Yes ma'am. Betsy Atkinson: So if you ever wanted to see two parcels, you'd probably be better off taking the building down and dividing it into half and selling two equal parcels. Billy Garrington: Possibility. Betsy Atkinson: I'm not opposed to not vacating the property line. I understand your owners. I wouldn't want to vote for this without some kind of other language or reassurance or something that protects the City as far as what you said, as far as the lease would be. Billy Garrington: Okay. Betsy Atkinson: Is that possible to do Mr. Scott? And no one else may agree with me on that though so I may be way out in left field. Robert Scott: I feel at this point after talking about this a few minutes and hearing the applicants point of view, the chances of ironing this out to perfection at this moment is not great. Betsy Atkinson: Can we defer it for thirty days? John Baum: Are you looking at any of us in particular? Robert Scott: I don't know what the applicant's time schedule is. I don't want to ask him to necessarily put it off to do this but at some point we need to come to some -- whether it's adding language which has been suggested by Mr. Garrington or some other form. We need to identify, in that order what our concerns are and to have the applicant address them. And I also think we need to be in a position where we're uniformly. This is a concern that doesn't exist here. We need to uniformly to do this. Other applicants have agreed to this today but we certainly don't want to say that just because one person Item #12 Charlie Falk Auto Wholesalers, Inc. Page 8 agreed to it that everybody agrees to it. Maybe we can work with Mr. Garrington to see if we can come up with some sort of solution that reasonably responds to. Betsy Atkinson: Mr. Garrington. Would you be agreeable to a 30-day deferral? Billy Garrington: If it works toward getting the language so that you don't have to vacate the parking lot, by all means, I would agree to that. Or if you felt like you wanted to approve it based upon Mr. Scott and I getting together.., okay. Betsy Atkinson: Okay. Billy Garrington: I had to ask. Robert Scott: I can't promise what the outcome is going to be. Betsy Atkinson: I understand. I understand. I think it gives everybody a chance to sit down. There's all kinds of language flying around right now. Billy Garrington: If we need to defer it for 30-days, that's f'me. Ronald Ripley: I think our position is would either do that which is probably the best thing to do and really, probably need something almost in form of a proffer, if you really wanted it enforceable. Billy Garrington: That's no problem. Ronald Ripley: I would think or pass this along like it is and let Council, if that's not good for them, you would probably find yourself in the same position. Billy Garrington: Probably. Ronald Ripley: So I think it's probably your best bet to try and work that out. Billy Garrington: I agree. Again, you hear that everybody's going to agree to tell you that they're an attorney. I'm not an attorney. It sure looks to me like that if you do it you're downzoning, the saleable rights to your property and that's what Mr. Falk would be doing if he voluntary agreed to it. If it was a land use issue that would be fine. I just don't think it's a land use issue. Robert Miller: I think one of the things. I'm sorry. Ronald Ripley: I'm finished. Robert Miller: One of the things and you and I have talked about this too is that there certainly are legal rights that go with the ownership of property and that's very important to protect probably the most important things we can think of, but I do believe that under Item gl 2 Charlie Falk Auto Wholesalers, Inc. Page 9 the use permit idea, the concept of use permit and I'm a little surprised we don't follow the site plan also, but that's okay, that you do have, like you just said, a use that would be using this entire property, both pieces. If there were three, there be three pieces. And while that Use is going on, then those properties are encumbered, literally by that same use permit. So that use would have to stop and then you would have to go back and really actually regen the whole thing back in some form to market it. It almost seems a little extraneous that it would happen in that way without going through, literally without the disrespect, a redevelopment metamorphosis type, tear it down and start all over again situation. So, maybe we're boarding on ill logic to try to explain logic here without disrespect so it does feel like. I like protecting the lots and protecting people's fights but I think that there's also a place where we have to say okay is this non-conforming lot encumbered for an indefinite period of time beyond where we can-see and do we therefore, you know. Because the ordinances, ten years, fifteen years from now, who knows what they'll say. Billy Garfington: That's exactly right. Robert Miller: So I think there's certainly something to be said for standing on some line and we did vacate the lot line on the other site we just talked about up at Pacific and I know in the site plan process, and I do know in the sub-division process, we're always -- not always, ! think we were almost always asked to, if not, asked - told we must vacate existing property lines so perhaps there are some little vague places here. Ronald Ripley: So you're interested in deferring this? Is that a request? Billy Garrington: Ah yes sir. If you don't mind Mr. Chairman, a 30-day deferral so we can work with Mr. Scott to see if we can work out the language to get an agreeable solution to condition number 2. Ronald Ripley: Okay. There's a request. Robert Vakos: So moved. Do we have a motion to that effect? Ronald Ripley: So moved by Bob Vakos. Seconded by Dot Wood.. Robert Miller: But I will note to you, by the way, there's always indefinite deferrals. They're not 30-day deferrals. Ronald Ripley: Okay, we got a motion and a second. We're ready to vote. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE Item #12 Charlie Falk Auto Wholesalers, Inc. Page 10 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 carries to defer this indefinitely. I think that is probably everything on our agenda unless someone has some other matter to bring up. If not. Dorothy Wood: Ronald Ripley: Congratulations. If not this meeting's adjourned. Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: DJ,SCLOSURE ST TEN ENT PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Anach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If theft 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) 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. Rev. 9/15/98 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines MEETING DATE: June 11,2002 Background: The 1997 report, entitled, "Bayfront, Virginia Beach, Virginia: An Evaluation of the Area's Potential and A Strategy for its Enhancement and Development," produced by an Advisory Services Panel of the Urban Land Institute (ULI), established the foundation for the ongoing planning and implementation efforts for the Shore Drive Corridor. The Shore Drive Corridor Plan, adopted by the City Council in 1998 as a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan, was produced by the Shore Drive Advisory Committee in response to the recommendations of the ULI report. Both the ULI report and the Shore Drive Corridor Plan recommended that architectural, landscape, and urban design plans be developed for the corridor. In response to those recommendations, this document was produced to provide design guidelines for architectural, site, and landscape improvements proposed for properties within the corridor. The guidelines are the result of work done by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. and Folck, West & Savage Architects, as part of the Shore Drive Transportation Study (Capital Improvement Program Project # 2-114), as well as work conducted by staff of the Planning Department, which included a photographic inventory of the corridor, design analysis of existing conditions, and review of previous plans, subdivision plats, and zoning documents. Considerations: The guidelines provide design guidance for the properties adjacent to Shore Drive, from Independence Boulevard on the west to First Landing State Park on the east, and for the remainder of the area located within the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay. This area is described in Section 1700 of the City Zoning Ordinance and is designated on the Official Zoning Maps by a (SD) symbol following the primary zoning district designation. These guidelines do not attempt to dictate a particular architectural style, but are provided in order to Encourage development consistent with the community's goals that will achieve the physical characteristics necessary to enhance the economic vitality and visual aesthetics of the Shore Drive corridor; Attachments: Guidelines Document Ordinance Recommended Action: Staff recommends adoption of the Guidelines as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission recommends adoption. Submitting D~_partment/Agencyi_l~lanning Department ': "~' Shore Drive Design Guidelines Page 2 Ensure that the scale and context of new buildings are compatible with the desired character of the community, while encouraging existing buildings to upgrade to meet the higher standards of design; and o Ensure that development relates to the pedestrian as well as to the automobile, and that non-residential uses are compatible with adjacent residential areas. The Guidelines will be applied to proposals for development with the area. The primary means of application will be though the conditional use permit and change of zoning processes. However, the concepts within the Guidelines will also be applied to "by-right" development proposals through negotiation and, as opportunities present themselves, incentives. The Guidelines have been presented to the Shore Drive Advisory Committee, development, real state, and merchant groups in the area, and to civic organizations in the corridor. Various suggestions from these groups were considered and some integrated into the document. Recommendations: Staff recommends adoption of the Guidelines as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Upon adoption, staff will continue work already started with property owners and developers within the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District in applying the design recommendations of the Guidelines to proposed projects. April 10, 2002 Background: The 1997 report, entitled, "Bayfront, Virginia Beach, Virginia: An Evaluation of the Area's Potential and A Strategy for its Enhancement and Development," produced by an Advisory Services Panel of the Urban Land Institute (ULI), established the foundation for the ongoing planning and implementation efforts for the Shore Drive Corridor. The Shore Drive Corridor Plan, adopted by the City Council in 1998 as a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan, was produced by the Shore Drive Advisory Committee in response, to the recommendations of the ULI report. Both the ULI report and the Shore Drive Corridor Plan recommended that architectural, landscape, and urban design plans be developed for the corridor. In response to those recommendations, this document was produced to provide design guidelines for architectural, site, and landscape improvements proposed for properties within the corridor. The guidelines are the result of work done by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. and Folck, West & Savage Architects, as part of the Shore Drive Transportation Study (Capital Improvement Program Project # 2-114), as well as work conducted by staff of the Planning Department, which included a photographic inventory of the corridor, design analysis of existing conditions, and review of previous plans, subdivision plats, and zoning documents. Proposed Amendments: The attached ordinance, upon adoption, would amend the Comprehensive Plan by incorporating the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines. Planning Commission Agenda April 10, 2002 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - SHORE DRIVE GUIDELINES ! # 22 Page I Evaluation: The proposed amendment is recommended for approval. The guidelines are the result of months of work involving the consultants working on the Shore Drive Transportation Study, the Shore Drive Advisory Committee, City staff, the public, and the development community. The guidelines, while not having the force of an ordinance, will be used by staff in evaluating change of zoning and conditional use permit requests in the area and during discussions with those interested in developing within the Shore Drive Corridor. Experience with similar guidelines for General Booth Boulevard and those associated with the Retail Design Ordinance reveal that this approach has proved successful and should also prove successful for Shore Drive. Planning Commission Agenda April 10, 2002 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH - SHORE DRIVE GUIDELINES / # 22 Page 2 1 2 3 4 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY THE INCORPORATION OF THE SHORE DRIVE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan") of the City of Virginia Beach be, and hereby is, amended and reordained by the incorporation therein of that certain document entitled "Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines," dated March, 2002, (the "Design Guidelines") into the Appendix to the Plan. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF ~'HE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: Tha~ a true copy of the said Design Guidelines are hereto attached and are hereby incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. COMMENT The proposed ordnance amends the Comprehensive Plan by ad~ng the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines to the Comprehensive Plan's Appendix. The Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines are dated March, 2002. 20 21 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 CA-8418 bkw/work/shoredrord.wpd R-1 February 26, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Item #22 City of Virginia Beach Ordinance to adopt as an Appendix to the Comprehensive Plan the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: We will have items 22, 23, 24 & 25 are the City of Virginia Beach and I think Mr. Scott will tell us about this. Robert Scott: I recall my promise to brevity as well. Dorothy Wood: Thank you sir. Robert Scott: First of all, the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines are some guidelines that have been devised by the staff with the assistance of the Shore Drive Advisory Committee to add a special level of character to the Shore Drive area that we think is, over time is going to help develop a better quality in that area. We have discussed this matter extensively with interested groups in the area, business groups, civic groups, service groups and other groups of that nature. We are happy to report to you today that the feedback that we get is positive from all comers. We feel very confident in recommending this new set of guidelines to you as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and probably as a sort of a pilot program that I'm hopeful we can pick up on and maybe duplicate in some other areas of the City that can benefit from it as well.. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. This was Item #22, City of Virginia Beach, an ordinance to adopt as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan to the Shore Corridor Design Guidelines. Is there any objection to Item #227 Hearing none, Mr. Ripley, I would like to move to approve the 14 items on the consent agenda. Number 1, 7, 8 with six conditions; number 10 with four conditions, number 14; number 16 with four conditions; number 17 with eleven conditions; number 18 with four conditions; number 19 with eight conditions; number 21 with nine conditions and then number 22-25. Ronald Ripley: So that is the motion by Dot. Do we have a second? Charles Salle': Second. Ronald Ripley: Seconded by Charlie Salle'. Discussion? Ronald Ripley: Anybody else? Motion been made. Seconded and the abstention so noted. We are ready to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 1 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, motion passes. (Robert Miller abstained from Item #23, 24, and 25) Rd. E fi o NO...' e 0 mo OZD.~ 0 ~ ~oo .g~ o....._ =_ ..o . ~. 'o--. _. '~'" §~ 'o . ~ C,) ,,~". ~ 0 0 (~ 0:3 o ~ ,,~ ~o e.~ ~o O~n !I'm not kidding ~round. April 23, '2002 I'm serious about it. CITY CLERK: Mayor, may I have your vote? MAYOR OBERNDORF: Yes. CITY CLERK: The vote is 9 to O. EDDIE BOURDON: Madam Mayor, I think the neighborhood is quite organized. When I contacted two of the spokespersons who actually had spoken to me about this Application a couple of years ago -- you know I know I have been talking to people who were talking to everybody else in the neighborhood. And, Councilman Jones, I appreciate the subtle hint. I got that one. CITY CLERK: That will be June the llth. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Well, we have made that decision. And at the request of your Council Member Jones, that it is not going back to the Planning Commission, but that Mr. Bourdon and his client would get with you-all to see if you can come up with a solution that will be comfortable for those who are sitting on my left and for those sitting on my right. CITY CLERK: Your Honor, that will be June the llth. I~YOR OBERNDORF: Oh, good. COUNCILMAN JONES: Good. June the llth. MAYOR OBERNDORF: That will be my 41st Wedding Anniversary. Good luck. Work it out. April 23, 2002 .~nother round of ~et noise people before us. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: We don't have any control over that. It's a democracy. JAMES CHAPMAN: If we could get heard early. COUNCILMAN JONES: We could probably get you early on the Planning. JAMES CHAPMAN: And it may well be that in light of the comments that have been made and Mr. Bourdon still negotiating, maybe we'll work out a resolution. COUNCILMAN JONES: Madam Mayor. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Jones. COUNCILMAN JONES: do. This is just going to go on and on and on. I have already made my mind what I want to MAYOR OBERNDORF: Well, you're the man in charge of the Borough. COUNCILMAN JONES: Ail right. I'm going to make a motion to defer this until the second meeting in June and that would give Mr. Bourdon time to get with the community and try to work it out. I would just caution you, Mr. Bourdon, that if you come in with more than 16 units, you're going to get a denial. Okay. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: Second. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Are we ready for the question? ~ Don't forget to get in touch with the neighbors, Mr. Bourdon, that you see here. Do you have their names? April 23, 2002 ~he fact that fol~s came dowT~ here, including Mr. Chapman, opposed 'this -- you know I was quite taken back by his presence and the fact that -- frankly some of the comments. But it doesn't serve us any purpose to get into a public fight about it. If there is a way to resolve it, that was my total intent. If there's not a way to resolve it, then Council should act as it wishes to act. The reality of it is I don't want anybody to walk out of here believing that there is no way that any road will go through, ' because I don't believe that's the case. I'm not saying that it will be one way or the other, but that answer can't be given on a by right development by this Body. ~nd with a road that's already stubbed in from Ewell, I think it's a very difficult argument that you have to put a cul-de-sac in from Wakefield. COLTNCIL~ JONES: Okay. Well, we're going to try to resolve this the easiest way we can, Mr. Bourdon. The easiest way it appears to resolve it is to defer it. What's the next Meeting that we can have it on the Agenda Mrs. Smith? CITY CLERK: The 14th of May. COUNCILMAN JONES: No. We don't want to do it on the 14th. MAYOR OBERNDORF: We all have to sit through the same -- COUNCIIRW_~N JONES: The 2$th of May, would that be all right? EDDIE BOURDON: I will be glad to hear from -- I frankly think it may take into June just so we have enough time to meet with all the constituents that are out there. COUNCIL LADY EI3RE: Just make it indefinite. J~IES CHAPbIAN: As long as whatever Agenda you're setting, it on, if it's on May 28, that there's not April 23, 2002 ~lanning Commissiqn to try to resolve this. There's been a lot of -- you know there's a lot of people attempting to speak for the neighborhood as well. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: One question I have for you, Mr. Bourdon, is who told you that it was going to be referred back? Because candidly I was expecting -- I had no notion that it was going to be referred back until it was stated to me, you know, in the Workshop in the Informal Session. EDDIE BOURDON: In a couple of conversations with Councilman Jones, I sent a letter to Councilman Jones and Planning Director Scott requesting to advise me if that was the course of action that they had any objection to and the answer was that they didn't have any objection to it. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: In all fairness to Mr. Jones, I don't think he had knowledge to the community -- EDDIE BOURDON: Nor did I actually, you know, Mr. Harrison. The fact that I had a pleasant conversation with Mr. Chapman on Wednesday, where I told him exactly what's in my letter of March 22nd -- and he would acknowledge that verbatim -- explaining what we were looking at trying to do, which was to go try to figure out a 17-lot subdivision as the Staff indicated was agreeable and Mr. Chapman did not express to me any reservation. He didn't say he supported it, but he said I'm going to object to that. We are going to object to that. You know, in fact he was very complementary -- glad that we were -- you know because I was getting involved to try to resolve it and looked forward to trying to do so. I didn't get any phone calls or messages left on my voice mail that, now, that was a problem. So, this whole thing -- you know I frankly believe this was a done-deal, not a done-deal as far as what -- the bottom line would be that we wouId make a final effort to try to resolve it and that was the only attempt to begin with. 27 April 23, 2002 ~o the Planning CQmmission. We could just defer it. He could come back with a revised plan of 16 units and, then, we could hear the Application on its merits on that basis; is that right? ROBERT SCOTT: Yes, sir. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Bourdon, some of your finest moments having been when you've negotiated a responsible position between the developer you're representing and the neighbors. EDDIE BOURDON: Madam Mayor, I appreciate the complement and that is -- the only reason I stuck my neck into this one is I thought that was a possibility. A_nd I don't mean to interrupt. Mr. Jones' option is certainly an option that we're amenable to. The reality of this situation is it's going to take time and the purpose was to attempt to -- I have no authority for 16 lots, but if the Body wants to, rather than send it back, keep it here for a while -- but it's not going to be something that's going to be accomplished in two weeks. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: I think what you're hearing is that it isn't going to get referred back to the Planning Commission and that your best bet is to probably narrow this thing down to 15 or 16 lots and make sure your plan has a cul-de-sac and, then, you will probably hear a lot of "I votes" and a lot of support from your fellow neighbors. EDDIE BOURDON: Mr. Harrison, I would reiterate I have absolutely no authority to bring any such, you know, reduction and suggest the 16 lots or 17 lots. And, secondly, given the history that I have, I have read the transcripts; and, you know, it comes to me with -- there are a lot of people you have not heard from tonight who were told not to come because they understood it was going to be referred back to the 26 April 23, 2002 ~ut, that suggestion -- Madam Mayor, the hour is late. I do do my ~ homework and I'm not going to get into an argument with anybody about what the cost of putting a road in is, but suffice it to say that that is not a fact just because someone told her that at a meeting and I will leave it at that. The option to put the road in off of Ewetl -- that was what was anticipated, obviously, by the road being platted for meaning that way. Whether it's a through-street or a cul-de-sac, my whole intent here and my only purpose in getting involved at the eleventh and-a-half hour was to try -- because I do have a lot of acquaintances, clients, in Thoroughgood and to try to see if there was a way to find a solution and that's it in a nutshell, to attempt to find a solution. But, I don't think anyone can sit here and tell these folks tonight legitimately that the road will not go through there if Mr. Bowden attempts to develop this property by right. That statement cannot be given to those folks tonight if this Application is denied. The intent is not to try to jam anything down anybody's throat, but to have everybody understand what the playing field is.and try to find out if there is a solution to this situation. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mr. Jones. COUNCILMAN JONES: Mr. Scott, if we didn't refer it back to the Planning Commission, can the Applicant revise his plan and come -- if we deferred it, just deferred this Application, let Applicant can come back with a revised plan for 16 units? ROBERT SCOTT: It is a conditional Rezoning Application. So, there is a procedure in the Zoning Ordinance for him to defer it, to make Amendments and come back with a revised set of proffers, without going back to the Planning Commission. COUNCILMAN JONES: Okay. So, it wouldn't have to be sent back 25 April 23, 2002 ~very indication 7- he didn't indicate to me any problem of what we Were trying to do and appreciated the fact that we were going to try to resolve it. So, that was the intent. That is the intent. We didn't have to go -- people didn't have to come down and spend all night here tonight. That was their choice -- and I guess the fact that the Consent Agenda was not heard at the beginning. We would have been here anyway. But the issue with regard to the street, it is something -- the neighborhood is in disagreement. There are a number of people in the neighborhood who supported the Application at 18 and I presume supported it at 19, but I wasn't involved. What is very noteworthy is that -- if you look at the street patterns throughout Thoroughgood and you look at the street pattern here granted, you know, the Planning Director has some discretion in approving road wideness, it's basically -- it's not a political issue, because it's not a rezoning if you go in by right. And, obviously, this has already been anticipated that the road would come in here, because that's already been platted in the City right-of-way. The question becomes one of whether it comes in here and cul-de-sac or goes all the way through and it's really a traffic engineering issue and there are some cost issues involved where -- actually it's the other way around from what one of the ladies said. It's 'actually less expensive to put the through-street than to put the cul-de-sac in. KATHY WILLIAMS: No. More expensive. EDDIE BOURDON: Okay. I appreciate your engineering degree. MAYOR OBERNDORF: No. No. She was at a meeting for engineers. EDDIE BOURDON: Someone may have made that statement at a ~ meeting. I don't know who made it. It wasn't at the meeting that I was at. 24 April 23, '2002 ~ock and a hard spot thinking that the choice was 13 houses with a through-street or.allow it to be referred back to discuss 17. If we are going to not have the 13 homes and a through-street and we have 13 homes in a court and control that, I don't think there's anything wrong with denying it. It's a strong denial now. Let's have the one-year cooling-off period. We have invested hours into this over and over. Mr. Bourdon is upset that he wasn't notified. We've been upset that we weren't notified over different times. Let's take that one-year cooling-off period. I have a concern about the one-year cooling-off period if the developer can go ahead and force a hand and put 13 homes and a through-street and do harm to some of the folks who feel that way. for one would like to see a court and 15 or 16 homes. But I would like to see a cooling-off period if we're all comfortable that that option is not available to the developer. Thank you. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you. CITY CLERK: That's all the speakers, YOur Honor. EDDIE BOURDON: Ail right. Madam Mayor, I will try to be brief because I'm not going to get into the merits of the past, because I don't have any firsthand knowledge of the past. What I do have knowledge of is the communication that I had with Mr. Chapman and I left my friend, Dan Sykes, a voice mail message -- we weren't able to talk -- at which I went into detail with Mr. Chapman and in my message with Mr. Sykes about what was being requested. It's exactly what I put in my letter to Councilman Jones and the Planning Director, Robert Scott on March 22nd and that's that the matter be referred to the Planning Commission in an effort to look at solutions to the problem and to get it over once and for all. Frankly, I was caught off guard neither Dan nor Jim contacted me, left me any messages. In fact, when I talked to Mr. Chapman, I got 23 April 23, 2002 ~e's allowed to bgild 13 houses, put in 13 building lots right now ' ~nder that existing zoning and I would say if he wants to do that let him do that. Let him start it tomorrow. I don't have a problem with that, but 18, 19, 17, 16 is too many houses. I don't see -- in all of the many hours I have spent listening to people talk about this, I haven't heard one single good reason why we should change this to his benefit when it's to the detriment of the people who are living adjacent to the property -- and one of them is me. My concern is if this matter goes back to the Planning Department that we're still on this merry-go-round that goes around and around and comes up for 17 and then in a year it comes up for 16 and it's just -- it's getting late and it's getting long. I personally would like to see a through-street. I understand there are others with other views. The problem being that if you're coming out of a cul-de-sac down and circling around on Wakefield down to Dunstan or Delray, Delray is a narrow street. It's curvy. Dunstan Lane is a broad, straight shot judging by the speeders that are on there, in addition to all the school buses and the other traffic. And being that Ewell is the only light egress or ingress into the property, everybody is going to start going around on Dunstan and come out on Ewell. With all that traffic, I would be willing to bet that very little of it ever goes around to Delray. It's all going to come down Dunstan, and we have a lot of traffic on that street as it is. Thank you. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you much for being patient. CITY CLERK: Dan Sykes. DAN SYKES: Good evening, Mayor -- MAYOR OBERNDORF: Good evening. DAN SYKES: -- and City Council. I really didn't think I was going to come up here and be put in a 22 April 23, 2002 ~e've spent many follow-up meetings with neighbors on Delray, Wakefield and what have you. We have kept the civic league updated on this matter and the Board of Directors discussed it just last month. And, you know, we would like to see the area developed within 13 to 16 lots. We would like some rest in here. If this goes back to Planning, we are back into hours and hours of time and effort in the neighborhood with uncertainty and we would like to see it -- you know give us a year rested by denying it or we will know he will be building 13 lots. And, hopefully, Mr. Scott will be monitoring the street situation. Thank you. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you very much. CITY CLERK: Cheryl Benn. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Good evening. CHERYL BENN: My name is Cheryl Benn and I live at 1377 Dunstan which is -- well you can't see it too well here, but it's right about there. Oh, is that you? Okay. Well, then I'm right in here. It's hard to see on this map. I come here in front of you in opposition to the proposed rezoning. The property as you can see on the other map -- the property is surrounded on two sides by R-30, on one side by R-40 and on the fourth side, my side, I own R-20. But if you go out and look at the houses on Dunstan -- and I have canvased my neighbors. I sent a flyer around and I have gathered some information from my neighbors. Those lots on Dunstan Lane and Dunstan Circle range from 24,000 to almost 40,000. They are not 20,000 square foot lots -- excuse me. From 25,000 to nearly 40. They are not R-20 lots. Mr. Bowden wants to put 25,000 square foot lots backing up to the Delray Property and then he wants to put 20,000 square foot lots backing onto the Dunstan side. It's too many and the lots are too small. 21 through. April 23, 2002 COUNCIL LADY EURE: Well, nobody wants anything. as well defer it. So, we might COUNCILMAN JONES: We've got other people -- if they want to talk, we ought to hear them. JAMES CHAPMAN: much. I have been up here way too long and I appreciate your indulgence. Thank you very CITY CLERK: Kathy Williams. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Time flies when you're having a good time. Good evening. KATHY WILLIAMS: Good evening. I'm here representing the civic league. I'm presently the President Elect, but I've been involved with this matter ever since it came up in 1999. I've spent many hours here and outside of this process with Mr. Bowden trying to reach consensus. We have great concerns about this being referred back to the Planning Commission. We have a strong denial here. We have continuously encountered Mr. Bowden's unwillingness to negotiate in good faith. This threat to put the street through is very insulting when he sits in his engineer's office and evaluated the through-street issue and said with the lay of the land, especially the drainage, would not accommodate it and that it would be much much too costly for him to develop a through-street. I have notes from those meetings. I really am upset that we would be trying to put neighbor against neighbor. We have wrestled through these issues and we prioritized these issues the last time with density being the most significant issue to us, withal3 being permitted and 15 to 16 being what we were willing to compromise at. 20 April 23, 2002 COUNCIL LADY EURE~ Is that what you're talking about? Well, that's what who is talking about? The Applicant? Because we kept saying that the through-street that was going to be opened up if I understood Mr. Redmond. ROBERT SCOTT: Mrs. Eure -- COUNCIL LADY EURE: But now we're talking abo~t the possibility that he said -- am I understanding that the Applicant says I will run the street from Wakefield through to Ewell? Or do we know? COUNCII/~ JONES: depending on what Mr. Scott decides. deny the Application outright, then one of the options for the developer is to bring in a site plan with 13 lots and request Mr. Scott, as the Planning Director, to allow him to put the street through. What we know is that that may be an option If we COUNCIL LADY EUP~: From Wakefield to Ewell? COUNCII/4AN JONES: That's right. COUNCIL LADY EURE: Well, I would like to ask this gentleman his opinion on that. That would distribute the traffic, you know, both ways. JA/4ES CHAlk: There have been arguments made within our community, by the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission in the prior Application that a through-street was necessary so that the traffic could empty out onto either end and people would have access to Ewell Road without having to drive down to Wakefield all the way around and then up Dunstan, in order to get to Ewell. There are a lot of people that live on Wakefield and Dunstan that had that concern. COUNCIIA~/AN JONES:~ But there are also people that live in the community who don't want that street to 19 $OBERT SCOTT: April 23, 2002 No developer gets to get the unilateral say,' I am going to tie into this public street. COL~NCII/W3%N JONES: That's right. The developer won't make the decision. Mr. Scott will make the decision. PhkYOR OBERNDORF: You mean, Mr. Scott, if you sat here tonight and you heard the will of-the Council that there not be a street put through, you could administratively decide to go ahead and put it through? ROBERT SCOTT: So long as there is a reasonable alternative and I think there is. ~YOR OBERNDORF: You mean so long as there is a reasonable alternative not to put it through? ROBERT SCOTT: Right. Which is the cul-de-saC coming out on the other side. That's a reasonable way to serve the property and if I think it is we can work with the Applicant, the property owner, to make sure that happens that way. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Well, I know Mr. Jones knows his neighborhoods and he knows the procedure, but my problem is I'm looking at people who sat here from before 6:00 and it's now 11:00 and they are going to have to go right back through the circuit again. God knows how long that will take and -- but I can understand why getting a deferral back to the Planning Commission especially when this Planning Commission denied it. So, that they can get a second shot of getting it approved and maybe get it through the Council. Mrs. Eure. COUNCIL LADY EURE: Nothing has been said about Wakefield Drive Community and when he first said a through-street I thought he meant eliminating the cul-de-sac and have the street go all the way through from Ewell to Wakefield. JAMES CHAPMAN: That's correct. 