No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY 2, 2002 AGENDACity of Virginia Fleach "COMMUNITY FOR A LIFETIME" CITY COUNCIL M.4YOR MEYERA E. OBERNDORE At-Large MARGARET L. EURE, Centerville - District 1 LOUIS R. JONES, Bayside - District 4 REBA S. McCL4N`4N, Rose Hall - District 3 RICHARD ,4. MADDOX, - Beach - District 6 ROBERT C. MANDIGO, Jl~, Kempsville - District 2 J1M REEVE, - Princess ,4nne- District 7 PETER ~.. SCHM1DT, - ,4t-Large RON A. VILI_dINUEV`4, - `4t-Large ROSEMARY WILSON, At-Large JAMES L. WOOD, Lynnhaven . District 5 JAMES K. SPORE, City Manager LESLIE L. LILLEY, City Attorney RUTH HODGES-SMI~, MMC, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY HALL BUILDING I 2401 COURTHOUSE DRIVE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23456-9005 PHONE: (757) 427-4304 FAX... (757) 426-5669 ffM..41L: Etycncl~vbgov. com July 2, 2002 CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING - Conference Room - A. MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL Louisa Strahom, MBC Member REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS 3:30PM CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 5:30PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION V. FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00PM A. CALL TO ORDER -Mavor Mevera E_ Oherndnrf Ge Jo CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION CEREMONIAL ORGANIZATION OF VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Presiding: The Honorable J. Curtis Fruit Clerk of the Virginia Beach Circuit Court 1. OATH OF OFFICE TO MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL 2. ELECTION OF VICE-MAYOR 3. OATH OF OFFICE TO VICE MAYOR FORMAL SEATING OF VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf, Presiding MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSION June 25, 2002 AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION ORDINANCES 1. Ordinances to AMEND City Code: a. §§ 23-51 and 23-53.1 re tattooing and body piercing. 'b. § 2-72 re to provide for the appointment of Alternates to the Personnel Board. 2. Ordinances to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachments into portions of City owned property: a. Lake Rudee by L&M CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C., re rip-rap revetment, pier and boat lift at 300 Indian Avenue in Shadowlawn Heights. (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) b. Cape Henery Drive by DIMITRIOS and JOSE L. HIONIS re right-of-way for business related parking at 3323 Shore Drive (Bubba's Marina) (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) 3. Ordinance to reduce the annual salary of a City Council Member representing District PLANNING Application of FREDERICK P. PERKINS for a Variance of the Subdivision Ordinance, at 1004 Wheelgate Lane re subdividing two(2) sites into four(4) residential lots. (DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of DANNY MARTIN for a Change of Zoning District Classification from A-12 (SD) and A-18 (SD) Apartment Districts to A-18 with a PD-H2 Overlay (Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District) Pleasure House Road and North Greenwell Road, containing 1 acre. ( DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission Recommendation: DEFER INDEFINITELY APPROVAL Application of ROBERT IL and LANG X. BELL for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-SD Residential Duplex District to Conditional B-1 Neighborhood District at Indian River Road and Level Green Boulevard (6041 Indian River Road), containing 18,412 square feet. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of VOICE STREAM WIRELESS for a Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower at Lynnhaven Parkway and Sydenham Trail(1993 Sun Devil Hill), containing 59.4915 acres. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR for a Conditional Use Permit for auto rental at Independence Boulevard and Smith Farm Road (2017 Independence Boulevard), containing 18,209 square feet. (DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of TRUE VINE for a Conditional Use Permit for a church at Virginia Beach Boulevard and Davis Street (5465-H Virginia Beach Boulevard), containing 600 square feet. (DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of TIDEWATER INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., for a Conditional Use Permit for an automated car wash (addition to existing fuel sales) at Providence Road and Lord Dunmore Drive (5285 Providence Road), containing 20,737 square feet. (DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE) 10. 11. (DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL) Recommendation: APPROVAL Application of VERONICA LITTLE BEASLEY for a Conditional Use Permit for a family day-care home at Forest Glen Road and Windsor Oaks Boulevard (3901 Forest Glen Road), containing 10,500 square feet. ( DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL) Recommendation: APPROVAL MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS placed on the application approved May 9, 2000, in behalf of ItALE BOATEL INC., T/A SHORE DRIVE MARINE for a Conditional Use Permit for boat sales & small engine repair (3744 Shore Drive). (District 4 - BAYSIDE) Recommendation: APPROVAL Lo APPOINTMENT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION (HRPDC) PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD REVIEW AND ALLOCATION COMMITTEE (COIG) SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD TIDEWATER TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT COMMISSION (TTDC) M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS Oo ADJOURNMENT I£ you are physically disabled or visually impaired and need assistance at this meeting, vlease call the CITY CLERK'S OFFICE at 427-4303 July 2, 2002 CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING - Conference Room - A. MINORITY BUSINESS COUNCIL Louisa Strahorn, MBC Member REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS 3:30PM I~I. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS IV. INFORMAL SESSION - Conference Room - 5:30PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf B. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION FORMAL SESSION - Council Chamber - 6:00PM A. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf B. INVOCATION: Rabbi Aaron Margolin Chabad Lubavitch of Tidewater C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Eo Ge ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION CEREMONIAL ORGANIZATION OF VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Presiding: The Honorable J. Curtis Fruit Clerk of the Virginia Beach Circuit Court 1. OATH OF OFFICE TO MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL 2. ELECTION OF VICE-MAYOR 3. OATH OF OFFICE TO VICE MAYOR FORMAL SEATING OF VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Mayor Meyera E. Obemdorf, Presiding MINUTES 1. INFORMAL AND FORMAL SESSION June 25, 2002 I. AGENDA FOR FORMAL SESSION CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION VIRGINIA BEACH CITY COUNCIL WIlEREAS: The Virginia Beach City Council convened into CLOSED SESSION, pursuant to the affirmative vote recorded here and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and, WHEREAS: Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the governing body that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Beach City Council hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (a) only public business matters lawfully exempted from Open Meeting requirements by Virginia Law were discussed in Closed Session to which this certification resolution applies; and, (b) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening this Closed Session were heard, discussed or J. ORDINANCES o Ordinance to AMEND City Code: a. §§ 23-51 and 23-53.1 re tattooing and body piercing. b. § 2-72 re to provide for the appointment of Alternates to the Personnel Board. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE temporary encroachments into a portion of City owned property: a° Lake Rudee by L&M CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C., re rip-rap revetment, pier and boat lift at 300 Indian Avenue in Shadowlawn Heights. (DISTRICT 6 - BEACH) b° Cape Henery Drive by DIMITRIOS and JOSE L. HIONIS re right-of-way for business related parking at 3323 Shore Drive (Bubba's Marina) (DISTRICT 5 - LYNNHAVEN) Ordinance to reduce the annual salary of a City Council Member representing District Number 6- Beach to provide a potential charitable donation. Ordinance to allow the recovery of expenses incurred in responding to terrorism hoax incidents, not to exceed $1,000.00. Ordinance to APPROPRIATE $83,118 from the fund balance of the E-911 Communications Special Revenue Fund to the FY 2002-2003 operating budget of the Communications and Information Technology re purchase, installation and training for telephony routing software. Ordinance to AUTHORIZE the transfer of $1,413 from the General Fund Reserve for contingencies to the Sheriff's department's FY 2002-2003 operating budget re reimbursing a Deputy Sheriff for legal fees and expenses incurred in his defense of a criminal charge arising out of an act committed in the discharge of his official duties. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager An Ordinance Amending Sections 23-51 and 23-53.1 of the Code of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Pertaining to Tattooing and Body Piercing Establishments MEETING DATE: July 2, 2002 Background: In April, 2002, the City Zoning Ordinance and City Code were amended to allow tattoo parlors and body piercing establishments in certain areas of the City, subject to certain public health-related regulations. In June, 2002, the City Code was further amended to prohibit tattooing and body-piercing of certain body parts by persons of the opposite sex. Since then, representatives of the tattooing and body piercing industry have requested that certain revisions be made to the City's regulations, and the Health Department has requested certain other modifications as well. As a result, the City Council asked two of its members to serve as liaisons with City Staff to study the industry's requests. The liaisons have done 'so, and recommend that only the requested modifications sought by the Health Department be adopted. The industry also requested that the City Zoning Ordinance be amended to relax the siting requirements pertaining to tattoo parlors and body-piercing establishments. Staff and the Council liaisons, however, feel that the current zoning regulations are appropriate and should not be changed. Considerations: With one exception, the proposed ordinance amendments are those which have been requested by the Health Department. That exception consists of certain clarifying language contained in Lines 257-61 of the proposed ordinance. During its 2002 session, the General Assembly enacted legislation transferring regulatory authority over tattoo parlors and body-piercing establishments to the Virginia Board of Barbers and Cosmetology. The legislation will not, however, take effect until July 1, 2004. While the legislation does not divest localities over their authority to regulate the sanitary aspects of such establishments, it does mean that, when the Board promulgates regulations concerning tattoo parlors and body piercing establishments, those regulations will supercede any contrary City ordinances. The legislation does not purport to restrict local governmental control over the zoning of tattoo parlors and body piercing establishments. Recommendations: Adoption of ordinance Attachments: Recommended Action: Adoption Submitting Department/Agen_cy 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 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 23-51 AND 23-53.1 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA PERTAINING TO TATTOOING AND BODY PIERCING ESTABLISHMENTS SECTIONS AMENDED: 23-51 and 23-53.1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Sections 23-51 and 23-53.1 of the City Code, pertaining to tattooing and body piercing establishment, are hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: Sec. 23-51. Tattooing and tattoo parlors. (a) For the purposes of this section, the following words and phrases shall be construed as follows: (1 Tattoo: To place any design, letter, scroll, figure, symbol or any other mark upon or under the skin or any person with ink or any other substance resulting in the permanent coloration of the skin, including permanent make-up or permanent jewelry, by the aid of needles or any other instrument designed to touch or puncture the skin. (2 Tattoo artist: Any person who actually performs the work of tattooing. (3 Tattoo parlor: Any place in which is offered or practiced the placing of designs, letters, scrolls, figures, symbols or any other marks upon or under the skin of any person with ink or any other substance, resulting in the permanent coloration of the skin, including permanent (4) Tattoo operator: Any person who controls, operates, conducts or manages any tattoo parlor, whether actually performing the work of tattooing or not. (b) No person shall control, operate, conduct or manage any tattoo parlor or shall perform tattooing on any person without complying with the requirements of this section. (c) No person shall control, operate, conduct or manage any tattoo parlor, whether actually performing the work of tattooing or not, without first obtaining a permit from the Department of Public Health. Such an application shall be made on an application form ~rovided by the City Manager or his designee. (d) The permit fee shall be one thousand two hundred dollars $1,200.00) for a one-year licensing period from January 1 to December 31. Ail permits issued during the course of a calendar year shall expire on December 31 of that year, regardless of the date-issued. For any person required to obtain a permit under the provisions of this section after the first day of January, the permit fee shall be prorated as follows: between January 1 and on or before March 31, the full permit fee shall be paid; between April 1 and on or before June 30, three-fourths of the permit fee shall be paid; between July 1 and on or before September 30, one-half of the permit fee shall be paid; and after September 30 of the licensing year, one-fourth of the permit fee shall be paid. (e) Every tattoo artist shall submit proof annually to the Department of Public Health that he or she has~==~ ...... vaccinated ~=p~=zs ~ and has~=~ ..... a received a tuberculosis assessment or PPD skin test and shall submit proof of a completed Hepatitis B series 66 67 68 69 7O 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 8O 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 f) Every tattoo artist and tattoo operator shall at all times comply with the following requirements: 1) Ail tattooing-related procedures shall be carried out in a clean, safe and sanitary manner as approved by the Department of Public Health so as to minimize the potential of disease transmission. Ail tattoo artists shall complete annual Blood Borne Pathogen training approved by the Department of Public Health. 2) Ail areas of the tattoo parlor shall be constructed and maintained in a clean, safe and sanitary manner in compliance with all applicable statutes, laws, regulations, codes and ordinances of the city and the Commonwealth of Virginia. 3) Ail walls, ceilings and floors shall be smooth and easily cleaned. The floors shall not be carpeted, and neither rugs nor fabrics of any kind shall be placed on the floors. Walls and ceilings shall be painted a light color. Walls, ceilings and floors shall be kept clean and free from dust and debris. The floors shall be swept and mopped daily. The walls, ceilings or floors shall not be swept or cleaned while tattooing is occurring. (4)Adequate light and ventilation shall be provided. (5) Adequate toilet and hand-washing facilities shall be available in the tattoo parlor separate and isolated from the business area in which tattooing is performed, for the use of customers and personnel of the tattoo parlor. 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 (6) (7) Ail areas of the tattoo parlor shall be accessible for inspection by the Department of Public Health and its authorized representatives. The Department of Public Health is hereby authorized to conduct unannounced inspections of tattoo parlors. ~3 ~=o approved ........ Food ........................ .... } ............. ' .... tattooing process ~ uch ............... be maintained ' - methods approved~3~--the DepartmentV! .......... 11=~ =~. All inks, dyes, piqments, needles and equipment shall be specifically manufactured for performinq tattooinq and shall be used in accordance with the manufacturer's 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 instructions. The mixinc of approved tattooinq inks, dyes or piqments or their dilutions with potable water shall be permitted. Immediately before a tattoo is applied, the quantity of the dye to be used shall be transferred from the dye bottle and placed into single-use paper or plastic cups. Upon completion of the ~ procedure, such cups and their contents shall be discarded in the manner prescribed in the next subsection subdivision 8 hereof. COMMENT The amendments require m~erials used in the tabooing process procedures to be designed specifically ~r tabooing and to be used in accordance with the manu~cturer's instructions. (8) All cleaned, non-disposable instruments used in connection with the preparation for or process of tattooing shall be sterilized by before each use in a 128 129 130 131 a iY~iiii~UA-, pressure of=~==: ====~ ~ =~ p~u~o per square ---' temperatures of not t two ~*~ f2fty ~250) : = Such degrees Fahrenheit an autoclave zs ~o=~. sterilization shall be performed in accordance with the 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 manufacturer's instructions, a copy of which shall be submitted, with contact information, as part of the permit application. The tattoo operator shall be responsible for maintaining a log which indicates that the autoclave or other sterilizer has been checked during each cycle and meets the aforementioned standards has been sterilized in accordance with the manufacturer's 139 140 141 142 instructions. Ail cleaned and ready-to-use needles and instruments shall be stored in a protective manner to prevent subsequent contamination. Sterile equipment shall not be used after the expiration date or if the 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 packaqe has been breached. If disposable instruments are used, those instruments shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable laws. The skin surface to be tattooed and any jewelry to be used shall be cleaned and sanitized using processes and materials approved by the Department of Public Health. Ail hazardous waste, body fluids, and medical waste of any kind shall be disposed of in accordance with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's Regulated Medical Waste Regulations, 9 VAC 20-120-10 et seq., as may be amended from time to time. Single-use items shall not be used on more than one client for any reason. After use, all 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 amended from time to time aforesaid requlations. COMMENT The amendments require needles and other non-disposable instruments to be sterilized in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, rather than in the particular manner specified in the current ordinance. In addition, the amendments prohibit the use of sterile equipment after the expiration date or if the package has been breached. (9) Records for each patron shall be maintained by the tattoo operator. Such records shall be maintained for a minimum period of four (4), except if the patron is under eighteen (18) years of age, in which event these records shall be maintained for a minimum of four (4) years from the eighteenth (18th) birthday of said patron and shall include the following information: (i) Name, address, sex and age of the person tattooed; (ii) Date of tattooing; (iii Physical location and description of tattooing; (iv) Name, address and telephone number of the person performing the tattooing; (v) Parent or legal guardian written consent form for minors; and (vi) Name and address of the manufacturer of the dyes used as well as identifying information about the dye solutions and types of dyes used. If a customer has need for this information, then the tattoo parlor operator mtr~t shall release it to the customer. At such time as the tattoo parlor ceases doing business or is 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 (10) More than one set of sterilized needles, tubes and tips or alternate approved sterilization method shall be kept on the premises at all times. (11) No person, customer or patron having any visible skin infection or other disease of the skin or any communicable disease shall have tattooing performed, and no person having any skin infection or disease of the skin shall perform tattooing. Ail infections resulting from the practice of tattooing which become known to the tattoo operator shall promptly be reported to the Department of Public Health by the person owning or in charge of the tattoo parlor, and the infected client shall be referred to a physician. COMMENT The amendment requires th~ a sen condition be vis~le he.re a tattoo artist must re~se to per~rm the tabooing procedure. (12) No tattooing shall be performed on any person under the age of eighteen (18) years without the written consent of his or her parent or guardian, and such written consent shall be kept on file for at least four (4) years at the tattoo parlor from the eighteenth (18th) birthday of the minor. Where there is doubt about such an age, written proof of age shall be obtained before the tattooing is done. Written proof of age shall be photocopied and kept by the tattoo operator. Ail customers under eighteen (18) years of age shall be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Both customer and parent or guardian shall sign 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 (13) Tattoo artists and tattoo operators shall refuse service to any person whom the tattoo artist or tattoo operator knows, or has reason to believe, is intoxicated. (14) No person shall state or imply in any advertisement or publication, written or oral and prepared or uttered for the purpose of soliciting business, that the tattoo parlor is endorsed, regulated or approved by the city or by any of its departments or is conducted in compliance with the terms of this section. (15) Immediately after tattooing a patron the tattoo artist shall advise ~ the patron of the care of the tattooed area and shall instruct the patron to consult a physician at the first sign of infection. COMMENT Theamendmentisnotsubstantiveinnature. 16 The tattoo artist shall wash his or her hands between customers and between tattooing different parts of the body on the same person. The tattoo artist shall wear protective, disposable latex or vinyl gloves while tattooing, and shall wear a new pair of gloves for each client and when tattooing different parts of the same client. 17 The name, address and telephone number of the tattoo parlor shall be on the heading of all waivers, care sheets, consent and other forms utilized by the tattoo parlor. 18 The tattoo operator shall file with the Department of 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 respect to tattoo artists, the tattoo operator shall also submit proof annually of vaccination and testing as required by subsection (e). The tattoo operator shall amend the list accordingly and submit it to the Department of Public Health immediately upon the addition of an employee or termination of an employee. (19) No tattoo artist or tattoo operator shall tattoo the genitals, pubic area, or buttocks of any member of the opposite sex, nor shall any male tattoo artist or male tattoo operator tattoo any portion of the breastm of any female below the aureole. COMMENT The amendme~ refines the listing of areas of the body which may not be tattooed by a member of the opposRe sex. (g) No person shall perform tattooing on any client unless he or she complies with the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions's guidelines for "Universal Blood and Body Fluid Precautions" and provides the client with the following disclosure: (1) Tattooing is an invasive procedure in which the skin is penetrated by a foreign object. (2) If proper sterilization and antiseptic procedures are not followed by tattoo artists, there is a risk of transmission of bloodborne pathogens and other infections, including, but not limited to, human immunodeficiency viruses and hepatitis B or C viruses. (3) Tattooing may cause allergic reactions in persons sensitive to dyes or the metals used in ornamentation. 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 (h) shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. violation of this section shall be misdemeanor. (i) This veterinarians, Any person who violates any provision of this section Any second or subsequent punished as a Class 1 section shall not apply to medical doctors., registered nurses or any other medical services personnel, licensed pursuant to Title 54.1 of the Code of Virginia, in performance of their professional duties. 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 Sec. 23-53.1. Body piercing. (a) For the purposes of this section, the following words and phrases shall be construed as follows: (1) Body piercing: The act of penetrating the skin to make a hole, mark, or scar, generally permanent in nature. "Body piercing" does not include the use of a mechanized, pre-sterilized ear-piercing system that penetrates the outer perimeter or lobe of the ear or both. (2) Body piercer: Any person who actually performs the work of body piercing. (3) Body piercing establishment: Any place in which a fee is charged for the act of penetrating the skin to make a hole, mark, or scar, generally permanent in nature. "Body piercing" does not include the use of a mechanized, pre-sterilized ear-piercing system that penetrates the outer perimeter or lobe of the ear or both. (4) Body piercing operator: Any person who controls, 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 (b) No person shall control, operate, conduct or manage any body piercing establishment or shall perform body piercing cn any person without complying with the requirements of this section. (c) No person shall control, operate, conduct or manage any body piercing establishment, whether actually performing the work of body piercing or not, without first obtaining a permit from the Department of Public Health. Such an application shall be made on an application form provided by the City Manager or his designee. (d) The permit fee shall be one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200.00) for a one-year licensing period from January 1 to December 31. Ail permits issued during the course of a calendar year shall expire on December 31 of that year, regardless of the date issued. For any person required tc obtain a permit under the provisions of this section after the first day of January, the permit fee shall be prorated as follows: between January 1 and on or before March 3!, the full permit fee shall be paid; between April 1 and on or before June 30, three-fourths of the permit fee shall be paid; between July 1 and on or before September 30, one-half of the permit fee shall be paid; and after September 30 of the licensing year, one-fourth of the permit fee shall be paid. (e) Every body piercer shall submit proof annually to the Department of Public Health that he or she has been vaccinated for hepatitis D and has had a received a tuberculosis assessment or PPD skin test and shall submit proof of a completed Hepatitis B series by a competent medical authority approved by the director of Dublic health for ............ osis COMMENT 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 (1) Ail body piercing related procedures shall be carried out in a clean, safe and sanitary manner as approved by the Department of Public Health so as to minimize the potential of disease transmission. Ail body piercers shall complete annual Blood Borne Pathogen training approved by the Department of Public Health. (2) Ail areas of the body piercing establishments shall be constructed and maintained in a clean, safe and sanitary manner in compliance with all applicable statutes, laws, regulations, codes and ordinances of the city and the Commonwealth of Virginia. (3) Ail walls, ceilings and floors shall be smooth and easily cleaned. The floors shall not be carpeted, and neither rugs nor fabrics of any kind shall be placed on the floors. Walls and ceilings shall be painted a light color. Walls, ceilings and floors shall be kept clean and free from dust and debris. The floors shall be swept and mopped daily. The walls, ceilings or floors shall not be. swept or cleaned while body piercing services are occurring. (4) Adequate light and ventilation shall be provided. (5) Adequate toilet and hand-washing facilities shall be available in the body piercing establishment separate and isolated from the business area in which body piercing is performed, for the use of customers and personnel of the body piercing establishment. Toilets and washing facilities shall be maintained in a sanitary condition at all times. Smoking, eating or drinking is prohibited in the area in which body piercing is performed. (6) Ail areas of the body piercing establishment shall be accessible for inspection by the Department of Public Health and its authorized representatives. The Department of Public Health is 1 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 38O 381 382 383 384 shall be sterilized ~rF before each use in a steam autoclave or dry- heat sterilizer ( ~~v~ Or ~ al~=£ilate sterilization which h&s been approved by the Department ef Public Health exposure to~=' ~--- steam for at ~ ~t ~ m~nu~es at a mznimum pressure fzfteen ( not '--- than ................. ~toclave is used. Such s~erilizatien shall be perfermed in accerdance with the manufacturer's instructions, a cepy ef which shall be submitted, with centact infermatien, as part ef the permit ap~licatien. The bedy piercing eperater shall be respensible for maintaining a log which indicates that the auteclave has been checked during each cycle and meets the aforementioned standards has been sterilized in accerdance with the manufacturer ' 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 instructions. All cleaned and ready-to-use needles and instruments shall be stored in a protective manner to prevent subsequent contamination. Sterile equipment shall not be used after the expiration date or if the packaqe has been breached. If disposable instruments are used, those instruments shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable laws. The skin surface to be pierced as well as the jewelry to be used shall be cleaned and sanitized using processes and materials approved by the Department of Public Health. Ail hazardous waste, body fluids, and medical waste of any kind shall be disposed of in accordance with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's Regulated Medical Waste Regulations, 9 VAC 20-120-10 et seq., as may be amended from time to time. 40B 404 40~ 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 4lB 414 4lB 416 417 418 419 42O 421 422 42B 424 42S 426 427 428 429 (8) Records for each patron shall be maintained by the body piercing operator. These records shall be maintained for a minimum period of four (4) years except if the patron is under eighteen (18) years of age, in which event these records shall be maintained for a minimum of four (4) years from the eighteenth (18th) birthday of said patron and shall include the following information: (i) Name, address, sex and age of the person body pierced; (ii) Date of body piercing; (iii)Physical location and description of body piercing; (iv) Name, address and telephone number of the person performing the body piercing; and (v) Parent or legal guardian written consent form for minors. At such time when a body piercing establishment ceases doing business or is removed from the city or changes its name or has a change in management or ownership, copies of all such records shall be provided to the Department of Public Health. (9) More than one set of sterilized needles, tubes and tips or alternate approved sterilization method shall be kept on the premises at all times. (10) No person, customer or patron having any visible skin infection or other disease of the skin or any communicable disease shall have body piercing performed, and no person having any skin infection or disease of the skin shall perform body piercing. Ail infections resulting from the practice of body piercing which become known to the body piercing operator shall promptly be reported to the Department of Public Health by the body piercing operator, and the infected client shall be referred to a physician. 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 45O 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 establishment from the eighteenth (18th) birthday of the minor. Where there is doubt about such an age, written proof of age shall be obtained before the body piercing is done. Written proof of age shall be photocopied and kept by the body piercing operator. Ail customers under eighteen (18) years of age shall be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Both customer and parent or guardian must sign a consent form and a driver's license or other appropriate form of identification of both the customer and the parent or guardian shall be photocopied and attached to the consent form. (12) Body piercers and body piercing operators shall refuse service to any person whom the body piercer or body piercing operator knows, or has reason to believe, is intoxicated. (13) No person shall state or imply in any advertisement or publication, written or oral and prepared or uttered for the purpose of soliciting business, that the body piercing establishment is endorsed, regulated or approved by the city or by any of its departments or is conducted in compliance with the terms of this section. (14) Immediately after body piercing a patron, the body piercer shall advise that patron of the care of the body pierced area and shall instruct the patron to consult a physician at the first sign of infection. (15) The body piercer shall wash his or her hands between customers and between piercing different parts of the body on the same person. The body piercer shall wear protective, disposable latex or vinyl gloves while performing body piercing, and shall 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 sheets, consent and other forms utilized by the body piercing establishment. (17) The body piercing operator shall file with the Department of Public Health annually with the license application and any renewal thereof a list of the following information for each employee: Name, permit number, home address, home phone number, and position or job title. With respect to body piercers, the body piercing operator shall also submit proof annually of vaccination and testing as required in subsection (e). The body piercing operator shall amend the list accordingly and submit it to the Department of Public Health immediately upon the addition of an employee or termination of an employee. (18) No body piercer shall body pierce the genitals, pubic area, or buttocks of any member of the opposite sex, nor shall any male body piercer pierce any portion of the breast~ of any female below the aureole. COMMENT The amendments refine the listing of body pans which may not be pierced by a member of the opposite sex. (g) No person shall perform body piercing on any client unless he or she complies with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's guidelines for "Universal Blood and Body Fluid Precautions" and provides the client with the following disclosure: (1) Body piercing is an invasive procedure in which the skin is penetrated by a foreign object. (2) If proper sterilization and antiseptic procedures are not followed by body piercers, there is a risk of transmission of 497 498 499 5OO 501 502 5O3 5O4 505 506 5O7 5O8 509 510 511 (4) Body piercing may involve discomfort or pain for which appropriate anesthesia cannot be legally made available by the person performing the body piercing unless such person holds the appropriate license from a Virginia health regulatory board. {h) Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. Any second or subsequent violation of this section shall be punished as a Class 1 misdemeanor. (i) This section shall not apply to medical doctors, veterinarians, registered nurses or any other medical services personnel, licensed pursuant to Title 54.1 of the Code of Virginia, in'performance of their professional duties. ,~ .... ~ .................. ffect~ve v~ ~=~ I, 2001 COMMENT The effective date of the ordinance has passed, eliminating the need Ar it to be expressed. 512 513 Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. CA-8320 wmmordres123-51 and 23-53.1ord.wpd June 20, 2002 R-3 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: #. City Attorney~s Office CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: An Ordinance Providing for the Appointment of Alternates to the City Personnel Board MEETING DATE: July 2, 2002 Background: The City's personnel Board currently has five members. No provision is made for the appointment of alternates. Considerations: The proposed ordinance would allow, but not require, the City Council to appoint one or two alternates to the Board. It also specifies the basic procedure by which alternates are called to serve in the absence of a regular member. Public Information: No special form of advertising or public notice is required. Alternatives: The City Council is not required to appoint alternates to the Board; the absence of one or more members of the Board, however, potentially diminishes the effectiveness of the Board at meetings when less then a full Board is present. Recommendations: Adoption of ordinance Attachments: Recommended Action: Adoption Submitting Department/Agency: City Attorney's Office City Manager~. 1 2 3 4 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES TO THE CITY PERSONNEL BOARD Section Amended: City Code Section 2-72 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That Section 2-72 of the City Code is hereby amended and reordained, to read as follows: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Sec. 2-72. Personnel board--Established; composition; appointment, terms and compensation of members; etc. (a) There is hereby established a personnel board consisting of five (5) qualified voters appointed by the council for a term of three (3) years. Of those first appointed, one shall be appointed to serve for one year, two (2) for two (2) years and two (2) for three (3) years. Thereafter, members shall be appointed for the full term of three (3) years. Members shall serve until a successor has been appointed. Vacancies shall be filled by the council by appointment for the unexpired portion of the term. One member of the board shall always be a member of the merit service, as'defined in section 2-76 and shall be employed at a level below that of a bureau head. The board shall choose one of its members to be the chairperson and one member to be the vice-chairperson for a term of one year. The personnel board shall abide by the personnel board hearings procedure. (b) The director of personnel or a designated alternate staff member shall serve as secretary to the personnel board and shall attend all meetings with no voting privileges. ^6 +m~ m~m~ ~F fh~ n~r~nn~l board shall 36 37 38 A reqular member shall, when he knows he will be absent from meetinq, notify the chairman of such fact. The chairman shall select an alternate to serve in the absent member's place and the 39 4O 41 42 43 records of the board shall so note. Comment The amendment allows the City Council to appoint one or two alternates to the Personnel Board and sets forth a procedure by which the alternates serve in the absence of a regular member. CA-8550 wmm\ ordre s \ 02 -72ord. wpd June 25, 2002 R-1 Approved as to Legal Sufficiency: /~~ City Attorney's Office CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: Encroachment Request for L&M Construction, L.L.C. Lake Rudee at 300 Indian Ave. (Shadowlawn Heights) MEETING DATE: Background: L&M Construction, L.L.C., has applied for permission to encroach into City property, i.e., Lake Rudee at 300 Indian Ave., in Shadowlawn Heights. The purpose of this encroachment is to construct a rip-rap revetment, a pier and a boat lift out into Lake Rudee. There are other similar type improvements in the area. Considerations: Staff has reviewed this request and has no objections to this encroachment from an operational and maintenance standpoint. The Department of Public Works supports the utilization of "hardened slope stabilization" revetment 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, especially during major rainfall events which create high velocities and wave action along bank slopes due to high winds. Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda. Alternatives: Approve the encroachment as requested, deny the encroachment, or add conditions as desired by Council. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of this encroachment subject to the applicant complying with conditions set forth in the agreement. Authorize City Manager to sign agreement. Attachments: Ordinance Location Map Agreement with plat attached 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 Requested by Department of Public Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT INTO A PORTION OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY OF LAKE RUDEE BY L&M CONSTRUCTION, L..L.C., A VIRGINIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ITS HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, L&M CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, desires to construct and maintain a rip-rap revetment, a pier and a boat lift upon the City's property known as Lake Rudee. WHEREAS, City Council is authorized pursuant to §§ 15.2- 2009 and 15.2-2107, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to authorize a temporary encroachment 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, L&M CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, its heirs, assigns and successors in title, is authorized to construct and maintain a temporary encroachment for a rip-rap revetment, a pier and a boat lift upon the City's property of Lake Rudee as shown on that certain plat entitled: "PROPOSED RIP-RAP REVETMENT SITE PLAN APPLICATION BY: L&M CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C., DATE: 3/4/02, SHEET 1 OF 3", a copy of which is on file in the Department of Public Works to which reference is made for a more particular description; and BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the temporary encroachment 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 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&M CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company 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. 44 45 46 47 CAtt- TKENN\ENCROACH\L&MCONST.ORD R-1 PREPARED: 5/31/02 APPR~-~ED AS TO CON, TENTS DEPARTMENT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND FLOR!~ AVE. SIT LA. $CAL~ 1"-1600' LOCATION MAP PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'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 ~~day of 'f'~ , 200~ , by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the "City", Grantor, and L&M CONSTRUCTIOn', L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, ITS HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, the "Grantee" (even if mo~e than one). WITNESS ETH: WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract or parcel of land designated and described as Lot B, Block 69, in Shadowlawn Heights, and being as shown on the plat recorded in M.B. 302, PG. 10, and being further designated and described as 300 Indian Ave., Virginia Beach, VA 23451; and WHEREAS, it .is proposed by the Grantee to construct and maintain a rip-rap revetment, a pier and a boat lift, a "Temporary Encroachment" in the City of Virginia Beach; and WHEREAS, in constructing and maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is Decessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of an existing City property known as Lake Rudee, the "Encroachment Area", ~nd 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 GPIN: 2417-81-9866 ~ the' further consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), in hand paid to the city, receipt of %~hich is hereby acknowledged, the City doth grant to the Grantee permission to use the Encroachment Area for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a Temporary Encroachment. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and ill accordance with the city's specifications and approval and is m~re particularly described as follows, to- wit: A Temporary I:ncroachment into the Encroachment Area as shown on that certain plat entitled: "PROPOSED RIP-RAP REVETMENT SITE PLAN APPLICATION BY: L&M CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C. DATE: 3/4/02 SHEET 1 OF 3", a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" to which reference i~ made for a more particular description. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment herein authorized shall terminate upon notice by the City te the Grantee, and that within thirty (30) days after the notice is given the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from the Encroachment Area by the Grantee, and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the 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. 2 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 e)[tent 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 ?ermit from the Development Services Center of the Planning Deparament prior to commencing any construction within the Encroachment Area. It is furthe~ expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain an approved Joint Permit Application from Waterfront Operations of the Planning Department prior to commencing any constr'action within the Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain and keep in force all-risk property insurance and general liability insurance, 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 amoun~ not less than $500,000.00, combined single limits of such insursnce 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 furthe~c expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment must conform to the minimum setback requirements as establLished by the City. It is furthe~c expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must s~bmit, for review and approval, a survey of the Encroachment Area certified by a registered professional engineer or a licensed land s~urveyor, and/or "as built" plans of the Temporary Encroachme]lt sealed by a registered professional engineer, if required by either the City Engineer's office or the Engineering Division of the Department of Public Utilities. It is furthe~ expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocati¢~n of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Crantee and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for tine collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment and, pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of the Encroachment Area the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and, if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the city may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporar~ Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said L&M CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C. has caused this Agreement to be executed by Brian C. Large, Manager of L&M CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, with due authority to bind said limited liability company. 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 By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS '~' LEGAL SUFFtCi~:i',iC. 5 L&M CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C. a Virginia limited liability company Larg ,~~a~r STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 , by , City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City lIanager, on behalf of the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. My Commission Expires: Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoinq instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 , by RUTH HODGES SMITH, City Clerk for the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH. My Commission Expires: Notary Public STATE OF '~\ ~q ]~]A CITY/~{q~-OF.q)~G\~\% ~m~ , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~O<%~ day of 2~ ~ ~ , 20 o ~ , by Brian C. Large, Manager, on behalf of L&M CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company. /._) Notary Fublic ~ My Commission Expires: ~C~,~.~C>m~' /XPPROVED AS TO CONTENT .- , DEPArTmENT H/F CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH . GPIN:2417-81-~G14 L 'A KE R UD EE (~.~.,7,,- p~. J / PROPOSED .P/ER 4'x1~' EDGE OF HIGH .... "'. ..... WATER ('AS SURVEYED -~ '""i'~,"' " ~ 7.' ~....:..-'. · .:.~ SET PIN FR.,~4£,. ~. 24.52'.".,/. EDGE OF VEGETA TIKE WETL4NDS BLOCK~69' :::. !..~ EX 6' PLU~ WV DATUM: N.G.V.D:' 1929 (1972 AEJUSTMENT). ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: 1. WILLIAM BUCK.LEE BARBOUR 24- INDIAN .AVENUE 2. QUENTIN.S. & VERNONA M. MEEKER 304- INDIAN AVENUE CANAL HOUSE. 300-' · . "< PROPOSED BOAT LIFT 4 P/LES REO'D LIFT TO BE INSTALLED AS PER MANUFACTURES SPECS. VE. PG. 14) OLD ~' PIN OLD PIN . .. fMLW · ---~-MHW .-~----__~ ~ S TR U C Ti O.N ~ ~-~ ACCESS-- ZONE OF BANK ~ " ~ .'- N/F. ~ LOT-17; BLOCK~69 = [D.B.2438 ~,. (D.c.7, PE.i 4) - GPIN:2417-81-9921 77' PG. 14,) PLAN SCAL'E:-1"=30' · ~ PROPOSED RIP-RAP REVETMENT SITE PLAN A~PLICAIION LAM CONSTRUCTION L.L.C. DATE: 3/4/02 REVTSED: SHEET 1 OF ,3 WPL# CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Encroachment Request - 3323 Shore Drive (Bubba's Marina) Existing Parking Spaces Located Within Cape Henry Drive (Old Norfolk & Southern Rail Road Right of Way) MEETING DATE: July 2, 2002 Background: Cape Henry Drive, between Vista Circle and the Lesner Bridge, is the former Norfolk & Southern Rail Road right of way. In June of 1993, the Commonwealth of Virginia (VDOT) conveyed the right of way for this portion of Cape Henry Drive to the City of Virginia Beach. For many years, parking has been at a premium along Cape Henry Drive in this area. Businesses along this section of Cape Henry Drive have suffered to meet the minimum requirements for business related parking. Overflow parking has been relegated to the street or adjacent private property between Cape Henry Drive and Shore Drive. Considerations: The applicants, Dimitrios Hionis and Jose L. Hionis, are the owners of Bubba's Restaurant/Marina and recently submitted a site plan for review by the City for a canopy to be added to a portion of the building. Said site plan also included a depiction of the existing business related parking for Bubba's Restaurant/Marina. Included in the existing parking are nine (9) existing parking spaces which partially encroach into the right of way of Cape Henry Drive. City staff have reviewed the request and, due to the fact that the subject parking spaces existed prior to the City obtaining title to the right of way in 1993 and the relatively small area (632+ sq. ft.) involved, recommend approval of the encroachment subject to certain terms and conditions outlined in the Encroachment Agreement (copy attached). Public Information: Advertisement of City Council Agenda. Altematives: Deny the request and require removal of the existing encroachments by the applicants. Deny the encroachment request and require the applicants to lease the area in question. Recommendations: Approve the request subject to the terms and conditions outlined in the Encroachment Agreement (copy attached). Attachments: Ordinance Location Man 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Requested by Department of Public Works AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENTS INTO A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF CAPE HENRY DRIVE BY DIMITRIOS HIONIS AND JOSE L. HIONIS, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE WHEREAS, Dimitrios Hionis and Jose L. Hionis, husband and wife, desire to maintain nine (9) parking spaces into the City's right-of-way known as Cape Henry Drive and located partially on their property located at 3323 Shore Drive. 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 fight-of-way 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 Dimitrios Hionis and Jose L. Hionis, husband and wife, their heirs, assigns and successors in title are authorized to maintain a temporary encroachment for nine (9) parking spaces in the City's right-of-way as shown on the map entitled: "ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT FOR DIMITRIOS HIONIS 3323 SHORE DRIVE JANUARY 10, 2002," 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 encroachment is expressly 31 32 33 34 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that this Ordinance shall nOt be in effect until such time as Dimitfios Hionis and Jose L. Hionis, husband and wife, 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. 35 36 CA- PREPARED: 04/08/02 APPROXfE.D. A~ TO CONTENTS, SIGNATURE APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CITY ATTORNEY--~ // 3'19~JI3 vISIA I~ERIDIAN SOURCE.: N.B. 8, P. 10,3 0 22' SITE $C~d2E I"-I~00' LOCATION MAP ~ , I ~ I ! \ HENR7 BR. CaPE · · · · · · · · · · · · 0 ~ PREPARED BY VIRGINIA BEACH CITY ATrORNEY'S OFFICE EXEMPTED FROM RECORDATION TAXES UlqDER SECTIONS 58.1-811 (aX3) AND 58.1-811(c)(4) REI3/IBURSEMENT AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTION 25-249 THIS AGREEMENT, made this 12th day of April ,2002, by and between the CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, "City", and DIMITRIOS HIONIS and JOSE L. HIONIS, husband and wife, THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN TITLE, "Grantee", even though more than one. WITNES SETH: That, WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land designated and described as 3323 Shore Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451-1021; and That, WHEREAS, it is proposed by the Grantee to maintain nine (9) existing parking spaces, "Temporary Encroachment", in the City of Virginia Beach; and WHEREAS, in maintaining the Temporary Encroachment, it is necessary that the Grantee encroach into a portion of the City's right of way known as Cape Henry Drive (Old Norfolk and Southern Rail Road Right of Way) "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. GPIN 1489-88-2662 It is expressly understood and agreed that the Temporary Encroachment will be maintained in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, and in accordance with the City's specifications and approval and is more particularly described as follows, to wit: A Temporary Encroachment into The Encroachment Area as shown on that certain plat entitled: "ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT FOR DLMITRIOS HIONIS 3323 SHORE DRIVE JANUARY 10, 2002," 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 after the notice is given, the Temporary Encroachment must be removed from The Encroachment Area by the Grantee; and that the Grantee will bear all costs and expenses of such removal. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the 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. 2 It is further expressly understoc~d and agreed that the Grantee must submit and have approved a traffic control plan before commencing work in The Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee agrees that no open cut of the public roadway will be allowed except under extreme circumstances. Kequests for exceptions must be submitted to the Highway Operations Division, Department of Public Works, for final approval. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the Grantee must obtain a permit from the Office of Development Services Center/Planning Department prior to commencing any construction within The Encroachment Area. It is further expressly understood and agreed that prior to issuance of a right of way permit, the Grantee must post 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 Grantee must submit for review and approval, a survey of The Encroachment Area, certified by a registered professional engineer 0 or a licensed land surveyor, and/or "as built[' plans of the Temporary Encroachment sealed by a registered professional engineer, if required by either the City Engineer's Office or the Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. It is further expressly understood and agreed that the City, upon revocation of such authority and permission so granted, may remove the Temporary Encroachment and charge the cost thereof to the Grantee, and collect the cost in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes; may require the Grantee to remove the Temporary Encroachment; and pending such removal, the City may charge the Grantee for the use of The Encroachment Area, the equivalent of what would be the real property tax upon the land so occupied if it were owned by the Grantee; and if such removal shall not be made within the time ordered hereinabove by this Agreement, the City may impose a penalty in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each and every day that the Temporary Encroachment is allowed to continue thereafter, and may collect such compensation and penalties in any manner provided by law for the collection of local or state taxes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, DIMITRIOS HIONIS and JOSE L. HIONIS, the said Grantee have caused this Agreement to be executed by their signatures and seals duly affixed. 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 By City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager 4 (SEA,L) ATTEST: City Clerk J S~L. HIONIS (SE d ) STATE OF VIRGI~A 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 instrument 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 x0.q CIT__y/COUNTY OF X~ e~, ~(-["l~.~Vx , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ,2002, by DIMITRIOS HIONIS and JOSE L. HIONIS. day of My Commission Expires: Notary Public \ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY CITY ATT~OR34-EY APPROVED AS TO CONTENT CITY REAL ESTATE AGENT 6 t · ,-.~ 'P' 0 ~'v O1 / 22' 3323 Shore Drive 3323 Shore Drive CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager An Ordinance Reducing the Annual Salary of the City Councilmember Representing the Beach District MEETING DATE: July 2, 2002 Background: Section 15.2-1414.6 of the Virginia Code allows the governing body of a city to determine, by ordinance, the salaries of each of its members. The statute does not require any minimum salary to be paid to Councilmembers. Considerations: The ordinance reduces to zero the annual salary of the City Councilmember presently representing the Beach District, effective July 1,2002. The zero salary would remain in effect until the present Beach District Councilmember no longer serves on the City Council and his successor takes office, at which time the salary of such successor shall be increased to the same amount as the salary of the remaining Councilmembers (other than the Mayor). The ordinance also transfers funds equal to the salary reduction ($18,000) from the FY 02-03 Municipal Council salaries account to FY 2-03 Council Donations, in order to provide a potential funding source for a donation to a charitable organization to be determined by the City Council at a future time. The ordinance does not, however, bind the City Council to donate the funds. If it does decide to do so, the amount of such donation would have to be appropriated by the City Council. Public Information: The ordinance will be advertised as a normal agenda item. Recommendations: Adoption of ordinance. Attachments: Recommended Action: Adoption Submitting Department/Agency: Management Services Department City Managel~z~J~ ~_, '~~ 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 AN ORDINANCE REDUCING THE ANNUAL SALARY OF THE CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPRESENTING THE BEACH DISTRICT WHEREAS, Section 15.2-1414.6 provides that the annual salary of each member of the City Council shall be set by its members; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: 1. That, in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.2- 1414.6, the annual salary of the City Councilmember presently representing the Beach District is hereby set at Zero Dollars ($0.00), effective July 1, 2002; 2. That the salary set forth in the preceding section shall be in effect until such time as the City Councilmember presently representing the Beach District no longer serves on the City Council and his successor takes office, at which time the salary of such successor shall become the same as that of the remaining Councilmembers other than the Mayor. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That $18,000 is hereby transferred from the FY 2002-03 Municipal Council salaries account to FY 2002-03 Council Donations to provide a potential source of funding for a charitable donation by the City Council, should the City Council elect to make such a donation. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: An Ordinance to Allow the Recovery of Expenses Incurred in Responding to Terrorism Hoax Incidents MEETING DATE: July 2, 2002 Background: Enabling legislation allowing localities to recover costs of responding to terroristic hoaxes prohibited by Virginia Code Sections 18.2-46.6 (B) and (C) was enacted during the 2002 General Assembly session. Considerations: The ordinance allows the City to recover, by civil action, a maximum of $1,000 of the cost of responding to terroristic hoaxes prohibited by Virginia Code Sections 18.2- 46.6 (B).and (C) when the perpetrator is convicted of a violation thereof. The particular acts prohibited are as follows: Virginia Code Section 18.2-46.6: Any person who, with the intent to commit an act of terrorism, possesses, uses, sells, gives, distributes or manufactures any device or material that by its design, construction, content or characteristics appears to be or appears to contain a (i) weapon of terrorism or (ii) a "fire bomb," "explosive material," or "device," as those terms are defined in §§ 18.2-85, but that is an imitation of any such weapon of terrorism, "fire bomb," "explosive material," or "device" is guilty of a Class 3 felony. Co Any person who, with the intent to (i) intimidate the civilian population, (ii) influence the conduct or activities of the government of the United States, a state or locality through intimidation, (iii) compel the emergency evacuation of any place of assembly, building or other structure or any means of mass transportation, or (iv) place any person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm, uses, sells, gives, distributes or manufactures any device or material that by its design, construction, content or characteristics appears to be or appears to contain a weapon of terrorism, but that is an imitation of any such weapon of terrorism is guilty of a Class 6 felony. Public Information: No special public notice is required. Alternatives: While the City is not required to seek reimbursement for response costs, there is no reason not to give it the option of doing so. In order for the option to be available, the ordinance must be adopted. Recommendations: Adoption of ordinance 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 AN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THE RECOVERY OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RESPONDING TO TERRORISM HOAX INCIDENTS BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: (a) Any person convicted of a violation of subsection B or C of § 18.2-46.6 of the Virginia Code, when such violation is the proximate cause of any incident resulting in an appropriate emergency response, shall be liable in a separate civil action to the City or to any volunteer rescue squad, or both, which may provide such emergency response for the reasonable expense thereof, in an amount not to exceed $1,000 in the aggregate for a particular incident occurring in the City. In determining such reasonable expense, the City may bill a flat fee of $100 or a minute-by-minute accodnting of the actual costs incurred. (b) As used in this ordinance, "appropriate emergency response" includes all costs of providing law-enforcement, fire- fighting, rescue, and emergency medical services. The provisions of this ordinance shall not preempt or limit any remedy available to the City or to any volunteer rescue squad to recover the reasonable expenses of an emergency response to any other incident, as allowed by law. COMMENT The proposed ordinance allows the City to recover the reasonable costs, not exceeding $1,000.00, of responding to terroristic hoaxes which are prohibited by Virginia Code Sections 18.2-46.6 (B) and (C) (the text of which follows in this Comment) when the perpetrator has been convicted of the same. The enabling legislation allowing such cost recovery was enacted during the 2002 General Assembly session. Virginia Code Section 18.2-46.6 provides, in pertinent part: B9 40 41 42 4B 44 4~ 46 47 intimidation, (iii) compel the emergency evacuation of any place of assembly, building or other structure or any means of mass transportation, or (iv) place any person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm, uses, sells, gives, distributes or manufactures any device or material that by its design, construction, content or characteristics appears to be or appears to contain a weapon of terrorism, but that is an imitation of any such weapon of terrorism is guilty of a Class 6 felony. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on this day of , 2002. CA-8529 wmm/ordres/costrecoveryordin, wpd R-t June 6, 2002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCy: _ __ DePa-r~m~nt of ~Law'" CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager An ordinance appropriating $83,118 from the E-911 Communications Special Revenue Fund fund balance to purchase a Telephone Queuing and Reporting System MEETING DATE: July 2, 2002 Background: The purpose of this request is to appropriate $83,118 from the E-911 Communications Special Revenue Fund fund balance to purchase a specialized telephone queuing and reporting system for the E-911 Emergency Communications Center. This system will provide specialized management reports and enable the E-911 Center to process non-emergency, informational calls more efficiently thereby enhancing the center's ability to respond and process 911 emergency calls and dispatching duties. Revenue to fu nd this request, was made available through the additional Wireless State 911 tax received in FY 2001-02. This tax is imposed and collected by the State on cellular telephones. However the purchase was delayed due to ensuring the software's specifications are compatible with the City's current telephony system and the local telephone provider's system. The additional revenue from the · State will lapse into fund balance when the books are closed for FY 2001-02. Considerations: The Virginia Beach E-911 Emergency Communications Division, in working with our existing telephone services vendor, has identified software and equipment which will enable the E-911 Center to enhance the total call taking function for all citizens. The telephone queuing and reporting system will operate on the City's existing computer and telephony infrastructure and will allow for seamless integration with the City's existing telephony equipment. The appropriation will fund the purchase of the software, installation costs, testing, and training on the new system. Public Information: Public Information would be handled through the normal Council Agenda public information process Alternatives: An alternative is to continue to operate at the current level, utilizing the old method of manually tracking and monitoring non-emergency queues. Where this would allow the Emergency Communications Center to continue answering calls, the issues of providing dynamic .management and statistical reporting capabilities will remain unresolved. Recommendations: It is recommended that $83,118 be appropriated from the E-911 Communications Special Revenue Fund fund balance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $83,118 FROM FUND BALANCE OF THE E-9tl COMMUNICATIONS SPECIAL REVENUE FUND TO THE FY2002-03 OPERATING BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING, INSTALLING, AND TRAINING FOR TELEPHONY ROUTING SOFTWARE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 WHEREAS, the City received additional State revenue for the purpose of upgrading and enhancing the performance of the emergency communications center's telephony routing and switching of in-coming calls; WHEREAS, funding is available to be appropriated from the E- 911 Communications Special Revenue Fund fund balance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF vIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, That $83,118 is hereby appropriated from fund balance in the E-911 Cormmunication Special Revenue Fund to the FY2002-03 operating budget of the Department of Communications and Information Technology for the purpose of purchasing, installing, and training for telephony routing software. Adopted by Virginia, on the the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, of , 2002. CA-8547 ordin/noncode/Symposium, ord.wpd June 20, 2002 R2 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: P. ekm w. COMMONWEAL TH of VIRGINIA ~,~n~ Wird~s ~P-P l l Se--ice~ Board March 21, 2002 ~ob Nihraor Vh*~nia Bow, h Communic~io~ Divi~m This Ls to pmvlde ~ou hu'zn'mation zeg~ the FT2002 ~oarth qum'ta. ~ymoat ~om tho Wirdm E-9! 1 £unt ~m~d ~ yo~ F%'2002 ~pj~v~l fuudin~ mqurat of,~,186,15!.25 plus adju,ltm~t of$42,128,00, w~ have lm~e,~e*~! your ~urth ~m~ paymmt ~ tl~ ~ i~ tl~ amonat oZ $16~.655.~1. P~,m~m~ will !~ m~ ~tZO~o~lly Mthilx tl~ ~ few '.,ve~, Since tl~ is thc bxt payment for 1~Y2002, you m'e o~ ~~t~on m ~ofl ~ c~ ofomt r~v~. It'yov hs~o ~my qu~lia~s a~ ~r fourth quaffer payment or Imo. up reporting ~. p~uo f~.l fr~ to ~ tlze P$C Cooaliza~, ~L~ at (SO,;} ~?~-O01Z. I~,,~,~ ~ Plaza Bullgi,~ ,~lil~ 135 - 1 lO ~ouit~ S,.venth Street- ~c~,,,~_ a_. VL,~nia 232191911 ~604) 22~.3622 - FAX (804) ~ ?!-2795 - IT? lJ~,e, lts (gOO] fir,- I fl0 - wv,,w.dila.mra, vu.uf ~O'd' af:aT ~00~'~ Jd~ OIST-~g~-~gZ:x~ NIWO1J - WW03 ~A CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James K. Spore, City Manager ITEM: An Ordinance to Transfer Funds in the Amount of $1,413 from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies to the FY 2002-2003 Operating Budget of the Sheriff's Department for the Purpose of Reimbursing a City Employee for Legal Fees and Expenses MEETING DATE: July 2, 2002 Background: Deputy Sheriff Greg O'Neil was charged with criminal assault in the performance of his official duties. Attorney Ken Stolle was hired to represent him and successfully had this charge against the Deputy dismissed on April 3, 2002. Attorney Stolle has presented an invoice in the amount of $1,413 for his services. The Sheriff's Department has requested reimbursement on behalf of Deputy O'Neil. Considerations: Section 15.2-1711 of the Code of Virginia provides that "[i]f any officer or employee of any locality is investigated, arrested or indicted or otherwise prosecuted on any criminal charge arising out of any act committed in the discharge of his official duties, and no charges are brought, or the charge is subsequently dismissed, or upon trial he is found not guilty, the governing body of the locality may reimburse the officer or employee for reasonable legal fees and expenses incurred by him in defense of the investigation or charge, the reimbursement to be paid from the treasury of the locality." Recommendations: The legal fees and expenses incurred by the employee have been determined to be reasonable. Therefore, it is recommended that the attached ordinance be adopted. Attachments: Ordinance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO TRANSFER FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,413 FROM THE GENERAL FUND RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES TO THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT'S FY 2002-2003 OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE PURPOSE OF REIMBURSING A DEPUTY SHERIFF FOR LEGAL FEES AND EXPENSES INCURRED BY HIM IN HIS DEFENSE OF A CRIMINAL CHARGE ARISING OUT OF AN ACT COMMITTED IN THE DISCHARGE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES WHEREAS, a deputy sheriff with the Virginia Beach Sheriff's Department was charged with assault for an act committed in the discharge of his official duties; WHEREAS, the charge was tried before the Virginia Beach General District Court on April 3, 2002, and was dismissed at the conclusion of the trial; WHEREAS, in his defense of said charge, the deputy sheriff incurred legal fees and expenses in the amount of $1,413; WHEREAS, the deputy sheriff has requested the City to reimburse him for such fees and expenses; WHEREAS, ~ 15.2-1711 of the Code of Virginia provides that "[i]f any law-enforcement officer is investigated, arrested or indicted or otherwise prosecuted on any criminal charge arising out of any act committed in the discharge of his official duties, and no charges are brought, the charge is subsequently dismissed or upon trial he is found not guilty, the governing body of the locality wherein he is appointed may reimburse such officer for reasonable legal fees and expenses incurred by him in defense of such investigation or charge"; WHEREAS, the City Attorney's Office has reviewed the circumstances of the ~. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA: That the City Manager is hereby authorized to transfer funds in the amount of $1,413 from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies to the Sheriff's Department's FY 2002-2003 Operating Budget for the purpose of reimbursing a deputy sheriff for legal fees and expenses incurred by him in his defense of a criminal charge arising out of an act commisted in the discharge of his official duties. Adopted by the Council of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the day of , 2002. CA-8541 ORDIN~NONCODE\Sheriff's Fees Reimbursement.ord June 26, 2002 R3 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~ana~eme~t ~ervices APPROVED AS TO LEGAL K. PLANNING o o Application of FREDERICK P. PERKINS for a Variance of the Subdivision Ordinance, at 1004 Wheelgate Lane re subdividing two(2) sites into four(4) residential lots. (DISTRICT 4 - BAYSDE) Application of DANNY MARTIN for a Change of Zoning District Classification from A-12 (SD) and A-18 (SD) Apartment Districts to A-18 with a PD-H2 Overlay (Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District) Pleasure House Road and North Greenwell Road, containing 1 acre. ( DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) Application of ROBERT K. and LANG X. BELL for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-SD Residential Duplex District to Conditional B-1 Neighborhood District at Indian River Road and Level Green Boulevard (6041 Indian River Road), containing 18,412 square feet. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) Application of VOICE STREAM WIRELESS for a Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower at Lynnhaven Parkway and Sydenham Trail(1993 Sun Devil Hill), containing 59.4915 acres. (DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE) Application of ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR for a Conditional Use Permit for auto rental at Independence Boulevard and Smith Farm Road (2017 Independence Boulevard), containing 18,209 square feet. (DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE) Application of TRUE VINE for a Conditional Use Permit for a church at Virginia Beach Boulevard and Davis Street (5465-H Virginia Beach Boulevard), containing 600 square feet. (DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE) Application of TIDEWATER INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., for a Conditional Use Permit for an automated car wash (addition to existing fuel sales) at Providence Road and Lord Dunmore Drive (5285 Providence Road), containing 20,737 square feet. (DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE) Application of KEMPSVILLE CHURCH OF CHRIST for a Conditional Use Permit for a church at Parliament Drive and Yoder Lane (5424 Parliament Drive), containing 4.539 acres. (DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE) Application of THALIA UNITED METHODIST CHURCH for a Conditional Use Permit for a church expansion at Virginia Beach Boulevard and North Fir Avenue (4321 Virginia Beach Boulevard), containing 3.9 acres. (DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL) Application of VERONICA LITTLE BEASLEY for a Conditional Use Permit for a ~ ~-~ Frederick P. Perkins Mop Not to Scale 457 W~S~2~2V B~VCI.! OF Gpin I478-93-7658 + 8465 ZONING HISTORY No zoning history to report. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Frederick P. Perkins, Subdivision Variance MEETING DATE: July 2, 2002 Background: Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision for Frederick P. Perkins. Property is located at 1004 Wheelgate Lane (GPIN #1478-93-7658; #1478-93-8463). DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the CityZoning Ordinance for the purpose of subdividing two (2) sites totaling 5.8 acres into four (4) residential lots. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the proposed variance appears to meet the criteria for the authorization of a subdivision variance as specified in Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance and there was no opposition to the request. Recommendations: A motion was passed unanimously by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 9 with 1 abstention to approve the request subject to the following conditions: Detailed plan(s) for the proposed 3,200 square feet of dedication fora "turn around" atthe end of Wheelgate Lane shall be submitted to the Development Services Center with the final plat. 2. A street light plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Center for review and approval. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location MaD FREDERICK P. PERKINS / # I June 12, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Subdivision Variance to Section 4.4(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires all newly created lots meet all the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance 1004 Wheelgate Lane Map F-5 HoC, Not. *,*o $¢0}.e Frederick P. Perkins GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: G~in I478-93-7658 + 8463 1478-93-7658; 1478-93-8463 #4 - BAYSIDE 5.821 acres Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 FREDERICK P. PERKINS ! # 1 Page 1 STAFF PLANNER: Carolyn A.K. Smith PURPOSE: To subdivide two (2) sites totaling 5.8 acres into four (4) residential lots Major Issues: · Presence of a hardship justifying the variance to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Site Plan / Preliminary Plat: Existing Lots: The two (2) existing R-30 lots contain 5.821 acres. The site is heavily impacted by environmental constraints associated with the requirements of the City's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Ordinance. Proposed Lots: It is the intent of the applicant to create a total of four (4) lots. The minimum lot size for parcels within this zoning district is 30,000 square feet. The smallest of the proposed lots, Lot 1, is well above this minimum at 50,368 square feet or 1.56 acres. Lot 2 will be 1.960 acres, Lot 3 will be 1.410 acres and Lot 4 will be 1.222 acres. A negligible amount of the total acreage for each site lay within the water or marsh. The City Zoning Ordinance requires the width of a lot's actual frontage on a public right-of-way be at least 80 percent of the required minimum lot width. In this case, 80 percent of the required 100 feet of lot width equals 80 feet of direct frontage. Only one (1) of the four (4) proposed lots will meet these minimum standards for lot width and frontage. The variance request applies to the 100 foot lot width and 80 percent lot frontage requirement as outlined in the table below. Item 'Required Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot width / Lot frontage in feet ^pprox 130 Approximately 100 / 80 / 40* 0* / 0* 0* / 20* 180 / 100 Lot area in square feet 30,000 50,368 85,358 61,423 53,234 Vanance required Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 FREDERICK P. PERKINS / # 1 Page 2 The plan also depicts 3,200 square feet at the end of Wheelgate Lane that will be dedicated to the City of Virginia Beach for additional right-of-way. Ingress and egress to the lots will be via a 20 foot easement just beyond this dedicated area. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics Existinq Land Use and Zoninq The 5.8 acre site has an existing I 1/2 story, 2,144 square foot single-family dwelling on one of the two parcels. The site is zoned R-30 Residential District. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: West: · Single-Family Dwellings / R-30 Residential District · Lynnhaven River · Lynnhaven River · Lynnhaven River / R-20 Residential District Zoninq History There is no zoning history to report in the vicinity of this parcel. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in within an AICUZ area of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The property is located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The majority of the site is currently mature tree canopy with the naturalized forest floor intact. Tidal waters and wetlands border the property to the east, west and south. Portions of the shoreline are hardened with a timber bulkhead. The bulkhead is in need of repair and exhibits loss of backfill. Those portions of the shoreline that are not hardened exhibit moderate erosion. An unspecified number of trees will be impacted by the construction of the three (3) new homes. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 FREDERICK P. PERKINS / # 1 Page 3 Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is an eight (8) inch water main in Wheelgate Lane fronting the property. These lots must connect to City water. There is an eight (8) inch sanitary sewer main in Wheelgate Lane fronting the property. These lots must connect to City sewer. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan policies and map for this portion of the Bayside Planning Area support residential development proposals that are innovative and responsive to protecting the ecological integrity and beauty of the surrounding resources such as fragile upland shorelines, wetlands, scenic vistas and natural open space areas. Evaluation of Request Section 9.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance states: No variance shall be authorized by the Council unless it finds that: A. Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. The authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. The problem involved is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of general regulations to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. The hardship is created by the physical character of the property, including dimensions and topography, or by other extraordinary situation or condition of such property, or by the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto. Personal or self-inflicted hardship shall not Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 FREDERICK P. PERKINS / # 1 Page 4 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. As noted above, the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area features impact the site. A majority of the site lay in the Resource Protection Area (RPA), the more stringently regulated and environmentally sensitive portion of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. While there is enough land area to construct a cul-de-sac that meets City standards, on environmentally fragile sites such as this, minimization of impervious surfaces is encouraged. In addition, a cul-de-sac would utilize the majority of the property outside of the RPA pushing the homes further into the sensitive area thus requiring additional encroachment towards the water. The request for encroachment into the RPA for the three (3) additional dwellings was reviewed and approved by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board on February 25, 2002. The following are the conditions of that approval: No portion of any improvement shall lay within 100 feet of any water or wetland feature. For Lots 1,2, and 3, the proposed encroachment into the buffer, as shown, shall be reduced by a minimum of 50 percent per lot. The detached garage on proposed Lot 3 shall be located within the Resource Management Area. 4. Tree compensation shall be on a 1:1 ratio. If and when the existing residence on proposed Lot 3 is demolished, the new residence shall be re-located a minimum of 50 feet to the north. Said condition shall be noted on the final subdivision plat. If and when the shoreline is hardened for any proposed lot, a riprap revetment shall be installed in lieu of a vertical retaining structure. Said condition shall be noted on the subdivision plat and the site plans. Construction limits associated with Lots 1,2, and 3, shall lay a maximum of 15 feet outboard of improvements. All residual portions of the site, inclusive of the Resource Management Area, shall remain in their natural state with forest floor (leaf litter) left intact. Said condition shall be noted on all site plans. Planning Commission Agenda une FREDERICK P. PERKINS / ~ 1 Page 5 10. An area equal to 75 percent of the existing and proposed impervious cover on Lot 3 shall be devoted to buffer restoration. Said condition applies to those portions of the site currently devoted to turf. Restoration shall occur prior to recordation of the final subdivision plat. A buffer restoration / landscape plan shall be approved by the Development Services Center. A final inspection will be necessary prior to recordation of the subdivision plat. Payment into the Lynnhaven River Oyster Heritage Fund, as offered by the applicant, for an area equal in size to any impervious cover encroachment into the buffer associated with proposed Lots 1,2, and 3. Payment is designed to establish the equivalent of a 12 inch deep oyster shell plant within the Lynnhaven River. The formula for payment shall be total impervious cover divided by 27 = cubic yards X 15 (bushels per cubic yard) X $1.65 (cost per bushel installed). Said payment shall be made prior to approval of any site plan. All stormwater from new and existing impervious cover shall be conveyed to structural stormwater management facilities. 11. A revised site plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning, Development Services Center for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. In sum, the proposed layout depicts a proposal that recognizes the significant environmental features present on the site and which has been divided so as to achieve the following: minimization of land disturbance to fragile and sensitive areas; reduction of impervious cover, thereby reducing the stormwater management requirements; preserving natural features; retaining scenic vistas; and, maintaining the character of the surrounding area. In staff's opinion, these provisions in conjunction with the environmental constraints present on the site represent a legitimate hardship for subdividing the property contrary to the required lot width and frontage. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of this request subject to the conditions below. Conditions: Detailed plan(s) for the proposed 3,200 square feet of dedication for a "turn around" at the end of Wheelgate Lane shall be submitted to the Development Services Center with the final plat. A street light plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Center for review and approval. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 FREDERICK P. PERKINS / # 1 Page 6 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 June 12, 2002 FREDERICK P. PERKINS ! # 1 Page 7 Proposed Subdivision Plat Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 FREDERICK P. PERKINS / # 1 Page 8 Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 FREDERICK P. PERKINS ! # 1 Page 9 Item #1 Frederick P. Perkins Appeal to Decisions of Administrative Officers in regards To certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance 1004 Wheelgate Lane District 4 Bayside June 12, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Ronald Ripley: Okay. This next portion of our agenda will deal with items that are on the Consent Agenda. And if I must just reiterate, that if anybody has any objection to any item that's mentioned on this Consent agenda, we'll pull it off the agenda and drop it down so it's heard in its regular order. So, don't be bashful. Just step up here. Because what we're planning to do is to consent a number of different items. Dot, would you please take this portion of the agenda? Dorothy Wood: Thank you Ron. This afternoon, we have 18 items on the Consent agenda. Before I read the Consent agenda, I must read something on Item #8, Thalia Methodist Church. I've been advised by the City Attorney's Office that because I'm a member of a group, the members of which are effected by the transaction pursuant to Virginia Code 2.2-311282, I may participate in the Commission's discussion of and vote on the transaction as long as I declare my interest by stating. The transaction involves a Conditional Use Permit for church expansion, Thalia United Methodist Church. The nature of my personal interest effected by the transaction, my husband and I own adjacent property that I'm a member of a group, the members of which are effected by the transaction. The group being the adjacent property owners and I am fully able to participate in the transaction fairly, objectively and in the public interest. I am making this declaration orally and I ask that it be recorded in the minutes. Again, as Chairman Ron said, please if you have any objections to any items that I call, would you please stand up and let us know. The first item on the Consent agenda is Frederick P. Perkins. When I read your name, will you please come forward and tell us if you read the conditions and if you agree with them. Frederick P. Perkins, it's an Appeal to the Decisions of Administrative Officers in regard to certain elements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The property is located at 1004 Wheelgate Lane and there're two conditions. Jeffery Vierrither: Yes ma'am. We agree to those and we accept those. Dorothy Wood: Would you give us your name please? Jeffrey Vierrither: I'm sorry. Yes ma'am. My name is Jeff Vierrither and I'm with MSA. I'm representing Fred Perkins, the property owner. Item #1 Frederick P. Perkins Page 2 Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any opposition to this item? Item #1 Frederick P. Perkins on Wheelgate Lane? Thank you. Being none. Mr. Ripley, I would move to approve number one with two conditions. Ronald Ripley: So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Eugene Crabtree: I'll second it. Ronald Ripley: Motion by Dot Wood, seconded by Eugene Crabtree and Mr. Miller? Robert Miller: I need to abstain from Item #1. My firm is working on the project. Ronald Ripley: And the abstention so noted. We're ready to vote. AYE 9 NAY 0 ABS 1 ABSENT 1 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY MILLER RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE ABS ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 9-0, the motion passes ..:..'.':: :>:.:.~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: '... .: :;.;' :':. -.....: ./~:':.. :.. ;: . · . · DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name: FREDERICK p. PERKINS List All Current Property Owners: FREDERICK p. PERKINS BRENDA p. WALSH PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSUP~ If the properOy owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporalion below: (Attach li~t ifnecessa~.) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIp, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or panners in the organization below: (Attach li~r if necessary) Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. If the applicant i~ not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list ail 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 organ/zation below: (Attach list {f necessary) {:~ Check here if the applicant is NOT a corpor'~ion, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. Frederick p. Perkins Map E-3 Martin Hop Not to Sco[e 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Gpin See Application ZONING HISTORY Rezoning from R-8 Residential to A-1Apartment- Granted 2-9-76; Rezoning from R-8 Residential to A-2 Apartment - Granted 10-8-79 Rezoning from A-12 Apartment to A-18 Apartment - Granted 1-8-90 Reconsidered and Denied 2-12-90 Rezoning from A-1 Apartment to A-2 Apartment- Granted 3-17-75 Rezoning ffbrn R-8 Residential to A-2 Apartment - Granted 2-27-84 Rezoning from R-5 Residential to A-2 Apartment - Granted 5-9-83 Rezon~ng from R-6 Residential to A-2 Apartment - Granted 7-5-83 Rezoning from A-18 Apartment to A-24 Apartment - Withdrawn 5-9-88 Rezoning from A-2 Apartment to A-3 Apartment - Granted 12-13-83 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Danny Martin, Change of Zoning District Classification MEETING DATE: July 2, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Danny Martin for a Chancre of Zoning District Classification from A-12 (SD) and A-18 (SD) Apartment Districts to A-18 with a PD-H2 Overlay (Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District) on the east side of Pleasure House Road, 150 feet south of N. Greenwell Road (GPIN #1479-48-6524; #1479-48-7476; #1479-48-7522). The proposed zoning classification change to A-18 with a PD-H2 Overlay and a Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District is for multifamily land use at a density no greater than 18 units to the acre. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for residential uses at medium and high densities that are compatible with single family, townhouse and multifamily use in accordance with other Plan policies. Said parcel contains 1 acre. DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a change of zoning from A-12 and A-18 Apartment Districts with SD Shore Drive Overlay to A-18 Apartment District with a PD-H2 Planned Development Overlay and SD Shore Drive Overlay for the purpose of allowing the development of single- family condominium units. The A-12 and A-18 Apartment Districts do not permit single-family dwellings. However, the use of the PD-H2 District as an overlay to the A-18 Apartment District allows the applicant to specify the types of dwelling units for the development. In this case, the dwelling types will be single-family dwellings in a condominium form of ownership. Use of the PD-H2 District also allows for the applicant to specify setbacks, height, and other requirements that supplements and supercedes in some cases the underlying A-18 zoning. The result is a development type that is better-suited to the surrounding area and more consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for the Shore Drive and Pleasure House Road areas. A significant outstanding issue, however, is that the subject property is encumbered by a 25 foot wide City easement that is not currently in use by the City. The applicant has petitioned the City for the sale of this excess property. City Council must approve the sale of the easement in order for this project to be developed. In accordance with policy, the request for the sale of excess property must be heard and acted on by City Council prior to the rezoning request being heard. The review by City staff of the request for purchase of the excess City Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Danny Martin Page 2 property is not complete. Therefore, this item must be deferred since the City Council has not yet acted on the request for the excess property. Recommendations: An indefinite deferral of this item is in order. The deferral will allow the applicant to complete outstanding tasks related to the request for purchase of excess City property and for City staff to evaluate and prepare the request for review by the City Council. A motion was passed by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 9-1 to approve this request subject to the submitted PD-H2 Land Use Plan outlined below with the addition of conditions regarding siding material and column size as recommended by staff: The property shall be developed substantially in conformance with the site plan entitled "Rezoning Exhibit of Martinique Cove", dated February 6, 2002 and prepared by Kellam-Gerwitz Engineering Inc. This site plan has been presented to City council and is on file in the Department of Planning. In accordance with Section 1124 of the city Zoning Ordinance, the plan "shall serve as a supplement to and, where they conflict, as a replacement for, the zoning regulations of the" A-18 Apartment District. The condominium units shall be developed substantially in conformance with the elevation sketches and materials list dated May 29, 2002. These .elevation sketches and materials list have been presented to City Council and are on file in the Department of Planning. The elevations and materials shall be revised as follows: Doorways shall be angled at 45 degrees as provided on the site plan. Vinyl Shake Siding shall be used on the front facade and the second story of the sides and rear of the first three (3) units closest to Pleasure House Road on both the north and south side of the development. Vinyl Siding may be used on the first floor around the sides and rear of those units. A Frieze Board of a complementary neutral color must be provided at the horizontal line of the change of material. · Entryway columns shall be at least 10 inches square. DANNY MARTIN / # 3 June 12,2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Change of Zoning from A-12 and A-18 Apartment Districts with SD Shore Drive Overlay to A-18 Apartment District with PD-H2 Planned Development Overlay and SD Shore Drive Overlay East side of Pleasure House Road, 150 feet south of North Greenwell Road ~, ~,-3 Dann Martin Gpin See Application GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: #1479-48-6524; 1479-48-7476; 1479-48-7522 4 - BAYSIDE I acre Barbara Duke To rezone the property to allow the development of single-family condominium units. The A-12 and A-18 Apartment Districts do not permit single-family dwellings. However, the use of the PD-H2 District as an overlay to the A-18 Apartment District allows the Major Issues: · Degree to which the proposal is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood · Degree to which the proposal meets the objectives of the draft Shore Drive Design Guidelines Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The property is comprised of three small lots. There is an existing single-family home on the largest of the three lots, fronting on Pleasure House Road. The front lot is zoned A-12 Apartment District and the two smaller flag lots are zoned A-18 Apartment District. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: · South: · East: · West: · Single Family and Duplex Units / R-5R Residential District with SD Shore Drive Overlay Apartment Complex / A-12 Apartment District with SD Shore Drive Overlay Single Family and Duplex Units / R-5R Residential District with SD Shore Drive Overlay Single Family Homes / R-10 Residential District with SD Shore Drive Overlay Zoning and Land Use Statistics With Existing Zoning: With Proposed Zoning: The existing zoning would allow the development of 16 multi-family units The proposed zoning allows the development of 13 single-family condominium units in accordance with an approved land use plan. Zoning History The front portion of the subject property was rezoned from R-8 Residential District to A- ~ / .....A ~ o~ Anar+m,-nf I~i~frinf in l.q7fi The back portion of the subiect property was Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is not within an AICUZ area. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The site has a mixture of mature evergreen and deciduous trees. This property is within the Resource Management Area (RMA) of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is a 10 inch water main in Pleasure House Road fronting this property. This site must connect to City water. There is a 12 inch gravity sewer main in Pleasure House Road fronting this property. This site must connect to City sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Pleasure House Road in the vicinity of this application is a two lane undivided residential collector. There are currently no plans to upgrade this roadway. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing Land Use z_ 147 Pleasure House Road 5,600 ADT 1 7,200 ADT ~ ...... Proposed Land Use 3_ 156 Average Daily Trips 2as defined by 12 units/acre as defined by 13 single-family condominiums Schools The proposed rezoning will result in a reduction in site density of three units; therefore, there will not be any significant impact on schools as a result of this rezoning. Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: Adequate. No further comments. Adequate. No further comments. Comprehensive Plan The Bayfront Planning Area land use policies support well-planned and designed residential development proposals that promote economic vitality, community aesthetics and enhanced quality of life. The subject site is located in the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District and development of the site should meet the objectives of the draft Shore Drive Design Guidelines. 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; 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 Ensure that development relates to the pedestrian as well as to the automobile, and that non-residential uses are compatible with adjacent residential areas. Summary of Proposal Proposal · The applicant is proposing to develop a 13 unit single family condominium complex on this one acre site. This represents a decrease in the overall site density of three units. The subject site is encumbered with a 25 foot wide City easement. This easement is not in use by the City and the applicant has petitioned the City for the sale of easement as excess property. City Council must approve the sale of the easement in order for this project to be developed. The request for the sale of excess property will be heard and acted on by City Council prior to the rezoning request. Site Design · The site layout plan shows that there will be a central 20 foot wide drive aisle that will be used to access the units on either side. There are six units on the north side of the drive aisle and seven units on the south side of the drive aisle. A fifteen foot right of way dedication is shown along the frontage of this site to bring Pleasure House Road up to the minimum 60 foot width for a residential collector. There is a twenty foot setback from the right of way dedication line for the two units adjacent to Pleasure House Road. Effectively, this creates a 35 foot setback from the edge of pavement to the first two units. · The spacing between the buildings on site will vary; the minimum space will be 7 foot in width. A ~ n ~,~,f ~fh~_l~ frnm th~ northern, eastern and southern property lines is Vehicular and Pedestrian Access · The applicant has provided a 15 foot dedication of right of way along Pleasure House Road. Although there are no current plans for upgrade of this roadway, the dedicated area can be used for the future multi-purpose path envisioned by the Virginia Beach Outdoors Plan. A 20 foot wide central ' access aisle with a turn around at the eastern terminus is provided. · Each unit will be provided a garage in addition to two parking spaces in the driveway. Architectural Desiqn · The units will be two story. The doorways to the units are angled at 45 degrees to create a distinctive entrance that adds interest to the front and side facades of the building. A small covered entry space supported by columns is provided at each doorway. The buildings have been designed so that the doorways on adjacent buildings alternate sides. The doorways will face each other across a green space between buildings. All units will have a front-loading garage and a room that projects in front of the garage. Using this projection will help to soften the prominence of the garage on the front facade of the building. Beige vinyl shake siding will be used for the front facade. The exterior material for the sides and rear of the building will be beige vinyl siding. It should be noted that the applicant has worked with staff on the design of the units using some of the Shore Drive Guidelines for the buildings, making revisions to the original design to develop the design presented with this report. However, there is one specific design recommendation that the applicant has not incorporated that staff feels is critical to this project meeting the objectives of the Shore Drive Design Guidelines as stated in the Comprehensive Plan section of this report. This recommendation is suggested as a condition of the PD-H Land Use Plan at the end of this report and states: Beige Vinyl Shake Siding shaft be used on the front facade and the second story of the sides and rear of each unit. Beige Vinyl Siding may be used on the first floor around the sides and rear of each unit. A Freize Board of a complementary neutral color shaft be provided at the horizontal lin~. r)f th~_ windows are the same size and the placement of the windows is proportional. The roof variation and the angled doorway add interest to the side fa(;ade facing Pleasure House Road. The roofs of the units will be pitched and the roofline is varied. The roofing material is specified as asphalt shingles. Landscape and Open Space · The applicant is required to provide 15% open space for this development. The site layout plan shows 8,174 square feet, or 18%, open space is being provided in front of the units. Another 13,719 square feet, or 32%, open space is being provided between buildings and within perimeter setbacks. The total open space in the development is 50%. · The open spaces in front of the units will be planted with a mixture of shrubs. Crape Myrtle trees are also specified for these areas. · There is no landscaping proposed along the northern and southern property lines, in back of the units. · A 6 foot high privacy fence is shown surrounding the property on the north, east and south sides. · There is an area at the rear of the site, along the eastern property line, that will be planted with Wax Myrtle shrubs and Live Oak trees. Along the west side, adjacent to Pleasure House Road, the applicant is proposing a 3 foot high white vinyl post and rail fence with Wax Myrtle shrubs and Live Oak trees planted as a landscape buffer/entrance feature. Evaluation of Request The request to rezone the subject property from A-12 and A-18 Apartment District with SD Shore Drive Overlay District to A-18 PD-H2 Planned Development with SD Shore Drive Overlay District is acceptable. The subject property is encumbered by a 25 foot wide City easement that is not in use by the City. The applicant has petitioned the City for the sale of this excess property. City Council must approve the sale of the easement in order for this project to be developed. The request for the sale of excess property will be heard and acted on by City Council prior to the rezoning request. The single family condominium unit proposed by the applicant fits well into the surrounding neighborhood, which is an eclectic mix of duplexes, single family homes, traditional apartment complexes and single family condominiums. The proposed land use plan makes good use of open space in front of and between the units and provides ample parking for the units. The proposed development represents a decrease of three units in density from the existing zoning. The decrease in density and the good design of the land use plan make this proposal more beneficial to the neighborhood than the traditional apartment complex allowed by the existing zoning. The applicant has inr, nrnnr~f~_d .~nme of the Shore Drive Desiqn Guidelines to improve the project. The LAND USE PLAN The property shall be developed substantially in conformance with the site plan titled "Rezoning Exhibit of Martinique Cove", dated February 6, 2002 and prepared by Kellam-Gerwitz Engineering Inc. This site plan has been presented to City Council and is on file in the Department of Planning. In accordance with Section 1124 of the City Zoning Ordinance, the plan "shall serve as a supplement to and, where they conflict, as a replacement for, the zoning regulations of the" A-18 Apartment District. The condominium units shall be developed substantially in conformance with the elevation sketches and materials list dated May 29, 2002. These elevation sketches and materials list have been presented to City Council and are on file in the Department of Planning. The elevations and materials shall be revised as follows: Doorways must be angled at 45 degrees as provided on the site plan. Vinyl Shake Siding must be used on the front facade and the second story of the sides and rear of the first three (3) units closest to Pleasure House Road on both the north and the south sides of the development. Vinyl Siding may be used on the first floor around the sides and rear of each unit. A Frieze Board of a complementary neutral color must be provided at the horizontal line of the change of material. Entryway columns must be at least 10 inches square. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. :t '11 - 1 1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN I,lIt i PROPOSED SITE PLAN DETAILS PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLEASUREHOUSE RD. PROPERTY 13 Units Each unit approxinmtely 1,800 sq. Exterior Materials: Vinyl Shake front siding Vinyl siding on sides and back Vinyl insulated tilt windows - white Metal insulated exterior doors t.5 ear garages - 8 panel door w/th window lights - pre-finished garage door White vinyl trim on v,4ndows, ov~t~hang and comers Asphalt architectural shingies Interior: 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths Open flow-through floor plan with 9t'I. ceilings on first floor Glazed ceramic tile in t ~ floor foyer and bath Upgraded vinyl in kitchen Pre-finished cabinets with preformed Formica ce,.mter tops in kitchen and baths Ceiling fans in great mom and master bedroom Optional Jacuzzi tub in master bath Large great room open to kitchen Kitchen: range oven with self cl~n/ng oven, microwave, dishwasher, disposal Spacious dining area 2 zone central air/gas heat, gas water heater, gas fireplace Plaster walls and ceilings Upgraded Vinyl flooring in upstairs lauachs' room and baths Carpet in groat room, dining area, bedrooms, ball and sa/rs Pre-wired for telephone and cable in all moms Item #3 Danny Martin Change of Zoning District Classification from A-12 (SD) and A-18 (SD) Apartment Districts to A-18 with a PD-H2 Overlay (Shore Drive Overlay District) on the east side of Pleasure House Road, 150 feet south of N. Greenwell Road District 4 Bayside June 12, 2002 REGULAR AGENDA Ronald Ripley: Okay. We're going to go into the regular remaining items on the regular agenda. And the first item that I believe Mr. Miller is going to call is Item #3. Robert Miller: Danny Martin. Eddie Bourdon: That was it? You're not going to read the... Robert Miller: I'm not reading all of that. Eddie Bourdon: For the record, my name is Eddie Bourdon, I'm a Virginia Beach attorney and I'm representing Mr. Martin on this application. Late this morning you were given copies - excuse me, the samples of the building materials for these proposed units. I would note that the vinyl siding that was provided was just a sample of the type of material not the colors, however, the cedar shake vinyl was in fact, the specific type of vinyl and the three specific types of colors for that. I have some pictures - 18 pictures of residential units. Some multi-family, some that require rezoning. Some that did not, in and around Shore Drive that I'm going to pass around. The one that's on top is the Three Ships Landing right on Shore Drive where the sides and the rear do not have vinyl shake but do have the frieze board that separates the two top and bottom floors if you will. That's all vinyl. I'll pass these around. As Barbara explained to you all in the informal this morning, the rezoning here is necessitated by the fact that my client desires to do single family condominiums rather than apartments or multi-family dwelling condos. Since we're not asking for any increase in density or up zoning. We're actually eliminating three units that could be built on the subject property based on the current zonings of those properties. But because the zoning ordinance doesn't allow, in essence a free standing unit in multi-family zoning, we would ask for the PDH overlay, with our own land use plan. Frankly all of- we worked - Dan's worked very diligently with the staff on the plan and the plan as you know, has the recommendation for approval from staff. The only problem we have is the conditions with regard - first of all, there's a misunderstanding with regard to the color. The conditions indicate beige vinyl shake siding and beige was never - I know the color you have may look.beige, it's actually called Antique Gray but so that is an aspect of the conditions. It needs to be revised under any circumstances. The second issue we have and the only other issue we have is the request or recommendation from the staff that the vinyl shake siding be placed not Item #3 Danny Martin Page 2 only on the front of each unit, which we have no objection to whatsoever. But also that it be added on the second floor of the sides and the rears of all the buildings. We don't have any objection. My client has no objection to putting the vinyl shake on the side and the rear - sides and rear of the first unit. I if you can put --yeah. You see, the property fronts on Pleasure House Road as you are all aware. And we got apartments that adjoin us over here. You know, this is Pleasure House Road - it's not visible from Shore Drive. We have no problem putting the vinyl shake here and actually we go ahead make it here, but it will silly not do it on the whole building. But on these two buildings that have visibility from Pleasure House Road. The remainder of the buildings, you know, the sides - top half of the sides, top half of the rear, you really have no visibility, and you still have a high quality material. It's material without doing the shake that, you know, throughout this area of the City. And the cost is triple the cost of doing the high quality vinyl that has been proposed. And the objection isn't to the quality of the vinyl, it's the desire to have more shake on the buildings. And I would just suggest that, you know, in situations where there is high visibility that's one thing, but, I give you again that the Three Ships Landing situation where there is high visibility and you know, frankly, I don't think those units are unattractive. And this doesn't have anyway near that type of visibility and to require this additional cost where, again, in our opinion, there isn't a - there's very little to be gained in term of benefit other than cost. This is somewhat a cost sensitive area given the surrounding land uses and we think this is an upgrade to most of those land uses. There are some single families in the area and certainly, they have nice homes. In terms of multi-family land uses, I should be more specific. We think this is, you know, a benefit. And I think and obviously staff would not disagree with that since they' re recommending approval of it. That is the only issue that we have with the recommendation. Is that we do the extensive additional cost of putting the vinyl shake siding on the sides and rear, second floor of buildings that really don't have significant visibility. We'd like to see that condition in condition number two changed. Ronald Ripley: Bob, do you have a question? Robert Vakos: Yeah. Eddie, I feel like I need to salute you with that. Every time I looked up feel like I should stand up and put my hand over my heart but... Eddie Bourdon: Good, I will be here for you then. Robert Vakos: There you go. Do you have a dollar amount on it? I mean I know it's three times per square foot but do you have an estimate as to what... Eddie Bourdon: I'm not sure. Dan, do you have (inaudible) Robert Vakos: Just a ballpark. Danny Martin: 2,500-3,500. Eddie Bourdon: Yeah, that's per square. Item #3 Danny Martin Page 3 Danny Martin: Per square. Eddie Bourdon: Have you done the overall numbers? Danny Martin: Yeah, about 2,700 squares per building. Eddie Bourdon: Alright. Robert Vakos: Just about $9,000? $9,000-$10,000 a building? Eddie Bourdon: That's about... Robert Vakos: Okay. Eddie Bourdon: That sounds about right. Robert Vakos: And, I just want to make a point for the record. I think the reason why the Planning staff and I'm not going to speak for them, but I think from my standpoint on the Commission is that, you know, just last night the Council passed these guidelines for Shore Drive and I think anything before that is really not at rebuttal in my view as to how we look at future applications, but I just wanted to get that for the record. The next question I got is for staff. I guess who worked it, Barbara Duke? Barbara worked on this? They had proposed the two units facing the street frontage as doing the entire upgraded vinyl siding. Is that an acceptable? I mean, maybe Mr. Scott I will ask you that question. I don't know. Is that an acceptable compromise? Robert Scott: I don't think I understand the question. Robert Vakos: Well, Eddie has proposed that the two units that face Pleasure House Road that they would use the upgraded vinyl. If the issue is visibility from the public right-of-way, is that, and I do think that the materials are comparable. I know a little bit about this stuff and I do think the upgraded one will last probably a little bit longer. But, I think they comparable. If the issue is visibility and aesthetics for the Shore Drive Corridor, is that an acceptable compromise, I guess? Robert Miller: I think - didn't you say cedar shakes though? Robert Vakos: No, Cedar shake vinyl. Robert Miller: Right, but I meant... Robert Vakos: It's the difference in the material that we looked Robert Miller: Right. Eddie Bourdon: There's a significant difference in cost. Item #3 Danny Martin Page 4 Robert Miller: Right. Eddie Bourdon: It does look nicer but... Robert Vakos: But anyway. Eddie Bourdon: I'm going to be quiet. Robert Vakos: I'm still waiting for my response. Robert Scott: We're at... Robert Vakos: Okay, that's fine. You can go on if you want, I'm just... Betsy Atkinson: Can I ask a question? Ronald Ripley: Yes, Betsy? Betsy Atkinson: Oh, I'm sorry. John Baum: If your so much as varied, but they couldn't rent for fill. Is that recovered in the market place? The fact that you, because on all of the back units. You use the best materials possible. Does that pay? It looks like to me that would be very costly. And nobody's going to see anything but the front. Eddie Bourdon: That is precisely Mr. Baum, precisely what the concern is. This is a price sensitive area. There's lots of areas in the City where that's not the case. Okay, and you can recover those costs. But this is an area that if you look at the multi-family development on Pleasure House Road and it varies in terms of the time frame when it was built. It is, and we're not - we think this is clearly an definite upgrade over a lot that's out there. But this is an infill of an area that is very much developed. And it would be, you know, standing alone in terms of those of higher cost materials when we are limited in terms of the marketability of the units as far as the upper ranges and the prices in large measure by what is already out there that is comparable in terms of multi-family, that's not on the water. Obviously, waterfront gives you a different, you know, dollar sign. But there's the price sensitivity, and Mr. Baum you hit the nail right on the head. That is the burden that we're dealing with. Betsy Atkinson: Ron? Ronald Ripley: Yes Betsy? Betsy Atkinson: Eddie, the architectural rendering here shows a protrusion out to kind of break the front of it. On either side of that protrusion out in the front, are you going to put vinyl shakes or is that going to be the regular vinyl siding. Item #3 Danny Martin Page 5 Eddie Bourdon: No. In the front it's vinyl. It's a shake. I'm sorry. Betsy Atkinson: But it's flat and it comes out and goes back. I'm talking about the two sides... Eddie Bourdon: It's all shake in the front. Everywhere. Betsy Atkinson: Okay. On the whole... Eddie Bourdon: The entire front is shake. The entire front is shake. There's no - the separation that's recommended by staff, you know, the recommendation between top and bottom and the sides are identified. All shake on the front. All sides in the front so to speak. Betsy Atkinson: Okay. Robert Scott: Well. Robert Vakos: Well. Robert Scott: We had a chance to consider this. First of all, the guidelines aren't 24 hours old yet. We do have some allegiance to them. We worked very hard. We got not just the concurrence but, the enthusiastic concurrence of the community out there, all aspects of it. We do want to be reasonable. And we're concerned about the price just like everybody else. I think that you can say almost the same thing about all of Shore Drive. It's almost all built up. We're not - the reason that these design guidelines exist is because we want to go above what's already built out there not comply with what's built out there. And having that been said from a visibility point of view, I think it' s important that we adhere to these guidelines in the closer to the road that we do it, the more important that it is that we do it. But I don't think doing in on the first two buildings are enough. There are 13 buildings there as I count them. And I think that if we could get the first three on each side, the first six buildings to comply with these, I think we could live the remaining seven in the back, not having them on the building material. It won't be as visible. I agree with that. But visibility, I think probably pertains to the first six units. Robert Vakos: Let's make a deal time right? Ronald Ripley: Well. Wait for Mr. Bourdon. Eddie? Robert Vakos: We gave Bob 10 minutes you got to give him 10 minutes. Ronald Ripley: Alright. Bob? In your consideration, you look like you have an area that opens up a little bit back there. Would that be a little more sensitive? You would see that visually? More so than the one's that are closer together? Item #3 Danny Martin Page 6 Eddie Bourdon: If you look at the aerial. I'm sorry for interrupting. Robert Scott: Well, I just - I guess my point is that I'm sensitive to the visibility thing. I am here saying that I suspect there are some units where it's more important than on other units and that we would be willing to suggest foregoing these on certain of the units that are the less visible. Just having given this to us, our first thought looking at it is the one's in the back are the ones we would think to be the least visible. The one's in the front more visible. Then someone else's eye could see it differently. Ronald Ripley: But it looked like to me, I don't think staff was asking - they're asking for the second floor not the entire side and he is going to put siding on anyway and all we're talking about is the differential between vinyl and the shakes, because you're going to have to put something on the siding anyway. Correct? Eddie Bourdon: Yes, that's absolutely correct. Ronald Ripley: So, it's not $300 a square times how many squares you got, it's the differential on the areas that they're talking about. Correct? Eddie Bourdon: Yeah, that's correct, I'm sorry. I was concentrating on what buildings - I wasn't -- I'm sorry. Ronald Ripley: I don't think the staff is unreasonable. Maybe the backs of it may be okay to leave it off, but I don't think what they have requested is unreasonable. I think you'll recover it, without a question. Eddie Bourdon: We beg to differ on that. Let me, if I could, skip back to the original question. Here you have an apartment building that if you think back to the site plan and this what was suggesting, you know, I think that does make - is a reasonable compromise. Because you have these units here, there is really, essentially no visibility. I would tend to agree among you. You may have some visibility of the first three units on this side. The other side, again, I don't think because of the vegetation and the existing dwellings over here, you will have any visibility beyond the first couple of buildings, maybe three, but, the rear of the site is going, again, not have any visibility from any member of the public other than someone coming here to visit someone who lives in this condominium complex. I think that is a reasonable compromise when, again, factoring all the conditions that are there now and the type of development, type of siding that's been used throughout Pleasure House Road and Shore Drive area. We would go along with that. Ronald Ripley: So, Mr. Scott are you okay with the first three buildings'~ Robert Miller: On each side. ' Ronald Ripley: On each side? And it also includes - Eddie, because I look at this side profile and it calls for vinyl siding. It doesn't call for the shake. Is the shake is what? Item #3 Danny Martin Page 7 Robert Vakos: The shake is the vinyl. Eddie Bourdon: Right Robert Vakos: I mean, it's a vinyl imitation shake and ... Ronald Ripley: Well, it says the difference, on the front it says vinyl shakes. On the side it says vinyl siding. Robert Vakos: Right Betsy Atkinson: Right. Ronald Ripley: It means two different things to me. Eddie Bourdon: But the condition says that it will be vinyl shake on the top half with the frieze boarding in between. That's the top half of the side and rear of each unit would be the typical vinyl on the bottom half and a vinyl-shake on the top half. Ronald Ripley: I understand. Eddie Bourdon: I do think that's a reasonable compromise. We did that on the first three units on either side as you come in off of Pleasure House Road as well as, on the first units. Ronald Ripley: Betsy? You want to ask a question? Betsy Atkinson: As a realtor, I think if I was marketing these, I would strongly suggest buying the ones with the vinyl shakes. Unfortunately, I don't know if you're going to charge more money for those or whatever, but I mean, I'm okay with your compromise. It is just kind of prettier to have them all the same if they all were shake at top and bottom. Eddie Bourdon: There's not really. If you look at a lot of pictures, there's a much greater differential in cost then there is in differential in appearance at least, but that's subjective. Everybody's idea of what looks good is their idea on what looks good. But, you know, those in the back will usually be a little more expensive because they're off the main road. So, I think all you're going to do is have a moderation that they're all going to be of a similar price as opposed to having a significant difference from the Pleasure House Road side then from the ones that are in the back. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: I'd like to make a motion for approval of the modified conditions as we just agreed to them. Item #3 Danny Martin Page 8 Ronald Ripley: You know, we didn't ask for any opposition. Robert Miller: I'm sorry. I apologize. Ronald Ripley: I'm sorry. We got ahead of ourselves. Is there any opposition to this application? Okay, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Miller. Robert Miller: Now I can make a motion? Ronald Ripley: Yes. Robert Miller: I would still like to make a motion for approval of the application with the modified conditions as we just agreed to them on the first three units on each side. John Baum: Would you repeat the modified conditions? Robert Miller: That they be in conformance to the conditions that are stated in our report for the first three units on each side from Pleasure House Road. Eddie Bourdon: And were clear that it won't be beige, it'll be the color that was presented. Ronald Ripley: I'm going to - any discussion? I'm just going to let you know I'm going to vote against it. I have no problem with the project. I just think you're splitting hairs when you're changing siding like that for three units in. But I do support the application to that extent but I will be voting against it and that's the reasonl John Baum: Do you want to call away? Ronald Ripley: Yeah, I think I'll do what the staff said. John Baum: My wife is going to be surprised that I should judge quality. I'm not allowed to do this at home you understand. Ronald Ripley: Okay, we'll call for the question. John Baum: A much higher authority. Ed Weeden: Who seconded it? Ronald Ripley: Dot Wood. I'm sorry. AYE 9 NAY 1 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ATKINSON AYE Item #3 Danny Martin Page 9 BAUM CRABTREE DIN HORSLEY MILLER RIPLEY SALLE' STRANGE VAKOS WOOD Ronald Ripley: AYE AYE AYE AYE NAY AYE AYE AYE AYE By a vote of 9-1, the motion carries. ABSENT APPLICATION REZONING CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH PAGE 4 OF 4 Applicant's Name: List All Cttrre.t 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, 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) Robert & Bell Gpin 1456-52-3841 ZONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Rezoning (A-12 Apartment District to cond. B-2 Business District) Approved 4-26-§4 2. Conditional Use Permit (gas/wash/food) Approved 8-8-88 Conditional Use Permit (auto repair shop) Approved 4-20-81 Conditional Use Permit (bulk storage yard) Withdrawn 1-14-80 Rezoning (B-2 Business to I-1 Industrial) Withdrawn 1-14-80 3. Conditional Use Permit (church) Approved 1-27-98 Conditional Use Permit (small engine repair) Approved 4-14-98 4. Conditional Use Permit (church) Approved 10-10-00 5. Conditional Use Permit (gas & car wash) Approved 10-27-86 6. Rezoning (A-1 Apartment to B-2 Business) Approved 5-12-86 7. Conditional Use Permit (car wash) Approved 12-12-83 8. Conditional Use Permit (gas station / convenience store) Approved 2-13-84 9. Conditional Use Permit (microwave link) Approved 10-18-82 Rezoning (A-1 Apartment to B-2 Business) Approved 12-14-81 10. Conditional Use Permit (mini-warehouses) Approved 2-27-78 11. Conditional Use Permit (mini-warehouses) Approved 7-10-78 12. Street Closure Approved 8-19-74 Conditional Use Permit (gas station) Approved 12-15-80 CITY OF VIRGINIA .BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Robert K. & Lang X. Bell, Change of Zoning District Classification MEETING DATE: July 2, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Robert K. & Lang X. Bell for a Change of Zoning District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional B-1 Neighborhood District on the south side of Indian River Road, west of the intersection with Level Green Boulevard (GPIN #1456-52-3841). The proposed zoning classification change to Conditional B-1 is for Iow intensity commercial land use. The Comprehensive Plan recommends use of this parcel for residential uses above 3.5 dwelling units per acre at densities that are compatible with single family and townhouse use in accordance with other Plan policies. Said parcel is located at 6041 Indian River Road and contains 18,412 square feet. DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a change of zoning from R-5D Residential District to Conditional B-1 Neighborhood Business District for the purpose of converting an existing home on Indian River Road into an optician's office and retail store for eyeglasses and accessories. Staff concludes that the lot's location adjacent to and the building's proximity to Indian River Road make continued residential land use inappropriate. Although the property is slightly smaller than the minimum 20,000 square feet required for almost all commercially zoned lots, the property is more suitable for a commercial use than a residential use due to its location on Indian River Road and its isolation from any other residential uses. Even though the zoning on the surrounding property is R-5D Residential District, the actual use on this surrounding property is an established church that is compatible with the proposed uses for the subject site. Further, the limited range of commercial and office uses listed in proffers are appropriate for the relatively small lot. The proffered site plan also ensures that the site will be well-screened and buffered and will not be overbuilt. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda due to these reasons and the fact that there was no opposition to the request. Recommendations: Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Robed K. & Lang X. Bell Page 2 A motion was passed unanimously by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request as conditioned. ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL/# 2 June 12, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Change of Zoning District Classification from R-5D Residential District to conditional B-1 Neighborhood Business District. 