18 April 23, 2002 ~roperty. He wil% then go to the Planning Department and he will ask Whether or not helcan put the road through, if that's what he wants to do. The Planning Department will administratively then make that decision, do you understand that? COUNCIL LADY EURE: COUNCILMAN JONES: correct, Mr. Scott? May I ask a questions? Yeah, the Planning Department will administratively make that decision. Am I ROBERT SCOTT: Yes, you are. We are not going to unreasonably withhold approval of any plan, but we are going to carefully review, as we always do, the impact of the proposal against the well-being of the community and we'll see to it that the property is well-served by a road system that works best for the property owner and the surrounding community. COUNCILMAN JONES: Application tonight -- So, what we have is if we deny the Application tonight, just outright deny the COUNCILMAN HARRISON: We haven't heard the Applicant. COUNCILMAN JONES: Applicant, Number 1. there in that community who don't want this road. any possibility of this road being approved. That's right that would be unfair to the Applicant because we haven't heard the Plus, the fact that we also have people out They don't want MAYOR OBERNDORF: But how can Mr. Scott say there is no bargaining chip by using this -- COUNCILbi~N JONES: That's right. , his decision. he comes to us and asks us. What he said was that it's It's not our decision unless 17 April 23, 2002 ~ost discouraging~thing that happens to civic leagues. They just ~lat get worn out ibecause they don't know when the things are going to get turned around or turned back or go forward. I'm just trying to find a way for Mr. Jones to be able to make sure there's not a street-through for the sake of Mr. Redmond but also -- could you-all live with 13 houses if you didn't have the street-through? JAMES CHAPMAN: zoning. There would be no objection to 13 houses. He can build 13 houses under the current MAYOR OBERNDORF: But with no road going through. JAMES CHAPMAN: Well, his position is, I'm going to put the road through because -- I think that's his bargaining chip to get the Council to agree to give him 17. MAYOR OBERNDORF: But wait a minute. Mr. Scott. JAMES CHAPMAN: I just heard what he said. ROBERT SCOTT: There is no bargaining chip is what I'm trying to say. COUNCILMAN JONES: He doesn't have that bargaining tool. JAMES CHAPMAN: I'm going to confess. I really don't know anything about the Planning procedures or how you-all do business. I'm just a concerned homeowner here in this process. But if Mr. Scott is right and they can say, no, you have to put it on a cul-de-sac, then, I think that solves Mr. Redmond's concern and it plainly solves -- COUNCILMAN JONES: Let's wait a minute now. Let's be careful ~ here. Okay. If we deny the Application, then this gentleman has the right to come in and build 13 lots on the 16 April 23, 2002 ~hrough-street intorder to irritate people like Mr. Redmond. COUNCII/W~AN JONES: There's 11 people up here who control that. Okay? That's what I'm trying to say to you. I mean, you know, because Mr. Bowden wants 17 doesn't mean he is going to get 17. There are 11 people up here at this dias who are going to make that decision. If he comes back and he insists on 17 and the conununity is opposed to it, then, he is not going to get it. MAYOR OBERNDORF: What I don't understand, Mr. Scott, is it an absolute that if he were just to get the 13 houses, he's entitled to with the zoning on the land, why does the street have to go through? ROBERT SCOTT: end to it right now. It doesn't. That's a fallacy that's being perpetuated here and I would like to put an MAYOR OBERNDORF: Thank you. ROBERT SCOTT: What streets people get to tie into is up to either the Planning Department if it's presented in that arena or the Council if it's part of a proffer. But you don't get to tie into any street you wish to tie into whenever there's a review process and an approval process. It has to be adhered to before such a change takes place. M3%YOR OBERNDORF: Ail right. Let me ask you this: Since the Planning Commission sent this on a 9 to 2 vote to deny the request for 19, if we denied it that would put Mr. Bowden back at his 13 homes, right? And not if it was the will of this Body tonight to say that he is not entitled and we would not support him putting that through-street. Wouldn't that resolve the whole thing? These people have been coming back and forth. That probably is the April 23, 2002 Wakefield, but it~can be very problematic going out Wakefield if you' Want to turn left, because the traffic on Independence is very dense. I'm not a traffic engineer. I'm just telling you things that I have heard, the concerns that have been raised. That's why many people oppose the idea of there actually being just a cul-de-sac with that density of houses on it -- if you put 19 homes in there. So, what the Planning Commission said two years ago, was okay. agree to you putting in 19, but it's got to be a through-street. That's the way it came -- We'll COUNCILMAN JONES: Nineteen is off the table. JAMES CHAPMAN: Yes, sir. COUNCILMAN JONES: I mean that's not going to happen. So, what we are dealing with now is the question of whether we want to refer it back to the Planning Commission in the hopes that Mr. Bourdon, for his client, is going to come back with something that we can all live with and at the same time satisfy -- there's a number of people out there who don't want that road to go through to Ewell Road I can tell you that, because I have been getting the telephone calls on it. So, what I'm trying to do is get the density down and solve the road issue at the same time. That's why I'm inclined to refer it back to the Planning Commission, because I think -- for instance if we can get the density down to 16, based on what you said, YOU don't object to that. So, if we get the density down to 16 we can prevent the road from going through, it seems to me like we have won something here. JAMES CHAPMAN: Mr. Jones, you and I think a like in the sense that we want to try to find some common ground and some place to compromise. The difficulty that we have got here is that Mr. Bowden's proposal to go back to the Planning Commission is 17 or 13 and there's nothing in the middle. And if you don't agree to my 17, we're going to build 13 with a April 23, 2002 !JAMES CHA~: ~ Well, when you and I talked about this a couple of weeks ago before I knew Mr. Bourdon had been retained and that their plan was to try to get back to the Planning Commission, all I know was that they wanted 18, and we were opposed to 18. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: And I thought that there was going to be a motion for denial and I told you then that I would support the motion for denial if that was the recommendation of the Borough Councilman and I'm still in that position. COUNCILMAN JONES: Anud that's what I would do if it were 18 lots. JAMES CHAPMAN: And, in fact, that was my discussion with Mr. Jones which was just a few days after the Planning Commission Meeting back in March. The concern that I have got at this point that you've raised in terms of the Planning Commission, is the Planning Commission approved the 19 lots to begin with and they did that without any input whatsoever from the neighborhood. That was two years ago. I said the Planning Commission. I meant the Planning Staff. Planning Conunission likewise approved it with he proviso that it had be a through-street. They were okay with the idea of 19 lots, but it had to be a through-street because the traffic -- there are other people that will speak after me that live on Dunstan that are concerned that when you put in a cul-de-sac where all o_f the traffic would come out at this end and you can't see on the map, but Wakefield Drive connects to Dunstan Lane, and you have to go out Ewell to find the only -- here you go. Come down Wakefield. You go down Dunstan Lane. You have to go out Ewell to Independence, which is the only traffic-signal controlled intersection into or out of Thoroughgood. COUNCILMAN JONES: Now, you can go out Wakefield too. JA/~ES CHAPMAN: Yes, sir, you can. You can go out April 23, 2002 !We're amenable tv the idea of a cul-de-sac. I fully understand ~ · Mr. Redmond's concern too by not wanting a through-street, but Mr. Bowden's negotiating position is give me 17 or I'm going to build a through-street that Mr. Reckmond hates. And he's trying to play this City Council off of each other to his benefit and I urge you not to let him do that. I'm willing to negotiate with him and I believe most of my neighbors are absolutely willing to negotiate a reasonable compromise, but that's not what is on the table right now. What is on the table is give me permission, pretty please, to go back to the Planning Commission so that I can get 17, which you know from the neighbors that adjoin this property that they don't want to see that happen. So, that's what we're asking, Mr. Harrison. COUNCILMAN HAP~RISON: Well, the one thing that we would get by going back to the Planning Commission -- I know it will take a lot more of your time and time of your neighbors, but I'm not sure what the Staff's recommendation is on 17 lots and I'm not sure what the Planning Commission,s recommendation is. Many times I voted against the neighborhood on a Planning matter because the professionals on the Staff and the common-sense people on the Planning Commission were in favor of something. If we don't let this thing go through the process, it is the Applicant's right to stop and say wait a minute. I want to go back. Maybe it's going to result in a negative vote ultimately when it comes here because of the way Mr. Bowden has played the game. I understand that your argument gets stronger every time you're forced to come through eight-hour Public Hearings. Your equities get stronger every time and your hands are cleaner and cleaner, but I think for us to say -- you know we are going to allow you to negotiate, but it's still going to have to come from the Planning Commission at 16 lots or 15 lots and it may come against you with 17 lots. But, if we're not getting the benefit of our own Planning Director and our own Planning Commission with the position you're taking -- that's kind of the way I see it. April 23, 2002 !voted 9 to 2 against that plan. We were there the whole day for -their Meeting, just like we were there for their Meeting two years ago and this Meeting two years ago when it came up the first time. We had the misfortune last time to be here when there was some big Presentation on jet noise that we had to listen to, you know, 85 speakers on that issue. Of course, you had all kinds of other stuff on tonight -- and I'm sorry I'm belaboring this. Excuse me. But Mr. Bowden, the Applicant, after the Planning Commission, hired Mr. Bourdon and I didn't find out about that until Mr. Bourdon called me last Wednesday. I said that's great. I have known Mr. Bourdon for several years. In fact, he represented Thoroughgood in the Cox Redistricting fight last year and I think he's a great guy. I wish I had known earlier that he had been retained by Mr. Bowden, because in the meantime I had several phone conversations with Members of City Council about our feelings on this issue and that it was coming back up and that we were opposed to the proposal of 18. When Mr. Bourdon called me last Wednesday, he said listen. Mr. Bowden wants to withdraw the ApPlication and he Wants to submit it on the basis that he's going to shave one more lot off. It's going to be 17 this time. And, again, keep in mind we previously told him 15 or 16, not 17. This reminds me an awful lot of the fight that we had with the State of North Carolina over the Lake Gaston Pipeline where their whole goal was to win by slowly losing. So, he started at 19 two years ago. He came back at 18. Now, he wants to go back to the Planning Commission at 17, which we have told him we are not agreeable to. If Mr. Bourdon were to get up tonight and tell you I have authority from my client and we will go back to' the Planning Commission and ask for no more than 16, I would say I'm in agreement of that. But, that's not where we are and it may sound silly like we are fighting over one lot or I am. But at some point, you have got to figure out what's right in terms of this neighborhood. April 23, 2002 !had voted in favgr of the proposal and the Applicant was permitted, ' -with our acquiescence, to withdraw. And I know that just on an earlier issue tonight you dealt with what do you do when an Applicant withdraws. Well, we acquiesce that withdraw. At that time the Applicant wanted 19 lots. It is our understanding from the Planning Commission or the Planning Staff that the maximum number of homes he could build under that current zoning at R-30 is 13. We have attempted to negotiate a compromise and when I say, we, I candidly admit that I don't represent all of the landowners that abut this property, but I happen to live right next to it. I live on Delray, 4317 Delray, which is the third hose in from Ewell. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: There's a pointer right there. JAMES CHAP~: You could be dangerous with this thing. This is my house right here. My lot is actually close to 35,000 square feet, so I'm near an acre. When this thing first came up, I suggested, as did some other folks, that we could exceed to 15 or 16 lots in that area and a cul-de-sac. I have made that position clear all the way along that that's my view and other people feel the same way. And I respect that you're going to hear other people tonight -- you just heard from one -- who feels that 13 is it. It's zoned. You can live with it that way. Putting in 15 lots and -- is there another slide in this Presentation that actually shows the 18 or is this the only one in the program? Okay. Here we go. Again, just as a point of reference, that's my lot right there. As you can see if he were forced to build just 13, I would have one lot behind me which would be ideal. Of course, that's what I signed up for when I bought the property about six years ago. But, I'm willing to let him build two behind me and to rezone it that way. He ends up with seven down this side -- this is the current plan at 18 -- seven on this ~ide, ten on this side and basically one at the end. So, he wants 18. The Planning Commission, a month ago, at its Meeting on March 13th, !MAYOR OBERNDORF: April 23, 2002 I understand. JOHANNA KRALOWETZ: I mean for hours every time. MAYOR OBERNDORF: heavy Agenda. And believe me I recognize the fact that you have been very patient, all of you, for a COUNCILMAN HARRISON: as a matter of right? You would prefer the property stay R-30 and be developed under the Laws that exist now, JOHANNA KRALOWETZ: Yes. COUNCILMAN JONES: through to Ewell Road? Do you understand that if that's done that there will probably be a street that will go I just want to make sure. JOHANNA KRALOWETZ: I have no problem with that. I think that would be the more natural thing. COUNCILMAN JONES: I wanted to make sure. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Thank you. COUNCII14AN JONES: Mr. Redmond does have a problem with it. So, that's what we're dealing with here. JOHANNA KRALOWE TZ: Yeah. Thank you. CITY CLERK: James Chapman. JAMES CHAPMAN: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of Council. I think it's worth starting by providing a little bit of history. I know there are many of you that are on Council that lived through this a couple of years ago when it first came up. There may have been one or two changes I'm not sure, but two years ago we were before you after the Planning Commission April 23, 2002 !COUNCILMAN HARRISON: Okay. Thank you. JOHANNA ~OWETZ: Well, my name is Johanna Kralowetz. I live adjacent to the proposed development. I have not gotten a notification to this procedure. However, I would like to know if we could look at the zoning over there. I live on the R-20. This is my property. Even so, this is the zoning for 5-20. The properties are much bigger than you usually would find there. If you look at several of the properties along that entrance lane, they are close to -- my property is about a quarter of an acre. My house is close to 5,000 square feet and I'm just worried about the density there. What's proposed to us now is that we have larger lots on the north side of the development and still smaller lots on the south side of the development. I don't see why we should have a pocket of smaller properties there. Even so, the zoning is for R-20 on the south side. The practical thing is -- the reality is that this property is outdated there. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Do you have any other -- JOHANNA KPJkLOWETZ: Well, I don't really see why a rezoning should be necessary. After all in the 80's when this area was starting to the south, division of this property -- and when this house on Ewell Road was built, obviously, Mr. Bowden found that our City was fine with the development. Since then nothing has happened in this neighborhood, except that there have been some properties built on the R-40 zone of Wakefield side. So, that would not seem that they should have a downzone. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Do you oppose a deferral for this to go back to the Planning Commission? JOHANNA K1RALOWETZ: We are just coming from the Planning ConLmission obviously and we.are going back and forth for some time now. April 23, 2002 ! ~ said that you hadn't been notified and you' 'wished to be notified in the future. Once you request it, they will notify you, but I was just trying to explain to you perhaps why you didn't get an original notification. That's all. I was trying to help. DAVID REDMOND: I appreciate it. If I was in error, I apologize. I still would like to reiterate though if the Staff got a letter a month ago saying he's considering 13 lots and a through-street. Just tell me. Thank you for your time. MAYOR OBERNDORF: And, Mr. Redmond, you might want to call going. with. Mr. Jones to keep checking to see where it's I know he looks out after a lot of folks that I have worked COUNCILMAN JONES: Mr. Redmond has called me before. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. DAVID REDMOND: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you-all. CITY CLERK: Johanna Kralowetz. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: Your Honor, can I ask a question given the hour of the evening? Are the speakers here opposed to the referral of this item to the Planning Commission? Because that's what I think the "Borough Representative,, was going to do. If they are opposed to that, then we should hear them. But if they are not opposed to that, given the lateness of the hour, I wonder whether we could shorten the process. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. DAVID REDMOND: There are several that are opposed, Mr. Harrison. April 23, 2002 !Mr. Bowden is going to do. If we refer it back to the Planning -Commission, then,: we have the opportunity to negotiate a little bit and see if we can reduce, Number 1, the number of lots that he's applied for; and, Number 2, prevent that street from going through. DAVID REDMOND: Commission. I appreciate your word, Councilman. I would urge the Council to refer it to the Planning COUNCIL LA/DY EUP. E: Madam Mayor. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Mrs. Eure. COUNCIL LADY EURE: I would like to tell Mr. Redmond, if I may, that Staff notifies the adjoining property owners and I will defer to Mr. Scott. Since this is across the road from the Project -- I'm trying to wonder why you were not notified. Would he be considered an adjoining property owner or not? ROBERT SCOTT: No. We send certified letters to the property owners whose property abuts -- COUNCIL LADY El/RE: So, that's why you didn't get a notice. I just want you to know that. Do you know of any adjoining owners that didn't get a notice? DAVID REDMOND: It's not that easy. That is not my complaint. My complaint is my attorney and my brother, who you heard from earlier this evening, called the Planning Council on my behalf two days ago and asked the Planning Staff what's going on, what are you hearing? And their response was that Mr. Bowden had prepared a number of options to which both were for 17 houses. The only difference between them was whether or not there was a balance or an imbalanced site plan in regard to both sides of what would be that new street. There was no mention of any plan for a through-street for 13 houses. COUNCIL I2%DY EURE: I was addressing the concern. I thought you April 23, 2002 !down in a 70-degree turn on this, that would be a street -- if he ' · wants to put a through-street through, then, you're talking about cars that are going real fast when you have somebody stopping to make a turn. COUNCILMAN JONES: Mr. Harrison, that's not a street. DAVID REDMOND: It's not a street currently. drawn on the map. That's just COUNCILMAN JONES: paper street. There's a public right-of-way there, but the street has never been put through. It's a DAVID REDMOND: would generate. I am very much in any form opposed to that street for the pure safety problem that that We can talk later on about stop signs and the like that are really necessary on that road as fast as it is. Yes. I'm sorry. ~YOR OBERNDOP~F: Mr. Jones. COUNCILMAN JONES: Mr. Redmond, that would be the purpose of referring it back to the Planning Commission. If it's not referred back to the Planning Commission -- if it's denied in other words tonight. DAVID REDMOND: Uh-huh. COUNCILMAN JONES: What Mr. Bourdon I believe is saying is that his client has that right to go in there and develop 13 lots and he has the right to request to be able to put that street in to have access to Ewell Road. Now, whether or not the Planning Department would approve that. I don't have the answer to that question. But it's more likely if we don't refer it back to the Planning Commission that that's what April 23, 2002 !not fair to me a~d it certainly isn't fair to my daughter. As always, if you have any questions, I would be more than happy -- I will tell employ you another thing. Mr. Bourdon, I would appreciate it that if somebody sends a letter that very much affects my property, they might include me. This is the first time I have ever heard about it and I find that frankly very, very surprising and unfair for virtually everyone involved. MAYOR OBERNDORF: home is. There's a little laser right there -- a red light, I mean, for you to show us where your DAVID REDMOND: That's me. COUNCILMAN HA~ISON: Where is this through-street planned? DAVID REDMOND: The through-street -_ well, originally -- I have got to walk over there. Originally what he wanted to do is put an entrance in here and put a cul-de-sac .at the end. This would be on 17 houses. This is a stub street that he didn't intend to build at all. This is my house. This is Mr. Raines, Mr. Wahl and Mr. Thieleman. He wants 17 houses on a cul-de-sac. I don't know that 25,000 square foot lots is necessarily unfair in 2002, but I do know that whatever your decision is, the people who are involved in this ought to have more input, frankly, than they have heretofore. COUNCILMAN HARRISON: You said the speeding was on Ewell Road? DAVID REDMOND: Yes, sir. COUNCILMAlq H~kR1RISON: How is this going to change the impact of speeding on Ewell Road? DAVID REDMOND: I don't know that it will change it at all. That's my problem. If you have cars slowing April 23, 2002 !I'm very confused tonight and I'll tell you I am not just a little 'agitated and I will tell you why. Tonight for the very first time about an hour ago I found out that Mr. Bowden now has an option that he's considering to develop this property with 13 houses and a through-street. My house is that one with the 30 over it. That's the stub street. He does not want to build with 17 or 18 houses. My daughter can't be here tonight, because she's been in bed for four hours. She's one. A~qybody who has been up and down Ewell Road knows that it's a racetrack. I will stand out there if you would like with a radar gun and tell you what it is. That would be a 70-degree turn, which is not safe in any event and certainly not when you have cars at that speed with a one-year-old across the street. My neighbors, Mr. Raines, Mr. Thieleman, Mr. Wahl and the others have no idea that there is a proposal for any kind of development with a through-street. My neighbors who are going to stand up here tonight, to whom I have asked about it, proclaim not to know anything about what Mr. Bowles wants to do. No one tonight who you will hear from speaks for the neighborhood. They speak for themselves and themselves only and I would suggest that you hear from the neighborhood a little bit more. I know for a fact that my neighbors know nothing about a through-street and I certainly didn't until an hour agO. to watch it be deferred. came here So, I can only say this: This man is entitled to build 13 houses. He wants to build 17. I don't presume to know what the right density is. I do know there's R-20 on one side, R-30 on the other and plenty of lots that are zoned R-15 very nearby. Whatever he gets, just make it fair; but for crying out loud, please, don't make all the~ people who are involved in this have to find out an hour before it happens. I don't think it's fair to them and it's April 23, 2002 ~oning Ordinance.~ From communications that I received -- I mean it's very late in the game. I do think that there is an ability to get agreement among more of the community as to what's best. My client is willing to do what the Planning Staff has recommended in their recormmendation on this Application and that is going with 30,000 square foot lots on one side of the street. I still don't think that's the best solution, but we want to explore all our options once and for all and resolve it. That was the purpose of the request, which I understood was actually on Consent until the folks were here. So, I don't really have anything else to say, other than to request that it be referred back to the Planning Commission. MAYOR OBERNDOP. F: Thank you. EDDIE BOURDON: Thank you. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Those who are here, I don't have your names. CITY CLERK: We have David Redmond, Johanna Kralowetz, James Chapman, Kathy Williams and Dan Sykes. MAYOR OBERNDORF: Okay. Let's start with Mr. Redmond, I guess. CITY CLERK: Mr. Redmond. MAYOR OBERNDORF: I didn't realize you were a twin. DAVID REDMOND: You know now, don't you, Madam Mayor? MAYOR OBERNDORF: Yeah, that's confusing. DAVID REDMOND: Hi, Mayor. Thank you-all for the opportunity to be here tonight. April 23, 2002 ,~/AYOR OBERNDORF: Can we hear the next Application? CITY CLERK: Your Honor, it's Charles F. Bowden for a Change of Zoning from R-30 to Conditional R-20. Wakefield Drive and Delray Drive in Thoroughgood. We have several speakers on this item as well. representing the Applicant. Mr. Bourdon is EDDIE BOURDON: Madam Mayor, I am going to be very brief, because I have requested, after having been retained by Mr. Bowden and his family subsequent to the Planning Conunission, a Public Hearing on this Application. That the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission for the purpose of attempting to resolve these issues that have gone on now I guess for, from my understanding, a year and-a-half to two years. I sent a letter to Councilman Jones and to Planning Director Scott wherein I spelled out what my desires would be and asked them for their feedback. The feedback that I got was that that was, you know, a good idea. I communicated with a couple of the folks in Thoroughgood with whom I have personal relationships to let them know of this desire to try to resolve this once and for all. The Application -- and, again, I was given every indication that that was what was going to happen. My clients are not here. My client's supporters are not here. I was caught totally off-guard with having not received any corm~unication from anybody that I communicated that there was going to be an issue. So, we are not here to make a Presentation on this plan for 18 units on this property. This was, as I understand it, an Application similar -- it was recommended for approval for 19 lots, but was withdrawn somewhere over a year and-a-half ago. This Application, for 18 months, is not going to go forward this evening. We requested it be referred back to the Planning Commission. The other alternative was just to develop the property in 13 lots with a through-street as permitted in the 1 Virginia Beach City Council April 23, 2002 10: 30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL: Meyera E. Oberndorf, Mayor W.D. Sessoms, Jr., Vice Mayor Linwood O. Branch, III Margaret 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 CLER/<: STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER: James K. Spore Leslie L. Lilley Ruth Hodges Smith, MMC Dawne Franklin Meads VERBATIM Planning Application of Charles F. Bowden - 46- Item VI-N. 5. PLANNING ITEM # 49578 Attorney Edward Bourdon, Pembroke Office Park, 281 Independence Boulevard, Fifth Floor, Phone: 499-8971, represented the applicant and requested REFERRAL BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. The following registered in OPPOSITION: David Redmond, 1453 Ewell Road, Phone: 464-4114 Johanna Kralowetz, 1404 Christian Circle, Phone: 464-6384 James Chapman, 4317 Delray Drive, Phone: 363-0781 Kathy Williams, President - Elect - Thoroughgood Civic League, 1600 Keeling Landing Road, Phone: 464-9405 Cheryl Benn, 13 77 Dunstan Lane, Phone: 363- 7265 Dan Sykes, 4305 Delray Drive, Phone: 363-8553 Upon motion by Councilman Jones, seconded by Councilman Harrison, City Council DEFERRED to June 11, 2002, Ordinance upon application of CHARLES F. BOWDEN for a Conditional Change of Zoning: ORDINANCE UPON APPLICA TION OF CHARLES F. BO WDEN FOR A .CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM R-30 TO CONDITIONAL R-20 Ordinance upon Application of Charles F. Bowden for a .Change of Zoning .District Class#~cation 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. Voting.. 9-0 Council Members Voting Aye: Margaret L. Eure, William W. Harrison, Jr., Barbara M. Henley, Louis R. Jones, Reba S. McClanan, Robert C. Mandigo, Jr., Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, Nancy K. Parker and Rosemary Wilson Council Members Voting Nay: None Council Members Absent: Linwood O. Branch, III, and Vice Mayor William D. Sessoms, Jr. April 23, 2002 Map F-4 ~'"~ ~o~- ~o ~ Charles F. Bowden Gpin 1479-60-5795 ZONINGi 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 9/30/95 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 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: June 11,2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Charles F. Bowden for a Change of Zoninq District Classification from R-30 Residential District to Conditional R-20 Residential District 0n 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. This item was deferred at the April 23 City Council meeting to provide the applicant with an opportunity to further discuss this proposal with property owners in the area surrounding the site and to revise the proposal accordingly. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a change of zoning from R-30 Residential District to Conditional R-20 Residential District in order to create a sixteen (16) lot subdivision (the plan submitted for the April 23 meeting had 18 lots). The applicant has held discussions with property owners in the area around the site and the proffered 16 lot plan is a result of those discussions. The proffered plan shows 16 lots, ranging in size from 24, 447 square feet (Lot 9) to 26,914 square feet (Lot 10). Lots on the north side of the roadway are slightly larger than those on the south side of the roadway; however, the lots on the south side are now larger than in the previously submitted plan. The submitted proffers remain substantially similar to those previously submitted except for the following changes: 1. Proffer 1 now references the 16 lot plan rather than the 18 lot plan. 2. Proffer 4 now includes red cedar and stone as potential exterior building materials in addition to the previously proffered brick veneer. Attachments: Revised Plan Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval of the revised 16 lot plan. Planning Commission recommends denial of the 18 lot plan./f /, ~, Submitting Department/Agency: Planning Department ~ll~J,,.~(~,,~ City Manager: ~ ~__ . ~ ~-yl,,z. Charles F. Bowden Page 2 Recommendations: A motion was passed by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 9-2 to deny this request (18 lot plan). The Planning Commission concluded that the proposed lot sizes were not in keeping with the surrounding area and should be larger. Based on the revisions made by the applicant to increase lot sizes, staff recommends approval of the 16 lot plan. Charles F. Bowden Page 3 IREVISED 16 LOT PLAN PEMBROKE OFFICE PARK, 281 INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD FIFTH FLOOR VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462-2989 TELEPHONE: 757-499-8971 FACSIMILE: 757-456-5445 SYKES, t OURDON, 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. AF'iERN SCOTT N. ALPERIN R. EDWARD 80URDON. JR. JAMES T. CROMWELL L. STEVEN EMMERT DAVID S. HOLLAND KIRK B. LEVY JENNIFER D. DRAM-SMITH HOWARD R. SYKES. JR. Application of Charles F. Bowden for Rezonlng 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 March 22, 2002 Page 2 SYKES. P0URDON. AniRN & lEVY. 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 Leagn. e 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 a_nd 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 ara Very truly yours, R. Edward Bourdon, dr. REBjr/arhm cc: Charlie F. Bowden Jacqueline L. Bowdoin c/o Richard L. & Diane Johnson Ronald C. Ripley CONDRF-,ZN/BOWDEN/JONES 1 CHARLES F. BOWDEN/# March 13, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Change of Zoning District from R-30 Residential District to Conditional R-20 Residential District West side of Wakefield Drive, south of Delray Drive, subdivision of Thoroughgood, Section 8, Part 4 Map F-4 Gpin 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: Barbara Duke PURPOSE: 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 Zonin,q 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. M.p F-~ Charles F. Bowden G~n 1479-6~$795 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: Sewer: 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. 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) I Capital Improvement Program (ClP): 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 ~ 6,200 ADT ~ ,, ....... ,-,_=, ....... Proposed Land Use 3_ 214 ADT ~rage Daily Trips as defined by 13 single-family homes 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 School 1485 1670 1 Princess Anne High School 2248 2020 2 "generation" represents the difference between generated students under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. The number can be positive (additional students) or negative (fewer students). Public Safety Police: Adequate 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 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The density proposed by the applicant is 1.7 dwelling units per acre. Summary of Proposal SettinR · 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 Desiqn · 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 This is discussed further in the Evaluation section be/ow. PROFFER # 2 All storm drainage shall be directed to infiltration swales as shown on the plan. Staff Evaluation: 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. PROFFER # 3 All dwellings shall have a minimum of 2,800 square feet of living area excluding garages. Staff Evaluation: 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. PROFFER#4 All dwellings shall have brick veneer on the front, side, and rear of the outside walls, compatible with the homes on Delray Drive. Staff Evaluation: 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 City Code~. Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 2002 CHARLES F. BOWDEN/# 3 Page 10 .~: " 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 #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 #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 acre lot directly across from Mr. Bowden's property. My husband and I both strongly favor his plan. We have been them since 1970. We have seen this property become a city dump. There 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 ama. 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 ~ettino hi'~her ........... *~' -'- .... stair ana me tz~y 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 mn 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. Here.to 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. Bowdenjust 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 ~eat 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 tree. 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 comer from, if you come out Ewell and go down ~Vakefield 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 ~dn t effect us in any means in any d' ' 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 currier 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. Ronald Ripley: Okay. That one. Okay. Thank you. John Baum: One other thing. Ronald Ripley: Yes. John Baum: Since we keep guessing why don't someone get assessor records of the 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 reqaest 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 true 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. Dorothy Wood: I'm sorry. That is not true. I was at that meeting. 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 was~ 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 4/3 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 thi~ 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 mn 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. Andit 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 on behalf of all the other people that live around there but I have talked to an awful lot thew z,.nd 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: Are you orchestrating the next person to speak Mr. Chapman? Jim 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 ' ~-' ne~g.,oorhood. 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 offof Independence there is a road to the fight that you can get over into before you make the fight 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 wicten 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 them 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 there 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 4/3 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 tree. 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. 