6041 Indian River Road (south side of Indian River Road, west of its easternmost intersection with Level Green Boulevard) Map Mo~ .... ~o~. Robert & Bell GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: #1456-52-3841 1 - CENTERVILLE 18,412 square feet Gpin 1456-52-3841 Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL/# 2 Page 1 STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: Ashby Moss To convert an existing home on Indian River Road into an Optician's office and retail store for eyeglasses and accessories. Major Issues: Degree to which the proposed limited office and accessory retail use are compatible with the surrounding land uses and appropriate for the limited size of the site, Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The property is currently developed with a single-family residential dwelling and is zoned R-5D Residential District. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning North: East: South & West: · Across Indian River Road, gas stations and mixed office and retail uses / B-2 Community Business District · Very small piece of vacant land at the northwest corner of Indian River Road and Level Green Boulevard / R-5D Residential District · Across Level Green Boulevard, gas station / B-2 Community Business District · Church / R-5D Residential District Planning Commission Agenda June12,2002 ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL/# 2 Page 2 ,Zoninq and Land Use Statistics With Existing Zoning: One single family or duplex dwelling. With Proposed Zoning: Business studio, office, clinic, florist, gift shop, stationery store, medical office/clinic, dental office/clinic, or optician with retail sales of eyewear. The site must be developed as shown on the proffered site plan, and all other proffers must be met. .Zoninq History A number of auto-related businesses have received conditional use permits in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. These include two gas stations across Indian River Road and one across Level Green Boulevard from the subject site. While the church immediately adjacent to the subject property seems to pre-date the requirement for a use permit, two other churches have been approved in recent years west of the site. Air Installation Com atible Use Zone AICUZ The site is in an AICUZ area of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Ph sical Characteristics The house on the subject site was constructed in 1955; hence the yard contains mature trees and dense shrubs. These will be preserved where possible. Public Facilities and Services .Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is a 12-inch water main in Indian River Road fronting the property and an 8-inch water main in Level Green Boulevard at the southeast corner of the property. This site has a 5/8-inch meter that may be utilized. There is an 8-inch sanitary sewer force main in Indian River Road fronting the property and a 10-inch sanitary sewer main in Level Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL / # 2 Page 3 Green Boulevard at the southeast corner of the property. This site must connect to City sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP)/Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Indian River Road in the vicinity of this application is currently a six lane divided major urban arterial. The MTP designates this roadway as a 150 foot divided right- of-way with controlled access. No further improvements are scheduled for this portion of Indian River Road in the current adopted CIP, Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Indian River Road 35,000 26,300 - Existing Land Use z_ 12 ADT ADT 1 48,200 ADT ~ Proposed Land Use 3_ 38 ADT Average Daily Trips 2 as defined by one dwelling unit 3as defined by proposed office and accessory retail use Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: Adequate. No further comments. Adequate. All building permits must be obtained for all construction related to this project. All fire protection ,...requirements will be required during the building permit process. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained prior to occupancy. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map recommends medium and high density (above 3.5 dwelling units per acre) suburban residential land use for this property. One of the Citywide policies lauded in the Plan is "Improved land use relationships." This policy Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL ! # 2 Page 4 supports "readapted development that carefully integrate(s) residential, commercial, employment and other acceptable uses for the purpose of achieving a complementary, well-organized, efficient and attractive arrangement of land uses. (p. 52) Summary of Proposal Proposal · The applicants propose to convert an existing single family home into an Optician's office and retail store for eyeglasses and accessories. Site Desi,qn · The existing 2,039 square foot house is situated slightly off center of the lot toward the northwest comer of the property. At its closest point, the building is 25 feet from Indian River Road and 20 feet from the western property line. · The existing driveway is on the east side of the house. The ddveway leads to a 10- space parking lot behind the house on the south side of the site. No parking is shown in front of the house. · A stormwater management facility is shown in the front yard on the north side of the site. Vehicular and Pedestrian Acces.~ · The vehicular access is proposed at approximately the same location as the existing driveway on the eastem side of the property. The driveway width would be widened to 22 feet. Architectural Design · The existing structure is a one-story brick ranch style house with an asphalt shingle roof. Although no details have been provided regarding the proposed exterior of the structure, the footprint must remain the same on the lot as shown on the proffered site plan. Exterior changes are anticipated to be minor. The primary entrance will remain at the front of the building. The applicant has proffered a brick based monument style sign no greater than eight feet in height. Planning Commission Agenda ~[o,~~ June 12, 2002 \~.~~ ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL / # 2 ~ Page 5 Landscape and Open Space · The site plan shows a 15-foot landscape buffer around the perimeter of the property except along the frontage on Indian River Road. Any existing vegetation in this area will be preserved and supplemented where necessary to meet Category II landscape screening specifications. Foundation landscaping is shown on the northern and eastern sides of the building. Again, existing shrubs will be preserved and supplemented where necessary. One landscape island is shown within the parking lot in accordance with requirements for interior parking lot landscaping. · Landscaping is shown around the freestanding monument sign in accordance with ordinance requirements. Proffers PROFFER # 1 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 2 Staff Evaluation: When the Property is re-developed, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "CONCEPT PLAN, LANG OPTICAL," prepared by Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Ltd., dated 14 FEB. 2002, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter "Site Plan"). This proffer is acceptable. The site plan was revised in accordance with staff's recommendations to limit parking to the back portion of the lot and preserve existing landscaping where possible. The freestanding monument style sign designated on the Site Plan shall be brick based monument style sign no greater than eight feet (8') in height. This proffer is acceptable. While City Zoning Ordinance regulations allow freestanding signs to reach a maximum of 12 feet, limiting the height to eight feet is more appropriate for the size of the site and the monument design of the sign. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL/# 2 Page 6 PROFFER # 3 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 4 Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 5 '-... Staff Evaluation: PROFFER # 6 All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct light down onto the premises and away from adjoining property. This proffer is acceptable. Although there are no residential uses near the subject site, directing light onto the property mitigates excess light pollution. Category II Landscaping, as described in the Landscaping, Screening and Buffering SPecifications and Standards of the City of Virginia Beach, will be provided adjacent to the sides and rear boundary of the Property as depicted on the Site Plan. This proffer is acceptable, provided that existing vegetation will be preserved and supplemented where necessary as indicated on the Site Plan identified in Proffer #1. The existing vegetation is dense and mature, providing instantaneous screening and buffering for the site and neighboring properties. Although the City Zoning Ordinance requires only Category I landscape screening between B- 1 Neighborhood Business and any residential or apartment zoning districts, Category II landscaping more closely resembles the existing vegetation, allowing more of it to be preserved. Compared to Category I landscaping, which is intended to create a Iow, thick evergreen hedge, Category II landscaping will provide a higher but less dense landscape screen incorporating more trees than shrubs. This type of landscape screening is more appropriate for the subject site. Only the following uses will be permitted on the Property: a) Business studios, office and clinics; b) Florists, gift shops and stationery stores; or c) Medical and dental offices and clinics; d) Optician with retail sales of eyewear. This proffer is acceptable. The limited uses listed above are all appropriate for this limited sized site and structure. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable Planning Commission Agenda June12,2002 ROBERT K.& LANG X. BELL/# 2 Page 7 Staff Evaluation: City Attorney's Office: City codes by all cognizant City agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. This proffer reinforces the concept that a rezoning approval does not supersede compliance with ordinance and code requirements. Changes to the plan may be required during the detailed plan review process. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the proffer agreement dated March 10, 2002, and found it to be legally sufficient and in acceptable legal form. Evaluation of Request The applicants' request for a change of zoning from R-5D Residential District to conditional B-1 Neighborhood Business District is acceptable. The lot's location adjacent to and the building's proximity to Indian River Road make continued residential land use inappropriate. Although the property is slightly smaller than the minimum 20,000 square feet required for almost all commercially zoned lots, the property is more suitable for a commercial use than a residential use due to its location on Indian River Road and its isolation from any other residential uses. Even though the zoning on the surrounding property is R-5D Residential District, the actual use on this surrounding property is an established church that is compatible with the limited proposed uses. Further, the limited range of commercial and office uses listed in Proffer #5 are appropriate for the relatively small lot. The proffered site plan also ensures that the site will be well-screened and buffered and will not be overbuilt. Therefore, staff recommends approval for this rezoning request as proferred. NOTE: Furiher conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. Plans submitted with this rezoning application may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL/# 2 Page 8 ©O 00000 O0 Proffered Site Layout Planning Commission Agenda Page 9 Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 ROBERT K. & LANG X. BELL/# 2 Page 10 Item #2 Robert K. & Lang X. Bell Change of Zoning District Classification from R-5D Residential Duplex District to Conditional B-1 Neighborhood District south side of Indian River Road, west of the intersection with Level Green Boulevard 6041 Indian River Road District 1 Centerville June 12, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: The second item is Robert K. & Lang X. Bell. Change of Zoning District Classification from R-5D to Conditional B-1 Neighborhood District. It's located at 6041 Indian River Road, District 1, Centerville. Mr. Bourdon? Eddie Bourdon: Thank you Mrs. Wood. Eddie Bourdon for the record, representing the applicants who are here this afternoon. And obviously, we're please to be on the Consent agenda. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Is there any opposition to Robert K. & Lang X. Bell at 6041 Indian River Road? Hearing none. I would move to approve number two. Ronald Ripley: So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Eugene Crabtree: I'll second it. Ronald Ripley: Motion by Dot Wood, seconded by Eugene Crabtree. We're ready to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. APPLICATION'. PAGE 4 OF 4 CONDITIONAL ZONING ~i.: .i:':~ ~CITY,:.OFVIRG~IA BEACH Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Robert K. Bell and Lan$ X. Bell George Edward Webb, Jr., Betty Webb Jackson and Peggy Webb Liebold ~ubject to the right to sell or encumber the property expressly granted to MERRILL C. LIEBOLD, Executor of the Estate of Beulah Bunch Webb 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 properly 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 ifneces'sary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) FORM NO. P.S. lB ,' it)r of[ ¥ir inia F ¢ach In Reply Refer To Our File No. DF-5574 DATE: June 20, 2002 TO: FROM: Leslie L. Lille~ B. Kay WilsonX~' - DEPT: City Attorney DEPT: City Attorney Conditional Zoning Application Robert K. and Lang X. Bell and Merrill C. Liebold The above-referenced conditional zoning application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on July 2, 2002. I have reviewed the subject proffer agreement, dated March 10, 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 PREPARED iSYI~E$. t~OUI~DON. AII[I~N & LEVY. P.C. ROBERT K. and LANG X. BELL, husband and wife MERRILL C. LIEBOLD, Executor of the Estate of BEULAH BUNCH WEBB, a/k/~' BEULAH L. WEBB, Deceased TO (PROFFERED COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS) CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH THIS AGREEMENT, made this l0th day of March, 2002, by and between ROBERT K. BELL and LANG X. BELL, husband and wife, parties of the first part; MERRILL C. LIEBOLD, Executor of the Estate of BEULAH BUNCH WEBB, also known as BEULAH L. WEBB, Deceased, Grantor, party of the second part; and THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee, party of the third part. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the party of the second part has the authority to grant and convey covenants, restrictions and conditions upon a certain parcel of property located in the Centerville District of the City of Virginia Beach, containing approximately 0.42 acres as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the party of the first part, being the contract purchaser of the Property has initiated a conditional amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by petition addressed to the Grantee so as to change the Zoning Classification of the Property from R-5D Residential District to B-1 Neighborhood Business District; 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 GPIN: 1456-52-3841 RETURN TO: SYKES, BOURDON, AHERN & LEVY, P.C. PEMBROKE ONE BUILDING, THE FIFTH FLOOR VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23462 PREPARED BY: I~'I~[S. t~OURDON. AB[RN 8, L~VY. P.C WHEREAS, the Grantors acknowledge that the competing and sometimes incompatible development of various types of uses conflict and that in order to pei-mit differing types of uses on and in the area of the Property and at the same time to recognize the effects of change that will be created by the Grantors' proposed rezoning, certain reasonable conditions governing the use of the Property for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned are needed to resolve the situation to which the Grantors' rezoning application gives rise; and WHEREAS, the Grantors have voluntarily proffered, in writing, in advance of and prior to the public hearing before the Grantee, as a part of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map with respect to the Property, the following reasonable conditions related to the physical development, operation, and use of the Property to be adopted as a part of said amendment to the Zoning Map relative and applicable to the Property, which has a reasonable relation to the rezoning and the need for which is generated by the rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantors, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in title or interest, voluntarily and without any requirement by or exaction from the Grantee or its governing body and without any element of compulsion or quid pro quo for zoning, rezoning, site plan, building permit, or subdivision approval, hereby makes the following declaration of conditions and restrictions which shall restrict and govern the physical development, operation, and use of the Property and hereby covenants and agrees that this declaration shall constitute covenants running with the Property, which shall be binding upon the Property and upon all parties and persons claiming under or through the Grantors, their successors, personal representatives, assigns, grantees, and other successors in interest or title: 1. When the Property is re-developed,, it shall be developed substantially as shown on the exhibit entitled "CONCEPT PLAN, LANG OPTICAL", prepared by Gallup Surveyors & Engineers, Ltd., dated 14 FEB. 2002, which has been exhibited to the Virginia Beach City Council and is on file with the Virginia Beach Department of Planning (hereinafter 'Site Plan"). PREPARED BY: AI1EI~N & LI~Y. P.C 2. The freestanding monument style sign designated, on the Site Plan sha~,., be brick based monument style sign no greater than eight feet {8~ in height. 3. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, deflected, shaded and focused to direct light down onto the premises and away from adjoining property. 4. Category II Landscaping, as described in the Landscaping, Screening and Buffering Specifications and Standards of the City of Virginia Beach, will bei provided adjacent to the sides and rear boundary of the Property as depicted on the Site Plan. 5. Only the following uses will be pei-mitted on the Property: a) Business studios, office and clinics; b) Florists, gift shops and stationery stores; or c) Medical and dental offices and clinics; d) Optician with retail sales of eyewear. 6. Further conditions may be required by the Grantee during detailed Site Plan review and administration of applicable City codes by all cognizant agencies and departments to meet all applicable City code requirements. All references hereinabove to B-1 District and to the requirements City and regulations applicable thereto refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in force as of the date of approval of this Agreement by City Council, which are by this reference incorporated herein. The above conditions, having been proffered by the Grantors and allowed and accepted by the Grantee as part of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning of the Property and specifically repeals such conditions. Such conditions shall continue despite a subsequent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance even if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised Zoning Ordinance until specifically repealed. The conditions, however, may be repealed, amended, or varied lJY written instrument recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and executed by the record owner of the Property at the time of recordation of such instrument, provided that said instrument is consented to by the Grantee in writing PREPARED BY: ISYI~ES. t~OURDON. AII[RN & [[WY. P.C. as evidenced by a certified copy of an ordinance or a resolution adopted by th~.. governing body of the Grantee, after a public hearing before the Grantee which was advertised pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Said ordinance or resolution shall be recorded along with said inst. mxment as conclusive evidence of such consent, and ff not so recorded, said instrument shall be void. The Grantors covenant and agree that: (1) The Zoning Administrator of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall be vested with ali necessary authority, on behalf of the governing body of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, to administer and enforce the foregoing conditions and restrictions, including the authority (a) to order, in writing, that any noncompliance with such conditions be remedied; and (b) to bring legal action or suit to insure compliance with such conditions, including mandatory or prohibitory injunction, abatement, damages, or other appropriate action, suit, or proceeding; (2) The failure to meet all conditions and restrictions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required building or occupancy permits as may be appropriate; (3) If aggrieved by any decision of the Zoning Administrator, made pursuant to these provisions, the Grantors shall petition the governing body for the review thereof prior to instituting proceedings in court; and (4) The Zoning Map may show by an appropriate symbol on the map the existence of conditions attaching to the zoning of the Property, and the ordinances and the conditions may be made readily available and accessible for public inspection in the office of the Zoning Administrator and in the Planning Department, and they shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and indexed in the names of the Grantors and the Grantee. 4 PREPARED BY: [I sYm. rou o . .4JI~N & LL:'~. P.C. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: GRAN~%S: ~" /Robert K. Bell Lang(X/. Bell (SEAL) (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this //~q~ day March, 2002, by Robert K. Bell and Lang X. Bell, husband and wife~ Grantors. '-' D1/~tar~ ~-ab/lic ' My Commission Expires: 05 of PREPARED BY: $Y[[$. t~OUIIDON. i I AIIt~N & lIVY. P.C WITNESS the following signature and sea_h GRANTOR: The Estate of BEULAH BUNCH WEBB a/k/a BEULAH L. W~BB, Deceased / / /it Mer~.ll C. Liebold., Executor (SEALJ STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 12th day of March, 2002, by Merrill C. Liebold, Executor of the Estate of Beulah Bunch Webb a/k/a Beulah L. Webb, Deceased. Notary Public PREPARED BY: ISY[[$. ]~OURDON, AIIERN & LEVY, P.C EXHIBIT "A' All that certain piece or parcel of land lying, situate and being in the Centerville District of the City of Virginia Beach, being described as beginning at a point in the southern line of the right of way of the Indian River Road at its intersection with the dividing line between the property above described and the property of Roland E. Russell, and running thence southerly along said Russell's western line 150 feet, more or less, to an iron pin; thence N. 83° 21' W. 114 feet, more or less, to another iron pin; thence N. 01° 27' E. 223 feet, more or less, to an iron pin in the southern line of the right of way of Indian River Road; thence along said right of way line S. 52° 30' E. 142 feet to the point of beginning. Less and except that portion of the property conveyed to the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, by Warranty Deed dated January 23, 1975 as recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach in Deed Book 1467, at Page 656. Said parcel containing approximately 0.422 acres is depicted on that plat recorded in the afore referenced Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1459, at Page 120. GPIN: 1456-52-3841 CONDREZN/BELL/PROFFER Map E-lO .op .or ~o soo~e Voice Stream Wireless ZONING HISTORY 1. Rezoning from R-5 Residential to A-1 Apartment- Granted 1-:15-85 2. Rezoning from R-5 Residential to R-8 Residential - Granted 8-15-83 3. Rezoning form R-5 Residential to R-6 Residential - Granted 7-9-84 4. Rezoning from R-5 Residential to PDH2 Planned Development- Granted 2/25/85 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM' ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Voice Stream Wireless, Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: July 2, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Voice Stream Wireless for a Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower on certain property located south of Lynnhaven Parkway, 100 feet more or less east of Sydenham Trail (GPIN #1475-23-6378). Said parcel is located at 1993 Sun Devil Drive and contains 59.49 acres. DISTRICT 1 - CENTERVILLE. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to replace an existing 85 foot tall light pole located at the Salem High School stadium with a 115 foot communications tower with field lights. Similar light pole replacements have been approved by the City Council in the past for Cox High School, First Colonial High School, and Bayside High School. The Virginia Beach School Board has reviewed and is supportive of the project. Revenues from the lease of this site will support technology purchases for the school system. The proposed tower has been designed to resemble the existing stadium light poles while accommodating the flush mounted antennas of at least two wireless providers. The tower will also support field lights for the Salem High School stadium. The tower is set back 306 feet from the nearest residential unit. The 115 foot tall tower will be between two 85 foot light poles which will reduce the visual impact of the tall structure. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the attached conditions provide for sufficient landscaping for adequate screening of the tower base and support building, 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 10-0 to approve this request subject to the following conditions: The proposed tower must be developed in substantial accordance with the site plan entitled "Site Location Plan for Salem High School VA 10381-A", prepared by Lewis White and Associates, dated April 7, 2002 and the tower specification drawing entitled Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Voice Stream Wireless Page 2 "VoiceStream Valmont Order #:15616-62 Site Name: Salem H.S." prepared by Valmont, dated May 15, 2002. A copy of the plans was presented to City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 2. Sufficient landscaping to screen the tower base and support building must be provided on the final site plan. o The support building must be developed in substantial accordance with the site plan entitled "Site Location Plan for Salem High School VA 10381-A", prepared by Lewis White and Associates, dated April 7, 2002 and the external elevations entitled "Exterior Elevations VoiceStream Communications" prepared by Andrew Corporation, dated May 13, 2002. A copy of the plans was presented to City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. ° The proposed tower/light-pole shall not exceed 115 feet in overall height and must be a spun steel pole. Antennas on the tower must be flush mounted at or near the elevations shown on the site plan. Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of Communications and Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency emissions study (RF study), conducted by a qualified engineer licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended user(s) will not interfere with any City of Virginia Beach emergency communications facilities, shall be provided prior to site plan approval for the original tower user and all subsequent users. In the event interference with any City emergency communications facilities arises from the users of this tower, the user(s) shall take all measures reasonably necessary to correct and eliminate the interference. If the interference cannot be eliminated within a reasonable time, the user shall immediately cease operation to the extent necessary to stop the interference. In the event that antennas on the tower are inactive for a period of two years, the tower must be removed at the applicant's expense and replaced with a light pole to match the other light poles in place at this stadium. VOICESTREAM PCS, LLC / # 11 June 12, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Communication Tower 1993 Sundevil Ddve Map E-lO .~. .o. ~o s~o,e Voice Stream Wireless GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: 1475-23-6378 1- CENTERVILLE 59.49 acres Barbara Duke Planning Commission Agenda June12,2002 VOICESTREAM PCS, LLC/# 11 Page1 PURPOSE: To replace an existing light pole with a 115 foot communications tower with field lights Major Issues: Degree to which the proposal is compatible with the school and surrounding neighborhood Degree to which the proposal has satisfactorily demonstrated a need for a new communication tower in this area Degree to which the proposal meets the location criteria set forth in Section 232 of the zoning ordinance Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existinq Land Use and Zonin,q Salem High School exists on the site and the site is zoned R-10 Residential District. Surroundin,q Land Use and Zoninq North: South: East: West: · Salem Middle School/R-7.5 Residential District · Rosemont Forest Neighborhood/R-5D Residential District · Glenwood Neighborhood/PDH2 (R-10) Planned Development · Rosemont Forest Neighborhood / R-5D Residential District Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 VOICESTREAM PCS, LLC / # 11 Page 2 Zoninq History The neighborhoods surrounding Salem High School and Salem Middle School were developed in the 1980s. There have been no zoning changes or conditional use permits in this area since the initial development of the neighborhoods. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is not within an AICUZ area. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristic.~ The subject light pole to be replaced is located between the parking lot and the bleachers in the high school stadium area. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as a stable residential area where the community should be protected from incompatible uses. Summary of Proposal Proposal The applicant has presented this application to the Virginia Beach School Board. The School Board has voted to allow a tower at the proposed location. The process will be open to competitive bids. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing 85 foot tall field light pole with a 115 foot tall communication tower with field lights at a height of 85 feet. The tower would be capable of handling two wireless communication users. Site Desiqn There are three light poles located equidistant from each other on the east side of the stadium. The middle light pole is the one that is proposed to be replaced. Planning Commission Agenda June12,2002 VOICESTREAM PCS, LLC/# 11 Page 3 The plan shows that antennas will be placed at heights of 110 feet and 100 feet. Field lights will be placed at a height of 85 feet, to match the existing field light poles on either side of the tower. The replacement light pole measures 306 feet from the southern property line, where the closest residential use is located. In addition to the communications tower, the applicant is proposing to construct a 20 foot by 20 foot shelter on the ground. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access Maintenance and construction access to the tower will be through the existing main access road to the high school and the parking lot adjacent to the stadium. · Construction of the tower will be during the summer season when the activity level at the school and stadium is lowest. Compliance with Section 232 · The proposed tower exceeds the minimum setbacks from property lines and residential uses that are required by the zoning ordinance. The tower is proposed for multiple users (2) and the application has provided details on how the two users will be accommodated on the tower itself as well as in the equipment shelter. · There is satisfactory evidence that there is no space on existing tower sites for the pi'oposed antenna within the service area. · The proposed tower is located near existing tall structures. · The applicant has submitted the required Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation (NIER) study and structural reports for the proposed tower. · The application is for land owned by the City of Virginia Beach School Board and leased for fair value. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 VOICESTREAM PCS, LLC ! # 11 Page 4 Evaluation of Request The request for a 115 foot tall communications tower is acceptable. Similar light pole replacements have been approved in the past for Cox High School, First Colonial High School, and Bayside High School. The Virginia Beach School Board is supportive of the project. Revenues from the lease of this site will support technology purchases for the school system. The proposed tower has been designed to resemble the existing stadium light poles while accommodating the flush mounted antennas of at least two wireless providers. The tower will also support field lights for the Salem High School stadium. The tower is set back 306 feet from the nearest residential unit. The 115 foot tall tower will be between two 85 foot light poles which will reduce the visual impact of the tall structure. It is recommended that this request be approved subject to the conditions listed below. Conditions The proposed tower must be developed in substantial accordance with the site plan entitled "Site Location Plan for Salem High School VA 10381-A', prepared by Lewis White and Associates, dated April 7, 2002 and the tower specification drawing entitled "VoiceStream Valmont Order #:15616-62 Site Name: Salem H.S." prepared by Valmont, dated May 15, 2002. A copy of the plans was presented to City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. Sufficient landscaping to screen the tower base and support building must be provided on the final site plan. The support building must be developed in substantial accordance with the site plan entitled "Site Location Plan for Salem High School VA 10381 -A", prepared by Lewis White and Associates, dated April 7, 2002 and the external elevations entitled "Exterior Elevations VoiceStream Communications" prepared by Andrew Corporation, dated May 13, 2002. A copy of the plans was presented to City Council and 'is on file in the Planning Department. The proposed tower/light-pole shall not exceed 115 feet in overall height and must be a spun steel pole. Antennas on the tower must be flush mounted at or near the elevations shown on the site plan. Unless a waiver is obtained from the City of Virginia Beach Department of Communications and Information Technology (COMIT), a radio frequency emissions study (RF study), conducted by a qualified engineer licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia, showing that the intended user(s) will not interfere with any City of Virginia Beach emergency communications facilities, Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 VOICESTREAM PCS, LLC / # 11 Page 5 shall be provided prior to site plan approval for the original tOwer user and all subsequent users. In the event interference with any City emergency communications facilities arises from the users of this tower, the user(s) shall take all measures reasonably necessary to correct and eliminate the interference. If the interference cannot be eliminated within a reasonable time, the user shall immediately cease operation to the extent necessary to stop the interference. In the event that antennas on the tower are inactive for a period of two years, the tower must be removed at the applicant's expense and replaced with a light pole to match the other light poles in place at this stadium. NO,t:: Furiher 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 June 12, 2002 VOICESTREAM PCS, LLC/# 11 Page 6 Enhanced Photograph of Tower Site Showing Tower Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 VOICESTREAM PCS, LLC / # 11 Page 7 Enhanced Photograph of Tower Site Showing Tower Planning Commission Agenda June 12,2002 VOICESTREAM PCS, LLC/#11 Page 8 Stadipm Bleac~hers ; SEE NEXT PAGE ETAIL , Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 VOICESTREAM PCS, LLC / # 11 Page 9 Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 VOICESTREAM PCS, LLC / # 11 Page 10 TYPICAL ANT~NN~ PLAN PROPOSEO 20'x20' TOWER SCHEMATIC PROPOSED POLE TO EE ~STEE~ TO N~EET ~ Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 VOICESTREAM PCS, LLC / # 11 Page 11 Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 VOICESTREAM PCS, LLC / # 11 Page 12 t Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 VOICESTREAM PCS, LLC / # 11 Page 13 Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 VOICESTREAM PCS, LLC ! # 11 Page 14 Item # 11 Voice Stream Wireless Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower 1993 Sun Devil District 1 Centerville June 12, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: The next item is Item #11, Voice Stream Wireless. Conditional Use permit for a communications tower located on S. Lynnhaven Parkway and that has seven conditions. Mr. Gambrell. Bill Gambrelt: Good afternoon. My name is Bill Gambrell. I represent Voice Stream Wireless in this application and all the conditions are acceptable. Because Mr. Ariss is in the room, I'd like to note to the audience that he's the person that initiated this at the School Board when these antennas were allowed to be mounted on top of these light poles. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Robert Vakos: So, it's his fault. Bill Gambrell: It's his fault. Betsy Atkinson: He's getting abuse today isn't he? Robert Vakos: Yeah. Dorothy Wood: I would move to approve number 11 with seven conditions. Ronald Ripley: So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Eugene Crabtree: I'll second it. Ronald Ripley: Motion by Dot Wood, seconded by Eugene Crabtree. We're ready to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY ABSENT Item # 11 Verizon Wireless Page 2 MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. 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 if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or parmers 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) VoiceStream.® Wireless Fact Sheet F. stablished: Headquarters: Management 1Vlission: F. mployees: Markets: Covered POPs: Technology Plat~m'x'~ 1994 Bellevue, Wash., USA John Stant~, Chairma~ Directar, and Chie[ Executive Officer Bob Stapleton, Presidmat and ~ Don Guthrie, Vice ~ and Director Cregg Baumbaugh, Executive Vice President - Finance, Strategy & Development Alan Bender, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, & Secretary Robert Dot,on, Senior Vice President- Marketing T~m Won~, Senior Ir.-e President'- Engineering Patricia Miller, Vice Pt~.~ident, Ccr~a-oller, & P~:ipal Accounting Officer To provide the best value in all-digital personal communications services (PCS) offering customers the most minutes, the most features, and themost service at the best p~ice. 2,100 nationwide Vcice~tr~am currently offers PC5 servic~ in Seattle and spokane, Wash.; Portland, Ore.; Boise, I~_ho; Salt Lake ~ty, Utah; Phoenix, Ariz.; Denver, Colo.; Honolulu, Hawaii; Albuquerque, N.M.; El Paso, Texas; Des Moines, Iowa; Oklahoma City and Tulsa, Okla.; Wichita, Kan., and Cheyenne, Wyo. VoiceStz~m has acquired licenses to provide service in Dallas, Austin and San Anio~io, Texas; Chicago, IlL; Cincinnati, Clevol~rui and Daytan, Ohio; Norfolk and Richmond, Va.; St. Louis, Mo.; lVfilwaukee, Wi~.; San Francisco, C~$,; and Little Rock, Ark. ' ' - Glo~al System I~r Mobile Communications (GSM), the international ~; ' ./~d for digital wireless cmmnuracations. OFFICER'S C] RTIFICATE The undersigned, as Vice President and Assistant Secret~,'y ofVoiceS~'em GSM 12, LLC, ("the Company") does hereby certify that G. A. ]~ngelhmd, P~egional Corporate Counsel, is authorized to negotiate ~ enter into Muter Construction Service Agreements on behalf of the Company as necessary or desirdble for the continued operation of the Company. Date: July $, 2001 VoiceStream GSM II, LLC David A. Miller, Vice President and Assistant Secretary 11920 SE 3111h Sv~e~ B~leYve. WA ~B006 ~a~ ~ En ' Rent-A-Car Mop N~ '~o $~ole I-2 Gpin 1479-07-8475 ZONING HISTORY 1. Rezoning (Residence Suburban District (R-S 3) to Limited Commercial District (C-L 3)) - Approved 7-16-73 2. Conditional Use Permit (Automobile Sales) - Denied 4-9-96 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM' The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: July 2, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Enterprise Rent-A-Car for a Conditional Use Permit for auto rental on certain property located on the west side of Independence Boulevard, north of Smith Farm Road (GPIN #1479-07-8475). Said parcel is located at 2017 Independence Boulevard and contains 18,209 square feet. DISTRICT 4 - BAYSIDE. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for the purpose of renting automobiles, vans and trucks. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the request complies with the Comprehensive Plan Map recommendations for the area, will provide a needed service for the nearby Little Creek military installation, 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 10-0 to approve this request subject to the following conditions: The parking areas shall be delineated on the site according to approved site plan of August 4, 1986. Three (3) additional parking spaces shall be delineated on the site between Independence Boulevard and the front of the structure, on the existing pavement. If the applicant chooses not to use the parking delineation of the 1986 site plan, a site plan depicting the parking layout shall be submitted to the Planning Department's Development Services Center for review and approval. The site shall be improved with required street frontage landscaping and foundation planting as required in the Site Plan Ordinance, Section 5A. Plants shall be the types specified in the "Shore Drive Corridor Plan, Appendices", Landscaping Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes I'~i.~nlnm ~rn ~fnt~am~nf Enterprise Rent-A-Car Page 2 Section. Existing foundation plants may be used provided the plants conform to the plant list for the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the Planning Director, or his designee, for review and approval prior to the installation of the plants. Landscaping along the southern and western property lines shall be improved to meet Category IV screening, as specified in the Landscaping Screening and Buffering Specifications and Standards. Existing vegetation may be used if it can be demonstrated that it provides the necessary screening and buffering to satisfy the Category IV requirements. 4. All other areas on the site not improved with pavement, structure, and required landscaping shall be maintained with a grassed lawn. The building shall be painted Sherwin Williams "Enterprise Gray" with green trim. The roof color shall be changed to black or dark gray. The applicant may use a spray gloss application to change the shingle color provided it is approved by the Building Code Official. If the roof color is not changed to black or dark gray then the building shall be painted cream or sand color. o No more than nine (9) rental vehicles shall be allowed on the site at any time. There shall be no panel type trucks or trailers, commonly used for moving purposes, on the site at any time. 7. There shall be no washing, detailing, maintenance, or repair of any motor vehicles on the site. 8. No vehicles shall be parked within any portion of the public right-of-way. Vehicles shall not be displayed on vehicle platforms at any time. 9. No outside paging system, loudspeakers, and / or music shall be permitted on the site. 10. The nonconforming freestanding sign shall be removed, or modified to conform with the City Zoning Ordinance requirements pertaining to height and setback. A minimum of 75 square feet landscaped area shall be installed around the base of the sign. 11 .The hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 12. The applicant shall obtain a certificate of occupancy from the Permits and Inspections Division of the Planning Department before the issuance of a business license or occupying the building. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR/# 7 June 12, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Conditional Use Permit for Automobile Rental West side of Independence Boulevard, north of Smith Farm Road; 2017 Independence Boulevard Map D-$ Rent-A-Car Mop Not. t.o $co[e I-2 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 1479-07-8475 # 4 - BAYSIDE 18,209 square feet Gpin 1479-07-8475 Planning Commission Agenda June 12,2002 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR/# 7 Page I STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: Faith Christie To rent 20 to 25 automobiles, vans and trucks. Major Issues: Compatibility with surrounding uses. Consistency with the proposed Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines. The proposed guidelines will be heard by City Council in June 2002. Although this site is just west of the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District, staff has applied the most relevant provisions of the proposed design guidelines to the request. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existin,q Land Use and Zoning A vacant office building and paved parking occupy the site. The site is zoned B-2 Community Business district. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: West: · A convenience store / B-2 Business District · A single-family dwelling / R-10 Residential District · Independence Boulevard · Across Independence Boulevard, is the United States Navy Military Housing Welcome Center · A single-family dwelling / R-10 Residential District Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR / # 7 Page 2 Zoning History The site was rezoned from Residence Suburban District (R-S 3) to Limited Commercial District (C-L 3) in July 1973. With the adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in November 1973 the site was zoned B-2 Community Business District. The existing structure was constructed in 1956 and modified for commercial use in 1973. Additional modifications and additions were made to the structure in 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 Approximately sixty percent (60%) of the site is occupied by building and paved parking. The balance of the site is grass, shrubs and trees. The site is in the Resource Management Area of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is a 12-inch water main in Independence Boulevard fronting the site. The site has an existing 5/8-inch water meter that may be used. There is an 8-inch sanitary sewer main in Independence Boulevard fronting the site. The is connected to City sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (ClP): Independence Boulevard in front of this site is a four lane divided major urban arterial. The Master Transportation Plan designates this road as a 150 foot divided right of way. There are no plans to upgrade the roadway in the currently approved Capital Improvement Program. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR / # 7 Page 3 Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Independence Boulevard 24,000 17,300 - Existing Land Use z_ 54 ADT~ 31,700ADT~ Proposed Land Use 3_ 54 ^"erage r-,~;,y Trips as defined by office 3 as defined by automobile rental Public Safety Police: No comments at this time. Fire and Rescue: The Fire Department will evaluate the site to determine if there are any fire lane requirements. A certificate of occupancy shall be obtained from the Building Code Official prior to occupying the site. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area as supportive of retail, service, office and other uses compatible within commercial centers surrounding neighborhoods and communities. The Comprehensive Plan policies for the Bayfront Planning Area generally support commercial uses that do not disrupt or adversely impact stable adjoining neighborhoods. The Plan policies embrace development proposals that promote economic vitality, enhance the quality of life of the physical environment, and recognize the legitimate public need for compatible neighborhood support activities. Summary of,Proposal Proposal The applicant proposes to operate a vehicle rental business on the site. The applicant estimates there will be 20 to 25 vehicles, ranging from automobiles to trucks and vans, available for rental on the site. The proposed hours of operation will be Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. There will be three employees on the site. One employee will be assigned a rental vehicle for personal and business Planning Commission Agenda June 12,2002 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR/# 7 Page 4 use. The existing building will be painted Sherwin Williams "Enterprise Gray" and trimmed in green. The standard corporate "Enterprise".signage will be installed on the building. The site is just south of the intersection of Shore Drive and Independence Boulevard. To the north of the site exist a convenience store, mini warehouses, and a gasoline service station. To the south and west of the site are single-family dwellings. Across Independence Boulevard is United States Navy property. Site Desiqn A vacant office building and paved parking area exists on the site. The site ' was converted from a single family dwelling to an office in 1973; an addition to the building was constructed in 1986. The building is situated 31 feet from Independence Boulevard, ten feet (10') from the southern property line, 62 feet from the western property line, and 45 feet from the northern property line. A chain link fence exists along the southern property line. The paved parking area is approximately two feet (2') from the northern property line. Thirteen parking spaces are ffaintly" delineated on the site. The applicant states they wish to have 20-25 vehicles available for rental plus three employees on the site. According to the approved site plan, the site can accommodate 12 parking spaces. The number of vehicles available for rental at the site will be limited to a total of nine (9) vehicles. There is one entrance to the site from Independence Boulevard. A nonconforming freestanding sign exists six feet (6') from the property line adjacent to Independence Boulevard. The nonconforming sign must be removed or modified to meet the current sign regulations. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access There is one entrance to the site from Independence Boulevard. A sidewalk exists along Independence Boulevard. The site is developed in accordance with the approved site plan of August 4, 1986, which shows eight (8) parking spaces and one (1) handicap space. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR / # 7 Page 5 Three additional parking spaces are delineated between the building and Independence Boulevard. Architectural Desiqn The building was converted from a single family dwelling into an office in the 1970s. An addition to the building was approved in August 1986. The building is one story. The exterior is cream color wood and stucco. The roof is brown mansard style. The windows are casement ribbon style. There is a handicap ramp on the northern side of the building. The applicant proposes to paint the building Sherwin Williams "Enterprise Gray", and the building trim green. Landscape and Open Space Desiqn The site was developed before any landscaping requirements in the City Zoning Ordinance. The building and parking additions in 1987 required only minimal landscaping along the southern and westem property lines. The site is overgrown and unkempt at the present. Evaluation of Request The request for a conditional use permit for automobile rental is acceptable subject to the conditions listed below. The request complies with the Comprehensive Plan Map recommendations for the area, and will provide a needed service for the nearby Little Creek military installation. The vacant office I~'ailding and paved parking area that occupy the site can be easily converted to the proposed automobile rental use. Although the applicant states they will have 20-25 automobiles, trucks and vans available on the site, the current parking configuration will only allow nine (9) vehicles for rental purposes and two (2) spaces for employees. The parking area will be delineated according to the approved site plan of August 4, 1986. Three additional parking spaces shall be delineated on the site to accommodate employee parking. The general appearance of the site will be improved with the installation of street frontage and foundation landscaping, and the manicuring of the existing landscaping on the site. The building will be painted gray with green trim, which are the recognizable Enterprise corporate colors. The existing roofing will be changed to black or dark gray to complement the gray and green color scheme. If the Planning Commission Agenda June12,2002 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR/# 7 Page 6 applicant chooses not to change the roofing color, the building will be painted cream color to complement the current brown roof. The nonconforming freestanding sign will be modified, or removed, to meet current sign regulations. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for automobile rental subject to the following conditions. Conditions The parking areas shall be delineated on the site according to approved site plan of August 4, 1986. Three (3) additional parking spaces shall be delineated on the site .between Independence Boulevard and the front of the structure, on the existing pavement. If the applicant chooses not to use the parking delineation of the 1986 site plan, a site plan depicting the parking layout shall be submitted to the Planning Department's Development Services Center for review and approval. The site shall be improved with required street frontage landscaping and foundation planting as required in the Site Plan Ordinance, Section 5A. Plants shall be the types specified in the "Shore Drive Corridor Plan, Appendices", Landscaping Section. Existing foundation plants may be used provided the plants conform to the plant list for the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay District. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the Planning Director, or his designee, for review and approval prior to the installation of the plants. Landscaping along the southern and western property lines shall be improved to meet Category IV screening, as specified in the Landscaping Screening and Buffering Specifications and Standards. Existing vegetation may be used if it can be demonstrated that it provides the necessary screening and buffering to satisfy the Categor:y. IV requirements. All other areas on the site not improved with pavement, structure, and required landscaping shall be maintained with a grassed lawn. The building shall be painted Sherwin Williams "Enterprise Gray" with green trim. The roof color shall be changed to black or dark gray. The applicant may use a spray gloss application to change the shingle color provided it is approved by the Building Code Official. If the roof color is not changed to black or dark gray then the building shall be painted cream or sand color. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR / # 7 Page 7 No more than nine (9) rental vehicles shall be allowed on the site at any time. There shall be no panel type trucks or trailers, commonly usedfor moving purposes, on the site at any time. 7. There shall be no washing, detailing, maintenance, or repair of any motor vehicles on the site. 8. No vehicles shall be parked within any portion of the public right-of-way. Vehicles shall not be displayed on vehicle platforms at any time. 9. No outside paging system, loudspeakers, and / or music shall be permitted on the site. 10. The nonconforming freestanding sign shall be removed, or modified to conform with the City Zoning Ordinance requirements pertaining to height and setback. A minimum of 75 square feet landscaped area shall be installed around the base of the sign. 11 .The hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 12. The applicant shall obtain a certificate of occupancy from the Permits and Inspections Division of the Planning Department before the issuance of a business license or occupying the building. NO,b: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require re'~ision 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 June 12,2002 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR/# 7 Page 8 /g EXH1BI¥ SHOMZNG UflPLATTED ?R~ANGLE P/ECE OF PROPERTY B£ZNG SHOUN AS 3,D00.674~ SQ. FT. 9EZNG A PORTZON ~ PARCELS A & 9 Subd~v[~lo~ or 30H~ ~. SN/TH (R.B.171, PG.46) =nd LOT 12 8ayeide Bo~auBh--Vl~gJn~e Beach, V1gg~ni! ToT 30HN HENRY ~RT~N 23, 200t w,O. pit07 Planning Commission Agenda June 12,2002 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR/# 7 Page9 tV .-',.vr.,.r, tM~t .= · rl4~5 Ag2A Ar' A ~ O..Z: . R/,44 .;, I I I ,,,Y'/TE PLAN /Al Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR / # 7 Page 10 Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR / # 7 Page 11 Item #7 Enterprise Rent-A-Car Conditional Use Permit for auto rental 2017 Independence Boulevard District 4 Bayside June 12, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA The next item is Item #7, Enterprise Rent-A-Car. It's a Conditional Use Permit for auto rental on certain property located on the west side of Independence Boulevard near Smith Farm Road. It is in the Bayside District and it has 12 conditions. Sharon Patrick: Hi. Dorothy Wood: Hi. Sharon Patrick: Dorothy Wood: Sharon Patrick: Dorothy Wood: Sharon Patrick: number 7. Yes, I have read them. Could you give your name for the record please? I'm sorry. Sharon Patrick. Thank you Sharon. And I have read all of the conditions and agree to all of them. Except for Dorothy Wood: We'll have to drop this down to the regular place in the agenda. You just need an explanation of it or? Sharon Patrick: Yes. Yes. No. No. It says no washing, detailing or doing any maintenance or anything like that. There won't be anything like that done except for the washing. Just like with all of the other awards that we were awarded on Conditional Use Permits at our other locations in Virginia Beach, we do light vacuuming and some washing of the cars but no maintenance or anything else on site. Dorothy Wood: Mr. Scott? Robert Scott: I'd like her to take a minute and discuss it with my staff if that's okay and possibly we can keep it on the Consent agenda. Dorothy Wood: We will drop it down. If you will please talk to I guess Stephen Smith. Item #7 Enterprise Rent-A-Car Page 2 Robert Vakos: White. Dorothy Wood: Stephen White. Forgive me. LATER Dorothy wood: We'll move to Item 7, which is Enterprise Rent-a-Car, Conditional Use Permit for auto rental on certain property located on the west side of Independence Boulevard and that has 12 conditions. Sharon Patrick: Hi. Sharon Patrick again, representing Enterprise Rent-A-Car. After speaking with Mr. Scott, we have agreed that - we are in agreement that light vacuuming is okay to be done. And if there is any heavy washing of the cars or rental cars or anything like that we are to use the Robo that's within the facility. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Sharon Patrick: Okay. Robert Vakos: Is that alright Stephen? John Baum: The wording okay in the condition? Stephen White: We're okay. Dorothy Wood: Item 7, Enterprise Rent-A-Car for a Conditional Use Permit at Independence Boulevard. Any objections? Hearing none. I would move to approve number seven with 12 conditions. Ronald Ripley: So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Eugene Crabtree: I'll second it. Ronald Ripley: vote. Motion by Dot Wood, seconded by Eugene Crabtree. We're ready to AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE ABSENT Item #7 Enterprise Rent-A-Car Page 3 SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. ~.i~: ~PLiCATIC- ' PAGE 4 OF 4 : CONDIT.IONAL' USE pEriT CITY OFVlRG~;iBEACH · DISCLOSURE STATEMENT applicant's Name: ~~ ~--./~ ~_~ List Ali Current Property Owners: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the prope~y,owner is a CO,RPORAT_.!ON, list all offi.cers of the Corporation Itelpw,:' (Attach lisRifnecedsary) 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 th~ applicant, is a CORPQ,I~TIOI~ list a!l officers,of t~e Cat, oration below: (Attach lixt 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) c-6 True Vine Map No~. ~.o Scale ~ Gpin 1467-47-4613 ZONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Use Permit (church) - Granted 9-26-00 2. Conditional Use Permit (auto repair) - Granted 10-26-99 Conditional Use Permit (auto repair) - Granted 6-9-86 Conditional 'U~;e Permit (auto repair garage) - Granted 4-9-96 Change of Zoning (RS-4 Residential District to CL-3 Commercial Limited) - Granted 6-12-72 Conditional Use Permit (truck rental) - Granted 7-6-93 Conditional Use Permit (mini warehouse) - Granted 4-13-93 Change of Zoning (R-7.5 Residential District to B-2 Community Business District) - Granted 4-13-93 Conditional Use Permit (mini warehouse) - Granted 9-6-83 Change of Zoning (R-6 Residential District to B-2 Community Business District) - Granted 9-6-83 5. Conditional Use Permit (auto sales) - Denied 1-28-92 6. Conditional Use Permit (church) - Granted 4-22-85 7. Change of Zoning (R-6 Residential District to A-12 Apartment District) - Granted 2-27-84 8. Change of Zoning (R-6 Residential District to B-2 Community Business District) - Granted 11-28-83 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager True Vine, Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: July 2, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of True Vine for a Conditional Use Permit for a church on the south side of Virginia Beach Boulevard 400 feet more or less east of Davis Street (G PI N #1467- 47-4613). Said property is located at 5465-H Virginia Beach Boulevard and contains 600 square feet. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE Considerations: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a small worship center with ten (10) members. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because parking is adequate, the request is compatible with surrounding uses, 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 10-0 to approve this request subject to the following conditions: 1. No additional signage along the Virginia Beach right-of-way shall be permitted. 2. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained from the Building Official's Office prior to occupancy. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement TRUE VINE / # 6 ! June 12, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: A Conditional Use Permit to operate a church 5465-H Virginia Beach Boulevard Ffo~ No'c to True Vine GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: Crpin I467-47-4615 1467-47-4613 #2 - KEMPSVILLE Unit H of this building consists of 600 square feet Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 TRUE VINE ! # 6 Page I STAFF PLANNER: Carolyn A.K. Smith PURPOSE: To operate a small worship center with ten (10) members Major Issues: Degree to which this request is compatible with other uses on this site in terms of parking and operating hours. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning There is a retail store located in a separate building adjacent to Virginia Beach Boulevard at the north end of the site. The worship center is proposed within a building that currently has a church, a ballet studio and a karate studio operating in it. The property is currently zoned B-2 Community Business District. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: West: · Apartments / A-18 Apartment District · Private school/R-7.5 Residential District · Auto repair garage / B-2 Community Business District · Mixed retail, apartments / B-2 Community Business District, A-12 Apartment District Zoning History City Council granted a Conditional Use Permit for a church on the property in September 2000. A Conditional Use Permit for a church was also approved in 1995 in Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 TRUE VINE / it 6 Page 2 the shopping center to the east of this site. There have been several other permits granted in the vicinity for automobile repair, truck rental, mini warehouse, and a group home. In addition, this area has transitioned from primarily lower density residential to higher density residential and commercial uses. 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 Characteristic.~ Them am no significant environmental features on this site as it is fully developed. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is an eight (8) inch water main in an easement on the west side of the property and an eight (8) inch, sixteen (16) inch and twenty (20) inch water mains in Virginia Beach Boulevard fronting the property. There is a thirty (30) inch City of Norfolk mw water main bisecting the property. There is a fifteen (15) inch gravity sewer main, a sixteen (16) inch sanitary sewer and a sixteen (16) inch force main fronting the property within Virginia Beach Boulevard. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP)/Capital Improvement Program (ClP): Virginia Beach Boulevard in the vicinity of this property is an eight (8) lane divided major arterial as designated on the Master Transportation Plan. There are no planned upgrades of this facility noted within the CIP. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity virginia Beach Boulevard 42,000 34,940 - Existing Land Use z- 102 ADT Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 · Page 3 ADT ~ 64,260 ADT ~ Average Daily Trips as defined by specialty retail and a 35 member church as defined by a 600 square foot church Proposed Land Use 3.107 ADT (weekdays) 129 ADT (Sundays) Public Safety Police: Adequate - no further comments. Fire and Rescue: Adequate - If the membership or attendance exceeds 49, the use group will come under "assembly" requirements for the Building Code. A Place of Assembly does require an additional egress as well as installation of fire protection equipment. A certificate of occupancy must be obtained prior to occupancy. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends retail, service, office and other compatible uses within commemial centers. The proposal to utilize an existing retail space for church related activities does not present any land use concerns that are a departure from the Plan's policies established for the Bayside Planning Area. Summary of Proposal Proposal · The appligant proposes to operate a 10-member worship center within an existing building. The unit they wish to occupy is 600 square feet. Site Desiqn The worship center is proposed in Unit H in the southern most building on the site. Other units within the building contain an existing church, a ballet studio and a karate studio. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 TRUE VINE / # 6 Page 4 There is a retail business (Hubcap Heaven) located in a Separate building fronting Virginia Beach Boulevard. There is an existing freestanding sign with sign faces available for the use of the applicant. No additional freestanding sign will be permitted. There are 38 parking spaces depicted on the plan. Parking appears to be adequate for the existing church, the proposed worship center and the other businesses operating on the site. There is no stormwater management facility on this site as it pre-dates the City's Stormwater Management Ordinance. Vehicular and Pedestrian Acces.~ The pedestrian and vehicular access appears to be adequate, however, there are some limitations. The site has one, narrow access point on Virginia Beach Boulevard. If the church or the worship center grows substantially in membership, there may be problems with traffic exiting the site and parking. At this time, staff does not feel that this is a major concern as the application states that there are only ten (10) members in the congregation and the size of the building space (600 square feet) limits the growth potential of the worship center. These same findings were made when the Conditional Use Permit was reviewed for the existing 35-member church also on the site, as this size church requires only seven (7) parking spaces. The proposed 10- member worship center requires only two (2) parking spaces (assuming thers is only seating for 10 members - one (1) parking space for each five (5) members. Architectural De,s~iq n · The existing one-story, dark brown building has a wood exterior. It is not easily visible from Virginia Beach Boulevard. Landscape and Open Space Desi,qn · Landscaping is very limited on this site and does not meet the requirements of the City's Parking Lot and Foundation Landscape Ordinance. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002~~.~' TRUE VINE / # 6 Page 5 Evaluation of Request Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the conditions below. The site has one, narrow access point on Virginia Beach Boulevard. If the church or the worship center grows substantially in membership, there may be problems with traffic exiting the site and with parking. At this time, staff does not feel that this is a major concern as the application states that there are only ten (10) members in the congregation and the size of the building space (600 square feet) limits the growth potential of the worship center. These same findings were made when the Conditional Use Permit was reviewed for the existing 35-member church also on the site. Parking appears to be adequate for the existing church, the proposed worship center and the other business operating on the site. The Zoning Ordinance requires seven (7) spaces for the existing church with 35 members. Only two (2) spaces are required for the proposed 10-member worship center. It appears that, at peal< operating hours on Sundays for both the existing church and the worship center, ample parking is available. Staff is recommending favorably f~r this request. Conditions 1. No additional signage along the Virginia Beach right-of-way shall be permitted. 2. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained from the Building Official's Office prior to occupancy. NOTE: Further conditions may be required during the administration of applicable City Ordinances. The site plan submitted with this conditional use permit may require revision during detailed site plan review to meet all applicable City Codes. Conditional use permits must be activated within 12 months of City Counc# approval See Section 220(g) of the City Zoning Ordinance for further information. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 TRUE VINE / # 6 Page 6 Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 TRUE VINE / # 6 Page 7 Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 TRUE VINE / # 6 Page 8 Item #6 Tree Vine Conditional Use Permit for a church on the south side Of Virginia Beach Boulevard 5465-H Virginia Beach Boulevard District 2 Kempsville June 12, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: Number 6 is True Vine. It's a Conditional Use Permit for a church on the south side of Virginia Beach Boulevard near Davis Street. It is located at 5465 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Kempsville District. Is there anyone here representing True Vine church? Ronald Ripley: Dot, the staff advised me that they're not here today and that they have talked to them about the condition and they are acceptable and they will be at Council when it's presented to Council. Dorothy Wood: There are two conditions. Is there anyone who objects to Item #6, True Vine church? Being none. I would move to approve number six with two conditions. Ronald Ripley: So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Eugene Crabtree: I'll second it. Ronald Ripley: Motion by Dot Wood, seconded by Eugene Crabtree. We're ready to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Nnme: , - ~ ~CJ~. List All Current Property Owners: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) ~ ~heck here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated ----'6rganization. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE e~, If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporatioh 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) Map C,-8 M~p No~. %o Scale G~in 1466-44-8213 ZONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Use Permit (service station) -Granted 8-14-78; Conditional Use Permit (car wash) - Granted 8-27-79 2. Conditional Use Permit (auto repair) - Granted 11-26-88 3. Rezoning from R-6 Residential to R-9 Residential- Granted 8-19-94 4. Rezoning from R-9 Residential to B-2 Commercial - Granted 10-9-78 5. Conditional. Use Permit (church) - Granted 5-15-78 6. Rezoning froi'n A-1 Apartment District to B-1 Commercial- Granted 7-12- 76 7. Rezoning from A-1 Apartment District to R-5 Residential District- Granted 10-18-76 8. Conditional Use Permit (mini-warehouses) -Granted 9-10-84; Conditional Use Permit (communication tower) - Granted 7-11-95 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Tidewater Investments, LLC, Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: July 2, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Tidewater Investments, L.L.C., for a Conditional Use Permit for an automated car wash (addition to existing fuel sales) at the southeast comer of Providence Road and Lord Dunmore Drive (GPIN #1466-44-8213). Said parcel is located at 5285 Providence Road and contains 20,737 square feet. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to add a car wash to an existing service station operation. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the proposed landscaping will greatly improve the aesthetics 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 10-0 to approve this request subject to the following conditions: The car wash shall substantially adhere to the site plan entitled "Layout and Landscape Plan - Car Wash Addition to Existing BP/Amoco" dated April 1,2002 and prepared by Land Design and Development Inc. A copy of this plan will be presented to City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. The car wash building shall substantially adhere to the rendering entitled "BP Car Wash Addition at 5285 Providence Road" prepared by Land Design and Development, Inc. A copy of this rendering will be presented to City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. 3. No signage shall be installed on the windows or on the fagade of the proposed car Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Tidewater Investments, LLC Page 2 wash structure. All existing vending machines that will stay on the site must be enclosed and screened in accordance with Section 245(e) of the City Zoning Ordinance. The dumpster screening enclosure must be constructed of split face or embossed block in the same color as the car wash building. The existing non-conforming freestanding sign shall be removed. Any new signage shall adhere to the requirements set forth in the City Zoning Ordinance for signage. A variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be obtained to allow a 30 foot setback between the car wash building and the nearest gas pump instead of 55 feet as required. If the variance is not granted, this conditional use permit will become null and void. TIDEWATER INVESTMENTS, LLC/# 10 June12,2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Conditional Use Permit for a Car Wash 5285 Providence Road M.p c-8 Tidew M~ ~o, ,o s~o~. ater LLC GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 1466-44-8213 2 - KEMPSVILLE 20,737 square feet Gpin 1466 ~?, $213 Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 TIDEWATER INVESTMENTS, LLC / # 10 Page I STAFF PLANNER: Barbara Duke PURPOSE: To add a car wash to an existing service station operation. Major Issues: Compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding land uses Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning There is an existing service station on the site and the site is zoned B-2 Community Business District. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: West: · Bank and Retail / B-2 Community Business District · Office / B-2 Community Business District · Restaurant / B-2 Community Business District · Office / B-2 Community Business District Zoning History The subject site was rezoned from R-6 Residential to B-2 Community Business District on August 19, 1974. A conditional use permit for a service station was granted on the subject site on August 8, 1978. On August 27, 1979 a conditional use permit for a car wash was granted on the subject site but was never activated. Several other rezonings and use permits on property surrounding this site are noted on the zoning history map at the end of this report. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 TIDEWATER INVESTMENTS, LLC / # 10 Page 2 Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is located outside the 65 dB Ldn AICUZ area. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The majority of the site is impervious with some landscaped areas along the perimeter. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is a 20 inch water main in Providence Road and a 12 inch water line in Lord Dunmore Drive. This site is served by City water. There is a 16 inch sewer line in Providence Road and an 8 inch sewer line in Lord Dunmore Drive. City sewer serves this site. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Providence Road in the vicinity of this application is designated on the Master Transportation Plan as a 100 foot wide divided roadway with a bikeway. There are currently no CIP projects to upgrade this roadway. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity 28,000 Existing Land Use 2_ 1,686 ADT Providence Road ADT ~ 31,700 ADT ~ Proposed Land Use 3_ 1,794 ADT Average Daily Trips as defined by service station as defined by service station and car wash Public Safety Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 TIDEWATER INVESTMENTS, LLC / # 10 Page 3 Police: Fire and Rescue: Adequate - no further comments. Adequate - no further comments. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as planned for retail, service, office and other compatible uses within commercial centers serving surrounding neighborhoods and communities. The Comprehensive 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 proposing to add an automatic car wash to an existing service station operation. The site is located at the southeast corner of Lord Dunmore Drive and Providence Road. Site Design The car wash addition is shown east of the gas pumps on the site. It is setback 35 feet from Providence Road. Additional parking and Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 TIDEWATER INVESTMENTS, LLC / # 10 Page 4 dumpster area is shown at the rear of the site. A drive aisle will be created for the car wash by installing an eight foot wide landscaped median between the drive aisle and the gas pump area. The car wash building does not meet the zoning ordinance requirement for a 55 foot setback from the nearest gas pump. The car wash building is setback 30 feet from the nearest gas pump with a 4 foot wide landscape median on the west side of the building. A variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals must be granted for the 30 foot setback. It should be noted that there is nowhere on the site that the car wash could be located that would meet the 55 foot setback requirement. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access · There will be no changes to the existing curb cuts on Lord Dunmore Drive and Providence Road Architectural Design The car wash building will be split face or embossed block to match the existing kiosk. The car wash building will be close in height to the existing fuel island canopy and will have flat roof. A car wash sign and signature strip is shown on the north and west facing sides of the building The existing free-standing sign on the site is nonconforming as to height and size. · There are eight drink-vending machines existing on the site that are not screened. Landscape and Open Space Design · The applicant will be installing new landscape areas along the entire perimeter of the site and within the site. · Loblolly Pine trees and Burford Holly shrubs will be installed along the frontage of Providence Road in the green area existing between the back of Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 TIDEWATER INVESTMENTS, LLC / # 10 Page 5 the sidewalk and the existing edge of pavement on site. ' Additional Crape Myrtle trees will be installed along Lord Dunmore Drive. Additional loblolly plne trees Dawn Redwood trees will be installed along the rear, or south, side of the site that is adjacent to office use. Along the east side of the site, Indian Hawthorne shrubs will be installed in a four foot area south of the car wash building. North of the car wash building, Burford Holly shrubs and a Loblolly Pine tree will be added. In the interior of the site, an eight foot wide median planted with Indian Hawthorne and Black Butterfly Bush is proposed on the north side of the car wash drive aisle. This median will be reduced to four feet where it is adjacent to the west side of the car wash building. Evaluation of Request The request to add a car wash to an existing service station is acceptable. The service station site is not directly adjacent to any residential uses. The car wash will be located on the eastern portion of the site, adjacent to a restaurant. The nearest residential area is located west of Lord Dunmore Drive. The applicant has proposed to add landscaping along the entire perimeter of the site. A landscape median is also proposed in the interior of the site, along the drive aisle for the car wash. Foundation landscaping has been shown along the sides of the car wash building facing the rights of way. The additional landscaping proposed will greatly improve the aesthetics of the site. It is recommended that this request for a car wash be approved with the following conditions. Conditions The car wash shall substantially adhere to the site plan entitled "Layout and Landscape Plan - Car Wash Addition to Existing BP/Amoco" dated April 1,2002 and prepared by Land Design and Development Inc. A copy of this plan will be presented to City Council and is on file in the Planning Department. The car wash building shall substantially adhere to the rendering entitled "BP Car Wash Addition at 5285 Providence Road" prepared by Land Design and Development, Inc. A copy of this rendering will be presented to City Council and Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 TIDEWATER INVESTMENTS, LLC / # 10 Page 6 3. No signage shall be installed on the windows or on the fa(;ade of the proposed car wash structure. 4. All existing vending machines that will stay on the site must be enclosed and screened in accordance with Section 245(e) of the City Zoning Ordinance. 5. The dumpster screening enclosure must be constructed of split face or embossed block in the same color as the car wash building. The existing non-conforming freestanding sign shall be removed. Any new signage shall adhere to the requirements set forth in the City Zoning Ordinance for signage. A variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be obtained to allow a 30 foot setback between the car wash building and the nearest gas pump instead of 55 feet as required. If the variance is not granted, this conditional use permit will become null and void. 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 June 12, 2002 TIDEWATER INVESTMENTS, LLC / # 10 Page 7 Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 TIDEWATER INVESTMENTS, LLC / # 10 Page 8 Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 TIDEWATER INVESTMENTS, LLC/# 10 Page 9 LORD NMORE DRIVE (80' R/W) Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 TIDEWATER INVESTMENTS, LLC / # 10 Page 10 Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 TIDEWATER INVESTMENTS, LLC I # 10 Page 11 Item #10 Tidewater Investments, LLC Conditional Use Permit for an automated car wash 5285 Providence Road District 2 Kempsville June 12, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: Next item is Item #10, Tidewater Investments, LLC. Conditional Use Permit for a car wash (addition to existing fuel sales) at the south east comer of Providence Road and Lord Dunmore Drive in the Kemspville District. And that has seven conditions. Roger Pope: My name is Roger Pope and I represent the applicant. There are seven conditions. I have eight here. I wasn't at the meeting this morning. I think when you say seven, I believe number 4 has been removed. The other seven are agreeable conditions. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Pope. Is there any objection to this consent item? You have an objection Mr. Gambrell? I would move to approve number 10, with seven conditions. Ronald Ripley: So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Eugene Crabtree: I'll second it. Ronald Ripley: Motion by Dot Wood, seconded by Eugene Crabtree. We're ready to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. ABSENT APPLICATIO'" PA GE 4 OF 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 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~3'I If the pr .operty owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION. list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list ifnecessa~.) 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) Ma 0-7 Mop N~J~ 't.o Scale I-I Church Gpin 1467-43-1228 ~ 2568 ZONING HISTORY 1. Street Closure- Granted 9-22-98 2. Conditional Use Permit (substation expansion) - Granted 5-29-90 3. Conditional Use Permit (church) - Granted 7-13-87 4. Subdivision'Variance- Granted 4-9-84 5. Change of Zoning (R-5 Residential District to P-1 Preservation District) - Granted 12-13-82 6. Change of Zoning (R-5 Residential District to R-8 Residential District with PD-H2) - Granted 9-27-82 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Kempsville Church of Christ, Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: July 2, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Kempsville Church of Christ for a Conditional Use Permit for a church at the northwest corner of Parliament Drive and Yoder Lane (GPIN #1467-43- 1228; #1467-43-2568). Said parcel is located at 5424 Parliament Drive and contains 4.539 acres. DISTRICT 2 - KEMPSVILLE. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for expansion of a church which is to include two (2) classrooms (eastern addition is 3,750 square feet and the western addition is 3,600 square feet), a 14,300 square foot family like center and 112 new parking spaces. The church wishes to incorporate Lot 1 of "Yoder Estates" into their property and construct a parsonage and a 1,000 square foot storage building on that site. The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda because the proposed additions will compliment the existing facility and be compatible to the surrounding area, 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 10-0 to approve this request subject to the following conditions: The existing property line that separates the existing church property from Lot 1 of "Yoder Estates" (also owned by the church) shall be vacated and a new plat put to record prior to the approval of the final site plan. The architectural style, building materials, and colors of the 3,750 square foot classroom addition, the 3,600 square foot classroom addition and the 14,300 family life center shall be substantially similar to the architectural style, building materials, and colors of the existing structures on the site. The elevations of these additions shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes ~iR~.l~.~ ~ r~. ~tnt~rnnnt Kempsville Church of Christ Page 2 building permit. Category I (evergreen shrubs) shall be installed along the north property line between Lots 1 and 2 of Yoder Estates and along the property line behind the proposed parsonage adjacent to the Carolanne Swim Club property as depicted on the concept plan entitled "Kempsville Church of Christ, Preliminary Site Plan," prepared by The Spectra Group, dated February 14, 2002. The proposed storage building shall be no larger than 1,000 square feet and shall be located on the site so that it is no closer than twenty (20) feet from the western property line. The garage doors of the storage building (the 25 foot wide side) shall be accessed via the proposed parking area thereby eliminating the need for an additional driveway on the proposed parsonage site. All garage style doors of the storage building shall face the existing church property. o Evergreen foundation landscaping, a minimum 18 inches in height at the time of planting and three (3) feet on center, shall be installed along the storage building fa~;ade that faces Yoder Lane. KEMPSVILLE CHURCH OF CHRIST / # 20 June 12, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Conditional Use Permit for a church expansion Northwest corner of Parliament Drive and Yoder Lane. 5424 Parliament Drive Mao C-7 Mo~ No~ ~o s~o~e Church Christ GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: Gpin 1467-43-1228 C~ 2568 1467-43-1228- and 1467-43-2568 2 - KEMPSVILLE 4.539 acres Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 KEMPSVILLE CHURCH OF CHRIST / # 20 Page I STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: Carolyn A. K. Smith The church is proposing to construct three (3) additions that include two (2) classrooms (eastern addition is 3,750 square feet and the western addition is 3,600 square feet), a 14,300 square foot family life center, and 112 new parking spaces. In addition, the church wishes to incorporate Lot 1 of "Yoder Estates" into their property and construct a parsonage and a 1,000 square foot storage building on that site. Major Issues: · Degree to which the proposal impacts the surrounding properties in terms of parking, aesthetics and overall quality of life. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The property is currently zoned R-lO Residential District. There is an existing single-family dwelling on the northern parcel and an existing one- story brick church and associated parking on the site. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: West: · Vacant parcel, single family dwellings, swim club / R-lO Residential District · Parliament Drive, single family dwellings / R-lO Residential District · Elementary school/R-lO Residential District · Open space / PD-H2, P-1 Preservation District Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 KEMPSVILLE CHURCH OF CHRIST / # 20 Page 2 Zoninq History There has been a variety of zoning activity in the vicinity of the church. The property to the west was rezoned in 1982 to higher density residential with a large amount of property remaining as P-1 Preservation District. The church applied for and was granted a use permit in 1987 to expand its parking lot but the details of that approval are not available. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of less than 65 dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics There are some substantial trees located in the area proposed for the parking lot expansion. The possibility of saving and avoiding the trees was discussed with the applicant; however, the applicant was not amenable to saving any of the trees. Apparently, the 1987 use permit did authorize the removal of many of these mature trees. This site is located in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is a six (6) inch water main in Yoder Lane fronting the east side of the property. There is an eight (8) inch water main in Parliament Drive fronting the south side of the property. This site has an existing one (1) inch meter connection that may be utilized or upgraded as necessary. There is an eight (8) inch sanitary sewer force main in Yoder Lane fronting the east side of the property. There is an eight (8) inch sanitary sewer main in Parliament Drive fronting the south side of the property. This site is connected to City sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 KEMPSVILLE CHURCH OF CHRIST / # 20 Page 3 Program (ClP): Parliament Drive in the vicinity of this site is a two (2) lane undivided residential collector. There are no plans to upgrade this roadway in the MTP. Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Existing Land Use =- 273 ADT (weekday) Parliament Drive 5,000 ADT ~ 6,200 ADT ~ 1,099 (Sundays) Proposed Land Use 3_ 197 additional ADT (weekdays) Average Daily Trips 793 additional ADT (Sundays) as defined by a 30,000 square foot church 3 as defined by 21,650 square feet of additions Public Safety Police: Adequate - no further comments. Fire and Rescue: Adequate - The proposed parsonage is not regulated by the fire code as it is a dwelling unit and is exempt from the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. The storage building may require special construction based on items stored. The storage building shall not be used for any purpose inconsistent with the storage of goods and shall only be used for the storage of non-hazardous goods. Requirements for fire detection and suppression may be required during the permit process by the Building Official's Office. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends this site for residential uses at or below 3.5 dwelling units per acre. Page 52 of the Plan states that development proposals for both new or readapted development "carefully integrate residential, commercial, employment and other acceptable uses for the purpose of achieving a complementary, well- organized, efficient and attractive arrangement of land uses." The proposal should be conditioned so that the proposed additions will compliment the existing facility and that the proposed storage building will be residential in design thereby meeting the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 KEMPSVILLE CHURCH OF CHRIST/# 20 Page 4 Summary of Proposal Proposal The church is proposing to construct three (3) future additions that include classrooms and a family life center, 112 additional parking spaces, a storage building as well as adding property for a parsonage. , - Site Desiqn The site plan depicts the existing one- story brick church and sanctuary fronting Parliament Drive. There are 129 parking spaces shown on the plan. The plan also depicts the three (3) additions that include two (2) classrooms (eastern addition is 3,750 square feet and the western addition is 3,600 square feet), and a 14,300 square foot family life center. The classroom additions will be oriented to Parliament Drive while the proposed family life center and 112 new parking spaces will be located behind the existing church to the Planning Commission Agenda June 12,2002 KEMPSVILLE CHURCH OF CHRIST/# 20 Page 5 northeast. The church wishes to incorporate Lot I of "Yoder Estates" into their property and construct a parsonage and a 1,000 square foot storage building on that site. The line that separates the church property from Lot 1 of "Yoder Estates" will be vacated. Although not indicated on the plan, there is an attractive brick one story dwelling on the site in the area identified on the plan as "future parking lot 112 spaces." This structure will be removed priOr to the construction of the parking lot. Also not depicted is an extended dry pond that serves as the church's stormwater management facility. It appears that the proposed 3,600 square foot addition may encroach into this facility. Details of the future stormwater management strategy were not provided upon request. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access There is no direct vehicular access off of Parliament Drive. There are two (2) existing access points to the property - one (1) off of Yoder Lane to the east and one (1) off of the Carolanne Farm Swim Club property to the west. It is unclear if the latter access is provided via an easement as it was not identified as such on the site plan. An additional vehicular access is proposed into the future parking lot off of Yoder Lane. Access tQ. the parsonage will also be provided via Yoder Lane. Pedestrian access on the site appears to be adequate. Architectural Design The older of the two (2) existing structures on the property is a one-stow beige color brick structure with a dark brown asphalt shingle roof. The newer sanctuary is a reddish brown brick structure with a dark brown asphalt shingle roof. No elevations were provided concerning the additions to the church; Planning Commission Agenda June 12,2002 KEMPSVILLE CHURCH OF CHRIST/# 20 Page 6 however, the applicant did indicate that all new construction would be designed to match the style and materials of the older existing one-story church structure. Staff has conditioned this application should it be approved with that stipulation. The proposed 24 feet by 40 feet storage building will be red brick with a white exterior insulated finishing system (EIFS) band around the top of the building. The roof will be covered with dark brown architectural style shingles. Two (2) garage doom are proposed and staff has recommended a condition that locates these doors on the southern fagade facing the church. The side elevation that will face the street is depicted with three (3) windows and a pedestrian door on the left side of the structure. Landscape and Open Space Desiqn Landscaping on the site is minimal. There is no intedor parking lot landscaping nor is there any street frontage landscaping. The applicant is proposing to install, as required, streetscape landscaping along Yoder Lane in front of the proposed 15 parking spaces that will front the right-of-way. Also in accordance with the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance, interior parking lot landscaping for the future 112 parking spaces and foundation landscaping are proposed on the site. Category I (evergreen shrubs) are shown along the north property line adjacent to Lot 2 of Yoder Estates and along the property line behind the proposed parsonage to aid in the screening of the proposed 1,000 square foot storage building. Evaluation Of Request The applicant's request for the expansion of the existing church and church property is acceptable subject to the conditions listed below. The proposal is conditioned so that the proposed additions will compliment the existing facility and that the proposed storage building will be residential in design. Conditions Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 KEMPSVILLE CHURCH OF CHRIST / # 20 Page 7 o o The existing property line that separates the existing church property from Lot 1 of "Yoder Estates" (also owned by the church) shall be vacated and a new plat put to record pdor to the approval of the final site plan. The architectural style, building materials, and colors of the 3,750 square foot classroom addition, the 3,600 square foot classroom addition and the 14,300 family life center shall be substantially similar to the architectural style, building materials, and colors of the existing structures on the site. The elevations of these additions shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. Category I (evergreen shrubs) shall be installed along the north property line between Lots 1 and 2 of Yoder Estates and along the property line behind the proposed parsonage adjacent to the Carolanne Swim Club property as depicted on the concept plan entitled "Kempsville Church of Christ, Preliminary Site Plan," prepared by The Spectra Group, dated February 14, 2002. The proposed storage building shall be no larger than 1,000 square feet and shall be located on the site so that it is no closer than twenty (20) feet from the western property line. The garage doors of the storage building (the 25 foot wide side) shall be accessed via the proposed parking area thereby eliminating the need for an additional driveway on the proposed parsonage site. All garage style doors of the storage building shall face the existing church property. Evergreen foundation landscaping, a minimum 18 inches in height at the time of planting and three (3) feet on center, shall be installed along the storage building facade that faces Yoder Lane. 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 June 12, 2002 KEMPSVILLE CHURCH OF CHRIST / # 20 Page 8 Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 KEMPSVILLE CHURCH OF CHRIST / # 20 Page 9 PROPOSED STORAGE BUILDING Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 KEMPSVILLE CHURCH OF CHRIST / # 20 Page 10 Planning Commission Agenda ~°~-~-?~ ~ June 12, 2002 .~.~...~... ~l.~*' KEMPSVILLE CHURCH OF CHRIST / # 20 Page 11 Item #20 Kempsville Church of Christ Conditional Use Permit for a church 5424 Parliament Drive District 2 Kempsville June 12, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: The next item is number 20, the Kempsville Church of Christ. It's a Conditional Use Permit for a church at the northwest comer of Parliament Drive and Yoder Lane. It has five conditions. Ed Pence: Good morning. My name is Ed Pence. I represent the Church Planning Committee. We've worked very closely with staff on these conditions and have no objection to them? Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Pence. Is there any objection to Item #20, Kempsville Church of Christ for a Conditional Use Permit for a church on Parliament Drive and Yoder Lane? Hearing none. I would move to approve number 20 with five conditions. Ronald Ripley: So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Eugene Crabtree: I'll second it. Ronald Ripley: Motion by Dot Wood, seconded by Eugene Crabtree. We're ready to vote. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. ABSENT PA GE 4:OF,, Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE ff the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) tf the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED O. RGANIZATION, list ail 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 ORGA N',Z'aTION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) ~ity of' ?ir~iriia }~eaeh DEP~,PII'~E~/' OF PLANN~I~G VlRG~q,IA ~ VA February 22, 2002 Mr. Edward Pence C/O KernpsviIle Church of Christ 5424 S. Parliament Drive Virginia Beach VA 23462 D~r Mr. Pence, Pos~-it~ Fax Note 7671 IDa~e "T_./ --, -~- ! # o! · ~ In addition to the architectural information requested, I also need the names of the board members, church council or whatever body that governs the church for inclusion i~ the Disclosure Statement. Sincerely, Carol(~ A,K. Smith 1,' .o~ No, to s~o~e Thalia United Methodist Ch 'ch Gpin - See Al~plica~o~ ZONING HISTORY 1. Conditional Use Permit (church - parking lot expansion) Approved 9-8-98 Conditional Use Permit (church) Approved 5-22-78 Conditional Use Permit (auto service facility) Denied 4-25-95 Rezoning (R-5D Residential to conditional O-1 Office) Approved 3-25-97 Conditional Use Permit (auto service station) Approved 1-25-94 Conditional Use Permit (gas pumps) Approved 8-8-88 5. Rezoning (B---3 Business to conditional P-1 Preservation) Approved 12-17- 96 Modification of Conditions Approved 12-17-96 Rezoning (R-8 Residential to B-2 Business) Approved 12-9-85 Rezoning (R-8 Residential to B-2 Business) Approved 6-9-86 Rezoning (B-3 Business to B-4 Business) Approved 9-12-83 Subdivision Variance Approved 5-17-82 10. Conditional Use Permit (church) Approved 9-25-78 o 7. 8. 9. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Thalia United Methodist Church, Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: July 2, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Thalia United Methodist Church for a Conditional Use Permit for a church expansion at the southwest corner of Virginia Beach Boulevard and N. Fir Avenue (GPIN #1477-85-5181; #1477-85-2087; #1477-84-6912; #1477-84-5902; #1477-84- 3905). Property is located at 4321 Virginia Beach Boulevard and contains 3.9 acres. DISTRICT 3 - ROSE HALL. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to expand the existing 19,539 square foot church building by 7,031 square feet to construct a new classroom wing and expand the existing narthex and music spaces. 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: Development of the site shall substantially adhere to the site plan entitled, "Addition to Thalia United Methodist Church," dated Jan. 10, 2002 and prepared by Adkins Engineering, P.C. and Waller Todd & Sadler Architects, which is on file with the Planning Department. It shall be in conformance with the Site Plan Ordinance. The owner of the property shall maintain the "detention area" at the elevation shown in the "Detention Area Detail" on the site plan approved by the Development Services Center August 5, 1999. Building additions shall be constructed as depicted on the elevations entitled, "Additions and Alterations to Thalia United Methodist Church" by Waller Todd & Sadler Architects, which are on file with the Planning Department. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Thalia United Methodist Church Page 2 4. The applicant shall adhere to conditions placed on the property by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board on July 27, 1998. THALIA UNITED METHODIST CHURCH/ #8 June 12, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Conditional Use Permit (church expansion) 4321 Virginia Beach Boulevard M~ ~-7 Thalia United Methodist Church Gpin - See Applica~io~ GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 1477-85-5181, 1477-85-2087, 1477-84-6912, 1477-84-5902, 1477-84-3905 3 - Rose Hall 3.9 acres Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 THALIA UNITED METHODIST CHURCH ! # 8 Page 1 STAFF PLANNER: Ashby Moss PURPOSE: To expand the existing 19,539 square foot church building by 7,031 square feet. In addition to constructing a new classroom wing, the applicant proposes to expand the existing narthex and music spaces. No changes to the existing sanctuary are proposed. Major Issues: · Compatibility of proposed church expansion with surrounding land uses. · Presence of Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection Area on the property and proper design of stormwater management facility sensitive to this area. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existinq Land Use and Zoning The site is currently developed with a church and is zoned R-5D Residential District. Surroundinq La~d Use and Zoning North: South: East: · Across Virginia Beach Boulevard, mixed retail uses / B-2 Community Business District · Single family homes / R-5D Residential District · Fronting Virginia Beach Boulevard, computer sales office and doctor's office / B-2 Community Business District and conditional O-1 Office District Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 THALIA UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 8 Page 2 West: · Behind these uses, single family homes / R-5D Residential District · Across Thalia Creek, retail uses / B-3 Central Business District Zoning History Thalia United Methodist Church received approval for its first conditional use permit on May 22, 1978. At that time, a church was already present on the subject site, and the applicant was proposing an expansion to the existing facilities. On September 8, 1998, the church was approved for a 90 space parking lot expansion on the north side of the building. The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board also granted a variance on July 27, 1998 to develop a portion of the parking lot and the stormwater management facility within the Resource Protection Area. The current expansion request does not' require a variance from the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board. Other zoning activity in the immediate vicinity includes another church located across Virginia Beach Boulevard, northwest of the subject site approved in 1978, two auto related facilities on Virginia Beach Boulevard, and three zoning changes from residential to commercial or office districts on properties fronting Virginia Beach Boulevard, east of the subject site. 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 The site is developed with a church and parking lot. The western portion of the site lies adjacent to Thalia Creek, a tidal tributary of the Lynnhaven River. Both tidal and nontidal wetlands are present on site. A stormwater management facility was created below the top of bank at the southwestern corner of the property when the parking lot was expanded in 1'9.99. The facility was created by building a berm on the west side of a natural bowl in the land. With the exception of this stormwater management facility, the area below the top of bank is in a natural state. Another "depressed" area exists on the northwest portion of the property, above the top of bank. The area was excavated and planted with trees and shrubs in 1999 when the stormwater management facility was created. This area serves as a simulated stormwater management facility to treat water flowing from the parking lot constructed before stormwater management regulations came into place. The applicant now proposes to expand this area to accommodate the additional impervious area created by the proposed building expansion. Since the area has filled with silt, it will have to be Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 THALIA UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 8 Page 3 restored to its previous elevation. tact. Existing trees and shrubs, however, will remain in Public Facilities and Services ,,Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is a 16-inch and 20-inch water main in Virginia Beach Boulevard fronting the north side of the property. There is a six- inch water main in N. Fir Avenue fronting the east side of the property. This site has an existing one-inch meter, which may continue to be utilized. There is a 12-inch sanitary sewer main in Virginia Beach Boulevard north of the median strip and a 14-inch sanitary sewer main in N. Fir Avenue fronting the east side 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 urban arterial. The MTP designates this section of Virginia Beach Boulevard as a 150 foot divided right-of-way. No further improvements are scheduled for this portion of Virginia Beach Boulevard in the currently adopted CIP. Traffic Calculations: Strcct Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity Virginia Beach Boulevard 52,000 34,940 - Existing Land Use z_ 178 ADT ADT1 64,260ADT 1 Averaae Daily Trin~ Proposed Land Use 3_ 242 ADT 2 as defined by 19,539 sf church 3 as defined by 26,570 sf church Planning Commission Agenda June 12,2002 THALIA UNITED METHODIST CHURCH/# 8 Page 4 Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: Adequate - no further comments. Adequate - Fire protection requirements will be enforced through the permit process. A Certificate of Occupancy must be issued prior to occupancy Comprehensive Plan The land use plan policies for this portion of the Little Neck Planning Area generally · support nonresidential uses that are not disruptive or that do not adversely impact the adjoining residential neighborhood. The Plan also recognizes the legitimate public need for compatible neighborhood support uses and activities as long as adequate provisions are offered to ensure that the building's design, vehiculadpedestrian access and circulation, landscaping, and community aesthetics are enhancements to this area. Summary of Proposal Proposal The applicant proposes to expand the existing 19,539 square foot church building by 7,031 square feet. The bulk of the expansion is for a new classroom wing to be constructed in the existing courtyard. The remainder of the expansion will take place outside the narthex and music spaces on the north and south ends of the eastern building. No changes to number of seats in the sanctuary (365) are proposed. · Two parking spaces near the western entrance from Virginia Beach Boulevard are proposed to be removed and replaced with a landscape island. An existing depressed area that serves as an 'unofficial' stormwater pond is proposed to be expanded to accommodate the stormwater flows from the new impervious area created by the expansion. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 THALIA UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 8 Page 5 Site Design The existing site contains a U-shaped building with a grassed courtyard in the center. Parking is located on all but the eastern side of the building. A stormwater management facility exists below the top-of-bank on the southwestem comer of the property adjacent to Thalia Creek to serve a parking lot expansion constructed in 1999. Another "depressed" area was created to serve as an 'unofficial' stormwater management facility for the church and parking area existing prior to 1999. The applicant proposes to expand the building in three places: 1) 1,317 square feet on the north side of sanctuary (easternmost building) 2) 765 square feet on the south side of sanctuary 3) 4,949 square feet for a classroom wing in the courtyard between the sanctuary and the two-story building to the west Vehicular and Pedestrian Access The site has two existing access points on Virginia Beach Boulevard and one on Fir Avenue. No changes to these access points or the intemal traffic pattern are proposed. The site currently has a total of 165 spaces. The applicant proposes to eliminate two spaces to create a new interior parking lot landscape island, leaving a total of 163 spaces. This is well over the 73 spaces required for the 365 seats in the sanctuary. Architectural Des,i,qn The existing U-shaped building consists of a flat roofed one-story building connecting two taller buildings on either side. The two-story building on the west has a flat roof, while the sanctuary on the east has a gabled roof. The entire front of the building is constructed of brick. The proposed additions match the existing brick materials and will create a more contemporary architectural style. A new front is proposed to expand the narthex at the front of the sanctuary. The front has a gabled roof, two double glass doors, and several large plate glass windows. Square white brick Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 THALIA UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 8 Page 6 medallion accents run vertically on either side of the entrance. Two vertical rows of these medallions will also be added to the two-story building on the west, which will otherwise remain unchanged. The proposed classroom wing is a one-story flat roof building proposed to go inside of the "U" shape over the existing courtyard. A white tube steel covered walkway extends from this addition to just past the entrance of the two-story building to the west. The expansion for the music space is another flat-roofed single story building at the back of the sanctuary. This addition is also constructed of brick. Lastly, a new tower is proposed above another entrance adjacent to the sanctuary. The tower is constructed of brick and displays a large cross with a circular opening at the cross's center point. Landscape and Open Space Desi.qn · Existing landscaping on the site consists of extensive foundation landscaping along both sides and the front of the building. Interior parking lot landscaping meets current requirements only for the south parking lot constructed in 1999. The applicant is proposing to add one more landscape island to the north parking lot near the westernmost entrance on Virginia Beach Boulevard. Additional landscaping should be added to the western perimeter of the parking lot to provide some benefits of interior parking lot landscaping without causing a loss of parking spaces. · Street frontage landscaping should also be added, where necessary, to meet current requirements. Evaluation of Request The applicant's request to expand the church is acceptable. The church use is established and has proven compatible with adjacent land uses. The building expansion is architecturally very similar to the existing building, which is already very attractive from the front. The additions will give the building a more contemporary architectural style and improve the appearance of the rear of the building. However, landscaping on the site should be added to meet current requirements. This is Planning Commission Agenda June 12,2002 THALIA UNITED METHODIST CHURCH/# 8 Page 7 recommended below in Condition #la. Therefore, this application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions listed below. (Afl appficable conditions from previous use permits for this site have been included in conditions 4 - 6 below.) Conditions Development of the site shall substantially adhere to the site plan entitled, "Addition to Thalia United Methodist Church," dated Jan. 10, 2002 and prepared by Adkins Engineering, P.C. and Waller Todd & Sadler Architects, which is on file with the Planning Department. It shall be in conformance with the Site Plan Ordinance. However ............... ~ ~, ...... The owner of the property shall maintain the "detention area" at the elevation shown in the "Detention Area Detail" on the site plan approved by the Development Services Center August 5, 1999. Building additions shall be constructed as depicted on the elevations entitled, "Additions and Alterations to Thalia United Methodist Church" by Waller Todd & Sadler Architects, which are on file with the Planning Department. 4_. The applicant shall adhere to conditions placed on the property by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Board on July 27, 1998. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 THALIA UNITED METHODIST CHURCH I # 8 Page 8 .... i~ ....... ~ ..... ~ ...... ~ ..................... +~,l~,~ infe~r]~r ~c fhe~ ~[fe~ '~nd e,h,~ll h~ 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 June 12,2002 THALIA UNITED METHODIST CHURCH/# 8 Page 9 Planning Commission Agenda June 12,2002 THALIA UNITED METHODIST CHURCH/# 8 Page10 New Construction Plan Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 THALIA UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 8 Page 11 Plan showing areas of additions Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 THALIA UNITED METHODIST CHURCH ! # 8 Page 12 Building Elevations Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 THALIA UNITED METHODIST CHURCH / # 8 Page 13 Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 THALIA UNITED METHODIST CHURCH ! # 8 Page 14 Item #8 Thalia United Methodist Church Conditional Use Permit for a church expansion at the Southwest comer of Virginia Beach Boulevard and N. Fir Avenue 4321 Virginia Beach Boulevard District 3 Rose Hall June 12, 2002 CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Wood: The next one is Thalia United Methodist Church. It's a Conditional Use permit for a church expansion at the southwest comer of Virginia Beach Boulevard and North Fir Avenue. It has six conditions. Mr. Aris. Dan Ariss: Thank you. I'm Dan Ariss. I'm the chairman of church council at Thalia United Methodist Church. We want to hear it. We have some questions about the conditions that we want to massage and get some clarification on it. Dorothy Wood: Thank you Mr. Ariss. We will drop it down. Dan Ariss: Thank you. LATER REGULAR AGENDA Robert Miller: The next item is Item #8, Thalia United Methodist Church and the esteemed Mr. Dan Ariss is coming back up. Dan Ariss: Thank you. I'm Dan Ariss. I'm representing Thalia United Methodist Church. I'm the chairman of the church council. Thank you for the recognition Mr. Ripley, but thanks for the recognition and Mr. Gambrell's recognition. I will say that it's nice to see Bob Scott, Stephen White and Karen Lasley and Bill Gambrell, former employee. They're just super people and I think you all probably agree with that. It was a pleasure to work with them. It's kind of looking a gift horse in the mouth when you go on the Consent agenda and then you come up and want to discuss the issue, but this is a very cost sensitive project for our church. It's about a million-dollar project and we do have some questions about the conditions that we'd like to clarify right now if you don't mind. Ronald Ripley: Sure. Dan Ariss: And with me I have John Fowler who's the professional engineer. He's a member of our church and he's kind of spear heading the church the project force, and Item #8 Thalia United Methodist Church Page 2 Allen Sadler who's our architect. So, they're here and they'll probably be up here with me. Because I'm going to talk about some of the things that I need their expert help on some of them. The conditions. Let me get the right page here. Okay, the condition 1A foundation and street frontage landscaping. Let me make this comment first. Two years ago we added a parking lot to the south of our property, an extensive parking lot addition. And it seems that some of the conditions that are being placed upon us were addressed at the time of that parking lot development and were certainly approved by the City when we completed the parking lot, yet it seems like, if I'm reading from this right, it looks like they're trying to go back and ask us to do things related to that parking lot that we did at that time. Foundation and street frontage landscaping shall be shown to meet current requirement from the site plan ordinance. Additional landscaping shall be added to the perimeter of the parking lot on the western side. That's what I'm talking about. Why additional landscaping at this time when we were led to believe we were in full compliance at the time the parking lot was completed. And also what is says, foundation and street frontage. Are you talking about just the side of the building that is impacted by the addition or are you talking about doing some additional on Fir Street which is not impacted by this addition? Ronald Ripley: Well, those are two pretty good questions? Perhaps Mr. Scott or Mr. White would like to address those. Robert Scott: Can we take a minute to confer a minute? Ronald Ripley: Sure. Robert Vakos: Mr. Chairman? Ronald Ripley: Yes. Robert Vakos: While they're doing their thing - Dan, and I apologize. I was out of the room. So you're concerned about primarily about Fir Street or on Virginia Beach Boulevard too? Dan Ariss: Well, it's not clear whether they are requiring some additional landscaping on Fir Street. It says foundation and street frontage. But we're strung on two streets. Robert Vakos: Right. Dan Ariss: We're required on Virginia Beach Boulevard or Fir Street. Our position is that we addressed all the additional landscaping that was required when we built our parking lot. Robert Vakos: On Fir Street or both streets? Dan Ariss: The parking lot is only on Fir Street on the west side of our property. Item #8 Thalia United Methodist Church Page 3 Robert Vakos: The requirement -just so I understand this. The requirements that are being requested for the area on Virginia Beach Boulevard you're not objecting to that? Dan Ariss: No, we want to discuss one aspect of that to. Robert Vakos: Okay. Alright. Dan Ariss: The foundation we do not want to address because that's in our site plan. But if you're talking about some additional on the street there, there's only an 18-inch area that would permit planting and it seems kind of unreasonable to expect some planting in that 18-inch strip. John Fowler: Dan, I have a drawing here, a sketch that may clarify it a little bit. Ronald Ripley: Would you state your name please? John Fowler: Can we? Sir? Ronald Ripley: State your name. John Fowler: My name is John W. Fowler. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. I'm chairman of the building committee. John Fowler: Our existing church is shown in beige here. And what we're ro osin p p gto add as an additional to the south - this is paved now. Ronald Ripley: Can I get you all to step a little bit closer because you're not going to hear on the - this is on TV. John Fowler: Alright. Ronald Ripley: There we go. John Fowler: The existing church structure is shown in beige here. The existing parking lot is shown in gray. We do not propose to make any changes to the parking lot whatsoever since this part was added about two years ago. And at that time, we submitted a site plan and all to the landscaping and what not, and it was approved and we did that. So now, we're asking to build a new Sunday school addition in the court-yard here now. And take out some paving here now and build a music room. We want to enlarge our narthex. That is what we've proposed to do. And before we started this project, I asked Frank Adkinsn, and unfortunately he's in court day. He's our civil design engineer, couldn't be here to meet with the City staffto make sure we proceed in a fashion that would be approved. And also Mr. Sadler to meet with the building Item #8 Thalia United Methodist Church Page 4 inspections department to make sure that firewalls and what not, would conform before we finished our plans. And we submitted the site plan for approval and of course, to our understanding what would be done. And the only thing that we were requested to do was put an island here in the parking, one additional island. We have islands now but they wanted one more so we agreed to do that. Since the required addition was over paved, it didn't require any additional storm water treatment for that. Now when we put the parking lot in two years ago, at that time we had to build a storm water pond and there was a detention area here. Sheet draining went off into a grass area here. We were led to believe because of this addition we would have to address the storm water for that and we had proposed a small pond here for that. When we submitted a site plan that was disapproved and it came back with other clarification. They wanted to enlarge this detention area, which we can do but it also mentioned putting a swale here to put in the detention area. But the grades are such that we can't put that swale back into a pond at a higher elevation. So we're a little bit confused as about what's expected. And the landscaping, we don't know if Mr. Ariss said what is being required for us for additional landscaping? We proposed to put landscaping for the new addition around the building but far as the street landscaping on Fir Avenue and Virginia Beach Boulevard, I'm not really sure what's being asked of us there. Ronald Ripley: I think we'll have staff address it. But what I heard this morning is that they were looking for additional foundation landscaping in front of the new addition. John Fowler: We have that. Ronald Ripley: Right. John Fowler: And I have the plans here. Yes sir Ronald Ripley: And there was some additional landscaping right along the westem side, which I understand that you objected to. John Fowler: At that time, I had the drawing here. We provided landscaping there when we submitted - when we built the site plan. We put additional landscaping on Fir Avenue and put a fence and landscaping here and provided trees and landscaping on the other side. So, I don't know why they are asking for more now, that's what I..~. Ronald Ripley: So you feel you already met that requirement? John Fowler: Yes sir. Dan Ariss: That's right. And see to add previously what he says, if you say that one of' the other requirements is we put a wooden fence along the western edge of this parking lot. If you suggest that we do that, that was done at the time and is already there. So it looks to me as if they over looked the fence. They might have overlooked the fact that we planted this additional landscaping at that time. Item #8 Thalia United Methodist Church Page 5 Ronald Ripley: Bob? Robert Vakos: They're still conferring so I can't. Dan, and I asked this question this morning about the landscaping fronting particularly Virginia Beach Boulevard and I'm sure you remember on your days as a Commissioner when Conditional Uses come in we look at the project as a whole. So, I do think there's a precedence set for looking at those and possibly requesting additional landscaping. It may be and I guess my question is as an applicant do you mentally object to putting some landscaping along Virginia Beach Boulevard? I know it's only 18 inches but you can get some small crape myrtles and things like that to dress up the Boulevard and I think that's the concern that staffhas and I think, at least some members of the Commission, have a concern about if you are making an addition to the project that you improve the overall project. And I don't think that'S uncalled for to ask for that. John Fowler: We wouldn't have any problem. The property line - the state widen Virginia Beach Boulevard. Robert Vakos: Right John Fowler: Right now, the fight-of-way line is about 18 inches from the curb on this parking lot. Now we would be happy to put some crape myrtles or shrubs in there but if they want trees this wouldn't be the roots. It wouldn't work out. We're proposing to landscape and we have a plan for the building. Robert Vakos: I understand the foundation and I don't think - we're talking about the perimeter landscaping on both Fir Street and Virginia Beach Boulevard. Isn't that what were down to then the issue of the swale. I'm not an engineer so I do not pretend to understand that. Dan Ariss: I'm not sure you can put myrtle in 18 inches. The crape myrtle in 18 inches... Robert Vakos: You can do something. Dan Ariss: We have extensive landscaping in this area right here. Robert Vakos: Okay. Dan Ariss: We put in - we took out a lot of pine trees here and we were required to replace those trees and we did a lot of it fight here. Robert Vakos: Well, and from my standpoint I'm more of dealing with the issue on Virginia Beach Boulevard than anything else. I think you can do something. I've seen Item #8 Thalia United Methodist Church Page 6 smaller areas that were able to do something, but I guess we need to go back to the original question that was asked of staff. Maybe they're ready to respond. Robert Scott: We may be able to help a little bit. I think we really don't want to go beyond really what the site plan ordinance requires. Someone could come in here and perhaps one of the things - my thoughts come in two parts. One thing is perhaps what we could do instead of being specific in this is just saying that we asked the applicant to comply with the site plan ordinance. Now, where it relates to 18 inches of width, that is a concern. I totally agree. That's no place to be planting trees. If we could find something or agree on something that could be planted in that narrow area that's appropriate, then fine, if not, you know, this gives us the oppommity to work something else out. And the other thing, part number two is there evidentally is a - oh, here it is. Item 5, there was a Chesapeake Bay Board action taken on July 27, 1998 that evidentally links to some landscaping issues or whatever. What we want to do is, I think that just requires reasonable people to sit down and talk about that. See where we are with that. Make sure that all that landscaping is in fact in. If it is, then that issue is satisfied. If it's not, then, you know, to do something. Dan Ariss: We fully intend to comply - if it doesn't comply with the Chesapeake Bay request in 1999. I thought we did. I had a plan that was approved and the City inspected the time before we got it. That has to be put back like it was. We had no problem with that. We're under the impression that we are in compliance with or we would not have had a final sign off on the parking lot. Robert Scott: Well, Dan, probably two minutes of discussion will settle that matter. If you are, then you' re all done. Robert Vakos: Mr. Scott, if I'm reading you right and I agree with this, a lot of this is going to be done through site plan review. Robert Scott: That's what we... Robert Vakos: And if the Commission, or maybe the rest of the Commission doesn't agree. If we can point out that it would be some value to doing some type of landscape along Virginia Beach Boulevard to make for a better site plan that can move on to the discussion. With that, I'm happy with that. I don't know how we changed the positions... Dan Ariss: We need to talk about the drainage issue. Robert Vakos: We probably need an engineer to do that. Dan Ariss: This is lower than this. By the way, this retention pond has been there now for three years and only one time has it held a drop of water. And that was a very little Item #8 Thalia United Methodist Church Page 7 bit after a tremendous Nor-Easter. I know that's not an excuse for saying that it was suppose to design, but nonetheless, we can't this to go to that. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Miller? Robert Vakos: Rely on the expert here. Ronald Ripley: He's going to answer that. Dan Ariss: We volunteered in our proposal to build another pond there but for some reason it was re,jected. Robert Miller: I think what we need to do is go back to the site plan ordinance and let all of this sit in that ordinance and let it dealt with as a technical matter. It seems like we're trying to deal with issues with really aren't things that we shouldn't be getting into. The details, like you said Dan, may well prove out that there's no need or there's slight improvements that can done. I want to sit here and try to design a swale. I rather let people that's going to deal with the intimacies of this and Frank Atkins not being here, he can obviously answer a lot of these things as Allen's people can to. The one item that I did see was item 4. You mentioned which was the fence on the south side that has already been built. Is that something that we can confirm here or do we.just need to? I believe that it's there. It's pretty obvious that it's either there or it isn't there. Dan Ariss: We spent over $20,000 landscaping there. Robert Scott: That ought to be a real easy one to settle. Robert Vakos: Yeah. Dan Ariss: It's there! Believe you me it's there. Robert Miller: I think item 4 comes offand these good men, if it isn't there, they're going to put it there. I can tell you that right now. I'm sure of that. Kay Wilson: If you notice that the conditions state at the top that the all applicable conditions from the previous Use permits have been included in the conditions 4,5 & 6. All you did was include those as part of the conditions today. Ronald Ripley: If it hadn't been met, it has to be met. Kay Wilson: Right. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Robert Miller: The only problem with that is obviously when we get into specifics of the Item #8 Thalia United Methodist Church Page 8 conditions. If it just said met the conditions of those approvals, I'm okay with that. But when it starts talking about a six-foot fence with category four, then I think it's not the way we want to address it. And that's my opinion about it. Kay Wilson: I was just pointing out that' s where they come from. Robert Miller: I agree. I understand. John Fowler: Can I ask one question? Bob, you could help me. The landscaping and all was put in for the parking lot. And we're not proposing any changes to the parking lot so it looks like the landscaping we put in two years ago should satisfy the requirement. You talk about meeting a site - I forgot what Mr. Scott's words were - meeting the site plan... Robert Miller: Site plan ordinance? John Fowler: Site plan ordinance, well that wouldn't - if we didn't change the parking lot. We should be in conformance with that if that's what we did two years ago. Robert Miller: I think that's where Mr. Scott said a two minute conversation would most of this would be resolved. The site plan ordinance deals with being able to put the buildings in there with all the drainage, with all the other issues that we haven't even discussed and I don't think we need to discuss so, I think his two minute conversation is the one that's going to help with a lot of this. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Baum? John Baum: I just want to ask Dan to turn the map upside down so north points up. Robert Miller: Do what? Robert Vakos: It does point up. John Baum: From here we can't see the north. Robert Miller: North points down. You want north to point up? John Baum: That's what I'm saying. I was taught that so many years that I have trouble. I don't like standing on my head. Dan Ariss: Virginia Beach Boulevard runs east and west. John Baum: I'm too old to stand on my head. Ronald Ripley: Bob Vakos. Item #8 Thalia United Methodist Church Page 9 Robert Vakos: I guess my question is for Kay, if I could get your attention for a second? Number one condition says that the plan should comply with the site plan that's submitted, however, and it lists A, B, C. Those are the items for discussion. How do we address that condition leaving those items still open for discussion but yet not obligating the applicant just in case those things don't pan out? What's the worse thing we can do to make it? Kay Wilson: You don't want them to have to make those revisions prior to the submission of the detailed site plan. Robert Vakos: What I'm gathering is that is part of the discussion of the site plan with staff. Is that not right Mr. Scott? Those three items? So, if we make it prior to that then sort of pre-empts the discussion to me. If we make that a condition? Is that not correct? Kay Wilson: Yeah. Robert Vakos: So how? Do we just take that out or do we change the wording in it? Betsy Atkinson: Take out the additional landscaping. Charlie Salle': Ron? Ronald Ripley: Yes. Charlie Salle'? Charlie Salle': What we're just saying basically we can say that the site plan will be revised to comply with site plan ordinances and... Robert Vakos: Leave those things off. Charlie Salle': Let A, B, C go? Ronald Ripley: Is that a motion? John Fowler: My biggest concern. I don't think it should be retroactive. We had that complied in 1999. We aren't expecting a part on. I don't see why... Charlie Salle': The answer to that is the law is the law and whatever it is, you have to comply with it. If it acts retroactively, it acts that way. I mean you can't change the ordinance. Robert Vakos: That's the discussion. Robert Scott: I think that staffhas... Item #8 Thalia United Methodist Church Page 10 Dan Ariss: But we were in compliance or the parking lot wouldn't have been approved when it was built. So, if you're adding additional things now, that's seems unfair. Charlie Salle': What I'm saying is that if the ordinance, if the law requires them to do that, we can't change the law. It may be an interpretation of the application of the ordinance if you're dealing with it. You can have a conversation with Mr. Scott, but if the ordinance as written says that when you come in with a new site plan you got to comply with all current standards, if that's the law, that's the law. We can't change it, as you know. Ronald Ripley: Mr. Scott did you have a comment? Robert Scott: Yeah. I think what we have here is an effort by the staff to touch every single base and you know sometimes that's good and necessary. But basically what we're saying is you got a site plan here that's pretty good. The two actions taken in class one in 1999, one in 1998. If all the conditions of those things have been met, they're okay. If they haven't been met then we need to go back and get them upgraded. There's a couple of minor adjustments that need to be made to this plan, as okay as it may look. Some has to do with the swale you can take care of that during site plan review. And also there's the issue of additional landscaping, which we feel is addressed through the site plan ordinance and it's applicability during the site plan review process. And that's about it. That's what we're saying here. John Baum: But, if you only have this 18 inch strip, and we call for that's something that's wider, we're taking away the parking lot. John Fowler: That's correct. John Baum: I don't see that as being retroactive. There's the parking. John Fowler: We felt we could put landscaping in the front of our new building and we have shown a landscape plan. Robert Scott: The site plan ordinance of the building addresses all of that. It says to the staff look if you got some conditions and the site prohibits the area to be done then figure out something else to do. That's what we're suggesting to be done here. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Any other discussion? I think Mr. Miller is thinking about making a motion. Robert Miller: I'm going to try. I recommend approval of this item and with the following conditions. Number one, that the development of the site shall substantially adhere to the site plan entitled addition to Thalia United Methodist Church dated January 10, 2002 and prepared by Adkins Engineering, P.C. and Waller Todd and Sadler, Architects, which is on file with the Planning Department. It shall be in conformance Item #8 Thalia United Methodist Church Page 11 with the Site Plan Ordinance. The second one reads as it is. The third reads as it is. Number 4 is eliminated. And Number 5 reads as it is written, and number 6 is eliminated. Dorothy Wood: Second. Ronald Ripley: motion? Robert Miller: I am. Is anybody else? Ronald Ripley: Are you clear Betsy? Eugene Crabree: I'I1 second. Ronald R/pley: We have a second already. Robert Vakos: Discussion. Ronald Ripley: Hold on. So, we have a motion and we have a second. Everyone clear on that We have a second by Dot Wood. Robert Vakos: Sorry. Mr. Scott, are we comfortable with this. I mean does that give you the... Robert Scott: Very comfortable. Robert Vakos: Okay. That's all that I wanted to make sure. Robert Miller: And what this does, Dan and John, Allen, this leaves this to be in conformance with the ones that we're previously approved which is actually what you asked I believe, and then says you must conform with the new work that you're doing to the current ordinances. John Fowler: No problem. Robert Miller: I think that's the closest we're going to get. Ronald Ripley: Okay, thanks Dan. Dan Ariss: Thank you all. Ronald Ripley: Alright. Yeah, we're ready to vote. Robert Vakos: I thought we did. Item #8 Thalia United Methodist Church Page 12 Betsy Atkinson: We voted. We did. Roanld Ripley: Did it go up? Robert Vakos: The light went on. AYE 10 NAY 0 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 ATKINSON AYE BAUM AYE CRABTREE AYE DIN AYE HORSLEY MILLER AYE RIPLEY AYE SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS AYE WOOD AYE ABSENT Ronald Ripley: There we go. Okay, by a vote of 10-0, the motion passes. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name: Thalia United Methodist Church List All Current Property Owners: Thalia United Methodist Church PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE ff the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list ifneces$o~3.) Boa.____rd of Trustees: See Attached List If the property owner is a PARTNERSItlP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION. list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) {~ Check here if the property owner is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated organization. ...~.. If the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE If the applicant is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) If the applicant is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other 'UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list all members or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) Check here if the applicant is NOT a corporation, partnership, firm, or other unincorporated or~anizurin,~ Thalia United Methodist Church 4321 Virginia Beach Boulevard Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452 (757) 34o-5o~.5 Board of Teustees of Thalia United Methodist Church Class of 2002 Shirley Kinney Linda Redden Tony Russell Class of 2oo.~ John Fowler Padraic Fox Tom Ingham Class of 2004 Buck Hereford Linda Lowrance Ruth Lee Wooldridge Dear Friends, The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church states that the Board of Trustees of a local United Methodist Church is to elect its own chairperson. The pastor should convene the board early in the year for the purpose of electing a chairperson. I have scheduled a meeting of the Board of Trustees for Tuesday, January x5 at 7:o0 in the small hall. After electing a chair, we will begin conducting routine business an.d. planning for the year 2oo2. Please put this date on your calendar. If you are unable to attend, please notify the church office. Thank you for serving in this important position. Grace & Peace, Steve Proctor Ma~ ~-~ Veronica Little Beasle~ Map No% %0 ~cale Gpin 1486-26-6912 ZONING HISTORY There is no zoning histgry to report in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Veronica Beasley. Conditional Use Permit MEETING DATE: July 2, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Veronica Little Beasley for a Conditional Use Permit for a family day-care home on the south side of Forest Glen Road, east of Windsor Oaks Boulevard (G PI N #1486-26-6912). Said parcel is located at 3901 Forest Glen Road and contains 10,500 square feet. DISTRICT $ - ROSE HALL. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a home daycare for up to 10 children ranging in age from 2 to 12 years. Recommendations: A motion was passed unanimously by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 10-0 to approve this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The home daycare shall be limited to a total of 10 children other than children living in the home. There shall be no more than five children under the age of 2½ in the home at one time. 2. Hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 6:00 am to 6:00 pm. 3. No more than one person other than a relative residing in the home shall be employed by the home daycare. 4. A fence shall be installed in the rear yard to create an enclosed play area. 5. Any loose materials or equipment in the front, side, or rear yards shall be removed or stored in an enclosed building. Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Location Map Veronica Beasley Page 2 6. No signs advertising the home daycare shall be permitted on the lot or buildings on the lot at any time. 7. The applicant shall maintain a family day home license with the Commonwealth of Virginia. Failure to maintain a family day home license shall result in revocation of the conditional use permit for the family day care home. 8. The applicant shall receive a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Official for the home daycare/residential use. VERONICA BEASLEY / # 9 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: Conditional Use Permit (family daycare home) 3901 Forest Glen Road Map M~ ~o~,o June 12,2002 GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: 1486-26-6912 3- ROSE HALL 10,500 square feet Gpin 1486-26-6912 Planning Commission Agenda June12,2002 VERONICA BEASLEY/# 9 Page 1 STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: Ashby Moss The applicant proposes to operate a home daycare for up to 10 children ranging in age from 2 to 12 years. Proposed hours of operation are from 6 am to 6 pm. One full time employee is proposed to assist with care of the children. Major Issues: · Impact of additional noise and traffic on neighboring properties. Land Use, Zoning, and Site ~ · · · , .haracterlstlcs. Existincl Land Use and Zoninq A single family home currently exists on the property. The property is zoned R-7.5 Residential District. Surroundin,q Land Use and Zoninq North: South: East: West: · Single family homes / R-7.5 Residential District · Across canal, townhouses ! A-12 Apartment District · Single family homes / R-7.5 Residential District · Single family homes / R-7.5 Residential District Zonin.q History Although they do not appear on the zoning history map, three conditional use permits for home daycares have been approved in the vicinity of the subject site. On January 21, 1985, a home daycare for five children was approved on Silina Drive; on December o~ Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 '"":~' ~'' VERONICA BEASLEY / # 9 Page 2 15, 1992, a daycare for nine children was approved on Kings Point-Road; and most recently, on October 28, 1997, a home daycare for up to 12 children was approved on North Piping Rock Road. All three are located northeast of the subject in the same neighborhood. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) The site is in an AICUZ area of less than 65dB Ldn surrounding NAS Oceana. Natural Resource and Physical Characteristics The rear 15 feet of the property is part of a canal approximately 30 feet wide. The canal is part of a 40-foot drainage easement that straddles the property lines between the subject site's single family neighborhood and the townhouse community behind it. There is a bulkhead protecting the shoreline on the north, side (single family side) of the canal. Public Facilities and Ser,rvices Water and S~,wer Water: Sewer: There is an 8-inch water main in Forest Glen Road fronting the property. The site has an existing 5/8-inch water meter.' · There is a 15-inch sanitary sewer main in Forest Glen Road fronting the property. This site is already connected to City sanitary sewer. Transportation Master Transportation Plan (MTP) / Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Forest Glen Road is a local residential collector street that connects to Rosemont Road. This road is not designated on the MTP, nor are any improvements scheduled in the current adopted CIP for this road. Traffic Calculations: Street Present Present Generated Traffic Name Volume Capacity Forest Glen 2,200 ADT ~ 6,200 ADT ~ Existing Land Use z- 10 ADT Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 VERONICA BEASLEY / # 9 Page 3 Road I I Level o4 Service Average Daily Trips as defined by single family home as defined by home daycare with 10 children Proposed Land Use ~- 30 to 40 ADT I Public Safety Police: Adequate - no further comments. Fire and Rescue: Adequate - A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained from the Building Official for the change of use. No more than five children under 2-½ years of age are permitted unless the use is designated as an '1" use group. Permits and Inspections shall determine requirements for fire protection systems. The continued maintenance of these systems must be in compliance with the Fire Code. Comprehensive P;an The Comprehensive Plan mad recommends suburban residential land use for the subject property with a density at or below 3.5 dwelling units per acre. One of the Citywide Policies listed in theComprehensive Plan is to "preServe and protect the character of existing stable neighborhoods against inappropriate land use intrusions." However, the Plan specifically recognizes the "legitimate public need for a limited amount of compatible support activities, such as daycare services and housing for people with special needs." (p.51) Summary of Proposal Proposal The applicant proposes to operate a home daycare for up to 10 children ranging in age from 2 to 12. One foster child, age 12, currently resides in the nome. This child is not included in the total number of children. There will be only one full time assistant, the applicant's aunt, who does not live in the home. The applicant's mother, who also does not live in the home, will assist when the full time assistant is unavailable. The applicant's husband, who lives in the home, will also assist periodically. Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 VERONICA BEASLEY / # 9 Page 4 · Hours of operation are proposed from 6 am to 6 pm. Site Desiqn The single family dwelling is located on a 10,500 square foot lot. The lot backs up to a canal that separates the property from a townhouse community across the canal. · The applicant proposes to install a fenced in play area in the rear yard, approximately 2,700 square feet in area. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access · The applicant has a straight drive leading to a garage and a connected circular drive that curves in front of the hOme, providing a second access. Architectural Desi.qn · The existing house is a one-story fra,~.~e house with vinyl siding and some brick accents. No changes to the a;.terior of the house are proposed. Landscape and Open Space Desiqn · The yard area of the property has a typical landscape of trees, shrubs, and turf grass. Currently, there are pockets of stored equipment and materials in the side and rear yards. Condition #5 below requires that these be removed or stored in an enclosed structure. Evaluation of Request The request for a home occupation (family daycare home) is acceptable. The exterior play areas appear to be adequate to accommodate the ten children requested. An oversized circular driveway in front of the home would permit a smooth flow of traffic and adequate space for off-street loading and unloading. The applicant is in the process of applying for a license from the State Department of Social Services, which is responsible for ensuring quality care for the children. Condition #7 below requires that the applicant receive the license from the State; therefore, inspections and requirements Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 VERONICA BEASLEY/# 9 Page 5 of that agency must be met, the following conditions. Conditions Staff recommends approval of this application subject to 1. The home daycare shall be limited to a total of 10 children other than children living in the home. There shall be no more than five children under the age of 2~ in the home at one time. 2. Hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Fdday, 6:00 am to 6:00 pm. 3. No more than one person other than a relative residing in the home shall be employed by the home daycare. 4. A fence shall be installed in the rear yard to create an enclosed play area. 5. Any loose materials or equipment in the front, side, or rear yards shall be removed or stored in an enclosed building. 6. No signs advertising the home daycare shall be permitted on the lot or buildings on the lot at any time. 7. The applicant shall maintain a family day home license with the Commonwealth of Virginia. Failure to maintain a family day home license shall result in revocation of the conditional use permit for the family day care home. 8. The applicant shall receive a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Official for the home daycare/residential use. 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~~~?~a .-7 June 12, 2002'~~.;==~ VERONICA BEASLEY / # 9 ~:~ Page 6 Plannin, Commission Agenda VERONICA BEASLEY / # 9 Page 7 Planning Commission Agenda June 12, 2002 VERONICA BEASLEY ! # 9 Page 8 APPLICATIOi~, PA GE 4 CONDITIONAL.: USEPERMiT CITY OF VIRG~/BEACH Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: DISCLOSURF. STATEMENT PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE If thy 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 th~ 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) ~' ~ T/A Not. to $¢ele Hale Boate~ Inc. Shore Drive Marina Gpin I489-39-9034 - 49-0053 ZONING HISTORY 1. Change in non-conforming use - Denied 3-26-91 2. Conditional Use Permit (boat sales and small engine repair) - Approved 5-9 -2000 Conditional Use Permit (gas station with convenience store) - Approved 1-28-85 3.' Conditional Use Permit (storage) - Approved 3-28-85 4. Change of Zoning (B-2 Community Business to B-4 Resort Commercial) - Withdrawn 1-24-83 5. Change of Zoning (R-8 Residential to B-2 Community Business) - Approved w/conditions 6-8-87, conditions pending 6. Change of Zoning (R-8 Residential to B-2 Community Business) - Withdrawn 5-6-85 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: ITEM: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council James K. Spore, City Manager Hale Boatel INC., t/a Shore Drive Marine, Modification of Conditions MEETING DATE: July 2, 2002 Background: An Ordinance upon Application of Hale Boatel Inc., T/A Shore Drive Marine for a Modification of Conditions placed on the application for a conditional use permit for boat sales & small engine repair on May 9, 2000 (GPIN #1489-39-9034; #1489-49-0053). Property is located at 3744 Shore Drive. District 4 - BAYSIDE. Considerations: The applicant is requesting a modification of conditions placed on a conditional use permit for boat sales and small engine repair on May 9, 2000 regarding the exterior design of the building. Condition 4 of the May 9, 2000 Conditional Use Permit requires that the building be constructed in accordance with the submitted building elevation that is on file with the Planning Department. That elevation is shown and described in the attached staff report. At the time of the evaluation of the original Conditional Use Permit request, staff reviewed the Conditional Use Permit for consistency with the Shore Drive Corridor Plan (adopted March 28, 2000). The building design weighed heavily in the approval of the Conditional Use Permit request due to its location in the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay. The original use permit application was deferred because the applicant and staff could not work out the building design issues. The building elevations associated with Condition 4 are the plans that both staff and the applicant finally agreed would complement and enhance this area of Shore Drive. City Council concurred with the design that had been agreed to and granted the Conditional Use Permit on May 9, 2000. On September 4, 2001, a building permit was issued with the understanding that the architectural plan as approved by City Council with the Conditional Use Permit would be followed. The building actually erected under that building permit was not consistent with the architectural plan as approved by the City Council but was instead consistent with the plans presented to staff after the granting of the use permit - plans which staff had noted were not acceptable due to their inconsistency with the approved architectural plans. A Attachments: Staff Review Planning Commission Minutes Disclosure Statement Hale Boatel, Inc. Page 2 Stop Work Order was issued. Staff met with the applicant and offered suggestions on a means to modify what had been erected on the site in order to bring the building into consistency with the architectural plans approved by the City Council. Rather than continuing work following either the suggestions offered by staff or some other agreed-to alternative, the applicant submitted this application to request modification of the condition from the May, 2000 Conditional Use Permit concerning the design of the building. Based on continuing discussions with the applicant since the Planning Commission hearing, further revisions have been made to the plans. The most recently submitted plans increase the pitch of the roof to more closely resemble what was originally approved. Additionally, in exchange for the removal of the cupola feature on the roof that was included with the original plans, a roofed canopy feature has been introduced on all sides of the building except the rear. These changes, combined with the introduction of higher- quality materials on the exterior (including vinyl shake on the second floor and split-face block on the first floor), results in a design that is very similar to the original and that is more consistent with the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines. Recommendations: A motion was passed by the Planning Commission by a recorded vote of 8-2 to approve this request with direction that the applicant meet with staff to further revise the submitted elevations. Based on revisions submitted since the Planning Commission hearing, staff recommends approval of the requested modification to the conditional use permit, subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions except Condition 4 of the May 9, 2000 Conditional Use Permit remain in affect. 2. Condition 4 of the May 9, 2000 Conditional Use Permit is deleted and replaced with the following: The exterior of the building shall be constructed substantially as shown on the elevation drawings of the Shore Drive Marine, entitled "Revised Left Elevation," "Revised Front Elevation," and "Revised Rear Elevation," all dated 6/19/2002, which are on file in the Department of Planning. June 12, 2002 REVISED: June 24, 2002 General Information: REQUEST: ADDRESS: GPIN: ELECTION DISTRICT: SITE SIZE: STAFF PLANNER: PURPOSE: Modification of Conditions placed on a conditional use permit for boat sales and small engine repair on 5/9/2000. 3744 Shore Drive M.p c~s Hale Boatel, Inc. ~, ~, _ T/A Shore Drive Marina $ . Gpin 1489-39-9034 - 49-0053 #1489-39-9034 and #1489-49-0053 #4 - BAYSIDE 26,189 square feet Faith Christie To modify the condition regarding the exterior design of the building. "The exterior of the building shall be constructed substantially as shown on the elevation drawings of the Shore Drive Marine, which is on file in the Department of Planning". · Consistency with the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay and proposed Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines. Land Use, Zoning, and Site Characteristics: Existing Land Use and Zoning The site is partially developed with the building and grading. The site is zoned B-2 Community Business District with the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning North: South: East: West: · Residential dwellings / R-5R Resort Residential with Shore Drive Corridor Overlay. · Shore Drive · Across Shore Drive, retail and Ocean Park Rescue Squad / B-2 Community Business with Shore Drive Corridor Overlay · Office and residential/B-2 Community Business with Shore Drive Corridor Overlay. · Colley Marine / Ro5R Resort Residential and B-2 Community Business with Shore Drive Corridor Overlay Zoninq History The subject site was approved for a storage yard, in 1988, and for a gas station with a convenience store, in 1991. The Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance to the required setback along Shore Drive and Roanoke Avenue, and the required Category IV Screening on April 19, 2000. A conditional use permit for boat sales and small engine repair was approved on May 9, 2000. 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 Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewer Water: Sewer: There is a 16-inch water line in Shore Drive and a 6-inch water line in Roanoke Avenue. The existing lot must connect to City water. There is an 8-inch City sanitary sewer in Roanoke Avenue. The site must connect to city sewer. Transportation Traffic Calculations: Street Name Present Present Generated Traffic Volume Capacity 32,500 - 37,100 36,000 (Level of Potential: 2,200 ADT 2 Shore Drive ADT ~ Service Proposed: unknown based on ACD~rE1 information provided ' Averao¢. I~ilv Trin~ 2 based on 3,000 square foot convenience store Public Safety Police: Fire and Rescue: Adequate. No comments. Adequate. No comments. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Map recommends use of this parcel for retail, service, office and other compatible uses that support the surrounding neighborhood. The site is also in the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay area. The proposed Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines designate this area as "mixed use" design area, which is an area of single family and duplex dwellings, commercial and office uses with a 'mixed' design character. However, the predominant design feature in this area is found in the architectural styling of the older Ocean Park homes. This area of the corridor provides a unique opportunity for improvements that would enhance and complement Ocean Park. Summary of Proposal Proposal Marine, Boat Repair & Shop, Shore Drive & Roanoke Avenue, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451, Preliminary Site Plan", prepared by W.P.Large, Inc., dated February 16, 2000, and on file with the Department of Planning. Fencing for the site shall be installed in accordance with the site plan and the fence detail drawing entitled "Shore Drive Marina Fence", submitted to and on file with the Department of Planning. The brick and wood fence shown in the fence detail shall be installed along Roanoke Avenue (between the northwest corner of the building and the fence along the rear property line), along Shore Drive frontage (between the eastern property line and the parking area), along the eastern edge of the parking area, and then from the terminus of the wood and brick fence at the eastern edge of the parking area to the northeast corner of the building (northern edge of the parking area). A sliding gate may be installed along the section of fence adjacent to the northern edge of the parking area. The site shall be planted with trees, shrubs, and groundcover as indicated on the plan entitled "Landscaping Plan, Shore Drive Marine, Boat Retail and Shop", undated, and on file with the Department of Planning. The exterior of the building shall be constructed substantially as shown on the elevation drawings of the Shore Drive Marine, which is on file in the Department of Planning. 5. No outdoor loudspeaker/paging system shall be permitted. Hours of operation of the business during the summer are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. In the winter the business hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Saturday hours are 9:00 a.m. to noon, year round. The only signs allowed are those indicated on the building elevation drawings referenced in condition number four (4). No other signs are permitted, except for the purpose of traffic control. The applicant may, however, install an eight-foot (8) high monument-style sign with a brick base and EIFS trim, matching the material and colors of the building, if desired, at a later date. No boats, vehicles or cars shall be parked in any portion of the city right-of-way. No boats may be displayed in the area of the site plan indicated for parking spaces and the drive aisles associated with those parking spaces. 9. No banners, streamers no portable signs shall be permitted. 10. All engine repair and testing shall occur inside the building. The overhead roll-up garage doors shall remain closed at all times except as necessary to move boats in and out of the building. 11. A subdivision plat vacating all internal lot lines must be submitted and approved prior to final site plan review. Condition 4 requires that the building be constructed in accordance with the submitted building elevation that is on file with the Planning Department. The front of the building faces the eastern property line. The side of the building faces Shore Drive, the rear building facade is provided some visual variety through the use of exterior insulated finish system pilasters, slightly arched at the top, giving the appearance that they support a horizontal band that runs the length of the facade between the lower and upper levels. The pilasters and horizontal band are white with the building shown as off- white, or cream, color. The roof of the building is gable style with a clerestory feature rising above the roof peak. Skylights are shown in the roof. The roof is covered with blue-gray architectural grade fiberglass shingles. After the approval of the Conditional Use Permit, the applicant met with staff on September 26, 2000 to discuss a revision to the building plans. The new plans showed a shallow pitched roof with a smaller decorative lookout. There were no skylights depicted in the roof, and the roofing material was standing seam metal. The building materials were block on the first level and vinyl cedar shakes on the second level. There were no architectural details to provide visual relief along the building walls. Staff determined and advised the applicant that the revision was unacceptable due to the fact that the revised building elevation substantially differed from the architectural plan conditioned with the use permit. The applicant was informed that the proposal: 1. lacked the needed detail on the lower facade (pilasters with change in material and color and brick base), and 2. possessed a roof slope which is much too shallow and includes elimination of most of the central feature along the roof ridge. The applicant was advised to proceed in accordance with the architectural plan approved with the use permit. On September 4, 2001, a building permit was issued and construction commenced soon thereafter. The building that resulted, however, was not the same building as approved by City Council but was instead the building presented to and rejected by staff in September 2000. A Stop Work Order was issued. Staff met with the applicant and provided viable recommendations on how the work done on the site could be modified to meet the approved design. The applicant has decided to pursue modification of Condition 4 rather than modify the building to be consistent with the approved plans. Evaluation of Request Based on the revisions made to the revised plans since the Planning Commission public .hearinq, the staff finds that the requested modification to Condition 4 is acceptable. At the time of the evaluation of the original Conditional Use Permit request, staff reviewed the Conditional Use Permit for consistency with the Shore Drive Corridor Plan (adopted March 28, 2000). The building design weighed heavily in the approval of the Conditional Use Permit request due to its location in the Shore Drive Corridor Overlay. The original use permit application was deferred because the applicant and staff could not work out the building design issues. The building elevations associated with Condition 4 are the plans that both staff and the applicant finally agreed would complement and enhance this area of Shore Drive. 2. City Council concurred with the desian that had h~n nnr,',-,ri fn ~n,-I .... ~^..~ ,~.._ attached). The building actually erected under that building permit was not consistent with the architectural plan as approved by the City Council but was instead consistent with the plans presented to staff after the granting of the use permit - plans which staff had noted were not acceptable due to their inconsistency with the approved architectural plans. A Stop Work Order was issued. o Staff met with the applicant and offered suggestions on a means to modify what had been erected on the site in order to bring the building into consistency with the architectural plans approved by the City Council. Rather than continuing work following either the suggestions offered by staff or some other agreed-to alternative, the applicant submitted this application to request modification of the condition from the May, 2000 Conditional Use Permit concerning the design of the building. Based on continuinq discussions with the applicant since the Planning Commission hearinq, further revisions have been made to the plans. The most recently submitted plans increase the pitch of the roof to more closely resemble what was oriqinally approved. Additionally, in exchange for the removal of the cupola feature on the roof that was included with the oriqinal plans, a roofed canopy feature has been introduced on all sides of the buildinq except the rear. These chanqes, combined with the introduction of higher-quality materials on the exterior (including vinyl shake on the second floor and split-face block on the first floor), results in a desiqn that is very similar to the oriqinal and that is more consistent with the Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines. The proposed Shore Drive Corridor Design Guidelines designates this area as a mixed zone, that is an area that is a mix of uses, primarily single-family and duplex dwellings, offices and commercial uses. Some of the homes date from the early 20th century and provide a defining design image for the area. The opportunity for improvements in this area of Shore Drive is unique. The proposed guidelines state that in the Mixed Zone roofs of buildings should be pitched to maintain compatibility with the residential identity of Ocean Park. If a building has a flat roof, the roof should be hidden by pitched roof elements. Additionally walls should be clad in wood, cedar shingles, hardboard siding or lightweight concrete siding. A limited area of the facade may be brick, stone, exterior finish insulation system, or split face block. The applicant has provided design features for the building that would meet these guidelines. Staff recommends approval of the requested modification to the conditional use permit, subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions except Condition 4 of the May 9, 2000 Conditional Use Permit remain in affect. 2. Condition 4 of the May 9, 2000 Conditional Use Permit is deleted and replaced with the following: The exterior of the building shall be constructed substantially as shown on the elevation drawings of the Shore Drive Marine, entitled "Revised Left 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. FRONT ELEVATION ASAPPROVED SHOREDRIVE MARINE 1~~, /, ~'~'1~1 REVISED FRONT ELEVATION (6/19t2002) 1/8'=-1'-0' L~F[ ,S/DE ELEVATIOR ',,'g,e: 1/~' = l'-O' ~' AS APPROVED J ASAPPROVED REVISED REAR ELEVATION (6/19/2002) lAS PROPOSED PERMffS AND INSPECTH3NS (757) 427-4211 June 29,2001 City of Virginia Robert R. Kunkler, P.E. 1413 Air Rail Avenue Virgi~a Beach, Virginia 23455 Re: Shore Drive Marine Boat Retail & Shop Dear Mr. Kunkler: Building plans for the above were reviewed this date with the follov~mg comments. t. This buildir~ is classified under Use Group F- 1, Factory/Industrial Moderate Hazard and it shall be conslructed of not less than 5B combustible unprotected construction. The plans do not indicate an automatic f~re suppression system. a. The maximum occupant load shall be based on a floor area allowance of I O0 square feet per occupant. Table 1008.1.2. BOCA National Building Code. ~996. b. The minimum uniformly distributed live loads shall be not less than 250 pounds per square foot. Table 1606. BOCA National Building Code, 1996. The wind lo. ad for this project shall be calculated per exposure D al 100 miles per hour. Special inspections shall be required for this project per Section t 705. Virginia Uniform Stalewide Building Code (USBC), 1996. The use of a special inspector does not mean that City Building Inspector is not to be involved in the inspection process but rather in conjunction with the City inspection process, All structural minfor~ in concrete shall be set. tied and inspected before the poudr~ Of concrete. Proud ReciPient of the 1998 U.S Senate ]ffedallion o/Excellence/or Productivity and ?.2)uatity in tlw /SrO/lc Sector. June 29~ ~00 ! Mr. Kurllder l'age 2' The building entrance shall be accessible from the parking lot or nearest street by means of a walk unintenupted by steps or abrupt changes in grade and all required means of egress shall be accessible and shall be in accordance with Chapter 110o and Seclion 1007 of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC). 1996. a. Thresholds at doorways shall not exceed '~ inch in height. RinSed thresholds and floor level changes at accessible doors shall be beveled with a slope no greater than 1:2. Accessible res*zoom facilities shall be provided for this occupancy as required Under Chapter ! 1 of the Virginia uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC), 1996 and CAB0/ANSI A 117.1-1992. ~i: Eighteen inches shall be maintained from the center line of the water closet a to at least one side wall. Clear floor space for water closets not ; in stalls shall be 48 inches in front of the water closet and 42 inches ~ from the center line of the water closet on the side not adjacent to the '~' wall shall also be maintained. CABO/ANSI A 117.1-1992. b. Shower stalls shall comply with Section 4.22 of CABO/AaNSI A 117.1- 1992. Thresholds in shower stalls shall be '/~ inch high maximum. c. An accessible counter shall be provided as required in Chapter 11, BOCA National Building Code, 1996. Such counter shall be a maximum 36 inches in height and 30 inches wide. The mezzanine shall comply with the proViSions stated in Section 505 of the BOCA National Building Code, 1996. The area of the mezzanine shall not exceed one third of the open area below. Any spraying of flammable paints, varnishes and lacquers or other flammable materials and storage of such materials shall be required to comply with provisions of Section 419, Paint Spraying and Spray Booths - BOCA National Building Code, 1996. Detailed drawings shall be submitted to this office for review and approval and a building and mechanical permit secured pnor to commencement of any work. Handrails and guardrails shall comply with Sections 1014, 1021 and 1022. BOCA National Building Code, 1996. The opening between intermediate rails shall not exceed 4 inches or create a ladder effect. Rails shall terminate to a Wall or post. Please provide details and elevations for stairs and mezzanine. June 29, 2001 Mr. Kunkk, r Page 3 10. 1i. 12. 13. The maximum riser l~eight shall not exceed 7 inches and the minimum lread width shall not be less than ! 1 inche~. Section 1014.6, BOCA National Building Code, 1996. All risers shall b~ dosed. All egress doom shall be side hinged swinging types. All doom shall swing in tile direction of egress and two exits are required when serving an occupant toad of sO or more persons. All egress doors shall be readily openable from the side from which egress is to be made without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort. All doors shall have a minimum clear opening of not less than 32 inches. Section IO17.3 and 1017.4. BOCA National BuildLr~ Code, 1996. Doom that are intended for general use shall be equipped with door hardware that is easily operated and shall not require a Light grasp to operate. Such doom shall comply with the requirement for accessibility to the disabled. Approved 5'pe electncally illuminated exit signs shall be installed over all required exit doors. Where necessary, directional signs shall be provided to indicate the direction and way of egress. Section IO23, BOCA National Building Code, 1996. Approved emergency lighting shall be provided for i]hnnination of all means of egress. ACtUation to be automatic in the event of power failure. Section 1024, BOCA National Building Code. 1996. Firebloc -l~lg and draftstopping shall be required to close all concealed draft openings and to form effectual fire bamem against the spread of fire in all structural spaces. Section 721, BOCA National Building Code. 1996. Concealed attic roof spaces shall be subdivided into areas not exceeding three thousand (3,000) square feet by means of approved draftszopping. Mansard type roofs shall be effectively fireblocked at intervals not exceeding 20 tinear feet. All masonry construction shall comply with the proVtSions stated in SecQon 2 z 00 arid referenced standards, ie ACI $30. June :29, 200 ! Mr. Kunlder Page 4 t 4. All glass doom or glass panels (including small panes) in all egress doom Including intenor doors and any glass panel inslalled within 12 inches on either side of such egress door shall be safety glass. Also, all other glass panels in excess of 9 square feet shall be safety glass in which the lowest edge is less than 18 inches above the floor or walking sudace; and there is a wa 'lking surface on both sides, either of which is within 36 inches of such panel Section 2405.2, BOCA National Building Code, 1996. 15. All HVAC systems shall be installed in accordance With the provisions of Chapter 28 of the BOCA National Building Code, 1996, and Inlernational Mechanical Code, 1995. Detailed plans and specifications shall be subraitted to the City Mechanical Inspector for review and a mechamcal perrmt secured prior to h'xstallafion. 16. The electrical installation shall conform to Chapter 27 of the BOCA National Building Code, 1996 and National FAectrical Code. 1996. A permit shall be secured pnor to commencement of any' work. , 17. All on site storm drainage shall be inspectext by the civil inspeclor for compliance With the requirements, as shown on the approved site plan and with the International Plumbing Code, Chapter 11. Thus, an inspection shall be requested and approval noted prior to covering any storm drainage indicated on the approved site plan. 18. AD plumbing piping wihhin the building including storm, sanitary and water distr/bu~ion, must be tested and approved by the plumbing inspeclor and meet the requiremenLs of Section 107 of International Plumbing Code, I g95. 19. The plumbing fixv. u~s located in these restroorns are classified as public and shall be available to customers upon demand. The water close~s shall be of lhe water saving type equipped with elongated bowls and open fron! seals. The walls of toilets and bathrooms shall be lined with a nonabsorbent coating up to a minimum of 4 feet measured vertically from the floor. Proper signage shall be provided to iden~f-y the restrooras and their location to allow for customer use. 20. At least one drinking fountain and service sink shall be provided in this building as required under Table 404.. ! of the International Plumbing Code, 1995. Please indicate the location of the water fountain. 21. All shower valves shall be of the anti-scald 'type conforming 1o the requiremen5 of ASSE 1016, Section 425, International Pith'-nbing Code, 1995. June 29, 2001 Mr. Kunkler Page 5 22. Certification and computations including compliance with the CABO Model Energy Code energy conservation requirements shall be fl/mJshed to this office prior to the issuance of the buildin~ permit. Chapter 13, Virginia Uniform Siatewide Building Code, 1996. 23. Each structure to which a street number has been a~igned shall have said numbers displayed e, asi]y observed and readablo from the public right of way. · ." · · · · · · · · · · · ·., · 24. Final approval subject to City Council, Planning Commission, or Development · · · · Authonty conditions and approval~ as well as field inspections. The building · · must aesthetically match arly architectural renderings approved by these · · groups. ' · · · mmm·mmmm·m·mmmmm·mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm·mmmmmmmmmm.m 25. ~dl DFUs must be paid to the Public Ulilities Depall:nqell! before the perlTll! ts issued. The majority of the preceding comments are general information to assist the contractor and building inspector. Buildir~ plans shall be approved once items 2, 8. 20 and 22 are addressed. Please submit two revised stamped and 'signed sets of plans, highlighting all revisions made and a letter of response to each of the above comments. The building permit fee, based on 4,000 square feet of Industrial use shall be $323.20 +S 100 deposit. The City of Virginia Beach encourages barrier free design and construction regarding individuals with physical disabilities. The accessibility measures enforced under the virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code do not always mirror those of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is the obligation of the owner and design professional to insure that requirements of both the V'n~inia Uniform Statewide Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act are complied with. If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at (757) 427-4211. Sincerely, Charles W. Sutton. MCO Plans Exa,mmer I1 c: Fire Marshal Office Plans are in Bin # B-13 Item #13 Hale Boatel, Inc. t/a Shore Drive Marine Modifications of Conditions placed on the application for a conditional use permit 3744 Shore Drive District 4 Bayside June 12, 2002 REGULAR AGENDA Robert Miller: Our next item is Item 13, Hale Boatel, Inc. t/a Shore Drive Marine. I know they're here. Eddie Bourdon: Thank you for your patience. Sorry to keep you folks waiting. Again, for the record, Eddie Bourdon representing Hale Boatel, Inc., t/a Shore Drive Marine. Chris and Sandy are here today with me. You all were briefed extensively about this in your informal this morning. I' ve had the privilege of representing Chris when he originally came into the Conditional Use permit and at that time, he had a consultant who was working with him, in terms of doing all of the - Chris repairs boats. He has a very successful business there on Shore Drive in Ocean Park and it is well respected by the community and obviously by his loyal clienttele. And he's renting space across -- caddy comer across Shore Drive from the -- I think it's the Ocean Park Rescue Squad, if I'm not mistaken. And he desired that the business needed to expand. It's doing very well and he decided to buy this piece of property and build a new facility. He's never been in commercial construction. Never built anything, as far as a building in his life, and he hired a gentleman to lead him through that process. The application went through the process and was approved. The neighborhood was not opposed to the application at any point in time. Because they're familiar with, you know, with my client. Unfortunately, subsequent to having the application approved, and not being a real estate developer, not having done this before, you know, the process took a great deal of time, especially trying to mn his business. And it's a relatively small family owned business. It's not a big corporation. And in that process, he relied on this consultant. Eventually, the consultant who was going to build the building at the end of the process, he was too busy and turned it over to another builder to build. And in that process, you know, some plans were submitted that were some plans that the original consultant turned over to the builder that had apparently been reviewed, from my understanding, had been reviewed by the Planning staff and was told no, those don't meet the criteria. The builder, Brown Building Corp., submitted those plans to the City not knowing that had it occurred, and those plans were approved, and the building was build, and that's how we are at the juncture that we are today. And the Hale's are here and will be happy to talk to you about any of that. They weren't involved personally in any of the goings on with respect to that. They were busy repairing and selling boats. It doesn't absolve them from the ultimate responsibility, because of the property owner, but the reality is they were not involved in trying to create the problem here today. They're the ones who are going to bear the very considerable expense in trying to rectify the problem. I would point out, just for historical record what is there that's been approved in your packets, is a building that was 34 feet in height. The building is very close to Shore Drive, based on variance Item #13 Hale Boatel, Inc. t/a Shore Drive Marine Page 2 that was granted previous to Chris buying the property and was shown on the site plans that were approved exactly where it is. The new building, the building that's constructed is obviously is quite a bit lower in height, which I think given the proximity of Shore Drive is somewhat beneficial. The original building was approved was dryvit -- E.I.F.S. siding with the exception of a small brick skirt. What has been proposed is to put the cedar shake vinyl, which is now on the Shore Drive Guidelines as something we would want to see, not of E.I.F.S. other than E.I.F.S. accents, so in essence, that is actually a significant upgrade in terms of meeting the guidelines for Shore Drive. Overhaul was approved previously which did not have Cedar shake vinyl, but in fact was E.I.F.S. building for all intense and purposes. We had also talked about doing a metal roof, which was not approved originally. We're talking about a roof that was a blue shingle roof, and we thought, the metal roof along with the cedar shake vinyl would be upgrades that would be looked favorably upon, might offset the roof situation. I just got brought into this on Chris's behalf here in the last ten days, two weeks. I did not follow the application. Wasn't consulted before the application was filed. There's a lot of cost involved here. And that's what we're sort of really dealing with, is what can be economical feasibly done on a building that is already there, standing there. It has been standing there for some time. And I know all of you seated, and it's not a good situation for anybody. Before I forget it, let me step back a second, we've also provided a new fence elevation which is in the packets that were handed out this morning. I don't want to neglect that as well. Landscaping has not been an issue. It's not an issue from my recent discussions with the staff, and I think what you heard this morning. The real issue here is the pitch of the roof. We were - my client was called and contacted Monday morning by Clay Bemick and asked to come down and meet with him, and Cheri Hainer called me and I came down to meet. Faith Christie has been working on this application from my understanding, because I've contacted her when I first got re-retained. But Faith was gone. She was on vacation for the last week or 10 days so we really didn't have the ability to talk to her about this other than the night before she left. I've talked to her, and she told basically the same thing. The roof is the issue. The pitch of the roof is the significant issue here. And I've read the write up and how there's been some alternatives discussed, and I couldn't get any direction from my client, which those alternatives were other than take the roof off the building and put a new roof on it. Because this is an already existing, you know, pre-engineering metal building, that's really not feasible. I mean, you're talking six figures to do that and it's just not do able. We came down and met with Cheri and with Clay Bernick on Monday afternoon. And Cheri put forth an option to, in essence, put a bow roof over top of the existing roof with columns going up the side of the building and, you know, we've gone back to Brown and done some preliminary cost estimates on that and, I' ve got elevations that we did on the computer, not the ones you have and I'm going to pass these out to you so that you all have them to look at. But these are the elevations that would coincide with what Cheri Hainer and Mr. Bemick asked us to try to see if we could get. There should be enough copies for everyone. If there' s not, please let me know. I have some more here. What you have there would be what would be the appearance of the building. You can see the columns on the side. Look at the left elevation. It hasn't got around yet. I'm sorry, let me back up and wait for those to get to you. I don't want to get ahead of that. The preliminary Item #13 Hale Boatel, Inc. t/a Shore Drive Marine Page 3 cost estimates that we have been given by - my clients have been given by Brown Building Corp. is about $74,000 to do what would wind up looking like what you will have in front of you. It does have the roof of the pitch that was shown in the original plans. What would happen is that the existing roof will be taken off and this will be built over it. We can't keep the existing roof there because then you have firewalls. You have to put in space between the new roof and the lower roof. So, anyway, that's probably more information than you need to know, but the cost is pretty extensive. What's shown there is the first floor elevation, is the existing split face block with the dryvit forming the arches and enclosing the columns that will go up to the new roof and will hold the new roof up. One of the main expenses of doing this -- the big expense frankly is having to or a big expense, having to deal with the cupola on the top, because, of having to reinforce the roof itself structurally. If the cupola could be removed, we would be dealing with a cost savings of about $10,000. And that's the one thing that I would like to, you know, to ask the body to consider. We are willing to - my client is willing to do implement what Ms. Hainer suggested to us in our meeting with her on Monday afternoon in order to obtain the roof pitch that has been asked for. But the cost of $74,000 doing that would be abated by approximately $10,000 if the cupola could be removed. But the roof material would be the same roof material that was approved with the original application. The siding on the second floor would be cedar vinyl as opposed to E.I.F.S.. The existing bottom, which is a split face block, would remain. If we can go with that as an alternative, I think it deals with the most crucial issue, as least that's been indicated to me the most crucial issue, which is the pitch of the roof. And we would also ask that modification for the fence that we've provided - the staff already has, which would also have the vinyl with the cedar vinyl look, which is, if not identical, very, very similar to the fence that exists on the condominium property to the west that I've actually referred to earlier, Three Ships Landing, I think that's what it's called. There may be something else that m forgetting to mention but I want to get to the crux of the matter. My client is I' ' certainly regretful of this situation and feels to some degree victimized by it, but can't escape some responsibility for it either, so we're not here to try and rehash hat s got us W ' to this point. We're trying to correct the situation. Make it as tolerable as possible and make it affordable to do. Ronald Ripley: Yes? Bob Vakos? Robert Vakos: Eddie, in your time line, kind of indicates what I might be proposing but, this issue of removing the cupola or whatever you want to call on top of the building, have you approached that with Ms. Hainer and with Clay? I mean, is that just something you're proposing to us? Eddie Bourdon: Correct. That is not something that, you know. Again, we got hit with - that's the wrong choice word. This proposal was put to us at the 11th hour. We didn't know if it was going to be something that was feasible in terms of the cost involved. We just got the cost estimates last night, and when we looked at what that additional cost was, it, you know, that's a lot of money from our perspective and others may have a Item #13 Hale Boatel, Inc. t/a Shore Drive Marine Page 4 different perspective. From our perspective, that' s a lot of money for something ti. doesn't add much to the overall appearance of the building. Robert Vakos: I'll tell you, I'll just state my opinion on this thing. I'm very uncomfortable with this application for all the reasons that you gave. It's a snafu. There's probably blame every different way. But it puts the Commission in a real difficult position because here we are trying to mitigate in an area that I don't certainly feel qualified for. I'd almost like to see this thing deferred and go back. Now that your actively participating with it, and add a little more time with it. Go back to the staff and try to get a little closer on the mitigation of this thing than me as a Commissioner saying, well okay, we'll take this out, put that in. I'm just not comfortable looking at it right now without having a little more meeting of the minds between the staff and your client or yourself. Eddie Bourdon: And, Mr. Vakos, if I could. In anticipation that someone might have had that concern, again, because of the - all of its coming at the 11th hour. I'm not intending to cast any blame or excursions because of it. The real problem here is that my client's interest meter is running, as it has been for quite some time. And unfortunately deferring the matter would mean that we wouldn't be able even to get this to the City Council until August because of their July break, and realizing and recognizing that the ultimate decisions going to theirs to be made. You know, one way or the other, we're better off moving it forward even if its leaving the cupola on there. We're losing money -he's losing money every single day. Robert Vakos: So, we could approve the application as stated and you're going to negotiate between now and Council? Eddie Bourdon: We're going to work with everybody involved, you know, from this point forward to try and come up with something that, you know, that we can afford to do. Robert Vakos: Aren't you August anyway? Eddie Bourdon: No. We would be heard on either the first or the second Tuesday in July. We have that opportunity I certainly would expect that would be something, given the circumstances, that opportunity would be affordable to us, and I do know, you know, my client has, you know, he's talked to everyone trying to do this now because it's obvious that the money is running everyday. I understand where you're coming from. It's not under anticipated but we need to try to get it moved forward. I don't want to rehash anything. This should have happened before Monday, you know, and for lots of different reasons, it didn't and it's not the end. I'm appreciative of the fact that Cheri and Mr. Bernick contacted my client and arranged to meet, so, I'm not saying that as criticism, it's not. Ronald Ripley: Dot Wood has a question. Item #13 Hale Boatel, Inc. t/a Shore Drive Marine Page 5 Dorothy Wood: Eddie, I notice that the fence is not up, and I noticed that you're putting up a substitute fence. Well, certainly the fence is supposed to be a brick and wood fence, why are you proposing a difference fence? Eddie Bourdon: Well, the other fence would have been one that would have matched the building materials of the other building, which we are not doing anymore. We're doing the cedar vinyl as opposed to brick. There's no brick on the building. And given the fact that one of the guidelines, it was just adopted, so we want to try and maintain the same type of materials and appearance. Putting a fence up that would be, you know, catered to the one that O&R and in fact, again, at the meeting we had on Monday, it was stated emphatically that the fence looked great. Mr. Bemick said that he had no mason to object to that fence because it's the same, you know, the same fence, if not a little bit nicer fence, that is on the condominium project just to the west. So, the fence needs to be changed because to put that other fence it would not coordinate at all with the new building under anybody's scenario, unless we're talking about tearing this building down and putting the other building up which can't be done. Ronald Ripley: Bob Miller's got a question. Robert Miller: I don't know if I have a question, just a -- and Bob, looking at this - Bob Scott -- we have all these Bob's in here. In looking at that picture, it's almost like when we were out there, I think when I saw this site plan to start with. I thought it was a large building by scale going into that property in the location. And just, it's almost overwhelming to look at this photograph and to figure what the cupola is going to do any good or even the roof slope from the traffic is pretty hard to see almost. I'm not saying that those are not important things but, to get this the residential scale, it's just not a residential scale looking building from the get go. And probably wasn't even in the original pictures, without disrespect, and I don't think I picked up on that. Again, I don't want to do to much hindsight hem. I appreciate the fact that Eddie's client is willing to do something with the roof. And the cupola, I'm sitting here thinking is this really going to make a difference by the time this is all over with, that we are all going to be sitting around going boy, have we made a great decision here. And everybody's going to be real happy with the way Shore Drive looks in this location. I mean, this is a business and certainly the business - the operational side of it is a very important element of whatever considerations went into the design of the building. I'm just a little lost with whether we - which way do you turn at this point and have a good outcome? And I would really like -- I know you all have worked and Cheri's worked to try and find out. Again, we can come up with a design. There's a design now that's been proposed and apparently in some conformance to what Cheri had in mind to think that it would be a solution. But, are we going to accomplish anything here? Is there a better choice that we haven't considered? We just get myoptic looking at this. Robert Scott: I have a few things to say. The good that can come of this is to look into the future not look into the past. Plenty of things can be said. First of all, I want to help everybody by saying that what I think what I need to do is identify Stephen White as the Item #13 Hale Boatel, Inc. t/a Shore Drive Marine Page 6 person on my staff that I would like to coordinate this with Cheri's assistance and Clay's assistance. If they're working with staff member A on Monday, staff member B on Tuesday, and staff member C on Wednesday, we're going to go around in circles forever. So Stephen is the person that I want to turn to so that everybody knows, and Cheri's assistance and Clay's assistance, to be the lead in bringing this thing to an appropriate conclusion. I think that, you know, I'm more confident at this moment than I have been in the past, that we can get to a point where we can say we've done the best we could. We started out with an awfully big building, very close to Shore Drive, and there's so much you can do and other things you can't do. But I think there's the creditability of the whole effort on Shore Drive that's involved here. I think that a lot of people have put a lot of effort into this issue, looking at Shore Drive as a whole. And I do think we owe it to everybody to follow this through with all of our effort to see that we get the best possible conclusion. And if it involves doing something with the roof or involves doing something with the cupola, I think we owe it to everybody in the process to see that we can do that, even if the appearances at first glance don't seem to be that significant. I think we need to work further on, and I think we're heading in the right direction. I don't think we're there yet. I think that if Stephen has the chance to work with them a little bit more, being mindful of all the things that we kept in mind, I feel we can get there but, I'm hopeful that in some point in time, we're here in this room saying we've come to an agreement and this is what we ought to do with this. We're not quite there yet. Robert Miller: I'm encouraged with Mr. Hale's effort to come here today with a proposal as a compromise and try to work things out. I think in the same sense though, I look at his business situation has got to be just getting - I wouldn't want to be sitting there for six months and trying to figure out where I'm suppose to go and having this group come up with a design, and then City Council comes up with a design. I agree. I'm glad to hear that Stephen would be leading this and working through the process. I'll stop now and let other discussion occur and then when it's appropriate, I'll make a motion. Ronald Ripley: I think Betsy had a question? Betsy Atkinson: I have two questions? One, what is proposed around the bottom of the building? Eddie Bourdon: We got a very nice landscaping plan, if that's what you're talking about. Which is what you have copies of, which was by everyone's account, no argument whatsoever. You know, it's going to help tremendously. But again, we need - we got to get it done. Betsy Atkinson: There looks like there's some foundation missing or something along the bottom. Is that going to be split? Ronald Ripley: Stripe? Betsy Atkinson: Right at the bottom. Item #13 Hale Boatel, Inc. t/a Shore Drive Marine Page 7 Eddie Bourdon: You're talking about where the... Betsy Atkinson: All the way at the bottom... Ronald Ripley: It's concrete. Betsy Atkinson: Where it's darker? Ronald Ripley: The turndown slab. Eddie Bourdon: You're talking about down here? Betsy Atkinson: No. On the bottom. Right there. It looks like a split face block that isn't there or needs to be finished. Chris Hale: That's the foundation. Eddie Bourdon: That's the foundation. What you will have will be filled, and there will be landscaping there. You won't see any of that. Betsy Atkinson: Okay. I understand about the pitch of the roof but it seems to me on that small slide on the big building just sitting right there, the higher the building goes it would make it look more massive. Just a comment. I appreciate Mr. Hale's ability to work with the staff. Eddie Bourdon: I share that. I'm sorry. As close as it is to go up, you know to 34 92 feet versus what you see there, is just over 25 feet. Granted if it's not the side of the building that's not going to go up any higher, but the roof is going to go up higher, it clearly is adding to the mass of the building in that location in close proximity to Shore Drive. That's what I see as potentially being (inaudible) leaving it as it is, but, again, I don't want to run a fowl. It's most important to my client to move this process to a conclusion so we can, you know, economically finish this building. Betsy Atkinson: And again, I would not be opposed to leaving it the way it is with the landscaping going around. He's using the high grade vinyl siding on the top with the matching fence. I think the building needs to be finished. Eddie Bourdon: I do this hesitantly. But if we were going to what we asked to do originally, was to do that and actually do a raised seam blue metal roof on this building that would match the raising blue metal roof that's both on the City's building at the boat ramp and also at Duck Inn. That what was when Chris filed the application he had, you know, had suggested or had asked to do to be able to leave the building as it is, using the raised metal roof with the cedar vinyl and with the roof, obviously, being an upgrade over what was approved originally in terms of obviously, in terms of cost. But again, our point here is to, you know, to get a solution. Because the sooner the building gets Item #13 Hale Boatel, Inc. t/a Shore Drive Marine Page 8 finished, the landscaping gets in, everything gets done and grows, it's going to soften and it's going to look a lot better. I mean, the reality is that Three Ships Landing Condominium we keep referring to, when it was first being constructed, there were some folks that were like, ugghh, you know, do we approve that? But then as everything matured, it started to look very nice, and it will look nicer, this looks stark today clearly, we' ve been looking at it for six months, it definitely looks stark. But so does the economic viability of this project, we get a resolution so my request is that, you know, and I understand being on a difficult position, but to move this matter forward makes some recommendation so we can get to the City Council where the ultimate decision will be made, and will certainly continue to work with Stephen. Glad to work with Stephen. You know, like I say, we didn't actually initiate and I'm glad it was by Mr. Bernick. Ronald Ripley: Do you have any other speakers to speak in favor of this? Eddie Bourdon: My clients are here but they - unless you have questions, they weren't planning on speaking. Ronald Ripley: Scott Ayers has signed up to speak. Scott, do you wish to say something? Scott Ayers: Yes, please. Good aftemoon. I'm Scott Ayers and I'm a resident of Ocean Park. And the Hales are good neighbors. They provided a service to the people who had boating needs for a long time at Ocean Park. I empathize with the meter ticking issue. I understand that. However, we received - we presented in our Civic League meeting, a proposed plan that was ultimately approved which was the proposed that has since changed. I speak for myself here. I'm not the president of the civic league, but would really like to see that adhered to. I think it's important to follow what we were told it was going to be. And there is a lot of talk. What is that? It doesn't look like anything that we approved. If adjustments can be made, they can aesthetically bring it back in line to where it was, I think all efforts should be made to take to go in that direction. I think it is going to take a lot of work and that's my personal opinion, but in light of yesterday's Council action to approve the Shore Drive Design Guidelines. Yes, they're recommendations. It's not code or anything. But, I think in that spirit to do otherwise and move forward without working with staff, I think it's a big mistake. That's 'my personal opinion. Ronald Ripley: Any questions of Scott? Scott? Dorothy Wood: Mr. Ayers, I wonder if anyone went to the Hale's when they noticed it wasn't being built as you thought. Scott Ayers: I didn't. I can't speak for the couple thousand people that live in the neighborhood. Dorothy Wood: Thank you. Item #13 Hale Boatel, Inc. t/a Shore Drive Marine Page 9 Ronald Ripley: Scott serves on the Shore Drive Advisory Committee and has been very involved in the area and lives in the area. And so he is speaking from the heart as to what he wants to see happen, so we appreciate you coming up here. Scott Ayers: Thanks. Ronald Ripley: Thank you. Okay. Eddie? Eddie Bourdon: This is what was -- a copy of what was done originally. I pulled it out of the old file, and, although I appreciate Scott's comments, this is the building that was approved. That building, like I said, is over nine feet higher than what's there and the siding of the building was with the exception of the small brick skirk at the bottom, and I'll pass this around, was entirely dryvit or E.I.F.S.. As I understand the guidelines that have been with Council last night, is now recommended that E.I.F.S. only be used only as an accent and that to the extent. One of the preferred materials is the cedar vinyl and that's something that's happening here as well. So, you know, the roof, what we put on the table today is based on Cheri's suggestion, is we're upgrading the material on the side and second floor of the building to cedar vinyl from E.I.F.S.. The bottom of the building is Split Face Block with E.I.F.S. accent, and I don't know if that's looked upon as positive or negative. There's no brick skirt. That's probably looked on as a negative. But, the building, I believe, you know, what were going to do now will be a building that is 29.4 feet or 29 feet 4 inches in height versus previously the building was shown to it's peak, not including its cupola at 31 feet so, we're a couple of feet shorter. And the building in terms of footprint is no different then what was approved originally. So, I think in terms of complying with the Shore Drive Corridor Guidelines, I think what we are proposing to do actually is, I believe, more in keeping cupola maybe, the only outstanding issue on that. If you include the cupola, I don't know if were less compliant with those requirements at all. That standpoint with the cupola that's why we need to get it moved forward, and that is why I would like to have it done to move it forward. We'll meet with the civic league. We'll meet with anybody and everybody. But we just need to get it to the point where the decision, makers are in a position to make a decision and we'd like to have to done in July as opposed to in August because of the interest here. Ronald Ripley: Bob Miller. Robert Miller: I'm trying to help you get through that process. Are you saying that this is what you would propose to do? Again, going back to what Mr. Hale had suggested with the replacing the roof going to the asphalt type shingles. I assume that's all shingles, and going to back to the cupola, except he requested that we take the cupola off. Eddie Bourdon: We like to put on record. We would like the cupola to come off. But if that gives anybody any hesitation, we want it moved forward with the cupola on. Robert Miller: I understand that. But this is the product that you're suggesting. And then we would further that you would get with Stephen and work with him as to whether this is based on the conversation with Cheri and perhaps Clay. And Cheri, have you even Item #13 Hale Boatel, Inc. t/a Shore Drive Marine Page 10 seen this prior today? Just now? There's obviously needs to be time spent on this by Stephen to make sure... Eddie Bourdon: Absolutely. Robert Miller: And then that would allow the process to move forward and at the same time, with something in our hands that we can see, at least is proposed to be somewhat in conformance to what was originally designed. Eddie Bourdon: Well, I think if you look at what they have, what you all saw this morning, where they superimposed one over the other, you know, this is essentially the superimposed, you know, it may be a slight bit short in height than what is shown there, but that's essentially what this is. Is what you see there superimposed? Other than the cupola that we're showing. The other structure was the entire length of the building, as parallel to Shore Drive, and this doesn't go the entire length. This cupola doesn't go the entire length of the building. Robert Miller: And this obviously cost the Hale's $74,000... Eddie Bourdon: To do that will cost $74,000. That's right. To do the other, you know, again, you'd be back up in. Robert Miller: And I agree with you that the Split Face Block and the vinyl cedar is certainly an improvement - a tremendous improvement over the E.I.F.S. as far as location and the design of that. I'm still not convinced that anything put on here is going to give this a residential scale without disrespect. Is it appropriate now? Ronald Ripley: I have a question for Cheri Hainer. Are the pilasters you just saw this, are the pilasters serving a structural purpose? Could you come up please? Is there a structure behind there that the roof rests on? Is that what the intent is? Cheri Hainer: Yes. Because it was a pre-engineered metal building, we didn't want any of the structure to rest on the roof because it wouldn't be able to carry the load. Ronald Ripley: So you would have two roofs, too much weight? Cheri Hainer: Right. So that's why we had the pilasters with a structural beam, and the roof rafters off of that. Ronald Ripley: So you'll take the skin off the existing metal roof, leave the trusses there, and sit on top of that, I guess, some how? Cheri Hainer: Right. Ronald Ripley: Okay. Item # 13 Hale Boatel, Inc. t/a Shore Drive Marine Page 11 Robert Miller: Alright. Cheri Hainer: Thank you. Ronald Ripley: Any other discussion? I know it's a horrendous situation, and I think, and Bob, I appreciate your comments looking forward versus looking back because it's a lot of- it's not pretty when you look back at how this happened, or could have happened and did happen. I've had meetings with the applicant individually. We've talked about it and I think Bob mentioned, Bob Miller just mentioned -- it's not good for anybody. In regard to the Hales, they have a tremendous amount of expense to carry this building but the community is not getting what they're expecting either. But on the other hand, I'm very pleased to hear that they're working towards some sort of concession with the City and hopefully, this will work out the way it intends to be. So Bob, if you wish to make a motion? Robert Miller: Yeah. I'd like to make a motion that we recommend approval of this application for the design that has been submitted. I don't know what else to call it. Today, based on the conversation with, sorry Cheri, with Cheri Hainer and with perhaps Clay Bernick. And that they work with staff, with Stephen White, particularly to do whatever enhancements can be done to have this end up in the residential scale in conformance with the Shore Drive Overlay District, etc, etc, etc. I know I can say that. Ronald Ripley: We have a motion. Take out the exception of the etc's by Mr. Bob Miller. Do we have a second? John Baum: I'll second. Ronald Ripley: We have a second from John Baum. And we have some discussion* Yes, Bob? · Robert Vakos: Yeah, I was waiting for the second. Usually on issues like this, Bob and I come from - we're thinking along the same lines but sometimes a little different perspective. As I said early, I'm really not comfortable with sending this on to Council. I mean we're implying that this application or these modifications are indeed 100% or even close to being acceptable, which we don't know. I mean, you know, we've heard discussion that there will be discussion between the staff and the applicant. And the request is to modify the condition regarding the exterior of the design, and we don't know what that is. We don't know where that's headed. So, I'm not going to vote in favor of it. I think Eddie stated it's probably going to be the same effect, either pass or not pass. It's going to be discussion between now and Council, and Council to look at it. But, I don't real feel comfortable putting this body's stamp of approval on it until such time as all these issues have been worked out. And I understand the money issue. I understand the time issue. But I would rather Council review our recommendation as being one that has a lot of scrutiny and the job has been completed before we submit it on to them. So, I'm not going to vote in favor of it. Item #13 Hale Boatel, Inc. t/a Shore Drive Marine Page 12 Ronald Ripley: Dot? Dorothy Wood: I agree with Bobby. I would not be able to vote in favor of it either. I think to often we see buildings or things come before us that have not been built according to the plans that were submitted, and I'm sorry for the Hales. I realize that is a lot of money, but when you look in the future what we are going to see on Shore Drive for the next 20 or 30 years, 75-80 thousand doesn't really seem like a lot. I think that looking at the original plans with the cupola, it was much more attractive, and because of that I could not support the motion. Ronald Ripley: John? John Baum: Well, I don't like being in the position we are in a whole lot of people's finances, but most of us are human enough to know that it' s a real factor. So suppose, we got stuff real good? What are you going to do with that building? Are we going to come up with a plan that fits the Shore Drive plan? Somebody else is going to have to make something that of a sizeable structure and it'll be modified in Planning, because most likely they wouldn't have it for the same use. I can think of something else worse there, or this building deteriorating or sold to somebody. Ronald Ripley: Charlie Salle'? Charlie Salle': I just have a few comments. I'm going to support the motion, but I appreciate Bobby's position. I'm afraid this is one of those situations where no matter what we did we're sending the wrong message. Probably if we vote to deny it, we're sending a message that we don't believe something should be done and yet, I think probably the majority, if not all of the Commission feels that something needs to be worked out here and flat denial is not what we probably want to happen. Yet, I feel uncomfortable, as Bobby indicated, that we really don't have the answer, and we don't have a design that we are certainly recommending but, I guess, what I'm thinking is this the best of the bad situation would be to forward a recommendation. Essentially, which is in our minds saying that we're trying under the circumstances to send something to Council would be better than just nothing and for that reason, I'll support the motion. I'm not terribly happy about it. Ronald Ripley: Will, do you have a comment? Will Din: I guess my comment is generally the same as Charlie's. I'm going to support the motion. But, I feel like, you know, that people who start buildings need, maybe, to be aware that we need time to gather our recommendations on what these things look like. I understand that there are circumstances that occur, and I hate sending forward a recommendation like this without positive substantial designs that. we all can see and agree with. I'm sure with that the passing of the Shore Drive amendments/Guidelines, that staff will be looking to make sure that whatever is presented to Council is probably the best that we can do with the exiting building there. Item # 13 Hale Boatel, Inc. t/a Shore Drive Marine Page 13 Ronald Ripley: Mr. Miller? Robert Miller: Since my friend - my other Mr. Bob over there wants to, we do agree on most things, but, I think what I see here is that if the Hale's are coming today and brought this and said this is all that we're going to do, and this is it, and had not been cooperative, I would have been thinking differently. And with what they did come in with today, not only the economics of it but I think it's a reaction to a meeting that staff had. The staff said you need to do something and have a positive response to it. I believe they made that positive step. I to, feel a concern that you don't have a perfect answer going forward. But, in one little moment of hindsight, I'm looking back at it, and I'm trying to figure out how we looked at the first one and said it was so perfect. This has a lot'of nice characteristics as far as the finishes go. They look like an improvement. And I trust Stephen and the staff to make sure that this gets to Council on a forum that's going to be at least comfortable to them. I also think, you know, we sit here and make all these architectural discussions, and you know what I'm going to say next, and then they go to the next group and they have another architectural set of discussions. And by the time that it is over with, I'm not sure whether this roof might be purple by the time it's over with, because somebody may just like purple this month. And I just think there is enough of that. We send this one and trust our staff to do their job and make sure that it's right. And as close to right with all the input of the professionals that we have and have it go on to City Council. Are you going to rebut that to? Robert Vakos: Yeah. I want the last word. Robert Miller: Alright. Go ahead. Robert Vakos: And that is, I just sure hope that something can be worked out because if they go to Council without a staff recommendation, I think we're going to have egg on our face. Sandy Hale: I think it will be worked out. Robert Vakos: Okay. Ronald Ripley: Okay. to vote. ATKINSON BAUM CRABTREE DIN HORSLEY MILLER RIPLEY AYE 8 It's something that we haven't done our work on, so. Does anybody else wish to say anything here? Then were ready NAY 2 ABS 0 ABSENT 1 AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE ABSENT Item #13 Hale Boatel, Inc. t/a Shore Drive Marine Page 14 SALLE' AYE STRANGE AYE VAKOS NAY WOOD NAY Ronald Ripley: By a vote of 8-2, the motion passes. MObiFICATION OF. CONDiTiONS CITY Or vIRGiNIA BEACH'.. -__ DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's Name: List All Current Property Owners: PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE f the property owner is a CORPORATION, list all officers of the Corporation below: (Attach list if necessary) the property owner is a PARTNERSHIP, FIRM, or other UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, list I1 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. 'the applicant is not the current owner of the property, complete the Applicant Disclosure section below: APPLICANT DISCLOSURE 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 '.tubers or partners in the organization below: (Attach list if necessary) APPOINTMENT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION (HRPDC) PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PUBLIC LI]3RARY BOARD REVIEW AND ALLOCATION COMMITTEE (COIG) SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD TIDEWATER TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT COMMISSION (TTDC) M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS N. NEW BUSINESS O. ADJOURNMENT