'i'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 getti~g 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 come'in and show the plan of seventeen. Just let me finish. And then you have aplan 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 #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 ½ 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 tr~fic 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 4/3 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 myself. 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 4/3 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 Charlie 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 ax 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. Applicant's Name: APPLICATION. --- PAGE 4 OF 4 ZONING .BEACH DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Charles F. Bowden List All Current Property Owners: Charles F. Bowden Jean L. Bowden -____~ueline L. Bowden PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is'a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) [~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) ff the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) [~J Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Signature Print Name Re v. 9/15/98 c Cityof virgir ia neach INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5537 DATE: May 31, 2002 TO: Leslie L. Lille~,~ DEPT: City Attorney FROM: B. Kay Wilson DEPT: City Attorney RE: Conditional Zoning Application Charles F. & Jean L. Bowden and Jacqueline L. Bowdoin The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on June 11,2002. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated May 24, 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 24~h day of May, 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 attachment, 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 Laskin Road, Suite 14B Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451 Phone No.: 428~8486 - Page 1 - o garages. 4. 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 fi.om the Grantee or its governing body, and without any element of ~ompulsion of quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit or subdivision approval, hereby make the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation and use of the Property, and hereby covenant and agree that these Proffers shall constitute covenants running with 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. When the Property is developed, it shall be subdivided into no more than sixteen (16) single family residential building lots laid out substantially as depicted on 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 May 6, 2002, which plan has been exhibited to the City Council and is on file in the Planning Department of the City of Virginia Beach (hereinai~er referred to as the "Plan"). 2. 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 All dwellings shall have brick veneer on the front, side, and rear of the outside walls, compatible with the homes on Delray Drive. - Page 2 - 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 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. BOWDEN ~ ~f~CQUELINE I~. ~OWDO~N'-~ DATE DATE - Page 3 - State of Virginia City of Virginia Beach, to wit The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this c~i// 4&. - day of May, 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 iq,otaO-Publid,f -- Approved By: Date: - Page 4 - EXHIBIT "A" ALL 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 E-II Gl)in 1474-38-9439 - 4491 ZONING HISTORY 1. Change of Zoning (R-5 Residential to PD-H2 (R-5) Planned Development) - Granted 6/10/87 2. Change of Zoning (R-5 Residential to R-8 Residential) - Withdrawn 10-26- 87 3. Subdivision Variance (no direct access to a public street) - Granted 7/6/9'3 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Sudhakar J. Lavingia, Change of Zoning District Classification MEETING DATE: June 11,2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Sudhakar J. Lavingia for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-10 Residential District to PD-H2 (Planned Unit Development), R-10 Residential District on the north side of Stumpy Lake Lane, 130 feet more or less east of Gaines Mill Drive (GPIN #1474-38-9439; #1474-38-4491). The proposed zoning classification change to PD-H2 (Planned Unit Development), R-10 Residential District is for single family residential land use on lots at least 6,000 square feet per dwelling unit. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for residential use at densities that are compatible with single-family use in accordance with other Plan policies. Said parcel contains approximately 3.9 acres. DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE. Considerations: The applicant desires to develop these two properties as a residential subdivision of seventeen (17) lots -- nine lots on the westem property (2.0 acres referred to as Site 2 in the Land Use Plan) and eight lots on the eastern property (1.9 acres referred to as Site 1 in the Land Use Plan). The proposed lots will range in size from 12,643 square feet to 6,305 square feet. When the Glenwood subdivision was developed, there were several outparcels along Stumpy Lake Lane and the unimproved section of Archdaie Drive that were not included. In addition, those parcels fronting on Stumpy Lake Lane that were included in the original land use plan have not yet been developed into single family home lots. The lot dimensions proposed in the Land Use Plan are identical to those used for the surrounding area in Glenwood that is zoned PD-H2 (R-10). The majority of the proposed lots are larger than the minimum allowed size and will be compatible with the surrounding Glenwood neighborhood. The applicant has also proposed street improvements that will benefit not just the new subdivision, but also the surrounding neighborhood. The request meets the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendations: Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval. recommends approval. Submitting Department/Ager~cY: City Manager ~ IL... ~~.~g~epartment Planning Commission Sudhakar J. Lavingia Page 2 The Planning Commission passed a motion unanimously by a recorded vote of 11-0 to approve this request subject to the submitted Land Use Plan: LAND USE PLAN: LOT DIMENSIONS · The lots on the western parcel (2.0 acres) will be developed as shown on the plan titled "Rezoning and preliminary subdivision plan of E.L. Messick Parcel... for Sudhaker J. Lavingia" dated January 14, 2002 and prepared by John E. Sirine and Associates and on file in the Department of Planning. · The lots on the eastern parcel (1.9 acres) will be developed as shown on the plan titled "Rezoning and preliminary subdivision plan of parcel designated as Lois F. Raper... for Sudhaker J. Lavingia" dated January 21,2002 and prepared by John E. Sirine and Associates and on file in the Department of Planning. The minimum dimensions on all lots will be as follows: · MINIMUM LOT WIDTH = 60 FEET · MINIMUM LOT SIZE = 6,000 SQUARE FEET · FRONT SETBACK = 30 FEET · SIDE SETBACK = 10 FEET · REAR SETBACK = 10 FEET ROAD IMPROVEMENTS · RIGHT OF WAY WILL BE DEDICATED ALONG FRONTAGE OF PROPERTY FOR A 50' WIDE RESIDENTIAL STREET. STUMPY LAKE LANE WILL BE IMPROVED FROM THE EXISTING BARRICADE, WEST OF HARRIS CREEK COURT, TO THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF "SITE 2" (WESTERN PARCEL) AND PUBLIC UTILITIES WILL BE EXTENDED. · THE APPLICANT AGREES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COST OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT SECTION OF STUMPY LAKE LANE WEST OF "SITE 2" TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH ARCHDALE DRIVE, INCLUDING THE INTERSECTION WITH ARCHDALE DRIVE. THE NEW STREET WILL TIE INTO EXISTING STUMPY LAKE LANE TO THE EAST AND GAINES MILL DRIVE TO THE SOUTH. THE EXISTING BARRICADES WEST OF HARRIS CREEK COURT AND AT GAINES MILL DRIVE WILL BE REMOVED. SUDHAKAR J. LAVINGIA/# 7 May 8, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Change of Zoning District Classification from R-10 Residential District to PD-H2 Planned Development, R-10 Residential District. North side of Stumpy Lake Lane, east of Gaines Mill Drive M.~ ~-~ S udhakar Hop Not ~o Scale (P'l) GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: Crpin 1474-38-9439 1474-38-9439 and 1474-38-4491 I - CENTERVILLE 3.9 acres - 4491 Barbara Duke To develop two properties as a residential subdivision of seventeen lots -- nine lots on the western property (2.0 acres) and eight lots on the eastern property (1.9 acres). The lots range in size from 12,643 square feet to 6,305 square feet. Major Issues: Stumpy Lake Lane exists as a substandard roadway and will require improvements. Proposed density should be compatible with existing neighborhood. Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 SUDHAKAR J. LAVlNGIA / # 7 Page I Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existin,q Land Use: The properties are vacant. A single-family dwelling is situated on the larger parcel. Zoning and Land Use Statistics With Existing Zoning: With Proposed Zoning: A total of fourteen (14) lots of 10,000 square feet minimum on the two sites combined. Seven lots on the westem parcel with a cul-de-sac street and seven lots on the eastern parcel fronting on Stumpy Lake Lane. A total of seventeen (17) lots of 6,000 square feet minimum on the two sites combined. Nine lots on the westem parcel with a cul-de-sac street and eight lots on the eastern parcel fronting on Stumpy Lake Lane. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: West: · Single-family residential (Glenwood) / PDH2 (R- 10) · Single-family residential (Glenwood) / PDH2 (R- 10) · Single-family residential (Glenwood) / PDH2 (R- 10) · Single-family residential (Glenwood) / PDH2 (R- lO) Zoning Histon/ The Glenwood neighborhood which surrounds this property was rezoned from R-5 Residential to PDH2 (R-5) Planned Development in June 1987. A request to rezone the western portion of the property which is subject to this application from R-5 Residential to R-8 Residential was withdrawn in October 1987. 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 Both sites are primarily grassy field with some mature trees along the rear of the property and scatted across the sites. There is a very small amount of nontidal wetlands identified on the western property (approximately 6,000 square feet) that the applicant has stated will be mitigated in accordance with U. S. Army Corps of Engineers guidelines. Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 SUDHAKAR J. LAVINGIA ! # 7 Page 2 Public Facilities and Services Schools The impact on schools is negligible with an.increase in density of only three units. Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: This site must connect to City water. Plans and bonds for water line extension are required. This site must connect to City sewer. Plans and bonds for construction of sewer system are required. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Indian River Road to the west of this site is scheduled for improvement through CIP 2-256 (Indian River Road Phase VII). This project will provide for construction of a four lane divided arterial highway from Lynnhaven Parkway to Elbow Road Extended, a distance of approximately 2.2 miles. There are two incomplete streets in the vicinity of this application. Stumpy Lake Lane is a substandard, two lane undivided residential arterial. The existing road has narrow pavement width, with deep ditches on both sides. Development of the subject properties will require that this roadway be widened and that curb and gutter be installed according to Public Works specifications and standards. Archdale Drive north of Stumpy Lake Lane is unimproved for a distance of approximately 475 feet, just south of its intersection with Gaymont Court. When the Glenwood subdivision was developed, there were several outparcels along Stumpy Lake Lane and the unimproved section of Archdale Drive that were not included. In addition, those parcels fronting on Stumpy Lake Lane that were included in the original land use plan have not yet been developed into single family home lots. As a consequence, Stumpy Lake Lane and Archdale Drive have not been improved to City standards and are not used for access by the Glenwood neighborhood. Stumpy Lake Lane provides access to Indian River Road for the five or so homeowners fronting on the street. Stumpy Lake Lane is not connected to the surrounding roadways in the Glenwood neighborhood. There are barricades at Archdale Drive, Gaines Mill Drive and at the east end of Stumpy Lake Lane. There is also a barricade on Archdale Drive, just south of Gaymont Court. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Stumpy Lake Lane 100 ADT~ Roadway is Existing Land Use z- 140 ADT Substandard Proposed Land Use 3_ 170 ADT 9rage Daily Trips as defined by 14 single-family homes as defined by 17 single-family homes Planning CommissionMay Agenda 8, 2002 SUDHAKAR J. LAVINGIA ! # 7 Page 3 Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: Adequate - no further comments. Adequate - no further comments. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as a stable residential community. The plan further states that for those areas of Kempsville yet to be developed, we must establish and adhere to high standards of appearance and function. Summary of Proposal Proposal The applicant is applying for a PD-H2 (R-10) Planned Development. The Land Use Plan submitted by the applicant addresses lot dimensions and road improvements as follows: LOT DIMENSIONS The lots on the western parcel (2.0 acres) will be developed as shown on the plan titled "Rezoning and preliminary subdivision plan of E.L. Messick Parcel... for Sudhaker J. Lavingia" dated January 14, 2002 and prepared by John E. Sirine and Associates and on file in the Department of Planning. The lots on the eastern parcel (1.9 acres) will be developed as shown on the plan titled "Rezoning and preliminary subdivision plan of parcel designated as Lois F. Raper... for Sudhaker J. Lavingia" dated January 21,2002 and prepared by John E. Sirine and Associates and on file in the Department of Planning. The minimum dimensions on all lots will be as follows: · MINIMUM LOT WIDTH = 60 FEET · MINIMUM LOT SIZE = 6,000 SQUARE FEET · FRONT SETBACK = 30 FEET · SIDE SETBACK = 10 FEET · REAR SETBACK = 10 FEET ROAD IMPROVEMENTS RIGHT OF WAY WILL BE DEDICATED ALONG FRONTAGE OF PROPERTY FOR A 50' WIDE RESIDENTIAL STREET. STUMPY LAKE LANE WILL BE IMPROVED FROM THE EXISTING BARRICADE, WEST OF HARRIS CREEK COURT, TO THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF "SITE 2" (WESTERN PARCEL) AND PUBLIC UTILITIES WILL BE EXTENDED. Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 SUDHAKAR J. LAVINGIA / # 7 Page 4 · THE APPLICANT AGREES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COST OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT SECTION OF STUMPY LAKE LANE WEST OF "SITE 2" TO ITS INTERSECTION OF ARCHDALE DRIVE AND THAT SECTION OF ARCHDALE DRIVE NORTH OF STUMPY LAKE LANE TO ITS CURRENT TERMINUS POINT. · THE NEW STREET WILL TIE INTO EXISTING STUMPY LAKE LANE TO THE EAST AND GAINES MILL DRIVE TO THE SOUTH. THE EXISTING BARRICADES WEST OF HARRIS CREEK COURT AND AT GAINES MILL DRIVE WILL BE REMOVED. Site Desiqn The applicant is proposing to subdivide two existing properties into seventeen lots total. The western parcel will be developed with nine lots on a cul-de-sac street. The eastern parcel will be developed with eight lots fronting on Stumpy Lake Lane. The applicant has requested a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet; however, the majority of the proposed lots are larger than the minimum size specified. The lots in the surrounding neighborhood of Glenwood to the north and south of this site are 6,000 square feet in size. To the east of this site, there is an area of Glenwood where lots are 10,000 square feet in size. · On the western parcel, the smallest lot measures 6,305 square feet. On the eastern parcel, the smallest lot measures 9,420 square feet. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access · Stumpy Lake Lane exists as a substandard roadway. In addition to Stumpy Lake Lane, Archdale Drive north of Stumpy Lake Lane is not improved for a distance of approximately 475 feet, just south of its intersection with Gaymont Court. Original plans for the Glenwood neighborhood included improvements to make Stumpy Lake Lane and Archdale Drive standard residential streets. However, there are several parcels along these roadways that were either not incorporated into the land use plan or those lots that were incorporated into the land use plan were left undeveloped. Therefore, the improvements to these two roadways were not made. Stumpy Lake Lane provides limited access to those properties currently fronting on it, most of which are undeveloped at this time. There are barricades at Gaines Mill Drive and Archdale Drive to the south of the subject property and east of the subject property at Stumpy Lake Lane (west of Hards Creek Court), that prohibit traffic from the Glenwood neighborhood to use this road. The applicant is proposing to improve a portion of Stumpy Lake Lane along the frontage of the subject properties and connect it to the portion of Stumpy Lake Lane west of Harris Creek Court. Barricades would be removed from Gaines Mill Drive and Stumpy Lake Lane west of Harris Creek Court. It may be necessary to construct a new barricade at the western terminus of the new improvements to Stumpy Lake Lane, to prevent access to the substandard portion of the roadway that will remain. Determination of the appropriate barricade treatment will be evaluated at detailed road construction plan review. Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 SUDHAKAR J. LAVINGIA / # 7 Page 5 The applicant has also proposed to participate in future improvements that will further complete the original street layout included in the Glenwood neighborhood plan. The applicant is willing to participate in the cost of construction of that section of Stumpy Lake Lane west of "Site 2" to its intersection with and to include the intersection with Archdale Drive. Although the improvements to Stumpy Lake Lane could be constructed at this time, the improvements to the unimproved section of Archdale Drive cannot be made at this time due to unresolved issues related to right of way ownership. Sidewalk connections will be evaluated at detailed road construction plan review. Architectural Design · Architectural design details are not provided as part of the Land Use Plan. Landscape and Open Space Design No community open space is provided with this subdivision. The requirement for open space for this subdivision is less than ~ acre. When the requirement is less than ~ acre, the Parks and Recreation Department prefers that the option to provide cash in lieu of a park site be used to satisfy the requirement. The "cash in lieu of" option is administered during detailed subdivision review. Evaluation of Request The request for a rezoning from R-10 to PDH2 (R-10) subject to the provided land use plan is acceptable. The lot dimensions proposed in the land use plan are identical to those used for the surrounding area in Glenwood that is zoned PDH2 (R-10). The majority of the proposed lots are larger than the minimum size and will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has also prOposed street improvements that will benefit not just the new subdivision, but also the surrounding neighborhood. The request meets the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and it is recommended that this request be approved subject to the Land Use Plan. Land Use Plan LOT DIMENSIONS The lots on the western parcel (2.0 acres) will be developed as shown on the plan titled "Rezoning and preliminary subdivision plan of E.L. Messick Parcel... for Sudhaker J. Lavingia" dated January 14, 2002 and prepared by John E. Sirine and Associates and on file in the Department of Planning. The lots on the eastern parcel (1.9 acres) will be developed as shown on the plan titled "Rezoning and preliminary subdivision plan of parcel designated as Lois F. Raper... for Sudhaker J. Lavingia" dated January 21,2002 and prepared by John E. Sirine and Associates and on file in the Department of Planning. The minimum dimensions on all lots will be as follows: · MINIMUM LOT WIDTH = 60 FEET · MINIMUM LOT SIZE = 6,000 SQUARE FEET Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 SUDHAKAR J. LAVINGIA / # 7 Page 6 · FRONT SETBACK: 30 FEET · SIDE SETBACK- 10 FEET · REAR SETBACK = 10 FEET ROAD IMPROVEMENTS · RIGHT OF WAY WILL BE DEDICATED ALONG FRONTAGE OF PROPERTY FOR A 50' WIDE RESIDENTIAL STREET. · STUMPY LAKE LANE WILL BE IMPROVED FROM THE EXISTING BARRICADE, WEST OF HARRIS CREEK COURT, TO THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF "SITE 2" (WESTERN PARCEL) AND PUBLIC UTILITIES WILL BE EXTENDED. · THE APPLICANT AGREES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COST OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT SECTION OF STUMPY LAKE LANE WEST OF "SITE 2" TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH ARCHDALE DRIVE, INCLUDING THE INTERSECTION WITH ARCHDALE DRIVE. · THE NEW STREET WILL TIE INTO EXISTING STUMPY LAKE LANE TO THE EAST AND GAINES MILL DRIVE TO THE SOUTH. THE EXISTING BARRICADES WEST OF HARRIS CREEK COURT AND AT GAINES MILL DRIVE WILL BE REMOVED. 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 May 8, 2002 SUDHAKAR J. LAVINGIA / # 7 Page 7 3¥S - 3O - 9i90 O3SOdOad TtlIq S3N~V9 Lavingia (Western Parcels- SITE 2) Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 SUDHAKAR J. LAVlNGIA ! # 7 Page 8 Lavingia (Eastern Parcels - SITE 1) Planning Commission Agenda May 8, 2002 SUDHAKAR J. LAVINGIA / # 7 Page 9 Planning Commission Agenda ~~'~ May 8, 2002 SUDHAKAR J. LAVINGIA / # 7 Page 10 Item #7 Sudhakar J. Lavingia Change of Zoning District Classification from R-I0 Residential District To PD-H2, R- 10 Residential District North side of Stumpy Lake Lane, east of Gaines Mill Drive District 1 Centerville May 8, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: The next item for is Item #7, which is Sudhakar -- I'm sorry -- Lavingia? Eddie Bourdon: Lavingia. Dorothy Wood: Lavingia. It's a change of Zoning District Classification from R-10 Residential District to PD-H2 Planned Unit Development, R-10 Residential District on the north side of Stumpy Lake Lane, east of Gaines Mill Drive. This parcel is in the Centerville District. Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Again, for the record, Eddie Bourdon representing the applicant. I wanted to take just a split second to, you know, we provided some pictures this morning. Those pictures of these houses are houses in Glenwood that are surrounding this property which we will meet and exceed their quality and cost of these houses will be in excess of those in Glenwood but we are obviously constrained by - for appraisal purposes, everything that surrounds us and I represent the Glenwood Community Association and their happy to see the development taking place. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Bourdon. Again, this is property located on the north side of Stumpy Lake Lane, east of Gaines Mill Drive. Is there any objection to this Consent item? Thank you. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion. Do we have a second to that? Charlie Salle': Second. Ronald Ripley: A motion by Dot Wood. Seconded by Charlie Salle'. Any further discussion? Hearing none, we'd like to vote. AYE 11 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 0 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY AYE MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 11-0, the motion passes. ....': APPLICATION. PAGE 4 OF 41 '":: :";. ZONING DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name: Sudhakar J. Lav~ingia List All Current Property Owners: Ross B. Fulc'her PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant DiSclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list ali officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list ifnecessa~) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Cheek here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Signature Sudhakaz J. Lavingia Print Nam~ Rev. 9/15/9t~ APPOINTMENTS MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL SPORTS AUTHORITY OF HAMPTON ROADS AIRPORT AUTHORITY BEACHES AND WATERWAYS COMMISSION HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION SHORE DRIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD TIDEWATER COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD TIDEWATER REGIONAL GROUP HOME COMMISSION TIDEWATER TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT COMMISSION L. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mo No NEW BUSINESS 1. ABSTRACT OF CIVIL CASES RESOLVED - May 2002 ADJOURNMENT CIVIL LAWSUITS RESOLVED DURING THE MONTH OF MAY, 2002 George W. Roper, H v. City of Virginia Beach- negligence Michael $. Gray, David Michael Gurtey and Gary Weidner v. City of Virginia Beach - FLSA Lisa M. Wynkoop v. 'City of Virginia Beach and James R. Stanley -.negligence Roshawn Wiggins v. Byron Hughes, City of Virginia Beach and James Chantland - negligence Allstate Insurance Company, Subrogee of Kelly Page, v. City of Virginia Beach - negligence Mary E. Knight v. City of Virginia Beach - negligence Fala Corporation and Kana Corporation v. The United States and the City of Virginia Beach - property ownership Note: Disposition details available on request from the City Attorney's Office